A financial cost-benefit analysis of eradicating virulent footrot

被引:4
|
作者
Asheim, Leif Jarle [1 ]
Hopp, Petter [2 ]
Groneng, Gry M. [2 ,4 ]
Nafstad, Ola [3 ]
Hegrenes, Agnar [1 ]
Vatn, Synnove [3 ]
机构
[1] Norwegian Inst Bioecon Res, POB 115, NO-1431 As, Norway
[2] Norwegian Vet Inst, POB 750 Sentrum, NO-0106 Oslo, Norway
[3] Norwegian Meat & Poultry Res Ctr, Animalia, POB 396 Okern, NO-0513 Oslo, Norway
[4] Norwegian Inst Publ Hlth, POB 4404, NO-0403 Oslo, Norway
关键词
Dichelobacter nodosus; Economy; Footrot; Net present value; Norway; Sheep; DICHELOBACTER-NODOSUS; OVINE FOOTROT; SHEEP; ELIMINATION; PREVALENCE; WELFARE; PAIN;
D O I
10.1016/j.prevetmed.2017.07.017
中图分类号
S85 [动物医学(兽医学)];
学科分类号
0906 ;
摘要
In 2008, virulent footrot was detected in sheep in south-west Norway. Footrot is caused by Dichelobacter nodosus, and the outbreak was linked to live sheep imported from Denmark in 2005. A large-scale program for eradicating the disease was implemented as a joint industry and governmental driven eradication project in the years 2008-2014, and continued with surveillance and control measures by the Norwegian Food Safety Authority from 2015. The cost of the eradication program including surveillance and control measures until 2032 was assumed to reach approximately (sic)10.8 million (NOR 90 million). A financial cost-benefit analysis, comparing costs in the eradication program with costs in two simulated scenarios, was carried out. In the scenarios, designated ModerateSpread (baseline) and SlowSpread, it was assumed that the sheep farmers would undertake some voluntary measures on their own that would slow the spread of the disease. The program obtained a positive NPV after approximately 12 years. In a stochastic analysis, the probabilities of a positive NPV were estimated to 1.000 and to 0.648 after 15 years and to 0.378 and 0.016 after ten years, for the ModerateSpread and SlowSpread scenarios respectively. A rapid start-up of the program soon after the detection of the disease was considered crucial for the economic success as the disease would have become more widespread and probably raised the costs considerably at a later start-up.
引用
收藏
页码:86 / 93
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Liraglutide: A Cost-Benefit Analysis
    Schoeffski, O.
    Mentrup, S.
    Lund, N.
    Pfuetzner, A.
    DIABETES STOFFWECHSEL UND HERZ, 2010, 19 (03): : 177 - 184
  • [22] Cognition and cost-benefit analysis
    Sunstein, CR
    JOURNAL OF LEGAL STUDIES, 2000, 29 (02): : 1059 - 1103
  • [23] Rethinking cost-benefit analysis
    Adler, MD
    Posner, EA
    YALE LAW JOURNAL, 1999, 109 (02): : 165 - +
  • [24] The discipline of cost-benefit analysis
    Sen, A
    JOURNAL OF LEGAL STUDIES, 2000, 29 (02): : 931 - 952
  • [25] Cost-benefit analysis of the RFA
    Dovich, Norman J.
    Soper, Steven A.
    SCIENCE, 2006, 314 (5806) : 1682 - 1682
  • [26] UNEMPLOYMENT AND COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS
    BAXTER, ND
    HOWREY, EP
    PENNER, RG
    PUBLIC FINANCE, 1969, 24 (01): : 80 - 88
  • [27] Cost-benefit analysis and the environment
    Sunstein, CR
    ETHICS, 2005, 115 (02) : 351 - 385
  • [28] THEORY OF COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS
    JONES, CR
    ECONOMIC JOURNAL, 1968, 6 (04): : 333 - 333
  • [29] Humanizing Cost-Benefit Analysis
    Sunstein, Cass R.
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF RISK REGULATION, 2011, 2 (01) : 3 - 7
  • [30] Cost-benefit analysis and population
    Broome, J
    JOURNAL OF LEGAL STUDIES, 2000, 29 (02): : 953 - 970