J Sci Dev 2009, (Eng.Iss.1): 92 - 103 HA NOI UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE People's perception of pesticide risks in vegetable production : a case studies in Hanoi city and Thai binh province Nhận thức người dân rủi ro thuốc bảo vệ thực vật sản xuất rau: Trường hợp nghiên cứu Hà Nội Thái Bình Do Kim Chung1, Kim Thi Dung2 Faculty of Economics and Rural Development Faculty of Accounting and Business Management TÓM TẮT Để đáp ứng nhu cầu ngày tăng rau an toàn, việc đánh giá hiểu biết nhận thức người sản xuất rủi ro thuốc bảo vệ thực vật ngày quan tâm, để từ đó, có biện pháp phù hợp loại bỏ nguy độc hại giảm thiểu hàm lượng hoá chất sản phẩm Vì vậy, nghiên cứu nhằm đánh giá nhận thức người dân địa phương rủi ro thuốc bảo vệ thực vật trạng rủi ro thuốc bảo vệ thực vật tới người môi trường xã nghiên cứu điểm Hà Nội Thái Bình Kết nghiên cứu rõ rủi ro thuốc bảo vệ thực vật phổ biến điểm nghiên cứu Tất người sử dụng thuốc cán địa phương người bán thuốc bảo vệ thực vật có nhận thức rõ ràng rủi ro thuốc bảo vệ thực vật Thuốc bảo vệ thực vật gây rủi ro cho người môi trường Trong số nhóm người chịu rủi ro thuốc bảo vệ thực vật, người sử dụng thuốc trung tâm Lĩnh vực trọng yếu cần can thiệp để giảm thiểu rủi ro thuốc bảo vệ thực vật không nâng cao kiến thức kỹ quản lý rủi ro thuốc bảo vệ thực vật người sử dụng mà xây dựng thực cộng đồng tham gia giảm thiểu rủi thuốc BVTV nâng cao kiến thức thuốc BVTV kỹ hướng dẫn người sử dụng Từ khoá: Nhận thức, rủi ro thuốc thuốc bảo vệ thực vật, rủi ro cho người môi trường SUMMARY To meet the growing demand for safe vegetables, there is an increasing need to examine producers’ perception of pesticide risks so that suitable measures taken to eliminate use of hazardous and persistent agro-chemicals can be drawn With this regard, this paper aims at examining local people’s 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 Findings indicate pesticide risks are prevailing through the studied communes All applicators, local staffs as well as pesticide sellers had clear perceptions of pesticide risks Pesticides caused risks to both human and environment Among pesticide risk groups, pesticide applicators were found as a focal point 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 Key words: Human and environmental risks, pesticide risks, perception INTRODUCTION Vietnam’s demands for safe vegetables are growing due to 1) increasing size of population (85 millions of people); 2) high demands for vegetables 92 export and domestic market, 3) vegetables considered as high-income induced commodities, 4) the food safety is most concerned by the Vietnam’s society as the country grows, and 4) People’s perception of pesticide risks in vegetable production safe food standards increased as the country became a WTO member in early 2007 To meet the growing demands for safe vegetables, there is an increasing need to examine producers’ perception of pesticide risks so that pesticide risk situations, their cause are identified 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 and Thuy Son communes are producing melon (Cucumis melon L, subsp Melo var conomon (Thunb.) Makino) These vegetables are potential for consumer risks (melon can be eaten in a fresh form) The research covers an in-depth survey of three samples including 96 community staffs, 251 pesticide applicators and 17 pesticide sellers (Table 1) These sampled respondents were asked to express their perception of pesticide human and environmental risk groups, status of human and environmental risks and reasons for pesticides causing these risks These in-depth surveys were conducted from March to May 2008 incorporation with cause-effect analysis with local people Collected secondary and primary data were re-checked, cleaned, edited and analyzed Then, a database was developed using SPSS 15.0 for Windows An analysis was done through the help of the SPSS Software Version 14 Descriptive statistical methods such as means, standard deviation, frequencies and cross tab were employed to describe the current situation of people’s perception of risks RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 3.1 People’s perception of pesticide risks to human METHODS 3.1.1 Pesticide human risk groups 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 high Farmers in Dang Xa and Le Chi communes are growing cabbages while those in Thai Giang People’s perception of pesticide human risks 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 Sample size by type of communes and type of respondents Hanoi city Type of Respondent Thai Binh province 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 93 Do Kim Chung, Kim Thi Dung Hanoi city Type of Respondent Thai Binh province All Dang Xa Pesticide sellers Le Chi All Thai Giang Thuy Son All 10 17 Table Respondents’ perception of human risks caused by pesticides Hanoi city Thai Binh province Criteria All Dang Xa Le Chi All Thai Giang Thuy Son 100 100 100 100 100 100 Caused Risks to Applicators (%) - Perceived by Community Staffs - Perceived by Sellers 100 100 100 100 100 100 - Perceived by Applicators 96.1 97.0 95.0 98.4 98.2 98.5 Caused Risks to People Working nearby (%) 70.5 70.8 70.0 68.9 66.7 70.4 - Perceived by Sellers - Perceived by Community Staffs 50.0 - - 57.1 - - - Perceived by Applicators 61.4 61.2 61.7 58.9 59.7 57.1 Caused Risks to spraying Assistants (%) 8.9 8.3 9.5 21.6 20.8 22.2 - Perceived by Sellers - Perceived by Community Staffs 30.0 - - 28.6 - - - Perceived by Applicators 0.8 1.5 17.9 17.9 17.9 17.8 16.7 19.0 13.7 12.5 14.8 - Perceived by Sellers 50.0 - - 57.1 - - - Perceived by Applicators 30.7 31.3 30.0 16.3 16.4 16.1 82.2 83.3 81.0 56.9 58.3 55.6 Caused Risks to Family Members (%) - Perceived by Community Staffs Caused Risks to Consumers (%) - Perceived by Community Staffs - Perceived by Sellers 70.0 - - 71.4 - - - Perceived by Applicators 29.9 32.8 26.7 39.8 40.3 39.3 Caused risks to sellers (as % of seller perceived) 100 100 100 100 100 100 Caused risks to harvesters (as % of applicators perceived) 24.4 25.4 23.3 16.9 17.9 15.8 Note:Figures in Table are percentages of respondents who perceived a particular human risk in total respondents in the sub-sample The numbers of people who perceived that pesticide caused risks to other groups were less than those perceived by the applicator group Pesticide caused risks to people working nearby and consumers much depend on behaviors of applicators in using pesticides The largest number 94 of respondents in all three groups perceiving of applicator pesticide risks indicates that the target group for pesticide risk reduction in vegetable production is to focus on applicator group 3.1.2 Levels of human risks People’s perception of pesticide risks in vegetable production 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 Number of respondents by groups and levels of human risks and location Levels of human risks Levels reported by Community Staffs (%) No serious Little serious Moderately Serious Serious Levels reported by Sellers (%) Very serious Levels reported by Applicators (%) No serious Little serious Moderately Serious Very Serious All 100 3.1 13.5 11.5 71.9 Hanoi city 100 6.7 13.3 24.4 55.6 Thai Binh province 100 13.7 86.3 100 100 100 0.8 8.4 27.9 62.9 3.1 55.1 41.7 1.6 13.7 84.7 Figures in Table are percentages of applicators reporting a particular level of human risks in total sampled respondents Table Applicators’ risk situation by location in 2008 cropping season Risk Indicator Hanoi city Thai Binh province All Dang Xa Le Chi All Thai Giang Thuy Son Applicators felt uncomfortable after spraying (%) 45.7 44.8 46.7 64.5 65.7 63.2 Applicators by poisoning symptoms Headache and dizzy Spasm in extremities Much sweat perspiration, heave up Lost appetite Itch Fever and low blood pressure Feeling Sleepy Feeling weary in one’ legs and hand 79.3 6.9 13.8 8.6 5.2 5.2 1.7 73.3 13.3 16.7 10.0 0 10.0 3.3 85.7 10.7 7.1 10.7 0 95.0 3.8 15.0 6.3 25.0 10.0 0 95.5 2.3 15.9 6.8 25.0 11.4 0 94.4 5.6 13.9 5.6 25.0 8.3 0 Seriousness of health situation (%) Very serious Serious Little serious 5.2 31.0 63.8 3.3 26.7 70.0 7.1 35.7 57.1 6.3 53.8 40.0 9.1 50.0 40.9 2.8 58.3 38.9 Table Number of times that applicators had to stopping working due to pesticide risks Criteria All Hanoi city Thai Binh province Averaged number of times that applicators had to stop working (time) STD deviation Number of applicators reported (person) 2.8 1.74 19 3.0 1.79 2.8 18 Number of lost working days due to pesticide risks STD deviation 4.29 3.23 3.0 - 4.3 3.32 95 Do Kim Chung, Kim Thi Dung Criteria All 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 Hanoi city Thai Binh province 17 Number of applicators reported 17 sites (weeding, harvesting, taking care domestic animals (cows, buffaloes, ducks)) and spraying assistants were suffered from pesticide risks due to the fact that they got a sniff of polluted air caused by pesticides, use polluted water discharged from sprayed fields, working the newly sprayed fields (Table 7) Pesticide risks to family members were mainly explained by the fact that pesticides, their containers, sprayers and supportive equipments (protective equipments, baskets ect.) were closely kept at home or nearby living places (Table 8) Pesticides causing risks to harvesters and consumers were mainly attributed by a wrong application of pre-harvest interval (Table 9) Thus, measures taken to reduce pesticide risks to applicators, consumers, assistants, and people working nearby spraying sites should focus on improving applicators’ knowledge on pesticides, pesticide use techniques, and treatment techniques after spraying Table Number of respondents by respondent groups and reasons for pesticides causing risks to applicators Reasons for pesticides caused risks to applicators All Hanoi city 96 45 51 - Direct contact with pesticides (spraying, crop care) (%) 72.9 77.8 68.6 - No or insufficient protective equipment (%) 27.1 22.2 31.4 17 10 - Direct contact with pesticides (spraying, crop care) (%) 58.8 50.0 71.4 - No or insufficient protective equipment (%) 41.2 50.0 28.6 Reasons perceived by applicators (person) 244 122 122 - Direct contact with pesticides (spraying, crop care) (%) 51.6 27.9 75.4 - No or insufficient protective equipment (%) 43.0 61.5 24.6 - Wrong spraying techniques (wrong pesticide, time) (%) 4.4 10.6 Reasons perceived by community staffs (person) Reasons perceived by pesticide sellers (person) Thai Binh province Note: %: percentages of respondents reporting a particular reasons causing risks to applicators in total respondents who reported human risk Table 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 Reasons perceived by community staffs (person) Got a sniff of pesticide polluted air (%) Used polluted water discharged from sprayed fields (%) Working close with sprayed sites (%) Working in the fields which is newly sprayed (%) Reasons perceived by pesticide sellers (person) 66 36.3 34.8 69.6 28.8 31 29.0 32.3 61.3 38.7 35 42.9 37.1 77.1 20.0 96 People’s perception of pesticide risks in vegetable production Reason Got a sniff of pesticide polluted air (%) Used polluted water discharged from sprayed fields (%) Working close with sprayed sites (%) Working in the fields which is newly sprayed (%) All 33.3 66.7 44.4 33.3 Hanoi city 20.0 100.0 20.0 40.0 Thai Binh province 50.0 25.0 75.0 25.0 Reasons perceived by applicators (person) Got a sniff of pesticide polluted air (%) Used polluted water discharged from sprayed fields (%) Working close with sprayed sites (%) Working in the fields which is newly sprayed (%) 148 72.3 43.2 42.6 41.9 76 98.7 17.1 39.5 44.7 72 44.4 70.8 45.8 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 Number of respondents by respondent groups and reasons for pesticides causing risks to family members Reason All Hanoi city Thai Binh province 58 30 20 Close to pesticides kept at home (%) 51.2 52.6 50.0 Sprayers and containers kept close home (%) 81.0 76.3 90.0 Number of community staffs perceived (person) 15 Close to pesticides kept at home (%) 100.0 100.0 100.0 Sprayers and containers kept close home (%) 66.7 62.5 71.4 10 Close to pesticides kept at home (%) 80.0 50.0 100.0 Sprayers and containers kept close home (%) 70.0 83.3 50.0 Number of applicators perceived (person) Number of sellers perceived (person) Note: %: Percentages of respondents reporting a particular reasons causing risks to family members in total respondents who reported human risk Table Number of respondents by reasons for pesticides causing risks to harvesters and consumers Criteria All Hanoi city Thai Binh province 100 100 100 100 100 100 Wrong pre-harvest intervals, pesticide remains in vegetable leaves surface causing risks to harvesters (%) Perceived by applicators Wrong application of pre-harvest interval causing risk to consumers Perceived by applicators (%) 97 Do Kim Chung, Kim Thi Dung Criteria All Hanoi city Thai Binh province Perceived by commune staffs (%) 100 100 100 Perceived by sellers (%) 100 100 100 Note:%: percentages of respondents who perceived a particular reasons for pesticide risks to harvesters or consumers in total respondents who perceived that particular risk 3.2 Perception of environmental risks 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) 3.2.1 Environmental risk groups As indicated in Table 10, main environmental risk groups as perceived by three sampled groups include water, aquatic plants and animals, natural enemies, domestic animals, air and land resources Pesticide caused risks to these 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 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 28.9 29.2 28.6 29.4 29.2 29.6 - - - - - - 31.0 40.3 20.3 24.2 35.8 10.5 37.8 37.5 28.1 68.6 66.7 70.4 - - 85.7 - - 22.0 22.4 21.7 49.6 48.5 50.9 66.7 70.8 61.9 62.7 62.5 63.0 80 - - 100 - - 52.0 61.2 41.7 32.3 34.3 29.8 Pesticide risk to water resources, aquatic animals, plants (%) Pesticide risks to natural enemies (%) Perceived by community staffs Perceived by sellers Perceived by applicators Pesticide risks to dom estic anim als (%) Perceived by community staffs Perceived by sellers Perceived by applicators Pesticide risks to air resources (%) Perceived by community staffs Perceived by sellers Perceived by applicators Pesticide risk to land resources (%) 98 People’s perception of pesticide risks in vegetable production Hanoi city Thai Binh province Criteria All Le Chi All Thai Giang Thuy Son 6.7 8.3 4.8 11.8 12.5 11.1 - - - - - - 5.5 Perceived by community staffs Dang Xa 4.5 6.7 7.3 7.5 7.0 Perceived by sellers Perceived by applicators Note: Figures in Table are percentages of respondents who perceived a particular environmental risk in total sub-sampled respondents reporting environmental risk 3.2.2 Level of environmental risks All respondents perceived that the level of risks was serious Applicators saw the situation more serious than the local staffs did (Table 11) Applicators expressed their perception of environmental risks related to natural enemies, aquatic resources and domestic animals (Table 12) The risks to these environmental resources were reported at moderately serious or serious levels However, there were only 7.2% or 18 applicators (7 in Hanoi city and 11 in Thai Binh province) reporting that in the 2008 crop season, their domestic animals were actually affected by pesticide risks Animal specifies affected were cats, cows, buffaloes, dogs, and fish and chicken In Le Chi commune, Hanoi city, several buffaloes were died due to eating pesticide poisoned grasses and drinking poisoned water from canals Some families of Le Chi commune also lost 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 Levels reported by Community Staffs (%) All Hanoi city Thai Binh province 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 Serious 70.8 51.1 88.2 - - - No serious 2.0 1.6 2.4 Little serious 7.6 2.4 12.9 Moderately Serious 29.5 58.3 Very Serious 61.0 37.8 84.7 Very Serious Levels reported by Applicators (%) 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 5.8 7.7 3.3 Moderately serious 42.0 38.5 46.7 Serious 47.8 51.3 43.3 4.3 2.6 6.7 Risk levels of losing natural enemies Little serious Very serious Levels of aquatic resources affected 99 Do Kim Chung, Kim Thi Dung Criteria All Hanoi city Thai Binh province 0.5 0.9 Little serious 17.0 34.3 0.9 Moderately serious 26.9 44.1 10.9 Serious 39.6 17.6 60.0 Very serious 16.0 3.9 27.3 Little serious 12.2 28.6 4.8 Moderately serious 55.6 42.9 61.3 Serious 31.1 25.0 33.9 1.1 3.6 No serious Levels of domestic animals affected Very serious Figures in Table are percentages of applicators reporting a particular level of environmental risks in total sampled applicators 3.2.3 Reasons for pesticides causing environmental risks Main reasons for pesticides causing risks to aquatic resources as reported by majority of respondents in three sampled groups are applicators’ cleaning sprayers at ponds, and canals, improper disposal of containers (Table 13) The situations between Hanoi city and Thai Binh province are identical Pesticide risks to natural enemies were mainly attributed by direct effects from pesticide containers as indicated by the largest number of local staffs and applicators who have perceived of this risk There were only local staffs and applicators perceiving of reasons for pesticides causing risks to natural enemies (Table 14) Table 13 Number of respondents by groups and reasons for pesticides causing risks to water resource, aquatic plants and animals Reason All Hanoi city Thai Binh province Cleaning sprayers at ponds, canals 35.2 43.6 28.6 Direct affected by sprayings 1.1 2.0 Throw away pesticide containers 61.4 56.4 65.3 Pesticide polluted water discharged from sprayed fields 2.3 4.1 35.3 40.0 28.6 64.7 60.0 71.4 35.0 38.5 34.5 - - - Throw away pesticide containers 54.7 54.8 54.5 Pesticide polluted water discharged from sprayed fields 8.9 6.7 11.0 Reasons perceived by community staffs (%) Reasons perceived by pesticide sellers (%) Cleaning sprayers at ponds, canals Direct affected by sprayings Throw away pesticide containers - Reasons perceived by applicators* (%) Cleaning sprayers at ponds, canals Direct affected by sprayings 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 100 People’s perception of pesticide risks in vegetable production Table 14 Number of respondents by groups and reasons for resticides causing risks to natural enemies Reason All Hanoi city Thai Binh province Cleaning sprayers at ponds, canals 21.4 40.0 Direct affected by sprayings 71.4 84.6 60.0 Throw away pesticide containers 7.1 15.4 Reasons rerceived by community Staffs (%) Reasons perceived by applicators (%) Cleaning sprayers at ponds, canals 2.9 6.7 Direct affected by sprayings 47.8 38.4 83.3 Throw away pesticide containers 4.3 10.0 Overuse of pesticides, high toxic pesticides 17.4 30.8 Figures in Table are percentages of respondents reporting a particular reason causing risks to natural enemies in total respondents who perceived of natural enemy risks Domestic animals such as cows, buffaloes, pigs, dogs, cats, chickens, ducks and other aquatic poultry were suffered from pesticide risks by: 1) eating poisoned feeds, 2) drinking poisoned water, 3) using baskets which were used for making pesticide compounds for feeding domestic animals as reported by most local staffs and pesticide applicators (Table 15) Main factors causing risks to air resource were air dispersion Those to land resource were pesticide diffusion, leaching and water discharged from the sprayed fields Table 15 Number of respondents by groups and reasons for pesticides causing risks to domestic animals Reason All Hanoi city Thai Binh province - Cleaning sprayers at ponds, canals 3.8 11.8 - Direct affected by sprayings 5.8 5.6 - Throwing away pesticide containers 11.5 35.3 - Eating poisoned grass, drinking polluted water 78.8 52.9 81.4 - - 83.3 Reasons perceived by community staffs (%) Reasons perceived by pesticide sellers (person-reports) - Cleaning sprayers at ponds, canals - Throwing away pesticide containers - Eating poisoned grass, drinking polluted water - - 16.7 101 Do Kim Chung, Kim Thi Dung Reason All Hanoi city Thai Binh province - 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 Reasons perceived by applicators (%) 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 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 Human and environmental risk groups and main reasons for resticide risks Risks to consumers due to wrong pre-harvest interval Risks to aquatic resource due to cleaning sprayers, throwing away unused pesticides and containers at ponds, canals Risks to family members due to pesticides and containers, sprayers kept close living place Risks to assistants due to polluted air and direct contact with pesticides Risks to people working nearby due to getting sniff of polluted, close to newly sprayed fields Applicators: lacks of knowledge on pesticides, improper pesticide use, unused and container treatment 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 102 Risks to applicators due to direct contact with pesticides without or insufficient protective equipments HUMAN RISKS Risks to land and air resources due to air dispersion, leaching, water discharged ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS People’s perception of pesticide risks in vegetable production Source: Results from Cause-Effect Analyses with Local People The Diagram 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 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Pesticide risks are prevailing through the studied communes All applicators, local staffs as well as pesticide sellers had clear perceptions of pesticide risks Pesticides caused risks to both human (people working nearby, assistants, family members as well as consumers) and environment (aquatic and land resources, domestic animals and natural enemies) Among pesticide risk groups, pesticide applicators were found as a focal point that may influence pesticide risks to all others Key areas of high pesticide risks to applicators were: 1) improper pesticide use techniques and wrong preharvest intervals; 2) no use or insufficient protective equipment; 3) throw away unused pesticides and containers; and 4) placing sprayers and supportive 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 socio-economic Assessment, A research funded by IDRC through International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), Manila Chung, D K and Pincus, J (1997) Progress Report on Micro-economic Study of IPM and Rice Farming Chuong My District, Ha Tay Province, Vietnam, First Season 1996, Vietnam IPM Program in Collaboration with FAO Intercountry Program for IPM in Rice in South and Southeast Asia, Hanoi city Matteson, Patricia, (2001) Vietnam Experience: Strengths and Challenges/Weakness of Different Approaches to IPM Evaluation in Proceedings Regional Workshop on IPM Impact Assessment Methods in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, 25-31 March, 2001 organised by FAO - EU Integrated Pest Management Program for Cotton in Asia Pincus, J., (1996) The Impact of IPM Farmers Field Schools on Farmers Cultivation Practices in Their Own Fields, A Report Submitted to the 103 Do Kim Chung, Kim Thi Dung FAO Intercountry Program for Community IPM in Asia, University of London Vietnam National IPM Program, (2007) IPM Program: an Overview, Hanoi city Vietnam Nation IPM Program, (2008) Community-based Training Program on Pesticide Risk Reduction in Safe Vegetable 104 Production with Good Agricultural Practices 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  ... 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. .. 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. .. 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