Next Article in Journal
Spectral Heterogeneity Analysis and Soil Organic Matter Inversion across Differences in Soil Types and Organic Matter Content in Dryland Farmland in China
Previous Article in Journal
Spatial–Temporal Evolution and Driving Factors of China’s High-Quality Economic Development
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 23
10.3390/su152316309
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Adaptation to Climate Change and Variability by Farming Households in North-Central Nigeria

by
Buhari Arin Hassan
* and
Jasper Knight
School of Geography, Archaeology and Environmental Studies, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg 2050, South Africa
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(23), 16309; https://doi.org/10.3390/su152316309
Submission received: 19 October 2023 / Revised: 8 November 2023 / Accepted: 23 November 2023 / Published: 25 November 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Sustainable Agriculture)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Climate change and variability present major environmental and socioeconomic challenges to populations in sub-Saharan Africa that depend upon favourable climatic conditions for agricultural production and for their sustenance and livelihoods. This study assessed the adaptation strategies used by farming households in north-central Nigeria to reduce the impacts of persistent ongoing climate variability, mainly changes in rainfall and temperatures, as a result of climate change. Data were collected through household questionnaires from 120 farming households in Bokkos Local Government Area, Plateau State, north-central Nigeria. The results indicated that the number of years of farming experience was positively correlated with farmers’ knowledge and awareness of climate change (p = 0.000). Furthermore, education status significantly influenced farmers’ adaptation strategies to both deal with climate variability and to ensure household income (p < 0.05). The results from farmers indicated that a range of on-farm and off-farm adaptation strategies have been adopted. On-farm strategies include changing the crop planting time; crop diversification; irrigation farming; the use of fertilizers, manure, and agrichemicals to boost crop yield; and planting disease-resistant and drought-tolerant crop varieties. Off-farm strategies include small-scale trading and artisanal ventures that can augment the household income. Together, these diverse activities can enhance households’ resilience to the negative effects of climate variability. It is recommended that policymakers improve institutional support and training for farmers to enable viable livelihood diversification strategies, enhancing their climate change adaptation and resilience.

1. Introduction

Overwhelming evidence suggests that the adverse impacts of global climate variability and change are a major environmental and socioeconomic problem, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa [1,2]. Furthermore, instrumental data and climate models also indicate that extreme weather events such as droughts, storms, rainfall, and temperature changes are expected to increase, with Africa being highly susceptible to negative effects [3,4].
Although numerous economic sectors can be impacted by climate change, agriculture is particularly sensitive to climate change and variability [5,6,7,8] because smallholder farmers, especially in sub-Saharan Africa, rely on seasonal rainfall for their crops’ growth [9,10]. As a result, any small change in climate or extreme weather events could have substantial effects on agricultural productivity and negatively impact farming households’ livelihoods, particularly in countries where smallholder farmers already experience poverty, inadequate use of technology or machinery, and have an overreliance on rainfed systems [11,12,13]. Due to its strong relationship with agriculture and natural resources, warmer baseline climatic conditions, little precipitation, and poor capacity for adaptation, sub-Saharan Africa is the region most vulnerable to the effects of climate variability and change [14,15]. In this region, many studies have indicated how agricultural production has responded to climate change, with production decreasing in many cases [11,13,16], and with adverse impacts on the livelihoods and sustainability of smallholder farmers [8].
Future climate change impacts may give rise to more challenges for agricultural productivity in sub-Saharan Africa [5,10,14], particularly through decreased yields of rainfed staple crops such as maize, groundnuts, millet, sorghum, and cassava [17,18]. This means that smallholder farmers’ livelihoods will be increasingly adversely affected unless they develop adaptation strategies to deal with present and future climate changes outside of their experienced coping range [19]. Farmers adopt various adaptation measures based on their available and accessible assets or a mix of resources at the household, community, and national level [20]. However, there are concerns that using autonomous adaption measures and practices in agricultural production will not be sufficient to provide adaptability and resilience to upcoming climatic variability [21,22]. In Nigeria, climate modelling suggests that an increase in precipitation by 2050 may not result in an increase in crop yields because of the corresponding increases in temperature in most parts of the country [23]. This is particularly the case in areas where climate variability has already affected recent agricultural production, causing frequent crop failures and decreased yield due to the false start and early cessation of rains, droughts, and increases in temperatures, which limit the growing season [24,25,26]. Other political, economic, social, and environmental issues of relevance to smallholder farmers in Nigeria include underdevelopment, high rates of poverty, educational inequality, land degradation, and inadequate government policies that restrict agricultural development [24,27,28]. Therefore, the different adaptation strategies used by farming households to mitigate the effects of climate variability are particularly important because they can increase households’ socioeconomic resilience.
The concept of resilience amongst agricultural households is important because it describes the interplay of different demographic, societal, infrastructural, governance, economic, ecological, and agronomic factors that can reduce the vulnerability of households to climate change and variability [29,30]. Several studies have examined individual factors such as access to commercial markets or credit facilities for investment that can increase farmers’ income and therefore their resilience [31,32]. Other studies have explored the relationships among these different factors, where, for example, increases in social networking at the community level and through extension officers can build both households’ and communities’ resilience [33,34].
Both on-farm and off-farm adaptation strategies may be used to build a household’s resilience. On-farm strategies can include changing the type or variety of crop or the timing of sowing; the use of fertilizers, manure, or irrigation; tillage strategies; the use of farm equipment, diverse farm labour sources (household members or hired labour); cooperative farming; or a balance between cash and subsistence crops. Off-farm activities can include household members obtaining paid jobs elsewhere or developing small-scale businesses that are able to supplement the household’s income. These adaptation strategies may result in increased household resilience to climate change and variability [35,36].
The primary research question of this study was to consider how smallholder farming households in Nigeria use a portfolio of strategies of adaptation to climate change and variability. The detailed aim of the study was to explore the different on-farm and off-farm adaptation strategies adopted by 120 farming households in north-central Nigeria, sampled using a questionnaire administered face-to-face. This article (i) describes the study area and sampling strategy used in this study, (ii) presents the key results from the household questionnaire, and (iii) discusses these results in the context of the different on-farm and off-farm adaptation strategies used by farmers to sustain their livelihoods and build climate resilience. The outcome of this study is a more nuanced understanding of the factors that influence farming households’ adaptation strategies, with implications for how these households may become more resilient to future climate changes.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

Bokkos Local Government Area (LGA) is located in the Plateau State of Nigeria. This area falls within the central highland region that includes the Jos and Mambilla plateaus. It is one of the major agro-ecological zones on the Jos plateau and is known for the cultivation of Irish potato (Solanum tuberosum), which is considered a cash crop in Nigeria, and many vegetable crops that are not grown anywhere else in the country. Bokkos LGA had an estimated population in 2016 of 235,200 [37], which was distributed over eight districts (Figure 1). Three districts were purposively selected for this research because they represent locations where the majority of farming households engage in the cultivation of major crops such as Irish potato, maize (Zea mays), tomato (S. lycopersicum), acha (locally known as fonio), and peppers. Irish potato farming is the main agricultural activity in Bokkos, and its production in the area accounts for more than 45% of the national yield [38]. This crop is highly sensitive to both temperature and rainfall. It does well in cool temperate climates with optimum temperatures of about 18 °C and moderate rainfall of 850–1200 mm in a growing season, and at an altitude of 1400–3000 m asl [39]. Hence, continuous fluctuations in rainfall and temperature within a growing season will result in significant crop losses [40]. The majority of farming in the area is at a small scale, with the farm size per household averaging about 2 hectares.

2.2. Research Design

The four communities of Bokkos, Mbar, Daffo, and Mushere within three districts (Figure 1) were identified as areas with a high number of small-scale farmers engaged in intensive crop production and the supply of farm produce to markets. A list of farmers who satisfied the study’s eligibility requirements of being at least 18 years old and having more than 10 years of farming experience in the community was compiled with the help of traditional community leaders. A stratified sampling method of proportional allocation was adopted in the household questionnaire [41]. Thirty farming households were randomly selected for the questionnaire in each of the four communities, giving a total of 120 farming households.
The questionnaires were administered to 120 household heads by the researcher and assisted by field assistants. Questions included the farmers’ sociodemographic characteristics, alternative income sources, and their perceptions of climate variability and change over a 10-year period. Other questions included the size of the farms, the crops grown, the crops’ vulnerability to climate, ownership of livestock, access or ownership of irrigation equipment, crops grown on irrigated farms, and access to markets. Multivariate linear regression analysis was used to analyse the questionnaire data. It is assumed that farmers apply adaptation strategies selectively, according to need and capability (assets); thus, the strategies adopted may vary from household to household [42,43,44].
Regression analysis was carried out on questionnaire responses by using a Student t-test to identify the potential influence of factors such as farming experience, income and education on farmers’ adaptation decisions and strategies. These factors were analysed to determine their influence on how farmers make choices on how to respond to the impacts of changes in climate that affect their livelihood activities. A two-tailed test with a 5% significance level (p < 0.05) was undertaken to establish the strength of influence of the various dependent variables. This analysis was used to derive a better understanding of the various adaptation strategies being used in the study area, as well as the influence of livelihood assets on farmers’ choice of adaptation strategies.

3. Results

3.1. Sociodemographic Characteristics of the Respondents

The results from the questionnaire completed by heads of households showed that the modal age range of the sampled respondents (34.2%) was 41–50 years (Table 1). Out of the 120 heads of households, 111 (92.5%) were males and 9 (7.5%) were females. This indicates that middle-aged and older male farmers are the dominant group engaged in farming in these communities.
The greatest number of respondents (40, 33.3%), comprising 39 males and 1 female, had senior secondary-level education (Table 2). Female respondents were much less likely to be educated than males. Education level is significant, because it has implications for being able to identify and understand the meaning of climate change and to make appropriate adaptive responses.
Household size was highly variable (Table 3). Most households (50.8%) comprised one to three individuals. The composition of males and females was also highly variable between households and was not always made up of extended family members. The mean household size was made up of 3.8 males and 3.5 females. The mean household size was 7.5 individuals. A household’s size has implications for the potential farm labour force at its disposal. The results also showed that households have a high proportion of persons under 18 years of age (41.5%) (Table 4). These were made up of 51.5% males and 48.5% females. Adult individuals between 18 and 60 years constituted 54.5% of the households’ composition and included 46.8% males and 53.2% females (Table 4). The high percentage of females within this productive group might indicate a reduction in the potential farm labour force for some activities, considering the roles females play in agricultural and family activities in rural communities. Individuals above 60 years make up 4% of all household members, comprising 64% males and 36% females. These age and gender differences across households and within individual households have implications for the farm labour force, education status, and capacity to obtain off-farm incomes.
Table 5 shows that most household heads (110, 91.7%) have farming as their major source of household income. The majority of the 120 household heads (114, 95%) stated that they were self-employed, with only 6 (5%) being employed elsewhere. Of all respondents, 50 (41.7%) only engaged in farming crops such as potatoes, maize, sugarcane, tomatoes, peppers, and other vegetables, while others also engaged in off-farm income-generating ventures such as businesses or trading in goods and commodities (such as foodstuffs, firewood, agricultural chemicals, cooking local snacks, and brewing local beer) (Table 6). A minority of respondents worked as artisans (tailors, carpenters, masons, painters, miners, barbers, butchers, mechanics, and tyre repairers) or as commercial drivers or motorcycle riders (transporting goods and people).
Farmers were asked about the number of years they had been farming. The highest number of farmers (48, 40% of respondents) had been engaged in farming for 20–29 years (Table 7). The average years of farming experience was 29.5 years. This shows that the sampled farmers have considerable experience with weather and climate change in their area and are likely to know how to mitigate its negative impacts.
Annual income per household from farming activities varied considerably (Table 8), depending on the size of households and farms, the crops grown, and the degree of commercialization of agricultural activities, including access to markets. The results indicated that 25% of the sampled households earned NGN 100,000–299,999 yearly from selling their farm produce, while 22.5% earned NGN 700,000 and above (Table 3).
Analysis of the data from farming households also showed that the largest group of participants that engage in other income-generating ventures are those in small-scale trading or some other form of business (Table 6). The income from these off-farm activities is shown in Table 9. Overall, farming households earned an additional average annual income of NGN 313,768 (USD 408.37) by engaging in off-farm activities.
In total, farming households earned an average annual income of NGN 456,666 (USD 594.35). This included farming and off-farm activities in combination. The household living income in rural Nigeria in 2020 was calculated to be NGN 138,678 (USD 180.11) (95% confidence range: NGN 127,828–150,448) [45]. According to Table 8, around 22% of the sampled households who obtained their income from farming alone fell below this living income threshold (range: around 20–23%). Around 30% of households who obtained their income from non-farm activities alone fell below this threshold (range: around 27–33%). The average total household income was around 3.3 times the value of living income, but households may comprise many individuals and the mean household size is 7.5 individuals (Table 3). This means that the majority of the sampled households fell below the living income threshold and thus can be considered to be impoverished. The latest data from Nigeria’s National Bureau of Statistics suggest that 30.9% of citizens live below the international extreme poverty line, particularly in rural areas [46], which include the study area examined here. In a similar study on rural farmers’ socioeconomic resilience in Oyo State, Nigeria, farmers mainly belonged to the lower economic quintiles of the population [47].

3.2. Perceptions of Climate Variability and Change

Householders were asked about whether they felt the climate had changed or varied during the previous 10 years. This amount of time was deemed sufficient to assess how persistent climate variability has affected the livelihoods of farming households and was used as an inclusion criterion for participation in the study. The results showed that householders are aware of climate change and had noted its various expressions. A high number of farmers (108, 90%) had observed a decrease in rainfall, and this tended to be associated with the later onset of the rainy season (54, 45%) or where the rains had stopped early (14, 11.7%) (Table 10). The majority of farming households (99, 82.5%) had perceived a rise in temperatures.

3.3. Climate Adaptation Strategies Used in Farming Households

In order to deal with the impacts of climate change and variability at the household level in the study area, farmers use a number of adaptation strategies (Table 11). Almost all farmers (116 out of 120, 96.7%) changed their cropping patterns and planting practices, which involved adjusting the time they plant their crops, depending on when the rains began. Farmers explained that the common strategy was to plant early at the start of the rainy season in March so that their crops had enough time to mature. Respondent 9 from Bokkos stated that they planted crops such as potatoes at the onset of the rains to avoid late blight disease, which is common in July and August when rainfall is incessant. However, a delay in the commencement of rainfall or its early cessation can result in a shortened growth season in which their crops will not have adequate time to mature.
As a result of delays in the start of rainfall and frequent dry spells after false starts, farmers have adopted strategies to adjust their planting dates to prevent crop losses. Respondent 3 from Bokkos explained that because rainfall now appears to start late, he must delay planting until late April or early May, when the rains become constant. He said that planting used to be carried out in March because when the rain starts, it continues to fall, but more recently, the rain has become more episodic and stops for a long time before it resumes. Respondent 28 from Mushere reported that they had to delay planting in May (which was already late) to June because of the late onset of rainfall and the frequent dry spells that lasted for a week at a time. He said that most farmers have to suspend planting crops such as acha and potatoes that may be affected by rains in late July and August.
Another adaptation strategy is planting different crop varieties that can withstand diseases and drought. Out of 120 respondents, 77 (64.2%) say they have adopted this measure, especially for major crops such maize, potatoes, tomatoes, and beans, which has helped increase crop yields. With the prevalence of potato blight disease in the study area, famers say they have had to secure disease-resistant varieties of potato to safeguard their crops and improve yields.
Another adaptation strategy is the increased usage of chemicals, fertilizers, and organic manure (102, 85%). To prevent potato crops from being destroyed by potato blight disease (Phytophthora infestans), farmers have increased the use of fungicides such as “Glory” at critical stages of plant growth (foliage, flowering, and fruiting). Increased use of pesticides was also reported. Respondent 10 from Daffo stated that young maize plants are attacked at the roots and destroyed by worms (rootworms) and ants (army ants) when dry spells occur during the rainy season. He said that the application of pesticides has helped to control these pests and salvage their crops. Respondent 1 from Mushere said that he has reduced the area used for potato cultivation and now grows more beans and maize instead. Most farmers in Daffo reported that they have introduced new income-generating vegetable crops that take about 2 months to cultivate. They avoid growing these in periods in the rainy season, when crop diseases are common.
Irrigation is commonly used (by 103, 86%), mainly to control the water requirements for vegetable crops such as tomatoes, peppers, cabbages, and green beans. Farmers reported that although irrigation farming is costly at set-up, with the high cost of pumps and hoses, and because of the constant attention needed for watering crops, the benefits have proven to be profitable over time. Respondent 10 from Mushere also stated that farmers save healthy seeds that are free from disease after harvest that can be kept for planting the next year. Respondent 13 from Mbar stated that the earnings they obtain from selling crops from irrigated farms helps them in purchasing farm inputs such as agrichemicals, fertilizers, and seeds in preparation for the next farming season.
Off-farm activities are also used to supplement household incomes (Table 11). This includes small-scale trading in food items, engaging in different businesses, selling farm inputs such as agrichemicals and fertilizers, carpentry, and many others. These ventures help increase farms’ income, improve their assets, and build resilience to periods of adverse weather conditions. Farmers explained that a portion of their earnings from off-farm income sources was used in planning for the next farming season, and vice versa. Such activities are predominantly carried out by women, such as trade in food items, and cooking and selling local snacks. A female respondent stated that, as a woman, she had to find a means of generating extra income, especially in off-peak farming periods when she does not have to go to the fields.
Some respondents reported that they engage in more than one off-farm activity. Female Respondent 2 from Mbar stated that she brews and sells burukutu (the local sorghum beer), which brings her a considerable amount of income to buy farm inputs and take care of household needs. Other respondents stated that they sell livestock (goats, sheep, and chickens), seeds, clothing, household items (local pots, calabashes, and spoons), and farm implements (cutlasses, hoes, and machetes) at local markets. Working as a delivery driver was carried out mainly by men. Periods of high demand are on market days, when farmers need to transport their produce to the markets. Respondent 21 from Mushere said that he works as a carpenter, which helps to pay his children’s school fees and buy farm inputs and food items that they cannot grow on the farm.

3.4. Factors Influencing Farming Households’ Choice of Adaptation Strategies

Regression analysis showed that the number of years of farming experience was likely to influence farmers’ awareness of climate change and variability and their impacts. The analysis showed a p-value of 0.000, which is less than 0.05, indicating a significant positive relationship between farming experience and climate awareness. A regression model of these variables gave a result of R2 = 0.545. Analysis showed that householders’ education level significantly influenced (p = 0.000) the adaptation strategies adopted by farmers, including diversification of household income sources, and planting disease/drought-resistant varieties of seeds (p < 0.05). However, education level did not seem to have an influence on adaptation techniques such altering cropping patterns and planting times, substituting crops, using irrigation farming, and increasing farm inputs such as fertilizers, pesticides, and manure (p > 0.05). Overall, farmers were more likely to adopt climate change adaptation techniques if they were more educated (R2 = 0.795). Household income was a strong indicator of farmers’ access to irrigation facilities (p = 0.000), mechanized farming equipment (p = 0.000), and hiring farm labour (p < 0.020). However, engaging in irrigation farming did not appear to show a relationship with farmers’ income (p < 0.587).

4. Discussion

4.1. Vulnerability of Smallholder Farming Households to Climate Change

There is increasing recognition of the importance of farmers’ perceptions of climate variability and change in climate adaptation studies [48,49]. This is because the adaptation techniques used by farmers are often based on their perceptions of previous occurrences and their predictions for the future [44]. Research has suggested that there is a likelihood that farmers will adapt to variations in climate if they can perceive these changes [50,51].
This study indicates that the majority of farmers in the study area have experienced decreased rainfall and increased temperatures, and nearly half have experienced delays in the onset of seasonal rains in the previous 10 years (Table 10). Farmers have also observed increased rainfall in July and August, and early cessation of these rains. These observations match with results from previous studies on farmers’ perceptions [52,53] and from climate observations and modelling studies in Nigeria [54].
Delays in the onset of seasonal rains affect when farmers plant their crops, and this then has knock-on effects throughout the season. Although some farmers plant in anticipation of the rains, they stand the risk of losing their seeds and seedlings to insects and animal pests if the rains do not start as expected. Hence, farmers often delay planting. This delay also means an adjustment in harvesting dates and when crops for the minor (second rains) farming season are planted [55]. The minor farming season is typically shorter in duration (lasting for a few weeks to a couple of months) and is characterized by less rainfall compared with the major season. It usually involves the planting of short-duration crops, such as high-value crops such as potatoes and vegetables that can be sold for market. A successful second-season crop can help farmers diversify their sources of income, but if this season is delayed or if these shorter rains fail, then farmers do not have this additional income source. Farmers also experience prolonged dry spells of days to weeks within the rainy season. This cessation of rainfall is accompanied by increased temperatures that result in the wilting of sprouting crops such as maize, peppers, and beans [56,57]. Under these conditions of decreased soil moisture, rootworms (Buphonella spp.) can emerge, which attack the roots of maize crops, leading to losses and decreased yields [58].
However, the perceptions and actions of individual farmers are also set in a wider household and community context [59,60]. Households commonly comprise members of the immediate and extended family, are multigenerational, and may also include non-blood-family members such as farm workers [61]. The dynamics of the households’ members in smallholder farming activities has not been examined in detail in previous studies, and this is a limitation because it is known that there are generational and gendered roles for household members in direct farming activities (sowing, planting, watering, digging, and harvesting) and in support activities (processing, preparing, and storing foodstuffs and derived products) [62,63]. Thus, the vulnerability of individual households goes beyond the perceptions, vulnerabilities, and actions of the householders themselves.

4.2. On-Farm and Off-Farm Adaptation Strategies

Farming households in the study area have adopted a variety of on-farm and off-farm strategies to adapt to the impacts of changing climate and climate variability (Table 11). The farm-based adaptation strategies identified include changing cropping patterns and the time of planting; planting disease-resistant and drought-tolerant varieties; using fertilizers, manure, and agrichemicals; practicing crop substitution and rotation; and practicing irrigation farming.
Planting different crop types as an adaptation strategy was undertaken by only 18% of the household respondents (Table 11). Here, potato production was being replaced by maize and beans, since these are less sensitive to variability in the climate. Farmers in Mbar now plant maize and beans on more of their land than potatoes. The most popular crops now grown in Mushere are acha (fonio) and maize, since they can survive diseases and dry spells. The cultivation of cocoyams and sugarcane in the region has also been reduced because of the impacts of disease and insufficient rainfall. Multicropping and intercropping are also carried out [40], and these may have intensified in response to climate variability. This is because different crops have different resilience to fluctuating climates; hence, growing a variety of crops in one area could guarantee better productivity [60,64,65,66]. Farmers have started growing kayan gwari (vegetable crops) in Daffo, including yellow peppers, green beans, peas, green peppers, and cabbages. These crops were not typically planted in the area a few years ago but are now important high-income crops, since they mature for harvest in roughly 2 months and are grown in periods with less frequent heavy rain. Farmers use the income from selling these vegetables to buy fertilizers and agrichemicals for their regular crops of maize, beans, and potatoes.
More climate-resilient crop varieties are necessary where major crops such as maize, potatoes, tomatoes, and beans are impacted by disease and insect infestations during high rainfall or prolonged dry intervals. The maize varieties grown are drought-tolerant and resistant to pests such as rootworm, and are high-yielding. The preferred potato varieties are Marabel, Yellow, and Nicola, which are resistant to early and late blight diseases. Chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and insecticides are also widely used. Although these are not specifically related to climate adaptation, their use can give higher crop yields and reduce the likelihood of crop failure, thereby increasing the household’s resilience [67]. However, this requires investment. The use of cow dung and chicken manure as organic fertilizers is cheaper, and some farmers claimed that these are a better option because chemical fertilizers are often contaminated and of poor quality. Additionally, such organic fertilizers and compost can improve the soil’s fertility, the soil’s water-holding capacity, and increase crop yields [66].
Irrigation of part of a farmer’s smallholding is also commonly undertaken and is used by 86% of respondents in this study (Table 11). This is typically used on small plots (an average of 1–2 hectares), using low-cost equipment such as motorized pumps, flexible hoses, metal pipes, and buckets to draw water from diverse sources, which may include rivers, streams, and earth dams. Farmers claim that growing crops during the dry season is less uncertain than in the wet season when they have a reliable source of water for irrigation. This allows farmers to grow a variety of crops throughout the year, reducing their reliance on rainfed agriculture. Irrigation is used as a more constant water supply for growing vegetable crops such as tomatoes, peppers, cabbages, and green beans. Farmers also use irrigation farming to raise disease-free, high-yield seed and storage potatoes. Due to the high demand for the crops they grow under irrigation, farmers can improve their profits by selling products at a premium. Farmers acknowledged that irrigation farming is a workable adaptation strategy to deal with unpredictable weather patterns and crop diseases. They also highlighted problems, including poor access to irrigation equipment, with some farmers borrowing or hiring them from other farmers; a lack of dependable water sources such as farm dams, whereas rivers may dry up in the dry season; and a lack of availability of improved seeds, agrichemicals, and fertilizers at discounted prices.
The capacity to develop and use these on-farm adaptation strategies was related to farmers’ experience (and thus their age), but it also required education and awareness of different adaptation options, social support networks from other farmers or agricultural extension officers or from within the household, and a willingness or ambition to adapt [68,69,70]. These factors may vary from one person or situation to another. Some strategies may also be unaffordable for individual farmers.
Off-farm adaptation strategies focused on the generation of income for the household, especially in situations where agricultural production and yields were uncertain or are strongly impacted by changes in rainfall, or where farmers did not have the income to invest in more resilient crops or infrastructure such as irrigation. Households indicated that they were diversifying their sources of income more so than in the past, and this is likely to be an outcome of increased climate variability. The results showed that around one-third of households have taken up a diverse portfolio of activities to increase their household income (Table 11). These included small-scale trading in food items, engaging in transportation business, selling farm inputs such as agrichemicals and fertilizers, carpentry, masonry, and brewing the local beer, amongst others. Small-scale trading is performed mainly by the women in the households. These activities involve selling raw food items such as rice, maize, beans and other grains in small measured quantities, as well as cooked and roasted maize, groundnuts, and sweet potatoes, which are sold as snacks. Other trading activities involve the brewing and selling of burukutu (the local sorghum beer), and selling seed potatoes, used clothing, and household items (local pots, calabashes, and spoons). The selling of livestock (mostly goats, sheep, and chickens), farm tools (cutlasses, hoes, and machetes), fertilizers, and agrichemicals is mostly undertaken by men. According to the respondents, one of the most lucrative activities is rearing and selling livestock. This is because animals are raised free-range and scavenge for food themselves, and animal production is less affected by variability in the weather.
The off-farm activities undertaken within households may depend on the skills, education status, and interests of individuals. This may also be linked to age and gender [64]. It may also relate to their ambition and entrepreneurship, social networking within the community, access to potential markets or sources of employment in local towns, or access to transport. These factors highlight that awareness and then the use of certain adaptation strategies are influenced by social and other environmental factors [29,71,72].

4.3. Comparison of Evidence of Farmer Adaptations to Climate Change in Other Regions

The results from this study can be compared with other evidence of climate change adaptation by smallholder farmers in Nigeria and elsewhere. The emphasis in these previous studies has been on farm-based agricultural adaptations such as conservation agriculture methods [73], crop diversification [29], and irrigation and water management [74]. Major controls on the strategies chosen for climate change adaptation include the households’ asset types and availability [31,34], and the presence of community or social networks to facilitate the exchange of information and knowledge [33,75]. Another emerging research area is in climate-smart agriculture, which focuses on the intersection of conservation agriculture techniques, informed by traditional knowledge and other support systems, to facilitate long-term food sustainability [76,77,78]. However, this focuses only on on-farm food security and household income. Climate-smart agriculture, amongst other strategies, represents only one part of a diverse basket of household activities that can contribute to households’ resilience under climate change. There is limited understanding of the potential contribution of off-farm activities, and this is a unique element of this present study that considers both on-farm and off-farm adaptation strategies.

4.4. Building the Resilience of Smallholder Farming Households to Climate Change and Variability

This study emphasized that different on-farm and off-farm activities can provide a more diverse income stream for farming households in north-central Nigeria and, in so doing, can increase the households’ resilience. Engaging in small-scale trading and business ventures allows farmers to generate additional income apart from their farming activities. If one income source is affected by climate variability, income from other business activities can help offset the losses. Several studies have highlighted the engagement of rural farmers in Africa in livelihood diversification to cushion the impacts of variations in rainfall [64,65,79]. This is relevant to building resilience because hitherto, most studies have focused on the adaptations undertaken by farmers related to farming activities only. However, it is more valuable to consider adaptation and resilience at the household level, since this includes family or community members of different ages, genders, and education levels. As indicated in this study, off-farm activities may be highly diverse, and men and women in the household commonly undertake different types of activities.
To build household resilience, governmental and other institutions and agencies should provide suitable training and support to farmers so they can diversify into different on-farm or off-farm activities or to switch to more resilient crops or agricultural methods. At present, such training and education is not being provided consistently at the local level, and this is a limitation on developing farmers’ adaptive capacity. Training and support in other business ventures, especially empowering women entrepreneurs, is also needed.

5. Conclusions

This study showed that farming households in north-central Nigeria are actively engaged in various on-farm and off-farm activities to ameliorate the adverse impacts of climate variability, particularly changing rainfall and temperature patterns, on their livelihoods. In many cases, off-farm activities provide vital income support for households and can improve the households’ resilience. On-farm strategies include changing the planting time, crop diversification, planting drought-tolerant and disease- and pest-resistant crop varieties, planting early-maturing crops, the use of fertilizers and manure, and engaging in irrigation farming. Off-farm strategies include small-scale trading and business activities. These help households augment their income from farming and enable them to adapt better to climate variability. The interplay between these different elements, as part of a wide basket of adaptation tools available to households, has not been explored in detail in previous studies. This highlights that agricultural adaptations alone, such as conservation or climate-smart agriculture encompassing irrigation, crop diversification, drought-resistant varieties, intercropping and mulching, may be insufficient to provide sufficient resilience for farming households and to meet the sustainable development goals. The study showed that farmers’ experience, education, and income significantly influence their awareness and knowledge of the impacts of climate change, and these, in turn, make it more likely that they will implement different climate adaptation measures. Diversifying the income base of farming households is likely to be the most sustainable strategy for increasing households’ resilience, given increased temperatures and higher rainfall variability.
The limitations of the study are that a detailed household-level analysis of the adaptation strategies was not undertaken or compared among different areas or farming types. This analysis may be able to identify the relative roles of on-farm and off-farm strategies, depending on the households’ demographic and socioeconomic factors. Another future research direction is to consider the role of external actors, such as agricultural extension, training, and support networks, to help households diversify their income base, and the institutional capacity needed to provide this support.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, B.A.H. and J.K.; methodology, J.K.; field investigation, B.A.H.; writing—original draft preparation, B.A.H.; writing—review and editing, J.K.; supervision, J.K.; project administration, B.A.H. and J.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the ethics committee of the University of the Witwatersrand (clearance number H21/04/11).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. This study forms part of the PhD thesis of B.A.H., supervised by J.K.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Adu, D.T.; Kuwornu, J.K.; Anim-Somuah, H.; Sasaki, N. Application of livelihood vulnerability index in assessing smallholder maize farming households. Kasetsart J. Soc. Sci. 2018, 39, 22–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Climate Change 2014, Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects; Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  3. Niang, I.; Ruppel, O.C.; Abdrabo, M.A.; Essel, A.; Lennard, C.; Padgham, J.; Urquhart, P. Africa. In Climate Change. Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Part B: Regional Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2014; pp. 1199–1265. [Google Scholar]
  4. Nangombe, S.; Zhou, T.; Zhang, W.; Wu, B.; Hu, S.; Zou, L.; Li, D. Record-breaking climate extremes in Africa under stabilized 1.5 °C and 2 °C global warming scenarios. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2018, 8, 375–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Calzadilla, A.; Zhu, T.; Rehdanz, K.; Tol, R.S.; Ringler, C. Economy wide impacts of climate change on agriculture in Sub-Saharan Africa. Ecol. Econ. 2013, 93, 150–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Bandara, J.S.; Cai, Y. The impact of climate change on food crop productivity, food prices and food security in South Asia. Econ. Anal. Policy 2014, 44, 451–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Evans, L.; Milfont, T.L.; Lawrence, J. Considering local adaptation increases willingness to mitigate. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2014, 25, 69–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Hawkins, P.; Geza, W.; Mabhaudhi, T.; Sutherland, C.; Queenan, K.; Dangour, A.; Scheelbeek, P. Dietary and agricultural adaptations to drought among smallholder farmers in South Africa: A qualitative study. Weather Clim. Extrem. 2023, 35, 100413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Calzadilla, A.; Zhu, T.; Rehdanz, K.; Tol, R.S.; Ringler, C. Climate change and agriculture: Impacts and adaptation options in South Africa. Water Resour. Econ. 2014, 5, 24–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Serdeczny, O.; Adams, S.; Baarsch, F.; Coumou, D.; Robinson, A.; Hare, W.; Schaeffer, M.; Perrette, M.; Reinhardt, J. Climate change impacts in Sub-Saharan Africa: From physical changes to their social repercussions. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2017, 17, 1585–1600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Barrios, S.; Ouattara, B.; Strobl, E. The impact of climatic change on agricultural production: Is it different for Africa? Food Policy 2008, 33, 287–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Nelson, G.C.; Van Der Mensbrugghe, D.; Ahammad, H.; Blanc, E.; Calvin, K.; Hasegawa, T.; Havlik, P.; Heyhoe, E.; Kyle, P.; Lotze-Campen, H.; et al. Agriculture and climate change in global scenarios: Why don’t the models agree. Agric. Econ. 2014, 45, 85–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Mulwa, C.; Marenya, P.; Kassie, M. Response to climate risks among smallholder farmers in Malawi: A multivariate probit assessment of the role of information, household demographics, and farm characteristics. Clim. Risk Manag. 2017, 16, 208–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Kotir, J.H. Climate change and variability in Sub-Saharan Africa: A review of current and future trends and impacts on agriculture and food security. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2011, 13, 587–605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Pereira, L. Climate Change Impacts on Agriculture across Africa. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Environmental Science; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2017; Available online: https://oxfordre.com/environmentalscience/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199389414.001.0001/acrefore-9780199389414-e-292 (accessed on 17 October 2020).
  16. Livingstone, G.; Schonberger, S.; Delaney, S. Sub-Saharan Africa: The state of smallholders in agriculture. In Proceedings of the IFAD Conference on New Directions for Smallholder Agriculture, Rome, Italy, 24–25 January 2011. [Google Scholar]
  17. Jones, P.G.; Thornton, P.K. Croppers to livestock keepers: Livelihood transitions to 2050 in Africa due to climate change. Environ. Sci. Policy 2009, 12, 427–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Schlenker, W.; Lobell, D.B. Robust negative impacts of climate change on African agriculture. Environ. Res. Lett. 2010, 5, 014010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Adger, W.N.; Huq, S.; Brown, K.; Conway, D.; Hulme, M. Adaptation to climate change in the developing world. Progr. Dev. Stud. 2003, 3, 179–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Pandey, R.; Kumar, P.; Archie, K.M.; Gupta, A.K.; Joshi, P.K.; Valente, D.; Petrosillo, I. Climate change adaptation in the western-Himalayas: Household level perspectives on impacts and barriers. Ecol. Indic. 2018, 84, 27–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Kalanda-Joshua, M.; Ngongondo, C.; Chipeta, L.; Mpembeka, F. Integrating indigenous knowledge with conventional science: Enhancing localised climate and weather forecasts in Nessa, Mulanje, Malawi. Phys. Chem. Earth 2011, 36, 996–1003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Quandt, A.; Neufeldt, H.; McCabe, J.T. Building livelihood resilience: What role does agroforestry play? Clim. Dev. 2019, 11, 485–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Mereu, V.; Carboni, G.; Gallo, A.; Cervigni, R.; Spano, D. Impact of climate change on staple food crop production in Nigeria. Clim. Chang. 2015, 132, 321–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Ayanlade, A.; Radeny, M.; Morton, J.F. Comparing smallholder farmers’ perception of climate change with meteorological data: A case study from southwestern Nigeria. Weather Clim. Extrem. 2017, 15, 24–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Ologeh, I.O.; Akarakiri, J.B.; Adesina, F.A. Constraints and Limits to Climate Change Adaptation Efforts in Nigeria. In Limits to Climate Change Adaptation; Filho, W.L., Nalau, J., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 159–174. [Google Scholar]
  26. Nnadi, O.I.; Liwenga, E.T.; Lyimo, J.G.; Madukwe, M.C. Impacts of variability and change in rainfall on gender of farmers in Anambra, Southeast Nigeria. Heliyon 2019, 5, e02085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Building Nigeria’s Response to Climate Change (BNRCC). National Adaptation Strategy and Plan of Action on Climate Change for Nigeria (NASPA-CCN). 2011. Available online: www.nigeriaclimatechange.org (accessed on 12 May 2020).
  28. Otitoju, M.A.; Enete, A.A. Climate change adaptation: Uncovering constraints to the use of adaptation strategies among food crop farmers in South-west, Nigeria using principal component analysis (PCA). Cogent Food Agric. 2016, 2, 1178692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Ackerl, T.; Weldemariam, L.F.; Nyasimi, M.; Ayanlade, A. Climate change risk, resilience, and adaptation among rural farmers in East Africa: A literature review. Reg. Sustain. 2023, 4, 185–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Muhan, Q. Developing agriculture resilience in sub-Saharan Africa. Soil Use Manag. 2023, 39, 8–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Ojo, T.O.; Adetoro, A.A.; Ogundeji, A.A.; Belle, J.A. Quantifying the determinants of climate change adaptation strategies and farmers’ access to credit in South Africa. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 792, 148499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Saha, A.; Sabates-Wheeler, R.; Thompson, J. Insights into smallholder capacity for agricultural commercialisation: Evidence from four African contexts. Eur. J. Develop. Res. 2022, 34, 1757–1802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Olawuyi, S.O. Building resilience against food insecurity through social networks. The case of rural farmers in Oyo State, Nigeria. Int. J. Social Econ. 2019, 46, 874–886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Myeki, V.A.; Bahta, Y.T. Determinants of Smallholder Livestock Farmers’ Household Resilience to Food Insecurity in South Africa. Climate 2021, 9, 117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Asfaw, S.; Pallante, G.; Palma, A. Diversification strategies and adaptation deficit: Evidence from rural communities in Niger. World Dev. 2018, 101, 219–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Nyong, A.P.; Ngankam, T.M.; Felicite, T.L. Enhancement of resilience to climate variability and change through agroforestry practices in smallholder farming systems in Cameroon. Agrofood Syst. 2020, 94, 687–705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. National Population Commission. Estimated Population Figure. 2016. Available online: https://nigerianstat.gov.ng/download/474 (accessed on 10 May 2020).
  38. Ayuba, S.M.; Kitsche, M. Promotion of Potato Value Chains in Nigeria: Economic Development for Peace and Stability in Plateau State. Abuja, Nigeria. 2014. Available online: https://daserste.ndr.de/panorama/media/potato102.pdf (accessed on 22 May 2020).
  39. Ndegwa, B.W.; Okaka, F.; Omondi, P. Impacts of climate change and variability on Irish potato production. Int. J. Res. Innov. Soc. Sci. 2020, 4, 2454–6186. [Google Scholar]
  40. Jovovic, Z.; Micev, B.; Velimirovic, A. Impact of climate change on potato production in Montenegro and options to mitigate the adverse effects. Acad. J. Environ. Sci. 2016, 4, 47–54. [Google Scholar]
  41. Kothari, C.R. Research Methodology: Methods and Techniques; New Age International: Delhi, India, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  42. Paudel, G.S.; Thapa, G.B. Impact of social, institutional and ecological factors on land management practices in mountain watersheds of Nepal. Appl. Geogr. 2004, 24, 35–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Hair, J.F.; Black, W.C.; Babin, B.J.; Anderson, R.E. Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th ed.; Prentice Hall: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  44. Yila, J.O.; Resurreccion, B.P. Determinants of smallholder farmers’ adaptation strategies to climate change in the semi-arid Nguru Local Government Area, Northeastern Nigeria. Manag. Environ. Qual. 2013, 24, 341–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Global Living Wage Coalition. Anker Living Income Reference Value, Rural Nigeria 2020. 2021. Available online: https://globallivingwage.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Rural-Nigeria-LI-Reference-Value.pdf (accessed on 10 October 2023).
  46. World Bank. Poverty & Equity Brief, Western & Central Africa, Nigeria. 2023. Available online: https://databankfiles.worldbank.org/public/ddpext_download/poverty/987B9C90-CB9F-4D93-AE8C-750588BF00QA/current/Global_POVEQ_NGA.pdf (accessed on 11 October 2023).
  47. Olawuyi, S.O.; Olawuyi, T.D.; Ijila, O.J.; Oyeleye, O.A. Sustainable Food Systems and Farmers’ Welfare Status Distribution in Oyo State, Nigeria: Building Buffers Against Shocks and Stressors Through Resilience Pillars. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2022, 6, 902289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Mairura, F.S.; Musafiri, C.M.; Kiboi, M.N.; Macharia, J.M.; Ng’etich, O.K.; Shisanya, C.A.; Okeyo, J.M.; Mugendi, D.N.; Okwuosa, E.A.; Ngetich, F.K. Determinants of farmers’ perceptions of climate variability, mitigation, and adaptation strategies in the central highlands of Kenya. Weather Clim. Extrem. 2021, 34, 100374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Mavhura, E.; Manyangadze, T.; Aryal, K.R. Perceived impacts of climate variability and change: An exploration of farmers’ adaptation strategies in Zimbabwe’s intensive farming region. GeoJournal 2022, 87, 3669–3684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Moser, S.C.; Boykoff, M.T. (Eds.) Successful Adaptation to Climate Change: Linking Science and Policy in a Rapidly Changing World; Routledge: Oxford, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  51. Bagagnan, A.R.; Ouedraogo, I.; Fonta, W.M. Perceived climate variability and farm level adaptation in the Central River Region of The Gambia. Atmosphere 2019, 10, 423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Tarfa, P.Y.; Ayuba, H.K.; Onyeneke, R.U.; Idris, N.; Nwajiuba, C.A.; Igberi, C.O. Climate change perception and adaptation in Nigeria’s guinea savanna: Empirical evidence from farmers in Nasarawa State, Nigeria. Appl. Ecol. Environ. Res. 2019, 1, 17–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Ifeanyi-obi, C.C.; Wigwe, C.C.; Adesope, O.M.; Obafemi, A. Traditional perceptions of climate change phenomenon influencing adaptation decisions among women crop farmers in southern Nigeria. J. Agric. Extrem. 2023, 27, 15–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Ogunrinde, A.T.; Oguntunde, P.G.; Akinwumiju, A.S.; Fasinmirin, J.T. Analysis of recent changes in rainfall and drought indices in Nigeria, 1981–2015. Hydrol. Sci. J. 2019, 64, 1755–1768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Fosu-Mensah, B.Y.; Manchadi, A.; Vlek, P.G. Impacts of climate change and climate variability on maize yield under rainfed conditions in the sub-humid zone of Ghana: A scenario analysis using APSIM. West Afr. J. Appl. Ecol. 2019, 27, 108–126. [Google Scholar]
  56. Barron, J.; Rockström, J.; Gichuki, F.; Hatibu, N. Dry spell analysis and maize yields for two semi-arid locations in east Africa. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2003, 117, 23–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Bako, M.M.; Mashi, S.A.; Bello, A.A.; Adamu, J.I. Spatiotemporal analysis of dry spells for support to agriculture adaptation efforts in the Sudano-Sahelian region of Nigeria. SN Appl. Sci. 2020, 2, 1342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Mutekwa, V.T. Climate change impacts and adaptation in the agricultural sector: The case of smallholder farmers in Zimbabwe. J. Sustain. Dev. Afr. 2009, 11, 237–256. [Google Scholar]
  59. Deressa, T.T.; Hassan, R.M.; Ringler, C.; Alemu, T.; Yesuf, M. Determinants of farmers’ choice of adaptation methods to climate change in the Nile Basin of Ethiopia. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2009, 19, 248–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Hassan, R.M.; Nhemachena, C. Determinants of African farmers’ strategies for adapting to climate change: Multinomial choice analysis. Afr. J. Agric. Res. Econ. 2008, 2, 83–104. [Google Scholar]
  61. Oluyole, K.A.; Dada, O.A.; Oni, O.A.; Adebiyi, S.; Oduwole, O.O. Farm labour structure and its determinants among cocoa farmers in Nigeria. Am. J. Rural Dev. 2013, 1, 1–5. [Google Scholar]
  62. Agarwal, B. Gender and land rights revisited: Exploring new prospects via the state, family and market. J. Agrar. Chang. 2003, 3, 184–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Akinola, A.O. Women, culture and Africa’s Land Reform Agenda. Front. Psychol. 2018, 9, 22–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Antwi-Agyei, P.; Stringer, L.C.; Dougill, A.J. Livelihood adaptations to climate variability: Insights from farming households in Ghana. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2014, 14, 1615–1626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Ojo, T.O.; Baiyegunhi, L.J. Determinants of climate change adaptation strategies and its impact on the net farm income of rice farmers in south-west Nigeria. Land Use Policy 2020, 95, 103946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Bryan, E.; Ringler, C.; Okoba, B.; Roncoli, C.; Silvestri, S.; Herrero, M. Adapting agriculture to climate change in Kenya: Household strategies and determinants. J. Environ. Manag. 2013, 114, 26–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Asare-Nuamah, P.; Mandaza, M.S. Climate change adaptation strategies and food security of smallholder farmers in the rural Adansi North District of Ghana. In Handbook of Climate Change Management: Research, Leadership, Transformation; Filho, W.L., Luetz, J.M., Ayal, D., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 265–283. [Google Scholar]
  68. Abdulai, A.; Huffman, W. The adoption and impact of soil and water conservation technology: An endogenous switching regression application. Land Econ. 2014, 90, 26–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Habtemariam, L.T.; Gandorfer, M.; Kassa, G.A.; Heissenhuber, A. Factors influencing smallholder farmers’ climate change perceptions: A study from farmers in Ethiopia. Environ. Manag. 2016, 58, 343–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Tofu, D.A.; Mengistu, M. Observed time series trend analysis of climate variability and smallholder adoption of new agricultural technologies in west Shewa, Ethiopia. Sci. Afr. 2023, 19, e01448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Hussein, K.; Nelson, J. Sustainable Livelihoods and Livelihood Diversification; IDS Working Paper; Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex: Brighton, England, 1998; p. 69. [Google Scholar]
  72. Washo, J.A.; Tolosa, S.F.; Debsu, J.K. Determinants of rural households’ livelihood diversification decision: The case of Didessa and Bedelle Districts, Bunno Bedelle Zone, Oromia Regional State, Ethiopia. Afr. J. Agric. Res. 2021, 17, 1573–1580. [Google Scholar]
  73. Enete, A.A.; Madu, I.A.; Onwubuya, E.A. Climate change and the profitability of indigenous adaptation practices in smallholder agriculture in South East Nigeria. Outlook Agric. 2012, 41, 179–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Xie, H.; You, L.; Takeshima, H. Invest in small-scale irrigated agriculture: A national assessment on potential to expand small-scale irrigation in Nigeria. Agric. Water Manag. 2017, 193, 251–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Ikuemonisan, E.S.; Ajibefun, I.A. Economic Implications of Smallholders’ Collaborative Groupings on Household Income and Adaptability to Climate Change in Nigeria. Sustainability 2021, 13, 13668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Chandra, A.; McNamara, K.E.; Dargusch, P. Climate-smart agriculture: Perspectives and framings. Clim. Policy 2018, 18, 526–541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Ariom, T.O.; Dimon, E.; Nambeye, E.; Diouf, N.S.; Adelusi, O.O.; Boudalia, S. Climate-Smart Agriculture in African Countries: A Review of Strategies and Impacts on Smallholder Farmers. Sustainability 2022, 14, 11370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Tabe-Ojong, M.P.; Aihounton, G.B.D.; Lokossou, J.C. Climate-smart agriculture and food security: Cross-country evidence from West Africa. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2023, 81, 102697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Aniah, P.; Kaunza-Nu-Dem, M.K.; Quacou, I.E.; Abugre, J.A.; Abindaw, B.A. The effects of climate change on livelihoods of smallholder farmers in the upper east region of Ghana. Int. J. Sci. Basic Appl. Res. 2016, 28, 1–20. [Google Scholar]
Sustainability 15 16309 g001
Figure 1. Map of the study area of Bokkos LGA, north-central Nigeria.
Figure 1. Map of the study area of Bokkos LGA, north-central Nigeria.
Sustainability 15 16309 g001
Table 1. Age of the respondents.
Table 1. Age of the respondents.
Age GroupFrequencyPercentage
21–30 years108.3
31–40 years3529.2
41–50 years4134.2
51–60 years1411.7
61 and above2016.7
Total120100.0
Table 2. Highest educational level and gender of the household head respondents.
Table 2. Highest educational level and gender of the household head respondents.
Educational LevelMaleFemalePercentage
Primary19419.2
Junior secondary12010.0
Senior secondary39133.3
Tertiary35029.1
No formal education643.4
Total1119100.0
Table 3. Household size.
Table 3. Household size.
Household SizeNumber of Households (%)
1–361 (50.8)
4–645 (37.5)
7–913 (10.8%)
10 or above1 (0.8)
Total120
Table 4. Households’ size, age, and gender composition.
Table 4. Households’ size, age, and gender composition.
Households’ Age CompositionMale (%)Female (%)Total (%)
Less than 18 years192 (43.2)181 (40.0)373 (41.5)
18–60 years229 (51.6)260 (57.2)489 (54.5)
Above 60 years23 (5.2)13 (2.8)36 (4.0)
Total444 (100)454 (100)898 (100)
Table 5. Farming the major source of income by the household heads.
Table 5. Farming the major source of income by the household heads.
Farming the Major Source of IncomeFrequencyPercentage
Yes11091.7
No108.3
Total120100.0
Table 6. Employment type for employed and self-employed household heads.
Table 6. Employment type for employed and self-employed household heads.
Employment TypeFrequencyPercentage
Farming5041.7
Trading/business3428.3
Artisan1613.3
Driving1411.7
Government worker65.0
Total120100.0
Table 7. Number of years engaged in farming by the household heads.
Table 7. Number of years engaged in farming by the household heads.
Years in FarmingFrequencyPercentage
10–19 years3226.7
20–29 years4134.2
30–39 years2117.5
40–49 years1310.8
50 years and above1310.8
Total120100.0
Table 8. Average yearly household income from farming, where USD 1 is equivalent to around NGN 766 (approximate values as of October 2023).
Table 8. Average yearly household income from farming, where USD 1 is equivalent to around NGN 766 (approximate values as of October 2023).
Average Annual Income (NGN)FrequencyPercentage
Less than 100,0002016.7
100,000–299,9993025.0
300,000–499,9992319.2
500,000–699,9992016.7
700,000 and above2722.5
Total120100.0
Table 9. Average yearly household income from sources other than farming, where USD 1 is equivalent to around NGN 766 (approximate values as of October 2023).
Table 9. Average yearly household income from sources other than farming, where USD 1 is equivalent to around NGN 766 (approximate values as of October 2023).
Average Annual Income (NGN)Government WorkerTrading/
Business		DrivingArtisanTotal
Less than 100,000092314
100,000–299,99901771034
300,000–499,999251311
500,000–699,99930205
700,000 and above12205
Total633141669
Table 10. Farming households’ perceptions of climate change and variability.
Table 10. Farming households’ perceptions of climate change and variability.
Climatic VariableFrequency (n = 120)Percentage
Rainfall
Increase in rainfall75.8
Decrease in rainfall10890.0
No changes in rainfall54.2
Late onset of rainfall5445.0
Dry spells119.2
Early cessation of rainfall1411.7
Temperature
Increase in temperature9982.5
Decrease in temperature1210.1
No changes in temperature97.5
Table 11. Farming households’ perceptions of climate variability. Grey shading indicates on-farm activities, and no shading indicates off-farm activities.
Table 11. Farming households’ perceptions of climate variability. Grey shading indicates on-farm activities, and no shading indicates off-farm activities.
Adaptation StrategiesFrequency (n = 120)Percentage
Changing cropping patterns and planting practices (early or late planting)11696.7
Engaging in irrigation farming10386.0
Intensifying the use of fertilizers and agrichemicals to boost crop yields10285.0
Planting different crop varieties such as disease resistant and drought-tolerant varieties7764.2
Diversification of household sources of income by engaging in small-scale commodity trading, artisanal ventures, and small businesses4537.5
Diversification of crop types, including crop substitution to cope with environmental variations2218.3
Changing from farming to non-farming activities by permanent or temporary migration in search of employment43.3
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Hassan, B.A.; Knight, J. Adaptation to Climate Change and Variability by Farming Households in North-Central Nigeria. Sustainability 2023, 15, 16309. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152316309

AMA Style

Hassan BA, Knight J. Adaptation to Climate Change and Variability by Farming Households in North-Central Nigeria. Sustainability. 2023; 15(23):16309. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152316309

Chicago/Turabian Style

Hassan, Buhari Arin, and Jasper Knight. 2023. "Adaptation to Climate Change and Variability by Farming Households in North-Central Nigeria" Sustainability 15, no. 23: 16309. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152316309

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop