Animal health and welfare as a public good: what do the public think?

被引:1
作者
Clark, B. [1 ]
Proctor, A. [1 ]
Boaitey, A. [1 ]
Mahon, N. [3 ]
Hanley, N. [4 ]
Holloway, L. [2 ]
机构
[1] Newcastle Univ, Ctr Rural Econ, Sch Nat & Environm Sci, Newcastle Upon Tyne NE1 7RU, England
[2] Univ Hull, Sch Environm Sci, Cottingham Rd, Kingston Upon Hull HU6 7RX, England
[3] James Hutton Inst, Aberdeen AB15 8QH, Scotland
[4] Univ Glasgow, Sch Biodivers One Hlth & Vet Med, Glasgow City G12 8QQ, Scotland
基金
英国惠康基金;
关键词
Animal health; Animal welfare; Public goods; Public perceptions; MARKET; QUALITY; METAANALYSIS; ATTITUDES; PREFERENCES; PERSPECTIVE; PERCEPTION; CHALLENGES; ECONOMICS; SYSTEMS;
D O I
10.1007/s10460-024-10585-0
中图分类号
S [农业科学];
学科分类号
09 ;
摘要
This paper presents a novel perspective on an evolving policy area. The UK's withdrawal from the EU has led to the creation of a new Agriculture Act and proposals for significant changes to the way farming subsidies are structured in England. Underpinned by a 'public money for public goods' approach, where public goods are those outputs from the farm system which are not rewarded by markets, yet which provide benefits to many members of society. New schemes include the Animal Health and Welfare Pathway, where certain aspects of farm animal health and welfare (FAHW) will be subsidised through government support, raising a much-debated issue in the literature regarding the representation of FAHW as a public good. For policy to be responsive to societal demands and accountable to citizens, understanding public attitudes and preferences towards FAHW as a public good, and how the public might prioritise this in relation to a wider suite of environmental public goods from farming, is important. An online survey of 521 members of the UK public was conducted and analysed with descriptive statistics and ordered logistic regression. Findings reveal low awareness of the changing agricultural policy context, but strong support for public money being used to provide public goods, particularly for FAHW. Findings also indicate a need for more effective public communication of farming and FAHW issues from farming stakeholders to ensure public policy in this domain is responsive and accountable to its citizens. Further work is needed to inform future debates and engagement surrounding FAHW, including through which combination of funding mechanisms (public or private) it is provided.
引用
收藏
页码:1841 / 1856
页数:16
相关论文
共 103 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 1965, REPORT TECHNICAL COM
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2018, Health and Harmony: the future for food, farming and the environment in a Green Brexit
[3]  
[Anonymous], 2019, Food Safety in the EU
[4]  
[Anonymous], The new common agricultural policy: 2023-27
[5]  
[Anonymous], 2020, European Commission, Critical materials for strategic technologies and sectors in the EU - a foresight study, 2020 (2011/833/EU)
[6]  
[Anonymous], 2016, Attitudes of Europeans towards Animal Welfare
[7]   Assessing the visual quality of rural landscapes [J].
Arriaza, M ;
Cañas-Ortega, JF ;
Cañas-Madueño, JA ;
Ruiz-Aviles, P .
LANDSCAPE AND URBAN PLANNING, 2004, 69 (01) :115-125
[8]   Public funding for public goods: A post-Brexit perspective on principles for agricultural policy [J].
Bateman, Ian J. ;
Balmford, Ben .
LAND USE POLICY, 2018, 79 :293-300
[9]   A method for the economic valuation of animal welfare benefits using a single welfare score [J].
Bennett, R. ;
Kehlbacher, A. ;
Balcombe, K. .
ANIMAL WELFARE, 2012, 21 :125-130
[10]   Farm animal welfare and food policy [J].
Bennett, RM .
FOOD POLICY, 1997, 22 (04) :281-288