Integrated Pesticide Management. Chemical Trespass/Herbicide, 1995

New Search

THE "BUILD - DOWN" APPROACH One critical, identifiable difference between our successful program and those known to us that have been less successful or failed is the "build - down" approach to implementation. Briefly, this approach develops and imple- ments IPM methodology gradually, within and parallel to existing operational frameworks and methods. Each new success is added to and builds on past successes while techniques proving unworkable can be modified or abandoned with minimal financial /operational impact at a small - scale, experimental stage. Old methods are replaced as workable IPM alternative techniques are put in place, but retained where necessary until the alternatives can be developed. Aside from the obvious financial benefits of this approach, "building -down" provides a smooth transition to IPM with little or no dis- cernible effect on maintenance standards and service levels, facilitates staff training and in volvement (see below) and provides an effective answer to critics of the IPM concept. For a typical public grounds maintenance agency currently dependent on traditional, chemical- emphasis methods of weed and pest control, this is the practical, reasonable and cost - effective route to a successful IPM program that will enjoy broad -based community support. STAFF TRAINING AND INVOLVEMENT One of the most critical and yet all- too - frequently ignored elements of a successful public agency IPM program is the involvement of the in -field maintenance staff in development and implementation. These are the people closest to the weed and pest problems, after all, and the ones who will have to make the program work in any case. It also is an observable fact of human nature that people will work harder for the success of a program for which they have a feeling of "ownership" than they can ever be made to work for one