2026 年 14 巻 1 号 p. 1-23
Global food security is increasingly threatened by declining crop yields, while heavy reliance on chemical pesticides has produced negative impacts on the environment and human health. Integrated Pest Management (IPM) offers a more sustainable alternative, yet evaluations of its ecological and economic benefits remain limited. This study addresses this gap through a bibliometric analysis and systematic review of trends, research hotspots, and trade-offs in IPM implementation. Findings reveal a marked rise in IPM publications between 2015 and 2024, clustered around four themes: technical strategies, agronomic integration, biological control and ecosystem services, and socioeconomic and policy dimensions. Ecologically, IPM enhances agroecosystem resilience through biopesticides, advanced pest detection technologies, and conservation practices that support climate change mitigation. Economically, IPM promotes sustainability by improving resource efficiency, strengthening farmer capacity, and enabling premium markets for low-residue products. Future research should prioritize multitrophic interactions, genetic and genomic approaches, and socioeconomic analyses that assess long-term benefits, incentives, and policy frameworks. Broadening IPM adoption will enhance farmer welfare, safeguard human health, and advance sustainable agriculture.
One of the major challenges in agriculture is ensuring that the food supply keeps pace with population growth while improving global diets. By 2050, the world’s population is projected to exceed 9 billion, requiring a 50–70% increase in food production [1]. The global population is projected to stabilize at around 10 billion by the end of the 21st century, presenting opportunities for the development of sustainable agricultural systems [2]. A major challenge in achieving agricultural production and global food security is the ongoing －and growing－ threat posed by plant pests and pathogens. Pests and diseases caused by insects, fungi, bacteria, and viruses significantly reduce crop yields and disrupt supply chains. These infestations lead to decreased agricultural production and substantial economic losses, ultimately threatening food security [3, 4]. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), plant pests and diseases cause up to 40% of global crop yield losses annually, resulting in economic losses exceeding USD 220 billion per year [1].
Chemical pesticides have served as the primary defense against plant pests and diseases for decades, playing a crucial role in agricultural intensification and global food security. However, their intensive use and high application rates have raised significant concerns regarding environmental and agricultural sustainability. The widespread use of chemical pesticides poses substantial risks to both ecosystems and human health [5], while promoting the development of pathogen and pest resistance [6, 7]. Epidemiological studies have consistently linked pesticide exposure to an increased risk of cancer [8, 9]. These multifaceted challenges underscore the urgent need for sustainable pest management alternatives that balance agricultural productivity with ecological preservation and public health protection.
Growing concerns over the adverse effects of chemical products have spurred global efforts to reduce excessive pesticide use. Integrated Pest Management (IPM) offers a comprehensive ecological approach, combining cultural, biological, and chemical methods to maintain pest populations below economically damaging levels while minimizing environmental and health risks [10]. Rooted in agroecological principles, IPM emphasizes preventive measures (e.g., crop rotation), pest monitoring based on economic thresholds, reduced pesticide use, and careful evaluation of intervention strategies [11]. By focusing on practical, cost-effective strategies that limit environmental harm [12], IPM has proven transformative; in South Asia, its adoption reduced pesticide costs by USD 25–26 per hectare and decreased pesticide applications by 15–40% [13, 14], while in East Africa, IPM systems generated USD 500 million in net benefits, lifted people out of poverty, and reduced pesticide use, while also providing significant environmental benefits [15]. These successes underscore the potential of IPM to reconcile agricultural productivity with sustainability goals. However, despite extensive research on IPM, critical gaps remain in fully understanding its economic impacts—particularly benefit-cost ratios across diverse agroecological contexts—and its environmental impacts, including carbon emission reduction and ecosystem preservation. These knowledge gaps are further compounded by methodological heterogeneity in existing studies and the lack of a global, interdisciplinary synthesis. Despite the valuable insights offered by previous studies, several limitations persist. Some investigations have undertaken systematic bibliometric analyses of IPM trends but remained narrowly focused on practical applications [16]. Others have restricted their scope to tropical crops [17] or have been geographically limited, such as analyses of European policy incentives [18] and Brazil-specific studies on soybean IPM [19]. Moreover, although recent studies have evaluated the ecological and biodiversity impacts of IPM, a comprehensive assessment that concurrently integrates both economic and environmental dimensions remains lacking [20].
We identified a significant research gap in comprehensive studies that systematically compare the economic and environmental benefits of IPM. This study aims to address this gap by employing a bibliometric approach combined with a systematic review. Our investigation focuses on the following core research questions:
RQ1: What is the progression of IPM practices and scientific advancements in this field?
RQ2: What are the main research hotspots (keywords) within the IPM in the literature?
RQ3: What are the economic-environmental tradeoffs of IPM practices and the future research directions for achieving sustainable agriculture?
The primary objectives of this research are to analyze IPM research trends, examine keyword clusters in IPM studies, and identify existing knowledge gaps. We employed a systematic structural approach to screen literature on the impacts of IPM, focusing on studies demonstrating ecological or economic benefits, as indexed in the Web of Science (WoS) database. Additionally, we analyzed historical research trends related to IPM impacts and identified potential directions for future research.
The method employed in this study combines bibliometric analysis and a literature review to evaluate empirical evidence on the application of IPM in agriculture. Data collection in this study followed the mechanism illustrated in the flowchart in Figure 1, which was developed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The WoS database, a comprehensive bibliographic and citation index that provides access to a wide range of scientific literature, was used to retrieve a dataset of publications from reputable international journals, ensuring the credibility of the sources. The literature search was conducted using a combination of keywords relevant to the research objectives, namely “integrated pest management” AND ((“economic impact” OR ”economic benefit”) OR (“environmental benefit” OR “ecological impact”)). The keyword-based search yielded a total of 1,586 related articles. Articles were screened based on predefined criteria, including language, document type, and publication year. Only English-language articles presenting empirical evidence on the application of IPM were included. To ensure relevance to recent innovations, the selection was limited to studies published between 2015 and 2024. Based on these criteria, 686 articles were initially identified, and after removing duplicates, 684 articles were retained for final analysis.
Bibliometric analysis was conducted using RStudio with the Biblioshiny package and VOSviewer software. The first step involved importing the dataset in .txt format into Biblioshiny, followed by selecting various analysis features categorized under authors, documents, clustering, conceptual structure, and social structure. The resulting analytical reports were exported in Excel format and subsequently refined to enhance clarity and informativeness for presentation in this paper. VOSviewer was primarily used to visualize the density and overlay network of keywords obtained during the data screening stage. The analysis process involved importing the data in .txt format and setting specific visualization parameters. In this study, the minimum occurrence threshold for displayed keywords was set to 7. Prior to final visualization, irrelevant keywords, such as country, plant names, and species names, were eliminated to improve the relevance and interpretability of the network visualization.
The literature review analysis in this study was conducted by identifying a subset of papers from the final dataset obtained through the screening process. This identification aimed to gather empirical evidence on the impact of IPM implementation on both economic and ecological aspects. The selection process involved reviewing the titles and abstracts of each paper, resulting in 41 relevant articles. This number aligns with the findings of a previous study, which suggested that a systematic review can be developed from a minimum of 40 relevant studies to ensure sufficient maturity and a meaningful contribution [21]. The selected papers were then reviewed in full to extract findings related to the implementation of IPM practices and their impacts. These findings were subsequently mapped and categorized based on the core IPM principles outlined by Barzman et al. [11], followed by a detailed discussion of the insights obtained.
This section systematically presents the research data derived from the previously formulated research questions. The first part provides descriptive analyses of trends in IPM research, corresponding to Research Objective 1. The second part reports findings analyzed using predefined keywords to address Research Objective 2. The third part delivers a comprehensive review of selected papers, offering deeper insights relevant to the study’s aims.
3.1 Performance metrics of existing studies 3.1.1 Temporal progression of publicationFigure 2 illustrates the dynamics of publication growth in the field of IPM between 2015 and 2024. Overall, the graph reveals a clear upward trend. The pattern can be divided into two distinct phases: slow growth and rapid growth. The slow-growth phase was characterized by relatively low, stable fluctuations, beginning with 36 articles in 2015 and rising modestly to 39 in 2017, indicating initial exploratory efforts in IPM research. The rapid growth phase followed, with a sharp increase from 42 articles in 2018 to 74 articles in 2020, reflecting a marked surge in scientific interest. The upward trajectory continued, culminating in a peak of 130 articles in 2024. This pattern underscores the growing scientific significance and practical relevance of IPM-related research topics.
Table 1 presents key information on the ten most productive scientific journals in the field of IPM over the past decade (2015–2024), based on data from 684 original research articles. Journal productivity is evaluated using several metrics, including the number of articles, H-index, publisher, impact factor (IF), CiteScore, and ISSN Online. The three major publishers dominating the field are Elsevier, MDPI, and Oxford Academic. Oxford Academic accounts for 36 articles, all published in the Journal of Economic Entomology. MDPI follows with 51 articles, distributed across Insects (39) and Sustainability (11). Elsevier publishes three of the ten journals listed in the table, with a combined total of 57 articles, representing the highest overall publication output among publishers.
In terms of article count, Insects ranks first with 39 publications, followed by the Journal of Economic Entomology (36) and Crop Protection (27). A high number of articles may indicate both journal productivity and researchers’ preferences when selecting publication outlets. The journals Pest Management Science, Crop Protection, and Journal of Integrated Pest Management each have a high H-index (12). Meanwhile, Science of the Total Environment holds the highest impact factor (8.2), signifying substantial influence in the scientific literature and positioning it as a primary reference source. Additionally, the same journal records the highest CiteScore (16.4), reflecting the average number of citations per article. These metrics are valuable for assessing the reputation, influence, and overall quality of journals within the academic community.
| Journal | No Article | H index | Publisher | IF | Cite score | ISSN (Online) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Insects | 39 | 11 | MDPI | 2.9 | 5.6 | 2075-4450 |
| Journal Of Economic Entomology | 36 | 11 | Oxford Academic | 2.4 | 4.2 | 1938-291X |
| Crop Protection | 27 | 12 | Elsevier B.V. | 2.5 | 5.4 | 1873-6904 |
| Pest Management Science | 25 | 12 | John Wiley and Sons Ltd | 3.8 | 7.8 | 1526-4998 |
| Journal Of Integrated Pest Management | 21 | 12 | Oxford University Press | 2.7 | 6.3 | 2155-7470 |
| Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment | 16 | 10 | Elsevier B.V. | 6.4 | 12.5 | 1873-2305 |
| Sustainability | 11 | 6 | MDPI | 3.3 | 7.7 | 2071-1050 |
| Biological Control | 10 | 7 | Academic Press Inc. | 3.4 | 7.9 | 1090-2112 |
| Science of the Total Environment | 10 | 6 | Elsevier B.V. | 8.0 | 16.4 | 1879-1026 |
| Frontiers In Sustainable Food Systems | 9 | 4 | Frontiers Media SA | 3.1 | 6.2 | 2571-581X |
Table 2 presents the most influential articles in the field of IPM that serve as foundational references for subsequent research. The table indicates that the article by Lacey et al. [22], published in the Journal of Invertebrate Pathology, has been cited 984 times. This study provides a comprehensive review of the use of entomopathogens as biological control agents within IPM systems. It emphasizes the urgent need for advancements in formulation, efficacy, and regulatory frameworks to facilitate broader adoption. Similarly, van Lenteren et al. [23] discuss the development and potential of biological control using living organisms through an IPM approach in their publication in the Biocontrol journal. This work underscores the importance of collaboration among industry, policymakers, farmers, and communities to fully realize the potential of biological control. The article has been cited 612 times in the Scopus database. The data presented in Table 2 provide valuable insights into the research directions and thematic priorities within the field of IPM.
| Title | Year | Author | Journal | Citation | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Insect Pathogens as Biological Control Agents: Back to the Future | 2015 | Lacey La, Grzywacz D, Shapiro-Ilan Di, Frutos R, Brownbridge M, Goettel Ms | J. Invertebr. Pathol. | 984 | [22] |
| Biological Control Using Invertebrates and Microorganisms: Plenty of New Opportunities | 2018 | Van Lenteren Jc, Bolckmans K, Köhl J, Ravensberg Wj, Urbaneja A | Biocontrol | 612 | [23] |
| Global Assessment of Agricultural System Redesign for Sustainable Intensification | 2018 | Pretty J, Benton Tg, Bharucha Zp, Dicks Lv, Flora Cb, Godfray Hcj, Goulson D, Hartley S, Lampkin N, Morris C, Pierzynski G, Prasad Pvv, Reganold J, Rockström J, Smith P, Thorne P, Wratten S | Nat.Sustain. | 451 | [24] |
| Current Status of Persistent Organic Pesticides Residues in Air, Water, And Soil, And Their Possible Effect on Neighboring Countries: A Comprehensive Review of India | 2015 | Yadav Ic, Devi Nl, Syed Jh, Cheng Zn, Li J, Zhang G, Jones Kc | Sci. Total Environ. | 400 | [25] |
| Integrated Pest Management for Sustainable Intensification of Agriculture in Asia and Africa | 2015 | Pretty J, Bharucha Zp | Insects | 292 | [26] |
| Positive But Variable Effects of Crop Diversification on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services | 2021 | Beillouin D, Ben-Ari T, Malézieux E, Seufert V, Makowski D | Glob. Change Biol. | 265 | [27] |
| Quantitative Synthesis on the Ecosystem Services of Cover Crops | 2018 | Daryanto S, Fu Bj, Wang Lx, Jacinthe Pa, Zhao Ww |
Earth-Sci. Rev. |
264 | [28] |
| Climate Change and Biological Invasions: Evidence, Expectations, And Response Options | 2017 | Hulme Pe | Biol. Rev. | 263 | [29] |
Table 3 presents the most frequently used keywords in scientific publications related to IPM. The keyword “Integrated Pest Management” appears most often, with 252 occurrences, indicating that IPM remains the primary focus in the literature analyzed in this study. The term “biological control” ranks second, appearing 49 times, reflecting the growing prominence of biological approaches as a key trend in IPM-related research. Environmental themes, including ecosystem services, agroecology, and climate change, also appear frequently, highlighting the strong association between IPM research and environmental conservation efforts. This pattern suggests a shift toward more ecologically oriented approaches in IPM-based agricultural management.
| No | Keyword | Occurrence | No | Keyword | Occurrence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Integrated pest management | 252 | 10 | Natural enemies | 16 |
| 2 | Biological control | 49 | 11 | pest control | 13 |
| 3 | Ecosystem services | 32 | 12 | Sustainable agriculture | 12 |
| 4 | Pesticides | 26 | 13 | sustainability | 12 |
| 5 | Agriculture | 26 | 14 | food Security | 11 |
| 6 | invasive species | 22 | 15 | economics | 11 |
| 7 | Agroecology | 19 | 16 | monitoring | 11 |
| 8 | climate change | 17 | 17 | biodiversity | 10 |
| 9 | pest management | 17 |
Many countries have adopted Integrated Pest Management (IPM) as a key strategy for controlling pests and plant diseases. Table 4 identifies the top ten countries with the most scientific publications on IPM, with the United States emerging as the leading research hub. It ranks first with 215 publications, 5,471 citations, and the highest link strength (23,899), demonstrating both significant scientific influence and strong international research collaborations, as further illustrated by the VOSviewer network analysis in Figure 3.
Figure 3 illustrates the international collaborative network in IPM research, where node size represents publication volume and line thickness indicates collaboration strength. The United States stands out with the largest node and numerous strong connections, affirming its role as the central hub of global IPM research. Western European countries, including Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Italy, the Netherlands, and Spain, also show high research activity and strong collaboration networks. In the Asia-Pacific region, notable partnerships exist between China and Australia. Overall, Table 4 and Figure 4 emphasize that IPM research thrives on extensive international collaboration across countries and continents.
| No | Country | Article | Citation | Link Strengh |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | United States | 215 | 5471 | 23899 |
| 2 | Germany | 42 | 1724 | 15230 |
| 3 | Italy | 60 | 993 | 13183 |
| 4 | France | 47 | 2231 | 12912 |
| 5 | England | 49 | 3083 | 12616 |
| 6 | Australia | 40 | 871 | 12083 |
| 7 | China | 58 | 1252 | 10948 |
| 8 | Netherlands | 23 | 1718 | 8237 |
| 9 | Kenya | 37 | 745 | 8027 |
| 10 | Spain | 29 | 1114 | 6962 |
Figure 4 and Table 5 present data on the countries of origin of co-authors in scientific publications related to IPM. These data provide an overview of publication output, average citations, and the degree of international collaboration based on co-authors’ countries of origin. Table 5 shows that the United States makes the largest contribution in terms of publication volume, with 172 articles–approximately 25% of the total output—accompanied by the highest total citation count (3,702 citations). In contrast, the United Kingdom, despite producing fewer articles, records the highest average citations per article (43.76). This suggests that, in certain cases, the quality and impact of publications may outweigh their quantity.
| Country | Article | Article % | Citation | Avg citation | SCP | MCP | MCP % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| United States | 172 | 25.15 | 3702 | 21.52 | 143 | 29 | 16.86 |
| China | 47 | 6.87 | 1155 | 24.57 | 28 | 19 | 40.43 |
| India | 42 | 6.14 | 239 | 5.69 | 37 | 5 | 11.90 |
| Italy | 41 | 5.99 | 788 | 19.22 | 28 | 13 | 31.71 |
| United Kingdom | 33 | 4.82 | 1444 | 43.76 | 23 | 10 | 30.30 |
| Brazil | 25 | 3.65 | 393 | 15.72 | 19 | 6 | 24.00 |
| Kenya | 25 | 3.65 | 612 | 24.48 | 9 | 16 | 64.00 |
| Australia | 24 | 3.51 | 322 | 13.42 | 10 | 14 | 58.33 |
| Germany | 20 | 2.92 | 298 | 14.90 | 10 | 10 | 50.00 |
| France | 18 | 2.63 | 446 | 24.78 | 10 | 8 | 44.44 |
Figure 4 illustrates the geographical distribution of scientific publications based on the country of the corresponding author. Figure 4(a) presents a bar chart depicting publication counts from various countries, categorized into Single Country Publications (SCP) and Multiple Country Publications (MCP). SCPs, shown in blue, represent publications authored exclusively within a single country, whereas MCPs, shown in red, reflect publications involving international collaboration. The United States leads with the highest number of both SCPs and MCPs, indicating a strong domestic research capacity alongside active participation in global collaborations. India and China follow, contributing substantially—primarily through SCPs—suggesting robust local research activity but relatively lower levels of international collaboration compared with other developed countries. In contrast, countries such as Kenya, Australia, and France exhibit a relatively high proportion of MCPs, signifying intensive cross-border research engagement.
(a)
(b)
Figure 4(b) presents a world map showing the global distribution of scientific contributions, measured by the number of published papers related to IPM. The United States and several Western European countries appear in dark blue, indicating high levels of publications. India, China, Brazil, and Kenya are shaded in light blue, representing moderate publications, while regions shown in gray indicate no recorded publications. This visualization complements the bar chart in Figure 4(a) and underscores that research on IPM is global in scope.
3.1.6 The dynamics of research topics and research trendsFigure 5 presents a Sankey diagram illustrating thematic shifts in IPM research across two periods (2015–2019 and 2020–2024). The diagram shows how research themes have evolved, persisted, or diverged over time. “Integrated Pest Management” remains a dominant theme, reflecting its sustained scientific relevance. Several new themes in 2020–2024 emerged from earlier topics, such as the evolution of “pesticide resistance” into “sustainable agriculture”, and the branching of “environmental management”, “economic threshold”, and “climate” into “economic impact,” “risk factors,” and “ecosystem services,” respectively. Overall, the diagram highlights a shift from technically focused studies toward a systems-oriented approach that integrates environmental, social, and economic dimensions. The emergence of themes like “economic surplus”, “smallholder farmers”, “artificial diet”, and “monitoring” underscores the growing emphasis on socio-economic considerations, ecosystem-based strategies, and biotechnology-driven solutions in contemporary IPM research.
3.2 Analysis based on keywords: research hotspotsBased on the collected articles, a keyword analysis was conducted to identify terms representing significant and recent research themes related to the topic. From a total of 4.622 keywords identified in the dataset, only 165 met the minimum occurrence threshold of seven. This threshold ensured that only the most frequently occurring and relevant keywords were included in the mapping analysis, thereby improving the accuracy and interpretability of the keyword relationship network. The relationships between keywords and IPM events are visually represented in Figure 6. Node size indicates both the frequency of occurrence and the significance of each term within the IPM context, while color differentiation identifies distinct clusters corresponding to specific subtopics. As shown in Figure 6, the keywords are clustered around four main themes: technical strategies, agronomic integration, biological control and ecosystem services, and socioeconomic and policy dimensions.
Cluster I: “technical strategies and efficacy in integrated pest management”. IPM is the integration of plant protection methods to prevent the development of harmful organisms, maintain the use of plant protection products, and other forms of intervention to reduce and minimize risks to human health and the environment [30, 31]. However, pesticides remain vital for yield protection [32], especially since pesticide use is also supported by promotions from the agrochemical industry [33], which indoctrinates farmers that chemical control is effective [34]. Drone-based spraying enables efficient control [35], yet pesticide use causes about 385 million health cases annually [36], drives resistance, pest resurgence, and pollution [37, 38], disrupts ecosystems [37], harms pollinators [39], and causes bioaccumulation that impairs higher organisms [40].
IPM provides an effective and sustainable approach to pest and disease control while supporting farmers’ income stability. Studies employing the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to evaluate fruit fly control methods on mango crops reveal that molasses bait scores higher than insecticides when assessed against criteria such as cost-benefit ratio, environmental safety, and consumer protection [41]. Cabbage yields under IPM are 10% greater than non-IPM approaches, with benefit-cost ratios of 3.6 versus 2.9, respectively [42]. However, full IPM adoption requires costly monitoring and farmer field schools [34]. In chrysanthemum cultivation, IPM increases management and monitoring expenses by 17%, but yields a 5% improvement in premium-grade flower production [43].
Cluster II: “synergizing agronomic practices and IPM”. The second thematic cluster highlights the role of crop cultivation practices in strengthening IPM and sustainable agriculture. IPM, an ecosystem-based strategy, integrates biological control, habitat management, and resistant varieties [44]. Preventive practices like resistant cultivars and crop rotation are effective [45]. Conservation Agriculture (CA) methods, including reduced tillage, mulching, diversified crop rotations, and irrigation management, support IPM by increasing incomes and reducing costs [46]. For example, intercropping chrysanthemums with ornamental peppers and basil in greenhouse settings enhances biodiversity and boosts populations of natural pest enemies [43], while ecological farming techniques have increased farmers’ incomes by up to 9.2% [47]. Additionally, Targeted controls such as pheromone traps and bioinsecticides effectively reduce pest populations [44].
Fertilizer use must be balanced, as excessive nitrogen can cause pest and disease outbreaks, alter soil properties, and increase carbon monoxide emissions contributing to global warming [47, 48]. High nitrogen levels also intensify Acyrthosiphon pisum infestations by making plant tissues more palatable [48, 49]. Planting cover crops is an agroecological practice that can enhance IPM by improving soil health (cruciferous plants and legumes as cover crops can boost nitrogen mineralization by about 22 kg N ha⁻¹ [50]), preventing erosion, and supporting natural enemies [28, 50]. This integrated agricultural approach aims to reduce reliance on external inputs, fostering a more resilient and sustainable farming system.
Cluster III: “Biological control and ecosystem services in IPM”. In a well-balanced ecosystem, all organisms play vital roles, and pests arise when certain species become dominant, causing economic loss [51]. Biological control, a core aspect of IPM, uses natural enemies (parasitoids, predators, and entomopathogenic microbes) to regulate pests while maintaining ecosystem balance [52]. Examples include Amblyseius largoensis controlling citrus rust mites [53], mirid species targeting Bemisia tabaci [54], and predators like Macrocheles spp. and Ceranisus spp. managing thrips in chrysanthemum [43]. Similarly, Beauveria bassiana and Metarhizium anisopliae control soybean aphids [55].
Biodiversity underpins environmental stability and ecosystem services. In IPM, careful input management supports biological processes and ecosystem functions [26]. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) classifies services into provisioning, regulating, supporting, and cultural categories, including food, fiber, energy, air purification, water quality, pollination, and cultural values [56, 57]. Biodiversity-centered IPM practices reduce pest pressure while enhancing ecosystem functions [58, 59].
Cluster IV: “Socio-economic dimensions and policy implications of IPM adoption”. IPM enhances not only pest control but also environmental sustainability, ecosystem balance, and socio-economic outcomes. Integrating natural enemies, crop rotation, resistant varieties, and selective pesticides improves yields and quality while minimizing ecosystem disruption. Economically, IPM cuts dependence on costly, harmful chemicals [60, 61], reduces pesticide use by 30.7% [26], and increases net income by USD 906.20 to 992.93 [44]. Low-residue products gain market value, while wider IPM adoption strengthens food security and supports sustainable agriculture.
IPM adoption differs across regions due to socio-economic and policy factors. Education, training access, economic status, financial risk, and land ownership significantly influence adoption. Farmers with higher education and better training are more likely to implement IPM, promoting sustainable agriculture [62]. Awareness programs and tailored training enhance uptake, while farm income, information use, communication, and knowledge—which together explain 58.9% of the variation in adoption—positively influence sustainability [63].
The success and sustainability of IPM as a whole depend on integrated public policy support through three main instruments: (1) information dissemination, (2) regulation, and (3) economic incentives [18]. Information dissemination through education and continuous extension services plays a crucial role in increasing farmers’ awareness and interest in shifting to natural pest control methods. Meanwhile, economic instruments such as subsidies for biological agents and taxes on high-risk pesticides are effective ways to promote IPM adoption among farmers. Pesticide tax reform in Denmark has proven effective in reducing the total pesticide load used by farmers [64]. In addition to quantity, farmers are replacing products with high toxicity with those that pose a lower risk. Meanwhile, input subsidy programs such as seeds, fertilizers, and pesticides are consistently negatively associated with smallholder adoption of environmentally friendly IPM practices [65]. Although subsidies for environmentally friendly inputs and taxes on pesticides have the potential to encourage IPM adoption, their implementation requires fiscal feasibility analysis and administrative capacity building to ensure the policy is sustainable. Policy design should consider (i) estimates of the fiscal cost of subsidies and alternative funding sources, (ii) potential revenue from differentiated pesticide taxes and redistribution options to fund transition programs, and (iii) institutional needs, including monitoring systems, strengthened extension services, and transparent delivery mechanisms [66]. Without comprehensive policy support, IPM implementation tends to be partial and unsustainable. Therefore, the active role of the government in providing a clear regulatory framework, along with economic support and sustainable extension programs, is a key factor in ensuring the success of IPM at the field level.
3.3 Economic–environmental trade-offs of IPM practicesThe discussion on the trade-off between ecological and economic impacts in this section is structured by classifying selected studies according to the principles of IPM, as presented in Supplementary Table 6. The principle of prevention and suppression encompasses two technical groups: biological control and trapping practices. These groups emphasize the use of natural enemies, biological agents, biopesticides, and traps, alongside sanitation and agronomic practices related to garden hygiene, crop rotation, bed preparation, fertilization, and other cultivation techniques. Under the principle of monitoring, IPM practices are categorized into three types. The first involves the use of specific traps, such as pheromone traps, yellow traps, fruit fly traps, and gel baits, to monitor pest populations. The second type of monitoring is based on economic thresholds, which help determine appropriate control measures. The third combines pest monitoring with preventive efforts through healthy cultivation practices. The next principle, decision-making, is equally crucial. The decision-making process can follow two main approaches: (1) monitoring and the application of economic or conventional thresholds, and (2) decision-making supported by data analysis, risk assessment, and prioritization.
The use of chemical inputs remains a major concern in the implementation of IPM. This issue is addressed through three interrelated principles: non-chemical methods, pesticide selection, and reduced pesticide use. The principle of non-chemical methods encompasses three groups of practices: (1) the use of biological agents and biopesticides, (2) the integration of various biological and systemic cultivation strategies, and (3) healthy crop management. Practices such as seed treatment, organic fertilization, the application of microbial compost, plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR), and the use of silica fertilizers represent key components of healthy crop management. Under the principle of pesticide selection, IPM practices emphasize the use of natural and biological pesticides, the establishment of careful pesticide selection strategies, and efforts to minimize environmental impacts. These objectives can be achieved by natural enemies, biocontrol agents, and various natural pesticide compounds. Limiting pesticide application, selecting products with low environmental risk profiles, and integrating pesticides with other management strategies significantly contribute to achieving these IPM principles. Ultimately, implementing these principles supports the seventh IPM principle, which focuses on resistance prevention. Although evaluation, as the eighth principle, is equally important, it emphasizes assessing the effectiveness of implemented plant protection measures. In this stage, farmers not only conduct evaluations but also adopt new assessment approaches, shifting from conventional methods toward more holistic and sustainable practices. Consequently, this principle is not confined to a specific IPM framework as applied in the reviewed studies.
3.3.1 Ecological aspectThe implementation of IPM is an ecological approach aimed at maintaining a balance between agricultural productivity and environmental sustainability. IPM not only focuses on direct pest control but also emphasizes managing agricultural ecosystems to ensure they remain stable, healthy, and sustainable. Each principle of IPM has complementary ecological implications and plays an important role in supporting environmentally conscious agricultural systems.
The principles of prevention and suppression are the main foundations of IPM, as they focus on preventing pest population outbreaks before they occur. This approach integrates biological control, trapping, sanitation, and good agronomic practices. Ecologically, IPM provides significant benefits by reducing dependence on synthetic insecticides, thereby minimizing environmental damage, pollution, toxicity, and risks to human health [63, 65, 66]. Evidence shows that the implementation of IPM can reduce approximately 2.7 million tons of CO₂-equivalent emissions, prevent the use of more than 526,000 liters of pesticides [15], and decrease pesticide application by over 50% [42]. In addition, IPM contributes to increased biodiversity through the preservation of non-target organisms, the enhancement of natural enemy populations, and the strengthening of agroecosystem resilience [44], although the risk of capturing non-target insects remains possible [65].
The principle of monitoring plays a crucial role in maintaining ecological balance by conducting regular observations of pest populations and their natural enemies. Monitoring based on economic thresholds enables early detection and timely control measures, thereby minimizing pesticide use. The IPM approach, which emphasizes monitoring through traps and economic thresholds, has proven to be more effective than purely chemical-based methods. Its ecological impact is significant, as it reduces the risk of environmental pollution and helps preserve non-target organisms. Specifically, this approach shifts routine spraying toward selective interventions, reducing pesticide use by more than 50% and active ingredients by up to 63.8% [42]. These reductions help conserve natural enemies and soil predators, maintain soil quality, and delay the development of insecticide resistance [43, 55, 67].
The decision-making process in IPM is based on monitoring results and economic threshold analysis, producing mutually reinforcing ecological and economic benefits. Data-driven decisions ensure that pesticides are used only when pest populations reach economically damaging levels. Ecologically, this approach transforms pest control systems from routine chemical spraying into data-driven strategies that emphasize prevention, such as installing pheromone traps, conserving natural enemies, and applying biopesticides when pest populations are still below the control threshold [46, 61].
The application of non-chemical methods is a key principle of IPM that provides substantial ecological benefits by enhancing the resilience of agroecosystems. This approach prioritizes plant health by resistant varieties, seed treatments, and microbe-enriched organic fertilizers [41, 42]. The use of biopesticides [65] can reduce dependence on synthetic insecticides, which have the potential to disrupt populations of natural enemies [68]. Under certain conditions where pesticide application remains necessary, the principle of pesticide selection becomes critical. The use of pesticides that are target-specific and readily degradable can minimize adverse effects on non-target organisms which can enhance crop yields by up to 26% [55, 68, 69].
Furthermore, the principle of reduced pesticide use, implemented through need-based spraying and spot treatment, has been shown to lower chemical residues in soil and water, decrease environmental risks by up to 69.2%, and reduce dependence on synthetic pesticides by as much as 95% [30, 55, 70]. Overall, the adoption of these principles not only preserves soil microbial quality and activity but also reinforces the long-term ecological stability of agricultural systems.
Finally, anti-resistance strategies are implemented to maintain the long-term effectiveness of pesticides while preserving ecological stability. Rotating active ingredients with different modes of action, integrating chemical and biological control methods, and applying recommended dosages are essential steps to prevent the development of resistant pest populations. Ecological benefits are also evident in pollinator communities, where increased bee visitation contributes to higher crop yields [71], while crop rotation practices enhance yield stability and reduce production risks for up to 18 years [45]. Overall, each IPM principle works synergistically to maintain a balance between productivity and environmental sustainability. This integrated approach not only suppresses pest populations but also strengthens the ecological functions of agroecosystems, making IPM a fundamental pillar of sustainable and environmentally conscious agriculture.
3.3.2 Economic aspectThe application of IPM practices in agriculture has been proven to positively influence economic performance by increasing crop yields. The findings of Chatterjee et al. [72] indicate that green manuring techniques, as an application of the principles of prevention and suppression, provide a significant gross return of US$1,288 per hectare, while the combination of treatments resulted in a grain yield of 5,656 kg per hectare in India. Similarly, the application of selective insecticides and the use of traps in potato farming in Peru increased the number of marketable potatoes, resulting in an average net profit gain of US$1,410 per hectare [67]. In the United States, an IPM system that reduced insecticide use by 95% in watermelon cultivation required an average cost of only US$3.35 per hectare, which was lower than that of conventional management systems, costing up to US$100.98 per hectare [71]. Furthermore, the same study also reported a trend of higher corn yields following the elimination of neonicotinoid seed treatment (NST) within the IPM framework.
Increased crop yields resulting from the implementation of IPM are closely associated with cost savings and enhanced profitability for farming enterprises. Research by Saltzmann et al. [45] demonstrates that crop rotation strategies and the use of disease-resistant varieties are economically viable, as they reduce pesticide use without diminishing farmers’ profits, while simultaneously improving input efficiency and profit margins across various commodities. Alwang et al. [34] reported that IPM adoption can increase farmers’ income through higher yields (24 tons/ha compared to 21 tons/ha), lower production costs (US$535/ha compared to US$618/ha), and more efficient pest control expenditures (US$92/ha compared to US$171/ha). Consequently, this led to greater net profits (US$1,410/ha compared to US$1,152/ha) and a total income increase ranging from 15.7% to 33.7%, with an average gain of 24.5% [42]. Moreover, reducing insecticide applications in soybean cultivation in Brazil saved between US$18.88 and US$125.44 per hectare per season and resulted in a 25.7% yield increase, generating financial gains of US$4,512.69 per hectare.
In addition to costs and benefits, Bernaola and Holt [73] emphasize that IPM can also enhance input allocation efficiency, reduce pesticide-related externalities, and narrow the technology gap, thereby strengthening economic sustainability and the resilience of agricultural systems. In terms of efficiency, Midingoyi et al. [74] confirm that data-driven IPM enables more targeted resource allocation, thus preventing unnecessary expenditures on pesticides and labor. Rajashekhar et al. [44] reported an increase in production efficiency, resulting in a decrease in the technology gap in corn cultivation in India from 23.33 to 10.42. The technology gap represents the difference between potential and demonstrated production. Thus, 23.33 reflects the initial gap, whereas 10.42 denotes the gap following efficiency gains. This reduction indicates that Indian farmers are moving closer to achieving their production potential. Efficiency gains are also evident in chrysanthemum cultivation, where synthetic insecticide costs were reduced by up to 71%, with expenditures of IDR 825,440 in IPM plots compared to IDR 2,872,625 in standard farmer practices [43]. Furthermore, Gress et al. [75] revealed that replacing very high-risk (VHR) insecticide active ingredients with organic alternatives led to a 98.1–99.9% reduction in Toxic Units (TU), thereby improving surface water quality and reducing the external costs associated with environmental pollution.
Despite its many advantages, the economic impact of IPM implementation also presents several limitations. Decision-making based on economic thresholds requires an understanding of market values, as well as the costs and efficacy of control measures, which can be difficult to apply under conditions of market uncertainty and variability [76]. The adoption of multiple IPM practices often involves substantial initial costs that are perceived as prohibitively expensive [72], thereby creating barriers for small-scale farmers to implement them [15]. In addition, IPM is knowledge-intensive, so a lack of knowledge and insufficient access to extension services might hinder farmers’ IPM adoption [77]. Therefore, farmers need serious support in accessing ecological literacy [78], as well as replacing subsidies for agricultural chemicals with subsidies for more sustainable practices. [79]. The use of natural pesticides also faces challenges due to the lower effectiveness of single-agent applications. For instance, the use of Dodonaea viscosa extract against Helicoverpa armigera in tomatoes was found to be the least effective in reducing larval populations, despite causing higher mortality [79]. Moreover, natural pesticides typically require longer processing times and more frequent applications, which in turn increase labor costs.
This study has several limitations inherent in its methodological scope and rigour. Firstly, the clustering of literature relies on bibliometric techniques—namely, the co-occurrence of authors’ keywords. While effective for mapping the intellectual structure of the field, these techniques may not capture subtler thematic nuances as effectively as more advanced text analysis methods, such as text mining of titles, abstracts, and results. A second limitation arises from the exclusive use of the WoS database, which may introduce a selection bias. Although comprehensive, WoS does not encompass all relevant literature, particularly studies on the economic–environmental aspects of IPM published in local contexts or within grey literature sources such as governmental reports and theses. To mitigate this and achieve a more thorough and representative data extraction, future studies should expand their searches to include other major databases (e.g., Scopus) and platforms indexing journals from developing regions. Furthermore, integrating snowballing techniques and systematic grey literature searches would enhance the reliability and comprehensiveness of future findings.
A further limitation lies in the broad scope of the analysis, which did not delve into specific IPM practices as the general IPM articles in WoS often did not form robust bibliometric clusters for these narrower themes. Consequently, the findings provide a high-level overview rather than a detailed examination of individual techniques impact. Finally, it is crucial to recognize that a bibliometric analysis provides a snapshot of the research landscape at a specific point in time. As such, the results may not fully capture the most recent trends or rapidly evolving areas within the field. Future research is recommended to conduct focused bibliometric investigations on these specific marginalized practices or to complement these findings with a qualitative evaluation through a systematic review. Viewing this study as a foundational analysis is therefore prudent; its conclusions should be refined and updated as the dynamic field of IPM research continues to progress.
This study demonstrates a significant increase in publications related to IPM during the period 2015–2024, with a total of 684 articles. Analysis of these publications indicates that, while IPM remains the central theme, research issues have evolved and can be grouped into four major clusters: (1) technical strategies and effectiveness of IPM; (2) integration of agronomic practices with IPM; (3) biological control and ecosystem services in IPM; and (4) socio-economic dimensions and policy implications of IPM adoption. The findings confirm that IPM is attracting growing scientific attention in both research and practical applications. From an ecological perspective, the implementation of IPM underscores the importance of addressing climate change, biological interactions, pest detection technologies, and the use of environmentally friendly biopesticides to enhance agroecosystem resilience. From an economic perspective, IPM contributes to agricultural sustainability through cost–benefit analyses, capacity building for farmers, and the development of supportive policies and incentives. Overall, IPM plays a strategic role not only in pest management but also in promoting farmer welfare and advancing sustainable agricultural development.
Daffa Sandi Lasitya: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing- Original Draft, Writing- Review & Editing, Supervision, Software, Resources and Data Curation. Anton Meilus Putra: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Visualization, Writing- Original Draft, and Writing- Review & Editing. Dwi Putri Jeng Ivo Nurun Nisa’, Rifani Rusiana Dewi, Noldy Rusminta Estorina Kotta, Nurlaili Habibi Danata: Writing- Original Draft, Writing- Review & Editing, Validation, and Investigation.
The author gratefully acknowledges the Education Fund Management Institution (LPDP), Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Indonesia, for its generous support in funding the author’s studies, which made this research possible.
