Assessment of farmers’ fertiliser application behaviour and their willingness

to pay for the fertiliser: A study in coconut triangle of Sri Lanka

ABSTRACT

Identification of the factors that determine growers’ fertiliser application, ranking them and

assessing the growers’ willingness to pay (WTP) for a 50 kg of fertiliser bag are the objectives of

this study. The data were collected from 322 coconut growers and the results showed that the most

significant factors were price of the fertiliser, technical knowledge, labor scarcity and having no

interest. The growers’ WTP for a 50 kg fertiliser bag was Sri Lankan Rupees (Rs.) 1,672.08.

Therefore, apart from the price of the fertiliser, policymakers should pay their attention to farmers’

technical knowledge, the issue of labor scarcity and different agricultural extension approaches.

Keywords: attitude; coconut triangle; contingent valuation method; fertiliser application

behaviour; intention; perceived behavioural control; Sri Lanka; subjective norm; Theory of

Planned Behaviour; willingness.

1. Introduction

Since last two decades, the coconut growers in Sri Lanka have been facing many problems, which

has ultimately resulted in declining the production and profits from their estates. Further, the low

productivity is the basic character of the small-scale resource poor rural farmers in Sri Lanka. The

accelerated soil degradation is majorly due to the non-sustainable farming practices and it is the

major contributory factor for the low yield. Sri Lankan small-scale coconut growers do not have

the proper habit of applying fertiliser, but proper application of fertiliser is a very important

agronomic practice to obtain a sustainable yield from the coconut palms.

 In the year 2005, the Coconut Research Institute of Sri Lanka (CRISL) was conducted a

diagnostic survey in eleven coconut cultivation regions in Sri Lanka. According to the findings

of the survey, the growers’ awareness of the fertiliser mixtures was very poor. Further, only 14%

and 13% of growers were aware of adult palm mixture (APM) and young palm mixture (YPM)

respectively. Therefore, the diagnostic survey was clearly indicated that the knowledge of

fertiliser mixtures was in a very unsatisfactory level and it was one of the most important aspects

of coconut cultivation that had not disseminated properly among coconut growers (Peiris et al.,

2006). It was also found that 31% of growers never applied fertiliser for coconut at all. Therefore,

it is very clear that most of the growers do not apply fertiliser to their coconut fields even though

the fertiliser application is one of the quickest possible ways to increase the yield.

Several research has been carried out to study growers’ technology adoption process, but

generalization of those findings is still a challenge for the researchers due to some reasons for

example, contrasts in farmers’ characteristics, their background and the referring technology.

Feder et al. (1985) attempted to create a list of growers’ adoption factors using the data from

several past studies. According to them, availability of labor, access to credit, market access, risk

management ability, land ownership, size of the farm and education were some of the factors which

are important for the adoption process of growers.

The adoption factors identified by Feder et al. in 1985 were proved by the several recently

conducted studies. In addition, they have added some new factors to the list according to the study

sample and referring technology. There are variations in the way each factor influences the

adoption decisions while some factors are still debatable. Thus, it is possible that each individual

farmer tends to have a unique adoption attitude.

 Coconut growers’ fertiliser application depends on various adoption factors. These factors

will vary according to their socioeconomic conditions, beliefs and attitudes. The fertiliser price is

one of the main factors that determine growers’ fertiliser application. However, individual growers

have shown unique fertiliser application behaviour. As a result, there are several other factors that

could be influenced the fertiliser application other than fertiliser price. The studies conducted by

Aromolaran and Olayemi (2000) and Solano et al. (2003) reported that despite the major role of

economic motivation, farmers in general have multiple objectives (economic and non-economic)

in decision-making. Multiple objectives may also indicate the farmers’ different approaches in

dealing with their situations (Aromolaran and Olayemi, 2000). Therefore, the objectives of this

research are, recognizing the factors that determine growers’ fertiliser application, ranking of the

identified factors and predicting the growers’ willingness to pay for a 50 kg bag of APM fertiliser.

Any procedure used to evaluate why growers behave the manner they perform would be

encountered various number of inter-related factors for example, the advisory/information services

accessible to growers, the policy structure facing, and the feelings, goals, and motives of the

growers etc. (Beedell and Rehman, 2000). Therefore, it is important to investigate how growers’

different choice stimuli direct to a specific decision or behaviour to understand growers’ actual

behaviour in fertiliser application. Ajzen’s (2002) Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) has given

a valuable framework to study associations between growers’ decision variables and behaviour.

Further, TPB would also be utilized to identify growers’ decision-making process.

1.1 Theory of Planned Behaviour

The theory explains individual behaviour in decision-making and attitude, subjective norm (SN)

and perceived behavioural control (PBC) are the main elements of the theory. Furthermore, TPB

illustrates the relationship between the intention and the main three elements.
 The intention to accomplish a behaviour could be explained as the likelihood that a person

will involve in a specific behaviour. As per the TPB, intentions are extensively precise in

foreseeing a behaviour. Further, it is prejudiced by attitudes, SN, and PBC toward the behaviour,

which will be controlled by relevant salient beliefs. Therefore, the theory foresees that if the

individual’s intention is more powerful, then the likelihood to accomplish the behaviour by an

individual will be also high (Pawlak et al., 2003).

Attitude is individuals’ way of thinking towards a particular action. It can be optimistic or

pessimistic feeling. The related behavioural beliefs and the outcome evaluation are the assessment

of the behavioural belief. The expectancy-value method can be used to estimate the attitude

quantitatively (Stubenitsky and Mela, 2000).

The SN is the social pressure creates by the others on an individual to perform a particular

action. SN is estimated by normative beliefs and its motivation to comply, and the expectancy-

value method can be used to quantify (Pawlak et al., 2003).

PBC is explained as how individual’s opinion about performing the action. and it is

estimated from the control belief and the power of the related control belief. Measuring of PBC

also can be done by the expectancy-value method (Pawlak et al., 2003).

Insert Figure 1 here.

1.2 Measuring variables in TPB

Most of the attitude research utilize the expectancy-value method to measure the TPB variables. It

assumes that attitude towards a behaviour depends on belief about the behaviour and its good or

bad evaluation. There are three fundamental constituents for expectancy-value method; belief of

the behaviour (b), value evaluated by the individual for the behaviour (v) and attitude (a). It could

n
be expressed as followers; (a =  bivi) (Viklund, 2002).
i 1
Based on the concept equation 1 could be formulated,

B  I  AT + SN + PBC (1)

B = Behaviour, I = Intention, AT = Attitude, SN = Subjective norm, PBC = Perceived behavioural

control, bb = Behavioural belief, oe = Outcome evaluation, nb = Normative belief, mc= Motivation

to comply, cb = Control beliefs, p = Power.

Therefore, the model could be expressed as (Equation 2);

s t u
B  I = 1 
i 1
bbioei +  2 
j 1
nbjmcj +  3 
k 1
cbkpk (2)

2. Research Methodology

2.1 Eliciting salient beliefs

The beliefs towards the expected behaviour are very important to develop attitude, SN and PBC

in an individual. Furthermore, the salient beliefs play a significant role in foreseeing intention,

thereby behaviour. Those that first come to mind if ask a question from an individual for example,

“What do you think would be the advantages for you to perform a certain behaviour?”, are called

Salient beliefs. A survey has to be conducted to identify the salient beliefs in a given population

(Francis et al., 2004).

A survey was conducted to identify the salient beliefs in Kurunegala, Puttalum and

Gampaha districts of Sri Lanka by randomly selecting 15, 10 and 10 growers respectively. Further,

the researchers have utilized their experience of working with Sri Lankan farmers over the last 16

years to select the final set of salient beliefs from the salient beliefs identified by the study.
2.2 Development of the questionnaire

Questions were comprised of the beliefs that identified by the preliminary survey. The

questionnaire was pre tested to ensure both the validity and the reliability. The questions were

based on 5 point Likert scale.

2.3 Sampling method and study location

The empirical study was carried out in the Kurunegala, Gampaha and Puttalam districts of Sri

Lanka. The data collection was done from the growers who were selected using simple random

sampling technique. The sampling frame was provided by the Coconut Development Officers in

the respective regions.

According to the literature, Kline (1994) argued that if the data is clear, a sample of 100

respondents would be quite sufficient for a survey. However, according to both Cochran’s formula

(1977) for sample size determination and Bartlett et al.’s, (2001) findings, the sample size was

increased by the researchers considering the large population that has to be covered. Therefore,

the data were collected from 175, 150 and 100 growers randomly from Kurunegala, Puttalm and

Gampaha districts respectively to represent the coconut cultivation extent, and the predicted total

sample size was 425.

2.4 Data collection

The data collection was done using field surveys with a structured questionnaire. Five CDO ranges

were randomly selected from each and every district; Kurunegala (Narammala, Kurunegala,

Ibbagamuwa, Mawathagama and Rideegama), Gampaha (Urapola, Nittambuwa, Minuwangoda,

Walpita and Gampaha) and Puttlam (Karuwalagaswewa, Pallama, Naththandiya, Anamaduwa and

Kalpitiya) to collect the data from coconut growers. The effective response rate was 86.8%, 82.6%

and 90% with 152, 124 and 90 duly completed questionnaires returned respectively. Finally, the
total sample size was 366 and the data analysis was done mainly from regression analysis using

SPSS version 22.0.

2.5 Average willingness to pay (AWTP)

The growers’ willingness to pay for 50 Kg of APM fertiliser bag was estimated by the Contingent

Valuation Method (CVM). It has employed over the past years for the economic estimations of

natural resources. Further, it was also used as a tool for elicit public aspiration to finance the several

suggested programmes (Blaine et al., 2003). According to the Klirie and Wixhelms (1994), CVM

used to measure peoples’ willingness to pay tax to fund environmental programmes. Moreover,

CVM was utilized to assess growers’ readiness to pay for extension services (Ajayi, 2006).

3. Results and Discussion

3.1 Socio-economics characters

Comparison of socio-economic characteristics of coconut growers in Gampaha, Kurunegala and

Puttlam districts was given in Table 1. The mean age of the participants in Gampaha, Kurunegala

and Puttlam districts were 59.5, 58.2 and 55.2 years respectively. The majority of growers were

male farmers.The coconut growers in Gampaha district have higher educational background than

Kurunegala and Puttlam districts. According to the data on time spent on farming, most of the

farmers in Gampaha and Putlam districts were engaged in farming part time and majority of

growers in Kurunegala were engaged in farming full time. The average farm size of Puttlam (17.4

ac.) was greater than Kurunegala (14.1 ac.) and Gampaha (4.3 ac.) districts.

Insert Table 1 here.

3.2 Reliability analysis

The reliability analysis was carried out to measure the internal consistency of the measured concept

or constructs to ensure that they were adequate and reliable. Cronbach’s alpha is the measurement
for reliability analysis and the generally accepted lower limit is 0.7. Whereas in the exploratory

research it is reduced to 0.6 (Hair et al., 1998). Therefore, 0.6 Cronbach’s alpha was considered as

the lower limit in this study. The alpha values for the variables in the model were computed, and

all were lined within the acceptable range. The results are given in the Table 2.

Insert Table 2 here.

3.3 Attitudes towards fertiliser application and relationship with socioeconomic variables

The main factors that influence fertiliser application of growers are vary with their socioeconomic

conditions, beliefs and attitudes. As cited in the literature, growers’ fertiliser application may

involve various decision stimuli. These stimuli will vary according to their beliefs and attitudes.

Therefore, individual growers seem to show unique fertiliser application behaviour. Even though

price has a greater impact on growers’ fertiliser application, several other factors are also affected

growers’ fertiliser application behaviour. Those other influential factors also can motivate growers

significantly to apply fertiliser. Therefore, to understand growers’ actual behaviour in fertiliser

application, it is essential to explore how growers’ different decision stimuli vary with the decision

or behaviour. The correlation values between TPB constructs and several socioeconomic

characteristics of the growers are given in the Table 3.

Insert Table 3 here.

The attitude has positive effect with growers’ farm size, farm income and education while

negative effect on growers’ age. When grower received a good education, more information and

knowledge could be accessed by them. Further, it allows grower to make wise decisions.

Subsequently, if the growers are more socially active, their social networks would be wider and it

directs them for innovations. Hence, more educated growers may tend to develop favorable

attitudes towards fertiliser application. It is also lined with the results of Asfaw and Admassie
(2004). Rogers (1993) also stated that there was a link between education and technology

acceptance. In this manner, education has a positive influence on growers’ fertiliser application

behaviour.

Application of fertiliser is a costly activity in the coconut estates. The growers need to

spend money for both fertiliser buying and application. Furthermore, some risks are also associated

with fertiliser application for example, when extreme weather conditions arise, the fertiliser

applied would not be utilized by the coconut palm effectively and the losing percentage could be

high. Therefore, farmers’ income is a significant factor, which is involved highly for taking

farming decisions. If the farmer has higher income, at that point it enables grower to take even

risky decisions. Accordingly, farmers’ income is a main factor in fertiliser application decisions.

The size of a farm is also a crucial factor that develop favorable attitudes towards fertiliser

application. Because size of a farm has a strong positive association with farmers’ income. Both

Bergevoet et al. (2004) and Kiptot et al. (2006) mentioned that, the cultivated land extent has a

strong influence on attitude. Most studies (Akinola, 1986; Hossain and Crouch, 1992; Negatu and

Parikh, 1999; Neil and Lee, 2001) showed a positive association between the cultivated land extent

and the technology adoption behaviour.

Interestingly, a negative correlation was found between age and attitude. It infers that

younger generation has prominent positive attitudes for fertiliser application. Presumably, younger

generation is more educated than their parents. Furthermore, they do new inventions and

innovations and willing to take risks. Consequently, these characteristics might be involved to the

negative correlation between age and the attitudes.

The SN or social pressure is the other predictor for the development of intention. It was not

correlated with all socioeconomic characteristics except age. Hence, it was a good indicator to
prove the social pressure could have a noteworthy effect on elderly growers. The growers’social

bonds were built up with social maturity, and respect to each other than youngsters. Hence, they

are willing to follow the correct advices given by the extension officer and peergrowers in order

to respect them. The elderly generation of Sri Lanka is used to practice traditional values and

norms than younger generation. Hence, the age has a greater influence on growers’ intention.

The final predictor, PBC has a positive relationship with farm extent and income but has a

negative relationship with age. Meanwhile it was not statistically significant with education. PBC

is the feeling that whether farmer can overcome hindrances. Therefore, if the grower receives

sufficient income, he/she can overcome the obstacles in fertiliser application. Then, the grower

can purchase fertiliser, pay for farm labor and furthermore, he/she can afford the risks. If the

farmland is larger, availability of resources, machinery and other inputs are also high.

Consequently, the quantum of resources available urges grower to overcome the barriers that they

face in fertiliser application. Hence, if the farm size is larger, growers pay more attention to

improve it.

In contrast to elderly growers, younger growers are progressively creative and attempt to

overcome their farming obstructions. More often elderly growers think conventionally and

unwilling to alter their farmlands. They wish to proceed with what they have used to practice for

a long time. Therefore, age has demonstrated a negative correlation with PBC.

3.4 The factors determine growers’ fertiliser application and their contribution to fertiliser

application behaviour

The factors determine growers’ fertiliser application was identified by the salient beliefs of the

growers for fertiliser application. The identified salient beliefs were categorized into three groups
according to the TPB. A regression analysis was done to access the contribution of identified

salient beliefs towards the intention for fertiliser application.

3.5 The contribution of identified factors to the fertiliser application

Insert Table 4 here.

The regression analysis showed that intention to apply fertiliser significantly depended on

behavioural beliefs; “yield increase”, “coconut palm grows vigorously”, “income increase” and

“gives sustainable yield over the years” (see the Table 4). The other variables were not statistically

significant. Behavioural beliefs develop attitude of the fertiliser application. Therefore, the belief,

“fertiliser application will increase their yields” was the top most belief that leads to develop

favorable attitude for fertiliser application and followed by “coconut palm grows vigorously”,

“income increase” and “gives sustainable yield over the years”.

Insert Table 5 here.

When normative beliefs are considered, there were two statistically significant beliefs.

They are “Coconut Development Officer” and “fertiliser shopkeeper”. Normative beliefs develop

subjective norm of the fertiliser application. Therefore, it shows that only “Coconut Development

Officer” and “fertiliser shopkeeper” can influence to develop intention on grower to apply

fertiliser. Further, it shows that family members and neighboring growers had a minor role in

providing information in fertiliser application. Especially Sri Lankan rural farm families are

dominated by the male farmers and normally they take farming decisions, and it could be the

reason for the non-significant contribution of family members for the fertiliser application

decisions.

In contrast, some studies stated that family members and neighboring farmers were

important persons in the process of farming decisions. Furthermore, Asfaw and Admassie (2004)
showed the importance of information sharing among farm households in the case of chemical

fertiliser adoption among smallholder farmers in Ethiopia. Studies conducted by Blum (1989),

Ford and Babb (1989) and Sutherland et al. (1996) confirmed the importance of family as the

source of information for seasonal planting as well as decision making related to financing and

innovation.

Furthermore, Case (1992); Zhang et al. (2002) and Munshi (2004) confirmed the influence

of neighbors and village colleagues in farmers’ decisions related to new technologies. Ford and

Babb (1989) and Sutherland et al., (1996) reported a central role of farmer colleagues as

information sources for decision-making. Generally, growers seek information from neighbors and

other farmers, when there is limited resources and access for the information in the village.

In contrast, Solano et al., (2003) revealed that individual decision making is the most

common decision making system among the farming community. They also stated that in Costa

Rican dairy farmers take decisions without anyone else's input. Hossain and Crouch (1992) assert

that, Bangladesh farmers’ adoption to technologies was not affected by the opinion of local or

group leaders. The linkages between grower and Coconut Development Officer and grower and

fertiliser shopkeeper are strengthening by growers’ information seeking behaviour. Further,

farmers might not always rely on their memory for making decisions. They may have their own

methods for updating themselves (Ohlmer et al., 1998).

According to Errington (1986), farmers may access information from internal sources or

external sources. The importance of each source is mainly depended on the decision to be made,

the decision making phase, the characteristics of the farm/farm family or farmer (Solano et al.,

2003). They also indicated the significance of an extension officer as the source of information for

the Costa Rican dairy farmers. Sulaiman (2002) found a significant role of field extension workers,
government agencies as innovation sources for small-scale farmers in tidal swamp agro-ecosystem

zones in South Sumatra Province in Indonesia.

Insert Table 6 here.

As far as a control belief is concerned, it is an ability to cope with barriers. During the

elicitation study, 14 barriers were identified which impeded application of the fertiliser. The

regression analysis results showed that the respondents’ intention was affected by four factors (see

the Table 6). Affordability (price of the fertiliser) was the highly influenced factor followed by

lack of technical knowledge, labor scarcity and having no interest. The other variables were not

statistically significant, and the findings were supported by the following past studies.

Affordability (price of the fertiliser) has a strong relationship with farmers’ income.

Farmers who earn higher income can afford new technologies (Negatu and Parikh, 1999; Lapar

and Ehui, 2004). Further, Wadsworth (1995) and Moser and Barrett (2003) reported that

smallholder growers’ income may hinder due to the applied innovations.

Shiferaw and Holden (1998) found that the impact of labor availability on technology

adoption to be direct and positive. Some studies pointed out that, members in the farm family are

a source of supply farm labor to some extent. Savadogo et al. (1998) and Neil and Lee (2001)

stated that there is a strong and positive association between number of farm family members and

the technology adoption. Herath and Takeya (2003) also found a weak link between family size

and the technology adoption among rubber growers in Sri Lanka. Studies of Doss and Morris

(2000) and Gockowski and Ndoumbe (2004) found a significant and positive adoption rate

resulting from a large proportion of adult males in the farm family.

The farmers who are energetically involved in the public activities and have wider social

network categorized as earlier adopters by Rogers (Rogers, 1993). Further, the studies of Adesina
and Zinnah (1993); Baidu-Forson (1999); Doss and Morris (2000); Herath and Takeya (2003);

Herath and Wijekoon (2013); Hossain and Crouch (1992); Kaliba et al. (1997); and Ransom et al.

(2003) found that the linkage with extension officers have a strong impact on farmers’ technology

adoption.

3.6 Model fit values of explanatory variables for application of fertiliser

Table 6 shows the binary logistic regression results which shows the relationship between fertiliser

application behaviour and explanatory variables (Attitude, SN and PBC). The variables were

entered step wise to explore the impact of every variable. The model fit value was -2 log likelihood

and it was a measure of how well the model fits the data, and has a chi-square distribution. The

outcomes indicated that introduction of attitude was decreased the -2 log likelihood deviance by

33.132, (df=1) (p<0.001). Addition of the attitude to the model was statistically significant and it

was contributed for 11.2% of the variance in the model (Nagelkerka R square = 0.112).

The variable SN only decreased the -2 log likelihood by 11.548, (df=1) (p<0.001), and it

was statistically significant. The model with two variables, attitude and SN, together reduced -2

log likelihood by 44.68 (df=2) (p<0.001). Therefore, attitude had more explanatory power than

SN. The attitude and SN on the whole represented 20.87% of the variance in the model

(Nagelkerka R square =0.208).

The PBC only reduced -2 log likelihood by 115.892, (df=1) (p<0.001). Studies of Armitage

and Conner (1999) and Notani (1998) have shown a strong effect of PBC on intention and

behaviour. Nevertheless, the author of the TPB has mentioned in his study that the effect of PBC

may vary according to the type of behaviour and the relevant behavioural setting (Ajzen, 1991).

Introduction of all three variables to the model together decreased -2 log likelihood by 160.572,

(df=3) (p<0.001) and it was significant. The model represented 70.9% of the variance in fertiliser
application (Nagelkerka R square =0.709). Therefore, three variables; attitude, SN and PBC, had

significant influence on growers’ fertiliser application behaviour. The main responsible variable

for application of fertiliser was the growers’ PBC towards the fertiliser application (72.2%) and

followed by attitude (20.6%) and SN (7.2%).

Insert Table 7 here.

3.7 Average willingness to pay (WTP)

The Contingent Valuation Method (CVM) was utilized to analyze growers’ willingness to pay. In

the survey growers were asked to mark the amount that they are ready to pay for 50 kg of APM

fertiliser bag and different prices were suggested by them ranging from Rs. 1300.00 to Rs. 2500.00

in irregular increments (Table 8).

Insert Table 8 here.

The price which growers are willing to pay for 50 kg of APM fertiliser bag could be

calculated using Lower Bound Mean (LBM). The LBM characterizes a true lower bound estimate

of the price that the growers are willing to pay for 50 kg of APM fertiliser bag. It is a conservative

lower average willingness to pay because it does not capture the interpolations of that lie between

those listed (Ajayi, 2006). LBM is calculated by the formula in equation 3 (adopted from Blaine

et al., 2005).

K
LBM = µ0(P0) +  µ(Pi – P1-i) (3)
i 1

µ0 = the cumulative percentage of respondents willing to pay the initial orsmallestfiniteamount

P0= smallest finite amount

K0 = number of subsequent amount

LBM = 1(1300) + 0.7787(1500-1300) + 0.4617(1800-1500) + 0.3005(2000-1800) + 0.0409(2300-

2000) +0.0273(2500-2300)

= 1672.08

The LBM or farmers’ willingness to pay for 50 Kg of APMfertiliser bag in the study area was Rs.

1672.08 (USD 1= SLR180).

4. Conclusions and Implications

Understanding growers’ behaviour and perceptions towards fertiliser application is necessary for

policy makers to formulate effective policies on fertiliser for better yields and productivity at the

growers’ level. Therefore, several important conclusions could be drawn.

Firstly, the highly contributed variable for fertiliser application was PBC, and followed by

attitudes and SN.

There are 14 beliefs that contributed to form PBC variable. The most significant beliefs

that contribute to perform PBC were price of the fertiliser, technical knowledge on fertiliser, labor

scarcity and having no interest. Therefore, apart from the price of fertiliser policy makers should

pay their attention to farmers’ technical knowledge and the issues related to the labor scarcity.

Furthermore, there are considerable amount of growers that do not have interest to apply fertiliser.

Therefore, other strategies have to be identified to get their attention on this issue.

When considering the attitude formation for fertiliser application, there are four beliefs that

influence grower to apply fertiliser significantly such as, “the application of fertiliser will increase

the yield”, “income”, “vigorous growth of the coconut palm” and “it gives sustainable yield over

the years”.

Coconut development officer and fertiliser shop keeper can influence coconut grower to

apply fertiliser. Therefore, agricultural extension system has to be strengthen with different
participatory agricultural extension approaches. Furthermore, it is noticeable that private sector

too can involve in agricultural extension activities. Fertiliser companies could act as the key

partners in the process of technology transfer to the growers. Therefore, policies could be

formulated to motivate the private sector to expand their agricultural extension activities.

Secondly, there was a positive relationship between attitude towards fertiliser application and

education, farmer income and farm size, but it was negatively related with the growers’ age.

Therefore, agricultural extension approaches should be focused on the above different social

categories.

Thirdly, the study assessed the growers’ willingness to pay for a 50 kg bag of APM

fertiliser by utilizing the Contingent Valuation Method and the calculated price is Rs. 1,672.08

(USD 1= SLR158).

Funding

The authors received financial support for the research from the National Research Council of Sri

Lanka, (Grant No. NRC 13-159).

References

Adesina, A. A. and Zinnah, M. M. (1993) ‘Technology characteristics, farmers’ perceptions and

adoption decisions: A Tobit model application in Sierra Leone’, Agricultural Economics

Vol. 9, No. 4, pp.297-311. DOI:10.1016/0169-5150(93)90019-9.

Ajayi, A. O. (2006) ‘An assessment of farmers’ willingness to pay for extension services using the

Contingent Valuation Method (CVM): The Case of Oyo State, Nigeria’, The Journal of

Agricultural Education and Extension, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp.97-108.

DOI:10.1080/13892240600861567.
Ajzen, I. (1985) ‘From intentions to actions: A Theory of Planned Behaviour’, in Kuhl, J. and

Beckman J. (Eds.), Action control: from cognition to behavior, Heidelberg: Springer,

pp.11-39.

Ajzen, I. (1991) ‘The theory of planned behaviour’, Organizational Behaviour and Human

Decision Processes, Vol. 50, pp.179-211.

Ajzen, I. (2002) ‘Behavioural interventions based on the theory of planned behaviour’, Theory of

planned behaviour. http:// www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~aizen/pdf/tpb.intervention.pdf

(Accessed 26 January 2020).

Akinola, A. A. (1986) ‘Determinants of diffusion of cocoa-spraying chemicals among Nigerian

cocoa farmers’, Agricultural Systems, Vol. 22, No. 3, pp.191-202.

Armitage, C. J. and Conner, M. (1999) ‘Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: A meta-

analytic review’, British Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 40, No. 4, pp.471-499.

DOI:10.1348/014466601164939.

Aromolaran, A. B. and Olayemi, J. K. (2000) ‘Analysis of factors affecting thepreference intensity

of farmers for selected farm production objectives’, African Development Review, Vol. 12,

No. 1, pp.114-127. DOI:10.1111/1467-8268.00018.

Asfaw, A. and Admassie, A. (2004) ‘The role of education on the adoption of chemical fertiliser

under different socioeconomic environments in Ethiopia’, Agricultural Economics, Vol.

30, No. 3, pp.215-228. DOI:10.1111/j.1574-0862. 2004.tb00190. x.

Blaine, T. W., Lichtkoppler, F. R. and Stanbro, R. (2003) ‘An assessment of residents’ willingness

to pay for green space and farmland preservation conservation easements using the

Contingent Valuation Method (CVM)’, The journal of extension, Vol. 41, No. 4, pp.1-4.
Baidu-Forson, J. (1999) ‘Factors influencing adoption of land-enhancing technology in the Sahel:

lessons from a case study in Nigeria’, Agricultural Economics, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp.231-239.

DOI:10.1016/S0169-5150(99)00009-2.

Bartlett, J. E., Kotrlik, J. W. and Higgins, C. C. (2001) ‘Organizational research: Determining

appropriate sample size in survey research’, Information Technology, Learning, and

Performance Journal, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp.43-50.

Blum, A. (1989) ‘Use of different information sources for decision making by traditional farmers

in a progressive knowledge system’, Journal of Extension Systems, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp.60-

73.

Beedell, J. and Rehman, T. (2000) ‘Using social-psychology models to understand farmers’

conservation behaviour’, Journal of Rural Studies, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp.117-127.

DOI:10.1016/S0743-0167(99)00043-1.

Bergevoet, R. H. M., Ondersteijn, C. J. M., Saatkamp, H. W., Van Woerkum, C. M.J. and Huirne,

M. J. (2004) ‘Entrepreneurial behaviour of Dutch dairy farmers under a milk quota system:

goals, objectives and attitudes’, Agricultural Systems, Vol. 80, No. 1, pp.1-21. DOI:

10.1016/j.agsy.2003.05.001.

Blaine, T. W., Lichtkoppler, F. R., Jones, K. R. and Zondag, R. H. (2005) ‘An assessment of

household willingness to pay for curbside recycling: A comparison of payment card and

referendum approaches’, Journal of environmental management, Vol. 76, No. 1, pp.15-22.

DOI:10.1016/j.jenvman.2005.01.004.

Case, A. (1992) ‘Neighborhood influence and technological change’, Regional Science and Urban

Economics, Vol. 22, No. 3, pp.491-508. DOI:10.1016/0166-0462(92)90041-X.

Doss, C. R. and Morris, M. L. (2000) ‘How does gender affect the adoption of agricultural

innovations? The case of improved maize technology in Ghana’, Agricultural Economics,

Vol. 25, No. 1, pp.27-39. DOI:10.1111/j.1574-0862. 2001.tb00233. x.

Errington, A. (1986) ‘The delegation of decisions on the farm’, Agricultural Systems, Vol. 19, No.

4, pp.299-317. DOI:10.1016/0308-521X (86)90111-3.

Feder, G., Just, R. E. and Zilberman, D. (1985) ‘Adoption of agricultural innovations in developing

countries: a survey’, Economic Development and Cultural Change, Vol. 33, No. 2, pp.255-

298. DOI:10.1086/451461.

Ford, S. A. and Babb, E. Y. (1989) ‘Farmers’ sources and use of information, Agribusiness, Vol.

5, pp.465-476. DOI:10.1002/1520-6297(198909)5:5<465:AID-AGR2720050505>3. 0.

CO;2-6.

Francis, J. J., Eccles, M. P., Johnston, M., Walker, A., Grimshaw, J., Foy, R., … Bonetti, D. (2004)

Constructing questionnaires based on the theory of planned behavior, A Manual for Health

Services Researches. Centre for Health Services Research, University of Newcastle,

Newcastle upon Tyne.

Gockowski, J. and Ndoumbe, M. (2004) ‘The adoption of intensive monocrop horticulture in

southern Cameroon. Agricultural Economics, Vol. 30, No. 3, pp.195-202.

DOI:10.1111/j.1574-0862. 2004.tb00188. x.

Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E. J., Tatham, R. L. and Black, W. C. (Eds.), (1998) Multivariate data

analysis (5th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Herath, P. H. M. U. and Takeya, H. (2003) ‘Factors determining intercropping by rubber

smallholders in Sri Lanka: a logit analysis’, Agricultural Economics, Vol. 29, No. 2,

pp.159-168. DOI:10.1111/j.1574-0862. 2003.tb00154. x.

Herath, C. S. and Wijekoon, R. (2013) ‘Study on attitudes and perceptions of organic and non-

organic coconut growers towards organic coconut farming’, Idesia, Vol. 31, No. 2, pp.5-

14.

Hossain, S. M. A. and Crouch, B. R. (1992) ‘Patterns and determinants of adoption of farm

practices: some evidence from Bangladesh’, Agricultural Systems, Vol. 38, No. 1, pp.1-15.

DOI:10.1016/0308-521X (92)90084-2.

Kaliba, A. R. M., Featherstone, A. M. and Norman, D. W. (1997) ‘A stall-feeding management

for improved cattle in semiarid central Tanzania: factors influencing adoption’,

Agricultural Economics, Vol. 17, No. 2-3, pp.133-146. DOI:10.1016/S0169-

5150(97)00028-5.

Kiptot, E., Franzel, S., Hebinck, P. and Richards, P. (2006) ‘Sharing seed and knowledge: Farmer

to farmer dissemination of agro forestry technologies in western Kenya’, Journal of Agro

forest Systems, Vol. 68, pp.167-179. DOI:10.1007/s10457-006-9007-8.

Kline, P. (Ed.), (1994) An easy guide to factor analysis. London: Routledge.

Lapar, M. L. A. and Ehui, S. K. (2004) ‘Factors affecting adoption of dual-purposeforages in the

Philippine uplands’, Agricultural Systems, Vol. 81, No. 2, pp.95-114. DOI:

10.1016/j.agsy.2003.09.003.

Moser, C. M. and Barrett, C. B. (2003) ‘The disappointing adoption dynamics of a yield-

increasing, low external-input technology: the case of SRI in Madagascar’, Agricultural

Systems, Vol. 76, No. 3, pp.1085-1100. DOI:10.1016/S0308-521X (02)00041-0.

Munshi, K. (2004) ‘Social learning in a heterogeneous population: technology diffusion in the

Indian Green Revolution’, Journal of Development Economics, Vol. 73, No. 1, pp.185-213.

DOI:10.1016/j.jdeveco.2003.03.003.
Negatu, W. and Parikh, A. (1999) ‘The impact of perception and other factors on the adoption of

agricultural technology in the Moret and JiruWoreda (district) of Ethiopia’, Agricultural

Economics. Vol. 21, No. 2, pp.205-216. DOI:10.1016/S0169-5150(99)00020-1.

Neill, S. P. and Lee, D. R. (2001) ‘Explaining the adoption and disadoption of sustainable

agriculture: the case of cover crops in Northern Honduras’, Economic Development and

Cultural Changes, Vol. 49, No. 4, pp.793-820. DOI:10.1086/452525.

Notani, A. S. (1998) ‘Moderators of perceived behavioural control's productiveness in the theory

of planned behaviour: a meta-analysis’, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 7, pp.247-

271. DOI:10.1207/s15327663jcp0703_02.

Ohlmer, B., Olson, K. and Brehmer, B. (1998) ‘Understanding farmers' decision making processes

and improving managerial assistance’, Agricultural Economics, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp.273-

290. DOI:10.1016/S0169-5150(97)00052-2.

Pawlak, R., Brown, D., Meyer, M. K., Connell, C., Yadrick, K., Johnson, J. T., & Blackwell, A.

(2003). Theory of planned behaviour and multivitamin supplement use in Caucasian

college females. Primary Prevent, Vol. 29, pp.57-71. DOI:10.1007/s10935-008-0127-y.

Peiris, T. S. G., Appuhamy, P. A. H. N., Nainanayake, N. A. P. D., Bandaranayake, C. K. and

Fernando, M. T. N. (Eds.), (2006) Coconut research development and dissemination of

technologies - Growers perception, Coconut research Institute, Bandirippuwa Estate,

Lunuwila, Sri Lanka.

Ransom, J. K., Paudyal, K. and Adhikari, K. (2003) ‘Adoption of improved maize varieties in the

hills of Nepal’, Agricultural Economics, Vol. 29, No. 3, pp.299-305. DOI:10.1111/j.1574-

0862. 2003.tb00166. x.

Rogers, E. M. (Ed.), (1993). Diffusion of innovations (3rd ed.). New York: The Free Press.
Savadogo, K., Reardon, T. and Pietola, K. (1998) ‘Adoption of improved land use technologies

to increase food security in Burkina Faso: relating animal traction, productivity, and non-

farm income’, Agricultural Systems, Vol. 58, No. 3, pp.441-464. DOI:10.1016/S0308-

521X(98)00040-7.

Shiferaw, B. and Holden, S. T. (1998) ‘Resource degradation and adoption of land conservation

technologies in the Ethiopian Highlands: a case study in Andit Tid, North Shewa’,

Agricultural Economics, Vol. 128, No. 3, pp.233-247. DOI:10.1016/S0169-

5150(98)00036-X.

Solano, C., Leon, H., Perez, E. and Herrero, M. (2003) ‘The role of personal information sources

on the decision-making process of Costa Rican dairy farmers’, Agricultural Systems, Vol.

76, No. 1, pp.3-18. DOI:10.1016/S0308-521X (02)00074-4.

Stubenitsky, K. and Mela, D. J. (2000) ‘UK consumer perceptions of starchy foods’, British

Nutrition, Vol. 83, pp.277-285. DOI:10.1017/S0007114500000350.

Sulaiman, F. (2002) ‘Communication approach for agricultural technology transfer in various

agro-ecosystem zones: a case study in South Sumatra Province’, Indonesian Journal of

Agricultural Science, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp.43-51. DOI:10.21082/ijas. v3n2.2002.p43-51.

Sutherland, A. J., McGregor, M. J., Dent, J. B., Willock, J., Deary, I., Gibson, G., … Morgan, O.

(1996) ‘Edinburgh farmer decision making study: Elements important to the farmer’, in

Beers, G., Huirne, R. B. M., and Pruis, H. C. (Eds.), Farmers in small-scale and large-

scale farming in a new perspective. Objectives, decision making and information

requirements, Agricultural Economics Research Institute: The Netherlands, pp.162-171.

Viklund, M. (2002) An expectancy-value approach to determinants of trust.SSE/EFI working

paper series in business administration, No 2002: 13. Center for Risk Research, Stockholm

School of Economics, Stockholm, Sweden.

Wadsworth, J. (1995) ‘Adoption of innovations by Costa Rican livestock producers under different

levels of extension intensity: predicted versus observed behaviour’, Agricultural Systems,

Vol. 49, No. 1, pp.69-100. DOI:10.1016/0308-521X (94)00017-L.

Zhang, X., Fan, S. and Cai, X. (2002) ‘The path of technology diffusion: which neighbors to learn

from?’, Contemporary Economic Policy, Vol. 20, No. 4, pp.470-479.

DOI:10.1093/cep/20.4.470.
Table 1 Socio-economics characters

Characters Gampaha Kurunegala Puttlam

Mean Age (Years) 59.5 58.2 55.2

Education (No. of years)(Mean) 12.2 12.0 11.2

Gender(M/F ratio) (Male) (%) 90.40% 87.00% 80.69%

Involvement in farming

Full time (%) 23.84% 57.50% 28.58%

Part time (%) 76.16% 42.50% 71.42%

Farm size(ac.)(Mean) 4.3 14.1 17.4

Table 2 Cronbach’s alpha values

No. Variable Alpha value

1 Behavioural beliefs of fertiliser application 0.784

2 Normative beliefs of fertiliser application 0.856

3 Control beliefs of fertiliser application 0.711

4 Outcome evaluation 0.752

5 Motivation to comply 0.751

6 Power of control beliefs 0.672

Table 3 Pearson correlations between socioeconomic characters and predictors of
intention

Education Income Farm Size Age

Attitude .307** .477** .435** -.191*

SN ns ns ns .464**

PBC ns .493** .354** -.260**

*. correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)

**. correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
ns. not significant
Table 4 Contribution of behavioural beliefs for the fertiliser application behaviour

Independent variable Regression Dependent Beta Sig. Rank

Path variable value

Yield increase 0.335** 0.006 1

Income increase 0.029* 0.010 3

Coconut palm grow vigorously 0.182* 0.040 2

Gives sustainable yield over the years 0.027** 0.000 4

Reduces pest and disease damages -0.270 ns

Increase the yields of intercrops 0.532 ns

Reduce immature nut falling 0.680 ns

Increases the nut weight Intention to 0.254 ns

Continuous application of fertiliser is apply 0.178 ns

required if the palm get adopted to the fertiliser

fertiliser

Increase the maintenance cost 0.272 ns

Cause environmental pollution -0.30 ns

Cause diseases to human -0.482 ns

Increase the growth of weeds 0.133 ns

Degrade the soil -0.961 ns

R2 value 58%

F Statistics 15.18, (P<0.000)

Table 5 Contribution of Normative beliefs for the fertiliser application behaviour

Independent variable Regression Dependent Beta value Sig. Rank

Path variable

Members of my family 0.44 ns

Coconut Development Officer 0.074** 0.003 1

Intention to
Neighboring grower 0.087 ns
apply
Other coconut growers 0.546 ns
fertiliser
Fertiliser shopkeeper 0.003* 0.020 2

Coconut pluckers -0.168 ns

Coconut traders (buyers) 0.241 ns

R2 value 45.8%

F Statistics 46.699, (P<0.005)

Table 6 Contribution of control beliefs for the fertiliser application behaviour

Independent variable Regression Dependent Beta value Sig. Rank

Path variable

Lack of technical knowledge 0.204* 0.001 2

Availability of fertiliser 0.194 ns

Labor scarcity 0.179* 0.020 3

Affordability (Price of fertiliser) 0.643** 0.006 1

Farm gate price for coconuts 0.179 ns

High labor wages 0.064 ns

No suitable time to apply fertiliser Intention to -0.41 ns

due to climate change (Heavy rain apply

and drought) fertiliser

No interest 0.071* 0.007 4

No nutrient deficiency symptoms 0.435 ns

No trust on fertiliser mixtures 0.096 ns

Less time to involve 0.034 ns

No adequate money 0.078 ns

No credit facilities 0.006 ns

Fluctuation of coconut price 0.026 ns

R2 value 55.9%

F Statistics 32.39, (P<0.005)

Table 7 Explanatory variables vs. application of fertiliser

Independent variable Regression Dependent Chi-square Sig. Nagelkerke

weight variable value R2

1 Step Attitude Behaviour 33.132 0.001 0.112

2 Step Subjective norm Behaviour 11.548 0.001 0.096

3 Step Perceived behavioural Behaviour 115.892 0.001 0.501

control
Table 8 Willingness to pay for 50 kg of APM (Adult Palm Mixture) fertiliser bag using
CVM

Amount willing Frequency Percentage (%) Cumulative percentage

to pay (Rs.) (%)

2500 10 2.73 2.73

2300 5 1.36 4.09

2000 95 25.96 30.05

1800 59 16.12 46.17

1500 116 31.70 77.87

1300 81 22.13 100

Total respondents 366

 Attitude

Subjective Norm Intention Behaviour

Perceived Behavioural Control

Source: Ajzen, (1985

Figure 1 Graphical illustration of TPB