Why farmers continue to use pesticides despite environmental health and sustainability costs
AbstractUse of chemical inputs such as pesticides have increased agricultural production and productivity. However, negative externalities, too, have increased. The externalities include damage to the environment, agricultural land, fisheries, fauna and flora. Another major externality has been the unintentional destruction of beneficial predators of insects which has led to a virulence of many species of agricultural pests. Mortality and morbidity among agricultural workers, especially in developing countries from exposure to pesticides, are also common. The costs from these externalities are large and affect farmers’ returns. However, despite these high costs, farmers continue to use pesticides and in increasing quantities. In this paper, we examine this paradox and show why farmers continue to use pesticides despite the increasing costs. We also emphasize ‘lock-in’ aspects of pesticide use.
Download InfoIf 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.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by University of Queensland, School of Economics in its series Economics, Ecology and Environment Working Papers with number 48363.
Date of creation: Nov 2000
Date of revision:
Pesticides; Agriculture; Environment; Human health; Sustainability; Hysteresis; Environmental Economics and Policy; Food Consumption/Nutrition/Food Safety;
Other versions of this item:
- Wilson, Clevo & Tisdell, Clem, 2001. "Why farmers continue to use pesticides despite environmental, health and sustainability costs," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 449-462, December.
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.:
- Tsu-Tan Fu & Jin-Tan Liu & James K. Hammitt, 1999. "Consumer Willingness to Pay for Low-Pesticide Fresh Produce in Taiwan," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(2), pages 220-233.
- Widawsky, David & Rozelle, Scott & Jin, Songqing & Huang, Jikun, 1998. "Pesticide productivity, host-plant resistance and productivity in China," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 19(1-2), pages 203-217, September.
- Lohr, Luanne & Park, Timothy & Higley, Leon, 1999. "Farmer risk assessment for voluntary insecticide reduction," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 121-130, July.
- Tisdell, Clement A., 2005. "Sustainable Agriculture," Economics, Ecology and Environment Working Papers 55063, University of Queensland, School of Economics.
- 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.
- Duncan, R & Tisdell, Clem, 1971. "Research and Technical Progress: The Returns to Producers," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 47(117), pages 124-29, March.
- Cowan, Robin & Gunby, Philip, 1996. "Sprayed to Death: Path Dependence, Lock-In and Pest Control Strategies," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 106(436), pages 521-42, May.
This item has more than 25 citations. To prevent cluttering this page, these citations are listed on a separate page. reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.Access and download statisticsgeneral 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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.