Overcoming Barriers to ISPO Certification: Analyzing the Drivers of Sustainable Agricultural Adoption among Farmers

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article proposed for publication, in my opinion, is an excellent example of sound academic work. I take pleasure in congratulating the authors.

I am adding the following comment to the reviewed article:

1.    The fundamental question addressed by this research involves the identification and subsequent understanding of Indonesian farmers' inclinations or aversions to voluntarily adopt sustainable practices in oil palm cultivation. The lack of such knowledge, as emphasized by the authors, would not only hinder the Indonesian certification system ISPO from disseminating desirable practices but could also lead to unintended consequences, such as perpetuating or exacerbating certain unfavorable trends. 2.    The authors' chosen topic is original in its field due to the unique approach not previously employed in published research. This approach entails a distinctive attempt to comprehend the individualized perspective of farmers regarding the application of sustainable practices in oil palm cultivation. Methodologically valuable and innovative, the combination of the TPB and DOI theories allows for a balanced consideration of internal and external factors. The chosen methodological approach is well-thought-out and refined. 3.    A useful direction for further research, among the many proposals presented by the authors, seems to be the explanation of potential changes in the attitudes of Indonesian farmers toward sustainable practices in oil palm cultivation after the widespread adoption of "ISPO" certification. It is crucial to note that despite the broadly understood controversy surrounding oil palm cultivation, alternatives are significantly worse for the environment. Therefore, pro-environmental changes in farmers' attitudes must not only be stimulated, identified, and monitored but also thoroughly explained. 4.    Concerning the conclusions formulated in the final part of the study, it is unequivocal that they are consistent with the presented evidence and arguments or verified hypotheses. In my opinion, the exposition is clear and unequivocal, providing a positive response to the main research question. 5.    The literature cited in the text is current, relevant, and comprehensive, indicating the authors' excellent understanding of the researched issues. Perhaps the number of cited publications is even too extensive for the volume of the prepared text, but I make no reproach to the authors for this. 6.    Regarding the substantive and editorial aspects of the tables and figures included in the study, I believe they are clear and understandable. I leave it to the authors' consideration to contemplate providing additional explanations for selected symbols used in Figure 2, i.e., those not cited in the main text. However, I do not consider this to be absolutely necessary.   I would like to emphasize that I am evaluating the reviewed article as highly commendable from both a substantive and methodological perspective. It is dedicated especially to political decision-makers.

Author Response

Reviewer #1: The article proposed for publication, in my opinion, is an excellent example of sound academic work. I take pleasure in congratulating the authors.

Authors: We would like to express our profound gratitude for your thorough review of our manuscript. Your insights have been invaluable. Please find below our detailed responses, along with the corresponding revisions and corrections thoughtfully highlighted in track changes within the re-submitted files. Your contribution is highly appreciated.

Comments 1: The fundamental question addressed by this research involves the identification and subsequent understanding of Indonesian farmers' inclinations or aversions to voluntarily adopt sustainable practices in oil palm cultivation. The lack of such knowledge, as emphasized by the authors, would not only hinder the Indonesian certification system ISPO from disseminating desirable practices but could also lead to unintended consequences, such as perpetuating or exacerbating certain unfavorable trends.

Response 1: We sincerely appreciate your recognition of the significance of our study in addressing the critical issue of sustainable agricultural practices among Indonesian farmers. Your acknowledgment of the study's contribution to understanding farmers' inclinations and aversions towards sustainable oil palm cultivation is highly encouraging. We concur that the lack of such knowledge could hinder the effectiveness of the Indonesian certification system ISPO and potentially lead to unfavorable trends. Our work aims to illuminate these aspects to aid in the effective dissemination of sustainable practices. Thank you for highlighting this pivotal aspect of our research.

Comments 2: The authors' chosen topic is original in its field due to the unique approach not previously employed in published research. This approach entails a distinctive attempt to comprehend the individualized perspective of farmers regarding the application of sustainable practices in oil palm cultivation. Methodologically valuable and innovative, the combination of the TPB and DOI theories allows for a balanced consideration of internal and external factors. The chosen methodological approach is well-thought-out and refined.

Response 2: Thank you for acknowledging the originality and methodological robustness of our study. We are grateful for your appreciation of our unique approach in understanding farmers' perspectives on sustainable oil palm cultivation. Your recognition of the integration of the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) and the Diffusion of Innovation (DOI) theories in our methodology is particularly gratifying. We strived to balance the consideration of internal and external factors influencing farmers' adoption of sustainable practices, and your positive evaluation of this approach is deeply valued.

Comments 3: A useful direction for further research, among the many proposals presented by the authors, seems to be the explanation of potential changes in the attitudes of Indonesian farmers toward sustainable practices in oil palm cultivation after the widespread adoption of "ISPO" certification. It is crucial to note that despite the broadly understood controversy surrounding oil palm cultivation, alternatives are significantly worse for the environment. Therefore, pro-environmental changes in farmers' attitudes must not only be stimulated, identified, and monitored but also thoroughly explained.

Response 3: We are thankful for your insightful suggestion regarding the direction of future research. The idea of exploring changes in Indonesian farmers' attitudes towards sustainable practices post-ISPO certification adoption is indeed compelling. Your emphasis on the importance of not only stimulating but also thoroughly explaining pro-environmental changes in farmers' attitudes adds a valuable dimension to our research. We appreciate your thoughtful input and agree that it is crucial to understand and articulate these changes comprehensively.

Comments 4: Concerning the conclusions formulated in the final part of the study, it is unequivocal that they are consistent with the presented evidence and arguments or verified hypotheses. In my opinion, the exposition is clear and unequivocal, providing a positive response to the main research question.

Response 4: We are deeply thankful for your positive evaluation of the conclusions drawn in our study. Your affirmation that our conclusions are consistent with the presented evidence and arguments is greatly encouraging. We aimed to provide clear and unequivocal responses to our research question, and your recognition of this effort is highly appreciated.

Comments 5: The literature cited in the text is current, relevant, and comprehensive, indicating the authors' excellent understanding of the researched issues. Perhaps the number of cited publications is even too extensive for the volume of the prepared text, but I make no reproach to the authors for this.

Response 5: Thank you for your positive assessment of the literature cited in our text. We endeavored to ensure that our references were current, relevant, and comprehensive to provide a thorough understanding of the issues at hand. Your comment that the volume of cited publications might be extensive is well-received, and we appreciate your understanding of our intent to provide a well-rounded academic work.

Comments 6: Regarding the substantive and editorial aspects of the tables and figures included in the study, I believe they are clear and understandable. I leave it to the authors' consideration to contemplate providing additional explanations for selected symbols used in Figure 2, i.e., those not cited in the main text. However, I do not consider this to be absolutely necessary.   I would like to emphasize that I am evaluating the reviewed article as highly commendable from both a substantive and methodological perspective. It is dedicated especially to political decision-makers.

Response 6: We are grateful for your constructive feedback regarding the tables and figures in our study. Your suggestion to provide additional explanations for certain symbols used in Figure 2 is well-taken, and we will consider enhancing the clarity of these elements. Your commendation of our article from both substantive and methodological perspectives, especially its relevance to political decision-makers, is highly motivating. We sincerely appreciate your thorough review and constructive comments.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments on sustainability-2744752:

The manuscript by Denashurya et al. is well organized and fluently written. I only have some minor comments on this work:

1.      The author proposed too many hypotheses (H1-H8). Consider reducing them to 2-3 and discuss them in detail, and clearly state in the discussion section that these assumptions are confirmed, rejected, or partially supported.

2.      I strongly suggest the author to visualize the SEM rather than a table, this will greatly improve the manuscript.

 

3.      Reference list contains 161 articles, which is quite a lot. Please reconsider the necessity of some of these citations.

Author Response

Reviewer #2: The manuscript by Denashurya et al. is well organized and fluently written. I only have some minor comments on this work:

Authors: We would like to express our profound gratitude for your thorough review of our manuscript. Your insights have been invaluable. Please find below our detailed responses, along with the corresponding revisions and corrections thoughtfully highlighted in track changes within the re-submitted files. Your contribution is highly appreciated.

Comments 1: The author proposed too many hypotheses (H1-H8). Consider reducing them to 2-3 and discuss them in detail, and clearly state in the discussion section that these assumptions are confirmed, rejected, or partially supported.

Response 1: We deeply appreciate your insightful comment regarding the number of hypotheses in our study. We earnestly considered your suggestion and wish to convey that the formulation of eight hypotheses (H1-H8) was carefully chosen to address the complex and multifaceted aspects of our research topic. Each hypothesis is intricately linked to a specific factor that influences the adoption of sustainable agriculture practices. This approach stems from a thoughtful integration of Ajzen's Theory of Planned Behavior and Rogers' Diffusion of Innovation theory. The factors, including attitudes, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control, relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability, and observability, are each pivotal in their unique way in shaping farmers' adoption decisions. We believe that reducing the number of hypotheses to 2-3 might oversimplify the intricate dynamics of these diverse determinants. Our intention is to provide a thorough and nuanced understanding of the multiple factors influencing sustainable agricultural adoption, which we believe is essential for formulating effective and impactful interventions and policies. We sincerely hope this clarification aligns with the depth and intent of our research.

Comments 2: I strongly suggest the author to visualize the SEM rather than a table, this will greatly improve the manuscript.

Response 2: Thank you for your valuable suggestion to visualize the Structural Equation Model (SEM). We have incorporated a graphical representation of the SEM in the revised manuscript. This visualization is presented in Figure 3 and is designed to facilitate a clearer understanding of the key determinants influencing farmers' propensity to adopt sustainable agricultural practices, as well as the relationships among these determinants​​. We believe this enhancement significantly improves the manuscript by providing a more intuitive and accessible presentation of our model.

Comments 3: Reference list contains 161 articles, which is quite a lot. Please reconsider the necessity of some of these citations.

Response 3: We are truly grateful for your insightful feedback regarding the extensive reference list in our manuscript. In line with your valuable suggestion, we have diligently reviewed and revised the list to include only the most pertinent and essential citations that are foundational to our research. This careful selection process has reduced the number of references, ensuring that each citation directly supports and enriches the depth and scope of our study. We believe this refined list of references strikes a balance between comprehensiveness and conciseness, effectively situating our work within the broader context of sustainable agricultural practices while maintaining the integrity and robustness of our research methodology and findings. Your guidance in this matter has been instrumental in enhancing the quality of our manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this study, a model integrating Ajzen's planned behavior theory and Rogers' innovation diffusion theory was developed. Based on the data of 300 palm oil farmers in West Kalimantan, Indonesia, the factors affecting farmers' adoption of sustainable oil palm planting were analyzed by using structural equation model. This research has certain practical significance, but there is still room for improvement. The following suggestions are for reference only:

1. The introduction is not clear enough and needs to be further improved to better explain the importance and significance of this research topic.

2. Are there too many measurement variables for "Adoption of Sustainable Agriculture (ASA)"? Are there any intersections between these measurement variables, and can they be merged or reduced?

3. Based on innovation diffusion theory (DOI) and planned behavior theory (TPB), the author selects the influencing factors of farmers' adoption of sustainable agriculture (ASA) from eight dimensions. Since these two theories are not consistent, is it appropriate for the author to combine these two theories? If the author insists on using it like this, he needs to give corresponding explanations and reasons.

4. Table 1 lists the references on which the measurement variables are selected. It is suggested that the references should be matched with the measurement variables one by one.

5. It is suggested that the author adjust the pictures in the text to be more beautiful and clear.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 

In this study, a model integrating Ajzen's planned behavior theory and Rogers' innovation diffusion theory was developed. Based on the data of 300 palm oil farmers in West Kalimantan, Indonesia, the factors affecting farmers' adoption of sustainable oil palm planting were analyzed by using structural equation model. This research has certain practical significance, but there is still room for improvement. The following suggestions are for reference only:

 

1. The introduction is not clear enough and needs to be further improved to better explain the importance and significance of this research topic.

2. Are there too many measurement variables for "Adoption of Sustainable Agriculture (ASA)"? Are there any intersections between these measurement variables, and can they be merged or reduced?

3. Based on innovation diffusion theory (DOI) and planned behavior theory (TPB), the author selects the influencing factors of farmers' adoption of sustainable agriculture (ASA) from eight dimensions. Since these two theories are not consistent, is it appropriate for the author to combine these two theories? If the author insists on using it like this, he needs to give corresponding explanations and reasons.

4. Table 1 lists the references on which the measurement variables are selected. It is suggested that the references should be matched with the measurement variables one by one.

5. It is suggested that the author adjust the pictures in the text to be more beautiful and clear.

 

Author Response

Reviewer #3: In this study, a model integrating Ajzen's planned behavior theory and Rogers' innovation diffusion theory was developed. Based on the data of 300 palm oil farmers in West Kalimantan, Indonesia, the factors affecting farmers' adoption of sustainable oil palm planting were analyzed by using structural equation model. This research has certain practical significance, but there is still room for improvement. The following suggestions are for reference only:

Authors: We would like to express our profound gratitude for your thorough review of our manuscript. Your insights have been invaluable. Please find below our detailed responses, along with the corresponding revisions and corrections thoughtfully highlighted in track changes within the re-submitted files. Your contribution is highly appreciated.

Comments 1: The introduction is not clear enough and needs to be further improved to better explain the importance and significance of this research topic.

Response 1: We sincerely apologize if the introduction of our manuscript did not clearly convey the importance and significance of our research topic. We value your suggestion and have revisited this section to enhance its clarity and impact. The significance of our study, particularly in examining the factors affecting farmers' adoption of sustainable oil palm planting practices in the context of the Indonesian Sustainable Palm Oil (ISPO) certification system, is crucial in light of Indonesia's role in global palm oil production and the associated economic, environmental, and social challenges. In our revised manuscript, we have emphasized these aspects, particularly in the introduction (page 2, lines 47-58), to highlight the critical importance of understanding farmers' motivations and barriers. We welcome any further suggestions you may have to make this section stand out more prominently.

Comments 2: Are there too many measurement variables for "Adoption of Sustainable Agriculture (ASA)"? Are there any intersections between these measurement variables, and can they be merged or reduced?

Response 2: We appreciate your concern regarding the number of measurement variables for "Adoption of Sustainable Agriculture (ASA)." The selection of these variables was based on an extensive review of both theoretical and empirical literature related to sustainable agricultural practices. Additionally, we made a concerted effort to align these variables as closely as possible with the standards of the Indonesian Sustainable Palm Oil (ISPO) certification, anticipating the official standards that are yet to be released as the ISPO certification has not been officially implemented until 2025. This alignment was crucial to ensure that our research remains relevant and practically applicable in the context of the upcoming ISPO certification. This review was instrumental in identifying key constructs and variables consistently linked to sustainable practice adoption, ensuring their conceptual relevance and alignment with our research objectives. We believe that the current number of variables appropriately captures the multifaceted nature of the factors influencing adoption without unnecessary overlap. Therefore, while we acknowledge your concern, we feel that reducing or merging these variables could compromise the comprehensiveness of our analysis. Nonetheless, we remain open to considering specific suggestions for refinement in this regard.

Comments 3: Based on innovation diffusion theory (DOI) and planned behavior theory (TPB), the author selects the influencing factors of farmers' adoption of sustainable agriculture (ASA) from eight dimensions. Since these two theories are not consistent, is it appropriate for the author to combine these two theories? If the author insists on using it like this, he needs to give corresponding explanations and reasons.

Response 3: We appreciate your inquiry regarding the integration of Ajzen's Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) and Rogers' Diffusion of Innovation (DOI) theory in our study. While these theories originate from different theoretical backgrounds, their integration offers a comprehensive framework for understanding the multifaceted nature of farmers' decision-making processes regarding sustainable agricultural practices. TPB provides insights into internal determinants such as attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control, while DOI adds depth by introducing external factors like relative advantage, compatibility, and complexity. This combined approach allows us to consider both individual-level and broader contextual influences on adoption. We believe that this integrative model is not only appropriate but also enriches our understanding of the complex phenomena of sustainable practice adoption in agriculture. However, we acknowledge the complexity of merging these theories and have endeavored to clearly articulate the rationale and benefits of this approach in our study.

Comments 4: Table 1 lists the references on which the measurement variables are selected. It is suggested that the references should be matched with the measurement variables one by one.

Response 4: Thank you for your valuable suggestion regarding the matching of references with measurement variables in Table 1. We have carefully revised this section to ensure that each measurement variable is explicitly linked with its corresponding reference.

Comments 5: It is suggested that the author adjust the pictures in the text to be more beautiful and clear.

Response 5: We are grateful for your feedback on the visual presentation of the images in our text. Based on your suggestion, we have revised and enhanced the clarity and aesthetic appeal of the figures

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

congratulations on the well-prepared manuscript.

I have a few comments.

There is no explanation of why the number of surveys is sufficient for the study. It is also unclear why the methodology of random distribution of 300 surveys was chosen. This needs further explanation. Thank you.

In addition, the characteristics of the survey participants should be specified.

Explain the process of transitioning from the structural equation model (SEM) presented in Figure 2 to the execution of the model using detail tools.

While the discussion section is well-developed, a more comprehensive comparison with similar works that utilize this type of model is necessary to gauge the significance of this research. It is recommended to create a new section (such as 4.1 or 4.9) and include these comparisons.

References in the introductory section must be in the regulatory format (Subjective Norms (SNM) towards Adoption of Sustainable Agriculture (ASA), Perceived Behavioral Control (PBC) towards Adoption of Sustainable Agriculture, Relative Advantage (RAD) towards Adoption of Sustainable Agriculture (ASA), Compatibility (COA) towards Adoption of Sustainable Agriculture (ASA)…..)

Author Response

Reviewer #4:

Dear Authors,

congratulations on the well-prepared manuscript.

I have a few comments.

Authors: Thank you very much for your kind words and congratulations on our manuscript. We are truly grateful for the time and effort you have invested in reviewing our work. Please find below our detailed responses, along with the corresponding revisions and corrections thoughtfully highlighted in track changes within the re-submitted files. Your contribution is highly appreciated.

Comments 1: There is no explanation of why the number of surveys is sufficient for the study. It is also unclear why the methodology of random distribution of 300 surveys was chosen. This needs further explanation. Thank you.

Response 1: Thank you for your valuable inquiry regarding the number of surveys and the methodology behind the random distribution of 300 surveys. Our decision to utilize 300 surveys was based on statistical considerations for Structural Equation Modeling (SEM). In SEM analysis, a common guideline is to have a sample size that is at least 5-10 times the number of observed variables. Our study employed a measurement model consisting of 32 observed variables. Therefore, a sample size of approximately 256 (32x8) was necessary to ensure adequate statistical power. Considering potential invalid responses and drop-outs, we increased this number to 300 to ensure robustness in our analysis. This approach aligns with best practices in measurement modeling and was deemed sufficient for the complexity and scope of our study​​. (Page 10-11, Line 415-421)

Comments 2: In addition, the characteristics of the survey participants should be specified.

Response 2: Thank you for your observation. We have revised our manuscript to more clearly articulate the methodology behind participant selection for our survey (Page 8, Line 371-377). The participants in our study were randomly chosen oil palm farmers who were available at the time of the survey in West Kalimantan, Indonesia. This region is critically important to the nation's oil palm production, making it an essential focus for our research. The adoption of a random selection method was deliberate to ensure a diverse and representative sample from this crucial farming community. This approach was intended to capture a broad spectrum of experiences, attitudes, and challenges related to the adoption of sustainable agricultural practices among these farmers. The information obtained from these randomly selected participants provides vital insights into the dynamics of sustainable practice adoption, offering a comprehensive understanding of this significant agricultural sector in Indonesia. We believe these changes in the manuscript now clearly reflect the methodology and rationale behind our participant selection process.

Comments 3: Explain the process of transitioning from the structural equation model (SEM) presented in Figure 2 to the execution of the model using detail tools.

Response 3: We appreciate your request for a detailed explanation of the process of transitioning from the structural equation model (SEM) presented in Figure 2 to the execution of the model using detailed tools. In our study, we utilized AMOS software to perform the SEM analysis with a Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) approach. The process involved several key steps:

1. Model Construction: We started by defining the conceptual model based on the theories or hypotheses to be tested. This involved identifying latent variables (factors) and observed variables (indicators) to be included in the CFA model.
2. Setting Up in AMOS: The AMOS software was used to construct the CFA model.
3. Variable Arrangement: We added latent and observed variables to the model. In AMOS, latent variables are represented by circles, while observed variables are represented by rectangles.
4. Connecting Variables: We connected latent variables to observed variables using arrows, indicating the relationships between them (factor coefficients).
5. Model Specification: The model was specified by setting beta estimates to link latent variables with observed variables. Additionally, relationships between latent variables (correlation between factors) were established.
6. Model Estimation: AMOS employed the Maximum Likelihood (ML) method to estimate model parameters based on the provided data.
7. Evaluating Model Fit: AMOS provided model fit analysis results, including various model fit indices like Chi-square, Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI), Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), etc. These indices were used to evaluate how well the model fits the empirical data.
8. Model Modification: If the model did not fit the data well or there were issues, modifications were made, such as removing or adding paths between variables, including error covariances, or modifying factor coefficients.
9. Iteration: The process of evaluation and modification was repeated several times until a model that adequately fit the data and the tested theory was obtained.
10. Interpreting Results: Once a suitable model fit was achieved and it met the criteria for model fit, we proceeded to interpret the results.

Comments 4: While the discussion section is well-developed, a more comprehensive comparison with similar works that utilize this type of model is necessary to gauge the significance of this research. It is recommended to create a new section (such as 4.1 or 4.9) and include these comparisons.

Response 4: Thank you for your insightful suggestion to broaden our discussion section. In accordance with your recommendation, we have introduced a new section (Page 18, line 678-694) in our manuscript, focusing on a Comparative Analysis with Similar Studies in Sustainable Agriculture. This section, seamlessly integrated into our existing discussion, provides an in-depth comparison of our findings with those of similar studies in the field of sustainable agriculture, transcending the specifics of methodology. It offers a nuanced examination of how our research aligns with or diverges from existing works, especially in the context of sustainable practices in the oil palm sector. This comparative analysis not only illuminates the unique contributions of our study but also situates it within the larger tapestry of global research on sustainable agriculture. By doing so, we aim to highlight the relevance and impact of our findings, enriching the overall understanding of sustainable agricultural practices and their diverse applications in different geographical and cultural settings.

Comments 5: References in the introductory section must be in the regulatory format (Subjective Norms (SNM) towards Adoption of Sustainable Agriculture (ASA), Perceived Behavioral Control (PBC) towards Adoption of Sustainable Agriculture, Relative Advantage (RAD) towards Adoption of Sustainable Agriculture (ASA), Compatibility (COA) towards Adoption of Sustainable Agriculture (ASA)…..)

Response 5: Thank you for pointing out the need for consistent formatting in the reference section. We acknowledge the importance of adhering to the regulatory format and have thoroughly reviewed and revised the references in the introductory section to ensure uniformity and compliance with the required citation style.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I think this article meets the standards for publication and agree to accept it.