J. Sci. Dev. 2009, 7 (Eng.Iss.1): 92 - 103 HA NOI UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE
92
People's perception of pesticide risks in vegetable
production :
a case studies in Hanoi city and Thai binh province
Nhận thức của người dân về rủi ro thuốc bảo vệ thực vật trong sản xuất rau:
Trường hợp nghiên cứu tại Hà Nội và Thái Bình
Do Kim Chung
1
, Kim Thi Dung
2

1
Faculty of Economics and Rural Development
2
Faculty of Accounting and Business Management
TÓM TẮT
Để đáp ứng nhu cầu ngày càng tăng về rau an toàn, việc đánh giá sự hiểu biết và nhận thức của
người sản xuất về rủi ro thuốc bảo vệ thực vật ngày càng được quan tâm, để từ đó, có biện pháp phù
hợp loại bỏ nguy cơ độc hại và giảm thiểu hàm lượng hoá chất trong sản phẩm. Vì vậy, nghiên cứu
này nhằm đánh giá nhận thức của người dân địa phương về rủi ro thuốc bảo vệ thực vật và hiện
trạng rủi ro về thuốc bảo vệ thực vật tới con người và môi trường ở các xã nghiên cứu điểm ở Hà Nội
và Thái Bình. Kết quả nghiên cứu chỉ rõ rủi ro thuốc bảo vệ thực vật là phổ biến ở các điểm nghiên
cứu. Tất cả những người sử dụng thuốc và cán bộ địa phương và cả những người bán thuốc bảo vệ
thực vật đều có nhận thức rõ ràng về rủi ro thuốc bảo vệ thực vật. Thuốc bảo vệ thực vật gây ra rủi ro
cho cả người và môi trường. Trong số những nhóm người chịu rủi ro thuốc bảo vệ thực vật, người
sử dụng thuốc là trung tâm. Lĩnh vực trọng yếu cần can thiệp để giảm thiểu rủi ro thuốc bảo vệ thực
vật không chỉ nâng cao kiến thức và kỹ năng quản lý rủi ro thuốc bảo vệ thực vật của người sử dụng
mà còn xây dựng và thực hiện cộng đồng tham gia giảm thiểu rủi thuốc BVTV nâng cao kiến thức về
thuốc BVTV và kỹ năng hướng dẫn người sử dụng.
Từ khoá: Nhận thức, rủi ro thuốc thuốc bảo vệ thực vật, rủi ro cho người và môi trường.

and suitable measures taken to eliminate use of
hazardous and persistent agro-chemicals can be
drawn. Most research studies in Vietnam were
conducted by Matteson (2001), Chung and Dung
(1996), Vietnam IPM Program (2007, 2008),
Centre for Women and Family Studies (1997) and
Chung and Pincus (1997) focusing mainly on
overall impacts of IPM rather than focused on
identify pesticide risks in agricultural production.
With this regard, this paper aims at examining
perception of pesticide risks and the current status
of human and environmental risks caused by
pesticides in the the selected distinct case studies of
vegetable production in Hanoi city and Thai Binh
province.
The overall objective of this paper is to 1)
examine local people’s perception of level of
pesticide risks to human and environment, their
causes and risk group; and 2) draw
recommendations for reducing pesticide risk to
those risk groups.
2. METHODS
This research was conducted in Dang Xa, Le
Chi communes in Hanoi city and Thai Giang and
Thuy Son in Thai Binh province. Hanoi city is a
major vegetable-producing region, whereas, Thai
Binh province is representative for an extreme rural
area. These locations are also representative for
areas with highly intensified farming where
pesticides risks to applicators are considerably

differed by type of respondents depending upon
their views on pesticide risks. The number of
respondents perceived that pesticides causes
risks to applicators were highest (96 to 100%),
followed by risks to people working nearby
spraying sites (50 to 70%), then, risks to
consumers (Table 2).
Table 1. Sample size by type of communes and type of respondents
Hanoi city Thai Binh province
Type of Respondent All
Dang Xa Le Chi All Thai Giang Thuy Son All
Community staffs 96 24 21 45 27 24 51
Pesticide Applicators 251 67 60 127 67 57 124
Do Kim Chung, Kim Thi Dung
94
Hanoi city Thai Binh province
Type of Respondent All
Dang Xa Le Chi All Thai Giang Thuy Son All
Pesticide sellers 17 6 4 10 4 3 7

Table 2. Respondents’ perception of human risks caused by pesticides
Hanoi city Thai Binh province
Criteria
All Dang Xa Le Chi All Thai Giang Thuy Son
1. Caused Risks to Applicators (%)
- Perceived by Community Staffs 100 100 100 100 100 100
- Perceived by Sellers 100 100 100 100 100 100
- Perceived by Applicators 96.1 97.0 95.0 98.4 98.2 98.5
2. Caused Risks to People Working nearby (%)
- Perceived by Community Staffs 70.5 70.8 70.0 68.9 66.7 70.4

3.1.2. Levels of human risks
People’s perception of pesticide risks in vegetable production
95
The level of human risks was serious as
reported by 72% of local staffs and very serious
by 63% of applicators in both Hanoi city and Thai
Binh province (Table 3). Applicators were also
asked about whether they have felt uncomfortable
after spraying during the last cropping season.
There were 46% of them in Hanoi city and 65% of
those in Thai Binh province reported directly
suffered from pesticide risks (Table 4).
The situation of the health risk in Thai Binh
province appeared more serious than those in Hanoi
city. The most common symptoms of these risks
were headache and dizzy, much sweat perspiration
and heave up. About 25% of them in Thai Binh
province reported that they lost appetite when faced
pesticide risks (Table 4).
Table 3. Number of respondents by groups and levels of human risks and location
Levels of human risks All Hanoi city Thai Binh province
1. Levels reported by Community Staffs (%) 100 100 100
No serious 3.1 6.7 0
Little serious 13.5 13.3 13.7
Moderately Serious 11.5 24.4 0
Serious 71.9 55.6 86.3
2. Levels reported by Sellers (%)
Very serious 100 100 100
3. Levels reported by Applicators (%)
No serious 0.8 0 1.6

2. Number of lost working days due to pesticide risks 4.29 3.0 4.3
STD deviation 3.23 - 3.32
Do Kim Chung, Kim Thi Dung
96
Criteria All Hanoi city Thai Binh province
Number of applicators reported 17 1 17

There were 19 people or 7.5% of respondents
(18 in Thai Binh province) reported that they had to
stop their working at 2.8 times and lost about 4.3
working days (Table 5). There were 17 applicators
(6.8%) reported that their family members were
actually suffered from pesticide risks (15 in Thai
Binh province) during the last cropping season.
Group of people suffered from pesticide risks are
supporter, children, aged people and farm workers
(who did weeding after spraying). Although the
proportion of applicators who actually reported
facing risks were less than 8%, the situation in Thai
Binh province seems more serious than those in
Hanoi City.
3.1.3. Reasons for pesticides causing human risks
Main reasons causing pesticide risks to
applicators is due to the fact that applicators had
direct contacts with pesticides and had no or
insufficient protective equipment while using
pesticides (Table 6). People working nearby spraying
sites (weeding, harvesting, taking care domestic
animals (cows, buffaloes, ducks)) and spraying
assistants were suffered from pesticide risks due to

Note: %: percentages of respondents reporting a particular reasons causing risks to applicators in total
respondents who reported human risk.
Table 7. Number of respondents by respondent groups and reasons for
pesticides causing risks to people living and working nearby
Reason All Hanoi city Thai Binh province
1. Reasons perceived by community staffs (person) 66 31 35
Got a sniff of pesticide polluted air (%) 36.3 29.0 42.9
Used polluted water discharged from sprayed fields (%) 34.8 32.3 37.1
Working close with sprayed sites (%) 69.6 61.3 77.1
Working in the fields which is newly sprayed (%) 28.8 38.7 20.0
2. Reasons perceived by pesticide sellers (person) 9 5 4
People’s perception of pesticide risks in vegetable production
97
Reason All Hanoi city Thai Binh province
Got a sniff of pesticide polluted air (%) 33.3 20.0 50.0
Used polluted water discharged from sprayed fields (%) 66.7 100.0 25.0
Working close with sprayed sites (%) 44.4 20.0 75.0
Working in the fields which is newly sprayed (%) 33.3 40.0 25.0
3. Reasons perceived by applicators (person) 148 76 72
Got a sniff of pesticide polluted air (%) 72.3 98.7 44.4
Used polluted water discharged from sprayed fields (%) 43.2 17.1 70.8
Working close with sprayed sites (%) 42.6 39.5 45.8
Working in the fields which is newly sprayed (%) 41.9 44.7 38.9
Note: % percentages of respondents reporting a particular reasons causing risks to people working nearby in
total respondents who reported human risk
Note: Applicators reported multiple choices, other single choice only.
Table 8. Number of respondents by respondent groups and reasons for
pesticides causing risks to family members
Reason All Hanoi city Thai Binh province
1. Number of applicators perceived (person) 58 30 20

enemies, domestic animals, air and land
resources. Pesticide caused risks to these
environmental elements differed among three
sampled groups.
However, water and aquatic resources were
considered as key environmental risk groups as
perceived by largest numbers of all three
sampled groups (Table 10).
Table 10. Respondents’ perception of environmental risks caused by pesticides
Hanoi city Thai Binh province
Criteria
All Dang Xa Le Chi All Thai Giang Thuy Son
1. Pesticide risk to water resources, aquatic animals,

plants (%)

Perceived by community Staffs 86.7 87.5 85.7 96.1 96.8 96.3
Perceived by sellers 100 - - 100 - -
Perceived by applicators 81.9 79.1 85.0 94.0 93.1 94.0
2. Pesticide risks to natural enemies (%)
Perceived by community staffs 28.9 29.2 28.6 29.4 29.2 29.6
Perceived by sellers - - - - - -
Perceived by applicators 31.0 40.3 20.3 24.2 35.8 10.5
3. Pesticide risks to domestic animals (%)
Perceived by community staffs 37.8 37.5 28.1 68.6 66.7 70.4
Perceived by sellers 0 - - 85.7 - -
Perceived by applicators 22.0 22.4 21.7 49.6 48.5 50.9
4. Pesticide risks to air resources (%)
Perceived by community staffs 66.7 70.8 61.9 62.7 62.5 63.0
Perceived by sellers 80 - - 100 - -

400-500 kg of fish due to polluted water discharged
from sprayed fields. In Thai Giang and Thuy Son
communes, Thai Binh province, many dogs, cats
have died due to eating rat baits
Table 11. Number of respondents by groups and levels of environmental risks and location
Levels of Environmental Risks All Hanoi city Thai Binh province
1. Levels reported by Community Staffs (%) 100 100 100
No serious 4.2 4.4 3.9
Little serious 11.5 15.6 7.8
Moderately Serious 13.5 28.9 0
Serious 70.8 51.1 88.2
Very Serious - - -
2. Levels reported by Applicators (%)
No serious 2.0 1.6 2.4
Little serious 7.6 2.4 12.9
Moderately Serious 29.5 58.3 0
Very Serious 61.0 37.8 84.7
Figures in Table are percentages of respondents reporting a particular level of environmental risks in total
respondents who reported environmental risks
Table 12. Number of applicators by groups, environmental risk levels and location
Criteria All Hanoi city Thai Binh province
1. Risk levels of losing natural enemies
Little serious 5.8 7.7 3.3
Moderately serious 42.0 38.5 46.7
Serious 47.8 51.3 43.3
Very serious 4.3 2.6 6.7
2. Levels of aquatic resources affected
Do Kim Chung, Kim Thi Dung
100
Criteria All Hanoi city Thai Binh province

Reason All Hanoi city Thai Binh province
1. Reasons perceived by community staffs (%)
Cleaning sprayers at ponds, canals 35.2 43.6 28.6
Direct affected by sprayings 1.1 0 2.0
Throw away pesticide containers 61.4 56.4 65.3
Pesticide polluted water discharged from sprayed fields 2.3 0 4.1
2. Reasons perceived by pesticide sellers (%)
Cleaning sprayers at ponds, canals 35.3 40.0 28.6
Direct affected by sprayings -
Throw away pesticide containers 64.7 60.0 71.4
3. Reasons perceived by applicators* (%)
Cleaning sprayers at ponds, canals 35.0 38.5 34.5
Direct affected by sprayings - - -
Throw away pesticide containers 54.7 54.8 54.5
Pesticide polluted water discharged from sprayed fields 8.9 6.7 11.0
Note:Figures in Table are percentages of respondents reporting a particular reasons causing risks to water
resources, aquatic plant and animals in total respondents who reported aquatic resource risk
*: Applicators reported multiple choices, other groups reported single choice only.
People’s perception of pesticide risks in vegetable production
101
Table 14. Number of respondents by groups and reasons for
resticides causing risks to natural enemies
Reason All Hanoi city Thai Binh province
1. Reasons rerceived by community Staffs (%)
Cleaning sprayers at ponds, canals 21.4 0 40.0
Direct affected by sprayings 71.4 84.6 60.0
Throw away pesticide containers 7.1 15.4 0
2. Reasons perceived by applicators (%)
Cleaning sprayers at ponds, canals 2.9 0 6.7
Direct affected by sprayings 47.8 38.4 83.3

Reason All Hanoi city Thai Binh province
3. Reasons perceived by applicators (%)
- Cleaning sprayers at ponds, canals 32.2 32.1 32.3
- Direct affected by sprayings 20.0 25.0 17.7
- Throwing away containers 12.2 7.1 14.5
- Eating poisoned grass soon after spraying 82.2 50.0 96.8
- Reuse of pesticide compounding baskets for feeding 38.9 46.4 35.5
Figures in Table are percentages of respondents reporting a particular reason causing risks to domestic animals
in total respondents who reported pesticide domestic animal risk.
Note: Applicators reported multiple reasons, other single reason only.
3.3. Focal risk group
Through analyzing the causes of pesticide risks
to human and environment, and question arisen is that
among these risk groups, which group is a target for
making an intervention for pesticide risk reduction.
Based on logical consequences, results of cause and
effect analysis with local people, applicator group
was found to be focal point affecting pesticide risks
to other risk groups (Diagram 1). The Diagram 1
shows that main reason for causing risks to both
human and environmental groups is the fact that
applicators lack of knowledge on pesticides,
improper pesticide use techniques. Thus, any
intervention to reduce pesticide risks should focus on
pesticide applicator group
Diagram 1. Human and environmental risk groups and main reasons for resticide risks


without or insufficient
protective equipments
Applicators: lacks of
knowledge on pesticides,
improper pesticide use,
unused and container
treatment
Risks to aquatic resource due
to cleaning sprayers, throwing
away unused pesticides and
containers at ponds, canals
Risks to domestic animals due
to eating poisoned feed, water,
reuse pesticide compounding
baskets for feeding
Risks to natural enemies
due to
direct affected by spraying,
cleaning sprayers, throw way
disposal and pesticide overuse
Risks to land and air resources

due to air dispersion, leaching,
water discharged
HUMAN RISKS ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS
People’s perception of pesticide risks in vegetable production
103

equipment at close to living places or animal sheds.
The above findings indicate that any
intervention to reduce pesticide risks should focus
on pesticide applicator’s group. However, due to
applicator behaviors much depend on collective
action of the community and sellers instruction, key
areas for pesticide risk reduction include not only
improving applicators’ knowledge, skills in
pesticide risk management, but also development
and enforcement of community-based pesticide risk
reduction campaign and improving pesticide
sellers’ knowledge and skills in instructing
applicators to use. In order to reduce pesticide risks
to human and environment, there is a need to
enforce a community based pesticide risk reduction
campaign. Its should include 1) formation of
farmers’ interest groups for pesticide risk reduction;
2) Information dissemination on government
regulations on pesticide trade and use, safe
vegetable production, effects of pesticides to
human and environment; 3) Development and
enforcement of local regulations on pesticide trade,
particular places for cleaning sprayers and used
equipments, keeping unused pesticides and
containers, Constructing tanks for keeping
containers, rational treatment of collected
containers; warning posters for sprayed fields.
REFERENCES
Chung, D. K. and Dung, K. T., (1996). Pest
Management in Rice Production in Vietnam: A

Orientation
Centre for Women and Family Studies (1997).
Impacts of IPM Farmer Field Schools in
Vietnam, A Report Submitted to the FAO
Intercountry Program for Community IPM in
Asia, Hanoi.