Next Article in Journal
Is Creativity-Based Urban Development Possible in Turkey? An Evaluation of Small Cities on the Aegean Coast
Next Article in Special Issue
Enhancing Disaster Resilience for Sustainable Urban Development: Public–Private Partnerships in Japan
Previous Article in Journal
Parametric Study and Optimization of Hydrogen Production Systems Based on Solar/Wind Hybrid Renewable Energies: A Case Study in Kuqa, China
Previous Article in Special Issue
‘Simply Make a Change’—Individual Commitment as a Stepping Stone for Sustainable Behaviors
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 16
Issue 2
10.3390/su16020897
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Amish and Non-Amish Farmer Perspectives on Climate Change Causes, Effects, and Adaptation Strategies

by
Caroline Brock
1,* and
Van R. Haden
2
1
Department of Sociology, University of Missouri, 322 Middlebush, Columbia, MO 65211, USA
2
Agricultural Technical Institute, The Ohio State University, 1328 Dover Road, Wooster, OH 44691, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2024, 16(2), 897; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16020897
Submission received: 24 November 2023 / Revised: 30 December 2023 / Accepted: 16 January 2024 / Published: 20 January 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Improving Community Well-Being through Sustainable Interventions)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Successful agricultural extension programs on climate change require a better understanding of the diverse and evolving farm population. Amish communities are an increasing constituency of rural populations. Ohio Amish and non-Amish farmers (n = 122) were surveyed on attitudes about weather events, climate change, potential adaptation, and policy strategies. Farmers’ belief in climate change and its associated effects were relatively low compared to other studies, with Amish farmers’ belief in climate change less than half that of their non-Amish counterparts. Farmers also tended to focus on isolated weather events over long-term trends. Respondents expressed more concern about government strategies to address climate change than the biophysical climate change effects, with a strong desire to adapt independently of government policy. These sentiments were more profound among the Amish. Both Amish and non-Amish farmers expressed views about God being in control of the weather and, thus, not a pressing source of concern for them. Results indicate the importance of Christian land stewardship principles and point to future research and outreach possibilities that could develop a better understanding of farmer motivations toward climate friendly practices through interviews and collaborative partnerships to promote conservation behaviors in culturally appropriate ways.

1. Introduction

Agriculture is affected by climate change and is a significant source of the greenhouse gases which contribute to climate change [1,2]. Studies suggest that 67 to 73% of the U.S. public believes climate change is occurring [3]. Among U.S. farmers, belief in climate change is lower, ranging from 54% to 68% depending on the survey method and region studied [4]. On the question of whether human activities are an important cause of climate change, U.S. farmers tend to be more skeptical (e.g., [4,5,6]). A meta-analysis found that only 40% of farmers in the U.S. believe that human activities contribute to climate change, which is lower than the general public [3,4]. The most extensive study of U.S. farmers found that only 8% of Midwest farmers thought climate change was anthropogenic [7]. Farmers’ beliefs about climate change are important because these views may influence their willingness to adopt practices that may help them adapt to climate-related impacts and/or mitigate agricultural greenhouse gas emissions [4,8,9].
These studies also indicate considerable regional variation in climate change beliefs, suggesting a need to better understand the local social–ecological systems that shape climate change views and associated behaviors within various farming communities [4,6,10,11]. The Amish comprise an increasing share of the United States’ rural and farming population, doubling every 20 years [12,13]. Amish communities are primarily located in the Eastern and Midwestern regions of the United States, with large populations in states such as Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Indiana. Amish farmers are also an increasing fraction of the farming population as others exit the profession due to recent economic challenges [14]. Amish are Christians who broke off from the Catholic church during the Protestant Reformation due to their beliefs on adult baptism, separation of church and state, and other distinct values. Amish and Mennonites are Christians who broke away from the Catholic church during the Protestant Reformation due to their beliefs on adult baptism, separation of church and state, and other distinct values. Amish and more conservative Mennonite groups, denoted as “Plain,” make decisions about if and how to use certain technologies as a church community rather than as individuals. For example, fieldwork on an Old Order Amish farm, primarily with horses rather than tractors. While many U.S. farmers share a Christian worldview, Amish farmers may have distinct beliefs about and responses to climate change, given that their Christian faith is associated with unique church-based technology restrictions, which are designed to preserve values related to community, family, work, and humility [14,15,16]. The relationship between Amish farmers’ response to climate change and their unique religious and cultural identity is underexplored. Given farmers’ inherent reliance on weather patterns and related natural resources, climate change will pose significant challenges to both Amish and non-Amish farmers alike [17,18].
Theological explanations for climate-related phenomena are likely to better align with the Amish community’s views on biblical literalism as compared to secular science-based explanations. For instance, Amish farmers may believe that humans cannot influence global processes such as climate change since, in their view, God alone controls these processes [19]. This climate change skepticism may also be reinforced by a lack of trust in state and science-related institutions among the Amish. Their participation in government programs to address climate change may also be influenced by their views on the separation of church and state and a history of persecution by governments in Eurasia and North America, which shaped their farming patterns and practices [20].
In this context, it is possible that local weather events may be more relatable to farmers and may be more likely to influence behavior compared to politically controversial climate change concepts [4,8,21,22]. Weather concerns associated with climate change are geographically specific [4]. For example, concern about local weather changes, as indicated by concerns about water availability in California, motivated some farmers to adopt different irrigation practices to reduce water use [8]. In the Midwest specifically, past studies indicate farmers are concerned about issues such as drought, heavy rainfall events, risk of frost, and changing growing seasons [21,23,24]. Climate change has also been associated with increased government regulation, and past studies have found that farmers in the U.S. are more concerned about the regulatory burden of government policies than the biophysical impacts of climate change (e.g., [8,25,26]).
To our knowledge, no other studies have systematically compared attitudes about climate change and its impacts among Amish and non-Amish farmers. Past research on the Amish indicates the importance of tailoring outreach on agriculture and conservation in ways that are sensitive to their religious values and unique technology restrictions [27]. Given that the Amish are an understudied population with distinct religious views, this study may offer transferable insights into climate change beliefs and behaviors to other farmers who share similar Christian-based belief systems; have smaller, more diverse farms; and/or are not technologically intensive. A number of these characteristics apply to other farmers. In this study, based in Ohio, we conducted a survey that explores the following two research objectives:
  • To characterize and compare Ohio Amish and non-Amish farmers’ beliefs about climate change and concerns for various climate-related impacts;
  • To assess farmers’ attitudes on climate change adaptation and government climate change policies.

2. Materials and Methods

A survey was designed to explore farmers’ beliefs about the existence and causes of climate change; observations about past local weather pattern changes; concern for impacts related to future changes in climate, energy prices, and government regulations; and farmers’ perceived ability to adapt to weather and climate changes (see Supplementary Material S1). The survey instrument used in this study was developed with input from a panel of academic researchers, local agricultural officials, agricultural extension advisors, and previous survey tools (i.e., [8,25]). The Ohio State University Institutional Review Board approved the survey protocol, which was returned by participants on a voluntary and anonymous basis.
The survey sampled a population of Ohio farmers based in Wayne and Holmes counties during the summer of 2015. These counties were chosen for their significant populations of both Amish and non-Amish farmers and their representative mix of grain, hay, vegetable, orchard, and livestock production systems used throughout Ohio. Farms eligible for the survey were identified using publicly available data on land use and taxable improvements related to agricultural production from the Wayne and Holmes County auditors.
The survey was conducted using a modified Dillman method (Dillman 2014), where first, a stratified random sample of 350 addresses for recipients was selected from each county (700 total recipients). Survey packets were developed for each recipient, which included an introductory letter, a form describing responder rights and indicating implied informed consent if they chose to return the completed instrument, a blank survey instrument with an identification number, a pen (included as a thank you gift in each packet regardless of participation in the survey), and a self-addressed, stamped envelope.
Our research team hand-delivered the survey packets to all participants (i.e., both Amish and non-Amish). Delivery practice included driving to the selected site, knocking on the door, explaining the study’s goals from a script, and asking if they would participate. Deliveries included one male and one female researcher to avoid response bias due to gender. If consent was given, a survey packet was left with instructions on completing and returning the survey. Farmers were given the option of returning the survey by mail or having our research team pick it up in person. One week after delivery, we would return to the farm and collect any completed surveys or drop off postcards encouraging the farmers to return the survey by mail. The surveys that were returned yielded a raw response rate of 28.3% as a proportion of the total surveys mailed out and a final response rate of 33.2% as a proportion of the number of surveys sent to eligible farmers, excluding those that were returned undeliverable and/or ineligible.
Descriptive statistics and statistical differences were analyzed using J.M.P. Pro 16.0 (S.A.S. Institute Inc. Cary, NC, U.S.A.). Farmers’ climate change beliefs were assessed according to categorical responses. The differences in the distribution of responses to questions regarding the occurrence of climate change and its causes among Amish and non-Amish sub-groups were then compared, and significant differences between the response distributions were assessed via a Pearson’s chi-squared test. Farmer’s levels of concern for various climate change-related impacts were analyzed via a 4-point Likert scale. The levels of agreement farmers had with statements about how specific climate impacts may impact their farm, their ability to adapt, and their attitudes toward government policies related to climate change adaptation were assessed using a 5-point Likert scale. All 4- and 5-point Likert data were analyzed using two-sample t-tests to determine differences in attitudes among Amish and non-Amish sub-groups. We used a minimum p ≤ 0.05 threshold to determine the significant differences. When significant, we rejected the null hypothesis and accepted that Amish and non-Amish farmers differed in their responses. For farmer climate change categorical variables compared across Amish and non-Amish groups, we reported the significance value of the chi-square in Table 1. Significant chi-squared tests indicated an overall association between the Amish or non-Amish identity and the distribution of responses. Differences between Amish and non-Amish on concern for various climate change impacts, government policies, and abilities to adapt are denoted by subscript letters in Table 2 and Table 3. Answers to optional open-ended questions were qualitatively coded for common themes to assess the frequency with which various concepts were mentioned in the written answers (i.e., increased number of cold nights, increased amount of flooding, uncertainty in science, weather keeps changing w/o a trend, God is in control of weather/climate rather than humans, and concerns around government/public involvement in issues of climate change).

3. Results

3.1. Respondent Characteristics

Thirty-three Amish participants (26% of total respondents) and 89 non-Amish participants responded (71% of total respondents) to the survey. Approximately 3% of total respondents did not identify if they were Amish and were, thus, removed from the subsequent analysis. Among Amish respondents, 94% were male and 6% were female. Non-Amish respondents were 84% male and 16% female. Most Amish respondents had stopped formal education before high school compared to non-Amish respondents (88% vs. 3%). Almost all Amish respondents (97%) were 65 or younger versus only 64% of non-Amish respondents. Eighty-eight percent of Amish respondents were in the 35–66 age range versus 56% of the non-Amish respondents. Amish respondents were less reliant on farm income than non-Amish, with 39% of the Amish vs. 47% of the non-Amish reporting that 50% or more of their income came from agricultural activities. Amish respondents tended to own or operate smaller farms (56 acres vs. 172 acres owned/12 acres vs. 56 acres leased). Amish farmers were also more likely to produce vegetable and horticultural crops than non-Amish. About two-thirds (66%) of the Amish produced horticultural crops versus only about a third of non-Amish farmers (34%). In contrast, the majority (76%) of non-Amish farmers produced field crops versus less than a quarter (24%) of the Amish.

3.2. Farmers’ Perspectives on Climate Change Occurrence and Causes

The distribution of responses to questions on the occurrence and causes of climate change was significantly different between Amish and non-Amish farmers according to Pearson’s chi-squared test (Table 1). The belief that climate change is occurring was low among Amish and non-Amish farmers. Moreover, a smaller percentage of Amish farmers believed climate change is occurring compared to non-Amish farmers (18.5% vs. 38.6%) (Table 1). Amish farmers were also twice as likely to indicate that climate change was not occurring now and is unlikely to occur in the future. A slightly larger percentage of non-Amish farmers indicated there was insufficient evidence to determine whether climate change is happening relative to Amish farmers (39.8% vs. 33.3%) (Table 1).
The belief that human activities contribute to climate change was very low among Amish farmers. Only 12% of Amish farmers indicated that climate change is caused equally by human activity and natural causes, and 0% indicated that climate change was caused mostly by human activity. By contrast, 25.3% of non-Amish farmers indicated that human activity and natural causes both contribute to climate change, and 14.9% felt it was caused mostly by human activity. Amish farmers were more likely to indicate that there was insufficient evidence to determine the cause of climate change (36% vs. 20.7%) and that there was no cause since climate change is not occurring (20% vs. 8%).
It is worth noting that a sizable minority of Amish farmers (18.5%) indicated that they had “other” views on climate change as compared to fewer non-Amish farmers (8%) who selected this option. Seventeen farmers (4 Amish and 11 non-Amish) indicated via their open-ended comments that they interpreted climate change through a religious lens, which may explain “other” ways of considering the issue. These statements included “God is in control of the weather” and “I can’t see why a Christian would be worried about climate change”. One non-Amish farmer also stated:
“Sadly, the excitement about global warming/climate change, along with most of modern science, largely denies God’s supernatural power in creating the universe and his all-wise providence in sustaining it. Yes, we must recognize that nature’s effects can be very severe at times, but even in that, we can see God’s hand in preserving mankind, the prize of his creation”.
Table 1. Perspectives on the occurrence of climate change and its cause among Amish and Non-Amish farmers. For each of the questions, the distribution of responses was significantly different between Amish and Non-Amish respondents (Pearson’s chi-squared test, p ≤ 0.05).
Table 1. Perspectives on the occurrence of climate change and its cause among Amish and Non-Amish farmers. For each of the questions, the distribution of responses was significantly different between Amish and Non-Amish respondents (Pearson’s chi-squared test, p ≤ 0.05).
Amish
(n = 27)		Non-Amish (n = 88)
Which option best describes your perspective on climate change?% of respondents
Climate change is occurring now.18.538.6
Climate change is not occurring now but might in the future.7.42.3
Climate change is not occurring now and will not likely occur in the future.22.211.4
There is insufficient evidence to determine whether climate change is happening.33.339.8
Other:18.58.0
Amish
(n = 23)		Non-Amish (n = 87)
Which option best describes your perspective on the cause of climate change?% of respondents
Climate change is caused mostly by human activity.0.014.9
Climate change is caused mostly by natural processes.16.025.3
Climate change is caused equally by human activity and natural causes.12.025.3
There is insufficient evidence to determine the cause of climate change.36.020.7
There is no cause, as climate change is not occurring at all.20.08.0
Other:8.05.7
Several farmers cited specific Bible passages emphasizing the book of Genesis. Two Amish farmers cited Genesis 8:22, “While the earth remaineth, seedtime, and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night shall not cease.” This Amish farmer reflected on the scripture, “I believe this and don’t worry about climate change or the weather. God is in full control! Man cannot stop the rain”. These responses indicate that religious beliefs among both Amish and non-Amish farmers in Ohio are likely to play an important and largely unexplored role in shaping farmers’ beliefs about the occurrence and causes of climate change.

3.3. Farmers’ Attitudes on Climate-Related Impacts

Amish and non-Amish farmers both had low levels of concern for the increased severity of winter weather, increased frequency of flooding events, the early arrival of the planting season, and increased frequency of drought, with all Likert values between 1 (not concerned) and 2 (somewhat concerned) (Table 2). Non-Amish farmers were significantly more concerned than Amish about the increased frequency of droughts and flooding events. Both Amish and non-Amish farmers expressed greater concern for increasing energy and government regulation costs than the future biophysical impacts of climate change. Both groups of farmers tended to be more concerned about increased government regulation than energy costs, with mean Likert values that fell between concerned and very concerned. However, there was no significant difference in the level of concern between Amish and non-Amish farmers for increasing energy costs and government regulations (Table 2).
Table 2. Level of concern for climate-related impacts among Amish and non-Amish farmers.
Table 2. Level of concern for climate-related impacts among Amish and non-Amish farmers.
Level of Concern
4-pt Likert Scale
AmishNon-Amish
StatementnMeanSt. Dev.nMeanSt. Dev.
Concern for increase in severity of winter weather.261.54 a0.81841.77 a0.84
Concern for increase in frequency of flooding events.251.40 a0.65811.87 b0.91
Concern for early arrival of planting season.261.31 a0.61821.43 a0.65
Concern for increased frequency of drought.261.44 a0.75861.98 b0.97
Concern for increase in energy costs.282.64 a0.95872.93 a0.85
Concern for increase in government regulations.293.45 a0.78853.29 a0.88
Likert Scale: Not Concerned = 1; Somewhat Concerned = 2; Concerned = 3; Very Concerned = 4. Mean values within a row followed by the same letter are not significantly different. For t-tests to determine differences between Amish and non-Amish respondents, we used a p ≤ 0.05.

3.4. Farmers’ Attitudes on Climate Change Adaptation

Given the low levels of concern for climate change and climate-related impacts, it is not surprising that farmers also had low levels of agreement with the idea that climate change would cause more harm than benefit to agriculture globally and to them specifically (Table 3). The mean responses fell between the somewhat disagree (2) and neutral (3) categories, and responses were similar at the global and individual levels. Amish farmers had significantly lower levels of agreement with the statements that climate change will cause more harm than benefit both globally and to their individual farms than non-Amish farmers. Amish mean responses leaned more towards disagree than non-Amish, who were more neutral about these issues.
Amish and non-Amish farmers’ mean responses fell between neutral and agree somewhat when asked whether weather patterns have changed on their farms in recent years (Table 3). Twenty-three farmers (5 being Amish) indicated that weather changes were either cyclical or that weather variability had no discernable trend in their open-ended comments. One Amish farmer emphasized the constant change in weather as he expressed, “History tells us there have always been changes in weather patterns”. Another non-Amish farmer indicated an unpredictability to extremes in weather when he stated, “there has always been bad winters, mild winters, always wet years & dry years, always early planting times, and late planting times you can’t predict the weather or the future weather changes I don’t believe”. A non-Amish farmer emphasized the cyclical nature in extremes in weather and the inability of humans to intervene in that cycle, “Climate change is natural and normal... it has been happening forever even before humans and the internal combustion engine. There is nothing that we can do about it”. One non-Amish farmer expressed the view that “we constantly adapt to weather conditions. It is hard for me to say what is just normal variability in long-term patterns versus a change in the long-term pattern”.
Amish farmers tended to disagree with the idea that their farm’s productivity would be negatively affected by more severe winter weather, while non-Amish farmers expressed significantly more neutral views. While concern about the severity of cold winters and their impacts on productivity (Table 2 and Table 3) was low, 24 farmers (3 Amish, 21 non-Amish) mentioned cold weather in their open-ended comments. These comments typically focused on specific cold temperature events and the associated impacts (such as frozen pipes) rather than long-term changes in winter weather’s severity. Both Amish and non-Amish farmers disagreed that the earlier arrival of the planting season would result in negative impacts on their farms’ productivity.
Table 3. Mean level of agreement with statements about climate-related impacts and ability to adapt among Amish and non-Amish farmers.
Table 3. Mean level of agreement with statements about climate-related impacts and ability to adapt among Amish and non-Amish farmers.
Level of Agreement
5-pt Likert Scale
Amish Non-Amish
Statement nMeanSt. Dev.nMeanSt. Dev.
Climate change will cause more harm than benefit to agriculture globally.232.65 a0.93693.28 b1.06
Climate change will cause more harm than benefit to me.222.59 a0.91703.19 b1.05
I have noticed that weather patterns have changed on my farm in recent years.303.27 a0.98883.48 a1.02
My farm’s productivity will be negatively affected if future winters become more severe. 282.50 a1.0792.95 b0.93
My farm’s productivity will be negatively affected if future planting seasons arrive earlier. 272.44 a0.89772.45 a0.87
My farm’s productivity will be negatively affected if flooding events occur more frequently. 283.11 a0.99803.56 b1.02
I will be able to adapt new farming practices to overcome negative impacts to my farm’s productivity if winters become more severe. 252.84 a0.69793.46 b0.89
I will be able to adapt new farming practices to overcome negative impacts to my farm’s productivity if planting seasons arrive earlier. 263.00 a0.99793.58 b0.94
I will be able to adapt new farming practices to overcome negative impacts to my farm’s productivity if flooding events occur more frequently. 233.00 a0.95743.26 a1.02
Likert Scale: Strongly Disagree = 1; Disagree Somewhat = 2; Neutral = 3; Agree Somewhat = 4; Strongly Agree = 5. Mean values within a row followed by the same letter are not significantly different. For t-tests to determine differences between Amish and non-Amish respondents, we used a p ≤ 0.05.
The view that their farm’s productivity would be negatively affected by increased flooding frequency differed significantly among Amish and non-Amish farmers, with non-Amish farmers tending to agree with the statement and Amish farmers being more neutral in their responses (Table 3). These results were also consistent with the lower level of concern about flooding among the Amish as compared to the non-Amish (Table 2). Seventeen farmers (5 Amish and 12 non-Amish) discussed the impacts of flooding in the open-ended comments. However, most of these comments were not statements about a trend towards increased flooding frequency, but instead, comments focused on past flooding events and associated impacts such as delayed planting.
Regarding the ability to adapt to severe weather, farmers were relatively neutral in response to statements regarding their ability to adapt to the negative impacts of more severe winters, earlier planting seasons, and frequent flooding according to mean Likert values (Table 3). Amish farmers were significantly less confident than non-Amish farmers in their ability to adapt to more severe winters and the early arrival of planting season. Amish farmers tended to disagree with the idea that their farm’s productivity would be negatively affected by more severe winter weather, while non-Amish farmers expressed significantly more neutral views. While concern about the severity of cold winters and their impacts on productivity (Table 2 and Table 3) was low, 24 farmers (3 Amish, 21 non-Amish) mentioned cold weather in their open-ended comments. These comments typically focused on specific cold temperature events and the associated impacts (such as frozen pipes) rather than long-term changes in winter weather’s severity. Both Amish and non-Amish farmers disagreed that the earlier arrival of the planting season would result in negative impacts on their farms’ productivity.
The view that their farm’s productivity would be negatively affected by increased flooding frequency differed significantly among Amish and non-Amish farmers, with non-Amish farmers tending to agree with the statement and Amish being more neutral in response (Table 3). These results were also consistent with the lower level of concern about flooding among the Amish as compared to the non-Amish (Table 2). Seventeen farmers (5 Amish and 12 non-Amish) discussed the impacts of flooding in the open-ended comments. However, most of these comments were not statements about a trend towards increased flooding frequency, but instead, comments focused on past flooding events and associated impacts such as delayed planting. Farmers were relatively neutral in response to statements regarding their ability to adapt to the negative impacts of more severe winters, earlier planting seasons, and frequent flooding according to mean Likert values (Table 3). Amish farmers were significantly less confident than non-Amish farmers in their ability to adapt to more severe winters and the early arrival of planting season.

3.5. Farmers’ Attitudes on Government Involvement in Climate Change Adaptation

Both Amish and non-Amish farmers expressed similar confidence in their ability to adapt to any negative effects of climate change without government involvement and a strong preference for personal adaptation rather than adherence to new government policies (Table 4). Amish and non-Amish farmers were both neutral when asked if they would support local, state, and federal policy changes that might help overcome the negative impacts of climate change on their farms’ productivity. Both groups also disagreed with the statement that government policy changes would positively affect farmers’ ability to adapt to climate change. Moreover, both Amish and non-Amish farmers felt that the government’s climate policies pose more risk to their farms than the biophysical (e.g., weather-related) impacts of climate change. These sentiments suggest that both groups of farmers strongly prefer personal efforts to adapt to climate change independent of government intervention and hold significant doubts that government policies will offer many benefits. While the differences in attitude between the Amish and non-Amish were non-significant across these statements, the Amish farmers tended to express their views with slightly greater intensity. Statements in open-ended comments from fourteen farmers (4 being Amish) emphasized the concerns about government regulation and public investment in the issue of climate change. One Amish farmer stated, “please don’t use climate change as a handle on farmers. Every farmer will do what is best for them without government policy changes”. Another non-Amish farmer indicated how some farmers are concerned about government policies’ negative impact on their farms. Another issue brought up by some farmers is what they view as hypocritical behavior on the part of the political leaders promoting climate change. As one non-Amish farmer expressed:
“Our government leaders need to be very careful when making policy concerning climate change. They can easily cause more problems than they solve. It is also very telling when leaders suggest lifestyle changes to us common people, such as cutting back on fossil fuel use. Yet, they themselves fly all over the country and the world, promoting their agendas. Leaders need to set examples if they truly believe what they are promoting”.

4. Discussion

4.1. Skepticism Regarding the Occurrence and Cause of Climate Change

Both the Amish and non-Amish farmers in this study had low levels of belief in and concern for climate change compared to other surveys of farmers in the United States [4,5,6]. Moreover, Amish farmers’ belief in climate change and the underlying role of human activities were less than half that of the non-Amish farmers in this study. A sizable fraction of both Amish and non-Amish farmers felt that there was insufficient evidence to determine the occurrence and cause of climate change. For instance, several farmers in our study questioned how scientists could know if the climate is changing if we “don’t have data going back hundreds of years to compare”. Others simply stated that the weather patterns change “year-to-year” or that weather patterns are “cyclical” in nature. These sentiments suggest that the skepticism expressed about climate change in our study may be related to farmers’ understanding and interpretation of the scientific evidence for climate change, which could be related to educational background. The Amish have prohibitions on formal education after the 8th grade, so they generally do not have exposure to high school-level science content in a formal school setting. While a lower level of formal education is often associated with a lower level of belief in climate change, greater concern for government policy, and lower levels of adoption of pro-climate practices among U.S. farmers [28], the broader literature on climate beliefs in developed countries indicates that gender and political identities are stronger predictors of climate change skepticism than levels of formal education. Politically conservative males tend to be strongly skeptical of climate change [29,30]. More specifically, climate change skepticism is particularly pronounced when addressing climate change policy [30], indicating that there may be “not necessarily an aversion to the problem, per se, but an aversion to the solutions associated with the problem” [31]. Given recent voting trends in Wayne and Holmes County, Ohio, our respondents are likely to lean politically conservative. While the Amish do not generally participate in most formal elections, they tend to hold conservative viewpoints that mirror the attitudes of neighboring non-Amish people in rural areas [32].

4.2. Farmer’s Lack of Concern about Local Weather Trends and Events

While one might assume that local changes in weather patterns would be more concerning to farmers than the psychologically distant impacts of global climate change, farmers in our study also had relatively low levels of concern for instances of drought, flooding, and temperature extremes on their farms. Past research indicates mixed results associated with the effect of extreme weather events and farmer attitudes/behavior about climate change. Some studies have found that personal experience with extreme weather events can influence peoples’ belief in climate change and willingness to adopt adaptation and mitigation behaviors [23,33]. However, other studies indicate that experience with weather pattern change may not necessarily influence adaptation and mitigation efforts [4,7,24,34,35]
The low levels of belief in climate change and concern for local weather events in this study may be partly explained by the timing and location of this survey. For example, when this survey was conducted, weather patterns in Ohio may not have been extreme enough to merit strong concern. A recent study found that weather events in the Midwest have not generally motivated farmer behavior change to the same extent as in other places like California, where severe drought and wildfires are more common [36]. To further obscure this connection between weather change and farmers’ level of concern, some farmers in the northern U.S. are likely to experience the positive effects of climate change. For example, forage crops like alfalfa typically perform better as growing seasons are extended. Likewise, some studies have found that “overall feed production” may be sustained with climate change over the next few decades, with “decreased corn grain yields compensated by increased forage yields” [37,38]. However, even though Midwestern weather changes may seem less extreme than in other regions, this pattern may not be sustained through time. For instance, modeling studies covering the Midwest predict that the earlier arrival of the planting season is likely to coincide with an increased frequency of heavy rain events and subsequent flooding [39,40]. Future research should continue to explore the influence of location and recent extreme weather events on farmers’ beliefs about weather and climate change impacts.

4.3. Influence of Religious Worldviews on the Human Ability to Affect Climate Change

Given that a Christian worldview is a defining attribute of the Amish, our study contributes novel information to the broader literature on how religious identity may shape climate change beliefs, environmental values, and related farm management decisions. Several studies have suggested that climate change science and the notion that humans have the ability to alter global climate cycles could be viewed by some Christian respondents as a challenge to God’s omnipotence [41,42]. Open-ended comments in our study indicate that Amish farmers hold a similar viewpoint, with numerous farmers expressing the belief that God alone is in control of the climate and not humankind, thus negating the possibility that anthropogenic climate change is happening or something to be overly concerned about as a farmer. Non-Amish farmers in the sample also expressed similar religious sentiments, albeit to a lesser extent.
Some scholars have argued that Amish communities may be more likely to identify with Christian stewardship principles of “creation care” and the keen observation of nature rather than environmentalism per se [19]. Amish farmers scored lower than their non-Amish neighbors on various measures of pro-environmental belief but held favorable attitudes toward Christian stewardship values that characterize taking care of the Earth as a divine responsibility in one case study [43]. In our study, several farmers expressed views supporting good land stewardship, albeit without specific religious references. One farmer stated, “I care about the land, and we take good care of it”, while another said, “I believe that we should be wise stewards of the Earth”. These statements suggest that framing the climate change dialogue as “land stewardship” may help engagement efforts within the agricultural community [41,44,45,46].

4.4. Farmer Concern for Government Climate Change Policy

Scholars have described the Amish as relatively apolitical but with similar skepticism of government and regulations as political conservatives in the broader U.S. culture [19,32]. Our survey findings are consistent with this perspective, indicating that Amish and non-Amish farmers share a common concern for increased climate regulations, which they view as a more pressing risk than the weather-related impacts of climate change. Our results are also similar to studies conducted in California and New Zealand, which found that farmers are more concerned about various “climate policy risks” associated with increased regulation and energy costs than the biophysical ramifications of climate change [25,26]. Furthermore, we found that the Amish respondents were more likely to skip/or select “other” regarding questions focused on climate change, which suggests a tendency to avoid the topic rather than addressing it directly. While it is difficult to determine precisely why Amish farmers were more likely to avoid answering these questions, other studies have encountered similar methodological challenges when surveying Amish farmers’ views on environmental topics [43]. These experiences highlight the importance of developing survey methods that couple traditional quantitative survey questions with open-ended comments that allow respondents to articulate their personal attitudes and perspectives.
Importantly, our study shows that farmers would prefer to adapt to the impacts of climate change independent of any government policy requirements or public assistance. Amish respondents preferred independent adaptive responses more strongly than non-Amish farmers. Despite the prevailingly negative attitudes on the role of government climate change initiatives, farmers’ views about various policy strategies are likely to be context dependent. For instance, some studies have suggested that voluntary government incentive programs that act more as a carrot than a stick may be more acceptable to farmers [25]. An example of an incentive program to promote agricultural conservation practices among farmers is a government cost-share program where the government shares the costs of conservation efforts with farmers. In some cases, Amish participation in cost-share programs has been limited due to their reluctance to receive government payments and work contractually with the government [27].

5. Conclusions

This survey-based research sheds new light on the complex nature of farmer attitudes around climate change and informs future research and outreach efforts. A strength of this survey was its inclusion of opportunities for farmers to share their views via open-ended comments. Future studies that include semi-structured interviews with Amish farmers would enable researchers and service providers to better hear the participant’s voice, especially their religious perspectives on agriculture and the environment where it is challenging to discern a priori hypotheses [47]. This interview data will complement survey methods and help to interpret farmers’ views on climate change [6]. It is also important in future research to study these questions in a variety of geographic contexts, given that this study was focused only on a specific region of Ohio.
This study highlights the challenges that arise when engaging farmers in research and outreach programs focused on climate change. The science of climate change is complex, and the data are difficult for farmers to interpret. This study focused primarily on farmers’ memories, illustrating how they tend to focus more on specific weather events rather than recognizing long-term trends. Future research and outreach should explore how farmers might interpret data on weather patterns in the context of their own observations, social values, and social networks. In cases where climate skepticism is caused by insufficient information, future efforts should seek to improve farmers’ access to and use of regional climate records and the development of decision support tools designed to help farmers simulate and visualize future climate impacts.
This study also examines how farmers’ religious beliefs, environmental values, and concern for government policies can influence their attitudes on climate change and subsequent adaptive responses. As indicated by this research, government approaches to climate change policies should be approached cautiously, considering that farmers may be more receptive to climate initiatives arising from the private sector rather than the public sector. For example, private sector sources of information, such as farm service providers and cooperatives, have a growing influence on farm decision-making over public sector sources of information, such as extension [48,49,50,51]. An increasing number of agricultural cooperatives and other private enterprises are working on “carbon farming” initiatives, which allow growers to sell carbon credits for using cover crops and no-till strategies to sequester carbon in soils [52,53,54,55]. While such opportunities to receive payments for practicing climate-smart agriculture are increasingly available to growers throughout the Midwest, future work should assess how open Amish farmers are to participation.
Participation in government programs, especially conservation cost-share programs, is generally low for the Amish, considering their caution about receiving state and federal funds [27]. However, there are counterexamples of Amish communities cooperatively working with the state in conjunction with private enterprises to improve local watersheds [56]. The Amish community organizational structure should be considered in future approaches rather than relying on the current focus of conservation programming on individual farms [27]. For example, successful university extension efforts on soil conservation in Ohio have built ties with the Amish community through private milk and vegetable marketing cooperative enterprises such as Organic Valley and Greenfield Farms. The Amish and related Plain Anabaptist groups are diverse and locally organized, and this diversity may have implications for climate change views, conservation, and farm management practices [19,43].
While some farmers may harbor doubts about climate change, in some cases, they may have favorable views on certain climate friendly practices independent of their climate change beliefs (e.g., cover crops, conservation tillage) [57]. Like other farmers, the Amish may be motivated by stewardship ethics based on their Christian principles. For example, Christian stewardship principles can motivate some Amish farmers to practice organic farming [46]. In Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Indiana, Amish farmers constitute the majority of organic grain producers. Moreover, many farmers are interested in soil health. Initiatives that could further highlight to farmers how land stewardship practices that enhance both soil health and carbon sequestration may serve as common ground for further collaboration on climate change initiatives. This dialogue could help farmers understand that, as stewards of the land, they have an important part to play in climate change adaptation and mitigation.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/su16020897/s1, a copy of the survey instrument.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, C.B. and V.R.H.; data curation, V.R.H.; methodology, V.R.H.; formal analysis, V.R.H. and C.B.; investigation, V.R.H.; data curation, V.R.H.; writing—original draft preparation, C.B. and V.R.H.; writing—reviewing and editing, C.B. and V.R.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by USDA Cropping Systems Coordinated Agricultural Project: Climate Change, Mitigation, and Adaptation in Corn-based Cropping Systems funding, grant no. 2011-68002-30190, from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Review Board (or Ethics Committee) of Ohio State University. IRB ID # 2015E0450 Approved 14 July 2015.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data are not publicly available due to agreements made by the Institutional Review Board of Ohio State University.

Acknowledgments

We wish to acknowledge the participating farmers as well as students and faculty who participated in this research. We especially want to recognize Richard Moore and the students (at the time of the study): Caleb Halfhill, Marisa Lanker, and Natsuko Merrick.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Backlund, P.; Janetos, A.C.; Schimel, D.S. The Effects of Climate Change on Agriculture, Land Resources, Water Resources, and Biodiversity in the United States; U.S. Climate Change Science Program: Washington, DC, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  2. Del Grosso, S.J.; Baranski, M.; Eve, M.; Reyes-Fox, M. Chapter 1: Introduction. In U.S. Agriculture and Forestry Greenhouse Gas Inventory: 1990–2013; Technical Bulletin 1943; Del Grosso, S.J., Baranski, M., Eds.; United States Department of Agriculture, Office of the Chief Economist: Washington, DC, USA, 2016. Available online: https://www.usda.gov/oce/climate_change/greenhouse.htm (accessed on 25 December 2023).
  3. Howe, P.; Mildenberger, M.; Marlon, J.; Leiserowitz, A. Geographic variation in opinions on climate change at state and local scales in the U. S. Nat. Clim. Change 2015, 5, 596–603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Chatrchyan, A.M.; Erlebacher, R.C.; Chaopricha, N.T.; Chan, J.; Tobin, D.; Allred, S.B. United States Agricultural Stakeholder Views and Decisions on Climate Change. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change 2017, 8, e469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Prokopy, L.S.; Arbuckle, J.G.; Barnes, A.P.; Haden, V.R.; Hogan, A.; Niles, M.T.; Tyndall, J. Farmers and climate change: A cross-national comparison of beliefs and risk perceptions in high-income countries. Environ. Manag. 2015, 56, 492–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Soubry, B.; Sherren, K.; Thornton, T.F. Are we taking farmers seriously? A review of the literature on farmer perceptions and climate change, 2007–2018. J. Rural. Stud. 2020, 74, 210–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Arbuckle Jr, J.G.; Morton, L.W.; Hobbs, J. Understanding farmer perspectives on climate change adaptation and mitigation: The roles of trust in sources of climate information, climate change beliefs, and perceived risk. Environ. Behav. 2015, 47, 205–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Haden, V.R.; Niles, M.T.; Lubell, M.; Perlman, J.; Jackson, L.E. Global, and local concerns: What attitudes and beliefs motivate farmers to mitigate and adapt to climate change? PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e52882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Arbuckle, J.G.; Prokopy, L.S.; Haigh, T.; Hobbs, J.; Knoot, T.; Knutson, C.; Loy, A.; Mase, A.S.; McGuire, J.; Morton, L.W. Climate change beliefs, concerns, and attitudes toward adaptation and mitigation among farmers in the Midwestern United States. Clim. Change 2013, 117, 943–950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Parks, M. Exploring the influence of social and informational networks on small farmers’ responses to climate change in Oregon. Agric. Hum. Values 2022, 39, 1407–1419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Dang, H.L.; Li, E.; Nuberg, I.; Bruwer, J. Factors influencing the adaptation of farmers in response to climate change: A review. Clim. Dev. 2019, 11, 765–774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Colyer, C.; Anderson, C.; Stein, R.; Donnermeyer, J.; Wasao, S. Reviving the demographic study of the Amish. J. Amish Plain Anabapt. Stud. 2017, 5, 96–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Donnermeyer, J. Doubling time and population increase of the Amish. J. Amish Plain Anabapt. Stud. 2015, 3, 94–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Cross, J. Dairy woes in Wisconsin: What about the Amish? J. Plain Anabapt. Communities 2021, 1, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Mariola, M.; McConnell, D.L. The shifting landscape of Amish agriculture: Balancing tradition and innovation in an organic farming cooperative Hum. Organ. 2013, 72, 144–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Ulrich-Schad, J.D.; Brock, C.; Prokopy, L.S. A comparison of awareness, attitudes, and usage of water quality conservation practices between Amish and non-Amish farmers. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2017, 30, 1476–1490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Abler, D.G.; Shortle, J.S. Climate change and agriculture in the Mid-Atlantic Region. Clim. Res. 2000, 14, 185–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Zehr, S. The Sociology of Global Climate Change. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change 2015, 6, 129–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. McConnell, D.; Loveless, M. Nature and the Environment in Amish Life; John Hopkins University Press: Baltimore, MD, USA, 2018; p. 294. [Google Scholar]
  20. Shenton, R. Caring for the land and the livestock: Anabaptist agricultural practices in Europe and colonial Pennsylvania. J. Amish Plain Anabapt. Stud. 2021, 9, 111–124. [Google Scholar]
  21. Arbuckle, J.G.; Hobbs, J.; Loy, A.; Morton, L.W.; Prokopy, L.S.; Tyndall, J. Understanding corn belt farmer perspectives on climate change to inform engagement strategies for adaptation and mitigation. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2014, 69, 505–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Borlu, Y.; Glenna, L. Environmental concern in a capitalist economy: Climate change perception among U.S. specialty-crop producers. Organ. Environ. 2021, 34, 198–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Lane, D.; Murdock, E.; Genskow, K.; Rumery Betz, C.; Chatrchyan, A. Climate change and dairy in New York and Wisconsin: Risk perceptions, vulnerability, and adaptation among farmers and advisors. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Morton, L.W.; Roesch-McNally, G.; Wilke, A. Upper Midwest farmer perceptions: Too much uncertainty about impacts of climate change to justify changing current agricultural practices. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2017, 72, 215–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Niles, M.T.; Lubell, M.; Haden, V.R. Perceptions and responses to climate policy risks among California farmers. Glob. Environ. Change 2013, 23, 1752–1760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Niles, M.T.; Brown, M.; Dynes, R. Farmer’s intended and actual adoption of climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies. Clim. Change 2016, 135, 277–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Brock, C.; Ulrich-Schad, J.D.; Prokopy, L. Bridging the divide: Challenges and opportunities for public sector agricultural professionals working with Amish and Mennonite producers on conservation. Environ. Manag. 2018, 61, 756–771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Prokopy, L.S.; Floress, K.; Arbuckle, J.G.; Church, S.P.; Eanes, F.R.; Gao, Y.; Gramig, B.M.; Ranjan, P.; Singh, A.S. Adoption of agricultural conservation practices in the United States: Evidence from 35 years of quantitative literature. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2019, 74, 520–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Hess, D.J.; Maki, A. Climate change belief, sustainability education, and political values: Assessing the need for higher-education curriculum reform. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 228, 1157–1166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Czarnek, G.; Kossowska, M.; Szwed, P. Right-wing ideology reduces the effects of education on climate change beliefs in more developed countries. Nat. Clim. Change 2021, 11, 9–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Campbell, T.H.; Kay, A.C. Solution aversion: On the relation between ideology and motivated disbelief. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2014, 107, 809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Kraybill, D.B.; Kopko, K.C. Bush fever: Amish and Old Order Mennonites in the 2004 presidential election. Mennon. Q. Rev. 2007, 81, 165–206. [Google Scholar]
  33. Niles, M.T.; Lubell, M.; Brown, M. How limiting factors drive agricultural adaptation to climate change. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2015, 200, 178–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Houser, M.; Gunderson, R.; Stuart, D. Farmers’ perceptions of climate change in context: Toward a political economy of relevance. Sociol. Rural. 2019, 59, 789–809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Roesch-McNally, G.; Arbuckle, J.; Benning, J.; Morton, L.W.; Wilke, A. University Extension Communities of Practice: Learning, Communicating and Engaging with Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation in the United States Corn Belt. In Addressing Climate Change at the Community Level in the United States; Routledge: London, UK, 2018; pp. 180–194. [Google Scholar]
  36. Petersen-Rockney, M. Social risk perceptions of climate change: A case study of farmers and agricultural advisors in northern California. Glob. Environ. Change 2022, 75, 102557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Arora, G.; Feng, H.; Anderson, C.J.; Hennessy, D.A. Evidence of climate change impacts on crop comparative advantage and land use. Agric. Econ. 2020, 51, 221–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Veltman, K.; Rotz, C.A.; Chase, L.; Cooper, J.; Forest, C.E.; Ingraham, P.A.; Izaurralde, R.C.; Jones, C.D.; Nicholas, R.E.; Ruark, M.D.; et al. Assessing and reducing the environmental impact of dairy production systems in the northern U.S. in a changing climate. Agric. Syst. 2021, 192, 103170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Pryor, S.C.; Scavia, D.; Downer, C.; Gaden, M.; Iverson, L.; Nordstrom, R.; Patz, J.; Robertson, G.P. Midwest. Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment. Natl. Clim. Assess. Rep. 2014, 418, 440. [Google Scholar]
  40. Morton, L.W.; Hobbs, J.; Arbuckle, J.G.; Loy, A. Upper Midwest climate variations: Farmer responses to excess water risks. J. Environ. Qual. 2015, 44, 810–822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Bowers, A.W.; Monroe, M.C.; Adams, D.C. Climate change communication insights from cooperative extension professionals in the U.S. southern states: Finding common ground. Environ. Commun. 2016, 10, 656–670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Ecklund, E.H.; Scheitle, C.P.; Peifer, J.; Bolger, D. Examining links between religion, evolution views, and climate change skepticism. Environ. Behav. 2017, 49, 985–1006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Hockman-Wert, D. Methodological considerations for Amish-focused opinion research: Lessons from a study of beliefs and practices about agriculture and the environment. J. Amish Plain Anabapt. Stud. 2021, 9, 141–150. [Google Scholar]
  44. Bell, M. Farming for Us All: Practical Agriculture and the Cultivation of Sustainability; Pennsylvania State University: University Park, PA, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  45. Paterson, J. Conceptualizing stewardship in agriculture within the Christian tradition. Environ. Ethics 2003, 25, 43–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Zebrowski, W.; Farmer, J.; Bruce, A.; Giroux, S.; Dickinson, S.; Chen, X.; O’Donnell, M.; Benjamin, T. Use of narratives to communicate organics with commodity grain farmers. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2023, 38, e39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Prokopy, L.S. Agricultural human dimensions research: The role of qualitative research methods. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2011, 66, 9A–12A. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Prokopy, L.; Carlton, J.; Arbuckle, J.; Haigh, T.; Lemos, M.; Mase, A.; Babin, N.; Dunn, M.; Andresen, J.; Angel, J.; et al. Extension’s role in disseminating information about climate change to agricultural stakeholders in the United States. Clim. Change 2015, 130, 261–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Morton, L.W.; Abendroth, L.J. Crops, climate, culture, and change. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2017, 72, 47A–52A. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Eanes, F.R.; Singh, A.S.; Bulla, B.R.; Ranjan, P.; Prokopy, L.S.; Fales, M.; Wickerham, B.; Doran, P.J. Midwestern. U.S. Farmers perceive crop advisers as conduits of information on agricultural conservation practices. Environ. Manag. 2017, 60, 974–988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Welk-Joerger, N. Performing Amish agrarianism: Negotiating tradition in the maintenance of Pennsylvania dairy farms. J. Amish Plain Anabapt. Stud. 2021, 9, 125–140. [Google Scholar]
  52. Lal, R. The role of industry and the private sector in promoting the “4 per 1000” initiative and other negative emission technologies. Geoderma 2020, 378, 114613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Jackson Hammond, A.A.; Motew, M.; Brummitt, C.D.; DuBuisson, M.L.; Pinjuv, G.; Harburg, D.V.; Campbell, E.E.; Kumar, A.A. Implementing the soil enrichment protocol at scale: Opportunities for an agricultural carbon market. Front. Clim. 2021, 3, 686440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Thompson, N.M.; Hughes, M.N.; Nuworsu, E.K.; Reeling, C.J.; Armstrong, S.; Mintert, J.; Langemeier, M.; DeLay, N.; Foster, K. Opportunities and challenges associated with “carbon farming” for U.S. row-crop producers. Choices 2022, 37, 1–10. [Google Scholar]
  55. Strong, A.; Barbato, C. The “wild west” of carbon offsets: Farmer perspectives on carbon markets incentivizing agricultural soil carbon sequestration. Clim. Action 2023, 2, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Parker, J.S. Integrating culture and community into environmental policy: Community tradition and farm size in conservation decision making. Agric. Hum. Values 2013, 30, 159–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Petersen-Rockney, M. Farmers adapt to climate change irrespective of stated belief in climate change: A California case study. Clim. Change 2022, 173, 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 4. Mean level of agreement and standard deviation for statements about farmers’ ability to adapt to negative climate change effects with and without government involvement.
Table 4. Mean level of agreement and standard deviation for statements about farmers’ ability to adapt to negative climate change effects with and without government involvement.
Level of Agreement
5-pt Likert Scale
Amish Non-Amish
Statement nMeanSt. Dev.nMeanSt. Dev.
I am confident in my ability to adapt and overcome negative effects of climate change without government involvement.244.04 a0.95793.92 a0.89
I would rather personally adapt to the effects of climate change than adhere to new government policies.254.44 a0.77804.20 a0.92
I will support local, state, or federal policy changes that may help me overcome negative impacts to my farm’s productivity.222.68 a0.99702.94 a1.10
Government policy changes would have an additional positive effect on farmers’ ability to adapt and overcome the negative effects of climate change.202.50 a1.24742.54 a1.23
Government climate change policy poses more risk to my farm than the biophysical (e.g., weather) effects of climate change.224.05 a1.00803.96 a1.12
Likert Scale: Strongly Disagree = 1; Disagree Somewhat = 2; Neutral = 3; Agree Somewhat = 4; Strongly Agree = 5. Mean values within a row followed by the same letter are not significantly different. For t-tests to determine differences between Amish and non-Amish respondents, we used a p ≤ 0.05.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Brock, C.; Haden, V.R. Amish and Non-Amish Farmer Perspectives on Climate Change Causes, Effects, and Adaptation Strategies. Sustainability 2024, 16, 897. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16020897

AMA Style

Brock C, Haden VR. Amish and Non-Amish Farmer Perspectives on Climate Change Causes, Effects, and Adaptation Strategies. Sustainability. 2024; 16(2):897. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16020897

Chicago/Turabian Style

Brock, Caroline, and Van R. Haden. 2024. "Amish and Non-Amish Farmer Perspectives on Climate Change Causes, Effects, and Adaptation Strategies" Sustainability 16, no. 2: 897. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16020897

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop