Project Advisor(s) (Students Only)
Dr. Mariano Magalhaes and Dr. Xiaowen Zhang
Presentation Type (All Applicants)
Oral Presentation
Disciplines (All Applicants)
Education | Other Medicine and Health Sciences
Description, Abstract, or Artist's Statement
This project examined the determinants of animal welfare across five countries: India, New Zealand, Spain, Sweden and the United Stated. The dependent variable of animal welfare was measured based on the Animal Protection Index (API) developed by the World Protection, a global non-profit organization. Democracy, development, religion and science were major areas that were evaluated to determine if there were correlations with the API. Correlation with the API was tested by using the Pearson Correlation Coefficient. A Country’s Freedom House scores were used to evaluate Democracy. Development examined each country’s Human Development Index from the UN’s Human Development Reports and GDP per Capita as a percentage of Global GDP per capita from the CIA World Factbook. The evaluation of Religion with respect to the API was sectored into the percentage of the country that were Hindu, Christian, Non-Religious and Post-Materialist taken from the PBS World Religion Map and World Values Survey. Science was examined by the percentage of citable documents in each country and each country’s Hirsch Index from SCImago. The results of this study found a strong positive correlation between Democracy and the API and Percent Non Religious and API, while a strong negative correlation was evident between Hirsch Index and API. These results suggest that the more democratic and the more a population declares themselves as non-religious, the better the API. Conversely, the more scientific efforts in a country the worse the API. These initial analyses need to be verified with larger sample sizes as well as other socio-economic factors in order to evaluate and determine what would be the best indicators of a country’s commitment to animal welfare policies.
Augustana Digital Commons Citation
Richardson, Sydney. "The Effect of Democracy, Development, Religion and Science on Animal Welfare" (2019). Celebration of Learning.
https://digitalcommons.augustana.edu/celebrationoflearning/2019/presentations/13
The Effect of Democracy, Development, Religion and Science on Animal Welfare
This project examined the determinants of animal welfare across five countries: India, New Zealand, Spain, Sweden and the United Stated. The dependent variable of animal welfare was measured based on the Animal Protection Index (API) developed by the World Protection, a global non-profit organization. Democracy, development, religion and science were major areas that were evaluated to determine if there were correlations with the API. Correlation with the API was tested by using the Pearson Correlation Coefficient. A Country’s Freedom House scores were used to evaluate Democracy. Development examined each country’s Human Development Index from the UN’s Human Development Reports and GDP per Capita as a percentage of Global GDP per capita from the CIA World Factbook. The evaluation of Religion with respect to the API was sectored into the percentage of the country that were Hindu, Christian, Non-Religious and Post-Materialist taken from the PBS World Religion Map and World Values Survey. Science was examined by the percentage of citable documents in each country and each country’s Hirsch Index from SCImago. The results of this study found a strong positive correlation between Democracy and the API and Percent Non Religious and API, while a strong negative correlation was evident between Hirsch Index and API. These results suggest that the more democratic and the more a population declares themselves as non-religious, the better the API. Conversely, the more scientific efforts in a country the worse the API. These initial analyses need to be verified with larger sample sizes as well as other socio-economic factors in order to evaluate and determine what would be the best indicators of a country’s commitment to animal welfare policies.
Comments
Senior Inquiry