Front. Agr. Sci. Eng. 2023, 10(1): 61–72 https://doi.org/10.

15302/J-FASE-2022476
RESEARCH ARTICLE

EXPLORING THE RELATIVE ADVANTAGES OF LOCAL

INNOVATION IN AGROFORESTRY
Edi Dwi CAHYONO (✉), Eka PRADESTI, Cahyo PRAYOGO, SUHARTINI , Riyanti ISASKAR
Faculty of Agriculture, University of Brawijaya, Jalan Veteran Malang 65145, East Java, Indonesia.

KEYWORDS GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT

agroforestry, forest farmers, local
innovation, relative advantage, social
forestry

HIGHLIGHTS
● Promotion of local sustainable innovation
developed by forest farmers.
● Focusing on bending of branches to increase
coffee production in a pine-based agroforestry
system.
● Using a combination of concepts of perceived
characteristics of innovation.
● Techno-social, economic and ecological benefits
ABSTRACT
are the key features.
● Local techniques may be prospective for Adopting community-based innovations in agroforestry is key to enhancing
developing sustainable agroforestry innovation. livelihoods in forest farmer communities. This research aimed to explore the
perceived advantages of the forest farmer technique of coffee branch bending
to overcome the light limitations under the shade of a pine forest. The
concepts of perceived characteristics of innovation were used to explore the
Received August 8, 2022; advantages of this technique. Using a case study of an exclusive forest farmer
Accepted November 14, 2022.
clique in UB (University of Brawijaya) Forest in Indonesia, it was found that the
Correspondence: [email protected] local technique had high perceived relative advantages. Compared to the
others, the bending technique increases coffee production and is easy to do. It
was also found to be superior to reducing production costs and is perceived as
more environmentally friendly, promoting it as a valuable sustainable practice.
Technical experts need to validate it and may embrace it as a co-innovation for
the available external agroforestry recommendations. Its adaptability to the
local socio-ecological context and techno-economical constraints makes it a
prospective innovation to be extended through social forestry programs.

© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Higher Education Press. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)

scheme, communities around the forest are allowed (under

1 INTRODUCTION
contract) to participate, among other things, by planting them
Decentralization of power in the form of autonomy of with productive crops other than the existing main crops. This
authority has encouraged community-based forest is a response to the prolonged conflict over forest resources in
development schemes. In practice, Indonesia implements this the past. In principle, forest resources must be managed
through a scheme of Community Forest Management. In this optimally and proportionally for mutual benefits. The long
62 Front. Agr. Sci. Eng. 2023, 10(1): 61–72

experience of forest farmers in cultivating forest land has the by several forest farmers by utilizing local knowledge and
potential to give rise to local innovations. It is in this context of resources to overcome the problem of low coffee productivity
greater freedom of expression that the question arises of due to pine overshadowing.
whether the creation of these innovative techniques meets their
specific needs. Thus, our study aimed to explore the perceived Relative advantage is a complex concept. Definitively, the
relative advantage of coffee branch bending under the shade of relative advantage is defined as “the degree to which an
pine forest in UB (University of Brawijaya) Forest, a innovation is perceived as being better than the idea it
production and educational forest in East Java Province, supersedes”[13]. This shows its superiority compared to
Indonesia. previous or other products or services. The concept is based on
the subjective perception of users rather than objective criteria.
Coffee is an important crop for many forest smallholders in However, this concept is useful to explain why some
Java[1]. Coffee is also an alternative for agroforestry because individuals like or are loyal to innovation in comparison to
apart from source of livelihood, it is also considered a their competitors (e.g., external practices). In principle, the
conservation crop. However, in the research area, the greater the relative advantage of an innovation, the greater the
cultivation of coffee in the pine forest poses a dilemma due to chance of being used by potential adopters. In contrast, the
low coffee productivity. This is because the dense pine canopy chances of using an innovation are smaller, when the personal
reduces the light intensity under the stands. Therefore, it is advantages are perceived as low. Already used in various fields
compelling to examine how it can be managed to achieve such as agricomplex, this concept is rarely used to assess local
adequate production. We observed that progressive forest agroforestry innovations.
farmers practiced a special technique; bending the coffee
branches to overcome the limited sunlight. This innovative Specifically, one indicator of the relative advantages of
technique is unique and seems to have been overlooked by innovation is the ability to increase production[14,15]. A study
outsiders. This is useful because of the assumption that local shows that profit is a major factor in the decision to innovate
innovations are essential for overall innovation for individuals[16], for long-term use, and the key to farmer
development[2,3]. welfare[17]. Another indicator is financial gain, such as
increased revenue, reduced costs and minimized risk[15,18].
Previous research has been criticized as tending to emphasize Technical factors also determine the decision to use
the power of external technological solutions or the use of a innovation; these include ease of operation (lack of
top-down approach (e.g., innovations recommended by complexity), use on a limited scale (trialability) and
experts)[4,5]. A locally-based innovation policy is crucial observability[10,13]. Other types of benefits have also recently
because of barriers to the diffusion of agroforestry been promoted, namely improved environmental quality and
innovations[6]. However, studies on local innovations generally long-term benefits[19]. Local innovations are often developed
do not use relative advantage as the main concept to assess the by indigenous or traditional communities, which generally
benefits. This is despite a subjective advantage being a consider the locality as a vital factor. Thus, the term profit is
determinant of innovation adoption behavior[7–9]. Therefore, not only about economic (and technical), but also ecological
to fill the gaps, it is vital to explore the relative advantages of (and social) benefits.
local agroforestry over external or other innovations, as seen by
the forest farmers themselves. The advantages of local innovations for development tend to be
largely unrecognized. One study showed that information
Local innovation, like innovation in general, is the creation and about the provision of ecosystem services in agroforestry
improvement of creative and effective processes or ways of systems is relatively abundant, but there are not very many
doing something new compared to existing practices. However, studies on management decisions or practices, and factors that
this takes place in a local context and predominantly involves affect forest farmer coffee plantations[20]. Overlooked by
the initiative of local people, communities and resources rather policymakers and experts, for years, forest farmers in Java have
than externally. While the locals may not be considered practiced innovative ways to meet their needs. While the new
innovative in other areas, these local innovations aim to take scheme of social forestry provides an opportunity for the
advantage of opportunities and/or address relevant local legality of their actions. The success of technical interventions
problems or specific or everyday settings, including in the case for agroforestry increases when integrating local knowledge/
of marginalized communities[10–12]. Thus, the coffee branch practices and scientific information[20]. Thus, this study aims to
bending technique is a local innovation because it was initiated contribute to the body of knowledge because it reveals the
Edi Dwi CAHYONO et al. Relative advantage of local innovation 63

superiority of local innovations over other or external between individuals in understanding an issue[32]. Pizam and
innovations. Mansfeld[33] emphasized the subjectivity in seeing a reality
(perceived relative advantage of coffee branch bending), which
Meanwhile, technical experts are conducting some was constructed by research participants with the help of
experimental agronomic research at the research site to researchers. In other words, interpretivism allows personal
support sustainable practices of the coffee-pine agroforestry; interpretations to construct and understand a reality
this includes pruning the pine canopy, pilot coffee pruning and meaningfully. We explore their specific ways of thinking,
fertilizer management linked to socioeconomic and voices and practices for confronting local issues. Specifically,
environmental development models[21]. Yet, forest farmers are we used a case study method to explore in-depth and
often unsure of external innovations because of the low contextually, cooperating with relevant information sources
sensitivity of relative advantages. An example of this is the without manipulating their behavior. Such a study does not
recommendation to prune pine branches to increase coffee intend to generalize the findings, but rather to reveal the inner
performance under the shade of pine canopy. Though enhance mind of the research participants under influence of the values
productivity and ecosystem benefits, this is perceived as of the researcher[34–36].
difficult, costly, time wasting and risky (they need to climb at a
height of up to 12 m to cut the pine branches by hand). This
may be acceptable, but requires subsidies to purchase trimmers 2.2 Research area and participants
to speed up work and reduce work risks[6,22]. This is consistent Covering 554 ha, the research area was located on the slopes of
with the conclusion of a longitudinal review that the the Arjuno Mountains (1200–1900 m elevation) in Malang
disadoption of external innovations can be caused by various Regency, East Java. Currently, the forest in the research area is
unanticipated factors[23]. managed by UB Forest as an educational forest, which was
previously managed by Perhutani (a state-owned enterprise
The goal of social forestry is to strengthen the authority of local that manages production forests). Our research participants
communities. However, externally initiated forest conservation lived in Sumbersari Hamlet, one of the main settlements,
programs can disempower local institutions, and harm, or located in Tawang Argo Village (777 m elevation),
alienate the poorest local communities; a situation that Karangploso. The location was accessible, though slightly
deserves attention from policymakers[24,25]. Also, forest remote. The research participants were some forest farmers
farmers often ignore innovations recommended by experts[23]. who worked under contract with forest management (known
In fact, they may possess their own resources, that are suitable as magersari in the Indonesian language). They were allowed to
for local socioeconomic and agroecology. By featuring the local cultivate between the stands (e.g., pine and mahogany); it is a
community as innovative actors of development, the adoption form of plantation-crop combination[30]. Farmers in these
of agroforestry innovation may be easier[26–29] and may reduce communities (which have lived in this location for generations)
the burden of external development agents to transfer often grow coffee and other food crops and horticulture,
innovation[30]. In addition, considering the vision of the UN intercropped with the pine trees.
Sustainable Development Goals: “leave no one behind”, it
promotes smallholders as the key innovators, or as co-creators The selection of research participants was targeted, including
of agroforestry development. Overall, our research can pave the participants that had the specific knowledge and experience[37]
way for mainstreaming or integrating local potential into the of the coffee branch bending technique. The primary source of
management and diffusion of agroforestry innovation in forest information was a forest farmer with long experience with
communities. bending techniques. Next, the snowball method was employed
to find two other forest farmers who also practiced or had
practiced the technique. We relied on them as the main
2 RESEARCH METHODS information sources because of their long experience with
branch bending and their persistent use of this technique. Data
collection was continued until it had reached saturation point
2.1 Research approach (no longer providing additional information). In addition to
Qualitative research was used to determine behavior or the participants from whom data was collected, there were two
processes related to personal beliefs or motives in an other practitioners of the technique who lived outside the
environment[31]. Meanwhile, an interpretive approach was village. Due to a dispute over land sharing for forest
proposed because it respects individual views and variation management, they eventually resigned and their position
64 Front. Agr. Sci. Eng. 2023, 10(1): 61–72

became unknown. During focus group discussions (FGDs) it of bending technique?” “How much is the production?” and
was revealed that some forest farmers, did not actually practice “How does the process and production compare with the
the target technology for reasons such as skepticism or unbending?”. Other questions flowed freely during the
choosing to grow vegetables or other crops. interview because the process was flexible. For the purposes of
data triangulation, field observations were also made at several
The description of each research participant is as follows. The sites. This was to obtain an appreciation of the bending
first research participant was Mr. G, considered an innovator, technique on site.
or a progressive forest farmer aged 55, with a high school
education level. His education was higher than his peers who This research was conducted at the beginning of 2022, in the
generally only graduated from elementary school. His late early stage of the COVID-19 pandemic. Consequently, data
father was a former foreman with Perhutani. This may explain collection was more difficult because of the social distancing
why he had the courage to recently innovate with several types policy, while health protocols were implemented.
of agroforestry. He was our main information source because Complementary data collection via mobile phones was also
we had interacted for a long time and he has used variants of undertaken, although the local communication network was
the bending technique. He was also active in local social sometimes unstable. Data verification was done by revisiting
organizations (e.g., forest farmer groups), is relatively the study participants twice, after the pandemic had subsided
cosmopolitan (open or exposed to external ideas) and had had in early April 2022.
experience in coffee cultivating, traditional processes and
trading.
2.4 Data analysis
The second participant was Mr. F, the inventor of coffee Data analysis and interpretation were performed by opening a
branch bending. He was a senior forest farmer aged 59. dialog room with the participants and the research team. This
Although only graduated from elementary school, he was the was useful to reveal the perceptions and practices of using
inventor of the target technique. It was from him that the bending techniques by forest farmers individually and
knowledge of this technique was first shared with Mr. G and collectively. These were done out with the following steps[34]:
followed by another forest farmer, namely Mr. S (the third (1) preparation of interview transcripts (interview results were
research participant). He was considered the early adopter of recorded and transcribed to be examined intensively),
branch bending and applied the technique throughout his (2) review and discussions by the researchers to confirm data
coffee-pine farm, which was located in a relatively remote validity, (3) encoding and categorization of the data in themes,
forest area. Aged 50 and graduated from middle school, he can (4) comparison of the findings with former research and
be classified also as a progressive forest farmer because of his concepts, (5) presentation the data analysis, completed with
relatively broad relationship with outsiders and commercial figure and tables, and (6) objective discussion and reflection on
orientation. the findings for interpretation and application.

To validate, we triangulated the data[34] using: (1) different

2.3 Data collection information sources (bending users, the non-users),
A combination of data collection techniques was applied for (2) different techniques (personal interviews, FGDs, field
this study. We employed in-depth interviews to each research observations), and (3) member checking (asking for
participant to explore technical procedures of bending confirmation from research participants). To confirm data
techniques and the perceived advantages. Also, FGDs were reliability, we checked errors in the transcripts to avoid
held with the three key research participants to get a more ambiguous meanings and shared the findings with the research
complete picture of the case being studied. In addition, another team and other experts.
FGD was also held, involving 10 other forest farmers to get
response on the bending technique and get an overview of The findings were structured, starting with information on
other local agroforestry issues. coffee-pine cultivation and experience with coffee branch
bending. It was followed by an analysis of perceptions of the
The guided questions were: “What is coffee bending and how is relative advantage of the coffee branch bending. Afterwards,
it done?” “How is this method started and why is it done?” discussions on the findings were administered, involving
“What are the advantages?” “How much is the production cost combining, recapitulating and comparing the findings with
Edi Dwi CAHYONO et al. Relative advantage of local innovation 65

previous research, theories and concepts while reflecting on the sunlight under the stands. By comparison, the usual practice of
case under study. Based on this our approach to reporting the agroforestry cultivation was with medium pine cover (50%) to
implications and applications for the bending practices was get adequate sunlight. The practice of coffee branch bending by
decided. some forest farmers was intended to increase coffee production
under the shade. In practice, this technique loosened the space
between coffee branches so that the light received by the
3 RESULTS branches was more intense (evenly distributed). There were
three forest farmers in the research location (Sumberwangi)
Before the transfer of management, the forest in the study area who routinely used the bending technique. Cultivation of
was supervised by Perhutani. In 1995, three innovative forest coffee with the branch bending technique involved:
farmers have planted coffee trees among the pine trees, with (1) planting coffee next to pine trees; (2) spacing between
first harvests of the coffee two years after planting. By law, coffee and pine to avoid excessive competition, usually with
prior to the 2000s reform era, forest management prohibited coffee plants on a 6 m × 6 m grid; and (3) bending coffee
individuals from growing any crops under pine stands. As time branches in all directions.
passed, the local community planted various types of crops
without approval. Experience showed that only several types of
The main indicators derived from the concept of relative
plants were suitable for local conditions, including coffee. This
advantage were production and quality; costs, revenue and
plant was currently one of the existing pine-based agroforestry
income stability; implementation; and perceived
practices (Fig. 1). Entering the fifth year (1999), coinciding
environmental impacts. The following were findings on the
with the euphoria of political reform in Indonesia, people felt
perceived relative advantages of coffee branch bending.
free to control some areas of state forest lands. They started
experimenting with coffee cultivation (2001), and the coffee
branch bending was invented (2005). Some years after the
reform, in 2006, members of communities were allowed to 3.1 Production and quality
cultivate crops after a prolonged conflict over the use of state Initially, the research participants planted coffee without
forest lands. Since the end of 2016, forest management had bending treatment. Over time, they were inspired to bend some
been delegated to UB Forest, and promoted as an educational of the plants. Mr. F told about his experience,
forest (Fig. 1). In the first year the production was still the same, one and a
half ounces each. The fourth year, [each] reaches two to a
Farmer learning experiences occurred over a relatively long quarter of a kilogram. Until that time the plant was still not
period of time. This case was specific because the dense pine bent. At that time the plant was still not bent. In the fifth
canopy (c. 70% density) reduces significantly the penetration of year, I started to try [the bending technique]. But in this
year ... until the ninth year [some of the plants] were
dismantled [by forest management].

In the interview, the forest farmer explained that it took quite a

long time (that is, entering his fifth year) before practicing the
bending technique. This is practiced after scrutinizing the
unsatisfactory growth of coffee plants. Even then, it was a
struggle because initially there was a ban on planting anything
other than the main crops operated by forest management.
Shortly, through a local experiment and careful observation,
forest farmers came to the belief that coffee production with
bending is higher than the normal technique without bending.
This claim was confirmed by others, during a focus group
discussion. He expressed the difference in the results of the two
treatments and the social constraints he had to face,
Fig. 1 Coffee-pine agroforestry cultivation system in UB Forest
In the fifth, my experience with bending, the production is
(a) and the researcher observed the coffee growth under pine
more than seven kilograms. Without bending, the maximum
trees (b).
is only three and a half kilograms per tree. Sometimes, with
66 Front. Agr. Sci. Eng. 2023, 10(1): 61–72

no bending, production even decreases, although it rises bend. Weeding only once in March, only as necessary, when
again. In addition, three and a half kilograms is the [the coffee branch] is bent. Buying fertilizers is a constraint.
maximum due to the small number of branches. The So it is hard for them [forest farmers] to find loans (personal
production is only in certain places [branches], and cannot interview, Mr. G).
be in other places, because the branches have been cut. This
is in contrast to bending, where bent or broken branches can Through a local experiment, a forest farmer learned that
still produce coffee cherries. bending coffee branches continuously increases coffee
productivity. In 2003, when he began to learn, coffee
It was claimed that in addition to more overflow production, production with bending was significantly higher; he
coffee branch bending caused unexpected positive impacts on experienced two and a half times higher with the new
the workers and the surrounding area. In an in-depth technique. He claimed that these results continued for years
interview, Mr. F, the inventor, emphasized, “[coffee ahead, even when the coffee plants had aged.
cultivation] with bending technique, lots of fruit ... good ... now In the fifth year, at that time I tried [bending]. But at that
the shade is lush ... the dry season continues to thrive.” time ... there was until the ninth year it was dismantled [by
forest management]. In the ninth year its production reached
15 kg. In unbending plants, production decreases, which is
approximately 6 kg.
3.2 Cost, revenue and income stability
The production cost of the bending technique was relatively
As a result, the financial benefits of the bending technique were
low, which was only for maintenance as needed, as claimed by
more pronounced. At the time of the study, the price was
the research participants. The needs for fertilizer for any coffee
decreasing, which was 4000 IDR·kg−1. With coffee production
cultivation depends on the age of the coffee. Manure was
of around 2800 kg, farmers earned a gross income of up to
applied two or three times annually, depending on the age of
the plant. Meanwhile, mineral fertilizers are not required for 11,200,000 IDR·ha−1. For comparison, the estimated gross
bending; mulch is believed to replace mineral fertilizers. Mr. G income with pruning is 6,720,000 IDR, and without any
claimed that the bending technique could reduce weeding from treatment is 4,480,000 IDR (about 15,000 IDR to 1 USD). The
twice to only once and negate mineral fertilizers. With regards financial comparison of the three techniques is in the Table 1.
to trimming, there is a need for additional mineral fertilizers As a note, the majority of forest farmers sold their harvest as
(three times per year), namely after pruning (for the first and whole fruit.
second years).The requirement for seedlings is 1650 seedlings
per ha. Usually forest farmers themselves sow coffee seeds, or Research participants revealed that the bending technique
look for seeds that grow under coffee trees. He underlined the helped forest farmers to obtain a more stable income compared
benefits of bending and the time for the application, to other techniques, such as pruning coffee branches or
No fertilization, no problem, just weeding. The bending replanting. Although even with bending, these coffee plants
[time] adjusts the shoot that is when it is appropriate to only produced about 50% of the normal. This is because, as

Table 1 Comparison between coffee branch bending, pruning and without bending/pruning (FGD results with three research participants)
Revenue component Bending Pruning Without bending/prunning
Seeds 16501 16501 16501
Costs for treatment (IDR) No costs1 2,310,0002 No costs1
Costs for weeding (IDR) 1,190,0003 2,310,0002 2,310,0002
Mineral fertilizers per year No 3 times (year 1 and 2) No
Manure per year 2–3 times 2–3 times 2–3 times
Yield estimation (kg) 2800 1680 (60% of bending) 1120 (40% of bending)
Minimum gross income (4000 IDR·kg−1) 11,200,000 6,720,000 4,480,000
Maximum gross income (8000 IDR·kg−1) 22,400,000 13,440,000 8,960,000
Note: 1Done by themselves. 2Equivalent to 33 working days (70,000 IDR·d−1; 4 h·d−1; about 15,000 IDR to 1 USD). 3Equivalent to 17 working days.
Edi Dwi CAHYONO et al. Relative advantage of local innovation 67

they claimed, there is still food for the plant from the fallen
branches. In contrast, plant rejuvenation was considered
problematic because they had to wait for relatively a long time
to produce. While the harvest interval when pruned was about
4 years. This was a critical time frame because they needed cash
to support their families. They also grew medicinal plants (e.g.,
ginger), but the price was relatively low. Mr. G argued that
branch bending not only kept his income stable but also
produced 40% more than pruning. They sold coffee in various
forms, commonly as whole fruit; or powder, with higher profits
but with a consequence of more complicated processes. The
market sector for coffee grounds was the modern coffee shops
in the nearby city, Malang.
Fig. 2 Variations of coffee branch bending: arching the
branches (a) and cracking the branches (b).

3.3 Implementation
down without using ropes. Immediately shoots grow around
Branch bending not only increased productivity and reduced the injured part of the branch. This was different from the
costs but also made harvest easier. This practice (as detailed usual or recommended pruning technique, where the branches
below) involves tying the tips of the branches with ropes were cut off completely.
pegged to the ground or cracking the branches, so the bent
branches are closer to the ground facilitating picking of the
Also, commenting on efforts to obtain mineral fertilizers, Mr.
coffee fruit. This was important for the recruitment of women
G underlined,
for coffee picking due female worker being generally of lesser
Actually, without using fertilizer there is no problem,
stature than males. Also, people did not need to travel from
because the weeding can be used as mulch. Trimming
their village to buy fertilizers, as this was deemed to be
requires mineral fertilizers that is in the first and second year.
unnecessary.
Plants still need manure two to three times. This is so that
when fruiting there will be no or reduced need for mineral
Meanwhile, Mr. F explained in an FGD, “I, myself, tried to fertilizers. Fertilization after trimming is usually done at the
bend it [the coffee branch]. It turns out that the coffee cherries beginning of the rainy season. This is done in August to
are abundant, and the fruit is good. Picking the fruit is also October, then there is another third fertilization in March.
easy ... less grass, easy harvesting method and energy saving. So
everything that I have not trimmed I bend. Then, the grass is
Attempts to obtain mineral fertilizers are a serious issue. The
reduced ... saving [cost and energy].”
remote location is an obstacle in itself because it requires extra
energy, time and cost. Mr. S expresses these problems by
From the results of FGDs, in-depth interviews, and field saying: “Besides far to get it, fertilizer is also expensive.”
observations, it was revealed that the bending technique,
regardless of the variation, was seen as easy. We were informed
that the practice of bending coffee branches varied: (1) Arching
the branches: using ropes, they tied the ends of the branches of
3.4 Perceived environmental impacts
the coffee plant to a height of about 0.5 m above the ground. Forest farmers believed that coffee branch bending had a high
This was to loosen the space between the branches to overcome level of recyclability for the following reasons:
the limited light in the pine shade; (2) Cutting off part of the
branches (not formally pruning completely, but rather (1) It produced more leaf fall, which was claimed to be useful as
breaking the branch). They simply broke the branches in a way mulch. Mr. F argued, “more coffee leaves fall ... every year some
that let them droop but still remain productive. In this second fall and cover the weeds ... humidity is maintained ... there is no
technique, after harvesting, the broken branches were cut erosion; the environment is good.” Thus, as claimed, the
completely (Fig. 2). The picture on the left is a bending abundance of fallen leaves due to branch bending is not only a
technique by curving a coffee branch (the original sketch came waste but also a recyclable multifunctional resource, which is
from a forest farmer). The photo on the right shows the farmer degraded into mulch and at the same time inhibits weed
cutting only part of the stem (cracking it) and then laying it growth.
68 Front. Agr. Sci. Eng. 2023, 10(1): 61–72

(2) The bending technique was an integral part of the use of begin to spread. Also, the forest farmer believed that the use of
seeds that are adaptive to local conditions. It was believed that mineral fertilizers will need to increase to reduce leaf loss and
this technique was only appropriate for a local cultivar called maintain productivity levels. In the bending technique,
Kopi Jawa (Java Coffee). They believed that the advantages are however, there were no, or low-intensity mineral fertilizers
strong plants, many fibrous roots, fast growth and high used, giving a relatively limited environmental pollution.
production. This may be cultivar Linie S, part of the Arabica
coffee group, which was suitable for cultivation in the
In short, the coffee bending technique is perceived by the
highlands and surviving in the shade of pine trees. With the
initiators as having more advantages over other techniques,
scarcity of seeds in the local area, they also felt the need to
such as without branch bending or pruning. Economically, the
preserve seeds as a form of conservation. Mr. S emphasized,
technique is more profitable (i.e., the yields are roughly 50%
“This is related to the issues of [difficulty getting seeds for]
greater, more consistent and increase over time, with lower
trees, so [we] are not looking for seeds anymore ... we still need
production costs). Other advantages are that the
[existing] coffee varieties.”
implementation of the production and harvesting process is
easy (safe and convenient), as well as seen as ecologically
The bending procedures had long plant life and coffee harvest.
sound.
Technically, the implementation of branch bending (arching or
breaking coffee branches) encourages the growth of new
shoots. Experience had taught forest farmers that shoots
immediately appear in the area where the branches were 4 DISCUSSION
broken or arched, with the broken branches still able to
The purpose of this study is to describe the relative advantages
produce, albeit less than normal. It was only in the second year
of coffee branch bending practice in UB Forest. Overall, the
that the broken branches need to be cut so that the shoots can
coffee branch bending (curving and cracking) technique has
grow properly. One of the study participants explained
bending, “This is so that the shoots can grow well …the baby perceived relative advantages compared to the common coffee
[shoots] can grow. However, [this portion] is only capable of branch pruning or without bending. As agencies, progressive
producing 50%.” By comparison, when pruned or rejuvenated, forest farmers have the capacity to shape their surrounding
they had to wait a few more years for production. Thus, branch circumstances[38]. They invented and acknowledged the
bending led to more durable and intensive plant use. superiority of this technique; we have also observed it in the
field for confirmation. Otherwise, they might have abandoned
One of the primary issues in coffee-pine agroforestry was the this technique from soon after initiation.
use of inputs. Mr. G emphasized that many forest farmers
prefer to use manures (from chickens and/or goats) and mulch For techno-social benefits, coffee branch bending seems to be
than mineral fertilizers because of financial reasons. more worker-friendly, because of the practicality for the
Meanwhile, unlike pruning and rejuvenation, the coffee branch operation, maintenance and harvest. We observe that this gives
bending did not rely on large amounts of agrochemical inputs. an advantage to female workers who need comfort and safety at
It was enough to use manure as organic fertilizer, sometimes work[39]. The technique, for example, is simple, does not
with a small number of mineral fertilizers; while plant change much with common practice, and is much safer than
maintenance was applied as necessary. Pruning, in contrast, pruning pine branches which requires a ladder to cut the
required an adequate intake of mineral fertilizers for boosting branches[6]. Another study on a system of rice intensification,
shoot growth. In an in-depth interview with Mr. G clarified this an agri-innovation introduced by the government, shows that
issue, “When the plant is pruned, the roots need to be farmers are reluctant to accept due to incompatible with
stimulated ... fertilized so that it grows quickly because the existing practices while technically complicated[40]. This is also
plant is stressed!” consistent with other recent studies that the simplicity of new
agri-environmental technologies is central to innovation
Chicken manure was cheaper, but goat manure was considered adoption[41,42].
more effective for coffee growth. Usually, forest farmers
combined these manures to reduce costs. Usually, manures Indeed, profit in terms of financial gains, especially increased
were applied two or three times annually with a minimum use revenue, reduced costs and minimum risk is a major factor in
of about 1 t·ha−1. While, the application of mineral fertilizers the decision to innovate for individuals[15,16,43]. This has the
was essential when pruning branches, particularly when roots potential to increase forest farmer income and welfare. For
Edi Dwi CAHYONO et al. Relative advantage of local innovation 69

them, this factor is extremely critical given their apparently because the communication method in such forest
financial limitations[6]. Generally, coffee branch bending is also communities is interpersonal, or farmer-to-farmer[30]. This is
environmentally friendly as other agroforestry systems, giving distinct from the mode of extension agents who typically use a
an unexpected additional benefit. These would keep their more open group communication approach (e.g., farmer
finance available in the long-term while lowering external groups). Also, the learning media for local innovation
inputs[19,43]. development uses the forest farmer plots. However, regular
extension workers use demonstration plots. As a result, the
Our findings are also consistent with the positive perceptions surrounding community barely sees the many advantages of
of an innovative conservation application, known as the technique. Also, the technique is somewhat controversial
Agricultural Best Management practices; its benefits are time for several reasons (seen as unusual by those outside the clique
savings, reduced inputs, higher quality of agricultural land and or contradictory to the policy of the power-holders/forest
the environment, and higher compatibility (with existing management)[50].
agricultural systems), while the impacts are observable[44]. In
our research, the observability factor is the more abundant While there are many perceived advantages of coffee branch
coffee fruit production and the perceived better environmental bending, our observations and FGD with people outside the
quality, providing additional inner satisfaction for the bending clique suggest that not many local forest farmers are adopting
practitioners. this technique. Maybe, visually, the plants look untidy. This
raises skepticism, both for forest managers and local
Under various constraints, progressive forest farmers have communities. Sometimes an unfavorable social atmosphere
learned, created and developed traditional ecological (e.g., disagreements on profit sharing in the above case) can
knowledge or wisdom[45,46]. This is not an easy process, and also cancel the adoption process of local innovation regardless
the knowledge they possess is the result of a long-term trial- of its relative advantages. This is what we call adoption
and-error efforts. They require persistence, may experience mortality, and also known dis-adoption[13]. The coffee branch
social conflicts, or have to negotiate with authorities[6]. bending tends to be viewed with skepticism by both forest
Logically, considering the prolonged experience, the management and the community itself. We would say that
innovation is meaningful, whether it may give financial or non- social compatibility, or social encouragement or influence for
financial gains. This is consistent with the views of other the technique, is relatively low and an inhibiting factor for the
researchers who for a long time have believed that farmers have diffusion to wider social levels[13,51]. In this sense, what remains
their own rationality[47,48]; and the diversity of initiatives, undetermined is the mechanism of diffusion of the bending
cognizant of the constraints and limitations of external technique.
information[19].
Individuals with particular experiences, such as the coffee
The local situation is specific, where light is quite limited branch bending promoters, should be considered positive
(c. 30% light penetration). This imposes a significant limitation deviants[52]. It refers to the idea of a group of individuals who
to the photosynthetic process of plants. In contrast, forest have unusual practices but are more successful or have strategic
farmer resources are limited to intervention, such as applying and innovative values in solving problems than their peers,
agrochemical inputs. Meanwhile, external innovation is under limited resources or knowledge[53–55]. Over time, it
generic, assuming that it is done under normal circumstances. seems that the negative stereotype that innovative forest
Thus, their insight is indispensable, anticipating the chronic farmers are unacceptably eccentric is fading away. Our further
problem of external innovation rejections[23] and reducing the discussions with the progressive forest farmers show that the
high burden of formal development agents[30]. It provides technique seemed to have been quietly adopted and then
avenues for mainstreaming local innovations for sustainable
adapted by the nearby outsiders, by changing the plant cultivar
agroforestry development[49] while contributing to realizing
that suits their area. However, it is beyond this research,
the vision of ‘leave no one behind,’ as voiced in the UN
requiring another study to examine this.
Sustainable Development Goals.

However, the diffusion of the coffee branch bending is needs to

5 IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
be clearly examined. This local innovation is seemingly an
exclusive entity, belonging to the local social clique. It is Without undue generalization, this study can serve as a lesson
70 Front. Agr. Sci. Eng. 2023, 10(1): 61–72

learned for relevant studies. Exclusively created and developed techniques (e.g., to improve forest environmental
by a forest farmer cohort, the coffee branch techniques under performance) are likely to be common for agroforestry.
over pine canopy shading need to be appreciated. The However, given the risk of over-interpretative, it would
implication is that this local innovation needs to be validated. It valuable from them to be the subject of further validation.
may open a way to incorporate it into the agroforestry
innovation pool. By mainstreaming innovations of experienced Field observations and follow-up discussions with the
practitioners the adoption may be easier than relying only on participants indicated that their agroforestry system is sensitive
external innovations. The innovative perspectives and practices to various external influences, such as falling coffee prices, a
of forest farmers are locally relevant given the lengthy process fair profit-sharing system and the possibility of current extreme
of discovery, learning and evaluation of various economic and weather. Such challenges can jeopardize the coffee plantations
non-economic benefits. This coffee branch bending innovation as well as degrade the local wisdom. Thus, thinking inside-the-
is meaningful due to limited financial availability as farmers in box[56], which is using an internal perspective to address issues,
remote areas. For these reasons, the results of this study can is recommended. The exclusive forest farmers have
assist strategic choices by involving them to pursue sustainable continuously learned local innovation through pragmatism and
agroforestry development. experimentation, and internally circulated through
interpersonal discussions and imitation. As an implication, the
In reflection, outsiders need to know the specialty of innovative communicative intervention strategies need to involve the
forest farmers rather than suspect or discredit them. experienced locals, as an effective channel for adoption of
Uncovering the advantages of bending coffee branches through innovation. This is in accordance with the transformative
farmer-stakeholder meetings is a benefit for all. A follow-up discourse of behavior change, which is environmentally sound
discussion with the wife of Mr. F showed that they are used to and population-relevant[57].
optimizing woodland for mixed agroforestry-garden to meet
family needs, sometimes with their own creativity to cope with To conclude, local innovation is not only unique but also
challenges, such as nutrient competition between plants. This meaningful for forest farmers for providing various perceived
does not only consider economics but also meets special needs. relative advantages. However, we remains some uncertainty
An example is to enjoy the unique taste of local coffee about adoption of this innovation by their peers. The use of a
produced under pine over-shading which is purported to be participatory extension strategy is necessary, that is by
superior compared to those in stores. Reflecting on the lack of promoting extension cooperation with local social potential
recognition and past conflicts experienced between farmers and stakeholders. Further research is needed, for example, to
and forest management, support from power holders and look at communication between forest farmers and the wider
stakeholders is vital given the impression of the superiority of networking for the local innovation learning and diffusion
local innovation. and/or adaptation of coffee branch bending. So far, it appears
that the diffusion processes remains confined to the inner
The claimed ecological benefits of coffee branch bending circle.

Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to the local forest farmers who willingly participated in discussions during this study, Catur Puranto and Aris
Saryadin who kindly facilitated these discussion, and the reviewers for their valuable comments on the manuscript. This study was
funded by the Faculty of Agriculture, University of Brwijaya, Indonesia.

Compliance with ethics guidelines

Edi Dwi Cahyono, Eka Pradesti, Cahyo Prayogo, Suhartini, and Riyanti Isaskar declare that they have no conflicts of interest or
financial conflicts to disclose.
Edi Dwi CAHYONO et al. Relative advantage of local innovation 71

REFERENCES
1. Warnaen A, Sugiyanto, Yuliati Y, Cahyono E D. Farmer 16. Singh T, Kaur M, Singh G. Extent of adoption of happy seeder
empowerment in coffee farming business management. technology among the farmers of Punjab (India). Indian
EurAsian Journal of BioSciences, 2020, 14(2): 7231−7238 Journal of Extension Education, 2021, 57(4): 75−79
2. Pieterse J N. Development theory. Sage Publications Ltd., 2010 17. Surdianto Y, Sutrisna N, Kurnia B S, Argo Y. Study of “PATBO
3. van Noordwijk M. Agroforestry-based ecosystem services: SUPER” technology innovation promoting the improvement
reconciling values of humans and nature in sustainable of cropping index and productivity of rainfed rice in West Java
development. Land, 2021, 10(7): 699 Province. IOP Conference Series. Earth and Environmental
4. Montambault J R, Alavalapati J R. Socioeconomic research in Science, 2021, 653(1): 012067
agroforestry: a decade in review. Agroforestry Systems, 2005, 18. Freidenreich A, Bhat M, Jayachandran K. Adoption and
65(2): 151−161 perception of cover crop implementation for tropical fruit
5. Baig M B, Burgess P J, Fike J H. Agroforestry for healthy growers. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 2022, 77(2):
ecosystems: constraints, improvement strategies and extension 158−171
in Pakistan. Agroforestry Systems, 2021, 95(5): 995−1013 19. Llewellyn R, Brown B. Predicting adoption of innovations by
6. Cahyono E D, Fairuzzana S, Willianto D, Pradesti E, farmers: what is different in smallholder agriculture? Applied
McNamara N P, Rowe R L, van Noordwijk M. Agroforestry Economic Perspectives and Policy, 2020, 42(1): 100−112
innovation through planned farmer behavior: trimming in 20. Cerdán C R, Rebolledo M C, Soto G, Rapidel B, Sinclair F L.
pine-coffee systems. Land, 2020, 9(10): 363 Local knowledge of impacts of tree cover on ecosystem services
7. Kitchen P J, Panopoulos A. Online public relations: the in smallholder coffee production systems. Agricultural Systems,
adoption process and innovation challenge, a Greek example. 2012, 110: 119−130
Public Relations Review, 2010, 36(3): 222−229 21. Fitch A, Rowe R L, McNamara N P, Prayogo C, Ishaq R M,
8. Malahayatin D M, Cahyono E D. The compatibility factor with Prasetyo R D, Mitchell Z, Oakley S, Jones L. The coffee
the needs of farmers in the decision to adopt innovations in the compromise: is agricultural expansion into tree plantations a
Jajar Legowo cropping pattern (a case study of rice farmers in sustainable option? Sustainability, 2022, 14(5): 3019
Widang District, Tuban Regency. Jurnal Ekonomi Pertanian 22. Suri T. Selection and comparative advantage in technology
dan Agribisnis, 2017, 1(1): 56–61(in Bahasa Indonesia) adoption. Econometrica, 2011, 79(1): 159−209
9. Alawiyah F M, Cahyono E D. Farmers’ perceptions of the 23. Mercer D E. Adoption of agroforestry innovations in the
introduction of biological agent innovations through a tropics: a review. Agroforestry Systems, 2004, 61: 311−328
combination of demonstration plot media and FFD. Jurnal 24. Subramanian A, Qaim M. Village-wide effects of agricultural
Ekonomi Pertanian dan Agribisnis, 2018, 2(1): 19−28 (in biotechnology: the case of Bt cotton in India. World
Bahasa Indonesia) Development, 2009, 37(1): 256−267
10. Cahyono E D. Challenges facing extension agents in 25. McDermott M H, Schreckenberg K. Equity in community
implementing the participatory extension approach in forestry: insights from North and South. International Forestry
Indonesia: a case study of Malang Regency in the East Java Review, 2009, 11(2): 157−170
Region. Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree. Columbus: The 26. Larson A M. Democratic decentralization in the forestry sector:
Ohio State University, 2014 lessons learned from Africa, Asia and Latin America. In: Colfer
11. Abrol D, Gupta A. Understanding the diffusion modes of C J P, Capistrano D, eds.. The Politics of Decentralization.
grassroots innovations in India: a study of Honey Bee Network Routlege, 2005, 31
supported innovators. African Journal of Science, Technology, 27. Shrestha K K, McManus P. The embeddedness of collective
Innovation and Development, 2014, 6(6): 541−552 action in Nepalese community forestry. Small-scale Forestry,
12. Hoffecker E. Local Innovation: what it is and why it matters for 2007, 6(3): 273−290
developing economies. Massachusetts Institute of Technology 28. Maryudi A, Devkota R R, Schusser C, Yufanyi C, Salla M,
(MIT) D-Lab Working Paper, 2018 Aurenhammer H, Rotchanaphatharawit R, Krott M. Back to
13. Rogers E M. Diffusion of innovations, 5th edition. New York: basics: considerations in evaluating the outcomes of
Free Press, 2003, 229 community forestry. Forest Policy and Economics, 2012, 14(1):
14. Ho C H, Wu W. Role of innovativeness of consumer in 1−5
relationship between perceived attributes of new products and 29. Porter-Bolland L, Ellis E A, Guariguata M R, Ruiz-Mallén I,
intention to adopt. International Journal of Electronic Business Negrete-Yankelevich S, Reyes-García V. Community managed
Management, 2011, 9: 258−266 forests and forest protected areas: an assessment of their
15. Bete Y, Joka U, Nubatonis A. Income analysis of tomato conservation effectiveness across the tropics. Forest Ecology
farming in paddy fields in Leuntolu Village Raimanuk District and Management, 2012, 268: 6−17
Belu Regency. Agribusiness Journal, 2021, 4(1): 1−5 30. Zerihun M F, Worku Z, Muchie M. Institutional analysis of
72 Front. Agr. Sci. Eng. 2023, 10(1): 61–72

adoption of agroforestry innovations in the Eastern Cape indigenous farmers: empowering local paddy rice growers in
Province, South Africa. SARChI Working Papers, Tshwane East Java. In: Dutta M, Zapata D, eds. Communicating for
University of Technology, 2014 Social Change. Singapore: Palgrave Macmillan, 2019, 213–233
31. Myers B E, Roberts T G. Conducting and evaluating 46. Manningtyas R D T, Furuya K. Traditional ecological
professional development workshops using experiential knowledge versus ecological wisdom: are they dissimilar in
learning. NACTA Journal, 2004, 48(2): 27−32 cultural landscape research. Land, 2022, 11(8): 1123
32. Saunders M, Lewis P, Thornhill A. Research methods for 47. Vanclay F, Lawrence G. Farmer rationality and the adoption of
business students (6th Edition). Pearson, 2012 environmentally sound practices; a critique of the assumptions
33. Pizam A, Mansfeld Y. Consumer Behaviour in Travel and of traditional agricultural extension. European Journal of
Tourism. London: Taylor and Francis Group, 2009 Agricultural Education and Extension, 1994, 1(1): 59−90
34. Creswell J W. Research design: qualitative, quantitative and 48. Ali M S S, Bakri R, Rukmana D, Demmallino E B, Salman D,
mixed methods approaches. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar, 2016 Marsuka. Farmers rationality in doing land conversion. IOP
(in Bahasa Indonesia) Conference Series. Earth and Environmental Science, 2020,
35. Bexter P, Jack S. Qualitative case study methodology: study 486(1): 012017
design and implementation for novice researchers. Qualitative 49. Octavia D, Suharti S, Murniati, Dharmawan I W S, Nugroho H
Report, 2008, 13(4): 544−559 Y S H, Supriyanto B, Rohadi D, Njurumana G N, Yeny I, Hani
36. Yin R K. Case study research: Design and methods (3rd A, Mindawati N, Suratman, Adalina Y, Prameswari D, Hadi E
Edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2003 E W, Ekawati S. Mainstreaming smart agroforestry for social
37. Leuuwis C, van den Ban A W. Communication for rural forestry implementation to support sustainable development
innovation: rethinking agricultural extension. Wiley-Blackwell, goals in Indonesia: a review. Sustainability, 2022, 14(15): 9313
2004
50. Sierra-Huelsz J A, Gerez Fernández P, López Binnqüist C,
38. Littlejohn S W, Foss K A. Agency. In: Littlejohn S W, Foss K A,
Guibrunet L, Ellis E A. Traditional ecological knowledge in
eds. Encyclopedia of communication theory. Thousand Oaks,
community forest management: evolution and limitations in
CA: SAGE Publications Inc., 2009, 28–32
Mexican forest law, policy and practice. Forests, 2020, 11(4):
39. Joshi K, Pattanayak A, Jethi R, Meena V S. Promoting gender
403
equality in the context of agriculture and natural resource
51. Le Hoang Nguyen L, Halibas A, Quang Nguyen T.
management: opportunities, challenges, and management
Determinants of precision agriculture technology adoption in
policies in Indian Mid-Himalayas. In: Rakshit A, Chakraborty
developing countries: a review. Journal of Crop Improvement,
S, Parihar M, Meena V S, Mishra P K, Singh H B, eds.
2022
Innovation in Small-Farm Agriculture. CRC press, 2022:
52. Herington M J, van de Fliert E. Positive deviance in theory and
275−286
practice: a conceptual review. Deviant Behavior, 2018, 39(5):
40. Arsil P, Tey Y S, Brindal M, Ardiansyah, Sumarni E, Masrukhi,
664−678
Ardiansyah, Sumarni, E, Masrukhi. Perceived attributes
53. Sternin J, Choo R. The power of positive deviancy. An effort to
driving the adoption of system of rice intensification: the
Indonesian farmers’ view. Open Agriculture, 2022, 7(1): reduce malnutrition in Vietnam offers an important lesson
217−225 about managing change. Harvard Business Review, 2000, 78(1):
41. Kernecker M, Seufert V, Chapman M. Farmer-centered 14−15
ecological intensification: using innovation characteristics to 54. Tuhus-Dubrow R. The power of positive deviants: a promising
identify barriers and opportunities for a transition of new tactic for changing communities from the inside. Boston,
agroecosystems towards sustainability. Agricultural Systems, 2009. Available at Boston website on April 20, 2022
2021, 191: 103142 55. Shija D S, Mwai O A, Migwi P K, Komwihangilo D M, Bebe B
42. Strong R, Wynn J T 2nd, Lindner J R, Palmer K. Evaluating O. Identifying positive deviant farms using pareto-optimality
Brazilian agriculturalists’ IoT smart agriculture adoption ranking technique to assess productivity and livelihood
barriers: understanding stakeholder salience prior to launching benefits in smallholder dairy farming under contrasting
an innovation. Sensors, 2022, 22(18): 6833 stressful environments in Tanzania. WORLD, 2022, 3(3):
43. Mbow C, Van Noordwijk M, Luedeling E, Neufeldt H, Minang 639−656
P A, Kowero G. Agroforestry solutions to address food security 56. Malloch K, Porter-O’Grady T. Positive deviance: advancing
and climate change challenges in Africa. Current Opinion in innovation to transform healthcare. In: Melnyk B M, Tim R,
Environmental Sustainability, 2014, 6: 61−67 eds. Evidence-based Leadership, Innovation and
44. Reimer A P, Weinkauf D K, Prokopy L S. The influence of Entrepreneurship in Nursing and Healthcare: A Practical
perceptions of practice characteristics: an examination of Guide to Success. New York: Springer, 2021, 209
agricultural best management practice adoption in two Indiana 57. Ruggeri K, Folke T. Unstandard deviation: the untapped value
watersheds. Journal of Rural Studies, 2012, 28(1): 118−128 of positive deviance for reducing inequalities. Perspectives on
45. Cahyono E D. Participatory communication and extension for Psychological Science, 2022, 17(3): 711−731