将动物福利影响货币化,进行效益-成本分析

IF 2 4区 经济学 Q2 ECONOMICS Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis Pub Date : 2024-04-25 DOI:10.1017/bca.2024.19
Mark B. Budolfson, Romain Espinosa, Bob Fischer, Nicolas Treich
{"title":"将动物福利影响货币化,进行效益-成本分析","authors":"Mark B. Budolfson, Romain Espinosa, Bob Fischer, Nicolas Treich","doi":"10.1017/bca.2024.19","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Animal welfare is often ignored in decision-making, despite widespread agreement about its importance. This is partly because of a lack of quantitative methods to assess the impacts of policies on humans and nonhumans alike on a common scale. At the same time, recent work in economics, philosophy, and animal welfare science has made progress on the fundamental theoretical challenge of estimating the well-being potential of different species on a single scale. By combining these estimates of each species’ well-being potential with assessments of how various policies impact the quality of life for these species, along with the number of animals affected, we can arrive at a framework for estimating the impact of policies on animal health and well-being. This framework allows for a quantifiable comparison between policies affecting humans and animals. For instance, it enables us to compare human QALYs to animal QALYs tailored to specific species. Hence, the intrinsic value of animal welfare impacts of policies can be monetized on the same scale as market and non-market impact for humans, facilitating benefit–cost analysis. Many challenges remain though, including issues of population ethics, political feasibility, and new complexities in addressing equity and uncertainty.","PeriodicalId":45587,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Monetizing Animal Welfare Impacts for Benefit–Cost Analysis\",\"authors\":\"Mark B. Budolfson, Romain Espinosa, Bob Fischer, Nicolas Treich\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/bca.2024.19\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n Animal welfare is often ignored in decision-making, despite widespread agreement about its importance. This is partly because of a lack of quantitative methods to assess the impacts of policies on humans and nonhumans alike on a common scale. At the same time, recent work in economics, philosophy, and animal welfare science has made progress on the fundamental theoretical challenge of estimating the well-being potential of different species on a single scale. By combining these estimates of each species’ well-being potential with assessments of how various policies impact the quality of life for these species, along with the number of animals affected, we can arrive at a framework for estimating the impact of policies on animal health and well-being. This framework allows for a quantifiable comparison between policies affecting humans and animals. For instance, it enables us to compare human QALYs to animal QALYs tailored to specific species. Hence, the intrinsic value of animal welfare impacts of policies can be monetized on the same scale as market and non-market impact for humans, facilitating benefit–cost analysis. Many challenges remain though, including issues of population ethics, political feasibility, and new complexities in addressing equity and uncertainty.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45587,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/bca.2024.19\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/bca.2024.19","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

尽管人们普遍认为动物福利十分重要,但在决策过程中却经常忽视动物福利。部分原因在于缺乏定量方法,无法在共同尺度上评估政策对人类和非人类的影响。与此同时,经济学、哲学和动物福利科学领域的最新研究成果在应对基本理论挑战方面取得了进展,即在单一尺度上估算不同物种的福利潜力。通过将这些对每个物种福祉潜力的估算与各种政策如何影响这些物种生活质量的评估以及受影响动物的数量相结合,我们可以得出一个估算政策对动物健康和福祉影响的框架。这个框架可以对影响人类和动物的政策进行量化比较。例如,它使我们能够将人类的 QALY 与针对特定物种的动物 QALY 进行比较。因此,政策对动物福利影响的内在价值可以在与对人类的市场和非市场影响相同的范围内货币化,从而促进效益成本分析。但仍存在许多挑战,包括人口伦理问题、政治可行性以及解决公平性和不确定性问题的新的复杂性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Monetizing Animal Welfare Impacts for Benefit–Cost Analysis
Animal welfare is often ignored in decision-making, despite widespread agreement about its importance. This is partly because of a lack of quantitative methods to assess the impacts of policies on humans and nonhumans alike on a common scale. At the same time, recent work in economics, philosophy, and animal welfare science has made progress on the fundamental theoretical challenge of estimating the well-being potential of different species on a single scale. By combining these estimates of each species’ well-being potential with assessments of how various policies impact the quality of life for these species, along with the number of animals affected, we can arrive at a framework for estimating the impact of policies on animal health and well-being. This framework allows for a quantifiable comparison between policies affecting humans and animals. For instance, it enables us to compare human QALYs to animal QALYs tailored to specific species. Hence, the intrinsic value of animal welfare impacts of policies can be monetized on the same scale as market and non-market impact for humans, facilitating benefit–cost analysis. Many challenges remain though, including issues of population ethics, political feasibility, and new complexities in addressing equity and uncertainty.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
2.90%
发文量
22
期刊最新文献
Renewable Energy Support Through Feed-in Tariffs: A Retrospective Stakeholder Analysis Do Opportunity Costs of Regulations Appropriately Benefit or Inappropriately Burden Disadvantaged Consumers? Monetizing Animal Welfare Impacts for Benefit–Cost Analysis Estimating Lost Dividends from Incomplete Energy Access Transitions Differences by Race and Ethnicity in Title IX’s Effect on Women’s Health
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1