Fig 1.
Map of Lake Tana and surrounding selected study kebeles, based on data from the Humanitarian Data Exchange [28].
Table 1.
Description of the study area surrounding Lake Tana.
Table 2.
Demographic characteristics of the respondents (n = 352).
Table 3.
Dominantly used pesticides in the study area.
Fig 2.
Self-reported categories of pesticides used by farmers in Lake Tana surrounding.
Table 4.
Farmers’ knowledge of pesticide application.
Fig 3.
Observed level of knowledge at Lake Tana surrounding farmers.
Table 5.
Pesticide application practices of small-scale farmers (n = 352).
Fig 4.
Retail pesticide access points observed in local market settings.
Table 6.
Pesticide transport, storage and disposal practices of small-scale farmers.
Fig 5.
Pesticide container management practices in Lake Tana surrounding farmers: (A) Improper empty pesticide containers disposal practices near the mouth of the Megech River; (B) Empty pesticide containers used for reuse purposes, Photo by the author.
Fig 6.
Pesticide mixing and spraying practice in Lake Tana surrounding farmers: (A) Pesticide mixing practices observed during fieldwork, demonstrating local preparation methods, (B) Spraying practices conducted in the recession agricultural zones within the Fogera regime.
Fig 7.
Self-reported symptoms by farmers after pesticide application.
Fig 8.
Reported Pesticide impacts during the study (A) Self-reported impacts of pesticide application on biodiversity reduction; (B) Observed local impacts of pesticides use on agricultural land near lake wells, visible death of biota.
Table 7.
Factors associated with the attitudes of small-scale farmers toward safe pesticide application.
Table 8.
Factors associated with small-scale pesticide application practices among the interviewed farmers.