Open Access
Cah. Agric.
Volume 25, Numéro 2, Mars-Avril 2016
Numéro d'article 25003
Nombre de pages 8
Section Études originales / Original Studies
Publié en ligne 1 avril 2016
  • Aadland D, Caplan AJ. 2006. Cheap talk reconsidered: New evidence from CVM. J. Econ. Behav. Org. 60: 562– 578. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Abdullah MY. 2007. Climate change and food security, MARDI. Available at: [Google Scholar]
  • Acquah H. 2011. Farmers perception and adaptation to climate change: A willingness to pay analysis. J. Sust. Dev. Afr. 13: 150– 161. [Google Scholar]
  • Alam MM, Toriman M, Siwar C, Molla RI, Talib B. 2011. Impact of agricultural supports for climate change adaptation: A farm level assessment. Am. J. Environ. Sci. 7: 178. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Arbuckle Jr JG, Morton LW, Hobbs J. 2013. Farmer beliefs and concerns about climate change and attitudes toward adaptation and mitigation: Evidence from Iowa. Clim. Change 118: 551– 563. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Austin OC, Baharuddin AH. 2012. Risk in Malaysian agriculture: The need for a strategic approach and a policy refocus. J. Malay. Stud. 13: 21. [Google Scholar]
  • Barnes A, Islam MM, Toma L. 2013. Heterogeneity in climate change risk perception amongst dairy farmers: A latent class clustering analysis. Appl. Geogr. 41: 105– 115. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Boyle KJ. 2003. Contingent valuation in practice. In: Champ PA, Boyle KJ, Brown TC, eds. A primer on nonmarket valuation. Netherland: Springer. [Google Scholar]
  • Carson R. 2012. Contingent valuation: a comprehensive bibliography and history. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  • Carson RT, Louviere JJ, Wei E. 2010. Alternative Australian climate change plans: The public's views. Energy Policy 38: 902– 911. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Fankhauser S. 2013. Valuing climate change: the economics of the greenhouse. New York: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  • FAO. 2015. A special report on crop and food security assessment mission to Swaziland. In: Pound J, Michiels J, Bonifácio R, eds. Swaziland: World Food Programme. [Google Scholar]
  • Gornall J, Betts R, Burke E, Clark R, Camp J, Willett K, et al. 2010. Implications of climate change for agricultural productivity in the early twenty-first century. Philos. Trans. R Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 365: 2973– 2989. doi:10.1098/rstb.2010.0158 [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Greene WH. 2012. Econometric analysis, 7th ed. Upper Saddle River. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. [Google Scholar]
  • Initial National Communication (INC). 2000. Malaysia national communication. Ministry of Science, Technology and the Environment. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. [Google Scholar]
  • IPPC. 2014. Summary for policymakers. In: Edenhofer O, Pichs-Madruga R, Sokona Y, Farahani E, Kadner S, Seyboth K, eds. Climate change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. [Google Scholar]
  • Kennedy P. 2008. A guide to econometrics. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT press. [Google Scholar]
  • Kurukulasuriya P, Rosenthal S. 2013. Climate change and agriculture: A review of impacts and adaptations. Environ. Dep. Papers 91: 1– 106. [Google Scholar]
  • Le Dang H, Li E, Bruwer J, Nuberg I. 2014. Farmers’ perceptions of climate variability and barriers to adaptation: lessons learned from an exploratory study in Vietnam. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Global Change 19: 531– 548. [Google Scholar]
  • Lobell DB, Schlenker W, Costa-Roberts J. 2011. Climate trends and global crop production since 1980. Science 333: 616– 620. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Luers AL, Lobell DB, Sklar LS, Addams CL, Matson PA. 2003. A method for quantifying vulnerability, applied to the agricultural system of the Yaqui Valley, Mexico. Global Environ. Change 13: 255– 267. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Menapace L, Colson G, Raffaelli R. 2015. Climate change beliefs and perceptions of agricultural risks: An application of the exchangeability method. Global Environ. Change 35: 70– 81. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Menter J. 2012. Helping U.S. farmers increase production and protect the land. Yale Environ. 360: 1– 3. [Google Scholar]
  • Rowe RD, Schulze WD, Breffle WS. 1996. A test for payment card biases. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 31: 178– 185. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Safi AS, Smith WJ, Liu Z. 2012. Rural Nevada and climate change: vulnerability, beliefs, and risk perception. Risk Anal. 32: 1041– 1059. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Singh J. 2014. Textbook of agricultural meteorology. Jaipur, India: Oxford book company. [Google Scholar]
  • Siwar C, Alam MM, Murad MW, Al-Amin AQ. 2009. A review of the linkages between climate change, agricultural sustainability and poverty in Malaysia. Int. Rev. Bus. Res. Papers 5: 309– 321. [Google Scholar]
  • Srisopaporn S, Jourdain D, Perret SR, Shivakoti G. 2015. Adoption and continued participation in a public Good Agricultural Practices program: The case of rice farmers in the Central Plains of Thailand. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 96: 242– 253. doi: [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Stern NH, Treasury HM. 2006. Stern Review: The economics of climate change. London: HM treasury. [Google Scholar]
  • Tao F, Hayashi Y, Zhang Z, Sakamoto T, Yokozawa M. 2008. Global warming, rice production, and water use in China: developing a probabilistic assessment. Agric. Forest Meteorol. 148: 94– 110. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Wheeler S, Zuo A, Bjornlund H. 2013. Farmers’ climate change beliefs and adaptation strategies for a water scarce future in Australia. Global Environ. Change 23: 537– 547. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Yoo SH, Kwak SY. 2009. Willingness to pay for green electricity in Korea: A contingent valuation study. Energy Policy 37: 5408– 5416. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Yu X, Abler D. 2010. Incorporating zero and missing responses into CVM with open-ended bidding: Willingness to pay for blue skies in Beijing. Environ. Dev. Econ. 15: 535– 556. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Les statistiques affichées correspondent au cumul d'une part des vues des résumés de l'article et d'autre part des vues et téléchargements de l'article plein-texte (PDF, Full-HTML, ePub... selon les formats disponibles) sur la platefome Vision4Press.

Les statistiques sont disponibles avec un délai de 48 à 96 heures et sont mises à jour quotidiennement en semaine.

Le chargement des statistiques peut être long.