Hello,
I am wondering if anyone knows of research that has examined barriers related to reducing weed and feed use. I am coordinating a pesticide reduction initiative for the Region of Waterloo, Ontario, and am considering weed and feed use as a target behaviour for next season's campaign. Our research indicates that 51% of our residents with lawns are using weed and feed and among these, one-third do not consider weed and feed to be a pesticide. Given that weed and feed is often applied unnecessarily as a preventative measure rather than to deal with weed problems when they arise, it seems a logical target for pesticide reduction. More specifically, it would be helpful to know of research identifying the users' perceived benefits of this product and their perceptions about using fertilizer only and spot-treating weeds as needed. This past season we utilized a CBSM approach to promote pesticide-free lawn care methods. Pre- and post-campaign evaluations indicated success at encouraging relatively simple changes in behaviour such as mowing high, grass cycling, and fertilizing. However, even among those that adopted pesticide-free lawn care practices, their pesticide use remained unchanged. For next year, we will need to do more to emphasize the connection between effective cultural practices for lawn care and the resulting reduced need for pesticide use. Weed and feed users seems to be a good target audience for this messaging. Any help would be appreciated.
Tom Bird
Region of Waterloo Public Health Waterloo,
Ontario, Canada
[email protected]
Identifying Barriers to Reducing Weed and Feed Use
Sign in or Sign up to comment
Hi Tom:
My comment is not related to a study, but I thought you may be interested to know that last month the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador announced some changes to the Pesticide Control Act. These changes will become effective over time. One amendment that comes into effect beginning January 1, 2007 is that all so-called 'weed and feed' mixtures must be removed from market shelves. The rationale being that often people may not be aware of the pesticide ingredients in these blended products.
Diana Baird
Co-Executive Director Northeast Avalon ACAP, Inc.
The Gathering Place 172 Military Road
P.O. Box 1027, Station 'C' St. John's, NL A1C 5M5 Canada
Tel: 709-726-9673
Fax: 709-726-2764
Web: thezone.net/stjacap
Tom:
For others that are interested in this topic, there are several resources available at the site (some of which I know you are familiar with, Tom). First, in the reports database (reports/activities/source reduction) you can find two downloadable reports that deal with this issue. The first is a barrier/motivation inventory that was done by Jan Aceti titled Barrier/Motivation Inventory #2: Reducing pesticide use in lawn care. The second is the The impact of bylaws and public education on reducing the cosmetic/non-essential, residential use of pesticides. This latter report doesnt address barriers and benefits, but nonetheless may be of use to some list members. Finally, last year an undergraduate student of mine, April McGrath (who, btw deserves recognition for writing up many of the cases studies on the FSB website), explored differences between three groups: 1) those who do not apply pesticides, 2) those that have pesticides applied for them, and 3) those that apply pesticides themselves. This report is not yet available via the website. However, if you would like a copy of it send me a private email and I will send it to you.
Best,
Doug
Doug McKenzie-Mohr, Ph.D.
McKenzie-Mohr Associates
(506) 455 5061 voice/pager
(506) 455 0550 fax
[email protected]
http://www.cbsm.com