Climate Risk Management 16 (2017) 183–194

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Climate Risk Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/crm

Assessing farmer use of climate change adaptation practices and

impacts on food security and poverty in Pakistan
Akhter Ali a,⇑, Olaf Erenstein b
a
International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) NARC, Park Road, Islamabad, Pakistan
b
Socioeconomic Program, International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), Texcoco, Mexico

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Climate change is set to be particularly disruptive in poor agricultural communities. We
Received 8 May 2015 assess the factors influencing farmers’ choice of climate change adaptation practices and
Revised 19 September 2016 associated impacts on household food security and poverty in Pakistan using comprehen-
Accepted 17 December 2016
sive data from 950 farmers from its major provinces. A probit model was used to investi-
Available online 23 December 2016
gate the factors influencing the use of climate-change adaptation practices; the censored
least absolute deviation (CLAD) was used to analyze the determinants of the number of
JEL Classification:
adaptation practices used; and a propensity score matching (PSM) approach was employed
D64
Q22
to evaluate the impact of adaptation practices on food security and poverty levels.
Q120 Adjustment in sowing time (22% households), use of drought tolerant varieties (15%) and
Q540 shifting to new crops (25%) were the three major adaptation practices used by farmers
in the study area. Results show that younger farmers and farmers with higher levels of edu-
Keywords: cation are more likely to use these adaptation practices, as do farmers that are wealthier,
Climate change farm more land and have joint families. The number of adaptation practices used was
Food security
found to be positively associated with education, male household heads, land size, house-
Propensity score matching
hold size, extension services, access to credit and wealth. Farmers adopting more adapta-
Poverty
Pakistan tion practices had higher food security levels (8–13%) than those who did not, and
experienced lower levels of poverty (3–6%). Climate change adaptation practices at farm
level can thereby have significant development outcomes in addition to reducing exposure
to weather risks.
Ó 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC
BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction

Climate change is increasing recognized as a global phenomenon with potentially far-reaching implications (Stern, 2006;
IPCC, 2007b; IPCC, 2014) and associated with more frequent extreme weather events (Stern, 2006; IPCC, 2007b; Karl et al.,
2009). Poor people living in agricultural communities in developing countries are expected to be the most affected by these
climatic changes (Maskrey et al., 2007). Developing countries are most vulnerable to climate change though they are only
contributing 10% to the annual global carbon dioxide emissions (Maskrey et al., 2007). South Asian countries are particularly
affected because of the vast populations still dependent on predominantly agriculture-based rural economies and the vast
number of poor people. This poses serious challenges to their social, economic and ecological systems (Zhuang, 2009;

⇑ Corresponding author at: International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), NARC, Park Road, Islamabad, Pakistan.
E-mail address: akhter.ali@cgiar.org (A. Ali).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2016.12.001
2212-0963/Ó 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
184 A. Ali, O. Erenstein / Climate Risk Management 16 (2017) 183–194

Mirza, 2011). The World Bank’s South Asia Climate Change Strategy reported similar concerns that the poorest people in the
region will suffer the most from climate change because of unfavorable geography, limited assets, and a greater dependence
on climate-sensitive sources of income (World Bank, 2009). The frequent occurrences of extreme weather events in the
region in recent years (e.g. flash floods in Pakistan and India) are perceived to be directly associated with climate change
and likely to keep the poor in a perpetual poverty trap (Mendelsohn and Dinar, 1999).
Climate change manifests itself through increasing variation in the weather, including temperature, precipitation, and
wind. Scientific research confirms climate change is occurring and expected to aggravate in coming decades (Stern, 2006;
IPCC, 2007b; IPCC, 2014). Since 1950, the number of warm days and nights has increased, and it is projected that the length,
frequency, and intensity of heat waves will increase on most of the land (Field et al., 2012). As a result of climate change the
pattern, timing and intensity of the precipitation has also altered. The number of heavy precipitation events has increased
but with strong regional variations (Field et al., 2012). Rise in temperature and changes in precipitation are changing water
availability and other stresses for crops with effects on crop yield, income, and poverty. Globally abnormal disasters have
increased from 125 per year in 1980 to 400–500 in 2008 (Maon et al., 2009). Despite the fact that Pakistan has been a
low producer of carbon dioxide gasses (0.2 million metric tons), it is considered one of the worst affected by global warming
and Pakistan’s response to solving the problem has remained uninspired (Smadja et al., 2015). Due to adverse climatic con-
ditions Pakistan experiences high economic costs in terms of damage to property and infrastructure, losses in agricultural
productivity, rehabilitation and rebuilding costs of those areas distressed by environmental disasters (Husain, 2015).
The impact of climate change on food security and poverty depends on multiple interacting drivers especially the timing
of extreme events which are expected to become more frequent (IPCC, 2007a). The largest number of food insecure persons
are found in South Asia, which has roughly 300 million undernourished (FAO et al., 2012). In addition to the common mea-
sure of calorie availability, food security can be broadened to include nutritional aspects based on the diversity of diet.
Many of the impacts of climate change are likely to occur in and are channeled through the climate-sensitive sectors such
as agriculture (Mendelsohn, 2001). Climate change and variability presents a major challenge to agricultural production and
rural livelihoods and it affects approximately 2.5 billion people who derive their livelihood in part or in full from agricultural
production systems. To reduce the adverse impact of climate change on agriculture, adaptation is considered a vital compo-
nent of any policy response to climate change (Brooks and Adger, 2005; Deressa et al., 2009; Gbetibouom, 2009). Studies
show that without adaptation strategies, climate change is generally detrimental to agriculture, but can partly be offset
by various adaptation measures at the farm level (Downing, 1991; Easterling III et al., 1993, Rosenzweig and Parry, 1994;
Smith and Lenhart, 1996; Mendelsohn and Dinar, 1999; Reilly and Schimmelpfennig, 1999; Smit and Skinner, 2002). The
degree to which the agricultural sector is affected by climate change depends on the adaptive capacity of the farming com-
munities (Gbetibouo, 2009).
Climate change adaptation strategies for agriculture include: (a) micro-level options, such as crop diversification and
altering the timing of operations (Deressa et al., 2009); (b) market responses, such as income diversification and credit
schemes (Hussain and Mudasser, 2007); (c) institutional changes, mainly government responses, such as subsidies/taxes
and improvement in agricultural markets (Mendelsohn, 2001); and (d) technological developments, such as the develop-
ment and promotion of new crop varieties and advances in water management techniques, etc. (Smith and Lenhart,
1996; Mendelsohn, 2001; Smit and Skinner, 2002; Kurukulasuriya and Rosenthal, 2003; Hussain and Mudasser, 2007;
Deressa et al., 2009). However, some of the adaptation methods are highly localized and cannot be directly adopted and
implemented in other regions or agriculture settings.

2. Agriculture and climate challenges in Pakistan

Agriculture remains the backbone of Pakistan’s economy, contributing to about 20% of the total GDP and employing 43%
of the workforce. More than two-thirds of Pakistan’s population lives in rural areas, and their livelihood continues to revolve
around agriculture and allied activities. There have been some structural changes over time, but the contribution of agro-
based products continues to maintain its relative importance, giving impetus to the overall economic development and
growth of the economy (Government of Pakistan, 2003). Cotton, wheat, rice, sugarcane, maize, fruit and vegetables account
for more than 75% of the value of total crop output (Government of Pakistan, 2012–13).
In this context, agriculture is important for ensuring food security and reducing poverty. However, increasing weather
variability and climate change have threatened the agricultural sector and thereby, have become major barriers to achieving
food security and alleviating poverty in Pakistan. The increase in temperature can affect agriculture through its impact on
cropping seasons, the increase in evapotranspiration, the increase in irrigation requirements and the increasing heat stress
on crops. The use of short duration crop varieties and adjustment in sowing time may reduce the adverse impact of the afore-
mentioned climatic risks. Semi-arid and arid drylands in resource-poor regions of Pakistan, including Sindh and Baluchistan,
are more vulnerable to climate change, especially to reduced rainfall, increased evapotranspiration and drought.
Several studies in Pakistan revealed that cereals and other crops are vulnerable to heat stress and temperature rises. For
example, a 1 °C rise in temperature would result in wheat yield declines of 5–7% (Aggarwal and Sivakumar, 2011). Another
study (Sultana and Ali, 2006) found that wheat production would decline by 6–9% in arid, semi-arid and sub-humid regions
of Pakistan while it can increase in the humid zone. Similarly, an increase in temperature by 1.5 °C and 3 °C could decrease
wheat yield by 7% and 21% respectively in the Swat district of Pakistan (with average altitudes of 960 masl) whereas this
 A. Ali, O. Erenstein / Climate Risk Management 16 (2017) 183–194 185

could increase wheat yield by 14% and 23% respectively in Chitral district (with average altitudes of 1500 masl) (Hussain and
Mudasser, 2007). Studies show that rice yield also declines with the rise in temperature. In semi-arid regions of Pakistan, the
rice yield could decline by 15% from 2012 to 2039, 25% from 2040 to 2069 and 36% from 2070 to 2099 if the rise in temper-
ature continues (Ahmad et al., 2013). Along with the increase in temperature, decreasing rainfall affects crop production. If
rainfall decreases by 6%, net irrigation water requirements in Pakistan could increase by almost 29%. This will negatively
affect over 1.3 million farm households in Pakistan and most of the crop production including cereals, fruits, and vegetables
(MoE-GIRP, 2003).
In order to adapt to climate change risks in agriculture, farmers use several adaptation strategies. Adaptation measures
such as an adjustment in sowing time, use of stress-tolerant crop varieties and shifting to new crops (e.g. more stress tol-
erant, or with shorter or longer crop cycles), could significantly reduce vulnerability to climate change (Smit and Skinner,
2002). Adaptation practices can involve changes in planting dates, fertilizer used, irrigation, plant breed or other aspects
of crop management and the cultivation process (Challinor et al., 2014) and have crop specific implications (Porter et al.,
2014). These adaptation practices typically reduce risk and are more likely to minimize the severity of the impact of climate
change. Thus, farm households using adaptation practices are more likely to be food secure compared to those not adopting.
Pakistan has experienced extreme weather events like untimely and heavy rainfall and flash floods in hilly regions caus-
ing enormous damage to the crops and properties of farmers. It is anticipated that these conditions will increase as a function
of climate change. Keeping in mind the importance of agriculture to the economy and rural livelihoods, the significance of
climate change adaptation strategies is crucial. Although, the adaptation practices are potentially important, not all the farm-
ers use such practices. Therefore, this paper assesses the use and determinants of climate-change adaptation practices by
farmers in Pakistan and their impact on household food security and poverty. The contribution of this paper is threefold:
first, it uses a multivariate probit to assess the determinants of choice of adaptation practices simultaneously (specifically,
adjustment in sowing time, use of drought-tolerant varieties and shifting to new crops); second, it investigates the determi-
nants of the number of practices used; and third, it assesses the impact of these practices on food security and poverty. The
remainder of this paper is organized as follows: Section 3 discusses the conceptual framework in terms of farmers’ adapta-
tion to climate change; Section 4 outlines the data and variables used in the models; Section 5 presents the empirical results
and discussions; finally, Section 6 concludes.

3. Conceptual framework

In Pakistan, different farmers try different strategies to adapt to climatic challenges. A multivariate probit estimation was
first used to investigate the choice determinants of climate change adaptation practices distinguishing between the adjust-
ment in sowing time, use of drought-tolerant varieties and a shift to new crops. A censored least absolute deviation was then
used to understand the determinants of the number of climate-change adaptation practices used. A propensity score match-
ing approach was employed to analyze the impact of adaptation practices on food security and poverty.
We consider a risk-averse farm Fi that opts for a number of strategies (Sj). It is assumed that households that have opted
for adaptation strategies have higher utility levels compared to those that have not:

U½FðS1 Þ > U½FðS0 Þ ð1Þ

It is further assumed that farm households adopting two strategies have higher utility levels compared to households
having adopted only one strategy and so on.

U½FðS1 ; S2 Þ > U½FðS0 ; S1Þ ð2Þ

The number of adaptation strategies adopted by the farmers was estimated by employing the censored least absolute
deviation (CLAD) model. The CLAD estimator is a generalization of the least absolute deviation (LAD) estimator, Unlike
the standard estimators of the censored regression model such as tobit or other maximum likelihood approaches, the CLAD
estimator is robust to heteroscedasticity and is consistent and asymptotically normal for a wide class of error distribution. As
the CLAD estimator imposes the weakest stochastic restrictions on the error terms, it results in the most precise estimates of
the policy effects.
The impact of the adaptation strategies on household welfare in Pakistan was estimated by employing propensity score
matching (PSM). The expected treatment effect for the treated population is of primary significance and given as

sjI¼1 ¼ EðsjI ¼ 1Þ ¼ EðR1 jI ¼ 1Þ  EðR0 jI ¼ 1Þ ð3Þ

where s is the average treatment effect for the treated (ATT), R1 denotes the value of the outcome for adopters of the new
technology and R0 is the value of the same variable for non-adopters. As noted above, the major problem is that we do not
observe EðR0 jI ¼ 1Þ:Although the difference ½se ¼ EðR1 jI ¼ 1Þ  EðR0 jI ¼ 0 can be estimated, it is potentially a biased
estimator.
In the absence of experimental data, the PSM can be employed to account for this sample selection bias (Dehejia and
Wahba, 2002). The PSM is defined as the conditional probability that a farmer adopts the new technology, given pre-
adoption characteristics (Rosenbaum and Rubin, 1983). To create the condition of a randomized experiment, the PSM
employs the unconfoundedness assumption, also known as conditional independence assumption, which implies that once
186 A. Ali, O. Erenstein / Climate Risk Management 16 (2017) 183–194

Z is controlled for, technology adoption is random and uncorrelated with the outcome variables. The PSM can be expressed
as:

pðZÞ ¼ PrfI ¼ 1jZg ¼ EfIjZg ð4Þ

where I = (Abara and Singh, 1993) is the indicator for adoption and Z is the vector of pre-adoption characteristics. The con-
ditional distribution of Z, given p(Z) is similar in both groups of adopters and non-adopters.
After estimating the propensity scores, the average treatment effect for the treated (ATT) can then be estimated as:

s ¼ EfR1  R0 jI ¼ 1g ¼ EfEfR1  R0 jI ¼ 1; pðZÞgg ¼ EfEfR1 jI ¼ 1; pðZÞg  EfR0 jI ¼ 0; pðZÞgjI ¼ 0g ð5Þ

Several techniques have been developed to match participants with non-participants of similar propensity scores.
Propensity score matching rests on two strong assumptions, i.e. the conditional independence assumption and the common
support condition. In the case of PSM, the most important variable of interest is the average treatment effect for the treated
(ATT). ATT is the difference in the outcome of the farmers having used adaptation practices and similar farmers not having
adopted. For estimation, two different matching algorithms i.e. nearest neighbor matching (NNM) and kernel-based match-
ing (KBM) are employed in the current paper. After matching, the matching quality has to be accessed, and the standard
errors and treatment effects have to be estimated. A number of balancing tests have been employed to access the matching
quality, such as reduction in the median absolute bias before and after matching, the value of R2 before and after matching
and the p-value of joint significance of covariates before and after matching (Becker and Ichino, 2002; Caliendo and Kopeinig,
2008).
We use PSM to estimate the impacts of the number of adaptation practices used on food security and poverty. For food
security, the amount of food required to lead a healthy life was used as a measure/threshold point, and household below this
line were considered food insecure. It is a dummy variable which is ‘one’ if the food consumption is above the threshold level
of food necessary to live a healthy life and ‘zero’ otherwise. For poverty estimation, the headcount index of poverty was esti-
mated; households below the poverty line were considered poor. A dummy variable for poverty was used which is equal to
‘one’ if poor, ‘zero’ otherwise. The impact is estimated on the number of practices adopted by the farmers. For instance, if one
farmer adopts one strategy, how great is the impact on that household’s food security and poverty level? Similarly, if the
household adopts two practices and so on, the impact is noted.

4. Data and variable description

4.1. Data

The study uses a primary dataset collected in 2014 using multi-stage sampling from 950 farmers in the four main pro-
vinces of Pakistan (Punjab, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Sindh, and Balochistan), which constitute 98% of the total land area of Pak-
istan. In the second stage, several districts were selected from each of the four provinces and in the third and the fourth
stages, tehsils (sub-districts, 119 total) and villages (275 total) were randomly selected (Table 1). From each village 3–5
households were randomly selected, resulting in 350 farmers from the Punjab, 250 each from the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa
(KPK) and Sindh provinces and 100 farmers from Balochistan. In Punjab and Sindh, the agricultural lands are mostly irrigated
by canals while in KPK and Balochistan only a small proportion of the agricultural land is irrigated by canals. Using a struc-
tured questionnaire, data on a number of socioeconomic, farm and household characteristics were collected. In addition, data
relating to the farmers’ experience of climate changes, various adaptation practices adopted and their impact on crop yields,
household food security and income levels were collected.

Table 1
Sampling framework.

Province Punjab Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Sindh Balochistan

Districts sampled Sheikhupura, Hafizabad, D.I. Khan, Nowshera, Nawabshah, Hyderabad, Dadu, Jhal Magsi,
Gujranwala, Sialkot, Narowal, Mardan, Kohat, Swabi, Khairpur, Mirpur Khas, Tando Nasirabad,
Sargodha, Chiniot, Faisalabad, Toba Peshawar, Charsada, Allah Yar, Sanghr, Nausharo Jaffarabad, Sibi,
Tek Singh, Chakwal, Jhelum, Karak, Bunir, Bannu, Feroze, Matiari, Ghotki, Sukkur, Killa Saifullah,
Rawalpindi, Mianwali, Multan, D.G. Lakki Marwat Shikarpur, Thatta Zhob, Loralai,
Khan, Lodhran, Bahawalpur, R.Y. Pishin
Khan, Vehari, Bahawalnagar
Number of blocks/tehsils 61 26 24 8
sampled
Number of villages sampled 105 79 73 18
Number of households 350 250 250 100
sampled
 A. Ali, O. Erenstein / Climate Risk Management 16 (2017) 183–194 187

4.2. Variable description

Table 2 presents the descriptive statistics for the variables used in this study. The majority of the households (96%) are
male-headed with an average household size of 10. Joint families are common in South Asia, and the data revealed that 68%
of the rural households were joint families. The mean age of the farmers was 43 years and mean years of schooling was about
nine years, indicating that farmers in the study area were middle-aged are fairly educated. On an average, the farming house-
hold had about 14 years of experience in agriculture, which is quite substantial. A small number of the surveyed households
had migrated to the present location (8%), and 92% of the households were found to be local. The average size of land holding
was about 2.65 ha; 74% farmers in the survey owned land, and the remaining 26% were pure tenants;. Approximately 65% of
the farmers have good quality soil, and the rest have poor quality soil. Two third of the farmers (67%) have fragmented land, and
an overwhelming majority (85%) have plain land. Land leveling was practiced by 23% of the farmers and only 8% of the farmers
cultivated legumes for increasing the soil fertility. Access to blacktop roads was limited to about 48% of the rural households.
Few households have tractors (9%), irrigation tube wells (7%) or cars (19%). The average livestock ownership is about 7.3 per
household. Only 6% of the farmers have access to a credit facility, and about 26% of the farmers have access to extension services.
Mean income and expenditures of the household were Pakistani Rupees 42,165 and Pakistani Rupees 36,906 respectively.
Most (87%) of the respondents reported observing changes in climatic conditions, which suggests that climate change has
been experienced by most of the surveyed rural society. Similarly, majority noted a change in rainfall (timing and amount),
monsoon onset and temperature during last ten years. Probably being a farming household, the weather events that affect
agriculture are well noted by these households. Farmers typically adjusted the sowing time of their crops (22%) to the chang-
ing conditions, while 15% of the farmers adopted heat/stress tolerant varieties. A quarter shifted to new crops due to chang-
ing weather conditions. Two-thirds of the farmers recycle their seed, and the rest use the seed from other sources, mostly
from fellow farmers and dealers.

5. Empirical results and discussion

5.1. Determinants of specific farmers’ climate change adaptation practices

Table 3 presents the results of the multivariate probit estimation of the determinants of farmers’ adaptation practices to
climate change distinguishing between the adjustment in sowing time, use of drought-tolerant varieties, and a shift to new

Table 2
Data and description of variables.

Variable Description Mean Std Dev.

Age Age of the household head in years 43 11.6
Male headed Dummy, 1 if household head is male and 0 otherwise 0.96 0.75
Household size Number of family members in the household 10.13 5.12
Joint Family Dummy, 1 if living in joint family, 0 otherwise 0.68 0.34
Household head Dummy, 1 if farmer is head of the family, 0 otherwise 0.89 0.39
Farming experience Farming experience in years 14.44 7.83
Local resident Dummy, 1 if farmer is local, 0 otherwise (migrant) 0.92 0.41
Education Number of years of schooling of the household head 8.71 5.42
Land size Farm land holding, ha 2.65 1.42
Landowner Dummy, 1 if farmer is owner of land, 0 otherwise 0.74 0.55
Land fragmentation Dummy, 1 if the land is fragmented, 0 otherwise 0.67 0.35
Good soil Dummy, 1 if the soil is of good quality, 0 otherwise 0.65 0.48
Plain land Dummy, 1 if the field slope is plain, 0 otherwise 0.85 0.51
Land leveling Dummy, 1 if farmer practiced land leveling, 0 otherwise 0.23 0.43
Legumes Dummy, 1 if farmer grows legumes, 0 otherwise 0.08 0.15
Tractor Dummy, 1 if farmer owns a tractor, 0 otherwise 0.09 0.13
Tube well Dummy, 1 if farmer owns a tube well, 0 otherwise 0.07 0.27
Car Dummy, 1 if farmer owns a car, 0 otherwise 0.19 0.24
Livestock Number of livestock owned by the farmer 7.35 5.03
Income Household income from all sources, Pak Rs. per month 42,165 12,560
Expenditure Household expenditure, Pak Rs per capita 36,906 25,783
Credit Dummy, 1 if household accessed credit, 0 otherwise 0.06 0.28
Extension Dummy, 1 if farmer has contact with extension services, 0 otherwise 0.26 0.15
Tar road Dummy, 1 if household has access to black top/surfaced road, 0 otherwise 0.48 0.57
Membership Dummy, 1 if farmer is member of any organization, 0 otherwise 0.16 0.12
Climate change Dummy, 1 if the farmer has experienced climate change, 0 otherwise 0.87 0.32
Temperature increase Dummy, 1 if farmer reported temperature increase, 0 otherwise 0.91 0.17
Rainfall change Dummy, 1 if farmer reported changed rainfall patterns, 0 otherwise 0.85 0.26
Monsoon onset Dummy, 1 if farmers have experienced change in the onset of monsoon, 0 otherwise 0.79 0.25
Sowing time change Dummy, 1 if farmer adjusted the sowing time, 0 otherwise 0.22 0.17
Tolerant Varieties Dummy, 1 if farmer adopted stress-tolerant varieties, 0 otherwise 0.15 0.11
New Crops Dummy, 1 if farmers shifted to new crops, 0 otherwise 0.25 0.13
Recycled seed Dummy, 1 if home saved seed is used, 0 otherwise 0.66 0.32
188 A. Ali, O. Erenstein / Climate Risk Management 16 (2017) 183–194

crops. Based on the review of the literature and microeconomic theory, a set of independent variables are included in the
model.

5.1.1. Demographic
Age of the household head turned out to be negatively associated with the adoption of the three adaptation practices,
which suggests that younger farmers are more likely to adopt compared to their older counterparts possibly for being inno-
vative and keen to try new technology and methods to improve agriculture. Older farmers could also be not aware of recent
innovations in agriculture and/or are reluctant to try new methods.
Joint families and family size are both positively associated with adaptation practices, possibly reflecting labor supply.
The association between household size and adaptation strategies has been similarly found in other studies
(Croppenstedt et al., 2003; Deressa et al., 2009; Abid et al., 2015). Other studies have made an association between larger
households and the ability to supply surplus labor to non-farm activities (Lanjouw and Lanjouw, 2001; Reardon et al.,
2001; Rahut and Micevska Scharf, 2012; Gautam and Andersen, 2016) and the income generated could be invested in climate
risk coping strategies. The gender of the household head proved insignificant – which compares with the mixed results
reported in other studies: in some male headed households were more likely to adopt climate risk coping strategies
(Deressa et al., 2009) while in others female-headed households (Nhemachena and Nhem, 2007).

5.1.2. Human capital

Years of education of the household head was positively associated with all three adaptation methods. Educated farmers
are likely to be more aware of climate change and agricultural innovations and may be more interested in adopting technol-
ogy and methods to cope with climate risk. Investing in education is critical for overall development and may thus also pro-
vide a policy instrument for increasing the use of climate risk coping strategies and reducing the vulnerability of farm

Table 3
Climate-coping strategies adopted by farmers (multivariate probit estimates).

Variable Adjustment in sowing time Drought-tolerant varieties Shift to new crops

Demographics
Age (yr) 0.03⁄⁄(2.06) 0.02⁄(1.73) 0.04⁄(1.69)
Male-headed (Dummy) 0.02(0.65) 0.01(1.42) 0.03(1.53)
Household size (#) 0.01⁄(1.81) 0.02(1.93) 0.01⁄(1.74)
Joint family (D) 0.02⁄⁄⁄(2.64) 0.01⁄⁄(2.01) 0.03⁄⁄⁄(2.57)
Human capital
Education (yr) 0.02⁄⁄⁄(3.17) 0.04⁄⁄⁄(2.56) 0.01⁄⁄(2.03)
Land
Land size (ha) 0.01⁄⁄⁄(3.76) 0.02⁄⁄(2.26) 0.01⁄⁄⁄(3.51)
Land owner (D) 0.02⁄(1.88) 0.03⁄⁄⁄(2.91) 0.02⁄⁄(2.56)
Land fragmentation (D) 0.04⁄⁄⁄(2.56) 0.01(1.55) 0.02(1.42)
Good soil (D) 0.02⁄⁄⁄(2.43) 0.01⁄(1.70) 0.02⁄⁄(2.55)
Plain land (D) 0.02⁄(1.76) 0.03⁄⁄(2.30) 0.01⁄(1.84)
Land leveling (D) 0.02⁄⁄(2.14) 0.02⁄⁄⁄(2.78) 0.03⁄⁄⁄(2.54)
Non-land assets and income
Tractor (D) 0.01(0.45) 0.02(0.70) 0.03(0.48)
Tube well (D) 0.03⁄(1.85) 0.02⁄⁄⁄(1.97) 0.01⁄(1.92)
Car (D) 0.02⁄⁄(2.04) 0.01⁄(1.82) 0.02⁄⁄⁄(2.65)
Livestock (#) 0.01⁄⁄⁄(3.05) 0.02⁄⁄(2.27) 0.01⁄⁄⁄(2.74)
Income (Pak Rs.) 0.03⁄⁄⁄(2.76) 0.01⁄⁄(2.14) 0.02⁄⁄⁄(3.01)
Access to services
Credit (D) 0.04(1.38) 0.02(0.75) 0.01(1.55)
Extension (D) 0.01⁄(1.69) 0.02⁄(1.71) 0.02⁄⁄(2.17)
Tar road (D) 0.02⁄⁄(2.23) 0.01⁄⁄⁄(2.74) 0.01⁄⁄⁄(2.61)
Membership (D) 0.02⁄⁄(2.15) 0.01⁄(1.80) 0.03⁄⁄⁄(2.54)
Province
Sindh (D) 0.03⁄⁄(2.14) 0.03⁄(1.94) 0.03⁄⁄⁄(2.53)
KPK (D) 0.01⁄⁄⁄(2.73) 0.01(1.24) 0.01⁄(1.74)
Balochistan (D) 0.02⁄⁄(2.17) 0.01⁄⁄(2.14) 0.02⁄⁄⁄(2.63)
Constant 0.02⁄⁄(2.03) 0.01(1.36) 0.01⁄(1.74)
Cross equation correlation q12 q13 q23
0.14⁄⁄⁄(2.75) 0.12⁄⁄⁄(2.46) 0.11⁄⁄⁄(3.10)
LR Chi Square 173.82
Prob > Chi Square 0.000
Number of observations 950
⁄⁄⁄ ⁄⁄ ⁄
Note: In parenthesis t-values are reported. D: dummy (yes = 1) , , and indicate significance at the 1%, 5%, and 10% levels.
 A. Ali, O. Erenstein / Climate Risk Management 16 (2017) 183–194 189

households. Other studies have similarly found a positive correlation between education and adoption of climate risk man-
agement (Thomas et al., 2007; Hassan and Nhemachena, 2008; Deressa et al., 2009; Bryan et al., 2013; Abid et al., 2015).

5.1.3. Land
Land is a major agricultural productive asset and wealth indicator. Land holding size is strongly associated with all three
adaptation methods – in line with the generally reported positive association between farm size and technology adoption
(Abid et al., 2015; Tiwari et al., 2009; Bryan et al., 2013). Farmers with large landholdings are likely to have more capacity
to try out and invest in climate risk coping strategies. In Pakistan the majority of farms are small-scale with 90% of the farms
being two hectares or less (Bryan et al., 2013); although land distribution is highly skewed, and one-third of the farmers are
pure tenant farmers having no land ownership (Government of Pakistan, 2014–2015). Perhaps somewhat surprisingly, after
controlling for land size (and other wealth indicators, see below), ownership of land turned out to be negative for all three
adaptation methods. Other studies have shown mixed results for the relationship between tenancy status and climate
change adaptation: some found a positive association between land ownership and adaptation (Fosu-Mensah et al., 2012;
Iheke and Agodike, 2016), others reported a negative correlation (Nabikolo et al., 2012; Abid et al., 2015, 2016; Iqbal
et al., 2015; Javed et al., 2015), the latter variously associated with the need for tenants to pay land rents and have more
agriculturally reliant livelihoods.
Farmers with fragmented land are likely to (only) adjust sowing time – possibly for not involving major investments and
hence easy to pursue especially when fields are fragmented. Good soil quality and plain land are both positively related to all
three adaptation methods. Better agricultural land is typically more productive so potentially increasing the marginal return
to the investment and incentives to adapt to climate risk. Farmers who have practiced land leveling activities are less likely
to adjust sowing time, but more likely to use stress-tolerant varieties or shift to new crops. Land leveling is more likely in
irrigated fields which reduces the need to adjust sowing time and enhances diversification prospects and technological
innovation.

5.1.4. Non-land assets and income

In addition to land, there are various other proxies for farmers’ wealth, including livestock and car ownership. Both of
these non-land assets were positively related to the three adaptation methods. Similarly, household income is positive.
Wealthy households are likely to have the ability to invest in new agricultural technology and the capacity to take the asso-
ciated risk of adopting innovations. The wealthy households tend to adopt climate adaptation strategies because of their
ability to invest capital in new technology and methods to adapt to the climate risk. Irrigation facilities are expected to play
a critical role in adaptation to climate change. Tube well ownership, although relatively uncommon (7%), is indeed positively
associated with all three adaptation methods (although at 5%-10% level of significance), possibly also reflecting the house-
hold’s ability to invest and the importance of agriculture (Abid et al., 2015, 2016). Perhaps somewhat surprisingly, tractor
ownership had no significant effect – but this likely reflects the limited ownership of tractors, the reliance of the majority
of famers on tractor rental services (a practice common throughout South Asia) and that we already control for various other
wealth indicators.

5.1.5. Access to services

Extension services, access to tar roads and association membership are all positively associated with all three adaptation
methods, likely denoting the role of access to information and other resources which empower the farm household to adopt
such climate-risk coping strategies (Abid et al., 2015, 2016). Our findings align with other studies, including those that show
the positive effects of institutional membership (Adesina et al., 2000) and extension services (Deressa et al., 2009), with
extension services enhancing the availability of information of the climate risk and adaptation options (Maddison, 2007;
Nhemachena and Nhem, 2007). Perhaps again somewhat surprisingly, credit had no significant effect – but this likely reflects
the limited additional investments needs associated with each of the three adaptation methods and that we already control
for various wealth indicators which were closely associated.

5.1.6. Location
Location typically plays an important role in climate change adaptation (Vincent, 2007; Tiwari et al., 2008; Hinkel, 2011;
Below et al., 2012). The current study included provincial dummies to control for the location effect on adaptation strategies.
With Punjab being the base for the model, these indicate significant regional effects. Interestingly, Sindh has a positive effect
on the adoption of each practice. This is likely associated with the location of Sindh to the South of Punjab being generally
hotter and drier. In contrast, the more agro-ecologically diverse and generally less developed Balochistan and KPK have a
generally negative effect on the adoption.
The cross-equation correlations are positive and highly significant at the 1% level of significance, indicating that these
adaptation practices need to be estimated jointly. The LR Chi-square is also highly significant at the 1% level of significance,
indicating the robustness of the variables included in the model.
190 A. Ali, O. Erenstein / Climate Risk Management 16 (2017) 183–194

5.2. Determinants of the aggregate number of adaptation methods used

Table 4 presents the determinants of the aggregate number of adaptation methods used using the censored least absolute
deviation (CLAD) estimation.

5.2.1. Demographic
The age coefficient is again negative indicating that young farmers adopt more adaptation methods than the older farm-
ers, possibly because young farmers are more aware of climate change and adaptation practices. The family size coefficient is
positive indicating that the farmers with larger families adopt more adaptation practices. Male-headed households adopt
more adaptation methods compared to the female-headed household. Locally originating households (i.e. non-migrants)
are positively associated with the number of practices adopted (though significant only at 10%), possibly owing to the local
knowledge and access to local networks.

5.2.2. Human capital

‘Years of schooling’ is again positive indicating that the higher the education level, the more practices the farmer will
adopt. More educated farmers are likely more aware of climate change, adaptation practices and the benefits of the adapta-
tion practices.

5.2.3. Land assets

Various land indicators are associated with the number of adaptation practices used. Households with more land imple-
ment more practices, possibly because they have a higher ability to adopt. Landowners practice more adaptation strategies
compared to tenants. Farmers practicing land leveling adopt fewer practices (albeit significant at 10%) and associated with
the mixed effect of land leveling on the individual practices. Other land quality indicators (fragmentation; soil quality; plain
land) are however not associated with the number of adaptation practices used.

Table 4
Number of strategies adopted by the farmers (CLAD estimates).

Variable Coefficient t-values

⁄⁄⁄
Age (yr) 0.01 2.84
Male headed (Dummy) 0.02⁄⁄⁄ 2.55
Household size (#) 0.02⁄⁄⁄ 2.93
Joint family (Dummy) 0.01 1.05
Local (Dummy) 0.02⁄ 1.91
Human Capital
Education (yrs) 0.03⁄⁄⁄ 3.17
Land
Land size (ha) 0.03⁄⁄⁄ 2.73
Land owner (Dummy) 0.01⁄⁄⁄ 2.74
Fragmented land (Dummy) 0.03 1.28
Good soil (Dummy) 0.02 0.55
Plain land (Dummy) 0.03 0.59
Land leveling (Dummy) 0.01⁄ 1.67
Non-land assets and income
Tractor (Dummy) 0.02 1.25
Tube well (Dummy) 0.03 1.52
Car (Dummy) 0.01⁄⁄⁄ 2.60
Livestock (#) 0.01⁄⁄⁄ 2.43
Income (Pak Rupees) 0.03⁄⁄ 2.16
Access to services
Credit (Dummy) 0.02⁄⁄⁄ 2.62
Extension (Dummy) 0.01⁄⁄⁄ 2.55
Tar road (Dummy) 0.02 0.33
Membership (Dummy) 0.04⁄⁄⁄ 3.81
Province
Sindh (Dummy) 0.02⁄⁄ 2.12
KPK (Dummy) 0.04⁄ 1.76
Balochistan (Dummy) 0.02 1.38
Constant 0.02⁄⁄⁄ 2.59
Initial sample size 950
Final sample size 641
Value of R-square 0.372

Note: In parenthesis t-values are reported. ⁄⁄⁄, ⁄⁄

, and ⁄
indi-
cate significance at the 1%, 5%, and 10% levels.
 A. Ali, O. Erenstein / Climate Risk Management 16 (2017) 183–194 191

Table 5
Impact of climate change on household food security and poverty levels (PSM estimates).

Matching # of strategies Outcome ATT t-values Critical level of Number of Number

algorithm hidden bias treated of control
NNM 1 Food Security 0.07⁄ 1.66 1.20–1.25 410 432
NNM Poverty 0.02⁄ 1.72 1.50–1.55 419 362
KBM Food Security 0.08⁄⁄ 2.31 1.10–1.15 510 418
KBM Poverty 0.03⁄⁄⁄ 3.02 1.25–1.30 486 473
NNM 2 Food Security 0.09⁄⁄ 2.15 1.80–1.85 364 403
NNM Poverty 0.03⁄ 1.67 1.30–1.35 375 417
KBM Food Security 0.08⁄⁄⁄ 2.54 1.40–1.45 501 463
KBM Poverty 0.05⁄⁄⁄ 2.72 1.30–1.35 477 352
NNM 3 Food Security 0.12⁄⁄ 2.31 1.25–1.30 415 372
NNM Poverty 0.06⁄⁄ 1.96 1.05–1.10 436 459
KBM Food Security 0.14⁄⁄⁄ 2.58 1.20–1.25 474 381
KBM Poverty 0.08⁄⁄⁄ 3.16 1.30–1.35 462 721

Note: ATT stands for the average treatment affect for the treated. NNM stands for the nearest neighbor matching and KBM stands for the kernel-based
matching. The results are significant at ⁄⁄⁄, ⁄⁄, ⁄ 1%, 5% and 10% levels respectively.

5.2.4. Non-land assets and income

Car ownership, livestock ownership and income all are positively associated with the number of adaptation practices
used. Ownership of other non-land but agricultural assets (tractors, tube wells) is not to common nor associated with the
number of adaptation practices used.

5.2.5. Access to services

Access to infrastructure and services are critical for accessing materials and knowledge and expected to play a major role
in adoption of technology including the adaptation options by the smallholder farmers. Access to credit, extension services
and organizational membership all are positively associated with the number of adaptation practices used, which aligns with
other studies on technology adoption, adaptation and development.

5.2.6. Location
The provincial dummy’s again indicate significant regional effects. With Punjab being the base for the model, Sindh has a
positive effect on the number of practices used whereas KPK has a negative effect and Baluchistan proved non-significant.

5.3. Impact of adaptation methods on household food security and poverty

Table 5 presents the impacts of the number of adaptation methods used on household food security and poverty levels
based on propensity score matching. Farmers who adopt one adaptation strategy have higher food security levels (7–8%) and

Table 6
Indicators of covariate balancing (before and after matching).

Matching # of Outcome Median Median % bias Value of Value of Joint significance Joint
algorithm strategies absolute bias – absolute bias reduction R2- before R2 – after of covariates significance of
before – after matching match-ing before matching covariates after
matching matching matching
NNM 1 Food 17.40 4.28 75.4 0.416 0.001 0.001 0.364
Security
NNM Poverty 19.16 5.13 73.2 0.372 0.002 0.000 0.347
KBM Food 20.43 6.17 69.7 0.268 0.001 0.002 0.392
Security
KBM Poverty 21.50 5.29 75.3 0.519 0.003 0.001 0.260
NNM 2 Food 18.24 4.33 76.2 0.350 0.001 0.003 0.413
Security
NNM Poverty 19.17 5.04 73.7 0.284 0.004 0.000 0.527
KBM Food 24.50 6.32 74.2 0.365 0.005 0.001 0.632
Security
KBM Poverty 22.81 5.21 77.1 0.269 0.001 0.002 0.513
NNM 3 Food 19.25 4.78 75.1 0.308 0.001 0.003 0.417
Security
NNM Poverty 15.36 5.24 65.8 0.221 0.002 0.001 0.513
KBM Food 23.57 6.23 73.5 0.206 0.003 0.001 0.275
Security
KBM Poverty 22.43 4.17 74.1 0.316 0.003 0.002 0.194

Note: NNM stands for the nearest neighbor matching and KBM stands for the kernel-based matching.
192 A. Ali, O. Erenstein / Climate Risk Management 16 (2017) 183–194

0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1
Propensity Score

Untreated Treated: On support

Treated: Off support

Fig. 1. Propensity score matching estimates.

lower poverty levels (2–3%) compared to those that have not adopted, both in nearest neighbor matching (NNM) and kernel-
based matching (KBM).
Similarly, in both NNM and KBM, if the household adopts two adaptation practices the food security levels are higher
(8–9%) and the poverty levels lower (3–5%) compared to farmers who have not adopted any adaptation strategy. If the
household use three adaptation practices the food security levels are even higher (12–14%) and the poverty levels are even
lower (6–8%) in NNM and KBM. These results have important policy implications. First, it highlights that adaptation practices
help to enhance the food security of rural households and help to reduce rural poverty. Second, it highlights that households
should be encouraged to adopt a number of adaptation practices so as to increase food security and reduce poverty. House-
holds not using adaptation practices are more food insecure and poorer. The critical level of hidden bias is also reported in
Table 5. The critical level of hidden bias indicates the level up to which the adopters and non-adopters differ in their odds of
adoption.
Table 6 presents the balancing tests for the PSM. Before matching, the bias is quite high (15–24) and after matching
reduced to 4–6. The percentage bias reduction is 69–76%. The R2 is quite high before matching and is quite low after match-
ing indicating that after matching they are quite similar are to each other. The p-value of joint significance of covariates indi-
cates that before matching there are systematic differences between the adopters and non-adopters, and after matching the
adopters and non-adopters are quite similar to each other. The indicators of covariates balancing are presented in Fig. 1 and
indicate the imposition of the common support condition and the balancing of covariates before and after matching.

6. Conclusion

We examined the factors influencing the choice of climate-change adaptation practices and associated impacts on house-
hold food security and poverty in Pakistan. Farmers in Pakistan are using a variety of adaptation practices to counter the
adverse impacts of climate change. Our survey of 950 farmers across four major provinces of Pakistan (Punjab, Khyber Pakh-
tunkhwa (KPK), Sindh and Balochistan) in 2014 found 22% of the households to have made sowing time adjustments, 15%
have adopted drought tolerant varieties, and 25% have made shifted to new crops. Various factors are influencing the choice
of climate-change coping strategies in Pakistan. A multivariate probit estimation was used to investigate the determinants of
choice of climate-change adaptation strategies, and a censored least absolute deviation (CLAD) was used to understand the
determinants of the number of climate-change coping strategies. The propensity score matching approach was employed to
analyze the impact of coping strategies on food security and poverty levels.
Given the positive relation between climate-change adaptation strategy and food security, and the negative association
between climate-change adaptation strategies and poverty levels indicated by the propensity score matching, there is scope
for policy to further promote the adoption of climate-change adaptation strategies. The results of the multivariate probit
estimation on the determinants of farmers’ adaptation methods to climate change revealed some interesting facts, which
are unique in the context of Pakistan and also have significant policy implications. Firstly the results highlight the impor-
tance of awareness and knowledge about the local context, climate change, adaptation strategies and its benefits. Secondly,
the result points to the importance of wealth on the ability of the farm households to invest in climate risk coping strategies.
Hence, policy should focus on two aspects: (i) increasing the awareness of climate change and climate risk coping strategies
and its benefits; and (ii) increasing the affordability of climate risk coping capacity by augmenting the farm household assets
 A. Ali, O. Erenstein / Climate Risk Management 16 (2017) 183–194 193

and lowering the cost of adaptation. Policy on increasing the awareness should focus on increasing access to education and
agricultural extension services. Policy on enhancing the accessibility of the climate risk coping strategies should focus on
increasing the endowments for instance through access to services and alternative livelihoods, and providing support to
especially the poorer households.

Acknowledgements

This study was made possible through the support provided by the United States Agency for International Development
(USAID) funded Agricultural Innovation Program (AIP) for Pakistan. We also thank the Consortium Research Program (CRP)
on WHEAT and MAIZE for supporting this study. The contents and opinions expressed herein are those of the author(s) and
do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID, or the authors’ institution, and shall not be used for advertising or product
endorsement purposes. The usual disclaimer applies.

References

Abara, I.O., Singh, S., 1993. Ethics and biases in technology adoption: The small-firm argument. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 43, 289–300.
Abid, M., Schneider, U.A., Scheffran, J., 2016. Adaptation to climate change and its impacts on food productivity and crop income: perspectives of farmers in
rural Pakistan. J. Rural Stud. Part A 47, 254–266.
Abid, M., Scheffran, J., Schneider, U.A., Ashfaq, M., 2015. Farmers’ perceptions of and adaptation strategies to climate change and their determinants: the
case of Punjab province, Pakistan. Earth Syst. Dyn. 6, 225.
Adesina, A.A., Mbila, D., Nkamleu, G.B., Endamana, D., 2000. Econometric analysis of the determinants of adoption of alley farming by farmers in the forest
zone of southwest Cameroon. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 80, 255–265.
Aggarwal, P., and M. V. Sivakumar. 2011. Global climate change and food security in South Asia: An adaptation and mitigation framework. Climate change
and food security in South Asia, Springer, pp. 253–275
Ahmad, M., Iqbal, M., Khan, M, 2013. Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security in Pakistan: Adaptation Options and Strategies. Pakistan Institute of
Development Economics, Islamabad. (Climate Change Brief).
Becker, S.O., Ichino, A., 2002. Estimation of average treatment effects based on propensity scores. Stata J. 2, 358–377.
Below, T.B., Mutabazi, K.D., Kirschke, D., Franke, C., Sieber, S., Siebert, R., Tscherning, K., 2012. Can farmers’ adaptation to climate change be explained by
socio-economic household-level variables? Global Environ. Change 22, 223–235.
Brooks, N., Adger, W.N., 2005. Assessing and Enhancing Adaptive Capacity, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 165–182.
Bryan, E., Ringler, C., Okoba, B., Roncoli, C., Silvestri, S., Herrero, M., 2013. Adapting agriculture to climate change in Kenya: Household strategies and
determinants. J. Environ. Manage. 114, 26–35.
Caliendo, M., Kopeinig, S., 2008. Some practical guidance for the implementation of propensity score matching. J. Econ. Surveys 22, 31–72.
Challinor, A., Watson, J., Lobell, D., Howden, S., Smith, D., Chhetri, N., 2014. A meta-analysis of crop yield under climate change and adaptation. Nat. Clim.
Change 4, 287–291.
Croppenstedt, A., Demeke, M., Meschi, M.M., 2003. Technology adoption in the presence of constraints: the case of fertilizer demand in Ethiopia. Rev. Dev.
Econ. 7, 58–70.
Dehejia, R.H., Wahba, S., 2002. Propensity score-matching methods for nonexperimental causal studies. Rev. Econ. Stat. 84, 151–161.
Deressa, T.T., Hassan, R.M., Ringler, C., Alemu, T., Yesuf, M., 2009. Determinants of farmers’ choice of adaptation methods to climate change in the Nile Basin
of Ethiopia. Global Environ. Change 19, 248–255.
Downing, T.E., 1991. Vulnerability to hunger in Africa: a climate change perspective. Global Environ. Change 1, 365–380.
Easterling III, W.E., Crosson, P.R., Rosenberg, N.J., McKenney, M.S., Katz, L.A., Lemon, K.M., 1993. Paper 2. Agricultural impacts of and responses to climate
change in the Missouri-Iowa-Nebraska-Kansas (MINK) region. Clim. change 24, 23–61.
FAO, Wfp, and IFAD, 2012. The State of Food Insecurity in the World-Economic Growth Is Necessary but Not Sufficient to Accelerate Reduction of Hunger
and Malnutrition. FAO, Rome, Italy.
Field, C., Barros, V., Stocker, T., Dahe, Q., Dokken, D., Ebi, K., Mastrandrea, M., Mach, K., Plattner, G., Allen, S., 2012. Managing the risks of extreme events and
disasters to advance climate change adaptation. Special report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva, Switzerland. Cambridge
University Press, New York, NY (United States).
Fosu-Mensah, B.Y., Vlek, P.L., MacCarthy, D.S., 2012. Farmers’ perception and adaptation to climate change: a case study of Sekyedumase district in Ghana.
Environ. Dev. Sustain. 14, 495–505.
Gautam, Y., Andersen, P., 2016. Rural livelihood diversification and household well-being: Insights from Humla, Nepal. J. Rural Stud. 44, 239–249.
Gbetibouo, G.A., 2009. Understanding Farmers’ Perceptions and Adaptations to Climate Change and Variability: The Case of the Limpopo Basin. Intl Food
Policy Res Inst, South Africa.
Government of Pakistan, 2003. Establishment Division. Government of Pakistan, Islamabad, Pakistan.
Government of Pakistan, 2012–13. Economic Survey of Pakistan 2013–2013, Cabinet Division, Ministry of Finance, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad,
Pakistan.
Government of Pakistan, 2014–2015. Economic Survey of Pakistan, 2014–15. Ministry of Finance, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad, Pakistan.
Hassan, R., Nhemachena, C., 2008. Determinants of African farmers’ strategies for adapting to climate change: multinomial choice analysis. Afr. J. Agric.
Resour. Econ. 2, 83–104.
Hinkel, J., 2011. ‘‘Indicators of vulnerability and adaptive capacity”: towards a clarification of the science–policy interface. Global Environ. Change 21, 198–
208.
Husain, T., 2015. Pakistan bears the worst of climate change effects The Express Tribune Bilal Ali Lakhani, Pakistan.
Hussain, S.S., Mudasser, M., 2007. Prospects for wheat production under changing climate in mountain areas of Pakistan–an econometric analysis. Agric.
Syst. 94, 494–501.
Iheke, O.R., Agodike, W.C., 2016. Analysis of factors influencing the adoption of climate change mitigating measures by smallholder farmers in IMO state,
Nigeria. Analysis 16.
IPCC, 2007a. In: M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden, C.E. Hanson (eds.), 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 University Press,
Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
IPCC, 2007b. Climate Change Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability-Working Group II Contribution to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change:
Summary for Policymakers. IPCC Secretariat, Geneva, Switzerland.
Iqbal, M., Ahmad, M., Mustafa, G., 2015. Impact of Farm Households’ Adaptation on Agricultural Productivity: Evidence from Different Agro-Ecologies of
Pakistan. Pakistan Institute of Development Economics, Islamabad, Pakistan.
Javed, S.A., Kishwar, S., Iqbal, M., 2015. From Perceptions to Adaptation to Climate Change: Farm Level Evidence from Pakistan. Pakistan Institute of
Development Economics, Islamabad, Pakistan.
194 A. Ali, O. Erenstein / Climate Risk Management 16 (2017) 183–194

Karl, T., Melillo, J., Peterson, T., Hassol, S., 2009. Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.
Kurukulasuriya, P., Rosenthal, S., 2003. Climate change and agriculture: A review of impacts and adaptations, June 2003. Environment Department. World
Bank, Washington, DC, USA.
Lanjouw, J.O., Lanjouw, P., 2001. The rural non-farm sector: issues and evidence from developing countries. Agric. Econ. 26, 1–23.
Maddison, D.J., 2007. The perception of and adaptation to climate change in Africa. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper.
Maon, F., Lindgreen, A., Vanhamme, J., 2009. Cross-Sector Collaboration for Disaster Relief Supply Chain Enhancement: Mingling Corporate Expertise with
Humanitarians’ Willpower. Willpower, IAG-Louvain School of Management Working Paper. http://www.uclouvain. be/cps/ucl/doc/iag/documents/
WP_21_Maon_Lindgreen_Vanhamme.pdf.
Maskrey, A., Buescher, G., Peduzzi, P., Schaerpf, C., 2007. Disaster Risk Reduction: 2007 Global Review. Consultation Edition. Prepared for the Global Platform
for Disaster Risk Reduction First Session, Geneva, Switzerland, pp. 5–7.
Mendelsohn, R., 2001. In: Wallace E. Oates, Henk Folmer (Eds.), Global warming and the American economy. New Horizons in Environmental Economics,
Edward Elgar Publishing.
Mendelsohn, R., Dinar, A., 1999. Climate change, agriculture, and developing countries: does adaptation matter? World Bank Res.Obser. 14, 277–293.
Mirza, M.M.Q., 2011. Climate change, flooding in South Asia and implications. Reg. Environ. Change 11, 95–107.
Nabikolo, D., Bashaasha, B., Mangheni, M., Majaliwa, J., 2012. Determinants of climate change adaptation among male and female headed farm households
in eastern Uganda. Afr. Crop Sci. J. 20, 203–212.
Nhemachena, C., Nhem, R., 2007. Micro-level analysis of farmers adaption to climate change in Southern Africa. Intl. Food Policy Res. Inst.
Porter, J.R., Xie, L., Challinor, A.J., Cochrane, K., Howden, S.M., Iqbal, M.M., Lobell, D.B., Travasso, M.I., 2014. Chapter 7: Food Security and Food Production
Systems Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability (Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth
assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). Cambridge University Press.
Rahut, D.B., Micevska Scharf, M., 2012. Livelihood diversification strategies in the Himalayas. Aust. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 56, 558–582.
Reardon, T., Berdegué, J., Escobar, G., 2001. Rural Nonfarm Employment and Incomes in Latin America: overview and policy implications. World Dev. 29,
395–409.
Reilly, J.M., Schimmelpfennig, D., 1999. Agricultural impact assessment, vulnerability, and the scope for adaptation. Clim. Change 43, 745–788.
Rosenbaum, P.R., Rubin, D.B., 1983. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 70, 41–55.
Rosenzweig, C., Parry, M.L., 1994. Potential impact of climate change on world food supply. Nature 367, 133–138.
Smadja, J., Aubriot, O., Puschiasis, O., Duplan, T., Grimaldi, J., Hugonnet, M., Buchheit, P., 2015. Climate change and water resources in the Himalayas. Field
study in four geographic units of the Koshi basin, Nepal. J. Alpine Res. Revue de géographie Alpine.
Smit, B., Skinner, M.W., 2002. Adaptation options in agriculture to climate change: a typology. Mitig. Adapt. Strat. Glob. Change 7, 85–114.
Smith, J.B., Lenhart, S.S., 1996. Climate change adaptation policy options. Clim. Res. 6, 193–201.
Stern, N., 2006. What is the economics of climate change? World Economics-Henley On Thames 7 (2), 1.
Sultana, H., Ali, N., 2006. Vulnerability of wheat production in different climatic zones of Pakistan under climate change scenarios using CSM-CERES-Wheat
Model, In: Second International Young Scientists’ Global Change Conference, Beijing, pp. 7–9.
Thomas, D.S., Twyman, C., Osbahr, H., Hewitson, B., 2007. Adaptation to climate change and variability: farmer responses to intra-seasonal precipitation
trends in South Africa. Clim. Change 83, 301–322.
Tiwari, V., Wahr, J., Swenson, S., 2009. Dwindling groundwater resources in northern India, from satellite gravity observations. Geophys. Res. Lett. 36.
Tiwari, K.R., Sitaula, B.K., Nyborg, I.L., Paudel, G.S., 2008. Determinants of farmers’ adoption of improved soil conservation technology in a middle mountain
watershed of central Nepal. Environ. Manage. 42, 210–222.
Vincent, K., 2007. Uncertainty in adaptive capacity and the importance of scale. Global Environ. Change 17, 12–24.
World Bank, 2009. South Asia: Shared Views on Development and Climate Change. World Bank, South Asia Region, Sustainable Development Department,
1818 H Street NW, Washington DC, 20433, U.S.A.
Zhuang, J., 2009. The Economics of Climate Change in Southeast Asia: A Regional Review. Asian Development Bank, Manila, Philippine.