Innovation for Sustainable Productivity in Agricultural Land Conversion
Abstract
The conversion of agricultural land for the construction of toll roads is a necessity. The change requires supporting agricultural technology and innovation to combat the decline in agricultural productive lands. The research objective was to analyze the Innovation for Sustainable Productivity in Agricultural Land Conversion policy. Case studies of farming communities affected by land conversion were used. The sources of the data were community research and farmer groups with interactive data analysis. The findings showed that productivity was not fully directed to sustainability and productivity decreased. Agricultural innovation was limited to the adoption of agricultural machines causing problems for both labor and the environment. Farmers used conventional methods. The adoption of agricultural technology was based on changes in attitudes, subjective norms and beliefs, and strengthening of the existing community structure and both state and non-state agency roles. Involving all relevant actors made the process of adopting technology with a cultural approach easier. Efforts to persuade adoption of agricultural technologies were outlined in the form of innovative regional policies for sustainability. Innovative policies can facilitate the technology adoption process of communities to increase agricultural sustainability.
Keywords: adoption of innovation, productivity, sustainability, farmers, toll road construction
References
[1] Martin BR. Twenty challenges for innovation studies. Sci Public Policy. 2016;43(3):432–50.
[2] Fagerberg J, Verspagen B. Innovation studies-The emerging structure of a new scientific field. Innov Econ Dev Policy Sel Essays. 2009;38(1):111–26.
[3] Amiri Z, Asgharipour MR, Campbell DE, Armin M. A sustainability analysis of two rapeseed farming ecosystems in Khorramabad, Iran, based on emergy and economic analyses. J Clean Prod [Internet]. 2019;226:1051–66. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.091
[4] Chavas JP, Nauges C. Uncertainty, Learning, and Technology Adoption in Agriculture. Appl Econ Perspect Policy. 2020;42(1):42–53.
[5] Brown P, Roper S. Innovation and networks in New Zealand farming. Aust J Agric Resour Econ. 2017;61(3):422–42.
[6] Ajzen I. The theory of planned behaviour: Reactions and reflections. Psychol Health. 2011;26(9):1113–27.
[7] Läpple D, Rensburg T Van. Adoption of organic farming: Are there differences between early and late adoption? Ecol Econ [Internet]. 2011;70(7):1406–14. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.03.002
[8] Rogers EM, Singhal A, Quinlan MM. Diffusion of innovations. An Integrated Approach to Communication Theory and Research, Third Edition. New York: The Free Press A Division of Macmillan Publishing; 2003. 415–433 p.
[9] Pathak HS, Brown P, Best T. A systematic literature review of the factors affecting the precision agriculture adoption process. Precis Agric [Internet]. 2019;20(6):1292–316. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11119-019-09653-x
[10] Issa I, Hamm U. Adoption of organic farming as an opportunity for Syrian farmers of fresh fruit and vegetables: An application of the theory of planned behaviour and structural equation modelling. Sustain. 2017;9(11):1–22.
[11] Clarke E, Jackson TM, Keoka K, Phimphachanvongsod V, Sengxua P, Simali P, et al. Insights into adoption of farming practices through multiple lenses: an innovation systems approach*. Dev Pract [Internet]. 2018;28(8):983–98. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/09614524.2018.1504890
[12] Bentley JW, Naziri D, Prain G, Kikulwe E, Mayanja S, Devaux A, et al. Managing complexity and uncertainty in agricultural innovation through adaptive project design and implementation. Dev Pract [Internet]. 2021;31(2):198–213. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/09614524.2020.1832047
[13] Jara HX, Schokkaert E. Putting measures of individual well-being to use for ex-ante policy evaluation. J Econ Inequal. 2017;15(4):421–40.
[14] Švarc J, Dabić M, Daim TU. A new innovation paradigm: European cohesion policy and the retreat of public science in countries in Europe’s scientific periphery. Thunderbird Int Bus Rev. 2020;62(5):531–47.
[15] Sururi A. Inovasi Kebijakan dalam Perspektif Administrasi Publik Menuju Terwujudnya Good Public Policy Governance. Spirit Publik. 2017;12(2):14–31.
[16] Abdullah FA, Ali J, Noor MSZ. The adoption of innovation in ruminant farming for food security in Malaysia: A narrative literature review. J Crit Rev. 2020;7(6):738–43.
[17] Asadollahpour NH, Ayatollahi MA, Esmailizadeh A. Comparative population genomics unveils candidate genes for athletic performance in Hanoverians. Genome. 2019;62(4):279–85.
[18] Jiang G, Zhang R, Ma W, Zhou D, Wang X, He X. Cultivated land productivity potential improvement in land consolidation schemes in Shenyang, China: assessment and policy implications. Land use policy. 2017;68(19):80–8.
[19] Omotilewa OJ, Jayne TS, Muyanga M, Aromolaran AB, Liverpool-Tasie LSO, Awokuse T. A revisit of farm size and productivity: Empirical evidence from a wide range of farm sizes in Nigeria. World Dev [Internet]. 2021;146(1):105592. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2021.105592
[20] Brown K, Schirmer J, Upton P. Regenerative farming and human wellbeing: Are subjective wellbeing measures useful indicators for sustainable farming systems? Environ Sustain Indic [Internet]. 2021;11:100132. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indic.2021.100132
[21] Jacob M. Utilization of social science knowledge in science policy: Systems of innovation, triple Helix and VINNOVA. Vol. 45, Social Science Information. 2006. 431–462 p.