Post on 11-Apr-2017
Neoliberalising Nature: A Longitudinal Neoliberalising Nature: A Longitudinal Study of Badger VaccinationStudy of Badger Vaccination
Damian Maye, Gareth Enticott and Rhiannon NaylorDamian Maye, Gareth Enticott and Rhiannon Naylor
WG24: Animalising rural societies: human-animal entanglements in a neoliberal world. Changing socio-technical relations.
The XXVI European Society for Rural Sociology CongressPlaces of Possibility? Rural Societies in a Neo-Liberal World
18-21 August 2015, Aberdeen Scotland
Badger vaccination policy context
• Bovine TB is a complex animal disease, affecting farmed cattle and badgers in the UK.
• Significant cost burden.• Badger vaccination: 2008 strategy (Labour);
revised and scaled back in 2010 (Coalition).• Cost and responsibility sharing (‘institutional
blending’ (Hodge and Adams, 2010); messy neoliberalism (Maye et al, 2014)).
Badger vaccination studies
• General assessments of farmer confidence are important; use of the technology will be dependent on farmers’ trust in it.
• To date, farmer views are not well-known.• Two exceptions:– Bennett and Cooke, 2005;– Warren et al., 2013.
• More detailed analysis therefore timely; in particular longitudinal analysis.
Human vaccine studies and trust in risk regulation
• Acceptability of controversial human vaccines, esp. MMR (Raithatha et al., 2003) - importance of trust and local knowledge practices.
• Farmed animal vaccines – mostly uptake of new vaccines (e.g. FMD vaccine – Bolivia study).
• Trust and confidence key items to account for.• Trust in social institutions (Poortinga and
Pidgeon, 2003, 2005).
Confidence and trust framework
• Badger vaccination: effectiveness, practicality, risk and benefits, general affective beliefs.
• Trust in Government/TB policy: general competence, care, fairness, openness, credibility, reliability, integrity.
• Context: farm’s TB status/history, farm management practices, on-farm biosecurity, understandings of local ecology/nature.
Research methodologyResearch methodology2010 2011 2012 2013 2014Telephone survey
Face-to-face interviews
Repeat face-to-face interviews
Repeat face-to-face interviews
Repeat telephone survey
338 farmers in5 areas; score 31confidence statements
65 farmers/19 vets in 3 areas; biographical narratives & re-score key statements
56 farmers (of 65)/15 vets in 3 areas; video clips & re-score key statements
50 farmers (of 56)/15 vets in 3 areas; influence mapping & re-score key statements
220 farmers (from original 338 sample) in 5 areas; re-score confidence statements
6
Case
Stu
dy A
reas
Case
Stu
dy A
reas
Index of badger vaccine acceptabilityIndex of badger vaccine acceptabilityArea North East of
CheltenhamNorth West of Stroud
East of Tetbury
South East of Congleton
Great Torrington
All areas
Mean Score 2010
16.44 16.83 15.48 16.36 14.43 15.92
Mean score 2014
14.22 15.25 15.83 15.26 13.23 14.73
Change from 2010 to 2014
-2.22 -1.58 +0.35 -1.1 -1.2 -1.2
Significance 0.009* 0.022* 0.664 0.042* 0.065 0.000*
Level of farmer trust in governmentLevel of farmer trust in government
• Reduction in farmers’ perceptions of government competence.
• However, perceptions of government credibility increased.
• Levels of perceived government integrity, reliability and openness remained consistent.
Farmers’ trust and confidence, 2010
Classification of respondents in 2010 and 2014:
2010 2014
N % N %
Distrust 48 24 58 29
Critical trust 49 24.5 50 25Critical Acceptance 34 17 30 15
Acceptance 69 34.5 62 31
Total 200 100 200 100
Beliefs about natureBeliefs about nature• “Beliefs relating to the overabundance of
wildlife can be powerful drivers of support for management” (Dandy et al., 2012).
• Natural balance – population control.• ‘Clean’ and ‘dirty’ – targeted control. • ‘Practice similarity’.
ConclusionConclusion
• Surveys completed during period of significant change in the wider policy environment.
• Badger vaccine confidence levels have fallen but respondent views have not changed markedly over time.
• Beliefs about nature are guiding farmer views independently of political trust.
• Farmers reluctant to reject any option outright.• Implications for cost and responsibility sharing.