Fig 1.
Overview of the study design (structure of questionnaire).
Fig 2.
Structure of the picture-based part of the questionnaire (part 2).
The three housing systems to be evaluated as alternatives to the reference system in each split were presented in randomized order. Evaluation of the reference system and the acceptability of the three alternative housing systems on a 7-point Likert scale from 1 = completely disagree, 4 = partly/partly, 7 = totally agree. Source: a) Free-range: Bildagentur Landpixel (1 & 2), Verein Happy Pigs & Friends; b) Outdoor run: ÖKL-Baupreis 2012, www.oekl-bauen.at, Rudolf Wiedmann, Stephan Fritzsche, KTBL; c) Indoor straw: DVS, Ella Martin, Bildagentur Landpixel; d) Indoor: Bildagentur Landpixel, Jana Denecke, Tierhaltung modern und transparent e.V.
Table 1.
Sociodemographic characteristics of the total sample, sample splits and German population.
Table 2.
Evaluation of and involvement in animal and pig husbandry for the total sample and the split samples 1 and 2.
Table 3.
Evaluation of the two reference housing systems in splits 1 and 2.
Fig 3.
Initial acceptability of alternative housing systems (before confrontation with trade-offs).
Split 1: n = 520; split 2: n = 518. Displayed are means and standard deviations. Split 1: Rating of the statement ‘I consider this housing system an acceptable alternative to the free-range system’. Split 2: ‘I consider this housing system an acceptable alternative to the indoor housing system with slatted floors’. Rating on a 7-point Likert scale from 1 = completely disagree, 4 = partly/partly, 7 = totally agree. Comparison of acceptability levels between housing systems within a split sample using t-test for dependent samples; significant differences with *** p ≤ 0.001. Comparison of acceptability of ‘indoor straw’ and ‘outdoor run’ between split samples using t-test for independent samples; differences were significant (p ≤ 0.001) but are not marked in the figure.
Fig 4.
Acceptability of alternative housing systems when confronted with different trade-off situations.
Split 1: n = 520; split 2: n = 518; displayed are means and standard deviations. Rating on a 7-point Likert scale from 1 = completely disagree, to 4 = partly/partly, to 7 = totally agree. Comparison of means within a split sample using t-test for dependent samples. Different letters indicate significant differences (p ≤ 0.05) between advantages/disadvantages within a housing system, and same letters indicate no significant differences (p > 0.05). Comparison of means between housing systems revealed significant differences between the same advantages/disadvantages (p ≤ 0.001) but are not marked in the figure.
Table 4.
Comparison of initial acceptability of alternative housing systems with acceptability levels when confronted with different trade-off situations.
Fig 5.
Comparison of acceptability levels of alternative housing systems before and after confrontation with trade-offs.
Split 1: n = 520; split 2: n = 518. Displayed are means and standard deviations. Split 1: Rating of the statement ‘I consider this housing system an acceptable alternative to the free-range system’. Split 2: ‘I consider this housing system an acceptable alternative to the indoor housing system with slatted floors’. Ratings on a 7-point Likert scale ranged from 1 = completely disagree, to 4 = partly/partly, to 7 = totally agree. Comparison of means between acceptability before and after the confrontation with advantages/disadvantages within a housing system and split sample using a t-test for dependent samples; significant differences with *** p ≤ 0.001.