Scientific report: "The awareness of people about the risks of plant protection drugs in vegetable production: case studies in Hanoi and Thai Binh" ppsx

J. Sci. Dev. 2009, 7 (Eng.Iss.1): 92 - 103 HA NOI UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE
92
People's perception of pesticide risks in vegetable
production :
a case studies in Hanoi city and Thai binh province
Nhận thức của người dân về rủi ro thuốc bảo vệ thực vật trong sản xuất rau:
Trường hợp nghiên cứu tại Hà Nội và Thái Bình
Do Kim Chung
1
, Kim Thi Dung
2

1
Faculty of Economics and Rural Development
2
Faculty of Accounting and Business Management
TÓM TẮT
Để đáp ứng nhu cầu ngày càng tăng về rau an toàn, việc đánh giá sự hiểu biết và nhận thức của
người sản xuất về rủi ro thuốc bảo vệ thực vật ngày càng được quan tâm, để từ đó, có biện pháp phù
hợp loại bỏ nguy cơ độc hại và giảm thiểu hàm lượng hoá chất trong sản phẩm. Vì vậy, nghiên cứu
này nhằm đánh giá nhận thức của người dân địa phương về rủi ro thuốc bảo vệ thực vật và hiện
trạng rủi ro về thuốc bảo vệ thực vật tới con người và môi trường ở các xã nghiên cứu điểm ở Hà Nội
và Thái Bình. Kết quả nghiên cứu chỉ rõ rủi ro thuốc bảo vệ thực vật là phổ biến ở các điểm nghiên
cứu. Tất cả những người sử dụng thuốc và cán bộ địa phương và cả những người bán thuốc bảo vệ
thực vật đều có nhận thức rõ ràng về rủi ro thuốc bảo vệ thực vật. Thuốc bảo vệ thực vật gây ra rủi ro
cho cả người và môi trường. Trong số những nhóm người chịu rủi ro thuốc bảo vệ thực vật, người
sử dụng thuốc là trung tâm. Lĩnh vực trọng yếu cần can thiệp để giảm thiểu rủi ro thuốc bảo vệ thực
vật không chỉ nâng cao kiến thức và kỹ năng quản lý rủi ro thuốc bảo vệ thực vật của người sử dụng
mà còn xây dựng và thực hiện cộng đồng tham gia giảm thiểu rủi thuốc BVTV nâng cao kiến thức về
thuốc BVTV và kỹ năng hướng dẫn người sử dụng.
Từ khoá: Nhận thức, rủi ro thuốc thuốc bảo vệ thực vật, rủi ro cho người và môi trường.

SUMMARY
To meet the growing demand for safe vegetables, there is an increasing need to examine
producers’ perception of pesticide risks so that suitable measures taken to eliminate use of
hazardous and persistent agro-chemicals can be drawn. With this regard, this paper aims at
examining local people’s perception of pesticide risks and the current status of human and
environmental risks caused by pesticides in the the selected distinct case studies of vegetable
production in Hanoi city and Thai Binh province. Findings indicate pesticide risks are prevailing
through the studied communes. All applicators, local staffs as well as pesticide sellers had clear
perceptions of pesticide risks. Pesticides caused risks to both human and environment. Among
pesticide risk groups, pesticide applicators were found as a focal point. Key areas for pesticide risk
reduction include not only improving applicators’ knowledge, skills in pesticide risk management, but
also development and enforcement of community-based pesticide risk reduction campaign and
improving pesticide sellers’ knowledge and skills in instructing applicators to use.
Key words: Human and environmental risks, pesticide risks, perception.
1. INTRODUCTION
Vietnam’s demands for safe vegetables are
growing due to 1) increasing size of population (85
millions of people); 2) high demands for vegetables
export and domestic market, 3) vegetables
considered as high-income induced commodities,
4) the food safety is most concerned by the
Vietnam’s society as the country grows, and 4)
People’s perception of pesticide risks in vegetable production
93
safe food standards increased as the country
became a WTO member in early 2007.
To meet the growing demands for safe
vegetables, there is an increasing need to examine
producers’ perception of pesticide risks so that
pesticide risk situations, their cause are identified

and suitable measures taken to eliminate use of
hazardous and persistent agro-chemicals can be
drawn. Most research studies in Vietnam were
conducted by Matteson (2001), Chung and Dung
(1996), Vietnam IPM Program (2007, 2008),
Centre for Women and Family Studies (1997) and
Chung and Pincus (1997) focusing mainly on
overall impacts of IPM rather than focused on
identify pesticide risks in agricultural production.
With this regard, this paper aims at examining
perception of pesticide risks and the current status
of human and environmental risks caused by
pesticides in the the selected distinct case studies of
vegetable production in Hanoi city and Thai Binh
province.
The overall objective of this paper is to 1)
examine local people’s perception of level of
pesticide risks to human and environment, their
causes and risk group; and 2) draw
recommendations for reducing pesticide risk to
those risk groups.
2. METHODS
This research was conducted in Dang Xa, Le
Chi communes in Hanoi city and Thai Giang and
Thuy Son in Thai Binh province. Hanoi city is a
major vegetable-producing region, whereas, Thai
Binh province is representative for an extreme rural
area. These locations are also representative for
areas with highly intensified farming where
pesticides risks to applicators are considerably

high. Farmers in Dang Xa and Le Chi communes
are growing cabbages while those in Thai Giang
and Thuy Son communes are producing melon
(Cucumis melon L, subsp. Melo var. conomon
(Thunb.) Makino). These vegetables are potential
for consumer risks (melon can be eaten in a fresh
form). The research covers an in-depth survey of
three samples including 96 community staffs, 251
pesticide applicators and 17 pesticide sellers (Table
1). These sampled respondents were asked to
express their perception of pesticide human and
environmental risk groups, status of human and
environmental risks and reasons for pesticides
causing these risks.
These in-depth surveys were conducted from
March to May 2008 incorporation with cause-effect
analysis with local people. Collected secondary and
primary data were re-checked, cleaned, edited and
analyzed. Then, a database was developed using
SPSS 15.0 for Windows. An analysis was done
through the help of the SPSS Software Version 14.
Descriptive statistical methods such as means,
standard deviation, frequencies and cross tab were
employed to describe the current situation of
people’s perception of risks.
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
3.1. People’s perception of pesticide risks to
human
3.1.1. Pesticide human risk groups
People’s perception of pesticide human risks

differed by type of respondents depending upon
their views on pesticide risks. The number of
respondents perceived that pesticides causes
risks to applicators were highest (96 to 100%),
followed by risks to people working nearby
spraying sites (50 to 70%), then, risks to
consumers (Table 2).
Table 1. Sample size by type of communes and type of respondents
Hanoi city Thai Binh province
Type of Respondent All
Dang Xa Le Chi All Thai Giang Thuy Son All
Community staffs 96 24 21 45 27 24 51
Pesticide Applicators 251 67 60 127 67 57 124
Do Kim Chung, Kim Thi Dung
94
Hanoi city Thai Binh province
Type of Respondent All
Dang Xa Le Chi All Thai Giang Thuy Son All
Pesticide sellers 17 6 4 10 4 3 7

Table 2. Respondents’ perception of human risks caused by pesticides
Hanoi city Thai Binh province
Criteria
All Dang Xa Le Chi All Thai Giang Thuy Son
1. Caused Risks to Applicators (%)
- Perceived by Community Staffs 100 100 100 100 100 100
- Perceived by Sellers 100 100 100 100 100 100
- Perceived by Applicators 96.1 97.0 95.0 98.4 98.2 98.5
2. Caused Risks to People Working nearby (%)
- Perceived by Community Staffs 70.5 70.8 70.0 68.9 66.7 70.4

- Perceived by Sellers 50.0 - - 57.1 - -
- Perceived by Applicators 61.4 61.2 61.7 58.9 59.7 57.1
3. Caused Risks to spraying Assistants (%)
- Perceived by Community Staffs 8.9 8.3 9.5 21.6 20.8 22.2
- Perceived by Sellers 30.0 - - 28.6 - -
- Perceived by Applicators 0.8 1.5 0 17.9 17.9 17.9
4. Caused Risks to Family Members (%)
- Perceived by Community Staffs 17.8 16.7 19.0 13.7 12.5 14.8
- Perceived by Sellers 50.0 - - 57.1 - -
- Perceived by Applicators 30.7 31.3 30.0 16.3 16.4 16.1
5. Caused Risks to Consumers (%)
- Perceived by Community Staffs 82.2 83.3 81.0 56.9 58.3 55.6
- Perceived by Sellers 70.0 - - 71.4 - -
- Perceived by Applicators 29.9 32.8 26.7 39.8 40.3 39.3
6. Caused risks to sellers (as % of seller perceived) 100 100 100 100 100 100
7. Caused risks to harvesters (as % of
applicators perceived)
24.4 25.4 23.3 16.9 17.9 15.8
Note:Figures in Table are percentages of respondents who perceived a particular human risk in total
respondents in the sub-sample.
The numbers of people who perceived that
pesticide caused risks to other groups were less
than those perceived by the applicator group.
Pesticide caused risks to people working nearby
and consumers much depend on behaviors of
applicators in using pesticides. The largest number
of respondents in all three groups perceiving of
applicator pesticide risks indicates that the target
group for pesticide risk reduction in vegetable
production is to focus on applicator group.

3.1.2. Levels of human risks
People’s perception of pesticide risks in vegetable production
95
The level of human risks was serious as
reported by 72% of local staffs and very serious
by 63% of applicators in both Hanoi city and Thai
Binh province (Table 3). Applicators were also
asked about whether they have felt uncomfortable
after spraying during the last cropping season.
There were 46% of them in Hanoi city and 65% of
those in Thai Binh province reported directly
suffered from pesticide risks (Table 4).
The situation of the health risk in Thai Binh
province appeared more serious than those in Hanoi
city. The most common symptoms of these risks
were headache and dizzy, much sweat perspiration
and heave up. About 25% of them in Thai Binh
province reported that they lost appetite when faced
pesticide risks (Table 4).
Table 3. Number of respondents by groups and levels of human risks and location
Levels of human risks All Hanoi city Thai Binh province
1. Levels reported by Community Staffs (%) 100 100 100
No serious 3.1 6.7 0
Little serious 13.5 13.3 13.7
Moderately Serious 11.5 24.4 0
Serious 71.9 55.6 86.3
2. Levels reported by Sellers (%)
Very serious 100 100 100
3. Levels reported by Applicators (%)
No serious 0.8 0 1.6

Little serious 8.4 3.1 13.7
Moderately Serious 27.9 55.1 0
Very Serious 62.9 41.7 84.7
Figures in Table are percentages of applicators reporting a particular level of human risks in total sampled
respondents.
Table 4. Applicators’ risk situation by location in 2008 cropping season
Hanoi city Thai Binh province
Risk Indicator
All Dang Xa Le Chi All Thai Giang Thuy Son
1. Applicators felt uncomfortable after spraying (%) 45.7 44.8 46.7 64.5 65.7 63.2
2. Applicators by poisoning symptoms
Headache and dizzy 79.3 73.3 85.7 95.0 95.5 94.4
Spasm in extremities 6.9 13.3 0 3.8 2.3 5.6
Much sweat perspiration, heave up 13.8 16.7 10.7 15.0 15.9 13.9
Lost appetite 8.6 10.0 7.1 6.3 6.8 5.6
Itch 5.2 0 10.7 25.0 25.0 25.0
Fever and low blood pressure 0 0 0 10.0 11.4 8.3
Feeling Sleepy 5.2 10.0 0 0 0 0
Feeling weary in one’ legs and hand 1.7 3.3 0 0 0 0
3. Seriousness of health situation (%)
Very serious 5.2 3.3 7.1 6.3 9.1 2.8
Serious 31.0 26.7 35.7 53.8 50.0 58.3
Little serious 63.8 70.0 57.1 40.0 40.9 38.9


Table 5. Number of times that applicators had to stopping working due to pesticide risks
Criteria All Hanoi city Thai Binh province
1. Averaged number of times that applicators had to stop working (time) 2.8 3.0 2.8
STD deviation 1.74 1.79 -
Number of applicators reported (person) 19 1 18

2. Number of lost working days due to pesticide risks 4.29 3.0 4.3
STD deviation 3.23 - 3.32
Do Kim Chung, Kim Thi Dung
96
Criteria All Hanoi city Thai Binh province
Number of applicators reported 17 1 17

There were 19 people or 7.5% of respondents
(18 in Thai Binh province) reported that they had to
stop their working at 2.8 times and lost about 4.3
working days (Table 5). There were 17 applicators
(6.8%) reported that their family members were
actually suffered from pesticide risks (15 in Thai
Binh province) during the last cropping season.
Group of people suffered from pesticide risks are
supporter, children, aged people and farm workers
(who did weeding after spraying). Although the
proportion of applicators who actually reported
facing risks were less than 8%, the situation in Thai
Binh province seems more serious than those in
Hanoi City.
3.1.3. Reasons for pesticides causing human risks
Main reasons causing pesticide risks to
applicators is due to the fact that applicators had
direct contacts with pesticides and had no or
insufficient protective equipment while using
pesticides (Table 6). People working nearby spraying
sites (weeding, harvesting, taking care domestic
animals (cows, buffaloes, ducks)) and spraying
assistants were suffered from pesticide risks due to

the fact that they got a sniff of polluted air caused
by pesticides, use polluted water discharged from
sprayed fields, working the newly sprayed fields
(Table 7). Pesticide risks to family members were
mainly explained by the fact that pesticides, their
containers, sprayers and supportive equipments
(protective equipments, baskets ect.) were closely
kept at home or nearby living places (Table 8).
Pesticides causing risks to harvesters and
consumers were mainly attributed by a wrong
application of pre-harvest interval (Table 9). Thus,
measures taken to reduce pesticide risks to
applicators, consumers, assistants, and people
working nearby spraying sites should focus on
improving applicators’ knowledge on pesticides,
pesticide use techniques, and treatment techniques
after spraying.
Table 6. Number of respondents by respondent groups and reasons for
pesticides causing risks to applicators
Reasons for pesticides caused risks to applicators All Hanoi city Thai Binh province
1. Reasons perceived by community staffs (person) 96 45 51
- Direct contact with pesticides (spraying, crop care) (%) 72.9 77.8 68.6
- No or insufficient protective equipment (%) 27.1 22.2 31.4
2. Reasons perceived by pesticide sellers (person) 17 10 7
- Direct contact with pesticides (spraying, crop care) (%) 58.8 50.0 71.4
- No or insufficient protective equipment (%) 41.2 50.0 28.6
3. Reasons perceived by applicators (person) 244 122 122
- Direct contact with pesticides (spraying, crop care) (%) 51.6 27.9 75.4
- No or insufficient protective equipment (%) 43.0 61.5 24.6
- Wrong spraying techniques (wrong pesticide, time) (%) 4.4 10.6 0

Note: %: percentages of respondents reporting a particular reasons causing risks to applicators in total
respondents who reported human risk.
Table 7. Number of respondents by respondent groups and reasons for
pesticides causing risks to people living and working nearby
Reason All Hanoi city Thai Binh province
1. Reasons perceived by community staffs (person) 66 31 35
Got a sniff of pesticide polluted air (%) 36.3 29.0 42.9
Used polluted water discharged from sprayed fields (%) 34.8 32.3 37.1
Working close with sprayed sites (%) 69.6 61.3 77.1
Working in the fields which is newly sprayed (%) 28.8 38.7 20.0
2. Reasons perceived by pesticide sellers (person) 9 5 4
People’s perception of pesticide risks in vegetable production
97
Reason All Hanoi city Thai Binh province
Got a sniff of pesticide polluted air (%) 33.3 20.0 50.0
Used polluted water discharged from sprayed fields (%) 66.7 100.0 25.0
Working close with sprayed sites (%) 44.4 20.0 75.0
Working in the fields which is newly sprayed (%) 33.3 40.0 25.0
3. Reasons perceived by applicators (person) 148 76 72
Got a sniff of pesticide polluted air (%) 72.3 98.7 44.4
Used polluted water discharged from sprayed fields (%) 43.2 17.1 70.8
Working close with sprayed sites (%) 42.6 39.5 45.8
Working in the fields which is newly sprayed (%) 41.9 44.7 38.9
Note: % percentages of respondents reporting a particular reasons causing risks to people working nearby in
total respondents who reported human risk
Note: Applicators reported multiple choices, other single choice only.
Table 8. Number of respondents by respondent groups and reasons for
pesticides causing risks to family members
Reason All Hanoi city Thai Binh province
1. Number of applicators perceived (person) 58 30 20

Close to pesticides kept at home (%) 51.2 52.6 50.0
Sprayers and containers kept close home (%) 81.0 76.3 90.0
2. Number of community staffs perceived (person) 15 8 7
Close to pesticides kept at home (%) 100.0 100.0 100.0
Sprayers and containers kept close home (%) 66.7 62.5 71.4
3. Number of sellers perceived (person) 10 6 4
Close to pesticides kept at home (%) 80.0 50.0 100.0
Sprayers and containers kept close home (%) 70.0 83.3 50.0
Note: %: Percentages of respondents reporting a particular reasons causing risks to family members in total
respondents who reported human risk
Table 9. Number of respondents by reasons for pesticides causing risks to harvesters and consumers
Criteria All Hanoi city Thai Binh province
1. Wrong pre-harvest intervals, pesticide remains in vegetable leaves
surface causing risks to harvesters (%)

Perceived by applicators 100 100 100
2. Wrong application of pre-harvest interval causing risk to consumers
Perceived by applicators (%) 100 100 100
Do Kim Chung, Kim Thi Dung
98
Criteria All Hanoi city Thai Binh province
Perceived by commune staffs (%) 100 100 100
Perceived by sellers (%) 100 100 100
Note:%: percentages of respondents who perceived a particular reasons for pesticide risks to harvesters or
consumers in total respondents who perceived that particular risk
3.2. Perception of environmental risks
3.2.1. Environmental risk groups
As indicated in Table 10, main environmental
risk groups as perceived by three sampled groups
include water, aquatic plants and animals, natural

enemies, domestic animals, air and land
resources. Pesticide caused risks to these
environmental elements differed among three
sampled groups.
However, water and aquatic resources were
considered as key environmental risk groups as
perceived by largest numbers of all three
sampled groups (Table 10).
Table 10. Respondents’ perception of environmental risks caused by pesticides
Hanoi city Thai Binh province
Criteria
All Dang Xa Le Chi All Thai Giang Thuy Son
1. Pesticide risk to water resources, aquatic animals,

plants (%)

Perceived by community Staffs 86.7 87.5 85.7 96.1 96.8 96.3
Perceived by sellers 100 - - 100 - -
Perceived by applicators 81.9 79.1 85.0 94.0 93.1 94.0
2. Pesticide risks to natural enemies (%)
Perceived by community staffs 28.9 29.2 28.6 29.4 29.2 29.6
Perceived by sellers - - - - - -
Perceived by applicators 31.0 40.3 20.3 24.2 35.8 10.5
3. Pesticide risks to domestic animals (%)
Perceived by community staffs 37.8 37.5 28.1 68.6 66.7 70.4
Perceived by sellers 0 - - 85.7 - -
Perceived by applicators 22.0 22.4 21.7 49.6 48.5 50.9
4. Pesticide risks to air resources (%)
Perceived by community staffs 66.7 70.8 61.9 62.7 62.5 63.0
Perceived by sellers 80 - - 100 - -

Perceived by applicators 52.0 61.2 41.7 32.3 34.3 29.8
5. Pesticide risk to land resources (%)
People’s perception of pesticide risks in vegetable production
99
Hanoi city Thai Binh province
Criteria
All Dang Xa Le Chi All Thai Giang Thuy Son
Perceived by community staffs 6.7 8.3 4.8 11.8 12.5 11.1
Perceived by sellers - - - - - -
Perceived by applicators 5.5 4.5 6.7 7.3 7.5 7.0
Note: Figures in Table are percentages of respondents who perceived a particular environmental risk in
total sub-sampled respondents reporting environmental risk.
3.2.2. Level of environmental risks
All respondents perceived that the level of
risks was serious. Applicators saw the situation
more serious than the local staffs did (Table 11).
Applicators expressed their perception of
environmental risks related to natural enemies, aquatic
resources and domestic animals (Table 12). The risks
to these environmental resources were reported at
moderately serious or serious levels. However, there
were only 7.2% or 18 applicators (7 in Hanoi city and
11 in Thai Binh province) reporting that in the 2008
crop season, their domestic animals were actually
affected by pesticide risks. Animal specifies
affected were cats, cows, buffaloes, dogs, and fish
and chicken. In Le Chi commune, Hanoi city,
several buffaloes were died due to eating pesticide
poisoned grasses and drinking poisoned water from
canals. Some families of Le Chi commune also lost

400-500 kg of fish due to polluted water discharged
from sprayed fields. In Thai Giang and Thuy Son
communes, Thai Binh province, many dogs, cats
have died due to eating rat baits
Table 11. Number of respondents by groups and levels of environmental risks and location
Levels of Environmental Risks All Hanoi city Thai Binh province
1. Levels reported by Community Staffs (%) 100 100 100
No serious 4.2 4.4 3.9
Little serious 11.5 15.6 7.8
Moderately Serious 13.5 28.9 0
Serious 70.8 51.1 88.2
Very Serious - - -
2. Levels reported by Applicators (%)
No serious 2.0 1.6 2.4
Little serious 7.6 2.4 12.9
Moderately Serious 29.5 58.3 0
Very Serious 61.0 37.8 84.7
Figures in Table are percentages of respondents reporting a particular level of environmental risks in total
respondents who reported environmental risks
Table 12. Number of applicators by groups, environmental risk levels and location
Criteria All Hanoi city Thai Binh province
1. Risk levels of losing natural enemies
Little serious 5.8 7.7 3.3
Moderately serious 42.0 38.5 46.7
Serious 47.8 51.3 43.3
Very serious 4.3 2.6 6.7
2. Levels of aquatic resources affected
Do Kim Chung, Kim Thi Dung
100
Criteria All Hanoi city Thai Binh province

No serious 0.5 0 0.9
Little serious 17.0 34.3 0.9
Moderately serious 26.9 44.1 10.9
Serious 39.6 17.6 60.0
Very serious 16.0 3.9 27.3
3. Levels of domestic animals affected
Little serious 12.2 28.6 4.8
Moderately serious 55.6 42.9 61.3
Serious 31.1 25.0 33.9
Very serious 1.1 3.6 0
Figures in Table are percentages of applicators reporting a particular level of environmental risks in total
sampled applicators
3.2.3. Reasons for pesticides causing environmental
risks
Main reasons for pesticides causing risks to
aquatic resources as reported by majority of
respondents in three sampled groups are
applicators’ cleaning sprayers at ponds, and
canals, improper disposal of containers (Table 13).
The situations between Hanoi city and Thai Binh
province are identical.
Pesticide risks to natural enemies were mainly
attributed by direct effects from pesticide
containers as indicated by the largest number of
local staffs and applicators who have perceived of
this risk. There were only local staffs and
applicators perceiving of reasons for pesticides
causing risks to natural enemies (Table 14).
Table 13. Number of respondents by groups and reasons for
pesticides causing risks to water resource, aquatic plants and animals

Reason All Hanoi city Thai Binh province
1. Reasons perceived by community staffs (%)
Cleaning sprayers at ponds, canals 35.2 43.6 28.6
Direct affected by sprayings 1.1 0 2.0
Throw away pesticide containers 61.4 56.4 65.3
Pesticide polluted water discharged from sprayed fields 2.3 0 4.1
2. Reasons perceived by pesticide sellers (%)
Cleaning sprayers at ponds, canals 35.3 40.0 28.6
Direct affected by sprayings -
Throw away pesticide containers 64.7 60.0 71.4
3. Reasons perceived by applicators* (%)
Cleaning sprayers at ponds, canals 35.0 38.5 34.5
Direct affected by sprayings - - -
Throw away pesticide containers 54.7 54.8 54.5
Pesticide polluted water discharged from sprayed fields 8.9 6.7 11.0
Note:Figures in Table are percentages of respondents reporting a particular reasons causing risks to water
resources, aquatic plant and animals in total respondents who reported aquatic resource risk
*: Applicators reported multiple choices, other groups reported single choice only.
People’s perception of pesticide risks in vegetable production
101
Table 14. Number of respondents by groups and reasons for
resticides causing risks to natural enemies
Reason All Hanoi city Thai Binh province
1. Reasons rerceived by community Staffs (%)
Cleaning sprayers at ponds, canals 21.4 0 40.0
Direct affected by sprayings 71.4 84.6 60.0
Throw away pesticide containers 7.1 15.4 0
2. Reasons perceived by applicators (%)
Cleaning sprayers at ponds, canals 2.9 0 6.7
Direct affected by sprayings 47.8 38.4 83.3

Throw away pesticide containers 4.3 0 10.0
Overuse of pesticides, high toxic pesticides 17.4 30.8 0
Figures in Table are percentages of respondents reporting a particular reason causing risks to natural enemies
in total respondents who perceived of natural enemy risks
Domestic animals such as cows, buffaloes,
pigs, dogs, cats, chickens, ducks and other
aquatic poultry were suffered from pesticide
risks by: 1) eating poisoned feeds, 2) drinking
poisoned water, 3) using baskets which were
used for making pesticide compounds for feeding
domestic animals as reported by most local staffs
and pesticide applicators (Table 15). Main
factors causing risks to air resource were air
dispersion. Those to land resource were pesticide
diffusion, leaching and water discharged from
the sprayed fields
Table 15. Number of respondents by groups and reasons for
pesticides causing risks to domestic animals
Reason All Hanoi city Thai Binh province
1. Reasons perceived by community staffs (%)
- Cleaning sprayers at ponds, canals 3.8 11.8 0
- Direct affected by sprayings 5.8 0 5.6
- Throwing away pesticide containers 11.5 35.3 0
- Eating poisoned grass, drinking polluted water 78.8 52.9 81.4
2. Reasons perceived by pesticide sellers (person-reports)
- Cleaning sprayers at ponds, canals - - 83.3
- Throwing away pesticide containers -
- Eating poisoned grass, drinking polluted water - - 16.7
Do Kim Chung, Kim Thi Dung
102

Reason All Hanoi city Thai Binh province
3. Reasons perceived by applicators (%)
- Cleaning sprayers at ponds, canals 32.2 32.1 32.3
- Direct affected by sprayings 20.0 25.0 17.7
- Throwing away containers 12.2 7.1 14.5
- Eating poisoned grass soon after spraying 82.2 50.0 96.8
- Reuse of pesticide compounding baskets for feeding 38.9 46.4 35.5
Figures in Table are percentages of respondents reporting a particular reason causing risks to domestic animals
in total respondents who reported pesticide domestic animal risk.
Note: Applicators reported multiple reasons, other single reason only.
3.3. Focal risk group
Through analyzing the causes of pesticide risks
to human and environment, and question arisen is that
among these risk groups, which group is a target for
making an intervention for pesticide risk reduction.
Based on logical consequences, results of cause and
effect analysis with local people, applicator group
was found to be focal point affecting pesticide risks
to other risk groups (Diagram 1). The Diagram 1
shows that main reason for causing risks to both
human and environmental groups is the fact that
applicators lack of knowledge on pesticides,
improper pesticide use techniques. Thus, any
intervention to reduce pesticide risks should focus on
pesticide applicator group
Diagram 1. Human and environmental risk groups and main reasons for resticide risks

Risks to consumers due to
wrong pre-harvest interval
Risks to family members
due to pesticides and
containers, sprayers kept close
living place
Risks to assistants due to
polluted air and direct contact
with pesticides
Risks to people working
nearby due to getting sniff of
polluted, close to newly
sprayed fields
Risks to applicators due to
direct contact with pesticides

without or insufficient
protective equipments
Applicators: lacks of
knowledge on pesticides,
improper pesticide use,
unused and container
treatment
Risks to aquatic resource due
to cleaning sprayers, throwing
away unused pesticides and
containers at ponds, canals
Risks to domestic animals due
to eating poisoned feed, water,
reuse pesticide compounding
baskets for feeding
Risks to natural enemies
due to
direct affected by spraying,
cleaning sprayers, throw way
disposal and pesticide overuse
Risks to land and air resources

due to air dispersion, leaching,
water discharged
HUMAN RISKS ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS
People’s perception of pesticide risks in vegetable production
103

Source: Results from Cause-Effect Analyses with Local People
The Diagram 1 shows that main reason for
causing risks to both human and environmental
groups is the fact that applicators lack of
knowledge on pesticides, improper pesticide use
techniques. Thus, any intervention to reduce
pesticide risks should focus on pesticide applicator
group.
4. CONCLUSION AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
Pesticide risks are prevailing through the
studied communes. All applicators, local staffs as
well as pesticide sellers had clear perceptions of
pesticide risks. Pesticides caused risks to both
human (people working nearby, assistants, family
members as well as consumers) and environment
(aquatic and land resources, domestic animals and
natural enemies). Among pesticide risk groups,
pesticide applicators were found as a focal point
that may influence pesticide risks to all others. Key
areas of high pesticide risks to applicators were: 1)
improper pesticide use techniques and wrong pre-
harvest intervals; 2) no use or insufficient protective
equipment; 3) throw away unused pesticides and
containers; and 4) placing sprayers and supportive

equipment at close to living places or animal sheds.
The above findings indicate that any
intervention to reduce pesticide risks should focus
on pesticide applicator’s group. However, due to
applicator behaviors much depend on collective
action of the community and sellers instruction, key
areas for pesticide risk reduction include not only
improving applicators’ knowledge, skills in
pesticide risk management, but also development
and enforcement of community-based pesticide risk
reduction campaign and improving pesticide
sellers’ knowledge and skills in instructing
applicators to use. In order to reduce pesticide risks
to human and environment, there is a need to
enforce a community based pesticide risk reduction
campaign. Its should include 1) formation of
farmers’ interest groups for pesticide risk reduction;
2) Information dissemination on government
regulations on pesticide trade and use, safe
vegetable production, effects of pesticides to
human and environment; 3) Development and
enforcement of local regulations on pesticide trade,
particular places for cleaning sprayers and used
equipments, keeping unused pesticides and
containers, Constructing tanks for keeping
containers, rational treatment of collected
containers; warning posters for sprayed fields.
REFERENCES
Chung, D. K. and Dung, K. T., (1996). Pest
Management in Rice Production in Vietnam: A

socio-economic Assessment, A research funded
by IDRC through International Rice Research
Institute (IRRI), Manila
Chung, D. K. and Pincus, J. (1997). Progress
Report on Micro-economic Study of IPM and
Rice Farming Chuong My District, Ha Tay
Province, Vietnam, First Season 1996, Vietnam
IPM Program in Collaboration with FAO
Intercountry Program for IPM in Rice in South
and Southeast Asia, Hanoi city
Matteson, Patricia, (2001). Vietnam Experience:
Strengths and Challenges/Weakness of Different
Approaches to IPM Evaluation in Proceedings
Regional Workshop on IPM Impact Assessment
Methods in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, 25-31
March, 2001 organised by FAO - EU Integrated
Pest Management Program for Cotton in Asia.
Pincus, J., (1996). The Impact of IPM Farmers
Field Schools on Farmers Cultivation Practices
in Their Own Fields, A Report Submitted to the
Do Kim Chung, Kim Thi Dung
104
FAO Intercountry Program for Community IPM
in Asia, University of London
Vietnam National IPM Program, (2007). IPM
Program: an Overview, Hanoi city.
Vietnam Nation IPM Program, (2008).
Community-based Training Program on
Pesticide Risk Reduction in Safe Vegetable
Production with Good Agricultural Practices

Orientation
Centre for Women and Family Studies (1997).
Impacts of IPM Farmer Field Schools in
Vietnam, A Report Submitted to the FAO
Intercountry Program for Community IPM in
Asia, Hanoi.