Decision-modelling analysis reveals key institutional and environmental drivers of sustainable practice adoption among smallholder rice farmers, highlighting structural targets for climate resilience.
Rice production sustains food security and rural livelihoods across many low‐income countries but remains highly vulnerable to climate‐related hazards, including floods, droughts, salinity intrusion and heat stress, which reduce yields and threaten the long‐term sustainability of rice production. These growing pressures highlight the need for more sustainable and climate‐resilient production approaches. Sustainable agricultural practices (SAPs) represent one such approach to mitigating climate‐related impacts and strengthening the resilience of production systems. Despite their known potential, adoption among smallholder rice farmers remains limited, and the drivers of adoption and their interrelationships are still poorly understood and documented. Using Bangladesh as a case study, this study identified the key factors that influence smallholder farmers' adoption of SAPs, examined their interrelationships and developed policy insights for climate‐resilient rice production. Initially, 44 drivers were identified and validated through a literature review, Delphi process and KIIs. Subsequently, Total Interpretive Structural Modelling established a 17‐level hierarchy, while MICMAC analysis classified the drivers according to their driving and dependence powers. The findings identified four foundational drivers: climate and environmental pressures, NGO and development support, government and legislative backing and access to technology. These factors shaped resource and market access and, consequently, influenced behavioural and social determinants, including perceived behavioural control, subjective norms, social acceptance and farm efficiency. Overall, the study offers a prioritised roadmap for advancing climate‐resilient rice production in Bangladesh and comparable low‐income contexts.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sarkar et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: