THE IMPACT OF CLIMATE VARIABILITY ON THE LIVELIHOOD OF FARMERS

AND THEIR ADAPTATION STRATEGIES IN TEMBARO DISTRICT, CENTERAL

ETHIOPIA

Degineh Herano, degineh@hu.edu.et, MSc in climate change and development and BSc in
environmental science, has no prior publications (this is the first article). Degineh generated the
idea and designed the study, carried out the data collection, data analysis, and write-up.
Finally, author read and approved the final version of the manuscript.
Wondo Genet College of forestry and natural resources, Hawassa University, Hawassa, Ethiopia
Email: wgcf@telecom.net.et
Web site: www. Hu.edu.et
Acknowledgments
I would like to express my profound gratitude to Hawassa University Wondo Genet College of
forestry and natural resource for their financial support in accomplishing this paper. In addition, I
would like to thank the Ethiopian Meteorological Agency that provided the meteorological data
for this work, and the local communities for their information in data collection for this work.
Funding
Self-sponsored
Competing interests

1. Conflict of interest
I declare that there is no competing interests
2. Human and animal rights
This article does not contain any human and animal studies conducted by any of the authors.
 ABSTRACT

Agriculture is the main source of Ethiopian economy, which suffers from increasing frequency
and intensity of climate-related disasters. In the past few years, increasing resilience and
adapting to climate change through implementing sound adaptation strategies has become an
interesting issue for the developing countries like Ethiopia. Accordingly, this study demonstrates
how farmers’ perception and their adaptation strategies to climate. In addition, the study
identified the impacts of climate change on farmers’ livelihood in Tembaro district, central
Ethiopia regional state. Data were collected from 148 Households using questionnaire and
multi-stage sampling techniques using random sampling technique in the purposively selected
Kebeles of the Tembaro district of central Ethiopia regional state, Ethiopia. The survey results
showed that 95.3% of the respondent was perceived climate change and variability which is
aligned with real metrological data. Also the study identified the impacts of climate change and
variability on farmers’ livelihood, were decrease in crop and animal production, effect on
planting date, human disease, and flooding, extreme drought, occurrences of pest on crop,
shortage of water and fodder for animals. Changing planting calendar, soil water conservation
practice, small-scale irrigation scheme, diversification of non-farm activities, planting of high
yielding varieties and planting of drought tolerant crops were dominantly used adaptation
strategies in the area. In general, farmers almost perceived climate change and implement
different adaptation strategies based on their socioeconomic and institutional factors. For
effective and efficient implementation of adaptation strategies, at farm level support could be
critical. Decision makers should plan adaptation at local contexts base on farmers'
socioeconomic characteristics and available institutions rather than adopting from another area
at local and international levels.

Keywords; Tembaro district, climate change, perception, adaptation strategies

ix
 INTRODUCTION

Climate change has become a major concern and receiving serious attention at local, regional

national and global levels. Change in the global climate system is now undeniable and it is human-

induced as it has been indicated to a large extent by scientists during the past decade (IPCC, 2007).

Climate variability and change are among the greatest developmental challenges of the 21 st century

(IPCC, 2007). There is increasing evidence that climate change will strongly affect the African

continent and will be one of the challenging issues for future development, particularly in the drier

regions (Adger et al., 2007; Haile, 2005; Huq et al., 2004 and Kurukulasuriya et al., 2006).

Developing countries as a whole and especially African nations are the most vulnerable, due to the

sensitive nature of their livelihoods, and low adaptive capacity (Niang et al., 2014; Ayal and

Muluneh, 2014). Climate change, being a fundamental governance concern in recent years, appears

to have predominantly focused on the development of global climate change regime agreements, the

UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol. The climate has been ever-changing in the past and will continue

to shift in the future, this helps to recognize how farmers observe climate change and adapt to

making different plans for adaptation in the future. Managing the risk posed by climate change and

extreme events through implementing effective technological, institutional, and policy options are

crucial (Shiferaw et al., 2014).

The high vulnerability of people in Africa to climate variability and or change is attributed largely to

their low adaptive capacity, which results from deteriorating, extensive poverty, ecological

resources, unequal land distribution and high dependency on the natural resource base. The human

contribution to changes in climate is likely due to emission of greenhouse gasses (IPCC, 2007). The

contribution of humans to climate change is highly observed in the definition of the United Nations

Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). It refers to a change of climate which is

attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere

1
and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over a comparable period (UNFCCC,

1992). This indicates that, the contribution of human activity directly or indirectly alters the

composition of the global atmosphere and the natural climate variability.

Climate variability and climate change is one of the complex problems for people’s livelihoods in

Africa. The expected increment in frequencies of extreme events of climate change such as droughts

and floods will highly affect the agriculture sector (IPCC, 2007). Therefore, improving adaptive

capacity is important in order to reduce vulnerability to climate change (Elasha et al., 2006).

Some studies indicate that farmers do perceive climate change and adapt to reduce its negative

impacts (David et al., 2007). Also, studies further show that the perception or awareness of climate

change and taking adaptive measures (Maddison, 2006; Hassan and Nhemachena, 2008) are

influenced by different socio-economic and environmental factors. Van den and Hawkins (2000),

defined “perception” as a process by which information or stimulus is received and transformed to

create a psychological awareness. People perceive the same stimulus differently based on their

previous experiences and cultural differences (RECOFTC, 2001). Likewise, Wolf et al. (2013) and

Saarinen (1976) state that human perception of climate change is shaped by varying cognitive

structures caused by socioeconomic and cultural differences that expose people to differing attitudes,

values and interests. Therefore, farmers' perceptions of climate variability and its effects are

influenced by psychological and socioeconomic differences and limit their response to climate

change (Evans et al., 2016). Previous empirical and theoretical studies in different corners of Africa

(e.g. Limantol et al., 2016; Shiferaw et al., 2014; Woldeamlak, 2012; Meze Hausken, 2004) attested

that the farming communities perceived the changing climate and are employing soft and hard

adaptation strategies (Limantol et al., 2016; Ayal and Muluneh, 2014).

IPCC (2014) defines adaptation as “an adjustment in natural or human systems in response to actual

or expected climatic stimuli or their effect, which moderates harm or exploits beneficial

opportunities.” According to the IPCC Third Assessment Report, adaptation “has the potential to

2
reduce adverse impacts of climate change and to enhance beneficial impacts, but will incur costs and

will not prevent all damages”. FAO (2015) also defines Adaptation strategy as processes through

which societies make themselves better able to cope with an uncertain future. Adapting to climate

change entails taking the right measures to reduce the negative effects of climate change by making

the appropriate adjustments and changes (Wolf et al., 2013; Weather head et al., 2010)

Statement of the Problem

A recent mapping of vulnerability and poverty in Africa in terms of climate change put Ethiopia as

one of the most vulnerable countries given its low adaptive capacity (Yusuf et al., 2008). The shocks

of climate change that have been observed in the past decade to current and are likely to continue in

the future resulting in reduced agricultural productivity which is the

most predicted impact. Given the predictability of climate change and its effects, therefore,

adaptation mechanisms/strategies are necessary to reduce negative impacts.

In the study area, the livelihood of most people is affected by the impact of climate change and

variability and related environmental problems. The problem of food shortage, water scarcity,

climate-related crops and livestock disease, and changing agro-ecological conditions are among

climate change and variability-related impacts in the study area. Hence, it is necessary to reduce its

impact through implementation of locally-tailored adaptation strategies that ensure sustainable food

security in the study area. Furthermore, no earlier study was conducted on climate change adaptation

strategies by farmers in this study area. Therefore, the study investigated farmers' perceptions of

climate change/variability in the local climate, the impact of climate variability on the livelihoods of

farmers and the adaptation measures employed by farmers in response to climate change/climate

variability

3
MATERIALS AND METHODS

Description of the Study Area

The study area Kokosa district is found in western Arsi Zone, and it is one of thirteen’s districts in
the western Arsis zone. It is located at a distance of 365 km south of Addis Ababa, the capital city of
Ethiopia and, about 116 km away from the zone capital city Shashemane to the south direction. It is
bordered by Arbegona district to the south, Kofele district to the north, Nansabo and Dodola district
to the east and Gorche district to the west. The astronomical location of the district lies between
latitudes 39010’0”-390 40’0” N and longitudes 6020’0” - 6050’0” E. The total area of this district is
around 72,746km2 there are 22rural Kebeles and 5 urban Kebeles in the district (RLALUOKD,
2012).

Figure 1. Study area map

Source: Ethio GIS Data, 2021

3.1.2 Topography

The elevation of the study area is 2651m. a. s. l. According to Kokosa district Agricultural and

Natural Resource Office, the area is characterized by highly undulating and hilly topography

intersected by valley bottoms and gullies. Plato (hilly) 45% of the district’s land area, 20% is

mountainous and the remaining 35% is flat plains. Of the total land, 32%, 37%, 1%, 22%, 6% and

4
2% are cultivated, grazing, bush and forest uncultivated and other land uses respectively

(ANROKD,2012).

3.1.3 Climate

The average annual rainfall ranges from 1500 to1800 mm. The rainfall is characterized by erratic
and uneven distribution throughout the year. The highest rainfall occurs from the end of May to
September. The rainfall reaches its peak in August. Extreme fluctuation in rainfall, both in its annual
totals and the distribution throughout the year, are the primary constraints for agriculture, particularly
under rain-fed conditions. That means within the district, in each of the cropping seasons the rain
usually either begins late or quits very early before the crops get mature. The temperature ranges
from 130C-210C. Agro-ecologically, the district is 98% Dega and 2% Woyna Degas (ANROKD,
2012).

3.1.4 Soil and vegetation

According to kokosa woreda the soil type of the area include Vertisoil 61.4%, luvisoil 26.5%,nitosoil
2.8% and leptsoil 9.3% (FAO, 2010). In the study area, much of the natural vegetation has been
destroyed by prolonged cultivation and human settlement. As a result, much of the natural forest,
except in some protected areas and along rivers has changed into cultivation land. The most common
tree species in the study area are Hagenia abyssinica, Juniperus procera, Bamboo trees, and other
species (ANROKD, 2012).

3.1.5 Population and Socio-economic activities

Kokosa district is one of the densely populated areas of western Arsis Zone. The population of the

district is about 896529 of whom 67588 are men and 828941 women (RLALUOK2012). Out of

which around 95% depends on agriculture the rest 5% depends on non-farm activities. The

livelihood of the study area is dominated by mixed farming like most parts of Ethiopia. Rain-fed

agriculture mainly cereal cropping along with livestock rearing is the major source of food and

income for maintaining the livelihoods of the rural population of the district. The commonly

cultivated agricultural crops are: barley31%, Enset 25%, bean 0.5%, maize18%, potato15%, and

wheat5%, peas0.3%, cabbage 3.5%, Beetroot 1.6% (ANROKD2012).

5
3.2. Research Design

3. 2.1 Study site selection

In this study, a multi-stage sampling technique was employed. In the first stage, the study district,

Kokosa was selected purposively considering its recurrent experiences with the impact of climate

variability on the livelihoods of farmers and their adaptation strategies in the study area. In the

second stage, three rural Kebeles (Danshe, Hebano and Haroshifa) from 22 Kebeles were selected

purposively based on the vulnerability and impacts of climate-related shocks on the livelihoods of

farmers in the study area.

3.2.2 Sample size determination

In this study, a formula provided by (Yamane, 1967) was applied to determine the required sample
size at 92% confidence level, and level of precision (8%)

N
n=
1+ N (e)2

Where:

‘n’ = the sample size,

‘N’ = the total households in sampled kebeles and

‘e’ = the level of precision.

A 0.08 level of precision (e) was used for this study. The respective number of households was
allocated for each sampled kebele based on Probability Proportional to Size (PPS) sampling as
presented in Table 1.

Based on the above formula to get the sample size: -

2962
n= 2
1+2962 ¿(o . o 8)

2962
n=
1+ 2962(0. oo 64)
6
 2962
n=
1+ 18.9568

2962
n =
19.96

n=148

3.2.1 Sample household selection

From the kebele administration office, the list of the households was collected for each of the

selected kebele. Then, of the total (2962) households, 148 sample households were selected using a

simple random sampling technique. Such a sampling technique provides each element with an equal

and independent chance of selection.

Table 1: Sample size per selected kebele

Kebeles Name Total HHs Sample Size (HHs)

Danshe 840 840 *148/2962=42

Hebano 789 789 *148/2962=39

Haroshifa 1333 *148/2962=67
1333
Total 2962 148

3.3 Data Collection

The primary data was collected through reconnaissance survey, key informant interview,
questionnaire survey, formal and informal discussion, Focus Group Discussion and direct
observation. This type of data collection was assessed from the written document such as a review of
literature, available articles; thesis, meteorological data, official reports (relevant government offices
and NGOs reports and records) publications and websites.

3.3.1.1 Household survey

A cross-sectional household survey was carried out to assess demographic characteristics and
farmers’ perceptions of the trend of climate change impact in the past 30 years. Household heads
7
were the respondents for the interview because the household head plays a primary role in the
majority of household and farming decisions related to crop production, marketing, resource
allocation, and adaptation decisions in traditional farming (Polson and Spencer, 1991; Bryceson,
2002). The researcher carries out pre-testing of the questionnaire and the enumerators/data collectors
have given guidelines on how to administer the questions and how they should collect data. The
questionnaire was prepared in English and then translated to Afaan Oromo during the interview.

3.3.1.2 Focus group discussion

In this study, FGDs were held in the three kebeles consisting of 8-10 persons (with separate groups
of men, women and youth) who represent the community in their respective kebele and have
knowledge of the study sites. This discussion aimed at generating information about the impact of
climate variability on farmers, their perception and its impact on crop production, existing adaptation
strategies and barriers to adaptations in the study area. Besides, the information collected from this
FGD was used to revisit and or amend the HH survey’s questionnaire. A checklist was developed to
guide the discussion.

3.3.1.3 Key informant interview

To triangulate the collected data from the household survey and focus group discussions, a key

informant interview was conducted. The interview was focused on climate patterns, impacts of

climate change on farmers, and their possible adaptation measures and adaptation barriers were

collected using the key informants. The interviews were conducted with people who have sufficient

knowledge about the area and be able to memorize well its historical climate trends. Experts and

model farmers with early warning and crop production background in the district and kebele were

also interviewed.

3.3.1.4 Field Observation

In this study in addition to the data collected through focus group discussions, household survey, and

key informant interviews, field observation was made. This is used to verify or triangulate the

information gathered from the household survey, focus group discussion and key informant

interviews. It was carried out in the respondents’ homes and farms. Different adaptation strategies

adopted by the farmers were also documented.

8
 3.4. Data Analysis

3.4.1 Descriptive statistics

In order to analyze the data, both qualitative and quantitative data analysis techniques were

employed. The quantitative data were analyzed by using a statistical package for social science (spss)

version 16.0, Excel-stata and MS-word- 2007. Descriptive statistics and tabular presentations

including graphs, tables, charts and maps were used to characterize farmers’ perception on climate

changes and variability as well as various adaptation measures being used by farmers. Interpretative

and descriptive methods of data analysis techniques were also applied to analyze and interpret the

qualitative data. Data generated from the household survey were analyzed by using descriptive

statistics such as mean, frequencies and percentages in explaining and describing the issues under

research.

The data from key informants' interviews and focus group discussions were analyzed and described
through opinion interpretation after sorting out, grouped and organized. Narrative analysis was also
used after organizing data under themes. In this study, the multinomial model was employed to
identify factors that affect farmers’ adaptation strategies. In addition to these temperature and rainfall
data were analyzed by Mann Kendall test.

3.4.2 Mann-Kendall (MK) trend test

The non-parametric Mann-Kendall(MK) test (Kendall,1975;Mann,1945) is most commonly used for

trends identifying in hydro meteorological data time series, because of its insensitivity to normal

distribution of data time series and outliers (Hamed,2008). The MKtest statistic (S) is given by:

Where n signifies the length of the dataset, Xj and Xi are the successive information esteems on

occasion j and i, sgn means the sign capacity that takes on the values 1, 0, or−1; if Xj > Xi, Xj=Xi or

9
Xj < Xk, individually. S values Positive demonstrate an expanding (upward) trend, and value of S

negative uncovers the decreasing (descending) trend in the data time series. For tests, n >10, the test

is directed utilizing distributional is normal (σ2= 1) and mean (μ= 0) (Helsel and Hirsch, 1992),

variance (Var) and with expectation (E) as follows: E [S] = 0

(3)

Where is tk a number of observations in a kth group, a sign?

(Σ) Speaks to the summation of all a tied group. Be that as it may, if there are no-tied groups in a

data, this outline course might be slighted. In a wake of calculating a variance Var (S) from Eq. (4), a

standardized test statistic (Zmk) value calculated by utilizing the following equations.

The determined standardized Zmk values follow distribution normal with variance normal "0"and

"1" , it is utilized a measure of trend significance. In fact, this test measurement is utilized to null

hypothesis test, H0 if Zmk is morethan Zα/2. This value of Zmk is contrasted and standard

distribution normal table of two followed test at certainty levels of α=1 %, α=5 % and α=10 %. In a

two-followed test, null hypothesis (H0) is accepted for no trend if the determined value of Zmk

between – Z1-α/2 and Z 1-α/2, and in this way, H1 is rejected.

3.4.3 Determinants of the Choice of farmer’s Adaptive Strategies to Climate Change

A multinomial logit model was used to analyze factors determining the choice of climate variability

and change adaptation options. It can be explained by denoting Y as a vector of adaptation options

that are dichotomous dependent variables take the value of 1 when the farmer chooses an adaptation
10
and otherwise 0. The individual household choice of adaptation option can be constrained by

climatic, institutional, and socio-economic factors X.

The question is how the changes in the elements of x can affect the response probabilities (P(y = j/x),

j = 1, 2. . . J. The multinomial Logit model for the choice of adaptation option specifies the following

relationship between the probability of choosing adaptation option Yi and set of explanatory

variables X

e β ’ j xi
j
Prob (Yi = j) = Where j=0, 1, 2……..n …………….……………….. (6)
∑ e β ’ j xi
k=0

Where, βj is a vector of a coefficient on each of the dependent variables x

Equation (6) can be normalized to remove indeterminacy in the model by assuming that βo = 0 and

the probabilities can be estimated as:

e β ’ j xi
J
Prob (Yi = j/xi) = , j = 0, 1, 2...J, βo = 0 …………………………..….. (7)
1+ ∑ e β ’ k xi
k=0

Maximum likelihood estimation of equation (7) yields the J log-odds ratio

In( Pik
Pij
)=x i ( βj−βk )=x ' iβj
'
If, k = 0……….….…….…….….………..……... (8)

The dependent variable of any adaptation option is, therefore, the log of odd in relation to the base

alternative. To interpret the effect of explanatory variables on the probabilities, marginal effects are

usually derived (Green, 2000).

[ ]
j
ઠ Pj
ઠj= = Pj β j−∑ Pk β k = Pj ( β j−β ' )………………….……………………. (9)
ઠ xi k=0

The expected change in probability of a particular choice being made with respect to a unit change in

an explanatory variable is called the measure of marginal effects. The coefficients and signs of the

marginal effects may be different depending on the sign and magnitude of all other coefficients. The

dependent variable was the adaptation strategy of the farmers, such variables were the use of soil and

11
water conservation, changes in cropping calendar, use of drought-tolerant crops, use of improved

crop variety, use of home garden agroforestry and livelihood diversification.

3. 4.4. Definition of Variable Descriptions and Expected Signs

After the analytical framework is established, it is important to define the measurements of the

variables as well as the symbols representing them. Accordingly, the major variables expected to

influence the adoption of adaptation measures are explained below.

Dependent Variable

In this study, change in cropping calendar, SWC, non-farm diversification income, home garden

agroforestry, use of irrigation, growing drought-tolerant crops, and planting high-yielding varieties

were used as dependent variables

Independent variables

It is hypothesized to affect the farmers’ decision on an adaptation practice. For this study,

demographic, socioeconomic and institutional variables were used as independent variables. Based

on the review of adoption and adaptation literature and past research findings 8 potential explanatory

variables are considered in this study and examined for their influence on adaptation strategies to the

impacts of climate change and variability. The hypothesized explanatory variables included in the

analysis are expressed as follow.

Table 2: Description of variables, description and expected sign

Explanatory Description Expected sign

Variable
Age Continuous Age of respondent(in years) +/-
Sex Dummy Sex(Female=1,male=0 +/-
Family size Continuous Household size(number of families) +
Edu level Dummy educational +
level(illiterate=1,liteate=0)

12
 Total farm size Continuous Total land size (ha) +
TLU Continuous Number of livestock in TLU +
Agro ecology Dummy If Danshe =1, Hebana =2, Haroshifa =3 +/-
Income source Categorical Agri+ other =,1, Agri + safety net +
=2, fully Agri=3

RESULT AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Demographic characteristics of Households

As inducted in Table 3 below, the sex distribution of the respondents shows that a male respondent in

all sample Kebeles were 80.4% whereas the rest 19.6% were female respondents. This shows that the

majority of the respondents were male-headed households who has a better opportunity to get

appropriate information to practice adaptation measures than female-headed households.

As shown in Table 3 the majority (41.25 %) of respondents were between the age of 26 and 45 years.

Whereas 27.1% of the respondents were in the age group between 45-65 years while 25.7% were

above 65 years. The result shows the existence of active labour force and elders have diverse

experiences and knowledge and recognize how climate change affects their livelihood than the

young age. Moreover, as the age of the household head increases, the person is expected to acquire

more experience in weather forecasting hence increases the likelihood of practicing different

adaptation strategies to combat climate change. This might be attributed to the experience of older

farmers perceiving changes in climatic attributes (Deressa et al. (2008)

As mentioned in table 3 below, among all respondents about 89.2% married, 6.08% widowed and
4.72% were divorced sample respondents respectively. Married respondents were more aware of
adaptation strategies to changing climate and variability. Because they have more responsibility for
their family needs than unmarred households the majority of smallholder farmers (79.05%) were
illiterate, 14.2% of them had an opportunity to join elementary school (1-8) and 6.75% joined a
secondary school (9-12).

According to table 3, family size is an important variable determining the adaptive capacity of the
households to climate change. It was observed that about 56.75% of the respondents had a total
13
family size of 4-6, 35.13%, size >6 and only a small percentage (8.12%) of sample respondents had a
total family size of 1-3 in the study area. Household size can influence adaptation, due to the fact that
its association with labor endowment. It is argued that a larger household size enables the adoption
of technologies by availing the necessary labour force on one hand (Croppenstedt al. 2003) and
enabling the generation of additional income from extra labor invested in off-farm activities (Yirga
2007).

Table 3 shows about 20.95% of the respondents were engaged in agriculture and non-farm activities,
52.7% only in agriculture, and about 26.35% of respondents depend on agriculture and the safety net.
The impact of household income sources on climate-based adaptation options could be associated
with the fact that farmers with more livelihood diversification have more chance to climate impact
adaptation (Alih et al., 2019, Asfaw et al., 2018,).

Table 3: Respondents' profile

No Factors (Variables) Categories/ Characteristics Frequency Percent
1 Male 119 80.4
Sex Female 29 19.6
18-25 9 6.3
2 Age 26-45 61 41.25
46-65 40 27.1
Above 65 38 25.7
3 Marital Status Married 132 89.2
Divorced 7 4.72
Widowed 9 6.08
4 Educational level Illiterate 117 79.05
Primary school 21 14.2
Secondary school 10 6.75
5 Income source of the HH Fully agriculture 78 52.7
Agriculture and safety net 39 26.35
Agriculture and non-farm 31 20.95
activity
6 Family size 1-3 12 8.12
4-6 84 56.75
>6 52 35.13

Source: own survey (2021)

14
 4.2. Climate data analysis

4.2.1. Temperature data analysis

4.2.1.1. Trends of Temperature in the Study area (1989-2019)

The average yearly maximum temperature of the district was 21.58 oC. As indicated in Figure 4, the

maximum temperature of Kokosa district over the past (1989-2019) years increased by about

0.0345oC annually. Also the average annual and annual minimum temperature increased by 0.0336 oC

and 0.0369oc per year. This gives a clear picture of the warming trend in the area. The result was

similar with the finding of (Girma, 2020 and Karienye et al., 2019), who found that annual minimum

temperature indicated increasing trend.

22
20 y = 0.0345x - 31.07
18
Temperature (oC)

y = 0.0336x - 50.947
16 Max
14 Yearly
12 y = 0.0369x - 65.737
Min

1989 1994 1999 2004 2009 2014 2019 Where:

Year y = Temperature
x = Year

Figure 4: Trend of Temperature data from 1989-2019

According to studies in Ethiopia, it is assumed that the temperature has been increasing annually at

the rate of 0.2°C over the past five decades (Girma, 2020).

15
4.2.1.2. Monthly Mann-Kendall trend test of maximum and minimum temperature

The monthly temperature trend results of the Mann-Kendall test statistics for both maximum and minimum

temperature data for the period of 1989-2019 were summarized in Table 4. The Mann-Kendall trend test for

monthly maximum temperature showed statistically significant increasing trend for all months.

The results showed that the monthly minimum temperature trend was significantly increasing in seven months

June, Juley, August, September, October, November, and December, while non-significant increasing trend was

observed for January, February, March, April and May. The Sen’s slope of the whole months indicates a

positive value that refers the rise in the monthly maximum and minimum temperature in the study area.

Generally, the monthly maximum and minimum temperature trend indicated a warming trend and also both

results are statistically significant at 99.9%, 99% and 95% confidence level limit during the period of 1989-

2019. This result is in agree with the finding of (Karienye et al., 2019) who indicated a statistically significant

increasing trend in monthly maximum and minimum temperatures.

Table 4. Monthly Mann-Kendall’s trend test of maximum and minimum temperature

Maximum temperature (1989-2019) Minimum temperature (1989-2019)
Months Mann-kendells Sig. Sen's slope Mann-kendells Sig. Sen's slope
Trend test Z Trend test Z
Jan 4.35 ** 0.213 2.09 * 0.51
Feb 1.95 *** 0.092 1.18 * 0.091
Mar 2.91 *** 0.054 2.49 * 0.088
Apr 2.95 ** 0.077 1.04 0.022
May 4.20 *** 0.053 2.39 * 0.056
Jun 2.88 ** 0.098 4.02 *** 0.089
Jul 3.22 ** 0.056 3.26 ** 0.067
Aug 2.51 ** 0.074 3.78 *** 0.093
Sept 4.34 *** 0.066 4.68 *** 0.084
Oct 4.06 *** 0.321 3.29 ** 0.068
Nov 3.89 *** 0.098 1.54 ** 0.094
Dec 3.44 *** 0.089 1.95 ** 0.098
*** = 0.001 level of significance, ** = 0.01 level of significance,* = 0.05 level of significance
Source: National Meteorological Agency, Ethiopia, 2020
16
4.2.1.3. Annually Mann-Kendall trend test of maximum and minimum temperature

The annual mean minimum temperature also indicates an increasing trend at a rate of 0.036°C per year. Hence,

the study area was warming at a faster rate warming trend. Both the mean annual maximum and minimum

temperatures showed significant increasing trend at 0.001 significant level. It was observed that the maximum

temperature has risen at a faster rate than the minimum temperature about 0.034°C and 0.036°C per year

respectively. Also, the farmers’ perceptions appear to be in accordance with the statistical record of the study

area.

Table 5.Annual Mann-Kendall results of maximum and minimum temperature for 1989-2019

Parameters Mann-Kendall Significance Sen’s slope

Trend Test Z

maximum temperature 3.22 *** 0.034

Minimum temperature 2.87 *** 0.036

Source: NMA, Ethiopia (2020); *** = 0.001 level of significance

4.2.2. Rainfall data analysis

4.2.2.1. Trends of rainfall in the Study area (1989-2019)

Precipitation is one of the major element that determines the weather. The rainfall data of the one station were

obtained from Ethiopia Meteorological Agency for the aim of this study (1989-2019).

4.2.2.2. Monthly rainfall variability

As shown in table 6, the maximum monthly rainfall (387.3 mm) was observed in the study area during July but

the smallest in January (104.4 mm). So from the analysis, it is observed that the average monthly rainfall and

coefficient of variation ranged from 40.1-162.8 and 36.8%-126.9% respectively (Table 6). It indicates that the

amount of precipitation in the study area is highly variable. According to coefficient variation, monthly

distributions of rainfall during 1989-2019 are divergent variations in the amount of rainfall across several

months in the study area.

17
Table 6. Statistical average monthly aggregated rainfall for1989-2019

Months Maximum Minimum Average Standard Coefficient

Rainfall Rainfall Deviation Variance

January 104.4 8.1 45.3 30.9 102.8

February 156.5 11.4 58 52.1 123.1

March 211.2 32.6 95.9 49.2 59

April 207.1 66.3 162.8 57.3 36.8

May 242.5 55.5 140.4 57.5 43.9

June 346.3 59 106.3 41.3 43

July 387.3 93.6 109.4 48.8 49.7

August 262.5 30.5 111.7 40 39

September 310.3 23.7 122.9 43.7 38

October 215.2 14.1 123 64.9 58.4

November 242.5 2.1 63.3 43.4 89.6

December 177.3 2.1 40.1 30.4 126.9

Source: National Meteorological Agency, Ethiopia, 2020

4.2.2.3 Seasonal and annual rainfall anomalies indices

According to the seasonal and annual rainfall anomalies indices, the positive values observed in figure 5

represent rainy or wet years and the negative values represent the dry years, with different degree of intensity.

The highest value of kiremt was in 2010 where as lowest in 2015. From the rainfall, positive values observed in

figure 5 to represent rainy or wet annually and the negative values (13 years) represent the dry years, with

different degrees of intensity. The highest dry years was 2015 while highest wettest year was 1992 year in the

study area. Regarding belg, about 17 seasons were wettest while 13 years were driest.

18
Figure 5. Annual and seasonal anomalies

4.2.2.4. Annual and seasonal rainfall variability

The coefficient of variation is used to classify the degree of variability of rainfall events in to three as less (CV <

20), moderate (20 < CV < 30) and high (CV > 30) of inter-annual variability of rainfall (Asfaw et al., 2018). The

data obtained from Ethiopia Meteorological Agency indicates that the coefficient of variation of study area were

56.31%, 49.06% and 43.15% for kiremt, belg and annual rainfall, respectively which indicates that, there was

high inter-annual variability of rainfall between 1989-2019. The degree of variation in the amount of rainfall for

kiremt season is greater than belg (Table 7). Besides, the year-to-year of kiremt rainfall variability over the

study area is high compared to the year-to-year variability of annual and belg rainfall. Such seasonal and inter-

annual variability in rainfall amount could negatively affect the ability of farmers to adapt the effects of climate

change and variability (Girma, 2020).

Table 7. Descriptive statistics of seasonal and annual rainfall for the period 1989–2019

Parameters Kiremt Belg Annual

Maximum rainfall 1134.20 976.23 2431.54

Minimum rainfall 321.62 294.26 694.35

Average 724.58 685.32 1563.25

19
 SD 317.46 217.84 596.70

CV % 56.31 49.06 43.15

Source: NMAE, 2020

4.2.2.5. Annual and seasonal rainfall trend analysis

Fi

gure 6.Trends of annual and seasonal rainfall variability in the study area.

According to the Mann–Kendall trend test, seasonal trend analysis results inducted that, the significant

decreasing trend of kiramt and belg rainfall at α=0.05 significant level. The Sen’s slope estimator indicated that

the kiramt and belg rainfall decreased by 1.132 and 3.835 mm per season respectively. This indicates that, the

rainfall season in the study area has decreasing trends for the period 1989-2019 (Table 8). The result in line with

the finding of (Kahsay et al., 2019) who indicated that decreasing trends of seasonal rainfall in Ethiopia.

The annual rainfall trend analysis also showed significant decreasing trend at α=0.001 and rainfall decreased by

7.857 mm per year. Annual and seasonal rainfall at kokosa district generally exhibited a decline over the period

of 1989-2019 years. The Mann kendall trend test showed that, there was significant decreasing of annual and

seasonal rainfall in kokosa district

Table 8.Mann-Kendall’ results of seasonal and annual rainfall

20
 Parameters Kiremt Belg Annual

Mann-Kendall -0.52** -2.46** -2.64***

trend Test Z

Sen's Slope -1.132 -3.835 -7.857

4.2.3 Household’s perception of climate change

Climate change adaptation needs farmers’ perception that the climate has changed, after that they isolate useful

coping options and implement them. People living in the study area were believed to perceive as the climate is

changing. Farmers’ perception of climate change is the condition for their initiation to implement adaptation

practices. As many Ethiopian studies indicate, a large number of farmers already perceive that the temperature

has become hotter and the rains became less predictable and shorter in duration (Girma, 2020; Ahmed, 2019;

Lamedjo, 2019). Based on the household survey results, the following tables show how farmers perceive the

climate changes in the study area.

Table 9: Households’ perception of climate change

Perception of HH on climate Response of the No Percentage

change respondent
Have you noticed (felt) any change Yes 141 95.3
in climate No 7 4.7
Changes in level of temperature Increase 134 90.54
Decrease 0 0
No change 2 1.35
I do not know 1 8.10
Changes in amount of rainfall Increase 2 1.35
Decrease 129 87.16
No change 12 8.10
I do not know 5 3.38
Source: own completion, 2021

21
As shown in Table 9, the analysis of the perception of farmers on climate change in the study area, that the

majority of respondents (95.3%) perceived change in local climate and about 4.7% of respondents claimed no

change in climate for the last three decades. The temperature was the other climate parameter discussed during

FGD and key informant interviews. Accordingly, most of the respondents (95.3%) in the study area have

perceived that climate changed. As regarding the perception, it is necessary to know whether farmers'

perceptions are consistent with observed temperature trends. If their perceptions deviate from the fact, then there

is a risk that they might not respond with appropriate coping strategies at the right times.

Regarding temperature, the majority of respondents (90.54%) perceived that the temperature has increased,

1.35% perceived no change in temperature and about 8.10% claimed that they have no idea about temperature

variations over the past three decades. In addition, this result is in line with the metrological data regarding the

increment of temperature over the past thirty years in the study area. As indicated in Figure 4 during the period

of 30 years, the temperature has raised in average annual temperature, Maximum average temperature and

Minimum average temperature of the area,

Concerning the perception of households towards change in rainfall, the majority of the respondents (87.16%)

perceived that rainfall has decreased, 1.35% perceived that the rainfall has increased, 8.10% claimed no change

in the amount of rainfall and 3.38% did not perceive the change in rainfall throughout the last three decades. In

the study area, the majority of respondents had perceived as the temperature has increased and rainfall has

decreased. Thus, households who perceived climate change have undertaken adaptation strategies and have

developed a better adaptive capacity. According to the result obtained from FGD and KII, the participants

perceived warming temperatures and declining rainfall. They also complained that rainy time has been shifting

from what they had known 20 and 30 years ago.

They argued that 20 and 30 years ago, the rainy season was regular and the soil was also very fertile hence, there

was high product and productivity. Nevertheless, the focus group discussant and key informant explained as

they face a shortage and seasonal shift of rainfall during seeding and harvesting time, and due to this, the crop

22
yield has been declining from time to time. Furthermore, participants indicated that drought, erratic rainfall,

animal disease and crop pests are some of the extremes that frequently appeared since the 1989’s. Discussants

also added that they were affected by ten drought events (shortage of rain) and floods. Farmers' self-reported

climate perception is not sufficient to generalize about the actual trends of climate change and variability in the

study area. Their perception of climate change is highly personal, site-specific, and influenced by several

factors. Therefore, it is very important to compare farmers' climate change perception and the actual

meteorological data observation in the study area to recommend the right adaptation strategies (Raghuvanshi

and Ansari, 2019 ; Kahsay et al., 2019). Therefore, this study revealed that farmer perception and changes in

rainfall and temperature was in line with meteorological data analysis in the study area.

4.3 Impacts of climate variability and change on livelihoods of farmers

Several studies have identified the impact of climate change and variability on farmers’ livelihoods.

Consequently, this has enforced farmers to adopt adaptation and mitigation measures. To understand the

adaptation strategies in the area looking at common impacts experienced by farmers is critical. During FGD,

discussants identified the main impacts of climate change and variability in the study area were; a decrease

incropand livestock production, occurrences of crop pests & diseases, drought, livestock diseases, water shortage,

flood, fodder shortage, food shortage, and effect on planting date.

Accordingly, the participants were asked to rank the frequently faced problems from the total (10) identified

impacts which has a strong linkage with climate change and variability based on their experience. Also, the key

informants reflected similar views on the impacts of climate change and variability.

Table 10: impacts of climate variability and change on livelihoods of farmers

No Impacts of climate change/variability No of respondents Total

Yes % No % No %
1 Decrease in crop production 148 100% 0 0% 148 100%

2 Decrease in animal production 143 96.6% 5 5.4% 148 100%

3 Effect on crop planting date 119 80% 29 20% 148 100%

23
 4 Occurrences of extreme drought 98 66% 50 34% 148 100%

5 Occurrences of flooding 86 58% 62 42% 148 100%

6 Occurrences of human disease 91 61% 57 39% 148 100%

7 Occurrences of animal disease 119 80% 29 20% 148 100%

8 Occurrences of pests on crops 108 73% 40 27% 148 100%

9 Water shortage 108 73% 40 27% 148 100%

10 Fodder shortage 143 96.6% 5 5.4% 148 100%

Source: own completion, 2021

As shown in Table 10, the analysis of the impacts of climate variability and change on farmers’ livelihood in the

study area showed that all the respondents (100%) indicated that there was a decrease in crop production due to

the climate variability impact. Also about 80% of respondents claimed that there was an effect on crop planting

date from climate variability in the study area. Regarding occurrences of extreme drought, the majority of

respondents (66%) of the respondents indicated that there are occurrences of extreme drought and others.

24
4.4 Farmers’ main adaptation strategies

The farmers were found to adopt different strategies based on their long-term knowledge,

experience, and perceptions to changing climate. Decreasing crop and animal production,

drought, crop disease, human disease, animal disease, and shortage of rain and fodder were the

most important impacts resulting from climate change in the study area. Farmers adopted at least

one form of adaptation strategy to sustain their farming and livelihood. Initially, 14 adaptation

strategies were identified through the focus group discussions. However, these failed to generate

statistically significant parameters in the logit estimation. Therefore, following Girma (2020),

Alauddin and Sarker (2014), Gebrehiwot and van der Ven (2013), and Sarker et al. (2013), the

adaptation strategies were reorganized by grouping closely related choices into the same

category based on the best practices in the field and expert opinions for the model estimation.

Thus, changes in cropping calendar, planting high-yielding varieties , diversifying income mostly

from non-farm income sources, soil and water conservation (SWC) practices, use of small-scale

irrigation, home garden agroforestry, and growing drought-tolerant crops were the main

adaptation strategies in the study area by farmers. In this study area, about 63.35% of the

respondents take on adaptation strategy to climate change and the remaining 36.65% of farmers

did not employ any climate change adaptation measures.

No adaptation 36.65
Types of adaptation

Planting drought tolerant crop 43.39

Small scale irrigation 10.58
practices

Changing planting calendar 32.50

Planting high-yielding varieties 51.45
Non-farm income activities 41.25
SWC 71.30
Agroforestry 29.24
Percentage of adopters

25
Figure 7: Farmers’ main adaptation strategies in the study area

The frequently used adaptation strategies in the study area were identified during FGD and key

informant interviews as well as during the HH survey. Adaptation strategies applied in the study

area were not mutually exclusive because particular farmer uses different adaptation strategies

together on a single plot of land. The climate change adaptation strategies employed by

households in the study area were discussed as follows:

4.4.1 Home Garden agroforestry practice

Most farmers in the study area have a perception of climate change and its consequences on the

farming system. The study showed that about 29.24% of farmers use home garden agroforestry

practice for their agricultural production which was used as an adaptation strategy.

4.4.2 Soil and water conservation practices

In response to climate change and variability, about 71.3% of farmers in the study area used soil

and water conservation practice. Farmers mentioned that they used SWC practices to reduce the

loss of water and soil by runoff due to heavy rainfall. Farmers in the area applied soil bunds and

terraces to reduce runoff which brought sedimentation to their farm or erode fertile topsoil from

their farm. Practices like stone/soil bund, check dam, and related physical and biological land

management practices were considered under this strategy (Asfaw et al., 2018).

4.4.3 Non-farm activities

In the study area, 41.25% of the respondents have been engaged in non-farm activities as an

adaptation strategy. The reason is that crop production did not generate enough income to

support their families as a consequence of climate change and variability. According to the focus

group discussion and key informant interviews, the common non-farm income activities are

26
charcoal production, wage labor, and selling wood as fuel mainly by women. The result is in line

with the finding of (Girma, et al. 2022), who suggested that non-farm activity diversification as

an income source has an important contribution to adaptation strategy to climate variability and

change.

4.4.4 Planting high-yielding varieties

According to FGD and key informant interviews among the adaptation strategies implemented

in the study area, one of the important strategies was planting high-yielding crop varieties. About

51.45% of the respondents use high-yielding varieties as an adaptation strategy to increase crop

productivity under the stress of climate variability. Planting high-yielding varieties was used to

increase the adaptive capacity of smallholder farmers in a way that can enhance productivity and

incomes (Girma, et al. 2022).

4.4.5 Changing planting calendar:

Climate variables are also important in determining what crops to grow and when they are

planted (Ojo and Baiyegunhi, 2019). In the study area, about 32.5% of the farmers adjust the

planting dates of crops in response to climate change in different plots of land at different times.

Mainly farmers implement this measure when they are not sure about the starting period of rain

so they divide their farm plots and sow/plant the crop at different times of the rainy season to

maximize the probability of adaptation to climate change. Changing the planting dates and crop

varieties were implemented and ranked as the primary adaptation respondents (Asfaw et al.,

2018).

4.4.6 Small-scale irrigation

To reduce their vulnerability to climate change, only 10.58% of farmers use small-scale

irrigation. This adaptation strategy was another option used by farmers, especially in the Kebeles

27
that have access to a water source. Because most farmers indicated that the rain has become

unpredictable, as a result, few farmers use irrigation in the study area.

4.4.7 Using drought-tolerant crop variety

About 43.39% of the respondents in this study area used this strategy for climate change

adaptation. The best strategies to cope with changing climate were the implementation of using

drought-tolerant crop varieties as discussed during FGD and key informant interviews in the

study area.

5.1 CONCLUSION

From the study, it was concluded that the majority of the farmers in the study area have

perceived the temperature has increased and rain fall has decreased, and thus experienced the

effects of a changing climate over three decades. That is, prolonged dry periods and decreasing

rainfall were more frequent in the district which is confirmed by historical observed metrological

temperature and rainfall data.

The finding examined the impact of climate change and variability on farmers’ livelihoods in the

district. During FGD, discussants identified the main impacts of climate change and variability in

the study area are decreases in crop and livestock production, occurrences of crop pest & diseases,

drought, livestock diseases, water shortage, flood, fodder shortage, food shortage, and effect on

planting date.

In addition, the study identified the major climate change adaptation strategies employed by

communities such as changing the cropping calendar, planting high-yielding varieties, growing

drought resistance improved crop varieties, implementing soil and water conservation measures ,

enhancing irrigation schemes (e.g. water harvesting), and income source diversification. The

multinomial logistic regression model was used to analyze the relationship between

28
 socioeconomic characteristics and farmers' choices of adaptation strategies to climate change.

Accordingly, the result indicates that age, gender, family size, kebele, educational level, income,

owned livestock, and farm size had a significant influence on farmers' choice of climate change

adaptation strategies.

5.2 Recommendations
 Farmers perceived climate change as general but fail to understand individual weather events
clearly, so providing weather information at a local level is critical with respective
supplementary services.
 There is a need for institutional support for the implementation of infrastructures like water
resources availability, health center accessibility, and access to electricity to cope with changing
climate.
 Variables not directly related to individual farmers' socioeconomic characteristic was among the
variables that significantly affect farmers' choice of adaptation strategies which are strongly
linked with government infrastructure and good governance such as access to weather
information, access to irrigation scheme and agricultural inputs.
 Government and non-govrnmtal organizations should support the affected societies by climate
change impact, by water supply, crop varieties, and livestock varieties.
 Based on these findings decision-makers have to look away to provide critical inputs that can
improve what farmers already adopted than introducing new adaption strategies.
 Policy makers and decision makers should provide capacity building training for farmers on
climate change adaptation and mitigation strategy’s

29
ACRONYM/ABBREVIATION

AMS American Metrological Society

ANROKD Agriculture and Natural Resource Office of kokosa District

ASCC Adaptation for smallholder to Climate Change

BOFED Bureau of Finance and Economic Development

CEEPA Center for Environmental Economics and Policy for Africa

CSA Central Statistical Agency

DFID Department for International Development

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

FAO Food and Agricultural Organization

HH House Hold

IFPRI International Food Policy Research Institute

IPCC Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change

MOFED Minster of Finance and Economic Development

NAPA National Adaptation Program Action

NMAKS National Meteorology Agency, Kofele station

NMSA National Metrological Agency

RLAUOKD Rural Land Administration and Land Use Office of Kokosa District

SSA Sub-Saharan Africa

UNDP United Nations Development Program

UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

WB World Bank

30
 WMO World Metrological Organization

WHO World Health Organization

REFERENCES

Ababa, A., 2007. Climate change national adaptation programmer of action (NAPA) of
Ethiopia. National Meteorological Services Agency, Ministry of Water Resources, Federal
Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Addis Ababa

Abate Feyissa Senbeta, 2009. Climate Change Impact on Livelihood, Vulnerability and Coping
Mechanisms: A Case Study of West-Arsi Zone, Ethiopia. MSc. Thesis Submitted to Lund
University Master’s Program in Environmental Studies and Sustainability Science (LUMES),
Lund, Sweden.

Abebe, 2008. National adaptation program of action preparation process in Ethiopia. In: Green Forum,
Climate changes a burning issue Ethiopia: proceedings of the 2nd Green Forum Conference held
in Addis Ababa, 31 October – 2 November 2007 (Addis Ababa: Green Forum).

Adger, W. N. et al., 2009. Are there social limits to adaptation to climate change?. Climatic Change,

Volume 93, pp. 335-354.

Adger, W.N., Agrawala, S., Mirza, M.M.Q., Conde, C., O’Brien, K., Pulhin, J., Pulwarty, R., Smit, B.

and Takahashi, K., 2007. Assessment of adaptation practices, options, constraints and

capacity. Climate change, pp.717-743.

Adger, W.N., Huq, S., Brown, K., Conway, D. and Hulme, M., 2003. Adaptation to climate change in

the developing world. Progress in development studies, 3(3), pp.179-195.

Aladdin, M., and Sarker, T., 2014 .Farmers’ perceptions of climate change and farm-level adaptation
strategies: Evidence from Bassila in Benin
Alem Kidanu, Kibebew Kibret, Jemma Hajji, Muktar Mohammed and Yosef Ameha.2016. Farmers’
31
 perception towards climate change and their adaptation measures in Dire Dawa Administration,
Eastern Ethiopia. Journal of Agricultural Extension and Rural Development 8(12):269-283.
Alih, A.D., Orefi, A., Chijoke, A., Benjamin, 2019. Factors Influencing Farmer’s Choice of Adaptation
Measures to Climate Change among Smallholder Arable Farmers in Kogi State, Nigeria. Asian J.
Agric. Ext. Econ. Social. 1–14. https://doi.org/10.9734/ajaees/2019/v31i230128

Ann-Karin, S., 2011. Climate Change Impacts and Adaptations among Ethiopian Farmers

Apata T. G., Samuel K. D., Adeola, A. O. 2009. Analysis of climate change perceptions and adaptation
among arable food crop farmers in South Western Nigeria. Contributed paper presented at 23rd
Conference of International Association of Agricultural Economists, Beijing, China 16-22Pp.

Arnell, N.W., 2000. Impact of climate change on global water resources: Volume 2, unmitigated

emissions. Report to Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, University of

Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.

Asfaw, A., Simane, B., Bantider, A., Hassen, A., 2018. Determinants in the adoption of climate change
adaptation strategies: evidence from rainfed-dependent smallholder farmers in north-central
Ethiopia (Woleka sub-basin). Environ. Dev. Sustain. 21, 2535–2565.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-018-0150-y

Aydinalp, C. and Cresser, M.S., 2008. The effects of global climate change on agriculture. American-

Eurasian Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Sciences, 3(5), pp.672-676.

Belay, A., John, W. R., Woldeamanuel, T., and John, F.M., 2017. Smallholder Farmers’ Adaptation to
Climate Change and Determinants of Their Adaptation Decisions in the Central Rift Valley of
Ethiopia. Agriculture and Food Security 6(17):24.

Bezu, Sosina, and Stein Holden. "Can food-for-work encourage agricultural production?" Food

policy 33, no. 6 (2008): 541-549.

32
Boko, M.I., Niang, A., Nyong, C., Vogel, A., Githeko, M., Medany, B. and Osman-Elasha, R., 2015.

Tabo, and Yanda, P.(2007) Africa. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and

Vulnerability.

Bradshaw, B., Dolan, H. and Smit, B., 2004. Farm-level adaptation to climatic variability and change:

crop diversification in the Canadian prairies. Climatic Change, 67(1), pp.119-141.

Bryceson, D.F., 2002. The scramble in Africa: reorienting rural livelihoods. World development, 30(5),
pp.725-739.

Burnell, P. 2009. Climate Change and Democratization; A policy paper. Heinrich-Boll-Stiftung: Berlin.

Cao, J., 2008. Reconciling human development and climate protection: Perspectives from developing

countries on post-2012 international climate change policy. Harvard Kennedy School of

Government Discussion Paper, 825.

Cooper, P.J.M., Dimes, J., Rao, K.P.C., Shapiro, B., Shiferaw, B. and Twomlow, S., 2008. Coping better

with current climatic variability in the rain-fed farming systems of sub-Saharan Africa: An

essential first step in adapting to future climate change?. Agriculture, Ecosystems &

Environment, 126(1-2), pp.24-35.

Costello, A., Abbas, M., Allen, A., Ball, S., Bell, S., Bellamy, R., Friel, S., Groce, N., Johnson, A., Kett,

M. and Lee, M., 2009. Managing the health effects of climate change

Danbaba, N., Anounye, J., Gana, A.and Abo, M., 2013. Grain Physiochemical and Milling Qualities of
Rice (Oryza sativa) cultivated in South east, Nigeria: Journal of Applied Agricultural Resources,
Journal of Applied Agricultural Resources 5: 61-71

33
Daniel Kassahun, 2008. Impacts of climate change on Ethiopia: a review of the literature(Ed,). Climate

change a burning issue for Ethiopia: proceedings of the 2nd Green Forum Conference held in

Addis Ababa, 31 October–2 November 2007. Addis Ababa: Green Forum.

De Bruin, K., 2011. An economic analysis of adaptation to climate change under uncertainty.

De Wit, M. and Stankiewicz, J., 2006. Changes in surface water supply across Africa with predicted

climate change. Science, 311(5769), pp.1917-1921.

Demeke, A.B., Keil, A. and Zeller, M., 2011. Using panel data to estimate the effect of rainfall shocks

on smallholders food security and vulnerability in rural Ethiopia. Climatic change, 108(1-2),

pp.185-206.

Deressa, T. (2007). Measuring the Economic Impact of Climate Change on Ethiopian Agriculture:

Ricardian Approach. World Bank Policy Research Paper No. 4342.Washington D.C.:

Deressa, T., Hassan, R.M., Alemu, T., Yesuf, M. and Ringler, C., 2008. Analyzing the determinants of

farmers' choice of adaptation methods and perceptions of climate change in the Nile Basin of

Ethiopia. Intl Food Policy Res Inst.

Deressa, T.T., Hassan, R.M., Ringler, C., Alemu, T. and Yesuf, M., 2009. Determinants of farmers’

choice of adaptation methods to climate change in the Nile Basin of Ethiopia. Global

environmental change, 19(2), pp.248-255.

Desalegn, C.E., Babel, M.S., Gupta, A.D., Seleshi, B.A. and Merrey, D., 2006. Farmers' perception of

water management under drought conditions in the upper Awash Basin, Ethiopia. International

Journal of Water Resources Development, 22(4), pp.589-602.

34
Desalegn, C.E., Babel, M.S., Gupta, A.D., Seleshi, B.A. and Merrey, D., 2006. Farmers' perception of
water management under drought conditions in the upper Awash Basin, Ethiopia. International
Journal of Water Resources Development, 22(4), pp.589-602.

Di Falco, S., Veronesi, M. and Yesuf, M., 2011. Does adaptation to climate change provide food

security? A micro-perspective from Ethiopia. American Journal of Agricultural

Economics, 93(3), pp.829-846.

Di Falco, S., Yesuf, M., Kohlin, G. and Ringler, C., 2012. Estimating the impact of climate change on

agriculture in low-income countries: Household level evidence from the Nile Basin,

Ethiopia. Environmental and Resource Economics, 52(4), pp.457-478.

Dixon, J., Nalley, L., Kosina, P., La Rovere, R., Hellin, J. and Aquino, P., 2006. Adoption and

economic impact of improved wheat varieties in the developing world. The Journal of

Agricultural Science, 144(6), pp.489-502.

Eldis,(2010).Introductiontolivelihoodsandagriculture,URL:

http://www.eldis.org/go/topics/dossiers/livelihoods-connect/agriculture/introduction (accessed

23.11.2010)

Eriksen, S. and L. Ottoo. 2009. Pro-Poor climate Adaptation. Norwegian Development cooperation and

Climate change Adaptation. An assessment of issues, strategies and potential entry. NORAD:

Oslo.

Eriksen, S., O'Brien, K. and Rosentrater, L., 2008. Climate change in Eastern and Southern Africa:

Impacts, vulnerability and adaptation. In Climate change in Eastern and Southern Africa:

impacts, vulnerability and adaptation. University of Oslo.

35
Eriksen, S.E. and Næss, L.O., 2003. Pro-poor climate adaptation: Norwegian development cooperation

and climate change adaptation-an assessment of issues, strategies and potential entry

points. CICERO Report.

FAO, 2007. Adaptation to climate change in agric., forestry and fisheries: Perspective, framework and

priorities. Interdepartmental working group on climate change, Rome, Italy. 32p.

FDRE, MoFED. "Growth and Transformation Plan (2010/11-2014/15)." Addis Ababa (2010).

Feyssa and Gemeda (2015) also justify that climate change mainly affect the rain-fed agricultural sectors
in technological and economically less developed countries in Africa.

Fikre D.and Muluken, M. F.,2021. Climate change adaptation strategies and their predictors amongst

rural farmers in Ambassel district, Northern Ethiopia

Fleagle, J.G., Assefa, Z., Brown, F.H. and Shea, J.J., 2008. Paleoanthropology of the Kibish Formation,
southern Ethiopia: introduction. Journal of human evolution, 55(3), pp.360-365.

Gebreegziabher, Z., Mekonnen, A. and Secom, A., 2012. Carbon Markets and Mitigation strategies for
Africa. Ethiopia: Litereture Review and the way forward: EDRI research report, 14.

Gebrehiwot and Anne van der Veen. 2013. Farm Level Adaptation to Climate Change: The Case of
Farmer’s in the Ethiopian Highlands

Gebremedhin, N., 2011. The Impacts of Climate Change on Rural Livelihood and Their Adaptation
Methods: the case of Alamata woreda, Southern Tigray. Unpublished Masters’ thesis, Addis
Ababa University, Department of Geography and Environmental Studies.

Girma G.M ., Moti, J. , Kindie, T. , Mezegebu, G., Tamado, T. and Berhane, L.,2022. Perceived Climate

Change and Determinants of Adaptation Responses by Smallholder Farmers in Central Ethiopia

36
Girma, S., 2020. Determinants of farmers’ choice of adaptation strategies and perception of climate
change in Lume Woreda East shawa of Oromia national regional state in central Ethiopia.

Glwadys A.G., 2009. Understanding Farmers' Perceptions and Adaptations to Climate Change and

Variability. Discussion Paper 00849 petition trends in South Africa. Climatic change 83: 301-

322.

Hachigonta, S., 2012. Generating Policy Options for Climate Change Adaptations. Swaziland Common

Vision Workshop, Luyengo, Swaziland.

Halsnæs, K. and Verhagen, J., 2007. Development based climate change adaptation and mitigation—

conceptual issues and lessons learned in studies in developing countries. Mitigation and

Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 12(5), pp.665-684.

Hameso, S. 2012. Development Challenges in the Age of Climate Change: The Case of Sidama. Paper

Presented at the Workshop on the Economy of Southern Ethiopia, Organized by the Ethiopian

Economics Association, Southern Chapter. Hawassa University, Department of Economics, held

on 1 March, 2012

Hassan, R. and Nhemachena, C., 2007. Determinants of climate adaptation strategies of African farmers:
Multinomial choice analysis. African Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 2(1): 83-
104 Household survey data evidence from the Nile basin of Ethiopia. IFPRI Discussion

Hummel D (2015). Climate Change, Land Degradation and Migration in Mali and Senegal-some Policy

Implications, Migration and Development. Institute of Social-Ecological Research, Hamburger

Allee 45, 60486 Frankfurt/Main, German.

37
Idoma, K. and Ismail, M., 2014. The Effects of Land Tenure Practice on Agricultural Output in Agatu
Local Government Area of Benue State, Nigeria. Journal of Development and Agricultural
Economics, 6(5): 212-219.

IFPRI. 2004. Ending Hunger in Africa: Prospects for the small farmer. Washington, D.C., USA

IFPRI-International Food Policy Research Institute (2007) Sustainable Solutions for ending Hunger and

Poverty CLIMATE CHANGE Minimizing the Risks and Maximizing the Benefits for the Poor

[online] www.ifpri.org

IPCC (2001): Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Third

Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, J.J.McCarthy, O.F.

Canziani, N.A. Leary, D.J. Dokken and K.S. White, Eds., Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge, 1032 pp.

IPCC 2007, ‘Climate Change: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability’ Contribution of Working Group II

to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Parry, ML,

Canziani, OF, Palutikof, JP, van der Linden, PJ & Hanson, CE, Eds., Cambridge University

Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 976.

IPCC 2014b, ‘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 [Field, CB, Barros, VR, Dokken, DJ, Mach, KJ,

Mastrandrea,MD, Bilir, TE, Chatterjee, M, Ebi, KL, Estrada, YO, Genova, RC, Girma, B, Kissel,

ES, Levy, AN, MacCracken, S, Mastrandrea, PR, & White LL, (eds.)], Cambridge University

Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 1132.

38
IPCC, 2012. Summary for Policymakers. In: Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to

Advance Climate Change Adaptation. A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA,:

Cambridge University Press, pp. 3-21.

IPCC, 2013. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the

Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 1 ed. Cambridge,

United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press. Adaptation to climate

change on food production in low income countries:

IPCC. 2001. Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working

Group II to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Jagtap, S., 2007, June. Managing vulnerability to extreme weather and climate events: Implications for

agriculture and food security in Africa. In Proceedings of the International Conference on

Climate Change and Economic Sustainability held at Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Enugu,

Nigeria (pp. 12-14).

Kahsay, H.T., Guta, D.D., Birhanu, B.S., Gidey, T.G., 2019. Farmers’ Perceptions of Climate Change
Trends and Adaptation Strategies in Semiarid Highlands of Eastern Tigray, Northern Ethiopia.
Adv. Meteorol. 2019, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/3849210
Kandlinkar, M & Risbey, J., 2000. Agricultural impacts of climate change: If adaptation is the answer,
what is the question? Climatic change 45: 529-539.
Karienye, D., Nduru, G., Kamiri, H., 2019. Socioeconomic Determinants of Banana Farmers’ Perception
to Climate Change in Nyeri County, kenya. J. Arts Humanit. 08, 13.

Kibassa, D., 2013. Indigenous Rain Water Harvesting Practices for Climate Adaptation in Food Security

in Dry Areas: The Case of Bahi District.

39
Kitiem, P., Kipkorir, E. and Omondi, P., 2008. Effects of Climate Change on Maize Production in
Kenya: A Case Study of Two Agro-climate Areas. Paper Presented at the 11th KARI Biennial
Scientific Conference, 13-17 November, 2008. Not much with any article

Kotrlik, J.W.K.J.W. and Higgins, C.C.H.C.C., 2001. Organizational research: Determining appropriate

sample size in survey research appropriate sample size in survey research. Information

technology, learning, and performance journal, 19(1), p.43.

Lamedjo, P.Y., 2019. Perceptions, Vulnerability and Livelihood Adaptation of Smallholder Farmers to
Climate Change: Evidence from Kembata Tembaro Zone, Southern Ethiopia

Legesse, B. and Drake, L., 2005. Determinants of smallholder farmers' perceptions of risk in the Eastern
Highlands of Ethiopia. Journal of Risk Research, 8(5), pp.383-416.

Lobell, D.B., Burke, M.B., Tebaldi, C., Mastrandrea, M.D., Falcon, W.P. and Naylor, R.L., 2008.
Prioritizing climate change adaptation needs for food security in 2030. Science, 319(5863),
pp.607-610.

Maddison, D. 2006. Perception and adaptation to climate change in Africa. CEEPA Discussion Paper
No. 10. Centre for Environmental Economics and Policy in Africa, University of Pretor. Source
Economics, 2: 83-104

Madzwamuse, M., 2010. Climate Governance in Africa: Adaptation Strategies and Institutions. Heinrich

Böll Stiftung (HBS).

Mendelsohn, R.O. and Dinar, A., 2009. Climate change and agriculture: an economic analysis of global

impacts, adaptation and distributional effects. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Mollicone, D., Eva, H.D. and Achard, F., 2006. Ecology: Human role in Russian wild fires. Nature,

440(7083), p.436.

40
Mongi, H., Majule, A.E. and Lyimo, J.G., 2010. Vulnerability and adaptation of rain fed agriculture to

climate change and variability in semi-arid Tanzania. African Journal of Environmental Science

and Technology, 4(6).

Nelson, G.C., Rosegrant, M.W., Koo, J., Robertson, R., Sulser, T., Zhu, T., Ringler, C., Msangi, S.,
Palazzo, A., Batka, M. and Magalhaes, M., 2009. Climate change: Impact on agriculture and
costs of adaptation (Vol. 21). Intl Food Policy Res Inst.Ngigi, S.N., 2009. Climate change
adaptation strategies: water resources management options for smallholder farming systems in
sub-Saharan Africa. New York, NY: The Earth Institute at Columbia University.

Ngoe, et al, Zhou, l., l., Mukete, b.2 – Enjema, m., m., b.2.–. Enjema, m., mukete, b.2. Perceptions of
climate variability and determinants of farmers’ adaptation strategies in the highlands of
Southwest Cameroon

NMA (National Meteorological Agency), 2007. Climate Change National Adaptation Program of
Action (NAPA) of Ethiopia.

NMSA (National Metrological service agency), 2004. Initial national communication of Ethiopia to the
united national framework conventions on climate change (UNFCC). NMSA, Addis Ababa.

NMSA, 2007. Climate Change National Adaptation Program of Action (NAPA), Ethiopia Country
Report. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. is the same cieted on ABEBA so is not repet as NAPA rather
than as AGRONOMEY

Nordhaus W (2006). Geography and Macroeconomics: New Data and Findings. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci.

103:3510-3517..

Ojo, T.O., Baiyegunhi, L.J.S., 2019. Determinants of climate change adaptation strategies and its impact
on the net farm income of rice farmers in south-west Nigeria. Land Use Policy 103946.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.04.007

41
Olsen, K.H., 2006. National ownership in the implementation of global climate policy in Uganda.
Climate Policy 5: 599-612. Paper No. 828. International Food Policy Research Institute,
Washington, DC.

Omer, A.A., 2019.Adoption of climate smart agricultural technologies and determinants choice of
adaptation strategies to climate variability in midhega tola district, eastern Ethiopia

Orindi A. and Eriksen S. (2005). Mainstreaming adaptation to climate change in the development

process in Uganda. Eco. Policy Series 15. Nairobi, Kenya: African Centre for Technology

Studies.

Pavanello, S., 2009. Exploring political marginalization, donors’ polices and cross border issues:
Literature review, Humanitarian Policy Group, Overseas development Institute, London.

Pearce, W. T., 2009. Living with Climate Change: How Prairie Farmers Deal with increasing Weather
Variability. Natural Resource Institute: university of Manitoba, 70 Dysart Road Winnipeg
Manitoba, Canada, R3T 2N2.

Petersen, J, F. 2012. Physical geography. Geography, Anthropology. Western University, Macomb,

10th edition: pp 213-214.

Pettengell, C., 2010. Climate Change Adaptation: Enabling people living in poverty to adapt. Oxfam
Policy and Practice: Climate Change and Resilience, 6(2), pp.1-48.

Raghuvanshi, R., Ansari, M.A., 2019. A Scale to Measure Farmers’ Risk Perceptions about Climate
Change and Its Impact on Agriculture. Asian J. Agric. Ext. Econ. Sociol. 1– 10.
https://doi.org/10.9734/ajaees/2019/v32i130145

Rao, K.P.C., Verchot, L.V. and Laarman, J., 2007. Adaptation to climate change through
sustainable management and development of agroforestry systems. Journal of SAT agricultural
research, 4(1), pp.1-30.

42
 Ringer, C., 2008, December. Food and water under global change: developing adaptive capacity
with a focus on rural Africa. In workshop “How can African agriculture adapt to climate change
(pp. 11-13).Rockstrom, J. 2000. Water resources management in smallholder farms in eastern
and southern Africa, an overview.

Rosegrant, M.W., Ewing, M., Yohe, G., Burton, I., Huq, S. and Valmonte-Santos, R., 2008. Climate

change and agriculture: threats and opportunities. Climate protection programme for Developing

Sadiq, M.A., Kuwornu, J.K.M., Al-Hassan, R.M., Alhassan, S.I., 2019. Assessing Maize Farmers’
Adaptation Strategies to Climate Change and Variability in Ghana. Agriculture 9, 90.
https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture9050090

Satapathy, S., Porsche, I., Rolker, D., 2014. A Framework for Climate Change Vulnerability
Assessments. Deutsche Gesellschaft for International Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH, New Delhi.

Schneider, S., W. Easterling and L. Mearns. 2002. Adaptation: Sensitivity to Natural Variability, Agent
Assumptions and Dynamic Climate Changes, Climate Change 45: 203–221

Smit, B. and Skinner, M.W., 2002. Adaptation options in agriculture to climate change: a

typology. Mitigation and adaptation strategies for global change, 7(1), pp.85-114.

Smit, B., Burton, I., Klein, R.J. and Wandel, J., 2000. An anatomy of adaptation to climate
change and variability. In Societal adaptation to climate variability and change (pp. 223-251).
Springer, Dordrecht.

Smith, J, B, Klein, and J, T, Richard (2003). Climate Change, Adaptive Capacity and Development,
Imperial College Press, URL:

Solomon Tekalign. 2007. Analysis of Environmental Resources, Climate Change and Livelihood

Strategies in Hararghe Highlands, Eastern Ethiopia. PhD Dissertation. Department of

Geography, College of Science, Andhra University, India.

43
Sowunmi, F. A., and Kintola, J. A., 2009. Effect of climatic variability on maize production in Nigeria.
Research Journal of Environmental and Earth Science, 2(1): 19-30.

Stage, J., 2010. Economic valuation of climate change adaptation in developing countries. Annals of the
New York Academy of Sciences, 1185(1), pp.150-163.

Stern, N. (2008). The Economic of climate change: A review. Available at: http://ww.hm-

treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_reivew_economics_climate_chnage/

stern_review_report.cf Accessed on 18.09.08.

Stern, N., 2008. The economics of climate change. American Economic Review, 98(2), pp.1-37.

Stern, N., Peters, S., Bakhshi, V., Bowen, A., Cameron, C., Catovsky, S., Crane, D., Cruickshank, S.,

Dietz, S. and Edmonson, N., 2006. Stern Review: The economics of climate change (Vol. 30, p.

2006). London: HM treasury.

Tadege, A, (2007). Climate Change National Adaptation Program of Action (NAPA) of Ethiopia, URL:

http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/napa/eth01.pdf (accessed 29.09.2010) to Department of the

Environment, Transport and the Regions. Southampton:

Temesgen, M., Hoogmoed, W.B., Rockstrom, J. and Savenije, H.H.G., 2009. Conservation tillage

implements and systems for smallholder farmers in semi-arid Ethiopia. Soil and Tillage

Research, 104(1), pp.185-191.

Temesgen, T., 2014. Determinants of farmers' choice of adaptation methods to climate change in the
Nile Basin of Ethiopia

Tesfaye, G.K.,2022.Smallholder Farmers’ Adaptation Strategies to Climate Change in Ethiopia:

Evidence from Adwa Woreda of Tigrai Region

44
Thomas, D.S., Twyman, C., Osbahr, H. and Hewitson, B., 2007. Adaptation to climate change and

variability: farmer responses to intra-seasonal precipitation trends in South Africa. Climatic

change, 83(3), pp.301-322.

UNEP, 2007. Global Environment Outlook, GEO 4, Environment for Development, Progress Press Ltd,

Malta.

UNFCCC, 2006. Climate Change: Impacts, Vulnerabilities and Adaptation in Developing Countries
report on the workshop on climatic related risks and extreme events. Unpublished Doctoral
Dissertation, University of Wageningen, the Netherlands. University of Southampton.

UNFCCC. 2007. Climate Change: Impacts, Vulnerabilities and Adaptations in Developing

Countries.UNFCCC. 2009. Least Developed Countries under the UNFCCC.

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. 2006. Climate Change: Impacts,

Vulnerabilities and Adaptation in Developing Countries report on the workshop on climatic

related risks and extreme events. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Wageningen,

the Netherlands.

Van Bodegom, A.J., Savenije, H. and de Wit, M., 2009. Forests and Climate Change: adaptation and
mitigation (No. no. 50). Tropenbos International.

Van de Steeg, J.A., Herrero, M., Kinyangi, J., Thornton, P.K., Rao, K.P.C., Stern, R. and Cooper,

P.J.M., 2009. The influence of current and future climate-induced risk on the agricultural sector

in East and Central Africa: Sensitizing the ASARECA strategic plan to climate change.

Walker, B., Holling, C.S., Carpenter, S.R. and Kinzig, A., 2004. Resilience, adaptability and

transformability in social–ecological systems. Ecology and society, 9(2).

45
Wehbe, M., Eakin, H., Seiler, R., Vinocur, M., Ávila, C. and Marutto, C., 2006. Local perspectives on

adaptation to climate change: lessons from Mexico and Argentina.

Wondossen Sintayehu. 2008. Climate change: global and national response. In: Green Forum (ed.),

Climate change – a burning issue for Ethiopia: proceedings of the 2nd Green Forum Conference

held in Addis Ababa, 31 October–2 November 2007 (Addis Ababa: Green Forum). pp 37–69.

World Bank Group, 2014. World development indicators 2014. World Bank Publications.

World Bank, 2003. Africa rainfall and temperature evaluation system. World Bank, Washington, DC.

World Bank, 2010. “Costing Adaptation through Local Institution. Village survey results – Ethiopia.”

March 2010. Draft Report. Washington, DC: World Bank. Yamane, T., 1967. Problems to

accompany" Statistics, an introductory analysis". Harper & Row.

Yesuf M., Di Falco S., Deressa T., Ringler C. and Kohlin G. 2008. The Impact of Climate Change and

Adaptation on Food Production in Low-Income Countries: Evidence from the Nile Basin,

Ethiopia. IFPRI Discussion Paper 00828.

Yonnas, A. and Solomon A.,2021. Smallholder farmers’ perception of climate change and adaptation

strategy choices in Central Ethiopia

46
47