USING THE THEORY OF PLANNED BEHAVIOR TO UNDERSTAND PADDY RICE FARMERS' INTENTION TO PARTICIPATE IN WAREHOUSE RECEIPT SYSTEM

Anggit Jati Permana; Agung Firman Sampurna; Chandra Wijaya; Bachrul Ulum

doi:10.21831/natapraja.v11i1.59953

USING THE THEORY OF PLANNED BEHAVIOR TO UNDERSTAND PADDY RICE FARMERS' INTENTION TO PARTICIPATE IN WAREHOUSE RECEIPT SYSTEM

Anggit Jati Permana, Universitas Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia
Agung Firman Sampurna, Universitas Indonesia, Depok, Indonesia
Chandra Wijaya, Universitas Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia
Bachrul Ulum, Ministry of Finance, Jakarta, Indonesia

10.21831/natapraja.v11i1.59953

Abstract

The Warehouse Receipt System (WRS) is one of the tools available for farmers to combat commodity price instability that often happens during harvest season. The WRS Program, complemented by the WRS Subsidy Scheme, has already been implemented in Indonesia for almost fourteen years with minimum participation from the farmers. This research uses a model based on the Theory of Planned Behavior to understand factors affecting the intention level of paddy rice farmers in Demak to participate in the WRS Program. This research employs a quantitative approach, collecting data using surveys to sample farmers from Demak and Dempet Subdistricts and analyzing it using descriptive analysis and SEM-PLS. This research found a small yet positive intention of paddy rice farmers in Demak to participate in the WRS Program. All direct and indirect determinants of intention based on the TPB positively affect farmers' intention to participate in the WRS Program. This research also suggests improving farmers' intention to participate in the WRS Program. The government is advised to build more facilities in the WRS Program warehouse to make it easier for farmers to store their commodities in the WRS warehouses, increasing their perceived behavioral control. The government needs to focus on and increase the frequency of information-sharing sessions regarding the WRS Program to improve farmers' attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control. The government can also explore other policy instruments besides the WRS Subsidy Scheme, such as the Nudge to improve farmers' participation In the WRS Program.

Keywords

Public Policy; Theory of Planned Behavior; Warehouse Receipt System

Full Text:

PDF

References

Ajzen, I. (2020). The theory of planned behavior: Frequently asked questions. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 2(4), 314–324. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbe2.195

Akpan, S. B., & Udoh, E. J. (2016). Farmers' decision to participate in government agricultural programmes in a volatile political environment: A case study of farmers in the South-South Region of Nigeria. Russian Journal of Agricultural and Socio-Economic Sciences, 5(53), 135–148. https://doi.org/10.18551/rjoas.2016-05.18

Barbera, F. La, & Ajzen, I. (2020). Control interactions in the theory of planned behavior: Rethinking the role of subjective norm. Europe's Journal of Psychology, 16(3), 401–417. https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v16i3.2056

Black, K. (2019). Business statistics for contemporary decision making (10th ed.). Wiley.

Burton, R. J. F. (2004). Reconceptualising the "behavioural approach" in agricultural studies: A socio-psychological perspective. Journal of Rural Studies, 20(3), 359–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2003.12.001

Chater, N. (2022). What is the point of behavioural public policy? A contractarian approach. Behavioural Public Policy, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2022.2

Coltman, T., Devinney, T. M., Midgley, D. F., & Venaik, S. (2008). Formative versus reflective measurement models: Two applications of formative measurement. Journal of Business Research, 61(12), 1250–1262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.01.013

Daxini, A., Ryan, M., O'Donoghue, C., & Barnes, A. P. (2019). Understanding farmers' intentions to follow a nutrient management plan using the theory of planned behaviour. Land Use Policy, 85, 428–437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.04.002

Empidi, A. V. A., & Emang, D. (2021). Understanding public intentions to participate in protection initiatives for forested watershed areas using the theory of planned behavior: A case study of cameron highlands in Pahang, Malaysia. Sustainability (Switzerland), 13(8). https://doi.org/10.3390/su13084399

Fikadu, S. D., Sadore, A. A., Agafari, G. B., & Agide, F. D. (2022). Intention to comply with solid waste management practices among households in Butajira town, Southern Ethiopia using the theory of planned behavior. PLoS ONE, 17(7 July). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0268674

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (2010). Predicting and changing behavior: The reasoned action approach. Psychology Press.

Gunawan, E., Kuwornu, J. K. M., Datta, A., & Nguyen, L. T. (2019). Factors influencing farmers' use of the warehouse receipt system in Indonesia. Agricultural Finance Review, 79(4), 537–563. https://doi.org/10.1108/AFR-11-2018-0099

Hagger, M. S., Cheung, M. W.-L., Ajzen, I., & Hamilton, K. (2022). Supplemental Material for Perceived Behavioral Control Moderating Effects in the Theory of Planned Behavior: A Meta-Analysis. Health Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/hea0001153.supp

Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, Marko. (2017). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (2nd Edition). Sage.

Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. In European Business Review (Vol. 31, Issue 1, pp. 2–24). Emerald Group Publishing Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203

Hidayah, K., Nasyi’ah, I., & Jundiani. (2019). Warehouse receipt system regulation in Indonesia: Is it beneficial for small farmer? Sriwijaya Law Review, 3(2), 162–175. https://doi.org/10.28946/slrev.Vol3.Iss2.252.pp162-175

Hudson, B., Hunter, D., & Peckham, S. (2019). Policy failure and the policy-implementation gap: can policy support programs help? Policy Design and Practice, 2(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/25741292.2018.1540378

Karim Ghani, W. A. W. A., Rusli, I. F., Biak, D. R. A., & Idris, A. (2013). An application of the theory of planned behaviour to study the influencing factors of participation in source separation of food waste. Waste Management, 33(5), 1276–1281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2012.09.019

Kock, N., & Hadaya, P. (2018). Minimum sample size estimation in PLS-SEM: The inverse square root and gamma-exponential methods. Information Systems Journal, 28(1), 227–261.

Kriswibowo, A., Khothimah, K., & Ardhana, R. (2020). Effectiveness of urban farming policies and economic heroes in Poverty reduction in the city of Surabaya. NATAPRAJA, 8(1), 54–63. https://doi.org/10.21831/jnp.v8i1.30964

Madden, T. J., Ellen, P. S., & Ajzen, I. (1992). A comparison of the theory of planned behavior and the theory of reasoned action. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18(1), 3–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167292181001

Mahyuddin, Armita, N., Darma, R., Summase, Fahmid, I. M., Sulili, A., Syah, I. T., & Anwar. (2021). Warehouse receipt system and food security: Factors that influenced farmers' decisions. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 681(1). https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/681/1/012093

Matland, R. E. (1995). Synthesizing the implementation literature: the ambiguity-conflict model of policy implementation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 5(2), 145–174.

McKnight, K. M., Sechrest, L., & McKnight, P. E. (2005). Psychology, psychologists, and public policy. In Annual Review of Clinical Psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 557–576). https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.1.102803.144130

Mohr, S., & Kühl, R. (2021). Acceptance of artificial intelligence in German agriculture: an application of the technology acceptance model and the theory of planned behavior. Precision Agriculture, 22(6), 1816–1844. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11119-021-09814-x

Noeldeke, B., Winter, E., & Ntawuhiganayo, E. B. (2022). Representing human decision-making in agent-based simulation models: Agroforestry adoption in rural Rwanda. Ecological Economics, 200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2022.107529

Rezaei, R., Mianaji, S., & Ganjloo, A. (2018). Factors affecting farmers' intention to engage in on-farm food safety practices in Iran: Extending the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Rural Studies, 60, 152–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2018.04.005

Ruspayandi, T., Bantacut, T., Arifin, B., & Fahmi, I. (2022). Market-approach-based policy to achieve rice price stability in Indonesia: Can It be a complement? Economies, 10(12). https://doi.org/10.3390/economies10120296

Sabatier, P. A. (1986). Top-down and bottom-up approaches to implementation research: A critical analysis and suggested synthesis. Journal of Public Policy, 6(1), 21–48.

Senger, I., Borges, J. A. R., & Machado, J. A. D. (2017). Using the theory of planned behavior to understand the intention of small farmers in diversifying their agricultural production. Journal of Rural Studies, 49, 32–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2016.10.006

Sok, J., Borges, J. R., Schmidt, P., & Ajzen, I. (2021). Farmer behaviour as reasoned action: A critical review of research with the theory of planned behaviour. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 72(2), 388–412. https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-9552.12408

Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2021). Nudge the final edition. Yale University Press.

Voorberg, W., Jilke, S., Tummers, L., & Bekkers, V. (2018). Financial rewards do not stimulate coproduction: Evidence from two experiments. Public Administration Review, 78(6), 864–873. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12896

Widodo, A. S., & Sholichah, M. (2018). Interest of rice farmers to apply warehouse receipt system in Bantul Indonesia: Theory of planned behavior approach. 4th International Conference on Food and Agriculture Resources, 245–250.

Zhou, S., Qing, C., Guo, S., Deng, X., Song, J., & Xu, D. (2022). Why "Say One Thing and Do Another" a Study on the Contradiction between Farmers' Intention and Behavior of Garbage Classification. Agriculture (Switzerland), 12(8). https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12081159

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21831/natapraja.v11i1.59953