Envisioning New Roles for Land-Grant University Extension: Lessons Learned from Climate Change Outreach in the Midwest

Recent surveys with farmers, Extension personnel, and agricultural advisors reveal interesting findings about climate change beliefs and who people trust for climate related information. Based on these results this article discusses a new direction for land-grant university Extension and research in addressing issues related to climate change and agriculture

Do advisors perceive climate change as an agricultural risk? An in-depth examination of Midwestern U.S. Ag advisors’ views on drought, climate change, and risk management

Through the lens of the Health Belief Model and Protection Motivation Theory, we analyzed interviews of 36 agricultural advisors in Indiana and Nebraska to understand their appraisals of climate change risk, related decision making processes and subsequent risk management advice to producers. Most advisors interviewed accept that weather events are a risk for US Midwestern agriculture; however, they are more concerned about tangible threats such as crop prices. There is not much concern about climate change among agricultural advisors. Management practices that could help producers adapt to climate change were more likely to be recommended by conservation and Extension advisors, while financial and crop advisors focused more upon season-to-season decision making (e.g., hybrid seeds and crop insurance). We contend that the agricultural community should integrate long-term thinking as part of farm decision making processes and that agricultural advisors are in a prime position to influence producers. In the face of increasing extreme weather events, climatologists and advisors should work more closely to reach a shared understanding of the risks posed to agriculture by climate change

Agricultural Stakeholder Views on Climate Change: Implications for Conducting Research and Outreach

Understanding U.S. agricultural stakeholder views about the existence of climate change and its causes is central to developing interventions in support of adaptation and mitigation. Results from surveys conducted with six Midwestern stakeholder groups [corn producers, agricultural advisors, climatologists, extension educators, and two different cross-disciplinary teams of scientists funded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture–National Institute of Food and Agriculture (USDA–NIFA)] reveal striking differences. Individuals representing these groups were asked in 2011/12 to “select the statement that best reflects your beliefs about climate change.” Three of five answer options included the notion that climate change is occurring but for different reasons (mostly human activities; mostly natural; more or less equally by natural and human activities). The last two options were “there is not sufficient evidence to know with certainty whether climate change is occurring or not” and “climate change is not occurring.” Results reveal that agricultural and climate scientists are more likely to believe that climate change is mostly due to human activities (50%–67%) than farmers and advisors (8%–12%). Almost a quarter of farmers and agricultural advisors believe the source of climate change is mostly natural causes, and 22%–31% state that there is not sufficient evidence to know with certainty whether it is occurring or not. This discrepancy in beliefs creates challenges for communicating climate science to agricultural stakeholders in ways that encourage adaptation and mitigation. Results suggest that engagement strategies that reduce threats to worldviews and increase public dialogue could make climate information more relevant to stakeholder groups with different belief structures

Designing a Regional System of Social Indicators to Evaluate Nonpoint Source Water Projects

A collaborative team has developed a system to measure the social outcomes of nonpoint source water projects as indicators of progress towards environmental goals. The system involves a set of core indicators, additional supplemental indicators, and a process for collecting and using the indicators. This process is supported by methodologies and instruments for data collection, analysis, and reporting that are coordinated and supported through detailed written guidance and an on-line data management tool. Its multi-state scope and application offer a unique opportunity to target, measure, and report interim resource management accomplishments consistently at multiple levels

Determinants and Benefits of Household Level Participation in Rural Drinking Water Projects in India

Using data from households in 45 villages in rural India, this paper finds that wealth, literacy, household and village size are often determinants of two measures of participation in community-based development projects: meeting attendance and capital cost contributions. Using propensity score matching, this study concludes that participation leads to benefits for the households that participate although these benefits are strongest in regions with higher levels of overall participation. This study finds no evidence of elite capture with both poor and wealthy households benefiting from their participation.

It’s Who You Know: Social Capital, Social Networks, and Watershed Groups

Social capital, usually conceptualized as trusting relationships among members of a group, is often discussed as playing an important role in watershed groups. This study is grounded in the social networks conceptualization of social capital and seeks to identify how access to social resources aids in achieving watershed group outcomes. Three comparative cases along a rural–urban continuum in the Midwest were studied using qualitative in-depth interviews (n1⁄438) and meeting observation. The major finding of this research is that purposive selection of watershed-group participants to provide the greatest access to human capital and social network ties aids watershed groups in achieving outcomes. Guidance provided by state agencies to newly formed watershed groups should include suggestions for what types of network ties might be most beneficial for different objectives and how such ties can be sought out

Why farmers adopt best management practice in the United States: A meta-analysis of the adoption literature

This meta-analysis of both published and unpublished studies assesses factors believed to influence adoption of agricultural Best Management Practices in the United States. Using an established statistical technique to summarize the adoption literature in the United States, we identified the following variables as having the largest impact on adoption: access to and quality of information, financial capacity, and being connected to agency or local networks of farmers or watershed groups. This study shows that various approaches to data collection affect the results and comparability of adoption studies. In particular, environmental awareness and farmer attitudes have been inconsistently used and measured across the literature. This meta-analysis concludes with suggestions regarding the future direction of adoption studies, along with guidelines for how data should be presented to enhance the adoption of conservation practices and guide research

The role of wealth, income, and social capital in determining a household’s choice to participate in rural water-supply projects in Peru

We explore the determinants of a household’s choice to participate in rural water-supply projects in the Cuzco Department of Peru. Using survey data collected from over 1500 households in 99 villages, we present fixed-effects and random-effects models that explain a household’s decision to participate in two ways—through meeting attendance and through involvement in decision making. We find that income and wealth impact the decision to participate in different ways. Households with more wealth, measured by ownership of assets, were more likely to attend meetings but were less likely to have a voice in decision making. In terms of income, we find that middle-class households had more input into decision making than lower-income households. Household-level measures of social capital positively affected participation both in terms of attending meetings and in the number of decisions in which households were involved.