The costs and benefits of refuge requirements: the case of Bt cotton. Frisvold, G., B. & Reeves, J., M. Ecological Economics, 65(1):87-97, Elsevier, 2008. abstract bibtex Refuge requirements have been the primary regulatory tool to delay pest resistance to Bt crops. This paper presents a simple method to estimate the annual cost of refuges to producers, applying it to Bt cotton. It also examines broader welfare impacts, estimating how Bt cotton acreage restrictions affect producer surplus, consumer surplus, seed supplier profits, and commodity program outlays. The implications of grower adoption behavior - partial adoption, aggregate adoption, and refuge choice - for regulatory costs are examined. Empirical examples illustrate how providing multiple refuge options significantly reduces regulatory costs.
@article{
title = {The costs and benefits of refuge requirements: the case of Bt cotton},
type = {article},
year = {2008},
identifiers = {[object Object]},
keywords = {Agricultural Economics (EE110),America,Arizona,Developed Countries,Field Crops (FF005) (New March 2000),GMOs,Genetic Engineering, Gene Transfer and Transgenics,Gossypium,Laws and Regulations (DD500),Malvaceae,Malvales,Mountain States of USA,North America,OECD Countries,Pesticide and Drug Resistance (HH410),Plant Breeding and Genetics (FF020),Southwestern States of USA,Spermatophyta,USA,United States of America,Western States of USA,angiosperms,cost benefit analysis,costings,costs,cotton,dicotyledons,eukaryotes,genetically engineered plants,genetically modified plants,pesticide resistance,plants,regulations,resistance management,returns,rules,transgenic plants,welfare economics},
pages = {87-97},
volume = {65},
websites = {http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/cgi-bin/proxy.pl?server=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lah&AN=20083081453&site=ehost-live&scope=site,http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VDY-4P3M27T-1&_user=6686535&_coverDate=03/15/2008&_rdoc=9&_fmt=full&_orig=browse&_srch=doc-info(#toc#5995#2008#999349998#680123#FLA#display#Volume)&_cdi=5995&_sort=d&_docanchor=&_ct=19&_acct=C000066028&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=6686535&md5=1e377ff960285c940d9ead553f9cd533,email: frisvo},
publisher = {Elsevier},
city = {Oxford; UK},
id = {941820d7-0811-393f-88b3-c274d216acfd},
created = {2012-01-04T22:01:13.000Z},
file_attached = {false},
profile_id = {1a467167-0a41-3583-a6a3-034c31031332},
group_id = {0e532975-1a47-38a4-ace8-4fe5968bcd72},
last_modified = {2012-01-05T12:54:46.000Z},
tags = {Bt cotton,United States,economic,economic impact,producer income and expenses},
read = {false},
starred = {false},
authored = {false},
confirmed = {true},
hidden = {false},
source_type = {Journal Article},
abstract = {Refuge requirements have been the primary regulatory tool to delay pest resistance to Bt crops. This paper presents a simple method to estimate the annual cost of refuges to producers, applying it to Bt cotton. It also examines broader welfare impacts, estimating how Bt cotton acreage restrictions affect producer surplus, consumer surplus, seed supplier profits, and commodity program outlays. The implications of grower adoption behavior - partial adoption, aggregate adoption, and refuge choice - for regulatory costs are examined. Empirical examples illustrate how providing multiple refuge options significantly reduces regulatory costs.},
bibtype = {article},
author = {Frisvold, G B and Reeves, J M},
journal = {Ecological Economics},
number = {1}
}
Downloads: 0
{"_id":"H8XethwNZyZtzeDDP","bibbaseid":"frisvold-reeves-thecostsandbenefitsofrefugerequirementsthecaseofbtcotton-2008","downloads":0,"creationDate":"2015-08-05T17:19:22.379Z","title":"The costs and benefits of refuge requirements: the case of Bt cotton","author_short":["Frisvold, G., B.","Reeves, J., M."],"year":2008,"bibtype":"article","biburl":null,"bibdata":{"title":"The costs and benefits of refuge requirements: the case of Bt cotton","type":"article","year":"2008","identifiers":"[object Object]","keywords":"Agricultural Economics (EE110),America,Arizona,Developed Countries,Field Crops (FF005) (New March 2000),GMOs,Genetic Engineering, Gene Transfer and Transgenics,Gossypium,Laws and Regulations (DD500),Malvaceae,Malvales,Mountain States of USA,North America,OECD Countries,Pesticide and Drug Resistance (HH410),Plant Breeding and Genetics (FF020),Southwestern States of USA,Spermatophyta,USA,United States of America,Western States of USA,angiosperms,cost benefit analysis,costings,costs,cotton,dicotyledons,eukaryotes,genetically engineered plants,genetically modified plants,pesticide resistance,plants,regulations,resistance management,returns,rules,transgenic plants,welfare economics","pages":"87-97","volume":"65","websites":"http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/cgi-bin/proxy.pl?server=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lah&AN=20083081453&site=ehost-live&scope=site,http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VDY-4P3M27T-1&_user=6686535&_coverDate=03/15/2008&_rdoc=9&_fmt=full&_orig=browse&_srch=doc-info(#toc#5995#2008#999349998#680123#FLA#display#Volume)&_cdi=5995&_sort=d&_docanchor=&_ct=19&_acct=C000066028&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=6686535&md5=1e377ff960285c940d9ead553f9cd533,email: frisvo","publisher":"Elsevier","city":"Oxford; UK","id":"941820d7-0811-393f-88b3-c274d216acfd","created":"2012-01-04T22:01:13.000Z","file_attached":false,"profile_id":"1a467167-0a41-3583-a6a3-034c31031332","group_id":"0e532975-1a47-38a4-ace8-4fe5968bcd72","last_modified":"2012-01-05T12:54:46.000Z","tags":"Bt cotton,United States,economic,economic impact,producer income and expenses","read":false,"starred":false,"authored":false,"confirmed":"true","hidden":false,"source_type":"Journal Article","abstract":"Refuge requirements have been the primary regulatory tool to delay pest resistance to Bt crops. This paper presents a simple method to estimate the annual cost of refuges to producers, applying it to Bt cotton. It also examines broader welfare impacts, estimating how Bt cotton acreage restrictions affect producer surplus, consumer surplus, seed supplier profits, and commodity program outlays. The implications of grower adoption behavior - partial adoption, aggregate adoption, and refuge choice - for regulatory costs are examined. Empirical examples illustrate how providing multiple refuge options significantly reduces regulatory costs.","bibtype":"article","author":"Frisvold, G B and Reeves, J M","journal":"Ecological Economics","number":"1","bibtex":"@article{\n title = {The costs and benefits of refuge requirements: the case of Bt cotton},\n type = {article},\n year = {2008},\n identifiers = {[object Object]},\n keywords = {Agricultural Economics (EE110),America,Arizona,Developed Countries,Field Crops (FF005) (New March 2000),GMOs,Genetic Engineering, Gene Transfer and Transgenics,Gossypium,Laws and Regulations (DD500),Malvaceae,Malvales,Mountain States of USA,North America,OECD Countries,Pesticide and Drug Resistance (HH410),Plant Breeding and Genetics (FF020),Southwestern States of USA,Spermatophyta,USA,United States of America,Western States of USA,angiosperms,cost benefit analysis,costings,costs,cotton,dicotyledons,eukaryotes,genetically engineered plants,genetically modified plants,pesticide resistance,plants,regulations,resistance management,returns,rules,transgenic plants,welfare economics},\n pages = {87-97},\n volume = {65},\n websites = {http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/cgi-bin/proxy.pl?server=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lah&AN=20083081453&site=ehost-live&scope=site,http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VDY-4P3M27T-1&_user=6686535&_coverDate=03/15/2008&_rdoc=9&_fmt=full&_orig=browse&_srch=doc-info(#toc#5995#2008#999349998#680123#FLA#display#Volume)&_cdi=5995&_sort=d&_docanchor=&_ct=19&_acct=C000066028&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=6686535&md5=1e377ff960285c940d9ead553f9cd533,email: frisvo},\n publisher = {Elsevier},\n city = {Oxford; UK},\n id = {941820d7-0811-393f-88b3-c274d216acfd},\n created = {2012-01-04T22:01:13.000Z},\n file_attached = {false},\n profile_id = {1a467167-0a41-3583-a6a3-034c31031332},\n group_id = {0e532975-1a47-38a4-ace8-4fe5968bcd72},\n last_modified = {2012-01-05T12:54:46.000Z},\n tags = {Bt cotton,United States,economic,economic impact,producer income and expenses},\n read = {false},\n starred = {false},\n authored = {false},\n confirmed = {true},\n hidden = {false},\n source_type = {Journal Article},\n abstract = {Refuge requirements have been the primary regulatory tool to delay pest resistance to Bt crops. This paper presents a simple method to estimate the annual cost of refuges to producers, applying it to Bt cotton. It also examines broader welfare impacts, estimating how Bt cotton acreage restrictions affect producer surplus, consumer surplus, seed supplier profits, and commodity program outlays. The implications of grower adoption behavior - partial adoption, aggregate adoption, and refuge choice - for regulatory costs are examined. Empirical examples illustrate how providing multiple refuge options significantly reduces regulatory costs.},\n bibtype = {article},\n author = {Frisvold, G B and Reeves, J M},\n journal = {Ecological Economics},\n number = {1}\n}","author_short":["Frisvold, G., B.","Reeves, J., M."],"bibbaseid":"frisvold-reeves-thecostsandbenefitsofrefugerequirementsthecaseofbtcotton-2008","role":"author","urls":{},"keyword":["Agricultural Economics (EE110)","America","Arizona","Developed Countries","Field Crops (FF005) (New March 2000)","GMOs","Genetic Engineering","Gene Transfer and Transgenics","Gossypium","Laws and Regulations (DD500)","Malvaceae","Malvales","Mountain States of USA","North America","OECD Countries","Pesticide and Drug Resistance (HH410)","Plant Breeding and Genetics (FF020)","Southwestern States of USA","Spermatophyta","USA","United States of America","Western States of USA","angiosperms","cost benefit analysis","costings","costs","cotton","dicotyledons","eukaryotes","genetically engineered plants","genetically modified plants","pesticide resistance","plants","regulations","resistance management","returns","rules","transgenic plants","welfare economics"],"downloads":0,"html":""},"search_terms":["costs","benefits","refuge","requirements","case","cotton","frisvold","reeves"],"keywords":["agricultural economics (ee110)","america","arizona","developed countries","field crops (ff005) (new march 2000)","gmos","genetic engineering","gene transfer and transgenics","gossypium","laws and regulations (dd500)","malvaceae","malvales","mountain states of usa","north america","oecd countries","pesticide and drug resistance (hh410)","plant breeding and genetics (ff020)","southwestern states of usa","spermatophyta","usa","united states of america","western states of usa","angiosperms","cost benefit analysis","costings","costs","cotton","dicotyledons","eukaryotes","genetically engineered plants","genetically modified plants","pesticide resistance","plants","regulations","resistance management","returns","rules","transgenic plants","welfare economics"],"authorIDs":[]}