Assessment of Vulnerability Index and Adaptation Strategies in Rice Production Due To The Climate Change Under Krishna River Basin of Andhra Pradesh

ASSESSMENT OF VULNERABILITY INDEX
AND ADAPTATION STRATEGIES IN RICE

PRODUCTION DUE TO THE CLIMATE
CHANGE UNDER KRISHNA RIVER BASIN OF
ANDHRA PRADESH
BY
N.S.PRAVEEN KUMAR
B.Sc. (Ag.)
THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE

ACHARYA N.G. RANGA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY
IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE AWARD OF THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE IN AGRICULTURE

(AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS)
CHAIRPERSON: Dr. K. S.R.PAUL
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS

AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE, BAPATLA
ACHARYA N.G.RANGA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY
RAJENDRA NAGAR, HYDERABAD – 500 030
2011
ASSESSMENT OF VULNERABILITY
INDEX AND ADAPTATION
STRATEGIES IN RICE PRODUCTION
DUE TO THE CLIMATE CHANGE
UNDER KRISHNA RIVER BASIN OF
ANDHRA PRADESH
N.S.PRAVEEN KUMAR
B.Sc. (Ag.)

(AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS)
2011
CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that the thesis entitled “ASSESSMENT OF

VULNERABILITY INDEX AND ADAPTATION STRATEGIES IN RICE
PRODUCTION DUE TO THE CLIMATE CHANGE UNDER KRISHNA
RIVER BASIN OF ANDHRA PRADESH ” submitted in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE IN AGRICULTURE in the
major field of Agricultural Economics of the Acharya N.G. Ranga Agricultural
University, Hyderabad, is a record of the bonafide research work carried out by
Mr. N.S.PRAVEEN KUMAR under my guidance and supervision. The subject of
the thesis has been approved by the Student’s Advisory Committee.
No part of the thesis has been submitted by the student for any other degree or
diploma. The published part has been fully acknowledged. All the assistance and help
received during the course of investigations have been duly acknowledged by the
author of the thesis.
(K.S.R.PAUL)
Chairman of the Advisory Committee
Thesis approved by the Student’s Advisory Committee
Chairman : Dr. K.S.R.PAUL _________________________

Assistant Research Officer,
Department of Agricultural Economics
Agricultural College, Bapatla.
Member : Dr. D.VISHNU SANKAR RAO ________________________

Professor and Head
Department of Agricultural Economics
Member : Dr. V. SRINIVASA RAO _________________________

Associate Professor and Head
Department of Statistics and Mathematics
Member : Sri. M. CHANDRA SEKHAR REDDY

Scientist
Agricultural Economics
RARS, Lam, Guntur.
Date of final viva-voce:

DECLARATION
I, Mr. N.S. PRAVEEN KUMAR, hereby declare that the thesis entitled
“ASSESSMENT OF VULNERABILITY INDEX AND ADAPTATION
STRATEGIES IN RICE PRODUCTION DUE TO THE CLIMATE CHANGE
UNDER KRISHNA RIVER BASIN OF ANDHRA PRADESH” submitted to the
Acharya N.G. Ranga Agricultural University for the degree of MASTER OF
SCIENCE IN AGRICULTURE in the major field of Agricultural Economics is
the result of the original research work done by me. It is further declared that the
thesis or any part thereof has not been published earlier in any manner.
Place:
Date : (N.S.PRAVEEN KUMAR)

CERTIFICATE
Mr. N.S.PRAVEEN KUMAR has satisfactorily prosecuted the course of

research and that the thesis “ASSESSMENT OF VULNERABILITY INDEX AND
ADAPTATION STRATEGIES IN RICE PRODUCTION DUE TO THE
CLIMATE CHANGE UNDER KRISHNA RIVER BASIN OF ANDHRA
PRADESH” submitted is the result of original research work and of sufficiently high
standard to warrant its presentation to the examination. I also certify that the thesis or
part thereof has not been previously submitted by him for a degree of any university.
Date: (K.S.R. PAUL)

Assistant Research Officer
Place: Department of Agricultural Economics
Assessment of Vulnerability Index and Adaptation strategies in
rice production due to the climate change under Krishna River
basin of Andhra Pradesh
BY
N.S.PRAVEEN KUMAR
B.Sc.(Ag.)

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS

RAJENDRANAGAR, HYDERABAD – 500 030.
2011
Assessment of Vulnerability Index and Adaptation strategies in
rice production due to the climate change under Krishna River
basin of Andhra Pradesh
BY
N.S.PRAVEEN KUMAR
B.Sc.(Ag.)

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS

RAJENDRANAGAR, HYDERABAD – 500 030.
2011
CONTENTS
Chapter Page
Title
No. No.
I INTRODUCTION
II REVIEW OF LITERATURE
III MATERIALS AND METHODS
IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
LITERATURE CITED
LIST OF TABLES
Table Title Page

No. No.
4.1 Functional relationship of different variables with vulnerability
4.2 Coefficients of First Eigen vector, Standard Error and Component

loadings
4.3 The Vulnerability Indices under each component of vulnerability.
4.4 Overall vulnerability index and the ranks of the districts under each
Component.
4.5 Ricardian area Regression Results
4.6 Ricardian yield Regression Results
4.7 Distribution of farmers’ age in different regions of the study area.
4.8 Education Levels of Farmers in different regions of the study area
4.9 Farmer investments on health in different regions of the study area
4.10 Distribution of households in cultivation in different regions of the

study area
4.11 Distribution of farm size (ha) in cultivation in different regions of the
study area
4.12 Distribution of livestock in different regions of the study area
4.13 Average farm income in the study area
4.14 Credit Sources to farmers in the study area
4.15 Frequency of Climate change observation by farmers in the study area
4.16 Summary of the various adaptation measures in three regions of the

study area.
4.17 Various barriers of adaptation in three regions of the study area.
4.18 Extension services from various agencies to the farmers in the study
area
4.19 Description of dependent of variable in the Logit model
4.20 Description of independent variables in the Logit model
4.21 Results of the Logistic Regression model
4.22 Cost of Cultivation of Different Rice Production Technologies.

Table Title Page
No. No.
4.23 Costs and returns of different Rice production technologies
4.24 Unit cost of production and productivity in paddy farms
4.25 Water Use Efficiency of Different Rice Production Systems.

LIST OF FIGURES
Page.
Fig. No Item
No
3.1 Diagram showing selection of respondents
3.2 Map of Krishna river covering different states
3.3 Map showing NSP and delta area covering 5 districts with
selected 3 mandals
4.1 Farmers adaptations to climate change

4.2 Cost of cultivation of different Rice production technologies
4.3 Yields of different Rice production technologies
4.4 Net returns of different Rice production technologies
4.5 Unit cost of production of different Rice production

technologies
4.6 Water use efficiency of different Rice production technologies

LIST OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS
% : Per cent
 : Increasing/positive
< : Less than
> : Greater than
∑ : summation
0
C : Degree Celsius
0
C/yr : Degree Celsius per year
AC : Adaptive capacity
Ai : Area of the ith crop (ha)
 : Decreasing /negative
B-C ratio : Benefit- cost ratio
Bi : Regression Coefficient
CC : climate change
CiIA ; Irrigated area under ith crop (ha)
DIUY : Annual daily diurnal temperature variation average (oC)
et al. : and others people
etc. : and so on; and other people/things
EVI : Environmental Vulnerability Index
ha : Hectare
ha-cm : Hectare centimeter
HLT : Long-term daily maximum temperature average (oC)
I : Potential impact
i.e., : That is
IPCC : International panel for climate change
Kg/ha : Kilogram per hectare
Kg/ha/mm : Kilogram per hectare per millimeter
Km2 : Square kilometer
LLT : Long-term daily minimum temperature average (oC)
Lts : Litres
LY : Annual daily minimum temperature average (oC)
mJ/m2/yr : Milli joules per square meter peryear
mm : Millimeter
No. : Number
PCA : Principle component analysis
PRCiIA : Proportion of irrigated area under ith crop
PROIA Proportion of irrigated area to total cropped area
PROSUR : Proportion of surface irrigated area from tanks and canals
Q/ha : Quintals per hectare
RH : Relative humidity
RLT : Long-term rainfall average (mm)
Rs : Rupees
Rs /ha/mm : Rupees per hectare per millimeter
Rs/annum : Rupees per annum
Rs/ha : Rupees per hectare
RY : Annual rainfall (mm)
S.No : Serial Number

System of rice intensification
SRI :
-1
t ha : Tonnes per hectare
tillers /m2 : Tillers per square meter
TOTCROP : Total cropped area in the district (ha)

US $ : United states dollars
VI : Vulnerability index
viz., : Namely
WUE : Water use efficiency
Yi : Yield of ith crop (Kg/ha)
α : Eigen vector
λ : Eigen value
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
An accomplishment of this thesis is the result of benevolence of Almighty, love of

my parents and blessing of my teachers and motivation of my friends.
I am privileged to avail this opportunity to express my deep and heartfelt

gratitude and veneration to my major advisor and chairman of the advisory committee
Dr. K.S.R Paul, Assistant research officer, Department of Agricultural Economics,
Agricultural College, Bapatla for his impeccable and highly informative advise and
guidance and for his incessant encouragement during the course of the study.
I am heavily indebted to Dr. K. Palanisami Director IWMI and Dr.k.krishna

Reddy, Scientist, IWMI, Hyderabad for involving me in students orientation in climate
change research, climate change impact studies: CLIMARICE-II undertaking case
studies in Krishna River Basin. Their concern in enlightening me on various aspects of
research and for constant appraisal on subject matter to bring out a refined dissertation
to recon with set standards.
I wish to express my deep sense of gratitude to the member of my advisory

committee, Dr.D.Vishnu Sankar Rao, Professor& head, Department of Agricultural
Economics, Agricultural College, Bapatla for his insightful and inspiring guidance,
constant encouragement and constructive criticism during the course of my investigation.
I express my profound gratitude to the member of my advisory committee

Sri M.Chandra Sekhar Reddy,scientist, Department of Agricultural Economics, RARS,
Lam for his guidance and suggestions during the period of my research work.
I am extremely greatful to the member of advisory committee

Dr. V. Srinivasa Rao, Associate Professor& Head, Department of Statistics and
Mathematics, Agricultural College, Bapatla for his kind cooperation during statistical
analysis.
I avail of this opportunity to express my sincere regards to Dr.K.N.Ravi Kumar

Associate professor and Dr.Raghunatha Reddy, Assistant Professor, Dr. G. Gurava
Reddy Scientist RARS, Lam and Sri.N.A.Choudary, Retd.assistant professor,
Department of Agricultural Economics for their encouraging guidance and transcendent
suggestions during the course of investigation.
It is high time to surface out my adoration and most affectionate gratitude to my
beloved parents Sri.N.Jeevamadhuram and Seetharamamma and most effable, amiable
and caring Brothers Naveen ,Pavan ,Subbarao for their inspiration given from time to
time in educating and moulding me to achieve set goals and for their constant
encouragement to bring out my best in my all endeavours.
Wordy thanks can never repay the help, encouragement and perspiration in
rendering ineluctable assistance during my productive education career to my beloved
friends Joshna, Mounika,Tushara,Sravanthi and Jayavardhan.
I acknowledge and appreciate my colleagues Sravan, Sandhya and Ashok for

their support and extended to boost up my morale in carrying out this thesis research
work.
It gives me immense pleasure to express my profound thanks to my seniors

Rambabu,Kishore,Chinmayee,Prasad,Srinivas and friends Dayakar, Amrut, Tirupathi,
Yohoshuva , Gowtham, Malyadri , Suresh , Shameer ,Govardhan,Aneesh,Niranjan ,
Usha Mayuri, Mrudula and Siva Parvathi for their unforgettable help and co-operation
during the course of this work.
I express my indebtedness to Acharya N. G. Ranga Agricultural University and

IWMI, (Climarice project) Hyderabad for providing financial assistance during the
course of my post-graduation.
My sincere thanks to Eswar Digitals, Bapatla, for neat and meticulous printing
of thesis in time
Date : (N.S.PRAVEEN KUMAR)

ABSTRACT
Name of the Author : N.S. PRAVEEN KUMAR
Title of Thesis : “Assessment of Vulnerability Index and

Adaptation strategies in Rice production due to the
climate change under Krishna River basin of
Andhra Pradesh”
Faculty : Agriculture
Major Field of Study : AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS
Major Advisor : Dr. K.S.R. PAUL
University : Acharya N. G. Ranga Agricultural University

Year of submission : 2011
The present study was conducted in Guntur district under Nagarjuna

Sagar project area of Krishna river basin of Andhra Pradesh with the major
objectives to assess the vulnerability index of districts under Krishna river basin
of Andhra Pradesh, to assess the impact of climate change on socio economic
conditions of farmers, to analyze the adaptation strategies taken due to climate
change and to examine the efficient Rice production systems in the study area.
A total of sample 240 paddy growing farmers were selected randomly, 40 from
each village. The important analytical tools employed in the study were the
Principle Component Analysis, Ricardian Regression Model, Logistic
Regression Model, Simple Tabular Analysis etc.
The study revealed that among the nine districts under Krishna river
basin, Anantapur was highly vulnerable whereas Krishna district was least
vulnerable.
The impact of climate change on area of crops showed that the climate
variables such as long term daily minimum temperature average (LLT) and long
term daily maximum temperature average (HLT) were important determinants
of maize and long term daily maximum temperature average (HLT) and annual
rainfall (RY) were important determinants of paddy crop where as proportion of
irrigated area to total cropped area (PROIA) and long term daily maximum
temperature average (HLT) were important variables influencing Groundnut.
In case of productivity the variables proportion of surface irrigated area
from tanks and canals (PROSUR) and long term daily minimum temperature
average (LLT) in paddy, long term daily minimum temperature average (LLT)
and long term daily maximum temperature average (HLT) in maize and long
term daily minimum temperature average (LLT) and long term rainfall average
(RLT) in Groundnut were important variables influencing productivity of crops.
The socio economic study revealed that an average age of the farmers was
36 years and the education level was up to high school level. Most of the farmers
invest their income on health ranging from Rs.10000-20000 per year. Most of the
farmers lend their credit from banks and cooperative societies. The study also
revealed that 59.17 % of farmers reported adapted and 40.83% of farmers
reported not adapted to climate change. The major constraints for not adapting
were lack of information, lack of money, shortage of labour, shortage of land and
poor potential for irrigation.
Logit model results indicate the variables that influence adaptation

capacity of farmers significantly were farm size, farming experience, access to
credit and access to extension services.
Among the different Rice production technologies in the study area, the
total cost of cultivation was high in SRI followed by machine transplanting,
farmers practice and in direct sowing. The net returns and B-C ratio were highest
in direct sowing followed by SRI, machine transplanting and farmers practice.
Cost of production was highest in farmers practice followed by machine
transplanting, SRI and direct sowing. The WUE was highest in SRI followed by
direct sowing.
Chapter I
INTRODUCTION
Climate change is one of the major environmental concerns of today’s

challenge to humanity as a whole. The consequences of climate change include
melting glaciers, more or less precipitation, more and more extreme weather
events and shifting seasons. Human beings are going to be affected the most by
such climate changes.The climate change has started from the last two centuries
due to the anthropogenic release of greenhouse gases from fossil fuels burnt.
And the anthropogenic drying will continue during 20th century due to partly
increased aerosol loading and greenhouse gases (Held et al. 2005) ultimately
influencing global warming. The main concern already raised by global warming
is that climatic variations alter the water cycle. Indeed in many cases, the data
show that the hydrological cycle is already being impacted (Dragoni 1998; Labat
et al. 2004; Huntington 2006; IPCC 2007). The hydrological cycle of many
climatic regions and river basins are mainly disturbed by the changes in cropping
pattern, land use pattern and over exploitation of water storage. The hydrological
cycle involves process of evaporation and precipitation which are predicted to
shift with climate change. Decrease in monsoon rainfall would reduce the
surface flows and net recharge of groundwater levels. In addition, variability of
annual monsoon rainfall also leads to extreme droughts and floods affecting the
agricultural production and national economies. Studies on inter-annual and
long-term variability of monsoon rainfall have also indicated that variation in
rainfall for the subcontinent is statistically significant (Thapliyal and Kulshrestha
1991; Srivastava et al. 1992). Several authors have also acknowledged that there
is an increasing trend in surface temperature, with decreasing trends in rainfall
(Hingane et al. 1985; Srivastava et al. 1992; Rupakumar et al. 1994; Pant et al.
1999; Singh and Sontakke 2002; Kripalani et al. 1996).
Monsoon rainfall is considered as the important climatic phenomenon in
the Indian subcontinent and the adjoining Asian and African regions. And the
utility of precipitation primarily depends upon its spatial and temporal
distribution. At the same time a high degree of correlation also exists between
the rainfall and agricultural production (Gadgil et al,1999). On the other hand
though the share of agriculture in both Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and
employment has declined over time, the pace of decline in its share in
employment has been much slower than that of GDP. Declines in the share of
agriculture in GDP were not commensurate with the fall in dependency in
agriculture. Such trends have resulted in fragmentation and decline in the size of
land holdings which leads to agronomic inefficiency, a rise in unemployment, a
low volume of marketable surplus. These factors could contribute to increase
vulnerability to global environmental change (Aggarwal et al., 2004).
Since many of the rural poor in the country depend on agriculture, it is

one of the central arenas in which the threat posed by climate change must be
confronted by research institutions and implementing agencies or bodies. The
recurrent droughts and floods threaten the livelihood of billions of rural people
who depend on the agriculture for most of their needs. Agriculture is not only
sensitive to climate change but at the same time it is one of the major drivers for
climate change. The climate sensitivity of agriculture is uncertain, as there is
regional variation of rainfall, temperature, crops and cropping systems, soil and
management practices. Some areas are more vulnerable as compared to others,
and some communities more affected as compared to others depending on the
socio-economic status. Understanding the weather changes over a period of time
and adjusting the management practices towards achieving better harvest is a
challenge to the growth of agricultural sector as a whole. The crop losses may
increase if the predicted climate change increases the climate variability.
Different crops respond differently as the global warming will have a complex
impact. Accordingly, the Government needs to prioritize its response to address
the vulnerability situation in different regions, due to limited resources. Impact
of such climate change on agriculture will be one of the major deciding factors
influencing the future food security.
The concept of vulnerability has emerged in the recent years as a cross-
cutting theme in research on the human dimensions of global environmental
change (Downing et al., 2000 and Polsky et al., 2003). Nowadays, it is being
more widely used in various research traditions and especially in the context of
climate change (Adger, 2006; Smit and Wandel, 2006). It is applied largely to
map the vulnerability of societies, ecology, natural and biophysical systems and
guide in developing adaptation measures. The implication is that vulnerability
of countries and societies to the effects of climate change depends not only on
the magnitude of climatic stress, but also on the sensitivity and capacity of
affected societies to adapt to or cope with such stress (NEST, 2004).
Consequently, IPCC (2007) defines vulnerability as “the degree to which

a system is susceptible, or unable to cope with adverse effects of climate change,
including climate variability and extremes. It is therefore a function of the
character, magnitude and rate of climate variation to which a system is exposed,
its sensitivity, and its adaptive capacity.
Exposure can be interpreted as the direct danger (i.e., the stressor), and
the nature and extent of changes to a region’s climate variables (e.g.,
temperature, precipitation, extreme weather events).Sensitivity describes the
human–environmental conditions that can worsen the hazard, ameliorate the
hazard, or trigger an impact. Adaptive capacity represents the potential to
implement adaptation measures that help avert potential impacts
The first two components together represent the potential impact and
adaptive capacity is the extent to which these impacts can be averted. Thus
vulnerability is potential impact I  minus adaptive capacity  AC  .
Adaptive capacity allows livelihoods to counteract the sensitivity of

farmers and thus reduces their vulnerability. Scientific studies in the context of
adaptive capacity and vulnerability due to the climatic changes are available
(Patt et al. 2005, IPCC ,2007). Adaptation options are also widely available, but
the more extensive research is lacking to reduce the vulnerability to future
climate changes. It is often the poor that are most vulnerable to such climatic
changes (Mendalsohn et al., 2006). In case of India various river basins are
available viz., Godavari, Krishna, Cauvery, Indus, Ganga, Brahmaputra etc,
which are affected due to the climate changes.
Problem statement:
The Krishna river basin is largely semi-arid where the average rainfall is
800 mm ranging from 300 to 1000 mm. Failure in the monsoons due to the
climate change affects the cropping pattern of the basin. In such conditions
farmers would react to shift their cropping pattern, adapt to water conservation
practices, short duration varieties, drill new bore wells etc. Hence, there is a need
to study the vulnerability and adaption strategies of Krishna river basin at
regional levels. Against the back drop of the above research challenges, the
present study points out the following questions:
Research Questions:
1) How climate change influences the socio-economic conditions of the

farmers?
2) Which districts /regions are more vulnerable to the climate change in an

irrigation project / sub river basin?
3) How the farmers are adapting to the changes in the climate?
4) What are the efficient farming systems (Rice) adapted by the farmers due
to climate change?
To find solutions to the above research questions, the following

objectives were framed.
Objectives:
The present study was taken up with the following objectives.
1) To assess the vulnerability index for the districts covered under Krishna
river basin in Andhra Pradesh.
2) To assess the impact of climate changes on socio-economic conditions of

the farmers.
3) To analyze the adaptation changes taken due to the climate change.
4) To examine and validate the efficient Rice production systems in the

selected study area.
Scope of the study:
The study helps to understand the vulnerable areas under Krishna river
basin as a result of different extreme events to changing climate. The results of
the study would be immensely useful to bring awareness among farmers’ and
improve their perception on climate change to the farmers of the study area. It
provides information on the adaptations to be taken by the farmers to mitigate
the impact of climate change on production. It also suggests the farmers in
making best use of water by following water saving technologies as it minimises
the utilization of water and avoids the stress on water availability to the rice
crop. The conclusions of the study and recommendations made would be helpful
for the irrigation department and policy makers for the control of resources and
up scaling the adaptation strategies.
Limitations of the study:
The limitation of the study was that the data pertaining to rice cultivation
to a single year i.e., 2009-10. Therefore the data obtained was across sectional
data at one point of time.
Besides, the data was collected through survey method by interviewing

farmers. Therefore, the objective of the study was limited to the extent that the
farmers were able to recapitulate from their memory as they did not maintain
any farm records about the climate, their adaptations and cost particulars.
Finally, the data were collected with limited sample of respondents of

Guntur district. Hence, the generalizations have to be restricted to the area where
similar agro-climatic and socio-economic conditions prevail in Krishna river
basin.
Structure of the study
The study is organised into five chapters.
Chapter -I : Introduction, problem statement, objectives, hypotheses,

scope and limitations of the study.
Chapter - II : Review of literature pertaining to present study and

review of past studies discussed shedding lights on the
Vulnerability Index, Ricardian model, adaptation
strategies and efficient rice production systems.
Chapter -III : Describes the materials and methods used in the study
Chapter - IV : The results of the study were discussed in this chapter
Chapter -V The chapter concludes with the summary and

conclusions.
Chapter II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
This chapter presents a brief review of literature pertaining to the present

problem of study. Concepts and conceptualization is essential parts in any
research study. Review of concepts used in earlier studies help us to adopt,
modify and improve the conceptual framework and provide a link with past
approaches. Hence, an attempt is made to review the various methods used in the
earlier studies to specify the concepts used and adopted in the present study. The
literature available on present study has been organized under the following
heads.
1. Studies on assessment of vulnerability and vulnerability index to climate

change
2. Studies on socio-economic conditions of farmers due to climate change
3. Studies on adaptation strategies to climate change
4. Studies on rice production technologies.
2.1 Studies on Assessment of Vulnerability to Climate Change
O’brien and Mileti (1992) examined the vulnerability to climate change

and stated that in addition to economic well being and stability, being important
in the resilience of populations to environmental shocks, the structure and health
of the population may play a key role in determining vulnerability. Age is an
important consideration as the elderly and young persons are tends to be
inherently more susceptible to environmental risk and hazard exposure.
Generally populations with low dependency ratio and in good health are likely to
have the widest coping ranges and thus be least vulnerable in the face of hazard
exposure.
Briguglio (1995) have calculated vulnerability index for small island
developing states (SIDS) and developed countries. He concluded from the
results that ‘SIDS’ are more vulnerable than any other group of countries. The
index construction has been limited to indicators of economic vulnerability.
Watson et al., (1996) defined vulnerability as the extent to which climate

change may damage or harm a system, depending not only on a system’s
sensitivity but also on its ability to adapt to new climatic conditions.
Atkins et al., (1998) studied the methodology for measurement of

vulnerability and to construction of a suitable composite vulnerability index for
developing countries and island states. The composite vulnerability indices were
presented for a sample of 110 developing countries for which appropriate data
was available. The index suggests that small states are especially prone to
vulnerable when compared to large states. Among the small states, such as Cape
Verde and Trinidad and Tobago are estimated to suffer relatively low levels of
vulnerability and majority of the states estimated to experience relatively high
vulnerability and the states like Tonga, Antigua and Barbedas being more
vulnerable to external economic and environmental factors.
Jayanthi (1998) addressed vulnerability at the state (province) level and

developed vulnerability parameters for the coastal regions of India. The cyclone
vulnerability was defined as the multiple of cyclone frequency, topography and
population density (F*T*P), where topography was defined as the combination
of bathymetry and elevation of an area. The elevation data for Indian coastal
areas being unavailable, only the bathymetry factor 2 was taken into account in
the calculation of indices. The effect of bathymetry was captured by multiplying
the maximum shoaling factor 3 with F and P. This is the only study that included
some elements of natural environment in addressing vulnerability and concluded
that West Bengal and Bangladesh formed the most vulnerable coast followed by
coastal areas of Orissa.
Adger (1999) defined vulnerability as the extent to which a natural or
social system is susceptible to sustaining damage from climate change. It is
generally perceived to be a function of two components. The effect that an event
may have on humans, referred to as capacity or social vulnerability and the risk
that such an event may occur, often referred to as exposure.
Handmer et al., (1999) studied the coping mechanisms to environmental

shock or hazard brought about by biophysical vulnerability. The factors like
institutional stability and strength of public infrastructure are crucial importance
in determining the vulnerability to climate change. A well connected population
with appropriate public infrastructure will be able to deal with a hazard
effectively and reduce the vulnerability. Such a society could be said to have low
social vulnerability. If there is an absence of institutional capacity in terms of
knowledge about the event and ability to deal with it, then such high
vulnerability is likely to ensure that biophysical risk turns into an impact on the
human population.
Kaly et al., (1999) constructed the EVI study for three countries,
Australia, Fiji and Tuvalu. The index is calculated as a weighted average of
scores in the range of 0 to 7 derived from a total of 57 indicators that demand a
complex process of data generation. Although the study supports the view that
small islands are vulnerable in environmental terms.
Easter (2000) constructed a vulnerability index for the commonwealth

countries, which is based on two principles. First, the impact of external shocks
over which the country has affected and second the resilience of a country to
withstand and recover from such shocks. The analysis used a sample of 111
developing countries of which 37 small and 74 large for which relevant data
were available. The results indicated that among the 50 most vulnerable
countries, 33 were small states with in this 27 are least developed countries and
23 are islands. In the least vulnerable 50 countries, only two were small states.
Kasperson et al., (2000) defined vulnerability as the degree to which an
exposure unit is susceptible to harm due to exposure to a perturbation or stress
and the ability or lack of the exposure unit to cope, recover or fundamentally
adapt to become a new system or to become extinct.
Moss et al., (2001) identified ten proxies for five sectors of climate
sensitivities which are settlement sensitivity, food security, human health
sensitivity, ecosystem sensitivity and water availability and seven proxies for
three sectors of coping and adaptive capacity, economic capacity, human
resources and environmental or natural resources capacity. Proxies were
aggregated into sectoral indicators, sensitivity indicators and coping or adaptive
capacity indicators and finally constructed vulnerability resilience indicators to
climate change.
Dolan and Walker (2003) discussed the concept of vulnerability and

presented a multiscaled, integrated framework for assessing vulnerabilities and
adaptive capacity. Determinants of adaptive capacity including access to and
distribution of wealth, technology, and information, risk perception and
awareness, social capital and critical institutional frameworks to address climate
change hazards. These are identified at the individual and community level and
situated within larger regional, national and international settings. Local and
traditional knowledge is the key to research design and implementation and
allows for locally relevant outcomes that could aid in more effective decision
making, planning and management in remote coastal regions.
Kumar (2003) calculated composite vulnerability index for Indian coastal

districts by taking the averages of all the standardized observations of each
district over all the components. He concluded that districts along the east coast
of India were found to be more vulnerable and from among the east coast
districts, 24 Parganas in West Bengal, Baleswar in Orissa and Krishna in Andhra
Pradesh were found as the most vulnerable ones.
Patwardhan et al., (2003) employed cluster analysis and computed the
differential vulnerability indices of the coastal districts of India. They defined
vulnerability in terms of three different components, i.e. hazard, exposure and
adaptive capacity of exposed area. These were computed in terms of nine
different indices (three for each component) for the 14 most cyclone-affected
districts and the districts were ranked for vulnerability by cluster methods. They
concluded that Jagatsinghpur and Kendrapada district of Orissa, Nellore in
Andhra Pradesh, Nagapattinum and Tanjavur in Tamil Nadu and Junagarh and
Porbander in Gujarat were highly vulnerable to cyclones.
Chittibabu et al., (2004) conducted a detailed analysis of storm surges and

rainfall based on the past 30 year historical cyclone data, total water level on the
Orissa coast was calculated on a 50 year return period. They concluded that there
was no observational evidence to suggest that there was an increase either in the
frequency or intensity of cyclones or storm surges on the coast of Orissa.
However, the impact of cyclones and surges was on the increase due to increase
in population and coastal infrastructure.
Katharine Vincent (2004) created an index to empirically assess relative

levels of social vulnerability to climate change induced variations in water
availability and allow cross country comparison in Africa. An aggregated index
of social vulnerability were formed through the weighted average of five
composite sub indices, which are economic well being and stability,
demographic structure, institutional stability and strength of public
infrastructure, global interconnectivity and dependence on natural resources. The
results indicated that using the current data, Niger, Sierra Leone, Burundi,
Madagascar and Burkina Faso were the most vulnerable countries in Africa.
Brenkert and Malone (2005) analyzed the vulnerability of India and

Indian states to be moderately resilient to climate change mainly because of low
sulphur emissions and a relatively large percentage of unmanaged land. Six
states were more vulnerable than India as a whole, attributable largely to sea
storm surges. At the state level, results demonstrated that Kerala and Sikkim
were more sensitive to food security than Punjab where as the Punjab has the
highest ecosystem sensitivity mainly because of the polluting consequences of
fertilizer use.
Iglesias et al., (2005) estimated social vulnerability index across
MEDROPLAN countries under two different scenarios of valuation of the
vulnerability components. They estimated these aspects of social vulnerability
evaluating the natural resource structure, the economic capacity, the human and
civic resources, and aspects of agricultural innovation. The weight of each
component of the index was a key determinant of the final value. Here we
present the results of the index under two valuation scenarios. In Scenario 1 all
components were valued equally. In Scenario 2 the human resources component
was given 50% of the weight, the economic and natural resource components
were given 20% of the weight each, and the agricultural technology is given
10% of the weight. This reflects the assumption that a society with institutional
coordination and strengths for public participation was less vulnerable to drought
and that agriculture was only one of the sectors affected by drought. The
vulnerability index establishes robust conclusions since the range of values
across countries does not change with the assumptions under the two scenarios.
Patnaik and Narayan (2005) examined the climate change impacts from
agriculture, infrastructure and demographic characteristics in coastal states of
India. The analysis was carried out at the district level and Vulnerability of a
particular district was measured by the frequency of occurrence of extreme
events. They concluded that the districts in the states of Orissa and Andhra
Pradesh were highly vulnerable than the other states to cyclones, storms and
depressions.
Gallopin (2006) identified and analyzed the conceptual relation among

vulnerability, resilience and adaptive capacity within socio-ecological systems
(SES).The analysis of these concepts showed that these were related in non
trivial ways. Vulnerability does not appear to be the opposite of resilience,
because the latter was defined in terms of state shifts between domains of
attraction,while vulnerability refers to structural changes in the system.
Smit and Wandel (2006) reviewed the concept of adaptation of human
communities to global changes especially climate change, in the context of
adaptive capacity and vulnerability. The main purpose of participatory
vulnerability assessments is to identify adaptation strategies that are feasible and
practical in communities. They considered adaptations are responses to risks
associated with the interaction of environmental hazards and human
vulnerability or adaptive capacity.
Sharma and Patwardhan (2007) analyzed the coastal districts by

addressing the hazard, exposure and impact (human death) parameters, ignoring
adaptive capacity and developed only five different indices of the three
components. They found Jagatsinghpur and Kendrapada districts of Orissa and
Krishna district of Andhra Pradesh to be the most vulnerable ones.
Chandrasekhar (2009) employed decomposition analysis to assess district

wise vulnerability of Orissa state. He clustered all the districts in Orissa into
three categories viz., highly vulnerable, somewhat vulnerable and low vulnerable
with respect to cyclonic events. He reported that all districts in Orissa are highly
vulnerable with respect to the socio-economic conditions i.e. mean is 0.559 and
standard deviation is 0.058, it seems that there was no much variation. However,
in case of bio-physical vulnerability more variation (standard deviation 0.085)
and less mean vulnerability (0.369) as compared to the socio economic
vulnerability.
Palanisami et al., (2009) applied composite vulnerability index to rank the

coastal districts of Tamil Nada state, India in terms of their vulnerability and
classified them into different levels based on the index values. They identified
Ramand and Nagapattinam with index values of 0.607 and 0.545 respectively as
very highly vulnerable districts among the 11 coastal districts.
Mongi et al., (2010) analyzed the vulnerability and adaptation of rainfed

agriculture to climate change and variability in semi-arid Tanzania. They
conducted simple regression and t- test analysis of numeric data for rainfall and
temperature for last 35 growing seasons. The results indicate that the overall
rainfall amount was found to decline while distribution was varying in time and
space. Inter–seasonal dry spells between January and February appeared to
increase both in duration and frequency. The temperature had shown an
increasing trend, minimum temperature increased faster while max temperature
increased gradually. The study concluded that there was strong evidence
demonstrating the vulnerability of rainfed agriculture to negative impacts of
climate change and variability.
Palanisami et al., (2010) constructed composite index of vulnerability for

Godavari basin and reported that among all the districts under Godavari basin,
four districts from Maharashtra, two from Orissa, one from Madhya Pradesh and
Karnataka fall under very highly vulnerable category. The district especially in
the middle and upper parts of the basin within the Andhra Pradesh province,
except for the delta region, was less vulnerable.
Rasmus and Osmolovskiy (2010) constructed and presented an index of

vulnerability to climate change and variability in Tajikistan. The results show
that vulnerability varies according to socio-economic and institutional
development in ways that do not follow directly from exposure or elevation: in
climate change, geography is not destiny. The results indicated that urban areas
were by far the least vulnerable while RRS oblast, in particular its eastern
mountainous areas, was the most vulnerable and the remote GBAO mountains
rank in the middle.
From the above studies it can be concluded that from the Vulnerability
Index values for different districts in the coastal states of India, Baleswar,
Jagatsinghpur and Kendrapada districts of Orissa, Nellore and Krishna districts
in Andhra Pradesh, Nagapattinum, Ramand and Tanjavur in Tamil Nadu and
Junagarh and Porbander in Gujarat are highly vulnerable to cyclones, storms and
depressions.
3.2 Studies on Impact of Climate Change on Socio Economic

Conditions of Farmers
Kumar and Parikh (1998) have showed that even with adaptation by
farmers of their cropping patterns and inputs, in response to climate change, the
losses would remain significant. The loss in farm-level net revenue is estimated
to range between 9% and 25% for a temperature rise of 20C–3.50C.
Helmy et al., (2006) employed the Ricardian approach to measure the
economic impacts of climate change on farm net revenue in Egypt. This
approach was based on regressing farm net revenue against climate, soil, socio-
economic and hydrological variables to determine which factors influence the
variability of farm net revenues. The empirical results from the standard
Ricardian model (model 1) showed that a rise in temperature would have
negative effects on farm net revenue in Egypt. The results from Models 2 and 3
showed that irrigation could defeat the adverse effect of higher temperatures and
increase net revenue, and those from Model 4 showed that using irrigation and
investing in heavy machinery could reduce the harmful effects of global
warming and improve farm revenue.
Mendalsohn et al., (2006) examined the impact of climate change on rich

and poor countries (across the world) aggregated by income percapita across the
world. The world’s population was divided into quartiles on the basis of their
GDP percapita and market impacts for each quartile was calculated .The results
shows that the poor will suffer the bulk of damages from climate change
whereas the richest countries will likely to benefit. Damages are concentrated in
poor countries specifically because of their current climate. Poor countries were
located in low latitude regions which were much hotter than optimal whereas
more wealthy countries were located in mid to high latitudes which were
currently cool. Increases in temperature consequently cause more damages to
poor countries compared with more wealthy countries. Poor countries bear a
large burden as a fraction of their GDP than rich countries because of the reasons
like lower capital technology and adaptation options
Iizumi (2007) applied adjusted climate scenario to develop the impact

projections in extreme events e.g., cool and hot summers after global warming.
The results of rice model simulations show that climate changes will reduce the
damage by a cool summer. On the other hand, the climate changes will enhance
the damage by heat stress in central and southwestern Japan, but the heat stress
will be disappeared in northern Japan even in the hot summer. As a result of the
global warming, the damage to yield by a cool summer is mitigated; however,
the damage by heat stress is enlarged after global warming.
Mano and Nhemachena (2007) used the Ricardian approach to examine
the economic impact of climate change on agriculture in Zimbabwe. The results
show that climatic variables (temperature and precipitation) have significant
effects on net farm revenues in Zimbabwe. The results from sensitivity analysis
suggest that agricultural production in Zimbabwe’s smallholder farming system
is significantly constrained by climatic factors (high temperature and low
rainfall). The elasticity results show that the changes in net revenue were high
for dry land farming compared to farms with irrigation. The results show that
farms with irrigation were more to changes in climate, indicated that irrigation
was an important adaptation option to help reduce the impact of further changes
in climate.
Benhin (2008) applied Ricardian model to assess the economic impact of

the expected adverse changes in the climate on crop farming in South Africa.
Mean annual estimates indicated that a 1% increase in temperature would lead
to about US$ 80.00 increase in net crop revenue while a 1mm/month fall in
precipitation leads to US$ 2.00 fall, but with significant seasonal differences in
impacts. There are also significant spatial differences and across the different
farming systems. Using selected climate scenarios, the study predicted that crop
net revenues were expected to fall by as much as 90% by 2100 with small-scale
farmers had been most affected.
Seo and Mendelsohn (2008) developed Structural Ricardian model to

measure climate change impacts that explicitly models the choice of farm type in
African agriculture. This two stage model first estimates the type of farm chosen
and then the conditional incomes of each farm type after removing selection
biases. The results indicated that increase in temperature encourage farmers to
adopt mixed farming and avoid specialized farms such as crop only or livestock-
only farms. Increases in precipitation encourage farmers to shift from irrigated to
rainfed crops.
Bemal et al., (2009) have studied the impact assessment of seasonal

climatic variability on productivity of rice growing areas for two locations in
Haryana state viz., Karnal and Hisar. The results indicated that max, min and
mean temperatures are positively correlated and rainfall was negatively
correlated to rice productivity at Karnal and results were reverse at Hisar.
Deka et al., (2009) have conducted an analytical study on winter rice
production under changing rainfall pattern in Nadia district of west Bengal for
1995-2004.The results showed that the rainfall amount during panicle initiation
(PI) to anthesis have negative correlation with rice yields which resulted in low
rice yield during 1995 and 2001.They also observed that an amount of 200-
300mm of rainfall during the PI to anthesis was required for a successful rice
crop where as excess rain (more than 400mm) during the same period reduced
the yield .They concluded that phenophasic distribution of rainfall is more
important for rice production during wet season in the lower Gangetic plain of
Nadia district.
Deressa and Hassan (2009) used the Ricardian approach that captures
farmer adaptations to varying environmental factors to analyze the impact of
climate change on crop farming in Ethiopia. The results show that these
variables have a significant impact on the net crop revenue per hectare of
farmers under Ethiopian conditions. The seasonal marginal impact analysis
indicates that marginally increasing temperature during summer and winter
would significantly reduce crop net revenue per hectare whereas marginally
increasing precipitation during spring would significantly increase net crop
revenue per hectare.
Kumar et al., (2009) studied the impact on wheat productivity due to high
temperatures and climate variability. They observed the impact of high
temperatures during maturation and ripening (January to March) which proved
to be detrimental to wheat production due to terminal stress and resulted in the
reduction of wheat yield (Q/ha) to an extent of about 10-15%. They also
observed that 60-70% variation occurs in wheat productivity due to foggy events
and terminal heat stress.
Pal and Murthy (2009) have conducted a field experiment to know the
relationship between weather parameters and yield and yield attributes of wheat
crop (as influenced by sowing seasons). Using correlation coefficient they have
observed that there exists a strong negative correlation for WH-542 than PBW-
343 with respect to weather parameters like Tmax, Tmin and Tmin, bright
sunshine hours and evapotranspiration for all yield attributes. They also
observed positive correlation of max.RH and min RH with yield attributing and
PWB-343 was more correlated than WH-542.
Pathak and Wassman (2009) examined that the pronounced inter annual
variation in weather on wheat crop at Ludhiana and Delhi. They also informed
that the minimum, maximum and average temperatures varied between 8.9 oc and
11.6oc, 23.1oc and 26.9oc, 16oc and 19.1oc respectively in Delhi and Ludhiana.
The trend analysis showed that rainfall remained without discernable trend over
the 30 year observation period i.e. (1968-2004) at both the locations. Minimum
and average temperatures increased significantly at rates of 0.06 and 0.03 /year
respectively in Ludhiana but no temperature trend was observed in Delhi.
Prabhjyot and Hundal (2009) conducted an experiment on production

potential of cereal crops in relation to climatic changes under Punjab condition.
They employed variability analysis to know the trend of climatic changes on
seasonal basis with respect to temperature, RH, solar radiation and rainfall in
Ludhiana district of Punjab over the past 30 years. They concluded that the
maximum temperature has decreased from normal at the rate of 0.01 0C/yr during
kharif season and it has increased at the rate of 0.02oc/yr in rabi season. The
minimum temperature has increased at the rate of 0.07oc/yr and 0.060c/yr
respectively in both the seasons. RH has showed increasing trend during the
period in both the seasons. Solar radiation has decreased at the rate of 0.01 and
0.03 mJ/m2/yr in both the seasons.
Satyanarayana et al., (2009) have analyzed the changes in growing period

of wheat crop in Hisar due to rise in temperature under future climate change
from 2070-2100. For this study data of maximum and minimum temperatures
were used to calculate growing degree days (GDD) for different phonological
stages. The mean temperature rise will be noticed during 2071-2100 compared to
base year 1960-1990 which reduced the crop growing period by 37, 33 and 30
days for sowing dates of 30th Oct,10th Nov and 20th Nov respectively.
From the above studies it can be concluded that climatic variables
(temperature and precipitation) have significant effects on net farm revenues.
The increasing temperatures would significantly reduce crop net revenue per
hectare whereas the increasing precipitation would result in significant increase
in the net crop revenue per hectare. The changes in net revenue are high for dry
land farming compared to farms with irrigation, indicating that irrigation is an
important adaptation option to help reduce the impact of further changes in
climate. Increases in temperature cause more damages to poor countries
compared with more wealthy countries.
3.3 Adaptation Strategies of Farmers to Climate Change
Iqbal et al., (1999) used logit and probit models to estimate the factors
affecting the adoption of hybrid maize varieties in the irrigated Punjab. They
indicated that the education and farm size were found positively and
significantly contributing to adoption whereas age was non-significantly
retarding the adoption of the hybrid lines. Although the farming experience had
positive effect on adoption but it was non-significant. They concluded that the
reduction in seed price, credit for inputs and technological guidance can play an
important role in adoption of hybrid maize varieties.
Attri and Rathore (2003) suggested the adaptation strategies for

sustainable production of wheat and ensuring food security. Adaptation
measures to mitigate the potential impact of climate change included possible
changes in sowing dates and genotype selection. Enhancement of sowing by 10
days in late-sown cultivars and delaying of sowing by 10 days in normally sown
cultivars resulted in higher yields under a modified climate, whereas a reduction
in yield was observed.
Mall et al., (2004) reported on the mitigatory option for reducing the
negative impacts of temperature increases indicate that delaying the sowing
dates would be favourable for increased soybean yields at all the locations in
India. Sowing in the second season would also be able to mitigate the
detrimental effects of future increases in surface temperature due to global
warming at some locations. However, the proposed shift in soybean production
from the current main season to a second season may necessitate additional
planning and change in management practices.
Joshi and Bauer (2006) used multinomial logit model to identify factors
that condition the adoption of selected modern varieties of rice including both
production and consumption attributes valued by the farmers and farm and
farmer related variables. The results showed that both categories of variables are
significant in determining the demand for a specific variety.
Maddison (2006) reported that the perception results on climate change

showed that a significant number of farmers believe that temperature has already
increased and that precipitation has declined for eleven African countries.
Farmers with the greatest farming experience were more likely to notice changes
in climatic conditions which according to the study are consistent with farmers
engaging in Bayesian-updating of their prior beliefs. The study also reported that
farmer experience, access to free extension services and markets are important
determinants of adaptation.
Seo and Mendelsohn (2006) employed multinomial logit model to

analyze how livestock species choice is climate sensitive. The results from
choice models from the livestock study showed that farmers in warmer
temperatures tend to choose goats and sheep as opposed to beef cattle and
chicken. Goats and sheep can do better in dry and harsher conditions than beef
cattle.
Hassan and Nhema chena (2007) applied multivariate discrete choice

model to identify the determinants of farm-level adaptation strategies. Results
confirm that access to credit and extension and awareness of climate change
were the important determinants of farm-level adaptation. An important policy
message from these results was that enhanced access to credit, information
(climatic and agronomic) as well as to markets (input and output) can
significantly increase farm-level adaptation.
Adeogun et al., (2008) employed logit model for estimating the adoption
process of hybrid clarias by fish farmers in Lagos state, Nigeria. They revealed
that age, year of farming experience and farm size were found not statistically
significant in explaining hybrid catfish adoption, education, contact with
extension agents, access to seed and access to market were statistically
significant at 5% level.
Deressa (2008) employed Hickman probit model to analyse the two-step

model for adaptation to climate change. The analysis of perception of farmers to
climate change revealed that age of the household head, wealth, and information
on climate change, social capital and agro ecological settings had significant
impact on the perception of farmers to climate change. The analysis of factors
affecting adaptation to climate change indicated that education of the head of the
household, household size, gender of the head of the household being male,
livestock ownership and extension on crop and livestock production, availability
of credit and temperature had positive and significant impact on adaptation to
climate change.
Hassan and Nhema chena (2008) applied multinomial discrete choice

model to analyze the determinants of farm level adaptation measures in Africa.
They indicated that specialised crop cultivation (monocropping) was most
vulnerable to climate change. Warming, especially in summer poses the highest
risk and it encourages irrigation, multiple cropping and integration of livestock.
Increased precipitation reduces the probability of irrigation and will benefit most
farms, especially in drier areas. Better access to market, extension and credit
services, technology and farm assets (labour, land and capital) were critical for
helping farmers adapt to climate change. Government policies and investment
strategies must support education, markets, credit and information about
adaptation to climate change including technological and institutional methods
particularly poor farmers in the dry areas.
Kurukulasuriya and Mendelsohn (2008) employed multinomial logit

model for the study and examined the impact of climate change on primary
crops grown in Africa. The study finds that crop choice was highly sensitive to
both temperature and precipitation. Farmers adapt their crop choices to suit the
local conditions they face. The study also found that farmers often choose crop
combinations to survive the harsh conditions in Africa, such as maize-beans,
cowpea-sorghum and millet-groundnut. These combinations provide the farmer
with more flexibility across climates than growing a single crop on its own.
Seo and Mendelsohn (2008) used a multinomial logit model to explore

how South American farmers adapt to climate by changing crops. The results
show that both temperature and precipitation affect the crops that South
American farmers choose. Farmers choose fruits and vegetables in warmer
locations and wheat and potatoes in cooler locations. Farms in wetter locations
are more likely to grow rice, fruits, potatoes, and squash and in dryer locations
maize and wheat. Global warming will cause South American farmers to switch
away from maize, wheat, and potatoes towards squash, fruits and vegetables.
Predictions of the impact of climate change on net revenue must reflect not only
changes in yields per crop but also crop switching.
Gbetibouo (2009) used Heckman Probit model and a Multinomial logit

(MNL) model to examine the determinants of adaptation to climate change and
variability. The statistical analysis of the climate data shows that temperature has
increased over the years. Rainfall was characterized by large interannual
variability, with the previous three years being very dry. Indeed, the analysis
shows that farmers’ perceptions of climate change were in line with the climatic
data records. Lack of access to credit was cited by respondents as the main
factor inhibiting adaptation. The results of the multinomial logit and Heckman
probit models highlighted that household size, farming experience, wealth, and
access to credit, access to water, tenure rights, off-farm activities, and access to
extension were the main factors that enhance adaptive capacity.
Bamidele et al., (2010) examined the nature and patterns of rice

consumption in Nigeria, by using descriptive statistics and the multinomial logit
model. He Concluded that the major factors that significantly influence
household preferences for either a combination of local and imported rice or the
imported rice only to the local rice were the income of the head of household,
household size and the educational status of the heads of household, the price per
unit kilogram of rice. This study therefore recommends that an effort should be
made to increase rice production coupled with the provision of standard
processing facilities.
Benedicta et al., (2010) used logit model to identify the farmers’

perception and adaptations to climate change .The results showed that the main
adaptation strategies of farmers identified include change in crop types, planting
short season varieties, changing planting dates, and crop diversification. The
results of determinants of adaptation strategies suggest that land tenure, soil
fertility, and access to extension service and credit were the most significant
factors affecting the adaptation capacity of farmers.
Seo (2010) examined the impact of climate change on agricultural

systems in South America using a micro econometric analysis (logit model) of
adopting portfolios in response to climate change. He indicated that the
specialized livestock farming was favoured when rainfall varies little but
temperature varies substantially over the farming year .The land value of the
three systems (specialized crop system, mixed system and specialized livestock
system) were decreased due to a small temperature increase, but the reduction in
the mixed farming was the smallest, with an elasticity of -1 compared to -2 in
the crop only system .The land value increases when precipitation increases
marginally but only negligibly in the livestock only system.
Ya Mauchi (2010) analyzed the changes in rainfall pattern that effects on
the land productivity in rice farming areas of Indonesia. They showed that
delayed in the perceived on onset of rainy season leads to a substantial decrease
in rice production growth. Strikingly, one month delay in the onset of rainy
season absorbs the average growth of rice production experienced in the period
of 1990 to 2007.
Mandleni and Anim (2011) applied the binary logistic regression model
was used to investigate farmers’ decision on climate change and adaptation of
small-scale cattle and sheep farmers. The results implied that a large number of
socio-economic variables affected the decision of farmers on adaptation to
climate changes. The study concluded that the most significant factors affecting
climate change and adaptation were non-farm income, type of weather
perceived, livestock ownership, distance to weather stations, and distance to
input markets, adaptation choices and annual average temperature.
From the above studies it can be concluded that the most significant
factors affecting climate change and adaptation were education of the head of the
household, household size, gender of the head of the household being male,
farming experience, wealth, information on climate change, access to credit and
access to extension are the main factors that have significant impact on the
perception of farmers to climate change and enhance adaptive capacity.
3.4 Studies on Rice Production Technologies
Stoop et al., (2002) reported that SRI helped resource limited farmers to
realize yields upto 15 t ha-1 on poor soils with no use of external inputs and with
greatly reduced rates of irrigation in Madagascar.
Illuri et al., (2004) with the practice of SRI, 46 per cent lesser seed rate,
50 per cent lesser expenditure on chemical fertilizers, 71 per cent decrease in
labour requirement and 41 to 130 per cent increase in yield were reported from
Combodia.
Natarajan (2004) reported 50-60 tillers per hill with a yield of 250 gram
per plant and the cost of cultivation of Rs.1000 per acre under the SRI compared
to Rs.4310 per acre under conventional method of cultivation.
Rekha (2004) revealed that the yield of Njavara, a medicinal rice variety
grown in Kerala, India, was increased by threefold under the SRI, compared to
the yield obtained under traditional system of cultivation. The net profit per
hectare was Rs.80000 as its price was Rs.45 to 55 per kilogram.
Ratnareddy et al., (2005) stated that the farmers in Anantapur district of

Andhra Pradesh are using more of labour inputs along with more of non labour
inputs like manures, fertilizers, pesticides etc as well as more of capital inputs.
The total operational cost with family labour cost for SRI was estimated to
Rs. 9456.29 per acre whereas for normal cultivation it was Rs. 8235.72 per acre.
Ravikumar and Srinivas (2005) reported from their study “low economic
efficiency of irrigation water resource in Krishna western delta of Andhra
Pradesh” that system of rice intensification(SRI) was profitable over other
practices .Though the cost of cultivation was higher in SRI than other practices,
the yields and net returns were high than transplanted and semi-dry methods.
Uphoof (2005) stated that the age of the seedlings which affects yield and
as a result gross income was one of the main constraints in SRI cultivation. As
he reported the highest yield (6437 kg/ ha) with the use of younger seedlings
(14-day old) compared to that (5212 kg /ha) with the use of older seedlings
(33-day old).
Chamruram (2006) compared that the yields from SRI fields was much
higher that from his own non-SRI field. The number of tillers in randomly
selected plants of SRI was 18 as compared to only 4 in the non-SRI paddy.
There were a total of 21 ears per plant in SRI paddy as compared to 2-3 in the
non-SRI paddy. The number of grains per ear was much higher in SRI paddy
(141) as compared to about 86 grains per ear in non-SRI paddy. The estimated
yield calculated on the basis of grain weight was 55 quintals per hectare in case
of SRI paddy while it was just about 32 quintals per hectare in the case of non-
SRI paddy.
Rajeswararao (2006) revealed that the cost of cultivation for SRI was
more than the existing cultivation. The cost of cultivation for pooled farms per
hectare was Rs.12826.65 for SRI and Rs.12620.11 for existing cultivation.
Whereas the gross income per hectare on pooled farms for SRI increased to
Rs.36721.89 from Rs.24771.52 of existing cultivation. The B-C ratios on pooled
farms were worked out to be 1.86 and 0.96 for SRI and existing paddy
cultivation respectively.
Radha et al., (2009) reported that economic analysis of water saving rice
production technologies viz., System of Rice Intensification (SRI), semi-dry and
rotational irrigation vis-à-vis farmers practice based on the study carried out in
Modhukur pilot area of Guntur district of Andhra Pradesh. Among the three
technologies analyzed, the total cost of cultivation has been recorded highest in
SRI, followed by rotational, semi-dry and farmers’ practice. But, per hectare
yield and water use efficiency (WUE) has been found highest in SRI, followed
by semi-dry, rotational and farmers practice. The net returns and B-C ratio are
maximum in semi-dry, followed by rotational, SRI and farmers practice.
Palanisami et al., (2010) has conducted a study in Tamil Nadu by selecting

SRI and non-SRI farmers for three consecutive years, viz., 2007-08, 2008-09
and 2009-10 and kuruvai (June – Sept), samba (Oct-Jan) and summer (Jan-
March) seasons. The study has observed large variations in the adoption of
various core components of the SRI. Among the four key components (viz.,
14day old seedling, single seedling, square planting, and cono-weeding), only
about 2 % of the sample farmers in the kuruvai and samba seasons and 4 % in
the summer season followed all the components. Three key components were
followed by only about 4 % of the farmers. The majority of farmers followed
only one or two components. Overall, the non-adopters of the key SRI
components ranged from 75% (in the case of number of seedlings) to 92% (in
the case of cono-weeding).
Priya (2010) compared the two methods of rice cultivation viz., SRI and
conventional. The results revealed that adoption of SRI favorably influenced all
the yield attributes of rice viz., number of productive tillers /m2, length of panicle
and numbers of grains/ panicle. Significant superiority of SRI in terms of grain
yield was also evident due to 17.0 per cent yield increment by SRI than
conventional method of rice cultivation. Higher grain yield coupled with
substantial water saving (24.1 per cent) resulted in higher Water Use Efficiency
of rice under SRI method. Higher gross income, net profit and benefit cost ratio
were also associated with SRI than conventional method of rice cultivation. The
cost of cultivation was comparatively lesser in SRI which resulted in gaining an
additional net profit of Rs.11, 000/ ha in SRI as compared to conventional
method of rice cultivation.
Radha et al., (2010) submitted project report on “economic analysis of
less water use rice (Oryza sativa) production technologies in Krishna western
delta command area of Andhra Pradesh” revealed that among economic analysis
of different rice production technologies semi dry cultivation of rice was most
profitable when compared with other technologies. Though the yield and gross
income were high in SRI, the Net Benefit-Cost ratio was high in semi dry, SRI,
rotational irrigation and farmers practice respectively.
Subbarao et al., (2010) studied the performance of grain yield and water
use efficiency on different low land rice production systems .the study revealed
that System of rice intensification (SRI) recorded highest grain yield followed by
semi-dry, rotational system of irrigation and farmers practice. The Water use
efficiency was highest in case of SRI (11.6 Kg ha/mm) followed by semidry (8.1
Kg ha/mm), rotational irrigation (7.6 Kg ha/mm) and farmers practice
(5.2 Kg ha/mm).
Uprety (2010) showed that a combination of mechanization and SRI

methods can bring positive changes in rice cultivation in Nepal. It will increase
production and further enhance income by reducing production costs.
Mechanization will be a good option to the problem of labor scarcity. Besides
this, Nepalese farmers who can save valuable time by mechanization can take on
other additional work for bettering their livelihoods. Combining mechanization
and improved crop management can increase yields to over 6 t ha-1, essentially
doubling current national yields and successfully closing the yield gap.
From the above studies it can be concluded that among different

technologies analyzed, the total cost of cultivation has been recorded highest in
SRI, but per hectare yield and water use efficiency (WUE) has been found
highest in SRI. The net returns and B-C ratio are also maximum in SRI over
farmers practice.
Summary of the chapter:
From the studies on vulnerability and its assessment it can be concluded

that from the Vulnerability Index values for different districts in the coastal
states of India, Baleswar, Jagatsinghpur and Kendrapada districts of Orissa,
Nellore and Krishna districts in Andhra Pradesh, Nagapattinum, Ramand and
Tanjavur in Tamil Nadu and Junagarh and Porbander in Gujarat are highly
vulnerable to cyclones, storms and depressions.
The studies on the impact of climate change on socio economic condition,

net farm revenue and production concluded that climatic variables (temperature
and precipitation) have significant effects on net farm revenues. The increasing
temperatures would significantly reduce crop net revenue per hectare whereas
the increasing precipitation would result in significant increase in the net crop
revenue per hectare. The changes in net revenue are high for dry land farming
compared to farms with irrigation, indicating that irrigation is an important
adaptation option to help reduce the impact of further changes in climate.
Increases in temperature cause more damages to poor countries compared with
more wealthy countries.
From the studies on adaptations to climate change it can be concluded that

the most significant factors affecting climate change and adaptation were
education of the head of the household, household size, gender of the head of the
household being male, farming experience, wealth, information on climate
change, access to credit and access to extension are the main factors that have
significant impact on the perception of farmers to climate change and enhance
adaptive capacity.
The studies on different rice production technologies concluded that

among different technologies analyzed, the total cost of cultivation has been
recorded highest in SRI, but per hectare yield and water use efficiency (WUE)
has been found highest in SRI. The net returns and B-C ratio were also
maximum in SRI over farmers practice.
Chapter III
MATERIAL AND METHODS
The present study was carried out in Guntur district under Nagarjuna Sagar
project of Krishna river basin in Andhra Pradesh. Perfect understanding of the
design of the study is a sine-qua-non for any scientific enquiry. So, an attempt
was made in the chapter to describe the sampling design, nature and mode of
data collection and analytical tools employed in achieving the objectives of the
present study. Different concepts and methods followed in the study are also
outlined.
1. Sampling design
2. Collection of data
3. Tools of analysis
4. Methods of computation
5. Concepts and terms used
3.1 Sampling Design
Multi-stage random sampling technique was followed for the purpose of

selection of primary sampling units. The sampling framework was provided in
Fig.1
3.1.1 Sampling Procedure
3.1.1.1 Selection of River basin and State:
The Krishna River flows through Maharashtra, Karnataka, and Andhra

Pradesh states (Map 1). Krishna river basins cover major part of the Andhra
Pradesh irrigation needs which extends about 76,252 Km2. As Krishna Basin is
providing irrigation facilities in larger extent of area and has the higher
irrigated area (3.84 million. ha) under paddy the state of Andhra Pradesh was
selected for the present study.
3.1.1.2 Selection of project
The State Andhra Pradesh has various irrigation projects in Krishna

basin , among them Nagarjuna Sagar Project was selected purposefully as it
has highest command area and it is the largest multipurpose river valley, which
has a reservoir storage capacity of 11,472 million cubic meters and has the
hydro-electric project. The project has two canals namely, right canal and left
canal covering 5 districts (Guntur, Prakasam, Nalgonda, Khammam and
Krishna) in the state. The Nagarjunasagar Right Project Canal (NSPRC) creates
irrigation potential in an extent of 4.75 lakh hectare in Guntur and Prakasam
districts, where as the Nagarjunasagar Project Left Canal (NSPLC) create
irrigation potential in an area of 4.20 lakh hectares in Nalgonda, Khammam
and Krishna districts.
3.1.1.3 Selection of District
Guntur district was selected purposively as it has the highest command

area of 2.84 lakh hectare covering 39 mandals in the district. Moreover the area
is also influenced due to frequent droughts and floods under the command area
in the district. So Guntur district was selected for this study.
3.1.1.5 Selection of Mandals and villages
Mandals and villages were selected based on the irrigation sources

covering under certain distribution canals from NSRC. Three mandals were
randomly selected from thirty nine mandals covered in Guntur district under
NSPRC based on their location viz., Head, middle and tail. Mandals selected
under head, middle and tail of the NSRC were Gurajala, Narsaraopet and
Vinukonda respectively (Map 2). From each mandal two villages were
randomly selected to make a total of six villages for the study (Fig.1).
3.1.1.6 Selection of respondents
The rice growing farmers were selected from each village through
random sampling. The total sample from three mandals and six villages was
240.The sampling design for the selection of respondents was presented in
Fig.1.
3.2 Collection of Data
The present study relates to the agricultural year 2009-10.
3.2.1 Primary data
The primary data pertaining to the rice crop was obtained through
survey method. A pre-tested questionnaire was used prior to the actual data
collection. This helped to modify the questionnaire by dropping the irrelevant
data and questions. This also helped in getting rid of the important missing
variables. Farmers in the research area were surveyed according to this well
designed questionnaire. The questionnaire is mainly focused on the information
related to family details, land holdings, crops, season, livestock position,
irrigation facilities fertilizers and chemicals applied, cost of cultivation ,off-
farm work & migration, farm household expenditure, farm insurance & credit,
farmers perceptions about climate change and adaptation actions
3.2.2 Secondary data
The time series data was collected for 29 years from 1980-2009 on area
production, productivity, irrigated areas source and crop wise, maximum and
minimum temperatures, month wise rainfall, geographical area of 10 districts
under Krishna river basin of Andhra Pradesh. The above details were obtained
from Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Hyderabad and Chief Planning
Office of respective districts.
The data regarding the agro-economic aspects of the study area were
collected from the District Chief Planning Officer, Guntur.
3.3 Tools of Analysis
The data collected were subjected to conventional (simple tabulation) as

well as functional analysis to arrive at valid conclusions.
3.3.1 Tabular Analysis
Tabular analysis was made use of for estimating the socioeconomic

characteristics, cost of cultivation, B-C ratio and WUE (water use efficiency)
of different rice production systems.
WUE: Water use efficiency in kg/ha-cm for a given treatment was calculated
by dividing the grain yield (Y) with the responsive total consumptive use of
water for the crop period. The total water utilized was calculated by knowing
the number of irrigations given by each sample and the height of the water
applied in centimetres for each irrigation over the area of land. The following
equation was used for calculating the water consumption and WUE
WUE = Y/ N* H*A
Where Y = yield of paddy
N = no of irrigations during the crop growing period.
H = height of water level per each irrigation (cm)
A = Area in sq.m (10000 Sq.m is one hectare)
One ha-cm = 1,00,000 lts
3.3.2 Functional Analysis

3.3.2.1 Vulnerability Index
To estimate the composite index of vulnerability to climate change from
multivariate data Principle Component Analysis (PCA) was employed.
Sources of vulnerability
Vulnerability is a function of the character, magnitude, and rate of

climate variation to which a system is exposed, its sensitivity, and its adaptive
capacity” (McCarthy et al. 2001). Thus as per this definition, vulnerability has
three components: exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity. These three
components are described as follows:
 Exposure can be interpreted as the direct danger (i.e., the stressor), and the
nature and extent of changes to a region’s climate variables (e.g.,
temperature, precipitation, extreme weather events).
 Sensitivity describes the human–environmental conditions that can

worsen the hazard, ameliorate the hazard, or trigger an impact.
 Adaptive capacity represents the potential to implement adaptation

measures that help avert potential impacts
The first two components together represent the potential impact and
adaptive capacity is the extent to which these impacts can be averted. Thus
vulnerability is potential impact I  minus adaptive capacity  AC  . This leads to
the following mathematical equation for vulnerability:
V  f I  AC 
Each one of these components can have several sub-indicators which

were considered as the important variables for construction of vulnerability
index. These variables areas given below:
1. Exposure :
i. Percentage change in the annual rainfall(V1)
ii. Percentage change in maximum temperature (V2)
iii. Percentage change in minimum temperature (V3)
iv. Number of severe drought weeks for the past 10 years (V4)
v. Percentage of irrigated land (V5)

2. Sensitivity:
i. Land degradation Index (V6)

ii. Rural population density (V7)
iii. Crop diversification index (V8)
iv. Percentage of small and marginal farmers (V9)
3. Adaptive Capacity:
i. Rural literacy rate (V10)

ii. Average farm size (V11)
iii. Agricultural output index (V12)
iv. Farm Infrastructure index (V14)
v. Infrastructure index (V13)
vi. Percentage of HYV area (V15)
vii. Milk animals (V16)
viii. Poultry (V17)
Infrastructure Index
This index has six components and the indicators included under each
component are given in the table below:
Sl. No. Component Indicators

I Finance & Markets 1. Number of Scheduled Banks
2. Number of Markets
II Education 1. Number of Primary Schools
III Health(a) Human 1. Number of Hospitals
Health(b) Animals 1. Vety.Pol.Clinics
2. Vet. Hospitals
3. Vet. Dispensaries
IV Transport 1. Road (Kms)
V Communications 1. Number of Post Offices
2. Number of Telephone Exchanges
3. Number of Tel Offices
4. No. of Public Telephones
VI Others 1. Power Consumption
Methodology of construction of the index
Data on all the above 13 indicators for the 9 districts belonging to

Krishna River basin for the year 2008 have been used. The Infrastructure Index
is computed using the formula:
 
 I x 
ij
Indexd   D  / pop (in lakhs ) of District
 j 1 x 
  i 1
ij

Where d refers to a particular district, D= total number of districts=9 and

I is the total number of indicators in this case 13.
Farm Infrastructure Index
The method to construct this index is similar to that of infrastructure

index. It has four components. The indicators included are given in the table
below:
Sl. No. Component Indicators

I Farm Machinery 1.Pumpsets
2.Tractors
II Man Power 1.Agrl.Workers
III Area under Irrigation 1.NIA-Canals

2.NIA-Tanks
3.NIA-Tubewells
4.NIA-Other Wells
5.NIA-Other Sources
IV Power Consumption 1. Low Tension
2.High Tension
Methodology of construction of the index
Data on all the above 10 indicators for the districts in Krishna basin for
the year 2008 have been used. The Infrastructure Index is computed using the
formula:
  
 I  x 
Indexd    D   / Net Crop Area of District d (' 000ha )
ij
 j 1  
   xij 
  i 1 
Where d refers to a particular district, D= total number of districts (9)

and I is the total number of indicators in this case 10.
Crop diversification index
There are many methods to construct this index. Most commonly used are
a) Herfinthal index
b) Entropy index
c) Modified entropy index
In the present study the modified entropy index has been used. It is
computed by the formula
iN
i N
pi
 p ln p 
i i
CDI    pi log N  i 1
i 1 ln N 
In the above formula, p i

is the proportion of area under crop i in the
district and N is the number of crops. It can be shown that this index always
lies between 0 and 1 with 1 indicating 100% diversification.
In the present study, the index has been constructed by including the
data on the following major crops in Andhra Pradesh districts.
Sl. No. Crop
1 Rice
2 Maize
3 Other Cereals & millets
4 Redgram
5 Other Pulses
6 Groundnut
7 Other Oil Seeds
8 Chillies
9 Turmeric
10 Sugarcane
11 Cotton
12 Mangoes
13 Other Crops & Vegetables
The Index Approach to Study Vulnerability
In literature, quantitative assessment of vulnerability is usually done by

constructing a ‘vulnerability index’. This index is based on several set of
indicators that result in vulnerability of a region. It produces a single number
which can be used to compare different regions. Literature on index number
construction specifies that there should be good internal correlation between
these indicators. The relevance of this criterion depends on the relationship
between the indicators and the construct they are supposed to measure. For this
we must know whether the index is based on a ‘reflexive’ or a ‘formative’
measurement model. In the reflexive measurement model, the construct is
thought to influence the indicators. For example, a poverty index is a good
example of reflexive measurement because poverty influences the indicators
such as literacy, expenditure and so on and all these indicators are correlated.
On the other hand in the formative model the indicators are assumed contribute
to the construct. In the case of vulnerability index, all the indicators chosen by
the researcher have impact on vulnerability of the region to climate change. For
example, frequency of extreme events such as flood, drought earth-quakes, and
length of coastline all contribute to vulnerability of the region to climate
change. Hence vulnerability index is a formative measurement and the
indicators chosen need not have internal correlation.
The word ‘index’ has many meanings. For example, in mathematics it is

used to denote the number of times a given number is multiplied with itself (the
index of the power 10 4 is 4). In economics and business it is a single number

derived from a series of prices and or quantities (for example, price index,
market performance index). In finance an index is a statistical indicator
providing a representation of the value of the securities which constitute it. For
our purpose, it is numerical scale calculated from a set of variables selected by
the researcher for all the regions/districts and used to compare them with one
another or with some reference point. That is, this numerical value is used in
the ordinal sense i.e. on the basis of this index different regions are ranked and
grouped to be relatively less or more vulnerable. It is constructed in such a way
that it always lies between 0 and 1 so that it is easy to compare regions.
Sometimes the index is expressed as a percentage by multiplying it by 100.
Construction of Vulnerability Index
Construction of vulnerability index consists of several steps. First is the

selection of study area which consists of several regions. In each region a set of
indicators are selected for each of the three component of vulnerability. The
indicators can be selected based the availability of data, personal judgement or
previous research. Since vulnerability is dynamic over time, it is important that
all the indicators relate to the particular year chosen. If vulnerability has to be
assessed over years then the data for each year for all the indicators in each
region must be collected.
Arrangement of Data
For each component of vulnerability, the collected data are then

arranged in the form of a rectangular matrix with rows representing regions and
columns representing indicators. Let there be M regions/districts and K
indicators. Let X ij be the value of the indicator j corresponding to region i .
Then the table will have M rows and K columns as shown below:
Region/ Indicator
1 2 . j . K
District
1 X 11 X 12 . X1 j . X 1K
2 . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
i X i1 X i2 . X ij . X iK
. . . . . . .
M X M1 XM2 . X Mj . X MK
It should be noted that this type of arrangement of data is usually done

in statistical analysis of survey data.
Normalization of Indicators using Functional Relationship
Obviously the indicators will be in different units and scales. The

methodology used in UNDP’s Human Development Index (HDI) (UNDP,
2006) is followed to normalize them. That is, in order to obtain figures which
are free from the units and also to standardize their values, first they are
normalized so that they all lie between 0 and 1. Before doing this, it is
important to identify the functional relationship between the indicators and
vulnerability. Two types of functional relationship are possible: vulnerability
increases with increase (decrease) in the value of the indicator. Assume that
higher the value of the indicator more is the vulnerability. For example, the
collected information on change in maximum temperature or change in annual
rainfall or diurnal variation in temperature. It is clear that higher the values of
these indicators more will be the vulnerability of the region to climate change
as variation in climate variables increase the vulnerability. In this case we say
that the variables have positive functional relationship with vulnerability and
the normalization is done using the formula
 
X ij  Min X ij
i
xij 
MaxX ij  MinX ij 
i i
It is clear that all these scores will lie between 0 and 1. The value 1 will
correspond to that region with maximum value and 0 will correspond to the
region with minimum value.
On the other hand, consider adult literacy rate. A high value of this
variable implies more literates in the region and so they will have more
awareness to cope with climate change. So the vulnerability will be lower and
adult literacy rate has negative functional relationship with vulnerability. For
this case the normalized score is computed using the formula
 
Max X ij  X ij
yij  i
MaxX ij  MinX ij 
i
It can be easily checked that xij  yij  1 so that yij can be calculated
as yij  1  xij . Thus while constructing the vulnerability index sufficient care
must be applied to take into account the direction of functional relationship of

each variable to vulnerability.
Method of Construction of Vulnerability Index
Since data for the construction of vulnerability indices are multivariate

in nature, it is possible to apply multivariate statistical analysis tools to obtain
weights for the indicators and for classification of regions. Since Principal
Component Analysis technique is statistically sound, the same methodology
has been followed in the present study to construct vulnerability indices.
Principal Component Analysis (PCA)
PCA is a multivariate technique for finding patterns in data of high

dimension. Once the pattern hidden in data is identified, PCA helps to
compress the data by reducing the number of dimensions without much loss of
information. In the language of Linear Algebra it is a linear transformation of
the original variables. PCA allows us to compute a linear transformation that
maps data from a high dimensional space to a lower dimensional space. In
original data variables may be correlated and PCA help to transform them into
uncorrelated variables.
Let there be M regions and we have data on each one of the K indicators.
Then PCA extracts K linear functions, called ‘principal components’ as
follows:
P   X   X  ... X
1 11 1 12 2 1K K
P   X   X  ... X
2 21 1 22 2 2K K
. . . . . .
P   X   X  ... X
K K1 1 K2 2 KK K
The first principal component accounts for the largest proportion of the
total variation of all the indicator variables. The second principal component
accounts for the second largest proportion and so on. In practice only the first
few components are sufficient to account for a substantial proportion of the
total variation. The essential steps in the computation of Principal Components
as applicable to construction of vulnerability indices are as follows:
1. Arrange the data in the form of a matrix, rows representing regions (M)
and columns are indicators (K). Let us call this matrix as X. Then X has
dimension M  K .
2. Normalize the values as per the procedure given in Chapter 4 to take

into account the functional relationships between indicators and
vulnerability. Let the normalized indicators be denoted by Yi
3. For each variable, compute its mean,  i and standard deviation,  ii
across all observations and obtain the standardized scores using the
formula,
Z 
Y   
i i
i
 ii
This produces a new matrix, Z .
4. Compute the correlation matrix using the formula Z T Z  / m . In this

matrix, the diagonal elements all are 1 and so the total variance is the
trace of the matrix and it is equal to K. The off diagonal elements are the
correlation coefficients between respective pair of variables
5. Compute the Eigen values i , i  1,2,...K , 1   2  ... K  and Eigen

vectors  i ,i  1,2,...K  of the correlation matrix. Each eigen value
represents a portion of the total variance and so proportion of variance

explained by the ith eigen value is given by i and
K
 i
i 1
i K
 i  K .
i 1
6. Arrange the eigen values in the descending order of magnitude. The

eigen vector corresponding to the highest eigen value is the first
principal component of the data set. The eigen vectors of the second,
third etc eigen values are the second, third,etc principal components. In
other words the principal components are now arranged in the order of
significance. We can retain eigen vectors upto a desired level of
significance and leave the remaining ones which are insignificant.
We can keep the first m eigen vectors such that
m
 i
i 1 
Threshold level (normally 90 or 95%).
K
 i
i 1
A criterion usually followed is to retain all the components with eigen

value >1.
The eigen vectors so computed can be used to construct the vulnerability
indices by assigning weights for each vector. It was proposed that the weighted
average as an index:
i K
 i Pi
VI  i 1
i K
 i
i 1
Since the first principal component extracts maximum variance,

Gberibouo and Ringler (2009) have used it to construct the vulnerability of
South African farming sector. They identified a total of 19 indicators, 4 for
exposure component, 6 for sensitivity component and 9 for adaptive capacity
component. In their study the first principal component explained about 33% of
the variation.
Since the above procedure involves complex computations, software

packages like SYSTAT, SPSS or MATLAB can be used. SYSTAT provides
not only the latent roots but also the standard errors of the coefficients and
component loadings.
3.3.2.1 Ricardian regression model:
The relationship between area/productivity under a crop and various

climatic and non-climatic variables is specified by a regression equation. The
specifications used for modelling area (Ai) and productivity (Yi) are as follows
Ricardian type area regressions
Ai  0  1TOTCROP  2 PROCIA 3 RLT  4 RY  5 LLT  6 LY  7 HLT  8 DIUY 9Y
Ricardian type productivity regressions
 0  1TOTCROP   2 PROIA   3 PROSUR   4 RLT   5 RY   6 LLT  .....

Yi =
.....   7 LY   8 HLT    9 DIUY  10 A  11Ci IA  12 PRCi IA
Where,
i = crop and other variables used above and their units of

measurements are explained below.
TOTCROP = Total cropped area in the district (Ha)

PROIA = Proportion of irrigated area to total cropped area
PROSUR = Proportion of surface irrigated area from tanks and canals
RLT = Long-term rainfall average (mm)
RY = Annual rainfall (mm)
LLT = Long-term daily minimum temperature average (oC)
LY = Annual daily minimum temperature average (oC)
HLT = Long-term daily maximum temperature average (oC)
DIUY = Annual daily diurnal temperature variation average (oC)
CiIA = Irrigated area under ith crop (Ha)
PRCiIA = Proportion of irrigated area under ith crop
Ai = Area of the ith crop (Ha)
Yi = Yield of ith crop (Kg/ha)
Crops = Paddy, Maize and groundnut
3.3.2.3 Logit Model

Quite a large number of studies have investigated the influence of
various socio economic and cultural factors on the willingness of farmers going
for new adaptation strategies. In many of the adoption behaviour; the
dependent variable is constrained to lie between 0 and 1. In this study, the
responses recorded are discrete (mutually exclusive and exhaustive) and
therefore a univariate logit model was used to analyze the adoption behaviour
of farmers to new adaptations to overcome the changing climate under NSP of
Krishna River Basin. The logit model, which is based on cumulative logistic
probability functions it is computationally easier to use than other types of
model and it also has the advantage to predict the probability of farmers
adapting to new technologies.
The logit model assumes that the underlying stimulus is a random
variable which predicts the probability of adoption of new strategies for
adaptation.
Conceptually, the behaviour model used to examine factors influencing

adoption of new adaptations/technologies is given by
Yi = g(Ii)
Ii = bo + b j Xji
Where, Yi is the observed response for the ith observation (i.e. the
binary variable, Yi = 1 for an adopter, Yi =0 for non adopter.)
g is the functional relationship between the field observation (Yi ) and

the stimulus index (Ii).
I = 1, 2,..........m are observation on variables for the adoption

model.
m = is the sample size
Xji is the jth explanatory variables for the ith observation
j= 1, 2, 3,.............n
bj is an unknown parameter ,where j=0,1,2,.....n. where n is the number

of explanatory variables.
The logit model assumes that the underlying stimulus index ( Ii ) is an

random variable which predicts the probability of new technologies adoption.
Pi =
Therefore for the ith observation (an individual farmer)
Ii = ln Pi/(1-pi) = bo +∑ bj Xji .........4
The relative effect of each explanatory variable (Xji) on the probability
of new technology adoption was measured by differentiating with respect to Xji
i.e
Using the quotient rule
=[ ][ ]..................5
The probability of adoption of new technologies (CA) is specified as a

function of economic and social factors. It is represented as follows
CA = f(X1, X2 ...X9) + i .....................6
The attributes in equation 6 was specified in the empirical model to

include the following variables: age, educational level, farm size, farm
experience, access to credit, frequency of extension contact with farmers, house
hold size etc.
3.4 Methods of Computation
3.4.1 Human Labour
There are three types of human labour viz., family labour, permanent
labour and casual labour. The family labour is imputed at the general wage rate
prevailing for the casual labours in the locality. In case of permanent labour
payment made in kind like grain, meals and other pre-requisites are evaluated
at market rates, besides payments made in cost are to be added. The daily wage
rate has been taken into consideration.
3.4.2 Machine Labour
In case of owners, the net cost maintenance per hour was adopted
whereas the actual hired rate taken in case of those who hired the tractor.
3.4.3 Seeds
The amount actually paid for purchasing seeds were charged at the
prevailing rates of the localities.
3.4.4 Manures and Fertilizers
Farm produced manures are charged at the prevailing market rate of the
locality. Fertilizers and manure purchased are charged at the rate actually paid.
3.4.5 Plant Protection Chemicals
Actual prices paid for the plant protection chemicals by the borrower
were considered.
3.4.6 Interest on working Capital
Interest was charged at the rate of 7.5 per cent per annum for half of the
crop period on the working capital i.e., cash or kind expenses incurred during
the period of cultivation.
3.4.7 Interest on Fixed Capital
Interest on present value of fixed assets (excluding land) such as farm

buildings, implements and machinery, irrigation structures and equipment
livestock (only draught animals) has been charged at 10 per cent.
3.4.8 Depreciation
The depreciation was worked out for the items like farm machinery and
implement, farm buildings. Depreciation was calculated at 10 per cent for the
farm machinery and implements whereas 2 per cent for the farm buildings.
3.4.9 Rental Value of Owned land
The total rental value of owned land was taken as equal to the lease
amount for similar farm prevailed in the study area.
3.4.10 Farm Worker
Refers to a person wholly working on farm i.e., farmer’s family

members and farm servants.
3.4.11 Resource Base
This refers to the existing asset structure and size of holding, bullock
pairs, farm labour etc.
3.4.12 Man-day
It refers to the work accomplished by a normal healthy human being in a

day of 8 hours.
3.4.13 Farm assets
The physical property owned by the farm such as land, farm buildings,
livestock, machinery and implements was included under farm assets.
3.4.14 Cost of Cultivation
Cost of various inputs and input services used for raising a crop on an
unit area.
3.4.15 Cost of Production
The expenditure incurred in producing a unit quantity of output.
3.4.16 Variable Costs
Costs associated with the using of variable resources viz., seeds

fertilizers, FYM, plant protection chemicals, human and bullock labour.
3.4.17 Fixed Costs
Cost associated with the owing of fixed resources. Depreciation, interest

on fixed capital, rental value of owned land and land revenue were considered
as fixed costs.
3.4.18 Paid out Costs (Explicit costs)
Payment made, on the purchase or hiring of resources and resource

services used in the production of crops by the farmer.
3.4.19 Imputed Costs (Implicit costs)
Cost of self owned and self employed resources and resource services.
Rent on owned land, interest on owned fixed capital, wages to farmers own
labour and family were considered as implicit costs.
3.4.20 Fixed capital
It includes the value of farm buildings, value of machinery and

implements and value of draught animals, excluding land.
3.5 Terms and Concepts used
3.5.1 Climate change: A Statistically significant variation in either the mean

state of the climate or in its variability, persisting for an extended period.
Climate Change refers to any change in climate overtime, whether due

to natural variability or as a result of human activity (IPCC, 2007).
3.5.2 Vulnerability: Vulnerability is the degree to which a system is

susceptible to, and unable to cope with, adverse effects of climate change,
including climate variability and extremes.
3.5.3 Vulnerability index: It is the composite index value obtained from the
multivariate data to assess the vulnerability of a region and they are used to
rank the regions based on their economic performance.
3.5.3 Exposure: is defined as the degree, nature and intensity of global changes
related impacts likely to adversely affect a particular social system.
3.5.4 Sensitivity: sensitivity is the degree to which a system is affected, either

adversely or beneficially, by global changes.
3.5.5 Adaptive Capacity: Adaptive capacity is defined as a set of capabilities

allowing a community to respond/adapt and cope with changes quickly and
easily (Smit and wandel ,2006).
3.5.6 Adaptation strategies: adaptation strategies refer to the mitigative

measures taken to overcome the adversities of climate change.
3.5.7 Adaptability: the ability, competency or capacity of a system to adapt to

climate stimuli.
Adaptability refers to the degree to which adjustments are possible in

practices, processes or structures of systems of projected or actual changes of
climate (Watson et al., 1996).
3.5.8 Risk: Is the potential that a chosen action or activity (including the choice
of in action) will lead to a loss (an undesirable outcome).the notation implies
that a choice having an influence on the outcome exists (existed).
3.5.9 Responsiveness: degree to which a system reacts to stimuli.
3.5.10 Mitigation: an anthropogenic intervention to reduce the sources or

enhance the sinks of green house gases.
Mitigation of climate change refers to actions that limit the level and
rate of climate change.
3.5.11 Impacts: It refers to consequences of climate change on natural and
human systems.
3.5.12 Climate Variability: Variations in the mean state and other statistics
(such as standard deviations, the occurrence of extremes, etc) of the climate on
all temporal and spatial scales beyond that of individual weather events.
3.5.13 Impact potential: Degree to which a system is sensitive or susceptible
to climate stimuli.
KRISHNA RIVER BASIN/ANDHRA
PRADESH STATE
NAGARJUNA SAGAR PROJECT

PROJECT/RIVER PROJECT
GUNTUR(RIGHT CANAL) DISTRICT
MANDAL
GURAJALA NARSARAO PET VINUKONDA
VILLAGE
RANGAREDDI- ALLURIVARI- BRAHMANA- PERUMALLA-

GURAJALA AMBAPURAM PALEM PALEM PALLI PALLI
FARMERS
(40) (40) (40) (40) (40) (40)
Figure 3.1 : DIAGRAM SHOWING THE SELECTION OF RESPONDENTS

Figure 3.2. KRISHNA RIVER BASIN COVERING DIFFERENT STATES
Figure 3.3 . Map showing NSP and delta area covering 5 districts with selected 3 mandals
Chapter IV
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The chapter deals with the presentation of results obtained through analysis
and discussed them with a view to arrive valid and meaningful conclusions. The
results are presented in four sections for easy comprehension in accordance with the
objectives.
1. Measuring vulnerability index of districts under Krishna river basin in Andhra

Pradesh.
2. Impact of climate change on socio-economic conditions
3. Adaptation strategies of farmers to climate change.
4. Efficiency of different Rice production technologies
4.1 Vulnerability Index of Districts under Krishna River Basin:
The study area consisted of the following 10 districts of Andhra Pradesh

falling in the Krishna River basin viz., Anatapur, Guntur, Rangareddy, Khammam,
Krishna, Kurnool, Mahbubnagar, Nalgonda,Warangal and Prakasm districts. .
Prakasam district is not included in the analytical part due to the gaps in
time series data
4.1.1. Measuring Vulnerability Index using Principal Component Analysis (PCA)
A search in the literature was made to identify the indicators for inclusion
under each component of vulnerability, viz., ‘exposure’, ‘sensitivity’ and ‘adaptive
capacity’. Based on the availability of data the following variables have been
included for the present study. The functional relationship of different variables with
vulnerability were shown in the table 4.1.
The eigen values and the corresponding eigen vectors were computed using
MATLAB software package. The eigen values greater than 1 are 7.7, 3.77, 1.96 and
1.414. These eigen values cumulatively account for 87.3% of the total variation of all
the 17 indicators. The first eigen value alone accounted for 45.3% of the total
variation. The coefficients of the first eigen vector, their standard errors and the
component loadings were presented in Table 4.2.
The component loadings are the correlation between the indicators and the
first Eigen vector scores. It can be seen from the table that most of the indicators
have strong correlation with the scores and most of them possess expected signs. In
the case of number of severe droughts, the correlation coefficient was 0.732 which
was highly significant, it implies that higher the number of severe droughts more will
be vulnerability. Similarly, farm infrastructure has a correlation coefficient of -0.437
which indicates that vulnerability has an inverse relationship with farm
infrastructure.
Table4.3 The Vulnerability Indices under each component of vulnerability.
Exposure Sensitivity Adaptive Capacity

District
Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank
Anantapur 1.910 1 1.213 1 2.032 1
Guntur -1.111 8 -0.705 8 -1.424 9
Ranga Reddy 0.612 3 -0.675 7 -0.100 5
Khammam -0.287 6 0.232 4 -0.061 4
Krishna -1.293 9 -1.030 9 -1.289 8
Kurnool 0.188 5 0.766 2 1.220 2
Mahabubnagar 0.703 2 0.389 3 0.784 3
Nalgonda 0.244 4 0.005 5 -0.567 6
Warangal -0.966 7 -0.195 6 -0.596 7
The vulnerability indices under each component of vulnerability, overall

vulnerability index and the ranks of the districts under each component were
depicted in the table 4.3 and 4.4.
Table 4.4. Overall vulnerability index and the ranks of the districts under
each component.
Overall
District Vulnerability Index Rank
Anantapur 5.155 1
Guntur -3.240 8
Ranga Reddy -0.162 5
Khammam -0.116 4
Krishna -3.612 9
Kurnool 2.175 2
Mahabubnagar 1.876 3
Nalgonda -0.318 6
Warangal -1.757 7
The above table indicated that out of the 9 districts, Anantapur district
occupies rank 1 in term of vulnerability under all the three components and also
overall vulnerability. Anantapur was highly vulnerable because of scare rainfall
conditions and moreover it was frequently effected by droughts. The second rank
was occupied by Kurnool in terms of sensitivity, adaptive capacity and over all
vulnerability. Krishna district was least vulnerable among the districts of Krishna
basin because of abundance of water sources and sufficient amounts of rainfall. It
has a very low vulnerability index of -3.612.
4.2.1 Impact of climate change on crop production
The climate sensitivity of agricultural is uncertain, as there is regional

variation of rainfall, temperature, crops and cropping systems, soil and management
practices. Understanding the weather changes over a period of time under the basin
and adjusting the management practices towards achieving better harvest is a
challenge to the growth of agricultural sector. The crop losses may increase if the
predicate climate change increases the climate variability. Different crops respond
differently as the global warming will have a complex impact. Impact of such
climate change on agriculture will be one of the major deciding factors influencing
the future food security. Hence a set of climate, crop and irrigation variables were
selected for the Ricardian analysis considering data for 29 years.
4.2.1.1 Impact of climate change on the area of crop:
Ricardian regression model was fitted to assess the impact of climate change
on the area Paddy, Maize and Groundnut considering the area of the crops as
dependent variable and variables like Total cropped area in the district (TOTCROP),
Proportion of irrigated area to total cropped area (PROIA), Long-term rainfall
average (RLT), Annual rainfall (RY), Long-term daily minimum temperature
average (LLT), Long-term daily maximum temperature average (HLT), Annual daily
maximum temperature average (HY) and Annual daily diurnal temperature variation
average (DIUY) and Yield of Paddy as independent variables. The results obtained
from Ricardian regression model were furnished in the table 4.5.
Paddy: It was evident from the table 4.5 that the variables annual rainfall (RY) and
yield of paddy were positively significant at 1% level of probability .The variables
like Long-term rainfall average (RLT) and long-term daily maximum temperature
average (HLT) were negatively influencing the area of the paddy and were
significant at 1% and 5% level of significance respectively.
The regression coefficient of RY and Yield were 56.33, and 12.681

respectively. It indicates that one unit increase in the variable annual rainfall (RY)
and Yield of paddy will increase the area of the paddy by 56.33 and 12.681 ha
respectively keeping the other variables constant. The result implies that the paddy
crop is profitable and the paddy area increased under these climate variables. It can
be noted that Annual rainfall (RY) has maximum effect in increasing the area under
paddy.
The regression coefficients of RLT and HLT were 95364.89 and 146.86
respectively. It indicates that unit increase of variables like long term daily
maximum temperature average (HLT) and long term rainfall average (RLT) will
likely result in decrease of 95364.89 and 146.86 ha of paddy area respectively. Thus
the climate variables such as Annual rainfall (RY) and long term daily maximum
temperature average (HLT) were important determinants of area of paddy crop.
The model was adequate as indicated by the F-statistics of the ANOVA . The
R - square value was 0.72 implying that 72% of the variation in the area under
paddy was explained by the explanatory variables included in the regression
function.
Maize: It was observed from the table 4.5, that the variables like Total cropped area
(TOTCROP), RLT, Long-term daily maximum temperature average (HLT) and
Yield of Maize were positively significant at 1% level of probability. The variables
Long-term daily minimum temperature average (LLT) was negatively influencing
the area of the Maize was significant at 1% level of significance respectively.
The regression coefficient of TOTCROP, RLT, HLT and Yield were 0.046,
156.011, 28245.113 and 3.708 respectively. It indicates that one unit increase in the
variable total cropped area (TOTCROP), Long-term rainfall average (RLT) and
Long-term daily maximum temperature average (HLT) and Yield of Maize will
increase the area of the Maize by 0.046, 156.011, 28245.113 and 3.708 ha
respectively keeping the other variables constant.
The regression coefficient of LLT was 25935.693. It indicates that a unit

increase of the variable of Long term daily minimum temperature average (LLT)
will likely result in decrease of 25935.693 ha of Maize area. Thus, the climate
variables such as Long term daily minimum temperature average (LLT) and long
term daily maximum temperature average (HLT) were important determinants of
area of Maize crop.
The optimum temperature required for maize crop growth was 34 oC

(Reddy,S.R.,2008 ). The LLT was 26.77oC which was less than optimum. A rise in
LLT for maize will have a significant negative effect on area of maize crop.
The model was adequate as indicated by the F-statistics of the ANOVA. The
R - square value was 0.19 implying that 19% of the variation in the area under Maize
was explained by the explanatory variables included in the regression function. The
R-square was low because the influence of input variables was more rather than the
response of the climate variables
Groundnut: It was clear from the table 4.5 that the variables like Total cropped area
(TOTCROP) and Proportion of irrigated area (PROIA) were positively significant at
1% level of probability. The variables Long-term daily minimum temperature
average (LLT) and Long-term daily maximum temperature average (HLT) were
negatively influencing the area of the Groundnut and were significant at 1% level of
significance respectively.
The regression coefficients of TOTCROP, PROIA were 0.537 and 553.331

respectively. It indicates that one unit increase in the variable i.e. Total cropped area
(TOTCROP) and Proportion of irrigated area (PROIA) will increase the area of the
Groundnut by 0.537 and 553.331 ha respectively keeping the other variables
constant.
The regression coefficient of HLT and LLT were 154957.428 and
112172.100. It indicates that unit increase of the variables long-term daily
maximum temperature average (HLT) and long term daily minimum temperature
average (LLT) will likely result in decrease of 154957.428 and 112172.100 ha of
Groundnut area. Thus the climate variables such as long term daily maximum
temperature average (HLT) and proportion of irrigated area (PROIA) were
important determinants of area of Groundnut crop.
The optimum temperature required for Groundnut crop was 32 oC
(Reddy,S.R.,2008 ). The LLT was 26.7oC which was less than optimum. So, a rise
in LLT for Groundnut will have significant negative impact on the area of
Groundnut crop.
The model was adequate as indicated by the F-statistics of the ANOVA . The
R - square value was 0.85 implying that 85% of the variation in the area under
Groundnut was explained by the explanatory variables included in the regression
function.
4.2.1.1 The impact of climate change on the productivity of crop:
Ricardian regression model was fitted to assess the impact of climate change
on the productivity of paddy, Maize and Groundnut considering the productivity as
dependent variable and variables like Total cropped area in the district (TOTCROP),
Proportion of surface irrigated area from tanks and canals (PROSUR), Proportion of
irrigated area to total cropped area (PROIA), Long-term rainfall average (RLT),
Annual rainfall (RY), Long-term daily minimum temperature average (LLT), Long-
term daily maximum temperature average (HLT), Annual daily maximum
temperature average (HY) and Annual daily diurnal temperature variation average
(DIUY), Area of the crop (Ai ), Irrigated area under ith crop (CiA) and Proportion of
irrigated area under ith crop (PRCiIA) as independent variables. The results obtained
from Ricardian regression model were furnished in the table 4.6.
Paddy: It was observed from the table 4.6 that from the selected variables, long term
daily minimum temperature average (LLT), Area of paddy (Ai) and proportion of
irrigated area under ith crop (PRCiIA) were positive contributing to productivity of
paddy and were significant at 1% level of significance. The variables proportion of
surface irrigated area from tanks and canals (PROSUR) and Irrigated area under ith
crop (CiA) have negative effects on productivity of paddy and significant at 1%
level of probability.
The regression coefficient of LLT, PRCiIA, and Area of paddy were

615.371, 57.599 and 0.036. It implies that one unit increase in the variables LLT,
PRCiIA and Area of paddy, the productivity of paddy increases by 615.37, 57.59,
0.035 and 0.036 kg/ha. Similarly the regression coefficient of PROSUR was 7.76
and 0.035 which indicates unit increase in the variable PROSUR and CiA reduces
the yield of paddy by 7.76 and 0.035 kg/ha respectively. All these variables are
significant at 1% level.
Rice water utilization under traditional flooded conditions was in the range
of 1480mm. But in SRI and direct sowing the water utilized was 908mm and
1088mm . The yields were more in these systems of rice cultivation than traditional
flooding method. Hence the variable irrigated area of the paddy has negative effect
on the paddy productivity reducing the yields under flooded conditions.
R - square value was 0.18 implying that 18% of the variation in the productivity of
paddy was explained by the explanatory variables included in the regression
function. The R-square was low because the influence of input variables was more
rather than the response of the climate variables.
Maize: It was clear from the table 4.6 that, the variables the long term daily
minimum temperature average (LLT), Irrigated area under ith crop (CiA) and
Annual rainfall (RY) were positively significant affecting the productivity of Maize
crop and significant at 1% and RY at 5% level of probability .The variables
Proportion of surface irrigated area from tanks and canals (PROSUR), Long- term
rainfall average (RLT), Long term daily maximum temperature average (HLT) and
Area under Maize crop (Ai ) were negatively affecting the Maize productivity.
The regression coefficients of LLT, CiA and RY were 1892.86, 0.100 and
0.718. It implies that one unit increase in the variables LLT, CiA and RY increases
the productivity of Maize by 1892.86, 0.100 and 0.718 kg/ha respectively.
Similarly, the regression coefficients of PROSUR, RLT, HLT and Area under
Maize crop (Ai) were 26.77, 5.92, 954.14 and 0.014 which implies that one unit
increase in the variables PROSUR, RLT, HLT and Area under Maize crop (Ai)
reduces the yields by 26.77, 5.92, 954.14 and 0.014 kg /ha respectively. Thus, the
variables LLT and HLT were important determinants of Maize productivity.
R - square value was 0.40 implying that 40% of the variation in the productivity of
Maize was explained by the explanatory variables included in the regression
function.
Groundnut: It was seen from the table 4.6 that the variables Long term daily
minimum temperature average (LLT), Irrigated area under ith crop (CiA) and
Proportion of irrigated area under ith crop (PRCiIA) are positively contributing to
productivity of Groundnut and significant at 1% level. The variable RLT was
negatively influencing and significant at 1% level of probability.
The regression coefficients of LLT, and PRCiIA were 572.93, and 10.277. It
implies that one unit increase in these variables, the productivity of Groundnut
increases by 572.93, 0.005 and 10.277 kg/ha respectively.
The regression coefficient CiA and RLT were 0.005 and 1.954, which implies
that unit increase in the variable reduces the productivity of Groundnut by 0.005 and
1.954 kg/ha. Thus the variables LLT and RLT were the important determinants of
productivity of Groundnut crop.
In Groundnut excessive irrigation will have negative effect through
inundation and pod formation will be effected. Hence, the irrigated area had negative
effect on groundnut yields.
From the adaptation point of view, area and yield responses in paddy are more
indicative of behavior of the decision makers. Adaptation practices due to climate
changes are higher in paddy as the major food grain under the river basins. Since the
demand for Maize and Groundnut is increasing in the recent years, climate variables
will be felt in the future years. Also Maize is mostly a semi irrigated or sometime
rainfed crop grown in water scare regions, the impact of max temperature will be
easily felt. However, given the marker demand for Maize, it will also be grown in
typical irrigated areas using canal and groundwater sources. The adoption and spread
of Maize and Groundnut in high temp regions in other regions or states will help to
derive meaningful inferences from the study results.
It was also intended to analyze the climate change impacts with socio-
economic data (Ricardian model) for the study area (Nagarjuna Sagar Project) in
Krishna River Basin. But due to the limited variation of climate change variables
across the three selected mandals the study was restricted to the time series data
only. Nonetheless, a brief descriptive analysis was carried out and presented in the
following section.
4.2.2 Socio-Economics and adaptation of farmers on climate change in Krishna

river basin (Nagarjuna Sagar Project)
This section explores the data with an aim of generating descriptive studies. It
begins with the sampling procedure adopted for collecting the primary data, followed
by a description of selected socio-economic characteristics of the surveyed
households. Special emphasis was given on the farm size, educational levels of
samples, investment on health, distribution of livestock, average farm income, credit
source, farmer’s perception on climate change and adaptations. The surveyed
farmers are spread over different mandals of Guntur district covering three different
locations of the Nagarjuna Sagar Project, viz, Canal Head, Canal middle and Canal
Tail. The results of the study are summarized below.
I. Human Capital
Human capital is an important component to understand farmer’s behaviour to

tide over crisis management in the context of climate change and the indicators like
age, education, health and percentage of households with age >12 and working in
cultivation were used for this purpose:
i. Age
It was observed from the table 4.7 that the average age of the farmers was 36
years with a minimum of 25 years and a maximum of 70 years. It can be easily seen
that about 35.83% of farmer age lies between 30 and 40. The age of the head of the
household represents experience in farming. The experienced farmers have a higher
probability of perceiving climate change as they are exposed to past and present
climatic conditions over the longer horizon of their life span. It can be hypothesized
that older and more experienced farmers have higher likelihood of perceiving
climate change. In the study area, majority of the farmers were in the age group of
30-40 implying that there was a chance of adaption of new technologies to mitigate
climate change impact.
Table.4.7 Distribution of farmers age in the study area.
Age
Region
Less than 30 30-40 years 40-50 years >50 years
Canal Head(n=80) 16 24 18 22
Canal Middle(n=80) 10 33 17 20
Canal Tail (n=80) 9 29 17 25
Total (n=240) 35 86 52 67
Percentage
14.58 35.83 21.67 27.92
to the total
ii. Education
The education level of farmers in the study area was presented in the
table.4.8.About 51.66% of the farmers were educated up to high school level, 22.9%
up to elementary level, 17.08% have no formal education and the remaining 8.3%
have education up to college level. In the head region 13.75% of the farmers were
educated up to college level, 51.25% of farmers up to high school level, 23.75% up
to elementary level and 11.25% has no schooling at all. In the middle region 53.75%
of farmers are educated up to high school level, 7.5% up to college level, 22.75% up
to elementary level and 16.25 % farmers have no schooling at all. Whereas in case of
tail end 50% of the farmers were educated up to high school level,3.75% up to
college level ,22.5% up to elementary level and 23.75% farmers were without any
schooling. Higher level of education was believed to be associated with access to
information on improved technologies and productivity consequences. Hence, higher
the education level more is the chance of adaptation to climate change.
Table.4.8 Education levels of farmers in the study area.
Education-Level
Region
College High School Elementary No Formal
Level(>10) (5-10) Level (1-5) Schooling
Canal Head (n=80) 11 (13.75) 41 (51.25) 19 (23.75) 9 (11.25)
Canal Middle (n=80) 6 (7.5) 43 (53.75) 18 (22.75) 13 (16.25)
Canal Tail (n=80) 3 (3.75) 40 (50) 18(22.5) 19 (23.75)

Total ( n=240) 20(8.33) 124(51.66) 55(22.91) 41(17.08)
Figures in parentheses indicate percentages to total
iii. Health
An examination of farmer’s investment on health from Table 4.9 revealed that

35.83% of the farmers invest between Rs.10000-20000 for health and 33.75% invest
less than Rs.10000 on health and about 26.66% between Rs.20000-30000 and 3.75%
invest between Rs.30000-40000 on health conditions. If the farmer’s investment on
health was more, the more was the deviation of farmers’ income from investment on
cultivation and hence farmers go for borrowings from private money lenders making
them fall in debts and finally no chance of going for adaptation. It can be concluded
that majority of the farmers investment on health was moderate in the study area.
Table.4.9 Farmer investments on health in the study area
Investment(Rs/annum)
Region
<10000 10000-20000 20000-30000 30000-40000
Canal Head (n=80) 29 32 15 4
Canal middle(n=80) 25 28 24 3
Canal tail(n=80) 27 26 25 2
Total (n=240) 81 86 64 9
Percentage
33.75 35.83 26.66 3.75
to the total
iv. Households in Agricultural operations
Households with large family members may be forced to divert part of the
labour force to off-farm activities in an attempt to earn income in order to ease the
consumption pressure imposed by a large family size. Large family size was
normally associated with a higher labour endowment, which would enable a
household to accomplish various agricultural tasks in terms of labour shortage. An
overview of the table 4.10 provided the percentage of households with more than 12
years of age and working in cultivation is an important component of human capital.
Among the surveyed farmers, this percentage ranged between 63.4 and 72.7 with an
average of 67.06%.
Table 4.10. Distribution of households in cultivation in the study area
Percentage of Households with age greater than 12

years working in cultivation
Region Average Average Households
Household >12Years under Percentage
size cultivation
Canal Head(n=80) 3.75 2.38 63.45
Canal Middle (n=80) 3.76 2.45 65.17
Canal Tail (n=80) 3.96 2.88 72.75
Total (n=240) 3.82 2.57 67.06
II. Physical capital
i) Farm size
Farm sizes of the study area were presented in Table 4.12.It can be easily seen
from the table that, the total farm sizes owned by the farmers vary between 1.13 to
0.90 hectare across different regions. The average farm size owned was about
1.03ha. The total leased in area was negligibly small in all three regions. Farm size
was associated with greater wealth and it was hypothesized to increase adaptation to
climate change. If the size of the farm was more the farmer may go for adaptation.
Table 4.11. Distribution of farm size (ha) in cultivation in the study area
Region Average owned farm Average leased farm

Canal Head (n=80) 1.03 0.32
Canal Middle (n=80) 0.90 1.28
Canal Tail (n=80) 1.13 0.39
Total average (n=240) 1.03 0.98
ii) Distribution of livestock:
Livestock plays a very important role by serving as a store of value, source of

traction (especially oxen) and provision of manure required for soil fertility
maintenance. Thus, livestock ownership was hypothesized to increase adaptation to
climate change. In times of any extreme events occurs livestock rearing becomes a
main source of income to the farmers. The frequency distributions of number of
livestock possessed by the farmers across 3 different regions were presented in Table
4.11. About 18% of the farmers in the sample have no possession of livestock and
82 % of sample farmers possess livestock under Canal (head, middle and tail)
regions.
Table 4.11. Distribution of livestock in the study area
Livestock possession
Particulars
Yes No
Canal Head (n=80) 72 8
Canal Middle (n=80) 64 16
Canal Tail (n=80) 61 19
Total (n=240) 197 43
Percentage to Total 82 18
III. Financial Capital
Farmers’ income from agriculture, their investment in various assets and

capacity to repay the loans borrowed for cultivation form the components of this
capital. The net income was obtained by subtracting all expenses from gross income
which includes revenue from yield. An overview of Table .4.12 provides the average
income (per hectare) for paddy. The farm income per ha was found to be
Rs 14452.51 .If the average farm income was high the farmer can go for adaptation
of new technologies.
Table.4.12 Average farm income of farmers in the study area

Region Mean income (Rs./acre)
Canal Head (n=80) 16696.56
Canal Middle (n=80) 11250.10
Canal Tail (n=80) 15111.21
Average 14452.51
IV. Credit source:
Availability of credit eases the cash constraints and allows farmers to buy
purchased inputs such as fertilizer, improved crop varieties and irrigation facilities.
Thus, there was a positive relationship between the level of adoption and the
availability of credit. The credit required by the farmers is provided by different
sources like banks and cooperative societies. An examination of Table 4.13 revealed
that cooperative society contributes to an extent of 50% and banks contribute to an
extent of 39.16% followed by money lenders of 10.83%.
Table.4.13. Credit Sources to farmers in the study area

Region Banks Cooperative society Money lenders
Canal Head(n=80) 39(41.48) 34(28.33) 7(26.92)

Canal middle(n=80) 24(25.53) 46(38.33) 10(38.46)
Canal tail(n=80) 34(36.17) 40(33.33) 9(34.61)
TOTAL 94(39.16) 120(50) 26(10.83)
VII. Perception of farmers on Climate Change
Farmers were questioned to elicit their observation on changes in climate in

the last 5 years. It was observed from Table 4.14 , 51.7 % of the farmers reported
that they observed many changes in climate during the last 5 years while 48.3% of
the farmers opined that there was somewhat change in climate.
Table 4.14. Frequency of Climate Change-observation by farmers in the study

area
Climate Change-phenomenon-What
farmers observed for the past 5 years
Region
Somewhat Very much
Canal Head (n = 80) 35 45
Canal middle (n = 80) 54 26
Canal tail (n = 80) 27 53
Total (N = 240) 116 124
Percentage to the total 48.33 51.67
VIII. Adaptation measures followed
The adaptation taken up by the farmers indicate that the farmers have
perceived the changes in the climate and made use of the technical guidance and
finally have gone for adaptations against changing climate. From the total adapted
farmers 49.29 percent of farmers adopt water saving methods followed by crop
diversification 22.53 %, change to livestock by 15.49% and off farm activities by
12.67%. In tail end region most of the farmers i.e., 63.83% of farmers adopt water
saving methods followed by off farm activities with 19.15%. Whereas in head and
middle region most of the farmers adopt crop diversification followed by water
saving methods.
Table.4.15 Summarizes the various adaptation measures in the study area
Crop Water saving Off farm Change to

Region
diversification methods activities livestock
Canal Head(n=46) 14(30.43) 16(34.78) 4(8.70) 12(26.09)
Canal middle(n=49) 14(28.58) 24(48.98) 5(10.20) 6(12.25)
Canal tail(n=47) 4(8.51) 30(63.83) 9(19.15) 4(8.51)
Total(n=142) 32(22.54) 70(49.30) 18(12.67) 22(15.49)
29.19%
Figure 4.1: Farmers adapting to climate change (N=240)

As indicated on figure 4.1 above, use of water saving technologies was the
most commonly used method which contributes to 29.19% of the total adaptation
followed by crop diversification to extent of 13.3%, change to livestock up to 9.16%
and off farm activities to an extent of 7.52%, where off-farm activities was the least
adaptation practiced among the major adaptation methods identified in the Krishna
river basin. Moreover, about 42 percent of the surveyed farmers reported not to have
any adaptation method as indicated in the figure above due to many reasons.
IX Barriers of adaptation:
The analysis of barriers to adaptation to climate change in the study area

indicates that there were five major constraints to adaptation. These were lack of
information, lack of money, shortage of labour, shortage of land and poor potential
for irrigation (Table 4.16). Lack of information to adaptation options could be
attributed to the fact that research on climate change and adaptation options have not
been strengthened in the country and thus, information was lacking in this area. Lack
of money hinders farmers from getting the necessary resources and technologies.
Adaptation to climate change was costly, and this cost could be revealed through the
need for intensive labour use. Thus, if farmers do not have sufficient family labour or
the financial means to higher labour, they cannot adapt. Poor irrigation potential can
most probably be associated with the inability of farmers to use the already existing
water due to technological incapability. It was observed from the table 4.16, the lack
of information was the major constraint contributing to about 42.86%, followed by
shortage of labour with 24.49%, lack of money with 18.37%, poor potential of
irrigation with8.16% and shortage of land contributing to 6.12%.
Table.4.16 Various barriers of adaptation of farmers in the study area
Lack of Lack of Shortage of Shortage of Poor potential

Region
information money labour land for irrigation
Canal Head (n=34) 17(50.00) 7(20.59) 10(29.41) 0(0) 0(0)

Canal Middle (n=31) 11(35.48) 5(16.13) 10(32.26) 5(16.13) 0(0)
Canal Tail (n=33) 16(42.43) 6(18.18) 4(12.12) 1(3.03) 8(24.24)
Total(n=98) 42(42.86) 18(18.37) 24(24.49) 6(6.12) 8(8.16)

X. Agencies who helped farmers in gaining technical information
Farmers were asked to state among the different agencies that helped them in
gaining technical information. Access to information on climate change through
extension agents or other sources creates awareness and favourable condition for
adoption of farming practices that are suitable under climate change .Thus farmers
contact with extension agents or any other sources, which provide information on
climate change increase the awareness of farmers. From the table 4.17 it was clear
that 62.5% of the farmers in the three regions obtain the extension services from the
agricultural department and 27.08% of the farmers from the research stations and
10.42% farmers have reported that they haven’t received any extension services.
Table 4.17. Extension services from various agencies

Department
Research Total
Region of None
stations sample
agriculture
Canal Head (n = 80) 48(60.00) 24(30.00) 8(10.00) 80
Canal middle(n = 80) 51(63.75) 24(30.00) 5(6.25) 80
Canal tail(n = 80) 51(63.75) 17(21.25) 12(15) 80
Total 150(62.5) 65(27.08) 25(10.42) 240
4.3.1 Adaptation Strategies of farmers to climate change:
The adaptation methods for this study are considered based on farmers
perceptions on climate change and the actions they have taken to counteract the
negative impact of climate change.
Table 4.18 Description of dependent of variable:
Description Dependent variable
Adaptation to Farmers reported Percentage Farmers reported Percentage

Climate Change to have adapted to have not adapted
142 59.17 98 40.83
From the above table 4.18, it was shown that about 59.17% of the farmers in
the study area reported to have adapted.
4.19 : Description of independent variables:
Independent variable
Description Mean Standard Deviation
Age 36.21 10.96
Education 6.10 4.23
Farm size 4.29 3.33
Farming experience 21.56 11.25
Access to credit 0.82 0.380

0.66 0.47
Access to extension services
3.82 1.075
Size of household
As indicated in Table 4.19 above, the explanatory variables for this study
include: Age, Education, Farm size, farming experience, access to credit, access to
extension services and size of the house hold.
Higher level of education was believed to be associated with access to

information on improved technologies and productivity consequences (Norris and
Bati, 1987). Education has been found to be negatively correlated with farmers’
decisions on climate change and adaptation measures (Gould et. al., 1989).
Therefore, farmers with higher levels of education were more likely to better adapt to
climate change. In this study it was hypothesized that farmers are with less education
level which makes farmers to have less access to information and thereby adaptation
to climate change.
Research has proved that a large family size was mostly inclined to divert part
of its labour force into non-farm activities to generate more income and reduce
consumption demands (Mano and Nhemachena, 2006). The other assumption was
that large family size was normally associated with a higher labour endowment,
which would enable a household to accomplish various agricultural tasks. In this
study it was hypothesized that the farmers are with less number of households which
does not contribute to any adaptation to climate change by farmers.
Farm size was associated with greater wealth and it was hypothesized to
increase adaptation to climate change. Studies on adoption of agricultural
technologies indicate that farm size has both negative and positive effect on the
adoption showing that the effect of farm size on technology adoption was
inconclusive (Bradshaw et al., 2004). In this study it was hypothesized that farm size
has a positive influence on adaptation.
Access to credit had a positive impact on climate change and adaptation.
Having access to credit increased the likelihood of adaptation by farmers. The results
implied that institutional support in terms of the provision of credit was an important
factor in promoting adaptation options to reduce the negative effects of climate
change (Deressa et. al., 2009). Access to extension services increase the chance of
adapting to climate change, as shown by Maddison (2006) and Nhemachena and
Hassan (2007).
Researchers have found negative relationship between age and farmers

decision to choice selection (Seo et. al., 2005; Sherlund et. al., 2002). In this study it
was hypothesized that old age would be associated with old farmers who wanted to
maintain the status quo in farming and therefore resistant to change and expected age
to be negatively related to climate change and adaptation measures.
Studies indicate that experienced farmers have a higher chance of adapting to

climate change as they are exposed to past and present climatic conditions over the
longer horizon of their life span (Maddison, 2006; Ishaya and Abaje, 2008). Thus, it
was hypothesized that more experienced farmers have a higher likelihood of
adapting climate change.
Variables influencing adaptation:
The results from logit regression presented in Table 4.20 indicated that most
of the explanatory variables affected the adaptation as expected, except age,
education and size of the household. Variables that positively and significantly
influenced adaptation to climate change include farm size, farming experience, and
access to credit and extension services at 5% level of probability.
Table 4.20 Results of the logistic regression model:
Variables B S.E
Age (years) 0.232 0.218

Education (years) -0.001 0.044
Farm size(ha) 0.074** 0.065
Farm experience (years) 0.232** 0.219
Size of the Household (number) 0.052 0.176
Access to credit (dummy-0,1) 0.602** 0.686
Access to extension services(dummy-0,1) 0.433** 0.350
Dummy_head (adapted-1,no adaptation-0) 0.108* 4.529
Dummy_middle (adapted-1,no adaptation-0) 5.085*** 1.047
Constant 5.119*** 1.066
***, **, * = Significant at 1%, 5% and 10% probability level, respectively
A unit increase in the farm size increase the log odds of adaptation to climate
change by 0.074. Farm size was associated with greater wealth and it increases
adaptation to climate change (Bradshaw et al., 2004). Similarly, increasing the
farming experience by one unit increases the log odds of adaptation to climate
change by 0.232. Studies indicate that experienced farmers have a higher chance of
adapting to climate change (Maddison, 2006; Ishaya and Abaje, 2008). Likewise,
increasing access to credit and increasing access to extension services by one unit
increases the log odds of adaptation to climate change by 0.602 and 0.433
respectively. The results were in line with the findings of Deressa et al., (2009) that
institutional support in terms of the provision of credit was an important factor in
promoting adaptation options to reduce the negative effects of climate change. The
results of the present study were in line with the findings of Maddison (2006) and
Nhemachena and Hassan (2007) that access to extension services increase the chance
of adapting to climate change.
The head, middle and tail regions had shown to have significance to
adaptation to climate change. The three regions showed significance but tail and
middle regions were significant at 1% level and head region showed significance at
10% level.
Differences in three regions had positive influence on adaptation decisions of
farmers. Empirical studies on climate change and adaptation of farmers in Africa
have shown that climate attributes in 15 different agricultural zones significantly
affected adaptation (Kurukulasuriya and Mendelsohn, 2006).
4.4.1 Comparison of different Rice production systems:
Majority of the farmers i.e. 49.30% of them used the strategy of water saving
technologies as an adaptation to climate change. So, the different rice production
technologies were studied in relation to water saving technologies were described
below.
a. System of rice intensification
The system of rice intensification (SRI) is an emerging paddy cultivation

practice as a potential alternative to the traditional way of flooded rice cultivation
(Batuvitage, 2002), particularly in the canal system. It is showing great promise in
addressing the problems of small quantity of quality seeds, water scarcity and
labour-cost in nursery. SRI has shown a positive difference in terms of plant height,
number of tillers (both productive and unproductive), grains per panicle (filled and
unfilled), and weight per 1000 seeds. It has been observed that SRI plants are more
vigorous, healthy and robust and are less damaged from pest and diseases (Uphoff,
2006).
b. Machine transplantation in paddy
Paddy requires about 90 labour days for cultivation. It needs about 10-15
labour per acre for transplantation. Labour requirement during the activity in a block
or region will also be higher. But availability of labour and the charges for labour are
high. Hence machinery harvesters and the transplanters came into existence.
Machine transplantation has been started in some villages on pilot basis. The present
study covered some of the villages who have started adapting such technology. The
main advantage of the machine transplantation is reduces labour scarcity, specified
spacing, reduces the nursery cost & time and easy for water management activities.
The number of tillers would be relatively higher compared to the manual
transplantation, which resist lodging during heavy flood and also increase the panicle
number.
c. Direct sowing: It refers to broadcasting of seeds in fields before or immediately
after pre-monsoon showers. It does not require raising and transplanting hence lesser
cost of cultivation and comparatively slightly higher grain yields over farmers
practice. Moreover the crop comes to harvest 5-7 days earlier. Possibility of timely
sowing facilitates the farmers to take up second pulse crop in time.
4.4.1.1 Cost of cultivation of different rice production technologies:
Normally, the total cost of cultivation comprises of both fixed and operational
costs. In general, operational costs alone are beckoned by the farmers and profits
were worked out accordingly, ignoring the fixed costs. But in any business, the fixed
costs were also to be taken into account to arrive at the total costs and thereby to
work out the farm returns. Thus the breakup of costs was helpful to the farmers and
other entrepreneurs to have an in depth understanding of the business enterprise.
The total cost of cultivation, yields and returns of rice crop per hectare was worked
out and discussed here on the basis of accounting all the operational costs up to
harvesting. The data pertaining to Cost of Cultivation per hectare in different Rice
production technologies were presented in Table 4.21.
The results revealed that the system of rice intensification technology was
most expensive over the direct sowing, machine transplanting and farmers practice.
The total cost of cultivation was Rs. 68501.85/ha in SRI followed by Rs.67513/ha in
machine transplanting, Rs.67465/ha in farmers practice and Rs.63165/ha in direct
sowing.
Among the different items of operational costs, human labour cost was very
high in SRI with Rs.21884/ha owing to labour intensive operations like
transplantation weed management and harvesting. The machine labour cost was high
in case of machine transplanting Rs.21731/ha followed by farmers practice
Rs.13932.33/ha, direct sowing Rs.13829.38 and SRI Rs.7421.34.
The seed cost was significantly less in SRI Rs.103.74 followed mechanized
Rs.1145.83; farmers practice Rs.1159.96 and direct sowing Rs.1422.20. This is due
to the lesser seed rate (2kg/acre) recommendation in SRI over the other technologies.
Among the material costs, the expenditure incurred on seed was least followed by
FYM, plant protection chemicals and fertilizers in all the technologies.
Among the fixed costs, the rental value of owned land was higher followed by
interest on fixed capital, depreciation and land revenue respectively for calculation of
the rental value of the owned land, the exiting rate in the study area was taken into
consideration, it accounted to Rs.24700/ ha.
4.4.1.2 Costs, Yields and Returns:
Production costs play an important role in the process of decision making by

the farmers. Explicitly or implicitly most of the farmers bear in mind that the cost of
production related to their prices and it is an important topic for discussion. Cost of
production often becomes a policy issue when producers complain that the prices
they receive for products do not cover the cost of production, which represents that
the expenses incurred per unit of output exceeds the returns. The items of cost that
go into the cost of production are both fixed and variable costs. Variable costs vary
with level of output and are employed differently in different farms for variations.
The yields and returns were represented in the table 4.22. The table shows
that the three technologies namely SRI, Direct sowing and machine transplanting
recorded highest yield of 60 Q/ha 59 Q/ha, 57.6004 Q/ha respectively than farmers
practice of 52 Q/ha.
Table 4.22. Costs and Returns of different Rice production technologies:
Particulars Direct SRI Transplanting

sowing cultivation
Machine Farmers
practice
1. Yield (Q/ha) 59.03 60.02 57.60 52.93
2. Cost of Cultivation (Rs/ha) 63165.30 68501.84 67512.91 67465.22
3. Gross Income (Rs/ha) 94551.60 96033.60 92180.40 84711.12
4. Net Returns(Rs/ha) 31386.30 27531.75 24667.48 17245.89
5. B:C Ratio 1.49 1.40 1.36 1.25

The three production technologies other than farmers practice have shown
almost the same yields but they vary in their cost of cultivation, net returns and B.C
ratio. Though the yield and gross income were high in SRI, the net returns and
benefit cost ratio was high in direct sowing owing to lower cost of cultivation in
direct sowing when compared to other technologies viz. farmers practice,
mechanization and SRI. The B-C ratios next to direct sowing were SRI, machine
transplantation and farmers practice.
4.4.1.3 Unit Cost of Production:
For further analysis of farm business in detailed way, the unit cost of
production was calculated and furnished in the table 4.23.
Table 4.23. Unit cost of production and productivity in Rice production
Transplanting
Direct SRI Machine Farmers
Particulars
sowing Cultivation practice
Gross cost (Rs/ha) 63165.30 68501.84 67512.91 67465.22
Yield of 59.03 60.02 57.60 52.93

paddy(Q/ha)
Cost of production 1070.05 1141.32 1172.09 1274.61
of paddy (Rs/Q)
It could be seen from the table 4.23, that the productivity was the highest in
SRI, followed by direct sowing, Machine transplanting and famers practice. The
average yield of paddy per hectare was, 60.02 quintals/ha, 59 quintals/ha, 57.60
quintals/ha and 52.93 quintals/ha in SRI, direct sowing, Machine transplanting and
farmers practice respectively. Thus, the physical returns per hectare indicated that
yields and returns of rice grown under traditional methods are non remunerative
when compared to direct sowing, SRI and machine transplanting respectively.
The highest returns on these technologies might be due to adoption of better
management practices and intensive input utilization. The cost of production per
quintal was highest in farmers practice followed by machine transplanting, SRI and
direct sowing.
Thus, the unit cost of production revealed the efficiency of different

production technologies.
4.4.5. Water use efficiency:
The quantity of water used was low in SRI with 908mm followed by direct
sowing (1088 mm), machine transplanting (1436 mm) and farmers practice (1479.66
mm).
The results of the water use efficiency were presented in table 4.24.It can be
observed from the table that, higher crop yield coupled with lower quantity of water
used resulted in the higher water use efficiency of 6.610 (Kg/ha/mm) in SRI
followed by 5.426, 4.011 ,3.577 in direct sowing, machine transplanting and
farmers practice respectively.
The water use efficiency benefit was highest in SRI with 105.764(Rs/ha/mm)
followed by 86.904(Rs/ha/mm) in direct sowing, 64.192(Rs/ha/mm) in machine
transplanting and 57.250(Rs/ha/mm) in farmers practice.
Table 4.24. Water use efficiency of different Rice production systems.
Direct Transplanting
Particulars SRI Farmers
Sowing Machine
practice
1088 908 1436 1479.66
Water used(mm)
59.03 60.021 57.60 52.93
Yield (Q/ha)
Water use 5.42 6.610 4.01 3.57
efficiency(Kg/ha/mm)
Cost of 63165.30 68501.84 67512.91 67465.22
Cultivation(Rs/ha)
Water use efficiency 86.90 105.76 64.19 57.25
benefit(Rs/ha/mm)
The WUE was high in SRI over the other technologies, but the net returns and
B.C ratio were higher in direct sowing, inferring that the direct sowing method of
rice production was efficient over the other rice production technologies analyzed in
the present study in three regions.
Table 4.5 Ricardian Area regression model
Variable Paddy Maize Groundnut
Constant -7406.542 -429229.092 6996333.3

(275437.35) (98619.97) (368422.64)
TOTCROP -0.005 0.046*** 0.537***

(0.035) (0.013) (0.048)
PROIA 25.665 52.945 553.331***
(92.050) (32.98) (123.46)
RLT -146.868** 156.011*** 65.193
(79.88) (28.64) (107.37)
RY 56.338*** -5.712 -29.949
(17.04) (6.15) (22.94)
LLT 16123.0845 -25935.693*** -112172.100***
(16619.47) (5890.81) (22489.01)
HLT -95364.895*** 28245.113*** -154957.428***
(14387.53) (5133.56) (19240.03)
HY -12031.940 -2259.933 8226.769
(7906.76) (2842.79) (10653.95)
DUIY 18177.405 -1172.741 9660.648
(11394.73) (4113.25) (15310.03)
Yield 12.681*** 3.708*** 1.090
(4.66) (0.903) (10.57)
2
R 0.725 0.191 0.86
F-stat 73.65*** 6.57*** 171.44***
*** indicates significance at 1% and ** indicates significance at 5% level

Table 4.21 Cost of Cultivation of Different Rice Production Technologies.
Transplanting(Rs/ha)
Direct Machine Farmers
SRI
Sowing
S.No. Particulars (Rs/ha) practice
(Rs/ha) (N=20)
(N=10)
(N=20) (N=190)
I Operational costs
1 Material costs
Seed 1422.20 103.74 1145.83 1159.96
(2.25) (0.15) (1.70) (1.72)
FYM 1754.98 4693.00 1913.43 1388.54
(2.78) (6.85) (2.83) (2.06)
Fertilizers 5030.99 4627.55 4872.08 5824.11
(7.96) (6.76) (7.22) (8.63)
Plant protection 2184.72 2054.05 2147.67 2668.88
chemicals (3.46) (3.00) (3.18) (3.96)
2 Labour costs
Human labour 11323.00 21883.93 8002.80 14792.24
(Hired+Family) (17.93) (31.95) (11.85) (21.93)
3 Machine labour 13829.38 7421.34 21731.06 13932.33
(21.89) (10.83) (32.19) (20.65)
4 Interest on
working capital 666.47 764.69 746.49 745.61
(1.06) (1.12) (1.11) (1.11)
Total operational 40511.68
costs 36211.75 41548.30 40559.36 (60.65)
(57.33) (60.65) (60.08)
II Fixed costs
1. Taxes and cesses 494.00 494.00 494.00 494.00
(0.78) (0.72) (0.73) (0.73)
2. Depreciation 586.60 586.60 586.60 586.60
(0.93) (0.86) (0.87) (0.87)
3. Rental value of 24700.00 24700.00(36. 24700.00 24700.00
owned land (39.10) 06) (36.59) (36.61)
4. Interest on fixed
capital 1172.95 1172.95 1172.95 1172.95
(1.86) (1.71) (1.74) (1.74)
Total of fixed 26953.55 26953.55 26953.55 26953.55
costs (42.67) (39.35) (39.92) (39.95)
Cost of 63165.30 68501.84 67512.91 67465.22
Cultivation(Rs/ha) (100) (100) (100) (100)
Figures in parentheses show the percentages to total

Table 4.6. Ricardian Yield Regression model
Variable Paddy Maize Groundnut

Constant -2411.473 -2781.106 -924.985
(5878.46) (6919.08) (3536.48)
TOTCROP 0.032 0.012 0.071

(0.052) (0.023) (0.067)
PROIA 0.936 0.284 0.588
(1.258) (1.955) (0.739)
PROSUR -7.761** -26.773*** -0.892

(3.964) (6.810) (2.250)
RLT -2.220 -5.923*** -1.954***

(1.373) (1.819) (0.645)
RY 0.178 0.718** 0.214

(0.231) (0.362) (0.131)
LLT 615.371** 1892.86*** 572.930***

(304.00) (454.24) (163.26)
HLT -329.516 -954.148*** -177.202
(232.54) (354.26) (141.44)
HY -69.089 23.196 -101.691

(106.16) (171.46) (63.11)
DUIY 79.949 14.138 -8.387
(152.82) (248.20) (89.50)
Ai 0.036** -0.014*** 0.001
(0.016) (0.006) (0.00)
CiA -0.035** 0.100*** -0.005**
(0.016) (0.015) (0.003)
PRCiIA 57.599** 6.641 10.277***`
(26.43) (4.878) (2.167)
R2 0.181 0.402 0.324

F-stat 4.564** 13.91*** 9.903***
*** indicates significance at 1% and ** indicates significance at 5%

Tab 4.1 Functional relationship of different variables with vulnerability
Functional
Component Indicator Relationship with
Vulnerability**
1 Percentage change in the annual rainfall* (V1) ↑
2 Percentage change in maximum temperature* ↑
(V2)
Exposure 3 Percentage change in minimum temperature* ↑
(V3)
4 Number of severe drought weeks for the past 10 ↑
years (V4)
5 Percentage of irrigated land (V5) ↓
1 Land degradation Index (V6) ↑
2 Rural population density (V7) ↑
Sensitivity
3 Crop diversification index*** (V8) ↓
4 Percentage of small and marginal farmers (V9) ↑
1 Rural literacy rate (V10) ↓
2 Average farm size (V11) ↓
Adaptive 3 Agricultural output index (V12) ↓
capacity
4 Infrastructure index*** (V13) ↓
5 Farm Infrastructure index*** (V14) ↓
6 Percentage of HYV area (V15) ↓
7 Milk animals (V16) ↓
8 Poultry (V17) ↓
*Absolute value
**The symbols ↑ indicates that vulnerability of the region increases (decreases) with the
increase (decrease) in the value of the indicator. The symbols ↓ indicates that vulnerability
of the region increases (decreases) with the decrease (increase) in the value of the indicator.
*** provides the variables included and the methodology of construction.

Table 4.2. Coefficients of First Eigen vector, Standard Error and Component loadings
Coefficients of
Standard Component
S. No. Variable the first eigen
Error Loadings
vector
1 Percentage Change in Rainfall 0.204 0.143 0.565
2 Change in MaxTemp. -0.281 0.119 -0.780
3 Change in MinTemp. 0.221 0.123 0.612
4 No. of severe drought weeks 0.264 0.123 0.732
5 Percentage Irrigated Land 0.330 0.071 -0.915
6 Land Degradation Index -0.249 0.151 -0.692
7 Rural population density -0.264 0.104 -0.731
8 Crop Diversification Index 0.093 0.174 -0.259
9 Percentage of marginal and small farmers -0.323 0.060 -0.897
10 Rural Literacy Rate 0.271 0.098 -0.753
11 Average Farm Size -0.342 0.045 0.950
12 Agrl.Output Index 0.238 0.163 -0.659
13 Infrastructure Index -0.028 0.205 0.078
14 Farm-Infrastructure Index 0.158 0.156 -0.437
15 Percentage of HYV Area to GCA 0.307 0.089 -0.853
16 Milk Animals 0.130 0.193 -0.361
17 Poultry 0.153 0.200 -0.425
68501.85 67512.91 67465.23
70000.00
63165.30
60000.00
Cost of Cultivation(Rs/ha)
50000.00
41548.30 40559.36 40511.68
40000.00 36211.75
Variable cost
26953.55 26953.55 26953.55 26953.55 Fixed cost

30000.00
Total costs
20000.00
10000.00
0.00
DIRECT SOWING SRI (Rs/ha) MACHINE FARMERS
(Rs/ha) (Rs/ha) PRACTICE
(Rs/ha)
Figure 4.2. Cost of cultivation of different Rice production technologies

62.00
60.02
59.03
60.00
57.60
58.00
56.00
YIELD (Q/Ha)
YIELD (Q/ha)
54.00 52.93
52.00
50.00
48.00
DIRECT SOWING SRI (Q/ha) MECHINE (Q/ha) FARMERS
(Q/ha) PRACTICE (Q/ha)
Figure 4.3. Yields of different Rice production technologies

1274.61
1300
1250
COST OF PRODUCTION (Rs/quintal)
1172.09
1200
1141.32 DIRECT SOWING
1150
SRI
MACHINE
1100 1070.05
FARMERS PRACTICE
1050
1000
950
DIRECT SRI MACHINE FARMERS
SOWING PRACTICE
Figure 4.5. Unit cost of production of different Rice production technologies

35000.00 31386.30
27531.75
30000.00
24667.49
25000.00
Net Returns (Rs/ha)
17245.89
20000.00
15000.00
10000.00
5000.00
0.00
DIRECT SOWING SRI (Rs/ha) MACHINE (Rs/ha) FARMERS
(Rs/ha) PRACTICE (Rs/ha)
Figure 4.4. Net Returns of Different Rice Production Technologies

7.000 6.610
Water Use Efficiency (kg/Ha/mm)

6.000
5.426
5.000
4.011
DIRECT SOWING
4.000 3.577
SRI
MACHINE
3.000 FARMERS PRACTICE
2.000
1.000
0.000
DIRECT SRI MACHINE FARMERS
SOWING PRACTICE
Figure 4.6. Water Use Efficiency of Different Rice Production Technologies

Chapter V
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The present study “Assessment of Vulnerability Index and Adaptation

strategies in rice production due to the climate change under Krishna River basin
of Andhra Pradesh” has been undertaken to study the vulnerability of districts
under Krishna river basin of Andhra Pradesh. Besides estimating the
vulnerability, the study was taken up mainly to analyze the adaptation strategies
in rice production in different regions of the Nagarjuna Sagar Project under
Krishna river basin. The study was also undertaken to examine the rice
production systems. The study was undertaken with the following objectives
1) To assess the vulnerability index for the districts covered under Krishna
river basin in Andhra Pradesh.
2) To assess the impact of climate changes on socio-economic conditions of

the farmers.
3) To analyze the adaptation changes taken due to the climate change.
4) To examine and validate the efficient rice production systems in the

selected study area.
Krishna river basin was purposively selected as it covers major part of

irrigated area in Andhra Pradesh. Time series data was collected for 30 years of
11 districts under Krishna river basin of Andhra Pradesh. Multi stage random
sampling technique was adopted to select the respondents. Nagarjuna Sagar
Project was selected from the Krishna river basin purposively as it has highest
command area and the largest multipurpose river valley having reservoir storage
capacity of 11472 million cubic meters. Guntur district was purposively selected
as it has the highest command area covering 39 mandals. From Guntur district
three mandals were selected based on their location and from these mandals two
villages were randomly selected to make the total of six villages. From each
village 80 rice growing farmers were selected randomly to make the total size of
the sample 240 for the study. The pre-tested schedule was used to collect the
data through survey method. The present study relates to the agricultural year
2009-10.
Tools of analysis:
Analytical tools that have employed to estimate the socio-economic

characteristics of farmers, cost of cultivation of different rice production systems
and WUE of different rice production systems. Principle component analysis has
been used to estimate the vulnerability index and ricardian regression model was
used to estimate the impact of climate change on crop production under Krishna
river basin. Logistic regression was used to estimate the adaptation strategies of
farmers to climate change.
The salient features emerged from the study.
Vulnerability Index:
The study revealed that the Anantapur district occupies rank first in terms
of vulnerability under all the three components viz., exposure, sensitivity and
adaptive capacity and also in overall vulnerability index. Kurnool occupies
second rank in terms of sensitivity, adaptive capacity and overall vulnerability
indices. Krishna was the least vulnerable district of Krishna river basin with
vulnerability index of -3.612.
Impact of climate change on crop production:
The results revealed that the variables like annual rainfall (RY) and Yield
of paddy had positive significant effect on the area of paddy. However, the
variable long term daily maximum temperature average (HLT) and long term
rainfall average (RLT) showed negative significant effect on the area of area of
paddy crop. In case of productivity of paddy crop the variable like long term
daily minimum temperature average (LLT), Area of paddy (Ai) and proportion
of irrigated area under ith crop (PRCiIA) had positive significant effect whereas
proportion of surface irrigated area from tanks and canals (PROSUR) and
irrigated area under ith crop (CiA) had negative significant effect on the
productivity of paddy crop.
In maize, total cropped area in the district (TOTCROP), long term rainfall
average (RLT), long term daily maximum temperature average (HLT) and Yield
of maize were positively significant affecting and long term daily minimum
temperature average (LLT) had negative effect on the area of maize. The
variables like long term daily minimum temperature average (LLT), irrigated
area under ith crop (CiA) and annual rainfall (RY) are positively significant
affecting and proportion of surface irrigated area from tanks and canals
(PROSUR), long term rainfall average (RLT), long term daily maximum
temperature average (HLT) and Area under maize crop (Ai) were negatively
affecting the maize productivity.
In groundnut crop variables like Total cropped area in the district

(TOTCROP) and proportion of irrigated area to total cropped area (PROIA) are
positively effecting and long term daily minimum temperature average (LLT)
and long term daily maximum temperature average (HLT) are negatively
affecting the groundnut area. The variables long term daily minimum
temperature average (LLT) and proportion of irrigated area under ith crop
(PRCiIA) are positively significant affecting the productivity of groundnut and
the variables irrigated area under ith crop (CiA) and long term rainfall average
(RLT) are negatively significant effecting the groundnut productivity.
Socio-economic characteristics of the farmers:
The study revealed that an average age of the farmers was 36 years with a
minimum of 25 years and a maximum of 70 years. The education level of
farmers showed that 42.92% of farmers were educated up to high school level.
The investment o health showed that 35.83% farmers invest their income on
health ranging from Rs.10000-20000/year. It also showed that 67.06% of
households were more than 12 year of age and working in cultivation. The
average size of farm owned in the present study area was 1.03 hectares and
0.98 hectares was leased farm. Most of the farmers lend their credit from the
institutional agencies like banks and cooperative societies.
The study also revealed that 59.17 %of farmers adapted strategies to
climate change of which 49.29 % of farmers adapted to water saving methods
followed by crop diversification 22.53 %, change to livestock by 15.49% and off
farm activities by 12.67%. In tail end region most of the farmers i.e., 63.83% of
farmers adapted water saving methods followed by off-farm activities with
19.5%. Whereas in head and middle region farmers adapted to crop
diversification followed by water saving methods.
Barriers of adaptation:
The results indicated that about 41% of farmers not adapted strategies to
climate change. The major constraints identified were lack of information, lack
of money, shortage of labour, shortage of land and poor potential for irrigation.
42.86% of farmers expressed lack of information regarding the adaptation
strategies to climate change was the major barrier to adaptation followed by
shortage of labour to an extent 24.49.
In tail end region 42.43% of farmers expressed lack of information was

the major constraint followed by poor potential for irrigation. Whereas in head
and middle region lack of information was the major constraint followed by
shortage of labour.
Logit model:
The results of the functional analysis revealed that the head, middle and
tail regions were shown positive significance to adaptation to climate change.
The variables like farm size, farm experience, access to credit and access to
extension services were shown positive significant on climate change indicating
that the policy makers has to concentrate on the respective variables to increase
farmers adaptation to climate change. The variables like age, size of the
household were positive and non-significant to climate change whereas
education has negative and non–significant to climate change.
Rice production systems:
SRI, Machine transplanting, Direct sowing were the major rice production
systems along with farmers practice in the present study area.
Cost of cultivation:
The study revealed that the total cost of cultivation was high in SRI
(Rs.68501) followed by machine transplanting (Rs.67513), farmers practice
(Rs.67465) and direct sowing (Rs.63165.30).
Productivity:
The per hectare productivity was 60 quintals in SRI followed by 59

quintals in direct sowing, 57.60 quintals in machine transplanting and 52.93
quintals in farmers practice.
Returns:
The per hectare gross income was Rs.96033.60 in SRI followed by

Rs.94551.60 in direct sowing, Rs.92180.40 in machine transplanting and Rs.
84711.12 in farmers practice. The net returns were Rs.31386.30 in direct sowing
followed by Rs.27531.75 in SRI, Rs.24667.48 in machine transplanting and
Rs.17245.89 in normal transplanting. Benefit cost ratio were found to be 1.49,
1.40, 1.36 and 1.25 in direct sowing, SRI, machine transplanting and farmers
practice respectively.
Cost of production:
Cost of production per quintal was Rs.1274.61 in normal transplanting

followed by Rs.1172.09 in machine transplanting, Rs.1141.32 in SRI and
Rs.1070.05 in direct sowing. Thus, the physical returns per hectare indicated that
yields and returns of rice grown under traditional methods are non remunerative
when compared to direct sowing, SRI and machine transplanting respectively.
Water use efficiency:
The study revealed that the quantity of water used was low in SRI (908
mm), followed by direct sowing (1088 mm), machine transplanting (1436 mm)
and normal transplantation (1480 mm). The water use efficiency benefit was
highest in SRI with 105.76 (Rs/ha/mm) followed by 86.904 (Rs/ha/mm) in direct
sowing, 64.192(Rs/ha/mm) in machine transplanting and 57.250(Rs/ha/mm) in
farmers practice.
Conclusions:
The following conclusions have emerged from the present study:
1. Anantapur district was the highest vulnerable district in Krishna river

basin and Krishna district was the least vulnerable district in Krishna river
basin.
2. The impact of climate change on the area of paddy crop indicated that RY
has the maximum effect in increasing the area under paddy crop where
HLT and RLT will significantly reduce the paddy area.
3. LLT and Ai have maximum effect in increasing the productivity of paddy

crop whereas the PROSUR and CiA significantly decrease the
productivity of the paddy crop.
4. The impact of climate change on the area of maize crop indicated that
TOTCROP, RLT, HLT, and yield have positive on the area of maize crop
whereas the variable LLT has negative significance on the area of maize.
5. LLT and CiA had positive effect on increasing the productivity of maize
crop whereas PROSUR, RLT, HLT and Ai had negative influence on the
productivity of maize crop.
6. The impact of climate change on the area of Groundnut crop indicated

that TOTCROP, PROIA have positive on the area of Groundnut crop
whereas the variable LLT and HLT has negative significance on the area
of Groundnut.
7. LLT and PRCiIA had positive effect on increasing the productivity of
groundnut crop whereas, RLT and CiA had negative influence on the
productivity of Ground nut crop.
8. Water saving methods, crop diversification, change to live stock and off-
farm activities were the major adaptation strategies to climate change.
9. Lack of information, lack of money, shortage of labour, shortage of land

and poor potential for irrigation were the major constraints to adapt to
climate change.
10. Farm size, access to credit, access to extension services and farm
experience were having positive and significant influence on the
adaptation to climate change.
11. Among different rice production systems SRI was most expensive
followed by machine transplanting, farmers practice and direct sowing.
12. Yields in SRI cultivation was highest followed by direct sowing, machine
transplanting and farmers practice.
13. Net returns and B-C ratio were highest in direct sowing followed by SRI,
machine transplanting and farmers practice.
14. The unit cost of production was least in direct sowing followed by SRI
cultivation, machine transplanting and farmers practice.
15. Water use efficiency and water use efficiency benefit was highest in SRI
followed by direct sowing, machine transplanting and farmers practice.
Policy Implications:
1. The Vulnerability Index is emerging as a promising planning tool for

climate change adaptation at river basin level. Using the results of the
Vulnerability index (VI) of the districts, the adaptation practices being
practiced in the extreme situations has to be documented. This would
provide indications to similar currently non-vulnerable districts of
locations in which to study successful societal adaptation.
2. Awareness has to be created on climate change and adaptation methods to
overcome the extremities of climate change.
3. Facilitating the availability of credit to the farmers during the critical

climatic conditions to go for new technologies or adaptations.
4. In case of individual farm level measures such as early sowing at farm

ponds, soil moisture conservation by insitu green manure crops etc can
be very useful to conserve water.
5. The Department of Agriculture and State Agricultural Universities

(SAUs) should work in collaboration towards awareness building in
terms of improving the appropriate utilization of resources to reduce
costs and enhance the productivity and thereby profitability of water
saving production technologies in the NSP command area under Krishna
river basin.
6. To achieve better results, participatory approach involving all possible

stake holders viz., farmer organizations, water users associations,
Department of Agriculture, Department of Irrigation, district water
management agency, NGOs etc. has to deserve special attention. This
facilitates the researchers to plan the water management strategies more
effectively and efficiently so as to combat the declining economic
efficiency of irrigation water resources in NSP right canal command
area.
LITERATURE CITED
Adeogun, O.A., Ajana, A.M., Ayinla, O.A., Yarhere, M.T and Adeogun, M.O.
2008. Application of Logit Model in Adoption Decision: A Study of
Hybrid Clarias in Lagos State, Nigeria.American-Eurasian Journal of.
Agriculture & Environmental Science. 4 (4): 468-472.
Adger, W.N. 2006. Vulnerability. Global Environmental Change. 16 (3):

268–281.
Adger, W.N. 1999. Social vulnerability to climate change and extremes in coastal
vietnam.World Development. 2: 249-269.
Aggarwal, P. K., Joshi, P. K., Ingram, J. S. I and Gupta, R. K. 2004. Adapting

food systems of the Indo-Gangetic plains to global environmental change:
key information needs to improve policy formulation. Environmental
Science & Policy. 7:487–498.
Allen Consulting 2005 Climate Change risk and Vulnerability. Australian

Greenhouse Office, Department of the Environment and Heritage,
Canberra, Australia.
Atkins,J., Mazzi, S and Ramlogan, C. 1998. A study on the vulnerability of

developing and island states: A composite index. Commonwealth
Secretariat, UK. Attri, S. D and Rathore, L. S. 2003.Simulation of impact
of projected climate change on wheat in India. International Journal of
Climatology. 23: 693–705.
Attri, S. D and Rathore, L. S. 2003.Simulation of impact of projected climate

change on wheat in India. International Journal of Climatology .23: 693–
705.
Balling Jr, R. C and Cerveny, R. S. 2003.Compilation and discussion of trends in

severe storms in the United States: Popular perception v. climate reality.
Natural Hazards. 29: 103–112.
Bamidele, F. S., Abayomi, O. O and Esther,O. A. 2010. Economic analysis of rice

consumption patterns in Nigeria. Journal of Agricultural Science &
Technology. 12: 1-11.
Batuvitage, G.P. (2002). Adaptation of the system of rice intensification in Sri
Lanka. Cornell International Institute for Food, Agriculture and
Development (on line), Internet http://ciiffad.cornel.edu/sri; 607-255-0831
Bemal, S., Singh,D and Singh, S. 2009. Seasonal climatic variability impact on
rice productivity in Haryana. Journal of Agro Meteorology. 11: 64 -66.
Benedicta Y. F., Vlek, P.L. G and Manschadi, A. M. 2010. Farmers’ perception

and adaptation to climate change; a case study of Sekyedumase District
in Ghana. “World Food System — A Contribution from Europe.
Tropentag, September 14 - 16, 2010, Zurich.
Benhin, K.A.J.2008. South African crop farming and climate change: An

economic assessment of impacts. Global Environmental Change 18: 666–
678.
Bradshaw, B., Dolan, H and Smit, B. 2004. Farm-Level adaptation to climatic

variability and change: crop diversification in the Canadian prairies.
Climatic Change. 67: 119-141.
Brenkert, A.L and Malone, E.L. 2005. Modelling vulnerability and resilience to
climate change: A case study of India and Indian states. Climate change.
72: 57-102.
Briguglio, L. 1995. Small Island Developing states and their economic

vulnerabilities. World Development. 23 (9): 1615-1632.
Chamaruram. 2006. System of rice intensification: experiences of farmers in

India. International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid
Tropics,WWF project.
Chandrasekhar.2009. Vulnerability to climate change: how it mainstreams

adaptation. Paper Prepared to be presented at 7th International Conference
on the Human Dimensions of Global Environmental Change.
Chittibabu ,P., Dube, S.K., Macnabb, J.B., Murthy, J.S.,Rao, A.D., Mohanthy,
U.C and Sinha P.C. 2004. Mitigation of flooding and cyclone hazard in
Orissa. Natural Hazards. 31: 455- 485.
Deka, N., Lepcha, L., Nanda, M.K., Saha, G and Sunil, K.M. 2009. Winter rice
production under changing rainfall pattern in Nadia district of West
Bengal. Journal of Agro Meteorology.11: 61 -63.
Deressa,T.2009. Analysis of perception and adaptation to climate change in the

Nile basin of Ethiopia. www.ifpri.org.
Deressa,T.T and Hassan, R. M.2009. Economic Impact of Climate Change on

Crop Production in Ethiopia: Evidence from Cross-section Measures.
Journal of African Economies, 8(4):529–554.
Diaz, H.F., Douglas, A.V., Hogg, W.D., Kunkel, K.E., Rogers, J.C and Wilkinson,
J.F. 1999.Long term observation for monitoring extremes in the
Americas.ClimaticChange.42: 285-308.
Dolan,A.H and Walker, I.J. 2003. “Understanding Vulnerability of Coastal

Communities to Climate Change Related Risks”, Journal of Coastal
Research, SI 39: 0749-0208.
Downing, T.E., Barrow, E.M., Brooks, R.J., Butterfield, R.E., Carter, T.R.,
Hulme, M., Olesen J.E., Porter, J.R., Schellberg, J., Semenov, M.A.,
Vinther, F.P., Wheeler, T.R., Wolf, J.2000. Quantification of Uncertainty
in Climate Change Impact Assessment. In: Downing, T.E., Harrison,
P.A., Butterfield, R.E., Lonsdale, K.G. (Eds.), Climate Change, Climatic
Variability and Agriculture in Europe, Environmental Change Unit.
University of Oxford, UK. Easterling.
Dragoni, W .1998. Some considerations on climatic changes, water resources and

water needs in the Italian region south of the 438N. In: ISSAR, A. S. &
BROWN, N. (eds) Water, Environment and Society in Times of Climatic
Change. Kluwer. 241–271.
Easter,C. 2000. The common wealth vulnerability index. Ministerial Conference

on Environment and Development in Asia and the Pacific, Kitakyushu,
Japan.
Fauchereau,N., Trzaska, M., Rouault, M and Richard, Y. 2003. Rainfall

variability and changes in Southern Africa during the 20th century in the
global warming context. Natural Hazards. 29: 139–154.
Gadgil, S., Abrol, Y. P and Seshagiri Rao, P. R. 1999 a. On growth and
fluctuation of Indian food grain production. Current Science. 76(4):
548–556.
Gallopin ,G,C. 2006. Linkages between vulnerability, resilience and adaptive

capacity. Global environmental change .16 (293-303).
Gbetibouo, G.A and Ringler,C. 2009. Mapping South African farming sector
vulnerability to climate change and variability. A Subnational Assessment.
International food policy research institute, EPTD Discussion Paper
00885.
Gbetibouo, G.A.2009. Understanding Farmers' perceptions and adaptations to

climate change and variability. IFPRI Discussion Paper 00849,
Environment and Production Technology Division.
Gould, B.W., Saupe, W,E. and. Klemme, R.M. 1989. Conservation tillage: the
role of farm and operator characteristics and the perception of erosion.
Land Economics, 65: 167-182.
Handmer, J.W., Dovers,S and Downing, T.E. 1999. Societal vulnerability to

climate change and variability. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for
Global Change 4: 267-281.
Hassan ,R and Nhemachena, C.2007. Micro –level analysis of farmers’ adaptation

to climate change in southern Africa.IFPRI Disscusion paper no.00714.
International Food Policy Research Institute .Washington DC.
Hassan, R and Nhemachena,C .2008. Determinants of African farmers’ strategies

for adapting to climate change: Multinomial choice analysis. AfJARE.2
(1): March 2008.
Held, I. M., Delworth, T. L., Findell, K. L and Knutson, T. R. 2005. Simulation

of Sahel drought in the 20th and 21st centuries. PNAS.102 (50).
December 13 www.pnas.org_cgi_doi_10.1073_pnas.0509057102
Helmy, M. E., Samia, M .M and Samiha, A. O. 2006. Assessing the economic

impacts of climate change on agriculture in Egypt: A ricardian approach.
CEEPA Discussion Paper No. 16.
Hingane, L. S., Rupakumar, K and Ramana murthy, B. V. 1985.Long-term trends
of surface air temperature in India. Journal Climatology. 5: 521-528.
Huntington, T. G (2006). Evidence for intensification of the global water cycle:

Review and synthesis. Journal of Hydrology. 319:83–95.
Iglesias, A., Moneo, M and Quiroga, S. 2005. Methods for evaluating social
vulnerability to drought, Options Méditerranéenne., Series B, No. 58.
Iizumi, T.2007. Impact of global warming on production change of paddy rice and
its economic assessment . A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate
School of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Tsukuba.
Illuri, R., Laxmanna, K and Ramprasad, K. 2004. System of Rice Intensification

(SRI) : An innovative method of rice cultivation and its performance in
A.P., India. World Rice Research Conference Nov (5-7), 2004 held at
Tsukuba International Congress Centres (Epochees, Tsukuba), Tsukuba,
Ibaraki, Japan. Section -26: pp.260
IPCC; 2007. Climate change: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability: Working

Group II Contribution to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change: Summary for Policymakers. IPCC Secretariat: Geneva,
Switzerland.
IPCC; 2007b. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability.

Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. M. L. Parry, O. Canziani, J.
P. Palutikofet al. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press: 976pp.
Iqbal,M., Basheer,A and Farooq,U.1999.Factors affecting the adoption of hybrid

maize varieties in the irrigated Punjab. International Journal of
Agriculture and Biology 1(3):149-151.
Ishaya, S. and Abaje, I.B. 2008. Indigenous people’s perception of climate

change and adaptation strategies in Jema’s local government area of
Kaduna State, Nigeria. Journal of Geography and Regional Planning 1
(18): 138-143.
Iyengar, N.S and Sudarshan, P. 1982. A method of classifying regions from

multivariate data, Economic and Political Weekly, Special Article:
2048-52.
Jayanthi, N. 1998 .Cyclone hazard, coastal vulnerability and disaster risk
assessment along the Indian Coasts.Vayu Mandal. 28 (1-4): 115-119.
Joshi., G and Bauer., S. 2006. Farmers’ choice of the modern rice varieties in the
rainfed ecosystem of Nepal. Journal of Agriculture and Rural
Development in the Tropics and Subtropics .Volume 107, No. 2, 129–
138.
Kalra, N and Aggarwal, P. K. 1996. Evaluating the growth response for wheat
under varying inputs and changing climate options using wheat growth
simulator-WTGROWS, Climate Variability and Agriculture (Eds.
Abrol,Y. P., Sulochana Gadgil, Pant, G. B.). 320– 338, Narosa
Publishing House, New Delhi, India. Kaur, P: 1993, Dynamic simulation.
Kaly, U., Briguglio, L., MacLeod, H., Schmall, S., Platt, C and Pal, R. 1999.
South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission (SOPAC).Environmental
Vulnerability Index (EVI). SOPAC Technical Report 275. Report by
Suva: SOPAC.
Kasperson, J.X., Kasperson, R.E., Turner, B.L., Hsieh, W and Schiller, A. 2000.
Vulnerability to global environmental change. The Human Dimensions of
Global Environmental Change. Cambridge, MIT Press.
Katharine Vincent, 2004. Creating an index of social vulnerability to climate

change for Africa tyndall,” Centre for Climate change Research Working
Paper 56.
Kripalani, R. H., Inamdar, S. R and Sontakke N. A. 1996.Rainfall variability over

Bangladesh and Nepal: comparison and connection with features over
India. International Journal of Climatology.16: 689–703.
Kumar, K. S and Parikh, J. 1998. Climate change impacts on Indian agriculture:

the ricardian approach. In Dinar et al. (eds). measuring the impacts of
climate change on Indian agriculture. World Bank Technical Paper No.
402. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Kumar, K.S. 2003. Vulnerability and adaptation of agriculture and coastal

resources in India to climate change. EERC Working Paper Series, NIP-4.
Kumar,K., Surender, S and Diwan, S. 2009. Winter season’s climatic variability
and impact analysis on wheat productivity in western Agro climatic zone
of Haryana. Journal of Agro Meteorology. 11:50-53.
Kurukulasuriya ,P and Mendelsohn R.2008. Crop switching as a strategy for

adapting to climate change. AfJARE.2(1): March 2008.
Kurukulasuriya, P. and R. Mendelsohn 2006. Crop selection: adapting to climate

change in Africa. CEEPA Discussion Paper No. 26. Centre for
Environmental Economics and Policy in Africa. Pretoria, South Africa:
University of Pretoria.
Labat, D., Godde´ Ris, Y., Probst, J. L and Guyot, J.L. 2004. Evidence for global
runoff increase related to climate warming. Advances in Water
Resources.27: 631–642
Maddison, D. 2006. The perception of adaptation to climate change in africa.

CEEPA Discussion paper no.10.Centre for Environmental economics and
policy in Africa.pretoria,south Africa: university of Pretoria.
Mall, R. K., Singh, R., Gupta,A., Srinivasan, G and Rathore, L. S.2006. Impact
of climate change on Indian agriculture: A review. Climatic Change 78:
445–478
Mandleni , B and Anim, F.D.K. 2011. Climate change and adaptation of small-
scale cattle and sheep farmers. 85rd Annual Conference of the
Agricultural Economics Society Warwick University, 18 ‐ 20 April 2011.
Mano, R and Nhemachena, C. 2006. Assessment of the economic impacts of

climate change on agriculture in Zimbabwe: A Ricardian approach.
CEEPA Discussion Paper No. 11.
Mano,R. and Nhemachena,C.2007. Assessment of the economic impacts of

climate change on agriculture in Zimbabwe :A ricardian approach. The
World Bank.Policy Research Working Paper,July, Development
Research Group ,Sustainable Rural and Urban Development Team.
McCarthy, J.J., Canziani, O.F., Leary ,N.A., Dokken, D.J., and White, K.S .2001
Climate change 2001: impacts,adaptation and vulnerability. Cambridge
University Press, UK.
Mendalsohn, R.,Dinar ,A and Williams , L. 2006. The distributional impact of
climate change on rich and poor countries. Environment and Development
Economics.11: 159-178.
Mongi , H., Majule, A.E and Lyino, J.G. 2010.Vulnerability and adaptation of
rainfed agriculture to climatic change and vulnerability in semi-arid
Tanzania. African Journal of Environmental Science and Technology.
4(6): 371-381.
Moss R.H., Brenkert, A.L and Malone, E.L. 2001. Vulnerability to climate
change: A quantitative approach. Dept. of Energy, U.S.
Natarajan, R. 2004. Less seed, more harvest with SRI. India Together, Dec’
2004. In:http://www.indiatogether.com/2004/dec/agr.sritach.htm
Naveen,K.,Subhash,C., Pathak,H., Aggarwal,P.K., Gupta,N.C., Sehgal,M and

Chakraborty,D. (2007) Impacts of climate change on agriculture. Outlook
on Agriculture. 36( 2): 109–118.
NEST (2004), Regional climate modeling and climate scenarios development in

support of vulnerability and adaptation studies: Outcome of regional
climate modeling efforts over Nigeria, Nigerian Environmental
Study/Action Team (NEST), Ibadan.
Nhemachena, C. and Hassan, R. 2007. Micro-Level Analysis of Farmers’

Adaptation to Climate Change in Southern Africa. IFPRI Discussion Paper
No. 00714. International Food Policy Research Institute. Washington DC.
Norris, E., and Batie, S. 1987. Virginia farmers’ soil conservation decisions: an
application of Tobit analysis. Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics,
19 (1): 89-97.
O’brien, P and D.Mileti, 1992. Citizen Participation in Emergency Response

Following the Loma Prieta Earthquake.International Journal of Mass
Emergencies and Disasters .10: 71-89.
Pal, R.K and Murthy, N.S. 2009. Influence of weather parameters on yield and
yield attributes of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Journal of Agro
Meteorology 11:54-56.
Palanisami, K., Kakumanu,K.R.,Udaysekhar,N.,Ranganathan,C.R and David,
N.B. 2010. Impacts of climate change on agriculturalproduction:
vulnerability and adaptation in the Godavari River Basin, India.Climawater
technical report 4.
Palanisami, K., Karunakaran, R., Vijayalakshmi, S and Mohan,K. (2010). SRI:

How effective under irrigation sources and farm size categories? ITP
research series- (1).
Palanisami, K., Paramasivam, P., Ranganathan, C.R., Aggarwal, P.K and

Senthilnathan, S. 2009. Quantifying vulnerability and impact of climate
change on production of major crops in Tamil Nadu, India, In M.
Taniguchi, W.C. Burnett, Y. Fukushima, M. Haigh & Y. Umezawa (Eds.),
From Headwaters to the Ocean: Hydrological Changes and Watershed
Management, London: Taylor and Francis. 509-514.
Pant, G. B., Rupakumar, K and. Borgaonkar, H.P. 1999.Climate and its long-term
variability over the western Himalaya during the past two centuries. The
Himalayan Environment (Eds. S. K. Dash and J. Bahadur), New Age
International (P) Limited, Publishers, New Delhi. 172– 184.
Pathak ,H and Wassmann, R. 2009. Quantitative evaluation of climatic variability

and risks for wheat yield in India. Climatic Change .93:157–175.
Patnaik, U and Narayanan, K. 2005. Vulnerability and climate change: An

analysis of the eastern coastal districts of India. Human Security and
Climate Change: An Inter-national Workshop Holmen Fjord Hotel,
Asker, near Oslo, 21–23 June.
Patt, A., Klein, R. J. T and Vega-Leinert A. D. L. 2005. Taking the uncertainty in

climate-change vulnerability assessment seriously. C. R. Geosciences 337:
411–424.
Patwardhan, A., Narayanan, K., Parthasarathy, D and Sharma, U. 2003. Impacts

of climate change on coastal zone. In P. R. Sukla, S. K. Sharma, N. H.
Ravindranath, A. Garg and S. Bhattacharga (ed), Climate Change and
India: Vulnerability Assessment and Adaptation, Hyderabad, University
Press, India: 326-359.
Polsky, C., Schroter, D., Patta, A., Gaffin, S., Martello, M.L., Neff, R., Pulsipher,
A and Selin, H. 2003. Assessing vulnerabilities to the effects of global
change: An eight-step approach. Belfer Center for Science and
International Affairs, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University.
Nigeria.
Porter, J.E., Schellberg, J.R., Semenov, J., Vinther, M.A., Wheeler, F.P and
Wolf, J.2000. Quantification of uncertainty in climate change impact
assessment. In: Downing, T.E., Harrison, P.A., Butterfield, R.E.,
Lonsdale, K.G. (Eds.), Climate Change, Climatic Variability and
Agriculture in Europe, Environmental Change Unit. University of
Oxford, UK. Easterling.
Prabhjyoth, K. and Hundal,S.S 2009. Effect of increase in temperature on

phenology of cereal crops. Journal of Agro Meteorology. 11:18-23.
Priya, J. P., Veeraputhiran, R., Ganesaraja, V., Pandiselvi, T. and Pandian,

B.J.2010. Comparative study of system of rice intensification and
conventional method of rice cultivation in Madurai district of Tamil
Nadu. International Journal of Agricultural Sciences, January to June
6(1): 186-188.
Radha ,Y., Subba Rao,G., Ramesh Chandra,S and Kishorebabu,G.2010.

Economic analysis of less water use rice (oryza sativa) production
technologies in Krishna Western Delta command area of Andhra Pradesh.
Research note, Journal of research .ANGRAU. 38:108-112.
Radha ,Y., YellaReddy,K., SubbaRao,G., Ramesh Chandra,S and Kishorebabu,G.

2009. Water saving rice production technologies in Krishna western delta
command of Andhra Pradesh-An economic analysis. Agricultural
Economics Research Review. 22: 397- 400.
Rajeswararao,V. 2006. System of rice intensification-comparitive economic study

between SRI cultivation and existing farming in Srikakulam district of
Andhra Pradesh.Msc (Ag) .Thesis .Acharya N G Ranga Agricultural
University, Hyderabad. India.
Rasmus, H and Osmolovskiy, M.B. 2010 . Mapping vulnerability to climate

change. Economists’ Conference held April 28, 2010 at the World Bank.
Ratnareddy, V., Prudhvikareddy, Srinivasreddy, M and Sree Ramaraju, D .2005.
Water use efficiency: A study of system of rice intensification (SRI)
adoption in Andhra Pradesh. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics
60(3): 458-471.
Ravikumar,K.N and Srinivas,D.2005.Low economic efficiency of irrigation water

resource in Krishna western delta of Andhra Pradesh. Agricultural
Situation in India. (1)249-258.
Reddy,S.R.2008. Agronomy of field crops, Kalyani Publishers, 25-90.
Rekha, S. 2004. Fostering growth ? On a diet of Njavara rice. 25th September,

2004. In : www.indiainfoline.com
Rupakumar,K., KrishnaKumar, K and Pant, G.B. 1994. Diurnal asymmetry of

surface temperature trends over India. Geophy. Res. Let. 21: 677–680.
Satyanarayana, T., Rao,A.V.M.S., Manikandan, N., Rao V and Rao, G.G.S.N.

2009. Impact of increasing temperature on growing period of wheat crop
at Hisar .Journal of Agro Meteorology. 11: 33-36.
Seo, S.N.2010. A Micro econometric analysis of adapting portfolios to climate

change: adoption of agricultural systems in Latin America. Applied
Economic Perspectives and Policy. 32(3): 489–514.
Seo, N and Mendelsohn, R. 2006.Climate change adaptation in Africa: A micro

economic analysis of livestock choice. .” CEEPA Discussion paper
no.19.Centre for Environmental economics and policy in Africa.
Pretoria,south Africa: university of Pretoria.
Seo, S. N and Mendelsohn, R.2008.An analysis of crop choice: Adapting to

climate change in South American farms.Ecological Economics.67:109-
116.
Seo, S. N. and Mendelsohn, R.2008. A Structural Ricardian Analysis of Climate

Change Impacts and Adaptations in African Agriculture. Policy Research
Working Pape ,April,Development Research Group, Sustainable Rural
and Urban Development Team, The World Bank.
Seo, S.N.,Mendelsohn,R and Munasinghe, M. 2005. Climate change and

agriculture in Sri Lanka. Environment and Development Economics, 10:
581–596.
Sharma, U and Patwardhan, A. 2007. Methodology for identifying vulnerable
hotspots to tropical cyclone hazards in India. Mitigation and Adaptation
Strategies for Global Change. DOI 10.1007/s11027-007-9123-4.
Sherlund, S.M., Barrett, C.B and Adesina, A.A. 2002. Smallholder technical
efficiency controlling for environmental production conditions. Journal of
Development Economics, 69(1): 85–101.
Singh, N and Sontakke, N. A. 2002. On climatic fluctuations and environmental

changes of the Indo-Gangetic plains, India. Climatic Change. 52: 287–
313.
Smit,B and Wandel,J. 2006. Adaptation, adaptive capacity and vulnerability.

Global Environmental Change. 16 (3): 282–292.
Srivastava, H. N., Dewan, B. N., Dikshit, S. K., Rao, G. S. P., Singh, S. S and
Rao, R.1992 Decadal trends in climate over India. Mausam. 43: 7–20.
Stoop, A. W., Uphoof,N and Kassam, A.2002 . A review of agricultural research

issues raised by the system of rice intensification from Madagascar:
Opportunities for improving farming systems for resource poor farmers.
Agricultural Systems 71(3): 249-274.
Subbarao,G.,Kalpana,D.,Radha,Y.,Rameshchandra,S and Yellareddy, K. 2007.

water saving production technologies for Krishna western delta of Andhra
Pradesh. National workshop on Water And Land Productivity
Enhancement For Sustainable Irrigated Agriculture Tirupathi, Andha
Pradesh. APWAM Project, ANGRAU.
Thapliyal, V and Kulshrestha, S. M. 1991.Climate changes and trends over India.

Mausam. 42. 333–338.
UNDP .2006. Human development report, United Nations Development Program.

Available at: http://hdr.undp.org/hdr2006/statistics.
Uphoof, N .2005 . Onfarm evaluation of SRI in Tamiraparani command area,

Tamil Nadu, India. In : http://www.ciifad.cornell.edu/sri.
Uprety,R.2010. Meshing mechanization with SRI methods for rice cultivation in

Nepal. Presented at the 28th International Rice Research Conference, 8-
12 November 2010, Hanoi, Vietnam.
Watson, R.T., Zinyowera, M.C and Moss, R.H. 1996. Climate Change 1995:
Impacts, adaptations and mitigation of climate change: Scientific-technical
analyses. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Yamauchi, F., Sumaryanto, S and Dewina, R. 2010. Climate Change, perceptions

and the heterogeneity of adaptation and rice productivity: Evidence from
Indonesian villages. JICA research institute working paper no.13.
Note: The pattern of Literature Cited presented above is in accordance with the guidelines for
thesis presentation, Acharya N. G. Ranga Agricultural University, Hyderabad.

Assessment of Vulnerability Index and Adaptation Strategies in Rice Production Due To The Climate Change Under Krishna River Basin of Andhra Pradesh

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Assessment of Vulnerability Index and Adaptation Strategies in Rice Production Due To The Climate Change Under Krishna River Basin of Andhra Pradesh

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ASSESSMENT OF VULNERABILITY INDEX

AND ADAPTATION STRATEGIES IN RICE

THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE

MASTER OF SCIENCE IN AGRICULTURE

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS

MASTER OF SCIENCE IN AGRICULTURE

This is to certify that the thesis entitled “ASSESSMENT OF

Thesis approved by the Student’s Advisory Committee

Chairman : Dr. K.S.R.PAUL _________________________

Member : Dr. D.VISHNU SANKAR RAO ________________________

Member : Dr. V. SRINIVASA RAO _________________________

Member : Sri. M. CHANDRA SEKHAR REDDY

Date of final viva-voce:

Date : (N.S.PRAVEEN KUMAR)

Mr. N.S.PRAVEEN KUMAR has satisfactorily prosecuted the course of

Date: (K.S.R. PAUL)

THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE

ACHARYA N.G.RANGA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY

MASTER OF SCIENCE IN AGRICULTURE

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS

THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE

ACHARYA N.G.RANGA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY

MASTER OF SCIENCE IN AGRICULTURE

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS

III MATERIALS AND METHODS

IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Table Title Page

4.2 Coefficients of First Eigen vector, Standard Error and Component

4.7 Distribution of farmers’ age in different regions of the study area.

4.8 Education Levels of Farmers in different regions of the study area

4.9 Farmer investments on health in different regions of the study area

4.10 Distribution of households in cultivation in different regions of the

4.13 Average farm income in the study area

4.14 Credit Sources to farmers in the study area

4.15 Frequency of Climate change observation by farmers in the study area

4.16 Summary of the various adaptation measures in three regions of the

4.21 Results of the Logistic Regression model

4.22 Cost of Cultivation of Different Rice Production Technologies.

4.24 Unit cost of production and productivity in paddy farms

4.25 Water Use Efficiency of Different Rice Production Systems.

3.2 Map of Krishna river covering different states

4.1 Farmers adaptations to climate change

4.3 Yields of different Rice production technologies

4.4 Net returns of different Rice production technologies

4.5 Unit cost of production of different Rice production

4.6 Water use efficiency of different Rice production technologies

S.No : Serial Number

tillers /m2 : Tillers per square meter

TOTCROP : Total cropped area in the district (ha)

An accomplishment of this thesis is the result of benevolence of Almighty, love of

I am privileged to avail this opportunity to express my deep and heartfelt

I am heavily indebted to Dr. K. Palanisami Director IWMI and Dr.k.krishna

I wish to express my deep sense of gratitude to the member of my advisory

I express my profound gratitude to the member of my advisory committee

I am extremely greatful to the member of advisory committee

I avail of this opportunity to express my sincere regards to Dr.K.N.Ravi Kumar

I acknowledge and appreciate my colleagues Sravan, Sandhya and Ashok for

It gives me immense pleasure to express my profound thanks to my seniors

I express my indebtedness to Acharya N. G. Ranga Agricultural University and

Date : (N.S.PRAVEEN KUMAR)

Title of Thesis : “Assessment of Vulnerability Index and

University : Acharya N. G. Ranga Agricultural University