Banner
Current IssueEditorial BoardOnline First ArticlesArchive
Current IssueEditorial BoardOnline First ArticlesArchive

Full Research Article

Farmers Perception Towards Drivers and Barriers of Farm Diversification in Punjab and Tamil Nadu: A Comparative Study

G
Gokulnath V.1
R
Rakesh Rathore1,*
1School of Business Studies, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana-141 004, Punjab, India.

  • Submitted16-05-2025|

  • Accepted01-09-2025|

  • First Online 10-10-2025|

  • doi 10.18805/BKAP850

ABSTRACT

Background: Diversification of farm is important in agriculture. The present study focuses on farmers’ perception and barriers towards farm diversification. This study aims to analyse farmers’ perception towards drivers and barriers of farm diversification in Punjab and Tamil Nadu.

Methods: Primary data was collected through pre-structure and pre-tested questionnaire. Multistage sampling technique was used for the selection of the respondents. Data were collected from 120 farmers 60 from Punjab and 60 from Tamil Nadu. Mean, frequency, one sample t-test and independent sample t-test was used for the analysis of the collected data.

Result: Results of study revealed that good irrigation facilities and fixed assets (4.37), knowledge and farming experience (4.43) followed by new and modern production technology (4.10), opportunities to participate in extension activities (4.15) reported important drivers of farm diversification in Punjab and Tamil Nadu respectively. Lack of storage and processing facilities (4.48), (4.63) and market instability and demand variability (4.15), (4.32) reported important barriers of farm diversification in Punjab and Tamil Nadu respectively.

INTRODUCTION

Agriculture provides livelihoods to millions of the population in the nation. India’s diverse agro-climatic conditions facilitate the production of a wide array of agricultural commodities. Farm diversification comprises of moving resources from monoculture to a wide variety of crops and livestock, as well as changing the crop mix, activity mix and enterprise mix at the farm and household levels (Das and Nath, 2019). Farm diversification aims mainly to raise production, lower risk and boost income of the farmers. It is also essential for ensuring food security, protecting natural resources and fostering sustainable growth in rural regions (Das et al., 2023). Most primary stakeholders’ overall face challenges with farm income and profitability so diversification regarded as a significant motivator from an income and lifestyle standpoint (Jack et al., 2021). A certain level of risk is involved in the choice to diversify a farm and farmers must consider a number of criteria (Northcote and Alonso, 2011). People are either opportunity driven pulled into a new business enterprise by job and life happiness or pushed or necessity into a commercial activity (Jack et al., 2021). The most farmers held a favourable view, ranging from moderate to high, towards diversification (Lavanya et al., 2012). In addition to perception of farmers towards the factors which influence the farm diversification differs from farmers in different regions. In this context, the study on perception of farmers towards drivers and barriers of farm diversification in Punjab and Tamil Nadu: a comparative study was undertaken with aims to study the perception of drivers and barriers towards farm diversification among the farmers.

Review of literature
 
Recognising diversification as an evolution impacted by market potential, risk assessment, lifestyle preferences and economic need requires assessing both diversified and non-diversifying farmers (Northcote and Alonso, 2011). Most farmers are risk adverse and see droughts, pests, floods and excessive rains as major risks to their enterprises (Ullah et al., 2015). Increased risk perception, risk aversion and economic motivations are common traits of farmers who vary their cropping patterns (Mutaqin and Usami, 2020). Farm size, age and education level, farming experience, off-farm income, distance and access to farm machinery were significantly influencing diversification decisions (Ashfaq et al., 2008). Pillai and Radhakrishnan (2024) revealed that maize and finger millet were suitable as intercrops in coconut garden. Both push factors like external shocks and pull factors including market opportunities that guide diversification (Henke and Vanni, 2017). Primary market access drives diversification where irrigation, fertilizers and mechanization limits diversification and leads to specialization towards high value crops (Kumar et al., 2018). Continued technological and partial input support has significantly improved the famer’s income (Chaudhary et al., 2024). The farm household income has a positive relation with farm assets, diversification and education level (Kumar et al., 2019). Factors such as household head’s age, access to credit, technical assistance, regional characteristics, market access and active women involvement positively influence on-farm diversification (Rehan et al., 2017). Lack of awareness and restricted economic prospects might be important causes (Memon et al., 2020). There were multiple obstacles to diversification, such as fragmented landholdings and outdated apple orchards and necessary interventions are required for sustainable agricultural development (Sharma, 2011). Farms with greater debt asset ratio, farm in metropolitan areas, older farm operators and farm household with off-farm farm income are less likely to diversify (Mishra et al., 2004). Key challenges to farm diversification included the lack of support prices and high credit needs (Singh et al., 2009). Rani et al. (2025) educated farmers were more likely to notice changes in the climate and might adapt mitigating measures easily, improving farmers’ education and offering free extension advices are crucial in boosting their response to climate change and promoting adaptation and improving livestock production. Geographic and infrastructural barriers also limit non-farm employment opportunities (Ghimire et al., 2014). Lack of effective marketing channels, insufficient finance for new ventures, inadequate information about different enterprises, the need for better market facilities, improved access to institutional credit for small farmers and the need of trainings to disseminate information about agricultural diversification are the major factors which limit the diversification (Rai et al., 2015). Poor market access, market instability, limited government support and relatively high input costs reduce the rate of diversification (Burchfield and Poterie, 2018). Agricultural diversification has been stressed at the national level as a strategy for increasing income and creating employment (Devi and Sharma, 2022). Enhancing market accessibility, supporting vulnerable groups like young and women farmers and improving literacy will boost income diversification and reduce rural poverty (Kwizera, 2021). 

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The population of the study consists of all farmers from Ludhiana and Jalandhar, in Punjab and Namakkal and Dindigul in Tamil Nadu. Multistage sampling was used for the selection of the respondents. Where first selection of state followed by district, block and villages. As multistage sampling break down the sampling process into multiple stages making it more dispersed group representative. Two district of Punjab (namely Ludhiana and Jalandhar) and two district of Tamil Nadu namely (Namakkal and Dindigul) were selected conveniently. A total of 120 famers were selected (60 farmers from Punjab and 60 from Tamil Nadu and 30 from each district). The data was collected through a well-designed, pre-structured and pre-tested questionnaire. A literature review of previous studies was considered for the preparation of the questionnaire. The questionnaire contains questions related to demographics, age, educational qualification, number of family members, total income of the family and size of the farm land, experience in farming, farm diversification adoption, type of diversification activities adopted, drivers and barriers of farm diversification. The questions in the questionnaire were structured as scale-based questions on drivers and barriers of farm diversification. Respondents were asked about their agreement or disagreement on a five-point Likert scale (5 = strongly agree, 4 = agree, 3 = neutral, 2 = disagree and 1 = strongly disagree). Questions were examined and corrected several times before undergoing a pilot study with a group of ten respondents. Data was collected during the months of February-March, 2024. The mean, frequency, per cent, one sample t-test and independent sample t-test were used for the analysis of the collected data. This study is part of student research project of Master of Business Administration in Agribusiness at School of Business Studies, Punjab Agricultural University Ludhiana.
               
Table 1 depict statements included in the questionnaire. These statements synthesized from the previous published studies. The review of literature is helpful for identified the statement related to the study objectives.  

Table 1: List of items included in the questionnaire.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The demographic profile of the farmers includes age of the farmers, education, income, number of family members, farming experience, farm size etc. 
       
Table 2 depicted majority (26.70%) of the farmers’ age groups was 41-50 years in Punjab and Tamil Nadu followed by 31.40 years age group. Majority of the farmers (43.30%) had middle school education in Punjab and (35%) had primary school education in Tamil Nadu. In farmers family majority (43.30%) had 3-4 family members in Punjab and (36.70%) in Tamil Nadu. Majority of the farmers (31.70%) had 1-2 hectare farm size in Punjab and (43.30%) in Tamil Nadu, followed by 2-4 hectare farm size. Majority of the farmers (30%) had 12-20 years farming experience in Punjab and (43.30%) farmers had more than 20 years’  in Tamil Nadu. Majority (53.30%) farmers’ annual income was Rs. 1-4 lakhs in Punjab and (51.60%) of farmers income was up to Rs. 1 lakh in Tamil Nadu.

Table 2: Demographic profile of the respondents (n = 120).


       
Table 3 revealed willingness to adopt farm diversification. It can be seen from the Table 3 that (61.70%) not willing to adopt and (38.30%) willing to adopt farm diversification in Punjab. In Tamil Nadu (73.3%) farmers willing to adopt farm diversification while (26.70%) not willing to adopt farm diversification. Anjaly and Ajith (2025) concluded that there is a significant gap between the potential of intercropping and its adoption on a larger scale by Indian growers.

Table 3: Willing to adopt farm diversification (n = 120).


       
Table 4 show that perception of famers towards drivers of farm diversification in Punjab and Tamil Nadu. In Punjab, most of the farmers perceives good irrigation facilities and fixed assets (4.37) followed by new and modern production technology (4.10) (Kumar et al., 2018; Kumar et al., 2019) followed by subsidies in buying inputs (4.02) followed by access to local market (3.97) followed by improved family income and livelihood stability (3.96) followed by knowledge about farm diversification and farming experience (3.88) and followed by credit availability for buying farm inputs (3.85) as significant drivers for farm diversification while in Tamil Nadu, knowledge about farm diversification and farming experience (4.43) followed by opportunities to participate in extension activities (4.15), access to market information (4.05) availability of organized buyers (3.92) good irrigation facilities and fixed assets (3.91) and followed by access to local market (3.88) were perceived as significant barriers by the famers. Gummagolmath et al., (2020) revealed that facilitating the farmers with the other input services and capability building programme on various improved technologies motivate the farmers to shift from the cereals based cropping systems to vegetables and fruits based cropping system. It increases the farmer’s income which indirectly reflected in the change of their lifestyle and increase in economic status. Kumar et al., (2010) concluded that high-value crops have a significant comparative advantage over staple food crops; these are prone to higher production and price risks. Ray (2022) points out that the Birbhum district has a fairly diversified pallet of crops as the mean value of crop diversification indices is (00.64).

Table 4: Farmers perception towards drivers of farm diversification (n = 120).


       
Table 5 show lack of storage and processing facilities (4.48) and (4.63) reported imported barriers of farm diversification in both states Punjab and Tamil Nadu respectively, followed by market instability and demand variability (4.15) (Burchfield and Poterie, 2018; Rehan et al., 2017) and (4.32), lack of knowledge and access to information (4.03) finding in support of finding of (Memon et al., 2020) and (3.83) respectively. Limited government supports (2.25) engagement in off-farm income source (2.15) and lack of access to the crop varieties (2.63) reported least barriers of farm diversification in Punjab and Tamil Nadu respectively. Mondal et al., (2025) revealed the level of knowledge in recommended scientific fish farming, (38.33%) of the respondents fell into the medium category, followed by (34.17%) who possessed a high level of knowledge. Rai (2022) concluded personal factors consisted of personal interest and satisfaction of farmers resulting from farming while physical factors consist of hard work and lack of resources along with hazardous working conditions in farming.

Table 5: Barriers of farm diversification.


       
Table 6 revealed comparison of the perception of farmers towards the drivers of farm diversification in Punjab and Tamil Nadu. The results showed there are significance difference (p-value =<0.001) in perception of farmers of Punjab and Tamil Nadu towards drivers of farm diversification.

Table 6: Comparison of perception of farmers’ towards the drivers of farm diversification in Punjab (n=60) and Tamil Nadu (n=60).

CONCLUSION

The study analyses perception of farmers towards drivers and barriers of farm diversification. Good irrigation facilities and fixed assets, new and modern production technology were important drivers of farm diversification in Punjab and Tamil Nadu. Farmers perceived that knowledge of farm diversification and farming experience and opportunities to participate in extension activities were important drivers of farm diversification. Lack of storage and processing facilities followed by market instability and demand variability followed by lack of knowledge and adequate market access were important barriers of farm diversification in Punjab and Tamil Nadu.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Authors are thankful to Director School of Business Studies, PAU and advisory members for their guidance and support during the study.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

REFERENCES


  1. Aheibam, M. and Singh, R. (2017). Measuring the intensity of factors accelerating crop diversification using Heckman two stage model: A micro level study in Thoubal district of Manipur. Indian Journal of Agriculture Economics. 72: 576-587.

  2. Anjaly, V., Ajith, A. (2025). The sweet gains of diversification: A review of intercropping benefits in sugarcane farming. Agricultural Reviews. 46(4): 585-593. doi: 10.18805/ag.R-2674.

  3. Anwer, M.E., Sahoo, B.K. and Mohapatra, S. (2019). Spatio-temporal variations in agricultural diversification in India: Determinants and convergence. Journal of Agribusiness in Developing and Emerging Economy. 9: 476-502.

  4. Ashfaq, M., Hassan, S., Naseer, M.Z., Baig, I.A. and Asma, J. (2008). Factors affecting farm diversification in rice-wheat. Pakistan Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 45(3): 91-94.

  5. Ali, J. (2015) Adoption of diversification for risk management in vegetable cultivation. International Journal of Vegetables Sciences. 21(1): 9-20. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/ link_gateway/2015IJVS...21....9A/doi:10.1080/19315260. 2013.813891.

  6. Bowman, M.S. and Zilberman, D. (2013) Economic factors affecting diversified farming systems. Ecology Society. 18: 33.

  7. Burchfield, E.K. and de la Poterie, A.T. (2018). Determinants of crop diversification in rice-dominated Sri Lankan agricultural systems. Journal of Rural Studies. 61: 206-215.

  8. Chaudhary, D., Rana, S., Bhushan, L., Kumar S, Sharma, P., Kumar, P. and Gautam, U. (2024). Farming system diversification: An insight on strengthening the livelihood in a hilly ecosystem. The Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 94(3-1): 34-40.

  9. Das, P.K. and Nath, R. (2019). A comparative study of diversification of agriculture in bongaigaon district between pre-globalization and post-globalization years. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Studies. 6(3): 75-84.

  10. Das, S., Darshan N.P. and Patra, S. (2023). Agricultural Diversification: Necessity, Drivers and Future Prospects. Emerging trends in Agricultural Extension Education. pp.102-113

  11. Daudu, A.K., Oladipo F.O., Olatinwo, L.K., Kareem O.W. and Dolapo, T.A. (2019).  Differences in food crop diversification between male and female smallholder farmers in Kwara State, Nigeria. Journal of Agriculture Extension. 23: 1-9.

  12. Devi N., Sharma K. (2022). Agricultural diversification and its impact on income and employment of the farmers: A review. Bhartiya Krishi Anusandhan Patrika. 37(3): 216-221. doi: 10.18805/BKAP531.

  13. Felix, K.T. and Ramappa, K.B. (2023). An economic analysis of crop diversification and dynamics of cropping pattern in Karnataka, India. Humanity and Social Sciences Community. 10: 1-9

  14. Ghimire, R., Huang, W.C. and Shrestha, R.B. (2014). Factors affecting non-farm income diversification among rural farm house- holds in central Nepal. International Journal of Agricultural Management and Development. 4(2): 123 - 132.

  15. Ghouse, L.M. and Hassan, S.N. (2020) Attitude of farmers towards crop diversification. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences. 9(9): 2305-2308. https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2020.909.287.

  16. Gummagolmath, K.C, Bhawar, R.S, Ramya, Lakshmi, S.B. and Patra, P. (2020). Impact of crop diversification on farmers socioe- conomic conditions of the farmers: A case of Himachal Pradesh. Research Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 11(1): 137-143.

  17. Henke, R. and Vanni, F. (2017). Drivers of on-farm diversification in the Italian peri-urban agriculture. Italian Review of Agricultural Economics. 72(1): 79-100.

  18. Jack, C., Ashfield, A., Adenuga A.H. and Mullan, C. (2021). Farm diversification: Drivers, barriers and future growth potential. Euro Choices. 20(2): 70-75.

  19. Jack, C., Adenuga,  A.H., Ashfield, A. and Mullan, C. (2021). Understanding the drivers and motivations of farm diversification: Evidence from Northern Ireland using a mixed methods approach. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation. 22(3): 161-176.

  20. Kumar, A. Kumar, P. and Sharma, A.N (2012) Crop diversification in eastern India: Status and determinants. Indian Journal of Agriculture Economics. 67(4): 600-616.

  21. Kurdys-Kujawaska, A., Zawadzka, D. and Sompolska-Rzechuła, A. (2018). The probability of farm’s diversification-on the example of Central Pomerania in Poland. Bulgarian Journal of Agricultural Science. 24: 171-179.

  22. Kumar, A., Singh R.K.P, Kumar, A., Kumar, U, Jha A.K. and Kumar, P. (2019). Dynamics and determinants of farm household income in Bihar: Evidence from panel data of selected villages. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 89(11): 1890-1894.

  23. Kumar, S, Kumar S, Chahal, V.P and Singh, D.R. (2018). Trends and determinants of crop diversification in Uttar Pradesh.  Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 88(11): 1704-1708.

  24. Kwizera, E.E. (2021). Drivers of Rural income diversification in developing countries: Case study of Burundi. Journal of Agricultural Extension, Economics and Sociology. 39(4): 32-58.

  25. Khan, W., Jamshed, M, Fatima, S. and Dhamija, A. (2020). Determinants of income diversification of farm households in Uttar Pradesh India. Forum for Social Economics. 49(4): 465-483. https:// doi.org/10.1080/07360932.2019.1666728.

  26. Kumar, P., Parappurathu, S., Raju, S. and Kumar, A. (2010) Factor demand, output supply elasticities and supply projections for major crops of India. Agricultural Economics Research Reviews. 23(1): 1-14

  27. Lavanya, P., Ravichandran, V. and Anamica M. (2012). Attitude of dryland farmers towards farm diversification. Journal of Extension Education. 24(2): 4827.

  28. Memon, M.H, Ali, M. and Khalil, S. (2020). Determinants of income diversification in flood-prone rural Pakistan. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction. 50: 101914.

  29. Mishra, A.K, El Osta H.S and Sandretto, C.L. (2004). Factors affecting farm enterprise diversification. Agricultural Finance Review. 64(2): 151-166.

  30. Mondal, Hannan, A., Dana Sundar, S., Sarkar Ray, M., Kavi, S., Karjee. R., Rej, N. (2025). Knowledge level and extent of adoption of scientific fish farming practices among members of fish Farmers Producer Organizations. Bhartiya Krishi Anusandhan Patrika. 40(1): 64-71. doi: 10.18805/BKAP753.

  31. Mutaqin, D.J. and Usami, K. (2020). Rice farmer risk management by cropping pattern diversification in Rural West Java: Motivation, behaviour and perception. The Journal of Indonesia Sustainable Development Planning. 1(1): 1-19.

  32. Neogi, S. and Ghosh, B.K. (2022). Evaluation of crop diversification on Indian farming practices: A panel regression approach. Sustainability. 14: 16861

  33. Northcote, J. and Alonso, A.D. (2011). Factors underlying farm diversification: The case of Western Australia’s olive farmers. Agriculture and Human Values. 28: 237-246.

  34. Pillai, S.P., Radhakrishnan, N.V. (2024) Crop diversification for enhanced productivity in the Southern Laterites of Kerala. Indian Journal of Agricultural Research. 58(3): 450- 455. doi: 10.18805/IJARe.A-6067.

  35. Rai, A., Sidhu, K, Sharma, P. (2022). Factors affecting perception of farm families towards farming as an occupation. Bhartiya Krishi Anusandhan Patrika. 37(4): 350-356. doi: 10.18805/BKAP583.

  36. Rai, S.K., Patel, G.R., Pandya, R.D. and Salunkhe, S.R. (2015). Constraints and suggestions perceived by respondents in agricultural diversification. Trends in Biosciences. 8(16): 4099-4102.

  37. Rani, S., Prasher, R.S, Mandial A., Shivani. (2025). Impact of climate change on livestock production in himachal pradesh: A case study of Hamirpur District of Himachal Pradesh. Bhartiya Krishi Anusandhan Patrika. 40(2): 242-246. doi: 10. 18805/BKAP740.

  38. Ray, P. (2022). Crop concentration and crop diversification in Birbhum district of West Bengal: Recent situations. Agricultural Reviews. 43(2): 255-259. doi: 10.18805/ag.R-2120.

  39. Rehan, S.F., Sumelius, J. and Backman, S. (2017). Determinants of on-farm diversification in Bangladesh. International Journal of Agricultural Resources, Governance and Ecology. 13(3): 294-313.

  40. Sen, B., Venkatesh, P., Jha G.K, Singh., D.R. and Suresh, A. (2017) Agricultural diversification and its impact on farm income: A case study of Bihar. Agriculture Economics Research Review. 30: 77-88

  41. Sharma, H.R. (2011). Crop diversification in Himachal Pradesh: Patterns, determinants and challenges. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics. 66(1): 97-114.

  42. Singh, J., Sharma, U.C., Chahal, V P. and Singh, S P. (2009). Farm diversification: Problems and prospects. Journal of Community Mobilization and Sustainable Development. 4(20): 76-79.

  43. Ullah, R., Shivakoti, G.P. and Ali, G. (2015). Factors effecting farmers’ risk attitude and risk perceptions: The case of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction. 13: 151-157.
Published In
Bhartiya Krishi Anusandhan Patrika
Article Metrics
Metrics Icon
0
Views
0
Citations
Reviewed By
Share Article
Download Article
In this Article
    Contact us
    Follow us

    Full Research Article

    Farmers Perception Towards Drivers and Barriers of Farm Diversification in Punjab and Tamil Nadu: A Comparative Study

    G
    Gokulnath V.1
    R
    Rakesh Rathore1,*
    1School of Business Studies, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana-141 004, Punjab, India.

    • Submitted16-05-2025|

    • Accepted01-09-2025|

    • First Online 10-10-2025|

    • doi 10.18805/BKAP850

    ABSTRACT

    Background: Diversification of farm is important in agriculture. The present study focuses on farmers’ perception and barriers towards farm diversification. This study aims to analyse farmers’ perception towards drivers and barriers of farm diversification in Punjab and Tamil Nadu.

    Methods: Primary data was collected through pre-structure and pre-tested questionnaire. Multistage sampling technique was used for the selection of the respondents. Data were collected from 120 farmers 60 from Punjab and 60 from Tamil Nadu. Mean, frequency, one sample t-test and independent sample t-test was used for the analysis of the collected data.

    Result: Results of study revealed that good irrigation facilities and fixed assets (4.37), knowledge and farming experience (4.43) followed by new and modern production technology (4.10), opportunities to participate in extension activities (4.15) reported important drivers of farm diversification in Punjab and Tamil Nadu respectively. Lack of storage and processing facilities (4.48), (4.63) and market instability and demand variability (4.15), (4.32) reported important barriers of farm diversification in Punjab and Tamil Nadu respectively.

    INTRODUCTION

    Agriculture provides livelihoods to millions of the population in the nation. India’s diverse agro-climatic conditions facilitate the production of a wide array of agricultural commodities. Farm diversification comprises of moving resources from monoculture to a wide variety of crops and livestock, as well as changing the crop mix, activity mix and enterprise mix at the farm and household levels (Das and Nath, 2019). Farm diversification aims mainly to raise production, lower risk and boost income of the farmers. It is also essential for ensuring food security, protecting natural resources and fostering sustainable growth in rural regions (Das et al., 2023). Most primary stakeholders’ overall face challenges with farm income and profitability so diversification regarded as a significant motivator from an income and lifestyle standpoint (Jack et al., 2021). A certain level of risk is involved in the choice to diversify a farm and farmers must consider a number of criteria (Northcote and Alonso, 2011). People are either opportunity driven pulled into a new business enterprise by job and life happiness or pushed or necessity into a commercial activity (Jack et al., 2021). The most farmers held a favourable view, ranging from moderate to high, towards diversification (Lavanya et al., 2012). In addition to perception of farmers towards the factors which influence the farm diversification differs from farmers in different regions. In this context, the study on perception of farmers towards drivers and barriers of farm diversification in Punjab and Tamil Nadu: a comparative study was undertaken with aims to study the perception of drivers and barriers towards farm diversification among the farmers.

    Review of literature
     
    Recognising diversification as an evolution impacted by market potential, risk assessment, lifestyle preferences and economic need requires assessing both diversified and non-diversifying farmers (Northcote and Alonso, 2011). Most farmers are risk adverse and see droughts, pests, floods and excessive rains as major risks to their enterprises (Ullah et al., 2015). Increased risk perception, risk aversion and economic motivations are common traits of farmers who vary their cropping patterns (Mutaqin and Usami, 2020). Farm size, age and education level, farming experience, off-farm income, distance and access to farm machinery were significantly influencing diversification decisions (Ashfaq et al., 2008). Pillai and Radhakrishnan (2024) revealed that maize and finger millet were suitable as intercrops in coconut garden. Both push factors like external shocks and pull factors including market opportunities that guide diversification (Henke and Vanni, 2017). Primary market access drives diversification where irrigation, fertilizers and mechanization limits diversification and leads to specialization towards high value crops (Kumar et al., 2018). Continued technological and partial input support has significantly improved the famer’s income (Chaudhary et al., 2024). The farm household income has a positive relation with farm assets, diversification and education level (Kumar et al., 2019). Factors such as household head’s age, access to credit, technical assistance, regional characteristics, market access and active women involvement positively influence on-farm diversification (Rehan et al., 2017). Lack of awareness and restricted economic prospects might be important causes (Memon et al., 2020). There were multiple obstacles to diversification, such as fragmented landholdings and outdated apple orchards and necessary interventions are required for sustainable agricultural development (Sharma, 2011). Farms with greater debt asset ratio, farm in metropolitan areas, older farm operators and farm household with off-farm farm income are less likely to diversify (Mishra et al., 2004). Key challenges to farm diversification included the lack of support prices and high credit needs (Singh et al., 2009). Rani et al. (2025) educated farmers were more likely to notice changes in the climate and might adapt mitigating measures easily, improving farmers’ education and offering free extension advices are crucial in boosting their response to climate change and promoting adaptation and improving livestock production. Geographic and infrastructural barriers also limit non-farm employment opportunities (Ghimire et al., 2014). Lack of effective marketing channels, insufficient finance for new ventures, inadequate information about different enterprises, the need for better market facilities, improved access to institutional credit for small farmers and the need of trainings to disseminate information about agricultural diversification are the major factors which limit the diversification (Rai et al., 2015). Poor market access, market instability, limited government support and relatively high input costs reduce the rate of diversification (Burchfield and Poterie, 2018). Agricultural diversification has been stressed at the national level as a strategy for increasing income and creating employment (Devi and Sharma, 2022). Enhancing market accessibility, supporting vulnerable groups like young and women farmers and improving literacy will boost income diversification and reduce rural poverty (Kwizera, 2021). 

    MATERIALS AND METHODS

    The population of the study consists of all farmers from Ludhiana and Jalandhar, in Punjab and Namakkal and Dindigul in Tamil Nadu. Multistage sampling was used for the selection of the respondents. Where first selection of state followed by district, block and villages. As multistage sampling break down the sampling process into multiple stages making it more dispersed group representative. Two district of Punjab (namely Ludhiana and Jalandhar) and two district of Tamil Nadu namely (Namakkal and Dindigul) were selected conveniently. A total of 120 famers were selected (60 farmers from Punjab and 60 from Tamil Nadu and 30 from each district). The data was collected through a well-designed, pre-structured and pre-tested questionnaire. A literature review of previous studies was considered for the preparation of the questionnaire. The questionnaire contains questions related to demographics, age, educational qualification, number of family members, total income of the family and size of the farm land, experience in farming, farm diversification adoption, type of diversification activities adopted, drivers and barriers of farm diversification. The questions in the questionnaire were structured as scale-based questions on drivers and barriers of farm diversification. Respondents were asked about their agreement or disagreement on a five-point Likert scale (5 = strongly agree, 4 = agree, 3 = neutral, 2 = disagree and 1 = strongly disagree). Questions were examined and corrected several times before undergoing a pilot study with a group of ten respondents. Data was collected during the months of February-March, 2024. The mean, frequency, per cent, one sample t-test and independent sample t-test were used for the analysis of the collected data. This study is part of student research project of Master of Business Administration in Agribusiness at School of Business Studies, Punjab Agricultural University Ludhiana.
                   
    Table 1 depict statements included in the questionnaire. These statements synthesized from the previous published studies. The review of literature is helpful for identified the statement related to the study objectives.  

    Table 1: List of items included in the questionnaire.

    RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

    The demographic profile of the farmers includes age of the farmers, education, income, number of family members, farming experience, farm size etc. 
           
    Table 2 depicted majority (26.70%) of the farmers’ age groups was 41-50 years in Punjab and Tamil Nadu followed by 31.40 years age group. Majority of the farmers (43.30%) had middle school education in Punjab and (35%) had primary school education in Tamil Nadu. In farmers family majority (43.30%) had 3-4 family members in Punjab and (36.70%) in Tamil Nadu. Majority of the farmers (31.70%) had 1-2 hectare farm size in Punjab and (43.30%) in Tamil Nadu, followed by 2-4 hectare farm size. Majority of the farmers (30%) had 12-20 years farming experience in Punjab and (43.30%) farmers had more than 20 years’  in Tamil Nadu. Majority (53.30%) farmers’ annual income was Rs. 1-4 lakhs in Punjab and (51.60%) of farmers income was up to Rs. 1 lakh in Tamil Nadu.

    Table 2: Demographic profile of the respondents (n = 120).


           
    Table 3 revealed willingness to adopt farm diversification. It can be seen from the Table 3 that (61.70%) not willing to adopt and (38.30%) willing to adopt farm diversification in Punjab. In Tamil Nadu (73.3%) farmers willing to adopt farm diversification while (26.70%) not willing to adopt farm diversification. Anjaly and Ajith (2025) concluded that there is a significant gap between the potential of intercropping and its adoption on a larger scale by Indian growers.

    Table 3: Willing to adopt farm diversification (n = 120).


           
    Table 4 show that perception of famers towards drivers of farm diversification in Punjab and Tamil Nadu. In Punjab, most of the farmers perceives good irrigation facilities and fixed assets (4.37) followed by new and modern production technology (4.10) (Kumar et al., 2018; Kumar et al., 2019) followed by subsidies in buying inputs (4.02) followed by access to local market (3.97) followed by improved family income and livelihood stability (3.96) followed by knowledge about farm diversification and farming experience (3.88) and followed by credit availability for buying farm inputs (3.85) as significant drivers for farm diversification while in Tamil Nadu, knowledge about farm diversification and farming experience (4.43) followed by opportunities to participate in extension activities (4.15), access to market information (4.05) availability of organized buyers (3.92) good irrigation facilities and fixed assets (3.91) and followed by access to local market (3.88) were perceived as significant barriers by the famers. Gummagolmath et al., (2020) revealed that facilitating the farmers with the other input services and capability building programme on various improved technologies motivate the farmers to shift from the cereals based cropping systems to vegetables and fruits based cropping system. It increases the farmer’s income which indirectly reflected in the change of their lifestyle and increase in economic status. Kumar et al., (2010) concluded that high-value crops have a significant comparative advantage over staple food crops; these are prone to higher production and price risks. Ray (2022) points out that the Birbhum district has a fairly diversified pallet of crops as the mean value of crop diversification indices is (00.64).

    Table 4: Farmers perception towards drivers of farm diversification (n = 120).


           
    Table 5 show lack of storage and processing facilities (4.48) and (4.63) reported imported barriers of farm diversification in both states Punjab and Tamil Nadu respectively, followed by market instability and demand variability (4.15) (Burchfield and Poterie, 2018; Rehan et al., 2017) and (4.32), lack of knowledge and access to information (4.03) finding in support of finding of (Memon et al., 2020) and (3.83) respectively. Limited government supports (2.25) engagement in off-farm income source (2.15) and lack of access to the crop varieties (2.63) reported least barriers of farm diversification in Punjab and Tamil Nadu respectively. Mondal et al., (2025) revealed the level of knowledge in recommended scientific fish farming, (38.33%) of the respondents fell into the medium category, followed by (34.17%) who possessed a high level of knowledge. Rai (2022) concluded personal factors consisted of personal interest and satisfaction of farmers resulting from farming while physical factors consist of hard work and lack of resources along with hazardous working conditions in farming.

    Table 5: Barriers of farm diversification.


           
    Table 6 revealed comparison of the perception of farmers towards the drivers of farm diversification in Punjab and Tamil Nadu. The results showed there are significance difference (p-value =<0.001) in perception of farmers of Punjab and Tamil Nadu towards drivers of farm diversification.

    Table 6: Comparison of perception of farmers’ towards the drivers of farm diversification in Punjab (n=60) and Tamil Nadu (n=60).

    CONCLUSION

    The study analyses perception of farmers towards drivers and barriers of farm diversification. Good irrigation facilities and fixed assets, new and modern production technology were important drivers of farm diversification in Punjab and Tamil Nadu. Farmers perceived that knowledge of farm diversification and farming experience and opportunities to participate in extension activities were important drivers of farm diversification. Lack of storage and processing facilities followed by market instability and demand variability followed by lack of knowledge and adequate market access were important barriers of farm diversification in Punjab and Tamil Nadu.

    ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

    Authors are thankful to Director School of Business Studies, PAU and advisory members for their guidance and support during the study.

    CONFLICT OF INTEREST

    All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

    REFERENCES


    1. Aheibam, M. and Singh, R. (2017). Measuring the intensity of factors accelerating crop diversification using Heckman two stage model: A micro level study in Thoubal district of Manipur. Indian Journal of Agriculture Economics. 72: 576-587.

    2. Anjaly, V., Ajith, A. (2025). The sweet gains of diversification: A review of intercropping benefits in sugarcane farming. Agricultural Reviews. 46(4): 585-593. doi: 10.18805/ag.R-2674.

    3. Anwer, M.E., Sahoo, B.K. and Mohapatra, S. (2019). Spatio-temporal variations in agricultural diversification in India: Determinants and convergence. Journal of Agribusiness in Developing and Emerging Economy. 9: 476-502.

    4. Ashfaq, M., Hassan, S., Naseer, M.Z., Baig, I.A. and Asma, J. (2008). Factors affecting farm diversification in rice-wheat. Pakistan Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 45(3): 91-94.

    5. Ali, J. (2015) Adoption of diversification for risk management in vegetable cultivation. International Journal of Vegetables Sciences. 21(1): 9-20. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/ link_gateway/2015IJVS...21....9A/doi:10.1080/19315260. 2013.813891.

    6. Bowman, M.S. and Zilberman, D. (2013) Economic factors affecting diversified farming systems. Ecology Society. 18: 33.

    7. Burchfield, E.K. and de la Poterie, A.T. (2018). Determinants of crop diversification in rice-dominated Sri Lankan agricultural systems. Journal of Rural Studies. 61: 206-215.

    8. Chaudhary, D., Rana, S., Bhushan, L., Kumar S, Sharma, P., Kumar, P. and Gautam, U. (2024). Farming system diversification: An insight on strengthening the livelihood in a hilly ecosystem. The Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 94(3-1): 34-40.

    9. Das, P.K. and Nath, R. (2019). A comparative study of diversification of agriculture in bongaigaon district between pre-globalization and post-globalization years. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Studies. 6(3): 75-84.

    10. Das, S., Darshan N.P. and Patra, S. (2023). Agricultural Diversification: Necessity, Drivers and Future Prospects. Emerging trends in Agricultural Extension Education. pp.102-113

    11. Daudu, A.K., Oladipo F.O., Olatinwo, L.K., Kareem O.W. and Dolapo, T.A. (2019).  Differences in food crop diversification between male and female smallholder farmers in Kwara State, Nigeria. Journal of Agriculture Extension. 23: 1-9.

    12. Devi N., Sharma K. (2022). Agricultural diversification and its impact on income and employment of the farmers: A review. Bhartiya Krishi Anusandhan Patrika. 37(3): 216-221. doi: 10.18805/BKAP531.

    13. Felix, K.T. and Ramappa, K.B. (2023). An economic analysis of crop diversification and dynamics of cropping pattern in Karnataka, India. Humanity and Social Sciences Community. 10: 1-9

    14. Ghimire, R., Huang, W.C. and Shrestha, R.B. (2014). Factors affecting non-farm income diversification among rural farm house- holds in central Nepal. International Journal of Agricultural Management and Development. 4(2): 123 - 132.

    15. Ghouse, L.M. and Hassan, S.N. (2020) Attitude of farmers towards crop diversification. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences. 9(9): 2305-2308. https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2020.909.287.

    16. Gummagolmath, K.C, Bhawar, R.S, Ramya, Lakshmi, S.B. and Patra, P. (2020). Impact of crop diversification on farmers socioe- conomic conditions of the farmers: A case of Himachal Pradesh. Research Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 11(1): 137-143.

    17. Henke, R. and Vanni, F. (2017). Drivers of on-farm diversification in the Italian peri-urban agriculture. Italian Review of Agricultural Economics. 72(1): 79-100.

    18. Jack, C., Ashfield, A., Adenuga A.H. and Mullan, C. (2021). Farm diversification: Drivers, barriers and future growth potential. Euro Choices. 20(2): 70-75.

    19. Jack, C., Adenuga,  A.H., Ashfield, A. and Mullan, C. (2021). Understanding the drivers and motivations of farm diversification: Evidence from Northern Ireland using a mixed methods approach. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation. 22(3): 161-176.

    20. Kumar, A. Kumar, P. and Sharma, A.N (2012) Crop diversification in eastern India: Status and determinants. Indian Journal of Agriculture Economics. 67(4): 600-616.

    21. Kurdys-Kujawaska, A., Zawadzka, D. and Sompolska-Rzechuła, A. (2018). The probability of farm’s diversification-on the example of Central Pomerania in Poland. Bulgarian Journal of Agricultural Science. 24: 171-179.

    22. Kumar, A., Singh R.K.P, Kumar, A., Kumar, U, Jha A.K. and Kumar, P. (2019). Dynamics and determinants of farm household income in Bihar: Evidence from panel data of selected villages. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 89(11): 1890-1894.

    23. Kumar, S, Kumar S, Chahal, V.P and Singh, D.R. (2018). Trends and determinants of crop diversification in Uttar Pradesh.  Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 88(11): 1704-1708.

    24. Kwizera, E.E. (2021). Drivers of Rural income diversification in developing countries: Case study of Burundi. Journal of Agricultural Extension, Economics and Sociology. 39(4): 32-58.

    25. Khan, W., Jamshed, M, Fatima, S. and Dhamija, A. (2020). Determinants of income diversification of farm households in Uttar Pradesh India. Forum for Social Economics. 49(4): 465-483. https:// doi.org/10.1080/07360932.2019.1666728.

    26. Kumar, P., Parappurathu, S., Raju, S. and Kumar, A. (2010) Factor demand, output supply elasticities and supply projections for major crops of India. Agricultural Economics Research Reviews. 23(1): 1-14

    27. Lavanya, P., Ravichandran, V. and Anamica M. (2012). Attitude of dryland farmers towards farm diversification. Journal of Extension Education. 24(2): 4827.

    28. Memon, M.H, Ali, M. and Khalil, S. (2020). Determinants of income diversification in flood-prone rural Pakistan. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction. 50: 101914.

    29. Mishra, A.K, El Osta H.S and Sandretto, C.L. (2004). Factors affecting farm enterprise diversification. Agricultural Finance Review. 64(2): 151-166.

    30. Mondal, Hannan, A., Dana Sundar, S., Sarkar Ray, M., Kavi, S., Karjee. R., Rej, N. (2025). Knowledge level and extent of adoption of scientific fish farming practices among members of fish Farmers Producer Organizations. Bhartiya Krishi Anusandhan Patrika. 40(1): 64-71. doi: 10.18805/BKAP753.

    31. Mutaqin, D.J. and Usami, K. (2020). Rice farmer risk management by cropping pattern diversification in Rural West Java: Motivation, behaviour and perception. The Journal of Indonesia Sustainable Development Planning. 1(1): 1-19.

    32. Neogi, S. and Ghosh, B.K. (2022). Evaluation of crop diversification on Indian farming practices: A panel regression approach. Sustainability. 14: 16861

    33. Northcote, J. and Alonso, A.D. (2011). Factors underlying farm diversification: The case of Western Australia’s olive farmers. Agriculture and Human Values. 28: 237-246.

    34. Pillai, S.P., Radhakrishnan, N.V. (2024) Crop diversification for enhanced productivity in the Southern Laterites of Kerala. Indian Journal of Agricultural Research. 58(3): 450- 455. doi: 10.18805/IJARe.A-6067.

    35. Rai, A., Sidhu, K, Sharma, P. (2022). Factors affecting perception of farm families towards farming as an occupation. Bhartiya Krishi Anusandhan Patrika. 37(4): 350-356. doi: 10.18805/BKAP583.

    36. Rai, S.K., Patel, G.R., Pandya, R.D. and Salunkhe, S.R. (2015). Constraints and suggestions perceived by respondents in agricultural diversification. Trends in Biosciences. 8(16): 4099-4102.

    37. Rani, S., Prasher, R.S, Mandial A., Shivani. (2025). Impact of climate change on livestock production in himachal pradesh: A case study of Hamirpur District of Himachal Pradesh. Bhartiya Krishi Anusandhan Patrika. 40(2): 242-246. doi: 10. 18805/BKAP740.

    38. Ray, P. (2022). Crop concentration and crop diversification in Birbhum district of West Bengal: Recent situations. Agricultural Reviews. 43(2): 255-259. doi: 10.18805/ag.R-2120.

    39. Rehan, S.F., Sumelius, J. and Backman, S. (2017). Determinants of on-farm diversification in Bangladesh. International Journal of Agricultural Resources, Governance and Ecology. 13(3): 294-313.

    40. Sen, B., Venkatesh, P., Jha G.K, Singh., D.R. and Suresh, A. (2017) Agricultural diversification and its impact on farm income: A case study of Bihar. Agriculture Economics Research Review. 30: 77-88

    41. Sharma, H.R. (2011). Crop diversification in Himachal Pradesh: Patterns, determinants and challenges. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics. 66(1): 97-114.

    42. Singh, J., Sharma, U.C., Chahal, V P. and Singh, S P. (2009). Farm diversification: Problems and prospects. Journal of Community Mobilization and Sustainable Development. 4(20): 76-79.

    43. Ullah, R., Shivakoti, G.P. and Ali, G. (2015). Factors effecting farmers’ risk attitude and risk perceptions: The case of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction. 13: 151-157.
    In this Article
      Contact us
      Follow us
      Published In
      Bhartiya Krishi Anusandhan Patrika

      Editorial Board

      View all (0)