| The initial chapters of this dissertation are concerned with the indirect effects of pesticide regulation. The United States Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to ban pesticides to reduce consumer health risks from residues on food. Such bans influence the price of fruits and vegetables, and the resulting consumption shifts impact consumer health. The author develops a framework to compare the direct and indirect health effects of pesticide regulation and investigate the distribution of these effects across social groups. Under some plausible scenarios, the increased incidence of disease from reduced fruit and vegetable consumption outweighs the direct benefits of regulation. Furthermore, high income consumers receive the greatest direct health benefit from pesticide cancellations, whereas low and medium income consumers are most hurt by the resulting dietary changes.; The second part of this dissertation deals with a different linkage between health and the environment: The desire to keep potential sources of medicinal products available for future commercial use. Revenue from plant-derived pharmaceutical products has been suggested as a source of funds for tropical habitat conservation. Previous work suggests that firms' “bioprospecting” incentive for investing in conservation is very small. The fourth chapter of this dissertation presents an expanded model that acknowledges that the perceived probability of a species proving commercially useful is spatially dependent on the outcomes for other species. The effect of expected habitat loss on conservation values is also incorporated. Numerical simulations show that the value of protecting land for bioprospecting may be much higher than suggested by other recent studies. |
