It is possible, and frequently advantageous, for IPM specialists to assess the impact of Extension IPM programs. Many specialists may already do so as a routine component of their ongoing educational and training efforts. According to logical model conventions and the guidance currently provided by federal agencies that support IPM programming, impacts are changes in the short-term knowledge and intermediate-term behaviors and practices of target audience, as well as long-term changes in economic, environmental, or human health conditions.
Assessing changes in short-term knowledge may require that baseline data exist, or be collected, on the client's pre-program knowledge of IPM principles and practices. Because of their years of experience dealing directly with their clientele, county- or state-based IPM experts are often a good source for anecdotal data on target audience baseline IPM knowledge. In addition, specific tactics such as pre- and post-training evaluations using written program evaluations, "Turning Point" or other polling software techniques, can result in quality data on baseline knowledge. More formal methods, such as mailed, telephone, or face-to-face surveys are also useful tools to assess changes in clientele knowledge, skills, and attitudes regarding specific IPM practices.
Assessing intermediate-term behavioral changes also requires baseline data on the extent of client's pre-program adoption of IPM. Once again, county- or state-based IPM experts are often a good source for anecdotal data about client behavior and the extent to which they have adopted IPM practices. State, county, or other records (e.g., NASS Surveys or NRCS data) may also provide reliable information on the adoption of specific practices. As with short-term knowledge changes, quality baseline data for assessing behavioral changes can be obtained using pre- and post-training evaluations, written program evaluations, or other polling techniques. And formal surveys (mailed, telephone, or face-to-face) can be a useful tools to assess the extent of adoption of specific IPM practices. Adoption surveys that obtain information from large, statistically-valid samples and that are based on well-developed descriptions of an IPM system (e.g. IPM Guidelines, IPM Elements, IPM Protocols, IPM Standards, etc.), are most useful in this regard. See the section on "Other Resources" for some examples of previously developed surveys, guidelines and other useful information.
It can be more challenging to assess long-term changes in economic, environmental, or human health conditions that result from IPM educational programs. University-based scientists may have little experience with social science techniques, or they may have limited access to colleagues with such expertise. Further, a typical grant-funded Extension or research project often has a limited term. Budgets are most often focused on addressing specific hypotheses rather than on documenting whether potential end-users actually adopted techniques that were investigated or whether those techniques eventually had long-term impacts.
Although no two experimental sites, growing seasons, schools, playing fields, etc. are identical, it is possible to use existing research to support claims of long-term impact. Assume, for example, that a robust scientific literature shows a particular insecticide has a negative impact on human health, non-target organisms or the environment. If a research or demonstration project shows that implementing specific IPM techniques eliminates the use of that insecticide in an important agricultural crop and can also document that these techniques have been adopted on a large scale, this may be sufficient evidence to make a reasonable claim of a long-term impact.
Sample Measures for Short-, Intermediate-, and Long-Term Impacts
Example Short-Term Impacts and Possible Measures
Note that for each short-term impact, the measures are the same—you always need baseline data so that you can measure intermediate- and long-term impacts.
Short-Term Impacts | Possible Measures |
---|---|
Target audiences increase awareness of pesticide and nutrient impacts on habitats |
Collect baseline data to help measure intermediate- and long-term impacts Use self assessments, pre-test/post-test and follow-up measurement tools to assess changes in knowledge, attitudes, satisfaction, aspirations |
Target audiences increase knowledge of lower-risk materials |
|
Target audiences increase knowledge of IPM as a means to prevent off-site movement |
|
Target audiences increase knowledge of environmental benefits of using precision application equipment and technology |
|
Target audiences increase knowledge of conservation programs including trade-offs (negative and positive) associated with pesticide use in managing invasive species |
|
Target audiences increase awareness of positive IPM impacts |
Example Intermediate-Term Impacts and Possible Measures
Note that some measures will give information about more than one intermediate-term impact.
Intermediate-Term Impacts | Possible Measures |
---|---|
Reduce use of higher-risk pesticides or increase use of lower-risk materials |
|
Increase use of IPM tactics to protect public lands |
|
Ensure dispersal equipment is properly calibrated and all drift minimization practices are used for all applications |
|
Increase adoption of lower risk timing of pest management related activities |
|
Increase adoption of precision application equipment and technology to minimize off-site impacts |
|
Increase adoption of lower risk application technology |
|
Increase adoption of conservation measures to protect natural resources from pesticide and nutrient runoff |
|
Example Long-Term Impacts and Possible Measures
This table contains all of the Long-Term Impacts and Possible Measures currently on this site.
Long-Term Impacts | Possible Measures |
---|---|
Reduce impacts to non-target terrestrial and aquatic organisms caused by pesticides |
|
Reduce impacts of off-site movement of pesticides, sediments and nutrients on soil, air, and water quality |
|
Reduce farmer, farm worker and farm family exposure to and risk from pesticides |
|
Improved profitability of production agriculture through adoption of IPM |
|
Off-site movement of pesticides, non-target impacts, and other environmental impacts are reduced |
|
Reduced exposure to pests and pesticides in federal buildings, public housing will lead to improved health of those living and working in the indoor environment |
|
Schools /childcare facilities / Public Housing Authorities save money by using cost-effective IPM practices |
|
Reduced exposure to pesticides used outdoors in residential and public areas |
|
Target audiences save money compared to previous approaches by implementing cost effective IPM practices |
|
Improve the health of children/staff and the learning environment in schools and childcare facilities by reducing exposure to pests and pesticides |
|
Reduce off-site movement of pesticides and nutrients into water and improve water quality conditions |
|
Reduce impacts to non-target terrestrial and aquatic wildlife caused by pesticides and nutrients |
|
Reduce pesticide exposure of site staff and land users/resource users |
|
Target audiences save money by implementing cost effective IPM practices on natural resource and recreational lands |
|