IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/jagaec/v39y2007i03p765-780_02.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Effectiveness of Integrated Pest Management Dissemination Techniques: A Case Study of Potato Farmers in Carchi, Ecuador

Author

Listed:
  • Mauceri, Maria
  • Alwang, Jeffrey
  • Norton, George
  • Barrera, Victor

Abstract

Potato farmers in Ecuador rely on chemical inputs to manage pests and optimize yields. Integrated pest management techniques lower production costs, reduce pesticide exposure, and improve long-term agricultural sustainability. Public extension does not, however, exist in Ecuador, and cost-effective means of communicating complex messages to producers are needed. We analyze cost-effectiveness of alternative dissemination methods, including farmer field schools (FFS), field days, pamphlets, and word-of-mouth transmission. Field days and pamphlets have strong impacts on adoption, especially considering their low costs. FFS are effective, but expensive. Evidence also indicates significant diffusion from FFS to non-FFS farmers, indicating high complementarity across methods.

Suggested Citation

  • Mauceri, Maria & Alwang, Jeffrey & Norton, George & Barrera, Victor, 2007. "Effectiveness of Integrated Pest Management Dissemination Techniques: A Case Study of Potato Farmers in Carchi, Ecuador," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 39(3), pages 765-780, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:jagaec:v:39:y:2007:i:03:p:765-780_02
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1074070800023403/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jinyang Cai & Fengxiang Ding & Yu Hong & Ruifa Hu, 2021. "An Impact Analysis of Farmer Field Schools on Hog Productivity: Evidence from China," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-14, October.
    2. Kenneth, Akankwasa & Gerald, Ortmann & Edilegnaw, Wale & Wilberforce, Tushemereirwe, 2012. "Ex-Ante Adoption of New Cooking Banana (Matooke) Hybrids in Uganda Based on Farmers' Perceptions," 2012 Conference, August 18-24, 2012, Foz do Iguacu, Brazil 123302, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    3. Rachid Laaja & Karen Macours, 2021. "Measuring Skills in Developing Countries," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 56(4), pages 1254-1295.
    4. Mzoughi, Naoufel, 2011. "Farmers adoption of integrated crop protection and organic farming: Do moral and social concerns matter?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(8), pages 1536-1545, June.
    5. Harris, Leah M. & Norton, George W. & Karim, A.N.M. Rezaul & Alwang, Jeffrey & Taylor, Daniel B., 2013. "Bridging the Information Gap with Cost-Effective Dissemination Strategies: The Case of Integrated Pest Management in Bangladesh," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 45(4), pages 639-654, November.
    6. Alwang, Jeffrey & Larochelle, Catherine & Barrera, Victor, 2017. "Farm Decision Making and Gender: Results from a Randomized Experiment in Ecuador," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 117-129.
    7. Vanessa Carrión Yaguana & Jeffrey Alwang & George Norton & Victor Barrera, 2016. "Does IPM Have Staying Power? Revisiting a Potato-producing Area Years After Formal Training Ended," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 67(2), pages 308-323, June.
    8. Stephen Sherwood & Severine Van Bommel & Myriam Paredes, 2016. "Self-Organization and the Bypass: Re-Imagining Institutions for More Sustainable Development in Agriculture and Food," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 6(4), pages 1-19, December.
    9. Mwambi, Mercy & Depenbusch, Lutz & Bonnarith, Uon & Sotelo-Cardona, Paola & Kieu, Khemrin & di Tada, Nicolas & Srinivasan, Ramasamy & Schreinemachers, Pepijn, 2023. "Can phone text messages promote the use of integrated pest management? A study of vegetable farmers in Cambodia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 204(PA).
    10. Li, Jie & Gomez, Miguel I. & Rickard, Bradley J. & Skinner, Margaret, 2011. "Factors Influencing Adoption of Integrated Pest Management in Northeast Greenhouse and Nursery Production," Working Papers 126614, Cornell University, Department of Applied Economics and Management.
    11. Li, Jie & Gómez, Miguel I. & Rickard, Bradley J. & Skinner, Margaret, 2013. "Factors Influencing Adoption of Integrated Pest Management in Northeast Greenhouse and Nursery Production," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 42(2), pages 1-15, August.
    12. Luis A. De los Santos‐Montero & Boris E. Bravo‐Ureta, 2017. "Productivity effects and natural resource management: econometric evidence from POSAF‐II in Nicaragua," Natural Resources Forum, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 41(4), pages 220-233, November.
    13. Carrión, Vanessa D. & Norton, George W. & Alwang, Jeffrey Roger & Barrera, Victor, 2013. "Adoption Analysis and Impact Evaluation of Potato IPM in Ecuador," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 150164, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    14. Jinyang Cai & Guanming Shi & Ruifa Hu, 2016. "An Impact Analysis of Farmer Field School in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-14, February.
    15. Maritza Satama & Eva Iglesias, 2020. "Fuzzy Cognitive Map Clustering to Assess Local Knowledge of Ecosystem Conservation in Ecuador," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-26, March.
    16. Yorobe Jr., J.M. & Rejesus, R.M. & Hammig, M.D., 2011. "Insecticide use impacts of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Farmer Field Schools: Evidence from onion farmers in the Philippines," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 104(7), pages 580-587, September.
    17. Carlberg, Eric & Kostandini, Genti & Dankyi, Awere, 2012. "The Effects of Integrated Pest Management Techniques (IPM) Farmer Field Schools on Groundnut Productivity: Evidence from Ghana," 2012 Annual Meeting, August 12-14, 2012, Seattle, Washington 124876, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • Q01 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - General - - - Sustainable Development
    • Q16 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - R&D; Agricultural Technology; Biofuels; Agricultural Extension Services

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:jagaec:v:39:y:2007:i:03:p:765-780_02. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/aae .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.