Next Article in Journal
Application of Full Factorial Design Method for Optimization of Heavy Metal Release from Lead Smelting Slag
Next Article in Special Issue
Contributions from Literature for Understanding Wine Marketing
Previous Article in Journal
Current Progress and Future Prospects of Agriculture Technology: Gateway to Sustainable Agriculture
Previous Article in Special Issue
Specialty Coffee Shops in Mexico: Factors Influencing the Likelihood of Purchasing High-Quality Coffee
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 13
Issue 9
10.3390/su13094880
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Extension Agents’ Perceptions of the Role of Extension Services in Organic Agriculture: A Case Study from Saudi Arabia

by
Bader Alhafi Alotaibi
1,*,
Edgar Yoder
2 and
Hazem S. Kassem
1,3
1
Department of Agricultural Extension and Rural Society, King Saud University, Riyadh 11451, Saudi Arabia
2
Department of Agricultural Economics, Sociology and Education, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, State College, PA 16802, USA
3
Department of Agricultural Extension and Rural Society, Mansoura University, Mansoura 35516, Egypt
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2021, 13(9), 4880; https://doi.org/10.3390/su13094880
Submission received: 10 April 2021 / Revised: 23 April 2021 / Accepted: 25 April 2021 / Published: 27 April 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainability and Agricultural Economics)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Extension services (ES) play a crucial role in addressing the various needs of organic farmers and little is known about the extension agents’ (EA’s) perceptions of organic agriculture and the role of ES in organic agriculture. This study investigated EA’s perceptions of the role of ES in organic agriculture. Data were collected via a questionnaire, which was sent electronically to all enlisted extension agents in Riyadh Region, Saudi Arabia. In total, 69 extension agents completed the questionnaire, representing a 54% response rate. Overall, extension agents had slightly positive attitudes toward organic farming but were unsure about their role and participation in this. Furthermore, their perceptions of the role of ES in organic agriculture significantly varied according to their age, work experience in organic agriculture, and education level. These findings have implications for the design of future training programs for the professional development of extension agents and will enable planners, policy makers, and related ministries to devise viable and workable policies and plans that truly reflect the concerns and challenges of extension agents and consider the skills of extension agents that need to be improved. This research will also have positive implications for the national organic agriculture policy, as it provides research-based information on the actual players in the farming systems of Saudi Arabia.

1. Introduction

The agriculture sector plays a vital role in ensuring food security, realizing economic diversity, and alleviating poverty globally [1]. For many years, agricultural development relied on the intensive use of agricultural inputs to address the increasing demand for food. However, several issues have emerged as a result of this intensification. For instance, the heavy use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides has led to adverse environmental effects [2,3], including soil erosion, the deterioration of soil fertility, and adverse effects on human health [4,5]. Consequently, intensive input-based agriculture conflicts with optimal and sustainable natural resource utilization, driving many countries to adopt eco-friendly, sustainable practices such as organic farming [1,6].
Organic farming has gained enormous popularity and holds great potential as the most appropriate farming system for achieving food security [7,8]. It has three dimensions—environmental, social, and economic—each of which plays an important role in improving food security [9]. In the environmental dimension, organic farming improves soil quality by adding more nutrients to the soil, which enhances food security in the long term [10,11,12]. It also increases soil fertility through methods such as minimum tillage, green manure application, evidence-based crop rotation, including cover crops, and biological fertilizer application [13].
Furthermore, organic farming protects water resources, improves resistance to diseases and pests, combats desertification by preventing soil erosion, and avoids pesticide and chemical residues, allowing consumers to take advantage of the nutritional value of organic products and acquire healthy diets, all of which further contribute to food security [10,14,15,16]. In the social dimension, organic farming results in more seasonal workers being hired, more creating job opportunities, promotes entrepreneurship, and decreases immigration in rural areas, which has the potential to contribute to long-term sustainable development in these areas. Furthermore, organic farming enhances social capacity by combining indigenous knowledge with scientific production recommendations. Such efforts empower farmers and local communities, which is consistent with food security requirements [17,18]. In the economic dimension, organic farming is a practical approach for enhancing the overall farm income and increasing the living standards of small and marginal farmers [18,19]. Organic market has been developing dynamically and gained considerable momentum in all over the world in recent years, in particular, USA. Therefore, there is a strong connection between implementation of sustainable development goals and production of organic sector [20]. The application of affordable methods and biological resources instead of chemical fertilizers and pesticides make organic farming cost-effective, and the increased price of organic products and consequently increased profits from their sale further encourage farmers to adopt organic farming [21,22]. There are also a large number of postharvest opportunities to improve the added value of organic products through marketing activities and processing, leading to the further improvement of food security in the long term [23,24].
In Saudi Arabia, the interest in organic farming increased following the announcement of the national transformation plan (2005–2010) issued by the Ministry of Environment, Water, and Agriculture (MEWA). This plan aimed to disseminate and promote organic practices among farmers to balance agricultural production and the conservation of natural resources [25]. It also focused on creating a platform to bring all of the stakeholders together, including MEWA, experts, farmers’ cooperatives, the private sector, and farmers [26]. However, over the period 2005–2015, organic farming in Saudi Arabia was ineffective and governed by traditional management practices, contributing less than 5% of total agricultural production, and there was also a lower rate of certified farmers, a decline in farmers involved in organic activities, a limited scale of networking with other stakeholders, and a focus on “organic production practices” instead of certification over the same period [25,27]. It is obligatory for any farmer who wants to practice organic agriculture to obtain organic certification from authentication bodies licensed by MEWA. The organic farming sector has also been faced with various challenges, including a lack of awareness of organic products among consumers, low marketing quality, ineffective extension services, an insufficient quantity of organic inputs, and a lack of qualified experts and agricultural professionals in the field of organic farming. Organic extension in Saudi Arabia is not yet adequately represented throughout the country [25,26,28,29,30].
In 2016, the Saudi Government announced Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030, which pays more attention to strengthening the organic sector’s impact and enabling it to move toward professionalization and sustainability-oriented programs [31]. The aim of this vision is to increase organic production by 300% by investing USD 200 million [32], and its objectives are to overcome the legal and institutional constraints for establishing organic research centers, promote cooperation between the actors in the agricultural value chain, develop partnerships with other actors, and implement standards for good agricultural practices [33]. Between 2015 and 2019, the total amount of organic products increased by 18.4% from 446,000 tons to 526,000 tons, and between 2016 and 2019, the total area under organic production increased from 8852 hectares to 12,516 hectares, with a further approximately 6119 hectares under transformation [25,28].
Agricultural extension and advisory services play a crucial role in promoting rural development and supporting the transformation to organic farming [34,35]. ES help farmers to solve farming-related problems and make better farming decisions by providing timely and relevant information [36]. They also act as “brokers” to facilitate farmers’ networking with various actors in the agricultural value chain [37,38]. In addition, ES mobilize collective action in rural communities by helping farmers to form groups to maximize their competitiveness in local and international markets [39,40].
In many countries, extension agents are an essential source of information for farmers and play a key role in convincing farmers to adopt agricultural innovations [41,42]. Therefore, the first step in transforming to organic agriculture is to educate extension agents on the concept, principles, practices, and certification of organic farming [41,43,44]. According to Shiri et al. [45], the adoption of organic farming by farmers is affected by several factors, including profit and innovation advantages; their perceptions and attitudes toward risks associated with organic production; the amount of information they require; and the role of extension agents in disseminating information. The effectiveness of the ES provided is influenced by (EA’s) perceptions and attitudes toward organic farming [27,44]. Therefore, an understanding of EA’s perceptions is essential for developing a successful organic educational program and supporting the adoption of organic farming among farmers [46].
There has been a growing interest in analyzing the various aspects of organic farming, but limited information is still available about EA’s perceptions of the role of ES in organic farming, in Saudi Arabia. A large amount of research-based information is made available to extension agents by agricultural scientists, so both groups are an important source of information and play a significant productive role in helping farmers to adopt innovations. However, the influence and effectiveness of extension agents depend on the knowledge they possess and how effectively they can communicate with the farmers and disseminate any current knowledge and innovative information. Therefore, the success of extension and educational programs primarily depends on EA’s perceptions of and involvement in organic agriculture. The main theme of this study is to identify EA’s perceptions toward the role of extension in organic agriculture, and EA’s perceptions of organic agriculture.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

Riyadh Region, located in the center of Saudi Arabia, is the second-largest region in the country by both population (8,216,284 people) and land area (404,240 km2) [47]. This region was selected for analysis in the present study because it accounted for approximately 30% of the total agricultural land and 35% of the total organic production in Saudi Arabia in 2018 [48].

2.2. Study Population and Data Collection

The study population consisted of all extension agents employed in Riyadh Region (N = 127) [25]. The Directorate of Agriculture provided a contact information list for these extension agents, and an electronic link to a structured questionnaire was sent to each. To achieve an appropriate response rate, three follow-up reminders every two weeks were also sent to those extension agents who had not completed the questionnaire. A total of 69 electronic questionnaires were completed, representing a response rate of 54%.

2.3. Questionnaire

The questionnaire consisted of three sections: the Section 1 collected the respondent’s personal data, including their age, level of education, experience in organic farming, experience in agriculture, area of specialization, and current responsibility for organic farming; Section 2 asked for the respondent’s perception of organic farming; and Section 3 collected information about the respondent’s perception of the role of ES in organic agriculture. The survey questions were adapted from the work of Sisk [49] and Lillard [50] but were partially modified to make them compatible with the understanding of extension agents in the study region to achieve the study’s objectives. A panel of experts at the Pennsylvania State University, USA, examined the contents of the questionnaire to confirm its validity and ensure it would measure the intended variables. The Arabic translation of the questionnaire was then reviewed by a panel of experts at the Department of Agricultural Extension and Rural Society at King Saud University, Saudi Arabia, who had sufficient knowledge of both the Arabic and English languages. This resulted in the modification and rephrasing of several questions to ensure the greatest clarity possible. Prior to data collection, a pilot study was conducted with 30 extension agents to determine the reliability of the questionnaire. A total of 22 questionnaires were returned (73% response rate). The pilot test data were analyzed by calculating Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient in the SPSS Statistics software, which gave a value of 0.74, indicating a good level of reliability.

2.4. Measurement of Variables

Extension agents were asked to rate their perceptions of nine statements associated with organic agriculture and a further nine statements regarding the role of ES in organic farming using a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The scores of negative statements were recoded prior to data analysis. The following criteria were used to interpret the results: 1.00–1.50 = strongly disagree, 1.51–2.50 = disagree, 2.51–3.50 = neither agree nor disagree, 3.51–4.50 = agree, and 4.51–5.00 = strongly agree. To understand the level of perception for each of the statements, a total scale score was calculated by summing the ratings. Total perceived extension role in organic agriculture scores were calculated out of 100 and divided into three categories based on the percentage of total scores as follows: <50% = low perception, 50–75% = medium perception, >75% = high perception.

2.5. Data Analysis

Data were analyzed using IBM SPSS, ver. 22.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). Results were presented using descriptive statistics such as frequencies, percentages, means, and standard deviations. Differences in EA’s perceptions of organic farming and the role of ES in organic agriculture according to their personal attributes were explored using the t-test and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), and the effect size of any differences were analyzed by calculating Cohen’s d (t-test) and partial eta squared (ANOVA).

3. Results

3.1. Extension Agents’ Characteristics

The background characteristics of the respondents are presented in Table 1. Nearly around half of respondents (46%) were aged between 31–40 years, and most of the respondents held a bachelor’s degree (65%) and grew up in an urban setting (60%). More than half of the respondents (65.3%) had no experience in organic agriculture, with an average of 1.37 years. The majority of the respondents (75%) indicated that they had no current extension responsibility for organic farming programs.

3.2. Extension Agents’ Perceptions of Organic Farming

The respondents’ perceptions of organic farming are shown in Table 2. The majority of respondents (≥50%) “agreed” or “strongly agreed” with six of the nine statements on the scale, with agreement or strong agreement being highest for the statement “Pest control methods based on natural or organic sources would reduce the volume of inorganic pesticides applied, which would, in turn, reduce the pollution caused by inorganic pesticides”(87.1% of respondents), second highest for “Developing niche markets for organic production will be beneficial to the agriculture sector in Saudi Arabia” (85.5%), and third highest for “Chemical residues on many fruits and vegetables pose significant health risks to consumers” (83.6%). By contrast, respondents were most inconsistent in their perceptions of the statement “Most organic farming practices can be successfully implemented in my area,” with only 23.6% agreeing or strongly agreeing. Overall, respondents had a slightly positive perception toward organic agriculture as a sustainable farming system. The mean score for the EA’s perceptions of organic farming was then calculated by dividing the summated mean for all nine statements (33.5), giving a statement mean of 3.73. Since this fell between 3.51 and 4.50, it indicated a slightly positive perception.

3.3. Extension Agents’ Perceptions of the Role of Extension Services in Organic Agriculture

The respondents’ perceptions of the role of ES in organic agriculture are shown in Table 3. The level of agreement and strong agreement was highest for the statement “More time and adequate funding should be set aside for training in the area of organic agriculture” (85.1% of respondents), second highest for “Extension services in my area need to do more to support organic agriculture” (81.4%), and third highest for “Extension agents play a leadership role in the field of organic agriculture” (77.8%). By contrast, the respondents tended to disagree or strongly disagree with the statements “It is not the job of extension agents to provide information on organic agriculture” (75.9%) and “Extension services in my area have provided adequate training for extension agents regarding organic agriculture” (51.9%). In general, the vast majority of respondents (80.8%) had a moderate perception of the role of ES in organic agriculture (Figure 1), while 17.3% had a high perception and only 1.9% had a low perception.

3.4. Characteristics Affecting Extension Agents’ Perceptions of the Role of Extension Services in Organic Agriculture

3.4.1. Age

Age significantly affected respondents’ perceptions of the statement “Extension services in my area have the capability to meet educational needs for organic agriculture” (p < 0.05), with a significantly higher level of agreement among respondents up to 35 years of age (mean = 3.42) than among those aged 36 to 56 years (mean = 2.88) (Table 4). The effect size for this statement was considered medium (Cohen’s d = 0.61). By contrast, respondents were generally in agreement or strong agreement with the other eight statements, regardless of age, although respondents in the ≤35 years age group had a slightly more positive perception of their involvement in organic farming than those in the other groups (aged 36–56), it is more likely that younger extension agents positively looking for innovation.

3.4.2. Experience in Organic Agriculture

Work experience in organic farming significantly affected respondents’ perceptions of the statements “My supervisors would be supportive of me spending more time on organic farming programs” and “More time and adequate funding should be set aside for training in the area of organic agriculture,” with respondents with experience in organic farming having significantly more positive perceptions of both statements than those with no such work experience (p = 0.026 and 0.038, respectively; Table 4). The effect sizes were considered to be moderate for both statements (Cohen’s d = 0.69 and 0.68, respectively). Respondents’ levels of experience in organic farming did not significantly affect their perceptions of the other seven statements.

3.4.3. Primary Responsibility for Information Related to Organic Farming

Respondents’ current responsibility for information related to organic farming did not significantly affect their perceptions of any of the statements, with both groups tending to have a fairly neutral perception of the statement “Extension services in my area have the capability to meet educational needs for organic agriculture” and generally showing agreement for the other statements (Table 4).

3.4.4. Education Level

The level of education achieved significantly affected respondents’ perceptions of the statements “Extension services in my area have provided adequate training for extension agents regarding organic agriculture” (F = 2.987; df = 3, 48; p = 0.040) and “It is not the job of extension agents to provide information on organic agriculture” (F = 3.263; df = 3, 48; p = 0.029), with extension agents with a diploma being more positive toward both statements than those with a bachelor’s degree (Table 5). However, the effect sizes were considered to be small for both statements (partial eta squared = 0.15 and 0.16, respectively).

3.4.5. Area of Specialization

The area of specialization did not significantly affect respondents’ perceptions of the role of ES in organic agriculture (Table 5). Respondents in all groups were more or less neutral toward the statement “My supervisors would be supportive of me spending more time on organic farming programs”. However, they were generally in agreement with the other eight statements.

4. Discussion

The goal of agricultural extension services in Saudi Arabia is to transfer research from universities to agricultural directors at MEWA and then on to extension agents and finally farmers. Extension agents are responsible for developing and delivering extension programs on organic farming, so enhancing their perception, knowledge, and skills will allow them to transfer the wealth of experience they have more efficiently and effectively.
Ensuring that extension agents have positive perceptions of organic farming is the first step in an overall organic farming strategy. The present study found that most of the extension agents surveyed had a slightly positive perception of organic farming, viewing it as a sustainable farming system in the agricultural context of Saudi Arabia. This may be because extension agents have sufficient understanding of the environmental, social, and economic advantages of developing organic farming. It has also been shown that extension agents who have a positive perception of organic farming are more likely to persuade farmers to convert to organic production [51]. This result is similar to previous findings that extension agents in the Philippines tend to have a positive attitude toward organic agriculture [52,53]. In this context, previous studies also reported a moderate level of EA’s perception regarding dimensions of organic agriculture namely; social responsibility; economic viability; production efficiency, and environmental sustainability [54,55,56].
The majority of extension agents surveyed were unsure of the role of ES in organic agriculture. This could be attributed to extension agents having an insufficient knowledge of organic farming—indeed, according to Alotaibi et al. [25], most extension agents in Saudi Arabia have expressed an urgent need for training in this field. Consequently, direct contact between farmers and extension agents is ineffective for encouraging the adoption of organic practices, which may also explain the weak effect of ES on farmers’ motivation to comply with organic certification. Although financial resources are available for ES in Saudi Arabia, these services face various challenges, including centralization, a limited number of extension agents, a lack of responsiveness to farmers’ needs, and a focus on the technology transfer approach instead of participatory approaches [57,58]. Considering the lack of trust among the extension agents surveyed regarding their effectiveness in supporting conversion to organic farming, attention should be paid to three issues: developing professional training for extension agents in the field of organic farming; establishing partnerships with the private sector for knowledge sharing and co-organizing learning activities; and disseminating information about organic practices through communication technologies such as applications and social networking tools [59,60]. Other studies have reported that access to various types of agricultural advisory services plays a significant role in promoting organic farming by improving farmers’ knowledge and skills and enhancing their ability to deal with institutional and legal procedures that are applicable to the organic farming sector [61,62,63,64,65]. These findings reflect the urgent need to support and activate the agricultural knowledge and innovation system (AKIS) in Saudi Arabia. As noted by Oksanen and Hautamäki [66], AKIS plays a key role in the transfer of knowledge regarding eco- innovation activities by creating synergistic relationships between people, knowledge, and resources. These relationships facilitate the co-creation of value, solving production and marketing problems, supporting the role of ES as a broker among actors in agricultural value chain, and strengthening networking between organic producers and other actors [67,68].
Understanding people and the flow of ideas as a basis of innovation activities challenges traditional innovation policy, and requires a systemic approach and deep institutional cooperation and interaction [69,70,71]. This approach requires sustainable and inclusive innovation policy in which all innovation activities are considered in terms of how they contribute to quality of life and to solving wicked problems.
Younger extension agents tended to be more satisfied that their qualifications meet the educational needs of organic farmers than older extension agents. This may be because younger people are more willing to embrace innovations and accept change than older people, who often do not like to change the way they work and consequently show resistance to change. Similarly, Declaro-Ruedas [52] also found that age is a significant factor affecting EA’s attitudes toward organic farming. The present study also showed that extension agents with more agricultural experience tended to consider organic farming as being more important and had more interest in training than those with less agricultural experience—indeed, extension agents with little experience lacked knowledge of the contemporary organic agriculture context and consequently had a lower interest in acquiring new knowledge and skills. This result is inconsistent with the findings of Yadav et al. [44]. Declaro-Ruedas [52], and Neda, et al. [72], who reported that agricultural experience is not a major determinant of EA’s perceptions of organic farming. The present study also showed that extension agents with higher levels of education tended to place more importance on developing their knowledge and skills regarding organic farming than those with lower levels of education. In particular, extension agents with higher levels of education had a greater awareness of the importance of farmers complying with organic standards and their role in environmental protection and increasing the annual income of farmers, resulting in these extension agents considering information and awareness barriers when deciding to develop their technical expertise. According to Kucińska et al. [73], conversion to organic farming requires highly educated extension agents with backgrounds in various fields, such as ecology, agribusiness, economy, marketing, livestock husbandry and agronomy, to assist farmers in preparing and conducting the conversion. These findings are in line with the results of Declaro-Ruedas [52] and Oladele and Tekena [74] but contrast with the results of Yadav et al. [44] and Neda, et al. [72], who found no significant relationship between EA’s levels of education and attitudes toward organic farming.

5. Conclusions

Several conclusions can be drawn from the findings of the present study. First, it is clear that the extension agents surveyed in Riyadh Region had a slightly positive perception of organic farming and it is more likely that those extension agents who did not respond felt more negatively toward organic farming and chose not to respond for that reason. However, it is also evident that these extension agents were uncertain about their opinion of the role of extension services in organic agriculture, although they still appeared to support the transformation to organic production. In addition, the extension agents surveyed tended to consider that there are currently no good ES in Riyadh Region that provide adequate information on organic farming. More detailed examination of the differences in EA’s perceptions showed that there were no significant differences in the summated scores for EA’s perceptions regarding the role of ES in organic agriculture when examined by their backgrounds. However, providing additional training and placing a stronger emphasis on organic farming could help motivate them, increase their skills, and add to their knowledge base. Therefore, more scientific studies on organic farming are required to obtain research-based facts in this field.
The present research in Riyadh Region was not intended to be generalized to organic farming in other parts of Saudi Arabia, but its results may help guide initial efforts to expand organic farming in the country. If organic programs are to be included as a component of a large extension program’s efforts to increase organic farming, it will be important to examine the EA’s knowledge, as well as their skills, perceptions, attitudes, and confidence in developing programs. Examining farmers’ perceptions toward organic farming may also provide useful insights into the barriers they face when adopting organic practices. Since organic agriculture programs in Saudi Arabia are conducted by extension agents, it is imperative that their perception of organic agriculture is first improved, following which their skills and knowledge should be increased through sound training programs to enable them to transfer the wealth of knowledge they have more efficiently and effectively.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, B.A.A.; methodology, B.A.A. and E.Y.; formal analysis, B.A.A.; writing—original draft preparation, B.A.A.; writing—review and editing, E.Y. and H.S.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Deanship of Scientific Research, King Saud University, Saudi Arabia, through the Research Group No. RGP—1441-511.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable. All participating extension agents were adults and gave their consent to use the collected data towards this research.

Data Availability Statement

Not Applicable.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to the Deanship of Scientific Research and RSSU at the King Saud University for their technical support.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Piñeiro, V.; Arias, J.; Dürr, J.; Elverdin, P.; Ibáñez, A.M.; Kinengyere, A.; Opazo, C.M.; Owoo, N.; Page, J.R.; Prager, S.D. A scoping review on incentives for adoption of sustainable agricultural practices and their outcomes. Nat. Sustain. 2020, 3, 809–820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Reynolds, T.W.; Waddington, S.R.; Anderson, C.L.; Chew, A.; True, Z.; Cullen, A. Environmental impacts and constraints associated with the production of major food crops in sub-saharan africa and south asia. Food Secur. 2015, 7, 795–822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Struik, P.C.; Kuyper, T.W. Sustainable intensification in agriculture: The richer shade of green. A review. Agron Sustain Dev. 2017, 37, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Aghasafari, H.; Karbasi, A.; Mohammadi, H.; Calisti, R. Determination of the best strategies for development of organic farming: A swot–fuzzy analytic network process approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 277, 124039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Zhang, H.; Wang, L.; Yu, S.; Zhao, J.; Shi, Z. Identifying government’s and farmers’ roles in soil erosion management in a rural area of southern china with social network analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 278, 123499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Lefebvre, M.; Midler, E.; Bontems, P. Adoption of environment-friendly agricultural practices with background risk: Experimental evidence. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2020, 76, 405–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Meemken, E.-M.; Qaim, M. Organic agriculture, food security, and the environment. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 2018, 10, 39–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Muller, A.; Schader, C.; Scialabba, N.E.-H.; Brüggemann, J.; Isensee, A.; Erb, K.-H.; Smith, P.; Klocke, P.; Leiber, F.; Stolze, M. Strategies for feeding the world more sustainably with organic agriculture. Nat. Commun. 2017, 8, 1290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Morshedi, L.; Lashgarara, F.; Farajollah Hosseini, S.J.; Omidi Najafabadi, M. The role of organic farming for improving food security from the perspective of fars farmers. Sustainability 2017, 9, 2086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Azadi, H.; Schoonbeek, S.; Mahmoudi, H.; Derudder, B.; De Maeyer, P.; Witlox, F. Organic agriculture and sustainable food production system: Main potentials. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2011, 144, 92–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Gallandt, E. Weed management in organic farming. In Recent Advances in Weed Management; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2014; pp. 63–85. [Google Scholar]
  12. Najafabadi, M.O. A gender sensitive analysis towards organic agriculture: A structural equation modeling approach. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 2014, 27, 225–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Peigné, J.; Ball, B.; Roger-Estrade, J.; David, C. Is conservation tillage suitable for organic farming? A review. Soil Use Manag. 2007, 23, 129–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Azadi, H.; Ho, P. Genetically modified and organic crops in developing countries: A review of options for food security. Biotechnol. Adv. 2010, 28, 160–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Torjusen, H.; Lieblein, G.; Wandel, M.; Francis, C.A. Food system orientation and quality perception among consumers and producers of organic food in hedmark county, norway. Food Qual Prefer. 2001, 12, 207–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Malakouti, J. Organic agriculture is the way of human salvation. J. Sabzineh 2014, 92, 15–16. [Google Scholar]
  17. Panneerselvam, P.; Hermansen, J.E.; Halberg, N. Food security of small holding farmers: Comparing organic and conventional systems in india. J. Sustain. Agric. 2010, 35, 48–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Ward, C.; Reynolds, L. Organic agriculture contributes to sustainable food security. In Vital Signs; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2013; pp. 66–68. [Google Scholar]
  19. Chengappa, P. Development of agriculture value chains as a strategy for enhancing farmers’ income. Agric. Econ. Res. Rev. 2018, 31, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Bazaluk, O.; Yatsenko, O.; Zakharchuk, O.; Ovcharenko, A.; Khrystenko, O.; Nitsenko, V. Dynamic development of the global organic food market and opportunities for ukraine. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Krause, J.; Machek, O. A comparative analysis of organic and conventional farmers in the czech republic. Agric. Econ. 2018, 64, 1–8. [Google Scholar]
  22. Nemes, N. Comparative Analysis of Organic and Non-Organic Farming Systems: A Critical Assessment of Farm Profitability; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  23. Colom-Gorgues, A. The challenges of organic production and marketing in europe and spain: Innovative marketing for the future with quality and safe food products. J. Int. Food Agribus. Mark. 2009, 21, 166–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Mutiara, V.I.; Arai, S. The challenges in organic agricultural products market in southeast asia. Rev. Agric. Sci. 2017, 5, 36–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Alotaibi, B.A.; Yoder, E.; Brennan, M.A.; Kassem, H.S. Training needs of extension agents’ regarding organic agriculture in saudi arabia. Eval. Program Plann. 2019, 77, 101711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Hartmann, M.; Khalil, S.; Bernet, T.; Ruhland, F.; Al Ghamdi, A. Organic Agriculture in Saudi Arabia-Sector Study 2012; Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GmbH); Saudi Organic Framing Association (SOFA); Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL); Ministry of Agriculture of Saudi Arabia (MoA): Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, 2012.
  27. Alzaidi, A.; Baig, M.; Elhag, E. An investigation into the farmers’ attitudes towards organic farming in riyadh region–kingdom of saudi arabia. Bulg. J. Agric. Sci. 2013, 19, 426–431. [Google Scholar]
  28. Alotaibi, B.A. Farmers’ perceptions of organic agriculture in southern saudi arabia. J. Agric. Ext. 2020, 24, 17–28. [Google Scholar]
  29. Willer, H.; Lernoud, J. The World of Organic Agriculture: Statistics and Emerging Trends 2019; Research Institute of Organic Agriculture FiBL; IFOAM Organics International: Frick, Switzerland, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  30. Willer, H.; Lernoud, J. (Eds.) Organic Agriculture in Saudi Arabia: Country Report 2012; Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL); International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM): Frick, Switzerland, 2013; p. 191. [Google Scholar]
  31. Habibi, N. Implementing saudi arabia’s vision 2030: An interim balance sheet. Middle East Brief 2019, 127, 1–9. [Google Scholar]
  32. Government of Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Towards Saudi Arabia’s Sustainable Tomorrow; UN High-Level Political Forum 2018: Transformation towards Sustainable and Resilient Societies, NY, USA, 9–18 July 2018; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2018. Available online: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/20230SDGs_English_Report972018_FINAL.pdf (accessed on 23 April 2021).
  33. Alshuwaikhat, H.M.; Mohammed, I. Sustainability matters in national development visions—evidence from saudi arabia’s vision for 2030. Sustainability 2017, 9, 408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Baiyegunhi, L.; Majokweni, Z.; Ferrer, S. Impact of outsourced agricultural extension program on smallholder farmers’ net farm income in msinga, kwazulu-natal, south africa. Technol. Soc. 2019, 57, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Kassem, H.S.; Alotaibi, B.A.; Muddassir, M.; Herab, A. Factors influencing farmers’ satisfaction with the quality of agricultural extension services. Eval. Program Plann. 2021, 85, 101912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Ragasa, C.; Mazunda, J. The impact of agricultural extension services in the context of a heavily subsidized input system: The case of malawi. World Dev. 2018, 105, 25–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Koutsouris, A. Exploring the emerging intermediation roles (facilitation and brokerage) in agricultural extension education. Int. J. Agric. Ext. 2014, 21–37. [Google Scholar]
  38. Maponya, P.; Mpandeli, S. The role of extension services in climate change adaptation in limpopo province, south africa. J. Agric. Ext. Rural Dev. 2013, 5, 137–142. [Google Scholar]
  39. Ekepu, D.; Tirivanhu, P.; Nampala, P. Assessing farmer involvement in collective action for enhancing the sorghum value chain in soroti, uganda. S. Afr. J. Agric. Ext. 2017, 45, 118–130. [Google Scholar]
  40. Hellin, J. Agricultural extension, collective action and innovation systems: Lessons on network brokering from peru and mexico. J. Agric. Educ. Ext. 2012, 18, 141–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Asadi, A.; Akbari, M.; Sharifzadeh, A.; Hashemi, S.M. Analysis of factors affecting agricultural organic products diffusion among consumers: Perception of extension workers. World Appl. Sci. J. 2009, 6, 331–338. [Google Scholar]
  42. Hauser, M.; Lindtner, M.; Prehsler, S.; Probst, L. Farmer participatory research: Why extension workers should understand and facilitate farmers’ role transitions. J. Rural Stud. 2016, 47, 52–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Sarker, M.A.; Itohara, Y. Farmers’ perception about the extension services and extension workers: The case of organic agriculture extension program by proshika. Am. J. Agric. Biol. Sci. 2009, 4, 332–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Yadav, D.S.; Sood, P.; Thakur, S.K.; Choudhary, A. Assessing the training needs of agricultural extension workers about organic farming in the north-western himalayas. J. Org. Syst. 2013, 8, 17–27. [Google Scholar]
  45. Shiri, N.; Faghiri, M.; Pirmoradi, A.; Agahi, H. Attitudes of agricultural extension workers towards organic farming in iran. J. Org. Syst. 2014, 9, 5–15. [Google Scholar]
  46. Danso-Abbeam, G.; Ehiakpor, D.S.; Aidoo, R. Agricultural extension and its effects on farm productivity and income: Insight from northern ghana. Agric. Food Secur. 2018, 7, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. GAS. Population Characteristics Surveys; General Authority for Statistics: Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, 2017.
  48. MEWA. Statistical Year Book; Ministry of Environment, Water, and Agriculture: Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, 2019.
  49. Sisk, J.G. Extension Agricultural Agents’ Perceptions of Sustainable Agriculture in the Southern Region of the United States; Louisiana State University: Baton Rouge, LA, USA, 1995. [Google Scholar]
  50. Lillard, P.T. Texas Extension Agents’ Perceptions of Organic Agriculture and Its Implications for Training; Texas A&M University: College Station, TX, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  51. Herath, C.S.; Wijekoon, R. Study on attitudes and perceptions of organic and non-organic coconut growers towards organic coconut farming. Idesia 2013, 31, 5–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Declaro-Ruedas, M. The agricultural extension workers’ attitude toward organic agriculture in magsaysay, occidental mindoro. In ISSAAS Book of Abstracts; ISSAAS: Los Baños, Laguna, Philippines, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  53. Declaro-Ruedas, M.Y.A. Technology transfer modalities utilized by agricultural extension workers in organic agriculture in philippines. J. Agric. Ext. 2019, 23, 75–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Allahyari, M.S.; Chizari, M.; Homaee, M. Perceptions of iranian agricultural extension professionals toward sustainable agriculture concepts. J. Agric. Soc. Sci. 2008, 4, 101–106. [Google Scholar]
  55. Chizari, M.; Lindner, J.; Zoghie, M. Perceptions of extension agents regarding sustainable agriculture in the khorasan province, iran. J. Int. Agric. Ext. Educ. 1999, 6, 13–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Hasan, S.S.; Turin, M.Z.; Ghosh, M.K.; Khalil, M.I. Assessing agricultural extension professionals opinion towards sustainable agriculture in bangladesh. Asian J. Agric. Ext. Econ. Sociol. 2017, 17, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Alotaibi, B.A.; Kassem, H.S.; Abdullah, A.-Z.; Alyafrsi, M.A. Farmers’ awareness of agri-environmental legislation in saudi arabia. Land Use Policy 2020, 99, 104902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Kassem, H.; Aldosari, F.; Baig, M.; Muneer, S.; Elmajem, A. Researchers’and extension workers’perspectives on agricultural research-extension linkages in the kingdom of saudi arabia. JAPS J. Anim. Plant Sci. 2018, 28, 1516–1522. [Google Scholar]
  59. Hayran, S.; Gul, A.; Saridas, M.A.; Donwload, P. Farmers’ sustainable agriculture perception in turkey: The case of mersin province. New Medit 2018, 3, 69–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Lithourgidis, C.S.; Stamatelatou, K.; Damalas, C.A. Farmers’ attitudes towards common farming practices in northern greece: Implications for environmental pollution. Nutr. Cyc. Agroecosyst. 2016, 105, 103–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Läpple, D.; Van Rensburg, T. Adoption of organic farming: Are there differences between early and late adoption? Ecol. Econ. 2011, 70, 1406–1414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Łuczka, W.; Kalinowski, S. Barriers to the development of organic farming: A polish case study. Agriculture 2020, 10, 536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Kallas, Z.; Serra, T.; Gil, J.M. Farmers’ objectives as determinants of organic farming adoption: The case of catalonian vineyard production. Agric. Econ. 2010, 41, 409–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Leitner, C.; Vogl, C.R. Farmers’ perceptions of the organic control and certification process in tyrol, austria. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Ullah, A.; Shah, S.N.M.; Ali, A.; Naz, R.; Mahar, A.; Kalhoro, S.A. Factors affecting the adoption of organic farming in peshawar-pakistan. Agric. Sci. 2015, 6, 587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. Oksanen, K.; Hautamäki, A. Sustainable innovation: A competitive advantage for innovation ecosystems. Technol. Innov. Manag. Rev. 2015, 5, 24–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Van Oost, I. Opportunities provided by the european innovation partnership ‘agricultural productivity and sustainability’ and its operational groups. In Proceedings of the Knowledge Transfer Conference 2013: Future of Farm Advisory Services, Delivering Innovative Systems, Dublin, Ireland, 13–14 June 2013. [Google Scholar]
  68. Zahran, Y.; Kassem, H.S.; Naba, S.M.; Alotaibi, B.A. Shifting from fragmentation to integration: A proposed framework for strengthening agricultural knowledge and innovation system in egypt. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Chesbrough, H. Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology; Harvard Business School Press: Boston, MA, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  70. Pentland, A. Social Physics: How Good Ideas Spread—The Lessons from a New Science; The Penguin Press: London, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  71. Seshadri, S.; Shapira, Z. The flow of ideas and timing of evaluation as determinants of knowledge creation. Ind. Corp. Change 2003, 12, 1099–1124. [Google Scholar]
  72. Neda, T.; Azimi, H.; Bahaman, A.S.; Jegak, U. Attitudes of malaysian extension workers towards sustainable agricultural practices. Am. J. Environ. Sci. 2013, 9, 33–37. [Google Scholar]
  73. Kucińska, K.; Golba, J.; Pelc, I. The role of education and extention services for organic and conventional farming in the region of podkarpacie. Poland. Agron. Res. 2009, 7, 625–631. [Google Scholar]
  74. Oladele, O.; Tekena, S. Factors influencing agricultural extension officers’ knowledge on practice and marketing of organic agriculture in north west province, south africa. Life Sci. J. 2010, 7, 91–98. [Google Scholar]
Sustainability 13 04880 g001 550
Figure 1. Perceived extension role in organic agriculture.
Figure 1. Perceived extension role in organic agriculture.
Sustainability 13 04880 g001
Table
Table 1. Descriptive summary of the characteristics of extension agents in Riyadh Region.
Table 1. Descriptive summary of the characteristics of extension agents in Riyadh Region.
CharacteristicNumber%
Age years (n = 50; mean = 38.6; SD = 8.90; min. = 23; max. = 56)
≤30918.0
31–402346.0
41–501122.0
≥51714.0
Education (n = 52)
High School815.4
Diploma of Agriculture611.5
Bachelor’s degree3465.4
Master’s degree47.7
Ph.D.00.0
Childhood residence (n = 52)
Urban3159.6
Rural2140.4
Experience in OA (n = 49; mean = 1.37; SD = 10.6; min. = 0; max. =16)
No experience3265.3
≤ 51428.6
≥636.1
Area of specialization in current job (n = 52)
General agriculture59.6.
Agriculture extension35.8
Agriculture economics611.5
Plant production815.4.
Animal production11.9
Agriculture engineering1019.2
Plant protection713.5
Soil35.8
Food sciences00.0
Other areas917.3
Current responsibility for organic farming (n = 52)
Yes1325.0
No3975.0
Table
Table 2. Extension agents’ perceptions of organic agriculture (n = 69 respondents).
Table 2. Extension agents’ perceptions of organic agriculture (n = 69 respondents).
StatementSDDNASAMeanStandard
Deviation
%%%%%
Most organic farming practices can be successfully implemented in my area.3.620.041.832.71.83.090.86
Agricultural systems that employ crop rotations, green manuring, and animal waste can be economically comparable to a traditional system using inorganic fertilizers.1.810.921.849.116.43.670.94
Chemical residues on many fruits and vegetables pose significant health risks to consumers.3.63.69.134.549.14.221.01
Developing niche markets for organic production will be beneficial to the agriculture sector in Saudi Arabia.0.01.812.736.449.14.330.77
Most insects can be successfully controlled without using inorganic insecticides.1.810.938.240.09.13.440.87
Most crop diseases can be successfully cured without using synthetic pesticides.1.99.340.744.43.73.390.78
Most weeds can be successfully eliminated without spraying herbicides.3.713.018.557.47.43.520.94
Crops with a higher potential for sustainable production and the capability of producing increased yields with a limited application of inputs should be a greater research priority.0.03.733.344.418.53.780.79
Pest control methods based on natural or organic sources would reduce the volume of inorganic pesticides applied, which would, in turn, reduce the pollution caused by inorganic pesticides.3.71.97.451.935.24.130.91
Summated mean = 33.5; Standard Deviation = 4.5; range = 21–43; statement mean = 3.73.
Table
Table 3. Extension agents’ perceptions of the role of extension services in organic agriculture.
Table 3. Extension agents’ perceptions of the role of extension services in organic agriculture.
StatementStatementSDDNASAMeanStandard
Deviation
%%%%%
Extension agents play a leadership role in the field of organic agriculture.0.003.718.553.724.13.980.76
In the past, extension services in my area have ignored organic agriculture.0.0013.033.3%37.016.63.570.92
Extension services in my area have provided adequate training for extension agents regarding organic agriculture.9.342.624.1%18.55.62.691.06
It is not the job of extension agents to provide information on organic agriculture.35.240.711.111.11.92.041.04
Extension services in my area have the capability to meet educational needs for organic agriculture.3.822.630.243.40.003.130.90
My supervisors would be supportive of me spending more time on organic farming programs.0.0013.031.037.07.43.171.11
More time and adequate funding should be set aside for training in the area of organic agriculture.1.91.911.144.440.74.200.85
Extension services in my area need to do more to support organic agriculture.1.93.713.044.437.04.1190
Extension services in my area have ignored the environmental issues caused by conventional agriculture.1.926.420.839.611.33.321.05
SD, strongly disagree; D, disagree; N, neither agree nor disagree; A, agree; SA, strongly agree.
Table
Table 4. Comparisons of extension agents’ perceptions of the role of extension services in organic agriculture according to their age, experience in organic agriculture, and responsibility for information related to organic agriculture (n = 69 respondents; two-tailed t-tests).
Table 4. Comparisons of extension agents’ perceptions of the role of extension services in organic agriculture according to their age, experience in organic agriculture, and responsibility for information related to organic agriculture (n = 69 respondents; two-tailed t-tests).
AgeExperience in OAResponsibility for Information
StatementRelated to OA
Up through 35 Years36 to 56 YearsSig 2
- tail		NoYesSig 2
- tail		YesNoSig 2
- tail
MSDMSD MSDMSD MSDMSD
Primarily extension agents are seen in leadership role in areas of organic agriculture.4.080.774.040.660.823.970.824.060.740.74.230.723.90.780.18
In the past, extension agents’ services in my areas have ignored organic agriculture.3.540.833.7310.473.530.843.711.040.523.851.143.460.820.19
Extension agents’ services in my area provided adequate training for extension agents regarding organic agriculture.2.791.282.620.890.572.661.122.761.030.7431.152.621.040.26
Providing information on organic agriculture does not fall in the tasks to be accomplished by the extension agents.2.081.172.040.950.882.131.181.760.560.242.151.1421.020.65
Extension agents’ services in my area has the capabilities needed to meet educational needs for organic agriculture. 0.0383.090.963.310.790.433.150.983.180.860.91
3.420.712.881.01Cohen’s d = 0.61
My supervisors would be supportive of me increasing my amount of programming on organic farming.3.211.213.081.010.67 0.023.620.8731.120.07
2.941.043.650.99Cohen’s
d = 0.69
More time and adequate funding should be set aside for training in the area of organic agriculture.4.081.014.350.680.28 0.0384.380.654.10.910.3
40.914.530.62Cohen’s
d = 0.68
Extension agents’ services in my area required to do more to support organic agriculture.3.961.124.270.660.234.130.974.180.80.854.310.634.050.970.37
Extension agents’ services in my area has ignored environmental issues caused by conventional agricultural.3.351.073.421.060.83.481.063.181.070.343.171.113.411.040.49
SD = Standard Deviation.
Table
Table 5. Comparisons of extension agents’ perceptions of the role of extension services in organic agriculture according to their level of education and area of specialization (n = 69 respondents; one-way analysis of variance).
Table 5. Comparisons of extension agents’ perceptions of the role of extension services in organic agriculture according to their level of education and area of specialization (n = 69 respondents; one-way analysis of variance).
Statement Highest Education LevelArea of Specialization
High SchoolDiploma of AgricultureBachelor’s DegreeMaster’s DegreepAgriculture Extension, Agriculture Economics, and General AgriculturePlant Production, Protection, and SoilAgricultural EngineeringOther (n = 9)p
(n = 8)(n = 6)(n = 34)(n = 4)(n = 14)(n = 19)(n = 10)
MSDMSDMSDMSDMSDMSDMSDMSD
Extension agents play a leadership role in the field of organic agriculture.3.630.914.170.404.060.773.750.950.453.791.024.160.604.100.733.780.660.45
In the past, extension services in my area have ignored organic agriculture.3.251.163.500.543.620.923.750.950.753.431.103.950.703.300.483.221.090.12
Extension services in my area have provided adequate training for extension agents regarding organic agriculture.3.381.013.331.202.410.983.000.810.04 (partial eta square = 0.15) 2.641.152.581.122.601.073.220.830.48
It is not the job of extension agents to provide information on organic agriculture. 0.021.861.022.001.102.000.942.441.130.62
2.501.062.831.301.740.932.500.57(partial eta square = 0.16)
Extension services in my area have the capability to meet educational needs for organic agriculture.3.380.913.170.983.150.903.000.810.903.360.742.891.073.500.523.110.920.28
My supervisors would be supportive of me spending more time on organic farming programs.3.250.883.501.043.181.082.251.500.332.930.913.211.083.201.613.330.700.83
More time and adequate funding should be set aside for training in the area of organic agriculture.4.001.064.170.404.240.894.000.810.884.290.614.000.944.600.693.891.050.21
Extension services in my area need to do more to support organic agriculture.4.001.064.170.754.150.924.000.810.974.070.824.001.004.600.523.891.050.28
Extension services in my area have ignored the environmental issues caused by conventional agriculture.3.251.103.600.893.261.084.000.810.563.571.153.170.923.600.963.111.200.54
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Alotaibi, B.A.; Yoder, E.; Kassem, H.S. Extension Agents’ Perceptions of the Role of Extension Services in Organic Agriculture: A Case Study from Saudi Arabia. Sustainability 2021, 13, 4880. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13094880

AMA Style

Alotaibi BA, Yoder E, Kassem HS. Extension Agents’ Perceptions of the Role of Extension Services in Organic Agriculture: A Case Study from Saudi Arabia. Sustainability. 2021; 13(9):4880. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13094880

Chicago/Turabian Style

Alotaibi, Bader Alhafi, Edgar Yoder, and Hazem S. Kassem. 2021. "Extension Agents’ Perceptions of the Role of Extension Services in Organic Agriculture: A Case Study from Saudi Arabia" Sustainability 13, no. 9: 4880. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13094880

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop