The Benefits of Farm Animal Welfare Legislation: The Case of the EU Broiler Directive and Truthful Reporting

被引:5
作者
Bennett, Richard [1 ]
Balcombe, Kelvin [1 ]
Jones, Philip [1 ]
Butterworth, Andrew [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Reading, Sch Agr Policy & Dev, Reading, Berks, England
[2] Univ Bristol, Dept Clin Vet Sci, Bristol, Avon, England
关键词
Animal welfare; Bayesian Truth Serum; EU broiler legislation; truthful reporting; willingness to pay; WILLINGNESS-TO-PAY; CHOICE EXPERIMENTS; BIAS; INFORMATION; INCENTIVES;
D O I
10.1111/1477-9552.12278
中图分类号
F3 [农业经济];
学科分类号
0202 ; 020205 ; 1203 ;
摘要
The EU Broiler Directive came into force in the UK in June 2010 with the aim of setting new minimum standards, monitoring broiler welfare and addressing any welfare problems. A survey questionnaire was used to elicit information from a stratified sample of citizens in England and Wales regarding their willingness to pay for the provisions of the Directive, as an estimate of the consumer surplus associated with the legislation. We also explore the usefulness of Prelec's () Bayesian Truth Serum (BTS) in promoting respondents' truthful reporting. A median willingness to pay of 21.50 pound per household per year (corrected for sample bias and possible 'yea saying') was estimated from 665 responses. This provides an estimated benefit of the legislation to citizens of over 503 pound million per year, equivalent to 5.3% of current consumer expenditure on chicken. This compares to an estimated 22 pound million per year cost of producers' compliance and government enforcement associated with the legislation. No statistically significant differences in responses between respondents that did and did not have a BTS incentive to answer questions truthfully were found, which might reflect apparently truthful answers in this case, an insufficiently strong financial incentive or a weakened effect due to an element of disbelief in the BTS amongst the sample. The analysis suggests that the benefits of the Broiler Directive to citizens greatly outweigh the additional costs to producers, making a case for the legislation to be retained.
引用
收藏
页码:135 / 152
页数:18
相关论文
共 30 条
[1]   Information bias in contingent valuation: Effects of personal relevance, quality of information, and motivational orientation [J].
Ajzen, I ;
Brown, TC ;
Rosenthal, LH .
JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS AND MANAGEMENT, 1996, 30 (01) :43-57
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2007, INT J SOCIOL AGR FOO, DOI DOI 10.48416/IJSAF.V15I3.284
[3]   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
[4]  
Bennett R., 2011, EU POLICY AGR FOOD R, P249
[5]  
Bennett R., 2011, VALUATION ANIMAL WEL
[6]   Incentive and informational properties of preference questions [J].
Carson, Richard T. ;
Groves, Theodore .
ENVIRONMENTAL & RESOURCE ECONOMICS, 2007, 37 (01) :181-210
[7]   A Systematic Review of Public Attitudes, Perceptions and Behaviours Towards Production Diseases Associated with Farm Animal Welfare [J].
Clark, Beth ;
Stewart, Gavin B. ;
Panzone, Luca A. ;
Kyriazakis, I. ;
Frewer, Lynn J. .
JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL & ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS, 2016, 29 (03) :455-478
[8]  
Conte A, 2016, JUDGM DECIS MAK, V11, P260
[9]   Reconsidering the political economy of farm animal welfare: An anatomy of market failure [J].
Harvey, David ;
Hubbard, Carmen .
FOOD POLICY, 2013, 38 :105-114
[10]   Comparison of four contingent valuation methods to estimate the economic value of a pneumococcal vaccine in Bangladesh [J].
Heinzen, Rebekah R. ;
Bridges, John F. P. .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT IN HEALTH CARE, 2008, 24 (04) :481-487