Overcoming Barriers to ISPO Certification: Analyzing the Drivers of Sustainable Agricultural Adoption among Farmers
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
3. Results
4. Discussion
4.1. Attitudes towards Farmers’ Adoption of Sustainable Agriculture
4.2. Subjective Norms towards Farmers’ Adoption of Sustainable Agriculture
4.3. Perceived Behavioral Control towards Farmers’ Adoption of Sustainable Agriculture
4.4. Relative Advantage towards Farmers’ Adoption of Sustainable Agriculture
4.5. Compatibility towards Farmers’ Adoption of Sustainable Agriculture
4.6. Complexity towards Farmers’ Adoption of Sustainable Agriculture
4.7. Trialability towards Farmers’ Adoption of Sustainable Agriculture
4.8. Observability towards Farmers’ Adoption of Sustainable Agriculture
4.9. Comparative Analysis with Similar Studies in Sustainable Agriculture
5. Conclusions
- Enhance awareness and education: It is crucial to educate farmers about the benefits of sustainable agricultural practices, such as increased yields, better soil health, reduced environmental impact, and improved social status. Awareness campaigns, workshops, and training programs should be organized to disseminate information and increase knowledge among farmers.
- Engage stakeholders: To promote the adoption of sustainable practices, it is essential to engage key stakeholders such as family members, peers, community leaders, agricultural organizations, and government agencies. Creating a supportive environment where farmers feel encouraged and motivated to adopt sustainable practices is crucial. Collaborative efforts involving various stakeholders should be implemented to help in building social norms and providing necessary support.
- Improve access to resources: Policymakers should focus on improving farmers’ access to essential resources required for sustainable agriculture, including land, finance, labor, and training and extension services. Providing financial incentives, subsidies, and easy access to loans should facilitate the adoption of sustainable practices. Additionally, strengthening training and extension services should enhance farmers’ knowledge and skills in implementing sustainable practices effectively.
- Highlight the relative advantages: It is essential to emphasize the economic, environmental, and social benefits associated with sustainable practices by highlighting how adopting sustainable practices should lead to increased profits, reduced input costs, enhanced reputation, and positive impacts on the environment and community. Communicating the potential advantages should motivate farmers to adopt sustainable palm oil practices.
- Ensure compatibility with existing beliefs and norms: It is important to recognize and respect the cultural and social values of farmers and align sustainable practices with farmers’ existing beliefs, traditions, and social norms. Furthermore, it is vital to emphasize how sustainable practices align with the farmers’ desire to be responsible stewards of the land and contribute to the well-being of their communities.
- Simplify complexity: Policymakers should address the perceived complexity of sustainable practices by providing farmers with simplified guidelines, practical demonstrations, and step-by-step implementation plans. Simplifying the adoption process should help overcome the barriers associated with complexity. Additionally, providing support from agricultural organizations and government agencies should alleviate concerns related to complexity.
- Encourage trialability: Creating opportunities for farmers to try out sustainable practices on a limited scale before full adoption should help farmers assess the feasibility, effectiveness, and potential benefits of sustainable practices in their specific contexts. Moreover, facilitating knowledge sharing among farmers who have already adopted sustainable practices to inspire others and provide practical insights would be helpful.
- Showcase observability: Highlighting the positive outcomes of sustainable practices through visible and tangible examples, demonstrating how sustainable practices improve soil health, reduce chemical inputs, enhance biodiversity, and gain community recognition, and showcasing such observable benefits should serve as motivation for farmers to adopt sustainable agriculture practices.
- Regional and contextual differences: Explore how the factors influencing farmers’ adoption of sustainable agriculture practices may vary across different regions in Indonesia or other palm oil-producing countries. Consider the cultural, economic, and environmental variations that may impact farmers’ decision-making processes.
- Long-term impact assessment: Investigate the long-term effects of farmers’ adoption of sustainable practices on their economic outcomes, environmental sustainability, and social well-being. Assess the changes in productivity, income, resource use, and community dynamics resulting from the adoption of sustainable palm oil practices.
- Policy and program evaluation: Evaluate the effectiveness of existing policies, programs, and interventions aimed at promoting sustainable palm oil practices. Identify strengths, weaknesses, and areas for improvement to enhance the adoption rates and outcomes.
- Comparative analysis: Compare the adoption of sustainable practices in the palm oil industry with other agricultural sectors. Identify similarities, differences, and transferable lessons that can be applied to promote sustainability in other agricultural contexts.
- Stakeholder collaboration: Investigate the role of various stakeholders, including government agencies, NGOs, industry associations, and consumer groups, in driving the adoption of sustainable palm oil practices and analyze their interactions.
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Rum, I.A.; Tukker, A.; de Koning, A.; Yusuf, A.A. Impact Assessment of the EU Import Ban on Indonesian Palm Oil: Using Environmental Extended Multi-Scale MRIO. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 853, 158695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rifin, A.; Feryanto; Herawati; Harianto. Assessing The Impact of Limiting Indonesian Palm Oil Exports to The European Union. J. Econ. Struct. 2020, 9, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Purba, J.H.V. Replanting Policy of Indonesian Palm Oil Plantation in Strengthening the Implementation of Sustainable Development Goals. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2019, 336, 12012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gunawan, J.; Permatasari, P.; Tilt, C. Sustainable Development Goal Disclosures: Do They Support Responsible Consumption and Production? J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 246, 118989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jafari, Y.; Othman, J.; Witzke, P.; Jusoh, S. Risks and Opportunities From Key Importers Pushing for Sustainability: The Case of Indonesian Palm Oil. Agric. Food Econ. 2017, 5, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shigetomi, Y.; Ishimura, Y.; Yamamoto, Y. Trends in Global Dependency on the Indonesian Palm Oil and Resultant Environmental Impacts. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 20624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pramudya, E.P.; Wibowo, L.R.; Nurfatriani, F.; Nawireja, I.K.; Kurniasari, D.R.; Hutabarat, S.; Kadarusman, Y.B.; Iswardhani, A.O.; Rafik, R. Incentives for Palm Oil Smallholders in Mandatory Certification in Indonesia. Land 2022, 11, 576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dewa, E.; Jatna, S.; Suyud, U. Optimizing Public Fund to Finance Smallholder Plantations for Sustainable Palm Oil in Indonesia. EnvironmentAsia 2023, 16, 49–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nurliza; Dolorosa, E.; Edi Suryadi, U. Farmers’ Organizations Model of Independent Smallholders in Sustainable Palm Oil Certification. Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. Hum. 2019, 27, 1843–1863. [Google Scholar]
- Widyatmoko, B. Interests Arrangement in the Implementation of Indonesian Sustainable Palm Oil Certification: Case Study of Sari Makmur Palm Oil Smallholders in Riau Province. In Vulnerability and Transformation of Indonesian Peatlands; Mizuno, K., Kozan, O., Gunawan, H., Eds.; Springer Nature: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2023; pp. 197–222. [Google Scholar]
- Budiadi; Susanti, A.; Marhaento, H.; Ali Imron, M.; Permadi, D.B.; Hermudananto. Oil Palm Agroforestry: An Alternative to Enhance Farmers’ Livelihood Resilience. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2019, 336, 012001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Apriyanto, M.; Partini; Mardesci, H.; Syahrantau, G.; Yulianti. The Role of Farmers Readiness in the Sustainable Palm Oil Industry. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2021, 1764, 12211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brandi, C.; Cabani, T.; Hosang, C.; Schirmbeck, S.; Westermann, L.; Wiese, H. Sustainability Standards for Palm Oil: Challenges for Smallholder Certification Under the RSPO. J. Environ. Dev. 2015, 24, 292–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, J.S.H.; Miteva, D.A.; Carlson, K.M.; Heilmayr, R.; Saif, O. Does Oil Palm Certification Create Trade-Offs Between Environment and Development in Indonesia? Environ. Res. Lett. 2020, 15, 124064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aziz, N.F.; Chamhuri, N.; Batt, P.J. Barriers and Benefits Arising from the Adoption of Sustainable Certification for Smallholder Oil Palm Producers in Malaysia: A Systematic Review of Literature. Sustainability 2021, 13, 10009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rodthong, W.; Kuwornu, J.K.M.; Datta, A.; Anal, A.K.; Tsusaka, T.W. Factors Influencing the Intensity of Adoption of the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil Practices by Smallholder Farmers in Thailand. Environ. Manag. 2020, 66, 377–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kannan, P.; Mansor, N.H.; Rahman, N.K.; Peng, T.S.; Mazlan, S.M. A Review on Malaysian Sustainable Palm Oil Certification Process Among Independent Oil Palm Smallholders. J. Oil Palm Res. 2021, 33, 171–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rosdin, R.; Cheah, W.Y.; Moslim, R. Systematic Literature Review on the Social and Economic Impacts of Palm Oil Certification on Smallholders. Malays. J. Soc. Sci. Humanit. 2023, 8, e002148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Albertin, I.T. The Environmental and Social Consequences of Palm Oil Production in Colombia. Master’s Thesis, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås, Norway, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Deininger, K.; Byerlee, D. Rising Global Interest in Farmland; The World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2011; ISBN 978-0-8213-8591-3. [Google Scholar]
- Choiruzzad, S.A.B.; Tyson, A.; Varkkey, H. The Ambiguities of Indonesian Sustainable Palm Oil Certification: Internal Incoherence, Governance Rescaling and State Transformation. Asia Eur. J. 2021, 19, 189–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dewi, G.D.P. Multi-Stakeholder Engagement in the Indonesian Sustainable Palm Oil (ISPO) Framework. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2021, 729, 12085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nasution, A.; Fajri, F.; Karim, A.; Romano, R. A Study of Sustainable Palm Oil Model as Energy Source Considering the Economic, Social, Enviromental and Security Balance Variables. Int. J. Energy Econ. Policy 2021, 11, 388–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pareira, S.P. Achieving Indonesian Palm Oil Farm-to-Table Traceability through ISPO-RSPO Harmonization; Center for Indonesian Policy Studies: Jakarta, Indonesia, 2023. [Google Scholar]
- Khatiwada, D.; Palmén, C.; Silveira, S. Evaluating the Palm Oil Demand in Indonesia: Production Trends, Yields, and Emerging Issues. Biofuels 2021, 12, 135–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bagheri, A.; Bondori, A.; Damalas, C.A. Modeling Cereal Farmers’ Intended and Actual Adoption of Integrated Crop Management (ICM) Practices. J. Rural. Stud. 2019, 70, 58–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tinh, L.; Dang Que, N.; Hoang Hien, N.; Thanh Le, D.; Hoang Manh Trung, V. Combining the Theory of Planned Behavior, The Expected Utility Theory, and Diffusion of Innovation Theory to Analyze Factors Affecting Farmers’ Intention to Use Pesticides: The Case Study of Quang Nam Province in Vietnam. Int. J. Agric. Technol. 2021, 1, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ajzen, I. The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process 1991, 50, 179–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rogers, E.M. Diffusion of Innovations, 4th ed.; The Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 2010; ISBN 0-02-926671-8. [Google Scholar]
- Warner, L.A.; Diaz, J.M.; Silvert, C.; Hobbs, W.; Reisinger, A.J. Predicting Intentions to Engage in a Suite of Yard Fertilizer Behaviors: Integrated Insights from the Diffusion of Innovations, Theory of Planned Behavior, and Contextual Factors. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2021, 34, 373–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al Breiki, M.; Al Abri, A.; Al Moosawi, A.M.; Alburaiki, A. Investigating Science Teachers’ Intention to Adopt Virtual Reality Through the Integration of Diffusion of Innovation Theory and Theory of Planned Behaviour: The Moderating Role of Perceived Skills Readiness. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2022, 28, 6165–6187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ajzen, I. From Intentions to Actions: A Theory of Planned Behavior. In Action Control; Springer: Heidelberg/Berlin, Germany, 1985; pp. 11–39. [Google Scholar]
- Rogers, E.M. Lessons for Guidelines from the Diffusion of Innovations. Jt. Comm. J. Qual. Improv. 1995, 21, 324–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ajzen, I. The Theory of Planned Behavior: Frequently Asked Questions. Hum. Behav. Emerg. Technol. 2020, 2, 314–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaminski, J. Diffusion of Innovation Theory. Can. J. Nurs. Inform. 2011, 6, 1–6. [Google Scholar]
- Weigel, F.K.; Hazen, B.T.; Cegielski, C.G.; Hall, D.J. Diffusion of Innovations and the Theory of Planned Behavior in Information Systems Research: A Metaanalysis. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2014, 34, 619–636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jung Moon, S. Integrating Diffusion of Innovations and Theory of Planned Behavior to Predict Intention to Adopt Electric Vehicles. Int. J. Bus. Manag. 2020, 15, 88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Thanh, N.; Yapwattanaphun, C. Banana Farmers’ Adoption of Sustainable Agriculture Practices in the Vietnam Uplands: The Case of Quang Tri Province. Agric. Agric. Sci. Procedia 2015, 5, 67–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Foguesatto, C.R.; Borges, J.A.R.; Machado, J.A.D. A Review and Some Reflections on Farmers’ Adoption of Sustainable Agricultural Practices Worldwide. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 729, 138831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Makate, C.; Makate, M.; Mango, N. Smallholder Farmers’ Perceptions on Climate Change and the Use of Sustainable Agricultural Practices in the Chinyanja Triangle, Southern Africa. Soc. Sci. 2017, 6, 30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bagheri, A.; Emami, N.; Damalas, C.A. Farmers’ Behavior in Reading and Using Risk Information Displayed on Pesticide Labels: A Test with The Theory of Planned Behavior. Pest. Manag. Sci. 2021, 77, 2903–2913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Borges, J.A.R.; Oude Lansink, A.G.J.M.; Marques Ribeiro, C.; Lutke, V. Understanding Farmers’ Intention to Adopt Improved Natural Grassland Using the Theory of Planned Behavior. Livest. Sci. 2014, 169, 163–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tama, R.A.Z.; Ying, L.; Yu, M.; Hoque, M.M.; Adnan, K.M.; Sarker, S.A. Assessing Farmers’ Intention Towards Conservation Agriculture by Using the Extended Theory of Planned Behavior. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 280, 111654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Senger, I.; Borges, J.A.R.; Machado, J.A.D. Using the Theory of Planned Behavior to Understand the Intention of Small Farmers in Diversifying Their Agricultural Production. J. Rural. Stud. 2017, 49, 32–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meijer, S.S.; Catacutan, D.; Sileshi, G.W.; Nieuwenhuis, M. Tree Planting by Smallholder Farmers in Malawi: Using the Theory of Planned Behaviour to Examine the Relationship Between Attitudes and Behaviour. J. Environ. Psychol. 2015, 43, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Y.; Liang, J.; Yang, J.; Ma, X.; Li, X.; Wu, J.; Yang, G.; Ren, G.; Feng, Y. Analysis of the Environmental Behavior of Farmers for Non-Point Source Pollution Control and Management: An Integration of the Theory of Planned Behavior and the Protection Motivation Theory. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 237, 15–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rezaei, R.; Safa, L.; Damalas, C.A.; Ganjkhanloo, M.M. Drivers of Farmers’ Intention to Use Integrated Pest Management: Integrating Theory of Planned Behavior and Norm Activation Model. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 236, 328–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Daxini, A.; Ryan, M.; O’Donoghue, C.; Barnes, A.P. Understanding Farmers’ Intentions to Follow a Nutrient Management Plan Using the Theory of Planned Behaviour. Land. Use Policy 2019, 85, 428–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Read, D.L.; Brown, R.F.; Thorsteinsson, E.B.; Morgan, M.; Price, I. The Theory of Planned Behaviour as a Model for Predicting Public Opposition to Wind Farm Developments. J. Environ. Psychol. 2013, 36, 70–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dolorosa, E.; Masyhuri; Lestari; Jamhari. Sustainability of Fishery Pond Polyculture with and without Mangrove Integration. J. Ilmu Dan. Teknol. Kelaut. Trop. 2017, 8, 655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Despotović, J.; Rodić, V.; Caracciolo, F. Factors Affecting Farmers’ Adoption of Integrated Pest Management in Serbia: An Application of The Theory of Planned Behavior. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 228, 1196–1205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lynne, G.D.; Franklin Casey, C.; Hodges, A.; Rahmani, M. Conservation Technology Adoption Decisions and the Theory of Planned Behavior. J. Econ. Psychol. 1995, 16, 581–598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Savari, M.; Gharechaee, H. Application of the Extended Theory of Planned Behavior to Predict Iranian Farmers’ Intention for Safe Use of Chemical Fertilizers. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 263, 121512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sok, J.; Borges, J.R.; Schmidt, P.; Ajzen, I. Farmer Behaviour as Reasoned Action: A Critical Review of Research with the Theory of Planned Behaviour. J. Agric. Econ. 2021, 72, 388–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adebayo, S.A.; Oladele, O.I. A Review of Selected Theories and Their Applications to Information Seeking Behavior and Adoption of Organic Agricultural Practices by Farmers. Life Sci. J. 2012, 9, 1097–8135. [Google Scholar]
- Tutkun, A.; Lehmann, B. Explaining the Conversion to Particularly Animal-Friendly Stabling System of Farmers of the Obwalden Canton, Switzerland—Extension of the Theory of Planned Behavior Within a Structural Equation Modeling Approach. In Proceedings of the 80th Annual Conference of the Agricultural Economics Society (AES), Paris, France, 30–31 March 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Elahi, E.; Khalid, Z.; Zhang, Z. Understanding Farmers’ Intention and Willingness to Install Renewable Energy Technology: A Solution to Reduce the Environmental Emissions of Agriculture. Appl. Energy 2022, 309, 118459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yoon, C.; Lim, D.; Park, C. Factors Affecting Adoption of Smart Farms: The Case of Korea. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2020, 108, 106309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mohr, S.; Kühl, R. Acceptance of Artificial Intelligence in German Agriculture: An Application of the Technology Acceptance Model and the Theory of Planned Behavior. Precis. Agric. 2021, 22, 1816–1844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nurliza, N. The Effect of Income and Smallholder Characteristics on Cultivation, Harvesting, and Post-Harvest Management of Natural Rubber. Glob. J. Environ. Sci. Manag. 2023, 9, 983–994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aubert, B.A.; Schroeder, A.; Grimaudo, J. IT As Enabler of Sustainable Farming: An Empirical Analysis of Farmers’ Adoption Decision of Precision Agriculture Technology. Decis. Support. Syst. 2012, 54, 510–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mannan, S. The Influence of Innovation Attributes on New Technologies Adoption by Paddy Farmers. Int. Rev. Manag. Bus. Res. 2014, 3, 1379. [Google Scholar]
- Narine, L.; Harder, A.; Roberts, G. Extension Officers’ Adoption of Modern Information Communication Technologies to Interact with Farmers of Trinidad. J. Int. Agric. Ext. Educ. 2019, 26, 17–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ploll, U.; Arato, M.; Börner, J.; Hartmann, M. Sustainable Innovations: A Qualitative Study on Farmers’ Perceptions Driving the Diffusion of Beneficial Soil Microbes in Germany and the UK. Sustainability 2022, 14, 5749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dewi, D.E.; Cahyani, P.N.A.; Megawati, L.R. Increasing Adoption of the Internet of Things in Indonesian Agriculture Based on a Review of Everett Rogers’ Diffusion Theory of Innovation. In Proceedings of the Business Innovation and Engineering Conference (BIEC 2022); Atlantis Press: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2023; pp. 303–309. [Google Scholar]
- Mannan, S.; Nordin, S.M.; Rafik-Galea, S. Innovation Diffusion Attributes as Predictors to Adoption of Green Fertilizer Technology among Paddy Farmers in Perak State. Glob. Bus. Manag. Res. 2017, 9, 162–170. [Google Scholar]
- Peshin, R.; Vasanthakumar, J.; Kalra, R. Diffusion of Innovation Theory and Integrated Pest Management. In Integrated Pest Management: Dissemination and Impact; Peshin, R., Dhawan, A.K., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2009; Volume 2, pp. 1–29. [Google Scholar]
- Peshin, R.; Dhawan, A.K. Integrated Pest Management: Dissemination and Impact; Peshin, R., Dhawan, A.K., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2009; Volume 2, ISBN 978-1-4020-8989-3. [Google Scholar]
- Lavoie, A.L.; Dentzman, K.; Wardropper, C.B. Using Diffusion of Innovations Theory to Understand Agricultural Producer Perspectives on Cover Cropping in the Inland Pacific Northwest, USA. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2021, 36, 384–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vecchio, Y.; Agnusdei, G.P.; Miglietta, P.P.; Capitanio, F. Adoption of Precision Farming Tools: The Case of Italian Farmers. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public. Health 2020, 17, 869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mardiana, H.; Kembauw, E. The Role of Diffusion of Innovation in Agricultural to Compete in Asean Community. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2021, 755, 012074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kabir, K.H.; Sarker, S.; Uddin, M.N.; Leggette, H.R.; Schneider, U.A.; Darr, D.; Knierim, A. Furthering Climate-Smart Farming With the Introduction of Floating Agriculture in Bangladeshi Wetlands: Successes and Limitations of an Innovation Transfer. J. Environ. Manag. 2022, 323, 116258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zondo, W.N.S.; Ndoro, J.T. Attributes of Diffusion of Innovation’s Influence on Smallholder Farmers’ Social Media Adoption in Mpumalanga Province, South Africa. Sustainability 2023, 15, 4017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, C.-L.; Strong, R.; Dooley, K.E. Analyzing Precision Agriculture Adoption across the Globe: A Systematic Review of Scholarship from 1999–2020. Sustainability 2021, 13, 10295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Warner, L.; Rihn, A.; Fulcher, A.; Schexnayder, S.; LeBude, A. Relating Grower Perceptions and Adoption of Automated Nursery Technologies to Address Labor Needs. J. Agric. Educ. 2022, 63, 150–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Strong, R.; Wynn, J.T.; Lindner, J.R.; Palmer, K. Evaluating Brazilian Agriculturalists’ IoT Smart Agriculture Adoption Barriers: Understanding Stakeholder Salience Prior to Launching an Innovation. Sensors 2022, 22, 6833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Diana, S.R.; Farida, F. Economic Potential of Oil Palm Plantation Using Remote Sensing-Based Technology in Indonesia. Asian J. Technol. Manag. 2021, 14, 19–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Connor, M.; de Guia, A.H.; Pustika, A.B.; Sudarmaji; Kobarsih, M.; Hellin, J. Rice Farming in Central Java, Indonesia—Adoption of Sustainable Farming Practices, Impacts and Implications. Agronomy 2021, 11, 881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lubell, M.; Hillis, V.; Hoffman, M. Innovation, Cooperation, and the Perceived Benefits and Costs of Sustainable Agriculture Practices. Ecol. Soc. 2011, 16, art23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nguyen, N.; Drakou, E.G. Farmers Intention to Adopt Sustainable Agriculture Hinges on Climate Awareness: The Case of Vietnamese Coffee. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 303, 126828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zeweld, W.; Van Huylenbroeck, G.; Tesfay, G.; Speelman, S. Smallholder Farmers’ Behavioural Intentions Towards Sustainable Agricultural Practices. J. Environ. Manag. 2017, 187, 71–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, T.M. Social Impacts of Oil Palm in Indonesia: A Gendered Perspective from West Kalimantan; Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR): Bogor, Indonesia, 2015; Volume 124, ISBN 9786021504796. [Google Scholar]
- Piñeiro, V.; Arias, J.; Dürr, J.; Elverdin, P.; Ibáñez, A.M.; Kinengyere, A.; Opazo, C.M.; Owoo, N.; Page, J.R.; Prager, S.D.; et al. A Scoping Review on Incentives for Adoption of Sustainable Agricultural Practices and Their Outcomes. Nat. Sustain. 2020, 3, 809–820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Atta-Aidoo, J.; Antwi-Agyei, P.; Dougill, A.J.; Ogbanje, C.E.; Akoto-Danso, E.K.; Eze, S. Adoption of Climate-Smart Agricultural Practices by Smallholder Farmers in Rural Ghana: An Application of the Theory of Planned Behavior. PLOS Clim. 2022, 1, e0000082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ntshangase, N.; Muroyiwa, B.; Sibanda, M. Farmers’ Perceptions and Factors Influencing the Adoption of No-Till Conservation Agriculture by Small-Scale Farmers in Zashuke, KwaZulu-Natal Province. Sustainability 2018, 10, 555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dessart, F.J.; Barreiro-Hurlé, J.; van Bavel, R. Behavioural Factors Affecting the Adoption of Sustainable Farming Practices: A Policy-Oriented Review. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 2019, 46, 417–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guo, Z.; Chen, X.; Zhang, Y. Impact of Environmental Regulation Perception on Farmers’ Agricultural Green Production Technology Adoption: A New Perspective of Social Capital. Technol. Soc. 2022, 71, 102085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arsil, P.; Tey, Y.S.; Brindal, M.; Ardiansyah; Sumarni, E. Masrukhi Perceived Attributes Driving the Adoption of System of Rice Intensification: The Indonesian Farmers’ View. Open Agric. 2022, 7, 217–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Menozzi, D.; Fioravanzi, M.; Donati, M. Farmer’s Motivation to Adopt Sustainable Agricultural Practices. Bio-Based Appl. Econ. 2015, 4, 125–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sarkar, A.; Wang, H.; Rahman, A.; Abdul Azim, J.; Hussain Memon, W.; Qian, L. Structural Equation Model of Young Farmers’ Intention to Adopt Sustainable Agriculture: A Case Study in Bangladesh. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2022, 37, 142–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bopp, C.; Engler, A.; Poortvliet, P.M.; Jara-Rojas, R. The Role of Farmers’ Intrinsic Motivation in The Effectiveness of Policy Incentives to Promote Sustainable Agricultural Practices. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 244, 320–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pathak, H.S.; Brown, P.; Best, T. A Systematic Literature Review of The Factors Affecting the Precision Agriculture Adoption Process. Precis. Agric. 2019, 20, 1292–1316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anibaldi, R.; Rundle-Thiele, S.; David, P.; Roemer, C. Theoretical Underpinnings in Research Investigating Barriers for Implementing Environmentally Sustainable Farming Practices: Insights from a Systematic Literature Review. Land 2021, 10, 386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Puntsagdorj, B.; Orosoo, D.; Huo, X.; Xia, X. Farmer’s Perception, Agricultural Subsidies, and Adoption of Sustainable Agricultural Practices: A Case from Mongolia. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sun, R.; Zhang, S.; Wang, T.; Hu, J.; Ruan, J.; Ruan, J. Willingness and Influencing Factors of Pig Farmers to Adopt Internet of Things Technology in Food Traceability. Sustainability 2021, 13, 8861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pretty, J.; Hine, R. Reducing Food Poverty with Sustainable Agriculture: A Summary of New Evidence; University of Essex: Colchester, UK, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Rodriguez, J.M.; Molnar, J.J.; Fazio, R.A.; Sydnor, E.; Lowe, M.J. Barriers to Adoption of Sustainable Agriculture Practices: Change Agent Perspectives. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2009, 24, 60–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reimer, A.P.; Weinkauf, D.K.; Prokopy, L.S. The Influence of Perceptions of Practice Characteristics: An Examination of Agricultural Best Management Practice Adoption in Two Indiana Watersheds. J. Rural. Stud. 2012, 28, 118–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peshin, R.; Bano, F.; Kumar, R. Diffusion and Adoption: Factors Impacting Adoption of Sustainable Agricultural Practices. Nat. Resour. Manag. Ecol. Perspect. 2019, 2019, 235–253. [Google Scholar]
- Mishra, B.; Gyawali, B.R.; Paudel, K.P.; Poudyal, N.C.; Simon, M.F.; Dasgupta, S.; Antonious, G. Adoption of Sustainable Agriculture Practices among Farmers in Kentucky, USA. Environ. Manag. 2018, 62, 1060–1072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Slijper, T.; Tensi, A.F.; Ang, F.; Ali, B.M.; van der Fels-Klerx, H.J. Investigating the Relationship Between Knowledge and the Adoption of Sustainable Agricultural Practices: The Case of Dutch Arable Farmers. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 417, 138011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, J.; Li, W.; ul Haq, S.; Shahbaz, P. Adoption of Renewable Energy Technology on Farms for Sustainable and Efficient Production: Exploring the Role of Entrepreneurial Orientation, Farmer Perception and Government Policies. Sustainability 2023, 15, 5611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Laurett, R.; Paço, A.; Mainardes, E.W. Sustainable Development in Agriculture and Its Antecedents, Barriers and Consequences—An Exploratory Study. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2021, 27, 298–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mazhar, R.; Ghafoor, A.; Xuehao, B.; Wei, Z. Fostering Sustainable Agriculture: Do Institutional Factors Impact the Adoption of Multiple Climate-Smart Agricultural Practices Among New Entry Organic Farmers in Pakistan? J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 283, 124620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Foguesatto, C.R.; Borges, J.A.R.; Machado, J.A.D. Farmers’ Typologies Regarding Environmental Values and Climate Change: Evidence from Southern Brazil. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 232, 400–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gillham, B. Developing a Questionnaire, 2nd ed.; Continuum International Publishing Group: London, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2008; ISBN 9780826496317. [Google Scholar]
- Krosnick, J.A. Questionnaire Design. In The Palgrave Handbook of Survey Research; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 439–455. [Google Scholar]
- Del Greco, L.; Walop, W.; McCarthy, R.H. Questionnaire Development: 2. Validity and Reliability. CMAJ Can. Med. Assoc. J. 1987, 136, 699–700. [Google Scholar]
- Holmes-Rovner, M.; Wills, C.E. Improving Informed Consent: Insights From Behavioral Decision Research. Med. Care 2002, 40, V30–V38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wilson Van Voorhis, C.R.; Morgan, B.L. Understanding Power and Rules of Thumb for Determining Sample Sizes. Tutor. Quant. Methods Psychol. 2007, 3, 43–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Siddiqui, K. Heuristics for Sample Size Determination in Multivariate Statistical Techniques. World Appl. Sci. J. 2013, 27, 285–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Collier, J.E. Applied Structural Equation Modeling Using AMOS: Basic to Advanced Techniques; Routledge: London, UK, 2020; ISBN 9781003018414. [Google Scholar]
- Kyriazos, T.A. Applied Psychometrics: Sample Size and Sample Power Considerations in Factor Analysis (EFA, CFA) and SEM in General. Psychology 2018, 9, 2207–2230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Williams, L.J.; Hartman, N.; Cavazotte, F. Method Variance and Marker Variables: A Review and Comprehensive CFA Marker Technique. Organ. Res. Methods 2010, 13, 477–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mueller, R.O.; Hancock, G.R. Structural Equation Modeling. In The Reviewer’s Guide to Quantitative Methods in the Social Sciences; Hancock, G.R., Stapleton, L.M., Mueller, R.O., Eds.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Babin, B.J.; Svensson, G. Structural Equation Modeling in Social Science Research: Issues of Validity and Reliability in the Research Process. Eur. Bus. Rev. 2012, 24, 320–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ernah; Parvathi, P.; Waibel, H. Will Teaching Sustainability Standards to Oil Palm Smallholders in Indonesia Pay Off? Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 2020, 18, 196–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Santika, T.; Wilson, K.A.; Law, E.A.; St John, F.A.V.; Carlson, K.M.; Gibbs, H.; Morgans, C.L.; Ancrenaz, M.; Meijaard, E.; Struebig, M.J. Impact Of Palm Oil Sustainability Certification on Village Well-Being and Poverty in Indonesia. Nat. Sustain. 2020, 4, 109–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Savalei, V.; Bentler, P.M. Structural Equation Modeling. In The Handbook of Marketing Research: Uses, Misuses, and Future Advances; SAGE Publications, Inc.: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Shrestha, N. Factor Analysis of Students’ Exposure to Social Media for Food and Beverage. Int. J. Res. Rev. 2021, 8, 113–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brown, T.A. Confirmatory Factor Analysis. In Handbook of Structural Equation Modeling; The Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2012; Volume 361, p. 379. [Google Scholar]
- Sedgwick, P. Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient. BMJ 2012, 345, e4483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shi, D.; Lee, T.; Maydeu-Olivares, A. Understanding the Model Size Effect on SEM Fit Indices. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 2019, 79, 310–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheung, G.W.; Rensvold, R.B. Evaluating Goodness-of-Fit Indexes for Testing Measurement Invariance. Struct. Equ. Model. 2002, 9, 233–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stein, C.M.; Morris, N.J.; Nock, N.L. Structural Equation Modeling. Methods Mol. Biol. 2012, 850, 495–512. [Google Scholar]
- Hox, J.J.; Bechger, T.M. An Introduction to Structural Equation Modeling. In Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) Using R; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 1998; Volume 11. [Google Scholar]
- Cakirli Akyüz, N.; Theuvsen, L. The Impact of Behavioral Drivers on Adoption of Sustainable Agricultural Practices: The Case of Organic Farming in Turkey. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zaremohzzabieh, Z.; Krauss, S.E.; D’Silva, J.L.; Tiraieyari, N.; Ismail, I.A.; Dahalan, D. Towards Agriculture as Career: Predicting Students’ Participation in the Agricultural Sector Using an Extended Model of the Theory of Planned Behavior. J. Agric. Educ. Ext. 2022, 28, 67–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reiss-Woolever, V.J.; Luke, S.H.; Stone, J.; Shackelford, G.E.; Turner, E.C. Systematic Mapping Shows the Need for Increased Socio-Ecological Research on Oil Palm. Environ. Res. Lett. 2021, 16, 63002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dharmawan, A.H.; Mardiyaningsih, D.I.; Rahmadian, F.; Yulian, B.E.; Komarudin, H.; Pacheco, P.; Ghazoul, J.; Amalia, R. The Agrarian, Structural and Cultural Constraints of Smallholders’ Readiness for Sustainability Standards Implementation: The Case of Indonesian Sustainable Palm Oil in East Kalimantan. Sustainability 2021, 13, 2611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adiprasetyo, T.; Irnad, I.; Nusril, N. Perceived Environment-Economic Benefits and Factors Influencing the Adoption of Indonesian Sustainable Palm Oil Production System by Smallholder Farmers. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2019, 347, 12098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Seegers, R.; Winter, E.; Grote, U. Exploring the Effectiveness of Serious Games in Strengthening Smallholders’ Motivation to Plant Different Trees on Farms: Evidence from Rural Rwanda. Bio-Based Appl. Econ. 2023, 12, 69–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lukuyu, B.; Place, F.; Franzel, S.; Kiptot, E. Disseminating Improved Practices: Are Volunteer Farmer Trainers Effective? J. Agric. Educ. Ext. 2012, 18, 525–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Millan, A.; Limketkai, B.; Guarnaschelli, S. Financing the Transformation of Food Systems Under a Changing Climate; CGIAR: Montpeiller, France, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Antwi-Agyei, P.; Stringer, L.C. Improving the Effectiveness of Agricultural Extension Services in Supporting Farmers to Adapt to Climate Change: Insights From Northeastern Ghana. Clim. Risk Manag. 2021, 32, 100304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shiferaw, B.A.; Okello, J.; Reddy, R.V. Adoption and Adaptation of Natural Resource Management Innovations in Smallholder Agriculture: Reflections on Key Lessons and Best Practices. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2009, 11, 601–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lincoln, N.K.; Ardoin, N.M. Cultivating Values: Environmental Values and Sense of Place as Correlates of Sustainable Agricultural Practices. Agric. Hum. Values 2016, 33, 389–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adnan, N.; Nordin, S.M.; Bahruddin, M.A.; Tareq, A.H. A State-Of-The-Art Review on Facilitating Sustainable Agriculture Through Green Fertilizer Technology Adoption: Assessing Farmers Behavior. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2019, 86, 439–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Philip Robertson, G.; Gross, K.L.; Hamilton, S.K.; Landis, D.A.; Schmidt, T.M.; Snapp, S.S.; Swinton, S.M. Farming for Ecosystem Services: An Ecological Approach to Production Agriculture. Bioscience 2014, 64, 404–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reimer, A.; Doll, J.E.; Boring, T.J.; Zimnicki, T. Scaling Up Conservation Agriculture: An Exploration of Challenges and Opportunities Through a Stakeholder Engagement Process. J. Environ. Qual. 2023, 52, 465–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aare, A.K.; Lund, S.; Hauggaard-Nielsen, H. Exploring Transitions Towards Sustainable Farming Practices Through Participatory Research—The Case of Danish Farmers’ Use of Species Mixtures. Agric. Syst. 2021, 189, 103053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sewell, A.M.; Hartnett, M.K.; Gray, D.I.; Blair, H.T.; Kemp, P.D.; Kenyon, P.R.; Morris, S.T.; Wood, B.A. Using Educational Theory and Research to Refine Agricultural Extension: Affordances and Barriers for Farmers’ Learning and Practice Change. J. Agric. Educ. Ext. 2017, 23, 313–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taylor, M.; Bhasme, S. Model Farmers, Extension Networks and the Politics of Agricultural Knowledge Transfer. J. Rural. Stud. 2018, 64, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Serebrennikov, D.; Thorne, F.; Kallas, Z.; McCarthy, S.N. Factors Influencing Adoption of Sustainable Farming Practices in Europe: A Systemic Review of Empirical Literature. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- MacArthur, R.J. Whole Farm Assurance Programmes as a Means to Achieving Best Practice Dairy Farming: A Case Study of the Synlait Milk Ltd Lead With Pride Programme. Ph.D. Thesis, University Lincoln, Baltimore Pike, PA, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Chin, H.-C.; Choong, W.-W.; Alwi, S.R.W.; Mohammed, A.H. Using Theory of Planned Behaviour to Explore Oil Palm Smallholder Planters’ Intention to Supply Oil Palm Residues. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 126, 428–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cahyadi, E.R.; Yutika, F.; Mulyati, H. Understanding Oil Palm Smallholders’ Behavioral Intention on Sustainable Production Practices. J. Manaj. Dan. Organ. 2021, 12, 81–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Laporte, D.S.P.; Carlson, K.; Chan, C.; Coffman, M. Investigating Predictors of Perceptions and Behaviors of Members of the International Conservation Community: The Case of Palm Oil Sustainability. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Hawai’i at Manoa, Mānoa, HI, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Fatoki, O. Determinants of Intention to Purchase Photovoltaic Panel System: An Integration of Technology Acceptance Model and Theory of Planned Behaviour. Int. J. Energy Econ. Policy 2022, 12, 432–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adiprasetyo, T.; Irnad, I.; Nusril, N. Using the Structural Equation Modeling Approach to Determine the Factors Affecting the Adoption of the Indonesian Sustainable Palm Oil Production System by Smallholder Farmers. Adv. Environ. Sci. 2019, 11, 31–40. [Google Scholar]
- Dompreh, E.B.; Asare, R.; Gasparatos, A. Sustainable but Hungry? Food Security Outcomes of Certification for Cocoa and Oil Palm Smallholders in Ghana. Environ. Res. Lett. 2021, 16, 55001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Latent Variables | Measured Variables | References |
---|---|---|
Attitudes (ATT) | I am convinced that adopting sustainable agricultural methods will enhance yields, improve soil health, and lessen environmental impact (ATT1) | [78,79] |
I am of the view that sustainable agricultural practices will not significantly increase labor and input costs (ATT2) | [78,79] | |
My prior experiences with sustainable agriculture have encouraged me to continue using and expanding these practices in my farming activities (ATT3) | [80,81] | |
Subjective Norms (SNM) | I feel that my family, peers, and community leaders endorse the use of sustainable agricultural methods (SNM1) | [50,82] |
I sense industry pressure to adhere to certification standards and implement sustainable agricultural methods (SNM2) | [81,83] | |
I place high value on environmental respect and believe that employing sustainable agricultural practices reflects this principle (SNM3) | [84] | |
Perceived Behavioral Control (PBC) | I have the necessary resources like land, finances, and labor to adopt sustainable agricultural practices (PBC1) | [38,85] |
I have access to educational and advisory services related to sustainable agriculture (PBC2) | [61] | |
Relative Advantage (RAD) | I am persuaded that utilizing sustainable agricultural practices will bring increased benefits to me (RAD1) | [60,83] |
I am convinced that sustainable agricultural practices will reduce my environmental footprint (RAD2) | [86,87] | |
I believe that practicing sustainable agriculture will elevate my social standing (RAD3) | [88] | |
Compatibility (COA) | I consider sustainable agricultural practices to be culturally and socially significant to me (COA1) | [89] |
Based on my positive past experiences with new farming techniques, I am confident in successfully implementing sustainable agricultural practices (COA2) | [90,91] | |
Complexity (COE) | I think that sustainable agricultural practices do not demand extensive knowledge and skills (COE1) | [38,92] |
I am of the opinion that sustainable agricultural practices can positively affect crop yields or profits (COE2) | [93] | |
I believe that the support provided by agricultural organizations or government agencies is adequate (COE3) | [94] | |
Trialability (TRA) | I am confident about trialing sustainable agricultural practices before fully committing to them, considering the local economic and market conditions for sustainable agriculture (TRA1) | [95] |
I am open to experimenting with sustainable agricultural practices with limited resources and low risk, in line with local economic and market conditions (TRA2) | [96] | |
am ready to adopt sustainable agricultural practices to meet my specific needs and preferences, factoring in local economic and market dynamics (TRA3) | [86,93] | |
Observability (OBV) | I believe that the visible benefits and outcomes of using sustainable agricultural practices are encouraging others to adopt them (OBV1) | [81,97] |
I am convinced that the availability of reliable and trustworthy information on sustainable agricultural practices is motivating others to adopt them (OBV2) | [98,99] | |
I think that the chance to learn from those who have already embraced sustainable agricultural practices is inspiring others to follow suit (OBV3) | [98,99] | |
Adoption of Sustainable Agriculture (ASA) | I am confident that my farming techniques maximize efficient water usage (ASA1) | [80] |
I believe my farming methods effectively conserve energy (ASA2) | [91,100] | |
I feel my agricultural practices have positively impacted local biodiversity (ASA3) | [93,101] | |
I am certain that I have invested significantly in sustainable agricultural practices (ASA4) | [100,102] | |
I am assured that my farming showcases a high degree of crop diversity (ASA5) | [101,102] | |
I am convinced that the soil health on my agricultural land is well maintained (ASA6) | [80,103] | |
I believe my agricultural methods substantially contribute to climate change mitigation (ASA7) | [78,104] | |
I am certain that my soil is rich in organic matter (ASA8) | [78,101] | |
I am of the opinion that greenhouse gas emissions from my farming are at an acceptable level (ASA9) | [100,105] | |
I believe that my agricultural practices involve minimal use of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides (ASA10) | [78,105] |
Variable | Category | Frequency | Percentage |
---|---|---|---|
Age (year) | <30 (Younger farmers) | 13 | 4.76% |
30–50 (Middle-aged farmers) | 190 | 69.59% | |
>50 (Older farmers) | 70 | 25.65% | |
Experience (year) | 1–10 | 16 | 5.86% |
11–20 | 182 | 66.67% | |
21–30 | 75 | 27.47% | |
Level of Education | Primary School | 75 | 27.47% |
Secondary School | 153 | 56.04% | |
High School | 29 | 10.62% | |
Higher Education | 16 | 5.86% | |
Primary Access of Information | Government | 17 | 6.22% |
Non-Governmental Organizations | 169 | 61.9% | |
Internet | 18 | 6.59% | |
Peers | 68 | 24.9% | |
Other Sources | 1 | 0.36% |
Latent Variables | Measured Variables | Estimate (β) |
---|---|---|
Attitudes (ATT) | Perceived Yield Impact (ATT1) | 0.631 a |
Perceived Cost Impact (ATT2) | 0.784 a | |
Influence of Experience (ATT3) | 0.874 a | |
Subjective Norms (SNM) | Community Support Perception (SNM1) | 0.823 a |
Industry Pressure Perception (SNM2) | 0.874 a | |
Environmental Respect Perception (SNM3) | 0.774 a | |
Perceived Behavioral Control (PBC) | Resource Availability Perception (PBC1) | 0.987 a |
Training Access Perception (PBC2) | 0.697 a | |
Relative Advantage (RAD) | Perceived Benefit Increase (RAD1) | 0.894 a |
Perceived Environmental Reduction (RAD2) | 0.854 a | |
Social Status Perception (RAD3) | 0.776 a | |
Compatibility (COA) | Cultural Importance Perception (COA1) | 0.689 a |
Success Confidence Perception (COA2) | 0.913 a | |
Complexity (COE) | Skill Requirement Perception (COE1) | 0.845 a |
Impact on Yield Perception (COE2) | 0.783 a | |
Support Sufficiency Perception (COE3) | 0.614 a | |
Trialability (TRA) | Confidence in Experimentation (TRA1) | 0.734 a |
Risk Acceptance Willingness (TRA2) | 0.846 a | |
Modification Willingness (TRA3) | 0.774 a | |
Observability (OBV) | Observable Benefit Perception (OBV1) | 0.675 a |
Trustworthy Information Perception (OBV2) | 0.757 a | |
Learning From Others Perception (OBV3) | 0.788 a | |
Adoption of Sustainable Agriculture (ASA) | Water Efficiency (ASA1) | 0.778 a |
Energy Conservation (ASA2) | 0.685 a | |
Biodiversity Impact (ASA3) | 0.739 a | |
Investment in Sustainability (ASA4) | 0.699 a | |
Crop Diversity (ASA5) | 0.886 a | |
Soil Health (ASA6) | 0.854 a | |
Climate Change Mitigation (ASA7) | 0.823 a | |
Organic Matter Presence (ASA8) | 0.688 a | |
Greenhouse Gas (ASA9) | 0.824 a | |
Synthetic Input Usage (ASA10) | 0.678 a |
ATT | SNM | PBC | RAD | COA | COE | TRA | OBV | ASA | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Composite reliability (CR) | 0.774 | 0.747 | 0.745 | 0.746 | 0.775 | 0.754 | 0.723 | 0.743 | 0.846 |
Cronbach alpha (CA) | 0.864 | 0.812 | 0.735 | 0.766 | 0.773 | 0.734 | 0.846 | 0.836 | 0.942 |
Average Variance Extracted (AVE) | 0.552 | 0.535 | 0.663 | 0.562 | 0.626 | 0.526 | 0.572 | 0.525 | 0.535 |
Mean Square Variance (MSV) | 0.212 | 0.341 | 0.161 | 0.216 | 0.163 | 0.286 | 0.399 | 0.248 | 0.397 |
Variables | ATT | SNM | PBC | RAD | COA | COE | TRA | OBV | ASA |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ATT | 1.000 | ||||||||
SNM | 0.463 ** | 1.000 | |||||||
PBC | 0.574 ** | 0.674 ** | 1.000 | ||||||
RAD | 0.473 ** | 0.564 ** | 0.673 ** | 1.000 | |||||
COA | 0.336 ** | 0.662 ** | 0.732 ** | 0.523 ** | 1.000 | ||||
COE | 0.473 ** | 0.426 ** | 0.563 ** | 0.485 ** | 0.383 ** | 1.000 | |||
TRA | 0.473 ** | 0.793 ** | 0.663 ** | 0.784 ** | 0.583 ** | 0.736** | 1.000 | ||
OBV | 0.675 ** | 0.651 ** | 0.577 ** | 0.484 ** | 0.638 ** | 0.546 ** | 0.647 ** | 1.000 | |
ASA | 0.786 ** | 0.721 ** | 0.744 ** | 0.585 ** | 0.736 ** | 0.584 ** | 0.688 ** | 0.523 ** | 1.000 |
Model Fit Index | Evaluation Standard | Actual Value |
---|---|---|
CMIN/df | ≤2 (acceptable) | 1.63 |
RMSEA | ≤0.08 (acceptable) | 0.033 |
GFI | ≥0.9 (acceptable) | 0.953 |
TLI | ≥0.9 (acceptable) | 0.962 |
CFI | ≥0.9 (acceptable) | 0.924 |
Hypothesis | Relationship | Estimate (β) | S.E. | C.R. | p-Value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
H1 | ATT → ASA | 0.252 | 0.032 | 1.452 | 0.035 |
H2 | SNM → ASA | 0.352 | 0.051 | 1.262 | 0.042 |
H3 | PBC → ASA | 0.363 | 0.015 | 2.561 | <0.01 |
H4 | RAD → ASA | 0.223 | 0.061 | 2.061 | <0.01 |
H5 | COA → ASA | 0.262 | 0.026 | 1.926 | <0.01 |
H6 | COE → ASA | −0.162 | 0.026 | −1.462 | 0.035 |
H7 | TRA → ASA | 0.412 | 0.062 | 1.362 | 0.012 |
H8 | OBV → ASA | 0.251 | 0.023 | 2.464 | <0.01 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Denashurya, N.I.; Nurliza; Dolorosa, E.; Kurniati, D.; Suswati, D. Overcoming Barriers to ISPO Certification: Analyzing the Drivers of Sustainable Agricultural Adoption among Farmers. Sustainability 2023, 15, 16507. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152316507
Denashurya NI, Nurliza, Dolorosa E, Kurniati D, Suswati D. Overcoming Barriers to ISPO Certification: Analyzing the Drivers of Sustainable Agricultural Adoption among Farmers. Sustainability. 2023; 15(23):16507. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152316507
Chicago/Turabian StyleDenashurya, Nugra Irianta, Nurliza, Eva Dolorosa, Dewi Kurniati, and Denah Suswati. 2023. "Overcoming Barriers to ISPO Certification: Analyzing the Drivers of Sustainable Agricultural Adoption among Farmers" Sustainability 15, no. 23: 16507. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152316507
APA StyleDenashurya, N. I., Nurliza, Dolorosa, E., Kurniati, D., & Suswati, D. (2023). Overcoming Barriers to ISPO Certification: Analyzing the Drivers of Sustainable Agricultural Adoption among Farmers. Sustainability, 15(23), 16507. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152316507