A mental model approach to farmer distress among small and marginal landholders of Kerala

Introduction

Farmer distress refers to the combined economic, social, and political pressures experienced by farmers and rural households, arising from unstable yields, volatile market prices, rising input costs, indebtedness, and insufficient access to institutional credit, markets, and infrastructure. Distress is recognized as a pervasive part of human life, influencing individuals, families, and communities, and the present era has even been described as the "age of anxiety, distress and depression" because of the intensity of such pressures (Pestonjee, 1992; Horwitz, 2010) [11,6] . Within agriculture, a fundamental dimension of distress is persistent income inequality. Small and marginal farmers, who form the backbone of Indian agriculture, are disproportionately disadvantaged in access to technology, credit, and remunerative markets, which results in lower incomes and productivity when compared with larger landholders and commercial agribusinesses. Distress is multidimensional in nature, affecting cognitive, emotional, behavioural, and physical well-being. Economic factors include high indebtedness, crop failure, unviable landholdings, increasing costs of cultivation, and falling profits (Nair & Ramakumar, 2007) [10] . Social causes extend to stigma associated with debt, harassment from moneylenders, legal disputes, social obligations, and in some cases dependence on intoxicants (Talule, 2013; Shivaji et al., 2019) [17,16] . Psychological stressors such as depression, strained family relationships, and disputes over property exacerbate the situation. Together, these factors erode household security and intensify agrarian vulnerability (Hoang et al., 2020) [5] . Kerala, despite its achievements in social development, is facing a severe agrarian crisis. Declines in crop prices, stagnating yields, diminishing soil fertility, scarcity of irrigation water, and recurrent pest and disease outbreaks have reduced the viability of farming. Climatic variability, particularly erratic rainfall and rising temperatures, has added to the risks (Bao et al., 2010; Sherin & Haseena, 2023) [1,15] . These conditions have led to increasing indebtedness, financial insecurity, and a rise in farmer suicides. Previous studies in Kerala and elsewhere confirm that agrarian distress is not confined to fluctuations in crop output or prices, but is deeply embedded in structural weaknesses such as erosion of livelihood security, limited safety nets, and declining adaptive capacity (Nair & Menon, 2007; Reddy, 2021; Sherin & Haseena, 2023) [9,13,15] .

A more comprehensive perspective is therefore required to examine the nature of farmer distress. Approaches that rely solely on economic indicators fail to capture the psychological and social dimensions of the problem. Qualitative frameworks that focus on farmer perceptions and lived experiences provide valuable insights into how different stressors interact and how farmers attempt to cope with them. Such perspectives enable the identification of critical challenges, coping mechanisms, and institutional supports that influence the capacity of farming households to manage adversity. The present study was undertaken to examine the factors contributing to distress among small and marginal farmers in Kerala. By mapping their cognitive frameworks and perceptions of causes and coping strategies, the study seeks to provide insights into the multidimensional nature of distress. The justification for this approach lies in the recognition that policy interventions must be grounded in the lived experiences of farmers if they are to reduce vulnerability, enhance resilience, and strengthen the sustainability of Kerala's agrarian sector.

Methodology

The study was conducted among small and marginal farmers in two agrarian districts of Kerala, namely Idukki and Palakkad, which were purposively selected on the basis of their high concentration of cultivators dependent on agriculture (GOK, 2023) [4] . Within each district, one block was identified, Nedumkandam in Idukki and Mannarkkad in Palakkad, and from each block two panchayats were chosen based on the largest number of small and marginal farmers. A multi-stage random sampling method was employed for the selection of respondents. From these panchayats, twenty key informants were purposively selected as participants, ensuring that all respondents were primarily dependent on agriculture and had experienced distress during the previous two to three years. This process ensured that the respondents were sufficiently homogeneous to promote meaningful discussion, while also diverse enough to capture variation in perceptions. In addition to farmers, twenty extension personnel from each district were included to provide triangulation of perspectives and enhance the reliability of the findings. In addition, twenty extension functionaries from each district were randomly selected, thus constituting a supplementary sample of forty whose responses were used for validation and cross-checking. The mental model approach (fig. 1) was used to capture and represent the cognitive frameworks farmers employed in understanding the causes of distress and coping mechanisms. A structured instrument was developed based on the information-decision framework (Richardson et al., 1994; Reddy et al., 2021) [14,13] , which consisted of six domains: stress factors, decision-making processes, constraints in decision-making, outcomes of distress, and adaptation strategies & institutional interventions. Farmers were encouraged to describe how these domains interacted, linking stressors with decisions, constraints, and resulting outcomes. The narratives were coded and analysed through qualitative content analysis, which facilitated the construction of cognitive maps representing farmers' mental models. Cross-validation was achieved by comparing farmer responses with the perspectives of extension personnel, thereby reducing subjectivity and enhancing validity. The induction of mental models was conducted through focus group discussions (FGDs), a widely applied technique for exploring shared perspectives in a participatory environment (Morgan, 1996; Krueger & Casey, 2000) [8,7] . Separate FGDs were organized in each panchayat, each comprising twenty farmer participants. The discussions were held in familiar community settings, which helped create a relaxed atmosphere conducive to open sharing. A flexible interview guide was used to facilitate dialogue across the six domains of the mental model. As recommended in FGD literature, questions were posed in an open and flexible manner to stimulate interaction, encourage participants to share experiences, and allow common as well as divergent perspectives to emerge (Onwuegbuzie et al., 2009; Tümen-Akyıldız & Ahmed, 2021) [20,18] . Each discussion lasted approximately one and a half hours, and detailed field notes were recorded contemporaneously. The responses obtained during FGDs were documented through detailed field notes and subsequently analysed using qualitative content analysis (Powell & Single, 1996; Cameron, 2010; Focus Groups, 2017) [12,2,3] , enabling the identification of recurring patterns in stress factors, coping strategies, and institutional supports. These themes were synthesized into cognitive maps that represented the farmers' mental models of distress and resilience. The findings from FGDs were cross-checked with the survey results and triangulated with the views of extension personnel to strengthen credibility and trustworthiness. Ethical safeguards were followed, informed consent was obtained, confidentiality of responses was assured, and farmers exhibiting acute psychological stress were sensitively referred to local extension and welfare officers for further support. This methodological approach generated rich qualitative data and enabled the reconstruction of the shared mental models of distress and coping strategies among small and marginal farmers in Kerala.

Discussion

The findings of this study highlight that farmer distress in Kerala is a multidimensional phenomenon shaped by environmental, socio-economic, psychological, and institutional factors. The consistent identification of drought and wild animal conflict as severe stressors confirms earlier observations that climatic variability and ecological challenges remain among the most pressing risks for smallholders. Unlike flood-related damage, which farmers perceived as occasional, prolonged drought and recurring animal incursions directly threaten farm livelihoods and exacerbate insecurity. The predominance of reactive decision-making in response to these pressures reflects broader patterns noted in farmer behaviour under uncertainty. Farmers prioritized immediate survival over long-term strategies, which explains their reliance on short-term coping mechanisms such as reducing input use or shifting to short-duration crops. This aligns with prior studies indicating that the absence of reliable institutional support discourages risk-taking and limits innovation.

Constraints identified in the discussions reveal structural weaknesses in the farming support system. Limited awareness of schemes, dependence on informal credit, and inadequate access to information reproduce a cycle of vulnerability. These findings are consistent with nationallevel research which emphasizes that lack of financial literacy and weak extension linkages hinder smallholder participation in formal institutions. Importantly, both farmers and extension personnel agreed that systemic delays and inefficiencies perpetuate low uptake of beneficial programs, reinforcing distress. The outcomes of distress demonstrate the interconnection of economic and psychological dimensions. While indebtedness, reduced investment, and food insecurity represent economic consequences, the loss of interest in farming, stress, and anxiety highlight the psychosocial burden. This combination of economic and emotional strain supports the argument that farmer distress cannot be understood solely in financial terms but requires an integrated socio-psychological perspective. Although some resilience strategies were evident, their effectiveness was limited. Diversification, community labour, and low-cost soil fertility practices provided partial relief, yet these were adopted unevenly and often without institutional reinforcement. The limited reach of subsidies, crop insurance, and price support policies underscores the gap between policy intent and ground realities. The partial www.extensionjournal.com adoption of farmer producer organizations also reflects a missed opportunity to strengthen collective bargaining and reduce market-related vulnerabilities. Overall, the evidence suggests that distress among small and marginal farmers in Kerala persists due to the interplay of high environmental and market risks, reactive decisionmaking, systemic constraints, and weak institutional interventions. These findings emphasize the need to reframe support systems so that they address not only economic risks but also psychological and social dimensions of vulnerability.

Conclusion

This study establishes that distress among small and marginal farmers in Kerala is driven by a combination of environmental stressors, socio-economic constraints, and weak institutional support. Drought, wild animal conflict, and low crop prices were identified as the most critical triggers, leading farmers to adopt largely reactive coping strategies. Constraints such as limited financial literacy, dependence on informal credit, and poor access to schemes restricted informed decision-making. The outcomes were reflected in both economic and psychological dimensions, including indebtedness, food insecurity, stress, and loss of interest in farming. Resilience was observed only where farmers pursued diversification, community cooperation, or low-cost practices, though such strategies remained partial and weakly supported. These findings underscore the urgent need for integrated interventions that combine climate adaptation, financial literacy, institutional efficiency, and psychosocial support to reduce distress and strengthen the resilience of vulnerable farming households.

References

1. Bao GK, Viet DT, Kullgren G, Allebeck P. Prevalence of mental distress and use of health services in a rural district in Vietnam. Glob Health Action. 2010;3(1):2025.
2. Cameron J. Focusing on the focus group. In: Qualitative Research Methods in Human Geography. 3rd ed. 2010. p. 152-172.
3. Focus. Focus on Focus Groups. 2017 Apr 18. http://www.getresearchpower.com/news/2017/4/18/foc us-on-focus-groups
4. Government of Kerala (GOK). A compendium of agricultural statistics: Kerala 2023. Thiruvananthapuram: Directorate of Agricultural Development and Farmers Welfare; 2023.
5. Hoang MT, Do KN, Pham HQ. Psychological distress among mountainous farmers in Vietnam: A crosssectional study of prevalence and associated factors. BMJ Open. 2020;10(8):1-7.
6. Horwitz AV. How age of anxiety became an age of depression. Milbank Q. 2010;88(1):112-138.
7. Krueger RA, Casey MA. A practical guide for applied research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2000.
8. Morgan DL. Focus groups as qualitative research. Vol. 16. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 1996.
9. Nair KN, Menon V. Distress debt and suicides among agrarian households: Findings from three village studies. Working Paper 397. Thiruvananthapuram: Centre for Development Studies; 2007.
10. Nair KN, Ramakumar R. Agrarian distress and rural livelihoods: A study in Upputhara Panchayat, Idukki District, Kerala. Working Paper 392. Thiruvananthapuram: Centre for Development Studies; 2007.
11. Pestonjee DM. Stress and coping: The Indian experience. New Delhi: Sage Publications India Pvt Ltd; 1992.
12. Powell RA, Single HM. Focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 1996;8(5):499-504.
13. Reddy AA, Bhattacharya A, Reddy SV, Ricart S. Farmers' distress index: An approach for an action plan to reduce vulnerability in the drylands of India. Land. 2021;10:1236.
14. Richardson GP, Rohrbaugh J. Decision making in dynamic environments: Exploring judgments in a system dynamics model-based game. In: Borcherding K, Larichev OI, Messick DM, editors. Contemporary issues in decision making. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 1989. p. 231-252.
15. Sherin PS, Haseena VA. Agriculture distress and farmers' suicide in Kerala in the globalization era. Indian J Agric Eng. 2023;3(2):1-7.
16. Shivaji LP, Ahire RD, Chigadolli M. Personal, socioeconomic, and psychological characteristics of distressed farmers of Osmanabad district of Marathwada, Maharashtra. J Pharmacogn Phytochem. 2019;8(5):1324-1328.
17. Talule D. Political economy of agricultural distress and farmers' suicides in Maharashtra. Int J Soc Sci Interdiscip Res. 2013;2(2):95-124.
18. Tümen Akyıldız S. College students' views on the pandemic distance education: A focus group discussion. Int J Technol Educ Sci. 2020;4(4):322-334.
19. Yoshito M, Takajiro S, Hiroshi U. Job satisfaction and mental distress among Japanese farmers. J Rural Med. 2008;3(2):29-33.
20. Onwuegbuzie AJ, Dickinson WB, Leech NL, Zoran AG. A qualitative framework for collecting and analyzing data in focus group research. Int J Qual Methods. 2009;8(3):1-21.