Climate change perception and adaptation strategies among farmers: A socio-economic synthesis across agro-ecological zones

Introduction

The Oxford Dictionary defines perception as "an idea, a belief, or an image you have based on how you see or understand something." It describes how something is viewed, understood, or interpreted. Perception influences knowledge, which in turn shapes perceptions of objects, events, or phenomena. This interaction greatly affects how farmers understand and respond to climate-related risks and uncertainties, guiding their actions to reduce the negative impacts of climate change on agriculture. Accurate perception is crucial for mitigating adverse impacts and implementing effective adaptation strategies. Farmers mainly perceive climate change through changes in rainfall, temperature patterns, variability, and the frequency of extreme weather events. According to Udmale et al. (2014) [177] , most farmers perceive many environmental impacts, such as rising average atmospheric temperatures, and these perceptions are shaped and reinforced through daily experiences and multiple external sources. Farmers' perceptions are vital for mitigating the adverse effects of climate change on agriculture. Implementing targeted interventions involving the farming community and other stakeholders is essential to improve their readiness for its detrimental impacts (Raghuvanshi et al., 2018) [149] . The analysis of farmers' perceptions regarding climate change, both long term and short term, is a prerequisite for evaluating their adaptation decisions. Three critical factors shall be considered for a successful and efficient adaptation: www.extensionjournal.com timely recognition of the need, the incentive and the ability to adapt. According to Sanghi and Mendelsohn (2008) [156] and Bryan et al. (2009) [37] , for the agricultural producers to identify the necessity for adaptation, they must first discern and internalize the actual changes in the climate affecting their livelihoods while adjusting the indigenous farming systems to maximise the outputs in each new environment. The viability of sustainable agricultural development under changing climatic conditions is significantly influenced by the farmers' cognitions and their implementation of adaptive strategies. According to IPCC (2001) [85] , adaptation at farm level is a potential strategy for building resilience to reduce climate vulnerability. It empowers rural households and communities by making them better equipped to prepare their farming systems for climate fluctuations, mitigate projected damages and bolster their ability to deal with extreme weather conditions. The adaptive response of farmers to climate change follows a structured, linear pathway, comprising three distinct stages that logically follow one another viz. perception (or accurate climate risk perception), intention (or adaptation planning) and implementation of an adaptation. A farmer's intention to adapt is ultimately determined by their perception, a stage which is mediated by a confluence of endogenous and exogenous factors (Abid et al., 2019) [2] . However, misperceptions of climate risks among the farmers may lead to maladaptive practices, thereby increasing their vulnerability, consequently posing a significant threat to both food and livelihood security (Mahmood et al., 2021) [108] . In this context, the initial stage is subdivided into two categories: "accurate climate risk perception" denoting the coherence between farmers' risk perception and historical climatic trends (i.e. temperature and rainfall) and "underestimated climate risk perceptions" which are marked by a discrepancy between these two. In order to reduce the climate vulnerability, accurate risk perceptions are perquisite for effective adaptation. In contrast, the underestimated risk perception results in maladaptation, characterised by poor planning or no adaptation at all. The diagram depicts a linear unidirectional model of adaptation, wherein each stage functions as a precursor to the subsequent one. The strength of the association between consecutive stages is visually represented by the thickness of the arrows: bold arrows indicate a strong connection, whereas thin arrows denote a weaker link. Furthermore, dotted arrows delineate a pathway towards non-adaptation to climate-induced risks. The potential factors influencing this adaptation process are enumerated on the right-hand side of the figure.

Methodological approaches in assessing farmers' perception of climate change and adaptation strategies

Evaluating farmers' perceptions of climate change and their adaptation strategies necessitates multifaceted approaches that incorporate both qualitative and quantitative methodologies (Abid et al., 2015) [1] . The collection of data generally involves surveys (utilising both structured and open-ended questions), interviews, and focus group discussions, followed by statistical analyses such as descriptive statistics, inferential statistics, and econometric models.

Source: Mahmood et al., 2021 [108] (CRM-Climate Risk Management; DAEC-Digital Agricultural Extension and Communication) www.extensionjournal.com

A chronological analysis of methodological approaches for the period from 2015 to 2025

A clear evolution can be observed in the methodological approaches used to assess farmers' perceptions of climate change and their adaptation strategies from 2015 to 2025. Studies increasingly combine quantitative and qualitative methods, with a growing emphasis on statistical modelling and the integration of meteorological data. Over the decade from 2015 to 2025, the assessment of farmers' perceptions of climate change and their adaptation strategies has experienced a significant methodological evolution. The shift in research from foundational techniques such as basic surveys and descriptive analysis to more advanced mixed-methods designs and statistical modelling is evident in the later studies. This progress, characterised by the increasing integration of both meteorological data and psychological constructs, has considerably improved the accuracy and policy relevance of findings in the field.

Change in cropping pattern and calendar of planting:

Climate change disrupts agricultural systems through shifting rainfall patterns, forcing farmers to modify planting strategies. In Central Africa, staggered planting helps mitigate drought risks -some crops are sown before rains (dry planting), others after first showers (Urama & Ozor, 2011) [179] . This approach, documented in Tanzania (Liwenga, 2003; Adger et al., 2005) [105,5] , maximizes water use while controlling weeds. Such calendar modifications represent crucial adaptations, enabling farmers to align cultivation with favourable weather windows and avoid extreme climate events during critical growth stages.

Mixed cropping:

Mixed cropping combines complementary crops like cereals (maize, sorghum), legumes (beans), and oilseeds (groundnuts) in one field. This system offers multiple climate adaptation benefits: diversified maturity periods enhance drought tolerance, while legume-cereal combinations improve soil nitrogen and reduce pests (Liwenga, 2003) [105] . Compared to monocultures, intercropping provides more stable yields, better resource use efficiency, and higher nutritional value (Urama & Ozor, 2011) [179] . Together, these strategies help farmers buffer against rainfall variability and extreme weather events while maintaining productivity.

Improved irrigation efficiency:

Effective climate adaptation in drought-prone regions hinges on water availability. Improved irrigation efficiency offers significant benefits even under moderate climate change scenarios (Selvaraju et al., 2006) [158] . While irrigation counters warming impacts through more frequent application (Nkomo et al., 2006) [133] , its effectiveness varies, South African studies show mixed results (Ndhleve et al., 2017) [124] , and Swiss maize irrigation yields economic returns too small to justify costs despite boosting production (Finger et al., 2011) [60] .

3.1.2.1.6

Adopting soil conservation measures that conserve soil moisture: Asian farmers implement multiple climate-smart practices including: (1) optimized cropping schedules, (2) residue management (burying/burning), and

(3) livestock-soil integration (Lema & Majule, 2009) [101] . Traditional techniques like pruning and organic fertilization combat desertification, while conservation agriculture (zerotillage, mulching -Nyong et al., 2007) [136] enhances carbon sequestration (Kapoor, 2020) [90] . Together, these integrated approaches deliver triple benefits: increased productivity, climate adaptation, and mitigation -forming a comprehensive strategy against climate impacts.

Planting of trees (afforestation) and agroforestry:

Tree planting through agroforestry systems helps farmers adapt to climate change while delivering multiple benefits (Adesina et al., 2011) [3] . Unlike natural regeneration, intentional seedling transplantation ensures faster, more reliable reforestation of degraded lands. African and Asian smallholders increasingly adopt these systems, which: 1) improve soil organic matter (Nyong et al., 2007) [136] , 2) enhance productivity under drier conditions, and 3) reduce deforestation pressure. Beyond carbon sequestration, agroforestry buffers against climate variability while providing economic and environmental co-benefits. [114] . Evaluating existing genetic diversity may reveal overlooked traits valuable for climate adaptation, making germplasm conservation a costeffective strategy for developing resilient crop varieties to withstand temperature extremes, water scarcity, and other climate challenges.

Livestock adaptation strategies 5.1.2.2.1 Production adjustments:

Changes in livestock practices could include: (i) integrated crop-livestock systems with improved pasture management, (2) adjusted seasonal operations, (3) ecosystem conservation measures, (4) modified grazing patterns, and (5) diversified production systems combining stall-feeding with rotational grazing (Venkateswarlu and Shanker, 2009; Mairura et al., 2021) [181, 109] . These adaptive measures help maintain livestock productivity despite increasing climate variability and extreme weather events.

Breeding strategies:

Many local breeds are already adapted to harsh living conditions. Adaptation strategies address not only the tolerance of livestock to heat, but also their ability to survive, grow and reproduce in conditions of poor nutrition, parasites and diseases. Such measures could include: (i) identifying and strengthening local breeds that have adapted to local climatic stress and feed sources and (ii) improving local genetics through crossbreeding with heat and disease tolerant breeds (Weinhofer and Hoffmann, 2010) [182] .

Livestock management systems:

Affordable climate adaptation solutions for resource-limited farmers www.extensionjournal.com include: (1) natural shade structures and water access points to combat heat stress; (2) maintaining smaller herds of higher-yielding livestock to reduce emissions (Batima et al., 2013) [30] ; (3) transitioning to larger, more climate-resilient animal breeds; and (4) implementing simple water management systems like rooftop rainwater harvesting, small dams, and efficient drip irrigation (Hoffmann, 2010) [82] . These cost-effective approaches help vulnerable farmers adapt without expensive technologies, focusing instead on optimizing existing resources and traditional knowledge to build climate resilience while maintaining productivity.

Capacity building for livestock keepers:

There is a need to improve the capacity of livestock producers and herders to understand and deal with climate change increasing their awareness of global changes ((Venkateswarlu and Shanker, 2009) [181] . In addition, training in agro-ecological technologies and practices for the production and conservation of fodder improves the supply of animal feed and reduces malnutrition and mortality in herds.

Other adaptation strategies 3.1.2.3.1 Labour migration:

Migration serves as a critical livelihood strategy, particularly for small farmers and landless labourers facing climate shocks (Brown et al., 2007) [36] . Remittances help households cope with drought and food price volatility (Adesina et al., 2011) [3] . Climate change is altering migration patterns, with increased ruralurban movement due to droughts and floods (IPCC, 2022) [84] . Research in Mexico shows a 10 per cent crop yield decline leads to 2% higher emigration (Feng et al., 2014) [59] , projecting 1.4-6.7 million climate migrants by 2080 from agricultural impacts alone.

Income diversification:

Farmers increasingly turn to off-farm activities to compensate for climate-affected yields, as shown in Burkina Faso where dry-season gardening and non-farm work boosted household resilience (Mertz et al., 2010) [114] . Nielsen & Reenberg (2010) [132] found communities shifting to climate-independent livelihoods, with national surveys revealing rising wealth across groups from 1998-2007. This demonstrates how income diversification, particularly in marginal areas, provides critical adaptation pathways, enabling long-term climate adjustment beyond traditional farming.

Purchase of insurance:

Climate insurance reduces economic vulnerability by spreading risk across policyholders, enabling farmers to reinvest savings into productive and adaptive practices rather than emergency reserves (Brink and Wamsler, 2019) [34] . While effective for financial recovery, insurance has limitations: it doesn't mitigate physical hazards or emotional trauma, and may create moral hazard by reducing preventive measures. For instance, subsidized flood insurance can perpetuate risky floodplain settlement patterns (Liu et al., 2018) [104] .

Integrated Nutrient Management (INM) and

Site-Specific Nutrient Management (SSNM): Innovative rice farming technologies demonstrate multiple benefits: 30-40% improved nitrogen efficiency, higher yields, and reduced greenhouse emissions. Practical solutions like neem-coated urea offer affordable emission reduction for South Asian smallholders. Integrated farming systems combining crops, livestock, and aquaculture enhance resilience through diversification (Brooks et al., 2010; Snyder et al., 2014) [35,162] . These approaches collectively address productivity, adaptation and mitigation needs.

Information consolidation

Effective climate adaptation requires accessible platforms that integrate scientific data, local knowledge, and practical tools to support decision-making. Important elements include developing centralized portals for climate projections and risk assessments, improving early warning systems, and creating sector-specific advisory services tailored to farmers' needs (Raihan, 2023; Petersen, 2022; Kundo et al., 2021) [150,145,96] . While such information systems help communities understand climate risks and potential solutions like heat-resistant crops or modified planting schedules must be paired with capacity-building programs to drive real change. Research shows that successful adaptation depends on combining data dissemination with hands-on training, policy support, and financial resources (IPCC, 2022; FAO, 2021) [84,62] . However, overcoming barriers like limited digital access and varying literacy levels remains critical to ensuring these tools reach vulnerable populations.

Communication and Awareness

To the extent possible and as quickly as possible, it is important to initiate and encourage communication about risk and the provision of risk-related information to citizens and other concerned parties, while adequately considering and efficiently using existing structures and frameworks (Venkateswarlu and Shanker, 2009; Feng et al., 2014) [181,59] . This information is the basis for all adaptation measures, including decisions about implementing adaptation measures. For example: Risk-related information provision, communication about risk, and awareness-raising activities (combined [104,132,36] .

Political action:

While governments traditionally lead adaptation efforts, democratic systems enable citizens to influence policy through voting, lobbying officials, and collective actions like petitions (Selvaraju et al., 2006) [158] . For durable solutions, policymakers must combine climate projections with participatory decision-making, considering:

(1) immediate implementation of high-priority measures, (2) phased approaches that incorporate emerging climate data, and (3) managed-risk strategies that allow for incremental improvements (Ndhleve et al., 2017) [124] . Successful execution of strategies demands regional collaboration among stakeholders to align standards, share climate data, and build consensus on uncertainty management. Local governments should establish partnerships with neighbouring jurisdictions facing similar climate risks to www.extensionjournal.com coordinate planning, pool resources, and develop unified adaptation frameworks. This collaborative model ensures infrastructure investments account for projected conditions while maintaining public support through transparent, science-based decision processes alongside technical assessments.

Socio-economic determinants influencing adaptation decisions:

Several works demonstrates that agricultural adaptation is shaped by multiple contextual factors including farm characteristics, ecological conditions, and socioeconomic circumstances (Eriksen et al., 2011) [55] . Studies typically examine four key themes: (1) climate change perceptions (Apata, 2011; Deressa et al., 2011) [17,49] , (2) impact assessments (Ngondjeb, 2013) [129] , (3) adaptation strategies (Esham and Garforth, 2013) [56] , and (4) implementation barriers (Bryan et al., 2009) [37] . Common determinants include demographic factors (age, gender), economic resources (income, credit), and institutional access (extension services) (Gbetibouo et al., 2010) [68] . Context-specific factors also emerge, such as cultural norms in Burkina Faso (Nielsen & Reenberg, 2010) [13] and belief 2systems (Arbuckle et al., 2015) [19] . Considering the nature of these factors, as well as their similarities and differences, the important factors in our reviewed studies are categorized into the following five groups: demographic and socio-economic factors; resources, services and technologies; institutional and political factors; social and cultural factors; cognitive and psychological factors which are detailed as follows: [50,80] , their risk aversion may limit innovative measures. Research shows age positively correlates with tree planting and irrigation adoption, as veteran farmers better recognize environmental changes. However, shorter planning horizons make older farmers 40% less likely to pursue livelihood diversification (Arega et al., 2023) [20] , particularly non-farm activities (Gebrehiwot and Veen, 2013) [69] . This paradox draws attention to how experience facilitates ecological adaptations while potentially hindering economic diversification strategies.

Gender:

Research reveals contrasting gender-based adaptation approaches. Male farmers typically demonstrate greater risk tolerance, adopting new technologies (Asfaw and Admassie, 2004) [21] , while female farmers often prefer traditional methods (Tenge et al., 2004) [168] . However, Nhemachena and Hassan (2007) [130] found women more adaptive in regions where they dominate farming. Studies show women excel in conservation practices, yet face barriers implementing agronomic adaptations like crop diversification. These mixed findings underline how contextual factors shape gender roles in climate responses, with male household heads generally having better access to adaptation resources despite women's deeper engagement in daily agricultural operations.

Education

Household head's education level considerably determines climate adaptation, with each additional schooling year improving information processing and implementation of conservation practices (Deressa et al., 2011) [49] . However, gender disparities persist: female-headed households demonstrate 32% lower adaptation rates despite greater climate vulnerability (Asrat and Simane, 2018) [22] . These households face triple constraints: (1) disproportionate domestic burdens, (2) limited resource access, and (3) economic disadvantages (Balew et al., 2014) [29] . While educated farmers more readily adopt soil conservation and planting adjustments (Trinh et al., 2018) [175] , structural barriers prevent female heads from translating knowledge into action, underscoring need for gender-sensitive adaptation policies.

Labour force

Household labour availability substantially impacts farmers' capacity to implement climate adaptation strategies, with each additional worker increasing adaptation likelihood by 78.4% (Ndamani and Watanabe, 2016; Asrat and Simane, 2018) [122,22] . Labour enables critical adjustments like crop diversification and soil improvement, particularly in lowmechanization contexts. However, Trinh et al. (2018) [175] found no significant labour-adaptation correlation, revealing contextual variations. Labour shortages create dual constraints: limiting agricultural adjustments and reducing income for adaptation investments (Al-amin et al., 2020) [13] . Financially-stressed households often prioritize immediate needs over long-term resilience measures, demonstrating how labour and income factors interact to shape adaptive capacity.

Farm size

Research reveals contradictory findings about farm size's influence on adaptation strategies. While larger farms facilitate irrigation adoption (Gbetibouo, 2010) [68] and allow more land for soil conservation structures, smaller landholders often show greater conservation investment (Moser and Ekstrom, 2010) [117] . Interestingly, land area negatively correlates with livelihood diversification into non-farm activities. The prevailing hypothesis suggests farm size positively influences irrigation adoption, as larger operations can better absorb infrastructure costs and water requirements (Arega et [20,122,168] . However, the relationship varies significantly across different adaptation measures and regional contexts.

Family/Household size

Family size significantly influences farmers' adoption of climate adaptation strategies, though with complex effects. Larger households possess greater labour capacity, facilitating implementation of labour-intensive measures like soil conservation and irrigation during peak seasons (Croppenstedt et al., 2003; Deressa et al., 2009) [45,50] . This reduces reliance on costly hired labour. However, empirical evidence remains mixed -while some families leverage extra manpower for agricultural adaptation, others may divert labour to non-farm income generation to meet household consumption needs. The prevailing hypothesis www.extensionjournal.com suggests household size positively correlates with adoption of labour-demanding adaptation practices, as domestic labour availability often outweighs potential trade-offs in agricultural-focused households.

Farm income:

Household income strongly affects farmers' capacity to implement climate adaptation strategies. Greater financial resources enable adoption of costlier, potentially more effective measures (Franzel, 1999) [63] . Research shows both farm and non-farm income affect adaptation choices differently: higher agricultural earnings support soil conservation and crop diversification, while non-farm income facilitates tree planting and irrigation (Deressa et al., 2009) [50] . Overall, wealthier households demonstrate greater adaptive capacity, as income determines willingness and ability to invest in climate-resilient practices (Knowler and Bradshaw, 2007) [94] .

Non-farm income:

Studies reveal conflicting evidence about non-farm income's influence on agricultural adaptation. While some findings show each 10% increase in non-farm income reduces adaptation likelihood by 8.7 per cent due to reduced agricultural focus, other research contradicts this. Deressa et al. (2009) [50] and Asrat & Simane (2018) [22] found non-farm earnings actually enable adaptation by funding measures like new cultivars or irrigation. Although off-farm activities (e.g., construction, transport) provide crucial income, particularly during lean seasons, they may divert attention from farming. Many farmers perceive non-farm work as less risky and more immediately profitable than implementing climate adaptation strategies, potentially discouraging long-term agricultural investments.

Resources, services and technologies 4.2.1 Access to extension services:

Extension services significantly increase adoption of adaptive measures like crop diversification and agroforestry (Deressa et al., 2009) [50] . When combined with credit access and land security, these services create synergistic effects, enhancing farmers' adaptive capacity (Bryan et al., 2009) [37] . Studies across Africa confirm that extension access, financial resources, and farm assets collectively determine adaptation success (Balew et al., 2014; Gbetibouo et al., 2010) [29,68] . Extension officers provide critical climate-smart agricultural knowledge, enabling farmers to evaluate and select optimal practices (Gebrehiwot and Veen, 2013) [69] . This support system promotes informed decision-making regarding irrigation, planting schedules, and soil conservation techniques, ultimately building climate resilience in farming communities.

Access to information:

Climate information availability significantly influences farmers' adaptive capacity. Constraints include limited access to both climate data (Kwaghe and Mohammed, 2013) [97] and adaptation knowledge (Muller and Shackleton, 2013) [119] . Studies demonstrate that weather information access boosts adoption of diversification strategies (Deressa et al., 2009) [50] and enhances overall adaptation likelihood (Ndambiri et al., 2012) [123] . Multiple agricultural systems confirm climate information as a critical determinant of adaptation choices (Alemayehu and Bewket, 2017; Gedefaw et al., 2019) [14,70] , with temperature and rainfall data proving particularly impactful for implementing effective responses.

Access to technology:

Better access to technology is critical for farmers' adaptation (Hassan & Nhemachena, 2008) [80] . The scarcity of technologies was identified as one of the major barriers to farmers' adaptation (Bello et al., 2013; Salau et al., 2012) [32,155] . Farmers in were significantly constrained by a lac3k of improved agricultural technologies in adaptation to climate change (Ozor and Cynthia, 2010) [138] .

Access to credit:

Research demonstrates that financial capacity significantly enhances farmers' ability to implement climate adaptation strategies. Deressa et al. (2011) [49] and Gbetibouo (2010) [68] found that resourceendowed farmers more effectively utilize available information to adopt irrigation systems, improved agricultural inputs, drought-resistant crops, and livelihood diversification. Access to credit particularly helps overcome financial barriers, enabling farmers to modify practices in anticipation of climate changes. These findings advised credit availability positively influences adoption of: (1) irrigation technologies, (2) climate-adaptive measures, (3) drought-tolerant varieties, and (4) livelihood diversification through off-farm activities.

Market access:

Proximity to markets significantly influences farmers' adoption of climate adaptation strategies, serving as a proxy for input/output market accessibility. Studies demonstrate that greater market distance reduces adaptation practice adoption (Maddison and Rehdanz, 2020) [107] . Nearby input markets facilitate access to essential resources like improved seeds and irrigation equipment, while output markets incentivize cash crop production that enhances adaptive capacity. Research in Africa (Maddison and Rehdanz, 2020) [107] , the Philippines (Pandey, 2019) [141] , and Nepal (Piya et al., 2013) [148] consistently shows market proximity positively affects technology adoption. Remote households typically rely more on traditional coping mechanisms than modern adaptation strategies like crop diversification or water storage infrastructure.

Livestock ownership:

Research presents conflicting evidence regarding how livestock ownership affects farmers' climate adaptation decisions. Teshome et al. (2016) [172] demonstrated a negative correlation, suggesting that livestock ownership may discourage the adoption of adaptive measures. Conversely, greater specialization in livestock production appears to reduce economic incentives for implementing adaptation strategies. Farmers with smaller herds often turn to off-farm and non-farm livelihood diversification as an adaptive response to meet their needs. These findings collectively suggest an inverse relationship between livestock ownership and the adoption of climate adaptation strategies. [49] demonstrated improved adaptation through crop variety selection when farmers had better climate information access.

Institutional and political factors

Land tenure systems and institutional frameworks significantly shape farmers' adaptive capacity (Yegbemey et al., 2013) [186] . Research reveals stark contrasts in effectiveness among institutions: NGOs and international organizations consistently support adaptation initiatives (Comoé and Siegrist, 2015) [44] , while state institutions often fail to gain farmers' trust (Baudoin, 2013) [31] . Key institutional barriers include limited community-level political influence (Jones and Boyd, 2011) [88] , restrictive natural resource policies, and inadequate government guidance (Wilk et al., 2013) [184] . Policy misalignment further constrains adaptation, as unfavourable regulations frequently hinder implementation of adaptive measures (Bello et al., 2013) [32] . These findings underline how institutional credibility and policy coherence critically determine the success of climate adaptation strategies in agricultural communities. [165] demonstrated that group membership significantly increases adoption of climate adaptation strategies, including conservation agriculture and drought-resistant crops. These social networks facilitate knowledge sharing and collective action, making them effective platforms for disseminating adaptive technologies. The study confirms that social capital through organized groups positively influences farmers' capacity to respond to climate variability.

Involvement in community organization:

Farmers actively participating in community organizations are 8.32 times more likely to adapt to climate change effectively. These groups foster social engagement and mutual support, enhancing livelihoods. Regular involvement provides access to valuable information, skills, and resources, encouraging practical adaptation. By observing others' adaptation strategies within these organizations, farmers gain confidence in these practices, increasing adoption likelihood (Khanal et al. 2019) [92] . However, this contrasts with findings by Trinh et al. (2018) [175] and Piya et al. (2013) [148] , who suggest that membership in local organizations has little impact on farmers' climate change adaptation.

Cognitive and psychological factors

Psychological and cognitive factors significantly influence farmers' adoption of climate adaptation strategies, though research in this area remains limited. The socio-cognitive model (Grothmann and Patt, 2005; Grothmann and Reusswig, 2006) [75,76] provides a framework for understanding individual adaptation processes. Studies reveal that farmers' climate change beliefs strongly shape their adaptive responses (Kuehne, 2014) [95] . Those recognizing climate risks show greater willingness to implement adaptive measures, while skeptics often resist mitigation efforts (Arbuckle et al., 2013) [18] . Important psychological determinants include: risk perception, perceived adaptation efficacy, cognitive biases (e.g., denial or fatalism), social pressures, and concerns about rising costs (Dang et al., 2014; Truelove et al., 2015) [46,176] . Human cognition emerges as a critical factor in adaptation decisions (Esham & Garforth, 2013) [56] , demonstrating that mental frameworks fundamentally influence farmers' engagement with climate challenges. These findings showcased the need to address psychological barriers alongside technical solutions in adaptation programs.

Constraints and barriers to climate change adaptation 5.1 Adaptations Constraints

The concept of barriers and limits, first outlined in the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (Adger et al., 2007) [4] , is now central to understanding constraints on climate adaptation. Current research examines where and how these barriers arise, recognizing their varied nature across disciplines (Dow et al., 2013; Palutikof et al., 2014) [51,140] . The IPCC groups them into key categories such as knowledge gaps, technological limits, environmental and biological thresholds, financial and human resource constraints, sociocultural factors, and governance issues (Klein et al., 2014) [93] . Eisenack et al. (2014) [53] view barriers as obstacles to specific actions, often shaped by competing priorities. This framework explains why adaptation may fall short, underscoring its complex and multidimensional challenges.

Characteristics of constraints of adaptation strategies 5.2.1 Knowledge, Awareness, and Technology

Constraints: Persistent knowledge gaps remain a critical obstacle to climate adaptation globally (Tribbia & Moser, 2008; Pasquini et al., 2013) [174,143 . While awareness programs shape risk perception (Hamilton, 2011) [78] , institutional-local perception gaps, and political influences (McCright & Dunlap, 2011) [113] . Effective knowledge application requires contextual dissemination methods (Tribbia & Moser, 2008) [174] . Technological adoption faces four key barriers: availability, affordability, social compatibility, and demonstrated effectiveness (Adger et al., 2007; Van Aalst et al., 2008) [4,180] . Agricultural technologies show uneven adoption patterns (Parry et al., 2009) [142] due to cost, maintenance complexity, and local suitability constraints. Successful adaptation requires integrated solutions combining: (1) tailored knowledge transfer, (2) appropriate technological packages, and (3) socioeconomic alignment with farmers' realities.

Physical constraints:

The adaptive capacity of agriculture is strongly influenced by environmental factors, with the extent of climate change being especially critical. Adapting to a 4°C rise by 2100 will be far more difficult than smaller increases (Fung et al., 2011; Nicholls et al., 2011) [65,131] . Physical barriers such as limited altitudinal range, coastal or river boundaries (Clark et al., 2011) [43] , www.extensionjournal.com and soil conditions (Lafleur et al., 2010) [98] restrict species and forest migration. Land use changes also hinder responses, as seen in the Andes (Feeley & Silman, 2010) [58] . Farmers face major constraints from water scarcity, with many regions nearing sustainable limits (Pfister et al., 2011) [146] , affecting food and water security (Hanjra & Qureshi, 2010) [79] . Degraded soil and water quality further reduce adaptation potential (Lobell et al., 2011) [106] . Nonetheless, these challenges can be mitigated through targeted resource management strategies.

Biological constraints:

Research reveals significant biological limitations affecting farmers' adaptive capacity to climate change. Organisms' ability to tolerate climate stress through physiological, behavioural, or genetic adaptations influences agricultural resilience (Somero, 2010; Aitken et al., 2011) [163,9] . However, environmental degradation, including soil depletion and desertification, reduces ecosystem services critical for farming livelihoods (Lal et al., 2011). Non-climatic pressures, such as habitat loss and pollution, further weaken ecological resilience, as seen in coral reefs, forests, and wetlands (Svenning & Sandel, 2013) [164] . Climate change may also disrupt pest and disease control, though predictive uncertainty remains high (Dukes et al., 2009) [52] . These biological constraints, compounded by declining natural capital (Nelson et al., 2010) [126] , limit farmers' ability to sustain productivity under climate stress, necessitating adaptive strategies that restore ecological health alongside agricultural practices.

Economic constraints:

Economic conditions strongly influence farmers' ability to adapt to climate change, with both long-term development and short-term fluctuations acting as constraints (Adger et al., 2007) [4] . Economies reliant on climate-sensitive sectors face greater risks, while diversification generally supports resilience. However, activities like shrimp farming or mangrove conversion can worsen vulnerability by degrading natural defences. Urbanization in hazard-prone areas also heightens exposure to extreme weather and related losses (Baldassare et al., 2010) [28] . Rapid economic growth may further strain ecosystems, limiting their adaptive capacity (Titus et al., 2009) [173] . In contrast, sustainable, low-impact development can enhance resilience and reduce vulnerability, stressing the importance of climate-smart economic policies in agricultural regions.

Financial constraints:

Financial barriers significantly limit farmers' ability to implement climate adaptation strategies. Access to various forms of capital -including credit, insurance, and household savings -often determines adaptive capacity (Paavola, 2008; Moser & Ekstrom, 2010) [139, 117] . African smallholders face particular challenges, where financial limitations heighten vulnerability to climate variability (Deressa et al., 2011) [49] . Similar constraints affect Bangladeshi fishers (Islam et al., 2014) [86] and South African municipalities (Pasquini et al., 2013) [143] . Even in developed nations like Australia, local governments report cost barriers to climate adaptation (Gardner et al., 2011) [66] . While insurance could facilitate risk management, rising costs and reduced accessibility often diminish its effectiveness (Islam et al., 2014) [86] . These financial hurdles, spanning micro-level farmer needs to macro-level institutional budgets and critically constrain the adoption of adaptive measures across diverse agricultural contexts.

Human Resource constraints:

Human resources are vital but often overlooked in farmers' climate change adaptation. They are discussed mainly in two ways: as part of adaptive capacity, such as public health (Ebi & Semenza, 2008), rural resilience (Nelson et al., 2011), and leadership in institutional adaptation (Termeer et al., 2012) [170] ; and as limitations, requiring participatory approaches (Van Aalst et al., 2008) [180] and capacity building. Education initiatives (Murphy et al., 2007) [120] help, but shortages of expertise, leadership, and labour remain key barriers. Strengthening human capital through training and institutional support is therefore critical (Adger et al., 2007) [4] .

Social and Cultural Constraints:

Social and cultural factors, including values, norms, and worldviews, shape farmers' climate adaptation by influencing risk perceptions, restricting choices, and creating unequal vulnerabilities (Moser & Ekstrom, 2010) [117] . The loss of traditional knowledge among Arctic Inuit communities reduces adaptive capacity, while lifestyle-driven migration to highrisk areas weakens risk awareness (Gordon et al., 2013) [74] . In Nepal and India, gender norms limit women's adaptation through male-dominated land ownership (Jones & Boyd, 2011) [88] and restricted access to hazard information (Ahmed & Fajber, 2009) [7] . Emotional ties to land can also hinder adaptive actions (Fresque et al., 2012) [64] . These barriers highlight the need for context-sensitive strategies.

Governance and institutional Constraints

The IPCC highlighted governance and institutional barriers as an important constraint in climate adaptation, particularly for farmers. Effective adaptation requires resource mobilization, policy implementation, and decision-making by institutions, but success depends on contextual alignment with local actors (Garschagen, 2013). Institutional capacity, often tied to adaptation prioritization, plays a crucial role (Westerhoff et al., 2010) [183] . Similarly, adaptation efforts depend on broader institutional commitment to environmental management (Lesnikowski et al., 2013) [103] . However, existing policies and institutional structures often misalign with adaptation goals (Huntjens et al., 2012) [83] . Divergent perceptions across governance scales further complicate farmer adaptation, necessitating new bridging institutions to integrate multi-level planning. Thus, governance reforms are critical to overcoming institutional barriers in agricultural adaptation.

Comparative Insights across Agro-Ecological Zones of India:

As a developing economy highly dependent on agriculture and other climate-sensitive sectors, India is particularly vulnerable to the impacts of global climate change. However, this vulnerability is not uniform across the country; it varies substantially across agro-ecological zones due to differences in climatic exposure, socioeconomic sensitivity, and adaptive capacity. These regional disparities demand localized approaches to climate adaptation rather than one-size-fits-all solutions. Strengthening climate resilience in agriculture necessitates www.extensionjournal.com region-specific interventions grounded in a robust understanding of local ecological systems. A landmark study by Singh et al. (2021) [159] assessed the resilience of Indian agriculture using a multi-scalar and multi-indicator framework. The authors developed a Climate-Resilient Agriculture Index composed of 26 indicators grouped under four major dimensionsenvironmental, technological, socio-economic, and institutional/infrastructural. Their analysis revealed clear inter-and intra-zonal differences in resilience levels. Among the agro-climatic zones, the West Coast Plains & Ghats and the Trans-Gangetic Plains exhibited relatively high resilience to climate risks, while the Eastern Himalayan Region, Middle Gangetic Plains, Eastern Plateau & Hills, and Western Dry Region recorded lower resilience. The study emphasized the need to identify region-specific drivers and constraints of resilience at finer scales, and called for strategic interventions that include resource conservation, infrastructure development, diversification, institutional strengthening, and the mainstreaming of climate adaptation into developmental policies.

Climate Change and Agricultural Vulnerability across Agro-Ecological Zones of Kerala

Kerala, with its diverse topography and microclimatic conditions, experiences wide variations in climate vulnerability across districts. Giridhar et al. (2022) [72] developed an Agricultural Climate Vulnerability Index (ACVI) for Kerala using 17 indicators aligned with the IPCC framework, encompassing the components of exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity. The study revealed that Palakkad and Malappuram were among the most vulnerable districts, primarily due to high exposure and limited adaptive infrastructure. In contrast, Ernakulam and Alappuzha exhibited lower vulnerability, supported by robust socio-economic indicators and infrastructural readiness. The findings underscore the importance of tailored adaptation strategies based on the agro-ecological context of each zone. Instead of relying on generalized approaches, the study recommends localized responses such as climate-resilient cropping systems, infrastructural improvements, and grassroots institutional support to foster resilience in agriculture. A district-level study conducted by Kerala Agricultural University (2023) highlighted the heightened climate risk in Wayanad, which lies at the interface of humid and semihumid zones in Kerala's highland agro-ecological region. Due to its altitudinal gradient and location within the Western Ghats, Wayanad is particularly sensitive to climate extremes such as droughts, unseasonal rainfall, and flash floods. The study found that the district's geographic and climatic peculiarities amplify its exposure to erratic weather patterns. Importantly, it emphasized that Kerala's agroecological zones cannot be treated as a monolith; each region's unique topography and microclimate require customized adaptation strategies. This reinforces the broader argument that successful climate action in agriculture must be grounded in ecological specificity and localized planning. Kerala's agro-ecological zones are increasingly fragile under extreme weather. The floods of 2018 and 2020, causing major crop losses and landslides, were linked to unusually intense monsoons amplified by intraseasonal phenomena such as Mixed Rossby-Gravity waves and the Madden-Julian Oscillation (Roxy et al., 2021) [154] . The 2024 Wayanad landslides further highlighted the combined effects of climate variability, deforestation, and unregulated hillside development. With nearly 50% of the state classified as landslide-prone, densely populated and agriculture-dependent midland and highland regions face mounting risks. These events emphasize the urgency of integrating climate risk into land-use planning, watershed management, and agricultural programs in terrain-sensitive areas.

Gender and Social Equity in Climate Adaptation

Climate change does not affect all individuals equally; its impacts are mediated by existing social hierarchies and access to resources. Women, economically disadvantaged communities, and socially marginalized groups are often the most affected due to multiple forms of inequality. Gender intersects with class, caste, age, and geographic remoteness, influencing people's exposure to climate hazards and their adaptive capacity.

Understanding Gendered Vulnerability

Vulnerability to climate change is shaped not just by physical exposure, but also by unequal social structures. Women, particularly in rural and ecologically fragile areas like semi-arid zones, deltas, and mountainous basins, often have limited access to land ownership, credit, education, and institutional support. These disadvantages are compounded by unpaid domestic responsibilities and mobility restrictions, reducing their ability to adapt to climate stress. According to CARIAA (2018) [41] , women, despite being perceived primarily as vulnerable, often demonstrate significant agency. In response to climate challenges and male out-migration, women are increasingly assuming new roles in farming, decision-making, and livelihood diversification. However, without supportive policies and institutional mechanisms, these shifts result in increased time burdens and limited empowerment.

Intersectionality in Adaptation Responses

An intersectional approach is essential to understanding how various identities compound climate vulnerability. Balan and Sreechandana (2025) [26] argue that a gender lens alone is insufficient; adaptation strategies must also consider caste, socio-economic status, education, and age. For example, a woman from a Scheduled Caste community in a drought-prone area may face overlapping disadvantages that a wealthier or upper-caste woman may not. Carr and Thompson (2016) [42] , in their study from Bihar and Uttarakhand, highlight that climate adaptation is highly context-dependent. Power relations within households and communities influence who participates in planning and who benefits from adaptation interventions. Thus, adaptation must be locally grounded and socially responsive, enabling meaningful participation from diverse social groups.

Evidence from Kerala

In Kerala, recent climate events have shown how socioeconomic disadvantages intersect with climate exposure. www.extensionjournal.com George et al. (2022) [71] studied women in Wayanad during flood events and found that lack of access to financial institutions, weather information, and secure income made them particularly vulnerable. Enhancing financial inclusion and strengthening community-level information systems could significantly improve their adaptive capacity. Pavanan et al. (2024) [144] assessed the experiences of female-headed households in Thrissur during the 2018 floods. These households reported higher economic losses due to limited financial literacy, dependence on informal employment, and weak institutional links. The study emphasizes the role of education, livelihood diversification, and support from Panchayati Raj Institutions in reducing vulnerability among women-led families.

Towards Inclusive and Equitable Adaptation

The reviewed literature emphasizes that adaptation policies must move beyond technical solutions and prioritize social justice. This means enabling marginalized communities including women, indigenous groups, and the poor to actively participate in decision-making processes. should strengthen local institutions, enhance access to credit and information, and build networks that support collective resilience. Progressive steps like the inclusion of gender chapters in state climate plans (e.g., Odisha SAPCC) are encouraging, but more consistent, intersectional integration is needed. Kerala's institutions like Kudumbashree provide promising models for women-led adaptation and should be scaled and integrated into broader climate strategies.

Policy Interventions and Institutional Support

Mechanisms: Addressing climate risks which not only threaten the country's ecological balance, but also severely impact agriculture, water resources, health, and livelihoods requires more than just technological innovations. A multilayered response involving robust policy interventions, efficient governance, and coordinated institutional support is essential. Kerala, known for its ecological fragility, has been at the forefront of state-level climate action, offering localized models of governance that align with national climate goals.

National Climate Policy Framework

India took a significant step in formalizing its climate policy with the introduction of the National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC) in 2008, initiated by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC). The NAPCC outlines eight national missions that target both mitigation and adaptation efforts. These include the National Mission on Sustainable Agriculture (NMSA), National Water Mission, National Solar Mission, and National Mission for a Green India, among others. Each mission addresses a specific vulnerability, aiming to build long-term resilience across critical sectors (MoEFCC, 2008) [115] . India's commitments under international agreements are reflected in its Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) submitted to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The updated NDCs, released in 2022, set ambitious targets such as reducing emissions intensity by 45% by 2030 compared to 2005 levels, increasing forest cover, and generating 50% of electricity from non-fossil sources. These targets are part of India's broader vision to align climate action with inclusive development and green growth (MoEFCC, 2022) [116] .

Institutional

Kerala's Climate Governance Strategies

Kerala has developed an adaptive climate governance model that integrates its socio-ecological specificity with national frameworks. The state's first SAPCC was published in 2014, followed by a revised version (SAPCC 2.0) in 2020. The updated plan emphasizes 13 key sectors, including agriculture, biodiversity, water, coastal management, and public health. SAPCC 2.0 aligns with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and emphasizes a climateresilient development pathway (GoK, 2020) [73] . A distinctive aspect of Kerala's approach is the integration of climate planning with decentralized governance. Through the People's Planning Campaign, Local Self-Governments (LSGs) are empowered to incorporate climate resilience into their annual development plans. Institutions such as the Kerala State Disaster Management Authority (KSDMA), Directorate of Environment and Climate Change, and the Rebuild Kerala Initiative (RKI) play key roles in planning and implementation. The RKI, launched post the 2018 floods, represents a paradigm shift toward long-term adaptation. Supported by the World Bank, it emphasizes resilient infrastructure, ecosystem restoration, and watershed management with a focus on nature-based solutions and community participation (World Bank, 2021) [185] .

Key Challenges and Gaps

Despite robust frameworks, implementation gaps remain a critical concern. Coordination among departments is often fragmented, leading to inefficiencies. Financial constraints and procedural delays hamper the timely execution of projects, particularly at the grassroots level. Another important limitation is the insufficient focus on gender and social equity. While women, tribal communities, and www.extensionjournal.com economically weaker groups are frequently cited as vulnerable, they are rarely engaged as decision-makers in planning processes. Research by Singh et al. (2021) [160] underscores that climate policy in India often lacks meaningful gender integration, resulting in exclusion from adaptation benefits. Additionally, the availability of localized climate data and technical expertise is inadequate at the Panchayat level. While Kerala's local institutions are relatively proactive, their capacity for climate forecasting, vulnerability mapping, and impact assessment is still limited.

Emerging Trends and Innovative Approaches in

Adaptation: Kerala's agricultural system stretches across saline coastal belts, fragile backwaters, humid midlands, and steep highlands. Each zone faces distinct climate risks. Coastal regions contend with sea-level rise, saline intrusion, and cyclones. Low-lying regions such as Kuttanad suffer from prolonged flooding and waterlogging. Midland zones face crop stress due to rainfall variability, while highlands are increasingly prone to landslides, soil erosion, and extreme heat episodes. These variations necessitate targeted interventions rather than a one-size-fits-all approach. The Climate-Resilient and Energy-Efficient Agriculture (CREEA) programme has pioneered interventions like climate mapping tools, innovation hubs such as K-CRAIL, and community-based seed systems. These initiatives provide localized solutions by matching crop varieties and practices to zone-specific challenges.

9.1.

Agro-Ecological Zone-Specific Adaptation Approaches: Coastal regions: Key risks include salinity intrusion, tidal flooding, cyclones, soil sodicity. Adaptation strategies are salt-tolerant crops & bio-saline farming, use tolerant rice and millets; apply organic amendments (compost, press-mud, green manures) to improve cation exchange capacity and buffer salinity; encourage halophyte fodders on bunds; alternate or co-culture brackish-water fish/shrimp with paddy on seasonal calendars; use sluice gates and field bunds to regulate salinity pulses and Pokkali rice-prawn rotation. Benefits are income diversification, saline soil rehabilitation, blue-green value chains.

Low-lying wetlands (e.g., Kuttanad): Deep waterlogging, prolonged submergence, machinery access constraints are the issues associated. The approaches can be use of staggered nurseries, synchronized community planting, and raised seedbeds to dodge early floods; floating agriculture ("baira"-inspired); polders and community pump scheduling: Maintain embankments; operate diesel/solar pumps under a shared calendar to lower costs Benefits of following these measures include maintaining rice landscapes and creating monsoon-season vegetable niches.

Midlands:

To address erratic rainfall, heat spells, and pest surges in Kerala's midlands, farmers can adopt crop diversification by intercropping pulses, sesame, tubers, and vegetables with rice or coconut, and rotating crops to disrupt pest cycles and spread risk. Conservation agriculture practices such as minimum tillage, in-situ residue retention, cover crops like cowpea or sunhemp, and mulching help conserve soil moisture, reduce evaporation, and suppress weeds. Agroforestry systems combining coconut with cocoa, banana, vegetables, or pepper on live standards, along with boundary timber, further enhance resilience (Pillai et al., 2024) [147] . These strategies collectively stabilize yields, improve soil organic carbon, and support pollinator habitats, though careful residue management is needed to prevent termite issues and strong market linkages are essential for diversified produce.

Highlands: In Kerala's highlands, farmers face slope erosion, dry spells, and rising night-time temperatures. Adaptation measures include soil and water conservation practices such as contour bunds, graded terraces, vegetative barriers (vetiver or leucaena), percolation pits, and trenchcum-bund systems. Spice resilience can be strengthened through shade regulation in pepper and cardamom, the use of live mulches, biochar, windbreaks, and climate-tolerant varieties. Micro-irrigation using drip or sprinkler systems, coupled with solar pumps and fertigation scheduled by tensiometers or soil-moisture sensors, enhances efficiency. These strategies reduce sediment loss, improve water productivity, and boost crop quality, though care must be taken to ensure safe terrace drainage and to monitor fertigation to avoid nutrient leaching.

Innovative Climate Resilience Practices

Kerala's adaptation framework increasingly draws on both indigenous and modern practices:  Traditional models: The Pokkali system integrates rice and shrimp farming, mitigating salinity stress and sustaining livelihoods. Kaipad farming and homestead multi-cropping systems provide additional models of ecological resilience (Ramachandran et al., 2023) [151] .

References

1. Abid M, Scheffran J, Schneider UA, Ashfaq M. Farmers' perceptions of and adaptation strategies to climate change and their determinants: the case of Punjab province, Pakistan. Earth Syst Dyn. 2015;6(1):225-243.
2. Abid M, Scheffran J, Schneider UA, Elahi E. Farmer perceptions of climate change, observed trends and adaptation of agriculture in Pakistan. Environ Manage. 2019;63(1):110-123.
3. Adesina FA, Odekunle TO. Climate change and adaptation in Nigeria: some background to Nigeria's response-III. Int Conf Environ Agric Eng. 2011;15(2):146-154.
4. Adger WN, Agrawala S, Mirza M, Conde C, O'Brien K, Pulhin J, et al. Assessment of adaptation practices, options, constraints and capacity. In: Parry M, Canziani O, Palutikof J, van der Linden P, Hanson C, editors. Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2007. p. 717-743.
5. Adger WN, Arnell NW, Tompkins EL. Adapting to climate change: perspectives across scales. Glob Environ Change. 2005;15(2):75-76.
6. Agyei P, Amanor K. Typologies and drivers of the adoption of climate smart agricultural practices by smallholder farmers in rural Ghana. Curr Res Environ Sustain. 2023;5:100223.
7. Ahmed S, Fajber E. Engendering adaptation to climate variability in Gujarat, India. Gend Dev. 2009;17(1):3350.
8. Aisyah I, Darwanto DH, Utami AW. Understanding farmers' perception of climate change to prepare adaptation of farmers. IOP Conf Ser Earth Environ Sci. 2024;1323(1):012023.
9. Aitken C, Chapman R, McClure J. Climate change, powerlessness and the commons dilemma: assessing New Zealanders' preparedness to act. Glob Environ Change. 2011;21(2):752-760.
10. Akhtar MS, Maann AA, Awan KK, Shahbaz B. Coping strategies of farmers regarding the impact of climate change in rice-wheat zone of the Punjab, Pakistan. Pak J Agric Sci. 2019;56(4):735-742.
11. Akinnagbe OM, Irohibe IJ. Agricultural adaptation strategies to climate change impacts in Africa: a review. Bangladesh J Agric Res. 2014;39(3):407-418.
12. Akinyi DP, Ng'ang'a SK, Girvetz EH. Trade-offs and synergies of climate change adaptation strategies among smallholder farmers in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review. Reg Sustain. 2021;2(2):130-143.
13. Al-Amin AQ, Masud MM, Sarkar MSK, Leal Filho W, Doberstein B. Analysing the socioeconomic and motivational factors affecting the willingness to pay for climate change adaptation in Malaysia. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct. 2020;50:101708.
14. Alemayehu A, Bewket W. Smallholder farmers' coping and adaptation strategies to climate change and variability in the central highlands of Ethiopia. Local Environ. 2017;22(7):825-839.
15. Amadu FO, McNamara PE, Miller DC. Understanding the adoption of climate-smart agriculture: a farm-level typology with empirical evidence from southern Malawi. World Dev. 2020;126:104692.
16. Amnuaylojaroen T, Parasin N. Human health adaptation strategies to climate-induced extreme weather events: a systematic review. Earth. 2024;5(4):724-742.
17. Apata TG. Factors influencing the perception and choice of adaptation measures to climate change among farmers in Nigeria: evidence from farming households in Southwest Nigeria. Environ Econ. 2011;2(4):74-83.
18. Arbuckle JG Jr, Morton LW, Hobbs J. Farmer beliefs and concerns about climate change and attitudes toward adaptation and mitigation: evidence from Iowa. Clim Change. 2013;118(3-4):551-563.
19. Arbuckle JG Jr, Morton LW, Hobbs J. Understanding farmer perspectives on climate change adaptation and mitigation: the roles of trust in sources of climate information, climate change beliefs, and perceived risk. www.extensionjournal.com Environ Behav. 2015;47(2):205-234.
20. Arega C, Tolossa D, Gurmu E. Migration as a strategy for livelihood diversification among rural households in Ethiopia: a comparative analysis. J Sustain Dev Afr. 2023;25(4):45-61.
21. Asfaw A, Admassie A. The role of education on the adoption of chemical fertiliser under different socioeconomic environments in Ethiopia. Agric Econ. 2004;30(3):215-228.
22. Asrat P, Simane B. Farmers' perception of climate change and adaptation strategies in the Dabus watershed, North-West Ethiopia. Ecol Process. 2018;7(1):1-13.
23. Asrat P, Simane B. Farmers' perception of climate change and adaptation strategies in the Dabus watershed, North-West Ethiopia. Ecol Process. 2018;7:1-13.
24. Atube F, Malinga G, Nyeko M, Okello D, Alarakol S, Okello-Uma I. Determinants of smallholder farmers' adaptation strategies to the effects of climate change: evidence from northern Uganda. Agric Food Secur. 2021;10:39.
25. Azadi Y, Yazdanpanah M, Mahmoudi H. Understanding smallholder farmers' adaptation behaviors through climate change beliefs, risk perception, trust, and psychological distance: evidence from wheat growers in Iran. J Environ Manage. 2019;250:109456.
26. Balan S, Sreechandana CS. The intersectionality of gender, climate change and resilience: a critical review. Int J Environ Clim Change. 2025;15(5):404-414.
27. Balasha AM, Munyahali W, Kulumbu JT, Okwe AN, Fyama JNM, Lenge EK, et al. Understanding farmers' perception of climate change and adaptation practices in the marshlands of South Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo. Clim Risk Manag. 2023;39:100469.
28. Baldassarre G, Montanari A, Lins H, Koutsoyiannis D, Brandimarte L, Blöschl G. Flood fatalities in Africa: from diagnosis to mitigation. Geophys Res Lett. 2010;37(22):1-6.
29. Balew S, Agwata J, Anyango S. Determinants of adoption choices of climate change adaptation strategies in crop production by small scale farmers in some regions of central Ethiopia. J Nat Sci Res. 2014;4(4):78-93.
30. Batima P, Natsagdorj L, Batnasan N. Vulnerability of Mongolia's pastoralists to climate extremes and changes. In: Climate change and vulnerability and adaptation. Abingdon: Routledge; 2013. p. 67-87.
31. Baudoin MA. Enhancing climate change adaptation in Africa: assessing the role of local institutions in Southern Benin. Clim Dev. 2013;6(2):122-131.
32. Bello M, Salau ES, Galadima OE, Ali I. Knowledge, perception and adaptation strategies to climate change among farmers of central state Nigeria. Sustain Agric Res. 2013;2(3):107-117.
33. Bierbaum R, Smith JB, Lee A, Blair M, Carter L, Chapin FS III, et al. A comprehensive review of climate adaptation in the United States: more than before, but less than needed. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change. 2013;18(3):361-406.
34. Brink E, Wamsler C. Citizen engagement in climate adaptation surveyed: the role of values, worldviews, gender and place. J Clean Prod. 2019;209:1342-1353.
35. Brooks SA, Anders MM, Yeater KM. Effect of furrow irrigation on the severity of false smut in susceptible rice varieties. Plant Dis. 2010;94(5):570-574.
36. Brown O, Hammill A, McLeman R. Climate change as the 'new' security threat: implications for Africa. Int Aff. 2007;83(6):1141-1154.
37. Bryan E, Deressa TT, Gbetibouo GA, Ringler C. Adaptation to climate change in Ethiopia and South Africa: options and constraints. Environ Sci Policy. 2009;12(4):413-426.
38. Bryan E, Deressa TT, Gbetibouo GA, Ringler C. Adaptation to climate change in Ethiopia and South Africa: options and constraints. Environ Sci Policy. 2009;12(4):413-426.
39. Bryan E, Deressa TT, Gbetibouo GA, Ringler C. Adaptation to climate change in Ethiopia and South Africa: options and constraints. Environ Sci Policy. 2009;12(4):413-426.
40. Burney J, Cesano D, Russell J, Rovere EL, Corral T, Coelho NS, et al. Climate change adaptation strategies for smallholder farmers in the Brazilian Sertão. Clim Change. 2014;126:45-59.
41. CARIAA. Gender and social equity in climate adaptation. CARIAA Novel Insights Series. Ottawa: International Development Research Centre; 2018. Available from: https://idl-bncidrc.dspacedirect.org/handle/10625/57249
42. Carr ER, Thompson MC. The diversity of gendered adaptation strategies to climate change in India: a feminist intersectional approach. Ambio. 2016;45(3):335-344.
43. Clark MP, Kavetski D, Fenicia F. Pursuing the method of multiple working hypotheses for hydrological modelling. Water Resour Res. 2011;47(9):W09301.
44. Comoé H, Siegrist M. Relevant drivers of farmers' decision behavior regarding their adaptation to climate change: a case study of two regions in Côte d'Ivoire. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change. 2015;20(2):179-199.
45. Croppenstedt A, Demeke M, Meschi MM. Technology adoption in the presence of constraints: the case of fertilizer demand in Ethiopia. Rev Dev Econ. 2003;7(1):58-70.
46. Dang LH, Li E, Nuberg I, Bruwer J. Understanding farmers' adaptation intention to climate change: a structural equation modelling study in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam. Environ Sci Policy. 2014;41:11-22.
47. Datta P, Behera B, Rahut D. Climate change and Indian agriculture: a systematic review of farmers' perception, adaptation, and transformation. Environ Challenges. 2022;7:100488.
48. Davies M, Guenther B, Leavy J, Mitchell T, Tanner T. Climate change adaptation, disaster risk reduction and social protection: complementary roles in agriculture and rural growth? IDS Work Pap. 2009;320:1-37.
49. Deressa TT, Hassan RM, Ringler C. Perception of and adaptation to climate change by farmers in the Nile basin of Ethiopia. J Agric Sci. 2011;149(1):23-31.
50. Deressa TT, Hassan RM, Ringler C, Alemu T, Yesuf M. Determinants of farmers' choice of adaptation methods to climate change in the Nile Basin of www.extensionjournal.com Ethiopia. Glob Environ Change. 2009;19(2):248-255.
51. Dow K, Berkhout F, Preston BL, Klein RJT, Midgley G, Shaw MR. Limits to adaptation. Nat Clim Change. 2013;3:305-307.
52. Dukes JS, Pontius J, Orwig D, Garnas JR, Rodgers VL, Brazee N, et al. Responses of insect pests, pathogens, and invasive plant species to climate change in the forests of northeastern North America: what can we predict? Can J For Res. 2009;39(2):231-248.
53. Eisenack K, Moser SC, Hoffmann E, Klein RJT, Oberlack C, Pechan A, et al. Explaining and overcoming barriers to climate change adaptation. Nat Clim Change. 2014;4:867-872.
54. Elum Z, Modise D, Marr A. Farmers' perception of climate change and responsive strategies in three selected provinces of South Africa. Clim Risk Manag. 2016;16:246-257.
55. Eriksen S, Aldunce P, Bahinipati CS, Martins RDA, Molefe JI, Nhemachena C, et al. When not every response to climate change is a good one: identifying principles for sustainable adaptation. Clim Dev. 2011;3(1):7-20.
56. Esham M, Garforth C. Agricultural adaptation to climate change: insights from a farming community in Sri Lanka. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change. 2013;18(5):535-549.
57. Esham M, Garforth C. Agricultural adaptation to climate change: insights from a farming community in Sri Lanka. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change. 2013;18(5):535-549.
58. Feeley KJ, Silman MR. Land-use and climate change effects on population size and extinction risk of Andean plants. Glob Change Biol. 2010;16(12):3215-3222.
59. Feng S, Hu Q, Huang W, Ho CH, Li R, Tang Z. Projected climate regime shifts under future global warming from multi-model, multi-scenario CMIP5 simulations. Glob Planet Change. 2014;112:41-52.
60. Finger R, Hediger W, Schmid S. Irrigation as adaptation strategy to climate change a biophysical and economic appraisal for Swiss maize production. Clim Change. 2011;105(3):509-528.
61. Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO). Regional overview of food insecurity: African food insecurity prospects brighter than ever. Accra: Food and Agriculture Organization; 2015. Available from: http://www.fao.org/ [Accessed 2025 Jul 24].
62. Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO). Climatesmart agriculture case studies 2021: Projects from around the world. Rome: FAO; 2021. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb5359en [Accessed 2025 Jul 24].
63. Franzel S. Socioeconomic factors affecting the adoption potential of improved tree fallows in Africa. Agrofor Syst. 1999;47(1-3):305-321.
64. Fresque-Baxter JA, Armitage D. Place identity and climate change adaptation: a synthesis and framework for understanding. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Change. 2012;3(3):251-266.
65. Fung F, Lopez A, New M. Water availability in +2 °C and +4 °C worlds. Philos Trans R Soc A Math Phys Eng Sci. 2011;369(1934):99-116.
66. Gardner JL, Peters A, Kearney MR, Joseph L, Heinsohn R. Declining body size: a third universal response to warming? Trends Ecol Evol. 2011;26(6):285-291.
67. Garschagen M, Romero-Lankao P. Exploring the relationships between urbanization trends and climate change vulnerability. Clim Change. 2015;133(1):37-52.
68. Gbetibouo GA, Hassan RM, Ringler C. Modelling farmers' adaptation strategies for climate change and variability: the case of the Limpopo Basin, South Africa. Agrekon. 2010;49(2):217-234.
69. Gebrehiwot T, van der Veen A. Farm level adaptation to climate change: the case of farmers in the Ethiopian Highlands. Environ Manage. 2013;52(1):29-44.
70. Gedefaw M, Yan D, Wang H, Qin T, Wang K. Analysis of the recent trends of two climate parameters over two eco-regions of Ethiopia. Water. 2019;11(1):161.
71. George B, Kumar R, Banerjee S. Vulnerability of women in the face of climate change: a study of Wayanad district of Kerala, India. J Chin Econ Foreign Trade Stud. 2022;15(3):279-297.
72. Giridhar BJ, Raghavendra KJ, Singh DR, Kuriachen P. Agricultural vulnerability to climate change: a case study of Kerala. J Community Mobil Sustain Dev. 2022;17(1):80-87. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/360603272
73. Government of Kerala (GoK). Revised Kerala State Action Plan on Climate Change (SAPCC 2.0) 20202030. Thiruvananthapuram: Directorate of Environment and Climate Change; 2020. Available from: https://envt.kerala.gov.in
74. Gordon DJ. Between local innovation and global impact: cities, networks, and the governance of climate change. Can Foreign Policy J. 2013;19(3):288-307.
75. Grothmann T, Patt A. Adaptive capacity and human cognition: the process of individual adaptation to climate change. Glob Environ Change. 2005;15(3):199213.
76. Grothmann T, Reusswig F. People at risk of flooding: why some residents take precautionary action while others do not. Nat Hazards. 2006;38(1):101-120.
77. Guo R, Li Y, Shang L, Xu M, Feng C, Wang X, et al. Local farmers' perception and adaptive behavior toward climate change. J Clean Prod. 2020;125332.
78. Hamilton LC. Education, politics and opinions about climate change: evidence for interaction effects. Clim Change. 2011;104(2):231-242.
79. Hanjra MA, Qureshi ME. Global water crisis and future food security in an era of climate change. Food Policy. 2010;35(5):365-379.
80. Hassan R, Nhemachena C. Determinants of African farmers' strategies for adapting to climate change: multinomial choice analysis. Afr J Agric Resour Econ. 2008;2(1):83-104.
81. HD VP, Athira NS, Mathew B. Climate change adaptation: a global review of farmers' strategies. J Trop Agric. 2023;61(1):56-67.
82. Hoffmann I. Climate change in context: implications for livestock production and diversity. In: Odongo NE, Garcia M, Viljoen GJ, editors. Livestock and global climate change. Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publishers; 2010. p. 33.
83. Huntjens P, Lebel L, Pahl-Wostl C, Camkin J, Schulze www.extensionjournal.com R, Kranz N, et al. Institutional design propositions for the governance of adaptation to climate change in the water sector. Glob Environ Change. 2012;22(1):67-81.
84. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Summary for policymakers. In: Pörtner HO, editor. Climate change 2022: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2022. p. 3-33.
85. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Climate change 2001: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2001.
86. Islam MM, Sallu S, Hubacek K, Paavola J. Limits and barriers to adaptation to climate variability and change in Bangladeshi coastal fishing communities. Mar Policy. 2014;43:208-216.
87. Islami A, Mulyo J, I. Adaptation and adaptation strategy of farmers to climate change. J Agribus Manage Dev. 2022.
88. Jones L, Boyd E. Exploring social barriers to adaptation: insights from Western Nepal. Glob Environ Change. 2011;21(4):1262-1274.
89. Kalungu JW, Harris D. Smallholder farmers' perception of the impacts of climate change and variability on rainfed agricultural practices in semi-arid and sub-humid regions of Kenya. J Environ Earth Sci. 2013;3(7):129140.
90. Kapoor RV. Climate change vulnerabilities of the Maldives: implications for India. Natl Marit Found. 2020;3.
91. Kerala Agricultural University. Climate risk in Wayanad district: an empirical analysis. J Trop Agric. 2023;61(1). Available from: https://jtropag.kau.in/index.php/ojs2/article/view/1003
92. Khanal U, Wilson C. Derivation of a climate change adaptation index and assessing determinants and barriers to adaptation among farming households in Nepal. Environ Sci Policy. 2019;101:156-165.
93. Klein RJT, Midgley GF, Preston BL, Alam M, Berkhout FGH, Dow K, et al. Climate change 2014: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Part A: global and sectoral aspects. In: Field CB, Barros VR, Dokken DJ, Mach KJ, Mastrandrea MD, Bilir TE, et al., editors. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2014. p. 899-943.
94. Knowler D, Bradshaw B. Farmers' adoption of conservation agriculture: a review and synthesis of recent research. Food Policy. 2007;32(1):25-48.
95. Kuehne G. How do farmers' climate change beliefs affect adaptation to climate change? Soc Nat Resour. 2014;27(5):492-506.
96. Kundo HK, Brueckner M, Spencer R, Davis J. Mainstreaming climate adaptation into social protection: the issues yet to be addressed. J Int Dev. 2021;33(6):953-974.
97. Kwaghe PV, Mohammed D. Analysis of adaptation to climate change among crop farmers in Adamawa State, Nigeria. Adv Arts Soc Sci Educ Res. 2013;3(1):379386.
98. Lafleur B, Pare D, Munson AD, Bergeron Y. Response of northeastern North American forests to climate change: will soil conditions constrain tree species migration? Environ Rev. 2010;18:279-289.
99. Lal SP, Kadian KS, Jha SK, Sharma AK, Goyal J, Kumar RS, et al. Change in livestock holdings, adaptation strategies and livelihood security of the farmers affected by national calamity in Bihar, India. Indian J Dairy Sci. 2015;68(1):83-90.
100. Landaverde R, Rodriguez M, Niewoehner-Green J, Kitchel T, Chuquillanqui J. Climate change perceptions and adaptation strategies: a mixed methods study with subsistence farmers in rural Peru. Sustainability. 2022.
101. Lema MA, Majule AE. Impacts of climate change, variability and adaptation strategies on agriculture in semi-arid areas of Tanzania: the case of Manyoni District in Singida Region, Tanzania. Afr J Environ Sci Technol. 2009;3(8):206-218.
102. Lenzholzer S, Carsjens GJ, Brown RD, Tavares S, Vanos J, Kim Y, et al. Awareness of urban climate adaptation strategies -an international overview. Urban Clim. 2020;34:100705.
103. Lesnikowski AC, Ford JD, Berrang-Ford L, Barrera M, Berry P, Henderson J, et al. National-level factors affecting planned, public adaptation to health impacts of climate change. Glob Environ Change. 2013;23(5):1153-1163.
104. Liu W, Sun F, Lim WH, Zhang J, Wang H, Shiogama H. Global drought and severe drought-affected populations in 1.5 and 2 °C warmer worlds. Earth Syst Dyn. 2018;9:267-283.
105. Liwenga ET. Food insecurity and coping strategies in semi-arid areas: the case of Mvumi in Central Tanzania [dissertation]. Stockholm: Stockholm University; 2003. 166 p.
106. Lobell DB, Schlenker W, Costa-Roberts J. Climate trends and global crop production since 1980. Science. 2011;333(6042):616-620.
107. Maddison D, Rehdanz K. Cross-country variations in subjective wellbeing explained by the climate. In: Handbook on wellbeing, happiness and the environment. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing; 2020. p. 105-126.
108. Mahmood N, Arshad M, Mehmood Y, Shahzad MF, Kächele H. Farmers' perceptions and role of institutional arrangements in climate change adaptation: insights from rainfed Pakistan. Clim Risk Manag. 2021;32:100288.
109. Mairura FS, Musafiri CM, Kiboi MN, Macharia JM, Ng'etich OK, Shisanya CA, et al. Determinants of farmers' perceptions of climate variability, mitigation, and adaptation strategies in the central highlands of Kenya. Weather Clim Extrem. 2021;100374.
110. Makuvaro V, Walker S, Masere T, Dimes J. Smallholder farmer perceived effects of climate change on agricultural productivity and adaptation strategies. J Arid Environ. 2018;152:75-82.
111. Marie M, Yirga F, Haile M, Tquabo F. Farmers' choices and factors affecting adoption of climate change adaptation strategies: evidence from northwestern www.extensionjournal.com Ethiopia. Heliyon. 2020;6.
112. Martínez CIP, Piña WHA, Moreno SF. Prevention, mitigation and adaptation to climate change from perspectives of urban population in an emerging economy. J Clean Prod. 2018;178:314-324.
113. McCright AM, Dunlap RE. The politicization of climate change and polarization in the American public's views of global warming, 2001-2010. Sociol Q. 2011;52(2):155-194.
114. Mertz O, Mbow JØ, Nielsen A, Maiga D, Diallo A, Reenberg A, et al. Climate factors play a limited role for past adaptation strategies in West Africa. Ecol Soc. 2010;15(4):25.
115. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC). National Action Plan on Climate Change. New Delhi: Government of India; 2008. Available from: https://moef.gov.in
116. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC). India's updated first nationally determined contributions under the Paris Agreement. New Delhi: Government of India; 2022. Available from: https://unfccc.int/documents/619180
117. Moser SC, Ekstrom JA. A framework to diagnose barriers to climate change adaptation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2010;107(51):22026-22031.
118. Mugagga F, Elepu J, Nimussiima A, Bamutaze Y. Institutional determinants to climate variability adaptation by smallholder Irish potato farmers in Rubanda District, south western Uganda. Am J Clim Change. 2019;8:77-93.
119. Muller C, Shackleton SE. Perceptions of climate change and barriers to adaptation amongst commonage and commercial livestock farmers in the semi-arid Eastern Cape Karoo. Afr J Range Forage Sci. 2013;31(1):1-12.
120. Murphy JM, Booth BB, Collins M, Harris GR, Sexton DM, Webb MJ. A methodology for probabilistic predictions of regional climate change from perturbed physics ensembles. Philos Trans R Soc A Math Phys Eng Sci. 2007;365(1857):1993-2028.
121. Mustafa G, Alotaibi B, Nayak R. Linking climate change awareness, climate change perceptions and subsequent adaptation options among farmers. Agronomy. 2023;13(6):1423-1438.
122. Ndamani F, Watanabe T. Determinants of farmers' adaptation to climate change: A micro level analysis in Ghana. Scientia Agricola. 2016;73(3):201-208.
123. Ndambiri HK, Ritho CN, Mbogo SG, Ng'ang'a SI, Muiruri EJ, Nyangweso PM, et al. Assessment of farmers' adaptation to the effects of climate change in Kenya: The case of Kyuso District. Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development. 2012;3(12):52-60.
124. Ndhleve S, Nakin MDV, Longo-Mbenza B. Impacts of supplemental irrigation as a climate change adaptation strategy for Zea mays production: A case of the Eastern Cape Province of South Africa. Water SA. 2017;43(2):222-228.
125. Nelson DR. Adaptation and resilience: Responding to a changing climate. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change. 2011;2(1):113-120.
126. Nelson R, Kokic P, Crimp S, Martin P, Meinke H, Howden SM, et al. The vulnerability of Australian rural communities to climate variability and change: Part II Integrating impacts with adaptive capacity. Environmental Science & Policy. 2010;13(1):18-27.
127. New M. Decision making options for managing risk. In: Pörtner H-O, editor. Climate change 2022: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2022. p. 2539-2654.
128. Ngigi MW, Birner R. Shocks, livestock assets and climate change adaptation in Kenya. In: Proceedings of the 4th African Association of Agricultural Economics (AAAE/AEASA) Conference; 2013 Sep 23-25;
129. Hammamet, Tunisia. Nairobi: AAAE; 2013.
130. Ngondjeb YD. Agriculture and climate change in Cameroon: An assessment of impacts and adaptation options. African Journal of Science, Technology, Innovation and Development. 2013;5(1):85-94.
131. Nhemachena C, Hassan R. Micro-level analysis of farmers' adaptation to climate change in Southern Africa. IFPRI Discussion Paper 00714. Washington (DC): International Food Policy Research Institute; 2007. p. 1-52.
132. Nicholls RJ, Marinova N, Lowe JA, Brown S, Vellinga P, De Gusmao D, et al. Sea-level rise and its possible impacts given a 'beyond 4 °C world' in the twenty-first century. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences. 2011;369(1934):161-181.
133. Nielsen JØ, Reenberg A. Temporality and the problem with singling out climate as a current driver of change in a small West African village. Journal of Arid Environments. 2010;74(4):464-474.
134. Nkomo JC, Nyong AO, Kulindwa K. The impacts of climate change in Africa. Final draft submitted to the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change. 2006; p. 1-51.
135. Noriega IL, Dawson IK, Vernooy R, Köhler-Rollefson I, Halewood M. Agricultural diversification as an adaptation strategy. Agriculture for Development. 2017;30:25-28.
136. Nyang'au JO, Mohamed JH, Mango N, Makate C, Wangeci AN. Smallholder farmers' perception of climate change and adoption of climate-smart agriculture practices in Masaba South Sub-County, Kisii, Kenya. Heliyon. 2021;7(4):e06839.
137. Nyong A, Adesina F, Elasha O. The value of indigenous knowledge in climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies in the African Sahel. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change. 2007;12(5):787-797.
138. Owen G. What makes climate change adaptation effective? A systematic review of the literature. Global Environmental Change. 2020;62:102071.
139. Ozor N, Cynthia N. Difficulties in adaptation to climate change by farmers in Enugu State, Nigeria. Journal of Agricultural Extension. 2010;14(2):106-122.
140. Paavola J. Livelihoods, vulnerability and adaptation to climate change in Morogoro, Tanzania. Environmental Science & Policy. 2008;11(7):642-654. www.extensionjournal.com
141. Palutikof J, Barnett J, Guitart D. Can we adapt to four degrees of warming? Yes, no and maybe. In: Christoff P, editor. Four degrees of global warming: Australia in a hot world. Abingdon: Routledge; 2014. p. 216-233.
142. Pandey S. Adoption of soil conservation practices in developing countries: Policy and institutional factors. In: Lal R, Stewart BA, editors. Response to land degradation. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2019. p. 66-79.
143. Parry M, Arnell N, Berry P, Dodman D, Fankhauser S, Hope C, et al. assessing the costs of adaptation to climate change: A review of the UNFCCC and other recent estimates. London: International Institute for Environment and Development and Grantham Institute for Climate Change; 2009.
144. Pasquini L, Cowling RM, Ziervogel G. Facing the heat: Barriers to mainstreaming climate change adaptation in local government in the Western Cape Province, South Africa. Habitat International. 2013;40:225-232.
145. Pavanan AT, Parayil C, Bonny BP, Prema A, Nameer PO, Sreya PS. Determinants of economic vulnerability among female-headed households in central Kerala during the 2018 floods. Journal of Tropical Agriculture. 2024;62(1):51-57.
146. Petersen AC. A critical assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In: De Pryck K, Hulme M, editors. A critical assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2022. p. 107115.
147. Pfister S, Bayer P, Koehler A, Hellweg S. Projected water consumption in future global agriculture: Scenarios and related impacts. Science of the Total Environment. 2011;409(20):4206-4216.
148. Pillai PS, Radhakrishnan NV. Crop diversification for enhanced productivity in the southern laterites of Kerala. Indian Journal of Agricultural Research. 2024;58(3):450-455.
149. Piya L, Maharjan KL, Joshi NP. Determinants of adaptation practices to climate change by Chepang households in the rural Mid-Hills of Nepal. Regional Environmental Change. 2013;13(2):437-447.
150. Raghuvanshi R, Ansari MA, Amardeep, Verma AP. Adaptation to climate change by farmers in Himalayan region of Uttarakhand. Research Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2018;9(2):399-403.
151. Raihan A. A review of the global climate change impacts, adaptation strategies, and mitigation options in the socio-economic and environmental sectors. Journal of Environmental Science and Economics. 2023;2(3):36-58.
152. Ramachandran C, Shinoj P, Gills R, Anuja AR, Padua S, Ratheesh Kumar R, et al. Ecosystem services of coastal wetlands for climate change mitigation: An economic analysis of Pokkali and Kaipad-based rotational Oryza sativa farming systems in India. Current Science. 2023;125(5):156-164.
153. Reddy K, Paramesh V, Arunachalam V, Das B, Ramasundaram P, Pramanik M, et al. Farmers' perception and efficacy of adaptation decisions to climate change. Agronomy. 2022;12(7):1589-1604.
154. Ricart S, Gandolfi C, Castelletti A. What drives farmers' behavior under climate change? Decoding risk awareness, perceived impacts, and adaptive capacity in northern Italy. Heliyon. 2025;11(1):e21345.
155. Roxy MK, Mujumdar M, Murtugudde R. Climate and hydrological drivers of the 2018 and 2020 Kerala floods. arXiv Preprint. 2021. Available from: https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.01196
156. Salau ES, Onuk EG, Ibrahim A. Knowledge, perception and adaptation strategies to climate change among farmers in Southern Agricultural Zone of Nasarawa State, Nigeria. Journal of Agricultural Extension. 2012;16(2):199-211.
157. Sanghi A, Mendelsohn R. The impacts of global warming on farmers in Brazil and India. Global Environmental Change. 2008;18(4):655-665.
158. Schwaller NL, BenDor TK. Differential residential perspectives on in situ protection and retreat as strategies for climate adaptation. Climatic Change. 2021;167(3):42-59.
159. Selvaraj A, Subbiah S, Baas S, Juergens I. Livelihood adaptation to climate variability and change in droughtprone areas of Bangladesh. Rome: Institution for Rural Development; 2006. p. 1-76.
160. Singh C. Interrogating 'effectiveness' in climate change adaptation: 11 guiding principles for adaptation research and practice. Climate and Development. 2021;14(7):650-664.
161. Singh NP, Anand B, Singh S. Synergies and trade-offs for climate-resilient agriculture in India: An agroclimatic zone assessment. Climatic Change. 2021;164(11):1-19.
162. Singh R, Solomon D, Rao N. How does climate change adaptation policy in India consider gender? Evidence from government initiatives in semi-arid India. Climate Policy. 2021;21(4):491-510.
163. Snyder CS, Davidson EA, Smith P, Venterea RT. Agriculture: Sustainable crop and animal production to help mitigate nitrous oxide emissions. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability. 2014;9:46-54.
164. Somero GN. The physiology of climate change: How potentials for acclimatization and genetic adaptation will determine 'winners' and 'losers'. Journal of Experimental Biology. 2010;213(6):912-920.
165. Svenning JC, Sandel B. Disequilibrium vegetation dynamics under future climate change. American Journal of Botany. 2013;100(7):1266-1286.
166. Tafa J. Relationship between exchange rates and interest rates: Case of Albania. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences. 2015;6(4):155-162.
167. Talanow K, Topp E, Loos J, Martín-López B. Farmers' perceptions of climate change and adaptation strategies in South Africa's Western Cape. Journal of Rural Studies. 2021;86:21-32.
168. Tasnim Z, Saha S, Hossain M, Khan M. Perception of and adaptation to climate change: The case of wheat (Triticum aestivum) farmers in northwest Bangladesh. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 2022;30(25):32839-32853.
169. Tenzing JD. Integrating social protection and climate www.extensionjournal.com change adaptation: A review. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change. 2020;11(2):e626.
170. Termeer C, Biesbroek R, Van den Brink M. Institutions for adaptation to climate change: Comparing national adaptation strategies in Europe. European Political Science. 2012;11(1):41-53.
171. Tesfaye W, Seifu L. Climate change perception and choice of adaptation strategies. International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management. 2016;8(2):253-270.
172. Teshome A, De Graaff J, Kassie M. Household-level determinants of soil and water conservation adoption phases: Evidence from North-Western Ethiopian Highlands. Environmental Management. 2016;57(3):620-636.
173. Titus JG, Hudgens DE, Trescott DL, Craghan M, Nuckols WH, Hershner CH, et al. State and local governments plan for development of most land vulnerable to rising sea level along the US Atlantic coast. Environmental Research Letters. 2009;4(4):044008.
174. Tribbia J, Moser SC. More than information: What coastal managers need to plan for climate change. Environmental Science & Policy. 2008;11(4):315-328.
175. Trinh TQ, Rañola RF Jr, Camacho LD, Simelton E. Determinants of farmers' adaptation to climate change in agricultural production in the central region of Vietnam. Land Use Policy. 2018;70:224-231.
176. Truelove HB, Carrico AR, Thabrew L. A sociopsychological model for analysing climate change adaptation: A case study of Sri Lankan Oryza sativa farmers. Global Environmental Change. 2015;31:85-97.
177. Udmale P, Ichikawa Y, Manandhar S, Ishidaira H, Kiem AS. Farmers' perception of drought impacts, local adaptation and administrative mitigation measures in Maharashtra State, India. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction. 2014;10:250-269.
178. Urama K, Ozor N. Agricultural innovations for climate change adaptation for food security in Western and Central Africa. Agro-Science Journal of Tropical Agriculture, Food, Environment and Extension. 2011;10(1):1-16.
179. Van Aalst MK, Cannon T, Burton I. Community level adaptation to climate change: The potential role of participatory community risk assessment. Global Environmental Change. 2008;18(1):165-179.
180. Venkateswarlu B, Shanker AK. Climate change and agriculture: adaptation and mitigation strategies. Indian J Agron. 2009;54(2):226-230.
181. Weinhofer G, Hoffmann VH. Mitigating climate change-how do corporate strategies differ? Bus Strategy Environ. 2010;19(2):77-89.
182. Westerhoff L, Juhola S. Science-policy linkages in climate change adaptation in Europe. Int J Climate Change Strateg Manag. 2010;2(3):222-241.
183. Wilk J, Andersson L, Warburton M. Adaptation to climate change and other stressors among commercial and small-scale South African farmers. Reg Environ Change. 2013;13(2):273-286.
184. World Bank. Building a resilient Kerala: post-disaster needs assessment. Washington (DC): World Bank Group; 2021 [cited 2025 Jul 29]. Available from: https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/docum ents-reports/documentdetail/825001572859239038
185. Yegbemey RN, Yabi JA, Tovignan SD, Gantoli G, Kokoye SEH. Farmers' decisions to adapt to climate change under various property rights: a case study of maize farming in northern Benin (West Africa). Land Use Policy. 2013;34:168-175.
186. Zeleke T, Beyene F, Deressa T, Yousuf J, Kebede T. Smallholder farmers' perception of climate change and choice of adaptation strategies in East Hararghe Zone, Eastern Ethiopia. Int J Climate Change Strateg Manag. 2022;14(3):367-386.
187. Ziervogel G, Cartwright A, Tas A, Adejuwon J, Zermoglio F, Shale M, et al. Climate change and adaptation in African agriculture. Stockholm (SE): Stockholm Environment Institute; 2008. p. 17-19.