chapter 7

Gendering Change: Canadian Farm Women Respond to Drought

Amber J. Fletcher and Erin Knuttila

Climate change is one of the most profound environmental, political, and social issues of our era, particularly given its global scope and direct regional impacts. The threats and vulnerabilities associated with climate change and climate extremes, including drought, are not gender-neutral, and actors’ everyday responses to these events can both challenge and reinforce existing gender roles and ideologies. As climate change scenarios become a reality, residents of the Canadian Prairies can expect more dramatic climate extremes—particularly severe, prolonged drought. There is a need for context-specific analyses of gender and drought, which can inform effective and gender-attentive strategies for preparedness and response.

In this chapter, we present a contextualized analysis of gender and drought in the Canadian Prairie province of Saskatchewan. Such contextualization is important because vulnerability and adaptation are shaped by much more than climatological factors. Social, political, and economic stressors interact to create unique situations of vulnerability to climate extremes. We begin our analysis by briefly situating farmers’ vulnerability and adaptive strategies within the broader macro-level political-economic context of Prairie agriculture. Next, drawing on a recent qualitative study of farm women in Saskatchewan, we present a micro-level analysis that reveals the gendered dynamics of vulnerability and adaptation in everyday life. Drawing together both levels of analysis, we illustrate that particular political, economic, and social conditions have resulted in unique forms of vulnerability and adaptation on the Canadian Prairies. We suggest several policy implications to strengthen the adaptive capacity of Canadian farm families in the future.

Gendering Climate Extremes

Social factors can significantly shape how humans are affected by climate extremes (Adger 2003; see Chapter 1 by Wandel et al. in this volume) and how they respond to these extremes. Kelly and Adger (2000: 325–26), for example, noted the importance of examining the social dimensions of climate events:

Climate impact studies have tended to focus on direct physical, chemical or biological effects, yet a full assessment of consequences for human well-being clearly requires evaluation of the manner in which society is likely to respond through the deployment of coping strategies and measures which promote recovery and, in the longer-term, adaptation.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has stated that social inequality based on gender, race, age, socio-economic status, and ability can determine a person or system’s vulnerability to climate extremes (Field et al. 2012). Disasters can exacerbate existing inequalities in society (Enarson et al. 2007), resulting in different levels of vulnerability and unequal access to resources before, during, and after the climate event. Women have historically played integral roles in food preparation, childcare, and healthcare—roles that are critical during disaster situations but that become more difficult to carry out during such events (Enarson and Chakrabarti 2009). Entrenched gender roles can therefore create different experiences of disaster for women than for men (Dankelman 2010; Enarson and Chakrabarti 2009).

At the same time, some feminist scholars have observed a tendency in the gender and climate change literature to portray “women” and “men” as homogeneous categories while ignoring differences caused by race, socio-economic class, geography, ability, and education (Enarson et al. 2007). Moosa and Tuana (2014) documented the growing importance of intersectional and contextual studies that examine how gender interacts with other forms of social difference, such as socio-economic class or rurality, to create different experiences of climate extremes even within the social categories of “women” and “men.” Arora-Jonsson (2011) disputed sweeping and universal statements about the vulnerability of women, calling instead for more contextualized analyses of gender and climate change that address local gender roles and ideologies in specific locations. This includes situations where hegemonic masculinity may render men vulnerable to climate extremes.

Few academic studies have been conducted specifically on gender and drought on the Canadian Prairies. However, the experiences of farm women in the region provide an important window into the gendered dimensions of drought. Because they depend on the land for their livelihoods, farmers are directly and dramatically affected by drought and other climate extremes. Many family farms in the Prairies are structured by a gendered division of labour, in which men are more likely to be positioned as the “main farmer” while farm women’s work is construed as “helping” (Fletcher 2013; Faye 2006). In addition to farm work, women are primarily responsible for childcare and other caregiving work (Jaffe and Blakley 1999), household tasks such as cooking and cleaning, and yard work (Fletcher 2013; Kubik and Moore 2005). Through their association with social reproduction tasks and their relative detachment from day-to-day farm decisions (Fletcher 2013; Reinsch 2009), farm women may experience drought disasters differently than men.

In her research on Manitoba farm women’s experiences of the bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) crisis, which occurred only one year after the drought of 2001–2, Reinsch (2009) found that farm women experienced high levels of stress as a result of the disaster. The women’s stress was due, in part, to their lack of control over major farm decisions and coping strategies (Reinsch 2009). Historical sources, including farm women’s own accounts of past droughts, also provide some insight into the gendered dimensions of drought in a historical framework. In an analysis of her great-grandmother’s letters from the 1930s, Bye (2005) argued that farm women actively reinforced gendered roles and ideologies during a drought, which had the effect of reproducing gendered inequalities and, therefore, gendered vulnerability. Other authors have documented the importance of farm women’s adaptive strategies during the Great Depression, including household resource management strategies, subsistence food production, and off-farm work (Gilbert and McLeman 2010; Schwieder and Fink 1988). In a recent article based on interviews with environmental migrants during the 1930s drought, Laforge and McLeman (2013) suggested that women may have experienced drought-related migration differently than men and that women may have experienced increased isolation due to gender roles that limited their social interaction.

The literature suggests that while women and men can be similarly exposed to the same climate conditions, contextual differences—including gendered divisions of labour—can produce different degrees of sensitivity and different forms of adaptation (Leichenko and O’Brien 2008; Milne 2005). Climate scenarios indicate that the Canadian Prairies will face significant water scarcity as the result of warmer and drier weather and that the region will be exposed to extreme droughts of long duration in the future (Sauchyn et al. 2010; Sauchyn and Kulshreshtha 2008). Programs to reduce vulnerability and encourage adaptation are necessary, but they are only helpful if they are attentive to local social and gender orders. Programs should not exacerbate existing forms of inequality in the community and should, when possible, challenge these inequalities. It is necessary to understand the gendered dimensions of extreme events to create culturally appropriate and gender-attentive approaches to future climate extremes.

Drought on the Canadian Prairies

The Canadian Prairies have the most variable and drought-prone climate in Canada (Sauchyn 2010; Bonsal and Regier 2007; see also Chapter 8 by Marchildon in this volume), yet the region is also one of Canada’s key agricultural areas. The province of Saskatchewan, for example, contains 40% of Canada’s farmland and exports more than half of the world’s lentils, peas, and flaxseed (Government of Saskatchewan 2012a). The region also produces over 30% of the durum, canola seed, and mustard consumed worldwide (Government of Saskatchewan 2012a). The neighbouring Prairie province of Alberta is known for its cattle industry, producing 40% of Canadian beef cattle (Statistics Canada 2011a).

Over the past decade, this important agricultural region has experienced a series of droughts, most notably in the 1930s, 1960s, 1980s, and early 2000s, and most recently in 2009 (Warren and Diaz 2012; Marchildon et al. 2008; Bonsal and Regier 2007; see also Chapter 4 by Kulshreshtha et al. and Chapter 8 by Marchildon in this volume). Dendroclimatic records indicate that even worse droughts occurred before European settlement of the Prairies and thus before instrumental recording began (Sauchyn et al. 2003; see also Chapter 2 by Sauchyn and Kerr in this volume), which suggests that similar extreme droughts could potentially reoccur in the future.

The social and economic impacts of drought on agriculture can be dramatic. Saskatchewan farmers sustained crop production losses of $925 million in 2001 and $1.49 billion in 2002, and the province reported negative net farm income in 2002 (Wheaton et al. 2008). Farmers relied heavily on crop insurance to cope. Insurance payments in Saskatchewan jumped from $331 million in 2001 to $1.1 billion as the drought continued into 2002 (Wheaton et al. 2005).

Climate scientists predict more dramatic changes for the Prairie region in the future. More severe and protracted droughts are expected as overall temperatures continue to rise (Sushama et al. 2010; Bonsal and Regier 2007; see also Chapter 3 by Wheaton et al. in this volume), but the region will also experience more fluctuations and a greater range of extreme climate events as anthropogenic climate change interacts with natural cycles (Sauchyn 2010: 38; Sauchyn and Kulshreshtha 2008). These events will test residents’ abilities to cope and adapt.1

There is a need for context-specific analyses that highlight the unique forms of vulnerability and adaptation at play in certain locations. Such localized understandings can facilitate policies that are attentive to the strengths and needs of actors in unique circumstances. In the following section, we provide a contextualized analysis of the gendered dimensions of vulnerability and adaptation on the Canadian Prairies. We present the results of a qualitative research project conducted with 30 Saskatchewan farm and ranch women between August and December 2011. The project involved 30 semi-structured interviews, most of which occurred at the participants’ farms. For a detailed description of the methods and participant demographics, see Fletcher (2013).

The study’s findings reveal the importance of the broader political, social, and economic context shaping farm women’s lives, as well as the uniquely gendered dynamics affecting both vulnerability and adaptation. The following sections discuss both of these contexts, macro and micro. Based on these findings, we present recommendations for gender-attentive policies that should benefit Prairie farmers facing climate extremes in the future.

Managing Uncertainty: Vulnerability, Adaptation, and Gender on Saskatchewan Farms

Context: The Changing Face of Prairie Agriculture

Farm women’s experiences of climate change must be understood within the broader political and economic context of Prairie agriculture. Vulnerability is not simply a product of climatic factors (see Chapter 1 by Wandel et al. in this volume). Factors such as market prices, input costs, policies, and population trends can increase or decrease farmers’ access to much-needed resources, and this subsequently shapes their vulnerability and adaptive capacity in the face of climate extremes.

Farmers have been “squeezed” between high production costs and low commodity prices since the early days of agricultural settlement in the Prairies (McCrorie 1964; Fowke 1957). However, contemporary farmers face a new kind of cost-price squeeze. Large, vertically integrated agricultural corporations have become dominant forces in multiple links of the food chain, from the production of patented seed varieties to processing and export (Fletcher 2013; Kuyek 2007). At the same time, deregulatory policy changes and the elimination of farm support programs have increased both farmers’ costs and their susceptibility to the vagaries of international market prices (Roppel et al. 2006).

Figure 1. Increase in average farm size in Saskatchewan (in acres), 1921–2011 (Source: Statistics Canada 2011a)

Figure 2. Total outstanding Saskatchewan farm debt (in Canadian dollars), 1981–2010 (Source: Statistics Canada 2011b)

Farmers have adapted to these macroeconomic changes through farm-based economies of scale and increased production. Farm size growth has reached new heights in recent years, as Prairie farms grow at the fastest rate in history (Figure 1). However, we cannot assume that small or lower-income farming operations are more or less vulnerable to climate extremes than large, “successful” farms. In fact, the debt levels associated with farm expansion, as well as the cost of expensive inputs intended to enhance productivity, can leave larger or highly industrialized farms even more financially precarious and vulnerable to climate disasters (Figure 2).

Farm women in the study identified debt and high input costs as having “make or break” power during extreme weather events. One participant said the following:

If you’ve put it all in your land and you don’t get a profit back, every year that you lose is a year that you don’t get back. It takes you longer to regain what you’ve lost. So, I know those years of drought, yes, that’s a farm crisis: when you have nothing to sell but your bills are still coming in. (Fletcher 2013: Interview 20)

The participant also added, “When it’s a drought, of course your income’s down but your expenses still stay the same: the price of fuel, the price of repairs, the price of everything” (Fletcher 2013: Interview 20).

Another participant described the challenges for farmers who had expanded their operations through increased debt: “We’ve got men in their early 20s that are in debt $2.5 million, but they’re one of the biggest farmers in the area” (Fletcher 2013: Interview 7). For some, decreasing their debt was an adaptive strategy to prepare for crises: “So we’re small but at least we own it, we don’t owe any money, we’re not in debt like a lot. Some, they go big and they’re fine, but some go too big and they crash” (Fletcher 2013: Interview 17).

Many participants relied on insurance and government disaster programs in times of environmental crisis. Despite some concerns about the administration of these programs, such as the length of time to receive a payment, participants generally saw the programs as important and necessary. However, insurance is a viable coping mechanism only if it remains affordable for farmers. Many participants expressed concern that current insurance programs were not keeping pace with the rising cost of inputs. Others contemplated the future cost of insurance in a changing climate: “I think that crop insurance is possibly going to get more expensive. It may, it just may not, but I also think it will get more expensive just because of the increased variability in weather. It’s an insurance program and if your weather gets weird it’s going to get more expensive” (Fletcher 2013: Interview 8).

Drought also affects farmers’ workloads, although the effects are different for cattle and crop producers. Dry years create more work for cattle producers, as they are forced to pump or haul water for the herd. Women are often involved with hauling water for the farm or household during a drought. One participant, who was the sole farmer on her operation, relied on her daughter for assistance with water collection: “When you have cattle, it causes more work because there was no water. We had to water them. [Daughter] was the water girl. Five-hundred gallons a day, every day” (Fletcher 2013: Interview 23). Drought tended to have the opposite effect on grain and oilseed producers, who often found their workload reduced. When crops did not grow, there was simply nothing to be done.

In the case of both cattle and crop producers, the most dramatic consequences of climate extremes were felt internally. Stress was the most commonly mentioned issue in discussions about drought and other climate extremes. As we discuss below, vulnerability and adaptation to these psychological effects takes gendered forms.

The Gendered Dimensions of Vulnerability and Adaptation to Drought

Existing research has documented the historical invisibility and marginalization of North American farm women’s contributions to agriculture (e.g., Fletcher 2013; Faye 2006; Kubik and Moore 2005; Kubik 2005, 2004; Rosenfeld 1985; Sachs 1983; Ireland 1983; Koskie 1982). This invisibility persists despite the importance of women’s work and despite their rising participation in activities often considered masculine, such as driving large machinery (Martz 2006). The lack of recognition is mostly due to the persistent notion that farming is a “man’s job.” Participants in the study were asked to name all job titles they identified with. Despite the fact that “farmer” was selected most often (n = 14), it was very common for participants to identify their male partners as the “main” or “primary” farmer while describing their own role as that of “helper,” “employee,” or “go-for.”

With this “helper” identity comes a relative lack of control over the day-to day farm decisions, which are often made by men. As one participant stated, “I think farm women tend to be more supportive, rather than the decision makers. I think, as far as me personally, I’m the sounding board. I do lend some opinions that alter the end decision, but the end decision is generally [husband’s]” (Fletcher 2013: Interview 15). Another participant described the phenomenon this way:

The division of farm work is: he’s in charge. He does everything with the farm work, except when he needs me to help him fix something, hold a part, or put it this way—he chooses what he has to do to make money on the farm and I do everything else that he doesn’t want to do. (Fletcher 2013: Interview 4)

The farm household is also structured by rigid gender roles. The women in the study performed an average of 88% of all domestic, household, and caregiving work; this is 20% more than the national average for women according to Statistics Canada (Milan et al. 2011). The gendered division of labour is partly due to the concrete realities of farm work. Farming is not a “9 to 5” job, and farmers may work from 4 or 5 a.m. until midnight during busy seasons, such as harvest time. Many rural areas in Saskatchewan lack childcare services, and even if these exist, few service providers can accommodate farming schedules. These material realities combine with historically ingrained gender ideologies that position women as “natural” caregivers and men as providers for the family.

Farm women’s roles are thus structured at the confluence of both ideological and material factors. These gendered roles result in different experiences of environmental crisis for farm women and farm men. Only three participants felt that the response to a climate event depends on individual personality and is not gendered; the remainder felt that gender roles make a difference. In contrast to Reinsch’s (2009) findings, several participants described how men’s closeness to the farm causes them to be more negatively affected by the psychological impacts of climate extremes. Men’s typical position as the “main” farmer is a privileged position when times are good, but it can increase their personal vulnerability during a drought. It is they, the “main” farmers, who watch closely as crops wither or livestock suffer. As one farm woman explained, “I’m not in contact with it 24/7 like they [her husband and sons] are. It affects their appetite. It affects their outlook for the next day. They don’t rest properly, you know. It’s just, it’s a battle” (Fletcher 2013: Interview 29).

Farm men’s psychological distress is also caused by dominant ideals of masculinity and, in particular, a stoic and independent form of masculinity commonly found in Prairie agricultural communities. Participants described the gendered expectations placed on men to be “providers” and the vulnerability this can cause in times of crisis. One said, “I think when you’re the man of the household, ultimately it’s your responsibility no matter how much you’re supported by your wife and how much she helps, ultimately . . . it sits on your shoulders” (Fletcher 2013: Interview 19).

It should not be assumed that these differences are somehow natural or inherent to men and women. Different forms of vulnerability are the product of entrenched gender ideologies and roles. This is clearly shown in the case of one farm woman who was the main farmer on her operation while her husband worked full-time off the farm. As the main farmer, she was more severely affected by the mental turmoil of a multi-year drought. Her words illustrate not only this mental turmoil but also the interaction of financial and climatological factors in shaping vulnerability:

It’s not the weather itself, it’s what the weather does to the bottom line . . . I find it way, way too stressful . . . the financial part is what stresses me . . . I think there were two or three years in there, probably three years there, where I was on anti-depressants. (Fletcher 2013: Interview 23)

More commonly, environmental crises further entrench farm women’s historical role as a caregiver for the farm family and community. Participants often used terms like “nurturer,” “mediator,” “buffer,” and even “counsellor” to describe their role during a drought. One farm woman described this role:

We try and keep everybody on the level and you know, don’t try to irritate them. Try and keep it a peaceful atmosphere, like ‘maybe tomorrow will be better,’ ‘next year will be better,’ or . . . ‘we can deal with this.’ . . . You have to take the role of a matriarch kind of thing, you know? I don’t know if that’s a good word, but . . . try and be the buffer I guess. (Fletcher 2013: Interview 3)

This raises the question of who supports the supporters. To whom did farm women turn for support? For many, gendered ideologies made it easier for women, as opposed to men, to talk about their concerns with friends or family members. As one participant said, “I think farm men tend to keep more inside and I think farm women tend to network” (Fletcher 2013: Interview 15). These social networks, however, are rapidly disappearing. As agricultural production becomes more competitive and industrialized, many small and medium-size farms have disappeared, unable to compete in the current conditions. Many farm women reported the loss of neighbours and other social support networks.

Although women’s relative disconnection from farm control could help buffer them somewhat from the psychological effects of climate extremes, it can also give them less agency over practical strategies for coping and adaptation on the farm. As the “main” farmers, men are more likely to make coping and adaptation decisions, such as which crops to plant or whether to spend more on new seeds that promise drought resistance. Although participants felt that gender roles made it easier for women to network and talk about their concerns with friends and family, the constant pressure to support others resulted in hidden stress for many women. As one woman described it, “The physical strain and the emotional strain that the wife carries is not something that can ever be measured, but it is something that she wears all the time” (Fletcher 2013: Interview 7).

Drought also exacerbated women’s work responsibilities. Women often hauled water for the farm and household, a task they combined with their existing responsibilities. One participant described the difficulties of raising a small child during the drought of 2001 and 2002:

I had to get a water tank and haul water from the city to fill up my well so I could bathe and do laundry. It was terrible. About once every three days I had to haul water from the city. One load of water would take me about two hours . . . at the time I had a child who was in diapers. Then you’re trying to entertain her and I’d bring along games, tic-tac-toe. (Fletcher 2013: Interview 5)

Participants often tried to save money during difficult times by changing household practices. Strategies included growing more vegetables and preserving them through canning or freezing, mending clothes and other household items instead of buying new things, and accepting temporary work or self-employment to bring in extra income. According to one farm woman, “We put off farm-related purchases and applied heavy restrictions on personal entertainment, fuel, power, telephone, groceries. . . ” (Fletcher 2013: Interview 30).

Some women had taken an off-farm job as a form of adaptation to the uncertainties of farming. However, few participants saw their off-farm income as directly supporting the farm operation. This income was usually seen as a way to pay household expenses when the farm could not sustain such expenses or as money to support lifestyle preferences and extra “wants.” For many women, off-farm work was also a source of self-fulfillment and a place to pursue their own goals. However, working off-farm is rarely accompanied by a decrease in household or farm responsibilities. Despite the personal fulfillment it offers, farm women who find their work increasingly stretched in multiple directions can experience increased levels of stress.

These findings support Arora-Jonsson’s (2011) argument about the importance of context; they respond to her recommendation for a nuanced analysis of gender and climate change. We cannot assume that vulnerability can be neatly mapped onto social categories of difference like gender. This study showed that gender is indeed a key dimension that shapes vulnerability and adaptation to extreme climate events; however, vulnerability should not be uncritically attached to women. In the case of Saskatchewan farmers, gender roles and ideologies made men more vulnerable to the psychological consequences of drought, challenging conventional discourses that feminize vulnerability. Women “pick up the pieces” (Fletcher 2013: Interview 1) as caregivers, farm workers, or off-farm wage earners. They play a critical role in coping and adaptation. At the same time, however, environmental crises tended to further entrench historical gender roles. Material and ideological factors position women as the “caregivers” and “nurturers” for the family during times of environmental crisis while giving them less agency over concrete adaptation strategies.

Policy Implications

Beyond strategies at the farm level, there is a need for government intervention to reduce vulnerability and facilitate adaptation over the long term (Marchildon et al. 2008). Indeed, Marchildon et al. (2008) showed that government disaster programs were a crucial coping mechanism used by farm families dealing with climate extremes. At the same time, such programs must be appropriately and accessibly designed in order to be useful. Programs must be attentive to both the macro- and micro-level political, economic, and social conditions affecting the community they serve. Disaster assistance and insurance coverage, for example, must keep up with the cost of production as farms grow larger and more industrialized.

Attention must also be paid to financial vulnerability caused by high levels of farm debt. The findings of the current study challenge the idea that small farming operations are necessarily more vulnerable than large farming operations; in fact, debt levels are a key determinant of vulnerability. Agricultural policies and programs must not uncritically promote farm growth—which is often premised on high debt levels—as a positive step for long-term farm sustainability.

Mental health and psychological stress emerged as key forms of vulnerability in the study. Rural residents often lack access to mental health support services due to geographical constraints and the urbanization of health services (Kubik and Moore 2005; Jaffe and Blakley 1999). Further, the stigma associated with use of these services can be a barrier in small and tightly knit communities (Fraser et al. 2005). Until 2012, Saskatchewan had a publicly funded, peer-based telephone helpline, the Farm Stress Line, which was well known among farmers as a source of mental and emotional support. In July 2012, the operation of the helpline was transferred to an urban-based community organization to save government expenditures of $100,000 per year (Government of Saskatchewan 2012b). Mental health services will become more important as climate extremes become more frequent and severe. These services must be provided with attention to appropriateness; that is, they should be provided by individuals with knowledge of, and experience in, agriculture. Further, support services should be designed with attention to gendered dimensions that create different experiences for farm men and women.

Government programs must also extend beyond just coping and disaster assistance to facilitate adaptive capacity over the long term. A dual focus on coping and adaptive capacity will help reduce future public expenditure in the event of an environmental disaster. Recent changes to federal infrastructure such as the erosion of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration, which was established as an institutional adaptation to the extreme droughts of the 1930s, suggest a decreased governmental emphasis on long-term adaptation.

Conclusion

A recent non-governmental organization handbook on climate adaptation stated that “one of the challenges of working at the local level on climate change adaptation is the lack of scaled-down information on impacts” (Dazé et al. 2009: 2). In this chapter, we have presented a scaled-down analysis of gendered impacts of drought in the Canadian Prairies. The analysis reveals the gender dynamics of vulnerability and adaptation—dynamics that are often invisible from a macro-level perspective and thus give the (mistaken) impression that climate change is a gender-neutral phenomenon that affects everyone equally. It is through a gendered lens that important social factors, such as psychological stress and the importance of social support networks, become visible.

At the same time, we emphasize the importance of situating micro-level understandings of climate vulnerability and adaptation within larger political and economic conditions. The current emphasis on industrialization and rapid farm expansion through debt has resulted in particular vulnerabilities for Prairie farm families; these vulnerabilities can be exacerbated by climate events and threaten the future sustainability of food production. Policies aimed at enhancing adaptive capacity must consider these broader economic challenges while simultaneously attending to differences within and between farm families. Such multi-scale, gendered analyses can inform more effective adaptation policies that are relevant and aligned with the realities of everyday life on the Canadian Prairies.

Note

1 A recent study (in which the authors are currently involved) found that unanticipated fluctuations between flood and drought, as well as dramatic departures from the “expected” extremes, can be particularly difficult for agricultural producers. For example, among producers in the drought-prone Palliser Triangle region of southern Saskatchewan and Alberta (see Chapter 8 by Marchildon in this volume), drought is generally expected and prepared for; therefore, the occurrence of an extremely wet year in 2010–11, which followed immediately after the drought of 2009, challenged producers’ abilities to cope and adapt (VACEA Forthcoming).

References

Adger, N.W. 2003. “Social Aspects of Adaptive Capacity.” Pp. 29–50 in J.B. Smith, R.J.T. Klein, and S. Huq (eds.), Climate Change: Adaptive Capacity and Development. London: Imperial College Press.

Arora-Jonsson, S. 2011. “Virtue and Vulnerability: Discourses on Women, Gender and Climate Change.” Global Environmental Change 21: 744–51.

Bonsal, B., and M. Regier. 2007. “Historical Comparison of the 2001/2002 Drought in the Canadian Prairies.” Climate Research 33: 229–42.

Bye, C.G. 2005. “‘I Like to Hoe My Own Row’: A Saskatchewan Farm Woman’s Notions about Work and Womanhood during the Great Depression.” Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies 26, no. 3: 135–67. doi: 10.1353/fro.2006.0001.

Dankelman, I. (ed.). 2010. Gender and Climate Change: An Introduction. London: Earthscan Publishing.

Dazé, A., K. Ambrose, and C. Ehrhart. 2009. Climate Vulnerability and Capacity Analysis Handbook. CARE.

Enarson, E., and P.G.D. Chakrabarti (eds.). 2009. Women, Gender and Disaster: Global Issues and Initiatives. New Delhi: Sage Publications.

Enarson, E., A. Fothergill, and L. Peek. 2007. “Gender and Disaster: Foundations and Directions.” Pp. 130–46 in H. Rodriguez, E.L. Quarantelli, and R. Dynes (eds.), Handbook of Disaster Research. New York: Springer.

Faye, L. 2006. “Redefining ‘Farmer’: Agrarian Feminist Theory and the Work of Saskatchewan Farm Women.” MA thesis, Memorial University of Newfoundland.

Field, C.B., V. Barros, T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, D.J. Dokken, K.L. Ebi, M.D. Mastrandrea, K.J. Mach, G.K. Plattner, and S.K. Allen. 2012. Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Fletcher, A.J. 2013. “The View from Here: Agricultural Policy, Climate Change, and the Future of Farm Women in Saskatchewan.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Regina.

Fowke, V.C. 1957. The National Policy and the Wheat Economy. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Fraser, C.E., K.B. Smith, F. Judd, J.S. Humphreys, L.J. Fragar, and A. Henderson. 2005. “Farming and Mental Health Problems and Mental Illness.” International Journal of Social Psychiatry 51: 340–49.

Gilbert, G., and R. McLeman. 2010. “Household Access to Capital and Its Effects on Drought Adaptation and Migration: A Case Study of Rural Alberta in the 1930s.” Population and Environment 32, no. 1: 3–26. doi: 10.1007/s11111-010-0112-2.

Government of Saskatchewan. 2012a. “Agriculture in Saskatchewan.” Government of Saskatchewan website. http://www.agriculture.gov.sk.ca/Default.aspx?DN=7b598e42-c53c-485d-b0dd-e15a36e2785b. Accessed 24 November 2013.

———. 2012b. “News Release: Mobile Crisis Services to Take on Farm Stress Calls.” Government of Saskatchewan website. https://www.saskatchewan.ca/government/news-and-media/2012/june/27/mobile-crisis-services-to-take-on-farm-stress-calls. Accessed 10 December 2015.

Ireland, G. 1983. The Farmer Takes a Wife. Chesley, ON: Concerned Farm Women.

Jaffe, J.M., and B. Blakley. 1999. Coping as a Rural Caregiver: The Impact of Health Care Reforms on Rural Women Informal Caregivers. Winnipeg: Prairie Women’s Health Centre of Excellence.

Kelly, P.M., and W.G. Adger. 2000. “Theory and Practice in Assessing Vulnerability to Climate Change and Facilitating Adaptation.” Climatic Change 47: 325–52.

Koskie, S. 1982. The Employment Practices of Farm Women. Saskatoon, SK: National Farmers Union.

Kubik, W. 2004. “The Changing Roles of Farm Women and the Consequences for Their Health, Well Being, and Quality of Life.” PhD dissertation, University of Regina.

———. 2005. “Farm Women: The Hidden Subsidy in Our Food.” Canadian Woman Studies 24: 85–90.

Kubik, W., and R.J. Moore. 2005. “Health and Well-being of Farm Women: Contradictory Roles in the Contemporary Economy.” Journal of Agricultural Safety and Health 11: 249–56.

Kuyek, D. 2007. “Sowing the Seeds of Corporate Agriculture: The Rise of Canada’s Third Seed Regime.” Studies in Political Economy 80: 31–54.

Laforge, J.M.L., and R. McLeman. 2013. “Social Capital and Drought-Migrant Integration in 1930s Saskatchewan.” The Canadian Geographer / Le Géographe Canadien 57, no. 4: 488–505. doi: 10.1111/j.1541-0064.2013.12045.x.

Leichenko, R.M., and K.L. O’Brien. 2008. Environmental Change and Globalization: Double Exposures. New York: Oxford University Press.

Marchildon, G.P., S. Kulshreshtha, E. Wheaton, and D. Sauchyn. 2008. “Drought and Institutional Adaptation in the Great Plains of Alberta and Saskatchewan, 1914–1939.” Natural Hazards 45: 391–411.

Martz, D.J. Forsdick. 2006. “Canadian Farm Women and Their Families: Restructuring, Work and Decision Making.” PhD dissertation, University of Saskatchewan.

McCrorie, J.N. 1964. In Union Is Strength. Saskatoon: Centre for Community Studies, University of Saskatchewan.

Milan, A., L.-A. Keown, and C.R. Urquijo. 2011. Families, Living Arrangements and Unpaid Work (Women in Canada: A Gender-Based Statistical Report). Ottawa: Statistics Canada.

Milne, W. 2005. “Changing Climate, Uncertain Future: Considering Rural Women in Climate Change Policies and Strategies.” Canadian Woman Studies 24, no. 4: 49–54.

Moosa, C.S., and N. Tuana. 2014. “Mapping a Research Agenda Concerning Gender and Climate Change: A Review of the Literature.” Hypatia 29, no. 3: 677–94. doi: 10.1111/hypa.12085.

Reinsch, S. 2009. “‘A Part of Me Had Left’: Learning from Women Farmers in Canada About Disaster Stress.” Pp. 152–64 in E. Enarson and P.G.D. Chakrabarti (eds.), Women, Gender and Disaster: Global Issues and Initiatives. New Delhi: Sage Publications.

Roppel, C., A.A. Desmarais, and D. Martz. 2006. Farm Women and Canadian Agricultural Policy. Ottawa, ON: Status of Women Canada. http://www.aic.ca/gender/pdf/Farm_Women.pdf.

Rosenfeld, R. 1985. Farm Women: Work, Farm, and Family in the United States. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.

Sachs, C.E. 1983. The Invisible Farmers: Women in Agricultural Production. Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Allanheld.

Sauchyn, D. 2010. “Prairie Climate Trends and Variability.” Pp. 32–40 in D.J. Sauchyn, H.P. Diaz, and S. Kulshreshtha (eds.), The New Normal: The Canadian Prairies in a Changing Climate. Regina: Canadian Plains Research Center Press.

Sauchyn, D., H. Diaz, and S. Kulshreshtha (eds.). 2010. The New Normal: The Canadian Prairies in a Changing Climate. Regina: Canadian Plains Research Center Press.

Sauchyn, D., and S. Kulshreshtha. 2008. “Prairies.” Pp. 276–328 in D.S. Lemmen, F.J. Warren, J. Lacroix, and E. Bush (eds.), From Impacts to Adaptation: Canada in a Changing Climate 2007. Ottawa: Government of Canada.

Sauchyn, D.J., J. Stroich, and A. Beriault. 2003. “A Paleoclimatic Context for the Drought of 1999–2001 in the Northern Great Plains of North America.” Geographical Journal 169: 158–67.

Schwieder, D., and D. Fink. 1988. “Plains Women: Rural Life in the 1930s.” Great Plains Quarterly 8, no. 2: 79–88.

Statistics Canada. 2011a. 2011 Census of Agriculture. Ottawa: Government of Canada. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/120510/dq120510a-eng.htm. Accessed 28 September 2013.

———. 2011b. Farm Debt Outstanding: Agriculture Economic Statistics. Ottawa: Minister of Industry. Cat. No. 21-014-X, vol. 10, no. 2. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/21-014-x/21-014-x2011002-eng.pdf. Accessed 28 September 2013.

Sushama, L., N. Khaliq, and R. Laprise. 2010. “Dry Spell Characteristics over Canada in a Changing Climate as Simulated by the Canadian RCM.” Global and Planetary Change 74: 1–14.

Vulnerability and Adaptation to Climate Extremes in the Americas (VACEA) Project Integrated Report. Forthcoming.

Warren, J.W., and H.P. Diaz. 2012. Defying Palliser: Stories of Resilience from the Driest Region of the Canadian Prairies. Regina: Canadian Plains Research Center Press.

Wheaton, E., S. Kulshreshtha, V. Wittrock, and G. Koshida. 2008. “Dry Times: Hard Lessons from the Canadian Drought of 2001 and 2002.” The Canadian Geographer/Le Géographe Canadien 52: 241–62.

Wheaton, E., V. Wittrock, S. Kulshreshtha, G. Koshida, C. Grant, A. Chipanshi, and B. Bonsal. 2005. Lessons Learned from the Canadian Drought Years of 2001 and 2002: Synthesis Report. 11602-46E03. Saskatoon: Saskatchewan Research Council.