[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/
Next Article in Journal
The Effects of the Characteristics of Catering Establishments and Their Managers on the Offering of Dishes Prepared with Traditional Food Products in Bačka Region, Serbia
Next Article in Special Issue
How Does New Media Shape the Sense of Belonging and Social Identity? The Social and Psychological Processes of Sustainable Successful Reintegration for Rehabilitated People
Previous Article in Journal
Sustainability Indicators to MSW Treatment Assessment: The Rio de Janeiro Case Study
Previous Article in Special Issue
Bus Drivers’ Behavioral Intention to Comply with Real-Time Control Instructions: An Empirical Study from China
You seem to have javascript disabled. Please note that many of the page functionalities won't work as expected without javascript enabled.
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 16
Issue 17
10.3390/su16177449
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Pro-Environmental Agriculture to Promote a Sustainable Lifestyle

by
Sukanya Sereenonchai
* and
Noppol Arunrat
Faculty of Environment and Resource Studies, Mahidol University, Salaya, Nakhon Pathom 73170, Thailand
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2024, 16(17), 7449; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177449
Submission received: 4 June 2024 / Revised: 1 August 2024 / Accepted: 22 August 2024 / Published: 28 August 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Social Psychology, Economic Choices, and Sustainable Lifestyle)
Browse Figures
Figure 1
<p>Rice Straw Utilization (RSU): Self-efficacy, response efficacy, and response cost.</p> "> Figure 2
<p>Perceived rewards of burning, susceptibility, and severity.</p> "> Figure 3
<p>Practical nudging strategies and communication guidelines to promote RSU. (<b>Note</b>: (<b>1</b>) <b>All photos</b> were taken by the researchers from the study area; (<b>2</b>) <b>BF</b> means farmers with mainly burn rice straw; (<b>3</b>) <b>NBF</b> means farmers with mainly non-burn rice straw).</p> ">
Versions Notes

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.

1. Introduction

Open burning in agricultural areas contributes to particulate matter concentrations, linking it to air pollution in many countries [1], including Thailand [2]. Farmers continue to burn their rice straw for reasons such as cost-saving and efficient field management [3]. Understanding why farmers adopt pro-environmental agricultural practices is important to help guide more practical promotion strategies; however, there is limited research on this in Thailand. Most efforts have focused on raising awareness about environmentally friendly behaviors.
In recent years, the concept of behavioral economics—particularly that of “nudging”—has gained popularity internationally in the context of environmental and agricultural behavior [4,5,6]. Individuals have adopted innovative practices based on information processing [7] and information acquisition from various sources [8,9].
Moreover, protection motivation theory (PMT) was initiated by Rogers [10] and was originally developed to understand the adoption of health-protective behaviors [11]. PMT has also been used to study pro-environmental behavior and has demonstrated its strong predictive abilities [12] by reflecting human psychological processes and recommending interventions regarding threats and actions that can be taken toward those threats [13]. PMT covers both the individual costs of adaptive practices and collective actions, which are also key factors in other psychological theories, including the Value-Belief-Norm theory (VBN) and the Norm Activation Model (NAM) [12].
The six elements that lead to a protective motivation decision under PMT consist of the following: self-efficacy, response efficacy, response cost, severity, susceptibility, and rewards of non-protective behavior [11]. Self-efficacy refers to the perceived ability to perform protective behavior. Response efficacy is defined as the belief that the protective behavior will mitigate or prevent a threat. Response costs are associated with the costs of engaging in protective behavior. Severity refers to the harm of a threat or its negative outcome. Susceptibility refers to the personal vulnerability to the suffering of those consequences. Non-predictive behavior in this study refers to burning [13].
Currently, PMT has also been applied to explain pro-environmental behaviors, such as the flood-prone mitigation behavior of households in Germany [14], which proved that threat, response efficacy, and self-efficacy were key drivers for mitigation behavior. In terms of sustainable waste management behaviors, self-efficacy was a main motivator, while response efficacy was found to contrast with disposal, reuse, and recycling behaviors in Thailand. Moreover, the perceived severity of negative impacts from pollutants could significantly influence all waste management behaviors [15]. Among a college sample in the United States, response costs negatively predicted pro-environmental intentions, while perceived severity, self-efficacy, response efficacy, and vulnerability were found to positively predict them [16]. To predict the pro-environmental behavior of Iranian farmers under drought conditions, response efficacy, perceived severity, response costs, perceived vulnerability, and self-efficacy were found to be the crucial factors [12]. Regarding climate change adaptation, perceived severity, response efficacy, and self-efficacy have been identified as significant predictors of American and Korean students’ intentions to engage in pro-environmental behaviors [17].
Therefore, this study aims to explore the factors influencing information nudge efficacy based on PMT [10] and personal factors—especially in the context of NBRS—including the proposal of practical nudging strategies and communication guidelines for NBRS.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

The Chai Nat Province (15°07′45.8″ N, 100°01′44.1″ E)—is in the central part of Thailand, where there is a significant rice-producing region, with agriculture occupying approximately 79.49% of the province’s total land area [3]—was selected as the study area, and consists of eight districts.

2.2. Sampling and Behavioral Experiment Design and Data Collection

Purposive sampling was used to select farmers from the eight districts based on the following criteria: (1) having experience in rice cultivation of not less than five years; (2) being a key person in rice cultivation in each household; (3) practicing either burning and non-burning rice straw management for the previous and current rounds of rice cultivation; and (4) being available and willing to engage in the research process.
The researchers initially contacted the Head of the Learning Center for Agricultural Productivity Enhancement in each district and shared the criteria for the farmers’ inclusion. Subsequently, the head invited 25 farmers as the sample group, totaling 200 households (88 non-burning rice straw and 112 burning rice straw) across all districts. All farmer respondents took part in a face-to-face behavioral experiment and interviews following the questionnaire, and researchers asked for more details to ensure clarity and accuracy in all questions and answers.

2.2.1. Behavioral Experiment on Rice Straw Management (RSM)

Ten types of information nudges on RSM (as dependent variables) were experimented with farmers individually, one by one, as detailed in the following Table 1.
Farmers were asked about each type of information, and they rated their decision based on a Likert scale of 1 (the least) to 5 (the most/highest). For any case that provided cash by researchers, the amount of money given to farmers was equal to the wage for plowing rice straw (200 Baht/rai or 1250 Baht/hectare). The actual money was given to the farmers during the experiment to mimic real-life scenarios.

2.2.2. Questionnaire about Rice Cultivation, RSM, RSU, RSB, and PMT

The questionnaire covered three main parts (Table 2): (1) demographic information; (2) rice cultivation and rice straw management (RSM); (3) rice straw utilization (RSU), rice straw burning (RSB), and PMT (as independent variables).

2.3. Data Analysis

2.3.1. Factors Influencing Senders and Information Nudges for Pro-Environmental Agriculture and the Information Nudges for NBRS Management

To explore the factors affecting the information nudges for NBRS management, the dependent variables were each type of information nudge for NBRS management, and the elements of PMT covering self-efficacy, response efficacy, response cost, susceptibility, and severity, and the rewards of burning were independent variables. SPSS Statistics Software version 22.0 was employed for data analysis, consisting of tests of normality using the one-sample Kolmogorov–Smirnov Test and the Wilcoxon rank sum test. Moreover, stepwise multiple linear regression was used to explore and compare the factors influencing senders and information nudges among respondents with ‘mainly burnt’ and ‘not burnt’ rice straw. The result of the one-sample Kolmogorov–Smirnov test proved to be 0.000 to 0.001, which was less than the p-value (0.05), indicating that non-parametric statistics needed to be employed for further analysis. To test stepwise multiple linear regression (as Equation (1)), multicollinearity was initially tested and considered. The key values of variance inflation factors (VIFs) were less than 10 (ranging from 1.000 to 1.845), and tolerance values approached 1 (ranging from 0.542 to 1.000), indicating no multicollinearity.
Y = β0 + β1Xself-efficacy + β2Xresponse efficacy + β3Xresponse cost + β4Xseverity of burning +
β5Xsusceptibility of burning + β6Xrewards of burning

2.3.2. Practical Nudging Strategies and Communication Guidelines for Pro-Environmental Agriculture Were Analyzed and Synthesized by Thematic Content Analysis [18]

Data recorded from in-depth interviews were transcribed, reread to familiarize the researchers with the data, and classified based on different types of RSU. After that, data coding by the QDA Miner Lite Program involved labeling similar meanings and grouping the data. The final analysis was revisited and discussed among the researchers.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Demographic Information

Most of the respondents were male (around 60%). Their average age was approximately 50 years, and their education level was mainly secondary or high school. Most farmers owned their rice farming area (50.5%) but did not participate in farming groups (54.5%). Regarding their current practices on rice straw management, the majority practiced burning (56%), while 44% practiced non-burning methods (RSU), including (1) rice straw compacting; (2) plowing rice straw into the soil (with water or under dry conditions); (3) cattle farming; (4) rice straw composting; and (5) soil covering with rice straw. A few of them used to practice mushroom growing and products from rice straw, but these seemed impractical due to low outputs and high technology requirements, respectively. Moreover, a few of the leading farmers participated in carbon credit trading from rice cultivation based on alternate wet and dry and NBRS practices.

3.2. Information Nudges Testing for NBRS Management

3.2.1. Mean of Information Nudges for NBRS Management

Self-efficacy, response efficacy, and response cost of non-burning farmers for all types of RSU showed a higher mean value than burning farmers, as shown in Figure 1. Compacting rice straw was perceived as the lowest response cost, while mushroom farming was perceived as the highest. Soil covering for non-burning farmers was perceived as having the highest mean of self-efficacy and response efficacy, while compacting rice straw and soil covering were perceived, respectively, for burning farmers.
Farmers who mainly practice RSB perceived more benefits of burning than those who employed non-burning approaches (Figure 2). Meanwhile, those with non-burning practices perceived susceptibility and severity more than burning farmers.

3.2.2. Factors Influencing Information Nudges for NBRS Management

For farmers who mainly practiced rice straw burning (Table 3), both NI_N and NI_Y nudges, the rewards of burning were found to be negatively significant factors (NI_N: t = −4.682, sig. = 0.000; NI_Y: t = −4.292, sig. = 0.000), while perceived response efficacy (t = 6.570, sig. = 0.000), severity (t = 2.644, sig. = 0.009) and response cost of RSU (t = 2.450, sig. = 0.016) were found to positively influence their non-burning adoption. These findings revealed the perception of the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of RSU while concurrently acknowledging the severity of burning practices.
From the aforementioned findings, it is advisable to reduce the cost of utilizing rice straw and enhance the convenience of its application. Presenting results from behavior modification may demonstrate positive changes in various aspects. It is possible to offer a comparative analysis of the Air Quality Index (AQI) and consistently collect statistical data on respiratory system-related illnesses. If a decrease in the number of patients is observed, it not only reflects positive outcomes but also boosts farmers’ motivation and collective strength to persistently engage in long-term changes. Collective actions to protect the environment and natural resources are needed to maintain a positive relationship with the environment [19].
For SB_N and SB_Y nudges, response efficacy (t = 4.149, sig. = 0.000) and severity (t = 3.401, sig. = 0.001) were found as positive factors when the information that most farmers burnt rice straw with no monetary compensation was provided (SB_N). If the same information nudge with monetary compensation was provided (SB_Y), farmers tended to adopt non-burning practices as they perceived a low response cost of RSU (t = −3.801, sig. = 0.000) and low rewards of burning (t = −3.314, sig. = 0.001). As the situation of most farmers burning rice straw, the adverse impacts of burning seemed to be clearer, which could be the reason the farmers perceived fewer benefits and more severity of burning. Meanwhile, perceived high response efficacy could be a great sign for promoting long-term non-burning practices. A communication plan to build self-efficacy based on Bandura’s social cognitive theory [20] could be involved. Mastery experiences, vicarious experiences, physiological and emotional states, and social persuasion regarding RSU should be emphasized to build self-confidence in generating benefits from rice straw instead of burning it.
When the information about most farmers mainly utilizing non-burning practices and that no monetary compensation was provided (SNB_N), perceived susceptibility and severity of RSB were found to significantly influence non-burning adoption (t = 3.171, sig. = 0.002; t = 2.617, sig. = 0.009, respectively). However, they had less self-efficacy on how to benefit from rice straw (t = −3.856, sig. = 0.000). Therefore, communication to promote self-efficacy, as suggested by Hamann, Baumann, and Löschinger [21], through the provision of demonstrations of behavioral options and their impacts, skill training, and feedback, should be enhanced to generate more confidence for farmers regarding RSU. With similar messages and monetary compensation provided (SNB_Y), in addition to perceiving severity (t = 2.671, sig. = 0.009), self-efficacy was also shown to positively influence their non-burning adoption (t = 4.421, sig. = 0.000).
In the case of increasing bad impacts of burning while receiving no monetary compensation (EI_N), the farmers tended to adopt non-burning while still having a perception of more benefits from burning (rewards_burn: t = 2.390, sig. = 0.019). The reasons behind their decisions could reflect their realizing the benefits of burning and the lack of severe impacts that happened to themselves or their families. However, with the same information nudge but with monetary compensation (EI_Y), the farmers perceive high response cost (t = 2.989, sig. = 0.003), self-efficacy (t = 2.803, sig. = 0.006) of RSU, and susceptibility to the impacts of burning (t = 2.227, sig. = 0.028). Therefore, to promote more opportunities for long-term RSU, clear information on the cost and returns of RSU should be communicated, as recommended by Sereenonchai and Arunrat [3].
Meanwhile, when the farmers received the information that burning would be punished, such as being fined (B_F), and money compensation would be given if non-burning was practiced (NB_Y), they perceived fewer rewards of burning (B_F: t = −2.714, sig. = 0.008; NB_Y: t = −3.906, sig. = 0.000) and lower response costs (B_F: t = −2.238, sig. = 0.027; NB_Y: t = −2.411, sig. = 0.018), which tended to affect their decision to adopt a non-burning approach. The farmers explained further that having a penalty could have more influence on their decision to change from burning to non-burning because they did not want to lose money and face embarrassment. Some of the farmers’ agricultural plots were also next to or close to the main road in their community, so it was obvious if RSB took place in their fields.
Additionally, the factor of financial assistance, if non-burning was practiced, might affect the decision not to burn. However, some farmers who traditionally choose burning might perceive that burning remains a more cost-effective method, even if they know that they could receive financial assistance for not burning. This is because burning allows them to start the next farming cycle faster. When comparing the amount of financial assistance received with the selling price of quickly harvested rice, those who choose to burn might believe that the combination of burning and selling rice quickly is more economically rewarding than not burning. The decision to burn and sell rice quickly might yield a higher monetary return and undoubtedly be more certain.
For farmers who mainly practiced NBRS (Table 4), self-efficacy was found to be the positively significant factor influencing the tendency to continue NBRS for almost all types of information nudges (SNB_Y: t = 4.566, sig. = 0.000; SNB_N: t = 3.272, sig. = 0.002; EI_Y: t = 3.154, sig. = 0.002; SB_Y: t = 2.544, sig. = 0.013; NI_Y: t = 2.544, sig. = 0.013; SB_N: t = 2.362, sig. = 0.020, respectively). These results clearly reflected the self-efficacy of non-burning farmers because they have learned and practiced how to utilize rice straw. Self-efficacy was also shown to be an important predictor in other studies related to environmental issues and innovation adoption by farmers [22,23].
Moreover, gaining more benefit in the form of financial compensation (Y) increases stronger tendencies for them to reap the benefits from their rice straw, as the results of Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test or Mann–Whitney U Test revealed that the Z-scores with financial compensation were higher than without it when comparing each pair of informational nudges (NI_N: −11.516 and NI_Y: −7.676, SNB_N: −9.461 and SNB_Y: −5.797, SB_N: −9.716 and SB_Y: −5.796, EI_N: −8.763 and EI_Y: −3.279). The positive result of an economic incentive was in line with the observation of Lopes et al. [6], explaining an obvious impact from monetary compensation rather than information nudges.
Nevertheless, for no information and no compensation (NI_N) provided, the influences of perceived severity of RSB (t = −2.596, sig. = 0.011) and response efficacy (t = −2.073, sig. = 0.041) had shown a significantly negative influence on their NBRS management. This was quite similar to the current situation of farmers without any intervention; they seemed not to perceive much severity of burning impacts from the rice straw and not much efficiency of RSU. Therefore, this is an opportunity for communication to highlight the efficiency of each approach of RSU more effectively.
Rewards of burning practice revealed a negative factor after a few types of nudging, proving that perceiving fewer good points or benefits of burning could influence their decision to continue non-burning practice (EI_N: t = −3.818, sig. = 0.000; NI_Y and SB_Y: t = −2.027, sig. = 0.046). The information about the impacts of burning and the social practice of burning seems to affect the perception of farmers, raising their awareness of the impacts of burning, which could, in turn, help them to perceive fewer rewards of burning. In the case of environmental awareness (EA), the information should be attached with clear evidence of the density of AQI values, some of which might also be the result of burning, to emphasize the dire situation of air pollution. At the same time, the communication to promote more efficiency of RSU should be focused on ensuring non-burning practices.
When the farmers received the information that burning would be punished, for example, by being fined (B_F), and money compensation would be provided for non-burning practice (NB_Y), the perception of a lower response cost (B_F: t = −7.709, sig. = 0.000; NB_Y: t = −8.833, sig. = 0.000) tended to affect the farmers’ decision to continue RSU. The result of the B_F nudge also links to the farmers’ concern about the economic aspect, as they do not want to lose much money for RSU. Additionally, if they were caught burning rice straw, their neighbors and other farmers in the province would recognize them for the illegal practice. If their story were broadcast via mass media, this would also be known throughout the country, which would not be perceived favorably by others. In the case of the NB_Y nudge, as the farmers mainly practice the non-burning approach, they feel it is not difficult to continue with it. Receiving money as assistance for farming costs could be part of their motivation to continue their current practice.
To sum up, for non-burning farmers, self-efficacy has played an outstanding role in the continuation of RSU for almost all types of information nudges.

3.3. Practical Nudging Strategies and Communication Guideline for NBRS Management

Based on “participatory nudging design” with lead and representative farmers, storytelling and content analysis of their experiences were performed based on two main concepts: the six sources of influence [24,25] and the Easy-Attractive-Social-Timely (EAST) framework [26]. The six sources of influence cover self-motivation and ability, social motivation and ability, and structural motivation and ability, which help lead to behavioral change. In this part, self-social-structural motivations and abilities regarding different approaches to RSU were extracted, and limitations and recommendations were raised (Table S1) based on five main aspects of the RSU: (1) information, knowledge, and guidance; (2) system management, including products from rice straw; (3) agricultural resources (land, water, time, labor); (4) practicing or experience sharing; and (5) decision support. The EAST framework recommends (1) making it easy, (2) making it attractive, (3) making it social, and (4) making it timely [26]. This framework was applied to analyze and synthesize strategies for promoting the adoption of rice straw utilization (RSU). Furthermore, strengths (S), weaknesses (W), opportunities (O), and threats (T) or SWOT and the TOWS matrix of each RSU approach were analyzed (Table 5), and then practical nudging strategies and communication guidelines to promote RSU (Figure 3) were proposed. The analysis of SWOT helps to assess internal and external situations, while the TOWs matrix provides concrete strategic options by combining the external threats (T) and opportunities (O) to match with internal weaknesses (W) and strengths (S). Four groups of alternative strategies can be analyzed: (1) maximizing both strengths and opportunities (SO); (2) maximizing strengths and minimizing threats (ST); (3) minimizing weaknesses and maximizing opportunities (WO); and (4) minimizing both weaknesses and threats (WT) [27].
  • Practical communication strategies to nudge NBRS
(1) Make it easy
  • Remove and add frictions: Facilitate RSU to be easy, convenient, accessible, lower cost, fit to agricultural context, and aligned with existing practices. Introduce friction points to make people more conscious and to complicate their option of burning rice straw. As humans tend to take the path of least resistance [28], adding friction to the burning practice might make burning practice more difficult. Increase the difficulty level of managing straw through burning, such as strongly implementing a process requiring prior authorization before burning. This may be mentioned in the authority’s announcement, but it is not practical in the actual situation. If any citizen needs to burn rice straw on their land for personal consumption, they must obtain permission from the village head, community leader, local government organization head, and the district chief in writing before each burning. They must also create a firebreak around the area, at least 6 m wide. Failure to adhere to these regulations and causing a fire to spread to the forest or other areas will result in legal action against the responsible party. Violations will lead to legal action with a maximum penalty of up to five years imprisonment or a fine not exceeding 50,000 Baht, or both imprisonment and a fine. In addition, a reward of 10,000 Baht will be given to informants reporting unauthorized burning in forests or agricultural areas [29]. Therefore, establish a network of farmers to collaborate in monitoring and preventing clandestine burning.
  • Default option: Steps for promoting NBRS as the default option, especially taken care of by local agricultural organizations, such as subdistrict and district agriculture offices, by specifying the most preferred option suitable for the area’s characteristics and seasons in advance and reducing complexity and intricacy. Furthermore, convenient channels for farmers to contact and request straw baling, cattle feeding, or RSU services, together with publicizing available convenient channels and different ways to utilize straw, should be provided.
(2) Make it attractive
Provide information on the benefits of RSU to promote more self-efficacy, particularly to generate income, such as the successful products from rice straw, e.g., the “Golden Straw of Bang Rakam Model.” The Agriculture Office of Phitsanulok Province has organized a campaign called “Golden Straw” in certain areas, such as the Bang Rakam Model, to promote the value addition of rice straw and reduce burning in agricultural areas. The government is responsible for managing and overseeing marketing, sales, and public relations to raise awareness of the impact of burning rice fields. Additionally, the initiative aims to create a business network between buyers and sellers for farmers in the Bang Rakam Model area [30]. The organic farmer in the study area also reflects on the additional benefits of rice straw, stating:
It is possible to transport rice straw from the field to be used for various purposes such as covering gardens, placing it in fish ponds, mulching bamboo forests, creating fish pond sand beds, producing fresh rice straw products, mixing with cow dung, and composting for agricultural plots. All materials are sourced and safe from our farm for the whole process of agriculture.
Moreover, life cycle thinking is an effective approach for evaluating the environmental, economic, and social aspects throughout a product or service’s life cycle [31], which can also facilitate sustainable agriculture [32]. Promoting the environmental benefits of non-burning practices can be challenging. For example, using a quantitative assessment such as Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) to assess the environmental impacts of products made from rice straw involves evaluating all inputs (raw materials, water, energy) and outputs (air emissions, liquid discharge, solid waste). The message design of this LCA mainly highlights environmental concerns, such as the effects of different approaches of rice straw management on Greenhouse Gas Emissions and mitigation options [33].
Additionally, social LCA (S-LCA) considers the social impacts on stakeholders throughout the product life cycle [34]. The results of the S-LCA of rice straw utilization from qualitative and quantitative, objective and subjective, as well as positive and negative aspects from stakeholders in terms of health and safety, economic development, public participation, conflict management, working conditions, labor management, and social responsibility, could be used to communicate back to the stakeholders to test the effectiveness of these types of messages to promote rice straw utilization.
Reviews of applying S-LCA highlighted challenging issues [35,36], including difficulties in quantifying data and analyzing the subjective nature of certain social indicators [37]. Quantitative monetary and qualitative S-LCA were highlighted in the study by Yosep et al. [38], while a quantitative performance reference points approach was used in the S-LCA study comparing green and burnt sugarcane harvesting in Thailand [39]. The advantages of context-specific subjective assessments based on the in-depth details of stakeholders’ experiences and opinions could complement the objective assessment from the list of quantitative indicators.
Ten types of information nudges from this study, along with the perception of PMT elements using ordered scaling options like the Likert scale and information from qualitative in-depth interviews and literature reviews, could be added as supplementary indicators and approaches to assess S-LCA of rice straw utilization. This would provide stakeholders with both pros and cons to achieve the proposed decision-making guidelines for promoting rice straw utilization based on the local context. Future studies should also conduct participatory S-LCA on rice straw utilization approaches for each local context. This information should be used to encourage farmers to experiment with different designs and explore whether environmental and socio-economic messaging can influence their pro-environmental behavior.
(3) Make it social
Human behavior tends to be influenced by others’ practices. Therefore, NBRS can also be promoted by highlighting that other people are adopting this practice and making it more publicly visible, including emphasizing the opportunities to help each other.
  • Shared goal: Encourage people to unite towards a common objective, fostering a sense of ownership to make it impactful and serious. In cases where the majority of farmers have not changed their attitudes and are unwilling to accept the utilization of rice straw, this could be addressed by (1) taking practical actions to demonstrate visible and tangible results, (2) visiting and learning from knowledgeable individuals who have successfully implemented the use of straw for various purposes and who are creating income; (3) establishing the value of the agricultural profession by providing additional information on how environmentally friendly rice straw products contribute to reducing global warming and supporting national policies.
  • Establishing significant days/events for the creative production of products from rice straw—for example, the ceremony for the first plowing of the field and offerings to the deities, are conducted to honor and connect with agricultural principles.
  • Foster a culture of utilizing rice straw through various accessible channels for farmers, such as personal demonstrations/invitations, community bulletin boards, village community halls, television, and online/social media platforms/groups (local leaders, mainstream media, organizational media).
(4) Make it timely
To help promote self-efficacy, training on RSU should coincide with the timing of rice straw management and integrated farming training should be scheduled when farmers are available to attend:
  • The RSU training aims to make the process interesting and practical, providing insights into areas where it can be easily implemented. The method should be uncomplicated, requiring minimal additional investment and preferably utilizing existing resources. The goal is to make the process beneficial, especially in terms of generating income, with minimal additional steps, complexity, and time consumption.
  • Integrated farming training should be organized to align with the topography and season of the farming area. To promote greater adoption of integrated farming, the practice should be introduced by successful groups, and informal and online channels for knowledge exchange and sharing should be organized to educate farmers and instill confidence in the practice in the long run.
  • The training steps can be as follows:
First, knowledgeable individuals should share examples of successful RSU and income generation. This can be achieved by presenting options for RSU through various media channels in an engaging and easily understandable format to cater to diverse preferences in information consumption and decision-making.
Second, the promotion process in the area should focus on creating model farmers through activities that encourage integrated farming for food security. The emphasis should be on using integrated farming principles and processes as tools for agricultural development.
Thirdly, select diligent, resilient, and dedicated farmers with at least one acre of land to provide knowledge, skills training, and support factors to develop the potential of farmers to become experts. Create opportunities for learning and knowledge exchange.
Lastly, establish networks to strengthen and develop integrated farming communities, serving as models for farmers in the village to study, learn, and apply in their agricultural areas. Additionally, the network becomes a source for distributing plant and animal breeds to the community, providing food and knowledge within the community. Create model farmers and integrated farming plots in every subdistrict.

4. Conclusions

Based on stepwise multiple linear regression, factors influencing information nudges for NBRS management for farmers mainly practicing burning indicated that perceived susceptibility and severity of burning could be important positive factors influencing their decision to adopt non-burning practices. Perceived rewards of burning were mostly found to be negative significant factors for RSU adoption. Providing economic incentives could help farmers change from burning to non-burning because they perceived concrete monetary benefits in making such a change. Meanwhile, for those mainly practicing non-burning, self-efficacy was found to be the significant positive influence on the tendency to continue NBRS for almost all types of information nudges. Perceived response cost of RSU was mostly found to be a negative factor influencing non-burning adoption for both burning and non-burning farmers, especially for the information nudge that burning would be punished (B_F) while non-burning would receive monetary compensation (NB_Y).
To promote practical nudging strategies for RSU from the outset, perceived easiness and appropriateness (or timeliness) of the method are crucial information nudges, especially if the method aligns with their previous practices and is perceived as not too difficult and as convenient. Moreover, information nudges by leading and successful farmers, based on their direct practice and experience, can be the most powerful sources. After trying or testing each method of RSU, if it fits the farmers’ context, such as the season, amount of rainfall or irrigation system, and farmland topography, making it social can be the key information nudge to maintain their practice. In particular, receiving suggestions and support from their farming group, network, successful leading farmers, or successful farming groups can build more confidence in utilizing the method. Structural motivation and ability are also other important factors influencing the farmers’ continuation of RSU because of promoting helpful facilities and convenience.
Consequently, communication strategies to drive the sources influencing farmers’ pro-environmental practices consist of four main aspects. First, make it easy by (1) setting RSU as the default option based on the appropriateness of the farming contexts, e.g., land topography, water management, and season; and (2) removing or adding frictions—the first, by facilitating RSU to be easy, convenient, accessible, fit to the agricultural context, and aligned with existing practices; the second by increasing the difficulty level if burning is employed, such as strongly implementing a process requiring prior authorization before burning. Second, make it attractive by highlighting income generation as the obvious benefit. Thirdly, make it social by promoting a shared goal to encourage people to unite towards a common objective, fostering a sense of ownership, establishing significant days/events for the creative production of products from rice straw, and fostering a culture of utilizing rice straw through various accessible channels for farmers. Lastly, make it timely by providing training on RSU near the time of rice straw management and training on integrated farming, when the farmers are available to attend.
Communication strategies to nudge NBRS with the internal support by local (agricultural) authorities include: (1) empowering leading farmers as change agents through practical and visualized knowledge and skills training, continuous guidance and monitoring, and providing platforms to communicate RSU to fellow farmers; (2) forming a learning group to transfer RSU knowledge to other farmers; (3) enabling farmer groups to efficiently utilize rice straw, share experiences and collaboratively manage within member groups and among the network; (4) facilitating RSU and encourage farmers to practice integrated farming according to their local context; (5) coordinating systematically, transparently, and sincerely between the private sector and farmers in achieving Net Zero; (6) communicating conditions and terms for compensation clearly and fitting with the agricultural context; (7) elevating RSU among farmer groups to meet standardized and accepted levels; and (8) establishing clear incentives for RSU and managing burning systematically and collaboratively. Moreover, external supporters like central agricultural authorities/academics can also help to (1) create clearer monetary incentives by linking products derived from rice straw to markets, (2) promote a safe environment for RSU based on a participatory approach, and (3) introduce restrictions on burning rice straw and establish a burning schedule with community involvement if burning is necessary.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/su16177449/s1, Table S1. Practical nudging strategies and communication guideline for NBRS mangement.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: S.S. and N.A.; investigation: S.S. and N.A.; writing—review and editing: S.S. and N.A.; methodology, formal analysis, validation, visualization, writing—original draft, funding acquisition: S.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research paper is supported by Specific League Funds from Mahidol University.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This project was approved by the Institutional Review Board, Institute for Population and Social Research, Mahidol University (IPSR-IRB), COA. No. 2023/04-060.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Data are contained within the article and Supplementary Materials.

Acknowledgments

We express special thanks to all key informants and the anonymous reviewers for their comments and suggestions to improve this paper. Thanks to Man He for her supervision in completing this study, and Thomas Neal Stewart for English editing.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

(1) non-burning rice straw (NBRS); (2) rice straw utilization (RSU); (3) protection motivation theory (PMT); (4) Value-Belief-Norm theory (VBN); (5) Norm Activation Model (NAM); (6) rice straw management (RSM); (7) rice straw burning (RSB); (8) Easy-Attractive-Social-Timely (EAST); (9) SWOT or TOWS: strengths (S), weaknesses (W), opportunities (O) and threats (T); (10) maximizing both strengths and opportunities (SO); (11) maximizing strengths and minimizing threats (ST); (12) minimizing weaknesses and maximizing opportunities (WO); (13) minimizing both weaknesses and threats (WT); (14) Life Cycle Assessment (LCA); and (15) Social LCA (S-LCA).

References

  1. Andini, A.; Bonnet, S.; Rousset, P.; Hasanudin, U. Impact of open burning of crop residues on air pollution and climate change in Indonesia. Curr. Sci. 2018, 115, 2259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Noipa, W.; Pakdeelun, W. Agricultural Burning Management in Thailand. Thailand Environment Institute. March 2021. Available online: https://tei.or.th/file/files/Agricultural%20Burning%20Management%20in%20Thailand_TEI-eng.pdf (accessed on 30 November 2023).
  3. Sereenonchai, S.; Arunrat, N. Farmers’ Perceptions, Insight Behavior and Communication Strategies for Rice Straw and Stubble Management in Thailand. Agronomy 2022, 12, 200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. My, K.B.; Nguyen-Van, P.; Pham, T.K.C.; Stenger, A.; Tiet, T.; To-The, N. Drivers of organic farming: Lab-in-the-field evidence of the role of social comparison and information nudge in networks in Vietnam. Ecol. Econ. 2022, 196, 107401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Zhang, Y.; Lu, X.; Zou, Y.; Lv, T. Nudging strategies for arable land protection behavior in China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 12609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Lopes, A.A.; Tasneem, D.; Viriyavipart, A. Nudges and compensation: Evaluating experimental evidence on controlling rice straw burning. Ecol. Econ. 2023, 204, 107677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Fiske, S.T.; Taylor, S.E. Social Cognition; McGraw Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1991. [Google Scholar]
  8. Genius, M.; Pantzios, C.J.; Tzouvelekas, V. Information acquisition and adoption of organic farming practices. J. Agric. Res. Econ. 2006, 31, 93–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Wheeler, S.A. The barriers to further adoption of organic farming and genetic engineering in Australia: Views of agricultural professionals and their information sources. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2008, 23, 161–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Rogers, R.W. A protection motivation theory of fear appeals and attitude change. J. Psychol. 1975, 91, 93–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Prentice-Dunn, S.; Rogers, R.W. Protection motivation theory and preventive health: Beyond the Health Belief Model. Health Educ. Res. 2001, 1, 153–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Keshavarz, M.; Karami, E. Farmers’ pro-environmental behavior under drought: Application of protection motivation theory. J. Arid. Environ. 2016, 127, 128–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Bockarjova, M.; Steg, L. Can protection motivation theory predict pro-environmental behavior? Explaining the adoption of electric vehicles in the Netherlands. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2014, 28, 276–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Bubeck, P.; Wouter Botzen, W.J.; Laudan, J.; Aerts, J.C.J.H.; Thieken, A.H. Insights into flood-coping appraisals of protection motivation theory: Empirical evidence from Germany and France. Risk Anal. Off. Publ. Soc. Risk Anal. 2017, 38, 1239–1257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Janmaimool, P. Application of Protection Motivation Theory to Investigate Sustainable Waste Management Behaviors. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Rainear, A.; Christensen, J. Protection motivation theory as an explanatory framework for proenvironmental behavioral intentions. Commun. Res. Rep. 2017, 34, 239–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Kim, S.; Jeong, S.-H.; Hwang, Y. Predictors of pro-environmental behaviors of American and Korean Students: The application of the theory of reasoned action and protection motivation theory. Sci. Commun. 2013, 35, 168–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Gray, D.E. Doing Research in the Real World, 4th ed.; SAGE Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  19. Carmona-Moya, B.; Calvo-Salguero, A.; Aguilar-Luzón, M.-d.-C. EIMECA: A Proposal for a Model of Environmental Collective Action. Sustainability 2021, 13, 5935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Bandura, A. Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control; Freeman: New York, NY, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  21. Hamann, K.; Baumann, A.; Löschinger, D. Psychology of Environmental Protection-Handbook for Encouraging Sustainable Actions; Oekom Research Inc.: Stuttgart, Germany, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  22. Aghdasi, M.; Omidi Najafabadi, M.; Mirdamadi, S.M.; Farajollah Hoseini, S.J. Expanding Protection Motivation Theory: Investigating Farmers’ Pro-Environmental Behavior and Their Impact on a Sustainable Alternative Livelihood under Drought. J. Agric. Sci. Technol. 2022, 24, 305–320. [Google Scholar]
  23. Wang, Y.; Yang, J.; Liang, J.; Qiang, Y.; Fang, S.; Gao, M.; Fan, X.; Yang, G.; BaoWen, Z.; Feng, Y. Analysis of the environmental behavior of farmers for non-point source pollution control and management in a water source protection area in China. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 633, 1126–1135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Mitchell, T.R. Motivation: New directions for theory, research, and practice. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1982, 7, 80–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Porter, L.W.; Lawler, E.E. Managerial Attitudes and Performance; Dorsey Press: Homewood, IL, USA, 1968. [Google Scholar]
  26. Service, O.; Hallsworth, M.; Halpern, D.; Algate, F.; Gallagher, R.; Nguyen, S.; Ruda, S.; Sanders, M.; Pelenur, M.; Gyani, A.; et al. EAST Four Simple Ways to Apply Behavioural Insights. 2022. Available online: https://www.bi.team/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/BIT-Publication-EAST_FA_WEB.pdf (accessed on 30 November 2023).
  27. Weihrich, H. The TOWS Matrix—A tool for Situational Analysis. Long Range Plan. 1982, 15, 54–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. The Behavioural Insights Team. EAST: Four Simple Ways to Apply Behavioural Insights. London. 2014. Available online: https://www.bi.team/publications/east-four-simple-ways-to-apply-behavioural-insights/ (accessed on 30 November 2023).
  29. Department of Agricultural Extension (DOAE). DOAE revealed the success of the “Bangrakam Model Farm” in Phitsanulok Province, Which Has Increased the Value of RICE straw, Generated Income, and Addressed Agricultural Burning Issues in the Area in a Sustainable Manner. 21 November 2023. Available online: https://doaenews.doae.go.th/archives/20520 (accessed on 30 November 2023).
  30. Chai Nat Provincial Office. The Announcement of Chai Nat Province Regarding the Prohibition of Burning Agricultural Materials, Weeds, Leaf Litter, and Open Burning in all Cases within the Chai Nat Province area. 25 November 2022. Available online: https://cdoae.doae.go.th/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/02-ประกาศ-งดเผาในที่โล่งจังหวัดชัยนาท-ปี-65.pdf (accessed on 30 November 2023).
  31. Valdivia, S.; Ugaya, C.M.; Hildenbrand, J.; Traverso, M.; Mazijn, B.; Sonnemann, G. A UNEP/SETAC approach towards a life cycle sustainability assessment—Our contribution to Rio+20. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2013, 18, 1673–1685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Rezaei Kalvani, S.; Sharaai, A.H.; Abdullahi, I.K. Social Consideration in Product Life Cycle for Product Social Sustainability. Sustainability 2021, 13, 11292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Gummert, M.; Van Hung, N.; Chivenge, P.; Douthwaite, B. (Eds.) Chapter 9 Rice Straw Management Effects on Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Mitigation Options. In Sustainable Rice Straw Management; Springer Open: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  34. Benoît, C.; Norris, G.A.; Valdivia, S.; Ciroth, A.; Moberg, A.; Bos, U.; Prakash, S.; Ugaya, C.; Beck, T. The guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products: Just in time! Int. J. Life Cycle Assess 2010, 15, 156–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Huertas-Valdivia, I.; Ferrari, A.M.; Settembre-Blundo, D.; García-Muiña, F.E. Social Life-Cycle Assessment: A Review by Bibliometric Analysis. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Pollok, L.; Spierling, S.; Endres, H.-J.; Grote, U. Social Life Cycle Assessments: A Review on Past Development, Advances and Methodological Challenges. Sustainability 2021, 13, 10286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Onat, N.; Kucukvar, M.; Halog, A.; Cloutier, S. Systems Thinking for Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment: A Review of Recent Developments, Applications, and Future Perspectives. Sustainability 2017, 9, 706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Yosep; Mulkhan, U.; Hasanudin, U.; Iryani, D.A. Monetizing Social Life Cycle Assessment (SLCA): A Case Study in SMEs Tapioca Industry in Lampung, Indonesia. Appl. Environ. Res. 2024, 46, 013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Thuayjan, T.; Prasara-A, J.; Gheewala, S.H. Social Life Cycle Assessment of Green and Burnt Manual Sugarcane Harvesting in the Northeastern Thailand. Environ. Nat. Resour. J. 2022, 20, 246–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 16 07449 g001
Figure 1. Rice Straw Utilization (RSU): Self-efficacy, response efficacy, and response cost.
Figure 1. Rice Straw Utilization (RSU): Self-efficacy, response efficacy, and response cost.
Sustainability 16 07449 g001
Sustainability 16 07449 g002
Figure 2. Perceived rewards of burning, susceptibility, and severity.
Figure 2. Perceived rewards of burning, susceptibility, and severity.
Sustainability 16 07449 g002
Sustainability 16 07449 g003
Figure 3. Practical nudging strategies and communication guidelines to promote RSU. (Note: (1) All photos were taken by the researchers from the study area; (2) BF means farmers with mainly burn rice straw; (3) NBF means farmers with mainly non-burn rice straw).
Figure 3. Practical nudging strategies and communication guidelines to promote RSU. (Note: (1) All photos were taken by the researchers from the study area; (2) BF means farmers with mainly burn rice straw; (3) NBF means farmers with mainly non-burn rice straw).
Sustainability 16 07449 g003
Table 1. Ten types of information nudges on RSM.
Table 1. Ten types of information nudges on RSM.
CodeInformation on RSM ProvidedCash Provided
(1) No information about rice straw management, and cash would not be given if you adopt or continue to practice non-burning. (NI_N)NoNo
(2) No information about rice straw management, but cash would be given if you adopt or continue to practice non-burning. (NI_Y)NoYes
(3) Most farmers do not burn their rice straw, and cash would not be given if you adopt or continue to practice non-burning methods/RSU. (SNB_N)Most farmers do not burnNo
(4) Most farmers do not burn their rice straw, and cash would be given if you adopt or continue to practice non-burning methods/RSU. (SNB_Y)Most farmers do not burnYes
(5) Most farmers burn their rice straw, and cash would not be given if you adopt or continue to practice non-burning methods/RSU. (SB_N)Most farmers burnNo
(6) Most farmers burn their rice straw, and cash would be given if you adopt or continue to practice non-burning methods/RSU. (SB_Y)Most farmers burnYes
(7) Bad impacts from rice straw burning (RSB) on people’s health, and cash would not be given if non-burning is practiced. (EI_N)Bad impacts from RSB to people’s healthNo
(8) Bad impacts from rice straw burning (RSB) to people’s health, and cash would be given if non-burning is practiced. (EI_Y)Bad impacts from RSB to people’s healthYes
(9) Practicing RSB would result in a fine by the local authority. (B_F)Practicing RSBNo (and fined)
(10) Practicing NBRS, cash compensation would be given. (NB_Y)Practicing NBRSYes
Table 2. The questions in the questionnaire were designed to ask the respondents.
Table 2. The questions in the questionnaire were designed to ask the respondents.
PartQuestions
(1) Demographic information (a checklist and an open form)
1.1
Area: 1. Sankhaburi; 2. Sapphaya; 3. Noen Kham; 4. Hankha; 5. Nongmamong; 6. Wat Sing; 7. Manorom; 8. Mueang
1.2
Gender (1. male, 2. Female)
1.3
Age (indicating the years)
1.4
Schooling (indicating the years)
1.5
Landowner (1. Owner, 2. Rental)
1.6
Farmer group attendance (1. yes, 2. no)
(2) Rice cultivation and rice straw management (a checklist and an open form)
2.1
Current rice straw management practices: 1. compacting; 2. incorporation; 3. feeding animals; 4. soil covering; 5. making fertilizer; 6. carbon trading from rice field; 7. mushroom farming; and 8. burning
2.2
The cost of rice straw management (Baht)
2.3
Returns from rice straw management (Baht)
(3) RSU, RSB, and PMT (Likert scale 1–5)
3.1
How much knowledge and skills do you have on each method of RSU? (self-efficacy)
3.2
How effective is each method of RSU? (response efficacy)
3.3
How much response cost do you perceive for each method of RSU? (response cost)
3.4
How severe do you perceive the harm that comes from burning rice straw? (severity of RSB)
3.5
How at risk do you perceive yourself to be from the threat of burning rice straw? (susceptibility)
3.6
How beneficial do you perceive rice straw burning to be? (rewards of RSB)
Table 3. Factors influencing information nudges for NBRS management of burning farmers.
Table 3. Factors influencing information nudges for NBRS management of burning farmers.
RSM = 0tSig.Collinearity Statistics
ToleranceVIF
NI_Nrewards_burn−4.6820.0001.0001.000
NI_Yresponse_efficacy6.5700.0000.8571.167
rewards_burn−4.2920.0000.9481.055
severity2.6440.0090.9491.054
response_cost2.4500.0160.8451.184
SNB_Nsusceptibility3.1710.0020.7491.334
self_efficacy−3.8560.0000.8891.125
severity2.6170.0100.7681.302
SNB_Yself_efficacy4.4210.0000.9311.075
severity2.6710.0090.9311.075
SN_Nresponse_efficacy4.1490.0000.9521.050
severity3.4010.0010.9521.050
SN_Yresponse_cost−3.8010.0000.9481.054
rewards_burn−3.3140.0010.9481.054
EI_Nrewards_burn2.3900.0191.0001.000
EI_Yresponse_cost2.9890.0030.8801.136
susceptibility2.2270.0280.8851.130
response_efficacy−3.6450.0000.5421.845
self_efficacy2.8030.0060.5761.736
B_Frewards_burn−2.7140.0080.9481.054
response_cost−2.2380.0270.9481.054
NB_Yrewards_burn−3.9060.0000.9481.054
response_cost−2.4110.0180.9481.054
Table 4. Factors influencing information nudges for NBRS management of non-burning farmers.
Table 4. Factors influencing information nudges for NBRS management of non-burning farmers.
RSM = 1tSig.Collinearity Statistics
ToleranceVIF
NI_Nseverity−2.5960.0110.9981.002
response_efficacy−2.0730.0410.9981.002
NI_Yself_efficacy2.5440.0130.9771.024
rewards_burn−2.0270.0460.9771.024
SNB_Nself_efficacy3.2720.0021.0001.000
SNB_Yself_efficacy4.5660.0001.0001.000
SN_Nself_efficacy2.3620.0201.0001.000
SN_Yself_efficacy2.5440.0130.9771.024
rewards_burn−2.0270.0460.9771.024
EI_Nrewards_burn−3.8180.0001.0001.000
EI_Yself_efficacy3.1540.0021.0001.000
B_Fresponse_cost−7.7090.0001.0001.000
NB_Yresponse_cost−8.8330.0001.0001.000
Table 5. SWOT and TOWS matrices of each approach to rice straw management were analyzed.
Table 5. SWOT and TOWS matrices of each approach to rice straw management were analyzed.
Strength: S
S1: gaining information/knowledge/guidance
S2: realizing benefits/confirmation of benefits after practicing
S3: starting by leading farmers (to test before inviting others)		Weakness: W
W1: the amount of rice straw was too little or too much
W2: practicing mono-crop (rice only)
W3: limitation of agricultural resources
W4: not the popular method of RSU
Opportunity: O
O1: providing clear information/knowledge/guidance
O2: providing RSM services
O3: providing agricultural resources
O4: understanding the limitations of farmers to practice		SO Strategies (Empower leading farmers as change agents through practical knowledge and skills training, systematic and continuous guidance, and providing platforms for leading farmers to communicate methods of utilizing rice straw to fellow farmers)
SO1: The local government agencies that actively promote knowledge and provide support across various areas serve as the central coordinating bodies and take primary responsibility for organizing training sessions to enhance practical knowledge and skills in utilizing rice straw for the benefit of farmers. They should also closely monitor, offer guidance, and provide continuous support. (RSU1: S2,5/O1,1)—Timely: T1 facilitated by related organizations at an appropriate time and place
SO2: The local agricultural government agencies and local government organizations promote farmers who are interested in and see the benefits of utilizing rice straw in various forms. They also raise awareness about the impacts of rice straw burning and empower them to become change agents, facilitating communication with farmers who still opt for burning practices. (RSU1: S2,5/S1,1/O1,1) (RSU2: S1,1/O1,1/S2,5/O3,3) (RSU3: S1,1/S2,3/S2,4/S3,4/O2,2) (RSU5: S2,4/S3,4,1/O2,2) (RSU6: S2,2/O2,4)—Social: S1 shared from successful farmers, Timely: T1 facilitated by related organizations at an appropriate time and place
SO3: The local agricultural government agencies and local government organizations promote farmer groups that are well established and have systematic internal management, enabling them to efficiently utilize rice straw in various beneficial ways. (RSU1: S1,2/O1,1-2/O2,2) (RSU4: S1,1/S3,4/S1,2/O1,1/O3,3)—Timely: T1 facilitated by related organizations at an appropriate time and place/Easy: E4 Default by local agricultural authorities
SO4: Government agencies interested in purchasing carbon credits from the agricultural sector should coordinate systematically, transparently, and sincerely with leading farmers. Local agricultural agencies should serve as intermediaries between agencies and farmers. (RSU3: S2,4/S3,4/O2,2/O4,3)– Attractive: A1 clear on steps and benefits/Timely: T1 facilitated by related organizations at an appropriate time and place		WO Strategies (Facilitate the utilization of rice straw and encourage farmers to practice integrated farming according to their local context)
WO1: Governmental agencies should collaborate with the private sector, aligning with policies to incentivize the private sector to achieve Net Zero. (RSU1: W1,3/O1,1/O1,1-2/O2,2) Easy: E1.1 easy, convenient, accessible, and fit to agricultural context/Timely: T1 facilitated by related organizations at an appropriate time and place
WO2: Wet rice straw can be used for mulching as fertilizer, while dry rice straw can be used for feeding cattle.
(RSU1: W3,3/O1,1) Easy: E1.1 easy, convenient, accessible, and fit to agricultural context
WO3: Local agricultural agencies stepped in to provide guidance and support cattle farming.
(RSU2: W3,3/O1,1/O3,3) Timely: T1 facilitated by related organizations at an appropriate time and place
WO4: Diversifying crop cultivation by encouraging farmer groups to engage in selling vegetables could be beneficial. Factors such as personal interest, readiness, and proximity to supportive cooperatives can drive success. (RSU5: W2,4/O2,2)—Social: S2 continued by most farmers/Attractive: A1 clear on steps and benefits
Threat: T
T1: Not sure of RSU benefits (complexity, high technology, wasting time)
T2: lack of trust in the management and implementation
T3: limitation of agricultural resources (water, land/geography, labor, time)		ST Strategies (Elevate the utilization of rice straw among farmer groups to meet standardized and accepted levels)
ST1: Governmental agricultural authorities should take the main action to collaborate with farmers and nongovernmental or private sectors. To address farmers’ distrust of private companies, GIZ (a German development agency) is suggested to engage directly with farmers and possibly purchase carbon credits themselves or conducted through the district and subdistrict agricultural offices. Conditions and terms for compensation should be clearly communicated to fit with farmers’ agricultural context, offering higher compensation for both wet–dry rotation and non-burning methods. (RSU3: S1,1/S2,3/S2,4/S3,4/T2,2/T3,2) Easy: E1.1 easy, convenient, accessible, and fit to agricultural context, E1.2 aligned with existing practices/Attractive: A1 clear on steps and benefits/Timely: T1 facilitated by related organizations at an appropriate time and place.
ST2: Immediate rice straw plowing needs to be practiced immediately after rice harvesting for more effective management. (RSU6: S2,2/T3,4)—Attractive: A1 clear on steps and benefits
ST3: Promoting the utilization of rice straw to produce products, focusing on knowledge and easy-to-use technologies. Empowering leading farmers with expertise and experience in rice straw product manufacturing to form initial learning groups, then transferring this knowledge to other farmers within the group and the community. (RSU7: S3,1,4/T1,5/T1,6) Easy: E1.1 easy, convenient, accessible, and fit to agricultural context/Social: S1 shared from successful farmers/Timely: T1 facilitated by related organizations at an appropriate time and place.		WT Strategies (Establish clear incentives for utilizing rice straw and manage burning practices systematically and collaboratively)
WT1: Promoting farmer cooperation, sharing experiences, and collaborative management within member groups. (RSU8: W4,2,4/T1,4) (RSU9: W4,2/T2,2)—Social: S1 shared from successful farmers
WT2: Creating clearer incentives for utilizing rice straw through linking to markets supporting mushroom production and other products derived from rice straw. (RSU8: W4,2,4/T1,4) (RSU9: W4,2/T2,2)—Attractive: A3 highlighted income generation
WT3: Facilities inside the factory with a safe environment based on a participatory approach need to be considered. (RSU9: W4,2/T2,2)—Timely: T1 facilitated by related organizations at an appropriate time and place
WT4: In cases where it is unavoidable to burn rice straw, especially during the challenging rainy season, it may be considered to establish a burning schedule with community involvement and add friction to burning rice straw. Easy: E1.1 add friction for burning rice straw
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Sereenonchai, S.; Arunrat, N. Pro-Environmental Agriculture to Promote a Sustainable Lifestyle. Sustainability 2024, 16, 7449. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177449

AMA Style

Sereenonchai S, Arunrat N. Pro-Environmental Agriculture to Promote a Sustainable Lifestyle. Sustainability. 2024; 16(17):7449. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177449

Chicago/Turabian Style

Sereenonchai, Sukanya, and Noppol Arunrat. 2024. "Pro-Environmental Agriculture to Promote a Sustainable Lifestyle" Sustainability 16, no. 17: 7449. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177449

APA Style

Sereenonchai, S., & Arunrat, N. (2024). Pro-Environmental Agriculture to Promote a Sustainable Lifestyle. Sustainability, 16(17), 7449. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177449

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop