Article

Adopting Paludiculture as a Farming Model Resilient to Climate Change: Insights from Farming Communities in the Peatlands of South Sumatra, Indonesia

Ema Pusvita ORCID , Lisa Hermawati , Gribaldi
    Received: Day Month Year | Revised: 21 April 2026 | Accepted: 28 April 2026 | Published Online: 5 May 2026

    Abstract

    Paludiculture, which involves growing crops and managing forests on rehydrated peatlands, is seen as a viable option to balance agricultural production with peatland conservation. However, the adoption of this practice by farmers remains inconsistent. This study investigated factors related to socioeconomic status and behavior that influence paludiculture adoption among communities living in peatland areas in Ogan Komering Ilir (OKI) Regency, South Sumatra, Indonesia. We surveyed n = 150 farmers and used Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) to assess how perceived usefulness (PU), perceived ease of implementation (PEI), institutional support (IS), economic capacity (SEC), and perceived climate risk (PCR) influenced adoption intention (AI) and actual adoption (AA) of the practice. Our findings indicate that adoption intention is positively correlated with perceived usefulness (β = 0.34, p < 0.01) and perceived ease of implementation (β = 0.26, p < 0.05). In contrast, perceived climate risk negatively impacted intention (β = −0.23, p < 0.05). Institutional support contributed positively, albeit to a lesser extent (β = 0.17, p < 0.10), while economic capacity had a slight positive correlation (β = 0.19, p ≈ 0.10). Intention to adopt was a strong predictor of actual adoption (β = 0.48, p < 0.01). The model explained 56% of the variance in adoption intention (R2 = 0.56) and 38% of the variance in actual adoption (R2 = 0.38). These results suggest that promoting paludiculture will require increasing perceived economic benefits, reducing concerns about risks through ongoing training and demonstrations, and improving supporting conditions such as extension services and financing. Policies that combine technical assistance with institutional support and market development are likely to accelerate adoption and enhance climate resilience in peatland farming systems.

    Keywords

    Climate Resilience, Paludiculture, Peatlands, Technology Adoption

    References
    1. [1] Doelman, J.C., Verhagen, W., Stehfest, E., et al., 2023. The role of peatland degradation, protection and restoration for climate change mitigation in the SSP scenarios. Environmental Research: Climate. 2(3), 035002. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/2752-5295/acd5f4
    2. [2] van Noordwijk, M., Agus, F., Dewi, S., et al., 2011. Opportunities for Reducing Emissions from All Land Uses in Indonesia: Policy Analysis and Case Studies. ASB Partnership for the Tropical Forest Margins: Nairobi, Kenya.
    3. [3] Carmenta, R., Zabala, A., Daeli, W., et al., 2017. Perceptions across scales of governance and the Indonesian peatland fires. Global Environmental Change. 46, 50–59. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.08.001
    4. [4] Pusvita, E., Mulyana, A., Adriani, D., et al., 2024. Perceptions of farmers regarding peatland restoration model of paludiculture in South Sumatra, Indonesia. Heritage and Sustainable Development. 6(1), 315–334. DOI: https://doi.org/10.37868/hsd.v6i1.418
    5. [5] Bhomia, R.K., Murdiyarso, D., 2021. Effective monitoring and management of peatland restoration. Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR): Bogor, Indonesia. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17528/cifor/008142
    6. [6] Sumarga, E., Hein, L., Hooijer, A., et al., 2016. Hydrological and economic effects of oil palm cultivation in Indonesian peatlands. Ecology and Society. 21(2), 52. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08490-210252
    7. [7] Budiman, I., Bastoni, Sari, E.N., et al., 2020. Progress of paludiculture projects in supporting peatland ecosystem restoration in Indonesia. Global Ecology and Conservation. 23, e01084. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2020.e01084
    8. [8] Pusvita, E., Mulyana, A., Adriani, D., et al., 2024. Economic value of agroforestry scenario paludicultural model in the peatlands of south Sumatra Indonesia. Seybold. 19(3), 530–543.
    9. [9] Pusvita, E., Mulyana, A., Adriani, D., et al., 2024. Optimization of the Paludiculture Model as a Livelihood to Improve Farmer Welfare in the Peatlands of OKI Regency, South Sumatra. Jurnal Pemikiran Masyarakat Ilmiah Berwawasan Agribisnis. 10(2), 3654–3662. DOI: https://doi.org/10.25157/ma.v10i2.15046 (in Indonesian)
    10. [10] Rahmah, F., Basri, H., Sufardi, 2015. Carbon Storage Potential of Mangrove Forests and Aquaculture Ponds in the Coastal Areas of Banda Aceh City. Jurnal Manajemen Sumberdaya Lahan. 4(1), 527–534. (in Indonesian)
    11. [11] Astuti, R., 2020. Fixing flammable forest: The scalar politics of peatland governance and restoration in Indonesia. Asia Pacific Viewpoint. 61(2), 283–300. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/apv.12267
    12. [12] Kozban, I., Kopsieker, L., Wulf, S., et al., 2023. Strengthening Synergies for Biodiversity and Climate. Bundesamt für Naturschutz: Bonn, Germany. DOI: https://doi.org/10.19217/hgr232en
    13. [13] Rozaki, Z., 2021. Food security challenges and opportunities in Indonesia post COVID-19. In Advances in Food Security and Sustainability. Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.af2s.2021.07.002
    14. [14] Geurts, J.J.M., Fritz, C., 2018. Paludiculture Pilots and Experiments with Focus on Cattail and Reed in the Netherlands—Technical Report CINDERELLA Project FACCE-JPI ERA-NET Plus on Climate Smart Agriculture. Radboud University: Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
    15. [15] Harrison, M.E., Ottay, J.B., D’Arcy, L.J., et al., 2020. Tropical forest and peatland conservation in Indonesia: Challenges and directions. People and Nature. 2(1), 4–28. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10060
    16. [16] Mendham, D.S., Sakuntaladewi, N., Ramawati, et al., 2024. Facilitating new livelihoods to promote peatland restoration in Indonesia: What are the challenges for ensuring sustainable and equitable livelihood transitions? Mires and Peat. 30, 1–14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.19189/MaP.2023.OMB.Sc.2105613
    17. [17] Pusvita, E., Mulyana, A., Adriani, D., et al., 2023. Farmers’ Interest and Economics Model of Agrosilvofishery Restoration on Degraded Peatland in OKI Regency South Sumatra Indonesia. Journal of Smart Agriculture and Environmental Technology. 1(3), 99–111. Available from: https://josaet.com/index.php/smartagrienvitech/article/view/37
    18. [18] Karbo, R.T., Frewer, L.J., Areal, F., et al., 2024. A systematic review of the efficacy of theories used to understand farmers’ technology adoption behavior in lower-to-middle-income countries. Development Studies Research. 11(1), 2294696. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/21665095.2023.2294696
    19. [19] Ruzzante, S., Labarta, R., Bilton, A., 2021. Adoption of agricultural technology in the developing world: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. World Development. 146, 105599. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2021.105599
    20. [20] Spiegel, A., Britz, W., Finger, R., 2021. Risk, risk aversion, and agricultural technology adoption: A novel valuation method based on real options and inverse stochastic dominance. Q Open. 1(2), qoab016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/qopen/qoab016
    21. [21] Suprehatin, 2021. Determinants of agricultural technology adoption by smallholder farmers in developing countries: Perspective and prospect for Indonesia. Jurnal Penelitian dan Pengembangan Pertanian. 40(1), 21–30.
    22. [22] Flood, K., Wilson, D., 2025. Evidence Synthesis and Knowledge Integration for Sustainable Peatland Management. Land. 14(7), 1397.
    23. [23] Lees, K.J., Evans, M., McCarter, C.P.R., et al., 2025. The sponge analogy problem: Moving towards clearer communication of peatland hydrological processes. Hydrological Processes. 39(9), e70267. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.70267
    24. [24] Nabillah, R., Fawzi, N.I., Esam, H., et al., 2025. Exploring the dynamics of supply chain sustainability and resilience in the coconut agriculture: The case of Indragiri Hilir in Indonesia. Environment, Development and Sustainability. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-025-06756-6
    25. [25] Shokri, N., Robinson, D.A., Afshar, M., et al., 2025. Rethinking Global Soil Degradation: Drivers, Impacts, and Solutions. Reviews of Geophysics. 63(4), e2025RG000883. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1029/2025RG000883
    26. [26] Arangurí, M., Mera, H., Noblecilla, W., 2025. Digital literacy and technology adoption in agriculture: A systematic review of factors and strategies. AgriEngineering. 7(9), 296.
    27. [27] Kruger, S., Steyn, A.A., 2025. Navigating the fourth industrial revolution: A systematic review of technology adoption model trends. Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management. 16(10), 24–56. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/JSTPM-11-2022-0188
    28. [28] Müller, W., 2025. Determinants of smart contract adoption in supply chains: A UTAUT-based PLS-SEM analysis. Operations Management Research. 18, 1113–1124.
    29. [29] Rana, M., Islam, T., Abdelwaheb, S., et al., 2025. Modeling the adoption of financial technology for sustainable agricultural development in Bangladesh using the technology acceptance model. Discover Sustainability. 6, 1191.
    30. [30] Aldraiweesh, A.A., Alturki, U., 2025. The influence of social support theory on AI acceptance: Examining educational support and perceived usefulness using SEM analysis. IEEE Access. 13, 18366–18385. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2025.3534099
    31. [31] Sutawijaya, I.B.G., Suwarno, A., Hein, L., 2025. Socio-economic benefits of different Indonesian crops: Opportunities for sago starch in bioplastic development. Sustainability. 17(16), 7351.
    32. [32] Chen, H., Zhao, G., Ramzan, M., 2025. The path to environmental sustainability: How circular economy, natural capital, and structural economic changes shape greenhouse gas emissions in Germany. Sustainability. 17(13), 5982.
    33. [33] Hünnebeck-Wells, A., Loos, J., Abel, S., et al., 2024. Transformation towards the sustainable management of peatlands: A characterisation of farmers in the Teufelsmoor, Germany. People and Nature. 7(2), 346–359. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10701
    34. [34] Birk, S., Weigelt, C., Borgwardt, F., et al., 2025. Freshwater restoration effects on biodiversity and ecosystem services: A Delphi survey. Restoration Ecology. 33(7), e70119. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.70119
    35. [35] Nordbeck, R., Hogl, K., Schaller, L., 2025. The integration of peatlands into the EU Common Agricultural Policy: Recent progress and remaining challenges. Environmental Science and Policy. 169, 104077. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2025.104077
    36. [36] Heinemeyer, A., Ashby, M.A., Liu, B., et al., 2025. Prescribed heather burning on peatlands: A review of ten key claims made about heather management impacts and implications for future UK policy. Mires and Peat. 32, 12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.19189/001c.143335
    37. [37] Pott, L., Hershkovitz, Y., Birk, S., 2025. Nature-based solutions mapping multiple benefits in large-scale freshwater restoration: A theory of change approach. Nature-Based Solutions. 8, 100240. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nbsj.2025.100240
    38. [38] van Dam, A.A., Robertson, H., Prieler, R., et al., 2025. Recognising diversity in wetlands and farming systems to support sustainable agriculture and conserve wetlands. Marine & Freshwater Research. 76, MF24017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1071/MF24017
    39. [39] Vilakazi, B., Mafongoya, P.L., Odindo, A.O., et al., 2025. Socioeconomic factors influencing smallholder farmers’ willingness to cultivate neglected legumes and their selection of suitable planting dates. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems. 9, 1607687. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2025.1607687
    40. [40] Gebrehiwot, T., van der Veen, A., 2015. Farmers prone to drought risk: Why some farmers undertake farm-level risk-reduction measures while others not? Environmental Management. 55, 588–602. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-014-0415-7
    41. [41] Almaiah, M.A., Al Mulhem, A., 2019. Analysis of the essential factors affecting of intention to use of mobile learning applications: A comparison between universities adopters and non-adopters. Education and Information Technologies. 24(2), 1433–1468.
    42. [42] Scandif, J., Zhang, M., Karsan, I., et al., 2024. The role of mentoring and coaching of healthcare professionals for digital technology adoption and implementation: A scoping review. DIGITAL HEALTH. 10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/20552076241238075
    43. [43] Ngaiwi, M.E., Molua, E.L., Sonwa, D.J., et al., 2023. Do farmers’ socioeconomic status determine the adoption of conservation agriculture? An empirical evidence from Eastern and Southern Regions of Cameroon. Scientific African. 19, e01498. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sciaf.2022.e01498
    44. [44] Kiptot, E., Franzel, S., Hebinck, P., et al., 2006. Sharing seed and knowledge: Farmer to farmer dissemination of agroforestry technologies in western Kenya. Agroforestry Systems. 68, 167–179. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-006-9007-8
    45. [45] Katya Kule, E., Agole, D., Obia, A., et al., 2025. Adoption of sustainable agricultural intensification practices: Assessing the role of institutional and socio-economic factors amongst smallholder farmers. Cogent Social Sciences. 11(1), 2470373. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2025.2470373
    46. [46] Mogaka, B.O., Bett, H.K., Ng'ang'a, S.K., 2021. Socioeconomic factors influencing the choice of climate-smart soil practices among farmers in western Kenya. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research. 5, 100168. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafr.2021.100168
    47. [47] Abulail, R.N., Badran, O.N., Shkoukani, M.A., et al., 2025. Exploring the factors influencing AI adoption intentions in higher education: An integrated model of DOI, TOE, and TAM. Computers. 14(6), 230.
    48. [48] Dingel, J., Kleine, A., Cecil, J., et al., 2024. Predictors of health care practitioners’ intention to use AI-enabled clinical decision support systems: Meta-analysis based on the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. Journal of Medical Internet Research. 26, e57224. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/57224
    49. [49] Almaiah, M.A., Alfaisal, R., Salloum, S.A., et al., 2022. Measuring institutions’ adoption of artificial intelligence applications in online learning environments: Integrating the innovation diffusion theory with technology adoption rate. Electronics. 11(20), 3291.
    50. [50] Canavari, M., Medici, M., Wongprawmas, R., et al., 2021. A path model of the intention to adopt variable rate irrigation in Northeast Italy. Sustainability. 13(4), 1879.
    51. [51] Tochaiwat, K., Pawanacharurn, V., Seniwong, P., 2025. Structural equation modeling for analyzing innovation adoption in residential condominium projects. Buildings. 15(14), 2467.
    Back to top