3.9 Article

Perceptions and pesticides use practices of rice farmers in Hiroshima prefecture, Japan

Journal

JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE
Volume 22, Issue 4, Pages 5-30

Publisher

HAWORTH PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1300/J064v22n04_03

Keywords

environment; impact; pesticide; perception; rice farmers

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study discusses the farmers' pest management practices and their perception about the impact of pesticide on the environment. Fieldwork was carried out in Higashi Hiroshima City of Hiroshima prefecture. The data were collected from the rice farmers through questionnaire survey. Findings revealed that the farmers used a wide variety of pesticides. Among the pesticides used by the farmers, insecticides are environmentally more hazardous than the herbicides and fungicides. Farmers have good knowledge on technical aspects of the pesticides but this is not reflected at the cognitive level. They showed moderately favorable attitudes about the risk of pesticide usage. Farmers' perception level of the impact of pesticide use on the environmental item assessed was moderate. Food safety, applicator's health, food quality and wildlife tended to generate the highest levels of perception while air pollution and beneficial insects yielded the lowest level of perception. Farmers' age has a positive and significant relation with perceived impact on beneficial insects, while education has a positive and significant correlation with perceived impact on aquatic plants and air pollution. Land under cultivation has a positive correlation with perceived impact on soil microorganisms. Farming experience has contribution to a perceived impact on beneficial insects, beneficial plants, and fish. Knowledge contributes on the perceived impact on food safety. The attitude of the farmers has a positive and significant relationship with perceived impact on beneficial plants, fish, earthworms, and aquatic plants.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.9
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available