This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data


[ Papers | Articles | Software | Books | Chapters | Authors | Institutions | JEL Classification | NEP reports | Search | New papers by email | Author registration | Rankings | Volunteers | FAQ | Blog | Help! ]

Biological Limits on Agricultural Intensification: An Example from Resistance Management

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
Simpson, R. David
Laxminarayan, Ramanan () (Resources for the Future)

Additional information is available for the following registered author(s):

Abstract

When the application of pesticides places selective evolutionary pressure on pest populations, it can be useful to plant refuge areas—crop areas intended to encourage the breeding of pests that are susceptible to the pesticide. Renewed interest in refuge areas has arisen with recent advances in biotechnology and genetically modified (GM) crops. In this paper, we use a simple model of the evolution of pest resistance to characterize the socially optimal refuge strategy for managing pest resistance. We demonstrate some interesting analogies with other models of renewable resource management, such as those of fisheries. Among the analogous results are findings that maintaining what we might call "maximal sustainable susceptibility" is typically not economically optimal and that the stock of pesticide effectiveness maintained is a declining function of the discount rate. The former result is in contrast to some existing studies based solely on biological considerations. We also examine the land use consequences of the enhanced agricultural productivity that results from the use of GM crops. Arguments are frequently encountered to the effect that GM crops could reduce the total area required for agriculture and thereby increase the quantity of land conserved for natural habitat. We show that the situation may not be as simple as standard arguments portray it. If refuge areas are used to manage resistance, then more land will be devoted to agriculture than would be the case were it simply a matter of adopting a technology that offered the same yield per hectare without requiring the management of a biological stock such as pest susceptibility.

Download Info
To download:

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. Information about this may be contained in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help file. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://www.rff.org/documents/RFF-DP-00-43.pdf
File Format: application/pdf
File Function:
Download Restriction: no

Publisher Info
Paper provided by Resources For the Future in its series Discussion Papers with number dp-00-43.

Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML, plain text, BibTeX, RIS (EndNote), ReDIF
Length:
Date of creation: 01 Oct 2000
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:rff:dpaper:dp-00-43

Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.rff.org
More information through EDIRC

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Webmaster).

Related research
Keywords:

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

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.:
  1. Gardner Brown & Ramanan Laxminarayan, 1998. "Economics of Antibiotic Resistance," Discussion Papers in Economics at the University of Washington 0060, Department of Economics at the University of Washington. [Downloadable!]
    Other versions:
  2. Albers, H. J. & Goldbach, M. J., 2000. "Irreversible ecosystem change, species competition, and shifting cultivation," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 261-280, July. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  3. Barrett, Scott, 1991. "Optimal soil conservation and the reform of agricultural pricing policies," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 167-187, October. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  4. Terrance M. Hurley & Bruce A. Babcock & Richard L. Hellmich, 1997. "Biotechnology and Pest Resistance: An Economic Assessment of Refuges," Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) Publications 97-wp183, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University. [Downloadable!]
  5. Hartman, Richard, 1976. "The Harvesting Decision When a Standing Forest Has Value," Economic Inquiry, Oxford University Press, vol. 14(1), pages 52-58, March.
  6. Clark, Colin W, 1973. "Profit Maximization and the Extinction of Animal Species," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 81(4), pages 950-61, July-Aug.. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  7. Regev, Uri & Shalit, Haim & Gutierrez, A. P., 1983. "On the optimal allocation of pesticides with increasing resistance: The case of alfalfa weevil," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 86-100, March. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  8. Pagiola, S. & Kellenberg, J. & Vidaeus, L. & Srivastava, J., 1997. "Mainstreaming Biodiversity in Agricultural Development. Toward Good Practice," Papers 15, World Bank - The World Bank Environment Paper.
Full references

Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? IDEAS also indexes books.

This page was last updated on 2008-8-8.


This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut using RePEc data on a server sponsored by the Society for Economic Dynamics.