Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-kl2l2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-09-09T16:47:59.351Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Economic and Environmental Effects Associated with Reducing the Use of Atrazine: An Example of Cross-Disciplinary Research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

Marc O. Ribaudo  and
Terrance M. Hurley
Marc O. Ribaudo
Affiliation:
Economic Research Service, Washington, DC
Terrance M. Hurley
Affiliation:
Center for Agricultural and Rural Development, Iowa State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Restricting or eliminating the use of atrazine in the Midwest would have important economic consequences for farmers, consumers, and the environment. These consequences can only be evaluated with cooperation between economists and weed scientists. The weed control choice set available to farmers cannot be observed through deductive research. Economists and weed scientists worked together to identify all possible weed control strategies for corn and sorghum in the Midwest and to incorporate them into an economic model. An atrazine ban was found to be the costliest strategy, and a targeted, water-quality based strategy the most cost effective.

Keywords

atrazinedeductive researchenvironmental exposureherbicidesinductive researchwelfare

Information

Type
Invited Paper Sessions
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 29 , Issue 1 , July 1997 , pp. 87 - 97
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Abdalla, C.W., Roach, B.A., and Epp, D.J.. “Valuing Environmental Quality Changes Using Averting Expenditures: An Application to Groundwater Contamination.” Land Econ. 88(1992):163-69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belluck, D., Benjamin, S., and Dawson, T.. “Groundwater Contamination by Atrazine and Its Metabolites: Risk Assessment, Policy, and Legal Implications.” In Pesticide Transformation Products, Fate and Significance in the Environment, eds., Somasundaram, L. and Coats, J., pp. 254-73. Washington DC: American Chemical Society, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bouzaher, A., Lakshminarayan, P.G., Cabe, R., Carriquiry, A., Gassman, P., and Shogren, J.. “Metamodels and Nonpoint Pollution Policy in Agriculture.” Water Resour. Res. 29(1993):1579–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goolsby, D.A., Coupe, R.C., and Markovchick, D.J.. “Distribution of Selected Herbicides and Nitrate in the Mississippi River and Its Major Tributaries, April Through June 1991.” Water Resources Investigations Rep. No. 91-4163, U.S.Geological Survey, Denver CO, 1991.Google Scholar
Ribaudo, M.O., and Bouzaher, A.. “Atrazine: Environmental Characteristics and Economics of Management.” Pub. No. AER-699, USDA/Economic Research Service, Washington DC, September 1994.Google Scholar
Sun, H., Bergstrom, J.C., and Dorfman, J.R.. “Estimating the Benefits of Groundwater Contamination Control.” S. J. Agr. Econ. 24(1992):63–71.Google Scholar