CD farmers displayed rather distinctive farming strategies.They cultivated cash crops that simultaneously provided crop residues for feed, and they even grew food crops.This reduced their dependence on the public food distribution system.CD farmers owned some farm machinery and demonstrated the highest level of farm mechanization.They claimed it was an effective strategy to manage the labor shortages and increasing wage labor costs experienced in the region.They, however, invested heavily in new bore wells, though they were aware that continuous digging of new bore wells was not a sustainable option.Hence, structural water shortage stimulated them to adopt water-efficient systems, e.g., drip irrigation, and many respondents noted that they reduced the cropping area to save water for their dairy livestock, as the latter guaranteed a more stable income.CD farmers forwarded various strategies to manage their livestock and fodder scarcity, such as buying locally bred exotic cattle; relocating cattle to areas with more fodder and water resources; and the cultivation of fodder varieties with lower water requirements, such as fodder sorghum.CD farmers also highly invest in livestock infrastructure, e.g., water troughs and storage tanks, chaff cutters, and cattle sheds.They are less dependent on middlemen as they have access to town and city markets.The frequently cited definition of vulnerability is the degree to which a system is susceptible to and is unable to cope with adverse effects of climate change.In this study, we found that farmers from different farming systems faced differential vulnerability owing to differences in perceptions of climate change exposure, experienced sensitivity, and coping or adaptation strategies.HHs in all three farming systems reported a change in maximum temperature, delayed onset of monsoon, and dry spells due to higher intensity of the exposure, but while CWL farmers highlighted the impact of erratic rainfall, warmer winters, and high-intensity rainfall events, CSR and CD farmers rather underscored reduced precipitation as the prime climate risk.

The difference in perceptions between farming systems were highly linked to their contrasting farming focus and related sensitivity.For example, CWL farmers mainly depended on crop farming; hence, their production was highly sensitive to events such as erratic rainfall, warmer winters,vertical grow table and high-intensity rainfall events.CSR and CD farming systems, on the other hand, relied more on livestock and consequently were less sensitive to the weather events mentioned by the CWL HHs.However, CSR and CD farming systems needed good overall precipitation to ensure adequate grazing and water resources for their livestock.The study also revealed that decision making in farming and the choice of a certain farm strategy is a complex process.Factors such as differential sensitivity to climate change, access to livelihood capitals, and market forces like distinctive market prices between cash and food crops or demand for certain animal products all influenced how HHs of different systems chose their farming strategies.Though exposure to climate change was felt by HHs in the region the study showed that the vulnerability of HHs mainly depended on the lack of certain HH livelihood capitals which were provided by ongoing national level programs.The main capitals were the availability of water resources, ownership of livestock, access to grazing lands , adequate financial capital both in the form of investment flow and subsidies, higher education, and knowledge of sustainable agricultural practices.The CWL HHs had no or limited access to all these essential capitals and hence showed the highest vulnerability.To cope, they chose to grow high-value cash crops over food crops in small land holdings.The lack of CPRs inhibited them to keep livestock; hence, they depended on inorganic inputs, off-farm jobs, or sold assets for survival.Low income prevented them from leasing lands and water resources.Finally, low education levels limited their networking abilities for accessing suitable subsidies or finances, further limiting their adaptation capacity.In all, the strategies opted for helped them to cope and meet their immediate needs but reduced their longterm resilience.

The CD HHs had access to all critical capitals mentioned above.However, the high human capital, i.e., relatively high level of education and extensive network contacts, enabled them to get the necessary finance, subsidies, and relevant knowledge.Possessing high human capital facilitated the HHs to engage in more sustainable farming strategies such as the adoption of water-efficient systems, use of climate information services, shift to alternative crop varieties that used less water, improved livestock, animal healthcare, and improved feed management.These strategies helped CD HHs to adapt and prosper in the short term.However, there exists a long-term risk of the bore wells becoming defunct as water is a non-renewable resource.The CSR HHs presented a different story as they belonged to a specific category , with a long history and strong identity as traditional livestock keepers.This identity, traditional knowledge, and high appreciation of livestock farming made them opt for different farming strategies compared to CWL and CD HHs.They chose to invest in livestock health, selected cash crops that provided crop residues, and leased grazing areas and bore wells instead of digging new ones.These strategies made them less sensitive to climate change exposure and other non-climatic stressors in the region and seemed an effective long-term adaptation strategy.From the social perspective, the SCs and HHs with small farms were the most vulnerable as they had lowest access to capitals.Their presence was also highest in the CWL system which is the most vulnerable among all three farming systems.Further, the STs and the BCs had a high human capital related to livestock farming, which made them less vulnerable.Ethnic identity and traditional knowledge played a key role for HH resilience for both these groups.For the STs it helped access necessary capitals and attain better social status in comparison to the SCs.The BCs however, were far more resilient as they seemed to just modify their farm strategies while keeping their original occupation unlike the STs who transitioned from nomadic pastoralists to settled dairy farmers.

Concerning gender, while both men and women had similar perceptions of climate change exposure, they were impacted differently due to their gender-specific farm and domestic responsibilities.We found existing difficulties women face in farming are compounded by climate exposure.First, the loss of income and increased indebtedness due to impacts of climate change on farm production drives men to migrate for work opportunities.This undermines the well-being of women in various ways and also leads to the feminization of farm work.Longer working hours under maximum day time temperatures is likely to translate into more heat related health implications for women.Similarly, decreasing availability and loss of vegetation in CPRs, coupled with reduced crop residues have higher implications for women, since prolonged grazing hours interfere with domestic responsibilities while social norms prevent them to invest in fodder or lease land.Lastly, though WSHGs created opportunities for livelihood diversification, climate change impacts on farm production increase the risk in loan repayment, especially for poor HHs.These factors together.We thus conclude that the resilience of HHs in the study region depended on the concomitant availability of several livelihood capitals.We found that human capital, in the form of higher education levels and networking abilities helped CD HHs to articulate their adaptation pathways.Traditional knowledge and culture played a critical role in defining the adaptation strategy for the BC and ST HHs in the CSR and CD systems respectively and is possibly the reason why these castes had different responses to similar climate exposure.We therefor infer that farming strategies, livelihood capitals and culture mutually influence each other, leading to specific development paths and climate change resilience for the HHs in these three farming systems.India’s policies have a long-term perspective on climate change adaptation, and the state and district-level programs aligned under these policies could positively influence availability and access to livelihood capitals in the form of schemes, subsidies, or development projects at various aggregation levels.However, several gaps exist.For example, in the study region, we find various development programs and market forces that continue to promote green and white revolution practices.These drive agricultural transitions towards highly water-intensive production systems, despite the projected negative climate change impacts for semi-arid regions.

The CD system is a classic example of how an outcome of livelihood strategies promoted by development programs increases HHs’ vulnerability to climate change exposure, as this farming system is highly sensitive to water and fodder shortages and increasing temperatures.The presence of such water-intensive farming systems, particularly in dryland regions,mobile vertical grow tables poses a risk as it can cause marginalization of a large number of HHs over time due to ground water depletion.Furthermore, certain measures of development programs, e.g., conversion of wastelands into croplands, reduce CPRs and change land use patterns, impacting the scope for small ruminant production in the future.Although traditional livestock keepers continue to adapt to such changes, climate exposures in the region exacerbates the existing problems in terms of further loss in vegetation cover in CPRs.Such long-term impacts are often not realized by ongoing state development programs and work out to be counterproductive to national climate change policy ambitions.Hence, we highlight that ongoing state-level development programs need re-evaluation not only in the light of climate-related sensitivities faced by rural HHs, but also with regard to the economic and ecological sustainability of current farming systems.Similarly, further research will be required to predict farm development pathways and their short-, medium-, and long-term impacts, as dryland regions are already bio-physically vulnerable ecosystems.Substantial research efforts and development approaches have been undertaken to support climate change adaptation but with limited impact.Wise et al.attributed this to the lack of a broader understanding of ‘‘adaptation pathways.” Hence, in this study, we combined quantitative and qualitative research methods to get in-depth insights into adaptation pathways for informed policy making.The use of mixed methods research provided perspectives on how development policies and programs stimulated or constrained farm development pathways, indicating varying short-, medium-, and long-term impacts.Quantitative research gives insight in the relative importance of phenomena, while qualitative research helps to identify the reasons behind a phenomenon for example farm strategies can be explained by the actual farm situation, while qualitative inquiry indicated the identity and aspirations of a farmer.Thus, mixed research methods enabled us to get a more holistic perspective on how certain trends evolve and why.

We therefore recommend using mixed methods to understand the contextual nature of adaptation and help fine-tune adaptation policy and execution at the local level.The first stage is related to antioxidant depletion, which can be measured by the oxidative-induction time test.In the second stage, the chain reaction begins, and changes in the molecular composition start.The third stage shows significant changes in the molecular composition with the formation of free radicals, and cross-linking occurs in the free radicals.The result of these changes is a completely changed molecular structure, a decrease in strength properties, the appearance of cracks, and there is an increase in the stress cracking susceptibility, culminating at the end of the service life.Geomembranes manufactured using high-density polyethylene have been formulated since the 1990 s by additives such as carbon black , antioxidants , and resin.Geosynthetics, similar to geomembranes in different applications, need to have a service lifetime of 30 years to 100 years.Rowe et al.examined the effect of physical aging on stress crack resistance reduction before initiating oxidative degradation of eleven HDPE geomembranes.The authors used the notched constant load test to understand the effect of physical aging on the reduction of SCR.The samples were incubated in six different leachates for 116 months.A stress crack resistance value reduction was noted for a 1.5 mm-thick HDPE geomembrane after 3 months of incubation and stabilized until 116 months.According to the authors, there was no evidence of oxidative degradation after 3 months of incubation for ten out of eleven evaluated HDPE geomembrane samples.The mean reduction in SCR observed in this research for HDPE geomembranes immersed in leachate fluid was 37%.Hsuan investigated sixteen field construction works with stress cracking occurrences in HDPE geomembranes.According to the author, UV radiation and thermal exposure are involved in these various field issues about stress cracking reported in the US and Canada.The cracks formed in the geomembrane panels occurred or began in the seams and lasted to the panels.Rowe and Shoaib evaluated four HDPE geomembrane samples immersed in a brine solution with pH of 8.7 for 4 years at different temperatures.The authors noted that physical degradation started before the total antioxidant depletion.Moreover, using the stress cracking resistance to understand the samples’ durability in brine solution, it was observed that in samples with high resistance to initial stress cracking, the losses after incubation were greater than 50% of the initial value.