IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jageco/v69y2018i1p243-261.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Incentive Perception in Livestock Disease Control

Author

Listed:
  • William Gilbert
  • Jonathan Rushton

Abstract

The economic incentives facing people making decisions about infectious disease control have been given due theoretical consideration in the literature, based on principles of economic rationality. Such deductive models provide important tools for generating hypotheses. However, the application of such models in a predictive capacity has been criticised. Simultaneously, empirical studies aimed at quantitative exploration of farmer behaviour have relied heavily on social cognitive models, such as the theory of planned behaviour, without exploration of the epidemiological consequences of variability in behaviour within populations. Advances in other social sciences have revealed systematic biases in human reasoning which cast doubt on the validity of the rational economic model as a generalisation of human decision making. We review the characteristics of infectious disease and disease†control interventions and the potential for bias in implementation decision making at primary producer level. Specific focus is given to the generation of externalities, both positive and negative; the perception of risk, relating to disease incidence, technology adoption and time preference; and finally uncertainty, and its potential to be moderated by trust in information sources. This information is then used to summarise supplemental psychological constructs which taken holistically may strengthen our ability to quantitatively explore human behaviour in this complex decision†making environment.

Suggested Citation

  • William Gilbert & Jonathan Rushton, 2018. "Incentive Perception in Livestock Disease Control," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 69(1), pages 243-261, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:jageco:v:69:y:2018:i:1:p:243-261
    DOI: 10.1111/1477-9552.12168
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-9552.12168
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1477-9552.12168?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lin Meng & Wentao Si, 2022. "Pro-Environmental Behavior: Examining the Role of Ecological Value Cognition, Environmental Attitude, and Place Attachment among Rural Farmers in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(24), pages 1-24, December.
    2. Amirreza Asrari & Maryam Omidi Najafabadi & Jamal Farajollah Hosseini, 2022. "Modeling resilience behavior against climate change with food security approach," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 12(3), pages 547-565, September.
    3. Hennessy, David A. & Rault, Arnaud, 2023. "On systematically insufficient biosecurity actions and policies to manage infectious animal disease," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 206(C).
    4. de Lauwere, Carolien & Slegers, Monique & Meeusen, Marieke, 2022. "The influence of behavioural factors and external conditions on Dutch farmers’ decision making in the transition towards circular agriculture," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    5. Black, Andrew M. & Bradley, Sue & Clark, Beth & Colman, Ewan & Gosling, Nicole & Hanley, Nicholas & Holloway, Lewis & Kao, Rowland & Mahon, Niamh & Proctor, Amy, 2024. "Why do endemic livestock diseases persist? An interdisciplinary perspective," SocArXiv tnhyq, Center for Open Science.
    6. Jaap Sok & Joao Rossi Borges & Peter Schmidt & Icek Ajzen, 2021. "Farmer Behaviour as Reasoned Action: A Critical Review of Research with the Theory of Planned Behaviour," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 72(2), pages 388-412, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:jageco:v:69:y:2018:i:1:p:243-261. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0021-857X .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.