COMMUNICATING CONTROVERSY: CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE …ufdcimages.uflib.ufl.edu/UF/E0/05/00/66/00001/CLIFFORD_M.pdf · 2016-09-01 · communicating controversy: climate change and the

COMMUNICATING CONTROVERSY: CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE IN THE

SOUTHEASTERN UNITED STATES

By

MARGARET H. CLIFFORD

A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL

OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF

MASTER OF SCIENCE

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2016

© 2016 Margaret H. Clifford

To my family

4

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I thank my partner, Marcelo, for caring for our children, for cooking nutritious

meals, and for trusting that the pursuit of a graduate degree is worth our efforts. I thank

my parents for joining us on this adventure and for helpfully integrating themselves into

our lives. I thank my advisor, Dr. Martha Monroe, for showing me the importance of

vigilance in all matters and for her dedication to her students and teaching. I would also

like to thank my colleagues and peers who have renewed my faith in humanity by

earnestly preparing themselves for complex socioecological challenges that many

would prefer to ignore.

5

TABLE OF CONTENTS page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................................. 4

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ 7

LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... 8

LIST OF ACRONYMS ..................................................................................................... 9

ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................... 10

CHAPTERS

1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 11

Background: Challenges to Communicating Climate Change in the US ................. 13

Introduction to the Following Chapters ................................................................... 15 Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 16

2 DEVELOPING LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS FOR CLIMATE LITERACY IN THE COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE ....................................................... 18

Introduction ............................................................................................................. 18

Research Questions ............................................................................................... 20

Literature Review .................................................................................................... 21

Methods .................................................................................................................. 29 Surveys ............................................................................................................ 29 Interviews ......................................................................................................... 31

Results .................................................................................................................... 32 Part I: Pre survey analysis ................................................................................ 32

Part II: Comparing pre to post surveys within groups ....................................... 41 Interviews ......................................................................................................... 44

Discussion and Recommendations ......................................................................... 49

Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 51

3 EXAMINING THE ROLE OF THE EXTENSION AGENT AND ITS EFFECT ON COMMUNICATING CLIMATE CHANGE ................................................................ 53

Introduction ............................................................................................................. 53

Research Questions ............................................................................................... 56 Literature Review .................................................................................................... 57

Communicating Climate Change and Extension .............................................. 57 Analytical Framework and Methods ................................................................. 60

Results .................................................................................................................... 62 Filtering Complexity .......................................................................................... 67

6

Determining Relevance .................................................................................... 68

Sufficient Knowledge ........................................................................................ 71 Perceiving Bias ................................................................................................. 74

Limitations ........................................................................................................ 76 Conclusions and Summary ..................................................................................... 77

4 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 81

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS .................................................................................... 84

REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. 90

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ............................................................................................ 96

7

LIST OF TABLES

Table page 2-1 Sectors represented in pre survey for SRECA ................................................... 33

2-2 Comparison of three groups on climate-related perspective items. .................... 34

2-4 Significant differences between climate perspectives in knowledge before SRECA . ............................................................................................................. 36

2-5 Differences in perceived importance of possible outcomes of SRECA workshop. ........................................................................................................... 37

2-5 Indicators of hope; agentic and pathways thinking vary by climate perspectives. ...................................................................................................... 38

2-6 Mean ratings of SRECA sessions (1-5 scale, 1 = not a valuable use of my time, 5 = very valuable use of my time). ............................................................. 40

2 7 Differences in mean scores of self-rated knowledge by climate perspective, pre and post SRECA workshop .......................................................................... 42

2-8 Self-reported ability by climate perspective on pre and post surveys ................. 43

2-9 Significant changes in emotion scores before and after SRECA workshop ........ 44

A-1 Comparison of three groups on climate-related perspective items using Whitney-Mann.. .................................................................................................. 84

A-2 Possible outcomes of SRECA workshop ............................................................ 85

A-3 Select Items for Knowledge, Ability, and Perceptions ......................................... 86

A-4 Climate-related worldview question .................................................................... 87

A-5 Beliefs about cause(s) of current climate change ............................................... 87

A-6 Indicators of hope; waypower and willpower ...................................................... 88

A-7 SRECA planning committee ............................................................................... 88

8

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure page 2-1 Foundations for Understanding Supportive Learning Environments. Stephen

Kaplan, 2000 ...................................................................................................... 21

2-2 The Reasonable Person Model (Rachel Kaplan and Avik Basu 2015) ............... 23

2-3 How organizers of the SRECA incorporated the RPM in the planning of the SRECA workshop. Using the RPM to create a supportive learning environment encouraged workshop planners to carefully consider the design and content of the workshop to increase the likelihood that participants would feel comfortable and able to build on or revise their existing mental models of climate change. .................................................................................................. 24

2-4 Yale Project on Climate Change Communication’s Six America’s. 2012. ........... 26

2-5 Comparison of Six Americas Categories for U.S.(Leiserowitz et al. 2012) Sample and Southeastern U.S. Extension Professionals (Monroe et al. 2015). General population data from U.S. sample fielded .................................. 28

2-3 Climate perspectives in each sector at SRECA. ................................................. 35

A-1 Discriminant analysis of climate perspectives of SRECA participants ................ 85

9

LIST OF ACRONYMS

ACC Anthropogenic climate change

CES Cooperative Extension Service

SRECA Southeast Region Extension Climate Academy

10

Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School

of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science

COMMUNICATING CONTROVERSY:

CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE IN THE SOUTHEASTERN UNITED STATES

By

Margaret H. Clifford

May 2016 Chair: Martha Carrie Monroe Major: Forest Resources and Conservation

Agents in the Cooperative Extension Service hold a range of beliefs about

anthropogenic climate change (Monroe et al. 2015). An objective of this thesis is to

analyze how agents with different perspectives on climate change responded to a

climate-related workshop held in September 2014. Findings suggest that agents

experienced the climate-related workshop in ways unique to their perspective groups

and that climate-related informational needs vary by perspective group. Another

objective of this research is to examine the nuanced relationship between agents’

professional role as communicators of science and their culturally situated role(s) as

members of the communities they serve. Findings from this research suggest that how

and what agents communicate with their clients about climate change is influenced by

their own perceptions of relevance, knowledge, and bias related to climate science.

While further research would improve the reliability and utility of these findings,

increasing climate literacy in extension can be augmented by facilitating supportive

learning environments and by better understanding the agent’s role in clarifying

controversial, politically polarizing science-based issues with the public.

11

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

Relative to other nations in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and

Development (OECD) on a composite of sustainable development indicators1, the US

ranks in the bottom fifth on overall performance (Kroll 2015). On climate change, the US

ranks 32nd out of all 34 OECD countries2 (2015). Anthropogenic climate change (ACC)

is driving changes in social, ecologic, and economic systems (IPCC 2014) and ‘taking

swift action on climate change’ is one of 17 Sustainable Development Goals formally

adopted by the United Nations in 2015 (UNDP 2015). In addition to the Sustainable

Development Goals, the Paris Agreement of 2015 represents a landmark international

achievement for addressing the complexity and enormity ACC (FCCC 2015). The

agreement establishes targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in 195 countries

to mitigate climate change and these targets can be revised and strengthened every

five years (2015). To help accomplish the goals set forth in the agreement, actors in all

sectors across the globe will need to participate in ACC mitigation and adaptation

efforts.

Turning focus to the Southeastern United States, there are documented and as-

yet unimagined opportunities for ACC mitigation and adaptation across water resource,

agricultural, and forested land sectors (NOAA 2015; Fraisse et al. 2009, Albaugh et al.

2012). As trusted sources of science-based information for stakeholders and producers

in these sectors (Prokopy, Carlton, et al. 2015), Extension agents are well placed to

diffuse relevant, climate-related information and strategies to key actors across these

1 The Sustainable Development Indicators were created to establish baseline, relative rankings for the OECD nations

in the context of the Sustainable Development Goals, formally adopted by the UN in September 2015.

2 This ranking is based on production-based energy-related CO2 emissions (2015).

12

sectors (Rogers 1995). While most Extension agents and their clients may be

accustomed to responding to changes in weather patterns within the range of normal

climate variability3, temperature increases resulting from ACC may shift growing

seasons, increase the pace at which crops bloom and ripen, and increase pest

populations (Fraisse et al. 2009). Many Extension specialists have clearly stated the

necessity for Extension agents to be ready and willing to address the risks and

opportunities of ACC with their clients (Morris et al. 2014; Monroe et al. 2015; Fraisse et

al. 2009; Bartels et al. 2013). There remains, however, misconceptions about climate

science and resistance to implementing climate change in programming within

Extension (Tyson 2014).

Given the cultural and political controversy surrounding climate change,

Extension professionals could help ground discussions by sharing unbiased, evidence-

based information with their clients on this topic. Because agents hold a variety of

culturally significant views on climate change (Monroe et al. 2015), the facility with

which they trust the scientific consensus on climate change is variable. Their ability and

interest in sharing information on climate change is, therefore, also variable.

Professional development opportunities for Extension professionals to improve climate

literacy are taking place in the southeastern US (Bartels et al. 2012). Building on the

recent literature concerned with the climate-related perceptions, knowledge, and

capacities of Extension agents in the SE United States (Sommer 2014, Monroe et al.

2015), this thesis 1) examines the effectiveness of one such effort and 2) analyzes how

Extension agents perceive their professional role and responsibilities to share

3 Climate Variability: normal range of weather-related events in a given time period.

13

information about climate change with their clients. Central to this thesis are questions

concerning the different climate-related informational needs of agents with different

perspectives on climate change and to what extent agents perceive that communicating

climate-related information to their clients is a part of their professional role. Using this

analysis, suggestions are made for improving climate-related professional development

opportunities for agents so that they are better prepared to address the risks and

realities of climate change with their clients.

Background: Challenges to Communicating Climate Change in the US

During the past two centuries, fossil fuel combustion (which contributes to

greenhouse gas forcing) has become the basis for global economic development and

powerful cultural values have emerged around the lifestyles and technologies afforded

by access to these energy-rich fuels. At this point in time in the US context, suggesting

that humans must transition away from the combustion of fossil fuels challenges certain

cultural narratives of progress, success, and individual freedom (Corner et al. 2014).

Citizens with individualistic and hierarchical worldviews are concerned that policies to

address climate change could mean more governmental regulations, higher taxes and

decreased subsidies for carbon-intensive goods and services (Kahan 2010). “People

with individualistic values, who prize personal initiative, and those with hierarchical

values, who respect authority, tend to dismiss evidence of environmental risks, because

the widespread acceptance of such evidence would lead to restrictions on commerce

and industry, activities they admire,” (Kahan 2010). Decades of rigorous scientific

research has shown that there is no scientific debate on whether humans are causing

current climate change and yet there is most certainly a cultural/political debate on the

14

topic. This is evident in the Extension community as agents report that they are hesitant

to “take sides” with their clients on the subject of climate change (Sommer 2014).

Public confusion on current climate change has been exacerbated by media

reporting (Bailey, Giangola, and Boykoff 2014). For more than two decades, popular

media produced in the US has given a more or less equal voice to the small percentage

of people who deny anthropogenic climate change. Although some media present this

‘balanced’ technique of reporting as intended to present an unbiased view of

controversial issues, in this case, it has led the American public to have a strongly

biased view—based in the false belief that a significant portion of credible scientists do

not believe in a phenomenon that is in fact relatively well understood and widely

accepted by the global scientific community. The consequences of this are many,

including a wide range of beliefs regarding the impact humans are having on Earth’s

climate.

Message framing and the messenger: Understanding values and interests

(Kahan, Jenkins-Smith, and Braman 2011) of audiences is imperative in communicating

climate change and climate science effectively (Moser 2010). In addition to

understanding perspectives, appropriately framing uncertainty of future projections can

help the public comprehend the scientific consensus on climate change (Boykoff and

Boykoff 2004). Oreskes and Conrad (2010) suggest that the scientific concept of

uncertainty inhibits lay audiences from perceiving the confidence scientists have in their

projections concerning future climate change scenarios. Imagining culturally appropriate

management strategies for climate change can also facilitate the reception of climate

related information (Kahan, Jenkins-Smith, and Braman 2011). If a proposed solution is

15

amenable to a person’s worldview, agreement with scientific consensus is more likely.

The presenter of the information is likewise important. Two studies from the UK have

shown that the perceived motivation of scientists communicating climate change can

have an impact on the audiences’ willingness to accept that information as true

(Rabinovich, Morton, and Birney 2012).

Introduction to the Following Chapters

Chapter 2: SRECA Evaluation: The history of Extension, its connection to

research universities, and presence in each state across the US makes it an ideal

avenue for diffusing innovation (Rogers 1995). In the past, some Extension agents have

addressed controversial science-based issues with diverse audiences to establish a

common understanding of a complex issue (Whitford 1993)4. Because agents hold a

range of culturally salient views on climate change and have a professional

responsibility to share relevant science-based information with their clients, the

Southern Region Extension directors requested a regional professional development

program for Extension agents focused on climate variability and change (Bartels, Boby,

and Clifford 2014). After two years of planning, an 11-member team created the

Southeast Region Extension Climate Academy (SRECA) and developed a three-day

workshop to jumpstart a community of practice5 of climate-competent Extension

personnel. Extension directors selected agents to attend a SRECA workshop in

4 As the general public became more concerned with health effects of agricultural pesticide use,

Extension agents were encouraged to present the available facts on pesticide use without supporting or refuting interpretations of these facts. Experts and regulators may also have divergent interpretations on the data and the goal is to encourage covariant risk assessment among concerned populations, not to define risk for them. For more on this, see: http://www.joe.org/joe/1993spring/a2.php

5 A community of practice (CoP) is a “group of people who share a craft and/or a profession.”

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_of_practice)

16

September 2014. Chapter two establishes the different climate perspectives of the

agents who attended the workshop and evaluates how self-reported outcomes of the

workshop differ by climate perspective.

Chapter 3: The Great Climate Filter: Given both the complexity and

controversy surrounding climate change, Extension agents may not readily engage with

clients about ACC. To better understand how agents communicate complex science to

their clients, and particularly climate change, interviews (n=14) were conducted in the

summer of 2014. In these interviews, agents described how they translate and filter

climate-related information for various clients and what they are comfortable

communicating with clients. The purpose of this chapter is to examine and analyze

agents’ perceptions of their professional role and how this perception does or does not

influence what climate-related information they share with their clients.

Conclusion

The US is well positioned to make positive impacts on Earth systems by

engaging in practices that will mitigate present and future climate change risk. As

trusted sources of information, the US Cooperative Extension Service could play a

pivotal role in the transition to more sustainable, climate-savvy management practices.

The international community has formally agreed to take swift action on climate and

regional networks within the US must participate in this effort to join the collaborative

effort to slow and reverse climate change (FCCC 2015). While our understanding of risk

is limited by mental models and worldviews, we must endeavor to overcome these

limitations to respond to the preponderance of evidence that says unmitigated ACC will

continue to increase economic, social, and ecologic risks. As 295 members of the

National Academy of Sciences warn in their 2010 letter on Climate Change and the

17

Integrity of Science, “Climate change now falls into this category (of well-established

theory): there is compelling, comprehensive, and consistent objective evidence that

humans are changing the climate in ways that threaten our societies and the

ecosystems on which we depend,” (Gleick et al. 2010). As a part of its mission,

Extension can help reduce this threat by sharing mitigation and adaptation strategies

with clients as effectively as possible.

18

CHAPTER 2 DEVELOPING LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS FOR CLIMATE LITERACY IN THE

COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE

Introduction

Extension agents in the southeast US hold a range of beliefs about

anthropogenic climate change (ACC) (Monroe et al. 2015). Some agents are very

concerned about ACC and want to actively engage in mitigation and adaptation

strategies. Others are not at all concerned about it and have little interest in

incorporating it into their programs (2015). The political and cultural debates

surrounding ACC (McCright and Dunlap 2011) have led to controversy about whether

and how to incorporate this topic in Extension (Tyson 2014). For those who are not

concerned about climate change or unconvinced by the scientific consensus, putting

forth effort toward communicating this complex topic may be low on a long list of

priorities. With the leadership of one particularly concerned Extension administrator, Dr.

Joan Dusky, agricultural and natural resource Extension leaders initiated a regional

professional development program to improve climate literacy among Extension

professionals in the Southeast United States. This initiative later became called the

Southeast Region Extension Climate Academy (SRECA) and data collected with

participants in this Academy are the focus of this chapter.

Background: After two years of planning, an 11-member team implemented a

workshop to jumpstart a community of practice6 of climate-competent Extension

personnel. Organized by USDA and NIFA grant-funded projects (PINEMAP, Southeast

Extension Climate Consortium, and the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative) and

6 A community of practice (CoP) is a “group of people who share a craft and/or a profession.”

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_of_practice)

19

with support from SeaGrant and AgroClimate, organizers aimed to share current climate

science, explain climate-related risk management tools, develop climate-related

programs with Extension agents and administrators, and address the challenges and

opportunities of addressing climate change and variability with Extension audiences.

The two overarching goals were to 1) support Extension professionals in the application

of climate science for developing place-based adaptation options and 2) to build an

alumni network of innovative leaders skilled in stakeholder engagement and who can

share ideas with regional colleagues (Bartels et al. 2014).

The workshop was envisioned as a foundation for Extension professionals

across the region to build upon as they develop climate-related programs. During the

three-day workshop, participants attended plenary sessions with climate scientists,

social scientists, and Extension professionals working in climate-related programming.

In addition to the plenary sessions, each sector (agriculture, livestock, forests, and

coasts) spent approximately five hours in concurrent sessions to explore how climate

change relates to their specific areas. These sessions were an opportunity for

participants to discuss what climate-related resources could be useful to their specific

sector, to share what they were already doing to address climate risks with clients, and

to network with professionals across the region.

The purpose of this chapter is to analyze how Extension professionals with

different perspectives on ACC responded to this workshop and to suggest how future

efforts could be improved by incorporating lessons learned from SRECA. By identifying

the climate-related perspectives of those who attended the workshop, we analyze if the

format and content of the event was more or less salient for people with various

20

perspectives on climate change. With this purpose in mind, we ask the following

questions:

Research Questions

While Extension professionals in the Southeast US hold various perspectives on

climate change (Monroe et al. 2015), it was not clear whether a representative sample

of these perspectives would attend the SRECA workshop. Considering that those who

are less concerned about climate change report being less likely to incorporate climate

change in their programs (2015), there is reason to believe that a disproportionately low

number of individuals who hold this perspective would attend the workshop. In an

attempt to engage professionals who otherwise might not attend such a workshop,

Extension directors were encouraged to nominate opinion leaders to participate,

regardless of their perspective on climate change. It was hoped that this method would

increase the likelihood that even those who are relatively unconcerned about climate

change would attend. To better understand what climate perspectives were at the

conference, we ask research question 1 (RQ1). With an understanding of the

perspectives held by participants in the workshop, we then ask if and how participants’

self-reported gains and impressions of the workshop vary by perspective (RQs 2, 3).

RQ1: What climate change perspectives were present at the SRECA workshop?

RQ2: To what extent did knowledge, attitudes, and ability change by perspective group after a three-day training?

RQ3: How do impressions of the workshop’s value and effectiveness vary by climate perspective group?

21

Literature Review

Reasonable Person Model and Supportive Learning Environments: Because

climate change is a polarizing and culturally salient topic, developing a productive

learning environment for people who hold a range of views on the topic presents a

challenge. During the development of the academy, coordinators employed aspects of

the Reasonable Person Model (RPM) in an effort to facilitate a supportive learning

environment to engage people most effectively. The RPM is concerned primarily with

the useful and easily accessed of information through managing the environment

(Kaplan & Kaplan 2009) and learner’s capacity to integrate information. The model is

based on earlier work of Stephen and Rachel Kaplan that examines the fundamental

importance for humans to be able to understand and use the information from their

environments. Barriers to understanding information can cause great distress,

manifesting as depression, stress, and/or mental fatigue. Figure 2-1 defines the primary

assumptions that underlie the RPM.

People are motivated to know, to understand what is going on; they hate being

confused or disoriented.

People also are motivated to learn, to discover, to explore; they prefer acquiring

information at their own pace and in answer to their own questions.

People want to participate, to play a role in what is going on around them; they

hate being incompetent or helpless. -S Kaplan, 2000

Figure 2-1. Foundations for Understanding Supportive Learning Environments. Stephen Kaplan, 2000

22

The RPM proposes that there are three interrelated elements to supportive

learning environments: model building, being effective, and meaningful action.

According to the RPM, our ability to revise and develop new mental models is

influenced by the environments (both physical and procedural) we find ourselves in

(Kaplan and Basu 2015). Model building is the process of acquiring and integrating

information to create or modify understanding. According to the RPM, mental models

enable us to carry out four processes pivotal to information processing: 1) recognizing

patterns, 2) making predictions, 3) evaluating these predictions, and 4) taking necessary

actions (2015 p. 5).

Being effective requires that we tend to our attentional needs by facilitating

environments that encourage actions to replenish our capacities for directed attention

(e.g. taking breaks, spending time in nature, etc.) and information is not overwhelming

or confusing (2015). Caring for these needs creates an environment where information

can become part of a mental model. Meaningful action can motivate, reinforce or

enhance a mental model by creating the sense that contributions are valued and used

(2015). The presence of all three elements in the RPM is indicative of supportive

learning environments.

23

Figure 2-2. The Reasonable Person Model (Rachel Kaplan and Avik Basu 2015)

Reasonable Person Model and SRECA Workshop Development: The

SRECA workshop was designed using the RPM as a foundation for creating a

supportive learning environment. By using the RPM framework, organizers of the

SRECA workshop considered the relevant mental models and informational needs of

participants during the planning process (Fig 2-3). Careful attention to these elements

led workshop planners to set an agenda that would be conducive to model building. The

agenda included knowledge-building plenary sessions and sector break-outs where

relevant and specific self-directed learning could take place. These smaller groups were

also intended to create a safe learning environment among people who share similar

worldviews. To create an environment so participants could be effective, planners

included skill building with climate related tools and skills, held the workshop in a

comfortable environment (i.e. wooded environment, gardens, sufficient food, sufficient

breaks, etc.), and participants shared common meals. Finally, to engender a sense that

their contributions are valued and used, pre-survey results were presented on the first

24

day of the conference and an icebreaker incorporated some short-answer responses

from the survey. These details were intended to show participants that their

perspectives and ideas are valued and were taken into account in the workshop

structure and to alert them to the diversity of opinions present. Meaningful action was

also addressed in sector-specific breakout sessions intended to provide participants

with relevant actions they could take to address climate change and variability with their

clients.

Figure 2-3. How organizers of the SRECA incorporated the RPM in the planning of the SRECA workshop. Using the RPM to create a supportive learning environment encouraged workshop planners to carefully consider the design and content of the workshop to increase the likelihood that participants would feel comfortable and able to build on or revise their existing mental models of climate change.

25

Hope and Climate Change Communication: Hopeful people are confident that

they can reach goals and, if there is a roadblock, they can pursue alternative routes to

achieve a desired outcome (Snyder, Rand, Sigmon 2002). Synder et al. call the

capacity to imagine alternative routes to a particular goal pathways thinking, and the

belief that one has the power to reach their goals agentic thinking (2002). Conceiving of

hope in this way and measuring participants’ climate-related hope as part of the

evaluation for the SRECA workshop adds depth to our understanding of changes in

climate literacy. Additionally, evaluating varying levels of hope across climate

perspective groups can provide useful insights regarding different informational needs

across groups.

Climate Change Perspectives: Understanding climate perspectives is

fundamental to effectively communicating climate science. The Yale Project on Climate

Change Communication (YPCCC 2009) has identified six categories of climate

perspectives in the US that can help inform better approaches to climate communication

(Fig 2-4). On one end of the spectrum are people who do not believe that global

warming is occurring and are exasperated with the topic (dismissives). On the other end

of the spectrum are people who are highly concerned about global warming and

motivated to work toward mitigation and adaptation (alarmed).

26

Figure 2-4. Yale Project on Climate Change Communication’s Six America’s. 2012.

Given the complexity and social challenges to open-mindedly discussing this

topic, individuals at every point on this perspective spectrum can benefit from relevant

climate-related information and tools for facilitating dialogue on the topic. The climate

change perspective spectrum is important because it gives those who are tasked with

communicating climate change an understanding of the range and diversity of

perspectives on ACC.

Climate Change and Extension Professional Development: Recent climate

science communication literature urges communicators to better understand their

audiences and resist the inclination to inundate them with facts, graphs, and jargon

(CRED 2009). Furthermore, this growing body of literature finds that communicators

must address the cultural meanings of climate-related information to increase open-

minded analysis of climate science (Kahan et al. 2012, Moser 2010, Prokopy, Arbuckle,

et al. 2015). Humans are not passive receptors of information. New information is

27

filtered through our mental models of the world and put into the context of our lived

experiences, values, and social norms. Climate change is sometimes dismissed by

people with individualist and hierarchical worldviews. This is partly because these

people may perceive that ‘environmental issues’ are primarily political tools used to

impose (sometimes costly) regulations. To break through culturally conditioned

responses to information on climate change, considering the messenger is vital (Monroe

et al. 2015, Rabinovich, Morton, and Birney 2012) because “…people feel that it is safe

to consider evidence with an open mind when they know that a knowledgeable member

of their cultural community accepts it,” (Kahan 2010).

As respected and often long-standing members of the communities they serve,

Extension agents work with a variety of coastal residents, farmers, foresters and

livestock producers, some of whom are both skeptical of anthropogenic climate change

and uniquely placed to mitigate and adapt to it (Prokopy, Arbuckle, et al. 2015) in the

Southeast US. Extensions agents’ views on climate change mirror those of the general

US public (Fig 7), which means that around 25% of agents are dismissive or doubtful of

anthropogenic climate change (YPCCC 2009, Monroe et al. 2015, Roser-Renouf et al.

2016). Furthermore, agents who are dismissive of anthropogenic climate change are

significantly less willing to develop and use climate-related materials in their programs

(Monroe et al. 2015).

28

Figure 2-5. Comparison of Six Americas Categories for U.S.(Leiserowitz et al. 2012) Sample and Southeastern U.S. Extension Professionals (Monroe et al. 2015). General population data from U.S. sample fielded

Understanding ACC and Dismissive Extension Agents: Since alarmed and

concerned individuals are already interested in climate change and are in agreement

with the scientific consensus on ACC, particular attention has been given to the

perspectives and informational needs of people who are on the dismissive end of the

spectrum (Sommer 2014, Dixon 2015). Agents who are disengaged, doubtful, or

dismissive tend to be uncertain about climate change and are interested in learning

more about it if it is relevant to their clients (Sommer 2014, p. 161). These agents

frequently mention that there are at least two sides to the climate change narrative.

“Two sides” here refers to the concept that there are credible scientists who disagree

with the scientific consensus on climate change, and thus there is one ‘side’ that agrees

with the scientific consensus, and one that does not. Agents who believe that there is a

legitimate scientific debate over the scientific consensus are, according to Sommer,

concerned with remaining neutral on this topic, prone to believe that the science is

unsettled, and might avoid the pursuit of more information on the topic unless ‘both

29

sides’ are presented (p. 163). While these agents are correct that there is a debate

about climate change, they misrepresent a cultural/political debate as a legitimate

scientific one (Oreskes 2005). Because clarifying this point and discussing culturally

controversial topics is a challenge, organizers of the SRECA workshop aimed to model

best practices for communicating climate change for Extension professionals while

simultaneously improving the climate literacy of the agents themselves. From this angle,

the workshop facilitators and this analysis attend to two audiences: both the

professionals who attended the workshop, and the clients with whom they may share

climate-related information.

Methods

Surveys

Participants in SRECA were selected by their State Extension Directors. The

directors were instructed to nominate opinion leaders within their Extension program(s),

regardless of their perception of the scientific consensus on climate change. The entire

population of participants was asked to participate in a pre-workshop survey and a post-

workshop evaluation. A sample of 39 agents was invited to participate in phone

interviews 9-12 months after the conclusion the workshop. Potential interviewees were

selected based on their state, climate perspective and sector (forest resources, crops,

livestock, and coastal resources).

The consent protocol for data collection was approved by the University of

Florida Internal Review Board and participants were invited to voluntarily participate in

the study. All those who were registered for the conference by July 25, 2014 (n = 88)

were sent an email through Qualtrics survey software inviting them to take the pre

survey. The survey had three main objectives: to gather data on their perceptions; to

30

inform program development for SRECA; and to establish a baseline from which to

evaluate the workshop. Responses from the pre survey were imported to an Excel

document from Qualtrics and then transferred to SPSS.

The post survey was administered in-person on the last day of conference and

71 surveys were completed. Responses were entered into Excel and then transferred to

an SPSS workbook for analysis. Tukey’s B and one-way ANOVA were used to

determine significant differences between groups in the pre and post surveys and

changes within groups based on their responses to the pre and post surveys. A

discriminant analysis showed differences between groups that assisted in

understanding the differences between climate perspective groups (see appendix). In

addition, a non-parametric test and discriminant analysis showed differences between

groups that supported the main findings from the ANOVA (see appendix).

Surveys were pilot tested with non-participants, reviewed by Extension

specialists, and revised before implementation. Both the pre and post-surveys consisted

of four parts. Part one asked about respondents’ work in Extension and perceptions of

ACC. Part two in the pre survey asked how much climate-related training the

participants had prior to SRECA and to what extent they already incorporated climate

science in their programming. This part of the pre survey also asked participants to rate

their expectations for the workshop (see appendix). Part two in the post survey asked

participants to what extent their expectations were met. This section also asked

participants to rate specific sessions from the workshop based on their perceived value

(not at all valuable use of my time to very valuable use of my time). Additionally, part

two asked participants how they intended to use the information gained from the

31

workshop, how often participants planned to be in touch with each other, and what

additional climate-related information participants might want.

Part three asked respondents to rate their knowledge and skills related to climate

science, change, and variability. These items used the exact wording in the pre and

post-surveys (see appendix). Part four focused on climate change perceptions and was

intended to better understand participants’ worldviews and personal opinions of climate

change (see appendix). Items in this final section also gauged respondents’

hopefulness with regard to adapting to and mitigating the effects of current climate

change (see appendix). Items in part four used the same wording in the pre and post

surveys. Demographic information on respondents was also collected.

Interviews

Nine months after the workshop, participants (n = 39) across each sector and

from each of the three perspective-groups were invited via email to participate in an

interview to reflect on their experiences at the SRECA workshop and what, if any,

changes they’d made to their programming since then. In total, 14 interviews were

conducted (36% response rate) over the summer and early fall of 2015. Objectives of

these interviews were to understand: 1) agents’ lasting impressions of the SRECA

workshop; 2) what, if anything, had changed in their understanding of climate change

and their Extension programs since SRECA workshop; 3) what more they would like to

learn about climate change; and 4) what they think their clients want to know about the

topic.

Interview questions were developed with input from two Extension specialists

and two faculty members at the University of Florida. Interviewees were asked about

their lasting impressions of the SRECA workshop and to describe what was useful or

32

could be improved about the format. They were also asked if they had changed any of

their practices related to climate change after the workshop. Interviews took place over

the phone, lasted between 30 and 90 minutes and were recorded using an iPhone.

Interviews were later transcribed and themes were identified through careful readings of

the transcriptions during which key words and common impressions were noted. If three

or more agents mentioned a similar impression, it was determined to be a theme. These

themes were confirmed by a second reviewer.

Approach and nonresponse: To encourage openness in response to questions

from the interviews, the researcher consciously and sometimes explicitly mentioned to

interviewees that her role was to listen to their responses without judgment.

Nonresponse was accounted for through short (5-10 minute) conversations with agents

(n=5, 20% of nonresponders) who did not respond to the request to participate in the

interviews. This sample of nonresponders said they did not reply to the request to

participate because they were one or more of the following: 1) too busy (n=5); 2) dealing

with new responsibilities at that time (n=1); and/or 3) uninterested in responding to

survey’s interviews that do not come from deans (n=1).

Results

The first part of the results section shows the differences between groups of

respondents based on their responses to the pre survey, and the second part shows the

differences within groups from pre to post surveys. The third section describes three

themes arising from interviews with agents about their workshop experience.

Part I: Pre survey analysis

Pre-surveys (n=69) were completed using Qualtrics online survey software.

Respondents were from the crops and horticulture sectors (n=25), livestock (n=16),

33

forestry (n=10), and from the coastal/sea grant sector (n=14). Southeastern states (n=9)

represented in the pre survey include Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky,

Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Virginia.

Table 2-1. Sectors represented in pre survey for SRECA

Sector n

Crops and Horticulture 25 Forestry 10 Livestock 16

Coasts/Sea grant 14

Unknown 4

Total 65

Categorizing respondents by climate change perspective: Respondents to

the pre-surveys were categorized based on their beliefs about the cause(s) of climate

change, confusion and concern about the effects of climate change. Three groups of

climate perspectives were identified (Table 2-2). The group that believes that humans

are the primary cause of current climate change is more concerned and significantly

less confused about current climate change than the other two groups (Concerned

Human Cause). The second group, Concerned Natural Cause, is similarly concerned

about the effects of current climate change and more confused about current climate

change than the Concerned Human Cause group (p<.01). They believe that natural

causes are at least as responsible for current climate change as humans are. And a

third group, Unconcerned Natural Cause, is the least concerned (p<.01) about current

climate change and as confused about climate change as the Concerned Natural Cause

group. Like the Concerned Natural Cause group, participants in the Unconcerned

Natural Cause group believe that natural causes at least as responsible for climate

change as human ones. Table 2-2 shows how the Concerned Natural Cause group

34

joins the Concerned Human Cause and Unconcerned Natural Cause groups on

different questions about beliefs regarding climate change. .

Table 2-2. Comparison of three groups on climate-related perspective items.

Item Concerned Human Cause

Concerned Natural Cause

Unconcerned Natural Cause

Total

The scientific community has not reached a consensus on climate change and I don’t believe it’s worth further consideration.

n 26 14 26 66 M 1.3a 1.8b 2.7ab

SD .533 .699 1.011 If the climate is changing, there’s not much we can do about it.

n 25 14 26 65 M 2.0a 2.5 3.0a

SD .957 .855 .916 There is so much confusing information out there about current climate change that it is hard for me to know what to believe.

n 25 14 26 65 M 2.0ab 3.4b 3.7a

SD 1.060 1.151 1.263 I am very concerned about current climate change and fear that it may negatively impact the global ecosystem and current and future generations.

n 26 14 26 66 M 4.4a 3.7c 2.5ac

SD .983 .825 .706

Notes: 5-point scale (strongly disagree – strongly agree) used for each item. Significant differences between groups are annotated with letters in superscript, where a = p < .001, b = p < .01, c = p < .001. Boxes show the oscillation of the Concerned Natural Cause group between the primary two groups. The Concerned Natural Cause group is significantly different (p<.01-p<.001) from the Unconcerned Natural Group on two out of four items, and significantly different (p<.01) from the Concerned Human Cause group on one out of four items. On one out of four items, the Concerned Natural Cause group is not significantly different from either group.

35

Perspectives by sector: Most of the Unconcerned Natural Cause respondents

were from the crops and horticulture sectors (Figure 2). The sector with the most

participants in the Concerned Human Cause group is the coastal/sea grant (n = 10)

sector followed by crops (n = 9). The only significant difference in overall climate

perspective between sectors is between the crops and coastal sectors (p < .05). This

distribution is roughly similar to the findings from Monroe et al. (2015) with the

agricultural sector having significantly more people who are dismissive and doubtful of

climate change than the natural resources sector (p. 225).

Figure 2-3. Climate perspectives in each sector at SRECA.

Differences in climate perspectives: The Concerned Human Cause group has

incorporated climate change into their programs more than the Natural Cause group (p

< .001). Like the Concerned Human Cause group, the Concerned Natural Cause group

strongly disagrees that the scientific community has not reached consensus on climate

change. While the mean score for the Natural Cause group is also on the ‘disagree’ end

Forestry Crops Livestock Coastal

To

tal re

sp

on

den

ts i

n e

ach

cate

go

ry

Respondents' chosen sector in pre and post-Academy survey

Climate Change Perspective by Sector

Concerned HumanCause

Concerned NaturalCause

Unconcerned NaturalCause

36

of the spectrum for this item (2.7 on a 1-5 agree-disagree scale with 1.0 SD), they are

much closer to being uncertain or ‘neither agreeing nor disagreeing’ with this statement.

Knowledge and potential learning outcomes: Out of the total number of

knowledge-related items (n = 6), significant differences were measured between the

Concerned Human Cause and Unconcerned Natural Cause groups on three items

(Table 2-3). The Unconcerned Natural Cause group scored significantly lower than the

Concerned Human Cause group in their self-reported knowledge of climate science, the

causes of climate change, and climate-related resources they can access to better

understand climate change (p<.01). The Unconcerned Natural Cause group rated

workshop expectations significantly lower than the other groups. Survey items related to

learning more about climate science, improving current climate change communication

skills, talking about climate related Extension programming, and having an enjoyable

experience showed significant differences between the groups, with the Unconcerned

Natural Cause group rating the these potential outcomes lower in importance (Table 2-

4).

Table 2-3. Significant differences between climate perspectives in knowledge before SRECA .




Knowledge of climate science

n 26 14 26 M 3.2a 2.8 2.4a

SD .895 .975 .902 Knowledge of the causes of climate change

n 25 14 26 M 3.4b 2.8 2.4b

SD .533 .699 1.011

37

Table 2-3. Continued




Knowledge of climate-related resources I can access to better understand climate change

n 26 14 26

M 3.2b 2.4 2.4b SD .533 .699 1.011

Notes: 5-point scale (no knowledge – outstanding knowledge) used for each item. Significant differences between groups are annotated with letters in superscript, where a = p < .01, b = p < .001. (N = 66) Table 2-4. Differences in perceived importance of possible outcomes of SRECA workshop.




Learning more about climate science

n 25 13 26 M 3.5a 3.6b 3.0ab

SD .895 .975 .902 Improving current climate change communication skills

n 25 13 26 M 3.5b 3.5 3.0b

SD .533 .699 1.011

Talking about climate-related Extension programming

n 25 13 26 M 3.5a 3.3 3.0a

SD .533 .699 1.011 Working with colleagues on climate-related Extension programs

n 25 13 26 M 3.4c 3.4b 2.9bc

SD .533 .699 1.011

Notes: 5-point scale (not at all important – very important) used for each item. Significant differences between groups are annotated with letters in superscript, where a = p < .05, b = p < .05, c = p < .01. N = 66

38

Indicators of hope: The Unconcerned Natural Cause group rated themselves

significantly less hopeful than the Concerned Human Cause group with regard to

agentic and pathways thinking (self-efficacy) to address challenges associated with

climate change both on personal and societal scales (Table 2-5). On every hope-related

item, there is a significant difference between the Unconcerned Natural Cause group

and at least one of the other two groups. The highest probability of a difference is found

in the items related to personal efficacy. For example, the items I know that there are

number of things that I can do to mitigate current climate change; I know there are a

number of things I can do to adapt to current climate change; and I can help people

understand the impacts of climate variability and current climate change, show

significant differences between the Unconcerned Natural Cause group and Concerned

Human Cause group (p < .01).

Table 2-5. Indicators of hope; agentic and pathways thinking vary by climate perspectives.




Extension agents can help people cope with climate-related changes.

n 26 14 26 M 4.35a 4.07 3.85a

SD .629 .616 .675 People have the capacity to help resolve problems caused by current climate change.

n 25 14 26 M 4.27c 3.79 3.85c

SD .604 .699 .582

39

Table 2-5. Continued




I believe that research and technical solutions are needed to adapt and mitigate the effects of current climate change.

n 26 14 26 M 4.46a 4.50c 3.81ac

SD .582 .519 .749 I know that there are a number of things that I can do to mitigate current climate change.

n 26 14 26 M 3.92c 3.36 2.81c

SD .977 .633 .895 I know that there are a number of things that I can do to adapt to current climate change.

n 26 14 26 M 4.23c 3.86a 3.19ac

SD .652 .535 .801 I can help people understand the impacts of climate variability and current climate.

n 26 14 26 M 4.58c 4.14 3.62c

SD .578 .535 .941

Notes: 5-point Likert scale (strongly disagree – strongly agree) used for each item. Significant differences between groups are annotated with letters in superscript, where a = p < .05, b = p < .05, c = p < .01. N = 66

Feelings related to current climate change: Respondents were asked how

strongly they feel certain emotions when thinking about current climate change (see

appendix). In the pre survey, significant differences were found between the Concerned

Human Cause and Unconcerned Natural Cause group in how overwhelmed (p < .01),

40

confused (p < .05), depressed (p < .001), and indifferent (p < .001) they feel about

current climate change. The Concerned Human Cause group feels significantly more

overwhelmed and depressed about current climate change and less confused and

indifferent about it than the Unconcerned Natural Group.

Perceived value of sessions: In the post workshop evaluation, significant

differences were found between groups in their perceived value of five out of a total of

nine sessions at the workshop (Table 2-6). The Concerned Natural Cause and

Concerned Human Cause group consistently rated the sessions with higher perceived

value than the Unconcerned Natural Cause group. A comparison of means shows the

Concerned Natural Cause group rating all but two of the workshop sessions as more

valuable than either of the other two groups.

Table 2-6. Mean ratings of SRECA sessions (1-5 scale, 1 = not a valuable use of my time, 5 = very valuable use of my time).

Session Con Human Cause

Cond Natural Cause

Uncon Natural Cause

Icebreaker (Bartels)

3.3 3.8 2.9

Why We’re Here (Shepherd)

4.3 4.0 3.36

Climate 101 (Knox)

3.4 3.7 3.4

USDA Climate Hubs (McNulty)

3.9 4.3 3.3

DSS (Fraise)

3.5 4.0 3.5

PINEMAP DSS (Aldridge)

2.8 3.1 2.6

Understanding Audiences and Processes (Monroe & Bartels)

3.5 3.9 2.8

Reviewing Needs, working together (Risse)

3.5 3.9 2.9

Breakout Sessions 3.9 3.6 3.0

41

Part II: Comparing pre to post surveys within groups

The only group that shows a significant change in their responses to the four

primary climate change perspective items from the pre to post survey is the Concerned

Natural Cause group. A one-way ANOVA analysis of their responses shows that the

Concerned Natural Cause group became significantly less confused (p < .001) and

significantly more concerned (p < .01) from the pre to the post surveys.

Changes in self-reported knowledge: One-way ANOVA tests show significant

differences within groups in their knowledge about and ability to address climate-relate

challenges. On every self-rated knowledge item and for every group, mean scores show

an increase. While the Concerned Human Cause group made no statistically significant

change in their self-reported knowledge, both the Concerned Natural Cause and

Unconcerned Natural Cause group made significant gains on several items (Table 2-7).

Both of the latter groups show significant changes in the items knowledge of potential

future impacts of climate variability in the Southeast, knowledge of climate-related

resources I can access to better understand climate change, and knowledge of climate-

related decision support tools I can access. In the post survey, however, the Concerned

Natural Cause group’s self-reported knowledge is higher than other groups on every

item except in their knowledge of the causes of climate change. This same item, in

addition to knowledge of climate science, is the only item that the Unconcerned Natural

Cause group does not show statistically significant gains from the pre to post survey.

42

Table 2-7. Differences in mean scores of self-rated knowledge by climate perspective, pre and post SRECA workshop

Prompt Con Human Cause

Pre

Con Human Cause Post

Con Natural Cause Pre

Con Natural Cause Post

Uncon Natural Cause Pre

Uncon Natural Cause Post


3.2 3.4 2.7* 3.5* 2.4 2.8

Knowledge of the impacts of climate variability in the Southeast

3.1 3.3 2.9 3.6 2.8* 3.3*

Knowledge of the potential future impacts of climate change in the Southeast

3.0 3.4 2.7* 3.6* 2.5** 3.1**

Knowledge of the causes of current climate change

3.4 3.5 2.8 3.1 2.4 2.8

Knowledge of the climate-related resources I can access to better understand climate change

3.2 3.5 2.3*** 3.7*** 2.4*** 3.3***

Knowledge of climate-related decisions support tools I can access

2.8 3.2 2.2*** 3.5*** 2.1*** 3.0***

Notes: 1-5 scale of no knowledge to outstanding knowledge. One-way ANOVA to test significance; * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.

Changes in climate-related skills: One objective of the SRECA workshop was

to increase participants’ abilities to facilitate conversation on climate change and to use

decision support systems (DSS) for addressing climate-related problems and concerns

with their clients. Both the Concerned Human Cause and Concerned Natural Cause

group show some statistically significant improvements in their climate-related skills

(p<.05) (Table 2-8). The Concerned Human Cause group shows a significant increase

in their self-reported ability to talk to Extension audiences about current climate change.

The Concerned Natural Cause group self-rated their ability to use climate-related

decision support tools to guide improvements in production strategies or natural

resources management, and their ability to design a program that addresses current

43

climate change higher in the post survey than the pre survey (p<.05). Only the

Unconcerned Natural Cause group did not change their skills..

Table 2-8. Self-reported ability by climate perspective on pre and post surveys

Prompt

Con Human Cause

Pre






Ability to use climate-related decision support tools to guide improvements in production strategies or natural resources management

2.5 2.8 2.1* 3.2* 2.3 2.7

Ability to talk to Extension audiences about current climate change

2.8*

3.4* 2.7 3.4 2.8 3.0

Ability to design a program that addresses current climate change

2.7 3.2 2.4* 3.4* 2.3 2.8

Ability to facilitate discussions on controversial topics

3.5 3.7 2.8 3.4 3.0 2.8

Notes: One-way ANOVA to test significance;* p < .05

Few significant changes occurred within groups from the pre to post survey with

regard to their attitudes about current climate change (Table 2-9). The Concerned

Natural Cause group reported feeling significantly less confused and more hopeful

about current climate change in the post survey. The Concerned Human Cause group

also showed a significant increase in their hopefulness about current climate change

from the pre to post survey. Although analysis of mean scores for the Unconcerned

Natural Cause group shows a similar decrease in confusion and increase in

hopefulness, the changes are not statistically significant.

44

Table 2-9. Significant changes in emotion scores before and after SRECA workshop

Feeling Con Human Cause

Pre






Overwhelmed 2.5 2.5 2.1 2.2 1.6 1.8 Confused 1.8 2.0 2.6* 1.8* 2.5 2.1 Depressed 2.1 1.8 1.6 1.8 1.0 1.1 Hopeful 2.3* 3.0* 2.2* 3.6* 2.5 3.0 Annoyed 2.3 2.4 2.1 1.7 2.8 2.4 Indifferent 1.2 1.1 1.5 1.4 2.3 2.0

Notes: One-way ANOVA to test significance; * p < .01. (1 = not at all, 3 = moderately, 5 = a great deal) Interviews

Agents (n=14) from each of the four sectors (crops, livestock, forestry, and

coasts) in the Concerned Natural Cause (n = 7), Unconcerned Natural Cause (n =

5) and Concerned Human Cause (n=3) groups were interviewed over the summer of

2015. Of the total agents contacted (n = 39), 14 agreed to be interviewed (response

rate, 41%). The lowest response rate was from the Unconcerned Natural Cause group

(29%), the next was Concerned Human Cause (60%), and the highest response came

from the Concerned Natural Cause (80%). Higher response rates from those who are

concerned about climate change may indicate a greater interest in discussing climate

change.

While organizers intended for SRECA to be a year-long effort to encourage

climate-related program development and learning, most participants viewed the event

as a one-time event and did not change whether and how they incorporate climate-

related material in their programming after the September workshop. Three primary

themes were identified in the interviews. 1) goals for program development during the

workshop were either unclear and/or unmet; 2) agents in the Concerned and

45

Unconcerned Natural groups wanted more information on data collection methods to

determine attribution of current climate change; and 3) agents enjoyed the workshop,

even if the goals and outcomes were unclear.

Unclear/unmet Goals: Plenary sessions at the workshop provided informational

sessions on a variety of climate-related topics (e.g. climate science, climate change

communication skills, and decision support systems). The goals of these sessions were

to present a clear message on current climate change and to establish some baseline

concepts to facilitate more in-depth and sector-specific progress in the concurrent

sector sessions. The concurrent sessions were planned to provide opportunity to share

regional programs on managing climate risks and to facilitate the creation of novel

climate-related programming by sector. They were also intended to build communities

of practice across the region in each program. Comments from participants show some

confusion over what they were supposed to accomplish during the workshop, and

especially during the concurrent sessions. One agent commented,

I didn't rightly get…what I was supposed to bring home from it. It seemed better suited for faculty Extension specialist folks…Program development coordinators and the county agent - we're going in so many different directions. You know, are we supposed to come home and implement climate change programming into our repertoire? I didn't see how that fit or how we were supposed to make that fit. – Participant 10 (Concerned Natural Cause)

In this case, the agent is expressing confusion about if and how information and

skills presented at the workshop could be incorporated in her work. This confusion may

have arisen because finding common programmatic ground among agents within each

sector was a challenge. Agents commented that diversity within their own sectors was

too great to collaboratively develop relevant programming. In crops, for example,

specialties ranged from ornamental horticulture to row crops and in the coastal group,

46

some agents specialized in inland waterways while others focused on coastal issues.

While common ground can be found among these different specialties, it was

challenging for participants to readily see how they could create products that might

work for the wide range of audiences they serve. Another agent commented that the

overall objective for the livestock group was unclear.

As far as the livestock went…I don't know exactly what the mission was for the thing…I don't know that we got a lot done. – Participant 9 (Concerned Natural Cause)

While this agent expressed concern that not enough was accomplished at the

meeting in terms of program development, he noted that two months following the

SRECA workshop, he led a session with 20-25 agents at a state-wide meeting for

Extension agents where he discussed what he had learned at the workshop. Another

agent expressed that nothing tangible resulted from the workshop.

…We didn't actually come up with anything educational to provide our clientele. Other than those, you know, the website resources. There wasn't really anything tangible that you could take with you out of the breakout session, other than, you know, the conversation with your peers. – Participant 5 (Unconcerned Natural Cause)

The impression that the breakout sessions resulted in no deliverables for agents’

clientele, whether or not it is true, was common among agents and represents a

significant opening for improvement in future professional development efforts (if this is

determined to be a goal of the program).

More Evidence: The organizers of the workshop intentionally did not dedicate

time at the workshop to discuss and analyze the causes of current climate change.

While this topic is fundamental to a holistic understanding of the scientific consensus on

ACC, it is also an area of serious cultural debate and could have consumed a large

portion of the workshop’s schedule. Organizers believed that the Unconcerned Natural

47

Cause participants would not wish to hear any consensus-based climate science or

would engage in debate over what most climatologists believe to be facts. Agents in the

Concerned and Unconcerned Natural Cause groups commented on this missing link.

I was a little disappointed at the workshop on climate change. We just kind of glazed over the science. When I want to sit down and explain how they’re coming up with this data. I wanted to understand how we come up with those samples. Where are we coming up with this [sic] data? – Participant 8 (Concerned Natural Cause)

Another agent went into great detail about his skepticism concerning the reliability of

temperature-related data. He, like Participant 8, wanted to better understand data

collection and analysis methods for determining attribution.

There are graphs that show the temperature of the earth you know year by year, ok, but, how was that average temperature in 1950, in 1900, 1850, in 1800 determined? You have dots on that graph but just what went into that dot in 1850 or 1900 and how does the accuracy of that dot compare to 2015? – Participant 11 (Unconcerned Natural Cause)

This agent did not ask questions like this at the workshop because there was not a

session dedicated to explaining how data are derived. The workshop was not designed

to debate the causes of climate change, it was designed to share and develop skills to

address adaptation and communication. To address the apparent need for agents to

better understand these aspects of climate change, SRECA held a climate science

webinar to focus on evidence of changes. Some agents in the Concerned and

Unconcerned Natural Cause groups (n=4) remarked that, to a greater or lesser degree,

they do not trust that the science is settled on ACC and therefore feel uncomfortable

sharing some climate-related information with their clients – especially information that

relates to attribution.

Positive impressions of workshop: Given the cultural controversy surrounding

climate change and the diversity of strongly held beliefs about it, positive feedback,

48

especially from participants who are less concerned about ACC, indicates an entry point

for further professional development opportunities with these agents. One agent in the

Unconcerned Natural Cause group commented:

It was actually a good training and I learned a lot…if you’re on the fence about going, it's a great networking opportunity and you can learn something. – Participant 4 (Unconcerned Natural Cause)

While the interviewee was not asked to make suggestions to potential future

participants, when asked if she had any further comments for her interview, she took the

opportunity to encourage other agents to attend a hypothetical future training. Another

agent from the Unconcerned Natural Cause group commented:

I greatly appreciated the speakers that looked at climate related issues from a pragmatic standpoint, and addressed on-the-farm issues. It was the first time any climate-related issues had been presented that way. – Participant 1 (Unconcerned Natural Cause)

Other agents, especially in agriculture and livestock, similarly appreciated the

opportunity to look at climate change and its potential effects on their specific area. An

agent from the livestock group commented that, for the first time, she saw how climate

change and increasing temperatures could affect the livestock industry by influencing

both hay production and gain-to-feed ratios. An agent from the Concerned Human

Cause group commented that, while she did not see the workshop as a learning

opportunity, the regional networking was useful for her.

I think I found myself more in the role of an educator rather than gaining new education. Now I did, I met some folks and so, from that standpoint, it was worthwhile making contact with folks from other states. – Participant 13 (Concerned Human Cause)

As a participant who was already concerned about climate change, in agreement with

the scientific consensus, and not particularly confused about this topic, this agent

already understood the basics of climate change and did not receive much new

49

information. This comment corroborates the finding from surveys that the Concerned

Human Cause group made no statistically significant knowledge gains at the workshop.

Discussion and Recommendations

Participants in the SRECA workshop represented three groups based on their

perspectives on ACC. Their perspectives are distinguishable by varying levels of

agreement with the scientific consensus on ACC, their concern for, and confusion about

ACC. These perspectives likely affected how participants experienced and were

influenced by the workshop. Analysis of pre-post surveys suggests that individuals in

the three climate-perspective groups gained different knowledge and abilities from this

training. Participants in the Concerned Human Cause group reported no statistically

significant increases in knowledge-related items from the pre to post survey.

Considering this group was the least confused about climate change at the beginning of

the conference, the absence of significant knowledge gains is unsurprising. The

Concerned Human Cause group was the only group to report a statistically significant

increase in their ability to talk to Extension audiences about current climate change.

This may indicate that participants in this climate perspective group were uniquely ready

to gain this skill.

While both the Natural Cause groups did not increase their ability to talk to

Extension audiences about current climate change, the Concerned Natural Cause

group reported increases in their ability to use climate-related decision support systems

and to create programs that addresses current climate change, which were goals of the

breakout sessions. The Unconcerned Natural Cause group did not report any

statistically significant increases on ability-related items. As the group that is least

concerned about climate change, they likely do not perceive a need to incorporate

50

current climate change in their programs. While the Unconcerned Natural Cause group

did not improve their skills, they, along with the Concerned Natural Cause group,

reported statistically significant increases in four out of six knowledge related items.

Considering that some members in these groups do not trust that the science is settled

on ACC, future climate trainings might be improved for these groups by including more

about relevant information about climate change science. Additionally, if participants

could be invited to ask questions that address their concerns about data collection and

reliability of climate science in general.

While the workshop did not include a session dedicated to the causes of climate

change, both climate scientists at the workshop presented slides that support the

scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change. That neither group increased

their knowledge on this aspect of climate change and members of both Natural Cause

groups commented that they want to learn more about it signifies an entry point for

future professional development opportunities. Agents, especially in the Unconcerned

Natural Cause group, need to trust the science behind climate change and before they

can understand how a scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change has been

reached. Future professional development efforts may benefit from detailed explanation

of climate science, especially because it is the source of so much of the cultural climate

controversy.

Agents across three perspective groups noted that the workshop was a useful

networking opportunity. Interviewees said that meeting with colleagues across the

region was a rare opportunity that they appreciated. The positive experience of

networking with regional partners is more salient than perceived programmatic

51

shortcomings of the workshop. For this reason, future efforts would benefit from

specifically asking what climate-related information participants would like to increase

their knowledge and abilities and incorporating these needs in programming. While the

pre-survey used for the SRECA workshop gave participants an opportunity to rate the

importance of potential outcomes of the workshop, further inquiry into their informational

needs could have more effectively guided plenary and breakout sessions. Facilitators in

future sessions like these might better cultivate dialogue on program development

within sectors if a clear agenda is presented. Instead of asking if they needed to

incorporate climate change in their programming, they would instead focus on how and

what to incorporate. It would still be challenging for agents who are unfamiliar with

climate science and how climate change may impact their specific area, but common

questions about what the goal for their discussions about programming would be

answered up front.

Conclusion

Anthropogenic climate change is a complex topic rife with political controversy.

The Cooperative Extension Service is not immune to the same cultural influences that

have turned a relatively well-studied phenomenon into a political debate. As trusted

members of their communities and respected communicators of science, Extension

agents may be able to facilitate greater understanding of ACC and climate-related risk

management options with their clients. The SRECA workshop brought together agents

with different perspectives on climate change to learn and work together. Results from

this evaluation suggest that people with different perspectives on climate change want

different information and skills from climate trainings. Ultimately, all the agents want to

create relevant, unbiased programs for their clients. Some agents are ready and willing

52

to develop climate-related programs while others need to better understand how climate

change is measured or how it might impact their clients. Agents across the perspective

spectrum report that they want more information on climate change. The substance of

their information needs, however, depends on their perspective and their specialty. By

better understanding and incorporating the needs and perceptions of the audience,

future program developers can facilitate supportive learning environments for cultivating

climate savvy Extension agents.

53

CHAPTER 3 EXAMINING THE ROLE OF THE EXTENSION AGENT AND ITS EFFECT ON

COMMUNICATING CLIMATE CHANGE

Introduction

The United States’ Cooperative Extension Service (extension) works directly with

land grant universities across the country and is tasked with communicating actionable

research to the public. With expertise in a number of areas including forest resources,

agriculture, livestock, and water resources, extension professionals have the potential to

reach land managers, producers, and other relevant actors with climate-related tools

and resources (Prokopy and Power 2015, Lemos, Kirchhoff, and Ramprasad 2012). By

effectively communicating with their clients (e.g. producers, land managers, etc.) about

risks and management strategies for mitigation and adaptation, extension can play an

important role in increasing climate savvy management practices across the country

(Lemos, Kirchhoff, and Ramprasad 2012, Prokopy and Power 2015). Whether

extension agents adopt and implement effective frames for communicating climate

change may depend both on agents’ perceptions of climate change and of their

professional role(s) (Monroe et al. 2015).

Ideal Role(s) of the Agent: Over the last century, academics and Extension

specialists have explored the role an agents plays as a mediator between research

institutions and the public. According to two professors of developmental change writing

in the late 1960’s, an agent’s relation to the public is based on two philosophical points:

1) the agent’s primary responsibility is help people help themselves, and 2) the client

should be central to the agents’ programming (Gallaher and Santopolo 1967). Gallaher

and Santopolo argue that the agent plays four primary roles including analyst, advisor,

advocator, and/or innovator as they share research findings with those who can use

54

them. The authors expand on these points and suggest that, as an advocator, the

agent’s ‘main commitment is to recommend to the client one from among a number of

alternatives’ (p. 225).

Almost 40 years later, Morse et al. (2006) offer further suggestions for

conceptualizing the role of an agent as a change agent. Catalytic leadership, they

suggest, can better address complex public problems that Extension agents face in their

communities. While earlier assessments of the agents’ role stemmed from a top-down

model of knowledge creation (knowledge is held by the agent and passed on to a

client), more recent analyses of appropriate roles for the agent acknowledge that there

are not necessarily clear leaders and followers, and there are no singularly identifiable

“problems” with readily identifiable “solutions” (2006). The catalytic tasks of public

leadership are, according to Morse et al., to raise awareness, form working groups,

create strategies, and sustain action. These tasks can be strengthened by an agents’

understanding of the needs of her clients and how the agent can help stakeholders

achieve what they would like to see in the future (Garst and McCawley 2015). While this

approach and earlier analyses of the role of the agent may be appropriate, they are

ideal types and not necessarily reflected on the ground with agents in the field.

Communicating Controversy: When scientific findings challenge social norms

and long-held scientific understandings, or are otherwise controversial in any way, those

who are tasked with communicating this science are put in a difficult position (Brysse et

al. 2013). Pioneering communicators of paradigm-shifting science will inevitably face

resistance to changing beliefs and behaviors. This is the situation in which some

Extension agents find themselves when they consider communicating climate change to

55

their clients. Discussing climate change may conjure culturally significant beliefs that

could alienate their clients (Corner, Markowitz, and Pidgeon 2014). This may happen

because the mitigation efforts (e.g. diminishing or ceasing greenhouse gas forcing)

based on the scientific consensus about anthropogenic climate change (ACC)

challenges a predominant economic model that relies on the combustion of fossil fuels

as a primary energy source. There is broad scientific consensus extending beyond

climate scientists (Carlton et al. 2015) that ACC already is and will continue to alter

Earth’s systems in various ways including increasing the intensity and frequency of

extreme weather events, increased average global temperatures, rising sea levels, and

accelerated melting of glaciers and ice sheets (IPCC 2014, Gleick et al. 2010, Carlton et

al. 2015). Although the body of evidence that strengthens the theory of ACC has grown

in the past few decades (Crowley 2000, Hegerl et al. 2007), public awareness of the

causes and risks associated with ACC is highly variable.

While climate variability and change can and do affect all Extension-affiliated

sectors, many agents lack a scientifically vetted understanding of regionally relevant

climate systems (Monroe et al. 2015). Yet an understanding of climate science would be

useful to conduct their job of providing alternatives to clients. Recommendations for

various approaches Extension agents could take in response to contemporary and

future climate related risks have been suggested (Fraisse et al. 2009, Morris et al.

2014): providing climate change information when it is solicited, focusing on local effects

of climate change, and emphasizing the tangible benefits to producers for enacting

management strategies that both adapt to and mitigate the effects of climate change.

Because agents hold a range of beliefs on climate change, it cannot be assumed that

56

recommendations and strategies for communicating climate change to diverse

audiences will be adopted and used by agents. Monroe et al. (2015) reported several

barriers to climate change communication according to Extension professionals. The

highest ranked barriers were found to be lack of audience interest, the perception that

available information on the topic of climate change is conflicting, and not enough

applied information available.

Research Questions

The barriers listed above and existing scholarship represent appropriate entry

points for analyzing Extension agents’ perceptions of their roles and responsibilities to

their clients when communicating a complex, science-based issue. The purpose of this

research is to examine 1) how agents perceive their role in communicating complex

topics with clients, 2) the extent to which agents do or do not incorporate climate

change as a part of their professional role, and 3) how agents believe they can be better

equipped to assist clients with risks and opportunities associated with climate variability

and change. Agents’ willingness to address climate change is underpinned by the basic

process of filtering and interpreting complex information for different audiences. A fourth

aspect is to understand how agents filter scientific information for different audiences

and how this filtering process is used with climate change.

How do extension agents perceive their role(s) and responsibilities to their clients in communicating complex, sometimes controversial science-based topics?

What kinds of information/skills do agents need to translate complex scientific topics to their clients? And specifically related to climate change?

How do agents currently engage with their clients about climate change? What motivates an extension agent to integrate climate-related programming with their clients?

What information do agents filter out about climate change with their clients? How do they decide what to filter out and what to put forth the effort to explain?

57

Literature Review

Communicating Risk as an Agent: Extension agents are often trusted, active

members of the communities they serve and often have friendly relationships with their

clients that extend beyond the professional sphere. They may go to birthday and

retirement parties, they may visit clients' properties and understand the conditions of

their clients' families. When they share their knowledge with the people they serve,

agents know that it could affect their clients’ management, buying, and selling practices.

While this aspect of Extension is often seen as a strength of the organization, it can also

make the process of communicating risk more complex and personal for agents than it

is for scientific researchers (Fischhoff 1995, Wilke and Morton 2015). While a

researcher may be able suggest a novel management option to improve yield at an

academic conference without much consequence. If an agent suggests a management

option, they will be held personally accountable for the success or failure of that

suggestion with their client.

Communicating Climate Change and Extension

While science is ever-changing and scientists know that science is never “settled,”

Oreskes (2011) argues that, in the interest of effective communication on the topic,

scientists and others who are aware of the consensus on climate change must start

referring to ACC as a fact – not as a theory with various levels of uncertainty. These

terminologies, although philosophically true to the nature of science, are not helpful in

communicating the likelihood of catastrophic changes that could result from unchecked

ACC. Furthermore, she and Conrad (2011) argue that scientists, and the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in particular, have downplayed the

58

effects of climate change when it comes to projecting future scenarios with climate

models. Evidence from the past two decades have shown that, in many cases, climate

scientists’ projections were underestimates of what actually occurred (2011). Climate

scientists, they argue, are biased against reporting potentially dramatic outcomes.

“Erring on the side of least drama arises from core scientific values of objectivity,

rationality, and dispassion,” write Oreskes and Conrad, “which leads scientists to be

skeptical of any claim that might evoke an emotional response,” (2011: 335). Future

scenarios that would displace thousands or millions of people due to rising sea levels

might therefore be thrown out if they are considered outliers and could significantly alter

the outcomes from climate models. Considering these boundaries and our own

limitations to assessing present and future risks is critical in ACC discourse.

This factual approach to communicating climate change has not even been

adopted by many in the Extension community because both Extension professionals

and their clients hold a range of culturally influenced views on climate change (Monroe

et al. 2015). Despite the fact that contrarians fail to provide alternative theories that

credibly satisfy the evidence, dismissal and doubt of the scientific consensus on ACC

continues. Kahan’s theory of cultural cognition (2011) offers insights into why it is

challenging to communicate ACC to reticent audiences and why Extension agents are

uniquely position to effectively transmit this information to those audiences. As trusted

communicators of science, Kahan would argue, agents might be able to encourage

deliberative thinking about climate change in a client who might otherwise dismiss the

topic as a partisan hoax. Because Extension agents are trusted members of their

communities and their clients consider them to be unbiased sources of information

59

(Franz et al. 2010), it has been suggested that doubtful agents can helpfully focus on

risk-management in terms of weather patterns and climate variability (to avoid the

culturally controversial topic of ACC). However, as Monroe et al. (2015) point out,

“(Avoiding ACC in Extension programming) is a partial solution…since it avoids a basic

understanding of climate science that is essential for the creation of novel solutions and

techniques,” (p. 232). For agents to catalyze a change in clients’ behaviors and beliefs,

it may be necessary to catalyze a shift toward comprehension of the scientific

consensus on ACC with agents themselves. To move in this direction, this research

explores how agents currently engage with clients on the topic of climate change, and

what would help them increase both their own climate literacy and their comfort level in

discussing relevant climate-related information with their clients.

Knowledge Translation in Extension: Extension is an organization tasked with

transferring applicable research findings to diverse audiences, and so employing

processes that successfully transform research into practice are keys to the extension’s

capacity to fulfil its mission. For the purposes of this research, knowledge translation is

considered to be the process of sharing research findings in relevant, easily-accessed

and applicable ways to clients (Graham et al. 2006). The word translation is appropriate

because the culture and vocabulary used in science is often different than the public

(Wynne 1992). Communicators of science must often quite literally translate information

from scientific jargon into a language that laypeople can understand. In the case of

climate change, communicators must understand the concept of appropriately framing

the topic so audiences are not alienated (CRED 2009).

60

Analytical Framework and Methods

Interviewees were selected from the 100 Extension professionals who attended a

climate change professional development workshop in September 2014. Based on

survey responses administered to workshop participants, agents were categorized by

their beliefs regarding the causes of climate change and concern for the impacts of

climate change. This categorization was informed by an understanding of the Six

Americas of Climate Change (YPCCC 2009) and multiple statistically significant

differences between groups on climate-perspective survey items. Participants held one

of three climate perspectives: Concerned Human Cause, Concerned Natural Cause,

and Unconcerned Natural Cause. Selected participants were contacted by email and if

there was no response, a follow-up email was sent. Semi-structured interviews were

scheduled for a convenient time, and were conducted over the phone, ranged in length

from 30 to 90 minutes, and were recorded using an iPhone. The Internal Review Board

at the University of Florida approved the data collection protocol for this study.

Interview questions were developed with input from four UF faculty and staff,

including two Extension Specialists. Qualitative interviews were determined to be a

useful method for addressing our research questions because the process of filtering

and translating information is nuanced and not easily captured in survey data.

Questions were intended to elicit responses that would explain agents’ perceptions of

their roles and responsibilities when communicating complex science-based issues, and

climate change in particular, to their clients. Agents were asked to describe their

experiences with communicating complex topics to their clients, what they needed to

know and be able to do to accomplish this task, and how they decide what information

to share when communicating with different audiences. Interviews then shifted focus to

61

climate change and agents were asked what their clients are asking them related to

climate or climate change and what they are comfortable talking about. Specifically,

agents were asked what they say or what they would say if one of their clients asked

them about the causes of climate change. Agents were then asked to explain what

climate-related information would be of most use to them and their clients and how the

university can best share this information with them.

Grounded Theory and the Role of the Researcher: Kathy Charmaz (2006)

contends that researchers are responsible for the bias, experiences, and expectations

they bring to interviews and subsequent analyses. In an effort to obtain honest and rich

responses from interviewees with various perspectives on climate change, I endeavored

to dissolve my own cultural biases. To elucidate this perspective, below is an exchange

between one agent and myself where I explicitly shared how I perceived my own role in

the interview process. The conversation began as the agent was about to describe her

understanding of the boundaries of “God’s country.” I asked her where she thought

these boundaries were and why. In response she said the following:

Agent: We're not going to get into that because I don't know where you stand. (Laughs) Researcher: Yeah, I know. Let me tell you, I'm wide open. My whole worldview is shot wide open and I just hear people and I listen to what they have to say and I accept it is as truth, as their truth, you know? That's where I am. Agent: That's the right answer, as their truth. You know, like, it is this their truth, it's our truth. It's not everybody's truth. Researcher: Right, yep. Everybody has their own truth. Agent: That's right Researcher: So that's what I'm here to listen to today.

62

Perhaps most important to note in this exchange is that when the role of the

researcher was made explicit to the interviewee, a sense of comfort and connection is

fostered. The interviewee said, “It is our truth.” This statement shows that the

clarification of the researcher’s role, to actively listen to the interviewee and trust that

her answers were her truth, bridged cultural differences between her and the

researcher. This interaction also shows the importance of the researcher’s firm

understanding of her own role and the expression of this role to the interviewee. The

researcher must be reflexive about our own preconceived ideas and, to the best of our

ability, listen actively and openly to the responses of interviewees.

Analysis of Interviews The data were transcribed using online transcription

software called transcribe (https://transcribe.wreally.com/app#) and were then analyzed

by the researcher. Challenges to communicating climate change have been well

documented in the literature and were noted in these interviews using Moser’s (2010)

discussion of the challenges to communicating climate change (causes are invisible,

delayed gratification for taking action, it is complex, uncertain, and there are inadequate

signals indicating a need for change). Themes related to cultural cognition (Kahan,

Jenkins-Smith, and Braman 2011) were also noted. The results and discussion herein

do not address these themes and, instead, examines challenges that are unique to

Extension.

Results

14 Extension agents from seven southeastern states (AL, FL, GA, LA, KY, NC,

and VA) were interviewed (36% response rate) over the summer and fall of 2015.

Explanation for nonresponse was determined through short (5-10 minute) conversations

with five agents (20% of nonresponders). Five reasons for not responding to the request

https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Ftranscribe.wreally.com%2Fapp%23&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNFTGy9A-XmRyD1Ua-i05Vuft0a0kg

63

for an interview were named: 1) respondent was too busy (n=5); 2) respondent was

dealing with new responsibilities at that time (n=1); and/or 3) respondent was

uninterested in responding to survey’s interviews that do not come from deans (n=1).

Interviewees were from livestock, agriculture, forest resources, and water/coastal

resources and represented all three climate-perspective groups. While all agents

interviewed have earned at least one graduate degree, they do not necessarily identify

as scientists and are deeply involved in their communities in ways that scientific

researchers may not be. Agents were asked about what climate-related information they

use with their clients and how climate change is or is not integrated in their professional

interactions. According to responses in these interviews, agents decide to share

climate-related information in at least three circumstances: 1) when they believe

information is relevant to their clients, 2) when they believe that their own

knowledge or current scientific research is sufficient to address the client’s

questions/needs, and 3) when they are confident that their client will not perceive

bias in the information they present.

Extension’s Mission and the Role of the Agent: According to the websites of

the seven states represented in these interviews, a primary goal for Extension is to

improve the lives of its clients by sharing actionable, research-based information (see

appendix). According to participants, in the case of agriculture and livestock agents, this

can mean sharing evidence-based information from the university about seed or feed

varieties, fertilization and pest control technologies, equipment and management

practices for increased efficiency. For forest landowners and managers, agents might

share information on optimal stand densities, proper fire management practices, and

64

invasive pest control. Agents feel responsible for sharing research-based information

with their clients so that they can make decisions and manage risk based on the best

available science. One agent described Extension’s mission and her role as an agent as

follows:

…What Extension's mission is is to provide everybody with as many, with as much information as possible that gives them as many options that could work with the new, whatever the new technology is…And you want to give them as much information as possible so that they can figure out how many choices are out there and which one of those choices might work for their production system. – Participant 2

This kind of approach works well when an agent is talking about topics that a

client is familiar with and that have direct impacts on a client’s life – like pesticides,

irrigation techniques, or optimal stand density. While agents feel a responsibility to

share as much information as they can to help their clients, they also commented that

they do not always share everything they know about the topic at hand. Additionally,

agents do not always personally have the knowledge that their clients need. When

agents don’t have the information or knowledge themselves, they refer to experts. One

agent described his role as a direct conduit between the university and the client by

obtaining information from the research institution to bring back to the client.

Well, my role is two parts: one is to report back to (the university) for the right specialists for what problems I'm seeing so that they can do the research if it hasn't been done. The second part is then to educate the farmers on the science of what we know. So I've spent a lot of time researching problems and then trying to stay up to date on any new solutions to problems that come out and give that, then pass that along to the farmers. - Participant 4

Through this lens, the agent’s primary role is to gather information that is defined

and directed by the client. His job is to be keenly aware of the needs of his client and to

use his connections to the university to present the latest scientific findings on topics of

65

interest to the client. One agent described a situation where her job was at risk by

enacting this aspect of her professional role. In her community, a local company

claimed to have a solution to a common problem and was selling a product to residents

to address this issue. The agent learned, through a research paper from the Forest

Service, that this company had misdiagnosed the problem and was, in essence, selling

a useless (and potentially harmful) product. When the agent informed the company of

their mistake, they ceased contact with her and later demanded that her supervisors

terminate her position. Now aware that the company was selling illegitimate products to

residents in her community, the agent went to great lengths to share the science-based

information with her clients on the topic. She wrote newspaper articles, created a page

on her website, and spoke with the Forest Service researchers.

It ended up becoming a very controversial situation because the company… (said that) I was interfering with their ability to do their business by providing "misinformation" and out-of-date, old science and it got nasty. – Participant 13

Fortunately for this agent, her long standing reputation as a member of the

Extension community and the conclusive findings of the research she was using made it

clear to her supervisors that by sharing science-based information with the intention to

improve the lives of her clients, she was appropriately performing her role as an agent.

While this situation may be unusually controversial compared to what agents

experience on a daily basis, it reveals a common thread among agents regarding their

loyalty to their clients and their dedication to using science to protect and improve lives.

One agent commented that an aspect of her role as an agent is to protect her clients

from the public who may not understand the use of genetically modified organisms

(GMOs). Her concern for farmers stemmed from the perception that the farmers would

66

not be able to defend their choice to use GMOs when confronted with people who are

skeptical of GMO’s safety for human or ecosystem health.

…This is a very complex issue and generally I'm a buffer for the farmers. Hopefully, they don't get a lot of comments (about GMOs) because they would not be very appreciative of it and they would not be very nice…most of (my clients) cannot communicate the science. They can't give the facts. They know that they don't have to put as much pesticides on their cotton, they're not doing as much treatments on their cotton as they once were and that they appreciate that. And they do believe what science that they know supports that they are not causing cancer. - Participant 7

For this agent, being able to defend the science-based (and sometimes

controversial) choices her clients make is an important part of her professional role. She

is affirming her role as an intermediary between two groups (farmers and the public)

and that the scientific consensus on the safety and efficacy of GMOs is important for

both her and her clients when defending the choice to use GMOs. When asked how she

responds when a person who is skeptical of GMOs asks her a question on the topic,

she said she responds by asking them to consider if they think that using fewer

pesticides is good for the environment, which enables them to think about the larger

agricultural system and purpose of the GMOs. While the prompt she employs over

simplifies GMOs in contemporary farm management, in impromptu conversations an

agent often has insufficient time to explain the science and systems that underlie issues

of controversy. Often, she said, she directs clients to a website for further information.

She is confident that the use of GMOs is safe and because most of her clients are

farmers that already use GMOs; she has not developed an educational program to

inform skeptical people on the safety or efficacy of using them. This example shows

both that an agent can feel that they are on the “side” of the farmer and wants to protect

67

them from the public and how their teachable moments often happen in small pockets

that do not allow full explanations of complex science.

A common response among these participants was that they usually do not

share everything they know about science-based topics. Several agents said some

variation of ‘less is more’ when communicating science-based issues with clients.

Especially for topics that are politically and culturally controversial, deciding what

information makes it through the agent’s filter to be communicated to clients is nuanced

and not always straightforward. Agents consider many factors before deciding to share

certain information, such as, agents decide whether the information is relevant, reliable,

and unbiased.

Filtering Complexity

Agents commented that, while their mission is to share information to help their

clients with decision-making, what they choose to share depends on the questions they

are asked and the experience/education level of their client. One agent said that he

approaches most interactions from the standpoint that ‘mostly (sic) producers aren’t

scientists’ so he doesn’t try to explain the nitrogen cycle when talking with a client about

best management practices (Participant 3). Another agent, however, described a

beginner farmer workshop she convened successfully using simple visuals to explain

nutrient cycles to farmers. By the conversations she had with farmers after the

presentation, she knew they had understood what she intended to convey. These two

approaches (avoiding complexity and simplifying complexity) represent different ways

that agents filter information for their clients. It also represents two different settings in

which agents interact with their clients: an informal conversation with a client on his farm

and a workshop that the agent organized. The first agent may not have had the

68

resources (educational tools and practice) to explain the nitrogen cycle to his client in

the middle of his cornfield, while the second agent decided that the nutrient cycle was

important enough to her clients that she designed and created visuals to simplify the

process and held a workshop to share her knowledge. The first agent decided to filter

out the complexity while the second decided to translate the complexity by explaining

the science for her clients. Both are examples of acts of filtering information, but the

second is also an example of translation. These examples represent the choices that

agents make as they select from scientific knowledge to share with clients – what to

filter out of their conversations and what to explore and explain.

Determining Relevance

Some agents commented that if climate-related information is directly relevant to their

clients’ lives, they are more willing to share it. They do not believe they must wait until

clients inquire to deliver information yet in the context of climate change programming,

that is exactly what they appear to be doing. All interviewed agents confirmed that

climate change is not a topic that most clients are asking about (with the exception of

Master Gardeners and participants in sustainability programs). Agents explained that

they decide what is relevant to their clients by listening to clients’ questions, from their

experiences with clients on their properties, and from the science-based information

they receive or co-create with university resources. Yet data from the interviews and

previous survey results (Monroe et al. 2015, Sommers 2014) clearly establishes that

agents view the lack of interest in climate change on the part of their clients as a

considerable barrier to integrated climate change in their programs and management-

related conversations with clients. One explanation for the apparent conflict might be

that clients are not using the words “climate change,” but instead are regularly asking

69

about weather variability, rainfall patterns, and sometimes increasing occurrences of

extreme weather events. Several agents said that, because climate change occurs over

longer time periods, it is a challenge to meaningfully address the topic with clients who

are more concerned with daily or seasonal weather variations.

I don’t have anybody saying ‘hey I’d like to learn more about climate change.’ Certainly people are interested in drought, flooding, hurricane response…We are in the business of science and in answering questions so I think the idea we have is we are not out there to teach climate change for the sake of climate change, we are out there to teach climate change and the impacts it may have on our clients. – Participant 8

The perception that leading workshops or initiating conversation on climate change is

superfluous (at best) and politically manipulative (at worst) is also common. Some

agents are uninterested in approaching the topic of climate change because it is unclear

to them (and their clients) that it relates the daily operations of their clients. This is

especially true in agriculture, where clients are primarily concerned with seasonal

variations and crop viability on a shorter time scale. When climate change is conceived

of as a distant problem to adapt to over a longer time period, making the case for

including climate change related information is a harder case to make for land-locked

agricultural agents. In contrast, agents working in coastal communities, where sea level

rise is already showing effects, talking about climate change is perceived as more

relevant.

In addition to challenges on a temporal scale, inputs and effects of climate

change are perhaps most visible on a global scale. The inability to identify tangible

benefits to adapting to the risks of climate change in a locally relevant way represents a

challenge that has been well articulated in the literature on climate change

communication (Moser 2014). For extension agents, the leap from climate variability to

70

climate change is a big one, especially for agriculture and livestock agents whose

clientele are concerned primarily with seasonal changes.

(My clients) are not terribly interested in, you know, huge, grandiose type concepts (like climate change) that's not of use to them on a daily level. They might have some general curiosity about that sort of thing, but, anything that can be presented that I can learn that I can pass on to them that can help them be better suited to address any climatic issue that might occur, long-term, short-term, whatever the case might be - that's beneficial, both for me and for them. It lets me do my job more efficiently and, hopefully, it helps them be more successful as producers. That's kind of my big statement on it, just keep it practical. – Participant 1

Agents want to be useful and relevant to their clients so they will only put forth

the time and effort to educate their audiences on climate change if they can

communicate clear behaviors or management practices to their clients that will

positively impact the clients’ operations. One agent explained that, while some of his

clients may want to bequeath their land or business to their descendants one day, they

put most of their focus on “taking care of business today,” (Participant 1). This tendency

is not unique to farmers or other Extension audiences. Unless a tangible improvement

to quality of life can be assessed, Extension agents face a challenge in explaining

anything about climate. Advancements in weather predictions and seasonal forecasts

are highly useful, but discussing changes that could occur over decades or 100 years in

the future does not yet have a place in these agents’ outreach efforts. One agent

expressed her clients’ lack of concern for people they view as “outsiders” and that they

believe that adverse outcomes of climate change will primarily affect “others.”

And, generally, the people who live inland do not care for the people who live along the coast because they're not locals - I mean, that doesn't affect them. They couldn't care less about what happens to those people along the coast. They don't think that our economy is based on all those coastal people and their money…They don't care about coral reefs. I've sat in meetings before where they’re talking about those reefs, you know, they're talking about how the oceans are getting more acidic and the coral reefs -

71

the farmers don't (care). They're not going to the coral reefs. They're working on the farm. The people who care about coral reefs are those of you who can afford to go see a coral reef. – Participant 10

Sufficient Knowledge

According to these participants, when agents are not confident in their own

knowledge on a topic, they refer to an expert in the university system to find answers.

Clearly, having sufficient knowledge is essential to feeling comfortable providing

information. Responses described a range of reactions to what constitutes sufficient

knowledge, however, from being uncomfortable outside an area of expertise to

mistrusting the scientific consensus on climate change. Even though they might have

some knowledge on a topic, they might decide not to share it if they deem their

knowledge insufficient to give a well-reasoned answer. One agent said that the only

time she feels uncomfortable talking with a client about climate change is when she

believes her knowledge is insufficient.

I guess the only times I really get uncomfortable is when I don't have a good grasp on that particular issue that they're bringing up so I have to say, I need to research that a little bit more and get back to you on it. Participant 13

This agent was talking specifically about situations where someone approaches

her with aggression or with an attitude of wanting to prove her wrong about climate

change. In addition to being confident in their own knowledge, several agents

mentioned that they must be confident in the science on climate change to share it with

their clients. Respondents were asked a hypothetical question about how they would

respond if a client asked them about the causes of climate change. While all of these

agents participated in the SRECA workshop where two climatologists supported the

consensus on anthropogenic climate change, several agents commented that they

72

would be more comfortable talking about climate change if they had more confidence in

the science.

Confidence in climate science: Most agents said they would feel

uncomfortable responding to a question on the causes of climate change and they are

likely to refer clients to other sources of information when asked about climate change.

They decide not to share information related to the causes of the climate change and, to

some extent, climate change in general because they are not sure that there is scientific

consensus on the topic. Many agents expressly said that they would feel uncomfortable

responding to a question about causation and would try to avoid responding in a direct

way – especially if they perceived that the person questioning them was skeptical about

climate change.

Um I would probably ahhh recommend some, you know, resources that they could go to look at for their individual basis. Um, dealing with this particular topic, I would explain to them that I'm not a climatologist, I'm not a meteorologist, I don't know a whole lot about this subject, but you could go to the SRECA web site or, um, the forestry one, there's a forestry one. – Participant 5

Another agent said that she would feel more comfortable sharing information on

climate change when more research is done on the topic.

…If, you know, if more scientific research comes out and starts being more, um, clear, you know, on causes and things that are going on, then I, that's when I feel like I'm pretty comfortable and confident with passing information along - that I've got some good hardcore facts that have been discussed and researched, not once, but a few times, you know, and they're starting to get consecutive results, you know? – Participant 2

When asked if she had heard of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

(IPCC), an international body of independent climate scientists formed in 1988 that

produces assessments based on published literature, she said no. She went on to say

that it’s important for her to trust the source of the information on climate change.

73

…The other thing is: who are the ‘international panel on climate change?’ Are they respected scientists? Who are they? I don't even know who they are. So why would I trust their credibility if I'm not sure who they are? You know, that's gonna be important for me to feel comfortable with what's being said and who said it. – Participant 2

Other agents similarly commented that where and from whom they themselves

get information on climate change is important. One agent described people who trust

the scientific consensus on climate change as “climate people” and that he does not

believe that the periodicity of extreme weather events has increased in recent history.

Something that bugs me about the argument that the climate people say is, well, ‘we had hurricane Sandy and look how much damage it did.’ Sandy wasn't the first storm to hit the east coast, nor Katrina. – Participant 11

The agent commented that he does not trust information on climate change from

people he considers to be advocates for climate change, or “climate people.” He said

that one young climate advocate had said in response to the agent’s inquiries about

data collection methods that he would ‘just have to trust the scientists.’ This response

was not satisfying for the agent and he wanted to know more about how scientists can

accurately compare average global temperatures over the past 100 years. He is

interested in learning about the standard deviations of data points and how data

collected with improved measuring equipment of today can be reliably compared to

measurements made with more rudimentary instruments of 100 or more years ago.

While this agent’s interest in data collection methods to determine attribution was more

detailed than any of the other agents, his firm skepticism of the scientific consensus on

anthropogenic climate change was common.

On the causal end of things, I am very skeptical myself. I don’t know that I would be the most insightful person to have that conversation with. I am fairly well versed in the theories, the conclusions that have been presented. For my own piece of mind and the practical application of my

74

clients, I am much more comfortable addressing the whole issue in terms of risk management. – Participant 1

This agent’s comment exemplifies how he filters information about the causes of

climate change to one of risk management. This is an example of someone filtering

information on climate change not because he does not have the information, but

because he is skeptical of the legitimacy of the information he has. This kind of filtering

may occur because the agent believes that the client may also perceive a bias in

information that aligns with the scientific consensus. It also indicates that the agent

herself is unconvinced by the consensus.

Perceiving Bias

While clients are not asking about climate change, this does not mean that agents are

not aware of it. One agent described an experience when a client made observations

regarding changes in seasonality. The agent decided not to mention that the client’s

observations corroborated the scientific consensus on climate change because he

perceived that this client would associate the phrase with a political agenda.

I had a conversation with a guy the other day about planting, and he said the seasons were getting longer. I decided not to bring up climate change. – Participant 3

This same agent later added that he has tried to explain to clients that climate

change is anthropogenic and that this has been met with resistance.

I (have said) that the evidence indicates that it’s primarily the CO2 in the atmosphere which is manufactured by us. It hasn’t gone over well when I’ve tried it. – Participant 3

While the agent in this case is in agreement with the scientific consensus on

climate change, he avoids discussing it because his past experiences have been

unpleasant. He went on to describe that when he’s mentioned climate change and CO2

75

with his clients the conversation “goes back to a political discussion,” and that his clients

“think it’s biased and that the scientists are in bed with Al Gore…as a result, all of that

data is, well, tainted.” He likens the perception of data related to climate change to data

presented by seed manufacturing companies. In the case of climate change, Al Gore or

liberals are manufacturing data on climate change to push a political agenda in the

same way that seed companies distribute research findings to show that their

proprietary hybrid seed varieties are the best choice. This perception keeps him from

mentioning climate change to clients despite his agreement with the scientific

consensus on climate change. Another agent, when asked the hypothetical question

about how she would respond if a client asked her about climate change, she at first

said that she would not know how to answer.

Umm, I've never been further educated on that. I don't know that there is a correct answer because there's so many differences of opinion on whether it is or is not or you know, what's really going on. So I don't know if there is a correct answer… – Participant 10

When she was then asked to imagine an interaction with a particularly

conservative farmer that she had mentioned earlier in the interview, her response

revealed a discomfort with confronting this topic in a real-world situation.

How I, oh golly, that would scare the bajeesus out of me if he asked me that. I would hate him to ask me that because I probably - they don't really want to hear it. I mean I do think that, golly, I hate to say it, but I mean, it is carbon dioxide and it is because of all the fossil fuels that humans have put out there, you know like, I do believe that. – Participant 10

In this second iteration of her response to the same question, the agent reveals

that talking about specifically about the causes of climate change is challenging. It is

hard to tell if, were she to find herself in this situation, whether or not she would actually

mention CO2 to her client. Given that a question about the causes of climate change

76

could inspire her to respond in fear or anxiousness, it is unclear whether she would

indeed let this information pass through to her client or if she would filter it out. In either

case, while this agent believes that increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere is a

driver of climate change, her concern for the reaction from her client causes her great

discomfort. Another agent succinctly summarized why he does not mention climate

change with his conservative clients.

Climate change is a very polarizing issue and all the political connotations that go with it. If you believe in climate change it means you’re liberal.” – Participant 8

While this agent was describing situations with clients, another agent mentioned

discomfort bringing up climate change with her colleagues in Extension. The following

quote was a response to a question about talking about climate change in meetings with

her colleagues.

You know, as far as, you know, bringing it up in Extension it can, in Extension programming in general, everybody has their own opinion on what's going on and what's not and what's the cause and what not, so how do you even bring it up, you know? – Participant 5

The agent here also mentioned that some colleagues are alarmed by climate

change and that their extreme concern about climate change made it difficult to have

level-headed conversations on the topic. Having respectful and productive

conversations on climate change is challenging when there are strong opinions on what

the relative risks of climate change are.

Limitations

While this study aims to better understand how extension agents perceive their

professional role and responsibilities to communicate climate change and variability to

their clients, our sample population was limited to a subset of those agents who

77

participated in the SRECA workshop. This choice was intentional to guarantee that

respondents had some background in climate-related information, but is consequently

not a representative sample of all agents in the Southeast US. Another limitation to this

study is the lack of prior research on agents’ perceptions of their professional role(s) as

communicators of science-based issues. There is fairly robust literature on ideal types

for extension agents and change agents in general, but reflective commentary from the

agents themselves appears to be lacking. A better understanding of agents’ perceptions

of their role (and especially within the context of controversial science-based issues)

and from a representative sample of agents across the Southeast US would add depth

and clarity to the particularities of transferring knowledge from the land grant universities

to diverse publics as an extension agent. This future research could help inform an

appropriate direction for extension to head amidst funding shortages and rapidly

changing contexts regarding information dissemination (Prokopy 2015). A better

understanding of agents' perception of their role could aid university faculty and

researchers in framing and packaging climate-related information in ways that is more

readily accessible and useful to the agents.

Conclusions and Summary

Interviews revealed three primary circumstances in which agents do not share

climate-related information with their clients: when they do not believe the information is

relevant to their clients, when they do not believe that their knowledge and scientific

research is sufficient to meet the needs of their clients, or when they or their clients

believe the science to be biased. While all interviewed agents attended a workshop

where the scientific consensus on climate change was upheld by other Extension

78

professionals (including specialists and other agents), some agents are not confident

that climate change science is reliable. They do not necessarily trust distant scientists

and some need to better understand data collection methods and analyses that led to

the findings. The agent who came up against a company selling a product unsupported

by science said she was confident in proactively educating her clients on that topic

because she was convinced that the science she was sharing was sound. Because

some agents do not trust the science on climate change, they do not share that position

of confidence that this agent experienced.

Because Extension agents have advanced degrees and are familiar with

uncertainties inherent to the scientific process, climate-related program planners can

strive to be transparent and thorough when explaining climate science methods to

agents. Most interviewed agents agree that the climate is changing and that human

activity is driving at least some of these changes. Those who are most skeptical of the

causes of climate change want to better understand how the scientific consensus on

anthropogenic climate change has been reached. Interviews suggest that, if given the

opportunity to learn more about attribution, these agents would be interested. It is

possible that dismissive agents felt uncomfortable to ask questions that might be

perceived as contrarian at the climate workshop they attended because the

predominant view was clearly in line with anthropogenic climate change. Asking a

question about the causes of climate change may have been perceived as a risk they

were unwilling to take.

This analysis can help move climate-related professional development forward

by addressing issues of relevance, comprehension, and bias in climate science. While

79

agents say that climate variability is relevant to their clients, especially in agriculture,

they question whether climate change is. Agents know that they can talk about weather

and climate variability with their clients without engaging in controversy, and they decide

on an individual basis if addressing climate change is a part of their professional role.

Further dialogue on the role of the agent in controversial, science-based issues is

necessary to clarify how Extension can most productively engage in complex dilemmas.

Future directions: The results of this research show a clear and unsurprising

finding that agents desire to share information that is relevant and applicable to their

clients. Agents said that one way they determine relevance is by responding to

questions asked by their clients. Future research efforts, then, may bolster this

methodology by striving to empirically understand what clients believe is relevant

climate-related information. Expecting clients to know what climate-related questions to

ask of agents could be unreasonable given the advances climate science has made in

recent decades. Surveys, interviews, and/or focus groups could serve to both inform

clients about potential topics of interest and could introduce clients to connections

between climate science and critical decisions they must make (whether it be what

crops to plant or the impacts of climatic shifts on markets that affect their operations).

This kind of research would likely be most useful if it is created in collaboration between

clients, agents, and university researchers. Some in the extension community are

pursuing this model (Bartels et al. 2013) and findings from these pursuits show that

stakeholders, agents, and researchers have different perceptions of risk and what

constitutes an extreme weather event. To maintain and improve extension’s relevance

80

in changing informational and atmospheric climates, further efforts in this vein represent

a clear way forward.

81

CHAPTER 4 CONCLUSION

Anthropogenic climate change (ACC) is a politically controversial, science-based

issue and the Cooperative Extension Service could play a greater role in facilitating

understanding of this topic. By explaining Earth’s climate system in comprehensible

ways to their clients and/or facilitating dialogue on ACC, Extension agents have

opportunities to demystify relevant climate information for their clients. For agents to feel

comfortable communicating ACC to their clients, they must first trust the science. To

trust the science, agents themselves want to hear climate science from people they

trust and that addresses some of the ‘climate controversies’ they have encountered.

They want to know who the climate scientists are who have ‘decided’ that ACC is real

and they want to better understand data collection methods for determining global

average temperatures. Gaining a better understanding for local impacts of climate

change is also important for agents.

Agents know that the information they share with clients can change clients’

management practices (and economic success) so, before they suggest management

practices that would mitigate climate change, they must be sure the scientific foundation

for their recommendations is sound. Because many agents are skeptical of the scientific

consensus on climate change, they are not willing to suggest changes to management

practices based on this science. Even agents who agree with the scientific consensus

on climate change may not talk about it with their clients out of concern for alienating

their clients.

Bottom-up approaches (e.g. waiting for clients to ask about climate change) for

determining the relevance of ACC to Extension clients may not be effective. The

82

Cooperative Extension Service can decide if ACC is important enough to suggest

education standards for its inclusion in Extension programming. The SRECA workshop

is an example of Extension Directors deciding to dedicate resources to facilitate greater

climate-literacy within the Extension community. The evaluation of the SRECA

workshop from Chapter 2 suggests that knowledge increased during this workshop and

that some agents learned more about to incorporate climate change in their

programming. Agents need to offer relevant programming to their clients, they need to

trust their own knowledge and the science they present; they also need to remain

neutral in the eyes of their clients. To satisfy these requirements, Extension agents

need to be more familiar with regional impacts and mitigation efforts for ACC; they need

to have opportunities to expand their climate knowledge with people they trust; and they

need to learn how to better communicate ACC with their clients so that climate-related

conversations can be more productive.

The Extension Cooperative Service is well positioned to address ACC with

clients whose capacity to adapt to ACC matters a great deal to the US economy, food

security, and ecosystem/human health. Producers and managers in agriculture, forest

and water resources can play important roles in CO2 sequestration and in reaching a

more ideal carbon balance. As the second largest emitter of CO2 on the globe, the US’

capacity to better manage our carbon budget will have regional, national, and global

implications. Extension could choose to avoid the complexity of ACC and hope that

sustainability programs or other risk-management approaches encompass appropriate

mitigating management strategies – or we can rise to this challenge and learn how to

83

effectively communicate the science-based risks and opportunities associated with

ACC.

84

APPENDIX SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS

Table A-1. Comparison of three groups on climate-related perspective items using

Whitney-Mann.




Total


n 26 14 26 66

M 1.3ad 1.8bd 2.7ab

SD .533 .699 1.011

If the climate is changing, there’s not much we can do about it.

n 25 14 26 65

M 2.0ae 2.5e 3.0a

SD .957 .855 .916

There is so much confusing information out there about current climate change that it is hard for me to know what to believe.

n 25 14 26 65

M 2.0ab 3.4b 3.7a

SD 1.060 1.151 1.263

I am very concerned about current climate change and fear that it may negatively impact the global ecosystem and current and future generations.

n 26 14 26 66

M 4.4ab 3.7bc 2.5ac

SD .983 .825 .706

Notes: 5-point scale (strongly disagree – strongly agree) used for each item. Significant differences between groups are annotated with letters in superscript, where a = p < .001, b = p < .01, c = p < .001, d = p < .01, e = p < .05. Boxes show the oscillation of the Concerned Natural Cause group between the primary two groups. The Concerned Human Cause group is significantly different from the Unconcerned Natural Group (p<.001) and Concerned Natural Group on all four items, and significantly different (p<.01) from the Concerned Human Cause group on one out of four items. On one out of four items, the Concerned Natural Cause group is not significantly different from either group

85

Figure A-1. Discriminant analysis of climate perspectives of SRECA participants

Table A-2. Possible outcomes of SRECA workshop (Rated on a scale of importance from 1-5)

Network with Extension agents across the region

Learn more about climate science

Improve current climate change communication skills

86

Table A-3. Select Items for Knowledge, Ability, and Perceptions

Topic and Scale Item

Knowledge

Please rate your knowledge about the following items related to climate science (the biophysical drivers of our climate system).

(1 = no knowledge, 5 = outstanding knowledge)


Knowledge of the potential future impacts of climate variability in the Southeast.

Knowledge of the causes of current climate change.

Ability

Please rate your skill related to the following.

(1 = no skill, 5 = outstanding skill)

Ability to talk to Extension audiences about current climate change.

Ability to facilitate discussions on controversial topics.

Perceptions

Please select to what extent you agree or disagree with the following statements.

(1 = strongly agree, 3 = neither agree nor disagree, 5 = strongly agree)

The scientific community has not reached a consensus on current climate change and I don’t believe it’s worth further consideration.



87

Table A-4. Climate-related worldview question

Please select to what extent you agree or disagree with the following statements.

(1 = Strongly agree; 3 = Neither agree nor disagree; 5 = Strongly agree)


If the climate is changing, there’s not much we can do about it.



Table A-5. Beliefs about cause(s) of current climate change

Please select one statement below that best reflects your beliefs about current climate change.

Climate change is occurring, and it is caused more or less equally by natural changes in the environment and human activities.

Climate change is occurring, and it is caused by both forces, but mostly by natural changes in the environment.

Climate change is occurring, and it is caused by both forces, but mostly by human activities.

Climate change is occurring, but we don’t know its cause.

Climate change is not occurring.

There is not sufficient evidence to know with certainty whether climate change is occurring or not.

88

Table A-6. Indicators of hope; waypower and willpower

Please identify whether you agree or disagree with the following statements.

(1 = Strongly disagree; 3 = Neither agree nor disagree; 5 = Strongly agree)

Extension agents can help people cope with climate-related changes.

People have the capacity to help resolve problems caused by current climate change.

I believe that research and technical solutions are needed to adapt and mitigate the effects of current climate change.

I know that there are a number of things that I can do to mitigate current climate change.

I know that there are a number of things that I can do to adapt to current climate change.

I can help people understand the impacts of climate variability and current climate change.

Table A-7. SRECA planning committee

The Southern Region Extension Climate Academy Planning Team (SRECA)

NIFA PROJECT & Website SRECA TEAM

State Contact Info

Southeast Climate Extension Crops http://www.agroclimate.org/seclimate/

Clyde Fraisse

FL

[email protected]

Daniel Dourte

[email protected]

Wendy-Lin Bartels

[email protected]

Brenda Ortiz

AL [email protected]

PINEMAP Forestry http://pinemap.org/

Martha Monroe

FL [email protected]

Bill Hubbard GA

[email protected] Leslie Boby [email protected] Mark Megalos

NC [email protected]

Animal Agriculture and Climate Change Livestock http://animalagclimatechange.org/

Pam Knox GA [email protected]

Coastal Jill Gambill GA [email protected]

Mark Risse GA [email protected]

http://www.agroclimate.org/seclimate/

mailto:[email protected]




http://pinemap.org/






89

Stated Missions for CES in Southeastern States VA: Extension is committed to providing access to unbiased, scientific information related to locally defined issues; a presence in local communities; the establishment of strong partnerships and collaborative coalitions; and innovative service to the commonwealth. NC: The North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service partners with communities to deliver education and technology that enrich the lives, land and economy of North Carolinians. AL: The Alabama Cooperative Extension System, the primary outreach organization for the land-grant mission of Alabama A&M University and Auburn University, delivers research-based educational programs that enable people to improve their quality of life and economic well-being. LA: The LSU AgCenter’s mission is to provide the people of Louisiana with research-based educational information that will improve their lives and economic well-being. KY: Our mission, simply stated, is to make a difference in the lives of Kentucky citizens through research-based education. Jointly with our other land-grant partner, Kentucky State University, we take the University to the people in their local communities, addressing issues of importance of all Kentuckians. GA: UGA Extension was founded in 1914 to take research-based agricultural information to the people of Georgia. County agents and specialists throughout the state share information on issues like water quality, profitability in agribusiness, family wellness and life skills.County agents provide soil and water test kits and instruction, advice on safe pesticide use, provide publications and computer programs and teach consumers skills to improve Georgians quality of life. They are the local experts in food safety, proper eating habits, child safety and parenting. FL: The University of Florida's Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (UF/IFAS) is a federal, state, and county partnership dedicated to developing knowledge in agriculture, human and natural resources, and the life sciences and to making that knowledge accessible to sustain and enhance the quality of human life.

90

REFERENCES

Albaugh, T. J., E. D. Vance, C. Gaudreault, T. R. Fox, H. L. Allen, J. L. Stape, and R. A. Rubilar. 2012. "Carbon Emissions and Sequestration from Fertilization of Pine in the Southeastern United States." Forest Science 58 (5):419-429. doi: 10.5849/forsci.11-050.

Bailey, A., L. Giangola, and M. T. Boykoff. 2014. "How Grammatical Choice Shapes

Media Representations of Climate (Un)certainty." Environmental Communication-a Journal of Nature and Culture 8 (2):197-215. doi: 10.1080/17524032.2014.906481.

Bartels, W, CA Furman, F Royce, B Ortiz, D Zierden, and C Fraisse. 2012. "Developing

a learning community: Lessons from a climate working group for agriculture in the Southeast USA." Southeast Climate Consortium Technical Report Series:12-001:1-56.

Bartels, W. L., C. A. Furman, D. C. Diehl, F. S. Royce, D. R. Dourte, B. V. Ortiz, D. F.

Zierden, T. A. Irani, C. W. Fraisse, and J. W. Jones. 2013. "Warming up to climate change: a participatory approach to engaging with agricultural stakeholders in the Southeast US." Regional Environmental Change 13:S45-S55. doi: 10.1007/s10113-012-0371-9.

Bartels, WL, L Boby, M. Clifford, D. Dourte, C. Fraisse, J. Gambill, W. Hubbard, P.

Knox, M. Monroe, B. Ortiz, M. Risse. 2014. SRECA Summary Report. Boykoff, M. T., and J. M. Boykoff. 2004. "Balance as bias: global warming and the US

prestige press." Global Environmental Change-Human and Policy Dimensions 14 (2):125-136. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2003.10.001.

Brysse, K., N. Oreskes, J. O'Reilly, and M. Oppenheimer. 2013. "Climate change

prediction: Erring on the side of least drama?" Global Environmental Change-Human and Policy Dimensions 23 (1):327-337. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.10.008.

Carlton, J. S., R. Perry-Hill, M. Huber, and L. S. Prokopy. 2015. "The climate change

consensus extends beyond climate scientists." Environmental Research Letters 10 (9). doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/10/9/094025.

Corner, A., E. Markowitz, and N. Pidgeon. 2014. "Public engagement with climate

change: the role of human values." Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews-Climate Change 5 (3):411-422. doi: 10.1002/wcc.269.

CRED. 2009. The Psychology of Climate Change Communication. edited by Center for

Research on Environmental Decisions. New York: Center for Research on Environmental Decisions.

91

Crowley, T. J. 2000. "Causes of climate change over the past 1000 years." Science 289 (5477):270-277. doi: 10.1126/science.289.5477.270.

Dixon, Kim. 2015. "Embracing the Climate Change Skeptic." 53 (1). FCCC. 2015. Adoption of the Paris Agreement. edited by Framework Convention on

Climate Change: United Nations. Fischhoff, B. 1995. "Risk perception and communication unplugged - 20 years of

process." Risk Analysis 15 (2):137-145. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1995.tb00308.x.

Fraisse, C., N. Breuer, D. Zierdan, and K. Ingram. 2009. "From Climate Variability to

Climate Change: Challenges and Opportunities to Extension." Journal of Extension 47 (2).

Gallaher, A., and F. Santopolo. 1967. Perspectives on Agent Roles. Journal of

Cooperative Extension: 223-230 Garst, Barry, and McCawley. 2015. Solving Problems, Ensuring Relevance and

Facilitating Change: The Evolution of Needs Assessment Within Cooperative Extension. Journal of Human Sciences and Extension 3 (2): 26-47

Gleick, P. H., R. M. Adams, R. M. Amasino, E. Anders, D. J. Anderson, W. W.

Anderson, L. E. Anselin, M. K. Arroyo, B. Asfaw, F. J. Ayala, A. Bax, A. J. Bebbington, G. Bell, M. V. L. Bennett, J. L. Bennetzen, M. R. Berenbaum, O. B. Berlin, P. J. Bjorkman, E. Blackburn, J. E. Blamont, M. R. Botchan, J. S. Boyer, E. A. Boyle, D. Branton, S. P. Briggs, W. R. Briggs, W. J. Brill, R. J. Britten, W. S. Broecker, J. H. Brown, P. O. Brown, A. T. Brunger, J. Cairns, D. E. Canfield, S. R. Carpenter, J. C. Carrington, A. R. Cashmore, J. C. Castilla, A. Cazenave, F. S. Chapin, A. J. Ciechanover, D. E. Clapham, W. C. Clark, R. N. Clayton, M. D. Coe, E. M. Conwell, E. B. Cowling, R. M. Cowling, C. S. Cox, R. B. Croteau, D. M. Crothers, P. J. Crutzen, G. C. Daily, G. B. Dalrymple, J. L. Dangl, S. A. Darst, D. R. Davies, M. B. Davis, P. V. De Camilli, C. Dean, R. S. Defries, J. Deisenhofer, D. P. Delmer, E. F. Delong, D. J. Derosier, T. O. Diener, R. Dirzo, J. E. Dixon, M. J. Donoghue, R. F. Doolittle, T. Dunne, P. R. Ehrlich, S. N. Eisenstadt, T. Eisner, K. A. Emanuel, S. W. Englander, W. G. Ernst, P. G. Falkowski, G. Feher, J. A. Ferejohn, A. Fersht, E. H. Fischer, R. Fischer, K. V. Flannery, J. Frank, P. A. Frey, I. Fridovich, C. Frieden, D. J. Futuyma, W. R. Gardner, C. J. R. Garrett, W. Gilbert, R. B. Goldberg, W. H. Goodenough, C. S. Goodman, M. Goodman, P. Greengard, S. Hake, G. Hammel, S. Hanson, S. C. Harrison, S. R. Hart, D. L. Hartl, R. Haselkorn, K. Hawkes, J. M. Hayes, B. Hille, T. Hokfelt, J. S. House, M. Hout, D. M. Hunten, I. A. Izquierdo, A. T. Jagendorf, D. H. Janzen, R. Jeanloz, C. S. Jencks, W. A. Jury, H. R. Kaback, T. Kailath, P. Kay, S. A. Kay, D. Kennedy, A. Kerr, R. C. Kessler, G. S. Khush, S. W. Kieffer, P. V. Kirch, K. Kirk, M. G. Kivelson, J. P. Klinman, A. Klug, L. Knopoff, H. Kornberg,

92

J. E. Kutzbach, J. C. Lagarias, K. Lambeck, A. Landy, C. H. Langmuir, B. A. Larkins, X. T. Le Pichon, R. E. Lenski, E. B. Leopold, S. A. Levin, M. Levitt, G. E. Likens, J. Lippincott-Schwartz, L. Lorand, C. O. Lovejoy, M. Lynch, A. L. Mabogunje, T. F. Malone, S. Manabe, J. Marcus, D. S. Massey, J. C. McWilliams, E. Medina, H. J. Melosh, D. J. Meltzer, C. D. Michener, E. L. Miles, H. A. Mooney, P. B. Moore, F. M. M. Morel, E. S. Mosley-Thompson, B. Moss, W. H. Munk, N. Myers, G. B. Nair, J. Nathans, E. W. Nester, R. A. Nicoll, R. P. Novick, J. F. O'Connell, P. E. Olsen, N. D. Opdyke, G. F. Oster, E. Ostrom, N. R. Pace, R. T. Paine, R. D. Palmiter, J. Pedlosky, G. A. Petsko, G. H. Pettengill, S. G. Philander, D. R. Piperno, T. D. Pollard, P. B. Price, P. A. Reichard, B. F. Reskin, R. E. Ricklefs, R. L. Rivest, J. D. Roberts, A. K. Romney, M. G. Rossmann, D. W. Russell, W. J. Rutter, J. A. Sabloff, R. Z. Sagdeev, M. D. Sahlins, A. Salmond, J. R. Sanes, R. Schekman, J. Schellnhuber, D. W. Schindler, J. Schmitt, S. H. Schneider, V. L. Schramm, R. R. Sederoff, C. J. Shatz, F. Sherman, R. L. Sidman, K. Sieh, E. L. Simons, B. H. Singer, M. F. Singer, B. Skyrms, N. H. Sleep, B. D. Smith, S. H. Snyder, R. R. Sokal, C. S. Spencer, T. A. Steitz, K. B. Strier, T. C. Suudhof, S. S. Taylor, J. Terborgh, D. H. Thomas, L. G. Thompson, R. T. T. Jian, M. G. Turner, S. Uyeda, J. W. Valentine, J. S. Valentine, J. L. Van Etten, K. E. Van Holde, M. Vaughan, S. Verba, P. H. Von Hippel, D. B. Wake, A. Walker, J. E. Walker, E. B. Watson, P. J. Watson, D. Weigel, S. R. Wessler, M. J. West-Eberhard, T. D. White, W. J. Wilson, R. V. Wolfenden, J. A. Wood, G. M. Woodwell, H. E. Wright, C. Wu, C. Wunsch, and M. L. Zoback. 2010. "Climate Change and the Integrity of Science." Science 328 (5979):689-690.

Graham, I. D., J. Logan, M. B. Harrison, S. E. Straus, J. Tetroe, W. Caswell, and N.

Robinson. 2006. "Lost in knowledge translation: Time for a map?" Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions 26 (1):13-24. doi: 10.1002/chp.47.

Hegerl, G. C., T. J. Crowley, M. Allen, W. T. Hyde, H. N. Pollack, J. Smerdon, and E.

Zorita. 2007. "Detection of human influence on a new, validated 1500-year temperature reconstruction." Journal of Climate 20 (4):650-666. doi: 10.1175/jcli4011.1.

IPCC. 2014. Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A:

Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Field, C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L. White (eds.)]. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press.

Kahan, D. 2010. "Fixing the communications failure." Nature 463 (7279):296-297. doi:

10.1038/463296a.

93

Kahan, D. M., H. Jenkins-Smith, and D. Braman. 2011. "Cultural cognition of scientific consensus." Journal of Risk Research 14 (2):147-174. doi: 10.1080/13669877.2010.511246.

Kahan, D. M., E. Peters, M. Wittlin, P. Slovic, L. L. Ouellette, D. Braman, and G.

Mandel. 2012. "The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks." Nature Climate Change 2 (10):732-735. doi: 10.1038/nclimate1547.

Kaplan, R., A. Basu. 2015. Fostering Reasonableness: Supportive Environments for

Bringing Out Our Best. Michigan Publishing. Michigan, USA. Kroll, Christian. 2015. Sustainable Development Goals: Are the rich countries ready? :

Sustainable Governance Indicators, Sustainable Development Solutions Network, BertwlsmannStiftung.

Lemos, M. C., C. J. Kirchhoff, and V. Ramprasad. 2012. "Narrowing the climate

information usability gap." Nature Climate Change 2 (11):789-794. doi: 10.1038/nclimate1614.

McCright, A. M., and R. E. Dunlap. 2011. "The politicization of climate change and

polarization in the american public's views of global warming, 2001-2010." Sociological Quarterly 52 (2):155-194. doi: 10.1111/j.1533-8525.2011.01198.x.

Monroe, M. C., R. R. Plate, D. C. Adams, and D. J. Wojcik. 2015. "Harnessing

homophily to improve climate change education." Environmental Education Research 21 (2):221-238. doi: 10.1080/13504622.2014.910497.

Morris, H., M. Megalos, A. Vuola, D. Adams, and M. Monroe. 2014. Cooperative

Extension and Climate Change: Successful Program Delivery. Journal of Extension.

Morse, R., P. Brown, and J. Warning. 2006. Catalytic Leadership: Reconsidering the

Nature of Extension's Leadership Role. Journal of Extension. Moser, S. C. 2010. "Communicating climate change: history, challenges, process and

future directions." Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews-Climate Change 1 (1):31-53. doi: 10.1002/wcc.011.

Moser, S. C. 2014. "Communicating adaptation to climate change: the art and science

of public engagement when climate change comes home." Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews-Climate Change 5 (3):337-358. doi: 10.1002/wcc.276.

NOAA. 2015. Sea Grant and Changing Climate. NOAA.

94

Oreskes, N. 2005. "The scientific consensus on climate change (vol 306, pg 1686, 2004)." Science 307 (5708):355-355.

Oreskes, N., and E. M. Conway. 2010. "Defeating the merchants of doubt." Nature 465

(7299):686-687. Prokopy, L. S., J. G. Arbuckle, A. P. Barnes, V. R. Haden, A. Hogan, M. T. Niles, and J.

Tyndall. 2015. "Farmers and Climate Change: A Cross-National Comparison of Beliefs and Risk Perceptions in High-Income Countries." Environmental Management 56 (2):492-504. doi: 10.1007/s00267-015-0504-2.

Prokopy, L. S., J. S. Carlton, J. G. Arbuckle, T. Haigh, M. C. Lemos, A. S. Mase, N.

Babin, M. Dunn, J. Andresen, J. Angel, C. Hart, and R. Power. 2015. "Extension's role in disseminating information about climate change to agricultural stakeholders in the United States." Climatic Change 130 (2):261-272. doi: 10.1007/s10584-015-1339-9.

Prokopy, L.S., and R. Power. 2015. Envisioning New Roles for Land-Grant University

Extension: Lessons Learned from Climate Change Outreach in the Midwest. Journal of Extension.

Rabinovich, A., T. A. Morton, and M. E. Birney. 2012. "Communicating climate science:

The role of perceived communicator's motives." Journal of Environmental Psychology 32 (1):11-18. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2011.09.002.

Rogers, E. 1995. Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Free Press. Roser-Renouf, C., E.Maibach, A. Lieserowitz, G.Feinberg, and S. Rosenthal. 2016.

Faith, Morality and the Environment. New Haven, CT: Yale Program on Climate Change Communication: Yale University and George Mason University.

Sommer, E.K. 2014. Agriculture and Climate Change: Perceptions of Extension Agents

in the Southeast U.S.A. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida. Tyson, R. 2014. The Merits of Separating Global Warming from Extension Education

Sustainability Programs. Journal of Extension (commentary section). UNDP. 2015. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015.

Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. United Nations.

Whitford, F. 1993. Pesticide Facts and Perceptions. Journal of Extension. Wilke, A. K., and L. W. Morton. 2015. "Climatologists' Communication of Climate

Science to the Agricultural Sector." Science Communication 37 (3):371-395. doi: 10.1177/1075547015581927.

95

YPCCC. 2009. Global Warming's Six America's 2009: an audience segmentation

analysis. edited by Yale Project on Climate Change Communication.

96

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Margaret (Maggie) Clifford grew up getting her feet wet in streams, puddles, and

the St. Lawrence River in Upstate New York. She earned a bachelor’s degree cum

laude from Virginia Tech in Blackburg, VA and after graduation she traveled extensively

in India and Western Europe as a professional musician. The realization that touring life

was not her cup of tea led her to settle down in a quaint port town on the Olympic

Peninsula in Washington State. Her first child was born there in an ecovillage on the

Fourth of July and the booms of distant fireworks gently punctuated her sleep on the

night of his birth. Once their son could walk, Maggie and her husband moved to Florida

to be closer to family and their second child was born a year later a few blocks from the

beach. In the spring of 2014, Maggie followed her lifelong passion for environmental

justice and accepted a position as a graduate research assistant at the University of

Florida. Her study of climate change communication has required much self-reflection

and has enabled her to engage more meaningfully on apparently divisive issues. The

opportunity to work with other people who ask big questions and pursue enormous

challenges has been among the most influential aspects of attending graduate school.

COMMUNICATING CONTROVERSY: CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE …ufdcimages.uflib.ufl.edu/UF/E0/05/00/66/00001/CLIFFORD_M.pdf · 2016-09-01 · communicating controversy: climate change and the

Documents