| Literature DB >> 27752459 |
Fikeremaryam Birara Feleke1, Melaku Berhe1, Getachew Gebru2, Dana Hoag3.
Abstract
The livestock sector serves as a foremost source of revenue for rural people, particularly in many developing countries. Among the livestock species, sheep and goats are the main source of livelihood for rural people in Ethiopia; they can quickly multiply, resilient and are easily convertible to cash to meet financial needs of the rural producers. The multiple contributions of sheep and goat and other livestock to rural farmers are however being challenged by climate change and variability. Farmers are responding to the impacts of climate change by adopting different mechanisms, where choices are largely dependent on many factors. This study, therefore, aims to analyze the determinants of choices of adaptation practices to climate change that causes scarcity of feed, heat stress, shortage of water and pasture on sheep and goat production. The study used 318 sample households drawn from potential livestock producing districts representing 3 agro-ecological settings. Data was analyzed using simple descriptive statistical tools, a multivariate probit model and Ordinary Least Squares (OLS). Most of the respondents (98.6 %) noted that climate is changing. Respondents' perception is that climate change is expressed through increased temperature (88 %) and decline in rainfall (73 %) over the last 10 years. The most commonly used adaptation strategy was marketing during forage shock (96.5 %), followed by home feeding (89.6 %). The estimation from the multivariate probit model showed that access to information, farming experience, number of households in one village, distance to main market, income of household, and agro-ecological settings influenced farmers' adaptation choices to climate change. Furthermore, OLS revealed that the adaptation strategies had positive influence on the household income.Entities:
Keywords: Adaptation; Agro-ecological settings; Choice; Climate change; Determinants; Goat; Sheep
Year: 2016 PMID: 27752459 PMCID: PMC5045456 DOI: 10.1186/s40064-016-3042-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Springerplus ISSN: 2193-1801
Sample size distribution by districts and agro-ecological zone
| Districts | Agro-ecological zone | Target household populationa | Sample size |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kolla-Tembien | Lowland | 26,867 | 118 |
| Alaje | Midland | 20,081 | 89 |
| Ofla | Highland | 25,378 | 111 |
| Total | 72,326 | 318 |
a Source: Central Statistics Agency of Ethiopia (CSA, 2007)
Description of variables included in the analysis
| Independent variables | Variable type | Variable measurement | Mean | SD |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex of the head | Dummy | 1 if male, 0 otherwise | 0.773 | 0.421 |
| Age of the head | Continuous | Year | 43.405 | 9.855 |
| Marital status | Dummy | 1 if married, 0 otherwise | 0.789 | 0.408 |
| Family size | Continuous | Number | 5.405 | 1.782 |
| Land size | Continuous | Hectare | 0.529 | 0.425 |
| Herd size | Continuous | Total Livestock Unit (TLU) | 5.532 | 4.200 |
| Access to info. | Dummy | 1 if there is access, 0 otherwise | 0.984 | 0.124 |
| Year of production | Continuous | Number | 11.639 | 8.203 |
| Number of households in one village | Continuous | Number | 487.9 | 220.14 |
| Extension assistance | Dummy | 1 if household gets ext.assi. 0 otherwise | 0.99 | 0.096 |
| Credit access | Dummy | 1 if there is access, 0 otherwise | 0.927 | 0.259 |
| Distance to mkt | Continuous | Km | 4.1173 | 5.902 |
| High land | Dummy | 1 if respondent from highland, 0 otherwise | 0.349 | 0.477 |
| Low land | Dummy | 1 if respondent from lowland, 0 otherwise | 0.371 | 0.483 |
| Mid land(base category) | Dummy | 1 if respondent from midland, 0 otherwise | 0.279 | 0.449 |
| Monthly consumption | Continuous | Birr (1 USD = 19.73 Birr) | 1124.1 | 929.64 |
| Edu1(base category) | Dummy | 1 if illiterate, 0 otherwise | 0.345 | 0.476 |
| Edu2 | Dummy | 1 if informally literate (read and write), 0 otherwise | 0.154 | 0.361 |
| Edu3 | Dummy | 1 if primary school completed, 0 otherwise | 0.443 | 0.497 |
| Edu4 | Dummy | 1 if secondary school completed, 0 otherwise | 0.047 | 0.212 |
| Edu5 | Dummy | 1 if above secondary, 0 otherwise | 0.009 | 0.096 |
Socio-economic and institutional characteristics of sheep and goat farmers
| Variables | Agro-ecological setting | Total | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Highland | Midland | Lowland | ||
|
| ||||
| Male (1) | 54 (48.6) | 82 (92.1) | 109 (92.4) | 245 (77.0) |
| Female (0) | 57 (51.4) | 7 (7.9) | 9 (7.6) | 73 (23.0) |
|
| ||||
| Illiterate (1) | 53 (47.7) | 21 (23.6) | 36 (30.5) | 126 (39.6) |
| Informally literate (2) | 29 (26.1) | 16 (17.9) | 4 (3.4) | 49 (15.4) |
| Primary school (3) | 22 (19.8) | 48 (53.9) | 71 (60.1) | 141 (44.3) |
| Secondary school (4) | 5 (4.6) | 4 (4.5) | 6 (5.0) | 15 (4.7) |
| Above Secondary school (5) | 2 (1.8) | 0 (0) | 1 (0.84) | 3 (0.9) |
|
| ||||
| Yes (1) | 98 (88.2) | 86 (96.6) | 111 (94.1) | 295 (92.8) |
| No (0) | 13 (11.7) | 3 (3.4) | 7 (5.9) | 23 (7.2) |
|
| ||||
| Yes (1) | 74 (66.7) | 18 (20.2) | 97 (82.2) | 189 (59.4) |
| No (0) | 37 (33.3) | 71 (79.8) | 21 (17.8) | 129 (40.6) |
Fig. 1Farmers’ response about climate change through change in temperature. It indicates the change in temperature due to climate change as reported by farmers’ from three different agro-ecological settings of Southern and Central Tigray Zones
Fig. 2Farmers’ response about climate change through change in rainfall amount. It indicates the change in rainfall amount due to climate change as reported by farmers’ from three different agro-ecological settings of Southern and Central Tigray Zones
Distribution of adaptation options used by sheep and goats farmers
| Adaptation options | Agro-ecological settings | Total | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Low-land | Mid-land | High-land | ||
| Provision of shade | 27 (22.8) | 48 (54.0) | 57 (52.7) | 132 (41.5) |
| Home feeding | 103 (87.2) | 86 (96.6) | 96 (88.8) | 285 (89.6) |
| Use of crossbred animals | 63 (53.3) | 43 (48.3) | 67 (62.0) | 173 (54.4) |
| Marketing during shock | 117 (99.0) | 85 (95.5) | 105 (97.0) | 307 (96.5) |
Numbers in parenthesis indicate percentage
Results of multivariate probit model for determinants of adaptation choices
| Independent variables | Dependent variables | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Home feeding | Crossbred | Marketing | Shade | |||||
| Coeff. | P value | Coeff. | P value | Coeff. | P value | Coeff. | P value | |
| Sex | −0.8021* | 0.097 | −0.2438 | 0.450 | −0.1195 | 0.848 | −0.0901 | 0.772 |
| Age | 0.0160 | 0.280 | −0.0142 | 0.159 | 0.0318 | 0.325 | −0.0209* | 0.053 |
| Marital status | 0.8064* | 0.068 | 0.5333* | 0.076 | 0.2756 | 0.640 | 0.2647 | 0.368 |
| Family size | 0.0020 | 0.978 | 0.0509 | 0.356 | −0.0554 | 0.681 | 0.1084* | 0.052 |
| Land size | 0.4527 | 0.283 | 0.0140 | 0.944 | 0.1522 | 0.849 | −0.1722 | 0.492 |
| Herd size | 0.0008 | 0.979 | 0.0439 | 0.100* | 0.0459 | 0.514 | 0.0067 | 0.780 |
| Access to info. | 1.7645** | 0.013 | 1.7009** | 0.027 | 3.1643*** | 0.000 | 0.9316 | 0.184 |
| Year of production | −0.0267 | 0.158 | 0.0310** | 0.014 | 0.0048 | 0.887 | 0.0323*** | 0.009 |
| No. households in one village | 0.0006 | 0.340 | −0.0015*** | 0.001 | 0.0007 | 0.428 | −0.0010** | 0.031 |
| Credit access | −0.4864 | 0.418 | −0.4548 | 0.211 | −3.6721 | 0.988 | −0.0986 | 0.792 |
| Distance to mkt | −0.0398*** | 0.007 | 0.0020 | 0.879 | 0.0180 | 0.739 | 0.0116 | 0.373 |
| Highland | −1.1812** | 0.017 | 1.7441*** | 0.000 | 0.6275 | 0.380 | 0.6206** | 0.043 |
| Lowland | −1.4700*** | 0.000 | 0.0101 | 0.962 | 0.6501 | 0.270 | −0.7218*** | 0.001 |
| Monthly consumption | −0.4818** | 0.023 | −0.4502*** | 0.001 | −0.2690 | 0.381 | 0.0518 | 0.712 |
| Edu2 | 0.2731 | 0.455 | −0.0194 | 0.940 | 0.1190 | 0.823 | 0.0128 | 0.959 |
| Edu3 | 0.0127 | 0.966 | −0.0184 | 0.932 | 0.0724 | 0.881 | 0.0262 | 0.901 |
| Edu4 | −0.3680 | 0.470 | −0.3914 | 0.355 | 0.7316 | 0.562 | −0.0210 | 0.962 |
| Edu5 | 4.2013 | 0.993 | 5.0015 | 0.989 | 3.1296 | 0.996 | 5.2491 | 0.987 |
*, ** and *** are at 10, 5 and 1 % level significant respectively
Results of OLS model for determinants of income from the sales of sheep and goat
| Independent variables | Coefficient | P value |
|---|---|---|
| Home_feeding | 1877.711*** | 0.007 |
| Cross bred_animal | 1182.326*** | 0.006 |
| Shade | 1182.326 | 0.142 |
| Sex | 688.3208 | 0.289 |
| Age | 22.0632 | 0.303 |
| Farm size | −166.2574 | 0.169 |
| Land_size | 91.93275 | 0.823 |
| Herd size | 498.7345*** | 0.000 |
| Farm association | −1982.854*** | 0.001 |
| Extension assistance | 1556.691 | 0.404 |
| Credit acess | 1841.97** | 0.040 |
| mkt_km | 4.680807 | 0.870 |
| High_land | 179.9796 | 0.801 |
| Low_land | −1224.172** | 0.044 |
| Monthly consumption | 352.5096 | 0.320 |
| edu2 | −482.141 | 0.424 |
| edu3 | −480.5437 | 0.314 |
| edu4 | −629.2862 | 0.518 |
| edu5 | −2291.116 | 0.412 |
| _cons | −3748.746 | 0.233 |
** and *** are at 5 and 1 % significance level respectively