| Literature DB >> 32373748 |
Mequannt Marie1, Fikadu Yirga1, Mebrahtu Haile2, Filmon Tquabo2.
Abstract
Climate change is a major environmental and socioeconomic challenge in Ethiopia in recent decades. The study site is one of the climate change prone areas affected by climate variability and extreme events. Therefore, a better understanding of area-specific and adaptation is crucial to develop and implement proper adaptation strategies that can alleviate the adverse effects of climate change. Therefore, this work was aimed to identify determinants of farmers' adoption of climate change adaptation strategies in Gondar Zuria District of northwestern Ethiopia. Primary data were collected through semi-structured questionnaires, observation, and interviews. Besides, the secondary data were also obtained from journal articles, reports, governmental offices, and the internet. The Multinomial and Binary logistic regression models with the help of the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) (21th edition) were used to analyze the data. The multinomial logistic regression model was used to estimate the influence of the socioeconomic characteristics of sample households on the farmer's decision to choose climate change adaptation strategies. The result showed that age, gender, family size, farm income, and farm size had a significant influence on the farmers' choice of climate change adaptation strategies. The result also revealed that crop failure, severe soil erosion and shortages of water are major climate change-related problems than others. In order to alleviate these problems, farmers have implemented mixed farming, mixed cropping, early and late planting (changing sowing period), use of drought-resistant crop varieties, application of soil and water conservation techniques, shifting to non-farm income activities and use of irrigation. In contrast, access to climate information, total annual farm income, and market access variables are significant adoption determinants of climate change adaptation strategies by farmers' in the study site. Therefore, we recommend future adaptation-related plans should focus on improving climate change information access, improving market access and enhancing research on the use of rainwater harvesting technology.Entities:
Keywords: Adaptation strategies; Agricultural science; Binary logistic regression; Biological sciences; Climate change; Earth sciences; Environmental science; Gondar zuria district; Sociology
Year: 2020 PMID: 32373748 PMCID: PMC7195529 DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e03867
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Heliyon ISSN: 2405-8440
Figure 1Map of the study area.
Figure 2The analytical framework of the study.
Sampled kebeles, numbers of households and sample size.
| N | Name of Kebeles | Household size | Sample size |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Tseion Siguaje | 1425 | 52 |
| 2 | Sabah Gebriale | 1097 | 41 |
| 3 | Amba chara | 768 | 28 |
| Total | 3290 | 121 | |
Variables hypothesized to affect farmers' adoption decision.
| Variable | Description | Value | Expected sign |
|---|---|---|---|
| FAS | Number of family members | Number | + |
| TLAND | Total landholding in hectare | Hectare | + |
| FEXPR | Farming experience of HHH (household head) | Years | + |
| AGE | Age of HHH | Years | + |
| MARKTACCSS | Market access to HHH | 1 = yes, 0 = no | + |
| TRAINCC | Access to training related to climate change issues | 1 = yes, 0 = no | + |
| CLIMINFO | Access to climate change information | 1 = yes, 0 = no | |
| CREDIITS | Access to credit services | 1 = yes, 0 = no | + |
| MFBO | Member of farmer-based organization | 1 = yes, 0 = no | + |
| PERCPCC | Perception of HHH on climate change | 1 = yes, 0 = no | + |
| ANFINCOME | Annual income from farming | ETB | + |
The effect of the socio-economic characteristics on the farmer's decision to choice adaptation strategies.
| Explanatory variable | Use of improved crop varieties | Early and late planting | Soil and water conservation | Mixed cropping | Mixed farming | Use of irrigation | Income source diversification |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MARSTUS | -0.155 (0.610) | 0.060 (0.809) | -0.182 (0.529) | -0.059 (0.820) | -12.502 | -1.948 (0.202) | -10.046 (0.990) |
| AGE | 0.029 (0.415) | 0.061 (0.079) | 0.022 (0.523) | 0.019 (0.558) | 0.009 | 0.049 (0.224) | 0.238 (0.024∗) |
| TLAND | 0.139 (0.647) | 0.152 (0.541) | 0.129 (0.638) | 0.037 (0.895) | 0.616 (0.611) | 0.195 (0.535) | 0.406 (0.460) |
| GENDHH | 1.708 (0.048) ∗ | 0.218 (0.721) | 0.153 (0.812) | 1.257 (0.066) | 16.39 (0.995) | 1.747 (0.068) | 15.85 (0.992) |
| FAS | 0.154 (0.351) | 0.290 (0.063) | 0.153 (0.333) | 0.065 (0.666) | -0.025 (0.944) | 0.130 (0.485) | 1.060 (0.024∗) |
| ANFICOM | 1.344 (0.506) | 0.128 (0.257) | 0.215 (0.285) | 5.32 (0.728) | 0.036 (0.796) | 0.023 (0.106) | 0.0153 (0.670) |
| Diagnostics | |||||||
Notes: ∗ denote significant at 10%. The values indicate coefficient (P-value); MARSTUS is marital status, TLAND is total land size, GENDHH is the gender of household head, FAS is the family size of the households, and ANFICOM is annual farm income of households.
The marginal effect of the explanatory variable of the multinomial Logit model.
| Explanatory variable | Use of improved crop varieties | Early and late planting | Soil and water conservation | Mixed cropping | Mixed farming | Use of irrigation | Income source diversification |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MARSTUS | 0.231 (0.250) | 0.051 (0.402) | 0.372 (0.739) | 0.016 (0.910) | 1.502 (0.062) | 1.928 (0.402) | 2.046 (0.190) |
| AGE | 0.013 (0.015)∗ | 0.002 (0.601) | -0.039 (0.513) | 0.019 (0.000)∗∗∗ | -0.005 (0.001)∗∗ | -0.069 (0.232) | -0.865 (0.08) |
| TLAND | 0.014 (0.047) | 0.132 (0.001)∗∗∗ | 0.0229 (0.638) | 0.042 (0.015)∗ | 0.116 (0.001)∗∗ | 1.145 (0.315) | 0.220 (0.280) |
| GENDHH | 1.023 (0.081) | 0.401 (0.523) | 0.346 (0.502) | 2.026 (0.081) | 1.214 (0.094) | 0.074 (0.002)∗∗ | 1.105 (0.802) |
| FAS | 0.020 (0.003)∗∗ | 0.024 (0.083) | 0.031 (0.000) ∗∗∗ | 0.016 (0.004)∗∗ | 0.036 (0.831) | 0.021 (0.081) | 1.004 (0.071) |
| ANFICOM | 0.012 (0.000)∗∗∗ | 0.0104 (0.062) | 0.014 (0.095) | 0.089 (0.708) | 0.006 (0.696) | 0.102 (0.043)∗ | 0.023 (0.510) |
Notes: ∗∗∗, ∗∗, ∗ denote significant at 1%, 5% and 10% respectively.
Climate change indicators (N = 121).
| Climate change indicators | Number of respondents | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Drying of streams and rivers | 11 | 9.1% |
| Shortage of water | 17 | 14.0% |
| Crop failure | 30 | 24.8% |
| Severe soil erosion | 22 | 18.2% |
| Loss of pasture land | 6 | 5.0% |
| Loss of income | 15 | 12.4% |
| Poor livestock productivity | 12 | 9.9% |
| Increase deforestation | 3 | 2.5% |
| Drying of vegetation | 2 | 1.7% |
| High-intensity wind | 2 | 1.7% |
| Increases flood disaster | 1 | 0.8% |
| Total | 121 | 100% |
Figure 3Adaptation strategies implemented by the farmers in the study area.
Figure 4Barriers to climate change adaptation.
Logit regression of factors determining the adoption of climate change adaptation strategies.
| Variables | Coefficient | Standard error | Wald | Odd ratio | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AGE | -0.027 | 0.030 | 0.842 | 0.359 | 0.973 |
| TLAND | -0.042 | 0.200 | 0.044 | 0.835 | 0.959 |
| FAS | -0.111 | 0.109 | 1.044 | 0.307 | 0.895 |
| PERCPCC(1) | -0.753 | 0.726 | 1.075 | 0.300 | 0.471 |
| FEXPR | 0.020 | 0.030 | 0.443 | 0.506 | 1.020 |
| ANFINCOME | 0.000 | 0.000 | 4.614 | 0.032∗ | 1.000 |
| MFBO(1) | -0.690 | 0.470 | 2.161 | 0.142 | 0.501 |
| CLIMINFO(1) | 1.147 | 0.532 | 4.655 | 0.031∗ | 3.150 |
| MARKTACCSS(1) | 1.091 | 0.510 | 4.581 | 0.032∗ | 0.336 |
| CREDIITS(1) | -0.286 | 0.460 | 0.387 | 0.534 | 0.751 |
| TRAINCC(1) | -0.662 | 0.581 | 1.297 | 0.255 | 0.516 |
| Constant | 2.264 | 1.215 | 3.474 | 0.062 | 9.620 |
Notes: ∗ significant at p < 0.05; Log likelihood = 128.014; Omnibus tests of model coefficients (chi2 = 22.583 and p = 0.020); Hosmer and Lemeshow Test (chi2 = 3.446, df = 8, p = 0.903); Pseudo R2 (Cox and Snell R2 = 0.170; Nagelkerke R2 = 0.239).