4.4 Article

A pinch or a pint? Evidence of pesticide overuse in Bangladesh

期刊

JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS
卷 58, 期 1, 页码 91-114

出版社

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1111/j.1477-9552.2007.00083.x

关键词

Bangladesh; perceptions; pesticide overuse

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In a recent survey of 820 rice, potato, bean, eggplant, cabbage, sugarcane and mango farmers in Bangladesh, over 47% of farmers were found to be overusing pesticides. With only 4% of farmers formally trained in pesticide use or handling, and over 87% openly admitting to using little or no protective measures while applying pesticides, overuse is potentially a great threat to farmer health as well as the environment. Pesticide overuse was initially modelled using a three-equation, trivariate probit framework with health effects and misperception of pesticide risk as endogenous dummy variables. Significance tests revealed that health and misperception were not endogenous to overuse, suggesting a bivariate probit model for health effects and misperception and a separate probit model for overuse. Health effects were found to be a function of the amount of pesticides used in production, nutritional status and income, while misperception of pesticide risk was determined by health impairments from pesticides and the toxicity of chemicals used. Pesticide overuse was significantly explained by variation in misperception, income, farm ownership, the toxicity of chemicals used, crop composition and geographical location. These results highlight the necessity for policymakers to design effective and targeted outreach programmes which deal specifically with pesticide risk, safe handling and averting behaviour. Ideally, the approach would be participatory in nature to address key informational gaps, as well as increasing: farmers' awareness. The results also point to specific crops and locations experiencing a higher prevalence of overuse. Focusing efforts on these crops and geographical areas may have the most measurable effects on pesticide overuse.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据