Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4hhp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-28T08:32:20.677Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWS AND CASE STUDIES: Socioeconomic Analysis Options for Pesticides Management in Developing Countries: A Review

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 February 2015

Barry D. Solomon*
Affiliation:
Professor of Geography and Environmental Policy, Department of Social Sciences, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, Michigan.
*
Address correspondence to: Barry D. Solomon, Department of Social Sciences,1400 Townsend Drive, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI 49931-1295; (phone) 906-487-1791; e-mail (bdsolomo@mtu.edu).
Get access

Abstract

Many factors must be considered by environmental officials tasked with managing pesticides. Several socioeconomic analysis techniques can be used to quantify these issues and help improve management, including the full consideration of alternatives. The most popular and commonly used techniques are Cost-Benefit Analysis and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis, and additional guidance and reference materials are readily available. Another group of methods, known as Rapid Rural Appraisal and Participatory Rural Appraisal, can be more appropriate, faster, and have lower cost to use in developing countries. Finally, qualitative decision making under uncertainty, such as through the use of the Precautionary Principle (not a socioeconomic analysis technique), also can be valuable. The precautionary approach requires that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is not harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking an action. Ideally all of the analytical techniques will need complete and reliable socioeconomic data, though in reality, data are often incomplete and fraught with uncertainties. In these cases, the application of the precautionary principle decision rule may have strong justification. The application of these techniques in several decision contexts for pesticides in developing countries will be discussed.

Environmental Practice 17: 57–68 (2015)

Type
Features
Copyright
© National Association of Environmental Professionals 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abdalla, C.W. 1994. Groundwater Values from Avoidance Cost Studies. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 76(5):10621067.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ackerman, F. 2008. Poisoned for Pennies: The Economics of Toxics and Precaution. Island Press, Washington, DC, 317 pp.Google Scholar
Agnes, S., Fleischer, G., Jungbluth, F., and Waibel, H.. 1995. Guidelines for Pesticide Policy Studies. Pesticide Policy Project Publication Series No. 1. University of Hannover, Germany, 27 pp.Google Scholar
Alberini, A., and Cooper, J.. 2000. Applications of the Contingent Valuation Method in Developing Countries: A Survey. FAO Economic and Social Development Paper 146. Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, 63 pp.Google Scholar
Ames, B.N., and Gold, L.S.. 1989. Pesticides, Risk and Applesauce. Science 244(4906):755757.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Auld, B.A., Menz, K.M., and Tisdell, C.A.. 1987. Weed Control Economics. Academic Press, London and New York, 177 pp.Google Scholar
Boardman, A., Greenberg, D., Vining, A., and Weimer, D.. 2010. Cost-Benefit Analysis, 4th edition. Upper Prentice Hall, Saddle River, NJ, 560 pp.Google Scholar
Bowles, R.G., and Webster, J.P.G.. 1995. Some Problems Associated with the Analysis of the Costs and Benefits of Pesticides. Crop Protection 14(7):593600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Z.S. 2011. Developing a Framework to Assess DDT and Its Alternatives for Vector Control. Report prepared for the 7th Meeting of the Review Committee for the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. United Nations Environment Programme, Geneva, 33 pp.Google Scholar
Burdge, R.J., and Vanclay, F.. 1996. Social Impact Assessment: A Contribution to the State of the Art Series. Impact Assessment 14(1):5986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canter, L.W. 1995. Environmental Impact Assessment, 2nd edition. McGraw-Hill, Boston, 480 pp.Google Scholar
Chambers, R. 1981. Rapid Rural Appraisal: Rationale and Repertoire. Public Administration and Development 1(2):95106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chambers, R. 1994. The Origins and Practice of Participatory Rural Appraisal. World Development 22(7):953969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, J.C., ed. 1996. Comparing Environmental Risks: Tools for Setting Government Priorities. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC, 157 pp.Google Scholar
Doanh, L.Q. 2004. Participatory Rural Environmental Management: Synthesized Report. VIE/00/018/08. Vietnam Agricultural Science Institute, Hanoi, 76 pp. Available at http://www.fao.org/docrep/008/af329e/af329e00.htm (accessed December 29, 2014).Google Scholar
Dushoff, J., Caldwell, B., and Mohler, C.L.. 1994. Evaluating the Environmental Effects of Pesticides: A Critique of the Environmental Impact Quotient. American Entomologist 40(3):180184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
European Environment Agency (EEA). 2002. Late Lessons from Early Warnings: The Precautionary Principle 1896–2000, Environmental Issue Report No. 22. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen, 210 pp.Google Scholar
Finkel, A.M. 1995. Toward Less Misleading Comparisons of Uncertain Risks: The Example of Aflatoxin and Alar. Environmental Health Perspectives 103(4):376385.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Foster, K.R., Vecchia, P., and Repacholi, M.H.. 2000. Science and the Precautionary Principle. Science 288(5468):979981.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goodman, C.A., Mnzava, A.E.P., Dlamini, S.S., Sharp, B.L., Mthembu, D.J., and Gumede, J.K.. 2001. Comparison of the Cost and Cost-Effectiveness of Insecticide-Treated Bednets and Residual House-Spraying in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Tropical Medicine & International Health 6(4):280295.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gray, G.M., and Hammitt, J.K.. 2000. Risk/Risk Trade-Offs in Pesticide Regulation. Risk Analysis 20(5):665680.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hanley, N., and Barbier, E.B.. 2009. Pricing Nature: Cost-Benefit Analysis and Environmental Policy. Edward Elgar Publishers, Cheltenham, UK, 353 pp.Google Scholar
Johnston, R.J., and Rosenberger, R.S.. 2010. Methods, Trends and Controversies in Contemporary Benefit Transfer. Journal of Economic Surveys 24(3):479510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kovich, J., Petzoldt, C., Degnil, J., and Tette, J.. 1992. A Method to Measure the Environmental Impact of Pesticides. New York’s Food and Life Sciences Bulletin 139: http://hdl.handle.net/1813/5203.Google Scholar
Kriebel, D., Tickner, J., Epstein, P., Lemons, J., Levins, R., Loechler, E.L., Quinn, M., Rudel, R., Schettler, T., and Stoto, M.. 2001. The Precautionary Principle in Environmental Science. Environmental Health Perspectives 109(9):871876.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lutter, R., and Morrall, J.F.. 1994. Health-Health Analysis: A New Way to Evaluate Health and Safety Regulation. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 8(1):4366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McIntyre, O., and Mosedale, T.. 1997. The Precautionary Principle as a Norm of Customary International Law. Journal of Environmental Law 9(2):221241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menezes, C.T., and Heller, L.. 2008. A Method for Prioritization of Areas for Pesticides Surveillance on Surface Waters: A Study in Minas, Gerais, Brazil. Water Science & Technology 57(11):16931698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murray, C.J. 1994. Quantifying the Burden of Disease: The Technical Basis for Disability-Adjusted Life Years. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 72(3):429445.Google ScholarPubMed
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 2000. Framework for Integrating Socio-Economic Analysis in Chemical Risk Management Decision Making. ENV/JM/MONO(2000)5. OECD, Paris, 143 pp.Google Scholar
Pearce, D., Atkinson, G., and Mourato, S.. 2006. Cost-Benefit Analysis and the Environment: Recent Developments. OECD Publishing, Paris, 315 pp.Google Scholar
Pearce, D., and Koundouri, P.. 2004. Regulatory Assessment for Chemicals: A Rapid Appraisal Cost-Benefit Approach. Environmental Science & Policy 7(6):435449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pimentel, D. 2005. Environmental and Economic Costs of the Application of Pesticides Primarily in the United States. Environment, Development and Sustainability 7(2):229252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pimentel, D., Acquay, H., Biltonen, M., Rice, P., Silva, M., Nelson, J., Lipner, V., Giordano, S., Horowitz, A., and D’Amore, M.. 1992. Environmental and Economic Costs of Pesticide Use. BioScience 42(10):750760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polidoro, B.A, Dahlquist, R.M., Castillo, L.E., Morra, M.J., Somarriba, E., and Bosque-Perez, N.A.. 2008. Pesticide Application Practices, Pest Knowledge, and Cost-Benefits of Plantain Production in the Bribri-Cabecar Indigenous Territories, Costa Rica. Environmental Research 108(1):98106.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Praneetvatakul, S., Schreinemachers, P., and Pananurak, P.. 2013. Pesticides, External Costs and Policy Options for Thai Agriculture. Environmental Science & Policy 27(1):103113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pretty, J., and Waibel, H.. 2005. Paying the Price: The Full Cost of Pesticides. In The Pesticide Detox: Towards a More Sustainable Agriculture, J. Pretty, ed. Earthscan, London, 3954.Google Scholar
Renn, O. 2008. Risk Governance: Coping with Uncertainty in a Complex World. Earthscan, London, 368 pp.Google Scholar
Ricker-Gilbert, J., Norton, G.W., Alwang, J., Miah, M., and Feder, G.. 2008. Cost-Effectiveness of Alternative Integrated Pest Management Extension Methods: An Example from Bangladesh. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy 30(2):252269.Google Scholar
Sunstein, C.R. 2005. Cost-Benefit Analysis and the Environment. Ethics 115(2):351385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tisdell, C.A. 2009. Resource and Environmental Economics: Modern Issues and Applications. World Scientific Publishing, London, 520 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Travisi, C.M., and Nijkamp, P.. 2008. Valuing Environmental and Health Risk in Agriculture: A Choice Experiment Approach to Pesticides in Italy. Ecological Economics 67(4):598607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Travisi, C.M., Nijkamp, P., Vighi, M., and Giacomelli, P.. 2006b. Managing Pesticide Risks for Non-Target Ecosystems with Pesticide Risk Indicators. International Journal of Environmental Technology and Management 6(12):141162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Travisi, C.M., Nijkamp, P., and G. Vindigni, G.. 2006a. Pesticide Risk Valuation in Empirical Economics: A Comparative Approach. Ecological Economics 56(4):455474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). 2011. Baseline Assessment Report on the Costs of Inaction on Sound Management of Chemicals. UNEP, Chemicals Branch, Geneva, 66 pp.Google Scholar
Utzinger, J., Tozah, Y., and Singer, B.H.. 2001. Efficacy and Cost-Effectiveness of Environmental Management for Malaria Control. Tropical Medicine & International Health 6(9):677687.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van den Berg, H. 2009. Global Status of DDT and its Alternatives for Use in Vector Control to Prevent Disease. Environmental Health Perspectives 117(11):16561663.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Viscusi, W.K. 1994. Risk-Risk Analysis. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 8(1):517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, K. 2000. Cost Comparison of DDT and Alternative Insecticides for Malaria Control. Medical and Veterinary Entomology 14(4):345354.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilson, C., and Tisdell, C.A.. 2001. Why Farmers Continue to Use Pesticides Despite Environmental, Health and Sustainability Costs. Ecological Economics 39(3):449462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, R., and Crouch, E.A.. 2001. Risk-Benefit Analysis, 2nd edition. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 384 pp.Google Scholar
Zeise, L., Painter, P., Berteau, P.E., Fan, A.M., and Jackson, R.J.. 1991. Alar in Fruit: Limited Regulatory Action in the Face of Uncertain Risks. In. The Analysis, Communication, and Perception of Risk, J.B. Garrick and W.C. Geckler, eds. Springer, New York, 275284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar