-
73American Entomologist • Volume 54, Number 2
Historically, insects have been an influential part of human
culture. Insect influence can be found in our language, art,
history, phi-losophy, and religion (Hogue 1987; Capinera 1993,
1995; Berenbaum 2001; Cherry 2002; Rutledge 2003). Even though
insects are a cultural influence, many people observe them with
aversion, fear, and loathing (Kellert 1993).
Surveys about insects and their control have been used by urban
entomologists to gauge pub-lic opinion for more than a quarter of a
century. Frankie and Levenson (1978) compared how city and rural
residents of Texas reacted to insects. Attitudes toward and
knowledge of cockroaches (Wood et al. 1981) and attitudes about the
aes-thetic injury caused by cockroaches (Zungoli and Robinson 1984)
were surveyed in public housing in Virginia and Maryland. Levenson
and Frankie (1983) compared attitudes about pests and pesti-cides
among different socioeconomic groups from Texas, California, and
New Jersey. Studies on public attitudes toward arthropods in and
outside the home have been conducted in Arizona by Byrne et al.
(1984), in Minnesota by Hahn and Ascerno (1991), and in Kentucky by
Potter and Bessin (1998). Bennett et al. (1983) used a survey to
determine patterns of pesticide use in homes in Indi-ana. Kellert
(1993) surveyed people of Connecticut about their basic values
regarding invertebrates and their conservation. The state of
Florida, with all of its pest pressures, has only been addressed in
a few questions by the Agriculture Institute of Florida annual
survey (AIF 1999).
Although many of these studies have addressed the public’s
attitude toward insect pests, few have focused on behavioral
response toward the insects. Our objectives in this study were to
consider the importance of categories of urban pests, determine
thresholds where participants exhibit behavioral changes to take
action against a pest, and evaluate the likelihood that people
would consider using some components of integrated pest
manage-ment.
Materials and MethodsA survey was conducted 27 March to 4
May
2004 through the office of the Florida Survey Re-search Center
(FSRC) at the University of Florida. A computer-aided telephone
interview (CATI) with a random-digit dialing (RDD) system was used
to deliver the survey.
Public Perceptions of Pest ProblemsR. W. Baldwin, P. G. Koehler,
R. M. Pereira, and F. M. Oi
The telephone sample was obtained by generat-ing random
telephone numbers from existing area codes and prefixes from areas
throughout Florida. The FSRC makes every effort to complete survey
interviews from the initial random list of telephone numbers. If an
initial call resulted in no answer, a systematic call back system
was used to call at a different time on a different day of the week
until a person was reached. If no one was reached after four
attempts, that number was deleted from the list and replaced with a
new number. If the call was answered, but the person was not able
to complete the interview at that time, every effort was made to
reschedule a more convenient time. Calls were scheduled at
different times of the day on weekdays and weekends to sample
employed persons evenly. Interviewers were FSRC employees who were
trained in telephone interview techniques, and the interviews were
randomly monitored for quality control. Interviewers had no
previous entomologi-cal training and were only allowed to expand on
instrument questions with provided examples. The survey instrument
was pilot-tested before actual data collection to ensure that
questions and deliv-ery methods were appropriate.
Interviews (n = 600) were successfully completed from 4,501
calls to active phone numbers. There were 1,394 refusals for a
response rate of 44.9% and a completion rate of 13.3%. The
remainder of calls resulted in no answer after four attempts. The
survey instrument consisted of 54 base questions with 62 secondary
and 16 demographic questions. The average interview time was 12 min
38 s. After completion, we split the responses into two sections,
one of questions dealing with insect pests and one
-
74 American Entomologist • Summer 2008
with pesticide use. Questions were designed not only to gauge
perceptions of pest management, but to as-sess behavior of the
survey respondents. The FSRC monitors gender and race to ensure
that residents of the state are accurately represented. Only people
over the age of 18 were interviewed.
Frequency tables were generated for each survey question and
associations among demographic variables were tested with a
Pearson’s chi-square test of homogeneity (SAS Institute 2001). A
few partici-pants chose not to answer certain questions or
re-sponded with “don’t know.” A percent response for each question
not totaling 100% indicates a number of “no response” or “do not
know” responses. “Do not know” and “no response” categories were
omit-ted from the chi-square analysis.
Results DemographicsThe survey population consisted of 61%
females
and 39% males (Table 1). Ninety-five percent stated that they
maintained full-time residency in Florida. One quarter of the
survey population had moved to the state in the past decade, and
81% were ho-meowners. Fifty-seven percent of the population owned
pets, and 78% of pets were kept inside the home. Forty-nine percent
of the population had an income greater than $50,000 per year. The
average age of the survey participant was 49, and 45% of the
population had a college degree.
The average number of adults per home was 2.01, and the average
number of children per home was 1.99. Thirty-six percent of the
homes contained children under the age of 5. More than 25% of the
population said that they were aller-gic to insects or insect
bites, and 14% said that they had allergies or were chemically
sensitive to pesticides. More women than men indicated that they
were chemically sensitive to pesticides and/or allergic to insects
and insect bites (Fig 1).
Importance of Urban PestsTo focus their thoughts on the survey
topic,
the interviewees were asked how harmful insect pests were to
their households. Insect pests were described as very harmful by
16% of the survey population, somewhat harmful by 52%, and not at
all harmful by 30% of respondents (Fig. 2). Two percent said that
they did not know how harmful insect pests were to their
household.
Fig. 1. Self-reported
chemical sensitivity and allergy to
insects and insect bites in male and
female survey participants.
VeryHarmful
16%
SomewhatHarmful
52%
Do not know2%
NotHarmful
30%
Fig. 2. Participants’
evaluations of how harmful insect pests
are to their households.
Table 1. Demographic profile of the participants in the Florida
survey of pest perceptions. Demographic n % Respondents
GenderMale 232 38.7
Female 368 61.3
Age
18–29 93 15.5
30–39 94 15.7
40–49 119 19.8
50–65 179 29.8
>65 115 19.2Education level
-
75American Entomologist • Volume 54, Number 2
Interviewees were presented with four categories of insect pests
with examples: (a) crawling, such as ants and cockroaches; (b)
flying, such as mosqui-toes, flies, and wasps; (c) wood destroying,
such as termites; and (d) lawn and tree pests, such as fire ants,
mole crickets, and chinch bugs. The next ques-tion asked the
interviewees to choose categories of insects: the most difficult to
control, the most harmful to people’s health, and the most
expensive to control. There were no significant differences in
response to these questions based on gender or the presence of
children under 5 years of age in the home. Forty-two percent of the
respondents said that crawling pests were the most difficult to
control; 22% said lawn and tree pests were most difficult. Half
said that flying insect pests were the most harmful, and 30% said
crawling insects. Fifty percent of the population believed that
they spent more money controlling crawling pests than any other
pest category (Fig. 3). This question addressed the perception of
how much money a person spent on insect control and did not
quantify how much money was spent.
When respondents were asked which categories of insect pests
they had combated during the past year, crawling pests were the
primary problem (71%), followed by lawn pests (55%), flying pests
(38%), garden pests (27%), stored-product pests (13%), and termites
(10%) (Fig. 4).
After the initial questions, the sample of interview-ees (n =
600) was divided into those who said that they used pesticides
(82%), those who did not use pesticides (18%), and of those
non-pesticide users, those who would never use pesticides (8%)
(Fig. 5).
Factors Affecting Pesticide Use Among consumers who use
pesticides, the pri-
mary reason for purchasing pest control products was seeing
insect damage in or around the home (90%), whereas seeing dead
insects was considered the least important reason (Fig. 6). For
these two factors, no significant difference was observed be-tween
male and female respondents; however, small but significant
differences between responses from male and females were observed
for all other pos-sible reasons. The knowledge that insect pests
pose a health hazard (x2 =15.73, df =4, P =0.0034), the feeling
that pests represent a danger to the household (x2 =17.61, df =4, P
=0.0015), the knowledge that insects can cause damage in or around
the house (x2 =16.45, df =4, P =0.0025), and the sight of live
insects in or around the home (x2 =14.59, df = 4, P = 0.0056), had
greater importance in the purchase of insecticides by female
respondents (Fig. 6).
In contrast to participants who use pesticides, participants who
do not use pesticides said that their primary factor for purchasing
pest control products and services was the feeling that insect
pests posed a danger to the family (86%), followed by knowledge
that insect pests posed a health hazard (84%), and the sight of
insect damage in or around the home (82%) (Fig. 7). Because of the
limited numbers of respondents that did not use pesticides, no
difference was detected between male and female respondents
(x2 =2.72, df = 2, P = 0.2561). After determining which
insect-related factors
prompted the typical non-pesticide user to take action, actions
that the non-pesticide users would take against the insect pest
were identified. Non-pesticide users were more likely to deal with
fly-ing insects by using repair or preventive measures (e.g.,
repairing or installing screens on windows and doors) (68%) and
physically removing the pest (60%) (Fig. 8). To solve a problem
with ter-mites, non-pesticide users were more likely to use repair
or preventive measures (repair damage and eliminate wood-to-ground
contact) (76%) and use a long-lasting treatment (soil or slab
treatment) (75%). Physical removal of the termites was the
management of choice for 33% of respondents. The non-pesticide
users’ likely actions against crawling insects would be repair or
preventive measures (e.g., applying caulking to cracks) (79%); spot
treatments and physical removal were similarly likely (66 and 59%,
respectively). Lawn and tree insects would likely be dealt with by
spot-treating areas as needed (61%) and repair and preventive
14.8
49.7
9.5
41.7
29.7
49.5
15.8
7.8
16.7
22.2
5.5
17.2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
is most difficultto control?
is mostharmful?
costs more tocontrol?
Perc
en
t o
f S
urv
ey P
art
icip
an
ts
Flying Crawling Wood-destroying Lawn and Tree
Fig. 3. Participants’ evaluation of how harmful, difficult to
control, and costly different pest groups are. “No response” or “do
not know” responses are not represented in graphs.
Fig. 4. Percentage of participants who had combated different
categories of insect pests during the 12 mo before the survey.
71.3
55.8
38.3
26.5
13.39.8
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Crawlingpests
Lawn pests Flying pests Gardenpests
Storedproductpests
Termites
Perc
en
t o
f su
rvey
resp
on
den
ts
-
76 American Entomologist • Summer 2008
actions by testing and fertilizing soil to maintain healthy
plants (59%) (Fig. 8).
The 8% (n = 48) of the survey population who indicated that they
would never use pesticides were asked how they dealt with certain
groups of insect pests. Respondents were offered several choices of
potential management practice. These included physical removal,
such as stomping, swatting, sweeping, or trapping; exclusionary
measures, such as caulking cracks, screening windows and doors, or
repairing wood damage; and maintain-ing healthy plants, such as by
using soil tests and fertilizers. Respondents were allowed to
comment on other actions they were likely to take to combat the
pests. Exclusionary measures to keep pests out were preferred for
all pest categories (79% for flying insect pests, 70% for termites,
70% for crawling pests, and 49% for lawn and tree pests) (Fig. 9).
The respondents were also likely to physically remove the insect
pest (60% for flying insect pests, 36% for termites, 64% for
crawling pests, and 37% for lawn and tree pests).
The people who said that they would never use pesticides were
asked if they used other control methods. For flying insect
control, 14% (n = 7) said they would use another control method;
86% were likely or very likely to choose that alternative option.
For termite control, 37% (n = 18) said they would try another
control method, and 89% were likely or very likely to choose that
option. For crawling insects, 25% (n = 12) would choose another
control method, with 100% likely to choose that option; for lawn
and tree insects, 15% (n = 8) said they would select an alternative
control option, 100% were likely or very likely to try that option.
When asked an open-ended question about preferred control methods,
many people who said they would never use pesticides indicated that
they might choose some sort of chemical control. Four interviewees
said they would choose a professional or pesticide option for
flying insects; 17 said they would hire a professional or use a
pesticide to con-trol termites, 6 to control crawling pests, and 8
to
control lawn and tree pests (Table 2). Other options listed by
the survey population included sanitation, light traps, spraying
with hair spray, spraying with Lysol, using boric acid, and
biological control by allowing pets to eat the pests.
Homemade Product Use as a Pest Management Option
Forty-two percent of the respondents said that they had tried
some kind of homemade product, in-cluding soaps and cleaners, to
control insect pests. Most of the respondents (70%) used homemade
products to control crawling insects, but other insect categories
were also targeted by homemade pest control products (Fig. 10).
However, when asked how effective these homemade treatments were,
fewer than half of respondents believed that the products were
effective or very effective, and almost a quarter of the
respondents said they were ineffective (Fig 11). Pet owners (64.5%)
were more likely to have tried a homemade pest control solution
than respondents who did not own pets (35.5%) (x2=8.05, df=1,
P=0.0045).
DiscussionMore than 2/3 of the Florida population be-
lieved that insect pests were somewhat or very harmful to their
household. Previous surveys reported that people have an aversion
to insects in their home, and they would like to completely
eliminate cockroaches from existence (Kellert 1993). In Arizona,
88% of a survey population was afraid of or disliked arthropods
indoors (Byrne et al.1984); however, the arthropods listed by
re-spondents were not structurally damaging, and few presented a
health hazard. Similarly, 86% of a Min-nesota population disliked
or were afraid of indoor arthropods (Hahn and Ascerno 1991). A
possible explanation for the difference in the populations is that
the Arizona and Minnesota studies focused on indoor arthropods,
whereas our Florida survey asked only about insect pests and did
not specify a location. The term “pest” was not defined for the
Fig. 5. Percentage of participants that use pesticides.
Fig. 6. Pesticide users’ reasons for purchasing pest control
products or services and their importance (n = 492).
Responses that were significantly different between male and
female participants are shown separately; otherwise female
and male responses were combined. Numbers represent
percentage of responses minus “no response” or “do not know”
responses. Respondents were
allowed to select multiple reasons for purchasing pest
control
services. Survey categories “very important” and “somewhat
important” were combined under “important.” Categories
“not important” and “somewhat unimportant” were combined as
“unimportant.”
-
77American Entomologist • Volume 54, Number 2
Fig. 7. Non-pesticide users’ reasons for purchasing pest control
products or services and their importance (n = 59). None of the
responses were significantly different between male and female
participants, therefore female and male responses were combined.
Numbers represent percentage of responses minus “no response” or
“do not know” responses. Respondents were allowed to select
multiple reasons for purchasing pest control services. Survey
categories “very important” and “somewhat important” were combined
under “important.” Categories “not important” and “somewhat
unimportant” were combined as “unimportant.”
58.5
25.5
61.1
51.9
78.6
58.9
66.0
52.7
75.9
33.3
66.0
74.5
67.9
60.0
35.7
33.9
18.9
21.8
20.4
26.9
10.7
21.4
13.2
20.0
9.3
11.1
17.0
3.9
10.7
16.4
16.1
25.0
22.6
52.7
18.5
21.2
10.7
19.6
20.8
27.3
14.8
55.6
17.0
21.6
21.4
23.6
48.2
41.1
0 20 40 60 80
Repair and preventive
Physical removal
Spot treatment
Long lasting treatment
Repair and preventive
Physical removal
Spot treatment
Long lasting treatment
Repair and preventive
Physical removal
Spot treatment
Long lasting treatment
Repair and preventive
Physical removal
Spot treatment
Long lasting treatment
100
Likely Neutral Not Likely
Flying insects (flies, mosquitoes, and wasps)
Lawn and tree insects (mole crickets, chinch bugs, fire
ants)
Termites
Crawling insects (cockroaches, fleas and ants)
% % % % % %
Fig. 8. Likelihood of non-pesticide users taking pest control
actions to solve a problem (n = 59). Numbers represent percentage
of responses minus “no response” or “do not know” responses.
Respondents were allowed to select multiple reasons for purchasing
pest control services. Survey categories “very likely” and
“somewhat likely” were combined under “likely.” Categories “not
likely” and “somewhat unlikely” were combined under “not
likely.”
survey participant, so the answers were based on the
respondents’ perception of a pest.
Based on perceived cost and difficulty to control, the most
important category of urban pest in this survey was the crawling
pest. Additionally, 71% of the survey population reported having a
problem with crawling insects in the previous year. This response
rate is probably due to a low tolerance for crawling insects,
rather than actual damage caused by the pests. Potter and Bessin
(1998) found that the tolerance for indoor arthropods in
Kentucky
was also low, with 0–1 being the maximum number of cockroaches
tolerated indoors.
Many public health–related issues, such as reac-tions to stings
or bites and disease transmission, are associated with flying
insects. The Florida respon-dents perceived flying insects as the
most harmful category of insect pests. Pest control companies are
beginning to adapt to this perception and are including public
health–related pest control to their services (McKenna 2005).
When something is of concern to a person, there
-
78 American Entomologist • Summer 2008
48.9
37.0
70.2
64.6
70.2
36.2
79.2
60.4
10.6
8.7
12.8
12.5
8.5
10.6
6.2
10.4
40.4
54.3
17.0
22.9
21.3
53.2
14.6
29.2
0 20 40 60 80 100
Test and fertilize soil to maintainplant health
Physical removal by trapping
Apply caulking to cracks toprevent insect entrance
Physical removal by swatting,sweeping or trapping
Repair damage and eliminatewood to ground contact
Physical removal by stomping,sweeping or trapping
Repair or install screens onwindows or doors
Physical removal by swatting,sweeping or trapping
Likely Neutral Not Likely
Lawn and tree insects (mole crickets, chinch bugs, fire
ants)
Termites
Crawling insects (cockroaches, fleas and ants)
Flying insects (flies, mosquitoes, and wasps)
%% % % % %
Fig. 9. Likelihood of participants who never
use pesticides taking pest control actions to
solve a problem (n = 48). Numbers represent
percentage of responses minus “no response” or
“do not know” responses. Respondents were
allowed to select multiple reasons for purchasing
pest control services. Survey categories “very
likely” and “somewhat likely” were combined
under “likely.” Categories “not likely” and “somewhat
unlikely” were combined under “not likely.”
is a threshold that is met before action is taken. The action in
this case is the behavior, which is less likely to be influenced by
extraneous variables and is considered to be a true indicator of a
person’s at-titude (Levenson and Frankie 1983). Pesticide users and
non-pesticide users had differing thresholds for taking action
against insect pests. Pesticide users said that seeing insect
damage in or around the home was the primary impetus for taking
action
against insect pests by purchasing pest management products or
services. Non-pesticide users said that they took action when they
believed that insect pests posed a danger to the family. Our survey
revealed that participants who initially stated that they would
never use pesticides would in fact resort to pesticides when faced
with a pest problem, as indicated by the action choices they would
make.
In a previous study, Potter and Bessin (1998) reported that
96.2% of the survey population could not define integrated pest
management in the context of pest control. Furthermore, 66% of the
survey population would be more inclined to use naturally derived
products in their homes (Potter and Bessin 1998). Although the
public may not be able to define integrated pest management, our
survey indicated that a portion of the population is practicing it.
In addition to using pesticides, the Florida survey population
seemed willing to try alternative control strategies including
exclusion and homemade products. Controlling insect pests, mainly
crawling pests, with an alternative control method was important
enough for more than 40% of the population to have used some form
of homemade pest control product.
A conservative estimate is that more than 20% of pest control
companies in the United States are located in the state of Florida
(NPMA 2005, FDACS 2008). Therefore, the motivations for using
management practices of the Florida population have important
economic implications. People are motivated by perceived damage or
danger to their home or family to act against insect pests. In
2002, $5.65 billion were spent in the United States on professional
pest control services, and termites are currently estimated to
cause more than $5 billion damage each year (NPMA 2008). For
extension entomologists and the pest control industry to properly
educate their clientele about reduced-risk solutions to pest
problems, knowledge of the at-titudes and perceptions of the
Florida population, as described in our study, is important.
Table 2. Comments specified by people who indicated they would
never use pesticides (n = 45).
Insect Problem Control SolutionNo. of never-use
respondents
Flying insects (flies, mosquitoes, and wasps) (n = 7)
Use a light trap 1
Call an exterminator/professional or use a pesticide
4
Remove food sources 1
Spray with hair spray 1
Termites (n = 18)
Call an exterminator/professional or use a pesticide
17
Alternative recourse 1
Crawling insects (cockroaches, fleas and ants) (n = 12)
Clean area and eliminate food source 3
Spray with Lysol 1
Use boric acid 1
Let cat eat the insects 1
Call an exterminator/professional or use a pesticide
6
Lawn and tree insects (mole crickets, chinch bugs, fire ants) (n
= 8)
Call an exterminator/professional or use a pesticide
These comments were open-ended responses given when asked what
other action the interviewees would take in controlling a
particular category of insect pests.
-
79American Entomologist • Volume 54, Number 2
References CitedAIF (Agriculture Institute of Florida). 1999.
Agriculture
Institute consumer survey. Citrus Vegetable Mag. A1–A8.
Bennett, G. W., E. S. Runstrom and E. A. Wieland. 1983.
Pesticide use in homes. Bull. Entomol. Soc. Am. 29: 31–38.
Berenbaum, M. 2001. Caught in the net. Am. Entomol. 47: 4–5.
Byrne, D. N., E. H. Carpenter, E. M. Thoms, and S. T. Cotty.
1984. Public attitudes toward urban arthro-pods. Bull. Entomol.
Soc. Am. 30: 40–44.
Capinera, J. L. 1993. Insects in art and religion: the Ameri-can
southwest. Am. Entomol. 39: 221–229.
Capinera, J. L. 1995. Humpbacked flute player and other
entomomorphs from the American southwest. Am. Entomol. 41:
83–88.
Cherry, R. 2002. The functions of insects in mythology. Am.
Entomol. 48: 134–136.
FDACS (Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services).
2008. Licensed Pest Control Companies.
http://sunoas.doacs.state.fl.us:7778/forms/frmservlet?config=ceu&form=PUBLIC_MENU_PAGE.fmx
Frankie, G. W., and H. Levenson. 1978. Insecticide prob-lems and
insecticide use: public opinions, information, and behavior, pp.
359–399. In G. W. Frankie and C. S. Koehler [Eds.]. Perspectives in
urban entomology. Academic, New York.
Hahn, J. D., and M. E. Ascerno. 1991. Public attitudes toward
urban arthropods in Minnesota. Am. Entomol. 37: 179–184.
Hogue, A. 1987. Cultural Entomology. Annu. Rev. En-tomol. 32:
181–199.
Kellert, S. R. 1993. Values and perceptions of inverte-brates.
Conserv. Biol. 7: 845, 855.
Levenson, H., and G. W. Frankie. 1983. A study of hom-eowner
attitudes and practices toward arthropod pests and pesticides in
three U.S. metropolitan areas, pp. 67–106. In G. W. Frankie and C.
S. Koehler [Eds.]. Urban entomology: interdisciplinary
perspectives. Praeger, New York.
McKenna, L. 2005. State of the industry. Pest Control Tech. 10:
2, 23.
NPMA (National Pest Management Association). 2005. Industry fact
sheet.
http://www.pestworld.org/Data-base/Article.asp?ArticleID=33&UserType=
NPMA (National Pest Management Association). 2008. Fact Sheet:
Common Household Pests.
http://www.pestworld.org/Database/article.asp?ArticleID=34
Potter M. F., and R. T. Bessin. 1998. Pest control, pesti-cides,
and the public: attitudes and implications. Am. Entomol. 44:
142–147.
Rutledge, L. C. 2003. Emily Dickinson’s arthropods. Am. Entomol.
49: 70–74.
SAS (Statistical Analysis Software Institute). 2001.
Sta-tistical analysis software program, version 8.1. SAS Institute,
Cary, NC.
Wood, F. E., W. H. Robinson, S. A. Kraft and P. A. Zungoli.
1981. Survey of attitudes and knowledge of public housing residents
toward cockroaches. Bull. Entomol. Soc. Am. 27: 9–13.
Zungoli, P. A., and W. H. Robinson. 1984. Feasibility of
establishing an aesthetic injury level for German cockroach pest
management programs. Environ. Entomol. 13: 1453–1458.
Please Note: Pest Management Survey can be found at:
http://pmu.ifas.ufl.edu/reference.html.
Rebecca W. Baldwin completed this research, funded by FDACS, as
an entomology student at the University of Florida. She has
graduated (Ph.D. 2005) and is currently an Assistant Extension
Scientist at the University of Florida, Gainesville, where she
teaches introductory entomology classes, holds workshops for
science teachers, and co-di-rects the Florida School IPM program.
Philip G. Koehler is the D. R. Sapp Endowed Professor of Urban
Entomology, Department of Entomology and Nematology, University of
Florida, Gainesville, specializing in urban insect management.
Roberto M. Pereira is an Associate Research Scientist with the
Urban Entomology Laboratory, Department of Entomology &
Nematology, University of Florida, Gainesville, specializing in ant
and other urban pest control. Faith M. Oi is an Assistant Extension
Scientist for the Entomology & Nematology De-partment at the
University of Florida, Gainesville, specializing in urban pest
management. Dr. Oi also co-directs the Florida School IPM program
and directs the University of Florida Orkin Termite Training
Facility. 7
70.0
28.5
15.0
5.5 5.9 5.9
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Crawlinginsects
Lawn andtree insects
Flyinginsects
Wooddestroying
insects
Gardenpests
Fleas
Perc
en
t o
f re
spo
nd
en
ts w
ho
u
sed
ho
mem
ad
e p
est
icid
es
Fig. 10. Percentage of respondents who used homemade pesticide
products against the different pest categories.
Fig. 11. Respondents’
evaluation of how effective homemade pest control products
are against insect pests.
