Synergies of integrated pest and pollinator management in avocado farming in East Africa: An ex-ante economic analysis.

Using synthetic pesticides to manage pests can threaten pollination services, affecting the productivity of pollination-dependent crops such as avocado. The need to mitigate this negative externality has led to the emergence of the concept of integrated pest and pollinator management (IPPM) to achieve both pest and pollinator management, leading to complementary or synergistic benefits for yield and quality of the harvest. This paper aims to evaluate the potential economic and welfare impact of IPPM in avocado production systems in Kenya and Tanzania. We utilize both primary and secondary data and employed the economic surplus model. On average the potential economic gain from the adoption of IPPM is US$ 66 million annually in Kenya, with a benefit-cost ratio (BCR) of 13:1, while in Tanzania US$ 1.4 million per year, with a BCR of 34:1. The potential benefits from IPPM intervention gains are expected to reduce the number of poor people in Kenya and Tanzania by 10,464 and 1,255 people per year respectively. The findings conclude that policies that enhance the adoption of IPPM can fast-track economic development and therefore improve the livelihoods of various actors across the avocado value chain.

1. Introduction

Avocado is an important crop in generating employment, income, and foreign exchange earnings in many sub-Saharan African (SSA) countries [1]. Kenya ranks second in yield capacity in Africa and sixth in the world (1). The area under avocado cultivation and production volume increased by 42% and 118% between 2005–2014, respectively [2]. The country is also among the top seven exporters of avocado in the world, albeit exporting only 10% of its total avocado production [1]. Avocado exports account for 17% of Kenya’s total horticultural exports, contributing US$ 54 million to the Kenyan national gross domestic product (GDP) [3]. In Tanzania, avocado production is also an increasingly important enterprise and is listed by the Tanzania Revenue Authority among the top ten export products [4], with annual export revenue of US$ 12.7 million [5].

Despite the impressive growth and economic potential of the avocado sub-sector in Kenya and Tanzania, the production which is dominated by smallholder farmers [6,7], is below both the yield and market potential due to several constraints. Key among them include poor market linkages, pre-and post-harvest losses, pests, and diseases [8]. Pests and diseases, notably tephritid fruit flies (the oriental fruit fly Bactrocera dorsalis and Ceratitis spp.), the false codling moth Thaumatotibia leucotreta, and anthracnose (caused by Colletotrichum gloeosporioides) are among the greatest biotic threats affecting avocado yield [6,9]. In addition to yield loss impacted by insects and diseases, over 75% of fruit and vegetable crops grown worldwide are vulnerable to pollination deficit [10], contributing to lower production of the pollination-dependent crops. Using synthetic pesticides to control fruit pests, weeds, and diseases kills insects, including pollinators, thus reducing the productivity of pollination-dependent crops such as avocado [11-13]. Increased use of synthetic pesticides reduces the diversity of avocado flower-visiting insects, resulting in reduced production of avocado fruits [14-16].

Integrated pest management (IPM) is a widely promoted and used decision-based process that optimizes multiple pest control tools tactics in an ecologically and economically sound manner. However, IPM does not take into account the effects on pollination services. To reduce impacts on pollinators and to facilitate synergies between crop pollination and pest control practices, the concept of integrated pest and pollinator management (IPPM) was introduced [17,18]. IPPM consists of combining IPM with tools that safeguard or promote pollination services. In this study, the IPPM package integrates conventional IPM (that is, the use of cultural, mechanical, and biological control options) to suppress avocado pests with supplementation of bees to increase the population of pollinators in the farming systems. The package seeks to exploit synergies between IPM and managed bees to enhance crop productivity, income, nutrition, and food security of smallholder farmers in the region. Integration of IPPM into the avocado farming system increases yields in a more environmentally sustainable manner with less pressure to increase production area and thus higher income to the producers.

While the economic benefits of using IPM and the economic importance of pollination services are well documented [19-23], the potential impact of interacting the two (i.e. IPPM) on crop yield, income, and poverty reduction has not yet been empirically quantified. Previous studies have mainly evaluated the benefits of IPM technologies and beekeeping in isolation [19-23]. Using the case of avocado farming in Kenya and Tanzania, our study contributes to the limited literature on integrating IPM and pollinator conservation by quantifying the potential economic and poverty impacts of IPPM. The findings from this study support the development of strategies and policies for promoting the adoption of IPPM for improved incomes and livelihoods of the avocado value chain actors in Africa.

We use the economic surplus model (ESM), based on experimental, household survey, and secondary data. Unlike previous studies such as [24,25], which rely on expert opinions to compute the maximum adoption rates, we used survey data to reduce the bias in the estimates of the IPPM adoption. Further, we use the economic surplus estimates to evaluate the potential (ex-ante) poverty impacts of IPPM adoption. Ex-ante impact studies that link economic surplus analysis with poverty analysis include [26-28].

2. Materials and methods

2.1 Conceptualization

Farmers are economically rational and therefore would adopt IPPM to maximize utility or net returns if the cost of adopting the strategy does not outweigh the benefits. IPPM strategy enhances farmers’ yield due to efficient pollination and minimizes the cost of production. Export market penetration for the IPPM-adopting economies is enhanced due to compliance with global safety standards. The supply curve responds to cost-saving and increasing yields through a parallel shift to the right, with the farmers following a sigmoid adoption path. Both Kenya and Tanzania are open economies, exporting avocado, although their contribution to the international market cannot influence the demand and supply forces. Consequently, IPPM adoption is unlikely to influence world prices. We assume an infinitely elastic demand where the two economies are not in a capacity to significantly influence the world prices through the adoption of IPPM technology. Fig 1 shows how supply responds to the IPPM intervention. The adoption of IPPM induces a downward shift in the supply curve from S0 to S1 through a decrease in the unit cost of production and increased yield. The world prices (PW) are assumed to remain constant and can only rise due to other factors not related to the adoption of IPPM in the two countries.

Fig 1

A conceptualization of induced supply shift due to integrated pest and pollinator management intervention in a small open economy. Source: Adapted from [27].

Initially, producers supply at QW0, and after farmers adopt IPPM, supply rises to QW1, increasing producer surplus through the movement of the supply curve. Producers benefit most since they can sell more at the same price while incurring less cost of production. Consumers in the world market do not benefit from the IPPM interventions since their purchasing capacity is not enhanced. Consumers may however indirectly benefit through better quality and chemical-free avocado fruits due to the reduced use of synthetic pesticides, although our study did not quantify such benefits due to the limitation of data. In the domestic market, producer surplus might rise or shrink; rise since farmers are rational and will tend to sell more to exporters as they are now compliant with phytosanitary standards; or shrink since the export market is characterized by grading and sorting; hence the unsuitable fruits are sold domestically at a lower price. Therefore, the domestic producer surplus moves from “PD0 b e” to “PD1 c f” while consumer surplus moves from “PD0 b d” to “PD1 c d” as they can now buy more for less.

2.2 Estimating economic returns to IPPM intervention

Successful adoption of IPPM may have potential economic gains for avocado farmers and other actors along the value chain. We utilize the economic surplus model (ESM), a widely accepted model for ex-ante and ex-post impact assessments [23,24,26-30] with the ability to control both international prices and distributional effects [24,29,31]. The introduction of IPPM is expected to cause a direct effect on producers through increased productivity (induced by the availability of pollination services) and reduced production costs (due to a decrease in expenditure on pesticides). The technology-induced shift of the supply curve is estimated as an intercept change (K factor) (25–29), which represents the proportionate shift in the supply curve or the per-unit production cost reduction due to the intervention. The K -shift parameter is defined as: where the index ATT is the proportionate change in yield of avocado fruits (m) and ATT the proportionate change in the cost of avocado production due to the adoption of IPPM, both obtained from the literature (Table 1). A represents the estimated adoption rate of IPPM from the baseline survey data in Kenya and Tanzania, while ε is the price elasticity of supply also obtained from existing literature. The impact of adopting a technological intervention like IPPM on the economic surplus in a region depends on its openness to trade [28]. Kenya and Tanzania are open economies with 2.6% and 0.4% market share in the global avocado trade, respectively [32]. Therefore, the world prices are held fixed, hence the benefits from IPPM will only accrue to producers and none to the consumers. This is because the adoption of IPPM does not influence open market prices, as shown later in Eq (5). Ideally, annual changes in consumer surplus (CS) and producer surplus (PS) at time t are derived as;

Table 1

Parameters for the economic surplus model used to estimate the impact of integrated pest and pollinator management in Kenya and Tanzania.

Parameter	Data	Source
The elasticity of supply (ɛ)	0.8	[27,40]
Elasticity of demand	-0.2	[39,46]
Expected yield gain IPM	40.9%	[43,44,47]
Expected yield gain pollinators	20.7%	[14,48]
Expected cost reduction-IPM	30%	[17,43]
Probability of success	70% (60% Tanzania)	[41], household survey data
Real discount rate	8% (11% Tanzania)	Commercial Banks (2020)
AgriGDP	US$ 1932 million (Kenya) US$ 1533 million (Tanzania)	[32]

However, both Kenya and Tanzania are open economies, therefore; P0 and Q0 are the price and quantity of avocado production before the introduction of IPPM, η is the elasticity of demand, while Z is the relative price change. Parameters described in Eqs (1–6) are presented in Table 1 and discussed in Section 3.

2.3 Estimating the impact of IPPM intervention on poverty reduction

Economic growth is the most instrumental component in poverty reduction and in improving the welfare of the people. IPPM is hypothesized to contribute to additional income through increased production, employment creation, and wage effects in the avocado and other sub-sectors through production, consumption, and savings pathways [27,33]. The estimated economic surplus, which is the additional monetary gain to the country’s economy due to IPPM intervention, may reduce poverty. Following [27], we estimate the impact of IPPM on poverty reduction as illustrated below; where ΔN is the number of people escaping poverty due to changes in the economic surplus, ΔTS is the change in total economic surplus due to IPPM intervention, AgriGDP is the value of agricultural GDP, δ is the elasticity of poverty in response to Agricultural GDP and N is the number of poor people in the country.

Both AgriGDP and the number of poor people were obtained from the World Bank [34]. We also calculated the elasticity of poverty from the World Bank data, which compared well with reported figures by Diao et al. [35]. Agriculture is the major contributor to both countries’ GDP, creating more than 70% of rural employment [36]. Therefore, an increment in avocado yield and foreign exchange earnings through IPPM intervention is assumed to change GDP and the number of people escaping poverty. In Kenya, a 1% increase in GDP driven by horticultural crops was found to lead to a 1.2% reduction in the country’s poverty headcount rate per year. In comparison, Tanzania’s poverty rate is more responsive to change in GPD, with a 1% increase in GDP resulting in a 5.1% reduction in the country’s poverty headcount rate per year.

2.4 Data sources, parameter estimation, and assumptions

We utilize data collected in February and May 2019 from smallholder farmers in selected sites in Kenya and Tanzania where avocado production is predominant. These are Murang’a County in Kenya and Kilimanjaro Region in Tanzania. The two are the leading avocado-producing regions in their respective countries, with Murang’a County accounting for 46.9% of the total avocado production in Kenya [3], while Kilimanjaro Region, specifically Siha District accounts for about 54% of the avocado production in Tanzania [6,37]. Using a multi-stage sampling procedure, a random sample of 410 [38] and 420 avocado-growing households were selected for the baseline survey in Kenya and Tanzania respectively. To assess the potential adoption of IPPM, their preferences for either the innovation in isolation (i.e. IPM or pollinator supplementation (managed Western honey bee (Apis mellifera) hives) or integration of both (i.e. IPPM), were first determined [38]. Upon selecting the most preferred option, the respondents’ willingness to buy the selected option based on the current cost of pesticides for the management of the target pests and disease was elicited. A further question on how long it would take them to adopt IPPM informed this study’s adoption data.

A log transformation revealed maximum adoption levels of 62.4%, 71.1%, and 68.3% for IPM, pollinator supplementation, and IPPM in Tanzania, respectively, and 53.5%, 83.3%, and 85.9% for IPM, pollinator supplementation, and IPPM in Kenya, respectively. A simulation period of 15 years (2019–2033) was adopted to allow for the research period and adequate time for the pollinator populations to regain efficient pollination services. Further, the research period allowed adequate time to have new entrants into the avocado sector since avocado is a perennial crop where 3-5-year-old trees yield 300–400 kgs (30,000–40,000 fruits)/ha while trees older than 5 years yield 800–1000 kgs (80,000–100,000 fruits)/ha [39]. A research lag of 2 years was considered for this study. Most of the IPM components are available from the market, and therefore scaling will mostly involve farmer training and pilot trials, while beehives of A. mellifera are available from local commercial sources.

Production and price statistics were adopted from FAOSTAT and Horticultural Crops Directorate (HCD) (Nairobi, Kenya), the National Bureau of Statistics (Dodoma, Tanzania), the UN Comtrade, and the International Trade Centre [2,3,5,32,40]. Production and consumption growth rates were projected from an average trade and production data computation. Data on the price elasticity of supply and demand was adopted from previous related work (see Table 1). The demand elasticity of -0.2 was adopted from [41], who studied price elasticities of demand for fresh Hass avocadoes in the USA. Since avocado is a perennial crop, supply is inelastic to change in prices during the short run but can be elastic in the long run. Crop-specific acreage elasticities of agricultural supply response to prices in developing countries vary from 0 to 0.8 in the short-run and from 0.3 to 1.2 in the long run for a wide variety of crops [29,42]. Our study, therefore, adopted an elasticity of supply of 0.8 [29].

In ex-ante analysis, the probability of research success is mainly derived from experts’ opinions especially the scientists involved in the design of the intervention [24,25,27]. However, the probability of success of experts’ opinions could be subjective since they may not reflect the current farmers’ practices and farming systems. For instance, [25] set 90% as the probability of success based on scientists’ opinions from the research program and defined the probability of research success as the likelihood that the biological agents would be successfully identified, bred, and released, and they in turn successfully suppress the coconut mite. Although the scientist had completely identified and multiplied the predators for release, the intensity at which the biological control agent would completely spread throughout the area infested with coconut mites was unclear and only validated through literature which could vary with different agroecological zones. To circumvent this limitation, we use primary data to derive the probability of IPPM research success following [43] using anchored scales which is one of the most efficient and reliable methods. The method, however, was designed to assess business projects instead of farm-related projects. We, thus, modified the individual measurement questions and generated scales from responses to farmers’ perceptions and willingness-to-use IPPM. The probability of successful IPPM adoption was 70% in Kenya and 60% in Tanzania. The average response to farmers’ willingness to adopt IPPM was less in Tanzania, with the knowledge and perception indicators on IPM and pollinator supplementation lower than those in Kenya.

IPM has been proven to contribute to yield and net income by reducing crop loss and increasing the resilience of the cropping system while lowering the cost of production due to less use of synthetic pesticides [44]. Following [45,46], we adopted a 40.9% yield change due to IPM and a 30% potential cost reduction due to reduced expenditure on pesticide use [19,45,47]. This data on cost reduction and yield increment was used to calculate the K factor shift in supply after comparison of how much farmers were spending on pesticides and the potential price of IPPM plus the projected adoption pattern [45]. We adopted a 20.7% yield change due to pollinator supplementation following [14] a study on avocado pollination deficit. The pollinator supplementation scenario however does not have any cost changes. We aggregate the cost and yield changes from the IPM and pollinator supplementation scenarios to build on the IPPM scenario where a potential yield change of 61.6% and 30% potential cost reduction were adopted. The cost of research and development, dissemination, and extension were computed from project documents. IPM, pollinator supplementation, and IPPM would cost US$ 148.3, 167.7, and 345.9 per hectare respectively. Most IPM packages are seasonal (per year), while beehive and colony lifespan is about 3.5 years.

2.5 Ethics statement

The study received ethical clearance from the International Centre for Insect Physiology and Ecology (icipe) science committee. For the primary data, oral consent was requested from the survey respondents after providing them with a detailed background of the study to allow them to make an informed decision on their participation in the survey.

3. Results and discussion

3.1 Potential economic returns to IPPM intervention

The results of the economic analysis of integrating IPM with pollinator supplementation over 15 years (2019–2033) and a real discount rate of 8% in Kenya and 11% in Tanzania are presented in Tables 2 and 3 respectively. Producers’ surplus equals total surplus since there are no monetary benefits earned by consumers in a small open economy and with the assumed scenario parameters as explained in the previous section.

Table 2

Total economic benefits of adopting IPM, pollinator supplementation, and IPPM in avocado production in Kenya in (‘Million US$).

Intervention	IPM	Pollinator supplementation	IPPM
Year	PS/TS	PS/TS	PS/TS
2019	0	0	0
2020	0	0	0
2021	1	2	4
2022	2	4	9
2023	4	9	18
2024	7	17	37
2025	13	32	69
2026	22	55	119
2027	34	83	183
2028	49	111	247
2029	65	133	298
2030	78	148	333
2031	87	158	357
2032	94	165	372
2033	99	170	384
NPV	222	446	996
B/C	6.6	10.5	12.9
IRR	52.8%	68.2%	76.2%

PS, and TS are producer, and total surplus respectively; B/C is the benefit over cost, IRR is the internal rate of return. NPV is the net present value. Consumer surplus (CS) is zero equating PS to TS.

Table 3

Total economic benefits of adopting IPM, pollinator supplementation and IPPM in avocado production in Tanzania (‘Million US$).

Intervention	IPM	Pollinator supplementation	IPPM
Year	PS/TS	PS/TS	PS/TS
2019	0	0	0
2020	0	0	0
2021	0.0001	0.0001	0.0002
2022	0.0001	0.0002	0.0003
2023	0.0003	0.0003	0.0007
2024	0.0005	0.0007	0.0013
2025	0.0010	0.0012	0.0025
2026	0.0018	0.0021	0.0043
2027	0.0027	0.0032	0.0065
2028	0.0036	0.0043	0.0088
2029	0.0043	0.0051	0.0106
2030	0.0047	0.0057	0.0118
2031	0.0050	0.0061	0.0126
2032	0.0053	0.0064	0.0131
2033	0.0054	0.0066	0.0136
NPV	0.0105	0.0127	0.0260
B/C	12.40	16.57	33.94
IRR	54.9%	61.1%	81.3%

Note: PS, and TS are producer and total surplus respectively; B/C is the benefit over cost, IRR is the internal rate of return. NPV is the net present value. Consumer surplus (CS) is zero equating PS to TS.

In Kenya, the total present value (total economic surplus minus discounted research cost) is US$ 222 million for IPM, US$ 446 million for pollinator supplementation, and US$ 996 million for IPPM (Table 2). On average, farmers adopting IPPM would gain US$ 66 million annually in Kenya. The benefit-cost ratio and the IRR of the three simulation scenarios also show the feasibility of the interventions with IPPM having the highest returns. IPPM yields more benefits than adopting either IPM and pollinator supplementation in isolation, emphasizing the need to integrate sustainable pest management and pollinator management. Economic impacts of IPM such as those reported by [19,46] could be enhanced by incorporating pollinator conservation in the upscaling efforts.

Tables 2 and 3 further show the distribution of economic changes in producer surplus through the simulated period. Assuming the world prices remain constant and only rise due to other factors such as enhanced consumer-buying potential that would increase demand, the prices act as an incentive to enlarge their avocado orchards. In the short run (~4 years), farmers enjoy the benefits mainly due to minimized production cost, better pest management, and enhanced pollination. In the long run (>5 years), the new orchards are in production, combining effective pollination and sustainable pest management strategies, resulting in increased avocado yield. The economic gains due to pollinator supplementation and IPPM are conservative and could be underestimated since the economic benefits from such innovations are coupled with other positive externalities, including reduced health and environmental risks, and higher household income through the sale of honey and other bee products, which are beyond the scope of the current study.

Successful implementation and adoption of IPPM in Tanzania will enable the economy to add up to US$ 25,970,600 over the simulated period of 15 years (Table 3). The discount rate in Tanzania is relatively higher than in Kenya based on the higher current cost of capital in Tanzania. The discount rates were also adjusted to inflationary rate changes and compared well with the cost of capital for long-term investment of closely related farm products. Farmers benefit from the rising production volume while prices remain a factor under control by economies other than the adoption of IPPM. Like the Kenyan economy, avocado production and consumption growth rate without IPM, pollinator supplementation, and IPPM intervention would also be realized due to factors other than the intervention.

Table 4 shows changes in quantity produced after the different interventions in Kenya. The change in quantity produced without intervention is only attributable to other factors such as the introduction of new technological innovation, government incentives (e.g. subsidies to encourage production), and relief of import duties enhancing trade and encouraging producers to raise their production levels. Change in consumed quantity also rises due to factors other than IPPM in a small, closed economy such as enhanced purchasing power, change in consumer tastes and preferences towards avocado due to increased awareness of the fruits’ nutritional benefits.

Table 4

Simulated changes in quantity produced under the IPM, pollinator supplementation, and IPPM interventions in Kenya (‘000 tonnes).

Intervention year	IPM	Pollinatorsupplementation	IPPM	No R/D
2019	364.9	364.9	364.9	364.9
2020	372.2	372.2	372.2	372.2
2021	379.9	380.2	380.8	379.6
2022	387.8	388.4	389.7	387.2
2023	396.0	397.4	400.1	395.0
2024	404.8	407.6	413.0	402.9
2025	414.4	419.7	429.8	410.9
2026	425.1	434.2	451.4	419.2
2027	437.0	450.2	476.1	427.5
2028	449.7	466.1	500.5	436.1
2029	462.6	480.7	521.7	444.8
2030	475.0	493.5	539.0	453.7
2031	486.6	505.2	553.7	462.8
2032	497.8	516.3	566.8	472.0
2033	508.5	527.1	579.2	481.5

Note: R/D refers to the Research and Development.

A comparison of changes in producer surplus due to IPPM between the two countries over time is shown in Fig 2. A steady increase is observed in the Kenyan economy compared to Tanzania, which corroborates with the current production. Furthermore, the avocado export trade in Kenya is growing exponentially, especially with the recent trade agreements. For instance, the agreement between Kenya and China that was effected in 2019 and a recent one between Kenya and South Korea that took effect in March 2022 (businessdailyafrica.com). In Tanzania, the avocado sector is also growing albeit indolently with contract farming becoming a major business strategy among the two largest avocado producers in the country.

Fig 2

A comparison of economic surplus over time between Kenya and Tanzania due to Integrated Pest and Pollinator Management intervention in avocado production.

Though lucrative, the Chinese market requirement to export frozen avocados may lock out many exporters due to the capital-intensive investment in cold chains. Months after Kenya signed the avocado export agreement with China, only one out of over 100 companies has met the requirements for exporting the products to the emerging superpower [48]. The stringent export requirement to China market was facilitated by the need to control quarantine pests such as Bacrocela Dorsalis. Similarly, in Tanzania, Africado Ltd. has been pursuing the government to fast-track the export protocol with China to pave the way for local avocado exporters to access this niche market. Sustainable pest management strategies must be put in place for the two nations and the rest of the African countries to penetrate these niche markets. Results show that IPPM has the potential to increase farmers’ income due to increased yield, which can be enhanced through compliance with the phytosanitary rules required by the importing countries.

3.2 Potential impact of IPPM on poverty reduction

The potential impact of IPPM strategies on poverty reduction is estimated as illustrated by Eq (7). Integrating IPM with pollinator supplementation in Kenya can lift 10,464 people from poverty per year, translating to 156,960 poor people escaping poverty over the simulated period of 15 years. In Tanzania, the number of people estimated to escape poverty due to IPPM intervention is 1,255/year (or 18,825 people over 15 years). In both countries, a majority of poor people live in rural areas where avocadoes are grown, therefore the estimated number of people escaping poverty is a good representation of the expected impact in both economies. Furthermore, IPPM could have other positive externalities such as effective pollination spillover effects on the yield of other crops, translating to more gross domestic product for the economy. The spillover effects are however beyond the scope of this study but should be considered for future ex-post impact evaluation of IPPM. Besides, other benefits such as beekeeping proceeds from the sale of honey and other products are not quantified, the number of people escaping poverty due to IPPM intervention is therefore conservative. The findings suggest that the adoption of sustainable pest management strategies and enhancing pollinators’ population through beekeeping has an instrumental role in economic growth and poverty reduction in Kenya and Tanzania.

3.3 Sensitivity analysis

To understand the robustness of model results, we conducted a sensitivity analysis for key parameters to ascertain the effect on results in both extreme pessimistic and optimistic scenarios. We focused our sensitivity analysis on IPPM intervention, the central focus of this study. The ex-ante analysis is sensitive to price elasticities of demand and supply, expected yield increase, cost reduction, probability of research success, and maximum adoption rates [24,26]. These parameters were adjusted by -50% and +50%. The results are shown in Table 5. Price elasticity of demand was not expected to influence the economic surplus in a small open economy and our sensitivity analysis conformed to this assumption. The expected yield gain was the most sensitive in both countries, resulting in a significant positive change in IRR, although the figure remained higher than the opportunity cost of capital in both countries. Other variables such as real discount rate and maximum adoption suggest that significant changes in the macro-economic environment (for instance through monetary policies) could enhance farmers’ livelihood by acting as an incentive for the adoption of sustainable farming practices. Furthermore, policies aimed at raising the adoption levels of IPPM such as subsidies for IPM products, and farmer training could benefit the economy and empower the livelihood of many small-scale farmers who dominate the avocado value chain.

Table 5

Sensitivity analysis of key parameters for the economic surplus model.

	Kenya			Tanzania
Parameters	TS (‘Million US$)	B/C	IRR (%)	TS (‘Million US$)	B/C	IRR (%)
Base values	0.996	12.9	76.3	0.026	33.9	81.3
Yield gain 50%
0.5	1.878	24.3	99.5	0.048	62.9	103.2
-0.5	0.171	2.2	28.8	0.005	5.9	39.2
Cost reduction of 30%
0.5	1.229	15.9	83.5	0.032	41.7	88.1
-0.5	0.768	10.0	68.1	0.020	26.3	73.6
Interest rate (8% Ke; 11% Tz)
0.5	0.662	10.6	76.3	0.015	20.9	81.3
-0.5	1.535	15.5	76.3	0.046	57.4	81.3
Price supply elasticity 0.8
0.5	1.032	13.3	76.9	0.027	34.8	81.6
-0.5	0.959	12.4	75.7	0.025	33.1	81.0
Probability of success (70% Ke; 60% Tz))
100%	1.467	19.0	89.9	0.045	58.4	100.3
35% (30%)	0.480	6.2	54.4	0.013	16.6	61.1
Max adoption level (85.9% Ke; 68.3% Tz)
100%	1.173	15.2	81.9	0.039	50.8	95.0
35%	0.388	5.1	48.7	0.012	17.0	61.7

Note: TS is Total Surplus; B/C is the benefit over cost; IRR is the internal rate of return; Ke and Tz stand for Kenya and Tanzania respectively.

4. Conclusion and policy recommendations

The adoption of agricultural innovations is important for increasing farm productivity, and income, and sustaining ecosystem services that support livelihoods. Past studies document the impact of adopting sustainable pest management practices such as IPM and pollination services in isolation. In this study, we first assessed the potential (ex-ante) economic benefits of integrating IPM and pollination supplementation, an approach referred to as IPPM; next, we estimated the welfare (poverty) effects resulting from these benefits using a case of avocado production in Kenya and Tanzania. Our analysis utilized the economic surplus model and a combination of primary and secondary data.

Our results show that adopting IPPM could generate a significant economic surplus with the potential to reduce poverty. Simulated for 15 years, IPPM would generate an annual net present value (NPV) of US$ 66 million, and US$ 1.7 million in Kenya and Tanzania, respectively. The positive internal rate of return (IRR) further shows the feasibility of IPPM innovation. The generated economic benefits from IPPM innovation are estimated to lift out of poverty 10,464 and 1,255 people annually in Kenya and Tanzania respectively. This suggests the need to encourage farmers to integrate sustainable pests management practices (IPM) and conservation of pollinators particularly those growing pollinator-dependent crops to improve their agricultural productivity and their welfare.

Further, the successful integration of IPPM into the avocado farming system translates to potential positive health and environmental impacts. With reduced use of pesticides, more pollinators included in the ecosystem and higher yields realized, there would be less pressure to transform the land into an agricultural area resulting in conservation and protection of biodiversity and natural habitats building resilience to climate change adversities. These benefits are however beyond the scope of our analysis and are recommended for future studies.

While our study revealed useful insights into the economic and welfare impact of IPPM, we acknowledge further limitations in our analysis. First, in the long run, both the demand and supply of avocado may become elastic in contrast to our assumption. Second, the successful adoption of IPPM and subsequent impact relies on the implementation of supporting policies, whose evaluation was beyond the scope of this study. Furthermore, while our study demonstrates the significant potential economic and welfare impact of integrating IPM and pollinator supplementation, we didn’t solely quantify positive externalities of beekeeping such as income generated from the sale of honey and related products. Our estimates are therefore conservative and an ex-post evaluation is, therefore, worth future consideration. Assessment of the spillover effects of pollinator supplementation on overall farm crops productivity would also be an interesting knowledge byte.

Given the substantial potential economic and welfare gains demonstrated in this study, policy efforts that encourage the adoption of IPPM should be enhanced. These also include the implementation of feasible export requirements such as the adoption of IPPM and other sustainable and environmentally friendly pest management practices in place of stringent restrictions such as freezing the fruits whose infrastructure is beyond the reach of the smallholder farmers.

(ZIP)

Click here for additional data file.

7 Apr 2022

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Javaid Iqbal, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf  and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

“This work received financial support from the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) commissioned and administered through the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) Fund for International Agricultural Research (FIA), grant number 17.7860.4–001; the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation, the Section for Research, Innovation, and Higher Education, grant number RAF-3058 KEN-18/0005; the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida); the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC); the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia; and the Government of the Republic of Kenya. The views expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the donors.”

We note that you have provided additional information within the Acknowledgements Section that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. Please note that funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

“D.T., B.W.M, S.M, & M.G.L received the funds. This work received financial support from the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) commissioned and administered through the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) Fund for International Agricultural Research (FIA), grant number 17.7860.4–001; the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation, the Section for Research, Innovation, and Higher Education, grant number RAF-3058 KEN-18/0005; the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida); the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC); the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia; and the Government of the Republic of Kenya. The views expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the donors. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

4. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This is an interesting study on an important emerging topic.

However, I think it need some reorganisation and clarification of terms and key issues. This could also lead to reevaluation of the models used and their underlying assumptions.

See attached pdf

Reviewer #2: Comments to authors

The manuscript is valuable and efficient contribution towards the implementation of novel strategies of Integrating Pests and Pollinator Management. However some suggestions are given below for miner revision.

Title

Is good but needs miner rephrasing. Reduce the use of (in)

Abstract

This portion may be good if you add some methodology at line 22 before results. Results may also be elaborated in numerical terms as you have done for cost benefit ratios etc. At the last part of your abstract must indicate future research corridor missing in your research plan.

Keywords

Good

Introduction

At line 73 you must add review about the similar studies already done on any other such crop and their outcome in the form of mini review. Then you must come to your studies.

Line 80-87 seems parts of your results and discussion. These lines may be replaced with the objectives of your studies.

Material and methods

I am more concerned with your methodology as it lacks an integrated methodology you opted. Although you have given concepts, theories before each methodology for subject specialists but for common readers you must elaborate your methodology in a simple form step by step. You may give a schematic diagram of your methodology what were your first step etc. How you started and then ended give step by step in more simpler and understandable way. How you used different formulas and then applied model and how you validated the results of your model. All this can be done with the help of a schematic diagram showing every step and model application procedure.

Results

Before recommendations results must be expressed in a consolidated form.

Discussion must be with citations of similar studies on any other crop if any.

References

References must be according to the format of the journal. This part need the attention of the authors

General Comments

Manuscript is well written. Authors must follow journals format and miner grammatical and language corrections.

Reviewer #3: Article lacks some important details to be fully understand. In addition, it is not well highlighted the importance of this study, and how the finds could be used in future. Please take into account that many sentences need to be rephrased, in my opinion. Moreover, the results should be further developed in the discussion and improve the discussion portion. Some suggested changes as an example are in the comments portion to revise and improve the manuscript. There are many sentences throughout the manuscript which is hard to understand. The present form of draft required a lot of corrections. Please find the comments and suggested corrections. Complete editing corrections, journal-style format, use of abbreviation and missing information should be maintained.

Title: Revise the title of the paper

Abstract: Revision of the abstract is required.

Line 20-22: The authors mentioned “aims to evaluate the potential impact of IPPM elements…? which elements?

Line 22-23: Our results show that the potential economic gain from the adoption of IPPM? What kind of adoption? especially in pest management?

Line 26-29: Restructure the sentence

Rewrite the abstract portion as this is not understandable. The English writing is so confusing to read, it is therefore suggested to rewrite the abstract. English words, vocabulary, journal-style format, word spacing and use correct abbreviations are recommended

Introduction:

Line 44: Restructure the sentence

Line 52-54: Add some relevant references.

Line 69-71: Previous studies have mainly evaluated the economic benefits of IPM technologies and beekeeping in isolation: Add some references to support the statement? which studies?

Line 80-84: The results show significant potential gains……….persons per year out of poverty in Kenya and Tanzania, respectively. This is result portion; add this portion in the results of the study.

Line84-87, 115-116: Restructure the sentence. These sentences are more confusing to understand

Line 131-151: mention the reference of the formulas used in the draft

Line 179-181: These include Murang’a County in Kenya and Kilimanjaro 180 Region in Tanzania…… accounting 181 for 46.9% of the total value of avocado production in the country” Restructure the sentence as this is confusing.

What kind of insects and diseases are present in the avocado crop and what other methods farmer utilized to avoid the chemical control and their economic impact?

Put the survey files in supplementary data as annexures

Line 214-216: Restructure the sentence as this is confusing to understand.

Data sources, parameter estimation, and assumptions” The draft under this sub-headline is too lengthy. Please concise the draft of this subheading

Please add latest reference. Please also see the author’s guidelines of the journal about reference writing. Please mention the research question of why you did this study?

Conceptual model and estimation methods/Materials and Methods:

MM portion needs revision. The sentences are written carelessly; please restructure the sentences and editing used during the study.

Data analysis. Restructure the sentences and add references utilized during the analysis

Results:

The economic analysis of integrating IPM with pollinator supplementation over a 15-year …….which 15 years restructure the sentence as this is confusing (mention the years e.g 2022-2037).

Line 254-260: The authors mentioned the economic benefits from the studied assumptions however they didn’t mention the alternative methods to control insect pests and their economic impact. Please mention this in discussion portion.

The economic comparison of the other alternative crop protection methods to reduce the chemical control in the studied crop area is missing in the discussion portion?

The results portion needs revision. The result portion needs restructuring of the sentences as in the present form the English of the results is not understandable. It is therefore recommended that the authors read to improve the sentences after suggested corrections and before submission.

Discussion:

The findings suggest that the adoption of sustainable pest management strategies and enhancing pollinators' biodiversity through beekeeping has an instrumental role in economic growth and against poverty reduction in Kenya and Tanzania………. What kind of sustainable PMSs?

The discussion portion is very weak and without the discussion of the study conducted. Please add the necessary discussion in the manuscript with the latest reference of the study conducted. Add some latest references in the discussion portion.

Groups of references can be listed either first alphabetically, then chronologically, or vice versa. But you need to be consistent throughout the text. Please correct this in the whole manuscript.

Conclusion:

Conclusion and policy recommendations portion is too lengthy draft and these portions should be written separately in more concise form without the repetition of the information. The conclusion portion is not fine in the present form. Please restructure the conclusion portion by adding the relevant conclusions, and also add the future implication of the present study. Please rewrite in a more concise form.

Figures:

Please also take care of the formatting utilized; there should be uniform formatting throughout the figures. Please also correct the titles by adding the used abbreviations of the figures and formatting according to the author’s instruction of the journal

Tables:

Please correct the titles numbers of the tables in the manuscript.

References: Follow the journal style formatting?

Please add the latest references in the whole manuscript and in literature cited portion

Please double-check for typos and inconsistencies in Journal style/formatting as, among others, missing italics, missing information

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Submitted filename: Review-of-Wangithi_2022_et-al_PLOS_One.pdf

Click here for additional data file.

Submitted filename: Comments to authors.docx

Click here for additional data file.

Submitted filename: Comments of Reviewer No 3.docx

Click here for additional data file.

27 May 2022

Dear reviewers,

We thank you for your positive feedback, for taking the time, and for providing insightful comments that further improve quality of the paper. We have attempted to address your inputs/comments in the revised version. Below is a table that lists your comments and suggestions and corresponding responses.

Responses to Reviewer #1

1a.This is an interesting study on an important emerging topic. However, I think it need some reorganisation and clarification of terms and key issues. This could also lead to reevaluation of the models used and their underlying assumptions. See attached pdf

Thank you for the extensive review and feedback, We have carefully addressed all your suggestions, and we hope the manuscript now reads better

1b. This is a potential important study on benefits of IPM management and with the inclusion of pollination services the IPPM managements. However, there are some unclarities that makes it hard to evaluate where the assumptions are based on and the definition of some key terms. Especially, the IPPM needs a clear definition of what is added to the IPM. As is now, it is hard to evaluate, as key terms seems to be intermingled or not well defined.

Thank you for the positive feedback on the contribution of our paper. We have edited the definition of IPPM and hope it is now clearer (see lines 47-60, page 3)

Specific comments

2. Introduction: Line 60-64: Would be good to have a definition of what the authors mean by IPM and IPPM as this can potentially vary between systems and regions. For examples, I would not say adding managed bees to a system makes it a IPPM-system. In comparison, adding bought natural enemies to a crop does not makes the system a IPM-system. Why does the addition of honeybee hives deserves to be called IPPM?

We have edited this section and hope the definition of IPPM is now clear

3:Conceptual models and estimation methods:

a.Line 91: Are you sure that this statement is true? For example, farmers can lack information to base the decision to convert to IPPM. Or there might be a investment cost that is to high for some farmers, even if the practice will generate income in long term.

Thank you for this observation. We have edited the sentence to have more clarity. By economically rational, the farmers are assumed to evaluate the cost and benefits of the technology and only adopt it if they derive any utility from IPPM, i.e. benefits outweigh the costs

b. Line 111-113: Is this not dependent on whether growers have access to markets both locally and export markets and or distributors? So perhaps growers would sell on local markets if they are more accessible or vice versa.

Thank you for this positive question. Yes, market access is an important determinant of where farmers would sell their produce. Following a trend of the avocado market in Kenya, Africa, and globally, the export market offers better and more competitive prices. Besides, the local market maybe not be sufficient for the local production; to get foreign earnings, farmers and the government has continuously created a business environment to tap into the increasingly global market niche. As conceptualized in this study, the economic benefits will stream from producer surplus with possible shrink or rise of the domestic market, which we have not quantified due to data limitations.

c. Line 124-127: Where does this expectation come from? Do you have any references? I would not expect the effect to be direct, especially not for biological control, as it can take some time to increase populations of natural enemies and pollinators. If you support pollination with managed pollinators this will be quicker of course.

The concern is valid. As discussed in the previous paragraph on the impact of IPM, the direct effect of IPPM is attributed to both the use of sustainable pest management practices (IPM) and enhanced yield through pollinator supplementation

The benefits of the IPM components have been documented in previous studies (see for example Muriithi et al., 2016; Midingoyi et al., 2019). These studies have also been cited in our manuscript

d. Line 161: Why is the equations jump from 7 to 9? Is there a nr 8 that is missing or is that just a skip of numbers?

This was an oversight, thank you for your for bringing it to our attention

4: Data sources, parameter estimation and assumptions:

a)Line 183-186: Here you state that there are three options, IPM, pollinator supplementation and

IPPM. However in line 60-62 you state that the IPPM-package integrates IPM with manage pollinators. So if you chose

IPPM does it include both IPM and manage pollinators? Could you clarify this. Again,

what is the definition of IPPM here?

You are right. During the data collection, we explained the benefits and costs of using IPM alone, supplementation pollination alone, and integrating the two (i.e. IPPM). We then asked the farmers to choose either of the three options that they were willing to adopt. This is the data that we use to derive the adoption rates that we utilize in the analysis of this paper. We then simulated the benefits of each in isolation and integrated them to validate if integrating IPM with pollinators would result in better economic returns. IPPM as described in the introduction, is the Integrated Pest and Pollinator management, i.e. sustainable pest management (i.e. minimal use of chemical pesticides) while enhancing the pollinator population by encouraging the adoption of managed bees (see lines 47-60, page 3)

b) Line 237-239: It seems you take the 20.7% value from the Sagwe et al. 2021 paper or did you

calculate the current pollination deficit? Is taking figures from Sagwe et al., 2021 reliable as you have

farmers in both Kenya and Tanzania? Do you include only smallholder farmers?

This is a valid concern. Yes, we adopted Sagwe et al. 2021. While the author’s results are based in Kenya, the agro-ecological and socio-characteristics of avocado farmers in Kenya and Tanzania are similar. Besides, this is the only most recent study on pollinators in avocado production in East Africa

5: Results and Discussion

a)Line 303?: Line numbering stopped so I had to guess The note March 2022ˆ1 should be used

as a regular reference instead.

We are sorry about this error. The reference is based on a media publication hence its placement as a footnote. However, if the journal’s editor guides otherwise, we are happy to shift it to the regular references

b)Mid sentences, sec. 4.2: Now you equal IPPM with beekeeping again, but wasn’t managed bees a separate thing from IPPM?

Since the benefits of “pollination” and “IPM” in isolation have been documented before, the gap that this study seeks to address is the integration of the two. In our study area, IPM was introduced as well as managed beekeeping to supplement the existing pollination services. Our focus in Section 4.2, therefore, is the impact of IPPM (IPM + pollination supplementation) on poverty reduction

c) Last sentence, Sec. 4.2: How does beekeeping increase pollinator diversity?

Thank you for your concern. This was a mistake, it’s a pollinator population and not diversity.

b)In general I think you need to discuss the sensitivity analysis a bit more as it was very sensitive to the yield gain. It seems very unsure how big that will be as it is currently based on a secondary report from small scale farmers in one of the countries.

We have added a sentence on the sensitivity of the yield gain variable, hope it's better.

6. Conclusion: I think you would benefit by including your mayor findings and how it impact farmers in the end of the conclusion as a final statement.

Thank you for this suggestion. We have highlighted the major findings (see paragraph 2) and their implications for farmers (see paragraphs 2 & 3)

7: Tables

a)Table 2 In the Note it says PS, CS, PS, I guess the last PS should be TS.

Thank you for the correction.

b) Table 2 and 3 If CS is always zero, is it not sufficient to say that in the Table text and then remove the CS and TS columns?

This is a valid observation. In an economic surplus model analysis, the three categories of benefits; - PS, CS, and TS must be presented. As such removing may present missing data which is not the case. We suggest keeping the columns.

References:

Muriithi, B. W., Affognon, H. D., Diiro, G. M., Kingori, S. W., Tanga, C. M., Nderitu, P. W., ... & Ekesi, S. (2016). Impact assessment of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) strategy for suppression of mango-infesting fruit flies in Kenya. Crop Protection, 81, 20-29.

Midingoyi, S. K. G., Kassie, M., Muriithi, B., Diiro, G., & Ekesi, S. (2019). Do farmers and the environment benefit from adopting integrated pest management practices? Evidence from Kenya. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 70(2), 452-470.

Reviewer #2

1.The manuscript is valuable and efficient contribution towards the implementation of novel strategies of Integrating Pests and Pollinator Management. However some suggestions are given below for miner revision.

Thank you for the positive feedback.

Specific comments

2. Title : Is good but needs minor rephrasing. Reduce the use of (in)

Thank you we have rephrased to read; Synergies of Integrated Pests and Pollinator management in avocado farming in East Africa; An ex-ante economic analysis

3. Abstract: This portion may be good if you add some methodology at line 22 before results. Results may also be elaborated in numerical terms as you have done for cost benefit ratios etc. At the last part of your abstract must indicate future research corridor missing in your research plan.

Thank you; We have added a sentence on the methodology;

The information on the benefit: cost ratio is also captured.

For future research, we have followed the journal guidelines. The papers we received captured this information under the conclusion. See the second last paragraph in the conclusion section.

4: Keywords: Good

Thank you

5. Introduction:

a) At line 73 you must add review about the similar studies already done on any other such crop and their outcome in the form of mini review. Then you must come to your studies.

In the context of Africa, there are no other studies that we are aware of on the potential economic impact of IPPM on any other crops; however, studies on the impact of IPM and pollinators, each studied alone has been cited in the earlier lines of this paragraph.

b)Line 80-87 seems parts of your results and discussion. These lines may be replaced with the objectives of your studies

We have shifted this to results however we borrowed the idea of presenting in brief the results in the introduction section from other related journal papers.

6.Material and methods: I am more concerned with your methodology as it lacks an integrated methodology you opted. Although you have given concepts, theories before each methodology for subject specialists but for common readers you must elaborate your methodology in a simple form step by step. You may give a schematic diagram of your methodology what were your first step etc. How you started and then ended give step by step in more simpler and understandable way. How you used different formulas and then applied model and how you validated the results of your model. All this can be done with the help of a schematic diagram showing every step and model application procedure.

Thank you for the suggestion.

We adopt a common economic model that is widely used and elaborated in the cited references. However, we recognize this may not be common for a non-expert reader. For this, we include “Figure 1: Conceptual framework” which connects the conceptualization and applied method. The framework shows how the economic surplus is derived with equations, and how the variables interact to cause a shift in the economy. Adding an extra diagram (schematic) as you suggested will duplicate Figure 1.

7: Results: Before recommendations results must be expressed in a consolidated form. Discussion must be with citations of similar studies on any other crop if any;

Thank you for this observation. Although we recognize recommended journal format of separating the “Results and “Discussion” sections, we request to keep the two together since there are very few studies on IPPM in Africa to correlate to our work. We have however added a few citations on IPM and pollinator’s studies in isolation. Thank you

8: References: References must be according to the format of the journal. This part need the attention of the authors

We have carefully edited the references following the journal requirements. Thank you

9: General Comments:Manuscript is well written. Authors must follow journals format and miner grammatical and language corrections.

Thank you for the extensive review. We have carefully considered your suggestions and hope the manuscript reads better

Reviewer #3

1: Article lacks some important details to be fully understand. In addition, it is not well highlighted the importance of this study, and how the findings could be used in future. Please take into account that many sentences need to be rephrased, in my opinion. Moreover, the results should be further developed in the discussion and improve the discussion portion.

Some suggested changes as an example are in the comments portion to revise and improve the manuscript. There are many sentences throughout the manuscript which is hard to understand. The present form of draft required a lot of corrections. Please find the comments and suggested corrections. Complete editing corrections, journal-style format, use of abbreviation and missing information should be maintained.

Thank you for the extensive review of our manuscript. We have tried to improve the overall flow and sentence structure. We do hope with your suggestions the manuscript now reads better.

The importance of the study is highlighted in the fourth paragraph of the introduction

Detailed specific comments

Detailed comments

2: Title: Revise the title of the paper

Revised to read as follows

“Synergies of Integrated Pests and Pollinator management in avocado farming in East Africa; An ex-ante economic analysis”

3.Abstract:

a) Revision of the abstract is required.

Revised

b) Line 20-22: The authors mentioned “aims to evaluate the potential impact of IPPM elements…? which elements?

We have removed “elements”

c) Line 22-23: Our results show that the potential economic gain from the adoption of IPPM? What kind of adoption? especially in pest management?

We are not sure we understand your concern. However, we equate Adoption to “use”; i.e. the literal meaning of “adoption” as used in the use of agricultural innovation/ technology literature.

d) Line 26-29: Restructure the sentence

Rewrite the abstract portion as this is not understandable. The English writing is so confusing to read, it is therefore suggested to rewrite the abstract. English words, vocabulary, journal-style format, word spacing, and use correct abbreviations are recommended

We have read these lines carefully and edited them accordingly. We hope they are now clearer

4: Introduction:

a)Line 44: Restructure the sentence

We have edited

b)Line 52-54: Add some relevant references.

Added (11-13)

c)Line 69-71: Previous studies have mainly evaluated the economic benefits of IPM technologies and beekeeping in isolation: Add some references to support the statement? which studies?

Cited 19- 23

d)Line 80-84: The results show significant potential gains……….persons per year out of poverty in Kenya and Tanzania, respectively. This is result portion; add this portion in the results of the study.

Although some journals ask for a brief highlight of results in the introduction section, we have moved these sentences to results.

e)Line84-87, 115-116: Restructure the sentence. These sentences are more confusing to understand

We have edited the sentences. We hope they are clear

f)Line 131-151: mention the reference of the formulas used in the draft

Reference for formulas [25-29]

g) Line 179-181: These include Murang’a County in Kenya and Kilimanjaro Region in Tanzania…… accounting for 46.9% of the total value of avocado production in the country” Restructure the sentence as this is confusing.

We have restructured these sentences, we hope they are now clear

h)What kind of insects and diseases are present in the avocado crop and what other methods farmer utilized to avoid the chemical control and their economic impact?

Due to the space limitation of the paper, we did not go into detail on this although we highlighted the key pests in the second paragraph of the introduction. This information is however provided in a different paper (not published yet) from the baseline survey data that assesses the farmer’s knowledge, attitude, and practices in regard to avocado pests and diseases.

i)put the survey files in supplementary data as annexures

We are not sure which survey files you are referring to here. if data files, we submitted them as per the journal guidelines

j) Line 214-216: Restructure the sentence as this is confusing to understand.

Rephrased

5: Data sources, parameter estimation, and assumptions”

a)The draft under this sub-headline is too lengthy. Please concise the draft of this subheading? Please mention the research question of why you did this study?

Thank you for your concern. We request to keep it as such since reducing it will lose the flow of how parameters are derived. We use both primary and secondary data and this section integrates the two for model estimation, hence the elaborate explanation

b)Please add latest reference. Please also see the author’s guidelines of the journal about reference writing.

We have addressed this concern. Thank you

This is mentioned earlier in the introduction, third paragraph

6. Conceptual model and estimation methods/Materials and Methods:MM portion needs revision. The sentences are written carelessly; please restructure the sentences and editing used during the study.

We have carefully read and edited where possible; we hope it has improved.

7. Data analysis. Restructure the sentences and add references utilized during the analysis

We assume you are referring to the “Results and discussion section”. We have carefully edited this section. For the citation, unfortunately, this being the first study on IPPM, the references that we could cite here are limited. It is also for this reason we have mostly used grey literature as you can see from our list of references.

8. Results:

a)The economic analysis of integrating IPM with pollinator supplementation over a 15-year …….which 15 years restructure the sentence as this is confusing (mention the years e.g 2022-2037).

We have edited as guided. Thank you

b)Line 254-260: The authors mentioned the economic benefits from the studied assumptions however they didn’t mention the alternative methods to control insect pests and their economic impact. Please mention this in discussion portion.

Thank you for the suggestion, however, we only focus on this approach for this study. The assessment of alternative methods for control of pests and their economic impacts is however beyond the scope of the current study

c)The economic comparison of the other alternative crop protection methods to reduce the chemical control in the studied crop area is missing in the discussion portion?

While we acknowledge this is an important comparison, we lack studies that use a similar methodology to evaluate alternative methods of crop protection (e.g. use of chemical pesticides).

d)The results portion needs revision. The result portion needs restructuring of the sentences as in the present form the English of the results is not understandable. It is therefore recommended that the authors read to improve the sentences after suggested corrections and before submission.

We have carefully read through this section and improved the grammar and flow.

9. Discussion

a)The findings suggest that the adoption of sustainable pest management strategies and enhancing pollinators' biodiversity through beekeeping has an instrumental role in economic growth and against poverty reduction in Kenya and Tanzania………. What kind of sustainable PMSs?

In the literature on agricultural innovation/technologies, IPM is considered one of the Sustainable pest management strategies due to its minimal use of pesticides while preserving the econ-system. This definition is briefly provided in the third paragraph of the introduction

b)The discussion portion is very weak and without the discussion of the study conducted. Please add the necessary discussion in the manuscript with the latest reference of the study conducted. Add some latest references in the discussion portion.

We are limited to the few studies on IPPM that have been conducted so far and none from Africa. this is the reason for the light discussion and the reason we merged Results and discussions in the same section.

c)Groups of references can be listed either first alphabetically, then chronologically, or vice versa. But you need to be consistent throughout the text. Please correct this in the whole manuscript.

Thank you for this observation. We have edited the references as guided.

10. Conclusion: Conclusion and policy recommendations portion is too lengthy draft and these portions should be written separately in more concise form without the repetition of the information. The conclusion portion is not fine in the present form. Please restructure the conclusion portion by adding the relevant conclusions, and also add the future implication of the present study. Please rewrite in a more concise form.

Thank you for the feedback. We followed the journal’s guidelines that do not restrict combining conclusions and policy implications. The journal states the following referring to Results, Discussion, Conclusions; “These sections may all be separate or may be combined to create a mixed Results/Discussion section (commonly labeled “Results and Discussion”) or a mixed Discussion/Conclusions section (commonly labeled “Discussion”). These sections may be further divided into subsections, each with a concise subheading, as appropriate. These sections have no word limit, but the language should be clear and concise”

We have however carefully read through the section to ensure no redundancy of the given information. Reducing the text further might compromise the key messages of the paper.

11. Figures: Please also take care of the formatting utilized; there should be uniform formatting throughout the figures. Please also correct the titles by adding the used abbreviations of the figures and formatting according to the author’s instruction of the journal

We have addressed this, thank you

12. Tables:Please correct the titles numbers of the tables in the manuscript.

We have corrected it. Thank you

13. References: Follow the journal style formatting? Please add the latest references in the whole manuscript and in literature cited portion. Please double-check for typos and inconsistencies in Journal style/formatting as, among others, missing italics, missing information

We have carefully read and addressed these concerns. For the latest references, we are limited to very few that correlate with our study.

Submitted filename: Responses to reviwers comments.docx

Click here for additional data file.

27 Jun 2022

Synergies of Integrated Pest and Pollinator Management in Avocado Farming in East Africa: An Ex-Ante Economic Analysis

PONE-D-22-02323R1

Dear Dr. Muriithi,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Javaid Iqbal, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: Manuscript now is fine and publishable. All appropriate corrections have been addressed by authors. Materials and methods, Results discussions all are now written in fine form.

Reviewer #3: The article number PONE-D-22-02323R1 submitted to PLOS ONE, entitled “Synergies of Integrated Pests and Pollinator management in avocado farming in East Africa; An ex-ante economic analysis” carried good results. After the complete version of the revision the article can be recommended for the publication of this study. Complete editing corrections, journal style format, use of abbreviation, missing information and double spaces may be improved in proof reading versions.

The article is accepted for publication.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

1 Jul 2022

PONE-D-22-02323R1

Synergies of Integrated Pest and Pollinator Management in Avocado Farming in East Africa: An Ex-Ante Economic Analysis

Dear Dr. Muriithi:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Javaid Iqbal

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE