Scientometrics

, Volume 113, Issue 2, pp 909–922 | Cite as

Mapping farm animal welfare research in an enlarged Europe: international collaboration, bibliometric output, research resources and relation to economic indices

  • Marlene K. Kirchner
  • Ľubor Košťál
  • Boris Bilčík
  • Christoph Winckler
Article

Abstract

Against the background of divergent political developments across Europe, farm animal welfare (FAW) science has evolved during the last three decades as an inter-disciplinary research area. Recent achievements include pan-European research projects and the implementation of animal welfare assessment systems on-farm. The aim of this study was mapping activities for FAW science and investigating geographical differences in FAW research in Europe (EU28 + candidate countries and the European Economic Area) with regard to available resources (e.g. human resources, infrastructure, funding) and research output (e.g. collaborations and publications). Further, we enquired if economic attributes such as the Coefficient of National Innovation Capacity (NIC) were associated with the reported available resources and research output factors (publications and collaborations) of FAW research. Based on questionnaires sent out to a wide researcher network in regions of an enlarged Europe, we found differences with regard to ‘input factors’ such as human resources, animal and laboratory facilities and national and international research funding and ‘output factors’ such as inter/national collaboration, participation in EU-funded projects related to FAW and number of publications. Respondents were allocated to 4 Western and 4 Eastern geographical clusters of countries (‘hubs’). There were a larger number of researchers, students and technical staff per laboratory in Western compared to Eastern hubs. A pronounced difference was found for funding, as 35% of respondents in the Eastern hubs stated that they lack funded FAW projects compared to 4% in the West. In general, respondents from the Western hubs stated significantly more often that they run projects in the field of FAW research (p = 0.034). Furthermore they were significantly more involved in EU-funded schemes, such as FP7 (EU’s Research and Innovation Funding Programme for 2007–2013) with 24% (p = 0.013) and in ERA-NET Cofund projects (European Research Area—Coordination of Research Programmes) with 5.7% (p = 0.042). The average sum of impact factors from 5 self-named citations was 3.0 ± 2.8 (mean, SD) in the Eastern hubs and 7.5 ± 4.4 in the Western Hubs. When investigating associations of the economic status of EU countries with resource factors and achievements in FAW research, the ‘Coefficient of National Innovation Capacity (NIC)’ was moderately correlated with the input factors for FAW research such as the average number of PhDs currently employed in the institutions (r s = 0.66; p < 0.001) and the total number of employed researchers (r s = 0.56; p < 0.01). Stronger associations were found between the scientific output and the economic ranking, here represented by the cumulative impact factor of their published papers (r s = 0.74; p < 0.001), and between the number of EC-project reports published in CORDIS 2015 with NIC (r s = 0.67; p < 0.001). We conclude that due to economic disadvantages as represented by the lower NIC or rare participation in EU-funding schemes, the Eastern Hubs could not reach the same level of output factors as the Western Hubs, which negatively impacts on the number of young researchers (PhDs) and impact factors, thus resulting in lower visibility and influence.

Keywords

Farm animal welfare Enlarged Europe Research network National innovation capacity 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Funding was provided by Seventh Framework Programme (Grant No. KBBE–265686)

References

  1. AWARE. (2014). Final report of the AWARE project: AWARE findings, conclusions and recommendations towards further collaboration across Europe on animal welfare research, education and societal issues. In M. Spinka (Ed.), (Vol. Deliverable D6.6., KBBE—265686).Google Scholar
  2. Blokhuis, H. J. (2008). International cooperation in animal welfare: The Welfare Quality® project. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica, 50(Suppl 1), S10. doi: 10.1186/1751-0147-50-s1-s10.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bornmann, L., Leydesdorff, L., Walch-Solimena, C., & Ettl, C. (2011). Mapping excellence in the geography of science: An approach based on scopus data. Journal of Informetrics, 5(4), 537–546. doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2011.05.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Broom, D. (2011). A history of animal welfare science. Acta Biotheoretica, 59(2), 121–137. doi: 10.1007/s10441-011-9123-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bruce, A., Lyall, C., Tait, J., & Williams, R. (2004). Interdisciplinary integration in Europe: The case of the fifth framework programme. Futures, 36(4), 457–470. doi: 10.1016/j.futures.2003.10.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. CORDIS. (2015). The primary information source for EU-funded projects since 1990. http://cordis.europa.eu/projects/home_en.html, last visited 08/06/2017.
  7. COST. (2017). European Cooperation in Science and Technology. http://www.cost.eu/about_cost, last visited 08/06/2017.
  8. ERA-NET. (2017). European Research Area—Coordination of Research Programmes. http://ec.europa.eu/research/era/era-net_en.htm, last visited 08/06/2017.
  9. FP6 (2015). What is the Sixth Framework Programme? https://ec.europa.eu/research/fp6/index_en.cfm, last visited 08/06/2017.
  10. FP7 (2015). Understanding the Seventh Framework Programme. http://ec.europa.eu/research/fp7/index_en.cfm?pg=understanding, last visited 08/06/2017.
  11. Fraser, D. (2003). Assessing animal welfare at the farm and group level: The interplay of science and values. Animal Welfare, 12(4), 433–443.Google Scholar
  12. Harrison, R. (1964). Animal machines: the new factory farming industry. London: Vincent Stuart Ltd.Google Scholar
  13. Hoekman, J., Frenken, K., & Tijssen, R. J. W. (2010). Research collaboration at a distance: Changing spatial patterns of scientific collaboration within Europe. Research Policy, 39(5), 662–673. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2010.01.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Katz, J. S. (1994). Geographical proximity and scientific collaboration. Scientometrics, 31(1), 31–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lund, V., Coleman, G., Gunnarsson, S., Appleby, M. C., & Karkinen, K. (2006). Animal welfare science—working at the interface between the natural and social sciences. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 97(1), 37–49. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2005.11.017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Matthiessen, C. W., & Schwarz, A. W. (1999). Scientific centres in Europe: An analysis of research strength and patterns of specialisation based on bibliometric indicators. Urban Studies, 36(3), 453–477. doi: 10.1080/0042098993475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Radeski, M., Mikus, T., Zupan, M., Nenadovic, K., Ostovic, M., Jurkovich, V., et al. (2016). Animal welfare research in the last three decades in the Danube region—a bibliographic study. In C. Dwyer, M. Haskell, & V. Sandilands (Eds.), 50th congress of the international society for applied ethology edinburgh. United Kingdom: Wageningen Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  18. Radosevic, S. (2004). A two-tier or multi-tier Europe? Assessing the innovation capacities of central and East European Countries in the enlarged EU. Journal of Common Market Studies, 42(3), 641–666. doi: 10.1111/j.0021-9886.2004.00522.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Radosevic, S., & Auriol, L. (1998). Measuring S&T activities in the former socialist economies of central and Eastern Europe: Conceptual and methodological issues in linking past with present. Scientometrics, 42(3), 273–297. doi: 10.1007/BF02458372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Smith, M., Shneiderman, B., Milic-Frayling, N., Rodrigues, E., Barash, V., Dunne, C., et al. (2009). Analyzing social (media) network data with NodeXL. In C&T’09: International Conference on Communities and Technologies 2009, University Park, Pennsylvania, 2009. New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  21. Van Raan, A. F. J. (1998). In matters of quantitative studies of science the fault of theorists is offering too little and asking too much. Scientometrics, 43(1), 129–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. WAFL2017. (2017). In 7th International conference on the assessment of animal welfare at farm and group level. http://wafl2017.com, last visited 08/06/2017.
  23. Welfare Quality. (2013). Welfare Quality®: Science and society improving animal welfare in the food quality chain. EU funded project FOOD-CT-2004-506508. http://www.welfarequality.net/everyone/26536/5/0/22, last visited 08/06/2017.

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Livestock Sciences, Department of Sustainable Agricultural SystemsUniversity of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Vienna (BOKU)ViennaAustria
  2. 2.Institute of Animal Biochemistry and GeneticsSlovak Academy of SciencesIvanka pri DunajiSlovakia
  3. 3.Department of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Institute of Animal Welfare and Disease ControlUniversity of CopenhagenFrederiksberg CDenmark

Personalised recommendations