Abstract
BACKGROUND
Integrated pest management (IPM) is the primary global crop protection paradigm. Based around a broad range of techniques, it is a framework for the management of pests (animal pests, weeds, diseases) with the reduction of pesticides as a core function. For policy, research and technological stakeholders to effectively assess and support IPM programmes, it is necessary to quantify adoption at the farm level. This study quantifies adoption in four temperate countries (Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland and England) and explores potential influence from the wider systemic landscape. Quantification is through the application of a peer-reviewed horticultural IPM metric.
RESULTS
The average IPM score for the four countries analysed was 58 of 100 (range 5–100). Growers from England averaged highest (64 of 100) and displayed strong levels of adoption of the core IPM practices, suggesting that there are elements within the IPM landscape in England contributing to the systemic supports required for higher adoption at the farm level.
CONCLUSION
This exploratory study is the first to apply a universal metric for horticulture to a multinational dataset. The assessment of results on a regional basis allows for the comparison of IPM adoption from national to farm level, establishing a transferable framework for longitudinal benchmarking. We conclude that the overarching operational realm in which growers function has the potential to positively influence how IPM is adopted in the field and that the context most favourable to success is informed and cognizant about IPM motivations and limitations at the grower level. © 2026 The Author(s). Pest Management Science published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society of Chemical Industry.
Integrated pest management (IPM) is the primary global crop protection paradigm. Based around a broad range of techniques, it is a framework for the management of pests (animal pests, weeds, diseases) with the reduction of pesticides as a core function. For policy, research and technological stakeholders to effectively assess and support IPM programmes, it is necessary to quantify adoption at the farm level. This study quantifies adoption in four temperate countries (Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland and England) and explores potential influence from the wider systemic landscape. Quantification is through the application of a peer-reviewed horticultural IPM metric.
RESULTS
The average IPM score for the four countries analysed was 58 of 100 (range 5–100). Growers from England averaged highest (64 of 100) and displayed strong levels of adoption of the core IPM practices, suggesting that there are elements within the IPM landscape in England contributing to the systemic supports required for higher adoption at the farm level.
CONCLUSION
This exploratory study is the first to apply a universal metric for horticulture to a multinational dataset. The assessment of results on a regional basis allows for the comparison of IPM adoption from national to farm level, establishing a transferable framework for longitudinal benchmarking. We conclude that the overarching operational realm in which growers function has the potential to positively influence how IPM is adopted in the field and that the context most favourable to success is informed and cognizant about IPM motivations and limitations at the grower level. © 2026 The Author(s). Pest Management Science published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society of Chemical Industry.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Number of pages | 12 |
| Journal | Pest Management Science |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 26 Mar 2026 |
UN SDGs
This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
-
SDG 2 Zero Hunger
-
SDG 3 Good Health and Well-being
-
SDG 12 Responsible Consumption and Production
-
SDG 15 Life on Land
Keywords
- IPM
- horticulture
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Measure to Manage – an Integrated Pest Management Metric for Horticulture'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver