Tropentag 2010 ETH Zurich, September 14 - 16, 2010 Conference on International Research on Food Security, Natural Resource Management and Rural Developmentpesticide risk, indicators, sustainability, health, environment, Colombia, Crop Production/Industries, Environmental Economics and Policy, Health Economics and Policy, Research Methods/ Statistical Methods, Risk and Uncertainty,

Binder, Claudia R.

Feola, Giuseppe

Rahn, Eric

English

Research Papers in Economics

 
  1
Tropentag 2010 
ETH Zurich, September 14 - 16, 2010 
Conference on International Research on Food Security, Natural 
Resource Management and Rural Development 
 
 
 
Testing environmental and health pesticide use risk indicators. The case of potato 
production in Boyacá, Colombia. 
 
Feola Giuseppe
a, Eric Rahn
a and Claudia R. Binder
a,b 
 
a  Department of Geography, University of Zurich, Winterthurerstrasse 190, 8057 Zurich, Switzerland. Email: 
giuseppe.feola@geo.uzh.ch. 
b Institute for System Science, Innovation and Sustainability Research, University of Graz, Merangasse 18/I, 8010 
Graz, Austria. 
 
 
 
Introduction 
Pesticide risk indicators are a relatively simple tool for the assessment of environmental and 
health risks from pesticide use. Based on the level of complexity of pesticide risk indicators, two 
broad typologies can be identified (Reus et al., 2002). The first includes user friendly assessment 
tools, usually with few input data requirements, and a scoring table based on rather simple 
algorithms which are often constructed on the basis of expert judgment. The second typology 
includes indicators using a risk-ratio, or exposure-toxicity ratio (ETR) approach, i.e. “the ratio 
between exposure (usually the concentration in a certain environmental compartment) and 
toxicity for relevant organisms” (Reus et al., 2002). These indicators are considered to better 
represent and quantify environmental risks from pesticide use, but have the drawbacks of 
requiring more detailed input data and the support of computer modelling (Reus et al., 2002). The 
extent to which simple and complex pesticide risk indicators provide convergent assessment 
results is an open issue. 
The quest for simple but reliable assessment methods is particularly relevant in Less Developed 
Countries (LDC). Not only are LDCs often characterised by particularly serious pesticide-related 
externalities (e.g. Ecobichon, 2001), but also by a lack of resources dedicated to environmental 
protection and the promotion of sustainable agricultural production. However, one open issue in 
this regard is that pesticide risk indicators are usually developed for productive and pedoclimatic 
conditions in Western countries, which might imply an incorrect assessment of pesticide risks in 
LDCs. While comparative evaluations of pesticide risk indicators exist (e.g. Maud et al., 2001; 
Reus et al., 2002; Castoldi et al., 2007), they do not refer to the conditions of resource availability 
usually encountered in LDCs and neglect human health risk indicators.  
The objective of this study was to investigate the appropriateness of seven ETR and non-ETR 
pesticide risk indicators for use at farm level in LDCs, with particular reference to smallholding 
agriculture in the Colombian Andean region. 
 
Material and Methods 
Seven farm-level indicators, i.e. EIQ (Kovach et al., 1992), PestScreen (Juraske et al., 2007), 
EPRIP (Trevisan et al., 2009), PIRI (Kookana et al., 2005), POCER (Vercruysse and Steurbaut,  
  2
2002), OHRI (Bergkvist, 2004) and the indicator proposed by Dosemeci et al., (2002) were 
selected so that i) every environmental and health compartment was considered by at least two of 
the selected indicators and ii) both simple, i.e. non-ETR, and complex, i.e. ETR, indicators were 
represented (Table 1). All indicators chosen present a relative outcome, i.e. the assessment 
provides a qualitative statement on the relative risks a pesticide application or control strategy 
might have in comparison to the application of another pesticide or to a control strategy based on 
different pesticides 
 
Table 1. Risk indicators considered in this study by environmental and health compartments 
EIQ PestScreen POCER EPRIP PIRI OHRI
Dosemeci et 
al. (2002)
Soil ***
Air **
Surface water *****
Groudwater *****
Beneficial arthropods **
Pesticide operator ** * *
Farm worker **
Consumer *****
ETR
***
Non-ETR
** **
H
e
a
l
t
h
C
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
 
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
 
 
The data necessary to calculate the indicator rankings were mainly derived from an existing 
georeferenced dataset produced in a previous study in the vereda (community) called La Hoya, 
located in the Department of Boyacá, in the eastern chain of the Colombian Andes (Feola and 
Binder, 2010a and 2010b). The data consisted of detailed information on 72 farmers’ safety 
practices (e.g. hygiene and use of personal protective equipment) and pesticide applications on 
one selected plot (potato crop) during one entire agricultural cycle (March to August 2007). 
Additional data necessary to calculate the indicators was mainly gathered from literature. 
The study consisted of three phases. First, the indicator values were calculated for the pest control 
strategy and for single pesticide applications. A pest control strategy is defined for each of the 72 
farmers on the basis of the total amount of pesticide applied by active ingredient. 
Second, the indicator rankings were compared by means of the Spearman rank correlation test, in 
accordance with Maud et al. (2001) and Reus et al. (2002), and using the software PASW 
Statistics 18.0. Not only were the indicators compared with respect to their overall outcome, but 
also every individual environmental and health risk component that the indicators have in 
common (Table 1) was compared separately. Furthermore, the indicators were compared with 
regard to both the 518 pesticide applications and the 72 control strategies. 
Third, a comparison based on key indicator characteristics was made, taking into account each 
indicator’s usability (i.e. data availability, calculation procedure, and interpretation of ranking) 
and ability to represent the specific system under study (i.e. compartments considered, use of site 
specific data). 
 
Results and Discussion 
Simple versus complex pesticide risk indicators. Comparison of the indicators with regard to 
the total environmental risk suggests that simple indicators not relying on an ETR approach 
cannot be used as a reliable proxy for more complex indicators, i.e. those relying on an ETR 
approach. In effect, the values of the former (i.e. EIQ, PestScreen) tended to correlate weakly 
with those of the latter (i.e. EPRIP, POCER and PIRI) when the total environmental risk was  
  3
considered (Feola et al., unpublished). When single compartments were considered, the 
correlation between the indicator rankings was stronger, which confirms the results of other 
studies (Maud et al., 2001; Reus et al., 2002). However, the correlations between non-ETR and 
ETR indicator values for single compartments were rather weak in the majority of cases (Feola et 
al., unpublished).  
Concerning the human health risk, correlations between rankings of different indicators, both 
ETR and non-ETR, tended to be weak and to change significantly when the control strategies 
instead of the single applications were considered. These differences were very likely to depend 
on the radically different attribution of risk potential to different factors in the indicators, i.e. 
misuse of protective equipment and highly toxic pesticides in POCER, powder formulations and 
large plot areas in OHRI, misuse of personal protective equipment and hygiene habits in 
Dosemeci et al (2002). Since no other similar comparison of health pesticide risk indicators exists 
in the literature, it was not possible to compare these results with those of other studies. Further 
research in this direction is recommended. 
Use of pesticide risk indicators in less developed countries. Recent developments of EPRIP 
(Trevisan et al., 2009), and in particular the provision of a freely accessible, user-friendly 
software with an internal database, have reduced the complexity of this indicator and made its use 
relatively simple. Moreover, EPRIP is also the indicator that more strictly complies with the other 
requirements identified by previous studies for the development of more accurate pesticide risk 
indicators (i.e. Maud et al., 2001; Reus et al., 2002). Therefore, among the indicators compared in 
the present study, EPRIP seems to best combine the need for a relatively simple tool to be used in 
contexts of scarce data availability and resources, and that of a more reliable estimation of 
environmental risk. Nevertheless, non-ETR indicators remain very useful and accessible tools for 
discriminating between different potentially risky pesticides prior to application. In this regard, 
PestScreen is probably to be preferred to EIQ for it not only includes halflife values for single 
media but makes use of the overall environmental persistence. 
With regard to human health risk indicators, because of the uncertainties still existing in the 
literature on human exposure to pesticide, it might be preferable to avoid using indicators based 
on exposure models. In addition, these models are usually developed under European conditions, 
which can be very different from those observed in LDCs such as the study area (Feola and 
Binder 2010a and 2010b). In these contexts it might be less important to accurately quantify the 
exposure of farmers to pesticides than to understand the determinants of exposure, both in terms 
of risk factors (e.g. misuse of personal protective equipment, hygiene habits) and of determinants 
of risky behaviour (e.g. cost of protective equipment, social norm). Consequently, algorithms 
such as the OHRI or the indicator proposed by Dosemeci et al. (2002) would seem more 
appropriate in assessing human health risk in LDCs. However, these indicators might also suffer 
from a bias towards North American or European application. Further research on the validation 
of such parameters under the pesticide application conditions found in many LDCs is needed.         
 
Conclusions and Outlook 
This study investigated the appropriateness of seven pesticide risk indicators for use at farm level 
in Less Developed Countries, with particular reference to smallholding potato production in the 
Department of Boyacá (Colombian Andean region). The comparison of the indicators with regard 
to the total environmental risk suggests that simple indicators not relying on an exposure-toxicity 
ratio approach cannot be used as reliable proxies for more complex ones, i.e. indicators based on 
an exposure-toxicity ratio approach. The indicator EPRIP, which follows an exposure-toxicity 
ratio approach, seems to best combine the need for a relatively simple tool to be used in contexts 
of limited data availability and resources, such as those usually characterizing Less Developed 
Countries, and that of a reliable estimation of environmental risk. Indicators not based on an  
  4
exposure-toxicity ratio approach such as PestScreen remain useful and accessible tools for 
discriminating between different pesticides prior to application. Concerning the human health 
risk, simple algorithms such as the OHRI or that proposed by Dosemeci et al. (2002) seem more 
appropriate than complex ones in assessing human health risk in Less Developed Countries. This 
study also pointed out the need for further research on health risk indicators and their validation 
under the conditions encountered in Less Developed Countries. 
 
References 
BERGKVIST, P. (2004). Pesticide Risk Indicators at National Level and farm Level. A Swedish 
Approach. Swedish Chemical Inspectorate Sunbyberg, Sweden. 
CASTOLDI, N., FINIZIO, A., BECHINI, L. (2007). Agro-ecological indicators of field-farming system 
sustainability. II. Nutrients and pesticides. Italian Journal of Agrometeorology 1: 6-23.  
DOSEMECI, M., ALAVANJA, M.C.R., ROWLAND. A.S., MAGE, D., HOAR ZAHM, S., ROTHMAN, N., 
LUBIN,  J.H.,  HOPPIN,  J.A.,  SANDLER,  D.P.,  BLAIR,  A. (2002). A Quantitative Approach to 
Estimating Exposure to Pesticides in the Agricultural Health Study. Annals of Occupational 
Hygene 46(2): 245-260. 
ECOBICHON, D.J. (2001). Pesticide use in developing countries. Toxicology 160: 27-33. 
FEOLA, G., BINDER, C.R.  (2010a). Why don’t pesticide applicators protect themselves? Exploring 
the use of Personal Protective Equipment among Colombian smallholders. International Journal 
of Occupational and Environmental Health 16: 11-23. 
FEOLA, G., BINDER, C.R. (2010b). Identifying and investigating pesticide application types to 
promote a more sustainable pesticide use. The case of smallholders in Boyacá, Colombia. Crop 
Protection 29: 612-622. 
FEOLA  G.,  RAHN  E.,  BINDER  C.R. unpublished. Suitability of pesticide risk indicators for 
developing countries: a comparison. 
KOOKANA, R., CORRELL, R., MILLER, R. (2005). Pesticide impact rating index - a pesticide risk 
indicator for water quality. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution: Focus 5: 45-65. 
KOVACH, J., PETZOLDT, C., DEGNIL, J., TETTE, J. (1992). A method to measure the environmental 
impact of pesticides. New York's Food and Life Sciences Bulletin 139: 1-8. 
MAUD, J., EDWARDS-JONES, G., QUIN, F. (2001). Comparative evaluation of pesticide risk indices 
for policy development and assessment in the United Kingdom. Agriculture Ecosystems and 
Environment 86: 59-73.  
REUS, J., LEENDERTSE, P., BOCKSTALLER, C., FOMSGAARD, I., GUTSCHE, V., LEWIS, K., NILSSON, 
C., PUSSEMIER, L.,  TREVISAN, M., VAN DER WERF, H., ALFARROVA, F., BLÜMEL, S., ISART, J., 
MCGRATH, D., SEPPÄLÄ, T. (2002). Comparison and evaluation of eight pesticide environmental 
risk indicators developed in Europe and recommendations for future use. Agriculture Ecosystems 
and Environment 90: 177-187. 
TREVISAN, M., DI GUARDO, A., BALDERACCHI, M. (2009). An environmental indicator to drive 
sustainable pest management practices. Environmental Modelling and Software 24: 994-1002. 
VERCRUYSSE, F., STEURBAUT, W. (2002). POCER, the pesticide occupational and environmental 
risk indicator. Crop Protection 21: 307-315.  

A method to measure the environmental impact of pesticides.

A Quantitative Approach to Estimating Exposure to Pesticides in the Agricultural Health Study.

Agro-ecological indicators of field-farming system sustainability. II. Nutrients and pesticides.

An environmental indicator to drive sustainable pest management practices.

Comparative evaluation of pesticide risk indices for policy development and assessment in the United Kingdom.

Comparison and evaluation of eight pesticide environmental risk indicators developed in Europe and recommendations for future use.

Identifying and investigating pesticide application types to promote a more sustainable pesticide use. The case of smallholders in

Pesticide impact rating index - a pesticide risk indicator for water quality.

Pesticide Risk Indicators at National Level and farm Level. A Swedish Approach. Swedish Chemical Inspectorate Sunbyberg,

Pesticide use in developing countries.

POCER, the pesticide occupational and environmental risk indicator.

Why don’t pesticide applicators protect themselves? Exploring the use of Personal Protective Equipment among Colombian smallholders.

Testing environmental and health pesticide use risk indicators. The case of potato production in Boyacá, Colombia

Testing environmental and health pesticide use risk indicators. The case of potato production in Boyacá, Colombia

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Research Papers in Economics