ISSN: 2407-814X (p); 2527-9238 (e) AGRARIS: Journal of Agribusiness and Rural Development Research Vol. 7 No. 2 July – December 2021, Pages: 225-240 Article history: Submitted : April 15th, 2021 Revised : October 2nd, 2021 August 15th, 2021 Accepted : October 7th, 2021 Epsi Euriga1, Michael Henry Boehme2 and Siti Amanah3 1 Yogyakarta – Magelang Agriculture Development Polytechnic, Ministry of Agriculture of Republic of Indonesia, Yogyakarta, Indonesia 2 Humboldt University of Berlin, Faculty of Life Sciences, Dept. Horticultural Plant Systems, Germany 3 Department of Communication and Community Development Sciences, Faculty of Human Ecology, IPB University, Indonesia *) Correspondence email: epsieuriga@gmail.com Changing Farmers' Perception towards Sustainable Horticulture: A Case Study of Extension Education in Farming Community in Yogyakarta, Indonesia DOI: https://doi.org/10.18196/agraris.v7i2.11510 ABSTRACT Applying sustainable horticulture as an innovation in The Special Region of Yogyakarta (DIY) Indonesia can be a commendable example in agricultural extension education. Previous research has revealed that understanding farmers' perceptions of innovation is essential for appropriate interventions to change their behavior. In DIY, the surveys were conducted in 2016 with 257 males and 93 females of farmers groups member from 21 villages in Sleman, Bantul, and Kulonprogo Regency. The objective of the survey was to determine the effects of farmer's internal factors on the perception of ecological, social economy, and ethical (ESE) urgency as a component of sustainable horticulture practices. The findings from the ecological, social, and ethical dimensions among the farming community in DIY indicated that, directly and indirectly, the farmers can acknowledge and practice sustainable horticulture. However, this was altering several factors, most notably, motivation and the prospect of increased income. The important thing in extension work was motivation, and a major motivating factor was the possibility of increased agricultural income. This study suggests that extension education of achieving horticultural sustainability in DIY should be based on the motivation of farmers and thoughtfulness of their basic needs especially needs to have higher income. Keywords: ecological, ethical, agricultural extension education, motivation, and sustainable horticulture. INTRODUCTION Moderate or severe food insecurity (based on the Food Insecurity Experience Scale) has been on the rise at the global level, from 22.6 percent in 2014 to 30.4 percent in 2020, the year the COVID-19 pandemic spread across the globe (FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP, & WHO, 2021). FAO finds that the COVID-19 pandemic has made it more challenging to achieve the SDGs by 2030 (Food and Agriculture Organization [FAO], 2020), especially progress was already stalled towards meeting SDG Targets 2.1 and 2.2: ending hunger and http://issn.pdii.lipi.go.id/issn.cgi?daftar&1420518152&1&& mailto:epsieuriga@gmail.com https://doi.org/10.18196/agraris.v7i2.11 ISSN: 2407-814X (p); 2527-9238 (e) 226 AGRARIS: Journal of Agribusiness and Rural Development Research ensuring access to safe, nutritious, and sufficient food for all people all year round; and eradicating all forms of malnutrition (FAO et al., 2021). The Special Region of Yogyakarta (DIY) has been experiencing food insecurity and lack of nutrition since 2014. It was 392 existing villages area where 16 have been observed as low food security and low nutrition villages and 26 as very low food security and very low nutrition villages (Badan Ketahanan Pangan dan Penyuluhan DIY, 2014). However, the current situation is getting better, and by 2021 there are four low food security and low nutrition villages in DIY (BAPPEDA DIY, 2021) despite the COVID-19 pandemic. It is one indicator of the success of the agricultural extension in DIY. Even though the data were collected from 2015 to 2016, it provides evidence of changed farmer perceptions due to the high effectiveness of implementing sustainable horticultural extension in DIY (Euriga, Amanah, Fatchiya, & Asngari, 2018) to alleviate food insecurity and malnutrition. Law No.16 of 2006 on the agricultural, fishery and forestry extension systems play an essential role in balancing or integrating food safety, human needs, and environmental sustainability. Agricultural extension education is not mentioned in SDGs 2 and 4 (about lifelong education), but it has a vital role in supporting sustainable horticulture by changing farmer perceptions (Ramborun, Facknath, & Lalljee, 2020) to adopt innovations. This research can strengthen or depict the weaknesses of agricultural extension education to support sustainable agriculture. Extension and research could simultaneously identify adaptations of agricultural innovations and monitor the evolution of complex systems under diverse conditions (Davis, 2019). However, sustainable horticulture is one of the innovations of agriculture that can achieve the stated issues because its products, primarily vegetables and fruits, are believed to improve nutrition. Horticulture as the branch of agriculture, especially fruits and vegetables, has high economic value. Horticulture was prioritized in this research because of the higher decrease in productivity than other commodities in DIY (Statistics of D.I. Yogyakarta Province, 2014). Previous research suggests focusing more on sustainable horticulture (Lal, 2008; Spina et al., 2021). In 2021, the attention to increasing the availability of more nutritious foods, such as fruits and vegetables, for healthy diets. The government has been implemented sustainable horticulture by issuing a Decree of Minister of Agriculture No. 48/Permentan/OT.140/10/2009 about Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) for Fruits and Vegetables for Prima Certification (Prima 1, Prima 2, and Prima 3). Therefore, for this study, the concept of sustainable horticulture is defined as farming practices including inputs (superior seeding, organic fertilizer), cultivation (conservation land, crop rotation, mulch, irrigation, integrated pest management, and labor), post-harvest, marketing, and partnerships, especially for vegetables and fruit. Sustainable horticulture can be called an innovation because of the processes involved in its implementation (Spina et al., 2021). However, the acceptance of any innovation depends on its perceived characteristics, and extension activities have been one of the main factors influencing farmers' perception of innovation. The extension workers influence the decision-making processes undertaken by farmers in adopting innovations (Faruque-As- http://issn.pdii.lipi.go.id/issn.cgi?daftar&1420518152&1&& ISSN: 2407-814X (p); 2527-9238 (e) 227 Changing Farmers' Perception towards Sustainable ….. (Euriga, Boehme and Amanah) Sunny, Huang, & Karimanzira, 2018). They use appropriate extension methods to help farmers form opinions or perceptions and make correct decisions. The formation of perception has three mechanisms "selectivity, closure, and interpretation." It illustrates how they are generated to influence individual behavior (Litterer 1975). Perception is an active, not a passive, process, resulting both from what exists in the outside world and from people's own experiences, desires, needs and wants, loves and hatreds; it is so important in interpersonal communication and influences the communication choices (DeVito, 2013). According to Bayesian theories of perception that prescribe how an agent should integrate prior knowledge and sensory information and investigate how current and future empirical data can inform and constrain computational frameworks that implement such probabilistic integration in perception (de Lange, Heilbron, & Kok, 2018). In the domain of environmental psychology, the stimulus-organism-response (SOR) model explains that various environmental aspects can act as a stimulus (S) that influences an individual's internal state (O), which subsequently derives the individual's behavioral response (R) (Zhai, Wang, & Ghani, 2020). Hence, two external factors, information and experience, have been influential in forming a perception. According to previous research, the adoption of innovation in this context was dependent on some internal factors such as age, formal and non-formal education, land tenure (Ntshangase, Muroyiwa, & Sibanda, 2018), agricultural income (Faruque-As-Sunny et al., 2018), farming experience, and motivation (Sapbamrer & Thammachai, 2021). The learning process may be applied to initiate innovation initiatives efficiently (Probst et al., 2019) by changing their perception. Farmers have been observed to use their perception in accepting any innovations introduced to them, sustainable horticulture inclusive. Several studies have revealed that farmers view this from its importance economically, environmentally, and socially for a specified period (De Silva & Forbes, 2016). Innovation in horticulture has a multidisciplinary nature and a higher complexity and suggests further investigations, especially in socio-economic aspects of innovations (Spina et al., 2021). The problem is how we can change farmer perceptions about sustainable horticulture practices as innovation? The previous research emphasized the importance of understanding sustainability under the relevance of farmers' perceptions (De Olde, Oudshoorn, Sørensen, Bokkers, & De Boer, 2016). It is also essential to focus on understanding farmers and academics in agriculture on sustainability through the extensive use of factor analysis to assess farmers' perceptions of ecological, socio-economic, and ethical dimensions (Dunlap, Van Liere, Mertig, & Jones, 2002). Researchers need to see how farmers view sustainable horticulture from the three pillars of economic, environmental, and social importance over a given year (De Silva & Forbes, 2016). The attributes such as relative advantage, suitability, complexity, and perceptions of the advantages and disadvantages of innovation affected its adoption rate (Abdollahzadeh, Sharifzadeh, & Damalas, 2015). Several other studies also agreed that farmers' perceptions of innovation affect the adoption rate (Kabir & Rainis, 2015; Ntshangase et al., 2018; Tey et al., 2014; Van Thanh & Yapwattanaphun, 2015). Therefore, this study aimed to analyze the http://issn.pdii.lipi.go.id/issn.cgi?daftar&1420518152&1&& ISSN: 2407-814X (p); 2527-9238 (e) 228 AGRARIS: Journal of Agribusiness and Rural Development Research influence of internal factors on farmers' perceptions of sustainable horticulture. This research provides policy recommendations to the government, extension agents, and university-based extension services to change farmer perceptions to implement sustainable horticultural practices. RESEARCH METHOD Study area The research was conducted in 2016 in Sleman Regency (13 villages), Kulonprogo Regency (7 villages), and Bantul Regency (1 village). The highest population of horticultural farmer groups was in Sleman Regency, with snake fruit as the primary commodity. The main commodity in Bantul was shallots, while in Kulonprogo were varies from chili, watermelon, and melon. Sleman Regency is in the mountainous areas, while Bantul and Kulonprogo Regency are around the coast. These topographic characteristics direct farmers to plant commodities that are following natural conditions. Sampling procedure and data collection The population consisted of 2621 horticulture farmers in DIY. The 350 respondents were chosen using the probability of multistage random sampling from 70 farmers' groups. It consisted of 17 farmer groups that have received PRIMA certification, 13 women farmer groups, and 40 farmer groups that have not received PRIMA. From each group, respondents were chosen that consist of two administrators and three members. Primary data were collected using questionnaires with a Likert scale based on the research objectives. Statements and questions of each variable were based on the modification of previous studies. The variables measured were internal factors and farmers' perceptions of sustainable horticulture. Internal factors included age, formal and non-formal education, agricultural income, farming experience, land tenure, and motivation (De Silva & Forbes, 2016; Faruque-As-Sunny et al., 2018; Ntshangase et al., 2018; Sapbamrer & Thammachai, 2021; Tey et al., 2014; Van Thanh & Yapwattanaphun, 2015). The statements about the perception of this research were adapted from previous research, which is included the urgency of ecological, socio-economic, and ethical values (Dunlap, Beus, Howell, & Waud, 1993) with some modifications based on research location consideration (DIY) and a new ecological paradigm (Dunlap et al., 2002). In this research, the perception of sustainable horticulture is defined as farmers' response to the urgency of ecological, socio-economic, and ethical practices in cultivating vegetables and fruit. It was also determined through the same process as the perception of motivation but measured by only 14 items. The assessment was determined using the known mean (x̄) and standard deviation (sd). It was classified as low when x <(x̄-1sd), moderate if (x̄-1sd) ≤x < (x̄ + 1sd) and high when x≥ (x ̄ + 1sd). The age variable is the respondent's age when the data is measured by one item of an open question. Formal education is the level of school activity in the number of years http://issn.pdii.lipi.go.id/issn.cgi?daftar&1420518152&1&& ISSN: 2407-814X (p); 2527-9238 (e) 229 Changing Farmers' Perception towards Sustainable ….. (Euriga, Boehme and Amanah) measured by one open item question. Non-formal education is the complete form of organized training outside the school level that follows the respondents for the past year as a group member measured by two items of an open question. Agricultural revenue was assessed from the farming attempts as measured by one item of an open question. The duration of farming is the length of time a person has spent in the planting job based on the number of years measured by a question item. Land tenure is the ownership status, extent, and location of cultivated/agricultural land used for vegetable and fruit cultivation as measured by two items of an open question. Sustainable horticultural motivation is the factor that encourages an individual to continuously implement environmentally-friendly practices in cultivating vegetables and fruit- based on the needs identified (Boersema & Reijnders, 2009). These involve (1) survival needs such as safety, physiological needs, and subsistence, (2) social needs such as shared feeling, affection, and participation, (3) the need for personal growth such as recognition, self- actualization, understanding, identity, and freedom. They were measured with 20 statement items using 4 Likert scales, i.e., Strongly Disagree = 1, Less Agree = 2, Agree = 3, and Strongly Agree = 4. Further, it is categorized into three parts, high category (2-3), moderate (1.1-1.99), and low (0-1), according to the quartile of mean and standard deviation score of all respondent's answers. Analytical technique Data obtained were analyzed through the use of descriptive and regression data analysis. The demographics (age, gender, formal education, non-formal education, land tenure, farming revenue, farming experiences) used a descriptive method including frequency, percentage, and mean. The descriptive method also applied for farmers' motivation variable and perceptions of sustainable horticulture, measured using the Likert Scale. Factors that affect the perception were analyzed with multiple linear regression. It used independent variables (age, formal education, non-formal education, farming revenue, farming experiences, land tenure, and motivation) and dependent variables (farmers' perceptions of sustainable horticulture). RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Characteristics of Respondents Table 1 shows the general characteristics of the respondents. It was discovered that the majority of the horticultural farmers assessed were male under 48 years, which means they were mainly in the productive age with 7 to 12 years of formal education and no informal education. It was also discovered that most of them started cultivating after their retirement to support their families. The survey also revealed that the farmers had followed the extension activities in different forms, including (1) Field School-Integrated Pest Management (SLPHT), (2) Field School-Good Agricultural Practices (SL-GAP) with various commodities; (3) Field http://issn.pdii.lipi.go.id/issn.cgi?daftar&1420518152&1&& ISSN: 2407-814X (p); 2527-9238 (e) 230 AGRARIS: Journal of Agribusiness and Rural Development Research School-Good Snake Fruit Handling Practices (SLGHP), (4) Integrated Crop Management Field School (SLPTT), (5) Field School-Climate (SLI), (6) Organic Training, (7) Cultivation Training, (8) Processing Training/Post-Harvest, (9) Management Training, and (10) Marketing Training. The modified farmer field school was a promising approach to training farmers (Davis, 2019) and already applied in agricultural extension education in DIY (Euriga et al., 2018). Most of the lands used are narrow in size (below 0.5 ha) and owned by the farmers. It was found that most respondents have income above IDR 2,000,000 which is classified as a high category, and most of them have been engaged with farming activities for 7 to 29 years. TABLE 1. DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS (N = 350) Characteristics Category Freq. (%) Mean Age <48 years 160 45.7 48.97 48-54 years 95 27.1 >55 years 95 27.1 Gender Male 257 73.4 - Female 93 26.6 Formal Education 0-6 years 39 11.1 11.34 7-12 years 254 72.6 >12 years 57 16.3 Non-formal Education < 1 time 152 43.4 1.62 1-3 times 151 43.1 >4 times 47 13.4 Land Tenure Narrow 245 70.0 0.43 Wide 82 23.4 Very wide 23 6.6 Farming Revenue Low 94 26.9 Moderate 124 35.4 High 132 37.7 1,855,110 Farming Experiences <7 years 59 16.9 18.41 7-29 years 224 64.0 >29 years 67 19.1 The motivation of farmers in adopting sustainable horticulture The results showed that most DIY horticulture farmers were more motivated by personal growth and social needs than survival needs (Table 2). TABLE 2. THE DISTRIBUTION OF FARMERS' MOTIVATION TO ADOPT SUSTAINABLE HORTICULTURE (N=350) Motivation High (Score=2-3) (n) Moderate (Score=1.1-1.99) (n) Low (Score=0-1) (n) Likert Score Survival needs 39 269 39 1.98 Social needs 61 238 51 2.03 Personal-growth needs 64 235 51 2.04 Farmers in DIY have been adopting sustainable horticulture because they need new technology. Sustainable horticulture is a new technology, so that they want to go to training to get certification for good agricultural practices. Scientific literature pointed to the http://issn.pdii.lipi.go.id/issn.cgi?daftar&1420518152&1&& ISSN: 2407-814X (p); 2527-9238 (e) 231 Changing Farmers' Perception towards Sustainable ….. (Euriga, Boehme and Amanah) relevance of the term technology in innovation horticulture. In contrast, high technology, digital, organizational, and product-related innovations can progressively support the multifunctionality of agricultural and food systems (Spina et al., 2021). Farmers in DIY also had a high concern to protect customers by making sure of food safety and protecting the environment and agricultural ecosystem for the next generation. This motivation can result from the farmer field school. It can be inferred that extension education through farmer field school as new models of extension around evidence-informed pedagogies can promote learning and practice change (Sewell et al., 2017). Perceptions of farmers on sustainable horticulture The results showed that farmers perceive socio-economic urgency as more important with a Likert score of 2.14 than ecological at 1.99 and ethical urgency at 1.98, as shown in Table 3. It indicates that farmers prioritize socio-economic dimensions such as the villagers' well-being (health and welfare), improved agricultural income, development of privileges, enhanced attention to the environment, and marketing in sustainable horticulture. TABLE 3. THE DISTRIBUTION OF FARMERS' PERCEPTIONS TOWARD SUSTAINABLE HORTICULTURE (N=350) Urgency High (Score=2-3) (n) Moderate (Score=1.1-1.99) (n) Low (Score=0-1) (n) Likert Score Ecological 44 257 49 1.99 Social economics 80 239 31 2.14 Ethical 58 227 65 1.98 The results also revealed that the respondents' highest motivation was to earn a higher income by practicing sustainable horticulture. The motivation to reach a higher income is categorized as survival needs (Boersema & Reijnders, 2009). Our result confirmed previous findings, whereas increased revenue from the sales of crops and vegetables contributed to the greater likelihood of innovation adoption (Faruque-As-Sunny et al., 2018). Therefore, in this case, an extension worker must take a rallying point on the ecological and ethical dimensions to make the farmers cognize the prominence of all the dimensions in sustainable agriculture and instigate them in their horticultural practices. Table 4, Figures 1, 2, and 3 show in detail the urgency of each dimension. In the ecological dimension, the most important indicators were the submission that the diversity of living creatures is important for sustainability. The farmers' low score was given to energy consumption, classifying the current fuel use as usual. In the socio-economic dimension, farmers emphasized increasing agricultural incomes but were less sure about their prerogative rights (privileges) to develop the indigenous of their village on their own. They point out that sustainable horticulture should increase agricultural income as measured from the highest score recorded after maintaining soil fertility. Farmers gave the lowest value to the statement that they will retain indigenous plants if they do not produce. Farmers tend to replace the plants with others when they are considered less productive or less profitable, not necessarily because of rotation. http://issn.pdii.lipi.go.id/issn.cgi?daftar&1420518152&1&& ISSN: 2407-814X (p); 2527-9238 (e) 232 AGRARIS: Journal of Agribusiness and Rural Development Research TABLE 4. THE DISTRIBUTION OF FARMERS PERCEPTIONS INDICATORS TOWARD SUSTAINABLE HORTICULTURE (N=350) No. Dimension Strongly Disagree Less Agree Agree Strongly Agree Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Ecological Dimension 1. The use of chemicals significantly affects soil fertility 61.00 17.4 68 19.4 145 41.4 76 21.7 2. Crop rotations shall be under the condition of the land 12.00 3.4 35 10 254 72.6 49 14 3. Energy consumption (such as fuel, electricity) is too much 53.00 15.1 132 37.7 146 41.7 19 5.4 4. Raw materials and agricultural equipment should utilize available resources 6.00 1.7 38 10.9 274 78.3 32 9.1 5. The diversity of living things is essential for sustainability 1.00 0.3 8 2.3 254 72.6 87 24.9 Socio-Economics Dimension 6. The health/welfare of the villagers should always be considered 1.00 0.3 4 1.1 216 61.7 129 36.9 7. Agricultural income should be increased 2.00 0.6 1 0.3 195 55.7 152 43.4 8. The village still has its privileges to develop 3.00 0.9 30 8.6 242 69.1 75 21.4 9. The number of farmers who pay attention to the environment should be upgraded 2.00 0.6 7 2 218 62.3 123 35.1 10. Marketing is very important to make things easier 1.00 0.3 6 1.7 218 62.3 125 35.7 Ethical Dimension 11. Soil fertility is very important to maintain 0.00 0 2 0.6 179 51.1 169 48.3 12. Food supplies are very important to satisfy 0.00 0 5 1.4 209 59.7 136 38.9 13. My knowledge and skills in farming must be tailored to the available resources 0.00 0 20 5.7 256 73.1 74 21.1 14. Indigenous plants should be maintained even if it is not yielded 28.00 8 101 28.9 172 49.1 49 14 Figures 1, 2, and 3 show that attention should be placed on the ecological dimension, especially energy use (fuel, electricity) and farmers' perception that chemicals will decrease soil fertility. FIGURE 1. FARMERS' PERCEPTION OF ECOLOGICAL DIMENSION http://issn.pdii.lipi.go.id/issn.cgi?daftar&1420518152&1&& ISSN: 2407-814X (p); 2527-9238 (e) 233 Changing Farmers' Perception towards Sustainable ….. (Euriga, Boehme and Amanah) FIGURE 2. FARMERS' PERCEPTION OF SOCIO-ECONOMIC DIMENSION FIGURE 3. FARMERS' PERCEPTION OF ETHICAL DIMENSION Factors Affecting Farmers' Perceptions toward Sustainable Horticulture The factors affecting the perception of farmers to sustainable horticulture are presented in Table 5. It was discovered that age has no effect, and the inconsistency of age effect on adoption is often observed in findings of this nature (Sapbamrer & Thammachai, 2021). There were reported results indicating a negative and positive association between age and adoption (Faruque-As-Sunny et al., 2018; Ntshangase et al., 2018; Sapbamrer & Thammachai, 2021). It can be found that educational psychology offers andragogy and pedagogy learning methods that have implications for learning and teaching in further effective agricultural extension in the pedagogy group. The results also revealed that formal education significantly affects the farmers' perceptions of sustainable horticulture. However, an in-depth analysis of this factor showed it only has a significant positive effect on the perception of the ethical dimension. It supports previous research that reported a positive influence of education on perception (Abdollahzadeh et al., 2015; Ntshangase et al., 2018). Other studies have shown that the higher http://issn.pdii.lipi.go.id/issn.cgi?daftar&1420518152&1&& ISSN: 2407-814X (p); 2527-9238 (e) 234 AGRARIS: Journal of Agribusiness and Rural Development Research a person's education, the more they will have a heightened awareness of the environment (Theodori & Luloff, 2002; Vaske, Donnelly, Williams, & Jonker, 2001). TABLE 5. FACTORS AFFECTING FARMERS' PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS SUSTAINABLE HORTICULTURE (STANDARDIZED COEFFICIENT) Factors Farmers' Perceptions towards Sustainable Horticulture (All Dimension) Ecological Socio- Economics Ethics R2 = 29.7% R2 = 26.9% R2 = 25.1% R2 =29 % β1 t-Values Sig Sig Sig Sig Age -.010 -.161 .872 .783 .338 .689 Formal Education .089 1.667 .096*) .345 .189 .059*) Non-formal education .002 .039 .969 .449 .602 .819 Farming revenue -.126 -2.257 .025**) .002***) .840 .009***) Farming experiences -.036 -.583 .560 .289 .974 .815 Land Tenure .043 .786 .433 .824 .342 .176 Motivation .263 4.952 .000***) .001***) .000***) .000***) ***) significance at 1% level **) significance at 5% level *) significance at 10% level Non-formal education was found not to affect perception. It is possible because it only involves technical knowledge without creating awareness about the importance of horticulture's ecological, socio-economic, and ethical sustainability. Previous research found that the past interventions were not coordinated and focused on technical challenges (Probst et al., 2019). They suggest that the stakeholder mapping showed that dominant economic players and traditional means of communicating are essential to achieve innovation. However, knowledge is one of the key factors driving people to conduct pro- environment behaviors (Amoah & Addoah, 2021), although it was insufficient to change behavior (Corace & Garber, 2014). People with higher education have more access to threats and environmental problems than those with low education. In addition, they have a better capacity to understand and spread environmental messages. It shows that farmers who know the environment will have an attitude to support and conduct pro-environmental behavior. Innovation consists of concepts including "knowledge," "diffusion," and "barriers," indicating that the focus of the literature is the adoption and constraints for the spread of innovation (Spina et al., 2021). Spina et al. (2021) argued that the concept of "knowledge" is not the same as information but includes perceptions, unconscious motivations, and behavioral habits. Agricultural revenues have a significant positive effect on farmers' perceptions of sustainable horticulture. It is in line with previous research, which shows a positive influence of income on perceptions (Abdollahzadeh et al., 2015). Prosperous farmers are more environmentally friendly because they have achieved prosperity (Wilson & Hart, 2000). In contrast, organic farmers had lower incomes than conventional farmers (Fairweather & Campbell, 2003). The result also showed that farmers with high incomes in DIY have a better perception of sustainable horticulture. From an in-depth analysis, it can be discovered that income does not affect socio-economic urgency. It means that a person's income will not affect their perception of socio-economic dimension indicators. The results also exposed that the farming experience does not affect the perceptions of sustainable horticulture. Many research evidence showed inconsistency, and it is difficult to http://issn.pdii.lipi.go.id/issn.cgi?daftar&1420518152&1&& ISSN: 2407-814X (p); 2527-9238 (e) 235 Changing Farmers' Perception towards Sustainable ….. (Euriga, Boehme and Amanah) formulate a verifiable conclusion about farming experience's effect on adoption (Sapbamrer & Thammachai, 2021) and perception (Ntshangase et al., 2018). Perception also could be linked to the success or failure experienced (Ntshangase et al., 2018) and risks to adopting an innovation (Chen et al., 2018), including climate change (Woods, Nielsen, Pedersen, & Kristofersson, 2017). Therefore three sectors, extension agents, farm associations, and the government, are key drivers for sustainable adoption (Sapbamrer & Thammachai, 2021). Unique extension education needs to be formulated appropriately, based on the specific characteristics of each region (Mariyono et al., 2018). Understanding land tenure, including farm ownership and farm size, and how they influence adoption is important in developing strategies for promoting an innovation (Ntshangase et al., 2018) and changing farmer perceptions. Contrary, land tenure does not affect perceptions of sustainable horticulture. Land tenure in DIY is relatively small or not as extensive as in developed countries such as Australia and the United States. Therefore, it is not easy to implement mechanization. Furthermore, there is not much variation in the area of land in the region. Consequently, the farmers do not own most of the lands used for cultivation. Some considerations should be given to future land ownership. The motivation was discovered to have a significant positive effect on perceptions of sustainable horticulture. It is in agreement with previous research that decision to apply pro- environment sustainable agriculture depends on various factors such as motivation and mental attitude (Quinn & Burbach, 2008) when it enables taking advantage of opportunities and can be made incrementally (Woods et al., 2017). It was also discovered that the relevance of farmers' needs to sustainable horticulture affects their perception. It may explain why farming experiences and some other factors do not affect perceptions. These results support one societal model that indicated the determinants of behaviors (internal and external) to be Needs, Opportunities, and Abilities or NOA Model (Vlek, 2000). Therefore, motivation can also be added to the Litterer model mechanism (1975) because perception is not only influenced by experience and information but also by needs. Previous studies (Charatsari, Lioutas, & Koutsouris, 2017) suggest that integrating social psychology into extension/education research can paint a more detailed picture of how farmers interact with extension/ education services. Agricultural extension education should consider the role of self-determined motivation in a different life domain of the farmers. It will help to increase farmers' participation in sustainable horticulture practices because it is guided by the most internal forms of human motivation (identified, integrated, and intrinsic motivation) (Charatsari et al., 2017). The farmers' perception of sustainable horticulture practices was the primary motivation for its adoption. However, the other factors that acted as barriers (trialability, complexity, compatibility, and risk) should be considered (Sewell et al., 2017). Agricultural extensionists were expected to intervene after the factors influencing the perceptions have been identified. However, there are various theories of change in determining the proper intervention to be used. The need to increase behavioral changes will necessarily require the assistance of professionals in terms of quantity and skills. Following http://issn.pdii.lipi.go.id/issn.cgi?daftar&1420518152&1&& ISSN: 2407-814X (p); 2527-9238 (e) 236 AGRARIS: Journal of Agribusiness and Rural Development Research the report of previous research works, the implementation of effective change was strongly influenced by groups (Borek & Abraham, 2018; Ding, Lin, & Zhang, 2020). It was also reported that individual choice and independent actions are shaped and limited by a group (Tennant, 2007; Wei, Zhao, & Zheng, 2019). Therefore, extension work will be best conducted through a farmer group. Their shared value, aspirations, and diversity in age, farming systems, and academic/practice focus helped the group bond. It provided stimulation that motivated regular attendance and builds group cohesion (Sewell et al., 2017). Strategy and policy instruments can also influence change by modifying certain behaviors, applying regulations, providing economic incentives, information, education, communication, and using specific scenarios (Boersema & Reijnders, 2009). Extension agents can implement it to accelerate the diffusion of innovation through non-formal education. The findings of previous research (Ntshangase et al., 2018) confirm the important role of extension in promoting innovation, particularly the intensity of the extension services, for example, through training (Sapbamrer & Thammachai, 2021). Extension agents can apply Problem- based learning (PBL), a relatively novel teaching and learning process in horticulture (Abbey, Dowsett, & Sullivan, 2017). As Abbey found that production and emotional intelligence competencies are invaluable in the horticulture industry because stakeholders interact with each other and the agro-ecological system. The findings from the ecological, social, and ethical dimensions among the farming community in DIY showed that, directly and indirectly, the farmers can accept and practice sustainable horticulture. However, this is subject to several factors, but most importantly, motivation and prospect of increased income. The critical thing in extension work was motivation, and a major motivating factor is the possibility of increased agricultural income. It means that if farmers can get increased income which will improve their livelihood, and show the way to implement sustainable horticulture, they will do it. Formal education was also essential because farmers can accept and understand the concept of sustainable horticulture better. However, it cannot be transferred through extension work, unlike informal education. Therefore, the two most important factors were motivation and the prospect of increased income with other intervening variables such as understanding of the environment. CONCLUSION Formation of perception was significant because of its effect in adopting an innovation. However, it was discovered that farmers' perceptions of sustainable horticulture are dependent on ecological, social, and ethical urgency. More clearly, the perceptions were influenced by internal factors such as formal education, agricultural income, and motivation. It was found that ecological and ethical dimensions were significantly positively influenced by motivation and agricultural income, while socio-economic dimension was influenced only by motivation. The findings showed that extension education needs to be strengthened not only by providing technical knowledge but also through the communication and knowledge that can raise farmers' awareness about sustainable horticulture practices. It was also discovered that http://issn.pdii.lipi.go.id/issn.cgi?daftar&1420518152&1&& ISSN: 2407-814X (p); 2527-9238 (e) 237 Changing Farmers' Perception towards Sustainable ….. (Euriga, Boehme and Amanah) the motivation of farmers should also be considered. Another finding was that the behavior of farmers can be modified through the provision of economic incentives that can change their perceptions because agricultural income had been observed to be their highest urgency. The government should also make policies that support the sustainability of indigenous plants as well as village privileges. It can be implemented by supporting the establishment of agro-tourism village snake fruit based on the consideration that DIY is a province in Indonesia with the former royal realms united as a Special Region with snake fruit as indigenous plants. It is also following the observation that most farmers implemented sustainable horticulture for personal growth. The initial conclusions about how extension education changes horticulture farmer perceptions can adapt in different regions, especially in Indonesia, because agricultural extension education has been coordinated under the Ministry of Agriculture of Indonesia Programs. Although this research was done in 2016, the findings are still relevant because extension education can help DIY decrease the number of low food security and low nutrition villages from 2014 until 2021. However, future studies need to be done regarding changed circumstances in the COVID 19 pandemic era. REFERENCES Abbey, L., Dowsett, E., & Sullivan, J. (2017). Use of problem-based learning in the teaching and learning of horticultural production. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 23(1), 61–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2016.1202846 Abdollahzadeh, G., Sharifzadeh, M. S., & Damalas, C. A. (2015). Perceptions of the beneficial and harmful effects of pesticides among Iranian rice farmers influence the adoption of biological control. Crop Protection, 75, 124–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2015.05.018 Amoah, A., & Addoah, T. (2021). Does environmental knowledge drive pro-environmental behavior in developing countries? Evidence from households in Ghana. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 23, 2719–2738. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-00698-x Badan Ketahanan Pangan dan Penyuluhan DIY. (2014). Analisis Situasi Pangan dan Gizi 2014. Yogyakarta. Retrieved from https://bkpp.jogjaprov.go.id/download/getFile/id/34 BAPPEDA DIY. (2021). Jumlah Desa Rawan Pangan di Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta 2017-2021. Yogyakarta. Retrieved from http://bappeda.jogjaprov.go.id/dataku/data_dasar/index/539- jumlah-desa-rawan-pangan?id_skpd=19 Boersema, J. J., & Reijnders, L. (Eds.). (2009). Principles of Environmental Sciences. Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9158-2 Borek, A. J., & Abraham, C. (2018). How do Small Groups Promote Behaviour Change? An Integrative Conceptual Review of Explanatory Mechanisms. Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being, 10(1), 30–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/aphw.12120 Charatsari, C., Lioutas, E. D., & Koutsouris, A. (2017). Farmers' motivational orientation toward participation in competence development projects: a self-determination theory perspective. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 23(2), 105–120. https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2016.1261717 http://issn.pdii.lipi.go.id/issn.cgi?daftar&1420518152&1&& https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2015.05.018 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-00698-x https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9158-2 https://doi.org/10.1111/aphw.12120 https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2016.1261717 ISSN: 2407-814X (p); 2527-9238 (e) 238 AGRARIS: Journal of Agribusiness and Rural Development Research Chen, H. S., Tsai, B. K., & Hsieh, C. M. (2018). The effects of perceived barriers on innovation resistance of hydrogen-electric motorcycles. Sustainability, 10(6), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10061933 Corace, K., & Garber, G. (2014). When knowledge is not enough: Changing behavior to change vaccination results. Human Vaccines and Immunotherapeutics, 10(9), 2623–2624. https://doi.org/10.4161/21645515.2014.970076 Davis, K. (2019). The complex processes of agricultural education and extension. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 25(3), 193–194. https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2019.1615170 de Lange, F. P., Heilbron, M., & Kok, P. (2018). How Do Expectations Shape Perception? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22(9), 764–779. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2018.06.002 De Olde, E. M., Oudshoorn, F. W., Sørensen, C. A. G., Bokkers, E. A. M., & De Boer, I. J. M. (2016). Assessing sustainability at farm-level: Lessons learned from a comparison of tools in practice. Ecological Indicators, 66, 391–404. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.01.047 De Silva, T. A., & Forbes, S. L. (2016). Sustainability in the New Zealand horticulture industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 112, 2381–2391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.10.078 DeVito, J. A. (2013). The Interpersonal Communication Book 13th Edition. New York: Pearson. Ding, S., Lin, J., & Zhang, Z. (2020). Influences of reference group on users' purchase intentions in network communities: From the perspective of trial purchase and upgrade purchase. Sustainability, 12(24), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3390/su122410619 Dunlap, R. E., Beus, C. E., Howell, R. E., & Waud, J. (1993). What is sustainable agriculture?: An empirical examination of faculty and farmer definitions. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 3(1), 5–41. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1300/J064v03n01_03 Dunlap, R. E., Van Liere, K. D., Mertig, A. G., & Jones, R. E. (2002). New Trends in Measuring Environmental Attitudes: Measuring Endorsement of the New Ecological Paradigm: A Revised NEP Scale. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 425–442. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00176 Euriga, E., Amanah, S., Fatchiya, A., & Asngari, P. S. (2018). Implementasi Penyuluhan Hortikultura Berkelanjutan di Provinsi D.I. Yogyakarta. Jurnal Penyuluhan, 14(2). https://doi.org/10.25015/penyuluhan.v14i2.19555 Fairweather, J. R., & Campbell, H. R. (2003). Environmental beliefs and farm practices of New Zealand farmers: Contrasting pathways to sustainability. Agriculture and Human Values, 20, 287–300. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026148613240 Food and Agriculture Organization. (2020). Tracking progress on food and agriculture-related SDG indicators 2020. Retrivied from http://www.fao.org/sdg-progress-report/en/ FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP, & WHO. (2021). The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2021. Transforming food systems for food security, improved nutrition, and affordable healthy diets for all. Rome: FAO. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.4060/cb4474en http://issn.pdii.lipi.go.id/issn.cgi?daftar&1420518152&1&& https://doi.org/10.3390/su10061933 https://doi.org/10.4161/21645515.2014.970076 https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2019.1615170 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2018.06.002 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.01.047 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.10.078 https://doi.org/10.3390/su122410619 https://doi.org/https:/doi.org/10.1300/J064v03n01_03 https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00176 https://doi.org/10.25015/penyuluhan.v14i2.19555 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026148613240 http://www.fao.org/sdg-progress-report/en/ https://doi.org/https:/doi.org/10.4060/cb4474en ISSN: 2407-814X (p); 2527-9238 (e) 239 Changing Farmers' Perception towards Sustainable ….. (Euriga, Boehme and Amanah) Faruque-As-Sunny, Huang, Z., & Karimanzira, T. (2018). Investigating Key Factors Influencing Farming Decisions Based on Soil Testing and Fertilizer Recommendation Facilities (STFRF)—A Case Study on Rural Bangladesh. Sustainability, 10(11), 4331. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10114331 Kabir, M. H., & Rainis, R. (2015). Adoption and intensity of integrated pest management (IPM) vegetable farming in Bangladesh: an approach to sustainable agricultural development. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 17, 1413–1429. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-014-9613-y Lal, R. (2008). Sustainable horticulture and resource management. Acta Horticulturae, 767, 19–44. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2008.767.1 Mariyono, J., A. Dewi, H., B. Daroini, P., Latifah, E., Z. Zakariya, A., L. Hakim, A., & Afari- Sefa, V. (2018). Farming Practices of Vegetables: A Comparative Study in Four Regions of East Java and Bali Provinces. AGRARIS: Journal of Agribusiness and Rural Development Research, 4(2). https://doi.org/10.18196/agr.4263 Ntshangase, N. L., Muroyiwa, B., & Sibanda, M. (2018). Farmers' perceptions and factors influencing the adoption of no-till conservation agriculture by small-scale farmers in Zashuke, KwaZulu-Natal province. Sustainability, 10(2). https://doi.org/10.3390/su10020555 Probst, L., Ndah, H. T., Rodrigues, P., Basch, G., Coulibaly, K., & Schuler, J. (2019). From adoption potential to Transformative Learning around Conservation Agriculture. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 25(1), 25–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2018.1520733 Quinn, C., & Burbach, M. E. (2008). Personal characteristics preceding pro-environmental behaviors that improve surface water quality. Great Plains Research, 18(1), 103–114. Ramborun, V., Facknath, S., & Lalljee, B. (2020). Moving toward sustainable agriculture through a better understanding of farmer perceptions and attitudes to cope with climate change. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 26(1), 37–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2019.1690012 Sapbamrer, R., & Thammachai, A. (2021). A systematic review of factors influencing farmers' adoption of organic farming. Sustainability, 13(7). https://doi.org/10.3390/su13073842 Sewell, A. M., Hartnett, M. K., Gray, D. I., Blair, H. T., Kemp, P. D., Kenyon, P. R., Morris, S. T., & Wood, B. A. (2017). Using educational theory and research to refine agricultural extension: affordances and barriers for farmers' learning and practice change. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 23(4), 313–333. https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2017.1314861 Spina, D., Vindigni, G., Pecorino, B., Pappalardo, G., D’Amico, M., & Chinnici, G. (2021). Identifying themes and patterns on management of horticultural innovations with an automated text analysis. Agronomy, 11(6). https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11061103 Statistics of D.I. Yogyakarta Province. (2014). Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta in Figures 2014. Yogyakarta: Statistics of D.I. Yogyakarta Province. http://issn.pdii.lipi.go.id/issn.cgi?daftar&1420518152&1&& https://doi.org/10.3390/su10114331 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-014-9613-y https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2008.767.1 https://doi.org/10.18196/agr.4263 https://doi.org/10.3390/su10020555 https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2018.1520733 https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2019.1690012 https://doi.org/10.3390/su13073842 https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2017.1314861 https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11061103 ISSN: 2407-814X (p); 2527-9238 (e) 240 AGRARIS: Journal of Agribusiness and Rural Development Research Tennant, M. (2007). Psychology and Adult Learning. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203965474 Tey, Y. S., Li, E., Bruwer, J., Abdullah, A. M., Brindal, M., Radam, A., Ismail, M. M., & Darham, S. (2014). The relative importance of factors influencing the adoption of sustainable agricultural practices: A factor approach for Malaysian vegetable farmers. Sustainability Science, 9, 17–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-013-0219-3 Theodori, G. L., & Luloff, A. E. (2002). Position on environmental issues and engagement in proenvironmental behaviors. Society & Natural Resources, 15(6), 471–482. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920290069128 Van Thanh, N., & Yapwattanaphun, C. (2015). Banana Farmers' Adoption of Sustainable Agriculture Practices in the Vietnam Uplands: The Case of Quang Tri Province. Agriculture and Agricultural Science Procedia, 5, 67–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aaspro.2015.08.010 Vaske, J. J., Donnelly, M. P., Williams, D. R., & Jonker, S. (2001). Demographic influences on environmental value orientations and normative beliefs about national forest management. Society and Natural Resources, 14(9), 761–776. https://doi.org/10.1080/089419201753210585 Vlek, C. (2000). Essential psychology for environmental policy making. International Journal of Psychology, 35(2), 153–167. https://doi.org/10.1080/002075900399457 Wei, Z., Zhao, Z., & Zheng, Y. (2019). Following the majority: Social influence in trusting behavior. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 13, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2019.00089 Wilson, G. A., & Hart, K. (2000). Financial imperative or conservation concern? EU farmers' motivations for participation in voluntary agri-environmental schemes. Environment and Planning A, 32(12), 2161–2185. https://doi.org/10.1068/a3311 Woods, B. A., Nielsen, H. Ø., Pedersen, A. B., & Kristofersson, D. (2017). Farmers' perceptions of climate change and their likely responses in Danish agriculture. Land Use Policy, 65, 109–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.04.007 Zhai, X., Wang, M., & Ghani, U. (2020). The SOR (stimulus-organism-response) paradigm in online learning: an empirical study of students' knowledge hiding perceptions. Interactive Learning Environments, 28(5), 586–601. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1696841 http://issn.pdii.lipi.go.id/issn.cgi?daftar&1420518152&1&& https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203965474 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-013-0219-3 https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920290069128 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aaspro.2015.08.010 https://doi.org/10.1080/089419201753210585 https://doi.org/10.1080/002075900399457 https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2019.00089 https://doi.org/10.1068/a3311 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.04.007