Socio-economic and technological impact of climate resilient technologies on farm women

Introduction

Climate change one of the biggest challenges of this century, has the potential to disorder the existence of human civilization. Climate change refers to a change in the state of the climate that can be identified by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties and that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer. Climate change may be due to natural internal processes or external forcings such as modulations of the solar cycles, volcanic eruptions, and persistent anthropogenic changes in the composition of the atmosphere or in land use (IPCC, 2022) [7] . Hence the long-term trend relates to climate change which differentiates it from the short-term i.e. natural weather variability. The major dimensions of climate change include extreme temperatures, significant changes in precipitation amount and pattern, and high atmospheric CO2 concentrations. India's agricultural sector is highly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, which include increased temperatures, altered precipitation patterns, and increasing frequency of extreme weather events. Therefore, the phenomenon of climate change affect employment and livelihood for almost 60% of the India's total population dependent on agriculture. It is a known fact that producing and transporting food results in greenhouse gas emissions. Various studies show the overall loss in the crop production in various parts of the country in the last few years due to the anticipated rise in the temperature (Zhao et al., 2017) [15] . Extreme temperature and precipitation events affect crop production. Extreme events like floods and droughts harms crops yield, significantly. Climate change can lower the farmers' income between 15 to 18% (Economic Survey, 2018-19) [4] . Addressing these challenges requires the adoption of climate resilient technologies that can enhance productivity and ensure sustainability. Developing and adopting climate resilient crop varieties is primary but critical for adapting to changing climate conditions. Visakh et al. (2024) [14] investigated the performance of heat tolerant lines of rice and found encouraging results in their performance across different regions of India. They informed that these varieties exhibit higher resilience to water stress, contributing to better yields during periods of drought. Maintaining soil health is crucial for sustaining agricultural productivity under changing climate conditions. Jha et al. (2023) [8] reviewed the use of biochar and organic amendments for improving soil health and suggested that these amendments can enhance soil fertility, water retention, and microbial activity, thereby improving crop resilience to climate stress. Singh et al. (2023) [13] investigated conservation tillage practices, such as minimum tillage and no-till farming, which help in reducing soil erosion and enhancing soil carbon sequestration. In above context, the present study attempts to assess the performance of different climate resilient varieties and technologies in different blocks of Keonjhar district.

Methodology

Locale of the study: The study was conducted in 20 villages of three block of Keonjhar district of Odisha (Fig 1 .), representing northcentral and eastern plateau with rainfed agroecosystem and mostly affected by climatic variability like cyclone, intermittent droughts, and poor soil health. The district was selected purposively, as the project has been implemented in the district since its inception (2021). Three hundred farm women were selected covering 20 villages from seven minor irrigation projects (MIPs). For this work a well-reasoned scheme for interview was developed and the information was collected personally by the researcher. This data was quantified and interpreted using suitable statistical tools such as frequency, percentage, mean, standard deviation, weighted mean score and t value.

Research design

To delineate the impact of climate resilient interventions made under different minor irrigation projects (MIPs), ex-post facto research design with treatment and control group was used. Both treatments as well as check (control) data was taken for comparative impact assessment of climate resilient technologies. Social data was collected from the respondents using personal interview method with the help of structured interview schedule designed for the purpose. Concurrently, secondary sources like annual reports of agriculture department and Krishi Vigyan Kendras (KVKs) were used to supplement, pay triangulation, and cross checking of primary data. The data was collected using various tools including Focus Group Discussions, gender analysis, key informant, and individual household interviews.

Data Analysis

The demographic characteristics were analysed and explained using descriptive statistical analysis. The selected dependent and independent variables were analysed using a regression model in SAS program (reference) to estimate factors influencing the adoption of different climate resilient technologies. Table 1 and 2 elucidates different varieties and technologies adopted under the project. Impact was studied using several variables and then the values were compared and tested with suitable test statistics. The obtained data was quantitative in nature; hence it was tested with t-statistic to find the significance of differences.

Results

Social perspective: Farm women perception and grading of impacts of climate change on agriculture and allied activities is detailed in Table 3. This analysis provides a depiction of the topranked issues among which changes in land preparation and sowing times, decreased soil fertility, and increased water consumption in livestock had the highest impact. On crop production, the foremost impact was change in time of land preparation and sowing as reported by 55.67% respondents with mean score value of 2.41 with rank one. Similar percentage (55%) of respondents apprised there was decrease in soil fertility (mean score 2.39) due to climate change with second rank. Impacts related to livestock health (such as emerging diseases and high temperatures) and agricultural productivity (like soil fertility and pest issues) are prominent. Samuel et al. (2022) [11] also recorded a reduction of harvest (15-28%) or total failure of crops. Regarding impact on livestock, it was recorded that there was increased water consumption in animals ranked as 3 rd by 52.67% respondents and new disease affects livestock immunity by 52.33% respondents with a rank of four and same mean score value (2.36) for both the statements. Habeeb et al. (2018) [5] also elucidated that drought and heat stress would drastically affect livestock production under climate change scenarios. Other relevant impacts under this category are the advent of and number of pests/diseases (51.67%, rank 5), severe weed infestation (49.67%, rank 8), low yield (50.00%, rank 9), and poor quality and taste of produce (50.67%, rank 9). Another impact was high temperature which affects health of livestock as reported by 49.33% farm women who ranked this at 7 th spot. Similar impacts on livestock susceptibility to increased temperature and reduced precipitation has been reported by Downing et al. 2017 [3] and Balamurugan et al. (2018) [1] . As far as human health is concerned, increased incidence of diseases in human (mean score of 2.21 and rank 10) ranks lower in comparison to agricultural and livestock issues. The table 4 shows the farm women's constraints and reasons with respect to adoption of climate resilient agricultural practices. Under this broad standpoint, the lack of knowledge about climate resilient technologies was given highest mean score of 1.67 with 1 st rank. Majority of the respondents (66.67%) reported that there was a lack of knowledge among farm women regarding climate resilient technologies like suitable varieties, conservation agriculture machines, zero tillage etc. The second highest ranked statement was unavailability of equipment of improved technology which was endorsed by 64.33% farmers with mean score of 1.65. Devegowda et al. (2021) [2] also emphasized that lack of knowledge on climate resilient varieties, small and medium holdings, lack of demonstration as major hurdles among all constraints for non-adoption. Shehrawat et al. (2023) [12] reported that farmers showed less familiarity with schemes promoting the conservation of natural resources viz. community tanks (30.83%), and agroforestry systems (35%). The third rank was given to long procedure of bank to avail crop insurance and 'low market price of produce reduces investment in climate adaptation strategies' was felt by about 63% and 62% respondents, respectively who gave them 3 rd and 4 th rank respectively. The constraints like 'rapid climate change leading to ineffective adaptation strategies' and 'lack of information on weather functions' were ranked 5 th and 6 th with mean score of 1.62 and 1.60 respectively. Other less influencing factors were decrease in yield with natural/organic farming, high cost of adopting climate resilient strategies, high cost of equipment, unavailability of appropriate crop varieties, lack of contact with extension officers etc. Priyanka et al. (2022) [10] also elucidated that lack of awareness about climate resilient technologies (86.6%), lack of technology information on time (80.0%), and lack of weather-based information (60.0%), as major constraints. Adaptation strategies/ practices to counter the impact of climate change are detailed in table 5. The main strategies were selection of appropriate crop/varieties, alteration in sowing dates, and use of various climate resilient technology like conservation agriculture, zero-tillage etc. which had mean score value of 1.81. These were followed by other important activities towards adapting with natural farming to reduce cost and improve soil fertility, insurance of crops under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFMY) and intensified rabi crop cultivation during Kharif crop failure (score value: 1.80). Adopting water-saving farming methods, inter-cropping system, reducing plant population during stress season and use of labour-saving equipment ranked from 8-15 with mean score value of 1.79 to 1.73. As a long-term strategy to adapt climate change, farmers go for farm diversification and equip themselves for receiving income from non-agricultural sources. Community based preparedness and mitigation planning, drought prediction and monitoring mechanisms are also needed for timely and better mitigation of droughts and other climate change phenomenon (Hansen et al., 2018) [6] . From the present study, it is summarised that impact practices involve selecting appropriate crops, altering sowing dates, and seed treatment, which have high scores. As the rank decreases, practices such as reducing plant population and using labour-saving equipment show lower impact percentages and scores. Additionally, community-based preparedness and mitigation planning, alongside drought prediction and monitoring mechanisms, are essential for timely and effective responses to droughts and other climate changerelated challenges.

Yield

The detailed analysis of different climate resilient varieties and technologies with their corresponding yields, yields under farmer practice, or check across different topographies during the Kharif and Rabi seasons are given in Table 6. In Kharif season on Upland, groundnut cultivation (Dharni variety) yielded 17.1 tha -1 a 21.4% increase over the traditional variety (Q/ha.) DMRH 1301 variety of maize shows remarkable performance with a yield of 38.4 Q/ha, which is 28.0% higher than the local check (30.0 Q/ha.) The MR-6 variety of finger millet (ragi) also demonstrates a significant yield improvement, producing 17.5 Q/ha compared to the traditional variety (14.4 Q/ha), resulting in a 21.5% increase. Upland rice cultivation is of prime importance in rainfed area. Although low in yield potential this topography serves as important source of agriculture to marginal farmers. Sahbhagi variety of rice yields 39.5 Q/ha, a 10.6% increase over the check yield of 35.7 Q/ha. Being a drought tolerant variety, this is an excellent choice for rainfed uplands. Additionally, the practice of summer ploughing with the Bina Dhan 11 variety showed a yield of 33.0 Q/ha, marking a 13.8% hike from the traditional variety (29.0 Q/ha.). In the Midland topography, field bunding with the CR Dhan 100 (Satyabhama) achieved a yield of 36.0 Q/ha, which is 10.8% higher than local check (32.5 Q/ha). Direct Seeded Rice (DSR) technique with Swarna Shreya variety showed a substantial improvement, yielding 38.5 Q/ha, an 18.5% increase from the traditional (32.5 Q/ha) variety. For lowland rice, drum seeding with the MTU-1010 (Cottondora Sannalu) variety yields 38.0 Q/ha, resulting 11.1% hike over the conventional yield of 34.2 Q/ha. Green manuring with the Swarna Sub-1 variety yielded 38.5 Q/ha, i.e.10.0% higher than the 35.0 Q/ha from traditional methods. Additionally, brown manuring with MTU-7029 (Lal Swarna) variety achieved a yield of 39.0 Q/ha, an 11.4% increase from the check yield of 35.0 Q/ha. During the Rabi season under rice-fallow systems, pulses and oilseeds demonstration recorded significant yield improvements. The black gram variety PU-31 yielded 10.0 Q/ha, a 17.6% increase over the traditional variety (8.5 Q/ha). Chickpea, (RVG-202 variety), yielded 15.0 Q/ha, which is 20.0% higher than the conventional variety (12.5 Q/ha). Field Pea (variety IPFD-12) stands out with a remarkable yield of 17.5 Q/ha, a 29.6% improvement from the traditional yield of 13.5 Q/ha. Green Gram, Virat variety, produced seed yield of 12.5 Q/ha, which is 17.9% higher over the check variety yield of 10.6 Q/ha. In Rabi, rice-fallow oilseeds, the Tapeswari variety mustard yielded 15.0 Q/ha, showing a significant (25.0%) increase over the traditional yield of 12.0 Q/ha. Similarly, the Suprava variety of til (sesame) produced 10.0 Q/ha, which is 25.0% higher than the conventional practices (8.0 Q/ha). The sunflower variety KBSH-44 also showed a substantial improvement, yielding 15.0 Q/ha, a 25.0% increase from the traditional yield of 12.0 Q/ha. The data demonstrates that across different topographies and crop types, the use of specific varieties and techniques can lead to significant yield increases (10-30%), compared to traditional practices. These improvements not only boost production but also contribute to the sustainability and resilience of systems, especially in regions where traditional methods may no longer be as effective due to changing climate scenario as well as market demands. By selecting appropriate crop varieties and implementing effective farming practices, farmers can achieve higher yields, better profitability, and more efficient use of resources, ultimately contributing to greater food security and economic stability in rural areas.

Economics

Table 7 provides a detailed economic analysis of various crops and technologies employed across different topographical, focusing on the cost of cultivation (CoC) ha -1 , gross income, net income per hectare, and benefit-cost (BC) ratio. This data highlights the financial viability and profitability of different agricultural practices during the Kharif and Rabi seasons. In the Kharif upland regions, groundnut cultivation incurs a CoC of ₹80,355 per hectare. The net income generated was of ₹38,956 and a BC ratio of 1.48. Maize, on the other hand, has a slightly higher CoC of ₹81,439 per ha and the net income is relatively low at ₹9,502, with a BC ratio of 1.12, indicating lower profitability. Ragi, a staple crop in upland areas, had a CoC of ₹54,445 per hectare with a net income of ₹22,131, resulting in a BC ratio of 1.41. This suggests that ragi is a moderately profitable crop in these regions. Upland rice cultivation, including specific practices like summer ploughing, shows varying economic outcomes. The CoC is consistent at ₹74,993 per ha. For both regular rice and summer ploughing. Regular rice cultivation generates a gross income of ₹99,100, leading to a net income of ₹24,108 and a BC ratio of 1.32. Summer ploughing, however, resulted in a lower gross income of ₹84,150 and a net income of ₹9,158, despite a higher BC ratio of 1.54, which indicates more efficient cost management relative to the returns. In the Midland rice topography, field bunding involved a CoC of ₹74,993 per ha with a net income of ₹16,058, and a BC ratio of 1.32. DSR, another practice in the Midland region, has a lower CoC of ₹47,718 per ha but significantly higher net income of ₹43,082 with a BC ratio of 1.32, making it a highly profitable practice. For Kharif lowland rice, practices such as drum seeding and manuring (both green and brown) showed positive outcomes. Drum seeding with a CoC of ₹69,493 per hectare results in net income of ₹26,158, with a BC ratio of 1.39. Green manuring, with a lower CoC of ₹55,806 per hectare, generated a gross income of ₹91,300 and a maintaining a BC ratio of 1.32. Similarly, brown manuring, with a slightly higher cost of ₹56,337 per hectare, produced a gross income of ₹92,450, leading to a net income of ₹36,114 and a BC ratio of 1.32. During the Rabi season, in rice-fallow systems, pulses and oilseeds demonstrated varying levels of profitability. Black Gram, with a CoC of ₹47,922 per hectare resulting in a net income of ₹30,579 and BC ratio of 1.64, indicating good profitability. Chickpea, with a higher CoC of ₹55,402 per hectare and an MSP of ₹5,335 per quintal, produces a gross income of ₹80,025 and a net income of ₹24,624, with a BC ratio of 1.44, making it a profitable crop. Field Pea, with a CoC of ₹49,880 per hectare and an MSP of ₹3,563 per quintal, shows moderate profitability, generating a net income of ₹12,473, with a BC ratio of 1.25. Green Gram stands out with a CoC of ₹47,922 per hectare and a significant net income of ₹60,604 and an impressive BC ratio of 2.26, making it one of the most profitable crops in this analysis. Mustard, with a CoC of ₹64,306 per hectare generated a net income of ₹17,444, with a BC ratio of 1.27. Til (sesame) has a lower CoC of ₹45,813 per hectare but benefits from a high MSP of ₹9,267 per quintal resulting in BC ratio of 2.02, indicating excellent profitability. Sunflower, with CoC of ₹79,838 per hectare showed moderate profitability, generating a net income of ₹16,162, with a BC ratio of 1.20. Overall, the data underscores the importance of cost management and the selection of crops with favourable market prices to achieve higher profitability in agriculture. The BC ratios across different crops and practices range from 1.12 to 2.26, indicating varying levels of financial viability.

Summer ploughing

Summer ploughing in paddy fields improves soil structure and water retention, enhancing resilience against climate variability. This practice reduces soil erosion, optimizes moisture conservation, and supports sustainable yields, contributing to overall climate resilience in farming.

Green manuring

Green manuring in paddy fields enhances climate-resilient agriculture by improving soil fertility and structure, thus reducing erosion and enhancing water retention. This practice supports climate-smart agriculture by increasing crop resilience, sequestering carbon,

Brown manuring

Brown manuring is similar to green manuring, except the fact that rice and Sesbania spp. are both grown together and when these Dhaincha plants overtake the rice plants in height at about 25 days of co-culture, a weedicide 2, 4-D is applied to kill these Sesbania plants. This practice minimizes the need for synthetic fertilizers.

Field bunding

Field bunding creates barriers that prevent soil erosion, conserve moisture, and manage runoff. This practice improves soil health and reduces vulnerability to extreme weather events, thus supporting sustainable, climatesmart farming practices and ensuring more stable crop yields.

Direct seeding

Direct seeding of rice promotes resilience against climate variability. By minimizing water usage and reducing methane emissions compared to traditional flooding, it enhances resource efficiency and adapts to changing weather patterns, ensuring sustainable rice production.

Drum seeding

Drum seeding live sowing in rice optimizes seed placement and reduces water usage. This method improves seedling establishment and crop uniformity, contributing to efficient water management and adaptability to variable climate conditions, promoting sustainable rice production.

Conclusion

The major barriers to adopting climate-resilient practices by farm women are knowledge gaps, equipment unavailability, and lengthy insurance procedures. Adaptation strategies such as selecting appropriate crop varieties, altering sowing dates, and using climate-resilient technologies are prioritized for mitigating climate impacts. The analysis highlights the significant impact of climate change on agriculture and livestock, particularly as perceived by farm women. The yield and economic analysis of various crop varieties and technologies further emphasize the importance of selecting the right agricultural practices. Highperforming varieties like IPFD-12 and technologies like drum seeding significantly boost yields, while crops like Greengram (Virat) and oilseeds (Suprava) are highlighted for their profitability, with high Benefit-Cost (BC) ratios. This detailed economic analysis is crucial for farmers and policymakers to make informed decisions about crop selection and resource allocation, ultimately leading to more sustainable and profitable farming practices. The findings underscore the critical role of informed decision-making in optimizing agricultural productivity and profitability amidst changing climatic conditions, with ongoing research and data analysis essential for guiding sustainable farming practices.

References

1. Balamurugan B, Tejaswi V, Priya K, Sasikala R, Karuthadurai T, Ramamoorthy M, et al. Effect of global warming on livestock production and reproduction: an overview. Res Rev. 2018;6:12-18.
2. Devegowda SR, Kushwaha S, Badal PS. Perception, perceived impacts and constraints about adoption of climate resilient technologies in the Eastern Plain Zone of Uttar Pradesh. Econ Aff. 2021;66(3):427-431.
3. Downing MMR, Nejadhashemi AP, Harrigan T, Woznicki SA. Climate change and livestock: impacts, adaptation, and mitigation. Clim Risk Manag. 2017;16:145-163. DOI: 10.1016/j.crm.2017.02.001.
4. Economic Survey 2016-17. Publication Division, Ministry of Finance, Government of India; c2017.
5. Habeeb AA, Gad AE, Atta AM. Temperature-humidity indices as indicators to heat stress of climatic conditions with relation to production and reproduction of farm animals. Int J Biotechnol Recent Adv. 2018;1:35-50. DOI: 10.18689/ijbr-1000107.
6. Hansen JW, Cairns JE, Laing AM. Climate adaptation strategies in agriculture: Examples from the developing world. Nat Clim Chang. 2018;8(9):765-772.
7. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Pörtner HO, Roberts DC, Tignor M, Poloczanska ES, Mintenbeck K, Alegría A, Craig M, Langsdorf S, Löschke S, Möller V, Okem A, Rama B, editors. Cambridge University Press; 2022. 3056 p.
8. Jha S, Gaur R, Shahabuddin S, Tyagi I. Biochar as sustainable alternative and green adsorbent for the remediation of noxious pollutants: A comprehensive review. Toxics. 2023;11:117. DOI: 10.3390/toxics11020117.
9. Priyanka K, Nagasree K, Naik RV, Reddy MM, Madhubabu K. Constraints affecting the spread of climate resilient technologies among the farming communities. Biol Forum Int J. 2022;14(4):1274-1277.
10. Samuel J, Rao CAR, Raju BMK, Reddy AA, Pushpanjali, Reddy AGK, et al. Assessing the impact of climate resilient technologies in minimizing drought impacts on farm incomes in drylands. Sustainability. 2022;14:382.
11. Shehrawat PS, Bhakar S, Arulmanikandan B. International Journal of Environment and Climate Change. 2023;13(10):773-783.
12. Singh R, Kaur P, Verma M. Climate-resilient agriculture: Adaptation strategies for smallholder farmers. J Agric Sustain. 2023;15(2):99-93.
13. Visakh SA, Arya SN, Behera S, Jha UC, Sah RP, Beena R, et al. Heat tolerance breeding: A comprehensive review and forward gaze. Rice Sci. 2024;31(4):375-400.
14. Zhao C, Liu B, Piao S, Wang X, David BL, Huang Y, et al. Temperature increase reduces global yields of major crops in four independent estimates. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U S A. 2017;114(35):9326-9331.