A socioeconomic analysis of biocontrol in integrated pest management: A review of the effects of uncertainty, irreversibility and flexibility

Abstract

European regulations on the sustainable use of pesticides aim to promote integrated pest management (IPM) strategy and the use of biological control agents. However, uncertainty over benefits and costs, irreversibility effects as well as flexibility in adoption of this technology needs to be considered. Economic evaluation of IPM using simple cost-benefit analysis may be inadequate. Therefore, the need to develop evaluation tools that takes the aforementioned constraints into consideration is imperative. To this end, we introduce the maximum incremental social tolerable irreversible costs (MISTICs) as a tool for such evaluation. Only when the incremental reversible benefits of the IPM strategy outweigh possible irreversible costs of such a strategy by a minimum threshold (hurdle rate) should introduction of biocontrol be considered. Our approach allows assessment of an IPM strategy from a private (farmers) point of view to be extended to a social context.We aim to evaluate the MISTICs value of biocontrol adoption for Western Corn Rootworm in maize cultivation and wireworms in potato cultivation for selected European Union member states (Germany, France, Austria, Spain and Italy) based on the option and net present value using the McDonalds-Siegel Stimulation. We also evaluate the potential irreversible costs associated with biocontrol introduction.The farm-level MISTICs per hectare for biocontrol of Western Corn Rootworm in maize cultivation in the selected countries were estimated to be less than D 150/ha while biocontrol of wireworms in potato cultivation, well above D 200/ha. These results suggest that the introduction of biocontrol for wireworms in potato cultivation, given the higher MISTICs values, is more economically viable compared to the biocontrol of Western Corn Rootworm in maize. The model can also be extended to include other factors such as regulatory hurdles.

Social science perspectives on the bio-economy

“…Andrianandraina et al [2] for an example and Weiss et al [26] for an overview). On the other hand, the papers by Benjamin and Wesseler [4] and Wesseler and Drabik [27] are conceptual in nature and contribute to the research on the bio-economy by providing novel tools or perspectives to inform debates and future empirical applications.…”

“…Third, the studies by Benjamin and Wesseler [4], Smeets Kristkova et al [24] and those of Efken [7] and Heijman [14] show the centrality of accurate measurement and prediction tools in guiding regulatory processes. These contributions point out that the assumptions (e.g., about the definition of the bio-economy that is being used) that are guiding the development of these tools are important and need sufficient consideration of the purpose and end-use of the tools that are developed.…”

“…Second, the model outcomes show that public R&D investments are unable to stimulate agricultural production to the levels that are generally expected in other impact studies. Similarly, Benjamin and Wesseler [4] develop an improved economic evaluation tool for the introduction of integrated pest management strategies. As opposed to conventional cost-benefit analysis techniques, the model developed in this paper include the uncertainty that exists over benefits and costs; the irreversibility of investment decisions and their effects; and externalities (both positive and negative).…”

Response of soil microbial communities to the application of a formulatedMetarhizium brunneumbiocontrol strain

“…In contrast, assessment of effects on microorganisms naturally present in soil, such as changes in soil microbial community structures and the functions they fulfil, has received much less attention. However, considering the importance of microorganisms and their functions in ecosystems, knowledge on possible adverse effects on the native soil microbial community is important for safety but also for economic reasons, as it may have implications on benefit-cost analyses (Benjamin & Wesseler, 2016).…”

Integrated pest management in the academic small greenhouse setting: A case study using Solanum spp. (Solanaceae)

“…More recently, promoters of IPM have called for an increase in IPM extension, publications, and knowledge, citing a general dearth of experienced users, knowledgeable consultants, and IPM initiations (Van Lenteren, 2012;Parsa et al, 2014;Barzman et al, 2015;Buurma and van der Velden, 2017;Parrella and Lewis, 2017;Lamichhane et al, 2018). Although a call for increased IPM education has long been made, many researchers and practitioners have recognized a need for increased flexibility in IPM programs as well as better knowledge-sharing among users with locally adapted programs (Barzman et al, 2015;Benjamin and Wesseler, 2016;Buurma and van der Velden, 2017;Giles et al, 2017;Lamichhane et al, 2018).…”