Assessing integrated pest management adoption: Measurement problems and policy implications

Molly Puente, Nicole Darnall, Rebecca E. Forkner

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

14 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

For more than a decade, the U.S. government has promoted integrated pest management (IPM) to advance sustainable agriculture. However, the usefulness of this practice has been questioned because of lagging implementation. There are at least two plausible rationales for the slow implementation: (1) growers are not adopting IPM-for whatever reason-and (2) current assessment methods are inadequate at assessing IPM implementation. Our research addresses the second plausibility. We suggest that the traditional approach to measuring IPM implementation on its own fails to assess the distinct, biologically hierarchical components of IPM, and instead aggregates growers' management practices into an overall adoption score. Knowledge of these distinct components and the extent to which they are implemented can inform government officials as to how they should develop targeted assistance programs to encourage broader IPM use. We address these concerns by assessing the components of IPM adoption and comparing our method to the traditional approach alone. Our results indicate that there are four distinct components of adoption-weed, insect, general, and ecosystem management-and that growers implement the first two components significantly more often than the latter two. These findings suggest that using a more nuanced measure to assess IPM adoption that expands on the traditional approach, allows for a better understanding of the degree of IPM implementation.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1013-1023
Number of pages11
JournalEnvironmental Management
Volume48
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 2011

Fingerprint

integrated pest management
policy
alternative agriculture
ecosystem management
assessment method
weed
management practice
Ecosystems
Agriculture
insect

Keywords

  • Assistance programs
  • Components of adoption
  • Ecosystem management
  • Environmental decision making
  • Integrated pest management
  • Sustainable agriculture

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Ecology
  • Global and Planetary Change
  • Pollution

Cite this

Assessing integrated pest management adoption : Measurement problems and policy implications. / Puente, Molly; Darnall, Nicole; Forkner, Rebecca E.

In: Environmental Management, Vol. 48, No. 5, 11.2011, p. 1013-1023.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{1dc607308cf2419fa79b3e64abdee5ae,
title = "Assessing integrated pest management adoption: Measurement problems and policy implications",
abstract = "For more than a decade, the U.S. government has promoted integrated pest management (IPM) to advance sustainable agriculture. However, the usefulness of this practice has been questioned because of lagging implementation. There are at least two plausible rationales for the slow implementation: (1) growers are not adopting IPM-for whatever reason-and (2) current assessment methods are inadequate at assessing IPM implementation. Our research addresses the second plausibility. We suggest that the traditional approach to measuring IPM implementation on its own fails to assess the distinct, biologically hierarchical components of IPM, and instead aggregates growers' management practices into an overall adoption score. Knowledge of these distinct components and the extent to which they are implemented can inform government officials as to how they should develop targeted assistance programs to encourage broader IPM use. We address these concerns by assessing the components of IPM adoption and comparing our method to the traditional approach alone. Our results indicate that there are four distinct components of adoption-weed, insect, general, and ecosystem management-and that growers implement the first two components significantly more often than the latter two. These findings suggest that using a more nuanced measure to assess IPM adoption that expands on the traditional approach, allows for a better understanding of the degree of IPM implementation.",
keywords = "Assistance programs, Components of adoption, Ecosystem management, Environmental decision making, Integrated pest management, Sustainable agriculture",
author = "Molly Puente and Nicole Darnall and Forkner, {Rebecca E.}",
year = "2011",
month = "11",
doi = "10.1007/s00267-011-9737-x",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "48",
pages = "1013--1023",
journal = "Environmental Management",
issn = "0364-152X",
publisher = "Springer New York",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Assessing integrated pest management adoption

T2 - Measurement problems and policy implications

AU - Puente, Molly

AU - Darnall, Nicole

AU - Forkner, Rebecca E.

PY - 2011/11

Y1 - 2011/11

N2 - For more than a decade, the U.S. government has promoted integrated pest management (IPM) to advance sustainable agriculture. However, the usefulness of this practice has been questioned because of lagging implementation. There are at least two plausible rationales for the slow implementation: (1) growers are not adopting IPM-for whatever reason-and (2) current assessment methods are inadequate at assessing IPM implementation. Our research addresses the second plausibility. We suggest that the traditional approach to measuring IPM implementation on its own fails to assess the distinct, biologically hierarchical components of IPM, and instead aggregates growers' management practices into an overall adoption score. Knowledge of these distinct components and the extent to which they are implemented can inform government officials as to how they should develop targeted assistance programs to encourage broader IPM use. We address these concerns by assessing the components of IPM adoption and comparing our method to the traditional approach alone. Our results indicate that there are four distinct components of adoption-weed, insect, general, and ecosystem management-and that growers implement the first two components significantly more often than the latter two. These findings suggest that using a more nuanced measure to assess IPM adoption that expands on the traditional approach, allows for a better understanding of the degree of IPM implementation.

AB - For more than a decade, the U.S. government has promoted integrated pest management (IPM) to advance sustainable agriculture. However, the usefulness of this practice has been questioned because of lagging implementation. There are at least two plausible rationales for the slow implementation: (1) growers are not adopting IPM-for whatever reason-and (2) current assessment methods are inadequate at assessing IPM implementation. Our research addresses the second plausibility. We suggest that the traditional approach to measuring IPM implementation on its own fails to assess the distinct, biologically hierarchical components of IPM, and instead aggregates growers' management practices into an overall adoption score. Knowledge of these distinct components and the extent to which they are implemented can inform government officials as to how they should develop targeted assistance programs to encourage broader IPM use. We address these concerns by assessing the components of IPM adoption and comparing our method to the traditional approach alone. Our results indicate that there are four distinct components of adoption-weed, insect, general, and ecosystem management-and that growers implement the first two components significantly more often than the latter two. These findings suggest that using a more nuanced measure to assess IPM adoption that expands on the traditional approach, allows for a better understanding of the degree of IPM implementation.

KW - Assistance programs

KW - Components of adoption

KW - Ecosystem management

KW - Environmental decision making

KW - Integrated pest management

KW - Sustainable agriculture

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=80054755757&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=80054755757&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s00267-011-9737-x

DO - 10.1007/s00267-011-9737-x

M3 - Article

C2 - 21858712

AN - SCOPUS:80054755757

VL - 48

SP - 1013

EP - 1023

JO - Environmental Management

JF - Environmental Management

SN - 0364-152X

IS - 5

ER -