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

B. Clark (), A. Proctor, A. Boaitey, N. Mahon, N. Hanley and L. Holloway
Additional contact information
B. Clark: Newcastle University
A. Proctor: Newcastle University
A. Boaitey: Newcastle University
N. Mahon: The James Hutton Institute
N. Hanley: University of Glasgow
L. Holloway: University of Hull

Agriculture and Human Values, 2024, vol. 41, issue 4, No 33, 1856 pages

Abstract: Abstract 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.

Keywords: Animal health; Animal welfare; Public goods; Public perceptions (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2024
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10460-024-10585-0 Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:agrhuv:v:41:y:2024:i:4:d:10.1007_s10460-024-10585-0

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/10460

DOI: 10.1007/s10460-024-10585-0

Access Statistics for this article

Agriculture and Human Values is currently edited by Harvey S. James Jr.

More articles in Agriculture and Human Values from Springer, The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS)
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().