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

IF 3.5 2区 社会学 Q1 AGRICULTURE, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
B. Clark, A. Proctor, A. Boaitey, N. Mahon, N. Hanley, L. Holloway
{"title":"Animal health and welfare as a public good: what do the public think?","authors":"B. Clark,&nbsp;A. Proctor,&nbsp;A. Boaitey,&nbsp;N. Mahon,&nbsp;N. Hanley,&nbsp;L. Holloway","doi":"10.1007/s10460-024-10585-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>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.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":7683,"journal":{"name":"Agriculture and Human Values","volume":"41 4","pages":"1841 - 1856"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10460-024-10585-0.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Agriculture and Human Values","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10460-024-10585-0","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AGRICULTURE, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

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.

动物健康和福利作为一种公共产品:公众怎么看?
本文对一个不断发展的政策领域提出了一个新颖的观点。英国退出欧盟导致了一项新的农业法案的诞生,并提出了对英格兰农业补贴结构进行重大改革的建议。以“公共资金用于公共产品”的方法为基础,其中公共产品是农业系统的产出,这些产出没有得到市场的回报,但却为社会许多成员提供了好处。新的计划包括动物健康和福利途径,其中农场动物健康和福利(FAHW)的某些方面将通过政府支持得到补贴,这在文献中引发了一个备受争议的问题,即FAHW是否代表一种公共产品。为了使政策能够响应社会需求并对公民负责,了解公众对faw作为一种公共产品的态度和偏好,以及公众如何将其与更广泛的农业环境公共产品联系起来,这一点很重要。对521名英国公众进行了一项在线调查,并使用描述性统计和有序逻辑回归进行了分析。调查结果显示,人们对不断变化的农业政策背景认识不足,但强烈支持将公共资金用于提供公共产品,特别是对农业卫生工作者。调查结果还表明,农业利益相关者需要更有效地就农业和人权问题与公众进行沟通,以确保这一领域的公共政策对公民作出回应和负责。需要进一步开展工作,为今后围绕人权状况的辩论和参与提供信息,包括通过何种筹资机制(公共或私人)提供人权状况。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Agriculture and Human Values
Agriculture and Human Values 农林科学-科学史与科学哲学
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
13.30%
发文量
97
审稿时长
>36 weeks
期刊介绍: Agriculture and Human Values is the journal of the Agriculture, Food, and Human Values Society. The Journal, like the Society, is dedicated to an open and free discussion of the values that shape and the structures that underlie current and alternative visions of food and agricultural systems. To this end the Journal publishes interdisciplinary research that critically examines the values, relationships, conflicts and contradictions within contemporary agricultural and food systems and that addresses the impact of agricultural and food related institutions, policies, and practices on human populations, the environment, democratic governance, and social equity.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信