Pallavi Borse,
- Research Scholar, , Institute of Social Sciences & Humanities, Srinivas University, Mangalore,, India.
Abstract
Sustainable agriculture has emerged as a global priority to balance productivity with environmental conservation. Yet, adoption of sustainable practices by farmers remains uneven, shaped not only by economic incentives but by underlying psychological and behavioural factors. This review explores the psychological determinants influencing farmers’ willingness to adopt sustainable agricultural practices across traditional and modern contexts. Drawing upon behavioural theories such as the Theory of Planned Behaviour and the Diffusion of Innovations, the paper analyses how attitudes, perceived behavioural control, risk perception, motivation, emotional intelligence, and social influence affect farmers’ decisions. By comparing evidence from India and other regions – Europe, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Southeast Asia – the study highlights that cognitive, affective, and normative factors interact with socio-economic and cultural realities. The review concludes that integrating behavioural insights into agricultural extension can enhance farmers’ receptivity toward sustainable innovations, suggesting a paradigm shift from information transfer to psychological empowerment. Furthermore, the review emphasizes the need for context-specific strategies that consider local knowledge systems, peer networks, and community dynamics. Training programs, participatory approaches, and tailored interventions that address farmers’ beliefs, values, and emotional capacities are likely to improve adoption rates. Understanding these psychological determinants also helps policymakers and extension agents design more effective incentives and support mechanisms. By highlighting the interplay between human cognition, motivation, and social environment, this study underscores the importance of embedding behavioural approaches within broader agricultural development policies to achieve long-term sustainability and resilience in farming systems.
Keywords: Adoption behaviour, agricultural extension, behavioural approach, comparative analysis, farmers’ attitudes, psychological determinants, sustainable agriculture
[This article belongs to Research & Reviews : Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology ]
Pallavi Borse. Psychological Determinants of Farmers’ Adoption of Sustainable Practices: A Behavioural Approach to Agricultural Extension. Research & Reviews : Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology. 2026; 15(01):101-109.
Pallavi Borse. Psychological Determinants of Farmers’ Adoption of Sustainable Practices: A Behavioural Approach to Agricultural Extension. Research & Reviews : Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology. 2026; 15(01):101-109. Available from: https://journals.stmjournals.com/rrjoast/article=2026/view=239048
References
1. Dessart F, Barreiro-Hurlé J, van Bavel R. Behavioural factors affecting the adoption of sustainable farming practices: A policy-oriented review. J Environ Manage. 2019;237:367–384.
2. Deci EL, Ryan RM. The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychol Inq. 2000;11(4):227–268.
3. Pannell DJ, Marshall GR, Barr N, Curtis A, Vanclay F, Wilkinson R. Understanding and promoting adoption of conservation practices by rural landholders. Aust J Exp Agric. 2006;46(11):1407–1424.
4. Knowler D, Bradshaw B. Farmers’ adoption of conservation agriculture: A review and synthesis of recent research. Food Policy. 2007;32(1):25–48.
5. Singh P, Chaudhary N. Attitude and perceived efficacy in the adoption of integrated pest management practices. Indian J Agric Sci. 2019;89(7):1223–1228.
6. Pandey R, Singh A, Verma S. Psychological drivers of organic farming adoption in Madhya Pradesh. Indian J Ext Educ. 2021;57(3):101–108.
7. Reimer A, Prokopy LS. Farmer beliefs, values, and conservation behavior: A synthesis of research. Environ Manage. 2014;53(3):475–487.
8. Greiner R, Patterson L, Miller O. Motivations, risk perceptions and adoption of conservation practices by farmers. Agric Syst. 2009;99(2–3):86–104.
9. Mwangi J, Crewett W. Social norms and sustainable agriculture: Evidence from Sub-Saharan Africa. J Rural Stud. 2020;78:322–333.
10. Nguyen T, Pham L, Tran H. Community influence on sustainable farming adoption: Evidence from Vietnam. Asian J Agric Dev. 2018;15(2):45–59.
11. Slovic P. Perception of risk. Science. 1987;236(4799):280–285.
12. Vogt C, Jordan S, Grethe H. Farmers’ environmental values and conservation behaviour in Germany. Land Use Policy. 2015;47:183–194.
13. Thomas J. Values and pro-environmental practices among organic farmers in Kerala. J Environ Psychol. 2020;72:101–109.
14. Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1991;50(2):179–211.
15. Bandura A. Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman; 1997.
16. Yazdanpanah M, Homayoon SB, Zobeidi T, Woosnam KM, Löhr K, Sieber S. Bridging farmers’ non-cognitive and self-conscious emotional factors to cognitive determinants of climate change adaptation in southwest Iran. Climate and Development. 2025 Feb 7;17(2):119-33.
17. Nakano, M., & Tsuge, T. (2019). Assessing the Heterogeneity of Consumers’ Preferences for Corporate Social Responsibility Using the Best–Worst Scaling Approach. Sustainability, 11(10), 2995. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11102995
18. Stern PC. Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. J Soc Issues. 2000;56(3):407–424.
19. Rogers EM. Diffusion of innovations. 5th ed. New York: Free Press; 2003.
20. Tversky A, Kahneman D. Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science. 1974;185(4157):1124–1131.
21. Schwartz SH. Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests. Adv Exp Soc Psychol. 1992;25:1–65.
22. Gross JJ. The emerging field of emotion regulation: An integrative review. Rev Gen Psychol. 1998;2(3):271–299.
| Volume | 15 |
| Issue | 01 |
| Received | 22/11/2025 |
| Accepted | 29/01/2026 |
| Published | 23/03/2026 |
| Publication Time | 121 Days |
Login
PlumX Metrics