Available online at www.sciencedirect.
com Current Opinion in
ScienceDirect
Farmers’ behaviour in pesticide use: A key concept for
improving environmental safety
Christos A. Damalas and Spyridon D. Koutroubas
Abstract
Chemical pesticides are an integral part of modern agriculture
that may have serious side effects on human health and the
environment. Assessing contribution of pesticides to potential
environmental problems requires studies on eco-toxicological
aspects of the pesticide products as well studies on the
behavioural variable of the pesticide applicator, which can be
critical for an accurate risk assessment, albeit often neglected.
The study of human behaviour, i.e., the actions or reactions of
an individual to external or internal stimuli, is a key prerequisite
for improving environmental safety in pesticide use. The level
of awareness and knowledge of pesticide risks among farmers
is essential for improving safety in all aspects of pesticide
handling, but knowledge is connected with deep understand-
ing and sense of a concept, whereas awareness does not
necessarily entail a deep understanding. Occupational safety
and health studies show that safety behaviour among farmers
can be affected by many factors, with perceptions, attitudes,
and self-efficacy playing a major role.
Addresses
Department of Agricultural Development, Democritus University of
Thrace, 68200 Orestiada, Greece
Corresponding author: Damalas, Christos A. (cdamalas@agro.duth.
gr), (chris.damalas@yahoo.gr)
Current Opinion in Environmental Science & Health 2018,
4:27–30
This review comes from a themed issue on Pesticides in agriculture:
environmental and health risks
Edited by Christos A. Damalas
For a complete overview see the Issue and the Editorial
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coesh.2018.07.001
2468-5844/© 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords
Awareness, Knowledge, Perceptions, Attitudes, Self-efficacy.
Introduction
Pesticides are considered a rapid and easy method for
the control of pests and weeds in agriculture, but their
use may come at a serious implications for human health
and the environment [1,2]. There is now sufficient
documentation that certain chemicals present serious
risk to living organisms and adverse effects to the
environment [3,4]. In 2017, 23 deaths of farmers were
reported due to pesticide poisoning in Yavatmal District
www.sciencedirect.com
Environmental Science & Health
of Maharashtra State in the western region of India [5].
Actually, pesticides can contaminate practically every
component of the environment. Pesticide residues in air,
soil, and water (surface and ground waters) have been
detected in several countries. In addition, urban uses of
pesticides further expand the problem. Pesticide
contamination has major risks particularly to non-target
organisms, such as beneficial organisms. Reducing
pesticide contamination and consequent harm in the
environment requires minimizing pesticide use through
non-chemical pest control (including weed control) or
improving pesticide use practices as much as possible.
Farmers and farm workers are considered among the
high risk groups exposed to pesticides [6]. In particular,
pesticide mixing and loading show the greatest intensity
of pesticide exposure because of the possibility for
direct exposure to the concentrated product [7].
Nevertheless, the longer duration task of pesticide
application contributes to higher levels of exposure
compared to those of mixing and loading. Pesticide drift,
defined as the physical movement from the target site of
the pesticide droplets in the air at pesticide application
or soon thereafter, is a constant concern in pesticide use,
because it inevitably occurs even in the most careful
applications, and therefore, can increase the likelihood
of detrimental effects on pesticide operators and the
environment [8]. In addition, cleaning contaminated
equipment after spraying may also be a source of
considerable exposure to pesticides that requires per-
sonal protection. In this case, a complete sprayer
cleaning process can help decrease the risk of accidental
exposure.
Farmers’ awareness and knowledge
The level of awareness and knowledge of pesticide risks
is essential for improving safety in pesticide use [9e11].
Both concepts are often used interchangeably, but there
is a basic difference between them. Awareness mainly
refers to consciousness of events, thoughts or emotions,
whereas knowledge has to do with information and skills
acquired through experience or education. Therefore,
knowledge can involve both theoretical and practical
understanding of a subject. The basic difference be-
tween the two terms is that knowledge is connected
with deep understanding and sense of a concept,
whereas awareness does not necessarily entail a deep
understanding and is associated with information that is
personally relevant [12]. Awareness just reflects per-
ceptions or opinions of individuals, i.e., the ability of an
Current Opinion in Environmental Science & Health 2018, 4:27–30
28 Pesticides in agriculture: environmental and health risks
individual to understand events or special circum-
stances. Actually, people grow awareness under past
experience and its impact, which help them to better
understand possible coming impacts.
A major challenge for scientists is to provide information
and practical training to increase farmers’ knowledge
and awareness about health and safety that are adapted
to the educational level of the farmers. For instance, the
knowledge of a medical doctor can be theoretical, mainly
acquired through education, e.g., about physiology and
various diseases, and at the same time, can be practical,
i.e., skills, such as patient examination, ability of making
diagnoses or performance of surgical interventions, ac-
quired by practical experience. It is well known that
knowledge acquisition is a complicated mechanism,
which involves perception, communication, and
reasoning. Human mind is capable of two types of
knowledge, i.e., rational knowledge (based on what are
considered to be logical truths) and intuitive knowledge
(possessed without knowing where the knowledge
comes from).
Human behaviour and related parameters
Human behaviour reflects actions or reactions of an in-
dividual to external or internal stimuli. Behaviour can be
identified as innate and learned. Innate behaviour re-
flects instinctive actions for survival and is determined
by the nervous system. Thus, this type of behaviour is
stereotyped and species-specific. On the contrary,
learned behaviour is altered as a result of the experience
of the individual and can be influenced by both genes
and the environment. Many people engage with risk
consciously knowing that they expose themselves to
possible harm, even when their behaviour might deviate
from expert advice. This is important for understanding
risk-taking, but differs from risk behaviour, which does
not assure awareness from the risk taker [13]. In cases of
lack of awareness or inaccurate knowledge, education
and information strategies seem more important for
behavioural change, even though these strategies can
fall short due to other factors guiding people’s engage-
ment with risk. Nevertheless, farmers’ behaviour is
crucial for proper risk management in agriculture.
Therefore, effective risk management depends largely
on behavioural factors, including risk aversion and
perception. In this regard, studies of farmers’ risk
perception and aversion are of major importance in farm
risk management and can be useful particularly for
policy making. Several studies have shown that the use
of occupational safety and health practices among
farmers can be affected by different factors, as described
below.
Perception
Identifying farmers’ perceptions of pesticide risk and
safety is a constant challenge. Perception is the way
Current Opinion in Environmental Science & Health 2018, 4:27–30
people understand something. In this regard, different
perceptions for the same thing can be noted among
different people, since perceptions are normally formed
by the society in which the person lives. In this envi-
ronment, the thinking pattern of an individual is
determined by a number of factors, e.g., cultural values,
beliefs, attitudes, education, rules, and laws in the
particular environment that may affect the way of
thinking among individuals [14]. Further, the thinking
pattern may be characterized by the past generations as
well. Perceptions of risk are important indicators of
health-related and other behaviours recommended for
either dealing with or preventing risks. Therefore,
appropriate risk perception is a prerequisite for selecting
strategies towards effective risk-coping, because an
unaware farmer of the risks faced is unable to manage
them effectively. In this context, farmers’ surveys are
always helpful, because they help identify farmers’
perceptions of pesticide risk and safety and, thus, are
useful in evaluating the effectiveness of projects and
setting the research agenda.
Attitude
One of the most important variables affecting safety
behaviour in pesticide use is the attitude towards
occupational safety and health [15]. The attitude is a
feeling or opinion about a way of behaving, which eval-
uates positively or negatively this way of behaving. A
positive attitude towards the behaviour usually implies a
strong intention of an individual to follow that behav-
iour. In pesticide use, taking safety measures is more
likely only when farmers believe in greater health ben-
efits by the use of those measures than the overall cost
derived from their use. In this regard, the attitude can
be an important predictor of the behaviour of individuals
[16]. In a recent study, almost half (49.2%) of the
farmers had negative attitude towards pesticide use,
with experienced farmers and farmers with large land
use showing more positive attitude towards pesticides
[17]. Attitude towards occupational safety health
affected positively farmers’ use of safety practices [18].
The majority of the farmers with acute pesticide
poisoning reported having overall a good attitude to-
wards the use of pesticides and fairly good perception of
associated risks [19].
Knowledge
Knowledge of practices related to occupational safety
and health is another variable involved in the use of
safety practices [11,20,21]. Generally, knowledge can be
defined as a mixture of related information, values, and
expert insight along with framed experience that form a
basis for assessing new information and experiences and
integrating them in every day behaviour [22]. Moreover,
knowledge is a basic element of attitude formed by a
number of beliefs and experiences linked to the attitude
in memory on the basis of strength between beliefs or
www.sciencedirect.com

experiences and the attitude. Knowledge affects the
health-related behaviour of individuals; high knowledge
levels increase likelihood of showing safe behaviour
among individuals [23]. Knowledge has long been
assumed that is associated with greater influence of at-
titudes on behaviour. It has been reported that farmers’
knowledge of pesticide hazards as well as farmers’ use of
information sources showed a positive relationship with
attitudes towards the use of pesticides [17]. Full con-
fidence of farmers on pesticides, limited access to
training on pesticides, and poor knowledge of proper
handling practices imply pesticide exposure risk levels
and potential pesticide residues on crops [24]. Previous
training of farmers was linked with high knowledge in
pesticide use and strong beliefs about control of pesti-
cide hazard as well as safe behaviour of farmers [25],
which were associated with lower levels of exposure to
pesticides. Therefore, interventions promoting knowl-
edge in pesticide use should become a top priority for
minimizing farmers’ exposure to pesticides [25].
Greater knowledge about beneficial insects contributed
to less pesticide use, whereas awareness of pesticide
health risks contributed to fewer poisoning symptoms
by pesticides [26]. High knowledge of pesticide hazards
among farmers was not consistent with the reported
safety measures, which were poor [27]. Knowledge of
health risks of pesticides is improved with formal edu-
cation and training. High levels of exposure to organo-
chlorine pesticides have been reported to be related
with poor knowledge of pesticide risks among in-
habitants, and particularly among farm workers [28].
This highlights that improved knowledge and attitudes
are not enough to modify farmers’ behaviour towards
safety. The gap between knowledge and practice needs
to be bridged by a more interactive and participatory
training model [29].
Self-efficacy
Self-efficacy in safety is another main determinant of
safety practices [30]. Attitudes, abilities, and cognitive
skills of an individual compose the individual’s self-
system. This system defines to a great extent how
people realize situations and how they act responding to
different situations raised. Self-efficacy, a fundamental
component of this self-system, is defined as the belief of
an individual in his or her competence to make it in a
situation. A high feel of self-efficacy in an assignment
leads to better performance in safety behaviour. In other
words, high confidence levels of individuals in their
abilities to perform safely determines to a great extent
engagement of those individuals in safe or unsafe prac-
tices in the workplace [31]. On the other hand, safe
practices may be less likely to be rejected with high
levels of education, perceived self-efficacy in the safe
practice, increased off-farm income, and information
from appropriate sources [32]. Attitude towards safety
practices, knowledge on occupational safety, and self-
www.sciencedirect.com
Farmers’ behaviour in pesticide use Damalas and Koutroubas 29
efficacy in safety positively influenced farmers’ use of
safety practices, explaining a high proportion (73%) of
farmers’ variance in safety behaviour [18].
Conclusions
Farmers’ behaviour in pesticide use is a key concept for
improving environmental safety. The potential for ac-
cidents with pesticides could be eliminated if farmers
are well informed about pesticides and there is suffi-
cient training in pesticide use. Human behaviour re-
flects actions or reactions of an individual to external or
internal stimuli. The level of awareness and knowledge
of pesticide risks among farmers is essential for
improving safety in all aspects of pesticide handling, but
knowledge is connected with deep understanding and
sense of a concept, whereas awareness does not entail a
deep understanding. Occupational safety and health
studies show that safety behaviour among farmers can be
affected by many factors, with attitudes, knowledge, and
self-efficacy playing a major role. Successful public
health initiatives for reducing pesticide exposure should
be based on understanding farmers’ behaviours in the
context they occur. Therefore, strategies for promoting
health behaviour can be best designed with an under-
standing of relevant changes in farmers’ behaviour and
improving the ability to use pesticides skillfully. The
latter could be achieved even with the adoption of quite
simple rules on pesticide application, such as always
holding the nozzle downwind of the body.
Conflict of interest statement
Nothing declared.
References
1. Damalas CA: Understanding benefits and risks of pesticide
use. Sci Res Essays 2009, 4:945–949.
2. Damalas CA, Eleftherohorinos IG: Pesticide exposure, safety
issues, and risk assessment indicators. Int J Environ Res
Public Health 2011, 8:1402–1419.
3. Kim KH, Kabir E, Jahan SA: Exposure to pesticides and the
associated human health effects. Sci Total Environ 2017, 575:
525–535.
4. Nicolopoulou-Stamati P, Maipas S, Kotampasi C, Stamatis P,
Hens L: Chemical pesticides and human health: the urgent
need for a new concept in agriculture. Front Public Health
2016, 4:148.
5. Narasimha Reddy D, Kumar D: Pesticide poisonings in Yavatmal
District in Maharashtra: untold realities. India: Pesticide Action
Network (PAN); 2017.
6. Damalas CA, Koutroubas SD: Farmers’ exposure to pesticides:
toxicity types and ways of prevention. Toxics 2016, 4:1.
7. MacFarlane E, Carey R, Keegel T, El-Zaemay S, Fritschi L:
Dermal exposure associated with occupational end use of
pesticides and the role of protective measures. Safety Health
Work 2013, 4:136–141.
8. Damalas CA: Pesticide drift: seeking reliable environmental
indicators of exposure assessment. In Environmental in-
dicators. Edited by Armon R, Hänninen O, Dordrecht, the
Netherlands: Springer; 2015:251–261.
9. Wang J, Tao J, Yang C, Chu M, Lam H: A general framework
incorporating knowledge, risk perception and practices to
Current Opinion in Environmental Science & Health 2018, 4:27–30
30 Pesticides in agriculture: environmental and health risks
eliminate pesticide residues in food: a Structural Equation
Modelling analysis based on survey data of 986 Chinese
farmers. Food Contr 2017, 80:143–150.
This article highlighted a direct and significant effect of farmers’
knowledge on pesticides residue on safe pesticide practices and an
indirect effect of farmers’ knowledge on risk perception which in turn
enhances safe pesticide practices.
10. Wang W, Jin J, He R, Gong H: Gender differences in pesticide
use knowledge, risk awareness and practices in Chinese
farmers. Sci Total Environ 2017, 590–591:22–28.
11. Mohanty MK, Behera BM, Jena SK, Srikanth S, Mogane C,
Samal S, Behera AA: Knowledge attitude and practice of
pesticide use among agricultural workers in Puducherry,
South India. J Leg Med 2013, 20:1028–1031.
12. Trevethan R: Deconstructing and assessing knowledge and
awareness in public health research. Front Public Health 2017,
5:194.
13. Zinn JO: Towards a better understanding of risk-taking: key
concepts, dimensions and perspectives. Health Risk Soc
2015, 17:99–114.
14. Sharifzadeh MS, Damalas CA, Abdollahzadeh G: Perceived
usefulness of personal protective equipment in pesticide use
predicts farmers’ willingness to use it. Sci Total Environ 2017,
609:517–523.
15. Aluko OO, Adebayo AE, Adebisi TF, Ewegbemi MK, Abidoye AT,
Popoola BF: Knowledge, attitudes and perceptions of occu-
pational hazards and safety practices in Nigerian healthcare
workers. BMC Res Notes 2016, 9:71.
16. Peres F, Rozemberg B, de Lucca S: Risk perception related to
work in a rural community of Rio de Janeiro State: pesticides,
health and environment. Cad Saude Publica 2005, 21:
1836–1844.
17. Bondori A, Bagheri A, Sookhtanlou M, Allahyari MS, Damalas CA:
Pesticide use in cereal production in Moghan Plain, Iran: risk
knowledge and farmers’ attitudes. Crop Protect 2018, 110:
117–124.
This article highlighted a positive relationship between farmers’
knowledge of pesticide hazards as well as farmers’ use of information
sources with their attitudes towards the use of pesticides.
18. Rezaei R, Damalas CA, Abdollahzadeh G: Understanding
farmers’ safety behaviour towards pesticide exposure and
other occupational risks: the case of Zanjan, Iran. Sci Total
Environ 2018, 616–617:1190–1198.
This article highlighted a direct positive effect of attitude towards safety
practices, knowledge on safety practices, and self-efficacy in safety on
farmers’ use of safety practices.
19. Maharaj S, Ganpat WG: Prevalence of acute pesticide
poisoning in Trinidad. Trop Agric 2018, 95:90–101.
20. Raksanam B, Suklim N, Songthap A: Model development to
reduce pesticide risk behaviours among rubber farmers in
Khogyang Community, Trang, Thailand. Eur J Res Educ 2013,
2:101–108.
Current Opinion in Environmental Science & Health 2018, 4:27–30
21. Kumari PL, Reddy KG: Knowledge and practices of safety use
of pesticides among farm workers. J Agric Vet Sci 2013, 6:1–8.
22. Davenport T, Prusak L: Working knowledge: how organizations
manage what they know. Boston, USA: Harvard Business School
Press; 1998.
23. Glanz K, Rimer B, Viswana K: Health behaviour and health ed-
ucation: theory, research, and practice. San Francisco, USA:
John Wiley & Sons; 2008.
24. Damalas CA, Khan M: Pesticide use in vegetable crops in
Pakistan: insights through an ordered probit model. Crop
Protect 2017, 99:59–64.
25. Damalas CA, Koutroubas SD: Farmers’ training on pesticide use
is associated with elevated safety behavior. Toxics 2017, 5:19.
This article highlighted that previous training was associated with
increased levels of farmers’ knowledge of pesticides and beliefs about
pesticide hazard control ams was accompanied by elevated safety
behavior in farmers.
26. Schreinemachers P, Chen H-P, Nguyen TTL, Buntong B,
Bouapao L, Gautam S, Le NT, Pinn T, Vilaysone P, Srinivasan R:
Too much to handle? Pesticide dependence of smallholder
vegetable farmers in Southeast Asia. Sci Total Environ 2017,
593–594:470–477.
This article highlighted that greater knowledge about beneficial ar-
thropods was associated with less pesticide use while greater aware-
ness of pesticide health risks was associated with fewer observed
poisoning symptoms.
27. Jallow MFA, Awadh DG, Albaho MS, Devi VY, Thomas BM:
Pesticide knowledge and safety practices among farm
workers in Kuwait: results of a survey. Int J Environ Res Public
Health 2017, 14:340.
28. Saeed MF, Shaheen M, Ahmad I, Zakir A, Nadeem M, Chishti AA,
Shahid M, Bakhsh K, Damalas CA: Pesticide exposure in the
local community of Vehari District in Pakistan: an assess-
ment of knowledge and residues in human blood. Sci Total
Environ 2017, 587–588:137–144.
29. Yuantari MGC, Van Gestel CAM, Van Straalen NM, Widianarko B,
Sunoko HR, Shobib MN: Knowledge, attitude, and practice of
Indonesian farmers regarding the use of personal protective
equipment against pesticide exposure. Environ Monit Assess
2015, 187:142.
30. Wagner H, Kim A, Gordon L: Relationship between personal
protective equipment, self-efficacy, and job satisfaction of
women in the building trades. J Construct Eng Manag 2013,
139:1–8.
31. Brown K, Willis G, Prussia G: Predicting safe employee
behaviour in the steel industry: development and test of a
sociotechnical model. J Oper Manag 2000, 18:445–465.
32. Abdollahzadeh G, Damalas CA, Sharifzadeh MS: Understanding
adoption, non-adoption, and discontinuance of biological
control in rice fields of northern Iran. Crop Protect 2017, 93:
60–68.
www.sciencedirect.com