An interdisciplinary framework of limits and barriers to agricultural climate change adaptation

Agriculture is one of the key economic sectors that are most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change (Pearson et al., 2011). Changes in (variability of) temperature, rainfall and the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will directly affect crop and livestock productivity. Although farmers may be particularly knowledgeable in dealing with climate variability, the magnitude of climate change impacts on farming might turn out to go beyond anything that farmers have previously experienced (Stokes and Howden, 2010). This means that adaptive actions are likely to be important to protect farmers' livelihoods from the impacts of unavoidable climate change. There are, however, various limits (absolute obstacles) and barriers (mutable obstacles) to climate change adaptation. The importance of understanding these barriers and limits to support a sustainable and resilient agricultural sector is increasingly acknowledged by academic researchers and government agencies (e.g., Adger et al., 2009; European Commission 2007; Stokes and Howden, 2010; US EPA, 2012). With this increased focus on limits and barriers to adaptation, has come a heightened awareness that the complex, multifaceted nature of climate change requires interdisciplinary research to improve our understanding of obstacles. Unfortunately, the success of inter-disciplinary projects is often hindered by a lack of common definition of limits and barriers to climate change adaptation. In this study, we develop a conceptual model that integrates different understandings of limits and barriers to agricultural climate change adaptation. Following Pearson et al. (2011), we based our conceptual model on the academic and grey literature as well as expert interviews. The model shows how 'adaptive capacity' and 'willingness to adopt' determine whether a farmer may take adaptive action. Factors that can present limits or barriers to adaptation include biophysical, technological, and socio-economic factors, as well as farmers' personal characteristics and the socio-cultural context in which the farmer operates. Consultations with experts from various disciplinary backgrounds informed the model development process. Several epistemological challenges were encountered during the study, with disciplinary experts defining limits and barriers to adaptation in different ways. For example, agronomists, economists and biophysical scientists explained that social barriers to adaptive capacity were related to farmers' individual business management skills. Social scientists, on the other hand, used the term social barriers also to indicate that cultural beliefs and values affect a farmers' flexibility or ability to learn new practices. Other epistemological challenges arose when discussing economic limits and barriers. While most experts agreed that adaptation should be aimed at welfare maximisation, different disciplines used variable descriptions of 'welfare'. Many scientists understand economic welfare as a concept that is solely concerned with financial (directly tangible) costs and benefits. Economists in the project, however, incorporated tangible and intangible (non-marketed) values in their definition of economic welfare. It is recommended that future interdisciplinary research between biophysical, economic and social scientists carefully discusses and defines how terms considered in the study are understood across disciplines. The integrated framework developed in the present study provides a guiding tool for such future integrated projects, to help overcome the epistemological challenges that are typically encountered in multi- disciplinary research.