Next Article in Journal
Assessing the Influence of Sustainability Using Artificial Neural Networks in Construction Projects
Next Article in Special Issue
Exploring the Potential and Challenges of Lathyrus sativus (Grass Pea) in European Agri-Food Value Chains: A Cross-Country Analysis
Previous Article in Journal
Teachers’ Digital Competencies Before, During, and After the COVID-19 Pandemic
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 17
Issue 5
10.3390/su17052319
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

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

Utilizing Farmers’ Views and Attitudes to Hinder Climate Change Threats: Insights from Greece

by
Theodoros Markopoulos
1,2,
Lambros Tsourgiannis
3,
Sotirios Papadopoulos
4 and
Christos Staboulis
5,*
1
Regional District of Kavala, Region of Eastern Macedonia and Thrace, 65404 Kavala, Greece
2
Department of Chemistry, Democritus University of Thrace, 65404 Kavala, Greece
3
General Directorate of Internal Operation, Region of Eastern Macedonia and Thrace, 69132 Komotini, Greece
4
General Directorate of Agricultural Economy, Region of Eastern Macedonia and Thrace, 69132 Komotini, Greece
5
Department of Agricultural Economics, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 54124 Thessaloniki, Greece
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2025, 17(5), 2319; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17052319
Submission received: 7 November 2024 / Revised: 27 February 2025 / Accepted: 5 March 2025 / Published: 6 March 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Impeding Future Perils via Social, Agri-Food and Ecosystem Interlinkages)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The anthropogenic origin of climate change is well-documented in the scientific literature, with agriculture recognized as both a significant contributor and a sector highly vulnerable to its impacts. This dynamic creates a vicious circle, where farming activities exacerbate climate change, while farmers simultaneously bear its adverse consequences. As a result, they play a pivotal role in both mitigation and adaptation efforts. Using this as a starting point, the overarching aim of the present study is to investigate farmers’ climate change views and to indicate how farmers envisage their role, responsibilities, and possibilities to mitigate and adapt to climate change. To this end, a primary questionnaire survey was conducted based on a sample of 150 farmers in the region of Eastern Macedonia and Thrace in Greece. Principal component analysis (PCA) was conducted in order to identify the key views and attitudes of farmers towards their role and responsibilities about the impact of climate change. Additionally, clustering techniques were employed to classify farmers with similar attitudes, providing a typology regarding their behavior toward climate adaptation and mitigation issues. Lastly, a series of non-parametric statistical tests were performed to profile the identified groups of farmers and additionally to define differences among farmers’ features, agricultural holdings’ features, and cluster solution groups. The results of this process provide a comprehensive understanding of Greek farmers’ views and attitudes towards climate change. Acknowledging farmers’ views and attitudes towards climate change at the national level is crucial for the national and regional authorities in their effort to plan successful future climate policies for the agricultural sector and to ensure success in farm-scale implementation.

1. Introduction

Climate change and environmental degradation are growing threats at both European and global levels [1], posing significant challenges to social stability, public health, and well-being [2,3,4]. These factors are driving irreversible changes in socioecological systems. The European Union (EU) already faces annual losses exceeding EUR 12 billion, and conservative estimates suggest that a 3 °C increase in global temperatures above pre-industrial levels (~2 °C above today’s levels) could result in EUR 170 billion in yearly losses, equivalent to 1.36% of the EU’s gross domestic output [5]. This urges the need for climate adaptation and the development of a more resilient society.
The Mediterranean Biogeographical Region, where Greece is located, is a recognized climate change hotspot [6,7]. Significant declines in average precipitation and increased variability during the dry season make this region particularly vulnerable to climate-related risks [8]. The Mediterranean, one of the most responsive regions to global climate shifts, has shown consistent summer drying trends in model projections [9,10]. Additionally, it remains one of the least economically developed regions in Europe [11]. Current climate risks, such as floods, droughts, wildfires, water scarcity, soil degradation, desertification, and rising sea levels, are expected to intensify, while new threats will emerge [1,11]. The region’s diverse environmental, socioeconomic, and cultural characteristics exacerbate the challenges of building resilience, demanding tailored adaptation strategies and capacity-building efforts [1,11]. Rapid demographic shifts and urbanization patterns further complicate the region’s exposure and vulnerability to climate-related hazards.
Despite the increasing global awareness of climate change’s impact on agriculture, there remains a notable gap in the literature concerning farmers’ attitudes and perceptions, especially in Mediterranean countries. This absence of localized research is critical, as the unique agricultural practices, socio-economic conditions, and environmental challenges faced by farmers can significantly influence their responses to climate change. Without a comprehensive understanding of these attitudes, policymakers may struggle to develop effective adaptation strategies tailored to the specific needs of each region, since the effectiveness of adaptation strategies towards climate and land use change pressures depends on how well they are understood by the farmers. To address this gap, the present study considers all the national intrinsic and extrinsic characteristics and values in order to examine the following: (i) explore the factors that affect the attitudes of Greek farmers towards climate change, (ii) develop a typology regarding those attitudes and beliefs, and lastly, (iii) detect possible relationships between clusters’ solution groups and the demographic characteristics of the farmers as well as their agricultural holdings’ features.
The subsequent sections are organized as follows: The next section outlines briefly the relevant literature. The third section describes the research methodology. The fourth section presents the results, and section five discusses the findings. The last section concludes and also examines the implications of these results for policymaking and public administration.

2. Literature Review

Over the past decade, research on farmers’ beliefs and attitudes toward climate change has grown steadily. The dual role of farming as both a contributor and a victim of climate change underscores the need for sustainable practices that not only reduce agriculture’s environmental impact but also help farmers adapt to the changing climate. Despite increasing scientific consensus on the urgency of climate action, research reveals a significant gap in public understanding, particularly among farmers whose responses to climate change vary substantially based on their beliefs and perceptions [12,13].
Weber and Stern [12] emphasize that farmers’ environmental actions are influenced by individual values and beliefs, with Stern’s Value-Belief-Norm (VBN) theory providing a framework to understand these behaviors [13]. In line with this, recent studies highlight the diversity of attitudes toward climate change within the farming community, showing that while some farmers recognize the need for mitigation and adaptation, others view climate impacts as naturally occurring or unconnected to their activities, limiting support for climate policies [14,15,16,17]. Furthermore, Arbuckle Jr. et al. [15] argued that farmers’ beliefs about climate change vary, influencing their attitudes toward its impacts and actions. According to the same authors, those farmers who see climate change as human-caused are more concerned and supportive of adaptation and mitigation efforts; in contrast, farmers attributing it to natural causes or doubting its existence show less concern and are less supportive of such actions.
Several studies underscore that farmers’ adaptation practices—ranging from altering crops and soil management to engaging in collaborative efforts with government bodies—are shaped by a mix of climatic, socioeconomic, and informational factors [14,16,18,19]. For instance, Roco et al. [18] and Shah et al. [20] show that education and access to information enhance farmers’ awareness and readiness to adapt, a finding echoed in Scandinavian studies where educational initiatives and climate information access support effective adaptation [21,22]. The Theory of Planned Behavior, as applied by Niles et al. [21], also illustrates that while attitudes and beliefs drive the intention to adopt climate-friendly practices, actual adoption is influenced by broader social norms and perceived capacity. This trend of varied adoption is further evidenced in the typology by Barnes and Toma [23], which categorizes Scottish farmers’ climate outlooks and reveals that most farmers show little intention to adopt emission-reducing practices unless they receive additional recognition or financial incentives.
Research across geographic regions continues to show that local factors can play crucial roles in shaping climate adaptation strategies since farmers base their understanding on personal local experiences. Studies in Peru [24] and Finland [22] demonstrate that farmers’ perceptions often differ from global or European perspectives, indicating a need for better communication and targeted incentives to align local practices with broader climate goals.
By identifying the regional disparities in farmers’ beliefs and perceptions and also local specificities in farmers’ attitudes towards climate change, policymakers can devise the appropriate sustainable strategies at both national and regional levels. Such targeted efforts can contribute meaningfully to the broader framework of global climate change adaptation and mitigation.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Survey Design

With the aim to reveal farmers’ views and attitudes towards climate change, in the spring of 2024, the researchers conducted a primary questionnaire survey with a random representative sample consisting of 150 individuals in the region of Eastern Macedonia and Thrace. Specifically, 30 farmers were selected from each of the five sub-regional districts of the region of Eastern Macedonia and Thrace, namely Drama, Kavala, Xanthi, Rhodope, and Evros, ensuring a geographically diverse and balanced representation.
The content for constructing the questionnaire was based on relevant European studies, which were identified through a focused literature review process. This material was further refined through in-depth interviews with executives of the managing authority of the General Directorate of Agricultural Economy (experts) of the region of Eastern Macedonia and Thrace, and also with regional cabinet members of the East Macedonia and Thrace Regional Unit Administration (policymakers). The questionnaire was divided into 3 sections: (1) Socioeconomic data and farm features data are asked in the first section. (2) In the second section, there are general questions related to farmers’ views on climate change consequences in agriculture and also agriculture’s impacts on climate change. (3) As for the third section, there are questions about the farmers’ attitudes and perceptions towards their role, responsibilities, and possibilities to mitigate and adapt to climate change threats. In the latter section, by adopting a five-point Likert scale, the beliefs and attitudes of the farmers were coded in such a way that 1 means strong disagreement and 5 means strong agreement or in such a way that 1 means “not at all” and 5 means “very much”.

3.2. Sampling Technique

Initially, the questionnaire was pre-tested on a limited sample of 15 farmers in the regional district of Xanthi who consented to fill it out and provide feedback on its technical performance, question clarity and comprehensibility, and instructions’ usefulness. A pilot survey followed in March 2024 with 50 farmers from the whole region to determine if the questionnaire met the research objectives. The pilot survey results confirmed that the questionnaire was adequate for the final survey without further modifications. The required time for the questionnaire completion was approximately ten minutes.
Following Siardos’s [25] methodology, the researchers compared the proportion of sample farmers who reported that their farms were agricultural with those from the pilot survey to assess the sample’s representativeness. Given the number of 51,628 agricultural holdings that existed in the Region of Eastern Macedonia and Thrace (according to the Greek Census data [26]), a sample size of at least 138 was needed to achieve representativeness (with z = 1.96 and d = 5%). In addition, a power analysis (β = 0.95) was conducted using G*POWER (version 3.1.9.2) software [27,28] and indicated a minimum sample size of 111 for a medium effect size [29]. Thus, the sample size of 150 was considered fully representative of the number of holdings that existed in the Region of Eastern Macedonia and Thrace.

3.3. Data Analysis

To analyze the collected data, the researchers employed a combination of statistical methodologies. Firstly, they conducted factor analysis, particularly principal component analysis to identify the main attitudes of Greek farmers towards climate change, and secondly, cluster analysis to categorize them based on their attitudes toward these applications.
PCA was used to uncover the underlying structure of the multi-item variables expressing farmers’ opinions toward climate change issues and reduce these into smaller sets to test construct validity and enhance the interpretability of the multi-item scales. Particularly, PCA with varimax rotation was employed to evaluate the dimensionality of the most important factors describing farmers’ perceptions toward climate change. To determine the number of factors, they used both the latent root criterion (eigenvalue = 1) and the percentage of variance. The tests that examined the quality of PCA were the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure and also Bartlett’s test of Sphericity.
In order to identify possible distinct groups among farmers based on their views and attitudes towards climate change, cluster analysis was applied. Since this study focused on farmers’ classification rather than building a predictive model, cluster analysis was deemed the most appropriate tool to assign farmers into different homogeneous segments and ascertain differences in perceptions toward climate change. Following Tsourgiannis et al. [30] and Raptou et al. [31], the clusters were defined by both hierarchical and non-hierarchical (k-means) clustering techniques. First, hierarchical cluster analysis was employed to define the adequate number of clusters after classifying cases into homogenous clusters by combining them together one at a time in a series of sequential steps. Ward’s method was used as the agglomeration method to determine the optimal number of clusters [32]. In Ward’s method, cases are combined so as to ensure the lowest increase in the variance in the cluster, and hence its highest homogeneity. The squared Euclidean distance was adopted as a measure of similarity between cases [33,34,35]. Discriminant analysis also was conducted to assess the precision with which the farmers were assigned to the clusters and provide additional validation for the cluster structure.
Finally, nonparametric tests, including cross-tabulation and chi-square analysis, were performed to profile these clusters and to detect possible relationships between clusters’ solutions and the demographic characteristics as well as the characteristics of farmers agricultural holdings.

3.4. Profile of the Area Studied

Eastern Macedonia and Thrace is one of the 13 administrative regions of Greece (NUTS2) and is situated in northern Greece (Figure 1). Particularly, it is bordered by Bulgaria to the north and Turkey to the east, with the Aegean Sea lying to its south. The population of Eastern Macedonia and Thrace is relatively rural, with agriculture providing a primary source of employment. Eastern Macedonia and Thrace have a diverse agricultural sector, with crops including wheat, corn, sunflowers, cotton, and various fruits and vegetables. The region is also noted for its olive groves and vineyards, especially in the coastal areas. The region experiences a Mediterranean climate, with hot, dry summers and mild, rainy winters. However, its inland and coastal areas vary, with the Rhodope Mountains contributing to a more continental climate in the north. These climate variations increase vulnerability to climate change impacts such as droughts, heatwaves, and irregular precipitation. The selection of this region was based on this criterion.

4. Results

To shed light on Greek farmers’ attitudes toward climate change, and particularly with the aim to identify the key variables that describe these attitudes, the researchers employed a PCA. To determine the number of factors, they used both the latent root criterion (eigenvalue = 1) and the percentage of variance (as shown in Table 1). They conducted several different trial rotations to compare factor interpretability, following the methodology of Hair et al. [36]. Following also the relevant literature, extracting factors with eigenvalues greater than one were kept while extracting factors with eigenvalues less than one were deleted with little to no loss of original variability [36,37]. The analysis revealed that five key factors account for 63.7% of the total variance.
By interpreting the loading scores for each factor, the researchers identified the five factors (as shown in Table 2) as follows: (a) climate change causes yield decreases and is a threat to agriculture; (b) the need for climate change mitigation; (c) the need for smart farming practices to reduce climate change’s negative impact; (d) climate change is a source of economic harm for farmers; and (e) climate change increases farmers’ production costs. In addition, the data’s fitness and sample sizes’ appropriateness for factor analysis were evaluated using Bartlett’s test of sphericity and the KMO criterion of sampling adequacy. KMO estimates over 0.70 demonstrated the sufficiency of the data, and the statistical significance of Bartlett’s test of sphericity confirmed the applicability of PCA. In particular, the KMO measure was 0.713, indicating that the data employed were adequate for the PCA [37]. Bartlett’s test of Sphericity was highly significant (chi-square = 68.587, p < 0.05) showing that the variables were correlated and suitable for structure detection [37].
Cluster analysis was conducted to classify farmers’ segments on the basis of their attitudes toward climate change. Cluster analysis classified the Greek farmers into three groups based on their attitudes towards climate change, as shown in Table 3: (a) those who are concerned about climate change; (b) those who believe that climate change is a source of economic loss; and (c) those who focus on climate change mitigation actions.
More specifically, those who are concerned about climate change believe it leads to a reduction in farm yields and poses new threats to the agricultural sector. Additionally, they are confident that smart farming technologies, such as humidity sensors and meteorological stations, will not only make agriculture more efficient in the face of climate change but also lower production costs for farmers. Furthermore, they anticipate economic harm from climate change, expecting increased production costs, and recognizing the necessity of taking action to maintain soil health as drought conditions worsen. In addition, most of the farmers who believe that climate change is a source of economic loss believe that it will decrease their production yields and increase their costs. They feel that climate change threatens them financially and poses new risks to the farming sector. Conversely, the majority of the farmers who focus on climate change mitigation actions have the impression that its negative effects can be lessened by adopting appropriate farming practices and restructuring their farm operations. They also see potential for reducing climate change’s negative impacts through the use of smart farming technologies.
Discriminant analysis was also conducted to assess how well the predictors derived from the factor analysis predicted group membership [38]. Table 4 displays the cross-validation classification summary that was obtained using the quadratic discriminant analysis.
Lastly, we conducted cross-tabulation and chi-square analysis to develop the profile of each identified group regarding their demographic characteristics and the characteristics of their farm and to detect possible relationships between them and the clusters’ solution group. Particularly, they found that all three groups are similar regarding the proportion between male and female farmers. Moreover, no significant association was identified between farmers’ attitudes towards climate change and their farming system (organic and conventional), type of activity (crop, livestock, and mixed) as well as the type of their cultivation (cereals, cotton, clover, olive trees, kiwi, vineyards, greenhouses, livestock production, etc.). In contrast, as shown in Table 5, “those who are concerned about climate change” and “those who focus on climate change mitigation actions” are well educated, as the majority of them have a bachelor’s degree, while the majority of “those who believe that climate change is a source for economic loss” are mainly farmers who attended the higher school, followed closely by them who attended the primary. Those of the first group are small-scale farmers cultivating less than 5 ha, while those of the second and third groups are medium-scale farmers, as their farmland is between 5.1 and 10 ha.

5. Discussion

5.1. Discussion of the Findings

The findings of this study contribute to understanding Greek farmers’ diverse attitudes toward climate change and provide a nuanced view of how these attitudes influence their perception of climate impacts and the adoption of mitigation practices. By applying the PCA, the study identified five key factors that describe the farmers’ views, which focus on the impact of climate change on agricultural yields, the need for mitigation, the role of smart farming practices, the economic threats posed by climate change, and the increase in production costs. These factors reveal the complex interplay between the perceived environmental risks and economic implications of climate change and highlight the value of adaptive measures that can support agricultural resilience [39,40].
The cluster analysis underscores the diversity of farmers’ attitudes by categorizing them into three distinct groups: those concerned about climate change, those who see climate change primarily as a source of economic loss, and those focused on mitigation actions. Farmers in the first group recognize the direct threats to agriculture posed by climate change, such as yield reduction and increased production costs. They express an urgent need for adaptation approaches, which they believe could alleviate some economic pressures and enhance efficiency. This group’s strong willingness to embrace innovative approaches suggests they are open to integrating technology to address climate impacts. These findings align with prior studies indicating that farmers who perceive climate change as a direct threat are more likely to support adaptive measures [12,16]. Through adaptation actions, this group anticipates not only environmental benefits but also potential cost savings, reflecting a dual motivation for climate-friendly practices and economic gains.
Farmers in the second cluster, who primarily view climate change as a source of economic loss, highlight the financial risks associated with climate change but show a more reactive than proactive stance on adaptation. Their view of climate change as an economic burden echoes findings from similar studies in the agricultural sector [20,23]. This group’s focus on economic losses and production cost increase suggests that climate policies and support mechanisms addressing economic sustainability could foster greater adaptation engagement among these farmers.
Conversely, farmers in the third cluster, focused on mitigation actions, appear motivated by a sense of control over climate change impacts and believe that strategic farming practices can lessen adverse effects. This belief aligns with findings in the literature that suggest proactive mitigation attitudes are associated with a belief in the effectiveness of climate-friendly practices [17,22].
Additionally, cross-tabulation and chi-square analysis reveal important demographic distinctions among the clusters, with educational level and farm size serving as significant differentiators. For example, more educated farmers, particularly those with a bachelor’s degree, are overrepresented in the “concerned about climate change” and “mitigation-focused” clusters, highlighting education as a potential facilitator of proactive attitudes toward climate adaptation. The finding that small-scale farmers are more likely to belong to the group of concerned underscores their heightened vulnerability to climate change. Interestingly, no significant relationship was found between annual income and farmers’ attitudes, although farm size emerged as a significant differentiator. This can be attributed to the fact that small-scale farmers often engage in labor- and capital-intensive operations, such as fruit and vegetable production, which can yield high net value added despite the smaller land area. Lastly, no significant relationships emerged between climate change attitudes and farming systems (organic or conventional) or crop types, which suggests that concerns and attitudes toward climate change in this region are shaped more by socioeconomic factors and farms’ features than by specific farming practices or types of cultivation.

5.2. Limitations and a Route for Future Studies

The limitations of the present study that should be acknowledged are the following: Firstly, the study relies on self-reported questionnaires, which may introduce response biases, potentially leading participants to underreport or overestimate certain attitudes or practices. Future research could use mixed methods, such as combining surveys with in-depth interviews, focus groups, or observational data, to validate findings and minimize self-reporting limitations. Additionally, integrating objective data, such as farm accounting records or environmental monitoring data, could provide a more comprehensive understanding of the practices in place.
Secondly, a limitation of this study lies in the lack of comparative analysis with other regions or countries. While the focus on Eastern Macedonia and Thrace provides valuable insights into the local and national context, a comparative approach could have offered a broader perspective on how cultural, economic, or policy differences influence farmers’ attitudes toward climate change. Additionally, external factors such as market access, government subsidies, or global trade were not explicitly examined in this study but may significantly impact farmers’ perceptions and behaviors. Future research could address these aspects by exploring comparative frameworks and incorporating external economic and policy-driven factors to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the drivers of farmers’ climate-related attitudes and actions.

6. Conclusions and Policy Implications

6.1. Conclusions

The present empirical effort, even though it does not use a specific psychological model, focuses on statistical methods like factor and cluster analysis to categorize farmers based on their attitudes. Hence, this study, focusing specifically on Greek farmers, provides more detailed insights into their views on climate change and delves deeper into classifying farmers into distinct groups based on their attitudes towards climate change (concerned, economically threatened, and focused on mitigation). In addition, this study offers a typology that separates farmers regarding their attitudes towards climate change and profiles each segment detecting possible relationships between clusters’ solutions and the demographic characteristics as well as the agricultural holdings’ features.

6.2. Policy Implications

Even though this study is a small-scale study focusing on farmers of the region of Eastern Macedonia and Thrace, it could become a useful tool for local authorities and regional policymakers to suggest several key policy implications.
  • Farmers who are concerned about climate change see smart farming technologies as a solution to climate challenges. Subsidizing the adoption of these technologies (e.g., humidity sensors, meteorological stations) can encourage broader uptake. Policies should focus on lowering the costs of these technologies or offering financial assistance for their implementation.
  • Farmers who perceive climate change as a source of economic loss could benefit from financial safety nets and risk management tools. This could include crop insurance programs that cover climate-related risks as well as subsidies for practices that improve resilience, such as soil and water conservation measures.
  • Farmers who focus on climate change mitigation can be empowered to share their knowledge and experience with others. Peer-to-peer learning programs, farmer cooperatives, and collaborative platforms can help disseminate effective climate adaptation strategies and foster a community of shared learning and support. Given that some farmers are already focused on mitigation actions, policies should promote and incentivize climate-friendly agricultural practices, such as sustainable land management, reduced chemical use, and carbon sequestration techniques. Public acknowledgment and certification schemes for climate-friendly farming could also motivate farmers to adopt such practices.
  • The study shows a strong link between education levels and farmers’ willingness to adopt climate change mitigation actions. Policymakers should develop targeted educational campaigns focusing on farmers with lower education levels, particularly those who view climate change mainly as a source of economic loss. These programs can provide accessible information on climate change impacts and practical strategies to improve farm resilience.
  • The study indicates that smaller-scale farmers (cultivating less than 5 ha) are more likely to be concerned about climate change impacts. These farmers may have fewer resources to adapt. Targeted financial aid, technical support, and training should be provided to these farmers, helping them implement climate-resilient practices and technologies.
By implementing these policy recommendations, policymakers can strengthen Greek farmers’ capacity to adapt to and mitigate the impacts of climate change. Through the local and national focus of our research, we contribute meaningfully to addressing the broader European climate challenge [41]. This approach not only enhances adaptability at regional and national levels, as outlined in Greece’s National Strategy for Adaptation to Climate Change (NSACC) but also aligns with and reinforces the EU Strategy on Adaptation to Climate Change.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, T.M. and L.T.; data curation, S.P.; formal analysis, S.P. and T.M.; investigation, S.P., L.T. and T.M.; methodology, T.M. and S.P.; project administration, T.M.; resources, C.S.; software, L.T.; supervision, T.M.; validation, T.M. and C.S.; visualization, L.T.; writing—original draft, T.M. and C.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

In accordance with the Article 89 of General Data Protection Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and the national implementation law in Greece, Law 4624/2019, which governs the protection of personal data, ethical review and approval are not required for research that does not process identifiable personal data.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent for participation 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.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. IPCC. 2021: Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. In Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Masson-Delmotte, V., Zhai, P., Pirani, A., Connors, S.L., Péan, C., Berger, S., Caud, N., Chen, Y., Goldfarb, L., Gomis, M.I., et al., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Brankov, T.; Markopoulos, T.; Kontakos, S. Long-Term Trends in Food Consumption: Comparison between Serbia and Greece. Econ. Agric. 2019, 66, 975–988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. EEA. Nature-Based Solutions in Europe. 2021. Available online: https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/nature-based-solutions-in-europe (accessed on 4 February 2024).
  4. Sardaro, R.; Faccilongo, N.; Contò, F.; La Sala, P. Adaption Actions to Cope with Climate Change: Evidence from Farmers’ Preferences on an Agrobiodiversity Conservation Programme in the Mediterranean Area. Sustainability 2021, 13, 5977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. UCP Knowledge Network. Climate Change. 2023. Available online: https://civil-protection-knowledge-network.europa.eu/eu-overview-risks/risk-drivers/climate-change (accessed on 6 July 2024).
  6. Giorgi, F. Climate change hotspots. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2006, 33, L08707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Cos, J.; Doblas-Reyes, F.; Jury, M.; Marcos, R.; Bretonniere, P.A.; Samsò, M. The Mediterranean climate change hotspot in the CMIP5 and CMIP6 projections. Earth Syst. Dynam. 2022, 13, 321–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Lionello, P.; Giorgi, F.; Rohling, E.; Seager, R. Mediterranean climate: Past, present and future. In Oceanography of the Mediterranean Sea; Schroeder, K., Jacopo Chiggiato, J., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2023; pp. 41–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Lionello, P.; Scarascia, L. The relation between climate change in the Mediterranean region and global warming. Reg. Environ. Change 2018, 18, 1481–1493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Ali, E.; Cramer, W.; Carnicer, J.; Georgopoulou, E.; Hilmi, N.J.M.; Le Cozannet, G.; Lionello, P. Cross-Chapter Paper 4: Mediterranean Region. In Climate Change: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the IPCC; Pörtner, H.-O., Roberts, D.C., Tignor, M., Poloczanska, E.S., Mintenbeck, K., Alegría, A., Craig, M., Langsdorf, S., Löschke, S., Möller, V., et al., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2022; pp. 2233–2272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. MedECC, 2020. Climate and Environmental Change in the Mediterranean Basin—Current Situation and Risks for the Future; First Mediterranean Assessment Report; Cramer, W., Guiot, J., Marini, K., Eds.; Union for the Mediterranean, Plan Bleu, UNEP/MAP: Marseille, France, 2020; Available online: https://zenodo.org/record/4768833 (accessed on 4 March 2024).
  12. Weber, E.U.; Stern, P.C. Public understanding of climate change in the United States. Am. Psychol. 2011, 66, 315–328. Available online: https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/a0023253 (accessed on 8 March 2024). [CrossRef]
  13. Stern, P.C. New environmental theories: Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. J. Soc. Issues 2002, 56, 407–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Karki, S.; Burton, P.; Mackey, B. The experiences and perceptions of farmers about the impacts of climate change and variability on crop production: A review. Clim. Dev. 2020, 12, 80–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Arbuckle, J.G., Jr.; Morton, L.W.; Hobbs, J. Farmer beliefs and concerns about climate change and attitudes toward adaptation and mitigation: Evidence from Iowa. Clim. Change 2013, 118, 551–563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Schattman, R.E.; Méndez, V.E.; Merrill, S.C.; Zia, A. Mixed methods approach to understanding farmer and agricultural advisor perceptions of climate change and adaptation in Vermont, United States. Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst. 2018, 42, 121–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Jørgensen, S.L.; Termansen, M. Linking climate change perceptions to adaptation and mitigation action. Clim. Change 2016, 138, 283–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Roco, L.; Engler, A.; Bravo-Ureta, B.E.; Jara-Rojas, R. Farmers’ perception of climate change in Mediterranean Chile. Reg. Environ. Change 2014, 15, 867–879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Khanal, U.; Wilson, C.; Hoang, V.; Lee, B. Farmers’ adaptation to climate change, its determinants and impacts on rice yield in Nepal. Ecol. Econ. 2018, 144, 139–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Shah, S.A.A.; Mehmood, M.S.; Muhammad, I.; Ahamad, M.I.; Wu, H. Adapting Harvests: A Comprehensive Study of Farmers’ Perceptions, Adaptation Strategies, and Climatic Trends in Dera Ghazi Khan, Pakistan. Sustainability 2024, 16, 7070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Niles, M.T.; Brown, M.; Dynes, R. Farmer’s intended and actual adoption of climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies. Clim. Change 2016, 135, 277–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Sorvali, J.; Kaseva, J.; Peltonen-Sainio, P. Farmer views on climate change—A longitudinal study of threats, opportunities and action. Clim. Change 2021, 164, 50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Barnes, A.P.; Toma, L. A typology of dairy farmer perceptions towards climate change. Clim. Change 2012, 112, 507–522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Altea, L. Perceptions of climate change and its impacts: A comparison between farmers and institutions in the Amazonas region of Peru. Clim. Dev. 2019, 12, 134–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Siardos, G. Methodology of Agricultural Sociological Research; Ziti Publications: Thessaloniki, Greece, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  26. ELSTAT. Greek National Accounts, Greek Statistics Authority 2024. Available online: http://www.statistics.gr/ (accessed on 3 January 2024).
  27. Faul, F.; Erdfelder, E.; Buchner, A.; Lang, A.G. Statistical power analyses using G* Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behav. Res. Methods 2009, 41, 1149–1160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Tsourgiannis, L.; Kazana, V.; Iakovoglou, V. Consumers’ Attitudes towards the development of transgenic forest trees and their products in Greece. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies in Agriculture, Food and Environment, HAICTA 2015, Kavala, Greece, 17–20 September 2015; pp. 967–975. [Google Scholar]
  29. Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 1988; p. 567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Tsourgiannis, L.; Valsamidis, S.; Karagianni, P.; Tassos, K. The use of Internet and Social Networks during COVID-19 in Greece. KnE Soc. Sci. 2023, 8, 360–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Raptou, E.; Mattas, K.; Tsakiridou, E.; Baourakis, G. Assessing the Aftermath of COVID-19 Outbreak in the Agro-Food System: An Exploratory Study of Experts’ Perspectives. Front. Nutr. 2022, 9, 769626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Henson, R.K.; Roberts, J.K. Use of exploratory factor analysis in published research: Common errors and some comment on improved practice. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 2006, 66, 393–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Williams, B.; Onsman, A.; Brown, T. Exploratory factor analysis: A five-step guide for novices. Australas. J. Paramed. 2010, 8, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Likas, A.; Vlassis, N.; Verbeek, J. The Global K-Means Clustering Algorithm. Pattern Recognit. 2003, 36, 451–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Kaufmann, L.; Rousseeuw, P.J. Finding Groups Introduction to Cluster Analysis; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1990. [Google Scholar]
  36. Hair, J.F.; Anderson, R.E.; Tatham, R.L.; Black, W.C. Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th ed.; Pearson Prentice Hall Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1998; ISBN 9780138948580. [Google Scholar]
  37. Hayton, J.C.; Allen, D.G.; Scarpello, V. Factor retention decisions in exploratory factor analysis: A tutorial on parallel analysis. Organ. Res. Methods 2004, 7, 191–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Blei, D.; Lafferty, J. Topic models. In Text Mining: Classification, Clustering, and Applications; Srivastava, A., Sahami, M., Eds.; Taylor and Francis Group: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2009; pp. 71–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Ratnayake, S.S.; Reid, M.; Larder, N.; Hunter, D.; Hasan, M.K.; Dharmasena, P.B.; Kogo, B.; Senavirathna, M.; Kariyawasam, C.S. Climate and Land Use Change Pressures on Food Production in Social-Ecological Systems: Perceptions from Farmers in Village Tank Cascade Systems of Sri Lanka. Sustainability 2024, 16, 8603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Jantke, K.; Hartmann, M.J.; Rasche, L.; Blanz, B.; Schneider, U.A. Agricultural greenhouse gas emissions: Knowledge and positions of German farmers. Land 2020, 9, 130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Kotseva-Tikova, M.; Dvorak, J. Climate Policy and Plans for Recovery in Bulgaria and Lithuania. Rom. J. Eur. Aff. 2022, 22, 79–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 17 02319 g001
Figure 1. Location of the studied area in the Greek territory.
Figure 1. Location of the studied area in the Greek territory.
Sustainability 17 02319 g001
Table 1. Results of principal component analysis.
Table 1. Results of principal component analysis.
ComponentInitial EigenvaluesExtraction Sums of Squared Loadings
TotalVariance %Cumulative %TotalVariance %Cumulative %
11.47714.77114.7711.47714.77114.771
21.41314.13428.9061.41314.13428.906
31.33113.31342.2181.33113.31342.218
41.13611.36353.5811.13611.36353.581
51.01310.13263.7141.01310.13263.714
60.8208.20471.918
70.8088.07779.994
80.7397.38687.380
90.6536.53193.911
100.6096.089100.000
Source: Calculations based on the quantitative survey.
Table 2. The main factors affecting attitudes of the Greek farmers towards climate change.
Table 2. The main factors affecting attitudes of the Greek farmers towards climate change.
Component
12345
The yields of their farm will decrease due to climate change.−0.732−0.061−0.0480.3340.044
Climate change creates new threats for agriculture.0.7070.065−0.0630.2460.012
There is a need to support farm restructuring due to climate change.0.2760.716−0.124−0.151−0.087
The mitigation of the climate change impact is farmers’ responsibility.−0.1150.6230.3900.1370.062
Farmer can mitigate the impact of climate change with farming practices.0.113−0.5480.189−0.415−0.328
The new smart faming technologies (e.g., humidity sensors, meteorological stations, etc.) will make agriculture more beneficial within the framework of climate change.−0.0780.1050.760−0.1730.038
The adoption of new smart faming technologies will reduce farmer’s production costs, which will increase due to climate change.0.104−0.1650.7040.356−0.049
Farmers will be harmed economically due to climate change.0.0200.0390.0680.768−0.148
Farmers need to take action to maintain the soil conditions of farmland as drought increases.−0.1180.1580.021−0.2320.781
The production costs will be increased on my farm from climate change.0.477−0.2950.0160.1400.603
KMO = 0.713, Bartlett test of Sphericity = 68.587, p < 0.05. Source: Calculations based on the quantitative survey.
Table 3. Classification of the Greek farmers regarding their attitudes towards climate change.
Table 3. Classification of the Greek farmers regarding their attitudes towards climate change.
Factors Affecting Greek Farmers Regarding Their Attitudes Towards Climate ChangeClusterp-Value
Farmers Who Are Concerned About Climate ChangeFarmers Who Believe That Climate Change Is a Source of Economic LossFarmers Who Focus on Climate Change Mitigation Actions
Climate change causes yields to decrease and is a threat to agriculture.0.061330.21790−0.308540.001
Need for climate change mitigation.−0.33135−0.413350.183300.001
Need for smart farming practices to reduce climate change negative impact.0.66652−0.853310.394110.001
Climate change is a source of economic harm for farmers.0.229010.24459−0.490170.001
Climate change increases farmers’ production costs.0.859900.08566−0.871800.001
N = 150445749
Source: Calculations based on the quantitative survey.
Table 4. Results of the quadratic discriminant analysis.
Table 4. Results of the quadratic discriminant analysis.
Actual ClassificationPredicted Classification
Farmers Who Are Concerned About Climate ChangeFarmers Who Believe That Climate Change Is a Source of Economic LossFarmers Who Focus on Climate Change Mitigation Actions
Those who are concerned about climate change.4410
Those who believe that climate change is a source of economic loss.0550
Those who focus on climate change mitigation actions.0149
Total N445749
N correct445549
Proportion of Correct Classification100%96.5%100%
N = 150N correct = 148Proportion Correct = 98.6%
Source: Calculations based on the quantitative survey.
Table 5. Profile of each group according to demographics and farm characteristics.
Table 5. Profile of each group according to demographics and farm characteristics.
Farmers Who Are Concerned About Climate ChangeFarmers Who Believe That Climate Change Is a Source of Economic LossFarmers Who Focus on Climate Change Mitigation ActionsPearson χ2p-Value
GenderMen (73%)Men (79%)Men (75%)3.9470.537
Age45–50 (42%)40–45 (37%)45–50 (39%)4.5010.672
Educational levelTertiary education (50%)Secondary education (41%)Tertiary education (47%)24.0610.001
Annual income10,000–20,000 EUR (62%)Over 20,000 EUR (51%)10,000–20,000 EUR (44%)4.3660.185
Percentage of annual income from agricultural activities100% (76%)100% (78%)100% (82%)4.8390.199
Size of agricultural holding<5 ha hectares (47%)5–10 hectares (47%)5–10 hectares (43%)8.4740.001
Type of activityCrop Production (82%)Crop Production (88%)Crop Production (84%)6.5870.652
Farming systemConventional (90%)Conventional (96%)Conventional (86%)4.1120.777
Main cultivated cropCereals (52%)Cereals (44%)Cotton (48%)3.2790.944
Source: Calculations based on the quantitative survey.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Markopoulos, T.; Tsourgiannis, L.; Papadopoulos, S.; Staboulis, C. Utilizing Farmers’ Views and Attitudes to Hinder Climate Change Threats: Insights from Greece. Sustainability 2025, 17, 2319. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17052319

AMA Style

Markopoulos T, Tsourgiannis L, Papadopoulos S, Staboulis C. Utilizing Farmers’ Views and Attitudes to Hinder Climate Change Threats: Insights from Greece. Sustainability. 2025; 17(5):2319. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17052319

Chicago/Turabian Style

Markopoulos, Theodoros, Lambros Tsourgiannis, Sotirios Papadopoulos, and Christos Staboulis. 2025. "Utilizing Farmers’ Views and Attitudes to Hinder Climate Change Threats: Insights from Greece" Sustainability 17, no. 5: 2319. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17052319

APA Style

Markopoulos, T., Tsourgiannis, L., Papadopoulos, S., & Staboulis, C. (2025). Utilizing Farmers’ Views and Attitudes to Hinder Climate Change Threats: Insights from Greece. Sustainability, 17(5), 2319. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17052319

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