The given article illustrates the use of Ajzen’s Theory of Planned Behaviour (ATPB) in explaining the persisting slash-and-burn behaviours in Indonesia. However, it remains debatable whether ATPB can adequately do so. This essay will critique the suitability of ATPB in explaining the problem through analysing the author’s argument, examining the evidence employed, uncovering underlying assumptions, and finally, seeking alternative theories to better explain the issue.

Figure 1. Model of Azjen’s Theory of Planned Behaviour. It shows how behaviour can be predicted by considering intention, which is determined by three interacting factors.
To some extent, ATPB is able to explain the plantation’s behaviour by acknowledging several factors that can each influence behaviour to a small extent i.e. attitude towards the behaviour, subjective norm and perceived behavioural control. For instance, on attitude, the author claimed plantations favour slash-and-burn as “it is much cheaper, convenient and less time consuming [than other methods]”. Having a favourable attitude towards slash-and-burn encourages plantations to carry it out, but is overall insufficient given restrictive circumstances e.g. strict controls. Now consider perceived behavioural control – the author claimed plantations perceive great ease in slashing-and-burning due to high self-efficacy from successfully practicing slash-and-burn for generations without being caught. Yet, on its own, perceived ease does not always translate into actual behaviour. Suppose a plantation aims not to maximise profits but to achieve environmental sustainability – it would not slash-and-burn despite perceived ease. However, by applying ATPB, both attitude and perceived behavioural control will be considered. We then see how the two factors can reinforce each other to support a strong intention for plantations to