Economic impacts of integrated pest management (IPM) farmer field schools (FFS): evidence from onion farmers in the Philippines

cg.contributor.affiliationKasetsart Universityen
cg.contributor.affiliationNorth Carolina State Universityen
cg.contributor.affiliationInternational Rice Research Instituteen
cg.coverage.countryPhilippines
cg.coverage.iso3166-alpha2PH
cg.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1111/agec.12147en
cg.issn0169-5150en
cg.issue2en
cg.journalAgricultural Economicsen
cg.volume46en
dc.contributor.authorSanglestsawai, Santien
dc.contributor.authorRejesus, Roderick M.en
dc.contributor.authorYorobe, Jose M.en
dc.date.accessioned2024-12-19T12:55:04Zen
dc.date.available2024-12-19T12:55:04Zen
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10568/165436
dc.titleEconomic impacts of integrated pest management (IPM) farmer field schools (FFS): evidence from onion farmers in the Philippinesen
dcterms.abstractThis article comprehensively examines the impact of integrated pest management‐farmer field school (IPM‐FFS) on yield, insecticide expenditures, labor expenditures, herbicide expenditures, fertilizer expenditures, and profit, based on data from onion producers in the Philippines. Propensity score matching (PSM) and regression‐based approaches that account for potential bias due to selection problems from observable variables are used to achieve the objective of the study. Sensitivity of our IPM‐FFS impact results to potential bias due to “selection on unobservables” was also assessed. We find that farmers who participate in the IPM‐FFS training program have statistically lower insecticide expenditures than the non‐IPM‐FFS farmers. But we do not find any evidence that the IPM‐FFS training program significantly affects yield and the other inputs. There is some evidence indicating that IPM‐FFS farmers may have statistically higher profit levels than non‐IPM‐FFS producers, but these results are sensitive to and may still be invalidated by bias due to unobservable variables. Since IPM‐FFS seem to only significantly reduce insecticide use, policymakers and extension educators may need to adjust the IPM‐FFS curriculum to further emphasize (or include) other agronomic practices that also optimize the use of other inputs like labor, fertilizer, and herbicides. The more efficient use of all inputs would likely reduce total expenditures and eventually translate to higher incomes.en
dcterms.available2015-01-15
dcterms.bibliographicCitationSanglestsawai, Santi; Rejesus, Roderick M. and Yorobe, Jose M. 2015. Economic impacts of integrated pest management (IPM) farmer field schools (FFS): evidence from onion farmers in the Philippines. Agricultural Economics, Volume 46 no. 2 p. 149-162en
dcterms.extentpp. 149-162en
dcterms.issued2015-03
dcterms.languageen
dcterms.licenseCopyrighted; all rights reserved
dcterms.publisherWileyen
dcterms.subjectproductionen
dcterms.subjectyieldsen
dcterms.subjecteconomic impacten
dcterms.subjectextension activitiesen
dcterms.subjectfarmersen
dcterms.subjectfertilizersen
dcterms.subjectherbicidesen
dcterms.subjectintegrated pest managementen
dcterms.subjectlabouren
dcterms.subjectprofitabilityen
dcterms.typeJournal Article

Files