Attitude Changes of Stakeholders towards Climate Change Adaptation Policies in Agricultural Sector by Online Deliberation
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. Background
1.2. Objective
2. Methods
2.1. Setting a Deliberation Community
2.2. Progress of Online Deliberations
2.3. Materials by Experts
2.4. Data in Deliberation
3. Results
3.1. Evaluation of Deliberation Process
3.2. Changes in Mindset and Attitudes before and after Deliberation
3.2.1. Realization of Climate Change Impacts
3.2.2. Perceived Effectiveness of Climate Change Adaptation Policies
3.2.3. Goal Intention of Climate Change Impacts and Damages in the Agriculture and Rural Areas
3.2.4. Pros and Cons of Climate Change Adaptation Policies in Agriculture and Rural Areas
3.3. Other Factors Prompt Changes in Mindset and Attitudes: Trust in Each Actor
3.4. Model Analysis
4. Discussions
4.1. Changes of Determinants of Preference for Policy through Deliberation
4.2. Effect of the Deliberation Process
4.3. Future Challenges for Online Deliberation
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Pachauri, R.K.; Allen, M.R.; Barros, V.R.; Broome, J.; Cramer, W.; Christ, R.; Church, J.A.; Clarke, L.; Dahe, Q.; van Ypserle, J.P.; et al. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; IPCC (The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change): Geneva, Switzeland, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Climate Variability in Japan. Japan Meteorological Agency. Available online: http://www.data.jma.go.jp/cpdinfo/chishiki_ondanka/p08 (accessed on 27 March 2021). (In Japanese)
- Changes in Heavy Rains and Extreme Hot Days. Japan Meteorological Agency. Available online: http://www.data.jma.go.jp/cpdinfo/extreme/extreme_p.html (accessed on 27 March 2021). (In Japanese)
- Extreme Weather Risk Map. Japan Meteorological Agency. Available online: http://www.data.jma.go.jp/cpdinfo/riskmap/sfc_wetdry.html (accessed on 27 March 2021). (In Japanese)
- Climate Change Impact Survey Report FY2019; Agricultural Production Bureau, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries: Tokyo, Japan, 2020. Available online: https://www.maff.go.jp/j/seisan/kankyo/ondanka/attach/pdf/index-96.pdf. (In Japanese)
- The Consensus Conference Report on Genetically Modified Crops (Reprint); Japan Association for Techno-innovation in Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries: Tokyo, Japan, 2001. (In Japanese)
- Kobayashi, T. Who Thinks about Science and Technology? An Experiment Called a Consensus Conference; The University of Nagoya Press: Nagoya, Japan, 2004. (In Japanese) [Google Scholar]
- Wakamatsu, Y. Consensus Conference on Genetically Modified Crops–to Create a Framework for Thinking about Problems. Agric. Econ. 2001, 7, 31–39. (In Japanese) [Google Scholar]
- Results of Deliberative Polling® Energy and Environmental Policy Options in Japan; Stanford University: Stanford, CA, USA, 2012.
- Fishkin, J.S. When the People Speak: Deliberative Democracy and Public Consultation; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Sone, Y.; Yanase, N.; Uekihara, H.; Shimada, K. “Learn, Think, Talk” Deliberative Poll-A New Mechanism of Discussion; Kirakusha: Tokyo, Japan, 2013. (In Japanese) [Google Scholar]
- Fishkin, J.S.; He, B.; Luskin, R.C.; Siu, A. Deliberative Democracy in an Unlikely Place: Deliberative Polling in China. Br. J. Political Sci. 2010, 40, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Luskin, R.C.; Fishkin, J.S.; Jowell, R. Considered Opinions: Deliberative Polling in Britain. Br. J. Political Sci. 2002, 32, 455–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cohen, J. Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy. In Debates in Contemporary Political Philosophy: An Anthology; Matravers, D., Pike, J., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2003; pp. 342–360. [Google Scholar]
- Takahashi, K. Public Service Reform and Public Dialogue: Toward Public Administration Considering the Study of Discussion and Deliberation. Himeji Law Rev. 2015, 56, 119–183. (In Japanese) [Google Scholar]
- Hendriks, C.M. Lay Citizen Deliberations: Consensus Conferences and Planning Cells. In The Deliberative Democracy Handbook: Strategies for Effective Civic Engagement in the 21st Century; Gastil, J., Levine, P., Eds.; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2005; pp. 80–110. [Google Scholar]
- Dryzek, J.; Tucker, A. Deliberative Innovation to Different Effect: Consensus Conferences in Denmark, France, and the United States. Public Adm. Rev. 2008, 68, 864–876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Papacharissi, Z. The Virtual Sphere: The Internet as a Public Sphere. New Media Soc. 2002, 4, 9–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Collins, L.; Nerlich, B. Examining User Comments for Deliberative Democracy: A Corpus-driven Analysis of the Climate Change Debate Online. Environ. Commun. 2014, 9, 189–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pina, V.; Torres, L.; Royo, S. Comparing Online with Offline Citizen Engagement for Climate Change: Findings from Austria, Germany and Spain. Gov. Inf. Q. 2017, 34, 26–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bojovic, D.; Bonzanigo, L.; Giupponi, C.; Maziotis, A. On-line Participation in Climate Change Adaptation: A Case Study of Agricultural Adaptation Measures in Northern Italy. J. Environ. Manag. 2015, 157, 8–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Schäfer, M.S. Online Communication on Climate Change and Climate Politics: A Literature Review. Wires Clim. Change 2012, 3, 527–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shank, G. Abductive Multiloguing: The Semiotic Dynamics of Navigating the Net. Arachnet Electron. J. Virtual Cult. 1993, 1, 1–13. [Google Scholar]
- Talpin, J.; Wojcik, S. Deliberating Environmental Policy Issues: Comparing the Learning Potential of Online and Face-to-face Discussions on Climate Change. Policy Int. 2010, 2, 61–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Janssen, D.; Kies, R. Online Forums and Deliberative Democracy. Acta Política 2005, 40, 317–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wojcieszak, M. Deliberation and Attitude Polarization. J. Commun. 2011, 61, 596–617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baek, Y.M.; Wojcieszak, M.; Delli Carpini, M.X. Online vs. Face-to-face Deliberation: Who? Why? What? With What Effects? N. Media Soc. 2012, 14, 363–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Baba, K.; Kito, M.; Takatsu, H.; Matsuura, M. Stakeholders’ Attitudes Change on Wood Biomass Utilization by Online Deliberation. J. JSCE 2015, 71, 235–246. (In Japanese) [Google Scholar]
- Davies, T.; Gangadharan, S.P. Online Deliberation: Design, Research and Practice; CSLI Publications/University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Harashina, T. The Problems and Possibilities of Online Based-Deliberative Forums: The Consideration about Applying Video-Chatting Technology to Deliberation. Proc. Soc. Socio Inform. 2013, 95–100. (In Japanese) [Google Scholar]
- Baba, K.; Takatsu, H. Stakeholders’ Attitude Change on Resource Trade-off between Geothermal Generation and Hot Spring by Online Deliberative Experiment. J. Sociotechnology 2017, 14, 58–72. (In Japanese) [Google Scholar]
- Price, V.; Nir, L.; Cappella, J.N. Normative and Informational Influences in Online Political Discussions. Commun. Theory 2006, 16, 47–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Albrecht, S. Whose Voice is Heard in Online Deliberation? A Study of Participation and Representation in Political Debates on the Internet. Inf. Commun. Soc. 2006, 9, 62–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, Z.; Zhang, W. Bracketing or Reinforcing? Socio-economic Status, Network Power, and Online Deliberation. Telemat. Inform. 2020, 52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schäfer, A. Deliberation in Representative Institutions: An Analytical Framework for a Systemic Approach. Aust. J. Political Sci. 2017, 52, 419–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Romsdahl, R.J. Deliberative Framing: Opening up Discussions for Local-level Public Engagement on Climate Change. Clim. Chang. 2020, 162, 145–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hamada, S.; Yagishita, M. Consideration on Deliberation in Stakeholders’ Dialogue–Through the practical of “EST Stakeholders Conference”. Sociotechnica 2011, 8, 170–181. (In Japanese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baba, K.; Doi, M.; Tanaka, M. Developing Future Scenarios for Climate Change Adaptation Policy: Case Study of Farming Community in Japan. In Handbook of Climate Change Management; Filho, W.F., Luetz, J.M., Ayal, D.Y., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: New York, NY, USA, 2021; forthcoming. [Google Scholar]
- Iwami, A.; Kimura, M.; Matsui, T.; Baba, K. Visualization of Relationship between Topics Discussed in Online Deliberation about Climate Change Adaptation. J. Environ. Inf. Sci. 2016, 30, 311–316. (In Japanese) [Google Scholar]
- Baba, K.; Sugimoto, T.; Kubota, H.; Hijioka, Y.; Tanaka, M. Facotrs to Determine Risk Perception of Climate Change, and Attitude toward Adaptation Policy of the Public. J. JSCE 2011, 67, 405–413. (In Japanese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Li, D.; Zhao, L.; Ma, S.; Shao, S.; Zhang, L. What Influences an Individual’s Pro-environmental Behavior? A Literature Review. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 146, 28–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taniguchi, H.; Marshall, G.A. Trust, Political Orientation, and Environmental Behavior. Environ. Politics 2018, 27, 385–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wynveen, C.J.; Sutton, S.G. Engaging the Public in Climate Change-related Pro-environmental Behaviors to Protect Coral Reefs: The Role of Public Trust in the Management Agency. Marine Policy 2015, 53, 131–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kline, R.B. Methodology in the Social Sciences. In Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 2nd ed.; Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Baba, K.; Iwami, A.; Amanuma, E. Analysis on Attitudes and Behaviors of Stakeholders for Climate Change Adaptation Policy in Disaster Risk Reduction by Online Deliberation Experiment. J. JSCE 2019, 75, 151–159. (In Japanese) [Google Scholar]
- Truelove, H.B.; Carrico, A.R.; Thabrew, L. A Socio-psychological Model for Analyzing Climate Change Adaptation: A Case Study of Sri Lankan Paddy Farmers. Glob. Environ. Change 2015, 31, 85–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Valkengoed, A.M.; Steg, L. Meta-analyses of Factors Motivating Climate Change Adaptation Behaviour. Nat. Clim. Change 2019, 9, 158–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sanderson, M.R.; Bergtold, J.S.; Heier Stamm, J.L.H.; Caldas, M.M.; Ramsey, S.M.; Aistrup, J. Climate Change Beliefs in an Agricultural Context: What is the Role of Values Held by Farming and Non-farming Groups? Clim. Change 2018, 150, 259–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baba, K.; Matsuura, M.; Kudo, T.; Watanabe, S.; Kawakubo, S.; Chujo, A.; Tanaka, H.; Tanaka, M. Climate Change Adaptation Strategies of Local Governments in Japan: A Survey. Oxf. Res. Encycl. Clim. Sci. 2017, 1–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Question 1: Involvement with agriculture | (i) Farmer (ii) Processor of agricultural products (iii) Distributor and/or sellers of agricultural products (iv) Consumer with a keen interest in agricultural produce (v) Having a home garden (vi) A neighbor, acquaintance, friend, family member, or relative is a farmer | (vii) None of them applies -> remove |
Question 2: Residence | Lives in one of eight prefectures whose annual average temperature is at or below 14 degrees Celsius: Fukushima, Miyagi, Nagano, Akita, Yamagata, Iwate, Aomori, Hokkaido | Respondents, who selected (iv)–(vi) from question 1, but does not live in these eight prefectures -> remove |
Question 3: Interest in global environmental problems | (ii) Has some level of interest due to news and newspaper articles (iii) Interested enough to research through books and the Internet (iv) Interested from a professional point of view (business or expert level) | (i) Not particularly interested -> remove |
Participants (Agri Stakeholders) | Sex Ratio (M/F) | Average Age | Thoughts on Agricultural Policies | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Community A | 28 (14) | 21/7 | 44.6 | No significant difference was observed among communities in terms of the degree of agreement for all five questions |
Community B | 28 (10) | 18/10 | 43.4 | |
Community C | 28 (15) | 21/7 | 44.5 |
Date | Theme | Details |
---|---|---|
Day 1 (before deliberation starts) | - | Questionnaire survey |
Day 1–3 | Theme A: Self-introduction | Opening: every participant introduces himself/herself after the moderator self-introduction |
Day 3–5 | Theme B: Impacts of climate change in Japan | Materials by experts I: Present materials by experts on climate change overall, and discuss questions and opinions based on the materials |
Day 5–8 | Theme C: Japan 30 years later and affected by climate change | Materials by experts II: Present materials by experts on impacts of climate change on agriculture, and discuss questions and opinions based on the materials |
Day 8–11 | Theme D: Future scenarios | Materials by experts III: Present materials that reorganized material II into three types of scenarios, and discuss questions and opinions based on the materials |
Day 11–13 | Theme E: The most important option | Selection of policy options: Participants discuss what they believe is the most important policy option based on all materials considered thus far |
Day 14 | Theme F: Greetings of the ending | Ending: Moderator announces the end of deliberation and participants share their thoughts |
Day 14 (after the end of deliberation) | - | Questionnaire survey |
Deliberation as a Whole | Mean of the Evaluation |
1. Active discussions took place among participants | 3.68 |
2. Discussions moved forward with few individuals, who expressed their views frequently at the core | 3.35 |
3. Participants were able to engage in discussions mutually | 3.27 |
4. Opinions of every participant were discussed equally | 3.05 |
Participants’ Own Status | Mean of the Evaluation |
5. Participants were generally able to state their opinions and thoughts | 3.88 |
6. Participants were able to know the opinions of others in the community | 4.22 |
7. Other participants listened to my opinions intently | 3.8 |
8. My opinions were discussed to a satisfying extent | 3.12 |
9. It was difficult to discuss the prioritization of policy options with the community | 3.93 |
10. My opinions and thoughts changed through discussions in the community | 3.18 |
Participants Collecting Information (Multiple Answers) | N (% of Respondents) |
1. Casually searched on the Internet, etc. | 74 (78.3) |
2. Read books thoroughly | 11 (18.3) |
3. Discussed with families, friends, and acquaintances | 15 (25.0) |
4. Did nothing | 9 (15.0) |
Before | After | |
---|---|---|
The extent to which you consider global warming to be serious regarding the impact and damage to agriculture and rural areas (where 0 = not serious at all, and 100 = extremely serious with no time to waste for the implementation of countermeasures) * | 70.0 | 74.5 |
Before | After | |
---|---|---|
1. Monitoring and provision of information for areas identified as prone to the impacts of global warming | 3.63 | 3.85 |
2. Development of an economic system that compensates by insurance (including both public and private) in case there was an impact due to global warming ** | 3.03 | 3.63 |
3. Ensure food production through the transfer of cultivation areas for crops to appropriate areas, crop breeding, etc. * | 3.52 | 3.88 |
4. Secure water resources, such as measures against drought and using water recycled from sewage, rainwater, etc. | 3.80 | 4.02 |
5. Health measures, such as preventive measures for heat strokes, development of vaccines and new therapeutic drugs for infections, and measures against mosquitoes carrying diseases | 3.57 | 3.75 |
6. Measures for disaster prevention, such as conservation of coasts, construction of levees, and sediment management | 3.50 | 3.77 |
Goal Intention as a “Farmer“ on the Following | Before | After |
1. I want to keep growing same crops and varieties as I do now, even if color, size, and shape of the crops worsen due to global warming | 2.87 | 3.03 |
2. I want to keep growing same crops and varieties as I do now, even if the taste and texture of the crops worsen due to global warming | 2.43 | 2.47 |
3. I want to keep growing same crops and varieties as I do now, even if the yield of crops decline due to global warming | 2.55 | 2.68 |
4. I welcome crops and varieties that fit the environment and not persist on previous crops I grew if agricultural environment changed due to global warming * | 3.93 | 4.13 |
5. I want to quit agriculture if I can no longer produce crops as I have done in the past (quality, yield, taste, etc.) because of global warming | 3.03 | 2.97 |
Goal Intention as a “Consumer” on the Following | Before | After |
1. I want to keep purchasing crops without minding worsened color, size, and shape of the crops as a result of global warming * | 3.70 | 3.97 |
2. I want to keep purchasing crops without minding worsened taste and texture of the crops as a result of global warming | 2.82 | 2.97 |
3. I want to keep purchasing crops even if price goes up due to global warming ** | 2.85 | 3.18 |
4. I want to keep purchasing crops even if varieties become limited due to global warming ** | 3.33 | 3.72 |
5. I want to keep purchasing crops even if a new variety is offered as a result of global warming * | 3.62 | 3.95 |
6. I want to keep purchasing crops even if production areas for the crops change due to global warming * | 3.67 | 4.02 |
Before | After | |
---|---|---|
1. Current form of agriculture should be protected by sufficiently building infrastructures, such as water and agricultural facilities to prevent impacts and damages in agriculture | 3.68 | 3.43 |
2. Measures and efforts should be implemented, such as conversion of varieties and items, by adjusting to local conditions to reduce impacts and damages in agriculture in our lives | 4.03 | 4.00 |
3. Areas in which impacts and damages in agriculture occurs frequently should consider move or retreat to areas more suitable than current farmlands | 3.37 | 3.37 |
4. There is no way to know the level of impacts and damages to agriculture or when they may occur, and compensation should be made via insurance or mutual aid system, just in case | 2.97 | 3.17 |
5. There is no need to implement any measures because we do not know when and to what extent there are impacts and damages to agriculture | 2.15 | 1.87 |
Local Government Officials | Local Officials in Charge of Agricultural Policy and Staff at Agricultural and Fruit Tree Experiment Stations | Local JA Officials | Individual Farmers | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Can perform duties and tasks | 3.05 | 3.15 | 2.83 | 2.83 |
Work diligently to perform duties | 2.88 | 2.98 | 2.92 | 2.82 |
Reliable | 2.60 | 2.88 | 2.83 | 3.03 |
Trustworthy | 2.72 | 2.92 | 2.73 | 3.07 |
AGFI | CFI | RMSEA | I | II | III | IV | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Precautionary measures (before) | 0.824 | 0.922 | 0.097 | 0.515 ** | |||
Precautionary measures (after) | 0.719 | 0.883 | 0.149 | 0.387 ** | 0.306 * | ||
Adaptive measures (before) | 0.834 | 0.961 | 0.079 | 0.495 ** | |||
Adaptive measures (after) | 0.665 | 0.879 | 0.127 | 0.470 ** | 0.307 * | −0.423 ** | |
Transformative measures (before) | 0.792 | 0.931 | 0.109 | 0.563 ** | |||
Transformative measures (after) | 0.741 | 0.921 | 0.166 | 0.498 ** | |||
Transferring risk (before) | 0.723 | 0.880 | 0.121 | 0.371 ** | 0.436 ** | ||
Transferring risk (after) | 0.805 | 0.977 | 0.069 | 0.507 ** | 0.233 * |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Baba, K.; Amanuma, E.; Kosugi, M. Attitude Changes of Stakeholders towards Climate Change Adaptation Policies in Agricultural Sector by Online Deliberation. Climate 2021, 9, 75. https://doi.org/10.3390/cli9050075
Baba K, Amanuma E, Kosugi M. Attitude Changes of Stakeholders towards Climate Change Adaptation Policies in Agricultural Sector by Online Deliberation. Climate. 2021; 9(5):75. https://doi.org/10.3390/cli9050075
Chicago/Turabian StyleBaba, Kenshi, Eri Amanuma, and Motoko Kosugi. 2021. "Attitude Changes of Stakeholders towards Climate Change Adaptation Policies in Agricultural Sector by Online Deliberation" Climate 9, no. 5: 75. https://doi.org/10.3390/cli9050075