Does climate adaptation trump mitigation? The role of risk perceptions among Norwegian farmers
Mitigation and adaptation are both indispensable parts of the necessary response to climate change (IPCC, 2021, 2022). Literature on individual decisions to support and perform climate mitigating or adaptive actions subscribes to two distinct views. The risk compensation conjecture suggests that adopting a specific action to curb future risks changes people’s risk perceptions (Calkins & Zlatoper, 2001; Pielke et al., 2007). In the context of climate change, individuals may become less concerned about climate change because they view adaptation as a remedy, rendering costly preventative actions obsolete. A competing explanation, the risk salience hypothesis, postulates that learning about adaptation may increase the salience of climate change impacts and thus boost support for subsequent preventive measures (Carrico et al., 2015; Evans et al., 2014).
The evidence for risk compensation and risk salience and further trade-offs between adaptation and mitigation behaviour at the individual level remains mixed. No agreement has been reached on the potential cross-effects of climate change mitigation and adaptation on support for policy interventions. Here, we build on the literature of risk perceptions and the adaptation-mitigation relationship and extend it to the context of agriculture. If adopting farm management practices such as cover crops, farmers can potentially contribute to both climate mitigation and adaptation (Masson-Delmotte et al., 2019). With the agricultural sector and farmers at the front lines of climate change it is critical to better understand farmers’ preferences, how different information frames influence farm management practices, and support for policy.
Using novel information provision experimental techniques (Haaland et al., 2020) to elicit an adaptation frame or a mitigation frame, we study their causal effects on farmers’ actual adoption of cover crops, stated preferences for mitigation, and policy support. We leverage industry and government connections to access farmers in necessary numbers and work with experts and graphic designers to develop interventions. In the experiment, participants answer a survey consisting of three parts. First, we collect information on farm operations, use of and experiences with cover crops, time and risk preferences, information sources, priorities in farm operations, and finally, beliefs about climate change. Second, participants are randomly allocated to watch a video about cover crops as a mitigation strategy (mitigation treatment), as an adaptation strategy (adaptation treatment), or no video (control). Third, we ask participants’ intentions to adopt cover crops in 2023, willingness to accept subsidy for cover crops, and support for mitigation policy. We also elicit beliefs and concern about climate change, perceptions of cover crops, and environmental concerns. Finally, we collect real behavioural data by extracting farmers’ applications for cover crop subsidies made in the 2023 growing season.
These interventions will help make theoretical as well as policy relevant contributions: how do farmers react to a mitigation frame or an adaptation frame? How can risk compensation or risk salience mechanisms account for responses? Is there heterogeneity in the way farmers are influenced by these interventions?
Preliminary results are expected by mid-April 2023.
The evidence for risk compensation and risk salience and further trade-offs between adaptation and mitigation behaviour at the individual level remains mixed. No agreement has been reached on the potential cross-effects of climate change mitigation and adaptation on support for policy interventions. Here, we build on the literature of risk perceptions and the adaptation-mitigation relationship and extend it to the context of agriculture. If adopting farm management practices such as cover crops, farmers can potentially contribute to both climate mitigation and adaptation (Masson-Delmotte et al., 2019). With the agricultural sector and farmers at the front lines of climate change it is critical to better understand farmers’ preferences, how different information frames influence farm management practices, and support for policy.
Using novel information provision experimental techniques (Haaland et al., 2020) to elicit an adaptation frame or a mitigation frame, we study their causal effects on farmers’ actual adoption of cover crops, stated preferences for mitigation, and policy support. We leverage industry and government connections to access farmers in necessary numbers and work with experts and graphic designers to develop interventions. In the experiment, participants answer a survey consisting of three parts. First, we collect information on farm operations, use of and experiences with cover crops, time and risk preferences, information sources, priorities in farm operations, and finally, beliefs about climate change. Second, participants are randomly allocated to watch a video about cover crops as a mitigation strategy (mitigation treatment), as an adaptation strategy (adaptation treatment), or no video (control). Third, we ask participants’ intentions to adopt cover crops in 2023, willingness to accept subsidy for cover crops, and support for mitigation policy. We also elicit beliefs and concern about climate change, perceptions of cover crops, and environmental concerns. Finally, we collect real behavioural data by extracting farmers’ applications for cover crop subsidies made in the 2023 growing season.
These interventions will help make theoretical as well as policy relevant contributions: how do farmers react to a mitigation frame or an adaptation frame? How can risk compensation or risk salience mechanisms account for responses? Is there heterogeneity in the way farmers are influenced by these interventions?
Preliminary results are expected by mid-April 2023.