Is badger culling associated with risk compensation behaviour among cattle farmers?

Brunton, Lucy; Enticott, Gareth

Abstract

Background
Risk compensation theory suggests that behaviours are modified in response to interventions that remove risks by substituting them with other risky behaviours to maintain a ‘risk equilibrium’. Alternatively, risk reduction interventions may result in spill-over behaviours that seek to minimise risks further. This paper assessed evidence for these behavioural risk responses among farmers in response to badger culling that seeks to remove the risk of bovine tuberculosis in cattle.

Methods
Data from the UK's randomised badger culling trial were re-analysed, comparing farmers’ cattle movement practices in proactive and reactive culling areas and control areas. Analysis compared cattle movements during and after the trial using zero-inflated negative binomial regression.

Results
The analysis found no strong evidence of risk compensation behaviours among farmers who experienced proactive culling. However, strong evidence for a reduction in cattle movements in reactive culling areas was found. The results indicate high levels of inertia within farming systems in relation to cattle purchasing.

Limitations
Data do not account for the risk of cattle purchases and reflect previous policy regimens. Evidence from recent badger culling interventions should be analysed.

Conclusion
Proactive badger culling was not associated with risk compensation behaviours, while reactive badger culling was associated with decreased risk taking among farmers.

Citation

Brunton, L., & Enticott, G. (in press). Is badger culling associated with risk compensation behaviour among cattle farmers?. Veterinary Record, https://doi.org/10.1002/vetr.4152

• Journal Article Type: Article
• Acceptance Date: Apr 5, 2024
• Online Publication Date: May 29, 2024
• Deposit Date: Jun 18, 2024
• Publicly Available Date: Jun 18, 2024
• Journal: Veterinary Record
• Print ISSN: 0042-4900
• Publisher: BMJ Publishing Group
• Peer Reviewed: Peer Reviewed
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/vetr.4152