Perception of the environmental impacts of current and alternative modes of pig production by stakeholder groups

Journal of Environmental Management

Volumn 68, Issue 4, 2003, Pages 377-386

  Petit, Jean ^a   van der Werf, Hayo M G ^a  

^a CEMAGREF   (France)

Author keywords

Environmental impact; Housing system; Image; Pig production; Preferences; Stakeholder groups; Survey

Indexed keywords

AIR QUALITY; HOUSING; MAMMALS; QUALITY CONTROL; WATER POLLUTION;

'CURRENT; ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTIONS; HOUSING SYSTEMS; IMAGE; PIG FARMS; PIG PRODUCTION; PREFERENCE; PRODUCTION MODELS; RESEARCH PROGRAMS; STAKEHOLDER GROUPS;

WATER QUALITY;

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; LIVESTOCK FARMING; PIG; STAKEHOLDER;

AIR QUALITY; ANIMAL HOUSING; ANIMAL WELFARE; ANIMAL WELLBEING; ARTICLE; CONSUMER; CONTROLLED STUDY; ENVIRONMENTAL FACTOR; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT; FRANCE; MEAT; MEDICAL RESEARCH; NONHUMAN; ODOR CONTROL; PERCEPTION; PIG FARMING; POLLUTION; PUBLIC OPINION; QUALITY CONTROL; RESPONSIBILITY; SOCIAL ASPECT; SOIL QUALITY; WATER QUALITY; WORK ENVIRONMENT;

BRITTANY; FRANCE;

ANIMALIA; SUS SCROFA;

EID: 0141615516     PISSN: 03014797     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0301-4797(03)00105-1     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Aubert, C., 1977. L'agriculture biologique. Pourquoi et comment la pratiquer, Le Courrier du Livre, Paris, France.
2. Carson, R.L., 1962. Silent Spring, Riverside Press, Cambridge, MA.
3. EORG, 2002. Les attitudes des Européens à l'égard de l'environnement. The European Opinion Research Group, Eurobaromètre Standard 58.0, INRA, Brussels, Belgium.
4. Gérard, C., 2000. Interview du mois, Loïc Launay, naisseur-engraisseur 'Je suis amer mais optimiste!'. Réussir Porcs 67, 5.
5. Hansen, J.W., 1996. Is agricultural sustainability a useful concept? Agricultural Systems 50, 117-143.
6. IFEN, 2000. L'opinion des Français sur l'environnement et leur perception des risques naturels. Etudes et Travaux No. 28, Institut Français de l'Environnement, Orléans, France.
7. INSEE, 2000. Nomenclature d'activités et de produits française, Institut National de la Statistique et des Etudes Economiques, Paris, France.
8. ITP, 2000. Mémento de l'éleveur de porc, Institut Technique du porc, Paris, France.
9. Keller, D.R., Brummer, E.C., 2002. Putting food production in context: towards a postmechanistic agricultural ethic. BioScience 52 (3), 264-271.
10. Kervano, Y., 1999. Opposants aux porcheries. L'impossible dialogue. Réussir Porcs 47, 16-34.
11. Montel, B., 2001. Environnement et changement des pratiques dans les élevages bretons: intérêt des systèmes de management environnemental. PhD Thesis, Institut National Agronomique Paris-Grignon, Paris, France.
12. OECD, 2001. OECD Environmental Outlook, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris, France.
13. Pierre, J.C., 1986. Hors le cochon, point de salut!. Eau et Rivières de Bretagne 55, 2.
14. Pochon, A., 1998. Les champs du possible. Plaidoyer pour une agriculture durable, La Découverte & Syros, Paris, France.
15. Rainelli, P., 2001. L'image de la viande de porc en France, attitudes des consommateurs. Le Courtier de l'Environnement de l'INRA 42, 47-60.
16. UNEP, 1999. Global Environment Outlook. United Nations Environment Programme, Earthscan Publications Ltd, London, UK.
17. van der Werf, H.M.G., Petit, J., 2002. Evaluation of the environmental impact of agriculture at the farm level: a comparison and analysis of 12 indicator-based methods. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 93, 131-145.
18. von Wirén-Lehr, S., 2001. Sustainability in agriculture - an evaluation of principal goal-oriented concepts to close the gap between theory and practice. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 84, 115-129.