IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/tin/wpaper/20020112.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Pesticide Risk Valuation in Empirical Economics

Author

Listed:
  • Peter Nijkamp

    () (Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam)

  • Chiara Maria Travisi

    () (Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam)

  • Gabriella Vindigni

    () (University of Catania, Italy)

Abstract

Pesticide use in agriculture poses several risks to both human health and non-target agro-ecosystems. Due to lack of information on the monetary value of reducing pesticide risks, it is difficult to perform an economic analysis that addresses social efficiency of policy and draws conclusions about the appropriate degree of regulation.The aim of the current paper is to present a critical overview of the empirical literature on pesticide risk valuation that provides disaggregate willingness-to-pay estimates (WTPs) of pesticide risks reduction. Recent multidimensional classification methods, such as coined decision tree analysis, are used in a comparative approach as tools for explaining the differences in empirical research findings. The analysis shows that the magnitude of WTPs is related to both the valuation technique and to the data available from biomedical and eco-toxicological literature. It also shows that WTP estimates of pesticide risks cannot be simply averaged over several empirical studies. The order of magnitude of a WTP estimate is, in fact, related to the specific type of risk and to the nature of the risk scenario considered, as well to lay people's subjective perception of risks.

Suggested Citation

  • Peter Nijkamp & Chiara Maria Travisi & Gabriella Vindigni, 2002. "Pesticide Risk Valuation in Empirical Economics," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 02-112/3, Tinbergen Institute.
  • Handle: RePEc:tin:wpaper:20020112
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://papers.tinbergen.nl/02112.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Johansson,Per-Olov, 1995. "Evaluating Health Risks," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521478786.
    2. Archer, David W. & Shogren, Jason F., 2001. "Risk-indexed herbicide taxes to reduce ground and surface water pollution: an integrated ecological economics evaluation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 227-250, August.
    3. Norton, Bryan G., 1995. "Evaluating ecosystem states: Two competing paradigms," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 14(2), pages 113-127, August.
    4. Buzby, Jean C. & Ready, Richard C. & Skees, Jerry R., 1995. "Contingent Valuation In Food Policy Analysis: A Case Study Of A Pesticide-Residue Risk Reduction," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 27(02), December.
    5. Brethour, Cher & Weersink, Alfons, 2001. "An economic evaluation of the environmental benefits from pesticide reduction," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 25(2-3), pages 219-226, September.
    6. Rosen, Sherwin, 1988. "The Value of Changes in Life Expectancy," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 1(3), pages 285-304, September.
    7. David Pearce, 1998. "Environmental Appraisal and Environmental Policy in the European Union," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 11(3), pages 489-501, April.
    8. Smith, V Kerry & Desvousges, William H, 1987. "An Empirical Analysis of the Economic Value of Risk Changes," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 95(1), pages 89-114, February.
    9. Govindasamy, Ramu & Italia, John & Adelaja, Adesoji O., 1998. "Predicting Consumer Risk Aversions to Synthetic Pesticide Residues: A Logistic Analysis," P Series 36740, Rutgers University, Department of Agricultural, Food and Resource Economics.
    10. Mullen, Jeffrey D. & Norton, George W. & Reaves, Dixie Watts, 1997. "Economic Analysis Of Environmental Benefits Of Integrated Pest Management," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 29(02), December.
    11. Gary D. Thompson & Julia Kidwell, 1998. "Explaining the Choice of Organic Produce: Cosmetic Defects, Prices, and Consumer Preferences," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(2), pages 277-287.
    12. Govindasamy, Ramu & Italia, John, 1997. "Consumer Response to Integrated Pest Management and Organic Agriculture: An Econometric Analysis," P Series 36727, Rutgers University, Department of Agricultural, Food and Resource Economics.
    13. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74, pages 132-132.
    14. Mishan, E J, 1971. "Evaluation of Life and Limb: A Theoretical Approach," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 79(4), pages 687-705, July-Aug..
    15. Viscusi, W Kip & O'Connor, Charles J, 1984. "Adaptive Responses to Chemical Labeling: Are Workers Bayesian Decision Makers?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 74(5), pages 942-956, December.
    16. Brouwer, Roy, 2000. "Environmental value transfer: state of the art and future prospects," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 137-152, January.
    17. Baker, Gregory A., 1999. "Consumer Preferences For Food Safety Attributes In Fresh Apples: Market Segments, Consumer Characteristics, And Marketing Opportunities," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 24(01), July.
    18. Bal, Frans & Nijkamp, Peter, 2001. "In search of valid results in a complex economic environment: The potential of meta-analysis and value transfer," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 128(2), pages 364-384, January.
    19. Johansson,Per-Olov, 1995. "Evaluating Health Risks," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521472852.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    pesticide environmental and health risks; willingness-to-pay; comparative analysis.;

    JEL classification:

    • Q10 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - General

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:tin:wpaper:20020112. 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: (Tinbergen Office +31 (0)10-4088900). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/tinbenl.html .

    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.