IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/ifma02/6952.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A Multicriteria Evaluation by the Public Approval of Pesticides – A Case with the Plant-Growth Regulators in Grain

Author

Listed:
  • Refsgaard, Karen
  • Flaten, Ola
  • Gudem, Runchild
  • Lien, Gudbrand D.

Abstract

Our object is to develop a method for the public approval and re-evaluation of pesticides that emphasises a wide evaluation of social benefits. This is done through the case for the three plant-growth regulators approved for use in Norwegian grain production at present: chlormequat chloride, ethephon and trinexapacethyl. A multicriteria method is founded on the premises for an expert based model as opposed to e.g. a market based model. It seems to be a possible method that allows for the use of several incommensurable criteria in the approval process by National Agricultural Inspection Service (NAIS). Furthermore, it results in greater transparency, which may be an important quality in a public decision process. However, there are problems connected to a social benefit evaluation like this, some of these are: • There may be other criteria that also should be included • Effects outside the agricultural sector are not considered The environmental effect and the health effect are estimated by NAIS, while a model for estimation of the economic margin is developed in this project. The economic margin for a specific strategy is calculated for a specific species in a specific region and a specific lodging category. Afterwards the economic margin for each lodging category is multiplied with the probability of having that lodging category and finally the lodging categories are summarised. This leaves then together with the other evaluated criteria a multicriteria basis on a ha-basis. The modelled economic benefits and usage of growth regulators are the aggregated due to the registrered acreage of the different crops to a regional and national level corrected to absolute numbers by the total registered use of every growth regulator. A general problem is that such an approval has to be based on future behaviour and effects where the trial data is relatively scarce when it comes to the agronomic effect. The environmental and health effects are even less well documented and only the direct effects on health and the environment are considered by NAIS.

Suggested Citation

  • Refsgaard, Karen & Flaten, Ola & Gudem, Runchild & Lien, Gudbrand D., 2002. "A Multicriteria Evaluation by the Public Approval of Pesticides – A Case with the Plant-Growth Regulators in Grain," 13th Congress, Wageningen, The Netherlands, July 7-12, 2002 6952, International Farm Management Association.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:ifma02:6952
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.6952
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/6952/files/cp02re01.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.6952?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nick Hanley & Clive L. Spash, 1993. "Cost–Benefit Analysis and the Environment," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 205.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jose M. Martínez-Paz & Angel Perni & Federico Martínez-Carrasco, 2013. "Assessment of the Programme of Measures for Coastal Lagoon Environmental Restoration Using Cost--Benefit Analysis," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(2), pages 131-148, February.
    2. Karine Nyborg & Inger Spangen, 2000. "Cost-Benefit Analysis and the Democratic Ideal," Nordic Journal of Political Economy, Nordic Journal of Political Economy, vol. 26, pages 83-93.
    3. Mogaka, Violet Moraa & Mbatia, O.L.E. & Nzuma, Jonathan M., 2012. "Feasibility of Biofuel Production in Kenya: The Case of Jatropha," 2012 Conference, August 18-24, 2012, Foz do Iguacu, Brazil 126427, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    4. Gurluk, Serkan, 2006. "The estimation of ecosystem services' value in the region of Misi Rural Development Project: Results from a contingent valuation survey," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(3), pages 209-218, December.
    5. Martin C. Whitby & W. Neil Adger, 1997. "Natural And Reproducible Capital And The Sustainability Of Land Use In The Uk: A Reply," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(1‐3), pages 454-458, January.
    6. E.C.M. Ruijgrok & E.E.M. Nillesen, 2004. "The Socio-Economic Value of Natural Riverbanks in the Netherlands," Working Papers 2004.64, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    7. Spash, Clive L. & Ryan, Anthony M., 2010. "Ecological, Heterodox and Neoclassical Economics: Investigating the Differences," MPRA Paper 26292, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Bashar Raisa & Nandy Ananya, 2019. "A more efficient valuation of beaches using tourists’ perspectives and Geographic Information System (GIS): The case of Patenga of Chittagong, Bangladesh," Environmental & Socio-economic Studies, Sciendo, vol. 7(3), pages 54-65, September.
    9. Schilizzi, Steven, 2000. "The economics of ethical behaviour and environmental management," 2000 Conference (44th), January 23-25, 2000, Sydney, Australia 123729, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    10. Mazur, Kasia & Bennett, Jeffrey W., 2008. "Using focus groups to design a choice modelling questionnaire for estimating natural resource management benefits in NSW," Research Reports 94801, Australian National University, Environmental Economics Research Hub.
    11. Halkos, George E. & Jones, Nikoleta, 2012. "Modeling the effect of social factors on improving biodiversity protection," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 90-99.
    12. Aline Chiabai & Ibon Galarraga & Anil Markandya & Unai Pascual, 2013. "The Equivalency Principle for Discounting the Value of Natural Assets: An Application to an Investment Project in the Basque Coast," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 56(4), pages 535-550, December.
    13. Rosalie Arendt & Till M. Bachmann & Masaharu Motoshita & Vanessa Bach & Matthias Finkbeiner, 2020. "Comparison of Different Monetization Methods in LCA: A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-39, December.
    14. Maria Nijnik & Arie Oskam & A. Nijnik, 2005. "Contribution Of Afforestation To Sustainable Land Management In Ukraine," ERSA conference papers ersa05p746, European Regional Science Association.
    15. van der Straaten, J., 1995. "Tourism in national parks," WORC Paper 95.12.030/2, Tilburg University, Work and Organization Research Centre.
    16. Olena Hankivsk & Jane Friesen & Colleen Varcoe & Fiona MacPhail & Lorraine Greaves & Charmaine Spencer, 2004. "Expanding Economic Costing in Health Care: Values, Gender and Diversity," Canadian Public Policy, University of Toronto Press, vol. 30(3), pages 257-282, September.
    17. Prabha Prayaga & John Rolfe & Jack Sinden, 2006. "A Travel Cost Analysis of the Value of Special Events: Gemfest in Central Queensland," Tourism Economics, , vol. 12(3), pages 403-420, September.
    18. Peter Nijkamp & Chiara Maria Travisi & Gabriella Vindigni, 2002. "Pesticide Risk Valuation in Empirical Economics," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 02-112/3, Tinbergen Institute.
    19. Onil Banerjee & Martin Cicowiez & Adela Moreda, 2017. "Reconciliation Once and For All: Economic Impact Evaluation and Social Cost Benefit Analysis," CEDLAS, Working Papers 0207, CEDLAS, Universidad Nacional de La Plata.
    20. Erdlenbruch, Katrin & Thoyer, Sophie & Grelot, Frédéric & Kast, Robert & Enjolras, Geoffroy, 2009. "Risk-sharing policies in the context of the French Flood Prevention Action Programmes," MPRA Paper 20187, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Farm Management;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:ifma02:6952. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ifmaaea.html .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.