































   Advancements in Agricultural Development 
  Volume 4, Issue 4, 2023 
  agdevresearch.org 

 

1. Kelly R. Wilson, Assistant Professor, School of Natural Resources, University of Missouri, 1406 E. Rollins St. 207 Ag 
Engineering Building, Office 232, Columbia, MO 65211, kellyrwilson@missouri.edu,  

 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8462-0586 
2. Stephen C. Mukembo, Postdoctoral Fellow, Division of Applied Social Sciences, University of Missouri, 320 Mumford Hall 

Columbia, MO 65211, mukembos@missouri.edu,  https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1909-9349  
24 

 

“I talk to producers like I’m a producer!” Exploring Extension 
Professionals’ Perceptions and Framing of Climate Change 

 
K. R. Wilson1, S. C. Mukembo2 

 
 

Article History 
Received: July 25, 2023 
Accepted: October 11, 2023 
Published: November 3, 2023 
 
 
Keywords 
agricultural extension; climate 
literacy; agricultural communications; 
climate change   

Abstract 
Climate change is a central risk to global agriculture. As extension 
professionals are key disseminators of information on agricultural 
production, their perceptions of climate change and how they convey 
climate information to farmers is important to understand. This study 
explored how extension professionals in Missouri perceive the issue of 
climate change, how they frame communications with their producer 
stakeholders, and their need for training. We conducted an online survey 
with 112 extension professionals in the state, using Maibach and 
colleagues’ Six Americas Scale. The majority of participants believed that 
climate change is happening, although participants fell into each segment 
of the scale. There was a significant relationship between conservative 
ideological leaning and disbelief in climate change. Participants were 
more likely to use terms like “extreme weather,” “weather variability,” 
and “long-term weather” and least likely to say things like “climate 
debate,” “global warming,” and “greenhouse gases.” Only 6.7% of 
participants had received any formal training on climate change. These 
findings point to the need for participatory training for extension 
professionals on climate change, to build climate literacy while also 
teaching climate scientists best practices for communicating these issues 
to the public.  

mailto:kellyrwilson@missouri.edu
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8462-0586
mailto:mukembos@missouri.edu
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1909-9349


Wilson & Mukembo  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i4.377   25 
 

Introduction and Problem Statement 
 
The role of extension professionals is to bring science-based advisory services to famers to help 
them mitigate and adapt to new challenges. Climate change is a key challenge to global 
agriculture (James et al., 2014; Prokopy et al., 2017). An estimated 97% of scientists agree that 
climate change is occurring (Cook et al., 2016), and there is considerable research showing that 
human activity has directly and indirectly contributed to driving climate change (Chen et al., 
2013; Dey & Mishra, 2017). As such, this topic should be of particular relevance to farmers, as 
agriculture and natural resource management are both impacted by the effects of climate 
change and could play a role in mitigating and adapting to climate change (Arbuckle et al., 
2013).  

However, this near consensus among scientists and accumulated scientific evidence is not 
reflected in our public discourses. There are wide disparities in perspectives on climate change 
in the U.S. (Egan & Mullin, 2017; Ruth & Colclasure, 2023), pointing to a disconnect between 
scientific research and the general public. As the designated translators of scientific research to 
the people, extension professionals have a natural role to play in extending awareness and 
understanding of climate change. The way that extension resource providers engage their 
audiences with climate change—and their own perceptions of the risks—is important to 
understand, since they are a trusted source of information for the farmers. In this study, we 
explore how extension professionals, including Cooperative Extension and Private Land 
Conservationists in Missouri, perceive the issue of climate change and explore what factors 
impact their perceptions. We further explore how extension professionals frame discussions on 
climate issues with their stakeholders to understand what terms, phrases, and entry-points may 
be fruitful—rather than detrimental—in generating solutions to help farmers and the general 
public address these very real challenges.  

Theoretical and Conceptual Framework 
 
A variety of studies have explored people’s beliefs about climate change since the 1990’s. 
Crucially, we understand that climate change is a complex issues and that peoples’ 
understandings, beliefs, and risk assessments are shaped by more than “just the facts,” the 
approach most climate scientists lean on to educate the public (Wilke & Morton, 2015). In fact, 
scholars suggest the focus on scientific facts alone without being in conversation with the 
public can lead to resistance and opposition rather than action (Filho, 2009; Moser, 2010).  

Studies show that perceptions about climate change are shaped less by knowledge variables, 
but by demographic, political, socio-cultural, and psychological factors. Demographic factors 
include age, gender, and level of education (Arbuckle et al., 2013; Egan & Mullin, 2017). 
Different research finds that women, those with higher levels of education, and younger people 
are more likely to believe that climate change is real and a pertinent issue that society should 
deal with (Arbuckle et al., 2013; Egan & Mullin, 2017; Liu et al., 2014; Wiest et al., 2015). 
Ideological and political orientation is one of the strongest predicators of climate change 
perception; liberal orientation is more often associated with belief and concern about climate 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i4.377


Wilson & Mukembo  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i4.377   26 
 

change than conservative orientation (Cook et al., 2016; Egan & Mullin, 2017; Liu et al., 2014; 
Ruth & Colclasure, 2023; Tyson et al., 2023; Wiest et al., 2015). Beliefs about climate change are 
also shaped by socio-cultural and psychological factors, including personal experiences, beliefs 
about the world, and personal values (Weber, 2006, 2010). 

How and by whom information about climate change is disseminated further impacts how 
individuals receive and interpret the information. By virtue of their advisory role, extension 
professionals’ perceptions of climate change and how they convey climate information to 
farmers can significantly impact farmers’ management decisions. In a 2012 survey, almost 
three-quarters of extension educators across 12 Corn Belt states believed that climate change 
was occurring, but only 19.2% believed that it is caused mostly by human activities (Prokopy et 
al., 2015). Similarly, about 75% of agriculture advisors in four Corn Belt states believed that 
climate change was occurring, yet only 12.3% related it to human activity. These findings mark 
an important difference between most scientists’ beliefs that climate change is happening and 
caused by human actions, and thus what people are willing to do to address it.  

To assess these factors, we employed the Six Americas scale, a conceptual framework 
developed to categorize individuals by their views on climate change by Maibach et al. (2011). 
In this scale, respondents are classified into six segments (Table 1). This conceptual framework 
has been adopted by other researchers to categorize extension professional perceptions in 
other areas of the US (Bowers et al., 2016). 

Table 1  
 
Descriptions of the Six Americas Segments based on Maibach et al (2011) framework 
Six Americas 
segment Description 
Alarmed Perceive climate change as a real and pressing problem that is caused by 

human activities; strongly endorse a national response; most proactive 
about making changes in their lives 

Concerned Perceive climate change as real and a pressing problem; support a 
national response; less involved than alarmed and less proactive about 
making changes in their lives 

Cautious Perceive climate change as an issue but are less certain; do not see 
climate change as a pressing issue that is relevant to them personally; 
less willing to make changes in their lives or endorse a national response 

Disengaged Have not engaged with the issue of climate change; most likely to alter 
their perspectives 

Doubtful Uncertain whether climate change is happening or don’t know; if it is 
occurring, perceive it as caused by natural patterns; do not see climate 
change as a pressing threat that requires action 

Dismissive Believe that climate change is not happening and poses no threats; do 
not see climate change as a pressing threat that requires action; may be 
involved in the issue because of their disbelief in climate change 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i4.377


Wilson & Mukembo  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i4.377   27 
 

Purpose 
 
The purpose of this paper is to assess how extension professionals in Missouri perceive the 
issues of climate change and explore what factors are associated with their views. The specific 
objectives are to: 
1. Describe perceptions of extension professionals regarding issues of climate change based 

on the Six Americas segmentation scale.  
2. Explore factors that influence extension professionals’ perceptions of climate change issues. 
3. Assess how extension professionals frame their communication to engage their audience 

and other stakeholders in addressing climate change issues. 
4. Evaluate perceptions of extension professionals need for additional information and 

training about climate change.  
 

Methods 
 
We conducted an online survey with Missouri extension resources professionals from 
Cooperative Extension and the Missouri Department of Conservation from January-April 2023. 
These groups provide advisory services to landowners and producers across the state. 
Following IRB approval (IRB number: 2095416), we recruited participants by email and through 
organizational listservs. We used quota sampling (Saunders et al., 2012) to obtain a balanced 
number of respondents from each organization and to have similar representation from each 
region of the state.  

The survey tool was adapted from the 15-scale Six Americas audience segmentation typology 
and the complementary manual with instructions on how to use this validated instrument 
(Maibach et al., 2011). This is a standard instrument that has been used by several researchers 
(and revised since 2011). It is a single tool that uses 15 single items, and the authors use 
discriminate analysis to segment the population. The items (alone) are not grouped into 
constructs to run reliability estimates. The reliability estimates for the 15-item scale across the 
six segments ranges from 0.69 to 0.97 (Chryst et al., 2018a; Maibach et al., 2011). These 
reliability estimates fall within the commonly cited estimates of 0.68 to 0.95 (Tavakol & 
Dennick, 2011). We reviewed this tool with a panel consisting of experts in Missouri agriculture, 
extension professionals, and climate scientists. The primary revision we made was to modify 
the wording from “global warming” to “climate change.” The argument for this change was that 
today, climate change is a more common phrase than global warming. We added a set of 
questions specific to the role of extension professionals and how they frame climate issues with 
their stakeholders, asking what terms or phrases they use—or avoid—when talking to 
stakeholders, adapting a list of relevant terms identified in previous research (Getson et al., 
2022). Finally, we asked demographic factors identified in previous research as influential to 
perceptions on climate change.  

We analyzed data using statistical software package SPSS version 29. After cleaning the data for 
missing responses, we included 112 responses in data analysis. This represents a 48.07% 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i4.377


Wilson & Mukembo  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i4.377   28 
 

response rate which falls between the acceptable 30-70% range for social science surveys (Ali 
et., 2020; De Vaus, 2013; Mellahi & Harris, 2016). Further, it exceeded the average response 
rates for online surveys reported by various authors, such as 33.3% (Nulty, 2008), 36.11% (Ali et 
al., 2020), and 44.1% (Wu et al., 2022). It is worth noting that studies with lower response rates 
may actually “yield more accurate results than studies with response rates of 60% to70%” 
(Morton et al., 2012, p. 107). Participant demographics are provided in Table 2. We followed 
directions from the Six Americas Manual to produce a Six Americas classification for each 
respondent according to the 15-item syntax for audience segmentation analysis (Maibach et al., 
2011). This protocol created several composite variables and replaced the small number of 
missing item responses with mean values. We assessed relationships between factors predicted 
to have a relationship with Six Americas segments based on previous research, including 
gender, age, level of education, and ideological leanings. We further explored how responses to 
questions such as “do you feel you need more information on climate change” and “have your 
received formal training on climate change” related to where participants were placed along 
the segments. We also analyzed the few open-ended questions, which added nuance to 
questions such as having received/not received training on climate change. Finally, we explored 
how extension professionals framed conversations around climate issues. 

Findings 
 
Participant Demographics 
 
Objective 1: Describe perceptions of extension professionals regarding issues of climate 
change based on the Six Americas segmentation scale.  
When plainly asked “do you think that climate change is happening?” 83.9% (n = 94) said “yes” 
and 12.5% (n = 14) said “no.” Although participants skewed left toward having more concern 
for climate change, they fell into every category of the six Americas segmentation typology 
(Figure 1). The largest segment was Cautious (30.9%, n = 21), followed by Concerned (29.9%, n = 
19), Alarmed (19.1%, n = 13), Doubtful (10.3%, n = 7), Dismissive (7.4%), then Disengaged (4.4%, 
n = 3).  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i4.377


Wilson & Mukembo  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i4.377   29 
 

Figure 1 
 
Description of extension professionals regarding issues of climate change based on the Six 
Americas segmentation scale. 

 
 
Objective 2: Explore factors that influence extension professionals’ perceptions of climate 
change issues. 
Table 2 provides an overview of how participants were categorized based on different 
demographic factors, including gender, education, ideological leanings, and organization type. 
We used Spearman’s Rho tests to assess whether demographic factors were significantly 
associated with segments; the only statistically significant relationship was between ideological 
leanings and segments, with a negative correlation between conservative leaning ideology and 
being more dismissive of climate change [r(68), = -.647, p = <.001]. This finding was 
compounded where, on an open-ended question asking what type of informal training they did 
on climate change, one participant from the dismissive segment commented: “Climate change 
is an ideology pushed by the progressive left to eliminate fossil fuels in the US.” 

 

19.12%

27.94%
30.88%

4.41%

10.29%
7.35%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Alarmed Concerned Cautious Disengaged Doubtful Dismissive

Pe
rc

en
t o

f p
ar

tic
ip

an
ts

6 Americas Segments

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i4.377


Wilson & Mukembo  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i4.377   30 
 

Table 2  

Six Americas Segments for participants by demographics 
  Total Alarmed Concerned Cautious Disengaged Doubtful Dismissive 
  n % n % n % n % n % n % n % 
Gender 

              

Male 58 51.80% 6 9.5% 11 17.5% 15 23.8% 2 3.2% 3 4.8% 3 4.8% 
Female 27 24.10% 5 7.9% 5 7.9% 4 6.3% 0 0.0% 2 3.2% 0 0.0% 
Non-binary / third gender 0 0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 
Prefer not to say 12 10.70% 1 1.6% 2 3.2% 1 1.6% 1 1.6% 1 1.6% 1 1.6% 

Total 97 86.60% 12 19.0% 18 28.6% 20 31.7% 3 4.8% 6 9.5% 4 6.3% 
Education 

              

Less than high school 
degree 

0 0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 

High school graduate (high 
school diploma or 
equivalent including 
GED) 

0 0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 

Some college but no 
degree 

0 0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 

Associate degree in college 
(2-year) 

0 0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 

Bachelor's degree in 
college (4-year) 

43 38.40% 1 1.5% 9 13.8% 10 15.4% 1 1.5% 4 6.2% 1 1.5% 

Master's degree 42 37.50% 10 15.4% 6 9.2% 5 7.7% 2 3.1% 1 1.5% 4 6.2% 
Doctoral degree 13 11.60% 1 1.5% 3 4.6% 4 6.2% 0 0.0% 1 1.5% 0 0.0% 
Professional degree (JD, 

MD) 
2 1.80% 0 0.0% 1 1.5% 1 1.5% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 

Total 100 89.30% 12 18.5% 19 29.2% 20 30.8% 3 4.6% 6 9.2% 5 7.7% 
Ideological leanings 

              

Very conservative 6 5.4% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 1.7% 0 0.0% 3 5.1% 1 1.7% 
Conservative 41 36.6% 1 1.7% 6 10.2% 10 16.9% 1 1.7% 2 3.4% 3 5.1% 
Moderate 28 25% 6 10.2% 8 13.6% 6 10.2% 0 0.0% 1 1.7% 0 0.0% 
Liberal 10 8.9% 3 5.1% 4 6.8% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 
Very liberal 3 2.7% 2 3.4% 1 1.7% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 

Total 88 78.6% 12 20.3% 19 32.2% 17 28.8% 1 1.7% 6 10.2% 4 6.8% 
Organization type 

              

1862 Land Grant 
University 

55 49.1% 11 16.9% 9 13.8% 9 13.8% 0 0.0% 2 3.1% 5 7.7% 

Farm agency 49 43.8% 2 3.1% 9 13.8% 11 16.9% 3 4.6% 4 6.2% 0 0.0% 

Total 104 92.9% 13 20.0% 18 27.6% 20 30.7% 3 4.6% 6 9.3% 5 7.7% 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i4.377


Wilson & Mukembo  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i4.377   31 
 

Objective 3: Assess how extension professionals frame their communication to engage their 
audience and other stakeholders in addressing climate change issues. 
To assess how extension professionals frame communications around climate issues, we asked 
them about the terms or phrases they use (Table 3). Participants were most likely to use the 
terms/phrases “extreme weather,” “weather variability,” and “long-term weather” but were 
least likely to say things like “climate debate,” “global warming,” and “greenhouse gases.” In 
addition, participants were less likely to use the term/phrases “man-made and/or human-
made” and “climate change.”  

Table 3 
 
How likely are you to use the following terms/phrases when talking to producers about climate 
change issues? 
Term N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation       
 Extreme weather 98 1 5 4.15 0.967 
 Weather variability 98 1 5 4.10 0.879 
 Unusual weather 98 1 5 3.86 1.025 
 Long-term weather 98 1 5 3.79 1.086 
 Uncertainty 98 1 5 3.73 1.051 
 Climate variability 98 1 5 3.41 1.191 
 Climate change 98 1 5 2.91 1.363 
 Rapid change 98 1 5 2.87 1.136 
 Man-made and/or 

human made 
98 1 5 2.83 1.202 

 Greenhouse gases 98 1 5 2.64 1.401 
 Global warming 97 1 5 2.43 1.306 
 Climate debate 98 1 5 2.16 1.062 
Valid N (listwise) 97     

 
In addition to the phrases listed in Table 3, participants outlined other terminologies that they 
would avoid or be cautious about using while talking to producers about climate change. 
Several underscored that they will not talk about climate change specifically because it is too 
“political,” with one participant saying they “won’t talk about climate change in any manner: 
very political situation so [I] avoid upsetting anyone who has polarizing views.” One participant 
wrote: “I talk to producers like I am a producer. If you talk to them like you are from a local 
university, they will not listen!!”  

One participant described their approach to discussing climate change with producers:  
I've done a lot of public presentations that touch on climate change and used audience 
feedback to hone my message. Talking about adapting to certain weather events was 
easy. I found that it was important to stick to things that are simple, observable, and 
difficult to dispute when discussing the existence of climate change and whether 
humans cause it. 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i4.377


Wilson & Mukembo  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i4.377   32 
 

Objective 4: Evaluate perceptions of extension professionals need for additional information 
and training about climate change. 
As part of the six Americas tool, participants were asked whether they felt they needed more 
information to form a firm opinion about climate change on a scale of 1-4, where 1 was “I do 
not need more information” and 4 was “I need a lot more information.” Though the responses 
were relatively evenly distributed (M = 2.63, SD = 1.05) only 26% of the participants indicated 
they did not need more information to form an opinion about climate change (Figure 2). A 
majority of participants indicated they needed information to help them form an opinion about 
climate change. The need for additional information varied with 29% indicating they needed a 
little more information, 26% indicated needing some more information and only 18% indicated 
needing a lot more information. Further, we found a significant negative correlation between 
feeling like they need more information and the six Americas segments; those more dismissive 
of climate change were less likely to say they needed more information [r(108) = -.272, p = 
.025]. 

Figure 2  
 
Participants need for information to form an opinion about climate change

 
Note. Full question: On some issues people feel that they have all the information they need in 
order to form a firm opinion, while on other issues they would like more information before 
making up their mind. For climate change, where would you place yourself? 
 
Further, we explored if a relationship existed between individuals having received formal 
training to communicate with stakeholders about climate change and whether they needed 
more information to form an opinion about climate change. We found a statistically significant 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i4.377


Wilson & Mukembo  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i4.377   33 
 

association with a small effect size between extensional professionals who had not received 
formal training to communicate with stakeholders and their need for information to form an 
opinion about climate change (Cramer’s V = .276, Sig. = .044; see Table 4). More extension 
professionals who had not received formal training on climate change indicated they needed 
more information before they could form an opinion on climate change. Those that received 
training were more likely to indicate that they did not need more information to form an 
opinion.  

 
Table 4 
 
 Association between Participants Receiving Formal Training to Communicate with Stakeholders 
About Climate change and Their Need for Information to Form an Opinion about Climate 
Change 
Need for information 

   

Do not need 
any more 

information 

Need a little 
more 

information 

Need some 
more 

information 

Need lot 
more 

information 

Cramer’s 
V* Sig. 

Received 
formal 
training 
about 
climate 
change 

Yes 2 5 0 0   

No 26 31 30 19   

Total  26 31 30 19 0.276 0.044 
Note. “Yes” was coded 1 and “No” was coded 2. A statistically significant correlation at p < .05. 
Cramer’s V ranges in value from -1 to +1. Values near 0 indicate a very weak relationship, and 
values near 1 indicate a very strong relationship. Cramer’s V = .10 (small effect size); Cramer’s V 
= .30 (medium effect size); Cramer’s V = .50 (large effect size) (Green, Salkind, & Akey, 1997). 
 
As a follow up, participants were asked an open-ended question to indicate if they had received 
any type of informal training on climate change and their sources of information. Their 
responses included doing their own reading (books, research papers), through the media (news 
broadcasts, mainstream media, watching YouTube videos), by virtue of their profession, and a 
few noted that climate change was touched upon in other workshops/presentations they had 
attended, although it was not the focus. A few participants explained that they had learned 
more about “extreme” or “severe” weather, which helped them support their farmer 
stakeholders. One participant noted: “No training but understanding that many farmers are 
frustrated by drought and are looking for help to mitigate losses despite their belief or non-
belief in climate change,” which led them to seek for more information to help address the 
farmer’s concerns. 

 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i4.377


Wilson & Mukembo  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i4.377   34 
 

Conclusions, Discussion, and Recommendations  
 
This study offers insights into how extension professionals serving Missouri perceive climate 
change and how they approach communications with their stakeholders on climate issues. 
Following previous studies conducted elsewhere in the U.S., there was a significant relationship 
between conservative-learning ideology and disbelief that climate change is occurring (Cook et 
al., 2016; Egan & Mullin, 2017; Liu et al., 2014; Ruth & Colclasure, 2023; Tyson et al., 2023; 
Wiest et al., 2015). That said, in a state that leans largely conservative, the majority of 
respondents fell into segments of cautious, concerned, and alarmed (over 75% of all 
participants). With the exception of ideological leanings, other demographic factors were not 
statistically significantly related to perceptions on climate change.  

This study unveiled how extension professionals frame conversations about climate and 
weather variability with their stakeholders. Participants made clear how they are intentional 
about what terms and phrases to use or avoid when trying to reach a producer, and not get 
shut down, as other studies have found (Arbuckle et al., 2014; Mase, 2014). Language that they 
considered “political” was pointedly avoided, and several participants felt the term “climate 
change” itself fell into this category, whether or not they believed in climate change. 
Understanding how these communication professionals approach these conversations has 
implications for how we as a broader scientific community talk about climate change. Previous 
ways that scientists and others have communicated about climate change has put us in this 
place where the word itself is perceived as politically taboo. Rather than presenting “just the 
facts,” climate scientists should engage with extension professionals to better understand what 
is happening in the field and how they can improve their communication approaches (Filho, 
2009; Moser, 2010). 

An overwhelming majority of participants in our study had never received any formal training 
on climate change. Moreover, more participants who had not received formal education on 
how to communicate with stakeholders indicated that they needed additional information to 
form an opinion about climate change. This finding indicates that a need exists to provide 
formal training opportunities to enable extensional resource professionals to form an opinion, 
promote climate literacy and empower them to communicate with stakeholders about issues 
relating to climate change. This leads to the issue of how to conduct trainings and raise climate 
literacy. Several indicated interest in having more resources and training opportunities. Clearly, 
there is need to create forums to discuss and educate people about climate change, but they 
should be participatory forums for two-way conversations between climate experts and 
extension professionals. This process of co-education is essential to improve climate literacy 
and help develop the and right terminologies to use when addressing the stakeholders to 
improve trust between the scientific community and those who translate science to the public. 
To make this a more participatory process, extension professionals should have training to 
develop facilitation skills in discussing controversial topics (Corp & Darnell, 2002). 

Unlike previous research, we included two types of extension resource providers: Cooperative 
Extension and Private Land Conservationists from a state agency. Each of these groups’ role is 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i4.377


Wilson & Mukembo  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i4.377   35 
 

to work closely with farmers and landowners and are important connectors of research and 
how land is managed. While the land grant’s Cooperative Extension provides a valuable service, 
we are long past a time when they are the only professionals providing advisory services to 
producers and landowners. These groups fell similarly along the 6 Americas Segments, with no 
significant differences in perceptions on climate change. Future research would need to recruit 
private agronomists, a group that also plays an important role in advising producers’ decision-
making. There is also a need to explore perceptions of producers and landowners on climate 
change to assess how the views of extension professionals about their stakeholders aligns with 
the reality. 

Acknowledgements 
 
We would like to acknowledge the support of Missouri Department of Conservation, University 
of Missouri’s Cooperative Extension, and Lincoln University’s Cooperative Extension. Thank you 
for the fine work you do on the ground supporting farmers and landowners each day.   
 
Author contributions: 
K. R. Wilson – instrument development, formal analysis, investigation, writing-original draft; S. 
Mukembo – instrument development, formal analysis, investigation, writing-review and 
editing.  

References 
 

Ali, F., Ciftci, O., Nanu, L., Cobanoglu, C., & Ryu, K. (2021). Response rates in hospitality 
research: An overview of current practice and suggestions for future research. Cornell 
Hospitality Quarterly, 62(1), 105–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/1938965520943094  

Arbuckle, J. G., Prokopy, L. S., Haigh, T., Hobbs, J., Knoot, T., Knutson, C., Loy, A., Mase, A. S., 
McGuire, J., & Morton, L. W. (2013). Climate change beliefs, concerns, and attitudes 
toward adaptation and mitigation among farmers in the Midwestern United States. 
Climatic Change, 117, 943–950. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0707-6  

Bowers, A. W., Monroe, M. C., & Adams, D. C. (2016). Climate change communication insights 
from cooperative extension professionals in the US southern states: Finding common 
ground. Environmental Communication, 10(5), 656–670. 
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2016.1176947  

Chen, H., Zhu, Q., Peng, C., Wu, N., Wang, Y., Fang, X., Gao, Y., Zhu, D., Yang, G., Tian, J., Kang, 
X., Piao, S., Ouyang, H., Xiang, W., Luo, Z., Jiang, H., Song, X., Zhang, Y., Yu, G., … Wu, Y. 
(2013). The impacts of climate change and human activities on biogeochemical cycles on 
the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau. Global Change Biology, 19(10), 2940–2955. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12277  

 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i4.377
https://doi.org/10.1177/1938965520943094
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0707-6
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2016.1176947
https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12277


Wilson & Mukembo  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i4.377   36 
 

Chryst, B., Marlon, J., van der Linden, S., Leiserowitz, A., Maibach, E., & Roser-Renouf, C. 
(2018a). “Six Americas short survey”: Audience segmentation of climate change views 
using a four question instrument. Environmental Communication, 12(8), 1109–1122. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2018.1508047  

Cook, J., Oreskes, N., Doran, P. T., Anderegg, W. R., Verheggen, B., Maibach, E. W., Carlton, J. S., 
Lewandowsky, S., Skuce, A. G., & Green, S. A. (2016). Consensus on consensus: A 
synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming. Environmental 
Research Letters, 11(4), 048002. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002  

Corp, M. K., & Darnell, T. (2002). Conflict-laden issues: A learning opportunity. Journal of 
Extension 40(1), 10. https://archives.joe.org/joe/2002february/rb1.php  

De Vaus, D. (2013). Surveys in social research (6th ed.). Routledge. 
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203519196  

Dey, P., & Mishra, A. (2017). Separating the impacts of climate change and human activities on 
streamflow: A review of methodologies and critical assumptions. Journal of Hydrology, 
548, 278–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2017.03.014  

Egan, P. J., & Mullin, M. (2017). Climate change: US public opinion. Annual Review of Political 
Science, 20, 209–227. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051215-022857 

Filho, W. L. (2009). Communicating climate change: Challenges ahead and action needed. 
International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management, 1(1), 6–18. 
https://doi.org/10.1108/17568690910934363  

Getson, J. M., Church, S. P., Radulski, B. G., Sjöstrand, A. E., Lu, J., & Prokopy, L. S. (2022). 
Understanding scientists’ communication challenges at the intersection of climate and 
agriculture. PloS One, 17(8), e0269927. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269927  

James, A. A., Estwick, N. M., & Bryant, A. (2014). Climate change impacts on agriculture and 
their effective communication by Extension agents. Journal of Extension, 52(1), 1. 
https://doi.org/10.34068/joe.52.01.01  

Liu, Z., Smith, W. J., & Safi, A. S. (2014). Rancher and farmer perceptions of climate change in 
Nevada, USA. Climatic Change, 122, 313–327. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-
0979-x  

Maibach, E. W., Leiserowitz, A., Roser-Renouf, C., Mertz, C. K., & Akerlof, K. (2011). Six Americas 
screening tools: Survey instruments; instructions for coding and data treatment; and 
statistical program scripts. Yale Project on Climate Change. 
https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/wp-
content/uploads/2016/02/2012_03_Global-Warming%E2%80%99s-Six-Americas-
Screener-Manual.pdf  

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i4.377
https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2018.1508047
https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
https://archives.joe.org/joe/2002february/rb1.php
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203519196
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2017.03.014
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051215-022857
https://doi.org/10.1108/17568690910934363
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269927
https://doi.org/10.34068/joe.52.01.01
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0979-x
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0979-x
https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/2012_03_Global-Warming%E2%80%99s-Six-Americas-Screener-Manual.pdf
https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/2012_03_Global-Warming%E2%80%99s-Six-Americas-Screener-Manual.pdf
https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/2012_03_Global-Warming%E2%80%99s-Six-Americas-Screener-Manual.pdf


Wilson & Mukembo  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i4.377   37 
 

Mellahi, K., & Harris, L. C. (2016). Response rates in business and management research: An 
overview of current practice and suggestions for future direction. British Journal of 
Management, 27(2), 426–437. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12154  

Moser, S. C. (2010). Communicating climate change: History, challenges, process and future 
directions. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 1(1), 31–53. 
https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.11  

Morton, S. M., Bandara, D. K., Robinson, E. M., & Carr, P. E. A. (2012). In the 21st Century, what 
is an acceptable response rate? Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 
36(2), 106–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1753-6405.2012.00854.x  

Nulty, D. D. (2008). The adequacy of response rates to online and paper surveys: What can be 
done? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(3), 301–314. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930701293231 

Prokopy, L. S., Bartels, W.-L., Burniske, G., & Power, R. (2017). Agricultural extension and 
climate change communication. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Climate Science. 
https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.013.429  

Prokopy, L. S., Morton, L. W., Arbuckle Jr, J. G., Mase, A. S., & Wilke, A. K. (2015). Agricultural 
stakeholder views on climate change: Implications for conducting research and 
outreach. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 96(2), 181–190. 
https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00172.1  

Ruth, T., & Colclasure, B. (2023). The media’s influence on climate change beliefs: A partisan 
comparison. Advancements in Agricultural Development, 4(2), 20–33. 
https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i2.263  

Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2012). Quota sampling. Business Research 
Methodology. https://research-methodology.net/sampling-in-primary-data-
collection/quota-sampling/  

Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. International Journal of 
Medical Education, 2, 53–55. https://doi.org/10.5116%2Fijme.4dfb.8dfd  

Tyson, A., Funk, C., & Kennedy, B. (2023). What the data says about Americans’ views of climate 
change. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-
reads/2023/04/18/for-earth-day-key-facts-about-americans-views-of-climate-change-
and-renewable-energy/  

Weber, E. U. (2006). Experience-based and description-based perceptions of long-term risk: 
Why global warming does not scare us (yet). Climatic Change, 77(1–2), 103–120. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-006-9060-3  

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i4.377
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12154
https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.11
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1753-6405.2012.00854.x
https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930701293231
https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.013.429
https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00172.1
https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i2.263
https://research-methodology.net/sampling-in-primary-data-collection/quota-sampling/
https://research-methodology.net/sampling-in-primary-data-collection/quota-sampling/
https://doi.org/10.5116%2Fijme.4dfb.8dfd
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/18/for-earth-day-key-facts-about-americans-views-of-climate-change-and-renewable-energy/
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/18/for-earth-day-key-facts-about-americans-views-of-climate-change-and-renewable-energy/
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/18/for-earth-day-key-facts-about-americans-views-of-climate-change-and-renewable-energy/
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-006-9060-3


Wilson & Mukembo  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i4.377   38 
 

Weber, E. U. (2010). What shapes perceptions of climate change? Wiley Interdisciplinary 
Reviews: Climate Change, 1(3), 332–342. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.41  

Wiest, S. L., Raymond, L., & Clawson, R. A. (2015). Framing, partisan predispositions, and public 
opinion on climate change. Global Environmental Change, 31, 187–198. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.12.006  

Wilke, A. K., & Morton, L. W. (2015). Climatologists’ communication of climate science to the 
agricultural sector. Science Communication, 37(3), 371–395. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547015581927  

Wu, M.-J., Zhao, K., & Fils-Aime, F. (2022). Response rates of online surveys in published 
research: A meta-analysis. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 7, 100206. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2022.100206  

 

 
 
© 2023 by authors. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of 
the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i4.377
https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.41
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.12.006
https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547015581927
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2022.100206

