Rufo Elvia, Brouwer Roy, van Beukering Pieter
Institute for Environmental Studies, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Centre for Safety of Substances and Products, Industrial Chemicals and Environmental Economics Unit, Bilthoven, The Netherlands.
Sci Rep. 2024 Dec 30;14(1):31905. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-83298-3.
Pesticide use poses major public health risks and raises environmental concerns globally. We synthesize three decades of stated preferences and experimental approaches that estimate the social costs of pesticide use through consumer and farmer willingness-to-pay (WTP) to prevent or reduce the risks involved. We contribute to the existing literature by demonstrating that the social costs of pesticides vary significantly depending on risk types and levels, where they occur, who is exposed and their risk aversion. The main conclusion is that there exists no single global value estimate for the social costs of pesticide use, there is widespread variation in existing value estimates. Consumers and farmers worldwide share concerns about pesticide risks to their health and the environment. However, there is a need to raise awareness about actual risk exposure levels and public health impacts. Leaving this information out in valuation studies significantly reduces WTP. Equally important is the need to further harmonize stated and revealed preference valuation research design and reporting to facilitate the application of previous study findings to new policy and decision-making contexts.
农药的使用给全球公共卫生带来重大风险，并引发环境问题。我们综合了三十年的陈述偏好和实验方法，这些方法通过消费者和农民为预防或降低相关风险的支付意愿（WTP）来估算农药使用的社会成本。我们通过证明农药的社会成本因风险类型和水平、发生地点、暴露人群及其风险厌恶程度的不同而有显著差异，为现有文献做出了贡献。主要结论是，对于农药使用的社会成本不存在单一的全球价值估计，现有价值估计存在广泛差异。全球的消费者和农民都对农药对其健康和环境的风险表示担忧。然而，有必要提高对实际风险暴露水平和公共卫生影响的认识。在估值研究中忽略这些信息会显著降低支付意愿。同样重要的是，需要进一步统一陈述偏好和显示偏好估值研究的设计与报告，以便将先前研究结果应用于新的政策和决策背景。
