Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The relative importance of factors influencing the adoption of sustainable agricultural practices: a factor approach for Malaysian vegetable farmers

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Sustainability Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study develops the understanding of the adoption of sustainable agricultural practices (SAPs) by investigating the relative importance of a set of multidimensional factors in the Malaysian vegetable production sector. A factor approach is deployed to identify explanatory indicators within an integrative framework that is synthesized from the theory of interpersonal behavior and the theory of diffusion of innovation. We achieved this by analyzing a logistic regression model for the adoption of six individual SAPs (conservation tillage, intercropping, cover crops/mulches, crop rotation, organic fertilizers/composts, and integrated pest management). The findings indicate that adoption depends on a range of socio-economic, agro-ecological, institutional, informational, and psychological factors, as well as the perceived attributes of SAPs. Fundamental policy understanding of the issue should, therefore, be multidisciplinary. In addition, standardized coefficients reveal that the impact of statistically significant factors on adoption is unequal. In general, the most influential factor is the asymmetric distribution of resources across geographical locations. This is followed by financial capital and a number of factors, including the workforce size, the usefulness of information, Chinese ethnicity, and the perceived relative advantage of SAPs. Guided by this prioritization understanding, future SAPs promotion now has a better opportunity to target the more important areas. Similar research effort should be made to steer sustainable agriculture internationally.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Though standardized coefficients usually range between ±1, they are not always so (Keith 2006). When found to be above 1, there is a need to check for multicollinearity (Menard 2011). As noted earlier, multicollinearity did not exist among the independent variables.

References

  • Barrow CJ, Chan NW, Masron TB (2010) Farming and other stakeholders in a tropical highland: towards less environmentally damaging and more sustainable practices. J Sustain Agric 34:365–388

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumgart-Getz A, Prokopy LS, Floress K (2012) Why farmers adopt best management practice in the United States: a meta-analysis of the adoption literature. J Environ Manag 96:17–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bayard B, Jolly C (2007) Environmental behavior structure and socio-economic conditions of hillside farmers: a multiple-group structural equation modeling approach. Ecol Econ 62:433–440

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calkins P, Thant PP (2011) Sustainable agro-forestry in Myanmar: from intentions to behavior. Environ Dev Sustain 13:439–461

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chai LK, Mohd-Tahir N, Bruun Hansen HC (2009) Dissipation of acephate, chlorpyrifos, cypermethrin and their metabolites in a humid-tropical vegetable production system. Pest Manag Sci 65:189–196

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Conway GR (1985) Agroecosystem analysis. Agric Admin 20:31–55

    Google Scholar 

  • Cramb RA (1989) The use and productivity of labour in shifting cultivation: an East Malaysian case study. Agric Syst 29:97–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cramb RA (1993) Shifting cultivation and sustainable agriculture in East Malaysia: a longitudinal case study. Agric Syst 42:209–226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cramb RA (2006) The role of social capital in the promotion of conservation farming: the case of ‘landcare’ in the Southern Philippines. Land Degrad Dev 17:23–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D’Emden FH, Llewellyn RS, Burton MP (2006) Adoption of conservation tillage in Australian cropping regions: an application of duration analysis. Technol Forecast Soc Change 73:630–647

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D’Emden FH, Llewellyn RS, Burton MP (2008) Factors influencing adoption of conservation tillage in Australian cropping regions. Aust J Agric Resour Econ 52(2):169–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dauphin F (2000) Investing in conservation tillage: challenges and opportunities. In: Karabayev M, Satybaldin A, Benites JR, Friedrich T, Pala M, Payne T (eds) Conservation tillage: a viable option for sustainable agriculture in Eurasia. CIMMYT, Syria, pp 63–71

    Google Scholar 

  • Elkind PD (1993) Correspondence between knowledge, attitudes, and behavior in farm health and safety practices. J Saf Res 24:171–179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feola G, Binder CR (2010) Towards an improved understanding of farmers’ behaviour: the integrative agent-centred (IAC) framework. Ecol Econ 69:2323–2333

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guerin LJ, Guerin TF (1994) Constraints to the adoption of innovations in agricultural research and environmental management: a review. Aust J Exp Agric 34:549–571

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE (2010) Multivariate data analysis, 7th edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen TS, Mertz O (2006) Extinction or adaptation? Three decades of change in shifting cultivation in Sarawak, Malaysia. Land Degrad Dev 17:135–148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heong KL, Escalada MM (1999) Quantifying rice farmers’ pest management decisions: beliefs and subjective norms in stem borer control. Crop Prot 18:315–322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heong KL, Escalada MM, Sengsoulivong V, Schiller J (2002) Insect management beliefs and practices of rice farmers in Laos. Agric Ecosyst Environ 92:137–145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herath PHMU, Takeya H (2003) Factors determining intercropping by rubber smallholders in Sri Lanka: a logit analysis. Agric Econ 29:159–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higgins A, Foliente G (2013) Evaluating intervention options to achieve environmental benefits in the residential sector. Sustain Sci 8:25–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson T (2004) Motivating sustainable consumption. A review of evidence on consumer behaviour and behavioural change. A report to the Sustainable Development Research Network, University of Surrey, Guildford

  • Jaza Folefack AJ (2005) The use of compost from household waste in agriculture: economic and environmental analysis in Cameroon. In: Doppler W, Bauer S (eds) Farming and rural systems economics. Margraf Publishers, Weikersheim, pp 71–75

    Google Scholar 

  • Kassie M, Zikhali P, Manjur K, Edwards S (2009) Adoption of sustainable agriculture practices: evidence from a semi-arid region of Ethiopia. Nat Resour Forum 33:189–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keith TZ (2006) Multiple regression and beyond. Pearson, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Key N, Runsten D (1999) Contract farming, smallholders, and rural development in Latin America: the organization of agroprocessing firms and the scale of outgrower production. World Dev 27:381–401

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kloppenburg J (1991) Social theory and the de/reconstruction of agricultural science: local knowledge for an alternative agriculture. Rural Sociol 56:519–548

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knowler D, Bradshaw B (2007) Farmers’ adoption of conservation agriculture: a review and synthesis of recent research. Food Pol 32:25–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kurnia S, Johnston RB (2000) The need for a processual view of inter-organizational systems adoption. J Strateg Inf Syst 9:295–319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lamba P, Filson G, Adekunle B (2009) Factors affecting the adoption of best management practices in southern Ontario. Environmentalist 29:64–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larson JA, Roberts RK, English BC, Larkin SL, Marra MC, Martin SW, Paxton KW, Reeves JM (2008) Factors affecting farmer adoption of remotely sensed imagery for precision management in cotton production. Precis Agric 9:195–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee DR (2005) Agricultural sustainability and technology adoption: issues and policies for developing countries. Am J Agric Econ 87:1325–1334

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leong KH, Benjamin Tan LL, Mustafa AM (2007) Contamination levels of selected organochlorine and organophosphate pesticides in the Selangor River, Malaysia between 2002 and 2003. Chemosphere 66:1153–1159

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lockie S, Mead A, Vanclay F, Butler B (1995) Factors encouraging the adoption of more sustainable crop rotations in south-east Australia. J Sustain Agric 6:61–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lynne GD, Shonkwiler JS, Rola LR (1988) Attitudes and farmer conservation behavior. Am J Agric Econ 70:12–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Menard S (2011) Standards for standardized logistic regression coefficients. Soc Forces 89:1409–1428

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ogunlana EA (2004) The technology adoption behavior of women farmers: the case of alley farming in Nigeria. Renew Agric Food Syst 19:57–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pampel F Jr, van Es JC (1977) Environmental quality and issues of adoption research. Rural Sociol 42:57–71

    Google Scholar 

  • Pannell DJ, Marshall GR, Barr N, Curtis A, Vanclay F, Wilkinson R (2006) Understanding and promoting adoption of conservation practices by rural landholders. Aust J Exp Agric 46:1407–1424

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pretty JN (1995) Regenerating agriculture: policies and practice for sustainability and self-reliance. Earthscan, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Prokopy LS, Floress K, Klotthor-Weinkauf D, Baumgart-Getz A (2008) Determinants of agricultural best management practice adoption: evidence from the literature. J Soil Water Conserv 63:300–311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reimer AP, Weinkauf DK, Prokopy LS (2012) The influence of perceptions of practice characteristics: an examination of agricultural best management practice adoption in two Indiana watersheds. J Rural Stud 28:118–128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robertson MJ, Llewellyn RS, Mandel R, Lawes R, Bramley RGV, Swift L, Metz N, O’Callaghan C (2012) Adoption of variable rate fertiliser application in the Australian grains industry: status, issues and prospects. Precis Agric 13:181–199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers EM (2003) Diffusion of innovations, 5th edn. Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Shamsudin MN, Amir HM, Radam A (2010) Economic benefits of sustainable agricultural production: the case of integrated pest management in cabbage production. Environ Asia 3:168–174

    Google Scholar 

  • Stern PC (2000) New environmental theories: toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. J Soc Issues 56:407–424

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stoffella PJ, Li Y, Roe NE, Ozores-Hampton M, Graetz DA (1997) Utilization of composted organic wastes in vegetable production systems. A report to the Food and Fertilizer Technology Center, Taiwan

  • Taylor DC, Mohamed ZA, Shamsudin MN, Mohayidin MG,, Chiew EFC (1993) Creating a farmer sustainability index: a Malaysian case study. Am J Altern Agric 8:175–184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tey YS, Brindal M (2012) Factors influencing the adoption of precision agricultural technologies: a review for policy implications. Precis Agric 13:713–730

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tey YS, Li E, Bruwer J, Abdullah AM, Cummins J, Radam A, Ismail MM, Darham S (2012a) Adoption rate of sustainable agricultural practices: a focus on Malaysia’s vegetable sector for research implications. Afr J Agric Res 7:2901–2909

    Google Scholar 

  • Tey YS, Li E, Bruwer J, Abdullah AM, Cummins J, Radam A, Ismail MM, Darham S (2012b) Qualitative methods for effective agrarian surveys: a research note on focus groups. Am Eurasian J Sustain Agric 6:60–65

    Google Scholar 

  • Tey YS, Li E, Bruwer J, Abdullah AM, Cummins J, Radam A, Ismail MM, Darham S (2012c) Refining the definition of sustainable agriculture: an inclusive perspective from the Malaysian vegetable sector. MAEJO Int J Sci Technol 6:379–396

    Google Scholar 

  • Tey YS, Li E, Bruwer J, Abdullah AM, Cummins J, Radam A, Ismail MM, Darham S (2013) Perceived attributes of sustainable agricultural practices: a structured assessment in Malaysia. Asian J Technol Innov (in press)

  • Triandis HC (1977) Interpersonal behavior. Brooks/Cole, Monterey

    Google Scholar 

  • Tutkun A, Lehmann B, Schmidt P (2006) Explaining the conversion to particularly animal-friendly stabling system of farmers of the Obwalden Canton, Switzerland—extension of the theory of planned behavior within a structural equation modeling approach. Agrarwirtschaft und Agrarsoziologie 7:11–26

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This paper is part of a PhD research project at the University of Adelaide. The realization of the project is made possible by Adelaide Scholarships International (ASI) from the University of Adelaide to Yeong Sheng Tey. The research project is also partly funded by the Universiti Putra Malaysia’s Research University Grant Scheme (Vot 9199741). We thank the three anonymous reviewers for their comments concerning ways to improve the quality of the manuscript, and Keith Barrie for proofreading an earlier version of this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Agriculture, Food and Wine, The University of Adelaide, PMB 1, Glen Osmond, SA, 5064, Australia

    Yeong Sheng Tey, Elton Li, Johan Bruwer & Mark Brindal

  2. Institute of Agricultural and Food Policy Studies, Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM), 43400, Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia

    Yeong Sheng Tey, Mohd Mansor Ismail & Suryani Darham

  3. Faculty of Agriculture, Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM), 43400, Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia

    Amin Mahir Abdullah & Mohd Mansor Ismail

  4. Faculty of Economics and Management, Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM), 43400, Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia

    Alias Radam

Authors
  1. Yeong Sheng Tey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Elton Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Johan Bruwer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Amin Mahir Abdullah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Mark Brindal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Alias Radam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Mohd Mansor Ismail
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Suryani Darham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yeong Sheng Tey.

Additional information

Handled by Fusuo Zhang, China Agricultural University, China.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Tey, Y.S., Li, E., Bruwer, J. et al. The relative importance of factors influencing the adoption of sustainable agricultural practices: a factor approach for Malaysian vegetable farmers. Sustain Sci 9, 17–29 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-013-0219-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-013-0219-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation