Search

Menu
Search
in Ecology

First evaluation framework based on the one welfare concept in extensive broiler rearing systems

111 Views


Abstract

The One Welfare concept has emerged to counter the traditional separation of human well-being, environmental sustainability, and animal welfare, emphasizing their interdependence within specific ecological and socio-technical contexts. Despite its promise, the practical operationalization of One Welfare as an evaluation framework remains limited. This study proposes and tests an operational One Welfare approach (OWA) for extensive broiler rearing systems (ERS), explicitly promoting direct and indirect links between animal and human welfare and situating them within the environmental performance. Although ERS constitute a minor share of EU broiler output (≈ 5%), interest in and adoption of ERS have grown markedly over the past two decades, underscoring the need for assessment tools that capture their broader contributions. Conventional evaluation methodologies, designed around intensive systems, tend to prioritize yield, short-term efficiency, and market indicators, and may therefore underrepresent the ecological, social, and welfare advantages achievable in diversified, outdoor systems. We implemented a multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) using the One Welfare Approach to synthesize indicators across the animal welfare, environmental, economic, and social pillars in a broiler case study. The framework proved feasible despite data constraints (limited availability and some invariant parameters typical of ERS, and its outputs aligned with published evidence on slow-growing genotypes in outdoor systems, supporting construct validity. The Key results showed that: (1) Environmental enrichment with olive trees improved OWA performance: all enriched options outperformed their non-enriched counterparts, showing that tree/shrub cover increases outdoor use, reduces predation and fear, and improves integument condition in free-range birds. (2) Under enrichment, RJ_E ranked first overall. Flow decomposition indicated that CB_E exhibited higher positive flow (Phi+), but RJ_E had a lower negative flow (Phi⁻); given the non-compensatory OWA stance, suppressing negatives proved more decisive than marginal gains in positives. A weight-sensitivity check showed ranking stability across pillars, with limited shifts confined to the Economic pillar, where criterion values were tightly clustered. Taken together, these findings indicate that One Welfare assessment can capture trade-offs and synergies that conventional metrics overlook, offering actionable guidance for extensive organic broiler systems. The approach is compatible with prevailing outcome-based welfare assessment practice. It can be simplified into a transparent index for on-farm self-assessment and external communication, provided that its governance and evidence base meet current best practice expectations.

Data availability

Data is provided within the manuscript or supplementary information files.

References

  1. Purvis, B., Mao, Y. & Robinson, D. Three pillars of sustainability: in search of conceptual origins. Sustain. Sci. 14, 681–695. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0627-5 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Gaviglio, A., Bertocchi, M., Marescotti, M. E., Demartini, E. & Pirani, A. The social pillar of sustainability: a quantitative approach at the farm level. Agricultural Food Econ. 4, 15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40100-016-0059-4 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Martin, A. et al. Environmental Justice and Transformations to Sustainability. Environment: Sci. Policy Sustainable Dev. 62 (6), 19–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/00139157.2020.1820294 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Van Calker, K. J., Berentsen, P. B. M., Giesen, G. W. J. & Huirne, R. B. M. Identifying and ranking attributes that determine sustainability in Dutch dairy farming. Agric. Hum. Values. 22 (1), 53–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10460-004-7230-3/METRICS (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Hansson, H., Segerkvist, K. A., Sonesson, U. & Gunnarsson, S. Sustainability in animal food production – a systematic literature map to identify knowledge gaps. In Wageningen Academic Publishers. Wageningen Academic. https://brill.com/edcollchap/book/9789086868926/BP000008.xml (2019).

  6. Broom, D. M. Animal welfare complementing or conflicting with other sustainability issues. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 219, 104829 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Buller, H., Blokhuis, H., Jensen, P. & Keeling, L. Towards farm animal welfare and sustainability. Animals 8 (6), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani8060081 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Wathes, C. M., Buller, H., Maggs, H., & Campbell, M. L. Livestock production in the UK in the 21st century: A perfect storm averted? Animals 3(3), 574–583. https://doi.org/10.3390/ANI3030574 (2013).

  9. Webster, A. J. F. Farm animal welfare: The five freedoms and the free market. Vet. J. 161(3), 229–237. https://doi.org/10.1053/TVJL.2000.0563 (2001).

  10. Francione, G. L. Animal welfare and society—Part 1: The viewpoints of a philosopher. Anim. Front. 12 (1), 43–47 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Pinillos, R. G. et al. One Welfare – a platform for improving human and animal welfare. Vet. Rec. 179(16), 412–413. https://doi.org/10.1136/vr.i5470 (2016).

  12. Bonneau, M. et al. Evaluation of the sustainability of contrasted pig farming systems: The procedure, the evaluated systems and the evaluation tools. Animal 8 (12), 2011–2015. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731114002110 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Bonneau, M. et al. Evaluation of the sustainability of contrasted pig farming systems: Integrated evaluation. Animal 8 (12), 2058–2068. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731114002122 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  14. FAWC-Farm Animal Welfare Council. Report on the welfare of livestock – intensive farming systems (FAWC, 1979).

  15. Elzen, B. & Bos, B. The RIO approach: Design and anchoring of sustainable animal husbandry systems. Technological Forecast. Social Change. 145, 141–152 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Rocchi, L. et al. Sustainability of Rearing System Using Multicriteria Analysis: Application in Commercial Poultry Production. Animals 11 (12), 3483. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11123483 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Gržinić, G. et al. Intensive poultry farming: A review of the impact on the environment and human health. Sci. Total Environ. 858, 160014 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  18. Dal Bosco, A., Mattioli, S., Cartoni Mancinelli, A., Cotozzolo, E. & Castellini, C. Extensive Rearing Systems in Poultry Production: The Right Chicken for the Right Farming System. A Review of Twenty Years of Scientific Research in Perugia University, Italy. Animals 11, 1281. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11051281 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Milošević, N., Perić, L., Strugar, V., Žikić, D. & Pavlovski, Z. Rearing of fattening chickens on free range and extensively in chicken coop. Biotechnol. Anim. Husb. 21, 2.

  20. Augère-Granier, M. L. The EU poultry meat and egg sector : main features, challenges and prospects : in-depth analysis ([Publications Office of the European Union], 2019).

  21. EC. Organic farming in the EU – A decade of organic growth, January 2023 (European Commission, DG Agriculture and Rural Development, 2023).

  22. Gerber, P., Opio, C. & Steinfeld, H. Poultry production and the environment – a review. Environ. Sci. Agric. Food Sci. 1–27. (2008).

  23. OECD. Measuring Carbon Footprints of Agri-Food Products: Eight Building Blocks (OECD Publishing, 2025). https://doi.org/10.1787/8eb75706-en.

  24. Rocchi, L., Paolotti, L., Rosati, A., Boggia, A. & Castellini, C. Assessing the sustainability of different poultry production systems: A multicriteria approach. J. Clean. Prod. 211, 103–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.013 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  25. Colonius, T. J. & Earley, R. W. One welfare: a call to develop a broader framework of thought and action. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 242, 3: 309–310. https://doi.org/10.2460/javma.242.3.309 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  26. Lattimore, B., Smith, C. T., Titus, B. D., Stupak, I. & Egnell, G. Environmental factors in woodfuel production: Opportunities, risks, and criteria and indicators for sustainable practices. Biomass Bioenerg. 33 (10), 1321–1342 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  27. Brans, J. P. L’ingénièrie de la décision;Elaboration d’instruments d’aide à la décision.La méthode PROMETHEE. (eds Organized byNadeau, R. & Landry, M.) L’aide à la déci-sion: Nature, Instruments et Perspectivesd’Avenir, Québec, Canada, Presses del’Université Laval, 183–213 (1982).

  28. Brans, J. P. & Vincke, P. A preferenceranking organisation method: The PROMETHEE method for MCDM. Manage. Sci. 31 (6), 647–656 (1985).

    Google Scholar 

  29. Behzadian, M., Kazemzadeh, R. B., Albadvi, A. & Aghdasi, M. PROMETHEE: A comprehensive literature review on methodologies and applications. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 200 (Issue 1), 198–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2009.01.021 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  30. Durucasu, H., Aytekin, A., Saraç, B. & Orakçı, E. Current Application Fields of ELECTRE and PROMETHEE: A Literature Review. Alphanumeric J. 5 (2), 229–270. https://doi.org/10.17093/alphanumeric.320235 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  31. Ishak, A. & Asfriyati, A. V. Analytical Hierarchy Process and PROMETHEE as Decision Making Tool: A Review IOP Conf. Ser. : Mater. Sci. Eng. 505, 012085. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/505/1/012085 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  32. Oubahman, L. & Dulena, S. Review of PROMETHEE method in transportation. Prod. Eng. Archives. 27 (1), 69–74. https://doi.org/10.30657/pea.2021.27.9 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  33. Ramu, K., Ramachandran, M., Murali, N. & Mani, M. Environmental Impact Assessment using PROMETHEE method. Environ. Sci. Eng. 1 (2), 57–65 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  34. Tuyttens, F. A. M. et al. Using Expert Elicitation to Abridge the Welfare Quality® Protocol for Monitoring the Most Adverse Dairy Cattle Welfare Impairments. Front. Vet. Sci. 8, 634470. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2021.634470 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  35. Figueira, J. & Roy, B. Determining the weights of criteria in the ELECTRE type methods with a revised Simos’ procedure. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 139 (2), 317–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(01)00370-8 (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  36. Mattioli, S. et al. Effect of genotype and outdoor enrichment on productive performance and meat quality of slow growing chickens. Poult. Sci. 103 (10), 104131 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  37. Mattioli, S. et al. An index for the estimation of chicken adaptability to free-range farming systems of different slow-growing genotypes. Front. Anim. Sci. 6, 1648573 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

  38. Huijbregts, M. A. J. et al. ReCiPe2016: a harmonised life cycle impact assessment method at midpoint and endpoint level. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 22, 138–147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1246-y (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  39. Kheiralipour, K., Rafiee, S., Karimi, M., Nadimi, M. & Paliwal, J. The environmental impacts of commercial poultry production systems using life cycle assessment: a review. World’s Poult. Sci. J. 80 (1), 33–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/00439339.2023.2250326 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  40. Soglia, F., Petracci, M., Davoli, R. & Zappaterra, M. A critical review of the mechanisms involved in the occurrence of growth-related abnormalities affecting broiler chicken breast muscles. Poult. Sci. 100 (6), 101180 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  41. Petracci, M., Soglia, F. & Berri, C. Muscle metabolism and meat quality abnormalities. In Poultry quality evaluation (51–75). Woodhead Publishing. (2017).

  42. Paolotti, L., Boggia, A., Castellini, C., Rocchi, L. & Rosati, A. Combining livestock and tree crops to improve sustainability in agriculture: A case study using the LCA approach. J. Clean. Prod. 112 (1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.05.024 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  43. Scheurich, A. et al. Elements of social sustainability among austrian hay milk farmers: between satisfaction and stress. Sustain 13, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132313010 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  44. Schanz, L. et al. High work satisfaction despite high workload among European organic mixed livestock farmers: a mixed-method approach. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 43, 4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-022-00852-x (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  45. Delecourt, E., Joannon, A. & Meynard, J. M. Work-related information needed by farmers for changing to sustainable cropping practices. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 39, 28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-019-0571-5 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  46. Lind, N., Hansson, H., Emanuelson, U. & Lagerkvist, C. J. Healthy Cows, Happy Farmers? Exploring the Dynamics of Mastitis and Farmer Well-Being. J. Dairy. Sci. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2024-25506 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

  47. Vallance, S., Espig, M., Taylor, A., Brosnahan, C. & McFetridge, A. Farmer wellbeing and animal welfare: Exploring the connections using the case of facial eczema. J. Rural Stud. 104, 103140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2023.103140 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  48. Johanssen, J. R., Kvam, G. T., Logstein, B. & Vaarst, M. Interrelationships between cows, calves, and humans in cow-calf contact systems—An interview study among Norwegian dairy farmers. J. Dairy. Sci. 106, 6325–6341. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2022-22999 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  49. Vigors, B. & Lawrence, A. What are the positives? Exploring positive welfare indicators in a qualitative interview study with livestock farmers. Animals 9, 694 (2019).

  50. Burton, R. J. F., Peoples, S. & Cooper, M. H. Building ‘cowshed cultures’: A cultural perspective on the promotion of stockmanship and animal welfare on dairy farms. J. Rural Stud. 28, 174–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2011.12.003 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  51. Losada-Espinosa, N., Miranda-De la Lama, G. C. & Estévez-Moreno, L. X. Stockpeople and Animal Welfare: Compatibilities, Contradictions, and Unresolved Ethical Dilemmas. J. Agric. Environ. 33, 71–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-019-09813-z (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  52. Dal Bosco, A. et al. Effect of range enrichment on performance, behavior, and forage intake of free-range chickens. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 23, 137–145 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  53. Cartoni Mancinelli, A. et al. Performance, behavior, and welfare status of six different organically reared poultry genotypes. Animals 20 (10), 550. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10040550 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  54. Cartoni Mancinelli, A. et al. New approaches to selecting a scan-sampling method for chicken behavioral observations and their practical implications. Sci. Rep. 13 (1), 17177 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  55. Mattioli, S. et al. Intake of nutrients (polyunsaturated fatty acids, tocols, and carotenes) and storage efficiency in different slow-growing chickens genotypes reared in extensive systems. Plos one. 17 (11), e0275527 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  56. Mareschal, B., De Smet, Y. & Nemery, P. Rank reversal in the PROMETHEE II method: Some new results. In 2008 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management, Singapore, 959–963. https://doi.org/10.1109/IEEM.2008.4738012 (2008).

Download references

Acknowledgements

The PPILOW project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme under grant agreement No. 816172. Authors wish to thanks the members of the PPILOW National Practitioner Groups and the PPILOW partners involved in the collection of their feedbacks on the MCDA criteria: Sarah Lombard and Brieuc Desaint (ITAB), Vanessa Guesdon (JUNIA), Sanna Steenfeldt (AU), Marina Spinu (USAMV), Bas Rodenburg (UU), Laura Van Vooren (BioForum), Helen Pluschke (Thuenen), SlowFood and VSF. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Funding

On behalf of my co-authors, I declare that: All the authors are part of the EU PPILOW project; The PPILOW project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme under grant agreement N˚816172.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Sciences, University of Perugia, Borgo XX Giugno 74, Perugia, Italy

    Lucia Rocchi, S. Mattioli & C. Castellini

  2. INRAE, Université de Tours, BOA, 37380, Nouzilly, France

    A. Collin & C. Bonnefous

  3. Department of Livestock Sciences, Research Institute of Organic Agriculture FiBL, Ackerstrasse 113, 5070, Frick, Switzerland

    C. Bonnefous

  4. Institut technique de l’aviculture (ITAVI), L’orfrasière, 37380, Nouzilly, France

    L. Warin

  5. Flanders Research Institute for Agriculture, Fisheries, and Food (ILVO), 9090, Merelbeke-Melle, Belgium

    F. Tuyttens

  6. Department of Veterinary and Biosciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, 9820, Merelbeke-Melle, Belgium

    F. Tuyttens

  7. Johann Heinrich von Thuenen-Institute, Bundesallee 63, 38116, Braunschweig, Germany

    P. Thobe

  8. AIAB, Via Monte Bianco 22, Bova Marina, Reggio Calabria, Italy

    M. Re

Authors

  1. Lucia Rocchi
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. S. Mattioli
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. A. Collin
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  4. C. Bonnefous
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  5. L. Warin
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  6. F. Tuyttens
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  7. P. Thobe
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  8. M. Re
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  9. C. Castellini
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

L.R. wrote the main manuscript text. MR, PT, AC, LW, SM provided data for Sect.  3.3; SM was responsible for data collection and curation of the case study . All authors contributed to the theoretical framework (Sect.  3.1). All authors reviewed the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to
Lucia Rocchi.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical approval

Chickens were reared according to EU Regulation 834/07, EU Regulation 889/2008, and the Italian directives (European Parliament and Council of the European Union, 2013) on animal welfare for experimental and other scientific purposes. The experimental protocol was approved by the Ethical Committee of the University of Perugia (ID number 62705, 07/15/2020). Data collection was carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations about personal data collection. Data collection protected the privacy of our users and ensured full compliance with the General Data Protection Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (GDPR). We did not collect personal data (such as names, email addresses, or IP addresses in identifiable form) without explicit user consent: each participant signed an informed consent. The Ethical Committee of the University of Perugia declared that there is no need for their approval for the data collected by the project. Informed consent was considered enough.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1 (download DOCX )

Supplementary Material 2 (download DOCX )

Supplementary Material 3 (download DOCX )

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rocchi, L., Mattioli, S., Collin, A. et al. First evaluation framework based on the one welfare concept in extensive broiler rearing systems.
Sci Rep (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-46959-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-46959-z

Keywords

  • Extensive rearing system
  • Chicken
  • One welfare approach
  • Multicriteria analysis

Source: Ecology - nature.com

Young tropical forests help to reverse biodiversity losses

Desirée Plata appointed associate dean of engineering

This portal is not a newspaper as it is updated without periodicity. It cannot be considered an editorial product pursuant to law n. 62 of 7.03.2001. The author of the portal is not responsible for the content of comments to posts, the content of the linked sites. Some texts or images included in this portal are taken from the internet and, therefore, considered to be in the public domain; if their publication is violated, the copyright will be promptly communicated via e-mail. They will be immediately removed.

Back to Top
Close