Measuring Adoption of IPM Systems Using CommoditySpecific IPM Definitions and LargeScale Surveys

1
Measuring Adoption of IPM Systems Using
Commodity-Specific IPM Definitions and
Large-Scale Surveys

• William M. Coli, Ph.D.
• and
• Craig S. Hollingsworth, Ph.D.
• University of Massachusetts, Amherst

2
Why Should We Measure IPM Adoption?

• Funding sources want us to
• Helps us to understand if we need to shift
  emphasis of research or outreach
• Can indicate important new directions for
  research or outreach
• Provides an educational opportunity
• Enables grower recognition programs through
  eco-labels
• Measures program impact

3
Activity Versus Impact

• Activity is the chicken running around the
  barnyard flapping its wings
• Impact is when the chicken flies over the fence
  and gets away

4
One Method to Measure Adoption

• Develop commodity-specific IPM definitions
• Implement well-designed surveys to
  statistically-valid samples
• Display continuum of adoption

5
Defining IPM

• Bajwa and Kogan (1996) compiled dozens of
  general definitions from the literature

6
An Early Specific Definition

• Boutwell and Smith (1981) had difficulty in
  finding non-IPM cotton growers after several
  years of intensive education.
• Proposed a system that identified relevant IPM
  practices and assigned points to each
• Used point totals to compare pesticide use,
  profitability or other parameters

7
Later Examples of Practice-Based Definition or
Measurement

• Benbrook et al. IPM Continuum
• Cornell IPM Elements
• IPM Institute IPM Standards
• IOBC standards for Integrated Production (IP)
• Massachusetts IPM Guidelines for agricultural
  and structural IPM
• USDA National Ag. Statistics Service Pest
  Management survey (1998)

8
Why Not Grower Self-Assessment?

• Provide them with a general definition and ask if
  they practice IPM

9
Problems With Self-Assessment

• Growers interpret terms differently (Hamilton et
  al. 1997)
• Actual adoption of specific practices (e.g.,
  scientific sampling and use of thresholds) is
  sometimes much lower than growers indicate
  (McDonald and Glynn, 1994)

10
NASS Surveys

• Questions concerning practices grouped into four
  categories
• Prevention
• Avoidance
• Management
• Suppression

11
NASS Surveys (Cont.)

• Some questions not applicable due to need to
  standardize questionnaire
• No data generated on which specific pests were
  scouted for or whether all categories of pests
  were scouted for
• May overstate adoption since whole system is not
  accounted for

12
Massachusetts IPM Guidelines

• Modified version of Boutwell and Smith approach
• Comprehensive list of practices use to manage
• Soils
• Nutrients
• Insects
• Weeds
• Diseases
• Also assigns points for continued IPM education

13
Massachusetts IPM Guidelines (cont.)

• Points are based on importance of practice to the
  IPM system and/or the difficulty of
  implementation.
• Extent of adoption is determined by percentage of
  total possible points earned.

14
Using IPM Guidelines to Measure Grower Adoption
15
The Dillman Method

• Dillman, D.A. 1978. Mail and Telephone Surveys
  The Total Design Method. Wiley, New York.
• Salant, P. And D.A. Dillman. 1994. How to Conduct
  Your Own Survey. Wiley, New York.

16
Key Elements of the Method

• Statistically-valid sample
• Social Utility Argument cover letters
• Showing appreciation and regard for opinions of
  respondent
• Strict confidentiality
• Establishing trust

• Interesting and brief questionnaire (i.e., no
  ranking questions)
• Use of first class postage
• Personalized address and salutation
• Original signatures
• Multiple mailings

17
1996 Surveys

• Growers of
• Apple (CT, ME, MA, RI, VT)
• Potato (ME, MA)
• Strawberry (CT, ME, MA, NH, RI)
• Sweet Corn (CT, DE, ME, MD, MA, NJ, PA)

18
More Detail

• Hollingsworth, C.S. and W. M. Coli. 2001. IPM
  adoption in northeastern U.S. An examination of
  the IPM continuum. American Journal of
  Alternative Agriculture 16 (4) 177-183.

19
Large-Scale Survey

• A total of 2,687 mailed to growers of 5 crops
• Questions asked about adoption of specific
  practices described in Massachusetts IPM
  Guidelines
• Appropriate point values assigned to individual
  grower responses
• Growers classified into levels 0-33, 34-66,
  67-100
• Due to size limitations, not all guideline
  practices were included

20
Apple IPM Adoption in CT, ME, MA, RI, and VT

• 63 moderate- level adopters
• 5 high level adopters
• 49 use traps
• 86 use direct observation
• 71 use thresholds
• 41 use University thresholds

21
Potato IPM Adoption in ME and MA

• 62 moderate level adopters
• 30 high level adopters
• adoption of basic cultural and monitoring
  practices very high

22
Sweet Corn IPM Adoption in CT, DE, MA, MD, ME,
NJ, and PA

• 44 moderate level adopters
• 5 high level adopters
• 84 used disease- resistant varieties
• 76 calibrated sprayers
• 66 field monitored ECB
• low numbers used nitrate test or herbicide
  banding

23
Strawberry IPM Adoption in CT, MA, ME, NH, and RI

• 67 moderate level adopters
• 8 high level adopters
• 96 used narrow rows
• 96 used pre-plant covers
• only 7 used weed scouting

24
Percentage of ha scoring at three levels of IPM
25
Insect Trap Use by MA Apple Growers
26
Direct Scouting Observations Used by MA Apple
Growers
27
Insecticide Use by MA Apple Growers, 1995
28
Using Point-Based Guidelines to Assess Risk as
Well as Adoption

• Current versions give points for avoiding use of
  certain materials
• Add new category re pesticide selection
• Add new category re worker protection
• Add new category re residue testing