Farmers’ attitude toward climate smart agriculture technologies under changing climatic conditions

Introduction

Rapid population growth and changing food consumption patterns have intensified pressure on agricultural systems worldwide. The world's population is projected to grow by over 33% by 2050, necessitating significant changes in existing agricultural systems to meet rising food demand (FAO, 2013) [6] . Global food demand is expected to increase by 35% to 56% between 2010 and 2050 due to shifts in consumer preferences (van Dijk et al., 2021) [21] . In India, food demand is projected to rise substantially as a result of population growth and increasing per capita income (Mittal, 2012) [15] . However, domestic production is expected to be constrained by low yield growth, posing serious challenges to meeting long-term food requirements through domestic production alone (Kumar et al., 2009) [11] . India accounts for 24.3% of global food demand, second only to China at 16.7% (Islam and Karim, 2019). United Nations demographic projections estimate that India's population may reach approximately 1.718 billion by 2065, requiring nearly 567 million tonnes of food. At the global level, a 60% increase in agricultural productivity by 2050 has therefore been identified as essential to ensure food security (Fischer, 2018) [7] . These structural challenges are further compounded by climate change and increasing weather unpredictability, which have rendered agricultural production systems more fragile. Climate change negatively affects not only crop productivity and resource availability but also the mental health and well-being of individuals engaged across agricultural value chains. Smallholder farmers are particularly vulnerable due to limited access to resources, innovative technologies and financial capital (Badjeck et al., 2010; Shaffril et al., 2017) [2,17] . Climate-induced social unrest and financial instability further contribute to mental health stress (Berry et al., 2010; Kam et al., 2023) [3,9] . These vulnerabilities shape farmers lived experiences with climate risk and form an important backdrop against which their attitude toward adaptation technologies emerge. In this context, climate-smart agriculture (CSA) has been promoted as a strategic response to climate change, aiming to reduce adverse impacts on agricultural production while enhancing environmental sustainability. CSA focuses on adapting agricultural inputs and practices to improve efficiency, productivity and resilience. Despite its documented potential, the adoption of climate-smart agricultural technologies has remained low in developing countries such as India. One probable explanation identified in the literature is fear among end users regarding the potentially negative effects of such technologies. This indicates that farmers' attitude play a critical role in shaping their willingness to adopt Climate Smart Agriculture Technologies (CSATs), even in the presence of substantial investments in agricultural research and development. The persistence of low adoption is also associated with the manner in which agricultural innovations are generated and disseminated. Conventional top-down and linear approaches to extension and technology transfer have made limited progress in encouraging adoption, largely because they fail to recognise and support interactive social learning and innovation processes that help farmers manage the increasing complexity of their farming systems (Kilelu et al., 2013) [10] . As a result, farmers' attitudes toward CSATs are influenced not only by the technical attributes of technologies but also by their experiences with participation, trust, communication and learning. A growing body of literature highlights the importance of shifting from a technology-focused approach to a systems-focused perspective to better understand farmers' responses to CSA. Farming systems are shaped by political influences, market infrastructure, institutional arrangements and interactions between public and private sectors (Kakzan et al., 2013; Thornton et al., 2018) [8,19] . Empirical evidence indicates that CSA practices can increase crop output, improve resource-use efficiency, raise farm incomes, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions (Dinesh et al., 2015; Ugochukwu and Phillips, 2018) [5,20] . However, farmers' attitude toward these practices are shaped by how they perceive associated risks, trade-offs and benefits within their specific socio-economic and institutional contexts. Despite extensive research on climate adaptation and technology adoption, there remains a significant gap in studies examining the relationship between CSAT adoption, subjective well-being and farmers' attitude. Existing research has largely focused on digital technologies and related behaviours in relation to subjective well-being (Zheng et al., 2023a; Li et al., 2023; Ma et al., 2022; Zheng et al., 2023b) [22,12,14,22] . However, no studies have explicitly investigated the causal link between adaptation to climate change through CSAT and subjective well-being. Climate-smart agricultural practices such as minimum tillage, improved planting techniques, irrigation management, fertilizer management and crop residue assimilation have been shown to enhance yields and reduce greenhouse gas emissions (Branca et al., 2011) [4] . Similarly, the use of improved seeds, ICT-based agro-advisories, crop and livestock insurance, and rainwater harvesting can help farmers mitigate climate variability and risk (Altieri and Nicholls, 2017; Mittal, 2012) [15,1] . Farmers' exposure to and experiences with these practices influence their perceptions of adaptability, reliability and usefulness, which collectively shape their attitude toward CSAT adoption.

Methodology

The present study was conducted in the state of Chhattisgarh during the agricultural years 2022-23 and 2023-24. Chhattisgarh comprises three agro-climatic zones, namely the Northern Hills, Chhattisgarh Plains and Bastar Plateau, which differ in their climatic and agricultural characteristics. To ensure representation of the entire state, districts were selected from each agro-climatic zone using a proportional random sampling technique, wherein twenty per cent of the districts from each zone were included in the study. Accordingly, one district, Sarguja, was selected from the seven districts of the Northern Hills zone. From the Chhattisgarh Plains, which consist of twenty districts, four districts Raipur, Rajnandgaon, Bemetara and Dhamtari were selected. From the Bastar Plateau zone, comprising six districts, one district, Kanker, was selected. Thus, a total of six districts were included in the study. From each selected district, two blocks were chosen and from each block, two villages were selected. Farmers from the selected villages constituted the respondents for the study, resulting in a total sample size of 360 farmers. Primary data were collected from the respondents through personal interviews and group discussions. The collected data were systematically coded, tabulated and subjected to statistical analysis in line with the objectives of the study. Attitude was conceptualized as a learned evaluative tendency reflecting an individual's favourable or unfavourable judgment toward specific objects, situations, or practices. In the present study, it refers to farmers' evaluative orientation toward Climate-Smart Agricultural Technologies (CSATs), which varies in intensity across individuals and influences their responses to such practices. Farmers' attitude toward CSATs was measured using the standardized attitude scale developed by Shitu et al. (2018) [18] . The scale comprised a total of 30 statements, including 18 positive and 12 negative statements. These statements were distributed across six major components of CSATs, namely, land levelling (4 statements), zero tillage (5 statements), residue management or mulching (4 statements), precision nutrient management (5 statements), crop diversification (6 statements) and alternate wetting and drying practices (6 statements). Respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement with each statement on a five-point Likert-type continuum consisting of strongly agree, agree, undecided, disagree, and strongly disagree. For positive statements, scores were assigned from 5 (strongly agree) to 1 (strongly disagree), whereas for negative statements, the scoring pattern was reversed from 1 to 5 to maintain directional consistency. The total attitude score for each respondent was computed by summing the scores obtained across all 30 statements. Based on the aggregate attitude scores, respondents were classified into three categories according to their level of attitude toward CSATs. In addition to the overall attitude assessment, component-wise analysis was carried out to examine farmers' attitude toward specific CSAT practices. For each component, mean scores were calculated for the respective statements and rank orders were assigned based on the aggregated mean values to determine the relative importance of different CSAT components.

Results and Discussion

Attitude of farmers towards land levelling

Data presented in Table 1 showed those respondents who had a favorable attitude about the statement run-off occur in unlevelled field which ranked 1 st average score 4.21 followed by the statement adapt water harvesting strategies ranked 2 nd with average score 4.01 and statement, new land levelling methods are difficult ranked 3 rd with average score 3.78. whereas the respondents had a less favorable attitude about the statement traditional levelling methods was good which ranked 4 th with average score 3.63. Where 20 per cent of the respondents were found to have favorable attitude towards land levelling. 13.05 per cent of respondents showed their less favorable attitude regarding land levelling. It can be inferred from the above findings that a limited per cent of the respondents had a favorable attitude regarding land leveling. The majority of respondents had a moderately favourable attitude toward land levelling. The reason for farmers' moderately favourable attitude is a lack of precise understanding about land levelling and its benefits.

Attitude of farmers towards zero tillage

It is clear from Table 3 that respondents had a favorable attitude about the statement of traditional tillage does not lead to degradation of soil resources which ranked 1 st with average score 3.75 followed by the statement regarding innovative tillage technology improve usage of water ranked 2 nd with average score 3.75 and sowing in un ploughed field reduces cost of production ranked 3 rd with average score 3.28 and zero-tillage reduces greenhouse gas emission ranked 4 th with average score 3.22. Whereas farmers had a less favorable attitude about the statement early sowing of wheat is not necessary which ranked 5 th with average score 3.16. Traditional tillage does not lead to degradation of soil resources 3.75 I 3.

Sowing in unploughed field reduces cost of production 3.28 III 4.

Zero-tillage reduces greenhouse gas emission 3.22 IV 5.

Early sowing of wheat is not necessary 3.16 V

As shown in the Table 4, the majority of respondents (68.89 percent) had a moderately favourable attitude towards zero tillage, whereas 16.94 percent had a favourable attitude towards zero tillage. Only 14.17 percent of respondents had less favourable attitude towards zero tillage. Few respondents had a favourable attitude towards zero tillage, and the majority had a moderately favourable attitude towards it. This could be because they were unaware of how zero tillage helps to reduce energy consumption during land preparation without influencing production levels, as well as crop water requirements and moisture evaporation

Attitude of farmers towards residue management

In Table 5 narrated that respondents had a favorable attitude towards the statement leaving residue on the field will compete with fodder availability ranked 1 st with average score 3.91 followed by the statements Mulching increases cost of cultivation and Mulching is useful for weed control ranked 2 nd with average score 3.68 and 3 rd with average score 3.60 respectively. Whereas few respondents had a less favourable attitude about the statement Mulching maintains productive soil layer which ranked 4 th with average score 3.50.

Attitude of farmers towards precision nutrient management

From Table 7 it can be seen that respondent's attitude was favourable towards the statements excessive use of fertilizer rises the production cost ranked 1 st with the highest average score 3.61 followed by the adaptation of precision nutrient management will help to mitigate climate change cost of precision nutrient management technologies discourages one to adapt which ranked 2 nd and 3 rd with average score of 3.63 and 3.47, respectively. While, the statement education is required to use precision nutrient management technologies ranked 5 th with average score of 3.42. The data presented in table 8 described that majority of the respondents (72.78%) were found to possess a moderately favorable attitude and 14.73 per cent of the respondents were found have a less favourable attitude towards precision nutrient management. While only 12.50 per cent of respondents had favourable attitude. Because precision nutrient management is one of the key components of climate smart agriculture and it governs all of the major issues of improving productivity, sustainability, profitability, and climate change related turbulences, the need is to create awareness among respondents and encourage them to change their attitudes.

Attitude of farmers towards crop diversification

It is revealed from table 9 that respondent's attitude was favourable to grow different crops for higher yield which ranked 1 st with the highest average score 3.72 followed by multiple cropping increase yield and income and diversified cropping system reduces risk ranked 2 nd and 3 rd with average score 3.70 and 3.62 respectively. It also shows that the practices one type of crop depletes nutrition and adaptation of crop diversification was a big challenge and income ranked 4 th and 5 th with average score 3.55 and 3.54. Whereas less favourable attitude was shown towards the multiple crops do not assure increase in productivity and income which ranked 6 th with lowest average score 3.43. Multiple cropping increase yield and income 3.7 II 2.

Diversified cropping system reduces risk 3.62 III

3.

Multiple crops do not assure increase the productivity and income 3.43 VI 4.

Grow different crops for higher yield 3.72 I 5. Adaptation of crop diversification is a big challenge 3.54 V 6.

One type of crop depletes nutrition 3.55 IV It is clear from the data presented in table 10 that the majority of the (66.94) respondents were found to possess a moderately favorable attitude regarding crop diversification followed by 18.89 per cent of the respondents were having a favorable attitude towards crop diversification. While the remaining 14.17 per cent of respondents showed less favorable attitude towards crop diversification.

The following findings shows that only a limited percentage of respondents had a favourable attitude toward crop diversification and the majority having a moderately favourable attitude. Crop diversity provides a number of advantages, including the ability to overcome water scarcity and act as a mechanism to reduce weather-induced losses and stabilize incomes. As a reason, respondents' attitudes should be favorable. But the reason behind moderately favorable attitude might be their lack of knowledge about crop diversifications and its benefits.

Attitude of farmers towards alternate wetting and drying

Table 11 showed that the respondent's attitude was favorable for the practices efficient water use in paddy is now a priority which ranked 1 st with the highest average score 3.77 followed by the statement prefer the technology related to flood and dry the field and alternate wet and drying decrease the cost of irrigation in paddy ranked 2 nd and 3 rd and the average scores were 3.62 and 3.50 respectively. Whereas, the statement Excess moisture might because of infestation of diseases and pests in paddy crops and Alternate wet and drying may promote weeds ranked 4 th and 5 th with average mean score 3.32 and 3.22.

Overall Attitude

The attitude of the respondents according to overall attitude level towards Climate Smart Agriculture Technologies (CSATs) was ascertained and the results obtained are reported in Table 13. The majority of the respondents (52.50%) were found to possess moderately favourable attitude and 30.56 per cent were found favorable attitude towards the Climate Smart Agriculture Technologies (CSATs). While 16.94 per cent of respondents showed less favorable attitude regarding Climate Smart Agriculture Technologies (CSATs). It can be inferred from the findings that a meager percent of respondents had favourable attitude regarding Climate Smart Agriculture Technologies (CSATs).

Acknowledgement

AcknowledgementI would like to extend my heartfelt gratitude to my esteemed major advisor, Dr. R.S. Sengar, for his trust, insightful discussions, invaluable advice, and unwavering support throughout the entire study. I am especially grateful for his patience and guidance during the writing process.

References

1. Altieri MA, Nicholls CI. The adaptation and mitigation potential of traditional agriculture in a changing climate. Climatic Change. 2017;140:33-45.
2. Badjeck MC, Allison EH, Halls AS, Dulvy NK. Impacts of climate variability and change on fishery-based livelihoods. Marine Policy. 2010;34:375-383.
3. Berry HL, Bowen K, Kjellstrom T. Climate change and mental health: A causal pathways framework. International Journal of Public Health. 2010;55:123-132.
4. Branca G, McCarthy N, Lipper L, Jolejole M. Climatesmart agriculture: A synthesis of empirical evidence of food security and mitigation benefits from improved cropland management. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization; 2011.
5. Dinesh D, Frid-Nielsen S, Norman J, Mutamba M, Loboguerrero Rodriguez AM, Campbell B. Is climate-smart agriculture effective? A review of selected cases. CCAFS Working Paper No. 129. Copenhagen: CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security; 2015.
6. Food and Agriculture Organization. Livestock and landscapes. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization; 2013. p. 1-4.
7. Fischer G. Transforming the global food system. Nature. 2018;562:501-502.
8. Kakzan D, Arslan A, Lipper L. Climate-smart agriculture? A review of current practice of agroforestry and conservation agriculture in Malawi and Zambia. ESA Working Paper No. 13-07. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization; 2013.
9. Kam S, Hwang BJ, Parker ER. The impact of climate change on atopic dermatitis and mental health comorbidities: A review of the literature and examination of intersectionality. International Journal of Dermatology. 2023;62:449-458.
10. Kilelu CW, Klerkx L, Leeuwis C. Unravelling the role of innovation platforms in supporting co-evolution of innovation: Contributions and tensions in a smallholder dairy development programme. Agricultural Systems. 2013;118:65-77.
11. Kumar P, Joshi PK, Birthal PS. Demand projections for foodgrains in India. Agricultural Economics Research Review. 2009;22(2):237-244.
12. Li J, Vatsa P, Ma W. Small acts with big impacts: Does garbage classification improve subjective well-being in rural China? Applied Research in Quality of Life. 2023;18:1337-1363.
13. Likert R. A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology. 1932;22(140):1-55.
14. Ma W, Vatsa P, Zheng H. Cooking fuel choices and subjective well-being in rural China: Implications for a complete energy transition. Energy Policy. 2022;165:112992.
15. Mittal S. Modern ICT for agricultural development and risk management in smallholder agriculture in India. SocioEconomic Working Paper No. 3. Mexico: CIMMYT; 2012.
16. Sahoo D, Mohanty P, Mishra S, Behera MK, Mohapatra S. Does climate-smart agriculture technology improve farmers' subjective well-being? Micro-level evidence from Odisha, India. Farming Systems. 2024;3(1):100124.
17. Shaffril HAM, Abu Samah A, D'Silva JL. Climate change: Social adaptation strategies for fishermen. Marine Policy. 2017;81:256-261.
18. Shitu GA, Nain MS, Kobba F. Development of a scale for assessing farmers' attitude towards precision conservation agricultural practices. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2018;88(3):498-503.
19. Thornton PK, Rosenstock T, Förch W, Lamanna C, Bell P, Henderson B, et al. A qualitative evaluation of climatesmart agriculture options in mixed crop-livestock systems in developing countries. In: Lipper L, McCarthy N, Zilberman D, Asfaw S, Branca G, editors. Climate-smart agriculture: Building resilience to climate change. Cham: Springer; 2018. p. 385-423.
20. Ugochukwu AI, Phillips PWB. Technology adoption by agricultural producers: A review of the literature. In: Kalaitzandonakes N, Carayannis EG, Grigoroudis E, Rozakis S, editors. From agriscience to agribusiness. Cham: Springer; 2018. p. 361-377.
21. van Dijk M, Morley T, Rau ML, Saghai Y. Systematic review and meta-analysis of global food security projections to 2050. 2021.
22. Zheng H, Vatsa P, Ma W, Zhou X. Working hours and job satisfaction in China: A threshold analysis. China Economic Review. 2023;77:101902.