Randomized trial examines willingness to pay for biological pest control products in Bangladesh, suggesting knowledge impacts adoption.
BACKGROUND: The increasing use of chemical pesticides and insecticides poses serious risks to ecosystems, soil quality, and human health. In Bangladesh, many farmers have limited awareness of the safe use, disposal, and health implications of these chemicals. This study aimed to assess farmers' knowledge of biological pest control products, examine their willingness to pay (WTP) for such products, and identify the factors influencing their adoption. Data were collected from 220 farmers through a multistage random sampling technique from two upazilas in the Mymensingh district of Bangladesh. The single-bounded contingent valuation method and a binary logistic regression model were employed to estimate WTP and identify its influencing factors. RESULTS: Overall, 52.7% of respondents were willing to pay for biological pest control products, whereas 47.3% were not. Farmers' age, education, farming experience, knowledge of biological pest control products, monthly income, monthly expenditure, training, and awareness significantly influenced WTP. The findings revealed that most farmers had limited knowledge of the selected biological pest control products. Headache, weakness, and skin irritation were identified as the most common health problems associated with pesticide use. CONCLUSION: The results indicate a moderate level of acceptance of biological pest control products among farmers and highlight the importance of socioeconomic characteristics, knowledge, and awareness in shaping WTP. Strengthening farmer training, awareness programs, and institutional support could enhance the adoption of biological pest control products and reduce the health risks associated with chemical pesticide use. These findings provide important evidence for policymakers seeking to promote sustainable pest management and improve environmental and public health outcomes in Bangladesh.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Noman et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: