Table 3.
Ratings by region for the most important themes of obstacles to IPM adoption in developing countries
| Code* | Importance |
Difficulty |
||||||||
| HIC | Asia | LAC | SSA | P value† | HIC | Asia | LAC | SSA | P value† | |
| FRM | 3.04 | 2.96 | 3.26 | 3.03 | 0.011 | 2.70 | 2.76 | 2.95 | 2.75 | 0.030 |
| PST | 3.45 | 3.31 | 3.65 | 3.28 | 0.001 | 2.99 | 3.00 | 3.38 | 2.77 | 0.000 |
| IPM | 3.11 | 3.04 | 3.21 | 3.14 | 0.163 | 2.79 | 2.73 | 2.84 | 2.63 | 0.089 |
| OUT | 3.31 | 2.70 | 3.07 | 3.21 | 0.000 | 2.80 | 2.25 | 2.35 | 2.50 | 0.000 |
| RCH | 3.10 | 2.71 | 3.02 | 3.11 | 0.000 | 2.59 | 2.22 | 2.34 | 2.26 | 0.000 |
| INC | 3.36 | 3.35 | 3.53 | 3.44 | 0.205 | 2.76 | 3.10 | 3.00 | 2.85 | 0.006 |
HIC, high-income countries; LAC, Latin America and the Caribbean; SSA, sub-Saharan Africa.
*
The statistical significance of the importance and difficulty of an obstacle according to rating by region was derived through multiple regression analyses using sex, education and field of expertise as covariates. Larger P values suggest greater agreement across regions.
†
The letter coding describes six obstacle themes: FMR, farmer weaknesses; INC, weak adoption incentives; IPM, IPM weaknesses; OUT, outreach weaknesses; PST, pesticide industry interference; RCH, research weaknesses.