Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 10

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/271198066

Determinants and Methods of Integrated Pest Management Adoption in


Bangladesh: An Environment Friendly Approach

Article  in  American-Eurasian Journal of Sustainable Agriculture · January 2013

CITATIONS READS

9 242

2 authors:

Muhammad Humayun Kabir Rainis Ruslan


Sher-e-Bangla Agricultural University Universiti Sains Malaysia
10 PUBLICATIONS   58 CITATIONS    54 PUBLICATIONS   158 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Vegetable farmers adaptation strategies to climate change in Bangladesh View project

Changing patterns of racial diversity in Peninsular Malaysia 1980-2010 View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Rainis Ruslan on 06 April 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.


99
American-Eurasian Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 7(2): 99-107, 2013
ISSN 1995-0748

ORIGINAL ARTICLES
Determinants and Methods of Integrated Pest Management Adoption in Bangladesh:
An Environment Friendly Approach

Muhammad Humayun Kabir and Ruslan Rainis

Dept. of Geography, School of Humanities, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang 11800 Malaysia

Muhammad Humayun Kabir and Ruslan Rainis; Determinants and Methods of Integrated Pest
Management Adoption in Bangladesh: An Environment Friendly Approach

ABSTRACT

Integrated pest management (IPM) is an environment friendly approach that consider as central to achieve
sustainable agricultural development. This paper addresses two aspects of IPM; i) to discuss the factors that
influence farmers decision for adoption of IPM, and ii) to critically analyze various methods of determination of
IPM adoption level. Based on secondary data, the study revealed adoption of IPM is influenced by economic,
social, institutional, and management factors where economic factors have greater influence and management
have less. Regarding measurement techniques, proportional measures are more appropriate than others to
determine IPM adoption level. After due consideration of different measurement techniques, we proposed a
method to determine the level of IPM adoption in Bangladesh. In addition, we suggested a set of determinants
for better understanding about the adoption of this environment friendly agriculture.

Key words: IPM, determinants, methods, adoption, environmental sustainability

Introduction

Pest and pesticide management problems affect most countries around the globe, and Bangladesh is not an
exception to this. A significant amount of production is lost every year due to relentless attack by various pests.
According to estimation, the average annual loss of various major crops due to pest is; 30-40% of vegetable,
16% of rice, 15% of jute, 11% of wheat, and 25% of pulses (MoA, 2002). Albeit no formal record, but it is
assume that this loses exceeds loss that caused by natural calamities like flood, drought, cyclone and others. To
control pest, still majority of the farmers are rely on conventional system that is application of chemical
pesticide. To rely fully on chemical control is not feasible in social, economic and environmental aspect. That is
why, an alternative strategy is needed that can control pest in less expensive and environment friendly way. In
this line, organic agriculture is an alternative which is entirely rely on organic inputs, synonymous with
sustainable agriculture, as it has no adverse impact on ecological health (Lampkin, 1994; Kilcher, 2006;
Henning et al, 1991). Despite this advantage, one of the significant limitations of organic agricuture is less
productivity. In a country like Bangladesh where food demand is so high, there is no compromise with
production. By considering this, another one alternative that can ensure both productivity and envrionmental
safetyness is integrated pest management (IPM) (Bonabana-Wabbi et al, 2006; Hristovska, 2009).
Over the years, what IPM means in concrete terms has been a matter of debate ((World Bank, 2003). Up to
the present, there are over 65 definitions of IPM (Prokopy and Kogan 2003). However, to control pest in a
sustainable way is the common message of all the given definition. According to Prokopy (2003), IPM is “a
decision-based process involving coordinated use of multiple tactics for optimizing the control of all classes of
pests (insects, pathogens, weeds, vertebrates) in an ecologically and economically sound manner”. For
ecological sound nature of IPM, various scholars treated IPM in various ways like environmentally friendly
agriculture (Dasgupta et al, 2007), clean agricultural technologies (Hadi Veisi, 2012), sustainable farming (De
Souza Filho, et al., 1999) etc. For ensuring a sustainable tomorrow in aspect of agriculture, there is no
alternative without adoption of IPM practices. To realize this, the government is disseminating IPM information
for better adoption of these practices among the farmers.
Adoption is an outcome of a decision to accept a given innovation. It is a mental process an individual
passes from first hearing about an innovation to final utilization (Feder et al, 1985). Several stages go before
adoption. First of all, awareness of a need is generally perceived in adoption process. The other stages are;
interest, evaluation, acceptance, trial, and finally adoption (Rogers, 1995). Hence, adoption of IPM is complex,
and every stage is influenced by various factors. An understanding about these factors is important to better
disseminate of IPM information. How well dissemination is occurring can be understand through adoption rate.
Corresponding Author: Muhammad Humayun Kabir, Dept. of Agricultural Extension and Information System, Faculty of
Agriculture, Sher-e-Bangla Agricultural University, Dhaka-1207, Bangladesh.
E-mail: mhumayunsau@yahoo.com
100
Am. Eurasian J. Sustain. Agric., 7(2): 99-107, 2013

Hence, determination of adoption rate or level is also important. Considering these two issues (influencing
factors and measurement technique); the study will face the following questions:
1. What are the factors that influence farmers’ decision to adopt IPM?
2. What type of factor influence more in IPM adoption?
3. What are the methods to determine the level of IPM adoption?
4. Which method is more appropriate?
The output of the study will be useful to the agricultural professionals, extension personnel,
environmentalist, community leaders, and other personnel of GOs and NGOs currently working for
dissemination and adoption of IPM. Moreover, the proposed factors and method will be act as a cover area of
study for the future researchers.

Methodology:

This study is primarily based on secondary information available from various sources like books related to
integrated pest management, journal, thesis, proceedings and periodicals. Furthermore, few informal discussions
were held with experts in crop science, agricultural extension and environmental scientist to get proper direction
of the study. In addition to this, various reports like national IPM policy report (MoA, 2002), and World Bank
report (ARD, 2003) were assisted to fulfill the purpose of the study in an effective and meaningful way.

Results and Discussion

The discussion is divided into four sections. The first section deals with the factors influencing farmers’
decision of IPM adoption. The second section deals with the proposed set of factors of IPM adoption in
Bangladesh. The third section deals with the methods that are used to measure IPM adoption. The final section
is proposed method to determine adoption rate of IPM in Bangladesh.

a) Factors Influencing adoption of IPM:

According to the Rogers’ theory, the decision to adopt any innovation like integrated pest management is
influenced by the information receivers’ socio-economic characteristics, social systems and the characteristics of
the innovations (Rogers, 1995, Thapa and Rattanasuteerakul, 2011). Several empirical studies have corroborated
this theory, some of which have expanded the dimensions of the theory by including the role of the institutional
and management factors in the decision-making process (Bonabana-Wabbi, 2002; Hristovska, 2009). Therefore,
the factors that are previously analyzed to identify the importance on IPM adoption, can be organize into four
broad items; economic, social, institutional and management. A brief description of these factors are given
below:

Economic factors:

Usually if any tecnnology is more profitable than the existing one, then there is a tendency to accept that
new one. That’s why economic issue is related with technology adoption. The single most important category of
influential factors for the adoption of IPM technologies is economic forces (Bonabana-Wabbi et al, 2006). Farm
size is one of the important economic factors that influence the farmers in a great extent for IPM adoption. The
farmers who have large farm size have more scope to take risk about adoption of new practices. In addition,
farm size can effect and in turn be affected by the other factors influencing adoption. Household income or farm
income is another important determinant that positively influences the farmers for IPM adoption. The reason
may be if the farmers’ households have enough income then they feel mentally strong to take decision regarding
adoption of new practices. The other important economic factors that found to influence IPM adoption including
labor availability, level of full time worker, level of expected benefits, farm ownership etc. (Bonabana-Wabbi,
2002; Samiee et al., 2009; Idrisa, et al., 2012). Table 1 shows a summary of the economic factors that were
influenced adopiton of IPM practices.

Social factors:

To take decision regarding adoption of any technology, individual first should know about that technology.
After knowing about a technology, then perception is formed towards that technology which play important role
to take decision regarding adoption. On the other hand, individual’s age or educational level also have influence
on decision making regarding adoption. These demographic and psychological factors are together considered
as social by the previous scholars. So, it can be said that adoption of IPM is influenced by different social
factors. Among social factors, age is said to be a primary latent characteristics in adoption decisions. Adoption
101
Am. Eurasian J. Sustain. Agric., 7(2): 99-107, 2013

behavior is strongly influenced by various aged stage. There is contention on the direction of the effect of age on
adoption. Some other social factors that have influence on IPM adoption are educational level, knowledge, risk
perception, farming experience, etc (Dudley, 1997; Samiee, et al., 2009; Dasgupta et al., 2007). Influence of
social factors on IPM adoption are shown in Table 2.

Table 1: Economic factors influencing adoption of IPM.


Source location of study individual factor direction and degree
(Bonabana-Wabbi, 2002) Uganda Farm labor availability +ve
(Harris, 2011; Bangladesh and Nepal, Household annual income +ve and significant
Samiee et al, 2009) Iran
(Ricker-Gilbert, 2005; Bangladesh, Columbia Farm size +ve and significant
Chaves and Riley, 2001; U.S.A
Fernandez-Cornejo and Jans 1996)
(Li et al, 2011) England Level of full time worker +ve and significant
(Alston and Reding, 1998; U.S.A., Iran Income (On/off farm) +ve and significant
Samiee et al, 2009)
(Dasgupta et al, 2007; Bangladesh, Uganda Farm ownership +ve and significant
Bonabana-Wabbi et al, 2006)
(Li et al, 2011) England Level of benefit +ve and significant
(Amir et al, 2012) Malaysia Profit share +ve and significant
(Sharma et al, 2011) UK Profitability +ve and significant

Table 2: Social factors influening adoption of IPM.


Source location of study individual factor direction and degree
(Dudley, 1997; U.S.A; Albania, Ecuador, Educational level +ve and significant
Dasgupta et al., 2007; Uganda, Bangladesh
Hristovska, 2009)
(Bonabana-Wabbi, 2002; Uganda, Bangladesh Farming experience +ve and significant,
Dasgupta et al., 2007; Nigeria --ve
Ofuoku et al, 2008)
(Bonabana-Wabbi, et al., 2006; Uganda, Bangladesh, Age +ve and significant,
Dasgupta et al., 2007; Columbia, Nigeria --ve
Chaves & Riley, 2001;
Ofuoku et al, 2008)
(Dudley, 1997) U.S.A Risk perception +ve and significant
(Amir et al, 2012) Malaysia Farm ownership +ve and significant
(Li et al, 2011) England Knowledge +ve and significant
(Ofuoku et al, 2008) Nigeria Household size, +ve
Marital status

Institutional factors:

Beyond socio-economic characteristics, adoption of IPM is also influenced by government or institutional


support in which some studies treated as exogenous factors. Institutional support assist farmers to better
understand how IPM can be used. Frequency of extension contact, access to credit, training on IPM, and access
to irrigation etc. are the institutional factors that influence farmers’ decision regarding IPM adoption. Most of
the cases the direction of these characteristics were positive which indicated higher these factors higher adoption
of IPM. A summary of institutional factors influence are given on Table 3.

Table 3: Institutional factors influening adoption of IPM.


Source location of study individual factor direction and degree
(Veisi, 2012; Dudley, 1997) Iran, U.S.A contact with information sources +ve and significant
(Veisi, 2012) Iran external factors +ve and significant
(Harris, 2011; Hristovska, 2009) Bangladesh, Nepal, access to training and +ve and significant
Albania, Ecuador and Uganda access to credit
(Fernandez-Cornejo and Jans 1996) USA access to irrigation +ve

Management factors:

Management factors indicate farmers’ additional farming characteristics or features that increase their
experience as well as help them to manage their crops in a better way. Comparatively few scholars considered
management factors and found mixed results. From their findings, it is assumed that management factors have
less affect on decision regarding IPM adoption. A summary of this type of factors influence are given on Table
4.
From the above table and discussion it can be said that, economic factors are more and management factors
are less important in influencing adoption of IPM.
102
Am. Eurasian J. Sustain. Agric., 7(2): 99-107, 2013

Table 4: Management factors influening adoption of IPM.


Source location of study individual factor direction and degree
(Bonabana-Wabbi, et al. 2006) Uganda input purchase decision -ve

(Bonabana-Wabbi, 2002) Uganda, belong to farmer organization +ve and significant


Harris, 2011) Bangladesh and Nepal
(Amir et al, 2012) Malaysia Farm hours +ve and significant
(Bonabana-Wabbi, et al. 2006) Uganda participation in farm trial +ve

b) Proposed determinants of IPM adoption in Bangladesh:

Previous studies have given considerable attention on social, economic, institutional and management
factors. Locational factors are not considered that are believed to affect agricultural technology adoption (Raut,
et al., 2011, Mariano, 2012). Since, adoption is a complex issue and it has dependency with various types of
factors, then there is a need to analyze locational factors with others to identify whether has or has not influence
on IPM adoption behavior. Hence, we proposed following determinants of IPM adoption in Bangladesh (fig 1).
This will extend the scope of dimension regarding adoption of IPM as well as to better understand about the
effect of various factors influence on IPM adoption in Bangladesh.

Fig. 1: Proposed set of factors for IPM adoption in Bangladesh.

c) Methods to measure IPM adoption:

Measuring the adoption of IPM practices can be more complex than it sounds. Apparently, it seems to be
nothing more than a simple question of whether a farmer is or is not using IPM practices. But, this simplistic
view will be changes if one begins to assess how and when it is being used, and the appropriateness of that use
relative to actual pest conditions. All these assessments are important for measuring adoption of IPM in a valid
and reliable fashion.
103
Am. Eurasian J. Sustain. Agric., 7(2): 99-107, 2013

However, the previous studies say adoption of IPM practices can occur at four different levels of
measurement. These are; measuring adoption with accounting measures, measuring adoption with proportional
measures, measuring adoption with accuracy-in-use measures, and measuring adoption with distributional
measures (Lynch et al, 1996). Measuring adoption with accounting measures is similar with many of the
traditional methods where audience responses to programming efforts are counted. For an example; counting the
number of individuals who participate in a program, who attend at field days or demonstrations or who receive a
booklet or pamphlet or other educational material.
In case of measuring adoption with proportional measures, individuals are asked about certain IPM
practices they use or not. Their responses are then statistically manipulated in one of three ways: (1) individuals
are categorized as adopters or non adopters of IPM based on the proportion of the yes to no answers; (2)
individuals are classified as some ordinal scale of measurement like low, medium, or high, based on the
proportion of practices used; or (3) the area that an individual use practices in proportion of applicable area.
The third system, measuring adoption with accuracy-in-use measures attempts to account for the
appropriateness of the salient behaviors. For example, spot spraying a post emergent herbicide at reduced rates
may be an appropriate IPM behavior depending on weed composition and pressure. The last method, measuring
adoption with distributional measures is an ecologically based measure of adoption that determining which
behaviors can be classified as IPM is dependent on pest dynamics across space and time. A summary of these
measurement techniques are presented in table 5.

Table 5: Comparative analysis of different measures of IPM adoption.


Topic Accounting Proportional Accuracy-in-use Distributional
Measurement Any indicator of program Dichotomous measure of When and how specific Where specific practices
issue participation IPM use or extent of use practices are used are being used

Unit of Individual Number of practices used Difference between actual Spatial pattern of use
measurement or percent of used area and recommended use in a landscape

Cost Low Moderate Moderate to high Moderate to high


Ease of use Ease Moderate Complex Complex
Utility Low for program Adequate to estimate Good for increasing Good for increasing
effectiveness
evaluation level or extent of adoption efficiency of IPM programs of IPM programs

Validity Low Moderate High High


Sample frame None: count program Usually random sample Random, population of Spatial sampling based
participants targeted area, proportionate on geographical or
by IPM user ecological feature

Required None; any discipline Typical leadership by Multidisciplinary with responsibilities Interdisciplinary with
disciplinary can manage one discipline with among social and biological sciences methods being developed
co-operation of other sciences concurrently

Data source: (Lynch et al, 1996)

From the above discussion and table 5, it is observed that, measuring adoption with accounting measures,
and measuring adoption with distributional measures are the simplest and toughest measure of IPM adoption
respectively. Because of low validity and also reliability, the researchers avoid the first method. On the other
hand, after having high validity and effectiveness, the researchers also avoid the method of measuring adoption
with distributional measures. One of the important reasons to avoid this method is high complexity. Besides,
costs of this method are also high, and there is need to concurrently develop method at the time of apply. For
these reasons, it is hardly seen to use any of these two methods to determine the level of IPM adoption. The
third method is comparatively better in aspect of validity and utility. But, this method always demands a
multidisciplinary team which is difficult to arrange in aspect of time, cost and others resources. In addition, the
method is also complex. Because of having these limitations, the users of this method are few. The rest method,
measuring adoption with proportional is comparatively better among all others in various aspects. Albeit, this
method belongs to less validity than accuracy-in-use and distributional methods, but regarding costs, ease of use
and required discipline, this is better. Besides, this method is more valid than accounting. Moreover, it has more
popularity because of random sampling frame, and single disciplinary can use with co-operation with other
sciences. For these advantages, majority of the scholars use measuring adoption with proportional measures.
(Govindasami et al, 2001; Kaine and Bewsell, 2008; Borkhani et al, 2011; Ali and Sharif, 2012; Blake et al,
2007).

By following measuring adoption with proportional measure, individual can measure IPM adoption in three
ways. These ways are treated as extent of adoption, intensity of adoption, and level or rate of adoption. Among
these approaches, extent of adoption is simple as it indicates how much area an individual use IPM practices out
104
Am. Eurasian J. Sustain. Agric., 7(2): 99-107, 2013

of total probable area. On the other hand, intensity of adoption is little confusing since there is no rule of thumb
to define low, medium and high adoption. For these limitations, we will focus on rest option like adoption rate
of IPM.
To determine the rate of IPM adoption, there is a need to categorize the growers into adopter and non-
adopter. To make this categorization is difficult as IPM is not a single technology. Rather IPM is an approach
that belongs to a number of technologies. So, the question arises, how the growers can be categorize as IPM
adopter or non-adopter? To get answer, we reviewed the previous scholar techniques of IPM adopter
determination and found following ways.
Dasgupta (2007), distinguished IPM farmers form conventional and determined adoption rate. At first he
identified seven IPM practices that were available in the study area for long. Then out of these practices the
farmers who adopted any one were treated as IPM farmer otherwise non-ipm or conventional. Fernandez-
Cornejo et al, (1994), also determined the level of IPM adoption in the same manner. The only difference is, he
preliminary selected four practices then distinguish farmers into IPM and non-ipm by asking about adoption of
any one from the selected four practices.
The limitation of these methods is if any farmer follows only one practice then he or she would be treated as
an IPM farmer what is contradict with the concept of IPM. The concept of IPM is to control paste by following
a combination of method. Therefore, to avoid this limitation, recently Li et al, (2011), distinguished IPM
farmers from conventional based on expert opinion (Lamb, 2011) and borrowing principles of IPM described by
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA 2011). The U.S. environmental protection agency (2011) has
identified 36 IPM practices under four key components like Monitoring, Pest Identification, Prevention and
Control. The distribution of the IPM activities related to each component was; 6 practices under Monitoring, 4
under Pest identification, 17 under Prevention, and 9 under Control.
Lamb (2011) argued to be an IPM adopter one should follow all the components, but at a different extent.
This is because; all components are not equal regarding importance. He commented prevention is the most
important followed by control, pest identification and monitoring (prevention > control > monitoring and pest
identification). Hence, to be an IPM adopter, a farmers should give more emphasize on the activities under
prevention and control rather than others. Li et al (2011) defined IPM adopter who followed nine practices from
four components according to importance. The distribution of that nine practices was; 4 from prevention, 3 from
control and 1 from pest identification and same from monitoring.

d) Propose method to determine the level of IPM adoption in Bangladesh:

Since, adoption is called site specific or area wide then to measure IPM adoption, special attention should
be given on the location where it will be done. This is because; though there are some IPM practices that exist
around the globe, but there always have some country or location specific IPM practices that are mostly usable
by the farmers of that country. The 36 IPM practices that are identified by the U.S. environmental protection
agency (2011), all are not applicable for Bangladesh context. In this line, to determine the IPM adopter, first we
have identified the IPM practices that are available in Bangladesh. At present, there are 20 IPM practices are
currently exist in the country and farmers use these practices at a different extent (fig.2). The first two principles
belong to single IPM activity and these are common to all farmers. For this reason, we have given importance
on the rest two, prevention and control. Between these two, since prevention is more important than control,
then the farmers who follow any 3 activities from prevention and 2 activities from control will be treated as IPM
farmers. Thus, to be an IPM farmer, one should follow 5 practices from prevention and control group
collectively which will be acted as an indicator of IPM adopter in Bangladesh.

Conclusion:

In this paper we attempted to give an overview about two aspects of IPM adoption which one is influencing
factors and other measurement techniques. Findings from discussion will help the future researcher to curtail
their valuable time and industry to conduct research related to adoption of IPM. Regarding first point, we found
adoption of IPM is influenced by a number of factors that can be classified into four broad items like economic,
social, institutional, and management. The importance of economic factors is more among all while the
influences of management factors are comparatively less. Additionally, to better understand about the influence
on adoption of IPM as well as to extend the dimension, we proposed a set of factors.
Regarding second issue, we critically analyzed various measurement techniques of IPM adoption. We
found measurement adoption with proportional measure is comparatively better than others to determine the
level or rate of IPM adoption. However, because of varying nature of adoption, we proposed a technique to
determine the level of IPM adoption in Bangladesh. It would be an example of determination of IPM adoption
level for the other developing countries where this environment friendly farming is practicing.
105
Am. Eurasian J. Sustain. Agric., 7(2): 99-107, 2013

Fig. 2: IPM practices in Bangladesh with four key components (a framework to measure IPM adopter and non-
adopter in Bangladesh).

Acknowledgments

The authors greatly appreciate to TWAS-USM (The academy of sciences for the developing world and
Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia) postgraduate fellowship for giving financial support.

References

Ali, A. and M. Sharif. 2012. Impact of farmer field schools on adoption of integrated pest management practices
among cotton farmers in Pakistan. Journal of the Asia Pacific Economy, 17(3): 498-513.
Amir, H.M., M.N. Shamsudin, Z.A. Mohamed, M.A. Hussein and A. Radam, 2012. Economic evaluation of
Rice IPM practices in MADA, Malaysia. Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development, 3(9): 47-55.
Alston, D.G. and M.E. Reding, 1998. Factors influencing adoption and educational outreach of integrated pest
management. J. Ext. 36(3). Available at: ttp://www.joe.org/joe/1998june/a3.html.
Blake, G., H.S. Fami, A. Rezvanfar and M. Pouratashi, 2007. An assessment of growers perceptions and factors
influencing adoption of IPM in commercial cranberry production. Renewable agriculture and food systems,
22(2): 134-144.
Borkhani, F.R., H.A. Sandler, W. Coli, D.M. Pober and C. Coggins, 2007. Application of integrated pest
management (IPM) by paddy farmers in Sari County of Mazandaran province, Iran. African Journal
Agricultural Research, 6(21): 4884-4892.
106
Am. Eurasian J. Sustain. Agric., 7(2): 99-107, 2013

Bonabana-Wabbi, J., D.B. Taylor and V. Kasenge, 2006. A limited dependent variable analysis of integrated
pest management adoption in Uganda. Paper presented at the American Agricultural Economics
Association Annual Meeting, Long Beach, California.
Bonabana-Wabbi, J., 2002. Assessing factors affecting adoption of agricultural technologies: The case of
integrated pest management (IPM) in Kumi district, Eastern Uganda. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and
State University.
Chaves, B. and J. Riley, 2001. Determination of factors influencing integrated pest management adoption in
coffee berry borer in Columbian farms. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 87: 159-177.
Daku, L., 2002. Assessing farm level and aggregate economic impacts of olive integrated pest management
programs in Albania. PhD. Dissertation. Virginia Polytecnique Institute and State University, U.S.A.
Dasgupta, S., C. Meisner and D. Wheeler, 2007. Is environmentally friendly agriculture less profitable for
farmers? Evidence on integrated pest management in Bangladesh. Applied Economic Perspectives and
Policy, 29(1): 103-118.
Debass, T., 2000. An Economic Impact Assessment of IPM-CRSP Activities in Bangladesh and Uganda: A GIS
Application. MS Thesis. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
De Souza Filho, H., T. Young, M. Burton,
, Brazil. Technological Forecasting and Social
Change, 60(2): 97-112.
Fernandez-Cornejo, J. and S. Jans, 1996. The economic impact of IPM adoption for orange producers in
California and Florida. In: Brumfield, R.G. (Ed.), Proceedings of the XIII International Symposium on
Hort. Econ. Acta Hort., 429: 325-334.
Fernandez-Cornejo, J., E.D. Beach, W.Y. Huang, 1994. The adoption of IPM techniques by vegetable growers
in Florida, Michigan and Texas. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 26: 158-158.
Feder, G., E.R. Just and D. Zilberman, 1985. Adoption of Agricultural. Innovations in Developing Countries: A
Survey. Economic development and Cultural Change, 33: 255-298.
Govindasami, R., J. Italia and A. Adelaja, 2001. Predicting willingness to pay a premium for integrated pest
management produce: A logistic approach. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, 30(2): 151-159.
Hadi Veisi, 2012. Exploring the determinants of adoption behaviour of clean technologies in agriculture: a case
of integrated pest management, Asian Journal of Technology Innovation, 20(1): 67-82.
Harris, L.M., 2011. Modeling a Cost-Effective IPM Dissemination Strategy for Vegetables and Rice: An
Example in South Asia. MS Thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
Henning, J., P. Thomassin and L. Baker, 1991. “Organic farmers in Quebec: Results of a survey. Canadian
Journal of Agricultural Economics, 39(4): 877-889.
Hristovska, T., 2009. Economic Impacts of Integrated Pest Management in Developing Countries: Evidence
from the IPM CRSP. MS thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
Kaine, G. and D. Bewsell, 2008. Adoption of Integrated Pest Management by apple growers: the role of context.
International Journal of Pest Management, 54(3): 255-265.
Kilcher, L., 2006. How can organic agriculture contribute to sustainable development? Paper presented in the
Tropentag 2006 conference of prosperity and poverty in a globalized world: challenges for agriculture
research, held on 11 October 2006 in Bonn.
Lampkin, N.H. and S. Padel, 1994. The economics of organic farming: An international perspective. Biddles
Ltd, UK.
Lynch, S., C. Green and K. Carol, 1996. Procedings of the third national IPM symposium/workshop:
Broadening support for 21st century IPM. February, 27-March,1. Washington DC.
Mariano, M.J., R. Villano and E. Fleming, 2012. Factors influencing farmers’ adoption of modern rice
technologies and good management practices in the Philippines. Agricultural System, 110: 41-53.
McNamara, K.T., M.E. Wetzstein and G.K. Douce, 1991. “Factors affecting peanut producer adoption of
integrated pest management. Review of Agricultural Economics, 13: 129-139.
MoA, 2002. National Integrated Pest Management Policy. Ministry of Agriculture, Government of the People’s
Republic of Bangladesh.
Ofuoku, A.U., E.O. Egho and E.C. Enujeke, 2008. Integrated pest management (IPM) adoption among farmers
in central agro-ecological zone of Delta state, Nigeria. African Journal of Agricultural Research, 3(12):
852-856.
Prokopy, R.J., 2003. Two decades of bottom-up, ecologically based pest management in a small commercial
apple orchard in Massachusetts. Agric Ecosyst Environ, 94: 299-309.
Prokopy, R. and M. Kogan, 2003. Integrated pest management, in Encyclopedia of Insects, ed. by, Resh VH and
Carde RT. Academic Press, San Diego, pp: 589-595.
Raut, N., K. Sitaula, A. Vatn, S. Paudel, 2011. Determinants of Adoption and Extent of Agricultural
Intensification in the Central Mid-hills of Nepal. Journal of Sustainable Development, 4(4): 47.
107
Am. Eurasian J. Sustain. Agric., 7(2): 99-107, 2013

Ricker-Gilbert, J., 2005. Cost-effectiveness evaluation of integrated pest management (IPM) extension methods
and programs: The Case of Bangladesh. MS thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
Rogers, E.M., 1995. Diffusion of Innovations. 4th Edition. New York: The Free Press.
Samiee, A., A. Rezvanfar, E. Faham, 2009. Factors influencing the adoption of integrated pest management
(IPM) by wheat growers in Varamin County, Iran. African Journal of Agricultural Research, 4(5): 491-497.
Sharma, A., A. Bailey and A. Freisher, 2011. Technology adoption and pest control strategies among UK cereal
farmers: evidence from parametric and non-parametric count data models. Journal of agricultural
economics, 62(1): 73-92.
Thapa, G.B., K. Rattanasuteerakul, 2011. Adoption and extent of organic vegetable farming in Mahasarakham
province, Thailand. Applied Geography, 31(1): 201-209.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2011. Health and Safety Facts Sheets: Integrated Pest Management
Principls. Washington D.C. Available online at http://www.epa.gov/pesticide/factsheets/ipm.htm (accessed
September 08, 2010).
World Bank, 2003. Agriculture and Rural Development Working Paper 5. Integrated Pest Management in
Development: Review of Trends and Implementation Strategies.

View publication stats

Оценить