The DOI matches its Crossref record; 92 of the 92 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Predicting climate change mitigation and adaptation behaviors in agricultural production: A comparison of the theory of planned behavior and the Value-Belief-Norm Theory
Abstract
Abstract This study compares the predictive power of the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) and the Value-Belief-Norm (VBN) theory in the context of climate change mitigation and adaptation behaviors in agricultural rice production. Data were collected from 1538 rice farmers in the province of Hubei, China. We empirically examine the determinants of rice growers' intentions towards mitigation and adaption and their actual behaviors via partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Our results indicate that for TPB, behavioral intentions and perceived behavioral control account for 42.1% of farmers' adaptation behaviors, but only 25.6% for mitigation behaviors. In contrast, for the VBN theory, proenvironmental personal norms explain 54.2% of growers’ mitigation behaviors, but only 28.4% of adaptation behaviors. Thus, TPB appears to be more successful at predicting self-interest-oriented behaviors, such as climate change adaptation. On the other hand, our findings provide evidence that the VBN theory performs better when explaining altruistic behaviors like mitigation behaviors. These conclusions have important implications for the formulation of future policies that aim to promote effective and sustainable proenvironmental behavioral changes in agriculture, while ensuring global food security.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The theory of planned behavior
Ajzen, I. (1991) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-t · Cited by 90,587
A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015) · Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science · doi:10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8 · Cited by 38,459
(1975) · PhilPapers (PhilPapers Foundation) · Cited by 36,737
(1980) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 25,810
Pls-Sem: indeed a silver bullet
Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011) · Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice · doi:10.2753/mtp1069-6679190202 · Cited by 21,631
From Intentions to Actions: A Theory of Planned Behavior
Ajzen, I. (1985) · Action Control · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-69746-3_2 · Cited by 19,057
A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM)
Leguina, A. (2015) · International Journal of Research & Method in Education · doi:10.1080/1743727x.2015.1005806 · Cited by 18,921
(2014) · DigitalCommons - Kennesaw State University (Kennesaw State University) · Cited by 12,785
中華人民共和国国家統計局 (1988) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 12,443
Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): An emerging tool in business research
F. Hair Jr, J., Sarstedt, M., Hopkins, L., & G. Kuppelwieser, V. (2014) · European Business Review · doi:10.1108/ebr-10-2013-0128 · Cited by 11,728
Metadata
- Authors
- Zhang, L., Ruiz-Menjivar, J., Luo, B., Liang, Z., & Swisher, M. E.
- Venue
- Journal of Environmental Psychology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2020-04
- Volume
- 68
- Pages
- 101408
- ISSN
- 0272-4944 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3010379627
- Cited by
- 292
- References
- 92
- FWCI
- 36.91
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Predicting climate change mitigation and adaptation behaviors in agricultural production: A comparison of the theory of planned behavior and the Value-Belief-Norm Theory. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101408
- The paper
- Zhang, L., Ruiz-Menjivar, J., Luo, B., Liang, Z., & Swisher, M. E. (2020). Predicting climate change mitigation and adaptation behaviors in agricultural production: A comparison of the theory of planned behavior and the Value-Belief-Norm Theory. Journal of Environmental Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101408
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.