Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39738705›Full record

SynthesisScientific reports2024

The social costs of pesticides: a meta-analysis of the experimental and stated preference literature.

Elvia Rufo, Roy Brouwer, Pieter van Beukering

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Elvia RufoInstitute for Environmental Studies, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. elvia.rufo.jimenez@rivm.nl.
Roy BrouwerInstitute for Environmental Studies, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Pieter van BeukeringInstitute for Environmental Studies, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

H2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions 859891
6 · The paper itself

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

PesticidesEnvironmental ExposureFarmersHumansPublic HealthPesticidesEnvironmental riskMeta-analysisPesticidesPublic health riskRevealed preferencesSocial costsStated preferences

Identifiers

PMID39738705
PMCPMC11685602

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.