Bt Cotton, Pesticide Use and Environmental Efficiency in Pakistan

被引:39
作者
Abedullah [1 ]
Kouser, Shahzad [1 ]
Qaim, Matin [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Agr Faisalabad, Inst Agr & Resource Econ, Faisalabad, Pakistan
[2] Univ Gottingen, Dept Agr Econ & Rural Dev, Gottingen, Germany
关键词
Bt cotton; environmental and health impact; environmental efficiency; Pakistan; pesticide; sustainable development; GENETICALLY-MODIFIED COTTON; TECHNICAL EFFICIENCY; IMPACT; TECHNOLOGY; HEALTH; BENEFITS; FARMERS; PRODUCTIVITY; PERFORMANCE; REDUCTIONS;
D O I
10.1111/1477-9552.12072
中图分类号
F3 [农业经济];
学科分类号
0202 ; 020205 ; 1203 ;
摘要
There is a broad literature on the impact of Bt cotton adoption in different countries, but few studies have explicitly looked at environmental and health effects from an economic perspective. We analyse the impact of Bt cotton on environmental efficiency in Pakistan, using farm survey data and a doubly heteroskedastic stochastic production function framework. Negative environmental and health effects of chemical pesticide use are quantified with the environmental impact quotient. Bt-adopting farms have higher cotton yields, while using lower pesticide quantities and causing less environmental damage. Bt farms are both technically and environmentally more efficient than non-Bt farms. Bt adoption increases environmental efficiency by 37%. Achieving the same reduction in negative environmental and health impact without Bt would cost conventional cotton farmers US$ 54 per acre in terms of foregone yields and revenues (7% of total revenues). Extrapolating this shadow price of the technology's health and environmental benefits to the total Bt cotton area in Pakistan results in an aggregate value of US$ 370million. These benefits are in addition to the profit gains for Bt-adopting farmers. Our results suggest that Bt technology can contribute to sustainable agricultural development.
引用
收藏
页码:66 / 86
页数:21
相关论文
共 61 条
  • [1] The Adoption of Genetically Modified Cotton and Poverty Reduction in Pakistan
    Ali, Akhter
    Abdulai, Awudu
    [J]. JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS, 2010, 61 (01) : 175 - 192
  • [2] [Anonymous], METHOD EVALUATE ENV
  • [3] [Anonymous], 1992, N Y FOOD LIFE SCI B, DOI DOI 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.10.154
  • [4] [Anonymous], 100 PARC IWMI
  • [5] [Anonymous], AGR APPL EC ASS AAEA
  • [6] [Anonymous], AGR STAT PAK 2007 20
  • [7] [Anonymous], 2010, The WHO recommended classification of pesticides by hazard and guidelines to classification: 2009
  • [8] [Anonymous], EUR ASS AGR EC EAAE
  • [9] [Anonymous], 2006, LAHORE J EC, DOI [DOI 10.35536/LJE.2006.V11.I2.A1, 10.35536/lje.2006.v11.i2.a1]
  • [10] [Anonymous], ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS G