IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/ugeofs/16671.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Valuing Risk Tradeoffs And Voluntary Insecticide Reduction

Author

Listed:
  • Lohr, Luanne
  • Park, Timothy A.
  • Higley, Leon

Abstract

Farmer's willingness to voluntarily reduce insecticide use is not considered when regulatory approaches to environmental protection are proposed. Regulations that require behavior that would voluntarily be undertaken are excessive and economically inefficient. Using survey data from a contingent valuation scenario, we demonstrate the willingness of crop producers in four Midwestern states in the U.S. to trade yield losses for environmental risk reduction by eliminating an insecticide application. The mean acceptable yield loss for a sample of 1,138 producers in Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska and Ohio is $8.25 per acre. Acceptable yield loss increases with the rated importance of environmental goods (fish, birds, mammals, native plants and endangered species), with formal education and with farming experience. Willingness to pay increase with total expenditure on herbicides and insecticides up to $89 per acre, then decreases as total expenditure continues to rise. We approximate that crop farmers in the four states are willing to give up over $420 million in yield losses, or about 4 percent of total sales of corn and soybeans, to guarantee protection of eleven environmental goods from moderate insecticide risk. Uncertainty about risks, dominance of regulatory approaches and economic pressures undercut voluntary reductions in insecticide use.

Suggested Citation

  • Lohr, Luanne & Park, Timothy A. & Higley, Leon, 1996. "Valuing Risk Tradeoffs And Voluntary Insecticide Reduction," Faculty Series 16671, University of Georgia, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:ugeofs:16671
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.16671
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/16671/files/fs9610.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.16671?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Young Sook Eom, 1994. "Pesticide Residue Risk and Food Safety Valuation: A Random Utility Approach," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 76(4), pages 760-771.
    2. Viscusi, W Kip & Evans, William N, 1990. "Utility Functions That Depend on Health Status: Estimates and Economic Implications," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(3), pages 353-374, June.
    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. Lohr, Luanne & Park, Timothy A. & Wetzstein, Michael E., 1998. "Voluntary Economic And Environmental Risk Tradeoffs In Crop Protection Decisions," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 27(01), pages 1-9, April.
    2. Ikuho Kochi & Bryan Hubbell & Randall Kramer, 2006. "An Empirical Bayes Approach to Combining and Comparing Estimates of the Value of a Statistical Life for Environmental Policy Analysis," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 34(3), pages 385-406, July.
    3. David Crainich, 2025. "Optimal self‐insurance with genetic testing and state‐dependent utility," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 58(2), pages 418-442, May.
    4. Granlund David & Wikström Magnus, 2016. "Public Provision and Cross-Border Health Care," Forum for Health Economics & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 19(2), pages 157-177, December.
    5. Jau-Rong Li & Dawn D. Thilmany, 1998. "Branded pork consumption in Taiwan: Analysis of market and product choice," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(2), pages 127-138.
    6. Alberto Bennardo & Salvatore Piccolo, 2014. "Competitive Markets With Endogenous Health Risks," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 12(3), pages 755-790, June.
    7. Bleichrodt, Han & Rohde, Kirsten I.M. & Van Ourti, Tom, 2012. "An experimental test of the concentration index," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 86-98.
    8. Louise B. Russell, 1999. "• Improving the Panel's Recommendations," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 19(4), pages 379-380, October.
    9. Rachel Kreier & Bhaswati Sengupta, 2015. "Income, Health, and the Value of Preserving Options," Atlantic Economic Journal, Springer;International Atlantic Economic Society, vol. 43(4), pages 431-448, December.
    10. Pierpaolo Giannoccolo & Silvia Platoni, 2023. "Temporary versus permanent disability: A dynamic incentives model," Metroeconomica, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 74(4), pages 698-721, November.
    11. Mehmet Kutluay & Roy Brouwer & Haripriya Gundimeda & Nitin Lokhande & Richard S. J. Tol, 2017. "Public preferences and valuation of new malaria risk," Working Paper Series 1917, Department of Economics, University of Sussex Business School.
    12. Rodríguez, Elsa Mirta M. & Lacaze, María Victoria & Lupín, Beatriz, 2007. "Willingness to pay for organic food in Argentina: evidence from a consumer survey," Nülan. Deposited Documents 1300, Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Sociales, Centro de Documentación.
    13. Bo Xiong & John Beghin, 2017. "Disentangling Demand-Enhancing And Trade-Cost Effects Of Maximum Residue Regulations," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: John Christopher Beghin (ed.), Nontariff Measures and International Trade, chapter 6, pages 105-108, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    14. Pablo Brañas‐Garza & Matteo M. Galizzi & Jeroen Nieboer, 2018. "Experimental And Self‐Reported Measures Of Risk Taking And Digit Ratio (2d:4d): Evidence From A Large, Systematic Study," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 59(3), pages 1131-1157, August.
    15. Monojit Chatterji & Colin Tilley, 2000. "Sickness, Absenteeism, "Presenteeism" and Sick Pay," Dundee Discussion Papers in Economics 117, Economic Studies, University of Dundee.
    16. Matthew Rousu & Wallace E. Huffman & Jason F. Shogren & Abebayehu Tegene, 2007. "Effects And Value Of Verifiable Information In A Controversial Market: Evidence From Lab Auctions Of Genetically Modified Food," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 45(3), pages 409-432, July.
    17. Kevin Boyle & Sapna Kaul & Ali Hashemi & Xiaoshu Li, 2015. "Applicability of benefit transfers for evaluation of homeland security counterterrorism measures," Chapters, in: Carol Mansfield & V. K. Smith (ed.), Benefit–Cost Analyses for Security Policies, chapter 10, pages 225-253, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    18. Johannes G. Jaspersen, 2022. "When full insurance may not be optimal: The case of restricted substitution," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(6), pages 1249-1257, June.
    19. Georges Dionne & Scott Harrington, 2017. "Insurance and Insurance Markets," Working Papers 17-2, HEC Montreal, Canada Research Chair in Risk Management.
    20. de Bartolome, Charles A. M. & Vosti, Stephen A., 1995. "Choosing between public and private health-care: A case study of malaria treatment in Brazil," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 14(2), pages 191-205, June.

    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:ugeofs:16671. 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.