




































Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal 7 (2): 95-120, July 2024 

 

RESEARCH PAPER 
 

Farmers’ Perceptions of  Climate Change and their 
Adaptation in a semi-Arid Region in India  
 

Pradeep Mehta  
 
Abstract: Climate change is emerging as a significant threat to farmers in semi-arid 
rural areas in India, where agricultural livelihoods are primarily dependent on 
rainfall. The effect of  climate change on farmers’ social and economic well-being 
depends not only on their awareness of  shifting climatic patterns but also on their 
responses to such changes. This study aims to examine farmers’ perceptions of  
climate change, analyse their responses to it, and identify factors contributing to 
farmers’ choice of  anticipatory or reactive adaptation strategies. It was conducted in 
Nuh district in Haryana, a semi-arid region. The study comprised a primary survey 
of  384 farmers, with the sample size determined using probabilistic sampling 
method. It reveals that farmers have observed long-term changes in climatic factors 
(temperature and rainfall) and have adopted strategies to deal with them. In Nuh, 
the current institutional policy and knowledge mechanisms primarily focus on 
addressing short-term climate risks. As a result, farmers’ adaptive strategies tend to 
be reactive in nature, primarily focused on mitigating immediate losses in 
agricultural productivity. There is a critical need to address the differential 
vulnerabilities of  farming communities and build their capacity to absorb risks 
through institutional and technological interventions. 
 
Keywords: Climate Change Adaptation; Perception; semi-Arid; Hazard. 

 

1. INTRODUCTION 

Climate across the globe is changing; this is emerging as a significant 
hindrance to promoting sustainable livelihoods and economic development 
(Guo et al. 2022; Adger et al. 2002; Harvey et al. 2018; Baede et al. 2001). 
Climate change encompasses alterations in both, average conditions and 
variability in climate patterns over extended periods. It also includes the 

                                                           
 Assistant Professor, Amity University, NOIDA, Uttar Pradesh, India 201310; 
Pradeep_mehta@yahoo.com 

Copyright © Mehta 2024. Released under Creative Commons Attribution © 
NonCommercial 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC 4.0) by the author.  

Published by Indian Society for Ecological Economics (INSEE), c/o Institute of  Economic 
Growth, University Enclave, North Campus, Delhi 110007.  

ISSN: 2581–6152 (print); 2581–6101 (web).  

DOI: https://doi.org/10.37773/ees.v7i2.1060  

https://doi.org/10.37773/ees.v7i2.1060


Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [96] 

phenomenon of  global warming (Matthews et al. 2021).1 Rising global 
temperatures pose unprecedented hazards for vulnerable communities, as 
they can disrupt natural systems, leading to more frequent and intense 
droughts, floods, and other extreme weather events. They also accelerate 
the rise in global sea levels and biodiversity loss (IPCC 2022; Shivanna 
2022). Such changes are anticipated to exacerbate the pressure on water 
resources, food production, public health, and ecosystems (IPCC 2022; 
Mathews et al. 2021). 

Semi-arid regions are among the most vulnerable to climate change.2 This is 
because the ecosystems in these regions are fragile and sensitive to 
interactions between human activities and the climate (Huang et al. 2016). 
Given the prevalence of  rain-fed agricultural practices and the lack of  
adequate irrigation infrastructure in these regions (Mitra et al. 2021), shifts 
in the state of  the climate can lead to hazards,3 such as prolonged droughts 
and increased groundwater salinity (Aryal et al. 2020; Mehta 2015; Kumar 
and Gautam 2014; Singh et al. 2019).4 This study was conducted in Nuh, a 
semi-arid region in India, and one of India’s most backward districts despite 
its proximity to the national capital. In this region, shifts in climate in the 
last 30 years (1988–2018) have led to escalating levels of aridity (Mitra et al. 
2021). Both, climatic factors, such as increased temperature and reduced 
precipitation, which lead to more frequent droughts, and human-induced 
factors, such as the extraction of groundwater during prolonged droughts, 
have resulted in elevated levels of groundwater salinity. This has become a 
significant threat to the well-being of people in Nuh, as most of the 
population is unskilled, illiterate, and engaged in agriculture (Mehta 2015). 
Currently, more than two-thirds of Nuh district has saline groundwater,5 

                                                           
1 Statistically significant variations in the mean state of  the climate or in its variability, 
typically persisting for decades or longer, are referred to as “climate change” (Baede et al. 
2001). 
2 Long-term global warming leads to longer and more severe droughts in semi-arid regions 
because of  enhanced evaporation and reduced precipitation (Dai 2013).  
3 A hazard is defined as the potential occurrence of  a natural or human-induced physical 
event or trend that may cause loss of  life, injury, or other health impacts, as well as damage 
to or loss of  property, infrastructure, livelihoods, service provision, ecosystems, and 
environmental resources (Matthews et al. 2021). 
4 Groundwater salinity is more directly influenced by geological and hydrological factors than 
short-term variations in climate conditions. However, it is closely linked to broader climate 
change–related processes and can be exacerbated by climate-related factors (Dao et al. 2024).  
5 Nuh district grapples with a severe salinity problem owing to its distinctive geoclimatic 
context. Its bowl-shaped terrain, devoid of  natural drainage, facilitates the accumulation of  
salts from the Himalayan and Shivalik ranges. In the late 1990s, a prolonged period of  
inadequate rainfall led to consecutive droughts, triggering intense groundwater extraction. 
This extraction exacerbated the presence of  excessive saline water in the district. Currently, 
only 22% of  the groundwater remains non-saline, significantly impacting the welfare of  the 



[97] Mehta 

 

which poses a significant challenge to farmers who are dependent on 
agriculture for their livelihoods (Mehta 2020).  

At the micro or farm level, it is generally argued that the extent of the 
impact of a change in climate on farmers’ social and economic well-being 
hinges on their awareness or perception of such changes and their response 
to it (Fierros-González and Feldman 2021; Deressa et al. 2011; Feola et al. 
2015).6 Furthermore, their observations of climate change may include not 
just variability or shifts in key climatic parameters, such as temperature and 
rainfall (Deressa et al. 2009; Olabanji et al. 2021), but also the tangible 
impacts of climate change on their farming and livelihood resources, which 
can manifest as hazards. Further, they may experience anxiety regarding 
future climate-related risks (Howden et al. 2007; Arbuckle et al. 2015; Debela 
2017). In other words, farmers’ adaptation is not solely driven by their 
perception of changes in climatic factors—it is also influenced by their 
observations of the impacts of climate change and the perceived risk of 
future climate-related challenges. 

Further, not all measures adopted by farmers reduce their vulnerability7 to 
future climate change. Farmers in marginal regions are often compelled to 
alter agricultural practices, and such changes may not necessarily reduce 
their vulnerability to future climate change. Instead, they often exacerbate 
their vulnerability. For instance, due to climatic changes, farmers may be 
compelled to either reduce the land under cultivation or use degraded land 
(which is less productive). Climate-proof  development involves reducing 
vulnerability and not merely identifying a response to climate change 
(Magnan et al. 2020; Schipper 2007). In other words, climate change 
adaptation8 is more effective if  livelihoods are adapted in response to 

                                                                                                                                  
predominantly agrarian populace (Mitra et al. 2021).  
6 Expecting respondents to have enough experience to have observed changes in climatic 
factors over 30 years is impractical. Therefore, we regard climate change as alterations in key 
climatic factors, including temperature and precipitation, as observed and reported by 
farmers. Our objective is not to distinguish between perceptions of  long-term climate 
change and short-term variability; instead, it is to capture farmers’ perceptions of  changes in 
climatic factors, which can aid them in recognizing their vulnerability and help them act 
accordingly (Datta et al. 2022). 
7 Vulnerability generally refers to susceptibility to harm. In the climate change literature, 
vulnerability is often understood to be a function of  exposure and sensitivity to a hazard and 
adaptive capacity, or the ability to respond. In the biophysical conception of  vulnerability, 
exposure and sensitivity represent the risk that a physical hazard  poses to a population; this 
risk is seen as exogenous to society (Matthews et al. 2021). 
8 Climate change adaptation involves the process of  adjusting to present or expected climate 
conditions and their impacts, with the aim of  moderating or preventing harm and seizing 
opportunities (Matthews et al., 2021). These adjustments are made to improve the 
sustainability of  social and economic activities and to decrease their susceptibility to climate-



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [98] 

climate change such that they provide sufficient flexibility in terms of  food 
security and income (Adger 1996 and Schipper 2020). For this, farmers 
must adopt strategies—such as water conservation and crop 
diversification—to reduce their vulnerability. We differentiate these two 
kinds of  adaptation as responsive and anticipatory adaptation9 (Adger et al. 
2005). Responsive adaptations are coping or reactive strategies undertaken 
primarily to deal with past or current events. In contrast, anticipatory 
adaptation is long term and is undertaken to deal with anticipated climate 
change and hazards (Binternagel et al. 2010). Anticipatory adaptation 
reduces farmers’ vulnerability to future climate change more effectively than 
responsive adaptation (Baede et al. 2001). Many studies have examined the 
role of  farmers’ perceptions of  climate change in their decision to 
implement adaptation strategies, but there is a dearth of  studies on the role 
of  farmers’ observations about the impacts of  climate change in their 
decision-making around adaptation. In this study, we explore the role of  
perceptions, observed impacts, and anxiety about future climate-related 
risks in the kind of  adaptation strategy farmers choose to implement, rather 
than merely the response to climate change alone. 

We examine the pattern of  climate change in Nuh, a semi-arid region, and 
explore farmers’ perceptions of  changes in climatic factors, its tangible 
impacts on their livelihoods, and their apprehensions regarding future 
climate change. Subsequently, we assess an array of  response and adaptation 
strategies adopted by farmers and evaluate the factors that drove them to 
adopt either anticipatory or responsive adaptation strategies. The specific 
objectives of  the study are (1) to map changes in significant climate 
variables within Nuh district in Haryana; (2) to assess the community’s 
perceptions of  changes in climate variables and their consequent outcomes; 
and (3) to examine the strategies implemented by farmers and the factors 
that lead them to adopt different adaption measures. The study is organized 
into seven sections, of  which this is the first. The second section outlines 
the methodology. The subsequent section details the mapping of  climate 
change in Nuh district, Haryana. Section 4 covers community perceptions 
of  changes in climatic factors, its observed impacts, and farmers’ concerns 

                                                                                                                                  
related risks, including current variability, extreme events, and longer-term climate shifts 
(Smit et al. 2000). 
9 Adaptation strategies in the context of  climate change are often classified as reactive or 
proactive. Reactive adaptation occurs after experiencing negative climate change effects, 
while proactive adaptation aims to anticipate and prevent potential damage. However, the 
classification of  specific practices, such as adjusting the timing of  sowing and harvesting, can 
vary among scholars based on local conditions and farming systems. The distinction between 
reactive and proactive strategies depends on whether a measure is a response to observed 
changes (reactive) or a proactive coping mechanism (Engler et al. 2021). 



[99] Mehta 

 

 

Table 1: Sample Size of  the Study 

Blocks 
Number of  
Households 

Proportion of  
Households 

Sample 
Size 

Tauru 20,117 14.37 55 

Nuh 38,714 27.66 106 

Punhana 36,531 26.10 100 

Firozpur Jhirka 44,613 31.87 122 

  
  

384 

Source: Census of  India (2011). 
 

about future climate-related risks. Sections 5 and 6 explore adaptive 
strategies employed by farmers in Nuh and the factors influencing these 
strategies, respectively. We conclude with a summary of  our key findings. 

 

2. METHODOLOGY AND FRAMEWORK 

We carried out this study in Nuh district, Haryana, which is situated in a 
semi-arid region. We used both primary and secondary data sources. 
According to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), climate is 
defined as the average weather or, more rigorously, as the statistical 
description of  weather in terms of  the mean and variability of  relevant 
quantities such as precipitation and temperature over a period of  time—
typically a decade or longer.10 In this paper, climate change refers to a 
change in the state of  the climate that can be identified (for instance, using 
statistical tests) by changes in the mean and/or variability in its properties 
and which persists for an extended period of  30 years. For the Nuh region, 
we capture long-term trends in major climatic factors—such as temperature 
and rainfall—through secondary data from the Indian Meteorological 
Department (IMD) and the International Crops Research Institute for 
Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) for the last 30 years (1986–2015). 

We collected the primary data from households in March–October 2019. 
Based on the probabilistic sample formula,11 our sample size is 384 farmers. 
They were selected from each block based on proportionate stratified 
random sampling, as in Table 1. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                           
10 The World Meteorological Organization timeline is a minimum of  30 years for delineating 
the climate of  an area; we use this standard in this paper. 
11 A standard sample size formula is used to determine the sample size: 
Sample Size = N * [Z2 * p * (1-p)/e2] / [N – 1 + (Z2 * p * (1-p)/e2] 
Where N is the population size (1,089,000), z is the z-score with a 95% confidence level (z = 
1.96), e is the margin of  error with 5% (.05), and p is the standard of  deviation, where p is 
assumed to be 0.5 as it is unknown. 



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [100] 

We employed quantitative and qualitative tools, including a questionnaire, 
focus group discussions, historical mapping, climate mapping, and resource 
mapping. We captured farmers’ adaptation to climate change through 
anticipatory and responsive strategies and examined how their awareness or 
perception of  changes in climatic factors, anxiety about future climate 
change, and observations regarding the impacts of  climate change (hazards) 
affect these choices (Figure 1). 

Figure 1: Strategies for Adaptation to Climate Change 

 

Source: Prepared by Author 

We have also explored the factors explaining farmers’ choice of  adaptation 
strategies using a binary logit model. This model incorporates climate 
change adaptation strategies as a dummy, and dependent variables with 
binary choices. Farmers are differentiated by their adoption of  anticipatory 
strategies versus reactive ones (we assign the value 1 to farmers with at least 
one anticipatory strategy and 0 to those who have not adopted any 
anticipatory strategies). The logistic distribution function for the decision to 
adopt adaptation measures can be specified as follows:  

Logit (P) = log (P) 

                     1−P 

Let Pi = Pr (Y = 1) 



[101] Mehta 

 

                   X=xi 

then the model can be written as  

Pr (y = 1) = expx’b  = log (Pi) = Logit (Pi) =  β0 + β1xi 

         x       1 + ex’b                      1-Pi 

where Pi is the probability of  deciding to adopt anticipatory adaptation 
strategies (dependent variable), x are the independent variables, β0 is 
the intercept, and β1 is the regression coefficient. 

We can present the model in terms of  odds as follows:  

    Pi =       exp (β0 + β1xi ) 

 (1−Pi) 

The binary logit model examines the correlation between socioeconomic 
characteristics and farmers’ choice of  either adaptive or responsive 
adaptation strategies. The dependent variables—which represent the 
adoption of  anticipatory adaptation strategies, including soil conservation 
techniques, crop diversification, saline crop varieties, agro-forestry, and 
water conservation technologies—were formulated as a binary, with a value 
of  1 assigned to farmers employing at least one listed anticipatory strategy 
and 0 to those employing none of  these within the study. This binary 
classification distinguishes farmers who have adopted anticipatory strategies 
from those who have not. The independent variables, hypothesized to 
influence farmers’ adoption of  anticipatory strategies, encompass the 
combined effects of  various factors, including psychological, demographic, 
socioeconomic, and institutional characteristics. Drawing on insights from 
past studies on adaptation strategies, we considered the explanatory 
variables detailed in Table 2 and scrutinized them for their impact on the 
typology of  farmers’ adaptation strategies. 

Nuh is a semi-arid region with hot temperatures during the summer. May 
and June are the hottest months, with temperatures ranging from 30–48°C. 
January is the coldest month, with temperatures in the range of  2–25°C 
(Government of  Haryana 2022). About 80% of  the annual precipitation is 
received during the monsoon season, with a peak in July. The annual rainfall 
varies considerably from 300–500 mm. 

Nuh has experienced 18 moderate and 8 severe droughts in the last 100 
years (Kumar NS et al. 2016). Due to these extreme events and the region’s 
high dependence on groundwater for irrigation, the groundwater table in 
Nuh is declining rapidly (Mehta 2020). Changes in long-term temperature 
and rainfall patterns hold critical significance for this agriculturally dominant 



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [102] 

Table 2: Variables Hypothesized to Affect Farmers' Adaptation Decision 

Variable Description Value 

Adoption 
Typology 
Decision 

(Sign) 

Household size Number of  family 
members  

Number − 

Gender Gender of  household 
head 

1= Female, 0 = 
Male  

+/− 

Age Age of  household 
head in years 

Years  +/− 

Experience Farming experience 
of  household head  

Years +/− 

Farm size Total landholding  Hectare + 

Access to formal credit Access to formal 
credit  

1 = Yes, 0 = 
No  

+ 

Perception of  change in 
climatic factors 
(temperature and rainfall) 

Perception of  change 
in climatic factors 

1 = Yes, 0 = 
No 

+ 

The severity of  the 
impact on livelihoods due 
to the change in the state 
of  the climate* 

Severe impact of  
climate change and 
associated hazards 

1 = Yes, 0 = 
No 

+ 

Anxiety about future 
climate-related risks ** 

Concerned about 
future changes in 
climate 

1 = Yes, 0 = 
No 

+ 

Institutional affiliation Association with 
government or private 
institution (NGO) 

1=Yes, 0 =No + 

Notes: 
* The data on the severe impacts of  climate change were obtained from the 
farmers on the Likert scale (strongly agree, agree, indifferent, disagree, and 
strongly disagree) but recoded as binary variables for the analysis of  its role in 
adaptation—we marked responses with “strongly agree” or “agree” as 1 and 
“indifferent”, “disagree”, or “strongly disagree” as 0. The variables considered for 
the severe impact of  climate change include a decline in farm income, reduction in 
crop productivity, and loss of  indigenous crops. 
** The data on anxiety or concern about future climate change was obtained from 
farmers on the Likert scale (strongly agree, agree, indifferent, disagree, and 
strongly disagree) but recoded as binary variables for the analysis of  its role in 
adaptation—we marked responses with “strongly agree” or “agree” as 1 and 
“indifferent”, “disagree”, or “strongly disagree” as 0. 

Source: Authors’ analysis 
 

 



[103] Mehta 

 

region. To comprehend rainfall trends in Nuh district, we use data sourced 
from the Indian Meteorological Department (IMD) for the four primary 
months of  June, July, August, and September, when the most precipitation 
occurs. The data unveils a declining trend in rainfall,12 characterized by a 
coefficient of  variation of  29% (Figure 2).  

Figure 2: Trends in Rainfall in Nuh 

Source: Author, using Indian Meteorological Data (2023) 

To analyse the change in long-term temperature patterns, we measured 
changes in the mean of  the maximum and minimum values over the last 
three decades, i.e., 1986–2015.13 The data revealed a consistent rise in 
minimum temperature values and little change in the maximum temperature 
values during this period (Figure 3). The shifts in the long-term rainfall and 
temperature patterns signify climate change in the region; they carry 
potential implications for cropping cycles, water availability, and cropping 
patterns.  

Rainfall and temperature affect crop yield directly and indirectly through 
changes in potential evapotranspiration (PET) and soil moisture. Soil 
moisture content (SMC) is directly connected with the process of  
evapotranspiration (ET)—a process by which water is transferred from the 

                                                           
12 In Nuh district, the average rainfall (a five-year moving average) in the 1970s was 650 mm 
over four months (June, July, August, and September). It declined to a five-year moving 
average of  450 mm over the same four-month period by the end of  2018. 
13 The IMD data is available only until the year 2000. For 2001–2015, we used data from 
ICRISAT. No reliable source contains data for 2015 and onwards. 



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [104] 

soil compartment and vegetation layer to the atmosphere (Verstraeten et al. 
2008). Mitra et al. (2021) calculated PET for the Nuh district using the 
Thornthwaite method and demonstrated an increasing PET trend, 
indicating the loss of  soil moisture and rising dryness in the region (Figure 
4). The trend in climatic factors at the district level indicates that over this 
period, the temperature increased along with declining precipitation, 
resulting in an increase in dryness and loss of  soil moisture. 

Figure 3: Temperature (in °C) Pattern Change in Nuh 

Source: Authors using IMD and ICRISAT (2023). 

To tackle challenges arising from climate change, the state of  Haryana 
formulated a comprehensive climate change plan applicable to all 22 of  its 
districts, including Nuh.14  The climate change policy encompasses a range 
of  programmes that address environmental issues, with a focus on water 
resources, forestry, agriculture, and animal husbandry (Government of  
Haryana 2011). Key initiatives include the development of  a state water 
policy, schemes for enhancing land productivity, and the implementation of  
the National Agricultural Insurance Scheme. The Haryana Forest 
Department initiated an extensive afforestation programme in line with its 
comprehensive State Forest Policy, 2006. Forestry initiatives encompass 
both adaptation and mitigation projects, incorporating practices such as the 

                                                           
14 Nuh does not have a district-specific climate change policy. The district is part of  
Haryana, which introduced a comprehensive state climate change policy in 2011 that covers 
all 22 districts, including Nuh. 



[105] Mehta 

 

Figure 4: Increasing Trend of  Annual PET (in mm) of  Nuh 

Source: Author, using data from Mitra et al. (2021) 

adoption of  short-rotation species and sustainable harvesting. The 
Departments of  Agriculture and Animal Husbandry identified research 
areas to strengthen climate resilience. The Haryana Irrigation Department 
proposes measures such as establishing a water database and implementing 
real-time water quality monitoring. The Integrated Watershed Management 
Programme focuses on micro-watershed projects, demonstrating a 
significant financial commitment to addressing climate change in Haryana 
(Government of  Haryana 2011). 

 

4. FARMERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CLIMATE CHANGE AND ITS 
OBSERVED IMPACT  

Farmers perceive climate change by observing variations in climatic factors 
(Alam et al. 2017; Banerjee 2015; Datta et al. 2022). In the previous section, 
we revealed that there have been climatic changes in Nuh in terms of  a rise 
in the minimum temperature and a downward trend in rainfall. In this 
section, we delve into farmers’ perceptions15 of  temperature and rainfall 
variations, their observation of  the impact of  climate change manifested 
through hazards, and their anxiety regarding future climate-related risks.  

                                                           
15 The Cambridge Dictionary describes the meaning of  perception as “a belief  or opinion, 
often held by many people and based on how things seem”. 



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [106] 

The variables used to capture farmers’ perceptions of  climatic change 
related to changes in temperature and rainfall patterns over the last 30 years. 
The responses reveal that 86% of  the farmers noticed changes in the trend 
of  climatic factors—temperature and rainfall—while 14% did not observe 
any such changes. Among those who perceived shifts in climatic factors, the 
majority (84%) reported a decreasing trend in rainfall, while 73% observed 
an increase in temperature (Figure 5). While farmers in the district have not 
encountered any flood-like situations, they observed an increase in rainfall 
intensity. This means that more rainfall occurs over shorter durations, 
accompanied by a decrease in the number of  rainy days per year. The 
information on rainfall and temperature collected from farmers 
corroborates macro- and district-level trends. In Nuh, community radio 
disseminates daily and long-term information on climatic factors, 
accompanied by periodic discussions on the issue. We observed that a 
substantial majority of  farmers (more than 90%), who perceived a change 
in climatic factors, regularly access such information through the 
community radio.  

Figure 5: Farmers’ Perceptions of  Changes in Climatic Factors 

Source: Author, using data from primary survey 

Long-term changes in temperature and rainfall may lead to various hazards, 
prompting farmers in dryland areas to undertake responsive measures 
(Jodha et al. 2012). We obtained information from the sampled farmers 
about the hazards they have encountered over the past 30 years. The results 
indicate that farmers have witnessed several hazards, such as droughts, 



[107] Mehta 

 

storms, an increase in groundwater salinity, and the loss of  soil moisture 
and biomass (Figure 6), with groundwater salinity emerging as the 
predominant issue. Following this, over 50% of  the farmers reported 
having experienced droughts and a decline in soil moisture. Incidents of  
storms are infrequent.  

Figure 6: Hazards Experienced by Farmers in Nuh 

Source: Author, using data from primary survey. 

The perceptions of  farmers are shaped by both changes in macro-climatic 
factors and the critical levels and productivity of  resources essential for 
their livelihoods and families (Niles and Mueller 2016). We used the Likert 
scale to collect data on select parameters from farmers based on their 
perceived changes in resource levels and productivity. The results indicate 
that climate change has had a significant impact through changes in climatic 
factors and hazards that have affected resources, particularly the loss of  
indigenous crops (Table 3). In the past, farmers could cultivate a variety of  
commercial crops, primarily pulses, with sufficient rainfall and non-saline 
groundwater. However, successive droughts in the late 1990s led to 
increased groundwater salinity, compelling farmers to stop producing most 
indigenous commercial crops, especially pulses. Currently, farmers are only 
cultivating commercial crops such as mustard, wheat, and some vegetables, 
with pulses scarcely grown in the region. Over 70% of  farmers believe that 
indigenous crops have disappeared primarily due to groundwater salinity. 



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [108] 

 Strongly 
Agree  

Agree Indifferent Disagree Strongly 
Disagree 

Key Outcomes of  Changes in the State of  the Climate  

Decline in 
productivity of  
major crops 

54% 10% 14% 16% 06% 

Loss of  indigenous 
crops1  

73% 8% 02% 12% 05% 

Decline in the 
availability of  fresh 
drinking water 

58% 10% 10% 17% 05% 

Increase in the cost 
of  production 

32% 16% 18% 25% 09% 

Decline in farm 
income 

35% 10% 25% 14% 16% 

Decrease in the 
number of  livestock 

26% 12% 19% 27% 16% 

Increase in the 
incidence of  pests 
and diseases 

52% 10% 13% 16% 9% 

Increase in land 
degradation 

37% 8% 15% 28% 12% 

Concern about Climate Change in the Future 

Extreme weather 
events will happen 
more frequently in 
the future 

34% 20% 25% 19% 2% 

Concerned about 
the potential 
impacts of  climate 
change on the farm 
operation 

30% 22% 34% 13% 1% 

 

Table 3: Key Outcomes of  Climate Change and Farmers’ Concerns about Future 
Climate Change Impacts 

Source: Authors’ analysis 

Moreover, groundwater salinity has contributed to a decline in the 
availability of  potable water and has reduced crop productivity. In general, 
farmers assert that groundwater salinity is the primary hazard impacting 
their incomes and lives. Other hazards, such as intense rainfall, have a 
comparatively lower impact on key outcomes related to their livelihoods. 

Climate change is already underway; it is anticipated to continue affecting 
society in the coming decades (Schipper 2007). Concerns about future 



[109] Mehta 

 

climate change and its potential effects were found to influence farmers’ 
responses (Howden et al. 2007). Drawing from Arbuckle et al. (2015), we 
consider two questions regarding farmers’ climate concerns: whether 
farmers believe that extreme weather events will occur more frequently in 
the future and whether the individual farmer is concerned about the 
potential impacts of  climate change on their farm operations. We used the 
Likert scale to obtain data from farmers on these two parameters. A 
majority of  farmers expressed concerns about the future impact of  climate 
change (Table 3), with over 50% either strongly agreeing or agreeing on 
these two aspects. Farmers exhibiting greater concern about future climate 
change are expected to adopt anticipatory strategies to address its effects. 

 

5. FARMERS’ RESPONSES TO CLIMATE CHANGE IN NUH 

Farmers’ perceptions of  climate change serve as a precursor to their 
adaptation efforts (Alam et al. 2017). Once farmers recognize climate 
change and observe its impact on their incomes and risk, they respond in 
various ways (Adger et al. 2003; Levina and Tirpak 2006). The responses 
depend on several factors, including farmers’ perception of  changes in 
climatic factors and their impact on key resources, social conditions, and the 
support provided by local institutions, among others (Datta et al. 2022). 

In Nuh, farmers confront several challenges, including groundwater salinity, 
water scarcity, and a marked decline in crop productivity. These challenges 
have not only resulted in a decline in farm incomes but have also affected 
their overall livelihoods. In an effort to grapple with these adversities, 
farmers have resorted to an array of  adaptive strategies—intensification of  
fertilizer use, seasonal and distress-led out-migration, augmentation of  
irrigation practices, crop diversification,16 integration of  saline-resistant 
crop varieties, adoption of  soil and water conservation techniques, and 
reclamation of  degraded land (Figure 7).  

When presented the twelve adaptation strategies,17 Nuh farmers often 
replied that they have adopted multiple strategies to address the emerging 
challenges. Notably, the most prevalent adaptation strategies in Nuh are 
intensification of  fertilizer use, seasonal migration, and adjusting the timing 

                                                           
16 Crop diversification refers to the agricultural practice of  cultivating a variety of  crops 
instead of  relying on a single crop or a few crops. Crop diversification has the potential to 
mitigate risks associated with environmental factors, market fluctuations, pests, and diseases. 
By cultivating different crops, farmers aim to enhance resilience to adverse conditions and 
improve overall farm sustainability. 
17 The selection of  strategies is based on our review of  the literature and focus group 
discussions with farmers. 



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [110] 

Figure 7: Adaptation Strategies Adopted by Farmers in Nuh18 

Source: Author, using data collected through primary survey. 

of  crop seed planting. Intensification of  fertilizer use stands out as the 
predominant strategy, as it has been adopted by a significant share (66%) of  
surveyed farmers. This underscores its significance as a primary response to 
the challenges posed by climate change and its repercussions for agricultural 
land. As rainfall dwindled and groundwater salinity levels surged, a 
significant number of  farmers made the difficult decision to discontinue the 
cultivation of  indigenous crops, particularly commercial crops such as 
pulses, as cultivation on the once-fertile land became unviable. Increasing 
groundwater salinity further compounded the predicament, forcing farm 
families to rely on purchased drinking water. The consequential reduction in 
the production of  commercial crops, coupled with the heightened scarcity 
of  drinking water, precipitated a dire situation for numerous resource-poor 
farmers, compelling them to explore alternative avenues of  generating cash 
to purchase essential drinking water. 

Given the centrality of  farming to livelihoods, and the limited institutional 
support available in Nuh, farmers resorted to intensifying fertilizer use to 
augment crop productivity. While this approach can yield higher 

                                                           
18 The farmers’ response includes anticipatory strategies—including the use of  saline crop 
varieties, agro-forestry, soil conservation techniques, water conservation techniques, and crop 
diversification—and reactive strategies, including restoring degraded land, reducing land 
under cultivation, intensifying fertilizer use, adopting non-farming activities, and opting for 
seasonal migration. 



[111] Mehta 

 

productivity for select crops, it is not without its caveats. There is tangible 
evidence of  the potential long-term adverse impacts of  fertilizer use on 
land productivity (Mehta 2020; Datta et al. 2022). In interviews, farmers 
candidly disclosed their conundrum—they grapple with an increase in 
agricultural pests and diseases coupled with persistently low crop yields, 
leaving them with little recourse but to lean on additional fertilizers to 
enhance the productivity of  their crops. This underscores the complex 
trade-offs that farmers must navigate as they address immediate challenges 
while negotiating the need to sustain the long-term viability of  their 
farming practices. 

Moreover, a considerable number of  farm families (41%) have opted for 
seasonal migration, with family members migrating to work as labourers in 
neighbouring districts and states. These seasonal migrants have also 
decreased their cultivated area, mainly due to a decline in the cultivation of  
indigenous commercial crops. Approximately 8% of  farmers have 
diversified their income sources by incorporating non-farm activities, 
primarily by establishing shops or working in local organizations. 
Furthermore, in response to the reduced income, 28% of  farming 
households have even restored to cultivating crops on degraded (less fertile) 
land. Roughly one-fifth of  farmers have adopted water conservation 
technologies and soil conservation methods, while agro-forestry has been 
adopted by one-tenth of  the farmers studied. Though groundwater salinity 
is a major hazard, only 7% of  farmers use saline seed varieties. There is a 
lack of  effort from the government and private institutions to promote 
saline crop varieties in the region. As a result, local farmers are compelled 
to travel to the neighbouring district of  Karnal to acquire these seeds, 
which are only available for wheat and mustard crops.  

 

6. TYPOLOGY OF FARMERS’ ADAPTATION AND ITS 
DETERMINANTS 

In the face of  climate change and the associated hazards, farmer 
communities in Nuh find themselves consistently pressured to adjust and 
adapt to survive and sustain their incomes. However, it is also imperative 
for farmers to adopt anticipatory adaptive strategies that mitigate their 
vulnerability to future climate change (IPCC 2001; Baede et al. 2001). 
Reactive strategies are undesirable, as they may result in maladaptation and 
further increase farmers’ vulnerability to future climate change (Schipper 
2020).  

We distinguish the sampled farmers based on the adoption of  anticipatory 
and reactive strategies. Anticipatory measures encompass a spectrum of  



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [112] 

initiatives—water conservation techniques, agro-forestry, soil conservation 
practices, crop diversification, and the use of  saline-resistant seed varieties. 
These forward-looking strategies, which are inherently long term, equip 
farmers to confront anticipated climate change and the associated hazards, 
thereby enhancing their resilience to future environmental shifts. 
Conversely, the remaining strategies predominantly fall under reactive or 
short-term approaches designed to address past or ongoing climate-related 
challenges. 

The results indicate that 27% of  the sampled farmers have adopted at least 
one of  the outlined anticipatory strategies. The farmers’ adaptive responses 
to climate change are influenced by myriad factors, including 
socioeconomic, psychological, institutional, and technological 
considerations. Our analysis specifically considers social, economic, 
psychological, and institutional factors. Among the 10 independent 
variables in the model, four variables, i.e., farm experience (coefficient = 
0.451, p < 0.10), institutional association (coefficient = 0.970, p < 0.10), the 
severity of  perceived impact of  climate change (coefficient = 4.067, p < 
0.01), and access to formal credit (coefficient = 1.777, p < 0.01) were 
significant, and all these factors were found to positively influence the 
adoption of  anticipatory strategies (Table 4).  

These findings suggest that farmers with more farming experience are more 
inclined to adopt anticipatory strategies in response to climate change. This 
inclination may stem from their exposure to a broader range of  climate 
variability, leading them to place a higher value on the importance of  
proactive measures. The propensity to adopt anticipatory adaptation 
decisions is also closely linked to access to credit facilities, demonstrating a 
positive correlation with improved access to formal credit sources. Given 
the capital-intensive nature of  many anticipatory strategies, such as water 
conservation technologies, it becomes pivotal to consider the financial 
constraints of  most farmers. We underscore that access to credit not only 
alleviates the capital constraints associated with the adoption of  costly 
technologies but also expands the range of  adaptation options available, 
thereby diminishing farmers’ reliance on coping mechanisms. Access to 
formal credit in the Nuh district of  Haryana can be improved by enhancing 
the reach of  the banking system.19 This can be achieved through a 

                                                           
19 Nuh has the fewest banks in Haryana, with an average of 26,600 people per bank, 
compared to 64,000 in other districts. Due to the reduced availability of banks, the 
proportion of households availing bank services is lowest in Nuh. Only 41% of all 
households in Nuh avail bank services, whereas other districts in Haryana have a slightly 
higher percentage (70%) of households accessing bank services (Mehta 2015). Also, due to 
the absence of a self-help group, people in Nuh are dependent on either banking or other 



[113] Mehta 

 

concerted government push to expand the accessibility and availability of  
banking services. Measures like establishing new bank branches, mobile 
banking units, and automated teller machines (ATMs) in key locations can 
significantly enhance financial inclusivity. Fostering collaboration among the 
government, financial institutions, and the community is crucial in 
establishing a more comprehensive and effective banking infrastructure in 
Nuh district, which can ultimately contribute to the socioeconomic 
development of  the region.  

Interestingly, we found no significant associations between farmers’ 
perceptions of  changes in climatic factors (temperature and rainfall), 
anxiety about future climate change, farm size, and adoption of  anticipatory 
strategies. The findings indicate that farmers who have experienced severe 
impacts due to climate change and the associated hazards exhibit a greater 
inclination towards adopting anticipatory strategies. This suggests that the 
tangible impacts of  climate change play a more pivotal role in influencing 
farmers’ adoption of  anticipatory measures rather than their subjective 
perceptions of  climatic factors. Although approximately 50% of  farmers 
expressed concerns about future climate change, we identified a noteworthy 
paradox—a significant portion remains unable to adopt planned strategies 
despite their apprehensions. The key drivers that support farmers’ transition 
from reactive to proactive strategies also include collaborative partnerships 
with local NGOs or governmental organizations. Government extension 
services and partnerships with NGOs could have a dual impact: increased 
awareness among local communities about the significance of  new 
sustainable technologies and the provision of  practical support to local 
farmers in adopting these practices or new technologies. Such a 
collaborative approach not only empowers farmers with knowledge but also 
offers tangible assistance for the implementation of  sustainable practices. 
This helps farmers better handle challenges resulting from climate change, 
reducing their vulnerability to future climatic changes. By working together 
with the government and non-governmental groups, farmers can more 
easily adopt proactive measures to deal with the changing climate. 

Overall, the results highlight that upon perceiving changes in climate 
variables and experiencing hazards, farmers employ various adaptation 
measures. In Nuh, farmers are predominantly implementing strategies to 
combat groundwater salinity, a hazard that adversely affects farming 
outcomes and simultaneously necessitates a reliance on purchased drinking 
water for survival. Due to the absence of  supportive mechanisms, most 
farmers adapt through the intensification of  fertilizer use, out-migration, or 

                                                                                                                                  
informal sources for credit. 



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [114] 

other coping mechanisms. A limited number of  farmers choose to use 
saline seeds and climatic conservation technologies, which require 
additional investments and resources. While access to climate information is 
pivotal in influencing farmers’ perceptions of  climate change, mere access 
to information alone is insufficient for effective climate change 
management. It is crucial to comprehend the various associated hazards in 
the region and identify which ones prompt more responses from farmers 
and influence their adaptation patterns. This understanding can aid 
policymakers in identifying gaps in adaptations and addressing the situation 
through policy actions (McKinley et al. 2021). 

Table 4: Determinants of  Farmers’ Choice of  Anticipatory or Reactive 
Adaptation Strategies 

Variables Coefficient Standard 
error 

Wald P-Value 

Age 0.018 0.015 1.434 0.231 

Gender −0.909 0.482 3.552 0.159 

Household size 0.004 0.008 0.001 0.975 

Farm size 0.058 0.356 0.026 0.872 

Experience 0.451 0.377 0.000 0.017** 

Institutional association 0.970 0.388 6.244 0.012** 

Perception of  change in 
climatic factors 

0.310 0.441 0.493 0.483 

Severe impact of  climate 
change and associated 
hazards 

4.067 0.512 63.059 0.000* 

Anxiety about future 
changes in climate  

0.089 0.091 0.953 0.329 

Formal credit 1.777 0.395 20.207 0.000* 

Constant −2.990 0.924 10.468 0.001 

Notes: * and ** significant at p < 0.01; and p<.10 Log likelihood = 225.979; 
Pseudo R2 (Cox and Snell R2 = 0.370; Nagelkerke R2 = 0.569). 

 

Source: Authors’ analysis 

Furthermore, it is imperative that both the government and NGOs expand 
their outreach so that more farmers can respond to current changes in 
climate and enhance their resilience to future climate change. Additionally, 
access to formal credit is vital for farmers to adopt anticipatory strategies, 
which can be financially demanding. Even farmers with small farms can 
embrace anticipatory strategies given the availability of  low-cost credit, 
especially when they perceive the high impact of  climate change on their 
income and risks. 

 



[115] Mehta 

 

7. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 

Nuh district, an aspirational district in India, faces severe challenges due to 
climate change—particularly its agricultural sector. The intrusion of  salinity 
in the late 1990s initiated a chain of  events that led to impoverishment. The 
meteorological data from Nuh highlights a reduction in rainfall, increased 
intensity of  rainfall, and a rise in the minimum temperature, resulting in a 
significant decline in crop yield, soil erosion, and loss of  indigenous crop 
varieties. This adversely affects the livelihoods of  farmers who heavily rely 
on agriculture. In this paper, we explore the adaptive strategies employed by 
farmers in response to climate change and examine the role of  perceptions 
vis-à-vis other institutional and socioeconomic factors in their choice of  
adaptation. Our findings underscore the need for comprehensive policies to 
promote sustainable practices. 

Farmers in Nuh employ coping mechanisms and adaptations to optimize 
income and manage the risks arising from climate change and associated 
hazards. The adoption of  anticipatory strategies, such as implementing soil 
and water conservation technologies or diversifying crops, contributes to 
environmental sustainability, incomes, and food security. However, certain 
responses to climate change that are mainly reactive in nature—such as 
intensifying fertilizer use—pose threats to land resource productivity. 
Existing policies that focus on short-term climate risks lead many farmers 
to adopt reactive strategies, with only 27% adopting anticipatory strategies. 
Factors that influence these strategies include the observed impact of  
hazards, affiliations with NGOs and governmental institutes, and access to 
formal credit. We find no significant associations between farmers’ 
perceptions and the adoption of  anticipatory strategies, emphasizing the 
tangible impact of  lived experiences of  climate change. 

For Nuh district, comprehensive climate resilience policies addressing 
short-term risks and long-term challenges are crucial. We recommend 
integrating climate-resilient practices into agricultural policies, enhancing 
institutional support, and creating local resource centres for information 
dissemination. Increasing formal credit availability, fostering public–private 
partnerships, and promoting community engagement and awareness are 
essential. By implementing these recommendations, policymakers can 
empower Nuh’s farmers to cope with immediate challenges and build 
resilience against future climate change, ensuring agricultural sustainability. 

Ethics Statement: I hereby confirm that this study complies with 
requirements of  ethical approvals from the institutional ethics committee 
for the conduct of  this research  

 



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [116] 

Data Availability statement: Sources for secondary data used have been 
given against respective figures and tables. Remaining data was collected 
through primary survey. 

Conflict of  Interest Statement: No potential conflict of  interest was 
reported by the author. 

REFERENCES 

Adger, W Neil. 1996. “Approaches to Vulnerability to Climate Change.” CSERGE 
Working Paper GEC 96-05. Centre for Social and Economic Research on the 
Global Environment, University of  East Anglia, Norwich, and University College 
London. 

Adger, W Neil, P Mick Kelly, and Nyuugen Huu Ninh. 2002. Living with 
Environmental Change: Social Vulnerability, Adaptation and Resilience in Vietnam. 
Routledge: London and New York.  

Adger, W Neil, Saleemul Huq, Katrina Brown, Declan Conway, and Mike Hulme 
2003. “Adaptation to Climate Change in the Developing World”. Progress in 
Development Studies 3 (3): 179–195. https://doi.org/10.1191/1464993403ps060oa. 

Adger, W Neil, Nigel W Arnell, and Emma L Tompkins. 2005. “Successful 
Adaptation to Climate Change across Scales.” Global Environmental Change 15 (2): 
77–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2004.12.005. 

Alam, G M Monirul, Khorshed Alam, and Shahbaz Mushtaq. 2017. “Climate 
Change Perceptions and Local Adaptation Strategies of  Hazard-prone Rural 
Households in Bangladesh.” Climate Risk Management 17:52– 63. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2017.06.006. 

Arbuckle Jr., J Gordon, Lois Wright Morton, and Jon Hobbs. 2015. “Understanding 
Farmer Perspectives on Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation: The Roles of  
Trust in Sources of  Climate Information, Climate Change Beliefs, and Perceived 
Risk.” Environment and Behaviour 47 (2): 205–234. 
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0013916513503832.  

Aryal, Jeetendra Prakash, Tek B Sapkota, Ritika Khurana, Arun Khatri-Chhetri, Dil 
Bahadur Rahut, and M L Jat. 2020. “Climate Change and Agriculture in South Asia: 
Adaptation Options in Smallholder Production Systems.” Environment, Development 
and Sustainability 22: 5045–5075. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-019-00414-4. 

Baede, A P M, E Ahlonsou, Y Ding, and D Schimel. 2001. “The Climate System: 
An Overview.” Working Group I: The Scientific Basis. Edited by B Bolin and S 
Pollonais. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 
https://archive.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/index.php?idp=38. 

Banerjee, Rupsha R. 2015. “Farmers’ Perception of  Climate Change, Impact and 
Adaptation Strategies: A Case Study of  Four Villages in the Semi-Arid Regions of  
India.” Natural Hazards 75 (3): 2829–2845. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-014-
1466-z. 

Binternagel, Norbert B, Jana Juhrbandt, Sebastian Koch, Mangku Purnomo, Stefan 
Schwarze, Jan Barkmann, and Heiko Faust. 2010. “Adaptation to Climate Change in 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1191/1464993403ps060oa
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2004.12.005
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2017.06.006
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0013916513503832
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-019-00414-4
https://archive.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/index.php?idp=38
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-014-1466-z
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-014-1466-z


[117] Mehta 

 

Indonesia—Livelihood Strategies of  Rural Households in the Face of  ENSO 
Related Droughts.” In Tropical Rainforests and Agroforests Under Global Change: 
Ecological and Socioeconomic Evaluations, edited by Teja Tscharntke, Christoph 
Leuschner, Edzo Veldkamp, Heiko Faust, Edi Guhardja, Ariffudin Bidin, 351–375. 
Springer: Berlin Heidelberg. 

Census of  India. 2011. “Nuh District: Census 2011 Data.” Registrar General and 
Census Commissioner of  India, Government of  India. Accessed January 18, 2023. 
https://nuh.gov.in/document/nuh-district-census-2011-data/. 

Dai, Aiguo. 2013. “Increasing Drought Under Global Warming in Observations 
and Models.” Nature Climate Change 3 (1): 52–58. 
https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1633.  

Dao, Phuong Uyen, Arnaud Guillaume Heuzard, Thi Xuan Hoa Le, Jing Zhao, Ran 
Yin, Chii Shang, and Chihhao Fan. 2024. “The Impacts of  Climate Change on 
Groundwater Quality: A Review.” Science of  the Total Environment 912: 169241. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.169241. 

Datta Pritha, Bhagirath Behera, and Dil Bahadur Rahut. 2022. “Climate Change 
and Indian Agriculture: A Systematic Review of  Farmers’ Perception, Adaptation, 
and Transformation.” Environmental Challenges 8: 1–12. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envc.2022.100543. 

Debela, B. 2017. “Gender and Climate Change: Determinants of  Female Farmers’ 
Adaptation Strategies to Climate Change: A Survey Study in Atsbi Womberta, 
Ethiopia.” Journal of  Citizenship and Morality 1 (1): 14–40.  

Deressa T T, R M Hassan, and C Ringler. 2011. “Perception of  and Adaptation to 
Climate Change by Farmers in the Nile Basin of  Ethiopia.” The Journal of  
Agricultural Science 149 (1): 23–31. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021859610000687. 

———. 2009. “Determinants of  Farmers’ Choice of  Adaptation Methods to 
Climate Change in the Nile Basin of  Ethiopia.” Global Environmental Change 19 (2): 
248–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.01.002.  

Engler, Alejandra, Marieke L Rotman, and P Marjin Poortvliet. 2021. “Farmers’ 
Perceived Vulnerability and Proactive versus Reactive Climate Change Adaptation 
in Chile’s Maule Region.” Sustainability 13 (17): 9907. 
https://doi.org/10.3390/su13179907. 

Feola Giuseppe, Amy M Lerner, Meha Jain M, Marvin Joseph F Montefrio, and 
Kimberly A Nicholas. 2015. “Researching Farmer Behaviour in Climate Change 
Adaptation and Sustainable Agriculture: Lessons Learned from Five Case Studies.” 
Journal of  Rural Studies 39: 74–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2015.03.009. 

Fierros-González, Isael and Alejandro Lopez-Feldman. 2021. “Farmers’ Perception 
of Climate Change: A Review of the Literature for Latin America.” Frontiers in 
Environmental Science 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2021.672399. 

Government of  Haryana. 2022. “Statistical Abstract of  Haryana 2020–21.” 
Department of  Economic and Statistical Analysis. Accessed December 28, 2022. 
http://esaharyana.gov.in/Portals/0/Compilation/Abstract%202017- 
18%20(English).pdf. 

https://nuh.gov.in/document/nuh-district-census-2011-data/
https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1633
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.169241
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envc.2022.100543
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021859610000687
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.01.002
https://doi.org/10.3390/su13179907
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2015.03.009
https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2021.672399
http://esaharyana.gov.in/Portals/0/Compilation/Abstract%202017-%2018%20(English).pdf
http://esaharyana.gov.in/Portals/0/Compilation/Abstract%202017-%2018%20(English).pdf


Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [118] 

———. 2011. Haryana State Action Plan on Climate Change, 2011. Directorate 
Environment & Climate Change Haryana, Government of  Haryana.  
https://cdnbbsr.s3waas.gov.in/s32cad8fa47bbef282badbb8de5374b894/uploads/2
023/06/2023061957.pdf. 

Guo, Aijun, Yao Wei, Fanglei Zhong, and Penglong Wang. 2022. “How Do Climate 
Change Perception and Value Cognition Affect Farmers’ Sustainable Livelihood 
Capacity? An Analysis Based on an Improved DFID Sustainable Livelihood 
Framework.” Sustainable Production and Consumption 33 (September): 636–650. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2022.08.002.  

Harvey, Celia A, Milagro Saborio-Rodríguez, M Ruth Martinez-Rodríguez, Barbara 
Viguera B, Adina Chain-Guadarrama, Raffaele Vignola, and Francisco Alpizar.  
2018. “Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation among Smallholder Farmers in 
Central America.” Agriculture and Food Security 7 (1): 57. 
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40066-018-0209-x. 

Howden, S Mark, Jean-Francois Soussana, Francesco N Tubiello, Netra Chhetri, 
Michael Dunlop, and Holger Meinke. 2007. “Adapting Agriculture to Climate 
Change.” Proceedings of  the National Academy of  Sciences, 104: 19691–19696. 
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0701890104. 

Huang, Jianping, Mingxia Ji, Yongkun Xie, Shanshan Wang, Yongli He, and Jinjiang 
Ran. 2016. “Global Semi-Arid Climate Change over Last 60 Years.” Climate 
Dynamics 46: 1131–1150. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-015-2636-8. 

Indian Meteorological Data. 2023. “Data on Temperature and Rainfall.” Data 
Supply Portal, Pune, India.  

ICRISAT. 2023. “ICRISAT District Level Data for India (DLD).” International 
Crops Research Institute for Semi-Arid Tropics. Accessed February 12, 2023. 
http://data.icrisat.org/dld/. 

IPCC. 2001. Third Assessment Report. Accessed February 10, 2023. 
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar3/wg1/. 

———. 2022. “Climate Change: A Threat to Human Wellbeing and Health of  the 
Planet. Taking Action Now Can Secure Our Future.” Accessed April 2, 2024. 
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 
https://www.ipcc.ch/2022/02/28/pr-wgii-ar6/. 

Jodha, N S, N P Singh, and M C S Bantilan. 2012. “Enhancing Farmers’ Adaptation 
to Climate Change in Arid and Semi-Arid Agriculture of  India: Evidence from 
Indigenous Practices.” Working Paper Series No. 32, International Crops Research 
Institute for Semi-Arid Tropics. http://oar.icrisat.org/6071/. 

Kumar, Rohitashw and Harender Raj Gautam. 2014. “Climate Change and Its 
Impact on Agricultural Productivity in India.” Journal of  Climatology and Weather 
Forecasting 2 (1). http://doi.org/10.4172/2332-2594.1000109. 

Kumar, Soora Naresh, Anuja, Mohammad Rashid, Sanjoy Bandyopadhyay, 
Rabindra Padaria, and Manoj Khanna. 2016. “Adaptation of  Farming Community 
to Climatic Risk: Does Adaptation Cost for Sustaining Agricultural Profitability?” 
Current Science 110 (7): 1216–1224. https://doi/org/10.18520/cs/v110/i7/1216-

https://cdnbbsr.s3waas.gov.in/s32cad8fa47bbef282badbb8de5374b894/uploads/2023/06/2023061957.pdf
https://cdnbbsr.s3waas.gov.in/s32cad8fa47bbef282badbb8de5374b894/uploads/2023/06/2023061957.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2022.08.002
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40066-018-0209-x
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0701890104
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-015-2636-8
http://data.icrisat.org/dld/
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar3/wg1/
https://www.ipcc.ch/2022/02/28/pr-wgii-ar6/
http://oar.icrisat.org/6071/
http://doi.org/10.4172/2332-2594.1000109
https://doi/org/10.18520/cs/v110/i7/1216-1224


[119] Mehta 

 

1224.  

Levina, Ellina and Tirpak Dennis. 2006. “Adaptation to Climate Change: Key 
Terms.” Working paper COM/ENV/EPOC/IEA/SLT(2006). OECD and 
International Energy Agency. https://www.oecd.org/env/cc/36736773.pdf. 

Magnan, Alexandre K, E Lisa F Schipper, and Virginie K E Duvat. 2020. 
“Frontiers in Climate Change Adaptation Science: Advancing Guidelines to Design 
Adaptation Pathways.” Current Climate Change Report 6: 166–177. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40641-020-00166-8. 

McKinley, Justin D, Jeffrey T LaFrance, and Valerien O Pede. 2021. “Climate 
Change Adaptation Strategies Vary with Climatic Stress: Evidence from Three 
Regions of  Vietnam.” Frontiers of  Sustainable Food System 5: 762650. 
https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2021.762650. 

Matthews, J B Robin, Vincent Möller, Renee van Diemen, Jan S Fuglesvedt, Valerie 
Masson-Delmotte, Carlos Mendez, Sergey Semenov, et al. (Eds). 2021. “Annex VII: 
Glossary.”  In Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of  Working 
Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of  the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 
edited by V Masson-Delmotte, P Zhai, A Pirani, S L Connors, C Péan, S Berger, N 
Caud, et al., 2215–2256. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge and New York. 
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157896.022. 

Mehta, Pradeep Kumar. 2015. “Identifying Backwardness of  Mewat Region in 
Haryana: A Block-Level Analysis.” NITI Aayog. Accessed January 25, 2023.  
https://www.niti.gov.in/sites/default/files/2019-
01/Identifying%20Backwardness%20of%20Mewat%20Region%20in%20Haryana-
%20A%20Block%20Level%20Analysis_final_0.pdf. 

———. 2020. “Adaptive Strategies to Climate Change and Food Security: A Case 
Study from the Semi-arid Region of  India.” In Climate Change Adaptation and 
Sustainable Livelihoods, edited by Gavali, Ravindra S, Reddy Krishna Kakumanu, V 
Suresh Babu,  and Subrat K Mishra, 40–54. Hyderabad: NIRDPR Publications.  

Mitra, Susmita, Pradeep K Mehta, and Sudipta Kumar Mishra. 2021. “Farmers’ 
Perception, Adaptation to Groundwater Salinity, and Climate Change Vulnerability: 
Insights from North India.” Weather, Climate and Society 13 (4): 797–811. 
https://doi.org/10.1175/WCAS-D-20-0135.1. 

Niles, Meredith T and Nathaniel D Mueller. 2016. “Farmer Perceptions of  Climate 
Change: Associations with Observed Temperature and Precipitation Trends, 
Irrigation, and Climate Beliefs.” Global Environmental Change 39: 133–42. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.05.002. 

Olabanji, Mary Funke, Nerhene Davis, Thando Ndarana, Anesu Gelfand 
Kuhudzai, Dawn Mahlobo. 2021. “Assessment of  Smallholder Farmers’ Perception 
and Adaptation Response to Climate Change in the Olifants Catchment, South 
Africa.” Journal of  Water and Climate Change 12 (7): 3388–3403. 
https://doi.org/10.2166/wcc.2021.138. 

Schipper, E Lisa F. 2007. “Climate Change Adaptation and Development. 
Exploring the Linkages.” Working Paper 107. Tyndall Centre for Climate Change 
Research.  https://www.preventionweb.net/files/7782_twp107.pdf. 

https://www.oecd.org/env/cc/36736773.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40641-020-00166-8
https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2021.762650
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157896.022
https://www.niti.gov.in/sites/default/files/2019-01/Identifying%20Backwardness%20of%20Mewat%20Region%20in%20Haryana-%20A%20Block%20Level%20Analysis_final_0.pdf
https://www.niti.gov.in/sites/default/files/2019-01/Identifying%20Backwardness%20of%20Mewat%20Region%20in%20Haryana-%20A%20Block%20Level%20Analysis_final_0.pdf
https://www.niti.gov.in/sites/default/files/2019-01/Identifying%20Backwardness%20of%20Mewat%20Region%20in%20Haryana-%20A%20Block%20Level%20Analysis_final_0.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1175/WCAS-D-20-0135.1
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.05.002
https://doi.org/10.2166/wcc.2021.138
https://www.preventionweb.net/files/7782_twp107.pdf


Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [120] 

———. 2020. “Maladaptation: When Adaptation to Climate Change Goes Very 
Wrong.” One Earth 3 (4): 409–414. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2020.09.014. 

Shivanna, K R, 2022. “Climate Change and Its Impact on Biodiversity and Human 
Welfare.” Proceedings of  the Indian National Science Academy 88: 160–171. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s43538-022-00073-6. 

Singh, Chandni, Divya Solomon, Ramkumar Bendapudi,  Bhavana Kuchimanchi, 
Soundarya Iyer, and Amir Bazaz. 2019. “What Shapes Vulnerability and Risk 
Management in Semi-Arid India? Moving Towards an Agenda of  Sustainable 
Adaptation.” Environmental Development 30: 35–50. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2019.04.007. 

Smit, Barry, Ian Burton, Richard J T Klein, and J Wandel. 2000. “An Anatomy of  
Adaptation to Climate Change and Variability.” Climatic Change 45: 223–251. 
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005661622966. 

Verstraeten, William W, Frank Veroustraete, and Jan Feyen. 2008. “Assessment of  
Evapotranspiration and Soil Moisture Content Across Different Scales of  
Observation.” Sensors 8 (1): 70–117. https://doi.org/10.3390/s8010070.  

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2020.09.014
https://doi.org/10.1007/s43538-022-00073-6
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2019.04.007
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005661622966
https://doi.org/10.3390/s8010070

