IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/ugeocr/16667.html

Unwanted Agricultural Pesticides: State Disposal Systems

Author

Listed:
  • Centner, Terence J.

Abstract

Millions of pounds of unwanted pesticides have accumulated in barns throughout our country. The potential environmental and health risks posed by this situation has garnered public attention and governmental action. The federal government has revised its Universal Waste Rule so that it is easier to dispose of unwanted pesticides rather than simply banned pesticides. Nearly every state has initiated efforts to collect and dispose of accumulated pesticides in a safe manner. While the possession of unwanted pesticides generally is not illegal, producers need to follow requisite legal requirements and dispose of pesticides properly to avoid legal infractions. To assist producers, the implementation of a permanent apparatus is advised for the disposal of unwanted pesticides. Through an evaluation of state collection endeavors, this paper identifies important features that may be offered as initiatives for developing better responses for eliminating sources of potential contamination.

Suggested Citation

  • Centner, Terence J., 1997. "Unwanted Agricultural Pesticides: State Disposal Systems," Faculty Series 16667, University of Georgia, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:ugeocr:16667
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.16667
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/16667/files/fs9721.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.16667?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. Peter A. Groothuis & Gail Miller, 1994. "Locating Hazardous Waste Facilities: The Influence of NIMBY Beliefs," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(3), pages 335-346, July.
    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. Toshiaki Sasao, 2004. "Analysis of the socioeconomic impact of landfill siting considering regional factors," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 6(2), pages 147-175, June.
    2. Sukanya Das & Ekin Birol & Rabindra N. Bhattacharya, 2010. "Informing Efficient Solid Waste Management to Improve Local Environmental Quality and Public Health in West Bengal, India," Chapters, in: Jeff Bennett & Ekin Birol (ed.), Choice Experiments in Developing Countries, chapter 10, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    3. Samiha Mjahed Hammami & Sahar Chtourou & Heyam Al Moosa, 2018. "A holistic approach to understanding the acceptance of a community‐based renewable energy project: A pathway to sustainability for Tunisia's rural region," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(8), pages 1535-1545, December.
    4. Hank C. Jenkins‐Smith & Carol L. Silva & Matthew C. Nowlin & Grant deLozier, 2011. "Reversing Nuclear Opposition: Evolving Public Acceptance of a Permanent Nuclear Waste Disposal Facility," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(4), pages 629-644, April.
    5. Taiwan Chung Hsie Yang, 2012. "The value of investment of YIMBY and NIMBY facilities on housing market," ERES eres2012_183, European Real Estate Society (ERES).
    6. Centner, Terence J., 1997. "Unwanted Agricultural Pesticides: State Disposal Systems," Faculty Series 16667, University of Georgia, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    7. Caplan, Arthur & Grijalva, Therese & Jackson-Smith, Douglas, 2007. "Using choice question formats to determine compensable values: The case of a landfill-siting process," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(4), pages 834-846, February.
    8. Peter Groothuis & John Whitehead, 2002. "Does don't know mean no? Analysis of 'don't know' responses in dichotomous choice contingent valuation questions," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 34(15), pages 1935-1940.
    9. Frondel Manuel & Sommer Stephan, 2017. "Der Wert von Versorgungssicherheit mit Strom: Evidenz für deutsche Haushalte," Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftspolitik, De Gruyter, vol. 66(3), pages 294-317, December.
    10. Naveed Paydara, Olga Schenk, Ashley Bowers, Sanya Carley, John Rupp and John D. Graham, 2016. "The Effect of Community Reinvestment Funds on Local Acceptance of Unconventional Gas Development," Economics of Energy & Environmental Policy, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 1).

    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:ugeocr:16667. 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/daugaus.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.