https://orcid.org/0009-0002-1747-0626
Figures
Abstract
Agrochemical application is essential for increasing agricultural production and achieving Sustainable Development Goal 1 to secure worldwide hunger. In Ethiopia, there is haphazard use of pesticides for agricultural intensifications. However, knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAPs) regarding agrochemical use vary globally, especially in developing countries. This inconsistency raises significant concerns for human health and environmental degradation. Therefore this study aimed to assess the KAP of agrochemicals among communities surrounding Lake Tana. A community-based study was conducted targeting 352 small-scale farmers in selected villages, categorized by four regimes. Data were collected through face-to-face interviews and in situ observations via a pretested and semi structured questionnaire. The data were analyzed via chi-square tests and logistic regression. The findings revealed that, 100% of the respondents used pesticides on their farm, 42.3% had good knowledge, 56.5% had a positive attitude, and only 22.4% practiced well. The majority (57.1%) used banned pesticides particularly DDT, and 39% repurposed empty pesticide containers for household use. Moreover, 69% and 17% of the respondents reported that they most commonly use class II (moderately hazardous), and class III (slightly hazardous), respectively. Literate respondents were 2.329 times more likely to practice good pesticide application than illiterate respondents were (AOR = 2.329, Cl = 1.228, 4.419). The educational level and attitudes of the respondents showed significant associations with pesticide application practices according to binary logistic regression, with a P value <0.05. Poor pesticide practices were more prevalent in the Dembia and Fogera plain regimes than in the Bahirdar and Gilegel Abay regimes. Education and location (study clusters) were key factors, highlighting the need for capacity building and enforcement to protect the community and the aquatic ecosystem.
Citation: Zeleke BY, Hiruy AM, Weldemariam ED, Shegen SM, Aklilu T (2026) Knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAPs) on agrochemical use in small-scale farmers near Lake Tana, Ethiopia: Impacts on public and aquatic ecosystem health. PLoS One 21(4): e0344438. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0344438
Editor: Vinaya Satyawan Tari, Universitas Airlangga, INDONESIA
Received: August 5, 2025; Accepted: February 18, 2026; Published: April 17, 2026
Copyright: © 2026 Zeleke et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: The relevant data are within the manuscript.
Funding: The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
1. Introduction
The growing world, which is in an unprecedented state, demands agricultural intensification to end hunger, achieve food security, improve nutritional status and promote sustainable development [1]. Agricultural intensification has resulted in an increase in the production and utilization of agrochemicals such as pesticides and fertilizers, both in quantity and in kind [2]. Historically, agrochemical production, particularly pesticide production, started to increase after the 2nd war [3]. It was 500,000 tons per annum in the 1950s. Recently, in the 21st century, more than 4 million tons have been produced annually worldwide [4]. According to the FAOSTAT report, worldwide pesticide consumption reached more than 4,122,334 tons per annum on average from 1990--2018. Africa represents 2.1% of the country (69,984.83 tons) [4].
In Ethiopia, pesticides were first introduced in the 1940s in the agricultural sector to protect crops from pests [5]. Its usage is increasing, and the amount of imported pesticides increased from 242 tons in 1993–4,123 tons in 2018 [4]. This is due to the increasing demand of different sectors for agricultural disciplines (crop protection, flower farming, forestry, aquaculture, etc.), the food industry (food material preservatives), processing, transportation and the health sector for the prevention of vector-borne diseases, and other industries that use imported pesticides [6]. In addition to imported pesticides, Ethiopia produces an average of 1,374.161 tons of pesticides per year, with a national capacity from the Adamitulu pesticide production industry. On the other hand, the Amhara regional state agricultural sector reported an average of 140.1 tons of pesticides supplied in the Lake Tana subbasin, which is one fourth of the country utilized.
While pesticides significantly protect crops from pests and diseases from 20 to 40% production loss [7,8], their misuse can lead to severe health and environmental crises [9,10]. The indiscriminate application of pesticides poses risks to both the public health and the health of aquatic ecosystems [11,12]. Numerous incidents have occurred due to pesticide application. For example, exposure to pesticides such as organophosphates can inhibit cholinesterase enzyme activities, resulting in cholinergic symptoms [13]. Applying pesticides at concentrations higher than the registered levels can have detrimental effects on public health and aquatic ecosystems [14]. The incidence of pesticide-induced poison is particularly high in developing countries because of poor legislative practices, gaps in farmers’ knowledge and usage, lack of personal protection during application, and skill-related issues.
Studies on the knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAPs) regarding agrochemical use have shown that small-scale farmers, especially in developing countries, often apply pesticides inadequately. This is attributed to various factors, including illiteracy, lack of formal training [15], and negative attitudes and practices [16,17]. Some studies performed in Ethiopia have revealed that the level of knowledge, attitudes and practices of farmers require attention [18–20]. Similarly, study performed in fogera district in Ethiopia reported high knowledge gaps among experts as well as local communities [21]. However, no studies have been conducted in the surrounding area of Lake Tana, the largest lake and a significant development corridor.
In the Lake Tana subbasin watershed, agricultural practices are prevalent, leading to significant environmental challenges [22]. The rapid expansion of agricultural, coupled with inadequate management of agrochemicals, particularly from recession framings has resulted in high levels of chemical runoff. This excessive use of agrochemicals contributes to the infestation of water hyacinth [23–25] and the accumulation of pesticides in the food chain of fish species [26], potentially posing health risks to consumers. To improve public health and protect aquatic ecosystems, assessments and investigations of the level of pesticide application applied by small-scale farmers at catchment scales are needed to establish a strategic management system. In the study area, one study explained the practices of the eastern part of Lake Tana [27] but did not cover the practices and influences of the lake or major rivers surrounding it.
On the basis of the authors’ review and knowledge, there is currently no published research that captures the KAPs of farmers living near the Lake Tana shoreline concerning agrochemical use and its impacts on human health and aquatic ecosystems. Additionally, analyses of the associations between variables in KAP dynamics across sites are lacking. Therefore, this study aimed to assess farmers’ knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding agrochemical use near the Lake Tana shoreline; identify the commonly used types of pesticides and their sources; prioritize sampling zones; and offer management recommendations.
2. Methods
2.1. Description of the study areas
The study was conducted from August to April in four selected regimes (Dembia, Fogera, Bahirdar Zuria, and Gilgel Abay) situated near Lake Tana, including the mouths of major tributaries. The study encompassed 16 kebeles, all of which are close to the lake and its five major tributary rivers (Gilgel Abay, Gumera, Rib, Megechi, and Dirma) (Fig 1).
The study areas were classified into four categories to facilitate comparison of pesticide use and agrochemical practices (Table 1).
2.2. Sampling method and data collection procedures
A cross-sectional study was conducted using mixed-method questionnaires, which included both closed and open-ended questions to interview 352 randomly selected small-scale farmers near Lake Tana. Prior to the interviews, participants provided consent, confirming their willingness to participate either by signature or verbally. This process ensured transparency, confidentiality, and accountability throughout the research. The selected farmers primarily utilize the buffer zone of Lake Tana for recession farming, following the mouths of major tributary rivers. To identify respondents, consultations were held with regional, zonal, and district agricultural and environmental sectors to determine the necessary population size in the areas surrounding the lake and the major tributary river mouths. Four sampling regimes (Dembia, Fogera, Bahridar Zuria and Gilegel Abay) were identified, comprising 16 kebeles and specific villages that have direct contact with the river mouths and the lake. The total population of the study area was 28,000. The lists of the households that used irrigation and post rain season farming were obtained from the respective kebele managers and agricultural extension offices. The sample size was determined to be 352 on the basis of the WHO pesticide regulation protocol [29] and considering [30] following a 95% confidence interval, a 5% level of precision, and a 50% degree of variability with little modification (Equation 1).
where n is the sample size, N is the total population and e is the precision.
The respondents were proportionally allocated to the four selected sampling regimes. Eight data collectors were selected and trained on the questionnaire and objectives of the study. The authors undertook the data collection process under the supervision and support of the researcher.
Local kebeles and villages, along with agricultural and health extension experts, were engaged documenting farmers’ pesticide use practices and attitudes. In addition, three key informants (KIs) from each sampling area were interviewed to provide insights into overall practices, attitudes, observed challenges, the roles of government structures and local inhabitants, and potential environmental impacts. A small focus group discussion (FGD) was undertaken to gather relevant information on pesticide handling procedures and attitudes. Observations were conducted on various aspects, including chemical mixing, leftover pesticide disposal, and their containers. Additionally, pesticide vendors were consulted to explore their role in pesticide application, the challenges they face, and the support they need from the government and regulatory bodies to contribute to the solution. These methods ensure data triangulation, rationality, and dependability. Furthermore, office data on agrochemical distributions over the past ten years, including usage frequency and related information, were compiled and integrated with the survey.
The study defined the dependent variables as the knowledge, attitudes and practices pesticide users. The independent variables included demographic information (sex, education, farming experience, land size, age, income and sampling sites), training provided, and other elements discussed during the interviews.
The questionnaire comprises five sections. The first section collected general demographic information about the respondents, including their farming experience, land tenure size, and income sources with annual revenue. The second section contained 14 questions assessing general knowledge related to crops, pesticide types, and the respondents’ understanding of pesticide use. The third section focused on aspects of agrochemical purchase, transport, and storage. The fourth section included eight questions regarding agrochemical practices. The final section featured five questions about attitudes toward pesticide management. All the questionnaires were initially prepared in English and then translated into the local Amharic language. The interviews were conducted using the translated questionnaire, which was subsequently translated to English.
The mean scores for the dependent variables were calculated. The knowledge score served as an independent variable for attitudes, whereas both the knowledge score and the attitudes score were considered independent variables for practices. The Knowledge data were recorded as ‘yes’, ‘no’, or ‘don’t know’. These responses were aggregated into a dichotomous variable, with ‘yes’ scored as one and ‘no’ and ‘don’t know’ scored as zero. A score above 50% indicated a high level of knowledge, whereas a score below 50% indicated a low level of knowledge. In addition to the independent assessment, the five-point scale data were merged into two-point scale data (positive and negative responses) for logistic regression.
2.3. Ethical statement
This study did not involve the collection of biological or physical samples from participants. Informed consent was obtained from all participants, either verbally or in writing, to ensuring transparency, confidentiality, and accountability throughout the research process. At the national level, there are no formal guidelines mandating ethical approval for nonclinical studies that do not involve sensitive or personally identifiable data. Since the research adhered to ethical principles including voluntary participation, confidentiality, and harms minimization, and did not process sensitive data, formal ethical clearance was not required. Nevertheless, all participants explicitly provided consent by signing the prepared consent form. For individuals who expressed their willingness verbally but were unable to provide a physical signature, their consent was documented through audio recordings. These records were securely archived as part of the ethical documentation process.
2.4. Data analysis
The data were organized and processed using an MS Excel spreadsheet. For the analysis, both descriptive and inferential statistics were employed with IBM SPSS version 25 software. A chi-square test was conducted to explore potential associations within the data, with significance levels set at P < 0.01 and P < 0.05. Furthermore, logistic regression was performed to assess the relationships between small-scale farmers’ knowledge, attitudes, and practices as well as demographic data and key predictor factors.
3. Results
3.1. Demographic characteristics
The demographic characteristics of the respondents are illustrated in Table 2. Over 87% of the interviewed individuals were male, which reflects the nature of their fieldwork. The majority (65.8%) were aged between 30 and 50 years, with an average age of 44 + 10 years. A significant portion of the respondents (49%) were illiterate, while 42.9% were able to read and write. Additionally, 6% had attended primary school, and 2% had completed secondary school or pursued higher education.
Furthermore, 54.5% of the farmer respondents had been engaged in farming activities for more than 20 years. More than 58% of the villagers reported an annual income between 250and 1000 dollars, with average revenue of 837 dollars. Nearly half of the respondents (46%) had land holdings ranging from 1 to 2 hectares, with an average of 1.44 hectares.
3.2. Identified type of pesticides in the study area
Twenty-eight pesticide active ingredients were identified from the small-scale farming practices interviews during the survey period (Table 3). Among them, 3.4% of the pesticides were class I (highly hazardous), 69% were class II (moderately hazardous), 17% were class III (slightly hazardous), and the remaining 10% were class V (unlikely to cause hazards in normal use) according to the WHO pesticide toxicity classification [31]. Importantly, no farmers responded to the use of pesticides of any class la.
Fig 2 illustrates the types of pesticides used by small-scale farmers in the study area. The majority of the interviewed farmers (92%) used insecticides, whereas 81% used herbicides. Additionally, nearly half of the farmers (47.4%) utilized fungicides, and a smaller percentage (19.9%) used rodenticides.
3.3. Level of knowledge and understanding of pesticide application
The level of knowledge and understanding among farmers regarding the identity, danger, effects, and routes of exposure to pesticides were analyzed (Table 4). According to the survey, 95.5% of the farmers reported that pesticides have impacts on human health, and 84.4% believed that they have impacts on the aquatic environment. Among the total respondents, 42.7% did not have any information about banned pesticides. Additionally, 64.5% of the farmers were unable to identify the color code of pesticides, and 73.6% did not read, understand, or follow the labels on the containers. The interviewed farmers considered spraying (80%), mixing (29%), storing (20%), and reentering treated areas (11%) as potential routes of pesticide exposure. Similarly, they reported dermal (71.6%), oral (78.6%), inhalation (52.6%), wound (44.9%), and ocular (42.9%) routes of pesticide exposure (Table 4).
Fig 3 shows the knowledge scores of the four study regimens. Fogera and Bahirdar Zuria achieved scores of 0.57 and 0.51, respectively, which were above the average of 0.5. In contrast, Dembia and Gilgel Abay obtained scores of 0.43 and 0.37, respectively, which were below the average, which implies that the Fogera and Bahirdar Zuria study regimens had relatively better knowledge than the Dembia and Gilgel Abays did.
3.4. Levels of pesticide application and use practices
3.4.1. Sources of pesticides and application practices.
All the respondents used pesticides on their farms to eliminate pests (Table 5). Most farmers (72%) consulted agricultural experts when choosing a pesticide, whereas 57.6% received advice from pesticide vendors. However, nearly 20% of the interviewed farmers applied pesticides without seeking any information. In terms of pesticide sources, 41% of the respondents obtained them from private vendors, 32% from farmer associations, and 27% from the open market. These findings are based on a sample that represents 100% of the suppliers, as shown in Fig 4.
Most small-scale farmers use knapsack sprayers for mixing and spraying pesticides. These knapsacks were readily available on the market. Approximately 78.4% of the respondents applied pesticides three to ten times per cropping season, depending on the crop type and location. Moreover, 17% of the plants were treated with pesticides one to two times per cropping season, and 4.5% were treated with pesticides 10–25 times per cropping season.
With respect to the timing of pesticide spraying, the majority of farmers (75%) sprayed pesticides in the morning and afternoon, taking into consideration factors such as wind (8%) and rain (13.9%). However, 4.5% of the interviewed farmers sprayed pesticides at any time without considering the means of protecting their health or the environment.
A small proportion of the interviewed farmers (17.9%) followed the instructions and labels on the pesticide containers. There was a significant association between following pesticide handling instructions and farmers’ knowledge scores (P < 0.05).
3.4.2. Pesticide transport, storage, leftover and empty pesticide container management and disposal practices.
Pesticide transportation, storage, handling, and disposal practices are illustrated in Table 6. The majority of the farmers interviewed (88.1%) transported pesticides by human beings. A significant portion (33.8%) carried them along with household goods, and among these, 30% did not take any precautions.
Only 29.5% of the respondents stored pesticides in a separate location inaccessible to family members. In contrast, 66.5% stored them anywhere in the house, with 1.4% keeping them in the animal house, and 4.5% using them immediately after purchase (Table 6). Additionally, 57.4% of the respondents stored pesticide spray equipment on a ceiling board without ventilation, and 10% kept it in the bedroom.
Nearly half of the interviewed farmers (44.1%) disposed of leftover pesticides by pouring them into nearby water bodies. A considerable respondent (38.6%) disposed of pesticides that potentially contaminate ground water. Additionally, 6.0% of the respondents used the leftover pesticides on other crops, while 3.7% sold them to other farmers. Regarding empty containers, a significant portion of respondents (36.7%) disposed of them on farms or in nearby water bodies (Fig 5A). Additionally, 39% of the respondents reported repurposing them for home (Fig 5B), while 25.5% disposed of them in designated areas, including burning sites. The remaining 17% sold the containers to Kororalio.
3.4.3. Personal protective equipment (PPE) use practices.
In the present study, none of the small-scale farmers used standard personal protective equipment while preparing, mixing, spraying, or disposing of pesticides and their containers as illustrated in (Fig 6A and B). However, some farmers reported taking minimal precautions: 7.4% covered parts of their body with local clothing, 28.1% partially covered their faces, and 29.3% sporadically wore protective items such as boots, trousers, and gloves. Notably, 35.2% of the interviewed farmers reported not using any protective devices at all. This lack of protective measures was found to be significantly associated with knowledge and education levels (P value <0.001).
3.5. Reported public health symptoms and environmental impacts regarding pesticide application
Most of the farmers interviewed believed that pesticides are harmful to human health (95.5%) and aquatic ecosystems (84.4%). Small-scale farmers reported varying levels of pesticide exposure and experienced different symptoms, including headaches (51.4%), skin irritation (41.8%), nausea (31.3%), eye irritation (24%), discomfort (24.1%), and vomiting (10.2%) during pesticide application (Fig 7). The effects of these symptoms lasted for more than 24 hours. Only 24.7% of the respondents sought treatment at a nearby health post; 24.4% opted for self-treatment and 9.4% did not seek any treatment. Additionally, 6.8% used traditional medicine, and the remaining cases may not have been serious enough to warrant treatment.
All farmers in the study area relied on lake water and major tributary rivers flowing into the lake to prepare pesticide mixtures and clean their equipment. Additionally, approximately half of farmers (44.1%) reported disposing of leftover pesticides and empty containers in nearby water bodies. Many farmers in the surveyed community noted the impacts of pesticides on aquatic ecosystems. Specifically, 61.6% of the farmers reported a reduction in beneficial insects, particularly honey-making bees; 36.6% reported a decline in fish populations and other aquatic organisms; and 19.3% noted impacts on birds (Fig 8A). These ecological changes are attributed primarily to the extensive use of pesticides on farms and their effects on surrounding water bodies. The authors also documented the harmful effects of pesticide application on farm ponds and wells, which resulted in the death of aquatic organisms (Fig 8B). Moreover, 16.2% of the respondents reported an increase in the contamination of fish and other aquatic organisms, whereas 5.6% reported pollution of the lake water. Notably, 10% of the farmers did not believe that pesticides have any impact on the environment.
3.6. Associated factors of farmers’ attitudes toward pesticide application
The attitudes of small-scale farmers toward the safe application of pesticides were significantly associated with several independent variables: sex, educational level, sampling regime, knowledge level, awareness of the negative impacts of pesticides on aquatic ecosystems and human health, and pesticide safety on the market (Table 7). This association was determined using a binary logistic regression model, with a P value of less than 0.05.
The model demonstrated that individuals within the literate community, ranging from those who can read and write to those with a college education, were 3.065 times more likely to hold positive attitudes than negative attitudes (AOR: 3.065, 95% CI: 1.85--5.076). Farmers who were knowledgeable about pesticide application were 2.623 times more likely to have positive attitudes toward pesticide use than those with limited knowledge (AOR: 2.623, 95% CI: 1.469–4.685). Additionally, respondents aware of the negative impacts of pesticides on aquatic ecosystems were 2.103 times more likely to maintain positive attitudes toward pesticide use than those who were unaware of these impacts, with a 95% confidence interval (CI) of 1.352--4.268, indicating that the true odds ratio is likely around 2.403 (AOR = 2.403, 95% CI; 1.352--4.268).
3.7. Factors associated with farmer’s pesticide application practices
The study revealed significant associations between respondents’ sex, sampling regime, educational level, and attitudes toward pesticide application practices, as indicated by binary logistic regression (P < 0.05). In contrast, factors such as small-scale farmer knowledge, exposure during mixing and disposal, farming experience, and annual income were not significantly linked to pesticide application practices in the study area (Table 8).
Literate respondents were 2.329 times more likely to engage in proper pesticide application than illiterate respondents were (AOR = 2.329, CI = 1.228, 4.419). Those with positive attitudes toward pesticide use were 2.387 times more likely to practice good methods than those with negative attitudes were (AOR = 2.387, CI = 1.155, 4.932). Gender also had a significant effect, with an adjusted odds ratio of 0.262 (CI = 0.074, 0.933). With respect to the sampling regimes, respondents from Fogera were 0.474 times less likely, those from Bahir Dar were 1.353 times more likely, and respondents from Gilgel Abay were 3.913 times more likely to demonstrate good practices than those from Dembia.
A logistic regression model was employed to evaluate the influence of demographic factors (sex, education level, annual income, and sampling regimes) and additional factors, such as knowledge level, attitudes, and basic practices, on farmers’ adoption of good pesticide application practices. The analysis included 352 respondents and explained 25.8% of the variation in pesticide application practices, correctly classifying 83.5% of the cases.
4. Discussion and implications for pesticide use practices
Assessing farmers’ level of knowledge, attitudes, and practices related to agrochemical use is vital for revitalizing policies, strategies, legal frameworks, and management systems that aim to minimize and mitigate the health impacts on humans and aquatic ecosystems caused by the misuse of these chemicals [32]. In the present study, 95% of the farmers acknowledged the negative impacts of pesticides on human health, whereas 84% recognized their negative impacts on environmental health. Similar findings have been reported in other countries, with 92% in Uganda [33], 90% in Nepal [34], and 71% in Kuwait [12]. Despite this awareness, only 26.4% of farmers in the study area understood and followed safe pesticide-handling practices. This finding aligns with a study by Mekonnen and Agonafir [15], which revealed that 33% of respondents in Rift Valley lakes read labels and followed safety instructions. In contrast, research by Damalas and Koutroubas [35] reported that 52% of farmers adhered to label guidelines and safety practices.
Nearly half of the farmers (49%) living around the lake are illiterate, which limits their ability to understand labels and instructions on pesticide containers [36,37]. Furthermore, 67% of these farmers had not received any training in pesticide application. This lack of training may be attributed to insufficient trained personnel at lower levels of the Ethiopian government, as reported by Mergia et al. [18]. The key informants interviewed at each kebele also noted that both local and regional governments have not adequately addressed pesticide use and application. They emphasized that initiatives and programs to support small-scale farmers, particularly around the lake, have not been introduced in the subbasin. On the other hand, the focused group discussion confirmed that capacity-building initiatives and programs have not included farmers living around the lake that use pesticides. Participants explained that responsible bodies have not reached out to them, citing the government focus, the distance from the lake surrounding, and accessibility issues related to district and local offices. Meanwhile, the Crop Development and Protection director from the regional agricultural bureau stated that a capacity-building program is currently being trialed across the region through training of trainers (ToT) initiatives at the regional level, which then cascades down to local structures, and training at the community level. He also noted that, beyond recommending market access for input supplies, little work has been done in the lake subbasin. Despite these efforts, the program has not fully addressed the needs of all stakeholders and may not reach the areas surrounding the lake due to limited resources and the diverse needs of agrochemical users.
Farmers with formal education tend to pay closer attention to supplier recommendations, labels, instructions, and safety measures [17]. However, suppliers often lack the necessary expertise to effectively advise farmers on pesticide applications and usage. In fact, the majority of the farmers in the study area (60.2%) relied on pesticide suppliers for guidance on the type, dosage, and frequency of pesticide application. Research conducted in various countries, including Nepal [34], Kuwait [12], Ethiopia [38], and India [39], have revealed that pesticide vendors are the primary source of information regarding pesticide use for farmers. Unfortunately, the knowledge and attitudes of pesticide suppliers are often overlooked, leading to misunderstandings and misuse of pesticides, which poses risks to both human health and the environment. A study in developing countries by Desye et al. [40] found that 56.9% of pesticide venders could not adequately explain the required dosage, safety instructions, or precautions to farmers. Therefore enhancing their knowledge and attitudes and enforcing regulations that require pesticide suppliers to meet established standards are important. This will ensure that they provide farmers with comprehensive information on pesticide application, including transportation, storage, and usage.
A total of 88.1% of the farmers reported that they transport pesticides themselves. Of these, 25% admitted to carrying pesticides alongside food items without taking any precautions, which poses a risk of food contamination and potential harm to children. The act of transporting pesticides alongside food and other heavy objects or materials can cause spillage and contaminate the surrounding area, including humans [41]. Furthermore, the study revealed that 66.5% of the respondents stored pesticides anywhere in their houses, which became a source of danger. Poor storage practices led to 4.5% of the respondents experiencing death as a result, although these incidents were not intentional. Similar findings were reported in a study conducted in Tanzania [17]. These inadequate storage practices contribute to numerous incidents of injury, death, and health risks for both humans and animals. In many developing countries, farmers’ storage practices are generally poor and pose a significant potential source of exposure, particularly for vulnerable family groups [17].
Farmers consistently used pesticides classified as WHO classes II and III, such as chlorpyrifos, diazinon, lambda-cyhalothrin, profenofos, propiconazole, and glyphosate, across all four study regimes. Similarly, research conducted in Uganda [33] and Ethiopia near Zeway Lake [18] revealed that farmers rely mainly on class II and III pesticides. In contrast, this study revealed that 3.4% of the farmers reported using one pesticide from class Ib (hazardous) or zinc phosphide. In comparison, 69% reported the use of two banned or restricted pesticides, DDT and endosulfan, which are classified as class II (moderately hazardous). Importantly, the US EPA classifies DDT and endosulfan, as class I because of their high acute toxicity from oral or dermal exposure. The use of banned DDT and endosulfan is common practice in developing countries. A case study conducted by Plianbangchang et al. [42] revealed that farmers mainly use banned endosulfan pesticides on their farms. This may be due to a lack of community awareness. The farmers indicated that they use the banned pesticides DDT and endosulfan because they are more effective at eliminating pests than other available options. While 57.1% of the respondents were aware of the existence of banned pesticides, only 32.7% understood that these restrictions were due to their toxicity. Most farmers purchase banned pesticides without fear of the rules, even though the vendors supply them in a concealed way. The farmers justified the use of banned pesticides by citing their high effectiveness in removing pests. Farmers’ perceptions lead them to accept the risk associated with banned pesticides without fully understanding the risks they pose to humans and the environment. A study conducted by Negatu et al. [19] reported that 94% and 25% of small-scale irrigation farmers in Rift Valley, Ethiopia, used endosulfan and DDT, respectively. In contrast, according to Mergia et al. [18], small-scale irrigation farmers in the same study area stopped using DDT and endosulfan. This change is attributed to the effectiveness of the National Implementation Plan at the local level disseminated by [43].
The frequency of pesticide spraying varies by crop and regime. In the study area, 62.5% of the farmers reported applying chemical pesticides at least five times per crop per season, whereas 17.9% reported doing so less frequently. Nearly half of the respondents (49.7%) indicated that they sprayed twice a year. The factors influencing the frequency of spraying include crop type, pest prevalence, agro-climate, environmental conditions, and pest management practices. Notably, 2.3% of the farmers reported spraying more than 20 times, particularly for khat. This practice significantly increases pesticide application in subbasins, posing risks to both human health and aquatic environments.
In the study regimes, the majority of the farmers were aware of the routes of agrochemical exposure, including skin contact (71.5%), inhalation (52.5%), and ingestion (48.5%), which aligns with the findings of other studies conducted in Tanzania and Ghana [17,44]. The most common health-related symptoms resulting from agrochemical exposure, including headache, nausea, vomiting, skin irritation, eye irritation, discomfort, and even death in special cases, are reported by small-scale farmers. These events and symptoms could be the result of contact with active pesticide ingredients, including the inhibitory factor acetylcholinesterase [45].
During the authors’ field observations, it was noted that most farmers were preparing pesticides near major rivers, close to rivers, at the confluence of rivers and lake water and lake itself. These practices were further validated through a focused group discussion, which confirmed that farmers use the nearby river and lake water for preparations of sprayed pesticides, washing and disposing the left over pesticides due to lack of understanding the consequence and regulations. These practices can harm aquatic ecosystems, threaten endemic fish species in lakes and pose risks to human health. Some studies conducted in Lake Tana and associated wetlands and tributary rives have detected hazardous pesticides in the water and fish. For example, Abera et al. [26] reported the presence of DDT, DDE, Cypermethrin, and Chlorothalonil in Lake Tana and its wetlands. Another study focused on fish, sediment, and water in Lake Tana identified hazardous pesticides such as endosulfan, DDT, DDD, DDE, deltamethrin, and lindane [46], which are also mentioned in this study interviews with local farmers. Furthermore, a study by Zeleke et al. [47] indicated that the release of agrochemicals, including pesticides, into the Lake Tana water is linked to elevated levels of potentially toxic elements (PTEs) associated with pesticide use. High levels of pesticide residues in ecosystems can disrupt the food chain, and community practices are likely direct contributors to the presence of these pesticides in the lake. While, only nearly one-fourth of the community recognized a decline in aquatic biodiversity, including fish and beneficial insects, in the lake and surrounding rivers. In contrast, a study conducted around Lake Zeway, Ethiopia, reported that 80% of surveyed farmers acknowledged a decline in biodiversity [18]. In the study area, farmers (73.6%) predominantly prepared pesticide mixtures on the basis of personal experience, guesswork, or information from vendors, often disregarding official instructions. The concentrations used varied from 0.125 to 2.5 liters or kilograms per hectare and were applied five to fifteen times. This approach leads to excessive pesticide use and significant environmental contamination.
The study revealed that farmers residing near Lake Tana and the mouths of major tributary rivers presented low knowledge levels, negative attitudes, and poor pesticide application practices. Research conducted in western Bhutan [48] also indicated low levels of knowledge, significant negative attitudes, and inadequate pesticide practices, resulting in increased exposure to pesticides. These negative attitudes are closely associated with factors such as illiteracy, a lack of awareness of the full harmful effects on aquatic ecosystems, and dependence on various sampling regimes (Dembia, Fogera, Bahir Dar, and Gilegel Abay, respectively). These negative attitudes may stem from poor pesticide application methods, including neglect of personal protective equipment and misuse of pesticides, which pose risks to both humans and aquatic ecosystems. Research in Jordan reported that knowledge levels significantly influence attitudes [11], whereas a study in Kuwait corroborated that knowledge levels affect farmers’ attitudes [12]. Additionally, a very low level of pesticide application practices was strongly associated with illiteracy, negative attitudes, and varying sampling regimes. The attitudes and educational background of the farmers shaped their pesticide application practices. A study in California’s San Joaquin Valley illustrated how attitudes impact the practices of small-scale Hmong farmers [49]. Poor practices in small-scale farming can lead to immediate health issues, ranging from mild symptoms such as itchiness and skin irritation to severe effects such as nausea, vomiting, eye irritation, and respiratory problems. Moreover, these practices contribute to biodiversity loss. A systematic review of global acute unintentional pesticide poisoning cases revealed approximately 385 million incidents occur annually [50], which adversely affects both human and environmental health in this study. Thus, pesticide application practices are critical to addressing concerns regarding human and environmental health.
5. Conclusion and recommendations
This study provides comprehensive evidence on the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of farmers surrounding Lake Tana, Ethiopia. The study finding reveals substantially limited knowledge, predominantly attitudes, and inadequate pesticide handling and application practices across the study area. The level of knowledge and educational status were found to be key factors influencing farmers’ attitudes toward improving their safe pesticide application and practices. Farmers with higher levels of education were strongly associated with positive attitudes and safer practices, emphasizing the importance of education fostering behavioral change. Additionally, factors such as the sampling regime and the gender of the farmers were significantly related to pesticide practices. Attitudes and practices varied notably among the different sampling regimes in Dembia, Fogera, Bahirdar Zuria and Gilgel. Abay. However, farmers’ knowledge scores, farming experience, and annual income did not show significant associations with pesticides practices. The study also identified a highly toxic pesticide from Category Ib, along with two banned pesticides (DDT and endosulfan) classified as Category II. Nevertheless, the most commonly used pesticides in the study area were those classified by the WHO as categories II and III. None of the interviewed farmers used advanced PPEs, with some relying on locally sourced PPE that may not adequately protect community health. This practice poses risks of acute intoxication, long-term health effects, and potential threats to aquatic ecosystems. This study highlights the necessity for comprehensive education for farmers regarding pesticide application, appropriate pesticide levels, and the environmental impacts on public and aquatic ecosystems. Furthermore, pesticide vendors play crucial roles in providing important agricultural information to farmers. Therefore, designing and implementing capacity-building programs are indispensible for government, development partners, and academia to strengthen the systems that support pesticide suppliers, extension workers, and small-scale farmers Furthermore, agrochemical management interventions are advised to address the challenges faced in the study regimes of Dembia, Fogera, Bahirdar Zuria, and Gilegel Abays. Moreover, we strongly recommended further study to detect and quantify the agrochemical residues across environmental compartments; water, soil, air, biota as well as within human biometrics in order to understand the impact of agrochemicals on both ecosystem health and human well-being.
Acknowledgments
The authors express their gratitude to the African Center of Water Management at Addis Ababa University for fostering a supportive environment for this study and for their prompt responsiveness to all inquiries throughout the research process. We also extend our thanks to the Ministry of Water and Energy and the Abay Basin Administration Office for their assistance with inquiries for research purposes. Additionally, we are grateful to our field assistants for their invaluable help and special acknowledgment is given to Agumas Yibel for his assistance with data entry
References
- 1.
Mollier L, Seyler F, Chotte J-L, Ringler C. End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture: SDG 2. A Guide to SDG Interactions: From Science to Implementation. Paris, France: ICSU; 2017.
- 2. Schreinemachers P, Tipraqsa P. Agricultural pesticides and land use intensification in high, middle and low income countries. Food Policy. 2012;37(6):616–26.
- 3. Bernhardt ES, Rosi EJ, Gessner MO. Synthetic chemicals as agents of global change. Front Ecol Environ. 2017;15(2):84–90.
- 4.
FAO. World food and agriculture statistical yearbook 2022. FAO; 2022.
- 5. Belay T. Policy-practice nexus: pesticide registration, distribution and use in Ethiopia. SM J Environ Toxicol. 2016;2:1–13.
- 6. Akashe MM, Pawade UV, Nikam AV. Classification of pesticides: a review. Int J Res Ayurveda Pharm. 2018;9(4):144–50.
- 7. Fried G, Chauvel B, Reynaud P, Sache I. Decreases in crop production by non-native weeds, pests, and pathogens. Impact of biological invasions on ecosystem services. 2017. p. 83–101.
- 8. Popp J, Pető K, Nagy J. Pesticide productivity and food security. A review. Agron Sustain Dev. 2013;33:243–55.
- 9. Albrecht M, Kleijn D, Williams NM, Tschumi M, Blaauw BR, Bommarco R, et al. The effectiveness of flower strips and hedgerows on pest control, pollination services and crop yield: a quantitative synthesis. Ecol Lett. 2020;23(10):1488–98. pmid:32808477
- 10. Dawson AH, Eddleston M, Senarathna L, Mohamed F, Gawarammana I, Bowe SJ, et al. Acute human lethal toxicity of agricultural pesticides: a prospective cohort study. PLoS Med. 2010;7(10):e1000357. pmid:21048990
- 11. Al-Zyoud F. Indiscriminate use and improper application of pesticides by jordanian vegetable and fruit farmers. Egyptian J Agric Sci. 2014;65(4):344–59.
- 12. Jallow MFA, Awadh DG, Albaho MS, Devi VY, Thomas BM. Pesticide Knowledge and Safety Practices among Farm Workers in Kuwait: Results of a Survey. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2017;14(4):340. pmid:28338612
- 13. Jaga K, Dharmani C. Sources of exposure to and public health implications of organophosphate pesticides. Rev Panam Salud Publica. 2003;14(3):171–85. pmid:14653904
- 14. Liess M, Foit K, Knillmann S, Schäfer RB, Liess H-D. Predicting the synergy of multiple stress effects. Sci Rep. 2016;6:32965. pmid:27609131
- 15. Mekonnen Y, Agonafir T. Pesticide sprayers’ knowledge, attitude and practice of pesticide use on agricultural farms of Ethiopia. Occup Med (Lond). 2002;52(6):311–5. pmid:12361992
- 16.
Ntawuruhunga D, Assefa FA, Mambo W, Momanyi HM, Omeli MR. Farmers’ Knowledge, Attitude and Practice towards African Indigenous Vegetables in Kenya. 2016.
- 17. Lekei EE, Ngowi AV, London L. Farmers’ knowledge, practices and injuries associated with pesticide exposure in rural farming villages in Tanzania. BMC Public Health. 2014;14:1–13.
- 18. Mergia MT, Weldemariam ED, Eklo OM, Yimer GT. Small-scale Farmer Pesticide Knowledge and Practice and Impacts on the Environment and Human Health in Ethiopia. J Health Pollut. 2021;11(30):210607. pmid:34267994
- 19. Negatu B, Kromhout H, Mekonnen Y, Vermeulen R. Use of Chemical Pesticides in Ethiopia: A Cross-Sectional Comparative Study on Knowledge, Attitude and Practice of Farmers and Farm Workers in Three Farming Systems. Ann Occup Hyg. 2016;60(5):551–66. pmid:26847604
- 20. Gesesew HA, Woldemichael K, Massa D, Mwanri L. Farmers Knowledge, Attitudes, Practices and Health Problems Associated with Pesticide Use in Rural Irrigation Villages, Southwest Ethiopia. PLoS One. 2016;11(9):e0162527. pmid:27622668
- 21. Abaineh A, Ejigu D, Atlabachew M, Dejen E, Tilahun G. Knowledge, attitude and practices of farmers and experts about the effects of pesticide residues on agricultural product users and ecosystems: A case of Fogera District, Ethiopia. PLoS One. 2023;18(12):e0292838. pmid:38060608
- 22.
Tari VS, Gupta V, Joshi AS, Kurve PN, Chandra N. Biodiversity loss due to forest diversion. Impact of societal development and infrastructure on biodiversity decline. IGI Global Scientific Publishing; 2024. p. 137–65.
- 23. Cai J, Jiao C, Mekonnen M, Legesse SA, Ishikawa K, Wondie A, et al. Water hyacinth infestation in Lake Tana, Ethiopia: a review of population dynamics. Limnology. 2022;24(1):51–60.
- 24. Dersseh MG, Kibret AA, Tilahun SA, Worqlul AW, Moges MA, Dagnew DC, et al. Potential of Water Hyacinth Infestation on Lake Tana, Ethiopia: A Prediction Using a GIS-Based Multi-Criteria Technique. Water. 2019;11(9):1921.
- 25. Tewabe D. Preliminary Survey of Water Hyacinth in Lake. Glob J Allergy. 2015;:013–8.
- 26. Abera B, Van Echelpoel W, De Cock A, Tytgat B, Kibret M, Spanoghe P, et al. Environmental and Human Health Risks of Pesticide Presence in the Lake Tana Basin (Ethiopia). Sustainability. 2022;14(21):14008.
- 27. Agmas B, Adugna M. Attitudes and practices of farmers with regard to pesticide use in NorthWest Ethiopia. Cog Environ Sci. 2020;6(1).
- 28.
Humanitarian Data Exchange. Ethiopia\_AdminBoundaries [Dataset]. Ethiopia Humanitarian Response. 2020.
- 29. Forget G. Pesticides and the Third World. J Toxicol Environ Health. 1991;32(1):11–31. pmid:1987360
- 30. Kish L. Sampling organizations and groups of unequal sizes. Am Sociol Rev. 1965;30:564–72. pmid:14325826
- 31.
WHO. The WHO recommended classification of pesticides by hazard and guidelines to classification 2019. World Health Organization. 2020. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241515640
- 32. Mulugeta T, Ilomo M, Mueke A, Onyango C, Matsaunyane L, Kritzinger Q, et al. Smallholder farmers’ knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) regarding agricultural inputs with a focus on agricultural biologicals. Heliyon. 2024;10(4):e26719. pmid:38434028
- 33. Oesterlund AH, Thomsen JF, Sekimpi DK, Maziina J, Racheal A, Jørs E. Pesticide knowledge, practice and attitude and how it affects the health of small-scale farmers in Uganda: a cross-sectional study. Afr Health Sci. 2014;14(2):420–33. pmid:25320593
- 34. Rijal J, Regmi R, Ghimire R, Puri K, Gyawaly S, Poudel S. Farmers’ Knowledge on Pesticide Safety and Pest Management Practices: A Case Study of Vegetable Growers in Chitwan, Nepal. Agriculture. 2018;8(1):16.
- 35. Damalas CA, Koutroubas SD. Farmers’ behaviour in pesticide use: A key concept for improving environmental safety. Curr Opin Environ Sci Health. 2018;4:27–30.
- 36. Akter M, Fan L, Rahman MM, Geissen V, Ritsema CJ. Vegetable farmers’ behaviour and knowledge related to pesticide use and related health problems: A case study from Bangladesh. J Clean Product. 2018;200:122–33.
- 37. Jambari NSA, Samad NIA, Anua SM, Ruslan R, Hamzah NA. Knowledge, attitude and practice (KAP) on pesticide exposure among farmers in Kota Bharu, Kelantan. Malaysian J Med Health Sci. 2020;16.
- 38. Chala M. Review of pesticide use in vegetable farms and its consequences in Ethiopia’s Central Rift Valley. J Agric Res Pestic Biofert. 2022;3(3):1–8.
- 39.
Sumanth N, Sanjay P, Kaveri KR, Moitreyee SS, Raj S. Agricultural Extension and Support Systems in India: An Agricultural Innovation Systems (AIS) Perspective (Karnataka, Maharashtra and West Bengal States of India). Discussion Paper 20, MANAGE-Centre for Agricultural Extension Innovations …. 2020.
- 40. Desye B, Tesfaye AH, Daba C, Alemseged EA, Angaw Y, Ebrahim AM, et al. Pesticide safe use practice and acute health symptoms, and associated factors among farmers in developing countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis of an epidemiological evidence. BMC Public Health. 2024;24(1):3313. pmid:39609777
- 41.
Dugje I, Ekeleme F, Kamara A, Omoigui L, Tegbaru A, Teli I, et al. Guide to safe and effective use of pesticides for crop production. Research to nourish Africa: International Institute of Tropical Agriculture; 2008.
- 42. Plianbangchang P, Jetiyanon K, Wittaya-Areekul S. Pesticide use patterns among small-scale farmers: a case study from Phitsanulok, Thailand. Southeast Asian J Trop Med Public Health. 2009;40(2):401–10. pmid:19323025
- 43.
FEPA. Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Environmental Protection Authority National Implementation Plan for the Stockholm Convention. FEPA Addis Ababa, Ethiopia; 2006.
- 44. Okoffo ED, Mensah M, Fosu-Mensah BY. Pesticides exposure and the use of personal protective equipment by cocoa farmers in Ghana. Environ Syst Res. 2016;5(1).
- 45. Ohayo-Mitoko GJ, Kromhout H, Simwa JM, Boleij JS, Heederik D. Self reported symptoms and inhibition of acetylcholinesterase activity among Kenyan agricultural workers. Occup Environ Med. 2000;57(3):195–200. pmid:10810102
- 46.
Tibebe D, Fentie T, Akele M, Mulugeta M, Kokeb A, Yenealem D. Detections of organochlorine pesticides in water, sediment, and fish samples in Lake Tana and Lake Hayqe, Ethiopia. 2022.
- 47. Zeleke BY, Hiruy AM, Weldemariam ED. Spatiotemporal distributions of potentially toxic elements’ dynamics in Lake Tana and its major tributary rivers, Ethiopia, Upper Blue Nile. Water Pract Technol. 2025;20(6):1502–25.
- 48. Monger A, Mahat K, Dorjee, Om N, Mongar P, Dorji T, et al. Assessment of exposure to pesticides and the knowledge, attitude and practice among farmers of western Bhutan. PLoS One. 2023;18(5):e0286348. pmid:37252928
- 49. Thao C, Burke N, Ha S, Joyce A. Pesticide Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices Among Small-Scale Hmong Farmers in the San Joaquin Valley of California. J Integr Pest Manage. 2019;10(1).
- 50. Boedeker W, Watts M, Clausing P, Marquez E. The global distribution of acute unintentional pesticide poisoning: estimations based on a systematic review. BMC Public Health. 2020;20(1):1875. pmid:33287770