Family Resources and Agricultural Skills as determinants of Farmer's Motivation in Rubber Cultivation in Kerala

Sowmya Sahadevan; Malarvizhi  Vaithiyanathan

doi:10.48165/IJEE.2026.62326

Authors

Sowmya Sahadevan Research Scholar, Avinashilingam Institute for Home Science and Higher Education for Women, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu- 641 043, India. https://orcid.org/0009-0001-2066-7246
Malarvizhi Vaithiyanathan Professor, Avinashilingam Institute for Home Science and Higher Education for Women, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu- 641 043, India. https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9731-1902

https://doi.org/10.48165/IJEE.2026.62326

Keywords:

Agricultural skill; economic motivation; Kerala; Resource access; Rubber cultivation; Risk- stability motivation

Abstract

The research analysed the factors affecting the motivation for rubber cultivation among 180 smallholder farmers in Kerala during 2025. The study was based on primary data collected from 180 farmers and data were analysed using Pearson correlation and hierarchical multiple regression. Results indicate that farmers demonstrated moderate-to-high motivation for rubber cultivation, with economic motivation averaging 3.73, whereas risk–stability motivation reflected a mean of 3.87 on a five-point scale. The resource ownership and control index appeared as the strongest indicator, having an appositive impact on both motivational dimensions, while the financial and institutional access index affected economic motivation only. Agricultural skills have a negative association with risk–stability motivation, suggesting skilled farmers are involved in rubber cultivation due to low perceived risk. Socio-demographic characteristics had limited impact, except gender, which affects economic motivation. The findings suggest that family resource access is the major driver of motivational outcome, whereas skill and demographic factors have limited roles. Policy interventions improving the resource access and converting skill into informed decision-making can strengthen sustainable and economically viable rubber cultivation.

References

1. Ellis, F. (2000). Rural livelihoods and diversity in developing countries. Oxford University Press.

2. Feder, G., Just, R. E., & Zilberman, D. (1985). Adoption of agricultural innovations in developing countries: A survey. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 33(2), 255-298. https://doi.org/10.1086/451461

3. Gordon, A. (2019). Smallholder commercial cultivation and the environment: Rubber in Southeast Asia. Asia's Environmental Crisis, 135-153. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429041877-6

4. Gowda C, M. J., Dolli, S. S., Dixit, S., Prasad D, M. V., & Saravanan, D. (2022). Farmers decision making pattern on agricultural innovations: A process analysis. Indian Journal of Extension Education, 58(2), 8-14. https://doi.org/10.48165/ijee.2022.58202

5. Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39(1), 31-36. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02291575

6. Kassie, M., Jaleta, M., Shiferaw, B., Mmbando, F., & Mekuria, M. (2013). Adoption of interrelated sustainable agricultural practices in smallholder systems: Evidence from rural Tanzania. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 80(3), 525-540. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2012.08.007

7. Mutyasira, V., Hoag, D., & Pendell, D. (2018). The adoption of sustainable agricultural practices by smallholder farmers in ethiopian Highlands: An integrative approach. Cogent Food & Agriculture, 4(1), 1552439. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2018.1552439

8. Nain M. S., Singh Rashmi, Mishra J. R., Sharma J. P., Singh A. K., Kumar A., Gills R., & Suman R. S. (2019). Maximising farm profitability through entrepreneurship development and farmers’ innovations: feasibility analysis and action interventions. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 89(6), 1044-49. https://doi.org/10.56093/ijas.v89i6.90833

9. Nain, M. S., Singh, R., Mishra, J. R., & Singh, A. K. (2024). Developing model for diffusion of farmers’ innovations for maximizing farm income: Indian agricultural research institute experiences. Indian Journal of Extension Education, 60(1), 105-110. https://doi.org/10.48165/ijee.2024.60120

10. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill Companies.

11. Pathak. S. (1992). Determinants of Management Behaviour of Farmers. Indian Journal of Extension Education, 28(3-4), 97-100.

12. Ravi, B., Dash, A., Mohanta, G., & Shukla, S. (2026). Psychological dimension of resource use in smallholder farming: Insights from credit access, landholding, and technology adoption in India. Acta Psychologica, 263, 106203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2026.106203

13. Suriansyah, Nurliza, Dolorosa, E., Rosyadi, & Suswati, D. (2024). Intention to transition: Natural rubber smallholders navigating the risks of farming. Sustainability, 16(5), 1765. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16051765

14. Vattekkad, R., Singh Jatav, S., Kunchu, P., Vallamala Krishnankutty, M., & Krishnan, M. (2025). Determinants of consumer perceptions towards value-added millet products in Kerala, India. Indian Journal of Extension Education, 61(4), 96-100. https://doi.org/10.48165/ijee.2025.61416

15. Vishnuprathap, M., Shilpa, V. K., & Karunakaran, N. (2024). Cobweb Phenomenon in Rubber Market of Kerala. Journal of Management Research and Analysis, 11(1), 30–32.

16. Wang, J., Jiang, H., & He, Y. (2023). Determinants of smallholder farmers’ income-generating activities in rubber monoculture dominated region based on sustainable livelihood framework. Land, 12(2), 281. https://doi.org/10.3390/land12020281