Download Knowledge exchange in agriculture to help combat climate change

Knowledge exchange in agriculture to help combat climate
change
Part 1: Utilising an understanding of perceptions, attitudes
and motivations to instigate a lasting behaviour change
Dr Ruth Wonfor: IBERS, Aberystwyth University



Knowledge exchange in agriculture must be a two way flow of knowledge
encompassing both local, on the ground knowledge with academic research.
Drivers and barriers for change must be understood to allow an effective knowledge
exchange platform, these are often complex in environmental schemes.
The ultimate goal of a KE programme should be to make a behavioural change in
uptake of an innovation, in a climate change KE programme this is likely to be the
uptake of a mitigation or adaptation management strategy.
Climate change is a serious issue for the worldwide population, and with ruminant agriculture
accounting for around 11.6% of total greenhouse gas emissions, we must work as an industry
to both adapt and mitigate for climate change effects. This will not be possible without a
crosstalk between the industry as a whole and academics within this research area. Further
practical information on climate change can be found in several Farming Connect technical
articles.
Knowledge exchange (KE) has evolved considerably, both in terms of the way we view
the process and the methods used. Knowledge has been viewed as an item that is owned by
the individual that the knowledge originated with, such as a researcher, and transferred to the
receiver, such as a farmer. This method is commonly known as Knowledge Transfer, due to
the linearity of the process, transferring knowledge from one individual to another by simply
informing.
Through development and research of the knowledge transfer process, a more cyclical
method has been established known as knowledge exchange. KE is centred around the idea
that knowledge does not belong to an actor and so, no one person should be present as a
knowledge holder, but all actors should be both disseminators and learners. KE should take
place both between different actors i.e. researcher, advisor, farmer, and between peers i.e.
farmer to farmer. Through this social interaction, the nature of the KE process should facilitate
learning and innovation. To ensure that everyone is viewed the same within KE networks, the
practical and local knowledge that farmers bring must be viewed with the same esteem as
research knowledge. Yet, before local and scientific knowledge can be integrated, farmers’
perceptions and previous knowledge of a subject area must be understood. It is often difficult
to encourage adoption of adaptation and mitigation measures for climate change, and so this
is a particular subject area where views of climate change should be understood.
Management choices are influenced by internal and external motivations as well as
perception of issues and the related risks that are posed. Many farmers are perceived to be
economically driven when making management decisions. Yet it should be realised that there
are many drivers, especially for environmental management decisions. The agricultural
industry is extremely diverse and so there are many different attitudes towards climate change
and how to implement adaptation or mitigation strategies, or even if they are needed at all. In
order to suit the needs of those being worked with, an understanding of self-identity,
awareness and perception of risk, should be developed in order to assess the motivations
individuals have for uptake of a management measure. Research working with dairy farmers
has shown that self-identity is imperative in relation to uptake of environmental measures
which are unsubsidised and therefore have no clear and immediate financial reward.
A recent study at Bangor University investigated Welsh beef and sheep farmer
attitudes to climate change. The research identified four attitude types ranging from those who
had a high awareness of climate change and responsibility for the environment, to those who
were more motivated by production and felt a low level of environmental responsibility. Overall,
the study showed a clear awareness in the farming community that climate change is
happening, but a disconnect in how agriculture is involved in this and an apparent reluctance
to accept responsibility for its role. Knowledge of climate change can help to improve
awareness and make an individual more likely to complete a behaviour linked to mitigation.
This may be related to the protection motivation model, based on the fight or flight response
– fear of the situation may lead to a flight response of denial and avoidance. Therefore, KE
programmes should work to help the agricultural industry realise that climate change
messages are relevant to them and that they can help to address them.
Although personal drivers are imperative in understanding perceptions of climate
change, environmental and cultural factors should also be recognised. Such differences mean
that perceptions vary between countries and regions and a broad generalisation cannot be
made for the industry as a whole. For example, a recent survey showed that farmers are more
likely to adopt adaptation measures if they have an awareness of climate change based
extreme weather events. Furthermore, if climate change is perceived to have a negative effect
on an agricultural business, mitigation strategies are more likely to be utilised to help combat
the effect. The underlying driver to both of these examples is the risk perception of climate
change. Yet not all local climate perceptions are accurate and so accurate data and knowledge
should be shared to overcome any knowledge gaps which may wrongly influence perceptions.
It is clear that there is a gap between awareness and understanding and climate
change based behaviour and that effective KE programmes can help to lessen the gap. A KE
system must work with stakeholders to enable the agricultural industry to acknowledge that
there is a problem, but also to trust that through changing their actions, they can do something
about it, which should instigate a willingness to change behaviour. KE programmes should
show stakeholders that the problem of climate change is serious and that, even if they don’t
now, one day they will likely feel the effects of the problem through their business. Once this
is understood, recommendations to alleviate the problem can be introduced. Stakeholders
should believe that measures will help to alleviate climate change issues and that they are
capable of instigating them into their daily management. Given recommendations should be
practical and clearly defined, to improve uptake of the practice.
During the development of KE programmes, it should be ensured that the KE
programme is relevant to the industry and stakeholders involved. At the outset, expectations
should be managed by communicating what the programme aims to achieve and deliver.
Furthermore, it should be clear which stakeholder groups should be involved to make sure
that the scheme stays focussed and relevant and that all necessary groups are represented.
Yet it must be ensured that all group members are knowledgeable and proactive, if there is a
knowledge gap, this should be addressed so that all actors can contribute equally, ensuring
that all individuals are both knowledge disseminators and learners and preventing a power
imbalance. Most KE schemes tend to be on a voluntary level, and so motivation to be involved
must appeal to the fact that improved resilience to climate change on your farm will have a
positive impact on the health of the farm, both in terms of sustainability and economics in the
future.
The ultimate output for a KE programme is to make a lasting change in the industry
through uptake of an innovation. In order to achieve this, advice given must always be linked
to the desired behaviour change to make the knowledge use clear. A behaviour may be
changed easily through a modification in routine, but this is likely to be a transitory change. To
be a lasting change, a person’s intention must be changed. KE research has focussed on the
Theory of Planned Behaviour (TBP) as a model for how innovations are adopted and adhered
to in agriculture. TBP is based on the intention of adoption of a certain behaviour, ultimately
affecting a person’s behaviour. Intention is dependent on the attitude to the behaviour,
subjective norm and perceived behavioural control. More recently, self-identity has also been
shown to have a significant effect on intention. A change in intentions is costly in time and so,
actors must be motivated to be involved.
To be able assess the success and progress of a KE programme, clear and
measurable objectives should be outlined at the start and methods selected to support the
implementation of these objectives. To ensure objectives are met, evaluations should be
included in the overall KE process to guarantee that the KE is focussed, working as was
designed, and if changes need to be made, that they can be addressed in good time to be
effective. Yet this does mean that the process and all stakeholders involved should be flexible.
By utilising reviews at several points along the project, it can be guaranteed that theory is
being put into practice and an effective programme is put in place. In order to design
evaluations, it must first be understood what outcomes the KE is meant to deliver and why it
is expected to do this. Yet the evaluations themselves should be completed with care to avoid
any effect on the overall KE process. Formative assessments based on process orientated
outcomes are suggested to be one of the best methods. Ultimately, the most important
measurements to evaluate success are the changes in behaviour that are instigated through
the KE process.
Through research and practice, it is clear that KE is better than knowledge transfer at
helping to make lasting changes. Before KE programmes are implemented it must be ensured
that the stakeholders involved have been considered. What are their attitudes, perceptions
and motivations that will influence their uptake of the knowledge? Are there any cultural or
environmental factors which may help or hinder the process? How will it be best to help to
instigate a lasting behavioural change? To make sure that these questions are addressed and
answered and ultimately that the KE process is successful through adoption of the knowledge,
evaluation systems must be built into the process. These principals are relevant to any KE
programme, including climate change based schemes. Yet in such instances it may be more
prudent to understand the drivers towards change which may not be as clear as in a production
based KE programme.
Think Climate
Utilisation of effective KE programmes that work with
stakeholders and understand barriers and drivers for
change can help to improve uptake of adaptation and
mitigation strategies for climate change.
March 2017