The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension

Competence for Rural Innovation and Transformation

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/raee20

A blessing in disguise: advisers’ experiences with

promoting climate change mitigation among
Norwegian farmers

Maja Farstad, Magnar Forbord & Laurens Klerkx

To cite this article: Maja Farstad, Magnar Forbord & Laurens Klerkx (14 Feb 2024): A
blessing in disguise: advisers’ experiences with promoting climate change mitigation
among Norwegian farmers, The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, DOI:
10.1080/1389224X.2024.2314771

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2024.2314771

© 2024 The Author(s). Published by Informa

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group

Published online: 14 Feb 2024.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 445

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=raee20
THE JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION AND EXTENSION
https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2024.2314771

A blessing in disguise: advisers’ experiences with promoting

climate change mitigation among Norwegian farmers
a a
Maja Farstad , Magnar Forbord and Laurens Klerkxb,c
a
Ruralis – Institute for Rural and Regional Research, Trondheim, Norway; bDepartamento de Economía
Agraria, Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias, Universidad de Talca, Talca, Chile; cKnowledge, Technology and
Innovation Group, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Purpose: The purpose of the paper is to analyze how promotional Received 18 January 2023
and advisory efforts address climate change mitigation in Norway Accepted 28 January 2024
and to learn how advisers navigate between governmental goals
KEYWORDS
to address the common good and farmers’ private needs. Farming; climate; mitigation
Methodology: Empirical data was obtained through semi- measures; promotional work;
structured in-depth interviews with eight agricultural advisers informative means; policy
with the mandate of promoting climate-friendly farming, as well
as through notes and presentations from a workshop involving
advisers and agricultural schoolteachers. Data were analyzed
qualitatively on the basis of meaning condensation and meaning
categorization.
Findings: Only the most enterprising farmers have proactively
sought climate advice and attended climate courses – and
primarily for farm-benefiting gains other than climate change
mitigation. The advisers see it as essential to highlight the overall
gains that derive from climate change mitigation and that benefit
farms in the broader sense in order to motivate farmers, while
the central communication around climate advice and courses
more narrowly solely focuses on the opportunity to reduce
emissions.
Practical implications and value: It is important to create a
suitable framing of climate change mitigation and its benefits
both at the macro (policy and programme) and micro (farm-level
advice) levels, in order to reach out to as many farmers as possible.
Theoretical implications: Advice framing that puts greater
emphasis on the private, non-climate-related benefits of climate
change mitigation actions seems to stimulate greater support for
these actions than a common-good framing focused on
addressing climate change only.

1. Introduction
Like many sectors across society, the agricultural sector is expected to reduce its green­
house gas (GHG) emissions considerably. Strong consensus around this goal is often seen
at the national level (see, e.g. Fellmann et al. 2018), but implementing the necessary

CONTACT Maja Farstad [email protected]

© 2024 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly
cited. The terms on which this article has been published allow the posting of the Accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author
(s) or with their consent.
2 M. FARSTAD ET AL.

changes at the farm level seems to be a more challenging task. While many managerial
changes at this level are often aimed at immediately accruing private benefits for the indi­
vidual farm – e.g. through uptake of new technologies and/or practices to achieve
increased productivity (Abadi Ghadim and Pannell 1999; Feder and Umali 1993; Gri­
liches 1957; McCann et al. 2015; Rogers 2003; Ruttan 1996) – public requirements are
primarily aimed at attaining benefits for the common good (Ahnström et al. 2009; Ram­
borun, Facknath, and Lalljee 2020). The requirement for the agricultural sector to reduce
its share of GHG emissions (Klima- og forurensningsdirektoratet 2010; Leahy, Clark, and
Reisinger 2020; Tubiello et al. 2013) is a current and highly relevant example of the latter.
In Norway, agriculture is estimated to be responsible for about 9% of the country’s
GHG emissions, and the emissions from agriculture have been quite stable since the
1990s (Miljødirektoratet 2023). The government and the two farmers’ unions signed a
letter of intent in 2019 to jointly reduce GHG emissions and to increase the uptake of
carbon in agriculture (Regjeringen 2020). Thus, in this case, the farmers’ organizations
agreed on behalf of the farmers to cooperate in solving a common-good problem.
However, since farmers in Norway run their own independent enterprises, they do not
automatically implement suitable climate mitigation measures proactively from an
intrinsic motivation, due to both structural and behavioral reasons (Brown et al. 2021;
Farstad, Mahlum Melås, and Klerkx 2022). Due to the biophysical complexities of
carbon emissions and carbon storage – not least in a biological type of production like
agriculture – many measures are largely developed externally and presented to farmers
by specialists, such as researchers and policymakers (Willson and Roderick 2018).
Another important type of actor in this context are agricultural advisory systems
(Nettle, Crawford, and Brightling 2018; Prokopy et al. 2015; Ptak, Graversgaard, and Dal­
gaard 2023; Wiener, Álvarez-Berríos, and Lindsey 2020), consisting of specialized advi­
sers who solely provide independent advice, and other actors with the mandate of
promoting climate-friendly changes at the farm level but who also have other activities
besides providing advice. The latter category, which has been dubbed ‘embedded advi­
sers’ or ‘linked advisers’ (Klerkx and Jansen 2010; Sutherland and Labarthe 2022),
includes commercial representatives of feed suppliers, food-processing firms, and
public consultants1 at the national, regional, or local levels.
In Norway, like in many other countries (Birner et al. 2009; Garforth 2010), since the
1990s the task of advising farmers has largely been transferred from public (municipali­
ties, counties, state agencies) to private organizations (Klerkx et al. 2017), in terms of
both specialized and embedded advisers. Much of the advice is now provided by
farmer-owned organizations, which are partly financed by the members and partly via
public funding. In Norway, two organizations in particular have been given the role to
provide what is called ‘climate advice’ to farmers. One of them, Norsk Landbruksrådgiv­
ing, is a nationwide advisory organization offering advice on several farm-related issues,
including agronomy and economy; the other one, Tine, is producer-owned and the
largest dairy company, which has a separate department on advisory services for dairy
farmers. As indicated above, the organizations have committed to fostering farm-level
change in terms of climate change mitigation behavior. Furthermore, public agricultural
advisers connected to the offices of county administrators, county authorities, and muni­
cipalities arrange courses, organize information campaigns, and/or provide consulting to
steer farming and food production in nationally decided directions.
 THE JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION AND EXTENSION 3

The officially announced focus of the Norwegian government has primarily been
emission reductions, and specific goals have been set to this end. Even though several
reports have been published on possible measures that can be undertaken for agriculture
(e.g. biogas production, manure management, production and storage of biochar) as well
as for other sectors (Klima- og forurensningsdirektoratet 2010; Miljødirektoratet, Kyst­
verket, and Norges vassdrags- og energidirektorat 2020), the emphasis of the overarching
communication toward Norwegian farmers is not specifically on particular climate
change mitigation measures: rather, it is almost solely on the potential for emission
reductions. Consequently, the formulations of climate change mitigation measures to
be implemented at the farm level in Norway are quite vague and open-ended. This
seems, among other things, to be due to an overarching national understanding that
such effects are highly farm-specific (related to production, weather, soil structure,
etc.) and that the best and most effective measures must be assessed and decided for
each individual farm (e.g. see Klimasmart 2023; Nortura 2023).
This puts a lot of responsibility on the advisers, who in light of these policies have
recently been trained to provide advice on emission reductions and who have been
instructed on the goals and on relevant means (Ferstad 2022). In this context of
climate change mitigation, there is typically some discrepancy between the government’s
expectations of the advisers to achieve the common good and the private goals from the
farmers, as is common in privatized systems (see, e.g. Garforth et al. 2003; Klerkx, de
Grip, and Leeuwis 2006). While advisers’ experiences and perspectives have previously
been assessed for their provision of advice on other sustainability issues with a public-
good character, such as nutrient management and mastitis prevention (Klerkx and
Jansen 2010; Klerkx, de Grip, and Leeuwis 2006), they have only to a limited extent
been explored for the topic of climate change mitigation (a few examples are the
studies by Stål and colleagues in Sweden (Stål and Bonnedahl 2015; Stål, Karl, and Bon­
nedahl 2015)). In view of this gap, the current paper examines the experiences of agricul­
tural advisers in providing advice on climate change mitigation, operating within
overarching policy frames that dictate that farmers reduce their emissions.
Thus, the aim of this study is to learn from the experiences of Norwegian climate
change mitigation advisers and to provide new knowledge on how general climate
change mitigation pursuits oriented toward farmers are working in terms of engaging
the latter. Through their regular contact with farmers, our interviewees have valuable
insights into how farmers generally relate to mitigation measures and to discussions
about and requests for more climate-friendly agriculture. In this way, the paper adds
to earlier research on how advisers navigate between governmental goals for the
common good and farmers’ private needs (e.g. Albaladejo, Couix, and Barthe 2007;
Klerkx and Jansen 2010; Laurent, Cerf, and Labarthe 2006; Prager et al. 2016). Our
work was guided by the following research question: What are the approaches and
experiences of agricultural advisers supporting farmers in Norway in implementing
climate change mitigation measures? This question allowed for exploring both the
climate adviser’s role in providing climate change mitigation advice, and about the
perceived potential of climate change mitigation advice to influence farmers’
decision-making at their farms.
The empirical material consists of interviews with a selection of agricultural advisers
with the mandate of promoting climate-friendly farming, along with notes and
4 M. FARSTAD ET AL.

presentations from a seminar involving some of the interviewees. Drawing on the empiri­
cal findings, we discuss what seems to be the most suitable and effective ways to conduct
advisory and promotional work in the future.
In the remainder of this paper, we review the relevant literature before providing more
details about the Norwegian case context and an account of the material and methods.
After the empirical findings are presented, the paper ends with a discussion of the
findings and suggestions and implications for practice and policy.

2. Literature review: agricultural extension and the promotion of climate

change mitigation behavior
In this section, we review perspectives and models developed in extant studies on the
promotion of environmental behavior in general, on how farmers perceive and act in
relation to demands involving the common good (e.g. climate change mitigation,
nature conservation, ecosystem services, farming with less pesticides), and on how advi­
sory services and other relevant actors can contribute to change in that respect. This
review also highlights how farmers’ climate change-relevant decision-making (Orlove
et al. 2020) makes up the essence of agricultural advisers’ field of work.

2.1. The potential for changing farmers’ behavior in terms of climate change
mitigation
Several studies have highlighted how multiple and interacting conditions – such as the
farmer’s attitudes, the farming context, and sustainability-related schemes – influence
farmers’ decisions and, thus, must be recognized in the efforts to promote various
changes toward sustainable practices (Ahnström et al. 2009; Greiner 2015). Critical pre­
conditions for adopting sustainable practices were well summarized by Runhaar (2017),
who highlighted four main conditions: (1) motivation, combined with (2) a call for
farmers’ participation, (3) ability to participate/the enabling thereof, and (4) legitimation
(i.e. regulations or social norms not inhibiting necessary practices). As Runhaar has indi­
cated, the conditions can be created by governance arrangements, such as financial
incentives or regulation, but farmers’ motivation also depends on personal characteristics
(Runhaar 2017).
In the specific case of farm-level change in pursuit of climate change mitigation, pre­
vious research has demonstrated how ‘ideal’ climate change mitigation behavior is rare.
Interest in climate change among farmers has shown to be quite low (cf. e.g. Brobakk
2018; Flemsæter, Bjørkhaug, and Brobakk 2018; Prokopy et al. 2015), and weak
climate consciousness among farmers is viewed as an important barrier to climate
change mitigation in agriculture (e.g. Arbuckle et al. 2013; Barnes and Toma 2012;
Prokopy et al. 2015; Wreford, Ignaciuk, and Gruère 2017). The literature indicates par­
ticular challenges with regard to the task of convincing farmers to implement climate
change mitigation measures. One such finding indicates that farmers are generally
more likely to adopt environmental practices if one can identify ways to make the
methods and results more observable and to reduce the perceived complexity (Griskevi­
cius, Tybur, and Van den Bergh 2010; McCann et al. 2015; Weber 2013); in this context,
the exact opposite is the case when observability is not immediate (as change takes a long
 THE JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION AND EXTENSION 5

time) and the measures are part of a complex system (Corner and Clarke 2017; Corner
and Randall 2011). This presents a serious challenge for promoting climate change miti­
gation practices.
Orlove et al.’s (2020) comprehensive literature review and discussion of climate
change-relevant decisions2 at a more general level seem relevant in this regard. Impor­
tantly, these authors recognize that any explicit decision having implications for
climate change is a decision that matters in this respect. Thus, they argue that it is not
only decisions based on decision-makers’ explicit climate change mitigation-driven
motives. This broader approach ‘helps to reveal the true scope of the challenges involved
in improving climate-related outcomes through changes in (…) decision-making’
(Orlove et al. 2020, 276). Considering this, motivations unrelated to climate change miti­
gation that nonetheless trigger that mitigation measures are implemented have also been
identified as prevalent among farmers in several studies (Burton and Farstad 2020;
Davidson et al. 2019; Kragt, Dumbrell, and Blackmore 2017; Moerkerken et al. 2020).
In this sense, climate change mitigation is a ‘by-catch’ of other motivated changes on
farm, which is promising for the goal of promoting behavioral change toward climate
change mitigation.

2.2. How advice can support climate change mitigation changes at the farm
level: the role of framing
Ample research has been conducted on what advisers can do to assist in getting farmers
to implement new and improved practices; results include developing learning commu­
nities, enhancing farmers’ self-efficacy and power to follow through, and contextualizing
farmers’ learning – i.e. to relate desired changes to the wider farm and production (e.g.
Ahnström et al. 2009; Cooreman et al. 2021; McKim and Velez 2016; Sewell et al. 2017),
as well as finding the best way to promote changing management practices. Agricultural
adviser–farmer encounters based on trust, empathy, credibility, and consultation
(instead of instruction) enable better knowledge exchange and thus also better opportu­
nities for sustainable farm management (Ingram 2008). This approach involves co-creat­
ing knowledge instead of merely disseminating information (Höckert and Ljung 2013;
Klerkx and Jansen 2010) and acting as a facilitator and sparring partner rather than as
a technical expert prescribing solutions (Klerkx and Jansen 2010; Nettle and Paine 2009).
With regard to agricultural advice, research has also explored the significance of
different framings of desired climate change mitigation action. Ngo, Poortvliet, and
Klerkx (2022) examined the efficacy of various types of messages related to climate
change mitigation and adaptation used to encourage farmers. While they did not find
significant differences between different frames for mitigation, they found that farmers
were more willing to engage in climate change adaptation when exposed to concrete
and gain-framed (i.e. gain-focused) messages rather than abstract and loss-framed mess­
ages. More generally, other research (e.g. Cohen et al. 2021; Walker, Kurz, and Russel
2017) has further shown how the framing of co-impacts – i.e. a greater emphasis on
non-climate-related benefits of mitigation actions – can motivate greater support for
such actions in certain cases. Specifically in agriculture, Willson and Roderick (2018)
found that a campaign targeting soil management managed to stimulate a higher level
of interest for climate-relevant measures than generic messages about agriculture and
6 M. FARSTAD ET AL.

climate change, as the climate change messages were realigned with practical on-farm
management in the former.
According to Orlove et al. (2020), framing plays an important role in the decision-
making process. They explain how climate change-relevant decisions may be influenced
by different kinds of framing, where frames can be either diagnostic (identifying the
problem and whom to blame), prognostic (suggesting appropriate solutions to the
problem), and/or motivational (by creating understanding for the need to act, and a
sense of urgency). In this regard, framing may be understood as a collective and some­
times political process where various interests (such as social movements, government,
and industry) compete on defining and shaping the significant frames (Benford and
Snow 2000 in Orlove et al. 2020). Orlove et al. highlight how research on the effects of
various types of framing (e.g. climate, social, economic, etc.) on decision-making often
has shown that non-climate frames may be equally or more effective than climate
frames when promoting a particular kind of decision-making. This connects with
earlier work on sustainability measures in agriculture, which has shown that an
optimal framing and balance of public and private interests need to be attained in
order to make sustainability measures appealing to farmers (Klerkx, de Grip, and
Leeuwis 2006; Runhaar 2017).

2.3. Advisers’ challenge in balancing public and private goals

Supporting changes related to sustainability issues, and balancing public and private
interests, is not easy (Klerkx, de Grip, and Leeuwis 2006). Cerf, Guillot, and Olry
(2011) highlighted several issues that change agents have to deal with when supporting
sustainable agriculture: potential tension stemming from the agent’s engagement in pro­
moting more environmentally friendly practices, and managers’ and farmers’ expec­
tations of the agent’s role regarding topics such as short-term profitability; combining
scientific knowledge with farmers’ knowledge; and ensuring continuity of change at
the farm level. This requires that advisers gain new knowledge and advisory skills
(such as climate education for advisers), to be able to meet the different types of needs
and questions farmers have and to provide new advisory services that support farmers
in light of changing circumstances, such as the increasing pressure on reducing emissions
at the farm level (Albaladejo, Couix, and Barthe 2007).
One challenge is that demand for advice on public-good issues may be lacking.
However, as Klerkx and Jansen (2010) noted, a lack of awareness among farmers of a
public-good issue (such as climate change) may not be the main problem: rather, a
change agent’s proactive approach to sustainable farm management may be hindered
by the broader institutional context if regulatory frameworks are unclear, as this
makes farmers reluctant to implement measures and ask advice about them (which is
linked with ideas from Runhaar (2017) about ‘being enabled’ to change). The latter indi­
cates that a clear and stable institutional context is crucially important. Examining a
macro perspective of pluralized advisory systems (incorporating public advisers, along
with specialized and embedded private advisers), Birner et al. (2009) highlighted how
the set-up and functioning of an agricultural advisory service, and how it attends to
the public good, is influenced by the following contextual conditions: the policy environ­
ment (e.g. policy institutions, policy goals), the capacity of potential service providers
 THE JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION AND EXTENSION 7

(e.g. state, NGOs, private actors), production system and market access (e.g. agronomic
potential, type of productions, market regulation), and community aspects (e.g. land size,
educational levels, capacity to cooperate) (see also Laurent, Cerf, and Labarthe 2006;
Prager et al. 2016). In this line of thought, Albaladejo, Couix, and Barthe (2007) empha­
sized the importance of political support for rural development agents and of the social
and institutional recognition of their skills.
In summary, the literature on agricultural advisory services suggests that ‘climate
change mitigation advice’ concerns factors at the micro level – such as farmers’ motiv­
ations, advisers’ knowledge, and the interaction between the two – and at the macro
level – such as governance structures, resources in the advisory systems, and regulations
and financial incentives set by the state. In order to understand the context and oppor­
tunities for advisers to provide valid advice to farmers on climate change mitigation, we
must focus on both the macro and micro level, particularly how the macro level influ­
ences the promotional work done at the micro level.

3. Case context and methods

3.1. Norway as case
For years, politicians and authorities from all sectors in Norway have stated the impor­
tance of reducing national GHG emissions (Klima- og forurensningsdirektoratet 2010).
In 2021, the government presented a comprehensive climate plan, ‘Klimakur 2030’
(Miljødirektoratet, Kystverket, and Norges vassdrags- og energidirektorat 2020), for
restructuring the entire society as of 2030 to meet climate goals and simultaneously
create green growth. In agriculture, a letter of intent was drawn up in 2019 between
the government and the agricultural organizations as a basis for climate work in agricul­
ture in the future (Regjeringen 2020). This is a voluntary agreement to reduce GHG emis­
sions and increase the uptake of carbon from agriculture to be implemented in the period
of 2021–2030 (Meld. St. 2020–2021 2020–2021–2020–2021).3
Even though the Norwegian Parliament has defined overall goals for emission
reductions, the government’s climate and environmental policy is based on sectoral
responsibility (Ministry of climate and environment 2019). General legislation on
climate goals was adopted in Norway in 2017 (Klima- og miljødepartementet 2017);
this law states, among other things, that the emissions shall be reduced by 50% by
2030 and that each year the government shall present figures to the parliament on the
development in emissions reduction in each non-quota sector, which includes agricul­
ture. Furthermore, subsidies are provided for various climate-related agronomic
improvements.4 However, as legal instruments largely have yet to be introduced, the
implementation of climate-friendly measures at the farm level heavily depends on
farmers’ voluntary choices on their farms.
Currently, some actions are being taken at the sectoral level (by agricultural and
environmental authorities) to ensure the provision of relevant information and engage
in consultancy work focused on climate change that is directed toward farmers. In
2017–2019, farmers’ organizations and cooperatives in Norway (17 organizations in
total) ran a project called ‘Climate-Smart Agriculture’ with the aim of developing tools
for climate-smart farming and providing ‘climate advice’ and information to farmers
8 M. FARSTAD ET AL.

(Klimasmart 2023). The advisory organization Norwegian Agricultural Extension Service

(NLR) was central in coordinating and contributing to actions to reach the goal of the
project, through (among other things) the development of the ‘climate calculator’, to
be used at the farm level as part of the climate advice. This is a digital tool that collects
information from different data sources and provides the farmer with information on
GHG emissions from the farm. Based on an assessment of the calculations, the farmer
and the adviser can work together to set up a plan for future farm operations that con­
siders climate emission reductions, food production, and farm economy.
To make climate-relevant knowledge available to farmers in general and to motivate
them to implement climate change mitigation measures, the parties to the agricultural
agreement (‘Jordbruksavtalepartene’) decided to introduce climate advice as a measure
in the Regional Environmental Grant Scheme (RMP) (Landbruks- og matdepartementet
2020). This has made it possible for Norwegian farmers to apply for environmental sub­
sidies based on having received climate change mitigation advice (hereafter referred to as
‘climate advice’) and an action plan from an approved adviser. In this context, the NLR
and Tine (the farmer-owned national dairy processing company) have developed climate
advice as a separate offer for farmers, including having trained and certified climate advi­
sers across the country.
The current communication on climate change mitigation from public authorities to
farmers, both at the national and the regional level, is mainly gain-framed (cf. Ngo,
Poortvliet, and Klerkx 2022) and climate-centered in the way that it primarily emphasizes
the climate-mitigating advantages of making various changes on the farm; additionally, it
often mentions the state–agriculture agreement. Typical examples here are the offered
‘climate advice’, the branded ‘Climate calculator’, and the wider project it belongs to,
‘climate-smart agriculture’. In addition, the largest farmer organization promotes
climate change mitigation measures (Norges 2022) in a similar way, as do farmer-
oriented media, advisory services, and Innovation Norway (a public institution support­
ing innovation and business development). In the analysis section, we present the experi­
ences of advisers operating within these frames.

3.2. Methods
This study was part of a research project focusing on conditions facilitating the
implementation of climate change mitigation measures at the farm level in Norway.
To identify and analyze the experiences and perspectives of mitigation-focused agricul­
tural advisers, we conducted eight in-depth interviews with various kinds of agricultural
advisers, and we collected and analyzed additional data at a workshop on climate advice
with advisers and agricultural schoolteachers. The climate change mitigation-promoting
advisers involved in our study worked with/as agricultural extension services, regional
government administration, and leaders of publicly funded climate projects. Specifically,
we carried out semi-structured interviews with four agricultural advisers certified to
provide climate advice (specialized, private advisers) and with four other agricultural,
non-specialist/linked advisers (from public administrations, agricultural organizations,
and publicly financed regional climate projects).
As both the interviewees and workshop participants were operating at the regional
level and also came from different regions in the country (at the workshop, specialized
 THE JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION AND EXTENSION 9

regional-level advisers from 10 out of 11 counties were represented), our material offers a
good overview of the general situation in Norway with regard to both the provision of
climate advice and farmers’ responses to it. Consequently, we are confident that our
findings and interpretations of the overall situation are well recognizable to Norwegian
advisers and farmers in general. Still, it should be mentioned that in other studies within
the same research project, we have also analyzed farmers’ motivations related to climate
mitigation based on both farmer and key actor5 interviews (Farstad et al., 2022) and a
large farmer survey (Melås 2020. "muligheter og barrierer for innføring av klimatiltak
på norske gårder." rapport nr. 8/2020. ruralis - institutt for rural- og regionalforskning),
where the findings from those analyses are well in line with what we find in the present
study.
Some of the interviewees (Advisers 1–4) were identified through an official list of
certified climate change advisers in agriculture that came from two different (agricultural
co-operative-linked) organizations that provide this kind of advice. Variation among
these were ensured regarding region, gender, and area of expertise (coarse fodder
production and feeding, respectively). The other linked and non-specialized advisers,
Advisors 5-8, were identified through the project partners’ professional networks and
invited due to their various public/publicly financed positions, where some were
operating at the national level and others at the regional level. The interviewees were,
purposely, a mix of women and men of varying ages, largely operating at the regional
level, and covering different parts of the country. Common to our interviewees is their
mandate to convince and support farmers to make climate-friendly changes on their
farms. The certified, specialized advisers worked most directly with the farmers, while
the linked and non-specialized advisers worked more with farmers as a collective or
with groups of farmers.
The semi-structured interview guide–informed by the existing literature on if and how
advise can support changes at the farm level and advisers’ potential challenge in balan­
cing public and private goals–included a number of core topics around which the discus­
sions were based: the adviser’s role in promoting the uptake of mitigation measures, how
they approach the topic of climate when working with farmers, how farmers respond to
their involvement, what barriers advisers encounter and when, how and why they
succeed, and whether or not they believe climate advice is a sufficient means to get
more farmers involved in implementing climate-friendly measures. In addition,
climate change certified advisers were asked about their recent climate education, as
this is relevant contextual information.
The interviews were held between winter 2021 and winter 2022. They were conducted
individually (except for one interview that included two interviewees together) as digital
video meetings and lasted approximately one hour each. The interviews were recorded
and later transcribed. When the data was analyzed, each interview was first categorized
through grouping of quotations based on thematic content, via a blend of an inductive
process (i.e. an explorative approach) and a deductive process (topical guidance from
the literature review). Further categorization identified different themes based on partici­
pant perspectives, noted differences and similarities between participants and across
interviews, and recognized both anticipated and unanticipated links to other relevant
research. As such, the analysis is based on meaning condensation and meaning categor­
ization (Kvale 1997).
10 M. FARSTAD ET AL.

In addition to the interviews, a workshop on climate advice with advisers and agricul­
tural schoolteachers was arranged as part of the current study in autumn 2021. The
purpose of the workshop was to facilitate exchange of experiences and perspectives on
the task of including climate regards in agricultural advice and education for farmers,
i.e. it was convened to address the research question in a more interactive manner
than individual interviews. The workshop lasted four hours and included 11 certified
climate advisers from agricultural extension services as well as three teachers6 from
two agricultural schools and researchers from the project. As with the interviewees,
the 117 advisers attending the workshop were selected strategically to obtain a diversified
group of participants regarding region, gender, and type of expertise (coarse fodder;
grain; soil- and plant culture). The agricultural schoolteachers were recruited from the
researchers’ professional networks and were included in the workshop due to their rel­
evance as actors educating future farmers (to see how the agricultural schools integrated
climate in the education). Four of the advisers introduced a wider discussion on the topic
with prepared presentations of their own experiences in the adviser role. A couple of
researchers did also present their preliminary findings (on farmer perspectives and econ­
omic modelling of farming and emissions, respectively) to see if these rhymed with the
participants’ perceptions. In this way, the workshop and the interviews complemented
each other well. The data from the workshop (comprehensive notes, together with the
presentations used) were analyzed thematically in a similar manner as, and in relation
to, the already analyzed interview data.

4. Results: experiences and approaches of agricultural advisers promoting

climate change mitigation
In this section, we present the findings from our analysis of the approaches and experi­
ences of agricultural advisers supporting the implementation of climate change mitiga­
tion measures among farmers in Norway. This includes the advisers’ understanding of
their field of work, and the advisers’ perceptions, strategies, and outlooks as to the
achievement of overarching goals.

4.1. The experienced response to climate change mitigation-focused counseling

and promotion
All the interviewees reported quite moderate responses to the various advising, courses, and
projects on climate change mitigation directed at farmers in their region. One of the advi­
sers pointed out the problems of arranging a course on climate-smart dairy production
during a period in which national media repeatedly presented the cow as a ‘climate sinner’:
The focus on reducing climate emissions when producing food, in contrast to various luxury
consumptions, you know, that is what provokes the farmer, and what is perceived as unrea­
sonable. Coarse fodder and meat production are what provide protein-rich food in Norway,
and suggestions to reduce cattle numbers are perceived as unreasonable, [and] related to the
self-sufficiency rate here in Norway, and the fact that the human body needs protein.
(Adviser 3, climate change certified)

These reports of farmers’ reactions reflect that some think that agriculture is the wrong
target when large emission cuts are to be made. Adviser 4 (climate change certified) even
 THE JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION AND EXTENSION 11

said that ‘it felt like being thrown to the wolves, but someone had to take this job,’ which
highlights the negative response received from the farmers in the same period. Another
adviser (not climate change certified) described the variety in farmers’ approaches to
implementation of the desired measures:
Interviewer: What status do you perceive that climate initiatives have among Norwegian
farmers?

Adviser 6: (…) There are always some energetic farmers who are eager and make solid
efforts. But there is also a large share of farmers who do not seem to see the value of this
yet. It’s a process. It takes time.

The same adviser further elaborated on why he thought some farmers implement
climate-friendly measures:
There are some farmers who are extremely skilled. And that may be the case even if they
deny the climate challenges. But often, professional skills are related to the fact that you
understand things like this and are interested in new things [as] ‘what can it mean for
my production?’ (Adviser 6, not climate change certified)

The interest in benefits other than climate-related ones from the measures were noticed
by all the advisers. One adviser shared that he was a bit surprised that many of the volun­
teering participants appeared to be more pragmatically oriented than environmentally
oriented, and he tried to explain this phenomenon:
We have received feedback that they want to improve both the economy and the agronomy
at the same time: ‘What improvements can we make?’ They cut climate emissions, but it is
also better for the farmer in other ways, right. (Adviser 2, climate change certified)

The farm-related benefits of the measures are not necessarily obvious to all farmers, as
commented by one of the advisers:
Parts of this field are not very accurate. It is based on belief to some extent. You don’t fully
know how this works out, right. And this may entail that you don’t prioritize joining various
things: ‘It is not concrete enough. It is not sufficiently beneficial to me right away.’ (Adviser
5, not climate change certified)

While some of the advisers described the (limited number of) volunteering participants
as a rather heterogeneous group of farmers, others reported that they were middle-aged
participants with relatively large farms. In addition, many of the farmers who volun­
teered for climate-focused advice/courses seemed to already have a personal interest in
the measures. Adviser 5, who promoted various soil-based climate change mitigation
measures and conducted certain field experiments to this end, said:
We have specified that we want farms where you have a low carbon content (…), but what
we get is those who are interested in the topic. (…) And that is not necessarily those who
have the greatest challenges with soil. (Adviser 5, not climate change certified)

In general, a large share of the farmers who volunteered seemed to be both well-informed
and already well underway with making climate-friendly changes at their farm. The advi­
sers also saw some clear barriers to farmers’ implementation of the measures, which
could explain the low participation:
12 M. FARSTAD ET AL.

It is also about the economy. Not everyone can afford [it] … I have been visiting farmers
who must choose whether to [buy basic crop production inputs] or to put food on the
table for the kids (…) So it’s highly variable. (Adviser 4, climate change certified)

And some farmers try to run their farm as easy as possible. They have more than enough to
do in their other jobs. That is probably where the division goes, and what’s more, there may
be someone denying this, who thinks it is nonsense. (Adviser 6, not climate change certified)

Therefore, the quite limited and skewed response to climate change mitigation-focused
counseling and promotion were perceived as being due to both behavioral (i.e. motiv­
ation, limited interest in or opposition to climate change mitigation) and contextual
(i.e. limited resources) conditions.8 Moreover, to this end, the existing motivation of
farmers seemed to be highly centered on farm improvements.

4.2. Recognition of the farmer’s situation and the significance of voluntary

implementation
All the advisers expressed an understanding of and sympathy for the farmers’ situation,
as one expressed in the following quote:
We follow up afterward by asking questions about what they got out of it as well, but we
don’t hang on to the farmers who participate at our events and insist that they must
implement this on their own farm. (…) You know, we have the economy [in mind] and
the understanding that it requires quite a lot to farm within the framework that we
promote. (Adviser 7, not climate change certified)

The same adviser further added that ‘after all, it is private property and heritage and
everything we are dealing with here, so it is important to have respect for that as well.’
Another adviser, Adviser 2, talked about ‘cutting emissions on the farmer’s premises’;
he highlighted the importance of not forcing things through in a way that would
entail closure but that would attain ‘best practice’ for each individual farm, strengthening
rather than weakening the farms. Yet another adviser specified that it is not always the
largest changes that are required:
There are enough general requirements in agriculture, that you should do this and you
should do that. But it may be reasonable to look at the individual farm: ‘what is it possible
for you to do, what is easy to achieve here, what is it that you yourself have the ability and
resources to do’, right? (…) They can reduce a few percent points of the emissions solely by
optimizing, really. And maybe some small changes in practice, additionally. (Adviser 6, not
climate change certified)

In summary, the advisers indicated that they were generally in touch with the farmers’
situations and were conscious about providing advice and recommendations that
would benefit rather than harm the established farm businesses.

4.3. A shared perception that good agronomic practices equal climate-friendly

farming
All the advisers seemed convinced that good agronomic practices benefit the climate:
The better crop you get, under the same conditions, the fewer emissions there will be. So it’s
a very simple calculation. And running the farm badly is stupid, right. It is not wise to
 THE JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION AND EXTENSION 13

neglect your field, and to let the animals get bad feed, and poor production is not wise. So it
goes without saying. But sometimes it can require large investments, right. (Adviser 6, not
climate change certified)

The same adviser added that, among other things, ‘there are many measures to be made
that are not only beneficial to the climate, but that also have a good effect on crop level or
on soil, [for] which productive capacity is also to be kept for the future.’
To discover how climate advice is separate from general farm advice, the climate advi­
sers were asked if they, before they adopted the climate perspective, had ever provided
advice that they would not provide today. Adviser 4 (climate change certified) replied:
Good question. (silence) I think we have been providing much of the same advice, but to me,
it has now been put in a slightly different light, with regard to the climate.

This adviser subsequently confirmed that the climate education the agricultural advisers
had received led to a better awareness of various measures’ climate-friendly qualities,
rather than advice on implementing new practices/measures. Similarly, Adviser 1
explained that it was not a big jump to go from regular adviser to climate adviser, but
they basically had to link agronomy to some climate-related points and highlight these
connections. Adviser 9 (from the workshop) described the climate advice as more or
less a regular advice appointment including a farm visit, except that they ignored
topics such as plant protection and mechanization. He perceived the (subsidized)
climate advice as a golden opportunity to receive good general advice.
Yet another adviser highlighted the agronomic benefits of relevant measures:
Fortunately, most mitigation measures benefit the farmer; you improve the agronomy,
among other things, or if you improve the soil health, you obtain lower emissions from
soils. (Adviser 2, climate change certified)

As such, the term ‘mitigation measures’ often refers to measures that already exist and are
farm-sensible measures, independent of their impact on climate emissions.9
4.4. Highlighting farm-Benefiting aspects as an essential additional ‘Sales
Strategy’
All the advisers clearly saw the necessity of attracting farmers with something more than
merely reduced emissions as the outcome of making changes on their farms. A few
shared their reflections in this regard:
There are always farmers who do not find it interesting. And we also notice that when the
agricultural extension services organize topic-based days with climate as the main theme,
then no one comes. But if it becomes part of a thematic meeting, for example on soil
health, then it is interesting. To only have a course series on the climate: no. We need to
integrate it into the things that are already there and where it fits. (Adviser 8, not climate
change certified)

We cannot use much wording like ‘this is important for the climate and the climate crisis’.
We try to stay away from that. Of course, we mention the climate, because it is a main focus.
But we try not to use it in the first part of the sentence when we present a new measure.
(Adviser 7, not climate change certified)

After being met with farmers’ opposition to a course on climate-smart dairy production,
Adviser 4 (climate change certified) shared the lesson learned from this:
14 M. FARSTAD ET AL.

We realized that we had to highlight that climate is not the only goal, but we have to show
how the issue of good agronomy is linked to climate.

Other advisers explained how they also emphasised farm-benefiting aspects of the
relevant measures:
It is not problematic to say: ‘if you utilize the manure better, perhaps you don’t have to
buy as much fertilizer,’ and that is very relevant now, as the fertilizers are very
expensive. You need to link to some very relevant things, too, because then they understand
that this could be meaningful. (…) It is challenging, too, as many want to know if the
mitigation measures will pay, so preferably, I could ‘bring with me’ some economic
numbers, because then I think I could have greater influence. (Adviser 1, climate change
certified)

When you start talking about it more like … [focusing on] avoiding waste at all levels, avoid­
ing waste of feed in the sense that you harvest a feed that the cow can utilize and that you can
produce relatively a lot from (…) then it is much easier to communicate with the farmer.
(Adviser 3, climate change certified)

Adviser 1 (climate change certified) clarified how focusing on the climate may support
advice that is already well integrated and used by the agricultural extension services:
My experience is that quite a lot of what we are already doing is related to climate, and that
this can enrich the discussion, that one can see the bigger picture. And then it is about
making the farmers get engaged and interested. Then you should meet them on their
own home court and discuss issues they already have started to consider. Then it is easier
to connect theory and hook it on professional pegs.

While several advisers hoped that climate information and advice would enhance
farmers’ consciousness of the climate even if it did not result in the implementation of
concrete measures in the first round, the advisers also tried to motivate farmers to
improve agronomy and to strengthen ordinary advice by pointing to climate change
mitigation as an additional benefit.
In response to us asking a question about it, Adviser 2 (climate change certified)
thought they could possibly benefit from promoting relevant measures as something
else than climate change mitigation measures, but added:
To receive money from the state, it is important to use that [climate] context, [in order] to be
granted money. It may be easier to sell the other advantages, but if we don’t have the climate
framing, then it is more difficult to obtain economic support. It is much easier to get project
funding if we use the magic word ‘climate’. So there, one is a bit squeezed, I guess.

Relatedly, Adviser 10 (in the workshop) reflected on why the provision of climate advice
was established and clarified that this was requested by the largest farmer union, in
relation to their climate agreement with the government. Consequently, the adviser
concluded that this is politics, in which the farmer extension services are supposed to
transform into agronomy. Still, Adviser 10 wondered if bisected communication would
have been preferable in this context, i.e. different communication with the government
and with farmers, respectively. This can be interpreted as an argument for splitting the
strategies of demonstrating agriculture’s efforts to really make a change (directed at the
government) and making farmers lower the emissions from food production (directed
at farmers).
 THE JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION AND EXTENSION 15

4.5. Reflections on how to reach the public goal

The advisers were asked how close to a transition they were able to get, based on the
vision encompassing the climate calculator, climate advice, and various climate
courses offered. In her answer, one of them pointed to the limited capacity for facilitating
change:
Clearly, to offer advice at the farm level to 20,000 farmers, that requires an enormous
amount of time spent. I think this must be integrated into the regular advice that otherwise
takes place. (…) There are not that many [climate] advisers, and it requires a demand from
farmers, and each visit takes a day, right, if you are going to visit a farm and discuss [every­
thing there]. (Adviser 6, not climate change certified)

The advisers all agreed on the necessity of engaging in active promotion efforts to attain
the goals set by the sector. Adviser 1 (climate change certified) further reflected on what is
needed to generate a climate-based transition in Norwegian farming:
I think the big changes will not happen until someone higher up in the system says, ‘Now it
is actually not allowed to spread livestock manure with a broadcast spreader that throws it
up in the air.’ (…) Someone really must decide what climate-smart agriculture is. It’s like
plastic bags: if someone decides ‘it’s not allowed anymore,’ then we just had to think, ‘ok,
that was a pity, but we can solve it.’ The big things may have to come from above, even
if it feels bad to receive duties by decree.

One of the advisers called for better support schemes for solar panels on barns, elaborat­
ing further:
If agriculture is supposed to cover such a great slice of the cake as the government has
decided that they must, then the government actually needs to involve itself and make
sure it is economically responsible to do it. If not, people won’t make that investment.
And that is understandable. It isn’t desirable, but it is understandable. (Adviser 7, not
climate change certified)

Another adviser commented that those who have a substantial amount of work outside
the farm seem not very interested in making any extra efforts, and explained:
This is something I think is difficult, and what can we do about it? It would probably not
help to increase a given rate by 10 NOK [1 euro] more, as it won’t trigger any change in
those farmers’ behavior. (Adviser 8, not climate change certified)

One of the advisers also mentioned conflicting political goals for Norwegian agriculture,
highlighting how climate change mitigation is not always compatible with other sustain­
ability goals:
We recognize that this should be seen in a wider perspective, for if one is solely focused on
lowering emissions in a narrow way, there are some measures that pay, but perhaps they do
not pay in the grand scheme of things. (Adviser 2, climate change certified)

He explained by citing models that indicate better effects from using more concentrated
feed than coarse fodder in terms of lower emissions and increased production and com­
mented that this goes against the sustainability goal of producing more food on Norwe­
gian resources. This reveals the need for a conducive institutional environment and
policies indicating clearer directions for further development, which supplement advice.
16 M. FARSTAD ET AL.

In summary, while the advisers were fully convinced of the necessity of making Nor­
wegian farm management more climate-friendly, most of them struggled to see a
straightforward route to the goal and called for further instruments to be employed to
this end.

5. Discussion and conclusion

In this paper, we show how agricultural advisers try to draw in and convince farmers to
make climate-friendly changes on their farms. We sought to answer the following
research question: What are the approaches and experiences of agricultural advisers sup­
porting farmers in Norway in implementing climate change mitigation measures? In the
subsequent pages, we discuss the findings around the three main themes (see section
2) that guided the analysis: (1) the perceived potential for behavioral change; (2) the
balance between public and private interests in climate change mitigation; and (3) critical
preconditions for climate change mitigation inducing advice. Finally, we discuss what is
needed to induce further mitigation actions at the farm level, before rounding off with
some limitations of the study and pointers for future research.

5.1. A perceived yet unrealized potential for behavioral change toward climate
change mitigation
To start, the findings indicate that, so far, advisers perceive they have not managed to
reach to the majority of farmers (whether measured nationally or at the single-regional
level). The advisers perceive that this is due to both intrinsic/personal conditions of
farmers (disinterest in or opposition to the mitigation focus in agriculture) and contex­
tual conditions (the farm economy). Their observations corroborate that the defined goal
of reducing GHG emissions is set on a macro level by national authorities, while individ­
ual (and independent) farmers do not necessarily regard reduction of GHG emissions as
a priority (Brobakk 2018). Moreover, advisers indicate that some farmers question the
legitimacy of the demanded GHG emission reductions in agriculture, such as decreasing
the production of red meat, especially if other sectors in society continue with what
farmers perceive as less-necessary GHG-emitting activities.
However, some farmers still choose to join the climate advice/courses/projects offered
by the advisers and implement climate change mitigation measures (where such measures
can be improved manure/fertilizer management, carbon farming, improved coarse fodder
quality, and/or production of renewable energy, among other things). These farmers seem
to be largely interested in other benefits of the measures than climate change mitigation in
itself. This was surprising to several of the advisers, yet this interest in farm-related benefits
of relevant measures aligns with other research conducted nationally (e.g. Burton and
Farstad 2020), even within the current research project (Melås 2020. "muligheter og bar­
rierer for innføring av klimatiltak på norske gårder." rapport nr. 8/2020. ruralis - institutt
for rural- og regionalforskning; Farstad et al. 2022), and internationally (Davidson et al.
2019; Kragt, Dumbrell, and Blackmore 2017; Moerkerken et al. 2020). The advisers
observed that while climate change mitigation did not attract much attention, primarily
farm-related benefits connected to mitigation measures motivated farmers to make the
changes; these were seen as a ‘blessing in disguise’ by the advisers in their efforts to
 THE JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION AND EXTENSION 17

engage farmers to implement such measures. In line with Runhaar (2017) and Klerkx and
Jansen (2010), they acknowledge the need to provide a complete package of complemen­
tary advice and measures.

5.2. Advisers merging public and private interests

The national/public demand for reduced emissions and the obligations and potential
desire to advise farmers in the best way might put the adviser in a bind as they aim to
also attend to the private needs of the farmer (Garforth et al. 2003; Klerkx, de Grip,
and Leeuwis 2006). As our findings demonstrate, the advisers take both public and
private demands seriously and have found ways to handle this combined task – regardless
of whether they are public or private, specialized or linked. The advisers are aware of and
sympathetic to the farmer’s situation, and they work together with the farmers to identify
measures that would best fit into the farm business; this seems to include encounters
based on trust, empathy, credibility, and consultation, just as Ingram (2008) (among
others) mentioned. This approach is something the advisers perceive as unproblematic
and rather rewarding, due to the connections they see between the relevant measures,
good agronomy (and hence good/better farm economy), and reduced emissions. Since
most farms can in some way be improved agronomically, advisers rarely struggle to
find measures to offer that also can reduce GHG emissions. Nevertheless, given the
farmers’ response, the advisers are fully convinced of the necessity of meeting private
interests (such as practical needs) when pursuing the common good, in line with both
earlier research in agricultural advice (Klerkx and Jansen 2010; Klerkx, de Grip, and
Leeuwis 2006) and other research on framing of co-impacts related to climate change
mitigation actions (Cohen et al. 2021; Walker, Kurz, and Russel 2017; see also Orlove
et al. 2020).

5.3. Implications for programme design: the significance of suitable framing at

all levels
Although advisers have found (albeit hidden) ways to generate interest in implementing
climate change mitigation advice, the advisers’ important considerations of each farm’s
situation and the farm-benefiting outcomes of implementing the measures are almost
invisible in the overarching framing that is currently employed in the overall/national
communication toward farmers. This highly climate-change-centered communication
– both mentioned in previous sections and commented on by the interviewees as a
framework they have to follow up on – represents an almost unilateral focus on
farmers’ opportunities to reduce their emissions, often including a reminder of the agree­
ment between the state and the farmers’ organizations. While some particularly oppor­
tunity-seeking farmers can obviously see the farm-related benefits of the measures, these
benefits should be utilized more strategically to attract more farmers. It seems unfortu­
nate and ill-fitting to highlight the public good when farmers are mainly interested in the
potential private goods of the same measures. As indicated by Ngo, Poortvliet, and
Klerkx (2022), a gain frame seems important, but it must be focused on the right
gains for the targeted audience. Thus, our findings underscore the relevance of research
in other fields (Cohen et al. 2021; Orlove et al. 2020; Walker, Kurz, and Russel 2017)
18 M. FARSTAD ET AL.

arguing that a framing that puts greater emphasis on the non-climate related benefits of
mitigation actions can motivate greater support for these actions.
However, the current situation fully demonstrates Orlove et al.’s (2020) point that
framing sometimes can be a political process: The non-optimal10 communication,
wherein the framing contrasts the more micro-level farmer-oriented promotional
work and advice offered by the advisers, seems to be due to the fact that the agricultural
sector tries to use climate-focused communication to perform three different functions at
the same time, due to reasons that can be found in the macro-institutional context (as per
Birner et al. 2009). First, the agricultural sector needs to demonstrate to the government
that agriculture takes responsibility for reducing its own emissions, as each sector in
Norway is expected to contribute to the realization of the national climate policy goals
(Ministry of climate and environment 2019, 19). This is perceived to strengthen the
general legitimacy of the agricultural sector; furthermore, demonstrating that the
sector is making an effort on its own initiative may also be an important means with
which to prevent external forces (i.e. national authorities) from deciding to impose
action (see Farstad, Vinge, and Stræte 2021).
Second, as also mentioned by several of the advisers in this study, it seems necessary to
operate with a climate framing, in order to release and justify the climate-marked public
funding paying for the promotional activities. Third, a climate change frame is intro­
duced and used to make farmers implement the necessary measures on their farms;
the effect of this communication seems sub-optimal, in light of the farmers’ general
tepid response to the current climate-framed promotions, but it seems hard to change
this framing. As a result, all levels of the agricultural sector are somewhat ‘trapped’ or
locked into their current communication framing, highlighting only emission cuts
rather than their interplay with farm-benefiting outcomes. This can be understood as
a challenge of the agricultural sector’s policy focusing on climate change actions,
which probably should be stated and discussed openly in public to allow more goal-
oriented communication and framing for each purpose.

5.4 What is needed to induce further climate change mitigation actions?

All in all, our study indicates that getting farmers to make changes toward food pro­
duction with fewer GHG emissions depends on a range of conditions that advisory
systems and advisers must handle. Thus, issues like the farm context, motivation, com­
petences, technologies, political regulation, incomes, and market demands (potential
‘climate requests’ of farmers by market actors in view of agrifood standards and
labels) have to be taken into consideration. Interestingly, we notice that, so far, no
legal instrument has been adopted in Norway to specifically attain land-based food pro­
duction with fewer emissions of greenhouse gases. In line with both Runhaar (2017) and
the advisers’ reflections on what seems required, more should be done at the macro level
to create an enabling context and a more effective framing, to create a constructive mix of
‘push’ and ‘pull’ measures (Klerkx and Jansen 2010; Scherer and Verburg 2017). While
competent advisers know how to identify suitable improvements (enable positive
change) and motivate farmers, stronger demand – such as legislation and penalties,
and for certain measures higher subsidies – seems needed, together with clearer direc­
tions for further development (legitimacy).
 THE JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION AND EXTENSION 19

Changing farming to practices with lower GHG emissions while at the same time
maintaining food production and upholding farm economies is not an easy task, not
least because the greatest share of emissions is decided by the number of animals in pro­
duction (Hohle 2020; O’Mara 2011); nevertheless, researchers, agricultural authorities,
agricultural advisers, and some farmers all see the potential for agriculture contributing
positively in this direction. To motivate as many farmers as possible to change their
behavior in a climate-friendly direction, the study in particular highlights how a
climate-centered framing at the macro level can create challenges for advisers in their
work at the micro level, especially when it comes to stimulating interest in and enthu­
siasm for relevant measures. Based on the findings of this study, it seems more strategic
to employ framing that emphasizes what farmers are most interested in – the farm-
related benefits of relevant measures – and then highlight the potential of emission
cuts as a positive co-benefit, in line with the point made by Orlove et al. (2020).
among others. This is directly opposite to the current approach of advising on climate
change mitigation and hinting about potential positive farm effects from implementing
the measure. Furthermore, in light of the ambitious emissions reduction goals at both the
national and the international level, it would probably be sensible to ensure that all kinds
of advice/courses/education oriented toward farmers are in line with, rather than clash­
ing with, climate goals, through some kind of ‘climate mainstreaming’ or ‘climate
proofing’.11 This would probably not entail great challenges, based on the advisers’ con­
clusion that climate advice fits well with regular agronomic and economic advice.

5.5. Limitations and future research

Our study captures a broad picture of agricultural advisers’ experiences and reflect the
experiences of certified climate advisors from ten of Norway’s 11 regions. However, our
data set is modest, and there may be other advisers who are more uniformly focused on
emission reductions, and who try to push the farmers accordingly, regardless of the cir­
cumstances around the farmer and farm. Likewise, it may well be the case that there are
individual farmers whose actions are more heavily influenced by climate concerns than
what seems to be the general picture. This would perhaps be discovered with a larger
sample. Furthermore, while the goal of the provided climate advice is to ensure reduced
emissions from farming, our study did not attempt to reveal the actual implementation
of climate mitigation measures subsequently to the climate advice. This would require a
longitudinal study, or a retrospective study carried out further forward in the future.
For future research, it would be interesting to compare the experiences of several
countries with different national strategies and corresponding public funding invest­
ments and communication to ensure implementation of climate change mitigation
measures at the farm level. We do not know how the ambitious emissions reduction
goals set by, e.g. the EU have been followed up at the central level elsewhere (various
studies indicate that this is an important goal for the Scottish land use sector (e.g. Feli­
ciano et al. 2014)), but we assume the limited literature in this particular field reflects
other or missing strategies of this kind in other countries so far. At the same time, it
would also be interesting to know if climate change issues are more or less controversial
in the agriculture sectors of other countries, and how this is potentially solved at both the
macro and the micro levels. For future social research on climate change mitigation in
20 M. FARSTAD ET AL.

agriculture in general, it is important to recognize and emphasize the value of (farmers’)

climate change-relevant decision-making (Orlove et al. 2020), rather than only focusing
on decision-making based on explicit mitigation-driven motives or goals.

Notes
1. In Norway, these are state agencies, with the mandate of promoting the Norwegian agricul­
tural goals and current national policies in this field.
2. Their definition of climate change-relevant decisions also includes decisions on plans for
future decisions and actions (Orlove et al. 2020), e.g., such as plans made by farmers in col­
laboration with an agricultural adviser.
3. The annual GHG emissions from agriculture in Norway amounted to 4.5 million tons of
CO2eq in 2018. This is 8.5% of the country’s total emissions. The agreement states that
in the period 2021–2030, the emissions from the agricultural sector shall be reduced by
10%--without, however, reducing domestic food production (Regjeringen 2020).
4. Most of these are initiated as a follow-up to other environmental concerns than GHG
emissions.
5. Among them four non-specialized advisers who are included also in the analysis of the
present study.
6. Teachers from high schools based on the provision of vocational education and training
within the agricultural field.
7. These were picked from an official list of the certified climate advisers; close to 100 in total.
8. As an additional hurdle, the advisers mentioned that, as long as climate advice is supposed
to be based on the climate calculator, one significant barrier to climate advice participation
has been identifying farms with sufficient concrete numbers to feed into the calculator.
9. The exceptions to this may be biochar for carbon storage in soil, and biodiesel, if they are not
sufficiently subsidized and hence economically beneficial.
10. In terms of responses as well as the absence of responses from farmers as the target group.
11. This would correspond to rural mainstreaming and rural proofing (Atterton 2008; Shortall
and Alston 2016). Rural proofing is the method used to ensure that rural mainstreaming is
correctly carried out.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Funding
This study was financed by The Research Council of Norway, through their programme on climate
research [KLIMAFORSK, project number 301702].

ORCID
Maja Farstad http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2170-4475
Magnar Forbord http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0477-0139

Notes on contributor
Maja Farstad is a senior researcher at Ruralis – Institute for Rural and Regional Research,Norway.
She holds a PhD in sociology. Much of her recent work relates to the development toward a more
 THE JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION AND EXTENSION 21

sustainablesociety (e.g. climate change mitigation, bioeconomic transition), with emphasis on both
barriers and enablers,contextual and behavioural conditions.
Magnar Forbord is a research professor at Ruralis – Institute for Rural andRegional Research,
Norway. He is an agricultural economist, and he holds a doctoral degree in industrial economic­
sand technology management. His research largely focuses on various aspects of agricultural
systems and food systems.
Laurens Klerkx is Full Professor in the Department of Agricultural Economics at the University of
Talca (Chile) and fullprofessor at the Knowledge, Technology and Innovation Group, Wageningen
University (The Netherlands). His researchinterests include agricultural innovation, food systems
transformation, digital transformation, mission-orientedinnovation policy, innovation systems,
and advisory services.

References
Abadi Ghadim, Amir K., and David J. Pannell. 1999. “A Conceptual Framework of Adoption of an
Agricultural Innovation.” Agricultural Economics 21: 145–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-
5150(99)00023-7.
Ahnström, Johan, Jenny Höckert, Hanna L. Bergeå, Charles A. Francis, Peter Skelton, and Lars
Hallgren. 2009. “Farmers and Nature Conservation: What is Known About Attitudes,
Context Factors and Actions Affecting Conservation?” Renewable Agriculture and Food
Systems 24 (1): 38–47. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170508002391.
Albaladejo, Christophe, Nathalie Couix, and Laurence Barthe. 2007. “Learning in Agriculture:
Rural Development Agents in France Caught Between a Job Identity and a Professional
Identity.” The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 13 (2): 95–106. https://doi.
org/10.1080/13892240701289361.
Arbuckle, J. Gordon, Linda Stalker Prokopy, Tonya Haigh, Jon Hobbs, Tricia Knoot, Cody
Knutson, Adam Loy, et al. 2013. “Climate Change Beliefs, Concerns, and Attitudes Toward
Adaptation and Mitigation among Farmers in the Midwestern United States.” Climatic
Change 117 (4): 943–950. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0707-6.
Atterton, Jane. 2008. Rural Proofing in England: A Formal Commitment in Need of Review. Centre
for Rural Economy Discussion Paper Series No. 20. Newcastle: University of Newcastle upon
Tyne.
Barnes, Andrew P., and Luiza Toma. 2012. “A Typology of Dairy Farmer Perceptions Towards
Climate Change.” Climatic Change 112 (2): 507–522. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-
0226-2.
Benford, Robert D., and David A. Snow. 2000. “Framing Processes and Social Movements: An
Overview and Assessment.” Annual Review of Sociology 26: 611–639. doi:https://doi.org/10.
1146annurev.soc.26.1.611.
Birner, Regina, Kristin Davis, John Pender, Ephraim Nkonya, Ponniah Anandajayasekeram, Javier
Ekboir, Adiel Mbabu, et al. 2009. “From Best Practice to Best Fit: A Framework for Designing
and Analyzing Pluralistic Agricultural Advisory Services Worldwide.” The Journal of
Agricultural Education and Extension 15 (4): 341–355. https://doi.org/10.1080/
13892240903309595.
Brobakk, Jostein. 2018. “A Climate for Change? Norwegian Farmers’ Attitudes to Climate Change
and Climate Policy.” World Political Science 14 (1): 55–79. https://doi.org/10.1515/wps-2018-
0003.
Brown, C., E. Kovács, I. Herzon, S. Villamayor-Tomas, A. Albizua, A. Galanaki, and
I. Grammatikopoulou. 2021. “Simplistic Understandings of Farmer Motivations Could
Undermine the Environmental Potential of the Common Agricultural Policy.” Land Use
Policy 101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.105136.
Burton, Rob J. F., and Maja Farstad. 2020. “Cultural Lock-in and Mitigating Greenhouse Gas
Emissions: The Case of Dairy/Beef Farmers in Norway.” Sociologia Ruralis 60 (1): 20–39.
https://doi.org/10.1111/soru.12277.
22 M. FARSTAD ET AL.

Cerf, M., M. N. Guillot, and P. Olry. 2011. “Acting as a Change Agent in Supporting Sustainable
Agriculture: How to Cope with New Professional Situations?” The Journal of Agricultural
Education and Extension 17 (1): 7–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2011.536340.
Cohen, Brett, Annette Cowie, Mustafa Babiker, Adrian Leip, and Pete Smith. 2021. “Co-benefits
and Trade-Offs of Climate Change Mitigation Actions and the Sustainable Development
Goals.” Sustainable Production and Consumption 26: 805–813. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016j.
spc.2020.12.034.
Cooreman, Hanne, Lies Debruyne, Joke Vandenabeele, and Fleur Marchand. 2021. “Power to the
Facilitated Agricultural Dialogue: An Analysis of on-Farm Demonstrations as Transformative
Learning Spaces.” The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 27 (5): 699-719,
https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2021.1969958.
Corner, Adam, and Jamie Clarke. 2017. Talking Climate - from Research to Practice in Public
Engagement. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
Corner, Adam, and Alex Randall. 2011. “Selling Climate Change? The Limitations of Social
Marketing as a Strategy for Climate Change Public Engagement.” Global Environmental
Change 21 (3): 1005–1014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.05.002.
Davidson, Debra J., Curtis Rollins, Lianne Lefsrud, Sven Anders, and Andreas Hamann. 2019.
“Just Don’t Call it Climate Change: Climate-Skeptic Farmer Adoption of Climate-Mitigative
Practices.” Environmental Research Letters 14 (3): 0034015. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-
9326/aafa30.
Farstad, Maja, Anders Mahlum Melås, and Laurens Klerkx. 2022. “Climate Considerations Aside:
What Really Matters for Farmers in Their Implementation of Climate Mitigation Measures.”
Journal of Rural Studies 96: 259–269. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016j.jrurstud.2022.11.003.
Farstad, Maja, Heidi Vinge, and Egil Petter Stræte. 2021. “Locked-in or Ready for Climate
Mitigation? Agri-Food Networks as Structures for Dairy-Beef Farming.” Agriculture and
Human Values 38: 29–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-020-10134-5.
Feder, Gershon, and Dina L. Umali. 1993. “The Adoption of Agricultural Innovations: A Review.”
Technological Forecasting and Social Change 43 (3): 215–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/0040-1625
(93)90053-A.
Feliciano, D., Colin Hunter, Bill Slee, and Pete Smith. 2014. “Climate Change Mitigation Options
in the Rural Land use Sector: Stakeholders’ Perspectives on Barriers, Enablers and the Role of
Policy in North East Scotland.” Environmental Science & Policy 44: 26–38. doi:https://doi.org/
10.1016j.envsci.2014.07.010.
Fellmann, Thomas, Peter Witzke, Franz Weiss, Benjamin Van Doorslaer, Dusan Drabik, Ingo
Huck, Guna Salputra, et al. 2018. “Major Challenges of Integrating Agriculture Into Climate
Change Mitigation Policy Frameworks.” Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global
Change 23: 451–468. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-017-9743-2.
Ferstad, Jan. 2022. “NLR Foreslår Gratis Klima Førsteråd til Alle.” NLR, Accessed July 6. https://
www.nlr.no/nyhetsarkiv/default/2022/nlr-foreslar-gratis-klima-forsterad-til-alle.
Flemsæter, Frode, Hilde Bjørkhaug, and Jostein Brobakk. 2018. “Farmers as Climate Citizens.”
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 61 (12): 2050–2066. https://doi.org/10.
1080/09640568.2017.1381075.
Garforth, Chris. 2010. “Adapting to new Challenges: Extension Theory and Practice for the 21st
Century.” International Conference on Agricultural Extension (Agrex 10) 26-28 October 2010,
1-11. Universiti Putra Malaysia.
Garforth, Chris, Brian Angell, John Archer, and Kate Green. 2003. “Fragmentation or Creative
Diversity? Options in the Provision of Land Management Advisory Services.” Land Use
Policy 20 (4): 323–333. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016S0264-8377(03)00035-8.
Greiner, Romy. 2015. “Motivations and Attitudes Influence Farmers’ Willingness to Participate in
Biodiversity Conservation Contracts.” Agricultural Systems 137: 154–165. doi:https://doi.org/
10.1016j.agsy.2015.04.005.
Griliches, Zvi. 1957. “Hybrid Corn: An Exploration in the Economics of Technological Change.”
Econometrica 25 (4): 501–522. https://doi.org/10.2307/1905380.
 THE JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION AND EXTENSION 23

Griskevicius, Vladas, Joshua M. Tybur, and Bram Van den Bergh. 2010. “Going Green to be Seen:
Status, Reputation, and Conspicuous Conservation.” Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 98 (3): 392–404. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017346.
Höckert, Jenny, and Magnus Ljung. 2013. “Advisory Encounters Towards a Sustainable Farm
Development—Interaction Between Systems and Shared Lifeworlds.” The Journal of
Agricultural Education and Extension 19 (3): 291–309. https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.
2013.782178.
Hohle, Erik Eid. 2020. “Landbruk og klimaendringer. Rapport fra arbeidsgruppe avgitt 19. februar
2016.” Accessed July 3. https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/416c222bde624f938710
ff36751ef4d6/rapport-landbruk-og-klimaendringer—rapport-fra-arbeidsgruppe-190216.pdf.
Ingram, Julie. 2008. “Are Farmers in England Equipped to Meet the Knowledge Challenge of
Sustainable Soil Management? An Analysis of Farmer and Advisor Views.” Journal of
Environmental Management 86 (1): 214–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2006.12.036.
Klerkx, Laurens, Karin de Grip, and Cees Leeuwis. 2006. “Hands off but Strings Attached: The
Contradictions of Policy-Induced Demand-Driven Agricultural Extension.” Agriculture and
Human Values 23 (2): 189–204. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-005-6106-5.
Klerkx, Laurens, and Jolanda Jansen. 2010. “Building Knowledge Systems for Sustainable
Agriculture: Supporting Private Advisors to Adequately Address Sustainable Farm
Management in Regular Service Contacts.” International Journal of Agricultural
Sustainability 8 (3): 148–163. https://doi.org/10.3763/ijas.2009.0457.
Klerkx, Laurens, Egil Petter Stræte, Gunn-Turid Kvam, Eystein Ystad, and Renate Marie Butli
Hårstad. 2017. “Achieving Best-fit Configurations Through Advisory Subsystems in AKIS:
Case Studies of Advisory Service Provisioning for Diverse Types of Farmers in Norway.” The
Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 23 (3): 213–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/
1389224X.2017.1320640.
Klima- og forurensningsdirektoratet. 2010. Klimakur 2020. Tiltak og Virkemidler for å nå Norske
Klimamål mot 2020. Oslo.
Klima- og miljødepartementet. 2017. “Lov om Klimamål (Klimaloven).” In. Klimasmart
Landbruk. 2019. “Klimasmart Landbruk.” Accessed February 19. https://klimasmartlandbruk.
no/.
Klima- og miljødepartementet. 2020–2021. “Klimaplan for 2021–2030.” Meld. St. 13 (2020-2021).
Klima- og miljødepartementet.
Klimasmart Landbruk. 2023. “Klimajobben Starter på Garden.” Klimasmart Landbruk, Accessed
July 7. https://klimasmartlandbruk.no/arkiv/klimajobben-starter-pa-garden.
Kragt, Marit, Nikki P. Dumbrell, and Louise Blackmore. 2017. “Motivations and Barriers for
Western Australian Broad-Acre Farmers to Adopt Carbon Farming.” Environmental Science
& Policy 73: 115–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.04.009.
Kvale, Steinar. 1997. Det Kvalitative Forskningsintervju. Oslo: ad Notam Gyldendal.
Landbruks- og matdepartementet. 2020. «Prop. 118 S (2019-2020). Endringer i Statsbudsjettet
2020. (Jordbruksoppgjøret 2020m.m.).» In. Oslo: Regjeringa.
Laurent, Catherine, Marianne Cerf, and Pierre Labarthe. 2006. “Agricultural Extension Services
and Market Regulation: Learning from a Comparison of Six EU Countries.” The Journal of
Agricultural Education and Extension 12: 5–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/13892240600740787.
Leahy, Sinead, Harry Clark, and Andy Reisinger. 2020. “Challenges and Prospects for Agricultural
Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Pathways Consistent With the Paris Agreement.” Frontiers in
Sustainable Food Systems 4: 1–8.https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2020.00069.
McCann, Laura, Haluk Gedikoglu, Bob Broz, John Lory, and Ray Massey. 2015. “Effects of
Observability and Complexity on Farmers’ Adoption of Environmental Practices.” Journal of
Environmental Planning and Management 58 (8): 1346–1362. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09640568.2014.924911.
McKim, Aaron J., and Jonathan J. Velez. 2016. “An Evaluation of the Self-Efficacy Theory in
Agricultural Education.” Journal of Agricultural Education 57 (1): 73–90. https://doi.org/10.
5032/jae.2016.01073.
24 M. FARSTAD ET AL.

Melås, Anders M. 2020. "Muligheter og Barrierer for Innføring av Klimatiltak på Norske Gårder."
Rapport nr. 8/2020. Ruralis - Institutt for rural- og regionalforskning.
Miljødirektoratet. 2023. “Klimagassutslipp fra jordbruk.” Accessed August 16. https://miljostatus.
miljodirektoratet.no/tema/klima/norske-utslipp-av-klimagasser/.
Miljødirektoratet, Statens vegvesen, Landbruksdirektoratet Kystverket, and Enova Norges vass­
drags- og energidirektorat. 2020. «Klimakur 2030: Tiltak og virkemidler mot 2030.» In.
Ministry of climate and environment. 2019. “Proposisjon til Stortinget [Proposition to the
Storting]. Prop. 1 S (2014-2015).” Accessed January 6. https://www.regjeringen.no/
contentassets/6ccc7646ecf2464088e1b4dcb553cd03/nn-no/pdfs/prp201420150001klddddpdfs.
pdf.
Moerkerken, Albert, Julia Blasch, Pieter van Beukering, and Erik van Well. 2020. “A new Approach
to Explain Farmers’ Adoption of Climate Change Mitigation Measures.” Climatic Change 159:
141–161. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007s10584-019-02595-3.
Nettle, Ruth, Anne Crawford, and Pauline Brightling. 2018. “How Private-Sector Farm Advisors
Change Their Practices: An Australian Case Study.” Journal of Rural Studies 58: 20–27.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2017.12.027.
Nettle, Ruth, and Mark Paine. 2009. “Water Security and Farming Systems: Implications for
Advisory Practice and Policy-Making.” The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension
15 (2): 147–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/13892240902909072.
Ngo, Chinh Cong, P. Marijn Poortvliet, and Laurens Klerkx. 2022. “The Persuasiveness of Gain vs.
Loss Framed Messages on Farmers’ Perceptions and Decisions to Climate Change: A Case Study
in Coastal Communities of Vietnam.” Climate Risk Management 35: 100409. doi:https://doi.
org/10.1016j.crm.2022.100409.
Norges, Bondelag. 2022. “Klima og Landbruk.” Norges Bondelag, Accessed December 14. https://
www.bondelaget.no/bondelaget-mener/miljo-og-klima/klima/klima-og-landbruk.
Nortura. 2023. “Landbrukets Klimakalkulator.” Nortura. Accessed June 7. https://www.nortura.
no/b%C3%A6rekraft-i-nortura/mat-p%C3%A5-naturens-fabrikker/klima/landbrukets-
klimakalkulator.
O’Mara, Frank P. 2011. “The Significance of Livestock as a Contributor to Global Greenhouse gas
Emissions Today and in the Near Future.” Animal Feed Science and Technology 166-167: 7–15.
Orlove, Ben, Rachael Shwom, Ezra Markowitz, and So-Min Cheong. 2020. “Climate Decision-
Making.” Annual Review of Environment and Resources 45: 271–303. doi:https://doi.org/10.
1146annurev-environ-012320-085130.
Prager, Katrin, Pierre Labarthe, Monica Caggiano, and Altea Lorenzo-Arribas. 2016. “How Does
Commercialisation Impact on the Provision of Farm Advisory Services? Evidence from
Belgium, Italy, Ireland and the UK.” Land Use Policy 52: 329–344. doi:https://doi.org/10.
1016j.landusepol.2015.12.024.
Prokopy, Linda S., J. Gordon Arbuckle, Andrew P. Barnes, V. R. Haden, Anthony Hogan,
Meredith T. Niles, and John Tyndall. 2015. “Farmers and Climate Change: A Cross-National
Comparison of Beliefs and Risk Perceptions in High-Income Countries.” Environmental
Management 56 (2): 492–504. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-015-0504-2.
Ptak, Emilia Noel, Morten Graversgaard, and Tommy Dalgaard. 2023. “Navigating the Nexus: The
Role of Intermediaries in Charting a new Frontier of Policy Integration for Agrifood and Energy
Systems Transformation.” Environmental Science & Policy 139: 92–103. doi:https://doi.org/10.
1016j.envsci.2022.10.019.
Ramborun, Vagish, S. Facknath, and B. Lalljee. 2020. “Moving Toward Sustainable Agriculture
Through a Better Understanding of Farmer Perceptions and Attitudes to Cope with Climate
Change.” The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 26 (1): 37–57. https://doi.org/
10.1080/1389224X.2019.1690012.
Regjeringen. 2020. “Intensjonsavtale mellom jordbruket og regjeringen om reduserte klimagassut­
slipp og økt opptak av karbon fra jordbruket for perioden 2021-2030.” Accessed June 29, https://
www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/ada13c3d769a4c64a0784d0579c092f4/klimaavtale-i-
jordbruket.pdf.
Rogers, Everett M. 2003. Diffusion of Innovations. 5th ed. New York: Free Press.
 THE JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION AND EXTENSION 25

Runhaar, Hens. 2017. “Governing the Transformation Towards ‘Nature-Inclusive’ Agriculture:

Insights from the Netherlands.” International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 15 (4):
340–349. https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2017.1312096.
Ruttan, Vernon W. 1996. “What Happened to Technology Adoption-Diffusion Research?”
Sociologia Ruralis 36 (1): 51–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9523.1996.tb00004.x.
Scherer, Laura, and Peter H. Verburg. 2017. “Mapping and Linking Supply- and Demand-Side
Measures in Climate-Smart Agriculture. A Review.” Agronomy for Sustainable Development
37 (6): 66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-017-0475-1.
Sewell, Alison, Maggie K. Hartnett, David I. Gray, Hugh Blair, Peter D. Kemp, Paul R. Kenyon, S.
T. Morris, et al. 2017. “Using Educational Theory and Research to Refine Agricultural
Extension: Affordances and Barriers for Farmers’ Learning and Practice Change.” The
Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 23 (4): 313–333. https://doi.org/10.1080/
1389224X.2017.1314861.
Shortall, Sally, and Margaret Alston. 2016. “To Rural Proof or Not to Rural Proof: A Comparative
Analysis.” Politics & Policy 44 (1): 35–55. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111polp.12144.
Stål, Herman I., and Karl J. Bonnedahl. 2015. “Provision of Climate Advice as a Mechanism for
Environmental Governance in Swedish Agriculture.” Environmental Policy and Governance
25: 356–371. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002eet.1677.
Stål, Herman I., J. Karl, and Jessica Eriksson. Bonnedahl. 2015. “Micro-level Translation of
Greenhouse gas (GHG) Reduction – Policy Meets Industry in the Swedish Agricultural
Sector.” Journal of Cleaner Production 103: 629–639. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016j.jclepro.2014.
11.054.
Sutherland, Lee-Ann, and Pierre Labarthe. 2022. “Introducing ‘MicroAKIS’: A Farmer-Centric
Approach to Understanding the Contribution of Advice to Agricultural Innovation.” The
Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 28: 525–547. https://doi.org/10.1080/
1389224X.2022.2121903.
Tubiello, Francesco N., Mirella Salvatore, Simone Rossi, Alessandro Ferrara, Nuala Fitton, and
Pete Smith. 2013. “The FAOSTAT Database of Greenhouse gas Emissions from Agriculture.”
Environmental Research Letters 8 (1): 0015009. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/1/015009.
Walker, Benjamin J. A., Tim Kurz, and Duncan Russel. 2017. “Towards an Understanding of
When non-Climate Frames Can Generate Public Support for Climate Change Policy.”
Environment and Behavior 50 (7): 781–806. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916517713299.
Weber, Elke U. 2013. “Doing the Right Thing Willingly: Using the Insights of Behavioral Decision
Research for Better Environmental Decisions.” In The Behavioral Foundations of Public Policy,
edited by Eldar Shafir, 380–397. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Wiener, Sarah S., Nora L. Álvarez-Berríos, and Angela B. Lindsey. 2020. “Opportunities and
Challenges for Hurricane Resilience on Agricultural and Forest Land in the U.S. Southeast
and Caribbean.” Sustainability 12 (4): 1364.
Willson, Becky, and Stephen Roderick. 2018. “Delivering Solutions: Engaging Farmers and Land
Holders in the Climate Change Debate.” In Handbook of Climate Change Communication: Vol.
2: Practice of Climate Change Communication, edited by Walter Leal Filho, Evangelos Manolas,
Anabela Marisa Azul, Ulisses M. Azeiteiro, and Henry McGhie, 263–275. Cham: Springer
International.
Wreford, Anita, Ada Ignaciuk, and Guillaume Gruère. 2017. “Overcoming barriers to the adoption
of climate-friendly practices in agriculture.” https://doi.org/10.1787/97767de8-en.