Next Article in Journal
Resilience-Oriented Sustainable Regional Competitiveness: Integrating Civil Protection, Asymmetric Threats, and Institutional Quality in Europe
Previous Article in Journal
Experimental and TRNSYS-Based Assessment of Bio-Based Reinforced Plaster for Sustainable Building Applications
Previous Article in Special Issue
Exploring Consumer Acceptance of Environmentally Friendly Intermediate Farming: A Grouping Approach Based on Consumers’ Purchase Preferences
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
This is an early access version, the complete PDF, HTML, and XML versions will be available soon.
Article

Understanding Farmers’ Adoption Intentions for Environmentally Friendly Intermediate Farming: A Typology-Based Analysis of Current Farming Systems in Japan

1
The United Graduate School of Agricultural Science, Gifu University, Gifu 501-1193, Japan
2
Faculty of Agriculture, Shizuoka University, Shizuoka 422-8529, Japan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2026, 18(10), 4775; https://doi.org/10.3390/su18104775 (registering DOI)
Submission received: 2 April 2026 / Revised: 1 May 2026 / Accepted: 9 May 2026 / Published: 11 May 2026

Abstract

Reducing agrochemical inputs while maintaining productivity is essential for sustainable agriculture and food security. To bridge the gap between conventional and organic systems and inform evidence-based promotion strategies, this study examines how farmers with different existing farming systems perceive and respond to an intermediate farming method characterized by minimal agrochemical use (≤1/8 of conventional levels) in Shizuoka Prefecture, Japan. A survey of 120 farmers was classified into organic (OA, 34.2%), reduced-input (RA, 28.3%), and conventional (CA, 37.5%) groups. Chi-square tests and binary logistic regression were employed to examine group differences and identify predictors of adoption intention. Adoption willingness varied significantly across groups (χ2 = 24.46, p < 0.001): RA farmers showed the highest willingness (88.2%), followed by CA farmers (68.9%), while OA farmers were least willing (34.1%). Logistic regression identified farmer type (OA vs. CA: OR = 0.148, p = 0.001) and adoption conditions including health safety assurance (OR = 3.687, p = 0.026) and higher profitability (OR = 3.897, p = 0.040) as significant predictors. These findings highlight the importance of tailored extension strategies and evidence-based policy support to facilitate adoption across diverse farmer groups.
Keywords: farming systems; farmer heterogeneity; adoption intention; intermediate farming; minimal agrochemical use; diffusion of innovation farming systems; farmer heterogeneity; adoption intention; intermediate farming; minimal agrochemical use; diffusion of innovation

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Wang, C.; Nakagomi, M.; Oka, A.; Matsumoto, K. Understanding Farmers’ Adoption Intentions for Environmentally Friendly Intermediate Farming: A Typology-Based Analysis of Current Farming Systems in Japan. Sustainability 2026, 18, 4775. https://doi.org/10.3390/su18104775

AMA Style

Wang C, Nakagomi M, Oka A, Matsumoto K. Understanding Farmers’ Adoption Intentions for Environmentally Friendly Intermediate Farming: A Typology-Based Analysis of Current Farming Systems in Japan. Sustainability. 2026; 18(10):4775. https://doi.org/10.3390/su18104775

Chicago/Turabian Style

Wang, Chunhong, Mitsuho Nakagomi, Akari Oka, and Kazuhiro Matsumoto. 2026. "Understanding Farmers’ Adoption Intentions for Environmentally Friendly Intermediate Farming: A Typology-Based Analysis of Current Farming Systems in Japan" Sustainability 18, no. 10: 4775. https://doi.org/10.3390/su18104775

APA Style

Wang, C., Nakagomi, M., Oka, A., & Matsumoto, K. (2026). Understanding Farmers’ Adoption Intentions for Environmentally Friendly Intermediate Farming: A Typology-Based Analysis of Current Farming Systems in Japan. Sustainability, 18(10), 4775. https://doi.org/10.3390/su18104775

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