Table 1.
Frequencies of 51 unique obstacles to IPM adoption in developing countries discovered by reviewing 413 free-listed statements on obstacles
| Code* | Obstacle | Frequency |
| OUT-1 | Insufficient training and technical support to farmers | 53 |
| INC-1 | Lack of favorable government policies and support | 39 |
| FMR-1 | Farmers have low levels of education and literacy | 22 |
| IPM-1 | IPM too difficult to implement compared with conventional management with pesticides | 18 |
| PST-1 | Powerful influence of pesticide industry | 16 |
| INC-2 | Shortage of funding for IPM, especially long-term funding | 16 |
| OUT-2 | Limited access to IPM inputs, like resistant cultivars and biopesticides | 15 |
| OUT-3 | Limited access to IPM extension publications and knowledge | 13 |
| IPM-2 | Costs of IPM are much more apparent than benefits | 13 |
| FMR-2 | Farmers uninterested in changing habitual management practices | 11 |
| OUT-4 | IPM too difficult to explain and understand | 10 |
| RCH-1 | Shortage of interinstitutional collaboration in IPM; e.g., between universities and private sector | 9 |
| OUT-5 | Shortage of well-qualified IPM experts | 9 |
| FMR-3 | Farmers are too risk averse | 8 |
| IPM-3 | IPM requires collective action within farming community | 8 |
| INC-3 | Lack of market incentives for farmers to adopt IPM, consumers want high quality at lowest price | 8 |
| RCH-2 | Insufficient IPM research | 7 |
| IPM-4 | IPM too expensive | 7 |
| RCH-3 | IPM research poorly oriented to needs of farmers | 7 |
| OUT-6 | Shortage of IPM training programs in universities and other training institutions | 7 |
| OUT-7 | Lack of IPM guidelines for many pests and diseases, both old and emerging | 6 |
| PST-2 | Pesticides promoted too heavily by salespeople | 5 |
| OUT-8 | Shortage of IPM guidelines focused on crop health instead of specific pests | 5 |
| IPM-5 | Shortage of practices and products as effective as chemical pesticides | 5 |
| OUT-9 | Shortage of well-qualified extensionists | 5 |
| IPM-6 | Conventional management with pesticides responds well to needs of farmers | 4 |
| OUT-10 | Farmers unaware of IPM | 4 |
| FMR-4 | Farmers have limited understanding of unintended effects of pesticides | 4 |
| IPM-8 | IPM too labor-intensive | 4 |
| IPM-7 | IPM unsuitable for smallholder agriculture because farmers grow too many crops, each demanding unique IPM program | 4 |
| RCH-4 | Shortage of interdisciplinary collaboration in IPM; e.g., between pathologists and rural sociologists | 4 |
| PST-3 | Access to pesticides too easy and unrestricted in rural areas | 3 |
| IPM-10 | Farmers become disillusioned with IPM because experts overestimate its benefits | 3 |
| IPM-11 | IPM combines many practices but farmers want just the single best | 3 |
| OUT-13 | IPM extension publications are difficult to understand for farmers | 3 |
| OUT-11 | Poor understanding of mechanisms behind successful extension programs | 3 |
| OUT-12 | Shortage of pest identification services | 3 |
| IPM-9 | Benefits of pesticides are much more apparent than their negative effects | 3 |
| RCH-6 | Experts underestimate legitimate role of pesticides in IPM | 2 |
| IPM-12 | Farmers cannot make IPM priority, have more important problems to address | 2 |
| RCH-7 | Insufficient attention to biological control | 2 |
| RCH-8 | Insufficient attention to host plant resistance | 2 |
| RCH-5 | Insufficient attention to participatory methods | 2 |
| IPM-13 | IPM not very effective when pest populations are very high | 2 |
| RCH-9 | Many IPM recommendations are not evidence-based or research-based | 2 |
| PST-4 | Weak regulation of pesticide industry | 2 |
| RCH-10 | Insufficient attention to cultural practices, like crop rotations and intercropping | 1 |
| RCH-12 | Insufficient attention to decision-support tools | 1 |
| RCH-13 | Insufficient attention to gender issues | 1 |
| RCH-11 | Insufficient attention to traditional and local knowledge | 1 |
| OUT-14 | IPM guidelines not location-specific | 1 |
Twenty-five of the 413 free-listed statements were omitted due to incompleteness, incomprehensibility, or other errors.
*
Letter coding describes the key themes grouping the obstacles: FMR, farmer weaknesses; INC, weak adoption incentives; IPM, IPM weaknesses; OUT, outreach weaknesses; PST, pesticide industry interference; RCH, research weaknesses. The numbers refer to the rank order of the statement within its group (i.e., lower numbers indicate greater frequency).