15 pages, Climate change is a central risk to global agriculture. As extension professionals are key disseminators of information on agricultural production, their perceptions of climate change and how they convey climate information to farmers is important to understand. This study explored how extension professionals in Missouri perceive the issue of climate change, how they frame communications with their producer stakeholders, and their need for training. We conducted an online survey with 112 extension professionals in the state, using Maibach and colleagues’ Six Americas Scale. The majority of participants believed that climate change is happening, although participants fell into each segment of the scale. There was a significant relationship between conservative ideological leaning and disbelief in climate change. Participants were more likely to use terms like “extreme weather,” “weather variability,” and “long-term weather” and least likely to say things like “climate debate,” “global warming,” and “greenhouse gases.” Only 6.7% of participants had received any formal training on climate change. These findings point to the need for participatory training for extension professionals on climate change, to build climate literacy while also teaching climate scientists best practices for communicating these issues to the public.
28 pages, via online journal, While uncertainty is central to science, many fear negative effects of communicating scientific uncertainties to the public, though research results about such effects are inconsistent. Therefore, we test the effects of four distinct uncertainty frame types (deficient, technical, scientific, consensus) on three outcomes (belief, credibility, behavioral intentions) across three science issues (climate change, GMO food labeling, machinery hazards) with an experiment using a national sample (N = 2,247) approximating U.S. census levels of age, education, and gender. We find portraying scientific findings using uncertainty frames usually does not have significant effects, with an occasional exception being small negative effects of consensus uncertainty.
Shellabarger, Rachel M. (author), Voss, Rachel C. (author), Egerer, Monika (author), Chiang, Shun-Nan (author), and University of California, Santa Cruz
Format:
Journal article
Publication Date:
2018-10-17
Published:
United States: Springer Netherlands
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 8 Document Number: D10316
13 pages., Via online journal., The idea of a profound urban–rural divide has shaped analysis of the 2016 U.S. presidential election results. Here, through examples from agri-food systems, we consider the limitations of the urban–rural divide framework in light of the assumptions and intentions that underpin it. We explore the ideas and imaginaries that shape urban and rural categories, consider how material realities are and are not translated into U.S. rural development, farm, and nutrition policies, and examine the blending of rural and urban identities through processes of rural deagrarianization and urban reagrarianization. We do not argue that an urban–rural divide does not exist, as studies and public opinion polls illustrate both measured and perceived differences in many aspects of the lived experiences that shape our individual and collective actions. Ultimately, we suggest that the urban–rural divide concept obscures the diversity and dynamism of experiences each category encompasses. Additionally, it ignores the connections and commonalities that demand integrative solutions to challenges in agri-food systems, and draw attention to the power relations that shape resource access and use within and across urban and rural spaces.