The fieldwork was conducted in summer and autumn 2025 in Khuzestan, Ilam, Alborz, Guilan, Kermanshah and Zanjan. These provinces were purposively selected for their relevance to tree farming and exposure to water scarcity, including arid settings, while representing varied ecological, socioeconomic and institutional conditions. Respondents either owned at least half a hectare of tree plantations or had formally applied for tree-farming permits. Of 415 distributed questionnaires, 329 were complete and retained, equivalent to about 79% of those distributed. Trained enumerators conducted voluntary, face-to-face interviews in the local language, with written informed consent and assurances of confidentiality.

The sample was predominantly male, with 96% identifying as men, and respondents had a mean age of 39 years, with a range of 28 to 68. Most had school-level education, reported by 46%, or a diploma, reported by 35%; 19% held a university degree. Plantation holdings were generally small: 61% managed less than 10,000 square metres, 28% managed 10,000–20,000 square metres, and 11% managed more than 20,000 square metres. These characteristics describe the survey population and may limit how broadly the results represent tree farmers elsewhere in Iran or in other production systems.

To explain intentions, the researchers extended the Technology Acceptance Model, which links technology uptake to perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use. The added constructs were institutional support, trust in water quality, perceived economic benefits, self-efficacy and environmental concern. The questionnaire assessed eight constructs with multiple statements on a five-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.” A panel of six academics and three practitioners from governmental water and agriculture organizations reviewed the initial items, while a pilot test with 30 farmers preceded the main survey. Pretest Cronbach’s alpha values exceeded 0.70.

Responses were analyzed with partial least squares structural equation modelling, which simultaneously estimates measurement and structural relationships and was used here to examine prediction and variance explanation in an extended model. The researchers assessed internal consistency and convergent validity before testing the structural paths. Cronbach’s alpha values ranged from 0.720 to 0.908, composite reliability ranged from 0.842 to 0.935, and average variance extracted ranged from 0.641 to 0.795. The Fornell–Larcker and heterotrait–monotrait tests supported the study’s stated criteria for discriminant validity, while variance inflation factors ranged from 1.39 to 4.62. Although all were below the study’s critical threshold of 5, several indicated relatively high collinearity among predictors.

Perceived ease of use produced the strongest direct association with adoption intention, with a standardized path coefficient of 0.370 and p below 0.001. Perceived usefulness had a smaller but statistically significant direct association, with a coefficient of 0.135 and p of 0.01. Farmers who regarded unconventional water as easy to integrate with their operations, infrastructure and skills were more likely to say they intended to adopt it. The pattern suggests that practical manageability may carry more weight than a general belief that the practice is beneficial. However, the cross-sectional design cannot establish whether ease of use causes adoption intention or whether farmers already inclined to adopt perceive the technology as easier.

Institutional support had a total effect of 0.323 on intention, making it one of the strongest overall predictors even though its direct path to intention was not statistically significant at the study’s 5% threshold. Its influence was mediated mainly through perceptions of ease of use and usefulness. Support from public authorities, agricultural extension services, research organizations and local institutions was associated with a standardized coefficient of 0.491 for ease of use and 0.400 for usefulness. The model therefore links policies, training, infrastructure and technical assistance to how workable and valuable farmers consider the practice, rather than finding a significant independent direct link between institutional support and intention.

Trust in water quality occupied a central position in the model, producing a total effect of 0.313 on intention. It had a direct standardized path of 0.207 to adoption intention and additional indirect effects through ease of use and usefulness, with coefficients of 0.192 and 0.258, respectively. The survey addressed farmers’ confidence that unconventional water would be safe, would not harm soil quality over the long term and would not pose risks to farm products. The findings are consistent with the idea that confidence in treatment processes, monitoring and regulatory safeguards accompanies stronger willingness to consider unconventional water, although the survey cannot demonstrate that a trust-building intervention would directly cause adoption.

Economic benefits and self-efficacy contributed less strongly but remained relevant. Believing unconventional water would reduce dependence on expensive freshwater, lower irrigation costs or provide a more stable supply was associated with greater perceived usefulness and a direct effect of 0.086 on intention. The total effect of perceived economic benefits was 0.139, but their relationship with ease of use was not statistically significant at 0.05. Self-efficacy—confidence in one’s knowledge and ability to use the water correctly—was associated with ease of use and usefulness but not directly with intention; its total effect was 0.170. Together, these estimates suggest that financial gains and personal capability support adoption indirectly rather than necessarily persuading farmers on their own.

Environmental concern was the weakest and least conclusive construct. Its coefficient for adoption intention was positive at 0.056, but the relationship was not statistically significant at the 5% threshold. Respondents generally expressed concern about water scarcity and the need to conserve freshwater, yet that broad ecological concern did not translate into a statistically clear increase in their intention to use unconventional water. The authors note that the survey did not directly measure farmers’ perceived ecological effectiveness or economic pressure, so an attitude–intention gap is a possible interpretation rather than a demonstrated mechanism. The result cautions against assuming that concern about environmental protection will automatically produce a specific farm-management decision.

The findings have several limitations that constrain their reach and interpretation. The data came from one country at one point in time, and the six purposively selected provinces do not constitute a nationwide probability sample. All constructs were measured through self-report, and social influences such as peer behavior, collective norms and social capital were not assessed. Most importantly, the outcome was stated intention to adopt, not actual use of unconventional water. Farmers may encounter later obstacles involving treatment, storage, transport, irrigation infrastructure, initial costs, administrative procedures or uncertain water quality. Longitudinal research combining questionnaires with water-use records and adoption rates would be needed to test whether the modeled predictors correspond to sustained behavior, while studies in annual crops or integrated agroforestry would clarify whether the same relationships apply in other agricultural settings.

Subject of Research: An extended Technology Acceptance Model of Iranian farmers’ intentions to use unconventional water for tree-farm irrigation.

Article Title: Explaining farmers’ intention to adopt unconventional water for tree farming: an extended technology acceptance model in water-scarce Iran

Article References: Maleknia, R., & Sadeghi, S. M. M. (2026). Explaining farmers’ intention to adopt unconventional water for tree farming: an extended technology acceptance model in water-scarce Iran. Frontiers in Forests and Global Change, 9, 1917633. https://doi.org/10.3389/ffgc.2026.1917633

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.3389/ffgc.2026.1917633

Keywords: Iran, water scarcity, water reuse, tree farming, farmer behavior, technology acceptance, institutional support, water quality, PLS-SEM, agricultural irrigation, Explaining, farmers