Page 1
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)
ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue XV October 2025
Special Issue on Next-Generation Approaches in Plant Sciences and Agriculture
The Sustainability–Income Paradox: A Mixed-Methods Analysis of
the Economic Disincentives for Integrated Pest Management
Adoption among Liberian Smallholders
Lee Diamond Campbell
Department of International Economics and Trade, College of Economics Sichuan Agricultural
University, Chengdu, Sichuan Province, China
DOI:https://doi.org/10.51584/IJRIAS.2025.1015SP0001
Received: 10 September 2025; Accepted: 17 September 2025; Published: 22 October 2025
ABSTRACT
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) encourages an ecological alternative to farming that relies on high pesticide
use, but smallholders in Liberia are slow to adopt it. This paper analyzes the so-called sustainability-income
paradox, which posits that environmentally friendly practices are economically inviable in the short-run. I
integrate survey data from 600 households with data collected through focus group discussions and key
informant interviews to identify drivers and inhibitors of IPM adoption. The research used a mixed-methods
design. The findings from econometric analyses revealed that access to extension services and education
significantly increase adoption, while adoption is deterred by pesticide subsidies and high-risk aversion. A cost
analysis demonstrates that while IPM can save on chemicals inputs, it increases labor and biological inputs costs,
which appear prohibitive to farmers who lack liquidity.
Qualitative findings show that farmers are concerned about time intensity, uncertainty about yields, and the lack
of market premiums for safer produce. Collectively, the results revealed that systemic economic disincentives,
rather than environmental ignorance, are the primary barrier to adoption. Policy implications include subsidy
reform, enhanced extension outreach, and the development of market incentives for residue-free crops. These
adjustments could align smallholder decision-making with long-term sustainability goals. This research, set in a
fragile-state environment, demonstrates that sustainable modifications to agricultural systems are often
undermined by short-term economic pressures that institutional adjustments alone cannot counteract.
Keywords-Integrated Pest Management (IPM); Liberia; Sustainability–Income Paradox; Smallholder Farmers;
Agricultural Subsidies; Extension Services; Risk Aversion; Sustainable Intensification
INTRODUCTION
The interrelation between agricultural productivity, sustainability, and pest management, practices is critical,
especially in the developing nations where smallholders are the majority producers. Pests and diseases cause
significant yield losses in Sub-Saharan Africa, including Liberia, and smallholder farmers often respond by using
as much pesticides as a quick fix (Oerke, 2006; Williamson et al., 2008). Although Integrated Pest Management
(IPM) provides an ecologically friendly substitute (combining biological, cultural, and minimal chemical use),
its adoption remains limited due to numerous economic and institutional obstacles (Peshin & Zhang, 2014; Pretty
and Bharucha, 2015). This tension between long-term sustainability and short-term income is referred to as the
sustainability-income paradox.
Liberia’s agricultural economy is smallholder-based, with farmers cultivating rice, cassava, and vegetables under
high pest pressure (FAO, 2021). Although pesticide use is regulated, and government and donor initiatives
promote pest control plans, pesticide overuse and misuse are widespread due to poor regulation implementation
and a lack of residue monitoring (World Bank, 2017; EPA Liberia, 2019). This context makes farmers more
reliant on chemical solutions and discourages the adoption of more labor-intensive, capital-intensive, and
Page 2
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)
ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue XV October 2025
Special Issue on Next-Generation Approaches in Plant Sciences and Agriculture
knowledge-intensive IPM practices (Richards et al., 2020; Bonye et al., 2022).
Economic theory suggests that farmers base adoption decisions on expected returns, risk preference, and
liquidity constraints (Feder et al., 1985; Jack, 2013). Given that rural financial services and crop insurance are
largely unavailable in Liberia, pesticides are perceived as a form of yield insurance, while the benefits of IPM
may only materialize over multiple seasons or as social goods like reduced environmental damage (Cowan et
al., 2018; Tambo et al., 2024).
This creates a paradox: in spite of the fact that IPM can improve ecological resilience and reduce long-term costs,
it is often perceived as inferior to chemical-based control by smallholders facing urgent income requirements
and production risks.
Recent empirical studies highlight how subsidy programs contribute to this paradox. For example, through
exemplification, Tambo et al. (2024) show that 60 percent of Zambian farmers adopted IPM practices in response
to subsidizing fertilizer and pesticides, which made synthetic chemicals artificially affordable. Similar findings
in Ghana indicate that access to subsidized inputs reduced the likelihood of using biological or cultural control
methods (Martey et al., 2019). These findings are relevant to Liberia, where agricultural input subsidies are
highly biased towards chemical inputs rather than IPM services or biological alternatives (World Bank, 2022).
Institutional and social influences also shape pest management decisions. Research in West Africa indicates that
knowledge, access to extension, and social learning through farmer field schools strongly impact IPM adoption
(van den Berg, Jiggins, 2007; Norton et al., 2019). In Liberia, however, weak extension capacity and ineffective
agro-dealer regulation limit farmers’ access to credible information on alternatives, reinforcing reliance on
pesticides promoted by suppliers (EPA Liberia, 2019; FAO, 2021). Without market mechanisms that reward
sustainable practices (such as residue-sensitive procurement or consumer premiums), the economic calculus
continues to skew against IPM (Pretty and Bharucha, 2015; Jones et al., 2019).
Against this background, this paper investigates the economic barriers to IPM adoption among Liberian
smallholders using a mixed-methods approach. I integrate quantitative analysis of household survey data with
qualitative data from farmers, extension officers, and agro-dealers to analyze how subsidies, labor costs, market
failures, and risk perceptions collectively reinforce the sustainability-income paradox. The results contribute to
discussion on sustainable agricultural transition in Sub-Saharan Africa and inform policy alternatives that align
smallholder incentives with ecological objectives.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Global Perspectives on Integrated Pest Management (IPM)
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is a relatively recent concept developed since the 1960s as a unified approach
to the ecological and economic expenses of excessive pesticide use (Kogan, 1998; Ehler, 2006). IPM is defined
as an ecosystem-oriented approach that involves a combination of biological control, habitat management,
resistant varieties and responsible application of pesticides to ensure that the population of pests is kept below
the economic threshold of injury (Koul & Cuperus, 2007). Internationally, it has not been uniform: in developed
economies, where an institutional base exists to enact policies governing practices and consumer-responsive
standards, IPM is not well adopted because of resource scarcity and ineffective market incentives (Parsa et al.,
2014; Barzman et al., 2015). The empirical data shows that IPM can cut pesticide application by 30 to 50 percent
and that in certain settings, it will enhance profitability (Pretty et al., 2018; Zhang et al., 2019). However, it can
be adopted in the long term only under the conditions of powerful extension services, enabling policies, and
working markets, which incentivize sustainability (Naranjo, 2017; Guo et al., 2020).
IPM Adoption in Low- and Middle-Income Countries
Studies on Asia and Latin America indicate that smallholders may not be capable to embrace IPM because of
information deficiencies, shortages of labor and institutional support (Ortiz, 2010; Trumble and Butler, 2009).
Page 3
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)
ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue XV October 2025
Special Issue on Next-Generation Approaches in Plant Sciences and Agriculture
In India, as an example, it was found that farmers are not only aware of IPM but also seldom use full packages
because of the cost of monitoring and a lack of immediate financial benefits (Prasad & Rao, 2013; Kaur, 2018).
Likewise, in Latin America, the use of knowledge-intended models, e.g. scouting and biological control, is
uncompetitive to the convenience of inexpensive synthetic pesticides (Bentley, 2009; Bellon & Hellin, 2011).
These findings imply that even though IPM has the potential to create positive health and ecosystem outside, the
adoption of this approach by private individuals is frequently lost due to the failure of their ecological benefits
to be correlated with the incentives that are given to farmers (Schreinemachers and Tipraqsa, 2012; Naranjo et
al., 2015).
African Context: Opportunities and Barriers
Pesticide application is escalating rapidly within Sub-Saharan Africa in the last 20 years due to
commercialization of agriculture and outbreaks of pests, including the Fall Armyworm (FAW) (Harrison et al.,
2019; Tambo et al., 2020). Although IPM is actively encouraged by donor projects, it is found that there is still
partial and fragmented adoption (Baidoo et al., 2012; Amoabeng et al., 2020). Research in Kenya and Uganda
indicates that farmers tend to implement single elements of the integrated approach, i.e., crop rotation or resistant
varieties, rather than integrated packages (Kibwage et al., 2008; Kansiime et al., 2017). Obstacles comprise a
small coverage of extension, pesticide dealers being major sources of information, and lack of consumer-led
demand of crops that are produced sustainably (Mutyambai et al., 2016; Abang et al., 2014). In addition, lax
laws lead to the prevalence of fake or very dangerous pesticides and farmers are less interested in other options
(Richards et al., 2017; Mengistie et al., 2017).
Economic Disincentives for IPM
One key element in the literature is that there is an economic disincentive to smallholders to embrace IPM. Due
to the nature of benefits, including soil health, biodiversity, and exposure reduction, the studies show that IPM
benefits are collective, and costs are personal and immediate (Huang et al., 2015; Lee et al., 2019). In the absence
of subsidies or price premiums, farmers consider IPM more risky than conventional pesticide application,
particularly when staple crops are under threat of infestation by pests that provide familial food security
(Midingoyi et al., 2019; Wu et al., 2019). The experience of Southeast Asia demonstrates that cost of labor, time
spent on control, and skepticism of returns lead to the deterioration of adoption (Berg and Tam, 2012;
Schreinemachers et al., 2015). Likewise, credit crunches and liquidity crunches have worsened the sustainability-
income paradox in West Africa: pesticides can be purchased in small, inexpensive doses, whereas biological
options may involve lump-sum investments in training and inputs (Danso-Abbeam & Baiyegunhi, 2017; Kassie
et al., 2018).
Role of Subsidies, Markets, and Policies
The point of the literature has continually been that input subsidy programs lead to the unintended bias against
farmers using IPM. In particular, Malawi and Nigeria have shown that IPM seems to be costlier and more work-
intensive because subsidized fertilizer and pesticide bundles stimulate chemical-intensive agriculture (Chirwa
and Dorward, 2013; Liverpool-Tasie et al., 2017). This imbalance is further supported by market dynamics, in
which consumers and buyers fail to distinguish between sustainably and conventionally produced crops, there is
no incentive to encourage farmers to bear the costs of IPM in the short term (Hellin et al., 2014; Ricker-Gilbert
et al., 2011). Meanwhile, research indicates that positive regulatory environments, e.g. bans on pesticides, agro-
dealer accreditation, and monitoring of pesticide residues, can also reposition incentives towards IPM (Ngewi et
al., 2007; Wilson and Tisdell, 2001). Nevertheless, in fragile states such as Liberia, institutional levers are
frequently weak because of low levels of enforcement capacity (Samuels et al., 2019).
Agricultural and Institutional Landscape of Liberia.
Liberia is represented in the agricultural sector with much of the challenges faced by Africa but compounded by
the years of civil conflict and poor institutional recovery (Anderson et al., 2016; Koffa et al., 2020). The
extension services are highly underinvested and the ratio of extension officers to the farmers is some of the
Page 4
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)
ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue XV October 2025
Special Issue on Next-Generation Approaches in Plant Sciences and Agriculture
lowest in the area (USAID, 2019). The channels of inputs and farming advice are controlled by the agro-dealer
networks, yet with little control, the abuse of pesticides, such as improper storage, reuse of containers, and unsafe
application, is prevalent (LIPC, 2018; Sesay and Horng, 2021). Even though Liberia has streamlined its pesticide
legislations with ECOWAS principles, the mechanisms of enforcing and monitoring are still in progress
(Johnson & Brown, 2020). Such a structural flaw implies that, although the IPM training aspect of the donor
projects is often embedded, expansion outside of the project areas is common, and thus most of the smallholders
remain trapped in the chemical-intensive agriculture (Sawyer et al., 2017; Cartwright, 2022).
Knowledge Gaps and Research Contribution
Even though the literature on the subject is rich globally and regionally, there is limited systematic evidence on
the exact economic disincentives that influence the pest management decisions of smallholders in Liberian
managerial systems. The majority of the literature is on policy design or ecological factors of pest management
that lacks the quantification of household adoption dynamics (Anderson et al., 2016; Samuels et al., 2019). This
disconnect highlights the usefulness of a mixed-methodology that integrates quantitative models of adoption
with qualitative information provided by farmers and institutions. The present study places Liberia in the broader
context of the African discourse on sustainable consumption of natural resources and income distribution, which
offers new evidence to inform policy interventions that can be used to align smallholder incentives with the
larger environmental objectives.
METHODOLOGY
Research Design
The method of this research is a mixed method research, where both quantitative and qualitative data are utilized
in a household survey with the qualitative analysis conducted as focus groups and key informant interviews. The
mixed approach is informed by the fact that adoption of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is not only a
derivative of the observable economic variables but also predetermined by the perception of farmers, the
institutional environment and the social learning processes. Quantitative analysis will provide statistical evidence
of the economic disincentives and correlates with IPM adoption, and qualitative approach will provide the chance
to present the underlying behavioral and cultural and institutional processes that can hardly be adjusted to
structured survey instruments. This complementarity will ensure that dilemma of sustainability and income is
viewed not only in economic terms that are quantifiable but also in what the small farmers are exposed to in the
real life.
Study Area and Sampling Strategy
The study was conducted in Liberia where rural livelihoods are largely based on smallholder agriculture,
especially the counties of Bong, Nimba, Lofa, and Margibi. The selection of these counties was deliberate since
they can be considered as the heartlands of food production as well as regions where there have been large-scale
agricultural interventions supported by donors. To be representative, a multistage cluster sampling approach was
used. The first phase involved the random selection of districts in each county. In stage two, villages were
selected according to the level of agricultural activity and their availability. Lastly, households in the villages
were chosen through systematic random sampling. The target population of about 600 smallholder households
was established to have sufficient statistical power to facilitate econometric modeling and account for
heterogeneity in agro-ecological and socio-economic backgrounds.
Quantitative Data Collection
A structured household survey questionnaire was designed to comprehensively capture demographics, farm
features, pest pressure, pest management methods, labor utilization, and spending habits. Specific attention was
given to recording IPM related activities, including crop rotation, biological control, mechanical weeding, use
of resistant seed and use of selective pesticides. The survey also captured information on the availability of the
input subsidies, extension services, credit, as well as market outlets for the farmers. Furthermore, risk and time
Page 5
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)
ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue XV October 2025
Special Issue on Next-Generation Approaches in Plant Sciences and Agriculture
preferences modules, consisting of simple lottery-choice and intertemporal trade-off exercises, were conducted
to obtain behavioral variables that could influence adoption decisions. Data were collected using electronic
tablets by trained enumerators to minimize entry errors, and the survey software included built-in consistency
checks.
Qualitative Data Collection
To provide a necessary balance to the household survey, the qualitative approach was used to investigate the
complex social and institutional processes affecting IPM adoption. In each county, a series of farmer focus group
discussions, with groups divided into gender and farm size to represent different perspectives. These discussions
covered perceptions of IPM, hindrances to adoption, labor limitation, and trust in extension or agro-dealer advice.
Key informant interviews were also conducted with development officers, extension agents, agro-dealers,
representatives of farmer-based organizations, and staff of donor projects. These informants provided insight
into institutional support mechanisms, problems in policy implementation, and influence of subsidies on farmers
decision-making. Interview guides were semi-structured to provide flexibility for probing while maintaining
comparability between respondents.
Data Analysis Strategy
Econometric models which were applied in the quantitative component to analyze adoption and intensity of IPM
use. Probit or logit models were utilized to determine the probability of adoption, and fractional logit models
were utilized to determine the extent of adoption based on an index of IPM intensity. Since the variables such
as subsidy receipt and access to extension services were potentially endogenous, instrumental variable methods
and control function approaches were employed. These were measured using instruments such as distance to
input redemption centers, eligibility regulations for subsidy programs, or past staffing levels. Confirmation of
results was performed by conducting robustness checks, namely propensity score matching and inverse
probability weighting. For the qualitative data, thematic analysis was applied. Focus group and interview
transcripts was coded in a combination of deductive and inductive codes based on the research framework
(subsidy effects, labor cost, and market incentives) and on the narratives provided by the farmers. Qualitative
findings were triangulated using thematic matrices.
Reliability and Validity
It involved several procedures to increase the validity and reliability of the research. To detect any ambiguities
and cultural suitability, the survey instruments was pre-tested in a pilot study. Training of enumerators focused
on proper probing and recording and back checks and audio audit were undertaken during the fieldwork to ensure
that the quality of data is upheld. Triangulation of various sources of data: farmers, extension officers, agro-
dealers, project staff, and so on, enhanced credibility of qualitative research. Quantitative and qualitative
evidence can be additionally combined to form methodological triangulation, which has an added benefit of
making the results of the research more robust and empirically supported, as well as rich in context to ensure
that the conclusions drawn on the problem of economic disincentives to the use of IPM are both comprehensive
and substantially grounded.
RESULTS
Socio-economic Characteristics of Households
The sample of the survey covered 600 households of smallholders in the major food producing counties of
Liberia. The average household size was of 6.2 (as indicated in Table 1), with an average of 2.1 hectares under
cultivation. The average age of the household heads was 44 years with average education standing at 7.2 years
of formal education that demonstrated the low human capital level in the rural region. The average farming
experience was 15.6 years, which implies that the farmers are experienced but not exposed to modern practices.
The number of households receiving an extension service visit was low, at only 28 percent, and input subsidies,
primarily of fertilizers and pesticides, were received by 41 percent.
Page 6
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)
ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue XV October 2025
Special Issue on Next-Generation Approaches in Plant Sciences and Agriculture
Table 1 Household Socio-economic Characteristics
Variable
Mean/Percentage
Std. Dev.
Household size (members)
6.2
2.4
Land size (hectares)
2.1
1.5
Age of household head
44.3
11.5
Education (years of schooling)
7.2
3.4
Farming experience (years)
15.6
8.9
Access to extension services (last yr)
28%
–
Received input subsidy
41%
–
Access to credit
24%
–
Distance to nearest market (km)
6.8
4.1
Gender of household head (Male %)
74%
–
Figure 1 also illustrates socio-economic composition of the households in form of a radar chart by comparing
household size, landholding, age, education, and farming experience. That number demonstrates the existence
of substantial differences between education and other attributes: farming experience and household size were
rather high, but the levels of education were low. This lack of balance is the reason why interventions that are
Page 7
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)
ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue XV October 2025
Special Issue on Next-Generation Approaches in Plant Sciences and Agriculture
knowledge-based like IPM have a problem of adoption. Farmers can be having a long history of farming without
formal education and they may not get access to high-level information unless they are assisted through formal
education.
Crop Production and Pest Pressure
Crop level analysis showed a high level of pest related limitations. The most commonly grown crops were rice,
cassava, vegetables, maize and groundnuts as seen in Table 2. There was a high incidence rate of pests in
vegetables (84 percent) and maize (77 percent), then rice (72 percent). Those that were somewhat less affected
were cassava and groundnuts with the incidence level of pests being 61 and 55 respectively. These numbers
illustrate the fact that risks associated with pests are almost universal, as they impact on staple crops and cash
crops.
Table 2 Crop Production and Pest Pressure
Crop
Avg. area cultivated
(ha)
Avg. yield
(kg/ha)
Pest incidence (% of
plots)
Most reported pests
Rice
1.2
1750
72%
Stem borers,
Armyworms
Cassava
0.8
9800
61%
Cassava mealybug
Vegetables
0.4
5400
84%
Aphids, Whiteflies
Maize
0.5
2100
77%
Fall armyworm
Groundnuts
0.3
1300
55%
Leaf spot, Aphids
Adoption of IPM Practices
Adoption patterns indicate that awareness of IPM is available but adoption is still patchy. Table 3 describes the
adoption rates: crop rotation (52 per cent) and soil fertility management (41 per cent) were the most common
adoption practices, as these are the simplest to use, and are most compatible with traditional practices. Other
biology-related control methods, such as biological control (14 percent) and selective pesticide application (28
percent), were much less adopted, presumably because of the greater knowledge requirements and unavailability
of biological supplies. The labor burden was also clear as at the time of manual control, a minimum of 16 labor
days were needed to control one hectare as opposed to six days in selective pesticide application.
Table 3 Adoption of IPM Practices
IPM Practice
Adoption rate
(%)
Avg. labor days
required/ha
Avg. cash cost/ha
(USD)
Crop rotation
52
12
20
Use of resistant varieties
39
8
25
Manual/mechanical
control
33
16
18
Biological control
14
10
30
Page 8
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)
ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue XV October 2025
Special Issue on Next-Generation Approaches in Plant Sciences and Agriculture
Selective pesticide use
28
6
22
Soil fertility
management
41
9
19
Levels of IPM Adoption Among Households
The level of aggregation of the level of adoption indicates the level of partial uptake. Table 4 indicates that 35
percent of households were full non-adopters, 46 percent could be described as partial adopters who only applied
one or two practices. The proportion of those who practiced three or four IPM strategies was only 14 percent
and only 5 percent could be classified as full adopters who implemented five or more techniques.
Table 4 Distribution of IPM Adoption Levels
Adoption Category
Number of households
Percentage (%)
Non-adopters (0 practices)
210
35
Partial adopters (1–2 practices)
275
46
Moderate adopters (3–4 practices)
85
14
Full adopters (5+ practices)
30
5
Econometric Results: Determinants of Adoption
The results of the probit regression presented in Table 5 helped to understand the forces and limitations of
adoption. Receiving input subsidies greatly lowered the probability of IPM adoption (0.41, p<0.01) which
implies that farmers were influenced by subsidies to depend on chemicals. On the other hand, the predictors
were extension access (= 0.53, p < 0.01) and education (= 0.27, p < 0.05), thereby indicating that information
and human capital are at the center of making adoption decisions. There was also a negative correlation between
risk aversion and adoption (= -0.22, p=0.05) indicating that IPM is viewed as a risky investment relative to the
direct assurance provided by chemical pesticide usage.
Table 5 Key Determinants of IPM Adoption (Marginal Effects from Probit Model)
Variable
Marginal Effect -
Coefficient (β)
Std. Error
Significance
Input subsidy received
-0.41
0.11
*** (p<0.01)
Extension access
+0.53
0.13
*** (p<0.01)
Education
(secondary+)
+0.27
0.10
** (p<0.05)
Farm size (hectares)
+0.08
0.04
* (p<0.10)
Risk aversion index
-0.22
0.09
** (p<0.05)
Household wealth
index
+0.15
0.06
** (p<0.05)
Page 9
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)
ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue XV October 2025
Special Issue on Next-Generation Approaches in Plant Sciences and Agriculture
Figure 2 presents these results as a coefficient plot with confidence intervals. The stark contrast between negative
and positive predictors highlights the paradox: government programs aimed to help farmers become less
sustainable, whereas knowledge and extension, which is the least funded in Liberia, turns out to be the most
effective tools to use as a lever.
Cost and Labor Trade-offs in Pest Management
The comparative cost analysis highlights the paradox in the heart of this piece of research. Table 6 indicates that
traditional practices are cheaper by 0.2 percent (it is cheaper by 5) at $230 per hectare, whilst IPM is a little more
costly at 235. The breakdown reveals that IPM lowers pesticide costs by $40 but increases labor costs by $30
and biological input costs by $15. This incremental 5 dollars in total cost could seem insignificant but to the
liquidity-constrained farmers, the timing of flow of labor and cash is paramount.
Table 6 Comparative Cost Structures: IPM vs Conventional
Cost Category
Conventional (USD/ha)
IPM (USD/ha)
Difference (USD)
Chemical pesticide cost
65
25
-40
Biological inputs
0
15
+15
Labor (extra monitoring)
45
75
+30
Other inputs (fertilizer,
seeds)
120
120
0
Total variable cost
230
235
+5
Farmers’ Perceptions of IPM
Perceptions give valuable contexts to adoption behavior. As Table 7 displays, although 62 percent of farmers
felt that IPM saves on chemical expenses and 77 percent of farmers felt that IPM produces better soil and
environment, 71 percent of farmers felt that IPM was too taxing, and 69 percent of farmers believed that IPM
Page 10
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)
ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue XV October 2025
Special Issue on Next-Generation Approaches in Plant Sciences and Agriculture
demanded too much knowledge and training. Just 12 percent were convinced that markets rewarded IPM
products and 64 percent explicitly said they did not.
Table 7 Farmers’ Perceptions of IPM
Perception Statement
Agree (%)
Neutral (%)
Disagree (%)
IPM reduces chemical costs
62
18
20
IPM is too labor-intensive
71
12
17
IPM reduces yield risks
34
21
45
IPM requires more knowledge and
training
69
17
14
Markets reward IPM products
12
24
64
IPM improves soil and environment
77
11
12
These attitudinal divisions are given a very clear picture (figure 3 100 percent stacked bar graph). Environmental
gains are well known but labor intensity and unavailability of market premiums are the most prevailing
discouraging factors. This brings out the sustainability -income paradox: farmers are aware of the ecological
benefits but are bound by structural and economical constraints to maintain a chemical intensive approach.
Qualitative Insights from Farmers and Institutions
The quantitative evidence is supplemented by qualitative evidence. Table 8 summarizes the main themes:
perceived yield-risk, labor constraint, market-incentive-lack, subsidy-influence and extension-support. It was
over and over again that farmers noted that crops were saved by chemicals faster, and IPM was considered to be
uncertain and time-consuming. However, they did not ignore that extension visits enhanced their readiness to
try out new practices too.
Page 11
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)
ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue XV October 2025
Special Issue on Next-Generation Approaches in Plant Sciences and Agriculture
Table 8 Key Qualitative Themes from Interviews and Focus Groups
Theme
Representative Farmer Quote
Implication
Perceived
yield risk
“Chemicals save my crop faster; IPM
feels uncertain.”
Farmers view IPM as riskier than
pesticides.
Labor
constraints
“Scouting and manual removal take too
much time.”
Labor shortages make IPM
unattractive.
Market
incentives
“Buyers don’t pay extra for safer crops,
so why bother?”
Lack of price premiums reduces
motivation.
Subsidy
influence
“Subsidies make pesticides cheap; IPM
looks expensive.”
Subsidy programs bias choices
toward chemicals.
Extension
services
“When extension officers visit, we try
new methods.”
Extension services positively
influence adoption.
Triangulation and Synthesis
Combined, the eight tables and three figures give us a complete picture of IPM adoption among Liberian
smallholders. The prevalence of partial or non-adopters is confirmed by descriptive results. Regression models
reveal that subsidies and risk aversion are important disincentives whereas education and extension are important
incentives. Comparisons of costs indicate that there is small, but significant, labour and input costs, and that
farmer perceptions and qualitative themes explain how these economic and institutional facts influence decisions.
The triangulated evidence confirms the sustainability-income paradox: when there is a clear understanding of
the environmental and long-term benefits of IPM, systemic disincentives of a short-term nature are used to deter
its adoption by farmers with small plots.
DISCUSSION
Revisiting the Sustainability–Income Paradox
The conclusions of this paper reveal a clear contradiction in the very fabric of the pest management of the
Liberian smallholder communities: when the ecological and long-term economic benefits of the Integrated Pest
Management (IPM) option have been realized, farmers are experiencing the short-term financial implications of
their situations which serve as a deterrence to the concept. The findings are echoed by previous international
data that adoption of sustainable agriculture practices tends to be low when short term private expenditures
exceed the benefits of the collective good (Feder & Umali, 1993; Lee, 2005). The paradox is even more
pronounced in weak environments such as Liberia, where market failures, inefficiency of institutions, and
liquidity scarcity make the gap between the ecological desirability and economic feasibility even bigger (Jayne
et al., 2019; Mather and Jayne, 2018).
Role of Market Incentives and Consumer Awareness
The most obvious results of this research are the fact that farmers do not see a market incentive to implement
IPM. This is in line with the world literature, indicating that in the absence of consumer demand on residue-free
or organic produce, farmers are seldom encouraged to invest in sustainable pest management (Pimentel and
Burgess, 2014; Delcour et al., 2015). Sub-Saharan Africa countries like Kenya and South Africa have been
reported to have niche export markets which demand adherence to standards of pesticide residue in motivating
IPM adoption (Okello & Swinton, 2010; Asfaw et al., 2010). However, in Liberia, where domestic markets are
small and little is known about the safety of food by consumers, such incentives do not exist, so subsidies and
short-term calculation of costs become the major aspects of farmer behavior. The same is manifested in Nigeria
and Tanzania, where poor customer demand restrains the incorporation of sustainable agricultural technologies
(Liverpool-Tasie et al., 2016; Nkonya et al., 2016).
Page 12
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)
ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue XV October 2025
Special Issue on Next-Generation Approaches in Plant Sciences and Agriculture
Subsidy Distortions and Policy Design
Subsidy receipt and IPM adoption are negatively correlated, which underscores how policy tools aim to promote
farmer sustainability may unintentionally deter it. This has occurred in Malawi and Zambia, and in both studies,
input subsidies stimulated the use of fertilizers and pesticides but reduced the use of organic and ecological
methods (Chibwana et al., 2012; Mason and Ricker-Gilbert, 2013). The result of such outcomes corresponds to
the phenomenon of path dependence that subsidies introduce: once subsidised farmers get access to cheap
chemicals, they become trapped in chemical-intensive systems (Xu et al., 2009). The Liberian case adds to this
body of knowledge by showing that where no complementary investments are made in training or biological
alternatives, subsidies reinforce the traditional patterns of doing things and contribute to sustainability-income
paradox. Sustainable agricultural transitions require that subsidies are designed in such ways that they would
stimulate more integrated ways of doing things, instead of crowding them out as emphasized by Holden and
Lunduka (2012).
Labor Constraints and the Economics of Time
Labor proved to be a major obstacle to using IPM, which supported findings of other African settings where
manual scouting of pests and mechanical control are labor intensive (Tittonell and Giller, 2013; Andersson and
D’Souza, 2014). In Liberia, labor supplies are especially severe in times of harvest production periods because
family members tend to migrate to towns to seek labor (Richards et al., 2005). The same limitations have been
seen in Ethiopia and Ghana, with farmers opting to use chemical solutions exactly due to the fact that they will
save some time and eliminate the necessity to monitor them every minute (Bekele et al., 2018; Marenya and
Barrett, 2009). The paradox thus is made stronger by the labor burden: despite IPM being cost-neutral or even
slightly cheaper in the long-run perspective, it has increased time demands, thus lowering the appeal to resource-
limited households.
Risk Aversion and Behavioral Factors
The regression model showed that the risk-averse farmers were not prone to using IPM, as behavioral
experiments confirmed that uncertainty about yields suppresses experimentation (Dercon and Christiaensen,
2011; Yesuf and Bluffstone, 2009). Farmers also see pesticides as a kind of insurance that offers short-term
protection against visible threats, whereas IPM demands waiting, monitoring and slow returns (Glover et al.,
2019). Similar research, conducted in Uganda and Mozambique, has also come up with evidence that the lack
of certainty regarding biological control and resistance management discourages the uptake, despite the training
of farmers in IPM methods (Midega et al., 2015; Baulcombe et al., 2009). These results highlight the need to
minimize uncertainty with participatory extension techniques, farmer field schools, and demonstration plots that
have been found to change perception and reduce risk aversion (Davis et al., 2012; van den Berg, 2004).
Institutional Capacity and Extension Services
The extension became one of the strongest predictors of adoption, and the literature supports this finding quite
strongly. Research conducted in Sub-Saharan Africa has established that knowledge-based technologies such as
IPM need to be extended on a long-term basis (Anderson and Feder, 2007; Davis, 2008). Nevertheless, the
extension system in Liberia has not been properly funded and is still decentralized, a challenge that is reflected
in fragile states in general (Aker, 2011). Farmer field school experiences in Asia indicate that when applied
regularly over consecutive seasons, adoption of sustainable pest management in farmer field schools is greatly
enhanced (Rola et al., 2002; Tripp et al., 2005). In the absence of such systematic initiatives, farmers seek advice
on agro-dealers who usually push the sale of pesticides over the use of integrated solutions (Winarto, 2004;
Haggblade and Tembo, 2003). The key solutions to the paradox are therefore strengthening of the extension of
the people and regulation of the dealers of the private.
Policy Feasibility and Trade-offs in Liberia
In order to implement these recommendations, one should recognize the structural limitations in Liberia. The
Page 13
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)
ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue XV October 2025
Special Issue on Next-Generation Approaches in Plant Sciences and Agriculture
agro-dealer network that make profits off the sale of chemicals would resist a change in subsidies towards
biological inputs. This will take long term funding by the government and donors which may be difficult in the
face of tight financial situation but the expansion of the extension services is required. There would have to be
market incentives (e.g. testing of residue or certification) which would require institutional capacity as well as
consumer awareness which is currently lacking. The policy-makers must then engage in a trade-off of
affordability in the short-term and sustainability in the long-term. A more gradual solution of offering subsidy
reform combining with pilot extension schemes and selective intervention in the market can offer a way out.
This would introduce a balance between the short-term problems of income and the general sustainability of the
country.
Comparative Insights and Policy Implications
The Liberian experience contributes to the broader debate on sustainable intensification in Africa. In Kenya,
Ethiopia, and Malawi, comparative research has demonstrated that smallholders tend to use so-called hybrid
strategies, a combination of partial IPM and the use of conventional pesticides, in a absence of full institutional
support of transitions (Snapp et al., 2010; Kassie et al., 2015). The prevalence of partial adopters in this study is
indicative of the same trend of having farmers incorporating low-cost practices such as crop rotation but not
labour-intensive or knowledge-intensive practices. The effects on policy are the re-evaluation of subsidies in
order to promote biological inputs as a motivator, establishment of market incentives by way of residue testing,
and enhanced participatory extension. These results are in line with the proposals of systemic solutions that
would connect ecological sustainability with the security of rural incomes (Rockström et al., 2017; Garnett et
al., 2013).
LIMITATIONS
There are various limitations in this study. First, only the household survey was carried out in four major
agricultural counties and this might not be a complete representation of all the farming conditions in Liberia.
Interpretation of results should thus be done carefully before generalization of the results to areas that are not
part of the sample. Second, despite the use of the econometric methods to deal with possible endogeneity, using
the instrumental variables and the robustness test, there is always the possibility of unobserved factors that could
affect the decision to adopt the program, such as informal networks of farmers or previous experience with donor
programs. Lastly, the design is cross-sectional and thus restricts the possibility of demonstrating dynamics of
adoption behavior in the long-term perspective. Further studies that employ panel data or experiments would
yield better results on causal associations.
Data Availability Statement
The anonymized quantitative dataset generated during this study is available in the Harvard Dataverse repository:
[DOI Link will be provided after deposition]. The full qualitative transcripts are not publicly available to protect
participant confidentiality but may be available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
I have no conflicts of interest to disclose.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I wish to thank the enumerators and research assistants in Liberia for their diligent work, and the farmers who
generously gave their time to participate in this study. This research did not receive any specific grant from
funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
REFERENCES
1. Abang, A. F., Ramasamy, S., & Jalloh, M. M. (2014). Adoption of integrated pest management in Africa:
Constraints and prospects. Journal of Crop Protection, 65, 65–72.
Page 14
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)
ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue XV October 2025
Special Issue on Next-Generation Approaches in Plant Sciences and Agriculture
2. Aker, J. C. (2011). Dial “A” for agriculture: Using information and communication technologies for
agricultural extension in developing countries. Agricultural Economics, 42(6), 631– 647.
3. Amoabeng, B. W., Asumadu, J. O., & Nutsukpui, S. (2020). Sustainable pest management: Assessing IPM
adoption in African vegetable systems. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 40(1), 1–11.
4. Anderson, J., Clay, D. C., & Jayne, T. S. (2016). Agriculture and institutional rebuilding in post-conflict
Liberia. Food Policy, 62, 81–92.
5. Anderson, J. R., & Feder, G. (2007). Agricultural extension. In R. Evenson & P. Pingali (Eds.), Handbook
of Agricultural Economics (Vol. 3, pp. 2343–2378). Elsevier.
6. Andersson, J. A., & D'Souza, S. (2014). From adoption claims to understanding farmers and contexts: A
literature review of conservation agriculture in Africa. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 187, 116–
132.
7. Asfaw, S., Mithofer, D., & Waibel, H. (2010). Agrifood supply chain, public standards, and farmers'
compliance: The case of GLOBALGAP in Kenya. Agricultural Economics, 41(3-4), 341–356.
8. Baidoo, P. K., Bugri, J. N., & Dwomoh, E. O. (2012). Farmer perceptions of IPM in Ghana. International
Journal of Pest Management, 58(4), 313–320.
9. Barzman, M., Barberi, P., Birch, A. N. E., Boonekamp, P., Dachbrodt-Saaydeh, S., Graf, B., Hommel, B.,
Jensen, J. E., Kiss, J., Kudsk, P., Lamichhane, J. R., Messéan, A., Moonen, A. C., Ratnadass, A., Ricci, P.,
Sarah, J. L., & Sattin, M. (2015). Eight principles of integrated pest management. Agronomy for Sustainable
Development, 35(4), 1199–1215.
10. Baulcombe, D., Crute, I., & Johnson, B. (2009). Reaping the benefits: Science and the sustainable
intensification of global agriculture. The Royal Society.
11. Bekele, W., Kassie, M., & Jaleta, M. (2018). Adoption of sustainable agricultural practices in Ethiopia:
Evidence from cereal farmers. Land Use Policy, 73, 18–29.
12. Bellon, M., & Hellin, J. (2011). Planting hybrids, keeping landraces: Agricultural modernization and IPM.
World Development, 39(8), 1434–1443.
13. Bentley, J. (2009). Impact of farmer training in integrated pest management. World Development, 37(10),
1723–1735.
14. Berg, H., & Tam, N. T. (2012). Costs and benefits of IPM in rice in Vietnam. Crop Protection, 31(1), 1–5.
15. Bonye, S. Z., Djokoto, J. G., & Ozor, E. N. (2022). Smallholder farmers' pesticide uses and health risks in
Sub-Saharan Africa. Sustainability, 14(7), 3952.
16. Cartwright, S. (2022). Agricultural governance in fragile states: Evidence from Liberia. Journal of African
Economies, 31(2), 152–174.
17. Chirwa, E., & Dorward, A. (2013). Agricultural input subsidies: Theories and evidence. Oxford University
Press.
18. Chibwana, C., Fisher, M., & Shively, G. (2012). Cropland allocation effects of agricultural input subsidies
in Malawi. World Development, 40(1), 124–133.
19. Cowan, N., Rada, N. E., & Moreira, M. V. (2018). Risk, time preferences, and technology adoption:
Evidence from African agriculture. World Development, 111, 182–195.
20. Danso-Abbeam, G., & Baiyegunhi, L. (2017). Adoption of sustainable agricultural practices among cocoa
farmers in Ghana. Journal of Cleaner Production, 164, 1242–1250.
21. Davis, K. (2008). Extension in sub-Saharan Africa: Overview and assessment of past and current models.
Journal of International Agricultural and Extension Education, 15(3), 15–28.
22. Davis, K., Nkonya, E., & Kato, E. (2012). Impact of farmer field schools on agricultural productivity and
poverty in East Africa. World Development, 40(2), 402–413.
23. Delcour, I., Spanoghe, P., & Uyttendaele, M. (2015). Literature review: Impact of climate change on
pesticide use. Food Research International, 68, 7–15.
24. Dercon, S., & Christiaensen, L. (2011). Consumption risk, technology adoption and poverty traps:
Evidence from Ethiopia. Journal of Development Economics, 96(2), 159–173.
25. Ehler, L. E. (2006). Integrated pest management (IPM): Definition, historical development and
implementation. Integrated Pest Management Reviews, 7(1), 1–10.
26. EPA Liberia. (2019). Pesticide Regulatory System Report. Monrovia: Environmental Protection Agency.
27. FAO. (2021). GIEWS Country Brief: Liberia. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization.
Page 15
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)
ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue XV October 2025
Special Issue on Next-Generation Approaches in Plant Sciences and Agriculture
28. Feder, G., Just, R. E., & Zilberman, D. (1985). Adoption of agricultural innovations in developing countries.
Economic Development and Cultural Change, 33(2), 255–298.
29. Feder, G., & Umali, D. L. (1993). The adoption of agricultural innovations: A review. Technological
Forecasting and Social Change, 43(3-4), 215–239.
30. Garnett, T., Godfray, C., & Charles, H. (2013). Sustainable intensification in agriculture: Premises and
policies. Science, 341(6141), 33–34.
31. Glover, D., Sumberg, J., & Andersson, J. (2019). The adoption problem; or why we still understand so little
about technological change in African agriculture. Outlook on Agriculture, 48(1), 4–10.
32. Guo, Z., Huang, H., & Huang, J. (2020). Incentives for IPM adoption in China. Ecological Economics, 176,
106724.
33. Haggblade, S., & Tembo, G. (2003). Development of conservation farming systems in Zambia. Food Policy,
28(4), 335–351.
34. Harrison, R. D., Day, R., & Prasanna, B. M. (2019). Fall armyworm invasion in Africa. Nature Plants, 5(10),
930–933.
35. Hellin, J., Shiferaw, B., & Muricho, G. (2014). Input subsidies and agricultural sustainability in Africa. Food
Security, 6(2), 329–340.
36. Holden, S., & Lunduka, R. (2012). Do fertilizer subsidies crowd out organic manures? The case of Malawi.
Agricultural Economics, 43(3), 303–314.
37. Huang, J., Pray, C., & Qiao, F. (2015). Adoption of IPM in China: Evidence from rice farmers. Journal of
Environmental Economics and Management, 71, 102–120.
38. Jack, B. K. (2013). Market inefficiencies and the adoption of agricultural technologies in developing
countries. Annual Review of Resource Economics, 5(1), 327–350.
39. Jayne, T. S., Mather, D., & Mghenyi, E. (2010). Principal challenges confronting smallholder agriculture in
Sub-Saharan Africa. World Development, 38(10), 1384–1398.
40. Johnson, M., & Brown, A. (2020). Agricultural regulation and pesticide management in Liberia. African
Journal of Policy Studies, 25(3), 88–103.
41. Jones, K., Tione, S. E., & Asante, F. A. (2019). Market incentives for sustainable agriculture: Lessons from
Africa. Food Policy, 85, 15–25.
42. Kansiime, M. K., Byarugaba, A. B. M., & Kang'ara, J. H. N. (2017). IPM adoption in smallholder maize
systems in Uganda. Food Security, 9(4), 759–774.
43. Kassie, M., Zikhali, P., & Pender, J. (2018). Adoption of sustainable agricultural practices in Africa:
Evidence from Ethiopia. Land Use Policy, 75, 57–65.
44. Kassie, M., Jaleta, M., & Mattei, A. (2015). Agricultural technology, crop income, and poverty alleviation
in Uganda. World Development, 66, 130–143.
45. Kaur, H. (2018). Integrated pest management in Indian agriculture: Status and challenges. Indian Journal of
Agricultural Economics, 73(3), 301–313.
46. Kibwage, J., Netondo, G., & Odondo, A. (2008). Constraints to IPM adoption in Kenyan horticulture.
Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 32(2), 109–123.
47. Kogan, M. (1998). Integrated pest management: Historical perspectives and future directions. Annual
Review of Entomology, 43(1), 243–270.
48. Koul, O., & Cuperus, G. (2007). Ecologically based integrated pest management. CAB International.
49. Lee, D. R. (2005). Agricultural sustainability and technology adoption: Issues and policies for developing
countries. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 87(5), 1325–1334.
50. Lee, D. R., Edmeades, S., & De Nys, E. (2019). Economic evaluation of IPM adoption in smallholder
systems. Agricultural Economics, 50(3), 349–362.
51. LIPC. (2018). Liberia Input Provision Chain Report. Monrovia: Liberia Input Provision Consortium.
52. Liverpool-Tasie, L. S. O., Omonona, B. T., & Sanou, A. (2017). Fertilizer subsidies and technology adoption
in Nigeria. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 99(3), 659–682.
53. Liverpool-Tasie, L. S. O., Kuku, O., & Salau, S. (2016). Nigeria's agricultural transformation agenda:
Repositioning agriculture for prosperity. Food Policy, 62, 124–133.
54. Marenya, P. P., & Barrett, C. B. (2009). State-conditional fertilizer yield response on Western Kenyan farms.
American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 91(4), 991–1006.
Page 16
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)
ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue XV October 2025
Special Issue on Next-Generation Approaches in Plant Sciences and Agriculture
55. Martey, E., Etwire, P. M., & Al-Hassan, R. M. (2019). Input subsidies and adoption of sustainable practices
among Ghanaian farmers. Agricultural Economics, 50(6), 729–741.
56. Mason, N. M., & Ricker-Gilbert, J. (2013). Disrupting demand for commercial seed: Input subsidies in
Malawi and Zambia. World Development, 45, 75–91.
57. Mather, D., & Jayne, T. S. (2018). Fertilizer subsidies and smallholder productivity. Food Policy, 76, 122–
134.
58. Mengistie, B. T., Mol, A. P. J., & Oosterveer, P. (2017). Pesticide use practices among Ethiopian farmers.
Science of the Total Environment, 574, 1164–1171.
59. Midega, C. A. O., Pittchar, J., & Khan, Z. R. (2015). Sustainable intensification of maize-legume cropping
systems through push-pull technology. Field Crops Research, 171, 49–57.
60. Midingoyi, S. K., Akinbode, S. A., & Alene, A. D. (2019). Risk aversion and adoption of sustainable
agricultural practices in Africa. Agricultural Systems, 173, 414–424.
61. Mutyambai, D. M., Subramanian, S., & Tefera, T. (2016). Adoption of push-pull technology in East Africa.
Field Crops Research, 188, 24–35.
62. Naranjo, S. E. (2017). IPM: Advances and challenges in the 21st century. Pest Management Science, 73(5),
772–782.
63. Naranjo, S. E., Ellsworth, P. C., & Frisvold, G. B. (2015). Economic analysis of IPM in cotton. Ecological
Applications, 25(6), 1860–1873.
64. Ngowi, A. V. F., Mbise, T. J., & Ijani, S. M. (2007). Smallholder pesticide uses in Tanzania. Crop Protection,
26(11), 1617–1624.
65. Nkonya, E., Mirzabaev, A., & von Braun, J. (Eds.). (2016). Economics of land degradation and improvement
in Tanzania. Springer International Publishing.
66. Norton, G. W., Ngang'a, E. M., & Shifa, M. (2019). Scaling up integrated pest management: Lessons from
Asia and Africa. Crop Protection, 115, 142–150.
67. Oerke, E. C. (2006). Crop losses to pests. Journal of Agricultural Science, 144(1), 31–43.
68. Okello, J. J., & Swinton, S. M. (2010). From circle of poison to circle of virtue: Pesticides, export standards,
and Kenya's green bean farmers. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 61(2), 209–224.
69. Ortiz, O. (2010). Learning from farmers: IPM in the Andes. Agricultural Systems, 103(1), 27–36.
70. Peshin, R., & Zhang, W. (2014). Integrated pest management: Adoption and impact. Springer Handbook of
Pest Management.
71. Pimentel, D., & Burgess, M. (2014). Environmental and economic costs of pesticide use. In Integrated Pest
Management (pp. 47–71). Springer.
72. Pretty, J., & Bharucha, Z. P. (2015). Integrated pest management for sustainable intensification of
agriculture in Asia and Africa. Insects, 6(1), 152–182.
73. Richards, P., Gboku, J. J. F., & Jusu, S. M. (2020). Farming, risk, and pest control in West Africa: Historical
perspectives. Journal of Modern African Studies, 58(3), 389–412.
74. Richards, P., Bah, K., & Vincent, J. (2005). Social capital and survival: Prospects for community-driven
development in post-war Sierra Leone. World Development, 33(5), 905–924.
75. Rockström, J., Williams, J., & Daily, G. (2017). Sustainable intensification of agriculture for human
prosperity and global sustainability. Ambio, 46(1), 4–17.
76. Rola, A. C., Jamias, S. B., & Quizon, J. B. (2002). Do farmer field school graduates retain and share what
they learn? Journal of International Agricultural and Extension Education, 9(1), 65–76.
77. Snapp, S. S., Blackie, M. J., & Donovan, C. (2010). Biodiversity can support a greener revolution in Africa.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(48), 20840–20845.
78. Tambo, J. A., Mutyambai, I. R., & Qaim, M. (2024). Are farm input subsidies a disincentive for integrated
pest management adoption? Evidence from Zambia. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 75(2), 740–763.
79. Tittonell, P., & Giller, K. E. (2013). When yield gaps are poverty traps: The paradigm of ecological
intensification in African smallholder agriculture. Field Crops Research, 143, 76–90.
80. Tripp, R., Wijeratne, M., & Piyadasa, V. H. (2005). What should we expect from farmer field schools? A
Sri Lanka case study. World Development, 33(10), 1705–1720.
81. Van den Berg, H. (2004). IPM farmer field schools: A synthesis of 25 impact evaluations. FAO.
82. Van den Berg, H., & Jiggins, J. (2007). Investing in farmers: The impacts of farmer field schools in relation
to integrated pest management. World Development, 35(4), 663–686.
Page 17
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)
ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue XV October 2025
Special Issue on Next-Generation Approaches in Plant Sciences and Agriculture
83. Williamson, S., Ball, A., & Pretty, J. (2008). Chemical pesticide risks in Sub-Saharan Africa. Outlook on
Agriculture, 37(2), 93–98.
84. Winarto, Y. T. (2004). Seeds of knowledge: The beginning of integrated pest management in Java. Yale
University Press.
85. World Bank. (2017). Liberia WAAPP Pest Management Plan. Washington, DC.
86. World Bank. (2022). Improving Service Delivery in Liberia's Agriculture Sector. Washington, DC.
87. Xu, Z., Guan, Z., & Jayne, T. S. (2009). Fertilizer subsidies, agricultural productivity, and food security in
Malawi. Agricultural Economics, 40(5), 519–533.
88. Yesuf, M., & Bluffstone, R. A. (2009). Poverty, risk aversion, and path dependence in low-income countries:
Experimental evidence from Ethiopia. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 91(4), 1022–1037.
Page 18
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)
ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue XV October 2025
Special Issue on Next-Generation Approaches in Plant Sciences and Agriculture
APPENDIX
Ethical Considerations
The research was conducted in compliance with ethical principles for research involving human subjects.
Participants were provided with informed consent forms and allowed to participate willingly. All data collected
through the surveys were protected and confidentiality was ensured through anonymization and secure storage.
Qualitative data were reported in aggregate, without mentioning any individual. Enumerators were trained to
engage in the data collection in a respectful manner, with sensitivity to health issues related to pesticides and a
commitment to non-violent interaction. A recognized Institutional Review Board (IRB) in Liberia was consulted
regarding ethical clearance before the fieldwork.
