Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T11:16:49.275Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Estimation of the value the public places on regulations to improve broiler welfare

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

D Moran  and
A McVittie
D Moran*
Affiliation:
Scottish Agricultural College, West Mains Road, Edinburgh, EH9 3JG, Scotland, UK
A McVittie
Affiliation:
Scottish Agricultural College, West Mains Road, Edinburgh, EH9 3JG, Scotland, UK
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Animal welfare presents particular policy challenges. Good welfare provides private productivity benefits to producers and some level of positive external benefit to people who care about animal welfare status. But markets for welfare fail, meaning that private producers are unlikely to provide the correct level of external benefit and social welfare will not be maximised. Accordingly, there is a rationale for government to be involved in the provision of animal welfare. The public good nature of animal welfare supply presents policy challenges for government regulators. Specifically, in setting regulatory targets, Defra, as the regulator, aims to maximise social welfare by designing regulation that delivers benefits that are at least equal to regulatory costs at the margin. This means that regulatory targets must be informed by some assessment of benefits of welfare policies. This paper considers this problem in the context of the proposed EU Directive on broiler welfare. The paper describes the application of the contingent valuation method to measure the economic benefits of broiler welfare, and considers how the results inform welfare target setting.

Keywords

animal welfarebroiler welfarecontingent valuationeconomic valuationnon-market valuationregulatory standards
Type
Articles
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 17 , Issue 1 , February 2008 , pp. 43 - 52
Copyright
© 2008 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Bateman, IJ, Carson, RT, Day, B, Hanemann, N, Hett, T, Hanley, N, Jones-Lee, M, Loomes, G, Mourato, S and Ozdemiroglu, E 2004 Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques: A Manual. Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, UKGoogle Scholar
Bennett, R 1995 The value of farm animal welfare. Journal of Agricultural Economics 46(1): 46–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, R 1998 Measuring public support for animal welfare legislation: A case study of cage egg production. Animal Welfare 7: 1–10Google Scholar
Boyle, K, Michael, P, Welsh, D, Richard, C and Bishop, R 1988 Validation of Empirical Measures of Welfare Change: Comment. Land Economics 64(1): 94–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burgess, D, Hutchinson, WG, McCallion, T and Scarpa, R 2001 Do Paired Comparisons and Contingent Valuation Methods Produce Consistent Preferences for Implementing Animal Welfare Improvements? Paper presented at the Agricultural Economics Society Conference. 11 September 2001, Harper-Adams University College, Newport, ShropshireGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, MS, Donnelly, CA and Jones, TA 2004 Chicken welfare is influenced more by housing conditions than by stocking density. Nature 427: 342–344CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eurobarometer 2005Attitudes of consumers towards animal welfare fieldwork. Special Eurobarometer 229. European Commission: Brussels, Belgium. http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_270_en.pdfGoogle Scholar
Glass, CA, Hutchinson, WG and Beattie, VE 1999 Investigating Issues of Overstatement in a CVM Study of Willingness to Pay for Pig Welfare Improvements. Unpublished paper, Queen's University, Belfast, UKGoogle Scholar
Hanemann, M 1984 Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 66(3): 332–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanemann, M, Loomis, J and Kanninen, B 1991 “Statistical Efficiency of Double-Bounded Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 73(4): 1255–1263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harper, G and Henson, S 2001 Consumer Concerns about Animal Welfare and the Impact on Food Choice. Final Report EU Fair CT98-3678. Centre for Food Economics Research, University of Reading, UKGoogle Scholar
Johansson, PO, Bengt, K and Maler, KG 1989 Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Response Data: Comment. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 71(4): 1054–1056CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Louviere, JJ, Hensher, DA and Swait, JD 2000 Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Application. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martrenchar, A, Boilletot, E, Huonnic, D and Pol, F 2002 Risk factors for foot-pad dermatitis in chicken and turkey broilers in France. Preventative Veterinary Medicine 52(3-4): 213–226CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McInerney, JP 1993 Animal Welfare: An Economic perspective. Paper presented at the Agricultural Economics Society Conference, Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Mintel 2004 Poultry UK. Mintel International Group Limited: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Office for National Statistics 2005 Region trends 38. Office for National Statistics. http://www.statistics.gov.ukGoogle Scholar
Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Welfare 2000 The Welfare of Chickens kept for Meat Production (Broilers). Report of the Scientific Committee on Animal Welfare. Adopted 21 March 2000. European Commission: Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
Sheppard, A and Edge, S 2005 Economic and Operational Impacts of the Proposed EU Directive laying down Minimum Standards for the Protection of Chickens kept for Meat Production. Final Report to Defra. University of Exeter Centre for Rural Research and ADAS, Devon, UKGoogle Scholar
Verhoef, P and Franses, P 2002 On combining revealed and stated preferences to forecast customer behavior: three case studies. Erasmus University Rotterdam, Department of Marketing and Organization Econometric Institute, Report 2002-04 https://dspace.ubib.eur.nl/retrieve/885/feweco20020213101718.pdfGoogle Scholar