Prerpints.org logo
Preprint
Article

The Decline and Revival: How Social Learning Methods Reshape Sustainability in Indonesia's Apple Farming Crisis

This version is not peer-reviewed.

Submitted:

13 March 2025

Posted:

14 March 2025

You are already at the latest version

Abstract
Indonesian apple farming faces complex sustainability challenges with a gap in studies on the relationship between learning, knowledge and sustainability. The phenomenon of significant decline in the Tutur-Pasuruan apple farming centre with only 20-30% remaining, emphasises the importance of a deep understanding of farmers' social learning processes as the foundation of sustainable agriculture. The research objectives were to identify social learning methods and farmers' knowledge areas, analyse their impact on sustainability, and explore the interconnect-edness of these three aspects. A qualitative approach with a transcendental phenomenological design involved 19 informants with various characteristics. Data were collected through in-depth interviews, direct observation, and secondary documentation, with validity through source and method triangulation. Colaizzi's seven-step analysis supported by NVivo 12 Plus for coding and theme identification. The research identified 11 groups of social learning methods. Hands-on experiential learning (15.14%) was the most dominant. Knowledge areas covered 60 specific areas in 11 categories, with farm management, cultivation practices, and soil nutrient management as the highest proportion (15.87%). Sustainability impacts represent multidimensional transfor-mations in interrelated economic, environmental, social, and innovation aspects. The sustaina-bility of apple farming requires the integration of social learning methods with applied knowledge. Knowledge-sharing platforms, collaborative research, and policies that support sus-tainable practices can strengthen sustainability outcomes.
Keywords: 
Social Learning
;  
Farmer Knowledge
;  
Agricultural Sustainability
;  
Apple Farmers
;  
Transcendental Phenomenology
Subject: 
Social Sciences  -   Education

supplementary.pdf (91.57KB )

1. Introduction

Sustainable agriculture has become an increasingly important global issue in recent decades. Around 1.5 billion people worldwide depend on smallholder farms for their livelihoods, and agriculture accounts for around 4% of global GDP [1]. However, conventional agricultural practices are often unsustainable, with negative impacts on the environment, human health, and the socio-economic well-being of farmers [2]. The transition to sustainable agriculture requires a new knowledge base involving innovative learning content, forms and processes [2]. Farmers' local knowledge and experience, as well as their social and learning networks, play a key role in establishing alternative pathways to sustainable agriculture [3,4,5]. In addition, education and training are also critical to improving production efficiency and agricultural sustainability, especially in remote rural areas [6,7].
The challenges farmers face in accessing relevant knowledge and adopting sustainable practices have significant impacts on productivity, income and environmental sustainability [8,9]. Limited access to information, social and psychological barriers, and lack of infra-structure and support often hinder the adoption of new technologies and lead to environmental degradation due to inappropriate practices [10,11,12,13,14,15]. Given the urgency of this issue, effective farmer learning approaches are needed, including collaboration of local and formal knowledge, participatory training, and a deep understanding of the social and psychological factors that influence farmer behaviour [2,12,13,16,17,18,19]. Thus, comprehensive efforts to improve farmer learning are expected to contribute to increased productivity, income, and environmental sustainability in the agricultural sector.
Research into the interplay between learning methods, knowledge areas and sustainability outcomes requires the integration of several complementary theoretical frameworks. Starting with theories of knowledge integration and collaborative learning that emphasise the importance of the fusion of formal and informal knowledge and interaction between farmers and researchers through single-loop, double-loop and triple-loop learning processes to improve adaptability [2,20,21]. The Theory of Planned Behaviour provides a foundation for understanding the adoption of information technology by apple farmers, with attitudes and perceived behavioural control positively influencing the implementation of the technology [22,23]. The Social Learning and Social Networks approach underlines the significance of knowledge sharing in promoting sustainable agricultural practices and improving efficiency [24]. The use of this theoretical framework supports the optimisation of precision farming practices that impact the efficient use of resources such as water and fertilizer [25], as well as improved economic and environmental sustainability through reduced greenhouse gas emissions and increased financial returns [24,26].
Previous research on farmer learning methods, their effectiveness, types of knowledge critical for sustainable agriculture, and linkages between farmer learning and knowledge and sustainability outcomes have provided valuable insights. The collaborative learning study in Kenya by Restrepo et al., [20] showed an increase in farmers' ability to deal with complex challenges, sedangkan penelitian di Swiss oleh [27] found that sharing transformative knowledge through narratives can strengthen sustainable land management practices. Šūmane et al., [2] and Ambayoen et al. [28] highlighted the value of local knowledge and farmers' experiences for their practical relevance, with farmer learning communities in Canada researched by Laforge & McLachlan [29] emphasised the importance of social learning and informal networks to overcome the lack of formal education in agroecology. Furthermore, a study in Sub-Saharan Africa by Marinus et al., [30] revealed that the co-operative learning approach can increase the productivity and diversification of small-scale agriculture, while research in India by Chaudhuri et al., [4] highlighted the crucial role of farmers' social networks in adopting new sustainable agriculture paradigms and technologies.
Although much research has been done on farmer capacity building [31,32,33], There is a significant gap in integrated studies that comprehensively link social learning methods, specific knowledge areas and measurable sustainability outcomes, particularly in the context of unique and specific apple farming communities. Existing research tends to examine these elements separately without considering how their interactions shape sustainable farming systems. In addition, the majority of studies are generic in nature and pay little attention to specific contexts such as differences in agro-ecological, socio-economic, and cultural characteristics between farming regions that can significantly affect affect the effectiveness of capacity interventions [7,34,35]. Therefore, a new research approach is needed that integrates all three elements holistically and considers contextual variations in apple farming systems to produce more appropriate and applicable recommendations.
The objective of this study is to analyse the linkages between learning methods, knowledge areas, and sustainability outcomes to understand how these elements influence each other in the context of apple farming. Furthermore, it specifically analyses the various learning methods used by apple farmers in running their farms, explores the knowledge areas mastered in farm management, and the impact of apple farming practices on farm-level sustainability outcomes.
The achievement of these research objectives will contribute to the findings of previous research: a). the findings of previous research conducted by Cui et al., [24]; Wang et al., [36] on the effectiveness of the design of learning interventions for farmers by identifying key factors such as capital, ecological awareness, and technical training that promote the adoption of environmentally friendly technologies; b). research findings Wang et al., [36], Jiang et al., [37] of practical relevance to policymakers, extension agencies, and farmer organisations through concrete recommendations for removing institutional barriers and improving technical support that can strengthen apple supply chain sustainability; c). Findings Halland et al., [38] related to farmer learning by emphasising that effective learning is social and influenced by context, knowledge and motivation, which can then be formulated into a holistic learning platform for sustainable agricultural ecosystems.

2. Literature Review

Social Learning Theory, which later evolved into Social Cognitive Theory (SCT), is a concept developed by Albert Bandura in 1986, as a comprehensive approach to explain human behaviour through the interaction between personal, behavioural and environmental factors (triadic reciprocal determinism) [39,40,41]. The main concept in this theory emphasises that humans are not just passive recipients of the environment, but active agents who have the ability to self-regulate, reflect, and develop self-efficacy beliefs about the ability to perform the actions necessary to achieve certain outcomes [41,42,43]. According to Bandura, learning does not only occur through direct experience, but also through observational learning of others' behaviour and its consequences, with four key processes: attention, retention, reproduction, and motivation [39,41]. The theory also introduces the concept of collective efficacy, which is a shared belief in the group's ability to organise and carry out necessary actions. [42,44]. Through the mechanism of self-regulation, people can set goals, monitor their own behaviour, and evaluate progress based on the standards they set, resulting in sustainable behaviour change [39,45]. Bandura's approach has proven useful in domains such as education, psychotherapy, health behaviour change, and career decision-making [40,44].
Social learning methods in the context of farmer learning rely on mechanisms such as modelling and role modelling, where farmers observe and replicate the actions of role models through group discussions and learning videos that showcase sustainable soil management practices [46,[27]. Through intense interaction and self-reflection, farmers discuss experiences and challenges, thus deepening their understanding of new technologies and adaptation to environmental changes [47,48,49]. This approach, which combines direct observation and experience exchange, not only increases practical knowledge but also strengthens social networks that support more sustainable agricultural innovations [36,50,51,52].
Farmer knowledge areas are a collection of knowledge areas that include decision-making models, understanding pressures across scales, temporal dynamics [53], integration of formal and informal knowledge [8,54,55], experiential learning [56,57], and distributed knowledge networks [58,59] which plays an important role in shaping farmers' practices and adaptations to the dynamics of agricultural challenges.
Previous research has confirmed the significance of diverse and integrated farmer knowledge in supporting sustainable and resilient agriculture. Šūmane et al. [2] and Restrepo et al., [20] found that the integration of formal and informal knowledge can lead to more innovative and sustainable solutions due to its practical and local. Marinus et al. [30] found that farmers in Kenya who participated in a co-defence approach had more diverse and cohesive knowledge, which contributed to increased productivity and diversified farming systems. Brown et al., [60] identified that model frameworks that integrate socio-demographic aspects with agricultural models can increase the productivity and resilience of food systems. Castella et al., [61] emphasises the critical role of actor networks and agroecological innovations in the transformation of agricultural practices towards sustainability through multi-actor knowledge networks. Gil et al. [62] linking diverse and rich farming systems with increased resilience to climate variability, proving that comprehensive knowledge integration enables farmers to be more adaptive and resilient in the face of complex environmental and social challenges.
This study is expected to contribute to previous research on the effectiveness of farmer learning intervention design by identifying key factors such as capital, ecological awareness, and technical training that drive the adoption of environmentally friendly technologies by farmers Cui et al., [24] and Wang et al., [36]. Then to the research results relating to practical relevance for policy makers, extension agencies, and farmer organisations through concrete recommendations for removing institutional barriers and improving technical support that can strengthen apple supply chain sustainability [36,37]. Further to the findings of Halland et al. [38] on farmer learning which asserts that effective learning processes are social and influenced by context, knowledge, and motivation, which can then be formulated into a holistic learning platform for sustainable agricultural ecosystems.
Agricultural sustainability is a strategic concept that integrates environmentally, economically, and socially equitable practices to fulfil food needs while maintaining ecosystem quality and long-term profitability [63,64]. The system emphasises soil health, water use efficiency, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions through practices such as organic farming and conservative tillage [65]. Despite the challenges of scalability, short-term economic constraints, and the need for policy change, sustainable agriculture approaches remain a key solution for future global food security and natural resource conservation [63]. Effective implementation requires a reorientation of agricultural policy, the development of renewable energy from agricultural sources, and fundamental changes in the relationship between humans and their natural environment [66,67].
The linkages between social learning methods, knowledge areas, and sustainability outcomes in farmers are important elements in achieving sustainable farming systems. Marinus et al., [30] identified that a collaborative learning approach between farmers and researchers in Kenya significantly improved agricultural productivity and sustainability. Šūmane et al. [2] emphasised the importance of integrating local knowledge with formal knowledge to create more integrated agricultural solutions. Restrepo et al., [20] demonstrated that iterative farm workshops and collaborative monitoring processes contribute to increased farm resilience to environmental and market changes. Hazard et al. [68] found that social learning facilitates farmers in understanding the local context and integrating new knowledge into farming practices. Kaya [69] and Thomas et al. [8] noted that the incorporation of different types of multidisciplinary knowledge helps farmers overcome complex agricultural challenges. While Kakisina [70] points out that this integrated approach supports farmers to be more innovative and adaptive in the face of change, thereby improving overall sustainability outcomes.

2. Materials and Methods

This research uses a qualitative approach with a transcendental phenomenological design [71], aiming to understand the essence of learning experiences that specifically occur in apple commodity farming communities in Tutur District, Pasuruan Regency. The transcendental phenomenological approach was chosen because of its ability to describe the general meaning of individual life experiences related to certain phenomena, which consists of a description of "what" the subject experiences (textural description) and "how" the subject experiences and interprets his experience (structural description).
The research was conducted in Andonosari Village, Tutur Sub-district, Pasuruan Regency from January to August 2024. The location selection was done deliberately with several considerations: (1) Andonosari village is one of the pioneering villages in developing apple as a location-specific superior commodity in Tutur sub-district since 1965s; (2) one of the three villages with the largest apple orchards in Tutur sub-district; (3) about 48.6% of the village area is used as apple plantation land that supplies various large markets in Jakarta, Central Java, Bali, Sulawesi, and Kalimantan; and (4) the village has a large apple orchard; (4) has the highest number of farmer groups compared to other villages.
The research informants were determined purposively to fulfil the rules of transcedental phenomenological research, consisting of 10 key-informants from a total of 19 participants. The key-informant criteria are farmers who have experience in apple farming and are considered the most knowledgeable about how apple farmers learn in Andonosari Village. Informants came from various role characteristics such as opinion leaders/community leaders, harvest collectors, farm youth, group administrators, self-help extension workers, input shop owners, migrant farmers, indigenous farmers, tenant farmers, and farm labourers. Variations in informants' backgrounds included age (22-65 years old), education level (elementary to master's degree), and apple farming experience (7-40 years).
Data collection was conducted through three methods: (1) The indept interview uses an interview guideline for the research informants; (2) direct observation of various informant activities such as preparation of agricultural production facilities, activities on the farm, socialisation with other farmers, development of agricultural products, group and social activities; and (3) Secondary data collection from village monographs, related agencies, and private parties.
To ensure the validity of the data, the researcher tested the trustworthiness of the data through source triangulation and method triangulation techniques. Source triangulation was carried out by cross-checking data from different informants, while method triangulation was carried out by comparing data obtained through interviews, observations, and document/archive reviews. The researcher also applied epoche (confinement) to personal experiences during the interview process and analysis to gain a fresh perspective on the phenomenon studied. Data analysis using Colaizzi's modified seven-step method [72] to ensure that no detail of the phenomenon is missed. The stages of analysis include: (1) re-reading the interview transcripts; (2) extracting significant statements; (3) giving meaning to the statements; (4) repeating steps 1-3 for each interview and starting to create themes; (5) compiling a full description; (6) summarising descriptions of the fundamental structure of the phenomenon; and (7) ensuring data credibility through discussions with experts and independent reviewers. In the early stages of analysis, the researcher used the help of the NVivo 12 Plus programme to facilitate the process of coding and identifying themes.

3. Results

3.1. Social Learning Methods Used by Apple Farmers in Running Their Plantation Businesses

Understanding how farmers learn and develop their knowledge is crucial in supporting the sustainability of apple farming. In Tutur-Pasuruan, the apple farmer learning system has evolved over decades into a highly complex and integrated system. The system incorporates a variety of social learning methods, ranging from very traditional ones based on experience and local wisdom, to the adoption of modern technology and digital learning. Based on in-depth analyses of interviews with apple farmers, 11 main groups of social learning methods were identified that complement and interact with each other as shown in Table 1.
The various social learning methods of Tutur apple farmers identified in Table 1 are not independent, but interrelated to form a complex network of knowledge. Each group of methods has its own characteristics, strengths and roles in building collective knowledge, with farmers combining methods according to their needs and context. Figure 1 is used to illustrate the flexibility and adaptability of learning methods. The adaptive and dynamic integration of methods allows farmers to continue learning and adapting to the challenges of apple cultivation.
The main foundation of apple grower learning lies in hands-on experience in managing the orchard. This method involves careful observation of the crop, experimentation with different treatments, and regular monitoring of crop responses. Farmers develop a heightened sensitivity to the relationship between plants and their environment through consistent observation of natural phenomena. This learning process is highly empirical and relies on practical experience in the field. Hands-on experiential learning was identified as the most commonly used by farmers (15.14%), indicating that apple farmers still rely heavily on learning through practical and hands-on field experience. This reflects that, for farmers, the characteristics of apple farming require great sensitivity and a deep understanding of the crop that can only be gained through practical experience.
Modern and digital learning is the second dominant method used (12.12%), indicating a significant transformation in the way farmers access and process information. This is mainly driven by the younger generation of farmers who are more familiar with digital technology and the internet. Interestingly, despite being modern, the proportion of use of this method does not far exceed that of traditional methods, suggesting that for apple farmers, digitalisation complements rather than replaces conventional methods.
Five groups of learning methods - adaptive learning, community-based, family and tradition-based, learning from specialists and workers, learning from comparison, and learning from failure - each had the same proportion of usage (9.38%). This even distribution of the application of learning methods shows the balance and integration of various learning resources within the apple farming community.
Adaptive learning plays a vital role, where farmers make gradual changes, evaluate economic aspects, and adapt to natural changes. Meanwhile, the social dimension of learning is reflected in community-based learning. Farmers share knowledge through informal interactions in social and religious gatherings. The social networks formed facilitate the exchange of information and experiences.
Family-based learning and tradition are critically important pillars. Knowledge is passed down from generation to generation, involving all family members, combining time-tested practices with adaptations to the times. This creates both continuity of knowledge and room for innovation. The role of specialists, farm workers and farm labourers who move between farms also serves as agents of knowledge transfer, with the support of technical inputs from experts. At the same time, farmers learn through comparison, both with model farms and cultivation practices in other regions. Meanwhile, learning from the market is crucial, with collectors and sellers of agricultural inputs acting as a source of information and a link to market demands.
Learning from failure is a valuable and significant source of knowledge (6.25%), where farmers analyse patterns of failure to find solutions. Likewise, institutional learning through farmer groups and cooperatives, although present, tends to be limited and more focused on administrative aspects (6.25%). Documentation, both personal and collective, has a very limited proportion of use (3.13%), but is still a significant part of the social learning system of apple farmers.
This whole social learning system reflects collective wisdom that combines technical, social, economic and ecological aspects in a dynamic and adaptive manner. This allows farmers to survive the challenges of apple cultivation. Interestingly, although informal, this social learning system shows complexity and depth that goes beyond formal learning systems.
An interesting finding from this distribution of the use of social learning methods is how apple farmers developed a very balanced and adaptive social learning system. Although experiential learning is dominant, no method is particularly dominant (the highest proportion is only 15.14%), suggesting that farmers tend to combine various learning methods. The relatively low proportion of institutional learning (6.06%) indicates the lack of role of formal institutions in farmers' learning process, while the high proportion of modern and digital learning methods (12.12%) indicates the potential for developing a social learning system that is more integrated with modern technology.
This distribution also reflects the complexity and dynamics of social learning in apple farming communities, where various social learning methods do not stand alone but complement each other to form a comprehensive social learning system. This suggests that capacity building efforts for apple farmers need to consider and integrate these various social learning methods, rather than focusing on just one or two methods.

3.2. Knowledge Areas Mastered by Apple Farmers in Managing Their Orchards

Apple farmers in Tutur have developed an extraordinarily complex and deep knowledge system through years of experience in dealing with various environmental, technical, social and economic challenges. Based on the interviews conducted, more than 60 specific knowledge areas were identified that can be grouped into 11 main categories that are interrelated and form a comprehensive local knowledge system. This knowledge is formed through a long learning process from direct experience, observation, and information sharing among farmers, with minimal contribution from the formal extension system, as outlined in Table 2.
The areas of farmer knowledge identified in Table 2 indicate the complexity and depth of the local knowledge system of apple farmers in Tutur, demonstrating the remarkable adaptive capacity of farmers in the face of environmental, technological and economic changes. Figure 2 shows the proportion of different knowledge areas mastered by apple farmers in managing their orchards. The proportions reflect the priority and focus of apple farmers' knowledge in managing their orchards, with primary attention to aspects that directly affect fruit productivity and quality, as well as the sustainability of their farms. Such knowledge, built largely through practical experience and passed on informally, is a valuable asset that deserves to be documented, valued and integrated into future agricultural development programmes.
Based on Figure 2, Farm Management, Cultivation Practice, and Nutrient and Soil Management are the most dominant apple farmer knowledge used and developed (15.87%). Farm Management encompasses farmers' efforts to develop various strategies to optimise business efficiency and resilience, including diversification systems, crop rotation arrangements, financial management, and land-livestock integration. As Mr YU explained, farmers with multiple farm locations can arrange different harvest times to reduce risk and stabilise income. Mr DN demonstrates an awareness of economics with detailed calculations of the cost per tree and capital required for a given area.
Cultivation practices, including various locally developed techniques such as "mrithil" (leaf thrashing), branch pruning, fruit thinning, and "mbekuk" (branch bending). Mr SLh explained that the "mbekuk" branch technique not only makes harvesting easier but also increases productivity as "there are more flowers". Farmers have also developed intercropping techniques with compatible crops to optimise land use and reduce farming risks, as practised by Mr AP, Mr MY, Mrs NQ and Mr HM.
Another dominant knowledge area (15.87%) is on Nutrient and Soil Management. Farmers not only understand the nutritional needs of crops, but also adapt to declining land productivity due to long-term intensive chemical use. They have started to switch to the use of organic materials such as PGPR, MOL, and bio-urine as AM did. The ability to identify symptoms of nutrient deficiencies and understand changes in soil pH has also developed, such as Mr MY's realisation that the pH of his apple orchard only reached 5.2, far below optimal.
Plant Health Management was the next dominant knowledge area (14.29%), reflecting the importance of this aspect given the high susceptibility of apples to pest and disease attacks. Farmers have developed control systems that include identification of pests, application of pesticides and fungicides, formulation of pesticide combinations, and understanding of pest resistance. Their knowledge has evolved from mere brand recognition to an understanding of the active ingredients in the pesticides, as Pak DN said, "So now what we are told is the active ingredients now. In the past, it was not”.
Environmental Adaptation Management, Genetic Resources Management, and Plant Physi-ology and Phenology each have a fairly dominant share (9.52%). In the aspect of environmental adaptation, farmers develop knowledge on location-specific cultivation techniques, water conservation, and understanding of local ecology. Mr DN revealed that proximity to the forest has an effect on apple production, demonstrating a deep understanding of ecological relationships in the farm environment.
In genetic resource management, farmers understand the characteristics of local apple varieties and their adaptability to specific environmental conditions. Mr TM revealed that Rome Beauty and Manalagi varieties are more resistant to pests and diseases than imported varieties. Mr MY emphasised that: "the best apple seedling underbelly is the alas apple (forest apple)".
For plant physiology and phenology, farmers have a deep understanding of the stages of growth, the process of flowering and fruiting, and the response of plants to growth regulators. Mr DN and Mr TM revealed that the process from flowering to fruiting takes about 15 days, although not all flowers bloom at the same time. This understanding allows farmers to manage the apple production cycle more effectively.
Post-harvest and Market Management received a share of 7.94%, indicating that farmers also pay attention to aspects of harvest handling and marketing. They understand the marketing system, fruit quality criteria, and post-harvest handling techniques. Some farmers have developed methods to minimise pesticide residues by wrapping apples in plastic, as practised by Mr HI, increasing the selling value and safety of their products.
Technology Transfer has the smallest share at 1.59%, indicating that this aspect still needs to be improved among apple farmers. Nonetheless, the overall knowledge aspects reflect how apple farmers in Tutur have developed a comprehensive and contextualised knowledge system, adapting to the environmental and economic challenges they face, with dominance on aspects of farm management, cultivation practices and soil nutrient management.

3.3. The Impact of Apple Cultivation Practices on Sustainability Outcomes at the Farm Level

Apple cultivation in the Tutur region has undergone a drastic transformation from its heyday in the 1990s to its current critical state with only 20-30% of the apple population remaining. Four dimensions of sustainability have been significantly impacted: economically, declining profitability due to high production costs and low productivity has driven farmers to switch to dairy cattle and alternative crops; environmentally, soil degradation, pesticide dependency, and climate change have worsened cropping conditions; socially, the crisis of farmer regeneration and the degradation of social capital have led to the loss of local knowledge; while in the innovation dimension, some young farmers have begun to adopt technologies such as PGPR, MOL, and the use of digital media, although still limited, as described in Table 3.
The conditions identified in Table 3 reflect that apple farming practices in Tutur face significant sustainability challenges across all dimensions. Economic decline, environmental degradation and social challenges have caused many farmers to switch to other commodities. Despite innovation efforts from young farmers, limited mentoring and knowledge sharing slowed the transition to a more sustainable system. This means that without appropriate interventions and stronger collaboration between farmers, academia, the private sector, and the government, the sustainability of apple farming in the region will continue to be threatened.
The sunburst diagram (Figure 3) presents a comprehensive analysis of how apple cultivation practices affect sustainability outcomes at the farm level, organised into four main dimensions: Economic (23.5%), Environmental (23.5%), Social (26.5%), and Innovation (26.5%). The percentages appear to indicate the number of aspects associated with the dimensions of sustainability previously identified in Table 3.
The economic dimension reveals some of the challenges apple farmers face. Changes in income structure (4.4%) reflect declining profitability as costs rise while apple prices remain volatile. Business diversification (4.4%) has become a necessary strategy, with many farmers supplementing their income through dairy farming or cultivation of alternative crops such as citrus and avocado. Investment patterns (4.4%) have changed drastically since the heyday of the late 1990s, when apple farming generated enough profit for farmers to make large investments in land and vehicles. Most worrying is the reliance on middlemen (4.4%), as farmers often sell their crops to middlemen at prices far below market value, with payments often delayed by 15-20 days or even more than 2 months. Some farmers even suffer heavy losses as their apples end up not being paid for.
Environmental factors represent a significant threat to sustainability. Apple cultivation in Andonosari has led to soil degradation (4.4%) through intensive chemical use over decades, with farmers reporting declining soil quality despite abundant organic inputs. Heavy reliance on chemical pesticides (4.4%) has created a cycle of increasing application rates as pests develop resistance, while pest and disease infestations (5.9%)-especially "nyawo" (crusting) and root canker-continue to devastate orchards. The deterioration of tree quality (4.4%) is evident as trees that once yielded over 100kg per tree now only yield 15-20kg, with overall productivity declining by around 80%.
Social impacts reflect profound changes in the farming community. A crisis of farmer regeneration (4.4%) threatens as younger generations prefer other careers, leaving aging farmers without successors. Degradation of social capital (4.4%) is evident in reduced knowledge sharing, with successful farmers often reluctant to share techniques with others. Changing group patterns (4.4%) indicate the declining effectiveness of farmer groups, which now function primarily as administrative vehicles for subsidy distribution rather than learning communities. Changes in regional identity (4.4%) are visible as Andonosari shifts from being known for apple production to dairy farming, while social practices of learning (4.4%) reveal how knowledge is mainly transferred through informal observation and experimentation.
The innovation dimension highlights farmers' responses to these challenges. While the adaptation of farming practices (4.4%) is ongoing, with farmers continuing to adjust their approach through trial and error, the adoption of organic approaches (4.4%) remains limited due to transitional difficulties. Commodity switching (4.4%) is increasingly common, with many farmers replacing apples with honey siem oranges or converting orchards to pasture. Some innovative farmers utilise information technology (4.4%), especially YouTube, to learn new techniques, while others pursue alternative entrepreneurship (4.4%) through processing activities such as juice production.
Together, these dimensions illustrate how apple farming in Andonosari has reached a critical sustainability threshold, with approximately 60-80% of orchards already lost and continued decline likely without significant interventions in cultivation practices, knowledge systems, and market structures.

3.4. The Relationship between Learning Methods, Knowledge Areas and Sustainability Outcomes of Apple Farmers

Apple farming in Tutur shows a complex relationship between learning methods, knowledge domains and sustainability outcomes. The analysis shows a complex pattern of interrelationships between apple farmers' learning methods, their knowledge domains and their impact on the sustainability of apple farming in Tutur. A Sankey diagram (Figure 4) visualises this relationship, with streams connecting the three main components, showing the dominance of certain learning methods and preferences for sustainability outcomes.
Hands-on experiential learning methods dominate in apple farmers' knowledge systems, as evidenced by the thickness of the streams linking them to various knowledge areas, especially the practicalities of cultivation and plant health management. This "trial and error" approach has a significant impact on economic and environmental sustainability, and fosters innovation. As seen in the case of B-Se (a homemade pesticide) which, although not successful, has provided valuable lessons that the transition to organic systems should be gradual. Farmers routinely do trial and error, trying different approaches until they find practices that are effective for their land conditions. As Mr YU said, "It means you have to try, if you don't try you can't". Mr AM exemplifies this by recounting his experimentation in applying PGPR to vegetables first before using it on apples.
The field of Plant Health Man-agement knowledge is at the centre of apple farmers' attention, as evidenced by the large flows in and out of this field. This reflects the disease and pest challenges faced by apple farmers, such as root canker and lice, which threaten the sustainability of their farms.
Family and tradition-based learning is primarily concerned with cultivation practices and managing genetic resources, with more sustainability outcomes in the social dimension. Knowledge is passed down through generations, as in the case of the apple branch bending technique passed down from previous generations, creating strong social ties between generations of farmers.
Economic sustainability emerged as the most dominant outcome, indicated by the heavy flow towards this dimension. This indicates that farmers' main motivation in learning and applying new knowledge is to ensure the economic sustainability of their farms, especially given the price and market challenges they face.
Community-based learning is particularly prominent in the areas of plant health management and cultivation practices. This method contributes to social sustainability through informal meetings, such as during "jagongan" at warung, where farmers share their experiences in dealing with pests and diseases. However, some successful farmers tend to be reluctant to share their knowledge due to price competition and prestige.
The social sustainability dimension shows mixed results. On the one hand, there is intergenerational knowledge erosion with many young farmers reluctant to continue apple farming. On the other hand, some young farmers such as Mr AM, Mr DN and Mr UB have developed innovative approaches, combining traditional knowledge with new information from digital sources, creating new ways to maintain sustainable apple cultivation.
Learning from failure and adaptive learning play an important role in influencing environmental adaptation management, showing how farmers learn to adapt to changing environmental conditions, such as switching to citrus, vegetables, avocados, or relying on dairy cows when apple productivity declines.
Specialist and worker learning is generally related to cultivation practices and plant health management. Farm labourers who move between workplaces are agents of knowledge transfer between farms, as Mr AM said, "The workers move around. From one farm to another. So they also have a lot of experience".
Modern and digital learning is being embraced, especially by young farmers who utilise platforms such as YouTube and the internet to learn nutrient and soil management techniques. Nutrient and soil management is more connected to this method, indicating that farmers are starting to adopt new technologies and knowledge in this aspect, especially in the use of organic fertilisers and soil conditioners.
Learning from documentation, while not as prevalent as other methods, plays an important role in plant health management and farm management. Some farmers like Mr HI maintain detailed records of pesticide and fertiliser use, helping them to make better decisions.
Interestingly, institutionalised learning shows a relatively smaller flow compared to other learning methods. This indicates the limited role of formal extension and research institutions in apple farmers' knowledge system, where farmers trust the practical experience of fellow farmers more than extension officers.
Learning from the market and learning from comparison significantly influenced post-harvest management and marketing, which in turn contributed to economic sustainability. Farmers learnt that their apples sell better labelled as "Apel Batu" even though they come from Tutur, and understood market preferences for certain fruit qualities and quantities. Mr AM explains: "In general, the way farmers learn here is by imitating their friends. A friend uses a certain medicine with good results, they try to use it in their fields."
Innovation as a sustainability outcome was seen to come from diverse learning methods and knowledge areas, showing that innovations in apple farming emerged from a combination of different knowledge sources and learning approaches. These include the development of PGPR, MOL and bioactivators by young farmers, as well as the adaptation of cultivation techniques to overcome the challenges of declining productivity. Technical knowledge includes pruning, bending and leaf threshing techniques that are locally developed and characterise apple cultivation in the region. Mr SLh explains: "There are many techniques for pruning, depending on the request of the orchard owner". Farmers have in-depth knowledge of the traits of local apple varieties such as Rome Beauty, Manalagi and Ana, including their growth characteristics and storage capacity. Farmers have also developed ecological knowledge about the relationship between plants, soil and environmental conditions. According to Mr MY, soil degradation has become a major problem: "The most important thing is soil improvement. The problem is that the awareness to restore it is very difficult."
Overall, apple farmers' learning methods are diverse and complementary, covering a wide range of knowledge areas from cultivation practices to marketing. While economic sustainability is the main focus, there is an increasing awareness of the importance of environmental sustainability, especially in relation to soil health and the reduction of chemical inputs. The social dimension of sustainability is seen in the strengthening of community ties through knowledge sharing, albeit sometimes limited by competition. While the sustainability of innovation arises from the combination of multiple sources of knowledge and flexible and adaptive social learning approaches.
This study shows that the sustainability of apple farming in Tutur requires a stronger integration of learning methods with the application of evolving knowledge. Interventions that support knowledge-sharing platforms, collaborative research and policy support for sustainable practices can help bridge the knowledge gap and strengthen future sustainability outcomes.

4. Discussion

This research uncovers the complex mechanisms linking social learning methods, knowledge areas and sustainability outcomes in apple farmers in Tutur. The main findings show that apple farmers have developed a highly adaptive learning system, with 11 clusters of complementary learning methods, with the dominance of experiential learning (15.14%) and digital modern learning (12.12%). This confirms that apple farmers rely on empirical approaches combined with modern technology to deal with cultivation challenges. The identified farmer knowledge system is very comprehensive, covering 11 main categories with 60 specific knowledge areas, where farm management, cultivation practices, and soil nutrient management dominate the proportion of knowledge (15.87% each). Sustainability results show a multidimensional transformation in the interrelated economic, environmental, social and innovation aspects, with apple populations remaining only 20-30% of their former glory.
This finding confirms the argumentation of Šūmane et al. [2] and E. D. Cahyono et al. [22] on the importance of blending formal and informal knowledge in building sustainable agricultural pathways. In line with research Restrepo et al. (2018) In Kenya, the research confirmed that collaborative learning improved farmers' ability to deal with complex challenges, although in Tutur the process was more informal and less structured. The results also reinforce the findings of Chaudhuri et al., [50,51,73] on the crucial role of social networks in the adoption of sustainable agricultural practices, where Tutur apple farmers learnt through informal social interactions such as "jagongan" in coffee shops and religious gatherings.
In contrast to the research of Laforge and McLachlan [29] In Canada, which found farmer learning communities as a solution to the lack of formal education, this study reveals that Tutur apple farmers tend to rely on experiential learning with minimal contributions from the formal extension system. This indicates a gap between the formal extension system and the real needs of farmers, as well as the potential for developing a more integrated learning system. The unique contribution of this research is the comprehensive identification of apple farmers' social learning methods that have not been systematically documented before, as well as an in-depth exploration of the interrelationships between learning, knowledge and sustainability that shape apple farming systems.
This study is in line with the findings of Cui et al., [24] and Wang et al., [36] on the effectiveness of learning intervention designs for farmers. Key factors such as capital, ecological awareness and technical training that drive the adoption of green technologies were identified in this study, but in the unique context of apple farmers facing the challenges of regeneration and environmental degradation. The results also reinforce the findings of Wang et al. [36] and Jiang et al., [37] on the importance of removing institutional barriers and improving technical support for apple supply chain sustainability, with additional practical recommendations for policy makers, extension agencies and farmer organisations. In addition, the research findings support the arguments of Halland et al., [38] that effective farmer learning is social and influenced by context, knowledge and motivation, which can be formulated into a holistic learning platform for sustainable agricultural ecosystems.
Theoretically, the research findings enrich Bandura's Social Learning Theory framework with the specific context of apple farmers, showing how social learning occurs through observation, direct experience and social interaction. The research revealed that self-efficacy and collective efficacy [40,42,44] are formed through shared experiences of success and failure within the farming community. The results also extend the understanding of triadic reciprocal de-terminism ) [39,40,41] by showing how personal (economic motivation), behavioural (cultivation practices) and environmental (ecological and social context) factors influence each other in apple farmers' learning. Apple farmers do not simply respond passively to environmental changes, but become active agents who develop adaptive strategies through experimentation and reflection, as Mr YU expressed, "You have to try, if you don't try you can't." This finding reinforces the concept of human agency in Social Cognitive Theory, which emphasises the ability of individuals to self-regulate and adapt [40,44,45].
This research also confirms social learning mechanisms such as modelling and role modelling as proposed by Dooley. [74] and Fry & Thieme [27], where apple farmers learn through observing the behaviour of other farmers and its consequences. Attention, retention, reproduction, and motivation processes [39,41] are evident in how farmers notice successful farming practices, remember important information, try to apply it, and are motivated by the potential for better economic outcomes. These findings reinforce the relevance of Social Learning Theory in the agricultural context and show how it can be applied to understand farmers' learning processes more comprehensively.
The research findings have significant practical implications for the development of agricultural extension systems. Firstly, extension services need to integrate various social learning methods that have developed among farmers, rather than relying solely on formal approaches. Second, farmer capacity building programmes should take into account the depth and breadth of local knowledge that has developed, with a focus on aspects of farm management, cultivation practices, and soil nutrient management. Third, extension interventions need to be designed with a comprehensive consideration of sustainability dimensions, not only economic but also environmental, social, and innovation aspects.
In terms of policy, the research findings highlight the need to reorient horticultural development policies by considering the location-specific context. Policies need to support business diversification to reduce risk, strengthen farmer institutions as learning platforms, and improve farmers' access to markets to reduce dependence on collectors. In addition, there is a need to invest in collaborative research that involves farmers as active partners, not just objects of research.
A surprising finding in this study was the low contribution of institutionalised learning (6.25%) compared to other learning methods, despite the presence of farmer groups and extension workers. This phenomenon may be due to the less participatory and more administratively orientated extension approach, which is less relevant to farmers' needs. This suggests the importance of reforming the extension system to better accommodate farmers' existing social learning.
The methodological strength of this study lies in the transcendental phenomenological approach that allows for in-depth exploration of apple farmers' learning experiences, with triangulation of sources and methods enhancing the credibility of the findings. The diversity of informants from various characteristics enables a comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon under study. However, the research has limitations in terms of generalisation of findings due to the site-specific context. Nonetheless, the depth of analysis provides valuable insights into farmer learning dynamics that can serve as a reference for similar research in other locations.
The research identified several knowledge gaps that need to be addressed in future studies. Firstly, comparative research on farmers' social learning systems in different apple production centres is needed to identify common patterns and contextual variations. Secondly, longitudinal studies are needed to understand the evolution of farmers' learning systems and knowledge over time, especially in the context of climate and economic changes. Third, experimental research on the effectiveness of different learning methods in improving apple farm sustainability can provide an empirical basis for the development of more effective extension programmes.
The sustainability of apple farming in Tutur faces serious challenges with population declines of up to 20-30%. Without adequate interventions, the long-term sustainability of apple farming in the region is threatened. The in-depth understanding of the linkages between learning methods, knowledge areas and sustainability outcomes revealed in this study provides a basis for developing more effective and contextualised in-vention strategies. Integration of local knowledge systems with formal knowledge, strengthening of knowledge-sharing platforms, and policies that support sustainable practices are key to reversing this downward trend and revitalising apple farming in Tutur.

5. Conclusions

The results reveal a complex interplay between social learning methods, knowledge areas and sustainability outcomes among apple farmers in Tutur, where farmers have developed a highly adaptive learning system with 11 clusters of complementary learning methods. Experiential learning (15.14%) and modern digital learning (12.12%) are the dominant methods, reflecting a combination of empirical approaches and modern technology in dealing with cultivation challenges. This finding confirms the argument of the importance of blending formal and informal knowledge in building sustainable agricultural pathways, with the development of a comprehensive farmer knowledge system covering 11 major categories and 60 specific knowledge areas, of which farm management, cultivation practices, and soil nutrient management dominate the proportion of knowledge (15.87% each). These complex linkages occur through mechanisms of observation, direct experience and social interaction that shape self-efficacy and collective efficacy in farming communities, while extending the understanding of triadic reciprocal determinism by showing how personal, behavioural and environmental factors influence each other in apple farmer learning.
The practical implications of this research include the need to integrate various social learning methods that have been developed into the extension system, taking into account the depth and breadth of local knowledge and designing interventions that consider sustainability dimensions comprehensively. Reorientation of horticultural development policies needs to be done by considering location-specific contexts, supporting business diversification to reduce risks, strengthening farmer institutions as learning platforms, and increasing farmers' access to markets to reduce dependence on collectors. The low contribution of institutional learning (6.25%) compared to other learning methods indicates the importance of reforming the extension system to better accommodate farmers' existing social learning, with a more participatory approach and oriented towards farmers' real needs rather than administrative aspects alone.
The challenge of apple farming sustainability in Tutur is very serious with population decline to 20-30% of its former glory, so several follow-up studies are needed including comparative studies on farmers' social learning systems in various apple production centres, longitudinal studies to understand the evolution of farmers' learning systems and knowledge over time, and experiential research on the effectiveness of various learning methods in improving the sustainability of apple farming. Efforts to revitalise apple farming require integration of local knowledge systems with formal knowledge, strengthening of knowledge-sharing platforms, and policies that support economically and ecologically sustainable practices. An integrated approach linking economic, environmental, social and innovation dimensions is needed to create effective interventions to reverse the downward trend and strengthen the long-term resilience of apple farming in the region.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: Preprints.org.

Author Contributions

S.S: developing ideas of research, coordinating research activities, data collection, analysis, writing; K.H.: developing ideas, supervising, analysis, reviewing; M.P.R: developing ideas, analysis, reviewing; E.D.C.: developing ideas of research, writing, reviewing, and editing. All authors have read and agreed

Funding

This research was funded by Indonesian Ministry of Agriculture, grant number 751/KPTS/Kp.320/10/2018 and The APC was partially funded by the Indonesian Ministry of Agriculture.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The Ethical Clearance Letter of this study was approved by the Faculty of Agriculture, Brawijaya University No. 02176/UN10.F0401/B/TU/2025

Informed Consent Statement

This article reports on a qualitative study based on data collection through in-depth interviews, observation and document analysis involving various community members in the Tutur-Pasuruan region. Before the study began, all participants gave informed consent. They were briefed on the objectives, methods, and expected outcomes of the study, with the assurance that their confidentiality would be maintained. Participation in the study was voluntary, and participants had the freedom to withdraw at any time without consequences. To protect privacy, participants' personal information is not included in the publication of research results.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from Suryaman Sule. The data are not publicly available due to ethical reasons.

Acknowledgments

My deepest gratitude to all the informants in Tutur-Pasuruan who have been willing to provide valuable and necessary information during the research. In addition, thanks to the Ministry of Agriculture, Universitas Brawijaya especially the Faculty of Agriculture and Universitas Brawijaya Library for providing assistance in writing the journal article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Food and Agriculture Organization, “Gross domestic product and agriculture value added 1970–2019. Global and regional trends,” FAOSTAT Anal. briefs, 2021. https://openknowledge.fao.org/handle/20.500.14283/cb4651en.
  2. Šūmane, S.; Kunda, I.; Knickel, K.; Strauss, A.; Tisenkopfs, T.; Rios, I.D.I.; Rivera, M.; Chebach, T.; Ashkenazy, A. Local and farmers' knowledge matters! How integrating informal and formal knowledge enhances sustainable and resilient agriculture. J. Rural. Stud. 2018, 59, 232–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Cahyono, E.D. Participatory Communication and Extension for Indigenous Farmers: Empowering Local Paddy Rice Growers in East Java. In Communicating for Social Change; Springer Nature: Singapore, 2019; pp. 213–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Chaudhuri, S.; Roy, M.; McDonald, L.M.; Emendack, Y. Reflections on farmers’ social networks: a means for sustainable agricultural development? Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2021, 23, 2973–3008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Yuliati, Y.; Cahyono, E.D.; Maulana, R. ; Arissaryadin Gender exclusion in Indonesia’s community-based forest management extension program. Gender, Technol. Dev. 2024, 28, 1–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Maini, E.; De Rosa, M.; Vecchio, Y. The Role of Education in the Transition towards Sustainable Agriculture: A Family Farm Learning Perspective. Sustainability 2021, 13, 8099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Nguyen, M.P.; Pagella, T.; Catacutan, D.C.; Nguyen, T.Q.; Sinclair, F. Adoption of Agroforestry in Northwest Viet Nam: What Roles Do Social and Cultural Norms Play? Forests 2021, 12, 493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Thomas, E.; Riley, M.; Spees, J. Knowledge flows: Farmers’ social relations and knowledge sharing practices in ‘Catchment Sensitive Farming’. Land Use Policy 2020, 90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Cahyono, E.D.; Pradesti, E.; Prayogo, C.; Suhartini, R.; Isaskar, R. EXPLORING THE RELATIVE ADVANTAGES OF LOCAL INNOVATION IN AGROFORESTRY. Front. Agric. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 61–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. E. D. Cahyono, Challenges facing extension agents in implementing the participatory extension approach in Indonesia: A case study of Malang Regency in the East Java Region. search.proquest.com, 2014.
  11. Emerick, K.; Dar, M.H. Farmer Field Days and Demonstrator Selection for Increasing Technology Adoption. Rev. Econ. Stat. 2020, 103, 680–693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Bhuiyan, M.M.R.; Maharjan, K.L. Impact of Farmer Field School on Crop Income, Agroecology, and Farmer’s Behavior in Farming: A Case Study on Cumilla District in Bangladesh. Sustainability 2022, 14, 4190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Kansanga, M.M.; Kerr, R.B.; Lupafya, E.; Dakishoni, L.; Luginaah, I. Does participatory farmer-to-farmer training improve the adoption of sustainable land management practices? Land Use Policy 2021, 108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Carlisle, L.; de Wit, M.M.; DeLonge, M.S.; Calo, A.; Getz, C.; Ory, J.; Munden-Dixon, K.; Galt, R.; Melone, B.; Knox, R.; et al. Securing the future of US agriculture: The case for investing in new entry sustainable farmers. Elementa: Sci. Anthr. 2019, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Shao, X.; Ahmad, M.; Javed, F. Firm-Level Digitalization for Sustainability Performance: Evidence from Ningbo City of China. Sustainability 2024, 16, 8881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Batoa, H.; Limi, M.A.; Hamzah, A.; Cahyono, E.D.; Arimbawa, P.; Yusria, W.O.; Gafaruddin, A. External factors affecting lowland rice farmers’ use of chemical pesticides in Welala Village, Kolaka Timur Regency, Indonesia. J. Agric. Ext. 2019, 23, 80–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Rowe, R.L.; Prayogo, C.; Oakley, S.; Hairiah, K.; van Noordwijk, M.; Wicaksono, K.P.; Kurniawan, S.; Fitch, A.; Cahyono, E.D.; Suprayogo, D.; et al. Improved Coffee Management by Farmers in State Forest Plantations in Indonesia: An Experimental Platform. Land 2022, 11, 671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Mills, J.; Gaskell, P.; Ingram, J.; Dwyer, J.; Reed, M.; Short, C. Engaging farmers in environmental management through a better understanding of behaviour. Agric. Hum. Values 2017, 34, 283–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Rosário, J.; Madureira, L.; Marques, C.; Silva, R. Understanding Farmers’ Adoption of Sustainable Agriculture Innovations: A Systematic Literature Review. Agronomy 2022, 12, 2879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Restrepo, M.J.; Lelea, M.A.; Kaufmann, B.A. Evaluating knowledge integration and co-production in a 2-year collaborative learning process with smallholder dairy farmer groups. Sustain. Sci. 2018, 13, 1265–1286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Eshuis, J.; Stuiver, M. Learning in context through conflict and alignment: Farmers and scientists in search of sustainable agriculture. Agric. Hum. Values 2005, 22, 137–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Cahyono, E.D.; Fairuzzana, S.; Willianto, D.; Pradesti, E.; McNamara, N.P.; Rowe, R.L.; van Noordwijk, M. Agroforestry Innovation through Planned Farmer Behavior: Trimming in Pine–Coffee Systems. Land 2020, 9, 363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Chen, X.; Jin, Y.; Mao, S. How Can Apple Farmers Be Encouraged to Apply Information Technology? The Moderating Effect of Knowledge Sharing. Sustainability 2021, 13, 10228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Cui, S.; Pathera, D.; Li, Y.; Jiao, X. The impact of social network and resource endowment of smallholders on sustainable apple production. China Agric. Econ. Rev. 2025, 17, 22–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Ed-Daoudi, R.; Alaoui, A.; Ettaki, B.; Zerouaoui, J. A Machine Learning Approach to Identify Optimal Cultivation Practices for Sustainable apple Production in Precision Agriculture in Morocco. E3S Web Conf. 2023, 469, 00052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Ding, J.; Moustier, P.; Ma, X.; Huo, X.; Jia, X. Doing but not knowing: how apple farmers comply with standards in China. Agric. Hum. Values 2019, 36, 61–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Fry, P.; Thieme, S. A social learning video method: Identifying and sharing successful transformation knowledge for sustainable soil management in Switzerland. Soil Use Manag. 2019, 35, 185–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Ambayoen, M.A.; Hidayat, K.; Yuliati, Y.; Cahyono, E.D. The Roots of Resilience: Strengthening Agricultural Sustainability in Tengger, Indonesia Through Social Capital. Sustainability 2024, 17, 192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Laforge, J.M.; McLachlan, S.M. Learning communities and new farmer knowledge in Canada. Geoforum 2018, 96, 256–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Marinus, W.; Descheemaeker, K.K.; van de Ven, G.W.; Waswa, W.; Mukalama, J.; Vanlauwe, B.; Giller, K.E. “That is my farm” – An integrated co-learning approach for whole-farm sustainable intensification in smallholder farming. Agric. Syst. 2021, 188, 103041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Jamshidi, O.; Asadi, A.; Kalantari, K.; Moghaddam, S.M.; Javan, F.D.; Azadi, H.; Van Passel, S.; Witlox, F. Adaptive capacity of smallholder farmers toward climate change: evidence from Hamadan province in Iran. Clim. Dev. 2020, 12, 923–933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Fuchs, L.E.; Orero, L.; Namoi, N.; Neufeldt, H. How to Effectively Enhance Sustainable Livelihoods in Smallholder Systems: A Comparative Study from Western Kenya. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Santoso, A.B.; Girsang, S.S.; Raharjo, B.; Pustika, A.B.; Hutapea, Y.; Kobarsih, M.; Suprihatin, A.; Manurung, E.D.; Siagian, D.R.; Hanapi, S.; et al. Assessing the Challenges and Opportunities of Agricultural Information Systems to Enhance Farmers’ Capacity and Target Rice Production in Indonesia. Sustainability 2023, 15, 1114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Abera, W.; Assen, M.; Budds, J. Determinants of agricultural land management practices among smallholder farmers in the Wanka watershed, northwestern highlands of Ethiopia. Land Use Policy 2020, 99, 104841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Tama, R.A.Z.; Ying, L.; Yu, M.; Hoque, M.; Adnan, K.M.; Sarker, S.A. Assessing farmers’ intention towards conservation agriculture by using the Extended Theory of Planned Behavior. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 280, 111654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Wang, M.; Zhu, Y.; Liu, S.; Zhang, Y.; Dai, X. Can Social Learning Promote Farmers’ Green Breeding Behavior? Regulatory Effect Based on Environmental Regulation. Sustainability 2024, 16, 5519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Jiang, S.; Yang, C.; Guo, Y.; Jiao, X. Integrated Horticultural Practices for Improving Apple Supply Chain Sustainability: A Case Study in the North China Plain. Agronomy 2021, 11, 1975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Halland, H.; Lamprinakis, L.; Kvalvik, I.; Bertella, G. Learning for Sustainability in Horticultural Production in Arctic Norway. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2021, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Clark, N.M.; Zimmerman, B.J. A Social cognitive view of self-regulated learning about health. Health Educ. Res. 1990, 5, 371–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Bandura, A. “Human Agency in Social Cognitive Theory. Am. Psychol. 1989, 44, 1175–1184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Abdullah, S.M. Social Cognitive Theory : A Bandura Thought Review published in 1982-2012. PSIKODIMENSIA 2019, 18, 85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Bandura, A. Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. Am. Psychol. 1982, 37, 122–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Bandura, A. Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol. Rev. 1977, 84, 191–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Bandura, A. Social Cognitive Theory: An Agentic Perspective. Asian J. Soc. Psychol. 2001, 2, 21–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Bandura, A. Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50, 248–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Dooley, E. An Ethnographic Look into Farmer Discussion Groups through the Lens of Social Learning Theory. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Tran, T.A.; James, H.; Nhan, D.K. Effects of Social Learning on Rural Farmers’ Adaptive Capacity: Empirical Insights from the Vietnamese Mekong Delta. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2020, 33, 1053–1072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Phuong, L.T.H.; Wals, A.; Sen, L.T.H.; Hoa, N.Q.; Van Lu, P.; Biesbroek, R. Using a social learning configuration to increase Vietnamese smallholder farmers’ adaptive capacity to respond to climate change. Local Environ. 2018, 23, 879–897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Shikuku, K.M. Information exchange links, knowledge exposure, and adoption of agricultural technologies in northern Uganda. World Dev. 2019, 115, 94–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Chaudhuri, S.; Roy, M.; McDonald, L.M.; Emendack, Y. Reflections on farmers’ social networks: a means for sustainable agricultural development? Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2021, 23, 2973–3008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Prasetiyo, S.W.; Cahyono, E.D.; Safitri, R. An Analysis of Millennial Farmers’ Communication Networks on Hydroponic Vegetable Marketing Topics Via Whatsapp Application (Hydroponic Farmers in Situbondo). HABITAT 2021, 32, 101–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. B. N. Utami, Y. B. N. Utami, Y. Yuliati, and E. D. Cahyono, “The Use of Agricultural Applied Technology, Information and Communication Technology in Forest Farmer Groups Panderman District Batu, Batu City,” Tec Empres., 2023.
  53. Feola, G.; Lerner, A.M.; Jain, M.; Montefrio, M.J.F.; Nicholas, K.A. Researching farmer behaviour in climate change adaptation and sustainable agriculture: Lessons learned from five case studies. J. Rural. Stud. 2015, 39, 74–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Cahyono, E.D.; Fairuzzana, S.; Willianto, D.; Pradesti, E.; McNamara, N.P.; Rowe, R.L.; van Noordwijk, M. Agroforestry Innovation through Planned Farmer Behavior: Trimming in Pine–Coffee Systems. Land 2020, 9, 363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Wójcik, M.; Jeziorska-Biel, P.; Czapiewski, K. Between words: A generational discussion about farming knowledge sources. J. Rural. Stud. 2019, 67, 130–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Krzywoszynska, A. What Farmers Know: Experiential Knowledge and Care in Vine Growing. Sociol. Rural. 2016, 56, 289–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Klein, A.O.; Carlisle, L.; Lloyd, M.G.; Sayre, N.F.; Bowles, T.M. Understanding farmer knowledge of soil and soil management: a case study of 13 organic farms in an agricultural landscape of northern California. Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst. 2024, 48, 17–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Sutherland, L.-A.; Madureira, L.; Dirimanova, V.; Bogusz, M.; Kania, J.; Vinohradnik, K.; Creaney, R.; Duckett, D.; Koehnen, T.; Knierim, A. New knowledge networks of small-scale farmers in Europe’s periphery. Land Use Policy 2017, 63, 428–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Girard, N. Knowledge at the boundary between science and society: a review of the use of farmers’ knowledge in agricultural development. J. Knowl. Manag. 2015, 19, 949–967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Brown, M.E.; Carcedo, A.J.P.; Eggen, M.; Grace, K.L.; Neff, J.; Ciampitti, I.A. Integrated modeling framework for sustainable agricultural intensification. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2023, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Castella, J.-C.; Lestrelin, G.; Phimmasone, S.; Quoc, H.T.; Lienhard, P. The Role of Actor Networks in Enabling Agroecological Innovation: Lessons from Laos. Sustainability 2022, 14, 3550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Gil, J.D.B.; Cohn, A.S.; Duncan, J.; Newton, P.; Vermeulen, S. The resilience of integrated agricultural systems to climate change. WIREs Clim. Chang. 2017, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Dönmez, D.; Isak, M.A.; İzgü, T.; Şimşek, Ö. Green Horizons: Navigating the Future of Agriculture through Sustainable Practices. Sustainability 2024, 16, 3505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Shah, F.; Wu, W. Soil and Crop Management Strategies to Ensure Higher Crop Productivity within Sustainable Environments. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Tahat, M.M.; Alananbeh, K.M.; Othman, Y.A.; Leskovar, D.I. Soil Health and Sustainable Agriculture. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Bathaei, A.; Štreimikienė, D. Renewable Energy and Sustainable Agriculture: Review of Indicators. Sustainability 2023, 15, 14307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Zhang, J.; Cherian, J.; Parvez, A.M.; Samad, S.; Sial, M.S.; Ali, M.A.; Khan, M.A. Consequences of Sustainable Agricultural Productivity, Renewable Energy, and Environmental Decay: Recent Evidence from ASEAN Countries. Sustainability 2022, 14, 3556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Hazard, L.; Steyaert, P.; Martin, G.; Couix, N.; Navas, M.-L.; Duru, M.; Lauvie, A.; Labatut, J. Mutual learning between researchers and farmers during implementation of scientific principles for sustainable development: the case of biodiversity-based agriculture. Sustain. Sci. 2018, 13, 517–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Kaya, Z. Pursuing Sustainability through Off-Farm Technology and Expertise? Curr. Anthr. 2021, 62, 247–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Kakisina, L.O. Integration of Local Farmers' Knowledge for Sustainable Agriculture (Case Study of Horticultural Farmers in Waihatu Village). Int. J. Multidiscip. Appl. Bus. Educ. Res. 2023, 4, 3429–3445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Neubauer, B.E.; Witkop, C.T.; Varpio, L. How phenomenology can help us learn from the experiences of others. Perspect. Med Educ. 2019, 8, 90–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Finlayson, C.S.; Fu, M.R.; Squires, A.; Applebaum, A.; Van Cleave, J.; O'Cearbhaill, R.; DeRosa, A.P. The Experience of Being Aware of Disease Status in Women with Recurrent Ovarian Cancer: A Phenomenological Study. J. Palliat. Med. 2019, 22, 377–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. B. N. Utami, Y. B. N. Utami, Y. Yuliati, Sugiyanto, and E. D. Cahyono, “The Use of Agricultural Applied Technology, Information and Communication Technology in Forest Farmer Groups Panderman District Batu, Batu City,” TEC Empres., vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 112–129. 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Dooley, E. An Ethnographic Look into Farmer Discussion Groups through the Lens of Social Learning Theory. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Preprints 152256 g001
Figure 1. Learning method used bu Apples Farmers.
Figure 1. Learning method used bu Apples Farmers.
Preprints 152256 g001
Preprints 152256 g002
Figure 2. Proportion of Knowledge Areas Mastered by Apple Farmers in Managing Their Orchards.
Figure 2. Proportion of Knowledge Areas Mastered by Apple Farmers in Managing Their Orchards.
Preprints 152256 g002
Preprints 152256 g003
Figure 3. Impact of Apple Cultivation Practices on Sustainability Outcomes at the Farm Level.
Figure 3. Impact of Apple Cultivation Practices on Sustainability Outcomes at the Farm Level.
Preprints 152256 g003
Preprints 152256 g004
Figure 4. Understanding the Complex Relationship Between Learning Methods, Knowledge Areas, and Apple Farmers Sustainability Outcomes.
Figure 4. Understanding the Complex Relationship Between Learning Methods, Knowledge Areas, and Apple Farmers Sustainability Outcomes.
Preprints 152256 g004
Table 1. Learning Methods Used by Apple Farmers.
Table 1. Learning Methods Used by Apple Farmers.
Group Learning Method Description
Hands-on Experiential Learning Experiential Learning Farmers learn through years of hands-on farm experience, often starting at a young age
Observation & Trial and Error Farmers closely observe their trees and experiment with different treatments, learning from both successes and failures
Learning from Nature Observation Farmers learn by observing natural phenomena and their relationship with plants
Learning from Plant Responses Farmers learn from how plants respond to each treatment
Learning through Monitoring System Farmers monitor changes in crops regularly to understand their responses
Modern and Digital Learning Self-Directed Learning Some farmers, especially younger ones, actively seek knowledge through YouTube, the internet, and other sources
Learning from Social Media Younger farmers are starting to utilise social media to seek information
Learning from Active Materials Farmers are moving away from brand-based learning to active materials
Learning from pH Measurement Some farmers have started using pH measurement tools to understand soil conditions
Adaptive Learning Gradual Learning Farmers make changes to treatments gradually and carefully
Learning from Economic Evaluation Farmers learn through economic calculations of each treatment
Learning from Natural Change Farmers learn to adapt by observing changes in climate and natural conditions
Community Based Learning Farmer Peer Learning Informal knowledge sharing among farmers during social gatherings or casual encounters
Learning from Faith Communities Farmers utilise religious community networks for knowledge sharing
Learning from Social Networks Farmers learn through established social networks
Family and Tradition Based Learning Intergenerational Learning Knowledge is passed on from parents/older generations to children who help manage the family farm
Learning from Family Roles Farmers learn through involvement of all family members in farming
Learning from Tradition Farmers learn and pass on practices that have been in place for generations
Comparative Learning Learning from the Demonstration Farm Farmers learn by observing successful farms as examples
Learning from Comparative Studies Some farmers make visits to other areas to learn cultivation techniques
Learning from Regional Comparisons Farmers compare cultivation practices between regions
Specialist and Worker Learning Labour Knowledge Exchange Farm labourers moving between farms share techniques and experiences learnt from different owners
Learning from Local Specialisation Farmers learn from people who specialise in certain aspects of apple growing
Learning from Chemists Farmers learn from chemists about active ingredients and formulations
Learning from the Market Learning from Collectors Farmers learn from collectors who have market knowledge and required quality standards
Guidance from Saprodi Seller Learn from pesticide/fertiliser sellers who provide product information and usage guidelines
Learning from Market Response Farmers adjust cultivation practices based on market demand and response
Learning from Failure Learning from Failure Farmers learn from their own or other farmers' failures
Learning from Error Patterns Farmers observe patterns of failure to find solutions
Learning from Institutions Group Learning Limited formal learning through farmer groups, mainly focusing on administrative rather than technical knowledge
Learning from Co-operatives Farmers learn from co-operative coaching especially for cattle
Learning from Documentation Personal Documentation Some farmers record their experiences and observations
Table 2. Knowledge Areas Mastered by Apple Farmers in Managing Their Orchards.
Table 2. Knowledge Areas Mastered by Apple Farmers in Managing Their Orchards.
Group Field of Knowledge Descripsi
Nutrient and Soil Management Plant Nutrient Management Knowledge of plant nutrient requirements and how to apply them
Utilisation of Organic Materials Manufacturing and application techniques of organic fertilisers such as PGPR (Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobakteri), MOL (Local Micro Organisms), and Bio-urine
Soil Improvement Techniques Knowledge of soil conditions and how to improve soil
Identification of Nutrient Deficiency Symptoms Ability to recognise signs of nutrient deficiency in plants
Utilisation of Beneficial Fungi Knowledge of the use of trichoderma and other beneficial fungi
Identification of Soil pH Changes Ability to identify soil pH conditions and address them
Identification of Soil Type Ability to recognise soil characteristics and fertility
Organic Saprotan Development Ability to create and develop organic farming inputs
Evaluation of Land Sustainability Ability to assess the long-term sustainability of apple fields
Land Restoration Techniques Strategies to restore land with declining productivity
Farm Management Business Diversification Ability to manage various commodities other than apples
Harvest Rotation Arrangement Strategies to organise different harvest times for different fields
Farm Financial Management Ability to manage capital and expenses in apple farming
Labour Management Knowledge of orchard labour management and wage system
Production Risk Mitigation Strategies to minimise the risk of production failure
Crop-Livestock Integration Knowledge of integrating livestock with apple farming
Economic Calculation of Farming Ability to calculate costs and potential profits
Adaptation to Capital Limitations Strategies for managing apple orchards with limited capital
Land Use Change Strategies for converting unproductive apple land
Multi-Commodity System Management Ability to manage multiple commodities simultaneously
Cultivation Practice Pruning and Physical Care Pruning techniques for optimising fruit production
Time Management of Threshing and Fertilisation Techniques to regulate apple production cycle through leaf thrashing and flower knop setting
Branch Bending Technique Ability to duck apple branches to increase productivity
Seedling Management Knowledge of seedling propagation and grafting of apple plants
Fruit Thinning Techniques for managing the number of fruits per stalk to optimise size and quality
Vegetative Propagation Techniques Knowledge of vegetative propagation methods (cuttings, grafting, grafts)
Intercropping Techniques Ability to combine other crops with apples
Development of Original Methods Ability to develop local speciality cultivation techniques
Optimisation of Fruit Quality Ability to manage the number of fruits per branch to optimise size and quality
Crop Compatibility Recognition Ability to assess crops suitable for intercropping with apples
Plant Health Management Pest and Disease Control Ability to recognise and manage various pests and diseases in apple crops
Pesticide and Fungicide Applications Knowledge of types, dosage, and application timing of pesticides and fungicides
Combination Pesticide Formulations Ability to mix different types of pesticides for effective pest control
Evaluation of Drug Quality Ability to compare and assess the effectiveness of different pesticide products
Post infestation management Orchard recovery strategies after severe pest or disease infestation
Biological Control Technology Knowledge of natural enemies and how to utilise them
Understanding Pest Resistance Knowledge of the development of pest resistance to pesticides
Active Ingredient Identification Ability to recognise the active ingredients in a pesticide rather than just the brand name
Application Timing Introduction Ability to determine the right time for treatment application
Plant Physiology and Phenology Understanding the Growth Cycle In-depth knowledge of apple growth stages from planting to harvesting
Flowering and Fertilisation Knowledge of how to optimise the flowering and fruit formation process
Understanding Plant Physiology In-depth knowledge of the physiological processes of apple plants
Plant Response to Nutrients Understanding of plant responses to growth regulators
Plant Stress Management Ability to recognise and overcome stress in apple plants due to environmental factors
Dormancy Management Techniques to manage the resting period of apple plants
Genetic Resources Management Local Variety Preservation Understanding of local apple varieties and propagation methods
Variety Adaptation Ability to assess the suitability of apple varieties to specific environmental conditions
Variety Rotation Strategies for growing different varieties to reduce risks and maximise profits
Variety Diversification Knowledge of varieties suitable for diversification
Conservation of Local Biodiversity Efforts to preserve the genetic diversity of local apples
Specialised Variety Handling Care techniques adapted to the characteristics of each apple variety
Environmental Adaptation Management Adaptation to Climate Change Ability to adapt farming practices to changing weather
Site-Specific Cultivation Techniques Understanding that each farm location requires different treatment
Weather Impact Analysis Ability to analyse the effect of weather changes on apple crops
Water Conservation Techniques to optimise water use in apple orchards
Understanding Local Ecology Knowledge of ecological relationships in the apple orchard environment
Microhabitat Identification Ability to identify variations in micro-environmental conditions within the orchard
Post-harvest and Market Management Marketing and Post-Harvest Management Knowledge of apple grading, sorting and marketing systems
Fruit Quality Assessment Ability to assess apple quality based on various parameters
Determination of Fruit Storability Understanding of storage characteristics of different apple varieties
Post-harvest Technology Post-harvest handling techniques to maintain fruit quality
Pesticide Residue Management Understanding of how to minimise pesticide residues on fruit
Technology Transfer Technology Transfer between Commodities Ability to adapt technologies from other commodities for apple crops
Table 3. Impact of Apple Cultivation Practices on Sustainability Outcomes at the Farm Level.
Table 3. Impact of Apple Cultivation Practices on Sustainability Outcomes at the Farm Level.
Dimensions of Sustainability Impact of Cultivation Practices Description
Economy Decrease in profitability Higher production costs (especially pesticides and fertilisers)
Productivity is declining (1 tree used to be able to produce 100 kg, now 15-20 kg is good)
Selling prices fluctuate and tend to be low (especially since the pandemic)
Payment system is due (15-20 days) which is burdensome for farmers
Dependence on collectors "Apel Batu" brand is better known than "Apel Nongkojajar" (another name for Tutur)
Farmers lack direct access to the market
The wholesale sales system (rut-rutan) is less favourable to farmers
Business diversification Switching to dairy cattle as main source of income
Conversion of apple land to other crops (citrus, vegetables)
Intercropping with horticultural crops to increase income
Changes in investment patterns Farmers who used to invest in apple expansion are now turning to other investments
Capital constraints have led to a lot of land being leased or sold
KUR financing patterns and loans from collectors that create dependency
Changes in income structure The apple boom of the 1990s has declined dramatically since 2000
Since 2007-2008 many farmers have gone out of business
Income from dairy cows is more stable than apples
Environment Soil degradation Low soil pH (average 5.2) due to excessive chemical use
Low organic matter content despite abundant organic inputs
Soil is getting harder and harder to absorb nutrients
Dependence on chemical pesticides High spraying intensity (1-2 times a week)
Higher pesticide doses as pests become more resistant
Use of a mixture of several types of pesticides in one application
Pest and disease attack Root cancer that is deadly and difficult to control
Bathok mite that appeared since 1996-1997
"nyawo" disease that causes deformed fruit
Climate change exacerbates pest and disease attacks
Deterioration of tree quality Apple trees are getting older and less productive
Apple trees are becoming more dependent on chemicals
Rejuvenation is difficult due to high costs and long production lead times (3-5 years)
Climate change Erratic rainfall patterns affect flowering phase
Extreme seasonal transitions cause leaf yellowing and dropping
Unstable temperatures affect fruit quality
Social Farmer regeneration crisis Farmers' children are reluctant to continue apple farming
Declining interest in apple farming among the younger generation
Many previous successful farmers have switched professions or sold their land
Social practice learning Farmers rely on self-taught and trial-error learning
Lack of openness to share knowledge between farmers
Lack of assistance from academics and the government
Public health Long-term exposure of farmers to pesticides
There are indications that many farmers are infected with diseases
Lack of awareness of the use of personal protective equipment
Changes in regional identity Tutur, which was once known as an apple centre, is now starting to lose its identity
The apple population has drastically decreased to only 20-30% of what it was before
Shifting identity from "apple town on the mountain" to cattle farming centre
Changes in group patterns Many apple farmer groups are just a formality to access subsidised fertiliser
Group meetings rarely discuss apple cultivation techniques
More activity in cattle farmers' groups than apple farmers' groups
Degradation of social capital Difficulty of trust between farmers in sharing information
Some successful farmers are reluctant to share due to prestige or competition
Valuable local knowledge is not well transmitted between generations
Innovation Adaptation of cultivation practices The "mbekuk" technique to maximise fruit production
"Mrithil" technique (leaf thrashing) to stimulate flowering
Yield processing (apple cider, chips) for added value
Adoption of organic approaches Some young farmers are starting to adopt PGPR and bio-fertilisers
Development of MOL and bio-urine from livestock waste
Eco-farming is still limited and not yet mainstream
Commodity transfer Shift to more adaptive lemon/honey oranges
Development of dairy farming as the main alternative
Diversification of crops that are more resilient to climate change
Utilisation of information technology Only young farmers have started to seek information via YouTube and the internet
Limited apple cultivation-specific content on digital platforms
There is still a digital divide between generations of farmers
Individual initiative Some young farmers conduct self-experimentation for pest control
Development of site-specific cultivation techniques through trial-error
Self-help efforts for biofertiliser development
Alternative entrepreneurship Agritourism development is still minimal compared to Batu
Diversification of processed apple products is constrained by marketing
Adoption of youth entrepreneurship programmes (such as YESS/Youth Entrepreneurship and Employment Support Service (YESS), Ministry of Agriculture) for business alternatives is still very limited.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.

Downloads

58

Views

75

Comments

0

Subscription

Notify me about updates to this article or when a peer-reviewed version is published.

Email

Prerpints.org logo

Preprints.org is a free preprint server supported by MDPI in Basel, Switzerland.

facebook logotwitter logolinkedin logo
MDPI Initiatives
Important Links
Subscribe

Disclaimer

Terms of Use

Privacy Policy

© 2025 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated