Policies worry farmers more than climate change, says new study

Sep 11, 2013
Farmers’ past perceptions of different environmental policies had a larger impact on their climate change beliefs. Credit: Karin Higgins/UC Davis photo

California farmers feel more threatened by climate policy than they do by climate change, according to a new study from the University of California, Davis.

The study, published in the journal Global Environmental Change, found that the greatest climate risk Yolo County farmers believe they face in the future is not drought, water shortages, or temperature changes, but government regulations.

However, this view did not make them less likely to participate in government incentive programs that would help their climate adaptation and mitigation efforts.

"We found that the past matters," said lead author Meredith Niles, a doctoral candidate in the Graduate Group in Ecology and Department of Environmental Science and Policy at UC Davis. "Farmers' past perceptions of different environmental policies had a larger impact on their beliefs and policy behaviors than their actual experience with climate change."

Yolo County is a north Central Valley community that is home to UC Davis and a diverse mix of crops and livestock systems. More than 80 percent of land in Yolo County is devoted to agriculture.

UC Davis researchers analyzed 162 surveys returned by farmers and ranchers in 2011, and they conducted interviews with 11 farmers and two cooperative extension agents in 2010.

In Yolo County, 54 percent of farmers responding to the survey accepted that climate change was occurring. Of these, only 35 percent believed humans play a role in climate change.

Farmers were asked about their attitudes toward four specific environmental policies: pesticide use reporting (implemented in 1990), rice straw burning regulations (1991), a water quality conditional waiver program (2003), and stationary diesel engine emission regulations (2007). Farmers who had negative past experiences with environmental policies—viewing them as too costly or time-consuming, for example—showed less belief in climate change.

Farmers also tended to view policies that had been around the longest more positively, indicating that perceptions can become more favorable over time.

Several farmers viewed climate change as something in the far distant future, rather than as an immediate threat. They viewed the need to adapt to changing weather as a centuries-old, inherent part of farming.

The study quoted one farmer as saying: "For me, to be concerned about it [climate change] at my level and at my point, I don't think it's useful for me. I have other more important things that affect my business or my family that I want to spend time on versus something that could happen ten thousand years from now."

Despite negative views toward regulations and a lack of concern over climate change, 48 percent of farmers said they would participate in a government incentive program for climate change mitigation and adaptation.

"This shows that farmers are willing to overlook negative past perceptions if there are incentives offered for them," Niles said.

While Niles said more research is needed, she thinks farmers hold similar sentiments in other parts of the country and world. Strikingly similar results were found in a comparative study she conducted in New Zealand, where 51 percent of farmers believed in climate change and were far more concerned about risks associated with climate policy.

The results of the Yolo County study indicate that failure to consider farmers' perceptions of climate change and is a missed opportunity for policymakers to engage with the agricultural community and gain support for climate change initiatives, Niles said. Doing so could also reduce the time lag present when ' views of past policies affect how they respond to future environmental issues—in this study's case, decades later.

"These policy perceptions really linger because they've had a big impact on agricultural communities," Niles said. "To give them a voice and engage them in the process from the outset hopefully will alleviate their concerns in some ways."

Explore further: 3Qs: Game theory and global climate talks

More information: www.sciencedirect.com/science/… ii/S0959378013001404

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Philippines sets up climate change fund

Aug 21, 2012

Philippine President Benigno Aquino has signed a law creating a one billion peso (about $24 million) "survival fund" to combat the effects of climate change, a government official said Tuesday.

Recommended for you

3Qs: Game theory and global climate talks

Nov 21, 2014

Last week, China and the United States announced an ambitious climate agreement aimed at reducing carbon emissions in both countries, a pledge that marks the first time that China has agreed to stop its growing emissions. ...

From hurricanes to drought, LatAm's volatile climate

Nov 21, 2014

Sixteen years ago, Teodoro Acuna Zavala lost nearly everything when Hurricane Mitch ravaged his fields, pouring 10 days of torrential rains on Central America and killing more than 9,000 people.

Nicaragua: Studies say canal impact to be minimal

Nov 20, 2014

Officials said Thursday that studies have determined a $40 billion inter-oceanic canal across Nicaragua will have minimal impact on the environment and society, and construction is to begin next month.

User comments : 5

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

freethinking
1.9 / 5 (18) Sep 11, 2013
When Progressives are in charge..... you are right to fear policy over everything.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (15) Sep 11, 2013
Socialism caused starvation in USSR, Cuba, DPRK, Zimbabwe, not climate.
Schatz
2.8 / 5 (6) Sep 11, 2013
This is a really important article, because it illuminates how people whose livelihoods are threatened by climate change think about it not in terms of the science (which is vast and clear: fossil fuel emissions are warming the planet which causes climate change and extreme weather) but in terms of their experience with institutions. The farmer who thinks the threat is 10,000 years in the future must see that torrential rains , droughts, unprecidented warm spells in winter and cold spell in summer are affecting his crops, but it's so big and terrifying he naturally pushes it into a future beyond imagining. But what we need are government policies, because combatting climate change requires more than individual efforts. Without regulations and a price on carbon, we are all economically and environmentally toast.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Sep 11, 2013
Schatz, you have never farmed have you?
mememine69
1.3 / 5 (12) Sep 11, 2013
The scientific consensus is that; "it is real and happening a could lead to a climate crisis" but in 28 years they have NEVER said anything beyond "could be" a crisis and have NEVER said it WILL happen eventually, like they say comet hits are. So why are believers of climate change crisis saying it WILL happen when science has never said or agreed it will happen?
Deniers perpetuate this costly debate to save the planet so why don't we all demand that science gives us a real warning for a real crisis otherwise CO2 mitigation is impossible?

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.