ArticleData in brief2024
Data on Swiss citizens' preferences and perceptions of agricultural policy.
Article in Data in brief, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Data on Swiss citizens' preferences and perceptions of agricultural policy.Data in brief · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We present representative survey data from 1,542 Swiss citizens. Data were collected across the three largest Swiss language regions (German, French and Italian) in autumn 2022. In the main part of the survey, we collected qualitative and quantitative data on their perception of agricultural policy goals and potential trade-offs. For this, participants were first asked to name the three most important agricultural policy goals. Next, they rated eight pre-defined agricultural policy goals for importance and how much budget they would allocate to the pursuit of each goal if they were to decide about the governmental budget or subsidies. For the goal conflicts, the eight goals were combined into 16 conflicting pairs, where participants were to decide which of the conflicting goals they preferred. Further, we collected information regarding who citizens considered as responsible for achieving agricultural policy goals. The survey was also used to collect personal information about the participating citizens including information such as gender, age, education level, place of residence or whether participant had (previous) work experience in agriculture and how they placed themselves regarding their political orientation on a left-right scale. We further collected behavioural data including diet, that is, meat consumption frequency and shopping behaviour, where we asked participants what attributes were important for them when buying food. At the end of the survey, we used existing and new scales to measure participants' perception of farmers, meat commitment and their perception regarding animal welfare and environmental protection using the Ecological Welfare Scale. For this study, ethical approval was obtained from ETH Zurich ethical commission (application EK-2022-N-174).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.