Resources, Environment and Sustainability 13 (2023) 100129

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Resources, Environment and Sustainability

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/resenv

Research article

Understanding climate adaptation practices among small-scale sugarcane

farmers in Indonesia: The role of climate risk behaviors, farmers’ support
systems, and crop-cattle integration
Abdul Muis Hasibuan a ,∗, Suci Wulandari b , I Ketut Ardana b , Saefudin c , Agus Wahyudi b
a
Research Center for Behavioral and Circular Economics, National Research and Innovation Agency, Jakarta, Indonesia
b
Research Center for Cooperative, Corporation and People’s Economy, National Research and Innovation Agency, Jakarta, Indonesia
c
Bureau of Planning, the Ministry of Agriculture of the Republic of Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Climate change poses significant challenges to small-scale farmers in developing countries, who often have
Climate risk perception low adaptive capacity and capability. This study examines the factors influencing climate adaptation behaviors
Risk preferences among small-scale sugarcane farmers in Indonesia. Using a multivariate probit model and data from a survey
Advisory services
of 209 farm households, this study analyzes the association of climate risk behaviors, farmers’ support systems,
Farmers’ institutions
and sugarcane–cattle integration with climate adaptation practices. The results reveal that farmers perceive
Information access
climate change as a significant threat to sugarcane productivity, and their risk behaviors, such as climate risk
perception and risk preference, influence their adaptation practices. The study also finds that sugarcane–cattle
integration and farmers’ support systems, such as extension and training programs, farmers’ institutions, and
information access, are crucial for farmers to adapt to climate issues. These findings can help policymakers
design targeted and inclusive programs and strategies to support small-scale farmers in adapting to climate
change.

1. Introduction The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 2030 have recognized

the importance of sustainable food production systems and climate-
Sugar is a critical staple food in Indonesia, and ensuring its supply resilient practices to enhance agricultural production and farmers’
and demand is a top priority for government policies (Kementerian adaptability to climate issues (Iazzi et al., 2022). Climate change is
Pertanian, 2021; Sulaiman et al., 2019; Widyasari et al., 2022). With expected to pose a significant threat to food production worldwide,
a population of over 260 million people, meeting household sugar directly and indirectly affecting agricultural productivity (Mesquita and
consumption as well as the needs of the food and beverage industry, Bursztyn, 2016; Ortiz-Bobea et al., 2021; Zhu et al., 2022). Specifically
which requires over 7 million tons annually, presents a considerable for sugarcane production, the impact of climate change has been widely
challenge. In 2020, Indonesia produced 2.12 million tons of sugar, studied (e.g., Christina et al., 2021; Flack-Prain et al., 2021; Guo et al.,
forcing the country to import approximately 5.5 million tons to meet 2021; Linnenluecke et al., 2018, 2020; Pipitpukdee et al., 2020). For
domestic demand, making Indonesia the world’s largest sugar importer instance, in Brazil, De Medeiros Silva et al. (2019) found that increasing
(BPS, 2021). The Indonesian government has identified sugar develop- air temperature had a negative impact on sugarcane productivity,
ment as a top priority, aiming to produce at least 2.9 million tons of while increased precipitation had a positive effect. Similarly, Santillán-
sugar domestically to meet household demand (Sulaiman et al., 2019). Fernández et al. (2016) reported that a decrease in rainfall and changes
in its annual distribution led to lower sugarcane yields. Furthermore,
However, there are significant challenges facing Indonesian sugarcane
Ranomahera et al. (2020) identified a significant correlation between
development, including low productivity and quality, inefficiencies in
rainfall rates and sugarcane productivity in East Java, Indonesia. To
farms and mills, land use changes, pests and diseases, and climate
mitigate the effects of climate change, using climate-adapted varieties,
variability. These issues have been identified in multiple studies and
improving management practices such as fertilizers and pesticides use,
need to be addressed to increase sugar production in Indonesia (e.g., Su-
and implementing water management systems such as irrigation and
laiman et al., 2019; Toharisman and Triantarti, 2016; Widyasari et al.,
drainage are among the most recommended adaptation strategies (Lin-
2022).
nenluecke et al., 2018; Oliveira et al., 2018; Santillán-Fernández et al.,

∗ Correspondence to: Gedung Widya Graha Lt. 04, Jl. Jend. Gatot Subroto No. 10, Jakarta, Indonesia.
E-mail address: [email protected] (A.M. Hasibuan).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resenv.2023.100129
Received 31 March 2023; Received in revised form 16 June 2023; Accepted 18 June 2023
Available online 24 June 2023
2666-9161/© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Lishui Institute of Ecology and Environment, Nanjing University. This is an open
access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
A.M. Hasibuan, S. Wulandari, I.K. Ardana et al. Resources, Environment and Sustainability 13 (2023) 100129

2016). For example, Zhao and Li (2015) emphasized the importance practices among sugarcane farmers; and (iii) assess the association of
of mitigating environmental stress on sugarcane plantations caused integrated crop-livestock systems on climate adaptation behaviors in
by climate change through the adoption of a sustainable production the context of sugarcane farming.
system, including the development of new cultivars and the application Our study makes significant contributions to the existing literature,
of best management practices such as nutrition management (Verma with broader implications for the field. Firstly, we provide empirical
et al., 2020). Therefore, it is crucial to implement sustainable practices evidence linking individual preferences, such as climate risk perception
to ensure food security and increase the resilience of the agricultural and risk attitude, to specific climate adaptation behaviors in sugarcane
sector against climate change. farming. This not only advances our understanding of the relationship
However, implementing climate adaptation strategies, particularly between individual perceptions and adaptive practices but also offers
for small-scale farmers in developing countries, poses significant chal- insights into potential strategies for enhancing climate resilience among
lenges. Small-scale farmers generally have limited adaptive capacity, farmers in similar contexts. Secondly, we highlight the significant role
including education, income, and managerial skills, and have limited of advisory services, farmers’ organizations, and information access in
access to supportive services, which restrict their ability to adapt to facilitating climate adaptation in sugarcane farming. These findings
climate risks (Mulwa et al., 2017; Ncoyini et al., 2022; Tripathi and have implications for policymakers, as they demonstrate the impor-
Mishra, 2017). In Indonesia, sugarcane is primarily cultivated by small- tance of establishing a comprehensive and accessible support system
for farmers, which can be applicable to other regions in the global
scale farmers, with more than 80% of them grown in rainfed land
south facing similar challenges. Lastly, our study confirms the posi-
(Widyasari et al., 2022), making them more vulnerable to climate
tive contribution of sugarcane–cattle integration to climate adaptation
issues. As climate change has a detrimental effect on sugarcane farming
behavior, such as organic fertilizer provision or diversified household
systems and their vulnerability to climate risks, it is essential to gain
income portfolios. These findings have implications for promoting sus-
an understanding of the response behavior of small-scale farmers.
tainable agricultural practices and livelihood diversification strategies
Research has demonstrated that farmers’ adoption of climate adap-
in sugarcane-dependent regions, not only within our study context but
tation practices is influenced by their risk perception and prefer-
also in other countries of the global south.
ences. Specifically, farmers’ risk perception of climate events has been
shown to shape their choices of farm adaptation strategies (e.g., Khan 2. Method
et al., 2020; Singh et al., 2022; Villacis et al., 2021). Additionally,
a farmer’s risk preferences may also impact their decision-making 2.1. Data
regarding which adaptation strategy to employ in the face of increasing
climate-related risks to their sugarcane farming system (Hasibuan et al., This study is part of the Sugarcane Innovative and Collaborative
2022; Jianjun et al., 2015). However, it is important to note that Research and Development Project (Riset dan Pengembangan Inovatif
individual farmer preferences are not the only factor at play in climate Kolaboratif (RPIK) Tebu) IAARD project, which took place in Blitar
adaptation. Enhancing farmers’ adaptive capacity through supportive Regency, East Java Province, Indonesia (Fig. 1). The selection of this
systems can also encourage the adoption of climate risk management regency was purposeful due to its status as one of the primary sugarcane
practices (Ayal et al., 2023; Cinner et al., 2018). These supportive production centers, where the integration of sugarcane plantations with
systems can include social interaction and learning processes that cattle is widespread. As of 2022, this regency had 9,685 hectares of
facilitate adaptation to climate change, as demonstrated in previous sugarcane plantation, which involving nearly 33,000 farm households
studies (see., Li et al., 2022; Saptutyningsih et al., 2020; Wuepper et al., (BPS, 2023; Directorate General of Estates, 2022). This region is also
2018). experiencing the impact of climate change, particularly with increasing
Since climate adaptation practices such as sustainable soil and nutri- temperatures and changes in rainfall patterns (Surjono et al., 2022).
ent management are closely related to the input supply and availability, The study included a sample of 220 farmer households, divided into
integrated crop-livestock practices may be relevant as a key driver three clusters. The first cluster comprised farmers directly involved in
(Thornton and Herrero, 2014). A mixed crop-livestock system can also the RPIK Project in Ngembul Village, Binangun District, totaling 56
be considered as an income portfolio or buffering strategy for climate households. The second cluster consisted of sugarcane farmers from
adaptation (Acosta et al., 2021), especially for small-scale farmers who neighboring villages of the RPIK project site but still within the same
may face many constraints in applying climate adaptation practices. sub-district, namely Rejoso and Kedungwungu Villages (46 and 58
households, respectively). The third cluster included farmers from a
In the context of sugarcane farming, the integration of sugarcane with
neighboring sub-district, specifically Jugo Village, Kesamben District,
cattle is the most common model in many countries (De Souza et al.,
with a total of 60 households. Respondents from the RPIK project in
2019; Gradiz et al., 2007), so it is expected to have an association with
Ngembul Village were purposefully selected, while respondents from
climate adaptation. However, there exists a research gap concerning
the other three villages were randomly selected. After conducting the
the potential role of integrated crop-livestock systems as a climate
data cleaning process and excluding incomplete data, particularly those
adaptation strategy specifically for small-scale sugarcane farmers.
pertaining to the variables utilized in the analysis, a final sample of
Upon an extensive review of the existing literature on climate
209 respondent farmers was included in the analysis. The face-to-face
adaptation practices in sugarcane farming, we identified a crucial gap
survey was conducted using a structured questionnaire from September
pertaining to the relationship between individual preferences, agricul- to October 2021.
tural support services, and integrated crop-livestock systems in relation Table 1 presents the socio-demographic characteristics of the re-
to climate adaptation behaviors. While previous studies have explored spondents. The average age of the farmers was 50.3 years, indicating
individual preferences or specific aspects of agricultural support ser- that aging farmers are a prevalent issue in the sugarcane industry in
vices, there is a dearth of comprehensive research that integrates these Indonesia. Data from the Indonesian Statistical Agency (BPS) indicates
factors to investigate their collective influence on climate adaptation that around 48.22% of the labor force in agriculture is over 50 years
practices among sugarcane farmers. Thus, our study aims to fill this old (BPS, 2022). On average, farmers had completed junior high school,
critical research gap by examining the combined effects of individual with 8.2 years of formal education. The average household size was
preferences, agricultural support services, and integrated crop-livestock less than four people. Respondents had considerable experience in sug-
systems on climate adaptation behaviors in sugarcane farming. Specif- arcane farming, with an average of 14.59 years. The average sugarcane
ically, the objectives of this study are to (i) investigate the influence farming area was 0.6 ha, and almost 60% of farmers owned cattle, with
of individual risk preferences and climate risk perception on climate an average of 1.5 cattle per household. The average sugarcane income
adaptation practices in sugarcane farming; (ii) examine the role of was IDR 25.1 million per year, and non-agricultural income was IDR 3
farmers’ support systems, such as extension services, information ac- million per year, indicating the high dependency of respondents on the
cessibility and farmers institutions in facilitating climate adaptation agricultural sector.

2
A.M. Hasibuan, S. Wulandari, I.K. Ardana et al. Resources, Environment and Sustainability 13 (2023) 100129

Fig. 1. Study site.

Table 1
Socio-demographic characteristics.
Variable Mean Std. dev. Min Max
Age (year) 50.325 10.947 22 83
Education (year) 8.239 2.902 0 16
Household size 3.345 1.036 1 6
Farming experience (year) 14.593 9.611 0 59
Sugarcane area (Ha) 0.602 1.136 0.0125 15
Cattle ownership 1.526 1.696 0 6
Sugarcane income (IDR million) 25.100 26.200 0.585 177.000
Non-agricultural income (IDR million) 3.018 11.500 0 100.000

2.2. Risk behaviors elicitation where 𝐴𝑘 is climate adaptation practices 𝑘, 𝑧 is a vector of household
characteristics, 𝑅𝑖𝑠𝑘 is RPI and risk preferences, 𝐹 𝑆𝑆 is farmers’ sup-
In this study, we examine the association of risk behaviors (climate port system, and 𝐼 is the number of cattle owned by the sugarcane
Risk Perception Index (RPI) and risk preferences) with climate adapta- farmers. Given that we are measuring climate adaptation practices
tion practices in sugarcane farming. RPI is measured for several climate as categorical variables and there might be correlations among un-
events, i.e., increasing temperature, drought, precipitation, and rainy observed disturbances for different climate adaptation practices, we
days. The RPIs are constructed as a metric of multiplication form of choose to estimate Eq. (1) using multivariate probit models, which
perceived probability/likelihood of a particular climate event with the assume a cumulative standard normal distribution as the link function.
perceived impact of the climate event on sugarcane farming, following The outcomes are whether respondent 𝑖 applies practices 𝑘 to adapt
Hasibuan et al. (2020). To understand the perceived likelihood and
to climate change issues. Hence, the probability of a farmer 𝑖 applying
impact, we provided a structured questionnaire as follows: (a) ‘‘In my
practices 𝑘 is expressed as:
opinion, there is a likelihood of increasing climate events in the future’’; and
(b) ‘‘The increasing of climate events has a negative impact on sugarcane 𝑌𝑖𝑘∗ = 𝑿 ′𝑖𝑘 𝛽𝑘 + 𝜀𝑘 , 𝑘 = 1, … , 5 (2)
farming ’’. Based on the questions, the respondents could respond to
the perception statements on a seven-point Likert scale (1 = strongly and
disagree; . . . ; 7 = strongly agree). While for the risk preferences, we {
1 𝑖𝑓 𝑌𝑖𝑘∗ > 0
adopt Falk et al. (2018) question for risk preferences self-assessment. In 𝑌𝑖𝑘 = , k = 1, …, 5 (3)
0 𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑤𝑖𝑠𝑒
the survey, we ask the respondents to indicate how willing or unwilling
they are to take risks on a scale from 0 to 10. If a respondent chooses 0, where
he/she is ‘completely unwilling to take risks,’ and a 10 means he/she is
𝑿 ′𝑖𝑘 𝛽𝑘 =𝛼𝑘 + 𝛽1𝑘 𝑍 + 𝛽2𝑘 𝑅𝑖𝑠𝑘 + 𝛽3𝑘 𝐹 𝑆𝑆 + 𝛽4𝑘 𝐼 (4)
‘very willing to take risks.’ They can also choose any number between
0 and 10.
The latent response, which is denoted by 𝑌𝑖𝑘∗ and reflects unob-
served factors associated with the 𝑘 type of compliance indicator and 𝑖
2.3. Econometric approach
farmer, is assumed to be a linear combination of 𝑿 𝑖𝑘 covariates. These
covariates include factors that affect compliance, such as household
In this study, we examine the association of risk behaviors, farm-
characteristics, risk behaviors, farmers’ support systems, and crop-cattle
ers’ support systems, and sugarcane–cattle integration with climate
integration, and the error term 𝜀𝑘 . The 𝜀𝑘 follows a multivariate normal
adaptation practices that can be conceptualized as:
(MVN) distribution with a zero conditional mean and variance that is
𝐴𝑘 = 𝑓 (𝑧, 𝑅𝑖𝑠𝑘, 𝐹 𝑆𝑆, 𝐼) (1) normalized to unity. Specifically, 𝜀∼ 𝑁(0, 𝛴), where 𝛴 is the covariance

3
A.M. Hasibuan, S. Wulandari, I.K. Ardana et al. Resources, Environment and Sustainability 13 (2023) 100129

Fig. 2. Climate risk perception index of sugarcane farmers.

Table 2
Farmers’ support system characteristics.
Variable Mean Std. dev.
Internet access (1 if yes) 0.789 0.409
Mobile phone (1 if yes) 0.971 0.167
Sugarcane training (1 if yes) 0.043 0.203
Sugarcane extension (1 if yes) 0.115 0.319
Farmers’ group (1 if yes) 0.918 0.274
Sugarcane farmers association (APTRI) (1 if yes) 0.129 0.336
Sugarcane technology information source (1if other farmers) 0.852 0.356
Climate information source (1 if none) 0.201 0.402
Credit (1 if yes) 0.368 0.484

matrix as follows: 3.3. Farmers support system

⎡ 1 𝜌12 𝜌13 𝜌14 𝜌15 ⎤
⎢ 𝜌21 1 𝜌23 𝜌24 𝜌25 ⎥ In this study, we investigate the relationship between several sup-
⎢ ⎥ port system-related variables and the adaptation behavior of sugarcane
𝛴=⎢ 𝜌31 𝜌32 1 𝜌34 𝜌35 ⎥ (5)
⎢ 𝜌41 𝜌42 𝜌43 1 𝜌45 ⎥ farmers toward climate change (see Table 2). The results indicate that
⎢ ⎥ nearly 80% of the farmers have access to the internet, and 97% own a
⎣ 𝜌51 𝜌52 𝜌53 𝜌54 1 ⎦
mobile phone. However, only 4.3% of the farmers received sugarcane
where 𝜌 represents o the correlation coefficient of error terms between
training, and 11.5% participated in sugarcane extension activities in
any two climate adaptation practices.
the last five years. The membership rate in farmers’ groups is high at
91.8%, while the membership rate in the Indonesian Sugarcane Farmers
3. Results Association (Asosiasi Petani Tebu Rakyat Indonesia (APTRI)) is rela-
tively low at 12.9%. Furthermore, the majority of the farmers (85.2%)
3.1. Climate risk perception index obtain information on sugarcane technologies from other farmers or
farmers’ groups. However, approximately 20% of the farmers do not use
Fig. 2 displays the results of farmers’ RPI for four climate events: any information sources for the climate or weather-related information.
increasing temperature, precipitation, drought, and rainy days, based
on the survey questions outlined in Section 2.1. Our findings indicate 3.4. Perceived negative impact of climate change on sugarcane farming
that sugarcane farmers perceive increasing temperature to have the
highest risk compared to other climate events. However, based on the The findings of this study reveal that a significant majority of
t-test at 5% significance level, there is no significant difference in the respondent farmers (89%) perceive climate change to have negative
perceived risks associated with increasing drought, precipitation, and impacts on sugarcane farming (as shown in Fig. 4). The farmers iden-
rainy days. tified sugarcane productivity as the most affected aspect, with 87%
perceiving that climate change contributes to lower farm productivity.
3.2. Risk preferences Additionally, about 70% of the farmers perceived that climate change
could reduce the sugar content. The survey results also indicated that
In this study, farmers’ risk preferences are obtained from a self- climate change has led to an increase in pest and disease attacks, as
qualitative assessment, where higher values indicate more risk-loving reported by 68.9% of respondents. Additionally, 67.9% of respondents
attitudes and vice versa. The distribution of risk preferences is pre- perceived a rise in weed infestation as a result of climate change.
sented in Fig. 3. The average risk preference is 5.49, indicating that Furthermore, nearly half of the respondents expressed the belief that
most farmers perceive themselves as having risk-neutral preferences. climate change has adverse effects on the crop cycle.

4
A.M. Hasibuan, S. Wulandari, I.K. Ardana et al. Resources, Environment and Sustainability 13 (2023) 100129

Fig. 3. Histogram of farmers’ risk preferences.

Fig. 4. Perceived negative impact of climate change on sugarcane farming.

3.5. Climate adaptation practices on sugarcane farming According to our analysis presented in Table 3, the influence of
household characteristics on climate adaptation among sugarcane farm-
The respondents in this study reported implementing several strate- ers is relatively limited. However, we do find some significant asso-
gies to minimize the impact of climate change on sugarcane farming ciations. Specifically, older farmers are more likely to adopt climate-
(Fig. 5). The most popular strategies applied are increasing the appli- adapted sugarcane varieties and apply more organic fertilizers. More-
cation of herbicides (46.41%), followed by increasing the application over, farmers with more extended experience in sugarcane farming
of fertilizers (chemical (38.28%) and organic (35.89%)). About 10.5% are more likely to apply more chemical fertilizers and less likely to
of the farmers reported developing irrigation, while 14.83% reported apply more herbicides. Farmers with larger sugarcane areas and higher
using climate-adaptive varieties. incomes are more likely to adopt climate-adapted sugarcane varieties.
Additionally, higher sugarcane income is positively associated with the
probability of applying more chemical fertilizers.
3.6. Multivariate probit models estimation Second, the results of our study support the hypothesis that risk
behaviors are significantly associated with climate adaptation practices
As discussed in Section 3.2, we employ a multivariate probit model among sugarcane farmers. Farmers with higher RPI for increasing
to examine the variables that are associated with climate adaptation temperature and precipitation have a greater likelihood of using more
practices in sugarcane farming. The estimation results are presented in chemical fertilizers and herbicides. On the other hand, those with
Table 3. higher RPI for increasing rainy days have a greater probability of

5
A.M. Hasibuan, S. Wulandari, I.K. Ardana et al. Resources, Environment and Sustainability 13 (2023) 100129

Fig. 5. Climate adaptation practices by sugarcane farmers.

Table 3
Climate adaptation practices estimation using multivariate probit models.
Adapted Chemical Organic Herbicides Irrigation
variety fertilizers fertilizers
(Intercept) −6.768 −1.753 −2.591** −4.553*** −2.134
(604.3) (1.450) (1.202) (1.372) (479.8)
Age 0.0353** 0.00574 0.0279** 0.00314 −0.0208
(0.0164) (0.0117) (0.0114) (0.0116) (0.0172)
Experience 0.0190 0.0258* 0.000524 −0.0229* −0.0192
(0.0168) (0.0148) (0.0113) (0.0137) (0.0198)
Formal education 0.0152 −0.0435 −0.0447 0.00374 −0.0433
(0.0499) (0.0464) (0.0385) (0.0432) (0.0638)
Household size 0.0175 0.0402 0.121 0.0944 0.214
(0.155) (0.117) (0.102) (0.119) (0.184)
Sugarcane area 0.176* −0.0340 −0.0648 −0.532 −0.0741
(0.102) (0.330) (0.0814) (0.326) (0.173)
Sugarcane income 1.20e −08** 1.39e −08* 8.39e −10 6.01e −09 −7.92e −10
(5.94e −09) (7.15e −09) (3.86e −09) (7.18e −09) (9.45e −09)
Non-agricultural income −2.90e −08 −1.53e −08 3.76e −09 −1.08e −08 4.47e −09
(2.25e −08) (1.17e −08) (8.85e −09) (1.19e −08) (1.07e −08)
0.00361 0.0397*** −0.00674 0.0233* −0.0256
RPI increasing temperature
(0.0153) (0.0140) (0.0122) (0.0140) (0.0216)
RPI drought 0.0129 0.0137 0.0232 −0.0296 −0.0112
(0.0224) (0.0198) (0.0172) (0.0195) (0.0242)
−0.0128 0.0364*** 0.00919 0.0271** −0.0189
RPI increasing precipitation
(0.0183) (0.0130) (0.0112) (0.0135) (0.0185)
−0.0148 −0.00658 −0.0181 0.0405** −0.0113
RPI increasing rainy days
(0.0193) (0.0183) (0.0145) (0.0176) (0.0242)
Risk preferences −0.0836 −0.238*** 0.0277 0.206*** −0.0474
(0.0666) (0.0580) (0.0480) (0.0579) (0.0888)
Internet (1 if yes) 0.241 0.186 −0.401 −0.0243 5.244
(0.400) (0.317) (0.268) (0.356) (196.8)
Mobile phone (1 if yes) 3.113 −1.092 −0.484 0.0404 −0.134
(604.3) (0.890) (0.525) (0.828) (518.6)
1.069* −0.368 1.434** −0.169 −0.700
Sugarcane training (1 if yes)
(0.617) (0.723) (0.639) (0.667) (0.948)
0.572 1.705*** 0.862** 0.0907 0.00142
Sugarcane extension (1 if yes)
(0.487) (0.453) (0.343) (0.383) (0.529)
0.0301 0.193 0.361 1.106** 0.0295
Farmers’ group (1 if yes)
(0.746) (0.571) (0.454) (0.519) (0.544)
−0.492 −1.179** 0.509 1.377** −5.214
Sugarcane farmers association (APTRI) (1 if yes)
(0.608) (0.481) (0.374) (0.537) (249.9)
−0.302 −0.0316 0.703** 0.256 −0.825*
Sugarcane technology information source (1if oth farmers)
(0.423) (0.373) (0.326) (0.352) (0.466)
−0.140 −0.0534 −0.164 1.241*** −0.513
Climate information source (1 if none)
(0.349) (0.304) (0.268) (0.331) (0.604)
Credit (1 if yes) −0.0343 −0.234 −0.155 −0.171 −0.925**
(0.331) (0.260) (0.221) (0.253) (0.431)
Cattle ownership 0.179** 0.120* 0.101* 0.0592 −0.171*
(0.0812) (0.0689) (0.0602) (0.0702) (0.101)

Note: Standard errors are in parenthesis.

***is significant at 1% level.
**is significant at 5% level.
*is significant at 10% level.

6
A.M. Hasibuan, S. Wulandari, I.K. Ardana et al. Resources, Environment and Sustainability 13 (2023) 100129

using more herbicides. Additionally, risk preferences also play a sig- associated with the use of chemical fertilizers. Increasing rainfall can
nificant role in adaptation behavior. Farmers who are more risk-averse reduce sugarcane yield by disrupting crop physiology and leaching
tend to use more chemical fertilizers while using fewer herbicides. It nutrients from the soil (Christina et al., 2021). Consistent with this
suggests that chemical fertilizer application might be perceived as a finding, farmers may perceive that increasing precipitation could lead
risk-decreasing strategy for climate issues and vice versa for herbicides. to soil nutrient leaching, thereby requiring more chemical fertilizers to
Third, in terms of the association between farmers’ support systems support sugarcane growth.
and climate adaptation behaviors, our findings suggest that farmers Secondly, our findings indicate that the RPI of climate events is pos-
who participate in sugarcane training have a higher likelihood of itively linked to the use of herbicides as a climate adaptation strategy.
adopting climate-adapted sugarcane varieties and using more organic Specifically, sugarcane farmers tend to use more herbicides if they per-
fertilizers as a climate adaptation strategy. In addition, farmers who are ceive a higher RPI of increasing temperature, precipitation, and rainy
involved in sugarcane extension activities have a higher probability of season periods. This finding aligns with previous research, suggesting
using both chemical and organic fertilizers. Membership in a farmers’ that warm and rainy weather conditions can promote weed germina-
group or APTRI is positively associated with using more herbicides tion and growth, potentially resulting in up to an 80% reduction in
but negatively associated with using chemical fertilizers. Furthermore, sugarcane yield (Christina et al., 2021; Susha et al., 2018). Therefore,
farmers who obtain sugarcane information from other farmers have the application of herbicides is considered an effective and efficient
a higher probability of using more organic fertilizers but a lower strategy to manage weeds and maintain sugarcane productivity under
probability of using irrigation. Interestingly, farmers with access to such conditions.
credit have a lower probability of using irrigation. Finally, farmers who Third, our estimation results show that risk preferences play a
do not have any climate information sources are more likely to use significant role in determining the application of chemical fertilizers
more herbicides. and herbicides as climate adaptation practices in sugarcane farming.
Finally, we find that cattle ownership is positively associated with The increasing application of chemical fertilizers is expected to reduce
the adoption of climate-adapted varieties and the increased use of the variability of the outcomes of sugarcane farming, making it a
chemical and organic fertilizers in conjunction with sugarcane farming. risk-reduction strategy. More risk-averse farmers tend to apply more
However, there is a negative association between cattle ownership and chemical fertilizers than risk-taking farmers, consistent with previous
the use of irrigation as a climate adaptation strategy. studies (e.g., Haile et al., 2020; Isik and Khanna, 2003; Kebede, 2022;
Meyer-Aurich and Karatay, 2019; Qiao and Huang, 2021). In contrast,
4. Discussion our findings suggest that more risk-taking farmers are also more likely
to use more herbicides, indicating that herbicide applications may be
4.1. Risk behaviors and climate adaptation practices perceived as increasing the risk in sugarcane farming. This association
may be linked to the higher uncertainty of outcomes in sugarcane
Our results, in general, indicate that farmers believe climate change farming, as also found in previous studies (Asravor, 2019; Möhring
has a negative impact on sugarcane farming, particularly in terms of et al., 2020).
decreasing sugarcane productivity. This finding may be attributed to
the strong correlation between sugarcane productivity and precipita- 4.2. The role of farmers’ support system on climate adaptation behaviors
tion rates (Ranomahera et al., 2020). As climate change often leads
to changes in rainfall patterns, it can influence the farmers’ beliefs To develop effective and inclusive climate adaptation policies and
about how climate issues affect their sugarcane productivity. However, interventions, it is crucial to gain a better understanding of the support
this belief may also reflect the farmers’ awareness of climate issues systems that shape farmers’ behavior (Below et al., 2012; Mogomotsi
and represent an important step toward adopting climate adaptation et al., 2020). However, for small-scale farmers, limited accessibility,
behaviors (see. Bohensky et al., 2013; Frank et al., 2011). and awareness of support systems such as training/extension programs,
When examining the farmers’ perception of climate issues in more farmers’ organizations, and information can be major barriers to adapt-
detail, focusing on climate RPI of specific climate events, our study find ing to climate issues (Eshetu et al., 2021; Ojo et al., 2021). Our findings
that sugarcane farmers perceive increasing temperatures as having the confirm this situation, as we observe that farmers who are involved
highest RPI. This finding suggests that sugarcane farmers might priori- in support systems tend to adopt more climate adaptation strategies
tize minimizing the risk associated with rising temperatures over other (see Table 3). Given that farmers’ participation in support systems is
events, such as increasing droughts or rainfalls, as a higher risk per- relatively low (except for farmers’ groups), these results underscore the
ception can lead to a higher adaptation priority (Bohensky et al., 2013; need for governments and related industries to encourage and provide
Khanal et al., 2018). This priority may be attributed to the significant more inclusive and accessible support systems for farmers.
negative impact of increasing temperature on sugarcane productivity First, our analysis highlights the importance of extension and train-
(De Medeiros Silva et al., 2019). Although increasing drought also has ing programs for promoting climate adaptation practices in sugarcane
similar outcomes (Santillán-Fernández et al., 2016), better irrigation farming. We find a positive association between farmers’ participation
support in the study sites (see. Simatupang and Timmer, 2008) could in extension and training programs and their use of climate-adapted va-
mitigate the negative impact of low rainfall events, resulting in a lower rieties, as well as both chemical and organic fertilizers. These programs
RPI for drought. Therefore, our findings suggest that interventions are primarily provided by the government through extension staff and
addressing increasing temperatures should be prioritized to mitigate the researchers, offering great potential to promote climate adaptation
negative impact of climate change on sugarcane productivity. practices. However, our survey revealed that only a small percentage
Our analysis reveals a relationship between the RPI of climate of sugarcane farmers in the study sites participate in sugarcane training
events and the use of fertilizers and pesticides as climate adapta- and extension (4.3% and 11.5%, respectively). Therefore, there is a
tion strategies. Specifically, we find that farmers with higher RPIs for need to increase the involvement of farmers in these programs and
increasing temperature and precipitation tend to use more chemical provide more inclusive and accessible extension and training services to
fertilizers. This result suggests that farmers may apply more chemi- support their climate adaptation efforts. This could be achieved through
cal fertilizers to mitigate the potential negative effects of increasing the involvement of other stakeholders, such as sugar mills and farm
temperature on sugarcane productivity, as it is perceived as the most input producers, in the provision of advisory services to farmers.
significant climate risk. Previous studies have also emphasized the im- Second, the role of farmers’ institutions in enhancing sugarcane
portance of fertilizer in increasing sugarcane productivity (Otto et al., farmers’ climate adaptive capacity has the potential to be strength-
2022). In addition, the RPI of increasing precipitation is positively ened. Our study results show that membership in a farmers’ institution

7
A.M. Hasibuan, S. Wulandari, I.K. Ardana et al. Resources, Environment and Sustainability 13 (2023) 100129

(such as a farmers’ group or APTRI) is associated with higher use of integrated sugarcane and cattle can enhance farmers’ financial ability
herbicides. This implies that farmers’ institutions may have a role in and risk management (Faria Corrêa et al., 2018; Herrero et al., 2010).
advocating for the use of specific inputs, such as herbicides, as part By combining sugarcane cultivation with cattle rearing, farmers can tap
of climate adaptation practices. By doing so, these institutions can into multiple revenue sources, minimizing risks and creating a stable
potentially deliver campaigns promoting the proper use of herbicides financial situation. This integration allows for efficient resource utiliza-
for climate adaptation. In particular, APTRI has been shown in previous tion, reducing costs and ensuring continuous production and income
studies to play an important role in improving the bargaining power generation throughout the year (De Souza et al., 2019; Gradiz et al.,
of sugarcane farmers and influencing government policy through col- 2007; Ilham, 2016). However, the financial benefits of sugarcane–
lective action (Stapleton, 2006; Suwandari et al., 2020). However, our cattle integration were not extensively examined in this study. Further
survey indicates that membership in APTRI is relatively low (12.9%) research is necessary to evaluate the economic impact on sugarcane
compared to membership in farmers’ groups, which is much higher at farming, cattle rearing, and the livelihoods of farmers’ households. Nev-
91.8%. Encouraging more sugarcane farmers to become members of ertheless, promoting sugarcane–cattle mixed farming shows promise
such institutions can play a vital role in strengthening their climate in enhancing the climate adaptation capacity of small-scale farmers in
adaptive capacity. The importance of farmers’ institutions in climate rural areas.
adaptation is also supported by Ncoyini et al. (2022), who find that The negative association between sugarcane–cattle integration and
farmers’ groups can serve as a basis for policymakers to encourage irrigation in our study can be explained by the benefits of organic
small-scale sugarcane farmers to adapt to climate issues. matter for sugarcane growth under water-stress conditions. Organic
Lastly, our study highlights the crucial role of information access fertilizers have been found to increase soil water retention, reduce soil
in the climate adaptation behavior of small-scale sugarcane farmers, bulk density, and improve water storage capacity, which are essential
which is consistent with previous research (i.e., Li et al., 2022; Mulwa for crop growth and performance in water-limited conditions (Singh
et al., 2017; Ncoyini et al., 2022). Specifically, we examined the et al., 2019). In addition to improving soil fertility, the application of
variables such as internet access, mobile phone ownership, sugarcane organic fertilizer from sugarcane–cattle integration can enhance crop
information sources, and climate information sources. We find that drought tolerance (Dimkpa et al., 2020; Shukla et al., 2019). Since the
the use of internet and mobile phones for disseminating technolog- sugarcane in our study is grown in rainfed land, it is more feasible
ical information to sugarcane farmers is currently underutilized in for farmers to apply organic fertilizer than to rely solely on irrigation
the study location. However, the high level of internet accessibility during the dry season. Moreover, a significant proportion of surveyed
(78.0%) and mobile phone ownership (97.1%) presents an opportunity farmers owned cattle, which can serve as a source of manure for the
for the development of ICT-based farmer education in climate adap- sugarcane plantation. Therefore, promoting sugarcane–cattle integra-
tation. Previous studies have demonstrated the potential of ICT-based tion can support farmers’ adaptation to climate change by improving
farmer education as a complement to conventional extension services soil fertility and enhancing crop resilience to drought and reduce their
(e.g., Dzanku et al., 2021; Hasibuan et al., 2020, 2021; Zheng et al., dependence on irrigation support.
2021). We also find that the majority of farmers (85.2%) obtain sugar-
cane technology information from other farmers, which raises concerns 5. Conclusion
about the accuracy of the information they receive. This highlights
the potential for developing farmer-to-farmer extension programs to In conclusion, this study sheds light on the important factors that
complement formal extension services, with supervision from the gov- determine the climate adaptation behaviors of small-scale sugarcane
ernment or related industries (Hasibuan et al., 2022). However, further farmers. Our findings underscore the significance of risk behavior,
analysis is needed to effectively implement ICT-based learning and farmers’ support systems, and sugarcane–cattle integration in shaping
farmer-to-farmer extension programs for improved sugarcane advisory farmers’ adaptation behavior. Understanding these factors is crucial in
services. developing well-targeted and inclusive climate adaptation policies and
programs that cater to the needs of small-scale sugarcane farmers.
4.3. The importance of sugarcane–cattle integration Our results demonstrate that farmers believe climate change as
a threat to sugarcane farming, particularly in terms of reduced pro-
Mixed farming systems that integrate crops and livestock, such as ductivity. The perceived risks associated with rising temperatures and
sugarcane and cattle farming, have been widely adopted by small-scale precipitation are key drivers influencing farmers’ use of agricultural
farmers in Indonesia, and have proven beneficial for their livelihoods inputs like fertilizers and pesticides for climate adaptation purposes.
in rural areas (Priyanti et al., 2015). In the context of sugarcane These risk perceptions, along with farmers’ risk preferences, signifi-
farming, the integration of sugarcane and cattle not only provides cantly impact their decision-making regarding the application of these
economic benefits but also contributes to farmers’ climate adapta- inputs. Additionally, the low accessibility of farmers’ support systems,
tion practices. Our study demonstrates a positive association between such as extension and training programs, highlights the need for more
sugarcane–cattle integration and the adoption of climate-adapted sug- intensive advisory services for sugarcane farmers. Developing super-
arcane varieties and the use of fertilizers (both chemical and organic). vised farmers-to-farmers extensions and strengthening farmers’ institu-
The positive relationship between mixed farming and the adoption of tions are some potential interventions that policymakers could explore.
climate-adapted varieties can be attributed to the provision of cattle Furthermore, sugarcane–cattle integration is widely implemented and
feed from sugarcane farming. In situations where current sugarcane plays a crucial role in helping farmers apply climate adaptation prac-
varieties may not perform optimally under specific climate conditions, tices, such as adopting sugarcane climate-adapted varieties and increas-
having climate-adapted varieties allows farmers to provide feed for ing the use of fertilizers (both chemical and organic). This integration
their cattle. Additionally, mixed farming can provide farmers with model has the potential to be implemented in other sugarcane pro-
better financial support, enabling them to adopt new varieties and duction centers to help farmers adapt to climate issues and improve
purchase more chemical fertilizers (Herrero et al., 2010). their livelihoods. Overall, this study emphasizes the importance of
The positive relationship between sugarcane–cattle integration and understanding the determinants of farmers’ adaptation behavior to de-
the use of organic fertilizer as a climate adaptation strategy stems velop effective climate adaptation policies and programs for small-scale
from the fact that mixed farming provides a source of manure for farmers in Indonesia and beyond.
sugarcane fertilization. Organic fertilization has been shown to improve This study has a limited scope and a small sample size, which may
soil quality and moisture retention, which are crucial for adapting not fully represent the heterogeneity of agroecosystems in sugarcane-
to climate issues like drought (Singh et al., 2019). Moreover, the growing areas, particularly in Indonesia, especially when considering

8
A.M. Hasibuan, S. Wulandari, I.K. Ardana et al. Resources, Environment and Sustainability 13 (2023) 100129

climate change issues. Future research should address these limitations Gradiz, L., Sugimoto, A., Ujihara, K., Fukuhara, S., Kahi, A.K., Hirooka, H., 2007.
by incorporating larger and more diverse samples and considering a Beef cow–calf production system integrated with sugarcane production: Simulation
model development and application in Japan. Agric. Syst. 94 (3), 750–762. http:
broader range of contextual factors to enhance the generalizability and
//dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2007.03.003.
depth of understanding regarding climate adaptation behaviors among Guo, H., Huang, Z., Tan, M., Ruan, H., Awe, G.O., Are, K.S., Abegunrin, T.P.,
small-scale sugarcane farmers. Hussain, Z., Kuang, Z., Liu, D., 2021. Crop resilience to climate change: A study of
spatio-temporal variability of sugarcane yield in a subtropical region China. Smart
Acknowledgments Agric. Technol. 1, 100014. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.atech.2021.100014.
Haile, K.K., Nillesen, E., Tirivayi, N., 2020. Impact of formal climate risk transfer
mechanisms on risk-aversion: Empirical evidence from rural ethiopia. World Dev.
This research was part of the Sugarcane Innovative and Collabo- 130, 104930. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.104930.
rative Research and Development Project (Riset dan Pengembangan Hasibuan, A.M., Gregg, D., Stringer, R., 2020. Accounting for diverse risk attitudes
Inovatif Kolaboratif (RPIK) Tebu), funded by the Indonesian Center for in measures of risk perceptions: A case study of climate change risk for small-
Estate Crops Research and Development, IAARD, Indonesia. scale citrus farmers in Indonesia. Land Use Policy 95, 104252. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104252.
Hasibuan, A.M., Gregg, D., Stringer, R., 2021. The role of certification risk and time
References preferences in promoting adoption of climate-resilient citrus varieties in Indonesia.
Clim. Change 164 (3), 37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10584-021-03015-1.
Acosta, A., Nicolli, F., Karfakis, P., 2021. Coping with climate shocks: The complex Hasibuan, A.M., Gregg, D., Stringer, R., 2022. Risk preferences intra-household dynam-
role of livestock portfolios. World Dev. 146, 105546. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. ics and spatial effects on chemical inputs use: Case of small-scale citrus farmers in
worlddev.2021.105546. Indonesia. Land Use Policy 122, 106323. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.
Asravor, R.K., 2019. Farmers’ risk preference and the adoption of risk management 2022.106323.
strategies in Northern Ghana. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 62 (5), 881–900. http: Herrero, M., Thornton, P.K., Notenbaert, A.M., Wood, S., Msangi, S., Freeman, H.A.,
//dx.doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2018.1452724. Bossio, D., Dixon, J., Peters, M., van de Steeg, J., Lynam, J., Rao, P.P., Macmil-
Ayal, D.Y., Nure, A., Tesfaye, B., Ture, K., Zeleke, T.T., 2023. An appraisal on the lan, S., Gerard, B., McDermott, J., Seré, C., Rosegrant, M., 2010. Smart investments
determinants of adaptation responses to the impacts of climate variability on coffee in sustainable food production: Revisiting mixed crop-livestock systems. Science
production: Implication to household food security in Nensebo Woreda. Ethiopia. 327 (5967), 822–825. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1183725.
Clim. Serv. 30, 100383. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cliser.2023.100383. Iazzi, A., Ligorio, L., Vrontis, D., Trio, O., 2022. Sustainable development goals and
Below, T.B., Mutabazi, K.D., Kirschke, D., Franke, C., Sieber, S., Siebert, R., Tsch- healthy foods: perspective from the food system. Brit. Food J, 124 (4), 1081–1102.
erning, K., 2012. Can farmers’ adaptation to climate change be explained by http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/bfj-02-2021-0197.
socio-economic household-level variables? Glob. Environ. Change 22 (1), 223–235.
Ilham, N. Saptana, 2016. Pengembangan sistem integrasi tanaman tebu-sapi potong di
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.11.012.
jawa timur. Anal. Kebijakan Pertanian 13 (2), 147. http://dx.doi.org/10.21082/
Bohensky, E.L., Smajgl, A., Brewer, T., 2013. Patterns in household-level engagement
akp.v13n2.2015.147-165.
with climate change in Indonesia. Nature Clim. Change 3 (4), 348–351. http:
Isik, M., Khanna, M., 2003. Stochastic technology, risk preferences, and adoption of
//dx.doi.org/10.1038/Nclimate1762.
site-specific technologies. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 85 (2), 305–317. http://dx.doi.org/
BPS, 2022. Labour force situation in Indonesia: 2022. BPS - Statistics Indonesia, Jakarta.
10.1111/1467-8276.00121.
BPS, 2023. Blitar Regency in Figures 2023. BPS-Statistics of Blitar Regency, Blitar.
Jianjun, J., Yiwei, G., Xiaomin, W., Nam, P.K., 2015. Farmers’ risk preferences and
Christina, M., Jones, M.R., Versini, A., Mézino, M., Le Mézo, L., Auzoux, S., Soulié, J.C.,
their climate change adaptation strategies in the Yongqiao District China. Land
Poser, C., Gérardeaux, E, 2021. Impact of climate variability and extreme rainfall
Use Policy 47, 365–372. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.04.028.
events on sugarcane yield gap in a tropical island. Field Crop Res 274, 108326.
Kebede, H.A., 2022. Risk aversion and gender gaps in technology adoption by
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2021.108326.
smallholder farmers: Evidence from ethiopia. J. Dev. Stud. 58 (9), 1668–1692.
Cinner, J.E., Adger, W.N., Allison, E.H., Barnes, M.L., Brown, K., Cohen, P.J., Gelcich, S.,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220388.2022.2048653.
Hicks, C.C., Hughes, T.P., Lau, J., Marshall, N.A., Morrison, T.H., 2018. Building
Kementerian Pertanian, 2021. Rencana strategis kementerian pertanian tahun 2020–
adaptive capacity to climate change in tropical coastal communities. Nature Clim.
2024. In: Book Rencana Strategis Kementerian Pertanian Tahun, 2020-2024.
Change 8 (2), 117–123. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41558-017-0065-x.
Kementerian Pertanian Republik Indonesia, Jakarta.
De Medeiros Silva, W.K., De Freitas, G.P., Coelho Junior, L.M., De Almeida Pinto, P.A.L.,
Khan, I., Lei, H., Shah, I.A., Ali, I., Khan, I., Muhammad, I., Huo, X., Javed, T.,
Abrahão, R., 2019. Effects of climate change on sugarcane production in the state
2020. Farm households’ risk perception attitude and adaptation strategies in dealing
of Paraíba (Brazil): a panel data approach (1990–2015). Clim. Change 154 (1–2),
with climate change: promise and perils from Rural Pakistan. Land Use Policy 91,
195–209. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10584-019-02424-7.
104395. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104395.
De Souza, N.R.D., Fracarolli, J.A., Junqueira, T.L., Chagas, M.F., Cardoso, T.F., Watan-
abe, M.D.B., Cavalett, O., Venzke Filho, S.P., Dale, B.E., Bonomi, A., Cortez, L.A.B., Khanal, U., Wilson, C., Hoang, V.-N., Lee, B., 2018. Farmers’ adaptation to climate
2019. Sugarcane ethanol and beef cattle integration in Brazil. Biomass Bioenergy change its determinants and impacts on rice yield in Nepal. Ecol. Econ. 144,
120, 448–457. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2018.12.012. 139–147. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.08.006.
Dimkpa, C.O., Andrews, J., Sanabria, J., Bindraban, P.S., Singh, U., Elmer, W.H., Li, L., Jin, J., He, R., Kuang, F., Zhang, C., Qiu, X., 2022. Effects of social capital
Gardea-Torresdey, J.L., White, J.C., 2020. Interactive effects of drought organic on farmers’ choices of climate change adaptation behavior in Dazu district, China.
fertilizer, and zinc oxide nanoscale and bulk particles on wheat performance and Clim. Dev. 1–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2022.2061403.
grain nutrient accumulation. Sci. Total Environ. 722, 137808. http://dx.doi.org/ Linnenluecke, M.K., Nucifora, N., Thompson, N., 2018. Implications of climate change
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137808. for the sugarcane industry. WIREs Clim. Change 9 (1), e498. http://dx.doi.org/10.
Directorate General of Estates, 2022. Statistical of national leading estate crops 1002/wcc.498.
commodity 2021-2023. Directorate General of Estates, Ministry of Agriculture, Linnenluecke, M.K., Zhou, C., Smith, T., Thompson, N., Nucifora, N., 2020. The impact
Republic of Indonesia. of climate change on the Australian sugarcane industry. J. Clean. Prod. 246,
Dzanku, F.M., Osei, R., Osei-Akoto, I, 2021. The impact of mobile phone voice message 118974. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118974.
reminders on agricultural outcomes in Mali. Agr. Econ. 52 (5), 789–806. http: Mesquita, P.S., Bursztyn, M., 2016. Integration of social protection and climate change
//dx.doi.org/10.1111/agec.12654. adaptation in Brazil. Brit. Food J. 118 (12), 3030–3043. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
Eshetu, G., Johansson, T., Garedew, W., Yisahak, T., 2021. Determinants of smallholder bfj-02-2016-0082.
farmers’ adaptation options to climate change in a coffee-based farming system Meyer-Aurich, A., Karatay, Y.N., 2019. Effects of uncertainty and farmers’ risk aversion
of southwest ethiopia. Clim. Dev. 13 (4), 318–325. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ on optimal n fertilizer supply in wheat production in Germany. Agric. Syst. 173,
17565529.2020.1772706. 130–139. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2019.02.010.
Falk, A., Becker, A., Dohmen, T., Enke, B., Huffman, D., Sunde, U., 2018. Global Mogomotsi, P.K., Sekelemani, A., Mogomotsi, G.E.J., 2020. Climate change adaptation
evidence on economic preferences. Q. J. Econ. 133 (4), 1–48. http://dx.doi.org/ strategies of small-scale farmers in Ngamiland East. Botswana. Clim. Change 159
10.1093/qje/qjy013. (3), 441–460. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10584-019-02645-w.
Faria Corrêa, R.G., Kliemann Neto, F.J., Souza, J.S., Lampert, V.N., Barcellos, J.O.J., Möhring, N., Bozzola, M., Hirsch, S., Finger, R., 2020. Are pesticides risk decreasing?
2018. Enterprise risk management in integrated crop-livestock systems: a method the relevance of pesticide indicator choice in empirical analysis. Agr. Econ. 1–16.
proposition. J. Agric. Sci. 156 (10), 1222–1232. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/agec.12563.
s002185961900008x. Mulwa, C., Marenya, P., Rahut, D.B., Kassie, M., 2017. Response to climate risks among
Flack-Prain, S., Shi, L., Zhu, P., Rocha, H.R., Cabral, O., Hu, S., Williams, M., 2021. smallholder farmers in Malawi: A multivariate probit assessment of the role of
The impact of climate change and climate extremes on sugarcane production. GCB information household demographics, and farm characteristics. Clim. Risk Manag.
Bioenergy 13 (3), 408–424. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12797. 16, 208–221. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2017.01.002.
Frank, E., Eakin, H., Lopez-Carr, D., 2011. Social identity perception and motivation in Ncoyini, Z., Savage, M.J., Strydom, S., 2022. Limited access and use of climate
adaptation to climate risk in the coffee sector of Chiapas, Mexico. Glob. Environ. information by small-scale sugarcane farmers in South Africa: A case study. Clim.
Change 21 (1), 66–76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.11.001. Serv. 26, 100285. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cliser.2022.100285.

9
A.M. Hasibuan, S. Wulandari, I.K. Ardana et al. Resources, Environment and Sustainability 13 (2023) 100129

Ojo, T.O., Adetoro, A.A., Ogundeji, A.A., Belle, J.A., 2021. Quantifying the determinants Sulaiman, A.A., Sulaeman, Y., Mustikasari, N., Nursyamsi, D., Syakir, A.M., 2019.
of climate change adaptation strategies and farmers’ access to credit in South Increasing sugar production in Indonesia through land suitability analysis and sugar
Africa. Sci. Total Environ. 792, 148499. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv. mill restructuring. Land 8 (4), 61. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/land8040061.
2021.148499. Surjono, S., Zanuar, P., Rizqi, A., 2022. Cross-border strategies to respond the
Oliveira, Miranda, Cooke, R.A.C., 2018. Water management for sugarcane and corn impact of climate change in the upstream Brantas Watershed indonesia. Envi-
under future climate scenarios in Brazil. Agric. Water Manag. 201, 199–206. ron. Dev. Sustain. 24 (12), 14393–14420. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/J.Agwat.2018.01.019. 02000-z.
Ortiz-Bobea, A., Ault, T.R., Carrillo, C.M., Chambers, R.G., Lobell, D.B., 2021. Anthro-
Susha, V.S., Das, T.K., Nath, C.P., Pandey, R., Paul, S., Ghosh, S., 2018. Impacts of
pogenic climate change has slowed global agricultural productivity growth. Nat.
tillage and herbicide mixture on weed interference agronomic productivity and
Clim. Change 11 (4), 306–312. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01000-1.
profitability of a maize – wheat system in the North-Western Indo-Gangetic Plains.
Otto, R., Ferraz-Almeida, R., Sanches, G.M., Lisboa, I.P., Cherubin, M.R., 2022.
Field Crop Res. 219, 180–191. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2018.02.003.
Nitrogen fertilizer consumption and nitrous oxide emissions associated with ethanol
production – A national-scale comparison between Brazilian sugarcane and corn in Suwandari, A., Hariyati, Y., Agustina, T., Kusmiati, A., Hapsari, T.D., Khasan, A.F.,
the United States. J. Clean. Prod. 350, 131482. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro. Rondhi, M., 2020. The impacts of certified seed plant adoption on the productivity
2022.131482. and efficiency of smallholder sugarcane farmers in Indonesia. Sugar Tech. 22 (4),
Pipitpukdee, S., Attavanich, W., Bejranonda, S., 2020. Climate change impacts on 574–582. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12355-020-00821-2.
sugarcane production in Thailand. Atmosphere 11 (4), 408. http://dx.doi.org/10. Thornton, P.K., Herrero, M., 2014. Climate change adaptation in mixed crop–livestock
3390/atmos11040408. systems in developing countries. Glob. Food Secur. 3 (2), 99–107. http://dx.doi.
Priyanti, A., Cramb, R., Hanifah, V.W., Mahendri, I.G.A.P., 2015. Small-scale cattle org/10.1016/j.gfs.2014.02.002.
raising in East Java, Indonesia: A pathway out of poverty? Asia Pacific Viewpoint Toharisman, A., Triantarti, 2016. An overview of sugar sector in Indonesia. Sugar Tech.
56 (3), 335–350. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/apv.12094. 18 (6), 636–641. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12355-016-0490-6.
Qiao, F.-b., Huang, J.-k., 2021. Farmers’ risk preference and fertilizer use. J. Integr. Tripathi, A., Mishra, A.K., 2017. Knowledge and passive adaptation to climate change:
Agr. 20 (7), 1987–1995. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S2095-3119(20)63450-5. An example from Indian farmers. Clim. Risk Manag. 16, 195–207. http://dx.doi.
Ranomahera, M.R.R., Nugroho, B.D.A., Riajaya, P.D., Putra, R.P., 2020. Using global org/10.1016/j.crm.2016.11.002.
climate indices to predict rainfall and sugarcane productivity in drylands of Verma, K.K., Singh, P., Song, X.-P., Malviya, M.K., Singh, R.K., Chen, G.-L., Solomon, S.,
Banyuwangi East Java, Indonesia. Ind. J. Agric. Sci. 21 (2), 78. http://dx.doi.org/
Li, Y.-R., 2020. Mitigating climate change for sugarcane improvement: Role of
10.21082/ijas.v21n2.2020.p78-88.
silicon in alleviating abiotic stresses. Sugar Tech. 22 (5), 741–749. http://dx.doi.
Santillán-Fernández, A., Santoyo-Cortés, V.H., García-Chávez, L.R., Covarrubias-
org/10.1007/s12355-020-00831-0.
Gutiérrez, I., Merino, A., 2016. Influence of drought and irrigation on sugarcane
Villacis, A.H., Alwang, J.R., Barrera, V., 2021. Linking risk preferences and risk
yields in different agroecoregions in Mexico. Agr. Syst. 143, 126–135. http://dx.
perceptions of climate change: A prospect theory approach. Agr. Econ. 52 (5),
doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2015.12.013.
Saptutyningsih, E., Diswandi, D., Jaung, W., 2020. Does social capital matter in climate 863–877. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/agec.12659.
change adaptation? A lesson from agricultural sector in yogyakarta. Indonesia. Land Widyasari, W.B., Putra, L.K., Ranomahera, M.R.R., Puspitasari, A.R., 2022. Historical
Use Policy 95, 104189. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104189. notes germplasm development, and molecular approaches to support sugarcane
Shukla, S.K., Solomon, S., Sharma, L., Jaiswal, V.P., Pathak, A.D., Singh, P., 2019. breeding program in Indonesia. Sugar Tech. 24 (1), 30–47. http://dx.doi.org/10.
Green technologies for improving cane sugar productivity and sustaining soil 1007/s12355-021-01069-0.
fertility in sugarcane-based cropping system. Sugar Tech. 21 (2), 186–196. http: Wuepper, D., Ayenew, H.Yesigat., Sauer, J., 2018. Social capital income diversification
//dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12355-019-00706-z. and climate change adaptation: panel data evidence from rural ethiopia. J. Agr.
Simatupang, P., Timmer, C.P., 2008. Indonesian rice production: Policies and Econ. 69 (2), 458–475. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1477-9552.12237.
realities. Bullet. Ind. Econ. Stud. 44 (1), 65–80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ Zhao, D., Li, Y.-R., 2015. Climate change and sugarcane production: Potential impact
00074910802001587. and mitigation strategies. Int. J. Agron. 2015, 1–10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/
Singh, N.P., Anand, B., Srivastava, S.K., Kumar, N.R., Sharma, S., Bal, S.K., Rao, K.V., 2015/547386.
Prabhakar, M., 2022. Risk perception and adaptation to climate change: evidence Zheng, H., Ma, W., Wang, F., Li, G., 2021. Does internet use improve technical
from arid region, India. Nat. Hazards 112 (2), 1015–1037. http://dx.doi.org/10.
efficiency of banana production in China? Evidence from a selectivity-corrected
1007/s11069-022-05216-y.
analysis. Food Policy 102, 102044. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2021.
Singh, N., Singh, C.A.K., Singh, S., 2019. Stress physiology and metabolism in
102044.
hybrid rice I. organic manures improve physical soil characteristics and drought
Zhu, P., Burney, J., Chang, J., Jin, Z., Mueller, N.D., Xin, Q., Xu, J., Yu, L.,
tolerance. J. Crop Improv. 33 (6), 755–775. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15427528.
Makowski, D., Ciais, P., 2022. Warming reduces global agricultural production by
2019.1660749.
Stapleton, T., 2006. Institutional determinants of Indonesia’s sugar trade pol- decreasing cropping frequency and yields. Nat. Clim. Change http://dx.doi.org/10.
icy. B Indones Econ. Stud. 42 (1), 95–103. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 1038/S41558-022-01492-5.
00074910600632401.

10