Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Farmers’ perceptions of climate change: identifying types

  • Published:
Agriculture and Human Values Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Ambitious targets to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from agriculture have been set by both national governments and their respective livestock sectors. We hypothesize that farmer self-identity influences their assessment of climate change and their willingness to implement measures which address the issue. Perceptions of climate change were determined from 286 beef/sheep farmers and evaluated using principal component analysis (PCA). The analysis elicits two components which evaluate identity (productivism and environmental responsibility), and two components which evaluate behavioral capacity to adopt mitigation and adaptation measures (awareness and risk perception). Subsequent Cluster Analyses reveal four farmer types based on the PCA scores. ‘The Productivist’ and ‘The Countryside Steward’ portray low levels of awareness of climate change, but differ in their motivation to adopt pro-environmental behavior. Conversely, both ‘The Environmentalist’ and ‘The Dejected’ score higher in their awareness of the issue. In addition, ‘The Dejected’ holds a high sense of perceived risk; however, their awareness is not conflated with an explicit understanding of agricultural GHG sources. With the exception of ‘The Environmentalist’, there is an evident disconnect between perceptions of agricultural emission sources and their contribution towards GHG emissions amongst all types. If such linkages are not conceptualized, it is unlikely that behavioral capacities will be realized. Effective communication channels which encourage action should target farmers based on the groupings depicted. Therefore, understanding farmer types through the constructs used in this study can facilitate effective and tailored policy development and implementation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

A:

Awareness

ER:

Environmental responsibility

GHG:

Greenhouse gas

P:

Productivism

PCA:

Principal component analysis

PR:

Perceived risk

References

  • Arbuckle, J.G., J.W. Morton, and J. Hobbs. 2013. Farmer beliefs and concerns about climate change and attitudes toward adaptation and mitigation: Evidence from Iowa. Climatic Change 18(3–4): 551–563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arbuckle, J.G., L.W. Morton, and J. Hobbs. 2015. Understanding farmer perspectives on climate change adaptation and mitigation: The roles of trust in sources of climate information, climate change beliefs, and perceived risk. Environment and Behavior 47(2): 205–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnes, A.P., and L. Toma. 2012. A typology of dairy farmer perceptions towards climate change. Climatic Change 112(2): 507–522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beretti, A., C. Figuières, and G. Grolleau. 2013. Behavioral innovations: The missing capital in sustainable development? Ecological Economics 89: 187–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berk, R.A. 1983. An introduction to sample selection bias in sociological data. American Sociological Revew 48: 386–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bidogeza, J., P.B.M. Berentsen, J. De Graaff, and A.G.J.M. Oude Lansink. 2009. A type of farm households for the Umutara province in Rwanda. Food Security 1(3): 321–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bizikova, L., E. Crawford, M. Nijnik, and R. Swart. 2014. Climate change adaptation planning in agriculture: Processes, experiences and lessons learned from early adapters. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 19(4): 411–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Black, A. 2000. Extension theory and practice: A review. Animal Production Science 40(4): 493–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bord, R.J., R.E. O’Connor, and A. Fisher. 2000. In what sense does the public need to understand global climate change? Public Understanding of Science 9(3): 205–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brody, S., H. Grover, and A. Vedlitz. 2012. Examining the willingness of Americans to alter behavior to mitigate climate change. Climate Policy 12(1): 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruce, A. 2013. The lore of low methane livestock: Co-producing technology and animals for reduced climate change impact. Life Sciences Society and Policy 9(10). doi:10.1186/2195-7819-9-10.

  • Burke, P.J., and J.E. Stets. 2009. Identity theory. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Burns, R., and R.P. Burns. 2008. Business research methods and statistics using SPSS. London: Sage Publications Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burton, R.J. 2004. Seeing through the ‘good farmer’s’ eyes: Towards developing an understanding of the social symbolic value of ‘productivist’ behavior. Sociologia Ruralis 44(2): 195–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burton, R.J., and G.A. Wilson. 2006. Injecting social psychology theory into conceptualisations of agricultural agency: Towards a post-productivist farmer self-identity? Journal of Rural Studies 22(1): 95–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carolan, M.S. 2006. Sustainable agriculture, science and the co-production of ‘expert’ knowledge: The value of interactional expertise. Local Environment 11(4): 421–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clayton, S., and O.G. Myers. 2009. Conservation psychology: Understanding and promoting human care for nature. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, M.H., J. Boston, and J. Bright. 2013. Policy challenges for livestock emissions abatement: Lessons from New Zealand. Climate Policy 13(1): 110–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costello, A., and J. Osborne. 2011. Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation 10(7). http://pareonline.net/pdf/v10n7.pdf. Accessed 13 Dec 2014.

  • Defra, 2010. Low carbon farming: The benefits and opportunities. London: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dietz, T., A. Dan, and R. Shwom. 2007. Support for climate change policy: Social psychological and social structural influences. Rural Sociology 72(2): 185–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards-Jones, G. 2006. Modelling farmer decision-making: Concepts, progress and challenges. Animal Science 82(6): 783–790.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eggers, M., M. Kayser, and J. Isselstein. 2014. Grassland farmers’ attitudes toward climate change in the North German plain. Regional Environmental Change 14(4): 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, C., C. Storer, and A. Wardell-Johnson. 2011. Rural farming community climate change acceptance: Impact of science and government credibility. International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and Food 18(3): 217–235.

    Google Scholar 

  • Futures, Farming. 2011. Climate change survey stage five report. Cambridge, MA: Farming Futures.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleming, A., and F. Vanclay. 2010. Farmer responses to climate change and sustainable agriculture. Agriculture for Sustainable Development 30(1): 11–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Field, A. 2009. Discovering statistics using SPSS. London: Sage Publications Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garforth, C., T. Rehman, K. McKemey, R. Tranter, R. Cooke, C. Yates, J. Park, and P. Dorward. 2004. Improving the design of knowledge transfer strategies by understanding farmer attitudes and behavior. Journal of Farm Management 12(1): 17–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gasson, R. 1973. Goals and values of farmers. Journal of Agricultural Economics 24(3): 521–542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerber, P.J., H. Steinfeld, B. Henderson, A. Mottet, C. Opio, J. Dijkman, and G. Tempio. 2013. Tackling climate change through livestock: A global assessment of emissions and mitigation opportunities. Rome: FAO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greiner, R., L. Patterson, and O. Miller. 2009. Motivations, risk perceptions and adoption of conservation practices by farmers. Agricultural Systems 99: 86–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guillem, E., A. Barnes, M. Rounsevell, and A. Renwick. 2012. Refining perception-based farmer typologies with the analysis of past census data. Journal of Environmental Management 110: 226–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haden, V.R., M.T. Niles, M. Lubell, J. Perlman, and L.E. Jackson. 2012. Global and local concerns: What attitudes and beliefs motivate farmers to mitigate and adapt to climate change? PLoS One 7(12): e52882.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J.F., R.E. Anderson, R.L. Tatham, and W.C. Black. 1998. Multivariate data analysis, 5th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, C., and A. Wreford. 2012. Adaptation to climate change: The attitudes of stakeholders in the livestock industry. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 17(2): 207–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • HCC. 2011. A sustainable future: The Welsh red meat roadmap. Aberystwyth: Hybu Cig Cymru.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holloway, L., and B. Ilbery. 1996. Farmers’ attitudes towards environmental change, particularly global warming, and the adjustment of crop mix and farm management. Applied Geography 16(2): 159–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IPCC. 2001. Climate change 2001: Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability: Contribution of working group II to the third assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Islam, M.M., A. Barnes, and L. Toma. 2013. An investigation into climate change scepticism among farmers. Journal of Environmental Psychology 34: 137–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janssens, W., P. De Pelsmacker, K. Wijnen, and P. Van Kenhove. 2008. Marketing research with SPSS. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, A.K., D. Jones, G. Edwards-Jones, and P. Cross. 2013. Informing decision making in agricultural greenhouse gas mitigation policy: A Best-Worst scaling survey of expert and farmer opinion in the sheep industry. Environmental Science & Policy 29: 46–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klerkx, L., M. Schut, C. Leeuwis, and C. Kilelu. 2012. Advances in knowledge brokering in the agricultural sector: Towards innovation system facilitation. IDS Bulletin 43(5): 53–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Köbrich, C., T. Rehman, and M. Khan. 2003. Typification of farming systems for constructing representative farm models: Two illustrations of the application of multi-variate analyses in Chile and Pakistan. Agricultural Systems 76(1): 141–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kollmuss, A., and J. Agyeman. 2002. Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental Education Research 8(3): 239–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kurz, T., N. Donaghue, M. Rapley, and I. Walker. 2005. The ways that people talk about natural resources: Discursive strategies as barriers to environmentally sustainable practices. British Journal of Social Psychology 44(4): 603–620.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langford, I.H. 2002. An existential approach to risk perception. Risk Analysis 22(1): 101–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lankester, A.J. 2013. Conceptual and operational understanding of learning for sustainability: A case study of the beef industry in north-eastern Australia. Journal of Environmental Management 119: 182–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leeuwis, C., R. Pyburn, and N. Röling. 2002. Wheelbarrows full of frogs: Social learning in rural resource management: International research and reflections. The Netherlands: Koninklijke van Gorcum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leiserowitz, A. 2006. Climate change risk perception and policy preferences: The role of affect, imagery, and values. Climatic Change 77: 45–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leopold, A. 1949. A sand county almanac. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lesschen, J.P., M. van den Berg, H.J. Westhoek, H.P. Witzke, and O. Oenema. 2011. Greenhouse gas emission profiles of European livestock sectors. Animal Feed Science and Technology 166: 16–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lockie, S., A. Mead, F. Vanclay, and B. Butler. 1995. Factors encouraging the adoption of more sustainable crop rotations in South-East Australia: Profit, sustainability, risk and stability. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 6(1): 61–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lokhorst, A.M., H. Staats, J. van Dijk, E. van Dijk, and G. de Snoo. 2011. What’s in it for me? Motivational differences between farmers’ subsidised and non-subsidised conservation practices. Applied Psychology 60(3): 337–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lorenzoni, I., S. Nicholson-Cole, and L. Whitmarsh. 2007. Barriers perceived to engaging with climate change among the UK public and their policy implications. Global Environmental Change 17(3–4): 445–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luschei, E.C., C.M. Hammond, C.M. Boerboom, and P.J. Nowak. 2009. Convenience sample of on-farm research cooperators representative of Wisconsin farmers. Weed Technology 23(2): 300–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowe, P., J. Murdoch, T. Marsden, R. Munton, and A. Flynn. 1993. Regulating the new rural spaces: The uneven development of land. Journal of Rural Studies 9(3): 205–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maibach, E., C. Roser-Renouf, and A. Leiserowitz. 2009. Global warming’s Six Americas 2009: An audience segmentation analysis. Yale project on climate change. New Haven, CT: Yale University and George Mason University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maiteny, P.T. 2002. Mind in the gap: Summary of research exploring ‘inner’ influences on pro-sustainability learning and behavior. Environmental Education Research 8(3): 209–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Masud, M.M., R. Akhtar, R. Afroz, A.Q. Al-Amin, and F.B. Kari. 2013. Pro-environmental behavior and public understanding of climate change. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 18(7): 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCown, R.L. 2005. New thinking about farmer decision makers. In The Farmers’ decision: Balancing Economic Successful Agriculture Production with Environmental Quality, ed. J.L. Hatfield, 11–44. Ankeny, IA: Soil and Water Conservation Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGuire, J., L.W. Morton, and A.D. Cast. 2013. Reconstructing the good farmer identity: Shifts in farmer identities and farm management practices to improve water quality. Agriculture and Human Values 30(1): 57–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Menapace, L., G. Colson, and R. Raffaelli. 2012. Cognitive heuristics and farmers’ perceptions of risks related to climate change. 2012 Annual Meeting, August 12–14, 2012, Seattle, Washington, (124770) 12/08/12.

  • Morgan-Davies, C., T. Waterhouse, and R. Wilson. 2011. Characterisation of farmers’ responses to policy reforms in Scottish hill farming areas. Small Ruminant Research 102(2–3): 96–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moser, S.C. 2010. Communicating climate change: History, challenges, process and future directions. Climate Change 1(1): 31–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nainggolan, D., M. Termansen, M.S. Reed, E.D. Cebollero, and K. Hubacek. 2012. Farmer typology, future scenarios and the implications for ecosystem service provision: A case study from south-eastern Spain. Regional Environmental Change 13(3): 601–614.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niles, M.T., M. Lubell, and V.R. Haden. 2013. Perceptions and responses to climate policy risks among California farmers. Global Environmental Change 23(6): 1752–1760.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nunnally, J. 1967. Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Connor, R.E., R.J. Bord, and A. Fisher. 1999. Risk perceptions, general environmental beliefs, and willingness to address climate change. Risk Analysis 19(3): 461–471.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Connor, R.E., R.J. Bord, B. Yarnal, and N. Wiefek. 2002. Who wants to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? Social Science Quarterly 83(1): 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD. 2012. OECD environmental outlook to 2050: The consequences of inaction. Paris: Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pallant, J. 2010. SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS. London: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pannell, D.J., G.R. Marshall, N. Barr, A. Curtis, F. Vanclay, and R. Wilkinson. 2006. Understanding and promoting adoption of conservation practices by rural landholders. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 46(11): 1407–1424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pidgeon, N. 2012. Public understanding of, and attitudes to, climate change: UK and international perspectives and policy. Climate Policy 12(1): 85–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prokopy, L., K. Floress, D. Klotthor-Weinkauf, and A. Baumgart-Getz. 2008. Determinants of agricultural best management practice adoption: Evidence from the literature. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 63(5): 300–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ratter, B.M.W., K.H.I. Philipp, and H. von Storch. 2012. Between hype and decline: Recent trends in public perception of climate change. Environmental Science & Policy 18: 3–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reed, M.S., L.C. Stringer, I. Fazey, A.C. Evely, and J.H.J. Kruijsen. 2014. Five principles for the practical knowledge exchange in environmental management. Journal of Environmental Management 146: 337–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reimer, A.P., A.W. Thompson, and L.S. Prokopy. 2012. The multi-dimensional nature of environmental attitudes among farmers in Indiana: Implications for conservation adoption. Agriculture and Human Values 29(1): 29–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosin, C. 2013. Food security and the justification of productivism in New Zealand. Journal of Rural Studies 29: 50–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Semenza, J.C., D.E. Hall, D.J. Wilson, B.D. Bontempo, D.J. Sailor, and L.A. George. 2008. Public perception of climate change: Voluntary mitigation and barriers to behavior change. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 35(5): 479–487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheeder, R.J., and G.D. Lynne. 2011. Empathy-conditioned conservation: “Walking in the shoes of others” as a conservation farmer. Land Economics 87(3): 433–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stern, P.C., T. Dietz, T. Abel, G.A. Guagnano, and L. Kalof. 1999. A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: The case of environmentalism. Human Ecology Review 6(2): 81–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Story, P.A., and D.R. Forsyth. 2008. Watershed conservation and preservation: Environmental engagement as helping behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology 28(4): 305–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stuart, D., and S. Gillon. 2013. Scaling up to address new challenges to conservation on US farmland. Land Use Policy 31: 223–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stuart, D., R.L. Schewe, and M. McDermott. 2014. Reducing nitrogen fertilizer application as a climate change mitigation strategy: Understanding farmer decision-making and potential barriers to change in the US. Land Use Policy 36: 210–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sulemana, I., and H.S. James Jr. 2014. Farmer identity, ethical attitudes and environmental practices. Ecological Economics 98: 49–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Terry, D.J., M.A. Hogg, and K.M. White. 1999. The theory of planned behavior: Self-identity, social identity and group norms. British Journal of Social Psychology 38(3): 225–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The Royal Society. 2009. Reaping the benefits: Science and the sustainable intensification of global agriculture. London: The Royal Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., and D. Kahneman. 1973. Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology 5(2): 207–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valbuena, D., P.F. Verburg, and K.B. Bregt. 2008. A method to define a typology for agent-based analysis in regional land use. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 128(1–2): 27–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vanclay, F. 2004. Social principles for agricultural extension to assist in the promotion of natural resource management. Animal Production Science 44(3): 213–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vanclay, F., P. Howden, L. Mesiti, and S. Glyde. 2006. The social and intellectual construction of farming styles: Testing Dutch ideas in Australian agriculture. Sociologia Ruralis 46(1): 61–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vanclay, F., and G. Lawrence. 1994. Farmer rationality and the adoption of environmentally sound practices; a critique of the assumptions of traditional agricultural extension. European Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 1(1): 59–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vanclay, F., L. Mesiti, and P. Howden. 1998. Styles of farming and farming subcultures: Appropriate concepts for Australian rural sociology? Rural Society 8(2): 85–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van der Werff, E., L. Steg, and K. Keizer. 2013. The value of environmental self-identity: The relationship between biospherical values, environmental self-identity and environmental preferences, intentions and behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology 34(1): 55–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Voss, A.G.J., A. Spiller, and U. Enneking. 2009. Farmer acceptance of genetically modified seeds in Germany: Results of a cluster analysis. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 12(4): 61–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Y., and P.K. Ahmed. 2009. The moderating effect of the business strategic orientation on eCommerce adoption: Evidence from UK family run SMEs. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems 18(1): 16–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber, E. U. 1997. Perception and expectation of climate change: Precondition for economic and technological adaptation. In Environment, Ethics, and Behavior: The Psychology of Environmental Valuation and Degradation., eds. H.M. Bazerman, D.M. Messick, A.E. Tenbrunsel and K.A. Wade-Benzoni. San Francisco, CA: The New Lexington Press.

  • Welsh Government. 2009. One Wales: One planet. Cardiff: Welsh Government.

    Google Scholar 

  • Welsh Government. 2012. Farming facts and figures, Wales 2012. Cardiff: Welsh Government.

    Google Scholar 

  • Welsh Government. 2014. An introduction to Glastir and other UK agri-environment schemes. Cardiff: Welsh Government.

    Google Scholar 

  • Widcorp, 2009. Understanding farmer knowledge and attitudes to climate change, climate variability, and greenhouse gas emissions. Melbourne: Water in Dry-lands Collaborative Research Program.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, G.A. 2001. From productivism to post-productivism… and back again? Exploring the (un)changed natural and mental landscapes of European agriculture. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 26(1): 77–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yazdanpanah, M., D. Hayati, S. Hochrainer-Stigler, and G.H. Zamani. 2014. Understanding farmers’ intention and behavior regarding water conservation in the middle-east and North Africa: A case study in Iran. Journal of Environmental Management 135: 63–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Hybu Cig Cymru and the Knowledge Economic Skills Scholarship program for funding this study. Special thanks are reserved for the National Farmers’ Union Cymru, the Farmers’ Union of Wales and to the managers of the livestock markets attended for facilitating the recruitment of farmers, and all the farmers that took part. We also thank Nuala Quinn for assisting in distributing the questionnaires. We are grateful to Paul Cross for comments on initial drafts, plus the anonymous reviewers and editor for their helpful and constructive comments on the original version of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Environment, Natural Resources and Geography, Bangor University, Gwynedd, LL57 2UW, UK

    John J. Hyland, Davey L. Jones & A. Prysor Williams

  2. Department of Environment, University of York, Heslington, York, YO10 5DD, UK

    Karen A. Parkhill

  3. Land Economy Research Group, SRUC, Edinburgh, EH9 3JG, UK

    Andrew P. Barnes

Authors
  1. John J. Hyland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Davey L. Jones
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Karen A. Parkhill
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Andrew P. Barnes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. A. Prysor Williams
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. Prysor Williams.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOC 345 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hyland, J.J., Jones, D.L., Parkhill, K.A. et al. Farmers’ perceptions of climate change: identifying types. Agric Hum Values 33, 323–339 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-015-9608-9

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-015-9608-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation