Introduction
Managing pests and unwanted competition in the natural cycle of life means using different strategies to achieve the desired outcome. Some approaches entail pesticides, among other risky chemical applications, which, while practical, present other complications for people, animals, and the environment. The introduction of integrated pest management (IPM) deters the use of such dangerous strategies in favor of more eco-friendly, preventive, and long-term ways. The decision on which strategy to apply depends on the political, economic, and social structures and policies facing the person or group. The goal herein is to analyze the theory of IPM and its application concerning how organizational, societal, and individual disparities and similarities affect decisions using science.
They Say
The theory of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) has a foundation of environmental sensitivity while offering effectiveness in achieving the desired outcome. IPM relies on scientific information and pest control methods to ensure fewer costs and hazardous effects. The first step is to identify the pest, determine if it is harmful, and estimate how big of a problem it could become in the future. The second step is to target the harmful pest with the best approach, the least toxic, most economical, and environmentally friendly strategy that offers longevity and safety. The final step is to evaluate the outcome to identify unforeseen risks and confirm the effectiveness of the strategy chosen for the endeavor.
Disparities Create Challenges
The goal is to get more people and groups involved in controlling pests and unwanted organisms toward an IPM continuum. Organizations and individuals continue to conduct IPM as a form of sustainable agriculture, focusing on agrarian circles. Analyzing the social and behavioral science behind this trend shows reduced pesticide use and an improvement in environmental and human health issues of the past. Unfortunately, chemical control still forms a large part of pest control. Individual farmers in cultures and societies where agriculture is a significant economic activity offer some resistance to changes brought by IPM due to instances of ineffectiveness and unacceptable outcomes. The definition of unwanted competitors and pests depends on the individual’s context. The failure of the responsible institutes to create more awareness of the ecological function of agroecosystems has led to misinformation about IPM strategies.
Similarities Offer Solutions
An IPM program must match the setting so it gets applied suitably. There needs to be more streamlining to ensure the standardization of IPM applications for more success. With more political goodwill comes formulation and implementation policies supporting further IPM innovations from organizational to individual settings. The economic factor of insufficient funds for research should become a thing of the past as government support means advancing IPM to meet the needs of modern-day challenges. More success on those fronts would yield better outcomes during trial periods, thus positively affecting social factors and individual perspectives. The result is the development of a social structure for IPM development and information dissemination to enforce good decision-making, resulting in more effectiveness.
I Say
Applying IPM strategies is not the solution to all issues affecting pest management in all settings. Variations lead to different results and ineffectiveness in some instances. Such setbacks manifesting in individual isolated setups are an excuse to abandon the practice and opt for more environmentally hazardous ways. As aforementioned, political goodwill promises better policies and mandates based on informed research is critical to countering these shortcomings. The funding of research institutes produces standardized information that reduces variations and increases the chances of acceptability for newer methodologies. Adopting natural methods means an eco-friendly response that keeps people, including myself, safe and risk-free against the adverse effects of hazardous chemicals.
The challenge mentioned above of most applications centrally relying on chemical control is that this approach emphasizes pests and other unwanted competitors, while ignoring organisms that offer value. Through the evolution of human needs, non-human organisms continue to bear the brunt of some approaches used. The result has been the extermination of some species and the adverse contribution of a less diverse planet than the one found.
Conservation of the environment for future societies and non-human organisms should be part of the information disseminated on why IPM is the best alternative. I would be more inclined to align with IPM changes because they offer holistic benefits to the environment, organisms in the environment, and the people. Social factors would also align with IPM changes since they promise balance in the ecosystem by eradicating harmful pests without affecting non-pest organisms.
Conclusion
The argument for IPM approaches offers more positives for humans, animals, and the environment. It requires identifying the problem, targeting the pest with the most suitable strategy, and evaluating the result. Unfortunately, the hindrances to applying this theory span social, political, and economic factors. Resistance due to failure and lack of context on the benefits led to the stagnation of IPM applications. Fortunately, it is possible to get things back on track with more standardization of policies, data, and information to guarantee organizations’ and individuals’ success. While the argument is pest management, there needs to be more thought towards conserving the organisms that offer value. It is the best way to ensure that the planet left behind for the next generation is not worse than it is today.