Advertisement

Protocol for Economic Impact Evaluation of IPM Programs

  • George W. Norton
  • Scott M. Swinton

Abstract

The purpose of this chapter is to describe steps that can be followed to assess economic impacts of IPM. These steps are well established for evaluating user and society level profitability. The protocol is less agreed upon for evaluating the economic value of health and environmental impacts, but this chapter highlights steps in applying a non-market valuation technique for that purpose. Economic impacts of IPM are felt by IPM users, members of their households, and society at large. IPM programs are undertaken to provide information to users, scientists, funding agencies, and the general public. Prior to any economic impact assessment, it is necessary to define the principal audience(s) and the types of impact of interest. Once that is accomplished, a protocol can be followed for economic assessment of IPM impacts that includes five components: (1) defining IPM measures, (2) measuring IPM adoption, (3) assessing user-level economic effects, (4) assessing market effects, and (5) estimating health and environmental (non-market) impacts. We described these components and then indicate briefly a process for assessing impacts of IPM on poverty. A sample budget form, baseline survey questionnaire, and a spreadsheet for calculating economic surplus are provided. A model is described for assessing the extent of IPM adoption.

Keywords

Economic impact evaluation IPM baseline survey 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alston, J.M., Norton, G.W. and Pardey, P.G. 1995. Science Under Scarcity: Principles and Practice for Agricultural Research Evaluation and Priority Setting. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York.Google Scholar
  2. Beddow, J. 2000. Protocols for Assessment of Integrated Pest Management Programs. MS Thesis, Virginia Tech.Google Scholar
  3. Benbrook, C.M. 1996. Pest Management at a Crossroads, Consumers Union, Yonkers New York.Google Scholar
  4. Benbrook, C.M., Sexson, D.L., Wyman, J.A., Stevenson, W.R., Lynch, S., Wallendal, J., Diercks, S., Van Haren, R. and Granadino, C.A. 2002. Developing a pesticide risk assessment tool to monitor progress in reducing reliance on high-risk pesticides. American Journal of Potato Research 79:183–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Champ, P.A., Boyle, K.J. and Brown, T.C. (eds) 2003. A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation. Kluwer, Dordrecht, Netherlands.Google Scholar
  6. Cuyno, L.C.M., Norton, G.W. and Rola, A. 2001. Economic analysis of environmental benefits of integrated pest management: A Philippines case study. Agricultural Economics 25:227–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Debass, T. 2001. An Economic Impact Assessment of IPM CRSP Activities in Bangladesh and Uganda: A GIS Application. M. S. Thesis, Virginia Tech.Google Scholar
  8. Feder, G., Murgai, R. and Quizon, J.B. 2004. Sending farmers back to school: The impact of farmer field schools in Indonesia. Review of Agricultural Economics 26:45–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fernandez-Cornejo, J. 1998. Environmental and economic consequences of technology adoption: IPM in viticulture. Agricultural Economics 18:145–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Freeman, A.M., III 2003. The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values: Theory and Methods. 2nd ed., Resources for the Future, Washington DC.Google Scholar
  11. 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. American Entomologist 38:34–39.Google Scholar
  12. Hollingsworth, C.S., Coli, W.M. and Hazzard, R.V. 1992. Massachusetts integrated pest management guidelines: Crop specific definitions, Fruit Notes, Fall:12–16.Google Scholar
  13. 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, Number 139, Cornell University, New York State Agricultural Experiment Station, Geneva, New York.Google Scholar
  14. Mauceri, M, Alwang, J., Norton, G. and Barrera, V. 2007. Effectiveness of integrated pest management dissemination techniques: A case study of potato farmers in carchi, Ecuador, Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 39(3):765–780.Google Scholar
  15. Moyo, S, Norton, G.W., Alwang, J., Rheinehart, I. and Deom, M. 2007. Peanut research and poverty reduction: Impacts of variety improvement to control peanut viruses in Uganda. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 89(2):448–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mullen, J.D., Norton, G.W. and Reaves, D.W. 1997. Economic analysis of environmental benefits of integrated pest management. Journal of Agriculture and Applied Economics 29:243–253.Google Scholar
  17. Napit, K.B., Norton, G.W., Kazmierczak, R.F., Jr. and Rajotte, E.G. 1988. Economic impacts of extension integrated pest management programs in several states. Journal of Economic Entomology 81:251–256.Google Scholar
  18. Norton, G.W., Moore, K., Quishpe, D., Barrera, V., Debass, T., Moyo, S. and Taylor, D.B. 2005. Evaluating socio-economic impacts of IPM. In G.W. Norton, E.A. Heinrichs, G.C. Luther, and M.E. Irwin (eds), Globalizing Integrated Pest Management, Blackwell, Ames, IA, pp. 225–244.Google Scholar
  19. Norton, G., and Mullen, J. 1994. Economic Evaluation of Integrated Pest Management Programs: A Literature Review. Virginia Coop. Ext. Pub. 448–120, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia.Google Scholar
  20. Penrose, L.J., Thwaite, W.G., and Bower, C.C. 1994. Rating index as a basis for decision making on pesticide use reduction for accreditation of fruit produced under integrated pest management. Crop Protection 13:146–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rajotte, E.G., Kazmierczak, R.F., Norton, G.W., Lambur, M.T. and Allen, W.E. 1985. The National Evaluation of Extension’s Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Programs. Virginia Cooperative Extension Service Pub. 491-010, Blacksburg, Virginia, February.Google Scholar
  22. Swinton, S. and Norton, G.W. 2009 (in press). Economic Impacts of IPM. Chapter 2 in Radcliffe E.B., Hutcheson, W.D., and Cancelado, R.E., Integrated Pest Management: Concepts, Tactics, Strategies&Case Studies, Cambridge University Press, pp. 39–65Google Scholar
  23. Swinton, S.M., Owens, N.N. and van Ravenswaay, E.O. 1999. Health risk information to reduce water pollution. In Casey, F. et al. (eds.), Flexible Incentives for the Adoption of Environmental Technologies in Agriculture, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, pp. 263–271.Google Scholar
  24. Swinton, S.M., Renner, K.A. and Kells, J.J. 2002. On-farm comparison of three postemergence weed management decision aids in Michigan. Weed Technology 16:691–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Teague, M.L., Mapp, H.P. and Bernardo, D.J. 1995. Risk indices for economic and water quality tradeoffs: An application to Great Plains agriculture. Journal of Production Agriculture 8:405–415.Google Scholar
  26. Vandeman, A., Fernandez-Cornejo, J., Jans, S. and Lin, B. 1994. Adoption of Integrated Pest Management in U.S. Agriculture. USDA/ERS Agric. Info. Bulletin No. 707, Washington DC., SeptemberGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • George W. Norton
    • 1
  • Scott M. Swinton
  1. 1.Agricultural and Applied EconomicsVirginia Polytechnic Institute and State UniversityBlacksburgUSA

Personalised recommendations