No abstract

No abstract

No 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.

Choice experiment, Noise abatement, Payment tax vehicle, Tax reallocation vehicle, Formal testing, Welfare analysis,

SummaryBy using ad hoc value transfer protocols, this paper offers a methodological contribution and provides accurate per hectare estimates of the economic value of some selected ecosystem services for all forest biomes in the world, identified following the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment taxonomy MEA. The research also estimates potential total economic losses from policy inaction in year 2050. Final results show that total losses are significant. The total figure is €78 billion, the greatest losses coming from North America and Mexico, followed by Africa, Russia and some Asiatic countries. Most of this loss is attributable to provisioning services and carbon sequestration, while only a minor part is due to loss of cultural services. In terms of biomes the greatest losses are from boreal and warm mixed forests, followed by tropical forests. These results may be surprising to some who argue that it is the loss of tropical forests, particularly the Amazon, that is the most significant. A detailed analysis, shows, however, that this is not the case. The best estimates point to greater losses in areas where use and non-use values are highest, which includes North America. Keywords AbstractBy using ad hoc value transfer protocols, this paper offers a methodological contribution and provides accurate per hectare estimates of the economic value of some selected ecosystem services for all forest biomes in the world, identified following the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment taxonomy MEA. The research also estimates potential total economic losses from policy inaction in year 2050. Final results show that total losses are significant. The total figure is €78 billion, the greatest losses coming from North America and Mexico, followed by Africa, Russia and some Asiatic countries. Most of this loss is attributable to provisioning services and carbon sequestration, while only a minor part is due to loss of cultural services. In terms of biomes the greatest losses are from boreal and warm mixed forests, followed by tropical forests. These results may be surprising to some who argue that it is the loss of tropical forests, particularly the Amazon that is the most significant. A detailed analysis, shows, however, that this is not the case. The best estimates point to greater losses in areas where use and non-use values are highest, which includes North America.Keywords: forest, ecosystem services, biodiversity, valuation, value transfer AcknowledgementThe current research is part of the EU funded project COPI "Cost of Policy Inaction. The case of not meeting the 2010 biodiversity target". The authors thank the whole COPI research team. A special word of thanks goes to Leon Braat (ALTERRA) and Patrick Ten Brink (IEEP) for their valuable comments and suggestions.2

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in SummaryThe use of environmental policy instruments such as eco-labelling and pesticide taxes should preferably be based on disaggregate estimates of the individuals' willingness to pay (WTP) for pesticide risk reductions. We review the empirical valuation literature dealing with pesticide risk exposure and develop a taxonomy of environmental and human health risks associated with pesticide usage. Subsequently, we use meta-analysis to investigate the variation in WTP estimates for reduced pesticide risk exposure. Our findings show that the WTP for reduced risk exposure is approximately 15% greater for medium, and 80% greater for high risk-levels, as compared to low risk levels. The income elasticity of pesticide risk exposure is generally positive, although not overly robust. Most results indicate that the demand for human health and environmental safety is highly elastic. We also show that geographical differences, characteristics of the survey, and the type safety device (eco-labelling, integrated management, or bans) are important drivers of the valuation results. Keywords

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in AbstractIn the search for effective pesticide risk management tools, the design of pesticide risk indicators is nowadays receiving increasing attention as a complement to more established regulatory strategies. In the present paper, we apply some recently developed pesticide risk indices and test their potential for management purposes. A pilot approach is proposed, which explores pesticide worst-case hazard scenarios at different space-time scales by means of a set of 5 ecotoxicological risk indices. The results are then interpreted from the perspective of a decision support method using the so-called Critical Threshold Value approach. Our risk analysis is then enriched within a multicriteria framework which integrates environmental, agronomic and economic objectives.