IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/agrhuv/v41y2024i4d10.1007_s10460-024-10585-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • 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)

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.

Suggested Citation

  • B. Clark & A. Proctor & A. Boaitey & N. Mahon & N. Hanley & L. Holloway, 2024. "Animal health and welfare as a public good: what do the public think?," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 41(4), pages 1841-1856, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:agrhuv:v:41:y:2024:i:4:d:10.1007_s10460-024-10585-0
    DOI: 10.1007/s10460-024-10585-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10460-024-10585-0
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10460-024-10585-0?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    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:spr:agrhuv:v:41:y:2024:i:4:d:10.1007_s10460-024-10585-0. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.