Study on repurchase intention of cotton farmers towards insecticides in Rajkot district of Gujarat

Introduction

Agrochemicals encompass fertilizers, pesticides (insecticides, herbicides, fungicides), and soil amendments fundamental to enhancing crop yield. Fertilizers, pesticides (such as insects, herbicides and fungicides), plant growth regulators and soil amendments are a few examples of agrochemicals, which are essential for enhancing crop productivity. Effective utilization of them is essential for counter plant diseases, weeds and pests, which cause around 25% of crop losses worldwide. Their use has risen drastically since the middle of the 20 th century to meet the rising need for food during the green revolution era (Taylor, 2024) [27] . The agrochemical industry witnessed remarkable growth during this period (1950s-1970s), when high-yielding crop varieties were combined with chemical inputs to prevent famine and ensure food security for expanding populations (Tudi et al., 2021) [28] . By 2021, the global use of agrochemical had risen considerably, with fertilizer and pesticide consumption showing sharp increase (Elumalai & Gao, 2025) [6] . The size of the global agrochemicals market was valued at US$ 271.42 billion in 2023 and is expected to grow to US$ 390.17 billion by 2030, registering a CAGR of 5.4% between 2024 and 2030 (Grand View Research, 2024) [7] . In India, the agrochemicals sector is projected to grow at a CAGR of 9% from FY25 to FY28, supported by favourable policies, rising production, stronger demand and the launch of new products and the market value is projected to climb from US$ 10.3 billion to US$ 14.5 billion (IBEF, 2024) [10] . India is expected to export more than ₹ 80,000 crore worth of agrochemicals over the next four years, up from ₹ 43,223 crore in 2022-2023. According to ACFI and EY, sustaining this growth will require government backing, trade agreements, tax reforms and better infrastructure. India is a large producer, even though it still heavily dependent on imports and utilizes less agrochemicals per hectare than many other countries (IBEF, 2024) [11] . Between 2019-20 and 2023-24, India's pesticide usage fluctuated, reaching a peak of 83,116 MT in 2021-2022. Despite a growing focus on sustainability, chemical pesticides are still used widely (DPPQ&S, 2024). Excessive pesticide use has raised concerns about both environmental and health impacts (Cech et al., 2022) [3] . Strict regulations and pesticide resistance complicate the situation. Many smallholder farmers cannot access high-quality products due to financial barriers (Ma et al., 2024) [17] . Crop health and farmer well-being are negatively impacted by improper handling, price fluctuations, and counterfeit goods. Providing farmers with better education on safe usage and ensuring access to genuine, quality products are crucial steps for improvement (Pandey & Choudhary, 2024) [19] . Looking ahead, the Indian agrochemical sector has strong potential because of its importance for food security. Major factors driving growth include a shift toward environmentally friendly solutions, increasing global demand that boosts exports, rising use of precision farming technologies and large untapped opportunities in rural markets. Together, these create significant chances for Indian companies to strengthen their position in both domestic and international markets (OpenPR, 2025) [18] .

Repurchase Intentions

Repurchase intention refers to a customer's willingness or likelihood to buy the same product or service again. It is a key indicator of customer loyalty and long-term business success (Hellier et al., 2003) [9] . Repurchase intention is significantly influenced by multiple factors. Competitive, reasonable pricing enhances perceived value and satisfaction, leading to repeat purchases. High product quality builds trust and satisfaction, encouraging loyalty and repeat buying (Reggiana and Hermina, 2025) [21] . In online and offline contexts alike, trust boosted by value and reliability is a primary driver of repurchase behaviour. When consumers sense they received good value-through quality, fair price, or brand reputation they are more likely to repurchase (Sullivan and Kim, 2018) [24] . A positive brand image enhances loyalty and repurchase intentions in multiple product categories (Tarigan and Bernarto, 2024) [26] . Effective promotions lift satisfaction and strengthen the link between brand image and repurchase intent.

Objectives of Study

The primary objectives of the study were to study the socioeconomic profile of cotton growing farmers, to study the repurchase intentions of cotton growing farmers towards insecticides.

Materials and Methods

For present study, a Descriptive Research design was used to address the research objectives. Descriptive research involves the use of surveys and fact-finding methods to collect data and its primary objective is to accurately describe the current state of affairs or phenomena as they exist. (Kothari, 2004) [14] The research was conducted in Rajkot district of Gujarat. In the year 2020-21, cotton was cultivated on 2,38,330 hectares in Rajkot district, with a total production of 32.43 lakh bales (5,51,267 MT). During 2021-22, the area under cotton cultivation significantly increased to 4,38,470 hectares and production rose to 42.15 lakh bales (7,16,627 MT), indicating notable growth in both acreage and yield (NABARD, 2023). For the present study, a multi-stage sampling method was used. In the first stage, 4 talukas were randomly chosen from the 14 talukas of Rajkot district. the second stage, 5 villages were randomly selected from each selected taluka. In the final stage, 10 cottongrowing farmers were purposively selected from each village, resulting in a total sample size of 200 farmers and the primary data was collected through personal interviews with farmers, using structured interview schedule as data collection tool. Based on available literature the interview schedule was prepared.

Instrument

A structured interview schedule, including demographic and research-related questions, was used to gather primary data. To study repurchase intention, different constructs were identified based on insights from earlier studies. The quality construct included 3 items adopted from Walsh et al. (2014) [30] . Price was measured using 5 items from Han & Ryu (2009) [8] and Walsh et al. (2014) [30] . Perceived value having 3 items adopted from Ngowi (2003) [16] . Promotional effort was measured using 3 items adopted from Tain et al. (2022) [5] and Zekiri & Hasani (2015) [31] . Brand image consisted of 5 items from Jin et al. (2012) [12] and Tain et al. (2022) [25] . Trust was captured with 2 items from Tain et al. (2022) [25] . Finally, repurchase intention was measured with 3 items from Ali & Bhasin (2019) [1] . To analyze data, descriptive statistics and multiple regression analysis were used. To perform regression analysis the mean score for each construct was calculated.

Results

The study revealed that all participants in the study were male. Age distribution showed that 54.5% farmers belonged to the 51 to 65 years age group, followed by 30.5% in the 36 to 50 years category. A smaller portion 9.5% fell within the 21 to 35 years group, while only 5.5% were above 65 years. No respondent was reported below the age of 20 years. Regarding educational qualifications, 41.5% of the respondents had completed SSC or its equivalent followed by 33% had education below SSC, 22.5% had attained HSC-level education, and only 3% had completed undergraduate or higher studies. In the present study, it was found that majority of the respondents (63%) depended entirely on farming for their livelihood following by 25.5% were involved in both farming and animal husbandry, while 6% combined farming with business activities. Another 5.5% pursued farming alongside service-related occupations. The landholding size data in the present study revealed that 37.5% of the respondents were small farmers (1-2 hectares), followed by 27.5% semi-medium (2-4 hectares), and 25.5% medium farmers (4-10 hectares). Marginal farmers (less than 1 hectare) accounted for 6%, and large farmers (above 10 hectares) constituted only 3.5%.

Source of Irrigation and Information

Water is very important for farming. In order to investigate source of irrigation, the farmers were asked for sources of irrigation on a multi-response format. It is found that the borewells were emerged as the most frequently utilized source of irrigation, mentioned by 167 respondents. Wells were the second most reported source with 93 mentions, followed by canals with 21 responses and river water with 11 responses Further, the present study reveals that farmers rely on multiple sources for information regarding insecticide purchases, with dealers (167 responses) and fellow farmers (131 responses) being the most frequently cited sources. Company representatives (96), advertisements (74), and farmers' meetings (72) followed in influence. This indicates that interpersonal interactions particularly with dealers and peer farmers play a crucial role in shaping farmers' decisions (Table 1). [22] . To examine how various factors influence satisfaction and repurchase intentions of insecticides for cotton crop, regression analysis was employed as the statistical tool. In this analysis, satisfaction and repurchase served as the dependent variable, while the influencing factors namely quality, price, perceived value, brand image, promotional efforts and trust were considered as independent variables. [5] , values between 1.5 and 2.5 suggest that residuals are independent.

Perceived Value, Promotional Effort

The table 4 depicts the coefficients table, which provides insight into the individual impact of each independent variable on predicting satisfaction and repurchase intentions. The unstandardized B values indicate both the direction and magnitude of influence that each factor exerts. Price (B = 0.501, p = 0.000), Quality (B = 0.573, p = 0.000) and Trust (B = 0.442, p = 0.000) were statistically significant at the 5% level, indicating a strong and positive influence on satisfaction and repurchase. This means that improvements in these factors are likely to enhance farmers' satisfaction and their likelihood to repurchase insecticides. Perceived Value (B = 0.080, p = 0.291), Brand Image (B = -0.037, p = 0.656) and Promotional Efforts (B = 0.079, p = 0.334) were not found significant, indicating that these variables do not have a strong individual impact on the dependent variable in this model. Further, according to Kim (2019) [13] , multicollinearity exists if the variance inflation factor (VIF) values exceed 5 to 10. In the present analysis, the VIF values range between 1.076 and 1.614, suggesting no multicollinearity.

Discussion

The study on satisfaction and repurchase intention of cotton farmers was conducted in Rajkot District of Gujarat. The present study shows that farmers obtain product-related information from multiple sources, particularly relying on dealers and peer farmers, for purchasing insecticides. These findings partially align with those of Sharma et al. (2020) [23] , who observed that 50% of farmers preferred consulting peer groups for agrochemical-related information, followed by advice from dealers, extension agents, and advertisements. While Sharma et al. [23] emphasize peer groups as the main source, the current study finds that dealers continue to play a dominant role in farmers' decision-making. This difference may reflect regional variations or changing patterns of agro-input marketing and farmer-dealer relationships. The regression analysis results are consistent with the findings of Angela and Pasaribu (2022) [2] , who found that price, quality and trust significantly and positively affect repurchase intention. Similarly, the present study also demonstrates that price (B = 0.501), quality (B = 0.573), and trust (B = 0.442) have strong and significant positive relationships with satisfaction and repurchase, reinforcing that these three factors are key drivers of farmers' repurchase behavior. The findings are further supported by Zimbalis et al. (2024) [33] , who noted that high-quality products enhance customer satisfaction and loyalty, encouraging repeat purchases. Quality influences trust and satisfaction simultaneously, which in turn promotes repurchase. Moreover, Upamannyu et al. (2015) [29] highlighted that customer trust has a direct and positive relationship with repurchase intention, strengthening customer loyalty and long-term purchasing behavior. Overall, the results of the present study validate the importance of price, quality and trust as major determinants of farmer satisfaction and repurchase decisions, while factors like brand image, perceived value and promotional efforts play relatively lesser roles.

Conclusion

In India, agriculture plays an important role in the economy. Agrochemicals are crucial for maintaining productivity and ensuring food security. This study looked at cotton farmers in the Rajkot district to study about their social and economic profiles and their repurchase intention regarding insecticides. The results showed that most farmers relied on local dealers and other farmers for information and purchases. The regression analysis showed that price, quality, trust and perceived value influence on repurchase intention of insecticide for cotton crop, while brand image, promotions were not influence on repurchase intention of insecticide for cotton crop. These findings suggest that agrochemical companies and policymakers should focus on fair pricing, reliable products and raising farmer awareness. They should also find sustainable solutions.

References

1. Ali A, Bhasin J. Understanding customer repurchase intention in e-commerce: Role of perceived price, delivery quality, and perceived value. Jindal Management Journal. 2019;8(2):142-157.
2. Angel V, Pasaribu H. Effect of price, quality, trust on repurchase intentions (case study on PT Tokopedia). Jurnal Manajemen (Edisi Elektronik). 2022;13(2):165179. http://dx.doi.org/10.32832/jm-uika.v13i2.6016
3. Cech R, Zaller JG, Lyssimachou A, Clausing P, Hertoge K, Linhart C. Pesticide drift mitigation measures appear to reduce contamination of nonagricultural areas, but hazards to humans and the environment remain. Science of the Total Environment. 2022;854:158814. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.158814
4. Department of Plant Protection, Quarantine and Storage. India's agrochemical consumption. 2024. https://ppqs.gov.in/en/statistical-database
5. Draper NR, Smith H. Serial correlation in the residuals and the Durbin-Watson test. In: Draper NR, Smith H. Applied regression analysis. Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics. 1998:179-203. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118625590.ch7
6. Elumalai P, Gao X. Agrochemical pollution: A serious threat to environmental health. Current Opinion in Environmental Science & Health. 2025;43:100597. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coesh.2025.100597
7. Grand View Research. Agrochemicals market size, share and growth report, 2024-2030. 2024. https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industryanalysis/agrochemicals-market
8. Han H, Ryu K. The roles of the physical environment, price perception, and customer satisfaction in determining customer loyalty in the restaurant industry. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research. 2009;33(4):487-510. https://doi.org/10.1177/1096348009344212
9. Hellier PK, Geursen GM, Carr RA, Rickard JA. Customer repurchase intention: A general structural equation model. European Journal of Marketing. 2003;37(11-12):1762-1800. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090560310495456
10. India Brand Equity Foundation. Agrochemicals export likely to touch Rs 80,000 crore in 4 yrs: ACFI-EY report. 2024. https://www.ibef.org/news/agrochemicalsexport-likely-to-touch-rs-80-000-crore-in-4-yrs-acfi-eyreport
11. India Brand Equity Foundation. Indian agrochemical sector poised for 9% CAGR growth by FY28, says report. 2024. https://www.ibef.org/news/indianagrochemical-sector-poised-for-9-cagr-growth-by-fy28says-report
12. Jin N, Lee S, Huffman L. Impact of restaurant experience on brand image and customer loyalty: Moderating role of dining motivation. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing. 2012;29(6):532-551.
13. Kim JH. Multicollinearity and misleading statistical results. Korean Journal of Anesthesiology. 2019;72(6):558-569. https://doi.org/10.4097/kja.19087
14. Kothari CR. Research methodology: Methods and techniques. 2nd ed. New Delhi: New Age International Publishers; 2004.
15. National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development. Potential linked credit plan 2023-24: Rajkot district, Gujarat. 2023. https://www.nabard.org
16. Ngowi AV. A study of farmers' knowledge, attitude and experience in the use of pesticides in coffee farming. African Newsletter on Occupational Health and Safety. 2003;13:62-64.
17. Ma W, Rahut DB, Sonobe T, Gong B. Linking farmers to markets: Barriers, solutions, and policy options. Economic Analysis and Policy. 2024;82:1102-1112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eap.2024.05.005
18. OpenPR. India agrochemicals market growth: Key trends, opportunities and competitor landscape. 2025. https://www.openpr.com/news/3849183/indiaagrochemicals-market-growth-key-trends-opportunities
19. Pandey H, Choudhary R. The agrochemical industry in India: Cultivating growth and challenges. Swami Vivekananda Advanced Journal for Research and Studies. 2024;(2):1-10.
20. Prajapati VV, Chauhan SM, Tunvar MA. Factors affecting farmers' purchase decision of insecticides. Gujarat Journal of Extension Education. 2016;27(2):140-144.
21. Reggiana D, Hermina N. The effect of price and product quality on repurchase intention through customer satisfaction as an intervening variable. Dinasti International Journal of Education Management and Social Science. 2025;6(4):2565-2576. https://doi.org/10.38035/dijemss.v6i4
22. Rungsrisawat S, Joemsittiprasert W, Jermsittiparsert K. Factors determining consumer buying behaviour in online shopping. International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change. 2019;8(8):222-237.
23. Sharma P, Riar TS, Garg L. Buying behaviour and farmers' practices regarding agrochemicals use on rice crop in Punjab. Indian Journal of Extension Education. 2020;56(4):87-91.
24. Sullivan YW, Kim DJ. Assessing the effects of consumers' product evaluations and trust on repurchase intention in e-commerce environments. International Journal of Information Management. 2018;39:199-219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2017.12.008
25. Tain H, Siddik AB, Masukujjaman M. Factors affecting the repurchase intention of organic tea among millennial consumers: An empirical study. Behavioral Sciences. 2022;12(2):50. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs12020050
26. Tarigan AP, Bernarto I. The effect of brand image, brand trust and customer satisfaction on repurchase intention (case study: Starbucks Coffee Jakarta). Edunomika. 2024;8(1):1-14.
27. Taylor J. Consequences of agrochemical use: Sustainability and health perspectives. Journal of Agricultural Science and Food Research. 2024;15(2):176.
28. Tudi M, Ruan HD, Wang L, Lyu J, Sadler R, Connell D. Agriculture development, pesticide application and its impact on the environment. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021;18(3):1112. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18031112
29. Upamannyu NK, Gulati C, Chack A, Kaur G. The effect of customer trust on customer loyalty and repurchase intention: The moderating influence of perceived CSR. International Journal of Research in IT, Management and Engineering. 2015;5(4):1-31.
30. Walsh G, Shiu E, Hassan LM. Replicating, validating, and reducing the length of the consumer perceived value scale. Journal of Business Research. 2014;67(3):260-267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.05.012
31. Zekiri J, Hasani VV. The role and impact of the packaging effect on consumer buying behaviour. EcoForum. 2015;4(1):29.
32. Zheng X, Liu C, Zheng L. Is darker more effective? The effect of package color lightness on consumer judgment of product efficacy. Psychology & Marketing. 2025;42(4):1018-1034.
33. Zimbalis A, Norfrisel, Mustikasari. The influence of product price and quality on customer repurchase intentions through customer satisfaction mediation. Jurnal Impresi Indonesia. 2024;3(6):428-437. https://doi.org/10.58344/jii.v3i6.4961