Agriculture and Human Values (2007) 24:323–332 Ó Springer 2007

DOI 10.1007/s10460-007-9071-3

Motivations behind farmersÕ pesticide use in Bangladesh rice farming

Elizabeth J. Z. Robinson,1 Sumona Rani Das2 and Tim B. C. Chancellor3

1
Centre for the Study of African Economies, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom; 2PROSHIKA, Dhaka, Bangladesh;
3
Natural Resources Institute, University of Greenwich at Medway, Kent, United Kingdom

Accepted in revised form February 20, 2006

Abstract. This paper addresses the motivations behind farmersÕ pesticide use in two regions of Bangladesh. The
paper considers farmersÕ knowledge of arthropods and their perceptions about pests and pest damage, and
identifies why many farmers do not use recommended pest management practices. We propose that using the
novel approach of classifying farmers according to their motivations and constraints rather than observed
pesticide use can improve training approaches and increase farmersÕ uptake and retention of more appropriate
integrated pest management technologies.

Key words: Bangladesh, Pest management, Pesticide use, Rice farming, Sustainable agriculture

Elizabeth J. Z. Robinson divides her time between Tanzania and the UK and is a research associate with the Centre
for the Study of African Economies at the University of Oxford in the UK. She is an economist specializing in
agriculture, natural resources, and the environment. She has over ten years of experience undertaking applied
research in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa as a fellow and lecturer in the Economics Department at the
University of Oxford; at the Natural Resources Institute at the University of Greenwich in the UK; and with the World
Bank and Rockefeller Foundation in the US.

Sumona Rani Das is an agriculture economist who has been working for eight years with a non-government
organization in Bangladesh named PROSHIKA. She is involved with monitoring and evaluation of PROSHIKAÕs
ongoing activities in agriculture, and is working as a team leader with an agriculture network to promote sustainable
agriculture. She has special responsibility for motivation, training, project management, and documentation of
different programs.

Tim B. C. Chancellor is a crop protection specialist and currently is the leader of the Natural Resources InstituteÕs
Plant, Animal and Human Health Group at the University of Greenwich in the UK. He has 17 years research and
consultancy experience in vector ecology and in pest and disease management. Other skills include project mana-
gement, monitoring and evaluation, and public-private partnerships. He is also Adviser to the UK governmentÕs
Department for International Development (DFID) Crop Protection Programme. His commodity experience includes
rice, banana, groundnut and vegetables.

Introduction excessive (Haq et al., 2002; Hossain et al., 2000).

Compared with many countries in Southeast Asia,
where farmers have been found to use more pesticide
than is recommended by scientists and extension ser-
vices, pesticide use in rice farming systems in Ban-
gladesh is, on average, low. Indeed, in many areas of
the country little or no pesticide is used on rice. Yet
pesticide use is increasing; and, in most locations
where it is used, application appears already to be
Because many farmers are constrained from using as
much pesticide as they would like (due to a lack of
cash), it is not unreasonable to assume that if
Bangladeshi farmers become less poor or have better
access to credit, their pesticide use will increase further.
This paper was motivated by the findings, communi-
cated by scientists working in the region, that farmers
are using too much pesticide both from a private
perspective (that is, the farmers themselves would be
324 Elizabeth J. Z. Robinson et al.

better off if they used less pesticide) and from a social Study sites and methodological approach
perspective (that is, society would be better off if the
farmers used less pesticide, in part because the negative The study was conducted in two selected flood plain
environmental impacts including the increased likeli- areas of Koitta (population 1500) in Manikganj district,
hood of pesticide resistance would be reduced). In and in Gabtali (population 1700) in Bogra district
particular, the application of ‘‘precautionary pesticide’’ (see Figure 1). In these two thanas (administrative
– pesticide that is applied before an attack occurs – is units) farmers had been heavily influenced by the non-
(according to biological scientists) unnecessary and government organization (NGO) PROSHIKA and other
possibly harmful in certain systems. Although not NGOs that promoted sustainable and ecological agri-
recommended by the extension department, precau- culture and IPM. As a consequence, even farmers who
tionary application of pesticide is a common practice, had not attended specific training may have been exposed
often encouraged by fertilizer and pesticide dealers. to such practices and so may not have been be repre-
Particular concerns over pesticide use include the sentative of the flood plain farming community at large in
possibility of pesticide resistance (which is common in areas where training has not been undertaken. In this
Southeast Asia), the destruction of natural enemies of paper, ‘‘trained’’ farmers are those that received ecolog-
pest species, and environmental and health concerns. In ical training from PROSHIKA or CARE, both NGOs
the 1997 boro (dry) season, scientists found that (though not all were necessarily following all the prac-
applications of granular insecticide by farmers tices suggested in the training at the time of interview).
depressed leaf and plant-hopper numbers, but in the ‘‘Untrained’’ farmers had not received such training.2
following season numbers of pests were higher in Over the three years of the project, the methodological
conventional than ecological treatments. This effect approaches taken by the socio-economics team, com-
may have been due to insecticide-induced natural prised of both agricultural and resource economists and a
enemy mortality and/or increased pest fecundity due to sociologist, were diverse. Individual semi-structured
inorganic fertilizer application (Haq et al., 2002). interviews with key informants such as pesticide dealers
Chronic health effects associated with prolonged and government extension officers, combined with
exposure to pesticides have been well documented for farmer focus group discussions, were used during the
applicators in rice (Antle and Pingali, 1994; Loevin- early part of the project to get a general understanding of
sohn, 1987; Rola and Pingali, 1993). Moreover, pesticide use and pest management decisions. Next, a
applying toxic granules in standing water – the typical structured 54-item farmer questionnaire was undertaken
practice for applying pesticides to rice crops in Ban- to obtain quantitative data on farmersÕ perceptions of the
gladesh – is not recommended. Moreover, when using effectiveness of pesticide and anticipated yield gaps from
sprays, farmers tend to walk back through areas that
have already received insecticide. Both practices are
harmful to farmersÕ health.
However, it is particularly difficult to encourage
farmers to reduce their pesticide use if their motivations
are not understood. Based on extensive fieldwork, this
paper sheds light on farmersÕ pest management deci-
sions, and suggests changes in training that could help
to reduce pesticide use.1 After discussing the study
sites and methodological approach, the paper considers
farmersÕ knowledge of pests and pest management
approaches, comparing farmers who have received
ecological or integrated pest management (IPM) train-
ing with those that have not had any pest management
training. It also addresses farmersÕ perceptions of
damage done by pests and the benefits from using
pesticide. Research has been undertaken in other
countries to explore the perceived benefits of pesticide
use, such as that by Heong and Escalada (1999).
However, in Bangladesh, previous to this study, the
perceived benefits of pesticide had not been deter-
mined. Finally, the paper analyses farmersÕ pest
management decision making and the implications for Figure 1. Map of Bangladesh showing Manikganj and Bogra
future farmer training. districts.
 Motivations behind farmersÕ pesticide
not using pesticide. Farmers were asked how badly they
perceived pest attacks to have been in the most recent
boro season compared with other years. They were also
asked to provide general perceptions of the number of
severe pest attacks that they would expect in a ten-year
period. They were then asked to provide their perceptions
of extent to which they felt that the use of precautionary
pesticide (applied before an attack) and pesticide applied
after an attack would improve their yields compared with
not using any pesticide; this was asked for years when
there were severe, moderate, and mild pest attacks. The
sample comprised 17 trained farmers and 14 untrained
farmers in Gabtoli, and 9 trained and 14 untrained
farmers in Koitta.3 Trained farmers were selected ran-
domly from one village in each of the two thanas where
ecological training had been undertaken, either by
PROSHIKA or CARE. Non-trained farmers were
selected randomly from villages nearby to the villages
where training had been undertaken.4 Although the
sample size was relatively small, the overall objective of
the research was to determine different farmer motiva-
tions, and norms rather than variation; consequently, this
sample size, combined with information from participa-
tory and qualitative approaches, was considered appro-
priate. The socio-economics team worked closely with
the biological scientists on the project in both formulat-
ing questions and questionnaires and data collection.
In the cropping systems that we studied, rice is grown
in two seasons: boro (dry season) and aman (monsoon or
rainy season).5 In the boro season, rice is irrigated and
generally transplanted. In the aman season, irrigation is
not used, and again the rice is transplanted. At Gabtoli,
which is situated on medium-high land, vegetables are
often grown after the aman rice crop. In other lower-lying
fields, only rice is planted. Farmers tend not to use pes-
ticide during the aman season, principally because
flooding which harms the crop is common; farmers
reported that they do not want to ‘‘waste’’ money spent
on pesticide. Hence this paper focuses on pesticide use in
the boro season.
FarmersÕ knowledge and pesticide use
FarmersÕ detailed knowledge of insect pests and natural
enemies of rice pests in particular was found to vary
considerably. Farmers were shown actual specimens of
arthropods that the researchers were able to collect by
suction machine and pictures of those that could not be
collected. Whether or not they were trained, farmers were
typically able to identify most of the different arthropods
that would be found in their fields. For example, all
farmers interviewed in the quantitative survey, whether
trained or untrained, recognized stem borer (stem borers
in Bangladesh rice systems are collectively known locally
325
as masrapukka and may include Scirpophaga incertulas,
Chilo polychrysa, C. suppressalis, and Sesamia inferens)
as the most harmful pest in the boro season, and stated
that stem borer attacked at the tillering stage.6
However, trained farmers are more likely to recognize
that some arthropods were natural enemies to pests and
so beneficial for the farmers, whereas untrained farmers
typically assumed that all arthropods were pests.
Figure 2a shows the percentage of farmers, trained and
untrained, who correctly identified different arthropods.
Three arthropods (the nymph stages of the brown
planthopper (Nilaparvata lugens) and the green leafhop-
per (Nephotettix spp.), and the Tetragnathidae spider)
were not identified by any of the 54 farmers interviewed.
Indeed, farmers often mistook the hopper nymphs for
stem borers. Figure 2b shows the percentage of farmers
who correctly identified a particular arthropod and who
also were able to determine whether the arthropod was
harmful or beneficial. The findings demonstrate that
although farmers may not understand that many of the
arthropods they see in their fields play a beneficial role in
managing pests, a large proportion of untrained farmers
do recognize (i.e., can identify) species that serve as
natural enemies of rice pests, such as damsel flies
(Agriocnemsis spp.), spiders (Lycosidae), ladybirds
(Coccinelidae), and ground beetles (Ophionae spp.), thus
providing a useful starting point for training.
Farmers, information, and stakeholder groups
Focus group interviews revealed the large number of
information sources, both formal and informal, from
which farmers can obtain advice on pests and pest
management. Trained farmers used multiple sources to
inform themselves about pest management, whereas
untrained farmers relied almost exclusively on pesticide
dealers and their own experience (Table 1). This sug-
gested that farmers who chose to attend training on
ecological pest management practices were in general the
type of farmer who also chose to consult a wide variety
of organizations and individuals about pest management
and other farming techniques. That is, there was a set of
‘‘information-seeking’’ farmers who were more proactive
(perhaps because of better education or wealth) at seek-
ing advice than farmers who relied on the pesticide dealer
or their own experience.
Focus group interviews and key informant interviews
also confirmed the key role played by pesticide dealers.
Pesticide dealers have a direct connection with farmers;
they are typically the same individuals who sell fertilizer
to the farmers at the start of each season. They play a
vital role in providing information and often credit (the
latter making pesticide more accessible to the rural poor).
Further, as pesticide is often sold ‘‘packaged’’ (i.e.,
combined) with fertilizer, even farmers who may not
326 Elizabeth J. Z. Robinson et al.

a)
100% Pests Natural enemies

Percentage Trained
50%
Non-trained

0%

ph
ph
r

le

le

r)
)
fl y

id
g
a

r
g

pe

fly
e

bu
sp

de
bu

et

et

in
ym
ym

id
l
op

be
se

be

yl
hi

pi
Sp

k
e

iti
rn
rn

ph
h

tin

(s
am
ic

as
y

d
af
ic
R

pe

a
d
pe

un

ds

d
ar

St
D

La
R

le

hi
op
op

ro

un

(p

at
en

G
h
th

ro

gn
lid
re

af

G
an

tr a
cu
G

le
pl

Te
en

pu
n

re
w

Pi
o

G
Br

b)
100% Pests Natural enemies
Percentage

Trained
50%
Non-trained

0%
ph
ph
r

le

le

r)
)

id
fl y

g
a

r
g

pe

fly
e

bu
sp

de
bu

et

et

in
ym
ym

id
l
op

be
se

be

yl
hi

pi
Sp

k
e

iti
rn
rn

ph
h

tin

(s
am
ic

as
y

d
af
ic
R

pe

a
d
pe

un

ds

d
ar

St
D

La
R

le

hi
op
op

ro

un

(p

at
en

G
h
th

ro

gn
lid
re

af

G
an

tra
cu
G

le
pl

Te
en

pu
n

re
w

Pi
o

G
Br

Figure 2. (a) Percentage of rice farmers who correctly identified selected arthropods. (b) Percentage of rice farmers who
recognized arthropod species who correctly identified whether the arthropod was harmful or beneficial.

initially intend to use pesticide are likely to meet with the management explicitly. Extension agents and NGOs also
pesticide dealer to purchase fertilizer at the start of the provide information on pest management. Yet farmers
season and may be encouraged to use precautionary typically must explicitly seek advice from these sources,
pesticide. Farmers also have the opportunity to discuss whose staff are not always available and, where they are,
pest management informally with their neighbors, and may not have access to up-to-date pest management
may also be influenced by whether or not their neighbor information.
is spraying a crop, even if they do not discuss pest
Pesticide use among farmers
Table 1. Sources of pest management advice and information.
Question: Who have you talked to about pest management? In the questionnaire, we asked farmers about their pes-
ticide use during the past boro season. The responses
Trained (8) Non-trained (18) were based on recall rather than written records and
PROSHIKA 4 1 might be subject to recall error, but this method was
CARE 5 0 considered reasonable given that many of the interviewed
Extension 5 2 farmers were illiterate. There are three pesticides that
Pesticide dealers 4 14 were used most by farmers: carbofuran (most popular),
Neighbors 0 2 basudin, and carbosulfan. Focus group discussions and
Own experience 0 4 interviews with pesticide dealers suggested that farmers
Note that farmers could name more than one source. typically accepted which ever pesticide was recom-
Source: Project questionnaire in Koitta and Gabtoli, 1999. mended by the dealer. Again, although the sample size
 Motivations behind farmersÕ pesticide 327

was small, four broad types of pesticide use were iden- addition to their actual pesticide use. For example, if
tified from the questionnaire: (1) Some farmers did not farmers used little pesticide because they were con-
use any pesticide either before or after an attack (20% of strained by lack of cash and credit, then as they become
the sample); (2) some used pesticide only as a precau- better off, we would expect pesticide use to increase
tionary method, mixed with fertilizer, or at maximum rather than decrease.
tillering (28%); (3) some used pesticide only after they The total amount of funds that farmers recalled
perceived a pest attack (30%); and (4) other farmers used spending on pesticide in the previous boro season (both
pesticide both as a precautionary measure and after an precautionary and after an attack) varied considerably,
attack (22%). These results were complemented by data from nothing to more than 200 taka per bigha on the
from the focus group discussions that revealed that most popular brand Furadan 5G (which contains 5%
farmersÕ motivations for these different behaviors dif- carbofuran).7 There was some clustering for the precau-
fered depending on the farmersÕ perceptions of pesticide; tionary pesticide approach, around 75–100 taka per
the severity of the pest attack in a particular farmerÕs bigha, which corresponded to pesticide dealersÕ recom-
field; and their financial situation, the latter including the mendations that farmers use 1 kg of Furadan per bigha
extent to which a farmer was constrained by lack of cash (equivalent to 7.69 kg of Furadan per ha containing
or access to credit. For example, farmers who did not use 0.38 kg carbofuran) at a typical cost to farmers of around
pesticide in a particular season may have undertaken 80–90 taka per kilogram (panel a of Figure 3). Still, a
ecological training, may not have been able to afford considerable number of farmers use the precautionary
pesticide, or may only use pesticide after a serious attack. pesticide application approach, but not according to
Similarly, different explanations accounted for other scientistsÕ recommendations. Further, there was no
communicated pesticide use strategies. Hence it was discernable pattern for the application of pesticide after
critical to understand farmersÕ desired pesticide use in an attack occurred (panel b of Figure 3). Such a finding

30
a) Spending "PS" on precautionary pesticide in the last boro season (taka per bigha)
Number of farmers

25
20
15
10
5
0
0

0
25

50

75

00
0

10

0
=1

=1

=1

=2
<=

<=

<=

>2
<=

S<

S<
S<

S<

PS
PS

PS

PS

PS

<P

<P
<P

<P
0<

<

<

<
25

50

75

5
10

12

15

17

30 b) Spending "AS" on pesticide after a pest attack (taka per bigha)

25
Number of farmers

20
15
10
5
0
0 25 =5
0
=7
5 00 25 50 75 00 00
<= S< S< =1 =1 =1 =1 =2 >2
AS <A <A S< S< S< S< S< AS
0< 25 50 5 <A 0<A 5<A 0<A 5<A
7 10 12 15 17

12 c) Total spending "TS" on pesticide in the last boro season (taka per bigha)
(TS=PS+AS)
10
N o . o f f ar m e r s

0
0 25 =5
0
=7
5 00 25 50 75 00 00
<= S< S< =1 =1 =1 =1 =2 >2
TS <T <T S< S< S< S< S< TS
0< 25 50 <T 0 <T 5 <T 0 <T 5 <T
75 10 12 15 17
Spend on pesticide (taka per bigha)

Figure 3. Pesticide spending among rice farmers in Bogra and Manikganj districts.
328
is consistent with analysis of focus group discussions
from which we found that farmers typically adapted the
dealerÕs recommendation, for example, applying more
pesticide if the pests were perceived to be particularly
bad; and less if the farmer was short of cash. Further,
pesticide is a ‘‘lumpy’’ input, typically purchased in
kilogram packets (for granular formulations of pesticide)
or bottles and half bottles (for liquid formulations of
pesticide). Farmers used whatever they purchased; hence
applications were not exactly as recommended. Not
surprisingly, when total spending on pesticide was con-
sidered (equal to the sum of spending on pesticide
applied before and after an attack), there is no discernable
pattern (panel c of Figure 3).
FarmersÕ perceptions of the benefits of pesticide use
We undertook a yield-gap survey to determine farmersÕ
perceptions over losses due to not using pesticide. For
our survey we defined the yield gap as the difference
between perceived potential yields (in our case, the
yields farmers believed they would get if there were no
pest attack) and perceived actual yields (the yields the
farmers had observed or expected in years when the pest
attack was high, medium, or low), depending on whether
the farmers used no pesticide, precautionary pesticide, or
pesticide only after an attack. The findings are summa-
rized in Figure 4. Farmers perceived the greatest benefit
from using precautionary pesticide but also perceived
significant benefits from using pesticide after a pest at-
tack. Indeed, almost without exception, the farmers stated
that by using precautionary pesticide, they would expe-
rience no yield loss.
From the data presented in Figure 4, the net perceived
benefits of using pesticide can be determined. On aver-
age, the farmers expected to lose 58% of their yield if
there was a severe pest attack and they did not use any
pesticide either before or after the attack; but would
experience no yield loss if they used precautionary
If no pesticide used
70%
58%
If pesticide used after an attack
Perceived yield loss relative to
60%
50%
no pest attack
38% 38%
40%
30%
29%
20%
10%
0% 0%
0%
High Medium
Level of pest attack
Figure 4. Graph of farmersÕ perceptions of the benefits of
pesticide use.
Elizabeth J. Z. Robinson et al.
pesticide (though despite this, some farmers do in fact
use pesticide both before and after an attack). These same
farmers perceived a loss of 38% of their yield even if
they use pesticide after an attack. Hence the perceived
marginal (or additional) benefits from using pesticide
after a severe pest attack are equivalent to 20% of yield,
compared with 38% from using precautionary pesticide
before a severe attack. In contrast, farmers only per-
ceived a net yield gain of 5% from using pesticide after a
mild pest attack, and 12% before a mild attack. Farmers
typically reported that they expected no more than one
severe pest attack per ten years in the boro season. The
data we are reporting are farmersÕ perceptions, rather than
the reality of the impact or frequency of a pest attack. But
farmersÕ perceptions are critical in influencing their
pesticide use, particularly in determining whether they
use pesticide before any pests are seen or after pests have
attacked the crop.
Compared with their expected losses from not using
pesticide, farmersÕ spending on pesticide is relatively
low: an average of 2% of the average value of their crop
for precautionary pesticide use, and 3% for all pesticide
applications. Hence, farmers would only have to perceive
a benefit, on average, of 3% of their yield to make
pesticide use worthwhile from a simple year-on-year
financial perspective. Given farmersÕ perceptions of yield
losses, particularly if they do not use precautionary
pesticide, it is not surprising that they choose to use
pesticide when not constrained by lack of cash. If farmers
are risk averse – a reasonable assumption for poor
farmers in Bangladesh – then even if they perceive the
average benefits from using pesticide to be less than 3%,
it might still make sense from their perspective to use
precautionary pesticide. The need for farmers to reduce
uncertainty over returns to rice farming is particularly
high in a poor country such as Bangladesh where farmers
typically have neither savings nor mechanisms such as
credit or crop insurance to even out their consumption
over time. Indeed, precautionary pesticide can be thought
of as an insurance policy. Even if farmers do not expect,
on average, a large saving from using pesticide in terms
If precautionary pesticide used of yield, they do believe that by using precautionary
pesticide the impact of pests will be lowered or elimi-
nated – one less source of uncertainty for farmers oper-
ating in a highly variable and risky environment.
We do recognize that farmersÕ perceptions of pest
attacks are tricky to interpret. For example, seven of the
17%
interviewed farmers said explicitly that they used
12% precautionary pesticide and so could not determine how
0%
bad a pest attack might have been. For example, during
the focus groups farmers reported that they tended to
Low
look for symptoms of pest attacks rather than the pests
themselves when determining severity. It is likely
that other farmers also have such difficulties. We com-
pared the farmersÕ perceptions with scientific studies
 Motivations behind farmersÕ pesticide
undertaken during the project that suggested that the
incidence of stem borer damage. This was measured by
the percentage of empty panicles or ‘‘whiteheads’’
caused by larvae feeding in the plant tillers and is actu-
ally low in most seasons. The recommended thresholds
for control of stem borer (5% white heads) are rarely
exceeded (Islam et al., 2003). Indeed, during the previous
three seasons at Koitta and four at Gabtoli, the incidence
of white heads was generally less than 1% and never
reached the threshold of 5%. Hence farmersÕ perceptions
of how often a severe attack would occur appear rela-
tively realistic, but farmers also appear to place signifi-
cant weight on high-incidence years, even though they
do not occur very frequently.
Categorizing farmers
The quantitative analysis of farmersÕ pest management
applications, combined with focus group interviews,
suggests that farmers can be categorized into four groups
according to how and why they use pesticide. Such a
classification can be a useful way to tailor training
according to different types of farmers, and may be used
to predict how pesticide use might change as farmers
become less poor or less credit-constrained. The cate-
gorization includes the motivation behind pesticide
application, which is more useful than simply charac-
terizing pesticide use (such as no pesticide used; pesti-
cide used only after an attack; pesticide only used as a
precautionary measure; pesticide used both as a precau-
tionary measure and after an attack). This is because
farmers would fall into each of these simple categories
for different reasons, depending on their attitudes to risk,
how cash-constrained they are, and whether they had
training. For example, 20% of farmers had not used
pesticide in the past boro season; some of these farmers
chose not to, others said that they would have used
precautionary pesticide but did not have sufficient cash
available at the right time. Combining these data with
findings from the focus groups, we therefore composed a
classification system along three dimensions: (1) attitude
to risk, (2) access to cash, and (c) training. The proposed
typology is not exhaustive, but encompasses the key
farmer types encountered during the field research.
Typology of farmers with respect to pesticide use
Highly risk averse with access to cash and untrained
These farmers always use precautionary pesticide; use
additional pesticide if they see an attack; and, not
surprisingly, perceive the largest benefits from using
pesticide. They are (a) currently high users of pesticide
329
relative to other farmers; (b) their pesticide use is higher
than scientific recommendations, particularly as scientists
do not recommend prophylactic use for stem borer con-
trol; and (c) because they use precautionary pesticide,
farmers in this category find it difficult to judge how
often moderate and severe pest attacks occur.
Risk averse but cash constrained and untrained
These farmers would like to use precautionary pesticide
but cannot afford to. The dosage they use after an attack
is influenced by their cash availability: they use more
pesticide when they can afford to and less when they are
short of cash, thereby adapting rather than following
scientific recommendations. They are potentially high
users of pesticide. They apply amounts of pesticide that
vary considerably from year to year. However, their
experience of not using precautionary pesticide could be
incorporated into training designed to reduce pesticide
use.
Less risk averse and untrained
These farmers typically take a ‘‘wait and see’’ approach,
and may be hard to distinguish from ‘‘risk averse but
cash constrained’’ farmers. They are sufficiently confi-
dent not to use precautionary pesticide and perceive
relatively small benefits from using pesticide after an
attack. These farmers should be more amenable to trying
ecological approaches to pest management, having
chosen in the past not to use precautionary pesticide.
Therefore, farmers in this category should be particularly
receptive to training initiatives.
Trained in pest management
These farmers are more proactive in their pest manage-
ment. They inspect their fields more rigorously, practice
relatively simple rules of thumb regarding whether to use
pesticide, and apply pesticide only if an attack is severe.
These farmers, who have already chosen to reduce their
pesticide use, may need ‘‘top-up’’ training to keep up
their knowledge and confidence. We found that trained
farmers over time tend to forget whether an arthropod is
harmful or beneficial. These farmers could also be
‘‘ambassadors’’ for promoting ecological pest manage-
ment approaches.
Training appears to give farmers more confidence to
avoid using precautionary pesticide and not to spray
pesticide after a small or moderate pest attack. For
example, during focus group discussions, trained farmers
in Manikganj reported that they checked for damage in
their fields only once a fortnight before they received
training. After training they were more likely to check for
pests and natural enemies on a weekly basis and to use a
330 Elizabeth J. Z. Robinson et al.
rule of thumb based on their IPM training that if less than
30% of the field was attacked they should not apply
pesticide. Training also improves farmersÕ knowledge of
natural enemies, and covers a large number of alternative
pest management techniques such as perching (using tree
branches to encourage birds to come to the fields and eat
the pests); light traps and sweep nets (to monitor the
presence of pests); and living fences to control pests. If
these measures do not work, farmers were taught to
prepare a botanical pesticide (such as oil extracted from
seeds of the neem tree which is used to deter insects from
feeding on rice plants). However, in practice, trained
farmers tended either to forget how to undertake these
practices or chose, for a variety of reasons, not to use
them. Many continue to use chemical pesticides, partic-
ularly after a severe attack.8 Reasons for not putting into
practice much of the training included the fear of theft of
light traps, concern that all pests will come to the farmer
who is practicing ecological management, and the
perception that netting, leaf cutting, and pest collection
were time consuming. Hence, even though trained
farmers have considerable knowledge concerning eco-
management techniques, adoption was highly selective
and most trained farmers continued to use some pesti-
cide. That is, farmersÕ knowledge of alternative pest
management approaches is not a sufficient proxy for
determining their actual pest management practices.
Implications for future pest management training
Our research provides a number of key findings con-
cerning farmersÕ knowledge of, attitudes towards, and use
of pesticide in two regions in Bangladesh. First, eco-
logical training has been successful in providing farmers
with better knowledge about arthropods in their fields, in
particular which are beneficial and which are harmful.
However, even though during their training farmers were
given a large amount of information on different non-
chemical pest management techniques, few if any prac-
ticed new techniques that they were taught, in part
because the technologies are perceived as being highly
labor intensive or risky. The use of techniques such as the
light trap also requires coordination among neighbors.
Moreover, over time farmers tended to forget much of
what they were taught. In comparison, pesticide is rela-
tively cheap compared with the perceived benefits, easy
to get hold of, easy to use, and farmers may perceive its
precautionary use as an insurance policy against future
pest attacks.9 Conventional pesticide application also has
low labor requirements and is sold by most fertilizer
dealers, who also offer advice. That is, from the farmersÕ
perspective, pesticide is easy to use, easy to access, and
economically rational. Hence, trained farmers are being
asked to choose highly labor intensive and relatively
complex pest management processes over relatively
cheap and easily accessible pesticide-based strategies.
Not surprisingly then, encouraging farmers to adopt non-
chemical pest management techniques is particularly
difficult.
Based on our findings, we used the novel approach of
classifying farmers according to their motivations rather
than by their observed pesticide use, to identify a number
of new and innovative ways that training might be
adapted to increase the likelihood of farmers adopting
and maintaining alternative approaches to pest manage-
ment. These approaches include changing both how
training is undertaken and adapting some of the pest
management techniques themselves. First, our findings
suggest that low-labor input alternatives need to be
developed and prioritized to compete with pesticides.
Farmers also need simple pest management decision
rules that are easy to remember and to apply with ‘‘top
up’’ (refresher) training to help with knowledge reten-
tion. The feasibility of ‘‘reference cards’’ could be
investigated, though the implications for illiterate farmers
would have to be carefully considered. Such approaches
might also help farmer-to-farmer knowledge transmis-
sion.
Second, our findings suggest that education concern-
ing health and wider environmental problems associated
with pesticide use is unlikely to have a large impact in
the regions where we did our fieldwork. Our research
found that both trained and non-trained farmers knew
that pesticide was harmful for human health, yet they still
used these chemicals. This suggested that for economi-
cally-poor farmers, the short-term perceived financial
benefits of using pesticide far outweigh the possible
long-term health effects. Further, although trained farm-
ers understood a connection between pesticide use and
environmental damage, surprisingly few made a con-
nection between pesticide use and the impact on their
own livestock and fish production. This suggests that
training should emphasize the direct and relatively
immediate cost inflicted on farmersÕ other activities.
Studies in China and the Philippines have found that
stem borer damage is lower in rice-fish fields compared
to rice-only fields, due likely to predation by fish on the
neonate stem borer larvae, making a reduction in pesti-
cide use on rice all the more important (Halwart, 1994;
Magulama, 1990; Yu et al., 1995). Such findings from
other countries could be incorporated into training to
motivate farmers to reduce pesticide use.
Third, farmers tend to base their insecticide use on their
perceived prospects of incurring a loss rather than actual
need (Escalada and Heong, 2004; Gutierrez et al., 1999).
Consequently, they tend to overestimate the benefits of
pesticide use (see also Norton and Mumford, 1983; Tait,
1977). This appears to be the situation in Bangladesh,
where scientific studies suggest that, for stem borer, the
 Motivations behind farmersÕ pesticide
recommended thresholds for control using pesticides are
rarely exceeded, despite farmersÕ perceptions (Cork et al.,
2005). Our fieldwork demonstrated that this problem was
made worse because farmers who used precautionary
pesticide lost their ability to determine how often, and how
severe, pest attacks were. Training could therefore take
explicit account of different types of farmers within a
group; farmers who do not use precautionary pesticide,
either out of choice or because they cannot afford it, could
share their experiences with farmers who use precau-
tionary pesticide and are less able to determine when a
pest attack would have been severe. Farmers could then be
encouraged to experiment without precautionary pesticide
in an area of their field more confident that pesticide can be
used effectively after a severe attack. However, our re-
search also found that farmers who got their pesticide
advice from pesticide dealers were less likely to seek ad-
vice from the extension services and neighbors. Extra
effort is needed to reach these farmers and to encourage
them to enroll on training courses, particularly given
Feder et al.Õs (2004) finding that there is no significant
diffusion of knowledge from trained farmers to other
farmers who reside in the same villages. More generally,
pest management training needs to be tailored to different
farmer types, taking into account farmersÕ motivations,
current pest management techniques, experiences of pest
management and pests, access to cash and information,
and their ability to cope with a more variable harvest. This
does not mean running different training courses for dif-
ferent farmer types (which would in any case be tricky to
determine before the training), but rather taking account of
farmersÕ different motivations and constraints when
implementing training.
Finally, farmers reinterpret training and information
given to them about pest management to suit their par-
ticular circumstances and their own understanding of a
problem. For example, we found that a large number of
farmers, despite knowing the recommended dose, did not
follow the recommendation. Hence, it is not sufficient to
assume that farmers will adopt pest management
techniques without adapting them. Pesticide recommen-
dations and pest management techniques therefore need to
be resilient to adaptation by farmers, and farmers need to
be confident as to why the recommendations are appro-
priate. Our recommendation is consistent with CAREÕs
Bangladesh INTERFISH project in which the extension
agentÕs role is to facilitate, accompany, and support
farmersÕ processes of learning and problem solving,
teaching concepts that farmers can adapt to different
realities (Perez, n.d.). Involving farmers more in the
development of research activities, both during hypothesis
generation and design of fieldwork, should make the re-
search findings and recommendations more relevant to the
farmers, and the technologies more likely to be adopted.
331
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the farmers in particular for their
participation in the surveys and questionnaires; the
cooperation and input of colleagues at PROSHIKA and
the Bangladesh Rice Research Institute (BRRI) in
Bangladesh, particularly Mr. Qazi Khaze Alam, Mr.
Anisur Rahman, Mr. Mubarak Hossain Khan Chow-
dhury, and Mr. Santosh Chandra Sarker; and col-
leagues at the Natural Resources Institute in the UK.
This paper is based on output from a research project
funded by the United Kingdom Department for Inter-
national Development (DFID) for the benefit of
developing countries. The views expressed are not
necessarily those of DFID R7296 Crop Protection
Research Programme.
Notes
1. The specific findings of this paper are based on the socio-
economic component of a three-year DFID funded project
investigating pesticide use in Bangladesh and identifying
approaches to reducing pesticide use.
2. The Bangladesh government, through the extension
department, is also increasingly involved in providing inte-
grated pest management (IPM) training to farmers.
3. In these study sites, in common with much of Bangladesh,
male farmers dominate rice farming; hence there were very
few women farmers in the sample.
4. However, otherwise trained and non-trained farmers were
not matched and it is possible that trained farmers were on
average better educated than non-trained farmers.
5. In the boro, or dry season, transplanted rice is grown with
irrigation. In the aman, monsoon season, rice is transplanted
in the case of farmers that we interviewed, but may also be
broadcast.
6. Indeed, when farmers were asked why they used pesticide,
they typically said that it was to protect their rice specifically
from stem borer rather than from pests in general.
7. One bigha is equal to 0.13 hectares. At the time of the
research, the exchange rate was approximately 50 taka per
US$1.
8. Trained farmers do use perching, but perching is a tradi-
tional pest management technique that is also used by a third
of non-trained farmers.
9. The role of both precautionary pesticide use and excessive
fertilizer use as insurance is recognized (e.g., Oka, 1994).
In the US, insurance is being introduced through a
federally subsidized program to protect farmers from los-
ses incurred by following Best Management Practices for
nutrient management. The hope is that such a scheme can
be introduced for IPM (Georgia Pest Management News-
letter, 2003, Volume 26(1)). However, the introduction of
such a scheme in economically poor countries would be
trickier.
332 Elizabeth J. Z. Robinson et al.
References
Antle, J. M. and P. L. Pingali (1994). ‘‘Pesticides, productivity,
and farmer health: A Philippine case study.’’ American
Journal of Agricultural Economics 76: 418–430.
Cork, A., M. J. Iles, N. Q. Kamal, J. C. S. Choudhury,
M. M. Rahman, and M. Islam (2006). ‘‘An old pest, a new
solution: Commercialising rice stem borer pheromones in
Bangladesh.’’ Outlook on Agriculture, 34:181–187.
Escalada, M. M. and K. L. Heong (2004). ‘‘A participatory
exercise for modifying rice farmersÕ beliefs and practices in
stem borer loss assessment.’’ Crop Protection 23: 11–17.
Feder, G., R. Murgai, and J. B. Quizon (2004). ‘‘The acquisi-
tion and diffusion of knowledge: The case of pest manage-
ment training in farmer field schools, Indonesia.’’ Journal of
Agricultural Economics 55: 221–243.
Gutierrez, A. P., L. E. Caltagirone, and W. Meikle (1999).
‘‘Evaluation of results- economics of biological control.’’
In T. S. Bellows and T. W. Fisher (eds.), Handbook of
biological control, (pp. 243–252). San Diego, CA: Aca-
demics Press.
Halwart, M. (1994). Fish as biocontrol agents in rice. Wei-
kersheim, Germany: Margraf Verlag.
Haq, M. T., M. A. Sattar, M. M. Hossain, and M. M. Hasan
(2002). ‘‘Effects of fertilizers and pesticides on growth and
yield of rice.’’ OnLine Journal of Biological Sciences 2(2):
84–88.
Heong, K. L. and M. M. Escalada (1999). ‘‘Quantifying rice
farmersÕ pest management decisions: Beliefs and subjective
norms in stem borer control.’’ Crop Protection 18: 315–322.
Hossain, M. I., G. Shively, and M. Chowdhury (2000).
‘‘Pesticide expenditures in a rice-vegetable farming system:
Evidence from low-income farms in Bangladesh.’’ Virginia
Tech IPM CRSP Working Paper: 00–5. Accessed at http://
www.oired.vt.edu/ipmcrsp/communications/papers/BangW-
Paper2-Shively083101.PDF on January, 31, 2007.
Islam, Z., M. A. Rahman, A. T. Barrion, A. Polaszek, T. C. B.
Chancellor, K. L. Heong, N. Ahmed, M. Haq, and N. Q.
Kamal (2003). ‘‘Diversity of arthropods in irrigated rice in
Bangladesh.’’ Bangladesh Journal of Entomology 13: 1–25.
Loevinsohn, M. E. (1987). ‘‘Insecticide use and increased
mortality in rural Central Luzon, Philippines.’’ Lancet
1(8546): 1359–1362.
Magulama, E. E. (1990). Effect of planting pattern in rice-fish
production system. Los Baños: MS Thesis, University of the
Philippines.
Norton, G. A. and J. D. Mumford (1983). ‘‘Decision making in
pest control.’’ Applied Biology 8: 87–119.
Oka, I. N. (1994). Pengendalian hama terpadu dan imple-
mentasinya di Indonesia. Yogyakarta, Indonesia: Gadjah
Mada University Press.
Perez, C. A. (n.d.). Water, sanitation and environmental health
negotiating beneficiary involvement in agricultural develop-
ment projects. CARE International. Accessed at http://
www.care.org/careswork/whatwedo/health/environment/tool-
s.asp on February 10, 2007.
Rola, A. C. and P. L. Pingali (1993). Pesticides, rice produc-
tivity and farmersÕ health. Los Baños, Philippines: Interna-
tional Rice Research Institute.
Tait, E. J. (1977). ‘‘A method for comparing pesticide
usage patterns between farmers.’’ Annals of Applied Biology
86: 229–240.
Yu, S.Y., W. S. Wu, H. F. Wei, D. A. Ke, J. R. Xu, and
Q. Z. Wu (1995). ‘‘Ability of fish to control rice diseases,
pests, and weeds.’’ In K. T. MacKay (ed.), Rice-Fish
Culture in China, (pp. 223–228). Ottawa, Canada: Inter-
national Development Research Centre (IDRC).
Address for correspondence: Elizabeth J. Z. Robinson, Centre
for the Study of African Economies, University of Oxford,
Oxford, UK
e-mail: ejzrobinson@hotmail.com