To address our exploratory questions, we analyzed 1,039 responses to the 2020 and 2021 Iowa Farm and Rural Life Poll (IFRLP) to categorize farmers in the Six Americas types. We then examined how agriculture-specific attitudes related to climate change vary by type.
Table 4
− 1. Percentages of IFRLP respondents who indicated their attitudes toward four global warming-related questions. These percentages include IFRLP respondents who had some non-response to some of the questions; 1,039 respondents answered all four questions.
| | Percentage of Respondents |
| How important is the issue of global warming to you personally? n = 1049 |
| Not at all important | 17.7% |
| Not too important | 25.2% |
| Somewhat important | 33.6% |
| Very important | 16.0% |
| Extremely important | 7.5% |
| How worried are you about global warming? n = 1052 |
| Not at all worried | 24.0% |
| Not very worried | 33.2% |
| Somewhat worried | 31.7% |
| Very worried | 11.0% |
| How much do you think global warming will harm you personally? n = 1047 |
| Don't know | 11.7% |
| Not at all | 34.7% |
| Only a little | 27.2% |
| A moderate amount | 19.9% |
| A great deal | 6.6% |
| How much do you think global warming will harm future generations of people? n = 1049 |
| Don't know | 14.7% |
| Not at all | 22.1% |
| Only a little | 20.4% |
| A moderate amount | 20.4% |
| A great deal | 22.4% |
Global Warming’s Six Americas among Iowa Farmers
A primary goal of this analysis is to estimate the distribution of Iowa farmers within the Six Americas typology of global warming perspectives: dismissive, doubtful, disengaged, cautious, concerned, and alarmed. Beliefs and perceptions about climate change are certainly not homogenous among farmers (Niles, Brown, and Dynes 2016; Singh, Eanes, and Prokopy 2020), and audience segmentation among Iowa farmers may prove useful for understanding how certain strata of Iowa farmers view climate change, its potential impacts, and actions for dealing with risk and vulnerability in agriculture.
Based on their responses in 2021 to the four SASSY questions (Table 4 − 1) and using the segmentation web tool provided by YPCCC (Chryst et al. 2022), we categorized each farmer as one of the Six Americas types. Twenty-two percent were typed as dismissive, 20% were doubtful, and 7% were disengaged. Twenty-three percent were typed as cautious, 16% were concerned, and, finally, 12% were alarmed (Fig. 4 − 1).
Figure 4 − 1. The percentages of Iowa Farm and Rural Life Poll respondents in 2021 (n = 1,039) who were typed within each Six Americas category. The 2020 National Estimate is based on survey data representing the general United States population, collected and published by YPCCC (Chryst, Marlon, van der Linden, et al. 2018).
The items that are used to generate a type for each farmer focus on respondents’ perceptions of risk and the extent to which the issue is important to them (Chryst, Marlon, Van Der Linden, et al. 2018). There are some substantial differences between Iowa farmers’ proportions in these six types compared with the general national population based on a survey conducted by the YPCCC in late 2020 (Chryst, Marlon, van der Linden, et al. 2018). Among Iowa farmers, cautious individuals comprise the largest category, and dismissive individuals are a close second. By contrast, among the national population, the concerned and alarmed groups were the largest. Dismissive individuals were the second least prevalent nationally. These results suggest quite clearly that Iowa farmers, on average, are less concerned or worried about global warming and consider the issue to be of less importance than does the overall U.S. population.
In terms of their responses to individual items in the SASSY typology, farmers were categorized based on their differential patterns in global warming attitudes (Fig. 4 − 2). Dismissive respondents tended to place low personal importance on the issue and reported very low levels of concern or worry about future impacts, and doubtful respondents followed a similar pattern but with some more moderate responses, indicating some uncertainty or variation in attitudes depending upon the specific item to which they were responding. Disengaged respondents tended to show some level of worry or concern about the issue, but with high rates of “Don’t know” responses for the items about personal or future harm. Cautious respondents mostly reported moderate responses to all items, and concerned respondents reported a mix of moderate and high levels of import and concern. Finally, alarmed individuals almost exclusively reported moderately high or high levels of import and concern regarding global warming.
Beliefs and Attitudes Related to Climate Change
A second aim of this analysis is to understand Iowa farmers’ perceptions and attitudes towards the potential impacts of climate change on agriculture and farming, and to explore how these attitudes vary by SASSY type. The 2020 IFRLP included a set of statements related to climate change and agriculture and asked respondents to rate their levels of agreement with each statement on a five-point scale from “strongly disagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (5). Results are displayed in Fig. 4 − 3. We present these statements in four conceptual groups that were identified based on a factor analysis: perceived risks, techno-optimism, adaptation action and
resources, and mitigation. In checking the post-hoc reliability of these grouped items, the Cronbach’s alpha values for these conceptual groups are 0.78, 0.40, 0.77, and 0.78, respectively; as such, there is high inter-item reliability for the perceived risks, adaptation, and mitigation factors. The techno-optimism items had high factor loadings but the scale shows low to moderate reliability.
Two statements measure perceived risks about climate change. Perceived risks—such as levels of concern about the impacts of extreme weather, climate variability, and other impacts on one’s farming operation or broader community—have been associated in past research with farmers’ openness to action and policies regarding climate change and natural resources in the Midwest, though they are not always sufficient for individuals to take conservation actions (Arbuckle et al. 2015; Mase, Gramig, and Prokopy 2017; Morton et al. 2015). Among our respondents, for the statement, “I am concerned about the potential impacts of climate change on my farm operation,” 5% strongly disagreed, 13% disagreed, 31% were uncertain, 42% agreed, and 8% strongly agreed. For the second statement, “I believe that extreme weather events will happen more frequently in the future,” 2% strongly disagreed, 6% disagreed, 41% were uncertain, 40% agreed, and 10% strongly agreed (Fig. 4 − 3).
Two statements corresponded generally to farmers’ techno-optimism for reducing the risks of climate change. Techno-optimism is a set of beliefs in “human technological abilities to solve problems of unsustainability while minimizing or denying the need for large-scale social, economic and political transformation” (Gardezi and Arbuckle 2020; Sage-Fuller 2018:3). Five percent strongly disagreed and 23% disagreed that “whether climate change is occurring or not, I believe that crop insurance and other programs will protect my farm operation’s revenue.” Forty-two percent were uncertain, 27% agreed, and 4% strongly agreed. For the statement, “Climate change is not a big issue because human ingenuity will enable us to adapt to changes,” 10% strongly disagreed, 29% disagreed, 39% were uncertain, 18% agreed, and 3% strongly agreed.
Five statements were associated with farmers’ attitudes towards adaptation action and resources. Five percent of farmers disagreed or strongly disagreed that “Seed companies should be developing crop varieties adapted to coming changes in weather patterns.” Thirty-one percent were uncertain about this statement, 56% agreed, and 8% strongly agreed. For the statement, “I should take additional steps to protect the land I farm from increased precipitation”, 9% disagreed or strongly disagreed, 33% were uncertain, 51% agreed, and 7% strongly agreed. Two percent strongly disagreed and 6% disagreed that they “plan to use more conservation practices to increase my farm operation’s resilience to extreme weather,” while 42% were uncertain, 46% agreed, and 5% strongly agreed. Three and four percent strongly disagreed that extension and state agencies, respectively, “should do more to help farmers and landowners to prepare for increased precipitation.” Twelve and seventeen percent disagreed with these respective statements, 50% and 46% were uncertain, 31% and 30% agreed, and 4% and 3% strongly agreed (Fig. 4 − 3).
A final pair of statements corresponded to support for mitigation efforts. For the statement, “Government should do more to reduce the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions and other potential causes of climate change,” 10% of farmers strongly disagreed, 18% disagreed, 34% were uncertain, 26% agreed, and 12% strongly agreed. For the second statement, “I should reduce greenhouse gas emissions from my farm operation,” 8% strongly disagreed, 21% disagreed, 45% were uncertain, 23% agreed, and 3% strongly agreed.
At the full sample level, these results provide some insights regarding Iowa farmers’ attitudes towards climate change and its potential impacts on agriculture and farming. First, half of all respondents expressed belief that extreme weather events will increase in frequency in the future, and half also expressed concern about climate change impacts on their farms. There were moderate levels of uncertainty and relatively low levels of disagreement associated with these ideas. Thus, beliefs and concern about climate change are relatively prominent among Iowa farmers.
Second, most farmers appear to prefer private sector or individual-level approaches to adaptation to extreme weather and increased precipitation. The statements associated with these ideas—either centering on seed technology or farmer-initiated approaches—received the lowest levels of disagreement and low to moderate uncertainty. On the other hand, fewer farmers agreed that university extension and state agencies
should be more involved in on-farm adaptation; of the adaptation-related statement set, these two statements were associated with the highest levels of both disagreement and uncertainty.
Third, respondents offered low levels of support for mitigation action. Statements regarding government or farmers reducing greenhouse gas emissions had high levels of disagreement and moderate to high levels of uncertainty; agreement was relatively low.
Using the Six Americas to Stratify Iowa Farmers’ Agriculture-Climate Attitudes
While the SASSY was developed primarily to generate audience segments around general attitudes related to global warming, this study explores whether the SASSY types are also indicative of attitudes specific to agriculture. In other words, do attitudes and perceptions about the impacts of climate change on agriculture vary by SASSY type? To address this question, we compared responses to the 2020 IFRLP survey items related to climate change and agriculture by type.
The six types—dismissive, doubtful, disengaged, cautious, concerned, and alarmed—differed from each other in their attitudes regarding climate change impacts and agriculture. The percentages of responses by type are displayed in Table 4 − 2 and Table 4 − 3, with the agriculture-climate statements grouped into the conceptual sets developed for Fig. 4 − 3 (perceived risks, techno-optimism, adaptation action and resources, and mitigation).
Generally, dismissive farmers were more likely to express uncertainty or disagreement about climate change and its potential impacts on agriculture. On the other hand, farmers who were categorized as alarmed were very likely to express agreement about these topics. The four intermediate types fill in this spectrum of climate change attitudes, with higher levels of disagreement and uncertainty among those who were doubtful and disengaged and higher levels of agreement among those who were cautious and concerned. For instance, related to perceived risks, about 85% of dismissive farmers either disagreed or expressed uncertainty with the statement “extreme weather events will happen more frequently in the future,” whereas 95% of the alarmed agreed or strongly agreed (Table 4 − 2). Similarly, 82% of dismissive farmers disagreed or were uncertain that “I
Table 4
− 2. Percentages of farmers, within each Six Americas type, who indicated levels of agreement with various statements regarding climate change risk perceptions and techno-optimism. Significance was determined based on a chi-square test; similar levels of significance were found based on ANOVAs comparing each type’s mean response. * p < 0.05; *** p < 0.001
| 2020 Climate Attitudes Statements | 2021 Six Americas Types | Overall |
| Dismissive | Doubtful | Disengaged | Cautious | Concerned | Alarmed |
| Perceived Risks | |
| I believe that extreme weather events will happen more frequently in the future n = 779 | *** | Strongly disagree | 8.8% | 2.6% | 1.8% | 0.6% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 2.2% |
| | Disagree | 23.1% | 4.6% | 0.0% | 1.1% | 1.4% | 0.0% | 6.0% |
| | Uncertain | 51.9% | 63.6% | 63.6% | 39.1% | 20.1% | 5.3% | 41.5% |
| | Agree | 14.4% | 27.8% | 30.9% | 54.7% | 64.7% | 46.3% | 40.1% |
| | Strongly agree | 1.9% | 1.3% | 3.6% | 4.5% | 13.7% | 48.4% | 10.3% |
| I am concerned about the potential impacts of climate change on my farm operation n = 774 | *** | Strongly disagree | 17.3% | 5.3% | 3.6% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 5.4% |
| | Disagree | 28.8% | 22.7% | 3.6% | 8.4% | 0.7% | 0.0% | 12.5% |
| | Uncertain | 35.9% | 42.0% | 50.9% | 34.6% | 19.3% | 7.4% | 31.2% |
| | Agree | 16.0% | 28.0% | 38.2% | 50.3% | 72.1% | 58.5% | 42.4% |
| | Strongly agree | 1.9% | 2.0% | 3.6% | 6.7% | 7.9% | 34.0% | 8.5% |
| Techno-Optimism | |
| Climate change is not a big issue because human ingenuity will enable us to adapt to changes n = 776 | *** | Strongly disagree | 2.5% | 1.3% | 3.6% | 5.0% | 12.1% | 48.4% | 10.4% |
| | Disagree | 9.4% | 18.0% | 20.0% | 44.7% | 52.1% | 32.3% | 29.4% |
| | Uncertain | 44.7% | 49.3% | 63.6% | 40.2% | 29.3% | 16.1% | 39.2% |
| | Agree | 34.0% | 28.7% | 12.7% | 8.9% | 6.4% | 3.2% | 17.9% |
| | Strongly agree | 9.4% | 2.7% | 0.0% | 1.1% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 3.1% |
| Whether climate change is occurring or not, I believe that crop insurance…will protect my farm operation’s revenue n = 777 | * | Strongly disagree | 8.1% | 2.0% | 3.6% | 1.7% | 3.6% | 10.6% | 4.6% |
| | Disagree | 13.8% | 17.9% | 20.0% | 23.0% | 34.5% | 29.8% | 22.8% |
| | Uncertain | 40.0% | 49.7% | 47.3% | 42.7% | 34.5% | 36.2% | 41.5% |
| | Agree | 31.3% | 28.5% | 25.5% | 30.3% | 23.0% | 19.1% | 27.4% |
| | Strongly agree | 6.9% | 2.0% | 3.6% | 2.2% | 4.3% | 4.3% | 3.6% |
am concerned about the potential impacts of climate change on my farm operation,” while 93% of alarmed farmers reported agreement with this statement.
The statements related to techno-optimism followed a similar gradient, but with an inverse association (Table 4 − 2). Eighty-eight percent of dismissive farmers and 81% of doubtful farmers agreed with or were uncertain that “Climate change is not a big issue because human ingenuity will enable us to adapt to changes,” while 94% of the concerned and 97% of the alarmed were uncertain, disagreed, or strongly disagreed, respectively. Attitudes measured through the statement, “Whether climate change is occurring or not, I believe that crop insurance and other programs will protect my farm operation’s revenue,” varied to some extent by type, but generally reflected high levels of uncertainty among all SASSY types.
Responses about statements pertaining to adaptation action and resources followed strong gradational patterns like those seen for the perceived risks items. For these adaptation items, there were high levels of uncertainty among dismissive and doubtful farmers and very high levels of agreement among concerned and alarmed farmers (Table 4 − 3). For instance, 64% of dismissive farmers were uncertain or disagreed with the statement, “I should take additional steps to protect the land I farm from increased precipitation,” while seventy-six percent of alarmed farmers agreed or strongly agreed that they should take additional steps.
Finally, the mitigation statements also reflected the gradation seen in statements related to perceived risks and adaptation (Table 4 − 3). There was relatively extreme differentiation in farmers’ attitudes to the statement, “Government should do more to reduce the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions and other potential causes of climate change;” 92% of the dismissive and 85% of the doubtful disagreed or were uncertain, while 73% of the concerned and 90% of the alarmed agreed. A similar pattern emerged for the statement, “I should reduce greenhouse gas emissions from my farm operation,” although fewer respondents in all types placed the onus on themselves than on the government to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions.
Practical Implications and Directions for Future Research
These descriptive findings provide some insights into the use of the Six Americas audience segmentation among farmers and the associated differential beliefs and attitudes about agriculture-climate intersections. Iowa farmers who were categorized as dismissive or doubtful about global warming in terms of general worry and concern were likely to be uncertain about or in disagreement with measures to address climate change impacts on their farms. Farmers who are concerned or alarmed were very likely to be supportive of some adaptation measures and greenhouse gas mitigation.
Table 4
− 3. Percentages of farmers, within each Six Americas type, who indicated levels of agreement with various statements regarding adaptation to and mitigation of climate change. Significance was determined based on a chi-square test; similar levels of significance were found based on ANOVAs comparing each type’s mean response. * p < 0.05; *** p < 0.001
| 2020 Climate Attitudes Statements | 2021 Six Americas Types | Overall |
| Dismissive | Doubtful | Disengaged | Cautious | Concerned | Alarmed | |
| Adaptation Action and Resources | |
| I should take additional steps to protect the land I farm from increased precipitation n = 778 | *** | Strongly disagree | 2.5% | 2.0% | 1.8% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.9% |
| | Disagree | 16.3% | 11.3% | 1.8% | 6.7% | 2.9% | 0.0% | 7.9% |
| | Uncertain | 45.6% | 38.4% | 40.0% | 30.2% | 20.9% | 24.5% | 33.4% |
| | Agree | 30.6% | 45.7% | 52.7% | 59.2% | 67.6% | 50.0% | 50.7% |
| | Strongly agree | 5.0% | 2.6% | 3.6% | 3.9% | 8.6% | 25.5% | 7.1% |
| Seed companies should be developing crop varieties adapted to coming changes in weather patterns n = 775 | *** | Strongly disagree | 2.5% | 2.0% | 1.8% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 1.1% | 1.0% |
| | Disagree | 9.4% | 3.3% | 3.6% | 3.4% | 0.7% | 0.0% | 4.1% |
| | Uncertain | 46.9% | 41.3% | 32.7% | 30.9% | 11.7% | 11.6% | 30.8% |
| | Agree | 37.5% | 48.7% | 58.2% | 58.4% | 78.8% | 66.3% | 56.3% |
| | Strongly agree | 3.8% | 4.7% | 3.6% | 7.3% | 8.8% | 21.1% | 7.8% |
| Extension should do more to help farmers and landowners to prepare for increased precipitation n = 776 | *** | Strongly disagree | 8.1% | 2.7% | 1.8% | 0.6% | 0.0% | 1.1% | 2.8% |
| | Disagree | 23.1% | 18.0% | 5.5% | 10.1% | 5.1% | 4.3% | 11.9% |
| | Uncertain | 49.4% | 53.3% | 69.1% | 57.5% | 43.5% | 37.2% | 50.4% |
| | Agree | 16.9% | 24.7% | 21.8% | 28.5% | 48.6% | 47.9% | 30.8% |
| | Strongly agree | 2.5% | 1.3% | 1.8% | 3.4% | 2.9% | 9.6% | 4.1% |
| State agencies should do more to help farmers and landlords to prepare for increased precipitation n = 778 | *** | Strongly disagree | 11.9% | 4.7% | 1.8% | 1.1% | 0.7% | 2.1% | 4.3% |
| | Disagree | 29.4% | 24.0% | 10.9% | 14.5% | 6.4% | 5.3% | 16.7% |
| | Uncertain | 40.0% | 49.3% | 61.8% | 51.4% | 44.3% | 33.0% | 46.2% |
| | Agree | 17.5% | 21.3% | 23.6% | 30.2% | 43.6% | 52.1% | 29.6% |
| | Strongly agree | 1.3% | 0.7% | 1.8% | 2.8% | 5.0% | 7.4% | 3.1% |
| I plan to use more conservation practices to increase…resilience to extreme weather n = 777 | *** | Strongly disagree | 3.8% | 1.3% | 0.0% | 0.6% | 1.4% | 0.0% | 1.7% |
| | Disagree | 13.2% | 6.7% | 3.6% | 4.5% | 0.0% | 1.1% | 5.9% |
| | Uncertain | 40.3% | 49.3% | 49.1% | 43.6% | 41.7% | 26.3% | 41.8% |
| | Agree | 37.7% | 38.0% | 45.5% | 48.0% | 51.1% | 61.1% | 45.8% |
| | Strongly agree | 5.0% | 4.7% | 1.8% | 3.4% | 5.8% | 11.6% | 4.8% |
| Mitigation | |
| Government should do more to reduce the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions… n = 775 | *** | Strongly disagree | 30.6% | 13.4% | 7.3% | 0.6% | 0.7% | 0.0% | 9.7% |
| | Disagree | 31.3% | 34.2% | 14.5% | 12.9% | 1.4% | 1.1% | 17.8% |
| | Uncertain | 30.0% | 36.9% | 61.8% | 44.9% | 25.2% | 8.5% | 33.6% |
| | Agree | 7.5% | 14.1% | 14.5% | 37.1% | 53.2% | 28.7% | 26.4% |
| | Strongly agree | 0.6% | 1.3% | 1.8% | 4.5% | 19.4% | 61.7% | 12.5% |
| I should reduce greenhouse gas emissions from my farm operation n = 770 | *** | Strongly disagree | 26.4% | 8.0% | 0.0% | 2.8% | 0.7% | 2.2% | 8.1% |
| | Disagree | 32.7% | 36.0% | 14.5% | 14.7% | 9.6% | 6.5% | 21.0% |
| | Uncertain | 29.6% | 46.0% | 67.3% | 54.8% | 46.3% | 29.0% | 44.8% |
| | Agree | 10.7% | 9.3% | 18.2% | 26.6% | 39.7% | 46.2% | 23.0% |
| | Strongly agree | 0.6% | 0.7% | 0.0% | 1.1% | 3.7% | 16.1% | 3.1% |
Audience segmentation can be an effective tactic for developing education and extension programs in the agricultural community. Still, it is important to consider that there is variation in farmers’ attitudes and beliefs about climate change, even when typed into these Six Americas categories. While the SASSY was developed primarily to generate audience segments around general attitudes related to global warming, this study explores whether the SASSY types were also associated with variation in attitudes specific to agriculture. In other words, do attitudes and perceptions about the impacts of climate change on agriculture vary by SASSY type? To address this question, we compared responses to the 2020 IFRLP survey items related to climate change and agriculture by type.
The six types—dismissive, doubtful, disengaged, cautious, concerned, and alarmed—differed from each other in their attitudes regarding climate change impacts and agriculture. The percentages of responses by type are displayed in Table 4 − 2 and Table 4 − 3, with the agriculture-climate statements grouped into the conceptual sets developed for Fig. 4 − 3 (perceived risks, techno-optimism, adaptation action and resources, and mitigation).
Table 4 − 2 and Table 4 − 3 illuminate general patterns within each of the six types, but there is still a great deal of variation, particularly within the dismissive, doubtful, and disengaged groups. Messaging and education that target high levels of uncertainty may find some success in communicating to farmers about climate change and encouraging adaptation and mitigation behaviors (Singh et al. 2020). Our results suggest that substantial portions of Iowa farmers display resistance to adaptive and mitigative strategies that can address the climate change crisis, and other portions show receptiveness or are already taking action. Audience segmentation efforts and climate change communications should aim to provide support to the receptive and action-oriented farmers, while complementary efforts should be developed strategically and innovatively to reach the more resistant audiences.
There are several directions that we feel this line of inquiry should take in future research. First, an important next step will be the identification of proxy measures that are externally observable (e.g., farm size, farmer age, dominant crops, geographic location) and are associated with the Six Americas types. By understanding key observable traits associated with the audience segments, outreach professionals may be more equipped to tailor education and messaging for subgroups of farmers. Second, change in farmers’ climate change attitudes over time is of great interest given the temporally fluctuating communications and political messaging surrounding these issues. This study has presented a cross-section of Iowa farmers’ attitudes towards climate change (albeit using data across two years), and these attributes are likely to change over time. Finally, we recommend that future research should take advantage of the standard index that the SASSY offers and compare the distribution of farmers’ SASSY types to other populations. For example, comparisons to other farming populations or to entirely different professions and community types may highlight the diverse climate change perspectives throughout the U.S.