Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-59b7f5684b-frvt8 Total loading time: 0.559 Render date: 2022-10-05T14:35:53.542Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "displayNetworkTab": true, "displayNetworkMapGraph": true, "useSa": true } hasContentIssue true

Article contents

The sociocultural sustainability of livestock farming: an inquiry into social perceptions of dairy farming

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 March 2011

B. K. Boogaard*
Affiliation:
Social Sciences Group, Rural Sociology, Wageningen University, Hollandseweg 1, 6706 KN Wageningen, The Netherlands
S. J. Oosting
Affiliation:
Animal Sciences Group, Animal Production Systems, Wageningen University, The Netherlands
B. B. Bock
Affiliation:
Social Sciences Group, Rural Sociology, Wageningen University, Hollandseweg 1, 6706 KN Wageningen, The Netherlands
J. S. C. Wiskerke
Affiliation:
Social Sciences Group, Rural Sociology, Wageningen University, Hollandseweg 1, 6706 KN Wageningen, The Netherlands
Get access

Abstract

Over the past 50 years, the scale and intensity of livestock farming have increased significantly. At the same time, Western societies have become more urbanised and fewer people have close relatives involved in farming. As a result, most citizens have little knowledge or direct experience of what farming entails. In addition, more people are expressing concerns over issues such as farm animal welfare. This has led to increasing public demand for more sustainable ways of livestock farming. To date, little research has been carried out on the social pillar of sustainable livestock farming. The aim of this study is to provide insights into the sociocultural sustainability of livestock farming systems. This study reviews the key findings of earlier published interdisciplinary research about the social perceptions of dairy farming in the Netherlands and Norway (Boogaard et al., 2006, 2008, 2010a and 2010b) and synthesises the implications for sociocultural sustainability of livestock farming. This study argues that the (sociocultural) sustainable development of livestock farming is not an objective concept, but that it is socially and culturally constructed by people in specific contexts. It explains the social pillar of the economics/ecological/social model sustainability in terms of the fields of tensions that exist between modernity, traditions and naturality – ‘the MTN knot’ – each of which has positive and negative faces. All three angles of vision can be seen in people's attitudes to dairy farming, but the weight given to each differs between individuals and cultures. Hence, sociocultural sustainability is context dependent and needs to be evaluated according to its local meaning. Moreover, sociocultural sustainability is about people's perceptions of livestock farming. Lay people might perceive livestock farming differently and ascribe different meanings to it than experts do, but their ‘reality’ is just as real. Finally, this study calls for an ongoing collaboration between social and animal scientists in order to develop livestock farming systems that are more socioculturally sustainable.

Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 5 , Issue 9 , 05 August 2011 , pp. 1458 - 1466
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aarts, MNC, Van Woerkum, CMJ 1994. Wat heet natuur? De communicatie tussen overheid en boeren over natuur en natuurbeleid. Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Aarts, MNC, Van Woerkum, CMJ 2006. Frame construction in interaction, 112th MOPAN international conference. Short Run Press, Exeter, Pontypridd, UK.Google Scholar
Aarts, MNC, Te Velde, H, Woerkum, CMJ 2001. Eten, maar niet willen weten. In Hoe oordelen we over de veehouderij? (ed. MNC Aarts and C Hanning), pp. 21114. Rathenau Instituut, Den Haag, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Assefa, G, Frostell, B 2007. Social sustainability and social acceptance in technology assessment: a case study of energy technologies. Technology in Society 29, 6378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berger, PL, Luckmann, T 1967. The social construction of reality: a treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Anchor, New York, USA.Google Scholar
Bieleman, J 1998. Boeren met machines. Het melkveehouderijbedrijf. In Techniek in Nederland in de twintigste eeuw (ed. JW Schot and AAA De la Bruhèze), pp. 99126. Stichting Historie der Techniek, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Boogaard, BK, Oosting, SJ, Bock, BB 2006. Elements of societal perception of farm animal welfare: a quantitative study in the Netherlands. Livestock Science 104, 1322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boogaard, BK, Oosting, SJ, Bock, BB 2008. Defining sustainability as a socio-cultural concept: citizen panels visiting dairy farms in the Netherlands. Livestock Science 117, 2433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boogaard, BK, Bock, BB, Oosting, SJ, Krogh, E 2010a. Visiting a farm: an exploratory study on the social construction of animal farming in Norway and the Netherlands based on sensory perception. International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and Food 17, 2450.Google Scholar
Boogaard, BK, Bock, BB, Oosting, SJ, Wiskerke, JSC, Van der Zijpp, AJ 2010b. Social acceptance of dairy farming: the ambivalence between the two faces of modernity. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, doi:10.1007/s10806-010-9256-4.Google Scholar
Brown, BJ, Hanson, ME, Liverman, DM, Meredeth, RW Jr 1987. Global sustainability: toward definition. Environmental Management 11, 713719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callon, M, Lascoumes, P, Barthe, Y 2009. Acting in an uncertain world: an essay on technical democracy. The MIT Press, London, UK.Google Scholar
Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek (CBS) 2009a. CBS, Statistics Netherlands. Statline: Landbouwtelling; gemeente 1980–2000.Google Scholar
Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek (CBS) 2009b. CBS, Statistics Netherlands. StatLine: Landbouw; bedrijfstype nationaal.Google Scholar
Cloke, P 2003. Country visions. Pearson, Harlow, UK.Google Scholar
Cohen, NE 2010. Considering animals: moral convictions concerning animals and judgement on the culling of healthy animals in animal disease epidemics. PhD, Wageningen University, Wageningen, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
Cornelissen, AMG 2003. Two faces of sustainability: Fuzzy evaluation of sustainable development. PhD, Wageningen University, Wageningen, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
Dagevos, H, Sterrenberg, L 2003. Burgers en consumenten: tussen tweedeling en twee-eenheid. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Dahlberg, KA 1988. Ethical and value issues in international agricultural research. Agriculture and Human Values 5, 101111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dubois, JL, Mahieu, FR, Poussard, A 2002. Social sustainability as a component of human development. Workshop: poverty, social capital and development. Von Hugel Institute, St. Edmunds’ College, Cambridge University, UK.Google Scholar
European Commission 2005. Attitudes of consumers towards the welfare of farmed animals. Special Eurobarometer 229. European Commission, Brussels, Belgium.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G, Van Woerkum, CMJ, Marck, P 1992. Beeldvorming over de landbouw. CLEO, Heverlee, Belgium.Google Scholar
Fraser, D 2001. The “new perception” of animal agriculture: legless cows, featherless chickens, and a need for genuine analysis. Journal of Animal Science 79, 634641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frerichs, R, De Wijs, J 2002. Opvattingen en meningen over het Nederlandse platteland. The Dutch Institute for Public Opinion, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Fresco, LO, Kroonenberg, SB 1992. Time and spatial scales in ecological sustainability. Land Use Policy 9, 155168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frewer, LJ, Kole, A, Van de Kroon, SM, De Lauwere, C 2005. Consumer attitudes towards the development of animal-friendly husbandry systems. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 18, 345367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frouws, J 1998. The contested redefinition of the countryside. An analysis of rural discourses in the Netherlands. Sociologia Ruralis 38, 2168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frouws, J, Leroy, P 2003. Boeren, burgers en buitenlui: over nieuwe coalities en sturingsvormen in het landelijk gebied. Tijdschrift voor sociaalwetenschappelijk onderzoek van de landbouw 18, 90102.Google Scholar
Giddings, B, Hopwood, B, O'Brien, G 2002. Environment, economy and society: fitting them together into sustainable development. Sustainable Development 10, 187196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greider, T, Garkovich, L 1994. Landscapes: the social construction of nature and the environment. Rural Sociology 59, 124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, JW 1996. Is agricultural sustainability a useful concept? Agricultural Systems 50, 117143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrington, L 1995. Sustainability in perspective: strengths and limitations of farming systems research in contributing to a sustainable agriculture. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 5, 4159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hessing-Couvret, E, Reuling, A 2002. Het WIN-model™. Waardensegmenten in Nederland. The Dutch Institute for Public Opinion, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Hodges, J 2003. Editorial: science, scientists and values. Livestock Production Science 82, 259264.Google Scholar
Hodges, J 2006. Culture, values and ethics of animal scientists. Livestock Science 103, 263269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hofstede, G 1980. Culture's consequence: international differences in work-related values. Sage Publications, Beverly, CA, USA.Google Scholar
Holloway, L 2004. Showing and telling farming: agricultural shows and re-imaging British agriculture. Journal of Rural Studies 20, 319330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inglehart, R 1977. Silent revolution: changes values and political styles among Western publics. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, USA.Google Scholar
Jones, O 1995. Lay discourses of the rural: developments and implications for rural studies. Journal of Rural Studies 11, 3549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kanis, E, Groen, AF, De Greef, KH 2003. Societal concerns about pork and pork production and their relationships to the production system. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 16, 137162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klostermann, JEM, Cramer, J 2007. Social construction of sustainability in water companies in the Dutch coastal zone. Journal of Cleaner Production 15, 15731584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LEI 2007. Farm accountancy data network. Retrieved April 14, 2009, from http://www.lei.wur.nl/UK/statistics/Binternet/Google Scholar
Mak, G 1996. Hoe God verdween uit Jorwerd. Atlas, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
McGlone, JJ 2001. Farm animal welfare in the context of other society issues: toward sustainable systems. Livestock Production Science 72, 7581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKenzie, S 2004. Social sustainability: towards some definitions. Hawke Research Institute, University of South Australia, Magill, South Australia.Google Scholar
Mollenhorst, H 2005. How to house a hen: assessing sustainable development of egg production systems. PhD thesis, Wageningen University, Wageningen, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
Redclift, M, Woodgate, G 1997. Sustainability and social construction. In The international handbook of environmental sociology (ed. M Redclift and G Woodgate), pp. 5570. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rigby, D, Woodhouse, P, Young, T, Burton, M 2001. Constructing a farm level indicator of sustainable agricultural practice. Ecological Economics 39, 463478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roe, EM 1996. Sustainable development and cultural theory. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology 3, 114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rokeach, M 1973. Nature of human values. Free Press, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
Russell, D 1995. Theory and practice in sustainability and sustainable development. Research and Reference Services Project, U.S. Agency for International Development Center for Development Information and Evaluation, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
Rye, JF 2006. Rural youths’ images of the rural. Journal of Rural Studies 22, 409421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shearman, R 1990. The meaning and ethics of sustainability. Environmental Management 14, 18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sumner, J 2005. Value wars in the new periphery: sustainability, rural communities and agriculture. Agriculture and Human Values 22, 303312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Termeer, CAM, Koppenjan, JFM 1997. Managing perceptions in networks. In Managing complex networks: strategies for the public sector (ed. WJM Kickert, EH Klijn and JFM Koppenjan), pp. 7997. Sage, London, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomassen, MA 2008. Environmental impact of dairy cattle production systems: an integral assessment. PhD thesis, Wageningen University, Wageningen, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
Thompson, PB 2006. Ethical bases of sustainability. Conference paper presented at the Meeting of European Association for Animal Production, Antalya, Turkey.Google Scholar
Van Calker, KJ 2005. Sustainability of Dutch Dairy Farming Systems: a modelling approach. PhD thesis, Wageningen University, Wageningen, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
Van Dam, F, Heins, S, Elbersen, BS 2002. Lay discourses of the rural and stated and revealed preferences for rural living. Some evidence of the existence of a rural idyll in the Netherlands. Journal of Rural Studies 18, 461476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van der Ziel, T 2003. Verzet en verlangen. De constructie van nieuwe ruraliteiten rond de MKZ-crisis en de trek naar het platteland. PhD thesis, Wageningen University, Wageningen, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
Van der Ziel, T, Steenbekkers, A 2006. Leven zonder drukte: Wat stedelingen waarderen in het platteland. Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau, Den Haag, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Van Eijk, AM 1998. Farming systems research and spirituality: an analysis of the foundations of professionalism in developing sustainable farming systems. PhD thesis, Wageningen University, Wageningen, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
Weatherell, C, Tregear, A, Allinson, J 2003. In search of the concerned consumer: UK public perceptions of food, farming and buying local. Journal of Rural Studies 19, 233244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

The sociocultural sustainability of livestock farming: an inquiry into social perceptions of dairy farming
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

The sociocultural sustainability of livestock farming: an inquiry into social perceptions of dairy farming
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

The sociocultural sustainability of livestock farming: an inquiry into social perceptions of dairy farming
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *