| Literature DB >> 33665418 |
O A Adeagbo1, T O Ojo2,3, A A Adetoro4.
Abstract
Climate is one of the most important factors in agricultural productivity, which could directly or indirectly influence productivity since the climate is linked to physiological processes. It is, therefore, essential to understanding the various strategies used by farmers to mitigate the adverse impact of climate change and the factors that influence maize farmers' adoption and intensity of climate change adaptation strategies among smallholder maize farmers in South-west Nigeria. In all, a sample of three hundred and thirty (311) smallholder maize farmers were interviewed. A double-hurdle count data model was employed to estimate the factors influencing farmers' adoption of adaptation strategies while accounting for selection bias with the plugging of inverse mill ratio (IMR) as a regressor. Significant variables such as household size, depreciation ratio, frequency of extension visits, access to extension, and non-farm income were factors influencing the adoption of climate change adaptation strategies among maize farmers. Age of the respondent, age square, household size, farm-based organization (FBO), non-farm income, climate information, access to credit, farmers residing in Osun State (location_Osun), distance to market significantly influenced the intensity of climate change adaptation strategies. This study, therefore, concluded that farm-level policy efforts that aim to improve rural development should focus on farmers' membership in FBO, increase the visits of extension agents, encourage non-farm income and access to climate change information, particularly during the off-cropping season. Policies and investment strategies of the government should be geared towards supporting improved extension service, providing on-farm demonstration training, and disseminating information about climate change adaptation strategies, particularly for smallholder farmers in Nigeria.Entities:
Keywords: Adaptation strategies; Climate change; Coping strategy; Double-hurdle count model; Socio-ecological system
Year: 2021 PMID: 33665418 PMCID: PMC7900690 DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e06231
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Heliyon ISSN: 2405-8440
Figure 1Map of the study area. Source: Space Applications and Environmental Science Laboratory (SPAEL), Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Osun State, Nigeria, 2019.
Figure 2Distribution of adaptation strategies employed by the smallholder maize farmers in South-west, Nigeria.
Definitions and summary statistics of variables used in the model.
| Variable | Description of Variables | Mean | Std. Dev. |
|---|---|---|---|
| CCAS adoption | If the household head (HH) adopted 1 and 0, otherwise | 0.52 | 0.50 |
| Intensity of CCAS adoption | Numbers of climate change adaptation strategies adopted by the HH | 5.05 | 3.02 |
| Age | Age of the household head in years | 47.41 | 10.7 |
| Gender | 1 if HH head is male, 0 if female | 0.70 | 0.46 |
| Education level | Years of education of HH head | 7.01 | 4.91 |
| Farming experience | Years of household experience in maize production | 20.12 | 12.57 |
| Marital status | 1 if HH head is married, 0 if other/single/widowed | 2.08 | 0.55 |
| Household size | Number of HH size | 5.57 | 2.06 |
| Depreciation ratio | The depreciation ratio of HH | 0.65 | 0.73 |
| Farm size (hectares) | Total land cultivated for maize by HH, in hectares | 1.34 | 1.83 |
| Farm-based organisation association (FBO) | 1 if HH belongs to a FBO, 0 if otherwise | 0.36 | 0.48 |
| Access to extension services | 1 if HH has access to extension, 0 if otherwise | 0.22 | 0.41 |
| Access to credit | 1 if HH has access to credit, 0 if otherwise | 0.31 | 0.46 |
| Climate change awareness | 1 if HH is aware of climate change, 0 if otherwise | 8.36 | 8.02 |
| Climate information | 1 if HH has access to climate change information, 0 if otherwise | 0.76 | 0.43 |
| Mean Temperature | Mean of annual temperature | 27.09 | 0.02 |
| Mean Precipitation | Mean of annual precipitation | 46.43 | 2.61 |
| Access to non-farm income | 1 = if HH engages in any off-farm activity | 0.73 | 0.44 |
| Location_Oyo | 1 if HH is from Oyo, 0 if otherwise | 0.33 | 0.47 |
| Location_Osun | 1 if HH is from Osun, 0 if otherwise | 0.33 | 0.47 |
Count data regression of the intensity of climate change adaptation strategies adoption.
| Number of strategies | POISSON REGRESSION | NEGATIVE BINOMIAL | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coef. | St. Err. | P-value | Coef. | St. Err. | P-value | |
| Age of the respondent | -0.042 | 0.019 | 0.028∗∗ | -0.042 | 0.019 | 0.028∗∗ |
| Age square | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.049∗∗ | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.049∗∗ |
| Educational level | 0.003 | 0.006 | 0.570 | 0.003 | 0.006 | 0.570 |
| Marital status | -0.069 | 0.062 | 0.269 | -0.069 | 0.062 | 0.269 |
| Household size | 0.035 | 0.016 | 0.027∗∗ | 0.035 | 0.016 | 0.027∗∗ |
| Dependency ratio | -0.057 | 0.047 | 0.225 | -0.057 | 0.047 | 0.225 |
| Membership FBO | -0.164 | 0.085 | 0.052∗ | -0.164 | 0.085 | 0.052∗ |
| Freq of extension visits | -0.005 | 0.013 | 0.683 | -0.005 | 0.013 | 0.683 |
| Access to extension | 0.061 | 0.114 | 0.593 | 0.061 | 0.114 | 0.593 |
| Non-farm income | 0.135 | 0.077 | 0.080∗ | 0.135 | 0.077 | 0.080∗ |
| Climate information | 0.561 | 0.129 | 0.000∗∗∗ | 0.561 | 0.129 | 0.000∗∗∗ |
| Access to credit | 0.188 | 0.095 | 0.048∗∗ | 0.188 | 0.095 | 0.048∗∗ |
| Main occupation | -0.099 | 0.073 | 0.176 | -0.099 | 0.073 | 0.176 |
| Location_Oyo | -0.079 | 0.097 | 0.414 | -0.079 | 0.097 | 0.414 |
| Location_Osun | 0.629 | 0.113 | 0.000∗∗∗ | 0.629 | 0.113 | 0.000∗∗∗ |
| Distance to market | 0.010 | 0.006 | 0.094∗ | 0.010 | 0.006 | 0.094∗ |
| Distance to road | 0.002 | 0.012 | 0.884 | 0.002 | 0.012 | 0.884 |
| IMR | -1.258 | 0.558 | 0.024∗∗ | -1.258 | 0.557 | 0.024∗ |
| Constant | 2.140 | 0.471 | 0.000∗∗∗ | 2.140 | 0.471 | 0.000∗∗∗ |
| lnalpha | -18.148 | 404.527 | ||||
| Pseudo R2 | 0.179 | 0.142 | ||||
| Chi-square | 277.953 | 210.915 | ||||
| AIC | 1311.023 | 1313.023 | ||||
| BIC | 1377.691 | 1383.395 | ||||
| Number of obs | 300.000 | 300.000 | ||||
| Prob > chi 2 | 0.000 | 0.000 | ||||
∗∗∗p < 0.01, ∗∗p < 0.05, ∗p < 0.1.
Determinants of adoption of climate change adaptation strategies among maize farmers-Probit model.
| Independnet variables | Coef. | St. Err. | P-value | Marginal effects | St. Err. | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age of the respondent | -0.011 | 0.009 | 0.221 | -0.018 | 0.019 | 0.347 |
| Educational level | 0.017 | 0.017 | 0.295 | 0.006 | 0.006 | 0.309 |
| Marital status | 0.189 | 0.153 | 0.217 | 0.078 | 0.058 | 0.180 |
| Household size | 0.070 | 0.042 | 0.096∗ | 0.028 | 0.016 | 0.079∗ |
| Dependency ratio | -0.312 | 0.122 | 0.010∗∗ | -0.124 | 0.045 | 0.006∗∗∗ |
| Membership FBO | 0.250 | 0.231 | 0.279 | 0.093 | 0.087 | 0.282 |
| Freq of extension visits | 0.069 | 0.038 | 0.071∗ | 0.025 | 0.014 | 0.074∗ |
| Access to extension | -0.469 | 0.268 | 0.081∗ | -0.181 | 0.099 | 0.068∗ |
| Non-farm income | -0.324 | 0.175 | 0.065∗ | -0.124 | 0.065 | 0.056∗ |
| Climate information | -0.217 | 0.312 | 0.488 | -0.082 | 0.117 | 0.485 |
| Access to credit | -0.063 | 0.245 | 0.797 | -0.015 | 0.093 | 0.874 |
| Constant | 0.084 | 0.495 | 0.866 | |||
| Mean dependent variable | 0.520 | |||||
| Pseudo R-squared | 0.050 | |||||
| Chi-square | 20.923 | |||||
| Akaike criterion (AIC) | 418.48 | |||||
| Bayesian criterion (BIC) | 462.93 | |||||
| Number of observations | 300.00 | |||||
| Prob > chi 2 | 0.034 |
∗∗∗p < 0.01, ∗∗p < 0.05, ∗p < 0.1.