Warming up to climate change: a participatory approach to engaging with agricultural stakeholders in the Southeast US

Transcription

1 Reg Environ Change DOI /s ORIGINAL ARTICLE Warming up to climate change: a participatory approach to engaging with agricultural stakeholders in the Southeast US Wendy-Lin Bartels Carrie A. Furman David C. Diehl Fred S. Royce Daniel R. Dourte Brenda V. Ortiz David F. Zierden Tracy A. Irani Clyde W. Fraisse James W. Jones Received: 1 August 2012 / Accepted: 29 October 2012 Ó Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012 Abstract Within the context of a changing climate, scientists are called to engage directly with agricultural stakeholders for the coproduction of relevant information that will support decision making and adaptation. However, values, beliefs, identities, goals, and social networks shape perceptions and actions about climate change. Engagement processes that ignore the socio-cultural context within which stakeholders are embedded may fail to guide adaptive responses. To facilitate dialog around these issues, the Southeast Climate Consortium and the Florida Climate Institute formed a climate learning network consisting of row crop farmers, agricultural extension specialists, researchers, and climate scientists working in the Southeast US. Regional in scope, the learning network engages researchers and practitioners from Alabama, Georgia, and Florida as partners in adaptation science. This paper describes the ongoing interactions, dialog, and experiential learning among the network s diverse participants. We illustrate how participatory tools have been used W.-L. Bartels (&) D. C. Diehl F. S. Royce D. R. Dourte T. A. Irani C. W. Fraisse J. W. Jones University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA wendylin@ufl.edu C. A. Furman Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602, USA cfurman@uga.edu B. V. Ortiz Agronomy & Soils, 201 Funchess Hall, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama 36849, USA D. F. Zierden Florida Climate Center and Center for Ocean-Atmospheric Prediction Studies, The Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL , USA in a series of workshops to create interactive spaces for knowledge coproduction. For example, historical timelines, climate scenarios, and technology exchanges stimulated discussions about climate-related risk management. We present findings from the workshops related to participants perspectives on climate change and adaptation. Finally, we discuss lessons learned that may be applicable to other groups involved in climate education, communication, and stakeholder engagement. We suggest that the thoughtful design of stakeholder engagement processes can become a powerful social tool for improving decision support and strengthening adaptive capacity within rural communities. Keywords Climate adaptation Participatory process Stakeholder network Experiential learning Introduction Information about global climate is of little value when it bears only a weak relationship to people s experience (Finucane 2009 p. 5) Amidst escalating concern about the challenges associated with global climate change, efforts are underway to assess vulnerabilities and adaptive capacities among US regional communities (Karl et al. 2009). Such efforts aim to address questions like What kind of climate future can agricultural communities in the Southeast US expect? and How well are these communities equipped to respond to these projected changes? Difficulty in answering such questions is compounded by the fact that although circulation models can project future climate scenarios at the global scale, potential impacts at the local scale, especially in the Southeast US, remain highly equivocal. For example, annual average temperatures are expected to continue to fluctuate because of

2 W-L. Bartels et al. natural climate variability (Kunkel et al. 2012), and predictions for precipitation ranges over the next century are even less certain. Furthermore, the Southeast US is one of the few regions worldwide that does not indicate an overall warming trend for the twentieth century (Trenberth et al. 2007; Portmann et al. 2009; Misra et al. 2011). Therefore, the types of challenges and opportunities farmers in this region will face over the near and long-term are unclear. Uncertainty about future climate conditions in the Southeast US has prompted researchers to question how to best initiate discussions about adaptation within rural communities. The complexity of such discussions is exemplified by the fact that scientific or technical information alone may not result in place-based solutions without an intimate familiarity of local management contexts and associated risks, as well as the socio-cultural factors that impact decision making (Crane et al. 2011; Halofsky et al. 2011). To meet the challenges presented by these issues, scholars call for problem-oriented, actionable science that is coproduced through direct iterative engagement between scientists and users of climate information (Cash and Buzier 2005; Averyt 2010; Dilling and Lemos 2011). This paper describes a process for building the social infrastructure to support ongoing dialog grounded in what producers already know and are doing to adapt to variability and risks within their production systems. Despite broad support for linking research with action through stakeholder engagement, few studies have examined the conditions that sustain such iterative encounters. These conditions include the social mechanisms that shape interactions and learning among stakeholders as indicated by studies in agricultural decision support (Breuer et al. 2009; Roncoli et al. 2009; Meinke et al. 2009; Jakku and Thornburn 2010; Jones et al. 2010; Peterson et al. 2010; Crane et al. 2011; Cerf et al. 2012). To build on our understanding of these social dynamics, the objectives of this paper are to: (1) offer the example of the Southeast US climate learning network as the social infrastructure for exchanges among researchers and practitioners; (2) describe how participatory tools have been used in a series of workshops to create interactive spaces for knowledge coproduction; (3) present findings from the workshops related to participants perspectives on climate change and adaptation and; (4) discuss lessons learned that may be applicable to other groups involved in climate education, communication, and stakeholder engagement. Background Simply identifying a potential use, or hoping that information might be useful, is not enough to ensure usability (Dilling and Lemos 2011 p. 687) Because multiple factors shape adaptive responses to a changing climate, effective decision support systems must be built on a deep understanding of what motivates stakeholder awareness and action (Finucane 2009). Government agencies and researchers use a range of methods and channels to assess the climate-related views, values, expectations, and knowledge of stakeholders. For instance, face-to-face interviews, online surveys, focus groups, workshops, and advisory board meetings are techniques for gathering and disseminating data to shape decision support systems (Romsdahl and Pyke 2009; Roncoli et al. 2008; Dilling and Lemos 2011; Furman et al. 2011). Despite the existence of methods and institutions that promote knowledge flow among researchers and members of the broader community, interactions among these groups are often limited to one or two workshops per project (Cohen 2010). However, these kinds of isolated encounters fail to develop comfort levels needed to breakdown participant boundaries or stimulate deep understandings about the links between climate and people s livelihoods (Huntington et al. 2002). Instead, sustained partnerships among groups of researchers and potential information users are needed to build trust and develop contextualized information (Finucane 2009; Cohen 2010; Dilling and Lemos 2011). Stakeholder networks and participatory processes have been proposed as venues and mechanisms for repeated knowledge sharing, dialog, and learning about climate change and adaptation (Collins and Ison 2009). Although widely practiced and documented in developing country contexts, few studies describe or critically assess participatory adaptation processes in the US (Moser and Ekstrom 2011). Within such processes and networks, the modes of interaction and communication between stakeholders shape knowledge creation. For instance, negotiated, iterative processes that lead to hybrid forms of knowledge coproduction are preferred to modes of interaction that favor either scientist agendas or practitioner demands (Dilling and Lemos 2011). Such negotiated processes require a commitment to two-way communication so that non-scientist stakeholders are not treated as passive recipients of information (Weber and Stern 2011). Furthermore, the mechanisms by which adults process information and learn must be considered. For example, communication approaches that emphasize the presentation of scientific information tend to trigger analytical information processing. Such approaches may fail, however, to stimulate deep experiential components related to emotions, cultural values, and personal experiences (Marx et al. 2007). To enhance knowledge coproduction, both the experiential and analytical components of learning must be targeted. Eriksen and Prior (2011) suggest moving stakeholders systematically though the four phases of the

3 Warming up to climate change adult experiential learning cycle (Kolb 1984) so that they can integrate new information into current experiences. They propose designing engagement processes that begin with a focus on concrete experiences (phase 1 of the learning cycle) and then transition into reflective observation (phase 2), abstract conceptualization (phase 3), and finally encourage active experimentation (phase 4). Unlike the unidirectional transmission models of conventional risk communication in which experts inform lay audiences, such an approach views knowledge as being socially constructed through interaction (Kolb and Kolb 2005). In this paper, we describe how we used participatory tools to create experiential learning spaces in which agricultural stakeholders shared experiences about coping with changes in their production systems (phase 1 of the cycle), reflected on how they prepare for risks (phase 2), assessed new information that could inform decision making (phase 3), and offered feedback about their experimentation with adaptation (phase 4). In following this process, we consider all learning as re-learning through the holistic process of transforming experience into knowledge (Kolb 1984). Methods Study context: row crop agriculture in the Southeast US A total area of 11 million hectares are farmed in the tristate region (Alabama-Florida-Georgia) with a market value of $19.5 billion annually (USDA 2009a). The region s four major row crops are peanut, cotton, soybean, and corn. Over the past 30 years, the area in row crops has contracted substantially from 2.8 million hectares on 90,600 farms in 1978 (USDA 1981) to 1.4 million hectares on 15,700 farms (USDA 2009a). This decrease in area and number of farms has been accompanied by a consolidation in row crop operations, with a near tripling in the average farm size from 31 to 86 ha. These data show that although many row crop farmers were able to adapt their production systems during the past 30 years to variations in weather, climate, markets, and policies, others have been unable to navigate the instabilities associated with agriculture in the Southeast US. Those producers remaining on the landscape remain highly productive in this region where 56 % of crops are under irrigation, as compared with 14 % nationally (USDA 2009b). In 2009, the Southeast Climate Consortium (SECC) and the Florida Climate Institute (FCI) sponsored a project titled, Iconic Agricultural Crops: Climate Change Impacts on Peanut, Cotton, and Corn in Georgia and Florida. Through this project, SECC climate and crop scientists sought to estimate variation in yields of row crops under various projected climate scenarios and assumptions. Therefore, these scientists sought to engage farmers and their advisors in the Southeast US to ascertain their longterm future climate information needs. However, during preliminary meetings with the lead author, extension professionals proposed that growers would be more eager to discuss the impacts of a significant El Niño event, which had left cotton fields too wet to harvest the previous fall. They believed that these conditions presented a teachable moment for discussions about climate and adaptation. The past 5 years indicate a particularly intense period of warm and cold ENSO conditions. From late 2006 through late 2011, only one neutral cold season was designated by NOAA s operational Nino index (ONI). In the past, such intense ENSO periods have often been followed by 3 4 neutral years, and the last comparably intense 5-year period ended in Therefore, the multi-disciplinary planning team, which included SECC researchers and cooperative extension partners from Florida, Georgia, and Alabama, designed the initial workshop to resonate with the seasonal climate concerns of producers. The climate learning network Beginning in April 2010, biannual workshops convened row crop stakeholders including producers, state and county extension professionals, climate scientists, and specialists who conduct research on peanut, cotton, and corn. The broad aim of the climate learning network is to create a space for knowledge exchange and learning to support farmers and extension professionals as they prepare for an uncertain future within the context of a variable and changing climate. Workshops provide a venue to build and strengthen relationships among participants involved in research, outreach, and practice. Figure 1 outlines the series of workshop topics to date. We began engagement with a focus on historical adaptation, changes in seasonal climate, and current technologies for managing associated risks. Subsequent workshops evolved into on-farm assessments of innovative experiments in adaptive management. Each workshop was designed to build on topics that were discussed at previous workshops to increase climate knowledge, understandings of how farmers currently adapt, and the constraints they face. According to workshop themes and the needs of the group, we invited additional extension professionals and specialists, such as agronomists, plant pathologists, and crop physiologists. We planned events in different states to expose participants to regional variations in row crop agriculture, avoiding the busiest months of the agricultural calendar (i.e., periods of planting and harvesting). Attendance averaged 36 participants per workshop (Bartels et al. 2012).

4 W-L. Bartels et al. Interactive timelines for storytelling about past adaptation Fig. 1 Stakeholder engagement as a process: the series of workshops developed with the Tri-state Climate Working Group Participatory tools to facilitate interaction and learning among researchers and practitioners Success depends on a great deal more than assembling people in the same room. (Huntington et al. 2002, p. 790) We designed workshops to promote shared agendasetting among scientists and practitioners based on the hybrid model of knowledge coproduction suggested by Dilling and Lemos (2011). Furthermore, we systematically guided stakeholders through the four phases of the experiential learning cycle (Kolb 1984). Where possible, we began each workshop with a shared experience and encouraged farmers or extension professionals to lead activities by discussing examples of how they manage risks (phase 1 = experience). We included indepth discussions that allowed participants to connect new information within existing understandings (phase 2 = reflect). Each workshop featured a review of the previous growing season and a seasonal climate forecast from the state climatologist (phase 3 = abstract conceptualization). Participants explored the implications of forecasts for adjusting planting or harvesting decisions. In reconvening, we encouraged participants to report back on their attempts at incorporating climate information or new technologies into existing management strategies (phase 4 = experimentation). Next, we highlight three participatory tools and approaches that were used in these workshops to facilitate dialog among stakeholders. During the first workshop, we used producer-led storytelling to explore how families adapted to changes in past agricultural production in the Southeast USA. Narratives are a powerful method to elicit perceptions of environmental changes because they reveal stakeholder identity and connection to place (Sakakibara 2008). We facilitated an interactive timeline and fishbowl process to generate dialog among producers and encourage listening among specialists. During the first part of the activity, producers were seated in an inner circle (i.e., the fishbowl ) surrounded by extension agents and researchers. These specialists, who are typically invited to workshops to deliver information, assumed the role of listener and observer. Producers were given the opportunity to actively engage in discussions on a topic in their area of expertise. Questions prompted growers to remember how agriculture in the Southeast US had changed over several generations. Simultaneously, we documented key events on a timeline, such as changes in policies and markets, good and bad production years, and the impacts of pests, droughts, flooding, and periods of extreme hot or cold weather. Following the producers stories, extension professionals and researchers asked questions and commented on the timeline. Imagining potential climate situations to discuss opportunities and barriers to adaptation Building on the timeline activity, we used a future-oriented scenario activity that guided producers to imagine potential climate futures and responses (Marx et al. 2007). We divided participants into four groups for detailed discussions about the threats associated with different hypothetical climate situations (drier, wetter, colder, or hotter than normal) as well as the factors that constrain preparation and adaptation. Facilitators elicited an array of strategies that participants could use to modify their production systems over different timescales (seasonal to multi-decadal). Each group reported key findings to the whole group and through structured reflection, the larger group identified and discussed the factors that limit or facilitate adaptation. The Adaptation Exchange event to share success stories about promising technologies We designed an Adaptation Exchange event to feature seven examples of proposed agricultural management strategies that provide growers with alternative ways to manage climate-related risk. These technology best bets had emerged during previous workshops and interactions

5 Warming up to climate change Table 1 Management strategies and associated implications for agricultural systems discussed during workshops and featured at the Adaptation Exchange event Management strategies Conservation tillage High-residue cover crops Sodbased rotation Sensor-based nitrogen application Variablerate irrigation Microirrigation AgroClimate Potential system impacts GHG effects Climate risks Improved soil X X X properties Increased infiltration X X X of rainfall Reduced evaporation X X X X X Better weed control X X X Greater or more consistent yields X X X X Improved pest management X X X Irrigation efficiency X X Input-use efficiency X X X X Potentially reduced X X X X X soil NOx emissions Reduced fuel/energy X X X X X X X use Potentially increased X X X X soil carbon Rain variability; dry X X X X X X X spells and droughts Increased X X X X X X X temperatures among scientists and extension professionals. Table 1 links the featured management strategies with potential impacts on agricultural systems. For more information, fact sheets are available at: agricultural_management_options. We developed a process that allowed stakeholders to visit the seven different technology stations in small groups to explore potential climate-related benefits of these management strategies. Furthermore, we paired producers with extension specialists in the exposition of each strategy to reflect the vital sharing across stakeholder groups that has characterized this learning network. The technology station activity was followed by a panel of producers who stimulated discussion about the challenges and opportunities associated with adopting these technology options within existing production systems. Participants completed a survey that assessed their likelihood of adoption as well as barriers to adoption for each of the technologies presented. Simple descriptive statistics were calculated and Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to determine whether the groups (producers, translators, and specialists) differed significantly in their ratings of likelihood of adoption. Findings: perceptions about climate and adaptation options Historical timeline During the timeline activity, growers discussed factors that have shaped land use patterns in the Southeast US among successive generations of family farmers. Discussions revealed changes in production systems and farm size due to political, economic, and technological shifts that occurred in the region. Early settlers relied on turpentine and tung oil production, followed by tobacco, cotton, peanuts, watermelon, and corn for livestock. During the 1930s large plantation areas were divided into smaller fields and distributed among producers. Over time, however, cotton production required increasingly larger land parcels to be profitable and this demand for land, in combination with the eradication of the boll weevil, eventually drove smaller producers to switch to poultry and hog farming. Again, however, as commodity prices fluctuated, so did crop and livestock production. The 1970s and 1980s ushered in new irrigation technology, which greatly changed the agricultural landscape. Before the introduction of

6 W-L. Bartels et al. pivots, farmers had to move pipes across the fields, which required high inputs of labor. Although irrigation emerged as an insurance strategy against climate variability, producers mentioned the limitations of this technology, such as the drying up of wells, irregular-shaped fields with low lying areas, permitting regulations, and the equipment and energy costs needed to operate irrigation systems. Climate situations: identifying opportunities and constraints to adaptation Participants identified specific opportunities and constraints that might be associated with adapting their cotton, peanut, and corn production systems to particular climate situations. Growers can modify farm-level management decisions including planting dates, crop variety choices, spatial distribution of plants, tillage practices, schedules related to irrigation, fertilizer, and pest or disease control, as well as harvest preparation. However, they perceive that they have limited control over factors such as markets, farm and energy policies, and local infrastructure. The equipment and infrastructure associated with row crop farming are perceived as dictating what crops are planted. For example, if farmers have invested in large planting or harvesting machines, they are unable to change their farming systems. As one grower confirmed, You can t go out and buy a cotton picker for one year. You gotta use that thing for over ten years. In addition, storage or processing facilities present infrastructural challenges to changing crops. For example, the commodity industry itself essentially drives the kinds of choices available to farmers, as indicated by this extension professional: The peanut industry in the Southeast is not going to let there be a dramatic drop (in peanut planting). They are going to maintain certain acreage of peanuts because they can t do anything in these peanut shellers, except shell peanuts. They can t do anything in the cotton gin except gin cotton. Again, irrigation systems were often perceived as insurance against climate extremes. Some growers and extension professionals reported a need for government policies that would reduce the costs associated with initiating and maintaining irrigation systems. However, high installation and maintenance costs are not the only limitations. Other aspects, including the availability of groundwater, permitting structures for pumping, and land tenure arrangements, are also important constraints to irrigation. Growers confirmed that they plant particular crops when market demand is high. Price fluctuations drive short-term, year-to-year decisions far more than climatic factors. As one farmer indicated, It s supply and demand. You know, if cotton prices go to a dollar a pound, we re gonna figure out a way to grow cotton. For long-term planning, farmers and extension professionals perceived that the US Farm Bill is a major driver of decision making at the farm level. Adaptation exchange During the Adaptation Exchange event, we administered an exploratory survey to all participants to characterize perceptions of climate change, interest in climate information, and preferences for particular adaptation technologies. We received 62 responses, which we categorized into three groups: producers (15), county extension professionals (16) whom we refer to as translators due to their regular interactions with farmers and scientists, and researchers and university extension professionals (31), whom we refer to as specialists. Perceptions about climate change Survey results indicate that over half of the participants from each stakeholder category noticed changes in weather or climate since living in the Southeast US (producers = 60 %, translators = 63 %, specialists = 55 %). Participants described specific changes related to precipitation and temperature. Perceived changes in precipitation include drier springs, droughts occurring more frequently, summer rainfall arriving later in the season, longer periods between rainfall, more intense weather systems, sporadic rain events, more 4 inch plus rain events, a gradual drop in the water table, as well as the drying of creeks, small ponds and lakes. Changes in temperature include more frequent early springs, warmer nights, hotter summers, more summer days over 90, more drastic temperatures out of season, not as cold early in fall, late fall more frequent, less severe winters, and not as many freezes. Two respondents indicated that the climate in this region is characteristically unpredictable as indicated by: There hasn t been a normal year in my lifetime and no two years are the same in FL. When asked whether they believed climate change is occurring, the majority of all groups answered positively (specialists, 87 %; translators, 79 %; producers, 58 %). The remaining participants reported that there is not sufficient evidence to know for certain if climate change is occurring or not. Nobody reported that climate change is not occurring. When asked about future scenarios, 67 % of specialists, 79 % of translators, and 64 % of producers believed that over the next 20 years climate change would affect agricultural production in their state, a moderate amount to a great deal. Despite these concerns about future changes in climate, all groups perceive information and forecasts related to short-term changes (weather and

7 Warming up to climate change 5 extremely useful not at all useful 1 Producer (n = 15) Translator (n = 15) Specialist (n = 27) Short-term Seasonal Decadal Long-term Fig. 2 Perceived usefulness of forecasts for decision making (average on a scale of 1 not at all useful to 5 extremely useful) benefits of the sod-based rotation system increase among producers with irrigation and livestock. If a row crop producer is not interested in managing cattle, he/she will probably not see the advantage of taking cropland out of production to grow grass, especially when commodity prices are high. Furthermore, cattle require fencing such that producers who lease land may be unlikely to invest in this type of infrastructure because it demands a longer-term commitment to place. The high cost associated with the installation and management of the equipment required for variable-rate irrigation and micro-irrigation discourage adoption of these technologies. Interest is further constrained when producers lack irrigation systems or have an inadequate water supply. Limitations of these findings Fig. 3 Likelihood of Adopting or Recommending 7 Different Technologies (average on a scale of 1 not at all likely to 5 extremely likely) seasonal variability) as more useful than near and longterm projections (see Fig. 2). Perceptions about agricultural technologies The adaptive exchange event featured seven technologies: sod-based rotation (SBR), conservation tillage, high-residue cover crops, variable-rate irrigation, drip irrigation, map-based nitrogen management, and web-based climate information for management decisions (AgroClimate). Producers reported lower levels of likely adoption for all seven technologies than specialists and translators reported how likely they were to recommend such technologies (Fig. 3). Three of the seven differences were statistically significant, with producers being less likely to adopt sodbased rotation [F(2, 57) = 6.017, p =.004], variable-rate irrigation [F(2, 56) = 3.801, p =.028], and micro-irrigation [F(2, 56) = 5.308, p =.008]. Respondents seemed to agree on the value of conservation tillage, sensor-based nitrogen management, and AgroClimate. Qualitative data reveal the barriers that constrain technology adoption. Results show, for example, that the The sample sizes in the survey from the Adaptation Exchange are small, making it difficult to achieve statistical significance. Furthermore, the attendees for the event are also self-selected and are not likely to be representative of producers and extension professionals more broadly. However, results may be representative of producers and professionals who are interested in climate and are most likely to attend workshops on this topic. Qualitative responses from the storytelling activity offer a rich and valuable contextualization of participant perceptions, which when combined with quantitative opinion results provide a valuable indication of the types of questions to pursue in future studies. Discussion In this paper, we describe the social infrastructure (the climate learning network) and participatory tools that resulted in rich discussions about adaptation options for reducing climate-related risks in row crop agriculture. Repeated interactions among farmers, scientists and extension professionals have created a reservoir of valuable insights about knowledge coproduction among scientists and practitioners. The following section provides a brief discussion of workshop results as well as lessons learned about the stakeholder engagement process. Workshop results and implications for the coproduction of climate knowledge Socio-economic constraints to adaptation Stories from the historical timeline activity and discussions about adaptation options provide a nuanced understanding of the barriers associated with managing change. Producers

8 W-L. Bartels et al. in this climate learning network are greatly constrained by farm and industry infrastructure as well as shifting market prices and policy frameworks. For example, row crop farmers are embedded within supply chains including peanut shellers and cotton gins that drive local community economies and shape adaptation choices. The limited flexibility of these systems illustrates the social context within which adaptation takes place, confirming observations that technical and economic considerations are intertwined with social networks (Crane et al. 2011). In discussing the drivers that shaped agriculture in the past, producers feel constrained by their inability to influence the barriers that exist beyond the farm gate. Since structural barriers shape future adaptation options, this group of row crop stakeholders may benefit from linkages to extended networks, such as representatives from the industry, credit and insurance sectors, and policymakers, to aid in the investigation of mechanisms that would expand the availability of adaptation options. Tailored adaptation options and new research directions Data from the Adaptation Exchange highlight the importance of tailoring adaptation options according to the characteristics and challenges experienced by different types of producers. For example, dryland and irrigated producers face different constraints to adaptation, as do high- and low-resource producers, or those producers who own as opposed to rent land. Although the Adaptation Exchange event was designed to offer a suite of options for a variety of potential farming systems, the suitability of the chosen technologies, in light of the producers who participated, deserves reconsideration. Sod-based rotation, for instance, is more suitable for producers who have cattle. Unfortunately, many of the event participants did not manage livestock. Similarly, micro-irrigation is more suitable for vegetable farming and would be difficult for the large number of row crop producers at the event to adopt. We also notice that the most high-tech adaptation options may not always be the most feasible for widespread adoption. For example, the infrastructure requirements associated with map-based nitrogen management reduce likelihood of adoption. Never-the-less, interactions among producers and extension professionals revealed the suitability of adaptation options for particular types of producers, which can help scientists craft new and innovative directions in their own research. Furthermore, unexpected themes have emerged during climate learning network discussions that are directing scientists toward new research questions that are relevant to stakeholder needs, such as research into the traditional forecasting systems that guide management decisions. Presentation of climate information Workshop discussions indicate different perceptions about the usefulness and relevance of climate information for agricultural decision making. Although translators and specialists were more likely to say that long-term forecasts are useful, all three groups reduced their ratings as they considered timescales farther into the future (see also: Crane et al. 2011; Furman et al. 2011). However, our survey results do not support widespread anecdotal perceptions that agricultural stakeholders in the Southeast reject climate change. On the contrary, over half of the producers who attended at the Adaptation Exchange event believe that climate change is occurring and 60 % describe specific changes that they have observed. Such belief in climate change does not appear to be matched by an interest in long-term climate information, which may, in part be due to the lack of management-relevant adaptation options available in addition to the uncertainties associated with long-term climate projections for the Southeast US. We posit that the framing of climate-related issues at the outset of an engagement process influences participants motivation to sustain participation (see also Moser and Ekstrom 2011). During the initial stages of engagement, for example, we chose to focus first on past and current climate events and associated changes in production systems. By beginning engagement with more tangible topics like weather and climate variability (see also Fraisse et al. 2009), the process generated curiosity and trust among stakeholders while also allowing for topics to be reframed over time. Discussions about potential impacts of El Niño and La Niña events resonated strongly with concerns about producing next year s crop. As farmers became more interested in discussions and learned the value of incorporating seasonal forecasts into their planning and management, they continued to engage. We suggest that enhanced dialog within this learning community among producers and researchers could lead to the collaborative development of management-relevant options for adaptation over the long-term. We assume that scientists will be able to provide better climate projections as modeling methods improve over time. However, regardless of how quickly scientists reduce the uncertainties associated with these projections, producers are primed to exchange ideas about how they might prepare for and respond to a range of potential changes and disturbances in their farming systems over the long-term. Our approach demonstrates the value of climate communication viewed as an ongoing process of engagement and coproduction of knowledge versus a onetime messaging opportunity.

9 Warming up to climate change Lessons learned about the engagement process Process design and management Although continuity and follow-up after events can increase the long-term value of interactions among researchers and practitioners (Huntington et al. 2002), the design and maintenance of such ongoing engagement requires substantial investment of resources. Coordination and process management tasks include preparatory planning, follow-up work, as well as process facilitation and evaluation. The coordinator of the climate learning network collaborates with partners to codesign appropriate workshop formats, maintains contact with participants between workshops, arranges logistical aspects of fieldtrips and site visits, and debriefs each event. These tasks are time-consuming, costly and demand specific competencies. Furthermore, the skills required to design and manage participatory processes are not generally cultivated or recognized within most academic disciplines. One of the greatest challenges is to remain open and willing to navigate the concerns, interests, and suggestions of diverse working group participants. Workshop design is an ongoing organic process that builds on previous events and is generated from within the group. We request feedback from participants at each workshop to identify what was useful and areas for improvement. In one follow-up evaluation, we asked participants how they benefited from the workshops (Bartels et al. 2012). Researchers highlighted the value of hearing directly from farmers and extension professionals about their perceptions and needs. Extension agents and farmers, alternatively, pointed to the practical value of climate information linked to management decisions. Respondents from all groups indicated the value of exchanging ideas with other participants to gather new insights. Learning how to participate within a diverse group Contributions from various academic fields provide specialist knowledge and experience to enhance discussions within the climate learning network. Cross-fertilization among participating researchers from different disciplines has led to rich exchanges and new ideas. However, communication among scientists across disciplines demands considerable effort, beyond single meetings or encounters (Huntington et al. 2002). An equal amount of effort is needed to integrate ideas and perspectives between researchers and practitioners. During early stages of the process, we intentionally avoided the tendency to value scientific information above other ways of knowing through the use of a historical timeline activity and farmerled story-telling. Participants are not always eager to move out of their comfort zones, and our approach has challenged cultural norms and conventional roles. For instance, some scientists continue to expect to participate solely as expert presenters, and many producers attend meetings to passively gather information. We suggest that new forms of participation must be modeled and learned, which requires time, motivation, and commitment. Motivations, institutional incentive structures, and their constraints Unfortunately, the commitment required for scientists to participate in ongoing workshops presents an enormous challenge within current institutional structures and academic reward systems. Such participation may not readily lead to the peer-reviewed publications for which academic research is traditionally rewarded. Furthermore, although the longevity and continuity of research projects is crucial for effective knowledge coproduction (Dilling and Lemos 2011), funding agencies favor discrete short-term projects instead of supporting continued engagement, and network building. The successful maintenance of the climate learning community for row crop agriculture has been possible primarily because of flexible research agendas and commitment to the process by leadership within the SECC, FCI, and NOAA. We were able to build this project through two grants that complemented one another and extended our impact. However, without institutionalizing these types of incentives and conditions within the broader academic community, the possibility of developing usable science through organically evolving learning networks is greatly reduced. Conclusion Informing appropriate responses to climate change requires holistic scientific research that transcends disciplinary boundaries, embraces uncertainties, and incorporates diverse cross-scalar stakeholder interests. Within this context, researchers are expected to be more problem-oriented in order to produce actionable science that supports decision making. The purpose of this paper was to describe and analyze our experience with the Southeast climate learning network to expand current understandings of how dialog among researchers and practitioners can enhance agricultural adaptation to climate change. The climate group we describe in this paper provided the social infrastructure to move beyond conventional approaches to climate education, communication, and stakeholder engagement. A series of workshops and participatory approaches presented opportunities for repeated interactions among researchers, extension professionals, and

10 W-L. Bartels et al. producers. The emerging learning network informed understandings about community-level concerns, which helped to contextualize scientific findings within local production systems. But most importantly, the ongoing nature of engagement facilitated relationship-building among researchers and practitioners for continued exchange. Agricultural decision support tools, such as drought or disease alert systems, have been developed through participatory processes among researchers and agricultural stakeholders (Breuer et al. 2009; Jakku and Thornburn 2010; Cerf et al. 2012). Our approach goes beyond the development of specific DSS tools by recognizing that ongoing dialog and learning among researchers and practitioners presents a path toward building climate-resilient agricultural systems. As such, adaptation is understood as a process that can be supported by structuring deliberative learning spaces to build anticipatory capacity (Tschakert and Dietrich 2010). Similarly, international projects within the CGIAR Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS) program are emphasizing the importance of more dialogical and learning-oriented models of practice in order to meet the diverse challenges that communities face (Harvey et al. 2012). We suggest that the thoughtful design of stakeholder engagement processes, like the one outlined here, can become a powerful social tool for improving decision support and strengthening adaptive capacity within rural communities. Acknowledgments Special thanks are extended to all row crop producers and county extension agents who have participated in the climate learning network. Their generous time, curiosity, and consistent feedback have made this work possible. We also acknowledge the dedication and support from partners within Cooperative Extension services of three Southeast universities: John Beasley & Bob Kemerait (UGA), David Wright (UF), William Birdsong (UA). Thanks to researchers within the SECC and FCI: Gerrit Hoogenboom, Carla Roncoli, Mark Boudreau, Michael Thomas, Scott Templeton, Christine Engels, and Emily Rodriguez. Jennifer Arnold and Matthew Palumbo offered invaluable editing on the manuscript. We have benefited from the relationships and funds generated through the National Commission on Energy Policy (NCEP) Iconic Agricultural Crops: Climate Change Impacts on Peanut, Cotton, and Corn in Georgia and Florida, the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) Climate variability to climate change: Extension challenges and opportunities in the Southeast USA, and the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). References Averyt K (2010) Are we successfully adapting science to climate change? American Meteorological Society Insights and Innovation in BAMS, June 2010 Bartels W, Furman CA, Royce F, Ortiz B, Zierden D, Fraisse C (2012) Developing a learning community: Lessons from a climate working group for agriculture in the Southeast USA. Southeast Climate Consortium Technical Report Series: Breuer NE, Fraisse CW, Hildebrand PE (2009) Molding the pipeline into a loop: the participatory process of developing AgroClimate, a decision support system for climate risk reduction in agriculture. J Serv Climatolo 3:1 12 Cash DW, Buzier J (2005) Knowledge action systems for seasonal to interannual climate forecasting: summary of a workshop. National Academy Press, Washington, DC Cerf M, Jeuffroy M, Prost L, Meynard J (2012) Participatory design of agricultural decision support tools: taking account of the use situations. Agron Sustain Dev 32: Cohen SJ (2010) From observer to extension agent using research experiences to enable proactive responses to climate change. Climatic Change 100: Collins K, Ison R (2009) Jumping off Arnstein s ladder: social learning as a new policy paradigm for climate change adaptation. Environmental policy and governance. Env Pol Gov 19: Crane TA, Roncoli C, Hoogenboom G (2011) Adaptation to climate change and climate variability: the importance of understanding agriculture as performance. Wageningen J Life Sci 57: Dilling L, Lemos MC (2011) Creating usable science: opportunities and constraints for climate knowledge use and their implications for policy. Glob Environ Change 21: Eriksen C, Prior T (2011) The art of learning: wildfire, amenity migration and local environmental knowledge. Int J Wildland Fire 20: Finucane, M. (2009) Why science along won t solve the climate crisis: managing climate risks in the Pacific. Asia Pacific Issues. Analysis from the East West Center #89 Fraisse C, Breuer N, Zierden D, Ingram K (2009) From climate variability to climate change: challenges and opportunities to extension. J Ext 47(2). doi: / /6/4/ Furman C, Roncoli C, Crane T, Hoogenboom G (2011) Beyond the fit : introducing climate forecasts among organic farmers in Georgia (United States). Clim Change 109(3 4): Halofsky JE, Peterson DL, Furniss MJ, Joyce LA, Millar CI, Nielson RP (2011) Workshop approach for developing climate change adaptation strategies and actions for natural resource management agencies in the United States. J For 109(4): Harvey B, Carlile E, Ensor J, Garside B, Patterson Z (2012) Understanding context in learning-centred approaches to climate change communication. IDS Bulletin 43(5) Huntington HP, Brown-Schwalenberg PK, Fernandez-Gimenez ME, Frost KJ, Norton DW, Rosenberg DH (2002) Observations on the workshop as a means of improving communication between holders of traditional and scientific knowledge. Environ Manage 30(6): Jakku E, Thornburn PJ (2010) A conceptual framework for guiding the participatory development of agricultural decision support systems. Agric Syst 103(9): Jones JW, Bartels W, Fraisse C, Boote KJ, Ingram KT, Hoogenboom G (2010) Use of crop models for climate-agricultural decisions. In: Hillel D, Rosenzweig C (eds) Chapter in Climate Change and Agroecosystems: Impacts, Adaptation, and Mitigation. Imperial College Press, London UK Karl TR, Melillo JM, Peterson TC (eds.) (2009) Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States, Cambridge University Press Kolb DA (1984) Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey Kolb AY, Kolb DA (2005) Learning styles and learning spaces: enhancing experiential learning in higher education. Acad Manage Learning Education 4(2): Kunkel et al. (2012) Climate of the Southeast U.S. National Climate Assessment, U.S. Global Change Research Program Marx SM, Weber EU, Orlov BS, Leiserowitz A, Krantz DH, Roncoli C, Phillip J (2007) Communication and mental processes:

11 Warming up to climate change experiential and analytic processing of uncertain climate information. Glob Environ Change 17:47 58 Meinke H, Howden SM, Struik PC, Nelson R, Rodriguez D, Chapman SC (2009) Adaptation science for agriculture and natural resource management: urgency and theoretical basis. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 1:69 76 Misra V, Carlson E, Craig RK, Enfield D, Kirtman B, Landing W, Lee S-K, Letson D, Marks F, Obeysekera J, Powell M, Shin S-l (2011) Climate scenarios: a Florida-Centric view, Florida Climate Change Task Force. whitepapers/ Moser SC, Ekstrom JA (2011) Taking ownership of climate change: participatory adaptation planning in two local case studies from California. J Environ Stud Sci 1: doi: /s Peterson ND, Broad K, Orlove B, Roncoli C, Taddei R, Velez M (2010) Participatory processes and climate forecast use: sociocultural context, discussion, and consensus. Clim Dev 2:14 29 Portmann RW, Solomon S, Hegel GC (2009) Spatial and seasonal patterns in climate change, temperatures, and precipitation across the United States. Proc Nat Acad Sci 106: Romsdahl RJ, Pyke CR (2009) What does decision support mean to the climate change research community? Clim Change 95(1 2):1 10 Roncoli C, Crane T, Orlove B (2008) Fielding climate change in cultural anthropology. In: Crate S, Nuttall M (eds) Anthropology and climate change: from encounters to action. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, pp Roncoli C, Jost C, Kirshen P, Sanon M, Ingram K, Woodin M, Some L, Ouattara F, Sanfo J, Sia C, Yaka P, Hoogenboom G (2009) From accessing to assessing forecasts: an end-to-end study of participatory forecast dissemination in Burkina Faso (West Africa). Clim Change 92(3): Sakakibara C (2008) Our home is drowning: iñupiat storytelling and climate change in Point Hope. Alaska Geogr Rev 98(4): Trenberth KE et al (2007) Observations: surface and atmospheric climate change. Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. In: Solomon S et al (eds) Contribution of working group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, UK, pp Tschakert P, Dietrich KA (2010) Anticipatory learning for climate change adaptation and resilience. Ecol Soc 15(2):11 USDA (1981) Census of Agriculture 2007: United States Summary and State Data /01/51/ pdf USDA (2009a) Census of Agriculture 2007: United States Summary and State Data. Full_Report/usv1.pdf USDA (2009b) Census of Agriculture 2007: Farm and Ranch Irrigation Survey Online_Highlights/Farm_and_Ranch_Irrigation_Survey/fris08.pdf Weber EU, Stern PC (2011) Public understanding of climate change in the United States. Am Psychol 66(4):