Exploring Climate-Induced Agricultural Risk in Saudi Arabia: Evidence from Farming Communities of Medina Region

Abstract

Agriculture is vital to the Saudi Arabian economy since it provides food and other necessities to people living in rural areas, as well as those living in adjacent cities. Notwithstanding its considerable economic importance, the agricultural sector is confronted with formidable obstacles due to climate change, such as elevated temperatures, floods, extreme droughts, and decreased agricultural yields. Building a farming system capable of being climate resilient requires the comprehension of the vulnerabilities of farm households and related systems. This paper deals with the potential agricultural risks resulting from climate change in Saudi Arabia. In addition to concentrating on precipitation and temperature, the present research incorporates the three main components of the Climate Change Vulnerability Index (CCVI): sensitivity, exposure, and adaptive capability. The results of this research reveal a notable challenge that farmers in Saudi Arabia encounter, as they are very susceptible to the impacts of climate change. The Climate Change Vulnerability Index (CCVI) has a score of 0.730, signifying a substantial degree of vulnerability. The farmers in this region are very susceptible to uncertainties caused by climate change, as indicated by the significant exposure score of 0.725. This exposure comprises a wide range of concerns resulting from fluctuations in temperature, patterns of rainfall, and occurrences of severe weather, all of which have an immediate and negative effect on agriculture. Farmers in that region are more susceptible to the effects of climate change, which could jeopardize their livelihoods and agricultural operations, as shown by the susceptibility component (SVI) of 0.559. Moreover, the adaptive capacity (AVI) score of 0.567 highlights the fact that farmers have limited access to resources, skills, and experience, hindering their ability to tackle the challenges that have been caused by climate change in this region successfully. The results emphasize the immediate necessity for specific policies and assistance to enhance the resilience of agricultural communities in the area, as well as to mitigate the potential adverse effects of climate change on their livelihoods.

1. Introduction

Climate change poses a substantial threat to the survival of the human species worldwide. The adverse effects of anthropogenic climate change are being observed everywhere, and it is widely recognized as a significant menace to global economies and society in the upcoming decades [1]. Since the onset of the 21st century, there has been an observed increase in the mean surface temperature of around 1.1 °C globally [2]. Numerous previous studies have predicted that the global mean surface temperature is expected to increase by around 1.4–5.8 °C by the end of this century [3]. Furthermore, there will probably be an escalation in the occurrence, magnitude, and severity of extreme weather-related events [4]. According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency, from 1901 to 2021, global precipitation has increased at an average rate of 0.04 inches per decade [2,5]. Moreover, from 1961 to 2020, the highest rainfall was observed in Colombia (3240 mm per year), and the lowest rainfall was observed in Egypt (18 mm per year) (https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/rankings/precipitation/, accessed on 9 May 2024). The principal driver of current climate change is the production of greenhouse gases (GHGs) caused by human activities, particularly the combustion of fossil fuels, changes in land use, and agricultural practices [6]. The issue of climate change presents a substantial challenge in pursuing the Sustainable Development targets (SDGs), with the potential to compromise approximately 16 of the 17 targets. This underscores the crucial significance of combating climate change, not only as a priority acknowledged by reputable international organizations but also as a key element of the SDGs of the United Nations.

Within the context of global warming, climate change significantly threatens not only the viability of the worldwide agricultural systems but also the overall food security [7]. Increasing temperatures globally and the frequent occurrence of extreme weather events, including droughts and unpredicted rainfalls, are estimated to diminish agricultural production in major parts of the world, including those that rely on irrigated and/or rain-fed agriculture. Major staple crops are negatively impacted by increased temperatures and more intense precipitation events [8]. According to Shahzad et al. [9], climate change might make abiotic and biotic pressures more severe. Land productivity is predicted to decrease even further as a result of increased soil erosion [10]. Furthermore, exotic species, invasive plants, parasites, insect species, and diseases may become increasingly prevalent as a consequence of global warming [11]. Hence, climate change is expected to make it very hard to keep agriculture at the same production level as it is now [12].

Another significant challenge is water scarcity, which is hugely perilous to several locations across the globe, with the potential to result in major economic ramifications [13]. According to the World Health Organization [14], an estimated 540 to 590 million individuals will potentially be exposed to extreme undernourishment due to the projected 2 °C increase in global temperatures. The regions that are currently grappling with poverty and food insecurity are particularly susceptible since agriculture is so important to maintaining the local economies in these areas [15]. On the contrary, despite being essential to many economies, land use, forestry, and agricultural activities all contribute significantly to global greenhouse gas emissions, making up between 24 and 30 percent of the total [16].

One way of tackling this issue is to adopt climate-smart agriculture practices and utilize sustainable agricultural methods, both of which aim to lower greenhouse gas emissions. This can be crucial to reducing the intricate challenges posed by climate change. Considering the case of Saudi Arabia specifically, the nation struggles with the effects of an arid climate [17]. This corresponds to locations where the average annual precipitation is only 100 mm and temperatures can reach above 50 °C. On the other hand, there are sporadic periods of extremely heavy rainfall that can exceed 500 mm annually in some western districts [17]. However, it is important to remember that heavy rainstorms are not witnessed very often, and the lack of enduring rivers and water bodies makes the problem of water scarcity even worse [18]. As a result, Saudi Arabia has been designated by the UN as a country with a water shortage [19]. According to the Water Resources Institute, Saudi Arabia will be the ninth most water-stressed country in the world by the year 2040 [18]. The country’s natural aridity, combined with climate-induced water scarcity, renders the region especially susceptible to the negative effects of climate change. Hence, it is imperative to give precedence to sustainable farming practices and the implementation of climate-smart initiatives, not only to tackle food security and economic stability but also to alleviate the wider ramifications of climate change [20].

Saudi Arabia faces significant vulnerability to the adverse impacts of climate change. According to various research studies, there has been an observed increase of approximately 1.9 °C in the average surface temperature over the past five decades [18,21]. Notably, this warming trend surpasses that of other northern land masses by 50% [22]. The future outlook is equally disheartening, with multiple investigations predicting a potential rise in the average surface temperature ranging from 2 to 4 °C by the year 2100. According to the FAO data source, Saudi Arabia ranked 176th (59 mm per year) among all regions around the world. A previous study revealed that rainfall decreased (5.89 mm decade⁻¹, significant at the 90% level) over Saudi Arabia in the period of 1978–2019, although it increased in the most recent decade. The most significant rise in rainfall (5.44 mm decade⁻¹) was observed in November and the largest reduction (1.20 mm decade⁻¹) in January [23]. Such a temperature rise poses a great threat to the sustainability of Saudi Arabia’s agricultural sector [24]. A mere 1-degree Celsius increase in average temperature can have a substantial impact on water requirements for crop irrigation, leading to a decline in yields across various crops cultivated in Saudi Arabia by approximately 5–25% [21]. Despite consistent temperatures, there have been no significant fluctuations in precipitation over the past 50 years [21]. Nonetheless, there is a projected decrease in precipitation in several regions of the country [25]. This poses a potential threat to the production of key crops like date palms, and overall productivity may witness a significant decline.

Given that agriculture is the largest consumer of water, scarcity could profoundly impact agricultural output [21]. The reduction in local food production could result in heightened reliance on food imports and increased domestic food prices, thereby making the nation more dependent on other countries for its food security [26]. In response to these challenges, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is actively pursuing a variety of climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies to fulfil its commitments under the Paris Agreement and achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) [21].

The ability of the agricultural system or community to adapt to and alleviate the consequences of changing climatic conditions can be comprehended as the susceptibility of agriculture. In this framework, the term ‘impacts’ denotes the vulnerability and responsiveness of the system to changes in temperature and precipitation patterns [27]. The agricultural sector confronts a myriad of challenges related to climate change, including the immediate impact of altered growth cycles on crop physiology, as well as broader biophysical issues such as droughts, floods, and the emergence of biological threats like pathogens, insect species, and diseases [28]. Therefore, agricultural vulnerability refers to the extent to which a farming system is prone to these recognized risks and its capacity to adapt or respond efficiently.

The notion of vulnerability is intricate and multifaceted, carrying significance across diverse domains such as catastrophic events, disease susceptibility, climate change, and political ecology [29]. Within various academic realms, vulnerability undergoes diverse interpretations and connotations. In the context of the interplay between climate and human behavior, vulnerability encompasses an array of features, including direct aspects linked to climate and biophysical factors, as well as indirect variables like social and economic characteristics [30]. This implies that both tangible environmental aspects and the socioeconomic factors within a specific community or system can influence the susceptibility to harm or adverse effects. The field of climate change vulnerability has witnessed the adoption of various methodologies and conceptualizations. Broadly, vulnerability denotes the susceptibility of a system or community to negative impacts resulting from climate change. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) traditionally employed a tripartite framework to define vulnerability, comprising exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity. Exposure denotes the extent of modifications a system undergoes due to climate-related changes. Sensitivity refers to the degree to which a system is affected by these changes. Adaptive capacity pertains to the system’s ability to adjust to and manage these changes. Each of these elements was considered equally significant [31]. However, the IPCC has recently shifted its focus towards examining sensitivity and adaptive capacity, as indicated in a recent assessment report. The integration of risk exposure and sensitivity has been emphasized, spotlighting an increased focus on the vulnerability of systems to climate impacts and their capacity for adaptation [32]. Some scholars have also proposed a perspective where vulnerability is defined by a system’s capacity for effective adaptation and response. At the same time, sensitivity and exposure are viewed as outcomes of climate change impacts [27].

Adaptive capacity is affected by several variables. Supportive measures at the institutional and policy levels for farming communities can considerably improve their capacity to adapt to and reduce the detrimental impacts caused by climate change.

This might entail providing farmers with information, credit, and technical help so they can use agricultural technologies that can handle climate change [33]. In a similar vein, individual characteristics, and farm-specific factors, such as socioeconomic status and farming practices, exert a significant influence on farmers’ inclination to adopt adaptive measures and their overall capacity to withstand risks that jeopardize their means of subsistence [34].

Agriculture is highly susceptible to climate change, posing multiple risks to farmers. Timely understanding of such risks is hugely important as it can trigger certain actions in advance to adapt to climate change and minimize the potential damage. Proper risk assessment and employment of appropriate measures can enhance farmers’ resilience and reduce their vulnerability to the negative impacts of climate change. “Previous studies have predominantly focused on examining various aspects of climate change concerns among Saudi Arabian farmers. For instance, Alotaibi et al. [35] delved into the drivers behind these concerns and their implications for perceived capacity-building needs for adaptation. Similarly, Khan and Alghafari [36] investigated temperature and precipitation fluctuations in Madinah-Al-Munawara, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, shedding light on localized climatic patterns. Alkolibi [37] explored the potential impacts of global warming on agriculture and water resources in Saudi Arabia, while Alam et al. [38] analyzed the influence of climate parameters on agriculture in the region. Azeem and Alhafi Alotaibi [39] examined farmers’ beliefs, concerns, and adaptation behaviors regarding climate change, offering insights into local perceptions and responses. Additionally, Alotaibi et al. [40] conducted an assessment of farmers’ beliefs and concerns about climate change in Southern Saudi Arabia, further enriching our understanding of regional perspectives. However, the current study represents a departure from these approaches by focusing on Climate-Induced Agricultural Risk at the farm level in Saudi Arabia, employing an index method. Through this novel approach, we aim to provide a more nuanced understanding of the specific risks posed by climate change to agricultural systems within the region”.

The remainder of the article is organized as follows; we begin with an extensive review of the literature, covering key concepts such as exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity and its association with agriculture vulnerability. Following this, we provide a detailed methodology adopted for this study, and in the next section, we present the results of our research with its thorough discussion. Finally, in the last section of this article, we conclude our findings by synthesizing the implications of our study.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area Description

Medina is a globally renowned region situated in western Saudi Arabia (Figure 1), covering a total area of 151,990 square kilometers [41]. Comprising 7 governorates—Madina, Al Hunakiyah, Mahd Al Thahab, Al-‘Ula, Badr, Yanbu Al Bahar, and Khaybar—the region plays an important role in dates production, contributing to approximately 15% of the total output and yielding 1416.0 tons of grains. The agricultural diversity of Medina includes crops like wheat, barley, clover, open-field vegetables, watermelons, tomatoes, and potatoes, as well as greenhouse vegetables such as cucumber, tomatoes, cut flowers, olive, evergreen trees, and grapes. Medina experiences a monthly average temperature ranging from 16 °C to 33 °C, with the highest recorded temperature of about 49 °C in July and the lowest one of 1 °C in January. The relative humidity in the region is below 20% during the summer months and exceeds 40% in winter [41].

2.2. Research Design

The information used in this research was obtained via a cross-sectional survey administered within the Medina region from January to February of the year 2023. Six governorates from the Medina region were arbitrarily chosen for the study to provide a representative sample. The sample size and distribution across the six governorates were determined by using a stratified random sampling technique, considering population density and agricultural diversity in each governorate. Measures were taken to address potential biases in the selection process by ensuring random selection within each stratum and adjusting sample sizes to reflect the population distribution accurately. The survey instrument underwent a meticulous development process and was subjected to validation by a panel of experienced extension agents to ensure its precision and appropriateness for the study’s goals. The method of data acquisition was conducted via face-to-face interviews. Among the 150 disseminated questionnaires, a noteworthy proportion of 123 were effectively filled out by using a traditional paper-based method, yielding a commendable response rate of 82%. Before starting the survey, participants were briefed about the aims and objectives of the study and were informed that the results of the study would be solely used for academic purposes. The shown openness and confidence presumably exerted a substantial influence in fostering the observed high degree of collaboration and engagement among the individuals surveyed.

2.3. Survey Instrument

The survey structured questionnaire was organized into two distinct parts. The initial section of the survey consisted of questions about demographic attributes such as age, educational attainment, farming experience, specific agricultural activities undertaken, income derived from farming, size of cultivated land (measured in hectares), land ownership status, access to loans, soil fertility levels, and the presence of livestock on the respondent’s farm. The next section centered on different risks associated with climate change. These risks were assessed by using a comprehensive set of 39 items. The farmer’s perceived risks associated with climate change were assessed by assigning each item to one of two categories: 0 for “No risk” and 1 for “Yes risk”. This approach facilitated the comprehension of farmers’ views and evaluations of the diverse risks of climate change.

2.4. Analytical Framework

2.4.1. Vulnerability Assessment and Component Selection

The International Panel of Experts on Climate Change (IPCC) vulnerability component analysis approach was used in the current study to evaluate the vulnerability of specific farming communities in the selected study area. This study builds upon previous research conducted by Sendhil et al. [27] and Shah et al. [43]. Three important indicators of vulnerability are included in the methodological framework: exposure, susceptibility, and adaptive capability. Exposure, which is also referred to as exposition, measures the degree to which a specific system or community is exposed to possible hazards or unfavorable circumstances, especially those linked to factors related to climate change. On the other hand, susceptibility measures how vulnerable a system or community is to the negative effects of the risks that have been mentioned. A system’s or community’s adaptive capacity shows how well it can handle, lessen, or prevent the negative effects of climate variability, demonstrating its ability to endure and adjust to changes in its surroundings. Figure 2 in the study showcases a comprehensive conceptual framework outlining vulnerability and its underlying determinants. To assess vulnerability in a particular setting, we determined 46 variables. These variables are divided into three categories, where 16 attributes pertain to exposure under five sub-components, 15 attributes pertain to susceptibility under six sub-components, and 15 attributes pertain to adaptive capacity under four sub-components. The variables were identified through a detailed review of relevant literature, consultation with experts in the field, and input from local stakeholders and were then prioritized based on their relevance to climate-induced agricultural risk to farmers in the study area. The interaction of these key components is succinctly depicted in Figure 2, which also sheds light on the susceptibility of the farming communities chosen for the study inside the allocated area. The analytical framework that is presented highlights the complex factors that contribute to a community’s susceptibility to risks related to climate change and presents a methodical approach to assessing vulnerability. Furthermore, this framework clarifies possible focused interventions and adaptation tactics.

2.4.2. Index Calculation

The index calculation method was selected for this paper because it offers a structured and quantitative approach to assessing vulnerability to climate change in agricultural systems. Further, this method allows for the addition of multiple indicators related to exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity into a single metric, providing an inclusive assessment of vulnerability. For the selection of relevant variables in this research, we applied the Principal Component Index (PCI) technique to create a comprehensive and illustrative range of values that accurately represent each of the three vulnerability components. This method, previously employed by Mandal et al. [44] utilizes Principal Component Analysis (PCA). This statistical technique converts a collection of variables into a single linear index and efficiently captures the most important shared information across these variables. According to a previous study by Sendhil et al. [27], a normalization procedure was conducted before calculating the index to address the disparate units or values of the chosen variables, which were sourced from field data. Normalization entails transforming the variable values to a standardized interval between 0 and 1 (Equation (1)).

$$Variable-index=\frac{Actual value \left(mean\right)-minimum value}{\left(Maximum value-minimum value\right)}$$

(1)

After completing the normalization stage, the study advanced by implementing a variable-weighting approach. This procedure involved assigning weights to each variable based on its significance within the climate change vulnerability framework. To carry out the weighing process, the researchers in this study opted for a well-established approach that depends on expert judgment. The methodology applied in this study aligns with descriptions in earlier publications and entails engaging with scholars affiliated with nearby academic institutions who possess specialized knowledge in the relevant research domain. The experts were requested to allocate weights to each variable, ranging from 0.5 to 1, based on their judged level of importance. After assigning the weights, a variable index (VI) was computed and assessed for each variable. Subsequently, the normalized and weighted values were employed to compute an average index for each of the three primary vulnerability indicators: exposure, susceptibility, and adaptive capacity. The calculation was performed by using a simple mean formula, represented as Equation (2), following the recommendation of Patnaik and Narayanan [45]. This procedure ensures that the influence of each variable on vulnerability is thoroughly considered, thereby enabling a more accurate and comprehensive assessment of the vulnerability of farming communities to climate-related risks. Additionally, incorporating insights from experts enhances the credibility and reliability of vulnerability assessment.

$$Average-index=\frac{I_1+I_2+I_3+I_4+I_5+\dots \dots I_n}{n}$$

(2)

where I₁………..I_j are variables representing the origin of vulnerability and n represents the number of indicators characterizing i. For gaining a deeper understanding of the vulnerability factors across the study area, average sub-indices for the components of exposure, susceptibility, and adaptive capacity were calculated by using the same procedure. In this study, the CCVI was derived by deducting the adaptation capability from the impacts of climate change, which is a reflection of exposure and sensitivity [27].

Climate Change Vulnerability (CCVI) Average-index = (Exposure + Susceptibility) − Adaptive Capacity

(3)

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Exposition

Table 1. Exposition attributes and their values.

	Variable	Actual Value	Variable Index
Climatic-E	Decrease in rainfall	92.68	0.695
	Change in rainfall pattern	50.41	0.252
	Increasing temperature trend	68.29	0.512
	CEI		0.486
Biophysical-E	Increase in frequency and incidence of drought	91.87	0.919
	Decrease in canal water availability	90.24	0.902
	Degradation of quality of water	91.87	0.919
	Biophysical-EI		0.913
Biological-E	Increase in insect and pest attack	87.80	0.878
	Increase in incidence of disease outbreaks	77.24	0.772
	Increase in occurrence of intricate weed germination	68.29	0.512
	Hardening of seedbeds	91.87	0.689
	Biological-EI		0.712
Agriculture-E	Increase in crop diseases	92.68	0.695
	Increase in incidence of salinity	88.62	0.665
	Decrease soil fertility	91.06	0.683
	A.E. I		0.681
Livestock-E	Increase in livestock diseases	87.80	0.878
	Decrease in milk production	91.87	0.689
	Increased livestock mortality	92.68	0.926
	L.E. I		0.831
Exposition index			0.725

displays the survey results, which show an increased exposition index score (0.710), signifying that climate change seriously threatens farmers’ livelihoods in western Saudi Arabia (Medina). The exposition component used in this study was further broken down into five sub-components: climatic exposition, followed by biological, biophysical, agriculture, and livestock exposition (Table 1). The survey findings in Table 1 further indicate that based on all these sub-component index values, biophysical risks (0.913) were the most significant concern for farmers, accompanied by risks related to livestock (0.831), biological risks (0.730), agriculture-related risks (0.681), and climatic risks (0.486). The farmers’ exposition to climate shows that temperature, precipitation, and rainfall patterns had altered considerably, putting farming communities at greater risk. The survey findings in Table 1 reveal that a considerable majority (68.29%) of farmers in the Medina region indicated an increase in temperature, while a much larger majority (92.68%) reported a decline in rainfall. Given that fundamental climate indicators like temperature and precipitation are essential to crop cultivation, drastic shifts in these variables may have far-reaching effects on crop cultivation. Numerous studies have demonstrated that increasing temperatures pose a grave risk to crop yield [46,47]. Furthermore, such studies have predicted that by 2100, the average annual precipitation will decrease, which will have a negative effect on crop output due to the increased per capita water demand, which might reduce yields. The results of these impact assessments are consistent with data collected at the farm level, which shows that increasing temperatures and falling precipitation are serious risks to crop cultivation. In addition to increasing temperatures and precipitation, farmers in western Saudi Arabia noticed a discrepancy between the predicted and observed frequency and duration of rainfall. For example, nearly 50.41 percent of farmers stated that the cultivation period had altered from the original planting period.

Similarly, precipitation has been demonstrated to exhibit variation in occurrence and is a crucial factor in crop cultivation in the sampled region. For example, farmers reported that previously, the summer months accounted for more than two-thirds of the year’s total precipitation, especially in the monsoon period, when a variety of crops are cultivated. But in the previous ten years, it rained predominantly in late summer and early winter. This endangers water availability, reduces crop yield, and degrades grain quality. Due to the change in rainfall patterns, the temperature is constantly swinging, which puts off planting the subsequent crop and reduces its output. These findings are in line with those of Mahmood et al. [48], who stated that rainfall (specifically in the later months) has a detrimental effect on crop output, particularly during the ripening and harvesting phases. In addition, Khan et al. [46] previously demonstrated that variations in precipitation patterns, except for fluctuations in temperature and rainfall, have been seen in a wide range of agroecological regions.

The second sub-component is biophysical exposition (0.913), which is measured through three important attributes, including farmers’ responses regarding a rise in the frequency and intensity of droughts, insufficient water in the canals, and the deterioration of water quality, as highlighted in Table 1. The effects of climate change in Saudi Arabia are not only limited to the fluctuation in temperature; instead, they also manifest in a variety of biophysical variables, including the severity and frequency of droughts (91.87%) and the influence of climate on water resources (quality as well as quantity). Most of the farmers in this research also noticed a rise in droughts and water shortages, corroborating the evidence from a previous study in which farmers’ reports of more frequent droughts were consistent with observed patterns [49]. In a similar vein, 90.24 percent of farmers reported insufficient water in the canals, while 91.87 percent reported a deterioration of water quality. With the increase in temperatures and a decrease in precipitation, farmers need to use 6% more water to irrigate their crops [50]. Perhaps, this is because of the excessive reliance on groundwater and surface water in a region with a precipitation deficit and consequent water shortage. Research in hydrology [32] has also shown that the underground water level has dropped dramatically over the past two decades.

Moreover, farmers in the research region said it had become more difficult to meet the irrigation needs of many different crops. There has been a drastic reduction in the monsoon rains that were once relied upon as a primary irrigation source throughout crop cultivation. There is a trend toward deficient seasonal rainfall or possibly arid conditions throughout the monsoons. Since the canals’ water supply has been inadequate and the groundwater table is steadily falling, irrigation is prohibitively expensive for many smallholder farmers. Moreover, farmers had observed a decline in water quality, a phenomenon linked to the increased use of chemicals like pesticides and fertilizers as a response to heat waves and biological threats induced by climate change. These risks pose severe challenges to water-intensive crops, the largest source of revenue and sustenance for many communities in western Saudi Arabia.

The third sub-component is biological exposition (0.913), which is evaluated by three key indicators: an increase in insect/pest attacks, a rise in the number of recorded cases of disease, and a rise in the growth of tenacious weeds (Table 1). The changes in primary climate indicators, including temperatures and rainfall, directly affect crop physiology and the growing cycle. However, the indirect effects, especially natural hazards, are more unnerving. For example, research indicates that change in environmental conditions provides ideal conditions for developing several pathogens, insects, pests, and weeds, which impact crop productivity via crop diseases and insect/pest outbreaks [51]. Additionally, our research indicates that farmers’ livelihoods are vulnerable to a range of biological threats. For example, the score of biological exposition (0.712) demonstrates that insects, pests, and weeds pose serious risks to major growing crops. Around 92.68% of farmers said that in the previous twenty years, biological risks, especially disease attacks, escalated substantially. Furthermore, 87.80% of farmers encountered insect and pest attacks, while 77.24% struggled to overcome disease attacks. Farmers reported that crop diseases and weed tolerance had greatly increased in the past few years, leaving crops more susceptible to biological risks. The farmers said that conventional insecticides were ineffective in fending crop diseases and insect infestations. Around 68.29% of farmers said that new weeds were growing and that they could not get rid of them. It is not uncommon to see weeds that have never been seen before, and each year brings noticeable shifts in weeds’ nature, type, and emergence cycle.

For example, a new weed has arisen in recent years, making weed management difficult because no effective methods exist to combat it. The results of this research support previous studies (e.g., Khan et al. [52]) which found an uptick in crop diseases and insect outbreaks. Khatri [51] reported that the recent locust outbreak in Pakistan that wiped off millions of crops was sparked by the variation in temperatures and precipitation, which encouraged its growth and migration to other agroecological zones. These results demonstrate how the unpredictable regional temperature and precipitation patterns subsequently make crops increasingly exposed to biological risks. Since the growth period of different crops is so sensitive to the initial seedbed and weather circumstances, it is often difficult to predict its progress. According to the survey findings in Table 1, 91.87 percent of the farmers interviewed said that increasing temperatures and a lack of rainfall had caused their seedbeds to harden, stunting the development of their seedlings.

The survey findings regarding agriculture-related risks (agriculture exposition) in Table 1 indicate that 92.68% of the sampled farmers reported increased crop diseases such as the yellowing of leaves, the curling of leaves, and the rotting of seedlings of different crops. Surprisingly, 86.62% of the total sampled respondents had witnessed high salinity as a major issue that worsened as temperatures increased. The salinity problem intensifies when temperatures increase because more water evaporates, concentrating salts in the soil’s top layer [53]. Around 91.06% of land undergoes a sharp decline in soil fertility due to excessive agrochemical usage, making the soil less fertile. The survey findings regarding risk related to livestock (livestock exposition) indicate that 87.80% of the sampled farmers in the study region had reported an increase in livestock diseases such as a spot on the body, sterility, narrow tail, and a decrease in the growth rate. The literature suggests multiple channels by which climate change could impact livestock diseases. For instance, parasites and pathogens that complete some of their life cycle away from the host, such as the tapeworm, tend to develop more quickly when environmental conditions are warm and moist. These findings highlight the vulnerability of the livestock sector to climate-induced risks and underscore the need for adaptive strategies and interventions to address these vulnerabilities. Possible interventions could include improved disease surveillance and management practices, enhanced veterinary services, and diversification of livestock breeds to increase resilience to climate variability. Moreover, variations in wind speed and direction can affect the dispersal of infectious diseases. Extreme weather events can result in flooding, the ideal breeding ground for various water-borne diseases. Most contagious diseases cannot survive under severe drought conditions [54]. Similarly, 91.87 percent of all respondents had seen a reduction in milk production, attributable primarily to increasing production temperatures and a variety of infections, and 92.62 percent of farmers had seen an uptick in animal mortality owing to disease.

3.2. Sensitivity

Considering climate change and its associated effects, the vulnerability of agricultural systems shows how extreme weather and climate change significantly impact farmers’ resources. The susceptibility component in

Table 2. Sensitivity attributes and their values.

	Variable	Actual Value	Weighted Index
Social	Increase in migration of people	72.36	0.543
	Food insecurity increased due to climate change	95.12	0.951
	SSI		0.747
Financial	Crop returns have decreased due to climate risk	95.12	0.951
	Climate-led risk has increased the cost of inputs	91.87	0.689
	Financial—SI		0.820
Farm	Farming is the primary income	80.49	0.805
	Irrigation source	52.03	0.520
	Smallholders	53.66	0.537
	Tenants/leased farmers	39.84	0.398
	Farm—SI		0.565
Forestry	Decrease in certain species	90.24	0.451
	Decrease in forest area	85.37	0.427
	Delay in flowering	84.55	0.423
	Forestry—SI		0.434
Biodiversity	Reduction in a specific species (plant, animal, and bird)	85.37	0.427
	Extinction of certain species (plant, animal, and bird)	80.49	0.402
	Biodiversity—SI		0.415
Human health	Increase in human mortality	18.70	0.187
	Increased in morbidity	56.10	0.561
	Human health—SI		0.374
	Farm sensitivity index (SSI)		0.559

is broken down into six sub-components for this study: economic, social, agricultural, forest, biodiversity, and human health sensitivity.

The survey findings further indicate that farmers in western Saudi Arabia were especially vulnerable in terms of financial resources (0.820), as well as social (0.747) and farm sensitivity (0.565). The financial sensitivity to climate change risks was found to be relatively high. Attributes under this sub-component provide crucial insights, as 95.12% of farmers who participated in this study said that they had seen a decline in profit from their crops, followed by 91.87% of farmers who reported a dramatic increase in the price of farming inputs over the previous year. It became clear that farmers in the research region depend heavily on growing various crops (such as wheat, rice, etc.). There is a possibility of facing a substantial production risk concerning the financial aspects associated with the expenses or profits generated by these crops. A large percentage of the farmers in the research area were resource-poor smallholders. Thus, the recent spike in input prices has been particularly concerning to them. Multiple studies have identified smallholders [55] as one of the most susceptible groups due to their limited resources and capacity to recover from catastrophes. The responses from farmers show similar patterns. They shared that there was once a time when a family could grow food and live off only one acre of land. Currently, the expenses associated with inputs, particularly irrigation and agrochemicals, have notably increased. Consequently, the available land area is no longer adequate to sustain a relatively modest household. To minimize these economic hurdles, targeted policy measures such as subsidizing agricultural inputs, providing financial assistance and credit facilities, promoting climate-smart agricultural practices, and investing in improved irrigation systems are strongly encouraged.

Furthermore, they revealed that cultivating high-input crops such as wheat, rice, and others is increasingly risky. For instance, it is uncertain whether they would obtain a substantial profit from the output of their farm or, in the most unfavorable situation, merely recoup the expenses incurred from the inputs. Many people suffer financially during harvest since commodity prices drop due to an inefficient marketing system. Farmers’ vulnerability was also examined concerning the indirect effects of climate change on their social attributes (Table 2), such as the likelihood of them being forced to relocate owing to harsh weather or experiencing food insecurity due to a decrease in crop yields. Moreover, social susceptibility was given substantial importance in the susceptibility index. Therefore, it holds the second-highest index value among the sub-components (0.747). The results of the indicators under this sub-component are cause for concern, as 95.12% of the farmers were more worried about food insecurity. At the same time, 72.36% of them reported an increase in relocation/migration owing to climate change. Such social indices are influenced by climate change in multiple ways. The farmers said that in certain situations, they had been forced to relocate to another area owing to persistent droughts. Another way in which low agricultural revenues drive farmers to look for work in urban areas is that they are not enough to meet basic household necessities. Famers’ vulnerability to the impacts of climate change is not reflected in these results. However, this could have unintended consequences for food security in the region by causing farmers to abandon their fields and reduce agricultural yields. So, climate-related migration could be one of the main reasons why the area and output of different crops are shrinking, which could worsen the country’s food sovereignty. Scientific investigation [56] also shows that climate change dramatically affects people moving from the countryside to cities. As more people move into metropolitan areas, providing food for their basic needs may become more complex.

To figure out the vulnerability of the agricultural system, some consideration is being given to agriculture and associated resources [44], which is significant because these are crucial to farming communities’ livelihoods, for example, the extent of reliance on agriculture and the number of community members who are the least capable of dealing with the situation. The results of our research show that the farm susceptibility index is 0.565, which is higher than the sensitivity found in previous research with similar objectives [44,45]. A large percentage of farmers were subsistence farmers (53.66%) and tenants (39.84%), suggesting that agriculture is particularly vulnerable in these types of marginalized communities. In addition, the survey data show that 52.03 percent of the total sampled farmers did not have access to irrigation facilities (personal tube wells). Furthermore, farming is the main source of subsistence for most of the rural population (80.49 percent). These results suggest that peasants and their sources of subsistence are extremely susceptible to the obvious risks posed by changing climatic conditions. There is evidence from relevant studies [28] indicating that farmers who rely more heavily on agriculture but have fewer resources would be more at risk than those who have several sources of revenue and significant farm resources, including total land area, irrigation, and landholdings.

Climate change caused by humans poses severe risks to forest ecosystems. Responding to climatic changes by reducing their effects and adapting to them could transform the way forest researchers think about their work [57]. Due to climate change, air temperatures are increasing, and rainfall patterns are shifting [58]. Resultantly, forests have undergone several shifts [59] due to recent global warming. Some aspects of climatic changes might be suitable for certain kinds of trees in some places. For instance, extended growing periods, hotter temperatures, and higher CO₂ levels make trees grow faster in some areas. Meanwhile, many predicted climatic changes and their indirect repercussions are considered to have negative repercussions for forests [58]. Table 2 shows that 90.24% of the sampled respondents reported a decline in the observed number of certain species, accompanied by 85.37% of farmers who reported a reduction in forest area and a delay in flowering (84.55%). These results are consistent with other relevant research demonstrating that current global climate change has already induced significant changes in forests [58]. However, numerous projected future changes in climatic effects are predicted to have adverse repercussions for forests.

Scientists have a tough time figuring out how change will likely affect biodiversity [60]. There is a growing need to create credible estimates of the implications of global variations on biodiversity distribution, even though anthropogenic activities persist in modifying the Earth’s environment and biodiversity at an unprecedented speed, triggering shifts in the range limitations and extinction of species on a global scale [61]. The value of the biodiversity sensitivity index (0.415) demonstrates the severe negative effects of climate change on many facets of biodiversity, including the decline and extinction of some species. For instance, a reduction in species was reported by 85.37% of the farmers, whereas 80.49% of the sampled farmers reported the extinction of certain species in the study areas. These findings are consistent with the results of Bellard et al. [62], who found that the effects of climate change would be seen strongly in many ecological and species features. These developments carry significant implications for the long-term sustainability of the natural environment and its associated advantages beneficial for local people.

It is expected that droughts and other extremes of the hydrologic cycle will also occur more often as the average temperature increases. These changes in the global climate system would have negative effects on human health, such as morbidity and mortality resulting from extreme heat, droughts, and changes in air quality [63,64]. The human health sensitivity index value (0.374) shows that farmers in western Saudi Arabia were exposed to various health risks from climate change. For example, 18.70% of the total farmers reported increased mortality, while 56.10% reported increased morbidity. The severe negative effects of global climate change on health at a regional level come from direct heat-related fatalities and afflictions, as well as variations in the spread of infectious diseases influenced by climate. Heat-related deaths are mainly attributed to the difference between the highest and lowest temperatures and the average temperature [64]. This is especially true in early summer in Saudi Arabia, when people are not used to the extremely high temperatures yet or the slow but steady rise in the average temperature.

3.3. Adaptive Capacity

Regarding climate change, adaptive capacity is how a community can withstand and adapt to environmental challenges. The farmers’ adaptive capacity was broken down into three sub-components: socioeconomics, agriculture, and institutions. The research findings depict that the adaptive capacity of farmers had a lower index score (0.554) than sensitivity and exposition to climatic changes and their associated risks. Apart from that, the adaptive capacity component demonstrates that farmers exhibited resilience considering their socio-economic capacity (0.504), institutional capacity (0.72), and agricultural capability (0.465). Considering the significance of farmers’ socioeconomic adaptation capacity in western Saudi Arabia reveals that farmers were extremely vulnerable. The average age of the farmers was 38.21, which suggests they would evaluate the benefits of different strategies to withstand better the setbacks brought on by unfavorable extreme weather conditions. Our findings on age are aligned with those of Rahima et al. [65], who also found that age significantly affects adoption choices.

Additionally, farmers had an insufficient degree of education, with only 3.74 years of schooling on average, showing the lowest likelihood of using various techniques to deal with the adverse impacts arising from adverse weather patterns. These results are supported by those of Ashfaq et al. [66] and Koumé [67], who found that higher levels of education were positively associated with more decisive adoptions aimed at minimizing the adverse effects of climate change on farming. Owner farm workers (97.56%) are more likely to diversify their operations in response to the increased risk of adverse weather than tenant farmers, who are limited in their choices by their landlord’s wishes. Velandia et al. [68] countered this claim by arguing that a higher percentage of the owned property indicates a greater capacity for risk acceptance and a smaller necessity for hedging strategies. Concerning family income, it was noted that the average yearly income from agricultural sources was SAR 43,312 (USD 162,420), which is crucial, especially since most of them were only dependent on farming means. These findings are in agreement with a study conducted by Masud et al. [69], who reported that low-income farmers would be less capable of adapting to the vagaries of climate change and its impacts on their farming. In addition, 64.22 percent of farm households had livestock, which could provide a significant boost to their resilience by acting as a source of supplemental income or emergency savings to meet the farmers’ needs while facing climate-induced extreme events.

In agriculture, “adaptive capacity” refers to land ownership, farm labor, years of experience, and most crucially, farmers’ way of coping with uncertainties. These characteristics determine how well farmers can withstand the effects of climate change.

Table 3. Adaptive capacity attributes and their values.

	Variable	Actual Value	Variable Index
Socio-economic capacity	Age	38.21	0.382
	Farmers’ education level	3.74	0.616
	Land ownership	97.56	0.732
	Livestock on farm	64.22	0.482
	Farmers’ average annual income (in thousands of SAR)	43312	0.306
			0.504
Agricultural capacity	Size of farm in acres	5.94	0.059
	Farming experience	18.02	0.89
	Total number of family members working as active farm laborers	2.01	0.337
	Farmers who adopted climate adaptation strategies	57.48	0.575
			0.490
Institutional capacity	Farmers who received farm advisories	65.04	0.650
	Farmers who reported access to climate and weather forecast services	59.35	0.593
	Communication with other farmers about climate change	63.41	0.634
	Received a loan from the Agricultural Bank	65.04	0.650
	Believe in the occurrence of climate change	99.19	0.992
	Perceive an increase in the occurrence of droughts over time	86.75	0.868
			0.731
	Adaptive vulnerability index		0.567

indicates that the agriculture adaptive capacity score returned a lower value (0.490). For instance, the average size of farmland was estimated to be 5.94 acres, showing that most farmers held significantly smaller landholdings. On the other hand, most polled farmers reported extensive experience in the field (18.02 years), suggesting that farming may be a family legacy. It is also possible that farmers’ experience, in terms of the number of years, would make them better equipped to adapt their operations to the effects of climate change. A study conducted by Abid et al. [70] in Pakistan showed similar results, declaring that farmers’ years of expertise in the field are a significant factor in their ability to deal with changing climate. It was necessary to consider the farm assets and the farmers’ adaptation techniques to assess the significance of adaptation at the farm level. Nearly three-quarters of the farmers surveyed said they had incorporated adaption strategies into their farms. These results show that most farmers were aware of the serious environmental changes around them and adjusted their farming practices accordingly. Numerous previous works indicate that using adaptation measures in farms can help alleviate the detrimental impacts of extreme weather events on crops [71]. Moreover, the findings indicate that the average number of laborers employed in agriculture was 2.01, which would also have a good effect on farm owners’ adaptive capacity. If more people are available to work, for instance, quicker choices could be made about adopting adaptation strategies, which could help lessen the impact of climate change. Another similar study conducted by Khan et al. [28] found that an increase in human and social capital increases farmers’ risk management ability and ultimately results in a more hazard-resilient farm. Lower adaptive capacity in agriculture could be enhanced by taking several measures, like receiving farm advisories, using climate and weather forecast services, communicating with other fellow farmers regarding climate change, receiving a loan from the Agricultural Bank, believing in the occurrence of climate change, perceiving an increase in the occurrence of droughts over time, and accruing knowledge on livelihood diversification.

Key institutional actions that can influence a farm’s susceptibility against climate hazards include farmers receiving farm advisories, using climate and weather forecast services, communicating with other fellow farmers regarding climate change, receiving a loan from the Agricultural Bank, believing in the occurrence of climate change, and perceiving an increase in the occurrence of droughts over time. The findings of the study indicate a higher level of institutional capability, reflected in an index score of 0.731. Specifically, 64.04 percent of the participants in the sample reported having access to farm advisories. Additionally, 59.35 percent of farmers stated that they could access climate and weather forecast services, which provide information on local predictions of temperatures, precipitation, drought, high winds, and more. Furthermore, the results revealed that 63.41 percent of farmers engaged in discussions about climate change with their peers, 77.24 percent acknowledged the reality of climate change, and 86.75 percent recognized a consistent increase in the frequency of droughts. Credit is a crucial resource for low-income farming communities dealing with climate change. For instance, farmers were able to adequately irrigate their crops even during times of acute drought because credit was readily available [69]. Similarly, the capacity of farmers to safeguard themselves from production risks is intricately linked to the farm advisory services that disseminate state-of-the-art scientific knowledge to agricultural operations. For instance, studies have indicated that farmers who have access to agricultural extension programs exhibit improved farm management practices and achieve higher crop yields [72]. Another recent study by Shah et al. [73] suggested that the farm guide may assist farmers in gaining a deeper understanding of climate-smart farming techniques. Institutions can play a crucial role by delivering climate information and weather forecasts, aiding farmers in comprehending climate trends, and enhancing their capacity to adapt to these patterns. Having the most up-to-date information gives farmers a better chance at adjusting their methods to climatic variability and mitigating the adverse effects of variations in weather on their respective crops. In addition, another scholar [74] argued that warning farmers about the possibility of an increase in temperature and the intensity of the heat could encourage them to be sufficiently prepared concerning their available resources.

3.4. Overall Farms Households’ Climate Change Vulnerability Index (CCVI)

In this study, we analyzed western Saudi Arabia farm households’ vulnerability components and sub-components, aiming to provide a complete picture of climate-induced agricultural risks in Saudi Arabia. The survey results in Figure 3 demonstrate that farmers in western Saudi Arabia were more vulnerable to CCVI-0.730 due to their lower levels of adaptive capacity (0.554), which was compounded by their higher levels of exposure (0.725) and sensitivity (0.559) (For sub-indices, please see Figure 4). The exposition index value specifically demonstrates that farmers were more exposed (0.73) to climate change-associated risks. Farmers’ increased exposure to biophysical, biological, agricultural, and livestock risks is reflected in higher index scores for all these sub-components of the exposition component. Increases in the biophysical exposure index (0.913) and the biological exposure index (0.712) suggest that farmers may be subject to an increase in the frequency with which they experience problems such as insect infestations, disease outbreaks, droughts, and water shortages. Precisely, ominous signs regarding the invasion of pests, insects, diseases, and the germination of complex weeds are shown by the severely high value of biological exposition. The increased exposure to these risks provides a reason for concern, as biological hazards may contribute to a further decrease in crop productivity in the study region, leaving farmers highly exposed to these natural catastrophes.

Corresponding to susceptibility, farmers in the study region had a greater susceptibility index score (0.559), indicating they were more vulnerable to climate change threats. The sub-component index values reveal that farmers were more vulnerable in terms of economic indicators but less vulnerable in terms of agriculture (0.565), forest (0.434), biodiversity (0.415), and human health (0.374). Given the greater importance of financial susceptibility, farmers were substantially more prone to experiencing reduced crop yields and increased input costs. This is possibly due to a combination of factors, e.g., the absence of a strong marketing structure that would allow farmers to make a decent living from their labor. The greater susceptibility of farms indicates that farmers were particularly vulnerable to climate hazards due to the increased vulnerability of their farming and assets. In particular, there was a high concentration of vulnerable people, such as small-scale farmers, who placed a disproportionately high demand on the available agricultural resources. Furthermore, the social susceptibility index score demonstrates that the issues of relocation and food insecurity were also significantly higher, providing worrying indicators concerning the provision of food and livelihoods, given that an enormous part of the farming community in this region relies on farming as the main source of sustenance.

Finally, it can be shown from the adaptive capacity index results that those farmers exhibited low levels of adaptation. However, farmers had better institutional capacity. The index score of institutional capacity suggests that farmers with increased access to credit and information services might confront fewer significant challenges.

4. Conclusions and Policy Implications

Agriculture is among the most sensitive sectors to changing climatic conditions. Communities involved in farming tend to lose the most if a natural calamity strikes them. Rural peasants in Saudi Arabia are also facing the brunt of climate change, posing significant challenges to their main source of livelihood. Therefore, the present study attempted to investigate the susceptibility of Medina (western region in Saudi Arabia) to broader climate change impacts than just variations in temperatures and rainfall. Many studies on climate change vulnerability have attempted to examine agricultural susceptibility and create composite indices based on several different criteria. These parameters evaluate the system’s susceptibility across multiple dimensions, including its exposure, sensitivity, and adaptability. Composition indices have been challenged for their potential insensitivity to contextual variables and distribution of impacts despite widespread use in vulnerability assessments across wide geographical regions and structures. Considering the various attributes’ range, weighting, and descriptions, the results obtained by using composite indices within the same region were diverse. One of the first steps in creating risk assessment methodologies is selecting appropriate indicators that are consistent across different places yet resilient to unique effects and crop kinds.

By employing an exposure index, the researchers have successfully illustrated the substantial risk that climate change brings to the farmers’ capacity to sustain their livelihood. The exposure component of farmers’ vulnerability to climate-induced hazards is divided into five sub-components: climatic, biophysical, biological, agricultural, and livestock. The index values of the sub-components of exposure show that the farmers were exposed to greater biophysical, biological, livestock, and agricultural risks. As with exposure, susceptibility constitutes one of the three vulnerability parameters employed in the present research. The susceptibility assessment revealed that the farmers’ resources and assets were vulnerable to variations in rainfall and temperature, as well as associated biophysical hazards, including flooding, drought, and scarcity of water. In addition, social, forestry, biodiversity, and human health were part of the sensitivity analysis in this study. Despite the study region’s elevated risk exposure, the susceptibility index for farming households was determined as 0.559, implying an important degree of vulnerability. The sensitivity index scores of the sub-components show that the farmers were especially vulnerable regarding their financial resources (0.820). The adaptive capacity of farm households was categorized into the three sub-components of socioeconomic, agricultural, and institutional capacity in this study. In the research region, the overall adaptive capacity of farm households was 0.559. Since farmers in western Saudi Arabia are highly susceptible with restrained adaptive capacity to the vagaries of climate change, there is notably a greater loss of yield in that region. Therefore, it is crucial to take advantage of locally led adaptation measures and climate-smart agricultural techniques to mitigate the magnitude of crop deficits in the region.

The study outlined presents several notable limitations that warrant attention. First, the study’s exclusive focus on the Medina region restricts the applicability of its conclusions to farmers in other geographical areas, as agricultural practices and socio-economic factors can differ significantly across regions. Moreover, the absence of a pilot study due to resource constraints raises concerns about the reliability and validity of the data collection methods and survey instruments employed. Lastly, the generalizability of the findings beyond the confines of the Medina region is uncertain, highlighting the need for caution when extrapolating the results to broader contexts. These limitations underscore the importance of transparently acknowledging the constraints of the study and exercising caution in interpreting and applying its findings to other settings or populations. Further research efforts may be necessary to validate and extend the study’s conclusions to a more diverse range of agricultural communities.