Thanks for estimating your cost-effectiveness! Have you considered sharing the calculations?
In contrast to other methodologies, THL does not find evidence supporting other evaluators’ assumptions that advocacy merely accelerates cage-free transitions that would occur eventually. We view advocacy as the decisive factor that makes such transitions happen.
I like you estimated the cost-effectiveness in chicken-years improved per year per $ given the uncertainty in the acceleration of the end of caged chickens. However, I think there is still an acceleration to be considered. The acceleration refers to the reduction in the number of years of chickens in cages. So it can be caused not only by transitions from cages to barns, but also by the end of chicken farming. You could set the acceleration to the years left until this if you believe hens will never transition from cages to barns, but that technological progress will eventually result in the end of chickens in cages, even if not this centuty.
Yes, we went back and forth quite a bit on sharing data to back up our calculation, as we understand that doing so is the norm. We ultimately decided not to because we felt there was a significant chance of the data being misinterpreted. What would make sense to share is our table of hens impacted and funds spent on an annual basis, which reflects how we track both impact and costs. However, most people we asked to review the data intuitively tried to draw inaccurate conclusions about individual years, when a key piece of our methodology is that costs and impact don’t typically occur in the same year, among other misinterpretations.
And thanks for the point about acceleration. The way our model is presented allows someone who has this view to then multiply our number by the number of years of suffering they estimate to be averted, whether that’s due to a switch to barns for another reason, the end of intensive confinement due to technological advances, or whatever else may accelerate this transition. We don’t take a view on this, but if you do, you can add that layer onto our model.
Thanks for clarifying, Caroline! I wonder whether sharing the calculations with disclaimers to avoid misinterpretations would help enough for it to be worth sharing.
Thanks Vasco! At this point, we’ve decided not to do so, for the reasons I mention above and because we don’t see someone outside the organization being able to use the data in an effective way. Our perspective was that it was most important to share the calculation and the methodology. If our position on this changes in the future, we will definitely let you know!
Thanks for estimating your cost-effectiveness! Have you considered sharing the calculations?
I like you estimated the cost-effectiveness in chicken-years improved per year per $ given the uncertainty in the acceleration of the end of caged chickens. However, I think there is still an acceleration to be considered. The acceleration refers to the reduction in the number of years of chickens in cages. So it can be caused not only by transitions from cages to barns, but also by the end of chicken farming. You could set the acceleration to the years left until this if you believe hens will never transition from cages to barns, but that technological progress will eventually result in the end of chickens in cages, even if not this centuty.
Hi Vasco, thanks for these questions!
Yes, we went back and forth quite a bit on sharing data to back up our calculation, as we understand that doing so is the norm. We ultimately decided not to because we felt there was a significant chance of the data being misinterpreted. What would make sense to share is our table of hens impacted and funds spent on an annual basis, which reflects how we track both impact and costs. However, most people we asked to review the data intuitively tried to draw inaccurate conclusions about individual years, when a key piece of our methodology is that costs and impact don’t typically occur in the same year, among other misinterpretations.
And thanks for the point about acceleration. The way our model is presented allows someone who has this view to then multiply our number by the number of years of suffering they estimate to be averted, whether that’s due to a switch to barns for another reason, the end of intensive confinement due to technological advances, or whatever else may accelerate this transition. We don’t take a view on this, but if you do, you can add that layer onto our model.
Thanks for clarifying, Caroline! I wonder whether sharing the calculations with disclaimers to avoid misinterpretations would help enough for it to be worth sharing.
Thanks Vasco! At this point, we’ve decided not to do so, for the reasons I mention above and because we don’t see someone outside the organization being able to use the data in an effective way. Our perspective was that it was most important to share the calculation and the methodology. If our position on this changes in the future, we will definitely let you know!