Next Article in Journal
Analysis of the Fruit Drop Rate Caused by Typhoons Using Meteorological Data
Previous Article in Journal
Exploring the Potential Use of Sentinel-1 and 2 Satellite Imagery for Monitoring Winter Wheat Growth under Agricultural Drought Conditions in North-Western Poland
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agriculture
Volume 13
Issue 9
10.3390/agriculture13091799
agriculture-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Uncovering the Hidden Risks: A Bibliometric Investigation of Farmers’ Vulnerability to Climate Change

by
Rui Zhang
1,
Yanfeng Wang
1,
Jie Lyu
1,* and
Zhanxiang Sun
2,*
1
College of Economics and Management, Shenyang Agricultural University, Shenyang 110866, China
2
Tillage and Cultivation Research Institute, Liaoning Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Shenyang 110161, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agriculture 2023, 13(9), 1799; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13091799
Submission received: 17 August 2023 / Revised: 6 September 2023 / Accepted: 7 September 2023 / Published: 12 September 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Effects of Climate Change on Dry Farming Systems)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Climate change is having a significant impact on farmers and agriculture. Rising temperatures and extreme weather events, such as droughts and floods, are causing crop failures and reducing yields. This study evaluated existing publications from 2006 to 2022, using the Web of Science database, Citespace, and the Bibliometrix package in R language for a systematic analysis. A total of 426 publications were identified, written by 1449 authors from 56 countries. The results showed that China has the highest share of publications (16.4%), followed by the United States (14.3%) and Australia (6.8%), with China and Pakistan collaborating most frequently. The keyword timeline analysis from 2006 to 2022 identified 11 clusters of research topics related to farmers’ climate change risk (CCRF). Cluster #1, “water conservation measures,” had the longest duration, highlighting its significance. Key areas of CCRF research include the vulnerability of land-lost farmers, farmers’ use of meteorological information, sources of risk, barriers to implementing conservation agriculture, farmers’ attitudes towards heavy metal pollution, and the use of protection motivation theory in agricultural adaptation. In conclusion, climate change poses significant threats to farmers, impacting crop yields, soil fertility, and water availability. Farmers adopt adaptation strategies, but effectiveness varies due to resource limitations and policy gaps. The research on farmer adaptation to climate change is growing, emphasizing the need for supportive policies, resources, and knowledge-sharing to achieve sustainable agriculture and food security.

1. Introduction

Climate change poses numerous risks and challenges to farmers as they are heavily dependent on stable weather patterns and predictable seasons for their livelihoods. Rising temperatures, changing rainfall patterns, and frequent or severe extreme weather events can have a significant impact on crop yields, leading to food shortages and increased prices for consumers [1]. Notably extreme heat and droughts have led to substantial reductions in global cereal production, causing losses of 9–10% [2]. In India, rising temperatures have resulted in a 5.2% decrease in wheat yields [3], while in parts of Europe, wheat and barley yields have collectively declined by 2.5–3.8%, with some southern regions experiencing declines exceeding 5% [4]. Additionally, pests and diseases are becoming more prevalent as the climate changes, further impacting crop yields [5]. Climate change also causes changes in the distribution of certain crops, as traditional growing areas become less suitable and new areas become more viable for cultivation [6]. These changes can be particularly challenging for small-scale and subsistence farmers, who may not have the resources to adapt to the changing conditions. While studies have shown that the public awareness of climate change risks has increased in recent years (by about 19%) [7], farmers’ risk perceptions are in urgent need of improvement [8]. The risks and challenges to farmers caused by climate change highlight the need for effective adaptation strategies to support them in the face of these challenges.
Climate change poses a significant threat to the agricultural sector and to the livelihoods of farmers worldwide. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in its report, describes the various risks that climate change poses to farmers, including changes in temperature and precipitation patterns, increased frequency of extreme weather events, and sea level rise [9]. These changes can lead to crop failures [10], soil erosion [11], and other negative impacts on agricultural production. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) also recognizes the impact of climate change on agriculture and food security [11], and is working to support countries in both mitigating and adapting to the effects of climate change through research-based and practical programs and projects, as a part of the 2030 agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals [10]. Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from human activity and livestock are a significant driver of climate change, trapping heat in the Earth’s atmosphere and triggering global warming [11]. The IPCC’s report also highlights the importance of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in order to mitigate these risks, and the need for adaptation strategies to help farmers adapt to the changing climate [10].
The current academic research on climate change risks to farmers (CCRF) is mainly focused on five key areas: (1) crop yields, (2) soil health, (3) water availability, (4) coastal agriculture, and (5) socio-economic impact. Studies are being conducted to understand how changes in temperature and precipitation patterns [6,12], as well as the increased frequency of extreme weather events, will impact crop yields [13]. Researchers are also looking at how different crop varieties and farming practices may be able to adapt to these changes [14]. Arunrat in Thailand predicted rice yield declines under SSP585 but suggested alternatives such as maize and soybean [15]. Qiao found that high-quality soils in China increased crop yield by 10.3% and improved yield stability by 15.6% while reducing the impact of climate change on the yield [16]. Climate change can impact soil health through changes in temperature, precipitation, and extreme weather events, changes in soil temperature and moisture can impact soil microorganisms [17], nutrient cycling [18], and erosion [19], and these changes can affect crop growth and productivity [20]. Changes in precipitation patterns and the increased frequency of extreme weather events can lead to changes in water availability for irrigation and other agricultural uses [21]. Sea level rise and coastal erosion can lead to a loss of coastal cropland and habitats that support fish and other seafood [22], as well as a loss of infrastructure and increased flooding [23]. Climate change impacts on agriculture also have a significant impact on the livelihoods of farmers and rural communities [24]. Research is being conducted to understand how these changes affect the economic and social well-being of farmers and rural communities, and to identify potential strategies for addressing these impacts.
Thus, given that climate change has been a topic of lively human discussion, a number of academic papers have also examined farmers’ perceptions of climate change and how they are affected by it. Climate change has led to significant impacts on agriculture and food security, with farmers facing a range of risks that are diverse and uncertain [25]. Studies have shown that changes in temperature and precipitation patterns, the increased frequency of extreme weather events, and sea level rise can have negative effects on crop yields, soil health, and water availability [26,27,28]. Coastal areas are also expected to be affected by sea level rise and coastal erosion, leading to a loss of coastal cropland [29]. These impacts demonstrate the unpredictable and uncontrollable nature of climate change and make the risks to farmers more diverse and uncertain. Adaptation strategies and reducing greenhouse gas emissions are crucial in addressing these risks [11]. So, many studies have extensively discussed this exciting and interesting topic, and the body of research continues to grow rapidly with an increasing number of published papers.
There is significant value in studying the characteristics and state of the research on farmers’ risk perceptions and adaptation to climate change through a bibliometric approach. Bibliometrics, a statistical method to analyze the impact of research results in the literature, has the advantage of extracting valuable information from vast literature data, identifying the basics of the field, and providing an initial understanding of research priorities, past history, and research trends in the field [30,31], and can be visualized through various means such as co-linear network diagrams, word clouds, and thematic evolution diagrams.
Therefore, the aim of this paper was to examine studies regarding climate change risk faced by farmers (CCRF) through the utilization of bibliometric and visual analysis methods. Our methodology began with conducting a systematic search of the relevant literature on CCRF using the Web of Science (WOS) database. Subsequently, we employed the Bibliometrix package to analyze the bibliographic information and distribution of research power. In addition, we employed unique features of the package to perform a theme evolution analysis. This study offers several contributions to the existing literature. Firstly, it marks the first attempt at utilizing the Citespace software for a visual analysis of the CCRF research literature. Our bibliometric analysis provides novel insights that have not been thoroughly explored in previous studies, thereby augmenting the body of knowledge in the field of CCRF. Secondly, this study presents a comprehensive overview of the prior research on CCRF since 2006, thereby aiding in the understanding of the development of CCRF research for those interested. Lastly, our findings on research hotspots, evolutionary processes, and emerging trends in the field of CCRF will assist future scholars in identifying research directions and questions.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Bibliometric Analysis

Bibliometric analysis is a useful approach to extract and analyze features of climate change risk from various dimensions by using a mathematical and statistical quantitative analysis of a certain academic field of knowledge. It provides an opportunity for a more in-depth understanding of the research and its structure and patterns, making the research results more objective and reliable. It also creates a scientific knowledge map that shows the development process and structural relationship of scientific knowledge, which can form a visual graph of knowledge and show the change and interactive evolution relationship of knowledge in a time series.
This paper focuses on bibliometric analysis using the Bibliometrix package (4.0.1) in R language and Citespace software. Both tools provide powerful capabilities for analyzing large amounts of bibliographic data. The Bibliometrix package in R language offers easy-to-use visualization options for importing data and has features to remove duplicates and filter by time for a metric analysis. Additionally, Bibliometrix can be integrated with other R packages, allowing for further quantitative analysis and the integration of deep-learning algorithms to aid in data interpretation [32]. Furthermore, Bibliometrix provides a comprehensive process for importing, converting, analyzing, and visualizing data, making it a valuable tool for bibliometric analysis [33]. Citespace, on the other hand, allows for the visualization of relationships between bibliographic units, including structure, development, collaboration, and other connections [34,35,36]. It also offers text-mining capabilities to construct and visualize co-occurrence networks of important terms extracted from a large body of scientific literature. Both Bibliometrix and Citespace are constantly expanding their capabilities, making them essential tools for bibliometric analysis.

2.2. Data Source and Processing

In this study, relevant search terms were identified through a review of extensively cited literature pertaining to farmers’ risk perceptions and adaptation behaviors in the context of climate change. Boolean operators were utilized while conducting the search strings in order to ensure that no significant research articles were omitted from the final dataset. The literature utilized in this study was acquired from the Web of Science database through the utilization of the following search strategy: “TI = farmer AND TS = (risk awareness OR risk assessment OR risk sensitivity OR risk evaluation OR risk judgment OR risk evaluation OR risk estimation OR risk appraisement OR risk awareness OR risk comprehension OR risk perception) AND TS = (risk awareness OR risk assessment OR risk comprehension OR risk perception) AND TS = climate change”. The database employed in this study included the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIEXPANDED) and the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI). All papers published prior to 2023 were included in this study, regardless of language or document type, excluding grey literature. The data for the final compilation of documents covered the period from 2006 to 2022, comprising a total of 1449 authors and 426 documents. This literature was sourced from 132 sources, with an annual growth rate of 31.61% within the field. The average number of citations per document was 22.34. These 426 records, containing chosen information such as titles, keywords, abstracts, profiles, author information, journals, citations, and institutional affiliations, were extracted as data for further analysis. The final search for all papers within the specified time period was conducted in January 2023.

3. Results and Analysis

3.1. Fundamental Analysis

3.1.1. Quantity of Publication

Figure 1 illustrates the number of publications and citations pertaining to CCRF per year. As can be observed, the number of studies on CCRF research has exhibited an upward trend since the first publication on the topic in 2006. In the early years, from 2006 to 2009, only a small number of papers were published. However, since 2015, research on CCRF has undergone a period of significant growth, with a substantial increase in the number of papers published, and this trend has continued to rise in subsequent years. In total, 81 papers were published in 2022, and it is expected that this number will surpass 100 papers in 2023. It is noteworthy that the citation volume of CCRF was relatively high in the early years, increasing from 95 records in 2011 to a peak of 1483 records in 2015. However, subsequently, the number of citations for CCRF began to decline, as did the average annual number of citations (as depicted in Figure 2).

3.1.2. Publication Journal

This study analyzed publications from 132 sources, which were ranked according to the number of publications (NP). Table 1 presents the top ten publication sources with the highest h-index values. The data presented in Table 1 were obtained using the Bibliometrix package (4.0.1) in the R language. The h-index, proposed by Hirsch, is an indicator that enables the evaluation of the scholarly impact of journals, countries or regions, and institutes in terms of both quality and quantity. The impact factor (IF) is an international academic index that evaluates journals. In this study, five basic indicators were utilized to reveal the quantitative characteristics of these sources, which were the h-index, the IF, the number of citations of the publication (NC), the number of published papers (NP), and the year in which each publication started to publish relevant literature in the field (PY_start).
Table 1 presents an analysis of the impact of various journals on research related to climate change risk to farmers (CCRF), as measured by the h-index. The journals with the greatest impact on this field were “Climate Risk Management” and “Climate Risk Management”, both of which had an h-index of 11. “Sustainability” ranked first in terms of the number of publications in this research area with 83, while “Climate and Development” was third with 19 publications. In terms of the impact factor (IF), “Journal of Cleaner Production” had the highest IF of 11.07, followed by “Land Use Policy” (6.189) and “Climate Risk Management” (5.266).
The CCRF field was well-represented in a variety of journals, as evidenced by the fact that the top ten journals published 165 papers, accounting for 38.73% of the total. A high number of journals dealing with agriculture and the environment were found to have a large number of publications, with journals related to climate change being particularly prevalent.

3.2. Cooperation and Citation Analysis

3.2.1. Distribution of Research Forces

The number of published papers can be used as an indicator of a country’s research strength, particularly when an article may have authors from multiple countries/regions. Table 2 lists the top ten countries in terms of the number of publications within the CCRF research area. From 2006 to 2022, the country with the most publications within CCRF was China, with a total of 70 articles, making up 16.4% of the overall publications, with a significant contribution from Beijing Normal University. The country in second place was the United States, with 61 articles, accounting for 14.3% of the total publications, primarily from the University of Vermont. Australia ranked third, with 29 articles or 6.8% of the total publications, primarily from Charles Darwin University. Other countries in the top ten included Iran, the United Kingdom, Germany, India, South Africa, Ethiopia, and the Netherlands. These results demonstrate that countries with strong economies and their institutions make significant contributions to the development of this field, as they are able to invest more resources in natural science research. Another important metric is multiple-country publication (MCP), which, when combined with the MCP_Ratio, can reflect the level of international collaboration among researchers from different countries. The top three countries in terms of the MCP_Ratio were Australia, India, and Ethiopia (Table 3).

3.2.2. Country/Region Networks

The country/region networks depict the concentration of paper outputs and relationships between countries/regions. Figure 3 employs the Bibliometrix package (version 4.0.1) to illustrate the country/region-based networks in the area of research on farmers’ climate change risk. The intensity of the blue color on the country map reflects the level of publication activity in that region, with darker blue representing a higher number of published papers. The red connecting lines on the map symbolize partnerships between countries, with thicker lines indicating a greater frequency of collaboration. Table 4 utilizes the Bibliometrix package (version 4.0.1) to list the country/region partnerships in descending order of collaboration frequency. The results showed that China and Pakistan had the highest level of collaboration with 14 partnerships, followed by China and Australia with 8 partnerships.

3.2.3. Author Influence

In this section, we utilized the Bibliometrix package to compute the h-index of each researcher and rank them to determine the top ten authors based on their h-index values (Table 5). Among these ten authors, JIN JJ had the highest h-index with nine published articles and the highest number of publications in the field of CCRF. ABID M received 441 citations, ranking fourth with an h-index of 5 and making significant contributions to the field of CCRF. Another noteworthy author is YAZDANPANAH M, who published their first CCRF-related paper in 2019 and has amassed 203 citations to date. This author is tied for first place with JIN JJ with an h-index of 7.

3.3. Literature Analysis

Highly Cited Publications

The vulnerability of the agricultural sector to the effects of climate change, and the role of farmers in managing the associated risks, is a topic of growing interest in the academic community. Utilizing the Bibliometrix package, Table 6 presents a ranking of the top ten publications on the subject of climate change risk for farmers (CCRF) based on global citations (GCs).
In terms of global citations (GCs), papers by Thomas [37] and Abid [38] had the most GCs, with 328 and 233, respectively (Table 6). The research methods used in these two articles varied, but most relied on survey data collected from farmers in different regions and countries. Thomas [37] used daily rainfall data and self-organizing mapping (SOM) to identify 12 internally homogeneous rainfall regions in South Africa, and then conducted village and household-level analyses to investigate farmers’ perceptions of and responses to changes in precipitation parameters. Similarly, Abid [38] collected data from 450 farm households in three districts in the Punjab province of Pakistan to examine how farmers perceive climate change and how they adapt their farming in response to perceived changes.
The main body of research in these articles generally focused on identifying the key factors that influence farmers’ perceptions of climate change risks and their adaptation strategies. Many of the articles found that farmers are aware of climate change and are making adjustments to their farming practices in response. For example, Mase [39] found that 58% of farm households in the study area had adapted their farming to climate change, with the main adaptation methods being changing crop varieties, changing planting dates, planting shade trees, and changing fertilizers. It is also worth noting that this paper had a local citation (LC) record of 39, which was the highest of all papers. This is a testament to the importance and impact of this paper in the field of CCRF research.
Another key finding across many of the articles was that farmers’ perceptions of climate change risks are closely tied to their local experiences and context. For example, Fisher [40] found that farmers in sub-Saharan Africa view maize as being particularly vulnerable to drought, and therefore prioritize drought-tolerant maize varieties as a key adaptation strategy. Similarly, Haden [41] found that farmers in California’s Central Valley are more likely to adopt mitigation and adaptation strategies in response to perceived changes in water availability.
The conclusions of the articles generally point to the need for more targeted and context-specific strategies for helping farmers adapt to climate change risks. For example, Dang [42] concluded that protection motivation theory is a useful framework for understanding farmers’ adaptation intentions, but that more research is needed to improve and generalize the measurement model. Similarly, Barbier [43] argued that farmers in Burkina Faso have adopted a wide range of techniques to increase crop yield and reduce yield variability, but that these techniques are still insufficient to reduce poverty and vulnerability.
In conclusion, many studies have found that farmers are aware of the changing climate and have implemented a range of adaptation strategies to cope with the impacts of climate change. These strategies include changing crop varieties, adjusting planting dates, implementing conservation practices, and investing in new technology. However, there are also several barriers to the adoption of these strategies, including a lack of access to information, lack of resources, and high costs (Table 6).
Table 6. The top ten highly cited articles in the CCRF research.
Table 6. The top ten highly cited articles in the CCRF research.
DocumentLocal CitationsGlobal Citations
THOMAS DSG, 2007, CLIMATIC CHANGE [37]35328
ABID M, 2015, EARTH SYST DYNAM [38]29233
ARBUCKLE JG, 2015, ENVIRON BEHAV [44]36195
MASE AS, 2017, CLIM RISK MANAG [39]39172
FISHER M, 2015, CLIMATIC CHANGE [40]6167
HADEN V, 2012, PLOS ONE [41]29145
DANG HL, 2014, ENVIRON SCI POLICY [42]23143
BARBIER B, 2009, ENVIRON MANAGE [43]5127
FAHAD S, 2018, LAND USE POLICY-a-b [45]23126
SLEGERS MFW, 2008, J ARID ENVIRON [46]14118

3.4. Keyword Analysis

3.4.1. Keyword Timeline View Analysis

The use of Citespace software was utilized to conduct a temporal analysis of keywords from 2006 to 2022, resulting in 11 clusters of distinct topics (Figure 4). The keywords belonging to the same cluster were displayed in a timeline format based on their frequency over time. This timeline view provided a visual representation of the evolution of research on farmers’ climate change risk (CCRF). The cluster with the longest time span was “#1 water conservation measures”, covering literature from 2006 to 2021. Subsequently, in terms of time span, the categories were “#3 feed gap”, “#2 fish farmer”, “#4 land-lost farmer”, “#7 heavy metal pollution”, “#6 protection motivation theory”, “#5 meteorological information”, “#0 risk source”, “#8 farmers’ livelihood strategies”, “#10 risk experience”, and “#9 dss development”.
Cluster #1, which pertained to “water conservation measures”, exhibited the longest publication duration among the clusters analyzed in this study. This highlights the significance of this topic in the realm of CCRF research. In contrast, Cluster #9 demonstrated the shortest publication duration. The main keywords associated with the cluster of water conservation measures included “climate change”, “adaptation”, “strategies”, “drought”, and “rainfall”. This suggests that droughts resulting from climate change pose significant risks to farmers [47] and that water conservation measures represent a prevalent adaptation initiative [48]. The “feed gap” cluster (Cluster #3) was focused on investigating the impact of environmental changes on farmers and how they perceive these changes at a local level. The cluster was characterized by the keywords “environmental change”, “local perception”, and “temperature”. This highlights the significance of local environmental changes and their perception by farmers, particularly in relation to temperature [49]. This information sheds light on the unique challenges faced by farmers and the role of local perception in shaping their experiences and responses to environmental changes [50]. Cluster #2, “Fish Farmer” was the third largest cluster in terms of the time span of the studies included. This cluster was focused on the risk attitudes, preferences, and coping strategies of fish farmers. The keywords associated with this cluster were “risk attitude”, “risk preference”, and “resilience”, which suggests that fish farmers have a distinct perspective on risk management and are seeking ways to enhance their ability to cope with the consequences of climate change [51,52,53].
The current state of research in the field of CCRF was derived from the keyword analysis and focused on several key areas, including the vulnerability of land-lost farmers (Cluster #4), farmers’ use of meteorological information (Cluster #5), sources of risk for farmers (Cluster #0), and the barriers to implementing conservation agriculture. Other research topics included farmers’ attitudes and behaviors related to heavy metal pollution (Cluster #7), and the use of protection motivation theory (Cluster #6) in the context of agricultural adaptation to climate change. The results of these studies suggest that land-lost farmers are in need of community-level support and management systems to address the impacts of climate change [54], that farmers rely on their own experiences [55,56] and meteorological information [57] to shape their understanding and response to climate change, and that farmers are aware of the multiple sources of risk they face and are seeking ways to mitigate these risks through changes in performance and food production choices [58,59,60]. Additionally, farmers are aware of the benefits of conservation agriculture but face challenges in implementing this approach, and that local knowledge can play a crucial role in overcoming these barriers. The use of protection motivation theory is a useful framework for understanding farmers’ motivations for adapting to the impacts of climate change and can be used to design effective conservation and adaptation strategies [61,62,63]. This theory, which has emerged frequently in recent years, has good explanatory power for farmers’ adaptive behavior to climate change risks and is a focus of future CCRF research. The study of farmers’ attitudes and behaviors related to heavy metal pollution shows that they are aware of the impacts of this issue on their livelihoods and are actively seeking ways to mitigate these impacts through changes in behavior and the adoption of new policies and management systems. In conclusion, the academic research on CCRF provides a comprehensive understanding of the challenges faced by farmers in adapting to the impacts of climate change and provides valuable insights into effective adaptation strategies.

3.4.2. Theme Evolution Analysis

The literature on the topic of farmers’ climate change risk has shown a noticeable increase in recent years, with 2015 being the year in which it received the highest number of citations. To analyze the evolution of the subject, this paper took 2015 as the first cut-off point and 2020 as the second cut-off point. Figure 5 uses the Bibliometrix package (4.0.1) to depict the development of the theme from 2006 to 2022. The results reveal that in the early years (2006–2015), the main keywords were “policy”, “Kenya”, “impacts”, and “Africa”. This highlights that initially, the research was primarily centered in Africa.
However, in 2016, the focus shifted towards studying the issues of “drought”, “land use”, and “food security” in relation to climate change. This has since become the main area of interest for researchers. With the advancement of technical and theoretical models, theories such as the theory of planned behavior and protection motivation theory have become increasingly utilized in studies after 2020. This shift has led to a greater emphasis on empirical studies in future research.
Topic evolution analysis was first proposed by Cobo [64], and subsequently many scholars have given different methods of detecting and analyzing research topics [65,66]. In this paper, we chose to use the Bibliometrix package for strategic diagrams. In this study, a two-dimensional strategic diagram for three time periods was constructed by two dimensions of centrality and density. According to the analysis of Chen [34], the first quadrant is robustly established and holds significance for the composition of CCRF, as evidenced by its high degree of centrality and concentration. The second quadrant is similarly established, but its relevance to the current research domain is comparatively limited. The third quadrant is underdeveloped, with a low concentration and low centrality of themes, signifying that these themes are either in the nascent stages or in the process of becoming obsolete. The themes within the fourth quadrant are critical to the field of study, but they are not well-established and typically remain at the theoretical level. Each circle in the visualization represents a group of related themes. The larger the circle, the higher the frequency of keywords within that particular group.
The strategic diagrams obtained are depicted in Figure 6, Figure 7 and Figure 8. A comparison between Figure 6 and Figure 7 reveals that the keywords “determinants”, “risk perceptions”, and “responses” are located in the fourth quadrant. This quadrant encompasses the fundamental research scope of the second stage and indicates the presence of these keywords in the study. A progression from the second to the third stage is evidenced by the shift of the keywords “climate-change” and “adaptation” from the intersection of the first and fourth quadrants to the fourth quadrant. This shift highlights the significance of studying farmers’ adaptive behaviors to climate change as the primary research scope of this topic. The inclusion of the keywords “food security”, “adaptive capacity”, and “level of adaptation” in the first quadrant of the third stage suggests a recent shift in the focus of CCRF research. The focus has shifted from understanding the determinants and risk perceptions of climate change to the impact of climate change on farmers’ food security and adaptive capacity. This shift in focus highlights the increasing concern of researchers to investigate the ability of farmers to maintain their food security in the face of climate change and the impact of their adaptive capacity on their ability to respond to these changes. This highlights the importance of considering the food security and adaptive capacity of farmers in developing strategies to address the challenges posed by climate change.
In conclusion, the study of farmers’ climate change risk and their adaptive behaviors has evolved over the years, as shown in the strategic diagrams obtained. From the analysis of the strategic diagrams, it can be observed that the research has shifted from the basic research phase to a more focused study on the adaptive behavior of farmers to climate change, including their risk perceptions and responses. Keywords such as “climate change”, “adaptation”, “food security”, “adaptive capacity”, and “level of adaptation” indicate that the focus of the research has shifted towards understanding the impact of climate change on farmers and their adaptive strategies. The appearance of keywords such as “heavy metals”, “perspective”, and “reuse” in the second quadrant of the third stage of the strategic diagram suggests that future research on farmers’ climate change risk and adaptation may focus on these areas.

4. Discussion

The summary of the research on climate change risks faced by farmers in this paper reveals several important findings. First, there is growing academic interest in the vulnerability of the agricultural sector to climate change, with a particular focus on understanding the role of farmers in managing the associated risks. This research is driven primarily by the need to understand how climate change affects farmers and how they respond to these challenges.
Notably, highly cited publications by Thomas [37] and Abid [38] have significantly contributed to this field, with their work focusing on understanding farmers’ perceptions of climate change risks and their adaptation strategies. This research indicates that farmers are indeed aware of climate change and are making adjustments to their farming practices in response. These adjustments include altering crop varieties, changing planting dates, introducing shade trees, and modifying fertilizers. As emphasized in the study by Mandi [67], climate change remains a substantial impediment. Particularly, those in resource-constrained settings often grapple with inadequate access to climate information services, hindering their capacity to make informed decisions about planting times, crop choices, and resource allocation. Bridging this information gap is paramount to enabling farmers to proactively respond to shifting climate patterns. In addition, the constraints posed by limited resources are a huge barrier to effective climate adaptation, as confirmed by the research of many scholars. Resource-poor farmers face enormous challenges in purchasing essential agricultural inputs [68], accessing credit [69], and investing in climate adaptation technologies [70]. These resource constraints need to be addressed if farmers are to be empowered to implement sustainable adaptation strategies and increase their resilience to disasters.
Furthermore, the analysis of keywords and the thematic evolution over time sheds light on the evolution of research in the field of CCRF. Initially, research in this area was primarily centered in Africa, with a focus on policy, impacts, and related issues. However, over time, the focus shifted towards studying the impacts of climate change on farmers’ food security and adaptive capacity, with an emphasis on understanding their risk perceptions and responses. Additionally, there is an emerging interest in topics such as heavy metal pollution [71,72] and farmers’ perspectives [44,73].
Now, the current research primarily focuses on understanding the impact of climate change on farmers, their risk perceptions, and their adaptation strategies. It has evolved from basic research to a more concentrated examination of farmers’ adaptive behavior in response to climate change. This shift in focus highlights the increasing concern among researchers regarding farmers’ ability to maintain food security and adapt to climate change challenges. Future research directions may include exploring the impacts of heavy metal pollution on farmers and gaining further insights into their perspectives and strategies for coping with climate change [74]. Additionally, research in this field may continue to investigate the barriers hindering the widespread adoption of adaptation strategies by farmers [75]. It is worth noting that a critical aspect of farmers’ health, in the context of rising temperatures due to climate change, remains an area in need of substantial research attention. Factors such as heat-related illnesses [76,77] and reduced labor capacity [78] due to extreme heat can all have significant repercussions for farmers, their families, and their communities. The impact of prolonged exposure to high temperatures on farmers’ health [79] is a risk that deserves further exploration.

5. Conclusions

Based on the analysis of the impact of climate change risks on farmers, it is clear that climate change poses a significant threat to farmers and their livelihoods. The studies reviewed showed that farmers are exposed to various types of climate change risks, including the increased frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, changes in precipitation patterns, and increased temperature variability. These climate change risks can have negative impacts on crop yields, soil fertility, and water availability, which can in turn result in decreased food security and increased poverty levels.
The findings of the studies reviewed also showed that farmers have adopted various adaptation strategies to mitigate the impacts of climate change risks. These strategies include changes in cropping patterns, the use of drought-resistant crops, and the adoption of water-saving technologies. However, the effectiveness of these strategies is limited by various factors, including the availability of financial resources, access to information and knowledge, and the absence of supportive policies.
The analysis of the content of the articles reviewed showed that there has been a growing trend in the study of farmers’ adaptive behaviors to climate change risks. The research has evolved from basic studies that focus on farmers’ perceptions and responses to climate change risks, to more sophisticated studies that explore the determinants of adaptation and the relationship between climate change risks and food security.
In conclusion, the findings of the studies reviewed highlight the need for policymakers to prioritize the development of strategies and policies that support farmers’ adaptive behaviors in response to climate change risks. This includes the provision of financial and technical resources, the creation of an enabling environment for the development of adaptive capacities, and the promotion of information sharing and knowledge building. By addressing these challenges, it is possible to mitigate the negative impacts of climate change on farmers and contribute to the achievement of sustainable agriculture and food security.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, R.Z. and J.L.; methodology, R.Z.; software, Z.S.; validation, R.Z., J.L., and Z.S.; formal analysis, R.Z.; investigation, R.Z.; resources, R.Z. and Y.W.; data curation, R.Z.; writing—original draft preparation, R.Z.; writing—review and editing, R.Z. and Y.W.; visualization, J.L.; supervision, J.L.; project administration, J.L.; funding acquisition, J.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the National Key Research and Development Program of China, grant number 2016YFD0300210.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data that are presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy restrictions.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Rosenzweig, C.; Iglesius, A.; Yang, X.-B.; Epstein, P.R.; Chivian, E. Climate Change and Extreme Weather Events-Implications for Food Production, Plant Diseases, and Pests; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  2. Lesk, C.; Rowhani, P.; Ramankutty, N. Influence of Extreme Weather Disasters on Global Crop Production. Nature 2016, 529, 84–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Gupta, R.; Somanathan, E.; Dey, S. Global Warming and Local Air Pollution Have Reduced Wheat Yields in India. Clim. Chang. 2017, 140, 593–604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Moore, F.C.; Lobell, D.B. The Fingerprint of Climate Trends on European Crop Yields. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2015, 112, 2670–2675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Newton, A.C.; Johnson, S.N.; Gregory, P.J. Implications of Climate Change for Diseases, Crop Yields and Food Security. Euphytica 2011, 179, 3–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Maracchi, G.; Sirotenko, O.; Bindi, M. Impacts of Present and Future Climate Variability on Agriculture and Forestry in the Temperate Regions: Europe. Clim. Chang. 2005, 70, 117–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Xia, Z.; Ye, J.; Marlon, J.; Dong, X.; Xie, J.; Tian, X.; Xu, M.; Yang, J.; Zhang, C.; Liu, M. Growing Climate Change Concern but Rising Regional Disparities in China. Nat. Portf. 2023, 1, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Datta, P.; Behera, B. Others Climate Change and Indian Agriculture: A Systematic Review of Farmers’ Perception, Adaptation, and Transformation. Environ. Chall. 2022, 8, 100543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Pachauri, R.K.; Meyer, L.A. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. In Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; IPCC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  10. Kumar, S.; Kumar, N.; Vivekadhish, S. Millennium Development Goals (MDGS) to Sustainable Development Goals (SDGS): Addressing Unfinished Agenda and Strengthening Sustainable Development and Partnership. Indian J. Community Med. Off. Publ. Indian Assoc. Prev. Soc. Med. 2016, 41, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Nearing, M.A.; Pruski, F.F.; O’neal, M.R. Expected Climate Change Impacts on Soil Erosion Rates: A Review. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2004, 59, 43–50. [Google Scholar]
  12. Reidsma, P.; Ewert, F.; Lansink, A.O.; Leemans, R. Adaptation to Climate Change and Climate Variability in European Agriculture: The Importance of Farm Level Responses. Eur. J. Agron. 2010, 32, 91–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Sedebo, D.A.; Li, G.-C.; Abebe, K.A.; Etea, B.G.; Ahiakpa, J.K.; Ouattara, N.; Olounlade, A.; Frimpong, S. Smallholder Farmers’ Climate Change Adaptation Practices Contribute to Crop Production Efficiency in Southern Ethiopia. Agron. J. 2021, 113, 4627–4638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Rosenberg, N.J. Adaptation of Agriculture to Climate Change. Clim. Chang. 1992, 21, 385–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Arunrat, N.; Sereenonchai, S.; Chaowiwat, W.; Wang, C. Climate Change Impact on Major Crop Yield and Water Footprint under CMIP6 Climate Projections in Repeated Drought and Flood Areas in Thailand. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 807, 150741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Qiao, L.; Wang, X.; Smith, P.; Fan, J.; Lu, Y.; Emmett, B.; Li, R.; Dorling, S.; Chen, H.; Liu, S.; et al. Soil Quality Both Increases Crop Production and Improves Resilience to Climate Change. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2022, 12, 574–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Knoepp, J.D.; Swank, W.T. Using Soil Temperature and Moisture to Predict Forest Soil Nitrogen Mineralization. Biol. Fertil. Soils 2002, 36, 177–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Mary, B.; Recous, S.; Darwis, D.; Robin, D. Interactions between Decomposition of Plant Residues and Nitrogen Cycling in Soil. Plant Soil 1996, 181, 71–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Wei, S.; Zhang, X.; McLaughlin, N.B.; Liang, A.; Jia, S.; Chen, X.; Chen, X. Effect of Soil Temperature and Soil Moisture on CO2 Flux from Eroded Landscape Positions on Black Soil in Northeast China. Soil Tillage Res. 2014, 144, 119–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Williams, J.R.; Jones, C.A.; Kiniry, J.R.; Spanel, D.A. The EPIC Crop Growth Model. Trans. ASAE 1989, 32, 497–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Elliott, J.; Deryng, D.; Müller, C.; Frieler, K.; Konzmann, M.; Gerten, D.; Glotter, M.; Flörke, M.; Wada, Y.; Best, N.; et al. Constraints and Potentials of Future Irrigation Water Availability on Agricultural Production under Climate Change. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2014, 111, 3239–3244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Titus, J.G. Rising Seas, Coastal Erosion, and the Takings Clause: How to Save Wetlands and Beaches without Hurting Property Owners. Md. L. Rev. 1998, 57, 1279. [Google Scholar]
  23. Bubeck, P.; Dillenardt, L.; Alfieri, L.; Feyen, L.; Thieken, A.H.; Kellermann, P. Global Warming to Increase Flood Risk on European Railways. Clim. Chang. 2019, 155, 19–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Araro, K.; Legesse, S.A.; Meshesha, D.T. Climate Change and Variability Impacts on Rural Livelihoods and Adaptation Strategies in Southern Ethiopia. Earth Syst. Environ. 2020, 4, 15–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Brugnach, M.; Dewulf, A.; Pahl-Wostl, C.; Taillieu, T. Toward a Relational Concept of Uncertainty: About Knowing Too Little, Knowing Too Differently, and Accepting Not to Know. Ecol. Soc. 2008, 13, 230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Kumar, S.S.; Wani, O.A.; Krishna, J.R.; Hussain, N. Impact of Climate Change on Soil Health. Int. J. Environ. Sci. 2022, 7, 70–90. [Google Scholar]
  27. Srivastav, A.L.; Dhyani, R.; Ranjan, M.; Madhav, S.; Sillanpää, M. Climate-Resilient Strategies for Sustainable Management of Water Resources and Agriculture. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 41576–41595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Corwin, D.L. Climate Change Impacts on Soil Salinity in Agricultural Areas. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 2021, 72, 842–862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Dwarakish, G.S.; Vinay, S.A.; Natesan, U.; Asano, T.; Kakinuma, T.; Venkataramana, K.; Pai, B.J.; Babita, M.K. Coastal Vulnerability Assessment of the Future Sea Level Rise in Udupi Coastal Zone of Karnataka State, West Coast of India. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2009, 52, 467–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Hao, Z.; Rallings, A.M.; Espinoza, V.; Luo, P.; Duan, W.; Peng, Q.; Gao, Y.; Viers, J.H. Flowing from East to West: A Bibliometric Analysis of Recent Advances in Environmental Flow Science in China. Ecol. Indic. 2021, 125, 107358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Leydesdorff, L.; Bihui, J. Mapping the Chinese Science Citation Database. Proc. ASIST Annu. Meet. 2004, 41, 488–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Mourao, P.R.; Martinho, V.D. Forest Entrepreneurship: A Bibliometric Analysis and a Discussion about the Co-Authorship Networks of an Emerging Scientific Field. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 256, 120413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Aria, M.; Cuccurullo, C. Bibliometrix: An R-Tool for Comprehensive Science Mapping Analysis. J. Informetr. 2017, 11, 959–975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Chen, Y.; Lin, M.; Zhuang, D. Wastewater Treatment and Emerging Contaminants: Bibliometric Analysis. Chemosphere 2022, 297, 133932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Cao, T.; Han, D.; Song, X. Past, Present, and Future of Global Seawater Intrusion Research: A Bibliometric Analysis. J. Hydrol. 2021, 603, 126844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Ranjbari, M.; Saidani, M.; Shams Esfandabadi, Z.; Peng, W.; Lam, S.S.; Aghbashlo, M.; Quatraro, F.; Tabatabaei, M. Two Decades of Research on Waste Management in the Circular Economy: Insights from Bibliometric, Text Mining, and Content Analyses. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 314, 128009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Thomas, D.S.G.; Twyman, C.; Osbahr, H.; Hewitson, B. Adaptation to Climate Change and Variability: Farmer Responses to Intra-Seasonal Precipitation Trends in South Africa. Clim. Chang. 2007, 83, 301–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Abid, M.; Scheffran, J.; Schneider, U.A.; Ashfaq, M. Farmers’ Perceptions of and Adaptation Strategies to Climate Change and Their Determinants: The Case of Punjab Province, Pakistan. Earth Syst. Dyn. 2015, 6, 225–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Mase, A.S.; Gramig, B.M.; Prokopy, L.S. Climate Change Beliefs, Risk Perceptions, and Adaptation Behavior among Midwestern US Crop Farmers. Clim. Risk Manag. 2017, 15, 8–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Fisher, M.; Abate, T.; Lunduka, R.W.; Asnake, W.; Alemayehu, Y.; Madulu, R.B. Drought Tolerant Maize for Farmer Adaptation to Drought in Sub-Saharan Africa: Determinants of Adoption in Eastern and Southern Africa. Clim. Chang. 2015, 133, 283–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Haden, V.R.; Niles, M.T.; Lubell, M.; Perlman, J.; Jackson, L.E. Global and Local Concerns: What Attitudes and Beliefs Motivate Farmers to Mitigate and Adapt to Climate Change? PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e52882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Dang, H.L.; Li, E.; Nuberg, I.; Bruwer, J. Understanding Farmers’ Adaptation Intention to Climate Change: A Structural Equation Modelling Study in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam. Environ. Sci. Policy 2014, 41, 11–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Barbier, B.; Yacouba, H.; Karambiri, H.; Zoromé, M.; Somé, B. Human Vulnerability to Climate Variability in the Sahel: Farmers’ Adaptation Strategies in Northern Burkina Faso. Environ. Manag. 2009, 43, 790–803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Arbuckle, J.G., Jr.; Morton, L.W.; Hobbs, J. Understanding Farmer Perspectives on Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation: The Roles of Trust in Sources of Climate Information, Climate Change Beliefs, and Perceived Risk. Environ. Behav. 2015, 47, 205–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Fahad, S.; Wang, J. Farmers’ Risk Perception, Vulnerability, and Adaptation to Climate Change in Rural Pakistan. Land Use Policy 2018, 79, 301–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Slegers, M.F. “If Only It Would Rain”: Farmers’ Perceptions of Rainfall and Drought in Semi-Arid Central Tanzania. J. Arid. Environ. 2008, 72, 2106–2123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Ubisi, N.R.; Mafongoya, P.L.; Kolanisi, U.; Jiri, O. Smallholder Farmer’s Perceived Effects of Climate Change on Crop Production and Household Livelihoods in Rural Limpopo Province, South Africa. Chang. Adapt. Socio-Ecol. Syst. 2017, 3, 27–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Kato, E.; Ringler, C.; Yesuf, M.; Bryan, E. Soil and Water Conservation Technologies: A Buffer against Production Risk in the Face of Climate Change? Insights from the Nile Basin in Ethiopia. Agric. Econ. 2011, 42, 593–604. [Google Scholar]
  49. Khan, N.A.; Gao, Q.; Abid, M.; Shah, A.A. Mapping Farmers’ Vulnerability to Climate Change and Its Induced Hazards: Evidence from the Rice-Growing Zones of Punjab, Pakistan. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 4229–4244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Adaawen, S. Understanding Climate Change and Drought Perceptions, Impact and Responses in the Rural Savannah, West Africa. Atmosphere 2021, 12, 594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Nguyen, T.P.L.; Seddaiu, G.; Roggero, P.P. Declarative or Procedural Knowledge? Knowledge for Enhancing Farmers’ Mitigation and Adaptation Behaviour to Climate Change. J. Rural Stud. 2019, 67, 46–56. [Google Scholar]
  52. Mulyasari, G.; Trisusilo, A.; Windirah, N.; Djarot, I.N.; Putra, A.S. Others Assessing Perceptions and Adaptation Responses to Climate Change among Small-Scale Fishery on the Northern Coastal of Bengkulu, Indonesia. Sci. World J. 2023, 2023, 8770267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Shaffril, H.A.M.; Samah, A.A.; D’Silva, J.L. Climate Change: Social Adaptation Strategies for Fishermen. Mar. Policy 2017, 81, 256–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Van Aalst, M.K.; Cannon, T.; Burton, I. Community Level Adaptation to Climate Change: The Potential Role of Participatory Community Risk Assessment. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2008, 18, 165–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Belay, A.; Recha, J.W.; Woldeamanuel, T.; Morton, J.F. Smallholder Farmers’ Adaptation to Climate Change and Determinants of Their Adaptation Decisions in the Central Rift Valley of Ethiopia. Agric. Food Secur. 2017, 6, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Parks, M. Exploring the Influence of Social and Informational Networks on Small Farmers’ Responses to Climate Change in Oregon. Agric. Hum. Values 2022, 39, 1407–1419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Stone, R.C.; Meinke, H. Weather, Climate, and Farmers: An Overview. Meteorol. Appl. 2006, 13, 7–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Thinda, K.T.; Ogundeji, A.A.; Belle, J.A.; Ojo, T.O. Understanding the Adoption of Climate Change Adaptation Strategies among Smallholder Farmers: Evidence from Land Reform Beneficiaries in South Africa. Land Use Policy 2020, 99, 104858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Cooper, P.J.M.; Dimes, J.; Rao, K.P.C.; Shapiro, B.; Shiferaw, B.; Twomlow, S. Coping Better with Current Climatic Variability in the Rain-Fed Farming Systems of Sub-Saharan Africa: An Essential First Step in Adapting to Future Climate Change? Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2008, 126, 24–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Godde, C.M.; Mason-D’Croz, D.; Mayberry, D.E.; Thornton, P.K.; Herrero, M. Impacts of Climate Change on the Livestock Food Supply Chain; a Review of the Evidence. Glob. Food Secur. 2021, 28, 100488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Zobeidi, T.; Yaghoubi, J.; Yazdanpanah, M. Farmers’ Incremental Adaptation to Water Scarcity: An Application of the Model of Private Proactive Adaptation to Climate Change (MPPACC). Agric. Water Manag. 2022, 264, 107528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Ghanian, M.; Ghoochani, O.M.; Dehghanpour, M.; Taqipour, M.; Taheri, F.; Cotton, M. Understanding Farmers’ Climate Adaptation Intention in Iran: A Protection-Motivation Extended Model. Land Use Policy 2020, 94, 104553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Bagagnan, A.R.; Ouedraogo, I.; Fonta, W.M.; Sowe, M.; Wallis, A. Can Protection Motivation Theory Explain Farmers’ Adaptation to Climate Change Decision Making in the Gambia? Climate 2019, 7, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Cobo, M.J.; López-Herrera, A.G.; Herrera-Viedma, E.; Herrera, F. An Approach for Detecting, Quantifying, and Visualizing the Evolution of a Research Field: A Practical Application to the Fuzzy Sets Theory Field. J. Informetr. 2011, 5, 146–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Feng, J.; Mu, X.; Wang, W.; Xu, Y. A Topic Analysis Method Based on a Three-Dimensional Strategic Diagram. J. Inf. Sci. 2021, 47, 770–782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Sott, M.K.; Nascimento, L.S.; Foguesatto, C.R.; Furstenau, L.B.; Faccin, K.; Zawislak, P.A.; Mellado, B.; Kong, J.D.; Bragazzi, N.L. A Bibliometric Network Analysis of Recent Publications on Digital Agriculture to Depict Strategic Themes and Evolution Structure. Sensors 2021, 21, 7889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Mandi, K.; Patnaik, N.M. Mobile Apps in Agriculture and Allied Sector: An Extended Arm for Farmers. Agric. Update 2019, 14, 334–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Ali, A.; Erenstein, O. Assessing Farmer Use of Climate Change Adaptation Practices and Impacts on Food Security and Poverty in Pakistan. Clim. Risk Manag. 2017, 16, 183–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Van Huis, A.; Meerman, F. Can We Make IPM Work for Resource-Poor Farmers in Sub-Saharan Africa? Int. J. Pest Manag. 1997, 43, 313–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Tambo, J.A.; Abdoulaye, T. Climate Change and Agricultural Technology Adoption: The Case of Drought Tolerant Maize in Rural Nigeria. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Chang. 2012, 17, 277–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Visser, A.; Kroes, J.; van Vliet, M.T.; Blenkinsop, S.; Fowler, H.J.; Broers, H.P. Climate Change Impacts on the Leaching of a Heavy Metal Contamination in a Small Lowland Catchment. J. Contam. Hydrol. 2012, 127, 47–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Ye, J.; Song, Y.; Liu, Y.; Zhong, Y. Assessment of Medical Waste Generation, Associated Environmental Impact, and Management Issues after the Outbreak of COVID-19: A Case Study of the Hubei Province in China. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, e0259207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Arbuckle, J.G.; Hobbs, J.; Loy, A.; Morton, L.W.; Prokopy, L.S.; Tyndall, J. Understanding Corn Belt Farmer Perspectives on Climate Change to Inform Engagement Strategies for Adaptation and Mitigation. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2014, 69, 505–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Xia, Z.; Ye, J.; Zhou, Y.; Howe, P.D.; Xu, M.; Tan, X.; Tian, X.; Zhang, C. A Meta-Analysis of the Relationship between Climate Change Experience and Climate Change Perception. Environ. Res. Commun. 2022, 4, 105005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. García de Jalón, S.; Silvestri, S.; Granados, A.; Iglesias, A. Behavioural Barriers in Response to Climate Change in Agricultural Communities: An Example from Kenya. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2015, 15, 851–865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Heat-Related Deaths among Crop Workers–United States, 1992–2006. MMWR Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 2008, 57, 649–653. [Google Scholar]
  77. Kiatkitroj, K.; Arphorn, S.; Tangtong, C.; Maruo, S.J.; Ishimaru, T. Risk Factors Associated with Heat-Related Illness among Sugarcane Farmers in Thailand. Ind. Health 2021, 60, 447–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Orlov, A.; De Hertog, S.; Havermann, F.; Guo, S.; Luo, F.; Manola, I.; Thiery, W.; Lejeune, Q.; Pongratz, J.; Humpenöder, F.; et al. Changes in Land Cover and Management Affect Heat Stress and Labor Capacity. Earth’s Future 2023, 11, e2022EF002909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. How, V.; Singh, S.; Dang, T.; Fang Lee, L.; Guo, H.-R. The Effects of Heat Exposure on Tropical Farm Workers in Malaysia: Six-Month Physiological Health Monitoring. Int. J. Environ. Health Res. 2023, 33, 413–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Agriculture 13 01799 g001
Figure 1. Distribution of the number of publications and citations in CCRF.
Figure 1. Distribution of the number of publications and citations in CCRF.
Agriculture 13 01799 g001
Agriculture 13 01799 g002
Figure 2. The average annual number of citations for CCRF papers.
Figure 2. The average annual number of citations for CCRF papers.
Agriculture 13 01799 g002
Agriculture 13 01799 g003
Figure 3. Collaboration World Map.
Figure 3. Collaboration World Map.
Agriculture 13 01799 g003
Agriculture 13 01799 g004
Figure 4. Timeline view of keywords.
Figure 4. Timeline view of keywords.
Agriculture 13 01799 g004
Agriculture 13 01799 g005
Figure 5. The thematic evolution of the three phases of the CCRF study.
Figure 5. The thematic evolution of the three phases of the CCRF study.
Agriculture 13 01799 g005
Agriculture 13 01799 g006
Figure 6. Strategic diagrams of CCRF research in period 1 (2006–2015).
Figure 6. Strategic diagrams of CCRF research in period 1 (2006–2015).
Agriculture 13 01799 g006
Agriculture 13 01799 g007
Figure 7. Strategic diagrams of CCRF research in period 2 (2016–2020).
Figure 7. Strategic diagrams of CCRF research in period 2 (2016–2020).
Agriculture 13 01799 g007
Agriculture 13 01799 g008
Figure 8. Strategic diagrams of CCRF research in period 3 (2021–2022).
Figure 8. Strategic diagrams of CCRF research in period 3 (2021–2022).
Agriculture 13 01799 g008
Table 1. Top ten sources for the number of publications studied by CCRF.
Table 1. Top ten sources for the number of publications studied by CCRF.
Elementh-IndexIF (2021)TCNPPY_Start
Sustainability73.889205272015
Climatic Change95.174695222007
Climate and Development104.653338192014
Climate Risk Management115.266641182017
Land Use Policy116.189642172010
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction104.842361142015
Environment, Development and Sustainability54.080147142018
Environmental Management93.644587132009
Journal of Cleaner Production811.07208112016
Regional Environmental Change74.704388102013
Table 2. Top ten countries in the number of CCRF research publications.
Table 2. Top ten countries in the number of CCRF research publications.
CountryArticlesProportion MCPMCP_Ratio
China700.164290.414
USA610.143140.23
Australia290.068180.621
Iran230.05450.217
United Kingdom210.04980.381
Germany180.04290.5
India180.04280.444
South Africa160.03840.25
Ethiopia140.03360.429
Netherlands140.03330.214
Table 3. Top ten institutions in terms of the number of CCRF research publications.
Table 3. Top ten institutions in terms of the number of CCRF research publications.
InstitutionArticlesCountryProportion
Beijing Normal University21Peoples R China0.0493
University of Vermont17USA0.0399
Addis Ababa University16Ethiopia0.0376
Huazhong Agricultural University15Peoples R China0.0352
Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources University of Khuzestan14Iran0.0329
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam14Netherlands0.0329
Iowa State University13USA0.0305
University of Twente13Netherlands0.0305
Purdue University12USA0.0282
Charles Darwin University10Australia0.0235
Table 4. The cooperation among countries.
Table 4. The cooperation among countries.
FromToFrequency
ChinaPakistan14
ChinaAustralia8
AustraliaVietnam7
AustraliaBangladesh6
ChinaBangladesh6
GermanyPakistan6
ChinaUnited Kingdom5
IranBelgium5
NetherlandsEthiopia5
ChinaGermany4
Table 5. Top ten authors in the number of CCRF research publications (by h-index).
Table 5. Top ten authors in the number of CCRF research publications (by h-index).
Elementh-IndexTCNPPY_Start
JIN JJ716392015
YAZDANPANAH M720382019
ARBUCKLE JG638972014
ABID M544152015
FAHAD S525952018
LEBEL L55462015
LEBEL P55462015
MORTON LW533062014
PROKOPY LS533652013
VAN DER VEEN A527052013
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Zhang, R.; Wang, Y.; Lyu, J.; Sun, Z. Uncovering the Hidden Risks: A Bibliometric Investigation of Farmers’ Vulnerability to Climate Change. Agriculture 2023, 13, 1799. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13091799

AMA Style

Zhang R, Wang Y, Lyu J, Sun Z. Uncovering the Hidden Risks: A Bibliometric Investigation of Farmers’ Vulnerability to Climate Change. Agriculture. 2023; 13(9):1799. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13091799

Chicago/Turabian Style

Zhang, Rui, Yanfeng Wang, Jie Lyu, and Zhanxiang Sun. 2023. "Uncovering the Hidden Risks: A Bibliometric Investigation of Farmers’ Vulnerability to Climate Change" Agriculture 13, no. 9: 1799. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13091799

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop