Global Environmental Change 23 (2013) 782790

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Global Environmental Change

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

Adaptive capacity contributing to improved agricultural productivity

at the household level: Empirical ndings highlighting the importance
of crop insurance
Architesh Panda a,*, Upasna Sharma b, K.N. Ninan a, Anthony Patt c
a
Institute for Social and Economic Change, Bangalore, India
b
Indian Institute for Technology, Madras, India
c
International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Austria

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history: Understanding the factors that give rise to greater or lesser adaptive capacity among households with in
Received 19 January 2012 a community could allow government interventions to target the right groups of people. In this paper we
Received in revised form 7 March 2013 study such factors, making use of a household survey administered in the Indian state of Odisha. In the
Accepted 11 March 2013
survey, we queried respondents for the adaptations that they had engaged in to deal with the risk of
drought, as well as a number of indicators for adaptive capacity taken from the literature. We found a
Keywords: large number of indicators of adaptive capacity to correlate with one or more adaptations taken.
Climate change
However, many of these indicators, while increasing the likelihood that one adaptation would be taken,
Adaptation
also decreased the likelihood that another would be taken, and hence were not unambiguous
Adaptive capacity
Differential vulnerability determinants of greater adaptive capacity in general. One indicator, access to crop insurance, stood out
India as particularly effective: it correlated with an increased likelihood of engaging in two separate yield-
raising adaptations, and correlated with a decreased likelihood of engaging in two additional adaptations
that would have the effect of reducing yields. The results suggest that further attention to crop insurance
may be warranted, as well as further research to determine if the other indicators may be effective in
other contextual settings.
2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction (EACC), and in that analysis attempted to identify the most

Few today would argue with the desirability of improving
adaptive capacity, especially in developing countries where
vulnerability is high and adaptive capacity is low. In that effort,
many argue for focusing efforts on the most vulnerable groups, or
those with the least adaptive capacity (Hulme et al., 2011). At the
national level, there is plentiful data to suggest where these places
are. Yohe and Tol (2002), Brooks et al. (2005), and Patt et al. (2010a)
have all, for example, conducted cross-sectional analyses to
identify the national level indicators that predict large losses of
life and property to climate-induced disasters.
But many suggest a need to drill deeper, to target interventions
to those households and individuals, within highly vulnerable
countries or regions, with the greatest vulnerability or the least
adaptive capacity. The World Bank, for example, conducted a study
in 20092010 on the economics of adaptation to climate change
* Corresponding author. Current address: International Rice Research Institute,
New Delhi, India. Tel.: +91 9986708547.
E-mail address: architesh@gmail.com (A. Panda).
vulnerable groups within individual communities, as a prerequi-
site to then nancing those efforts that would best support those
groups. What is interesting from the World Bank study, however, is
how inconclusive their ndings were. Across several national case
studies, there was a great deal of agreement among experts that
those with low access to resources were the most vulnerable and
least adaptive, and yet little in their quantitative data analysis
revealed this to be the case. The authors of one of their cases,
studies, on Mozambique, were even explicit in suggesting that the
data did not suggest any signicant drivers of differential adaptive
capacity existing at the household level. While some households
were more likely to engage in a particular adaptation or coping
strategy, when they considered multiple adaptation or coping
strategies together, they found no signicant predictors of
difference; it was almost as if, the authors suggested, informal
mechanisms to level the playing eld for adaptation existed within
the communities they were studying (Patt et al., 2010c).
A large number of studies consider specic adaptation options
themselves, particularly in the agricultural sector (Smit, 1993;
Bradshaw et al., 2004; Orindi and Eriksen, 2005; Adger et al., 2003;
Bryan et al., 2011). Important options here include crop diversi-

0959-3780/$ see front matter 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.03.002
 A. Panda et al. / Global Environmental Change 23 (2013) 782790
cation, mixed crop-livestock farming systems, using different crop
varieties, changing planting and harvesting dates, drought-
resistant varieties and high-yield water sensitive crops (Bradshaw
et al., 2004). Below et al. (2011) reviewed 17 studies covering data
from more than 16 countries in Africa, the Americas, Europe, and
Asia found 104 different practices relevant to climate change
adaptation. Broadly, these adaptation measures in agriculture can
be grouped into four main categories (1) technological develop-
ments, (2) government programs and insurance, (3) farm produc-
tion practices, and (4) farm nancial management (Smit and
Skinner, 2002). Adaptation options in agriculture can also be
classied into short-term coping mechanisms and longer-term
adaptation measures. Thomas et al. (2007) have classied them
into four categories: changes to farming practices as coping by
farmers; utilizing the spatial and temporal diversity of the
landscape and commercializing of livelihoods as adapting and
using network as both coping and adapting. However, one of the
important limitations of these studies is that they have looked into
different types of adaptation options in agriculture and not at the
particular factors that might increase the adaptive capacity of
farmers more generally.
Various elds and disciplines have dened and treated adaptive
capacity differently, where the majority of research has originated
within the frameworks of vulnerability and resilience (Engle,
2011). Adaptive capacity represents the systems ability to prepare
for and adjust to the stress, mainly to lessen the negative impacts
and take advantage of the opportunities (Smit et al., 2001; Adger
et al., 2007). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) summarizes the determinants of adaptive capacity as
economic resources, technology, information and skills, infrastruc-
ture, institutions, and equity (Smit et al., 2001). However, adaptive
capacity varies between different contexts and systems, and it is
not equally distributed (Adger et al., 2007). Therefore, understand-
ing the existing coping and adaptive strategies of agricultural
sector in specic geographic contexts is important toward the
identication of appropriate options to increase the potential for
adaptation of particular farmer groups.
Agriculture is highly sensitive to the impacts of climate change.
For example, changes in the mean and variability of climate will
affect the hydrological cycle and crop production (Easterling et al.,
2007). Therefore, one of the important challenge for the developing
countries however is to improve the agricultural yields in the face
of climate change and other socio-economic stressors such as
poverty and malnutrition. Although the impact of climate change
on agricultural yield will be uneven in different parts of the world,
what is common in various studies is that climate change will
generally reduce production potential and increase risk of hunger
(Parry, 2007). Further, climate change beyond about two degrees of
warming would decrease yield in almost all parts of the world
(IPCC, 2007). In order to better understand the adaptive capacity in
the agricultural sector and for the purposes of agricultural policy
also, attention to yields is important (though not paramount), and
hence we dene as adaptive capacity for the purposes of our
analysis as the propensity to make changes that contribute to
improved yields.
In our analysis, then, we make the distinction between two very
different kinds of adaptive measures. One kind of adaptive
measure is aimed at improving agricultural yields in the face of
climate change and variability. Examples of this would include
improved irrigation practices, changing of planting dates, or the
switching to crops or seed varieties more appropriate for the
climate regime. The second kind of adaptive measure is aimed at
improving farmers welfare in ways that actually lessen their
yields. These measures generally have to do with diversifying
farmers incomesfarming less while relying more on other
income sourcesso that their vulnerability to climate shocks is
783
less. While it is clear that both kinds of adaptations may be
important, and can benet the people undertaking them, it is also
clear that it is primarily the rst kind that represents a set of
adaptations still within the agricultural sector. It is these measures,
which protect yields, which allow the overall productivity of the
agricultural sector in this region to stay as high as possible in the
face of climate change.
Clearly, a lot of work has gone into identifying the factors that
allow people and households to adapt to climate change in
particular ways. What the World Bank study highlights, however,
is the lack of concrete ndings concerning particular interventions
that allow people to adapt to climate change in multiple ways.
Such ability, we suggest, can be used as an accurate indicator for
general adaptive capacity, as distinct from the ability or willing-
ness to engage in particular individual adaptations. In this paper
we examine the household level factors that allow farmers to adapt
to climate change in multiple ways and particular adaptation
actions which improve their adaptive capacity. Using data from an
area of the world that, like Mozambique, is highly vulnerable to
multiple climatic hazards and threats. Our case study in Odisha,
India, however, allows us to examine the effects of a greater
number of potential drivers of differential adaptive capacity,
because it is an area where several policy interventions have
already taken place, and where the background heterogeneity
among households is higher.
2. Background
Adaptation to climate variability among farmers is not a new
phenomenon. Farmers have continually responded to weather
over the centuries. While farmers have usually adapted to the
variability in the climate, climate change poses additional and
novel challenges as it is likely to change the baseline of variability
itself (Bryant et al., 2000; Adger et al., 2003; Parry et al., 2007).
Adaptation is a key factor that will determine the future severity of
climate change impacts on agriculture (Brooks et al., 2005; Lobell
et al., 2008).
Much of the literature on adaptation and adaptive capacity has
considered highly spatially aggregated indicators. Many of these
studies have been empirical in nature, attempting to identify the
apparent drivers of vulnerability at the national level (Adger et al.,
2004; Brooks et al., 2005; Yohe and Tol, 2002; Patt et al., 2010a).
Other studies have started with theory, and constructed composite
indicators of adaptive capacity or vulnerability at the state,
national, or regional scale, and then used these indicators to
identify the most at-risk places now and in the future. Vincent
(2004, 2007), for example, constructed a social vulnerability index,
and used this rst to assess social vulnerability across African
countries, and then to investigate how differences in social
vulnerability were highly dependent on the scale of analysis.
OBrien and Leichenko (2000) and OBrien et al. (2004) constructed
an indicator of vulnerability to climate change and economic
dependency associated with trade, and used this to map hot spots
of vulnerability at the state and district level in India.
Several studies have looked at the drivers of differential
propensity to engage in one or more of the different options for
coping or adapting. Sharma and Patt (2012), for example, studied
whether people evacuated their village in response to a warning of
a tropical cyclone. They found that on average 65% of the people to
do so, but also that particular past experiences that individuals had
with respect to evacuation inuences their choice of whether to
evacuate another time. Patt et al. (2005) examined the effects of
participatory communication to enhance the use of seasonal
climate forecasts in African villages, and found the effect to be a
ve-fold increase in average adaptation rates. They also found that
neither income nor education had a measurable effect on the use of
784 A. Panda et al. / Global Environmental Change 23 (2013) 782790
climate forecasts, echoing similar ndings by Phillips (2003). In
this strand of literature several studies have looked into the factors
that inuence the choice of particular adaptation options, such as
crop selection and livestock management by households (Kur-
ukulasuriya and Mendelsohn, 2008; Hassan and Nhemachena,
2008; Seo and Mendelsohn, 2008; Deressa et al., 2009). Many of
these studies have demonstrated that just as adaptation options
are often location specic, so too are the factors that determine
their uptake (Manandhar et al., 2011; Trrup and Mertz, 2011; Uy
et al., 2011).
Relatively few studies, however, have considered the generic
factors that allow households not to engage in particular options,
but rather in a wide range of options. Nhemachena and Hassan
(2007) and Hassan and Nhemachena (2008) report on one of these.
They used a logit regression method to analyze household level
data from South Africa, Zambia, and Zimbabwe, which included
seven farm-level adaptation measures and nineteen potential
drivers of differential adoption. With a sample size of over 1700
respondents, they found almost all of the independent variables to
be signicant predictors of at least one adaptation option, and
many to be signicant predictors of multiple options. Of these,
several were related to the climate conditions (mean annual
temperature and precipitation), while others were community, but
not farmer, specic, such as living in a property rights regime that
granted private rather than communal ownership, or the existence
of a local agricultural extensions service ofce. Among the farmer-
specic variables, they found that farmer experience, gender of the
household head, access to draft power, access to credit and
markets, and the pre-existence of mixed cropping strategies all had
a signicant impact on the likelihood of adopting multiple options.
Deressa et al. (2009) reported on a similar analysis based on a
sample of over 800 farms in Ethiopia, examining ve adaptation
options. Like Hassan and Nhemecha, they found the presence of an
agricultural extension service to be an important predictor of all
ve adaptation options, and among farmer specic variables
education and farm income to be predict four or ve options, while
access to credit, gender of the household head, and information on
climate change each predicted three of the ve options.
Patt et al. (2010c) conducted a slightly different analysis in
Mozambique, examining both qualitative and quantitative data,
although the quantitative element was hampered by a relatively
small sample size. The qualitative ndings revealed peoples
opinions about differential adaptive capacity, and suggested a
strong belief that low income and female headed households have
lower capacity to undertake adaptation actions; it is worth noting
that the latter opinion contradicts the quantitative ndings from
Nhemachena and Hassan (2007) and Deressa et al. (2009), both of
which showed female-headed households are more likely to take
up climate change adaptation methods. The quantitative ndings
revealed only one variable, household size, to have a positive effect
on one of the adaptation options considered, and none of the
variables to predict a propensity to engage in multiple adaptation
options. Instead, the researchers found community level indica-
tors, rather than household level ones, to be the important
determinants of undertaking adaptation actions measured at the
household level.
The studies leave two important questions unanswered. First,
can the largely consistent ndings of Deressa, Hassan, and
Nhemechena transfer to a context outside of Africa? While there
have been studies of adaptive capacity in the South Asian context,
these have been less clearly empirical than the ones in Africa.
Aulong et al. (2012) conducted a study in South India, and found
that proximity of the administrative center, information about
weather forecasts, the size of the farm, land area rented, education
level and farming income seems to distinguish the two groups of
farmers with high and low adaptive capacity. Their study, however,
did not rest on the purely empirical foundation of the African
studies, but rather assessed the effects of the independent
variables on a composite index, chosen based on expert-informed
theory to be a proxy for adaptive capacity. Jones and Boyd (2011)
studied the determinants of adaptive capacity at the household
level in western Nepal, and found a set of social, cognitive, and
economic determinants. However, their methods were qualitative,
and leaves open the question of whether quantitative methods
would reach the same conclusions; in Patt et al. (2010c) the
qualitative and quantitative ndings were not in agreement.
Second, the question remains as to whether there are specic
interventions that can be taken, other than those that would be
undertaken anyway for generic development purposes, which
would increase general adaptive capacity at the household level.
The studies we have cited show that households with greater
access to resources, and greater education, enjoy higher adaptive
capacity, and yet achieving higher scores on such indicators is
often the goal, not the means, of a great number of development
policies and programs. Improved access to credit is one indicator
that could be the subject of an adaptation intervention, although
this too is often seen as a method of improving economic
development in a country or region, rather than as one tailored
only to farming or climate vulnerability. In the study we now
report on, we consider a number of potential interventions, many
of which are climate specic. We evaluate which of these
correspond to consistently increased likelihoods of engaging in
multiple adaptation options, and in particular those adaptation
options that have the net effect of increasing agricultural
productivity.
3. Methods
To answer our research questions we developed a structured
questionnaire to elicit the household level information and
adaptation and coping practices used by farm households to cope
with drought. The study area was in the state of Odisha in Eastern
India. The state is an agrarian state with agriculture and animal
husbandry contributing to 18.44% of the gross state domestic
product (GSDP) in 20092010 and providing employment directly
or indirectly to 60% of the total work force (Economic Survey of
Odisha, 2011).
The state has tropical climate, characterized by high tempera-
ture, high humidity, medium to high rainfall and short and mild
winters. The state is divided into ten agro climatic zones (State of
Environment Report, Odisha, 2007). Out of the ten agro-climatic
zones in Odisha, the survey districts fall under two agro-climatic
zones (Western Undulating Zone, Western central table land). The
normal rainfall of the State is 1451.2 mm. The actual rainfall
received varies from district to district. About 84% of rainfall is
received during the period from June to September. Even though
the quantum of rainfall is quite high, its distribution during the
monsoon period is highly uneven and erratic. Floods, drought and
cyclones occur often with varying intensities. While the districts in
Eastern Odisha suffers from cyclones and oods and the districts of
Western Odisha suffers from regular and frequent droughts. While
the state is already experiencing decreasing rainfall in the some
parts of the year (Mohapatra and Mohanty, 2006; Patra et al.,
2012), climate change is likely to further worsen the problem.
Analysis of impacts of climate change in Odisha shows possibility
of increase in hydrological extremes (Ghosh and Mujumdar, 2006)
and an increasing probability of severe and extreme droughts
(Ghosh and Mujumdar, 2007).
The districts of Western Odisha are counted among the most
backward regions in India. Poverty is highest in the southern
National Sample Survey (NSS) region followed by northern region.
Poverty in the NSS northern region is as much as 30% point higher
 A. Panda et al. / Global Environmental Change 23 (2013) 782790 785

than the all-India rural gure of 28.1 at 59.1%. But in the southern Table 1
Description of independent variables queried in the survey instrument.
region that has a massive incidence of poverty of 72.7%.
Signicantly, both of these are the highest for any NSS region in Independent variable Description
India (FSARO, 2008). The two districts, Balangir district and Monetary drought loss Continuous
Nuapada, where our study areas are located fall under the northern Total land holding Continuous
NSS region mentioned above. These two districts are also among Total income Continuous
the drought prone districts of the country (PACS, 2004). The two Agricultural income Continuous
Non-farm income Binary (yes, no)
districts were chosen purposively to study the impact of droughts
Below poverty line (BPL) category Binary (yes, no)
and climate variability among the farming households, and both Size of the household Numerical
had experienced drought in 2002. These districts have special Level of education Categorical
status under the Revised Long Term Action Plan of the Government Farming experience (years) Numerical
Number of dependent person Numerical
of India. They are located in the southwest part of Odisha between
Number of person migrated Numerical
latitudes 178480 3000 N and 21880 4500 N and longitudes 818220 4800 E Area under low land Continuous
and 848150 3200 E in the Eastern Ghats range. The region belongs to Area of high land Continuous
the sub-humid temperate region of India with an average rainfall Area irrigated Continuous
ranging from 1100 to 1400 mm. Possession of well Binary (yes, no)
Access to additional water resources Binary (yes, no)
Balangir district is located in the West central table land zone of
Access to climate Information Binary (yes, no)
Odisha. It covers an area of some 6924.3 square kilometers with a Membership in self-help group Binary (yes, no)
population of 1,336,000, and a population density of 193 per Access to credit Binary (yes, no)
square kilometer (Census of India, 2001). The district receives a Access to crop insurance Binary (yes, no)
Perception on changing climate Categorical
normal annual average rainfall of 1443.5 mm. Nuapada adjoins
Perception of frequency of drought Categorical
Balangir district to the west and is itself the furthest central west Perception on declining rainfall Categorical
district in Odisha, bordered by Madhya Pradesh and lies between Perception on the rst rain Categorical
20800 N and 21850 N latitudes and between 828200 E and 828400 E
longitudes. It covers an area of some 3407.5 square kilometers with
a population of 530,000 and a population density of 188 per square
kilometer (Census of India, 2001). Agro-climatic data indicate three independent variables on a review of existing theory (Bradshaw
rainfall zones, with lower rainfall to the south of the district (below et al., 2004; Kurukulasuriya and Mendelsohn, 2008; Maddison,
1000 mm), a higher belt in the middle (above 1200 mm) and 1000 2006; Thomas et al., 2007; Deressa et al., 2009; Below et al., 2011,
1200 mm occurring to the northern quarter and a small section, Bryan et al., 2011; Manandhar et al., 2011). Table 1 lists the
some 10% of land area, to the south eastern edge. Two villages from variables for which we collected data.
each districtRengali and Budibahal in the Khaprakhol Block in We conducted a household survey in the four villages during
Balangir district and Kirkita and Khamtarai villages in Kharaiar January to May in 2010. The unit of analysis is household and we
block in Naupada district were chosen as our study areas as shown used stratied random sampling method to choose the households
in Fig. 1. on the basis of large, small and marginal farmers in the villages.
The dependent variables, representing adaptations taken, were Initially 200 households, 50 households from each village, were
based on previous qualitative interactions with stakeholders in the surveyed but due to non-response of certain parts in the
study areas. We based the individual questions concerning questionnaire we had to drop 17 questionnaires, thus making

Fig. 1. Map of the study region.

786 A. Panda et al. / Global Environmental Change 23 (2013) 782790
our total sample size 183. We then applied the relevant statistical
technique (logit regression) to study the relationship between
adaptation actions and their drivers.
4. Results
The farmers in our sample reported using each of the adaptation
options that we had queried them on. Fig. 2 shows the frequency
with which the different options were employed, revealing that
water conservation practices were the least frequently employed,
and changing planting dates the most frequently employed. Half of
these practiceschanging planting dates, shifting from rice to
cotton, reducing rain dependence through the use of wells or water
storage, and water conservationall have the effect of increasing
yields, holding climate constant. Changing the planting dates was
mentioned as the widely used method to deal with climate risks
among the farmers in the study area. Year-to-year shifts in planting
dates are already a demonstrated farmer adaptation in the face of
climate variability, particularly for farmers in rain fed environ-
ments who often must wait for the onset of the rainy season in
order to plant (Falcon et al., 2004; Tadross et al., 2005). Adjusting
planting dates can be used by farmers to increase crop yield in the
face of climate change (Lauer et al., 1999; Tubiello et al., 2002). In
our study region, over the years farmers have learnt from their
experience about the changing rainfall patterns in the area and
they are applying this experience to their decision on dates of
planting crops which often helps them maintain agricultural yield.
The second adaptation action used in our study area is shifting
from rice to cotton which helps the farmers in increasing yield
from cotton rather than paddy. Cotton has certain resilience to high
temperatures and drought due to its vertical tap root. The farmers
reported that decreasing rainfall and higher prices for cotton in the
region have induced them to increasingly cultivate more cotton
and shifting away from rice production. The other two practices
adopted to increase crop yield are reducing dependence on rain
water, which has become erratic and untimely, and depending on
water from sources other than rainfall. Introducing small irrigation
structures into the currently rain-fed system was cited by many
farmers as an autonomous adaptation action. It not only alleviates
water stress but also expands the opportunities for switching
planting dates, as well as increasing returns on investments in
fertilizer and other inputs. Farmers in the study region reported
increased dependence on water from wells, ponds, bore wells and
traditional water storage systems in the face of erratic rainfall and
regular droughts in the area. Further, they are also practicing water
conservation measures. These two practices help farmers to
increase the yield because they have access to water even in the
Fig. 2. Frequency of adaptation options queried.
time of water shortage due to less rainfall in the area. However the
water-storage structures themselves depend on rainfall in the
region. These are useful in a relatively short-period drought. In case
of a prolonged drought these water structures would themselves
be affected by rainfall-shortage. However, farmers also mentioned
these measures could be made more effective if government
support were provided in making these irrigation facilities and
structures more accessible to the small and marginal farmers.
Currently, only large farmers (farm holding size of four hectare or
more) have the capacity to invest in these measures while small
(farm holding size of one hectare to two hectare) and marginal
farmers (less than one hectare) does not have resources to invest in
such irrigation measures. Large farmers have reported depending
on deep bore well for cultivation over the years.
The other half of the practicesuse of early maturing varieties,
diversication of varieties, reducing cultivated land, and income
diversicationall have the effect of lowering the risks associated
with a poor harvest, but do not have the effect of increasing yields,
and indeed on average lead to lower yields. Farmers in the study
region use early maturing varieties of seeds to deal with climate
risks. The farmers reported that many of the varieties of seeds,
especially in case of paddy, they were using earlier are no longer
suited to current climate in the area due to shortening of growing
seasons. Over the years they are shifting to shorter-duration
varieties of paddy rice, which is less protable and have low
productivity. However, farmers also mentioned lack of marketing
facilities in the area for such types of paddy varieties and lack of
government support in introducing high yielding early maturing
crops which will be helpful for them to cope effectively with the
changing climate in the region. Farmers in the study region also
reported diversication of varieties of crops. However, productivi-
ty of those varieties is limited by lack of availability of alternatives
or the cost or perceived risk associated with adopting a new variety
of crop. Farmers are constrained by the lack of good varieties of
alternative seeds. They are mostly conned to switching varieties
between native and current varieties because more suitable
varieties are not available in the area. Farmers also face risk from
poor economic returns if crops are not selected based on a market
assessment. For example, drought tolerant crop varieties may fetch
a low market price if there is not sufcient demand. Thus, although
diversication of varieties and using early maturing varieties has
the impact of lowering risks from climate variability and poor
harvest, it has no effect in increasing the yields.
Over the years low rainfall in the region combined with lack of
prot from investing in lands has induced farmers to reduce their
cultivable land area. Reducing the cultivable land is resulting in
lower production of their crops. Lastly, while many rural poor
 A. Panda et al. / Global Environmental Change 23 (2013) 782790 787

Table 2
Odds ratios derived from logit regression results. Empty boxes represent variables that were not dropped in order to preserve degrees of freedom (N = 183).

Water Reduced Shift from Change of Reduced Income Diversifying Early maturing
conservation rain use rice to cotton planting dates cultivated land diversication rice varieties rice varieties

Drought loss 1.01 0.98 1.02 1.04 1.01 1.00 0.98 1.09**
Land 1.06 1.46** 1.08 1.02 0.97
Total income 1.02 0.97 1.27** 0.91 1 0.94 1.07 1.63**
Agricultural income 1.00 1.17 0.15*** 0.97 0.56**
Non-farm income 0.58
Below poverty line 1.08 0.71 0.15*** 0.88 0.25***
Family size 0.80* 0.97 0.64
Education 1.19 0.77 1.54 1.31 0.99 0.95 0.97 0.70
Farming experience 1.00 0.98 0.95*** 1.01 1.04** 0.99
Number of dependents 1.07 1.07
Migration 1.00 1.39**
Bahal (low land) 1.59** 1.06 0.90 0.58* 1.03 1.26
Aat (high land) 0.88 0.88 1.64*** 0.93 1.12
Area irrigated 0.57** 1.99 2.35 0.58 0.71 0.57** 0.93
Well 3.51** 9.86*** 1.14 1.45 2.76**
Additional water access 1.03 8.38**
Climate information 0.72 1.86 0.78 0.92 0.91
Self-help group 1.11 0.73 1.64 0.50
Access to credit 0.93 0.30** 0.37* 1.37 0.74 1.05 1.33
Crop insurance 0.61 2.50** 6.55*** 0.41** 0.46** 0.56
Perceived change in 2.14 0.7
general climate
Perceived drought 0.37** 1.03 2.18 1.06 2.68** 1.04 1.04
frequency changes
Perceived decline in rainfall 0.98 0.56 1.12 0.83 0.41 0.66
Perceived change in time of rst rain 1.06*** 5.27 0.84
*
Statistically signicant results at 10% signicance level.
**
Statistically signicant results at 5% signicance level.
***
Statistically signicant results at 1% signicance level.

farmers depend heavily on agricultural activities for income
generation, off-farm income can also play an important role in
economic livelihoods. To the extent that non-agricultural income
sources are less climate-sensitive than farm activities, further
diversication of incomes out of agriculture might be a promising
adaptation strategy in the face of adverse impacts of a changing
climate. However, this again depends on the off-farm activities
available in the area. For most of the small and marginal farmers in
the study area income diversication activities are low-return
coping strategies although they help in moderating the risks from
loss in crops due to climate related risks. Further, most of the
households are involved in agriculture, in case of risks such as
drought, using off farm activities as a fall back option itself can be
highly correlated to agricultural productivity. When all experience
a yield (and thus income) decline simultaneously, then demand for
both agricultural wage labor and off-farm goods and services will
likely also fall (Jayachandran, 2006).
Next, we analyzed the relationships between the independent
variables and each of the adaptation strategies shown in Table 2.
We conducted a separate logit regression for each dependent
variable (i.e. the adaptation strategies). In each case, given a sample
size of 183, we preserved degrees of freedom by dropping those
independent variables that on rst inspection gave insignicant
results, and for which there was no prior expectation, based on
theory, of a causal relationship. We used the logit regression results
to calculate odds ratios. An odds ratio of 1 suggests that the
independent variable has no effect on the dependent variable. An
odds ratio below 1 suggests a negative correlation; for example, a
value of 0.5 would indicate that increasing the independent
variable by one unit would results in observing the adaptation
option only 50% as frequently. An odds ratio above one suggests a
positive correlation; for example, a value of 2 would indicate that
increasing the independent variable by one unit would make it
twice as likely to observe the adaptation option. The results appear
in Table 2.
As seen in Table 2, we identied signicant relationships
between many of the independent variables and one or more of the
adaptation actions. Having experienced previous drought loss,
land area under cultivation, family size, migration status, being in
the high land, additional water access and perceived change in the
time of the rst rain fall all correlated signicantly with a single
adaptation strategy. Of these, additional water access had the
strongest single positive effect on an adaptation option, with an
odds ratio of over 8. Income variablestotal income, agricultural
income, and being above the poverty thresholdall correlated
with the same two adaptation options, namely shifting from rice to
cotton, and taking advantage of early maturing rice varieties.
Farming experience, the area irrigated, access to credit, and the
perception that the frequency of drought had changed correlated
with two adaptation options. Having access to crop insurance, and
having a well as a source of water, correlated with three adaptation
options each. Interestingly, several of the indicators that expected
to be signicant were not. These included education, non-farm
income, the number of dependents, access to climate information,
membership in a self-help group, perception that the climate is
changing, and perception that had been an overall decline the
amount of rainfall.
Our nal analysis was to identify those indicators that had a
consistently positive impact on adaptation, in such a way as to
improve yields. For policy-makers, we expect these indicators to
be especially important, as they could represent key interven-
tions. Fig. 3 shows a heat diagram, in which we do this. It
shows those indicators that we identied having a signicant
effect on at least two adaptation options. We then color code the
direction and magnitude of the effect, distinguishing between
those adaptation options that have a net yield-increasing effect,
and those that have a net yield-decreasing effect. For the former,
dark green indicates a strong positive effect, light green a weak
positive effect, light red/orange a weak negative effect, and dark
red a strong negative effect. For the latter, we reverse the colors.
788 A. Panda et al. / Global Environmental Change 23 (2013) 782790

Fig. 3. Heat diagram showing signicant odds ratios. The rst four adaptation options increase yields, and for these, dark green is used to represent odds ratios greater than
2, light green between 1 and 2, orange between 0.5 and 1, and dark red below 0.5. The second four adaptation options have the effect of reducing yields, and for these the color
coding is reversed. (For interpretation of the references to color in this gure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of the article.)

Hence, dark green indicates either a strongly positive effect on
an adaptation option that increases yields, or a strongly negative
effect on an adaptation option that decreases yields. What we
observe is that a single indicatoraccess to crop insurancehas
a consistent effect on two or more adaptation options in a
manner that tends to increase yields. Access to a well has a yield
increasing effect in two places, but a yield decreasing effect in
another. Six indicators have roughly balanced effects. Three
indicatorsfarming experience, access to credit and the
perception of change in drought frequencyhave effects that
would be consistently negative on yields.
5. Discussion
If we dene adaptive capacity in the agricultural sector as the
propensity to adopt farming practices that maintain higher yields
in the face of climate change, what differentiates households with
high adaptive capacity from those with low adaptive capacity? Our
results indicate that it is the ability to take risks. In particular, we
see this in two ways. First, households with a good source of water
for irrigation can take the risk of planting water intensive crops,
since if needed they can substitute hard work in carrying or
pumping water for inadequate rainfall. Second, households with
access to insurance can plant more and higher yielding crops, since
if the crops fail they will have recourse to insurance payouts. Of
these two, the effects of crop insurance appear to be stronger. As
such, they provide important support to pilot programs to develop
crop insurance in ways that do in fact represent a good nancial
deal for small-holder farmers (Leftley and Mapfumo, 2006;
Freeman and Kunreuther, 2002; Patt et al., 2010b; Chantarat
et al., 2007; Barnett and Mahul, 2007), and place a premium on
ways to make such insurance nancially sustainable and more
attractive to farmers (Hochrainer et al., 2009; Patt et al., 2009;
Meze-Hausken et al., 2009; Carter et al., 2008).
Our results are also interesting for the indicators that they
suggest do not consistently improve adaptive capacity. Surpris-
ingly we see no signicant effects for education or the presence of
climate information, although this is consistent with studies such
as Patt et al. (2005), where education was found not to be
signicant, and climate information rarely adopted in the absence
of participatory communication practices of a type not present in
our study area. We observed farming experience to have an effect,
but one that tended to decrease yields; more experienced farmers,
perhaps, know how to cut their losses. Access to credit has been
observed to be an important factor for adaptation in Africa
(Deressa et al., 2009; Nhemachena and Hassan, 2007), and yet we
did not observe the effects to be good. In our case, it enabled rice
farmers to continue to farm rice, rather than switch to cotton, and
to avoid having to nd ways to lessen their dependency on
rainwater. The perception that drought is increasing in frequency,
entirely surprisingly, was associated with a marked decrease in the
use of water conservation, although this could be a case of the
causal arrow going the other direction: farmers who did not
engage in water conservation would deny seeing an increased need
 A. Panda et al. / Global Environmental Change 23 (2013) 782790
to do so. Several other variables we saw having mixed effects, and
not inconsistent with past literature.
Our results do need to be interpreted with caution, in three
respects. The rst has to do with the limitation of empirical design. In
comparison with other studies showing strong determinants of
adaptive capacity, our sample size was smaller; that could lead us to
fail to identify important determinants that are in fact there. The
second has to do with the distinction we make between adaptation
options that increase or decrease yields, respectively. We anticipate
that policy makers care about improving adaptation in ways that
increase yields, since this could, if coupled with adequate
distribution, improve the food security situation, or at least self-
sufciency, of the region under consideration. On the other hand,
adaptation options that decrease yields while increasing something
else, such as income diversication, could be the best possible
options for many individual farmers, and to the extent that a region
is well connected to food markets, could improve the food security of
the region simply by improving the nancial means to access those
markets. Measures that purely reduce riskdiversifying crop
varieties and moving toward shorter season varietieswill not
improve average conditions, but could have an important effect of
reducing the need for emergency intervention in the case of drought.
Third, some of the adaptation options e.g. pumping well water is an
adaptation option from the point of view of individual farmer. In the
long-term for the region as a whole it could mean declining water
tables and hence could be a mal-adaptation. Similarly shifting from
rice to cotton is considered an adaptation option from an individual
farmers perspective. From the perspective of the region as a whole
and in the long-term it may even be a mal-adaptation because of
associated dependence on heavy input use (such as pesticides,
fertilizers).
Finally, our results suggest that continued caution is warranted
in terms of the assumptions that we make about differential
adaptive capacity. We started the paper with a cautionary tale
from a World Bank study, in which the quantitative evidence
appeared to provide less support for particular factors enhancing
or detracting from adaptive capacity than popular opinion held to
be the case (Patt et al., 2010c). Our conclusions are somewhat
consistent with this. When one looks hard at data within particular
communities, it is quite difcult to conclude that differences
between households have a marked effect on those households
capacity to engage in adaptation. Instead, it may well be that
particular communities, because of their location, their endow-
ment with resources, or their access to information and nance,
may be in a better position to adapt than others. More research is
certainly necessary.
Acknowledgments
Funding for the eld work component of this research came
from Institute for Social and Economic Change (ISEC), India.
Funding for the analysis of the results and the drafting of this paper
came from the Young Scientists Summer Program of the
International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, with the lead
authors participation supported by the Technology Information,
Forecasting and Assessment Council (TIFAC) of India. Any errors of
fact or interpretation are those of the authors.
References
Adger, W., Huq, S., Brown, K., Conway, D., Hulme, M., 2003. Adaptation to climate
change in the developing world. Progress in Development Studies 3, 179195.
Adger, W.N., Brooks, N., Bentham, G., Agnew, M., Eriksen, S., 2004. New Indicators of
Vulnerability and Adaptive Capacity. Technical Report 7, Tyndall Centre for
Climate Change Research, University of East Anglia, Norwich.
Aulong, S., Chaudhuri, B., Farnier, L., Galab, S., Guerrin, J., Himanshu, H., Reddy, P.,
2012. Are South Indian farmers adaptable to global change? A case in an Andhra
789
Pradesh catchment basin. Regional Environmental Change 12 (3), 423436,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10113-011-0258-1.
Adger, W.N., Agrawala, S., Mirza, M.M.Q., Conde, C., OBrien, K., Pulhin, J.,
Pulwarty, R., Smit, B., Takahashi, K., 2007. In: Parry, M.L., Canziani, O.F.,
Palutikof, J.P., vander Linden, P.J., Hanson, C.E. (Eds.), Assessment of
Adaptation Practices, Options, Constraints and Capacity. 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, UK.
Barnett, B.J., Mahul, O., 2007. Weather index insurance for agriculture and rural
areas in lower-income countries. American Journal of Agricultural Economics
89 (5), 12411247.
Below T, et al., 2011. Micro-Level Practices to Adapt to Climate Change for African
Small-scale Farmers A Review of Selected Literature, IFPRI Discussion Paper
00953, February.
Bradshaw, B., Dolan, H., Smit, B., 2004. Farm-level adaptation to climatic variability
and change: crop diversication in the Canadian prairies. Climatic Change 67,
119141.
Brooks, N., Adger, W.N., Kelly, P.M., 2005. The determinants of vulnerability and
adaptive capacity at the national level and the implications for adaptation.
Global Environmental Change 15 (2), 151163.
Bryan, E., et al., 2011. Adapting agriculture to climate change in Kenya: household
and community strategies and determinants. Paper Presented at the Interna-
tional Conference on May 18 and 19, 2011 on the Economics of Adaptation to
Climate Change in Low-income Countries. http://www.gwu.edu/iiep/adapta-
tion/docs/Bryan,%20Adapting%20Agriculture%20to%20Climate%20Change%20-
in%20Kenya%20Household%20and%20Community.pdf.
Bryant, R.C., et al., 2000. Adaptation in Canadian agriculture to climate variability
and change. Climatic Change 45, 181201.
Census of India, 2001. State Primary Census Abstract. Government of India, Ministry
of Home Affairs, India.
Carter, M.R., Barrett, C.B., Boucher, S., Chantarat, S., Galarza, F., McPeak, J., Mude,
A.G., Trivelli, C., 2008. Insuring the never before insured: explaining index
insurance through nancial education games. In: BASIS Brief 200807, Univer-
sity of Wisconsin-Madison, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economic,
Madison, USA.
Chantarat, S., Barrett, C.B., Mude, A., Turvey, C., 2007. Using weather index insurance
to improve drought response for famine prevention. American Journal of
Agricultural Economics 89 (5), 12621268.
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 Environmental Change 19 (2 (May)), 248255, http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.01.002.
Economic Survey of Odisha. 20101011. Planning and Coordination Department,
Directorate of Economics & Statistics, Government of Odisha.
Engle, L.N., 2011. Adaptive capacity and its assessment. Global Environmental
Change 21, 647656, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.01.019.
Easterling, W.E., Aggarwal, P.K., Batima, P., Brander, K.M., Erda, L., Howden, S.M.,
Kirilenko, A., Morton, J., Soussana, J.-F., Schmidhuber, J., Tubiello, F.N., 2007.
Food, bre and forest products. In: Parry, M.L., Canziani, O.F., Palutikof, J.P., van
der Linden, P.J., Hanson, C.E. (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 Univer-
sity Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 273313.
Falcon, W.P., Naylor, R.L., et al., 2004. Using climate models to improve Indonesian
food security? Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies 40 (3), 355377.
FSARO, 2008. Food Security Atlas of Rural Odisha. Institute for Human Develop-
ment, New Delhi, India.
Freeman, P.K., Kunreuther, H., 2002. Environmental risk management for devel-
oping countries. The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance 27 (2), 196214.
Ghosh, S., Mujumdar, P.P., 2006. Future rainfall scenario over Odisha with GCM
projections by statistical downscaling. Current Science 90 (3), 396404.
Ghosh, S., Mujumdar, P.P., 2007. Nonparametric methods for modeling GCM and
scenario uncertainty in drought assessment. Water Resources Research 43,
W07405, http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2006wr005351.
Hassan, R., Nhemachena, C., 2008. Determinants of African farmers strategies for
adapting to climate change: Multinomial choice analysis. African Journal of
Agricultural and Resource Economics 2 (March (1)).
Hochrainer, S., Mechler, R., Pug, G., 2009. Climate change and nancial adaptation
in Africa: investigating the impact of climate change on the robustness of micro-
insurance in Malawi. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 14
(3), 231250.
Hulme, M., ONeill, S.J., Dessai, S., 2011. Is weather event attribution necessary for
adaptation funding? Science 334 (6057), 764765, http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/
science.1211740.
IPCC, 2007. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability- Contri-
bution of Working Group II to the IPCC Fourth Assessment, Cambridge Univer-
sity Press, Cambridge.
Jones, L., Boyd, E., 2011. Exploring social barriers to adaptation: insights from
Western Nepal. Global Environmental Change 21 (4 (Oct)), 12621274,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.06.002.
Jayachandran, S., 2006. Selling labor low: wage responses to productivity shocks in
developing countries. Journal of Political Economy 114 (3), 538575.
Kurukulasuriya, P., Mendelsohn, R., 2008. A Ricardian analysis of the impact of
climate change on African cropland. African Journal of Agricultural and Re-
source Economics 2 (1), 123.
790 A. Panda et al. / Global Environmental Change 23 (2013) 782790
Leftley, R., Mapfumo, S., 2006. Effective Microinsurance Programs to Reduce Vul-
nerability. Opportunity International Network, Oxford, UK.
Lobell, B.D., et al., 2008. Prioritizing climate change adaptation needs for food
security in 2030. Science 319 .
Lauer, J.G., Carter, P.R., Wood, T.M., Diezel, G., Wiersma, D.W., Rand, R.E., Mlynarek,
M.J., 1999. Corn hybrid response to planting dates in northern corn belt.
Agronomy Journal 91, 834839.
Mohapatra, M., Mohanty, U.C., 2006. Spatio-temporal variability of summer mon-
soon rainfallover Odisha in relation to low pressure systems. Journal of Earth
System Science 115 (2 (Apr)), 203218.
Maddison, D., 2006. The Perception of and Adaptation to Climate Change in Africa.
CEEPA Discussion Paper No. 10, Special Series on Climate Change and Agricul-
ture in Africa ISBN 1-920160-01-09.
Manandhar, S., et al., 2011. Adapting cropping systems to climate change in Nepal:
a cross-regional study of farmers perception and practices. Regional Environ-
mental Change 11, 33348.
Meze-Hausken, E., Patt, A., Fritz, S., 2009. Reducing climate risk for micro-insurance
providers in Africa: a case study of Ethiopia. Global Environmental Change 19,
6673.
Nhemachena C., Hassan R, 2007. Micro-Level Analysis of Farmers Adaptation to
Climate Change in Southern Africa, IFPRI Discussion Paper 00714, August 2007.
OBrien, K., Leichenko, R., 2000. Double exposure: assessing the impacts of climate
change within the context of economic globalization. Global Environmental
Change 10, 221232.
OBrien, K., Leichenko, R., Kelkar, U., Venema, H., Aandahl, G., Tompkins, H., Javed, A.,
et al., 2004. Mapping vulnerability to multiple stressors: climate change and
globalization in India. Global Environmental Change 14, 303313.
Orindi, V.A., Eriksen, S., 2005. Mainstreaming Adaptation to Climate Change in the
Development Process in Uganda. Ecopolicy Series 15. African Centre for Tech-
nology Studies (ACTS), Nairobi, Kenya.
Parry, M., 2007. The implications of climate change for crop yields, global food
supply and risk of hunger. SAT eJournal 4 (1 (Dec)).
PACS, 2004. Poorest Areas Civil Society, Drought in India: challenges and initiatives.
New Delhi (India): PACS programs. Online at http://www.empowerpoor.org/
downloads/drought1.pdf (accessed 23.11.2011).
Patra, Jagadish, Mishra, A., Singh, R., Raghuwanshi, N.S., 2012. Detecting rainfall
trends in twentieth century (18712006) over Odisha State, India. Climatic
Change 111, 801817, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-0215-5.
Parry, M.L., Canziani, O.F., Palutikof, J., van der Linden, P., Hanson, C., 2007. Climate
change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. In: Contribution of Work-
ing Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Patt, A.G., Tadross, M., Nussbaumer, P., Asante, K., Metzger, M., Rafael, J., Gujon, A.,
Brundrit, G., 2010a. Estimating least-developed countries vulnerability to
climate-related extreme events over the next 50 years. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences 107, 13331337.
Patt, A.G., Peterson, N., Carter, M., Velez, M., Hess, U., Suarez, P., 2009. Making index
insurance attractive to farmers. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global
Change 14, 737753.
Patt, A.G., Suarez, P., Gwata, C., 2005. Effects of seasonal climate forecasts and
participatory workshops among subsistence farmers in Zimbabwe. Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 102,
1262312628.
Patt, A.G., Suarez, P., Hess, U., 2010b. How much do smallholder farmers understand
and want insurance? Global Environmental Change 20, 153161.
Patt, A.G., Varela, R., Nhantumbo, I., Bizikova, L., 2010c. The social dimensions of
adaptation to climate change in Mozambique. The World Bank.
Phillips, J., 2003. Determinants of forecast use among communal farmers in
Zimbabwe. In: OBrien, K., Vogel, C. (Eds.), Coping with Climate Variability:
the Use of Seasonal Climate Forecasts in Southern Africa. Ashgate, Aldershot,
UK, pp. 110128.
Seo, S.N., Mendelsohn, R., 2008. Measuring Impacts and Adaptations to Climate
Change: A Structural Ricardian Model of African Livestock Management. Agri-
cultural Economics 38, 115.
Sharma, U., Patt, A., 2012. Disaster warning response: the effects of different types of
personal experience. Natural Hazards 60 (2), 409423, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1007/s11069-011-0023-2.
Smit, B. (Ed.), 1993. Adaptation to Climatic Variability and Change. Environment
Canada, Guelph.
Smit, B., Skinner, W.M., 2002. Adaptation options in agriculture to climate
change: a typology. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change
7, 85114.
Smit, B., Pilifosova O., Burton I., Challenger B., Huq S., Klein R.J.T., Yohe G., 2001.
Adaptation to climate change in the context of sustainable development and
equity. Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contri-
bution of the Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, J.J. McCarthy, O. Canziani, N.A.
Leary, D.J. Dokken and K.S. White, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cam-
bridge, 877912.
State of Environment Report, Odisha, 2007. Government of Odisha, India.
Thomas, D.S.G., Twyman, C., Osbahr, H., Hewitson, B., 2007. Adaptation to climate
change and variability: farmer responses to intra-seasonal precipitation trends
in South Africa. Climatic Change 83, 301322.
Trrup, S.L.M., Mertz, O., 2011. Rainfall variability and household coping strategies
in northern Tanzania: a motivation for district level strategies. Regional Envi-
ronmental Change 11 (3), 471481.
Tubiello, F.N., Rosenzweig, C., et al., 2002. Effects of climate change on US crop
production: simulation results using two different GCM scenarios. Part I: wheat,
potato, maize, and citrus. Climate Research 20 (3), 259270.
Tadross, M.A., Hewitson, B.C., Usman, M.T., 2005. The inter annual variability of the
onset of the maize growing season over South Africa and Zimbabwe. Journal of
Climate 18 (16), 33563372.
Uy, N., Takeuchi, Y., Shaw, R., 2011. Local adaptation for livelihood resilience in
Albay, Philippines. Environmental Hazards 10 (2), 139153.
Vincent, K., 2004. Creating an index of social vulnerability to climate change for
Africa. Working Paper 56, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research and
School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich.
Vincent, K., 2007. Uncertainty in adaptive capacity and the importance of scale.
Global Environmental Change 17 (1), 1224.
Yohe, G., Tol, R.S.J., 2002. Indicators for social and economic coping capacity
moving toward a working denition of adaptive capacity. Global Environmental
Change 12, 2540.