Next Article in Journal
Enhanced Phosphorus Recovery as Vivianite from Anaerobically Digested Sewage Sludge with Magnetic Biochar Addition
Previous Article in Journal
Definition, Role, and Functions of Soil Related to the Knowledge Society and the Someș-Tisa Hydrographic Area (Romania)
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Climate Change—Between “Myth and Truth” in Romanian Farmers’ Perception

1
Faculty of Management and Rural Development, University of Agronomic Sciences and Veterinary Medicine, 010961 Bucharest, Romania
2
Office for Rural Development, Research Institute for Agriculture Economy and Rural Development, 010961 Bucharest, Romania
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(14), 8689; https://doi.org/10.3390/su14148689
Submission received: 6 May 2022 / Revised: 13 July 2022 / Accepted: 14 July 2022 / Published: 15 July 2022

Abstract

:
The study analyzes the awareness of the effects of climate change on agriculture and the measures that should be implemented in this regard from the farmer’s perspective, taking into account the financial and promotional measures supported by the European Union for farmers. Thus, the study tracks the level of openness of farmers to implementing the measures that European policy makers will take in the coming period. Taking into account the fact that agriculture plays a particularly important economic role, due to the share of agricultural products in Romania’s total exports, particularly in plant production, a quantitative survey was carried out among Romanian farmers, using a questionnaire as an instrument, with a total of 407 respondents. The farmers interviewed undoubtedly recognize that the problems they face are caused by the effects of climate change and are willing to adapt, seek and implement the necessary solutions. The most problematic climatic phenomenon identified by farmers (71.5%) is drought, with negative effects on their activity. At the same time, 54.15% of the respondents believe that the effects of climate change are affecting their business through lower yields. Although the farmers interviewed are willing to implement solutions to combat climate effects, 80.34% of them are not considering revising cropping patterns, giving more importance to market demand than to practices that protect the environment. In conclusion, as long as farmers feel and understand the effects of climate change, it cannot be a myth, especially if they are willing to adapt to these challenges.

1. Introduction

Climate change is a topic of particular importance, being on the agenda of European decision-makers [1], underpinning many programs and for which significant amounts of money are allocated [2,3,4].
Climate change represents a change in the statistical distribution of weather patterns and takes into account an extended period of time. The first measures to combat the phenomenon were initiated in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 with the signing of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, when 194 countries agreed to take long-term measures to stabilize the concentration of greenhouse gases and prevent dangerous human influence on the climate system [5,6,7,8,9]. Five years later, measures to combat climate change were agreed to in Kyoto, where commitments were signed to reduce greenhouse emissions between 2008 and 2012 [9,10,11,12].
Among the main challenges facing agriculture today are extreme weather events such as drought and floods [13,14,15]. These occur more and more frequently, throughout the world, and farmers must adapt to these changes, but they must also take into account the need to ensure food security as the world’s population grows and to use natural resources sustainably [15,16,17,18]. Agriculture should not be seen as the main cause of the increase in greenhouse gas emissions, rising temperatures or the increase in the frequency of extreme events but rather as an ally in mitigating climate change, by selecting local crop or livestock varieties that can help reduce the environmental impact of agriculture and also by implementing management practices to conserve soil [18,19,20,21,22]. The impact that agriculture will have on climate change mitigation in the future depends to a large extent on the rural policies that are or will be implemented [22,23,24,25].
Although in recent years the number of holdings has decreased considerably, from 4.485 million holdings in 2002 to 2.887 million holdings registered in 2020, agricultural land fragmentation remains a topical problem characterizing Romanian agriculture [26,27,28]. The high number of agricultural holdings is mainly due to land fragmentation, a phenomenon that started immediately after 1990, when property (including agricultural land) was retroceded to living heirs [28,29,30,31].
The degree of agricultural training was a weak link in the knowledge of Romanian farmers, which, with the accession to the European Union and its conditions for accessing European funds [29], forced farmers to train in this area, but nevertheless, the percentage of farmers with higher education is quite low [32,33,34,35,36].
Not so long ago, the effects of climate change were viewed with scepticism by rural people [29], whose main activity is farming, and were more likely to be attributed to folk beliefs (traditions that are sacredly observed and differ from one cultural area to another) [28,30].
National research shows that a significant proportion of farmers depend on agricultural subsidies, which determines the continuity of farming for them, so interest in agriculture has increased with Romania’s accession to the European Union and with the increase in farmers’ income determined by the grant of subsidies [37,38,39,40,41].
Although Romania’s agricultural potential is huge, the two sectors—agriculture and livestock—are divided and poorly interconnected, and they operate largely independently of each other [42,43,44,45]. This hinders the development of Romanian agriculture, so agricultural products of plant origin do not provide high added value and are exported in this form [46,47].
Association is another bottleneck in Romanian agriculture, wherein farmers avoid cooperating to obtain better prices for inputs, attract EU funds, process production or market their products [29]. In 2020, there were only 112 agricultural cooperatives, down 48% from the previous year [30].
The value of agricultural crop production accounts for approximately 65% of the total value of agricultural production in 2020, the value of livestock production for 33% and agricultural services for only 2.3% [26,28,30]. This indicates the profile of Romanian agriculture, which relies mainly on plant-based agriculture for raw material production, without being integrated into the livestock sector, in order to obtain added value [29].
The export of agricultural products is a basic component of the national economy, such that, out of the total 74.7 billion euros that were the total value of exports in 2021, 8.6% was the value of agricultural products. At the same time, of the total agricultural products, the value of plant products had a share of 84.2%, compared to live animals and animal products, which only constituted 15.8% of the total [34,37].
It is therefore important to find out how open Romanian farmers are to the new guidelines set for the implementation of new environmental protection policies and what measures can be taken before they become mandatory. Undoubtedly, farmers are the main beneficiaries of the results of research studies and thus the main actors implementing climate change measures. This study analyzes the awareness of the effects of climate change on agriculture and the measures that should be implemented in this respect from the farmer’s perspective, taking into account the financial and promotional measures supported by the European Union among farmers. Thus, the study tracks the level and openness of farmers regarding future measures that European decision makers will take in the near future.
Many researchers in the field see climate change as the biggest threat, jeopardizing food security as the demand for food grows [48,49,50,51]. To avoid this problem, the use of fertilizers and pesticides has been called for, but this method involves the use of finite and unsustainable resources [52,53,54]. With this in mind, scientists have begun to place greater emphasis on sustainability and increasing the resilience of crops to climate change [55,56].
A survey conducted in major agricultural areas that measures farmers’ awareness of climate change and wastewater use for irrigation shows that farmers with sufficient resources are more able to cope with the negative effects of climate change [57].
The pressure to adapt is greatest in poor countries, where this capacity faces serious problems [58,59]. Some adaptation measures seem easier to implement, building on existing technologies, but others need new technologies or policy reforms to encourage them [60,61].
The predictions of climate change are bleak, indicating significant changes in the coming decades that will force people and communities to respond. Researchers are studying the effects of climate change, but most often they are not integrated into agriculture. The paper “Integrating Agriculture and Ecosystems to Find Suitable Adaptations to Climate Change” describes why ecosystem and agricultural adaptation must be taken from an integrated analytical perspective [59]. In some countries, climate change can represent real opportunities, as presented in the study “Climate change transformations in Nordic agriculture?”. By conducting research to identify adaptation measures, interviews were conducted with farmers in the most fertile areas of Sweden and Finland, identifying the extent to which their farming systems are being transformed. The results indicate that changes are still occurring, most of which are progressive. Farmers find agricultural policies and regulations more difficult than regulations to adapt to climate change [61].
Lately, research is also focusing on impact-based solutions according to farmers’ gender. Thus, measures on climate change adaptation can be improved if they are linked to the type of climate risks to which, for example, women in agriculture are exposed. The study “Women in agriculture and climate risks: hotspots for development” highlights barriers for women (farmers) when it comes to access to labor, credit or the fact that wages in agriculture are lower for women than for men. Given these shortcomings, climate change measures that women can undertake are more difficult to implement [61].
Implementing climate change mitigation measures is costly to achieve the targets set. Studies indicate that funding in developing countries for this segment is still not sufficient to achieve tangible results. However, most of the implemented European policies have helped farmers move towards sustainable agriculture [62]. For instance, monetary policy uncertainty has negative short- and long-term effects on renewable energy consumption, a result that demonstrates the need for vital changes in both renewable and non-renewable energy policies to accommodate monetary policy uncertainties [63].
Recent research has shown that a positive change in education contributes to an increase in green energy consumption in countries such as Brazil, Russia, India or China, but all of these involve considerable costs [64].
According to some authors, climate change and agriculture can be seen as two key elements contributing to population migration. Given that the effects of climate change will cause significant economic damage, migration may be a specific form of population response. However, policy actions related to sustainable agriculture and rural development can contribute to the above-mentioned approaches and create opportunities for migration [65].

2. Materials and Methods

In the first part of the study, a bibliometric analysis of the state of research on climatic effects in agriculture was carried out to highlight the interest shown by researchers in this field, as limiting the effects of climate change cannot be done without each other [66].
VOSviewer software was used for the bibliometric analysis and the data collected came from the Web of Science database, for which the topic agriculture and climate change was searched. The three steps for making a map are shown in the Figure 1 below [65].
Taking into account the fact that agriculture plays a very important economic role, due to the share of agricultural products in the total imports made by Romania, especially in plant production, a quantitative survey was conducted, using a questionnaire as an instrument, among Romanian farmers, with a total of 407 respondents. A questionnaire consisting of a set of 18 open questions with several answer options was sent to them electronically.
The second part of this study covers the sampling method used, convenience sampling using the snowball method [67,68]. This method is usually used for samples that are more difficult to identify and specific to qualitative research. Thus, it starts with a low number of participants, which increases as the questionnaire is promoted [69,70]. The questionnaire was administered in October–November 2021.
The purpose of the questionnaire was to identify whether Romanian farmers are aware of the effects caused by climate change and know what measures should be taken to combat them. Furthermore, through the set of questions, the level of awareness and the level of preparedness in terms of taking measures to combat the effects of climate change were determined.
Hypothesis 1 (H1).
There is a significant link between the level of education and the ability to understand climate change phenomena.
Hypothesis 2 (H2).
There is a significant link between the area farmed by farmers and their perceived impacts associated with climate change.
Hypothesis 3 (H3).
There is a significant link between the level of studies and the nature of the measures farmers are considering implementing on their farms.
Figure 2 shows the territorial distribution of the farmers surveyed, which generally maintains the territorial distribution of the farms found in Romania, in percentage terms.
The data obtained were analyzed quantitatively using the SPSS e statistical software (SPSS Statistics 20, IBM Software Group, Chicago, IL, USA), for which the frequency, chi-square value, contingency coefficient and Pearsons coefficient were determined [65,66].
The independent variables are the type of farm set-up, level of education, main source of on-farm finance and total agricultural area farmed.
The structure of the sample analyzed is as follows:
  • Type of holding: 76.41%—Limited Liability Company (LLC), 11.55%—Individual Enterprise (I.I.), 5.90%—Family Enterprise (F.E.), 2.70%—Authorized Natural Person (A.N.P.), 1.97%—Joint Stock Company (S.A.), 1.47%—Agricultural Cooperative (C.A.);
  • Level of education of the farm manager: 55.04%—secondary education, 27.52%—general education, 17.44%—university education;
  • Main source of financing on the farm: 50.12%—own sources from the marketing of production, 31.45%—subsidies, 18.43%—bank credit;
  • Total agricultural area explained: 54.79%—50–99.9 ha, 23.59% > 100 ha, 15.72%—30–49.9 ha, 3.93%—10–19.9 ha, 1.97%—<10 ha.

3. Results

The large number of papers on agriculture and climate change illustrates the research concerns on this topic. Thus, 74,465 papers were written between 1935 and 2022 (Figure 3).
The research areas in which these papers fall are: environmental science (22,418 papers), ecology (9443 papers), atmospheric science methodology (7280 papers), agronomy (7046 papers), water resources (6422 papers), environmental studies (6250 papers) and plant science (5588 papers). Other areas in which papers have been written are: soil science, agriculture, horticulture, geography, biology, urban studies, sociology, pathology and business finance (Figure 3).
The papers have been written since 1935, reaching their peak in 2012 with 80 papers and decreasing in subsequent years to 14 papers in 2020 (Figure 3).
With the help of the Web of Science database, a database has been generated in which all publications on the subject of agriculture and climate change have been entered.
The main keywords are weather, climate change, precipitation, yields, food security, climate and agricultural conservation. They are grouped into four clusters.
The first cluster is represented by climate change, risk, economic impact, weather, resources, irrigation, insurance, yields and fluctuations.
The second cluster is represented by agriculture, urbanization, forests, crop production, communities, quality, integrated assessment, area used, urbanization, options, energy, climate, livestock and gender.
The third cluster includes key terms such as variability, temperatures, strategies, models, yields, precipitation, temperatures, sensitivity, potential impact, trends, carbon dioxide, future climate, test, rice production, wheat, climate resilience, water management, uncertainty and variability.
The fourth cluster includes terms such as food security, agroecology, systems, migration, farm system, soil, nitrogen, climate change, impacts of change, area used, conservation agriculture, prospects, challenges, organic farming, intensification, management, emissions, soil carbon, greenhouse gas migration, harvesting system, tillage and soil carbon sequestration (Figure 4).
The fifth cluster includes terms related to adaptation, vulnerability, perspectives, perceptions, determination, social vulnerability, environment, sustainability, policy, government, adaptation to change, agricultural climate intelligence, trade, smallholders, risk management, context, adaptive capacity and social vulnerability (Figure 4).
The map above shows the key terms according to the year in which they were used in various scholarly works. Thus, in 2014 and 2015, the main topics for researchers were: precipitation, risks, climate change, soil, carbon dioxide, trends, yields, impacts, crop production, scenarios, food production, wheat and trade (Figure 5).
In the following years 2016–2017, researchers were concerned with temperature, irrigation, precipitation, vulnerability, farmers, policy, system, farm system, emissions, performance, food, agriculture, biodiversity, changes in area used, future, demand, availability, biodiversity, energy, migration, intensification, management, weather, ecosystem services and sustainability (Figure 5.).
In 2018 the following topics were addressed: climate smart agriculture, outlook, challenges, perceptions, level, conservation agriculture, urbanization, quality, lessons, economic impact, fluctuations, outputs, innovation, agroforesty, opportunities, sustainable development, communities, genres, framework, no-till, determination, climate change adaptation and perception risk (Figure 5).
The degree of interrelationship between countries is very important to observe among the countries that are interested in our topic of study. Therefore, the frequency of coauthors and partnerships between institutions is shown through nodes. The colors present in the map show the diversity of research directions addressed, and the thickness of the connections, as well as the distance between them, show the level of cooperation between countries. As a result, the United States, India, Germany and Australia are concerned with agriculture and climate change. It can be seen on the map that there are seven research directions, of which the Netherlands together with Germany, Hungary, Austria address the same research direction, so the European Union is interested in this topic (Figure 6).
The results of the survey of farmers with crop farms, the second component of the study, are presented below.
The highest proportion of respondents say that the main consideration in selecting input suppliers is the discounts they receive (41.28%). Another important criterion is price, of which 34.4% of respondents list it as their main selection criterion, and 20.39% say that the possibility of payment in kind is a main selection criterion. It is noted that only 3.93% of the respondents have the quality of the products promoted by the merchant as their main selection criterion (Figure 7).
More than 62% of the respondents say that the technological work on the farm is carried out with their own machinery and equipment, while 26.54% carry out only part of the work with their own machinery and equipment. Only 10.57% of the respondents use third parties to carry out technological work (Figure 7).
Out of the total 407 respondents, 60.69% own land both in their personal property and on lease, and at the opposite pole are those who work land that is only in their personal property, with a share of only 5.9%. Furthermore, 33.42% of the respondents who worked only leased land (Figure 7).
Approximately 59% of the respondents believe that climate change causes, to a large extent, fluctuations in the production obtained, while 25.31% are of the opinion that they are caused to a small extent by climate change (Figure 8).
The main climatic phenomenon faced by 71.5% of respondents is drought, while 13.76% are already facing an aggravated problem, namely the desertification of agricultural land. Only 7.86% of the respondents stated that the most problematic climatic phenomenon is heavy (above average) rainfall (Figure 9).
A total of 54.14% of respondents had lower yields, which considerably affected their income. Furthermore, 21.05% made additional investments in irrigation systems or planting forestry to combat the effects of climate change, and 16% of respondents had to make additional expenditures, such as plant health treatments (Figure 10).
The highest proportion of respondents (33.42%) have made or are considering the use of selected seeds adapted to the agricultural area to combat the effects of climate change, followed by those who want to establish or extend irrigation canals (21.62%). At the same time, 13.76% are considering the transition to organic agriculture adapted to climate change (Figure 11).
A considerable 80.34% of respondents believe that there is no need to revise the cropping scheme, while only 19.66% think that it should be revised (Figure 12).
In 2019, compared to 2018, 42% of the respondents said that their income increased, while only 32.43% reported a decrease. At the same time, in 2020, compared to 2019, only 26.12% of respondents reported increases, while more than 45% reported decreases in their income (Figure 13).
Both in 2019 compared to 2018 and in 2020 compared to 2019, most farmers recorded increases in expenditure (42.79% and 54.63%, respectively), while only 24.67% and 18.65%, respectively, recorded decreases in expenditure in the years analyzed (Figure 13).
By 2020, 46.19% of respondents stated that they had succeeded in achieving profitability in agriculture, while 36.36% had failed to achieve the expected performance. At the same time 17.44% of them stated that the profit achieved was zero (Figure 14).
In the future, 61.76% plan to increase their agricultural area, either by buying farmland or leasing, while 34.3% want to maintain the existing area at the farm level. Only 3.93% plan to reduce the area farmed (Figure 15).
After processing the data, a Chi-square value of 61.494 is revealed, indicating a strong association between the variables analyzed, i.e., between limited liability companies and their opinion on climate change (Table 1).
The negative value of R (−0.351) indicates the inverse proportionality between the two variables and also the link between their mode of incorporation and their opinion on fluctuations in production (Table 1).
There is a very strong relationship between limited liability companies and the opinion of respondents who identified lower yields as an effect of climate change, resulting in a chi-square value of 137.363. There is also an association between the mode of incorporation and their opinion on the effects felt/caused by climate change on the agricultural activity carried out, with an R value of 0.393 (Table 2).
It is important to note that there is a strong correlation between respondents with high school education and their opinion on climate change that affects agricultural production fluctuations to a large extent, with a Chi-square value of 97.352. At the same time, the relationship between the two variables, i.e., the level of education and their opinion on fluctuations in production caused by the effects of climate change, is very strong (R = 0.603) (Table 3).
After processing the data, a Chi-square value of 97.676 is revealed, indicating a strong association between the variables analyzed, i.e., between respondents with secondary education and their opinion on the use of selected seeds adapted to the agricultural area where the farm operates (Table 4). The value of R (0.466) indicates a moderate relationship between the level of education and the opinion of the respondents about the measures they want to take on the farm (Table 4).
The connection is strong between farmers who finance their activity from their own sources and their opinion on climate change that affects, to a large extent, the fluctuations of agricultural production, with a Chi-square value of 47.172. Furthermore, for sources of financing and respondents’ opinion on fluctuations in production caused by climate change effects, there is a moderate association, with an R-value of 0.488 (Table 5).
After processing the data, the Chi-square value is 47.172, indicating a strong association between the variables analyzed, i.e., between having one’s own sources of funding and attributing lower yields due to the effects of climate change (Table 6).
The negative value of R (−0.416) indicates the inverse proportionality between the two variables and also the link between sources of financing and opinion on the effects of climate change on agricultural activity (Table 6).
There is a very strong relationship between farmers farming an area between 50 and 99.9 ha and lower yields due to the effects of climate change, with a Chi-square value of 145.318. There is also a moderate association between area farmed and opinion of the effects felt/caused by climate change on the agricultural activity carried out, with an R value of 0.413 (Table 7).
There is a very strong relationship between farmers who farm an area between 50 and 99.9 ha and those who plan to use selected seeds adapted to the agricultural area in which they operate, resulting in a Chi-square value of 173.82. There is also an association between area farmed and opinion on the measures they wish to undertake on the farm, with an R value of −0.365 (Table 8).
According to the research, hypotheses H1, H2 and H3 are true, and there are significant links between the variables analyzed.

4. Discussion

We can say that the topic “agriculture and climate change” is a very important topic, which has been addressed since 1935, being associated with terms such as food security, adaptation, economics, management, temperatures, production, diversity, emissions, precipitation and irrigation. The research directions studied worldwide are diverse and are also addressed by countries in the European Union, such as Italy, Spain, France, Belgium, Poland, Germany, Denmark and the Netherlands.
However, this issue has been more difficult to understand even for the main supporters of agriculture, farmers, but lately, all these actors are working together to limit the effects of climate change.
The results of the survey show a significant share of farmers work land they have leased or work it in a mixed format (own and leased). The traces of the communist regime still persist in the mentality of rural dwellers who, even if they can no longer work the land (high degree of ageing of the rural population), prefer to lease it to a farmer. This can create instability at the farm level, as the area owned by farmers can vary significantly [2].
Although events may occur that put the cultivated area at risk (varying), farmers prefer technological work to be done with their own machinery, as this is not based on a calculation of the efficiency of purchasing/maintaining their own machinery versus renting agricultural machinery and equipment (management training and accounting notions). This facility could be obtained by joining an associative form, which is still developing timidly in Romania [7,15] compared to other countries of the European Union, where agricultural activities carried out in common are widespread [31,34,37].
The discounts received for the purchase of agricultural inputs and implicitly their price is a main argument for Romanian farmers in choosing suppliers, being placed above the “quality” criterion. Obviously, the living standards of consumers force the production of food at the lowest possible cost [34], but which also forces competition. These criteria could also have been more easily met by joining an association.
While until recently extreme weather events were blamed on traditional customs, with increasing levels of training and education and policies promoted by the European Union, farmers are becoming aware of the effects of climate change. They also associate identified climatic phenomena, such as drought and land desertification, with climate change impacts. At the same time, these effects have caused them additional costs that they have been willing to incur [12,18].
It should be noted that there is interest in new scientific developments, and a large proportion of farmers are considering the use of selected seeds, adapted to the agricultural area from which they come, as a measure to combat the effects of climate change [8].
The demand on the market and the relatively easy marketability of the plant production obtained, together with the experience gained in growing only certain types of crops, mean that there is a proportion who believe that there is no need to revise their cropping pattern. A large proportion of Romanian farmers market their crop production immediately after harvest for storage reasons [12].
Climatic effects are putting a strain on the incomes of farmers, whose incomes are becoming lower and lower, and the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and the war in neighboring Ukraine are forcing them to adapt to these changes, with the majority of respondents wanting to increase the cultivated area [14], which will contribute to the consolidation of agricultural land and the elimination of non-performing farms (subsistence and semi-subsistence).

5. Conclusions, Implications and Limitations

The farmers interviewed undoubtedly recognize that the problems they face are caused by the effects of climate change and are willing to adapt, seek and implement solutions.
The environmental policies of the European Union, implemented over two programming periods, which Romania, as a member state since 2007, has gone through, have had an effect on the farmers interviewed. It should also be taken into account that a significant proportion of them still depend on subsidies to finance farm activities, so current and future policies should also take these aspects into account.
Although more than 80% of the farmers interviewed are not considering revising their model of farming, focusing on crops that are in demand (wheat, maize, sunflowers) in the domestic and especially the international market, the awareness process among farmers may have some shortcomings, but these can be remedied by financial incentives. Given that this study focused on analyzing the opinion of farmers with crop farms, to some extent the opinion of farmers running other types of farms (livestock or mixed farms) could be different, as the restrictions they face may be more stringent. At the same time, the sample analyzed presents a small number of respondents, although it was carried out at the national level, but it can represent a starting point for further research. Training farmers in management concepts can help ensure the rational use of farm resources, thus avoiding waste and achieving an economic optimum. In conclusion, as long as farmers feel and understand the effects of climate change, it cannot be a myth, especially if they are open to adapting to these challenges.

Author Contributions

The authors worked together for this research, but, the structure and conceptualization T.A.D., G.F. and E.S.; methodology, software validation and resources, V.C.T., P.S. and A.I.; formal analysis, M.M.M. and E.A.D.; writing—original draft preparation and writing—review and editing, M.M.M. and E.A.D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This paper is part of the project: “Studies on resilience strategies and increase the competitiveness of family farms by joining associations”—project code: code 2021-0017/14.07.2021, funded by internal projects carried out by USAMV Bucharest, Romania.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

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

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Wall, E.; Smith, B. Climate Change Adaptation in Light of Sustainable Agriculture. J. Sustain. Agric. 2005, 27, 113–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Gurel, A.; Senel, Z. Global Climate Change and Adaptations in Agriculture. J. Environ. Prot. Ecol. 2012, 13, 56–60. [Google Scholar]
  3. Biró, K.; Szalmáné Csete, M.; Németh, B. Climate-Smart Agriculture: Sleeping Beauty of the Hungarian Agribusiness. Sustainability 2021, 13, 10269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Dinesh, D.; Zougmore, R.B.; Vervoort, J.; Totin, E.; Thornton, P.K.; Solomon, D.; Shirsath, P.B.; Pede, V.O.; Lopez Noriega, I.; Läderach, P.; et al. Facilitating Change for Climate-Smart Agriculture through Science-Policy Engagement. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Loboguerrero, A.M.; Campbell, B.M.; Cooper, P.J.M.; Hansen, J.W.; Rosenstock, T.; Wollenberg, E. Food and Earth Systems: Priorities for Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation for Agriculture and Food Systems. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Fusco, G.; Melgiovanni, M.; Porrini, D.; Ricciardo, T.M. How to Improve the Diffusion of Climate-Smart Agriculture: What the Literature Tells us. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Malhi, G.S.; Kaur, M.; Kaushik, P. Impact of Climate Change on Agriculture and Its Mitigation Strategies: A Review. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Juliá, R.; Duchin, F. Land Use Change and Global Adaptations to Climate Change. Sustainability 2013, 5, 5442–5459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Gordeev, R.V.; Pyzhev, A.I.; Zander, E.V. Does Climate Change Influence Russian Agriculture? Evidence from Panel Data Analysis. Sustainability 2022, 14, 718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Prandecki, K.; Wrzaszcz, W.; Zieliński, M. Environmental and Climate Challenges to Agriculture in Poland in the Context of Objectives Adopted in the European Green Deal Strategy. Sustainability 2021, 13, 10318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Singh, R.; Singh, G.S. Traditional agriculture: A climate-smart approach for sustainable food production. Energy Ecol. Environ. 2017, 2, 296–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Huang, J.; Wang, Y. Financing Sustainable Agriculture Under Climate Change. J. Integr. Agric. 2014, 13, 698–712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Zukowska, G.; Myszura, M.; Baran, S.; Wesolowska, S.; Pawlowska, M.; Dobrowolski, L. Agriculture vs. Alleviating the Climate Change. Probl. Ekorozw. 2016, 11, 67–74. [Google Scholar]
  14. Kurdyś-Kujawska, A.; Strzelecka, A.; Zawadzka, D. The Impact of Crop Diversification on the Economic Efficiency of Small Farms in Poland. Agriculture 2021, 11, 250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Duong, T.T.; Brewer, T.; Luck, J.; Zander, K. A Global Review of Farmers’ Perceptions of Agricultural Risks and Risk Management Strategies. Agriculture 2019, 9, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Himanen, S.J.; Mäkinen, H.; Rimhanen, K.; Savikko, R. Engaging Farmers in Climate Change Adaptation Planning: Assessing Intercropping as a Means to Support Farm Adaptive Capacity. Agriculture 2016, 6, 34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Pei, Q.; Zhang, D.D.; Lee, H.F.; Li, G. Crop Management as an Agricultural Adaptation to Climate Change in Early Modern Era: A Comparative Study of Eastern and Western Europe. Agriculture 2016, 6, 29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Farmar-Bowers, Q. Finding Ways to Improve Australia’s Food Security Situation. Agriculture 2015, 5, 286–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Zurovec, O.; Vedeld, P.O.; Sitaula, B.K. Agricultural Sector of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Climate Change—Challenges and Opportunities. Agriculture 2015, 5, 245–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Rosenzweig, C. Climate change and agriculture. In Biobased Economy of the Twenty-First Century: Agriculture Expanding into Health, Energy, Chemicals and Material, Proceedings of the12th Annual Meeting of the National-Agricultural-Biotechnology-Council, Orlando, FL, USA, 11–13 May 2000; National Agricultural Biotechnology Council: Ithaca, NY, USA, 2000; Volume 12, pp. 123–137. [Google Scholar]
  21. Wheaton, E.; Kulshreshtha, S. Environmental Sustainability of Agriculture Stressed by Changing Extremes of Drought and Excess Moisture: A Conceptual Review. Sustainability 2017, 9, 970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Jug, D.; Jug, I.; Brozovic, B.; Vukadinovic, V.; Stipesevic, B.; Durdevic, B. The Role of Conservation Agriculture in Mitigation and Adaptation to Climate Change. Poljoprivreda 2018, 24, 35–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Castellano, R.L.S.; Moroney, J. Farming adaptations in the face of climate change. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2018, 33, 206–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Mestre-Sanchis, F.; Feijoo-Bello, M.L. Climate change and its marginalizing effect on agriculture. Ecol. Econ. 2009, 68, 896–904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Iizumi, T. Emerging Adaptation to Climate Change in Agriculture. In Adaptation To Climate Change In Agriculture: Research And Practices, Proceedings of the Conference on Adaptation to Climate Change in Agriculture-Research and Practices, Hokkaido, Japan, 9 September 2011; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2011; pp. 3–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Halbac-Cotoara-Zamfir, R.; Halbac-Cotoara-Zamfir, C. Adapting to Climate Changes-a Challenge for Romanian Agriculture. In Actual Tasks on Agricultural Engineering, Proceedings of the 46th International Symposium on Actual Tasks on Agricultural Engineering (ATAE), Opatija, Croatia, 27 February–1 March 2018; University of Zagreb: Zagreb, Croatia, 2018; Volume 46, pp. 36–39. [Google Scholar]
  27. Corelli Grappadelli, L.; Morandi, B. The Ecophysiology of Carbon In Fruit Trees: A Driver of Productivity, a Tool to Face Climate Change, a Producer Of Innovation that Can Become Tomorrow’s Growing Paradigm. AgroLife Sci. J. 2012, 1, 39–47. [Google Scholar]
  28. Chiper, A.M. Policies to reduce the impact of climate changes on the agriculture and environment-from speech to practice. Scientific Papers. Series AgroLife J. 2015, 4, 22–31. [Google Scholar]
  29. Dumitru, E.A.; Ursu, A.; Tudor, V.C.; Micu, M.M. Sustainable Development of the Rural Areas from Romania: Development of a Digital Tool to Generate Adapted Solutions at Local Level. Sustainability 2021, 13, 11921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Iancu, T.; Petre, I.L.; Tudor, V.C.; Micu, M.M.; Ursu, A.; Teodorescu, F.-R.; Dumitru, E.A. A Difficult Pattern to Change in Romania, the Perspective of Socio-Economic Development. Sustainability 2022, 14, 2350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Micu, M.M.; Dumitru, E.A.; Vintu, C.R.; Tudor, V.C.; Fintineru, G. Models Underlying the Success Development of Family Farms in Romania. Sustainability 2022, 14, 2443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Frone, D.F.; Frone, S.; Platon, V.; Constantinescu, A. Issues of Climate Vulnerability in Romania-A Special Mention for Agriculture. Sci. Pap.-Ser. Manag. Econ. Eng. Agric. Rural. Dev. 2021, 21, 395–404. [Google Scholar]
  33. Alexandru, D.; Mateescu, E.; Tudor, R.; Leonard, I. Analysis of Agroclimatic Resources in Romania in the Current and Foreseeable Climate Chance-Concept and Methodology of Approaching. Sci. Pap.-Ser. A-Agron. 2019, 62, 221–229. [Google Scholar]
  34. Istudor, N.; Ion, R.A.; Petrescu, I.E.; Hrebenciuc, A. Agriculture and the Twofold Relationship between Food Security and Climate Change. Evidence from Romania. Amfiteatru Econ. 2019, 21, 285–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Rusali, M.A. Romania’s Agriculture Polluter Effects vs. Potential Contribution to a Climate Change Resilient Economy. Sci. Pap.-Ser. Manag. Econ. Eng. Agric. Rural. Dev. 2018, 18, 435–440. [Google Scholar]
  36. Leoveanu-Soare, B.E.; Petre, L.I.; Micu, M.M. Social and Economic Aspects Regarding the Development of Agriculture in Romania. Sci. Pap.-Ser. Manag. Econ. Eng. Agric. Rural. Dev. 2020, 20, 281–287. [Google Scholar]
  37. Istudor, N.; Ion, R.A.; Sponte, M.; Petrescu, I.E. Food Security in Romania—A Modern Approach for Developing Sustainable Agriculture. Sustainability 2014, 6, 8796–8807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Nastase, M.; Radulescu, C.V.; Ioan, I. Climate Change, Agricultural Insurance and Governmental Support. Metal. Int. 2010, 14, 118–122. [Google Scholar]
  39. Şmuleac, L.; Rujescu, C.; Șmuleac, A.; Imbrea, F.; Radulov, I.; Manea, D.; Ienciu, A.; Adamov, T.; Pașcalău, R. Impact of Climate Change in the Banat Plain, Western Romania, on the Accessibility of Water for Crop Production in Agriculture. Agriculture 2020, 10, 437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Mocanu, I.; Grigorescu, I.; Mitrica, B.; Popovici, E.A.; Dumitrascu, M. Regional Disparities Related to Socio-Economic Determinants of Agriculture in the Romanian Plain. J. Urban Reg. Anal. 2018, 10, 79–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Pravalie, R.; Sirodoev, I.; Patriche, C.; Rosca, B.; Piticar, A.; Bandoc, G.; Sfica, L.; Tiscovschi, A.; Dumitrascu, M.; Chifiriuc, C.; et al. The impact of climate change on agricultural productivity in Romania. A country-scale assessment based on the relationship between climatic water balance and maize yields in recent decades. Agric. Syst. 2020, 179, 102767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Popescu, A.; Dinu, T.A.; Stoian, E.; Serban, V. Variation of the Main Agricultural Crops Yield Due to Drought in Romania and Dobrogea Region in the Period 2000–2019. Sci. Pap.-Ser. Manag. Econ. Eng. Agric. Rural. Dev. 2020, 20, 397–415. [Google Scholar]
  43. Dumitru, E.A.; Stoica, D.G. Impact of Coupled Support on Surfaces and Productions of Main Crops that Benefit from This Type of Support. Sci. Pap.-Ser. Manag. Econ. Eng. Agric. Rural. Dev. 2021, 20, 153–160. [Google Scholar]
  44. Minea, I.; Iosub, M.; Boicu, D. Groundwater Resources from Eastern Romania under Human and Climatic Pressure. Sustainability 2020, 12, 10341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Todorova, L.; Tcacenco, A. Study Regarding Peculiarities of Introducing and Developing Effective Digital Technologies in the Agri-Food Sector. Sci. Pap.-Ser. Manag. Econ. Eng. Agric. Rural. Dev. 2019, 19, 341–344. [Google Scholar]
  46. Pravalie, R.; Peptenatu, D.; Sirodoev, I. The Impact of Climate Change on the Dynamics of Agricultural Systems in South-Western Romania. Carpathian J. Earth Environ. Sci. 2013, 8, 175–186. [Google Scholar]
  47. Popescu, A.; Tindeche, C.; Marcuta, A.; Marcuta, L.; Hontus, A.; Angelescu, C. Labor Force in The European Union Agriculture-Traits and Tendencies. Sci. Pap.-Ser. Manag. Econ. Eng. Agric. Rural. Dev. 2021, 21, 475–486. [Google Scholar]
  48. Teodosiu, C.; Barjoveanu, G.; Vinke-de Kruijf, J. Public Participation in Water Resources Management in Romania: Issues, Expectations and Actual Involvement. Environ. Eng. Manag. J. 2013, 12, 1051–1063. [Google Scholar]
  49. Akamani, K. An Ecosystem-Based Approach to Climate-Smart Agriculture with Some Considerations for Social Equity. Agronomy 2021, 11, 1564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Georgilas, I.; Moulogianni, C.; Bournaris, T.; Vlontzos, G.; Manos, B. Socioeconomic Impact of Climate Change in Rural Areas of Greece Using a Multicriteria Decision-Making Model. Agronomy 2021, 11, 1779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Rasche, L. Estimating Pesticide Inputs and Yield Outputs of Conventional and Organic Agricultural Systems in Europe under Climate Change. Agronomy 2021, 11, 1300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Chiciudean, G.O.; Harun, R.; Ilea, M.; Chiciudean, D.I.; Arion, F.H.; Ilies, G.; Muresan, I.C. Organic Food Consumers and Purchase Intention: A Case Study in Romania. Agronomy 2019, 9, 145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Macholdt, J.; Honermeier, B. Impact of Climate Change on Cultivar Choice: Adaptation Strategies of Farmers and Advisors in German Cereal Production. Agronomy 2016, 6, 40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Lojka, B.; Teutscherová, N.; Chládová, A.; Kala, L.; Szabó, P.; Martiník, A.; Weger, J.; Houška, J.; Červenka, J.; Kotrba, R.; et al. Agroforestry in the Czech Republic: What Hampers the Comeback of a Once Traditional Land Use System? Agronomy 2022, 12, 69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Balogh, P.; Bai, A.; Czibere, I.; Kovách, I.; Fodor, L.; Bujdos, Á.; Sulyok, D.; Gabnai, Z.; Birkner, Z. Economic and Social Barriers of Precision Farming in Hungary. Agronomy 2021, 11, 1112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Derrouch, D.; Chauvel, B.; Felten, E.; Dessaint, F. Weed Management in the Transition to Conservation Agriculture: Farmers’ Response. Agronomy 2020, 10, 843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Sohail, M.T.; Elkaeed, E.B.; Irfan, M.; Acevedo-Duque, Á.; Mustafa, S. Determining Farmers’ Awareness About Climate Change Mitigation and Wastewater Irrigation: A Pathway Toward Green and Sustainable Development. Front. Environ. Sci. 2022, 10, 900193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Balogh, P.; Bujdos, Á.; Czibere, I.; Fodor, L.; Gabnai, Z.; Kovách, I.; Nagy, J.; Bai, A. Main Motivational Factors of Farmers Adopting Precision Farming in Hungary. Agronomy 2020, 10, 610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Arif, M.; Jan, T.; Munir, H.; Rasul, F.; Riaz, M.; Fahad, S.; Adnan, M.; Mian, I.A.; Amanullah. Climate-Smart Agriculture: Assessment and Adaptation Strategies in Changing Climate. In Global Climate Change and Environmental Policy; Springer: Singapore, 2019; pp. 351–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Thayer, A.W.; Vargas, A.; Castellanos, A.A.; Lafon, C.W.; McCarl, B.A.; Roelke, D.L.; Winemiller, K.O.; Lacher, T.E. Integrating Agriculture and Ecosystems to Find Suitable Adaptations to Climate Change. Climate 2020, 8, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. Xie, L.; Zhao, H. Sustainable Agriculture and Climate Change. In Innovations in Sustainable Agriculture; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 441–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Sirkku, J.; Klein, N.; Käyhkö, J.; Neset, T.S. Climate change transformations in Nordic agriculture? J. Rural. Stud. 2017, 51, 28–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  63. Sohail, M.T.; Xiuyuan, Y.; Usman, A.; Majeed, M.T.; Ullah, S. Renewable energy and non-renewable energy consumption: Assessing the asymmetric role of monetary policy uncertainty in energy consumption. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 31575–31584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Liu, Y.; Sohail, M.T.; Khan, A.; Majeed, M.T. Environmental benefit of clean energy consumption: Can BRICS economies achieve environmental sustainability through human capital? Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 29, 6766–6776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Guo, Y.-M.; Huang, Z.-L.; Guo, J.; Li, H.; Guo, X.-R.; Nkeli, M.J. Bibliometric Analysis on Smart Cities Research. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. Chanana-Nag, N.; Aggarwal, P.K. Woman in agriculture, and climate risks: Hotspots for development. Clim. Chang. 2018, 158, 13–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. Falco, C.; Donzelli, F.; Olper, A. Climate Change, Agriculture and Migration: A Survey. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  68. Lewin, C. Elementary quantitative methods. In Research Methods in the Social Sciences; SAGE: Newcastle, UK, 2005; pp. 215–225. ISBN 0-7619-4401-X. [Google Scholar]
  69. Etikan, I.; Musa, S.A.; Alkassim, R.S. Comparison of Convenience Sampling and Purposive Sampling. Am. J. Theor. Appl. Stat. 2016, 5, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  70. Bryman, A.; Cramer, D. Quantitative Data Analysis with SPSS 14, 15 & 16: A Guide for Social Scientists; Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group: London, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. Steps in data collection and analysis using VOSviewer software. Own processing via Canva.
Figure 1. Steps in data collection and analysis using VOSviewer software. Own processing via Canva.
Sustainability 14 08689 g001
Figure 2. Territorial distribution of respondents. The data was processed after the application of the questionnaire.
Figure 2. Territorial distribution of respondents. The data was processed after the application of the questionnaire.
Sustainability 14 08689 g002
Figure 3. Evolution of the number of papers on agriculture and climate change. Edited by the authors based on WoS results and using Excel.
Figure 3. Evolution of the number of papers on agriculture and climate change. Edited by the authors based on WoS results and using Excel.
Sustainability 14 08689 g003
Figure 4. The link between agriculture and climate change and other related terms. Proprietary processing based on WoS results using VOSviewer.
Figure 4. The link between agriculture and climate change and other related terms. Proprietary processing based on WoS results using VOSviewer.
Sustainability 14 08689 g004
Figure 5. Link between agriculture and climate change and other related terms by year. Proprietary processing based on WoS results using VOSviewer.
Figure 5. Link between agriculture and climate change and other related terms by year. Proprietary processing based on WoS results using VOSviewer.
Sustainability 14 08689 g005
Figure 6. Link between coauthor countries. Proprietary processing based on WoS results using VOSviewer.
Figure 6. Link between coauthor countries. Proprietary processing based on WoS results using VOSviewer.
Sustainability 14 08689 g006
Figure 7. Graphical representation of farmer responses on administrative (managerial) aspects of the farm. The data was processed after the application of the questionnaire.
Figure 7. Graphical representation of farmer responses on administrative (managerial) aspects of the farm. The data was processed after the application of the questionnaire.
Sustainability 14 08689 g007
Figure 8. Respondents’ views on climate change likely to cause fluctuations in recorded yields. The data was processed after the application of the questionnaire.
Figure 8. Respondents’ views on climate change likely to cause fluctuations in recorded yields. The data was processed after the application of the questionnaire.
Sustainability 14 08689 g008
Figure 9. Respondents’ views on the most problematic climate phenomenon they face. The data was processed after the application of the questionnaire.
Figure 9. Respondents’ views on the most problematic climate phenomenon they face. The data was processed after the application of the questionnaire.
Sustainability 14 08689 g009
Figure 10. Percentage distribution of respondents on the effects felt on the farm business due to climate change effects. The data was processed after the application of the questionnaire.
Figure 10. Percentage distribution of respondents on the effects felt on the farm business due to climate change effects. The data was processed after the application of the questionnaire.
Sustainability 14 08689 g010
Figure 11. Percentage distribution of respondents on measures taken or to be taken in the next period to combat climate change. The data was processed after the application of the questionnaire.
Figure 11. Percentage distribution of respondents on measures taken or to be taken in the next period to combat climate change. The data was processed after the application of the questionnaire.
Sustainability 14 08689 g011
Figure 12. Percentage distribution of respondents on review of cropping scheme. The data was processed after the application of the questionnaire.
Figure 12. Percentage distribution of respondents on review of cropping scheme. The data was processed after the application of the questionnaire.
Sustainability 14 08689 g012
Figure 13. Percentage distribution of respondents on income and expenditure situation in previous years. The data was processed after the application of the questionnaire.
Figure 13. Percentage distribution of respondents on income and expenditure situation in previous years. The data was processed after the application of the questionnaire.
Sustainability 14 08689 g013
Figure 14. Percentage distribution of respondents regarding the profitability of the activity carried out in 2020. The data was processed after the application of the questionnaire.
Figure 14. Percentage distribution of respondents regarding the profitability of the activity carried out in 2020. The data was processed after the application of the questionnaire.
Sustainability 14 08689 g014
Figure 15. Percentage distribution of respondents on the evolution of the holding in terms of area managed. The data was processed after the application of the questionnaire.
Figure 15. Percentage distribution of respondents on the evolution of the holding in terms of area managed. The data was processed after the application of the questionnaire.
Sustainability 14 08689 g015
Table 1. Analysis of the answers of the respondents in terms of their constitution and their opinion on fluctuations in production caused by the effects of climate change. The data was processed after the application of the questionnaire.
Table 1. Analysis of the answers of the respondents in terms of their constitution and their opinion on fluctuations in production caused by the effects of climate change. The data was processed after the application of the questionnaire.
To What Extent are Fluctuations in Recorded Yields Determined by Climate Change?Total
Great MeasureSmall MeasureDoes not AffectI Don’t Know
Method of establishment:Authorized Natural Person (PFA)380011
Family business (FI)880824
Sole proprietorship (II)3188047
Limited liability company (SRL)184792820311
Public limited company (SA)80008
Agricultural cooperative (AC)60006
Total2401033628407
CasesValidN407
Percent100.0%
MissingN0
Percent0.0%
TotalN407
Percent100.0%
Pearson Chi-SquareValue61.494
Contingency CoefficientValue0.362
Pearson’s RValue−0.351
Sig. (2-tailed)0.001
Table 2. Analysis of the answers of the respondents in terms of their constitution and their opinion on the effects felt/caused by climate change on their agricultural activity. The data was processed after the application of the questionnaire.
Table 2. Analysis of the answers of the respondents in terms of their constitution and their opinion on the effects felt/caused by climate change on their agricultural activity. The data was processed after the application of the questionnaire.
What Are the Perceived Effects of Climate Change on Your Business?Total
Additional Expenses (e.g., Fi-To-Sanitary Treatments)Additional Investments (e.g., Irrigation System, Forestry Curtains)Lower YieldsOther
Method of establishment:Authorized natural person (PFA)902011
Family enterprise (FE)0168024
Sole proprietorship (II)15816847
Limited liability company (SRL)326018427303
Public limited company (SA)80008
Agricultural cooperative (AC)00606
Total648421635399
CasesValidN407
Percent100.00%
MissingN0
Percent0.00%
TotalN407
Percent100.00%
Pearson Chi-SquareValue137,363
Contingency CoefficientValue0.506
Pearson’s RValue0.393
Sig. (2-tailed)0.000
Table 3. Analysis of the answers of respondents regarding the level of studies and their opinion on fluctuations in yields caused by the effects of climate change. The data was processed after the application of the questionnaire.
Table 3. Analysis of the answers of respondents regarding the level of studies and their opinion on fluctuations in yields caused by the effects of climate change. The data was processed after the application of the questionnaire.
To What Extent Are Fluctuations in Recorded Yields Determined by Climate Change?Total
Great MeasureSmall MeasureDoes Not AffectI Don’t Know
Studiesgeneral722488112
high school136562012224
university32238871
Total2401033628407
CasesValidN407
Percent100.0%
MissingN0
Percent0.0%
TotalN407
Percent100.0%
Pearson Chi-SquareValue97,352
Contingency CoefficientValue0.344
Pearson’s RValue0.603
Sig. (2-tailed)0.000
Table 4. Analysis of the answers of respondents regarding level of education and their opinion on the measures they want to undertake on the farm. The data was processed after the application of the questionnaire.
Table 4. Analysis of the answers of respondents regarding level of education and their opinion on the measures they want to undertake on the farm. The data was processed after the application of the questionnaire.
Which of the Following Measures Do You Plan to Apply or Already Apply on Your Farm?Total
Establishment/Extension of Irrigation CanalsOrganic Farming Adapted to Climate ChangeAssociation in AgricultureIntensive Pesticide Application for Increased YieldsUse of Selected Seeds Adapted to the Agricultural Area in Which the Holding OperatesTechnological Upgrading
Studiesgeneral3232160320112
high school321656327216224
university2480032771
Total8856723213623407
CasesValidN407
Percent100.0%
MissingN0
Percent0.0%
TotalN407
Percent100.0%
Pearson Chi-SquareValue97,676
Contingency CoefficientValue0.440
Pearson’s RValue0.466
Sig. (2-tailed)0.000
Table 5. Analysis of the answers of the respondents on the sources of financing of the activity and their opinion on fluctuations in production caused by the effects of climate change. The data was processed after the application of the questionnaire.
Table 5. Analysis of the answers of the respondents on the sources of financing of the activity and their opinion on fluctuations in production caused by the effects of climate change. The data was processed after the application of the questionnaire.
To What Extent Are Fluctuations in Recorded Yields Determined by Climate Change?Total
Great MeasureSmall MeasureDoes Not AffectI Don’t Know
Sources of financeOwn sources14432208204
Subsidies received6440168128
Bank loans323101275
Total2401033628407
CasesValidN407
Percent100.0%
MissingN0
Percent0.0%
TotalN407
Percent100.0%
Pearson Chi-SquareValue47,172
Contingency CoefficientValue0.322
Pearson’s RValue0.488
Sig. (2-tailed)0.000
Table 6. Analysis of the answers of the respondents regarding the sources of financing of the activity and their opinion on the effects felt/caused by climate change on the agricultural activity carried out. The data was processed after the application of the questionnaire.
Table 6. Analysis of the answers of the respondents regarding the sources of financing of the activity and their opinion on the effects felt/caused by climate change on the agricultural activity carried out. The data was processed after the application of the questionnaire.
What are the Perceived Effects of Climate Change on Your Activities?Total
Additional Expenses (e.g., Fi-To-Sanitary Treatments)Additional Investments (e.g., Irrigation System, Forestry Curtains)Lower YieldsOther
Sources of financeOwn sources164011228196
Subsidies received4032560128
Bank loans81248775
Total648421635399
CasesValidN407
Percent100.0%
MissingN0
Percent0.0%
TotalN407
Percent100.0%
Pearson Chi-SquareValue51.562
Contingency CoefficientValue0.338
Pearson’s RValue−0.416
Sig. (2-tailed)0.000
Table 7. Analysis of the answers of respondents according to the area farmed and their opinion on the effects felt/caused by climate change on the agricultural activity carried out. The data was processed after the application of the questionnaire.
Table 7. Analysis of the answers of respondents according to the area farmed and their opinion on the effects felt/caused by climate change on the agricultural activity carried out. The data was processed after the application of the questionnaire.
What Are the Perceived Effects of Climate Change on Your Activities?Total
Additional Expenses (e.g., Fi-To-Sanitary Treatments)Additional Investments (e.g., Irrigation System, Forestry Curtains)Lower YieldsOther
Total agricultural area in use:<10 ha80008
10–19.9 ha088016
30–49.9 ha16032856
50–99.9 ha402812827223
>100 ha04848096
Total648421635399
CasesValidN407
Percent100.0%
MissingN0
Percent0.0%
TotalN407
Percent100.0%
Pearson Chi-SquareValue145.318
Contingency CoefficientValue0.517
Pearson’s RValue0.413
Sig. (2-tailed)0.000
Table 8. Analysis of the answers of respondents according to the area farmed and their opinion on the measures they want to undertake on the farm. The data was processed after the application of the questionnaire.
Table 8. Analysis of the answers of respondents according to the area farmed and their opinion on the measures they want to undertake on the farm. The data was processed after the application of the questionnaire.
Which of the Following Measures Do You Plan to Apply Or Already Apply on Your Farm?Total
Establishment/Extension of Irrigation CanalsOrganic Farming Adapted to Climate ChangeAssociation in AgricultureIntensive Pesticide Application for Increased YieldsUse of Selected Seeds Adapted to the Agricultural Area in Which the Holding OperatesTechnological Upgrading
Total agricul tural area in use:<10 ha0000808
10–19.9 ha00808016
30–49.9 ha882488864
50–99.9 ha324840246415223
>100 ha4800048096
Total8856723213623407
CasesValidN407
Percent100.00%
MissingN0
Percent0.00%
TotalN407
Percent100.00%
Pearson Chi-SquareValue173.082
Contingency CoefficientValue0.546
Pearson’s RValue−0.365
Sig. (2-tailed)0.001
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Micu, M.M.; Dinu, T.A.; Fintineru, G.; Tudor, V.C.; Stoian, E.; Dumitru, E.A.; Stoicea, P.; Iorga, A. Climate Change—Between “Myth and Truth” in Romanian Farmers’ Perception. Sustainability 2022, 14, 8689. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14148689

AMA Style

Micu MM, Dinu TA, Fintineru G, Tudor VC, Stoian E, Dumitru EA, Stoicea P, Iorga A. Climate Change—Between “Myth and Truth” in Romanian Farmers’ Perception. Sustainability. 2022; 14(14):8689. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14148689

Chicago/Turabian Style

Micu, Marius Mihai, Toma Adrian Dinu, Gina Fintineru, Valentina Constanta Tudor, Elena Stoian, Eduard Alexandru Dumitru, Paula Stoicea, and Adina Iorga. 2022. "Climate Change—Between “Myth and Truth” in Romanian Farmers’ Perception" Sustainability 14, no. 14: 8689. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14148689

APA Style

Micu, M. M., Dinu, T. A., Fintineru, G., Tudor, V. C., Stoian, E., Dumitru, E. A., Stoicea, P., & Iorga, A. (2022). Climate Change—Between “Myth and Truth” in Romanian Farmers’ Perception. Sustainability, 14(14), 8689. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14148689

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