Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-qsmjn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T06:11:05.199Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 38 - The role of assessment and evaluation in IPM implementation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 September 2010

By
Carol L. Pilcher  and
Edwin G. Rajotte
Edited by
Edward B. Radcliffe ,
William D. Hutchison  and
Rafael E. Cancelado
Edward B. Radcliffe
Affiliation:
University of Minnesota
William D. Hutchison
Affiliation:
University of Minnesota
Get access

Summary

IPM is, by many accounts, a highly successful program. Some claim that the achievements over the last 40 years have given the program a mark of success. In fact, IPM has been described as “one of the best answers to reducing chemical contamination of the environment and improving the safety of food while maintaining agricultural viability” (Rajotte, 1993, p. 297). Others argue that implementation has been slow and success has been limited. Wearing (1988) stated that IPM has not been successful because some IPM technologies have not been adopted by growers. This limited success has resulted in a weakening of political support and a stagnation of funding for IPM in the USA (Gray, 2001). What defines a successful IPM program? How do we assess the true worth of an IPM program? These questions can be answered by conducting an assessment of IPM programs through program evaluation. However, the starting point of any IPM evaluation is made with three goals in mind; economic, an assessment of the costs and benefits; environmental, impacts on soil, water and non-pest organisms; and social, an assessment of a program's impact on people's health and well-being.

A historical review of IPM evaluation

Evaluation has been a component of some pest management programs, starting back in the 1940s. During this time (1940s to 1960s), program evaluations were used to assess the needs of clients and determine the future directions (Allen & Rajotte, 1990).

Type
Chapter
Information
Integrated Pest Management
Concepts, Tactics, Strategies and Case Studies
 , pp. 479 - 488
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allen, W. A. & Rajotte, E. G. (1990). The changing role of extension entomology in the IPM era. Annual Review of Entomology, 35, 379–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alston, D. G. & Reding, E. M. (1998). Factors influencing adoption and education outreach of Integrated Pest Management. Journal of Extension, 36, 1–8.Google Scholar
Audirac, I. & Beaulieu, L. J. (1986). Microcomputers in agriculture: a proposed model to study their diffusion/adoption. Rural Sociology, 51, 60–77.Google Scholar
Bajwa, W. I. & Kogan, M. (2002). Compendium of IPM Definitions (CID): What Is IPM and How Is It Defined in the Worldwide Literature? IPPC Publication No. 998. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University, Integrated Plant Protection Center (IPPC).Google Scholar
Conley, S. P., Krupke, C., Santini, J. & Shaner, G. (2007). Pest management in Indiana soybean production systems. Journal of Extension, 45, 1–9.Google Scholar
Datta, L. (2007). Looking at the evidence: what variations in practice might indicate. New Directions for Evaluation, 113, 35–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernandez-Cornejo, J. (1998). Environmental and economic consequences of technology adoption: IPM in viticulture. Agricultural Economics, 18, 145–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ford, S. A. & Babb, E. M. (1989). Farmer sources and uses of information. Agribusiness, 5, 465–477.3.0.CO;2-6>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garber, M. P. & Bondari, K. (1996). Landscape maintenance firms. II. Pest management practices. Journal of Environmental Horticulture, 14, 58–61.Google Scholar
Gray, M. E. (2001). The role of extension in promoting IPM programs. American Entomologist, 47, 134–137.Google Scholar
Hamilton, G. C., Robson, M. G., Ghidiu, G. M., Samulis, R. & Prostko, E. (1997). 75% adoption of integrated pest management by 2000? A case study from New Jersey. American Entomologist, 43, 74–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herbert, D. A. (1995). Integrated pest management systems: back to basics to overcome adoption obstacles. Journal of Agricultural Entomology, 12, 203–210.Google Scholar
Higley, L. G. & Wintersteen, W. K. (1992). A novel approach to environmental risk assessment of pesticides as a basis for incorporating environmental costs into economic injury levels. American Entomologist, 38, 34–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kovach, J., Petzoldt, C., Degni, J. & Tette, J. (1992). A Method to Measure the Environmental Impact of Pesticides, New York Food and Life Sciences Bulletin No. 139. Geneva, NY: Cornell University New York State Agriculture Experiment Station. Available at http://ecommons.library.cornell.edu/handle/1813/5203.Google Scholar
Levitan, L., Merwin, I. & Kovach, J. (1995). Assessing the relative environmental impacts of agricultural pesticides: the quest for a holistic method. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 55, 153–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malone, S., Herbert, D. A., & Pheasant, S. (2004). Determining adoption of integrated pest management practices by grain farmers in Virginia. Journal of Extension, 42, 1–7.Google Scholar
McDavid, J. C. & Hawthorn, L. R. L. (2006). Program Evaluation and Performance Measurement: An Introduction to Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
McDonald, D. G. & Glynn, C. J. (1994). Difficulties in measuring adoption of apple IPM: a case study. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 48, 219–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, L. L., Taylor Fitz-Gibbon, C. & Freeman, M. E. (1987). How to Communicate Evaluation Findings. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Norton, G. A., Adamson, D., Aitken, L. G.et al. (1999). Facilitating IPM: the role of participatory workshops. International Journal of Pest Management, 45, 85–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norton, G. A., Rajotte, E. G. & Luther, G. C. (2005). Participatory Integrated Pest Management (PIPM) Process. In Globalizing Integrated Pest Management, eds. Norton, G. W., Heinrichs, E. A., Luther, G. C. & Irwin, M. E., pp. 13–26. Ames, IA: Blackwell Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ortmann, G. F., Patrick, G. F., Musser, W. N. & Doster, D. H. (1993). Use of private consultants and other sources of information by large Cornbelt farmers. Agribusiness, 9, 391–402.3.0.CO;2-K>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parvin, D. W. Jr. (1976). Farm management implications of reducing agricultural pollution related to cotton production in Mississippi. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 58, 978–983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patrick, G. F., Ortmann, G. F., Musser, W. G. & Doster, D. H. (1993). Information sources of large scale farmers. Choices, 3rd Quarter, 40–41.Google Scholar
Patton, M. Q. (1997). Utilization-Focused Evaluation, 3rd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Poister, T. H. (2004). Performance monitoring. In Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation, eds. Wholey, J. S., Hatry, H. P. & Newcomer, K. E., pp. 98–125. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Rajotte, E. G. (1993). From profitability to food safety and the environment: shifting the objectives of IPM. Plant Disease, 77, 296–299.Google Scholar
Rajotte, E. G. & Bowser, T. (1991). Expert systems: an aid to the adoption of sustainable agriculture. In Sustainable Agriculture and Extension in the Field, pp. 406–427. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
Rajotte, E. G., Kazmierczak, R., Norton, G. W., Lambur, M. T. & Allen, W. A. (1987). The National Evaluation of Extension Integration Pest Management IPM Programs, VCES Publication No. 491–010. VirginiaCooperative Extension Service.Google Scholar
Rajotte, E. G., Norton, G. W., Luther, G. C., Barrera, V. & Heong, K. L. (2005). IPM transfer and adoption. In Globalizing Integrated Pest Management: A Participatory Research Process, eds. Norton, G. W., Heinrichs, E. A., Luther, G. C. & Irwin, M. E., pp. 143–158. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Regev, U., Gutierrez, A. P. & Feder, G. (1976). Pests as a common property resource: a case study of alfalfa weevil control. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 58, 186–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ridgley, A. M. & Brush, S. B. (1992). Social factors and selective technology adoption: the case of integrated pest management. Human Organization, 51, 367–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, M. J., Schimmelpfennig, D., Ashley, E.et al. (2006). The Value of Plant Disease Early-Warning Systems: A Case Study of USDA's Soybean Rust Coordinated Framework, Economic Research Report No. (ERR-18). Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.Google Scholar
Rogers, E. M. (1983). The Diffusion of Innovations. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Rogers, E. M. (1995). The Diffusion of Innovations, 4th edn. New York: The Free Press.Google ScholarPubMed
Rossi, P. H., Lipsey, M. W. & Freeman, H. E. (2004). Evaluation: A Systematic Approach, 7th edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Taylor-Powell, E., Steele, S. & Douglah, M. (1996). Planning a Program Evaluation, Publication No. G-3658–1. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin, Cooperative Extension.Google Scholar
Thomas, J. K., Ladewig, H. & McIntosh, W. A. (1990). The adoption of integrated pest management practices among Texas cotton growers. Rural Sociology, 55, 395–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
,US General Accounting Office (2001). Agricultural Pesticides: Management Improvements Needed To Further Promote Integrated Pest Management, Report N. GAO 801-815. Washington, DC: US General Accounting Office.Google Scholar
Wearing, C. H. (1988). Evaluating the IPM implementation process. Annual Review of Entomology, 33, 17–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilkening, E. A. (1950). Sources of information for improved farm practices. Rural Sociology, 15, 19–30.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×