การเปรียบเทียบระดับการรับรู้และการยอมรับเทคนิคการทำนาแบบเปียกสลับแห้งของเกษตรกรในพื้นที่ชลประทานมูลบน จังหวัดนครราชสีมา

Natcha Poonnarak; Chattayaporn Samerjai; Yootanat Boonyachai

Authors

Natcha Poonnarak Faculty of Business Administration, Rajapruk University
Chattayaporn Samerjai Faculty of Business Administration, Rajapruk University
Yootanat Boonyachai Faculty of Business Administration, Rajapruk University

Keywords:

Alternate Wetting and Drying (AWD), technology adoption, water sources, farmer groups, UTAUT theory

Abstract

This study aimed to 1) compare farmers’ levels of perceived benefits, effort expectancy, social influence, facilitating conditions, attitude, and perceived behavioral control categorized by the types of water sources used for rice cultivation; 2) compare farmers’ adoption behavior regarding the Alternate Wetting and Drying (AWD) technique, categorized by types of water source ,3) compare the levels of perceived benefits, effort expectancy, social influence, facilitating conditions, attitude and perceived behavioral control among farmers, categorized by their types of farmer group affiliations; and 4) compare farmers’ adoption behavior regarding AWD technique, categorized by the types of farmer group affiliations. The sample consisted of 357 farmers within the Moonbon Operation and Maintenance Project in Nakhon Ratchasima Province, selected through cluster sampling. Data were collected using a five-point Likert-scale questionnaire, validated for content validity by three experts. The instrument demonstrated high internal consistency, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranging from .980 to .981. Data were analyzed using the Mann–Whitney U test. The findings revealed that the type of water source was significantly associated with the level of perception and adoption of the AWD technique. Notably, farmers relying on rainwater or natural water sources demonstrated significantly higher levels of perception and adoption across all dimensions. On the other hand, farmers utilizing farm ponds showed significant differences in only a few dimensions. Regarding groups affiliation, those who had attended training or were members of community rice centers, Agricultural Learning Centers (ALCs), or the Thai Rice NAMA project exhibited significantly higher levels of perception and adoption. This was particularly evident in terms of attitude, social influence, facilitating conditions, and perceived behavioral control. Conversely, farmers with no group affiliation or those whose primary affiliation was with the Bank for Agriculture and Agricultural Cooperatives (BAAC) exhibited the lowest perception levels across all dimensions. These findings underscore the pivotal role of water source types and collective farmer participation in driving the adoption influencing the acceptance of sustainable water management technologies. Consequently, policy interventions should be strategically designed to align with the specific geographical and social contextual of each local area.

References

ชวกร ริ้วตระกูลไพบูลย, ธนวรรณ วรรณวงษ, วศัน สดศรี, ธัญลักษณ แตบรรพกุล, อมรรัตน อินทรมั่น, พิทวัส วิชัยดิษฐ, พัฒนศักดิ์ จันทรสอง และนฤกมล จันทรจิราวุฒิกุล. (2566). โครงการการศึกษาเปรียบเทียบการให้น้ำแบบประหยัดสำหรับนาข้าว จังหวัดสุพรรณบุรีกรณีศึกษาสายพันธุ์ข้าว กข41. สำนักงานการวิจัยแห่งชาติ.

พนิดา พุทธรัตน์รักษา และอุ่นเรือน เล็กน้อย (2564). ผลกระทบและการยอมรับการทำนาแบบเปียกสลับแห้งเพื่อรับมือกับการเปลี่ยนแปลงสภาพภูมิอากาศของชาวนาในอำเภอศรีประจันต์ จังหวัดสุพรรณบุรี. วารสาร มหาจุฬานาครทรรศน, 8(1), 134-144.

สำนักงานเศรษฐกิจการเกษตร. (2566). การศึกษาพฤติกรรมการยอมรับเทคโนโลยีการลดการปล่อยก๊าซเรือนกระจกจากนาข้าว. สํานักวิจัยเศรษฐกิจการเกษตร สํานักงานเศรษฐกิจการเกษตร กระทรวงเกษตรและสหกรณ.

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T.

Cronbach, L. J. (1990). Essentials of psychological testing (5th ed). Harper & Row.

Enriquez, Y., Yadav, S., Evangelista, G. K., Villanueva, D., Burac, M. A., & Pede, V. (2021). Disentangling challenges to scaling alternate wetting and drying technology for rice cultivation: Distilling lessons from 20 years of experience in the Philippines. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 5, 675818. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2021.675818.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (1997). Revised 1996 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories: Volume 3 – Reference manual. IPCC. https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/gl/invs1.html.

International Rice Research Institute. (2014). Saving water with alternate wetting and drying (AWD). IRRI Knowledge Bank. http://www.knowledgebank.irri.org/training/fact-sheets/water-management/saving-water-alternate-wetting-drying-awd.

Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30(3), 607–610.

Kumar, K., & Rajitha, G. (2019). Alternate Wetting and Drying (AWD) irrigation - A smart water saving technology for rice: A review. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences 8(3), 2561-2571. https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2019.803.304.

Salman, M., Suzuki, H., Ahmad, W., Giusti, S., Ali, A., Rathnayake, W. M. U. K., Sirisena, D. N., Senanayake, D. M. J. B., Herath, W. M. T. M., Meegasthenna, J., Ponnampalam, Y., Bandulasena, W. M., De Silva, A., Bandara, D., Nandharathne, A. B. D. T., Sooriyaarachchi, A. T., & Pathmarajah, S. (2022). Efficient agricultural water use and management in paddy fields in Sri Lanka – National outlook. FAO. https://doi.org/10.4060/cc2778en.

Suwanmaneepong, S., Kultawanich, K., Khurnpoon, L., Sabaijai, P. E., Cavite, H. J., Llones, C., Lepcha, N., & Kerdsriserm, C. (2023). Alternate wetting and drying as water-saving technology: An adoption intention in the perspective of good agricultural practices (GAP) suburban rice farmers in Thailand. Water, 15(3), 402. https://doi.org/10.3390/w15030402

Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478. https://doi.org/10.1037/t57185-000.

Yasarapu, J., Khan, S., & Jirathanapiwat, W. (2024). Final evaluation and learning exercise of the Thai Rice project. Mitigation Action Facility. Final Report. AMBERO & Oxford Policy Management. https://mitigation-action.org/wp-content/uploads/Final-ELE-report-of-Thai-Rice-project-1-1.pdf.

Zhang, X., Xu, Y., & Linquist, B. (2024). Opportunities for mitigating net system greenhouse gas emissions in rice production. Agricultural Systems, 212, 103738. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2023.108812.