Next Article in Journal
High-Resolution 3D Crop Reconstruction and Automatic Analysis of Phenotyping Index Using Machine Learning
Previous Article in Journal
Suspension Fertilizers: How to Reconcile Sustainable Fertilization and Environmental Protection
Article

Qualitative Cost-Benefit Analysis of Using Pesticidal Plants in Smallholder Crop Protection

1
Department of Sustainable Agriculture, Biodiversity and Ecosystems Management, The Nelson Mandela African Institution of Science and Technology, Arusha P.O. Box 447, Tanzania
2
World Agroforestry Centre, Nairobi 00100, Kenya
3
Statistics for Sustainable Development, Reading RG1 4QS, UK
4
Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 3DS, UK
5
Natural Resources Institute, University of Greenwich, Central Avenue, Chatham Maritime, Kent ME4 4TB, UK
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Academic Editor: Oscar E. Liburd
Received: 20 September 2021 / Revised: 9 October 2021 / Accepted: 12 October 2021 / Published: 15 October 2021
(This article belongs to the Section Agricultural Economics, Policies and Rural Management)
Assessing the potential drivers of farmers using pesticidal plants for crop protection is essential for wider adoption. However, few studies have focused on collaborative assessments of the underlying trade-offs when using pesticidal plant extracts for pest control. Smallholder farmers in northern Tanzania involved in farmer driven research assessing pesticidal plants evaluated the costs, benefits, trade-offs and areas for future investment. A questionnaire was used to collect demographic information from 77 farmers and their views on pest problems and crop protection in common bean production. This was followed by small focus group discussions (n = 9) using a participatory framework to elucidate the costs and benefits of adopting pesticidal plant technology. A multiple correspondence analysis showed that pesticidal plant use was associated with men greater than 50 years old, and synthetic pesticide use was associated with younger aged farmers and women. Farmers who used synthetics generally did not report the presence of common pest species found in common bean production, whereas farmers who used pesticidal plants were associated with more frequent reports of pest species. This participatory cost–benefit analysis highlighted that tools and processing challenges were the main costs to using pesticidal plants. The main benefit reported when using pesticidal plants was a general improvement to family health. Farmers expressed overall a positive outcome when using pesticidal plants for crop protection and recommended that future investments focus on improving access to tools and education regarding plant processing and extraction to improve uptake of the technology by smallholder farmers. View Full-Text
Keywords: pesticidal plants; smallholder farmers; Phaseolus vulgaris; pest management; qualitative cost benefit analysis pesticidal plants; smallholder farmers; Phaseolus vulgaris; pest management; qualitative cost benefit analysis
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Mkindi, A.G.; Coe, R.; Stevenson, P.C.; Ndakidemi, P.A.; Belmain, S.R. Qualitative Cost-Benefit Analysis of Using Pesticidal Plants in Smallholder Crop Protection. Agriculture 2021, 11, 1007. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/agriculture11101007

AMA Style

Mkindi AG, Coe R, Stevenson PC, Ndakidemi PA, Belmain SR. Qualitative Cost-Benefit Analysis of Using Pesticidal Plants in Smallholder Crop Protection. Agriculture. 2021; 11(10):1007. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/agriculture11101007

Chicago/Turabian Style

Mkindi, Angela G., Richard Coe, Philip C. Stevenson, Patrick A. Ndakidemi, and Steven R. Belmain 2021. "Qualitative Cost-Benefit Analysis of Using Pesticidal Plants in Smallholder Crop Protection" Agriculture 11, no. 10: 1007. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/agriculture11101007

Find Other Styles
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Back to TopTop