Climate Change Perceptions and Adaptation Strategies: A Mixed Methods Study with Subsistence Farmers in Rural Peru

Abstract

In Peru, subsistence farmers experience firsthand the direct and indirect impacts of climate change (CC). To understand how farmers adapt their livelihoods to climatic variability, this mixed methods study explored their perceptions and climate adaptability strategies implemented in Huayhuay, Peru. Twenty farmers participated in semi-structured interviews, and 103 completed a survey questionnaire. The results indicated that most farmers perceive changes in temperature, precipitation, and drought that negatively affect agricultural production and local natural resources. To deal with CC, farmers are implementing twenty-six climate adaptation strategies. Diversifying agricultural products and practices, and exploring new economic activities were adaptability strategies identified in this study that the literature has previously documented as having positive implications for agricultural livelihoods. However, some farmers reported that adaptability strategies are failed attempts at local climate action. The results, along with the adaptability literature, revealed that farmers implement locally accessible adaptability strategies based on their climate variability perceptions. Therefore, this study recommends exploring CC perceptions and adaptability strategies with a site-based approach. It is also recommended that future research, local climate planning, and action must focus on the efficiency and inclusiveness of strategies rather than their frequency or levels of adoption. Finally, strengthening the technical capacities and knowledge of CC among subsistence farmers must be a priority for authorities and practitioners in Huayhuay, Peru.

1. Introduction

Subsistence farming is the most popular form of agricultural production in low- and middle-income countries [1], feeding at least 80% of the developing world [2]. This type of agriculture is characterized by low production yields and practices prioritizing culturally acceptable foods over those that can meet dietary and nutritional needs or have a higher economic potential [3,4,5,6]. As a result, people who depend exclusively on subsistence farming often cannot meet their basic needs. In situations with more favorable farming conditions, all members of the family group satisfy their food preferences and needs for essential services. Only in very rare and truly fortunate circumstances, do subsistence farmers produce more than the family needs, allowing them to raise living standards through trade or selling agricultural products [3]. One of the main detrimental factors for subsistence agriculture is its high susceptibility to climate change (CC) [2].

CC is a global phenomenon that compromises farmers’ livelihoods and well-being, reducing the availability of drinking water, food, shelter, and arable land [2,7]. Farmers face direct and indirect CC effects, and their vulnerability is rooted in environmental instability compounded by socioeconomic, demographics, and legislative trends that limit their adaptation capacity to change [4,8]. Despite being a problem of multisectoral and global interest, CC continues to be overwhelming with severe consequences for environmental sustainability and economic development [9]. According to Hamuda and Patkó ([10], p. 88), addressing CC and other environmental issues in subsistence agricultural production is complex due to “the spatial heterogeneity and temporal variability intrinsic to agriculture”.

Current statistics and field projections models of agriculture performance demonstrate that climate variability will reduce agricultural productivity by 10–20% in the next 40 years [11]. Lower latitudes, greater exposure to extreme weather events, and risk predisposition make climate adaptability more challenging in developing economies [2,4]. For these countries, a constant reduction in agricultural productivity due to climate variation is no longer an abstract problem; its impacts on food quantity and quality are noticeable in their food systems, enhancing household food insecurity and poverty [12]. Experts affirm that CC will worsen in the Latin American and Caribbean region in the coming years [13]; adaptation has proven to be the best alternative to cope with this anthropogenic phenomenon [14]. Farmers would base their adaptability decisions on experimentation and evaluation of results in an ideal production environment with sufficient information and incentives. However, subsistence farmers work in opposite environments, making adopting adaptability strategies difficult [15]. Therefore, in the productive conditions of subsistence farmers, perceptions about CC are essential to understand their adaptability processes [16]. Perceptions about CC are “a complex process that encompasses a range of psychological constructs such as knowledge, beliefs, attitudes, and concerns about if and how the climate is changing” ([17], p. 2). According to Castells-Quintana, Lopez-Uribe, and McDermont [17], although research on CC perceptions among farmers has increased, there is an urgent need for more, especially in Latin America.

According to the International Union for Conservation of Nature, as cited by Shaffril, Krauss, and Samsuddin ([14], p. 684), adaptation is the ability to respond to challenges through learning, managing risk, and impacts, developing new knowledge, and devising effective approaches”. Scholars have devised a roadmap for climate adaptation, with several general measures typically focusing on the climate-related behavior of large economies’ cities and industries [18]. Unfortunately, adaptability is not so evident for subsistence farmers, who face CC and simultaneously struggle to break down historical, structural, economic, and social barriers that further complicate their adaptability processes [19].

When climate variability strikes, subsistence farmers adopt several strategies to preserve and continue agricultural production. As demonstrated by Below et al., and Deressa, Hasan, and Ringler [20,21], available adaptability strategies depend on climate variability and cultural, socioeconomic, and institutional factors. Many of these strategies have been shown to buffer CC effects. However, the speed and intensity of CC present unprecedented challenges, for which farmers lack the resources and capacities to deal with them efficiently [22]. Consequently, there has been international interest in an interdisciplinary understanding of how farmers adapt to CC, for example, partnerships for small climate-smart commodities and capacity-building initiatives to transfer scientific knowledge to the local knowledge domain [23,24]. Exploring farmers’ perceptions and the strategies needed to address this problem is essential to inform actions aiming to strengthen local capacities and resilience and improve the potential of rural livelihoods [7,25].

This mixed methods study was designed to explore how subsistence farmers perceived CC and CC impacts on agricultural livelihoods and understand how they deal with climate variability in their agricultural production. This study contributes to the existing literature from other regions of the world. It will also inform future research and policy actions to support climate adaptability in Peru and Latin American countries, where CC research addressing subsistence farmers ‘adaptability remains limited and outdated.

Climate Change and Subsistence Agriculture in Peru

Although the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [26] acknowledges that there have been difficulties in monitoring Peruvian historical climate trends, its latest report states that since 1981 the average temperature in Peru has increased by 0.3 °C per decade. Moreover, while extreme weather events (storms, droughts, and forest fires) have doubled in the last ten years, floods have increased by 60% since 1970. Climate projections for Peru include (1) an increase in the average temperature of 2–3 °C by 2065; (2) a sea level rise of 50 cm; and (3) a higher incidence of droughts and floods, the latter two by 2100 [27]. Over the next 50 years, Peru will lose at least 22% of its glaciers, 40% of its available drinking water, and 30% of its irrigation water due to CC [28]. Econometric models indicate that extreme weather variables predict yield losses for staple crops in Peru, resulting in losses of at least $2 million [29]. These CC effects directly impact agricultural productivity, decreasing essential food availability to feed the fast-growing Peruvian population.

Until 2020, the Peruvian population exceeded 32 million people, with annual increases of up to 1.4% [30]. The last Peruvian population census reported 2.5 million farmers, accounting for 24% of the working force. Among them, 70.6% were men, and the majority (75.9%) were over 40 years of age [31]. In Peru, agriculture has contributed from 7 to11.3% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in the last five years, with a productive extension of 5.48 million hectares [32]. However, recent economic data affirmed that CC impacts would result in a 30 to 50% reduction in the national GDP between 2030 and 2050 [33].

Peruvian subsistence agriculture has a significant incidence on the country’s poverty rates, with most farms producing an average of two hectares, 40–60% missing property titles, and a marked orientation towards self-consumption [34]. Only 59% of Peruvian subsistence agricultural producers receive a livable income from their operation, forcing them to constantly seek new work ventures outside and inside the farm [31]. This study focused on a highland where farmers previously relied on rain-fed agriculture. Still, recent climate patterns have forced them to implement irrigation like their peers in the Peruvian coastal regions. Like other countries in the area, Peru misses reliable extension services to provide technical assistance to farmers and has no records of historical climate adaptability practices [35,36].

2. Climate Adaptability in Subsistence Agriculture

Farmers’ perceptions are critical to understanding and acting on climate-related impacts. Several studies have been conducted to characterize farmers’ perceptions of CC within adaptation efforts [2,9,37,38]. However, most literature focuses on essential grain producers on the African and Asian continents [39,40]. The rest of the world still needs more research on small-scale agricultural climate adaptability [41]. Although current studies could serve as general guidelines to understand how farming communities cope and adapt their livelihoods to climate variability, each agricultural sector and locality have different weather patterns, which requires climate action that integrates the particularities of each study site. Furthermore, individuals experience and conceptualize environmental changes differently, influencing social worldviews and value systems that mediate adaptability [42,43].

Adaptive strategies emerged when exploring the mechanisms implemented in several entitlements by households when experiencing stress or being impacted by a shock [44,45,46]. Entitlement refers to the livelihood domain in which individuals operationalize the strategies [8]. According to Skoufias ([47], p. 1099), “knowledge and a better understanding of the main coping strategies of households is beneficial for setting priorities for public programs and safety nets”. Although, for the most part, adaptative strategies have been studied to strengthen technical and institutional capacities in terms of food and nutritional security, these concepts are relevant to be investigated and act on other shocks or crises that can modify individual or community livelihoods (e.g., natural disasters, armed conflict, water scarcity) [47,48,49]. Jellason et al. [40], analyzed twelve scenarios where coping strategies were implemented in the face of economic crises and natural disasters, which have become increasingly common in low- and middle-income countries due to CC [50]. For example, families decreased their reproduction rates in Mexico after the tequila crisis, a Mexican monetary crisis in 1994 [47]. In Bangladesh, agricultural loans increased borrowing behaviors after the 1998 floods [51]. In Africa, the AIDS public health crisis brought Ugandan households to foster children of deceased individuals, while other countries turned to local support networks [52]. The previous examples show that adaptative strategies later informed other actions on a larger scale, executed by community associations, central and local governments, and international organizations [47]. With the growing recognition of the negative potential of CC, interest arises in the global development community in developing shock-preventing, place-based, and interest-based solutions [53].

A household will implement either insurance or deficit management strategies depending on the target CC effect [7,54]. Insurance strategies are those “activities undertaken to reduce the likelihood of failure of primary production” ([8], pp. 47–48). On the other hand, deficit management strategies are employed once the “primary source of production has failed to meet expected levels, and producers must cope until the next harvest” ([8], pp. 47–48). There is a discrepancy among researchers and professionals about separating these two types of strategies in practice [55]. However, [56] proposed that they must be addressed individually, and insurance strategies should be approached in two distinct categories. First, accumulation insurance strategies include those seeking to increase the household’s base of resources and assets. Second, diversification insurance strategies include those looking to diversify the portfolio of strategies a household implements, either within or outside the traditional livelihoods [57]. Finally, all adaptation strategies respond to the livelihoods’ sensitivity and resilience [8]. Highly resilient livelihoods are characterized by their ability to return to their natural or ‘normal’ state after experiencing a shock or crisis, while sensitivity refers to the dominance of the crisis or shock over traditional livelihoods [7,57,58].

Subsistence agriculture has unique characteristics and needs, differentiating it from any other type of agricultural production [59]. Subsistence farmers cannot be classified into a specific productive group (e.g., livestock, grains, or fruits) because their production fluctuates in type, quality, and yield [60]. Studies have explored coping and adaptative strategies in crop production [61], livestock [62,63], aquaculture [64], and agrotourism [65], demonstrating that, although there is an overlap in some strategies, others are particularly applicable and effective for only one productive sector. This research project addressed a gap in the literature on climate adaptability strategies in subsistence agriculture in Peru. Furthermore, unlike most studies on agricultural climate adaptability, based exclusively on quantitative data, this study complements the quantitative and qualitative data by potentially “capturing the relational dynamics of resilience-building on- and off-farm” ([38], p. 2160).

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Study Context

Huayhuay (11 4′ 35″ S, 76 23′ 57″ W) is one of ten districts in the province of Yauli, located in the Department of Junín in northwestern Peru. Poor road access, inadequate electrification, and a lack of social and health facilities are characteristics of these areas’ physical and social infrastructure [66]. In 2017, the population census reported 389 inhabited households [31]. This community is located at a latitude of 4590 m and is predominantly cold throughout the year, with an annual temperature range between 32 and 50 °C. Agricultural production is historically the predominant economic activity. According to the Regional Government of Junín [67], in 2012, agriculture was the primary financial sector of the regional GDP. Huayhuay agriculture is mainly subsistence farming and focuses on self-consumption, with animal species such as llamas, alpacas, and sheep and plant species such as potatoes, mashua, barley, and olluco [67]. Like many farming communities in Latin America, for Huayhuay residents, agricultural production is limited by land availability and ownership rights [68]. Although there are no official records, subsistence farmers in Huayhuay depend on the temporary provision of agricultural land by the local government. In 2015, the national government included the Junín among the departments most affected by CC in Peru. Junín experienced a decrease of 3.9 mm (about 0.15 in) of rainfall per day per year [67].

Additionally, temperatures increased significantly while the frost characteristic of this region decreased at a rate of 0.52 days/year [28]. The Geophysical Institute of Peru registered 14 extreme weather events in Junín, including rainfall, frost, and maximum temperatures [67]. The latter has significantly impacted all Peruvian economic activities, particularly agricultural production. For example, 81,000 head of cattle were affected by the reduced production capacity of feed-grain and inadequate quality of pastures, and at least 162 km (about 100.66 mi) of irrigation systems were damaged by elevated temperatures in the last ten years [67]. In addition, nine water reservoirs have reported volume reductions, and 22,851 hectares of crops have been lost due to CC in the last ten years [67]. This study is part of a more extensive study on subsistence agriculture climate adaptability conducted to identify climate action priorities for a future community intervention project.

3.2. Data Collection and Analysis

The Institutional Review Board at The Ohio State University reviewed and approved this study (Study Number: 2022E04141511). All participants received and completed an informed consent form before participating in any research project activity. A pragmatic mixed-method research design was implemented based on two premises: first, a mixed-methods approach would provide a deeper understanding of the topic; and second, recommendations from other researchers on the suitability of this research design for investigating CC-related experiences [68,69]. Participants were recruited using a non-probabilistic convenience sample after several efforts to disseminate recruitment information among community residents. Data were elicited using a questionnaire survey and semi-structured interviews from May to July 2022. The questionnaire was an agricultural production and location-based contextualized version of the Farmer Survey [70] and the Perceptions of Farmers on CC, Adaptation Options, and Barriers to Adaptation [71] instruments; and included questions about demographic and socioeconomic characteristics, perceived changes in climatic patterns, and climate adaptation strategies. The questionnaire was pilot tested with a similar community in a different location. Items were rephrased and regrouped to enhance clarity in the instrument. The semi-structured interviews were used to explore perceived CC agricultural impacts and understand the adaptability strategies implementation process. For this study, a panel of experts (n = 4) established the instrument’s content and face validity.

Twenty farmers participated in the semi-structured interview, and 103 farmers from different households completed the questionnaire representing 26% of the community households. Questionnaires were completed individually at the participants’ convenience and were designed to last an average of 30 min. For the semi-structured interviews, participants traveled to the facilities of the Huayhuay Sub-Management of Environment and Public Services office located at the municipality building. Privacy is essential for the human subject research review process and to increase the participants’ trust during the interview process [72]. Therefore, to ensure the participants’ comfort and increase privacy, semi-structured interviews were conducted considering the recommendations of McGrath, Palmgren, and Liljedahl [73], including space, cultural, and power dynamics and building raptor with participants. Semi-structured interviews lasted an average of one hour.

Quantitative data were cleaned, organized, and analyzed through descriptive statistics using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 24. Qualitative data were transcribed, organized, and analyzed inductively by emerging themes using the NVivo (released in March 2020) software. In an inductive analysis, the researcher derived ideas, concepts, and themes from the raw data by implementing several detailed readings [74]. Once the qualitative and quantitative data were analyzed separately, they were integrated using the convergent parallel-databases variant design. This design contrasts qualitative and quantitative data to evidence how the sets converge or diverge from each other. Finally, each data set was analyzed separately and brought together during interpretation [75].

4. Results

4.1. General Characteristics of the Respondents

The demographic profile of respondents is presented in

Table 1. Farmers’ Demographics.

Demographic	f	f%
Gender
Male	60	58.3
Female	41	39.8
Not specified	2	1.9
Education Level
No schooling	16	15.6
Primary education	33	32
Secondary education	35	34
Technical education	17	16.5
University	2	1.9
Head of household
Male	53	51.4
Female	10	9.7
Shared	39	37.9
Other	1	0.9
Age
19–25	12	11.6
26–30	12	11.6
31–35	8	7.8
36–40	15	14.7
41–45	14	13.6
46–50	11	10.7
51–55	9	8.7
56–60	5	4.8
61–65	7	6.8
66–70	4	3.9
71–75	6	5.8

Note: Age (years).

. Most respondents self-identified as male (n = 60), and secondary education was the highest academic level achieved among the participants (32%). With ages ranging from 18 to 75 years, most respondents fell between 36–45 years (29%), while the lowest percentage was between 66–70 years (3.9%). The descriptive analysis also showed that more than 51% of the respondents came from households with a male head of household. Of the study population, 100 farmers (97%) stated that they had not participated in any training on climate adaptability in the last five years; the remaining 3 (3%) mentioned having participated in one during the same period.

4.2. Perceptions of Climate Change

Even though Peruvian meteorological information report changes in the local weather behavior over the last ten years, a small group of respondents (n = 10) did not believe CC is happening in the study location. Even though most respondents acknowledged CC occurrence, the interviews surfaced they did not know how to define it, even when they perceived it. When farmers were asked during the interviews to define CC, responses were “No, I think I cannot do it”, “I do not know what it is”, or simply “That, I don’t know” Other respondents, however, had a non-technical definition:

“I think it is everything that changes in the weather”

(Female farmer, 67 years).

“Perhaps it would be that… there are years that are hotter than others, and also with more or less rain”

(Male farmer, 29 years).

“I wouldn’t know how to define what climate change is…

Interviewer: Okay, but do you perceive changes in the weather, for example, in temperature or precipitation? Perhaps, droughts here in the community?

Yes, of course… it doesn’t rain enough anymore… or at least not in this area. What happens is that it rains a lot in a few days, but then it stops raining for a long time, and then we do not have water to do anything”

(Male farmer, 53 years).

Around 54% of the subsistence farmers’ perceived precipitations have substantially decreased in the last ten years. A similar trend followed participants’ perceptions of the number of rainy days during a year, with 60.1% perceiving a substantial decrease (Figure 1). Connected with all the precipitation variability, it is not surprising that farmers found predicting the rainy season behavior more challenging. Around 74% of the subsistence farmers felt that raining season beginning has become less predictable.

Similarly, precipitation variability is associated with drought events. In the last ten years, 62.1% of participants perceived an increase in the incidence of drought events, and 60.1% perceived the drought events duration had also substantially increased (Figure 2). Overall, interviews revealed that subsistence farmers not only perceived changes in droughts incidence and duration but also recognized the effects that are causing in their agricultural production.

“We suffer when it doesn’t rain… I must prioritize using the little water available and divide [distributed] between the plot, my house, and animals… with the droughts, everything is just most complicated because water is essential, at least in everything I do”

(Male farmer, 69 years).

“Usually, the rainy season lasts 5–6 months a year. Before, as soon as the rains began, we prepared to sow, and with luck, we could harvest up to two harvests, maybe three. But, before, there weren’t droughts that there are now… we can easily have two or three canicualas [extended periods of drought] for each rainy season”

(Male farmer, 37 years).

“Last year’s droughts were so long that it was already too late to rescue the quinoa by the time we had rain. Potatoes are more resistant, and we were able to harvest them, although they were not really good.”

(Female farmer, 38 years).

About 38.8% of the respondents indicated the maximum temperature had increased substantially, while 16.5 and 21.2% perceived a steady and decreasing temperature, respectively. Then, 44.6% perceived the minimum temperature had increased, while only 21.3% affirmed it had not changed, and 6.7% had noticed a substantial decrease (Figure 3). The interviews indicated that the differences in temperature between seasons are no longer easily perceived, and temperatures are constantly rising:

“It is very hot… There are no longer differences in the temperatures depending on the seasons. The worst thing about this situation is that the following year is even hotter as much as you think it cannot get any worse.”

(Male farmer, 37 years).

“Heat is unbearable, and you must learn to live with it because you must get used to it… It may rain, but the heat does not go away. This year, I am sure, has been the worst of all.”

(Female farmer, 67 years).

One of the major features of CC is the incidence of extreme weather events. Farmers were presented with five events: extreme hot days, extreme cold days, extreme rainy days, extreme drought, and floods. Extreme hot (65%) and cold days (58.2%) were the events that, according to most farmers, had increased substantially. Conversely, flooding was the extreme event with the lowest percentage of responses identifying a substantial increase (Figure 4). Finally, most subsistence farmers (88%) perceived local natural resources (e.g., forests, water, and soil) would likely be affected by CC. Perceptions were similar regarding the likelihood of CC affecting livestock, water resources, and minor crops for 90% of respondents.

4.3. Subsistence Agricultural Adaptative Strategies

Faced with climatic variability, subsistence farmers implemented changes in their agricultural practices. These adaptative strategies aimed to maintain and guarantee farming productivity. The qualitative findings indicated that Peruvian subsistence farmers were aware of the imperative necessity of implementing adaptability strategies to preserve and continue agricultural production. Some farmers remarked:

“The climate is changing a lot, and I can’t produce like I used to. So, I try to learn how I can continue to produce with what we have. For example, we already know that there is less water, so what do we do? Something must be done because we must eat… I have been adapting, little by little… if I am honest, I do not produce much, but it has allowed me to support my family.”

(Male farmer, 70 years).

“When I started working in agriculture, the weather was very different. I do not remember, or rather, I do not have the changes I have been making in mind, but the plot is not managed in the same way.”

(Male farmer, 66 years).

The qualitative results demonstrated that interviewees implemented adaptation strategies with different action timeframes. Strategies can be temporary or permanent depending on the effectiveness perceived by farmers and the changes they may experience in their agricultural production:

“The changes that we implemented in the previous harvest are not effective in the current one. Producing is hard because many things must be changed as the climate changes… but well, everything is very varied because there are practices that become permanent because there are problems that are always there… if you look closely, [for example] the temperature… I mentioned before the irrigation system, which used to be used for a couple of weeks, and today it must be there almost always”

(Female farmer, 56 years).

A total of twenty-six climate adaptability strategies were identified among Peruvian subsistence farmers. Twenty-one were identified in the quantitative inquiry, and five emerged during the qualitative inquiry. To classify the strategies according to their entitlement and action mechanism, we used the classification proposed by Davies ([8], p. 240), which integrates the results of a monitoring system of multiple adaptability studies. The most implemented strategies were insurance strategies (67%, n = 18), preceded by those that could be insurance or deficit management (22%, n = 6), and lastly, deficit management strategies (11%, n = 3). When classifying the strategies based on their entitlement of action, most of them were production-based (57%, n = 15), followed by asset-based (19%, n = 5), labor-based (8%, n = 2), migration-based (8%, n = 2), exchange-based (4%, n = 1), and common property-based (4%, n = 1) entitlements.

Table 2. Climate Adaptability Strategies Classification (n = 26).

Entitlement/Strategies	Insurance Strategy	Deficit Management Strategy
Production-based
Change in crop type (varieties)	•
Crop drought-tolerant varieties	•
Crop high-value varieties	•
Crop high-yielding varieties	•
Changing planting dates	•
Multi-cropping	•
Improved seed	•
Changing the timing of fertilization	•
Adapting irrigation schedule	•
Soil conservation & erosion control	•
Off-season cropping	•
Rely more on livestock	•
Abandon cultivating less profitable crops	•
Farming on marginal land	•
Change in animal species *	•
Asset-based
Invest on irrigation	•
Invest in rainwater harvesting	•
Farm Insurance	•	•
Selling/rent-out farmland		•
Selling/pawning non-agricultural assets *		•
Labor-based
Rely more on off-farm activities	•	•
Longer working days *	•	•
Migration-based
Seasonal migration	•	•
Long-term migration		•
Exchanged-based
Agricultural exchange *	•	•
Common-property resources-based
Collective-agricultural production *	•	•

Note: * Qualitatively identified strategies.

presents the climate adaptability strategies classified by their entitlement and action mechanism.

Frequency and degree of adoption are presented for twenty-one strategies identified in the quantitative inquiry. Strategies with the highest frequency of implementation were improved seeds (90.3%, n = 93), more dependent on activities outside the farm (85%, n = 88), multiple crops (78.6%, n = 81), crop drought-tolerant varieties (61.1%, n = 63), and crop high-value varieties (59.2%, n = 61). In contrast, strategies with the least frequency of implementation were farm insurance (23.3%, n = 24), off-season crops (28.1%, n = 29), sale/rental of agricultural land (30%, n = 29), seasonal migration (31.1%, n = 32), and long-term migration (33%, n = 34) (

Table 3. Frequency Of Climate Adaptability Strategies (n = 26).

Strategies	Implemented		No Implemented
	f	f%	f	f%
Change in crop type (varieties)	51	49.5	52	50.5
Crop drought-tolerant varieties	63	61.1	40	38.9
Crop high-value varieties	61	59.2	42	40.8
Crop high-yielding varieties	60	58.3	43	41.7
Changing planting dates	56	54.3	47	45.7
Multi-cropping	81	78.6	22	21.4
Improved seed	93	90.3	10	9.7
Changing the timing of fertilization	40	38.9	63	61.1
Adapting irrigation schedule	50	48.5	53	51.5
Soil conservation & erosion control	49	47.6	56	52.4
Off-season cropping	29	28.1	74	71.9
Rely more on livestock	59	57.2	44	42.8
Abandon cultivating less profitable crops	52	50.5	51	49.5
Farming on marginal land	51	49.5	52	50.5
Invest on irrigation	35	33.9	68	66.1
Invest in rainwater harvesting	45	43.7	58	56.3
Farm Insurance	24	23.3	79	76.7
Selling/rent-out farmland	30	29.1	73	70.9
Rely more on off-farm activities	88	85.4	15	14.6
Seasonal migration	32	31.1	72	68.9
Long-term migration	34	33	69	70

).

Farmers rated the degree of adoption for each adaptation strategy identified in this study’s quantitative strand using a five-point, Likert-type scale (not practiced, rarely practiced, practiced in part, well-practiced, and practiced in full scale). Response items with the highest frequencies for practiced in full-scale included relying more on non-agricultural activities (18.44%, n = 19), improved seeds (11.6%, n = 12), depend on livestock (11.6%, n = 12), and invest in irrigation (9, 7%, n = 10). In contrast, soil conservation and erosion control practices (6.7%, n = 7), investing in rainwater harvesting (6.7%, n = 7), change in crop type (4.8%, n = 5), and long-term migration (4.8%, n = 5) had the lowest frequencies in practiced in full-scale intensity (Figure 5).

In the qualitative strand, additional adaptation strategies and farmer experiences during the implementation processes emerged. Regardless of the frequency of implementation or degree of adoption of each strategy in the quantitative strand, the qualitative results revealed that not all farmers had the same type of experience and ease of implementation with the same strategy. Alternatively, some achieved the expected results, while others failed to implement the strategy for multiple reasons.

Table 4. Farmers’ Experiences Implementing Quantitatively Identified Climate Adaptation Strategies.

Strategy	Positive	Negative
Change in crop type (varieties)	“Me and my family always produced quinoa and potatoes. But quinoa was no longer profitable, and I began to grow a little barley… Little by little, we changed to producing only barley. Interviewer: Was making the change of crops beneficial? Yes, barley has a very good price. In addition, it is more resistant to droughts” (Male farmer, 44 years).	-
Crop high-value varieties	“I started cropping barley because there was a really good price… I saw that the intermediaries came every day looking for more barley. People say it is to make beer and feed for cattle” (Male farmer, 29 years).	“Several [people] in the community were producing barley. I thought I could do it, and so I decided not to plant wheat last year. But unfortunately, the harvest went very badly for me, I did not know anything about barley, and I did not know how to manage the crop” (Male farmer, 66 years).
Multi-cropping	Carmen: “I have mixed crops, so I can keep the soil moist. It went very well for us because we kept the small crops moist and shaded… in the end, we had a couple of products to market” (Female farmer, 56 years).	-
Improved seed	“I tried improved potato seeds because they are more resistant and are better at keeping up even when water is scarce” (Male farmer, 72 years).	“Look, improved seeds do not always work. I spent a lot of my money looking for pest-resistant barley seeds, which did not work for this type of soil” (Female farmer, 65 years).
Invest on irrigation	Luis: “Setting up an irrigation system has allowed me to produce even though we have droughts. It is a simple irrigation system with many flaws, but it was an investment that has paid off” (Male farmer, 72 years).	“What I do is save rainwater. In some barrels (participant laughs), do not imagine something technological; Basically, they are containers that collect the water, and then we use it to water or give it to the animals… it has been a good alternative when the water does not rain… I have even used rainwater to wash clothes” (Female farmer, 56 years).
Seasonal migration	-	“We weren’t producing anything, and there wasn’t much work… so I went to work as a domestic worker in the capital. But I couldn’t get used to the pace of life there [city], so I came back and had been working on the plot ever since” (Female farmer, 38 years).
Rely more on livestock	“We have stopped sowing, and we dedicate ourselves to sheep production; It is easier because if there is no grass, we feed them with feed, and we do not have the losses that we had with quinoa or potatoes… We maintain a little seedling, but it is gradually reducing” (Female farmer, 67 years).	-
Farming on marginal land	“My friend doesn’t live here anymore and has a piece of land near my house. She is letting me use it, but I can only plant potatoes there because the soil is very muddy” (Male farmer, 37 years).	-
Rely more on off-farm activities	“I maintain my plot and take care of it as much as I can, but it is not profitable all the time… so I work a couple of days a week at the mine to ensure income and meet the needs of my family and find a way to invest in the plot” (Male farmer, 69 years).	“I work at home if there are no crops on the plot… I cannot move from here because of my family, and there are not many job options for us [women]” (Female farmer, 45 years).
Long-term migration	“My husband lives in Spain; he works in a restaurant kitchen because we no longer had a way to support ourselves with what the plot gave us. So, he sends money from there, and I am in charge here now” (Female farmer, 56 years).	-

displays farmers’ experiences implementing some quantitatively identified climate adaptation strategies.

During the semi-structured interviews, five additional adaptability strategies emerged. First, the exchange of assets and agricultural products is a strategy that involves transactions to obtain other agricultural products or payment methods required by the farmer or their family:

“There are people here who can produce even when there is little water because they have better agricultural tools…they implement practices that allow them to improve soil moisture. I did not do it before… I don’t have what its need it [tools]… luckily, my neighbor lends me his tools in exchange for a small portion of my harvest”

(Male farmer, 41 years).

Farmers changed animal species for livestock production in response to climate variability. The interviews demonstrated farmers implement this strategy in different ways. For example, some farmers reduced the number of animals of species that require more care or resources due to climate variability while increasing the number of more resistant and adaptable species:

“Llamas suffer a lot from the heat. I must ensure they have a lot of water and a place to shelter from the sun. So, I do not have many llamas anymore… Lately, I am producing lambs because they grow faster; are ready to go butcher them quicker, and you spend less to maintain them, too”

(Male farmer, 53 years).

Other farmers substituted traditional species for other commercially valuable species new to the community:

“About two years ago, I became interested in producing fish [tilapia], but building the pond seemed impossible… do not think it is cheap, between the machinery and labor, we spend a lot of money, but thank God we already have the pond, and we are now producing.

Interviewer: How did you pay for the pond?

Interviewee: My husband had to sell some cows to pay for it”

(Female farmer, 45 years).

CC demands more labor investments for farmers to sustain agricultural production. Farmers shared how they intensify agricultural labor by implementing more extended labor shifts. A farmer remarked:

“Work is always increasing. Whether working the land, fetching water, or harvesting crops, you need to work harder these days…the work does not affect me in the end, because I can work and work… I am just used to it… but in the fields, the sun and the heat are unbearable… I am not an expert, but I am sure this is not healthy”

(Male farmer, 53 years).

Even though farmers worked independently in their subsistence production, qualitative results identified one collective action strategy: collective farming. Through collaborative agricultural production, farmers use other community members’ resources and knowledge to search for more resilient and less susceptible farming livelihoods.

“Something that has helped us a lot is working with other neighbors because we have more products, and if someone does not know something, someone else probably does… more is produced and with less work… I only must work a couple of days a week, and I can do something else on the other days”

(Male farmer, 37 years).

One last strategy was selling or pawning non-agricultural assets. Faced with climate variability impacts, farmers required a more significant investment of financial resources. To meet these financial needs, farmers sold or pawned non-farm family assets. Pawned assets could be recovered if the farmers complied with the pawn contract:

“We pawned some things at the pawn shop; we wanted to use the money to fix the fence and the roof of the corral. The plan was to separate the animals and feed them inside, using less energy and keeping them less thirsty; we think that with the fence, we could have more animals; although that did not happen, we have been able to be more efficient in breeding, and the animals stay fresh…

Interviewer: Were you able to recover the pawned items?

Interviewee: Yes, we recovered them, but since we fell behind with the payments, we paid more than what we had planned”

(Female Farmer, 67 years).

Other non-agricultural family assets sold represented a permanent transaction for the farmers.

“A few years ago, we had to sell a motorcycle we used for transportation…the crops were flooded, and we needed money to cover some expenses”

(Female farmer, 56 years).

5. Discussion

Although others have shown that a prominent level of technical knowledge about climate variability is required to implement effective adaptation processes [76], the results of this study, like other research [77,78], indicated that general technical knowledge about CC is often low among subsistence farmers. The results of this study led to a similar conclusion where Peruvian farmers showed minimal technical understanding of the problem. Even so, they manifested a high awareness and recognition of how CC affects this study’s locality.

The results of this study indicated that, overall, Peruvian subsistence farmers are aware of the changes in the climate, especially changes in some of the feature expressions of climate variability, such as fluctuation in precipitation patterns, rising temperatures, and the incidence of extreme weather events. Several other studies in low- and middle-income countries in Latin America and other regions worldwide have comparable results on farmers’ perceptions of trends in climate variability [78,79]. As confirmed by the results of this study, farmers’ perceptions of CC included predominantly negative impacts on agricultural productivity and local natural resources. Farmers’ perspectives were homogeneous regarding which resources are affected by climate variability; they included crops, livestock, and natural resources, such as water and soil, among those affected.

Reasoning and decision-making processes exist between farmers’ CC perceptions and the implementation of adaptability strategies that this study did not explore. However, according to [38], CC perceptions and local knowledge influence farmers’ social and cultural systems, which affect decision-making and responses to CC. Previous research has shown how CC perceptions foster adaptability among farmers through a process of motivated reasoning [38]. Furthermore, the results support previous studies showing that climate adaptation is a process in which farmers develop their perceptions and then use them to implement strategies to cope with change [9]. Thus, the results suggest that perceptions of climate variability may influence Peruvian farmers’ decision-making on the adaptability of agricultural livelihoods. Therefore, it is possible to hypothesize that adaptation strategies are implemented based on Peruvian farmers’ perceptions of CC. Considering what has been established about the conditions of the productive context of subsistence farmers [15], access to climate information can be ruled out so that the context and perceptions would inform decision-making on climate adaptation [17]. For example, when possible, farmers implemented irrigation systems to mitigate water shortages due to reduced rainfall. Others changed livestock species to minimize investment and life cycle in certain species more vulnerable to climate variability. Implementing these strategies respond to most farmers’ perceptions of a reduction in rainfall and other changes in climatic variability that affect their agricultural livelihoods. Peruvian farmers were aware that climate variability will worsen in the coming years. Our results demonstrated that farmers implemented climate adaptation strategies that could optimize crop production and yields under more extreme weather conditions. However, these strategies could have implications beyond agricultural production [8]. CC literature suggests that adaptability strategies influence local economic and social dynamics [7,38]. For example, farmers must produce to meet market changes based on consumer needs [80]. Peruvian farmers shared how they have replaced historic crops with new crops to respond to local agricultural market exigences. On the other hand, several studies show that women are more vulnerable to CC than other sociodemographic groups [81,82]. In Latin America, women farmers continue to experience more significant challenges in accessing resources and training opportunities for climate adaptation [83]. The results of this study align with previous studies on gender and CC, showing that some strategies are more difficult for women; for example, women participated more in production than in migration-based strategies. According to [82], because of women’s decision-making responsibilities in family diet, they are more vested in crop selection and agricultural diversification than in other strategies. These findings are directly in line with previous results showing that if farmers do not implement timely measures to curb the impacts of CC on socio-ecological systems, they will enter a stage without the capacity for reversal or climate resilience [81].

The twenty-six strategies for coping and adapting to climate variability identified in this study manifested the roadmap farmers have implemented to safeguard their livelihoods. The degree of adoption “reflects the weight that the farmers assign cognitively to the respective adaptation measures for the given socio-ecological context” ([84], p. 6). Our results showed that nineteen of the twenty-six adaptability strategies were reported by farmers as not practiced, exceeding the total number of farmers in all other degrees of adoption. As expected, the degree of adoption follows similar trends as the frequency of adoption. Reliance on off-farm activities and improved seeds were the strategies farmers gave the most relevance to, practicing them at full-scale. Nuhu and Matsui [85] and Mphande, Umar, and Kunda-Wamuwi [86] obtained comparable results demonstrating that in developing countries, farmers give higher cognitive value to a limited number of available adaptability strategies due to their limited resources and capacities. Neither frequency nor degree of adoption should be confused with the effectiveness of the adaptability strategies [8]. The individual or collective effectiveness of the identified strategies is beyond the scope of this research project. However, not all farmers from this study had the same experience implementing them. While some perceive that they maintain agricultural productivity, others fail to convert these strategies into practical climate adaptability actions. We speculate that this could be because agriculture is firmly rooted in culture and traditions, and farmers confront many of their cultural and productive beliefs to change agricultural practices [87]. For example, one of the main limitations farmers encounter when implementing new practices is their beliefs about CC embedded in local traditions and generational transferred practices [88].

Even when adaptability strategies have been implemented, failure to adapt could foster fear and disbelief among farmers, especially about self-perceived efficacy [89]. However, in low- and middle-income countries, adaptive capacity is influenced by more than the individual capacity of farmers. Other factors, such as training, social and human capital, and credit facilities, can also influence this process [2,38,90]. For example, investing in irrigation was implemented by just over a third of the participants. Some farmers highlighted productivity benefits and reduced working hours after a successful implementation. Other farmers, however, shared the challenges they faced when implementing an irrigation system, primarily associating them with the lack of economic resources, highlighting the segmentation of experiences that resulted in this research project.

Different strategies were identified and had negative experiences for specific groups. For example, seasonal migration was particularly complicated among women due to more significant challenges in adapting to novel places and available job opportunities. As from this study, the literature affirms that the efficiency of adaptation strategies is differential between groups in the same community and could be due to historical structural factors and non-inclusive climate action planning [91].

Depending more on activities outside the farm was one of the most popular adaptative strategies among participants. Overall, these findings are in accordance with [92] results that highlighted that farmers will always prefer to diversify their livelihood strategies rather than make structural changes in traditional ones. Climate adaptability studies in other agricultural communities have found comparable results, showing that farmers choose to diversify their livelihoods, exploring new work endeavors before altering the integrity of the agricultural ones [93,94,95]. However, in productive scenarios with extreme weather conditions or places with few economic options, like this study site, farmers change the integrity of farming livelihoods more quickly and usually less effectively [96].

Using improved seeds was a productive-based strategy implemented by Peruvian farmers. While this strategy has proven effective in climate adaptability, with productivity gains of up to 47% reported in low-and middle-income countries, it has two drawbacks for long-term adaptability; first, it depends on external resources provided by governments or international organizations, and second, requires farmers to be instructed in its proper use, or it could be inefficient and contribute to the risk aversion characteristic of subsistence farmers [9]. In line with farmers’ risk aversion behavior, this study showed that farmers implemented several diversifying agricultural production strategies to deal with climate variability, including crop and livestock diversification. These results confirm other researchers’ findings reporting agricultural diversification as a common adaptability strategy among subsistence farmers, potentially reducing climate and economic-related risks [9].

In this study, the identified CC adaptation strategies were as diverse as their entitlements of action. Based on farmers’ experiences and previous agricultural adaptability strategies research [9,97], we infer that some strategies were easier to implement because they operate on entitlements managed entirely by the farmer, including production, asset, and labor-based entitlement. For example, farmers claimed that switching to animal production was more manageable than continuing or diversifying crops. On the other hand, the implementation difficulty level is higher for others that reach entitlements in which farmers have less interference, such as migration, which will be in the last stages of the adaptability process because it represents a more drastic change with substantial effects on the livelihoods and lifestyle of farmers [8].

Farmers’ decisions about climate adaptation strategies respond to the perceived effect they intend to address [9]. The findings on the type of strategy suggest that Peruvian farmers implemented more insurance strategies to ensure that their primary source of income generation is maintained and does not fall into deficit. To a lesser extent, the implemented strategies manage a production shortfall from which farmers cannot recover until the next production season or through another livelihood strategy. Some implemented strategies comply with both mitigation mechanisms [8]. However, it would be necessary to have longitudinal data on weather patterns, agricultural production, and implementation processes to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of each identified strategy. Other similar studies have evaluated climate adaptability strategies’ effectiveness in mitigating CC, showing that diversifying crops, livestock, and agricultural practices [97,98] and increasing income-generating activities are effective strategies to adapt to climate variability in agricultural communities [99]. Lastly, researchers have identified additional agricultural adaptability and natural resource management strategies that farmers could implement in Huayhuay, Peru [100].

6. Conclusions

This study implemented a mixed methods design to explore subsistence farmers’ perceptions and strategies for coping and adapting to climate variability in Huayhuay, Peru. While the quantitative results present trends in perceptions about climate variability and the implementation of agricultural adaptability strategies, the qualitative results detail farmers’ experiences. This study builds the Peruvian literature on climate adaptability and makes valuable information available to authorities and public policymakers.

Results demonstrated that a large group of subsistence farmers perceived changes in precipitation patterns, increases in temperature, droughts, and extreme weather conditions that occurred in the locality of this study. Farmers also predominantly perceived adverse impacts of CC effects on their agricultural productivity and income. Regarding climate adaptability, our results on farmers’ perceptions coupled with previous literature showed that adaptability is a process in which subsistence farmers develop their perceptions and then trigger responses to cope with change. Adaptation not only requires that farmers perceive local climate variability, but also that they give sufficient weight to their perceptions to motivate action [17,101]. Peruvian subsistence farmers’ perceptions showed how relevant they perceive CC in their livelihoods. In addition, researchers have demonstrated that perceptions-based climate adaptability action is more accurate and shared among farmers who depend on sources of income directly conditioned by climate [17].

The results open a debate with other studies that establish that technical knowledge is required to implement adaptation actions, showing that farmers do not have technical knowledge related to climate but activate their reasoning process of adaptability with their perceptions of climate. However, this does not detract from the apparent need for more capacity building and training support for subsistence farmers in Huayhuay. For this community, it is recommended that agricultural education and extension professionals develop and disseminate site-based climate adaptability training for farmers.

Farmers diversified their agricultural production by implementing adaptation strategies, including new crops and livestock species. Others explored outside-of-agricultural employment opportunities, including opportunities that incentivized seasonal or permanent migration. Although climatic conditions were similar for all participants, not all obtained the same results when implementing climate adaptation and mitigation strategies.

Climate adaptability could be enhanced by incorporating farmers’ perceptions and the coping and adaptability strategies already implemented through farmers’ representation and empowerment. The results on the disparities in the experiences of farmers when implementing similar adaptation and coping strategies highlight the importance that efforts should be focused on strategies and their effectiveness, not on massive implementation. In doing so, farmers should have spaces and mechanisms to participate. Promoting strategies should be carefully considered to prevent failed attempts to adapt, impacting farmers’ willingness and self-perceived capacity. Additionally, every adaptation effort should incorporate educational and training components to develop local capacities and promote preparedness among farmers.

The following policy implications and activities are suggested, which could improve farmers’ climatic adaptability. First, continue diversifying agricultural production and livelihoods to adapt and reduce farmers’ economic and productive vulnerability to CC. Second, farmers should receive information and training before implementing a new strategy, especially if it requires adopting an innovation. Training and information can prevent adaptability failures and increase farmers’ perceptions of self-efficacy. Finally, professionals must become familiar with the local socio-economic, productive, and environmental context before promoting climate adaptation strategies.

This study’s results open several plausible new lines of research: Firstly, studies focused on adaptation strategies’ effectiveness and inclusiveness must be implemented to overcome a trend in the literature to identify strategies but not evaluate implementation outcomes. Secondly, every strategy represents changes in agricultural livelihoods and farmers’ lifestyles. Therefore, academics must study the impacts of the strategies to prevent harmful production, socioeconomic, or other types of adverse effects. Lastly, CC perceptions and adaptability research should consider differences among socio-demographic groups (e.g., age, academic level, and years of farming experience).