IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecomod/v205y2007i1p169-180.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Landscape gene flow, coexistence and threshold effect: The case of genetically modified herbicide tolerant oilseed rape (Brassica napus)

Author

Listed:
  • Ceddia, M. Graziano
  • Bartlett, Mark
  • Perrings, Charles

Abstract

Globally there have been a number of concerns about the development of genetically modified crops many of which relate to the implications of gene flow at various levels. In Europe these concerns have led the European Union (EU) to promote the concept of ‘coexistence’ to allow the freedom to plant conventional and genetically modified (GM) varieties but to minimise the presence of transgenic material within conventional crops. Should a premium for non-GM varieties emerge on the market, the presence of transgenes would generate a ‘negative externality’ to conventional growers. The establishment of maximum tolerance level for the adventitious presence of GM material in conventional crops produces a threshold effect in the external costs.

Suggested Citation

  • Ceddia, M. Graziano & Bartlett, Mark & Perrings, Charles, 2007. "Landscape gene flow, coexistence and threshold effect: The case of genetically modified herbicide tolerant oilseed rape (Brassica napus)," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 205(1), pages 169-180.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecomod:v:205:y:2007:i:1:p:169-180
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2007.02.025
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304380007000889
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2007.02.025?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Muradian, Roldan, 2001. "Ecological thresholds: a survey," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 7-24, July.
    2. M. J. Crawley & S. L. Brown & R. S. Hails & D. D. Kohn & M. Rees, 2001. "Transgenic crops in natural habitats," Nature, Nature, vol. 409(6821), pages 682-683, February.
    3. Bullock, D. S. & Desquilbet, M., 2002. "The economics of non-GMO segregation and identity preservation," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 81-99, February.
    4. Charles Perrings & David Pearce, 1994. "Threshold effects and incentives for the conservation of biodiversity," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 4(1), pages 13-28, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Groeneveld, Rolf A. & Wesseler, Justus & Berentsen, Paul B.M., 2013. "Dominos in the dairy: An analysis of transgenic maize in Dutch dairy farming," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 107-116.
    2. Antoci, Angelo & Iannucci, Gianluca & Rocchi, Benedetto & Ticci, Elisa, 2023. "The land allocation game: Externalities and evolutionary competition," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 124-133.
    3. Shyama V. Ramani & Mhamed-Ali El-Aroui, 2020. "On application of the precautionary principle to ban GMVs: an evolutionary model of new seed technology integration," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 30(4), pages 1243-1266, September.
    4. Ceddia, M. Graziano & Bartlett, Mark & Perrings, Charles, 2008. "Policies for the regulation of coexistence between GM and conventional crops," 2008 International Congress, August 26-29, 2008, Ghent, Belgium 44193, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    5. Breustedt, Gunnar & Latacz-Lohmann, Uwe & Müller-Scheeßel, Jörg, 2013. "Impact of alternative information requirements on the coexistence of genetically modified (GM) and non-GM oilseed rape in the EU," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 104-115.
    6. Chaput-Bardy, A. & Fleurant, C. & Lemaire, C. & Secondi, J., 2009. "Modelling the effect of in-stream and overland dispersal on gene flow in river networks," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 220(24), pages 3589-3598.
    7. Ceddia, Michele Graziano & Bartlett, Mark & Lucia, Caterina De & Perrings, Charles, 2011. "On the regulation of spatial externalities: coexistence between GM and conventional crops in the EU and the ‘newcomer principle’," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 55(01), pages 1-18.
    8. Gray, Emily & Ancev, Tihomir & Drynan, Ross, 2011. "Coexistence of GM and non-GM crops with endogenously determined separation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 2486-2493.
    9. Demont, Matty & Dillen, Koen & Daems, Wim & Sausse, Christophe & Tollens, Eric & Mathijs, Erik, 2009. "On the proportionality of EU spatial ex ante coexistence regulations," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(6), pages 508-518, December.
    10. Colbach, Nathalie & Monod, Hervé & Lavigne, Claire, 2009. "A simulation study of the medium-term effects of field patterns on cross-pollination rates in oilseed rape (Brassica napus L.)," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 220(5), pages 662-672.
    11. Le Ber, F. & Lavigne, C. & Adamczyk, K. & Angevin, F. & Colbach, N. & Mari, J.-F. & Monod, H., 2009. "Neutral modelling of agricultural landscapes by tessellation methods—Application for gene flow simulation," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 220(24), pages 3536-3545.
    12. Hoyle, Martin & Cresswell, James E., 2009. "Maximum feasible distance of windborne cross-pollination in Brassica napus: A ‘mass budget’ model," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 220(8), pages 1090-1097.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Philippe Le Coent & Raphaële Préget & Sophie Thoyer, 2015. "Can collective conditionality improve agri-environmental contracts? Insights from experimental economics," Post-Print hal-01606341, HAL.
    2. Jérémy Laurent-Lucchetti & Justin Leroux & Bernard Sinclair-Desgagné, 2011. "Splitting an Uncertain (Natural) Capital," Cahiers de recherche 1105, CIRPEE.
    3. Dupraz, Pierre & Latouche, Karine & Turpin, Nadine, 2007. "Programmes agri-environnementaux en présence d’effets de seuil," Cahiers d'Economie et de Sociologie Rurales (CESR), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 82.
    4. Grant, Darren, 2016. "The essential economics of threshold-based incentives: Theory, estimation, and evidence from the Western States 100," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 180-197.
    5. Calvet, Coralie & Le Coent, Philippe & Napoleone, Claude & Quétier, Fabien, 2019. "Challenges of achieving biodiversity offset outcomes through agri-environmental schemes: Evidence from an empirical study in Southern France," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 113-125.
    6. Kristin Limbach & Anne Rozan & Philipe Coent & Raphaële Préget & Sophie Thoyer, 2023. "Can collective conditionality improve agri-environmental contracts? From lab to field experiments," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 104(3), pages 311-340, December.
    7. Darren Grant, 2010. "The Simple Economics of Thresholds: Evidence from the Western States 100," Working Papers 1004, Sam Houston State University, Department of Economics and International Business.
    8. Darren Grant & William B. Green, 2009. "The Simple Economics of Thresholds: Grades as Incentives," Working Papers 0901, Sam Houston State University, Department of Economics and International Business.
    9. Konduru, Srinivasa & Kalaitzandonakes, Nicholas G. & Magnier, Alexandre, 2009. "GMO Testing Strategies and Implications for Trade: A Game Theoretic Approach," 2009 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, 2009, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 49594, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    10. Demont, Matty & Daems, W. & Dillen, Koen & Mathijs, Erik & Sausse, C. & Tollens, Eric, 2008. "Economics of spatial coexistence of genetically modified and conventional crops: Oilseed rape in Central France," 2008 International Congress, August 26-29, 2008, Ghent, Belgium 43650, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    11. Stern, David I., 1997. "Limits to substitution and irreversibility in production and consumption: A neoclassical interpretation of ecological economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 197-215, June.
    12. GianCarlo Moschini, 2008. "Biotechnology and the development of food markets: retrospect and prospects," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 35(3), pages 331-355, September.
    13. Coléno, F.C. & Angevin, F. & Lécroart, B., 2009. "A model to evaluate the consequences of GM and non-GM segregation scenarios on GM crop placement in the landscape and cross-pollination risk management," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 101(1-2), pages 49-56, June.
    14. Troy G. Schmitz & Andrew Schmitz & Charles B. Moss, 2005. "The economic impact of StarLink corn," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(3), pages 391-407.
    15. Gawron, Jana-Christina & Theuvsen, Ludwig, 2007. "Costs of Processing Genetically Modified Organisms: Analysis of the Rapeseed and Corn Industries," 47th Annual Conference, Weihenstephan, Germany, September 26-28, 2007 7601, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    16. Goldsmith, Peter D. & Bender, Karen, 2003. "Ten Conversations about Identity Preservation: Implications for Cooperatives," 2003 Annual Meeting, October 29 31803, NCERA-194 Research on Cooperatives.
    17. Kentaka Aruga, 2014. "An intervention analysis on the Tokyo Grain Exchange non-genetically modified and conventional soybean futures markets," Cogent Economics & Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 2(1), pages 1-11, December.
    18. Adalja, Aaron & Greene, Catherine & Hanson, James & Ebel, Robert & Barron, Michael, 2013. "Adoption and Coexistence of GE, Conventional non-GE, and Organic Crops," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 150397, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    19. Takashi Kamihigashi, 2014. "Elementary results on solutions to the bellman equation of dynamic programming: existence, uniqueness, and convergence," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 56(2), pages 251-273, June.
    20. D.S. Bullock, 2001. "Who pays the costs of non-GMO segregation and identity preservation ?," Post-Print hal-02283458, HAL.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecomod:v:205:y:2007:i:1:p:169-180. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/ecological-modelling .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.