Gender and pest management: constraints to integrated pest management uptake among smallholder coffee farmers in Uganda

Figures & data

Figure 1. The map of Uganda showing the study sites.

Table 1. Knowledge, attitudes and practices questionnaire items

Theme	Questionnaire item—CSB IPM package	Questionnaire item—pesticides
Part 1: Farmer demographic characteristics	Gender, age, educational level, marital status, coffee experiences, coffee garden ownership and household coffee labor
Part 2: Knowledge of the CSB pest control methods	Identify, name and describe the features of the pest in the picture (CSB pest) Having observed the CSB pest in any community coffee garden Rate the extent of pest damage (low, medium and high) List pest symptoms Mention CSB pest control methods used in the community?
	(a) CSB IPM package awareness—List all CSB IPM package practices used, which methods that you have heard, from who/where? have you heard training, which do you know how to use and use; who mainly in your household uses such practices and give reasons for preference of a particular practice	(b) Pesticides awareness—Aware of the pesticides, name them, having used pesticides, awareness of the pesticide dangers, list them, evidence of pesticide problems experienced in the HH, list them and how can pesticides danger be reduced?
Part 3. Attitudes—farmers’ beliefs about pesticide effectiveness and health effects, including possible misconceptions	(a) Rate the effectiveness of the CSB IPM package components/practices, mentioning both positive and negative attributes of each	(b) Farmers’ beliefs about pesticide health risks and whether each respondent did experience negative effects after spraying pesticides
Part 4. Practices—farmers’ actual behavior (actions) that demonstrates knowledge of and attitudes toward pest management	(a) Aspects of respondent’s most recent pest management practices. First, list all IPM methods used. Second, farmers modifications on the current IPM practices	(b) Aspects of respondent’s pesticide use. First, whether respondents use pesticides, pesticides risks and precautionary measures while spraying pesticides

Table 2. Farmer demographic characteristics, N (men = 71, women = 55)

	Men	Women
Variable	Mean	Mean	T	p-Value
Age	53.0 (1.65)	45.0 (1.67)	3.322	0.0012***
Educational level	7.01 (0.42)	6.58 (0.41)	−0.715	0.4759
Number of people who help out with coffee work	4.52 (0.42)	4.65 (0.50)	−0.203	0.8395
Total coffee acreage	1.922 (1.14)	1.630 (0.90)	−1.558	0.122
Experience growing coffee (years)	23.98 (1.89)	18.78 (1.54)	2.043	0.0431***

Standard deviations in parentheses.

Significance levels

***p < 0.01 (1% significance level).

Table 3. Knowledge of the CSB pest, N (men = 71, women = 55)

	Percent
Knowledge attributes	Men	Women	Total
Identify what is on the picture (χ^2 (1) = 3.967, p = 0.046**)	57	41	98
Farmers ability to name CSB pest (χ^2 (2) = 15.908, p = 0.000***)	47	32	79
Observed the CSB pest in any coffee field (χ^2 (2) = 6.984, p = 0.008***)	46	37	83
Can tell the extent of pest damage (χ^2 (2) = 0.526, p = 0.769)	57	43	100
Low (few tress)	32	21	53
Medium (half garden)	14	11	25
High (whole garden)	12	11	23
List it’s symptoms, (χ^2 (2) = 3.316, p = 0.191)	55	45	100
Yellowing and chlorosis of leaves	50	44	94
Die-back (drying of coffee tree branches)	4	0	4
Powder-Saw dust like substance at the base of the stems	1	1	2

Significance levels

**p < 0.05 (5% significance level).

***p < 0.01 (1% significance level).

Table 4. Knowledge of the CSB IPM pest control methods, N (men = 71, women = 55)

	Percent
	Men	Women	Total
Aware of IPM tactics for CSB control (ever heard, trained and know how to apply all the practices)	42	38	80
Stem smoothening	41	40	81
Stem Wrapping	37	31	68
Pruning	46	44	90
Stumping	43	38	82
Utilization of IPM tactics for CSB control	22	14	36

Table 5. Sources of IPM practices information, n (men = 71, women = 55)

	Percent
	Stem smoothing		Stem wrapping		Pruning		Stumping
Source of information	Men	Women	Men	Women	Men	Women	Men	Women
IPM CRSP extension agents	48	41	42	42	41	36	38	39
Other extension agents/researchers	5	0	4	1	7	2	8	1
Field days/demonstrations	2	2	3	3	3	2	2	3
Private dealers	2	1	1	3	3	2	1	2
Neighbor/Friend	1	0	0	0	2	2	2	2

Table 6. Knowledge of pesticide use, risks and safety measures, N (men = 71, women = 55)

	Percent
Knowledge of pesticide use, risks and safety measures	Men	Women	Total
Pesticides use
Awareness of the pesticides used to control CSB pest	37	33	70
Utilization of pesticides for CSB control	52	36	88
Pesticide risks
Awareness of harmful effects from using pesticides	42	28	70
List of harmful effects from using pesticides	59	41	100
Are poisonous-kill	19	16	35
Body itching/irritation e.g. eyes	21	8	29
Pesticides have a bad smell and can cause the one handling to vomit	16	13	29
Inhaling the pesticide while spraying can lead to suffocation	3	4	7
Safety measures
Awareness of the pesticide danger reduction measures	57	43	100
Putting on protective gears	38	35	73
Read instructions before using pesticides	11	4	15
Wash hands with soap after touching or using the pesticides	4	3	7
Avoid spraying during windy periods/times	4	1	5

Table 7. Rating effectiveness of CSB IPM package, n (men = 71, women = 55)

	Men (%)				Women (%)
Rate the effectiveness of	Effective	Fairly effective	Not effective	Rank	Effective	Fairly effective	Not effective	Rank
Stem smoothing	46	11	1	1	37	3	2	2
Stumping	38	15	1	2	37	7	1	3
Pruning	35	17	3	3	70	25	4	1
Stem wrapping	23	23	5	4	32	15	3	4

Table 8. Farmer attitudes about CSB pest control methods, N (men = 71, women = 55)

	Percent
Attitude attributes	Men	Women	Total
Awareness of harmful effects from using pesticides	42	28	70
Have the pesticides caused any health problems to you and other people in your household	10	6	16
Pesticides that have caused problems in the Household
Ambush	47	27	74
Rocket	11	5	16
Sumithion	5	5	10
Nature of the problem experienced when using pesticides in the household
Flu and cough	48	38	86
Damage to the skin or skin itching	5	4	9
Headache	3	2	5
The perceived extent of the pesticide risk	53	39	92
Reason for using pesticides, despite awareness of the risk/dangers	22	33	55

Table 9. CSB IPM control practices, N (men = 71, women = 55)

	Percent
	Who used/applied at the household level?
CSB IPM package components	Men	Women	Column total
Stem smoothening	27	11	38
Stem wrapping	21	12	33
Pruning	19	17	36
Stumping	24	14	38
Row Totals	22	14	36

Table 10. CSB IPM control practices, N (men = 71, women = 55)

	Percent
CSB pest pesticides control	Men	Women	Total
Utilization pesticides for CSB control	52	36	88
Take precautionary measures while spraying pesticides	9	2	11

Table A1. Farmers’ description of the coffee stem borer infestation

CSB is a dark brown grayish beetle with very long antennae. It lays eggs (Figure A1) on the back of the woody stems. The eggs then hatch into larvae. The larvae, at pupal stage barrows into the stem causing serious damage to the tree and leaving behind powder. The larvae keep on barrowing (Figure A3) through the stem while moving upward through the xylem vessels and later adult beetles emerge. Powder/Saw dust (Figure A2) is seen on the stem or the base of the stem as evidence of CSB presence. The beetles come out of the stem and fly away to another suitable host. Their feeding also weakens the plant, since no nutrients can flow to the upper parts of the plant leading to the yellowing/chlorosis of the leaves and die-back. Pruning saws used on infected plants and infected planting materials can also be source of CSB spread

Figure A1. A CSB egg on the coffee stem.

Figure A2. Power on the coffee stem-sign of CSB pest feeding.

Figure A3. A hole made by the CSB on the stem.

Table A2. Description/Measurement of the knowledge, attitudes and practices variables

Knowledge attributes	Rating	Description
Identify what is on the picture	0–1	0, an inability to identify the pest; 1, an ability to correctly identify the pest
Farmers ability to name CSB pest	0–1	0, an inability to name the pest; 1, an ability to correctly name the pest
Observed the CSB pest in any coffee field	0–1	0, has never observed the pest; 1, has ever observed the pest
Can tell the extent of pest damage	0–3	0, an inability to mention the extent of damage; 1–3, an ability to mention the extent of damage
List CSB pest symptoms	0–3	0, an inability to list symptoms; 1–3, an ability to list one or more symptoms
Awareness of IPM tactics for CSB control being promoted	0–4	0, if they were unaware; and 1–4, aware of one or more of the IPM tactics for CSB control being promoted
Utilization IPM tactics for CSB control being promoted	0–4	0, don’t utilize; utilize methods coded 1–4
Awareness of the pesticides used to control CSB pest	0–1	0, if they were unaware; and 1, aware of one or more of the pesticides used to control CSB pest
Utilization pesticides for CSB control	0–3	0, don’t utilize; utilize methods coded 1–3
Farmers’ awareness of harmful effects from using pesticides	0–1	0, if they were unaware; and 1, aware of one or more of harmful effects from using pesticides
List harmful effects from using pesticides	0–3	0, don’t utilize; utilize pesticides as methods for CSB control coded 1–3
Awareness of the pesticide danger reduction measures	0–1	0, if they were unaware; and 1, aware of one or more of pesticides dangers
Attitude attributes
Aware of the dangers associated with pesticide	0–1	0, if they were unaware; and 1, aware of one or more of the pesticides used to control CSB pest
Have the pesticides caused any health problems for you and other people in your household	0–1	0, if pesticides did not cause health problems; and 1, if pesticides caused health problems in the household
The perceived extent of the pesticide risk	0–1	0, perceived pesticide risk is high; and 1, perceived pesticide risk is high
Despite the danger, why do you still use pesticides?	0–1	0, an inability to give a reason; 1, an ability to give a reason
Rating of IPM practices as effective	0–1	0, ineffective; 1, effective for 4 key practices
Practices attributes
Utilize IPM tactics for CSB control being promoted	0–3	0, don’t utilize; utilize methods coded 1–3
Utilize pesticides for CSB control	0–3	0, don’t utilize; utilize methods coded 1–3
Take precautionary measures while spraying pesticides	0–1	0, don’t take any precautionary measures; and 1, take any precautionary measures
Modifications of the CSB IPM practices	0–1	0, don’t make some modifications on the IPM measures; and 1, make some modifications on the IPM measures

Table A3. Advantages and disadvantages of the CSB IPM practices (reasons for not using individual CSB IPM practices, N (men = 71, women = 55)

		Gender of the respondent (%)			Gender of the respondent (%)
CSB IPM practices	Positive attributes	Men	Women	Negative attributes	Men	Women
Stem smoothing	Cheap-limited financial implications	38	31	Limited to smaller plots due to time-consuming or tedious nature	41	43
	Easy to use	16	12	Raises dust	10	2
Stem wrapping	No dust generated	37	25	Pests hide inside	48	30
	Prevents/Blocks the pest from burrowing into the stem	11	14	It’s risky in terms of fire outbreaks	5	7
	Easy and cheap	5	5	Polythene bags can be unwrapped wind	3	5
				Tiresome or labor intensive	1	2
Pruning	Reduced canopy	21	20	Costly in terms of labor and equipment	47	34
	Strong/Healthy plants	14	9	Damages the equipment or plant	5	7
	Unwanted plants are removed reducing pest invasion	14	9	Reduces the number of plant stems and so yield	4	2
	Planting material can be easily obtained	8	5
Stumping	Strong sprouts free from CSB pest	32	27	Takes time to gain the next harvest-income lost	41	29
	The reduced spread of pests	3	2	Costly in terms of labor and equipment	14	13
	Intercropping can be done	11	6
	Can be used as manure	10	2