Abstract :

Integrated farming systems are increasingly promoted as farm-level strategies to improve resource-use efficiency, reduce dependence on external inputs, and strengthen smallholder resilience. In coffee-based farming areas, goat–coffee integration offers a circular model in which goat manure can be processed as organic fertilizer for coffee plantations, while farm vegetation and surrounding biomass may support livestock feed availability. This study examines the behavioral determinants of farmers’ intention and adoption of goat–coffee integrated farming systems in East Java, Indonesia, using an extended Theory of Planned Behavior framework. Survey data were collected from 230 coffee farmers in Madiun (n = 110) and Bondowoso (n = 120) and analyzed using partial least squares structural equation modeling with SmartPLS 3.0. The results show that the model explained 56.9% of the variance in intention and 58.1% of the variance in adoption. Attitude, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control, injunctive group norms, and descriptive group norms positively and significantly influenced intention. Adoption was directly and significantly influenced by intention, perceived behavioral control, descriptive group norms, and attitude, whereas subjective norms and injunctive group norms had no significant direct effect on adoption. All indirect effects through intention were significant. These findings indicate that adoption is shaped by both motivational and implementation-capacity pathways. Extension programs should therefore combine benefit communication, peer-based demonstration, farmer-group mobilization, and practical assistance in manure processing, feed planning, and low-labor integration practices.

---

Keywords :

farmer adoption, goat-coffee integration, group norms, integrated farming system, PLS – SEM, Theory of Planned Behavior

---

References :

1. Chatterjee D, Kuotsu R, Ray SK, Patra MK, Thirugnanavel A, Kumar R, et al. Preventing soil degradation in shifting cultivation using integrated farming system models. Arch Agron Soil Sci. 2022 Nov 10;68(13):1841–57. doi:10.1080/03650340.2021.1937139
2. Popradit A, Nakhokwik Y, Robischon M, Saiki ST, Yoshimura J, Wanasiri A, et al. Soil degradation and herbicide pollution by repeated cassava monoculture within Thailand’s conservation region. PLoS One. 2024 Aug 6;19(8):e0308284. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0308284
3. Cui H, Hou SN, Wang XY, Zhu H. Organic fertilizer-mediated cultivated land conservation and pollution source control in agricultural ecosystem, Northeast China. Environ Technol Innov. 2025;37(December 2024):103945. doi:10.1016/j.eti.2024.103945
4. Fan P, Mishra AK, Feng S, Su M. The effect of agricultural subsidies on chemical fertilizer use : Evidence from a new policy in China. J Environ Manage. 2023;344(May):118423. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.118423
5. Shanmugam PM, Sangeetha SP, Prabu PC, Varshini S V., Renukadevi A, Ravisankar N, et al. Crop–livestock-integrated farming system: a strategy to achieve synergy between agricultural production, nutritional security, and environmental sustainability. Front Sustain Food Syst. 2024;8. doi:10.3389/fsufs.2024.1338299
6. Ginting A, Purba E, Chalil D, Diana N. Contribution of coffee farming and goat livestock based integration in Karo regency, north Sumatra province. IOP Conf Ser Earth Environ Sci. 2025;1441(1). doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1441/1/012011
7. Hida DAN, Rachmina D, Rifin A. Optimizing the Integrated Farming System of Coffee and Goat to Maximize Farmers’ Income in North Sumatra, Indonesia. Agro Bali : Agricultural Journal. 2023;6(1):29–39. doi:10.37637/ab.v6i1.1147
8. Siswanto Y, Sumartono I, Kurniawan D. Effectiveness Of Eco Farming Photosynthesis Fertilizer and Goat Manure Fertilizer on The Vegetative Growth of Coffee Plant Seedlings ( Coffea Sp ). Vol. 1. 2024;1(3):329–40. doi:10.30596/jitcse
9. Maxiselly Y, Chiarawipa R, Somnuk K, Hamchara P, Cherdthong A, Suntara C, et al. Digestibility, Blood Parameters, Rumen Fermentation, Hematology, and Nitrogen Balance of Goats after Receiving Supplemental Coffee Cherry Pulp as a Source of Phytochemical Nutrients. Vet Sci. 2022;9(10). doi:10.3390/vetsci9100532
10. Kakamoukas G, Sarigiannidis P, Maropoulos A, Lagkas T, Zaralis K, Karaiskou C. Towards Climate Smart Farming—A Reference Architecture for Integrated Farming Systems. Telecom. 2021;2(1):52–74. doi:10.3390/telecom2010005
11. Singh VK, Rathore SS, Singh RK, Upadhyay PK, Shekhawat K. Integrated farming system approach for enhanced farm productivity, climate resilience and doubling farmers’ income. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2020;90(8):1378–88. doi:10.56093/ijas.v90i8.105884
12. Yang C, Zhang Y, Xue Y, Wang J, Zhang X. Exploring differences of farmers’ intention to adopt agricultural low-carbon technologies: an application of TPB and VBN combination. Environ Dev Sustain. 2024 Feb 22;27(5):11023–46. doi:10.1007/s10668-023-04342-2
13. Notaro M, Gary C, Le Coq JF, Metay A, Rapidel B. How to increase the joint provision of ecosystem services by agricultural systems. Evidence from coffee-based agroforestry systems. Agric Syst. 2022;196(March 2021). doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2021.103332
14. Bonke V, Musshoff O. Understanding German farmer’s intention to adopt mixed cropping using the theory of planned behavior. Agron Sustain Dev. 2020 Dec 9;40(6):48. doi:10.1007/s13593-020-00653-0
15. Dey S, Singh PK. Estimating farmers’ intention towards institutional credit adoption by using extended theory of planned behavior. J Appl Soc Psychol. 2023 Jul 2;53(7):684–703. doi:10.1111/jasp.12952
16. Govindasamy P, Cumming TM, Abdullah N. Validity and reliability of a needs analysis questionnaire for the development of a creativity module. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs . 2024;24(3):637–52. doi:10.1111/1471-3802.12659
17. Putri SN, Hartono B, Putritamara JA, Satria AT, Purwanti TS. Does Socio-Economics Factor Influence Beef Cattle Farmers’ Ability to Adapt to Climate Change? Jurnal Ilmu-Ilmu Peternakan. 2023 Dec 1;33(3):308–26. doi:10.21776/ub.jiip.2023.033.03.02
18. Rahman MS, Huang WC, Toiba H, Putritamara JA, Nugroho TW, Saeri M. Climate change adaptation and fishers’ subjective well-being in Indonesia: Is there a link? Reg Stud Mar Sci. 2023 Oct;63:103030. doi:10.1016/j.rsma.2023.103030
19. Jalilian N, Mohammadi Y, Mahdei KN, Nael M, Neaman A. Land ownership rights enhance farmers’ attitudes toward soil and soil conservation behavior: Insights from Iran Title Page (with Author Details). J Environ Manage. 2025;392(June):126821. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2025.126821
20. Mohammadrezaei M, Meredith D, McNamara J. Subjective norms influence advisors’ reluctance to discuss farm health and safety. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension. 2023 Oct 20;29(5):627–51. doi:10.1080/1389224X.2022.2125410
21. Foolen-Torgerson KL, Sok J, Dicke M, Oude Lansink AGJM. Deciphering arable farmers’ intentions: Attitudes, norms, perceived advantages, and the influential role of group discussions on insect frass adoption. NJAS: Impact in Agricultural and Life Sciences. 2025 Dec 31;97(1). doi:10.1080/27685241.2025.2501385
22. Tran-Nam Q, Tiet T. The role of peer influence and norms in organic farming adoption: Accounting for farmers’ heterogeneity. J Environ Manage. 2022 Oct;320:115909. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.115909
23. Takahashi K, Muraoka R, Otsuka K. Technology adoption, impact, and extension in developing countries’ agriculture: A review of the recent literature. Agricultural Economics. 2020 Jan 4;51(1):31–45. doi:10.1111/agec.12539
24. Putritamara JA, Satria AT, Purwanti TS, Habsari IK. Driving Innovation on the Farm: How Integrative Leadership and Absorptive Capacity Translate Social Network Site Use into Performance in the Indonesian Dairy Sector. Adv Anim Vet Sci. 2025 Nov 20;13(11). doi:10.17582/journal.aavs/2025/13.11.2508.2523
25. Aghniarahim Putritamara J, Hartono B, Kamilia Hapsari I, Tri Satria A, Sri Purwanti T. Psychological resilience of dairy farmers, life satisfaction, and the moderating role of age; Is there a link? BIO Web Conf. 2023 Dec 19;81:00023. doi:10.1051/bioconf/20238100023
26. Hair JF, Risher JJ, Sarstedt M, Ringle CM. When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review. Emerald Group Publishing Ltd.; 2019. p. 2–24. doi:10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203
27. Wang H, Lu S, Liu Y. Missing data imputation in PLS-SEM. Qual Quant. 2022 Dec 19;56(6):4777–95. doi:10.1007/s11135-022-01338-4
28. Khalili F, Choobchian S, Abbasi E. Investigating the factors affecting farmers’ intention to adopt contract farming. Sci Rep. 2024;14(1):1–16. doi:10.1038/s41598-024-60317-x PubMed PMID: 38671140.
29. Boye M, Ghafoor A, Wudil AH, Usman M, Prus P, Fehér A, et al. Youth Engagement in Agribusiness: Perception, Constraints, and Skill Training Interventions in Africa: A Systematic Review. Sustainability (Switzerland). 2024;16(3). doi:10.3390/su16031096
30. Sellare J, Meemken EM, Kouamé C, Qaim M. Do Sustainability Standards Benefit Smallholder Farmers Also When Accounting For Cooperative Effects? Evidence from Côte d’Ivoire. Am J Agric Econ. 2020;102(2):681–95. doi:10.1002/ajae.12015
31. Ruben R. What Smallholders Want: Effective Strategies for Rural Poverty Reduction. Sustainability (Switzerland) . 2024;16(13). doi:10.3390/su16135525
32. Li C, Ge Z, Dai L, Chen Y. Integrated Application of Biofloc Technology in Aquaculture: A Review. Water (Basel). 2025 Jul 15;17(14):2107. doi:10.3390/w17142107
33. Mujahed BA, Singh J, Saqib A. Integrated farming system: Trends, advantages and constraints – A review. RASSA Journal of Science for Society. 2023;5(2and3):65–9. doi:10.5958/2583-3715.2023.00011.4
34. van den Berg H, Phillips S, Dicke M, Fredrix M. Impacts of farmer field schools in the human, social, natural and financial domain: a qualitative review. Food Secur. 2020;12(6):1443–59. doi:10.1007/s12571-020-01046-7
35. McGuire E, Al-Zu’bi M, Boa-Alvarado M, Luu TTG, Sylvester JM, Leñero EMV. Equity principles: Using social theory for more effective social transformation in agricultural research for development. Agric Syst. 2024;218(May). doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2024.103999
36. Dachs B, Stehrer R, Wolfmayr A. Global value chains , technology sovereignty and the role of China in international knowledge diffusion. 2025;753–73.
37. Eugenio J, Alba G De, Londero L, André B, Deggau B. Proposal for a social certification model for agriculture in Latin America aligned with the sustainable development goals. Environment, Development and Sustainability [Internet]. Springer Netherlands; 2024. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-024-05343-5 doi:10.1007/s10668-024-05343-5
38. Barnes AP, McCalman H, Buckingham S, Thomson S. Farmer decision-making and risk perceptions towards outwintering cattle. J Environ Manage. 2013;129:9–17. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.05.026 PubMed PMID: 23792885.
39. Svenson F, Peuser M, Çetin F, Aidoo DC, Launer MA. Decision-making styles and trust across farmers and bankers: Global survey results. Decision Analytics Journal. 2024;10(4):100427. doi:10.1016/j.dajour.2024.100427
40. Hołaj-Krzak JT, Konieczna A, Borek K, Gryszkiewicz-Zalega D, Sitko E, Urbaniak M, et al. Goat Manure Potential as a Substrate for Biomethane Production—An Experiment for Photofermentation. Energies (Basel). 2024;17(16). doi:10.3390/en17163967
41. Washaya S, Washaya DD. Benefits, concerns and prospects of using goat manure in sub-Saharan Africa. Pastoralism. 2023;13(1). doi:10.1186/s13570-023-00288-2
42. Hoyos-Sebá JJ, Arias NP, Salcedo-Mendoza J, Aristizábal-Marulanda V. Animal manure in the context of renewable energy and value-added products: A review. Chemical Engineering and Processing – Process Intensification. 2024;196(October 2023). doi:10.1016/j.cep.2023.109660
43. Nugroho E, Fithron Z ul R, Dwiyanti R. Toward The Circular Economy Through Integrated Chicken and Catfish Farming in East Java, Indonesia. In. 2025. p. 250–7. doi:10.2991/978-94-6463-880-6_28
44. Zanten HHE Van, Simon W, Selm B Van, Wacker J, Maindl TI, Frehner A, et al. Circularity in Europe strengthens the sustainability of the global food system. Vol. 4. 2023;4(April). doi:10.1038/s43016-023-00734-9