Advertisement

Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 26, Issue 26, pp 27198–27224 | Cite as

A possible resolution of Malaysian sunset industry by green fertilizer technology: factors affecting the adoption among paddy farmers

  • Nadia AdnanEmail author
  • Shahrina Md Nordin
  • Amran Md Rasli
Research Article
  • 59 Downloads

Abstract

One of the innovations introduced toward tackling the heightening of environmental impact is green technology. In the agricultural industry, the implementation of green fertilizer technology (GFT) for the modern development of environmentally friendly technology is a necessity. Within the Malaysian agriculture sector, the GFT application is needed to increase production levels among all crops. One of the essential commodities of all crops has always been paddy, given its status as the staple food among the country’s population. Paddy production with the adoption of GFT potentially opens the path toward sustainable development in the industry as well as it also provides the food safety aspect. Moreover, this helps farmers to improve their productivity on paddy production in Malaysia. This paper attempts to evaluate the contributing socio-psychological factors, innovation attributes of environmental factors, and channels of communication to decision-making among farmers in Malaysia on GFT. Furthermore, this research also aims to assess the moderating role of cost between the farmer’s behavioral intention and the adoption of GFT. The sampling process followed the stratified sampling technique—overall, 600 survey questionnaires were dispersed and 437 effective responses were received. The structural analysis results obtained have revealed significant positive effect for perceived awareness, attitude, group norm, perceived behavioral control, environmental concern, agro-environmental regulations, relative advantage, compatibility, trialability, and observability, and on farmer’s behavioral intention, a significant effect for paddy farmer’s behavioral intention in order to adopt of GFT. Further, the interaction effects of cost on the link between farmer’s behavioral intention and adoption of GFT are statistically significant. Though, the finding could not back an outcome for the subjective norm, complexity, and mass media on farmer’s behavioral intention. Finally, critical outcomes obtained in this research contribute to deepening the thoughtfulness of paddy farmers’ adoption of GFT. This study concludes with policy recommendations and future directions of the research.

Keywords

Green fertilizer technology Adoption decision Paddy farmer’s behavioral intention Cost Policymakers Food safety 

Notes

Funding information

This work received financial support from the UTP and the Department of M&H at Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, and a research grant which the researchers secured YUTP (0153AA-H31) for the conducting of the research.

References

  1. Abu-Saoud O (2010) A four year crop rotation plan for the groundswell farm. University of California, Santa CruzGoogle Scholar
  2. Abdullah, F. A., & Samah, B. A. (2013). Factors impinging farmers’ use of agriculture technology. Asian Soc Sci, 9(3), p120-p120Google Scholar
  3. Adnan, N., Nordin, S. M., & Redza, A. (2016) Benefit of one baja fertilizer for attaining agricultural sustainability among malaysian paddy farmers: Agricultural sustainability among Malaysian paddy farmersGoogle Scholar
  4. Adnan, N., Nordin, S. M., Rahman, I., Vasant, P., & Noor, M. A. (2017) An integrative approach to study on consumer behavior towards plug-in hybrid electric vehicles revolution: consumer behavior towards plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. In applied behavioral economics research and trends (pp. 183–213). IGI GlobalGoogle Scholar
  5. Adnan N, Nordin S, Rahman I, Noor A (2017a) Adoption of green fertilizer technology among paddy farmers: a possible solution for Malaysian food security. Land Use Policy 63:38–52. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837716311024.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.01.022
  6. Adnan N, Nordin SM, Noor AN (2017b) A comparative study on gft adoption behaviour among malaysian paddy farmersGoogle Scholar
  7. Adnan N, Nordin SM, Rahman I, Vasant P, Noor MA (2017c) An overview of electric vehicle technology: a vision towards sustainable transportationGoogle Scholar
  8. Adnan N, Nordin SM, Ali M (2018) A solution for the sunset industry: adoption of green fertiliser technology amongst Malaysian paddy farmers. Land Use Policy 79:575–584Google Scholar
  9. Adnan N, Nordin SM, Bahruddin MA, Tareq AH (2019) A state-of-the-art review on facilitating sustainable agriculture through green fertiliser technologyadoption: assessing farmers behavior. Trends Food Sci Technol 86:439–452Google Scholar
  10. Ajzen I (2015) Consumer attitudes and behavior: the theory of planned behavior applied to food consumption decisions. Riv Econ Agrar 70(2):121–138Google Scholar
  11. Ajzen I, Fishbein M (2005) The influence of attitudes on behavior. The handbook of attitudes, 173(221), 31–31Google Scholar
  12. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980) Understanding attitudes and predicting social behaviour. Prentice-Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  13. Alam M, Siwar C, Wahid ANM, Talib BA (2016) Food security and low-income households in the malaysian east coast economic region: an empirical analysis. Rev Urban Reg Dev Stud 28(1):2–15Google Scholar
  14. Alam M, Siwar C, Murad M, Toriman ME (2017) Impacts of climate change on agriculture and food security issues in Malaysia: an empirical study on farm level assessmentGoogle Scholar
  15. Alarcon GG, Fantini AC, Salvador CH, Farley J (2017) Additionality is in detail: farmers’ choices regarding payment for ecosystem services programs in the Atlantic forest, Brazil. J Rural Stud 54:177–186Google Scholar
  16. Al-Samarrai MN, Hamzah R, Sam S, Noriman N, Dahham OS, Idrus SS, Adam T (2018) Slow release material from epoxidized natural rubber and rice husk composites for agriculture applications. Paper presented at the Journal of Physics: Conference SeriesGoogle Scholar
  17. Amekawa Y, Ng CC, Lumayag LA, Tan GH, Wong CS, Abdulrauf B et al (2017) Producers’ perceptions of public good agricultural practices and their pesticide use: the case of MyGAP for durian farming in Pahang, Malaysia. Asian J Agric Rural Dev 7(1):1–16Google Scholar
  18. Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach. Psychol Bull, 103(3), 411–411Google Scholar
  19. Aquino K, Douglas S (2003) Identity threat and antisocial behavior in organizations: the moderating effects of individual differences, aggressive modeling, and hierarchical status. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 90(1):195–208Google Scholar
  20. Arshad M, Kächele H, Krupnik TJ, Amjath-Babu TS, Aravindakshan S, Abbas A et al (2016) Climate variability, farmland value, and farmers’ perceptions of climate change: implications for adaptation in rural Pakistan. Int J Sustain De World Ecol:1–13Google Scholar
  21. Arunrat N, Wang C, Pumijumnong N, Sereenonchai S, Cai W (2017) Farmers’ intention and decision to adapt to climate change: a case study in the Yom and Nan basins, Phichit province of Thailand. J Clean Prod 143(Supplement C):672–685. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652616321138.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.058 Google Scholar
  22. Arvola A, Vassallo M, Dean M, Lampila P, Saba A, Lähteenmäki L, Shepherd R (2008) Predicting intentions to purchase organic food: the role of affective and moral attitudes in the Theory of Planned Behaviour. Appetite 50(2):443–454Google Scholar
  23. Askarybozayeh F, Keshavarzshal F, Mojibhaghghadam Z, Shahinrokhsar P (2017) Rice farmers’ behaviors and attitudes toward agricultural extension programs in healthy food production (case of Lahijan and Amlash Counties, northern Iran). Int J Agric Manag Dev 7(1):37–46Google Scholar
  24. Bagheri A, Allahyari MS, Ashouri D (2016) Interpretation on biological control adoption of the rice stem borer, Chilo suppressalis (Walker) in North Part of Iran: application for technology acceptance model (TAM). Egypt J Biol Pest Control 26(1):27Google Scholar
  25. Beck, L., & Ajzen, I. (1991) Predicting dishonest actions using the theory of planned behavior. J Res Pers, 25(3), 285–301Google Scholar
  26. Becker GS (2017) Economic theory. RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  27. Becker, G. S., Ewald, F., & Harcourt, B. E. (2012) Becker on Ewald on Foucault on Becker & American Neoliberalism and Michel Foucault 1979 & Birth of Biopolitics & Lectures. University of Chicago Institute for Law & Economics Olin Research Paper, (614)Google Scholar
  28. Bockarjova M, Steg L (2014) Can protection motivation theory predict pro-environmental behavior? Explaining the adoption of electric vehicles in the Netherlands. Glob Environ Chang 28:276–288Google Scholar
  29. Bocken, N. M., Short, S. W., Rana, P., & Evans, S. (2014). A literature and practice review to develop sustainable business model archetypes. J Clean Prod, 65, 42–56Google Scholar
  30. Borges JAR, Lansink AGJMO (2016) Identifying psychological factors that determine cattle farmers’ intention to use improved natural grassland. J Environ Psychol 45:89–96Google Scholar
  31. 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), 2814–2825Google Scholar
  32. Borges JAR, Lansink AGO, Ribeiro CM, Lutke V (2014) Understanding farmers’ intention to adopt improved natural grassland using the theory of planned behavior. Livest Sci 169:163–174Google Scholar
  33. Bowman, M., & Zilberman, D. (2013) Economic factors affecting diversified farming systems. Ecol Soc, 18(1)Google Scholar
  34. Brown JD, Cantor J (2000) An agenda for research on youth and the media. J Adolesc Health 27(2):2–7Google Scholar
  35. Bruegel M (2011) "an acceptable refreshment": the meaning of food and drink in the Hudson Valley, 1780-1860. J Soc Hist 44(4):1157–1171Google Scholar
  36. Burns N (1989) Standards for qualitative research. Nurs Sci Q 2(1):44–52Google Scholar
  37. Busdieker-Jesse, N. L., Nogueira, L., Onal, H., & Bullock, D. S. (2016). The economic impact of new technology adoption on the US Apple Industry.Google Scholar
  38. Carter S (2001) Multiple business ownership in the farm sector-differentiating monoactive, diversified and portfolio enterprises. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research 7(2):43–59Google Scholar
  39. Chen M-F, Tung P-J (2014) Developing an extended theory of planned behavior model to predict consumers’ intention to visit green hotels. Int J Hosp Manag 36:221–230Google Scholar
  40. Chen S-Y (2016) Using the sustainable modified TAM and TPB to analyze the effects of perceived green value on loyalty to a public bike system. Transp Res A Policy Pract 88:58–72Google Scholar
  41. Chin C, Grimm R, Julienne P, Tiesinga E (2010) Feshbach resonances in ultracold gases. Rev Mod Phys 82(2):1225–1286Google Scholar
  42. Chin WW (1998) Commentary: issues and opinion on structural equation modeling. JSTORGoogle Scholar
  43. Chinen MA (2016) The co-evolution of autonomous machines and legal responsibility. Va JL & Tech 20:338Google Scholar
  44. Churchill GA Jr (1979) A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. J Mark Res 16(1):64–73Google Scholar
  45. Cohen E (1988) Authenticity and commoditization in tourism. Ann Tour Res 15(3):371–386Google Scholar
  46. Cooper, D. C., & Emory, CW. (1995) Business research methods. Irwin, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  47. Creswell JW, Zhang W (2009) The application of mixed methods designs to trauma research. J Trauma Stress 22(6):612–621Google Scholar
  48. Creswell, J. W., Plano Clark, V. L., Gutmann, M. L., & Hanson, W. E. (2003) Advanced mixed methods research designs. Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research, 209, 240Google Scholar
  49. Dardak RA (2015) Transformation of agricultural sector in Malaysia through agricultural policy. Malaysian Agricultural Research and Development Institute (MARDI), Malaysia, p 7Google Scholar
  50. Davidson JS (2018) Stagnating yields, unyielding profits: the political economy of Malaysia’s rice sector. J Southeast Asian Stud 49(1):105–128Google Scholar
  51. Davis, F. D. (1985). A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: theory and results.Google Scholar
  52. De Lauwere CC (2005) The role of agricultural entrepreneurship in Dutch agriculture of today. Agric Econ 33(2):229–238Google Scholar
  53. Department of Statistics Malaysia, D (2011) Economic census 2011. Retrieved from Malaysia: http://www.smecorp.gov.my/vn2/node/59
  54. Dijkstra, T. K., & Henseler, J. (2015). Consistent partial least squares path modeling. MIS Q, 39(2)Google Scholar
  55. Dill GM, CaJacob CA, Padgette SR (2008) Glyphosate-resistant crops: adoption, use and future considerations. Pest Manag Sci 64(4):326–331Google Scholar
  56. Doss, C. R. (2003) Understanding farm level technology adoption: lessons learned from CIMMYT&newapos;s micro surveys in Eastern Africa (pp. iv-20). CIMMYTGoogle Scholar
  57. Ducusin RJT, Padilla MA, Regondola JCI, Pajas AMGA, Domingo RD, Torres MIP (2016) Detection of antibodies against porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome and Porcine circovirus type 2 in smallholder swine farms from an abattoir in Sariaya, Quezon, Philippines. Philip J Vet Anim Sci 41(2)Google Scholar
  58. El Shrek Y, Ali M (2012) Microbiological study of spiced chicken burgers in Tripoli City, Libya/Etude microbiologique de burgers de poulet epices dans la ville de Tripoli (Libye). East Mediterr Health J 18(6):653–662Google Scholar
  59. Fahmi Z, Samah BA, Abdullah H (2013) Paddy industry and paddy farmers well-being: a success recipe for agriculture industry in Malaysia. Asian Soc Sci 9(3):p177Google Scholar
  60. Fao (2015) Food and Agriculture Organization: statistics, 2015. FAOstat. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/countryprofiles/index/en/?iso3=MYS
  61. Farzaneh M, Allahyari MS, Damalas CA, Seidavi A (2017) Crop insurance as a risk management tool in agriculture: the case of silk farmers in northern Iran. Land Use Policy 64:225–232Google Scholar
  62. Feder G, Umali DL (1993) The adoption of agricultural innovations: a review. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 43(3-4):215–239Google Scholar
  63. Fornell C, Larcker DF (1981) Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: algebra and statistics. J Mark Res 18:382–388Google Scholar
  64. Gabre-Madhin EZ, Haggblade S (2004) Successes in African agriculture: results of an expert survey. World Dev 32(5):745–766Google Scholar
  65. Gao J, Li S (2014) Analysis of influence factors of farmers&newapos; willingness to quit right of contractual and management of rural land in progress of urbanization. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering 30(6):212–220Google Scholar
  66. Gérardeaux E, Affholder F, Bernoux M, Muller B (2016) Relationships between tropical annual cropping systems and climate change. In: Climate change and agriculture worldwide. Springer, pp 109–124Google Scholar
  67. Ghadiyali Tejaskumar, R., & Kayasth Manish, M (2012) Contribution of green technology in sustainable development of agriculture sector. Journal of Environmental Research And Development, 7(1A)Google Scholar
  68. Goswami K, Choudhury HK, Saikia J (2012) Factors influencing farmers’ adoption of slash and burn agriculture in North East India. Forest Policy Econ 15:146–151Google Scholar
  69. Groves RM, Fowler FJ Jr, Couper MP, Lepkowski JM, Singer E, Tourangeau R (2011) Survey methodology, vol 561. John Wiley & SonsGoogle Scholar
  70. Guy S, Farmer G (2001) Reinterpreting sustainable architecture: the place of technology. J Archit Educ 54(3):140–148Google Scholar
  71. Hair Jr, J. F., & Lukas, B. (2014). Marketing research (Vol. 1). McGraw-Hill Education AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  72. Hair, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Mena, J. A. (2012). An assessment of the use of partial least squares structural equation modeling in marketing research. J Acad Mark Sci, 40(3), 414–433Google Scholar
  73. Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ (2010) RE anderson multivariate data analysis: a global perspective. Pearson Prentice Hall, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  74. Hair Jr, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Gudergan, S. P. (2017). Advanced issues in partial least squares structural equation modeling. Sage PublicationsGoogle Scholar
  75. Hair J, Matthews L, Matthews R, Sarstedt M (2017) PLS-SEM or CB-SEM: updated guidelines on which method to use. Int J Multivar Data AnalGoogle Scholar
  76. Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., & Thiele, K. O. (2017) Mirror, mirror on the wall: a comparative evaluation of composite-based structural equation modeling methods. J Acad Mark Sci, 45(5), 616–632Google Scholar
  77. 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), 465–482Google Scholar
  78. Harun, R. (2015). Policies and economic development of rice production in Malaysia [Press release]. Retrieved from http://ap.fftc.agnet.org/ap_db.php?id=393&print=1
  79. Harun, R., Sobri, A. A., Sufian, F. H., & Sulaiman, N. H. (2018). Issues and challenges of Clearfield® paddy production system among the paddy farmers in selected granary areas.Google Scholar
  80. Hashim MMA, Yusop MK, Othman R, Wahid SA (2017) Field evaluation of newly-developed controlled release fertilizer on rice production and nitrogen uptake. Sains Malays 46(6):925–932Google Scholar
  81. Hashim, M. M. a., Yusop, M. K., Othman, R., & Wahid, S. A. (2015). Characterization of nitrogen uptake pattern in Malaysian rice MR219 at different growth stages using 15N isotope. Rice Sci, 22(5), 250–254Google Scholar
  82. Hassan, M. S., Shaffril, H. A. M., Ali, M. S. S., & Ramli, N. S. (2010) Agriculture agency, mass media and farmers: a combination for creating knowledgeable agriculture community. Afr J Agric Res, 5(24), 3500–3513Google Scholar
  83. Hasin A, Smith S, Stieren P (2016) Illinois farmers markets using EBT: impacts on SNAP redemption and market sales. J Agric Food Syst Commun Dev 5(1):179–188Google Scholar
  84. Henseler, J., Hubona, G., & Ray, P. A. (2016). Using PLS path modeling in new technology research: updated guidelines. Industrial management & data systems, 116(1), 2–20Google Scholar
  85. Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J Acad Mark Sci, 43(1), 115–135Google Scholar
  86. Henseler, J., Dijkstra, T. K., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., Diamantopoulos, A., Straub, D. W., & Calantone, R. J. (2014). Common beliefs and reality about PLS: comments on Rönkkö and Evermann (2013). Organ Res Methods, 17(2), 182–209Google Scholar
  87. Henseler, J., & Sarstedt, M. (2013) Goodness-of-fit indices for partial least squares path modeling. Comput Stat, 28(2), 565–580Google Scholar
  88. Hertzog MA (2008) Considerations in determining sample size for pilot studies. Res Nurs Health 31(2):180–191Google Scholar
  89. Hoffmann, A. O., & Birnbrich, C. (2012) The impact of fraud prevention on bank-customer relationships: an empirical investigation in retail banking. Int J Bank Mark, 30(5), 390–407Google Scholar
  90. Holt-Gimenez, E., & Patel, R. (2012) Food rebellions: Crisis and the hunger for justice: Food First BooksGoogle Scholar
  91. Hosseini, S. E., Andwari, A. M., Wahid, M. A., & Bagheri, G. (2013). A review on green energy potentials in Iran. Renew Sust Energ Rev, 27, 533–545Google Scholar
  92. Hu, L. t., & Bentler, P. M. (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Model Multidiscip J, 6(1), 1–55Google Scholar
  93. Hwang, K., & Jotwani, N. (2016). Advanced computer architecture, 3e. McGraw-Hill Education. Svensson, L., Hakeberg, M., & Wide, U. (2018). Dental pain and oral health-related quality of life in individuals with severe dental anxiety. Acta Odontologica Scandinavica, 76(6), 401–406Google Scholar
  94. Ismail IB, Sabran R, Ariffin MYBM (2017) Study of situational theory of problem solving (STOPS) in conceptualizing farmer’s response towards insufficient information delivery in Malaysia. Humanit Soc Sci Rev 5(2):124–133Google Scholar
  95. Jaim, W. M. H., & Akter, S. (2012). Seed, fertilizer and innovation in Bangladesh: industry and policy issues for the future. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research InstituteGoogle Scholar
  96. Jamal, K., Kamarulzaman, N. H., Abdullah, A. M., Ismail, M. M., & Hashim, M. (2014). Adoption of fragrant rice farning: insights from Paddy farmers in Malaysia. Editorial board, 45–45Google Scholar
  97. Kalaian SA (2008) Research design. Encyclopedia of survey research methods, pp 725–732Google Scholar
  98. 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 Chang 80(3):525–540Google Scholar
  99. Kline RB (2005) Methodology in the social sciences. In: Principles and practice of structural equation modeling, 2nd edn. Guilford Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  100. Klöckner CA (2013) A comprehensive model of the psychology of environmental behaviour—a metaanalysis. Glob Environ Chang 23(5):1028–1038Google Scholar
  101. Knowler D, Bradshaw B (2007) Farmers’ adoption of conservation agriculture: a review and synthesis of recent research. Food Policy 32(1):25–48Google Scholar
  102. Kock N (2015) One-tailed or two-tailed P values in PLS-SEM? Int J e-Collab (IJeC) 11(2):1–7Google Scholar
  103. Koirala KH, Mishra A, Mohanty S (2016) Impact of land ownership on productivity and efficiency of rice farmers: the case of the Philippines. Land Use Policy 50:371–378Google Scholar
  104. Kothari CR (2004) Research methodology: methods and techniques. New Age International, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  105. Kosarek JL, Garcia P, Morris ML (2001) Factors explaining the diffusion of hybrid maize in Latin America and the Caribbean region. Agric Econ 26(3):267–280Google Scholar
  106. Koundouri, P., Nauges, C., & Tzouvelekas, V. (2002). Endogenous technology adoption under production risk: theory and application to irrigation technology.Google Scholar
  107. Koundouri P, Nauges C, Tzouvelekas V (2006) Technology adoption under production uncertainty: theory and application to irrigation technology. Am J Agric Econ 88(3):657–670Google Scholar
  108. Kumar DS, Barah BC, Ranganathan CR, Venkatram R, Gurunathan S, Thirumoorthy S (2011) An analysis of farmers’ perception and awareness towards crop insurance as a tool for risk management in Tamil Nadu. Agric Econ Res Rev (1):24Google Scholar
  109. Kutter, T., Tiemann, S., Siebert, R., & Fountas, S. (2011) The role of communication and co-operation in the adoption of precision farming. Precis Agric, 12(1), 2–17Google Scholar
  110. Lackey, N. R., Wingate, A. L., Brink, P. J., & Wood, M. J. (1998). Advanced design in nursing researchGoogle Scholar
  111. Lalani B, Dorward P, Holloway G, Wauters E (2016) Smallholder farmers’ motivations for using conservation agriculture and the roles of yield, labour and soil fertility in decision making. Agric Syst 146:80–90Google Scholar
  112. Lansink AO, van den Berg M, Huirne R (2003) Analysis of strategic planning of Dutch pig farmers using a multivariate probit model. Agric Syst 78(1):73–84Google Scholar
  113. Lienhoop N, Brouwer R (2015) Agri-environmental policy valuation: Farmers’ contract design preferences for afforestation schemes. Land Use Policy 42:568–577Google Scholar
  114. Lokhorst AM, Staats H, van Dijk J, van Dijk E, de Snoo G (2011) What’s in it for me? motivational differences between farmers’ subsidised and non-subsidised conservation practices. Appl Psychol 60(3):337–353Google Scholar
  115. McGrath, C., & Zell, D. (2001) The future of innovation diffusion research and its implications for management: a conversation with Everett Rogers. J Manag Inq, 10(4), 386–391Google Scholar
  116. Malhotra, A., Thorpe, R. S., & Stuart, B. L. (2004). A morphometric analysis of Trimeresurus vogeli (David, Vidal and Pauwels, 2001), with new data on diagnostic characteristics, distribution and natural history. Herpetol J, 14(2), 65–78Google Scholar
  117. Mallet, A. L., Carver, C. E., & Landry, T. (2006). Impact of suspended and off-bottom eastern oyster culture on the benthic environment in eastern Canada. Aquaculture, 255(1–4), 362–373Google Scholar
  118. Mann S (2018) Conservation by innovation: what are the triggers for participation among Swiss farmers? Ecol Econ 146:10–16Google Scholar
  119. Mannan S, Nordin SM, Rafik-Galea S, Rizal ARA (2017) The ironies of new innovation and the sunset industry: diffusion and adoption. J Rural Stud 55:316–322Google Scholar
  120. Martey E, Wiredu AN, Etwire PM, Fosu M, Buah SSJ, Bidzakin J et al (2013) Fertilizer adoption and use intensity among smallholder farmers in Northern Ghana: a case study of the AGRA soil health project. Sustain Agric Res 3(1):24Google Scholar
  121. Martin-Shields CP, Stojetz W (2019) Food security and conflict: empirical challenges and future opportunities for research and policy making on food security and conflict. World Dev 119(C):150–164Google Scholar
  122. Masso, W. Y. A., Man, N., & Nawi, N. B. M. (2016) Skill level of rural leaders towards some agricultural Technologies in Muda Agriculture Development Authority (Mada-Malaysia). Mediterr J Soc Sci, 7(4), 716Google Scholar
  123. Mastrangelo ME, Gavin MC, Laterra P, Linklater WL, Milfont TL (2014) Psycho-social factors influencing forest conservation intentions on the agricultural frontier. Conserv Lett 7(2):103–110Google Scholar
  124. Masud MM, Azam MN, Mohiuddin M, Banna H, Akhtar R, Alam ASAF, Begum H (2017) Adaptation barriers and strategies towards climate change: challenges in the agricultural sector. J Clean Prod 156:698–706Google Scholar
  125. Moore, G. C., & Benbasat, I. (1991). Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Inf Syst Res, 2(3), 192–222Google Scholar
  126. Morais M, Binotto E, Borges JAR (2017) Identifying beliefs underlying successors’ intention to take over the farm. Land Use Policy 68:48–58Google Scholar
  127. Morais M, Borges JAR, Binotto E (2018) Using the reasoned action approach to understand Brazilian successors’ intention to take over the farm. Land Use Policy 71:445–452Google Scholar
  128. Naher UA, Ahmed MN, Sarkar MIU, Biswas JC, Panhwar QA (2019) Fertilizer management strategies for sustainable rice production. In: Organic farming. Elsevier, pp 251–267Google Scholar
  129. Naspetti S, Mandolesi S, Buysse J, Latvala T, Nicholas P, Padel S, Zanoli R (2017) Determinants of the acceptance of sustainable production strategies among dairy farmers: development and testing of a modified technology acceptance model. Sustainability 9(10):1805–1805Google Scholar
  130. Nejati, V., & Alipour, F. (2017). Development of trust in a sample of Iranian childrenGoogle Scholar
  131. Nilakanta, S., & Scamell, R. W. (1990). The effect of information sources and communication channels on the diffusion of innovation in a data base development environment. Manag Sci, 36(1), 24–40Google Scholar
  132. Nisaa MK, Nalini A, Adam A, Josephine T (2018) Assessing economic sustainability of Malaysian rice farming (1972-2014). J Acad UiTM Negeri Sembilan 6(1):105–111Google Scholar
  133. Nunnally J (1978) Psychom Theory 2Google Scholar
  134. 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 MalayaGoogle Scholar
  135. Oyekale AS (2015) Access to Risk mitigating weather forecasts and changes in farming operations in East and West Africa: evidence from a baseline survey. Sustainability 7(11):14599–14617Google Scholar
  136. Petter S (2018) Haters gonna hate: PLS and information systems research. ACM SIGMIS Database: The DATABASE for Advances in Information Systems 49(1):10–13Google Scholar
  137. Pingali, P., Mittra, B., & Rahman, A. (2017). The bumpy road from food to nutrition security–slow evolution of India’s food policy. Global Food Security, Google Scholar
  138. Pretty J, Toulmin C, Williams S (2011) Sustainable intensification in African agriculture. Int J Agric Sustain 9(1):5–24Google Scholar
  139. 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. International Journal of Social Science and Humanity, 2(3), 213Google Scholar
  140. Redza A, Nordin SM, Saad MSM (2017) The innovative society: a comparison study of innovation diffusion among farmers in Malaysia two major granary area. Glob Bus Manag Res 9(1 s):703–703Google Scholar
  141. Rigdon EE (2016) Choosing PLS path modeling as analytical method in European management research: a realist perspective. Eur Manag J 34(6):598–605Google Scholar
  142. Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., Mitchell, R., & Gudergan, S. P. (2018). Partial least squares structural equation modeling in HRM research. Int J Hum Resour Manag, 1–27Google Scholar
  143. Ringle, C., Da Silva, D., & Bido, D. (2015). Structural equation modeling with the SmartPLS. Bido, D., da Silva, D., & Ringle, C.(2014). Structural equation modeling with the Smartpls. Brazilian Journal Of Marketing, 13(2)Google Scholar
  144. Ritzema RS, Frelat R, Douxchamps S, Silvestri S, Rufino MC, Herrero M et al (2017) Is production intensification likely to make farm households food-adequate? A simple food availability analysis across smallholder farming systems from East and West Africa. Food Secur 9(1):115–131Google Scholar
  145. Robertson, M. J., Llewellyn, R. S., Mandel, R., Lawes, R., Bramley, R. G. V., Swift, L., & O’Callaghan, C. (2012) Adoption of variable rate fertiliser application in the Australian grains industry: status, issues and prospects. Precis Agric, 13(2), 181–199Google Scholar
  146. Rogers EM (2010) Diffusion of innovations. Simon and SchusterGoogle Scholar
  147. Rogers EM (2003) Elements of diffusion. Diffusion of innovations 5(1.38)Google Scholar
  148. Rönkkö, M., McIntosh, C. N., Antonakis, J., & Edwards, J. R. (2016). Partial least squares path modeling: time for some serious second thoughts. J Oper Manag, 47, 9–27Google Scholar
  149. Rönkkö, M., McIntosh, C. N., & Antonakis, J. (2015). On the adoption of partial least squares in psychological research: caveat emptor. Personal Individ Differ, 87, 76–84Google Scholar
  150. Rönkkö, M., & Evermann, J. (2013). A critical examination of common beliefs about partial least squares path modeling. Organ Res Methods, 16(3), 425–448Google Scholar
  151. Ruttan VW (2000) Technology, growth, and development: an induced innovation perspective. OUP CatalogueGoogle Scholar
  152. Sarstedt, M., Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., Thiele, K. O., & Gudergan, S. P. (2016). Estimation issues with PLS and CBSEM: where the bias lies!. J Bus Res, 69(10), 3998–4010Google Scholar
  153. Sarstedt M, Mooi E (2014) A concise guide to market research. The Process, Data, andGoogle Scholar
  154. Scott MD (2008) Scott on multimedia law, vol 1. Aspen Publishers Online, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  155. Sheeran P (2002) Intention—behavior relations: a conceptual and empirical review. Eur Rev Soc Psychol 12(1):1–36Google Scholar
  156. Schuitema G, Anable J, Skippon S, Kinnear N (2013) The role of instrumental, hedonic and symbolic attributes in the intention to adopt electric vehicles. Transp Res A Policy Pract 48:39–49Google Scholar
  157. Sekaran, U., & Bougie, R. (2016) Research methods for business: A skill building approach: John Wiley & SonsGoogle Scholar
  158. Senger I, Borges JAR, Machado JAD (2017) Using the theory of planned behavior to understand the intention of small farmers in diversifying their agricultural production. J Rural Stud 49:32–40Google Scholar
  159. Senyolo MP, Long TB, Blok V, Omta O (2017) How the characteristics of innovations impact their adoption: an exploration of climate-smart agricultural innovations in South Africa. J Clean ProdGoogle Scholar
  160. 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), 307Google Scholar
  161. Singh NP, Singh RP, Kumar R, Vashist AK, Khan F, Varghese N (2011) Adoption of resource conservation technologies in Indo-Gangetic Plains of India: scouting for profitability and efficiency. Agric Econ Res Rev 24(1):15–24Google Scholar
  162. Singh, H., Mishra, D., & Nahar, N. M. (2002). Energy use pattern in production agriculture of a typical village in arid zone, India––part I. Energy Convers Manag, 43(16), 2275–2286Google Scholar
  163. Sreejesh S (2014) Business research methods: an applied orientation. Cham: Springer International Publishing: Imprint: Springer, 2014Google Scholar
  164. Strauss J, Barbosa M, Teixeira S, Thomas D, Junior RG (1991) Role of education and extension in the adoption of technology: a study of upland rice and soybean farmers in Central-West Brazil. Agric Econ 5(4):341–359Google Scholar
  165. Tenenhaus, M., Amato, S., & Esposito Vinzi, V. (2004, June). A global goodness-of-fit index for PLS structural equation modelling. In Proceedings of the XLII SIS scientific meeting(Vol. 1, pp. 739–742)Google Scholar
  166. Tey YS (2013) The adoption of sustainable agricultural practices: an integrative approach for Malaysian vegetable farmers. The University of AdelaideGoogle Scholar
  167. Tiraieyari, N., Hamzah, A., & Samah, B. A. (2014). Organic farming and sustainable agriculture in Malaysia: organic farmers&newapos; challenges towards adoption. Asian Soc Sci, 10(4), p1-p1Google Scholar
  168. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Q, 425–478Google Scholar
  169. Wang S, Fan J, Zhao D, Yang S, Fu Y (2016a) Predicting consumers’ intention to adopt hybrid electric vehicles: using an extended version of the theory of planned behavior model. Transportation 43(1):123–143Google Scholar
  170. Wang Y, Hsiao S-H, Yang Z, Hajli N (2016b) The impact of sellers’ social influence on the co-creation of innovation with customers and brand awareness in online communities. Ind Mark Manag 54:56–70Google Scholar
  171. Wang Y, Zhu Y, Zhang S, Wang Y (2018) What could promote farmers to replace chemical fertilizers with organic fertilizers? J Clean Prod 199:882–890Google Scholar
  172. Zahiid SJ (2019) Rice industry in dire straits despite billions in federal aid, says KRI study. Retrieved from https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2019/04/10/rice-industry-in-dire-straits-despite-billions-in-federal-aid-says-kri-stud/1741815
  173. Zikmund W (2003) Business research methods, 7th edn. Thomson/South-Western In: AppendicesGoogle Scholar
  174. Zmud RW (1983a) The effectiveness of external information channels in facilitating innovation within software development groups. MIS Q:43–58Google Scholar
  175. Zmud RW (1983b) The effectiveness of external information channels in facilitating innovation within software development groups. MIS Q:43–58Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nadia Adnan
    • 1
    Email author
  • Shahrina Md Nordin
    • 1
  • Amran Md Rasli
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Management & HumanitiesUniversiti Teknologi PETRONASTronohMalaysia
  2. 2.Al-Sumait University ZanzibarZanzibarTanzania

Personalised recommendations