Assessing the Value of IPM in Virginia Public Housing

Investigators:

Abstract: The goal of this project is to change pest management practices in Virginia public housing from monthly pesticide applications to IPM. In 2002, I conducted a research project designed to answer the question, "What is the cost of IPM?" Many researchers had speculated that IPM would be initially more expensive than monthly pesticide treatments but that the cost would decline as pest populations decreased. However, no dollar figure was ever put on these costs. A year-long study comparing the costs (and efficacy) of IPM to monthly spray applications was conducted in Portsmouth public housing. We concluded that IPM was far more effective at killing cockroaches, but the cost was significantly higher ($4.06/ per unit per month) than that of spray applications ($1.50 per unit per month). In 2005, we conducted a face-to-face survey of public housing residents to introduce them to the IPM concept and benefits. We then asked how much they would value an IPM program. Of 816 respondents, 462 indicated that they would pay an additional $11.32 (average) per month for IPM. These responses indicated that public housing residents did value a superior, reduced toxicity method of pest control. In fact, most placed more value on IPM than the actual cost of the program ($4.06). In 2006, a cost/benefit analysis will be conducted, which will weigh the IPM cost data, and the resident response data, against a risk assessment. A policy brief will be presented to the Virginia division of Housing and Urban Development and other interested parties, in an attempt to interest those individuals in adopting an IPM policy in place of the standard practice of accepting low-bidder pest control.

Description:

Poor sanitation contributes to continual cockroach problems in public housing. Many residents are children or elderly and sensitive to bronchial contaminants. Pesticide sprays are the primary method of cockroach control in public housing because sprays are inexpensive. Yet, environmental costs may be significant. Concerns about health risks associated with pesticides have stimulated interest in the use of IPM for cockroach control. It has been assumed that IPM is too expensive to use in public housing, but the benefits (reduced insecticide use and lower cockroach numbers) may offset the costs. Most public housing residents are unaware of the benefits of IPM. So we conducted a survey to introduce them to IPM and asked them to assess its value. A total of 816 face-to-face surveys were conducted in Portsmouth, Charlottesville, and Roanoke public housing. Surveyors introduced residents to the IPM concept, informing them how IPM might improve the quality of their home. Residents were asked how much additional rent they would be willing to pay for IPM. After learning about IPM, 462 respondents indicated that they would be willing to pay an additional $11.32 (average) per month for IPM. Some residents (140) would not pay, because they could not afford to. These residents indicated that IPM had value, but that the housing authority should pay for IPM. It was interesting to note that half (429) of the residents indicated that someone in their household had respitory problems; 224 responded that someone in the home went to the hospital for breathing difficulty within the last two years.

Commodities:

Resources:

Disciplines: Urban

Audiences: Environmental Groups, Extension Agents, Government Agencies, Graduate Students, Homeowners, Local Governments, Researchers, Teachers