Adoption of green fertilizer technology among paddy farmers: A possible solution for Malaysian food security

Land Use Policy 63 (2017) 38–52

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Land Use Policy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/landusepol

Adoption of green fertilizer technology among paddy farmers: A possible solution for Malaysian food security Nadia Adnan a,∗ , Shahrina Md Nordin a , Imran Rahman b , Amir Noor c a b c

Department of Management and Humanities, Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS (UTP), 32610 Bandar Seri Iskandar, Perak, Darul Ridzuan, Malaysia Department of Fundamental and Applied Sciences, Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS (UTP), 32610, Bandar Seri Iskandar, Perak, Darul Ridzuan, Malaysia Department of Computer Science, London Metropolitan University, 166-220 Holloway Rd, Holloway, London N7 8DB, United Kingdom

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 12 October 2016 Received in revised form 31 October 2016 Accepted 18 January 2017 Available online 25 January 2017 Keywords: Adoption decision Paddy farmer Malaysia TPB EUT GFT

a b s t r a c t Fertilizer is one of the critical contributions that is being used in order to improve agricultural productivity. Whereas, using Green fertilizer technology (GFT) is a means of improving the environmental concerns. Paddy production using green fertilizer technology potentially allows for sustainable development and helps farmers to increase the yield in Malaysia. The application of GFT in the modern agricultural industry is highly needed for food security in many developing nations, including Malaysia. The Malaysian government focuses more on paddy over other different essential crops for the implication of GFT because paddy has always been considered as the main commodity and the staple food crops for the country. Whereas, Malaysia needs to be self-sufficient because the nation produces nearly 72% of the paddy whilst the rest needs to be imported from other countries. Paddy yield in Malaysia is still lower than those other commodities under comparable conditions. Therefore, the production cost is significantly higher which results in a low perception about the adoption decision of GFT. Paddy production in Malaysia using GFT potentially allows for sustainable development and helps farmers to increase the yield. The foremost role of paddy farmers is to deliver sufficient food supply to the country. However, paddy farmers have largely managed their business by using traditional methods of farming with an outcome that is near to halting the productivity and farming income. Whilst, the Malaysian government, extension services, and Malaysian Agricultural Research and Development Institute (MARDI) stimulate paddy farmers to use GFT, which increases productivity without damaging the environment. This particular research focuses on the conceptual framework grounded on the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB), Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA), and Expected Utility Theory (EUT) in order to study the adoption decision of GFT amongst the Malaysian paddy farmers. This conceptual framework elucidates the adoption decisions by means of a self-motivated process, presuming a composite interaction group of a variable which came from all these three different theories. The combination of the TPB, TRA, and EUT overcomes some limitations that ascend when just one theory is used to examine the adoption decision amongst paddy farmers in Malaysia. Overall, the outcome of this research will suggest a strategic extension plan for advocating the use of GFT amongst farmers and hence help them to develop sustainable agricultural practices. Adoption of GFT amongst paddy farmers gives a possible solution for the Malaysian Food Security. © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction In the agricultural sector, innovation is a nearly continuous action (Micheels and Nolan, 2016). Investigation of the agricultural innovation towards the adoption decision has been a long inter-

∗ Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (N. Adnan), shahrina [email protected] (S. Md Nordin), [email protected] (I. Rahman), [email protected] (A. Noor). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.01.022 0264-8377/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

est amongst social scientists over the past few years (Aker, 2011; Maertens and Barrett, 2013). To a certain extent, there have been several research studies related to the technology adoption decision in the agricultural industry carried out worldwide (Panwar et al., 2011; Pereira, 2011). Whilst most of the researches are in the context of developed countries where several technologies in the agricultural industry have been examined, they also determine the various factors affecting the adoption decision (Borges et al., 2014; Kassie et al., 2013; Läpple and Kelley, 2013; Pereira, 2011). However, the construction of the agriculture decision processes in the adoption of innovation is ineffectively understood in the

N. Adnan et al. / Land Use Policy 63 (2017) 38–52

Nomenclature GFT EUT TRA TPB BI PBC FAO NB SN PU SAP

Green fertilizer technology Expected utility theory Theory of reasoned action Theory of planned behavior Behavioral intention Perceived behavioral control Food and agriculture organization Normative beliefs Subjective norm Perceived usefulness Sustainable agricultural practices

developing countries (Sambodo, 2007; Tey, 2013). The researcher highlighted the agriculture decision process in the adoption of innovation amongst the farmers in Malaysia. Whereas, Tey et al. (2014) specified that there are numerous limitations towards the technologies and innovation adoption decision amongst Malaysian farmers. Here, in this research study, an attempt has been made to define the major constraints on the adoption decision amongst Malaysian farmers. These constraints are identified as: the extent to which the farmers find the new technology complex and difficult to comprehend, how readily observable the outcomes of adoption decisions are, its financial cost, the farmer’s beliefs and opinions towards the technology, the farmer’s level of motivation, the farmer’s perception of the relevance of the new technology, and the farmer’s attitudes towards risk and change (Guerin and Guerin, 1994; Tey, 2013). Therefore, understanding this phenomenon is essential to maximise the agriculture technology adoption decision amongst farmers (Tey, 2013). Addressing these issues of the technology adoption decision is the major concern amongst agricultural economists and policy makers in Malaysia (Jamsari et al., 2012). Thus, most of the researchers have collectively suggested that the adoption decision depends on the wide range of the spectrum like socio-economic, agro-ecological, institutional, informational, and psychological as well as a cultural factor (Baumgart-Getz et al., 2012; Prokopy et al., 2008). All these spectra of research paradigms have been led by the distinct line of studies, such as sociology, psychology, agriculture extension, economic, and marketing perspective (Pannell et al., 2006; Pereira, 2011; Tey et al., 2013). Therefore, most of the models on the adoption of innovation have inclined towards making the decision of adoption (Edwards-Jones, 2006; Tey et al., 2014). According to the previous studies, authors Edwards-Jones (2006) and McGuire et al. (2013) proposed that there is a need of prescribed assimilation of the sociological, economical, and psychological variables in the appropriate models. The researcher believes that this concern should be addressed to get a better understanding of the farmer’s decision towards the adoption of innovation (Dill et al., 2015). However, the present study is highlighting the innovation which is based on sustainable agriculture development adoption of the environmentally-friendly innovation called ‘Green Fertilizer Technology (GFT)’. GFT enhances the food security of the nation and gives it self-sufficiency. Despite all the past studies, the research on GFT adoption is too limited to address the paddy farmers’ intention towards the adoption decision in the Malaysian perspective (Othman and Muhammad, 2011). To make farmers understand the benefit of the adoption of GFT fertilizer is the core issue (Kunasekaran et al., 2011; Takahashi, 2008). According to some authors (Hezri and Ghazali, 2011; Reimer et al., 2012), the adoption decision of GFT fertilizer is only possible when their economic and non-economic goal is satisfied. However, most of the researchers stated that the farmer’s decision and behaviour have been deliberated on by dual core dis-

39

tinct methods like economic and non-economic, separately. For instance, we can take the purely economic literature of Austin et al. (1998), where he discussed that farmers’ adoption decisions are based on a normative theory. This theory assumes that the decision can be demonstrated only in a way that farmers maximise the profit. Nevertheless, this literature cannot explain the complete complexity of the adoption decision amongst the farmers (Austin et al., 1998). Furthermore, the model does not produce the maximum profit, and fails to recognise the farmer’s behaviour (Baumgart-Getz et al., 2012; Willock et al., 1999). Understanding the farmers’ behaviour regarding the adoption of GFT requires multidisciplinary considerations. To resolve the problem, this research posits a better understanding through two different approaches in the field of agricultural economics about the farmer’s decision and behaviour. Primarily, a set of common factors is mainly founded on the model of economics, where the Expected Utility theory (EUT) plays the main role. Secondly, the socio-psychological theories, where the variable of the psychological factor explains the behaviour of farmers for an instant to adopt GFT. Whilst, the most relevant theories that have been used by the researcher to understand the farmer’s behaviour and attitude were developed by Fishbein and Ajzen (1975), the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) (Ajzen, 1991) and the Theory of Planned behaviour (TPB) (Ajzen, 1991). The motivation behind this proposed work tries to concentrate on the GFT adoption amongst the paddy farmers because it helps them to increase the yield and gives them a better understanding of environmental sustainability by rearranging, classifying, and integrating the adoption decision based on the generic framework of the EUT and TPB. For instance, Jamsari et al. (2012) gave a general view of these variables that may influence the adoption decision amongst the paddy farmers. A review on GFT adoption is given by Othman (2012); but here, he did not mention the cultural aspect and economical aspect in terms of the adoption decision. The framework of Wauters and Mathijs (2013) observed a rising interest on the socio-psychological way to study the adoption decision. Whereas, they further argue that this interest has been induced by the growing dissatisfaction of the classical variable in the research study of the adoption. Knowler and Bradshaw (2007) and Llewellyn et al. (2012) stated that, such a variable inclines to be irrelevant. Accordingly, the researcher tries to bring the work from the past variable into the research study of the adoption. Consequently, the researcher tries to bring the work from the past and add all these variables, socio-economic, agro-ecological, institutional, informational, and psychological. The insight from these models’ prototypes leads towards the conceptual framework form in order to make enhanced understanding and articulate the research restraint.

2. Contribution of this study This research also covers the adoption of agricultural innovations by means of insight ideas from the TPB and EUT along with the External factors to discover the aspects that effect agronomists’ decisions towards the usage of GFT. Whereas, the main purpose of this research article is to establish a conceptual framework with the integration of the EUT and TPB or TRA along with the external factors in order to study Malaysian paddy farmer’s adoption decision on GFT. Motivated by this phenomenon of economic and non-economic goals, it gives farmers better understanding towards the adoption of GFT; which, has been provided in this proposed work, using the Malaysian paddy production sector as a research study. This review article has the goal of revising most of the factors that influence the farmer’s decision on adoption of GFT, by integrating and rearranging the most common factors along with

40

N. Adnan et al. / Land Use Policy 63 (2017) 38–52

the four external variables, such as the socio-economic factors, agro-ecological factors, institutional factors, and informational factors that influence Malaysian paddy adoption decisions towards GFT. These visions can be used to regulate present strategies and to advance new strategy initiatives to encourage the implementation and usage of this practice by agronomists. The remaining parts of this research consist of 10 major sections. The “Literature review” section gives the comprehensive research directly related to the extended theory of planned behaviour. Based on this review research, the conceptual framework helps the researcher to get a better understanding about the innovation. The theories to adopt GFT amongst the paddy farmers and the TRA/TPB, EUT literature summaries are then reviewed. The data and methodology sections provide the description regarding our systematic review study. Lastly, discussions, implications and limitations of this study are done followed by the “Conclusion” Section. 3. Literature review Most of the substantial researchers in the field of the adoption of agricultural innovations have started from the year 2009. Grounded in this point of view, we largely reviewed case studies from 2009 and onwards, and we trust that upcoming research thrusts on the behaviour of farmers towards the GFT adoption could add additional value towards the total understanding of the adoption decision theories in the Malaysian perspective. 3.1. Agricultural innovations and its adoption The adoption of agriculture innovation changes has been acknowledged as a critical component of productivity and economic growth (Ruttan, 2000). Whereas, the rapid adoption of new technologies in the agriculture sector has sustained growth in agricultural productivity and ensured a profusion of food (Bruegel, 2011). Technological innovations and their adoption have also changed the way of farm households with regards to employment choices (Bruegel, 2011). Labour-saving technologies, in particular, have allowed farm household members to increase income by seeking off-farm employment (Mishra and Holthausen, 2002). Innovation is a new idea or practice by an individual (Rogers, 2003). It can be termed as the application of knowledge for practical purposes. According to Bowman and Zilberman (2013) and Jaim and Akter (2012), agricultural innovation is considered as an important and necessary component in the development of agricultural activities. Innovation may be new varieties of seeds, new types of pesticides or fertilizer for adoption which results to enhance the yield of the crop for an upcoming scenario (Shiferaw et al., 2011). The comparison of different types of innovation has been carried out in the next section. 3.2. Comparing the different agricultural innovations Agricultural innovation is crucial to the discourse towards ecological glitches in a world that is essentially, quickly reaching up to ‘nine’ billion individuals. Whilst agricultural innovation has a huge impact on poverty, and food insecurity drives hand in hand with it. With 2 billion starving poor in developing nations, short term food security is an unavoidably advanced urgency in order to get a sustainable environment. In general, most of the research on the innovation adoption has been carried over the last three decades. The agricultural innovations are constructed on extraordinary elastic variations which are in fact a package of cohesive technologies. On the broader perspective, there are two broad types of technologies that are promoted for the routine usage of farmers within Malaysia and other developing countries according to the suggested benefit of these technologies. Amongst those

recent technologies, the narration of the first type builds on external responses, such as improved seeds, mineral fertilizer, enhanced pesticides, and viable irrigation. In the Malaysian farming segment, irrigation and pesticides are rarely used for maize production, which is highly concentrated on improved maize seeds and mineral fertilizer. Enriched maize seeds include maize hybrids and openpollinating varieties (OPVs) developed by private and public sector breeding programmes. The second type of technologies are NRM practices, such as conservation agriculture, and soil and water management techniques used for organic manure. The concrete NRM technologies included in this study are labelled in the following paragraphs. NRM strategies are mainly developed to deal with moderate environmental stresses mainly land degradation and nutrient depletion. Soil and water management practices are constructional terraces and soil bunds, which are highly promoted to curb problems of soil erosion. On one hand, terraces are constructed walls that retain embankments of soil. This embedded construction involves preparing a base for the wall, transporting construction rocks, and carefully layering the stones. Soil bunds, on the other hand, are embankments made by ridging soil on the lower side of a ditch along a slope contour (Gebremedhin and Swinton, 2003). Soil bunds can be constructed by hand digging or ploughing, which is cheaper than building stone terraces but usually less effective in terms of reducing water erosion. However, considering both technologies in the adoption analysis benefits the local farming sector in general. Conservation agriculture aims to decrease the disturbance of the soil structure to reduce erosion and improve water and nutrient management. Conservation agriculture encompasses three components, namely, reduced tillage (zero/minimum tillage), permanent soil cover through crop residue management (mulching), and crop rotation (Hobbs et al., 2008). In modern practice, these components are not always adopted in combination, so zero tillage and crop residue management are considered as two separate technologies in the adoption analysis. Adoption of zero tillage gets facilitated by additional inputs, such as chemical herbicides and direct speeder equipment. Selfgoverning tillage practices, such as mulching, helps reduce soil evaporation and the maximum temperatures on the soil surface that also increases water infiltration, soil porosity, and aggregation stability. According to Sayer and Cassman (2013), one of the major focuses on literature in the recent years is to address a suitable innovation that improves the yield productivity. For instance, in the context of farming, this technology allows farmers to become more efficient and highly productive as compared to legacy practices. Eventually, considering the usage of GFT as an additional technology will help to improve nutritional supply and organic deficiencies in the soil. In order to get beneficial advantages from GFT in general, it has to be successfully linked with the country’s overall development objectives and applied to solve socio-economic problems (Tey, 2013). It is not necessary for all the profitable technologies to be adopted since barriers to practice new technologies and the unavailability of the market for background factors associated with the new technology can limit their effectiveness (Hosseini and Wahid, 2013). In this research study, we are dealing with the adoption of GFT. 3.3. Green fertilizer technology (GFT) In the agriculture industry, GFT refers to new seed and fertilizer inputs. The use of a green fertilizer input gives food security (Amekawa, 2013). Major emphasis on GFT was just emerging in the late 1960s as farmers were not aware of the issues related to enhancing the farm production through GFT (Smale et al., 2015). Globally, including the Asian and Pacific countries, the initiative to encourage the Agro-based and environmentally-friendly inno-

N. Adnan et al. / Land Use Policy 63 (2017) 38–52

vation amongst farmers is named GFT. The purpose of the GFT application is to link agriculture with the environmentally-friendly technology, which contributes to both the sustainable agriculture development and increased production (Ghadiyali Tejaskumar and Kayasth Manish, 2012). Though, the adoption decision to use GFT fertilizer is a universal issue in the agriculture industry which has contributed significantly towards environmental sustainability and increasing the production (Conway and Barbier, 2013). Yet, few of them considered that the increase in production was only possible due to unsustainable practices. For instance, if we consider mono-cropping, it gives an economically efficient practice which increases the yield for the short term but it damages the soil quality hence increasing vulnerability in the crop (Tey, 2013). Whereas, the previous discussion suggests that unsustainable agricultural practices are not only problematic at the farm level, but they also reduce soil as well as crop quality hence endangering the farmers’ health (Altieri et al., 2012). Therefore, these aspects are negatively affected as they affects farm productivity (Altieri et al., 2012). Consequently, this difficult case is generated for realising sustainable agriculture development which inclines them towards the adoption of GFT fertilizer (Anderson and Feder, 2007). However, the adoption rates of GFT have been low in developing countries (Pingali, 2012). Whereas, Pingali (2012) further stated that there is no widespread use of GFT happening in developing countries. Moreover, some African countries have had little success in their GFT fertilizer promotion (Amigun et al., 2011). Whereas, South American countries have shown relatively positive development, but their progress remains unsatisfactory. Though official statistics are not available for Asian countries, similar observations have been noted by researchers from Iran (Shiva, 2016), Pakistan (Sheikh et al., 2006; Hussain et al., 2011), the Philippines (Shiva, 2016) and Malaysia (Chiew and Shimada, 2013). To this end, the observed levels of GFT adoption have not sufficiently justified the billions of dollars of investment and the significant effort that has been devoted to promoting their benefits. Policymakers have expressed disappointment and have pleaded to understand the phenomenon (Pannell et al., 2006). Therefore, this proposed work has a potential for greater understanding of farmers’ behaviour within which GFT adoption decisions are being made (Adnan et al., 2016a,b). Using the Malaysian Paddy production sector as a case study, opportunities will be revealed to increase the extent of the GFT adoption in the country, thereby having broad implications for other countries, especially developing ones such as Malaysia. There are many agricultural commodities in Malaysia that require the application of GFT like rubber, palm oil, cocoa, and paddy. Particularly in this study, the researcher is highlighting the paddy industry because it is one of the most important agricultural crops besides palm oil and rubber, which has been growing in both peninsular and east Malaysia (Fahmi et al., 2013). The Malaysian government authority focuses more on the paddy industry because it is the staple food for the nation apart from palm oil and rubber (Ramli et al., 2012). However, the total annual production of rice stands at 2.51 million metric tons, but this is not up to the consumption mark (FAOstat, 2009). To enhance the firm production through sustainable means is the major thrust of the national policies which can be possible with the adoption of GFT that helps to increase the production without damaging the environment. So far, prior studies conducted on the GFT adoption amongst farmers have covered a wide range of the spectrum, including the sociology of the farmer’s motivation as a stimulator of behaviour (Sherk, 2012) which helps farmers to increase production. An empirical test of farmer’s adoption of GFT’s measurement has been carried out with respect to their traditional demographical base segmentation, (sex, age, income, etc.) values and beliefs, difference in culture (Palis, 2006), environmental attitude (Baumgart-Getz et al., 2012), and difference in motivation belief amongst farmers (Balmford et al., 2012). Mariano et al. (2012)

41

specified that the farmer’s behaviour is a continuous process that includes diverse yet interrelated stages within the society towards the adoption of GFT that helps farmers to increase the yield. 4. Theories to adopt GFT among farmers Research on the theories about the adoption decision of technology is considered to be one of the most mature areas of modern agricultural development. Reasonably, over the years, a variety of theoretical models have been practically modified and combined from the assorted disciplines, such as social psychology, sociology, and marketing, in order to provide understanding and predict the validated determinants of the adoption (Adnan et al., 2016a,b). Therefore, choosing a number of theories and variables appropriately with substantial theoretical backgrounds is considered to be a challenging task (Venkatesh et al., 2003). For establishing an extended model in the present study, the scholar has intentionally reviewed a number of models and their variables in the following subsections and has adopted an approach to select a number of variables that produced a number of the substantial results in previous literature. 4.1. The dimensions of theory of planned behaviour (TPB) This theory incapacitates the constraint of the Theory of reasoned action (TRA) to predict the behaviour under the condition where individuals have a low level of violation control. Ajzen (1991) proposed the revised version of the TRA which is known as the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB). In the year of 1999, Ajzen incorporated an additional exogenous variable, specifically the Perceived Behaviour Control (PBC). Whilst, in the previous research, the TRA was constructed (i.e., attitude to behavioural intention (BI) and subjective norm) in order to predicate planned and deliberate behaviour. The research was made to explain certain conditions when individuals intend to carry out some behaviour but the original behaviour was not satisfied due to a lack of confidence or control over the behaviour as it failed to produce the desired result (Miller and Howell, 2005). Whereas, the outcome of the PBC and TPB was added by Ajzen (1985) as the direct cause of the behaviour, indirectly through the BI to the behaviour. From the perspective of Taylor and Todd (1995), the PBC is defined as the ‘perception of internal and external constraints on behaviour’. Furthermore, the behavioural control explains the beliefs about the presence of some factor that may facilitate the performance of the behaviour. Similarly, theoretical models like TRA and TPB have been adopted in various studies and produced important results. For example, Chau and Hu (2001) and Conner et al. (1999) used it in healthcare settings; Nguyen et al. (1997) used it for exercise purposes; and Conner et al. (2003) used it in diet control settings. Within the agriculture domain, a number of research studies have taken place emphasising the importance of the PBC construction in determining the BI and usage (Chau and Hu, 2001; Foxall, 1997; and Taylor and Todd, 1995). Because of the extensive repetition and generalisability, the TPB (Fig. 1) has been refined by a number of research studies. A study conducted by Beedell and Rehman (2000) on farmers understanding argued that these theories’ effort is to edge people behaviour with the help of inadequate amount of psychological contracts. Whereas, Hansson et al. (2012) mentioned that both the theories of TRA and TPB accept that the human behaviour originates from people’s intention to achieve a precise behaviour. In the theory of TRA, behavioural intention determined by two major constructs such as attitude and subjective norms. Further, Burton (2004) on farmers’ decision process stated that original reason of using this construct was that people cannot perform independently because they are referring their cultural and

42

N. Adnan et al. / Land Use Policy 63 (2017) 38–52

Fig. 1. Adapted from Theory of Planned Behaviour. Source: (Ajzen, 1991)

social norm and behaviour back to the reference group. In addition, Beedell and Rehman (2000) indicated that perceived behavioural control is also assumed to influence intention in TPB. They further postulate that behavioural intention is to perform the behaviour, attitude is a notch to where behaviour executes significantly and non-significantly; Subjective norm refers the people perception and social pressures upon them to perform or not perform; lastly, the Perceived behavioural control refers the own capability to successful perform a behaviour. Wauters et al. (2010) specified that the attitude, subjective norm and perceived behavioural controls lead to positive and negative intention to perform the behaviour. Additionally, control beliefs, normative beliefs, and behavioural beliefs invented subjective norm, attitude and perceived behavioural control (Hansson et al., 2012). However, it assumes that in our current research setting, TPB play a major role in the better understanding of Malaysian paddy farmer’s adoption decision towards GFT. Furthermore, Table 1 shows the related work on TRA/TPB and EUT in regards to agricultural discipline in different country context. 4.2. The dimensions of expected utility theory (EUT) Expected Utility theory (EUT) is proposed by Schoemaker in 1982. Furthermore, he observed that the major decision theory under risk is EUT since the Second World War II (Henseler, 2002). Expected Utility Theory (EUT) is used as a prescriptive theory in Management Science (e.g. decision analysis). Whereas, in Finance and Economics, it is used as a predictive theory for psychology function as a descriptive theory (Schoemaker, 1982). This theory states that the decision maker chooses between risky or indeterminate prospects by comparing their expected utility values, i.e., the weighted sums obtained by adding the utility values of outcomes multiplied by their respective probabilities (Mongin, 1997). While, Schoemaker (1982) mentioned that the principle of psychological perception expresses that human response system tends to be relative rather than about judgments. It represents the decreasing magnitude of perception of the stimulus. Specifically, the stimulus is for the monetary outcome in EUT, though it measures the perception only. Generally, EUT has been using in many diverse fields and produced significant results. Particularly in this research, the researcher highlighted the study related to farmers. According to EUT theory, farmers associate the invention with the outdated technological innovation and adopt if the expected utility from accepting surpasses the expected utility of the outdated technological innovation (Batz et al., 1999). This theory states that the expected utility task is an unnoticed variable, subsequently the relationship among the expected utility are analogous to each alter-

native observed variable as an error term. By using this model in adoption decisions of individual perspective, Ross et al. (2010) concluded that, adoption of GFT provides a natural setting for testing the importance of ambiguity-aversion for decision-making among the farmers. Following the view on adoption in EUT, it is assumed that it is very effective in the Malaysian paddy farmers for their adoption decision towards GFT. 5. TRA/TPB and EUT literature summary TRA/TPB and EUT articles are summarized in the table given below (Table 1). The Proposed works showed the insight but not clearly stated the use of TRA/TPB and EUT. Whereas, Table 1 explains that EUT has been used in different type of studies based on technology innovation worldwide in the agricultural perspective. One might observe that the focal point of EUT is that farmers have only one objective that is to maximize the profit. However, this theory would be used to study innovation that is expected to increase profitability. Whereas, Wubeneh and Sanders (2006) highlighted that EUT is not only used for the adoption of innovation that is expected to increase profitability but it also explains the adoption of sustainable and conversation techniques. Furthermore, Table 1 also specifies that TPB/TRA have been used in agricultural economics with at least two objectives: clarify the generic behaviour (Beedell and Rehman, 2000) and government agencies behaviour (Bergevoet et al., 2004) or a specific one (Martínez-García et al., 2013). These philosophies have been used to explain different types of innovation mainly in developed countries. Rather using the decision concept, TRA/TPB papers are based on adoption study considering farmers decision as a specific behaviour. Construct are categorized in the following group: beliefs; perception about characteristics of the innovation, psychological construct, encompassing behavioural intention, attitude, subjective norms and perceived behavioural control and the external factor which includes socio-economic, informational, institutional, agro-ecological factors. By summing up the findings of past studies, it is now clear that the adoption decision is the result of multi-dimensional considerations. This fits with the reality that farming decisions are multidisciplinary (Conway, 1985). Focusing on one particular dimension does not seem justified in explaining the complexity of decision-making (Borges, 2015). It is, therefore, necessary to discuss previous research frameworks as to whether or not they are able to handle the complexity whilst being grounded theoretically, and in addition, being split into sub-components or frameworks. By synthesising the reviewed studies, previous research frameworks

N. Adnan et al. / Land Use Policy 63 (2017) 38–52

43

Table 1 Review Papers on TRA/TPB and EUT. Author (s)

Application

Type of Innovation

Finding

Model

Terano et al. (2015)

Malaysia

Sustainable agriculture practice

TRA/TPB

Martínez-García et al. (2013)

Mexico

Improve grassland practices

Reimer et al. (2012)

United States

Best management practices

Wauters et al. (2010)

Belgium

Soil conservation practice

Bergevoet et al. (2004)

Netherlands

Entrepreneurial behaviour

Beedell and Rehman (2000)

United Kingdom

Conservation behaviour

Willock et al. (1999)

Scotland

Dill et al. (2015)

Brazil

Business and environmentally-oriented behaviour Livestock farming

Farmer has a positive attitude toward intention to adopt Sustainable Agricultural Practices (SAP). Farmers’ intention to adopt innovation mainly associated with farm characteristics and income coming from milk production. Perceived characteristics of Conservation practices play major role in adoption PBC acts as perceived difficulty (hard) and perceived control (easy) in adoption. The stronger relationship when statements on attitudes, social norms, and perceived behavioral control are included in adoption. More environmentally less aware farmers were less influenced by farm management adoption of innovation. Multiple attitudes influence in adoption decision.

Kassie et al. (2013)

Tanzania

Sustainable agriculture practice

Jara-Rojas et al. (2012)

Chile

Water conservation practice

Mazvimavi and Twomlow (2009)

Zimbabwe

Conservation Techniques

Wubeneh and Sanders (2006)

Ethiopia

Technologies for increase sorghum productivity

Adesina and Zinnah (1993)

Sierra Leone

Rice varieties

Kebede et al. (1990)

Ethiopia

Both Pesticides and fertilizers

D’Emden et al. (2008)

Australia

Conservation tillage

can be grouped into two categories: economic and non-economic factors. These have been created to explain the adoption of GFT from different perspectives. An individual perspective, in addition, is split into sub-components or frameworks. These frameworks have been used to hypothesise that the selected dimension(s) can advance our understanding of the issues. Whereas, Table 2 highlights the insight of the research framework. By synthesizing the reviewed studies, previous research frameworks can be grouped into two categories: economic and non-economic factors. These have been created to explain the adoption of GFT from different perspectives. An individual perspective, in addition, is split into sub-components or frameworks. These frameworks have been used to hypothesize that selected dimension(s) can advance our understanding of the issues. Whereas, Table 2 highlights the insight of the research framework.

6. The economic category Research on the economic category is based on branches of an economic theory (Leigh and Blakely, 2013). Despite slight variations in their assumptions, they all are built upon the utility maximisation theory. The theory explains that farmers choose the “best” production practices in order to achieve a utility with their limited resources (Lynne et al., 1995). The theory is less restrictive than a profit maximisation framework (Lynne et al., 1988). Hence,

Farmer who has internet access participate in greater number of association high adoption rate Analyzed that probability and level of adoption of multiple SAPs only took place by economic mean Social factors and economic play the main factor in adoption. Most of the farmers are adopting any technology when they become an expert. Adoption took place among farmers b/c of information. Non-adopter obtains due to lack of information Farmer perceptions about technology-specific attributes of the varieties are the major factors determining adoption and use intensities. The forecasted probabilities of technology adoption by an average farmer are found to increase intensely with the education level and exposure or access to external information. Technology adoption influence farmers towards higher production.

TRA/TPB

TRA/TPB

TRA/TPB TRA/TPB

TRA/TPB

TRA/TPB

EUT

EUT

EUT EUT EUT

EUT

EUT

EUT

Table 2 Research Frameworks. Categories

Research frameworks

Dimensions

Economic

Expected utility theory

Non-economic

Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB)

Perception about Cost Perception about Benefit Perception about Risk Socio- Economic Factors Agro-Ecological Factors Institutional Factors Informational Factors Psychological Factors

profit may not be a total representation of utility. In fact, an emerging utility is a hybrid of movements, thinking, and action towards achieving income and environmental sustainability. Here, farmers are seen as rational, trying to optimise their particular utility out of their available resources. Economic research is, therefore, based on a decision algorithm for individual farmers. 6.1. The non-economic category Research in the psycho-social category is based on a school of psychological theories. They focus on mental processes that move toward behaviour modification. Adoptive decisions are assumed to be rational although they are entirely left to the consideration processes by the individual farmer (Tey, 2013). Two popular theories

44

N. Adnan et al. / Land Use Policy 63 (2017) 38–52

have been used in behavioural research: (1) the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) and (2) the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB). The TRA reasons that behaviour can be explained by the intention to perform the behaviour (Ajzen, 2011). The intention is, in turn, a function of attitude and subjective norm. In other words, they have an indirect relationship with the behaviour. A positive attitude that illustrates a farmer’s disposition towards GFT is likely to contribute towards mental health (Tey and Brindal, 2012). Furthermore, the next section describes the factors that influence farmers to adopt GFT. 6.2. Factors influencing the adoption decision The adoption decision is the ultimate objective of diffusion (Borges, 2015). According to Rogers, (2003), adoption is “a decision to make full use of an innovation as the best course of action available.” In respect to GFT, the decision-making involves multidimensional considerations (Baumgart-Getz et al., 2012; Knowler and Bradshaw, 2007; Tey and Brindal, 2012). They can be grouped into- (1) farmer’s perception, (2) Beliefs and psychological factors, (3) socio-economic factors, (4) agro-ecological factors, (5) institutional factors, (6) informational factors, (7) farmer’s perception, (8) psycho-social factors and (9) decision to adopt. 6.3. Farmers perception The proposed work explains the EUT adoption decision processes comprising the farmer’s perception as a descriptive construct. This proposed work includes the perception benefit, risk, and cost associated with the GFT adoption. The other awareness cluster is founded on the assumption of what are the benefits and how the farmer perceives the benefits, risk, and cost related to the innovation. The researcher Roberts et al. (2004) used to do cost and benefit analyses associated with the innovation as a potential explanatory construct. According to Roberts et al., in the author’s clear supposition, farmers who are more informed about innovation, higher profit, and lower cost are more likely to adopt it. Their result confirms the proposition. These variables were dignified by asking farmers about their perception about the profitability of the GFT (benefit), the cost related with the GFT, and how the GFT will be important to them in the future. Additionally, the profitability in the model stated by Ghadim et al. (2005) is based on an idea from the EUT, where the farmer’s perceptions about the risk on innovation considered as another explanatory construct on the adoption decision. Whilst, Joao Augusto Rossi Borges et al. (2015) also mentioned that their finding demonstrates that the construct plays a significant role in the acceptance of innovation; whereas, the perceived profitability also plays a vital role in the adoption of innovation. 6.4. Beliefs and psychological constructs According to the projected studies founded on the use of the TRA/TPB, the construct related to beliefs features and psychological features, such as attitude, intention, perceived behavioural control, and subjective norm variables, stresses on every single one of them as to how they are being measured (Burton, 2004). However, the use of the TRA is to clarify the adoption decision (MartínezGarcía et al., 2013). Martínez-García et al. also used this particular theory in order to study the farmer’s behaviour in terms of innovation in Mexico. The researcher suggests that, the farmer’s intention to practice any innovation was inclined by significant referents towards their attitude which is confirmed by the hypothesis of the TRA. For instance, the application of the TPB in the adoption decision was originated by Wauters et al. (2010). Moreover, the researchers focused on the farmers from Belgium and their adoption behaviour towards soil conservation practice. The outcome of

Wauters et al. (2010) presented that, the furthermost significant factor regarding the adoption was the farmer’s attitudes towards the innovation of the soil conservation practices. 6.5. External factors In the literature, there are some common factors influencing the adoption of GFT and farm profitability. They can be categorised as socio-economic, agro-ecological, institutional factors and Informational factors. 6.5.1. Socio-economic factors Socio-economic factors influence the management capacity of farm operators, a fundamental feature of farm operation due to its complexity. The adoption of GFT is shown to be related to human capital: gender, age, and education (Tey, 2013). Age and education are also influential factors in farm profitability (Knowler and Bradshaw, 2007). Female farmers often have limited access to, and control over resources, especially in developing countries. Informal farming knowledge could be culturally rooted according to age (Reimer et al., 2012). Consequently, adoption is more likely amongst the male farmers, and certain groups are more inclined towards the innovation (Reimer et al., 2012). With greater management ability, higher education levels always induce adoption and better farm returns (Karami and Mansoorabadi, 2008). However, a shorter career horizon and diminished desire for efficiency amongst the older farmers is likely to limit adoption and financial performance (Reimer et al., 2012). Labour is an important input in the farm operation. As an internal source of labour, a large household is assumed to have access to many family labourers. Such family farms are expected to meet labour requirements at a lower cost, intensifying the adoption of labour-intensive GFT and farm profits (Knowler and Bradshaw, 2007). Otherwise, external labour can be recruited. A larger hired workforce is predicted to have the same effect upon the adoption but at the expense of farm earnings. Fiscal capacity determines the ability to undertake the costs and risks of farm investment as well as to spur farm growth (Sambodo, 2007). Higher financial capital is expected to facilitate adoption, and generate greater net farm incomes, under the rule of “investing money to make money” (Knowler and Bradshaw, 2007). Additional farm income or savings can be derived from the composted livestock manure. Alternatively, financial capacity for GFT adoption decision investment can be bolstered through off-farm employment and access to credit (Sambodo, 2007). However, the off-farm focus may compete with on-farm efforts and the interest on the credit may be burdensome, affecting farm financial performance negatively. Larger farms often have the greater financial capacity for adoption and higher net incomes through economies of scale and greater production (Reimer et al., 2012). Net incomes are also directly affected by the selling price of farm produce. 6.5.2. Agro-ecological factors Agro-ecological factors describe the irregularity of resource qualities on which farm operation depends (Tey, 2013). Farms in highlands are more prone to erosion and inputs runoff (Tiraieyari and Uli, 2011). The same problems are also intensified on steeper farms. In these features, GFT is likely to be used for protecting land and avoiding waste. However, the susceptibility of these farms to input runoff may complicate the assessment of the potential impact of GFT on farm financial performance (Reimer et al., 2012). A farm that is owned will be passed to successors and does not incur a fixed cost (rental). It is likely to be operated sustainably and at a lower cost, resulting in a higher net worth (Reimer et al., 2012). Given the difficulty of capturing all farm-specific characteristics, farm region is used as a conceptual factor to depict the differences

N. Adnan et al. / Land Use Policy 63 (2017) 38–52

in resource quality across regions. The effect of farm region upon adoption cannot be known as a priori. 6.5.3. Institutional factors Institutional factors exemplify the force of external structures in influencing farm management. First, farmer associations and cooperatives serve the interests of their members: production, purchasing, marketing, socialisation, and information-exchange services (Reimer et al., 2012). A common production practice used by the majority of members is likely to be adopted by other members (Jara-Rojas et al., 2012). Their bulk demand for agricultural input and capacity to bundle the output of paddy production enables greater bargaining power on behalf of individual members (Fischer et al., 2012). Hence, the financial consequence of membership is likely to be positive. Secondly, institutional arrangements (e.g., contract farming) enforce timely payment and supply of production with certain quality standards. Participants are unlikely to risk the arrangement by making a new investment. Some institutions also sell farm inputs and offer credit (Reimer et al., 2012). Given these mixed functions of institutional arrangements, the impact of their operation on farm profit is uncertain. Information disseminates knowledge and harnesses the GFT adoption. The information can be learned from many sources (e.g., extension services and other farmers). When information is seen to be useful, farmers are assumed to have access to particular sources, understand the information, and be able to make use of it. Highly useful information on GFT is likely to guide their adoption (Knowler and Bradshaw, 2007). 6.5.4. Informational factors Informational factors relate to knowledge acquisition. Access to information and its sources are general explanatory factors. Information plays a vital role in diffusing the knowledge of environmental issues, the need for GFT, and their beneficial functions (D’Emden et al., 2008). The information may come from one or more sources, such as extension services, being a member of an association, and programme participation (Sambodo, 2007). Informed farmers are likely to make favourable decisions. Amongst the discussed antecedents of the intention to adopt GFT, the cognitive aspect aims to capture the mental structures and processes in thinking, understanding, and interpreting relevant stimuli (Peter and Olson, 2009). To illustrate these, it is necessary that farmers develop certain expectations and beliefs about the various benefits of using GFT. Their expectations will have developed from their perceptions about the advantages of GFT (Pannell et al., 2006). Such subjective evaluation may consider the impact (s) of GFT on farm receipts, environmental health, resource quality and/or social well-being. How well these features are evaluated depends upon economic factors, including socio-economic and agro-ecological factors, organisational membership, and information quality (Reimer et al., 2012). In sum, the cognitive aspect is a proposition connecting economic factors, perceptions, expectations, intention, and behaviour. To address the key focus in this section, the proposition outlined above suggests a link between various economic factors and the thinking processes. This link opens a window for building an integrative theoretical framework in this study. Guided by it, both economic and non-economic factors along with the external factors are the highlighting point, currently. The factor that researchers mentioned here is not comprehensive towards the adoption decision of GFT amongst paddy farmers. There are many other factors that may affect the adoption decision. At this point, the researcher’s goal is to present the justification of why these constructs were not included in the previous model. There is no proper clarification given towards adopting agricultural innovation. Especially in this research, we are talking about the adoption decision of GFT. Adoption of GFT intersects

45

and bridges the gaps between theories. It has been recognise and overlapped between theories regarding attitude from the TRA/TPB which includes cost-benefit and risk derived from the EUT. In the practice of positive attitude, we need to incorporate the variables of benefit, cost, and risk. This overlap is also mentioned by Läpple and Kelley (2013) where the attitude can be understood as corresponding to the utility. Papers founded on the EUT assume that farmers may have only one objective- to maximise the profit. The EUT paper does not consider social factor as an interim to adopt GFT or any innovation. Whereas, the TRA/TPB considers the social pressure in regards to the GFT adoption by using a psychological construct called subjective norm. On the other hand, the TRA/TPB does not consider the background factors, especially information and learning process.

7. A conceptual framework on GFT adoption This conceptual framework explains that the adoption decision is an active process or a compound interface of the group of constructs which is as offered in Fig. 2. Above all, farmers must be aware of the benefits of GFT adoption. Whilst the term ‘awareness’ means that farmers must know about GFT and that it is potentially or practically significant for them. This framework begins with the point where the researcher states that both information and awareness are important aspects of the adoption decision (Zhou et al., 2008). Therefore, it is known that there are numerous constructs promoting farmer’s related issues like the awareness towards the attainment of knowledge. Though it is claimed in the framework as a self-motivation; therefore, those farmers who are not conscious of the GFT innovation may acquire more information and become aware of it. If the farmers are aware of the GFT adoption, they have the option to adopt, partially adopt or not adopt. Subsequently, for GFT, (Mariano et al., 2012) there may be a supplementary step in which farmers may decide to transform in order to adopt it more carefully to one’s circumstance. The theory, TRA or TPB, stressed that intention as a forecaster for a specific behaviour research also keeps it in the same way of postulation. The researcher’s focal point is the farmer’s intention towards the adoption of GFT. The study based on the TRA/TPB, such as attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioural control, leads in the direction of prompt behavioural intention, hence, the researcher also keeps to this way with the help of some changes on awareness about the innovation that influences farmer’s behavioural intention to adopt GFT. According to the TPB by Beedell and Rehman (2000), Normative Belief (NB) comes from the Subjective Norm (SN); whilst control belief comes from perceived behavioural control. This postulate is illustrated as follows where a farmer having the belief that GFT increases productivity assesses this outcome better if he has a portion of the increased profit. On the other hand, the psychological factor coming from the beliefs and awareness will result in the positive and negative intention to perform a behaviour to adopt, not adopt or partially adopt the GFT. Conversely, even when there is a positive intention, the adoption may not take place because of the farmer’s beliefs, awareness about the benefit, and cost. The background factor contains all these variables like characteristic of farmers, household, farm, an agricultural setting where the gaining of information is a learning process. Whereas, the farmers’ adoption or trail of adoption towards the GFT innovation alters the farmer’s perceptions and beliefs. The conceptual framework conveys some visions that must be reflected in the adoption research paradigm. The farmer’s adoption behaviour towards the GFT does not rely only on expected profit, but it also depends on the benefit to adopt GFT. Moreover, Mzoughi (2011) and Suri (2011) argued that, the expected profit and risk associated with the adoption of GFT are also considered. Farmers may also consider the social

46

N. Adnan et al. / Land Use Policy 63 (2017) 38–52

Fig. 2. Conceptual Frameworks.

factors and other benefits and risks associated with this adoption decision. Furthermore, Mzoughi (2011) strengthened the argument where they perceived that communal distresses affect the farmer’s decision towards adoption; where communally, distresses are the major problem which figures out the behaviour in the relationship towards a particular group, for instance, others farmer in the same region. In this framework, it has been noted that farmers may have more than one goal and objective to account for the decision of adoption towards the GFT. So, in this conceptual framework, it focuses more on the psychological factor in its place of exploiting the expected utility of revenue; we need to emphases on the explanation given by Burton (2004). He recognised the idea that a human is not involved in the economically optimum, but instead they optimise the socially inherent in the decision-making process. This argument is exemplified by Williams et al. (2012) who said farmers may have many objectives and goals in terms of adopting the innovation. When farmers make a decision to adopt GFT, they may take into account that innovation helps them to achieve their objectives and goals. Hence, the conceptual framework’s propositions are: a positive attitude leads to adoption, a positive assessment of how important the decision of others in the adoption is a subjective norm, and a positive belief that one has the resources to adopt the GFT is a perceived behavioural control which increases the possibility of the adoption of GFT. Awareness of the psychological construct

in terms of the GFT can also lead farmers towards the positive and negative adoption of GFT. The major factors about GFT adoption are the rate of availability, benefit cost, and risks connected with using GFT. Hence, the important aspects amongst the farmer’s decision to adopt any innovation are the beliefs and perception. In the past research on the EUT constructs, the background factors influence, directly, the decision to adopt or not to adopt (Liu, 2013). Under the framework developed by Abadi Ghadim et al. (1999) and Lien (2002) it is hypothesized that the demographic and social factors like age and experience influence the adoption decision with the influence of the subjective norms of perception and attitude. In the present conceptual framework, these factors directly influence the decision, but they have an indirect impact on the farmer’s perspective as well as beliefs, which gives a positive and negative impact on farmers. Whereas, farmers obtain more knowledge about GFT by accepting or partially accepting the farmer’s perceptions and beliefs that are predictable to change as emphasised in Fig. 2. The significance of this procedure is to obtain learning and information as stated by Ghadim and Pannell (1999); where, they stressed that innovation has important aspects of better adoption decision making. The conceptual framework on the adoption decision presented in this study provides useful insight in the study regarding the adoption decision of GFT. The researcher’s concern is more related

N. Adnan et al. / Land Use Policy 63 (2017) 38–52

to the farmer’s decision on the GFT adoption. In the past research, the focus was more on how they should make a decision. However, it is more important to highlight the complex factors making up the process of the decision making. A combination of the EUT, TRA, and TPB models along with external variables, and considering the various aspects links what is known about the adoption decision. Conversely, researchers argue that by using only one theory, the researchers may restrict their findings by not considering the different approaches in the direction of the adoption decision, especially in Malaysian paddy farming, because it is a staple food for the nation. Both the TRA and TPB do not reflect clearly the role of acquisition and information. Whereas, the EUT studies focus on farmers having just one objective- to maximise the profit. The combination of all these theories can help to overcome the restriction. Background factors may generate some controversy with other researcher groups by using variables differently. The pledge point of this conceptual framework is that variables as socioeconomic factors, agro-ecological factors, institutional factors, and informational factors have an indirect effect on the farmers’ beliefs and perceptions instead of the direct impact as we can see in the study of the EU theory. Lastly, including all these constructs and checking their relation properly is a challenge. Yet, researchers reflect that the conceptual framework provides a complete interpretation of the decision towards the adoption.

8. Methodology The credentials of dissimilar emerging literatures are the core contributors on the field of methodology review. The point of departure amongst most of the review studies is on the credentials of the top institutions, top authors, top journals’ thematic emphases, and the collections for the innovation studies of the credentials of the maximum vigorous journals & scholars for green innovation, and the identification of core research strands, key contributors, and most-cited publications for sustainability transitions. The main focus of this review article is based on the specific field of agricultural innovations and their usages. The three step descriptive methodology is used: primarily, the identification of the keywords and abstraction of the record using the Google Scholar databank as well as the Publish or Perish software database that repossesses and examines academic-based citations and the current measurements. Next, the quantitative examination of the databank, including the identification of the major contributors, such as the journal name and the author name; and lastly, the identification of the main research torrents research approach which is based on the quantitative research paradigm. Whereas, this particular segment gives a summary outline of the conceptual frameworks as well as approaches in terms of methodology which are implemented in the research literatures reviewed in this research article. Some papers researched were found to be outside the range of this article to widely review each of the bulk amounts of past researches that analyse the theoretical bases of the different methods critically which have been implemented to enlighten the farmer’s preferences, demand, and attitudes towards the latest innovations. From our point of view, it suffices to explain concisely the major theoretical backgrounds normally used along with the blend of key apprehensions rising, letting the journal reader ponder over the bigger scene, comprising the relations amongst various methods and ideas. In line with the GFT adoption, the implications of the innovations, which have been carried out by individual farmers are adaptive in nature. The outcome of such actions shows a complex behaviour even though arising from the background factors. This research study specifies the concerns towards a wide range of adoption literature by reviewing a range of agricultural innovation adoption, like the usage of

47

pesticides, fertilizers, conservation practices, sustainable practices, climate change adaptive measures, innovations (Solomon et al., 2012; Stern, 2000), and other technologies. Moreover, the study of Adesina and Baidu-Forson (1995) focused on the farmer’s perspective about agricultural innovation, and Baumgart-Getz et al. (2012) on why farmers build the perception of the adoptive behaviour towards innovation. However, Baumüller (2012) explained the role of hedonic symbolic behaviour towards farmers’ adoption. Beedell and Rehman (2000) postulated the adoption decision of farmers by using the socio-psychological factors. Most of the research studies have not assumed the factors that can cause them to move towards an easy technique for performing a review. So, there is a challenge for the researcher mainly in order to define and demonstrate the outcomes in a proper thought-out manner. Besides all the other measured methods used by the researcher (Borges et al., 2014) fits in our current research interest where they use the quantitative method by using cluster sampling techniques to validate the targeted farmer’s sample size and organised way to perform a review study. Although, Knowler and Bradshaw (2007) might consider the meta-analysis techniques, which are nearly distinctive without containing relatively multifaceted statistical measures. The findings, nonetheless, do not show any divergence and do meet the aim of accomplishing a review study. The straightforward methods of Bredehoeft and Alley (2014) termed as 5 fundamental mechanisms, have apprehended the main particulars of the previous studies. The fundamental components are country, authors’ specific adoption subject, model significance, and analytical methods. However, special consideration towards measuring components, such as number of variables and sample size, was not given in this study. Moreover, there is a dire need of proper attention towards individual analytical techniques to achieve different requirements consisting of statistical significance (regarding the different number of variables and sample size). Since the techniques mentioned above have some pros and cons, special consideration should be employed by summarising the outcomes from the previous research studies. In order to be more specific, the knowledge towards both the unsubstantial and substantial constructs measured must be apprehended together. The positive and negative effects will be considered in a later section of this paper irrespective of their indication that they are the central interest of this paper and will be used for our discussion. From this point, it is vital that our research review revolves around the significant factors that influence the adoption decision, hence presenting all the factors which can accomplish the economical and non-economic goals in order to adopt GFT. As it has been stated previously, carrying out such techniques needs the proper methodology. Nevertheless, Joao Augusto Rossi Borges et al. (2015) used the acceptance to the TPB and EUT techniques with certain employed measures. Henceforward, this determined that the segment is to present “add-on” information on these measures in the subsequent subdivisions. In line with the GFT adoption, the implications of the innovations, which have been carried out by every single farmer, are adaptive in nature. The outcome of such actions shows a complex behaviour even though arising from all the economical and non-economic goals. The 3 major research tactics (risk perception, attitudinal study and stated preference techniques in order to evaluate economy) are based on features of the “rational actor” philosophy of the research. A theoretically dissimilar tactic to comprehend the behaviour in the direction of the green fertilizer technology is named as symbolism and vastly refers to the exploration of the farmer’s study. Poppenborg and Koellner (2013) have newly initiated the influential study as well as lessons of the latest researches describing the meanings of innovation in a symbolic manner, and have also shown experiential outcomes concerning the innovation purchase. These literatures have basically assumed

48

N. Adnan et al. / Land Use Policy 63 (2017) 38–52

Fig. 3. The procedure of Methodology selection.

that cars symbolise concepts connected to self-distinctiveness as well as the selection of a particular car being utilised to connect beliefs, interests, social status, and values. Researches regarding the attitude depend typically on the ethnographic type of interviews. A possible caution in terms of using this method for the research of the latest technologies like GFT is that new symbolic meanings take time to appear and be communicated amongst farmers. Other innovative research approaches (which can be used in combination with the previously described methods) include experimental studies (involving direct or virtual driving/use or purchasing of agricultural innovation) or activity analysis. The activity analysis relies on a combination of interactive interviews and the use of household travel diaries, activity location maps, videos, and other information material that allow the respondents to develop the factors that help to understand the farmer’s needs towards the agricultural innovation adoption decision. The following segment will initially précise the outcomes from the different studies which have been conducted in the last five-year period linking precisely to GFT, and hence relate them to the latest trend of research in the domain of

the preferences and attitudes to GFT. Fig. 3 shows the methodology of the literature review used for this paper. 9. Data In line with this review paper, Google Scholar was used, because of its more comprehensive citation coverage in comparison to the ISI Web of Knowledge, to summarise the data that has been ended and initiated from the previous research study. Though, the researcher came to know that it involved a widespread instrument to examine and categorise a pool of pertinent searching skills. The majority of the studied articles were searched by using the Scopus, Science Direct databases. The search performed by means of the keywords ‘Adoption AND Personal Norm AND Farmers AND Environment’, resulted in 280 research papers (Journal Article: 45.71%, Book Chapter: 43.93%, Review: 2.1%) starting from the year 2009 up to 2016. Here in Fig. 4, the articles found for the above mentioned keywords are shown, graphically. Around 51% of the articles for the searched keywords have been available in the last 3–4 years,

N. Adnan et al. / Land Use Policy 63 (2017) 38–52

Fig. 4. Documents by type.

49

The pie chart below (Fig. 5) shows that the total number of publications by year using the key words in Scopus.

that particular innovation. Subsequently, the researchers restricted their review studies to the ten journals based on actual fact. Where they found that there were some studies that observed the adoption of innovation amongst farmers.As a combined set of these numbers of synopses, the researchers scrutinised 38 publications to find out the review result synthesis. Whereas, Fig. 6 illustrates the reviewed publications by author(s). 10. Discussion

Fig. 5. Documents by year.

showing a great research thrust in the domain of the Adoption of Green Fertilizer Technologies. Fig. 4 illustrates the documents by type versus the number of publications. Both in the year 2009 and 2010, 8% of the total journal articles had been published. As for the years 2011 and 2012, the number of publications was increased from 6% to 11%. The graphs show little rise in regards to published papers in 2013 and 2014 (16%). However, there was a steep rise in the year 2015 (20%). The use of the TPB for the farmer’s decisions and adoption behaviour was formulated by different numbers of research studies undertaken by the authors in the past few years, which is shown in Fig. 6 given below. Bowles, S.; Gintis, H.; and Yazdanpanah, M. have a maximum of 4 publications each. Moreover, Binder, C.R.; Feola, G.; Ostrom, E.; and Delgadillo-Puga, C. have a maximum 3 publications each. The list of authors who had 2 publications each is quite huge with more than 40 scholars, which were indicated in the bar chart specified underneath in the adoption of GFT amongst farmers for the last few years. In the survey, the objective was to examine the factors that influence farmers towards the adoption of GFT, and some explain why farmers are not adopting the innovation. Particularly, researchers were more interested in the manifestation of the adoption and non-adoption that has taken place by farmers. Henceforward, all those studies are based on forecasts, which measured the farmers’ intention, attitude and willingness to pay, to predict the future of

The secondary examination of this research paradigm puts emphasis on the identification of the core disciplines and research streams by discussing the mostly cited articles. The results show that the distribution of the GFT innovations has become a collective period in dissimilar technical societies, which has a notwithstanding base on a lack of formative work which emphasises the idea of the adoption of GFT innovations. Though approximately most of the cited articles have been taken into account for this research paper to get a better understanding of the farmer’s adoption of GFT, some of them have a specific research focus, such as the impact of cost and risk associated with innovation (Lynne et al., 1995), performance measurement of attitude (Karami and Mansoorabadi, 2008; Wauters et al., 2010; Willock et al., 1999) or impact of societal pressure (Bowman and Zilberman, 2013). All articles are relevant for the interdisciplinary fields of the research in the domain of innovation studies. Based on the review of the most relevant cited articles, it has been possible to identify some interdisciplinary research streams within three disciplines (Economics, Sociology, and Management) and two old-fashioned research fields (Marketing and Agent-Based Modelling) related to the adoption of agricultural innovation. Whereas, this research highlight the core factors which is based on TPB and EUT theory with the integration of these theory we can come up with new approach that can helps farmers towards the adoption of GFT. 11. Implications and limitations To sum up, the rice and paddy industry of Malaysia has been given distinct attention by the Malaysian government from preindependence to post-independence times for numerous purposes in order to reduce the poverty and for production level improvement. The rice industry has substantially improved in Malaysia in the domain of yield and its overall production level by the help of the timely governmental initiatives. The farmers in the paddy

50

N. Adnan et al. / Land Use Policy 63 (2017) 38–52

Fig. 6. Documents by author.

farms are the ones who have benefited by both the economic development and incentives. Since the subsidies and incentives were introduced, the status of living and income of paddy farmers have increased. These days, food security is the main focus in order to get a sufficient amount of food for the nation. Different types of incentives have been announced in order to make improvement and strengthen rice industries around the country. Furthermore, the facility of these incentives is also to safeguard the paddy farmers as well as the industry in general. The government should take proper action for the increment of the production level of the rice industry by the year 2020 with the farmers’ help, who can achieve a higher level of production with the GFT adoption.

12. Conclusions Research in the last decades has generated different predictive models to clarify the diffusion of agricultural hard core technological innovations, such as process and product and soft core non-technological innovations, such as information and ideas in dissimilar settings. The government in Malaysia is promoting GFT in order to enhance the farm productivity and usage of the resources underneath the tangled signs towards the enhancement of food security as well as suitability. Whereas, the adoption of GFT gives environmentally friendly technology, which gives high production without damaging the environment. A number of nations have capitalised themselves in these innovations. Despite that fact, GFT is more commercially accessible for the developed nations where the adoption rate is growing in a very progressive way. However, in the developing nations, the adoption of the innovation phenomenon is not progressing well. A number of domestic studies in Malaysia have classified the factors underlying the adoption amongst farmers in a diverse form. Exploiting these dissimilar efforts towards the adoption of innovation research study, this investigation found out that the study on technology adoption is very important for the developing nations. In order to meet the objective of this review paper, nearly 26 different studies were analysed. All the factors

that affect the adoption of GFT have been induced from the 11 selected studies. The outcome of these 26 reviewed articles indicate that, there are 36 or more factors that might help Malaysian paddy farmers in the decision of the adoption of GFT. Whereas, the researchers have assembled all these factors and grouped them into economic and non-economic factors, such as agro-ecological factors, socio-economic factors, institutional factors, information factors, behavioural factors, farmers’ perception and economic factors. Hence, it is vital to add some stipulation for this research study. This review is useful in order to illustrate those factors which significantly affect the Malaysian paddy farmers towards the adoption of GFT. Consequently, based on the use of the EUT and TPB along with the strong approach of the external factors, this conceptual framework has heightened the adoption decision amongst paddy farmers. The pledge point of this conceptual framework is all those variables which have an indirect effect on the farmers’ beliefs and perceptions instead of the direct impact as we can see in the study of the EU theory. Lastly, including all these constructs and checking their relation has been a challenge, but we consider that the framework provides a comprehensive view of the adoption decision.

Conflict of interest The author declares that there is no conflict.

Acknowledgements The authors would like to acknowledge Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS (UTP), Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE), Malaysia for the financial support under Long Research Grant Scheme (LRGS) and Department of Management and Humanities to facilitate this research study. The authors would also like to thank the reviewers for their valuable suggestion in order enhance the manuscript. of interests regarding the publication of this paper.

N. Adnan et al. / Land Use Policy 63 (2017) 38–52

References Abadi Ghadim, A.K., Burton, M.P., Pannell, D.J., 1999. More empirical evidence on the adoption of chick peas in Western Australia. or: Different ways of thinking about nothing. Adesina, A.A., Baidu-Forson, J., 1995. Farmers’ perceptions and adoption of new agricultural technology: evidence from analysis in Burkina Faso and Guinea, West Africa. Agric. Econ. 13 (1), 1–9. Adesina, A.A., Zinnah, M.M., 1993. Technology characteristics, farmers’ perceptions and adoption decisions: a Tobit model application in Sierra Leone. Agric. Econ. 9 (4), 297–311. Adnan, N., Md Nordin, S., Rahman, I., Vasant, P.M., Noor, A., 2016a. A comprehensive review on theoretical framework-based electric vehicle consumer adoption research. Int. J. Energy Res. 2016. Adnan, N., Vasant, P.M., Rahman, I., Noor, A., 2016b. Adoption of plug-in hybrid electric vehicle among malaysian consumers. Ind. Eng. Manag. 2016. Ajzen, I., 1985. From intentions to actions: a theory of planned behavior. In: In Action Control. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 11–39. Ajzen, I., 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 50 (2), 179–211. Ajzen, I., 2011. The theory of planned behaviour: reactions and reflections. Psychol. Health 26 (9), 1113–1127. Aker, J.C., 2011. Dial A for agriculture: a review of information and communication technologies for agricultural extension in developing countries. Agric. Econ. 42 (6), 631–647. Altieri, M.A., Funes-Monzote, F.R., Petersen, P., 2012. Agroecologically efficient agricultural systems for smallholder farmers: contributions to food sovereignty. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 32 (1), 1–13. Amigun, B., Musango, J.K., Stafford, W., 2011. Biofuels and sustainability in Africa. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 15 (2), 1360–1372. Anderson, J.R., Feder, G., 2007. Agricultural extension. Handb. Agric. Econ. 3, 2343–2378. Austin, E., Willock, J., Deary, I., Gibson, G., Dent, J., Edwards-Jones, G., et al., 1998. Empirical models of farmer behaviour using psychological, social and economic variables. Part I: linear modelling. Agric. Syst. 58 (2), 203–224. Balmford, A., Green, R., Phalan, B., 2012. What conservationists need to know about farming. Proc. R. Soc. B: Biol. Sci. (rspb20120515). Batz, F.-J., Peters, K., Janssen, W., 1999. The influence of technology characteristics on the rate and speed of adoption. Agric. Econ. 21 (2), 121–130. Baumüller, H., 2012. Facilitating agricultural technology adoption among the poor: the role of service delivery through mobile phones. Baumgart-Getz, A., Prokopy, L.S., Floress, K., 2012. Why farmers adopt best management practice in the United States: a meta-analysis of the adoption literature. J. Environ. Manage. 96 (1), 17–25. Beedell, J., Rehman, T., 2000. Using social-psychology models to understand farmers’ conservation behaviour. J. Rural Stud. 16 (1), 117–127. Bergevoet, R.H., Ondersteijn, C., Saatkamp, H., Van Woerkum, C., Huirne, R., 2004. Entrepreneurial behaviour of Dutch dairy farmers under a milk quota system: goals, objectives and attitudes. Agric. Syst. 80 (1), 1–21. Borges, J.A.R., Lansink, A.G.O., Ribeiro, C.M., Lutke, V., 2014. Understanding farmers’ intention to adopt improved natural grassland using the theory of planned behavior. Livestock Sci. 169, 163–174. Borges, J.A.R., Foletto, L., Xavier, V.T., 2015. An interdisciplinary framework to study farmers decisions on adoption of innovation: insights from Expected Utility Theory and Theory of Planned Behavior. Afr. J. Agric. Res. 10 (29), 2814–2825. Borges, J.R., 2015. The Role of Psychological Factors in the Adoption of Improved Natural Grassland by Brazilian Cattle Farmers in Biome Pampa. Wageningen University. Bowman, M.S., Zilberman, D., 2013. Economic factors affecting diversified farming systems. Ecol. Soc. 18 (1), 33. Bredehoeft, J.D., Alley, W.M., 2014. Mining groundwater for sustained yield. The Bridge 44 (1), 33–41. Bruegel, M., 2011. From the crisis of food to food in crisis. Burton, R.J., 2004. Reconceptualising the ‘behavioural approach’in agricultural studies: a socio-psychological perspective. J. Rural stud. 20 (3), 359–371. Chau, P.Y., Hu, P.J.H., 2001. Information technology acceptance by individual professionals: a model comparison approach*. Decis. Sci. 32 (4), 699–719. Chiew, Y.L., Shimada, S., 2013. Current state and environmental impact assessment for utilizing oil palm empty fruit bunches for fuel, fiber and fertilizer – A case study of Malaysia. Biomass Bioenergy 51, 109–124. Conner, M., Warren, R., Close, S., Sparks, P., 1999. Alcohol consumption and the theory of planned behavior: an examination of the cognitive mediation of past behaviorid. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 29 (8), 1676–1704. Conner, M., Povey, R., Sparks, P., James, R., Shepherd, R., 2003. Moderating role of attitudinal ambivalence within the theory of planned behaviour. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 42 (1), 75–94. Conway, G.R., 1985. Agroecosystem analysis. Agric. Admin. 20 (1), 31–55. Conway, G.R., Barbier, E.B., 2013. After the Green Revolution: Sustainable Agriculture for Development. Routledge. D’Emden, F.H., Llewellyn, R.S., Burton, M.P., 2008. Factors influencing adoption of conservation tillage in Australian cropping regions*. Aust. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 52 (2), 169–182. Dill, M.D., Emvalomatis, G., Saatkamp, H., Rossi, J.A., Pereira, G.R., Barcellos, J.O.J., 2015. Factors affecting adoption of economic management practices in beef cattle production in Rio Grande do Sul state, Brazil. J. Rural Stud. 42, 21–28, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2015.09.004.

51

Edwards-Jones, G., 2006. Modelling farmer decision-making: concepts, progress and challenges. Anim. Sci. 82 (06), 783–790. FAOstat (2009). http://www.fao.org/docrep/007/y5797e/y5797e05. htm#TopOfPage. Fahmi, Z., Samah, B.A., Abdullah, H., 2013. Paddy industry and paddy farmers well-being: a success recipe for agriculture industry in Malaysia. Asian Soc. Sci. 9 (3), p177. Fischer, A.R., Beers, P.J., van Latesteijn, H., Andeweg, K., Jacobsen, E., Mommaas, H., et al., 2012. Transforum system innovation towards sustainable food. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 32 (2), 595–608. Fishbein, M., Ajzen, I., 1975. Belief, Attitudes, Intention, and Behavior. An Introduction to Theory and Research. Addison-Wesley, Massachussets. Foxall, G., 1997. Marketing Psychology: The Paradigm in the Wings. Springer. Gebremedhin, B., Swinton, S.M., 2003. Investment in soil conservation in northern Ethiopia: the role of land tenure security and public programs. Agric. Econ. 29 (1), 69–84. Ghadim, A.K.A., Pannell, D.J., 1999. A conceptual framework of adoption of an agricultural innovation. Agric. Econ. 21 (2), 145–154. Ghadim, A.K.A., Pannell, D.J., Burton, M.P., 2005. Risk, uncertainty, and learning in adoption of a crop innovation. Agric. Econ. 33 (1), 1–9. Ghadiyali Tejaskumar, R., Kayasth Manish, M., 2012. Contribution of green technology in sustainable development of agriculture sector. J. Environ. Res. Dev. 7 (1A). Guerin, L., Guerin, T., 1994. Constraints to the adoption of innovations in agricultural research and environmental management: a review. Anim. Prod. Sci. 34 (4), 549–571. Hansson, H., Ferguson, R., Olofsson, C., 2012. Psychological constructs underlying farmers’ decisions to diversify or specialise their businesses – an application of theory of planned behaviour. J. Agric. Econ. 63 (2), 465–482. Henseler, M., 2002. A Theoretical and Empirical Examination of Expected Utility Theory and Prospect Theory in Agricultural Economics Literature. Hezri, A.A., Ghazali, R., 2011. A Fair Green Economy? Hobbs, P.R., Sayre, K., Gupta, R., 2008. The role of conservation agriculture in sustainable agriculture. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B: Biol. Sci. 363 (1491), 543–555. Hosseini, S.E., Wahid, M.A., 2013. Feasibility study of biogas production and utilization as a source of renewable energy in Malaysia. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 19, 454–462. Hussain, F., Malik, A.U., Haji, M.A., Malghani, A.L., 2011. Growth and yield response of two cultivars of mungbean (Vignaradiata L.) to different potassium levels. J. Anim. Plant Sci. 21 (3), 622–625. Jaim, W., Akter, S., 2012. Seed, Fertilizer and Innovation in Bangladesh: Industry and Policy Issues for the Future. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC. Jamsari, H., Jasmine, A., Norhamidah, J., Suwaiba, Z., Nordin, M., 2012. Factors associated with the continuality of agricultural innovation adoption in Sabah, Malaysia. J. Sustain. Dev. 5 (1), p47. Jara-Rojas, R., Bravo-Ureta, B.E., Díaz, J., 2012. Adoption of water conservation practices: a socioeconomic analysis of small-scale farmers in Central Chile. Agric. Syst. 110, 54–62. Karami, E., Mansoorabadi, A., 2008. Sustainable agricultural attitudes and behaviors: a gender analysis of Iranian farmers. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 10 (6), 883–898. Kassie, M., Jaleta, M., Shiferaw, B., Mmbando, F., Mekuria, M., 2013. Adoption of interrelated sustainable agricultural practices in smallholder systems: evidence from rural Tanzania. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 80 (3), 525–540. Kebede, Y., Gunjal, K., Coffin, G., 1990. Adoption of new technologies in Ethiopian agriculture: the case of Tegulet-Bulga district Shoa province. Agric. Econ. 4 (1), 27–43. Knowler, D., Bradshaw, B., 2007. Farmers’ adoption of conservation agriculture: a review and synthesis of recent research. Food policy 32 (1), 25–48. Kunasekaran, P., Ramachandran, S., Yacob, M.R., Shuib, A., 2011. Development of farmers’ perception scale on agro tourism in Cameron Highlands, Malaysia. World Appl. Sci. J. 12, 10–18 (Special Issue of Tourism & Hospitality). Läpple, D., Kelley, H., 2013. Understanding the uptake of organic farming: accounting for heterogeneities among Irish farmers. Ecol. Econ. 88, 11–19. Leigh, N.G., Blakely, E.J., 2013. Planning Local Economic Development: Theory and Practice. SAGE Publications, Incorporated. Lien, G., 2002. Non-parametric estimation of decision makers’ risk aversion. Agric. Econ. 27 (1), 75–83. Liu, E.M., 2013. Time to change what to sow: risk preferences and technology adoption decisions of cotton farmers in China. Rev. Econ. Stat. 95 (4), 1386–1403. Llewellyn, R.S., D’Emden, F.H., Kuehne, G., 2012. Extensive use of no-tillage in grain growing regions of Australia. Field Crops Res. 132, 204–212. Lynne, G.D., Casey, C.F., Hodges, A., Rahmani, M., 1995. Conservation technology adoption decisions and the theory of planned behavior. J. Econ. Psychol. 16 (4), 581–598. Lynne, G.D., Shonkwiler, J.S., Rola, L.R., 1988. Attitudes and farmer conservation behavior. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 70 (1), 12–19. Maertens, A., Barrett, C.B., 2013. Measuring social networks’ effects on agricultural technology adoption. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 95 (2), 353–359. Mariano, M.J., Villano, R., Fleming, E., 2012. Factors influencing farmers’ adoption of modern rice technologies and good management practices in the Philippines. Agric. Syst. 110, 41–53. Martínez-García, C.G., Dorward, P., Rehman, T., 2013. Factors influencing adoption of improved grassland management by small-scale dairy farmers in central

52

N. Adnan et al. / Land Use Policy 63 (2017) 38–52

Mexico and the implications for future research on smallholder adoption in developing countries. Livestock Sci. 152 (2), 228–238. Mazvimavi, K., Twomlow, S., 2009. Socioeconomic and institutional factors influencing adoption of conservation farming by vulnerable households in Zimbabwe. Agric. Syst. 101 (1), 20–29. McGuire, J., Morton, L.W., Cast, A.D., 2013. Reconstructing the good farmer identity: shifts in farmer identities and farm management practices to improve water quality. Agric. Hum. Values 30 (1), 57–69. Micheels, E.T., Nolan, J.F., 2016. Examining the effects of absorptive capacity and social capital on the adoption of agricultural innovations: a Canadian Prairie case study. Agric. Syst. 145, 127–138, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2016.03. 010. Miller, R., Howell, G., 2005. A test of the theory of planned behavior in underage lottery gambling. Paper Presented at the ANZMAC 2005 Conference: Broadening the Boundaries. Mishra, A.K., Holthausen, D.M., 2002. Effect of farm income and off-farm wage variability on off-farm labor supply. Agric. Resour. Econ. Rev. 31, 187–199. Mongin, P., 1997. Expected utility theory. In: Handbook of Economic Methodology., pp. 342–350. Mzoughi, N., 2011. Farmers adoption of integrated crop protection and organic farming: do moral and social concerns matter? Ecol. Econ. 70 (8), 1536–1545. Nguyen, M.N., Potvin, L., Otis, J., 1997. Regular exercise in 30-to 60-year-old men: Combining the stages-of-change model and the theory of planned behavior to identify determinants for targeting heart health interventions. J. Community Health 22 (4), 233–246. Othman, Z., Muhammad, A., 2011. Design strategies to persuasive learning for promoting sustainable practices in paddy farming. Am. J. Econ. Bus. Admin. 3 (1), 197. Othman, Z., 2012. Information and Communication Technology Innovation as a Tool for Promoting Sustainable Agriculture: a Case Study of Paddy Farming in West Malaysia. University of Malaya. Palis, F.G., 2006. The role of culture in farmer learning and technology adoption: a case study of farmer field schools among rice farmers in central Luzon, Philippines. Agric. Hum. Values 23 (4), 491–500. Pannell, D.J., Marshall, G.R., Barr, N., Curtis, A., Vanclay, F., Wilkinson, R., 2006. Understanding and promoting adoption of conservation practices by rural landholders? Anim. Prod. Sci. 46 (11), 1407–1424. Panwar, N., Kaushik, S., Kothari, S., 2011. Role of renewable energy sources in environmental protection: a review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 15 (3), 1513–1524. Pereira, M. d. A., 2011. Understanding Technology Adoption and Non-adoption: a Case Study of Innovative Beef Farmers from Mato Grosso Do Sul State, Brazil. Lincoln University. Peter, J.P., Olson, J.C., 2009. Comportamento do consumidor e estratégia de marketing. AMGH Editora. Pingali, P.L., 2012. Green Revolution: impacts, limits, and the path ahead. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 109 (31), 12302–12308. Poppenborg, P., Koellner, T., 2013. Do attitudes toward ecosystem services determine agricultural land use practices? An analysis of farmers’ decision-making in a South Korean watershed. Land Use Policy 31, 422–429. Prokopy, L., Floress, K., Klotthor-Weinkauf, D., Baumgart-Getz, A., 2008. Determinants of agricultural best management practice adoption: evidence from the literature. J. Soil Water Conserv. 63 (5), 300–311. Ramli, N.N., Shamsudin, M.N., Mohamed, Z., Radam, A., 2012. The impact of fertilizer subsidy on Malaysia paddy/rice industry using a system dynamics approach. Int. J. Soc. Science and Hum. 2 (3), 213. Reimer, A.P., Thompson, A.W., Prokopy, L.S., 2012. The multi-dimensional nature of environmental attitudes among farmers in Indiana: implications for conservation adoption. Agric. Hum. Values 29 (1), 29–40. Roberts, R.K., English, B.C., Larson, J.A., Cochran, R.L., Goodman, W.R., Larkin, S.L., Reeves, J.M., 2004. Adoption of site-specific information and variable-rate technologies in cotton precision farming. J. Agric. Appl. Econ. 36 (01), 143–158. Rogers, E.M., 2003. 5th Eds. In: Diffusion of Innovations. The Free Press, New York. Ross, N., Santos, P., Capon, T., 2010. Risk, ambiguity and the adoption of new technologies: Experimental evidence from a developing economy. Unpublished Manuscript. Ruttan, V.W., 2000. Technology, Growth, and Development: an Induced Innovation Perspective. OUP Catalogue.

Sambodo, L.A., 2007. The Decision Making Processes of Semi-commercial Farmers: a Case Study of Technology Adoption in Indonesia. Lincoln University. Sayer, J., Cassman, K.G., 2013. Agricultural innovation to protect the environment. PNAS 110 (21), 8345–8348. Schoemaker, P.J., 1982. The expected utility model: its variants, purposes, evidence and limitations. J. Econ. Lit., 529–563. Sheikh, L.I., Dawar, S.H.A.H.N.A.Z., Zaki, M.J., Ghaffar, A., 2006. Efficacy of Bacillus thuringiensis and Rhizobium meliloti with nursery fertilizers in the control of root infecting fungi on mung bean and okra plants. Pak. J. Bot. 38 (2), 465. Sherk, T., 2012. Residential Solar Energy Adoption in a Community Context: Perceptions and Characteristics of Potential Adopters in a West Toronto Neighbourhood. Shiferaw, B., Prasanna, B.M., Hellin, J., Bänziger, M., 2011. Crops that feed the world 6. Past successes and future challenges to the role played by maize in global food security. Food Security 3 (3), 307–327. Shiva, V., 2016. The Violence of the Green Revolution: Third World Agriculture, Ecology, and Politics. University Press of Kentucky. Smale, M., Simpungwe, E., Birol, E., Kassie, G.T., de Groote, H., Mutale, R., 2015. The changing structure of the maize seed industry in Zambia: prospects for orange maize. Agribusiness 31 (1), 132–146. Solomon, M., Russell-Bennett, R., Previte, J., 2012. Consumer Behaviour. Pearson Higher Education AU. Stern, P.C., 2000. New environmental theories: toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. J. Social Issues 56 (3), 407–424. Suri, T., 2011. Selection and comparative advantage in technology adoption. Econometrica 79 (1), 159–209. Takahashi, S., 2008. Challenges for local communities and livelihoods to seek sustainable forest management in Indonesia. J. Environ. Dev. 17 (2), 192–211. Taylor, S., Todd, P.A., 1995. Understanding information technology usage: a test of competing models. Inf. Syst. Res. 6 (2), 144–176. Terano, R., Mohamed, Z., Shamsudin, M.N., Latif, I.A., 2015. Factors influencing intention to adopt sustainable agriculture practices among paddy farmers in kada, Malaysia. Asian J. Agric. Res. 9 (5), 268–275. Tey, Y.S., Brindal, M., 2012. Factors influencing the adoption of precision agricultural technologies: a review for policy implications. Precis. Agric. 13 (6), 713–730. Tey, Y.S., Li, E., Bruwer, J., Abdullah, A.M., Cummins, J., Radam, A., et al., 2013. A structured assessment on the perceived attributes of sustainable agricultural practices: a study for the Malaysian vegetable production sector. Asian J. Technol. Innov. 21 (1), 120–135. Tey, Y.S., Li, E., Bruwer, J., Abdullah, A.M., Brindal, M., Radam, A., et al., 2014. The relative importance of factors influencing the adoption of sustainable agricultural practices: a factor approach for Malaysian vegetable farmers. Sustain. Sci. 9 (1), 17–29. Tey, Y.S., 2013. The Adoption of Sustainable Agricultural Practices: An Integrative Approach for Malaysian Vegetable Farmers. The University of Adelaide. Tiraieyari, N., Uli, J.1, 2011. Sustainable agriculture in Malaysia: implication for extension workers. J. Am. Sci. 7 (8), 179–182. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B., Davis, F.D., 2003. User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Q., 425–478. Wauters, E., Mathijs, E., 2013. An investigation into the socio-psychological determinants of farmers’ conservation decisions: method and implications for policy, extension and research. J. Agric. Educ. Extens. 19 (1), 53–72. Wauters, E., Bielders, C., Poesen, J., Govers, G., Mathijs, E., 2010. Adoption of soil conservation practices in Belgium: an examination of the theory of planned behaviour in the agri-environmental domain. Land Use Policy 27 (1), 86–94. Williams, R., Borges, L.F., Lacoste, M., Andersen, R., Nesbitt, H., Johansen, C., 2012. On-farm evaluation of introduced maize varieties and their yield determining factors in East Timor. Field Crops Res. 137, 170–177. Willock, J., Deary, I.J., Edwards-Jones, G., Gibson, G.J., McGregor, M.J., Sutherland, A., et al., 1999. The role of attitudes and objectives in farmer decision making: business and environmentally-oriented behaviour in Scotland. J. Agric. Econ. 50 (2), 286–303. Wubeneh, N.G., Sanders, J., 2006. Farm-level adoption of sorghum technologies in Tigray, Ethiopia. Agric. Syst. 91 (1), 122–134. Zhou, S., Herzfeld, T., Glauben, T., Zhang, Y., Hu, B., 2008. Factors affecting chinese farmers’ decisions to adopt a water-Saving technology. Can. J. Agric. Econ./Revue canadienne d’agroeconomie 56 (1), 51–61.