Exploring Adaptive Capacity of Indian

Agriculture to Climate Change: An Agro-

climatic Zone Level Analysis

Dr. Surendra Singh Jatav

Department of Economics, Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University, Lucknow.

 Introduction
• The main cause of the observed increase in temperature during the mid-20 th century is attributed to the
influence of human activities on climate change.

• Approximately 20-40% of the global population has experienced a temperature increase of above 1.5 0C
• Adaptation to climate change will be highly crucial in the 1.5 0C warmer world as major consequences would
be seen in every area

• Climate adaptation choices include several types of responses, including structural, physical, institutional,
and social measures. The efficacy of these alternatives primarily relies on factors such as governance,
political determination, adaptable capabilities, and financial resources
 Identifying Research Gap
• The current study aims to evaluate the adaptive capability of farmers residing in major agro-climatic zones of
India.
• Previous research have either evaluated the adaptation ability of farmers in a single area or made comparisons
between two regions (Gupta and Bandyopadhyay, 2014; Datta and Bhagirath, 2022; Dasgupta et al., 2022).

• However, none of these studies have analysed the adaptive capacity of all the main agro-climatic zones of
India.

• This research establishes connections between several areas of study in the current investigation.
 Indicator Approach
Where, is the actual value of the indicator at agro-climatic zone level, and and
are the minimum and maximum values of the indicator agro-climatic zone (Hahn
et al., 2007; Jatav, 2024). In this way, the indicators were normalized on a scale of
0 to 1.

Assigning Weight
Given the assignment of appropriate weight for different components is an important issue is the
construction of an index, this study adopted the statistical weight method suggested by Iyengar and
Sudarshan, 1982.

……………..(3)

Where, is the weight of ith indicator; and is variance of standardized value of ith indicator in the jth
agro-climatic zone. The calculated weights were used to construct the component index for the jth agro-
climatic zone using equation (4).

Finally, the adaptive capacity index for each agro-climatic zone is calculated as an average of
size components, i.e., physical resource capacity index, financial resources capacity index,
human resources capacity index, social resources capacity index, livelihood diversity index,
information accessibility index.
Based on the index score, this study ranked the agro-
climatic zones in descending order. Agro-climatic zone
with higher index score indicates that it has greater
adaptive capacity.
Sub-components Indicators Functional Relationship Data Source Source

Physical Resources Capacity Average Farm Size (LS) + Agricultural Census, 2015-16 Chand et al., 2011
Indicators
% of Area under Marginal Farms (MF) - Agricultural Census, 2015-16 Sklenicka et al., 2014
(PRCI)
Irrigation Intensity (%) (II) + MoAFW, 2019 Birthal and Ali, 2005

Cropping Intensity (%) (CI) + MoAFW, 2019 Birthal and Ali, 2005

% of Accessibility of All Seasonal Roads (T) + Census, 2011 World Bank, 2005

% of Forest Area (F) + MoAFW, 2019 World Bank, 2005

% of Farmers owned any Livestock (L) + NSSO, 2019 Birthal and Ali, 2005

% of Farmers own Land (LP) + NSSO, 2019 Birthal and Ali, 2005

Financial Resources Capacity % of Farmers Member of Agricultural Societies (MAC) + Census, 2011 Newton et al, 2016
Indicators
(FRCI) % of Farmers taken Crop Insurance (Insurance) + NSSO, 2019 Newton et al, 2016

% of Farmers receiving Remittances (Remittances) + NSSO, 2019 Newton et al, 2016

% of Farmers taken Loan from Institutional Sources + NSSO, 2019 Huang and Wang, 2014
(Credit)

% of Farmers access Tractors (Tractors) + NSSO, 2019 Newton et al, 2016

Human Resources Capacity % of Farmers taken Agricultural Training (Training) + NSSO, 2019 Ellis, 2000
Indicators
Literacy Rate (in %) (Literacy) + Census, 2011 Deressa et al., 2009
(HRCI)
Average Age of farmers (in years) (Age) + NSSO, 2019 Hassan and Nhemachena, 2008

% of Working Population in the Households of farmers + NSSO, 2019 Hassan and Nhemachena, 2008
(Population)
Sub-components Indicators Functional Relationship Data Source Source

Social Resources Capacity Indicators % of Female-headed Households (FHH) - NSSO, 2019 Deressa et al., 2008
(SRCI) % of HHs living in Joint Family (more than 6 people in + NSSO, 2019 Deressa et al., 2009
HHs) (Family)

% of HHs taken Information to Fellow Farmers + NSSO, 2019 Deressa et al., 2008
(Knowledge)

% of HH member stayed away from usual place of + NSSO, 2019 Deressa et al., 2009
residence for 15 day or more for employment
purpose (Migration)

Livelihood Diversity Indicators % of HHs working in MGNREGA (MGNREGA) + NSSO, 2019 Paavola, 2008
(LDI) % of Farmers growing more than one Crop (Crop + NSSO, 2019 Ziervogel et al., 2008
diversification) and Adger et al., 2003

% of Area not available for Cultivation (AAC) - MoAFW, 2019 Adger et al., 2003

% of Income from Farm Produce (NFI) + NSSO, 2019 Adger et al., 2003

Information Accessibility % of HHs having access of Telephone (Telephone) + Census, 2011 Hahn et al., 2009
Indicators % of farmers aware about Minimum Support Price + NSSO, 2019 Hahn et al., 2009
(IAI) (MSP)

% of farmers taken Information to Radio and TV + NSSO, 2019 Hahn et al., 2009
(Information)

% of Farmers perceived that Natural Calamities are + NSSO, 2019 Hahn et al., 2009
cause Crop Loss (Perception)
Indicators India
Average Family Size (Nos.) 5.27
Literacy Rate (%) 74.04
Average Age (Years) 29.89
Farmers taken Professional Training (%) 1.12
Seasonal Migration for Employment (%) 1.47
Average Annual Farm Income (Rs.) 52, 272
Average Land Size 1.15
Indebtedness Rate (%) 52.00
Farmers have taken Credit from Institutional Source (%) 60.00
Irrigation Intensity (%) 123.10
Cropping Intensity (%) 142.13
Area not available for Cultivation (%) 16.11
Farmers are Member of SHG (%) 16.53
Farmers having Livestock (%) 74.34
Farmers working under MGNREGA 45.07
Female-headed household (%) 12.97
Farmers aware of Minimum Support Price (%) 19.72
Farmers sharing Knowledge to Fellow Farmers (%) 18.98
Farmers receiving Remittances (%) 10.17
Farmers living in Joint Family 40.45
Farmers growing more than one Crop in a Season 12.87
Farmers perceived that Natural Calamities was main reason for Crop Loss (%) 63.89
 Physical Resources Capacity Index
Land Size Marginal Irrigation Cropping Transportation Forest Area Livestock Farmers Physical Rank
Agro Farmers Intensity Intensity Poses Land Resources
Climatic
Zone
GPHR 0.499 0.674 0.269 0.314 0.943 0.150 0.822 0.998 0.584
1

TGPR 0.473 0.324 0.582 0.429 0.882 0.036 0.936 1.000 0.583
2

WPHR 0.561 0.579 0.300 0.339 0.671 0.215 0.732 0.994 0.549
3

SPHR 0.628 0.461 0.257 0.296 0.855 0.166 0.710 1.000 0.547
4

WDR 0.507 0.704 0.272 0.450 0.490 0.002 0.893 1.000 0.540
5

WCPHR 0.424 0.257 0.393 0.495 0.911 0.216 0.586 1.000 0.535
6

WHR 0.380 0.337 0.549 0.267 0.567 0.241 0.865 0.996 0.525
7

EHR 0.515 0.553 0.647 0.220 0.362 0.308 0.574 1.000 0.522
8

MGPR 0.559 0.843 0.178 0.367 0.374 0.059 0.790 0.998 0.521
9

ECPHR 0.449 0.343 0.622 0.221 0.650 0.238 0.639 0.997 0.520
10

CPHR 0.523 0.599 0.078 0.475 0.386 0.179 0.876 0.998 0.514
11

EPHR 0.327 0.506 0.303 0.296 0.437 0.339 0.608 0.999 0.477
12

LGPR 0.642 0.205 0.000 0.515 0.356 0.147 0.725 1.000 0.449
13

UPGR 0.004 0.260 0.435 0.449 0.406 0.047 0.819 0.999 0.427
14
 Financial Resources Capacity Index
Agro Micro- Insurance Remittances Institutional Tractors Financial Rank
Climatic Finance Credit Resources
Zone Capacity
Index
WCPHR 0.409 0.050 0.180 0.653 0.008 0.260 1
GPHR 0.356 0.166 0.028 0.606 0.026 0.237 2
WPHR 0.379 0.078 0.061 0.614 0.017 0.230 3
ECPHR 0.152 0.090 0.263 0.536 0.004 0.209 4
SPHR 0.210 0.060 0.086 0.666 0.008 0.206 5
WDR 0.174 0.226 0.105 0.470 0.039 0.203 6
TGPR 0.284 0.004 0.084 0.559 0.041 0.195 7
CPHR 0.115 0.147 0.081 0.543 0.034 0.184 8
UPGR 0.070 0.044 0.196 0.584 0.020 0.183 9
WHR 0.103 0.008 0.140 0.494 0.014 0.152 10
MGPR 0.159 0.013 0.090 0.435 0.022 0.144 11
EPHR 0.103 0.096 0.067 0.405 0.014 0.137 12
LGPR 0.103 0.051 0.152 0.306 0.002 0.123 13
EHR 0.029 0.004 0.020 0.357 0.002 0.082 14
 Human Resources Capacity Index
Agro Climatic Zone Formal Training Literacy Mean Age Working Human Resources Rank
Rate Population Capacity Index

TGPR 0.011 0.713 0.910 0.334 0.492 1

LGPR 0.015 0.722 0.556 0.310 0.401 2
WCPHR 0.021 0.821 0.479 0.280 0.400 3
MGPR 0.009 0.623 0.499 0.456 0.397 4
WPHR 0.012 0.716 0.503 0.354 0.396 5
HER 0.008 0.721 0.513 0.368 0.395 6
CPHR 0.007 0.641 0.500 0.434 0.395 7
WDR 0.002 0.596 0.426 0.442 0.367 8
ECPHR 0.016 0.687 0.414 0.322 0.360 9
SPHR 0.035 0.672 0.413 0.295 0.354 10
UPGR 0.003 0.660 0.275 0.435 0.343 11
WHR 0.009 0.711 0.307 0.339 0.341 12
GPHR 0.007 0.730 0.250 0.370 0.339 13
EPHR 0.011 0.658 0.295 0.355 0.330 14
 Social Resources Capacity Index
Agro Climatic Female Head Joint Knowledge Seasonal Social Resources Rank
Zone Household Family sharing Migration Capacity Index

GPHR 0.895 0.415 0.474 0.019 0.451 1

MGPR 0.909 0.550 0.217 0.014 0.422 2
CPHR 0.910 0.465 0.204 0.033 0.403 3
UPGR 0.876 0.543 0.130 0.009 0.389 4
TGPR 0.912 0.464 0.171 0.003 0.388 5
EPHR 0.868 0.353 0.281 0.008 0.377 6
LGPR 0.866 0.318 0.260 0.023 0.367 7
WPHR 0.883 0.335 0.220 0.027 0.365 8
WDR 0.871 0.449 0.089 0.035 0.361 9
EHR 0.876 0.430 0.083 0.019 0.352 10
WHR 0.861 0.400 0.105 0.010 0.344 11
SPHR 0.820 0.275 0.247 0.008 0.338 12
WCPHR 0.789 0.252 0.181 0.012 0.309 13
ECPHR 0.181 0.220 0.261 0.011 0.168 14
 Livelihood Diversity Index
Agro Climatic MGNREGA Crop Diversification Area not available Non-farm Livelihood Rank
Zone for Cultivation Income Diversity
index
WDR 0.846 0.149 0.873 0.287 0.539 1
CPHR 0.635 0.177 0.875 0.321 0.502 2
EPHR 0.677 0.045 0.893 0.325 0.485 3
WPHR 0.452 0.287 0.874 0.264 0.469 4
HER 0.674 0.031 0.834 0.310 0.462 5
WHR 0.446 0.146 0.882 0.298 0.443 6
UPGR 0.261 0.200 0.850 0.326 0.409 7
SPHR 0.455 0.195 0.808 0.169 0.407 8
MGPR 0.162 0.192 0.807 0.383 0.386 9
WCPHR 0.307 0.144 0.860 0.129 0.360 10
GPHR 0.221 0.101 0.858 0.243 0.356 11
ECPHR 0.618 0.145 0.189 0.187 0.285 12
LGPR 0.589 0.003 0.229 0.244 0.266 13
TGPR 0.058 0.100 0.168 0.372 0.174 14
 Information Accessibility Index
Agro Climatic Telephone Awareness of Information Farmer’s Information Rank
Zone MSP gathering perception Accessibility
Index
SPHR 0.980 0.156 0.373 0.803 0.578 1
WCPHR 0.970 0.150 0.437 0.689 0.561 2
GPHR 0.985 0.167 0.251 0.803 0.552 3
TGPR 0.981 0.387 0.339 0.476 0.546 4
LGPR 0.912 0.265 0.203 0.732 0.528 5
EPHR 0.733 0.382 0.126 0.709 0.487 6
ECPHR 0.933 0.152 0.220 0.632 0.484 7
WHR 0.925 0.130 0.290 0.572 0.479 8
UPGR 0.795 0.251 0.164 0.682 0.473 9
CPHR 0.839 0.135 0.152 0.761 0.472 10
WPHR 0.869 0.110 0.218 0.687 0.471 11
MGPR 0.665 0.294 0.192 0.562 0.428 12
EHR 0.723 0.051 0.178 0.658 0.403 13
WDR 0.989 0.102 0.051 0.419 0.390 14
 Adaptive Capacity Index
Agro Financial Human Livelihood Information Adaptive Rank
Climatic Resources Resources Diversity Accessibility Capacity
Zone Physical Capacity Social Index
Capacity Resources Index Index
Resources Index
Capacity Index Capacity
Index Index
GPHR 0.584 0.237 0.339 0.451 0.356 0.552 0.420 1
WPHR 0.549 0.230 0.396 0.367 0.469 0.471 0.414 2
CPHR 0.514 0.184 0.395 0.403 0.502 0.472 0.412 3
SPHR 0.547 0.206 0.354 0.338 0.407 0.578 0.405 4
WCPHR 0.535 0.260 0.400 0.309 0.360 0.561 0.404 5
WDR 0.540 0.203 0.367 0.361 0.539 0.390 0.400 6
TGPR 0.583 0.195 0.492 0.388 0.174 0.546 0.396 7
MGPR 0.521 0.144 0.397 0.422 0.386 0.428 0.383 8
EPHR 0.477 0.137 0.330 0.377 0.485 0.487 0.382 9
WHR 0.525 0.152 0.341 0.344 0.443 0.479 0.381 10
UPGR 0.427 0.183 0.343 0.389 0.409 0.473 0.371 11
EHR 0.522 0.082 0.395 0.352 0.462 0.403 0.369 12
LGPR 0.449 0.123 0.401 0.367 0.266 0.528 0.356 13
ECPHR 0.520 0.209 0.360 0.168 0.285 0.484 0.338 14
 Conclusion and Policy Recommendations
• This research first inquired about the mechanisms of adaptation and the entities involved in the agricultural
sector that undergo adaptation to address the challenges posed by climate change.

• The findings provide an assessment of the grassroots level of the adaptation ability of Indian farmers,
including regional aspects.
• This study emphasised the need for more investigation into the possibilities for successful involvement in
local and regional methods of vulnerability assessment and the improvement of adaptive capacity.
• According to the empirical findings, this study suggests that female-headed households should be prioritised
in ongoing and new intervention projects related to climate change and agriculture.
• This can be done by providing them with financial resources to engage in additional income-generating
activities.

• This will help diversify their sources of livelihood and enhance their ability to withstand the impacts of
climate change and variability.

• Proactive adaptation can enhance the ability to deal with climate change by incorporating climate change
considerations into long-term decision-making,
• eliminating obstacles to changing behaviour in response to climate change (such as discontinuing subsidies
for counterproductive practices),
• and implementing incentives to alter behaviour in response to climate change (such as utilising market-based
mechanisms to encourage adaptive actions).