A Sustainable Livelihood Approach: Understanding Determinants of Crop Preferences among Rural Farmers in Nanga Entabai, Sarawak

A Sustainable Livelihood Approach: Understanding Determinants of Crop Preferences among Rural Farmers in Nanga Entabai, Sarawak

Grace Sumol, Poline Bala

Universiti Malaysia Sarawak, Malaysia

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.908000496

Received: 09 August 2025; Accepted: 16 August 2025; Published: 18 September 2025

ABSTRACT

The Sustainable Livelihood Approach (SLA) provides a framework for understanding people’s capacities and assets in sustaining their livelihoods, especially in the face of risks and vulnerabilities. In the context of Sarawak, this study applies the SLA to explore how rural communities maintain their livelihoods amid rapid changes in land use patterns – primarily driven by development policies. These changes have led to adverse outcomes, including inconsistent cash income due to market fluctuations. Through the lens of SLA, this research examines how rural farmers make decisions regarding crop choices in response to a range of characteristics such as money return, input cost and weather conditions. The data was gathered during a focus group discussion that was guided by a matrix ranking activity.

Findings reveal a significant shift in crop preference among Iban farmers from diversified farming systems to a strong reliance on a single crop – pepper. Pepper is now the dominant livelihood activity due to its relatively high market value, shorter yield cycle and lower sensitivity to weather conditions.

This study is crucial in examining local strategies and values in shaping sustainable agricultural practices and inform future policy considerations on rural development and land governance in Sarawak.

INTRODUCTION

The Iban were originally a native community living in remote areas, far from accessible roads. Their primary economic activity was subsistence agriculture, which focused on meeting daily needs, with paddy farming being a common practice. However, with the advent of modernisation, the Iban’s livelihood gradually shifted toward activities generating cash income. Daily needs increasingly dependent on cash, especially for expenses such as education and medical fees. This growing reliance on cash income led to a significant change in their agricultural practices. Most of their land, previously dedicated to subsistence crops, was increasingly allocated to cash crops (Cramb and Reece, 1988).

This shift in land use among rural communities is closely tied to the dependence on cash income. Dove (1993) noted that the Iban of Kantu, Indonesia, planted rubber as a form of financial security, tapping it when cash was needed—for example, to pay school fees or purchase daily food supplies.

As farmers embraced cash cropping, several factors influenced their choice of crops. These included expected cash returns, use of technologies, and availability of labour (Nde, Fendji, Yenke and Schoning, 2024; Le, Kristiansen, Vo, Moss and Welch, 2024). In this paper, we are exploring the factors that influence farmers’ crop selection decisions in rural Sarawak – Nanga Entabai, Julau.

Study Area

This research was conducted in Nanga Entabai, located in Julau, a district within the state of Sarawak. According

to the official portal of the Sarikei Division Administration, Julau is one of the districts under the jurisdiction of the Sarikei Division. Covering an area of approximately 1,703.39 square kilometres, Julau has a population of 15,816. The district is notably recognised for its extensive pepper production.

Nanga Entabai is situated approximately 36 kilometres from Julau town and is accessible by both land and river transportation. The area comprises seven longhouses, collectively housing 138 households. The earliest longhouse was established in Sayong, where Rumah Minggan is currently located. The remaining longhouses were developed as a result of community expansion, driven by the need for additional space due to overcrowding in the original longhouse.

Figure 1: A beautiful scenery of Nanga Entabai.

During my fieldwork visit in 2019, Nanga Entabai had limited network coverage, with reliable mobile reception only available on elevated areas such as hilltops. This posed significant challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic, when classes were conducted entirely online. Students had to gather on a hill to access a stable internet connection. However, by the time of my subsequent visit in 2022, network coverage had improved significantly. A communication tower had was built near the longhouse, enabling access to 4G services in the area.

The residents of Nanga Entabai have a clean water supply and a constant electricity supply. It was stated that accessibility to road had brought over clean water and constant electricity supply to the area. It is also a focal area for longhouses nearby as it is equipped with basic infrastructures such as school, clinic and a church. Longhouses nearby often drop by to get their basic medical treatment. Although Nanga Entabai can be assessed by road, some of longhouses’ residents nearby such as those from Mujok use boat as their means of transportation to reach Nanga Entabai.

Apart from doing wage labour work, the residents of Nanga Entabai whom stay in Nanga Entabai on daily basis rely on cash crop for their source of income. According to inputs from the local, Nanga Entabai was a community that heavily depend on shifting cultivation just like any other Iban community in other areas. In early 1960s, there was an initiative known as Rubber Planting Scheme (RPS) under the Department of Agriculture of Kanowit[1] being introduced to the rural communities under Kanowit administration to steer the agricultural sector towards cash cropping. John Kennedy Wilson or Tuan Tuai, as what the local called him, is a Scottish who worked as a teacher in Nanga Entabai whom had played an influential role in introducing and encouraging rubber plantation to the farmers in Nanga Entabai. He applied the scheme for them and became the middle person in distributing seedlings, fertilisers and providing trainings for the farmers there.

Figure 2: Primary school known as Sekolah Kebangsaan (SK) Nanga Entabai located across the jetty.

The respondents remembered that it was in 1970s that they actively farming pepper. It was mentioned during the interview that the expansion of pepper farming was due to the initiative by Department of Agriculture (DoA) at that time. Alongside trainings on domestic arts like cooking and sewing, the committee in Nanga Entabai was also trained to farm pepper. Every household was given 50 pepper seedlings as starter and these number of seedlings increased every time they attended courses related to pepper. Pepper remained the primary crop for farmers in Nanga Entabai until a sharp decline in prices began in 2019. Nevertheless, the resilience of the people shone through, reflected in the diverse livelihood strategies they have since adopted.

This paper focuses on the diversification of crop choices, shaped by a range of influencing factors that will be explored in the following sections.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Land Development Policy in Sarawak

Sarawak faced constant land change in tandem with implementation of development policies. These policies introduced are meant to ‘push’ farmers’ livelihood to a better, modernised living through ‘modern’ agriculture activities. Hence, various development policies were introduced with a mission to ‘upgrade’ the farmers’ livelihood (Cramb, 2009).

Iban’s rural communities were largely dependent on natural resources as their source of livelihood. Before cash income became significant, rural farmers relied on forest products for food supplied. Hunting and gathering were among the important activities to sustain themselves (Cramb, 2013). However, as the state started to roll out the development policies especially to the rural area, rural communities adjusted their farming pattern to fit into the development policies introduced. For instance, study shows that the total land covered with rubber had increased significantly from 25,000 hectares in 1960 to 36,000 hectares in 1972 in Second Division (Cramb and Reece, 1988). These rapid increased of land used for rubber is a result of cash crop extensification as per driven by development policies that were introduced by the government.

Sustainable Livelihood Approach

The Sustainable Livelihood Approach (SLA) offers a comprehensive lens for understanding the decision-making processes behind rural livelihood strategies, including crop selection. The five capital assets under the SLA which are natural, social, physical, financial, and human capital has influence on how and why particular crops are chosen by households.

The first capital under SLA is natural capital. Natural capital refers to environmental resources such as land, water, and forests. It plays a foundational role in determining crop feasibility. Bateman and Mace (2020) describe natural capital as the ecosystem services and resource stocks that support human well – being. In rural regions, households often select crops based on natural resource availability. For instance, in the Republic of Georgia, households in remote areas derived up to 60% of their income from forest products, suggesting that resource abundance significantly guides agricultural decisions (Kemkes, 2015).

Social capital, or the relationships and institutions that enable collective action, also shapes crop choice indirectly. Scoones (1998) notes that networks and informal institutions are essential for livelihood planning. In East Java, Indonesia, communal labour systems such as gotong-royong ensured adequate manpower for labour – intensive crops, especially during peak seasons (Yuliati & Isaskar, 2018). Economic support systems like arisan enabled women to access informal credit, reducing risk and enabling investment in certain types of crops.

Infrastructure, tools and transportation access which are under physical capital determine the viability of cultivating and marketing particular crops. He and Ahmed (2022) found that improved physical assets in South China led to a shift toward higher-value agricultural production. Similarly, road construction by palm oil companies in Malaysia provided local farmers with better market access, encouraging them to grow commercial crops like oil palm (Cramb & Sujang, 2013).

On the other hand, financial capital can influence the scale and diversity of crop cultivation. Wang et al. (2023) argue that households with stronger financial resources are more likely to diversify into cash crops or invest in higher-yield varieties, as their financial stability allows for greater risk – taking. Financial capital thus underpins both subsistence and entrepreneurial crop strategies.

Education, skills and labour quality, which is under human capital is another determinant of crop choice. Baiyegunhi (2024) emphasises that younger, better – educated farmers tend to adopt modern practices and are more open to experimenting with new crop types. In East Java, Syafrial et al. (2022) found that older farmers were less likely to use agricultural technology, limiting them to traditional crops, whereas younger farmers with higher human capital were more adaptive and productive.

Taken together, these five capitals shape the economic logic and practical constraints behind crop choices in rural households. Understanding how they interact provides insight into the structural factors that influence agricultural decision – making.

Problem Statement

According to Tambile et. al (2024), rural communities who heavily relied on natural resources are often challenged by various factors such as droughts, floods and outbreaks of pests and diseases. Their shifted priority from subsistence farming to cash cropping causing them to be affected by global occurrences such as price fluctuations in the market (Achterbosch, van Berkum, & Meijerink, 2014). The growing importance of cash, which leads to the active participation in cash cropping, may draw these rural farmers closer to global events while simultaneously pushing them further into the margins of economic hardship. This, in turn, may echo Ellis (1998), who described those farmers as ‘vulnerable’.

Drawing from this scenario, this study aims to explore the key factors influencing farmers’ crop selection. Understanding these factors is essential for policymakers and relevant organisations to create supportive environments that promote agricultural growth amid dynamic and evolving development challenges.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

In this study, a focus group discussion facilitated by a matrix ranking activity was used as a participatory method to gather insights from the respondents. This approach enabled the collection of rich and detailed data through active engagement and open dialogue among the farmers during the session.

According to Mahesh et.al (2017), matrix ranking allows the researchers to study the reasons behind every preference. It helps researcher to evaluate respondent’s decision – making process and thus determine how these considerations affect their preferences. This is aligned with Mikkelsen (1995) argument where she believes that scoring and ranking activities are significant tools for analysis of differences, unequal relationships and prioritisation. It allows for exchanging of ideas as well as expression of opinions among the respondents which then help researchers or policy makers to understand the issue on the ground. In this study, the matrix ranking activity is seen as an important tool to examine the factors behind farmers’ crop selection. It helps the researcher to understand the farmers’ priorities, perceptions, and decision-making processes by allowing them to express and compare the relative importance of different crop characteristics.

FINDING

The crops included in the ranking exercise were pepper (lada), rubber (getah), cocoa (koko), oil palm (sawit), and paddy (padi). The factors used to evaluate these crops were financial return, maintenance requirements, labour (manpower), weather suitability, speed of return on investment, fertiliser needs and overall cost.

Table 1: Illustration of the mahjong paper used during the discussion.

Money Return

The respondents agreed that oil palm provided the highest financial returns among the listed crops, citing its superior profit margins. They noted that while oil palm requires adequate fertilisers and pesticides to produce healthy fruits, the resulting profits are sufficient to cover these input costs. At the time of the interview, oil palm was also benefiting from a significant price boom, further enhancing its attractiveness as a lucrative crop.

Figure 3: Crops ranking for “Money” factor.

(Rank guide: 1 = Crop giving the least money return; 5 = Crop giving the most money return)

Although oil palm is regarded as the most profitable crop, it remains rare in Nanga Entabai due to the area’s hilly topography. Such terrain poses significant challenges for oil palm cultivation, as the work involved is labour-intensive and better suited to flat land. Establishing oil palm plantations in these conditions would require substantial investment to level the land, making it a less feasible option for local farmers.

Maintenance

According to the respondents, pepper is considered the most labour-intensive crop. One respondent explained, “You will always have maintenance task at the pepper farm; hence why you need to work on it every day” (Respondent BJ, personal communication, 2022). Apart from fertilising, pepper farming involves regular weeding, occasional pesticide application, tying the vines to support poles, and other tasks that cannot be completed in a single day. For these reasons, pepper is categorised as the highest-maintenance crop.

Oil palm is seen as the second most demanding crop in terms of maintenance. One of the respondents who directly involved in oil palm cultivation shared, “The oil palm seedlings need us to feed and spray them with pesticides. However, once they are mature (bear fruits), you only need to fertilise and harvest them. There is no need for pesticides anymore” (personal communication, 2022). Based on this answer, oil palm demands farmer’s attention at the first few years of its growth and will require less maintenance when they mature.

Paddy is ranked third in terms of maintenance demand. This is because it does not require daily attention throughout the year, as tasks vary depending on the season. One respondent noted, “Paddy has this period where you can leave the farm. For instance, you can go and do other job while waiting for the trees to dry before burning them” (Respondent S, personal communication, 2022). This practice of working elsewhere while waiting for the next stage of paddy farming is referred to as ngerampas, which can be loosely translated as “snatching” time. Respondent S mentioned that they typically use this period to do other job to earn cash income.

Cocoa is ranked fourth, requiring less labour than paddy. However, compared to rubber, it is slightly more demanding. Farmers must monitor the crop regularly to protect it from wild animals such as squirrels and to check which fruits are ready for harvest.

Figure 4: Crops ranking for “Maintenance” factor.

(Rank guide: 1 = Crop requiring the least maintenance; 5 = Crop requiring the most maintenance)

Manpower

The respondents unanimously agreed that paddy farming requires the highest amount of manpower among the crops discussed. This is largely due to the time-sensitive nature of certain tasks, particularly during the harvesting period. Farmers must complete the harvest quickly to prevent grain loss, as delays may cause the paddy kernels to fall to the ground, reducing yield. Moreover, synchronised farming practices are essential as tasks such as harvesting must be completed within the same timeframe as other farmers in the area. Failure to do so may result in a particular farm becoming the sole remaining active field, thereby attracting wild animals and pests. In such cases, the likelihood of crop damage increases significantly. This phenomenon is traditionally referred to by the community as mayuh antu, which literally translates to “many ghosts.” In this context, the “ghosts” symbolise wild animals such as squirrels, which are known to damage crops.

Despite being less tedious than paddy farming, oil palm cultivation ranks second due to the heavy physical workload it demands. Farmers must engage in labourious tasks such as pruning and harvesting. It is said that harvesting would require considerable physical effort due to the weight of the fruit and the force needed to cut it using harvesting tools. This strenuous work makes oil palm one of the most physically demanding crops.

Ranked as the third labour-demanding crop, pepper farming does not require adherence to a collective farming schedule. However, it remains labour-intensive due to the frequent tasks involved, including the transportation of harvested pepper berries, fertilisation, and weeding. One respondent described this continuous workload using the local expression “te nadai nemu nadai”, meaning “there is never a day without work.” For this reason, pepper is ranked third in terms of manpower requirements.

Next, rubber was identified as the crop requiring the least manpower. The primary task is occasional weeding, which can be minimised if the farmer visits the site regularly. As noted by the respondents, consistent visits help keep pathways clear, thereby reducing the need for additional maintenance. Lastly, cocoa was described as requiring more manpower than rubber, primarily due to the selective harvesting process. Farmers must carefully inspect and choose which fruits are ready for harvest, a task that is both detailed and time-consuming.

Figure 5: Crops ranking for “Manpower” factor.

(Rank guide: 1 = Crop demanding the least manpower; 5 = Crop demanding the most manpower)

Weather

It was observed that rainfall does not negatively impact oil palm cultivation. On the contrary, rainfall contributes to increasing the weight of the fruit bunches, thereby potentially enhancing farmers’ returns. Consequently, farmers tend to expedite the sale of fresh fruit bunches (FFB) on very sunny days to prevent moisture loss, which would otherwise reduce the weight and market value of the FFB. Cocoa is ranked second in terms of sensitivity to weather conditions. It requires more sunlight than oil palm, primarily because farmers depend on sunny weather to adequately dry the fruits. A similar condition applies to pepper; however, the adverse effects of rainfall on pepper are more severe compared to cocoa. Excessive rainfall not only disrupts the drying process but also causes pepper berries to fall prematurely, thereby reducing overall yield. Additionally, prolonged wet conditions can lead to root rot, locally referred to as urat manggar, a phenomenon reported by some farmers whose pepper trees succumbed to excessive moisture. In contrast, drought conditions lasting up to a month were reported to primarily affect only young pepper seedlings, with mature trees demonstrating greater resilience.

In paddy cultivation, continuous rainfall adversely affects grain quality, often resulting in the formation of small black spots adhering to the kernel walls, which degrades the final produce. Rubber is identified as the most weather-sensitive crop among those studied. Tapping activities cannot be conducted during rainfall because latex cannot be mixed with water. Furthermore, the drying process of rubber sheets is also hindered by wet conditions, thereby interrupting production.

Figure 6: Crops ranking for “Weather” factor.

(Rank guide: 1 = Crop that least affected by weather; 5 = Crop that is highly affected by weather)

Speed of Return

All respondents agree that paddy farming offers the quickest financial returns. The farmer can commence cultivation and harvest within a single year, making it the fastest-yielding crop among those studied, as other crops typically require a minimum of three years to produce harvestable yields. Pepper was identified as the second fastest crop, with respondents indicating that it generally takes approximately three years to bear its first fruits. Following pepper, cocoa and oil palm were ranked next, with rubber identified as the slowest to generate returns. Respondents noted that cocoa requires several years to reach fruiting maturity and generally takes longer to bear fruits than pepper. Rubber, on the other hand, necessitates an extended maturation period before latex production begins. Respondent BJ emphasized that for those seeking rapid income, wet paddy farming is particularly effective. With adequate fertilisation, paddy can grow quickly and healthily. She further noted that some paddy crops can be harvested two to three times annually, thereby increasing potential income frequency.

Figure 7: Crops ranking for ‘Speed of return’ factor.

(Rank guide: 1 = Crop that gives the slowest yield; 5 = Crop that gives the fastest yield)

Figure 8: Crops ranking for ‘Fertilisers’ factor.

(Rank guide: 1 = Crop requiring the least fertilisers; 5 = Crop requiring the most fertilisers)

Fertilisers

Pepper was identified as the crop requiring plenty of fertilisers. Respondents emphasised that pepper demands fertilisation throughout its entire cultivation period, continuing until the farmers decide to cease pepper farming altogether. In addition to fertilisers, pepper cultivation necessitates various chemical treatments, including pesticides to prevent insect infestations and fertilisers to promote berry growth. When questioned about their continued preference for planting pepper despite its high input costs, respondents commonly replied, “Kati deh, pengidup. Nya ga ka nyadi ditu”—translated as, “What can we do? This is how we earn a living since pepper can be cultivated here.” Others expressed that the economic returns from pepper justify the associated labour and expense relative to other crops.

Oil palm was ranked second in fertiliser requirements. Fertilisation begins at the seedling stage, with a one-year-old oil palm tree requiring approximately 3 kg of fertiliser to support growth. Adequate fertilisation is linked to larger fruit development, and farmers typically apply fertilisers once every two months.

Cocoa follows as the next crop with significant fertiliser needs. Respondents noted that fertilisers enhance fruit growth, and that cocoa requires more fertilisation than paddy. Paddy ranks below cocoa, with fertilisers contributing to increased crop growth. Historically, fertiliser use was minimal because cultivation often occurred on virgin or lightly used land, where decomposing tree trunks provided natural nutrients. However, contemporary paddy farming relies heavily on fertilisers to sustain soil fertility, although typically only a single fertilisation is required per cycle.

Rubber requires the least fertiliser input and its application is not considered mandatory. Some respondents who fertilise rubber reported that fertilisers help maintain latex production levels.

Figure 9: Crops ranking for ‘Cost’ factor.

(Rank guide: 1 = Crop consuming lowest cost; 5 = Crop consuming highest cost)

Input Cost

All respondents agree that pepper consumes the highest cost. Although it gives significant money returns, it also requires a lot of money to maintain. Respondent BJ said, “it (pepper) gives, and it takes back”.

The result of the discussion found that the input cost for pepper and oil palm is almost the same. The price for a bag of fertiliser weighted 25kg is ranging from RM70 to RM100. On the other hand, cocoa requires lesser input costs than that of pepper and oil palm but involves higher input cost than paddy. The reason behind this is because cocoa lives longer than paddy. As such, it requires more fertilisers and pesticides compare to paddy and thus directly contributing to a higher input cost.

Paddy and rubber are considered as least demanding crops in terms of input costs. One of the respondents shared that his late father used to say that the only ‘fertiliser’ a rubber tree needs is a sword. Sword is useful for maintenance of clear field and that is enough to provide a conducive environment for rubber’s growth.

DISCUSSION

Table 2: Intensity score.

(Count guide: Highest count = Crop showing the highest intensity across selected characteristics)

Figure 10. A bar chart showing the intensity scores of crops across selected characteristics.

The findings indicate that rural farmers in Nanga Entabai are shifting toward monocropping, with a greater focus of time and energy devoted to pepper farming, rather than distributing their resources equally among other types of crops. Despite scoring the highest intensity across several determinants, the rural farmers still opt to invest in pepper farming above other crops. This shift is largely driven by farmers’ strong reliance on cash income, with pepper being both a profitable crop and well-suited to the hilly terrain.

While other crops such as paddy and rubber still exist on farmland, they receive considerably less time and effort compared to pepper. That said, paddy farming has not disappeared entirely. Farmers who continue this practice often cite the desire to preserve their family’s paddy seed—a sentiment that echoes Freeman’s (1995) observation on the cultural and genealogical significance of padi pun[2]. Some respondents expressed that planting paddy is a way of honouring ancestral practices, while others viewed it as a legacy for future generations. The decline in paddy farming is largely attributed to labour constraints and low economic returns. The intensive physical labour and time required for paddy cultivation make it incompatible with the schedules of households whose members also hold non-agricultural jobs. Moreover, unlike pepper or rubber, paddy does not generate direct income, making it a less attractive option for farmers focused on financial sustainability. One respondent noted, “The return from pepper allows you to buy rice instead of spending a year growing it.” Others cited diminishing government support, frequent pest attacks, and the erosion of mutual labour-exchange systems contributing to this trend.

Cocoa, once a notable crop in Nanga Entabai, has also fallen out of favour. Although cocoa trees still stand on some farms, they are largely left untended. Farmers attribute this decline to the high maintenance demands of cocoa cultivation and poor market returns. In addition, cocoa trees require several years before yielding, whereas pepper produces annually, making it a more economically appealing choice.

Similarly, rubber tapping has become increasingly rare. Farmers cited low rubber prices as the primary reason for abandoning the practice. As one respondent succinctly put it, “The return is not worth the effort, especially the long walk to the rubber plot”. Despite the decline in active rubber tapping, many households continue to retain rubber trees. These trees are viewed as a form of agricultural insurance—available for future tapping if market conditions improve. This aligns with Dove’s (1993) account of the Iban in Kantu, who maintained rubber as a fallback resource. Farmers also hesitate to clear rubber plots without a clear plan for replanting, because it would be seen as a loss in terms of finance since rubber could become one of the financial sources for the household. Another critical reason for retaining permanent crops like rubber lies in land tenure security. In the absence of formal land titles, planting long-standing crops functions as a symbolic assertion of ownership. Cooke (2002) notes that without visible agricultural use, native customary lands risk being reclassified as idle or state land. In Nanga Entabai, this concern is very real. Respondents reported that land left uncultivated could be considered unowned. One household recounted a 2015 incident where Land and Survey Department staff automatically marked “unused” areas as state land during boundary measurements. Consequently, many residents view maintaining perennial crops as both an economic and territorial safeguard.

CONCLUSION

This study highlights a marked transformation in the agricultural practices of the Iban community in Nanga Entabai, where economic pragmatism, labour limitations, and cash return are among the driven shift for the farmers to move from diversified subsistence farming toward a strong focus on pepper cultivation. While past generations engaged simultaneously in paddy farming, rubber tapping, and cocoa cultivation, current farmers prioritise pepper as their primary cash crop due to its higher profitability and quicker returns. The decline in paddy and other traditional crops is not merely a result of reduced interest but stems from the complex interplay of labour demands, diminishing institutional support, and low economic incentives.

Despite the reduced engagement in these traditional practices, their continued symbolic and strategic importance remains evident. Paddy cultivation persists in some households, not for commercial gain but for cultural continuity and seed preservation. Similarly, rubber and cocoa trees, though no longer actively cultivated, are retained as economic safety nets and as a means of asserting land ownership in the absence of formal land titles.

The findings emphasise the need to understand rural livelihood decisions not only through the lens of economic optimisation but also in relation to cultural values, historical experience, and structural constraints. Future policies aiming to support indigenous farmers must account for this layered reality—balancing agricultural development with the preservation of traditional knowledge and local autonomy over land.

REFERENCE

1. Baiyegunhi, L.J.S. (2024). Examining the impact of human capital and innovation on farm productivity in the KwaZulu – Natal North Coast, South Africa. Agrekon, 63(1-2), 51 – 64
2. Cramb, R.A. & Reece, R.H.W. (Eds.) (1988). Development in Sarawak: Historical and contemporary perspectives. Clayton, Australia: Monash University Centre of Southeast Asian Studies
3. Cramb, R.A. & Sujang, P.S. (2013). The mouse deer and the crocodile: Oil palm smallholders and livelihood strategies in Sarawak, Malaysia. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 40(1), 129-154
4. Cooke, F. (2002). Vulnerability, control and oil palm in Sarawak: Globalization and a New Era?. Development and Change, 33(2), 189 – 211
5. Dove, M. R. (1993). Smallholder rubber and swidden agriculture in Borneo: A sustainable adaptation to the ecology and economy of the tropical forest. Economic Botany, 47(2), 136-147
6. Freeman, D. (1955). Iban Agriculture: A report on the shifting cultivation of hill rice by the Iban of Sarawak. London, UK: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office
7. He, Y. and Ahmed, T. (2022). Farmers’ livelihood capital and its impact on sustainable livelihood strategies: Evidence from the poverty-stricken areas of Southwest China. Sustainability, 2022(14), 1 – 24
8. Kemkes, R.J. (2015). The role of natural capital in sustaining livelihoods in remote mountainous regions: The case of Upper Svaneti, Republic of Georgia. Ecological Economics, 117(2015), 22 – 31
9. Mahesh, V., Lekshmi, P.S.S., Pawar, D.A., Daliyamol, Kumar, A. and Prakash, P. (2017). Matrix ranking – An important PRA tool to assess farmers preferences and priorities. Agricultural Science Digest, 37(2), 100 – 105
10. Mikkelsen, B. (1995). Methods for development work and research: A new guide for practitioners. New Delhi, India: Sage Publications.
11. Sarikei Division Administrative. (2025). Profail Daerah Julau. https://sarikei.sarawak.gov.my/web/subpage/webpage_view/247
12. Scoones, I. (1998). Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: A Framework for Analysis. IDS Working Paper 72, IDS, Brighton.
13. Syafrial, S., Toiba, H., Retnoningsih, D., Purwanti, T.S. and Rahman, M.S. (2022). Do livelihood capitals improve food security among smallholder farmers? Evidence from horticulture farmers in East Java, Indonesia. Asian Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development, 12(4), 250 – 259
14. Yuliati, Y. and Isaskar, R. (2018). Social capital and sustainable livelihood strategies in downstream area of Begawan Solo River, East Java, Indonesia. Journal of Sustainability Science and Management, 13(1), 199 – 207
15. Wang, F., Mao, J., Liu, Y. and Cai, Q. (2023). Influencing mechanism of rural households’ livelihood capital on entrepreneurial behaviour: Evidence from the CFPS. Agriculture, 2023(13), 1 – 22

Ethical Considerations

The data collection was done in Nanga Entabai, Julau, Sarawak with a consent from the villagers.

Data Availability

The data presented in this article are unique and were collected directly from fieldwork conducted in the rural community of Nanga Entabai, Julau, Sarawak, using participatory matrix ranking sessions with local farmers. Due to the localised and primary nature of the data, these datasets have not been previously published or made available online.

1. At that time, Julau was under the administration of Kanowit.
2. Padi pun is considered sacred because it was considered as a gift from god (Freeman, 1955).