Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T19:04:33.744Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A method for the economic valuation of animal welfare benefits using a single welfare score

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

R Bennett ,
A Kehlbacher  and
K Balcombe
R Bennett*
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Food Economics, School of Agriculture, Policy and Development, University of Reading RG6 6AR, UK
A Kehlbacher
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Food Economics, School of Agriculture, Policy and Development, University of Reading RG6 6AR, UK
K Balcombe
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Food Economics, School of Agriculture, Policy and Development, University of Reading RG6 6AR, 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.

Unless the benefits to society of measures to protect and improve the welfare of animals are made transparent by means of their valuation they are likely to go unrecognised and cannot easily be weighed against the costs of such measures as required, for example, by policy-makers. A simple single measure scoring system, based on the Welfare Quality® index, is used, together with a choice experiment economic valuation method, to estimate the value that people place on improvements to the welfare of different farm animal species measured on a continuous (0-100) scale. Results from using the method on a survey sample of some 300 people show that it is able to elicit apparently credible values. The survey found that 96% of respondents thought that we have a moral obligation to safeguard the welfare of animals and that over 72% were concerned about the way farm animals are treated. Estimated mean annual willingness to pay for meat from animals with improved welfare of just one point on the scale was £5.24 for beef cattle, £4.57 for pigs and £5.10 for meat chickens. Further development of the method is required to capture the total economic value of animal welfare benefits. Despite this, the method is considered a practical means for obtaining economic values that can be used in the cost-benefit appraisal of policy measures intended to improve the welfare of animals.

Keywords

animal welfarebenefit valuationeconomicsmethodologypolicywelfare score
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 21 , Issue S1: Proceedings of the UFAW International Symposium ‘Making animal improvements: Economic and other incentives and constraints’ Historic Dockyard, Portsmouth, UK, 2011 , May 2012 , pp. 125 - 130
Copyright
© 2012 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Bennett, R 1995 The value of farm animal welfare. Journal of Agricultural Economics 46: 46–60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-9552.1995.tb00751.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, R and Appleby, M 2010 Animal welfare in the European Union. In: Oskam, A, Meester, G and Silvis, H (eds) EU Policy for Agriculture, Food and Rural Areas pp 243–251. Wageningen Academic Publishers: Wageningen, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Bennett, R and Thompson, P 2011 Economics. In: Appleby, MC, Mench, JA, Olsson, IAS and Hughes, BO (eds) Animal Welfare, Second Edition pp 279–290. CAB International: Wallingford, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, R and Willis, K 2008 Public values for badgers, bovine TB reduction and management strategies. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 51(4): 511–523. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09640560802116996CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, R, Butterworth, A, Jones, P, Kehlbacher, A and Tranter, R 2011 Valuation of animal welfare benefits. Report to the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. University of Reading: Reading, UKGoogle Scholar
Botreau, R, Bonde, M, Butterworth, A, Perny, P, Bracke, MBM, Capdeville, J and Veissier, I 2007a Aggregation of measures to produce an overall assessment of animal welfare. Part 1, A review of existing methods. Animal 1: 1179–1187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Botreau, R, Bracke, MBM, Perny, P, Butterworth, A, Capdeville, J, van Reenen, CG and Veissier, I 2007b Aggregation of measures to produce an overall assessment of animal welfare. Part 2, Analysis of constraints. Animal 1: 1188–1197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlsson, F, Frykblom, P and Lagerkvist, CJ 2007a Consumer willingness to pay for farm animal welfare: mobile abattoirs versus transportation to slaughter. European Review of Agricultural Economics 34: 321–344. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbm025CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlsson, F, Frykblom, P and Lagerkvist, CJ 2007b Farm animal welfare, testing for market failure. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 39: 61–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
European Commission 2011 Better regulation. Impact assessment. http://ec.europa/governance/better_regulation/impact_en.htmGoogle Scholar
FAWC 2008 Opinion on Policy Instruments for Protecting and Improving Farm Animal Welfare. Farm Animal Welfare Council: London, UKGoogle Scholar
FAWC 2009 Farm Animal Welfare Council in Great Britain: Past, Present and Future. FAWC: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Hensher, DA, Rose, J, and Greene, WH 2005 The implications on willingness to pay of respondents ignoring specific attributes. Transportation 32: 203–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
HM Treasury 2003 The Green Book. Appraisal and Evaluation in Central Government. TSO: London, UKGoogle Scholar
HM Treasury 2011 The Magenta Book. Guidance for Evaluation. TSO: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Lagerkvist, CJ and Hess, S 2010 A meta-analysis of consumer willingness to pay for farm animal welfare. European Review of Agricultural Economics 38: 55–78. doi: 10.1093/erae/jbq043.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lagerkvist, CJ, Carlsson, F and Viske, D 2006 Swedish consumer preferences for animal welfare and biotech: a choice experiment. AgBio Forum 9: 51–58Google Scholar
Liljenstolpe, C 2008 Evaluating animal welfare with choice experiments: an application to Swedish pig production. Agribusiness 24: 67–84. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/agr.20147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Louviere, JL, Hensher, DA and Swait, JD 2000 Stated Choice Methods. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lusk, JL, Nilsson, T and Foster, K 2007 Public preferences and private choices: effect of altruism and free riding on demand for environmentally certified pork. Environmental and Resource Economics 36: 499–521. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10640-006-9039-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McFadden, D and Train, KE 2000 Mixed MNL models for discrete response. Journal of Applied Econometrics 15: 447–4703.0.CO;2-1>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McVittie, A, Moran, D and Nevison, I 2006 Public preferences for broiler chicken welfare: evidence from stated preference studies. Land Economy Working Paper Series, Number 3. Department of Land Economy, University of Cambridge: Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, RC and Carson, RT 1989 Using Surveys to Value Public Goods. The Contingent Valuation Method. Resources for the Future: Washington, DC, USAGoogle Scholar
Morkbak, RN, Christens, T and Gyrd-Hansen, D 2010 Consumer preferences for safety characteristics in pork. British Food Journal 112: 775–791. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00070701011058299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nocella, G, Hubbard, L and Scarpa, R 2010 Farm animal welfare, consumer willingness to pay and trust: results of a cross-national survey. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy 32(2): 275–297. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/aepp/ppp009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Puckett, SM and Hensher, DA 2008 The role of attribute processing strategies in estimating the preferences of road freight stakeholders. Transportation Research Part E44: 379–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tonsor, GT, Olynk, N and Wolf, C 2009 Consumer preferences for animal welfare attributes: the case of gestation crates. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 41: 713–730CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Train, K 2003 Discrete Choice Methods With Simulation. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Veissier, I, Jensen, KK, Botreau, R and SandØe, P 2011 Highlighting ethical decisions underlying the scoring of animal welfare in the Welfare Quality Scheme. Animal Welfare 20: 89–101Google Scholar
Welfare Quality® 2011 Welfare Quality Network. www.welfarequalitynetwork.netGoogle Scholar