environmental science & policy 44 (2014) 8696

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/envsci

Farm level adaptation decisions to face climatic

change and variability: Evidence from Central Chile

Lisandro Roco a, Alejandra Engler b,*, Boris Bravo-Ureta b,c,d,

Roberto Jara-Rojas b
a
Department of Forestry, Universidad Catolica del Maule, Chile
b
Department of Agricultural Economics, Universidad de Talca, Chile
c
Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA
d
Department of Economics, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA

article info abstract

Available online 9 August 2014 Climate change represents one of the biggest threats to agriculture today. The aim of this
paper is to analyze the decision and intensity of adaptation to this phenomenon among
Keywords: farmers in Central Chile and to identify the factors that influence the adoption of
Climate change adaptation measures. The list of adaptation practices was created with the assistance
Adaptation practices of a panel of experts. A two-part hurdle model was used to identify the adoption and
Farm practices intensity of adoption. The decision to adapt is strongly influenced by land tenure
Agricultural systems security and access to weather information, which increase the probability of adaptation
Hurdle model by 13% and 30%, respectively. The intensity of adaptation is highly influenced by
Chile affiliation to a farm organization or association, which tends to boost intensity by
72.2%. Land tenure also increases intensity by 44.5%. Years of experience in agriculture
and the income obtained from crops in the previous season also have a positive impact.
Empirical results reveal that the most effective way to reduce barriers to adaptation is to
improve access to information, while a highly relevant mode to increase the intensity of
adaptation is to encourage social networking.
# 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Wassmann, 2009), affecting food prices, food security, and

1. Introduction
The evidence on changing climatic conditions across the globe
is becoming increasingly compelling. Data from all continents
show that many natural systems are being affected, particu-
larly by increases in temperature that are likely to be
associated with anthropogenic sources. The inherent uncer-
tainties surrounding farming operations have become accen-
tuated by the global warming trend, which has serious direct
and indirect impacts on crop production (Pathak and
decisions associated with land use (Lobell and Field, 2007).
The aim of this study is to provide a quantitative analysis of
demographic and productive factors associated with the
ability to adapt to climatic variability based on a sample of
Central Chilean farmers. Chile is an interesting case study in
South America, given its high vulnerability to climate change
and heavy reliance on intensive agriculture. The country has a
variety of ecosystems a low-lying coastline, arid, semiarid
and forest areas with susceptibility to natural disasters, and
areas prone to drought and desertification (Chilean Ministry of

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +56 0712200214; fax: +56 0712200214.

E-mail addresses: lroco@ucm.cl (L. Roco), mengler@utalca.cl (A. Engler).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2014.07.008
1462-9011/# 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 environmental science & policy 44 (2014) 8696
Environment, 2011). Approximately half of the area in
continental Chile (51.6 million ha) is used for agriculture
or forestry (ODEPA, 2013) and in the last three decades there
has been a shift in land use toward specialized export
oriented crops with increasing reliance on purchased inputs
(Bengoa, 2013). Despite these changes, various challenges
remain that constrain agricultural development and sus-
tainability. For example, recent results reveal a low level of
adoption of water and soil conservation practices (Jara-Rojas
et al., 2012; Roco et al., 2012) and limited access to financial
capital (Reyes and Lensink, 2011), leaving the sector
vulnerable to climate change.
All global circulation models predict a more arid future for
the country (IPCC, 2007, 2014; AGRIMED, 2008). This prediction
is especially important in the Central zone, since it constitutes
approximately half of the arable land in the country (ODEPA,
2013) and it is expected to experience a decrease in precipita-
tion of up to 40% and a rise in temperatures between 2 and 4 8C
in the next 40 years (Chilean Ministry of Agriculture, 2012).
These projections highlight the importance of understanding
not only the dynamics of climate change in the country, but
also the subtleties of human adaptation.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows: Section 2 gives
an overview of the recent literature on climate change
adaptation in agricultural systems; Section 3 contains a
description of the data used in the study, the methodological
framework, and the model selected; Section 4 presents and
discusses the empirical results; Section 5 describes the policy
implications, summarizes and concludes.
2. An overview of the recent literature
Adaptability is the capacity of actors to manage change and is
considered mainly a social phenomenon (Walker et al., 2004).
Adaptation is also the response or the ability of economic
agents and societies to remain functional under mayor shocks
such as climate change on the basis of extra efforts (Zilberman
et al., 2012; Rose, 2007). In agriculture, adaptation will imply
pushing the production frontier outward (Rose, 2007), which
results in modifying prevailing practices to cope with growing
climatic variability. Although adaptation has been persistent
over the centuries, the occurrence of extreme events, such as
droughts, floods and frosts, has become more prevalent
making adaptation an essential feature in current agricultural
systems (Clements et al., 2011).
As recognized by Zilberman et al. (2012), adaptation can be
defined as changes in the private and public decision making
process in resource allocation; therefore, we can expect that
adaptation strategies will include public and private actions.
According to Brechet et al. (2013), some adaptation measures
have public good characteristics while others are motivated by
the self-interest of individual economic agents. In the first
group we can cite public investment in irrigation infrastruc-
ture, and the breeding of drought, heat-tolerant and early
maturing plant varieties (Deressa et al., 2009). The second
group includes the adoption by individual farmers of practices
such as increased irrigation, crop diversification, tree planting,
and soil and water conservation measures, among others
(Hageback et al., 2005; Gbetibouo, 2009; Manandhar et al., 2011;
87
Di Falco et al., 2011; Sofoluwe et al., 2011; Tambo and Abdoulaye,
2012). Practices in the second group can be divided in three main
categories: water and soil conservation practices; changes in
crops; and improvement in irrigation systems (Bryan et al., 2009;
Deressa et al., 2009; Gbetibouo, 2009). As expected, adaptation
practices vary locally depending on particular agro-ecological
and socio-economic conditions (Gbetibouo, 2009; Deressa et al.,
2009; Di Falco et al., 2011).
The literature suggests that even though alternative
adaptation strategies are available in different locations,
various types of barriers reduce or even prevent adaptation.
The 2001 and 2007 IPCC reports noted significant financial,
cultural and policy barriers. From the financial point of view,
recent studies in Africa show that farm size, used as a proxy
for capital, could be an important barrier as this variable has
exhibited a positive and significant association with the
adoption of climate change adaptation practices (Gbetibouo,
2009; Di Falco et al., 2011). Likewise, another relevant barrier to
adapt could be low access to credit as pointed out by Bryan
et al. (2009), Sofoluwe et al. (2011), Di Falco et al. (2011) and Piya
et al. (2012). Below et al. (2012) and Silvestri et al. (2012) claim
that a low level of education also decreases the chances of
adaptation to climate change. In addition, land tenure
insecurity can have a negative effect on the decision to adapt
to climate change, as reported by Yegbemey et al. (2013) in
their analysis of maize farmers in Benin.
However, public policies may accelerate the speed of
adaptation. For example, extension services and training can
have a positive effect on adoption of climate change
adaptation practices (Bryan et al., 2009; Di Falco et al., 2011;
Silvestri et al., 2012). Therefore, as the public sector
encourages the development of appropriate extension and
training programs, the capacity of the agricultural sector to
adapt to current climatic change rises. The flow of relevant
information may also facilitate adaptation. Research shows
that access to climatic information has a positive effect on the
decision to adopt practices to cope with climate change. In
Ethiopia, Di Falco et al. (2011) argue that such information had
a positive connection with the decision to use adapted crop
varieties, soil and water conservation practices, and tree
planting. Recent findings by Bryan et al. (2013) highlight the
effect of the use of weather forecasts on adaptation. Similarly,
Piya et al. (2012) confirm that climate information is relevant
for the adoption of soil conservation practices, diversification
measures, varietal selection, water accumulation, and
changing planting times in Nepal. A recent study carried
out in Nigeria by Tambo and Abdoulaye (2012) notes that the
decision to adopt a new variety of maize is positively
correlated with climate change awareness.
As already stated, the role of policy makers in aiding the
adaptation process could be relevant to generate effective long-
term and location-specific adaptation strategies (Manandhar
et al., 2011). Several authors argue that policy makers need to
have a good understanding of local conditions as well as local
adaptive strategies and capacities before they can promote
technologies to help farmers (Wang et al., 2013; Osbahr et al.,
2011; Deressa et al., 2009; Mertz et al., 2009). The preceding
review of literature reveals that most of the adaptation
studies have been done in Africa; therefore, little is known
about this phenomenon in South America.
88 environmental science & policy 44 (2014) 8696
Acknowledging the relevance of promoting an effective
adaptation to climate change in the agricultural sector, the
Chilean Ministry of Agriculture (MINAGRI) prepared a
program for the next 20 years called Plan for Climate Change
Adaptation in the Agricultural Sector. This plan includes
the following key strategies: improving management of
water resources (planning and building reservoirs, develop-
ing organizations to improve water management, and
increasing irrigation efficiency); reinforcing breeding
programs to generate crops adapted to more extreme
climate conditions; and generating training systems for the
implementation of new technologies (Chilean Ministry of
Agriculture, 2012). The strategies also include the improve-
ment of the national meteorological network, monitoring of
potential agricultural productivity, and adequate insurance
and credit programs for farmers. The strategies at the farm
level are intended to promote irrigation efficiency, water
accumulation, and incentives for soil conservation; changes
in planting schedules; and the use of renewable energy. Our
study deals with several of these strategies and thus
contributes to the discussion and implementation of the
program envisioned by the MINAGRI.
3. Data and methods
A survey of farmers in Central Chile was implemented to elicit
information about their use of various practices recom-
mended by a panel of experts as relevant in adapting to
climate change. The adaptation analysis was modeled as a
two-step decision-making: (1) the decision to adapt; and (2) the
intensity of adaptation. Therefore, our approach distinguishes
between the drivers of the decision on the one hand and the
factors affecting the degree of adaptation among farmers on
the other. This approach permits a more comprehensive and
Fig. 1 The study area.
detailed analysis compared to what is available in the
literature reviewed earlier (e.g., Gbetibouo, 2009; Deressa
et al., 2009; Sofoluwe et al., 2011; Silvestri et al., 2012).
3.1. Study area and survey
The area studied includes four locations in the Maule Region in
Central Chile: Pencahue, San Clemente, Cauquenes, and
Parral. IPCC models predict significant drying and warming
in these locations (Falvey and Garreaud, 2009; FIA, 2010; IPCC,
2014). The Maule region is part of the Mediterranean transition
area, and the prevailing agricultural activities focus on fruit
and vineyard production, along with annual crops and
livestock. The area under study (Fig. 1) presents climatic
and agro-ecological heterogeneity; Pencahue and Cauquenes
are dryland areas, San Clemente has considerable irrigated
land near the Andes Mountains, and Parral is located in the
central irrigated valley. According to the last agricultural
census, there are about 9000 farms in the four municipalities
(INE, 2010). In Pencahue, the main crops are spring vegetables,
while in Cauquenes, because of more restrictive growing
conditions and a lack of irrigation, the main crops are wheat
and oats. In San Clemente, maize, beans and potatoes are the
most prevalent crops, while in Parral, a relatively flat area,
wheat, rice and oats are predominant. The main agricultural
systems are described in Table 1.
The data used in the analysis were obtained through a
survey applied in 2011 to a sample of 274 farmers (3% of the
total farmers in the study area) proportionally distributed
according to the number of farms in each municipality.
Farmers were randomly selected from lists obtained from
water communities and government agricultural services in
each area. The farmers contained in the list were numbered
sequentially and the selection was made by using the random
number generator in Excel.
 environmental science & policy 44 (2014) 8696
Table 1 General information and main crops for the study area.
Municipality Zone Surveys applied
Pencahue Irrigated interior dryland 40
Cauquenes Non irrigated interior dryland 88
San Clemente Irrigated Andean foothill 90
Parral Irrigated central valley 56
Total 274
a
Proportion calculated based on number of farms.
b
Spring crops are: maize, beans, and potatoes.
c
Spring vegetables are: peas, onion, tomato, melon, watermelon, cucumber, and squash.
d
Other crops are: tobacco and cabbage.
The size of farms selected for the study varies from small
(1 ha) to large (900 ha). The target population for the study was
growers of annual crops, which makes the farmers in the
sample comparable in terms of potential benefits from
adaptation practices. The survey included three sections
designed to capture the socioeconomic characteristics of
farmers, their farming systems and productivity, and their
adaptations to climate change. A preliminary version of the
instrument was tested and revised in June 2011, allowing us to
make corrections and simplify some sections. The final
version was applied in the field from August to November
of the same year.
The motivation of farmers to adopt new technologies can
vary, which poses a challenge to researchers in identifying
responses to climate change from other drivers of change
such as innovation, prices, and policies (Gbetibouo, 2009).
Keeping this issue in mind, the question Have you made
adjustments in your farm to cope with changes in climate?
was used in this study as a filter to determine the
motivation of the adopted practices. The implementation
of a given adaptation practice was registered only when the
farmers primary motivation was climatic change and
variability.
3.2. Practices considered for climatic change adaptation
In general, management practices that increase agricultural
productivity and reduce production risk also contribute to
climate change adaptation, because they increase resilience
and reduce yield variability (Bryan et al., 2011). A total of 15
practices were extracted from the literature and grouped into
the following three main categories based on previous studies
as presented in Table 2 (Bryan et al., 2009; Deressa et al., 2009;
Gbetibouo, 2009):
1. Water and soil conservation practices (WSC): techniques to
improve water use and soil conservation.
2. Changes in crops (C): changes in cropping schedules and
the use of varieties more resistant to drought and high
temperatures.
3. Improvement of irrigation systems (I): actions taken to
make irrigation systems more efficient.
We then invited a panel of 18 national experts in
agricultural systems and climate change from the academic
89
Main cropping systems (%a)
Wheat and Spring Spring Rice Others
oat cropsb vegetablesc cropsd
12.5 35.0 52.5 0.0 0.0
95.5 4.5 0.0 0.0 0.0
40.0 42.2 13.3 0.0 4.5
53.6 8.9 1.8 35.7 0.0
56.6 22.3 12.4 7.3 1.4
and public sectors to evaluate the expected impact of each
of the practices as a measure of adaptation, as well as their
relevance to Central Chile. Of the 18 panelists contacted, 14
answered a survey that was sent to them by They were
asked to evaluate the impact of each practice in a scale from
0 to 3, where 0 is no impact, 1 is low, 2 is medium and 3 is
high impact. Therefore, the maximum possible score that
each of the 15 practices can have in terms of impact for
climate change adaptation at the farm level is 42 points
(3  14) equivalent to 100%. Beyond the 15 practices, the
experts were able to include and evaluate additional
practices deemed relevant by them. The frequency of
adaptation practices generated from the survey applied to
producers was then compared to the evaluations provided
by the panel.
3.3. Model estimation for climatic change adaptation
Zilberman et al. (2012) argue that adaptation at the
micro-level may include selection among discrete strategies
such as adoption of technologies, and changes in input
use with traditional technologies and, in extreme cases,
migration to other areas. The adoption of multiple technolo-
gies in agricultural systems is often modeled as a one-step
decision (Rahm and Huffmann, 1984; Boyd et al., 2011; Engler
and Toledo, 2010; Bryan et al., 2009; Davey and Furtan, 2008;
Batte, 2005; Wossink and van Wenum, 2003). By contrast,
we tested a modeling approach based on a two-step
decision process. The first step is whether or not to adopt,
and the second is how much to adopt. These two decisions
can be modeled jointly or separately and different
variables can be incorporated in each part of the model
(Mullahy, 1986; Gebremedhin and Swinton, 2003; Tambo and
Abdoulaye, 2012). The hurdle model proposed first by Cragg
(1971) addresses the two-stage process by implementing the
joint estimation of two equations. The first equation is a
binary probability model that captures the adaptation
decision (Yes/No) and constitutes the first hurdle. The
second equation is a truncated count distribution model
that incorporates only the observations with a positive
outcome (second hurdle) (Greene, 2008; Cameron and
Trivedi, 2010). In our model, the first equation is a logit
regression and the second is a zero-truncated count regres-
sion. Based on Tambo and Abdoulaye (2012), the combined
model is expressed as:
90 environmental science & policy 44 (2014) 8696

Table 2 Climatic change adaptation practices recommended by a panel of experts and adopted by farmers.
Practice Typea Panel of experts (n = 14) Farmers (n = 274)

No. of respondents by mark Scoreb No. of % of

(%) respondents total
No Low Medium High
impact impact impact impact
0 1 2 3
Incorporation of crop varieties resistant C 0 2 2 10 85.7 2 0.7
to droughts
Use of drip and sprinkler I 0 1 5 8 83.3 33 12.0
Incorporation of crops resistant to high C 0 1 6 7 80.9 2 0.7
temperatures
Changes in planting and harvesting dates C 0 1 7 6 78.6 110 40.1
Forestation on bare soil WSC 2 1 2 9 76.2 5 1.8
Zero tillage WSC 2 2 3 7 69.0 3 1.1
Use of water accumulation systems I 1 2 4 6 66.7 38 13.8
Use of green manure WSC 1 3 5 5 66.0 33 12.0
Use of mulching WSC 1 4 5 4 61.9 24 8.8
Use of cover crops WSC 1 4 5 4 61.9 16 5.8
Other WSC practices WSC 1 3 7 3 61.9 16 5.8
Use of hoses and pumps for irrigation I 1 4 6 3 59.5 52 18.9
Implementation of infiltration trenches WSC 1 4 7 2 57.1 19 6.9
Cleaning of canals WSC 1 5 6 2 54.8 60 21.9
Implementation of terraces WSC 2 6 5 1 42.5 0 0.0
a
C, changes in crops; I, improvement of irrigation systems; WSC, water and soil conservation practices.
P 
b Markn
Score MaxMarkn  100; n 14; MaxMark 3.

)
a w0i a ei
First hurdle
ai 1 if ai > 0 and 0 if ai  0
Yes=No decision
9
y x0i b mi =
yi yi  
if yi > 0 and ai > 0 Second hurdle intensity
; the count, logit, and truncated count models, respectively. The
yi 0 otherwise
where ai is a latent variable that describes the decision to
adopt, ai is the observed adaptation decision and takes the
value of 1 if the farmer adopts at least one practice and 0
otherwise; yi is a latent variable related to the intensity of
adaptation and yi is the observed intensity of adaptation
measured as the number of adopted practices; w and x are
vectors of explanatory variables for decision and intensity; a
and b are vectors of parameters to be estimated; and ei and mi
are error terms. According to the theory of utility maximiza-
tion, the ith farmer adopts a new technology only if the
expected utility (in this case the latent variable) is greater than
the utility associated with the current technology (Boyd et al.,
2011; Engler and Toledo, 2010; Davey and Furtan, 2008; Batte,
2005; Rahm and Huffmann, 1984). Since the parameters a and
b do not have a direct interpretation, it is customary to com-
pute the marginal effects at the mean of each variable (Greene,
2008).
To determine if the hurdle model is preferable for the
available data compared to the estimation of a one-stage
count model (Poisson or negative binomial), a likelihood ratio
(LR) test is applied to verify if adoption/intensity is a one or a
two-step decision (Tambo and Abdoulaye, 2012). The null
hypothesis is that the count model is superior to the hurdle
model. According to Wooldridge (2002), the test compares the
likelihood values of the two models to determine if they are
significantly different from each other using the formula:
(1)
l 2LC  LL  LCT (3)
where LC, LL, and LCT are the log-likelihood function values for
(2) LR statistic value (l) has a Chi-square distribution with degrees
of freedom equivalent to the number of explanatory variables.
The variables in the specification of the empirical model
and its descriptive statistics are presented in Table 3 and were
chosen based on the related literature (Bryan et al., 2009;
Gbetibouo, 2009; Sofoluwe et al., 2011; Di Falco et al., 2011;
Tambo and Abdoulaye, 2012) and the particular variables of
interest for this study. The socio-demographic variables
include: age; educational level; years of experience in
agriculture; membership in an association; and access to
weather information via mass media and the Internet. The
farm production variables are: income from crops in the
previous season; land tenure security; and binary variables for
the most important crop(s) (wheat and oats, spring crops,
spring vegetables, rice, other). The crop classification is based
on the prevailing farming systems as well as on differences in
crop management. The farm location is also included to
control for factors specific to each municipality.
4. Results and discussion
4.1. Importance of adaptation practices
The evaluation made by the panel of experts, applying a scale
from 0 (no impact) to 100% (maximum impact) leads to a rating
 environmental science & policy 44 (2014) 8696 91

Table 3 Variables considered in the climatic change adaptation models.

Variables in the model Description Mean Std. dev.
Dependent variables
Adoption Dummy variable = 1, if farm has at least one climatic change adaptation practice 0.57 0.5
implemented and 0 otherwise
Intensity Number of climatic change adaptation practices adopted by farm 1.74 2.16
Sociodemographic characteristics
Age Age of farmers in years 55.4 14.1
Educ Years of schooling instruction 7.2 4.1
ExpAg Number of years dedicated to agriculture by the farmer 36.8 17.2
Income Annual farm income in millions of Chilean pesos (2011) from crops for the 31.1 138.5
previous yeara
Member Dummy variable = 1 if farmers has membership in an organization and 0 0.51 0.5
otherwise
InfoMM Dummy variable = 1 if the farmer has access to weather information principally 0.69 0.5
from mass media and 0 otherwise
InfoInternet Dummy variable = 1 if the farmer has access to weather information principally 0.21 0.4
from Internet and 0 otherwise
Farm characteristics
LandT Dummy variable = 1 if the farmer is owner and 0 otherwise 0.54 0.5
WO Dummy variable = 1 if the main crops are wheat and oats and 0 otherwise 0.57 0.5
SpringC Dummy variable = 1 if the main crops are spring crop such as: maize, beans and 0.22 0.4
potatoes and 0 otherwise
SpringV Dummy variable = 1 if the main crops are spring vegetables such as: peas, onion, 0.12 0.3
tomato, melon, watermelon, cucumber and squash and 0 otherwise
Rice Dummy variable = 1 if the main crop is rice and 0 otherwise (omitted) 0.08 0.3
OtherC Dummy variable = 1if the main crops in the farm are others crops such as: tobacco 0.01 0.1
and cabbage and 0 otherwise
Location
Pencahue Dummy variable = 1if farm is located at the municipality of Pencahue and 0 0.15 0.4
otherwise
Cauquenes Dummy variable = 1if farm is located at the municipality of Cauquenes and 0 0.32 0.3
otherwise
Parral Dummy variable = 1if farm is located at the municipality of Parral and 0 otherwise 0.20 0.4
SanClemente Dummy variable = 1if farm is located at the municipality of San Clemente and 0 0.33 0.5
otherwise (omitted)
a
1 US dollar is equivalent to 470 Chilean pesos for the period of study.

above 42.5% for all 15 practices considered. This suggests that
all practices included were deemed suitable adaptation
options in Central Chile (see Table 2). In the category of water
and soil conservation, the most relevant practices are:
forestation of bare soil (76.2%); the use of zero tillage
(69.0%); and the use of green manures (66.0%). In terms of
crop improvement, the most important practice is the use of
varieties with greater resistance to drought (85.7%) and heat
(80.9%). For irrigation, an important practice is the incorpo-
ration of drip and sprinkler systems (83.3%). These results
suggest that research and incentives for adaptation to climatic
change should be focused primarily on the use of improved
crops and on the promotion of efficient irrigation systems.
Table 2 shows a sharp divergence between the practices
adopted by farmers and those most recommended by the
panel of experts. The practices most frequently adopted by
farmers are: changes in planting and harvesting dates (40.1%);
cleaning of canals (21.9%); the use of hoses and pumps for
irrigation (18.9%); the implementation of water accumulation
systems (13.8%); and the use of green manure (12.0%). It can be
seen that the most widely used practiceschanges in planting
and harvesting dates and the cleaning of canalsare the ones
that require the lowest level of investment. This finding is
consistent with Jara-Rojas et al. (2012) who reported that the
water conservation techniques most frequently adopted are
those that require the lowest investment. The practices that
the experts consider to have the greatest potential benefit
have low adoption rates among farmers. For instance, fewer
than 12.0% use drip irrigation or sprinklers and less than 0.7%
use improved varieties resistant to drought and high tem-
peratures. The latter finding is consistent with the current lack
of resistant varieties in the domestic market (Lobos et al., 2014;
Araus et al., 2008).
Our results are consistent with the measures that have
been prioritized by the MINAGRIs Climate Change Adaptation
Plan, especially for farm-level practices, given that a signifi-
cant number of farmers (43.1%) have not yet adopted any of
the 15 practices. Fig. 2 shows that only a small fraction has
adopted more than three or four practices.
Many farmers in Central Chile will need to incorporate
water-conserving practices in the near to midterm. At the
national level, INDAP (National Agency for Agricultural
Development) is implementing an irrigation program for
small-scale producers, with a budget of approximately US
$22 million per year. The main objective of this program is to
promote productivity growth and the competitiveness of these
farmers by bringing new areas under irrigation and the
development and adoption of water conservation technolo-
gies. According to our results, despite the importance of
irrigation improvements as an adaptation mechanism, the
92 environmental science & policy 44 (2014) 8696

60 distribution (Greene, 2008). The second step was to compare

50 the count model against the double hurdle model using the LR
Pencahue
test as already explained in the methodology section. The
N of respondants

40 Cauquenes count model was rejected at the 1% level of significance, in

San Clemente favor of the zero-truncated count negative binomial specifi-
30
Parral cation included in the hurdle model, validating the hypothesis
20 that the decision to adopt is made separately from the
intensity of adoption, which supports the use of the two-stage
10
decision process.
0 Table 4 presents the econometric results comparing the
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
N of practices hurdle model and the count negative binomial. The first
noticeable difference is the pseudo-R2, an overall model
Fig. 2 Distribution of adopted practices by municipality performance parameter, which for the hurdle regression is
and total. 28.8%, while the value for the count model without data
truncation is only 6.0%. The logit model for adoption presented
7 out of 15 statistically significant coefficients, at least at the
latter has been adopted by only 19% of the farmers in our 10% level, a pseudo-R2 of 10.1%, and 64.2% of the predictions
sample, which underscores that incentives in this area are a were correct. The zero-truncated negative binomial regression
relevant strategy as recognized in the MINAGRIs Plan. model presents 10 out of 15 statistically significant coeffi-
cients, at least at the 10% significance, and a pseudo-R2 of
4.2. Decision and intensity of adaptation 18.7%. In both cases, the F statistic for the null hypothesis that
the model is not significant is rejected at less than 0.1%
Before estimating the model, the first step was to determine probability.
the distribution of probabilities that describe adaptation in the Age shows a negative and significant effect on both, the
data set. It was found that the over-dispersion parameter decision to adopt and the intensity of adoption, indicating that
alpha is positive (0.71) and significant; thus, the negative younger farmers are more likely to adapt. This finding is
binomial distribution was deemed preferable over the Poisson consistent with that of Tambo and Abdoulaye (2012) who

Table 4 Estimation of determinants of climatic change adaptation.

Variable Hurdle model Negative binomial

Logit (adoption) Zero-truncated negative Coefficient Robust Marginal

binomial (intensity) standard effects
error
Coefficient Robust Marginal Coefficient Robust Marginal
standard effects standard effects
error error
Age 0.040** 0.157 0.097 0.019*** 0.007 0.044 0.032*** 0.008 0.047
Educ 0.022 0.042 0.005 0.014 0.014 0.033 0.009 0.021 0.014
ExpAg 0.006 0.012 0.002 0.008* 0.005 0.019 0.008 0.007 0.012
Income 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001* 0.001 0.001 0.001*** 0.000 0.001
Member 0.405 0.269 0.099 0.311*** 0.104 0.722 0.381*** 0.138 0.561
InfoMM 0.863* 0.451 0.211 0.127 0.153 0.303 0.313 0.260 0.438
InfoInternet 1.414*** 0.540 0.302 0.043 0.168 0.010 0.534* 0.284 0.931
LandT 0.550* 0.313 0.134 0.193* 0.119 0.445 0.375** 0.155 0.548
WO 0.299 0.620 0.073 0.222 0.209 0.514 0.252 0.243 0.366
SpringC 0.531 0.682 0.125 0.437* 0.231 1.161 0.509* 0.287 0.874
SpringV 0.249 0.753 0.060 0.185 0.260 0.465 0.211 0.342 0.337
OtherC 1.218 1.490 0.246 0.468** 0.230 1.383 0.898** 0.440 2.119
Pencahue 0.896* 0.464 0.200 0.317** 0.131 0.827 0.642*** 0.224 1.210
Cauquenes 1.128*** 0.374 0.258 0.816*** 0.164 1.714 0.136 0.208 0.196
Parral 1.511*** 0.451 0.319 0.677*** 0.146 1.357 0.099 0.214 0.150
Intercept 0.431 1.074 1.385*** 0.366 0.682 0.526

Alpha (a) 0.717***

McFaddens R 2 0.101 0.187 0.060
Prob > x 2 0.001 0.000 0.000
Log pseudolikehood 168.3 240.5 463.1
No. of observations 274 156 274
*
p < 0.1.
**
p < 0.05.
***
p < 0.01.
 environmental science & policy 44 (2014) 8696
found that age is relevant in the decision to adopt drought-
tolerant maize in Nigeria. According to Zilberman et al. (2012),
younger producers are more likely to adopt technologies
because they have lower cognitive cost and they operate with
a longer planning horizon.
Future plans for adaptation should consider not only the
improvement of meteorological networks but also access to
information. Our results show that access to weather
information through mass media (press, radio, and television)
has a marginal effect of 21.1%, while access to weather
information from the Internet increases the likelihood of
adopting technologies to cope with climate change by 30.2%.
Vermeulen et al. (2012) argue that improving climate infor-
mation services is one of the most effective ways to reduce
agricultural risk associated with climate change and variabili-
ty. However, the parameters for these variables are not
significant in the intensity of adoption equation, which
suggests that although access to information influences the
decision to adopt; such access does not affect the number of
adopted practices.
Agricultural experience, measured by years of farming,
shows a positive association with the number of practices
implemented, a result that is consistent with the findings of
Gbetibouo (2009). Crop income also has a positive and
significant effect. Deressa et al. (2009) and Silvestri et al.
(2012) report similar results and note that farm income has a
positive and significant effect on climate change adaptation in
rural communities in Ethiopia and agro-pastoral communities
in Kenya, respectively. Hence, wealthier households are more
likely to adapt to climate change and consequently to
implement more practices at the farm level.
As expected, land tenure security represents an impor-
tant and strategic consideration for investment decisions at
the farm level, increasing the probability of a positive
decision for adoption by 13.4%. This latter result is
compatible with the analysis of Yegbemey et al. (2013)
who claim that institutional arrangements and land rights
are important for climate change adaptation. This result is
also consistent with Dulal et al. (2011), who argue that land
tenure is an important driver for adoption of greenhouse
gasoffsetting agricultural systems, especially for poor
smallholder farmers. Similarly, Toni and Holanda (2008)
find that land tenure security positively influences the
decision to adopt practices to reduce vulnerability to
droughts. In our model, land security also has a positive
effect on the number of practices implemented, increasing
the probability by 44.5%. This finding concurs with the
conclusion of Hisali et al. (2011) that owners are more likely
to implement longer-term investments than non-owners.
We find that participation in farmer associations has no
effect on the decision to adapt, but it is highly significant and
positive with respect to the number of adopted practices. This
is consistent with the conclusion of Knowler and Bradshaw
(2007) that social capital is a reliable factor in explaining the
adoption of water and soil conservation practices. In addition,
we are able to ascertain that the effect of social capital is more
relevant in the intensity than in the decision to adapt. Below
et al. (2012) claim that membership of one or more family
members in an agricultural social group can be an important
factor in climate change adaptation among farmers.
93
There was no evidence of a clear effect of the main crop on
the adaptation decision; however, the main crop has an effect
on intensity. Producers of spring crops (maize, beans, and
potatoes), tobacco and cabbage are more likely to adopt a
larger number of practices than grain producers. It is
important to note that spring crops are intensive production
activities and often involve modern irrigation systems and
have higher economic margins, while grains (rice, wheat, and
oats) tend to be cultivated with more traditional technologies
(Garcia and Ruiz, 2010).
In terms of location, the model indicates that farmers in
San Clemente are the least likely to adopt practices to cope
with climate change. Relative to San Clemente, the probability
of adaptation in Pencahue is 20% higher; in Cauquenes 25.8%
higher; and in Parral it is 31.8% higher. On the other hand,
intensity is higher in San Clemente compared to Parral or
Cauquenes, and lower than Pencahue. The drivers that define
the decision to adapt and the intensity of adoption are possibly
the reason for these mixed results. Pencahue is the munici-
pality closest to the regional capital, and producers have easier
access to information and state programs, which could be
driving the decision to adapt. The lower intensity of adapta-
tion in San Clemente could be explained by the fact that
production conditions are most favorable in terms of soil
quality in this location compared to the other three included
in the study. Simelton et al. (2009) claim that investments in
rural areas generally correlate with reduced vulnerability
where good harvests are more sensitive to droughts.
Table 4 contrasts the robustness of the hurdle model, the
one that is selected for the analysis, versus the negative
binomial. Variables such as age, access to meteorological
information from the Internet, and land tenure show a similar
behavior in both models. The hurdle model revealed the
importance of variables related to the use of weather
information from mass media and to location on the
adaptation decision, and the relevance of agricultural experi-
ence and income, social capital, crops and location for the
intensity of adoption. Our results are consistent with those
reported in previous studies for other parts of the world,
primarily Africa (Bryan et al., 2013; Tambo and Abdoulaye,
2012; Silvestri et al., 2012 among others). A novelty, however, is
that such converging findings have been generated here using
a different methodological framework than the one typically
used; namely, we separate the dichotomous adaptation
decision from its intensity. Hence, our analysis provides a
richer understanding of producer behavior.
The panel of experts recommends that irrigation
enhancements be prioritized, while the MINAGRIs Climate
Change Adaptation Plan (2012) contends that improvements
in irrigation systems and water accumulation should be
targeted to rainfed zones, where water is more constraining.
However, according to Stamp and Viser (2012), to achieve
global food security by 2050, productivity in primary
production must rise by 80% and they argue that the
availability and adoption of improved drought-resistant
seed varieties is critical in achieving that goal. Thus,
plant-breeding programs and irrigation policy are two
key areas that need steady research and extension funding
so as to help farmers in preparing for the changing
conditions that lie ahead.
94 environmental science & policy 44 (2014) 8696
5. Summary and policy implications
This study was motivated by the fact that agriculture is
expected to continue to play a key role in Chiles development,
particularly in the central valley. In this context, sustainable
productivity growth in farming will remain a priority;
however, such growth is challenged by rising uncertainty
generated by climate change. Therefore, coping with these
emerging conditions is a key element that requires the
attention of policy makers, researchers and all players along
the value chain. Recent literature shows that drought and
intense rainfall will be more frequent in Central Chile (IPCC,
2007, 2014; FIA, 2010; Falvey and Garreaud, 2009), which poses
an urgent need to improve our understanding of farmer
behavior related to the management of climate risks.
A panel of Chilean experts assessed a set of practices to
cope with climate change including water and soil conserva-
tion, and crop and irrigation improvements. Then, a farm
survey was undertaken in Central Chile to determine if these
recommended practices are being implemented by producers
in response to their perception of climate change and
variability.
To examine the adoption of climate change adaptation
practices by farmers, a two-step hurdle regression framework
was implemented using a logit model for the decision to adopt
and a zero-truncated negative binomial model to examine the
intensity of adoption. The selected model demonstrated that a
number of factors contribute to the decision to adapt: land
tenure and access to weather information have a positive
influence, while age has a negative influence. Variables
affecting the intensity of adaptation included the location of
the farm and the main crops produced. Agricultural experi-
ence, income from crops in the previous season, membership
in farm organizations or associations, and land tenure all have
a positive effect on intensity, while age has a negative effect.
The results of our study highlight three relevant aspects
that deserve consideration in the formulation and implemen-
tation of policy instruments to promote adaptation to climate
change. First, in the study area, there are a large percentage of
farmers (43.1%) who have not introduced adaptation mea-
sures to deal with climatic change and variability. The analysis
indicated that there are specific factors explaining this
behavior, where access to meteorological information is a
key one. The implication is that improving access and use of
weather information is critical to promote risk reduction and
to enhance adaptation. Moreover, this information to be of real
value needs to be easy to assimilate and consistent with the
educational level of the farm community.
Second, for producers that pass the threshold of adopting
at least one practice to adapt to climate change, we have
documented the importance of strengthening farmers orga-
nizations which, according to our results, is one of the most
important factors in increasing the intensity of adaptation and
the speed of technology transfer. Our results confirm that
social capital and interactions with peers accelerate the
intensity of adaptation. Therefore, the support of social
capital creation and strengthening, and farmers networking
should be a priority in polices promoting adaptation to
climate change in rural areas.
Finally, a novel contribution to the literature is the finding
that there is a significant gap between what experts consider
as more effective measures to adapt to climatic change from
what farmers are actually adopting. A particularly acute gap is
the lack of improved seed varieties in the market. Breeding
programs in the region are in the process of generating
improved seeds suitable for extreme weather conditions
(Lobos et al., 2014; Del Pozo et al., 2012); but, such programs
need to be reinforced and farm trials and extension activities
will be required to promote adoption. Another gap that we
identified in this study concerns the limited adoption of
modern irrigation technologies, which is likely due to financial
constraints. This suggests that the current public support of
improved irrigation practices needs additional funding and
more aggressive promotion strategies.
Acknowledgments
This work was partially supported by a research grant from the
Latin American and Caribbean Environmental Economics
Program (LACEEP) and a doctoral scholarship from Chilean
National Commission for Scientific and Technological Re-
search. The authors thank the Excellence Program of
Interdisciplinary Research: Adaptation of Agriculture to
Climate Change (A2C2) of The University of Talca and also
the farmers who courteously answered our survey.
references
AGRIMED, 2008. Impactos productivos en el sector
silvoagropecuario de Chile frente a escenarios de cambio
climatico. Technical report. U. de Chile, CONAMA, ODEPA, FIA.
Araus, J.L., Slafer, G.A., Royo, C., Serret, M.D., 2008. Breeding for
yield potential and stress adaptation in cereals. Crit. Rev.
Plant Sci. 27, 377412.
Batte, M.T., 2005. Changing computer use in agriculture:
evidence from Ohio. Comput. Electron. Agric. 47, 113.
Below, T.B., Mutabazi, K.D., Kirschke, D., Franke, C., Sieber, S.,
Siebert, R., Tscherning, K., 2012. Can farmers adaptation to
climate change be explained by socio-economic household-
level variables? Global Environ. Change 22 (1) 223235.
Bengoa, J., 2013. Rural Chile transformed: lights and shadows. J.
Agrar. Change 13 (4) 466487.
Boyd, M., Pai, J., Zhang, Q., Wang, H.H., Wang, K., 2011. Factors
affecting crop insurance purchases in China: the Inner
Mongolia region. China Agric. Econ. Rev. 3 (4) 441450.
Brechet, T., Hritonenko, N., Yatsenko, Y., 2013. Adaptation and
mitigation in long-term climate policy. Environ. Resour.
Econ. 55, 217243.
Bryan, E., Deressa, T.T., Gbetibouo, G.A., Ringler, C., 2009.
Adaptation to climate change in Ethiopia and South Africa:
options and constraints. Environ. Sci. Policy 12 (4) 413426.
Bryan, E., Ringler, C., Okoba, B., Koo, J., Herrero, M., Silvestri, S.,
2011. Agricultural Management for Climate Change
Adaptation, Greenhouse Gas Mitigation, and Agricultural
Productivity: Insights from Kenya. IFPRI discussion paper
No. 1098. , 42 pp.
Bryan, E., Ringler, C., Okoba, B., Roncoli, C., Silvestri, S., Herrero,
M., 2013. Adapting agriculture to climate change in Kenya:
household strategies and determinants. J. Environ. Manage.
114, 2635.
 environmental science & policy 44 (2014) 8696
Cameron, C., Trivedi, O., 2010. Microeconometrics Using Stata,
revised ed. Stata Press, Texas, 706 pp.
Chilean Ministry of Agriculture, 2012. Plan de adaptacion al
cambio climatico del sector silvoagropecuario. Available at:
http://www.mma.gob.cl/1304/articles-
52367_PlanAdpatacionCCS.pdf (accessed February 2013).
Chilean Ministry of Environment, 2011. Segunda Comunicacion
Nacional de Chile ante la Convencion Marco de las Naciones
Unidas sobre cambio Climatico. , 289 pp.
Clements, R., Haggar, J., Quezada, A., Torres, J., 2011. In: Zhu, X.
(Ed.), Technologies for climate change adaptation
agriculture sector. UNEP Ris Centre, Roskilde.
Cragg, J., 1971. Some statistical models for limited dependent
variables with application to the demand for durable goods.
Econometrica 39, 829844.
Davey, K.A., Furtan, W.H., 2008. Factors that affect the adoption
decision of conservation tillage in the Prairie region of
Canada. Can. J. Agric. Econ. 56 (3) 257275.
Del Pozo, A., Castillo, D., Inostroza, L., Matus, I., Mendez, A.M.,
Morcuende, R., 2012. Physiological and yield response of
recombinant chromosome substitution lines of barley to
terminal drought in a Mediterranean-type environment.
Ann. Appl. Biol. 160, 157167.
Deressa, T.T., Hassan, R.M., Ringler, C., Alemu, T., Yesuf, M.,
2009. Determinants of farmers choice of adaptation
methods to climate change in the Nile Basin of Ethiopia.
Global Environ. Change 19, 248255.
Di Falco, S., Veronesi, M., Yesuf, M., 2011. Does adaptation to
climate change provide food security? A micro-perspective
from Ethiopia. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 93 (3) 829846.
Dulal, H.B., Brodnig, G., Shah, K.U., 2011. Capital assets and
institutional constraints to implementation of greenhouse
gas mitigation options in agriculture. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg.
Global Change 16, 123.
Engler, A., Toledo, R., 2010. An analysis of factors affecting the
adoption of economic and productive data recording
methods of Chilean farmers. Cienc. Invest. Agrar. 37 (2)
101109.
Falvey, M., Garreaud, R., 2009. Regional cooling in a warming
world: recent temperature trends in the southeast Pacific
and along the west coast of subtropical South America
(19792006). J. Geophys. Res. 114, D04102 16 pp.
FIA, 2010. El cambio climatico en el sector silvoagropecuario de
Chile. Fundacion para la Innovacion Agraria. Ministerio de
Agricultura, Chile, Santiago, 116 pp.
Garcia, V., Ruiz, R., 2010. La OCDE y la agricultura en Chile.
Estudios de economa regional. Report. Universidad de Talca.
Gbetibouo, G.A., 2009. Understanding farmers perceptions and
adaptations to climate change and variability: the case of the
Limpopo Basin, South Africa. IFPRI discussion paper No. 849.
, 36 pp.
Gebremedhin, B., Swinton, S.M., 2003. Investment in soil
conservation in northern Ethiopia: the role of land
tenure security and public programs. Agric. Econ. 29,
6984.
Greene, W., 2008. Econometric Analysis, seventh ed. Prentice
Hall, New Jersey.
Hageback, J., Sundberg, J., Ostwald, M., Chen, D., Yun, X.,
Knutsson, P., 2005. Climate variability and land-use change
in Danangou Watershed, China: examples of small-scale
farmers adaptation. Clim. Change 72, 189212.
Hisali, E., Birungi, P., Buyinza, F., 2011. Adaptation to climate
change in Uganda: evidence from micro level data. Global
Environ. Change 21, 12451261.
INE, 2010. Cifras Censo 2007. Cuadro 1 y cuadro 6. , In: http://
icet.odepa.cl/exp/ficha.php.
IPCC, 2014. Climate change 2014: impacts, adaptation and
vulnerability. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Fifth Assessment Report. .
95
IPCC, 2007. Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and
vulnerability. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Fourth Assessment Report. .
IPCC, 2001. Climate change 2001: impacts, adaptation and
vulnerability. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Third Assessment Report. .
Jara-Rojas, R., Bravo-Ureta, B., Daz, J., 2012. Adoption of water
conservation practices: a socioeconomic analysis of small-
scale farmers in Central Chile. Agric. Syst. 110, 5462.
Knowler, D., Bradshaw, B., 2007. Farmers adoption of
conservation agriculture: a review and synthesis of recent
research. Food Policy 32, 2548.
Lobell, D.B., Field, C.B., 2007. Global scale climate-crop yield
relations and the impacts of recent warming. Environ. Res.
Lett. 2, 17.
Lobos, G., Matus, I., Rodriguez, A., Romero-Bravo, S., Araus, J.L.,
Del Pozo, A., 2014. Wheat genotypic variability in grain yield
and carbon isotope discrimination under Mediterranean
conditions assessed by spectral reflectance. J. Integr. Plant
Biol..
Manandhar, S., Vogt, D.S., Perret, S.R., Kazama, F., 2011.
Adapting cropping systems to climate change in Nepal: a
cross-regional study of farmers perception and practices.
Reg. Environ. Change 11 (2) 335348.
Mertz, O., Mbow, C., Reenberg, A., Diouf, A., 2009. Farmers
perception of climate change and agricultural adaptation
strategies in rural Sahel. J. Environ. Manage. 43, 804816.
Mullahy, J., 1986. Specification and testing of some modified
count data models. J. Econom. 33, 341365.
ODEPA, 2013. Chilean Agriculture Overview. Agrarian Policies
and Studies Bureau, Chilean Ministry of Agriculture, 145 pp.
Osbahr, H., Dorward, P., Stern, R., Cooper, S., 2011. Supporting
agricultural innovation in Uganda to respond to climate risk:
linking climate change and variability with farmers
perceptions. Exp. Agric. 47 (2) 293316.
Pathak, H., Wassmann, R., 2009. Quantitative evaluation of
climatic variability and risk for wheat yield in India. Clim.
Change 93, 157175.
Piya, L., Maharjan, K., Joshi, N., 2012. Determinants of
adaptation practices to climate change by Chepang
households in the rural Mid-Hills of Nepal. Reg. Environ.
Change, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10113-012-0359-5.
Rahm, M., Huffmann, W., 1984. The adoption of reduced tillage:
the role of human capital and other variables. Am. J. Agric.
Econ. 66, 405413.
Reyes, A., Lensink, R., 2011. The credit constraints of market-
oriented farmers in Chile. J. Dev. Stud. 47 (12) 18511868.
Roco, L., Engler, A., Jara-Rojas, R., 2012. Factors influencing the
adoption of soil conservation technologies in the rainfed
area of Central Chile. Rev. Fac. Cienc. Agrar. 44 (2) 3145.
Rose, A., 2007. Economic resilience to natural and man-made
disaster: multidisciplinary origins and contextual
dimensions. Environ. Hazards 7, 383398.
Silvestri, S., Bryan, E., Ringler, C., Herrero, M., Okoba, B., 2012.
Climate change perception and adaptation of agro-pastoral
communities in Kenya. Reg. Environ. Change 12, 791802.
Simelton, E., Fraser, E.D.G., Termansen, M., Forster, P.M.,
Dougill, A., 2009. Typologies of crop-drought vulnerability:
an empirical analysis of the socio-economic factors that
influence the sensivity and resilience to drought of three
major food crops in China (19612001). Environ. Sci. Policy
12, 438452.
Sofoluwe, N., Tijane, A., Baruwa, O., 2011. Farmers perception
and adaptation to climate change in Osun State, Nigeria. Afr.
J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 6 (20) 47894794.
Stamp, P., Viser, R., 2012. The twenty-first century, the century
of plant breeding. Euphytica 186, 585591.
Tambo, J.A., Abdoulaye, T., 2012. Climate change and
agricultural technology adoption: the case of drought
96 environmental science & policy 44 (2014) 8696
tolerant maize in rural Nigeria. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Global
Change 17, 277292.
Toni, F., Holanda, E., 2008. The effects of land tenure on
vulnerability to droughts in Northeastern Brazil. Global
Environ. Change 18, 575582.
Vermeulen, S.J., et al., 2012. Options for support to agriculture
and food security under climate change. Environ. Sci. Policy
15, 136144.
Walker, B., Holling, C.S., Carpenter, S.R., Kinzing, A., 2004.
Resilience, adaptability and transformability in social
ecological systems. Ecol. Soc. 9, 5., In: http://
www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art5/.
Wang, J., Huang, X., Zhong, T., Chen, Z., 2013. Climate change
impacts and adaptation for saline agriculture in north
Jiangsu Province, China. Environ. Sci. Policy 25, 8393.
Wooldridge, J.M., 2002. Econometric Analysis of Cross Section
and Panel Data. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Wossink, G.A.A., van Wenum, J.H., 2003. Biodiversity
conservation by farmers: analysis of actual and contingent
participation. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 30 (4) 461485.
Yegbemey, R.N., Yabi, J.A., Tovignan, S.D., Gantoli, G., Haroll
Kokoye, S.E., 2013. Farmers decisions to adapt to climate
change under various property rights: a case study of maize
farming in northern Benin (West Africa). Land Use Policy 34,
168175.
Zilberman, D., Zhao, J., Heiman, A., 2012. Adoption versus
adaptation, with emphasis on climate change. Annu. Rev.
Resour. Econ. 4, 2753.