IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/ifma02/6952.html

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, August.
    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. Kutschukian, Jean-Marc, 2008. "A Framework For The Economic Evaluation Of Environmental Science," 2008 Conference (52nd), February 5-8, 2008, Canberra, Australia 6026, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    5. Muhammad Rafiq & Shafiqullah, 2007. "Demand Analysis of Recreation Visits to Chitral Valley: A Natural Resource Management Perspective," The Pakistan Development Review, Pakistan Institute of Development Economics, vol. 46(4), pages 971-984.
    6. Wilson, Clevo & Tisdell, Clement A., 2002. "Conservation and Economic Benefits of Wildlife-based Marine Tourism: Sea Turtles and Whales as Case Studies," Economics, Ecology and Environment Working Papers 48734, University of Queensland, School of Economics.
    7. Halkos, George, 2012. "Assessing the economic value of protecting artificial lakes," MPRA Paper 39557, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Sven Fuchs & Magdalena Thöni & Maria McAlpin & Urs Gruber & Michael Bründl, 2007. "Avalanche Hazard Mitigation Strategies Assessed by Cost Effectiveness Analyses and Cost Benefit Analyses—evidence from Davos, Switzerland," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 41(1), pages 113-129, April.
    9. Clive L. Spash, 2024. "Exploring economic dimensions of social ecological crises: A reply to special issue papers," Environmental Values, , vol. 33(2), pages 216-245, April.
    10. 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.
    11. Salvo Creaco & Giulio Querini, 2003. "The role of tourism in sustainable economic development," ERSA conference papers ersa03p84, European Regional Science Association.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. A Heesterman, 2004. "The Discount Rate in Environmental Cost-benefit Analysis," Economic Issues Journal Articles, Economic Issues, vol. 9(1), pages 39-46, March.
    15. Spash, Clive L. & Ryan, Anthony M., 2010. "Ecological, Heterodox and Neoclassical Economics: Investigating the Differences," MPRA Paper 26292, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. Chelli, Alessia & Brander, Luke & Geneletti, Davide, 2025. "Cost-Benefit analysis of urban nature-based solutions: A systematic review of approaches and scales with a focus on benefit valuation," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    19. 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.
    20. Unnerstall, Herwig, 2005. "Verursachergerechte Kostendeckung für Wasserdienstleistungen - die Anforderung des Art. 9 WRRL und ihre Umsetzung," UFZ Discussion Papers 6/2005, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Division of Social Sciences (ÖKUS).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;

    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.