Figure 1
Living labs methodology: participatory modelling framework for community-based climate adaptation.
Note: The analytical flow of the study and how experiential processes informed scenario development and model adjustments are shown.
Source: Adapted from Kolb (1984).
Figure 2
Participatory workshops illustrating key engagement activities in the living lab.
Note: The farmers are collaborating through facilitated brainstorming, storytelling, mind mapping and sketching sessions.
Figure 3
Participatory modelling sessions demonstrating farmers’ direct engagement with the AquaCrop configuration during the living lab.
Note: Farmers contributed crop characteristics, local rainfall behaviour and management practices. These discussions linked farmers’ experiential knowledge with model-based analysis.
Figure 4
(a) Structured interviews used to assess farmers’ knowledge and interest through score-based evaluation and Likert-type scales, providing evidence of learning outcomes within the participatory modelling framework; and (b) farmer field schools conducted during the implementation phase, enabling feedback on practical challenges and refining the co-designed adaptation to local conditions.
Table 1
Challenges and their impacts on agricultural livelihoods.
| ASPECT AND KEY PROBLEM | DETAILS |
|---|---|
| Location of the problem | 40 acres of farmland |
| Affected stakeholders | Farming community (16 households out of 20) |
| Scale and severity of the problem | Yield losses: 50–70 tonnes depending on the variety grown |
| Income reductions: INR48,000–80,000/acre | |
| Affects over 16 farmers, covering 28 acres | |
| Root causes of the problem | Erratic monsoon rainfall caused by climate change, leading to inconsistent water availability |
| Timing of the impact | During the Kharif season (May–August) |
| During the Rabi season (September–December) | |
| Consequences for the community | Significant yield reductions and income losses. Farmers abandon or lease their land. Weakens livelihoods, resilience and sustainability |
Figure 5
Proposed solutions integrating insights from participatory rural appraisal (PRA), co-design and technical analyses: (a) rainfall analysis during rice growing season; (b) gate irrigation technique on a man-made canal with gravity flow force; and (c) on-farm trenches: excavated around the farmlands
Note: Key for (a): red = high probability of a dry week; orange = low probability of a dry week; blue = high probability of a wet week (rain).
Figure 6
Analytical pathway for interpreting mind mapping outputs.
Note: Mind maps generated during the co-design workshops were directly informed the co-designed solution of adjusting sowing time.
Figure 7
Farmer’s sketch illustrating the seasonal water-flow patterns across fields.
Note: The participatory sketching exercise captured micro-topographical variations, runoff directions and water-logging zones that were not visible through secondary datasets.
Figure 8
Relative yield resilience indicator for multiple sowing weeks under future climate scenarios (SSP245 and SSP585).
Note: Early sowing, particularly during the 38th Standard Meteorological Week (SMW), demonstrates consistently higher resilience across scenarios, supporting the co-designed adaptation strategy identified through participatory modelling.
Figure 9
Water stress index (WSI) under future climate scenarios (SSP245 and SSP585).
Note: The distribution of WSI across sowing weeks illustrates differences in projected water stress.
Table 2
Impact of participatory modelling on farmers’ knowledge and adoption interest.
| FARMER ID | KNOWLEDGE (PRE-INTERVENTION) (%) | KNOWLEDGE (POST-INTERVENTION) (%) | INTEREST IN ADOPTION (PRE-INTERVENTION) | INTEREST IN ADOPTION (POST-INTERVENTION) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Farmer 1 | 10% | 80% | 1/5 | 4/5 |
| Farmer 2 | 20% | 90% | 2/5 | 5/5 |
| Farmer 3 | 50% | 80% | 2/5 | 2/5 (no change) |
| Farmer 4 | 40% | 70% | 1/5 | 4/5 |
| Farmer 5 | 40% | 70% | 2/5 | 4/5 |
| Farmer 6 | 30% | 80% | 2/5 | 5/5 |
| Farmer 7 | 20% | 80% | 1/5 | 4/5 |
| Farmer 8 | 50% | 80% | 2/5 | 4/5 |
| Farmer 9 | 50% | 90% | Not interested | Not interested |
| Farmer 10 | 20% | 90% | 1/5 | 4/5 |
| Farmer 11 | 40% | 40% (no change) | 2/5 | 4/5 |
| Farmer 12 | 10% | 10% (no change) | 1/5 | 1/5 (no change) |
Figure 10
Participatory implementation of the co-designed climate adaptation strategy.
Note: These real-world trials validated modelling insights and demonstrated the practical feasibility of the co-designed intervention, strengthening its legitimacy within the community.