Cookies on this website

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Accept all cookies' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. If you click 'Reject all non-essential cookies' only necessary cookies providing core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility will be enabled. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

This paper analyses farmers' behavioural responses to Government attempts to reduce the risk of disease transmission from badgers to cattle through badger vaccination. Evidence for two opposing behavioural adaptions is examined in response to the vaccination of badgers to reduce the risk of transmission to farmed cattle. Risk compensation theory suggests that interventions that reduce risk, such as vaccination, are counterbalanced by negative behavioural adaptions. By contrast, the spillover effect suggests that interventions can prompt further positive behaviours. The paper uses data from a longitudinal mixed methods study of farmers' attitudes to badger vaccination to prevent the spread of bovine tuberculosis, their reports of biosecurity practices, and cattle movement data in 5 areas of England, one of which experienced badger vaccination. Analysis finds limited evidence of spillover behaviours following vaccination. Lack of spillover is attributed to farmers' beliefs in the effectiveness of biosecurity and the lack of similarity between badger vaccination and vaccination for other animal diseases. Risk compensation behaviours are associated with farmers' beliefs as to who should manage animal disease. Rather than farmers' belief in vaccine effectiveness, it is more likely that farmers' low sense of being able to do anything to prevent disease influences their apparent risk compensation behaviours. These findings address the gap in the literature relating to farmers' behavioural adaptions to vaccine use in the management of animal disease.

More information Original publication

DOI

10.1016/j.vaccine.2019.11.037

Type

Journal article

Publication Date

2020-01-01T00:00:00+00:00

Volume

38

Pages

1065 - 1075

Total pages

10

Addresses

S, c, h, o, o, l, , o, f, , G, e, o, g, r, a, p, h, y, , a, n, d, , P, l, a, n, n, i, n, g, ,, , C, a, r, d, i, f, f, , U, n, i, v, e, r, s, i, t, y, ,, , C, a, r, d, i, f, f, , C, F, 1, 0, , 3, W, A, ,, , U, n, i, t, e, d, , K, i, n, g, d, o, m, ., , E, l, e, c, t, r, o, n, i, c, , a, d, d, r, e, s, s, :, , e, n, t, i, c, o, t, t, g, @, c, a, r, d, i, f, f, ., a, c, ., u, k, .

Keywords

Animals, Cattle, Tuberculosis, Bovine, Bacterial Vaccines, Vaccination, Risk Assessment, Longitudinal Studies, Attitude, Disease Management, England, Surveys and Questionnaires, Farmers