Prioritizing Climate-Smart Technologies in Agriculture—A Case Study in Madhya Pradesh, India



This study follows two approaches simultaneously to prioritize climate-smart technologies—the first uses the Climate-Smart Feasibility Index (CSFI), and the second assesses farmers’ preferences of climate-smart technologies for the state of Madhya Pradesh in India. The CSFI includes variables such as productivity, water, energy and nitrogen use efficiency, and labor intensity. These indicators are aggregated by using their respective weights, which are derived through Principal Component Analysis. Further, farmers’ preferences are estimated by using the stated preference method. The results of this assessment reveal that the technologies highly preferred by the farmers are not necessarily the ones with high CSFI value but are those that save inputs even at the cost of productivity. This may be due to poor access to agricultural machinery, and the dominance of rainfed agriculture. But farmers are otherwise interested in replacing their traditional cultivation practices with climate-smart practices. The study brings out the gap between scientific knowledge about smart agriculture technologies, and the farmers’ preferences, which would be useful in investment decisions by policy makers.


Principal component analysis Priority setting Stated preference method 


  1. Aggarwal, P. K. (2003). Impact of climate change on Indian agriculture. Journal of Plant Biology, 30, 189–198.Google Scholar
  2. Bhatia, A., Pathak, H., & Aggarwal, P. K. (2004). Inventory of methane and nitrous oxide emissions from agricultural soils of India and their global warming potential. Current Science, 317–324.Google Scholar
  3. Garg, A., Shukla, P. R., Bhattacharya, S., & Dadhwal, V. K. (2001). Sub-region (district) and sector level SO2 and NOx emissions for India: Assessment of inventories and mitigation flexibility. Atmospheric Environment, 35(4), 703–713.Google Scholar
  4. GoI - Ministry of Agriculture. (2016). Agricultural statistics at a Glance. Directorate of Economics and Statistics. New Delhi: Government of India. Last accessed in December 2016.
  5. Klytchnikova, I. I., Sadler, M. P., Townsend, R., Edmeades, S., Choudhary, V., Hussain, S., et al. (2015). Future of food: shaping a climate-smart global food system (English). Washington, D.C.: World Bank Group.
  6. Krupa, S. V. (2003). Effects of atmospheric ammonia (NH3) on terrestrial vegetation: A review. Environmental Pollution, 124(2), 179–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Mall, R. K., Gupta, A., Singh, R., Singh, R. S., & Rathore, L. S. (2006). Water resources and climate change: An Indian perspective. Current Science, 90, 1610–1625.Google Scholar
  8. Mall, R. K., Lal, M., Bhatia, V. S., Rathore, L. S., & Singh, R. (2004). Mitigating climate change impact on soybean productivity in India: A simulation study. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 121(1), 113–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Manly, B. F. J. (1994). Multivariate statistical methods. A primer (2nd ed.). London: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
  10. Pachauri, R. K., Allen, M. R., Barros, V. R., Broome, J., Cramer, W., Christ, R., … Dubash, N. K. (2014). Climate change 2014: Synthesis report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (p. 151). IPCC.Google Scholar
  11. Rama Rao, C. A., Raju, B. M. K., Subba Rao, A. V. M., Rao, K. V., Rao, V. U. M., Ramachandran, K., et al. (2013). Atlas on vulnerability of Indian agriculture to climate change (p. 116). Hyderabad: Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI)New DelhiIndia
  2. 2.Agriculture Development and Rural TransformationInstitute for Social and Economic ChangeBengaluruIndia

Personalised recommendations