1. Introduction
Farmers adopt strategies to cope with farming risks to sustain their livelihood. These strategies can be grouped into two categories. The first is the ex ante strategy, called the protective response, which helps to smooth income flow to households. The second is the ex post strategy, which helps to smooth consumption by households [
1,
2,
3,
4]. Under a given condition, farmers select ex ante or ex post strategies to cope with farming risks.
Farmers tend to adopt ex post strategies to minimize the impacts of disasters [
3]. Ex post strategies are viewed as immediate responses to problems [
5]. According to the World Bank [
6], in principle, the best approach to reduce risks is to take actions that anticipate the adverse impacts of disasters, or adopt ex ante strategies, because the function of ex post strategies is to address the failures of ex ante strategies.
The impact of natural hazards on agriculture in Indonesia, which appear to be due to climate change, has become increasingly severe. From 2005 to 2015, for example, the number of natural hazards, such as flooding and droughts, doubled [
7]. As weather warms and humidity increases, pests and diseases occur more often and destroy plants. The Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) [
8] reported an increase in attacks to paddy crops by pests, such as brown plant hoppers, by as much as 180% in 2014 compared to 2012. To minimize the calamitous impact of disasters at the farm household level, it is important to enhance farmers’ capacity for prevention and mitigation [
9]. In such capacity building, institutional support by the government is indispensable.
One government policy that enhances farmers’ risk coping is agricultural insurance, which the Indonesian government decided to implement in 2016. Currently, the insurance premium is highly subsidized (80% of the premium is subsidized). However, its participation rate in 2016 was still low, at around 20% of the target farmers [
10]. For the Indonesian government to motivate farmers to purchase agricultural insurance as a risk-coping strategy, as a first step toward the amendment of agricultural insurance policies, it is important to understand farmers’ risk-coping behaviors and their constraints, especially for farmers who have not yet purchased agricultural insurance.
Many approaches can be used to investigate individuals’ decisions on risk coping strategies. Barnett et al. [
11] applied an adaptation pathway approach to investigate coping strategies adopted to minimize the adverse impacts of sea level rise in southeastern Australia. Osbahr et al. [
12] examined farmers’ strategies in adapting to climate change and variability in South Africa by applying the livelihood adaptation framework. Huitema et al. [
13] clarified the importance of interventions and governance at higher jurisdictional levels conducted by government agencies for adaptation to climate change. Their study contributed to the development of the governance of adaptation approach. Pelling [
14] identified the contribution of social capital theory to enhancing the understanding of individuals and social collectives in responding to climate change.
Grothmann and Patt [
15] argued that psychological aspects have to be considered in the adaptation process. Therefore, they proposed a socio-cognitive model of adaptation and adaptive capacity to explain the process of individuals’ adaptation to climate change by addressing psychological factors. The model is based on protection motivation theory (PMT) developed by Rogers [
16]. Even though the theory is used in psychological research on health behavior, it has also been successfully applied in other research fields, including risk management [
17]. Results of studies of natural hazards (e.g., flooding, earthquake, and wildfire preparedness) such as by Grothmann and Reusswig [
17], Bubeck et al. [
18], Martinn et al. [
19], and Mankad et al. [
20] highlight the potential for PMT-based models in predicting farmer behavior with respect to risk coping strategies. The application of the socio-cognitive model of adaptation and adaptive capacity to explain farmers’ risk coping behavior in developing countries is still limited, particularly in Southeast Asia, including Indonesia.
The present study had two objectives: (1) to identify determinants of decisions on ex ante coping strategies; and (2) to identify determinants of decisions on ex post coping strategies. For the conducted analysis, the choice to adopt, number of strategies, and types of strategies are considered as aspects of decisions. In reality, not all farmers adopt ex ante coping strategies, whereas almost all farmers who have experience with disasters adopt ex post coping strategies. When adopting ex post coping strategies after a certain disaster has occurred, the stress level of ex post coping strategy influences farmers’ capacities for choosing ex ante coping strategies in the future (adaptive capacity). Hence, the above-mentioned aspects are significant to ex post strategy analysis. The present study incorporates socio-psychological aspects of adaptation as variables in the estimation. It is therefore an essential study of the socio-cognitive model of adaptation and adaptive capacity [
15,
17,
21].
4. Discussion
This study investigated the determinants of decisions to adopt ex ante coping strategies and the number of strategies adopted. The study identified the determinants of decisions on the type of ex post coping strategies adopted.
The result of the logit model showed that risk-averse farmers significantly adopt ex ante coping strategies to anticipate the negative impacts of future risks. Risk-averse households tend to diversify income, even though the total income might be lower [
33]. This result confirms the finding of previous studies that risk-averse farmers tend to use crop diversification as one of the ex ante coping strategies to reduce failures in production [
31,
32,
47,
60]. Farmers who have a higher discount rate significantly do not adopt ex ante coping strategies. This finding is similar to that of Reardon and Vosti [
48], who stated that farmers may have a high discount rate and may sacrifice long-term objectives (reducing the adverse impact of risks). A higher discount rate means that farmers value current resources higher than those of the future. This means that farmers prefer present benefits from their current resources over those in the future. This condition reduces farmers’ investments allocated for ex ante coping strategies such as saving, from which the benefit will be enjoyed by farmers in the future.
Disaster experience significantly determines the decision to adopt ex ante coping strategies. Influence of disaster experience on adopting ex ante coping strategies was consistent with findings in Bangladesh and in the U.S. [
51,
52]. Disaster experience delivers knowledge of the adverse impacts of disasters on farmer wealth. As a result, their motivation to adopt ex ante coping strategies increases. Percentage of damage has a negative impact on adopting ex ante coping strategies. This is because a higher percentage of damage means that farmers’ income is lower; therefore, farmers have a lower capacity to invest in ex ante coping strategies. As reported by Warner et al. [
53], the percentage of damage influences the capacity of individuals to cope with risks.
In terms of prediction, each coping appraisal perception variable—coping efficacy, self-efficacy, and cost—are important determinants of implementing ex ante coping strategies. Farmers who have higher coping efficacy and self-efficacy perceptions significantly adopt ex ante coping strategies to minimize the impact of risks. Conversely, farmers who have higher cost perception significantly do not implement ex ante coping strategies, in line with previous findings [
15,
17,
18,
30]. In contrast with the prediction, risk perception variables (risk probability and risk impact) were not significant for adopting ex ante coping strategies. According to the survey data, most farmers reported that the probability of disaster occurrence was high, particularly with respect to pests and diseases. Therefore, there was almost no difference in terms of risk probability between farmers who took on and those who did not take on ex ante coping strategies. This condition might have occurred because the objective of ex ante coping strategies is to minimize the adverse impact of various risks (five risks in the present study) [
12,
61,
62]. The insignificant risk perception of adopting ex ante coping strategies is similar with previous findings [
63,
64,
65,
66], which analyzed the effect of risk perception on adopting protective responses to minimize the impact of floods.
Regarding economic characteristics, per capita expenditure is a determinant of adopting ex ante coping strategies. Farmers with higher per capita expenditure significantly adopt ex ante coping strategies, because farmers with high per capita income have more capacity to do so [
2,
34,
35,
36].
Farming characteristics are expected to be essential to the decision to adopt ex ante coping strategies. Land size had a negative impact on the decision. This finding is similar to those of previous reports [
54,
55]. According to the survey, because of small land size, farmers had enough time to undertake off-farm income-generating activities as sources of ex ante coping. Farmers who managed middle-sized land tended to concentrate on farming as a main income source and allocated all their time to farming. However, because of small incomes, they could not save part of their incomes as an ex ante coping strategy. In contrast, farmers who managed larger land sizes could adopt ex ante coping strategies, such as saving, because, with larger land sizes, they could earn higher incomes. Therefore, farmers who had larger land sizes significantly adopted ex ante coping strategies. This condition fitted in the model when the land size variable was converted into a squared variable; it increased the prediction power.
Regarding geographical location, the result indicates that farmers in the downstream and midstream areas adopt fewer ex ante coping strategies compared to those in the upstream area. This is because farmers in the downstream and midstream areas have a higher percentage of damage, compared to those in the upstream area. Moreover, in the upstream area, there are many options for cropping due to favorable agro-climatic conditions, resulting in their crop diversification every season as an ex ante coping strategy.
Different numbers of ex ante coping strategies are chosen by farmers. To minimize the total income risk, farmers adopt different strategies [
67]. The number of ex ante coping strategies adopted reflects the intensity of the desire to reduce the negative impacts of disasters. An increase in the number of strategies strengthens the capacity of farmers to reduce the impact of disasters, but this reduces valuable resources, not only in terms of money, but also time.
The result of the ZTPRM showed that per capita expenditure, land size, disaster experience, and access to financial institutions are determinants of decisions on the number of ex ante coping strategies adopted. Even though access to financial institutions is not a significant determinant in adopting ex ante coping strategies, further investigation of farmers who choose ex ante coping strategies showed that this variable positively determines the number of ex ante coping strategies adopted. Access to financial institutions might increase the capacity of farmers to implement ex ante coping strategies. For instance, farmers use a financial institution to save some parts of their income and to borrow money to be invested in off-farm income-generating activities [
56,
57,
58,
59]. It is likely that economic affordability (deriving from income, large land size, and access to financial institutions) enables farmers to invest in several coping strategies.
Farmers rely on an ex post coping strategy to cope with the risks when ex ante coping strategies fail to address the risks. The stress level of the strategy adopted influences farmers’ adaptive capacity to anticipate future risks. The result of the MLM to identify determinants of decisions to take on ex post coping strategies between the low-stress and the middle-stress type shows that, among personal characteristics, education and percentage of damage are significant determinants of selecting the low- and middle-stress types. Farmers with a higher education level significantly adopt middle-stress coping strategies rather than low-stress coping strategies. This might be because farmers with a higher education level have a better ability to process information [
68]. For instance, migrating to find jobs should be easier for farmers with a higher education level because it requires the processing of complicated information to find a suitable job. Madison [
69] stated that farmers with a higher education level are more likely to employ coping strategies to minimize the adverse impacts of risks. Farmers who have experienced a higher percentage of damage significantly adopt low-stress coping strategies rather than the middle-stress strategies. This is likely because the higher percentage of damage resulted in lower incomes. Accordingly, instead of high investments, such as migrating to find jobs, which enables compensation for large-scale damage, farmers increase their household budget to fulfill their basic needs by minimizing unnecessary spending and modifying consumption patterns as ex post coping strategies.
Among economic characteristics, per capita expenditure was a significant factor for selecting the low- and middle-stress strategies. Farmers with higher per capita expenditure significantly selected the middle-stress coping strategy. For farming characteristics, sharecropping and rent in cash farmers were determinants of taking on ex post coping strategies. Farmers who practiced sharecropping and rent in cash farmers significantly selected the lower-stress coping strategy compared to that of owner farmers. This is because they produce lower incomes due to paying a share of products and rent to land owners. According to the survey data, farmers who practiced sharecropping and rent in cash had lower per capita incomes by 46.6% and 10.9%, respectively, compared to those of owner farmers.
From the geographical aspect, farmers in the midstream area significantly adopted the middle-stress type rather than the lower-stress type. According to the survey data, farmers in the midstream area had higher per capita incomes by 24.5%, and almost three times higher saving values, but were 13.3% less likely to take credit compared to those in the upstream area.
The result of the MLM in identifying the determinants of decisions regarding ex post coping strategies between the middle-stress and the high-stress types showed that disaster experience and percentage of damage significantly influence the selection of ex post coping categories. Farmers who experienced several disasters choose middle-stress rather than high-stress type. Conversely, farmers who experienced a higher percentage of damage adopt the high-stress rather than the middle-stress type. Sharecroppers significantly adopt the high-stress rather than the middle-stress type. Asset value is a significant determinant of selecting between the high-stress and the middle-stress type. Farmers with a higher asset value tend to select the middle-stress type because they could easily pay the cost of coping strategies. Farmers in the downstream area significantly adopt the high-stress type compared to farmers in the upstream area.
The result of the analysis of the type of ex post coping strategies adopted showed that the more prosperous farmers (higher per capita expenditure and asset value) select the middle-stress type and, after that, the low-stress and the high-stress categories. This means that as long as farmers can use their savings, borrow from formal or informal sources, migrate to find jobs, and obtain help from relatives, they avoid reducing consumption and expenditure, selling productive and consumption assets, defaulting on loans, and taking children out from school as ex post coping strategies.
Implications for governmental policy, in particular, should focus on increasing farmers’ risk coping capacities, including farmers’ participation in agricultural insurance schemes. According to the results of this study, access to financial institutions reflected by bank account ownership positively influenced farmers’ decisions regarding the number of adopted ex ante coping strategies. This highlights the opportunity for policymakers, such as the government, to formulate a policy to increase farmers’ adaptive capacity, including by purchasing agricultural insurance. Increasing access to financial institutions is one of the policies that can be implemented by the government. This provides opportunities for farmers to increase incomes. For instance, farmers might borrow money to be invested in off-farm income-generating activities or to pay for crop diversification. When farmers’ incomes rises, farmers can increase their risk coping capacity by adopting more than one ex ante coping strategy. In the long term, the policy might increase the participation rate in agricultural insurance because agricultural insurance will be more affordable to farmers when they have a higher income. This study reveals that a psychological factor—coping appraisal perception—is a significant determinant for adopting ex ante coping strategies. Therefore, the government should also improve farmer awareness of ex ante coping strategies. Increasing awareness of ex ante coping strategies will influence coping appraisal perception. As a result, farmers’ willingness to implement ex ante coping strategies or adaptive capacity would be expected to increase.
There is a limitation to the present study. Some variables have a low significance level (10% significance level). This might be because risks faced by farmers in the survey area included several risks. Therefore, ex ante coping strategies adopted by farmers were used to minimize the negative impacts of several future risks. It is important to identify farmers’ behavior in terms of ex ante coping strategies on a certain type of risk. As such, the significance level of the variables could be measured precisely.
5. Conclusions
Most farmers (74.4%) adopted ex ante coping strategies. These farmers had certain characteristics: higher risk aversion, higher per capita expenditure, and greater experience of disasters, but lower discount rate and percentage of damage, and location in downstream and midstream areas. The present study clarifies that coping appraisal perception determines the decision to adopt coping strategies. This finding confirms that socio-psychological aspects are essential factors in choosing coping strategies.
The majority of farmers implement more than one type of coping strategy. They combine strategies either within the same type (on-farm or off-farm) or across on-farm and off-farm strategies. The main selection is a combination of two off-farm strategies (income diversification and saving). Four significant determinants regarding the number of ex ante coping strategies adopted are as follows: per capita expenditure, land size, disaster experience, and access to financial institutions.
The present study shows that all farmers adopt ex post coping strategies. The most common coping strategy is the middle-stress coping strategy. When adopting more than one coping strategy, farmers prefer combinations within the same stress level (low, middle, or high) or across different types. Prosperous farmers tend to select the middle-stress followed by the low-stress type.
The government should increase farmers’ access to financial institutions to increase their adaptive capacity. Such a policy would provide opportunities for farmers to increase income. As income increases, the capacity of farmers to adopt ex ante strategies increases. The government should also improve farmers’ awareness of ex ante strategies. In the long-term, policies might increase agricultural insurance participation rates.
The present study is one of the studies on farmers’ risk coping behavior that applies the PMT framework. Therefore, this is an important study of the socio-cognitive model of adaptation and adaptive capacity, and an example of the studies in behavioral research in agriculture associated with coping risks in a developing country. Moreover, this study presents a case study. Therefore, the result might not reflect farmers’ behavior in the country as a whole. Nevertheless, the framework will be useful for future research investigating farmers’ risk coping behavior in other areas in Indonesia as well as in developing countries.