Research Article

Local Rice Farmers Attitude and Behavior towards Agricultural Programs and Policies

Hendro Prasetyo1*, Diah Karmiyati2, Roy Hendroko Setyobudi2, Ahmad Fauzi2, Trias Agung Pakarti1,3, Mardiana Sri Susanti4, Waris Ali Khan5, Leila Neimane6,7 and Maizirwan Mel8,9

1University of Brawijaya, Malang 65145, Indonesia; 2University of Muhammadiyah Malang, Malang 65144, Indonesia; 3Mayantara School, Malang, Malang 65146, Indonesia; 4Aura Statistics Consultant, Malang 65141, Indonesia; 5Pakistan Academy of Sciences, Islamabad Capital Territory, Pakistan; 6University of Latvia, Rīga, LV-1586, Latvia; 7Balticpeatmoss, Ltd., Riga, LV-1010, Latvia; 8International Islamic University Malaysia, 50278 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia; 9Postgraduate School, Universitas Nasional, Special Region of Jakarta 12550, Indonesia.

Received | November 12, 2022; Accepted | December 18, 2022; Published | December 28, 2022

*Correspondence |Hendro Prasetyo, University of Brawijaya, Malang, Indonesia; Email: hprasetyo@ub.ac.id

Citation | Prasetyo, H., D. Karmiyati, R.H. Setyobudi, A. Fauzi, T.A. Pakarti, M.S. Susanti, W. A. Khan, L. Neimane and M. Mel. 2022. Local rice farmers attitude and behavior towards agricultural programs and policies. Pakistan Journal of Agricultural Research, 35(4): 663-677.

DOI | https://dx.doi.org/10.17582/journal.pjar/2022/35.4.663.677

Keywords | Agricultural intensification, Green revolution, Mass direction, Mass intensification, Self-sufficiency

Copyright: 2022 by the authors. Licensee ResearchersLinks Ltd, England, UK.

This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Introduction

Being the staple food as in various Asian countries (Amrullah, 2018), rice is an essential commodity in Indonesia. While being the third major rice producer globally (Bandumula, 2018), its consumption rate has been ahead of its national yield one (Noviar, 2018). However, propagating rice production is a challenge. The extent of rice fields throughout nation has been constantly declining despite being recognized as an agrarian country (Daris et al., 2018; Harjanti and Hara, 2020). The decreasing number of rice farmers also occurs since younger generations have been more interested in other professions (Anandita and Patria, 2017). The aforementioned cases lead to dwindling rice quantity produced nationwide (Octania, 2021), compelling the government to import a large portion of it to cater the demand (Ariska and Qurniawan, 2021; Arsani, 2020).

Attempts on boosting rice production have been proceeding for decades. The government had resolved that agricultural schemes should aim at farmers’ welfare since 1960s (Anitasari, 2019). Agricultural intensification was put into operation under Green Revolution Campaign during 1980s (Davidson, 2018), where agrotechnology for optimizing soil nutrients and groundwater as well as cultivating superior cultivars of rice was involved in order to maximize land productivity (Anitasari, 2019). The campaign made it mandatory for farmers to regularly attend mass direction (Bimbingan massal – BIMAS) and mass intensification (Intensifikasi massal – INMAS) programs (Nugroho, 2018) where close guidances on rice variant selection, land management, fertilizer administration, pest control, irrigation, and post-harvest treatment were provided. As a result, Indonesia was able to suffice her own need of food between 1984 and 1989 (Anitasari, 2019). With ocus on nurturing vacant areas for rice, corn, and grain production, the intensification program in 1998 to 2000 gave benefits of not only guidance but also farming loans.

The current one, starting 2015, encourages farmers, stakeholders, and the armed forces to thrive for self-sufficiency of rice, corn, and soybean. Training, supervision, seed provision, equipment, and marketing information have been provided to achieve the target (Khodijah et al., 2022; Yasar et al., 2020). Yet, it is considered unsuccessful in national level (Setianto and Pabuayon, 2020).

All programs have been selecting and supplying superior varieties rather than local ones due to their environmental adaptability (Ratmini et al., 2021), shorter lifespans that ensure sooner harvest (Astarini et al., 2020; Paiman et al., 2020), and higher productivity (Astarini et al., 2020). Such qualities should be able to enhance rice yield significantly. Yet, many Indonesian farmers choose to persevere with local varieties (Hidayat et al., 2020a) for a number of causes. In Yogyakarta, superior varieties are considered inapt with the farmers’ agricultural schemes (Connor et al., 2021). In Jember, they are deemed less compatible with certain characteristics of the local fields (Wardana et al., 2018). In Tasikmalaya, they induce farmers’ apprehension on their potential to disturb the environmental balance (Permana et al., 2018). In Sumedang, they are less popular since the local variants already provides farmers with satisfying yield (Hidayat et al., 2020a). A similar issue occurs in Malang Regency where rice farmers in Sidodadi and Banturejo villages of Ngantang district keep on cultivating local varieties of mostly Genjah putih, Genjah urang, and Ketan hitam with lifespans of 5.5 month (165 days). However, a study on why the farmers of this particular area prefer local varieties to superior ones has yet to be found.

Information on rice varieties planted in various parts of the country and their farmers’ responses on current intensification program UPSUS PAJALE (Upaya khusus padi, jagung, dan kedele; Rice, Corn, and Soy endeavors), later referred to as “the program” has been found. They are indicated in reports on the program’s implementation in South Lampung (Khodijah et al., 2022) and Metro City (Yasar et al., 2020). They are found in areport on the program’s implementation and its affective factors in Sidenreng Rappang Regency (Rezky and Alam, 2019). They are insinuated in an analysis on the program’s global competitiveness (Setiyanto et al., 2021). They are implied in a study on the benefits of implementing the program in West Java (Setiyanto et al., 2021). They are also hinted in research on factors that may induce the program’s continuity in Solok (Zulfitriyana et al., 2020). As of Malang Regency, a study on how the area manages the program had been in existent when this manuscript was written.

This study aims to identify, analyze, and describe farmers’ attitudes and behavior to explore their insistence on growing local variant rice. Hopefully, the findings should serve as basic information for the government to plan better policies and develop further consulting and mentoring series to optimize the program for increasing rice productivity in Indonesia

Materials and Methods

This study conducted in Sidodadi and Banturejo villages of Ngantang district, Malang Regency, East Java, Indonesia in/between April to June 2020, purposive sampling method limited to local variant rice farmers only was applied to gain 52 respondents. The key informants were two village officers, three representatives of the local farming unit, one farming technician (Mantra tani), one farming advisor (Penyuluh pertanian), and one statistician from the district office. Specifically on the respondents from Sidodadi, they had been members of the local farming unit and were experienced in growing both local and superior rice variants for 10 years.

Primary data was obtained from survey– involving Likert-scale questionnaire and interview in order to determine farmers’ response, attitude, and behavior. Secondary data was acquired from literature and official records supplied by the two village offices, the Ngantang district office, and the Agriculture Agency of Malang Regency.

To perceive the association between stratification variables and respondent’s view on the program, Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient was employed. A multivariate analysis involving logistic regression test was then run to scrutinize how the respondents’ cognitive, affective, conative, and educational aspects led to their reaction towards all three national agricultural programs

This study uses logistic regression because farmers’ response, the dependent variable, is categorized into two: accepting and rejecting the program. Therefore, the regression analysis that can be used for data-dependent variables with these two categories is binary logistic regression (Adinurani, 2022; Susanti, 2021, Personal communication).

Independent variables:

• X1 = cognitive aspect
• X2 = affective aspect
• X3 = conative aspect
• X4 = Education

Dependent variable: farmer’s response (accepting the program and rejecting the program)

Result and Discussion

Demographics

As farmers, the 52 respondents were in a range of ages between 36 years and 50 years, mostly middle school graduates, and all well-versed in cultivating local variant rice, superior variant rice, and horticulture with experiences of ≥ 30 years. The information is detailed in Table 1 and the percentages are illustrated in Figure 1.

All respondents were in their productive ages and actively worked. Farmers aged 51 years to 61 years were trained in all three programs, so only 15 years were familiar with them. Ones of 36 years to 50 years and 25 years to 35 years knew only the latest two, and any information on the first program might be transferred by their predecessor. Further, about half of them were small-scale farmers owning 0.5 ha to 0.99 ha of land, followed by medium-scale, micro-scale, and large scale ones, respectively.

 

Table 1: Demographics of 52 respondents.

Information	Respondent (pax)	Percentage (%)
Age (year old)
25 to 35	12	23.07
36 to 50	25	48.07
51 to 61	15	28.85
Education
Elementary School	15	28.85
Junior High School	25	48.07
Senior High School	12	23.07
Land ownership
0.1 ha to 0.49 ha	6	11.54
0.5 ha to 0.99 ha	27	51.92
1 ha to 1.49 ha	14	26.92
> 1.5 ha	5	9.62

 

Cognitive, affective, and conative aspects

Cognitive aspect of the respondents signifies their knowledge of any agricultural program or policy issued. The indicators listed in Table 2 are points surveyed in the questionnaire.

With a rate of > 90 %, it is apparent that farmers of both villages are well-informed on every one of them the concepts, the benefits, and the consequences. This result was corroborated by the key informants during interview that the farmers generally attended counseling sessions held by offices and agricultural agencies and received guidances from their farming unit where they became members. This finding contradicts a similar study in Pinrang Regency (Halim et al., 2022) where farmers were less knowledgeable on an agricultural program regarding a different policy and another in Semarang Regency where farmers were less informed on Kartu tani, an integrated e-wallet (Jorgi et al., 2019).

Affective aspect of the respondents mirrors their recognition towards any agricultural program or policy issued. The indicators displayed in Table 3 are items surveyed in the questionnaire.

With a rate of > 90 %, the respondents are generally happy to attend agricultural counseling sessions. They are also delighted to receive not only the farming loan but also the money for subsidizing their seed, fertilizer, and pesticide-herbicide purchases as additional benefits when the first program was transformed into the second one. The positive responses are in sync with other analyses on farmers’ perceptions in Metro City (Yasar et al., 2020) and Solok Regency (Zulfitriyana et al., 2020).

Conative aspect of the respondents denotes their awareness in any agricultural program or policy issued and the importance of complying with them. The indicators shown in Table 4 are details surveyed in the questionnaire.

 

Table 2: Cognitive aspect of the respondents based on questionnaire result.

No.	Indicator	Max score	Score	Percentage (%)
1.	Farmers know and are familiar with both conventional and modern agricultural systems carried on in three programs.	5	4.63	92.6
2.	Farmes know about the two technological packages (Panca Usaha Tani and Sapta Usaha Tani).	5	4.75	95.0
3.	Farmers know that superior, pest-resistant rice variant is able to produce (6 to 10) t ha–1 more yield than local one in only 3.5 months despite 5.5 months.	5	4.83	96.6
4.	Farmers know that growing superior, pest-resistant rice variant is entitled to farming loan and subsidy while local variant is not.	5	4.84	96.8
5.	Farmers know that growing local rice variant means liable to penalty of plant demolition and close control from local offices.	5	4.53	90.6
6.	Farmers know that all three programs aim for national self-sufficiency and sustainability.	5	4.74	94.8
Rate				94.4

 

Table 3: Affective aspect of the respondents based on questionnaire result.

No.	Indicator	Max score	Score	Percentage (%)
1.	Farmers enjoy attending counseling sessions with agricultural advisors and are interested in such session.	5	4.80	96.00
2.	Farmers welcome the change from the first program to the second program for the loan and the production subsidy.	5	4.38	87.60
Rate				91.50

Table 4: Conative aspect of the respondents based on questionnaire result.

No.	Indicator	Max score	Score	Percentage (%)
1.	Farmers attend all counseling sessions and apply both agricultural technology packages.	5	4.90	98.00
2.	Farmers are experienced in growing local rice variants for ≥ 30 years for generations.	5	4.63	92.60
3.	Farmers attended counseling sessions and employed the second program for the loan and the production subsidy.	5	4.66	93.20
4.	Farmers attended counseling sessions and employed the first program for the production subsidy.	5	4.38	87.60
5.	Farmers attend counseling sessions and employed the third program for gaining information on fertilization.	5	4.85	97.00
Rate				93.68

 

With a rate of 93.68 %, the respondents are generally aware how advantageous the two latest programs are. They also apprehend the value of act in accordance with the standard, as they hold good attendance in counseling sessions, and understand that cultivating superior rice variants give them more time between harvest times when they can plant vegetables or other short-timed commodities to enlarge their land productivity. Despite all that, they are unable to leave local rice variants only about 25 % rice fields in Sidodadi and Banturejo grow superior rice variants. When interviewed on the disobedience, a respondent of > 50 years old uttered as cited and translated below:

“Farmers in this village are one hundred percent familiar with all national programs since the first one in 1970 to 1998, the second one in 2000, and the third one from 2014 up to now. We attend counseling sessions as members of a farming unit, and we do plant superior variants. But we can’t abandon the local ones. We make the seeds ourselves, and we’ve been planting local rice for decades because it is beneficial. We know the danger of plant demolition and we can’t get the loan or the subsidy.”

Another respondent came up with more comprehensive reasons as cited and translated below:

“I am a local farmer and I always have local rice seeds in hand. I’ve been growing local variants for decades, always with good harvest because the seeds are compatible with the climate here. Any pest or disease is manageable, and when there’s a problem I can always discuss it with the other farmers in a unit meeting or ask the advisor. The maintenance is easy, my parents showed me how before and I apply it every year.”

The motives of retaining local rice variants are similar to ones in Sumedang considering agreeable yield (Hidayat et al., 2020a), in Tabanan concerning plant and land compatibility (Astarini et al., 2020), in Yogyakarta regarding farming habit (Connor et al., 2021), and in Jember related to pest control (Wardana et al., 2018).

It is true that local varieties can be more resilient than superior ones. Some were reported to live better in aluminum-contaminated soil due to their Al-tolerant genes (Miftahudin et al., 2021), some others naturally have higher inundation tolerance (Khasna et al., 2020) or specific alleles responsible for resisting bacterial leaf blight (Utami et al., 2013). There is a special condition that superior variants are unable to grow well in Penebel District of Tabanan Regency that the government consents on local variant cultivation (Astarini et al., 2020).

Apart from those cases, the superior variant selection for the third program had been carefully assessed as numerous reports on their advantages are present. They are confirmed to raise rice production rate for their adaptability (Ratmini et al., 2021), shorter growing duration (Hidayat et al., 2020b), and higher amount of yield (Paiman et al., 2020).

 

Table 5: Farmers’ attitude and behavior towards three national programs.

Attitude and Behavior	Land ownership
	0.1 ha to 0.49 ha (micro-scale)		0.5 ha to 0.99 ha (small-scale)		1 ha to 1.49 ha (middle-scale)		> 1.5 ha (large-scale)
	Frequency	(%)	Frequency	(%)	Frequency	(%)	Frequency	(%)
First program
Decline	6	100	18	66.7	3	21.4	0	0
Accept with condition	0	0	9	33.3	4	28.6	2	40
Plant both local and superior variants of rice	0	0	0	0	7	50	3	60
Second program
Decline	6	100	16	59.3	8	57.1	3	60
Plant corn 40 % and local rice 60 %	0	0	11	40.7	0	0	0	0
Plant local rice 60 % and corn 40 %	0	0	0	0	6	42.9	0	0
Plant local rice 65 % and corn 35 %	0	0	0	0	0	0	2	40
Third program
Decline	6	100	27	100	14	100	2	40
Plant local rice 65 % and superior rice 35 %	0	0	0	0	0	0	3	60

 

Correlation between social strata and response

Table 5 depicts that although most farmers in Banturejo responded well to the first and the second programs, the micro-scale ones were unresponsive, and resulting in only 35 % to 50 % of the target was achieved. While the small-scale farmers obeyed the first program on conditions, the medium and large scale ones chose to grow both local and superior rice variants. An identical action of planting both corn and local rice was taken by small, medium, and large scale farmers to answer the second program, only slightly differ on the percentages. As of the third program, micro-scale farmers were again unresponsive, and farmers of micro, small, and medium scales completely refused to plant superior rice variants – despite knowing the risk, they secretively grew local rice. Large-scale farmers planted superior rice variants on the highest parts of their fields and hid local ones on lower parts, which was made possible by the mountainous landscape of > 20° inclination.

The defiance of farmers in Banturejo village is a social fact rooting from tradition. A respondent articulated in the interview as cited and translated below:

I have got the seeds from my grandparents and we have been planting local rice since Soekarno (the first president) era. They are easy to make and costless.

Another respondent of ≥ 50 years old explained the deception to avoid sanction as cited and translated below:

“My fellow farmers and I are members of the farming unit, and we’re often persuaded to plant superior variant. But growing local rice is customary, even my grandparents did it. I was a young boy in 1970s, and I knew already that it was forbidden and the officers would yank the local rice plants off of the field and changed them with superior ones had they found out. I’m being obedient here, so I plant superior rice on the higher parts of my field and local one on the lower parts.”

Rank Spearman analysis confirms the strongly positive significance in correlation between social strata and response towards national programs among farmers (Table 6). Land ownership is set to be the parameter, viewing that large land corresponds to good economical condition that leads to high social status. Convincingly, the larger the land, the better the farmer’s response will be. It supports a study in Kerawang stating that economy is an important factor in farmer’s participation (Warya and Anwarudin, 2018) and another in Manokwari that both social and economical statuses are influential in the farmer’s partake in the third program (Anwarudin, 2017). Not only in Indonesia, household participation status in the agricultural extension program in Ethiopia is substantially dependant on the respondent’s wealth status (Tewodros, 2015) and farmland size is associated with farmer’s behavior di India (Mittal and Mehar, 2016), while land size is not only significantly correlated to youth participation in farm practices in Nigeria (Agboola et al., 2015) but also general agricultural practices there (Victory et al., 2022).

Table 6: Correlation test result between social strata and response.

Correlation coefficiency	Sig.	Remark
0.560	.000	Significantly correlated

Effects of cognitive, affective, and conative, and educational aspectson response

In this multivariate analysis, the logistic regression test contained cognitive, affective, conative, and educational aspects as independent variables and response on the programs as independent one. The coefficient of determination test result is revealed in Table 7.

 

Table 7: Coefficient of determination test result.

-2 Log likelihood	Cox-Snell R2	Nagelkerke R2
27.503	0.575	0.767

 

Table 8: Logistic regression test result.

Variable	B	Sig.	Exp (B)	95.0 % C.I. for Exp(B)
				Lower	Upper
Cognitive aspect	2.594	0.003	13.390	2.419	74.114
Affective aspect	2.842	0.014	17.151	1.781	165.214
Conative aspect	0.368	0.415	1.445	0.597	3.497
Education level	1.984	0.019	7.273	1.385	38.200
Constant	-113.077	0.002	7.78E-50

 

With R2 value of 0.767, it is un mistakable that the farmers’ choices in responding to the three programs rely on their cognitive, affective, conative, and educational aspects up to 76.7 %. The 23.3 % is of other features, such as risk taking ability, negligence, distrust, program socialization, counseling process, or other unobserved variables.

Chi-Square Goodness-of-Fit test in Hosmer and Lemeshow test is preliminary to assess the data properties, and the chi2 value of 0.989 (P > 0.05) verifies the logistic regression model should be able to determine or predict the roles of cognitive, affective, conative, and educational aspects in the respondents’ decision to answer the three programs.

The logistic regression equation model comes with response -113.077+ cognitive aspect 2.594 + affective aspect 2.842 + conative aspect 0.368 + education level 1.984, resulting in a constant of -113/077; it means that without taking the four aspects into account, it is highly unlikely that the respondents would accept the program. The constant’s significance value of 0.002

(P < 0.05) denotes its importance in the response. All variables in the regression line equation are positive, reflecting their positive impacts in the response. The conative aspect value of > 0.05 shows that the aspect is the least substantial of all (Table 8).

Knowledge is the leading factor in this study, and it confirms a research in Sidenreng Rappang in implementing the third program (Rezky and Alam, 2019). On the other hand, an observation in Tulang Bawang has concluded that knowledge is insignificant in the farmers’ perception (Irsa et al., 2018). Logically, more information leads to better understanding. Knowledge and understanding on a scheme and the environment are crucial for a farmer to partake in the scheme (Adam et al., 2021; Guangyin et al., 2022).

That affective aspect is influential has never been reported before. Linked with individual attitudes and personal values towards counseling sessions and the programs, a positive rate represents positive attitude in general. The constructive information gained in the sessions regarding the programs should positively shape the farmers’ response.

Education level matters in farmer’s ability to respond to the programs positively. It has also been found in Burton (2014) that age and education signify farmers’ behavior, in Kariyasa and Dewi (2013) that education is paramount in adopting agricultural management including superior variant use, in Irsa et al. (2018) that education correlates with farmers’ perception on the third program, in Lastra-Bravo et al. (2015) that education influences farmers’ involvement in the government programs in Europe, and in Barnes et al. (2019) that European farmers are likely to implement government program when finished with their full-time education. Education maintains farmers’ ability to comprehend complex topics and act accordingly.The higher a farmer’s formal education level is, the greater his/her chance to contribute in an agricultural program (Burton, 2014).

Social behavior

The respondents’ attitude and behavior towards the programs obtained from questionnaire and interview are social facts, and they are associated with the farmers’ social interaction. Social interaction suggests individual behavior in a community (Christakis and Fowler, 2013). The paradigm of social behavior developed by B.F. Skinner explains it through psychological approach (Vargas, 2017). A social behavior is the result of repeated attitude (Kwasnicka et al., 2016). As of the respondents, their rejecting the programs and growing local rice variants had happened three times.

Social interaction is highly regarded in the respondents’ community. In group discussions, they communicate with other farmers and make their decisions as per local tradition and custom, which guarantee repetition. Intention is key to an individual behavior (Ajzen, 2020). Along with behavioral control and habit, intention to act is vital in a behavior (Klöckner, 2013). Such intention depends on positive individual attitude on a certain behavior, individual perception on subjective norms, and the extent of individual consciousness to personally control the attitude (Sawitri et al., 2015).

Social institutions

Social institutions in the respondents’ society are educational, religious, political, economical, familial, and traditional ones. While educational and political institutions are government dominated, religious one is driven by Islamic organizations. Farmers control their economical institution (to meet their needs and achieve personal, familial, and social welfare) and familial one (to regenerate) as well as traditional one (to preserve local events and custom). Serving as a means to comply with social and familial needs, Razak and Utami (2020) noted four aspects in social institutions: Basic needs, a well-structured organization, way of acting, and bond. Although people recognize their roles and expect them to function, such is not the foremost aim (Triwiyanto, 2021).

Functional structure and structural conflict

A social structure consists of entities that form a society. Farmers with larger parts of land are considered wealthy, and they are also active in other professions as officers, religious figures, or local figures. These farmers are highly regarded by others, and they grow superior rice variants in addition to local rice and vegetables. The rest are micro-scale farmers and farm labors.

The analysis confirms three main structures of communal, agrarian, and local authority in the society. Communal structure is relatively small and homogenous, characterized by minimum work distribution, strong social attachment, and traditional primary bond based on family, bilateral organization, neighbor, and religion. They help each other in needs and talk over problems to avoid conflicts in both home and field. Agrarian structure leads to similar commodities with a tendency to market. Farmers send their produce to nearby cities on demands. Related to local government, local authority structure refers to organizational one. Since it is official, the communal structure is of a lower standing. The chief is personally elected by the society due to his/her competence when leading a certain part in the communal structure, making it impossible for the person to abandon local tradition and custom. This is deduced to be the reason behind the failing programs in the area.

Parson’s theory on functional structure states that a harmonious, balanced society is achieved when both local and national institutions are able to keep its stability (Sidi, 2014). It also underlines the four pillars of a functional structure to be adaptation, goal attainment, integration, and latency. The respondents see local rice variants as well-adapted to local conditions, proven by their sufficient amount of yield and pest resistance. Their manageability and being low cost grant farmers optimum time and money, which is the goal of their farming activities. Local rice farming has been customary for decades and already integrated in their lifestyle that local wisdom and tradition revolves around it. The respondents’ insistence on defying the programs is evident to their belief that further potentials of local variants will be discovered as long as they keep growing them.

Internal and external factors in farmers’ attitude and behavior

Internal factor: Social contacts are not necessary physical, as communication is a form of one (Pratama, 2021). Social interaction in the community allows farmers to inspire each other, particularly during group discussions among farming unit members. They regularly share their knowledge and experiences, which are often similar. The uniformity of their way of thinking and feeling elicits solidarity, leading to the same action.

Attitude is one’s way, intent, or response on a certain object or situation (Vargas-Sánchez et al., 2016) formed in a collective cognition and sentiment positive or negative and is influential in one’s change of behavior (Ajzen et al., 2018). The respondents’ interaction with both groups of rice variants and their social interactions may change their attitude or trigger a new one. A product of experience, reward and punishment defines attitude (Aspandi, 2020). Rewarded attitudes get stronger and punished attitudes get weaker or cease to exist when repeated, the strong attitudes should become habits (Kwasnicka et al., 2016).

External factor

Government intervention in the studied areas is the first factor it was pungent during the first program due to the central direction, but not as intense in the second and third ones regarding mandated work distribution to regional and local control. With less rigorous supervision, farmers get more chance to plant their preferred commodities.

The next one is organizational intervention. Compared to educational and religious purposes, ones directly affect economical, familial, and cultural aspects are more crucial. When growing local rice variants is more beneficial, agreeable by the family members, and meets the custom as everyone does it, farmers find it convenient.

Another factor is private intervention, where companies and entrepreneurs are ready to purchase the goods. Conducting their businesses in cities, the customers line up even to preorder since seeding period. They are also ready to pay higher for local rice than superior one.

Cultural intervention is fourth factor. Local events of Bersih desa (clean up the whole village post-harvest to ward off negative energy), wedding, Khitan (male circumcision) and others involve large amounts of local rice dishes and offerings as part of the tradition.

The last factor is natural intervention. Lying on a mountainous terrain at 800 m above the sea level and field inclination of > 15 %, local rice variants with average height of 100 cm can get more intense sunlight than superior ones with average height of

60 cm, allowing local rice to grow better and attain more yield.

Further research can be applied by using organic rice cultivation should be the best approach that suits local rice farms in Sidodadi dan Banturejo villages of Ngantang district, Malang Regency, East Java, Indonesia perusing local wisdom and resources (Ekawati and Purwanto, 2012; Ngongo et al., 2022; Vincevica-Gaile et al., 2021a). Administering organic-based pesticides (Ekawati and Purwanto, 2013; Prihandiani et al., 2021; Riah et al., 2014; Roeswitawati et al., 2021, 2022), organic fertilizers (Budiono et al., 2021; Ekawati et al., 2014; Goenadi et al., 2021; Purbajanti et al., 2019; Vincevica-Gaile et al., 2021b), and biological fertilizers (Adinurani et al., 2021; Ekawati, 2019; Muhammad et al., 2021; Purbajanti et al., 2016; Sukmawati et al., 2021; Widjajanto et al., 2017) is the realistic steps to conduct. Its implementation should result in healthy rice production, where a boost in yield quantity and financial profit is balanced with robust soil due to minimum pollution (Budiono et al., 2019; Chandini et al., 2019; Dazzi and Papa, 2022; Lal, 2016; Riastyadiningrum and Ekawati, 2020; Tahat et al., 2020).

In addition to agricultural waste and cattle manure, organic fertilizers may be of any organic waste, such as household leftovers. For better results, the anaerobic decomposing method in a communal- or household-scale digester should be employed to support the aerobic one (Setyobudi et al., 2021; Susanto et al., 2020a, b). Such a biogas digester doubles the benefit for society and the environment by providing clean, renewable energy, minimize global warning and producing two types of organic fertilizers, i.e., liquid and solid (Abdullah et al., 2020; Burlakov et al., 2022; Prespa et al., 2020). Ideally, this biogas digester should be installed with inlet pipes from excreting disposal to septic tanks in each household (Setyobudi et al., 2021; Susanto et al., 2020a, b; Williams et al., 2022). Since there is a possibility of decomposition fluctuation due to various feedstocks, several researchers recommended a two-stage digester to overcome the problem (Adinurani et al., 2017; Setyobudi et al. 2013).

Conclusions and Recommendations

The rice farmers in the study area are generally well informed on the agricultural programs and policies of cultivating certain superior rice variants launched by the government as well as willing to attend agricultural counseling sessions. They also understand entitled advantages and additional benefits of implementing them. Their decision to grow local rice variants thus defying the regulation despite the knowledge on the penalty, resulting in low grade in program implementation is due to personal concerns (low production cost, low maintenance, pest manageability, ample yield), social preferences (tradition), and external supports (low control, high demands).

Attempts to optimize the latest program should involve more dynamic yet persuasive approaches starting from farming units as the basic tool of agricultural information. Communicating with new people expands one’s horizon, so it is recommended to meet the farmers with superior rice variant farmers, field agricultural advisors, agricultural officers, even university students and alumni from various places. When the local rice farmers hear their success stories repeatedly, it should convince them to lean on superior rice variant growing. Such talks may also invite their empathy and solidarity towards the less fortunate citizens who are unable to afford rice due to limited supply.

Novelty Statement

Research on the motives behind the Indonesian farmers’ insistence on planting local rice varieties has been conducted in several locations, i.e., Yogyakarta (Connor et al., 2021), Sumedang (Hidayat et al., 2020), and Jember (Wardana et al., 2018). Other observations on how Indonesian farmers implemented the national agricultural program Upsus Pajale have also been carried out in South Lampung (Setiyanto, 2021) and metro city (Yasar et al., 2020). However, research on farmers’ refusal to grow superior rice cultivars in Malang, East Java, particularly in Sidodadi and Banturejo villages, has yet to be found. This study aims to identify local farmers’ attitudes and behavior towards the current and previous national programs in the sites mentioned above. The response percentages and their factors have been analyzed by combining quantitative and qualitative approaches, and the reasons behind their perseverance to grow local rice varieties have been explored. The findings should serve as basic information for the government to plan better policies and develop further consulting and mentoring series to optimize the program.

Author’s Contribution

Hendro Prasetyo: Conceptualized and designed the study, performed literature search, manuscript preparation.

Diah Karmiyati: Research supervision, elaborated the intellectual content, performed the literature, and manuscript review.

Roy Hendroko Setyobudi: Elaborated the intellectual content, performed the literature search, manuscript review, manuscript revision, administration, Grammarly check, Turnitin check, and guarantor.

Ahmad Fauzi: Elaborated the intellectual content, manuscript editing, and manuscript review.

Trias Agung Pakarti: Manuscript editing and English scientific writing.

Mardiana Sri Susanti: Data acquisition, data analysis, and visualization.

Waris Ali Khan, Leila Neimane and Maizirwan Mel: Elaborated the intellectual content and manuscript review

Conflict of interest 

The authors have declared no conflict of interest.

References

Abdullah, K., A.S. Uyun, R. Soegeng, E. Suherman, H. Susanto, R.H. Setyobudi, J. Burlakovs, and Z. Vincēviča-Gaile. 2020. Renewable energy technologies for economic development. E3S Web of Conf., 188(00016): 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202018800016

Adam W., A. Malak-Rawlikowska, M. Zavalloni, D. Viaggi, P. Kobus, and P. Sulewski. 2021. In search of factors determining the participation of farmers in agri-environmental schemes. Does only money matter in Poland? Land Use Policy, 101(105190): 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.105190

Adinurani, P.G., R.H. Setyobudi, S.K. Wahono, M. Mel, A. Nindita, E. Purbajanti, S.S. Harsono, A.R. Malala, L.O. Nelwan, and A. Sasmito. 2017. Ballast weight review of capsule husk Jatropha curcas Linn. on acid fermentation first stage in two-phase anaerobic digestion Proc. Pak. Acad. Sci. B., 54(1): 47–57.

Adinurani, P.G., S. Rahayu, E.D. Purbajanti, D.D. Siskawardani, K. Stankeviča and R.H. Setyobudi. 2021. Enhanced of root nodules, uptake NPK, and yield of peanut plant (Arachis hypogaea L.) using rhizobium and mycorrhizae applications. Sarhad J. Agric., 37(Special issue 1): 6–24. https://doi.org/10.17582/journal.sja/2021/37.s1.16.24

Adinurani, P.G., 2022. Non-parametric statistics (agricultural applications, manuals and SPSS). Dee Publish, Yogyakarta, Indonesia.

Agboola, A.F., I.A. Adekunle and S.I. Ogunjimi. 2015. Assessment of youth participation in indigenous farm practices of vegetable production in Oyo State, Nigeria. J. Agric. Ext. Rural Dev., 7(3): 73–79. https://doi.org/10.5897/JAERD2014.0590

Ajzen, I., 2020. The theory of planned behavior: Frequently asked questions. Hum. Behav. Emerg. Technol., 2(4): 314–324. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbe2.195

Ajzen, I., M. Fishbein, S. Lohmann and D. Albarracín. 2018. The influence of attitudes on behavior. In: D. Albarracin and B.T. Johnson (Eds.), The handbook of attitudes basic principles. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, USA. pp. 197–255.

Amrullah, L., 2018. Semantic prototypes of Indonesian staple foods. Litera, 17(2): 153–161. https://doi.org/10.21831/ltr.v17i2.14544

Anandita, D.A., and K.Z. Patria. 2017. Agriculture challenges: Decline of farmers and farmland (Study from Indonesian family life survey). J. Ilmu Ekonomi dan Pembangunan, 16(1): 48–53. https://doi.org/10.20961/jiep.v16i1.2314

Anitasari, R.F., 2019. Agrarian law: Perspective of Indonesian agricultural policies. South East Asia J. Contemp. Bus. Econ. Law, 20(4): 1–4.

Anwarudin, O., 2017. Participation determinant factors on special effort program (UPSUS) in regency of Manokwari, West Papua. Jurnal Penyuluhan Pertanian, 12(1): 67–79.

Ariska, F.M. and B. Qurniawan. 2021. Perkembangan impor beras di Indonesia. The development of rice imports in Indonesia. J. Agric. Anim. Sci., 1(1): 27–34.

Arsani, A.M., 2020. The future of Indonesia and global agriculture: Rice consumption and agricultural modernization. J. Litbang Sukowati, 4(1): 57–64. https://doi.org/10.32630/sukowati.v4i1.132

Aspandi, A., 2020. Social behavior paradigm and social exchange behavioristic approach (study of theory of Burrhus Frederic Skinner and George Caspar Homans). J. Islam. Stud., 3(1): 1–20.

Astarini, I.A., M. Pharmawati, M.R. Defiani and K.H.M. Siddique. 2020. Development of local rice on the Tabanan Regency of Bali. In: Blakeney, M. and K.H.M. Siddique (eds.), Intellectual property and agricultural innovation, Springer Singapore. p. 153–171. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-4611-2_8

Bandumula, N., 2018. Rice production in Asia: Key to global food security. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. India B Biol. Sci., 88(4): 1323–1328. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40011-017-0867-7

Barnes, A. P., I. Soto, V. Eory, B. Beck, A. Balafoutis, B. Sánchez, J.Vangeyte, S. Fountase, T. van der Wal, and M. Gómez-Barbero. 2019. Exploring the adoption of precision agricultural technologies: A cross regional study of EU farmers. Land Use Policy, 80: 163–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.10.004

Budiono, R., P.G. Adinurani and P. Soni. 2019. Effect of new NPK fertilizer on lowland rice (Oryza sativa L.) growth. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci., 293(012034): 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/293/1/012034

Budiono, R., N.A. Fuad, D.P. Endang, T. Tsitsino, and P.G. Adinurani. 2021. Effect and effectivity of granular organic fertilizer on growth and yield of lowland rice. E3S Web Conf., 226 (39): 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202122600039

Burlakovs, J., Z. Vincevica-Gaile, V. Bisters, W. Hogland, M. Kriipsalu, I. Zekker, R.H. Setyobudi, Y. Jani, and O. Anne. 2022. Application of anaerobic digestion for biogas and methane production from fresh beach-cast biomass. Proceedings EAGE GET 2022– 3rd Eage Global Energy Transition, The Hague, Netherlands, pp. 1–5. https://doi.org/10.3997/2214-4609.202221028

Burton, R.J.F., 2014. The influence of farmer demographic characteristics on environmental behaviour: A review. J. Environ. Manage., 135: 19–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.12.005

Chandini, C., R. Kumar, R. Kumar, and O. Prakash. 2019. The impact of chemical fertilizers on our environment and ecosystem. In: Research trends in Environmental Science. Edition: 2nd Chapter: 5. pp. 69–86. https://www.researchgate.net/pub_and_Ecosystem

Christakis, N.A. and J.H. Fowler. 2013. Social contagion theory: Examining dynamic social networks and human behavior. Stat. Med., 32(4): 556–577. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.5408

Connor, M., A.H. de Guia, A.B. Pustika, S. Sudarmaji, M. Kobarsih and J. Hellin. 2021. Rice farming in Central Java, Indonesia adoption of sustainable farming practices, impacts and implications. Agronomy, 11(5): 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11050881

Daris, E., I. Aminudin and A. Feriansyah. 2018. Determinants of paddy fields conversion in Java Island, Indonesia. Proc. Int. Conf. Sci. Technol. (ICOSAT 2017). Adv. Intell. Syst. Res., 149: 95–98. https://doi.org/10.2991/icosat-17.2018.22

Davidson, J.S., 2018. Then and now: Campaigns to achieve rice self-sufficiency in Indonesia. J. Hum. Soc. Sci. S. Asia, 174(2–3): 188–215. https://doi.org/10.1163/22134379-17402001

Dazzi, C. and G.L. Papa. 2022. A new definition of soil to promote soil awareness, sustainability, security and governance Int. Soil Water Conserv. Res., 10(1): 99–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iswcr.2021.07.001

Ekawati, I. and Z. Purwanto. 2012. Potential of agricultural waste ash as an alternative source of potassium, calcium and magnesium nutrients to support sustainable crop production. Prosiding Seminar Nasional Kedaulatan Pangan dan Energi Universitas Trunojoyo, 27: 135–139.

Ekawati, I., and Z. Purwanto. 2013. Transfer of local resource-based vegetable pesticide technology to rice farmers. Cemara, 10(1): 36–40.

Ekawati, I., I. Isdiantoni, and Z. Purwanto. 2014. Application of immature rice straw compost, azolla, and urea for increasing rice fields production based on local wisdom. J. Basic Appl. Sci. Res., 4(12): 130–134.

Ekawati, I., 2019. Smart farming: PGPR technology for sustainable dry land agriculture . National Seminar on Optimizing Local Resources in the Industrial Revolution Era 4.0. pp. 615-622. https://www.ejournalwiraraja.com/index.php/PROSD/issue/view/130

Goenadi, D.H., R.H. Setyobudi, E. Yandri, K. Siregar, A. Winaya, D. Damat, W. Widodo, A. Wahyudi, P.G. Adinurani, M. Mel, I. Zekker, M.Z. Mazwan, D.D. Siskawardani, E.D. Purbajanti and I. Ekawati. 2021. Land suitability assessment and soil organic carbon stocks as two keys for achieving sustainability of oil palm (Elaeis guineensis Jacq.). Sarhad J. Agri., 37(Special issue 1): 184–196. https://doi.org/10.17582/journal.sja/2022.37.s1.184.196

Guangyin H., J. Wang, S. Fahad and J. Li. 2022. Influencing factors of farmers’ land transfer, subjective well-being, and participation in agri-environment schemes in environmentally fragile areas of China. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int., PMID: 35971053.

Halim, A., R. Razak and U. Nain. 2022. The relationship between the knowledge level of farmers and the effectiveness of the rice-farming business insurance program (AUTP) in Pinrang Regency, South Sulawesi, Indonesia. Int. J. Soc. Sci. Educ. Stud., 2(7): 298–307.

Harjanti, L.T. and Y. Hara. 2020. The determinants of paddy fields conversion in Java and Sumatra. J. Ekonomi Kebijakan Publik, 11(1): 39–52. https://doi.org/10.22212/jekp.v11i1.1492

Hidayat, R.A., J. Iskandar, B. Gunawan and R. Partasasmita. 2020a. Impact of green revolution on rice cultivation practices and production system: A case study in Sindang hamlet, Rancakalong village, Sumedang district, West Java, Indonesia. Biodiversitas, 21(3): 1258–1265. https://doi.org/10.13057/biodiv/d210354

Hidayat, R.A., R. Partasasmita, J. Iskandar and B. Gunawan. 2020b. Changes in paddy field management in Sindang Hamlet, Rancakalong village, Sumedang district, West Java, Indonesia. Biodiversitas, 21(1): 98–105. https://doi.org/10.13057/biodiv/d210114

Irsa, R., D. Nikmatullah and K.K. Rangga. 2018. Perceptions of farmers and the effectiveness of farmer groups in the UPSUS PAJALE program in Banjar Baru District, Tulang Bawang Regency. J. Ilmu-Ilmu Agribisnis, 6(1): 1–8. https://doi.org/10.23960/jiia.v6i1.1-8

Jorgi, R.S., S. Gayatri and T. Dalmiyatun. 2019. The relationship between the level of farmer knowledge and the effectiveness of the farmer card program in Semarang Regency. J. Agribus. Rural Dev., 5(2): 88–98. https://doi.org/10.18196/agr.5278

Kariyasa, K. and Y.A. Dewi. 2013. Analysis of factors affecting adoption of integrated crop management farmer field school (ICM-FFS) in swampy areas. Int. J. Food Agric. Econ., 1(2): 29–38.

Khasna, E.N., I.K.K.G. Ardana, A.S. Zakiyah, C.N. Fikriani, N.B. Anggraini and D. Listyorini. 2020. SUB1A gene screening for submergence stress in Indonesian local rice varieties. AIP Conf. Proc., 2260(060012): 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0015816

Khodijah, K., H. Mukmin and F. Yanti. 2022. Improving the welfare of farming communities through the upsus pajale program in South Lampung. J. Pengembangan Masyarakat Islam, 15(1): 1–14. http://ejournal.radenintan.ac.id/index.php/ijtimaiyya/article/download/11918/5623

Klöckner, C.A., 2013. A comprehensive model of the psychology of environmental behaviour. A meta-analysis. Glob. Environ. Change, 23(5): 1028–1038. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.05.014

Kwasnicka, D., S.U. Dombrowski, M. White and F. Sniehotta. 2016. Theoretical explanations for maintenance of behaviour change: A systematic review of behaviour theories. Health Psychol. Rev., 10(3): 277–296. https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2016.1151372

Lal, R., 2016. Soil health and carbon management. Food Energy Secur., 5(4): 212–222. https://doi.org/10.1002/fes3.96

Lastra-Bravo, X.B., C. Hubbard, G. Garrod and A. Tolón-Becerra. 2015. What drives farmers’ participation in EU agri-environmental schemes? Results from a qualitative meta-analysis. Environ. Sci. Policy, 54: 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.06.002

Miftahudin, M., D.I. Roslim, M.H. Fendiyanto, R.D. Satrio, A. Zulkifli, E.I. Umaiyah, T. Chikmawati, Y.C. Sulistyaningsih, S. Suharsono, A. Hartana, H.T. Nguyen and J.P. Gustafson. 2021. OsGERLP: A novel aluminum tolerance rice gene isolated from a local cultivar in Indonesia. Plant Physiol. Biochem., 162: 86–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plaphy.2021.02.019

Mittal, S. and M. Mehar. 2016. Socio-economic factors affecting adoption of modern information and communication technology by farmers in India: Analysis using multivariate probit model. J. Agric. Educ. Ext., 22(2): 199–212. https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2014.997255

Muhammad, M., U. Isnatin, P. Soni, and P.G. Adinurani. 2021. Effectiveness of mycorrhiza, plant growth promoting rhizobacteria and inorganic fertilizer on chlorophyll content in Glycine max (L.) cv. Detam-4 Prida. E3S Web of Conf., 226(00031): 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202122600031

Ngongo, Y., T. Basuki, B. de Rosari, E.Y. Hosang, J. Nulik, H. daSilva, D.K. Hau, A. Sitorus, N.R.E. Kotta, G.N. Njurumana, E. Pujiono, L. Ishaq, A.V. Simamora and Y.S. Mau. 2022. Local wisdom of west timorese farmers in land management. Sustainability, 14(10-6023): 1–21. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14106023

Noviar, H., 2018. Rice imports and policy implications of rice production and consumption in Indonesi. Ekombis, 4(1): 15–24.

Nugroho, W., 2018. The social construction of the green revolution in the New Order era. J. Sosial-Ekonomi dan Agribisnis, 12(1): 54–62. https://doi.org/10.24843/SOCA.2018.v12.i01.p04

Octania, G., 2021. The government’s role in the Indonesian rice supply chain. Center Indones. Policy Stud., 32: 20–25 (Issue 32). https://doi.org/10.35497/338075

Paiman, P., A. Ardiyanta, M. Ansar, I. Effendy and T. Sumbodo. 2020. Rice cultivation of superior variety in swamps to increase food security in Indonesia. Rev. Agric. Sci., 8: 300–309. https://doi.org/10.7831/ras.8.0_300

Permana, S., J. Iskandar and P. Parikesit. 2018. Local knowledge on rice variations (Landraces) of the Naga Community, West Java, Indonesia. J. Ethnobiol., 1(1): 1–8. https://doi.org/10.13057/asianjethnobiol/y010101

Pratama, A.P., 2021. Level of compliance with 3M implementation for social interaction of visitors to the coffee shop in Sumberan hamlet, Ambulu village. J. Dinamika Sosial Budaya, 23(1): 56–65.

Prihandiani, A., D.R. Bella, N.R. Chairani, Y. Winarto, and J. Fox. 2021. The tsunami of pesticide use for rice production on Java and Its consequences. Asia Pac. J. Anthropol., 22(4): 276–297. https://doi.org/10.1080/14442213.2021.1942970

Prespa Y ., C. Gyuricza, and C. Fogarassy. 2020. Farmers’ attitudes towards the use of biomass as renewable energy a case study from Southeastern Europe. Sustainability, 12(4009): 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12104009

Purbajanti, E.D., F. Kusmiyati, W. Slamet, and P.G. Adinurani. 2016. Chlorophyll, crop growth rate and forage yield of Brachiaria (Brachiaria brizantha Stapf.) as the result of goat manure in various nitrogen dosage. AIP Conf. Proc., 1755(130013): 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4958557

Purbajanti, E.D., Slamet, W., and Fuskhah, E., 2019. Effects of organic and inorganic fertilizers on growth, activity of nitrate reductase and chlorophyll contents of peanuts (Arachis hypogaea L.). IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci., 250(012048): 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/250/1/012048

Ratmini, N.P.S., Herwenita, and F. Irsan. 2021. Climate change mitigation through superior varieties use to increase rice production in tidal swamp land. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci., 824(012019): 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/824/1/012019

Razak, S. and S. Utami. 2020. Strengthening the traditional markets: Evidence from Bosowasi region, South Sulawesi. Inferensi, 14(2): 221–248. https://doi.org/10.18326/infsl3.v14i2.221-248

Rezky, M.S. and A.S. Alam. 2019. Analysis of the implementation of the special effort program for rice, corn, soybeans (UPSUS PAJALE) in realizing food self-sufficiency in Sidenreng Rappang Regency. Government, 12(2): 81–87.

Riah, W., K. Laval, E. Laroche-Ajzenberg, C. Mougin, X. Latour, and I. Trinsoutrot-Gattin. 2014. Effects of pesticides on soil enzymes: A review. Environ. Chem. Lett., 12(2): 257–273. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-014-0458-2

Riastyadiningrum, H. and I. Ekawati. 2020. Management of healthy rice cultivation plants to increase production and income of rice farming. Cemara, 17(2): 25–34. https://doi.org/10.24929/fp.v17i2.1145

Roeswitawati, D., H. Zahid, J. Asad, Z. Ivar, M. Maizirwan, R.H. Setyobudi, M. Muhidin, and H. Hudin. 2022. The evaluation of secondary metabolites in Saccharum officinarum L. and Mimosa invisa Mart. as natural herbicides. Jordan J. Biol. Sci., 15(1): 1–6. https://doi.org/10.54319/jjbs/150101

Roeswitawati, D., I. Kristova, M. Muhidin, O. Endarto, M.F.M. Atoum, I. Iqrar and L.A. Shah. 2021. Assessment of three natural pesticide concentration on the imago phase red mites persistency. Sarhad J. Agric., 37(Special issue 1): 153–158. https://doi.org/10.17582/journal.sja/2021.37.s1.153.158

Sawitri, D.R., H. Hadiyanto, and S.P. Hadi. 2015. Pro-environmental behavior from a social cognitive theory perspective. Proc. Environ. Sci., 23: 27–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proenv.2015.01.005

Setiyanto, A., I.M. Pabuayon, C.B. Quicoy, J.V. Camacho, and D.P.T. Depositario. 2021. Competitiveness effect of the UPSUS Program on rice production in West Java Province, Indonesia. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci., 653(012010): 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/653/1/012010

Setiyanto, A., 2021. The performance of the UPSUS program implementation on rice production and farmers’ income. Forum Penelitian Agro Ekonomi, 39(1): 27–47. https://doi.org/10.21082/fae.v39n1.2021.27-47

Setiyanto, A. and I.M. Pabuayon. 2020. Impacts of UPSUS program on the cost efficiency and competitiveness of rice production in Indonesia. Forum Penelitian Agro Ekonomi, 38(1): 29–52. https://doi.org/10.21082/fae.v38n1.2020.29-52

Setyobudi, R.H., A. Wahyudi, S.K. Wahono, P.G. Adinurani, S. Salundik and T. Liwang. 2013. Bio-refinery study in the crude Jatropha oil process: Co-digestion sludge of crude Jatropha oil and capsule husk Jatropha curcas Linn. as biogas feedstock. Int. J. Technol., 4(3): 202–208. https://doi.org/10.14716/ijtech.v4i3.115

Setyobudi, R.H., E. Yandri, M.F.M. Atoum, S.M. Nur, I. Zekker, R. Idroes, T.E. Talle, P.G. Adinurani, Z. Vincēviča-Gaile, W. Widodo, L. Zalizar, N. Van-Minh, H. Susanto, R.K. Mahaswa, Y.A. Nugroho, S.K. Wahono, and Z. Zahriah. 2021. Healthy-smart concept as standard design of kitchen waste biogas digester for urban households. Jordan J. Biol. Sci., 14(3): 613–620. https://doi.org/10.54319/jjbs/140331

Sidi, P., 2014. The crisis of characters in the perspective of structural functional theory. J. Pembangunan Pendidikan, 2(1): 72–81. https://doi.org/10.21831/jppfa.v2i1.2619

Sukmawati, S., A. Adnyana, D.N. Suprapta, M. Proborini, P. Soni, and P.G. Adinurani. 2021. Multiplication arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in corn (Zea mays L.) with pots culture at greenhouse. E3S Web of Conf., 226(00044): 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202122600044

Susanto, H., E. Yandri, R.H. Setyobudi, D. Sugiyanto, S.M. Nur, P.G. Adinurani, H. Herianto, Y. Jani, S.K. Wahono, Y. Nurdiansyah and A. Yaro. 2020a. Development of the biogas-energized livestock feed making machine for breeders. E3S Web Conf., 188(00010): 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202018800010

Susanto, H., A.S. Uyun, R.H. Setyobudi, S.M. Nur, E. Yandri, J. Burlakovs, A. Yaro, K. Abdullah, S.K. Wahono, and Y.A. Nugroho. 2020b. Development of moving equipment for fishermen’s catches using the portable conveyor system. E3S Web Conf. 190(00014): 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202019000014

Tahat, M.M., K.M. Alananbeh, Y.A. Othman, and D.I. Leskovar. 2020. Soil health and sustainable agriculture. Sustainability, 12(12): 1–26. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12124859

Tewodros, T., 2015. Extension programme participation and smallholders livelihood: Evidence from Awassa Zuria District, SNNPR, Ethiopia. J. Agric. Ext. Rural Dev., 7(5): 150–155. https://doi.org/10.5897/JAERD2013.0534

Thoha, M., 2017. Contemporary public administration science. Kencana, Jakarta, Indonesia.

Triwiyanto, T., 2021. Introduction to education. Bumi Aksara, Jakarta, Indonesia

Usman, A.H., 2015. Community and government legal awareness as a factor in the upholding of a rule of law in Indonesia. J. Wawasan Yuridika, 30(1): 26–53.

Utami, D.W., P. Lestari and S. Koerniati. 2013. A relative expression of Xa7 gene controlling bacterial leaf blight resistance in Indonesian local rice population (Oryza sativa L.). J. Crop Sci. Biotechnol., 16(1): 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12892-012-0091-1

Vargas-Sánchez, A., M.Á. Plaza-Mejía and N. Porras-Bueno. 2016. Attitude. In: Afari, J. and H. Xiao (Eds.), Encyclopedia of tourism. Springer International Publishing. pp. 58–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01384-8_11

Vargas, E.A., 2017. B. F. Skinner’s theory of behavior. Eur. J. Behav. Anal., 18(1): 2–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/15021149.2015.1065640

Victory, G., O. Lizzie, and A. Olaitan. 2022. Climate-smart agricultural practices at Oyo State-Nigeria. S. Asian J. Soc. Rev., 1(1): 1–7. https://doi.org/10.57044/SAJSR.2022.1.1.2201

Vincevica-Gaile, Z., K. Stankevica, M. Klavins, R.H. Setyobudi, D. Damat, P.G. Adinurani, L. Zalizar, M.Z. Mazwan, J. Burlakovs, D.H. Goenadi, R. Anggriani, and A. Sohail. 2021a. On the way to sustainable peat-free soil amendments. Sarhad J. Agric., 37(Special issue 1): 122–135. https://doi.org/10.17582/journal.sja/2021.37.s1.122.135

Vincevica-Gaile, Z., T. Teppand, M. Kriipsalu, K. Krievans, Y. Jani, M. Klavins, R.H. Setyobudi, I. Grinfelde, V. Rudovica, T. Tamm, M. Shanskiy, E. Saaremae, I. Zekker, and J. Burlakovs. 2021b. Towards sustainable soil stabilization in peatlands: Secondary raw materials as an alternative. Sustainability, 13(126726): 1–24. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13126726

Wardana, F., N. Yamamoto, and H. Kano. 2018. Analysis of technical efficiency of small-scale rice farmers in Indonesia. J. Trop. Life Sci., 8(2): 91–96. https://doi.org/10.11594/jtls.08.02.01

Warya, A. and O. Anwarudin. 2018. Factors affecting farmer participation in paddy- special efforts program at Karawang, Indonesia. Int. J. Soc. Sci. Econ. Res., 3(8): 3857–3867. http://ijsser.org/2018files/ijsser_03__268.pdf

Widjajanto, D.W., E.D. Purbajanti, Sumarsono, and C.S. Utama. 2017. The role of local microorganisms generated from rotten fruits and vegetables in producing liquid organic fertilizer. J. Appl. Chem. Sci., 4: 325–329. https://doi.org/10.22341/jacs.on.00401p325

Williams, N.B., R.S. Quilliam, B. Campbell, D. Raha, D.C. Baruah, M.L. Clarkee, R. Sarma, C. Haque, T. Borah, and J. Dickie. 2022. Challenging perceptions of socio-cultural rejection of a taboo technology: Narratives of imagined transitions to domestic toilet-linked biogas in India. Energy Res. Soc. Sci., 92: 102802. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2022.102802

Wilson, G.A. and K. Hart. 2000. Financial imperative or conservation concern? EU farmers motivations for participation in voluntary agri-environmental schemes. Environ. Plan A., 32(12): 2161–2185. https://doi.org/10.1068/a3311

Yasar, M.A., I. Effendi, S. Silviyanti and A. Mutolib. 2020. The response of farmer group members to the Upsus Pajale program in Metro Barat District, Metro City. J. Socio-Econ. Trop. Agric., 2(1): 1–8. https://doi.org/10.25077/joseta.v2i1.203

Zulfitriyana, Z., I.W. Syarfi, and H. Hasnah. 2020. The application of UPSUS PAJALE program technology on rice. European J. Agric. Food Sci., 2(3): 1–9. https://doi.org/10.24018/ejfood.2020.2.3.23