Understanding the Influence of Climate Forecasts on Farmer Decisions as Planned Behavior*

Abstract

Results of a set of four regression models applied to recent survey data of farmers in eastern Nebraska suggest the causes that drive farmer intentions of using weather and climate information and forecasts in farming decisions. The model results quantify the relative importance of attitude, social norm, perceived behavioral control, and financial capability in explaining the influence of climate-conditions information and short-term and long-term forecasts on agronomic, crop insurance, and crop marketing decisions. Attitude, serving as a proxy for the utility gained from the use of such information, had the most profound positive influence on the outcome of all the decisions, followed by norms. The norms in the community, as a proxy for the utility gained from allowing oneself to be influenced by others, played a larger role in agronomic decisions than in insurance or marketing decisions. In addition, the interaction of controllability (accuracy, availability, reliability, timeliness of weather and climate information), self-efficacy (farmer ability and understanding), and general preference for control was shown to be a substantive cause. Yet control variables also have an economic side: The farm-sales variable as a measure of financial ability and motivation intensified and clarified the role of control while also enhancing the statistical robustness of the attitude and norms variables in better clarifying how they drive the influence. Overall, the integrated model of planned behavior from social psychology and derived demand from economics, that is, the "planned demand model," is more powerful than models based on either of these approaches alone. Taken together, these results suggest that the "human dimension" needs to be better recognized so as to improve effective use of climate and weather forecasts and information for farming decision making.

The Motivation for Organic Grain Farming in the United States: Profits, Lifestyle, or the Environment?

“…Recent literature suggests a limitation of the ability of economic factors to explain producer adoption of sustainable practices (Lynne, Shonkwiler, and Rola, 1988;Lynne et al 1995;Artikov et al 2006;Hu et al, 2006;Sautter et al 2011) along with a wealth of literature generated by other social scientists emphasizing the importance of noneconomic factors (e.g., see the literature reviewed by Kallas, Serra, and Gil, 2010). Van Kooten, Weisensel, and Chinthammit (1990), Klonsky et al (2004), and Maybery, Crase, and Gullifer (2005) included stewardship in the profit-maximizing framework, showing that some producers can maximize profit and still follow stewardship practices.…”

Crop advisors as climate information brokers: Building the capacity of US farmers to adapt to climate change

“…Second, farmers often think that climate information does not fit their needs because they perceive it to be inaccurate (spatially and temporarily) and unreliable (having high levels of uncertainty) as well as unavailable when they need it. Some farmers also point out prior negative experience with forecasts as a constraint to continued use (Ingram et al, 2002;Patt and Gwata, 2002;Artikov et al, 2006;Hu et al, 2006;Klopper et al, 2006;Vogel and O'Brien, 2006;Roncoli et al, 2009).…”

The Effect of Social Capital on the Choice to Use Sustainable Agricultural Practices

“…One of the most common approaches is to model these behaviors as a ''warm-glow'' effect where the apparent selfless act causes a utility enhancement (Andreoni, 1989;Artikov et al, 2006). Alternatively, models of deontological altruism assume that a certain charity threshold must be reached before a person can derive any satisfaction from private consumption (Asheim, 1991).…”

“…Artikov et al (2006) finds that the norms in the community (which they view as a proxy for the utility gained from allowing oneself to be influenced by others) play a large role in agronomic decisions. The theoretical basis for this connection is that identifying with a group or a network and getting involved with it affects individual preferences and choices (Durlauf and Fafchamps, 2005).…”