This study aimed to investigate the psychosocial determinants of wheat growers' intention to adopt a specific set of climate-resilient agricultural practices (CRAPs) in the Punjab Province of Pakistan, which is an extended Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) including attitude, subjective norms, perceived behavioural control, trust in CRAPs performance, and current climate-resilient practice management (past behaviour). In May–July 2024, a cross-sectional survey of 384 wheat growers was carried out involving a six-stage design, purposively sampled agro-ecological zones, districts, tehsils, and randomly sampled union councils, villages, and growers. The five CRAPs were conservation tillage, certified heat- and drought-tolerant varieties, timely sowing, stage-based balanced fertilisation and critical-stage irrigation. Partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) was used for data analysis with 10,000 subsamples generated by bootstrapping. Attitude was the strongest positive predictor of intention (β = 0.446; 95% CI 0.319–0.543; p < 0.001), followed by trust in CRAPs performance (β = 0.344; p < 0.001) and perceived behavioural control (β = 0.172; p = 0.001). Subjective norms were not significant (β = 0.038; p = 0.455). Despite a positive bivariate correlation with intention, current CRAP management had a negative partial coefficient (β = −0.246; p < 0.001). This is a pattern of statistical suppression or a “ceiling effect,” not a pattern of resistance to change. The model explained 48.6% of the variance in intention (adjusted R² = 0.479; Q²predict = 0.389). The cross-sectional and intention-based nature of the design means that the results refer to intention and not actual adoption. They propose that extension programmes can reinforce intention by showing growers the agronomic success of CRAPs and help them develop the capacity to adopt them. Keywords: Triticum aestivum L.; climate change adaptation; reasoned action approach; PLS-SEM; agricultural extension; smallholder farmers.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Raza et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: