Download Rural People`s Attitudes to Climate Change

Climate change
communication: engaging
science with the rural sector
Chris Evans
School of Agriculture & Environment, Curtin University
Dr Christine Storer
School of Agriculture & Environment, Muresk
Dr Angela Wardell-Johnson
Centre for Advanced Studies in Australia, Asia and the Pacific
Introduction
National Agricultural & Climate Change Action
Plan 2006 – 2009 (2006)
Adaption Strategies to
build resilience in agricultural systems
Mitigation strategies – reduce emissions
Barrier?
Farmer scepticism
of climate change
and the threat
R&D – enhance agricultural sectors
Capacity to respond to climate change
Awareness & communication to
inform decision making of farmers & communities
Research Questions
“attitude defines risk perception”
Sjoberg (2000)
The research also
questioned :
z
z
z
Did rural Western
Australians think that
climate change was:
Occurring
Natural or human
induced
A tangible future threat
to business &
communities
z
If perceptions of science
and government were
influencing attitudes
z
z
What contributed to
the development of
attitudes
What identified
different groups of
responses to climate
change
Methodology
Surveys:
Secondary locations (n=82)
Total surveys 411
z
Analysis
Mingenew
*PATN; Numerical Taxonomy;
Dowerin
Multivariate approach
*SPSS (Ver 15 2008)
*Excel (2003, 2007)
Perth
Newdegate
References - Wardell – Johnson (2005); Belbin et al (2003)
• Dowerin Fieldday (n=129)
z Newdegate Fieldday (n=122)
z Mingenew Fieldday (n= 78)
Have rural people noticed
changes in the climate over the
last 10 years ?
Noticed between some to a lot of change in climate
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
82%
80%
63%
Decreased rainfall
Increased variability
More extreme events
Is climate change occurring & is it
natural (Not influenced by greenhouse emissions)
50%
Climate change
is not natural
Accept human induced
climate change
Over half uncertain
if climate change is
occurring & if its natural
Believe climate
change is natural
Sceptical of human
induced climate change
40%
28%
30%
36%
25%
21%
20%
25%
14%
12%
10%
18%
13%
8%
0%
Disagree
Probably
Uncertain
Probably agree
Agree
disagree
Climate change is occurring Climate change is natural
Is climate change perceived as a
major threat
The
Engaged
Perception of climate change threat
50%
40%
The
dismissive
30%
24%
The
TheDisengaged
Confused
The
Confused
The
42%
disinterested
33%
17%
20%
10%
The
doubtful
16%
10%
18%
17%
16%
7%
0%
Disagree
Probably disagree
Unsure
Community Threat
Maibach, Roser – Renouf, Leiserowitz, 2009
Probably agree
Farm /Business threat
Agree
Is science’s credibility important in
transferring climate change
knowledge?
100%
Credibility perceptions of science
80%
60%
67%
50%
59%
44%
40%
20%
0%
Science divisive
Funding source
Science &
agriculture
cooperate
Increase research
funding
Is the message getting through?
Information Transfer
100%
80%
60%
40%
78%
33%
20%
37%
25%
42%
33%
0%
Important to be
informed
Information
easy to
understand
Scientific
information
useful
Climate change
Threat to
is human
communities
induced
Threat to
business
Accept
Sci Info Useful
Value Sci-View
0.0946
0.0946
Column Fusion Dendogram
0.0625
0.0625
0.0304
0.0304
Characteristics of Groups
Acceptors
Accepts human
induced
climate change
Values science
Sci - Journals
Co-operate
Climate Info easy
Sceptics
Science Unable
All Factors
Naturally Adapt
Science Divisive
Sci- Exaggerate
Funding Sources
People contribute
Sceptics
Sceptical - Climate
change natural
Does not
value science
Uncertains
Not sure about
climate change
or science
Group profiles – Strategic variables
Respondents attitudes to climate change
Group 3
Acceptors
17%
Group 1
Uncertain
50%
Group 2
Sceptical
15%
110%
90%
70%
50%
30%
10%
Group 3 Accept
Valued science
Group 1 Uncertain
Valued information
Group 2 Sceptical
Easy to understand
Experience / knowledge
3.7
Group 3 (Acceptors)
3.4
5
Group 2 (Sceptics)
4.5
4.4
Group 1 (Uncertain)
3.7
1
2
3
Time lived in area
4
5
Time involved in farming
Mean scale- years: 3 = 11 – 20, 4 = 21 -30, 5 = 31 – 40, 6 = 41 – 50, 7 = 50+
6
7
Farmers time & experience
versus science’s views
Farmers value of science views
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1 - 10 years 11 -20 years 21 - 30 years 31 -40 years 41 - 50 years 51 + years
Value
Value highly
Linear (Value)
Linear (Value highly)
Challenges & opportunities for
science’s engagement with the
rural sector
z
z
z
z
Challenges
Uncertainty or scepticism of science
Poor understanding of the information
Influences of local knowledge & experience
Opportunities
Influences of local knowledge & experience
Social networks – information
pathways?
Social structures – valued views of climate change
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
73%
77%
72%
80%
65%
49%
Uncertain
Sceptical
Value family, friends & neighbours views
Acceptors
Value Industry & landcare views
Farmers behavioural responses
Responses - engagement
80%
71%
70%
59%
60%
50%
39%
40%
30%
20%
40%
45%
Office
Home
28%
26%
19%
10%
0%
Farm
Change Trial new Use new
practices enterprises enterprises
Farmers- Responding
Acceptors to climate
Poor seasons
Invest enviromental
sustainability
Useful climate change information sources
3
Local information
2.5
2
Agri
Newspapers Regional Seminars Industry
radio
Fielddays Landcare
Family
Groups
Friends
Distant information
1.5
Internet
Science
Journals
1
Science
Knowledge
Scientific Information
Translation / Modification
0.5
Agri
Newspapers
Key – Mean
0 = not useful
1 = little use
2 = useful
3 = very useful
Regional
Radio
Seminars
Fielddays
Industry
Papers
Agri
Consultants
Family
Friends
Internet
Science
Journals
Gov
CPRS paper
Agri
Consultants
CPRS
Green paper
Conclusions
z
z
z
z
Uncertainty
Science credibility
Information comprehensibility
Information transfer networks
Acknowledgements
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
Maureen Rogers & Charles Sturt University
The Organising Committees of the Dowerin,
Newdegate, Minignew and Katanning Fielddays
Royal Agricultural Society Cattle Sheep &
Alpacas Stewards
Waroona Show Organising Committee
The rural people who generously gave their time
to participate in the survey
Data Collection Team – Peter Gwynne, Eva
Varga & Daniel Hoare
Mr. David Gray, DAFWA, Katanning
Graeme Anderson, DPI Victoria