Advertisement

Environmental Economics and Policy Studies

, Volume 5, Issue 3, pp 213–227 | Cite as

Private costs and the relation between pesticide exposure and ill health: evidence from Sri Lanka

  • Clevo Wilson
Article

Abstract

The cost of illness (COI) approach was used to estimate the private costs to Sri Lankan farmers due to ill health resulting from exposure to pesticides during handling and spraying. Field survey data showed that the costs arising from pesticide exposure are considerable. The data were then used to formulate cost of ill health scenarios for the entire country. The last section of the paper undertakes an econometric analysis to identify the factors responsible for the ill health among farmers exposed to pesticides. The Tobit regression results showed that farmers are in clear violation of the precautions prescribed for handling and spraying pesticides, a situation that calls for urgent action to implement the recommended safety procedures. If not, the costs to the country as well as to the users will be substantial, as shown by the cost estimates generated from the field survey and the limited hospital data available. The environmental externalities are also expected to be high. The results of the study can be useful for developing countries where farmers use hand sprayers, resulting in high exposure to pesticides.

Key words

Pesticide pollution Health effects Private and public costs Developing country Cost of illness approach 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Amemiya T (1984) Tobit models: a survey. Journal of Econometrics 24:3–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Annual Health Bulletin (1985–1998) Various issues. Ministry of Health, Colombo, Sri LankaGoogle Scholar
  3. Antle JM, Donald CC, Crissman CC (1998) Further evidence on pesticides, productivity and farmer health: potato production in Ecuador. Agricultural Economics 18:199–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Becker GS (1965) A theory of the allocation of time. Economic Journal 75:493–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blair A, Zahm SH (1993) Patterns of pesticide use among farmers: implications for epidemiologic research. Epidemiology 4:55–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bramble BJ (1989) An environmentalist view of pest management and the Green Revolution. Tropical Pest Management 35:228–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bryman A, Cramer D (1997) Quantitative data analysis with SPSS for windows: a guide for social scientists. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  8. Collins J J, Strauss ME, Levinskas GJ, Conner PR (1993) The mortality experience of workers exposed to 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin in a trichlorophenol process accident. Epidemiology 4:7–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Crissman CC, Antle JM, Capalbo SM (1998) Economic, environmental, and health tradeoffs in agriculture: pesticides and the sustainability of Andean potato production. Kluwer Academic, BostonGoogle Scholar
  10. Cuyno LM (1999) An economic evaluation of health and environmental benefits of the IPM program in the Philippines. PhD thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VAGoogle Scholar
  11. Department of Census and Statistics (1983) Sri Lanka census of agriculture, 1982: general report. Ministry of Plan Implementation, Colombo, Sri LankaGoogle Scholar
  12. Department of the Environment (1996) Indicators of sustainable development for the United Kingdom. Her Majesty’s Stationary Office, UKGoogle Scholar
  13. Dinham B (1993) The pesticide hazard: a global health and environmental audit. Zed Books, LondonGoogle Scholar
  14. Farmer BH (1977) Green revolution? Technology and change in rice growing areas of Tamil Nadu and Sri Lanka. Macmillan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  15. Food and Agricultural Organization (2000) Project concept paper: HEAL: health in ecological agricultural learning, prepared by the FAO programme for community IPM in Asia, Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, Rome, http://www.fao.org/nars/partners/2nrm/proposal/9_2_6.docGoogle Scholar
  16. Forget G (1991) Pesticides and the third world. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health 32:11–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gregory RD, Noble DH, Campbell LC, Gibbons DW (2000) The state of the nation’s birds–1999. Royal Society for the Protection of Birds/British Trust for Ornithology, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  18. Jeyaratnam J, Luw KC, Phoon WO (1987) Survey of acute pesticide poisoning among agricultural workers in four Asian countries. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 65:521–527Google Scholar
  19. Mason CF, Ford TC, Last NI (1986) Organochlorine residues in British otters. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 36:429–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ministry of Finance, Bangladesh (1992) Bangladesh economic survey, 1990/91. Government of the Peoples Republic of Bangladesh, DhakkaGoogle Scholar
  21. Mushkin SJ (1962) Health as an investment. Journal of Political Economy 70(Suppl, October):129–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pesticide Registration Office (1995) Unpublished data, Department of Agriculture, Peradeniya, Sri LankaGoogle Scholar
  23. Regional Network for the Production, Marketing and Control of Pesticides in Asia and the Far East (RENPAF) (1985) RENPAF Gazette, Special Issue, Metro ManilaGoogle Scholar
  24. Rola AC, Pingali PL (1993) Pesticides, rice productivity, and farmers’ health. International Rice Research Institute, ManilaGoogle Scholar
  25. Sivayoganathan C, Gnanachandran J, Lewis J, Fernando M (1995) Protective measure use and symptoms among agropesticide applicators in Sri Lanka. Social Science and Medicine 40:431–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. United States Environmental Protection Agency (1990) Fish kills caused by pollution, 1977-1987. Draft Report of the US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  27. Widawsky D, Rozelle S, Jin S, Huang J (1998) Pesticide productivity, host-plant resistance and productivity in China. Agricultural Economics 19:203–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wilson C, Tisdell C (2001) Why farmers continue to use pesticides despite environmental, health and sustainability costs. Ecological Economics 39:449–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wilson C (2003) Empirical evidence showing the relationships between three approaches for pollution control. Environmental and Resource Economics 24:97–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. World Resources Institute (1998) World Resources, 1998/1999. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Japan 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Clevo Wilson
    • 1
  1. 1.School of EconomicsThe University of QueenslandBrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations