“Are They Aware, and Why?

” Bayesian
Analysis of Predictors of Smallholder
Farmers’ Awareness of Climate Change
and Its Risks to Agriculture John N.
Ng’Ombe
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/are-they-aware-and-why-bayesian-analysis-of-predict
ors-of-smallholder-farmers-awareness-of-climate-change-and-its-risks-to-agriculture-j
ohn-n-ngombe/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Introduction to 80×86 Assembly Language and Computer

Architecture – Ebook PDF Version

https://ebookmass.com/product/introduction-to-8086-assembly-
language-and-computer-architecture-ebook-pdf-version/

80+ Python Coding Challenges for Beginners: Python

Exercises to Make You a Better Programmer. No Prior
Experience Needed: 80+ Python Challenges to Launch ...
Journey. Katie Millie
https://ebookmass.com/product/80-python-coding-challenges-for-
beginners-python-exercises-to-make-you-a-better-programmer-no-
prior-experience-needed-80-python-challenges-to-launch-journey-
katie-millie/

Petit manuel de survie en médecine intensive-

réanimation : 80 procédures en poche Nicolas Lerolle

https://ebookmass.com/product/petit-manuel-de-survie-en-medecine-
intensive-reanimation-80-procedures-en-poche-nicolas-lerolle/

Biological Reaction Engineering: Dynamic Modeling

Fundamentals with 80 Interactive Simulation Examples
3rd Edition Elmar Heinzle

https://ebookmass.com/product/biological-reaction-engineering-
dynamic-modeling-fundamentals-with-80-interactive-simulation-
examples-3rd-edition-elmar-heinzle/
„■■■■ ■■■■ ■ ■■■■■■■■■...“ : ■■■■■■■ ■ ■■■■■ 80-■■■■
■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■ 2-■ ■■■■■■■, ■■■■■■■■■■■■ Edi
■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■

https://ebookmass.com/product/%d0%b1%d1%8b%d1%82%d1%8c-
%d1%82%d0%b5%d0%b1%d0%b5-%d0%b2-
%d0%ba%d0%b0%d1%82%d0%b0%d0%bb%d0%be%d0%b6%d0%ba%d0%b5-
%d1%81%d0%b1%d0%be%d1%80%d0%bd%d0%b8%d0%ba-%d0%b2-%d1%87%d0

The Philosophy of Comics: What They Are, How They Work,

and Why They Matter Henry John Pratt

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-philosophy-of-comics-what-they-
are-how-they-work-and-why-they-matter-henry-john-pratt/

Less Heat, More Light: A Guided Tour of Weather,

Climate, and Climate Change John D. Aber

https://ebookmass.com/product/less-heat-more-light-a-guided-tour-
of-weather-climate-and-climate-change-john-d-aber/

Anthropocene Realism: Fiction in the Age of Climate

Change John Thieme

https://ebookmass.com/product/anthropocene-realism-fiction-in-
the-age-of-climate-change-john-thieme/

Sustainability and Financial Risks: The Impact of

Climate Change, Environmental Degradation and Social
Inequality on Financial Markets 1st ed. Edition Marco
Migliorelli
https://ebookmass.com/product/sustainability-and-financial-risks-
the-impact-of-climate-change-environmental-degradation-and-
social-inequality-on-financial-markets-1st-ed-edition-marco-
Article
“Are They Aware, and Why?” Bayesian Analysis of
Predictors of Smallholder Farmers’ Awareness of
Climate Change and Its Risks to Agriculture
John N. Ng’ombe 1,2,*, Moses C. Tembo 3 and Blessing Masasi 4
1 Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849, USA
2 Department of Agricultural Economics and Extension, University of Zambia, Lusaka 10101, Zambia
3 Indaba Agricultural and Policy Research Institute, Lusaka 10101, Zambia; chifwambe@yahoo.com

4 Department of Biosystems and Agricultural Engineering, Oklahoma State University,

Stillwater, OK 74078, USA; blessing.masasi@okstate.edu

* Correspondence: ngombe@okstate.edu

Received: 9 February 2020; Accepted: 5 March 2020; Published: 9 March 2020

Abstract: While climate change threatens global food security, health, and nutrition outcomes,
Africa is more vulnerable because its economies largely depend on rain-fed agriculture. Thus, there
is need for agricultural producers in Africa to employ robust adaptive measures that withstand the
risks of climate change. However, the success of adaptation measures to climate change primarily
depends on the communities’ knowledge or awareness of climate change and its risks. Nonetheless,
existing empirical research is still limited to illuminate farmers’ awareness of the climate change
problem. This study employs a Bayesian hierarchical logistic model, estimated using Hamiltonian
Monte Carlo (HMC) methods, to empirically determine drivers of smallholder farmers’ awareness
of climate change and its risks to agriculture in Zambia. The results suggest that on average, 77% of
farmers in Zambia are aware of climate change and its risks to agriculture. We find socio-
demographics, climate change information sources, climate change adaptive factors, and climate
change impact-related shocks as predictors of the expression of climate change awareness. We
suggest that farmers should be given all the necessary information about climate change and its
risks to agriculture. Most importantly, the drivers identified can assist policymakers to provide the
effective extension and advisory services that would enhance the understanding of climate change
among farmers in synergy with appropriate farm-level climate-smart agricultural practices.

Keywords: climate change; climate change awareness; Hamiltonian Monte Carlo; climate-smart
technologies; Zambia

1. Introduction
Recent studies have shown that climate change is a reality and threatens global food security,
health, and nutrition outcomes [3–6]. However, despite being a global problem, the impacts of climate
change are not equally felt across countries. Bounoua [7] contends that while climate change affects
the whole world, Africa is more vulnerable because its economies are largely dependent on
agriculture. The agriculture industry employs 65% of Africa’s labor force, accounting for 32% of the
continent’s overall Gross Domestic Product (GDP) [7]. Thus, to ensure that agricultural production
systems are sufficiently resilient to climate change, there is need for agricultural producers in Africa
to employ robust adaptive measures that would withstand the risks of climate change.
However, successful adaptation to climate change may have to depend on farmers’ knowledge
or perception of the marvel. Ubisi et al. [8] suggest that the success of climate change adaptation
strategies depends on whether farmers fully understand what climate change is, and are therefore
able to consider the necessary adaptive initiatives. Similarly, [9] argue that understanding people’s
Agronomy 2020, 10, 376; doi:10.3390/agronomy10030376 www.mdpi.com/journal/agronomy
Agronomy 2020, 10, 376 9 of 25

perception of climate change is a necessary prerequisite for conveying climate change mitigation and
adaptation policies. However, empirical research that exists in developing countries is too little to
illuminate farmers’ awareness of the phenomenon, and how they would want to build resilience of
their production systems [10].
Zambia, like many other developing countries, has more than 90% of smallholder agriculture
that is rain-fed [11] and this exacerbates farmers’ exposure to climate change. Similar to Latin America
[12], studies that focus on farmers’ perceptions of climate change and its consequences on agriculture
in Zambia are few, even though some descriptive and communicative work exists. Nyanga et al. [13]
examines smallholder farmers’ perceptions of climate change and conservation agriculture in
Zambia. These authors provide useful insights about what smallholder farmers consider as the causes
of climate change. They find low adoption of conservation agriculture as one of the mitigation
strategies. However, their research is more descriptive and does not examine what affects people’s
accounts of climate variation econometrically—thereby potentially leaving other important variables
that would affect farmers’ perceptions of climate change unaccounted for. While [13] is insightful,
descriptive analyses only simplify concepts and are always subject to some loss of nuance or detail
[14].
On the other hand, [15] use linear regression models to assess smallholder farmers’ perceptions
of climate change in Zambia. They document the perceived impacts of climate change on agricultural
households in addition to the main adaptation technologies that farmers employ. Mulenga et al. [15]
attribute improper choices of strategies directed at addressing rainfall variability and rising
temperatures to some inconsistencies they find between meteorological data and farmers’
perceptions of climate change. However, the study by [15] also does not analyze determinants of
smallholder farmers’ awareness of climate change and its risk to agriculture in Zambia. Actually, [15]
recommend future studies to examine factors that drive smallholder farmers’ perceptions or
awareness of climate change as well as how they could be used to develop and promote relevant
adaptation strategies to smallholder farmers.
Climate change is generally characterized by changes in the distribution of rainfall and extreme
average temperatures [16], which may last for an extended period, such as decades or much longer.
An increase in dry spells during normal rainy seasons aggravates the climate change crisis. Taken
together, it follows that there is a growing body of research investigating the impacts of climate
change adaptation strategies in Zambia and across sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). Examples of such
studies include [17–28]. However, the limited capacity of smallholder farmers to adapt to climate
change in Zambia [6,27] in part contributes to the low adoption rates of climate change adaptation
measures [21,23]. This makes smallholder agricultural production more vulnerable to climate change
impacts. As pointed out by [6], since temperatures are projected to rise further, either way, farmers
will have to adapt to climate change, regardless of whether agriculture is irrigated or rain-fed. The
African continent is projected to experience at least 1 to 2 °C rising temperatures by 2050 [6,15,29].
Thus, to promote increased adaptation to climate change, there is need to provide empirical
references for designing climate change policies, as well as advancing public cognizance. Mekonnen
et al. [30] recommend the need to conduct research to incorporate the perception and indigenous
knowledge of local smallholder farmers in order to come up with lasting solutions to the challenges
of climate change.
Selected studies outside Zambia that have examined farmers’ perceptions or awareness of
climate change include [9,12,31–37]. Studies by [12,31–34,36] find that socio-economic variables,
production systems and social capital affect farmers’ awareness of climate change. Roco et al. [12]
find that age, education, land tenure, access to weather information, and location within Chile affect
climate change awareness, while [37] indicate that education, farmer experience, and access to
extensions services have a positive effect on climate change awareness in South Africa. Similarly, [31]
find a negative relationship between climate change awareness and age of respondents in nine U.S.
states. Additionally, [34] find that Argentinian farmers that have access to extension programs are
more likely to be aware of climate change than otherwise. A study by [38] finds that the level of
Agronomy 2020, 10, 376 10 of 25

education, farm size, family size, family income, training received, and farming experience are
significant determinants of climate change awareness in Bangladesh.
In terms of gender, a study by [39] about rancher and farmer perceptions of climate change in
Nevada, USA indicates that that women are more concerned about environmental issues such as
climate change than men, because such issues threaten their families and communities. A study on
risk perception of climate change in North Carolina by [40] suggests that men have less perception
of climate change risks than females. Additionally, [9] find that the level of education, gender,
household size, and the number of people affected by natural disasters affect climate change
awareness among Chinese residents, while [37] indicates that farmers that have access to water for
irrigation purposes are not likely to perceive any changes in climate, whether it is in terms of rainfall
or temperature patterns. As argued by [12,41], human perception and/or awareness of climate change
is a complex issue that is strongly affected by expectations that may be weakly correlated with the
true nature of climate.
Moreover, despite a growing body of research modeling the impacts of climate change
adaptation technologies on various household outcomes, there is a dearth of empirical research that
examines drivers of climate change awareness among smallholder farmers in developing countries.
As argued by [12], public understanding of climate change has been explored more in developed
countries than in developing countries, and Zambia is no exception. Thus, the objectives of this study
are (1) to determine smallholder farmers’ awareness of climate change and its risks to agriculture in
Zambia, and (2) to determine drivers of smallholder farmers’ awareness of climate change and its
risk to agriculture in Zambia. Our findings could be useful for effective targeting of climate change
policy and promotion of the necessary mitigation strategies in Zambia and other countries.
2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area and Data Sources

The data used in this study were collected in 2013 under the University of Zambia (UNZA) and
Indaba Agricultural Policy Research Institute (IAPRI) Climate Change Land Use project. The sample
was demographically and agro-ecologically representative and consisted of 1,231 farm households.
The households selected were part of the previous survey titled the Rural Agricultural Livelihood
Survey (RALS), that was conducted in 2012 [42] by the Zambia Central Statistical Office (CSO) and
IAPRI. Due to the fact that the sample was part of RALS 2012, it is noteworthy to mention how
sampling of RALS 2012 was done. The sampling frame guiding RALS 2012 survey was based on the
2010 Census of Housing and Population. With regards to sampling, a stratified two-stage design was
employed, where the initial stage involved identification of Primary Sampling Units (PSUs). A PSU
is defined as at least one Standard Enumeration Area (SEA) comprising a minimum of 30 agricultural
households. The SEA is the smallest area with well-defined boundaries identified on census sketch
maps. In the second stage, all the farm households in selected SEAs were recorded with the respective
identified agricultural households. The listed farm households were then stratified into three classes,
namely: A, B, and C, based on total area allocated to crops; special crops; numbers of cattle, goats,
and chickens raised; and sources of income. To select at least 20 farm households distributed across
the three strata in each SEA, systematic sampling was used [43]. While the total sample size for the
2013 survey in this study was 1,231, we used 1,227 observations because of the nonresponse/missing
values.
The 2013 survey was conducted in 6 districts from Zambia’s three agro-ecological regions (AER)
[44]. The districts included Choma, Mpika, Nyimba, Petauke, Serenje, and Sinazongwe. Choma and
Sinazongwe are from AER I, while Nyimba, Petauke, and Serenje belong to AER II. Mpika district is
located in AER III. Figure 1 shows locations of the districts within Zambia where the data were
collected.
Agronomy 2020, 10, 376 11 of 25

Figure 1. Location of study districts.

A full description of the variables used in the analysis is presented in Table 1. The variables
considered were selected based on a review of previous theoretical and empirical climate change
related studies [12,17,38,45–50]. The response variable is the expression of awareness of climate
change and its risks to agriculture (alias climate change awareness), which equals 1 if the respondent
replied “Yes” to the question: “Are you aware of climate change and its consequences on
agriculture?”, and 0 otherwise. This question asked respondents to express their awareness of the
climate change phenomenon. Similar to most questionnaire surveys, some respondents for this study
perhaps answered the question based on their limited knowledge about the phenomenon. As in most
climate change observational studies (e.g., [8,9,12,13,38,49]), the perception or awareness of climate
change is solicited based on recall methods and experience, which are subject to inaccuracy from
respondents1. As argued by [15], memory can be faulty. However, the expression of awareness of
climate change captured in this study is credible, as can be observed by the positive effects of common
climate change impact–related shocks, which suggests that our dependent variable is robust to such
shortcomings.

Table 1. Definition of variables.

Variable Name Variable Description

Dependent variable
Awareness of climate change Household head expresses awareness of climate change and its risks on
and its risk to agriculture agricultural production; equals 1 if yes, 0 otherwise
Predictor variables
Socio-demographic characteristics

1
Measuring the awareness of climate change is not problem-free. Thus, throughout the article, we use
‘awareness of climate change’ and ‘expression of awareness of climate change’ interchangeably, where
necessary.
Agronomy 2020, 10, 376 12 of 25

Gender Gender of household head; equals 1 if male, 0 if female

Age of household head
Household size
No education
Basic education
High school education
College education
Access to farm credit
Climate change information sources
Radio
Television
Conservation agriculture advice
Extension services
Climate change adaptive factors
Planting in basins
Animal manure
Fundikila
Agroforestry
Changing planting dates
Changing crop varieties
Crop diversification
Ownership of water wells
Ownership of boreholes
Ownership of water pumps
Number of pipes
Number of solar panels
Number of rippers
Climate change impact-related shocks
Increased irrigation reliance
Reduced food consumption
Floods
Frost
Heat wave
Districts
Choma
Mpika
Nyimba
Petauke
Age of household head in years
Number of members in a household
Household head received no formal education. Equals 1 if yes, 0 otherwise
Household head’s highest level of education is 9th grade
Household head’s highest level of education is high school
Household head’s highest level of education is college education
Household has access to farm credit; equals 1 if yes, 0 otherwise
Household owns a radio; equals 1 if yes, 0 otherwise
Household owns a television; equals 1 if yes, 0 otherwise
Household received conservation agriculture advice; equals 1 if yes, 0
otherwise
Household has access to extension services; equals 1 if yes, 0 otherwise
Household plants in basins; equals 1 if yes, 0 otherwise
Household applies animal manure of their farm; equals 1 if yes, 0
otherwise
Household practices fundikila; equals 1 if yes, 0 otherwise
Household practices agroforestry; equals 1 if yes, 0 otherwise
Household change planting dates; equals 1 if yes, 0 otherwise
Household changes seed varieties; equals 1 if yes, 0 otherwise
Household adopts crop diversification; equals 1 if yes, 0 otherwise
Household owns water wells; equals 1 if yes, 0 otherwise
Household owns boreholes; equals 1 if yes, 0 otherwise
Household owns water pumps; equals 1 if yes, 0 otherwise
Number of water pipes owned by the household
Number of solar panels owned by the household,
Number of rippers owned by the household
Household has increased reliance on crop irrigation; equals 1 if yes, 0
otherwise
Household reduced food consumption; equals to 1 if yes, 0 otherwise
Area is experiencing floods; equals 1 if yes, 0 otherwise
Area is experiencing frost; equals 1 if yes, 0 otherwise
Area is experiencing heat waves; equals 1 if yes, 0 otherwise
Household is located in Choma; equals 1 if yes, 0 otherwise
Household is located in Mpika; equals 1 if yes, 0 otherwise
Household is located in Nyimba; equals 1 if yes, 0 otherwise
Household is located in Petauke; equals 1 if yes, 0 otherwise

Serenje Household is located in Serenje; equals 1 if yes, 0 otherwise

Sinazongwe Household is located in Sinazongwe; equals 1 if yes, 0 otherwise
Agronomy 2020, 10, 376 13 of 25

Predictor variables are presented underneath the response variable in Table 1. We categorized
predictor variables into socio-demographic characteristics, climate change information sources,
climate change adaptive factors, and climate change impact-related shocks. The socio-demographics
include individual-level farmer or household characteristics that may play a role on climate change
awareness. Following [12,31,32,36], we hypothesize that socio-demographic characteristics such as
gender, age of the household head, household size, education levels, and access to credit positively
affect climate change awareness among farmers. Additionally, since access to information is critical
at influencing people’s perceptions of climate change [34,36], we included climate change
information sources that include ownership of television, radio, access to conservation agriculture
advice, and access to extension services. Our hypotheses are that information sources positively affect
climate change awareness among smallholder farm households, because it is through such sources
that climate change information may be conveyed by relevant institutions.
Following a review of literature on climate change [12,31,32,36,38,47–50], our expectation is that
the expression of climate change awareness and climate change adaptive measures have a positive
relationship between them. Thus, as shown in Table 1, we considered a variety of adaptive factors
that we hypothesize to affect expression of awareness of change among farmers. The adaptive
practices considered in this paper include planting in basins (where seeds are planted in potholes
that are dug about 15–30 cm deep, in order to hold soil moisture for crop seeds [44,51], use of animal
manure, fundikila (Zambian local name for grass-mound system of cultivation mostly practiced in
northern Zambia [52]), agroforestry (planting of leguminous trees [28], changing planting dates, and
changing crop varieties [20]. Others include ownership of water wells, boreholes, water pumps,
number of pipes, solar panels, and rippers. Rippers are agricultural machinery used to generate rip-
lines where seeds are planted, a practice called ripping. Ripping is part of minimum tillage and
involves farmers planting in rip-lines. According to [44,51], ripping harvests water during years of
sporadic rainfall and facilitates precise application of fertilizer and other inputs besides plants,
thereby facilitating plant growth and development.
We also include climate change impact-related factors. These are a group of variables that
represent one’s experience of climate change-related impacts. They include increased reliance on
irrigated agriculture, reduced food consumption, experience of droughts, floods, frost, heat wave,
and extreme heat. As argued by [12,34,53], awareness of a phenomenon can be influenced by past
experience of events related to such a phenomenon. Thus, we hypothesize that farmers that
experienced climate change impact-related shocks would be more aware of climate change than those
without.
Descriptive statistics of all the variables used in the estimation according to district are shown
in Annex 1 in the Appendix. In terms of age and gender, country statistics indicate that on average,
39% of respondents were 46-year-olds, while 80% of the households were male-headed. Regarding
observations from each district, Petauke had the most observations in the sample—contributing
about 25%, while Sinazongwe district contributed the least (about 10%) of the sample. These statistics
appear in the last row of Annex 1.

2.2. Conceptual Framework

In a logistic regression model, the response variable 𝑦 is assumed to follow a Bernoulli
distribution, 𝑦~𝐵𝑖𝑛 1, 𝜃 . Thus
𝑦 = 𝜃 +𝜀 , (1)
where i = 1, 𝑁 represents the individual-level indicator, k = 1, K group of interest-level indicator,
𝜃 is the probability of success for individual i from group k, and 𝜀 are individual-level stochastic
errors assumed to be independent and with mean zero and 𝑉𝑎𝑟(𝜀 ) = 𝜃 (1 − 𝜃 ). The success
probability depends on the effects of predictor variables in x, where x denotes a vector of predictors.
The logit-link function can be written as

logit(𝜃 ) = log =𝛼+𝑥 𝛽 (2)

Agronomy 2020, 10, 376 14 of 25

where 𝛼 and 𝛽 are parameters to be estimated, 𝑥 are predictor variables, and 𝜃 is as defined
previously. Solving for 𝜃 in equation (2) yields
1
𝜃 (𝒙; 𝛽) = (3)
( )
1+𝑒
where variables in equation (3) are as previously defined. Greene [54] contends that because of its
mathematical convenience relative to the probit model, the logistic model is a more widely applied
binary response model in empirical research. In terms of estimation, maximum likelihood is usually
used to obtain parameter estimates especially that the logit model predicts probabilities instead of
classes [55]. Assuming data in 𝒙 and observed class 𝑦 exist, the probability of the classification
variable is either 𝜃 if 𝑦 = 1, or 1 − 𝜃 if 𝑦 takes zero values, which results in the likelihood
function shown in equation (4)
𝑝(𝑦 |𝛼, 𝛽, 𝜎 ) = ∏ 𝜃 (𝑥) (1 − 𝜃 (𝑥))( )
, y = 0, 1 (4)
Under the frequentist approach, one would have to maximize the log likelihood function of
equation (4) over the given sample to estimate 𝛼 and 𝛽. Our data are from different districts in Zambia
that fall in different agro-ecological regions facing heterogeneous environmental conditions [56] that
could in part affect farmers’ experience of climate-related shocks that they might be exposed to. This
implies that smallholder farmers in the same district and henceforth, agro-ecological region, may
have similar levels of awareness of climate change and its risks on agricultural production, but
dissimilar to those in other agro-ecological regions. A Bayesian hierarchical model accounting for
such district-variation is a natural way to control such a structure. Thus, this study employs Bayesian
hierarchical techniques as its estimation methods.
Bayesian econometrics requires one to estimate posterior distributions of model parameters
from their prior distributions and data. Following [55,57,58], posterior distributions make it possible
to generate robust informative statements about the results using Bayesian credible intervals.
Bayesian credible intervals are equivalent to confidence intervals in classical inference. Advocates of
Bayesian inference postulate that frequentists draw their conclusions directly from the data.
Frequentists interpret a 95% confidence interval as one that would include 95% of the parameter
estimates, if the data generating process recurred a large number of independent times [59,60]. In
contrast, instead of repeating experiments for such a huge number of times, the Bayesian approach
combines prior information and the data. It replaces confidence intervals with credible intervals that
are interpreted as the probability of a parameter estimate lying in a range of values given the data
[59]. This is a more intuitive interpretation, notwithstanding the scarcity of the data [39]. Specifically,
we use a Bayesian hierarchical logistic regression to model farmers’ awareness of climate change and
its risks to agriculture.
The modeling approach proceeds as follows. Given a vector of parameters as 𝝑 = [𝛼, 𝛽]’, where
𝛼 and 𝛽 are model parameters to be estimated, the likelihood function in equation (4) can be used in
combination with prior distributions i. e. , 𝑝(𝜗) for parameters in 𝝑 via Bayes’ rule, to obtain
respective parameters’ posterior distributions. The posterior density of 𝝑
𝑝(𝝑|𝑦 ) ∝ 𝑝(𝑦 |𝝑)𝑝(𝝑) (5)
where 𝑝(𝝑|𝑦 ) represents the posterior densities of model parameters, 𝑝(𝑦 |𝝑) is the likelihood
function in equation (4), (notice that 𝜎 is ignored because it is a constant under a logistic model),
and 𝑝(𝝑) is the prior distribution for 𝝑.
In a Bayesian hierarchical framework, the prior density depends on its lower level hyper-
parameters, 𝜹. In a similar manner, the likelihood function also changes. Thus, equation (5) becomes
𝑝(𝜹, 𝝑|𝑦 ) ∝ 𝑝(𝑦 | 𝝑, 𝜹)𝑝(𝝑|𝛿)𝑓(𝜹) (6)
where 𝑓(𝜹) are hyper-priors for the prior distribution stated in 𝑝(𝝑|𝛿), while other terms are as
previously defined.
The posterior density in equation (6) may be evaluated by numerical integration methods, which
would be challenging in a multiple-parameter case. However, with the advent of improved
Agronomy 2020, 10, 376 15 of 25

algorithms and increased computing power, equation (6) can be evaluated using Bayesian Markov
chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) methods that include Gibbs sampling and variants of Metropolis-
Hastings algorithms. More details about modeling Bayesian hierarchical regression models can be
found in [57]. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, there is no published research that used
empirical application of Bayesian hierarchical logistic model estimated using Hamiltonian Monte
Carlo (HMC) to model climate change awareness. HMC and its extension, the no-U-turn sampler, are
more efficient than Gibbs sampling and Metropolis-Hastings variants at estimating nonlinear
hierarchical regression models [57,61,62]. A Bayesian hierarchical logistic regression belongs to a class
of regression models where the outcome variable is binary and statistical inference is in a Bayesian
framework while taking advantage of information across groups of observations. This reduces the
sensitivity of lower-level parameters to noise [57,58,63]. We use Bayesian techniques because
Bayesian inference is exact and valid for any sample size [56,64,65].

2.3. Empirical Model

We model farmer awareness of climate change and its risks to agriculture, while accounting for
district-heterogeneity in farmer responses. Due to the fact that respondents were smallholder farmers
from 6 districts in Zambia and from different agro-ecological zones with varying environmental
conditions, we specify a varying-intercept Bayesian hierarchical logistic model according to district.
The empirical specification of the model is
𝜃
log =𝛼 + 𝛽 𝑥 (7)
1− 𝜃
𝛼 =𝛼 +𝜇 (8)
𝛽 ~𝑁(0, 10) , 𝛼 ~𝑁(0, 10), 𝜎 ~𝑁(0, 10)
where 𝛼 is the varying-intercept parameter, 𝛽 denotes the kth coefficient for the kth predictor
variable, 𝑥 is the kth predictor of the ith farmer in the sample. The 𝑥 ’s are the predictor variables
whose definitions are in Table 1 and summarized in Annex 1. The varying-intercept model shown in
equation (8) shows that the model intercept would vary by 𝛼 , while the between-district variation
would be captured by the between-intercept stochastic disturbances 𝜇 . Following [57,66,67], we
imposed weakly-normal priors on 𝛼 and 𝛽 to ensure proper posterior densities and because
these can take either positive or negative values, even though the null hypotheses for these two
parameters would be that they are zero. Additionally, we used a normal prior for the between-
intercept variance denoted by its standard deviation 𝜎 . We selected these priors to provide little
information—which is consistent with [68] who suggests that posterior standard deviations should
be smaller than 10% of the corresponding prior standard deviations.
We took advantage of modern computationally efficiency of Markov chain simulation
techniques—Hamiltonian Monte Carlo (HMC) and its extension the no-U-turn sampler to generate
posterior samples of the parameter estimates for equations (7) and (8). HMC uses “momentum”
variables that accelerate each iteration within a parameter space to allow faster mixing and
convergence [57,61,62]. Girolami and Caderhead [69] further demonstrate that both Gibbs sampling
and Metropolis-Hastings algorithms are in general less efficient than HMC. Due to its advantages,
some agricultural economics research that employed Bayesian methods has used HMC techniques
(e.g., [70–72]). Since HMC and the no-U-turn sampler are the default choice in Stan software, all our
estimations were done in R and Stan [0,62,73–75]. Our HMC techniques involved 2 chains with a
burn-in phase of 2,500 to enable the Markov chains forget their starting states [56,64], with total
iterations of 5000 per chain.
In Bayesian analysis, there is a need to check whether the MCMC chains successfully converged
to their target posterior distributions for results to be considered valid. This can be done by
conducting convergence diagnostics using graphical methods or formal tests. Graphical methods
include trace and/or autocorrelation plots. Trace plots depict how the MCMC chains mixed during
simulations. A good mixing of MCMC chains (analogous to caterpillar plots) indicates successful
convergence, otherwise, it indicates poor convergence. Alternatively, autocorrelation plots indicate
Agronomy 2020, 10, 376 16 of 25

the correlation of the MCMC sequences between different lags. Autocorrelation plots that indicate
the extinction of correlation as the lag increases indicate successful convergence, otherwise, it shows
poor convergence. Formal tests include the Gelman and Rubin test [76], Geweke diagnostics [57] and
many others.
In this study, we used both graphical and the Gelman and Rubin test. Our convergence
diagnostics are presented in Figure 2 and Figure 3. Due to the fact that we have numerous predictors,
we show autocorrelation and trace plots as convergence diagnostics for only two variables:
household size and agroforestry. Figure 2 and Figure 3 respectively provide trace and autocorrelation
plots for parameters of household size and agroforestry. As shown in both figures, it can be
concluded that the MCMC chains associated with parameters of both variables demonstrate good
mixing while autocorrelation dies away as more lags are considered—indicating successful
convergence of the MCMC chains. Formally, the Gelman and Rubin [76] test to confirm the
convergence of the sequences was conducted. The test checks whether parameter estimates are
stationary, by comparing the intra-and inter-chain variation and if the test statistic for all parameters
is less than 1.10, then convergence was successful, otherwise, it was not [55;75;76]. The Gelman and
Rubin test for all of our parameters indicate consistent results with the graphical methods. This is
because, for all the parameter estimates, the Gelman–Rubin test statistics are smaller than 1.004,
which provides strong evidence of convergence.
Autocorrelation

Chain 1

Chain 2
Posterior value

Post burn-in iterations for the coefficient of agroforestry

Figure 2. Autocorrelation and trace plots for the coefficient of the variable agroforestry. Chain 1 and
chain 2 are the 2 Markov chains used in our MCMC techniques for all estimations.
Agronomy 2020, 10, 376 17 of 25

Autocorrelation
Chain 1

Chain 2
Posterior value

Post burn-in iterations for the coefficient of household size

Figure 3. Autocorrelation and trace plots for the coefficient of the variable household size. Chain 1 and
chain 2 are the 2 Markov chains used in our MCMC techniques for all estimations.

We report the highest density interval (HDI) and the region of practical equivalence (ROPE) for
statistical inference. The 95% HDI indicates the most credible values of a posterior distribution [77].
The ROPE represents a range of posterior values that are close to zero, representing an effect that is
too small to be meaningful [78,79]). Out of preference, we used default ROPE values for logistic
regressions, where parameters expressed in log odds ratio can be converted to standardized
differences, ranging from -0.055 to 0.055 [78,79]. Following [79], contrary to the frequentist approach,
Bayesian inference is not based on statistical significance, where effects are tested against zero, but
offers a probabilistic view of the parameter estimates, which allows us to assess the uncertainty
related to them. Thus, instead of concluding that an effect is present when it simply differs from zero,
we rely on ROPE for inference. The rule used in this study is that if 95% of the posterior distribution
is outside the ROPE, a predictor’s effect is meaningfully non-zero, and thus the null hypothesis is
rejected. Similarly, if 95% of the posterior distribution lies inside the ROPE, any probable predictor’s
effect is therefore so small that it is not meaningful—and the null hypothesis can be accepted.
Following [78,80], any other state would imply that more data are required in order to accept or reject
hypotheses at our chosen 95% HDI.

3. Results
Descriptive statistics in Annex 2 show that the average climate change awareness across districts
ranges from 54% to 91%, which indicates variation in climate change awareness among farmers by
district. For the whole country, descriptive results suggest the mean value of awareness of climate
change and its risk to agriculture among smallholder farmers in Zambia is 77%. These findings clearly
suggest a high number of agricultural producers in Zambia in the sample are aware of climate change
and the risk it poses on agricultural production. Estimation results are presented in Table 2. Column
1 presents variable names while columns 2 and 3, respectively, present mean odds ratios and their
standard deviations. The odds ratios are the exponentiated posterior means. The respective posterior
Agronomy 2020, 10, 376 18 of 25

means are shown in the appendix. The 95% HDI are shown in column 4, while probability effects
within the ROPE are presented in column 5. The null hypothesis decision is presented in column 6.
Our results suggest that among the socio-demographic characteristics, gender, marital status,
age, basic level of education, high school education of the household head, household size, and access
to farm credit do not have any effects on awareness of climate change and its risk to agriculture. This
is as shown by the 95% HDIs that overlap one for respective variables. The null hypotheses that no
meaningful effects exist with respect to gender, marital status, age, basic level of education, high
school education of the household head (the variable no education is the reference category and is
dropped from the estimation procedure to avoid perfect collinearity), household size, and access to
farm credit on climate change awareness among farmers are accepted, because over 95% of respective
parameters’ posterior distributions are within their ROPEs, with the exception of college education.
Results suggest that college education compared to no education does have meaningful positive
effects on climate change awareness, keeping other factors constant.
With regard to climate change information sources, as indicated by the probability effects within
ROPE, none of the posterior distributions for parameters of ownership of a radio, a television, and
access to extension services was within the ROPE, which suggests that the null hypotheses that no
meaningful effects of ownership of a radio, television, and access to extension services are
respectively rejected. We find that ownership of a radio or access to extension services positively
affects climate change awareness among farmers. However, results suggest farm households that
own a television are less likely to be aware of climate change than otherwise.
Among climate change adaptive factors, our results suggest that, planting in basins, use of
animal manure, adoption of fundikila, and practicing agroforestry meaningfully affect expression of
climate change awareness and its risk to agriculture. The 95% HDIs for coefficients of respective
parameters do not span the value of one, while over 95% of their posterior distributions are outside
their respective ROPES. This leads to rejection of the null hypotheses that no meaningful effects are
associated with the mentioned variables on farmers’ expression of climate change awareness in
Zambia. These findings, coupled with corresponding odds ratios (that are greater than one), imply
that smallholder farmers that either plant in basins, use animal manure, practice fundikila or
agroforestry are more likely to express awareness of climate change and its risk to agriculture than
otherwise.
In terms of the number of rippers that a farmer uses, our results indicate that more data are
required in order to accept or reject the null hypothesis that the number of rippers the farmer uses
has no effect on awareness of climate change and its risk to agriculture. This is because the ROPE for
the variable number of rippers contains 86.66% of the posterior distribution, which does not reach
the 95% probability threshold for accepting the null hypothesis. We find similar results for the
variable changing planting dates, since its parameter’s ROPE covers 19.84% of its posterior
distribution. This value falls short of the 95% probability threshold, which implies that the null
hypothesis that changing planting dates has no meaningful effect on expression of climate change
awareness can neither be accepted nor rejected at our chosen HDI.
With regard to farmers that change crop varieties, the ROPE contains 100% of the posterior
distribution of the coefficient of the variable changing crop varieties, which is over the 95%
probability threshold. Thus, the null hypothesis that changing crop varieties has no meaningful effect
on climate change awareness is accepted. However, we find that crop diversification positively affects
awareness of climate change and its risk on agriculture because the ROPE does not include any of the
posterior distribution—a finding that rejects the null hypothesis that crop diversification has no
meaningful effects on expression of climate change awareness. Similar results are observed for
ownership of water wells and water pumps. However, farmers that own boreholes are more likely to
be aware of climate change and its risk to agriculture than otherwise, keeping other factors constant.
Agronomy 2020, 10, 376 12 of 25

Table 2. Odds ratios, standard deviations, 95% highest density intervals, probability effects and null hypothesis decision results.

Odds Ratios Std Dev. 95% High Density Probability Effect within Region of Null Hypothesis Decision
Variable Name
Interval (HDI) Practical Equivalence (ROPE) (%)
Dependent variable: Climate change awareness
Predictor variables
Socio-demographic characteristics
Intercept 0.39 0.17 0.13 1.17 4.18 Undecided
Gender 1.01 0.01 0.98 1.03 100 Accept
Marital status 1.02 0.01 0.99 1.04 100 Accept
Age 0.99 0.00 0.99 1.01 100 Accept
Household size 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.01 100 Accept
Basic education 1.15 0.01 1.13 1.17 100 Accept
High school education 0.99 0.01 0.96 1.01 100 Accept
College education 1.81 0.04 1.72 1.90 0 Reject
Access to farm credit 0.94 0.01 0.91 0.96 100 Accept
Climate change information sources
Radio 1.30 0.01 1.28 1.31 0 Reject
Television 0.76 0.01 0.74 0.77 0 Reject
Conservation agriculture advice 0.95 0.01 0.94 0.96 100 Accept
Extension services 1.72 0.01 1.70 1.75 0 Reject
Climate change adaptive factors
Planting in basins 2.85 0.03 2.77 2.92 0 Reject
Animal manure 67.72 6.18 56.26 80.64 0 Reject
Fundikila 3.44 0.05 3.35 3.56 0 Reject
Agroforestry 1.95 0.02 1.92 1.99 0 Reject
Changing planting dates 0.82 0.01 0.82 0.84 19.84 Undecided

Agronomy 2020, 10, 376; doi:10.3390/agronomy10030376 www.mdpi.com/journal/agronomy

Agronomy 2020, 10, 376 13 of 25

Climate change adaptive factors

Changing crop varieties 0.96 0.01 0.95 0.98 100 Accept
Crop diversification 1.65 0.01 1.62 1.68 0 Reject
Ownership of water wells 0.71 0.02 0.68 0.76 0 Reject
Ownership of boreholes 5.04 0.21 4.66 5.47 0 Reject

Ownership of water pumps 0.73 0.02 0.68 0.79 0 Reject

Number of pipes 1.01 0.00 1.01 1.02 100 Accept

Number of solar panels 1.16 0.00 1.15 1.17 100 Accept

Number of rippers 0.85 0.01 0.82 0.89 86.66 Undecided

Climate change impact-related shocks

Increased irrigation reliance 0.57 0.01 0.55 0.59 0 Reject

Reduced food consumption 0.99 0.01 0.97 1.01 100 Accept

Droughts 7.12 0.09 6.96 7.32 0 Reject

Floods 7.10 0.11 6.89 7.32 0 Reject

Frost 13.80 0.46 12.94 14.73 0 Reject

Heat wave 7.77 0.23 7.32 8.25 0 Reject

Extreme temperatures 1.50 0.02 1.46 1.54 0 Reject

Varying-intercept effects
Between-district intercept variance 2.98 1.02 1.87 12.24 0 Reject
Agronomy 2020, 10, 376 14 of 25

The posterior distribution for the coefficient of borehole ownership is not contained in the ROPE,
resulting in rejection of the null hypotheses that owning boreholes does not have meaningful effects
on awareness of climate change. However, results suggest ownership of water pumps negatively
affects the likelihood of one’s awareness of climate change and its risk, ceteris paribus. This could be
because there are very few smallholder farm households that own water pumps in Zambia.
Additionally, their ownership is linked to irrigation of vegetables within family gardens [70] and not
merely for climate change awareness.
Regarding ownership of water pipes and solar panels, our results suggest their respective null
hypotheses that they do not have meaningful effects on climate change awareness, are accepted at
95% HDI. This is because their ROPEs include more than 95% of their posterior distribution, which
means that these variables do not significantly affect farmers’ climate change awareness. In terms of
the climate change impact-related shocks (i.e., increased reliance on irrigation, reduced food
consumption, experience of droughts, floods, frost, heat wave, and extreme temperature), the
hypothesis that reliance on irrigation of crops has no meaningful effect on climate change awareness
is rejected because the ROPE does not include any of the posterior distribution at 95% HDI.
Additionally, smallholder farmers whose areas of location experience droughts, floods, frost, heat
waves, and extreme temperature are more likely to be aware of climate change and its risk to
agriculture than otherwise, everything else held constant. This is because, for example, the null
hypothesis that experiencing droughts has no meaningful effects on climate change awareness is
rejected, since the ROPE includes none of its parameter’s posterior distribution. Similar results exist
for floods, frost, heat wave, and extreme temperatures.
Results presented in the last row of Table 2 show the significance of varying intercepts. As
mentioned before, the varying intercepts in the estimation procedures accounted for inter-district
variation of the multiple responses from the respondents located in each district. This was to account
for inter-district heterogeneity, because agricultural producers from some districts would more than
average be aware of climates change awareness. Results suggest that inclusion of varying intercepts
is meaningful since the ROPE does not include any of the posterior distribution of the between-
district variance—thereby rejecting the null hypothesis that inclusion of varying-slope effects is not
meaningful in our modeling strategy.

4. Discussion
This study determines smallholder farmers’ awareness of climate change and its risk to
agriculture. It also examines the drivers of farmers’ expression of awareness of climate change and
its risks to agriculture in Zambia. Unlike previous studies on climate change awareness, this study
delivers a useful empirical application of a Bayesian hierarchical logistic model, estimated using
Hamiltonian Monte Carlo (HMC), with its extension, the no-U-turn sampler. This is novel because
both the HMC and no-U-turn sampler are state-of-the-art techniques that are more efficient than the
Gibbs sampling and Metropolis-Hastings variants, because their Monte Carlo samples suffer less
from autocorrelation between chains [58,81]. Additionally, our modeling is under a Bayesian
hierarchical framework which is exact in any sample size and also allows individual intercepts to be
centered thereby reducing the sensitivity of lower-level parameters to noise—thereby assuring more
credible findings.
Our findings show that on average, a large number of farmers do express awareness of climate
change and its risks to agriculture in Zambia. However, the number of farmers that indicated
awareness of climate change varied by district. For example, only about 54% of farmers in Nyimba
expressed climate awareness while Petauke had approximately 91% that reported awareness of
climate change and its risks on agriculture. This suggests that while climate change awareness in the
country maybe high, there is still need to promote the dissemination of the information about climate
change among smallholder agricultural producers. As suggested by [12], providing farmers with
climate change information would ultimately help them to adapt to the effects of climate change by
using appropriate technologies. Additionally, the need to promote awareness of the climate change
crisis would lay a launch pad upon which promotion of adaption technologies could be improved.

Agronomy 2020, 10, 376; doi:10.3390/agronomy10030376 www.mdpi.com/journal/agronomy

Agronomy 2020, 10, 376 15 of 25

Woods et al. [35] found that the more concerned farmers are about climate change—conditional on
being well informed—the more likely they would adapt to climate change impacts.
In terms of the socio-demographic characteristics, smallholder farmers with education up to
college level are more likely to be aware of climate change and its risks to agriculture than those
without an education (that is, those that are illiterates or are not formally educated). These findings
corroborate the results by [12,36,37]. Following [82,83], education or cognitive skills theoretically
affect perception or awareness because they alter people’s potential to acquire and retain information
—which therefore highlights the important role the level of education plays on the science of climate
change. In general, we expect a farmer with college education to be more analytical and to better
understand the science of climate change than one with an up to primary, basic or high school level
of education—which could be why other levels of education did not meaningfully affect climate
change awareness among farmers. While not all smallholder farmers in Zambia and other countries
may have college education, the opportunity to be aware of climate change and its risks to agriculture
is at their disposal through climate change information sources such as the radio and agricultural
extension that we found to have positive and meaningful effects on climate change awareness.
Our results show that owning either a radio or television significantly affects awareness of
climate change and its risks to agriculture. However, we find that between the two media sources,
farmers that own a radio are more likely to be aware of climate change and its risks to agriculture
than otherwise, while those that own a television are less likely to be aware of climate change than
those that do not. The result for television is unexpected, especially as a television is one of media
sources of information expected to positively affect climate change awareness. The reason for this
unexpected result could be that televisions (compared to radios) have extremely few programs that
are aimed at raising awareness on climate change among farmers. Additionally, our experience is
that most programs on Zambian televisions are usually conducted in English, which the majority of
farmers do not speak [84] and therefore, they may not absorb the climate change messages shown on
television. In contrast, most radio stations in Zambia are location-specific and may provide climate
change awareness in local languages, which could be key for farmers’ awareness of the phenomenon.
Additionally, farmers that have access to agricultural extension services are more likely to be aware
of climate change and its risks to agriculture than otherwise. This result is consistent with [12,38,85].
As in [37], our study recommends increased provision of locally targeted as well as stakeholder-
specific extension and advisory services directed at enriching climate change understanding and
providing platforms that befit farm-level climate change adaptation among farmers.
We further found that farmers that practice some of the climate change adaptive agricultural
strategies such as planting in basins, animal manure, fundikila, or agroforestry are more likely to
express awareness of climate change and its risks to agriculture than otherwise. Climate change
awareness is expected to increase adoption of these strategies, but practice of these strategies in the
first place means climate change awareness—which is also the reason why on average, farmers that
practice adaptive strategies more likely express climate change awareness than those that do not.
While much of recent studies might have focused on promotion and impact evaluation of climate
change adaption technologies, these results suggest that farmers that adopt them are clearly aware
of climate change and its risks. Thus, we recommend continued efforts by governments and relevant
stakeholders to increase awareness of climate change alongside promotion of adoption of climate-
smart agricultural techniques among farmers.
Other important climate change adaptive predictors that have significant effects on expression
of awareness of climate change and its risks to agriculture include ownership of water wells,
boreholes or water pumps. These assets are useful for making groundwater available to farmers. We
found that farmers that own boreholes, ceteris paribus are more likely to express awareness of climate
change and its risk to agriculture than otherwise. However, smallholder farmers that own either
water wells or water pumps are less likely to express awareness of climate change than those without
such assets, holding other factors constant. The reason for the latter results could be because most
farmers in Zambia and most parts of SSA traditionally tend to use groundwater for the production
of vegetables or for home consumption [86]. Due to the fact that climate change effects include
Agronomy 2020, 10, 376 16 of 25

droughts, farmers could own these assets not necessarily because of being aware of climate change,
but rather as short-term strategy to withstand water shortages.
As put forward by [12,34,53,87], awareness or perception can as well be determined by recency
effects, that is, the recent occurrence of a climate variation event such as a rainy winter or a dry
summer or changes in daily temperature. Consistent with these arguments, we found that farmers
that have in the past unexpectedly experienced droughts, floods, frost, heat wave, or extreme
temperatures are more likely to be aware of climate change and risk to agriculture than otherwise.
This is novel, especially as Zambia and other SSA countries have unsurprisingly experienced rising
temperature, and uncertain rainfall patterns such as droughts and floods [7,37], which ultimately risk
rain-fed agriculture that majority of smallholder farmers depends on. By experiencing such unusual
weather events, farmers are more likely to become aware of climate change and its risk on agricultural
production. These results demonstrate that while human perception of climate change could be
complex, stochastic weather events that have plagued the current generation are clearly contributing
to farmers’ awareness of climate change and the risks it poses on agricultural production.
Moreover, respondents that rely more on irrigated agriculture are less likely to be aware of
climate change and its risk to agriculture than those that rely on rain-fed agriculture. This is plausible
because rain-fed agriculture is more vulnerable to climate change impacts [7,15]. However, even
farmers that rely on irrigated agriculture need climate change information because the droughts
affect water availability. The temperatures are forecasted to rise in mid-century and beyond 2100,
which could lead to more crop stress and ultimately yield reduction [6]. Additionally, farmers that
diversify are more likely to express awareness of climate change and its risks to agriculture. This is
expected as farmers may be diversifying crops as an adaption to climate change risks thereby
avoiding losses, by planting drought-tolerant varieties that would resist climate-related droughts
[20].

5. Conclusions
Using Bayesian hierarchical techniques, this study determined the drivers of awareness of
climate change and its risks to agriculture among smallholder farmers in Zambia. While we found a
large percentage of smallholder farmers are aware of climate change and its risks in Zambia, the
awareness levels among farmers across the sampled districts was not homogenous. We recommend
more rigorous efforts of promoting awareness in synergy with climate-smart adaptation strategies.
This is important because farmers’ perceptions and/or awareness of climate change guide their
adaptation strategies [49,88,89].
We found that several socio-demographic, climate change information sources, climate change
adaptive factors, and climate change impact-related shocks to have meaningful effects on farmer’s
expression of awareness of climate change and its risks to agriculture. More importantly, we found
recency of factors such as droughts, frost, floods, heat wave, and extreme temperatures to positively
predict climate change awareness and its risks to agriculture. Due to the fact that people’s capacity
to implement adaptation measures needs both personal cognitive motivation and societal support
[90], we recommend promotion of climate change awareness among farmers while providing them
with the necessary information of possible mitigation measures.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, J.N.N., M.C.T., and B.M.; methodology, J.N.N.; software, J.N.N.;
formal analysis, J.N.N., M.C.T., and B.M.; investigation, J.N.N., M.C.T., and B.M.; resources, J.N.N., M.C.T., and
B.M.; data curation, J.N.N., M.C.T., and B.M, and O.F.; writing—original draft preparation, J.N.N., M.C.T., and
B.M; writing—review and editing, J.N.N., M.C.T., and B.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published
version of the manuscript.

Funding: This work received no institutional funding.

Acknowledgments: The authors are grateful to IAPRI and -UNZA for the dataset. The authors thank the Editor
and two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments and suggestions. The authors also acknowledge
Mariah Thornicroft Ng’ombe for useful comments.

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Agronomy 2020, 10, 376 18 of 25

Appendix A

Annex 1. Descriptive statistics of variables.

Variable Name District Name

District Choma Mpika Nyimba Petauke Serenje Sinazongwe Zambia
Mean Std. Mean Std. Mean Std. Mea Std. Mean Std. Mean Std. Mean Std.
Dev.
Dev. Dev. n Dev. Dev. Dev. Dev
Dependent variable
Climate change awareness 0.66 0.47 0.87 0.32 0.54 0.49 0.91 0.28 0.89 0.30 0.75 0.43 0.77 0.41
Predictor variables
Socio-demographic characteristics
Gender 0.84 0.36 0.78 0.41 0.78 0.41 0.82 0.38 0.80 0.39 0.79 0.40 0.80 0.39
Marital status 0.85 0.34 0.78 0.41 0.78 0.41 0.84 0.36 0.82 0.38 0.80 0.40 0.81 0.38
Age of household head 48.80 14.28 47.31 15.69 45.12 14.39 46.42 15.52 46.29 15.11 43.59 13.43 46.28 14.94
Household size 6.53 6.53 6.12 2.43 6.16 2.40 5.46 2.25 6.72 2.43 6.03 2.13 6.07 2.41
No education 0.02 0.16 0.04 0.20 0.15 0.36 0.28 0.45 0.05 0.23 0.10 0.31 0.13 0.34
Basic education 0.65 0.47 0.55 0.49 0.55 0.49 0.57 0.49 0.57 0.49 0.56 0.49 0.57 0.49
High school education 0.26 0.44 0.37 0.48 0.28 0.45 0.11 0.32 0.35 0.48 0.27 0.44 0.26 0.44
College education 0.05 0.22 0.03 0.17 0.00 0.05 0.02 0.14 0.01 0.11 0.05 0.21 0.02 0.15
Access to farm credit 0.06 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.36 0.33 0.47 0.01 0.12 0.11 0.32 0.14 0.34
Climate change information sources
Radio 0.63 0.48 0.61 0.48 0.51 0.50 0.65 0.47 0.64 0.47 0.55 0.49 0.60 0.48
Television 0.23 0.42 0.18 0.38 0.19 0.39 0.15 0.36 0.28 0.45 0.17 0.38 0.19 0.39
Conservation agriculture advice 0.61 0.48 0.59 0.49 0.61 0.48 0.68 0.46 0.59 0.49 0.58 0.49 0.62 0.48
Extension services 0.95 0.19 0.88 0.31 0.83 0.37 0.90 0.29 0.84 0.36 0.93 0.25 0.88 0.31
Climate change adaptive factors
Planting in basins 0.14 0.34 0.01 0.11 0.19 0.39 0.12 0.32 0.11 0.32 0.09 0.28 0.11 0.32
Agronomy 2020, 10, 376 19 of 25

Animal manure 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.09
Fundikila 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.47 0.01 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.26
Agroforestry 0.15 0.36 0.01 0.11 0.10 0.31 0.15 0.36 0.21 0.41 0.15 0.36 0.12 0.33
Changing planting dates 0.06 0.23 0.20 0.40 0.37 0.48 0.58 0.49 0.42 0.49 0.26 0.44 0.35 0.47
Changing crop varieties 0.10 0.30 0.25 0.43 0.49 0.50 0.56 0.49 0.55 0.49 0.38 0.48 0.41 0.49
Crop diversification 0.06 0.24 0.22 0.41 0.27 0.44 0.10 0.31 0.49 0.50 0.40 0.49 0.23 0.42
Ownership of water wells 0.03 0.18 0.1 0.11 0.00 0.06 0.01 0.08 0.04 0.21 0.01 0.09 0.01 0.12
Ownership of boreholes 0.06 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.11 0.01 0.12 0.01 0.10
Ownership of water pumps 0.05 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.18 0.01 010 0.01 0.10
Number of pipes 2.88 0.69 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.02 1.78 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.09 2.44 3.44
Number of solar panels 1.21 0.81 1.22 0.65 1.13 0.51 1.29 0.68 0.00 0.00 1.38 0.78 1.24 1.18
Number of rippers 1.08 0.28 0.00 0.00 1.02 0.10 1.12 0.16 0.00 0.00 1.01 0.02 1.05 0.97
Climate change impact-related shocks
Increased irrigation reliance 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.14 0.00 0.05 0.01 0.12 0.15 0.36 0.09 0.28 0.03 0.18
Reduced food consumption 0.03 0.16 0.08 0.27 0.10 0.31 0.09 0.29 0.44 0.49 0.02 0.15 0.12 0.32
Droughts 0.43 0.49 0.38 0.48 0.62 0.48 0.85 0.34 0.88 0.31 0.75 0.42 0.66 0.47
Floods 0.38 0.48 0.04 0.20 0.01 0.11 0.03 0.17 0.03 0.18 0.12 0.33 0.08 0.27
Frost 0.01 0.11 0.15 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.17
Heat wave 0.02 0.14 0.05 0.21 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.06 0.01 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.12
Extreme heat 0.08 0.28 0.32 0.47 0.30 0.46 0.10 0.30 0.02 0.16 0.01 0.09 0.17 0.37
Number of observations 149 220 284 312 142 120 1,227
Agronomy 2020, 10, 376 19 of 25

Annex 2. Posterior means, standard deviations, and Bayesian 95% credible intervals.

Variable Posterior Mean Standard Deviation 95% Credible Interval

Dependent variable
Awareness of climate change and its risks to agriculture
Predictor variables
Socio-demographic characteristics
Intercept −0.952 0.532 −2.084 0.112
Gender 0.006 0.013 −0.020 0.031
Marital status 0.015 0.013 −0.011 0.041
Age of household head −0.007 0.000 −0.008 −0.007
Household size 0.003 0.001 0.000 0.005
Basic education 0.138 0.011 0.117 0.158
High school education −0.012 0.012 −0.036 0.011
College education 0.591 0.023 0.545 0.637
Access to farm credit −0.066 0.012 −0.089 −0.041
Climate change information sources
Radio 0.259 0.007 0.245 0.272
Television −0.280 0.009 −0.298 −0.262
Conservation agriculture advice −0.048 0.007 −0.061 −0.035
Extension services 0.545 0.010 0.526 0.563
Climate change adaptive factors
Planting in basins 1.048 0.012 1.025 1.072
Animal manure 4.218 0.092 4.042 4.403
Fundikila 1.238 0.016 1.205 1.269
Agroforestry 0.671 0.012 0.647 0.695
Changing planting dates −0.188 0.008 −0.204 −0.172
Changing crop varieties −0.038 0.008 −0.053 −0.023
Crop diversification 0.502 0.010 0.484 0.521
Continued…
Agronomy 2020, 10, 376 20 of 25

Annex 2. Continued
Variable name Posterior Mean Standard Deviation 95% Credible Interval
Climate change adaptive factors
Ownership of water wells −0.334 0.027 −0.389 −0.280
Ownership of boreholes 1.619 0.041 1.539 1.700
Ownership of water pumps −0.309 0.036 −0.380 −0.238
Number of pipes 0.017 0.002 0.013 0.021
Number of solar panels 0.151 0.006 0.139 0.162
Number of rippers −0.159 0.021 −0.200 −0.117
Climate change impact-related shocks
Increased irrigation reliance −0.557 0.020 −0.596 −0.518
Reduced food consumption −0.009 0.012 −0.032 0.013
Droughts 1.963 0.013 1.938 1.988
Floods 1.960 0.015 1.930 1.990
Frost 2.625 0.034 2.556 2.693
Heat wave 2.052 0.030 1.995 2.110
Extreme temperature 0.405 0.014 0.377 0.432
Varying-intercept effects
Between-grade intercept variance 1.210 0.488 0.627 2.505

Agronomy 2020, 10, 376; doi:10.3390/agronomy10030376 www.mdpi.com/journal/agronomy

Agronomy 2020, 10, 376 21 of 25

References
1. Gelman, A.; Rubin, D.B. Inference from iterative simulation using multiple sequences. Stat. Sci. 1992, 7,
457–472, doi:10.1214/ss/1177011136.
2. Darnhofer, I. Strategies of family farms to strengthen their resilience. Environ. Policy Gov. 2010, 20, 212–222,
doi:10.1002/eet.547.
3. Niang, I.; Ruppel, O.C.; Abdrabo, M.A.; Essel, A.; Lennard, C.; Urquhart, P. Impacts, adaptation, and
vulnerability. Part B: Regional aspects, Africa. Contribution of working group II to the fifth assessment
report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. In Climate Change; Barros, V.R., Field, C.B.,
Dokken, D.J., Mastrandrea, M.D., Mach, K.J., Bilir, T.E., Chatterjee, M., Ebi, K.L., Estrada, Y.O., Genova,
R.C., et al., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2014; pp. 1199–1265.
4. Porter, J.R.; Xie, L.; Challinor, A.J.; Cochrane, K.; Howden, S.M.; Iqbal, M.M.; Mastrandrea, M.D. Food
security and food production systems. Part A: Contribution of working group II to the fifth assessment
report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. In Climate Change; Field, C.B., Barros, V.R.,
Dokken, D.J., Mastrandrea, M.D., Mach, K.J., Bilir, T.E., Chatterjee, M., Ebi, K.L., Estrada, Y.O., Genova,
R.C., et al., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2014; pp. 485–533.
5. Masipa, T.S. The impact of climate change on food security in South Africa: Current realities and challenges
ahead. Jàmbá J. Disaster Risk Stud. 2017, 9, 1–7, doi:10.4102/jamba.v9i1.411.
6. Hamududu, B.H.; Ngoma, H. Impacts of climate change on water resources availability in Zambia:
Implications for irrigation development. Environment. Dev. Sustain. 2019, 1-22, doi:10.1007/s10668-019-
00320-9.
7. Bounoua, L. Climate Change is Hitting African Farmers the Hardest of All: The Conversation. 2015.
Available online: http://theconversation.com/climate-change-is-hitting-african-farmers-the-hardest-of-all-
40845 (accessed on 24 January 2020).
8. Ubisi, N.R.; Mafongoya, P.L.; Kolanisi, U.; Jiri, O. Smallholder farmer’s perceived effects of climate change
on crop production and household livelihoods in rural Limpopo province, South Africa. Chang. Adapt. Socio
Ecol. Syst. 2017, 3, 27–38, doi:10.1515/energyo.0130.00001.
9. Wu, J.; Qu, J.; Li, H.; Xu, L.; Zhang, H.; Aryal, S.; Zeng, J.; Fan, Y.; Wei, Q.; Liu, X. What Affects Chinese
Residents’ Perceptions of Climate Change? Sustainability 2018, 10, 4712, doi:10.3390/su10124712.
10. Waldman, K.B.; Vergopolan, N.; Attari, S.Z.; Sheffield, J.; Estes, L.D.; Caylor, K.K.; Evans, T.P. Cognitive
biases about climate variability in smallholder farming systems in Zambia. Weather Clim. Soc. 2019, 11, 369–
383, doi:10.1175/wcas-d-18-0050.1.
11. Wineman, A.; Crawford, E.W. Climate change and crop choice in Zambia: A mathematical programming
approach. NJAS Wagening. J. Life Sci. 2017, 81, 19–31, doi:10.1016/j.njas.2017.02.002.
12. Roco, L.; Engler, A.; Bravo-Ureta, B.E.; Jara-Rojas, R. Farmers’ perception of climate change in
Mediterranean Chile. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2015, 15, 867–879, doi:10.1007/s10113-014-0669-x.
13. Nyanga, P.H.; Johnsen, F.H.; Aune, J.B. Smallholder farmers’ perceptions of climate change and
conservation agriculture: Evidence from Zambia. J. Sustain. Dev. 2011, 4, 73, doi:10.5539/jsd.v4n4p73.
14. Wheelan, C. Naked Statistics: Stripping the Dread from the Data; WW Norton & Company: New York, NY,
USA, 2013.
15. Mulenga, B.P.; Wineman, A.; Sitko, N.J. Climate trends and farmers’ perceptions of climate change in
Zambia. Environ. Manag. 2017, 59, 291–306, doi:10.1007/s00267-016-0780-5.
16. Assan, E.; Suvedi, M.; Schmitt Olabisi, L.; Allen, A. Coping with and adapting to climate change: A gender
perspective from smallholder farming in Ghana. Environments 2018, 5, 86,
doi:10.3390/environments5080086.
17. Arslan, A.; McCarthy, N.; Lipper, L.; Asfaw, S.; Cattaneo, A.; Kokwe, M. Climate smart agriculture?
Assessing the adaptation implications in Zambia. J. Agric. Econ. 2015, 66, 753–780, doi:10.1111/1477-
9552.12107.
18. Kuntashula, E.; Chabala, L.M.; Chibwe, T.K.; Kaluba, P. The effects of household wealth on adoption of
agricultural related climate change adaptation strategies in Zambia. Sustain. Agric. Res. 2015,
doi:10.5539/sar.v4n4p88.
19. Lipper, L.; Thornton, P.; Campbell, B.M.; Baedeker, T.; Braimoh, A.; Bwalya, M.; Hottle, R. Climate-smart
agriculture for food security. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2014, 4, 1068–1072.

Agronomy 2020, 10, 376; doi:10.3390/agronomy10030376 www.mdpi.com/journal/agronomy

Agronomy 2020, 10, 376 22 of 25

20. Khonje, M.; Manda, J.; Alene, A.D.; Kassie, M. Analysis of adoption and impacts of improved maize
varieties in eastern Zambia. World Dev. 2015, 66, 695–706, doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.09.008.
21. Ngoma, H.; Mason, N.M.; Sitko, N.J. Does minimum tillage with planting basins or ripping raise maize
yields? Meso-panel data evidence from Zambia. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2015, 212, 21–29,
doi:10.1016/j.agee.2015.06.021.
22. Sutcliffe, C.; Dougill, A.J.; Quinn, C.H. Evidence and perceptions of rainfall change in Malawi: Do maize
cultivar choices enhance climate change adaptation in sub-Saharan Africa? Reg. Environ. Chang. 2016, 16,
1215–1224, doi:10.1007/s10113-015-0842-x.
23. Ng’ombe, J.N.; Kalinda, T.H.; Tembo, G. Does adoption of conservation farming practices result in
increased crop revenue? Evidence from Zambia. Agrekon 2017, 56, 205–221,
doi:10.1080/03031853.2017.1312467.
24. Spear, D.; Chappel, A. Livelihoods on the Edge without a Safety Net: The case of Smallholder crop farming
in north-central Namibia. Land 2018, 7, 79, doi:10.3390/land7030079.
25. Tambo, J.A.; Abdoulaye, T. Smallholder farmers’ perceptions of and adaptations to climate change in the
Nigerian savanna. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2013, 13, 375–388, doi:10.1007/s10113-012-0351-0.
26. Masasi, B.; Ng’ombe, J.N. Does a market systems approach revitalize smallholder irrigation schemes?
Evidence from Zimbabwe. Sustain. Agric. Res. 2019, 8, 36, doi:10.5539/sar.v8n2p36.
27. Mulungu, K.; Ng’ombe, J.N. Climate Change Impacts on Sustainable Maize Production in Sub-Saharan
Africa: A Review. Maize Prod. Use 2019, doi:10.5772/intechopen.90033.
28. Amadu, F.O.; Miller, D.C.; McNamara, P.E. Agroforestry as a pathway to agricultural yield impacts in
climate-smart agriculture investments: Evidence from southern Malawi. Ecol. Econ. 2020, 167, 106443,
doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.106443.
29. Hachigonta, S.; Nelson, G.C.; Thomas, T.S.; Sibanda, L.M. (Eds.). Southern African Agriculture and Climate
Change: A Comprehensive Analysis; International Food Policy Research Institute: Washington, DC, USA,
2013; Volume 3.
30. Mekonnen, Z.; Kassa, H.; Woldeamanuel, T.; Asfaw, Z. Analysis of observed and perceived climate change
and variability in Arsi Negele District, Ethiopia. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2018, 20, 1191–1212,
doi:10.1007/s10668-017-9934-8.
31. Hamilton, L.; Keim, B. Regional variation in perceptions about climate change. Int. J. Climatol. 2009, 29,
2348–2352, doi:10.1002/joc.1930.
32. Lata, S.; Nunn, P. Misperceptions of climate-change risk as barriers to climate-change adaptation: A case
study from the Rewa Delta, Fiji. Clim. Chang. 2012, 110, 169–186, doi:10.1007/s10584-011-0062-4.
33. Barnes, A.; Toma, L. A typology of dairy farmer perceptions toward climate change. Clim. Chang. 2012, 112,
507–522, doi:10.1007/s10584-011-0226-2.
34. Hansen, J.; Marx, S.; Weber, E. The Role of Climate Perceptions, Expectations, and Forecasts in Farmer Decision
Making: The Argentine Pampas and South Florida; IRI Technical Report 04-01; Academic Commons: New
York, NY, USA, 2004.
35. Woods, B.A.; Nielsen, H.Ø.; Pedersen, A.B.; Kristofersson, D. Farmers’ perceptions of climate change and
their likely responses in Danish agriculture. Land Use Policy 2017, 65, 109–120,
doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.04.007.
36. Gbetibou, G.A. Understanding Farmers’ Perceptions and Adaptations to Climate Change and Variability: The Case
of the Limpopo Basin, South Africa. Environment and Production Technology Division; Discussion Paper 00849;
IFPRI (International Food Policy Research Institute): Washington, DC, USA, 2009.
37. Habtemariam, L.T.; Gandorfer, M.; Kassa, G.A.; Heissenhuber, A. Factors influencing smallholder farmers’
climate change perceptions: A study from farmers in Ethiopia. Environ. Manag. 2016, 58, 343–358,
doi:10.1007/s00267-016-0708-0.
38. Uddin, M.N.; Bokelmann, W.; Dunn, E.S. Determinants of farmers’ perception of climate change: A case
study from the Coastal Region of Bangladesh. Am. J. Clim. Chang. 2017, 6, 151–165,
doi:10.4236/ajcc.2017.61009.
39. Liu, Z.; Smith, W.J.; Safi, A.S. Rancher and farmer perceptions of climate change in Nevada, USA. Clim.
Chang. 2014, 122, 313–327, doi:10.1007/s10584-013-0979-x.
40. Stevenson, K.T.; Peterson, M.N.; Bondell, H.D.; Moore, S.E.; Carrier, S.J. Overcoming skepticism with
education: Interacting influences of worldview and climate change knowledge on perceived climate
change risk among adolescents. Clim. Chang. 2014, 126, 293–304, doi:10.1007/s10584-014-1228-7.
Agronomy 2020, 10, 376 23 of 25

41. Rebetez, M. Public expectations as an element of human perception of climate change. Clim. Chang. 1996,
32, 495–509.
42. Rural Agricultural Livelihood Survey (RALS); Indaba Agricultural and Policy Research Institute (IAPRI):
Lusaka, Zambia, 2012.
43. Tembo, M.C.; Kuntashula, E.; Kalinda, T. Climate change awareness and joint decision to adopt agro
forestry and conservation agriculture practices in Zambia. J. Sustain. Dev. 2017, 10,
doi:10.5539/jsd.v10n4p107.
44. Haggblade, S.; Tembo, G. Conservation Farming in Zambia; International Food Policy Research Institute:
Washington, DC, USA, 2003.
45. Teklewold, H.; Kassie, M.; Shiferaw, B. Adoption of multiple sustainable agricultural practices in rural
Ethiopia. J. Agric. Econ. 2013, 64, 597–623, doi:10.1111/1477-9552.12011.
46. Shiferaw, B.; Tesfaye, K.; Kassie, M.; Abate, T.; Prasanna, B.M.; Menkir, A. Managing vulnerability to
drought and enhancing livelihood resilience in sub-Saharan Africa: Technological, institutional and
policy options. Weather Clim. Extrem. 2014, 3, 67–79, doi:10.1016/j.wace.2014.04.004.
47. Ng’ombe, J.; Kalinda, T.; Tembo, G.; Kuntashula, E. Econometric analysis of the factors that affect
adoption of conservation farming practices by smallholder farmers in Zambia. J. Sustain. Dev. 2014, 7,
124, doi:10.5539/jsd.v7n4p124.
48. Abdulai, A.N.; Abdulai, A. Examining the impact of conservation agriculture on environmental
efficiency among maize farmers in Zambia. Environ. Dev. Econ. 2017, 22, 177–201,
doi:10.1017/s1355770x16000309.
49. Elum, Z.A.; Modise, D.M.; Marr, A. Farmer’s perception of climate change and responsive Startegies in
three selected provinces of South Africa. Clim. Risk Manag. 2017, 16, 246–257,
doi:10.1016/j.crm.2016.11.001.
50. Samuel, O.O.; Micheal, A.; Nkonki-Mandleni, B. Determinants of climate change awareness among rural
farming households in South Africa. J. Econ. Behav. Stud. 2018, 10, 116–124,
doi:10.22610/jebs.v10i5(j).2502.
51. Ng’ombe, J.N. Impact of Conservation Farming on Smallholder Farm Household Incomes in Zambia:
Evidence Using an Endogenous Switching Regression Model. Master’s Thesis, The University of Zambia,
Lusaka, Zambia, 2013. Available online:
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0b39/07fa6894007787ae90704768fbe49aa2c426.pdf (accessed on 27
February 2020).
52. Matthews, R.B.; Holden, S.T.; Volk, J.; Lungu, S. The potential of alley cropping in improvement of
cultivation systems in the high rainfall areas of Zambia I. Chitemene and Fundikila. Agrofor. Syst. 1992,
17, 219–240, doi:10.1007/bf00054149.
53. Marx, S.M.; Weber, E.U.; Orlove, B.S.; Leiserowitz, A.; Krantz, D.H.; Roncoli, C.; Phillips, J.
Communication and mental processes: Experiential and analytic processing of uncertain climate
information. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2007, 17, 47–58, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.10.004.
54. Greene, W.H. Econometric Analysis; Pearson Education India: Bengaluru, India, 2003.
55. Shalizi, C.R. Advanced Data Analysis from an Elementary Point of View. 2013. Available online:
http://www.stat.cmu.edu/~cshalizi/ADAfaEPoV/.Google Scholar (Accessed on December 3, 2020).
56. Ng’ombe, J.N. Technical efficiency of smallholder maize production in Zambia: A stochastic meta-
frontier approach. Agrekon 2017, 56, 347–365, doi:10.1080/03031853.2017.1409127.
57. Gelman, A.; Carlin, J.B.; Stern, H.S.; Dunson, D.B.; Vehtari, A.; Rubin, D.B. Bayesian Data Analysis;
Chapman and Hall/CRC: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2013.
58. McElreath, R. Statistical Rethinking: A Bayesian Course with Examples in R and Stan; Chapman and
Hall/CRC: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2018.
59. Baldos, U.L.C.; Viens, F.G.; Hertel, T.W.; Fuglie, K.O. R&D spending, knowledge capital, and
agricultural productivity growth: A Bayesian approach. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2019, 101, 291–310,
doi:10.1093/ajae/aay039.
60. Ng’ombe, J.N.; Boyer, T.A. Determinants of earthquake damage liability assignment in Oklahoma: A
Bayesian Tobit censored approach. Energy Policy 2019, 131, 422–433, doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2019.05.013.
61. Neal, R.M. MCMC using Hamiltonian Dynamics. In Handbook of Markov Chain Monte Carlo; Brooks, S.,
Ed.; CRC Press/Taylor & Francis: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2011; pp. 113–162.
Agronomy 2020, 10, 376 24 of 25

62. Hoffman, M.D.; Gelman, A. The no-U-turn sampler: Adaptively setting path lengths in Hamiltonian
Monte Carlo. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2014, 15, 1593–1623.
63. Bolstad, W.M.; Curran, J.M. Introduction to Bayesian Statistics; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2016.
64. Gill, J. Bayesian Methods: A Social and Behavioral Sciences Approach; Chapman and Hall/CRC: Boca Raton, FL,
USA, 2014.
65. Skevas, I.; Emvalomatis, G.; Brümmer, B. Heterogeneity of long-run technical efficiency of German dairy
farms: A Bayesian approach. J. Agric. Econ. 2018, 69, 58–75, doi:10.1111/1477-9552.12231.
66. Gelman, A.; Hill, J. Data Analysis Using Regression and Multilevel/Hierarchical Models; Cambridge University
Press: Cambridge, UK, 2006.
67. Gelman, A.; Jakulin, A.; Pittau, M.G.; Su, Y.S.A. Weakly Informative Default Prior. Distribution for Logistic
and Other Regression Models. Ann. Appl. Stat. 2008, 2, 1360–1383, doi:10.1214/08-aoas191.
68. Gelman, A. Prior Choice Recommendations. Available online: https://github.com/standev/stan/wiki/Prior-
Choice-Recommendations (accessed on 21 October 2019).
69. Girolami, M.; Calderhead, B. Riemann Manifold Langevin and Hamiltonian Monte Carlo Methods. J. R.
Stat. Soc. Ser. B 2011, 73, 123–214, doi:10.1111/j.1467-9868.2010.00765.x.
70. Plastina, A.; Lence, S.H. A parametric estimation of total factor productivity and its components in US
agriculture. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2018, 100, 1091–1119, doi:10.1093/ajae/aay010.
71. Plastina, A.; Lence, S.H. Theoretical production restrictions and agricultural technology in the United
States. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2019, 101, 849–869, doi:10.1093/ajae/aay106.
72. Ng’ombe, J.N.; Brorsen, B.W. Using Hamiltonian Monte Carlo to Estimate Crop Response Functions with
Stochastic Plateaus. In Proceedings of the Selected presentation at the 2020 Southern Agricultural
Economics Association Annual Meeting, Louisville, Kentucky, 1–4 February 2020.
doi:10.22004/ag.econ.302333
73. Stan Development Team. Stan Modeling Language Users Guide and Reference Manual, Version 2.18.0; Stan
Development Team: 2018. http://mc-stan.org
74. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Foundation for Statistical
Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2018.
75. Bürkner, P.C. “Brms: An R Package for Bayesian Multilevel Models using Stan.” J. Stat. Softw. 2017, 80, 1–
28, doi:10.18637/jss.v080.i01.
76. Bürkner, P.C. Advanced Bayesian Multilevel Modeling with the R package brms. arXiv 2017,
arXiv:1705.11123.
77. Ng’ombe, J.N. Economics of the Greenseeder Hand Planter, Discrete Choice Modeling, and On-Farm
Field Experimentation. Ph.D. Dissertation, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, USA, 2019.
78. Kruschke, J. Doing Bayesian Data Analysis: A Tutorial with R, JAGS, and Stan; Academic Press: Cambridge,
MA, USA, 2014.
79. Kruschke, J.K.; Liddell, T.M. The Bayesian new statistics: Hypothesis testing, estimation, meta-analysis,
and power analysis from a Bayesian perspective. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 2018, 25, 178–206, doi:10.3758/s13423-
016-1221-4.
80. Makowski, D.; Ben-Shachar, M.S.; Lüdecke, D. bayestestR: Describing Effects and their Uncertainty,
Existence and Significance within the Bayesian Framework. J. Open Source Softw. 2019, 4, 1541,
doi:10.21105/joss.01541.
81. Holding, B.C.; Sundelin, T.; Cairns, P.; Perrett, D.I.; Axelsson, J. The effect of sleep deprivation on
objective and subjective measures of facial appearance. J. Sleep Res. 2019, 28, e12860,
doi:10.1111/jsr.12860.
82. Van de Schoot, R.; Veen, D.; Smeets, L.; Winter, S.D.; Depaoli, S. A tutorial on using the WAMBS checklist
to avoid the misuse of Bayesian statistics. In Small Sample Size Solutions: A Guide for Applied Researchers and
Practitioners; van de Schoot, R., Miocevic, M., Eds.; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2020; pp. 30–49.
83. Goebbert, K.; Jenkins-Smith, H.C.; Klockow, K.; Nowlin, M.C.; Silva, C.L. Weather, climate, and
worldviews: The sources and consequences of public perceptions of changes in local weather patterns.
Weather Clim. Soc. 2012, 4, 132–144, doi:10.1175/wcas-d-11-00044.1.
84. Krosnick, J.A.; Holbrook, A.L.; Lowe, L.; Visser, P.S. The origins and consequences of democratic citizens’
policy agendas: A study of popular concern about global warming. Clim. Chang. 2006, 77, 7–43,
doi:10.1007/s10584-006-9068-8.
Agronomy 2020, 10, 376 25 of 25

85. Mpundu, L. Link between Farmers, Education. Zambia Daily Mail Ltd. Available online: http://www.daily-
mail.co.zm/link-between-farming-education/ (accessed on 27 February 2020).
86. Adesina, A.A.; Mbila, D.; Nkamleu, G.B.; Endamana, D. Econometric analysis of the determinants of
adoption of alley farming by farmers in the forest zone of southwest Cameroon. Agric. Ecosyt. Environ. 2000,
80, 255–265, doi:10.1016/S0167-8809(00)00152-3.
87. Giordano, M. Agricultural groundwater use and rural livelihoods in sub-Saharan Africa: A first-cut
assessment. Hydrogeol. J. 2006, 14, 310–318, doi:10.1007/s10040-005-0479-9.
88. Weber, E.U.; Stern, P.C. Public understanding of climate change in the United States. Am. Psychol. 2011, 66,
315, doi:10.1037/a0023253.
89. Abraham, T.W.; Fonta, W.M. Climate change and financing adaptation by farmers in northern Nigeria.
Financ. Innov. 2018, 4, 11, doi:10.1186/s40854-018-0094-0.
90. Munthali, C.K.; Kasulo, V.; Matamula, S. Smallholder farmers’ perception on climate change in Rumphi
District, Malawi. J. Agric. Ext. Rural. Dev. 2016, 8, 202–210, doi:10.5897/jaerd2016.0798.

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
lointaine !… Ah ! où est la sagesse ?… la fuir ou tenter de la rendre
sienne ?…
Sans soupçon du rêve qu’elle éveille, elle continue, attentive à sa
seule pensée :
— Et puis, j’ai vu, par l’exemple de Nicole, — et d’autres encore !
— combien peu cela sert, pour être heureuse, de se marier par
amour seul, en donnant tout son cœur, sans souci des objections,
des obstacles, des reproches, parce qu’on croit recevoir ce qu’on
donne soi-même… On peut être si durement trompée !… C’est un
peu effrayant… surtout pour moi qui comprends trop bien que je
serai, dans l’avenir, ce que me feront mon mari et mon mariage,…
comme Nicole !…
Il a l’intuition qu’elle voit ainsi la vérité. Et il l’enveloppe d’un coup
d’œil presque effrayé, parce qu’elle a déjà réfléchi à toutes ces
choses dont elle parle avec un sérieux de femme… Oh ! non, elle
n’est plus une petite fille !…
Pourtant, ainsi qu’il gronderait une enfant déraisonnable, il
reprend, et la lutte intime qui se livre en lui donne à son accent une
sorte d’âpreté :
— Vous avez été élevée de telle sorte, Guillemette, que vous
devez être incapable de faire ce qui serait indigne de vous…
— Oh ! mon oncle, ne croyez-vous pas qu’il se trouve des
moments où tous les bons principes reçus n’ont pas plus de force
que des fétus de paille ?
— Guillemette, petite fille, vous parlez de ce que vous ne pouvez
savoir…
— De ce que je ne peux savoir par moi-même, oui, mon oncle…
Mais je vais dans le monde… et je vois… j’entends des choses qui
me font réfléchir… L’exemple de Nicole m’a beaucoup instruite.
Il a un tressaillement d’impatience. Quel abîme il voudrait creuser
entre elle et Nicole de Miolan !
— Nicole supporte le malheur d’avoir été déplorablement gâtée.
Ce sera toujours son excuse, quoi qu’elle fasse. Cette excuse vous
ne l’auriez pas, vous, enfant.
— Qu’importent les excuses ! mon oncle. Il n’y a que les faits qui
comptent vraiment. Ça ne change rien à ce qui est, les raisons pour
lesquelles on a été amené à agir de telle ou telle manière.
Jamais encore, il ne l’avait entendue parler ainsi… Quelle
expérience, il y a déjà dans cette jeune tête !… Et cette fois, il ne
cherche plus à lui répondre comme à une enfant :
— Vous avez raison, Guillemette ; mais les influences qui se sont
exercées, font qu’on peut, ou non, pardonner à ceux qui s’égarent,
qui se trompent…
Dans la solitude de la plage assombrie, la voix fraîche s’élève
avec cet accent pensif qui étonne dans sa bouche juvénile :
— Oncle, ne croyez-vous pas qu’il faut toujours pardonner ?… Et
ce n’est pas approuver !… Mais qui n’a pas besoin de pardon ?
Voyez, maman est très indulgente ; et c’est une des qualités que je
voudrais le plus posséder comme elle… Vous, oncle René… Elle se
mit à rire, un peu malicieuse :
— … Vous avez la sagesse un brin rigoureuse !
— Et j’ai bien tort, Guillemette ; car je n’ai, pas plus que mes
semblables, le droit de condamner…
Il y a de l’amertume dans sa voix. Elle le sent, et tourne aussitôt
la tête vers lui avec une crainte de l’avoir froissé. D’un geste
instinctif, elle pose la main sur son bras :
— Oncle, vous n’êtes pas fâché, dites, que je vous ai parlé si
franchement ?… J’en aurais tant de regrets !… Car je vous aime très
fort… sans en avoir l’air !… Et avec le meilleur de moi-même…
Ah ! si elle l’aimait, comme, silencieusement, il se prend à le
désirer de toute son âme, elle ne lui dirait pas cela… Mais quelle
douceur caressante a son accent, alors qu’elle continue :
— Je voudrais tant que, de cette dernière causerie — où j’ai été
si franche avec vous, avouez !… — vous n’emportiez qu’un bon
souvenir !… Ainsi, après votre départ, quand nous penserons l’un à
l’autre, nous serons certains qu’il n’y a pas d’ombre entre nous…
 — Petite Guillemette, quelle ombre pourrait-il y avoir ?…
Comment serais-je fâché parce que je vous entends parler comme
une femme qui réfléchit ?… Moi aussi, j’ai une prière à vous
adresser. Quand je vais être loin, ne voyez plus en moi l’oncle
sévère et maussade que vous redoutiez, mais un ami à qui vous
êtes chère infiniment ; et, souhaitez-moi, puisque vous vous
intéressez à mon bonheur, de savoir… enfin !… où je puis le
chercher…
Que veut-il dire ?… Elle le regarde avec des prunelles attentives
— et curieuses, — où il lit clairement qu’elle ne devine rien des mots
qui lui montent aux lèvres… Et vers eux, accourt Mad qui leur crie :
— Mais vous ne revenez donc pas ?… Il est très tard !… On ne
voit presque plus clair… M’selle dit qu’il faut rentrer très vite… Le
dîner est plus tôt à cause de votre départ, mon oncle.
Elle a raison, cette petite. Il est bien tard. Le jour se meurt tout
gris sur la mer dont les vagues sont lourdes, obscures, jetées vers le
rivage par un souffle froid d’automne.
Et Guillemette, détournée de lui, aide déjà Mademoiselle à
rassembler les pliants. Il entend son joli rire ; le timbre de sa voix a
une sonorité si joyeusement claire que la certitude brutale s’abat sur
lui qu’il a mieux fait de se taire…
 XIX

Des jours et encore des jours ont coulé. Avec un camarade, puis
seul, René a été de station en station dans les Pyrénées, obstiné à
tenter toutes les ascensions encore possibles en cette fin de saison,
afin de dompter, par la fatigue, sa pensée qui se souvient, regrette,
discute le renoncement que la plus élémentaire raison lui impose.
Car maintenant qu’il est loin, il juge plus froidement et ne peut
s’illusionner sur l’accueil que, non seulement Guillemette, mais sa
sœur, mais Raymond Seyntis lui-même feraient au sentiment qui est
né obscurément en lui. Il ne lui reste donc, comme il l’a compris dès
la première heure, qu’à se détacher d’un rêve fugitif, charmant et
absurde dont il demeure stupéfait.
Il a beaucoup regardé en lui-même depuis qu’il a quitté les
Passiflores et vécu seul. Et cette méditation lui a révélé un fait qu’il
lui faut bien admettre : c’est qu’une insensible transformation s’est
opérée en lui. Il n’est plus l’homme qui, quelques mois plus tôt,
arrivait en France, sûr de l’orientation de son avenir ; avant tout,
passionné pour les choses de sa carrière, prompt à discerner la
résolution à prendre et certain de rencontrer, à l’heure souhaitée, la
femme qui réaliserait pour lui la compagne d’élection.
L’expérience est venue culbuter sa conception trop simple de la
vie, sa foi orgueilleuse en la puissance de son vouloir et la rectitude
de son jugement, la raide austérité de ses principes. Sous des
influences neuves et subtiles, son horizon s’est élargi. Il est moins
sévère aux autres. Mais lui-même s’est compliqué. Sa pensée plus
souple aperçoit des nuances, des lumières, des ombres aussi qu’il
ne concevait même pas ; et, par instants, il éprouve l’impression
qu’un souffle chaud a passé sur son âme, y faisant fondre les glaces
qui emprisonnaient son être moral, pour y éveiller la soif du
printemps. Ni le travail, ni l’action, ni la claire ordonnance de sa vie
ne lui suffisent plus. La solitude lui pèse. Il lui faut cette existence à
deux que possèdent aujourd’hui presque tous ses camarades, qui
en rend plusieurs éperdument heureux. Alors, seulement, cessera
pour lui l’impression d’isolement, même parmi les siens, qui lui
devient lourde à porter ; qu’il n’éprouvait pas, aiguë ainsi, quand il
était loin de France, qui s’est abattue sur lui, quand il a compris
combien Guillemette lui est devenue chère.
Et lui, si calme jadis, s’irrite maintenant de constater combien il
lui est difficile de retrouver le serein équilibre de sa pensée, — parce
qu’une lutte sourde, qu’il ne veut pas entendre, se poursuit en lui,
entre la raison qui exige l’oubli et le cœur, rebelle devant un tel
arrêt… Lutte qui devient peu à peu si pénible qu’il en arrive à
souhaiter n’importe quelle diversion l’arrachant à lui-même.
Il a fui Luchon où est Nicole qu’il ne veut pas voir et Biarritz dont
la brillante cohue exaspérait le sentiment de sa solitude ; et il est
venu se réfugier dans la paix de Saint-Jean-de-Luz.
La jolie petite ville est toute souriante sous les frondaisons
jaunissantes de ses arbres. La vigne vierge rougit les façades et ses
branches s’enchevêtrent en berceau sous le bleu violent du ciel…
Mais René, tout à coup, cesse de voir l’horizon charmant et
s’arrête court dans sa flânerie, à travers les rues vibrantes de
soleil… Car devant lui, sous la flamme de son ombrelle de soie
rouge, s’avance Nicole de Miolan, d’un pas nonchalant de
promeneuse. Dans un panier passé au bras, elle porte une grosse
gerbe de glaïeuls. Sa robe de toile blé semble la nimber de lumière.
Sûrement, elle n’est pas une passante à Saint-Jean-de-Luz. Elle
n’en a pas l’allure.
 Les prunelles ardentes s’arrêtent soudain sur René et une
surprise y jaillit… Tous deux, ils ont la même exclamation :
— Comment, vous êtes ici ?
Il ajoute :
— Je vous croyais à Luchon ?
— La saison est finie. Nous sommes partis pour Biarritz ; puis,
sur mon désir, nous sommes venus ici où mes parents ont loué une
villa afin de pouvoir y vivre solitairement. J’exècre les hôtels où
toutes les rencontres deviennent possibles…
Une vibration passionnée a passé dans sa voix et ses yeux ont
eu un éclair d’orage aussi vite disparu qu’il s’est allumé… Reprenant
tout de suite son seul personnage de femme du monde, elle
interroge, insoucieuse des passants qui regardent leur groupe, parce
que nulle part, Nicole de Miolan ne demeurerait inaperçue :
— Et vous, René, comment êtes-vous ici ?
— J’y suis en voyageur… j’ai voulu revoir le Midi.
— Et vous n’êtes pas un voyageur trop pressé, n’est-ce pas ?
— Non… Je suis seul…, libre de mon temps…
— Alors, accompagnez-moi un peu, que nous causions…
Voulez-vous ?… Cela me fait beaucoup de plaisir de vous
rencontrer !
Il la sent tout à fait sincère et il en éprouve une bizarre
impression de bien-être moral. Près d’elle, va-t-il enfin être distrait
des souvenirs qu’il ne parvient pas à fuir ?
Quel don de beauté, elle a reçu ! il la regarde émerveillé de son
éclat. La peau veloutée fait songer à un fruit splendide caressé par
l’or du soleil. Elle marche près de lui, le visage pensif, sous sa
capeline de paille blonde. Les paupières voilent le regard.
Elle demande :
— Parlez-moi d’Houlgate, de la chère petite Guillemette…
L’obscur tourment frémit en lui… Et il répond par des mots brefs ;
puis, en hâte, pour se fuir, il interroge à son tour :
 — Nicole, qu’êtes-vous devenue depuis que nous nous sommes
dit adieu aux Passiflores ? L’été vous a-t-il été bon… comme je le
souhaitais tant pour vous ?
La bouche expressive se contracte une seconde ; et railleuse,
Nicole jette :
— Bon ?… mon pauvre ami, que voulez-vous qu’il m’arrive de
bon ?… Je dois m’estimer satisfaite qu’il ne se soit produit, à mon
endroit, aucune catastrophe irréparable… Voilà tout !… Ce que j’ai
fait cet été, après avoir quitté Houlgate ?… Rien d’intéressant, pour
moi ni pour les autres ! De mon mieux, par tous les moyens qui me
semblaient favorables à ce résultat, j’ai essayé de tuer le temps…
C’est tellement long à remplir une journée quand on vit sans but !
Ces mots sonnent étrangement dans la petite rue paisible, striée
d’ombres bleues et d’éclatants rais de soleil ; où les promeneurs
circulent d’un pas flâneur ; où les gens du pays échangent, avec
exubérance, des propos très simples. Nicole a parlé d’un accent de
badinage ironique ; mais, dans sa voix, frémit cette amertume que
René y a surprise bien des fois à Houlgate. Il a l’intuition qu’une
désespérance absolue l’étreint affreusement et qu’il ne peut rien
pour la sauver d’elle-même. Pourtant, il essaie, avec une sorte
d’autorité affectueuse :
— Nicole, ce but que vous n’avez pas, donnez-le-vous !
— Et lequel voulez-vous que je me donne qui en vaille la
peine ?… Tout ce que je puis faire est si inutile !… Ah ! oui, je sais…
Il y a des gens très sages, très pondérés, à qui il suffit, pour être
contents d’eux-mêmes et de l’existence, d’accomplir leur tâche
quotidienne, si insignifiante soit-elle ! Il y a des femmes qui se
consolent de ce qui leur manque en s’absorbant dans les œuvres
pies… C’est qu’elles n’ont pas la misérable et égoïste soif de
bonheur dont je ne suis pas encore parvenue à me désaltérer,
quoique j’essaie tout ! pour y réussir…
— Peut-être parce que vous ne cherchez pas où il faut, fait-il
machinalement, tandis que sa pensée s’attache aux dernières
paroles de la jeune femme. Quel en est le sens ?… Serait-ce qu’elle
a enfin réalisé son audacieuse résolution de recommencer sa vie, au
seul gré de son désir ? Mais quoiqu’elle lui ouvre un peu de sa
pensée, avec une hautaine indifférence de ce qu’il conclura, elle
garde bien à elle le secret des jours qui viennent de passer pour
elle… S’ils ont été doux à sa beauté, ce n’est pas l’apaisement qu’ils
semblent avoir apporté à sa pauvre âme tourmentée…
Elle n’a pas relevé sa réflexion, si elle l’a entendue. Silencieuse,
elle avance près de lui, ses fleurs dans les bras. Ils sont maintenant
sous le couvert des arbres, devant la vieille maison de l’Infante, et
vont distraits des choses extérieures. Au souffle de la mer, encore
invisible, des feuilles cuivrées et pourpres volent autour d’eux
comme de larges papillons superbes qui viennent s’écraser sur le
sol.
Brusquement, Nicole reprend :
— Ah ! René, que vous êtes heureux d’être un croyant… Ce doit
être une si grande force et une si grande consolation !
Très simple, il dit :
— Oui, vous avez raison… Je l’ai senti aux heures les plus
douloureuses de ma vie… Et je ne puis l’oublier.
Elle a la pensée que les heures dont il parle sont peut-être celles
qu’il a connues par elle… Mais ce passé-là aussi est bien mort… Il
faut le laisser dormir en paix.
Elle songe tout haut, avec une espèce de gravité désespérée :
— Je crois… j’en suis arrivée à croire que certains esprits ont été
créés de telle sorte qu’ils ne peuvent perdre leur foi ; que d’autres,
au contraire, n’auront jamais une foi semblable, quoi qu’ils rêvent,
quoi qu’ils fassent !
— Nicole, à mon très humble avis, c’est qu’ils veulent discuter,
essayer de comprendre ce qui est l’Incompréhensible pour nous
autres humains…
Elle murmure :
— Oh ! oui, l’Incompréhensible… l’Inconnu… Et des gens
l’adorent, le servent, se donnent à lui, en font leur bonheur !… Les
bienheureux !… Moi, j’ai une âme païenne… Mon dieu, c’est
l’Amour !… C’est lui qui, pour moi, dispense le bien et le mal !…
Il sent tellement combien elle dit vrai qu’il ne songe même pas à
relever ses paroles. A quoi bon ?… Il peut la plaindre, non la
transformer.
Ils sont arrivés devant la mer qui miroite splendidement. Son
souffle les frappe au visage et emporte quelques pétales des fleurs
de Nicole. Lui, n’en voit rien. La houle, la senteur des vagues ont
aussitôt ressuscité en lui la vision d’une autre plage, voilée par le
crépuscule, d’une forme svelte sous une veste rouge, de deux
prunelles profondes qui songeaient, presque graves, alors pourtant
que la bouche souriait…
Nicole a l’intuition qu’il est loin d’elle et demande :
— René, est-ce que ce sont mes propos de mécréante qui
mettent ainsi en fuite votre pensée orthodoxe ?… Je vous ai avoué
déjà qu’il fallait avoir pitié de moi…
— Je me souviens… et cette pitié, je vous assure, Nicole, que je
vous l’offre, respectueusement, bien sincère…
— Oui, je sais, je sais… Pour moi, vous êtes vraiment un ami,
j’en suis sûre… Et c’est pourquoi il vaut mieux que je vous dise
quelle raison m’a conduite ici, à Saint-Jean-de-Luz. J’ai fui Biarritz
parce que j’y ai fait une rencontre.
— Une rencontre ?… répète-t-il, surpris de son accent.
— Oui, j’ai rencontré… mon mari qui m’a eu tout l’air d’être venu
à Biarritz en mon honneur… Avait-il à me parler ?… Je n’en sais
rien… Je n’ai pas ouvert la lettre qu’il m’a envoyée alors… pas plus
que je n’avais ouvert les autres… Mon Dieu ! comment n’a-t-il pas
encore compris qu’entre lui et moi, tout est fini !… Pour tâcher de
l’en convaincre mieux, j’ai quitté aussitôt Biarritz… Mais je vis hantée
par la crainte de le voir apparaître ici…
Il comprend pourquoi elle a les nerfs frémissants, pourquoi une
fièvre brûle son être passionné.
La voix assourdie, elle poursuit, isolée dans son souvenir :
 — Cela faisait sept mois que je ne l’avais vu. Il a changé… Mais
pourtant, c’est toujours lui…
Lui, qu’elle a adorée… Lui, qui l’a fait souffrir… Lui, qu’elle
n’oublie pas !… Une espèce de révolte gronde dans les bas-fonds
du cœur de René… Pourtant, il n’attend ni ne veut rien de cette
femme.
De nouveau, ils avancent silencieusement. Elle songe… à
quoi ?… Et que pourrait-il lui dire ?
Mais elle a tout à coup ce mouvement d’épaules qu’il connaît
bien, dont elle semble rejeter son fardeau en arrière et elle arrête
vers lui ses yeux brûlants ; son accent devient railleur :
— Mon pauvre René, quelle fâcheuse compagne de promenade
je vous offre !… Vous me trouvez plutôt ridicule, n’est-ce pas, avec
ma manière de vous accabler de mes doléances, dès que je vous
retrouve… Mais je me sens si effroyablement seule dans… dans la
tourmente où je me débats !… Il y a des minutes où le besoin de
parler de ma misère me ferait crier d’angoisse… Seulement, j’ai
appris à me dominer… et je me tais…
Elle ne trahit, en effet, sa détresse, ni par un geste, ni par un
éclat de voix ; elle garde son attitude de femme du monde qui tient
des propos de salon. Et cependant, comme elle est poignante, cette
plainte désespérée jetée ainsi dans le joli matin clair qui semble
chanter la douceur de vivre…
René cherche à écarter d’elle, un peu, la sensation d’isolement :
— Nicole, vous avez vos parents…
— Mes parents ?… Ils sont excellents… Mais nous sommes
aujourd’hui des êtres tellement différents que nous ne nous
comprenons guère et n’arrivons qu’à nous faire souffrir
mutuellement… J’en ai achevé l’épreuve… Et je me tais avec eux…
Comme avec tous… Vous excepté, René.
— Avec moi qui, hélas ! ne peux rien pour vous…
— Si !… Vous pouvez quelque chose en ce moment… Restez
quelques jours à Saint-Jean-de-Luz, voulez-vous ?… Nous ferons de
longues promenades. Nous causerons beaucoup… Et cela
m’empêchera de penser. C’est promis, n’est-ce pas ?… Pensez que
vous accomplirez une œuvre de charité en m’abandonnant un peu
de votre temps…
Ainsi, elle veut oublier, comme lui… Et l’oubli, c’est la paix, le
repos sans prix…
— Je resterai autant que vous le souhaitez, Nicole.
Il ne cherche pas une seconde à se dérober au charme
dangereux que pourtant il n’ignore pas et dont la puissance, à cette
heure, lui est un bien, puis qu’elle l’arrache à son rêve inutile.
 XX

La semaine va finir et René est encore à Saint-Jean-de-Luz. Ce

sont des jours singuliers qui se sont égrenés pour lui, tels qu’il n’en
avait peut-être jamais vécu.
Sur l’insistance très vive de M. et de Mme d’Harbourg,
candidement désireux de distraire leur fille, il a été l’hôte quotidien
de la villa ; et passif, pour fuir sa pensée, il s’est laissé envelopper
par la troublante atmosphère que Nicole distille autour d’elle.
Pour la première fois depuis… — il ne saurait dire quand !… — il
a vécu au gré de ses impressions sans souci de les juger ou de les
dominer, éprouvant une sorte de jouissance aiguë, — non plus une
terreur ! — à sentir la vie de Nicole se mêler à la sienne, l’absorber
peu à peu jusqu’à écarter de son cerveau toute pensée où elle est
étrangère.
Mais aussi était-ce un jeu, un caprice, une gageure de l’affoler
comme les autres ? Elle a été avec lui telle qu’il ne l’avait jamais vue,
la séduction même ; durant leurs causeries où, cependant, elle n’a
rien livré du mystère de son âme ; durant leurs flâneries sur la plage
et dans les petites rues luisantes de clarté ; pendant les soirées
passées à faire de la musique ; les excursions sous la correcte égide
de M. d’Harbourg qui, d’ailleurs, aussitôt à destination, les laissait
errer seuls, estimant la marche mauvaise pour ses vieux ans et
René un protecteur de tout repos.
 Elle, Nicole, que pense-t-elle ?… Quel drame se joue en son
esprit insaisissable. Est-ce l’apparition possible de son mari qui lui
donne ce cœur frémissant dont René sent la fièvre dans ses
silences comme dans ses moindres paroles, dans la caresse, l’éclair
ou la rêverie de son regard ?… Jamais plus, elle n’a parlé de lui,
après le brusque abandon du premier jour. Mais plus d’une fois,
devant la soudaine apparition d’une silhouette d’homme, il a deviné
en elle un tressaillement de tout l’être qui lui jette au visage une
ondée de sang. Ses lèvres, aussitôt, ont eu cette contraction que
René connaît bien maintenant et qu’il redoute ; car ensuite, elle
devient silencieuse, repliée sur elle-même et elle demeure lointaine,
tant qu’une circonstance extérieure ne la rejette pas hors de sa
songerie, ramenant sur ses lèvres le sourire qui grise ainsi qu’un
parfum trop pénétrant. Et si René est près d’elle, un peu bas, elle lui
dit, d’un ton d’excuse :
— Ne m’en veuillez pas… Maintenant, je suis toute à vous…
Toute à vous ! Quelle ironie de lui entendre ces mots qui éveillent
brutalement en lui le mauvais désir qu’il prétend ignorer. Il conserve
l’altière confiance de pouvoir en demeurer maître, mais il ne peut
empêcher sa pensée, surtout aux heures de la nuit où elle lui
échappe, d’être hantée par les multiples visions de Nicole que ces
quelques jours passés près d’elle semblent avoir imprimées en son
être.
Il en a conscience et s’est surpris à répéter tout à coup les
paroles de la sagesse : « Celui qui cherche le danger y périra… »
Certes, ce n’était pas le danger qu’il cherchait, seulement
l’apaisement, l’oubli… Et ne semble-t-il pas avoir réussi, puisqu’il ne
voit plus le fantôme charmant et redouté qu’il a cru devoir
impitoyablement écarter de sa vie ?… Alors, pourquoi s’attarder
auprès de cette dangereuse Nicole qui est troublante comme un
appel d’amour ?… Entre lui et elle, qui fut jadis la fiancée d’élection,
il ne doit rien y avoir qui les abaisse l’un et l’autre.
Et voici que, tout à coup, René ne se sent plus assez protégé par
sa seule volonté. Il entrevoit des abîmes dont il n’est plus aussi sûr
de se garder… Car sa sévère conscience ne lui permet pas de
s’illusionner sur la force et la nature de l’attrait qui l’emporte vers
Nicole, — Nicole, dont il ne souhaiterait plus faire sa femme ! — S’il
veut sincèrement se refuser à toute défaillance, il ne doit plus
demeurer près d’elle !
Mais la soif qu’elle lui a donnée de sa beauté est si violente qu’à
la seule idée de ne l’assouvir jamais, une misérable révolte crie en
lui… Ah ! c’était insensé de s’exposer à pareille tentation… Quel
monde entre ce qu’il éprouve pour Nicole et le sentiment que
Guillemette éveillait en lui !
L’esprit tourmenté d’impressions complexes, il arpente la plage et
tressaille de s’entendre tout à coup interpeller par M. d’Harbourg qui,
suivi de sa dévouée épouse, accomplit sa promenade quotidienne,
avant l’heure du déjeuner.
— Carrère, mon ami, allez-vous du côté de la villa ?… Oui ?… Eh
bien, vous m’obligeriez beaucoup en disant à Nicole qu’elle me
fasse envoyer tout de suite, chez le libraire, les livres que je veux
changer ce matin, au cabinet de lecture. Ma femme a oublié de les
prendre.
L’excellente Mme d’Harbourg n’a pas même l’idée de lui faire
remarquer que lui, tout d’abord, eût pu songer à ses propres affaires.
Elle est, au contraire, toute prête à s’excuser ; et docile, suit son
compagnon qui, après quelques mots à René, reprend ses
évolutions hygiéniques.
René s’en veut de la jouissance qui lui a fouetté le sang quand il
a entendu M. d’Harbourg lui demander d’aller trouver Nicole… Et
cependant, jusqu’à la minute où le domestique répond à sa
question : « Oui, madame est chez elle », il est harcelé par la crainte
qu’elle ne soit partie pour une de ces promenades solitaires où elle
passe des heures.
Elle est là. Quand il est introduit dans le petit salon qu’elle a fait
sien, il l’aperçoit assise devant sa table à écrire, la tête appuyée sur
ses mains jointes. Elle porte une longue robe de maison d’un mauve
rosé. Seule, la guipure du corsage voile le cou et les épaules.
Devant elle, une lettre fermée. Au bruit de la porte, elle a un peu
soulevé la tête et regarde qui entre ainsi chez elle, avec cette
expression venue de très loin que René lui a vue bien souvent.
— Comment vous ? René.
Elle passe les doigts sur son front d’un geste inconscient et lui
tend la main. Jusqu’au coude, les bras sont nus sous les dentelles
qui ourlent la manche. René sent sous sa bouche la peau tiède,
odorante comme la chair d’une fleur. Il se redresse un peu vite.
— Nicole, je vous demande pardon de venir ainsi vous déranger.
Mais votre père m’envoie, désirant…
Et il fait la commission.
— Bien.
Elle a sonné, donné des ordres. Lui, a attendu pour prendre
congé ; mais ses yeux l’ont suivie dans tous ses mouvements qui ont
une souplesse caressante.
— René, pourquoi restez-vous debout ? Êtes-vous si pressé, ce
matin ?
Elle s’est rassise à sa place coutumière, dans une bergère,
voisine du bureau d’où elle peut apercevoir, jusqu’à l’horizon, la
course capricieuse des vagues. Une lumière dorée flotte dans la
pièce à travers la toile rousse des stores abaissés. Elle demande,
tandis que sa main tourmente, sur la table, la lettre fermée :
— Nous n’avons pas décidé quelle promenade nous ferions
tantôt ?
Un imperceptible silence. Puis René articule, soudain dompté par
un mystérieux commandement :
— Choisissez-la, Nicole. Et choisissez-la belle,… car ce sera la
dernière…
— La dernière ?… Pourquoi ? Nous ne partons ni les uns ni les
autres.
— Si, Nicole… Moi, je pars.
— Oh ! non !!
 Elle a jeté les mots comme un cri d’angoisse, qui le fait tressaillir.
Il sent sur son bras le frôlement des doigts légers.
— Non, ne m’abandonnez pas, puisque vous dites que je vous
suis encore chère un peu… chère comme une amie dont on a
compassion, parce qu’elle est malheureuse… Ah ! si malheureuse !
Les traits de René prennent cette rigidité dure que leur donne
une émotion qu’il maîtrise. Très doucement, il détache la main qui
tremble sur son bras.
— Nicole, écoutez-moi… Parce que je vous ai vue souffrir, j’ai pu
oublier… tout le passé… Mais pour… pour notre bien à tous deux, je
ne veux pas m’exposer à ce que ce passé ressuscite !
Au fond des yeux qu’elle attache sur lui, il voit passer une
étrange expression, attirante à la façon des abîmes dont la
contemplation affole. Puis elle a un léger haussement d’épaules ; et
il comprend combien peu comptent, pour elle, les lois qui courbent
d’autres âmes.
— Et quand cela serait, René, vous êtes libre !… Moi aussi… Ce
que nous voulons, nous pouvons le faire. Personne n’a le droit de
nous demander compte de nos actes… Ne pensez pas à l’avenir…
Vivez comme moi dans la minute présente !… René, René, ne me
laissez pas seule en ce moment… Ne partez pas encore !… J’ai tant
besoin de me sentir gardée, protégée…
Elle a l’accent de supplication d’une créature en péril qui implore
le secours désespérément. Dans ses yeux, se mêlent de la
détresse, de la confiance, un mystérieux appel… Quoi encore… qu’il
n’ose lire ?… Ah ! il ne sait pas !… Il ne cherche plus à comprendre
pourquoi elle veut le retenir… Pourquoi tout à coup, elle est sortie de
la farouche réserve où elle enveloppait son âme, pourquoi elle
s’attache à lui, dans un élan qui jette le vertige en tout son être. La
voix altérée, il prononce :
— Nicole, si je puis vraiment quelque chose pour vous, dites-le-
moi… Mais ne me faites pas perdre toute sagesse… Souvenez-vous
que je suis un homme qui vous a adorée autrefois… Et il ne faut plus
qu’il en soit ainsi… Il ne le faut plus !
 De nouveau, dans les yeux de la jeune femme, luit ce regard qui
bouleverse René d’un désir aveugle de l’envelopper enfin de son
étreinte, de connaître la saveur de ses lèvres, d’oublier, par elle, tout
ce qui n’est pas elle…
— René, je suis terriblement égoïste… Mais je trouverais bon
que vous m’adoriez, ainsi qu’autrefois… Vous savez bien que j’ai,
pour mon malheur, un cœur insatiable… Seulement, rien de
semblable n’arrivera !… Ne craignez pas pour votre sagesse… Vous
en êtes toujours le maître… Pensez seulement que vous m’avez
promis d’être un ami très dévoué… Et donnez-m’en la preuve en
restant… Votre présence exorcise les mauvais fantômes !
Elle parle d’un ton bizarre, un peu sourd, où semblent frémir des
sanglots. Les doigts ont repris la lettre jetée sur la table et la
froissent nerveusement.
Une intuition éclaire la pensée de René. Cette lettre doit être
encore de son mari. Ah ! toujours cet homme !… Un vent de folie
s’élève en lui ; rafale où sombre toute volonté, toute conscience, tout
souvenir… Sans un mot, il se penche, attire, d’un geste impérieux, le
beau visage ardent et sa bouche écrase les lèvres entrouvertes…
Une seconde, leurs regards se mêlent, éperdus. Au fond de ses
prunelles, il y a la flamme de l’homme qui veut… Dans celles de
Nicole, une sorte de désespoir sombre, d’hésitation, de lassitude,
tandis qu’elle demeure immobile sous les baisers qui brûlent son
visage…
Mais presque aussitôt, elle se redresse violemment, se rejette en
arrière… Et, très bas, avec des lèvres qui tremblent, elle dit :
— Eh bien… non !… Pas cela !!… Il ne faut pas que cela soit…
Vous le savez bien !
— Pourquoi ?…
— Parce que vous ne m’aimez pas…
Il murmure, ivre du baiser dont le goût est encore sur sa bouche :
— Nicole, j’ai soif de vous… Et depuis tant d’années…
 Mais elle ne semble pas l’entendre et achève, de la même voix
basse :
— Et moi… moi non plus, je n’ai pas d’amour pour vous…
Seulement une grande affection…
Il recule, atteint comme si elle l’avait frappé. Pourtant ce qu’elle
dit là, depuis longtemps, il en est certain. Il laisse rudement retomber
les deux mains de la jeune femme, serrées dans les siennes.
— Vous n’avez pas d’amour ?… Rien d’étonnant à cela… Mais
alors quelle comédie me jouez-vous depuis huit jours ? Pourquoi
avez-vous été pour moi… ce que vous vous êtes montrée cette
semaine ?… C’était un jeu ?
Elle secoue la tête. Dans son visage sans couleur, les lèvres se
contractent.
— Non… ce n’était pas un jeu… Mais une vilaine action que je
me suis mise sur la conscience.
Une fugitive ondée de sang colore une seconde sa pâleur. Il
interroge :
— Nicole… Nicole, je ne vous comprends pas…
— Pour me comprendre… et me pardonner… il faut vous
souvenir, qu’en ce moment, je ne suis dans la vie qu’une pauvre
épave désemparée !…
Elle s’arrête. Lui, a toujours, rivés sur elle, ses yeux qui
demandent impérieusement la vérité… Alors, avec une sorte
d’altière franchise, elle répond : — mais, elle ne le regarde pas ;
vaguement, elle contemple le store qui bat au souffle de la mer :
— C’est vrai, autant qu’il dépendait de moi, j’ai cherché à être
aimée de vous, follement… ainsi qu’autrefois… Vous étiez si sûr de
vous-même, cet été, à Houlgate, et ici encore quand je vous ai
rencontré, que la misérable tentation m’est venue de briser votre
calme, de vous obliger à vous reconnaître vaincu par moi… tel que
je vous ai connu, il y a des années. Vous voyez, c’est une vraie
confession que je vous fais là !… Mais peut-être, après tout, est-ce
surtout que je voulais échapper, coûte que coûte, aux souvenirs
qui… qui me dévorent et qu’une rencontre a ravivés si vivants qu’ils
m’écrasent… Je ne peux plus les supporter… Je ne puis plus vivre
ainsi !…
Elle s’arrête encore. Ses mains ont une crispation d’angoisse.
Mais c’est le seul geste, avec le regard tragique de ses yeux sans
larmes, qui trahisse la tempête où sombre son orgueil…
Lui, l’écoute sans un mot. Comment pourrait-il la condamner, se
révolter contre elle, quand il a été si faible, plus faible qu’elle dont il
n’a pas les excuses ! Ah ! quelle humilité et quelle indulgence le
souvenir de cette heure lui laissera dans l’âme !…
De nouveau, dans le silence de la pièce, s’élève la voix
émouvante :
— Ne me méprisez pas trop, René, si j’ai, encore une fois,
essayé de mettre l’irréparable dans ma vie ; c’était pour être sûre
que je ne retournerais pas en arrière… Mais quand vos lèvres ont
pris les miennes, j’ai senti que je ne pouvais être à personne… Du
moins, en ce moment…
— Et demain… plus tard, vous ne pourriez pas davantage,
Nicole,… parce que…
Il hésite une seconde. Les mots lui paraissent si difficiles à
prononcer !
— … Parce que vous aimez toujours votre mari…
— René !!… Oh ! taisez-vous !… taisez-vous…
Mais quelle créature serais-je donc, si je l’aimais encore après
tout… tout ce qui s’est passé entre nous !
— Si vous ne l’aimiez plus, puisque vous vous considérez
comme libre de disposer de vous-même, vous n’auriez pas cette
horreur d’appartenir à un autre…
L’orage s’apaise en lui, y laissant la honte de ce qu’il a souhaité
avec le besoin intolérable de se relever dans sa propre estime.
Et il poursuit avec une grave sincérité d’accent qui la domine, où
vibre l’écho de son émotion :
 — Nicole, je ne suis guère qualifié pour vous donner un conseil…
Mais je vous le dis, comme je le crois… Nicole, il faut vous
réconcilier avec votre mari…
— C’est-à-dire, reprendre le joug, les scènes, les défiances, les
jalousies… Je ne veux pas… Oh ! non, je ne veux pas !!… Quand
j’aurai, enfin ! le divorce, je recommencerai ma vie…
— Il faut, dès maintenant, la recommencer, la recommencer avec
lui… Croyez-moi…
Elle a un rire sec où sanglote sa désespérance :
— C’est vous qui me conseillez cela ?… Vous qui, il y a un
instant…
Le visage de René s’altère encore plus.
— Nicole, j’étais fou et je ne suis pas seul responsable… Vous le
savez bien !… Vous m’aviez fait perdre la raison… Car je vous jure
que, de toute ma volonté, du jour où je vous ai retrouvée, j’ai
uniquement souhaité voir en vous la femme qui aurait pu être ma
fiancée… Mais vous m’avez tenté… et je ne suis pas plus fort que
les autres !
Elle murmure amèrement :
— Qui donc est fort, grand Dieu !… quand la passion souffle !…
Nous sommes alors de pauvres choses emportées par un torrent…
Nous ne sommes plus qu’une souffrance ou une joie, dans laquelle
notre être s’absorbe !
Il sent qu’elle parle avec le souvenir de cet homme qu’elle a
essayé, en vain, de rejeter de sa vie où il demeure le maître de son
cœur, de sa pensée, de sa chair, si profondément qu’elle n’a pu,
même le voulant, faire le don d’elle-même à un autre… Et il se
domine, avec une âpre joie d’en souffrir :
— Nicole, pour être certaine de n’avoir rien à regretter par votre
faute, si votre mari vient à vous, ne le repoussez pas sans
l’entendre… S’il vous écrit de nouveau…
Et son regard se pose sur l’enveloppe fermée.
— … lisez sa lettre… Ne la brûlez pas comme les autres…