Attitudes, Perceptions, and On-Farm Self-Reported Practices of Shrimp Farmers’ towards Adoption of Good Aquaculture Practices (GAP) in Thailand
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- (1)
- “General standards” or “voluntary standards” for the benefit of production development to meet international standards rather than for enforcement.
- (2)
- “Mandatory standards” are those under Ministerial Regulations that require compliance for agricultural products for reasons of consumer health protection or are necessary for the economy. Exports are required to follow mandatory standards.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Design
2.2. Data Collection, Survey Methods, Tools, and Analysis
3. Results and Discussions
3.1. Descriptive Statistics and Comparison of Characteristics between Adopter Groups
3.2. Comparison of Farmers’ Perceptions and Attitudes Related to GAP
3.2.1. Farmers’ Perceptions of GAP
3.2.2. Farmers’ Attitude towards GAP
4. Conclusions and Recommendations
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Meixner, O.; Katt, F. Assessing the Impact of COVID-19 on Consumer Food Safety Perceptions—A Choice-Based Willingness to Pay Study. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kurina, B.; Wayne, G.; Lendel, N.; Baksh, K.; Ganpat, W.; Narine, L. Farmers knowledge, attitudes and perceptions of occupational health and safety hazards in Trinidad, West Indies and implications for the Agriculture sector. J. Agric. Ext. Rural. Dev. 2015, 7, 221–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thapa, S.P.; Shrestha, S.; Anal, A.K. Addressing the antibiotic resistance and improving the food safety in food supply chain (farm-to-fork) in Southeast Asia. Food Control. 2020, 108, 106809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Corsin, F.; Funge-Smith, S.; Clausen, J. A Qualitative Assessment of Standards and Certification Schemes Applicable to Aq-uaculture in the Asia-Pacific Region. 2007. Available online: http://www.fao.org/3/a-ai388e.pdf (accessed on 3 September 2018).
- Anal, A.K.; Perpetuini, G.; Petchkongkaew, A.; Tan, R.; Avallone, S.; Tofalo, R.; Van Nguyen, H.; Chu-Ky, S.; Ho, P.H.; Phan, T.T.; et al. Food safety risks in traditional fermented food from South-East Asia. Food Control. 2020, 109, 106922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, P.; Casey, S.; Cadilhon, J.; Hoejskov, P.; Morgan, N.; A Practical Manual for Producers and Exporters from Asia. Regulations, Standards and Certification for Agricultural Exports. RAP Publication (FAO). 2007. Available online: http://www.fao.org/3/a-ag130e.pdf (accessed on 12 July 2020).
- Wongprawmas, R.; Canavari, M.; Waisarayutt, C. A multi-stakeholder perspective on the adoption of good agricultural practices in the Thai fresh produce industry. Br. Food J. 2015, 117, 2234–2249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spadoni, R.; Lombardi, P.; Canavari, M.; Hingley, M. Private food standard certification: Analysis of the BRC standard in Italian agri-food. Br. Food J. 2014, 116, 142–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rezaei, R.; Mianaji, S.; Ganjloo, A. Factors affecting farmers’ intention to engage in on-farm food safety practices in Iran: Extending the theory of planned behavior. J. Rural. Stud. 2018, 60, 152–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Young, I.; Rajić, A.; Hendrick, S.; Parker, S.; Sánchez, J.; McClure, J.; McEwen, S. Attitudes towards the Canadian quality milk program and use of good production practices among Canadian dairy producers. Prev. Veter. Med. 2010, 94, 43–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhong, Y.; Huang, Z.; Wu, L. Analysis on the factors influencing the safety production behaviour of pig farmers. Chin. J. Anim. Sci. 2016, 20, 1–5. [Google Scholar]
- Ravuru, J.N.M.A.D.B. Growth of Cultured White Leg Shrimp Litopenaeus Vannamei (Boone, 1931) of Brackish Water Culture System in Winter Season with Artificial Diet. J. Aquac. Res. Dev. 2015, 06, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Department of Fisheries (DOF), Situation of marine shrimp products in 2018. Fisheries Development Policy and Strategy Division. 2018. Available online: http://thacert.fisheries.go.th/wscert/site/certificate_list.jsp (accessed on 15 September 2020).
- Srisopaporn, S.; Jourdain, D.; Perret, S.R.; Shivakoti, G. Adoption and continued participation in a public Good Agricultural Practices program: The case of rice farmers in the Central Plains of Thailand. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2015, 96, 242–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Trienekens, J.; Zuurbier, P. Quality and safety standards in the food industry, developments and challenges. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2008, 113, 107–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tookwinas, S.; Chiyakum, K.; Somsueb, S. Aquaculture of White Shrimp Penaeus Vannamei in Thailand. 2005. Available online: https://repository.seafdec.org.ph/handle/10862/855 (accessed on 14 October 2020).
- Department of Fisheries (DOF), Database of Aquaculture Farm Certification Standards. Fisheries Commodity Standard Sys-tem and Traceability Division. 2019. Available online: http://thacert.fisheries.go.th/wscert/site/certificate_list.jsp (accessed on 15 October 2020).
- Thongpalad, K.; Kuwornu, J.K.; Datta, A.; Chulakasian, S.; Anal, A.K. On-farm food safety knowledge, attitudes and self-reported practices of layer hen farmers. Br. Food J. 2019, 121, 1912–1925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bixley, B.; Yamane, T. Statistics: An Introductory Analysis. Can. J. Econ. Politi- Sci. 1965, 31, 163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- Flaten, O.; Lien, G.; Ebbesvik, M.; Koesling, M.; Valle, P.S. Do the new organic producers differ from the ‘old guard’? Empirical results from Norwegian dairy farming. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2006, 21, 174–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paul, S.K.; Hossain, M.N. People’s perception about flood disaster management in Bangladesh: A case study on the Chalan Beel Area. Stamford J. Environ. Hum. Habitat 2013, 2, 72–86. [Google Scholar]
- Ndamani, F.; Watanabe, T. Farmers’ Perceptions about Adaptation Practices to Climate Change and Barriers to Adaptation: A Micro-Level Study in Ghana. Water 2015, 7, 4593–4604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Van Bac, H.; Nanseki, T.; Chomei, Y. Factors influencing tea farmers decision to adopt Vietnamese good agricultural practices in Northern Vietnam. J. Agric. Econ. Dev. 2017, 6, 12–19. [Google Scholar]
- Ngokkuen, C.; Grote, U. Geographical indication for jasmine rice: Applying a logit model to predict adoption behavior of Thai farm households. Q. J. Int. Agric. 2012, 51, 157–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nkamleu, G.B.; Manyong, V.M. Factors affecting the adoption of agroforestry practices by farmers in Cameroon. Small-Scale For. Econ. Manag. Policy 2005, 4, 135–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ruben, R.; Fort, R. The Impact of Fair-Trade Certification for Coffee Farmers in Peru. World Dev. 2012, 40, 570–582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kersting, S.; Wollni, M. New institutional arrangements and standard adoption: Evidence from small-scale fruit and vegetable farmers in Thailand. Food Policy 2012, 37, 452–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Muddassir, M.; Noor, M.A.; Ahmed, A.; Aldosari, F.; Waqas, M.A.; Zia, M.A.; Mubushar, M.; Zuhaibe, A.-U.-H.; Jalip, M.W. Awareness and adoption level of fish farmers regarding recommended fish farming practices in Hafizabad, Pakistan. J. Saudi Soc. Agric. Sci. 2019, 18, 41–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cronbach, L.J. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 1951, 16, 297–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tavakol, M.; Dennick, R. Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. Int. J. Med. Educ. 2011, 2, 53–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wambua, M. A Cost Benefit Analysis of the Fish Farming Enterprise and Productivity Program in Kenya. 2018. Available online: https://www.grocentre.is/static/gro/publication/351/document/moses15prf.pdf (accessed on 10 July 2020).
- Tan, J.; Luan, S.; Cao, B.; Luo, K.; Meng, X.; Kong, J. Comparison of growth and reproduction performance of broodstock Pacific white shrimp Litopenaeus vannamei reared in oceanic and brackish water. Aquac. Res. 2019, 50, 1893–1902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Holmstrom, K.; Graslund, S.; Wahlstrom, A.; Poungshompoo, S.; Bengtsson, B.-E.; Kautsky, N. Antibiotic use in shrimp farming and implications for environmental impacts and human health. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2003, 38, 255–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gerrard, C.; Janssen, M.; Smith, L.; Hamm, U.; Padel, S. UK consumer reactions to organic certification logos. Br. Food J. 2013, 115, 727–742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
New-Adopters (n = 104) 20.5% | Mid-Adopters (n = 184) 36.2% | Old-Adopters (n = 220) 43.3% | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Demographic Characteristics | Mean/ Frequency | (SD)/ % | Mean/ Frequency | (SD)/ % | Mean/ Frequency | (SD)/ % | p-Value |
Gender (%) | 0.699 | ||||||
Male | 54 | 51.9% | 86 | 46.7% | 107 | 48.6% | |
Female | 50 | 48.1% | 98 | 53.3% | 113 | 51.4% | |
Age (years) | 39.65 | (10.98) | 44.60 | (9.91) | 53.07 | (9.82) | 0.000 *** |
Education | 0.312 | ||||||
| 60 | 57.69% | 117 | 63.59% | 121 | 55% | |
| 32 | 30.77% | 54 | 29.35% | 81 | 36.82% | |
| 12 | 11.54% | 13 | 7.06% | 18 | 8.18% | |
Experience (years) | 18.47 | (8.84) | 21.66 | (8.40) | 27.72 | (9.78) | 0.000 *** |
Perception | New-Adopters | Mid-Adopters | Old-Adopters | |
---|---|---|---|---|
WAI | WAI | WAI | p-Value | |
Water Quality | ||||
Preventing the exotic species | 0.76 | 0.76 | 0.72 | 0.195 |
Checking water quality | 0.68 | 0.69 | 0.64 | 0.294 |
Farm facilities | 0.65 | 0.64 | 0.63 | 0.903 |
Complied with relevant laws | 0.60 | 0.63 | 0.58 | 0.413 |
Repairing pond | 0.68 | 0.70 | 0.64 | 0.047 * |
Water contamination | 0.73 | 0.74 | 0.69 | 0.111 |
Wastewater treatment | 0.72 | 0.76 | 0.68 | 0.005 ** |
Record-keeping | 0.77 | 0.79 | 0.70 | 0.003 ** |
Feed | ||||
Feeding | 0.67 | 0.74 | 0.69 | 0.006 ** |
Feed registration | 0.73 | 0.79 | 0.74 | 0.005 ** |
Do not use legally prohibited ingredients | 0.75 | 0.80 | 0.78 | 0.047 * |
Feed storage condition | 0.74 | 0.78 | 0.76 | 0.317 |
Farm Management | ||||
Stock density | 0.76 | 0.77 | 0.76 | 0.818 |
Farm registration | 0.79 | 0.80 | 0.78 | 0.677 |
Harvesting | ||||
Prohibited chemicals control | 0.76 | 0.79 | 0.81 | 0.131 |
Complied with relevant laws | 0.77 | 0.78 | 0.81 | 0.365 |
Certified buyer | 0.75 | 0.76 | 0.80 | 0.066 |
Preventing contamination | 0.74 | 0.75 | 0.77 | 0.477 |
Pet control | 0.79 | 0.76 | 0.79 | 0.161 |
Using veterinary drugs under veterinarian’s supervision | 0.82 | 0.78 | 0.80 | 0.552 |
Keeping equipment | 0.69 | 0.72 | 0.73 | 0.423 |
Animal Health and Welfare | ||||
Animal welfare management | 0.77 | 0.82 | 0.78 | 0.036 * |
Informing disease outbreak | 0.83 | 0.83 | 0.84 | 0.973 |
Monitoring shrimp health | 0.77 | 0.80 | 0.75 | 0.043 * |
Causation analysis and corrective actions | 0.81 | 0.82 | 0.78 | 0.075 |
Disease control and prevention | 0.82 | 0.84 | 0.81 | 0.309 |
Attitude | New-Adopters | Mid-Adopters | Old-Adopters | p-Value |
---|---|---|---|---|
WAI | WAI | WAI | ||
Environmental | ||||
Using resources efficiently | 0.76 | 0.72 | 0.73 | 0.023 * |
Environmentally friendly | 0.80 | 0.77 | 0.77 | 0.000 *** |
Reduce chemical use | 0.83 | 0.74 | 0.76 | 0.000 *** |
Nature conservation | 0.76 | 0.72 | 0.73 | 0.161 |
Reduce waste | 0.78 | 0.74 | 0.76 | 0.227 |
Constraint | ||||
High feed cost | 0.68 | 0.54 | 0.61 | 0.000 *** |
Lack of good quality seeds, brood stock | 0.72 | 0.63 | 0.66 | 0.001 *** |
Lack of GAP knowledge | 0.68 | 0.54 | 0.61 | 0.000 *** |
Profit | ||||
Reduce production costs | 0.66 | 0.65 | 0.66 | 0.921 |
Making more sales | 0.66 | 0.64 | 0.65 | 0.851 |
Higher price premium | 0.74 | 0.71 | 0.73 | 0.537 |
Increasing products quality | 0.73 | 0.71 | 0.73 | 0.633 |
Increasing productivity | 0.74 | 0.70 | 0.73 | 0.363 |
Information Gathering | ||||
Accepted by related-parties | 0.69 | 0.70 | 0.70 | 0.889 |
Generate a connection network between communities | 0.74 | 0.73 | 0.73 | 0.885 |
Participation in related organizations | 0.75 | 0.74 | 0.73 | 0.855 |
Attending/training on GAP | 0.75 | 0.72 | 0.76 | 0.268 |
Risk | ||||
Price fluctuation | 0.66 | 0.65 | 0.64 | 0.742 |
Lack of GAP practices | 0.68 | 0.65 | 0.64 | 0.382 |
High capital cost | 0.68 | 0.65 | 0.63 | 0.286 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Booncharoen, C.; Anal, A.K. Attitudes, Perceptions, and On-Farm Self-Reported Practices of Shrimp Farmers’ towards Adoption of Good Aquaculture Practices (GAP) in Thailand. Sustainability 2021, 13, 5194. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13095194
Booncharoen C, Anal AK. Attitudes, Perceptions, and On-Farm Self-Reported Practices of Shrimp Farmers’ towards Adoption of Good Aquaculture Practices (GAP) in Thailand. Sustainability. 2021; 13(9):5194. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13095194
Chicago/Turabian StyleBooncharoen, Chitrlada, and Anil Kumar Anal. 2021. "Attitudes, Perceptions, and On-Farm Self-Reported Practices of Shrimp Farmers’ towards Adoption of Good Aquaculture Practices (GAP) in Thailand" Sustainability 13, no. 9: 5194. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13095194