A survey of state integrated pest management coordinators shows positive signs of IPM uptake in agricultural settings, but common barriers remain. In general, the more profitable, testable, and understandable the practices, the more likely growers are to adopt them. (Photo by Bob Nichols/USDA via Flickr, public domain)

By David E. Lane, Ph.D.

David E. Lane, Ph.D.

In January, the Northeastern Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Center published a new paper evaluating IPM adoption and impacts and offering strategies for increasing IPM adoption.

Published in the open-access Journal of Integrated Pest Management, the paper is based on a study led by the Northeastern IPM Center with assistance from the other three Regional IPM Centers. My colleagues Tegan Walker, Ph.D., evaluation specialist for the Southern IPM Center, and Deborah G. Grantham, director of the Northeastern IPM Center director, joined me in co-authoring the report, titled “IPM Adoption and Impacts in the United States.”

Methods and Audience

To evaluate the extent to which the Regional IPM Centers are increasing adoption of innovative IPM practices, from February through June of 2021 an online, targeted, national survey of the state IPM coordinators in each region was conducted. There is one state IPM coordinator in each state who coordinates IPM and IPM programming in their respective state with funding support from multiple sources, including the Extension Implementation Program within the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Crop Protection and Pest Management Program (CPPM). The survey questions only pertained to IPM in agriculture, not urban or structural IPM.

Increased IPM adoption hinges not only on the future of innovative research but also on the willingness of growers to adopt new IPM methods. By better understanding the drivers of—and potential barriers to—IPM adoption, we and our fellow researchers, educators, and extension personnel can better target future behavior change.

IPM Adoption Drivers and Barriers

“Profitability” is the top factor that influences farmers’ willingness to adopt IPM practices. Other motivators that drive IPM adoption include pesticide use and regulations, along with perceived risk reductions to human health and the environment associated with the adoption of IPM.

Barriers and Opportunities for Improvement

Overall, respondents ranked “high cost of practice” as the most critical barrier to IPM adoption. “Difficulty of implementation” and “lack of awareness” were also highly ranked.

They ranked “improved cost-benefit analysis” as the most critically important way to increase adoption.

Environmental Impacts of IPM

The results from this study suggest that IPM is better for the environment while being effective. The states represented in this survey are addressing the impacts of pest management on water quality and soil health most of the time, and the impacts on habitat for beneficial terrestrial organisms, endangered species, and air quality about half the time. The state IPM coordinators are encouraging growers to practice both pesticide and pest resistance management, which often involves selecting or breeding plants that are more resistant to pests. The vast majority are encouraging biocontrol and the use of beneficial insects. Most encourage practices that enhance soil health and water quality.

Human Health Impacts of IPM

As a result of IPM adoption, almost all the state IPM coordinators reported observing a reduction in overall risks from pesticides, including pesticide exposure for growers and farm workers. Over half of state IPM coordinators indicated that their state always addresses the following human health risks: use of lower-risk IPM tactics, specific details of pesticide labels, selection of reduced risk materials, and use of personal protection equipment. About a quarter of participants address these human health impacts most of the time.

Impact of the Regional IPM Centers

Almost all the participants agree that the Regional IPM Centers increase overall IPM adoption, regional IPM communication, cooperation, and collaboration. These data strongly suggest that the Regional IPM Centers are increasing IPM implementation effectively. States can conduct IPM individually, but when whole regions work together it is easier to tackle problems that move beyond state lines such as migrating pests, invasive species, and climate change.

Takeaways and Proposed Solutions

This study highlights the current drivers, barriers, and impacts of IPM adoption in the United States. The state IPM coordinators’ responses strongly suggest that improved cost-benefit analyses of IPM practices should increase IPM adoption. Furthermore, with better cost-benefit analyses—considering costs and benefits related to IPM’s impact on profitability, human health, and the environment—we can better predict which incentives might have the most impact on increasing IPM adoption. Relatedly, more high-quality, practical research, education, and training could promote more grower-to-grower communication, which, along with proper incentives, should help inform and incentivize decisions to adopt IPM.

In general, the more profitable, testable, and understandable the adopter considers the IPM practices, the more likely they are to adopt them.

David E. Lane, Ph.D., is an evaluation specialist for the Northeastern IPM Center, hosted at Cornell University, in Ithaca, New York. Email: del97@cornell.edu.