REDESIGNING PEST MANAGEMENT: A SOCIAL ECOLOGY APPROACH
Stuart B. Hill1
SUMMARY. Social ecology provides a broad framework for critically examining the theory and
practice of pest management, and the institutional and psychosocial contexts within which all theories and
practices are developed and implemented. Such an analysis finds most current theories and practices
seriously wanting, but also reveals extensive opportunities for innovation and improvement. The greatest
need is for a shift in emphasis from a responsive, symptom-based, linear approach based on biocides and
their substitutes to a proactive, holistic approach based on knowledge-intensive, ecosystem design and
redesign, and whole systems management (based particularly on the further development of cultural
controls). Although this will require broader parallel changes within individuals and throughout society,
significant improvement can be made by focusing on small achievable initiatives and their public
celebration to facilitate their spread. The developments in pest management being proposed here are
regarded as one expression of the ongoing psychosocial evolution of our species.
KEYWORDS. Change, cultural controls, ecosystem, holistic, pest management; psychosocial, redesign,
social ecology; sustainability, systems.
_____________________________________________________________________
INTRODUCTION
The main aim of this paper is to encourage all engaged in pest management, from producers to
policy makers, to be more comprehensive and responsible in considering the consequences of choice of
ecosystem design and patterns of management (including pest management), decision-making processes
and specific actions (and inaction). Unfortunately, these areas are commonly characterized by
unexamined assumptions, lack of critical thought, and associated narrow habitual (often defensive)
patterns of thinking, deciding and acting (Hill, Vincent, and Chouinard, 1999). Consequently, in addition
to the many negative consequences of our dominant pest control practices, there are also numerous
opportunities for improving pest management. Failure to openly engage in this type of reflection and
associated transformative change at this time will certainly disadvantage future generations (Clements
and Shrestha, 2002).
As our species continues to evolve psychosocially (Huxley, 1952; 1964), we must be open to
progressive changes in our values, understandings, designs and relationships. This includes the design of
managed ecosystems, our perception of their functions, our attitude towards pests, and the actions taken
and tools used to manage them. This evolutionary process is challenging us to move on from a situation
in which ecosystem designs are highly simplified, and management decisions are primarily concerned
with inputs and externally imposed controls. It is currently common for management decisions in
agriculture to be based primarily on productivity, sales and profits. Pests are invariably regarded as
enemies to be detected and managed or eliminated, primarily by means of biocides developed by, and
under the advice of, technical experts [biocide is used here in preference to pesticide because the latter
term incorrectly implies specificity, which is not possible in situations such as this where the target is
defined primarily by its economic and not its biological properties]. Within this context, most progress in
pest control has focused on using biocides more efficiently, and on substituting less impacting
interventions, such as biological controls and, more recently, genetically manipulated crops and
biocontrols (which bring a new set of problems that will not be discussed here). Despite the progress that
has been made, it is important to realize that such strategies tend to divert our attention from those causes
of pest outbreaks that are related to the design of agroecosystems, and they condemn producers to the
recurring costs of purchasing curative control products and services. In contrast, design strategies to pest
management have the potential to remove the causes of outbreaks and, in some cases, to do this
1
Foundation Chair of Social Ecology, School of Social Ecology and Lifelong Learning, University of
Western Sydney-Hawkesbury Campus, Locked Bag 1797, Penrith South Distribution Centre, NSW 1797,
Australia
Redes-Pest-Manag Ver 2
1
permanently without recurrent costs (Hill and MacRae, 1995; Hill, Vincent, and Chouinard, 1999;
MacRae et al., 1989a).
SOCIAL ECOLOGY AS A FRAMEWORK FOR IMPROVING PEST MANAGEMENT
Social ecology (SE) can support this project by helping us to systematically examine our history,
our dominant modes of thinking and acting, the contexts in which we are operating, and the range of
future choices available to us and their possible consequences. Also, SE can provide a framework for
effectively implementing desirable change. Although there is some overlap with the term 'human
ecology', SE's explicit link with values and situation improvement distinguishes it from that more neutral
field of study. Indeed, some regard the holistic and progressive nature of SE approaches as expressions of
emerging next steps in our ongoing psychosocial evolution (Bookchin, 1995; Hill, 1999).
Julian Huxley (1964) was one of the first people to use the term social ecology. SE has evolved
considerably, however, since his limited perception of it as "man's [sic] social relations, both within and
between human societies". Today there are as many perceptions of SE as there are academic programs
(of which there are still very few), and among staff and students within them the emphasis usually varies
quite widely. The name most associated with SE is Murray Bookchin, who established the first degrees
in this meta-field at Goddard College in Vermont in the 1970s. Bookchin is an anarchist who has argued
passionately in many books (e.g., 1980, 1982, 1986, 1996) and on many public platforms for local
participatory control over local affairs, for a more caring relationship with nature and one another, and for
the dismantling of most centralized bureaucracies. Due partly to his willingness to take a stand where
others have vacillated and postponed, he has also attracted much opposition, even resulting in books with
titles like "Beyond Bookchin" (Watson, 1996) and "Social Ecology After Bookchin" (Light, 1998; this
book includes numerous references to the broad literature on SE). My own definition of SE as the study
of the theory and practice of holistic and integrated approaches to personal, social and environmental
health, sustainability and change, based on the critical application and integration of ecological,
humanistic, community and 'spiritual' values (Hill, 1999) evolved through my association with the SE
group at the University of Western Sydney-Hawkesbury in Australia. Here, I take 'sustainability' to mean
the rehabilitation and maintenance of systems in a healthy condition; ‘society’ to embrace all of the
institutional structures and processes that characterise cultures, including but not priviledging economics
(any more than politics, education, technology, business or religion -- all being, in a sense, “tools” to
enable us to act on our values); ‘change’ to be preferentially concerned with development and situation
improvement within whole systems (with an emphasis on whole persons, equity across time, space and
sector, and social justice); and ‘spiritual’ to refer to the vast unknowness, mystery and wonder that is
always present and that must be taken into account and engaged with (by trying to impose structures on
the unknown, most religions have paradoxically become barriers to effective engagement in this area).
The importance of acknowledging the extent of this unknowness when designing resource management
systems was well recognized by Andre Voisin (1959), one of the great pioneers of agroecosystem design,
and the ‘father’ of rotational grazing. Thus, within a SE framework, all initiatives and interventions,
including those in pest management, must be tested for their appropriateness against such a list of criteria.
A preliminary attempt to formalize these is provided in Table 1. While acknowledging that acting on
these ‘testing questions’ fully at this particular time in our history would present many challenges, few
would argue that the world would not be improved by doing so. Hence the challenge is to recognize and
act on the changes that can be made in this direction under whatever contextual conditions one is
operating.
Clearly most present pest control practices would fail most of these testing questions. On the other
hand, if we were to take a systems-design or redesign approach to solving our pest problems it would
soon become clear that both the opportunities and benefits (within this broader framework of evaluation)
would be extensive. Thus, by crossing boundaries, thinking ‘outside of the box’ and integrating the
knowledge bases of the arts and sciences, especially philosophy, psychology, sociology and ecology, and
being open to working across difference and also with the unknown as well as the known (always keeping
in mind that the 'known' is always provisional and a very small fraction of what is), SE can help us to
extend our thinking and provide a more critical framework for analysis, the development of more
effective approaches, and wiser decision-making and action. SE is particularly concerned with deepening
Redes-Pest-Manag Ver 2
2
our understanding, and working with change that is life affirming, progressive, and personally, socially
and ecologically sustainable (Hill, 1999).
TABLE 1. Testing questions for evaluating social ecology pest management initiatives (all of these could be
evaluated qualitatively and quantitatively).
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Personal
Does it support: empowerment, awareness, creative visioning, values clarification, acquisition of essential
literacies and competencies, responsibility, wellbeing and health maintenance, vitality and spontaneity
(building & maintaining personal capital – personal sustainability)?
Does it support: caring, loving, responsible, mutualistic, negentropic relationships with diverse others
(valuing equity & social justice), other species, place and planet (home & ecosystem maintenance)?
Does it support: positive total life-cycle personal development and ‘progressive’ change?
Socio-Political
Does it support: accessible, collaborative, responsible, creative, celebrational, life- promoting community and
political structures and functions (building & maintaining social capital – cultural [including economic]
sustainability)?
Does it support: the valuing of ‘functional’ high cultural diversity and mutualistic relationships?
Does it support: positive cultural development and co-evolutionary change?
Environmental
Does it support: effective ecosystems functioning (building & maintaining natural capital -- ecological
sustainability)?
Does it support: ‘functional’ high biodiversity, and prioritised use and conservation of resources?
Does it support: positive ecosystem development and co-evolutionary change?
General
10. Does it support: proactive (vs reactive), design/redesign (vs efficiency & substitution) and small meaningful
collaborative initiatives that together one can guarantee to carry through to completion (vs heroic, Olympicscale, exclusive, high risk ones) and their public celebration at each stage -- to facilitate their spread -- thereby
making wellbeing and environmental caring ‘contagious’?
11. Does it focus on: key opportunities and windows for change (pre-existing change locations & ‘moments’)?
12. Does it explain: how it will effectively monitor and evaluate its progress (broad, long-term, as well as specific
& short-term) by identifying and using integrator indicators and testing questions, and by being attentive to
all feedback and outcomes (& redesigning future actions & initiatives accordingly)?
SE’s focus is simultaneously the big picture and small meaningful initiatives that can contribute to
desirable change. Its perception and concern for the consequences of our actions is both global and local.
All action is encouraged to be contextually sensitive and emergent from shared concerns, responsibilities
and collaborations. As such it draws on both quantitative and qualitative methods of inquiry (Denzin and
Lincoln, 2000), and particularly on the rich diversity of approaches to action research (Reason and
Bradbury, 2001).
A preliminary SE-analysis of pest management, including personal, social, political, ecological and
‘spiritual’ comparisons between current dominant practices and alternative possibilities is provided in
Table 2. The aim of providing such a comparison is to stimulate reflection and sow the seeds of
alternative progressive thinking.
One of the most effective ways of visioning such more desirable futures is to engage a diverse
group of people in ‘storying’ them (including re-storying the past and present), and then constructing
composite stories. Commonly, a broad spectrum of stories emerge, ranging from the extreme
technocentric to the extreme ecocentric. For this process to work, it is necessary to be open to learning as
much as one can about all of these alternative perceptions and not to prematurely dismiss any of them.
Rather, the approach is to aim to deepen one's understanding of their key features,
implications,consequences and assumptions upon which they are based. It is important to realize that the
frameworks and practices that each of us favor are all embedded within and are emergent from our own
partially shared personal and cultural stories. Because of the pain and hurt that is often associated with
Redes-Pest-Manag Ver 2
3
such stories, (much of which exists only in the subconscious), our perceptions are invariably to some
extent distorted (yet we usually do not think of them as being distorted and may energetically deny any
such suggestion). Unless we are open to critically examining and mapping these stories and their origins,
we are vulnerable to being unknowingly imprisoned by them, and our efforts to make progress are likely
to be largely automatic extrapolations of the past (Hill, Vincent, and Chouinard, 1999; Hill, 2001; Miller,
1999).
TABLE 2. Attitudinal differences between conventional and social ecology approaches to pests and the
systems within which they occur
Personal
CONVENTIONAL
Pests regarded as enemies to be controlled or
eliminated by means of chemical, physical or
biological reactive, symptom-focused
interventions.
SOCIAL ECOLOGY
Pests regarded as indicators of maldesigned, mismanaged
systems that need to be redesigned. Minimally disruptive
curative controls only used in emergencies.
Acting out of fear and separation from
ecosystems; diminishing the human spirit (loss of
personal capital) and threatening wellbeing.
Sense of love, and oneness with ecosystems (being part of a
meta-organism/Gaia); supportive of wellbeing.
Proactive strategies largely similar to reactive
ones.
Proactive strategies fundamentally different from reactive
interventions and based largely on the substitution of
knowledge and skills for inputs, and on system
design/redesign.
Produce regarded as valued ‘gifts’ from nature for
meaningful distribution, sale or exchange to meet basic
needs of valued people; building social capital.
Social
All produce regarded as commodities to dispose
of anywhere for the highest price; associated loss
of social capital not considered.
Political
Food and other resources used to generate export
earnings and as political tools and weapons of
power to manipulate opinion and compliance.
Ecological
Highly simplified, controlled, input-dependent,
managed ecosystems becoming increasingly
degraded – losing species and other natural
capital over time.
Outputs are commodities, jobs and, for the
diminishing number of producers, a way of life.
Frontiers of development: increased control
through increasing dependence on purchased
inputs and expertise (technologies, GM crops
etc.).
‘Spiritual’/
Unknown
Equitably meeting basic needs, such as nourishment, from
ecologically sustainably managed renewable resources a
political priority (open to “rights-to-food” discussions).
Farmers also rewarded for landscape maintenance.
Complex, uniquely designed in space and time, co-evolving
systems that are building and maintaining natural capital and
biodiversity.
For many – a calling – a connection with and a commitment
to the land – building personal, rural community and
landscape health.Ever expanding reverence and respect for
the wonders of nature and experiences of deep discovery and
synchronicity.
Success linked to control, productivity and
profit
Success linked to meaning, wellbeing and sustainability.
A sense of panic as systems degrade, old
interventions fail, communities and relationships
break down and uncertainty and dependence
increase.
Reaching for ever more powerful and potentially
disruptive interventions.
A sense that we’ve hardly scratched the surface of our
understanding of the wonders and intricacies of the
processes and relationships within nature. Much hope
regarding emergent understandings and opportunities.
My own preference is to emphasize the ecocentric, and personal and community well-being end of
the values spectrum, as this is where I believe our greatest potential for improvement lies. A typical
generalized story with this focus might envision a world in which ecosystems are designed and managed
to achieve a range of compatible personal, social, ecological and ‘spiritual’ goals (rather than the very
limited goals of productivity and profit). More specific goals might include the equitable meeting of
basic needs, such as the nourishment of primarily local communities, the provision of high quality habitat
for a great diversity of other species, particularly those concerned with the maintenance of ecosystem
Redes-Pest-Manag Ver 2
4
health and social and personal wellbeing, and the provision of meaningful and fulfilling work and play.
Clearly, implementing such a vision would require fundamental changes throughout society, both locally
and globally. It is important to be both aware of these potential barriers and to not use them as excuses
for postponement and inaction. Rather, every initiative should be designed to integrate with all others
that are compatible to achieve such much-needed social change. The argument that such thinking is
impractical within our present frameworks is a formula for cultural paralysis and ongoing environmental,
social and personal degradation (Hill, 1993; 1998, Table 1), and is often the product of unacknowledged
fears (Hill, 1991; 2001). The challenge is to engage in the thinking and action that is possible, especially
through collaboration with others who have overlapping concerns, and in this way bring about the
changes than can be made.
Typical areas that require such transformative changes include the manipulated consumer demand
for cosmetic perfection in fruits and vegetables, and the associated regulations concerned with false
quality standards (MacRae et al., 1990; MacRae, Henning, and Hill, 1993). Similarly, we must change
the institutional structures, regulations and processes that support research, education, services and access
to economic advantages for those associated with curative, “magic bullet” pest management approaches
(Hill, 1985; 1990a; MacRae et al., 1989a; 1989b; MacRae, Henning, and Hill, 1993). These barriers to
progress also make it almost impossible for both researchers and pest managers to work in a
transdisciplinary way with whole systems, and to take an integrated institutional, personal development
and ecosystem redesign approach to minimizing pest problems (Hill, 1998; Hill, Vincent, and Chouinard,
1999; Odum and Barrett, 2002).
Although the dominant institutional structures, processes and worldviews comprise enormous
barriers to individual and small group efforts, these are only likely to be changed as a result of
transformative grass roots efforts, as all of history tells us. This is why collaboration among interest
groups across diverse domains of concern and action is so important. The greatest barriers to such
transformational change are the persistent beliefs that small efforts in this direction will not make a
difference, and that problems should be solved by experts. Paradoxically, most equitable, progressive and
sustainable change can be traced back to such small-scale collaborative initiatives. One key is to generate
a range of goals associated with such initiatives that are appropriate to the full spectrum of modes of
action. These might include, at the personal level, new learning and relationships, the satisfaction from
engaging in values-based action, the copying of such action by others (much harder to achieve for larger
initiatives), and the capacity of such initiatives to act as stepping-stones for subsequent ones. At the
social level, appropriate goals might include improved public knowledge and competence, access to
needed resources, responsibility, political and community participation, equity, freedom and support to
make informed decisions, and a general growth in social capital would be likely goals. At the
environmental level, key gains might include enhanced ecosystem resilience, biodiversity (Thrupp, 2002),
carrying capacity and aesthetic qualities of the environment.
EXAMPLE OF A PRODUCER-LEVEL ‘REDESIGN’ INITIATIVE TO A PEST PROBLEM
A farmer friend in Canada, with a community spirit, used to maintain small plots down one side of
a field to teach local children how to garden. He was passionate about carrots (Daucus carota L.), so he
started them off growing carrots. In his own fields of carrots he had problems with carrot rust fly (Psila
rosae (Fabricius)), and so he was surprised when it came time to harvest the children’s carrots that some
plots were attacked and some not. He knew there had to be a reason for this difference, so he walked up
and down the plots searching for the causes. It took him a while to notice the difference, but it was clear
once he saw it.
In the attacked plots the soil had been compacted. In these the children had thinned and weeded by
walking on the soil along the rows, whereas the pest-free plots had loose and open soil because the
children had reached in from the edge to thin and weed, never walking on the soil. The carrot rust fly egg
and first stage larva are both highly susceptible to desiccation, and so their survival would be much higher
in the more protected environment of a compacted soil. Realizing this, he postulated that in his field the
damage from carrot rust fly would be likely to be highest in the rows of carrots adjacent to where the
tractor wheels would have compacted the soil. He took several transect samples across his field and sure
enough he was correct in his assumption. His solution was to design and make a scratcher to go behind
the tractor wheel. In his soil and climate conditions this, together with timing his seeding to avoid the
Redes-Pest-Manag Ver 2
5
main carrot rust fly flight, was sufficient to solve his problem with this pest indefinitely (in contrast to
pesticide solutions that may only be temporary and that must be changed as resistance and secondary
pests inevitably develop). It should be added that under different soil and climate conditions this problem
may not have been so easily solved, and that many pest problems provide a much greater challenge.
Also, it should be noted that many other potentially beneficial initiatives, such as insectary plant
management, might have been integrated into this producer's response. Nevertheless, much may be
learned from this example with respect to the largely untapped potential for designing knowledgeintensive, ecologically sustainable systems of pest management. These approaches are likely to be reliant
on such local observational knowledge and fine-tuned for specific local conditions, and, in most
situations, on the design and maintenance of more complex agroecosystems, as well as the presence of
adjacent healthy non-managed ecosystems. This contrasts with the more usual context-insensitive, expert
and technology-intensive, purchased product-based systems of pest control that keep producers dependent
and fail to capitalize on their local knowledge and skills.
REDESIGN APPROACHES AT THE PEST MANAGER LEVEL
The starting point for such thinking is having a comprehensive map of the systems one is working
with. At the ‘field’ level (Figure 1), this involves recognizing that pest damage is related to the particular
characteristics of the pests involved, their dispersal abilities, the availability of suitable food and space
and the presence and effectiveness of natural controls. These latter factors are influenced by our plant
production practices, listed on the left in Figure1 (selection of crop and site, planting design, maintenance
of site, and harvesting and distribution of the produce). At every stage in this process there are numerous
opportunities to make decisions that will favour both the crop and the pest’s natural controls, and that will
be unfavourable for the pest. What is clear from approaching pest management in this way is the vast
largely untapped pool of opportunities for creative thinking, experimentation and especially paradoxical
initiatives. Among the latter approaches, I have found it helpful to, in a sense, ‘become the pest’ in an
effort to better define its needs, preferences and vulnerabilities. The meeting of these needs and
preferences in prescribed locations may be used to concentrate pests and facilitate their effective control.
Steps towards doing this with the plum curculio (Conotrachelus nenuphar (Herbst)) in apple orchards in
south-western Quebec have achieved some success. Until a whole-systems approach can be taken,
however, the full potential of ‘redesign’ initiatives for controlling this pest will not be realized (Lafleur
and Hill; 1987; Lafleur, Hill, and Vincent, 1987; Hill, Vincent, and Chouinard, 1999; Vincent, Chouinard,
and Hill, 1999). This will particularly require the further development of cultural methods of pest control.
It should be noted that there is some overlap between my approach to the ‘redesign’ of agroecosystems
(Hill, 1998) and Savory and Butterfield’s (1999) Holistic Management approach.
CULTURAL METHODS OF PEST, PRIMARILY INSECT, CONTROL
Cultural controls are the oldest methods that have been used to manage pest populations. With the
development of synthetic biocides, however, these controls were rapidly abandoned or de-emphasized
and research on them was largely discontinued. Because most cultural controls are preventative rather
than curative they are dependent on long-range planning. Also, because they are dependent on detailed
knowledge of the ecology of crop-pests relationships, most of which in the past were poorly understood,
the results were very variable, and it was often difficult to evaluate their effectiveness. It is
understandable that most producers eventually adopted the chemical solutions to pest problems, which
initially appeared more reliable and demanded less knowledge and skill.
Redes-Pest-Manag Ver 2
6
Plant Production Practices
(a similar model could be established
for animal production)
Factors Affecting Pest
Activity
Pest Damage
Selection of Crop
(species, cultivar)
introduction
breeding & selection
vegetative propagation
genetic engineering
Selection of Site
natural factors:
soil, elevation, slope,
aspect, climate, location,
flora, fauna
historical factors
farm & non-farm pollutants
Planting Design
plot size, shape & layout
hedgerows, field borders,
adjacent bodies of water &
woodlots
monoculture, rotation, mixed
planting
PROPERTIES OF PEST
preferences
tolerance ranges
metabolic rate & assimilation
efficiency
reproductive potential
rate of development &
longevity
susceptibility to natural &
artificial controls
DISPERSAL OF PEST
initiation of dispersal
ease of dispersal to
suitable habitats by active and
passive means
AVAILABILITY OF
SUITABLE HABITAT FOR
PEST (& ITS CONTROLS)
AMOUNT
OF DAMAGE
DONE
BY
PESTS
&
DISEASES
Food & Space
Maintenance of Site
tillage and cultivation
irrigation
drainage
use of inorganic & organic
fertilizers and mulches
use of pesticides & growth
regulators
timing of operations
integration of livestock
quantity
quality
distribution in time & space
competition
Natural Controls
(incidence & effectiveness)
predators
parasites
pathogens
Harvesting and Distribution
Harvesting
Storage
Distribution
FIGURE. 1: Framework for understanding the “field causes “ of pest and disease outbreaks.
Today the situation is very different from those early days of pest control. We have a much better
understanding of the ecological relationships within crop systems; predictive computer models are
available for some pests; and the social climate is demanding reduced dependence on toxic chemicals to
solve problems. Such concerns have developed as a result of numerous biocide accidents; detection of
residues in recreational environments, drinking water, foods and human tissues; the increase in the
incidence of biocide-related allergy and petrochemical sensitivity; and the growing interest in the
relationships between food quality and human health (and the associated expanding organic food market:
Redes-Pest-Manag Ver 2
7
Hill and MacRae, 1992); the decreasing effectiveness of many biocides as more and more pests become
resistant to them; their increasing costs; and effects on natural controls and other non-pest species. The
literature supporting the above list of ‘driving forces’ is extensive and will not be reviewed here.
Pest control scientists have responded to this situation by promoting the philosophy and practice of
integrated pest management (IPM). At first these approaches, encouraged by the 'chemical' companies,
emphasized the efficient use of biocides, claiming that problems associated with these chemicals could
usually be traced to their misuse. There is ample evidence, however, that problems arise even when
biocides are used as recommended. Because of this, it seems likely that we will eventually have to
restrict their use to socially important emergencies.
The next strategy in the development of IPM was to search for more benign substitutes for
biocides: hormones, sex attractants, traps, biological control agents, including bio-engineered pathogens,
release of sterile males, and now genetically manipulated crops and biocontrols. Such approaches,
although useful as less intrusive curative methods, still avoid confronting the causes of the problem.
They keep the producer dependent on experts and suppliers of products, and they perpetuate the image of
pests strictly as enemies to be eliminated or controlled.
We are now on the threshold of a third phase in the development of IPM systems that recognizes
pests not as enemies, but as indicators of problems in the design and management of systems (Hill 1985,
1998; Hill, Vincent, and Chouinard, 1999). It is also becoming clear that broad approaches to ecological
thinking hold most of the keys to appropriate environmental designs and methods of management capable
of keeping pest numbers below unacceptable levels (Mulligan and Hill, 2001). In this approach, potential
pests are prevented from becoming problems by means of the integration of a range of cultural and bioecological controls. The more familiar intrusive controls, including certain biocides, are then reserved for
emergencies.
Further advances in this approach are dependent on identifying and responding to the barriers to the
development and implementation of cultural methods of pest control (and their integration with other
agricultural goals and practices). Foremost among these are the lack of appropriate research, training,
services, equipment, and crop species and cultivars. In addition to responding to these deficiencies,
changes in human values and attitudes will also be required, such as a shift in emphasis from cosmetic to
nutritional food quality; and from pest elimination to management below thresholds related to broader
social values.
In their present forms, cultural controls do not offer a panacea for pest prevention and control.
These approaches range from environmentally supportive, knowledge- and skill-intensive techniques,
such as the optimal design and management of agroecosystems in time and space (e.g. the design of
integrated polycultures, management of adjacent environments [Marshall, 2002], use of companion crops,
rotations, and timing of seeding, harvesting and field operations; Odum and Barrett, 2002), to the more
heavy-handed interventions that can result in soil erosion and environmental degradation (e.g. intensive
cultivation, summer fallowing, burning of crop residues, flooding, and destruction of uncultivated areas
containing alternative hosts of pests). Clearly the former group of approaches are preferred over the
latter.
Cultural controls employ designs and system management practices that make the environment less
attractive to pests and less favorable for their survival, dispersal, growth and reproduction, and that
promote the pest's natural controls and the vitality of the crop (Figure 1). The objective is to achieve
reduction in pest numbers, either below economic injury levels, or sufficiently to allow natural and/or
biological controls to take effect. Cultural control strategies aim to:
1.
make the crop or habitat unacceptable to pests by interfering with their oviposition preferences, host
plant discrimination or location by both adults and immatures;
2.
make the crop unavailable to the pest in space and time by utilizing knowledge of the pest's life
history, especially its dispersal and overwintering habits; and
3.
reduce pest survival on the crop by enhancing its natural enemies, or by altering the crop's
susceptibility to the pest.
To design and effectively implement cultural controls it is necessary to have accurate knowledge of crop,
pest and natural control biology, ecology and phenology, and of the weak links in pest-crop interactions.
A key advantage of most cultural controls is that they are generally the cheapest of all control
measures because they usually only require modifications to normal production practices. Sometimes
Redes-Pest-Manag Ver 2
8
they do not even require extra labour, only careful planning. Often they are the only control measures
that are profitable for high acreage of low value crops.
Cultural controls are often highly dependable, and in many cases can be specific. Of major
importance is the fact that they do not possess some of the detrimental side-effects of biocides, namely
the creation of biocide-resistance, undesirable residues in food, feed crops and the environment, the
poisoning of non-target organisms and the creation of secondary pests. Their disadvantages are that they
require long-term planning for greatest effectiveness and they need careful timing. They are often based
on the substitution of knowledge and skills for purchased inputs and, as such, demand higher levels of
competence among producers and extension agents. They may be effective for one pest, but ineffective
against a closely related species. Effectiveness of cultural controls is difficult to assess and they do not
always, on their own, provide complete economic control of pests. Furthermore, some cultural controls
have adverse effects on fish and wildlife and may also cause erosion problems. Further details of cultural
controls are provided in Hill(1990b) and Bugg and Pickett (1998).
IMPLEMENTATION OF ECOLOGICALLY BASED ‘REDESIGN’ APPROACHES TO PEST
MANAGEMENT
For the further development of cultural controls and for redesign approaches to achieve their
potential, the following initiatives will need to be taken. Although this will require considerable courage,
creativity and collaboration, only by integrating these approaches can the future of effective pest
management be assured.
Policy
Governments will need to establish a clear food and agriculture policy that recognizes that the
primary function of the food system is to nourish all members of the population in a sustainable way,
without undermining the earth's capacity to meet the other basic needs of present and future generations.
Similar policies will be required for other renewable resources. Such policies will necessarily imply the
prioritisation of more appropriate strategies for the management of agricultural pests. As a first step
towards this, collaborative inquiry and action research groups (Reason and Bradbury, 2001) could be
established (with representation from the appropriate departments, together with representation from the
appropriate private and public sectors) to draw up such policies for public discussion and subsequent
implementation.
Regulations
Legislation must be developed to permit the appropriate government departments to, if necessary,
introduce regulations that will require producers and other renewable resource managers to cooperate in
the application of certain cultural control programs (e.g. collection and destruction of June drop and fallen
apples (Malus sp.) in orchards; destruction of certain types of prunings and crop residues, synchronized
planting and seeding of certain crops; and destruction of alternative hosts of certain pests). Such
regulations could build on those that already exist in certain countries.
Legislation is also needed to ensure that users of biocides have not only achieved competence in
their "safe" use, but are also competent in the use of safe alternatives, including the relevant cultural
controls, and in design-approaches to pest management. Governments must also evaluate how their
current programs, policies and regulations encourage producers to rely on biocides, e.g., programs that
inadvertently encourage the use of biocides to meet top grading standards based on cosmetic appearance
(MacRae et al., 1990; MacRae, Henning, and Hill, 1993).
Research
Adequate government support is required to establish research programs related to sustainable
food production systems, including research on the use of cultural methods of pest control and redesign
approaches (Cox, Picone and Jackson, 2002; Menalled, Landis and Dyer, 2002). A list of priorities need
to be established, with emphasis on long-term participatory (on-farm), multidisciplinary team research.
Given the trend to fund research through matching grants with industry, it is imperative that areas such as
cultural controls and redesign approaches, which tend to focus on structures and processes rather than on
products, be designated as priority areas for support by government. To stimulate interest in this area
among researchers, governments should provide funds to hold conferences specifically on such
approaches to pest management. Research in this area must be done both in-house and through the
awarding of grants to researchers in universities, the private sector, and also to farm organizations and
Redes-Pest-Manag Ver 2
9
innovative farmers. There is already a growing perception that all or most of the costs of research on
biocides, especially their testing and evaluation, should be borne by the companies that profit from their
sales, and not by taxpayer's money. This would free-up government funding for research into alternative
pest management strategies (MacRae et al., 1989a).
Services
At the present time a widely reported complaint by producers wishing to avoid the use of biocides
is that most extension agents are unable to help them solve their pest problems by alternative means. To
correct this situation, short courses must be available for these agents to enable them to become familiar
with alternative strategies, including cultural and redesign methods for managing pests. Support will also
need to be available for those seeking to establish companies providing services and supplies relating to
safe and effective alternative approaches.
Training and education
The success of most of the above recommendations are dependent on widespread access to
comprehensive educational programs covering design and integrated system-management approaches to
pest control (Francis, 2002; Hill and MacRae, 1988). Options include support for university "chairs" in
this area, for the establishment of courses in redesign approaches and cultural controls, and for the
preparation of appropriate teaching materials, for the establishment of demonstration plots, and for the
holding of relevant conferences.
Public education
Although public awareness is shifting, much work still needs to be done to help the public to
realize that most insects and their relatives are beneficial, and that cosmetic quality of food is not a
reliable indicator of nutritional quality. A greater appreciation of the essential role of farmers and other
renewable resource managers in society is called for, and an expanded responsibility for considering our
actions in relation to the needs of future generations. A creative and intensive public education campaign
will need to be mounted to promote such understanding.
FINAL THOUGHTS FOR REFLECTION
The approach to further developments in pest control being promoted here is based on the
following three assumptions (Hill et al., 2001).
1.
There is a vast, largely untapped territory available to all of us for thinking and acting in new and
effective ways with respect to any area of endeavor – in this case pest control.
2.
The knowledge required to get started in transforming our thinking and action already exists – it
includes general understandings in a range of areas – especially ecology, biology and the natural sciences
- but also psychology (Hill, 2001), philosophy, sociology and all of the areas dealing with social
processes including politics, economics, business, education, the arts and spirituality. It is particularly
concerned with deep understandings of the structure (design) and functioning (management) of systems,
their diversity with respect to time and place (contextual qualities and other contextual factors),
maintenance (sustainability) and processes involved in change (co-evolution) over time.
3.
The key to progressive change is to recognize, acknowledge and celebrate past generically related
initiatives and to support the taking of further small meaningful initiatives that are consistent with the
emerging paradigm. The high visibility of such do-able initiatives enables others with similar interests to
copy them, and those in other areas to be inspired by them. During this process it is important to
critically evaluate all actions and outcomes and so learn our way into more sustainable and meaningful
futures.
REFERENCES
Bookchin, M. (1980). Towards an Ecological Society. Montreal, QC: Black Rose Books.
Bookchin, M. (1982). The Ecology of Freedom. Palo Alto, CA: Cheshire Books.
Bookchin, M. (1986) [1971]. Post-Scarcity Anarchism, 2nd edn. Montreal, QC: Black Rose Books.
Bookchin, M. (1995) [1990]. The Philosophy of Social Ecology, 2nd edition. Montreal, QC: Black Rose
Books.
Bugg, R. L. and C. H. Pickett. (1998). Enhancing Biological Control; Habitat Management to Promote
Natural Enemies of Agricultural Pests. Berkley, CA: University of California Press.
Redes-Pest-Manag Ver 2
10
Clements, D.R. and A. Shrestha. (2002). New dimensions in agroecology for developing a biological
approach to crop production. Journal of Crop Production (this volume)
Cox, T.A., Picone, J.C. and W. Jackson. (2002). Research priorities in natural systems agriculture. Journal
of Crop Production (this volume)
Denzin, N. K. and Y. S. Lincoln, ed. (2000). Handbook of Qualitative Research, 2nd edition. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Francis, C.A. (2002). Education in agroecology and integrated systems. Journal of Crop Production (this
volume)
Hill, S. B. (1985). Redesigning the food system for sustainability. Alternatives 12 (3/4):32-36.
Hill, S. B. (1990a). Pest Control in sustainable agriculture. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of
Ontario 121:5-12.
Hill, S. B. (1990b). Cultural methods of pest, primarily insect control. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting
of the Canadian Pest Management Society 36:35-49.
Hill, S. B. (1991). Ecological and psychological pre-requisites for the establishment of sustainable prairie
agricultural communities. In Alternative Futures for Prairie Agricultural Communities, ed. J. Martin,
Edmonton, AB: Faculty of Extension, University of Alberta, pp. 197-229.
Hill, S. B. (1993). Environmental sustainability and the redesign of agroecosystems. In Sustainable
Agriculture in Egypt, ed. M.A. Faris and M.H. Khan, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Press, pp.47-58.
Hill, S. B. (1998). Redesigning agroecosystems for environmental sustainability: a deep systems approach.
Systems Research and Behavioral Science 15:391-402.
Hill, S. B. (1999). Social ecology as future stories. A Social Ecology Journal 1: 197-208.
Hill, S. B. (2001). Working with processes of change, particularly psychological processes, when
implementing sustainable agriculture. In The best of…Exploring Sustainable Alternatives: An
Introduction to Sustainable Agriculture, ed. H. Haidn, Saskatoon, SK: Canadian Centre for Sustainable
Agriculture, pp. 125-134.
Hill, S. B. and R. MacRae. (1988). Developing sustainable agriculture education in Canada. Agriculture
and Human Values 5(4): 92-95.
Hill, S. B. and R. MacRae. (1992). Organic farming in Canada. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment
39:71-84.
Hill, S. B. and R. MacRae. (1995). Conceptual frameworks for the transition from conventional to
sustainable agriculture. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 7:81-87.
Hill, S. B., C. Vincent, and G. Chouinard. (1999). Evolving ecosystems approaches to fruit insect pest
management. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 73:107-110.
Hill, S. B., S. Wilson, K. Watson, and K. Lambert. (2001). Learning ecology and transformative change in
education. Toronto, ON: Fourth International Conference of Transformative Learning.
Huxley, J. (1952). Evolution in Action. London: Scientific Book Club.
Huxley, J. (1964). Essays of a Humanist (Education and Humanism p.132). Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.
Lafleur, G. and S. B. Hill. (1987). Spring migration, within-orchard dispersal, and apple-tree preference of
plum curculio (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) in southern Quebec. Journal of Economic Entomology
80:1173-1187.
Lafleur, G., S. B. Hill, and C. Vincent. (1987). Fall migration, hibernation site selection, and associated
winter mortality of plum curculio (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) in a Quebec apple orchard. Journal of
Economic Entomology 80:1151-1172.
Light, A., ed. (1998). Social Ecology After Bookchin. New York: Guilford Press.
MacRae, R. J., S. B. Hill, J. Henning, and G. R. Mehuys. (1989a). Agricultural science and sustainable
agriculture: a review of the existing scientific barriers to sustainable food production and potential
solutions. Biological Agriculture and Horticulture 6(3): 173-219.
MacRae, R. J., S. B. Hill, J. Henning, and G. R. Mehuys. (1989b). Farm-scale agronomic and economic
conversion from conventional to sustainable agriculture. Advances in Agronomy 43:155-198.
MacRae, R. J., S. B. Hill, J. Henning, and A. J. Bentley. (1990). Policies, programs and regulations to
support the transition to sustainable agriculture in Canada. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture
5(2):76-92.
Redes-Pest-Manag Ver 2
11
MacRae, R. J., J. Henning, and S. B. Hil1. (1993). Strategies to overcome barriers to the development of
sustainable agriculture in Canada: the role of agribusiness. Journal Agriculture and Environmental
Ethics 6(1):21-51.
Marshall, E.J.P. (2002). Agricultural landscapes: field margin habitats and their interaction with crop
production. Journal of Crop Production (this volume)
Menalled, F.D., D.A. Landis, and L. E. Dyer (2002). Research and extension supporting ecologically-based
IPM systems. Journal of Crop Production (this volume)
Miller, A. (1999). Environmental Problem Solving: Psychological Barriers to Adaptive Change. New
York: Springer.
Mulligan, M. and S. B. Hill. (2001). Ecological Pioneers: A Social History of Australian Ecological
Thought and Action. Melbourne, VIC: Cambridge University Press.
Odum, E.P. and G.W. Barrett. (2002). Redesigning industrial agroecosystems: Incorporating more
ecological processes and reducing pollution. Journal of crop production (this volume)
Reason, P. and H. Bradbury, ed. (2001). Handbook of Action Research. London: Sage.
Savory, A. and J. Butterfield. (1999). Holistic Management: A New Framework for Decision Making, 2nd
edition, Washington DC: Island Press.
Thrupp, L.A. (2002). The importance of biodiversity in agroecosystems. Journal of Crop Production (this
volume)
Vincent, C., G. Chouinard, and S. B. Hill. (1999). Progress in plum curculio management: a review.
Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 73:167-175.
Voisin, A. (1959). Soil, Grass and Cancer. London: Crosby Lockwood.
Watson, D. (1996). Beyond Bookchin: Preface To A Future Social Ecology. Brooklyn, NY: Autonomedia.
**************************************************************************************
Hill, S. B. 2004. Redesigning pest management: a social ecology approach. Pp. 491-510 in D. Clements & A. Shrestha (eds),
New Dimensions in Agroecology, Haworth, Binghamton, NY.
****************************************************************************************************
Professor Stuart B. Hill, Foundation Chair of Social Ecology & Head of Program, School of Education (includes previous
School of Social Ecology and Lifelong Learning), University of Western Sydney (Kingswood Campus), Locked Bag 1797,
PENRITH SOUTH DC NSW 1797, AUSTRALIA
Location: Building J, Room JG-16, UWS-Kingswood, Penrith, NSW - Phone: 61(0)2-4736-0799; Fax: -0400: email:
s.hill@uws.edu.au
School of Social Ecology and Lifelong Learning website: http://www.uws.edu.au/about/acadorg/caess/ssell
Social Ecology Research Group website is at: http://sites.uws.edu.au/research/SERG/stuartpage.htm
and: http://www.uws.edu.au/about/acadorg/caess/ssell/research
Many pre-1993 publications at: http://www.eap.mcgill.ca/general/home_frames.htm
Prior to 1996 he was at McGill University, in Montreal, where he was responsible for the zoology degree and where
in 1974 he established Ecological Agriculture Projects, Canada’s leading resource centre for sustainable agriculture
(www.eap.mcgill.ca).
He has published over 350 papers and reports. His latest book (with Martin Mulligan) is Ecological Pioneers: A
Social History of Australian Ecological Thought and Action, Cambridge UP, 2001.
In Canada he was a member of over 30 regional, national and international boards and committees. He is currently
on the editorial board of four refereed journals and until 2004 represented professional environmental educators on
the NSW Council on Environmental Education.
He has worked in agricultural and development projects in the West Indies, French West Africa, Indonesia, The
Philippines, China, and the Seychelles, as well as in the UK, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia.
His background in chemical engineering, ecology, soil biology, entomology, agriculture, psychotherapy, education,
policy development and international development, and his experience of working with change, have enabled him
to be an effective facilitator in complex situations that demand both collaboration across difference and a long-term
co-evolutionary approach to situation improvement.
Redes-Pest-Manag Ver 2
12