Table 1: Students’ awareness of sustainable agriculture as climate change strategy
Awareness
|
Yes
|
No
|
|
Items
|
Frequency
|
Percent
|
Frequency
|
Percent
|
Total
|
Are you aware of sustainable agriculture?
|
103
|
85.8%
|
17
|
14.2%
|
120
|
Have you taken course on sustainable agriculture before?
|
83
|
69.2%
|
37
|
30.8%
|
120
|
Do you understand the concept of sustainable agriculture?
|
95
|
79.2%
|
25
|
20.8%
|
120
|
Source: Field survey (2019)
Table 2: Students’ Perception on Sustainable Agriculture related variables
Variable
|
Description
|
Mean
|
Std. Dev.
|
Environmental
Protection
|
Environmental balance (climate change mitigation) is one basis for sustainable agricultural practices.
|
3.58
|
1.55
|
An advantage of sustainable agricultural practices is reduction in the use of chemical fertilizers.
|
4.04
|
0.89
|
Farmers in sustainable agriculture live more in harmony with nature.
|
4.18
|
0.75
|
Economic
|
Economic gains when employing sustainable agricultural practices are not convincing.
|
1.70
|
0.59
|
Net farm income may decrease when a producer implements sustainable agricultural practices.
|
1.75
|
0.60
|
Sustainable agricultural systems can improve income on a farm.
|
3.63
|
1.30
|
Management
|
Sustainable agricultural practices would work well on farm.
|
3.58
|
1.16
|
Sustainable agricultural practices may require additional management beyond conventional practices.
|
3.62
|
1.11
|
The adoption of sustainable agricultural practices is slow because farmers lack the knowledge to implement them.
|
4.23
|
0.62
|
Sustainable
Agricultural
Practices
|
Recommended pest control methods for sustainable agricultural systems have potential for more pests in the long term.
|
2.37
|
0.74
|
Sustainable agricultural practices help protect the environment, natural resources and mitigate climate
|
4.33
|
0.78
|
There may be insufficient labour for the workload required in sustainable agricultural system.
|
2.33
|
0.92
|
Likelihood
|
Sustainable agricultural systems should produce an adequate food supply to feed the world population.
|
3.91
|
1.02
|
Recommended practices in sustainable agriculture have been embraced by mainstream agriculture.
|
3.41
|
0.90
|
System of
Sustainable
Agriculture
|
Adoption of sustainable agricultural practices will be easier for farmers who have cropped and livestock enterprises.
|
2.23
|
1.14
|
Make the most efficient use of non-renewable resources and on-farm resources and integrate, where appropriate, natural biological cycles and controls.
|
3.34
|
1.02
|
Source: Field survey (2019)
Table 3: Gender difference and Perception score for Sustainable Agriculture
Variable
|
Gender
|
N
|
Mean
|
Std
|
Df
|
t-cal
|
Sig. level
|
Perception Score
|
Male
|
75
|
33.053
|
7.461
|
118
|
-0.801
|
0.425
|
|
Female
|
45
|
34.088
|
5.684
|
|
|
p>0.05
|
Source: Field survey (2019)
Table 4: Construct Reliability and Validity Diagnostics
Construct
|
Cronbach's Alpha
|
rho_A
|
Composite Reliability
|
Average Variance Extracted (AVE)
|
Adoption of Sustainable Agricultural Practices (ASAP)
|
0.952
|
0.957
|
0.961
|
0.781
|
Information Resources (IR)
|
0.833
|
0.847
|
0.882
|
0.599
|
Social features (S)
|
0.780
|
0.816
|
0.845
|
0.525
|
Source: Field survey (2019)
Table 5: Outer loadings of Factors
Factor/Indicator
|
Adoption of Sustainable Agricultural Practices (ASAP)
|
Information Resources (IR)
|
Social features (S)
|
ASAP1 - Practice farm waste collection
|
0.762
|
|
|
ASAP2 - Organise educational classes on sustainable agriculture and climate change
|
0.881
|
|
|
ASAP3 - Promote protection of arable lands
|
0.942
|
|
|
ASAP4 - Protection of forest from illegal mining (galamsey) activities
|
0.856
|
|
|
ASAP5 - Implementation of environmental protection projects
|
0.929
|
|
|
ASAP6 - Use non-chemical methods to combat crop-associated pests and diseases
|
0.936
|
|
|
ASAP7 - Use green manure and organic fertilizers, etc. in crop farming
|
0.867
|
|
|
IR1 - Surfing the net on environmental protection
|
|
0.738
|
|
IR2 - Watch educational movies on environmental protection
|
|
0.731
|
|
IR3 - Communication with experts on environmental protection and climate change
|
|
0.832
|
|
IR4 - Awareness on aftermaths of destroying the environment on climate change
|
|
0.826
|
|
IR5 - Use newspaper, magazine, radio and television on environmental protection
|
|
0.738
|
|
S1 - Interest of farmer in group activities related to environmental protection
|
|
|
0.806
|
S2 - Communication with other farmers
|
|
|
0.758
|
S3 - Communication with agricultural service centers
|
|
|
0.791
|
S4 - Refer to farmer for farming difficulties
|
|
|
0.586
|
S5 - Communication of farmer with Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
|
|
|
0.656
|
Source: Field survey (2019)
Table 6: Outer loadings of variables on Perceived Sustainable Agriculture Adoption as a Climate Change Mitigation Strategy
Construct
|
Coefficient
|
Mean
|
Standard Deviation
|
T Statistics
|
P Values
|
Adoption of Sustainable Agriculture Practices (ASAP1)
|
0.762
|
0.751
|
0.077
|
9.954
|
0.000***
|
Adoption of Sustainable Agriculture Practices (ASAP2)
|
0.881
|
0.878
|
0.048
|
18.408
|
0.000***
|
Adoption of Sustainable Agriculture Practices (ASAP3)
|
0.942
|
0.938
|
0.022
|
43.288
|
0.000***
|
Adoption of Sustainable Agriculture Practices (ASAP4)
|
0.856
|
0.852
|
0.064
|
13.310
|
0.000***
|
Adoption of Sustainable Agriculture Practices (ASAP5)
|
0.929
|
0.923
|
0.028
|
32.745
|
0.000***
|
Adoption of Sustainable Agriculture Practices (ASAP6)
|
0.936
|
0.931
|
0.024
|
38.441
|
0.000***
|
Adoption of Sustainable Agriculture Practices (ASAP7)
|
0.867
|
0.854
|
0.055
|
15.704
|
0.000***
|
Information Resource (IR1)
|
0.738
|
0.695
|
0.123
|
6.003
|
0.000***
|
Information Resource (IR2)
|
0.731
|
0.660
|
0.184
|
3.973
|
0.000***
|
Information Resource (IR3)
|
0.832
|
0.780
|
0.132
|
6.282
|
0.000***
|
Information Resource (IR4)
|
0.826
|
0.814
|
0.087
|
9.493
|
0.000***
|
Information Resource (IR5)
|
0.738
|
0.735
|
0.088
|
8.396
|
0.000***
|
Social features (S1)
|
0.806
|
0.797
|
0.078
|
10.387
|
0.000***
|
Social features (S2)
|
0.758
|
0.748
|
0.097
|
7.853
|
0.000***
|
Social features (S3)
|
0.791
|
0.755
|
0.118
|
6.691
|
0.000***
|
Social features (S4)
|
0.586
|
0.533
|
0.181
|
3.241
|
0.001***
|
Social features (S5)
|
0.656
|
0.600
|
0.154
|
4.267
|
0.000***
|
Source: Field survey (2019)
Table 7: Ranking of barriers in adopting sustainable agriculture as climate change strategy
Barriers
|
Mean Score
|
Rank
|
Economic cost barriers
|
1.50
|
1st
|
Lack of knowledge
|
2.23
|
2nd
|
Land tenure
|
3.12
|
3rd
|
Education and Information
|
3.98
|
4th
|
Compatibility with new technology
|
5.53
|
5th
|
Farm management skills
|
5.60
|
6th
|
Awareness
|
6.03
|
7th
|
N = 120
Kendall’s (W) = 0.69
Chi-square = 494.41
|
Degree of freedom = 6
Asymptotic. Sig. at P-Value = 0.001
|
|
Source: Field survey (2019)
Table 8: Ranking strategies to address barriers to sustainable agriculture
Strategy
|
Mean Score
|
Ranked
|
Farmer to-Farmer-Education
|
1.07
|
1st
|
Financial Incentives
|
2.29
|
2nd
|
Training and Partnership
|
3.03
|
3rd
|
Participatory Learning
|
3.61
|
4th
|
N = 120
Kendall’s (W) = 0.72
Chi-square = 259.97
|
Degree of freedom = 3
Asymptotic. Sig. at P-Value = 0.001
|
|
Source: Field survey (2019)