| Literature DB >> 32466128 |
Rafay Waseem1, Gershom Endelani Mwalupaso1,2, Faria Waseem1, Humayoon Khan1, Ghulam Mustafa Panhwar1, Yangyan Shi1,3,4.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to highlight the importance of socioeconomic and psychosocial factors in the adoption of sustainable agricultural practices (SAPs) in banana farm production. To this end, data from 300 randomly selected farm households from Pakistan were collected through a structured self-report questionnaire. Using logistic regression (LR) and structural equation modeling (SEM), socioeconomic and psychosocial effects were evaluated. The results show that economic status, watching agricultural training programs, newspaper and radio awareness campaigns, participation in extension programs, perceptions of sustainable agriculture and the feasibility of SAPs were significant factors in farmers' adoption of sustainable agriculture practices. Also, consistent with the theory of planned behavior (TPB), all its dimensions (attitude, subjective norms and perceived behavioral control) affected the adoption of SAPs. This finding highlights the importance of socioeconomic and psychosocial factors in promoting sustainable agricultural practice among banana production farmers. This is the first study which attempts to provide empirical evidence using a robust procedure (two models-LR and SEM). The practical implication is that, when socioeconomic and psychosocial factors are well supported by satisfactory policy measures, SAP adoption is more than likely, which eventually increases farmers' adaptive capacity to the changing environment. Ultimately, this leads to sustainable banana production, which has great potential to contribute towards poverty eradication.Entities:
Keywords: Pakistan; banana production; psychosocial factors; socioeconomic factors; sustainable agricultural practices; theory of planned behavior
Year: 2020 PMID: 32466128 PMCID: PMC7277408 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17103714
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Latest studies on farmer’s adoption of sustainable agricultural practices.
| Authors and Year | Country | Analysis Technique | Findings |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mutyasira, Hoag [ | South Africa | Data were collected from 359 smallholder farmers using questionnaires. | Traditional sustainable agricultural practices such as intercropping, mulching and crop rotation were more likely to be adopted by farmers. |
| Bopp, Engler [ | Chile | A count model was estimated. | Extrinsic motivation factors have a positive impact on the adoption of sustainable agricultural practices among farmers”. |
| Adnan, Nordin [ | Malaysia | Analyzed three phases of sustainable agricultural practices among Malaysian Paddy farmers. | SAPs have a positive impact on agricultural outcomes |
| Mutyasira, Hoag [ | Ethiopia | Ordered Probit model and Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) to model farmers’ adoption decisions. | Farmers’ intentions and personal norms significantly influence the number of SAPs adopted at farm-level. |
| Nkomoki, Bavorová [ | Zambia | The sample consisted of 400 households, 200 with customary and 200 with statutory land tenure. | Land ownership influences the adoption of SAPs. |
| Tey [ | Malaysia | Utilized informational sources and other key identified factors affecting Malaysian vegetable producers’ choices. | Information sources are complementary and influenced by heterogeneity in access to credit, social network and farm settings. |
Figure 1Study areas of Sindh, Pakistan.
Uses of measures during banana production.
| Category | Adoption Rate (%) |
|---|---|
|
| |
| Limiting tilling and hoeing | 52.3 |
| No pasturing cattle in production areas | 50.7 |
|
| |
| Seedlings controlled diseases by chemicals before growing | 53.3 |
| Use of improved banana varieties | 50.7 |
| Irrigation | 52.3 |
| Rotation of crops | 52.0 |
| No-chemical weed control | 53.0 |
| Application of indigenous knowledge | 52.0 |
| Crop intercrop (legumes or annual crops) | 52.7 |
| Mulches | 50.0 |
| Participating in farmer groups | 54.7 |
|
| |
| Biological pest and diseases control | 54.7 |
| Proper use of pesticides | 49.3 |
|
| |
| Application of inorganic fertilizers | 45.0 |
| Application of organic fertilizers (green and animal manure) | 54.0 |
| Conducting soil test before applying fertilizers | 49.7 |
|
| |
| No fruits touch the land after harvesting | 52.0 |
| Using fresh equipment to harvest fruits | 52.0 |
| Fruits harvested at maturity | 53.0 |
|
| |
| Fruits preserved in fresh materials | 43.7 |
| Products sold to enterprises through contractual agreement | 54.0 |
| Products registered with label showing ‘met quality standards’ | 52.0 |
| Regular products quality checks by relevant authorities | 49.7 |
Figure 2Conceptual framework. Notes: TPB and SAPs stand for Theory of Planned Behavior and Sustainable Agricultural Practices.
Measurement of socioeconomic and psychosocial factors.
| Variable Category | Description and Measurement |
|---|---|
|
| |
| Economy Status | Above poverty Line = 1, Otherwise = 0 |
| Watch Agricultural Training Program | Yes = 1, Otherwise = 0 |
| Newspaper and radio awareness campaigns regarding agriculture training program | Yes = 1, Otherwise=0 |
| Participated in any training extension course | Yes = 1, Otherwise = 0 |
| Sustainable agricultural perception | Yes = 1, Otherwise = 0 |
| Feasibility of sustainable agricultural practices | Yes = 1, Otherwise = 0 |
|
| |
| Attitude towards SAP adoption | 1 = negative, 2 = neutral, 3 = positive |
| Subjective norms | Assessed by the perceived social pressure influencing individual behavior, and identifying the most influential person on their adoption, regarding four referents: family, peer groups, neighbors, and the government (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree and 5 = strongly agree). |
| Perceived behavioral control | Assessed using the scale of self-confidence to adjust current farming practices in the next 3years (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree and 5 = strongly agree) |
|
| |
| Age | The age of the household head in years |
| Labor Household | The number of people in a household who are part of the labor force |
| Education | The number of years of schooling of the household head |
| Experience | The number of years of farming experience |
| Ethnic Group | The tribe of the household (1 = Urdu and 0 otherwise) |
| Farm Size | The size of the farm used for banana cultivation |
| Labor Assess | The availability of hired labor (1 = accessible and 0 otherwise) |
| Machine Access | Accessibility to use machines in banana production (1 = have access, 0 otherwise) |
| Fertilizer use | Use of chemical fertilizer in banana production (1 = user, 0 otherwise) |
| Pesticide use | Use of pesticides in banana production (1 = user, 0 otherwise) |
| Credit Access | Accessibility to credit (1 = have access, 0 otherwise) |
Reliability and Validity Test.
| Key Variables | CR | AVE | MSV | MaxR(H) | ATT | SN | INSAP | PBC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ATT | 0.911 | 0.721 | 0.072 | 0.925 | 0.849 | |||
| SN | 0.902 | 0.696 | 0.072 | 0.906 | 0.113 † | 0.835 | ||
| INSAP | 0.878 | 0.706 | 0.072 | 0.889 | 0.269 *** | 0.233 *** | 0.840 | |
| PBC | 0.806 | 0.581 | 0.072 | 0.817 | 0.142* | 0.269 *** | 0.215 ** | 0.762 |
Notes: CR = Composite reliability; AVE = Average variance extracted; MSV = Maximum shared variance; MaxR(H) = maximum reliability; ATT = Attitude; SN = Subjective Norms; PBC = Perceived Behavior Control; INSAP, Intention to adopt Sustainable Agricultural Practices. Significance of Correlations † p < 0.100, * p < 0.050, ** p < 0.010 and *** p < 0.001.
Classification of banana farmers based on the number of SAPs adopted.
| SAP adoption Intensity | Description | Frequency | Percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Low | Farmers who adopted 1 practice | 9 | 3.0 |
| Fairly Low | Farmers who adopted 2–7 practices | 56 | 18.7 |
| Fairly High | Farmers who adopted 8–13 practices | 150 | 50.0 |
| High | Farmers who adopted above 13 practices | 85 | 28.3 |
Results of LR analysis.
| Explanatory Variables | Beta | t |
| Collinearity Statistics | Decision | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| X1 | Economy status | 0.119 *** | 3.778 | 0.000 | 1.969 | Accepted |
| X2 | Watch agriculture training program | 0.132 *** | 4.340 | 0.000 | 1.663 | Accepted |
| X3 | Newspaper awareness and radio campaign regarding agriculture training program | 0.145 *** | 4.859 | 0.000 | 1.745 | Accepted |
| X4 | Participated in any training extension course and SAPs | 0.124 *** | 4.012 | 0.000 | 1.870 | Accepted |
| X5 | Sustainable agricultural perception | 0.198 *** | 7.921 | 0.000 | 1.310 | Accepted |
| X6 | Feasibility of sustainable agricultural practices | 0.101 *** | 3.093 | 0.002 | 2.060 | Accepted |
| C1 | Age | −0.036 * | 1.409 | 0.100 | 1.056 | Accepted |
| C2 | Labor Household | −0.036 | −1.281 | 0.201 | 1.170 | Rejected |
| C3 | Education | 0.047 ** | −1.933 | 0.004 | 1.297 | Accepted |
| C4 | Experience | 10.033 | −1.504 | 0.134 | 1.631 | Rejected |
| C5 | Ethnic Group | −0.024 | −0.903 | 0.367 | 1.145 | Rejected |
| C6 | Farm Size | 0.027 | 1.125 | 0.261 | 1.793 | Rejected |
| C7 | Labor Assess | 0.039 | 0.933 | 0.352 | 1.211 | Rejected |
| C8 | Machine Access | −0.052 | −1.151 | 0.251 | 1.272 | Rejected |
| C9 | Fertilizer use | 0.038 | 0.871 | 0.385 | 1.332 | Rejected |
| C10 | Pesticide use | −0.031 | −0.747 | 0.456 | 1.242 | Rejected |
| C11 | Credit Access | 0.008 *** | −0.192 | 0.000 | 1.085 | Accepted |
Notes: R2 = 0.724; Adjusted R2 = 0.695, F = 114.728; *** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.1.
SEM estimation.
| Outcome Variable | TPB Aspect | Estimate | S.E. | C.R. |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intention SAP | <--- | Attitude | 0.238 | 0.089 | 3.990 | 0.000 *** |
| Intention SAP | <--- | Subjective Norms | 0.136 | 0.089 | 2.167 | 0.030 ** |
| Intention SAP | <--- | Perceived Behavior Control | 0.182 | 0.090 | 3.041 | 0.002 *** |
Notes: S.E is the standard errors while C.R is composite reliability. <--- means that there is a relationship with the outcome variable. *** p < 0.01, and ** p < 0.05.
Figure 3Structural model. Note: ATT = Attitude; SN = Subjective Norms; PBC = Perceived Behavior Control; INSAP, Intention to adopt Sustainable Agricultural Practices.