Case study 3 Case study 4 Case study 5

Public Health Significance of Urban Pests 553 • using technologies, such as trapping and monitoring, in place of pesticides; and • coordinating efforts among all facility management programmes that have a bearing on pest-control outcomes.

15.1.5. Challenges in implementing IPM programmes

Cost, understanding the needs of the people being served, regulatory restrictions and emergencies have been identified as barriers to implementing IPM programmes. The first challenge that frequently arises in implementing a programme is the cost of set- ting it up. Those responsible for paying for the treatment may want what are now consi- dered outdated methods of pest management, because these methods are seemingly less expensive, especially in the short term. In this case, outdated may mean using pesticides without considering the IPM steps necessary to have an effective programme. It is gene- rally accepted that IPM programmes may be more expensive initially when structural repairs may be needed to preclude the entry of vermin and eliminate their harbourage. An insufficient budget or an insufficiency in other resources may also restrict the full implementation of all IPM components Norton Mullen, 1994. The second challenge is considering the needs of the people who require IPM interven- tion. If very young, elderly, ill or alleged chemically sensitive people are present in infes- ted premises, the types of materials and measures that can be used will differ from those where such individuals are not present. Also, although the need for implementing pest control may seem clear to public officials, the people being served may not perceive the same level of concern and may object. A clear line of communication between the agency performing the service and those receiving it is very important. The third challenge is limits established by law or regulations on types of pest-control measures that may be implemented or prohibited. For example, there are restrictions on the pest-control methods or materials that can be applied by a health care facility, a food plant or a susceptible population. Regulatory restraints will be a factor that must be consi- dered when determining control measures that may be used. The fourth challenge is emergencies, such as natural disasters and vector-related outbreaks. These situations may require that immediate treatment be implemented and that some pha- Integrated pest management 552 The study found that the IPM approach was more expensive to implement because of the on-site inspections and time needed to implement interventions. However, the IPM approach produced a significant reduction in the cockroach population in four months, and the population remained suppressed in the IPM apartments Miller Meek, 2004.

15.1.4.3. Case study 3

A cost assessment conducted by the University of Virginia found the cost of implementing an IPM programme in public housing to be US 4.06 per unit per month. The application of pesticides to conventionally control cockroaches in similar units cost US 1.50 per unit per month. The IPM programme was more effective in reducing the cockroach popula- tion, and residents reported they would be willing to pay for IPM services that reduced their exposure to pesticides while controlling cockroach infestations Miller, 2006.

15.1.4.4. Case study 4

Cost and other IPM implementation considerations have been assessed and reported by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development HUD Office of Public and Indian Housing in a guidance document. The work conducted by HUD iden- tified the critical importance of involving housing development residents in IPM efforts. The HUD IPM guidance document also addresses IPM cost concerns by pointing out that well managed IPM programmes improve property maintenance and extend the use- ful life of a structure. The multiple benefits of IPM include improved building mainte- nance and the control of pests while reducing the application of pesticides. The HUD Office of Public and Indian Housing recommends considering these benefits when com- paring the cost of implementing an IPM programme with the routine application of pes- ticides HUD Office of Public and Indian Housing, 2006.

15.1.4.5. Case study 5

In the United States, the General Services Administration GSA is responsible for all federal office space. A study of 55 GSA-managed structures in the Washington, DC, area assessed both the quantities of insecticides applied indoors and requests for pest-control services by building occupants. Baseline measures of insecticide applications and pest ser- vice calls were established in 1988 for each of the 55 structures, and an IPM programme was initiated in 1989. When compared with similar data collected in 1994 and again in 1999, the pre-IPM baseline data collected in 1988 found that the amount of insecticides applied and the number of requests for pest-control services by building occupants decreased significantly Table 15.2 Greene Breisch, 2002. The objective of GSA IPM programmes is to “achieve long-term, environmentally sound pest suppression and prevention through a variety of technologic and management prac- tices”. Control strategies in GSA structural IPM programmes GSA, 2005 included: • reducing food, water, harbourage and access routes used by pests through structural and procedural modifications; • using pesticide compounds, formulations and application methods that present the lowest potential hazard to people and the environment; Table 15.2. GSA assessment of IPM practices in public buildings Year Service requests Pesticide applications 1988 baseline 14 716 14 659 1994 3331 1674 1999 1581 954 Source: Greene Breisch 2002. Public Health Significance of Urban Pests 555 IPM in urban environments.

15.2.2. Education and training of the workforce