Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T17:17:21.386Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The ecological economics of insecticide use associated with the Maine potato industry, based on a producer survey

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2009

C.R. Ziegler ,
D.W. Donahue ,
F.A. Drummond  and
S.N. Smith
C.R. Ziegler
Affiliation:
Hydrologist and MIS assistant, Philip Williams and Associates, Ltd, San Francisco, CA
D.W. Donahue*
Affiliation:
Biosystems Science and Engineering Department, 5710 Norman Smith Hall
F.A. Drummond
Affiliation:
Department of Biological Sciences, 5722 Deering Hall
S.N. Smith
Affiliation:
Department of Resource Economics and Policy, 206 Winslow Hall, University of Maine, Orono, Maine 04469
*
D.W. Donahue (darrell.donahue@umit.maine.edu)
Get access

Abstract

Environmental risks and costs associated with insecticide applications in Maine potato farming have been characterized and estimated using an Aroostook producer survey. The results of this study allow for comparison of pest management strategies based on producer concern for various aspects of the environment, including water quality, human health and animal safety. ‘Willingness to pay’ survey methodology was used to acquire an environmental cost range for insecticide use. Maine potato producers are willing to pay between $1.00 acre−1 (one acre = 0.4047ha) and $26.80acre−1 to avoid or reduce environmental risk associated with a single insecticide application. The Aroostook producer survey indicates that producers with small farms are generally willing to pay more to avoid or reduce environmental risk than producers with large farms. Mean Maine potato farm size has more than tripled over the past 40 years; therefore, concern for environmental quality on Maine potato farms could be decreasing.

Keywords

contingent valuationenvironmental qualitypest managementwillingness to pay
Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of Alternative Agriculture , Volume 17 , Issue 4 , December 2002 , pp. 159 - 166
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2002

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

1.Arrow, K., Solow, R., Portney, P.R., Leamer, E.E., Radner, R., and Schuman, H.. 1993. Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Federal Register 58:4601–4614.Google Scholar
2.Becker, R.L., Herzfeld, D., Ostlie, K.R., and Stamm-Katovich, E.J.. 1989. Pesticides: surface runoff, leaching, and exposure concerns. AG-BU-3911. Minnesota Extension Service, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities.Google Scholar
3.Dushoff, J., Caldwell, B., and Mohler, C.L.. 1994. Evaluating the environmental effect of pesticides: a critique of the environmental impact quotient. Amer. Ehtomol. 40:180–184.Google Scholar
4.EXTOXNET. 1998. Extension toxicology network: pesticide information profiles. Cooperative Extension Offices of Cornell University, Oregon State University, the University of Idaho, and the University of California at Davis and the Institute for Environmental Toxicology, Michigan State University. Web site http://ace.orst.edu/info/extoxnet/ (viewed 1 12 1998).Google Scholar
5.Gallandt, E.R., Mallory, E.B., Alford, A.R., Drummond, F.A., Groden, E., Liebman, M., Marra, M.C., McBurnie, J.C., and Porter, G.A.. 1998. Comparison of alternative pest and soil management strategies for Maine potato production systems. Amer. J. Alternative Agrie. 13(4):146–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Goss, D., and Wauchope, R.D.. 1990. The SCS/ARS/CES pesticide properties database: II, using it with soils data in a screening procedure. In Weigmann, D.L. (ed.). Pesticides in the Next Decade: The Challenges Ahead. Proceedings of the Third National Research Conference On Pesticides. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA. p. 471–493.Google Scholar
7.Hardin, G. 1968. The tragedy of the commons. Science 162:1243–1248.Google Scholar
8.Higley, L.G., and Wintersteen, W.K.. 1992. A novel approach to environmental risk assessment of pesticides as a basis for incorporating environmental costs into economic injury levels. Amer. Entomol. 38:34–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.Higley, L.G., and Wintersteen, W.K.. 1997. Thresholds and environmental quality. In Higley, L.G. and Pedigo, L.P. (eds.). Economic Thresholds for Integrated Pest Management. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, NE. p. 249–274.Google Scholar
10.Hutchins, S.H., and Gehring, P.J.. 1993. Perspective on the value, regulation, and objective utilization of pest control technology. Amer. Entomol. 39:12–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Kovach, J., Petzoldt, C., Degni, J., and Tette, J.. 1992. A method to measure the environmental impact of pesticides. New York's Food and Life Sciences Bulletin 139. New York State Agricultural Experiment Station, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
12. Maine Cooperative Extension. 1998. Conversation with the author. Maine Cooperative Extension professionals at the Thirteenth Annual Maine Potato Conference and Trade Show, 21–22 January. Caribou Inn and Convention Center, Caribou, Maine.Google Scholar
13.Marra, M.C. 1996. Economic results. In Alford, A.R., Drummond, F.A., Gallandt, E.R., Groden, E., Lambert, D.A., Liebman, M., Marra, M.C., McBurnie, J.C., Porter, G.A., and Salas, B. (eds.). The Ecology. Economics, and Management of Potato Cropping Systems: A Report of the First Four Years of the Maine Potato Ecosystem Project. Bull. 843. Maine Agricultural and Forest Experimental Station. University of Maine, Orono, ME. p. 129–146.Google Scholar
14.Mitchell, R.C., and Carson, R.T.. 1989. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: the Contingent Valuation Method. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
15.Mullen, J.D. 1995. Estimating the environmental and human health benefits of reducing pesticide use through integrated pest management programs. Master's thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA.Google Scholar
16.Mullen, J.D., Norton, G.W., and Reaves, D.W.. 1997. Economic analysis of environmental benefits of integrated pest management. J. Agric. Appl. Econ. 29(2):243–253.Google Scholar
17.Pedigo, L.P. 1996. Entomology and Pest Management. 2nd ed.Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.Google Scholar
18.Sagoff, M. 1988. The Economy of the Earth: Philosophy, Law, and the Environment. Cambridge University Press, New York.Google Scholar
19.USDA. 1992. Historical highlights: 1992 and earlier census years. In Census of Agriculture Volume 1: Part 19, Chapter 1, Maine state-level data. National Agricultural Statistics Service, Agricultural Statistics Board, US Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC. Web site http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census92/volumel/me-19/92_me.htm (viewed 1 12 1998).Google Scholar
20.USDA. 1995. Potato Statistics. National Agricultural Statistics Service, Agricultural Statistics Board, US Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC. Web site http://usda.mannlibcornell.edu/ (viewed 1 12 1998).Google Scholar
21.USDA SCS. 1993. Soil-pesticides interaction ratings. Section II-iii-L, Table 1. Soil pesticide loss potential: Aroostook County, Maine. Soil Conservation Service, US Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
22.Ziegler, C.R. 1999. The ecological economics of Maine potato industry insecticide use and a computerized approach to making decisions regarding the pest management of colorado potato beetle. Master's thesis, University of Maine, Orono, ME.Google Scholar
23.Ziegler, C.R., Drummond, F.A., Donahue, D.W., and Smith, S.N.. 2000. Agrelation: A computerized decision-making tool for color-ado potato beetle population management and environmental quality concerns. Technical Bulletin 176. Maine Agricultural and Forest Experiment Station, University of Maine, Orono, ME. Web site http://www.umaine.edu/mafes/elec_pubs/tbl76.pdf (viewed 29 07 2001).Google Scholar