Marketing Integrated Pest Management as a Value-Added Service - Urban Insect Pests: Sustainable Management Strategies - page 213

Case study 2 and environmental grounds. A study by

Brenner (2003) reported the cost of an
individually tailored IPM was equal to or
less than traditional chemically based pest
control. In another study IPM is shown to
cost less than conventional treatment
(Sever et al. , 2007) and Kass et al . (2009)
showed that an easily replicable single
IPM visit was more effective than the
regular application of pesticides in
managing cockroach populations. These
fi ndings demonstrate that customized IPM
can be successful and cost-effective in an
urban community. Also there is a good
possibility that, in spite of being expensive,
the client's choice of a multiple-task-based
IPM programme rather than conventional
ones is possible. The extra cost the clients
pay in this case is justifi ed by the use of
fewer chemicals, minimizing exposure of
the residents in addition to controlling the
pest successfully.

A mosquito control programme for a gated
community consisting of 262 homes spread
across a 3.7-hectare property was used to
prove that the presentation of IPM as a
multi-service programme helps its accept-
ance and adoption over a conventional
treatment. The programme consisted of a
number of distinct value-added services,
such as:

1. installation of CO 2 mosquito traps;
2. providing regular mosquito population
count;
3. identifi cation of mosquitoes;
4. survey of water bodies within the prop-
erty for mosquito breeding;
5. eliminating breeding sites;
6. conducting space treatment;
7. collecting feedback through a text
message system;
8. notifying homeowners of the times of
outdoor mosquito activity;
9. submitting report with copies emailed to
individual homeowners; and
10. conducting seminars on mosquitoes and
mosquito control along with local offi cials.

Conclusion

A planned incorporation of various control
methods into a pest management pro-
gramme is defi ned as integrated pest
management. IPM is well beyond following
the regular and scheduled use of pesticides.
It not only requires an understanding of
pest biology, ecology and behaviour, but
also a diverse knowledge of buildings and
structures, landscape, application tech-
niques, pesticide chemistry and various
intervention methods. Despite proven
successes, however, practitioners have
shown limited interest in adopting IPM.
The primary reasons could be the higher
investment of money and time, as generally
perceived. In numerous reports, however,
IPM is shown to be cost competitive
and more effective than conventional
treatments.
The poor popularity and adoption of
IPM is also due to a failure of practitioners
to understand and promote the key
attributes of IPM. Offering the key attributes
of IPM would allow consumers to pay more
and in return get satisfactory service.
Practitioners also fail to educate the

The above IPM programme replaced a
conventional pest control programme that
involved bimonthly fogging of the com-
munity with a monthly treatment of drains,
manholes and canals with granular larvi-
cide. The cost of the IPM programme was
much higher than the conventional pro-
gramme but, because the programme in-
volved a number of value-added services, it
was accepted by the home association and
was implemented successfully.

Presentation of cost-benefi t overview

A creditable evaluation of an IPM pro-
gramme requires an improved theoretical
understanding of the relationship between
IPM and conventional pest control inputs.
An improper understanding or failure to
recognize cumulative benefi ts leads to a
notion that IPM ventures are expensive. In
fact, in the long run, all IPM ventures have
proven to be successful both on economic