Reducing Residential Pesticide Use: A Best Practice Review (Research Alert)

This best practices review studied nine communities in Canada, the United States and Europe that were leaders in reducing their pesticide use. Only those communities that passed a by-law and supported it with education or made a community agreement were successful in reducing the use of pesticides by a high degree (51-90%). Education and outreach programs alone were less effective. The report, published April 2004, highlights the most promising approaches used by the nine communities.

Background

Communities throughout North America and Europe are struggling to find the best way to limit the use of pesticides for beautifying home lawns and gardens. While a few have banned outright the use of pesticides for cosmetic purposes, others are trying to achieve the same goal using voluntary measures such as public education and social marketing. This report involved the selection and in-depth study of nine communities in Canada, the United States and Europe that were leaders in reducing their pesticide use. The impact of the various legislative and educational approaches was evaluated using as many means as possible, both quantitative and qualitative.

Getting Informed

Only those communities that passed a by-law and supported it with education or made a community agreement were successful in reducing the use of pesticides by a high degree (51-90%). Education and outreach programs alone, while more popular than by-laws, were far less effective. The authors could find none that have achieved more than a low reduction (10-24%) in pesticide use to date.

In those communities that used the law as their primary tool, education was still vital to their ability to reduce the use of pesticides, along with effective enforcement and a permitting system that allowed people to apply to use banned pesticides. The Quebec communities studied, along with Halifax, effectively combined enforcement and education through home patrols and/or inspections. Some required residents to apply for their own permits, rather than rely on lawn care companies to do it for them. This proved to be an excellent opportunity for authorities to educate residents one-on-one regarding the potential hazards of pesticides and the benefits of alternative methods.

Three approaches to designing by-laws were found, all taking into consideration the fact that pesticide products routinely change. One community identified specific low-impact products as alternatives, another banned specific ingredients and a third referenced a third party list of prohibited materials that is regularly updated.

Even though by-laws carry sufficient weight to achieve results on their own, the study found that municipalities benefited by having the support of provincial and federal laws. For instance, in 1996 the national government of Denmark raised taxes on pesticides from 3% of the retail price to as much as 37%, a move that would in itself, discourage pesticide sales. In Canada, municipalities in Quebec were to have their by-laws complemented by provincial legislation in 2006 that prohibited the sale of pesticides and fertilizers containing banned ingredients. In 2004, in the Quebec towns studied, pesticides were banned from use by residents but could still be purchased in local stores.

While it may not be surprising that the stick has been more effective, at least in the short term, than the carrot, there were some unexpected lessons learned through educational initiatives. For instance, in both Seattle and Texas, program organizers had a multiple focus (reducing pesticide use as well as other green initiatives such as reducing water use), which proved more cost-effective and appealing to local retailers, than tackling one issue at a time.

It was also noted that public education and outreach can profit from controversy and public discussion. In Hudson, Quebec, sales of herbicides decreased by 90% before the by-law even came into effect.

The best practice programs that relied on education and outreach alone used a wide variety of tools including workshops on sustainable gardening practices, articles in newspapers, information packages, lawn signs, lawn mower decals, horticultural calendars, kiosks at special events, interviews with the media, web sites, advertisements, posters, newsletters and fact sheets.

In the vast majority of best practice communities studied, political and/or popular support was critical, regardless of whether they had chosen to pass a by-law or use education and outreach. Pressure from the media was also instrumental in forcing some communities to move forward with pesticide reduction.

By-laws and education were more expensive than education alone. The cost to implement a by-law appears to be in the order of $CD 0.50-$1.00 per person per year, while the cost to implement an outreach component alone appears to be in the order of $CD 0.13 to $0.24 per person per year.

Contacts

Jay Kassirer
Cullbridge Marketing and Communications
Tel: 613-224-3800
E-mail:kassirer@cullbridge.com

Chris Wolnick
The Canadian Centre for Pollution Prevention
Tel:(800-667-9790
E-mail: chris@c2p2online.com

You can download the full report (1.5 MB) at www.cullbridge.com/Projects/Pesticides.htm

Notes

Added September 2004