Ecological Indicators 136 (2022) 108597

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ecological Indicators
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolind

Original Articles

A deep-understanding framework and assessment indicator system for

climate-resilient agriculture
Xuezheng Zong a, b, Xiaojie Liu a, Gang Chen c, Yunhe Yin a, *
a
Key Laboratory of Land Surface Pattern and Simulation, Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing
100101, China
b
University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China
c
Environmental Development Center of the Ministry of Ecology and Environment, Beijing 100029, China

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

Keywords: Climate change threatens agricultural production and leads to an increasing contradiction between food supply
Climate change and needs. Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from agricultural activities will exacerbate climate change in the
Climate-resilient agriculture future. Solving food security has become a major challenge around the world. The development of climate-
Deep-understanding framework
resilient agriculture (CRA) is critical to address or slow climate change and is also helpful to improve agricul­
Agricultural adaptability
Agricultural sustainable development
tural quality and efficiency. Based on a review of previous studies and a deep understanding of CRA goals, this
paper introduced a comprehensive assessment framework to evaluate CRA. This assessment framework com­
bined four dimensions, i.e., agricultural productivity, farmer income, climate adaptability, and the green
development level, and has 71 evaluation indicators. The highlights of this framework are to analyze the impacts
of climate change on agricultural development and to stress the synergy of mitigation and adaptation strategies.
All indicators represent various factors related to the development of CRA and have been used in previous
studies. Therefore, the comprehensive assessment framework can be used as an evaluation tool for analyzing the
changes in agroecosystem resilience under climate change, which is also helpful to implement scientific man­
agement to ensure sustainable agricultural development and food security.

1. Introduction enhance the resilience of ecosystems to climate change. China’s Policies

and Actions for Addressing Climate Change (2021), released by the
Climate change, caused by greenhouse gas emissions, has become an Ministry of Ecology and Environment of the People’s Republic of China,
indisputable fact worldwide. The global average surface temperature highlighted that both climate change mitigation and adaptation are
will increase by 1.5 ◦ C from 2030 to 2052 compared with the prein­ critical actions in the national strategy to address climate change.
dustrial revolution (1850–1900). Increasingly severe climate change Agriculture is an economic activity that sustains the food and
raises a series of issues associated with society, economy, and life safety nutrition necessary for human life and plays a pivotal role in socioeco­
(Chausson et al., 2020). Natural disasters caused by climate change nomic development (Latruffe et al., 2016). Agricultural production is
accounted for 90% of all disasters worldwide in 2020, resulting in strongly influenced by weather/climate, and its instability and vulner­
15,080 deaths and $171.3 billion in economic losses (CRED and UNDRR, ability will increase with climate warming (Liu et al., 2010; Zhang et al.,
2021). To reduce the risk of climate change, governments and interna­ 2017). Extreme weather events, such as droughts, heatwaves, and
tional organizations have developed various countermeasures from both floods, directly threaten food production and security, especially in rural
mitigation and adaptation perspectives over the past 30 years since the communities with high populations of small-scale producers who are
1990 s. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) re­ highly dependent on rain-fed agriculture for their livelihoods and food
ported that climate change mitigation action would significantly reduce (Acevedo et al., 2020). For instance, the worst drought in the past 40
the severity of impacts that nations, societies, and ecosystems have to years affected the southern part of Madagascar in 2021, causing
face. Climate change adaptation action will reduce the vulnerability of approximately 1.14 million people to face high levels of acute food
agroecosystems, coastal areas, and artificial systems and will then insecurity, of which nearly 14 000 people were in the ‘Catastrophe’

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (Y. Yin).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2022.108597
Received 25 November 2021; Received in revised form 6 January 2022; Accepted 23 January 2022
Available online 1 February 2022
1470-160X/© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
X. Zong et al. Ecological Indicators 136 (2022) 108597

phase (Phase 5 - the highest on the five-step scale of the Integrated Food evaluating the ability to adapt and transform to a changing environment
Security Phase Classification (IPC)) (FAO, 2021). Water conflicts be­ (Berkes and Ross, 2013), and how to achieve specific developmental
tween the agricultural sector and cities will intensify with changes in goals (Standish et al., 2014; Steffen, 2015).
rainfall patterns and urbanization (Flörke et al., 2018). In addition, a With the current growing understanding of the climate change
warming climate also increases the likelihood and severity of agricul­ phenomenon and the urgency of undertaking adaptation and mitigation
tural pests and pathogens, thus increasing the potential risk of food strategies, resilience has emerged as the preferred paradigm for
production (Bebber et al., 2013; Ma et al., 2021). According to the 2021 addressing potential future climate change risks. The IPCC defined
report from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations climate resilience as the ability of social, economic, and environmental
(FAO), the conflict between rapid global population growth and systems to cope with climate change disturbances/challenges in a
incompatible food supplies has become more serious. Rapidly growing manner that maintains their essential structure, characteristics, and
populations and changing diets will increase the demand for meat and functions while maintaining an integrated capacity to adapt, learn and
dairy products in developing economies, which will further expand the transform (Denton et al., 2014). The deep construction and application
exploitation of natural resources and increase food production and its of climate resilience in various natural and artificial ecosystems have
security risks (Acevedo et al., 2020). recently become important initiatives of international organizations and
To address the challenges posed by climate change while achieving a national governments to address climate change (Chao, 2021).
sustainable transformation of agricultural systems, agricultural opera­ Considering the importance of agriculture in social development,
tors, governments, and related organizations are attempting to trans­ how to sustain the long-term development of agricultural systems under
form agriculture into ecologically sustainable climate-resilient climate change is an urgent issue. The United Nations Conference on
agriculture (CRA). CRA is a new model of agricultural management that Environment and Development (UNCED) called for sustainable devel­
follows the concept of sustainable development, and it aims to address opment and environmental protection to address climate risks, including
hunger and poverty under climate change (Howden et al., 2007; Gentle the development of resilient and adaptive agriculture. Several technol­
and Maraseni, 2012; Reddy, 2015; Acevedo et al., 2020). Following ogies have been used to improve the climate resilience of agriculture and
sustainable development conception and using advanced technologies, solve potential climate change risks, such as changes in the planting time
CRA practices can alter the current situation and sustain agricultural (Lu et al., 2017; Cui, 2020), supplementary irrigation (Mahato et al.,
production from the local to the global level, especially in a sustainable 2020), intercropping (Bybee-Finley and Ryan, 2018), establishing short-
manner (Reddy, 2015; Srinivasa Rao et al., 2019; Acevedo et al., 2020). and long-term crop and seed storage infrastructure (Macholdt et al.,
For instance, using organic fertilizer and renewable energy instead of 2020), and changing crop types or planting more climate-resilient crop
chemical fertilizer, pesticide, and fossil fuel results in a positive and varieties (Acevedo et al., 2020).
significant effect on food production and soil health and decrease carbon In general, the concept of CRA has evolved from “resilient agricul­
emission for the long term (Koondhar et al., 2021). Conservation agri­ ture” to “CRA with an emphasis on climate change”. CRA has become a
culture technologies (reduced tillage, crop rotations, and cover crops), way to ensure sustainable agricultural development under climate
soil conservation practices (contour farming), and nutrient recharge change, and an agroecosystem with high climate- resiliency is better
strategies can refill soil organic matter by giving a protective soil cover. able to adapt and respond to long-term environmental changes and
The International Fund for Agriculture Development (IFAD) (IFAD, challenges.
2019) and FAO (FAO, 2020) confirmed that the development of CRA
was a critical strategy to address climate change and achieve sustainable 2.2. Characteristics of CRA
development goals (SDGs), such as eliminating poverty and hunger and
protecting land ecosystems. CRA is a management model based on the original agricultural sys­
As the leading agricultural producing country, the Chinese govern­ tem to address future climate change under the action of the human
ment has proposed CRA as one of the specific actions for greenhouse gas subjective initiative. This model considers the entire process of agri­
emission reduction in the 21st century to ensure the achievement of the cultural production from a holistic perspective, ensuring that the mea­
Paris Agreement’s temperature rise limitation target. Although the new sures taken by departments are coordinated with each other, and the
CRA technology has been widely used in agricultural production and overall development degree is within the carrying capacity of natural
management (Piao et al., 2010; Lu et al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2017; Liu resources. This model also supports cross-border cooperation (such as
et al., 2019; Zhu and Fang, 2019; Ma et al., 2021), few studies have planting, breeding, aquaculture, agro-forestry systems, and others) to
focused on CRA evaluation, comparison, and situational analysis among solve cross-border climate/weather monitoring, resource management,
different regions, limiting the potential enhancement and optimization space optimization, and scientific policy formulation. Therefore, the
of regional CRA. A comprehensive and consistent assessment system is development of CRA inherited the general characteristics of the agro­
the basis for accurately evaluating CRA. Therefore, the aim of this paper ecosystem, which also considered the multidimensionality and dy­
is to construct a comprehensive assessment framework to evaluate CRA namics in the process of climate resilience construction. The
at the national scale, which is helpful to formulate, implement and characteristics of CRA can be summarized as sociality, multidimen­
monitor agricultural development policies and to propose reasonable sionality, and dynamics.
management concepts to ensure the sustainable development of agri­
culture under climate change. 2.2.1. Sociality
CRA combines adaptation and mitigation measures to emphasize the
2. A deep understanding of CRA development of new and advanced agricultural technologies while
inspiring the initiative and efficiency of farmers in production and
2.1. Origin of CRA improving services and policies. These results indicate that CRA requires
the coordination and cooperation of farmers, government, financial in­
Resilience, derived from the Latin word “resilio”, was originally used stitutions, and related organizations. On the other hand, CRA can bring
to describe the ability of a material to resist external shocks or the ability benefits to the environment and society, including improving soil
of an individual to cope with adversity and stress (Lazarus and Launier, fertility and biodiversity, increasing farmer income, and reducing social
1978). After the 1970s, this concept was introduced to ecology and has conflicts (Hole et al., 2005; Sain et al., 2017).
become a way to understand ecosystem dynamics (Holling, 1973),
including describing how quickly a system recovers after a specific 2.2.2. Multidimensionality
hazard disturbance (Carpenter et al., 2012; Vogel et al., 2012), Building climate resilience in agriculture involves household,

2
X. Zong et al. Ecological Indicators 136 (2022) 108597

community, and regional levels. The CRA level depends on the capital assessment objectives (Yang et al., 2020). Following the universal
and knowledge possessed by farmers, the infrastructure and public principles of indicator selection in past agroecosystem sustainability
services provided by governments and institutions, and ecological and assessment studies (Latruffe et al., 2016; Srinivasa Rao et al., 2019), we
environmental factors and their changes (Srinivasa Rao et al., 2019; summarized six principles for CRA assessment indicator selection in this
Acevedo et al., 2020). The effects of these factors on CRA are different, paper.
so building CRA needs to fully consider the importance of its influential
factors and the interaction between various elements. 3.1.1. Risk differentiation
CRA was proposed and developed in the context of climate change.
2.2.3. Dynamics Climate changes will lead to different types and characteristics of
The dynamics of CRA is reflected at both spatial and temporal scales. disaster risks faced by agroecosystems. Therefore, when constructing an
At the spatial scale, the emphasis of CRA in different regions will change assessment system of CRA, it is necessary to clarify different types of
with the type of regional agroecosystems and available resources and disasters and their characteristic changes and then select corresponding
management policy patterns; at the temporal scale, social development evaluation indexes according to the differences in their impacts on
and climate volatility will drive the evolution of CRA. The changes in agroecosystems.
socioeconomic values and expectations of the agroecosystems should be
accurately grasped to ensure that the agroecosystem has strong resil­ 3.1.2. Multidimensional
ience to resist climate change for the long term. The dominant purposes of CRA development are to highlight the
synergy between adaptation and mitigation, enhance the climate resil­
2.3. Objectives ience of the agroecosystem, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions from
agricultural activities. CRA is also an important premise to ensure the
The purpose of CRA development is to enhance the capacity of quality and efficiency of agriculture and to solve the problems of food
agroecosystems to cope with climate change. The ultimate goals are to security and poverty. Therefore, the selection of indicators in the
meet human needs and to promote social and economic development, assessment system of CRA should focus on agricultural adaptation and
which is associated with the sustainable development goals of no mitigation strategies while considering the indicators affecting the
poverty (SDG1), zero hunger (SDG2), climate action (SDG13), and life change of strategies from the natural environment, economy, society,
on land (SDG15) (IFAD, 2019; FAO, 2020). The CRA core objectives are and policy culture perspectives.
the basis for the assessment system. Specifically, the CRA objectives
include the following three points (Reddy, 2015; Singh et al., 2021). 3.1.3. Goal-oriented
The first goal is to sustainably increase agricultural productivity and The CRA ultimately contributes to agricultural productivity and
incomes. Climate change will affect agricultural productivity through its farmer incomes and solves the problems of food security and poverty.
effects on water, heat, and gas resource utilization (Piao et al., 2010; Starting from the dimensions covered by the level of agricultural pro­
Balasubramanya and Stifel, 2020), species distribution (Alexandrov ductivity and farmer income, it is necessary to consider not only the
et al., 2002; Teixeira et al., 2013), productivity (Wongnaa and Babu, indicators of the impact of climate change on agricultural productivity
2020; Ortiz-Bobea et al., 2021) and pests and diseases (Li et al., 2010), and farmer income but also the indicators of social and economic im­
which can lead to complex problems such as food insecurity and so­ pacts on the premise of following adaptation and mitigation strategies.
cioeconomic unrest (Fletcher et al., 2020; Wongnaa and Babu, 2020;
Ortiz-Bobea et al., 2021). Addressing agricultural productivity and 3.1.4. Representativeness
farmer incomes under climate change will help achieve the sustainable It is necessary to select representative, sensitive, and long-lasting
development goals of no poverty (SDG1) and zero hunger (SDG2), indicators to reflect the impacts of climate change on CRA and avoid
promote regional agricultural development, and improve farmers’ similar or duplicate indicators, thus improving the practicality of the
motivation and living standards. assessment framework.
The second goal is building and enhancing the resilience of the
agroecosystems to adapt to climate change. Due to their homogeneous 3.1.5. Reasonability
structure, agroecosystems are less stable and resistant than natural The indicators for CRA were collated through an extensive review of
ecosystems and exhibit high vulnerability under climate change. The published literature in peer-reviewed journals and agricultural assess­
climate resilience of agricultural systems requires a combination of ment frameworks developed by international organizations such as FAO
natural, social, economic, and cultural levels, reflecting the integrated and the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD). All published
response capacity of multiple ecosystems to climate change risks and literature was screened with Google Scholar and Web of Science using
echoing the objective of climate action (SDG13). various combinations of keywords including CRA, sustainability in­
The third goal is reducing and/or removing greenhouse gas emis­ dicators for agriculture, agricultural vulnerability indicators,
sions from agroecosystems, where possible. Agricultural activities have agroecosystem-based sustainability, and ecological indicators for sus­
been verified to be one of the major sources of greenhouse gas emissions, tainable agriculture. Each paper was reviewed and those with unam­
accounting for more than 20% of global anthropogenic emissions biguous indicators for measuring CRA were shortlisted.
(Prastiyo et al., 2020) and causing severe climate disruptions. CRA fol­
lows the concept of green development and implements climate change 3.1.6. Operability
mitigation and adaptation strategies, and it aims to assess the role of The indicators of the CRA assessment system should be easy to obtain
climate change actions in agricultural development and ensure the goal and process while facilitating quantitative analysis and comparison,
of sustainable life (SDG15). reducing the use of qualitative indicators, and avoiding errors caused by
subjective factors.
3. Construction of the CRA assessment framework
3.2. CRA assessment framework
3.1. Principles for the selection of evaluation indicators
The construction of the CRA assessment system needs to clarify the
The design of the assessment system should follow certain con­ impacts of climate change on the agroecosystem, highlight the synergy
struction principles to ensure that the selected assessment indicators can of adaptation and mitigation measures, and use the goals of CRA (Reddy,
scientifically, objectively, and rationally measure and describe the 2015) as the main purposes for building a CRA assessment framework.

3
X. Zong et al. Ecological Indicators 136 (2022) 108597

Each goal was then refined into various components (Fig. 1). Following reasons for the change in productivity. TFP measures the contribution of
these six selection principles, we first summarized numerous indicators all input elements of a production unit and has become a more infor­
with higher frequency derived from published literature using frequency mative measure for understanding changes in overall agricultural pro­
analysis and expert consultation. Then 71 suitable evaluation indicators ductivity over time (Van Beveren, 2007). Through a combination and
were screened based on four objectives of CRA development (Table 1). analysis of previous research on agricultural productivity evaluation and
These indicators interact with each other but do not repeat and provide a the relevant evaluation standards proposed by the FAO (FAO, 2017) and
measure of coverage of the CRA goals. OECD (OECD, 2018; 2020), this paper selected 20 evaluation indicators
to assess agricultural productivity (Table 1).
3.2.1. Agricultural productivity
Agricultural productivity is generally defined as the ratio of outputs 3.2.2. Farmer income
to inputs, which reflects the output efficiency of the agroecosystem after The declines in agricultural productivity and food insecurity caused
a certain amount of resources has been input (OECD, 2001). The level of by climate change are ultimately reflected in the decline in farmer in­
productivity depends on the quality of the input resources and the de­ come and the increase in poverty (Ojo and Baiyegunhi, 2020). Farmer
gree of integration of different resources in the production process. income refers to the money generated by farm or agribusiness operations
Having high productivity means being able to occupy and maintain a and is an important indicator that directly measures the well-being of
favorable level under long-term competition and development (Zhu and farmers’ lives (Chand et al., 2015). First, the farmer income is regarded
Fang, 2019). Due to increasingly serious climate warming, increases in as the amount of value-added for the use of production factors such as
the frequency and severity of precipitation, temperature, and extreme labor, land, and capital. This sums up the surplus and profit from the
events will significantly affect crop growth cycles, yields, and nutritional farm level to the sector level, reflecting the production aspect of agri­
status, thus reducing agricultural productivity (Praveen and Sharma, culture; second, from the farm-family perspective, farmer income is the
2019). main source of household income and determines the level of household
Assessing agricultural productivity is strongly influenced by the consumption (Finger and El Benni, 2021).
regional geographic location, scale, and current agricultural develop­ Most of the current studies on the evaluation of farmer income have
ment. At the farm scale, the characteristics of farmers (gender, age, borrowed the definition of farmer income in the Farm Accountancy Data
education level, labor efficiency), farm size and management, and Network (FADN), “the remuneration of farm production factors (work,
equipment efficiency are deemed dominant indicators for CRA assess­ land, and capital) and the risk to entrepreneurs (losses/profits)” (Odo­
ment (Olaoye and Rotimi, 2010; Das and Sahoo, 2012). At the regional noghue et al., 2016). In addition, the FAO has developed a framework to
or national scale, agricultural productivity assessments should also pay evaluate farmer incomes from the perspective of agricultural production
more attention to the possibility of extreme events, economic policies activities. Based on the above two evaluation systems, this paper sup­
and social services, agricultural revenue and expenditure, and the level plements agricultural activity subsidies and tax indicators based on the
of available resources (Liang et al., 2017). In some developing countries, FAO’s existing farmer income assessment framework and determines 8
the impacts of mixed crops, primary and secondary crops, and agricul­ farmer income evaluation indicators associated with production value
tural and sideline products are also main indicators for agricultural and policy (Table 1).
productivity evaluation.
Agricultural productivity can be measured by two concepts: partial 3.2.3. Climate adaptability
productivity (PP) and total factor productivity (TFP) (Coomes et al., CRA is risk management and is applied to reduce the vulnerability
2019). PP is used to measure the contribution of a single factor (such as and exposure of agroecosystems to climate change and to enhance sys­
labor and capital) to productivity, but it is impossible to clarify the tem resilience. Therefore, improving climate resilience is essential to

Fig. 1. Dimensions of comprehensive assessment for CRA.

4
X. Zong et al. Ecological Indicators 136 (2022) 108597

Table 1
Comprehensive assessment index system of CRA.
Target layer Criterion A Criterion B Indicator layer Indicator interpretation Indicator Data requirements and
attribute accessibility

CRA Agricultural Land productivity The total area of land The proportion of the planted land area Positive Referring to the
comprehensive productivity (P) planted to crops (P1) for each crop relative to the total relevant statistics
assessment index available land area
Land areas used for The proportion of land used for pasture Positive Referring to the
pasture (P2) relative to the total available land area relevant statistics
Frequency of occurrence Frequency of different extreme events Negative Referring to the
of extreme events (P3) at a given region relevant statistics
Frequency of diseases and Probability of occurrence of various Negative Referring to the
insect pests (P4) types of diseases, pests and livestock relevant statistics
epidemics at a regional scale
Soil pollution degree (P5) Land areas with different pollution Negative Referring to the
intensities relevant experiment
Probability of fire Probability of fires in farmland and Negative Referring to the
occurrence (P6) nearby regions relevant statistics
Soil fertility (P7) Proportion of nitrogen fixing plants or Positive Referring to the
beans per unit planting area relevant experiment
Labor productivity Workers’ educational level Proportion of workers with higher Positive Referring to the
(P8) education relevant questionnaire
surveys
Proportion of workers Proportion of workers per agricultural Positive Referring to the
engaged in agricultural activity relevant questionnaire
activities (P9) surveys
Proportion of regular Proportion of full-time and seasonal Positive Referring to the
workers (P10) workers in active agricultural periods relevant questionnaire
surveys
Proportion of young and The proportion of workers aged 15–64 Positive Referring to the
middle-aged workers years relative to the total number of relevant questionnaire
(P11) workers surveys
Proportion of women The proportion of woman workers Negative Referring to the
workers (P12) relative to the total number of workers relevant questionnaire
surveys
Working hours for all Number of hours worked per Positive Referring to the
products (P13) agricultural product/activity relevant questionnaire
surveys
Capital Average service life of Service life of various agricultural Positive Referring to the
productivity fixed capital (P14) facilities used in agricultural activities relevant questionnaire
surveys
Fixed capital usage Effectiveness, sufficiency and value of Positive Referring to the
efficiency (P15) various agricultural facilities used in relevant questionnaire
agricultural activities surveys
Productivity of Expenses of agricultural Expenses for purchasing goods and Negative Referring to the
intermediate inputs activities (P16) external supplies used in agricultural relevant questionnaire
activities surveys
Agricultural policy Percentage of transfer Expenses for increasing farmer income Positive Referring to the
payment given to and purchasing power relevant questionnaire
agricultural producers surveys
(P17)
General services support The annual monetary value of gross Positive Referring to the
estimate (P18) transfers to general services provided to relevant literature
agricultural producers
Producer support estimate The annual monetary value of gross Positive Referring to the
(P19) transfers from consumers and taxpayers relevant literature
to agricultural producers
Percentage of total Total support estimate transfers as a Positive Referring to the
support estimate (P20) percentage of the GDP relevant literature
Farmer income Production value Percentage of agricultural Proportion of income from agricultural Positive Referring to the
(I) activities (I1) activities relative to total household relevant literature
income
Percentage of Proportion of income from Negative Referring to the
nonagricultural activities nonagricultural activities relative to relevant literature
(I2) total household incomes
Living expenses (I3) The total value of production used to Negative Referring to the
meet the needs of daily life relevant literature
Agricultural productivity Agricultural production per working Positive Referring to the
(I4) day relevant literature
Agricultural product price The market value of agricultural Positive Referring to the
(I5) products accounting for the proportion relevant literature
of agricultural GDP (%)
Fixed capital rental (I6) Proportion of agricultural equipment Positive Referring to the
and land rental income relative to the relevant literature
total income
Welfare and tax Subsidies for agricultural Percentage of subsidies for agricultural Positive Referring to the
revenue activities (I7) activities from the government relevant statistics
(continued on next page)

5
X. Zong et al. Ecological Indicators 136 (2022) 108597

Table 1 (continued )
Target layer Criterion A Criterion B Indicator layer Indicator interpretation Indicator Data requirements and
attribute accessibility

Agricultural taxes (I8) Percentage of agricultural taxes relative Negative Referring to the
to the total income relevant statistics
Climate Eco-environment Percentage of days with Percentage of days with excellent air Positive Referring to the
adaptability (A) excellent air quality (A1) quality during crop-growing period relevant statistics
Frequency of use of Annual frequency of use of synthetic Negative Referring to the
synthetic pesticides (A2) pesticides during crop-growing period relevant statistics
Pesticide disposal (A3) Frequency of disposal of pesticide Positive Referring to the
residues relevant questionnaire
surveys
Species diversity (A4) Species of animals and plants in the Positive Referring to the
area around farmlands relevant experiment
Clean energy (A5) Types of available clean energy used in Positive Referring to the
agricultural activities relevant questionnaire
surveys
Biological invasion (A6) Frequency and intensity of biological Negative Referring to the
invasion occurrence relevant statistics
Network marketing Access to market Frequency of access to market Positive Referring to the
ofagricultural information (A7) information relevant questionnaire
products surveys
Access to information on Access to and sources of information on Positive Referring to the
agricultural inputs (A8) cropping/livestock practices relevant literature
Degree of market access Number of markets in the region Positive Referring to the
for selling (A9) relevant questionnaire
surveys
Access to information and Number of farmers who took part in Positive Referring to the
communication agricultural training in the past 10 relevant questionnaire
technologies (A10) years surveys
Infrastructure Railway/road density Railway/road density and connectivity Positive Referring to the
(A11) relevant statistics
New technologies and Available new equipment invested in Positive Referring to the
equipment (A12) the region and the degree of new relevant questionnaire
technology popularization surveys and statistics
Agricultural education Number of agricultural education Positive Referring to the
organization (A13) organizations relevant statistics
Agricultural catastrophic Number and coverage of regional Positive Referring to the
climate prediction system meteorological prediction systems relevant statistics
construction (A14)
State of accessible water Proportion of people with access to safe Positive Referring to the
(A15) drinking water relevant statistics
Storage facilities for Number and scale of storage facilities Positive Referring to the
agricultural products for different crops in the region relevant statistics
(A16)
Public health services Proportion of people receiving good Positive Referring to the
(A17) medical services relevant statistics
Livestock medical service Number of pet hospitals and epidemic Positive Referring to the
level (A18) prevention stations relevant statistics
Dietary nutritional status Diversity of the daily diet of farmers’ Positive Referring to the
(A19) families, intake of vegetables/fruits in relevant questionnaire
the past week surveys
Safety status of Frequency of use of personal protective Positive Referring to the
agricultural activities equipment during agricultural activities relevant questionnaire
(A20) surveys
Family health status (A21) Percentage of family members unable Negative Referring to the
to work relevant questionnaire
surveys
Agricultural Soil improvement (A22) Types of available soil improvement Positive Referring to the
management model technologies relevant experiment
Crop diversity (A23) Types of planted crops Positive Referring to the
relevant questionnaire
surveys
Planting density (A24) Planting densities of different crops Positive Referring to the
relevant statistics
Agricultural types (A25) Proportion of farm, forestry, animal Positive Referring to the
husbandry, sideline, and fishery in the relevant statistics
region
Diversity of improved Proportion of improved crops and Positive Referring to the
breeds (A26) livestock relevant statistics
Social security Rural financial Number and scale of rural financial Positive Referring to the
system organization (A27) organizations relevant statistics
Market price stability Fluctuation degree of market prices for Positive Referring to the
(A28) various agricultural products relevant statistics
Farmer’s rights (A29) Development degree of farmers’ rights Positive Referring to the
and welfare relevant literature
Agricultural insurance Percentage of livestock and crops Positive Referring to the
(A30) protected by insurance relevant literature
(continued on next page)

6
X. Zong et al. Ecological Indicators 136 (2022) 108597

Table 1 (continued )
Target layer Criterion A Criterion B Indicator layer Indicator interpretation Indicator Data requirements and
attribute accessibility

Politics and social stability Political stability and the absence of Positive Referring to the
(A31) violence and terrorism relevant literature
Green Greenhouse gas Agricultural input usage Utilization rate and area of chemical Negative Referring to the
development emission level (E1) fertilizer and agricultural film relevant statistics
level (E) Agricultural equipment Percentage of agricultural equipment Negative Referring to the
(E2) powered by electricity or oil relevant literature
Utilization rate of Number of packaging bags used in the Negative Referring to the
agricultural product processing, transformation, and sales of relevant questionnaire
packaging bags (E3) agricultural products surveys
Proportion of ruminants Proportion of cattle, sheep, and camels Negative Referring to the
(E4) relevant statistics
Rice-planting scale (E5) Proportion of the rice-planting area Negative Referring to the
relevant statistics
Emission reduction Coverage of green plants Coverage of green plants and forest in Positive Referring to the
(E6) farmland and nearby regions relevant statistics
No-tillage (E7) Percentage of land area with no-tillage Positive Referring to the
relevant statistics
Water-saving irrigation Proportion of water-saving irrigation Positive Referring to the
technologies (E8) technologies such as sprinkler irrigation relevant statistics
and drip irrigation relative to all
farmland irrigation methods
Organic fertilizer usage Percentage of land area to which Positive Referring to the
(E9) organic fertilizer is applied relevant statistics
Cleaner production of Number and scale of solid manure Positive Referring to the
livestock and poultry organic fertilizer plants and liquid relevant statistics
(E10) manure (large and medium-sized)
biogas projects in the region
Biogas projects (E11) Number and scale of biogas projects in Positive Referring to the
the region relevant statistics
Straw treatment (E12) Frequency of crop straw return Positive Referring to the
relevant questionnaire
surveys

enhance the climate adaptability of agroecosystem. When agro­ Liu et al., 2019). Based on the above analysis, 12 indicators were
ecosystem face the negative impacts caused by climate change, selected to measure the level of green development of agroecosystems
ecosystem with good CRA levels can enhance their stability and resis­ (Table 1).
tance through self-regulation and external intervention and can thus
reduce the impacts of climate change (Cui, 2020; Janssens et al., 2020).
3.3. CRA assessment method
The selection of evaluation indicators for agricultural climate adapt­
ability in this paper is based on the Building Resilience and Adaptation
Following indicator accessibility, three methods—direct calculation,
to Climate Extremes and Disasters framework (BRACED) proposed by
model simulation, and expert scoring—were used to quantify each in­
the British Department for International Development and the Interna­
dicator. When assessing CRA, the z-score, StandardScaler, or Min­
tional Institute for Sustainable Development, Climate Resilience and
MaxScaler methods can be used to normalize each indicator to eliminate
Food Security (CRFS), FAO’s Self-evaluation and Holistic Assessment of
the impact of indicators dimensions on the evaluation results. Using the
climate Resilience of farmers and Pastoralists framework (SHARP), The
normalized indicators, the indexes of productivity, income level, climate
Tracking Adaptation and Monitoring Development (TAMD) and the
adaptability, and green development level were calculated using the
Assessment of Impacts and Adaptations to Climate Change (AIACC)
weighted sum method. The CRA index was then evaluated using the
funded by the Global Environment Facility. In total, 31 indicators
comprehensive index method. A higher CRA index value means a higher
including the ecological environment, supply, and marketing network,
development degree of CRA. The regional CRA development degree can
as well as the agricultural management model and policy system, that
be divided into five levels by natural breaks, percentiles, and equal in­
affect the adaptability of the agricultural system were screened out
terval classifications using very low, low, moderate, high, and very high.
(Table 1).
Among them, very low or low CRA levels represent that targeted and
scientific strategies based on specific problems and deficiencies should
3.2.4. Green development level
be carried out. High and very high CRA levels indicate that the regional
The green development level is composed of two parts (greenhouse
CRA development level is high and can achieve the sustainable devel­
gas emission level and emission reduction) and is a comprehensive
opment goals under the background of climate change.
reflection of the severity of regional agricultural greenhouse gas emis­
sions and the benefits of emission reduction measures. Greenhouse gas
emissions from agricultural sources include methane emissions from 4. Discussion
ruminants, methane emissions from rice cultivation, nitrous oxide
emissions from fertilization, and methane and nitrous oxide emissions As one of the effective ways to deal with climate change, how to
from animal waste management (Dong et al., 2008). In addition, agri­ evaluate CRA has become a worthy topic for agriculture and climate
cultural activities such as food processing, sales, and waste disposal also change researchers (Reddy, 2015; Lu et al., 2017; Rai et al., 2018;
produce greenhouse gases (Kulak et al., 2013). Agricultural emission Acevedo et al., 2020; Cui, 2020; Ortiz-Bobea et al., 2021). For example,
reduction is key to the development of a low-carbon economy, as well as Srinivasa Rao et al. (2019) followed the basic concept of CRA and
protection of the ecological environment, and has been widely applied summarized sustainable agricultural evaluation indicators and agricul­
in the whole process from food production to sale (Nayak et al., 2015; tural vulnerability indicators and then constructed a comprehensive
evaluation framework of CRA consisting of ecological indicators (13),

7
X. Zong et al. Ecological Indicators 136 (2022) 108597

economic indicators (7), societal indicators (5), and infrastructure in­ during the given period, such as dietary nutritional status in the past
dicators (5) (Srinivasa Rao et al., 2019). Although this framework re­ week. In contrast, some indicators can indicate the characteristics of
flects the three main sustainability pillars that were highly correlated agricultural development for a long time, such as access to information
with agricultural development—environmental, economic, and social­ and communication technologies in the past 10 years. The third limi­
—it still does not accurately cover all goals of CRA. Therefore, based on a tation lies in the CRA index calculation and comparison. The indicators
deep understanding of the concept and goals of CRA, this paper sum­ for CRA assessment might differ among the various regions because of
marized the impact of climate change on agroecosystems and related the heterogeneity of the agroecosystems. To address these limitation
research on the sustainable development of agroecosystems and then effects, the framework needs to be subjected to appropriate statistical
constructed a comprehensive assessment framework of CRA. This validation after the collection of data pertaining to specific spatial di­
framework covers four dimensions of CRA, i.e., agricultural productiv­ mensions to profile the CRA of an area.
ity, farmer income, climate adaptability, and the green development In short, the CRA assessment system constructed in this paper is a
level, and has 71 evaluation indicators. Compared with other evaluation useful attempt to target the CRA model. Under the current background
systems, this framework emphasizes the resilience of agroecosystems to that the development of CRA is emphasized as an important measure to
respond to climate change while focusing on the synergy of adaptation cope with climate change, the assessment system can be used to predict
and mitigation measures and is more consistent with the current stra­ the changes in CRA under different climate scenarios, evaluate the
tegic goal of achieving carbon neutrality/net-zero greenhouse gas benefits of different agricultural management measures and determine
emissions. optimal agricultural management measurements that respond to
Constructing a comprehensive assessment system is helpful for an in- extreme events and climate changes.
depth understanding of the connotation of CRA and provides a frame­
work to quantitatively evaluate the spatial and temporal differences in 5. Conclusion
CRA among various regions. All evaluation indicators in this paper were
selected from the relevant studies and the evaluation framework Through this study, this paper has revealed a deep understanding of
formulated by international organizations, reflecting the availability the concept and characteristics of CRA and has analyzed the effects of
and universality of the CRA evaluation system to a certain extent. CRA in solving food security, eliminating poverty, and ensuring sus­
Notably, three points should be considered when applying this frame­ tainable agricultural development. This paper focused on the four goals
work to evaluate CRA in the future. of CRA, that is, improving agricultural productivity and income,
(1) Indicator quantification. Many institutions still use indirect enhancing adaptability to respond to climate change, and reducing
evaluation methods to determine resilience assessment indicators and greenhouse gas emissions, to introduce a comprehensive and systematic
emphasize them as a critical component of measuring the success of assessment framework to evaluate CRA. The main conclusions are as
target planning. In this paper, some indicators also require the use of follows:
questionnaire surveys and a compilation of the literature to grasp the (1) CRA is a management model for enhancing the resilience of the
characteristics of their respective dimensions, and then expert scoring agroecosystem under the action of the human subjective initiative. The
and econometric methods are used to quantify these indicators. There­ model highlighted the synergistic effects of adaptation and mitigation
fore, quantitative methods, the accuracy of statistical data, and the measures. Following the characteristics and goals of CRA and taking
validity of the questionnaire survey content and structure are important climate change impacts and risks as the starting point, we provided six
prerequisites for ensuring the scientific accuracy of the CRA evaluation principles for the selection of assessment indicators for CRA. All in­
results. dicators were selected from the published literature and can be quan­
(2) Indicator selection. There is wide heterogeneity of agricultural tified by using model simulation and expert scoring
production systems, and performing specific analyses for every agro- (2) The assessment framework of CRA included 71 evaluation in­
ecosystem is necessary to define indicators of agricultural sustainabil­ dicators and covered all CRA development goals. This framework would
ity. Fewer evaluation indicators may be synonymously replaced in the be a quantitative tool to evaluate CRA in different regions and determine
CRA assessment process in different regions. Therefore, it is necessary to the optimal agricultural management measurement to adapt to climate
supplement the indicators that could represent the characteristics of change.
regional agricultural development, further improve and expand the CRA
comprehensive evaluation system, and provide a solid theoretical Funding
foundation for formulating precise and scientific emission reduction and
adaptation policies. This study was supported by the Key Program of National Natural
(3) CRA framework usage. The CRA assessment framework is not Science Foundation of China (41831174) and Strategic Priority
only used to identify the current level of CRA development in the region Research Program of Chinese Academy of Sciences (XDA28130500,
but also as an evaluation tool for evaluating different management XDA20020202).
measures. Construct different management scenarios based on the CRA
management measures implemented in the region, and provide optimal CRediT authorship contribution statement
CRA strategies by comparing the current scenario and various man­
agement scenarios, which will help to more scientifically respond to Xuezheng Zong: Conceptualization, Investigation, Writing – orig­
future extreme events and climate changes. inal draft. Xiaojie Liu: Writing – review & editing. Gang Chen: Writing
As with any assessment framework building, the use of the CRA – review & editing. Yunhe Yin: Conceptualization, Resources, Writing –
assessment framework is contingent on indicator selection, data quan­ review & editing, Supervision.
tifying, and calculation. Some limitations exist in the CRA assessment
framework constructed in this study. One limitation is that some in­ Declaration of Competing Interest
dicators need to be quantified through questionnaire surveys. This work
takes a long time and sufficient survey samples to ensure the scientificity The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
of the surveys. Therefore, a survey questionnaire should have a well- interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
organized structure and collect all of the necessary information. the work reported in this paper.
Simultaneously, it should not bore and confuse respondents. The second
limitation is the difference in the time and space dimensions of various
indicators. Some indicators can only reflect the information of the region

8
X. Zong et al. Ecological Indicators 136 (2022) 108597

References Janssens, C., Havlík, P., Krisztin, T., Baker, J., Frank, S., Hasegawa, T., Leclère, D.,
Ohrel, S., Ragnauth, S., Schmid, E., Valin, H., Van Lipzig, N., Maertens, M., 2020.
Global hunger and climate change adaptation through international trade. Nat. Clim.
Acevedo, M., Pixley, K., Zinyengere, N., Meng, S., Tufan, H., Cichy, K., Bizikova, L.,
Change 10, 829–835. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-0847-4.
Isaacs, K., Ghezzi-Kopel, K., Porciello, J., 2020. A scoping review of adoption of
Kulak, M., Graves, A., Chatterton, J., 2013. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions with
climate-resilient crops by small-scale producers in low- and middle-income
urban agriculture: a life cycle assessment perspective. Landscape Urban Plann. 111,
countries. Nat. Plants 6, 1231–1241. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41477-020-00783-z.
68–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.11.007.
Alexandrov, V., Eitzinger, J., Cajic, V., Oberforster, M., 2002. Potential impact of climate
Koondhar, M.A., Udemba, E.N., Cheng, Y., Khan, Z.A., Koondhar, M.A., Batool, M.,
change on selected agricultural crops in north-eastern Austria. Global Change Biol. 8,
Kong, R., 2021. Asymmetric causality among carbon emission from agriculture,
372–389. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1354-1013.2002.00484.x.
energy consumption, fertilizer, and cereal food production – A nonlinear analysis for
Balasubramanya, S., Stifel, D., 2020. Viewpoint: Water, agriculture & poverty in an era of
Pakistan. Sustain. Energy Technol. 45, 101099 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
climate change: why do we know so little? Food Policy 93, 101905. https://doi.org/
seta.2021.101099.
10.1016/j.foodpol.2020.101905.
Latruffe, L., Diazabakana, A., Bockstaller, C., Desjeux, Y., Finn, J., Kelly, E., Ryan, M.,
Bebber, D.P., Ramotowski, M.A.T., Gurr, S.J., 2013. Crop pests and pathogens move
Uthes, S., 2016. Measurement of sustainability in agriculture: a review of indicators.
polewards in a warming world. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 985–988. https://doi.org/
Stud. Agric. Econ. 118, 123–130. https://doi.org/10.7896/j.1624.
10.1038/nclimate1990.
Lazarus R., Launier, R. Stress-Related Transactions between Person and Environment,
Berkes, F., Ross, H., 2013. Community resilience: toward an integrated approach. Soc.
1978.
Nat. Resour. 26 https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2012.736605.
Li, W., Wang, C., Zhao, B., Liu, W., 2010. Effects of climate change on agricultural
Bybee-Finley, K.A., Ryan, M.R., 2018. Advancing intercropping research and practices in
meteorological disaster and crop insects diseases. Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Eng. 26,
industrialized agricultural landscapes. Agriculture 8. https://doi.org/10.3390/
263–271.
agriculture8060080.
Liang, X.-Z., Wu, Y., Chambers, R.G., Schmoldt, D.L., Gao, W., Liu, C., Liu, Y.-A., Sun, C.,
Carpenter, S., Arrow, K., Barrett, S., Biggs, R., Brock, W., Crépin, A.-S., Engström, G.,
Kennedy, J.A., 2017. Determining climate effects on US total agricultural
Folke, C., Hughes, T., Kautsky, N., Li, C.-Z., McCarney, G., Meng, K., Maler, K.G.,
productivity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 114, E2285. https://doi.org/10.1073/
Polasky, S., Scheffer, M., Shogren, J., Sterner, T., Vincent, J., Zeeuw, A., 2012.
pnas.1615922114.
General resilience to cope with extreme events. Sustainability 4, 3248–3259.
Liu, Y., Liu, Y., Guo, L., 2010. Impact of climatic change on agricultural production and
https://doi.org/10.3390/su4123248.
response strategies in China. Chin. J. Eco-Agric. 18, 905–910.
Chand, R., Saxena, R., Rana, S., 2015. Estimates and analysis of farm income in India,
Liu, Y., Tang, H., Muhammad, A., Huang, G., 2019. Emission mechanism and reduction
1983–84 to 2011–12. Econ. Polit. Wkly. 50, 139–145.
countermeasures of agricultural greenhouse gases – a review. Greenh. Gases. 9,
Chao, Q., 2021. Improving climate resilience is an important means of reducing future
160–174. https://doi.org/10.1002/ghg.1848.
risks. World Environ. 35–36.
Lu, H.-D., Xue, J.-Q., Guo, D.-W., 2017. Efficacy of planting date adjustment as a
Chausson, A., Turner, B., Seddon, D., Chabaneix, N., Girardin, C.A.J., Kapos, V., Key, I.,
cultivation strategy to cope with drought stress and increase rainfed maize yield and
Roe, D., Smith, A., Woroniecki, S., Seddon, N., 2020. Mapping the effectiveness of
water-use efficiency. Agric. Water Manage. 179, 227–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/
nature-based solutions for climate change adaptation. Global Change Biol. 26,
j.agwat.2016.09.001.
6134–6155. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15310.
Ma, C.-S., Zhang, W., Peng, Y., Zhao, F., Chang, X.-Q., Xing, K., Zhu, L., Ma, G., Yang, H.-
Coomes, O.T., Barham, B.L., MacDonald, G.K., Ramankutty, N., Chavas, J.-P., 2019.
P., Rudolf, V.H.W., 2021. Climate warming promotes pesticide resistance through
Leveraging total factor productivity growth for sustainable and resilient farming.
expanding overwintering range of a global pest. Nat. Commun. 12, 5351. https://
Nat. Sustain. 2, 22–28. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0200-3.
doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-25505-7.
CRED, UNDRR. 2021. The Non-Covid year in disasters: Global trends and perspectives.
Macholdt, J., Styczen, M.E., Macdonald, A., Piepho, H.-P., Honermeier, B., 2020. Long-
https://www.undrr.org/news/earth-day-2020-saw-major-rise-floods-and-storms.
term analysis from a cropping system perspective: yield stability, environmental
Cui, X., 2020. Climate change and adaptation in agriculture: evidence from US cropping
adaptability, and production risk of winter barley. Eur. J. Agron. 117, 126056
patterns. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 101, 102306 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2020.126056.
jeem.2020.102306.
Mahato, S., Ghosh, S., Ghosh, S., 2020. Effect of Mulching and Supplemented Irrigation
Das, A., Sahoo, D., 2012. Farmers’ educational level and agriculture productivity: a study
on Growth, Yield and Fruit Quality of Wood Apple (Feronia limonia Swingle). Int. J.
of tribals of KBK districts of Odisha. Int. J. Educ. Econ. Dev. 3, 363–374. https://doi.
Curr. Microbiol. Appl. Sci. 9, 2479-2484. 10.20546/ijcmas.2020.910.297.
org/10.1504/IJEED.2012.052312.
Nayak, D., Saetnan, E., Cheng, K., Wang, W., Koslowski, F., Cheng, Y.-F., Zhu, W.Y.,
Denton F., T.J. Wilbanks, A.C. Abeysinghe, I. Burton, Q. Gao, M.C. Lemos, T. Masui, K.L.
Wang, J.-K., Liu, J.-X., Moran, D., Yan, X., Cardenas, L., Newbold, J., Pan, G., Lu, Y.,
O’Brien, Warner, K., 2014. Climate-resilient pathways: adaptation, mitigation, and
Smith, P., 2015. Management opportunities to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions
sustainable development. In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and
from Chinese agriculture. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 209, 108–124. https://doi.org/
Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II
10.1016/j.agee.2015.04.035.
to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Odonoghue, C., Devisme, S., Ryan, M., Conneely, R., Gillespie, P., Vrolijk, H., 2016. Farm
[Field, C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M.
economic sustainability in the European Union: a pilot study. Stud. Agric. Econ. 118,
Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S.
163–171. https://doi.org/10.7896/j.1631.
MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L. White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press,
OECD, 2001. Measuring Productivity – OECD Manual: Measurement of Aggregate and
Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 1101-1131.
Industry-level Productivity Growth. OECD, Paris.
Dong, H., Li, Y., Tao, X., Peng, X., Li, N., Zhu, Z., 2008. China greenhouse gas emissions
OECD. 2018. Agricultural Policy Monitoring and Evaluation 2018. https://doi.org/
from agricultural activities and its mitigation strategy. Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Eng.
10.1787/agr_pol-2018-en.
269–273.
OECD. 2020. Producer and Consumer Support Estimates Database. At: http://stats.oecd.
FAO. 2017. Productivity and Efficiency Measurement in Agriculture- Literature Review
org/.
and Gaps Analysis.
Ojo, T.O., Baiyegunhi, L.J.S., 2020. Determinants of climate change adaptation strategies
FAO. 2020. Sustainable and climate resilient agriculture. http://www.fao.org/3/nc
and its impact on the net farm income of rice farmers in south-west Nigeria. Land
938en/nc938en.pdf.
Use Policy 95, 103946. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.04.007.
FAO. 2021. Southern Madagascar: Government and UN sound the alarm on famine risk,
Olaoye J., Rotimi, A., 2010. Measurement of Agricultural Mechanization Index and
urge action. http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/1398455/icode/.
Analysis of Agricultural Productivity of some Farm Settlements in South West,
Finger, R., El Benni, N., 2021. Farm income in European agriculture: new perspectives on
Nigeria. Agric. Eng. Intl.: The CIGR J. 12.
measurement and implications for policy evaluation. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 48
Ortiz-Bobea, A., Ault, T.R., Carrillo, C.M., Chambers, R.G., Lobell, D.B., 2021.
https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbab011.
Anthropogenic climate change has slowed global agricultural productivity growth.
Fletcher, A.L., Chen, C., Ota, N., Lawes, R.A., Oliver, Y.M., 2020. Has historic climate
Nat. Clim. Change. 11, 306–312. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01000-1.
change affected the spatial distribution of water-limited wheat yield across Western
Piao, S., Ciais, P., Huang, Y., Shen, Z., Peng, S., Li, J., Zhou, L., Liu, H., Ma, Y., Ding, Y.,
Australia? Clim. Change 159, 347–364. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-020-
Friedlingstein, P., Liu, C., Tan, K., Yu, Y., Zhang, T., Fang, J., 2010. The impacts of
02666-w.
climate change on water resources and agriculture in China. Nature 467, 43–51.
Flörke, M., Schneider, C., McDonald, R.I., 2018. Water competition between cities and
https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09364.
agriculture driven by climate change and urban growth. Nat. Sustain. 1, 51–58.
Prastiyo, S.E., Irham, Hardyastuti, S., Jamhari, 2020. How agriculture, manufacture, and
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-017-0006-8.
urbanization induced carbon emission? The case of Indonesia. Environ. Sci. Pollut.
Gentle, P., Maraseni, T.N., 2012. Climate change, poverty and livelihoods: adaptation
R. 27, 42092–42103. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-10148-w.
practices by rural mountain communities in Nepal. Environ. Sci. Policy 21, 24–34.
Praveen, B., Sharma, P., 2019. A review of literature on climate change and its impacts
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2012.03.007.
on agriculture productivity. J. Public Aff. 19, e1960 https://doi.org/10.1002/
Hole, D.G., Perkins, A.J., Wilson, J.D., Alexander, I.H., Grice, P.V., Evans, A.D., 2005.
pa.1960.
Does organic farming benefit biodiversity? Biol. Conserv. 122, 113–130. https://doi.
Rai, R.K., Bhatta, L.D., Acharya, U., Bhatta, A.P., 2018. Assessing climate-resilient
org/10.1016/j.biocon.2004.07.018.
agriculture for smallholders. Environ. Dev. 27, 26–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Holling, C.S., 1973. Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst.
envdev.2018.06.002.
4, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.es.04.110173.000245.
Reddy, P.P., 2015. Climate Resilient Agriculture for Ensuring Food Security. Springer
Howden, S.M., Soussana, J.-F., Tubiello, F.N., Chhetri, N., Dunlop, M., Meinke, H., 2007.
India, New Delhi https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2F978-81-322-
Adapting agriculture to climate change. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 104, 19691.
2199-9.pdf.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0701890104.
Sain, G., Loboguerrero, A.M., Corner-Dolloff, C., Lizarazo, M., Nowak, A., Martínez-
IFAD. 2019. Technologies for Climate-Resilient Smallholder Agriculture: Sharing
Barón, D., Andrieu, N., 2017. Costs and benefits of climate-smart agriculture: the
practices from Brazil with Africa. https://reliefwebint/sites/reliefwebint/files/re
sources/brazil_africa_technologypdf.

9
X. Zong et al. Ecological Indicators 136 (2022) 108597

case of the Dry Corridor in Guatemala. Agric. Syst. 151, 163–173. https://doi.org/ Van Beveren, I., 2007. Total factor productivity estimation: a practical review.
10.1016/j.agsy.2016.05.004. Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Open Access publications from Katholieke
Singh, R., Machanuru, R., Singh, B., Shrivastava, M., 2021. 3 - Climate-resilient Universiteit Leuven. 26 https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1004429.
agriculture: enhance resilience toward climate change. In: Singh, S., Singh, P., Vogel, A., Scherer-Lorenzen, M., Weigelt, A., 2012. Grassland resistance and resilience
Rangabhashiyam, S., Srivastava, K.K. (Eds.), Global Climate Change. Elsevier, after drought depends on management intensity and species richness. PLoS One 7,
pp. 45–61. e36992. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0036992.
Srinivass Rao, C., Kareemulla, K., Krishnan, P., Murthy, G.R.K., Ramesh, P., Ananthan, P. Wongnaa, C.A., Babu, S., 2020. Building resilience to shocks of climate change in
S., Joshi, P.K., 2019. Agro-ecosystem based sustainability indicators for climate Ghana’s cocoa production and its effect on productivity and incomes. Technol. Soc.
resilient agriculture in India: a conceptual framework. Ecol. Indicators. 105, 62, 101288 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101288.
621–633. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.06.038. Yang, L., Wang, G., Ma, N., Liu, M., Min, Q., 2020. Assessment framework of food and
Standish, R., Hobbs, R., Mayfield, M., Bestelmeyer, B., Suding, K., Battaglia, L., livelihood security in globally important agricultural heritage systems. Chin. J. Eco-
Eviner, V., Hawkes, C., Temperton, V., Harris, V., Funk, J., Thomas, P., 2014. Agric. 28, 1330–1338.
Resilience in ecology: abstraction, distraction, or where the action is? Biol. Conserv. Zhang, P., Zhang, J., Chen, M., 2017. Economic impacts of climate change on agriculture:
177, 43–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.06.008. the importance of additional climatic variables other than temperature and
Steffen, W., 2015. Sustainability. Planetary boundaries: guiding human development on precipitation. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 83, 8–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
a changing planet. Science 347, 1259855. https://doi.org/10.1126/ jeem.2016.12.001.
science.1259855. Zhu, L., Fang, J., 2019. Bottlenecks and countermeasures for improving sustainable
Teixeira, E.I., Fischer, G., van Velthuizen, H., Walter, C., Ewert, F., 2013. Global hot- agricultural productivity. Chin. J. Agric. Resour. Reg. Plann. 40, 9–13. https://doi.
spots of heat stress on agricultural crops due to climate change. Agric. Forest org/10.7621/cjarrp.1005-9121.20190402.
Meteorol. 170, 206–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2011.09.002.

10