IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i17p7449-d1466216.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Pro-Environmental Agriculture to Promote a Sustainable Lifestyle

Author

Listed:
  • Sukanya Sereenonchai

    (Faculty of Environment and Resource Studies, Mahidol University, Salaya, Nakhon Pathom 73170, Thailand)

  • Noppol Arunrat

    (Faculty of Environment and Resource Studies, Mahidol University, Salaya, Nakhon Pathom 73170, Thailand)

Abstract

The non-burning rice straw (NBRS) strategy plays a crucial role in mitigating the climate impact of rice farming. This paper explores the factors influencing the efficacy of information nudges and proposes practical nudging strategies to promote NBRS. Experimental nudges were employed on participating farmers, followed by a questionnaire survey and in-depth interviews to investigate clearer reasons for their adoption of non-burning practices, as well as the inclusion of participatory nudging design. Key factors influencing the efficacy of information nudges for NBRS among burning farmers showed that the perceived susceptibility and severity of burning could positively influence their adoption of non-burning practices, while rewards for burning were mostly found to be a significantly negative factor. Providing economic incentives helped the farmers to adopt non-burning practices because the monetary benefit was perceived. For those employing non-burning practices, self-efficacy was found to have a significant positive influence on the tendency to continue NBRS. The perceived cost of rice straw utilization (RSU) was mostly found to be a negative factor influencing RSU adoption. At first glance, the promotion of NBRS via demonstrating its ease and timeliness showed the practicality of information nudges, especially through leadership and farmers’ perception of success based on their direct experience. After testing each method, results indicate that if it fits the farmers’ context, making it seem social and attractive can build more confidence in RSU. Four main communication strategies for the nudging of NBRS include the following: (1) empower leading farmers as change agents through practical and visualized knowledge and skills training, continuous guidance and monitoring, and the providing of platforms to communicate the benefits of RSU to fellow farmers; (2) facilitate RSU and encourage farmers to practice integrated farming according to their local context; (3) elevate RSU among farmer groups to meet standardized and accepted levels; and (4) establish clear incentives for RSU and the systematic and collaborative managing of burning.

Suggested Citation

  • Sukanya Sereenonchai & Noppol Arunrat, 2024. "Pro-Environmental Agriculture to Promote a Sustainable Lifestyle," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(17), pages 1-17, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:17:p:7449-:d:1466216
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/17/7449/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/17/7449/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Somayeh Rezaei Kalvani & Amir Hamzah Sharaai & Ibrahim Kabir Abdullahi, 2021. "Social Consideration in Product Life Cycle for Product Social Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-22, October.
    2. Yanwei Zhang & Xinhai Lu & Yucheng Zou & Tiangui Lv, 2022. "Nudging Strategies for Arable Land Protection Behavior in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(19), pages 1-20, October.
    3. Lopes, Adrian A. & Tasneem, Dina & Viriyavipart, Ajalavat, 2023. "Nudges and compensation: Evaluating experimental evidence on controlling rice straw burning," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 204(PB).
    4. Genius, Margarita & Pantzios, Christos J. & Tzouvelekas, Vangelis, 2006. "Information Acquisition and Adoption of Organic Farming Practices," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 31(01), pages 1-21, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Pavel Dmitriyev & Alexander Bykov & Ivan Zuban & Ivan Fomin & Saltanat Ismagulova & Kirill Ostrovnoy & Inna Jemaledinova, 2024. "The Possibility of Environmentally Sustainable Yield and Quality Management of Spring Wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.) of the Cornetto Variety When Using Sapropel Extract," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(22), pages 1-17, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sheng Gong & Jason.S. Bergtold & Elizabeth Yeager, 2021. "Assessing the joint adoption and complementarity between in-field conservation practices of Kansas farmers," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 9(1), pages 1-24, December.
    2. Dominika Siwiec & Andrzej Pacana, 2025. "Life Cycle-Based Product Sustainability Assessment Employing Quality and Cost," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(8), pages 1-26, April.
    3. Wollni, Meike & Andersson, Camilla, 2014. "Spatial patterns of organic agriculture adoption: Evidence from Honduras," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 120-128.
    4. Onesmus Kyambo & Dr. Julius Kilungo & Dr. Dorothy Akinyi Amwata, 2021. "The Influence Of Selected Socio-Economic Factors On Farmers' Awareness Of Devolution Of Agricultural Extension Services In Kitui County, Kenya," American Journal of Agriculture, AJPO, vol. 3(1), pages 1-20.
    5. Lucija Pečurlić & Tihana Sudarić & David Kranjac & Maja Petrač & Sanja Jelić Milković, 2025. "Unlocking the Potential of Family Farms: Inclusion in Rural Development Program Measures in Croatia," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-21, July.
    6. Genius, Margarita, 2013. "Production and Off-Farm Employment Decisions of Greek and Hungarian Farmers in the Light of the Last CAP Refrom," Agricultural Economics Review, Greek Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 14(2), pages 1-16.
    7. Doris Läpple, 2010. "Adoption and Abandonment of Organic Farming: An Empirical Investigation of the Irish Drystock Sector," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(3), pages 697-714, September.
    8. Veldstra, Michael D. & Alexander, Corinne E. & Marshall, Maria I., 2014. "To certify or not to certify? Separating the organic production and certification decisions," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(P2), pages 429-436.
    9. Djokoto, Justice Gameli & Afari-Sefa, Victor, 2017. "Alternative functional forms for technology choice: Application to cocoa production technologies," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 110-120.
    10. Laure Latruffe & Céline Nauges, 2014. "Technical efficiency and conversion to organic farming: the case of France," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 41(2), pages 227-253.
    11. Waters, James, 2013. "The influence of information sources on inter- and intra-firm diffusion: evidence from UK farming," MPRA Paper 50955, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Stella Stoycheva & Alex Zabeo & Lisa Pizzol & Danail Hristozov, 2022. "Socio-Economic Life Cycle-Based Framework for Safe and Sustainable Design of Engineered Nanomaterials and Nano-Enabled Products," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-23, May.
    13. Nguyen Cong Dinh & Takeshi Mizunoya & Vo Hoang Ha & Pham Xuan Hung & Nguyen Quang Tan & Le Thanh An, 2023. "Factors influencing farmer intentions to scale up organic rice farming: preliminary findings from the context of agricultural production in Central Vietnam," Asia-Pacific Journal of Regional Science, Springer, vol. 7(3), pages 749-774, September.
    14. Yihan Chen & Wen Xiang & Minjuan Zhao, 2024. "Impacts of Capital Endowment on Farmers’ Choices in Fertilizer-Reduction and Efficiency-Increasing Technologies (Preferences, Influences, and Mechanisms): A Case Study of Apple Farmers in the Province," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 14(1), pages 1-25, January.
    15. Tzemi, Domna & Breen, James P., 2016. "Examining Irish farmers’ awareness of climate change and the factors affecting the adoption of an advisory tool for the reduction of GHG emissions," 90th Annual Conference, April 4-6, 2016, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 236331, Agricultural Economics Society.
    16. Nguyen-Van, P. & Stenger, A. & Veron, E., 2021. "Spatial factors influencing the territorial gaps of organic farming in France," 95th Annual Conference, March 29-30, 2021, Warwick, UK (Hybrid) 311087, Agricultural Economics Society - AES.
    17. Stefanou, Spiro E., 2009. "A Dynamic Characterization of Efficiency," Agricultural Economics Review, Greek Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 10(01), pages 1-16.
    18. Freitas, C.O.D. & Silva, F.F. & Braga, M.J., 2018. "The effect of rural extension on farm technical efficiency in Brazil," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277271, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    19. Murage, A. W. & Obare, Gideon A. & Chianu, J. & Amudavi, David Mulama & Midega, C. A. O. & Pickett, J. A. & Khan, Zeyaur R., 2012. "The Effectiveness of Dissemination Pathways on Adoption of “Push-Pull” Technology in Western Kenya," Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture, Humboldt-Universitaat zu Berlin, vol. 51(01), pages 1-21, February.
    20. Freitas, Carlos Otavio de & Silva, Felipe de Figueiredo & Braga, Marcelo Jose & Neves, Mateus de Carvalho Reis, . "Rural extension and technical efficiency in the Brazilian agricultural sector," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 24(2).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:17:p:7449-:d:1466216. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.