SynthesisScientific reports2024
The social costs of pesticides: a meta-analysis of the experimental and stated preference literature.
Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Community Health Impacts of Pesticide Exposure: Pathways, Vulnerable Populations, and Public Health Responses.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026Review
- Preventing Pesticide Toxicity Risk Through Self-Reported Practices in Children of Farming Communities: A Social Practice Theory Perspective.Journal of xenobiotics · 2026Article
- Public Views on Pesticide Exposure and Human Biomonitoring in Latvia: Evidence from Focus Groups and Media Analysis.Toxics · 2026Article
- Pesticides Drive Liver Diseases Through Non-Apoptotic Regulated Cell Death Pathways.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.