IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Economic Evaluation of Health Cost of Pesticide Use: Willingness to Pay Method


  • Muhammad Khan, Muhammad Khan


This study highlights the results of contingent valuation method to measure health cost of pesticide use from farmer’s point of view. Analysis shows that farmers have a positive willingness to pay for avoiding pesticide related health risks. Theoretical validity tests show that relevant indicators such as risk perception, previous experience of pesticide related poisoning, education and income are significant predictors for the Positive WTP. From the results it is evident that health effects of pesticide use provided motivation for farmers to pay more for practices like IPM that reduce dependence on pesticide use which in turn a strong motivation for policy makers to continue research on IPM and its implementation.

Suggested Citation

  • Muhammad Khan, Muhammad Khan, 2009. "Economic Evaluation of Health Cost of Pesticide Use: Willingness to Pay Method," MPRA Paper 30178, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  • Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:30178

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    File Function: original version
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Richard Carson & Nicholas Flores & Norman Meade, 2001. "Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 19(2), pages 173-210, June.
    2. Jikun Huang & Fangbin Qiao & Linxiu Zhang & Scott Rozelle, 2000. "Farm Pesticide, Rice Production, and Human Health," EEPSEA Research Report rr2000051, Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia (EEPSEA), revised May 2000.
    3. Paul R. Portney, 1994. "The Contingent Valuation Debate: Why Economists Should Care," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 3-17, Fall.
    4. Dasgupta, Susmita & Meisner, Craig & Huq, Mainul, 2005. "Health effects and pesticide perception as determinants of pesticide use : evidence from Bangladesh," Policy Research Working Paper Series 3776, The World Bank.
    5. Cranfield, John A.L. & Magnusson, Erik, 2003. "Canadian Consumer's Willingness-To-Pay For Pesticide Free Food Products: An Ordered Probit Analysis," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 6(4), pages 1-18.
    6. W. Michael Hanemann, 1994. "Valuing the Environment through Contingent Valuation," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 19-43, Fall.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.

    Cited by:

    1. Mahfuz Kabir, "undated". "Valuation of Subsoil Minerals: Application of SEEA for Bangladesh," Working papers 121, The South Asian Network for Development and Environmental Economics.
    2. Muhammad Khan, 2017. "The Health Burden of Dust Pollution in the Textile Industry of Faisalabad, Pakistan," Working Papers id:11920, eSocialSciences.
    3. Damian Tago & Henrik Andersson & Nicolas Treich, 2014. "Pesticides and Health: A Review of Evidence on Health Effects, Valuation of Risks, and Benefit-Cost Analysis," Advances in Health Economics and Health Services Research, in: Glenn C. Blomquist & Kristian Bolin (ed.), Preference Measurement in Health, volume 24, pages 203-295, Emerald Publishing Ltd.
    4. Tasnim Khan & Rana Ejaz Ali Khan & Sassee Bibi, 2018. "Willingness to Pay by the Farmers for Safer Use of Pesticides," Asian Development Policy Review, Asian Economic and Social Society, vol. 6(3), pages 169-177, September.
    5. Muhammad Iftikhar ul Husnain & Muhammad Khan, "undated". "The Public and Private Benefits from Organic Farming in Pakistan," Working papers 100, The South Asian Network for Development and Environmental Economics.
    6. Muhammad Khan, 2010. "Using the Health Belief Model to Understand Pesticide Use Decisions," The Pakistan Development Review, Pakistan Institute of Development Economics, vol. 49(4), pages 941-956.

    More about this item


    Health cost; WTP; pesticide use; IPM.;

    JEL classification:

    • O13 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development - - - Agriculture; Natural Resources; Environment; Other Primary Products


    Access and download statistics


    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:pra:mprapa:30178. See general 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: (Joachim Winter). General contact details of provider: .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.