Public Perception Of Animal Welfare In Iran

Iran has one of the world’s oldest civilizations, with a cultural legacy that has long included reverence for the natural world. Ancient Persian traditions emphasized harmony among humans, animals, and the environment — a worldview that, alongside the country’s predominantly Muslim population, continues to shape how Iranians relate to animals today. Yet despite Iran’s cultural richness and its 86.8 million residents, almost no empirical research has examined public attitudes toward animal welfare there. This study, the first of its kind in Iran, used a validated survey tool previously applied in more than a dozen countries to understand how Iranians view the welfare of companion, farmed, and wild animals, and what these attitudes mean for advocacy and policy.

Researchers collected responses from 326 participants between January and May 2024 using face-to-face interviews conducted in Farsi. Participants were recruited at an intercity bus station in northern Iran, allowing responses from individuals across 63 cities and towns. While this approach supported geographic diversity, most respondents were younger adults, which may limit how well the results reflect the views of older populations.

Before completing the survey, participants were provided with a definition of animal welfare adapted from the World Organization for Animal Health. They were then asked about the significance of animal welfare, whether different species can experience pain and emotions, and their views on animal slaughter. Responses were recorded using a seven-point Likert scale that allowed participants to indicate agreement, disagreement, or uncertainty and rank species importance.

Overall, respondents expressed high concern for animal welfare. The vast majority (97%) agreed that laws protecting animals are important in Iran. Farmed and wild animal welfare mattered to 96% and 98% of respondents, respectively, and 88% reported that they would be willing to pay more for products that are kinder to animals, provided they could afford to do so.

Concern for welfare varied by species. After humans, the critically endangered Asiatic cheetah was rated as most important (98%), followed by farmed cows (94%) and farmed chickens (92%). Dogs (87%), fishes (85.5%), and cats (83%) were rated somewhat lower, while Caspian seals (75%), another endangered native species, sharks (67%), and pigs (52%) received the lowest importance ratings.

The authors suggest that media coverage of conservation efforts may have increased public concern for Asiatic cheetahs, who are often portrayed as a symbol of national pride. Interestingly, only 80% of respondents reported concern for companion animals; slightly lower concern for dogs may be influenced by cultural differences, including varying interpretations of the word “dog” in Arabic. Lower concern for sharks may reflect fear or limited public understanding.

Most respondents believed that chickens can feel pain (93%) and experience emotions (79%), with lower agreement for fishes (64% and 59.5%, respectively). Support for improving the welfare of farmed chickens was particularly promising. Nearly 97% agreed that farmed chickens need space to explore and exercise, as well as reported caring about whether egg-laying hens suffer. The majority (84%) also expressed a preference for cage-free eggs. However, about one-quarter (25.5%) of respondents reported being unfamiliar with hen housing and production systems.

When compared to similar surveys conducted in other countries, Iranians ranked among the most concerned about farmed animal welfare. Most had at least some familiarity with the slaughter process (81%), and reported discomfort with watching it (73%). The majority agreed that it mattered how the meat is produced (97%) and that animals do not suffer during slaughter (98%). While stunning was widely supported as a method that reduces suffering (79%), only 52% of respondents stated that they would prefer to eat meat from animals who are stunned before slaughter. This suggests that uncertainty remains even though stunning is consistent with Halal requirements for meat.

The authors conclude that these findings offer a strong foundation for advocates and policymakers working to advance animal welfare in Iran. Public concern is notably high, yet this concern is not yet matched by legal protections or industry practice. The gap between what Iranians believe about animal suffering and how animals are currently treated represents a clear advocacy opportunity. Advocates can work with existing cultural and religious values rather than against them, and the strong public appetite for both legal reform and higher-welfare products suggests that well-targeted campaigns could gain meaningful traction. Education around the Halal compatibility of stunning in particular stands out as an area where relatively modest outreach could shift attitudes in ways that reduce suffering at scale.