Climate Services 34 (2024) 100497

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Climate Services
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cliser

Original research article

Three faces of climate change: Using Q-methodology to understand

farmers’ perspectives of climate change and adaptive capacity in
Bangladesh’s wetland areas
Khondokar H. Kabir a, b, c, *, Uwe A. Schneider a, Holli R. Leggette d
a
Research Unit Sustainability and Climate Risks, University of Hamburg, Grindelberg 5, 20144 Hamburg, Germany
b
School of Environmental Design and Rural Development, University of Guelph, Canada
c
Department of Agricultural Extension Education, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh 2202, Bangladesh
d
Department of Agricultural Leadership, Education and Communications, Texas A&M University, USA

H I G H L I G H T S

• Slow adoption of climate-smart practices in the global south is tied to climate change perception.
• We studied small-scale farmers’ perceptions of climate change and adaptability using Q-methodology.
• Farmers were categorized into three distinctive groups.
• Religious beliefs among farmers influence their views on climate change.
• Policymakers and extension workers can benefit from understanding farmers’ perspectives.

A B S T R A C T

Even though the weather-dependent agricultural sector is severely impacted by climate change and requires more adaptive measures, climate change adaptation in
the global south is slow. The perception of farmers, who are the final decision-makers, strongly influences the adoption of climate-smart technologies and the (un)
willingness to follow recommended measures. Although perception studies have attracted the international community’s interest, these studies have disregarded the
heterogeneity within the farming community. Our study uses Q-methodology to address this gap by examining small-scale farmers’ perspectives on climate change
and their perceived adaptation capacity in wetland areas of north-eastern Bangladesh. Following post-sort interviews, 36 farmers were invited to participate in the Q-
sorting using 34 pre-selected statements. The study revealed three distinct types of perspectives on climate change and adaptive capacity: theists who believe in the
act of God and take a “do nothing” approach, realists who believe in climate change but are unaware of climate change trade-offs, and pragmatists who recognize
climate change and actively pursue adaptations. The awareness of different climate change perspectives can support policymakers and extension service providers. By
replacing their one-size-fits-all approach, they can better assist wetland farmers in developing and implementing tailored adaptation strategies.

Introduction change has become a common pledge in climate change response pol-
icies (Hitayezu et al., 2017).
The global 2 ◦ C temperature target and the long-term goal of halting As a weather-dependent sector and a way of life for billions of
climate change require multi-stakeholder efforts and commitment farmers worldwide, agriculture is both a contributor to and a victim of
(Schleussner et al., 2016; Gao et al., 2017). To resist and adapt to climate climate change. As a result, significant changes and reorientation are
change, key stakeholders must understand its causes and effects (Ibra- needed to reduce negative environmental impacts and encourage
him & Johansson, 2021). The ability of humanity to adapt to crises like adaptive measures (Ibrahim & Johansson, 2021; Dhanya & Ramachan-
the loss of biodiversity and food insecurity will be further hampered by dran, 2016). Recognizing the threat of global climate change on agri-
the acceleration of climate change (Petersen-Rockney, 2022; Wheeler culture has resulted in a greater focus on agricultural adaptation and
et al., 2021; Niles & Mueller, 2016). As a result, understanding and mitigation strategies (see Howden et al., 2007; McCarl, 2010). Adapta-
raising awareness among actors about the causes and effects of climate tion and mitigation are two critical climate change actions. While

* Corresponding author at: Research Unit Sustainability and Climate Risks, University of Hamburg, Grindelberg 5, 20144 Hamburg, Germany.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (K.H. Kabir), [email protected] (U.A. Schneider), [email protected] (H.R. Leggette).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cliser.2024.100497
Received 7 March 2023; Received in revised form 14 May 2024; Accepted 5 June 2024
Available online 8 June 2024
2405-8807/© 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
K.H. Kabir et al. Climate Services 34 (2024) 100497

adaptation strategies seek to reduce the adverse consequences of climate country’s geographic location and high population density (Chowdhury
change, mitigation strategies aim to reduce its causes (e.g., greenhouse and Moore, 2017; Smith and Frankenberger, 2018), even though the
gas emissions (GHG)) (Arbuckle et al., 2013; Arbuckle et al., 2015). socioeconomic sensitivity to climate change differs regionally. While
Farmers are the decision-makers for many agricultural adaption and floods and droughts have afflicted Bangladeshi farmers for millennia,
mitigation strategies as they make decisions about new crop and live- their increased frequency and severity seriously threaten the lives and
stock production methods and land-use changes (Arbuckle et al., 2013; livelihoods of north-eastern farmers (Kamal et al., 2018).
Madhuri and Sharma, 2020). Engagement in adaptation and mitigation The country’s north-eastern regions are characterized by low-
strategies depends strongly on these two general responses and farmers’ elevation floodplains or wetlands (also locally known as Haor). These
perspectives on climate change (Arbuckle et al., 2013; Mase et al., 2017; areas experience severe water stress both before and after crop planting,
Woods et al., 2017). further compounded by pre-monsoon flash floods that devastate crops
Bangladesh is a hotspot for climate change effects because of its nearing harvest (Chowdhury and Moore, 2017; Anik and Khan, 2012).
potential to have severe climatic events, including cyclones, floods, flash Nearly 400 wetlands cover an area of ~ 19,700 km2 in the north-eastern
floods, droughts, hailstorms, saline intrusion, riverbank erosion, and region, with almost 23 transboundary rivers entering from India (Kamal
storm surges, that affects almost 40 % of the agricultural workforce (Roy et al., 2018). Most wetland farmers practice monocropping with Boro
et al., 2021; Smith & Frankenberger, 2018). Bangladesh is ranked sev- rice from October to March because much of the land remains water-
enth among the nations most affected by extreme weather in the last 20 logged from April to September (Parvez et al., 2021). Haor covers about
years (2000–2019) by the Global Climate Risk Index (GCRI), with a 0.71 million ha of cultivable land, accounting for 16 % of Bangladesh’s
death toll of 11,450 persons, $3.72 billion in economic losses, and 185 total rice production area (BBS, 2017), generating over 20 % of the
extreme weather occurrences (Eckstein et al., 2021). Bangladesh’s country’s total staple food (rice), and employing approximately 20
vulnerability to global climate change is predicted to increase due to the million people (Dey et al., 2021).

Fig. 1. Rainfall and temperature data from 1991 to 2015 show a rise in temperature and decreased precipitation in the wetland area.

2
K.H. Kabir et al. Climate Services 34 (2024) 100497

The Haor basin is bordered to the north by India’s Meghalaya and characteristics among farmers (Taheri et al., 2020; Zobeidi et al., 2016;
Assam mountain ranges, one of the world’s wettest regions (Parvez Mbwambo et al., 2021). Moreover, it is now widely understood that a
et al., 2021). Historically, the basin has been inundated with regular “one-size-fits-all” climate change adaptation plan will not work in
monsoon rains and downstream water flow from India’s Meghalaya and diverse farming communities (Zobeidi et al., 2016). For example, Cruz
Assam areas between May and June each year. Yet, climate change has et al. (2021) recommended that climate change adaptation information
triggered more intense precipitation in the Haor basin and upstream and advice be directed to farmers based on their values and beliefs.
catchments from hilly India during the pre-monsoon season, March to In Bangladesh, several studies have looked into farmers’ perceptions
April, generating a sudden onrush of water in rivers and resulting in of climate change in the southern coastal region and the drought-prone
flash floods in the Haor basin (Dey et al., 2021). Pre-monsoon flash northwestern region (Alam et al., 2017; Hasan and Nursey-Bray, 2017;
floods have struck the Haor area at least nine times in the last 30 years, Habiba et al., 2012; Kais and Islam, 2019). However, these studies have
with six of those occurring in the previous 17 years. These floods are ignored farmers’ subjective views on climate change. These studies were
expected to become more frequent during the 21st century (Islam et al., unable to generate useful policy suggestions because they relied on
2021; Parvez et al., 2021). These pre-monsoon flash floods substantially mean and median values to describe the perspectives of different
impact farmers’ lives and livelihoods by destroying ready-to-harvest rice stakeholders. As a result, our study employs Q-methodology, a mixed-
crops. method, to explore the heterogeneity among various stakeholders
In contrast, wetland areas face climate change droughts from (Iofrida et al., 2018). To date, Q-methodology has been widely used to
October to March (dry season), which affects the early growth of Boro systematically study the subjectivity of heterogeneous stakeholders in
rice and other crops (Rahman et al., 2018a, 2018b). An analysis of the fields of psychology, medicine, and the environment, but its use in
rainfall and temperature data from 1991 to 2015 (Fig. 1) reveals rising climate change research is limited (Zobeidi et al., 2016). To our
temperatures and declining precipitation over wetlands. This trend ex- knowledge, no study in Bangladesh has used Q-methodology to inves-
acerbates the scarcity of irrigation water sources for farmers who rely on tigate farmers’ perceptions and perspectives on climate change and
groundwater and surface water (canals and rivers) for their crops. Rising adaptive capacity. Our study uses Q-methodology to analyze the het-
temperatures evaporate more water in canals, thereby, increasing the erogeneity and contribution to the process of responding to pre-
demand for groundwater. According to the Bangladesh Water Devel- monsoon flash floods and seasonal drought by investigating the
opment Board (BWDB), the groundwater level in wetland areas has research question “how do wetland farmers perceive and interpret
steadily decreased due to frequent pumping of water to irrigate crops climate change and adaptation capacity.” Empirical findings from our
that require a significant quantity of water (e.g., rice) (Kutub, 2015). study on wetland farmers’ perceptions will support extension services
The flooded irrigation practice also contributes to anthropogenic GHG, and improve adaptation planning at the local level.
with global rice production contributing 1.5 % of anthropogenic GHG
emissions and Bangladesh contributing 32 % (Islam et al., 2020). Research methods
Farmers in wetland areas are particularly vulnerable to changing
weather events and, thus, depend on suitable adaptation measures, but Study area
they could also take an active role in mitigation. Previous research has
suggested expanding climate-smart agricultural (CSA) practices (e.g., We chose an area where early flash floods, droughts, and other cli-
short-duration rice varieties, floating beds to raise rice seedlings, and matic variability have deteriorated farming conditions, particularly
other profitable crops) and integrated measures (e.g., early warning during the peak period of crop planting and harvesting, to gain insight
system, embarkment management, and canal and river dredging) to into how farmers perceived climate change and adaptive capacity in the
reduce wetland farmers’ vulnerability to climate change events like pre- agricultural context. As a result, our study focused on wetland areas
monsoon flash-floods and drought (Kabir et al., 2022; Dey et al., 2021; (also known as the haor region), which suffer from excessive rainfall,
Rahman et al., 2018a, 2018b; Kamal et al., 2018; Nyang’au et al., 2021). drought, and flash floods (Chowdhury & Moore, 2017). The wetlands
In addition, wetland farmers could reduce net GHG emissions by are spread throughout seven districts in north-eastern Bangladesh:
adjusting irrigation schemes, crop varieties, and fertilizer management Sunamganj, Kishoreganj, Sylhet, Brahmanbaria, Netrakona, Habiganj,
(Islam et al., 2020). Unfortunately, there is often a discrepancy between and Moulvibazar. Approximately 45–55 % of those districts are regu-
scientific recommendations, societal expectations, and ground realities. larly water-logged from May to October yearly due to recurrent floods
Thus, many adaptation and mitigation efforts have failed due to farmers’ (Kamal et al., 2018). In two of the seven districts, i.e., Netrokona and
unwillingness to follow advocated and recommended measures. As a Kishoreganj, climate change impacts on agriculture are considerably
result, the adoption of climate-smart technologies is relatively low worse than in other areas (Kamal et al., 2018). According to Bangla-
among climate-vulnerable farmers in wetland areas despite well- desh’s Department of Disaster Management (DDM), these two districts
intentioned efforts (Long et al., 2016; Anik and Khan, 2012). have the most Upazilas (sub-districts and administrative units) that are
Under the conditions described above, the subjective assessment of regularly flooded (http://www.ddm.gov.bd/). We randomly selected
diverse actors affected by climate change has become a major global four Upazilas for our study (see Fig. 2): Mohonganj and Kalmakanda
research topic in recent years. The primary motivation of this focus is to from Netrokona district (total Upazila 10) and Katiadi and Nikli Upazila
inform policymakers about the realities of how climate change is from Kishoreganj district (total Upazila 13).
perceived, understood, and managed by different stakeholders and to Agriculture, fisheries, and animal husbandry are the main activities
emphasize the importance of a bottom-up approach to climate change of rural people in wetland areas. The floodplains of the wetland areas are
adaptation and mitigation (Conway et al., 2019). Recent research sug- used for rice farming throughout both the rainy (May to October) and
gests that top-down actors include the perspectives of bottom-up actors dry seasons (November to April) (Kamal et al., 2018; Rahman et al.,
when developing climate change adaptation and mitigation policies 2018a, 2018b). Although climate change-related disasters are a common
(Zobeidi et al., 2016; Conway et al., 2019). Farmers who believe in and challenge in rural Bangladesh, these wetlands are especially vulnerable
are concerned about climate change and adaptive capacity are more due to early flash floods and increasing droughts (Ferdushi et al., 2019;
likely to support governmental adaptation and mitigation efforts and Kamal et al., 2018). In 2017, for instance, a devastating early flash flood
assist other farmers in their network in adapting to climate change im- impacted over 1 million households and caused $450 million in damage
pacts (Arbuckle et al., 2013; Woods et al., 2017). However, farmers’ to rice fields (Kamal et al., 2018). Furthermore, frequent flash floods and
perceptions and perspectives are cognitive representations that can be droughts have negatively affected crop production and harvesting,
highly heterogeneous, contextual, and location-specific due to differ- increasing food insecurity and poverty among wetland farmers. None-
ences in culture, education, resource endowment, and institutional theless, wetland farmers are not compensated if their crops are affected

3
K.H. Kabir et al. Climate Services 34 (2024) 100497

Fig. 2. Map of the research area (Kalmakanda and Mohanganj Upazila from Netrokona districts, and Nikli and Katiadi from Kishoreganj district).

by extreme weather events due to a lack of insurance (Islam et al., 2021).

Data collection: A short overview of Q-methodology

Earlier research on farmers’ perceptions of climate change and their

adaptation capacity primarily employed Likert-scale-based surveys
(Ibrahim & Johansson, 2021), selecting pre-specified, unstandardized
statements without considering the respondents’ specific perspectives
and interpretations on a given issue (Danielson, 2009). Q-methodology,
developed by the psychologist William Stephenson in 1935, is an
alternative to survey-based research (Brown, 1980). Originating in
psychology, Q-method has been widely adopted in other disciplines (e.
g., health care, political science, conservation science, communication,
social science, and environmental science) to investigate stakeholders’
subjective perspectives or experiences (Bacher et al., 2014; Forouzani
et al., 2013; Zabala et al., 2018; Schall et al., 2018; Leggette and Tobin,
2016; Hackert et al., 2019). Within the last 10 years, the Q-method has
gained popularity in agriculture and environment-related research to
understand farmers’ perceptions of climate change better (see Steeves &
Filgueira, 2019; Schall et al., 2018; Forouzani et al., 2013).
Q-method is a hybrid technique combining advanced statistical
methods and in-depth qualitative perspectives (Duenckmann, 2010). It
does not require large population samples; instead, purposefully
selected participants (P-set) are asked first to rank a set of statements
(usually known as concourse) within a forced-choice condition of in-
struction (known as Q-grid) and then explain their ranking choice in an
interview (Hackert et al., 2019). Subsequently, a by-person factor
analysis identifies distinct patterns in the rankings of the concourse to a
set of factors, an inverted factorial analysis rather than the well-known
R-method (Hackert et al., 2019; Iofrida et al., 2018). Finally, the results
of the Q-method, combined with qualitative data, are used to explain the Fig. 3. Q-methodology flow diagram of our study.
P-set’s perspectives or views and determine which individuals share
similar perspectives on a given discourse (Iofrida et al., 2018; Schall
articles, interactions with the target population, technical reports, pol-
et al., 2018). The following steps were taken in this study to carry out the
icies, theories, TV-talk shows, radio programs, and podcasts (Nhem &
Q-methodology: (i) Identification of the concourse; (ii) Development of
Lee, 2019). In our study, an initial review of scientific literature was
Q-set; (iii) Selection of the participants (P-set); (iv) Q-sorting; and (v)
conducted to extract statements on climate change and related issues
Analysis and interpretation (Fig. 3).
from local and international perspectives. The acquired statements
Step 1: Identification of concourse on climate change
included two main areas: perceptions of climate change and perceptions
The first significant step in a Q study is to identify the concourse, a set
of adaptive capacity. To facilitate responses and provide a complete
of statements covering all prevailing views on a specific topic (Hermans
view of climate change perception, we divided the concourse into four
et al., 2012; Ockwell, 2008), in this case, climate change. Q-methodol-
categories: i) causal beliefs about climate change, ii) causes of climate
ogy highly relies on the identification of statements. Methods to extract
change, iii) consequences or perceived risk of climate change, and iv)
these key statements include scientific literature reviews, newspaper

4
K.H. Kabir et al. Climate Services 34 (2024) 100497

impacts of climate change. After the literature review, agricultural Table 1

extension officers with experience with the farming community and Q-sort statements (n = 34 statements) used in the Q-methodology, organized by
knowledge of wetland areas in Bangladesh evaluated and validated the corresponding categories.
extracted statements. In total, the extension officers reviewed an Category Statements
emailed list of 72 statements to check the appropriateness and relevance Causal belief in climate change 1. Climate change is a matter entrusted to God, and
of all statements for farmers in the study area. we have nothing to do here.
Step 2: Development of Q-set 2. Climate change is a myth.
The second step in a Q-study is to choose a representative subset of 3. Extreme weather would become more common
in the future.
statements from the Q-population (Taheri et al., 2020). Initial state-
4. Climate change is mainly caused by human
ments are refined to create a final Q-set that will be delivered to par- activities/actions.
ticipants. This refinement process has no strict guidelines but aims at 5. Urban residents are only accountable for climate
balance (an equal number of statements for each thematic aspect), di- change.
versity, and uniqueness (Weir and Sandy, 2020). A Q-set typically
comprises 20 to 60 statements, or one-third of the initially emerged Causes of climate change 6. Machine-intensive agricultural activities lead to
statements (Webler et al., 2009; Weir and Sandy, 2020; Iofrida et al., higher concentrations of atmospheric carbon and
thus worsen climate change.
2018). The main author of the current study thoroughly reviewed the 72
7. Converting land from forests to agriculture does
statements after receiving the extension officer’s final response. After not contribute to climate change.
carefully incorporating all of the extension officer’s suggestions and 8. Intensive rice growing is primarily responsible
removing repeated and unclear phrases, 34 statements for the Q-set for climate change.
were finalized (See Table 1). 9. Intensive use of fertilizer does not contribute to
climate change.
This procedure yielded five statements on climate change causal
10. Smoke from mills/industry/cars is responsible
beliefs, six on climate change causes, seven on climate change conse- for climate change.
quences or perceived risk, eight on climate change effects, and eight on 11. Increased use of fossil fuels such as coal, oil and
climate change adaptation. Positive, neutral, and negative statements gas for electricity, vehicles and other modes of
transport are responsible for climate change.
(heterogeneity) were used to balance participants’ perspectives on the
topic. Finally, we randomly assigned a number to each statement, then
translated it into Bengali and printed it on little cards for Q-sorting. Consequences/perceived risk 12. The frequency of early flash floods in recent
of climate change history has accelerated.
Step 3: Selection of the P-set
13. Droughts during the farming season happen
The selection of participants, also known as the P-set, is the third because of climate change.
phase in the Q-methodology process. The P-set is a pre-selected, non- 14. Changes in the timing of rainfall have no
random sample of participants with a clear and distinct point of view on relation to climate change.
the problem under consideration and can later define a factor (Brown, 15. Depletion of groundwater is not a result of
climate change.
1980; Taheri et al., 2020). Q-methodology studies do not require a large 16. The surface temperature is rising rapidly as a
sample size because participants’ characteristics, qualities, and diver- result of climate change.
gent understanding of the topic or object of investigation are under 17. The duration and intensity of winter are
study and not the participants themselves (Taheri et al., 2020; Wijaya & decreasing day by day but have no relation with
climate change.
Offermans, 2018; Iofrida et al., 2018). For our study, we identified and
18. More extreme thunderstorms are occurring as a
selected participants based on two criteria: a) farmers who reside in result of climate change.
wetland areas and are exposed to extreme weather events such as flash
floods, drought, and excessive precipitation; b) farmers with a basic Effects of climate change 19. Climate change raises the probability of
level of education who can read and comprehend information about simultaneous crop failure.
climate change issues and are connected to extension services. A total of 20. Climate change decreases crop yield.
36 farmers, nine farmers from each of the four sub-districts, were invited 21. The nature of crop diseases and pests is
changing rapidly due to climate change.
to participate in this study with the support of the local extension office.
22. Climate change can disrupt food availability.
Step 4: Q-sorting 23. Climate change can increase the level of
Step four was the Q sorting step, where invited farmers sorted the poverty.
statements (Q-cards) according to their degree of agreement or 24. Farming land becomes climatically unsuitable
disagreement with most like me to least like me. The Q sorts were for production.
25. The detrimental effects of climate change
conducted in four face-to-face group settings between February 1 and
increase the likelihood of cultivating various crops.
February 18, 2021, at the training room of agriculture offices in four 26. Natural resources in wetland areas are being
selected sub-districts (see Fig. 2). In the beginning, farmers received a exploited due to climate change.
summary of the study’s objectives. The respondents were then handed
Q-cards and a pyramid-shaped grid (form board) with nine response Adaptation to climate change 27. At present, the extension and advisory
categories ranging from strong agreement (+4) to strong disagreement activities of local organizations on climate change
(− 4) (see Fig. 4) (Rittelmeyer, 2020). All farmers sorted all statements are not enough to improve the skills of farmers.
28. In the battle against climate change,
because the number of cells on the form board was appropriate to the
technology suggested as climate-smart is not
number of Q-sort statements (n = 34). This process, also called ‘forced helpful as they tend to ignore the local reality.
sorting’ or ‘fixed pattern,’ ensures that the respondents compare the 29. Access to agro-meteorological forecasts and
statements to one another (Taheri et al., 2020; Živojinović & Wolf- advice can help climate change adaptation in
slehner, 2015). Before placing the statements on the form board, farmers agriculture.
30. Insufficient and untimely allocation of funds
were instructed to read all statements carefully and group the cards into hinders adaptation efforts to climate change.
agreement, neutral, and disagreement (Wijaya & Offermans, 2018). 31. Need-based training is not required for farmers
Then, farmers were asked to sort those Q-cards into the final Q-grid, and officials to boost the adaptive capacity of
ranging from strongly agree (+4) to disagree (− 4). Each farmer’s final vulnerable communities.
32. It is possible to adapt to climate change.
placement of statements on the Q-grid is referred to as their Q-sort
(continued on next page)
(Steeves & Filgueira, 2019).

5
K.H. Kabir et al. Climate Services 34 (2024) 100497

Table 1 (continued ) study and the nature of the data being reported. Seminal work in the
Category Statements study of Q-methodology states that “eigenvalues and total variance are
relatively meaningless in Q-technique studies as they depend to [sic] too
33. Different emerging digital technologies/tools/
devices will allow us to strengthen our adaptation
great extent on the arbitrary number of persons included in the study
to climate change. who happen to be of one-factor type rather than another” (Brown, 1980,
34. Digital media can’t help to raise awareness of 1993). However, the work does not state eigenvalues and variance
climate change among farmers. should not be reported and some of the examples in Brown’s seminal
work include studies that report the two values. For our study, we chose
to report the eigenvalues and the amount of variance explained for three
reasons. First, variance is one way to report the uniqueness of the factor
(Akhtar-Danesh, 2018). Second, variance was identified in a 2021 sys-
tematic review of medical research conducted using a Q-method
approach as one of 12 items that should be included when reporting data
from a Q-methodological study (Churruca et al., 2021). Third, shared
variance can be used to interpret factors (Comrey & Lee, 1992).
For each statement, the PQMethod software generated a factor score
(also known as normalized weighted average statement scores, or ‘Z-
score’) that defined that factor (Van Exel and de Graaf, 2005; McKeown
and Thomas, 2013). All participants’ Q-sorts that load significantly on a
particular factor are merged into a single Q-sort (known as ‘factor
array’) that serves as a ‘best estimator’ for describing that factor (Watts
and Paul, 2005). In other words, an idealized sort was created for each
factor, a weighted average of all the individual sorts loaded on this
factor (Bacher et al., 2014). Finally, the factors involving a group of
farmers with similar perspectives were interpreted using distinguishing
statements for each factor, shared variance, and high/low loadings (see
Table 4) as well as participant comments during post-sort interviews.

Results

Fig. 4. Shape of Q-sort grid used in the current study. A Q-sort factor analysis revealed three unique perspectives on
climate change and adaptive capacity. Table 3 shows the number of
Following each Q-sort in the four sub-districts, we convened focus defining Q-sorts, the level of variance explained by each component, and
groups with the same participants to explore their reasoning behind the loaded (selected) Q-sorts for each factor. Q-sorts from 30 of the 36
identifying statements as highly or poorly representative of their views. farmers significantly loaded at least one factor, with six Q-sorts not
The information obtained from the group discussion was crucial for loading on any one factor. Thus, the viewpoints of the six farmers did not
comprehending the logic of individual evaluation and factor interpre- fit within the major viewpoints of the entire P-set. Table 4 shows the
tation about climate change and adaptation (Živojinović & Wolfslehner, ‘idealized sorting’ patterns, including characterizing statements (ranked
2015). With prior consent, all the discussion was tape-recorded and later − 4 to + 4) and distinguishing statements (p-values 0.01 & 0.05). Only
transcribed verbatim. Farmers also completed a brief survey with so- distinguishing statements from idealized patterns and post-sort discus-
cioeconomic questions about their experiences with climate change and sion are used to find narratives from different perspectives within the
adaptation in agricultural practice. discourse. The distinguishing statement for each factor is marked with
Step 5: Analysis and interpretation an asterisk (*) in Table 4 and included within parentheses (e.g. (S12))
The final phase of the Q-methodology is a factorial analysis and the throughout the interpretations of perspectives. Finally, emerging per-
interpretation of the study outcomes. We used the PQMethod 2.35 spectives are described in the following way.
software to analyze the data collected during the preceding Q-sorting
process (Schmolck and Atkinson, 2002). First, the data were imported Perspective 1: Climate change is a god-given issue: the theists
into the software’s Q-sheet in the original bipolar scale (− 4 to + 4). We
generated the correlation matrix to show the level of agreement between The theists are farmers who express their views on climate change
the individual Q-sorts (Živojinović & Wolfslehner, 2015; Steeves & Fil- and adaptation, but their religious beliefs dominate their perspectives.
gueira, 2019). The correlation analysis is then factor-analyzed using a This label (theists) reflects the potential role of religious beliefs in
Principal Component Analysis (PCA), resulting in a factor loading for shaping their views on climate change. The participants in this group
each Q-sort (Bacher et al., 2014). Q-sorts of farmers with similar per- expressed significant disagreement with established scientific findings
ceptions are banded together and yield a “factor.” Here, factors refer to (as shown in Table 4). For example, they disagreed with 7 out of 15
common points of view on the topic under inquiry (Raadgever et al., statements (statements 14, 1, 17, 9, 34, 4, and 16) that directly con-
2008). The final set of factors was identified using a varimax rotation, tradicted accepted science on climate change. Notably, they also
which maximized the variance explained by the factors (Bacher et al., remained neutral on 3 crucial statements related to climate change (32,
2014; Iofrida et al., 2018). The final three factors, explaining 43 % of our 25, and 18). Neutrality in these areas can also be interpreted as a lack of
study’s variance, were chosen based on two conditions: i) the eigen- agreement with the scientific consensus.
values had to be greater than one, and ii) the explained variance in the The factor explained 15 % of the variance in the Q-sort and included
data had to be greater than 10 % (Taheri et al., 2020; Steeves & Fil- the views of 12 farmers (Table 3). It has an eigenvalue of 10.63. The
gueira, 2019). number of associated farmers is highest for this factor. Eleven of the
The literature is mixed on reporting the amount of variance among loading participants were male. On average, they were 40.17 years old
factors, and thus, we believe the decision to include the amount of and had 22.17 years of farming experience. They were medium-scale
variance in the data reporting should be left up to the authors of the farmers with an average farm size of 2.91 ha and 1.38 ha of land that
had been waterlogged for 6 to 8 months. The average number of crops

6
K.H. Kabir et al. Climate Services 34 (2024) 100497

cultivated yearly was 2.08, and 33 % of the farmers had adopted CSA

Note: We report the aggregate participant demographics because of the number within the sample. Characteristics of each factor are described more within the manuscript. Six participants did not load on a factor, so they
Received any climate-smart
practices the previous year. Mobile-based weather applications were

agriculture practice from

the local extension office
limited, but a fair share received weather forecasts from the local
extension office. These two characteristics were measured using dummy
variables (Yes = 1, No = 0), with 25 % receiving forecasts via mobile
apps and 75 % from the extension office (see Table 2).

(yes/no) (%)
Theists believe that climate change is entrusted to God, and farmers
have nothing to do here (S1: +1). They also believe that human activities

33

57

45
do not influence climate change (S4: − 2). For instance, P13 stated,
Let’s suppose you need rain right now for rice cultivation, but can you

forecasting from local

extension office (yes/
make it rain? Rain will fall if it is God’s benevolence. Crops in down-

Received weather
stream areas are now being harmed by the prolonged winter. Is it possible,
however, to reduce the cold?

no) (%)
This group views climate change as a divine concern (S1), although
they believe smoke from mills, industry, and cars are contributors (S10:

75

57

36
+2). In contrast, they agreed that intensive fertilizer use does not

Participated in training
contribute to climate change (S9: 1). For example, P33 observed that

months (yes/no) (%)

“farmers use various fertilizers and tend to over-fertilize their fields

within the last six

when they observe other farmers started to fertilize their land. Fertilizer
application is extremely important, yet overapplication often causes
crop failure, but it is unrelated to climate change.”.
Farmers identified as theists generally expressed moderate agree-

66

42

54
ment that there is no discernible relationship between climate change
and rainfall timing (S14: 2). Similarly, they showed a slight agreement

Use of mobile-
based weather
apps (yes/no)
regarding the absence of a correlation between climate change and the
decreasing length and severity of winter (S17: 1). However, despite
documented increases in surface temperatures and occurrences of

(%)

25

14
extreme thunderstorms in wetland regions (Raihan et al., 2020), theists

9
either disagreed (S16: − 3) or remained neutral (S18: 0) regarding the

within the last year

association of these changes with climate change. Notably, theists

practices adopted
Number of CSA
strongly agreed that natural resources in their wetland areas had been
depleted over time due to climate change (S26: +4). For instance, one
farmer (P2) highlighted, “We have low-lying land. This year, our area

(%)
has had more flooding than usual. Therefore, our low-lying fields are

33

57

54
sand-covered and in danger due to recurring flooding and diminished
river navigability.” Additionally, theists showed indifference regarding
within the previous
Average number of

the likelihood of cultivating different crops due to climate change (S25:

crops cultivated

0).
Finally, there is a strong agreement that climate finance is critical to
addressing climate change effects. Theists perceive that insufficient and
2.08

2.14

1.90
year

untimely allocation of funds hinders adaptation efforts to climate

change (S30: +1). One participant (P35) described “dams in our haor
waterlogged land

area” as being critical to “protecting our crops from early pre-monsoon

Average area of

floods.” Because adequate funds were not allocated, farmers were “un-
were not included in the reporting of the demographic characteristics.

able to prepare for floods in advance,” and “crops suffer[ed] significant

The characteristics of the individual farmers (composition of P-set).

damage.” According to the findings, theists believe that need-based

1.38

1.56

1.28
(ha)

training is required if farmers and extension workers are to increase

adaptive capacity (S31: − 4). Theists expressed uncertainty about the
climate change adaptation potential (S32: 0) and the benefits of digital
land area
Average

technologies (S33: 0). They agreed that digital media would not raise
2.91

1.92

1.97
(ha)

awareness of climate change among farmers (S34: 1). One participant

(P6) stated in his or her post-sorted interview, “we primarily utilize
Demographic Characteristics

digital media for entertainment. Furthermore, digital media often em-

experience

phasizes drama, talk shows, and news, not addressing climate change
Average
farming

issues. Now, how can the digital media help us become more aware of
22.17

26.14

19.18

climate change issues?”

Perspective 2: Climate change is not a god-given issue: The realists

Average

40.17

41.45
age

47

The realists express their views on climate change and adaptation

based on observed impacts (realities) of climate change on their daily
Factor 2: The

Factor 3: The
Pragmatists

lives and their experiences in dealing with these impacts. This

Realists
Factor 1:
Q-sort ID

perspective explained 17 % of the study’s variance and fitted the views

Theist
Table 2

of seven of the 36 farmers (Table 2). It has an eigenvalue of 2.76. Six of

the loading participants were male. On average, they were 47 years old

7
K.H. Kabir et al. Climate Services 34 (2024) 100497

and had 26 years of agricultural experience. They were smallholders change generate new chances when we can’t grow food because of a lack
with an average farm size of 1.92 ha, of which 1.56 ha is waterlogged for of water? Our agricultural activity depends entirely on the weather; no
6 to 8 months. Over half (57 %) of the seven farmers had adopted CSA crop can be cultivated if we do not receive the appropriate temperature
practices in the prior year, cultivating an average of 2.14 crops annually. and rainfall.”
With a mean of 0.14 and 0.57, the results revealed minimal usage of The most distinctive arguments on climate change adaptation con-
weather apps and medium use of manual weather information from the cerned the importance of extension and adviser services, digital tech-
extension office (see Table 2). The realists (F2) agreed with statements 4, nologies, and digital media. Realists believe that local organizations’
10, 11, 12, 16, 18, 27, 33 but disagreed with statements 1, 5, 14, 17, 25, existing extension and advisory efforts are insufficient to enhance
34. farmers’ climate adaptation skills (S27: 2). One farmer (P34) stated that
Realists strongly believe in climate change but disagree that climate “the Agricultural Extension Office and others provide technologies and
change is a God-given phenomenon and they have nothing to do (S1: training to help increase crop productivity, including climate-smart rice
− 4). Realists believe that human activities have an impact on climate varieties. Unfortunately, there is a lack of consistent training, which
change (S4: 4). As one participant (P22) said, discourages us from continuing our efforts.” According to the realist
perspective, digital media can help improve farmer awareness of climate
No, no, why don’t we have the strength to fight? We have limited control
change issues (S34: − 3) and various emerging digital tools will
over the climate, but we can deal with or attempt to deal with floods by not
strengthen their adaptive capacity (S33: 3). As one farmer (P8) asserted,
cutting the embankment soil. We can protect crops from flash floods by
building and maintaining dams. We need early warnings of thunderstorms, rain, and flash floods, which
we haven’t had before. We now know a lot more ahead of time if there is a
Realists also disagree (S5: − 1) that urban residents are solely
chance of flash-flood at the beginning of April because of digital tech-
responsible for climate change, indicating that rural people are also
nologies. We can’t control the weather, but timely information can help us
responsible. Another participant (P36) remarked,
cope.
Farmers are also responsible since we engage in various activities such as
using a lot of chemical pesticides, cutting down trees to build new houses
or finding new industrial locations. I also believe that today’s modern Perspective 3: Stay neutral when it comes to acts of God: The pragmatists
agricultural machinery pollutes our environment and contributes to
climate change. The pragmatists straightforwardly recognize climate change and
Furthermore, realists strongly perceive smoke from mills, industry adaptive capacity issues and believe in practical consequences. This
and automobiles to be a major contributor to climate change (S10: 4):
Table 3
The environment and agriculture are both suffering as a result of this Summary of Q-sort factor loading.
brickyard. There is a brickfield in my village, and when the mango buds
Q-sort ID Factor loadings
appear, it is evident that none of the mango trees within a kilometer of the
brickfield have any mango buds. F1 F2 F3

Farmer 1 0.6266X 0.3705 − 0.0280

The brickyard is beneficial for employment but “negatively influence Farmer 2 0.5505X 0.4311 − 0.1755
[s]” crop production (P4). Realists also express strong concern that the Farmer 6 0.5234X 0.3390 0.3289
rising daily use of fossil fuels (e.g., coal, oil, and gas) contributes to Farmer 7 0.6874X 0.4731 0.2361
climate change (S11: 3). Farmer 9 0.5300X − 0.0094 0.0176
Farmer 10 0.6276X 0.3974 0.2103
Flash flooding is common in north-eastern wetlands, but pre-
Farmer 11 0.5658X 0.3122 0.3247
monsoon flash-flooding had a cascade effect on farmers’ lives. Realists Farmer 13 0.4540X − 0.1126 0.1061
strongly agree that the frequency of flash floods caused by intense pre- Farmer 16 0.6375X 0.3892 0.3260
monsoon rains has increased in recent history (S12: 4). As one partici- Farmer 17 0.6419X 0.1540 0.2918
Farmer 33 0.5783X − 0.0047 − 0.0382
pant (P23) stated, “there are multiple floods and flash floods. We planted
Farmer 35 0.6203X − 0.4399 − 0.2010
slower-growing BRRI dhan 28 and 29. Early flash floods destroyed these Farmer 4 0.0874 0.7687X 0.2132
paddies, which took longer to mature. The early 2017 floods prevented Farmer 8 0.4484 0.6111X 0.2361
everyone in the community, including me, from cutting paddy.” Realists Farmer 22 0.4273 0.7231X 0.2116
also strongly disagreed that climate change had nothing to do with Farmer 23 0.1071 0.7875X 0.1387
Farmer 30 0.0960 0.6708X 0.0784
variations in rainfall timing (S14: − 3) or with shorter and less intense
Farmer 34 0.1312 0.8581X − 0.0393
winters. (S17: − 3). They agreed that the surface temperature is rising Farmer 36 0.2307 0.8376X − 0.0445
fast (S16: 2) and that climate change is causing droughts throughout the Farmer 5 0.1316 0.0542 0.3581X
crop season (S13: 3). As one farmer (P30) explained, Farmer 12 0.2584 0.0499 0.4059X
Farmer 14 0.3527 0.0788 0.6187X
Our land is only farmable from October to April. Rainfall is scarce during Farmer 15 0.3836 0.1875 0.5734X
this time. We have used haor canal water for a long time, and irrigation Farmer 18 0.2899 0.4030 0.5197X
Farmer 19 0.1590 0.2638 0.6662X
water has recently been used. We face water scarcity as time goes on. The
Farmer 21 0.0095 0.0672 0.3419X
canal is drying fast, and the groundwater layer is inaccessible. Due to Farmer 24 − 0.1027 − 0.1862 0.5039X
water shortages, we leave our land often. Who knows what will happen if Farmer 26 0.1907 0.1994 0.3773X
climate change continues? Farmer 31 − 0.1232 0.2738 0.4574X
Farmer 32 0.1569 0.0970 0.4286X
Realists are concerned about increasing occurrences of severe Farmer 3 0.3933 0.4256 0.4733
thunderstorms in wetland areas (S18: 2), and they unanimously believe Farmer 20 0.3977 0.4506 0.4405
that climate change increases the likelihood of simultaneous crop failure Farmer 25 − 0.0343 0.1041 0.0907
Farmer 27 − 0.1148 − 0.0617 0.2793
(S19: 3). Although they agree that climate change rapidly alters the Farmer 28 − 0.1039 0.1515 − 0.0746
nature of crop diseases and pests in wetland areas (S21: 1), they do not Farmer 29 − 0.0048 0.2632 0.2848
believe that climate change could generate new opportunities (e.g., Eigenvalues 10.6331 2.7643 2.3627
increasing the likelihood of cultivating various types of crops in wetland % explanation of variances 15 17 11
Total number of loading 12 7 11
areas) (S25: − 2). One participant (P30) stated: “How may climate

8
K.H. Kabir et al. Climate Services 34 (2024) 100497

perspective, representing 11 farmers (Table 3), explains 11 % of the 19.

study’s variance and has an eigenvalue of 2.36. Nine of these partici- Pragmatists strongly believe that extreme weather will become more
pants identified as male, with an average age of 41 years and 19 years of common in the future (S3: 4). One participant (P19) stated,
experience in farming. They managed smallholdings, averaging 1.97 ha
I’ve never encountered winter warming, sudden rain, or intense lightning.
in size. Notably, 1.28 ha of their land flooded annually for 4 to 6 months.
In the future, new industries and technology will arise, and we will release
Interestingly, over half (54 %) of these 11 farmers had adopted climate-
more carbon dioxide. Today, wetland areas have several brickyards. If we
smart agriculture (CSA) practices and cultivated an average of 1.9 crops.
don’t act, climate change will become a major issue.
They frequently used weather apps (M = 0.09) and information from the
extension office (M = 0.36) (see Table 2). Pragmatists (F3) agree with Another participant (P15) stated,
statements 3, 4, 13, 16, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 29, 33; disagree with
Over the last few years, I’ve noticed an upsurge in rice false smut disease.
statements 5, 6, 7, 8. 14, 17, 34; and were neutral with statements 1, 10,
Many people claim that rice seeds are contaminated, but I believe this is

Table 4
Statement significantly differentiating (p < 0.01 & 0.05) the three identified factors.

Note: positive value indicates agreement and negative values indicate disagreement; p < 0.05; asterisk (*) indicates significant at p < 0.01.

9
K.H. Kabir et al. Climate Services 34 (2024) 100497

due to climate change. It appears to me that we will have more difficulties recognize the importance of digital tools and media in strengthening
with this rice cultivation in the future. adaptation to climate change (S33: 2; & S34: 1).
Pragmatists strongly agree that access to agro-meteorological fore-
Pragmatists believe climate change is mainly caused by human ac-
casts and advice can aid adaptation and reduce damage from climate
tivities (S4: 2). However, they remain neutral on the view that it is a
change (S29: 3). One participant (P32) explained that weather fore-
divinely ordained problem beyond human intervention (S1: 0). In
casting is significant. “For the first time this year, I received a rainfall
addition, they believe that machine-intensive agricultural activities do
forecast but did not take it seriously. As a result, a week after planting,
not increase carbon concentrations in the atmosphere and exacerbate
my one-acre rice seedling was entirely flooded.” Another participant
climate change (S6: − 2). As mentioned by participant P32,
(P19) said,
We hired laborers for paddy production, but getting labor for intercultural
In 2017, we had no warning of a flash flood, which destroyed our rice
operations, especially paddy harvesting, is challenging. Thus, we often
crop. On the other hand, we received an early warning from the local
cannot protect the crop from pre-monsoon flash floods. For years, tech-
extension office about a flash flood in 2020 during COVID-19, and were
nological machinery has made paddy harvesting and storage easy. I think
able to harvest our rice on time. However, only around 5 % of the public is
this machinery has little impact on climate change.
aware of the weather information—the rest of us aren’t.
However, pragmatists believe that transforming forests into agri-
cultural land contributes to climate change (S7: − 1). While rice farming
Consensus statements
produces significant amounts of methane, pragmatists were confident
that intensive rice farming is not responsible for climate change (S8:
Table 5 presents consensus statements extracted from the survey
− 3). As one participant (P12) explained,
responses and their corresponding Q-sort values (Q-SV) and z-scores
I’ve been farming paddies year after year. I’d never heard of the impact of across the three identified factors. Four consensus statements were
paddy cultivation on the climate before. Instead, it appears to me that by identified by analyzing the perspective of the farmers. In other words,
planting paddy, I am providing food for the people as well as adding these four statements were not distinguishable in any of the groups
oxygen and absorbing carbon dioxide. (factors). Respondents from all three groups acknowledged that farming
land becomes climatically unsuitable for production (S24). However,
Pragmatists perceive an increasing incidence of droughts during
they did not believe climate change is a myth (S2) and impacts
their farming seasons due to climate change (S13: 1) and that climate
groundwater depletion in wetland areas (S15). In addition, all groups
change causes more severe thunderstorms in wetland areas (S18: 3).
disagreed that the extension and advisory activities of local organiza-
They firmly believe that climate change led to an increase in surface
tions on climate change are not enough to improve the skills of farmers
temperature, a shift in rainfall schedule, and a reduction in the severity
(S27).
and duration of winter day by day (S14: − 1; S16: 3; & S17: − 1). P21
describes the dangers of lightning:
Discussion
Another major challenge for us because of climate change is lightning,
which makes our farmers scared to work in the fields. Many farmers in Our study investigates the perspectives of climate change and
Haor have been killed by lightning while working on agricultural land in adaptation capacity among wetland farmers in Bangladesh. We find
recent years. As a result, I am now afraid to work in the field. We’d like to three distinct perspectives using Q-methodology: theists, realists, and
have a technology for this. pragmatists. Several areas of agreement and disagreement make the
identified perspectives more comparable and serve as a common basis
Pragmatists are not concerned about the effects of climate change on
for discussion.
crop failure (S19: 0) but agree that crop yields decline (S20: 2) and
Perspective one (Factor 1) contains the Theists because of their
invasive pests and diseases emerge (S21: 4) because of climate change.
religious beliefs and denial of different climate change-related issues.
One participant (P31) stated, “In quite warm weather, you can see how
Theist farmers prefer to let climate change happen without engaging in
the fog provides a humid climate in the morning hours. As a result, new
adaptation or mitigation actions (Zobeidi et al., 2016), and they do not
diseases and pests have appeared in rice fields. And I believe this
believe climate change is a severe threat that would force them to
weather change is linked to climate change.”.
change their farming practices.
In contrast to theists and realists, pragmatists reacted to food security
Theists are believed to be helpless actors in a drama whose plot is
and poverty challenges caused by climate change. They acknowledged
dictated by forces beyond their control. These participants primarily rely
the threat of changing climatic events (e.g., pre-monsoon flash floods
on fate and wait for external help to improve their condition (Zobeidi
and droughts) on the disruption of food availability (S22: 2) and the
et al., 2016; Tukker and Butter, 2007). Their attitude toward adaptation
increase in poverty (23: 2). One participant (P19) said,
is inextricably linked to their causal beliefs about climate change,
Boro rice is our sole crop during the dry season. Boro rice production including its causes and consequences. They are not concerned about the
provides most of our household’s income and food security. In 2017, a greenhouse gas emissions and environmental degradation caused by
pre-monsoon flash flood destroyed our ready-to-harvest rice crop, leaving poor agricultural management and practices. Theists disagree that
us with minimal food supplies and limited savings to feed our family climate change affects rainfall timing and the length and severity of
members. If such disasters happen frequently, we’d struggle to make a winters. However, they do believe that regular floods degrade their
living. arable land by covering the sand. Theists acknowledge that flash
flooding and sand reclamation result from insufficient or late dam
Another participant (15) highlighted,
construction and repair funding. Theists prefer to let climate change
We use irrigation and nearby canals. Irrigation water rates have soared happen without engaging in adaptation or mitigation actions (Zobeidi
due to groundwater scarcity, pushing smallholder farmers like me to et al., 2016). Despite this, they do not feel climate change is a severe
discontinue crop cultivation or get lower yields. We’ll struggle financially threat that would force them to change their farming practices.
if we can’t grow rice or have a low yield. Previous research showed that embankments and regular dredging of
waterways reduce wetland farmers’ vulnerability (Dey et al., 2021;
Pragmatists strongly believe in new livelihood opportunities (e.g.,
Kamal et al., 2018), and agricultural extension services are critical
via novel crops), resulting from climate change (S25: 3), which differs
support for smallholder farmers in overcoming adverse effects of climate
greatly from the opinion of theists and realists. Moreover, pragmatists
change (Antwi-Agyei & Stringer, 2021). Theists agree that need-based

10
K.H. Kabir et al. Climate Services 34 (2024) 100497

Table 5
Consensus statements between all factors.
Statement Statements F1 F2 F3
number
Z Rank Z Rank Z Rank

2* Climate change is a myth − 0.77 − 2 − 0.84 − 2 − 1.04 − 3

15 Depletion of groundwater is not a result of climate change − 1.25 − 3 − 0.73 − 1 − 0.96 − 2
24* Farming land becomes climatically unsuitable for production 0.24 1 0.44 1 0.31 1
27 At present, the extension and advisory activities of local organizations on climate change are not − 0.48 − 1 − 0.97 − 2 − 0.49 − 1
enough to improve the skills of farmers
32 It is possible to adapt to climate change 0.14 0 − 0.39 − 1 − 0.39 − 1

Note: p > 0.01, and those Flagged With an * are also Non-Significant at p > 0.05.

training (context-specific) on climate change adaptation is essential for fostering farmer participation and motivating the adaptation to and
both farmers and extension service providers. A reasonable interpreta- mitigation of climate change. Finally, realists acknowledged the value of
tion is that these participants perceive a lack of capacity of local digital media and technologies in giving timely information and their
extension service providers to support climate change adaptation. The- transformative impact in increasing awareness and strengthening their
ists question the importance of digital media for raising awareness and adaptive capacity. Some scholars have argued that digital media and
promoting proactive adaptation-mitigation actions. Their feelings about technologies can assist farmers’ decision-making, contribute to collec-
digital media are not influenced by their religious beliefs but rather by a tive learning, and thus, improve adaptation (Eakin et al., 2015).
lack of coverage of climate change issues and a strong emphasis on Perspective three (Factor 3) contains the Pragmatists because they
entertainment. This is concurrent with a previous study that revealed recognize climate change and adaptive capacity and believe in practical
decreasing media coverage of climate change in Bangladesh (Al-Zaman consequences. Pragmatists are more concerned than theists and realists
& Khan, 2021). about the reality of climate change and its consequences for wetlands.
Perspective two (Factor 2) contains the Realists because they accept Yet, despite being critical thinkers, pragmatists deny some empirical
the physical facts of life and observe things more objectively. Realists facts.
believe that climate change is a substantial but manageable problem and Pragmatists and realists have similar perspectives, but pragmatists
are open to support from local extension and advisory services. are more realistic about climate change and think more critically about
Realists do not believe they are helpless actors in a drama. They are its consequences than realists. For example, pragmatists believe that
convinced that human activities or behaviors contribute to climate extreme weather events such as flash floods, droughts, and thunder-
change and that proactive adaptation of farm management is needed. storms will become more common in the future due to increased
These farmers take a non-discriminatory view and realize they share greenhouse gas emissions from industrial expansion and a failure to
responsibility for climate change with urban residents. Realists believe implement carbon–neutral technologies in rural areas. Compared to
that rural farmers or people also engage in carbon-intensive land-use theists and realists, pragmatists perceive the effects of climate change
practices (e.g., transforming agricultural land into new brickyards, res- more logically. Their views range from reduced crop yields and out-
idences, or businesses). Realists’ perspectives on climate change are breaks of new pests and diseases to unemployment, extreme poverty,
consistent with scientific evidence, including rising surface tempera- and food insecurity. Their perspectives are consistent with long-
tures, increased frequency and intensity of pre-monsoon flash floods and established realities that climate change has negative consequences for
thunderstorms, and altered rainfall duration, intensity, and timing over global food security and poverty, particularly in developing nations in
wetland areas (Islam et al., 2021; Parvez et al., 2021; Kamal et al., the global south with limited capabilities and financial resources
2018). (Gunaratne et al., 2021).
All realists acknowledged that climate change could result in severe Pragmatists believe in new opportunities related to adaptation and
yield losses and an expansion of pests and diseases. Although crop mitigation efforts. They see access to agro-meteorological forecasts and
migration or switching decisions in the context of climate change can recommendations as important requirements for successful adaptation.
generate trade-offs (Wiréhn et al., 2020; Rising and Devineni, 2020; Pragmatists, therefore, believe that digital technologies (e.g., mobile-
Sloat et al., 2020), realists deny the facts. The trade-off is a situation in based apps and the Internet of Things (IoT)) could assist wetland
which climate change brings costs or limits with potential new oppor- farmers in combating climate change. Similarly, Guido et al. (2020)
tunities. Although this could be difficult to interpret, inferring that they observed that digital technologies could improve predictions of rainfall
could relate to government policy, extension service mission, and and drought events leading to better farming decisions. Descriptive
monoculture tradition is plausible. Rice is one of Bangladesh’s most statistics (Table 2) suggest that all three perspectives use mobile-based
important crops in its social and political economy. It is the dominant weather apps infrequently, which may be due to a lack of availability,
crop in 80 % of wetlands regions, accounting for about 20 % of the accessibility, or capacity to use app-based services (Krell et al., 2021).
national production and contributing substantially to national food se- Though critical thinkers, pragmatists deny some facts because of con-
curity (Shamsul et al., 2021; Kabir & Chowdhury, 2021). The govern- flicting views on some practices that offer them a win–win situation
ment is working to improve rice productivity by introducing novel (Zobeidi et al., 2016). For example, rice production and the use of fuels
climate-smart rice varieties and maintaining monoculture through for farm machinery are the significant anthropogenic sources of
extension and advisory services. Given these efforts and farmers’ reli- methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions (Win et al., 2020;
ance on monocropping, it is reasonable to assume that farmers in this Islam et al., 2020). Furthermore, pragmatists believe that rice produc-
situation are likely unaware of the climate change trade-offs. tion and agricultural machinery use are unrelated to climate change,
In contrast, realists do not believe that local extension organizations which could be because rice is their primary source of income and
can motivate farmers to continue using climate-smart techniques. Such modern machinery enables wetland farmers to harvest their rice before
beliefs are consistent with previous criticisms of public extension orga- the onset of the flash flood.
nizations that take a top-down approach to climate change issues, Although our study focused on wetland farmers in Bangladesh, the
dominated by national decisions and characterized by a lack of under- impact of climate change on rural lives and livelihoods concerns wetland
standing of the reality that farmers face (Chowdhury et al., 2014; Kabir farmers across the globe (Salimi et al., 2021; Voldseth et al., 2009;
et al., 2020). Bottom-up extension and advisory services are critical for Nyamadzawo et al., 2015). The perspectives we identified should not be

11
K.H. Kabir et al. Climate Services 34 (2024) 100497

generalized to national or international levels or to other agricultural Declaration of competing interest

contexts. However, the need to incorporate farmers’ perspectives re-
mains critical in climate change adaptation. Although religious affilia- The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
tion has been identified in some climate change research (Morrison interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
et al., 2015; Koehrsen, 2021), realists’ and pragmatists’ perspectives the work reported in this paper.
offer policymakers new guidance on integrating and using these per-
spectives to facilitate the collective action required for wetland adap- Data availability
tation and mitigation strategies.
Data will be made available on request.
Conclusions
Acknowledgment
To our knowledge, this is one of the first studies to apply Q-meth-
odology to investigate farmers’ perspectives on climate change and We appreciate the interviewees’ time and cooperation, as well as the
adaptive capacity. In the context of Bangladesh’s wetland areas, we anonymous reviewer’s insightful remarks and observations. The first
found three distinct perspectives: theists, realists, and pragmatists. First, author gratefully acknowledges financial support through an Interna-
the theists believe that climate change results from a divine act and that tional Climate Protection Fellowship by the Alexander von Humboldt
there is no choice but to accept fate. Climate change impacts are not Foundation. This study also contributes to the cluster of excellence
perceived as a high risk, and a “do nothing” approach is preferred. CLICCS (Climate, Climatic Change, and Society) of Universität Hamburg
Second, realists believe climate change confronts farmers with un- funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German
precedented challenges, particularly early flash floods and droughts. Not Research Foundation) under Germany’s Excellence Strategy – EXC
being aware of climate change trade-offs, realists seek assistance but 2037. I would also like to acknowledge Mr. Saifur Rahman for his kind
question the capacities of local extension and advisory services. Third, support during the fieldwork for this study.
pragmatists share similar views on climate change as realists, but they
are more proactive due to their critical thinking about the consequences References
of early flash floods and droughts for wetlands farmers. They appreciate
digital devices as crucial tools for the effective adaptation of wetland Akhtar-Danesh, N., 2018. Qfactor: A command for Q-methodology analysis. Stata J. 18
(2), 432–446. https://doi.org/10.1177/1536867X1801800209.
farming. Although all participants in our study were connected to local Alam, G.M.M., Alam, K., Mushtaq, S., 2017. Climate change perceptions and local
extension and advisory services, views on climate change and adapta- adaptation strategies of hazard-prone rural households in Bangladesh. Clim. Risk
tion capacity differ substantially among farmers. This suggests that Manag. 17, 52–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2017.06.006.
Al-Zaman, M.S., Khan, T., 2021. Framing environmental news in Bangladesh. Media Asia
current extension and advisory services do not adequately address the 49 (2), 98–110. https://doi.org/10.1080/01296612.2021.1997526.
heterogeneity of farming communities. Uniform advocacy of adaptation Anik, S.I., Khan, M.A.S.A., 2012. Climate change adaptation through local knowledge in
and mitigation strategies, therefore, could lead to poor adoption of the north eastern region of Bangladesh. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Change 17,
879–896. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-011-9350-6.
climate-smart practices. Arbuckle, J.G., Morton, L.W., Hobbs, J., 2015. Understanding farmer perspectives on
The evidence of diverse perspectives on climate change and adap- climate change adaptation and mitigation: The roles of trust in sources of climate
tation among wetland farmers implies that a one-size-fits-all policy may information, climate change beliefs, and perceived risk. Env. Behav. 47 (2),
205–234. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916513503832.
jeopardize successful adaptation. Extension service providers could
Arbuckle, J.G., Prokopy, L.S., Haigh, T., Hobbs, J., Knoot, T., Knutson, C., Loy, A.,
better support climate adaptation efforts if they tailored their advice to Mase, A.S., McGuire, J., Morton, L.W., Tyndall, J., Widhalm, M., 2013. Climate
the specific subjective perspectives identified in our study. Furthermore, change beliefs, concerns, and attitudes toward adaptation and mitigation among
they can take advantage of the pragmatists’ perspective by incorpo- farmers in the Midwestern United States. Clim. Change 117 (4), 943–950. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0707-6.
rating them in peer-to-peer learning and interacting with other groups in Bacher, K., Ana, G., Eirik, M., 2014. Stakeholders’ perceptions of marine fish farming in
the climate change adaptation and mitigation process. Catalonia (Spain): A Q-methodology approach. Aquaculture 424–425, 78–85.
One of the Q method’s strengths lies in its ability to unearth https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2013.12.028.
Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics, (BBS), 2017. Yearbook of agricultural statistics of
consensus even among differing perspectives on complex issues like Bangla-desh. Statistics Division, Ministry of Planning, Government of the People‘s
climate change, a feat often challenging with traditional survey Republic of Bangladesh, 2017; Available online: www.bbs.gov.bd. (Accessed on 24
research. Although some scholars criticize the Q-method for its lack of December 2021).
Brown, S.R., 1980. Political subjectivity: applications of Qmethodology in political
generalizability (Živojinović & Wolfslehner, 2015; Van Exel and de science. Yale University Press.
Graaf, 2005), the method’s results have been stable and reliable over Brown, S.R., 1993. A primer on Q methodology. Operant Subjectivity. 16 (3/4), 91–138.
time (Brown, 1980; Zobeidi et al., 2016). Furthermore, the discourses Chowdhury, R.B., Graham, A.M., 2017. Floating agriculture: A potential cleaner
production technique for climate change adaptation and sustainable community
identified in our study focus only on two wetland districts, so farmers in development in Bangladesh. J. Clean. Prod. 150, 371–389. https://doi.org/10.1016/
other wetland districts may have different perspectives. Therefore, j.jclepro.2015.10.060.
future research could include farmers from other wetland districts. Chowdhury, A.H., Odame, H.H., Leeuwis, C., 2014. Transforming the roles of a public
extension agency to strengthen innovation: Lessons from the national agricultural
Because our study focused on farmers’ perspectives on climate change
extension project in Bangladesh. J. Agric. Educ. Ext. 20 (1), 7–25. https://doi.org/
and adaptation capacity, a follow-up study may include a quantitative 10.1080/1389224X.2013.803990.
survey to scale up the distribution of the findings. Churruca, K., Ludlow, K., Wu, W., Gibbons, K., Nguyen, H.M., Ellis, L.A., Braithwaite, J.,
2021. A scoping review of Q-methodology in healthcare research. BMC Med. Res.
Method. 21 (1), 125. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-021-01309-7.
CRediT authorship contribution statement Comrey, A.L., Lee, H.B., 1992. In: A first course in factor analysis. Psychology Press.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315827506.
Khondokar H. Kabir: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Conway, D., Nicholls, R.J., Brown, S., et al., 2019. The need for bottom-up assessments of
climate risks and adaptation in climate-sensitive regions. Nat. Clim. Chang. 9,
Writing – original draft, Formal analysis, Investigation, Data curation, 503–511. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-019-0502-0.
Preparation, Visualization, Funding acquisition. Uwe A. Schneider: Cruz, G., Gravina, V., Baethgen, W.E., Taddei, R., 2021. A typology of climate
Writing – review & editing, Validation, Supervision, Resources, Funding information users for adaptation to agricultural droughts in Uruguay. Clim. Serv. 22,
100214 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cliser.2021.100214.
acquisition. Holli R. Leggette: Writing – review & editing, Validation, Danielson, S., 2009. Q Method and surveys: Three ways to combine Q and R. Field
Resources. Methods 21 (3), 219–237. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X09332082.
Dey, N.C., Parvez, M., Islam, M.R., 2021. A study on the impact of the 2017 early
monsoon flash flood: Potential measures to safeguard livelihoods from extreme

12
K.H. Kabir et al. Climate Services 34 (2024) 100497

climate events in the haor area of Bangladesh. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 59, Koehrsen, J., 2021. Muslims and climate change: How Islam, Muslim organizations, and
102247 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102247. religious leaders influence climate change perceptions and mitigation activities.
Dhanya, P., Ramachandran, A., 2016. Farmers’ perceptions of climate change and the WIREs Clim. Change 12, e702.
proposed agriculture adaptation strategies in a semi arid region of south India. Krell, N.T., Giroux, S.A., Guido, Z., Hannah, C., Lopus, S.E., Caylor, K.K., Evans, T.P.,
J. Integr. Environ. Sci. 13 (1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 2021. Smallholder farmers’ use of mobile phone services in central Kenya. Clim.
1943815x.2015.1062031. Dev. 13 (3), 215–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2020.1748847.
Duenckmann, F., 2010. The village in the mind: Applying Q-methodology to re- Kutub, J.R., 2015. Groundwater depletion scenario in the north-eastern and south
constructing constructions of rurality. J. Rural. Stud. 26 (3), 284–295. https://doi. eastern part of Bangladesh. J. Nepal Geolog. Soc. 49 (1), 57–63. https://doi.org/
org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2010.01.003. 10.3126/jngs.v49i1.23142.
Eakin, H., Pedro, M.W., David, H., Vladimir, R.G.R., Eduardo, F., Megan, P.C., Tracy- Leggette, H.R., Tobin, R., 2016. Using Q methodology in agricultural communications
Ann, N.H., Carlos, P., Fernando, B., Claudia, G., Diego, P.L.B., Daniel, M.K., 2015. research: A philosophical study. J. Appl. Commun. 100 (3), 57–67. https://doi.org/
Information and communication technologies and climate change adaptation in 10.4148/1051-0834.1230.
Latin America and the Caribbean: a framework for action. Clim. Dev. 7 (3), 208–222. Long, T.B., Blok, V., Coninx, I., 2016. Barriers to the adoption and diffusion of
https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2014.951021. technological innovations for climate-smart agriculture in Europe: evidence from the
Eckstein, D., Vera, K., Laura, S., 2021. Global climate risk index 2021: Who suffers most Netherlands, France, Switzerland and Italy. J. Clean. Prod. 112, 9–21. https://doi.
from extreme weather events? Weather-related loss events in 2019 and 2000 to org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.06.044.
2019. Briefing Paper. Available online: https://germanwatch.org/sites/default/ Madhuri, Sharma, U., 2020. How do farmers perceive climate change? A Systematic
files/Global%20Climate%20Risk%20Index%202021_1.pdf (Accessed on 22 Review. Climatic Change 162 (3), 991–1010. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-020-
December 2021). 02814-2.
Ferdushi, K.F., Mohd, T.I., Anton, A.K., 2019. Perceptions, knowledge and adaptation Mase, A.S., Gramig, B.M., Prokopy, L.S., 2017. Climate change beliefs, risk perceptions,
about climate change: A study on farmers of Haor areas after a flash flood in and adaptation behavior among Midwestern U.S. crop farmers. Clim. Risk Manag.
Bangladesh”. Climate 7 (7), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3390/cli7070085. 15, 8–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2016.11.004.
Forouzani, M., Ezatollah, K., Gh, H.Z., Kourosh, R.M., 2013. Agricultural water poverty: Mbwambo, S.G., Mourice, S.K., Tarimo, A.J.P., 2021. Climate change perceptions by
Using Q-methodology to understand stakeholders’ perceptions. J. Arid Environ. 97, smallholder coffee farmers in the northern and southern highlands of Tanzania.
190–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2013.07.003. Climate 9 (6). https://doi.org/10.3390/cli9060090.
Gao, Y., Gao, X., Zhang, X., 2017. The 2 ◦ C global temperature target and the evolution of McCarl, B.A., 2010. Analysis of climate change implications for agriculture and forestry:
the long-term goal of addressing climate change—from the United Nations An interdisciplinary effort. Clim. Change 100, 119–124. https://doi.org/10.1007/
framework convention on climate change to the Paris agreement. Engineering 3 (2), s10584-010-9833-6.
272–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENG.2017.01.022. McKeown, B., Thomas, D.B., 2013. Q Methodology. SAGE Publications Inc.
Guido, Z., Andrew, Z., Sara, L., Corrie, H., Drew, G., Kurt, W., Natasha, K., Justin, S., Morrison, M., Duncan, R., Parton, K., 2015. Religion does matter for climate change
Kelly, C., Tom, E., 2020. Farmer forecasts: Impacts of seasonal rainfall expectations attitudes and behavior. PLoS One 10 (8), e0134868.
on agricultural decision-making in Sub-Saharan Africa. Clim. Risk Manag. 30, Nhem, S., Young, J.L., 2019. Using Q methodology to investigate the views of local
100247 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2020.100247. experts on the sustainability of community-based forestry in Oddar Meanchey
Gunaratne, M.S., Radin, F.R.B., Rathnasooriya, S.I., 2021. Climate change and food Province Cambodia. Forest Policy Econom. 106, 101961 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
security in Sri Lanka: towards food sovereignty. Humanit Soc. Sci. Commun. 8, 229. forpol.2019.101961.
https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00917-4. Niles, M.T., Mueller, N.D., 2016. Farmer perceptions of climate change: Associations
Habiba, U., Shaw, R., Takeuchi, Y., 2012. Farmer’s perception and adaptation practices with observed temperature and precipitation trends, irrigation, and climate beliefs.
to cope with drought: perspectives from Northwestern Bangladesh. Int. J. Disaster Glob. Environ. Chang. 39, 133–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Risk Reduct. 1, 72–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2012.05.004. gloenvcha.2016.05.002.
Hackert, M.Q.N., Werner, B.F.B., Hoefman, R.J., Exel, J.V., 2019. Views of older people Nyamadzawo, G., Wuta, M., Nyamangara, J., Nyamugafata, P., Chirinda, N., 2015.
in the Netherlands on wellbeing: A Q-methodology study. Soc. Sci. Med. 240, Optimizing dambo (seasonal wetland) cultivation for climate change adaptation and
112535 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.112535. sustainable crop production in the smallholder farming areas of Zimbabwe. Int. J.
Hasan, Z., Nursey-Bray, M., 2017. Artisan fishers’ perception of climate change and dis- Agric. Sustain. 13 (1), 23–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2013.863450.
asters in coastal Bangladesh. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 61 (7), 1204–1223. https:// Nyang’au, J.O., Mohamed, J.H., Mango, N., Makate, C., Wangeci, A.N., 2021.
doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2017.1339026. Smallholder farmers’ perception of climate change and adoption of climate smart
Hermans, F., Kok, K., Beers, P.J., Veldkamp, T., 2012. Assessing sustainability agriculture practices in Masaba South Sub-county, Kisii Kenya. Heliyon 7 (4),
perspectives in rural innovation projects using Q-methodology. Sociol. Rural. 52 (1), e06789. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e06789.
70–91. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9523.2011.00554.x. Ockwell, D.G., 2008. ‘Opening up’ policy to reflexive appraisal: a role for Q
Hitayezu, P., Wale, E., Ortmann, G., 2017. Assessing farmers’ perceptions about climate Methodology?. A case study of fire management in Cape York, Australia. Policy Sci.
change: A double-hurdle approach. Clim. Risk Manag. 17, 123–138. https://doi.org/ 41, 263–292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-008-9066-y.
10.1016/j.crm.2017.07.001. Parvez, M., Islam, M.R., Dey, N.C., 2021. Household food insecurity after the early
Howden, S.M., Soussana, J.F., Tubiello, F.N., Chhetri, N., Dunlop, M., Meinke, H., 2007. monsoon flash flood of 2017 among wetland (Haor) communities of north-eastern
Adapting agriculture to climate change. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 104 (50), Bangladesh: a cross-sectional study. Food Energy Secur. 1–14 https://doi.org/
19691–19696. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.070189010. 10.1002/fes3.326.
Ibrahim, M.A., Johansson, M., 2021. Attitudes to climate change adaptation in Petersen-Rockney, M., 2022. Social risk perceptions of climate change: A case study of
agriculture – A case study of Öland, Sweden. J. Rural. Stud. 86, 1–15. https://doi. farmers and agricultural advisors in northern California. Glob. Environ. Chang. 75,
org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.05.024. 102557 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2022.102557.
Iofrida, N., De Luca, A.I., Gulisano, G., Strano, A., 2018. An application of Q- Philip Antwi-Agyei, P., Stringer, L.C., 2021. Improving the effectiveness of agricultural
methodology to Mediterranean olive production – stakeholders’ understanding of extension services in supporting farmers to adapt to climate change: Insights from
sustainability issues. Agr. Syst. 162, 46–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. north-eastern Ghana. Clim. Risk Manag. 32, 100304 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
agsy.2018.01.020. crm.2021.100304.
Islam, M., Matsushita, S., Noguchi, R., Ahamed, T., 2021. A damage - based crop Raadgever, G.T., Mostert, E., Van De Giesen, N.C., 2008. Identification of stakeholder
insurance system for flash flooding: a satellite remote sensing and econometric perspectives on future flood management in the Rhine basin using Q methodology.
approach. Asia-Pacific J. Regional Sci. 6, 47–89. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41685- Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 12, 1097–1109. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-12-1097-
021-00220-9. 2008.
Islam, S.M.M., Yam, K.G., Islam, M.R., Akter, M., Mahmud, A.A., Singh, U., Sander, B.O., Rahman, H.M.T., Mia, M.E., Ford, J.D., Robinson, B.E., Hickey, G.M., 2018a. Livelihood
2020. Effects of water management on greenhouse gas emissions from farmers’ rice exposure to climatic stresses in the North-eastern floodplains of Bangladesh. Land
fields in Bangladesh. Sci. Total Environ. 734, 139382 https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Use Policy 79, 199–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.08.015.
scitotenv.2020.139382. Rahman, H.M.T., Robinson, B.E., Ford, J.D., Hickey, G.M., 2018b. How do capital asset
Kabir, K.H., Chowdhury, A., 2021. Development plans to tackle threats to agricultural interactions affect livelihood sensitivity to climatic stresses? Insights from the north-
sustainability in Bangladesh, Canada, and Trinidad and Tobago following COVID 19. eastern floodplains of Bangladesh. Ecol. Econ. 150, 165–176. https://doi.org/
Local Develop. Soc. 1–25 https://doi.org/10.1080/26883597.2021.1977976. 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.04.006.
Kabir, K.H., Knierim, A., Chowdhury, A., 2020. Assessment of a pluralistic advisory Raihan, M.L., Kenichiro, O., Mrittika, B., Natsuki, S., Satoshi, H., 2020. Rapid emergence
system: the case of Madhupur sal forest in Bangladesh. J. Agric. Educ. Ext. 26 (3), and increasing risks of Hailstorms: A potential threat to sustainable agriculture in
307–330. https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2020.1718719. northern Bangladesh. Sustainability 2 (12), 5011. https://doi.org/10.3390/
Kabir, K.H., Sarker, S., Uddin, M.N., Leggette, H.R., Schneider, U.A., Darr, D., su12125011.
Knierim, A., 2022. Furthering climate-smart farming with the introduction of Rising, J., Devineni, N., 2020. Crop switching reduces agricultural losses from climate
floating agriculture in Bangladeshi wetlands: Successes and limitations of an change in the United States by half under RCP 8.5. Nat. Commun. 11, 4991. https://
innovation transfer. J. Environ. Manage. 323, 116258 https://doi.org/10.1016/j. doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-18725-w.
jenvman.2022.116258. Rittelmeyer, P., 2020. Socio-cultural perceptions of flood risk and management of a levee
Kais, S., Islam, M., 2019. Perception of climate change in shrimp-farming communities in system: Applying the Q methodology in the California Delta. Geoforum 111 (1167),
Bangladesh: A critical assessment. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 16 (4), 672. 11–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2020.02.022.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16040672. Roy, D., Datta, A., Kuwornu, J.K.M., Zulfiqar, F., 2021. Comparing farmers’ perceptions
Kamal, A.S.M.M., Shamsudduha, M., Ahmed, B., Hassan, S.M.K., Islam, M.S., Kelman, I., of climate change with meteorological trends and examining farm adaptation
Fordham, M., 2018. Resilience to flash floods in wetland communities of north- measures in hazard-prone districts of northwest Bangladesh. Environ. Dev. Sustain.
eastern Bangladesh. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 31, 478–488. 23 (6), 8699–8721. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-00989-3.

13
K.H. Kabir et al. Climate Services 34 (2024) 100497

Salimi, S., Suhad, A.A.A.N.A., Miklas, S., 2021. Impact of climate change on wetland Watts, S., Paul, S., 2005. Doing Q methodology: Theory, method and interpretation.
ecosystems: A critical review of experimental wetlands. J. Environ. Manage. 286, Qual. Res. Psychol. 2 (1), 67–91. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088705qp022oa.
112160 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112160. Webler, T., Danielson, S., Tuler, S., 2009. Using Qmethod to reveal social perspectives in
Schall, D., David, L., Paul, L., Adel, S., Hubert, M., Tom, H., 2018. Understanding environmental research. Social and Environmental Research Institute, Greenfield
stakeholder perspectives on agricultural best management practices and MA, p. 54.
environmental change in the Chesapeake Bay: A Q methodology study. J. Rural. Weir, S., Sandy, K., 2020. Enclosing the right to fish: A Q-study into fishers’ attitudes to
Stud. 60, 21–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2018.03.003. rights in Scottish fisheries. Ocean Coast. Manag. 187, 105116 https://doi.org/
Schleussner, C.F., Rogelj, J., Schaeffer, M., Lissner, T., Licker, R., Fischer, E.M., 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2020.105116.
Knutti, R., Levermann, A., Frieler, K., Hare, W., 2016. Science and policy Wheeler, S.A., Nauges, C., Zuo, A., 2021. How stable are Australian farmers’ climate
characteristics of the Paris Agreement temperature goal. Nature Clim. Change 6, change risk perceptions? New evidence of the feedback loop between risk
827–835. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3096. perceptions and behaviour. Global Environmental Change 68, 102274. https://doi.
Schmolck, P., Atkinson, J., 2002. PQMethod, 2.11. http://schmolck.org/qmethod/. org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102274.
Accessed 01.06.2021. Wijaya, A., Astrid, O., 2018. Public agricultural extension workers as boundary workers:
Shamsul, M., Uddin, T., Kumar, S., 2021. Welfare impact of market participation : The Identifying sustainability perspectives in agriculture using Q-methodology.
case of rice farmers from wetland ecosystem in Bangladesh. Environmental J. Agricul. Educ. Extens. 25 (1), 3–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/
Challenges 5, 100292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envc.2021.100292. 1389224X.2018.1512875.
Sloat, L.L., Davis, S.J., Gerber, J.S., et al., 2020. Climate adaptation by crop migration. Win, E.P., Win, K.K., Kimura, S.D., Oo, A.Z., 2020. Greenhouse gas emissions, grain yield
Nat. Commun. 11, 1243. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-15076-4. and water productivity: a paddy rice field case study based in Myanmar. Greenhouse
Smith, L.C., Frankenberger, T.R., 2018. Does resilience capacity reduce the negative Gas Sci. Technol. 10, 884–897. https://doi.org/10.1002/ghg.2011.
impact of shocks on household food security? Evidence from the 2014 floods in Wiréhn, L., Käyhkö, J., Neset, T.S., et al., 2020. Analysing trade-offs in adaptation
northern Bangladesh. World Dev. 102, 358–376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. decision-making—agricultural management under climate change in Finland and
worlddev.2017.07.003. Sweden. Reg. Environ. Chang. 20, 18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-020-01585-
Steeves, L., Filgueira, R., 2019. Stakeholder perceptions of climate change in the context x.
of bivalve aquaculture. Mar. Policy 103, 121–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/J. Woods, B.A., Nielsen, H.Ø., Pedersen, A.B., Kristofersson, D., 2017. Farmers’ perceptions
MARPOL.2019.02.024. of climate change and their likely responses in Danish agriculture. Land Use Policy
Taheri, F., Forouzani, M., Yazdanpanah, M., Ajili, A., 2020. How farmers perceive the 65, 109–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.04.007.
impact of dust phenomenon on agricultural production activities: A Q-methodology Zabala, A., Chris, S., Nibedita, M., 2018. When and how to use Q methodology to
study. J. Arid Environ. 173, 104028 https://doi.org/10.1016/j. understand perspectives in conservation research. Conserv. Biol. 32 (5), 1185–1194.
jaridenv.2019.104028. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13123.
Tukker, A., Butter, M., 2007. Governance of sustainable transitions: about the 4(0) ways Živojinović, I., Wolfslehner, B., 2015. Perceptions of urban forestry stakeholders about
to change the world. J. Clean. Prod. 15 (1), 94–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. climate change adaptation - A Q-method application in Serbia. Urban For. Urban
jclepro.2005.08.016. Green. 14 (4), 1079–1087. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2015.10.007.
Van Exel, J., de Graaf, G., 2005. Q methodology: A sneak preview. Retrieved from Zobeidi, T., Yazdanpanah, M., Forouzani, M., Khosravipour, B., 2016. Climate change
website: http://qmethod.org/articles/vanExel.pdf (retrieved 30.01.22). discourse among Iranian farmers. Clim. Change 138 (3–4), 521–535. https://doi.
Voldseth, R.A., Johnson, W.C., Guntenspergen, G.R., Gilmanov, T., Millett, B.V., 2009. org/10.1007/s10584-016-1741-y.
Adaptation of farming practices could buffer effects of climate change on Northern
Prairie wetlands. Wetlands 29, 635–647. https://doi.org/10.1672/07-241.1.

14