10.57647/ijamad.2025.1504.21

Farmers’ intention to protect livelihood in coping with COVID-19, application of the protection motivation theory

Show Details XML PDF
  • Asghar Bagheri*1,
  • Naier Emami1,
  1. Department of Water Engineering and Agricultural Management, Faculty of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of Mohaghegh Ardabili, Ardabil, Iran
Categories

Received: 23-01-2025

Revised: 30-05-2025

Accepted: 30-05-2025

Published in Issue 31-12-2025

Copyright (c) 2025 Asqar Baqeri, Naier Emami (Author)

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

How to Cite

Bagheri, A., & Emami, N. (2025). Farmers’ intention to protect livelihood in coping with COVID-19, application of the protection motivation theory. International Journal of Agricultural Management and Development, 15(4). https://doi.org/10.57647/ijamad.2025.1504.21
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

PDF views: 7

Abstract

Covid-19 has rapidly developed into a global pandemic, causing the loss of many jobs, incomes, savings and production activities. The pandemic has affected farmers’ livelihoods due to lack of access to health services, labor, and the market for agricultural products. Several studies conducted on the management and containment of the pandemic however, the impact Covid-19 on famers’ livelihoods has not been well documented. This study employed the protection motivation theory (PMT) elucidate farmers’ intention to protect livelihood in coping with COVID-19. Methods. Survey research design was used. Using the multistage sampling method, a sample of 180 farmers from Meshkinshar County, Iran was selected for data collection. The PMT questionnaire was adapted based on the objectives of the study and used for data collection. Results. The five constructs of the PMT showed significant effects on and explained 88.5% of the variance in intention. This construct in turn explained 48.4% of the variance in behavior. Although farmers were highly motivated to protect their livelihoods (mean=3.86), they exhibited weak protective behavior (=2.79) as they were facing the pandemic for the first time, had limited health knowledge, and could not access extension services to diversify their sources of income. Respondents considered themselves vulnerable to Covid (=3.19). The pandemic had a severe impact on their livelihoods (=3.92), and they were worried about the impact (=3.94). The results also showed that Covid had a costly impact on livelihoods (=3.85). While response efficacy was critical to protecting livelihoods (=3.85), self-efficacy in coping with Covid-19 was low (=2.53). Extension courses are essential measures to promote farmers’ self-efficacy. Conclusion. The findings suggestion how health planners and extension services can design outreach programs to use health information for decision-making and diversifying their sources of income.

Keywords

  • COVID-19,
  • Rural livelihood,
  • Protection Motivation Theory (PMT)
PDF

References

  1. Wang C, Chudzicka-Czupała A, Grabowski, D, Pan R, Adamus K, Wan X, Hetnał M, Tan Y, Olszewska-Guizzo A, Xu L, McIntyre RS, Quek J, Ho R, Ho C. The association between physical and mental health and face mask use during the COVID-19 pandemic: A comparison of two countries with different views and practices. Front Psychiatry. 2020;11:569981. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2020.569981
  2. Huang C, Wang Y, Li X, Ren L, Zhao J, Hu Y, et al. Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China. Lancet. 2020;395(10223): 497e506, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30183-5
  3. World Health Organization (WHO). General’s opening remarks at the media briefing on COVID-19. Gen. Open. remarks media Brief. COVID-19. (2023). Retrieved online at: https://www.who.int/director-general/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-the-media-briefing-on-covid-19---11-march-2020
  4. Bashirian S, Jenabi E, Khazaei S, Barati M, Karimi-Shahanjarini A, Zareian S, Rezapur-Shahkolai F, Moeini B. Factors associated with preventive behaviors of COVID-19 among hospital staff in Iran in 2020: an application of the Protection Motivation Theory. J. Hosp. Infect. 2020;105,430-433, doi: 10.1016/j.jhin.2020.04.035
  5. Burdorf A, Porru F, Rugulies R. The COVID-19 (coronavirus) pandemic: consequences for occupational health. Scand. J. Work Environ. Health. (2020);46(3):229–30, https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.3893
  6. Ghasemi A. Consequences of Corona on the City and Future Urbanization, Journal of Assessment of Social Impacts. 2019;1(2): 227-253, [in Persian].
  7. Tran BX, Vu GT, Latkin CA, Pham HQ, Phan HT, Le HT, Ho RCM. Characterize health and economic vulnerabilities of workers to control the emergence of COVID-19 in an industrial zone in Vietnam. Saf. Sci. 2020;129:104811, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2020.104811
  8. Asegie AM, Adisalem AT, Eshetu AA. The effects of COVID-19 on livelihoods of rural households: South Wollo and Oromia Zones, Ethiopia, Heliyon. 2021;7(12):e08550, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e08550
  9. Bukari C, Aning‑Agyei MA, Kyeremeh C, Essilfie G, Amuquandoh KF, Owusu AA, Otoo IC, Bukari KI. Effect of COVID‑19 on Household Food Insecurity and Poverty: Evidence from Ghana, Soc. Indic. Res. 2022;159: 991–1015, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-021-02766-9
  10. Mouloudj K, Bouarar AC, Fechit H. The impact of COVID-19 pandemic on food security. Les Cahiers du Cread. 2020;36(3):159–184.
  11. Rasul G. Twin challenges of COVID-19 pandemic and climate change for agriculture and food security in South Asia. Environ. Challenges. 2021;2:100027, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envc.2021.100027
  12. Harris J, Depenbusch L, Pal AA, Nair RM, Ramasamy S. Food system disruption: initial livelihood and dietary effects of COVID-19 on vegetable producers in India. Food Secur. 2020;12(4):841–851, DOI:10.1007/s12571-020-01064-5
  13. Kansiime MK, Tambo JA, Mugambi I, Bundi M, Kara A, Owuor C. COVID- 19 Implications on Household Income and Food Security in Kenya and Uganda: Findings from a Rapid Assessment. World Dev. 2021;137:105199, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105199
  14. Aromolaran AB, Muyanga M. Impact of COVID-19 on agriculture, food systems, and rural livelihoods in Eastern Africa. In: Agricultural Policy Research in Africa (APRA). Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. 2020.
  15. Khatri D, Marquardt K, Fischer H, Khatri S, Singh D, Poudel DP. Why is farming important for rural livelihood security in the global south? COVID-19 and changing rural livelihoods in Nepal’s mid-hills. Front. Hum. Dyn. 2023;5:1143700. doi: 10.3389/fhumd.2023.1143700
  16. Griffin B, Conner M, Norman P. Applying an extended protection motivation theory to predict Covid-19 vaccination intentions and uptake in 50–64-year-old in the UK. Soc. Sci. Med. 2022;298:114819. doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.114819
  17. Rogers RW. Cognitive and physiological processes in fear appeals and attitude change: a revised theory of protection motivation. In: Cacioppo, J.T., Petty, R.E. (Eds.), Social Psychophysiology: A Source Book. Guilford Press, New York. 1983;153–176.
  18. Bagherzadeh M, Salehi L, Mahmoodi Z. Investigating preventive health behaviours against COVID-19 in elementary school students’ parents: A cross-sectional study from Tehran – Capital of Iran, Journal of Education and Health Promotion. 30,10:435, doi: 10.4103/jehp.jehp_58_21.
  19. Lin C, Tu P, Beitsch LM. Confidence and receptivity for Covid-19 vaccines: a rapid systematic review. Vaccines. 2021;9:1–32, https://doi.org/10.3390/ vaccines9010016
  20. Soon .M, Vanany I, Abdul Wahab IR, Sani NA, Hamdan RH, Jamaludin MH. Protection Motivation Theory and consumers’ food safety behavior in response to COVID-19. Food Control. 2022;138:109029. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2022.109029
  21. Norman P, Boer H, Seydel ER, Mullan B. Protection motivation theory. In: Conner, M., Norman, P. (Eds.), Predicting and Changing Health Behavior: Research and Practice with Social Cognition Models, third ed. Open University Press, Buckingham. 2015:70–106.
  22. Xiaon Q, Liu X, Wang R, Mao Y, Chen H, Li X, Liu X, Dai J, Gao J, Fu H, Zheng P. Predictors of willingness to receive the COVID-19 vaccine after emergency use authorization: The role of coping appraisal. Vaccines. 2023;9:967, doi:10.3390/vaccines9090967.
  23. Lahiri A, Jha SS, Chakraborty A, Dobe M, Dey A. Role of Threat and Coping Appraisal in Protection Motivation for Adoption of Preventive Behavior During COVID-19 Pandemic. Front. Public Health. 202:9:678566, doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2021.678566
  24. Liu C, Sun CK, Chang YC, Yang SY, Liu T, Yang CC. The Impact of the Fear of COVID-19 on Purchase Behavior of Dietary Supplements: Integration of the Theory of Planned Behavior and the Protection Motivation Theory. Sustainability. 2021;13:12900. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132212900
  25. Ansari-Moghaddam A, Seraji M, Sharafi Z, Mohammadi M, Okati-Aliabad H. The protection motivation theory for predict intention of COVID-19 vaccination in Iran: a structural equation modeling approach. BMC Publ. Health. 2021;21:1165. https:// doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-11134-8.
  26. Stangier U, Kananian S, Schüller J. Perceived vulnerability to disease, knowledge about COVID-19, and changes in preventive behavior during lockdown in a German convenience sample. Curr. Psychol. 2022;41(10):7362-7370. doi: 10.1007/s12144-021-01456-6.
  27. Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE. Multivariate Data
  28. Analysis. 6th Edn. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2006.
  29. Fornell C, Larcker DF. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research. 1981;18(1):39–50. https:// doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104
  30. Kline RB. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford Press, 2011.
  31. Teo TSH, Srivastava SC, Jiang L. Trust and electronic government success: an empirical study. Manage. Inf. Syst. 2008;25(3):99–132. https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222250303
  32. Henseler J, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J. Acad. Market. Sci. 2015;43:115–35. doi: 10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
  33. Grano C, Singh Solorzano C, Di Pucchio A. Predictors of protective behaviors during the Italian Covid-19 pandemic: An application of protection motivation theory. Psychology & Health. 2022;37:1584–604. https://doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2022.2062355
  34. Yazdanpanah M, Komendantova N, Ekenberg L, Al-Salaymeh A. (eds.) Addressing the Effects of COVID-19 on Rural Areas in Low- and Middle-Income Countries. Lausanne: Frontiers Media SA. 2022. doi: 10.3389/978-2-83250-788-9
  35. Andarge E, Fikadu T, Temesgen R, Shegaze M, Feleke T, Haile F, et al. Intention and practice on personal preventive measures against the COVID-19 pandemic among adults with chronic conditions in Southern Ethiopia: a survey using the theory of planned behavior. J. multidiscip. healthc. 2020;13:1863-77. doi: 10.2147/jmdh. s284707.
  36. Mortada E, Abdel-Azeem A, Al Showair A, Zalat MM. Preventive behaviors towards Covid-19 pandemic among healthcare providers in Saudi Arabia using the protection motivation theory. Risk Manag Healthc Policy. 2021;14:685-94. https://doi.org/10.2147/RMHP.S289837
  37. Hale N, Meit M, Pettyjohn S, Wahlquist A, Loos M. The Implications of Long COVID for Rural Communities. J. Rural Health. 2002;1-3. https://doi.org/10.1111/jrh.12655.
  38. Pu M, Zhong Y. Rising concerns over agricultural production as COVID-19 spreads: lessons from China. Glob. Food Secur. 2020;26:1000409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2020.100409
  39. Swinnen J, McDermott J. Covid-19 and global food security. EuroChoices. 2020;19(3):26–33. https://doi.org/10.1111/1746-692X.12288
  40. Mueller JT, McConnell K, Burow PB, Pofahl K, Merdjanoff AA, Farrell J. Impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on rural America. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2021;118(1):2019378118. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2019378118
  41. Ezati Rad R, Mohseni SH, Kamalzadeh Takhti H, Hassani Azad M, Shahabi N, Aghamolaei T, Norozian F. Application of the protection motivation theory for predicting COVID-19 preventive behaviors in Hormozgan, Iran: a cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health. 2021;21:466. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-10500-w.
  42. Zahnd WE, Scaife SL, Francis ML. Health literacy skills in rural and urban populations. Am J Health Behav. 2009;33(5):550-557. doi:10.5993/ajhb.33.5.8. PMID: 19296745.
  43. Sadri M, Barati M, Borzouei SH, Bashirian S., Khazaei S, Jenabi S, Zareian S. COVID-19 Preventive Behaviors and Related Beliefs Among Diabetics: The Use of Protection Motivation Theory. J. educ. community health. 2022. doi:10.34172/jech.2022.1829
  44. Coluccia B, Agnusdei GP, Miglietta PP, deLeo F. Effects of COVID-19 on the Italian agrifood supply and value chains. Food Control. 2021;123:107839. doi: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2020.107839
  45. Ling M, Kothe EJ, Mullan BA. Predicting intention to receive a seasonal influenza vaccination using Protection Motivation Theory. Soc. Sci. Med. 2019;233:87‐92. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed. 06.002.
  46. Barati M, Bashirian S, Jenabi E, Khazaei S, Karimi Shahanjarini A, Zareian S, Rezapur Shahkolai F, Moeini B. Factors Associated with Preventive Behaviors of COVID-19 among Hospital Staff in Iran in 2020: An Application of the Protection Motivation Theory. J. Hosp. Infect. 2020. doi 10.1016/j.jhin.2020.04.035.
  47. Safra L, Sijilmassi A, Chevallier C. Disease, perceived infectability and threat reactivity: A COVID-19 study. Pers. Individ. Dif. 2021;180:110945, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2021.110945