Historically, insects have been an influential

Public Perceptions of Pest Problems R. W. Baldwin, P. G. Koehler, R. M. Pereira, and F. M. Oi Historically, insects have been an influential part of human culture. Insect influence can be found in our language, art, history, philosophy, 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 public 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 aesthetic injury caused by cockroaches (Zungoli and Robinson 1984) were surveyed in public housing in Virginia and Maryland. Levenson and Frankie (1983) compared attitudes about and pesticides 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 Indiana. 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, few have focused on behavioral response toward the insects. Our objectives in this study were to consider the importance of categories of urban, 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 management. Materials and Methods A survey was conducted 27 March to 4 May 2004 through the office of the Florida Survey Research 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. The telephone sample was obtained by generating 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 entomological 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 delivery 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 and one 73

Fig. 1. Self-reported chemical sensitivity and allergy to insects and insect bites in male and female survey participants. Table 1. Demographic profile of the participants in the Florida survey of pest perceptions. Demographic n % Respondents Gender Age Education level Florida residency (years) Annual household income ($) Domicile Male 232 38.7 Female 368 61.3 18 29 93 15.5 30 39 94 15.7 40 49 119 19.8 50 65 179 29.8 >65 115 19.2 <High school 32 5.4 High school diploma 128 21.8 Technical/ Vocational school 20 3.4 Some college 142 24.1 College degree 176 29.9 Post graduate 90 15.3 <5 74 12.5 5 9 72 12.2 10 19 111 18.8 20 29 120 20.3 30 215 36.3 25,000 110 22.4 25,001 50,000 141 28.8 50,001 75,000 92 18.8 75,001 100,000 64 13.1 100,001 83 16.9 Own 483 81.3 Rent 111 18.7 Responses for each question that do not total 600 indicate a number of do not know or refuse to answer responses. Not Harmful 30% Somewhat Harmful 52% Very Harmful 16% Do not know 2% Fig. 2. Participants evaluations of how harmful insect are to their households. with pesticide use. Questions were designed not only to gauge perceptions of pest management, but to assess 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 participants chose not to answer certain questions or responded 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 omitted from the chi-square analysis. Results Demographics The 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 homeowners. 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 allergic 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 Pests To focus their thoughts on the survey topic, the interviewees were asked how harmful insect were to their households. Insect 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 were to their household. 74 American Entomologist Summer 2008

Interviewees were presented with four categories of insect with examples: (a) crawling, such as ants and cockroaches; (b) flying, such as mosquitoes, flies, and wasps; (c) wood destroying, such as termites; and (d) lawn and tree, such as fire ants, mole crickets, and chinch bugs. The next question 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 were the most difficult to control; 22% said lawn and tree were most difficult. Half said that flying insect were the most harmful, and 30% said crawling insects. Fifty percent of the population believed that they spent more money controlling crawling 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 they had combated during the past year, crawling were the primary problem (71%), followed by lawn (55%), flying (38%), garden (27%), stored-product (13%), and termites (10%) (Fig. 4). After the initial questions, the sample of interviewees (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 primary 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 between male and female respondents; however, small but significant differences between responses from male and females were observed for all other possible reasons. The knowledge that insect pose a health hazard (x 2 =15.73, df =4, P =0.0034), the feeling that represent a danger to the household (x 2 =17.61, df =4, P =0.0015), the knowledge that insects can cause damage in or around the house (x 2 =16.45, df =4, P =0.0025), and the sight of live insects in or around the home (x 2 =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 posed a danger to the family (86%), followed by knowledge that insect 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 Percent of Survey Participants 14.8 49.7 (x 2 =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. Nonpesticide users were more likely to deal with flying 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 termites, 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%). 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 Percent of survey respondents 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 Flying Crawling Wood-destroying Lawn and Tree 22.2 15.8 41.7 is most difficult to control? 71.3 Crawling 55.8 5.5 7.8 29.7 is most harmful? 38.3 Lawn Flying 17.2 16.7 49.5 9.5 costs more to control? 26.5 Garden 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. 13.3 Stored product Fig. 4. Percentage of participants who had combated different categories of insect during the 12 mo before the survey. 9.8 Termites 75

Fig. 5. Percentage of participants that use pesticides. 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. 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 maintaining 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. Exclusionary measures to keep out were preferred for all pest categories (79% for flying insect, 70% for termites, 70% for crawling, and 49% for lawn and tree ) (Fig. 9). The respondents were also likely to physically remove the insect pest (60% for flying insect, 36% for termites, 64% for crawling, and 37% for lawn and tree ). 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 to control termites, 6 to control crawling, and 8 to control lawn and tree (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. Homemade Product Use as a Pest Management Option Forty-two percent of the respondents said that they had tried some kind of homemade product, including soaps and cleaners, to control insect. 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%) (X 2 =8.05, df=1, P=0.0045). Discussion More than 2/3 of the Florida population believed that insect 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 respondents were not structurally damaging, and few presented a health hazard. Similarly, 86% of a Minnesota 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 and did not specify a location. The term pest was not defined for the 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. 76 American Entomologist Summer 2008

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. 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. 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 reactions to stings or bites and disease transmission, are associated with flying insects. The Florida respondents perceived flying insects as the most harmful category of insect. 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 Likely Neutral Not Likely Flying insects (flies, mosquitoes, and wasps) 33.9 25.0 41.1 35.7 16.1 48.2 60.0 16.4 23.6 67.9 10.7 21.4 Termites 74.5 3.9 21.6 66.0 17.0 17.0 33.3 11.1 55.6 75.9 9.3 14.8 Crawling insects (cockroaches, fleas and ants) 52.7 20.0 27.3 66.0 13.2 20.8 58.9 21.4 19.6 78.6 10.7 10.7 Lawn and tree insects (mole crickets, chinch bugs, fire ants) 51.9 26.9 21.2 Fig. 8. Likelihood of nonpesticide 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. 61.1 20.4 18.5 25.5 21.8 52.7 58.5 18.9 22.6 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 77

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. by swatting, sweeping or trapping Repair or install screens on windows or doors by stomping, sweeping or trapping Repair damage and eliminate wood to ground contact by swatting, sweeping or trapping Apply caulking to cracks to prevent insect entrance by trapping Test and fertilize soil to maintain plant health Likely Neutral Not Likely Flying insects (flies, mosquitoes, and wasps) 60.4 10.4 29.2 79.2 6.2 14.6 Termites 36.2 10.6 53.2 70.2 8.5 21.3 Crawling insects (cockroaches, fleas and ants) 64.6 12.5 22.9 70.2 12.8 17.0 Lawn and tree insects (mole crickets, chinch bugs, fire ants) 37.0 8.7 54.3 48.9 10.6 40.4 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 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 attitude (Levenson and Frankie 1983). Pesticide users and non-pesticide users had differing thresholds for taking action against insect. Pesticide users said that seeing insect damage in or around the home was the primary impetus for taking action Table 2. Comments specified by people who indicated they would never use pesticides (n = 45). Insect Problem Control Solution Flying insects (flies, mosquitoes, and wasps) (n = 7) Termites (n = 18) No. of never-use respondents Use a light trap 1 Remove food sources 1 Spray with hair spray 1 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 Lawn and tree insects (mole crickets, chinch bugs, fire ants) (n = 8) These comments were open-ended responses given when asked what other action the interviewees would take in controlling a particular category of insect. 4 17 6 against insect by purchasing pest management products or services. Non-pesticide users said that they took action when they believed that insect 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, mainly crawling, 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. 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 attitudes and perceptions of the Florida population, as described in our study, is important. 78 American Entomologist Summer 2008

Percent of respondents who used homemade pesticides 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 70.0 28.5 15.0 Fig. 10. Percentage of respondents who used homemade pesticide products against the different pest categories. 10 0 Crawling insects Lawn and tree insects Flying insects 5.5 5.9 5.9 Wood destroying insects Garden Fleas Fig. 11. Respondents evaluation of how effective homemade pest control products are against insect. References Cited AIF (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 arthropods. Bull. Entomol. Soc. Am. 30: 40 44. Capinera, J. L. 1993. Insects in art and religion: the American 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 problems 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. Entomol. 32: 181 199. Kellert, S. R. 1993. Values and perceptions of invertebrates. Conserv. Biol. 7: 845, 855. Levenson, H., and G. W. Frankie. 1983. A study of homeowner attitudes and practices toward arthropod 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/database/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, pesticides, 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. Statistical 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-directs 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 Department 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 79