IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/eurcho/v22y2023i1p74-80.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Information about Climate Change Mitigation: What Do Farmers Think?

Author

Listed:
  • Doris Läpple

Abstract

The adoption of new practices by farmers is one of the key strategies to lower greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from food production. In this context, effective knowledge transfer systems are essential to inform farmers about climate change, and to convince them of the benefits of new technologies. In this article, farmers’ opinions about climate change, their own efforts to mitigate climate change, and their suggestions on how to improve agricultural advice were assessed. To this end, a survey with over 500 livestock farmers was conducted in Ireland. The findings reveal a high awareness of the urgency to address climate change in general, but many farmers also think agricultural GHG emissions are an overstated problem. In addition, half of the surveyed farmers believe that implementing GHG mitigation measures will lower their profits. These findings underline the need to provide effective knowledge transfer to facilitate the uptake of GHG mitigation measures. When asking farmers directly, by way of text analysis, it emerges that simple messages, group and practical advice that is tailored to individual farming situations is important to farmers. As such, this article provides important insights that are of relevance for designing advisory campaigns to promote climate change mitigation. L'adoption de nouvelles pratiques par les agriculteurs est l'une des stratégies clés pour réduire les émissions de gaz à effet de serre (GES) provenant de la production alimentaire. Dans ce contexte, des systèmes efficaces de transfert de connaissances sont essentiels pour informer les agriculteurs sur le changement climatique et les convaincre des avantages des nouvelles technologies. Dans cet article, les opinions des agriculteurs sur le changement climatique, leurs propres efforts pour l'atténuer et leurs suggestions sur la manière d'améliorer le conseil agricole ont été évalués. Pour cela, une enquête auprès de plus de 500 éleveurs a été menée en Irlande. Les résultats révèlent une grande prise de conscience de l'urgence de lutter contre le changement climatique en général, mais de nombreux agriculteurs pensent également que les émissions de GES agricoles sont un problème surestimé. De plus, la moitié des agriculteurs interrogés pensent que la mise en œuvre de mesures d'atténuation des GES réduira leurs bénéfices. Ces constatations soulignent la nécessité de fournir un transfert de connaissances efficace pour faciliter l'adoption des mesures d'atténuation des GES. En interrogeant directement les agriculteurs, par le biais d'une analyse de texte, il ressort que des messages simples, des conseils en groupe et pratiques adaptés aux situations agricoles individuelles sont importants pour les agriculteurs. En tant que tel, cet article fournit des informations importantes qui sont pertinentes pour la conception de campagnes de conseil visant à promouvoir l'atténuation du changement climatique. Die Anwendung neuer Verfahren auf landwirtschaftlichen Betrieben ist eine der wichtigsten Strategien zur Verringerung von Treibhausgasemissionen aus der Nahrungsmittelproduktion. In diesem Zusammenhang ist ein effektiver Wissenstransfer unerlässlich, um landwirtschaftliche Betriebe über den Klimawandel zu informieren und sie von den Vorteilen neuer Technologien zu überzeugen. Dieser Artikel untersucht die Meinungen der Landwirtinnen und Landwirte zum Klimawandel, ihre eigenen Bemühungen zur Bekämpfung des Klimawandels und ihre Vorschläge zur Verbesserung der landwirtschaftlichen Beratung. Hierfür wurde in Irland eine Umfrage auf mehr als 500 viehhaltenden Betrieben durchgeführt. Die Ergebnisse zeigen, dass sich viele Landwirtinnen und Landwirte der Dringlichkeit von Maßnahmen zum Klimaschutz bewusst sind. Gleichzeitig sind aber auch viele der Meinung, dass die Treibhausgasemissionen aus der Landwirtschaft ein überbewertetes Problem darstellen. Darüber hinaus glaubt die Hälfte der Befragten, dass die Umsetzung von Maßnahmen zur Verringerung der Treibhausgasemissionen zu Gewinneinbußen führen wird. Die Ergebnisse unterstreichen die Notwendigkeit eines effektiven Wissenstransfers, um die Einführung entsprechender Maßnahmen zu erleichtern. Des Weiteren wurde die Bedeutung von einfachen Botschaften und gruppenbezogenen sowie praktischen Beratungen – die auf die individuelle landwirtschaftliche Situation abzielen – deutlich. Somit liefert der vorliegende Artikel nützliche Erkenntnisse im Hinblick auf die Ausgestaltung von Beratungsangeboten zur Förderung des Klimaschutzes.

Suggested Citation

  • Doris Läpple, 2023. "Information about Climate Change Mitigation: What Do Farmers Think?," EuroChoices, The Agricultural Economics Society, vol. 22(1), pages 74-80, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:eurcho:v:22:y:2023:i:1:p:74-80
    DOI: 10.1111/1746-692X.12384
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1746-692X.12384
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1746-692X.12384?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Birkhaeuser, Dean & Evenson, Robert E & Feder, Gershon, 1991. "The Economic Impact of Agricultural Extension: A Review," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 39(3), pages 607-650, April.
    2. Doris Läpple & Garth Holloway & Donald J Lacombe & Cathal O’Donoghue, 2017. "Sustainable technology adoption: a spatial analysis of the Irish Dairy Sector," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 44(5), pages 810-835.
    3. Jean‐Paul Chavas & Céline Nauges, 2020. "Uncertainty, Learning, and Technology Adoption in Agriculture," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 42(1), pages 42-53, March.
    4. Doris Läpple & Thia Hennessy, 2015. "Assessing the Impact of Financial Incentives in Extension Programmes: Evidence From Ireland," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 66(3), pages 781-795, September.
    5. George W. Norton & Jeffrey Alwang, 2020. "Changes in Agricultural Extension and Implications for Farmer Adoption of New Practices," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 42(1), pages 8-20, March.
    6. Tali Sharot & Cass R. Sunstein, 2020. "How people decide what they want to know," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 4(1), pages 14-19, January.
    7. Martin C. Parlasca & Matin Qaim, 2022. "Meat Consumption and Sustainability," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 14(1), pages 17-41, October.
    8. Russell Golman & David Hagmann & George Loewenstein, 2017. "Information Avoidance," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 55(1), pages 96-135, March.
    9. David J. Pannell & Roger Claassen, 2020. "The Roles of Adoption and Behavior Change in Agricultural Policy," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 42(1), pages 31-41, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Theresa Rubhara & James Gaffey & Gavin Hunt & Fionnuala Murphy & Kevin O’Connor & Enda Buckley & Luis Alejandro Vergara, 2024. "A Business Case for Climate Neutrality in Pasture-Based Dairy Production Systems in Ireland: Evidence from Farm Zero C," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(3), pages 1-18, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. David Pannell & David Zilberman, 2020. "Understanding Adoption of Innovations and Behavior Change to Improve Agricultural Policy," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 42(1), pages 3-7, March.
    2. Balaine, Lorraine & Buckley, Cathal & Dillon, Emma J., 2022. "Mixed public-private and private extension systems: A comparative analysis using farm-level data from Ireland," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    3. Dario Schulz & Jan Börner, 2023. "Innovation context and technology traits explain heterogeneity across studies of agricultural technology adoption: A meta‐analysis," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 74(2), pages 570-590, June.
    4. Madhu Khanna & Shady S. Atallah & Saurajyoti Kar & Bijay Sharma & Linghui Wu & Chengzheng Yu & Girish Chowdhary & Chinmay Soman & Kaiyu Guan, 2022. "Digital transformation for a sustainable agriculture in the United States: Opportunities and challenges," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 53(6), pages 924-937, November.
    5. Qian Liu & Yongmu Jiang & Carl‐Johan Lagerkvist & Wei Huang, 2023. "Extension services and the technical efficiency of crop‐specific farms in China," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 45(1), pages 436-459, March.
    6. Trinh Nguyen Chau & Frank Scrimgeour, 2022. "Productivity impacts of hybrid rice seeds in Vietnam," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 73(2), pages 414-429, June.
    7. Richard Völker & Sven Grüner, 2023. "Animal protection and information avoidance," Chapters, in: Cass R. Sunstein & Lucia A. Reisch (ed.), Research Handbook on Nudges and Society, chapter 7, pages 109-128, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    8. Alberto Prati & Charlotte Saucet, 2024. "The causal effect of a health treatment on beliefs, stated preferences and memories," Economics Series Working Papers 1031, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    9. Edika Quispe-Torreblanca & John Gathergood & George Loewenstein & Neil Stewart, 2020. "Attention Utility: Evidence from Individual Investors," CESifo Working Paper Series 8091, CESifo.
    10. Mamiya Binte Ahsan & Guo Leifeng & Fardous Mohammad Safiul Azam & Beibei Xu & Shah Johir Rayhan & Abdul Kaium & Wang Wensheng, 2022. "Barriers, Challenges, and Requirements for ICT Usage among Sub-Assistant Agricultural Officers in Bangladesh: Toward Sustainability in Agriculture," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-27, December.
    11. David J. Pannell & Roger Claassen, 2020. "The Roles of Adoption and Behavior Change in Agricultural Policy," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 42(1), pages 31-41, March.
    12. Edenbrandt, Anna Kristina & Lagerkvist, Carl Johan & Nordström, Jonas, 2021. "Interested, indifferent or active information avoiders of carbon labels: Cognitive dissonance and ascription of responsibility as motivating factors," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    13. Völker, Richard & Gruener, Sven, 2023. "Wollen wir überhaupt wissen, wie der Status quo im Tierschutz ist?," OSF Preprints pbyfg, Center for Open Science.
    14. Christopher. A. Kelly & Tali Sharot, 2021. "Individual differences in information-seeking," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 12(1), pages 1-13, December.
    15. Rick S. Llewellyn & Brendan Brown, 2020. "Predicting Adoption of Innovations by Farmers: What is Different in Smallholder Agriculture?," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 42(1), pages 100-112, March.
    16. Anthony Cawley & Cathal O’Donoghue & Kevin Heanue & Rachel Hilliard & Maura Sheehan, 2018. "The Impact of Extension Services on Farm‐level Income: An Instrumental Variable Approach to Combat Endogeneity Concerns," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(4), pages 585-612, December.
    17. Konstantin Offer & Dorothee Mischkowski & Zoe Rahwan & Christoph Engel, 2024. "Deliberately Ignoring Unfairness: Responses to Uncertain Inequality in the Ultimatum Game," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2024_06, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    18. Eugen Dimant & Shaul Shalvi, 2022. "Meta-Nudging Honesty: Past, Present, and Future of the Research Frontier," CESifo Working Paper Series 9939, CESifo.
    19. O'Callaghan, Daniel & Hennessy, Thia & Breen, James, 2016. "Factors Associated with Extension Programme Participation: The case of discussion groups for Irish cattle farmers," 90th Annual Conference, April 4-6, 2016, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 236329, Agricultural Economics Society.
    20. Justice A. Tambo & Mathews Matimelo, 2022. "An act of defiance? Measuring farmer deviation from personalised extension recommendations in Zambia," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 73(2), pages 396-413, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:eurcho:v:22:y:2023:i:1:p:74-80. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/eaaeeea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.