A Holistic vs. an Attribute-based Approach to Agri-Environmental Policy Valuation: Do Welfare Estimates Differ?

Different economic valuation methodologies can be used to value the non-market benefits of an agri-environmental scheme. In particular, the non-market value can be examined by assessing the public's willingness to pay for the policy outputs as a whole or by modelling the preferences of society for the component attributes of the rural landscape that result from the implementation of the policy. In this article we examine whether the welfare values estimated for an agri-environmental policy are significantly different between an holistic valuation methodology (using contingent valuation) and an attribute-based valuation methodology (choice experiment). It is argued that the valuation methodology chosen should be based on whether or not the overall objective is the valuation of the agri-environment policy package in its entirety or the valuation of each of the policy's distinct environmental outputs.

The effect of increasing dietary fibre and the provision of straw racks on the welfare of sows housed in small static groups

This study assessed the effects of increasing dietary fibre levels in concentrate rations and providing access to straw in racks on the welfare of pregnant sows housed in small static groups. In a 2 x 2 factorial design experiment, 128 Large White x Landrace pregnant sows were offered one of two diets: (i) High fibre diet with 9% crude fibre, or (ii) Control diet with 4.5% CF, and one of two levels of access to a foraging substrate: (i) access to straw in racks or (ii) no straw. The study was replicated eight times using groups of four sows, and treatment periods lasted four weeks. Sows were housed in pens with voluntary cubicles and a slatted exercise area and were offered a wet diet twice a day. Back-fat levels were measured before sows were mixed into groups at 28 days post partum, and four weeks later. Aggressive interactions were recorded on the day of mixing, and injury scores were recorded one week post mixing. Scan sampling was used to collect data on general activity, posture and location of the sows, and on sham-chewing and bar-biting behaviours across the treatment period. In addition, detailed focal observations were carried out on all sows across the treatment period. Straw usage was also recorded. There were no treatment effects on changes in back-fat levels over the treatment period. Treatments had no effect on post-mixing aggression or on injury scores. However, focal observations showed that sows with access to straw were involved in fewer bouts of head-thrusting over the treatment period. Control diet sows spent more time inactive than sows on the high fibre diet, however high fibre diet sows spent more time lying with eyes closed than sows on the control diet. Sows on the high fibre diet with access to straw showed less sham-chewing and bar-biting behaviour than sows in other treatments. These results show that although a diet containing 9% crude fibre promoted resting behaviour, it was necessary to combine it with access to straw to reduce stereotypic behaviour of sows in small static groups.

Some further implications of incorporating the warm glow of giving into welfare measures: A comment on the use of donation mechanisms by Champ et al

Champ er al. [J. Environ. Management 33, 151-162 (1997)] claim that they have (a) explored the welfare implication of warm glow for Hicksian measures of value for public goods and (b) established that actual donations place a

Telling stories of 21st Century welfare: the UK Coalition Government and the neo-liberal discourse of worklessness and dependency’ Critical Social Policy

Policy documents are a useful source for understanding the privileging of particular ideological and policy preferences (Scrase and Ockwell, 2010) and how the language and imagery may help to construct society’s assumptions, values and beliefs. This article examines how the UK Coalition government’s 2010 Green Paper, 21st Century Welfare, and the White Paper, Universal Credit: Welfare that Works, assist in constructing a discourse about social security that favours a renewal and deepening of neo-liberalization in the context of threats to its hegemony. The documents marginalize the structural aspects of persistent unemployment and poverty by transforming these into individual pathologies of benefit dependency and worklessness. The consequence is that familiar neo-liberal policy measures favouring the intensification of punitive conditionality and economic rationality can be portrayed as new and innovative solutions to address Britain’s supposedly broken society and restore economic competitiveness.