IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0201363.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An exploration of industry expert perception of Canadian equine welfare using a modified Delphi technique

Author

Listed:
  • Cordelie DuBois
  • Helen Hambly Odame
  • Derek B Haley
  • Katrina Merkies

Abstract

The diversity of sectors that comprise the equine industry makes reaching a consensus regarding welfare issues a challenge. To allow for productive discussion, equine professionals (n = 34) chosen to represent the diverse specializations from across Canada were surveyed using the Delphi technique—a survey technique employing multiple, iterative “rounds” to consolidate viewpoints—to gather and consolidate information regarding areas of welfare concern in the Canadian equine industry. Only participants who completed the prior round could participate in subsequent rounds. In the first round, respondents were asked to identify examples of welfare issues. Qualitative analysis was used to sort and group answers based on their similarities. Participants identified 12 welfare issues best addressed at the individual horse level, and an additional 12 welfare issues best addressed at the industry level. In the second (n = 24) and third (n = 14) rounds, welfare issues, solutions, and potential motives were consolidated based on order ranking. Themes of “ignorance” and “lack of knowledge” identified throughout all three rounds were cited as both potential risks to welfare as well as motives leading to poor welfare situations. Responses in this study suggest that in order to improve the welfare of equids in the Canadian industry, equine professionals propose that a greater effort is required to help educate industry members and stakeholders such that, through daily routine care and management, higher standards of welfare can be attained.

Suggested Citation

  • Cordelie DuBois & Helen Hambly Odame & Derek B Haley & Katrina Merkies, 2018. "An exploration of industry expert perception of Canadian equine welfare using a modified Delphi technique," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(7), pages 1-19, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0201363
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0201363
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0201363
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0201363&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0201363?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Susan V Horseman & Henry Buller & Siobhan Mullan & Helen R Whay, 2016. "Current Welfare Problems Facing Horses in Great Britain as Identified by Equine Stakeholders," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(8), pages 1-19, August.
    2. Carl Johan Lagerkvist & Sebastian Hess, 2011. "A meta-analysis of consumer willingness to pay for farm animal welfare," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 38(1), pages 55-78, March.
    3. Aven, T. & Steen, R., 2010. "The concept of ignorance in a risk assessment and risk management context," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 95(11), pages 1117-1122.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wu, Laping & Hong, Soo Jeong, 2015. "Retail channel and consumer demand for food quality in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 359-366.
    2. Pirsich, Wiebke & Theuvsen, Ludwig, 2017. "The Pet Food Industry: An Innovative Distribution Channel for Animal Welfare Meat?," 2018 International European Forum (163rd EAAE Seminar), February 5-9, 2018, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria 276914, International European Forum on System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks.
    3. Cao, Ying (Jessica) & Cranfield, John & Chen, Chen & Widowski, Tina, 2021. "Heterogeneous informational and attitudinal impacts on consumer preferences for eggs from welfare enhanced cage systems," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    4. Irz, Xavier & Mazzocchi, Mario & Réquillart, Vincent & Soler, Louis-Georges, 2015. "Research in Food Economics: past trends and new challenges," Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement, Editions NecPlus, vol. 96(01), pages 187-237, March.
    5. Johanna Pfeiffer & Andreas Gabriel & Markus Gandorfer, 2021. "Understanding the public attitudinal acceptance of digital farming technologies: a nationwide survey in Germany," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 38(1), pages 107-128, February.
    6. Johanna Lena Dahlhausen & Cam Rungie & Jutta Roosen, 2018. "Value of labeling credence attributes—common structures and individual preferences," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 49(6), pages 741-751, November.
    7. Amikuzuno, Joseph & Ogundari, Kolawole, 2012. "The Contribution of Agricultural Economics to Price transmission Analysis and Market Policy in Sub-Sahara Africa: What Does the Literature Say?," 86th Annual Conference, April 16-18, 2012, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 134754, Agricultural Economics Society.
    8. Franco, Bruna Maria Remonato & Souza, Ana Paula Oliveira & Molento, Carla Forte Maiolino, 2018. "Welfare-friendly Products: availability, labeling and opinion of retailers in Curitiba, Southern Brazil1," Revista de Economia e Sociologia Rural (RESR), Sociedade Brasileira de Economia e Sociologia Rural, vol. 56(1), January.
    9. Miriam Baumgartner & Sandra Kuhnke & Kurt-Jürgen Hülsbergen & Michael H. Erhard & Margit H. Zeitler-Feicht, 2021. "Improving Horse Welfare and Environmental Sustainability in Horse Husbandry: Linkage between Turnout and Nitrogen Surplus," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-16, August.
    10. Conner Mullally & Jayson L Lusk, 2018. "The Impact of Farm Animal Housing Restrictions on Egg Prices, Consumer Welfare, and Production in California," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 100(3), pages 649-669.
    11. White, Robin R. & Brady, Michael, 2014. "Can consumers’ willingness to pay incentivize adoption of environmental impact reducing technologies in meat animal production?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(P1), pages 41-49.
    12. Läpple, Doris & Osawe, Osayanmon Wellington, 2022. "Animal Welfare, Altruism and Policy Support," 96th Annual Conference, April 4-6, 2022, K U Leuven, Belgium 321212, Agricultural Economics Society - AES.
    13. Niemi, Jarkko K. & Sinisalo, Alina & Valros, Anna & Heinonen, Mari, 2012. "Market and policy-oriented incentives to provide animal welfare: The case of tail biting," 126th Seminar, June 27-29, 2012, Capri, Italy 125957, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    14. Dalziel, Paul & Saunders, Caroline & Tait, Peter & Saunders, John & Miller, Sini & Guenther, Meike & Rutherford, Paul & Driver, Tim, 2018. "Rewarding responsible innovation when consumers are distant from producers: evidence from New Zealand," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 21(4).
    15. Ulrich J Frey & Frauke Pirscher, 2018. "Willingness to pay and moral stance: The case of farm animal welfare in Germany," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(8), pages 1-20, August.
    16. De Filippis, Fabrizio & Giua, Mara & Salvatici, Luca & Vaquero-Piñeiro, Cristina, 2022. "The international trade impacts of Geographical Indications: Hype or hope?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    17. Chen, Junhong & Ortega, David L. & Wang, Hong Holly, 2018. "Does Animal Welfare Matter to Consumers in Emerging Countries? Evidence from China," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 274069, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    18. Tina L. Saitone & Richard J. Sexton, 2017. "Agri-food supply chain: evolution and performance with conflicting consumer and societal demands," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 44(4), pages 634-657.
    19. Yang, Ruoye & Raper, Kellie Curry & Lusk, Jayson L., 2020. "Impact of Hormone Use Perceptions on Consumer Meat Preferences," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 45(1), January.
    20. repec:ags:aaea22:335587 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Arne Henningsen & Tomasz Gerard Czekaj & Björn Forkman & Mogens Lund & Aske Schou Nielsen, 2018. "The Relationship between Animal Welfare and Economic Performance at Farm Level: A Quantitative Study of Danish Pig Producers," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 69(1), pages 142-162, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0201363. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.