14 pgs., There is an overwhelming scientific consensus that global climate is changing with associated devastating, yet differential impacts on different world regions. This, therefore, calls for efforts to improve our understanding of the phenomenon as a way of enhancing mitigation and adaptation measures.Although a lot has been done in this respect, the present study examines the extent to which misnomers associated with the calendar months and local climate events can be employed to convey the phenomenon of climate change to rural agriculturists in the Bolgatanga municipality. The study establishes that the names of the calendar months, which serve asgoalposts for local agricultural practices no longer portray their true meaning due to climate change. The study, therefore, recommends the use of nuanced ways of communicating climate change to local agriculturists,using scientific research, lived experiences as well as socially and culturally embedded tools such as misnomers associated with local climate events.
21 pages, Climate change continues to impact the livelihoods of smallholder farmers due to low adaptive capacity. In South Africa, the challenge is exacerbated by water scarcity and shortened crop-growing seasons. Climate-smart irrigation innovative technologies (CSIT) enhance smallholder farmers’ resilience to climate change. However, there is still a limited level of effective adoption and usage of these technologies in smallholder communities. This study investigated the barriers affecting the adoption of CSIT in rural areas of the Vhembe and Capricorn districts in Limpopo Province, South Africa. We explored the farmers’ socioeconomic factors extracted from farmers’ perceptions of CSIT-specific attributes. A multi-stage randomized sampling technique was used to select 100 smallholder farmers (SHF). Data analyzed by descriptive statistics such as percentages and frequency distribution are presented in graphs and tables. According to the findings, insufficient communication channels, a lack of financial availability, unstable land tenure systems, and insufficient training are the main obstacles to implementing CSIT. There is a need for policy and decision-makers to improve the communication channels for disseminating agro-meteorological information to the intended beneficiaries.
13 pages, via Online journal, Natural resource advisors operate at a natural resource-climate nexus that presents opportunity for utilization of regionally relevant climate science and tools to support climate smart decision making among land managers. This opportunity, however, may be underutilized. In thousands of county offices across the country, USDA field staff with the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and Farm Service Agency (FSA) interface with farmers on a daily basis to provide conservation technical assistance, farm loans, and disaster recovery assistance. In this study, we conducted a survey of NRCS field staff (n = 1,893) and a similar survey of FSA field staff (n = 4,621) to determine the following: (1) how concerned USDA field staff are with both general and specific climate and weather threats and their effect on agriculture and forestry, (2) what available climate and weather resources staff are currently using, (3) how these factors relate to USDA field staff's confidence and interest in playing the role of climate advisor, and (4) the differences that exist between NRCS and FSA field staff related to these research questions. We found that many USDA field staff are concerned about climate change in general and about several specific impacts, but fewer are confident in their ability to support land managers in addressing these impacts. Additionally, increased concern about climate threats was related to higher levels of climate and weather resource use and an increased desire to play the role of climate advisor, but was also related to lower levels of self-reported ability to play that role. These findings can be used to inform appropriate application of professional development opportunities and creation of tools and resources to improve professional uses of weather and climate information.
Getson, Jackie M. (author), Church, Sarah P. (author), Radulski, Brennan G. (author), Sjöstrand, Anders E. (author), Lu, Junyu (author), and Prokopy, Linda S. (author)
Format:
Journal Article
Publication Date:
2022-08-02
Published:
United States: PLOS One
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 205 Document Number: D12709
22pgs, In the United States, a public debate remains about the existence and effects of anthropogenic climate change. This skepticism is present in the agricultural sector, rendering climate science communication challenging. Due to the polarization of climate change issues and the concurrent need for agricultural adaptation, we sought to examine how scientists communicate in this sector. A survey, administered to climate scientists and pertinent U.S. federal agency staff (response rate = 43%), was conducted to examine perspectives on communicating with five agricultural stakeholder groups: agribusinesses, crop advisors, general public, producers, and policymakers. We focused on three aspects of the communication process with these stakeholders to evaluate if scientists, as messengers, were following best practices–communicator training, knowledge of stakeholder, and terminology use. We found scientists valued communication training; however, the majority had not attended formal training. Scientists had different views on climate change than producers and crop advisors but understood their perspective and were deliberate with their communication with different audiences. This suggests stakeholder knowledge and terminology use do not hinder communication between scientist and stakeholder. We also highlight three communication challenges present across stakeholder groups–stakeholder knowledge, timescale, and scientific uncertainty–and others that were specific to each stakeholder group. Future research should support scientists by identifying and resolving barriers to training and effective communication strategies for each stakeholder group that addresses these challenges.
14 pages, As agricultural conservation priorities evolve to address new complex social-ecological problems and emerging social priorities, new conservation incentive program participation and success can be enhanced by incorporating local stakeholder preferences into program design. Our research explores how farmers incorporate ecosystem services into management decisions, their willingness to participate in payment for ecosystem services programs, and factors beyond compensation level that would influence participation. We conducted three focus groups with 24 participants between January of 2019 and May of 2019 in Vermont. Our study revealed that a strong, intrinsic stewardship ethic motivates farmers to enhance ecosystem service provisioning from their farms, though financial pressures often limit decision-making. These results suggest that programs with sufficient levels of payment may attract participation, at least among some types of farmers, to enhance ecosystem services from farms in Vermont. However, farmers may be deterred from participating by perceived unfairness and distrust of the government based on previous experiences with regulations and conservation incentive structures. Farmers also expressed distrust of information about ecosystem services supply that conflicts with their perceptions of agroecosystem functioning, unless delivered by trusted individuals from the extension system. The delivery of context-specific information on how management changes impact ecosystem service performance from trusted sources could enhance farmers’ decisions, and would aptly complement payments. Additionally, farmers expressed a desire to see a program that both achieves additionality and rewards farms who have been stewards, goals that are potentially at odds. Our findings offer important insights for policy makers and program administrators who need to understand factors that will influence farmers’ willingness to participate in payment for ecosystem service programs and other conservation practice adoption initiatives, in Vermont and elsewhere.
