Six languages for a risky climate: how farmers react to weather and climate change
- 2k Downloads
How climate-sensitive actors—like commercial farmers—perceive, understand, and react to weather and climate stimuli will ultimately determine the success or failure of climate change adaptation policies. Many studies have characterized farmers’ climate risk perceptions or farming practices, but few have evaluated the in situ decision-making processes that link (or fail to link) risk perceptions to adaptive behaviors. Here, we use a novel methodology to reveal patterns in climate-sensitive decision-making by commercial grain farmers in South Africa. We structure, linguistically code, and statistically analyze causal relationships described in 30 mental models interviews. We show that farmers’ framing of weather and climate risks strongly predicts their adoption of conservation agriculture (CA)—climate-resilient best practices that reduce shorter-term financial and weather risks and longer-term agronomic risks. These farmers describe weather and climate risks using six exhaustive and mutually exclusive languages: agricultural, cognitive, economic, emotional, political, and survival. The prevalence of agricultural and economic language only weakly predicts CA practice, whereas emotional and farm survival language strongly limits CA adoption. The framing of weather risks in terms of farm survival impedes adaptations that are likely to improve such survival in the longer term. But this survival framing is not necessarily indicative of farmers’ current economic circumstances. It represents a consequential mindset rather than a financial state and it may go undetected in more conventional studies relying on direct survey or interview questions.
The authors thank their participants for their time and attention; Mark New and the African Climate & Development Initiative at the University of Cape Town for logistical support; Peter Johnston, Johann Strauss, and Francis Steyn for their guidance; Jannie Bruwer, Pieter Burger, Louis Coetzee, Pierre Laubscher, Daniel Badenhorst, and Elena Hough for their help in recruiting willing participants; Eric Leinberger for the map; and Lucy Rodina for her research assistance.
K.M.F. designed the study, collected and analyzed the data, and wrote the paper. T.S., M.K., and S.D.D. supervised the design and analysis and edited the manuscript.
This work was funded by the International Development Research Centre (#106204-99906075-058), the Centre for International Governance Innovation, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (Insight Grant #435-2013-2017), the University of British Columbia, and IODE Canada.
- Goffman E (1974) Frame analysis: an essay on the organization of experience. Harper Colophon, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Morgan MG, Fischhoff B, Bostrom A, Atman CJ (2002) Risk communication: a mental models approach. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Moschini G, Hennessy DA (2001) Uncertainty, risk aversion, and risk management for agricultural producers. In: Gardner B, Rausser G (eds) Handbook of agricultural economics, pp 87–153Google Scholar
- Niang I, Ruppel OC, Abdrabo MA et al (2014) Africa. In: Barros VR, Field CB, Dokken DJ et al (eds) Climate change 2014: impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Part B: regional aspects. Contribution of working group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge, U.K.Google Scholar
- RSA (2013a) Long-term adaptation scenarios flagship research Programme (LTAS) for South Africa. Climate change implications for agriculture and forestry sectors in South Africa. Republic of South Africa, Department of Environmental AffairsGoogle Scholar
- RSA (2013b) Abstract of agricultural statistics. Republic of South Africa, Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Pretoria, p 2013Google Scholar