How intergenerational farmers negotiate their identity in the era of Agriculture 4.0: A multiple-case study in Indonesia

1 Introduction

As a vital food supplier for communities, the world of agriculture is undergoing a transformative phase that is leading to a decline in the number of farmers who serve as the main actors. Darnhofer et al. [1] highlighted two perspectives to explain this decline, namely ecological factors and the changing roles of farmers within the social structure of local communities. Ecologically, factors such as environmental degradation, unpredictable weather patterns, market uncertainties, and global interconnections have created a sense of uncertainty among farmers. In the ecological dimension, Wilson [2] stated that agriculture underwent a transition from a productivist regime by prioritizing productivity through the use of chemical pesticides and fertilizers. This is in addition to a post-productivist regime that emphasized food quality, environmental considerations, and a shift away from state-supported production. Aside from ecological challenges, farmers also face dynamic shifts in preferences driven by new technologies, marketing channels, social networks, and global market connections.

Numerous studies have highlighted the global decline in farmers, pointing to the uncertainty prevailing in the agricultural sector. Darnhofer et al. [1] conducted a study in Europe and observed a 20% decrease in agricultural ownership between 2003 and 2010. Similarly, Liu and Wang [3] found a decrease in the proportion of agricultural employment in underdeveloped and developing countries. Indonesia, an agricultural country, also experienced a decrease in the number of farming households, from 31.2 million in 2003 to 26.1 million in 2003 [4]. The country is also facing the issue of an ageing farming population, with 67.72% of farmers aged 45 and above, while those under 25 accounts for only 0.69%. The elevated share of labors limit the allowance into modern entities. This condition results in the obstruction of agricultural development and transformation [3]. One factor contributing to this challenge is the decreasing interest in agricultural work due to its negative reputation [5,6]. Moreover, the limited technological skills among farmers hinder their ability to adapt to the rapid technological advancements of the Industrial Revolution 4.0, exacerbating the competition faced by agricultural businesses [7]. These factors collectively present significant problems and challenges for Indonesian agriculture.

The Industrial Revolution 4.0 has also made a significant impact on the agricultural sector. In line with the shift towards a post-productivist regime and changes in the workforce structure, agriculture is undergoing a new technological revolution, which is supported by policymakers globally. This has led to the emergence of smart farming, where intelligent technologies play a crucial role in enhancing productivity and achieving greater environmental efficiency. The utilization of information technology (IT), which enables precision in agriculture, agro automation, and farm management information systems, is at the heart of smart farming. The development of IT has facilitated the integration of the Internet of Things (IoT) to become a part of the agricultural process [8]. The utilization of IoT in precision agriculture is particularly important in enhancing crop production [9]. According to Wolfert et al. [10], although technological innovation is not a new concept in agriculture, emerging technologies like the IoT, cloud computing, robotics, and artificial intelligence (AI) have the potential to bring about transformative changes in agriculture, leading to the emergence of Agriculture 4.0.

The agricultural technology revolution brought about by Agriculture 4.0 has transformative effects on all levels of the agricultural system, ranging from traditional small-scale farming to broader modern agricultural sectors. Smart farming, incorporating drones, AI, machine learning, automation, sensors, the IoT, and other data- and science-based information technologies, will cause a cultural shift [11,12]. The advent of smart farming in Agriculture 4.0 will foster the emergence of a community of smart farmers and resources that are open to the global community, accelerating digital agricultural innovation. According to Bollini et al. [11], farmers in the era of Agriculture 4.0 are expected to be smart and adaptive. This implies that cultural changes among farmers in this era stem from improvements in technological infrastructure and the challenges they face within two interconnected ecosystems, namely digital and agricultural ecosystems. Darnhofer et al. [1] stated that farmers must confront and overcome ecological dynamics to survive. Therefore, the question arises as to who and what kind of farmers can successfully build their identity as farmers in the era of Agriculture 4.0.

Numerous studies have examined the process of identity reconstruction among farmers. However, most studies on farmer identity focus on farming identity in the forms of farm physical appearance, crops, production capacity measured by yields [13], and land management methods [14]. Xie [15] also conducted a study on the construction of farmer identities in post-productivism. Additionally, O’Callaghan and Warburton [16] conducted a narrative study that explored the challenges faced by farmers in Australia as they strive to maintain their identity within a changing cultural environment.

In Indonesia, many studies have explored the topic of farmer identity. For instance, Rahman [17] highlighted the role of technology utilization, innovations generated, and entrepreneurial practices in shaping farmer identity. Radjab [18] identified various factors that contribute to the construction of seaweed farmer identity, including internet networking and strong networks of capital and marketing established by wholesalers. However, none of these studies have specifically examined farmer identity negotiation from a communication perspective.

In terms of theory, many studies on farmer identity have employed identity theory and social identity theory as their theoretical frameworks. Shortall [19] examined how men and women in agriculture construct gender and occupational identities using the identity theory approach of Peter Burke. Groth and Curtis [14] also used an identity theory approach to examine farmer identity in relation to land tenure. Stenholm and Hytti [20] analysed the identity differences between producer and entrepreneur farmers, drawing on identity theory. Furthermore, McGuire et al. [21] investigated the role of farmer identity using a social identity theory approach. They explored how farmers’ social identities influenced their attitudes and behaviours within the agricultural context. Another theoretical approach employed in the farmer identity study is the diffusion of innovation theory by Rogers. Gray and Gibson [22] used this theoretical framework to examine the decision-making processes, networks, and identity of farmers in Kansas. Meanwhile, Riley [23] and Rahman [17] used the theory of action proposed by Bourdieu to explore how farmers negotiate their position as successful people.

In contrast to previous studies that have employed identity theory and social identity theory, this study takes a different theoretical approach by utilizing the communication theory of identity (CTI) developed by Michael Hecht. CTI is a new theory that seeks to extend identity beyond individual and social constructs by considering interactions and complementing social identity views that lie in roles and its theory with identity as relational [24]. The CTI conceptualizes identity within four frameworks: personal identity, enactment identity, relational identity, and communal identity. From the literature review, no study of farmer identity using the CTI approach was found. Therefore, by employing the CTI framework, this study aims to conduct a more comprehensive examination of the role of communication in the process of negotiating farmer identity.

Methodologically, preliminary studies tended to rely on single-case study designs. These studies primarily focused on investigating the identity of farmers within specific contexts, such as the adoption of innovative technology, entrepreneurial endeavours, or engagement in environmentalist practices. For example, Radjab [18] examined the transformation of fishermen into seaweed farmers. Rahman [17] explored the transformation process of horticultural farmers adopting commercial crops, also utilizing a single case study approach. Additionally, Gray and Gibson [22] explored the identity of farmers who embraced technology and examined their involvement in networking within the agricultural industry, employing a single case study methodology. Unlike previous studies, this study explored the negotiation of identity among distinct groups of farmers, specifically millennial and Generation X farmers. This approach allows for a comparative analysis of identity negotiation processes among farmers from different generations.

In 2020, Widiyanti et al. [25] conducted a study that drew on the CTI approach proposed by Hecht et al. [26] and the concept of self-verification by Swann Jr. and Bosson [27]. This study focused on how young farmers negotiate their identities within the context of the farmer regeneration crisis. Widiyanti et al. [25] uncovered several significant findings related to the identity negotiation process of young farmers, differences from the previous generations of farmers Y displaying different self-appearances. Widiyanti et al. [25] also compared their findings with a narrative study of identity constructed by O’Callaghan and Warburton [16].

This study provided a comprehensive exposition and discussion of the study by Widiyanti et al. [25] on the negotiation of farmer identities in the Agriculture 4.0 era. It conducted an in-depth analysis of farmer identities by exploring the narratives and experiences of two distinct generations. The first group consisted of young farmers (millennials), as partially disclosed in the findings by Widiyanti et al. [25], while the second group comprised older generation farmers who had successfully navigated their identities in the 4.0 era.

A unique perspective was adopted by considering two generations of farmers, namely millennials and older-generation farmers. The departure from previous debates about the future of agriculture is crucial, as it addresses the dynamics between young farmers, who have ambitious aspirations in the agricultural sector but lack access to essential resources like land and management held by older generation farmers [28–33]. Meanwhile, Chazali [31] stated that older farmers also possess high aspirations for enhancing their farming performance, necessitating access to technology. The result found that farmers from these two generations succeeded in negotiating their identities in the 4.0 revolution.

Based on the problem of the decrease in the number of farmers in Indonesia and the changes in the agricultural environment, this study analysed the identity gap experienced by farmers in the process of building their identity in the era of Agriculture 4.0, comprehensively examined the negotiation process carried out by both young farmers and older generation farmers, and determined the interrelationships between the two generations to produce a negotiation model for farmer identity. Using a communication perspective, a negotiation model for farmer identities in the Agriculture 4.0 era was presented to determine the farmers new to the era. Theoretically, by presenting the concept and discovering how these identities are built, this study can make a practical contribution to parties interested in the changes.

This article is organized into several sections. Section 1 discusses the study background and literary review. Section 2 describes the methods, design, participants, data collection methods, and analysis. Section 3 presents the results among both young and old-generation farmers. Section 4 provides a comprehensive discussion of the results, and Section 5 gives the conclusion.

2 Materials and methods

A constructivist-interpretivist paradigm and a multiple-case study approach were employed in this investigation. The constructivist paradigm is viewed as socially constructed and shaped by individual or group experiences. It is contextually specific and varies depending on the perspectives of those involved [34]. Constructivism emphasizes subjective meanings from experiences formed through interactions with the objects of study (social constructivism) alongside historical and social norms applicable to daily activities [35]. Identity development is a complex process that involves various elements, such as positive and negative emotions, a sense of belonging, connectedness, and self-confidence. These concepts are continually evolving and hold significant importance in qualitative studies [36].

2.3 Data collection and analysis

The data were collected using in-depth interviews to examine the personal, enactment, relational, and communal identities of both millennial and Gen X farmers. These interviews also focused on exploring the problems or inconsistencies perceived by the participants and how they validated their identity as farmers through communication. The interviews were conducted from July 2019 to November 2020, with a duration of 75–90 min. In order to ensure data validity, each participant was interviewed three to four times.

Furthermore, in-depth interviews were conducted to thoroughly examine the personal, enactment, relational, and communal identities of participants. The data collected for personal identity included factors such as the reasons for selecting a career in farming, perceptions of agricultural work, the core values associated with being a farmer, their expectations, motivations, and views on Agriculture 4.0. Regarding enactment identity, the data collected encompassed how these individuals portrayed themselves, both personal and farming identities. This included aspects such as the adoption of technology, innovation, and entrepreneurship, as well as the challenges encountered in embracing their identities as farmers. Enacted identity refers to the validation of identity exhibited by the way the farmers express themselves, both personally (through the following attributes clothing, vehicles, houses, etc.) and within the farming domain (through technology, innovation, and entrepreneurship). Relational identity data include information on social roles, interactions, and problems in the context of adopting Agriculture 4.0. Communal identity data explored the involvement of the participants in farmer groups, associations, or other collective organizations, as well as the problems encountered.

In addition to the in-depth interview technique, data for this study were also collected by documenting the social media activities of the farmers on Instagram. The data collected on Instagram included motivations, values, and expectations of farmers, as conveyed through the captions under the images shared by the millennials, specifically those related to farming activities. The data from Instagram were collected between August 2019 and November 2020.

Data validation was carried out using two approaches, namely the triangulation method and member checking. The triangulation of data sources was performed by obtaining information from a particular informant, analysing the actual conditions, passive observation of the activities engaged in by the participants, or reviewing existing documentation such as farming records, training certificates, and awards. This approach helped ensure the reliability and accuracy of the data. The second validation method employed was member checking. This involved sharing conclusions from preliminary studies with selected participants and seeking their feedback and approval. By involving the participants in the validation process, the present study aimed to enhance the credibility and trustworthiness of its findings.

Several qualitative reliability procedures were performed to ensure the findings were reliable and consistent. Yin [41] stated the importance of documenting case study procedures and conducting study protocols and databases in a careful manner, enabling subsequent studies to follow these procedures. This study also used practical guidelines, such as interviews and passive observation guides, to facilitate data collection in a structured and consistent manner.

The analysis technique used is an explanatory approach, which involves analysing the case study data to provide explanations for the phenomenon under investigation. This process entails establishing interrelationships to understand the phenomenon and presenting the findings in a narrative form. The stages of analysis carried out are based on the five stages proposed by Yin [41], namely data compilation, disassembling, reassembling, interpretation, and conclusion (Figure 1).

Figure 1

Data analysis stages. Source: Yin [41].

3 Results

The findings revealed that both millennial and Generation X farmers are well aware of the inefficiency of their family farms, leading to limited income and poor welfare. In the era of Agriculture 4.0, these two groups encountered challenges at various levels, including individual conflicts within the family, communal conflicts with other farmers, and public conflicts with stakeholders, such as consumers, authors, and other parties interested in agricultural development.

The two groups try to portray their identities by effectively managing the dynamics of interpersonal communication, whether through face-to-face communication or through various internet media. During this process, they engage in meaningful exchanges, sharing resources, and participating in social interactions. Burke and Stets [42] defined resources as all elements that support individuals and interactions.

3.5 Farmer identity negotiation model

In the process of undergoing identity shifts, farmers encounter situations and external forces that either attract or clash with their farmer identity, necessitating the negotiation of their identity. The two groups of farmer generations effectively navigate these conflicts through diverse negotiation efforts, leading to the emergence of new forms of identity. Therefore, the following statements outline a model of farmer identity negotiation in the era of Agriculture 4.0:

1. Farmer identity negotiation is a dynamic process that addresses identity gaps arising from inconsistencies between personal identities, enactment identities, relational identities, and communal identities, or conflicts with other forces incongruent with the identity embraced by farmers.

2. In the process of farmer identity negotiation, identity is nurtured and constructed through social interactions with others, such as through education, outreach, affiliation, and social networking.

3. Farmer identity negotiation in the Agriculture 4.0 era involves both self-preparedness in the form of communication competencies and environmental support in the form of social, media, and information support.

4. Farmer identity negotiation strengthens their sense of identity through the adoption of new social roles, lifestyle adjustments aligned with improved welfare and societal roles, and advancements in farming methods that enhance quality. The incorporation of various social roles, lifestyles, and farming practices reinforces the identities of millennial and Gen X farmers and distinguishes them from traditional farmers (Figure 2).

Figure 2

An intergenerational farmer identity negotiation model in the era of Agriculture 4.0 revealed in this study.

4 Discussion

The implementation of agricultural 4.0 practices in Indonesia, promoted by the government in 2015, led to the emergence of adaptive millennial and Gen X farmers. This study demonstrates that farmer identity has undergone transformations through the negotiation process within the Agriculture 4.0 era. The study presents a communication-based perspective on farmer identity negotiation using the CTI framework. Based on the study findings, four propositions regarding farmer identity negotiation can be inferred. First, farmer identity negotiation is a crucial process aimed at bridging identity gaps that arise when identities collide with incongruent external forces. Additionally, the study reveals instances of interpenetration between different layers of farmer identity. For instance, farmers overcome limitations in farming scale (enactment layer), knowledge, and skills (personal layer) by establishing social networks (relational layer) to enhance agricultural literacy (personal layer). They also engage in collaborations and partnerships to access technology and pursue business diversification (enactment layer). In instances of conflicts within their families or communities (relational layer), farmers address them by improving farming performance (enactment layer) and showcasing their identity as members of specific groups (communal layer). These actions allow farmers to overcome family conflicts and establish distinct boundaries that set them apart from traditional farming groups in terms of social roles, lifestyle, and farming qualities.

Second, farmers maintain and develop their identity through social interactions during educational, outreach, affiliation, and social networking activities, in order to achieve a balanced sense of identity. Third, the process of negotiating farmer identity involves the preparedness of farmers in terms of their communication competencies. It is essential to connect them with knowledge and technology resources, emphasizing the importance of providing social, media, and information support. Social support can come in the form of opportunities for knowledge acquisition, skill development, and access to agricultural technology and innovation, facilitated by formal and non-formal educational institutions (such as training programs, apprenticeships, and business incubators), farmer communities, and study groups [54–57]. Media support includes ensuring the availability and accessibility of information and communication technology (ICT) [58], particularly in this digital era. Widiyanti et al. [59,60] reported that internet infrastructure plays a crucial role in connecting farmers with online communities and diverse sources of knowledge. Information support entails providing farmers with relevant information about compatible technologies, innovations, and other resources they need.

Fourth, the negotiation of farmer identity strengthens their sense of self through various means, including assuming social roles, adapting their lifestyle to improved welfare and social responsibilities, and enhancing the quality of their farming practices. Widiyanti et al. [61] stated that the adoption of agricultural technology serves as a means for farmers to increase their income and social status. According to Akimowicz et al. [62], applying agricultural technology is an effort to increase income and social status. Akimowicz et al. reported that these identity negotiations involve balancing work quality and personal sacrifices as farmers navigate changes in their lifestyles. In the context of Agriculture 4.0, the reinforcement of farmer identity signifies the development of several competencies, such as understanding agriculture as a system, organizational skills, the ability to analyse farming and market dynamics, problem-solving abilities, creativity in seizing opportunities, proficiency in building partnerships and collaborations, and effective communication skills. These competencies encompass openness, courage, confidence, motivation, flexibility, optimism, empathy, and mastery of ICT.

In addition to identifying similarities in the negotiation processes, this study also aimed to identify differences in the negotiation processes in order to formulate a comprehensive negotiation model for the two cases. The main variations lie in the contexts or situations where the identities of farmers need to be negotiated. Millennial farmers predominantly negotiate their identities with their consumers and close friends at the public level, whereas Gen X farmers negotiate their identities more with university scholars or researchers from agricultural companies. At the communal level, this study found that Gen X farmers negotiate their identities within farmer groups and among fellow farmers. This disparity arises from information gaps among Gen X farmers, leading to varying levels of identity construction. In contrast, millennial farmers do not engage in negotiation at the communal level as they identify themselves with broader groups. Millennial farmers exhibit a high mastery of ICT, eliminating any information gaps. This highlights the crucial role of access to IT in the identity construction process for farmers.

This study presents distinct findings from the research by Xie [15] on the formation of new farmer identities in China as well as O’Callaghan and Warburton [16] on identity construction among older-generation farmers in Australia. A previous study has emphasized the formation of farmer identities through human factors such as attitudes, perceptions, values, experiences, and behaviours. These factors contribute to developing farmer identities aligned with a more sustainable and healthy food-producing system [15]. In contrast to the findings of Xie [15], this study reveals that millennial and Gen X farmers, in addition to pursuing a healthy and sustainable food system, are progressive, and strive to optimize their farming businesses by enhancing productivity, efficiency, and diversification of agricultural enterprises. The formation of the identities of millennial farmers involves efforts to challenge negative stereotypes associated with farmers and foster positive perceptions instead.

This study also reported a shift in the communal identities of farmers. It is worth noting that some experts often regard communal and social identities as closely intertwined concepts [63]. This awareness has encouraged farmers to change their self-concept, farming practices, and lifestyle. Developing networks is a strategic approach Gen X farmers employ to overcome negative self-concepts. This phenomenon indicates a shift in the social identity of farmers. Initially, the identity of the farmer was primarily shaped by certain factors such as land ownership, physical strength, and the time spent working on the land [16]. The current emphasis lies on their social networks and roles within society. Contemporary farmers derive greater pride from being recognized as experts in specific fields. For example, participant HS is known as an integrated farmer, while SY derives joy in being known as an expert in potato nurseries. This shift highlights the increasing significance of mastery as a motivational factor for individuals pursuing a career in farming.

The transformation in the identity of Gen X farmers has led to a shift in their investment strategies. Instead of solely focusing on expanding their farms by investing in land assets, farmers are prioritizing social investments, such as developing strong social networks and investing in innovative technologies to maximize their endeavours. Several factors contributed to this change in the communal identity among Gen X farmers. One key factor is the evolving knowledge systems within the farming community, in which changes have influenced social interactions among fellow farmers and the millennial generation. Additionally, the presence of new media platforms has played a significant role in shaping the perspectives of farmers. Finally, the agricultural system has undergone transformations due to the Industrial Revolution 4.0, further prompting farmers to adapt their investment strategies accordingly.

Other findings on communal identity show that the area of land owned does not affect the adoption of agriculture 4.0 practices. In order to overcome the limitations posed by smaller land areas, farmers have employed various strategies. These included collaborating with fellow farmers, actively seeking opportunities to enhance value, and using their communication skills and extensive networks to establish partnerships with diverse stakeholders. These findings challenge the prevailing notion put forth by Rogers [64] that higher income levels and larger land areas typically characterize innovations. It highlights the importance of competencies such as the ability to effectively process information from multiple sources instead of solely relying on income or land size in driving innovation and adoption within the farming community.

In addition to introducing new findings, this study supports several existing investigations on farmer identity. One significant trend observed among millennial and Gen X farmers is their intentional focus on enhancing the visual aspects of their farming businesses to strengthen their identities. Such a phenomenon was also found in the study by Riley [23], where the visual appearance of farmers is one of the key factors influencing the construction of farmer identity. The present study revealed some nuanced differences in terms of compromises made in relation to agricultural machinery skills. While the study by Riley primarily highlighted that older farmers were more likely to make compromises in this regard, the current one reported that many millennial farmers also make compromises in terms of their proficiency with agricultural machinery.

The results of this study are in line with the findings of McGuire et al. [21], who identified a feedback loop between desirable farmer roles, social identity, and behavioural changes towards conservation management. In a similar vein, this study uncovered a feedback loop between the importance of agriculture, social identity, and behavioural changes observed among millennial and Gen X farmers towards adopting innovative agricultural practices aimed at optimizing yields and promoting environmental sustainability.

This study supports the findings of Xie [15] regarding new farmer identity in the post-productivism era. It reported that these individuals are actively engaged in reinforcing their identities by establishing new boundaries to distinguish themselves from the stereotypes associated with traditional farming while promoting discourses of being elite farmers. In the present study, farmers accomplished this differentiation by assuming various social roles, such as sociopreneurs, agropreneurs, and influencers. This finding also complements the observations made by Xie [15] regarding the new generation of farmers, who perceive themselves as versatile individuals referred to as jacks of all trades. Similarly, the millennial farmers in this study also embrace this multifaceted self-perception, as evidenced by their adoption of multiple identities.

This study has identified both limitations and opportunities for future investigations. Although it sheds light on the transformation of farmer identity, it should be noted that the role of stakeholders who interact with farmers and contribute to these identity changes has not been extensively examined. While this study delves into the personal and social identity shifts experienced by farmers, particularly in their work identity as they transition from conventional and traditional agriculture to Agriculture 4.0, there are still avenues for future exploration. Specifically, future studies could investigate the impact of stakeholders on the changes in farmer identity. This would involve examining how external factors and interactions shape and influence the evolution of farmer identity. Exploring the broader implications of these identity changes, such as the potential shifts in the social class of farmers following the implementation of Agriculture 4.0, presents an intriguing avenue for further investigation.

The importance of communication competence highlights the necessity for further studies exploring the competitive nature of farmers in other aspects. These should encompass the broader spectrum of managing farming as a business within the context of the agricultural ecosystem 4.0. Additionally, the identification of farmer competencies in the present study serves as a foundation for a future investigation aimed at modelling the enhancement of these attributes and developing non-formal education curricula that could effectively improve the skills of farmers, enabling them to become more adaptive and professional in their agricultural practices.

5 Conclusion

In conclusion, being a consistent farmer in the era of Agriculture 4.0 poses significant challenges because the concept of farming is no longer static but adaptable to the prevailing context. Farmers encounter numerous obstacles in maintaining their identity, both internally, such as identity conflicts, and externally, in their interactions with other stakeholders in the agricultural system. These challenges encompass heightened consumer awareness of food quality, evolving internet-based communication systems, and establishing new relationships with other interested parties in agriculture. Consequently, farmers find themselves in a constant struggle, negotiating their identities amidst these challenges. This study finds the correlation between farmers and knowledge and technology sources in the process of maintaining and enhancing their identity. The connectedness of farmers with these sources of knowledge and technology leads to the adoption of various social roles and the development of social networks that impact their identity changes. Therefore, it is crucial to provide farmers with support in terms of information communication technology, access to IT, and innovative agricultural practices. This study offered practical implications concerning farmers’ competence in the era of Agriculture 4.0. These implications underscore the organizational skills, problem-solving abilities, creative thinking skills, partnership building, collaboration, and effective communication of farmers. They are encouraged to be open, courageous, confident, highly motivated, flexible, optimistic, empathetic, and proficient in mastering ICT. To address these needs, agricultural programs should prioritize farmer capacity building through training, apprenticeships, and the promotion of learning communities. Additionally, expanding farmer extension services and support through social media platforms is essential for disseminating information and assisting farmers in adapting to the evolving agricultural landscape in the digital era.

Nomenclature

Bargaining situation

a tug-of-war situation when an identity is raised or enforced

Farming quality

a more quality way of farming seen from its productivity, level of efficiency and pro-environmental

Identity gap

a clash between the identities that are enforced

Information support

support in the form of the availability of information on agricultural technology, innovation, markets, capital, and other information needed by farmers.

Media support

support in the form of information and communication media accessibility

Millennial farmers

the generation of millennial farmers born around 1980–1995

Identity negotiation

efforts made to find a balance of identity or efforts to overcome identity issues.

Negotiation partners

other parties who conflict or are not in line with the farmer’s identity.

Gen X farmer

the older generation of farmers born between 1965 and1976.

Social support

support that comes from the primary (family) and secondary (community) environment