The Sustainability–Income Paradox: A Mixed-Methods Analysis of the Economic Disincentives for Integrated Pest Management Adoption among Liberian Smallholders

Integrated Pest Management (IPM) encourages an ecological alternative to farming that relies on high pesticide use, but smallholders in Liberia are slow to adopt it. This paper analyzes the so-called sustainability-income paradox, which posits that environmentally friendly practices are economically inviable in the short-run. I integrate survey data from 600 households with data collected through focus group discussions and key informant interviews to identify drivers and inhibitors of IPM adoption. The research used a mixed-methods design. The findings from econometric analyses revealed that access to extension services and education significantly increase adoption, while adoption is deterred by pesticide subsidies and high-risk aversion. A cost analysis demonstrates that while IPM can save on chemicals inputs, it increases labor and biological inputs costs, which appear prohibitive to farmers who lack liquidity. Qualitative findings show that farmers are concerned about time intensity, uncertainty about yields, and the lack of market premiums for safer produce. Collectively, the results revealed that systemic economic disincentives, rather than environmental ignorance, are the primary barrier to adoption. Policy implications include subsidy reform, enhanced extension outreach, and the development of market incentives for residue-free crops. These adjustments could align smallholder decision-making with long-term sustainability goals. This research, set in a fragile-state environment, demonstrates that sustainable modifications to agricultural systems are often undermined by short-term economic pressures that institutional adjustments alone cannot counteract.