Risk communication frameworks for extension agents delivering climate adaptation recommendations to farmers

Introduction

A critical disconnect plagues climate adaptation efforts in West African agriculture: extension agents carry scientific forecasts and recommended practices, but farmers often perceive these messages as abstract, irrelevant, or untrustworthy [1] . The problem isn't a shortage of adaptation technologies it's the failure to communicate climate risk in ways that resonate with how farmers actually process uncertainty and make decisions [2] . In northern Benin, where rainfall variability increased by 23% over the past two decades, farmers report receiving climate information they don't understand or can't act on from extension agents who themselves feel unprepared for the messenger role [3] . Risk communication research from health and disaster management fields offers well-tested frameworks, but these have rarely been adapted for agricultural extension contexts [4] . Slovic [5] showed that risk perception depends on factors like dread and familiarity rather than statistical probability alone. Fischhoff [6] argued that effective risk communication requires understanding the mental models audiences already hold. Yet most agricultural extension training includes little or no instruction in risk communication principles [7] . This research evaluated how different risk communication frameworks performed when extension agents delivered climate adaptation recommendations to farmers with varying literacy levels in Borgou and Alibori departments of northern Benin.

Materials and Methods

Materials

This research was conducted through the University of Parakou across Borgou (9.34°N, 2.62°E) and Alibori (11.13°N, 2.77°E) departments in northern Benin from February to October 2022. The semi-arid zone receives 900-1,100 mm annual rainfall with a unimodal pattern increasingly disrupted by delayed onset and dry spells. The sample included 86 extension agents and 342 farming households (four farmers per agent) selected through stratified random sampling. Agents were assigned to one of four communication framework conditions: probabilitybased (n=22), scenario-based (n=21), visual aid-based (n=22), and unstructured control (n=21). Each agent delivered identical climate adaptation content droughttolerant varieties, water harvesting, and planting date adjustment using their assigned framework. Ethical approval was granted by the University of Parakou Research Ethics Board (UP-REB-2022-014, approved January 18, 2022).

Instrument Development

A Risk Communication Assessment Tool (RCAT) was developed to measure farmer comprehension and agent delivery quality. Items were drawn from the Mental Models Approach to risk communication and adapted for agricultural contexts through consultation with eight extension specialists. The tool was pilot-tested with 30 farmers in Atacora department. Reliability testing yielded www.extensionjournal.com Cronbach's alpha of 0.82 for the comprehension subscale and 0.78 for the delivery quality subscale. The final RCAT contained 32 items across five domains: message clarity, risk perception change, behavioral intention, trust in source, and recall accuracy.

Methods

Farmer comprehension was assessed 48 hours after message delivery using the RCAT. Adaptation recommendation uptake was measured at three months post-delivery through on-farm observation. Data were analyzed in SPSS version 27 using two-way ANOVA (communication framework x education level), Pearson correlations for agent-level variables, and binary logistic regression for uptake predictors. Post-hoc Bonferroni corrections were applied for multiple comparisons. Qualitative data from 24 farmer interviews and 12 agent debriefings were thematically analyzed. Significance was set at p<0.05.

Ethical Considerations

Oral informed consent was obtained from all farmer participants, with consent procedures conducted in local Bariba and Dendi languages. Control group agents received structured framework training after the research period. All adaptation recommendations were evidence-based and posed no risk to participants. Agent identities were anonymized in all analyses. Visual aids and scenario-based frameworks produced the highest comprehension (3.9 and 3.8 respectively), significantly outperforming probability-based and unstructured approaches (Table 1; F = 21.4, df = 3, p<0.001). Adaptation uptake at three months was 2.4 times higher for scenario-based delivery (54.8%) than unstructured control (22.6%). Use of a structured communication framework was the strongest predictor of uptake (OR = 2.91, Table 2), meaning farmers were nearly three times more likely to adopt recommendations when agents used a structured approach. The model explained 39.6% of variance (Nagelkerke R²).

Results

Discussion

The near-threefold advantage of structured over unstructured communication confirms that how extension agents deliver climate risk messages matters as much as what they say [8] . The finding that probability-based framing performed poorly among less-educated farmers but well among tertiary-educated ones echoes Gigerenzer's [9] argument that statistical literacy shapes how people process numerical risk information. Extension services in Benin where over 60% of farmers lack formal education should move away from probability-based messaging toward visual and scenario-based approaches [10] . The strong correlation between agent training and delivery confidence (r = 0.57) highlights an overlooked investment gap. Most extension pre-service curricula in francophone West Africa include minimal risk communication training [11] . The four-step framework proposed in Figure 2 offers a practical structure that agents found intuitive during debriefing interviews. Several agents noted that simply having a sequence to follow assess, select, deliver, verify reduced their anxiety about communicating uncertain climate information [12] .

Practical Applications

Extension training programs should incorporate at least 20 hours of risk communication instruction, emphasizing scenario-based and visual framing techniques. Agents should be equipped with standardized visual aid kits that illustrate climate risks without requiring literacy. The fourstep framework (Figure 2) can serve as a field reference tool, and agencies should build teach-back verification into routine extension protocols to confirm farmer comprehension before concluding advisory visits.

Conclusion

Structured risk communication frameworks significantly improve both farmer comprehension and adoption of climate adaptation recommendations. Visual aids performed most consistently across literacy levels, while scenariobased framing drove the highest behavioral change.

Probability-based messaging should be reserved for audiences with strong quantitative backgrounds. The practical implication for Benin and comparable West African extension systems is clear: investing in agent communication skills yields measurable returns in adaptation uptake. A structured approach-assessing audience risk perception, selecting appropriate framing, using trusted delivery channels, and verifying comprehension transforms climate advisory from information delivery into genuine risk communication.

Acknowledgement

Acknowledgements Funding SourcesThis research was funded through the University of Parakou internal research program. No external commercial support was received. Institutional SupportThe authors acknowledge the Borgou and Alibori departmental agricultural offices for facilitating agent recruitment and field access.

References

1. Ouedraogo M, Zougmore RB, Barry S, Tamo M. Climate information and adaptation strategies among smallholder farmers in Burkina Faso. Climatic Change. 2015;135(3):617-630.
2. Hansen JW, Mason SJ, Sun L, Tall A. Review of seasonal climate forecasting for agriculture in subSaharan Africa. Experimental Agriculture. 2011;47(2):205-240.
3. Yegbemey RN, Yabi JA, Tovignan SD, Gantoli G, Haroll Kokoye SE. Farmers' decisions to adapt to climate change under various property rights: a case study of maize farming in northern Benin. Land Use Policy. 2013;34:168-175.
4. Renn O. Risk communication: insights and requirements for designing successful programs. Journal of Risk Research. 2009;12(7-8):963-979.
5. Slovic P. The perception of risk. London: Earthscan Publications; 2000.
6. Fischhoff B. Risk perception and communication unplugged: twenty years of process. Risk Analysis. 1995;15(2):137-145.
7. Haigh T, Morton LW, Lemos MC, Knutson C, Prokopy LS, Lo YJ. Agricultural advisors as climate information intermediaries: exploring differences in capacity to communicate climate. Weather, Climate, and Society. 2015;7(2):172-179.
8. Carr ER, Owusu-Daaku KN. The shifting epistemologies of vulnerability in climate services for development: the case of Ghana's "vulnerability mapping". Area. 2016;48(2):166-174.
9. Gigerenzer G, Gaissmaier W, Kurz-Milcke E, Schwartz LM. Helping doctors and patients make sense of health statistics. Psychological Science in the Public Interest. 2007;8(2):53-96.
10. Mapfumo P, Adjei-Nsiah S, Mtambanengwe F, Chikowo R, Giller KE. Participatory action research as an entry point for supporting climate change adaptation by smallholder farmers in Africa. Environmental Development. 2013;5:6-22.
11. Davis KE, Terblanche SE. Challenges facing the agricultural extension landscape in South Africa. South African Journal of Agricultural Extension. 2016;44(2):231-247.
12. Patt AG, Gwata C. Effective seasonal climate forecast applications: examining constraints for subsistence farmers in Zimbabwe. Global Environmental Change. 2002;12(3):185-195.
13. Roncoli C, Ingram K, Kirshen P. The costs and risks of coping with drought: livelihood impacts and farmers' responses in Burkina Faso. Climate Research. 2001;19(2):119-132.
14. Luseno WK, McPeak JG, Barrett CB, Little PD, Gebru G. Assessing the value of climate forecast information for pastoralists: evidence from southern Ethiopia and northern Kenya. World Development. 2003;31(9):14771494.
15. Maddison D. The perception of and adaptation to climate change in Africa. Washington (DC): World Bank; 2007. (World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 4308).
16. Below TB, Mutabazi KD, Kirschke D, Franke C. Can farmers' adaptation to climate change be explained by socio-economic household-level variables? Global Environmental Change. 2012;22(1):223-235.
17. Niles MT, Brown M, Dynes R. Farmer's intended and actual adoption of climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies. Climatic Change. 2016;135(2):277-295.