1 - 3 of 3
Number of results to display per page
Search Results
2. Heat doesn't shed light
- Collection:
- Agricultural Communications Documentation Center (ACDC)
- Contributers:
- Samuelson, Orion (author / Farm Director, WGN Radio-Television, Chicago, Illinois)
- Format:
- Commentary
- Publication Date:
- 1981-06
- Published:
- USA
- Location:
- Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 197 Document Number: D09620
- Notes:
- Delmar Hatesohl Collection, Publisher of this article is not identified., Author examines rural-urban understanding in the context of public concerns about animal rights, across the years. Offers six suggestions for those producing food, including advice to take a look at your production system and avoid responding with emotional arguments.
3. On the acceptance of animal production in rural communities
- Collection:
- Agricultural Communications Documentation Center (ACDC)
- Contributers:
- Stefan Mann (author) and Hans Kogl (author)
- Format:
- Online journal article
- Publication Date:
- unknown
- Published:
- USA: Elsevier
- Location:
- Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 4 Document Number: D10182
- Journal Title:
- Land Use Policy
- Journal Title Details:
- 20(3): 243-252
- Notes:
- 10 pages., Via online journal., In 18 East German municipalities, nine of them with a planned pig production site and the other nine with an existing pig production site, a survey was carried out on the factors influencing the acceptance of pig production. The influencing factors examined were the personal attitude on particular aspects of pig production, socio-demographic characteristics, the personal involvement in local decision-making, the size of livestock and the production technology. As a result, existing production sites are perceived more positively than planned sites, without any influence of size and production technology. The difference may be explained by the fact that planned sites are evaluated in respect to economic arguments as jobs and income (market goods), while existing sites are rather evaluated in respect to environmental factors (public goods). For new investments the results lead to the recommendation to emphasize its economic aspects, to integrate the investor socially in the rural community and to apply technology that prevents pollution for the neighborhood. More importantly, the results show the shortcomings of a “top down” approach and the indispensability of endogenous resources in regional development.