Assessing social vulnerability and adaptive responses to climate change in agricultural communities: A global synthesis with local perspectives from India

Introduction

Climate change presents multifaceted challenges to human societies, with disproportionate impacts on communities that are socially, economically, and institutionally vulnerable. The escalating frequency and intensity of climate-related hazards-such as floods, droughts, heatwaves, and crop failures highlight the urgent need to assess and address these vulnerabilities. Socio-economic and demographic disparities often dictate how different populations experience and recover from such events, thereby amplifying existing inequalities. This underscores the critical role of understanding social vulnerability as a lens through which to evaluate climate resilience and inform equitable interventions. Among the various tools developed to quantify and address these disparities, the Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) has emerged as a pivotal instrument. Originally introduced by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the SVI aggregates diverse indicators-including income levels, education, health, and access to resources-to assess a community's ability to prepare for, respond to, and recover from environmental stresses. Over time, its applications have expanded beyond public health to disaster risk management, climate resilience planning, and environmental justice. However, critiques regarding the index's reliability and contextual adaptability suggest the importance of tailoring it to specific regional dynamics and data realities. This review aims to bridge global theoretical constructs with grounded empirical insights by examining the application of the SVI across diverse geographies. Drawing upon the methodology proposed by Meena et al. 2022, this paper synthesizes findings from international case studiesranging from Zambia to Vietnam and Portugal-and juxtaposes them with the socio-economic conditions. By integrating global literature with local realities, the review seeks to (i) analyze the multidimensional nature of social vulnerability, (ii) evaluate the strengths and limitations of SVI across contexts, and (iii) propose a localized yet adaptable framework for assessing vulnerability and guiding targeted policy responses.

Conceptual Foundations 2.1 Defining Core Concepts in Vulnerability Analysis

Understanding community-level responses to climate change requires clarity on four foundational concepts: social www.extensionjournal.com vulnerability, exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity. These interconnected dimensions offer a structured lens for assessing the differential impacts of environmental stressors. Social Vulnerability refers to the susceptibility of individuals or communities to harm due to socio-economic, demographic, and institutional factors. It encompasses barriers to preparedness, response, and recovery in the face of climate-induced or other systemic shocks. Vulnerability is not uniform; it is shaped by income levels, education, gender, and access to support systems (Otto et al., 2017; Tran et al., 2023) [34,51] . Exposure captures the extent to which a community is subjected to climate hazards, such as droughts, floods, or extreme temperatures. In the context of agricultural systems, exposure is often associated with seasonal variability and geographic location (Malakar & Mishra, 2016) [26] . Sensitivity is the degree to which a system or population is affected by climate stressors. It reflects aspects like dependence on rain-fed farming, prevalence of crop or livestock loss, and fragile ecosystems, as seen in various regional studies (Cohn et al., 2016; Hatfield et al., 2018) [3] . Adaptive Capacity describes the ability of communities to adjust, reorganize, or recover in response to climate impacts. This includes access to climate-smart practices, credit institutions, agricultural extension services, and institutional support structures (Zakari et al., 2022; Jiri et al., 2017) [60,4] . These definitions collectively underpin index-based assessments like the Social Vulnerability Index (SVI), which seeks to quantify vulnerability and highlight areas requiring targeted intervention.

Evolution and Critiques of the Social Vulnerability Index (SVI)

Originally developed by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the SVI was designed to inform public health preparedness and resource distribution during crises. Its architecture aggregates multiple indicators-including income, education, housing status, and minority status-into a composite measure of vulnerability. Over time, the SVI has been adapted to various domains such as disaster risk management (Flanagan et al., 2011), healthcare equity (Tran et al., 2023) [1] , and climate adaptation planning. [31,8] . As highlighted by Spielman et al. (2020) [40] , such limitations can lead to misinformed policy decisions if local conditions are not adequately captured or if statistical methods are poorly aligned with real-world systems. Nevertheless, the SVI remains a valuable heuristic device. When thoughtfully adapted using both quantitative and qualitative methods-and complemented by local stakeholder engagement-it can serve as a powerful tool for targeting interventions and guiding climate resilience strategies.

Key Milestones

Critiques and Limitations

Methodological Diversity in SVI Applications

The measurement of social vulnerability through the Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) has evolved across geographies and disciplines, with methodological variations shaped by data availability, local context, and assessment objectives.

The literature reflects a rich tapestry of quantitative, qualitative, and mixedmethods approaches to constructing and applying the SVI. [31] and Meena et al. 2022 [7] , many studies are now combining both paradigms to balance empirical rigor with contextual sensitivity. www.extensionjournal.com [31] highlighted the limitations of relying solely on secondary data, particularly in areas lacking updated demographic records. Their study in Vietnam emphasized the value of localized household surveys to develop finely tuned indices. Meena et al. followed a similar path in India's, adapting vulnerability assessments using regionspecific variables and direct household-level data to capture on-ground realities more accurately.

Data Sources: Primary vs. Secondary

Regional Customization of Indicators

Standard SVI frameworks often require local adaptation to reflect distinct socioeconomic, cultural, and environmental dynamics: Nguyen et al. [31] designed a tailored SVI framework in Vietnam's Mekong Delta by integrating local livelihood patterns, land tenure status, and access to climate information, rather than depending on generalized census metrics.

Meena et al. adapted the SVI for by selecting indicators rooted in subsistence agriculture, ethnic vulnerabilities, and infrastructure limitations, demonstrating that indicator choice must resonate with livelihood contexts and adaptive constraints of rural, marginalized communities. This regional customization ensures the SVI is not just a diagnostic tool but a responsive mechanism for planning localized climate adaptation strategies.

Sectoral and Regional Applications of the SVI

The Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) has proven adaptable across diverse geographies and thematic domains, capturing the multifaceted ways communities experience and respond to climate-related stress. This section synthesizes its use in three major application areas-public health and urban risk, agriculture, and demographic sensitivity.

Public Health and Urban Climate Risks

SVI was originally developed to address public health inequities in crisis situations. Its early use during Hurricane Katrina demonstrated that socially vulnerable communities-particularly low-income, elderly, and racially marginalized populations-suffered disproportionately and faced prolonged recovery timelines (Flanagan et al., 2011). Urban applications of SVI have also gained prominence in the context of heatwaves and climate-linked health risks: Cutler et al. (2018) [6] showed how political ideology and socioeconomic status shaped individuals' perception of heat-related risks in U.S. cities. In India, urban vulnerability studies (e.g., Malakar & Mishra, 2016) [26] revealed that Tier-II cities face amplified warming due to both urbanization and infrastructure gaps, making them especially susceptible to heat-induced mortality and service failure.

Agricultural Vulnerability and Climate Sensitivity

Agricultural communities, particularly in low-and middleincome countries, remain highly susceptible to climateinduced stress due to their dependence on weather-sensitive livelihoods. The SVI has been applied in these contexts to assess both exposure and capacity for adaptation: In Zambia, Dumenu & Takam Tiamgne (2020) [8] employed the SVI to evaluate smallholder vulnerability. Key stressors included low income diversification, lack of access to information, and limited financial capital. Adaptive strategies such as crop diversification and drought-resilient species were recommended. In Ethiopia, rural agricultural communities exhibited high sensitivity due to biophysical and economic constraints, particularly where access to credit and climate-resilient inputs was limited (Gebrehiwot & Van Der Veen, 2013) [12] . In Portugal, fisheries were assessed using a similar vulnerability model, factoring in exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity-all modulated by localized socioeconomic and ecological variables (Pinto et al., 2023) [37] . South Asia, including India and Bangladesh, shows broad vulnerability across agricultural sectors, often intensified by changing monsoon dynamics, input costs, and land fragmentation.

Demographic Sensitivity and Social Inequities

SVI frameworks also emphasize the social dimensions of vulnerability, where demographic attributes intersect with resource access and governance: Gender: Women often face heightened vulnerability due to limited land ownership, fewer financial resources, and restricted decision-making power-especially in agricultural households (Nelson et al., 2002; Awiti, 2022) [30,2] .

Rurality and Remoteness:

Populations in isolated or upland areas typically have weaker infrastructure, limited extension services, and fewer SHG or credit linkages, limiting their adaptive capacity.

Marginalized Groups: Ethnic minorities and lower caste communities frequently face systemic exclusion, reinforcing cycles of exposure and sensitivity without proportional resilience-building support.

Adaptive Capacity: The Linchpin of Resilience

Among the three pillars of vulnerability-exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity-the capacity to adapt often exerts the most leverage in determining a community's long-term resilience to climate change. Adaptive capacity reflects not only the availability of resources but also the agency and institutional mechanisms that empower individuals and communities to act on climate www.extensionjournal.com knowledge, reduce risks, and embrace change.

Extension Services, SHGs, Credit, and Climate-Smart Inputs

Access to extension services and institutional support mechanisms plays a transformative role in enabling rural households to adopt climate-resilient practices. Evidence from across Africa and Asia underscores the role of the following factors:

Agricultural Extension: Jiri et al. (2017) [4] found that in semi-arid Zimbabwe, households with greater exposure to agricultural extension services exhibited significantly better adaptive practices, including adoption of drought-tolerant crops and early warning systems.

Credit Access: In Ghana, Batung et al. (2022) [3] demonstrated that both formal and informal credit systems enhanced smallholder farmers' perceived climate resilience. Similarly, Zakari et al. (2022) [60] showed that credit access in Niger improved food security and allowed investment in adaptive inputs. Self-Help Groups (SHGs): Though SHG participation remains modest in many regions, it provides a pathway to collective action, financial pooling, and peer-to-peer knowledge transfer, particularly for marginalized groups. Climate-Smart Agriculture (CSA) Inputs: Use of resilient crop varieties and farm-level water conservation practices has shown measurable improvements in productivity and resilience, yet their adoption is contingent on market access and institutional support (Safdar et al., 2024) [29] . Together, these factors create a support ecosystem that enables rural households to move beyond reactive coping and toward anticipatory adaptation.

Gender and Institutional Access

Gender remains a structural determinant of adaptive capacity, particularly in patriarchal rural economies: Women, especially those heading households or belonging to marginalized groups, often lack land ownership, market access, and institutional representation. Studies from Ethiopia and Bangladesh (Rahman, 2013; Goudet et al., 2024) [31] emphasize that women's climate resilience is undermined by socio-cultural norms that limit their decision-making power and access to adaptation services. Addressing adaptive capacity therefore necessitates gendersensitive interventions-from targeted training and inclusive SHGs to reforms that promote women's access to extension, finance, and leadership in resource management. Without institutional scaffolding that acknowledges and confronts gender-based barriers, efforts to enhance resilience risk reinforcing existing inequalities.

The Role of Perceptions in Shaping Adaptation

Beyond infrastructure and inputs, farmer perceptions and beliefs critically shape whether and how adaptation occurs. Behavioral and psychological readiness is often the threshold between knowledge and action: Jellason et al. (2019) [17] , applying the Theory of Planned Behavior in Nigeria, found that farmers' belief in climate change and its relevance strongly predicted adaptation intentions. Conversely, perceived lack of controlstemming from poverty or uncertainty-dampened proactive behavior. Zakari et al. (2022) [60] observed that farmers in Niger who perceived higher risk from climate change were more likely to pursue income-diversifying adaptation strategies, especially where supported by institutional finance. In rural Ghana, Yahaya et al. (2023) [57] emphasized that awareness of climate risks and access to reliable climate information were significantly associated with the use of adaptive measures like irrigation and CSA adoption. These studies reinforce that subjective perceptions can enable or constrain adaptation, even in the presence of objective resources-highlighting the importance of climate communication, localized information services, and participatory planning. This section reinforces the idea that adaptive capacity is not merely a function of physical assets or exposure levels-but a composite of institutional access, socio-cultural dynamics, and psychological readiness. Enhancing resilience, therefore, demands a multilayered strategy that integrates services, social equity, and farmer agency.

Proposed Framework and Visual Synthesis

To consolidate the interdisciplinary insights across public health, agriculture, and demographic studies, this review introduces a novel framework: the Integrated Social Vulnerability-Climate Risk-Adaptation (SV-CRA) Model. This model captures the dynamic interplay between climate hazards, social vulnerability determinants, and adaptive capacity. It provides a structured lens for assessing climate risk and guiding resilience-oriented policy interventions at regional and local scales. [26] Social Vulnerability Sensitivity + Socio-demographics + Institutional fragility Gender disparity, low income, rural remoteness (Otto et al., 2017) [34] Adaptive Capacity Access to extension services, SHGs, credit, CSA technologies, perceptions SHG coverage, credit access in Niger (Zakari et al., 2022) [60]

The SV-CRA Model: Structural Overview

This framework emphasizes that vulnerability is not a passive state but a composite outcome-shaped by external threats and internal capacities. It aligns with the principles of the CDC-SVI but expands on them by integrating behavioral insights and localized inputs.

Visual Synthesis: Causal Pathway Diagram

The following diagram illustrates the progression from climate exposure to adaptation outcomes through vulnerability processes.

Interpretation & Utility

• The left-to-right flow denotes the causative progression from environmental stress to socioeconomic impact. This framework not only synthesizes cross-sectoral insights from the literature but also provides a scalable model for real-world application-particularly in regions like the Eastern Himalayas where secondary data alone cannot capture the full landscape of vulnerability.

Discussion 7.1 Thematic Synthesis across Sectors and Geographies

The global application of the Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) reveals both its conceptual versatility and its diagnostic strength. Initially developed for public health risk assessment (Flanagan et al., 2011) [11] , the SVI now spans sectors from urban climate response to agricultural planning and ecological resilience. In urban contexts, infrastructural deficits and heat risk intensification-particularly in Tier-II Indian cities-have made the SVI a critical tool for spatial vulnerability analysis (Malakar & Mishra, 2016; Sethi & Vinoj, 2024) [26,41] . Similarly, geomorphic and climatic changes in western North America and high-relief regions have highlighted SVI's utility in environmental planning. In agriculture, cross-regional applications underscore that vulnerability is not uniformly distributed. Smallholder farmers in Zambia and Ethiopia lack adaptive inputs and face structural disadvantages (Dumenu & Tiamgne, 2020;

Gebrehiwot & Van Der Veen, 2013) [8,12] . In South Asia, maize and rice systems exhibit sensitivity to temperature shifts and monsoonal variability, requiring both genetic innovation and adaptive land-use practices (Byjesh et [19,50] .

The SV-CRA model presented in this review reflects the convergence of these stresses into a causal loop where exposure, vulnerability, and institutional response shape livelihood outcomes. Findings reinforce this dynamic, with region-specific constraints like topographic isolation, credit inaccessibility, and limited SHG coverage amplifying vulnerability (Zakari et al., 2022) [60] . [2,35] . This underscores the call for gender-responsive frameworks that go beyond disaggregated data to institutional empowerment (Giudice et al., 2021; Nelson et al., 2002) [30] .

Socio-Demographic and Behavioral Amplifiers

Equally important are perceptions and adaptive attitudes. In Ghana, Nigeria, and Pakistan, farmers who perceive climate threats as imminent are more likely to adopt sustainable practices, but barriers such as high input costs, uncertainty, and spiritual beliefs often restrict action ( [17,29] . Behavioral intention, as framed by the Theory of Planned Behavior, is thus integral to the SV-CRA model as both a constraint and an opportunity.

In contrast, passive adaptation-such as altering planting dates without structural investment-is common in eastern Uttar Pradesh and other parts of India (Tripathi & Mishra, 2016) [52] , highlighting the need for targeted awareness programs and localized extension services.

Systems, Institutions, and Entrepreneurial Dynamics

Resilience is also modulated by institutional design, entrepreneurship, and systemic support structures. Cleantech innovation, SHGs, and climate-smart agriculture inputs improve adaptive capacity when embedded within a supportive policy framework (Safdar et al., 2024; Niemann et al., 2019) [29] . Startups in developing regions, however, often struggle under macroeconomic and governance challenges such as inflation, corruption, and regulatory gaps (Khan et al., 2023) [20] . Green entrepreneurship, in particular, has shown dual benefits-promoting sustainability while offering financial returns (Prokopenko et al., 2024; Yasir et al., 2023) [58] . Policymaking must recognize these dualities and create enabling environments for inclusive entrepreneurship, especially in climate-vulnerable areas.

The review also surfaces important policy gaps, such as the need to integrate soil health (Qiao et al., 2022) [40] , river ecosystem resilience (Van Vliet et al., 2013) [21] , and biodiversity protection into vulnerability planning. The River Ganga and Western Himalayan rivers serve as case studies of ecological degradation that mirror social neglect.

Towards Participatory, Scalable SVI Frameworks

The review findings emphasize that while the SVI offers portability across settings-from Wushen Banner in China (Zhang et al., 2020) [61] to the Chinyanja Triangle in Africa (Makate et al., 2017) [25] -contextual refinement is essential. One-size-fits-all indicator sets risk overlooking dynamic, local vulnerabilities.

To evolve from a descriptive tool to a transformative model for resilience planning, the SVI must:

• Integrate real-time and primary data with remote sensing systems (Spielman et al., 2020) [40] • Embed farmer and community perceptions in indicator design • Prioritize gender equity and agency as core resilience metrics (Goudet et al., 2024) [31] • Localize applications beyond districts to agroecological units • Serve as both diagnostic and decision-support instruments for planning and policy

As climate risks escalate across India's diverse landscapesfrom southern plateau maize belts to northeast hill districts-building granular, scalable, and participatory vulnerability indices will be pivotal for just and adaptive governance. [17] . • Hybrid Data Systems: Combining satellite imagery, real-time climate data, and primary survey insights can create dynamic SVIs responsive to shifting climatic and socio-political landscapes.

Gaps and Challenges

Ultimately, the SVI's strength lies in its ability to tell a story about vulnerability-a story that must be grounded in data, shaped by community realities, and framed in a way that informs forward-looking policy and resilience-building strategies.

Conclusion

This review underscores the critical role of the Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) as both a diagnostic and strategic tool in the era of climate change. By synthesizing literature across urban risk, agricultural systems, gendered disparities, and regional case studies. The studies highlights that social vulnerability is inherently multidimensional, shaped not only by exposure to climate hazards but also by underlying socioeconomic inequities and adaptive capacity constraints.

Globally, the SVI has demonstrated flexibility in diverse contexts, from post-disaster public health assessments in the U.S. to rural adaptation studies in Africa and Southeast Asia. These applications affirm its potential to inform www.extensionjournal.com targeted interventions, particularly when adapted to local realities and enriched through community participation. The proposed SV-CRA framework offers a structured pathway for integrating climate risk, social fragility, and resilience capacity into a single conceptual model-grounded in both theoretical rigor and policy relevance.

From a policy and planning perspective, the findings call for

•

Institutionalizing SVI-based assessments into districtlevel climate resilience planning,

• Strengthening SHG and extension networks in marginalized regions,

• Promoting gender-responsive metrics in adaptation programs,

• And investing in localized data collection to fill gaps in granularity and relevance.

For countries like India-marked by vast socio-ecological heterogeneity and evolving climate risks-the path forward lies in building context-sensitive, participatory, and dynamic SVI frameworks. Future research and policy must emphasize granular vulnerability assessments that move beyond administrative boundaries to the realities of agroecological zones and household-level resilience. Only through such refined tools can adaptation efforts truly be inclusive, anticipatory, and equitable.

References

1. Ahmad MI, Ma H. Climate Change and Livelihood Vulnerability in Mixed Crop-Livestock Areas: The Case of Province Punjab, Pakistan. Sustainability. 2020;12(2):586.
2. Awiti AO. Climate Change and Gender in Africa: A Review of Impact and Gender-Responsive Solutions. Frontiers in Climate. 2022;4.
3. Batung ES, Mohammed K, Luginaah I, NyantakyiFrimpong H, Kansanga MM. Credit access and perceived climate change resilience of smallholder farmers in semi-arid northern Ghana. Environment, Development and Sustainability. 2022;25(1):321-350.
4. Byjesh K, Aggarwal PK, Kumar SN. Simulating impacts, potential adaptation and vulnerability of maize to climate change in India. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change. 2010;15(5):413-431.
5. Cohn AS, Mustard JF, Spera SA, Vanwey LK. Cropping frequency and area response to climate variability can exceed yield response. Nature Climate Change. 2016;6(6):601-604.
6. Cutler MJ, Marlon JR, Leiserowitz A, Howe PD. The Influence of Political Ideology and Socioeconomic Vulnerability on Perceived Health Risks of Heat Waves in the Context of Climate Change. Weather, Climate, and Society. 2018;10(4):731-746.
7. Diffenbaugh NS, Giorgi F. Climate change hotspots in the CMIP5 global climate model ensemble. Climatic Change. 2012;114(3-4):813-822.
8. Dumenu WK, Takam Tiamgne X. Social vulnerability of smallholder farmers to climate change in Zambia: the applicability of social vulnerability index. SN Applied Sciences. 2020;2(3).
9. East AE, Sankey JB. Geomorphic and Sedimentary Effects of Modern Climate Change: Current and Anticipated Future Conditions in the Western United States. Reviews of Geophysics. 2020;58(4).
10. Flanagan BE, Gregory EW, Hallisey EJ, Heitgerd JL, Lewis B. A Social Vulnerability Index for Disaster Management. Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management. 2011;8(1).
11. Gautam S, Shany VJ. Navigating climate change in southern India: A study on dynamic dry-wet patterns and urgent policy interventions. Geosystems and Geoenvironment. 2024;3(2):100263.
12. Gebrehiwot T, Van Der Veen A. Climate change vulnerability in Ethiopia: disaggregation of Tigray Region. Journal of Eastern African Studies. 2013;7(4):607-629.
13. Giudice LC, Conry JA, Llamas-Clark EF, Pandipati S, Woodruff TJ, Decena DC D, et al. Climate change, women's health, and the role of obstetricians and gynecologists in leadership. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics. 2021;155(3):345-356.
14. Hatfield JL, Philip Robertson G, Mader T, Marshall E, Nearing M, Garrett KA, et al. Indicators of climate change in agricultural systems. Climatic Change. 2018;163(4):1719-1732.
15. Islam MM, Chowdhury MAM, Amir AA, Begum RA. A bibliometric analysis on the research trends of climate change effects on economic vulnerability. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 2022;29(39):59300-59315.
16. Jain CK, Singh S. Impact of climate change on the hydrological dynamics of River Ganga, India. Journal of Water and Climate Change. 2018;11(1):274-290.
17. Jellason N, Conway J, Ogbaga C, Baines R. Climate Change Perceptions and Attitudes to Smallholder Adaptation in Northwestern Nigerian Drylands. Social Sciences. 2019;8(2):31.
18. Jiri O, Mafongoya PL, Chivenge P. Building climate change resilience through adaptation in smallholder farming systems in semi-arid Zimbabwe. International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management. 2017;9(2):151-165.
19. Johnson MF, Kazama S, Wilby RL, Wood PJ, Scholl EA, De Oliveira Roque F, et al. Rising water temperature in rivers: Ecological impacts and future resilience. WIREs Water. 2024;11(4).
20. Khan UU, Ali Y, Petrillo A, De Felice F. Macroenvironmental factors and their impact on startups from the perspective of developing countries. International Journal of Sustainable Engineering. 2023;16(1):166183.
21. Kim K, Kang JY, Hwang C. Identifying Indicators Contributing to the Social Vulnerability Index via a Scoping Review. Land. 2025;14(2):263.
22. Komninos D, Dermatis Z, Anastasiou A, Papageorgiou C. The Role of Entrepreneurship in Changing the Employment Rate in the European Union. Journal of the Knowledge Economy. 2024;15(4):18930-18951.
23. Kumar R, Raj Gautam H. Climate Change and its Impact on Agricultural Productivity in India. Journal of Climatology & Weather Forecasting. 2014;2(1).
24. Mah JC, Penwarden JL, Pott H, Theou O, Andrew MK. Social vulnerability indices: a scoping review. BMC www.extensionjournal.com Public Health. 2023;23(1).
25. Makate C, Makate M, Mango N. Smallholder Farmers' Perceptions on Climate Change and the Use of Sustainable Agricultural Practices in the Chinyanja Triangle, Southern Africa. Social Sciences. 2017;6(1):30.
26. Malakar K, Mishra T. Assessing socio-economic vulnerability to climate change: a city-level index-based approach. Climate and Development. 2016;9(4):348363.
27. Mcleman R. Impacts of population change on vulnerability and the capacity to adapt to climate change and variability: a typology based on lessons from a hard country. Population and Environment. 2009;31(5):286-316.
28. Meza FJ, Silva D. Dynamic adaptation of maize and wheat production to climate change. Climatic Change. 2009;94(1-2):143-156.
29. Ndamani F, Watanabe T. Farmers' Perceptions about Adaptation Practices to Climate Change and Barriers to Adaptation: A Micro-Level Study in Ghana. Water. 2015;7(9):4593-4604.
30. Nelson V, Meadows K, Cannon T, Morton J, Martin A. Uncertain predictions, invisible impacts, and the need to mainstream gender in climate change adaptations. Gender & Development. 2002;10(2):51-59.
31. Nguyen CV, Horne R, Cheong F, Fien J. Assessment of social vulnerability to climate change at the local scale: development and application of a Social Vulnerability Index. Climatic Change. 2017;143(3-4):355-370.
32. Nhemachena C, Kurukulasuriya P, Hassan R. Measuring the economic impact of climate change on African agricultural production systems. Climate Change Economics. 2010;01(01):33-55.
33. Niemann CC, Dickel P, Eckardt G. The interplay of corporate entrepreneurship, environmental orientation, and performance in clean-tech firms-A double-edged sword. Business Strategy and the Environment. 2019;29(1):180-196.
34. Otto IM, Reyer CPO, Serdeczny O, Le Masson V, Reckien D, Jones L, et al. Social vulnerability to climate change: a review of concepts and evidence. Regional Environmental Change. 2017;17(6):16511662.
35. Parida BR, Bakimchandra O. Unprecedented Drought in North East India Compared to Western India. Current Science. 2015;109(11):2121.
36. Pickson RB, He G. Smallholder Farmers' Perceptions, Adaptation Constraints, and Determinants of Adaptive Capacity to Climate Change in Chengdu. Sage Open. 2021;11(3):215824402110326.
37. Pinto M, Albo-Puigserver M, Bueno-Pardo J, Monteiro JN, Teodósio MA, Leitão F. Ecosocio-economic vulnerability assessment of Portuguese fisheries to climate change. Ecological Economics. 2023;212:107928.
38. Poudel S, Mishra B, Funakawa S, Shinjo H. Understanding households' livelihood vulnerability to climate change in the Lamjung district of Nepal. Environment, Development and Sustainability. 2020;22(8):8159-8182.
39. Prokopenko O, Chechel A, Koldovskiy A, Kldiashvili M. Innovative Models of Green Entrepreneurship: Social Impact on Sustainable Development of Local Economies. Economics. Ecology. Socium. 2024;8(1):89-111.
40. Qiao L, Hao Y, Dorling S, Wang X, Smith P, Chen H, et al. Soil quality both increases crop production and improves resilience to climate change. Nature Climate Change. 2022;12(6):574-580.
41. Rajesh M, Rehana S. Impact of climate change on river water temperature and dissolved oxygen: Indian riverine thermal regimes. Scientific Reports. 2022;12(1).
42. Safdar M, Tahir M, Yang C, Raza A, Sabir RM, Shahid MA, Rasul F. Climate Smart Agriculture and Resilience. igi global. 2024:28-52.
43. Sarkodie SA, Ahmed MY, Owusu PA. Advancing COP26 climate goals: Leveraging energy innovation, governance readiness, and socio-economic factors for enhanced climate resilience and sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2023;431:139757.
44. Sethi SS, Vinoj V. Urbanization and regional climate change-linked warming of Indian cities. Nature Cities. 2024;1(6):402-405.
45. Shah SAA, Muhammad I, Ahamad MI, Wu H, Mehmood MS. Adapting Harvests: A Comprehensive Study of Farmers' Perceptions, Adaptation Strategies, and Climatic Trends in Dera Ghazi Khan, Pakistan. Sustainability. 2024;16(16):7070.
46. Singh H, Kumar M. Climate Change and Its Impact on Indian Himalayan Forests: Current Status and Research Needs. springer. 2022:223-242.
47. Sivakumar MVK, Stefanski R. Climate Change in South Asia. springer netherlands. 2010:13-30.
48. Spielman SE, Tate E, Wood N, Schweikert A, Folch DC, Tuccillo J, et al. Evaluating social vulnerability indicators: criteria and their application to the Social Vulnerability Index. Natural Hazards. 2020;100(1):417436.
49. Tate E. Uncertainty Analysis for a Social Vulnerability Index. Annals of the Association of American Geographers. 2012;103(3):526-543.
50. Tewari VP, Verma RK, Von Gadow K. Climate change effects in the Western Himalayan ecosystems of India: evidence and strategies. Forest Ecosystems. 2017;4(1).
51. Tran T, Rousseau MA, Farris DP, Bauer C, Nelson KC, Doan HQ. The social vulnerability index as a risk stratification tool for health disparity research in cancer patients: a scoping review. Cancer Causes & Control: CCC. 2023;34(5):407-420.
52. Tripathi A, Mishra AK. Knowledge and passive adaptation to climate change: An example from Indian farmers. Climate Risk Management. 2016;16:195-207.
53. Van Vliet MTH, Ludwig F, Kabat P. Global streamflow and thermal habitats of freshwater fishes under climate change. Climatic Change. 2013;121(4):739-754.
54. Verma S, Pradhan SS, Singh A, Kushuwaha M. Impact of Climate Change on Agriculture: A Review. International Journal of Environment and Climate Change. 2024;14(3):615-620.
55. Von Gehren P, Teige M, Redondo B, Söllinger J, Vorss R, Tripolt T, et al. Farmers Feel the Climate Change: Variety Choice as an Adaptation Strategy of European www.extensionjournal.com Potato Farmers. Climate. 2023;11(9):189.
56. Wiid N, Ziervogel G. Adapting to climate change in South Africa: commercial farmers' perception of and response to changing climate. South African Geographical Journal. 2012;94(2):152-173.
57. Yahaya M, Mensah C, Addaney M, Damoah-Afari P, Kumi N. Climate change and adaptation strategies in rural Ghana: a study on smallholder farmers in the Mamprugu-Moaduri district. International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management. 2023;16(1):112-139.
58. Yasir N, Babar M, Guo G, Mehmood HS, Xie R. The Environmental Values Play a Role in the Development of Green Entrepreneurship to Achieve Sustainable Entrepreneurial Intention. Sustainability. 2023;15(8):6451.
59. Yoon H, Tashman P, Benischke MH, Doh J, Kim N. Climate impact, institutional context, and national climate change adaptation IP protection rates. Journal of Business Venturing. 2023;39(1):106359.
60. Zakari S, Ibro G, Moussa B, Abdoulaye T. Adaptation Strategies to Climate Change and Impacts on Household Income and Food Security: Evidence from Sahelian Region of Niger. Sustainability. 2022;14(5):2847.
61. Zhang C, Guan T, Wan X, Kuang F, Jin J, Ning J. Farmers' perceptions of climate change and adaptation behavior in Wushen Banner, China. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 2020;27(21):2648426494.