Abstract
This study examines how beneficiaries' perceived productivity, economic, employment, and environmental benefits relate to acceptance of four agribusiness social innovation projects in Malaysia's MyIS Community 2021–2022 program. Each project initially targeted 100 beneficiaries, for a combined target of 400; 142 continuing participants completed the questionnaire (35.5% of the initial target). The primary regression used 139 complete composite cases and accounted for 48.8% of the observed variance in acceptance; environmental benefits had the only statistically significant conditional association (B = .563, HC3 SE = .081, β = .626, p < .001). The researcher-developed measures showed extensive cross-loadings and insufficient separation of economic benefits from employment opportunities (HTMT = .964). In an exploratory rescoring sensitivity analysis that combined the livelihood items and removed several weak or evaluatively overlapping items, the environmental association persisted (B = .515, HC3 SE = .094; n = 140). The revised scores were derived and assessed using the same respondents and therefore require validation in an independent sample. Concurrent self-reports and uneven representation across projects limit interpretation; the data cannot establish whether perceived environmental benefits preceded acceptance or acceptance shaped those perceptions. The findings describe associations among continuing respondents' perceptions, not effects on poverty, food security, or environmental outcomes.
Keywords
- Agribusiness Search this journal for Agribusiness (opens in a new tab)
- Social Innovation Search this journal for Social Innovation (opens in a new tab)
- Project Acceptance Search this journal for Project Acceptance (opens in a new tab)
- Perceived Benefits Search this journal for Perceived Benefits (opens in a new tab)
- Environmental Benefits Search this journal for Environmental Benefits (opens in a new tab)
References
- Adeyanju, D., Mburu, J., Gituro, W., Chumo, C., Mignouna, D., Mulinganya, N., & Ashagidigbi, W. (2023a). Can young agripreneurs improve their skills through agripreneurship empowerment programs? Evidence from Africa. Heliyon, 9(1), e12876. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e12876 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e12876
- Adeyanju, D., Mburu, J., Gituro, W., Chumo, C., Mignouna, D., & Mulinganya, N. (2023b). Impact of agribusiness empowerment interventions on youth livelihoods: Insights from Africa. Heliyon, 9(11), e21291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e21291 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e21291
- Balestri, S. (2024). Revitalizing smallholder agriculture: The impact of technical training in rural Lebanon. Economia Politica, 41(2), 361-393. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40888-024-00329-y DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40888-024-00329-y
- Berdegué, J. A., Trivelli, C., & Vos, R. (2025). Employment impacts of agrifood system innovations and policies: A review of the evidence. Global Food Security, 44, 100832. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2025.100832 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2025.100832
- Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31(6), 874-900. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206305279602 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206305279602
- Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE.
- Galley, S., Saleh, R., & Bottazzi, P. (2025). Benefit perceptions and their influence on the willingness to join community supported agriculture (CSA). Cleaner and Responsible Consumption, 17, 100263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clrc.2025.100263 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clrc.2025.100263
- Hayes, A. F., & Cai, L. (2007). Using heteroskedasticity-consistent standard error estimators in OLS regression: An introduction and software implementation. Behavior Research Methods, 39(4), 709-722. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03192961 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03192961
- Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115-135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
- Holm, S. (1979). A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 6(2), 65-70.
- International Fund for Agricultural Development, & United Nations Environment Program. (2013). Smallholders, food security, and the environment. IFAD.
- Kumar, V., Sharma, K. V., Kedam, N., Patel, A., Kate, T. R., & Rathnayake, U. (2024). A comprehensive review on smart and sustainable agriculture using IoT technologies. Smart Agricultural Technology, 8, 100487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atech.2024.100487 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atech.2024.100487
- Manda, J., Alene, A. D., Tufa, A. H., Feleke, S., Abdoulaye, T., Omoigui, L. O., & Manyong, V. (2020). Market participation, household food security, and income: The case of cowpea producers in northern Nigeria. Food and Energy Security, 9(3), e211. https://doi.org/10.1002/fes3.211 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/fes3.211
- Moffat, K., & Zhang, A. (2014). The paths to social license to operate: An integrative model explaining community acceptance of mining. Resources Policy, 39, 61-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2013.11.003 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2013.11.003
- Mokgomo, M. N., Chagwiza, C., & Tshilowa, P. F. (2022). The impact of government agricultural development support on agricultural income, production and food security of beneficiary small-scale farmers in South Africa. Agriculture, 12(11), 1760. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12111760 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12111760
- Ongachi, W., & Belinder, I. (2025). Agricultural extension as a pathway to livelihood diversification and sustainable development in rural communities: A systematic review. BMC Agriculture, 1, 6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s44399-025-00005-x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s44399-025-00005-x
- Pollard, G., Ward, J. D., & Koth, B. (2017). Aquaponics in urban agriculture: Social acceptance and urban food planning. Horticulturae, 3(2), 39. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae3020039 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae3020039
- Ton, G., Klerkx, L., de Grip, K., & Rau, M.-L. (2015). Innovation grants to smallholder farmers: Revisiting the key assumptions in the impact pathways. Food Policy, 51, 9-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2014.11.002 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2014.11.002
- United Nations Development Program. (2021). Precision agriculture for smallholder farmers. UNDP Global Centre for Technology, Innovation and Sustainable Development.
- Yayasan Inovasi Malaysia. (2022). MyIS Community 2021–2022 agribusiness project records: Akuaponik, Kapitani, Kelulut and Cili Fertigasi [Unpublished grant documentation].
Downloads
No downloads have been recorded for this article yet. Figures appear here once readers begin downloading the full text.
How to Cite
Share this article
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Associate Professor Dr. Norshima Humaidi, Dr. Sharmila Mohammed Salleh, Professor Dr. Amirul Afif Muhamat, Associate Professor Dr. Muhammad Hafiz Abd Rashid (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Author (s) should affirm that the material has not been published previously. It has not been submitted and it is not under consideration by any other journal. At the same time author (s) need to execute a publication permission agreement to assume the responsibility of the submitted content and any omissions and errors therein. After submission of revised paper in the light of suggestions of the reviewers, the editorial team edits and formats manuscripts to bring uniformity and standardization in published material.
This work will be licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) and under condition of the license, users are free to read, copy, remix, transform, redistribute, download, print, search or link to the full texts of articles and even build upon their work as long as they credit the author for the original work. Moreover, as per journal policy author (s) hold and retain copyrights without any restrictions.
Keywords
- Agribusiness Search this journal for Agribusiness (opens in a new tab)
- Social Innovation Search this journal for Social Innovation (opens in a new tab)
- Project Acceptance Search this journal for Project Acceptance (opens in a new tab)
- Perceived Benefits Search this journal for Perceived Benefits (opens in a new tab)
- Environmental Benefits Search this journal for Environmental Benefits (opens in a new tab)
Section
Published in
Vol. 18 No. 3(I) (2026)
Digital Transformation, Sustainability & Learning Innovation
View issue contents
Published
Submissions
Have research to publish? Information Management and Business Review welcomes submissions.
Make a Submission