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

Sugar is a critical staple food in Indonesia, and ensuring its supply
and demand is a top priority for government policies (Kementerian
Pertanian, 2021; Sulaiman et al., 2019; Widyasari et al., 2022). With
a population of over 260 million people, meeting household sugar
consumption as well as the needs of the food and beverage industry,
which requires over 7 million tons annually, presents a considerable
challenge. In 2020, Indonesia produced 2.12 million tons of sugar,
forcing the country to import approximately 5.5 million tons to meet
domestic demand, making Indonesia the world’s largest sugar importer
(BPS, 2021). The Indonesian government has identified sugar develop-
ment as a top priority, aiming to produce at least 2.9 million tons of
sugar domestically to meet household demand (Sulaiman et al., 2019).
However, there are significant challenges facing Indonesian sugarcane
development, including low productivity and quality, inefficiencies in
farms and mills, land use changes, pests and diseases, and climate
variability. These issues have been identified in multiple studies and
need to be addressed to increase sugar production in Indonesia (e.g., Su-
laiman et al., 2019; Toharisman and Triantarti, 2016; Widyasari et al.,
2022).
the importance of sustainable food production systems and climate-
resilient practices to enhance agricultural production and farmers’
adaptability to climate issues (Iazzi et al., 2022). Climate change is
expected to pose a significant threat to food production worldwide,
directly and indirectly affecting agricultural productivity (Mesquita and
Bursztyn, 2016; Ortiz-Bobea et al., 2021; Zhu et al., 2022). Specifically
for sugarcane production, the impact of climate change has been widely
studied (e.g., Christina et al., 2021; Flack-Prain et al., 2021; Guo et al.,
2021; Linnenluecke et al., 2018, 2020; Pipitpukdee et al., 2020). For
instance, in Brazil, De Medeiros Silva et al. (2019) found that increasing
air temperature had a negative impact on sugarcane productivity,
while increased precipitation had a positive effect. Similarly, Santillán-
Fernández et al. (2016) reported that a decrease in rainfall and changes
in its annual distribution led to lower sugarcane yields. Furthermore,
Ranomahera et al. (2020) identified a significant correlation between
rainfall rates and sugarcane productivity in East Java, Indonesia. To
mitigate the effects of climate change, using climate-adapted varieties,
improving management practices such as fertilizers and pesticides use,
and implementing water management systems such as irrigation and
drainage are among the most recommended adaptation strategies (Lin-
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: abdul.muis.hasibuan@brin.go.id (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.
2016). For example, Zhao and Li (2015) emphasized the importance
of mitigating environmental stress on sugarcane plantations caused
by climate change through the adoption of a sustainable production
system, including the development of new cultivars and the application
of best management practices such as nutrition management (Verma
et al., 2020). Therefore, it is crucial to implement sustainable practices
to ensure food security and increase the resilience of the agricultural
sector against climate change.
However, implementing climate adaptation strategies, particularly
for small-scale farmers in developing countries, poses significant chal-
lenges. Small-scale farmers generally have limited adaptive capacity,
including education, income, and managerial skills, and have limited
access to supportive services, which restrict their ability to adapt to
climate risks (Mulwa et al., 2017; Ncoyini et al., 2022; Tripathi and
Mishra, 2017). In Indonesia, sugarcane is primarily cultivated by small-
scale farmers, with more than 80% of them grown in rainfed land
(Widyasari et al., 2022), making them more vulnerable to climate
issues. As climate change has a detrimental effect on sugarcane farming
systems and their vulnerability to climate risks, it is essential to gain
an understanding of the response behavior of small-scale farmers.
Research has demonstrated that farmers’ adoption of climate adap-
tation practices is influenced by their risk perception and prefer-
ences. Specifically, farmers’ risk perception of climate events has been
shown to shape their choices of farm adaptation strategies (e.g., Khan
et al., 2020; Singh et al., 2022; Villacis et al., 2021). Additionally,
a farmer’s risk preferences may also impact their decision-making
regarding which adaptation strategy to employ in the face of increasing
climate-related risks to their sugarcane farming system (Hasibuan et al.,
2022; Jianjun et al., 2015). However, it is important to note that
individual farmer preferences are not the only factor at play in climate
adaptation. Enhancing farmers’ adaptive capacity through supportive
systems can also encourage the adoption of climate risk management
practices (Ayal et al., 2023; Cinner et al., 2018). These supportive
systems can include social interaction and learning processes that
facilitate adaptation to climate change, as demonstrated in previous
studies (see., Li et al., 2022; Saptutyningsih et al., 2020; Wuepper et al.,
2018).
Since climate adaptation practices such as sustainable soil and nutri-
ent management are closely related to the input supply and availability,
integrated crop-livestock practices may be relevant as a key driver
(Thornton and Herrero, 2014). A mixed crop-livestock system can also
be considered as an income portfolio or buffering strategy for climate
adaptation (Acosta et al., 2021), especially for small-scale farmers who
may face many constraints in applying climate adaptation practices.
In the context of sugarcane farming, the integration of sugarcane with
cattle is the most common model in many countries (De Souza et al.,
2019; Gradiz et al., 2007), so it is expected to have an association with
climate adaptation. However, there exists a research gap concerning
the potential role of integrated crop-livestock systems as a climate
adaptation strategy specifically for small-scale sugarcane farmers.
Upon an extensive review of the existing literature on climate
adaptation practices in sugarcane farming, we identified a crucial gap
pertaining to the relationship between individual preferences, agricul-
tural support services, and integrated crop-livestock systems in relation
to climate adaptation behaviors. While previous studies have explored
individual preferences or specific aspects of agricultural support ser-
vices, there is a dearth of comprehensive research that integrates these
factors to investigate their collective influence on climate adaptation
practices among sugarcane farmers. Thus, our study aims to fill this
critical research gap by examining the combined effects of individual
preferences, agricultural support services, and integrated crop-livestock
systems on climate adaptation behaviors in sugarcane farming. Specif-
ically, the objectives of this study are to (i) investigate the influence
of individual risk preferences and climate risk perception on climate
adaptation practices in sugarcane farming; (ii) examine the role of
farmers’ support systems, such as extension services, information ac-
cessibility and farmers institutions in facilitating climate adaptation
2
Resources, Environment and Sustainability 13 (2023) 100129
practices among sugarcane farmers; and (iii) assess the association of
integrated crop-livestock systems on climate adaptation behaviors in
the context of sugarcane farming.
Our study makes significant contributions to the existing literature,
with broader implications for the field. Firstly, we provide empirical
evidence linking individual preferences, such as climate risk perception
and risk attitude, to specific climate adaptation behaviors in sugarcane
farming. This not only advances our understanding of the relationship
between individual perceptions and adaptive practices but also offers
insights into potential strategies for enhancing climate resilience among
farmers in similar contexts. Secondly, we highlight the significant role
of advisory services, farmers’ organizations, and information access in
facilitating climate adaptation in sugarcane farming. These findings
have implications for policymakers, as they demonstrate the impor-
tance of establishing a comprehensive and accessible support system
for farmers, which can be applicable to other regions in the global
south facing similar challenges. Lastly, our study confirms the posi-
tive contribution of sugarcane–cattle integration to climate adaptation
behavior, such as organic fertilizer provision or diversified household
income portfolios. These findings have implications for promoting sus-
tainable agricultural practices and livelihood diversification strategies
in sugarcane-dependent regions, not only within our study context but
also in other countries of the global south.
2. Method
2.1. Data
This study is part of the Sugarcane Innovative and Collaborative
Research and Development Project (Riset dan Pengembangan Inovatif
Kolaboratif (RPIK) Tebu) IAARD project, which took place in Blitar
Regency, East Java Province, Indonesia (Fig. 1). The selection of this
regency was purposeful due to its status as one of the primary sugarcane
production centers, where the integration of sugarcane plantations with
cattle is widespread. As of 2022, this regency had 9,685 hectares of
sugarcane plantation, which involving nearly 33,000 farm households
(BPS, 2023; Directorate General of Estates, 2022). This region is also
experiencing the impact of climate change, particularly with increasing
temperatures and changes in rainfall patterns (Surjono et al., 2022).
The study included a sample of 220 farmer households, divided into
three clusters. The first cluster comprised farmers directly involved in
the RPIK Project in Ngembul Village, Binangun District, totaling 56
households. The second cluster consisted of sugarcane farmers from
neighboring villages of the RPIK project site but still within the same
sub-district, namely Rejoso and Kedungwungu Villages (46 and 58
households, respectively). The third cluster included farmers from a
neighboring sub-district, specifically Jugo Village, Kesamben District,
with a total of 60 households. Respondents from the RPIK project in
Ngembul Village were purposefully selected, while respondents from
the other three villages were randomly selected. After conducting the
data cleaning process and excluding incomplete data, particularly those
pertaining to the variables utilized in the analysis, a final sample of
209 respondent farmers was included in the analysis. The face-to-face
survey was conducted using a structured questionnaire from September
to October 2021.
Table 1 presents the socio-demographic characteristics of the re-
spondents. The average age of the farmers was 50.3 years, indicating
that aging farmers are a prevalent issue in the sugarcane industry in
Indonesia. Data from the Indonesian Statistical Agency (BPS) indicates
that around 48.22% of the labor force in agriculture is over 50 years
old (BPS, 2022). On average, farmers had completed junior high school,
with 8.2 years of formal education. The average household size was
less than four people. Respondents had considerable experience in sug-
arcane farming, with an average of 14.59 years. The average sugarcane
farming area was 0.6 ha, and almost 60% of farmers owned cattle, with
an average of 1.5 cattle per household. The average sugarcane income
was IDR 25.1 million per year, and non-agricultural income was IDR 3
million per year, indicating the high dependency of respondents on the
agricultural sector.
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
In this study, we examine the association of risk behaviors (climate
Risk Perception Index (RPI) and risk preferences) with climate adapta-
tion practices in sugarcane farming. RPI is measured for several climate
events, i.e., increasing temperature, drought, precipitation, and rainy
days. The RPIs are constructed as a metric of multiplication form of
perceived probability/likelihood of a particular climate event with the
perceived impact of the climate event on sugarcane farming, following
Hasibuan et al. (2020). To understand the perceived likelihood and
impact, we provided a structured questionnaire as follows: (a) ‘‘In my
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
farming ’’. Based on the questions, the respondents could respond to
the perception statements on a seven-point Likert scale (1 = strongly
disagree; . . . ; 7 = strongly agree). While for the risk preferences, we
adopt Falk et al. (2018) question for risk preferences self-assessment. In
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,
he/she is ‘completely unwilling to take risks,’ and a 10 means he/she is
‘very willing to take risks.’ They can also choose any number between
0 and 10.
2.3. Econometric approach
In this study, we examine the association of risk behaviors, farm-
ers’ support systems, and sugarcane–cattle integration with climate
adaptation practices that can be conceptualized as:
𝐴𝑘 = 𝑓 (𝑧, 𝑅𝑖𝑠𝑘, 𝐹 𝑆𝑆, 𝐼)
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-
port system, and 𝐼 is the number of cattle owned by the sugarcane
farmers. Given that we are measuring climate adaptation practices
as categorical variables and there might be correlations among un-
observed disturbances for different climate adaptation practices, we
choose to estimate Eq. (1) using multivariate probit models, which
assume a cumulative standard normal distribution as the link function.
The outcomes are whether respondent 𝑖 applies practices 𝑘 to adapt
to climate change issues. Hence, the probability of a farmer 𝑖 applying
practices 𝑘 is expressed as:
𝑌𝑖𝑘∗ = 𝑿 ′𝑖𝑘 𝛽𝑘 + 𝜀𝑘 , 𝑘 = 1, … , 5 (2)
and
{
1 𝑖𝑓 𝑌𝑖𝑘∗ > 0
𝑌𝑖𝑘 = , k = 1, …, 5 (3)
0 𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑤𝑖𝑠𝑒
where
𝑿 ′𝑖𝑘 𝛽𝑘 =𝛼𝑘 + 𝛽1𝑘 𝑍 + 𝛽2𝑘 𝑅𝑖𝑠𝑘 + 𝛽3𝑘 𝐹 𝑆𝑆 + 𝛽4𝑘 𝐼 (4)
The latent response, which is denoted by 𝑌𝑖𝑘∗ and reflects unob-
served factors associated with the 𝑘 type of compliance indicator and 𝑖
farmer, is assumed to be a linear combination of 𝑿 𝑖𝑘 covariates. These
covariates include factors that affect compliance, such as household
characteristics, risk behaviors, farmers’ support systems, and crop-cattle
integration, and the error term 𝜀𝑘 . The 𝜀𝑘 follows a multivariate normal
(MVN) distribution with a zero conditional mean and variance that is
(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.
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
The respondents in this study reported implementing several strate-
gies to minimize the impact of climate change on sugarcane farming
(Fig. 5). The most popular strategies applied are increasing the appli-
cation of herbicides (46.41%), followed by increasing the application
of fertilizers (chemical (38.28%) and organic (35.89%)). About 10.5%
of the farmers reported developing irrigation, while 14.83% reported
using climate-adaptive varieties.
3.6. Multivariate probit models estimation
As discussed in Section 3.2, we employ a multivariate probit model
to examine the variables that are associated with climate adaptation
practices in sugarcane farming. The estimation results are presented in
Table 3.
5
Resources, Environment and Sustainability 13 (2023) 100129
According to our analysis presented in Table 3, the influence of
household characteristics on climate adaptation among sugarcane farm-
ers is relatively limited. However, we do find some significant asso-
ciations. Specifically, older farmers are more likely to adopt climate-
adapted sugarcane varieties and apply more organic fertilizers. More-
over, farmers with more extended experience in sugarcane farming
are more likely to apply more chemical fertilizers and less likely to
apply more herbicides. Farmers with larger sugarcane areas and higher
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.
Second, the results of our study support the hypothesis that risk
behaviors are significantly associated with climate adaptation practices
among sugarcane farmers. Farmers with higher RPI for increasing
temperature and precipitation have a greater likelihood of using more
chemical fertilizers and herbicides. On the other hand, those with
higher RPI for increasing rainy days have a greater probability of
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.
using more herbicides. Additionally, risk preferences also play a sig-
nificant role in adaptation behavior. Farmers who are more risk-averse
tend to use more chemical fertilizers while using fewer herbicides. It
suggests that chemical fertilizer application might be perceived as a
risk-decreasing strategy for climate issues and vice versa for herbicides.
Third, in terms of the association between farmers’ support systems
and climate adaptation behaviors, our findings suggest that farmers
who participate in sugarcane training have a higher likelihood of
adopting climate-adapted sugarcane varieties and using more organic
fertilizers as a climate adaptation strategy. In addition, farmers who are
involved in sugarcane extension activities have a higher probability of
using both chemical and organic fertilizers. Membership in a farmers’
group or APTRI is positively associated with using more herbicides
but negatively associated with using chemical fertilizers. Furthermore,
farmers who obtain sugarcane information from other farmers have
a higher probability of using more organic fertilizers but a lower
probability of using irrigation. Interestingly, farmers with access to
credit have a lower probability of using irrigation. Finally, farmers who
do not have any climate information sources are more likely to use
more herbicides.
Finally, we find that cattle ownership is positively associated with
the adoption of climate-adapted varieties and the increased use of
chemical and organic fertilizers in conjunction with sugarcane farming.
However, there is a negative association between cattle ownership and
the use of irrigation as a climate adaptation strategy.
4. Discussion
4.1. Risk behaviors and climate adaptation practices
Our results, in general, indicate that farmers believe climate change
has a negative impact on sugarcane farming, particularly in terms of
decreasing sugarcane productivity. This finding may be attributed to
the strong correlation between sugarcane productivity and precipita-
tion rates (Ranomahera et al., 2020). As climate change often leads
to changes in rainfall patterns, it can influence the farmers’ beliefs
about how climate issues affect their sugarcane productivity. However,
this belief may also reflect the farmers’ awareness of climate issues
and represent an important step toward adopting climate adaptation
behaviors (see. Bohensky et al., 2013; Frank et al., 2011).
When examining the farmers’ perception of climate issues in more
detail, focusing on climate RPI of specific climate events, our study find
that sugarcane farmers perceive increasing temperatures as having the
highest RPI. This finding suggests that sugarcane farmers might priori-
tize minimizing the risk associated with rising temperatures over other
events, such as increasing droughts or rainfalls, as a higher risk per-
ception can lead to a higher adaptation priority (Bohensky et al., 2013;
Khanal et al., 2018). This priority may be attributed to the significant
negative impact of increasing temperature on sugarcane productivity
(De Medeiros Silva et al., 2019). Although increasing drought also has
similar outcomes (Santillán-Fernández et al., 2016), better irrigation
support in the study sites (see. Simatupang and Timmer, 2008) could
mitigate the negative impact of low rainfall events, resulting in a lower
RPI for drought. Therefore, our findings suggest that interventions
addressing increasing temperatures should be prioritized to mitigate the
negative impact of climate change on sugarcane productivity.
Our analysis reveals a relationship between the RPI of climate
events and the use of fertilizers and pesticides as climate adapta-
tion strategies. Specifically, we find that farmers with higher RPIs for
increasing temperature and precipitation tend to use more chemical
fertilizers. This result suggests that farmers may apply more chemi-
cal fertilizers to mitigate the potential negative effects of increasing
temperature on sugarcane productivity, as it is perceived as the most
significant climate risk. Previous studies have also emphasized the im-
portance of fertilizer in increasing sugarcane productivity (Otto et al.,
2022). In addition, the RPI of increasing precipitation is positively
7
Resources, Environment and Sustainability 13 (2023) 100129
associated with the use of chemical fertilizers. Increasing rainfall can
reduce sugarcane yield by disrupting crop physiology and leaching
nutrients from the soil (Christina et al., 2021). Consistent with this
finding, farmers may perceive that increasing precipitation could lead
to soil nutrient leaching, thereby requiring more chemical fertilizers to
support sugarcane growth.
Secondly, our findings indicate that the RPI of climate events is pos-
itively linked to the use of herbicides as a climate adaptation strategy.
Specifically, sugarcane farmers tend to use more herbicides if they per-
ceive a higher RPI of increasing temperature, precipitation, and rainy
season periods. This finding aligns with previous research, suggesting
that warm and rainy weather conditions can promote weed germina-
tion and growth, potentially resulting in up to an 80% reduction in
sugarcane yield (Christina et al., 2021; Susha et al., 2018). Therefore,
the application of herbicides is considered an effective and efficient
strategy to manage weeds and maintain sugarcane productivity under
such conditions.
Third, our estimation results show that risk preferences play a
significant role in determining the application of chemical fertilizers
and herbicides as climate adaptation practices in sugarcane farming.
The increasing application of chemical fertilizers is expected to reduce
the variability of the outcomes of sugarcane farming, making it a
risk-reduction strategy. More risk-averse farmers tend to apply more
chemical fertilizers than risk-taking farmers, consistent with previous
studies (e.g., Haile et al., 2020; Isik and Khanna, 2003; Kebede, 2022;
Meyer-Aurich and Karatay, 2019; Qiao and Huang, 2021). In contrast,
our findings suggest that more risk-taking farmers are also more likely
to use more herbicides, indicating that herbicide applications may be
perceived as increasing the risk in sugarcane farming. This association
may be linked to the higher uncertainty of outcomes in sugarcane
farming, as also found in previous studies (Asravor, 2019; Möhring
et al., 2020).
4.2. The role of farmers’ support system on climate adaptation behaviors
To develop effective and inclusive climate adaptation policies and
interventions, it is crucial to gain a better understanding of the support
systems that shape farmers’ behavior (Below et al., 2012; Mogomotsi
et al., 2020). However, for small-scale farmers, limited accessibility,
and awareness of support systems such as training/extension programs,
farmers’ organizations, and information can be major barriers to adapt-
ing to climate issues (Eshetu et al., 2021; Ojo et al., 2021). Our findings
confirm this situation, as we observe that farmers who are involved
in support systems tend to adopt more climate adaptation strategies
(see Table 3). Given that farmers’ participation in support systems is
relatively low (except for farmers’ groups), these results underscore the
need for governments and related industries to encourage and provide
more inclusive and accessible support systems for farmers.
First, our analysis highlights the importance of extension and train-
ing programs for promoting climate adaptation practices in sugarcane
farming. We find a positive association between farmers’ participation
in extension and training programs and their use of climate-adapted va-
rieties, as well as both chemical and organic fertilizers. These programs
are primarily provided by the government through extension staff and
researchers, offering great potential to promote climate adaptation
practices. However, our survey revealed that only a small percentage
of sugarcane farmers in the study sites participate in sugarcane training
and extension (4.3% and 11.5%, respectively). Therefore, there is a
need to increase the involvement of farmers in these programs and
provide more inclusive and accessible extension and training services to
support their climate adaptation efforts. This could be achieved through
the involvement of other stakeholders, such as sugar mills and farm
input producers, in the provision of advisory services to farmers.
Second, the role of farmers’ institutions in enhancing sugarcane
farmers’ climate adaptive capacity has the potential to be strength-
ened. Our study results show that membership in a farmers’ institution
A.M. Hasibuan, S. Wulandari, I.K. Ardana et al.
(such as a farmers’ group or APTRI) is associated with higher use of
herbicides. This implies that farmers’ institutions may have a role in
advocating for the use of specific inputs, such as herbicides, as part
of climate adaptation practices. By doing so, these institutions can
potentially deliver campaigns promoting the proper use of herbicides
for climate adaptation. In particular, APTRI has been shown in previous
studies to play an important role in improving the bargaining power
of sugarcane farmers and influencing government policy through col-
lective action (Stapleton, 2006; Suwandari et al., 2020). However, our
survey indicates that membership in APTRI is relatively low (12.9%)
compared to membership in farmers’ groups, which is much higher at
91.8%. Encouraging more sugarcane farmers to become members of
such institutions can play a vital role in strengthening their climate
adaptive capacity. The importance of farmers’ institutions in climate
adaptation is also supported by Ncoyini et al. (2022), who find that
farmers’ groups can serve as a basis for policymakers to encourage
small-scale sugarcane farmers to adapt to climate issues.
Lastly, our study highlights the crucial role of information access
in the climate adaptation behavior of small-scale sugarcane farmers,
which is consistent with previous research (i.e., Li et al., 2022; Mulwa
et al., 2017; Ncoyini et al., 2022). Specifically, we examined the
variables such as internet access, mobile phone ownership, sugarcane
information sources, and climate information sources. We find that
the use of internet and mobile phones for disseminating technolog-
ical information to sugarcane farmers is currently underutilized in
the study location. However, the high level of internet accessibility
(78.0%) and mobile phone ownership (97.1%) presents an opportunity
for the development of ICT-based farmer education in climate adap-
tation. Previous studies have demonstrated the potential of ICT-based
farmer education as a complement to conventional extension services
(e.g., Dzanku et al., 2021; Hasibuan et al., 2020, 2021; Zheng et al.,
2021). We also find that the majority of farmers (85.2%) obtain sugar-
cane technology information from other farmers, which raises concerns
about the accuracy of the information they receive. This highlights
the potential for developing farmer-to-farmer extension programs to
complement formal extension services, with supervision from the gov-
ernment or related industries (Hasibuan et al., 2022). However, further
analysis is needed to effectively implement ICT-based learning and
farmer-to-farmer extension programs for improved sugarcane advisory
services.
4.3. The importance of sugarcane–cattle integration
Mixed farming systems that integrate crops and livestock, such as
sugarcane and cattle farming, have been widely adopted by small-scale
farmers in Indonesia, and have proven beneficial for their livelihoods
in rural areas (Priyanti et al., 2015). In the context of sugarcane
farming, the integration of sugarcane and cattle not only provides
economic benefits but also contributes to farmers’ climate adapta-
tion practices. Our study demonstrates a positive association between
sugarcane–cattle integration and the adoption of climate-adapted sug-
arcane varieties and the use of fertilizers (both chemical and organic).
The positive relationship between mixed farming and the adoption of
climate-adapted varieties can be attributed to the provision of cattle
feed from sugarcane farming. In situations where current sugarcane
varieties may not perform optimally under specific climate conditions,
having climate-adapted varieties allows farmers to provide feed for
their cattle. Additionally, mixed farming can provide farmers with
better financial support, enabling them to adopt new varieties and
purchase more chemical fertilizers (Herrero et al., 2010).
The positive relationship between sugarcane–cattle integration and
the use of organic fertilizer as a climate adaptation strategy stems
from the fact that mixed farming provides a source of manure for
sugarcane fertilization. Organic fertilization has been shown to improve
soil quality and moisture retention, which are crucial for adapting
to climate issues like drought (Singh et al., 2019). Moreover, the
8
Resources, Environment and Sustainability 13 (2023) 100129
integrated sugarcane and cattle can enhance farmers’ financial ability
and risk management (Faria Corrêa et al., 2018; Herrero et al., 2010).
By combining sugarcane cultivation with cattle rearing, farmers can tap
into multiple revenue sources, minimizing risks and creating a stable
financial situation. This integration allows for efficient resource utiliza-
tion, reducing costs and ensuring continuous production and income
generation throughout the year (De Souza et al., 2019; Gradiz et al.,
2007; Ilham, 2016). However, the financial benefits of sugarcane–
cattle integration were not extensively examined in this study. Further
research is necessary to evaluate the economic impact on sugarcane
farming, cattle rearing, and the livelihoods of farmers’ households. Nev-
ertheless, promoting sugarcane–cattle mixed farming shows promise
in enhancing the climate adaptation capacity of small-scale farmers in
rural areas.
The negative association between sugarcane–cattle integration and
irrigation in our study can be explained by the benefits of organic
matter for sugarcane growth under water-stress conditions. Organic
fertilizers have been found to increase soil water retention, reduce soil
bulk density, and improve water storage capacity, which are essential
for crop growth and performance in water-limited conditions (Singh
et al., 2019). In addition to improving soil fertility, the application of
organic fertilizer from sugarcane–cattle integration can enhance crop
drought tolerance (Dimkpa et al., 2020; Shukla et al., 2019). Since the
sugarcane in our study is grown in rainfed land, it is more feasible
for farmers to apply organic fertilizer than to rely solely on irrigation
during the dry season. Moreover, a significant proportion of surveyed
farmers owned cattle, which can serve as a source of manure for the
sugarcane plantation. Therefore, promoting sugarcane–cattle integra-
tion can support farmers’ adaptation to climate change by improving
soil fertility and enhancing crop resilience to drought and reduce their
dependence on irrigation support.
5. Conclusion
In conclusion, this study sheds light on the important factors that
determine the climate adaptation behaviors of small-scale sugarcane
farmers. Our findings underscore the significance of risk behavior,
farmers’ support systems, and sugarcane–cattle integration in shaping
farmers’ adaptation behavior. Understanding these factors is crucial in
developing well-targeted and inclusive climate adaptation policies and
programs that cater to the needs of small-scale sugarcane farmers.
Our results demonstrate that farmers believe climate change as
a threat to sugarcane farming, particularly in terms of reduced pro-
ductivity. The perceived risks associated with rising temperatures and
precipitation are key drivers influencing farmers’ use of agricultural
inputs like fertilizers and pesticides for climate adaptation purposes.
These risk perceptions, along with farmers’ risk preferences, signifi-
cantly impact their decision-making regarding the application of these
inputs. Additionally, the low accessibility of farmers’ support systems,
such as extension and training programs, highlights the need for more
intensive advisory services for sugarcane farmers. Developing super-
vised farmers-to-farmers extensions and strengthening farmers’ institu-
tions are some potential interventions that policymakers could explore.
Furthermore, sugarcane–cattle integration is widely implemented and
plays a crucial role in helping farmers apply climate adaptation prac-
tices, such as adopting sugarcane climate-adapted varieties and increas-
ing the use of fertilizers (both chemical and organic). This integration
model has the potential to be implemented in other sugarcane pro-
duction centers to help farmers adapt to climate issues and improve
their livelihoods. Overall, this study emphasizes the importance of
understanding the determinants of farmers’ adaptation behavior to de-
velop effective climate adaptation policies and programs for small-scale
farmers in Indonesia and beyond.
This study has a limited scope and a small sample size, which may
not fully represent the heterogeneity of agroecosystems in sugarcane-
growing areas, particularly in Indonesia, especially when considering
A.M. Hasibuan, S. Wulandari, I.K. Ardana et al.
climate change issues. Future research should address these limitations
by incorporating larger and more diverse samples and considering a
broader range of contextual factors to enhance the generalizability and
depth of understanding regarding climate adaptation behaviors among
small-scale sugarcane farmers.
Acknowledgments
This research was part of the Sugarcane Innovative and Collabo-
rative Research and Development Project (Riset dan Pengembangan
Inovatif Kolaboratif (RPIK) Tebu), funded by the Indonesian Center for
Estate Crops Research and Development, IAARD, Indonesia.
References
Acosta, A., Nicolli, F., Karfakis, P., 2021. Coping with climate shocks: The complex
role of livestock portfolios. World Dev. 146, 105546. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
worlddev.2021.105546.
Asravor, R.K., 2019. Farmers’ risk preference and the adoption of risk management
strategies in Northern Ghana. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 62 (5), 881–900. http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2018.1452724.
Ayal, D.Y., Nure, A., Tesfaye, B., Ture, K., Zeleke, T.T., 2023. An appraisal on the
determinants of adaptation responses to the impacts of climate variability on coffee
production: Implication to household food security in Nensebo Woreda. Ethiopia.
Clim. Serv. 30, 100383. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cliser.2023.100383.
Below, T.B., Mutabazi, K.D., Kirschke, D., Franke, C., Sieber, S., Siebert, R., Tsch-
erning, K., 2012. Can farmers’ adaptation to climate change be explained by
socio-economic household-level variables? Glob. Environ. Change 22 (1), 223–235.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.11.012.
Bohensky, E.L., Smajgl, A., Brewer, T., 2013. Patterns in household-level engagement
with climate change in Indonesia. Nature Clim. Change 3 (4), 348–351. http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1038/Nclimate1762.
BPS, 2022. Labour force situation in Indonesia: 2022. BPS - Statistics Indonesia, Jakarta.
BPS, 2023. Blitar Regency in Figures 2023. BPS-Statistics of Blitar Regency, Blitar.
Christina, M., Jones, M.R., Versini, A., Mézino, M., Le Mézo, L., Auzoux, S., Soulié, J.C.,
Poser, C., Gérardeaux, E, 2021. Impact of climate variability and extreme rainfall
events on sugarcane yield gap in a tropical island. Field Crop Res 274, 108326.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2021.108326.
Cinner, J.E., Adger, W.N., Allison, E.H., Barnes, M.L., Brown, K., Cohen, P.J., Gelcich, S.,
Hicks, C.C., Hughes, T.P., Lau, J., Marshall, N.A., Morrison, T.H., 2018. Building
adaptive capacity to climate change in tropical coastal communities. Nature Clim.
Change 8 (2), 117–123. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41558-017-0065-x.
De Medeiros Silva, W.K., De Freitas, G.P., Coelho Junior, L.M., De Almeida Pinto, P.A.L.,
Abrahão, R., 2019. Effects of climate change on sugarcane production in the state
of Paraíba (Brazil): a panel data approach (1990–2015). Clim. Change 154 (1–2),
195–209. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10584-019-02424-7.
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.,
2019. Sugarcane ethanol and beef cattle integration in Brazil. Biomass Bioenergy
120, 448–457. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2018.12.012.
Dimkpa, C.O., Andrews, J., Sanabria, J., Bindraban, P.S., Singh, U., Elmer, W.H.,
Gardea-Torresdey, J.L., White, J.C., 2020. Interactive effects of drought organic
fertilizer, and zinc oxide nanoscale and bulk particles on wheat performance and
grain nutrient accumulation. Sci. Total Environ. 722, 137808. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137808.
Directorate General of Estates, 2022. Statistical of national leading estate crops
commodity 2021-2023. Directorate General of Estates, Ministry of Agriculture,
Republic of Indonesia.
Dzanku, F.M., Osei, R., Osei-Akoto, I, 2021. The impact of mobile phone voice message
reminders on agricultural outcomes in Mali. Agr. Econ. 52 (5), 789–806. http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1111/agec.12654.
Eshetu, G., Johansson, T., Garedew, W., Yisahak, T., 2021. Determinants of smallholder
farmers’ adaptation options to climate change in a coffee-based farming system
of southwest ethiopia. Clim. Dev. 13 (4), 318–325. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
17565529.2020.1772706.
Falk, A., Becker, A., Dohmen, T., Enke, B., Huffman, D., Sunde, U., 2018. Global
evidence on economic preferences. Q. J. Econ. 133 (4), 1–48. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1093/qje/qjy013.
Faria Corrêa, R.G., Kliemann Neto, F.J., Souza, J.S., Lampert, V.N., Barcellos, J.O.J.,
2018. Enterprise risk management in integrated crop-livestock systems: a method
proposition. J. Agric. Sci. 156 (10), 1222–1232. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/
s002185961900008x.
Flack-Prain, S., Shi, L., Zhu, P., Rocha, H.R., Cabral, O., Hu, S., Williams, M., 2021.
The impact of climate change and climate extremes on sugarcane production. GCB
Bioenergy 13 (3), 408–424. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12797.
Frank, E., Eakin, H., Lopez-Carr, D., 2011. Social identity perception and motivation in
adaptation to climate risk in the coffee sector of Chiapas, Mexico. Glob. Environ.
Change 21 (1), 66–76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.11.001.
9
Resources, Environment and Sustainability 13 (2023) 100129
Gradiz, L., Sugimoto, A., Ujihara, K., Fukuhara, S., Kahi, A.K., Hirooka, H., 2007.
Beef cow–calf production system integrated with sugarcane production: Simulation
model development and application in Japan. Agric. Syst. 94 (3), 750–762. http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2007.03.003.
Guo, H., Huang, Z., Tan, M., Ruan, H., Awe, G.O., Are, K.S., Abegunrin, T.P.,
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
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.
130, 104930. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.104930.
Hasibuan, A.M., Gregg, D., Stringer, R., 2020. Accounting for diverse risk attitudes
in measures of risk perceptions: A case study of climate change risk for small-
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
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.
Hasibuan, A.M., Gregg, D., Stringer, R., 2022. Risk preferences intra-household dynam-
ics and spatial effects on chemical inputs use: Case of small-scale citrus farmers in
Indonesia. Land Use Policy 122, 106323. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.
2022.106323.
Herrero, M., Thornton, P.K., Notenbaert, A.M., Wood, S., Msangi, S., Freeman, H.A.,
Bossio, D., Dixon, J., Peters, M., van de Steeg, J., Lynam, J., Rao, P.P., Macmil-
lan, S., Gerard, B., McDermott, J., Seré, C., Rosegrant, M., 2010. Smart investments
in sustainable food production: Revisiting mixed crop-livestock systems. Science
327 (5967), 822–825. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1183725.
Iazzi, A., Ligorio, L., Vrontis, D., Trio, O., 2022. Sustainable development goals and
healthy foods: perspective from the food system. Brit. Food J, 124 (4), 1081–1102.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/bfj-02-2021-0197.
Ilham, N. Saptana, 2016. Pengembangan sistem integrasi tanaman tebu-sapi potong di
jawa timur. Anal. Kebijakan Pertanian 13 (2), 147. http://dx.doi.org/10.21082/
akp.v13n2.2015.147-165.
Isik, M., Khanna, M., 2003. Stochastic technology, risk preferences, and adoption of
site-specific technologies. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 85 (2), 305–317. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1111/1467-8276.00121.
Jianjun, J., Yiwei, G., Xiaomin, W., Nam, P.K., 2015. Farmers’ risk preferences and
their climate change adaptation strategies in the Yongqiao District China. Land
Use Policy 47, 365–372. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.04.028.
Kebede, H.A., 2022. Risk aversion and gender gaps in technology adoption by
smallholder farmers: Evidence from ethiopia. J. Dev. Stud. 58 (9), 1668–1692.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220388.2022.2048653.
Kementerian Pertanian, 2021. Rencana strategis kementerian pertanian tahun 2020–
2024. In: Book Rencana Strategis Kementerian Pertanian Tahun, 2020-2024.
Kementerian Pertanian Republik Indonesia, Jakarta.
Khan, I., Lei, H., Shah, I.A., Ali, I., Khan, I., Muhammad, I., Huo, X., Javed, T.,
2020. Farm households’ risk perception attitude and adaptation strategies in dealing
with climate change: promise and perils from Rural Pakistan. Land Use Policy 91,
104395. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104395.
Khanal, U., Wilson, C., Hoang, V.-N., Lee, B., 2018. Farmers’ adaptation to climate
change its determinants and impacts on rice yield in Nepal. Ecol. Econ. 144,
139–147. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.08.006.
Li, L., Jin, J., He, R., Kuang, F., Zhang, C., Qiu, X., 2022. Effects of social capital
on farmers’ choices of climate change adaptation behavior in Dazu district, China.
Clim. Dev. 1–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2022.2061403.
Linnenluecke, M.K., Nucifora, N., Thompson, N., 2018. Implications of climate change
for the sugarcane industry. WIREs Clim. Change 9 (1), e498. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1002/wcc.498.
Linnenluecke, M.K., Zhou, C., Smith, T., Thompson, N., Nucifora, N., 2020. The impact
of climate change on the Australian sugarcane industry. J. Clean. Prod. 246,
118974. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118974.
Mesquita, P.S., Bursztyn, M., 2016. Integration of social protection and climate change
adaptation in Brazil. Brit. Food J. 118 (12), 3030–3043. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
bfj-02-2016-0082.
Meyer-Aurich, A., Karatay, Y.N., 2019. Effects of uncertainty and farmers’ risk aversion
on optimal n fertilizer supply in wheat production in Germany. Agric. Syst. 173,
130–139. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2019.02.010.
Mogomotsi, P.K., Sekelemani, A., Mogomotsi, G.E.J., 2020. Climate change adaptation
strategies of small-scale farmers in Ngamiland East. Botswana. Clim. Change 159
(3), 441–460. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10584-019-02645-w.
Möhring, N., Bozzola, M., Hirsch, S., Finger, R., 2020. Are pesticides risk decreasing?
the relevance of pesticide indicator choice in empirical analysis. Agr. Econ. 1–16.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/agec.12563.
Mulwa, C., Marenya, P., Rahut, D.B., Kassie, M., 2017. Response to climate risks among
smallholder farmers in Malawi: A multivariate probit assessment of the role of
information household demographics, and farm characteristics. Clim. Risk Manag.
16, 208–221. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2017.01.002.
Ncoyini, Z., Savage, M.J., Strydom, S., 2022. Limited access and use of climate
information by small-scale sugarcane farmers in South Africa: A case study. Clim.
Serv. 26, 100285. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cliser.2022.100285.
A.M. Hasibuan, S. Wulandari, I.K. Ardana et al.
Ojo, T.O., Adetoro, A.A., Ogundeji, A.A., Belle, J.A., 2021. Quantifying the determinants
of climate change adaptation strategies and farmers’ access to credit in South
Africa. Sci. Total Environ. 792, 148499. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.
2021.148499.
Oliveira, Miranda, Cooke, R.A.C., 2018. Water management for sugarcane and corn
under future climate scenarios in Brazil. Agric. Water Manag. 201, 199–206.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/J.Agwat.2018.01.019.
Ortiz-Bobea, A., Ault, T.R., Carrillo, C.M., Chambers, R.G., Lobell, D.B., 2021. Anthro-
pogenic climate change has slowed global agricultural productivity growth. Nat.
Clim. Change 11 (4), 306–312. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01000-1.
Otto, R., Ferraz-Almeida, R., Sanches, G.M., Lisboa, I.P., Cherubin, M.R., 2022.
Nitrogen fertilizer consumption and nitrous oxide emissions associated with ethanol
production – A national-scale comparison between Brazilian sugarcane and corn in
the United States. J. Clean. Prod. 350, 131482. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.
2022.131482.
Pipitpukdee, S., Attavanich, W., Bejranonda, S., 2020. Climate change impacts on
sugarcane production in Thailand. Atmosphere 11 (4), 408. http://dx.doi.org/10.
3390/atmos11040408.
Priyanti, A., Cramb, R., Hanifah, V.W., Mahendri, I.G.A.P., 2015. Small-scale cattle
raising in East Java, Indonesia: A pathway out of poverty? Asia Pacific Viewpoint
56 (3), 335–350. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/apv.12094.
Qiao, F.-b., Huang, J.-k., 2021. Farmers’ risk preference and fertilizer use. J. Integr.
Agr. 20 (7), 1987–1995. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S2095-3119(20)63450-5.
Ranomahera, M.R.R., Nugroho, B.D.A., Riajaya, P.D., Putra, R.P., 2020. Using global
climate indices to predict rainfall and sugarcane productivity in drylands of
Banyuwangi East Java, Indonesia. Ind. J. Agric. Sci. 21 (2), 78. http://dx.doi.org/
10.21082/ijas.v21n2.2020.p78-88.
Santillán-Fernández, A., Santoyo-Cortés, V.H., García-Chávez, L.R., Covarrubias-
Gutiérrez, I., Merino, A., 2016. Influence of drought and irrigation on sugarcane
yields in different agroecoregions in Mexico. Agr. Syst. 143, 126–135. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2015.12.013.
Saptutyningsih, E., Diswandi, D., Jaung, W., 2020. Does social capital matter in climate
change adaptation? A lesson from agricultural sector in yogyakarta. Indonesia. Land
Use Policy 95, 104189. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104189.
Shukla, S.K., Solomon, S., Sharma, L., Jaiswal, V.P., Pathak, A.D., Singh, P., 2019.
Green technologies for improving cane sugar productivity and sustaining soil
fertility in sugarcane-based cropping system. Sugar Tech. 21 (2), 186–196. http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12355-019-00706-z.
Simatupang, P., Timmer, C.P., 2008. Indonesian rice production: Policies and
realities. Bullet. Ind. Econ. Stud. 44 (1), 65–80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
00074910802001587.
Singh, N.P., Anand, B., Srivastava, S.K., Kumar, N.R., Sharma, S., Bal, S.K., Rao, K.V.,
Prabhakar, M., 2022. Risk perception and adaptation to climate change: evidence
from arid region, India. Nat. Hazards 112 (2), 1015–1037. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1007/s11069-022-05216-y.
Singh, N., Singh, C.A.K., Singh, S., 2019. Stress physiology and metabolism in
hybrid rice I. organic manures improve physical soil characteristics and drought
tolerance. J. Crop Improv. 33 (6), 755–775. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15427528.
2019.1660749.
Stapleton, T., 2006. Institutional determinants of Indonesia’s sugar trade pol-
icy. B Indones Econ. Stud. 42 (1), 95–103. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
00074910600632401.
10
Resources, Environment and Sustainability 13 (2023) 100129
Sulaiman, A.A., Sulaeman, Y., Mustikasari, N., Nursyamsi, D., Syakir, A.M., 2019.
Increasing sugar production in Indonesia through land suitability analysis and sugar
mill restructuring. Land 8 (4), 61. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/land8040061.
Surjono, S., Zanuar, P., Rizqi, A., 2022. Cross-border strategies to respond the
impact of climate change in the upstream Brantas Watershed indonesia. Envi-
ron. Dev. Sustain. 24 (12), 14393–14420. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-
02000-z.
Susha, V.S., Das, T.K., Nath, C.P., Pandey, R., Paul, S., Ghosh, S., 2018. Impacts of
tillage and herbicide mixture on weed interference agronomic productivity and
profitability of a maize – wheat system in the North-Western Indo-Gangetic Plains.
Field Crop Res. 219, 180–191. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2018.02.003.
Suwandari, A., Hariyati, Y., Agustina, T., Kusmiati, A., Hapsari, T.D., Khasan, A.F.,
Rondhi, M., 2020. The impacts of certified seed plant adoption on the productivity
and efficiency of smallholder sugarcane farmers in Indonesia. Sugar Tech. 22 (4),
574–582. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12355-020-00821-2.
Thornton, P.K., Herrero, M., 2014. Climate change adaptation in mixed crop–livestock
systems in developing countries. Glob. Food Secur. 3 (2), 99–107. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.gfs.2014.02.002.
Toharisman, A., Triantarti, 2016. An overview of sugar sector in Indonesia. Sugar Tech.
18 (6), 636–641. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12355-016-0490-6.
Tripathi, A., Mishra, A.K., 2017. Knowledge and passive adaptation to climate change:
An example from Indian farmers. Clim. Risk Manag. 16, 195–207. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.crm.2016.11.002.
Verma, K.K., Singh, P., Song, X.-P., Malviya, M.K., Singh, R.K., Chen, G.-L., Solomon, S.,
Li, Y.-R., 2020. Mitigating climate change for sugarcane improvement: Role of
silicon in alleviating abiotic stresses. Sugar Tech. 22 (5), 741–749. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1007/s12355-020-00831-0.
Villacis, A.H., Alwang, J.R., Barrera, V., 2021. Linking risk preferences and risk
perceptions of climate change: A prospect theory approach. Agr. Econ. 52 (5),
863–877. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/agec.12659.
Widyasari, W.B., Putra, L.K., Ranomahera, M.R.R., Puspitasari, A.R., 2022. Historical
notes germplasm development, and molecular approaches to support sugarcane
breeding program in Indonesia. Sugar Tech. 24 (1), 30–47. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1007/s12355-021-01069-0.
Wuepper, D., Ayenew, H.Yesigat., Sauer, J., 2018. Social capital income diversification
and climate change adaptation: panel data evidence from rural ethiopia. J. Agr.
Econ. 69 (2), 458–475. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1477-9552.12237.
Zhao, D., Li, Y.-R., 2015. Climate change and sugarcane production: Potential impact
and mitigation strategies. Int. J. Agron. 2015, 1–10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/
2015/547386.
Zheng, H., Ma, W., Wang, F., Li, G., 2021. Does internet use improve technical
efficiency of banana production in China? Evidence from a selectivity-corrected
analysis. Food Policy 102, 102044. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2021.
102044.
Zhu, P., Burney, J., Chang, J., Jin, Z., Mueller, N.D., Xin, Q., Xu, J., Yu, L.,
Makowski, D., Ciais, P., 2022. Warming reduces global agricultural production by
decreasing cropping frequency and yields. Nat. Clim. Change http://dx.doi.org/10.
1038/S41558-022-01492-5.