Monitoring vs. Inspection
Inspection is fundamental to Structural Integrated Pest Management (SPM) in buildings. Formal, trap-based monitoring is situational, time-intensive, and generally impractical for typical homes and many businesses—yet valuable in certain facilities and for specific targets.
Inspection Drives Decisions
SPM begins with inspection to determine if, where, what, and when intervention is needed. This prevents a reflex to apply products and keeps focus on defining the problem so solutions are nearly self-evident. See the overall SPM framework.
Why Formal Monitoring Is Limited in Typical Accounts
- Time & records: Formal, trap-based programs require intensive record keeping and regular sampling; in practice, the effort is often prohibitive or unnecessary.
- Service intervals: Many residential accounts are serviced quarterly (not daily like crops), breaking continuity. Aged trap catches are not very useful for planning.
- Zero-tolerance settings: Many structural environments expect very low or zero tolerance, making economic thresholds from agriculture a poor fit.
- Operational reality: Outside of certain facilities, trap-based monitoring with action thresholds is rarely sustained and may be abandoned.
When service models decouple from continuous sampling, inspection at service becomes the practical driver. See Mapping & Documentation.
Where Monitoring Makes Sense
Monitoring can be valuable when required, compensated, or specifically targeted:
- Audited/compliance-driven sites: Regulated facilities often require strategically placed insect light traps (ILTs) indoors with sticky panels/trays and documented counts for filth flies and stored-product pests.
- Stored-product pests: Pheromone/food-based traps for moths and beetles.
- Subterranean termites: Monitoring stations for activity detection.
Strategic sticky monitors may also help: tracking indoor cockroach populations, capturing specimens for accurate identification, and clarifying “mystery bite” complaints, or to meet contract/auditor requirements.
Known Limits by Pest Type
- Sticky traps: moderate usefulness for some indoor cockroach populations; relatively ineffective for ants and bed bugs.
- ILTs & pheromone traps: suited to specific targets (indoor flies; stored-product pests) where counts and placement matter.
In most routine accounts, monitoring data are most meaningful when tied to recent inspections and on-site decisions. See Inspection First.
Practical Take for SPM
- Default to inspection: Use inspection each visit to define pests, distribution, density, origins/entry, and critical control points.
- Deploy monitoring selectively: Use traps where they add value, are required, or are part of a paid monitoring scope.
- Act on building factors: Translate findings into condition corrections, fix/seal repairs, and perimeter adjustments; add targeted pesticides only when needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
What’s the difference between inspection and monitoring?
Inspection is the systematic, on-site examination that drives decisions each visit. Monitoring is formal, trap-based sampling with intensive records and thresholds—useful in certain facilities or for specific targets, but generally impractical as a universal requirement.
When do you recommend monitoring?
When it’s required by contracts/auditors, compensated, or clearly adds value—for example ILTs indoors for flies, pheromone/food-based traps for stored-product pests, or termite monitoring stations.
Are sticky traps effective for all pests?
No. They show moderate usefulness for some indoor cockroach populations but are relatively ineffective for ants and bed bugs.
Why don’t you rely on trap counts in homes on a schedule?
Quarterly or bimonthly service breaks continuity. Aged trap catches are not very useful for planning compared to fresh, inspection-led findings.
Do you still document data?
Yes. In SPM, notes, photos, diagrams, and any monitoring counts feed documentation and the written plan to track patterns over time.