Awareness of climate change's impacts and motivation to adapt are not enough to drive action: A look of Puerto Rican farmers after Hurricane Maria

Abstract

Understanding how perceptions around motivation, capacity, and climate change’s impacts relate to the adoption of adaptation practices in light of experiences with extreme weather events is important in assessing farmers’ adaptive capacity. However, very little of this work has occurred in islands, which may have different vulnerabilities and capacities for adaptation. Data of surveyed farmers throughout Puerto Rico after Hurricane Maria (n = 405, 87% response rate) were used in a structural equation model to explore the extent to which their adoption of agricultural practices and management strategies was driven by perceptions of motivation, vulnerability, and capacity as a function of their psychological distance of climate change. Our results show that half of farmers did not adopt any practice or strategy, even though the majority perceived themselves capable and motivated to adapt to climate change, and understood their farms to be vulnerable to future extreme events. Furthermore, adoption was neither linked to these adaptation perceptions, nor to their psychological distance of climate change, which we found to be both near and far. Puerto Rican farmers’ showed a broad awareness of climate change’s impacts both locally and globally in different dimensions (temporal, spatial, and social), and climate distance was not linked to reported damages from Hurricane Maria or to previous extreme weather events. These results suggest that we may be reaching a tipping point for extreme events as a driver for climate belief and action, especially in places where there is a high level of climate change awareness and continued experience of compounded impacts. Further, high perceived capacity and motivation are not linked to actual adaptation behaviors, suggesting that broadening adaptation analyses beyond individual perceptions and capacities as drivers of climate adaptation may give us a better understanding of the determinants to strengthen farmers’ adaptive capacity.

Full text

RESEARCH ARTICLE
Awareness of climate change’s impacts and
motivation to adapt are not enough to drive
action: A look of Puerto Rican farmers after
Hurricane Maria
Luis Alexis Rodrı
´guez-CruzID
1,2
*, Meredith T. NilesID
2,3
1Food Systems Graduate Program, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont, United States of America,
2Gund Institute for the Environment, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont, United States of America,
3Department of Nutrition and Food Sciences and Food Systems Graduate Program, University of Vermont,
Burlington, Vermont, United States of America
*lrodrig2@uvm.edu
Abstract
Understanding how perceptions around motivation, capacity, and climate change’s impacts
relate to the adoption of adaptation practices in light of experiences with extreme weather
events is important in assessing farmers’ adaptive capacity. However, very little of this work
has occurred in islands, which may have different vulnerabilities and capacities for adapta-
tion. Data of surveyed farmers throughout Puerto Rico after Hurricane Maria (n = 405, 87%
response rate) were used in a structural equation model to explore the extent to which their
adoption of agricultural practices and management strategies was driven by perceptions of
motivation, vulnerability, and capacity as a function of their psychological distance of climate
change. Our results show that half of farmers did not adopt any practice or strategy, even
though the majority perceived themselves capable and motivated to adapt to climate
change, and understood their farms to be vulnerable to future extreme events. Furthermore,
adoption was neither linked to these adaptation perceptions, nor to their psychological dis-
tance of climate change, which we found to be both near and far. Puerto Rican farmers’
showed a broad awareness of climate change’s impacts both locally and globally in different
dimensions (temporal, spatial, and social), and climate distance was not linked to reported
damages from Hurricane Maria or to previous extreme weather events. These results sug-
gest that we may be reaching a tipping point for extreme events as a driver for climate belief
and action, especially in places where there is a high level of climate change awareness and
continued experience of compounded impacts. Further, high perceived capacity and moti-
vation are not linked to actual adaptation behaviors, suggesting that broadening adaptation
analyses beyond individual perceptions and capacities as drivers of climate adaptation
may give us a better understanding of the determinants to strengthen farmers’ adaptive
capacity.
PLOS ONE
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0244512 January 27, 2021 1 / 22
a1111111111
a1111111111
a1111111111
a1111111111
a1111111111
OPEN ACCESS
Citation: Rodrı
´guez-Cruz LA, Niles MT (2021)
Awareness of climate change’s impacts and
motivation to adapt are not enough to drive action:
A look of Puerto Rican farmers after Hurricane
Maria. PLoS ONE 16(1): e0244512. https://doi.org/
10.1371/journal.pone.0244512
Editor: Simon Clegg, University of Lincoln, UNITED
KINGDOM
Received: June 22, 2020
Accepted: December 11, 2020
Published: January 27, 2021
Peer Review History: PLOS recognizes the
benefits of transparency in the peer review
process; therefore, we enable the publication of
all of the content of peer review and author
responses alongside final, published articles. The
editorial history of this article is available here:
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0244512
Copyright: ©2021 Rodrı
´guez-Cruz, Niles. This is
an open access article distributed under the terms
of the Creative Commons Attribution License,
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium, provided the original
author and source are credited.
Data Availability Statement: Data cannot be
shared publicly because only a portion of the data
was used in the reported study. the de-identified
data used in this paper can be accessed at the

Introduction
Exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity are three main determinants of farmers’ vulnera-
bility to natural hazards [1,2]. Farmers in small island states and territories, most of which are
located in the tropics, farm in regions that are often disproportionately exposed and sensitive
to natural hazards [2–4]. Exposure results from islands being situated in regions highly prone
to extreme weather events (e.g. Atlantic’s ‘Hurricane Belt’), and sensitivity relates to the degree
to which such hazards change physical systems (e.g. farms) [1,4–6]. As such, strengthening
adaptive capacity―defined as the set of actual abilities and resources individuals and popula-
tions have to anticipate, withstand, cope with, and recover from a hazard, and the potential or
abilities they have to modify the system in order to be more resistant to impacts [3,7,8]―is
key in decreasing vulnerability to natural hazards.
Adaptive capacity is complex, and involves many diverse and interrelated determinants,
which expand from individual to social and political scales [3,4]. It should not be confused
with perceived self-capacity, which refers to people’s beliefs around their own capabilities to
undergo a change or carry out an action [9–11]. In the case of farmers, the adoption of new
adaptation practices, technologies, and strategies, as well as the access to institutional resources
and networks of support, are important for strengthening adaptive capacity [12–16]. Research
in the Caribbean and Central America―areas exposed to Atlantic hurricanes―have shown
that farms and farmers’ characteristics, such as farm size, levels of education and income, and
production styles, as well as their access to diverse markets, and sources of support, are impor-
tant in reducing vulnerability to natural hazards [12,17–20]. Nevertheless, given the heteroge-
neity of the regions’ social and political systems, generalization of results is complicated;
hence, place-specific research is important to better understand adaptive capacity [4,21].
This is evident in the Caribbean, given the region’s neocolonial dynamics, where many
islands’ sovereignty resides on continental countries [22–24]. This is the case of Puerto Rico as
an unincorporated territory of the United States. Studying Puerto Rican farmers’ climate
change adaptation―the response to climate change-related impacts through the adoption of
management mechanisms―could allow us to understand the extent to which biophysical,
social, and political components of a system impact farmers’ decision-making. This then may
improve our knowledge to strengthen adaptive capacity in the Caribbean and beyond.
Perceptions are an important factor to explore in adaptation decisions [3,6,25], especially
risk, perceived-capacity, and motivation to adapt, which have been found to be linked to the
adoption of adaptation strategies [9,26,27]. While climate change adaptation requires external
resources (extrinsic), individual determinants (intrinsic) also allow better understanding of
adaptive capacity [5,6,14]. Studies have found that individuals’ perceived capacity, perceived
vulnerability, motivation to adapt, and other social and cognitive variables are key in under-
standing adaptation behaviors [9,13,25,26]. The ways farmers perceived their capacity to
adopt new adaptation behaviors, and the risks they are exposed to have been shown to drive
the adoption of new agricultural practices and pro-environmental behaviors [13,26,28–30].
While existing research demonstrates a link between climate perceptions, beliefs, and climate
change adaptation amongst the general public [e.g. 31], and farmers [e.g. 26], there are varied
results in the strength to which those perceptions drive change [9,32,33]. Importantly, most
research focused on perceptions about climate, and their role in adaptation is from high-
income countries [9]. There is limited evidence of this topic from small island developing
states and territories, whose unique exposure and sensitivity to climate change and extreme
events may influence how residents perceive climate change and their capacity to adapt to it.
To address the current gaps in the literature around the role of perceptions in the adoption
of adaptation strategies, we examine survey results from 405 Puerto Rican farmers following
PLOS ONE
Farmers’ actual adoption and climate change perceptions after a natural hazard
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0244512 January 27, 2021 2 / 22
following: Rodrı
´guez-Cruz, Luis Alexis; Meredith T.
Niles, 2020, "Puerto Rican farmers’ climate change
and adaptation perceptions after Hurricane Maria",
https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/SO3ILC, Harvard
Dataverse, V1, UNF:6:LvbAL1TsaSsfs0Op3Fxi9g==
[fileUNF] Retrived from: https://dataverse.harvard.
edu/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.7910/DVN/
SO3ILC.
Funding: MTN allocated funding from this study,
which came from the College of Agriculture and
Life Science and the Food Systems Graduate
Program of the University of Vermont. The funders
had no role in study design, data collection and
analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the
manuscript.
Competing interests: I have read the journal’s
policy and the authors of this manuscript have the
following competing interests: MTN is a member of
the board of directors of The Public Library of
Science (PLOS). This role has in no way influenced
the outcome or development of this work or the
peer review process, nor does it alter our
adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data
and materials.

Hurricane Maria, a category four hurricane, which impacted Puerto Rico in September 2017.
We examine the extent to which Puerto Rican farmers’ adoption of agricultural practices to
prepare for future events after Hurricane Maria relates to their perceptions of climate change,
self-capacity, and motivation to adapt. We draw our theoretical grounding from Spence and
colleagues by analyzing the data through the lens of the psychological distance of climate chan-
ge―simply put, how near or far people perceive climate change to be from themselves in dif-
ferent dimensions [31,34].
Theoretical framework
Construal Level Theory states that humans imagine the past and future through abstract con-
structs, since we are embedded in the here and now [35,36]. Psychological distance, a compo-
nent of the aforementioned theory, is a subjective experience that uses the self as a reference
point [35,36]. Psychological distance is measured in four components: temporal, social, spa-
tial, and hypothetical (uncertainty of the distance or issue). The more distant we perceive an
issue or event to be across these dimensions, the more we rely on abstract constructs to make
sense of it. In contrast, things we perceive as closer are more concrete. For example, as an
event gets closer in time (e.g. conference presentation), the awareness of the dynamics
involved become more concrete (e.g. transportation to the venue, nervousness, time manage-
ment, and other variables). Thus, Construal Level Theory explains that we use mental con-
structs to build understanding of what transcends the here and now.
Applied in the realm of climate change communication and adaptation research, the psy-
chological distance of climate change [34] refers to how near or far people (e.g. farmers) per-
ceive climate change to be from themselves across the four dimensions: temporal (when
climate change will occur or if is occurring), spatial (where it happens), social (to whom it hap-
pens), and the hypothetical or uncertainty dimension (certainty of whether it occurs or not).
Theoretically, this posits that individuals who are psychologically close to climate change are
prone to perceive higher risks to hazards, and a greater motivation to act to adapt or mitigate
climate change. Nonetheless, this assumption has not been consistent in research [32,33].
Research on the psychological distance of climate change
The aforementioned hypothesis has been the basis for many existing studies on the psychologi-
cal distance of climate change (e.g. understanding how psychological distance affects the pro-
pensity for individuals to take action to mitigate or adapt to climate change). The current body
of research focused on the psychological distance of climate change is both experimental [37,
38], and observational [34,39]. More specifically, scholarship has explored (1) the interrelated-
ness of the different dimensions, (2) the role of experiencing extreme weather events on indi-
viduals’ psychological distance of climate change, and (3) the degree to which psychological
distance of climate change affects behavior (intention and actual change). Overall, evidence
indicates inconsistent outcomes related to the psychological distance of climate change and its
capacity to prompt action, as well as the understanding of how experiences with extreme
events affects psychological distance, and the relatedness of the four dimensions varies [33].
These results may suggest that place matters; a natural hazard (e.g. hurricane), for example,
can be experienced and perceived differently depending on a populations or individuals’ attri-
butes (e.g. sociodemographic characteristics, beliefs, adaptive capacity) [1,2].
Some studies support that the four dimensions of the psychological distance of climate
change are interrelated. Moreover, studies suggest that being psychologically close impacts
behavior. For example, Spence and colleagues (2011, 2012) demonstrated that reported experi-
ence with floods was linked to individuals’ perceptions of climate change in the United
PLOS ONE
Farmers’ actual adoption and climate change perceptions after a natural hazard
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0244512 January 27, 2021 3 / 22

Kingdom. Their studies showed that the four dimensions of the psychological distance of cli-
mate change were interrelated, and that reduced psychological distance related to prompting
climate change mitigation actions amongst individuals [31,34]. Furthermore, their study
showed that direct experience with flooding was linked to higher perceived self-capacity [31].
Similarly, but based in the United States, Singh et al. (2017) found that the four dimensions
were interrelated, and that those psychologically close expressed more support towards climate
change adaptation policies. In that study, psychological distance was linked to experience with
extreme events. The temporal and uncertainty dimensions, by their own, did not have signifi-
cant effect on policy support; however, those that expressed higher uncertainty over climate
change and were socially distant, expressed less support towards policies [39]. Furthermore,
research has shown that the dimensions, though often interrelated, depending on different
social and geographical attributes, manifest differently [33]. Focused on New Zealand’s farm-
ers, Niles et al. (2015) applied the psychological distance of climate change framework in com-
bination with Liebig’s Law of the Minimum to assess adaptation behaviors, finding that
decreasing psychological distance may prompt action from farmers. Farmers who perceived
climate change impacts as spatially close, were more likely to feel more concern for climate
change and motivation to adapt [26].
Research has also described how experience with extreme weather events relates to being
psychologically close [26,31,33,39]. Acharibasam and Anuga (2018) found that farmers who
had experienced extreme events were socially and spatially close, and that psychological dis-
tance mediated emotional regulation among farmers―the mental processes through which
individuals decide how emotions are expressed and experienced [40]. Nevertheless, a recent
meta-analysis performed by van Valkengoed and colleagues (2019) found that experience had
small-to-moderate effects on climate change adaptation. That same meta-analysis found that
perceived self-capacity had higher effects on adaptation behaviors than experience. Larcom
(2019) found that experience with a heatwave amongst the general population did not elicit
adaptation behaviors in the United Kingdom, but did elevate concern [41]. Similarly, Albright
and Crow (2019) found that direct flooding experience was not a predictor of concern for cli-
mate change amongst Colorado, United States, residents [42]. These more recent studies sug-
gest that there may be a threshold of individual exposure to natural hazards and their potential
to catalyze behavioral change; indeed, as the rate of extreme events increases, it could be prob-
able that such events may saturate in people’s experiences and become “more normal”, part of
the status-quo.
The aforementioned studies also highlight the importance of taking into account how differ-
ent components of a system interconnect with individual attributes, but also bring attention to
how psychological distance of climate change research is limited in its generalizability [32]. Fur-
thermore, most research on the matter has used data on reported experience, and not on direct
experience (e.g. material impacts such as damage). Zanocco et al. (2018) performed case studies
of residents whose communities were directly impacted by extreme events, such as tornados
and wildfires, or were proximate to where the events occurred, in order to understand the rela-
tionship between experience of extreme event and views of climate change. Applying Construal
Level Theory perspectives of psychological distance, they found that spatial proximity to the
event did not align with climate change views, but reported harm did [43]. This quote from
Demski et al. (2017), as cited by Zanocco et al. (2018), underscores the aforementioned: “Self-
reported measures of experience that include: direct physical experience and material impacts
of an event, well-defined in terms of personal effects and damage, are less susceptible to biased
reporting, providing the best proxy available for objective experience” (p. 152) [43].
This paper attempts to fill several gaps in the research. First, we will assess Puerto Rican
farmers’ psychological distance of climate change after experiencing an extreme weather
PLOS ONE
Farmers’ actual adoption and climate change perceptions after a natural hazard
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0244512 January 27, 2021 4 / 22

event. Hurricane Maria affected all of Puerto Rico in September 2017, causing significant dam-
ages to infrastructure, agriculture, and livelihoods. The 2017 Atlantic Hurricane Season is
noted for being a devastating one in the Caribbean region [44]. To the best of our understand-
ing, there are no studies exploring the psychological distance of climate change amongst farm-
ers in small island developing states and territories after an extreme weather event. Second, we
will assess the extent to which both reported experience with other similar extreme events, and
direct damages reported by Hurricane Maria relate to psychological distance of climate
change. As stated above, there are mixed results on how reported experience and actual experi-
enced damages are linked to climate change perceptions. Finally, drawing from Spence et al.
(2011) and others who have shown that perceived capacity is linked to adaptation, we examine
farmers adoption of agricultural practices after Maria, and its relationship to climate change
distance, vulnerability, perceived capacity, and motivation to adapt.
The present study
This study focuses in Puerto Rico, an unincorporated territory of the United States that
imports around 85% of the food it consumes, and that is going through a social-economic cri-
sis because of its billion dollar debt and political situation [44–47]. In response to Puerto
Rico’s debt crisis in 2016, the United States’ government created a Fiscal Management and
Oversight Board that, alongside the local government, imposed austerity measures, and made
visible Puerto Rico’s lack of political agency as a territory of the United States [22,23]. Simulta-
neous and previous to this change, the agricultural sector in Puerto Rico was experiencing pos-
itive changes, such as a rise in new farmers, production increases, and increased awareness of
food security [17,48–50]. Such agricultural gains were important since Puerto Rico, like the
broader Caribbean, was experiencing a steady decline in farms since the 1990’s due to trade
liberalization, globalization, and other external and local forces [18,49,50,51,52]. Neverthe-
less, such gains were erased when both Hurricane Irma and Hurricane Maria, two of the stron-
gest in the Atlantic’s history, hit Puerto Rico in September 2017 [46,53–55].
Puerto Rico’s Department of Agriculture (2018) reported that both hurricanes caused $2
billion in total losses, with the majority of losses from Maria ($228 million in production
losses, and $1.8 billion in agricultural infrastructure losses). Such damages significantly
impacted Puerto Rican agriculture, which, according to the USDA, is comprised of many
small-scale farmers with an average farm size of 59 acres (approximately 23 hectares), who
focus mostly on domestic markets, and who have an average annual income of less than
$20,000 [56]. Focusing this study on Puerto Rican farmers after experiencing a major storm,
not only allow us to advance our understanding of the role of direct hazard experience on the
psychological distance of climate change, but provides us the opportunity to produce impor-
tant applied knowledge around strengthening adaptive capacity through assessing climate
change adaptation at the individual level [26].
Objective, research questions, and hypotheses
Our study intends to assess (1) the psychological distance of climate change amongst farmers
in Puerto Rico, an unincorporated territory of the United States, after an extreme-weather
event, (2) the extent to which psychological distance of climate change is related to reported
experience, and reported damages caused by Maria, and to (3) other perceptions important in
adaptation research, such as motivation to adapt, perceived capacity (self-efficacy or perceived
instrumentality), and perceived vulnerability, and (4) the role of these perceptions in the adop-
tion of agricultural practices after Maria as a function of farmers’ psychological distance of cli-
mate change.
PLOS ONE
Farmers’ actual adoption and climate change perceptions after a natural hazard
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0244512 January 27, 2021 5 / 22

We ask: 1) How do farm and farmer characteristics, and experiences with extreme events
(i.e. reported damages and reported experience with similar events) relate to the psychological
distance of climate change? 2) In light of experiencing an extreme event, what is the role of
psychological distance of climate change in motivating Puerto Rican farmers to adapt to cli-
mate change? And, 3) to what extent do adaptation perceptions relate to actual adoption of
agricultural practices and management strategies after Maria? We hypothesize that farmers’
psychological distance of climate change will be driven by their experience (e.g. reported dam-
ages) with Hurricane Maria and past extreme weather events (H1). Furthermore, we predict
that psychological distance of climate change will be related to perceived capacity, perceived
vulnerability, and motivation to adapt (H2), and that these will be positively linked to the
adoption of agricultural practices and management strategies after the hurricane (H3). Fig 1
shows our hypothesized model.
Methodology
Data gathering
Previous studies of on-farm management and climate change perceptions, and on the psycho-
logical distance of climate change [16,26,31,39,57] informed the development of a survey
instrument, which was modified to fit the general objectives of the main study. This study was
carried out in collaboration with the Extension Service of the University of Puerto Rico at
Mayagu¨ez. Thus, feedback from Extension partners were also included in the survey’s develop-
ment. The Committees on Human Subjects Serving the University of Vermont and the UVM
Medical Center at the Research Protections Office approved our study on December 2017.
Consent from participants was obtained orally, and was included in the survey booklet. The
survey was translated into Spanish, and piloted in February 2018 with a pool of Puerto Rican
farmers (n = 32), and was also shared amongst Extension agricultural agents for feedback―e-
numerators of the survey. Minimal language and structural changes were made to the
instrument.
Surveys (n = 440) were randomly administered to farmers by Extension agents, according
to the five regions the Extension Service divides Puerto Rico: Arecibo, Caguas, Mayagu¨ez,
Ponce, and San Juan. Each region has several agents that provide service to the municipalities
that comprise each region. Survey deployment was based on Extension Services’ recommenda-
tions to access a wide range of farmers, and because agricultural agents had an established
presence. Each regional office received a set of surveys; San Juan, Caguas, and Ponce received
100 surveys each, and Mayagu¨ez and Arecibo received 75 surveys each. Participant Extension
agents randomly surveyed farmers in the municipalities they worked in. Surveys were admin-
istered between May and July 2018 in person. Farmers from 65 of Puerto Rico’s 78 municipali-
ties answered the survey. A total of 405 surveys were completed, resulting in an 87% response
rate based on the American Association for Public Opinion Response Rate Calculator [58].
Fig 1. Hypothesized model. Farm and farmer characteristics’ variables included as controls.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0244512.g001
PLOS ONE
Farmers’ actual adoption and climate change perceptions after a natural hazard
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0244512 January 27, 2021 6 / 22

Assessing the psychological distance of climate change
Eight questions were used to assess the four dimensions of the psychological distance of cli-
mate change (temporal, social, spatial, and hypothetical/uncertainty) (Table 1). These ques-
tions were adapted from previous research on the topic, and contextualized to Puerto Rico
[26,31,39,57]. The temporal dimension was assessed with one item, while the social and
Table 1. Survey variables used in this study.
Category Variable Question/Statement Measure
Climate change
perceptions
Global climate The global climate is changing. 5-point Likert scale―from strongly
disagree to strongly agree
Global
temperature
Average global temperatures are increasing. 5-point Likert scale
Anthropogenic
causes
Human activities such as fossil fuel combustions are an important cause of
climate change.
5-point Likert scale
Psychological Distance of
Climate Change
Temporal Dimension Today The effects of climate change are not being felt today. 5-point Likert scale
Spatial dimension Local agriculture Climate change does not presents more risk than benefits to agriculture in
Puerto Rico.
5-point Likert scale
Global agriculture Climate change presents more risks than benefits to agriculture globally. 5-point Likert scale
Social dimension Farmers Farmers like me are not likely to be affected negatively by climate change. 5-point Likert scale
General public People who are not farmers are likely to be affected negatively by climate
change.
5-point Likert scale
Hypothetical or
uncertainty dimension
Impact
uncertainty
There is scientific uncertainty about the potential impacts of climate change on
agriculture.
5-point Likert scale
Cause uncertainty There is scientific uncertainty about the causes of climate change. 5-point Likert scale
Hurricane
uncertainty
I am uncertain that the occurrence of strong hurricanes in the Atlantic is
related to climate change.
5-point Likert scale
Adaptation perceptions Motivation to
adapt
I feel motivated to change my agricultural practices to prepare for future
extreme weather events like Hurricane Maria.
5-point Likert scale
Perceived self-
capacity
I feel that I have the capacity to change my agricultural practices to prepare for
future potential extreme weather events like Hurricane Maria.
5-point Likert scale
Perceived
vulnerability
I believe my farm is vulnerable to future extreme weather events like Hurricane
Maria.
5-point Likert scale
Main dependent variable Actual adoption Which of these agricultural practices and management strategies, if any, might
you adopt in the near future to adapt to future extreme events like Hurricane
Maria?
a
Count
Experience with extreme
weather events
Reported
experience
I have faced similar extreme weather events like Hurricane Maria in the past
ten years.
5-point Likert scale
Reported damages How would you describe the damages, if any, caused by Hurricane Maria to
your farm?
5-point Likert―from no damages
to total loss
Farmer and farm
characteristics�
Age In which year you were born? Continuous
Bonafide
b
Do you participate in the bonafide program of the Puerto Rico Department of
Agriculture?
Binary―yes or no
Education level What is the highest level of education you have completed? Ordinal―from elementary school
to PhD degree
Farm size How many cuerdas
c
of terrain do you manage in your farm? Continuous
Gender What is your gender? Binary―female or male
Household
income
What is your approximate household income, including all far and off-farm
income?
Ordinal―from Less than $20,000 to
more than $90,000
a
The list of practices can be found in S2 Table. Farmers were asked to report, from a list of predetermined actions, what were the practices currently in use after Maria.
b
The bonafide program of the Puerto Rico Department of Agriculture provides farmers with agricultural incentives and benefits.
c
This is the traditional measurement of land use in Puerto Rico. One cuerda is approximately 0.97 acres.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0244512.t001
PLOS ONE
Farmers’ actual adoption and climate change perceptions after a natural hazard
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0244512 January 27, 2021 7 / 22

spatial dimensions were assessed with two each. Questions assessing the social and spatial
dimensions were intended to separately assess local and distant concerns. Uncertainty was
assessed through three statements. Variables were reversed where needed, in order to analyze
ascending levels of the psychological distance of climate change; “5” in the scale would repre-
sent “psychologically distant”. We used Cronbach’s alpha to measure internal validity of these
constructs in the pilot analysis, demonstrating good internal reliability (alpha = 0.86). Further-
more, a factor analysis using principal components was carried out on these items to further
assess consistency. S1 Table shows the pilot data’s analysis results, which indicate all items
aligned well under one factor (Factor loadings were >.40). This supported our decision to
keep a variable scale in the study ―Cronbach’s alpha for the main study’s psychological dis-
tance of climate change scale was 0.74, which suggests good internal validity [59].
Assessing adaptation perceptions and outcomes
Farmers were asked about their perceived self-capacity to change their agricultural practices to
adapt to future extreme events, their reported motivation to do so, and their perception
around the vulnerability of their farms to the impacts of future extreme weather events. These
perceptions were measured through three 5-point Likert scale items. We included motivation
to adapt as the intermediary variable between both perceived self-capacity and vulnerability,
and actual adoption. Farmers were also asked about the number of practices and management
strategies they were currently adopting after Hurricane Maria, in order to adapt to future
extreme weather events like Maria. The survey contained a table with a list of 21 practices and
management strategies, so farmers could report those they intended to adopt, and those cur-
rently adopted. Here we use results for the actual adopted practices (S2 Table), and generate a
count variable by summing reported actual adopted practices (a range from 0 to 20). We did
not include “exiting farming” in generating this count variable because we aimed to focus on
those currently farming (and only six farmers said they had terminated their farming opera-
tions). All variables included in the model can be found in Table 1.
Structural equation model
A structural equation model was built to explore the extent to which psychological distance of cli-
mate change relates to farmers’ reported experience with similar events to Hurricane Maria and
reported degree of damage due to Maria, their motivation to adapt to climate change and their
actual adoption of agricultural practices and management strategies. Structural equation models
allow quantitative analysis of the direct, indirect, and mediated interactions between variables,
and the incorporation of latent constructs [30,60,61]. Fig 1 shows the hypothesized model. Two
variables assessed experience: “reported past experience” and “reported hurricane damages”
(Table 1). Variables for perceived capacity and vulnerability, as well as for motivation to adapt,
and actual adoption of agricultural practices were included. The structural equation model was
deployed in Stata 15.1, using Maximum Likelihood with bootstrapping (1000 iterations) to control
for Type I errors, for non-normal data, and to increase statistical power [30,62,63]. The following
Goodness-of-fit criteria were used: Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR), Compara-
tive fit index (CFI), Root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) [61].
Results
Participants’ characteristics and the impact of Hurricane Marı
´a
Farmers had an average age of 54, and farmed an average of 58 cuerdas (approximately 56
acres). The great majority of respondents had attended college (67%) (Table 2). Table 3
PLOS ONE
Farmers’ actual adoption and climate change perceptions after a natural hazard
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0244512 January 27, 2021 8 / 22

contrasts farmers’ demographics and farm characteristics with those reported in Puerto Rico’s
2017 Agricultural Census [56]. Respondents generally were similar to average census statistics,
with the exception of having higher rates of formal higher education and somewhat higher
percentage of income from farming. It is important to note that the recent census is not
Table 2. Mean statistics of control variables.
Variable Scale Frequency (%) Mean ±SD n
Age Continuous - 54.0 ±13.5 391
Bonafide Yes 210 (52.8) - 398
No 188 (47.2)
Education level Elementary School 21 (5.2) - 401
Junior High School 13 (3.2)
Some High School 15 (3.7)
High School Diploma 82 (20.5)
Some College 42 (10.5)
Technical Degree 25 (6.2)
Associate Degree 41 (10.2)
Bachelor’s Degree 109 (27.2)
Master’s Degree 46 (11.5)
PhD 7 (1.8)
Farm size Continuous - 58.1 ±98.5 383
Gender Female 55 (14.0) - 395
Male 340 (86.0)
Household income Less than $20,000 138 (36.4) - 379
$20,000 - $40,999 125 (33.0)
$41,000 - $60,999 52 (13.7)
$61,000 - $80,999 36 (9.5)
More than $90,000 28 (7.4)
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0244512.t002
Table 3. Demographic variables of our study’s surveyed farmers in comparison to USDA 2017 Agricultural Cen-
sus data for Puerto Rico.
Category Present study USDA 2017 Census data
Average farm size 58.1 cuerdas (majority farmed >20 cuerdas) 59.3 cuerdas (majority farmed >20 cuerdas)
Years farming Majority >10 years Majority >10 years
Average age 54 61
Gender Great majority is male Great majority is male
Education Majority reported High School Diploma or
more
Majority reported High School Diploma or
less
Income from
farming
>50% <50%
Household income Majority reported <$20,000 Majority reported <$20,000
Note: Data from the census is for farms’ principal operators. In Puerto Rico, this does not necessarily mean that they
are the sole owner of the farm. Neither the census or the local Department of Agriculture detail the number of Puerto
Rican farmers who participate in the bonafide program; however, in a media report in 2019 [65], according to the
Secretary of Agriculture, Carlos Flores, among Puerto Rico’s 17,000 farmers, 4,000 are part of the bonafide program;
24% in comparison to the 53% in our study. It is also important to note that the Secretary’s comment contrast with
the number of farmers provided by the USDA census, which was conducted in 2018, and had a low response rate
[64].
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0244512.t003
PLOS ONE
Farmers’ actual adoption and climate change perceptions after a natural hazard
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0244512 January 27, 2021 9 / 22

comparable to the previous one done in 2012 [56]. Moreover the 2017 census, performed in
2018, had a lower response rate, and USDA reported some difficulty in performing the census
given post Hurricane Maria conditions [56,64]. Farmer respondents were distributed
throughout Puerto Rico with 15% in the Arecibo region, 22% in the Caguas region, 19% in the
Mayagu¨ez region, 25% in the Ponce region, and 22% in the San Juan region. (Percentages do
not sum 100% because some farms extend beyond one municipality that border with another).
The majority of farmers experienced damages from Hurricane Marı
´a; 42.6% reported total
loss of their farms, while 45.6% reported significant damages (Fig 2). The majority of farmers
(55.1%) disagreed and strongly disagreed that they had faced similar events to Hurricane
Maria.
Climate change and adaptation perceptions
Fig 3 shows results for farmers’ perceptions around climate change and adaptation. An over-
whelming majority of Puerto Rican farmers believe that the global climate is changing (86%
strongly agree and agree), and that it has anthropogenic causes (91.4%). As well, 84.4% of
Puerto Rican farmers agreed and strongly agreed that they feel motivated to change their agri-
cultural practices to better prepare for future extreme events. Though farmers perceive their
farms to be vulnerable to future extreme weather events (93.5%), they understand themselves
capable to adapt to climate change (79.0%).
Fig 2. Farmers’ past experience with events similar to Hurricane Maria (top) and reported hurricane damages
(bottom).
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0244512.g002
Fig 3. Climate change perceptions and adaptation perceptions among Puerto Rican farmers.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0244512.g003
PLOS ONE
Farmers’ actual adoption and climate change perceptions after a natural hazard
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0244512 January 27, 2021 10 / 22

Farmers adoption of agricultural practices and management
strategies after Hurricane Maria
Table 4 shows the number of adopted practices and management strategies, and percentage of
farmers that adopted those numbers of practices. Almost half of farmers (49%) reported adopt-
ing at least one agricultural practice or management strategy to prepare for future events like
Maria. On average, farmers adopted 2.5 practices (SD: ±3.6). S2 Table shows types of agricul-
tural practices and management strategies, their frequencies, and percentage of farmers that
adopted them.
Puerto Rican farmers’ psychological distance of climate change
We found that Puerto Rican farmers understand climate change as both a local and global phe-
nomenon, being both psychologically close and psychologically distant across various mea-
sures. While we find evidence across all four dimensions of psychological distance for
perceived “closeness”, we also find that farmers demonstrate awareness for climate change
effects beyond Puerto Rico in all dimensions (psychologically far) (Fig 4).
Respondents demonstrated a temporally close relationship to climate change with the
majority disagreeing and strongly disagreeing (95.1%) that the effects of climate change are
not being felt today. Regarding the spatial dimension, Puerto Rican farmers perceive that cli-
mate change will both negatively impact agriculture at both local and global scales (Fig 4). The
Table 4. Number of adopted agricultural practices and management strategies after Hurricane Maria by Puerto
Rican farmers.
Number of adopted practices Frequency (%)
0 202 (51.0)
1–4 98 (25.0)
5–8 60 (15.0)
9–12 29 (7.0)
13–17 7 (1.0)
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0244512.t004
Fig 4. Results for variables of the psychological distance of climate change.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0244512.g004
PLOS ONE
Farmers’ actual adoption and climate change perceptions after a natural hazard
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0244512 January 27, 2021 11 / 22

majority disagreed and strongly disagreed (89.4%) with the statement, “climate change does
not present more risks than benefits to agriculture in Puerto Rico” (e.g. Puerto Rico’s agricul-
ture is at risk). Farmers also agreed and strongly agreed (90.0%) with the statement focused on
the global scale, “Climate change presents more risks than benefits to agriculture globally”. At
the social dimension, farmers expressed that climate change will both affect farmers (people
like them), and the general public (people not like them). The majority (92%) disagreed and
strongly disagreed that farmers like them will likely be affected negatively by climate change
(psychologically close); 89% agreed and strongly agreed with the statement, “people who aren’t
farmers are likely to be negatively affected by climate change” (psychologically far).
We found the greatest variability in the uncertainty or hypothetical dimension of psycho-
logical distance of climate change. Thirty nine percent (39%) of respondents agreed and
strongly agreed that there is scientific uncertainty about the potential impacts of climate
change on Puerto Rico, 14% were neutral, while 47% disagreed and strongly disagreed with
the statement. The majority (60%) disagreed and strongly disagreed that there is scientific
uncertainty about the causes of climate change; 16% were neutral, and 24% agreed and
strongly agreed with the statement. Regarding the statement related to feeling uncertain about
the relationship between climate change and occurrence of strong hurricanes in the Atlantic,
25% agreed and strongly agreed, 13% were neutral, and 63% disagreed and strongly disagreed.
Furthermore, respondents overwhelmingly agreed that human activities are an important
cause of climate change (3.2% disagreed and strongly disagreed, 5.4% were neutral, and 91.4%
agreed and strongly agreed).
Structural equation model
The structural equation model (S3–S5 Tables; Fig 5) demonstrates that four of the seven
hypothesized pathways were statistically significant (p <0.05); S3 Table shows results for all
variables, including control variables. S4 Table shows results of indirect effects, and S5 Table
shows results of total effects. Goodness-of-fit criteria suggests the model is acceptable:
RMSEA = 0.062, CFI = 0.809, SRMR = 0.062.
The model shows that reported hurricane damages and reported past experience with simi-
lar extreme events to Maria are not significantly predictive of the psychological distance of cli-
mate change amongst Puerto Rican farmers, a rejection of H1. Moreover, none of the control
variables (age, gender, farm size, bonafide, education, and income) were linked to the psycho-
logical distance of climate change (S3 Table). However, both perceived capacity and vulnera-
bility are significant and negatively related to the psychological distance of climate change
(p <0.05) (H2). In other words, farmers that perceived climate change as more distant had
lower rates of perceived capacity (b= -0.138, p = 0.022), and were less likely to perceive their
Fig 5. Structural equation model results for the hypothesized model. Thick arrows show significance (p <0.05).
Standardize coefficients are also shown (b). The model controls for farmer and farm characteristics, including age,
gender, household income, farm size, education, and bonafide. Goodness-of-fit criteria suggest an overall good fit:
RMSEA = 0.062, CFI = 0.809, SRMR = 0.062. Results of indirect effects and total effects are in S4 and S5 Tables,
respectively.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0244512.g005
PLOS ONE
Farmers’ actual adoption and climate change perceptions after a natural hazard
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0244512 January 27, 2021 12 / 22

farms as vulnerable to future extreme weather events (b= -0.162, p = 0.013). We find no signif-
icant direct relationship between psychological distance of climate change and motivation to
adapt; however, we did find that it had a significant and negative indirect effect on motivation
to adapt (b= -0.176, p = 0.015). This finding suggests that regardless of farmers’ reporting
higher rates of perceived capacity and vulnerability, motivation to adapt will be negatively
impacted if they are psychologically distant.
Both perceived capacity (b = 0.584, p = 0.013) and perceived vulnerability (b= 0.254,
p = 0.001) were positively linked to motivation to adapt, suggesting that higher rates of both
perceived self-capacity and vulnerability were linked to higher rates of motivation to adapt.
Finally, we do not find any significant effect of motivation to adopt on actual adoption of cli-
mate adaptation practices and management strategies, a rejection of H3. There were also no
indirect effects of other variables on our main dependent variable.
We find no significant relationships between control variables and reported past experience
with similar extreme events (S3 Table). Regarding reported hurricane damages, farmers who
are participants of the bonafide program of the Puerto Rico Department of Agriculture were
more likely (b= 0.136, p = 0.028) to report higher rates of damages to their farms due to Hurri-
cane Maria. Furthermore, education level was negatively linked to reported damages by Hurri-
cane Maria (b= -0.188, p = 0.001), meaning that increasing levels of formal education were
linked to reporting lower rates of damages.
Discussion
This study examined Puerto Rican farmers’ actual adoption of agricultural practices and man-
agement strategies after Hurricane Maria as a function of psychological distance of climate
change, and in relation to perceived capacity, perceived vulnerability, and motivation to adapt.
Studies have used psychological distance to climate change to better understand whether this
framing can prompt individual mitigation or adaptation actions. Moreover, the trend in the
literature is that reduced psychological distance―mainly through experience with extreme
weather events―will correlate with action [26,32–34,37,39,66]. Our results show a different
picture. We found that Puerto Rican farmers recognize climate change as a local and global
issue, suggesting that climate change is neither psychologically close or far, but instead that
farmers have a psychological awareness of climate change’s impacts across multiple time
frames, geographies, and social constructs. We also found that neither reported experience
with past extreme weather events, nor the reported damages effected by Maria were linked to
farmers’ psychological distance of climate change. Furthermore, farmers overwhelmingly per-
ceived themselves as having the capacity and motivation to adapt to climate change. And
though psychological distance did not have a direct effect on motivation to adapt, it did have
an indirect effect on it through perceived self-capacity and vulnerability (S4 and S5 Tables).
Thus, perceived self-capacity and perceive vulnerability, potentially, mediate psychological dis-
tance’s effects on reported motivation to adapt. Nevertheless, none of these variables were
found to be significantly linked to actual adoption of agricultural practices and management
strategies after Hurricane Maria. The majority of farmers did not report adopted practices or
management strategies to adapt to future extreme weather events eight months after Hurricane
Maria, and motivation to adapt was not significantly related to actual adoption. These results
highlight that perceived capacity and motivation to adapt, as well as high levels of climate
change belief, are not driving on-farm adaptation behaviors, providing important implications
for adaptation research and practice.
Given that farmers actual adoption of agricultural practices and management strategies was
not significantly linked to perceived self-capacity, perceived vulnerability, and motivation to
PLOS ONE
Farmers’ actual adoption and climate change perceptions after a natural hazard
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0244512 January 27, 2021 13 / 22

adapt―variables that have been shown to positively affect decision-making around climate
change adaptation [9]―future research and practitioners could focus on drivers and barriers at
broader levels (e.g. community, institutional, regional, national) to strengthen adaptive capac-
ity. The fact that Puerto Rican farmers report overall perceived capacity and motivation to
adapt, and that they understand their farms to be vulnerable, could suggest that farmers may
be open to participate in strategies and interventions around climate change adaptation, but
may lack other capacities beyond the individual level.
Unlike Spence et al. (2011), we did not find that reported experience with Maria or the psy-
chological distance of climate change were strongly linked to motivation to adapt. The struc-
tural equation model (Fig 5) showed that perceiving climate change to be psychologically
distant is linked to reporting lower rates of perceived self-capacity. The same was shown for
perceived vulnerability to extreme weather events. Farmers that perceived climate change to
be far were more likely to report lower rates of perceive farm vulnerability. These findings are
consistent with other work [11,26,67]. Experiencing climate change impacts or perceiving it
to be close may inform how to manage the situation to reduce or avoid impacts (increasing
perceive capacity), and inform on the extent of damages those impacts cause (increasing per-
ceived vulnerability) [9,11,26,31,34]. Nevertheless, farmers’ psychological distance of climate
change does not explain much of both perceived capacity (R2 = 0.019) and vulnerability
(R2 = 0.026). And farmers also showed awareness of climate change impacts both near and far.
This could suggest that constant experience with impacts (e.g. cumulative hazards or com-
pound risks) might have become part of the “status quo” [11], and not have a strong influence
on reporting that one is capable to adapt or that the system in which one works is vulnerable.
This assertion, as well as a more nuanced exploration of perceived capacity and vulnerability,
should be further examined.
But perhaps most important, is that we find no relationship between motivation to adapt
and actual adoption eight months after Hurricane Maria, suggesting that other barriers to
adoption exist, especially in areas constantly affected by extreme weather events. Farmers in
Latin America, the Caribbean, and Africa have expressed concern for climate change at differ-
ent scales, but such perceptions are poorly linked to actual climate change adaptation [40,68–
70]. For example, Harvey and colleagues (2018) found that regardless of perceiving and
experiencing climate change risks and impacts, Central American farmers showed low adop-
tion of adaptation practices in response to climate change’s impacts, primarily because of low
adaptive capacity due to social determinants and structural barriers, such as level of education,
household income, access to disaster aid, land tenure, and others [67]. Taking into account the
damage caused by Hurricane Marı
´a and its aftermath, as well as the poor subsequent recovery
efforts, our findings suggest that to strengthen farmers’ adaptive capacity we must look at
other determinants beyond the individual level.
Farmers in Latin America [67,68], and the Caribbean [70,71] have been noted to lack insti-
tutional structures of support. In Puerto Rico, Perfecto and colleagues (2019) found that social
capital and support networks were pivotal for Puerto Rican coffee farmers’ recovery after Hur-
ricane Marı
´a, and that their agroecological practices, such as agroforestry, and other manage-
ment styles were not sufficient for farms to be resilient and resistant within the catastrophic
context of Hurricane Maria [54].
Hurricane Marı
´a affected all of Puerto Rico, causing 2,975 deaths [72], and decimated the
archipelago’s agriculture. As such, we argue that reasons and circumstances beyond the self
(perceptions) deserve more attention to better understand Puerto Rican farmers’ decision-
making, and increase their adaptive capacity. This conclusion aligns with a recent review by
Wilson and colleagues (2020), which showed that studies on adaptation have taken two roads:
one that seeks to understand the role of social and cognitive variables in adaptation behaviors,
PLOS ONE
Farmers’ actual adoption and climate change perceptions after a natural hazard
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0244512 January 27, 2021 14 / 22

and another on how structural factors enact adaptation [73]. It is important to fill in the
research gap on how societal and governance structures interact with social and cognitive
beliefs in eliciting adaptation behaviors [73].
Our results on overall climate change perceptions, and farmers’ psychological distance of
climate change, align with a study by the Puerto Rican Department of Natural Resources that
state that Puerto Ricans believe in, are aware of, and are concerned about climate change [74].
Puerto Rican farmers, overwhelmingly, understand that the climate is changing. This aware-
ness of climate change as a threat is strong in Latin America and the Caribbean, where farmers
and non-farmers are aware of the impacts related to climate change [68,75,76]. Surveyed
farmers understand that climate change is happening now (temporal), that it will affect farmers
and non-farmers (social), and that it will affect local and global agriculture (spatial). These
results are in contrast to some existing research from the mainland of the U.S., where climate
change belief among farmers is not nearly as high, especially in the perception of its anthropo-
genic causes [e.g. 77,78]. Conversely, these results are more aligned with farmer perceptions
of climate change from low-income countries, where climate change belief is overwhelmingly
high [e.g. 79,80]. This evidence may suggest that when a threshold for climate change belief is
passed (e.g. a large percent of the population acknowledges the issue, potentially achieved by
continued exposure to extreme events or a collective social understanding), climate change
belief and psychological distance framing may no longer play a significant role in adaptation
behaviors. In other words, when enough people recognize climate change as a problem, both
locally and globally, it may no longer catalyze action for climate mitigation or adaptation―-
other barriers may exist. This should be further studied.
Our respondents were heavily affected by Hurricane Marı
´a; 42.6% reported total loss, while
45.6% reported significant losses. Given the absolute prevalence of damage across our popula-
tion, these outcomes may relate to the fact that we find no relationship of reported damage to
psychological distance. It is important to underscore that the last hurricane to directly impact
Puerto Rico before Maria was 1998’s Hurricane Georges. Moreover, Puerto Rico, as well as the
Caribbean, have experienced concurrent hazards and been subject to non-landing hurricanes
[4,53,81]. And given the age span of our participants, assuming they have lived in Puerto
Rico, we can say that they have experienced over 50 tropical storms and hurricanes [53,81]. As
such, these results further lend evidence to the idea of a “extreme events” threshold, whereby a
certain frequency and intensity of extreme events no longer impacts climate change belief or
psychological distance. Nevertheless, “experience” in this study was examined through
reported actual damage by the hurricane, as well as reporting experiencing similar events to
Maria in the past 10 years. Given that experience has been measured in different ways, result-
ing in varied results, a future study should inquire deeply about what it means to “experience”
an extreme event, and explore this issue longitudinally [82,83]. Furthermore, looking at expe-
rience and climate change perceptions from a qualitative perspective could also elicit a broader
understanding about their linkage to experience and adaptation [84].
Summarizing our results and implications, our study shows that the psychological distance
of climate change may not be an appropriate framework to understand adaptation behaviors,
especially in island settings or other regions where climate change beliefs are overwhelmingly
high. Furthermore, as the public sentiment and acknowledgement of climate change grows
[85,86], it indicates that the framework may also need reconsideration in other geographical
and social contexts. While farmers in island and disadvantaged areas, who are at the forefront
of constant climate change-related impacts, may have already reached a climate change belief
saturation, it could be forthcoming in other regions and types of people. These results suggest
that, if such things occur, climate change belief will likely not be an important driver of climate
change adaptation. Furthermore, that perceived capacity and motivation to adapt were also
PLOS ONE
Farmers’ actual adoption and climate change perceptions after a natural hazard
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0244512 January 27, 2021 15 / 22

unrelated to actual adaptation behaviors post-hurricane further highlight the need to examine
structural, political, and other non-individual barriers to adaptation. It is important to under-
stand the degree to which psychological awareness (not distance) of climate change relates to
other adaptation perceptions and decision-making, but this should co-exist with further efforts
to more clearly examine non-individual barriers to adaptation. Adaptive capacity cannot be
reduced to something that is dependent on the individual because then we could be contribut-
ing on the assertion that the genesis of vulnerability lies on the individual [87]. Vulnerability to
natural hazards is a systemic issue, and farmers’ adaptation to climate change, as a decision-
making process, is subject to structural interactions that cannot be overlooked.
Limitations
We note some limitations in this study. First, to the best of our knowledge, there is no previous
study looking at Puerto Rican or Caribbean farmers’ psychological distance of climate change
before and after an extreme weather event. We lack information on the issue before Hurricane
Maria or other events. This limits our ability to understand if their psychological awareness is
driven by experience. Nonetheless, Extension Service’s internal data before Hurricane Maria
showed that farmers were aware of climate change’s impacts at different scales. Second, farm-
ers surveyed showed higher percentage of income from farming than that reported in census
data [53], and we had an overrepresentation of bonafide farmers. Nevertheless, most of the
demographic factors of surveyed farmers here align with those of the latest agricultural census
for Puerto Rico (Table 3). Third, the variables we used to measure experience might not have
capture a nuanced understanding of experience with extreme weather events [82,83]. None-
theless, we use variables that have been used in past research regarding the psychological dis-
tance of climate change. Furthermore, given that most farmers surveyed for this study receive
information from, or are linked to the Extension Service, this might suggest that they have
higher access to information and resources, which may affect their understanding of climate
change and other related issues. As research in island systems on this topic continues to grow,
there is opportunity for broader engagement with farmers, including those not directly inte-
grated with the Extension Service. We also acknowledge that single item measurements for
perceived self-capacity, vulnerability, and motivation is a limitation. This is something that
can lead to mono-operation bias. Future studies could investigate these concepts through dif-
ferent constructs, quantitatively and qualitatively. Regarding our main dependent variable, we
did not evaluate types of practices (e.g. if they are recommended for adaptation) or how other
variables than those related to adaptation perceptions had direct effects on actual adoption of
agricultural practices. We understand this to be a limitation.
Conclusion
Farmers’ adaptive capacity must be strengthened to decrease their vulnerability to natural haz-
ards. In order to do so, perceptions around adaptation and risk should be considered given
that climate change adaptation―a set of decisions at the individual level―is one key action to
increase adaptive capacity. Here we examined the extent to which Puerto Rican farmers’ adop-
tion of agricultural practices to prepare for future events after Hurricane Maria relates to adap-
tation perceptions as a function of their psychological distance of climate change. We found
that Puerto Rican farmers are psychologically aware of climate change impacts at different
levels―local to global. These findings contrast with research in continental and high-income
countries that seeks to reduce psychological distance to climate change amongst individuals to
prompt mitigation and adaptation actions. And though farmers perceived their farms to be
vulnerable to future extreme weather events, they report to perceive themselves capable and
PLOS ONE
Farmers’ actual adoption and climate change perceptions after a natural hazard
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0244512 January 27, 2021 16 / 22

motivated to adapt to climate change. Nevertheless, none of these variables were linked to
their actual adoption of agricultural practices and management strategies after Hurricane
Maria. As a result, we suggest that factors beyond the individual, including institutional frame-
works of support, must be better understood. Research on the psychological distance of cli-
mate change should consider that we may have reached a threshold where climate change
perceptions are not significant drivers of change. Hence, we suggest that understanding peo-
ples’ “psychological awareness of climate change” and its relation to the social-ecological
dynamics could provide a more nuanced comprehension of climate change adaptation than
focusing on how being “close” or “far” enacts change.
Supporting information
S1 Table. Exploratory factor analysis results for pilot study’s assessment of the psychologi-
cal distance of climate change scale. Factor loadings are shown, as well as the Cronbach’s
alpha for statements altogether.
(DOCX)
S2 Table. Reported adoption of agricultural practices and management strategies after
Hurricane Maria to prepare for future extreme weather events. Frequencies and percentage
were calculated based upon the 397 farmers that answered this section of the survey.
(DOCX)
S3 Table. Structural equation model structural results for our hypothesized model. Stan-
dardized coefficients (β), bootstrap standard error (SE), and significance level (p) are included.
(DOCX)
S4 Table. Structural equation model structural results for indirect effects of our hypothe-
sized model. Standardized coefficients (β), bootstrap standard error (SE), and significance
level (p) are included.
(DOCX)
S5 Table. Structural equation model structural results for total effects of our hypothesized
model. Standardized coefficients (β), bootstrap standard error (SE), and significance level (p)
are included.
(DOCX)
Acknowledgments
We acknowledge and thank all the Puerto Rican farmers that participated in this project, and
the agricultural agents of the Extension Service of the University of Puerto Rico at Mayagu¨ez,
who enumerated the surveys. We are grateful to Dr. Anı
´bal Ruiz-Lugo, dean of the Extension
Service, for leading the logistics and efforts on-site to carry out this project. Much thanks to
Maritzabel Morales and the administrative team of the Extension Service for scanning all the
surveys and assisting with administrative logistics, and to Olivia Peña for assisting in data
entry. We are also thankful to Drs. Marı
´a del Carmen Rodrı
´guez-Rodrı
´guez, Robinson Rodrı
´-
guez-Pe
´rez, and Fernando Pe
´rez-Muñoz for assisting in the completion of the project. We are
grateful to Dr. Jim Vigoreaux, Agro. Kiria Hurtado, and Carmen Gonza
´lez-Toro for proof-
reading the Spanish version of the survey. We also acknowledge the colleagues who read the
first draft of this paper, and provide us with meaningful review comments. Specially, we thank
Amy Trubek, Teresa Mares, Diana Hackenberg, Maya Moore, Carolyn Hricko, and Caitlin B.
Morgan. We also acknowledge two anonymous reviewers who provided key recommenda-
tions to improve this paper.
PLOS ONE
Farmers’ actual adoption and climate change perceptions after a natural hazard
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0244512 January 27, 2021 17 / 22

Author Contributions
Conceptualization: Luis Alexis Rodrı
´guez-Cruz, Meredith T. Niles.
Data curation: Luis Alexis Rodrı
´guez-Cruz.
Formal analysis: Luis Alexis Rodrı
´guez-Cruz, Meredith T. Niles.
Funding acquisition: Meredith T. Niles.
Investigation: Luis Alexis Rodrı
´guez-Cruz, Meredith T. Niles.
Methodology: Luis Alexis Rodrı
´guez-Cruz, Meredith T. Niles.
Project administration: Luis Alexis Rodrı
´guez-Cruz.
Supervision: Meredith T. Niles.
Writing – original draft: Luis Alexis Rodrı
´guez-Cruz.
Writing – review & editing: Meredith T. Niles.
References
1. Adger WN. Vulnerability. Global Environmental Change. 2006 Aug; 16(3):268–81.
2. Wisner B, Gaillard J, Kelman I. Framing disaster: Theories and stories seeking to understand hazards,
vulnerability and risk. In: The Routledge Handbook of Hazards and Disaster Risk Reduction. 1st ed.
London; New York: Routledge; 2012. p. 18–33.
3. Lo
´pez-Marrero T. An integrative approach to study and promote natural hazards adaptive capacity: a
case study of two flood-prone communities in Puerto Rico: An integrative approach to study and pro-
mote natural hazards adaptive capacity. Geographical Journal. 2010 Feb 25; 176(2):150–63.
4. Lo
´pez-Marrero T, Wisner B. Not in the Same Boat: Disasters and Differential Vulnerability in the Insular
Caribbean. Caribbean Studies. 2012; 40(2):129–68.
5. Adger WN, Vincent K. Uncertainty in adaptive capacity. Comptes Rendus Geoscience. 2005 Mar; 337
(4):399–410.
6. Smit B, Wandel J. Adaptation, adaptive capacity and vulnerability. Global Environmental Change. 2006
Aug; 16(3):282–92.
7. Brooks N, Adger WN. Assessing and Enhancing Adaptive Capacity. In: Adaptation Policy Frameworks
for Climate Change: Developing Strategies, Policies and Measures. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press; 2005. p. 165–82.
8. Wisner B, Blaikie P, Cannon T, Davis I. At Risk: Natural hazards, people’s vulnerability and disasters.
2nd ed. New York and London: Routledge; 2004.
9. van Valkengoed AM, Steg L. Meta-analyses of factors motivating climate change adaptation behaviour.
Nature Climate Change. 2019 Feb; 9(2):158–63.
10. Niles MT, Brown M, Dynes R. Farmer’s intended and actual adoption of climate change mitigation and
adaptation strategies. Climatic Change. 2016; 135(2):277–95.
11. Gardezi M, Arbuckle JG. Techno-Optimism and Farmers’ Attitudes Toward Climate Change Adapta-
tion. Environment and Behavior. 2020 Jan; 52(1):82–105.
12. Holt-Gime
´nez E. Measuring farmers’ agroecological resistance after Hurricane Mitch in Nicaragua: a
case study in participatory, sustainable land management impact monitoring. Agriculture, Ecosystems
& Environment. 2002 Dec; 93(1–3):87–105.
13. Shinbrot XA, Jones KW, Rivera-Castañeda A, Lo
´pez-Ba
´ez W, Ojima DS. Smallholder Farmer Adoption
of Climate-Related Adaptation Strategies: The Importance of Vulnerability Context, Livelihood Assets,
and Climate Perceptions. Environmental Management. 2019 May; 63(5):583–95. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s00267-019-01152-z PMID: 30838432
14. Adger WN. Social Capital, Collective Action, and Adaptation to Climate Change. Economic Geography.
2003; 79(4):387–404.
15. Fernandez M, Me
´ndez VE. Subsistence under the canopy: Agrobiodiversity’s contributions to food and
nutrition security amongst coffee communities in Chiapas, Mexico. Agroecology and Sustainable Food
Systems. 2019 May 28; 43(5):579–601.
PLOS ONE
Farmers’ actual adoption and climate change perceptions after a natural hazard
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0244512 January 27, 2021 18 / 22

16. Niles MT, Mueller ND. Farmer perceptions of climate change: Associations with observed temperature
and precipitation trends, irrigation, and climate beliefs. Global Environmental Change. 2016; 39:133–
42.
17. A
´lvarez-Berrı
´os NL, Soto-Bayo
´S, Holupchinski E, Fain SJ, Gould WA. Correlating drought conserva-
tion practices and drought vulnerability in a tropical agricultural system. Renewable Agriculture and
Food Systems. 2018 Jun; 33(3):279–91.
18. Lowitt K, Hickey GM, Saint Ville A, Raeburn K, Thompson-Colo
´n T, Laszlo S, et al. Factors affecting the
innovation potential of smallholder farmers in the Caribbean Community. Regional Environmental
Change. 2015 Oct; 15(7):1367–77.
19. Rosset PM, Sosa BM, Jaime AMR, Lozano DRA
´. The Campesino-to-Campesino agroecology move-
ment of ANAP in Cuba: Social process methodology in the construction of sustainable peasant agricul-
ture and food sovereignty. Journal of Peasant Studies. 2011; 38(1):161–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/
03066150.2010.538584 PMID: 21284238
20. Saint Ville AS, Hickey GM, Phillip LE. Institutional analysis of food and agriculture policy in the Carib-
bean: The case of Saint Lucia. 2017 [cited 2018 Aug 15]; Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
jrurstud.2017.03.004
21. Scandurra G, Romano AA, Ronghi M, Carfora A. On the vulnerability of Small Island Developing States:
A dynamic analysis. Ecological Indicators. 2017; 84:382–92.
22. Borges-Me
´ndez R, Caron C. Decolonizing Resilience: The Case of Reconstructing the Coffee Region
of Puerto Rico After Hurricanes Irma and Maria. Journal of Extreme Events. 2019 Mar; 06(01):1940001.
23. Fe
´lix G, Holt-Gime
´nez E. Hurricane Marı
´a: An Agroecological Turning Point for Puerto Rico? Food First
Backgrounder. 2017; 23(4).
24. Moulton AA, Machado MR. Bouncing Forward After Irma and Maria: Acknowledging Colonialism, Prob-
lematizing Resilience and Thinking Climate Justice. Journal of Extreme Events. 2019 Mar; 06
(01):1940003.
25. Grothmann T, Patt A. Adaptive capacity and human cognition: The process of individual adaptation to
climate change. Global Environmental Change. 2005 Oct; 15(3):199–213.
26. Niles MT, Lubell M, Brown M. How limiting factors drive agricultural adaptation to climate change. Agri-
culture, Ecosystems and Environment. 2015; 200:178–85.
27. Prokopy LS, Floress K, Arbuckle JG, Church SP, Eanes FR, Gao Y, et al. Adoption of agricultural con-
servation practices in the United States: Evidence from 35 years of quantitative literature. Journal of
Soil and Water Conservation. 2019; 74(5):520–34.
28. Gebrehiwot T, van der Veen A. Farmers Prone to Drought Risk: Why Some Farmers Undertake Farm-
Level Risk-Reduction Measures While Others Not? Environmental Management. 2015 Mar; 55(3):588–
602. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-014-0415-7 PMID: 25537152
29. Bagagnan A, Ouedraogo I, M. Fonta W, Sowe M, Wallis A. Can Protection Motivation Theory Explain
Farmers’ Adaptation to Climate Change Decision Making in The Gambia? Climate. 2019 Jan 14; 7
(1):13.
30. Luu TA, Nguyen AT, Trinh QA, Pham VT, Le BB, Nguyen DT, et al. Farmers’ Intention to Climate
Change Adaptation in Agriculture in the Red River Delta Biosphere Reserve (Vietnam): A Combination
of Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) and Protection Motivation Theory (PMT). Sustainability. 2019
May 27; 11(10):2993.
31. Spence A, Poortinga W, Butler C, Pidgeon NF. Perceptions of climate change and willingness to save
energy related to flood experience. Nature Climate Change. 2011; 1(1):46–9.
32. Bru¨gger A. Understanding the psychological distance of climate change: The limitations of construal
level theory and suggestions for alternative theoretical perspectives. Global Environmental Change.
2020 Jan; 60:102023.
33. McDonald RI, Chai HY, Newell BR. Personal experience and the “psychological distance” of climate
change: An integrative review. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 2015; 44:109–18.
34. Spence A, Poortinga W, Pidgeon N. The Psychological Distance of Climate Change. Risk Analysis.
2012; 32(6):957–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01695.x PMID: 21992607
35. Trope Y, Liberman N. Construal-Level Theory of Psychological Distance. Psychological Review. 2010;
117(2):440–63. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018963 PMID: 20438233
36. Liberman N, Trope Y. The Psychology of Transcending the Here and Now. Vol. 322, Source: Science,
New Series. 2008.
37. Bru¨gger A, Morton TA, Dessai S. “Proximising” climate change reconsidered: A construal level theory
perspective. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 2016; 46:125–42.
PLOS ONE
Farmers’ actual adoption and climate change perceptions after a natural hazard
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0244512 January 27, 2021 19 / 22

38. Jones C, Hine DW, Marks ADG. The Future is Now: Reducing Psychological Distance to Increase Pub-
lic Engagement with Climate Change. Risk Analysis. 2017; 37(2):331–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.
12601 PMID: 26989845
39. Singh AS, Zwickle A, Bruskotter JT, Wilson R. The perceived psychological distance of climate change
impacts and its influence on support for adaptation policy. Environmental Science & Policy. 2017;
73:93–9.
40. Acharibasam JW, Anuga SW. Psychological distance of climate change and mental health risks
assessment of smallholder farmers in Northern Ghana: Is habituation a threat to climate change? Cli-
mate Risk Management. 2018; 21:16–25.
41. Larcom S, She P-W, van Gevelt T. The UK summer heatwave of 2018 and public concern over energy
security. Nature Climate Change. 2019 May; 9(5):370–3.
42. Albright EA, Crow D. Beliefs about climate change in the aftermath of extreme flooding. Climatic
Change. 2019 Jul; 155(1):1–17.
43. Zanocco C, Boudet H, Nilson R, Satein H, Whitley H, Flora J. Place, proximity, and perceived harm:
extreme weather events and views about climate change. Climatic Change. 2018; 149(3–4):349–65.
44. Bang HN, Miles LS, Gordon RD. Hurricane Occurrence and Seasonal Activity: An Analysis of the 2017
Atlantic Hurricane Season. American Journal of Climate Change. 2019; 08(04):454–81.
45. Bueno R. Puerto Rico, Climatic Extremes, and the Economics of Resilience. Climate Policy Brief. 2017;
(6).
46. Bueno R, Herzfeld C, Stanton E a., Ackerman F. The caribbean and climate change: The costs of inac-
tion [Internet]. Stockholm Environment Institute and Global Development and Environment Institute,
Tufts University; 2008 [cited 2018 Apr 12] p. 35. Available from: http://www.sei-us.org/climate-and-
energy/Caribbean_Inaction_Cost.htm%5Cnhttp://www.gdae.org/CaribbeanClimate.html
47. Carro-Figueroa V. Agricultural Decline and Food Import Dependency in Puerto Rico: A Historical Per-
spective on the Outcomes of Postwar Farm and Food Policies. Caribbean Studies. 2002; 30(2):77–107.
48. Gould WA. Caribbean Regional Climate Sub Hub Assessment of Climate Change Vulnerability and
Adaptation and Mitigation Strategies. 2015; 67.
49. Myrna Comas-Paga
´n. Plan de sguridad alimentaria. San Juan, Puerto Rico: Puerto Rico Department of
Agriculture; 2014 p. 40.
50. Irizarry-Ruiz C. Desafı
´os de la agricultura en Puerto Rico para garantizar la seguridad alimentaria. In:
Retos que conlleva la reutilizacio
´n de aguas residuales en la agricultura. San Juan, Puerto Rico; 2016.
51. FAO. Food security and nutrition in small island developing states (SIDS). Policy Paper. 2014;16.
52. Weis T. Small farming and radical imaginations in the Caribbean today. Race & Class. 2007 Oct; 49
(2):112–7.
53. Lo
´pez-Marrero T, Castro-Rivera A. Actividad ciclo
´nica en Puerto Rico y sus alrededores: 1867 al 2017.
Mayagu¨ez, Puerto Rico: Centro Interdisciplinario de Estudios del Litoral; 2018. 12 p. https://doi.org/10.
1107/S1600577518007166 PMID: 29979188
54. Perfecto I, Hajian-Forooshani Z, Iverson A, Irizarry AD, Lugo-Perez J, MedinaN, et al. Response of Cof-
fee Farms to Hurricane Maria: Resistance and Resilience from an Extreme Climatic Event. Scientific
Reports [Internet]. 2019 Dec [cited 2019 Nov 5]; 9(1). Available from: http://www.nature.com/articles/
s41598-019-51416-1 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-51416-1 PMID: 31666543
55. Puerto Rico’s Agriculture and Farmers Decimated by Maria—The New York Times [Internet]. [cited
2020 Sep 25]. Available from: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/24/us/puerto-rico-hurricane-maria-
agriculture-.html
56. USDA NASS. 2017 Census of Agriculture—Puerto Rico Data [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2020 Jun 12]
p. 117. Available from: https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2017/index.php
57. Haden VR, Niles MT, Lubell M, Perlman J, Jackson LE. Global and Local Concerns: What Attitudes and
Beliefs Motivate Farmers to Mitigate and Adapt to Climate Change? PLoS ONE [Internet]. 2012 [cited
2018 Sep 3]; 7(12). Available from: www.plosone.org https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0052882
PMID: 23300805
58. Response Rates—An Overview—AAPOR [Internet]. [cited 2020 Sep 23]. Available from: https://www.
aapor.org/Education-Resources/For-Researchers/Poll-Survey-FAQ/Response-Rates-An-Overview.
aspx
59. Nunnally JC. Psychometric Theory. McGraw-Hill; 1978.
60. Iacobucci D. Everything you always wanted to know about SEM (structural equations modeling) but
were afraid to ask. Journal of Consumer Psychology. 2009 Oct; 19(4):673–80.
PLOS ONE
Farmers’ actual adoption and climate change perceptions after a natural hazard
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0244512 January 27, 2021 20 / 22

61. Schreiber JB, Nora A, Stage FK, Barlow EA, King J. Reporting Structural Equation Modeling and Confir-
matory Factor Analysis Results: A Review. The Journal of Educational Research. 2006 Jul; 99(6):323–
38.
62. Tang J-W, Chen M-L, Chiu T-H. An Exploratory Study on Local Brand Value Development for Outlying
Island Agriculture: Local Food System and Actor-Network Theory Perspectives. Sustainability. 2018
Nov; 10(11):4186.
63. Lai K. Estimating Standardized SEM Parameters Given Nonnormal Data and Incorrect Model: Methods
and Comparison. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal. 2018 Jul 4; 25(4):600–20.
64. USDA NASS. USDA Releases 2018 Puerto Rico Census of Agriculture [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2020 Jun
12]. Available from: https://www.nass.usda.gov/Newsroom/2020/06-09-2020.php
65. Dı
´az Rolo
´n A. Aspira a que haya ma
´s agricultores bonafide [Internet]. El Vocero de Puerto Rico. 2019
[cited 2020 Jun 12]. Available from: https://www.elvocero.com/gobierno/aspira-a-que-haya-m-s-
agricultores-bonafide/article_017eaa76-a2b8-11e9-9255-8773684782d5.html
66. Ray A, Hughes L, Konisky DM, Kaylor C. Extreme weather exposure and support for climate change
adaptation. Global Environmental Change. 2017; 46:104–13.
67. Harvey CA, Saborio-Rodrı
´guez M, Martinez-Rodrı
´guez MR, Viguera B, Chain-Guadarrama A, Vignola
R, et al. Climate change impacts and adaptation among smallholder farmers in Central America. Agri-
culture & Food Security [Internet]. 2018 Dec [cited 2020 Oct 1]; 7(1). Available from: https://
agricultureandfoodsecurity.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40066-018-0209-x
68. Viguera B, Alpizar F, Harvey CA, Martı
´nez-Rodrı
´guez MR, Saborı
´o-Rodrı
´guez M. Percepciones de
cambio clima
´tico y respuestas adaptativas de caficultores costarricenses de pequeña escala. Agrono-
mı
´a Mesoamericana. 2019 May 1;333–51.
69. Viguera B, Alpizar F, Harvey CA, Martı
´nez-Rodrı
´guez MR, Saborı
´o-Rodrı
´guez M, Contreras L. Climate
change perceptions and adaptive responses of small-scale farmers in two Guatemalan landscapes.
Agronomı
´a Mesoamericana. 2019; 30(2):313’331.
70. Campbell Donovan, Barker D, McGregor D. Dealing with drought: Small farmers and environmental
hazards in southern St. Elizabeth, Jamaica. Applied Geography. 2011; 31:146–58.
71. Stancioff C, Stojanov R, Kelman I, Němec D, Landa J, Tichy R, et al. Local Perceptions of Climate
Change Impacts in St. Kitts (Caribbean Sea) and Male
´, Maldives (Indian Ocean). Atmosphere. 2018
Nov 22; 9(12):459.
72. Santos-Burgoa C. Acertainment of the Estimated Excess Mortality from Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico.
pdf [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2019 May 20]. Available from: https://publichealth.gwu.edu/sites/default/files/
downloads/projects/PRstudy/Acertainment%20of%20the%20Estimated%20Excess%20Mortality%
20from%20Hurricane%20Maria%20in%20Puerto%20Rico.pdf
73. Wilson RS, Herziger A, Hamilton M, Brooks JS. From incremental to transformative adaptation in indi-
vidual responses to climate-exacerbated hazards. Nature Climate Change. 2020 Feb 10;1–9.
74. Departamento de Recursos Naturales de Puerto Rico. Estudio de percepcio
´n pu
´blica sobre el riesgo y
la resiliencia al cambio clima
´tico [Internet]. San Juan, Puerto Rico: Puerto Rico Department of Natural
Resources; 2018 Sep [cited 2020 Jun 13] p. 95. Available from: http://drna.pr.gov/wp-content/uploads/
2019/01/Informe-final-Estudio-de-percepcion-publica-sobre-cambio-climatico.pdf
75. Lee TM, Markowitz EM, Howe PD, Ko CY, Leiserowitz AA. Predictors of public climate change aware-
ness and risk perception around the world. Nature Climate Change. 2015; 5(11):1014–20.
76. Forero EL, Herna
´ndez YT, Zafra CA. Percepcio
´n latinoamericana de cambio clima
´tico: metodologı
´as,
herramientas y estrategias de adaptacio
´n en comunidades locales. Una revisio
´n. Revista UDCA Actua-
lidad & Divulgacio
´n Cientı
´fica. 2014 Mar 10; 17(1):73–85.
77. Prokopy LS, Arbuckle JG, Barnes AP, Haden VR, Hogan A, Niles MT, et al. Farmers and Climate
Change: A Cross-National Comparison of Beliefs and Risk Perceptions in High-Income Countries. Envi-
ronmental Management. 2015 Aug; 56(2):492–504. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-015-0504-2 PMID:
25896821
78. Chatrchyan AM, Erlebacher RC, Chaopricha NT, Chan J, Tobin D, Allred SB. United States agricultural
stakeholder views and decisions on climate change. WIREs: Climate Change. 2017 Oct 9; 8(5):n/a-N.
PAG.
79. Waldman KB, Attari SZ, Gower DB, Giroux SA, Caylor KK, Evans TP. The salience of climate change in
farmer decision-making within smallholder semi-arid agroecosystems. Climatic Change. 2019 Oct 1;
156(4):527–43.
80. Debela N, Mohammed C, Bridle K, Corkrey R, McNeil D. Perception of climate change and its impact by
smallholders in pastoral/agropastoral systems of Borana, South Ethiopia. SpringerPlus. 2015 May 20; 4
(1):236. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-015-1012-9 PMID: 26069875
PLOS ONE
Farmers’ actual adoption and climate change perceptions after a natural hazard
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0244512 January 27, 2021 21 / 22

81. Lo
´pez-Marrero T, Castro-Rivera A. Let’s not forget about non-land-falling cyclones: tendencies and
impacts in Puerto Rico. Natural Hazards [Internet]. 2019 Aug 6 [cited 2019 Aug 22]; Available from:
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11069-019-03716-y https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-019-03584-6
PMID: 32214659
82. Demuth JL. Explicating Experience: Development of a Valid Scale of Past Hazard Experience for Tor-
nadoes. Risk Analysis. 2018; 38(9):1921–43. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12983 PMID: 29570826
83. Demuth JL, Morss RE, Lazo JK, Trumbo C. The Effects of Past Hurricane Experiences on Evacuation
Intentions through Risk Perception and Efficacy Beliefs: A Mediation Analysis. Weather, Climate, and
Society. 2016 Oct 1; 8(4):327–44.
84. Ranjan P, Church SP, Floress K, Prokopy LS. Synthesizing Conservation Motivations and Barriers:
What Have We Learned from Qualitative Studies of Farmers’ Behaviors in the United States? Society &
Natural Resources. 2019 Nov 2; 32(11):1171–99.
85. Gallup, Inc. World Risk Poll Reveals Global Threat From Climate Change [Internet]. Gallup.com. 2020
[cited 2020 Dec 2]. Available from: https://news.gallup.com/opinion/gallup/321635/world-risk-poll-
reveals-global-threat-climate-change.aspx
86. Leiserowitz A, Maibach E, Rosenthal S, Kotcher J, Bergquist P, Ballew M, et al. Climate Change in the
American Mind: April 2020. New Haven, CT: Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, Yale
University and George Mason University; 2020.
87. Ribot J. Cause and response: vulnerability and climate in the Anthropocene. The Journal of Peasant
Studies. 2014 Sep 3; 41(5):667–705.
PLOS ONE
Farmers’ actual adoption and climate change perceptions after a natural hazard
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0244512 January 27, 2021 22 / 22