Climate variability vulnerability among Fig (Ficus carica L.) Growers in Maharashtra: Composite index analysis

Introduction

Climate change is increasingly recognized as a major threat to agricultural sustainability, particularly in developing countries where farming systems are highly dependent on climatic conditions. Variability in rainfall patterns, rising temperatures and increased frequency of extreme weather events such as droughts and heat waves significantly affect crop productivity and farmer livelihoods. Vulnerability to climate change is defined as the degree to which a system is susceptible to or unable to cope with adverse climatic effects (IPCC, 2014) [1] . It is a function of three key components: exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity. While exposure and sensitivity increase vulnerability, adaptive capacity reduces it. Despite several studies on climate change impacts in agriculture, empirical evidence on vulnerability assessment of perennial fruit crops, particularly fig growers in semi-arid www.extensionjournal.com regions, remains limited. Therefore, the present study was undertaken to assess the exposure of fig growers to climate variability, analyse the sensitivity of fig production systems, evaluate their adaptive capacity and compute a composite vulnerability index (CVI) to classify vulnerability levels. Primary data came from structured, pre-tested interviews conducted during 2023-25. The structured schedule demonstrated high reliability (Cronbach's α = 0.87) and content validity, verified through expert review and pilot testing with 30 non-sampled growers. Vulnerability assessment followed an integrated composite index approach with Exposure Index (EI), Sensitivity Index (SI) and Adaptive Capacity Index (ACI), where indicators were selected and adapted from established frameworks and modified as per the context of present study. [8] . The Composite Vulnerability Index (CVI) calculated as:

Methodology

This inverts ACI's protective role, aligning with IPCC protocols [IPCC, 2014] [1] . Vulnerability categories followed Hahn et al. (2009) [8]: low (<0.33), moderate (0.33-0.65), high (≥0.66). These indices enable district-level comparisons while laying groundwork for targeted interventions detailed in subsequent sections.

Results and Discussion

Exposure Index of Fig Growers

The Exposure Index (EI) reflects the degree to which fig growers are subjected to climatic stressors such as rainfall variability, temperature extremes, water stress and climatic hazards.

Temperature Extremes

Temperature-related stress is more intense in Chatrapati Sambhajinagar, as indicated by higher exposure to heat stress days (0.66) and frost/hail events (0.49), in contrast to Pune (0.42 and 0.22, respectively). These extremes are likely to induce physiological disorders such as sunburn injury, fruit cracking and premature fruit drop, ultimately leading to yield instability.

Water Stress Conditions

Water stress emerges as a critical factor influencing exposure. Chatrapati Sambhajinagar records higher values for rainfall deficit (0.74), groundwater depth deviation (0.76) and irrigation reliability deficit (0.69), whereas Pune shows relatively moderate levels (0.46, 0.44and0.41, respectively). This indicates persistent water scarcity, declining groundwater availability and limitations in irrigation infrastructure, which together intensify production risks under semi-arid conditions.

Climatic and Biotic Hazards

Exposure to acute hazards is also more pronounced in Chatrapati Sambhajinagar, with higher incidence of droughts, flood, sandstorms (0.71), along with pest and disease outbreaks (0.64), compared to Pune (0.36 and 0.31, respectively). This suggests greater susceptibility to extreme climatic events and biotic stresses, contributing to instability in fig production systems.

Overall Exposure

The overall Exposure Index is considerably higher in Chatrapati Sambhajinagar (0.66) than in Pune (0.42), indicating greater climatic stress in the former region. Water stress, rainfall variability and temperature extremes emerge as the dominant drivers influencing exposure. These findings align with previous studies highlighting increased climatic vulnerability in semi-arid regions (Jamshidi et al., 2019) [9] .

Sensitivity Index of Fig Growers

Orchard and Crop Characteristics

Indicators related to orchard and crop performance show elevated sensitivity in Chatrapati Sambhajinagar, particularly with respect to orchard age (0.72), yield variability (0.79) and fruit cracking incidence (0.81), compared to Pune (0.41, 0.52and0.49, respectively). These patterns reflect unstable productivity conditions influenced by erratic rainfall and temperature fluctuations. In contrast, relatively moderate values in Pune suggest better orchard management practices and comparatively stable production conditions.

Soil and Water Dependence

Soil and water-related parameters further highlight disparities between the two districts. Higher sensitivity values in Chatrapati Sambhajinagar for soil organic carbon (0.52), soil depth (0.61) and irrigation dependence (0.71) indicate degraded soil health and increased reliance on irrigation under water-scarce conditions. Pune, on the other hand, demonstrates comparatively favourable resource conditions, contributing to lower sensitivity levels.

Livelihood and Labour Factors

Socio-economic dimensions also play a significant role in shaping sensitivity. In Chatrapati Sambhajinagar, higher income concentration (0.82) and labour shortage (0.71) suggest a greater dependence on fig cultivation and constraints in labour availability, which can hinder timely farm operations. Conversely, relatively lower values in Pune reflect better livelihood diversification and improved access to labour resources, thereby reducing vulnerability.

Market and Institutional Dependence

Market and institutional factors exhibit notable differences between the districts. Elevated values in Chatrapati Sambhajinagar for loan reliance (0.63), insurance gap (0.71) and storage limitation (0.69) indicate weaker financial resilience and limited access to risk mitigation mechanisms. In contrast, Pune benefits from relatively better institutional support and financial access, which contribute to lower sensitivity.

Cropping Diversity and System Stability

Cropping diversity is comparatively lower in Chatrapati Sambhajinagar, limiting alternative income sources and increasing dependence on a single crop system. In contrast, greater diversification in Pune enhances system stability and provides a buffer against climatic and economic shocks.

Overall Sensitivity

The overall Sensitivity Index is higher in Chatrapati Sambhajinagar (0.70) than in Pune (0.50), indicating greater susceptibility to both climatic and socio-economic stresses.

The results suggest that sensitivity is driven by a combination of biophysical constraints and limited resource access. These findings align with the conceptual understanding that higher sensitivity increases the vulnerability of agricultural systems to climate-related risks (IPCC, 2014) [1] .

Adaptive Capacity Index of Fig Growers

Adaptive capacity represents the ability of farmers to cope with and recover from climatic stresses.

Social Capital

Indicators related to social capital indicate stronger collective engagement in Pune, particularly in terms of FPO/cooperative membership, collective water management and institutional trust. These factors suggest well-developed farmer networks, effective cooperation and greater confidence in institutions. In contrast, relatively lower values in Chatrapati Sambhajinagar reflect weaker social cohesion and limited collective action, which may constrain the implementation of community-based adaptation strategies.

Institutional Capacity

Institutional support systems are more accessible in Pune, as evidenced by better extension access, availability of early warning systems and participation in governance processes. These elements facilitate timely dissemination of information and support informed decision-making under changing climatic conditions. Conversely, limited institutional reach in Chatrapati Sambhajinagar indicates restricted access to advisory services and climate-related information, thereby reducing the effectiveness of adaptive responses.

Financial Capacity

Financial indicators highlight notable differences in resilience between the two districts. Higher levels of credit access, insurance coverage and asset ownership in Pune reflect a stronger capacity to absorb climatic shocks and invest in adaptive measures. In contrast, lower financial capacity in Chatrapati Sambhajinagar, particularly in terms of insurance and asset base, increases economic vulnerability and limits the ability to recover from adverse events.

Human Capacity

Human capital plays a critical role in shaping adaptive responses. Pune exhibits relatively higher levels of education, digital literacy, innovation adoption, indigenous knowledge, risk perception and occupational flexibility. These attributes enhance farmers' ability to adopt improved technologies, access information and diversify livelihood strategies. In comparison, constraints in knowledge access and technological adoption in Chatrapati Sambhajinagar may hinder effective adaptation and decision-making.

Overall Adaptive Capacity Pattern

The overall Adaptive Capacity Index is substantially higher in Pune (0.68) than in Chatrapati Sambhajinagar (0.38), indicating a stronger capacity to manage climatic risks in the former. The observed disparity suggests that adaptive capacity is influenced by a combination of social organization, institutional access, financial strength and human capital. These findings support the view that adaptive capacity plays a crucial role in reducing vulnerability by enhancing coping and recovery mechanisms (Adger, 2006) [2] . The results demonstrate that vulnerability increases with rising exposure and sensitivity, while it declines with improvements in adaptive capacity. This inverse relationship highlights the critical role of adaptive capacity in moderating climate vulnerability (IPCC, 2014) [1] . Overall, the findings confirm that vulnerability is not solely determined by climatic exposure but is strongly mediated by adaptive capacity (Adger, 2006) [2] . Therefore, strengthening institutional support systems, improving access to financial services, promoting climate-resilient technologies and enhancing farmer organizations are essential strategies for reducing vulnerability, particularly in high-risk regions such as Chatrapati Sambhajinagar.

Composite Vulnerability Index (CVI)

Distribution of Fig Growers by Vulnerability Category

Limitations of the Study

The study is based on cross-sectional data and farmer perceptions, which may involve recall bias. The use of equal weighting for indicators may not fully reflect their relative importance. Additionally, the findings are region-specific and may not be generalizable to other agro-climatic conditions.

Policy Implications

The findings highlight the need for targeted interventions to reduce vulnerability, including strengthening microirrigation and water harvesting systems, improving access to crop insurance and institutional credit, promoting farmer producer organizations (FPOs), enhancing climate advisory and early warning services and building farmers' capacity through training and digital extension.

Conclusion

The study reveals that fig growers in Maharashtra experience moderate to high vulnerability to climate variability, with Chatrapati Sambhajinagar being more vulnerable due to higher exposure and sensitivity and lower adaptive capacity. Enhancing adaptive capacity through institutional, financial and technological support is essential for improving resilience and ensuring sustainable fig production.

Acknowledgement

The author acknowledges the support of Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth (MPKV), Rahuri and the guidance of Dr. G. K. Sasane.

Conflict of Interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.

References

1. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate change 2014: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2014.
2. Adger WN. Vulnerability. Global Environmental Change. 2006;16(3):268-281. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.02.006.
3. Deressa TT, Hassan RM, Ringler C. Measuring Ethiopian farmers' vulnerability to climate change across regional states. IFPRI Discussion Paper. 2009;806.
4. Dolkar D, Bakshi P, Seikh FD, Lamo K, Hussain A, Spaldon S, et al. Impacts of climate variability on fruit production: a comprehensive review. AATCC Review. 2025;13(4):820-831.
5. Etemadi M, Karami E. Organic fig growers' adaptation and vulnerability to drought. Journal of Arid Environments. 2016;124:142-149. doi:10.1016/j.jaridenv.2015.08.003.
6. Gouthami Y, Tiwari N, Nandeha N, Dubey S, Singh P, Divyashree N, et al. Climate change impact on horticultural crops: a review. International Journal of Plant and Soil Science. 2023;35(23):13-22. doi:10.9734/IJPSS/2023/v35i234210.
7. Halanaik B. Vulnerability of farmers to climate variability and change. Asian Journal of Agriculture and Life Sciences. 2017;2(3):13-26.
8. Hahn MB, Riederer AM, Foster SO. The livelihood vulnerability index: a pragmatic approach to assessing risks from climate variability and change. Global Environmental Change. 2009;19(1):74-88. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.11.002.
9. Jamshidi O, Asadi A, Kalantari K, Azadi H, Scheffran J. Vulnerability to climate change of smallholder farmers in the Hamadan province, Iran. Climate Risk Management. 2019;23:146-159. doi:10.1016/j.crm.2018.06.002.
10. Karami Dehkordi E, Hashemi Sadati SA, Tajvar Y, Mirmousavi SH. Climate change vulnerability and resilience strategies for citrus farmers. Environmental and Sustainability Indicators. 2023;20:100317. doi:10.1016/j.indic.2023.100317.
11. Pechan PM, Bohle H, Obster F. Reducing vulnerability of fruit orchards to climate change. Agricultural Systems. 2023;210:103713. doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2023.103713.
12. Sen R, Bhagawat C, Nazareth D. Climate change impacts on Maharashtra agriculture. Institute for Sustainable Communities; 2021.
13. Vincent K. Uncertainty in adaptive capacity and vulnerability assessments. Global Environmental Change. 2007;17(1):12-24. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.02.002.