Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Valuing financial, health and environmental benefits of Bt cotton in Pakistan

Contents:

Author Info

  • Kouser, Shahzad
  • Qaim, Matin
Registered author(s):

    Abstract

    Data from a farm survey and choice experiment are used to value the benefits of Bt cotton in Pakistan. Unlike previous research on the economic impacts of Bt, which mostly concentrated on financial benefits in terms of gross margins, we also quantify and monetize positive externalities associated with technology adoption. Due to lower chemical pesticide use on Bt cotton plots, there are significant health advantages in terms of reduced incidence of acute pesticide poisoning, and environmental advantages in terms of higher biodiversity and lower soil and groundwater contamination. These positive externalities are valued at US$ 79 per acre, of which half is attributable to health and the other half to environmental improvements. Adding average gross margin gains of US$ 204 results in an aggregate benefit of US$ 284 per acre of Bt, or US$ 1.7 billion for the total Bt cotton area in Pakistan.

    Download Info

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
    File URL: http://purl.umn.edu/126544
    Download Restriction: no

    Bibliographic Info

    Paper provided by International Association of Agricultural Economists in its series 2012 Conference, August 18-24, 2012, Foz do Iguacu, Brazil with number 126544.

    as in new window
    Length:
    Date of creation: 2012
    Date of revision:
    Handle: RePEc:ags:iaae12:126544

    Contact details of provider:
    Email:
    Web page: http://www.iaae-agecon.org/
    More information through EDIRC

    Related research

    Keywords: Bt cotton; Pesticide use; Health and environmental benefits; Choice experiment; Pakistan; Environmental Economics and Policy; Health Economics and Policy; Production Economics; Research and Development/Tech Change/Emerging Technologies; D62; I15; Q51; Q57;

    Find related papers by JEL classification:

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    References

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
    as in new window
    1. Cuyno, Leah C. M. & Norton, George W. & Rola, Agnes, 2001. "Economic analysis of environmental benefits of integrated pest management: a Philippine case study," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 25(2-3), pages 227-233, September.
    2. Travisi, Chiara Maria & Nijkamp, Peter, 2008. "Valuing environmental and health risk in agriculture: A choice experiment approach to pesticides in Italy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(4), pages 598-607, November.
    3. Solomon Asfaw & Dagmar Mithöfer & Hermann Waibel, 2010. "Agrifood supply chain, private-sector standards, and farmers' health: evidence from Kenya," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 41(3-4), pages 251-263, 05.
    4. Matin Qaim & Arjunan Subramanian & Gopal Naik & David Zilberman, 2006. "Adoption of Bt Cotton and Impact Variability: Insights from India," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 28(1), pages 48-58.
    5. Vivien Foster & Susana Mourato, 2000. "Valuing the Multiple Impacts of Pesticide Use in the UK: A Contingent Ranking Approach," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(1), pages 1-21.
    6. Khan, M. Azeem & Iqbal, Muhammad & Ahmad, Iftikhar & Soomro, Manzoor, 2002. "Economic Evaluation of Pesticide Use Externalities in the Cotton Zones of Punjab, Pakistan," MPRA Paper 2688, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 2002.
    7. Zhifeng Gao & Lisa O. House & Xiaohua Yu, 2010. "Using choice experiments to estimate consumer valuation: the role of experimental design and attribute information loads," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 41(6), pages 555-565, November.
    8. John List & Paramita Sinha & Michael Taylor, 2006. "Using choice experiments to value non-market goods and services: Evidence from field experiments," Natural Field Experiments 00278, The Field Experiments Website.
    9. Krishna, Vijesh V. & Qaim, Matin, 2012. "Bt cotton and sustainability of pesticide reductions in India," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 47-55.
    10. Ashok Gulati & Kavery Ganguly, 2010. "The changing landscape of Indian agriculture," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 41(s1), pages 37-45, November.
    11. Vijesh V. Krishna & Matin Qaim, 2008. "Potential impacts of Bt eggplant on economic surplus and farmers' health in India," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 38(2), pages 167-180, 03.
    12. Hausman, Jerry & McFadden, Daniel, 1984. "Specification Tests for the Multinomial Logit Model," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(5), pages 1219-40, September.
    13. Raymond J. G. M. Florax & Chiara M. Travisi & Peter Nijkamp, 2005. "A meta-analysis of the willingness to pay for reductions in pesticide risk exposure," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 32(4), pages 441-467, December.
    14. Jikun Huang & Ruifa Hu & Carl Pray & Fangbin Qiao & Scott Rozelle, 2003. "Biotechnology as an alternative to chemical pesticides: a case study of Bt cotton in China," CEMA Working Papers 509, China Economics and Management Academy, Central University of Finance and Economics.
    15. Enoch M. Kikulwe & Ekin Birol & Justus Wesseler & José Falck‐Zepeda, 2011. "A latent class approach to investigating demand for genetically modified banana in Uganda," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 42(5), pages 547-560, 09.
    16. Matin Qaim, 2009. "The Economics of Genetically Modified Crops," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 1(1), pages 665-694, 09.
    17. Qaim, Matin & De Janvry, Alain, 2005. "Bt cotton and pesticide use in Argentina: economic and environmental effects," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 10(02), pages 179-200, May.
    18. Kouser, Shahzad & Qaim, Matin, 2011. "Impact of Bt cotton on pesticide poisoning in smallholder agriculture: A panel data analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(11), pages 2105-2113, September.
    19. Nazli, Hina & Sarker, Rakhal & Meilke, Karl D. & Orden, David, 2010. "Economic Performance of Bt Cotton Varieties in Pakistan," 2010 Annual Meeting, July 25-27, 2010, Denver, Colorado 61181, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    20. Huang, Jikun & Hu, Ruifa & Pray, Carl & Qiao, Fangbin & Rozelle, Scott, 2003. "Biotechnology as an alternative to chemical pesticides: a case study of Bt cotton in China," Agricultural Economics: The Journal of the International Association of Agricultural Economists, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 29(1), July.
    21. Maria Travisi, Chiara & Nijkamp, Peter & Vindigni, Gabriella, 2006. "Pesticide risk valuation in empirical economics: a comparative approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(4), pages 455-474, April.
    22. Cuyno, Leah C.M. & Norton, George W. & Rola, Agnes, 2001. "Economic analysis of environmental benefits of integrated pest management: a Philippine case study," Agricultural Economics: The Journal of the International Association of Agricultural Economists, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 25(2-3), September.
    23. Brethour, Cher & Weersink, Alfons, 2001. "An economic evaluation of the environmental benefits from pesticide reduction," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 25(2-3), pages 219-226, September.
    24. Nick Hanley & Robert Wright & Vic Adamowicz, 1998. "Using Choice Experiments to Value the Environment," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 11(3), pages 413-428, April.
    25. Pingali, Prabhu L., 2001. "Environmental consequences of agricultural commercialization in Asia," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 6(04), pages 483-502, October.
    26. Akhter Ali & Awudu Abdulai, 2010. "The Adoption of Genetically Modified Cotton and Poverty Reduction in Pakistan," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(1), pages 175-192.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Lists

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:iaae12:126544. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (AgEcon Search).

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.