Abstract
This paper examines the viability of an alternative (to willingness-to-pay) method of eliciting values for farm animal welfare improvements. The matching method, common in the health and safety literature, appears to perform well, generating results that, as might be expected, are driven both by scheme-specific variables and individual respondent characteristics. However, the results do not converge well with equivalent willingness-to-pay based values from the same population. One interpretation of this result is that benefit–cost ratios from stated preference studies are arbitrary phenomena with obvious implications for any policymaking based on such findings.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
