IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jagris/v13y2023i3p548-d1079242.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Relationships between Farmer Psychological Profiles and Farm Business Performance amongst Smallholder Beef and Poultry Farmers in South Africa

Author

Listed:
  • Renato A. Villano

    (UNE Business School, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia)

  • Isaac Koomson

    (UNE Business School, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia)

  • Nkhanedzeni B. Nengovhela

    (UNE Business School, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia
    Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development, Pretoria 0001, South Africa)

  • Livhuwani Mudau

    (Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development, Pretoria 0001, South Africa)

  • Heather M. Burrow

    (UNE Business School, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia)

  • Navjot Bhullar

    (School of Psychology, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia
    Discipline of Psychology, Edith Cowan University, Perth, WA 6027, Australia)

Abstract

Beef cattle and poultry are critically important livestock for improving household food security and alleviating poverty amongst smallholder farmers in South Africa. In this paper, our goal is to examine the relationships between farmer psychological profiles and farm business performance of commercially oriented beef cattle and poultry smallholder farmers in South Africa. We employ a multipronged interdisciplinary approach to test the theory of planned behaviour and its relationship to farm business performance. First, a behavioural science-informed survey instrument was employed to collect data from randomly selected farmer participants in two major beef and poultry projects undertaken by the authors. Second, a latent profile analysis was used to identify the psychological profiles of those farmers. Third, traditional and estimated indicators of farm business performance were obtained using descriptive and econometric-based approaches, including logistic regression and stochastic frontier analyses. The estimated farm business performance indicators were correlated with the psychological profiles of farmers. Results from the latent profile analysis showed three distinct profiles of beef and poultry farmers clearly differentiated by their ability to control and succeed in their farm business enterprises; criteria included attitude, openness to ideas, personality, perceived capabilities, self-efficacy, time orientation, and farm- and personal-related concerns. Profile 1 (‘Fatalists’) scored themselves negatively on their ability to control and succeed in their business enterprises. The majority of farmers were generally neutral about their ability to control and succeed in their businesses (Profile 2, ‘Traditionalists’), while a relatively small group of farmers were confident of their ability to succeed (Profile 3, ‘Entrepreneurs’). We found evidence of significant differences in farm business performance amongst the different profiles of farmers. As far as we can determine, this is the only study to have assessed farm business performance based on a differentiation of farmers’ psychological profiles. Our results provide a framework to further investigate whether particular types of on-farm interventions and training methods can be customised for different segments of farmers based on their preferred learning styles.

Suggested Citation

  • Renato A. Villano & Isaac Koomson & Nkhanedzeni B. Nengovhela & Livhuwani Mudau & Heather M. Burrow & Navjot Bhullar, 2023. "Relationships between Farmer Psychological Profiles and Farm Business Performance amongst Smallholder Beef and Poultry Farmers in South Africa," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-22, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:13:y:2023:i:3:p:548-:d:1079242
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/13/3/548/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/13/3/548/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Omphile Temoso & David Hadley & Renato Villano, 2015. "Performance Measurement of Extensive Beef Cattle Farms in Botswana," Agrekon, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 54(4), pages 87-112, November.
    2. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    3. Nyein Nyein Kyaw & Soojung Ahn & Sang Hyeon Lee, 2018. "Analysis of the Factors Influencing Market Participation among Smallholder Rice Farmers in Magway Region, Central Dry Zone of Myanmar," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-15, November.
    4. Sirak Bahta & Amos Omore & Darek Baker & Iheanacho Okike & Berhanu Gebremedhin & Francis Wanyoike, 2021. "An Analysis of Technical Efficiency in the Presence of Developments Toward Commercialization: Evidence from Tanzania’s Milk Producers," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 33(3), pages 502-525, June.
    5. Marlene Louw & Tracy Davids & Nico Scheltema, 2017. "Broiler production in South Africa: Is there space for smallholders in the commercial chicken coup?," Development Southern Africa, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 34(5), pages 564-574, September.
    6. Adnan, Nadia & Nordin, Shahrina Md & Ali, Murad, 2018. "A solution for the sunset industry: Adoption of Green Fertiliser Technology amongst Malaysian paddy farmers," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 575-584.
    7. Saul Ngarava & Mzwanele Phetshe & Abbyssinia Mushunje, 2019. "Market Awareness and Participation for Cattle Farmers in the Kaonafatso ya Dikgomo (KyD) Scheme in KwaZulu-Natal Province, South Africa," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-12, October.
    8. Temoso, Omphile & Villano, Renato & Hadley, David, 2016. "Evaluating the productivity gap between commercial and traditional beef production systems in Botswana," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 30-39.
    9. Gusha, B. & Palmer, A.R. & Villano, R.A., 2018. "Performance of livestock production in north eastern cape communal areas: a stochastic frontier analysis," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277555, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    10. Aigner, Dennis & Lovell, C. A. Knox & Schmidt, Peter, 1977. "Formulation and estimation of stochastic frontier production function models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 6(1), pages 21-37, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Diana Bogueva & Maria Marques & Carla Forte Maiolino Molento & Dora Marinova & Clive J. C. Phillips, 2023. "Will the Cows and Chickens Come Home? Perspectives of Australian and Brazilian Beef and Poultry Farmers towards Diversification," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(16), pages 1-37, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Feng Ye & Zhongna Yang & Mark Yu & Susan Watson & Ashley Lovell, 2023. "Can Market-Oriented Reform of Agricultural Subsidies Promote the Growth of Agricultural Green Total Factor Productivity? Empirical Evidence from Maize in China," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-20, January.
    2. Love Offeibea Asiedu-Ayeh & Xungang Zheng & Kobina Agbodah & Bright Senyo Dogbe & Adjei Peter Darko, 2022. "Promoting the Adoption of Agricultural Green Production Technologies for Sustainable Farming: A Multi-Attribute Decision Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-21, August.
    3. Ke-Fen Chang & Pei-Ing Wu & Je-Liang Liou & Shou-Lin Yang, 2022. "Contract Owner’s Best Commanding for Sweet Potato Farming Based on the Theory of Planned Behavior," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-18, August.
    4. Hongyun Si & Jian-gang Shi & Daizhong Tang & Shiping Wen & Wei Miao & Kaifeng Duan, 2019. "Application of the Theory of Planned Behavior in Environmental Science: A Comprehensive Bibliometric Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(15), pages 1-26, August.
    5. Wang, Qian & Ren, Shuming, 2022. "Evaluation of green technology innovation efficiency in a regional context: A dynamic network slacks-based measuring approach," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    6. Daxini, Amar & Ryan, Mary & O’Donoghue, Cathal & Barnes, Andrew P., 2019. "Understanding farmers’ intentions to follow a nutrient management plan using the theory of planned behaviour," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 428-437.
    7. Rafay Waseem & Gershom Endelani Mwalupaso & Faria Waseem & Humayoon Khan & Ghulam Mustafa Panhwar & Yangyan Shi, 2020. "Adoption of Sustainable Agriculture Practices in Banana Farm Production: A Study from the Sindh Region of Pakistan," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(10), pages 1-14, May.
    8. Yu, Yihua & Guo, Jin, 2016. "Identifying electricity-saving potential in rural China: Empirical evidence from a household survey," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 1-9.
    9. Mengyuan Lu & Bin Guo & Guohua Chen & Lei Yuan & Runnan Xing & Yu Huang, 2022. "A Study on the Factors Influencing Farmers’ Intention to Revitalize Idle Homesteads Based on Improved TPB Framework—Analysis of the Moderating Effect of Farmer Differentiation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-20, November.
    10. Wang, Mingliang & Gong, Shunlong & Liang, Luyu & Bai, Li & Weng, Zhenlin & Tang, Jin, 2023. "Norms triumph over self-interest! The role of perceived values and different norms on sustainable agricultural practices," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    11. Maria Andersson & Ola Eriksson & Chris Von Borgstede, 2012. "The Effects of Environmental Management Systems on Source Separation in the Work and Home Settings," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 4(6), pages 1-17, June.
    12. Paul Hewson & Keming Yu, 2008. "Quantile regression for binary performance indicators," Applied Stochastic Models in Business and Industry, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(5), pages 401-418, September.
    13. Tran Huy Phuong & Thanh Trung Hieu, 2015. "Predictors of Entrepreneurial Intentions of Undergraduate Students in Vietnam: An Empirical Study," International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, Human Resource Management Academic Research Society, International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, vol. 5(8), pages 46-55, August.
    14. Hasan, Iftekhar & Lozano-Vivas, Ana, 2002. "Organizational Form and Expense Preference: Spanish Experience," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(2), pages 135-150, April.
    15. Peng Cheng & Zhe Ouyang & Yang Liu, 0. "The effect of information overload on the intention of consumers to adopt electric vehicles," Transportation, Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-20.
    16. Lundgren, Tommy & Marklund, Per-Olov & Zhang, Shanshan, 2016. "Industrial energy demand and energy efficiency – Evidence from Sweden," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 130-152.
    17. Alsalem, Amani & Fry, Marie-Louise & Thaichon, Park, 2020. "To donate or to waste it: Understanding posthumous organ donation attitude," Australasian marketing journal, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 87-97.
    18. Subhash C. Ray, 2004. "A Simple Statistical Test of Violation of the Weak Axiom of Cost Minimization," Indian Economic Review, Department of Economics, Delhi School of Economics, vol. 39(1), pages 111-121, January.
    19. Benoît Lécureux & Adrien Bonnet & Ouassim Manout & Jaâfar Berrada & Louafi Bouzouina, 2022. "Acceptance of Shared Autonomous Vehicles: A Literature Review of stated choice experiments," Working Papers hal-03814947, HAL.
    20. Raushan Bokusheva & Lukáš Čechura & Subal C. Kumbhakar, 2023. "Estimating persistent and transient technical efficiency and their determinants in the presence of heterogeneity and endogeneity," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 74(2), pages 450-472, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:13:y:2023:i:3:p:548-:d:1079242. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.