Progress 10/01/05 to 09/30/08
Outputs
OUTPUTS: The specific objectives of this study are to: 1. Estimate the relative risks to human health associated with a monthly spray insecticide program for cockroach control in public housing. In addition, we intended to determine how much housing residents would be willing to pay to reduce these potential risks by converting to an IPM program. 2. Identify public policy implications for cockroach control in public housing. Specifically, we intended to demonstrate how the benefits of IPM (reduced insecticide use and lower cockroach numbers) may offset the costs. The outputs for the first objective included the completion of a year-long study where the cost and efficacy of IPM methods for German cockroach control were compared with those of monthy insecticide spray applications. The cost comparison study found that over a 12-month period the per unit cost of the IPM treatment was $4.06 (technician time and product). This cost was significantly greater than that of the traditional spray treatment at $1.50 per unit. However, the IPM treatment was found to significantly reduce cockroach numbers while populations tripled in the traditional spray treatment apartment units during the summer months. Based on these data a survey was developed for public housing residents to assess the value that they would assign to a pest control program that reduced cockroaches more effectivly than insecticide sprays and that presented less pesticide exposure risk. To conduct the surveys, a total of 18 housing residents from 3 different residents' associations were hired to help deliver face-to-face surveys to public housing residents in Portsmouth, Charlottesville, and Roanoke, Virginia. Surveyors introduced residents to the IPM concept, explaining that environmental quality of their home would be improved by killing more cockroaches with less pesticide. Residents were then asked how much additional rent they would be willing to pay for IPM. A total of 816 residents were informed about the benefits of IPM during these surveys. Subsequent survey results have been presented at three scientific meetings, and many extension presentations both within Virginia and outside the state. The results of the survey will also be presented at the sixth international IPM Symposium that will be held March 24-26, 2009 in Portland OR. The final risk assesment comparing the chronic and acute toxicity of both the IPM insecticide products and the spray products (based on EPA standards) is still in progress. The policy brief for housing authority officials will be created as soon as the risk assessment data are analyzed. It is anticipated that the IPM policy brief will be completed in March 2009. PARTICIPANTS: To conduct the contingent valuation surveys, we worked with a total of 18 public housing residents from three Virginia housing authorities: Roanoke, Charlottesville and Portsmouth. These individuals were residents of the housing complexes that were surveyed and members of their local residents' associations. The surveyors volunteered to work in return for a donation to their association. TARGET AUDIENCES: Target audiences have included the residents of Roanoke, Charlottesville, and Portsmouth public housing, as well as the Portsmouth Public Housing Authority. Our IPM study has also been forwarded (at their request) to Tom Neltner the Director of Education and Training for the National Center for Public Housing and Kathy Seikel of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Our IPM study results have also been recently sent (December 2008) to Mary Russel, a public health consultant who is currently working with the Boston University School of Public Health to evaluate the cost of the Boston Housing Authority's implementation of Integrated Pest Management in the Kellogg funded Healthy Pest Free Housing Initiative. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: Nothing significant to report during this reporting period.
Impacts
The results of our orignial IPM cost analysis, laid the foundation for our being able to survey housing residents opinions about a pest control program that controlled cockroaches better than their current method of pest control, and that presented less pesticide exposure risk. The survey was intended to assess the value that residents would place on an IPM program. However, the delivery of the survey also gave us the opportunity to inform the respondents about IPM and its advantages. The survey itself generated some very interesting data with regard to the potential value of IPM. First, 53% of the respondents indicated that someone in their home had either allergies, emphysema, or asthma. Twenty-nine percent indicated that someone in their home had to be taken to the emergency room for breathing problems within the last two years. Knowing that one of the benefits of IPM was that cockroaches (and their allergens) could be reduced without the application of spray formulation insecticides was highly valued by all respondents. The survey results indicated that 56% of the respondents would be willing to pay an additional amount of rent (between 1-10 dollars) for IPM to be used in their home (average $6.99/month). Of those 56% who were willing to pay between $1 and $10, 150 were willing to pay more than $10 dollars a month, raising the average "willingness to pay value" of IPM to $11.32/month. The amount that residents were willing to pay ($6.99 and $11.32 per month) for IPM is very interesting considering that the cost analysis for IPM would be $4.00 per unit per month. Forty-two percent of the respondents indicated that they would pay $0 dollars for IPM. However, 88% of these individuals believed that the housing authority should pay for IPM rather than the residents. The results of the IPM "willingness to pay" survey is currently being combined with pesticide risk reduction data to calculate an aggregate economic value of the health benefits of the IPM program. These benefits will be added to the differences in the economic costs of IPM compared with non-IPM programs to determine a more complete value for IPM than the monetary costs alone. This study has already resulted two publications. Two additional journal articles are currently in preparation to publish the results from Objectives 1 and 2. In addition, a policy brief for policy makers, their staff, and for housing residents will be prepared. This brief will be delivered to policy makers and their staff, to pest control companies, and IPM coordinators in other states.
Publications
- No publications reported this period
|
Progress 10/01/06 to 09/30/07
Outputs
Objective 1 Risk Assessment of IPM versus traditional pesticide applications and resident's willingness to pay for IPM. Experiments: At this time we are still completing the toxicity comparison of the different pesticide products being used for both monthly pesticide spray applications and the IPM program. However, we have calculated and compared the amount of formulated product applied to each apartment unit within each treatment. Objective 2: Identify public policy implications for cockroach control in public housing. Events: A colleague from Purdue University and I organized, and moderated a "late breaking" symposium at the December 2006 annual meeting of the Entomological Society of America on "New Developments for IPM in Public Housing". The symposium consisted of 6 presentations from professionals (including myself) working on either reduced pesticide use, or allergen reduction in public housing facilities. Collaborations: In 2007, I worked with Tom Neltner of
the National Center for Healthy Housing (NCHH), Columbia, MD, and Kathy Seikel of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Washington, D. C. to publish a case study on my IPM work in Portsmouth public housing. The case study was published on-line by the NCHH to serve as a reference/model for public housing agencies (PHAs) and tribally designated housing agencies (TDHAs) interested in implementing IPM. Dissemination: Since publication of the information regarding the cost and efficacy of IPM in public housing in 2004 (Journal of Economic Entomology) the data continue to be presented multiple times a year at national and regional meetings addressing university researchers, chemical manufacturers and pest management professionals. In addition, the IPM information has been presented to Virginia Cooperative Extension agents, pesticide regulatory officials and members of the EPA.
Impacts
Impacts: Change in knowledge: Experiments: This research project facilitated our discovery that apartments receiving monthly spray applications were each treated with an average of 1650 grams of formulated pesticide (spray and dust formulations) over the course of a year. Apartments that were part of the IPM program, received an average of 20 grams of formulated pesticide (baits and insect growth regulators) per unit, per year. These results indicated that over a year's time, the use of IPM resulted in a 98% decrease in the amount of formulated pesticide applied in each apartment. Surveys: The analysis of the 816 surveys is still in progress but preliminary results indicate that after learning about IPM, 462 public housing residents would be willing to pay an additional $11.32 (average) per month for IPM (my previous study indicated that the actual cost was ~$4.00 per month). It was found that more than half (429) of the residents had someone in their household with
respiratory problems; 224 residents responded that someone in the home went to the hospital for breathing difficulty within the last two years. Events: My presentation on the results of the IPM survey of public housing residents "Assessing the Value ($$$) that residents of public housing place on IPM for German cockroach control" was been presented at two scientific meetings and 5 pest control meetings. One scientific presentation was part of the Entomological Society of America (ESA) meeting in December 2006, and the other at the National Conference on Urban Entomology (NCUE). The presentation at NCUE was held as part of the general session, where over 300 university, chemical industry, and regulatory personnel were in the audience. To illustrate the point about why spray formulation insecticides should not be used in public housing, I asked how many in the audience had someone in their home go to the emergency room for breathing problems within the last two years. No hands were
raised. I was then able to point out that if the audience members were public housing residents, one-forth of the hands would have been raised. Change in conditions: My review and editing of the Portsmouth public housing RFP in 2005 resulted in the Portsmouth housing authority requiring IPM practices as part of their future contract pest control services. These practices have included the use of sticky trap monitors and reduced toxicity control products, such as bait and insect growth regulator devices. At this time, over 2000 apratment units are covered by the IPM pest control contract. In these units, cockroach baits and insect growth regulators are the only chemical control methods used, thus eliminating applications of spray formulation insecticide.
Publications
- Miller, D. M. and F. Meek. 2007. Cockroach control: Cleanout, baits, and growth regulators clearly superior to traditional spray and dust treatments. Neltner and Seikel [Eds]. http://www.healthyhomestraining.org/ipm/Case_Study_Costs_10-26-07.pdf
- Miller D. 2006. Assessing the Value ($$$) that residents of public housing place on IPM for German cockroach control. Proceedings National Conference on Urban Entomology, Cary, NC.
|
Progress 10/01/05 to 09/30/06
Outputs
Specific portions of our study include: a comparison of the amount of pesticide applied in apartments on a monthly spray schedule versus the amount applied in apartments using IPM (Integrated Pest Management), and a large-scale survey of public housing residents to determine the value that they would place on a cockroach IPM program. After a year-long assessment, we determined that low-income apartments on a monthly spray schedule for cockroach control required the application of approximately 55x the amount of formulated pesticide required in the IPM program. The mean amount of pesticide spray applied in apartments every month was 139.9 grams. The mean amount of formulated baits and insect growth regulators applied every month in the IPM apartments was 2.5 grams. These results were particularly interesting in that the IPM treatments reduced cockroach numbers significantly within the first 3 months (Jan., Feb., March) and kept those numbers low throughout the year.
Cockroach populations in the sprayed apartments remained steady during the first 3 months and then had a three-fold increase during the summer season. In 2005, we completed an assessment of the value that residents of public housing place on IPM (reduced toxicity treatment) for German cockroach control. Most public housing residents were unaware of the benefits of IPM so we conducted a contingent valuation survey to introduce them to the IPM concept and then asked residents to assess the value of IPM. To conduct this large scale assessment we hired and trained a total of 18 housing residents at 3 different locations to help us deliver the surveys. A total of 816 face-to-face surveys were conducted in public housing facilities located in Portsmouth, Charlottesville, and Roanoke, Virginia. Surveyors introduced residents to the IPM concept, informing them how IPM might improve the environmental quality of their home by killing more cockroaches with less pesticide. Residents were then
asked a series of questions to determine how much they would value ($) such a program. Specifically, they were asked how much additional rent they would be willing to pay for IPM. After learning about IPM, 462 respondents (57 percent) indicated that they would be willing to pay an additional $11.32 (average; range 0- $40) per month for IPM. Some residents (17 percent) indicated that they would not pay anything (0 dollars), because they could not afford to. These residents indicated that they did value IPM, but they felt that the housing authority should pay for it. It was interesting to note that 52 percent of the residents indicated that someone in their household had respiratory problems, including allergies asthma or emphysema. In addition, 224 respondents (27 percent) reported that someone in their household went to the emergency room for breathing difficulty within the last two years.
Impacts
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) risk reduction analysis, and IPM efficacy data (reduction in cockroach numbers) will be combined with the residents' 'willingness to pay' information to calculate an aggregate economic value for IPM health benefits. These benefits will be weighed against the higher cost of IPM (compared with non-IPM programs) to perform a more complete IPM value assessment rather than focusing on the monetary costs alone. A policy brief communicating the results of these studies is being prepared for policy makers, their staff, and for housing residents. This brief will be delivered to the Virginia public housing authority, to pest control companies (Orkin and others), IPM coordinators in other states, and to the public at large. Efforts are already being made to amend the current pest control policy so that IPM will replace monthly applications of pesticide spray in Virginia public housing.
Publications
- No publications reported this period
|
|