Research Article

Adaptation Strategies International Journal of

Rural Management
and Farmer-led © 2021 Institute of Rural Management
1­–26

Agricultural Innovations Reprints and permissions:

https://doi.org/10.1177/0973005221999913
in.sagepub.com/journals-permissions-india
to Climate Change in DOI: 10.1177/0973005221999913
journals.sagepub.com/home/irm
Mbire District
of Zimbabwe

Peter Asare-Nuamah1,3, Mclarence Shungu Mandaza1,

and Athanasius Fonteh Amungwa2

Abstract
This study explores adaptation and farmer-led agricultural innovation strategies
of smallholder farmers in Mbire District of Zimbabwe. Guided by explanatory
sequential mixed methods design, 201 smallholder farmers were selected
through multistage probability sampling technique and 18 participants were
purposively selected. The instruments for the study included questionnaire and
interview, which were analysed through basic descriptive and thematic analysis,
respectively. The results show that smallholder farmers have adapted to climate
change through multiple strategies including planting improved and drought
resistant crops, cultivating fewer plots, mixed cropping, keeping more livestock,
applying agrochemicals and local ecological knowledge as well as livelihood
diversification, which are influenced by gender, education and farm size of
respondents. The respondents have diversified their livelihood by engaging in
brick moulding, sales of livestock, petty trade and dependence on remittance
and social safety net as well as reduction in size and number of diets. The study
identified financial, technological, social, institutional and information barriers
to farmers’ adaptation. Farmer-led innovations identified by this study included
planting Kanongo open pollinated variety of maize, pen fattening, over mulching,
cassava cultivation and staggered planting. The implications of the results are
teased out and policy recommendations are suggested.

1 PanAfrican University, Soa, Cameroon.

2 University of Buea, South West Region, Cameroon.
3 University of Environment and Sustainable Development, Ghana.

Corresponding author:
Peter Asare-Nuamah, University of Environment and Sustainable Development, Ghana.
E-mail: pasare-nuamah@uesd.edu.gh
2 International Journal of Rural Management

Keywords
Adaptation, smallholder farmer innovations, agriculture, climate change,
Zimbabwe

In Africa, the African common position on climate change specifically prioritises

adaptation as an important response to climate change (Vanheukelom 2016), to
alleviate climate change impact on agriculture, which is the backbone of African
economies. Agriculture is the major contributor to gross domestic products
and foreign exchange in Africa as well as an important source of employment
(AGRA 2014). Governments across the continent have therefore, formulated
national adaptation policies (NAPs) to address the challenges exerted by climate
change on socioeconomic development. While NAPs provide a comprehensive
framework for climate change response in Africa (Vanheukelom 2016), agricul-
ture is particularly emphasised as the hardest hit sector, which requires urgent,
sustainable and innovative response to ameliorate livelihood and food security,
especially among smallholder farmers, who constitute about 80% of the agri-
cultural labour force in Africa (FAO 2012), and are equally highly vulnerable to
climate change (AGRA 2018).
Smallholder farmers adapt to climate change by modifying or adjusting their
livelihood systems and strategies, to reduce the adverse impact of current and
future climate change and exploit opportunities (Fleurbaey et al. 2014; IPCC
2007). Previous studies show that smallholder farmers in Ghana, Kenya, Ethiopia
and other African countries apply agrochemicals, in addition to changing planting
dates, application of improved crop varieties, and use of drought resistant and
early maturing crops, to reduce the adverse impact of rising temperature, erratic
rainfall and the associated shocks on agriculture, thereby increasing crop yields
and income (Aniah, Kaunza-Nu-Dem, and Ayembilla 2019; Asare-Nuamah,
Botchway, and Onumah 2019; Tessema, Joerin, and Patt 2018; Bryan et al. 2013).
These strategies are consistent with farmers’ adaptation to climate change in
India, Nepal and Pakistan (Abid et al. 2015; Ali and Erenstein 2017; Khanal et al.
2018; Mehar, Mittal, and Prasad 2016). Smallholder farmers in Africa, particularly
in arid and semi-arid regions practice irrigation farming as response to changing
climate (Sultan and Gaetani 2016; Udmale et al. 2014).
Climate change impact on household food security and livelihood has also
triggered short-term coping strategies among African smallholder farm
households. For instance, smallholder farmers in Mali and Ghana diversify their
livelihood by engaging in alternative sources of income such a petty trade, sales
of processed and unprocessed forest products including fuelwood (Acquah,
Nunoo, and Darfor 2015; Kumasi, Antwi-Agyei, and Obiri-Danso 2019; Sanogo,
Sanogo, and Ba 2016). Sale of livestock, agricultural labour and migration have
been documented in the literature as livelihood diversification strategies among
African rural households (Ellis 2000; Ellis and Freeman 2005; Scoones 2009).
Asare-Nuamah et al. 3

The literature further shows that many poor and subsistence households reduce
the number and size of meals as well as change staple food consumption, due to
climate change impact on household food security (Antwi-Agyei et al. 2018;
Juana, Kahaka, and Okurut 2013). Reliance on communal support and social
network, especially in rural communities, has been reported to help smallholder
farmers to reduce the adverse climate change impact on household income, food
security and livelihood in the short term (Antwi-Agyei et al. 2018).
Indeed socioeconomic characteristics of smallholder farmers and the policy
environment within which they find themselves influence their response to
climate change. For instance, education, household size, gender, access to climate
change information and income positively shape smallholder farmers’ adaptation
(Kumasi, Antwi-Agyei, and Obiri-Danso 2019; Phuong et al. 2018; Tessema,
Joerin, and Patt 2018). Existing studies have also documented the role of
ecological and indigenous knowledge in climate change adaptation in African and
elsewhere (Asare-Nuamah 2020; Hirons et al. 2018; Ahmed, Hu, and Kumar
2016). Nevertheless, farmers’ adaptation to climate change is constrained by
technological, informational, financial, sociocultural and institutional challenges
(Antwi-Agyei, Dougill, and Stringer 2014).
Besides climate change adaptation, Critchley (2007) argues that smallholder
farmers, have, for a very long time, being experimenting new ideas and practices,
to enhance agricultural production and reduce environmental shocks and stresses
that affect their agricultural activities. Implicitly, farmers’ local knowledge of the
environment, including norms and values, play a dominant role in their attempt to
innovate their agricultural system and adapt to climate change, by prompting self-
induced and biocultural adaptation strategies (Gyampoh et al. 2009; Hirons et al.
2018). Without doubt, smallholder farmers are in constant search for new
innovations to tackle their environmental challenges, and hence play a critical role
in championing climate change adaptation and local innovation system (IPCC
2014). Nevertheless, farmers’ innovation and adaptation strategies to climate
change are also triggered by external actors and institutions such as agriculture
extension agents, governments and non-governmental organisation, among others
(Asare-Nuamah, Botchway, and Onumah 2019; Christoplos et al. 2009; Yaro,
Teye, and Bawakyillenuo 2014). This corroborates the notion by Rogers (2003)
that opinion leaders and agents of change contribute immensely to the spread of
innovation in a society. According to Rogers (2003) and Scerri (2016), the
literature on innovation has focused extensively on technological innovations,
with less attention on non-technological innovations, particularly, those of
smallholder farmers, which this study seeks to examine, using Mbire District of
Zimbabwe as the case study.

Adaptation and Agricultural Innovation Efforts in

Zimbabwe
Like many parts of Africa, erratic rainfall, prolong and persistent droughts, floods,
pests and diseases pose serious risk to agricultural activities of smallholder
4 International Journal of Rural Management

farmers in Zimbabwe (Fisher and Carr 2015; Masih et al. 2014). According to
Masih et al. (2014), Zimbabwe has recorded more than six drought episodes
between 1900 and 2013, leading to a significant reduction in crop yields, especially
maize (Fisher et al. 2015), which highlights the extent of exposure and sensitivity
of Zimbabwe’s agriculture system to climate change. This is problematic, as
agriculture contributes over 19% and 40% to GDP and foreign earnings,
respectively, in Zimbabwe, an economy with over 67% rural-based population,
who predominantly practice smallholder agriculture (FAO 2020). Implicitly,
climate change has a great tendency to disrupt and hamper economic growth and
development in Zimbabwe, while crippling rural livelihood and worsening
poverty and food insecurity. Consequently, climate change has triggered the
adoption of climate smart agricultural adaptation and innovation strategies among
smallholder farmers in Zimbabwe (Lopez-Ridaura et al. 2018; Masih et al. 2014).
Guided by the NAPs in Zimbabwe, state support for climate change adaptation
seeks to promote cleaner and sustainable agricultural practices and production,
with a spillover in yields, income and food security. Nevertheless, in consonance
with Sarpong and Anyidoho (2012), national policies more often than not, do not
align with local realities. For instance, poverty among smallholder farmers in
Zimbabwe constrain the adoption of sustainable and climate smart agricultural
practices. In addition, national adaptation strategies and policies do not prioritise
the different ecological context of smallholder farmers (Simelton et al. 2013).
Chazovachii, Chigwenya, and Mushuku (2012) particularly noted that maize crop
commercialisation in Zimbabwe compelled smallholder farmers in the Munyaradzi
communal area in the Gutu District to engage in maize farming, even though their
ecological conditions are unfavourable for maize, thereby reducing yields and
increasing household food shortage. Similarly, Matarira, Makadho, and
Mukahanana-Sangarwe (2004) lament that despite the government’s
commercialisation of maize, the Masvingo Province, a popular maize growing
area in Zimbabwe, is likely to become unfavourable to maize crop, due to climate
change. However, Nyahunda and Tirivangasi (2019) posit that sorghum and
millet, which are drought tolerant and hence good alternative to maize crop, have
not received the needed government attention and funding for commercial
production.
It is, however, important to note that despite the financial burden that comes
with the adoption of climate smart agricultural innovation among poor households
(Lopez-Ridaura et al. 2018), it enables smallholder farmers to increase crop yields
and conserve the environment (Lopez-Ridaura et al. 2018; Turner et al. 2017). As
argued by Fisher et al. (2015) and Makate et al. (2017), drought tolerant maize
adoption has improved agricultural production and enhanced food security and
income in Zimbabwe. To corroborate this, a study by Lunduka et al. (2017) shows
that drought tolerant maize adoption among smallholder farmers in Zimbabwe,
increases their income from maize by US$240, for every hectare of land.
Besides the adoption of drought tolerant maize innovation in Zimbabwe,
conservation agricultural innovation has also gained the attention of smallholder
farmers (Makate, Makate, and Mango 2017; Makate et al. 2017). Characterised
by crop rotations and minimal soil disturbance as well as the protection of soil
Asare-Nuamah et al. 5

surface as a soil cover, conservation agriculture has been reported to be beneficial

to agricultural households and the environment (Mango, Siziba, and Makate
2017). For instance, conservation agriculture contributes essentially to increasing
agricultural production, food security, income generation and improving climate
resilience of smallholder farmers in Zimbabwe (Fisher et al. 2015; Makate et al.
2017; Mango, Siziba, and Makate 2017).
Recognising the growing body of literature on innovative strategies employed
by farmers to counter climate shocks and stressors in Zimbabwe (Makate et al.
2017; Mango, Siziba, and Makate 2017), majority of the studies have focused
extensively on externally driven innovations, without exploring farmer-led
innovations emerging from smallholder farmers. For instance, the adoption of
drought tolerant maize in Zimbabwe was implemented by the International Maize
and Wheat Improvement Center (Lybbert and Carter 2015). This study therefore
examines the adaptation strategies of smallholder farmers in Mbire District of
Zimbabwe, and explores farmer-led agricultural innovation to climate change. To
this end, the study answers the research question: which adaptation and farmer-
led innovation strategies are employed by smallholder farmers in Mbire District
of Zimbabwe?

Methods

Study Design and Setting

The study adopted explanatory sequential mixed method design, which allowed
the initial collection of quantitative data, followed by qualitative data collection.
The choice of explanatory sequential mixed method design was guided by the
assumption that quantitative data will provide an initial or general idea of the
adaptation strategies of smallholder farmers, which will serve as the basis for an
in-depth qualitative data collection on farmer-led innovations. According to
Creswell (2014) the explanatory sequential mixed method design is useful and
appropriate when the researcher wants to have in-depth information or explanation
from the initial quantitative data. The selected approach therefore guided the type
of question to be asked and the respondents to be selected, based on the results
from the quantitative data.
The study was conducted in the rural Mbire District of Zimbabwe. Mbire is
located in Mashonaland Central region in the lower Zambezi valley area of
Zimbabwe and shares border with Zambia and Mozambique to the North and East
of Zimbabwe, respectively (see Figure 1). The district is situated in the arid region
and the III and IV agro-ecological zones1 and hence receives a mean rainfall of
450–650mm per annum, which is far below the national average of 550–900 mm
per annum. Mbire also experiences very high temperatures with winter and
summer temperature averaging 15oC and over 30oC, respectively (World Food
Programme 2016). In addition to low rainfall and extreme temperature, the district
observes floods, partly due to its location in the Zambezi valley.
6 International Journal of Rural Management

Figure 1. Map of Zimbabwe (top left) Demarcating Mashonaland Central Region (top
right) and Mbire District.
Source: Author’s construction from Google maps, and OCHA, 2018.

Figure 2. Kanongo OPV Maize.

Source: Taken by the second author during fieldwork (2018).
Asare-Nuamah et al. 7

Crop production in the district is fairly low, due to unfavourable climatic

conditions (Bola et al. 2014). Cotton production in addition to maize, forms an
integral part of the agricultural system in the district. Livestock production,
particularly goat, is also well adaptable to the region because of the sweetveld,
although there are several diseases due to the presence of wildlife in the district.
Unlike other districts in Zimbabwe, where farmers practice both commercial and
subsistence farming, communal or subsistence farming is the most dominant
farming system in Mbire District. It is indicative that Mbire District is highly
vulnerable to climate change, and hence a good case study to examine adaptation
and farmer-led innovations to climate change.

Sample and Sampling Procedure

The respondents for the study comprised 201 smallholder farmers, selected from
a farmer household population of 420, and guided by Krejcie and Morgan (1970)
statistical table for sample size selection. The farmer household population was
obtained from the registers of ward extension officers, which served as the
sampling frame. For agricultural extension purposes, farming communities in
Zimbabwe are divided into wards, and Mbire has 17 wards. The selection of
farmer households was guided by the definition of household given by ZimVAC
(2017) as a ‘family cooking and staying together for a period of three months or
more whilst their main livelihood activity is farming’. On the basis of this
definition and with the assistance of ward extension officers, 420 farmer
households were identified and 201 households were selected.
A multistage sampling technique that included simple random and systematic
sampling techniques, was employed in the selection of respondents for the
quantitative phase of the study. Four wards were randomly selected. Except one
ward where 51 farmer households were selected, 50 farmer households were
selected from each of the wards. The selection of farmer households in all the
wards was guided by systematic sampling technique, where the researchers
randomly chose the third household as a starting point, from the household
register. From the starting point, the next second household was selected. This
process was repeated until a sampling size of 50 households were selected from
each ward.
As an explanatory sequential mixed methods study, the results from the
quantitative data served as the basis for the selection of participants for the
qualitative phases. Results from quantitative data revealed that 42 (20.9%)
households apply farmer-led innovations as response to climate change. The study
used Critchley’s farmer innovator checklist (see Critchley 2007) and identified
five farmer-led innovations. Farmers who have been using these innovations over
the past five years were purposively selected for in-depth interviews. This resulted
in the selection of 18 farmers. Farmer-led innovation was defined as ‘the
development of systems that are new in local terms, by farmers using their own
creativity’ (Critchley 2007, 13). It also involves the transfer and/or exchange of
new practices within local communities through farmer-to-farmer interactions.
8 International Journal of Rural Management

Instruments and Data Collection Procedure

The study used questionnaire survey, which was developed after an extensive
review of literature. The questionnaire was divided in four sections. Except the
first section, which constituted multiple choice questions, all other sections were
made up of binary response (Yes/No) questions. Section A collected information
on respondent’s demographic profile. The choice of the variables in the section
was guided by previous studies which reported that smallholder farmers’
demographic profile influenced their adaptation decisions (see Kumasi, Antwi-
Agyei, and Obiri-Danso 2019; Tessema, Joerin, and Patt 2018). Sections B, C and
D collected information on adaptation strategies, coping responses and barriers to
adaptation, respectively, which were profiled based on the literature (see Aniah,
Kaunza-Nu-Dem, and Ayembilla 2019; Bryan et al. 2009, 2013; Mehar, Mittal,
and Prasad 2016). In addition to questionnaire survey, the study used semi-
structured interview guide to garner in-depth information on farmer-led
innovations. Prior to field data collection, which started from May to September
2018, eight extension officers from the selected wards were recruited and trained
to administer questionnaire. The instrument was piloted with 10 smallholder
farmers who were excluded from the study. This helped to identify and correct
ambiguous questions. The instrument was also perused by two experts, which
enhanced its content and face validity.
Face-to-face questionnaire administration was conducted in the homes of
respondents. Similarly, face-to-face interviews were also conducted in homes and
farms, based on the preference of the participants. All interviews were conducted
in the local language and lasted for about 45 min to 1 h. The interviews were
tapped recorded, upon consent of the participants. Through transect walks and
farm visits, the researchers observed how some of the participants practiced
farmer-led innovation. Field notes were also taken to complement the interviews.
In addition, a focus group discussion that involved 12 participants and lasted for
an hour, was conducted to understand the suitability of the innovations, using
Critchley’s indicators, which included technical effectiveness, economic validity,
environmental friendliness and social acceptability. The study adhered to ethical
principles including informed consent and voluntary participation.

Data Analysis
Quantitative data were analysed through basic descriptive statistics. Cronbach’s
alpha test was computed to examine the internal consistency of the data. The
computation resulted in Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.79. Pallant (2016)
posits that Cronbach’s alpha coefficient >0.7 demonstrates high internal
consistency (reliability) of data. To examine the influence of respondent’s
demography on adaptation to climate change, chi-square test of independence
was computed. The dependent variable in the analysis was whether a respondent
has adapted to climate change, while the independent variables included gender,
education, marital status and average farm size.
Asare-Nuamah et al. 9

In the case of qualitative data, the researchers listened to the recorded interviews
and then transcribed them from the local language to English. The transcripts
were shared with the participants to validate their views (Creswell 2014).
Afterwards, the transcripts were perused consistently to identify emerging themes
and patterns. The study followed Braun and Clarke's (2014) four stages of thematic
(manual) analysis, which included: coding, theme identification and organisation
as well as interpretation. The researchers paid attention to frequency, differences
and similarity of views expressed by the participants in theme identification and
organisation. The participant’s views are expressed in verbatim quotes.

Findings

Respondents’ Characteristics
The demographic characteristics of the respondents are represented in Table 1.
There were more males (71%) than females (29%). A vast majority of the
respondents (83%) were married. Although only 2% of the respondents have no
formal education, about 37% and 56% have primary and secondary education
qualification, respectively. In terms of landholdings of respondents, about 85% of
the respondents have farmland size below 5 hectares, which is typical of
smallholder farming system. For instance, about 59% and 29% of the respondents
farm on 3–4.9 and 1–2.9 hectares of land, respectively.

Table 1. Respondent’s Demography.

Variables Frequency %
Gender
Male 143 71.1
Female 58 28.9
Marital Status
Married 167 83.1
Divorced 4 2.0
Separated 2 1.0
Widowed 26 12.9
Single 2 1.0
Education
No formal education 4 2.0
Primary 74 36.8
Secondary 113 56.2
Post-secondary/tertiary 10 5.0
Average Farm Size
Less than 1 ha 8 4.0
1–2.9 ha 44 21.8
(Table 1 continued)
10 International Journal of Rural Management

(Table 1 continued)
Variables Frequency %
3–4.9 ha 119 59.2
5–5.9 ha 14 7.0
6 ha and above 16 8.0
Source: Authors’ computation from fieldwork (2018).

Adaptation and Coping Strategies

The adaptation strategies of smallholder farmers are presented in Table 2. The
most common adaptation strategies adopted by the respondents are planting
improved maize variety (89%) and drought-resistant crops (88%) as well as
cultivation of fewer plots (86%) and dependence on non-farm activities (83%).
About 77% of the respondents keeps more livestock while 74% each, practice
mixed cropping, use agrochemicals and apply indigenous agro-ecological
knowledge. Interestingly, only 18% of the respondents practices irrigation
farming, giving the arid condition of the study area. About 21% of the respondents
also migrate as adaptation strategy to climate change. Results further show that
respondent’s adaptation to climate change is significantly influenced by gender (p
= 0.01), marital status (p = 0.05) and farm size (p = 0.03).

Table 2. Adaptation Strategies.

Variables Frequency (n = 201) %
Practice mixed cropping 148 73.6
Plant improved maize varieties 178 88.6
Cultivate fewer plots 173 86.1
Plant drought-resilient crops 176 87.6
Cultivate more crops other than maize and beans 138 68.7
Depend more on non-farm activities 166 82.6
Keep more livestock 154 76.6
Apply agrochemicals 148 73.6
Practice irrigation farming 36 17.9
Migration 43 21.4
Apply indigenous agroecological knowledge 148 73.6
Purchase and use farm equipment (e.g., ox drawn
plough, scotch carts and knapsack sprayers) 143 71.1
Chi square
Gender χ2 = 1.02, df = 1, p = 0.01*
Marital status χ2 = 2. 32, df = 1, p = 0.05*
Education χ2 = 1.64, df = 1, p = 0.63
Average farm size χ2 = 3.21, df = 1, p = 0.03*
Source: Authors’ computation from fieldwork (2018).
Note: p is significant at 0.05.
Asare-Nuamah et al. 11

Table 3 presents short-term coping strategies including sales of livestock, petty

trade and reliance on remittances, adopted by smallholder farmers in Mbire District
of Zimbabwe. Engagement in petty trade is the most common coping strategies of
smallholder farmers, as indicated by 87% of the respondents. About 79% of the
respondents sell their livestock as a response to minimise the adverse impact of
climate change on livelihood and food security of their households. More than half
of the respondents also rely on remittance (66%) and social safety net assistance
from government and donors (57%), due to climate change and its adverse impact.
Brick moulding, is particularly gaining acceptance as alternative source of
livelihood among smallholder farmers, as indicated by 50% of the respondents.
The barriers to adaptation strategies reported by smallholder farmers are
presented in Table 4. A vast majority of the respondents (91%) indicated that low
financial capacity of smallholder farmers greatly impedes their adaptive capacity
to respond to climate change. About 90% and 87% of the respondents, respectively,
reported that unreliable climate forecast information and climate variability hinder
effective response to climate change. The respondents showed that insufficient
and untimely delivery of agricultural inputs (82%), together with poor access to
extension services (78%) negatively affect their adaptation strategies to climate
change. Poor involvement of smallholder farmers in climate change adaptation
policies, leading to top-down formulation and implementation of adaptation
strategies also hinder farmers’ response to climate change, as reported by 79% of
the respondents. In addition, about 62% of the respondents showed that
overdependence on modern farming methods, which neglect traditional practices
pose a challenge to climate change adaptation. Increase in pests and diseases, poor
climate change and adaptation education, and high incidence of human diseases
also negatively impact climate change adaptation, as revealed by 75% , 78% and
54% of the respondents, respectively. About 39% of the respondents noted that
migration of youth poses a challenge to climate change adaptation.

Table 3. Coping Strategies.

Variables Frequency (n = 201) %
Sales of livestock 158 78.6
Depend on emittances 132 65.7
Depend on assistance (social safety net) from
government and donors 115 57.2
Reduction in number and size of diet 93 42.3
Change in diet 88 43.9
Wage labour 69 34.3
Brick moulding 101 50.2
Petty trade 174 86.7
Source: Authors’ computation from fieldwork (2018).
12 International Journal of Rural Management

Table 4. Barriers to Adaptation.

Variables Frequency (n = 201) %
Climate variability (e.g., drought, floods,
rising temperature and erratic rainfall) 175 87.1
Insufficient and untimely delivery of
agricultural inputs 165 82.1
Low financial capacity 183 91.0
Top-down strategies 159 79.1
Pests and diseases 151 75.1
Unreliable weather forecast informa-
tion 180 89.6
Poor access to extension services 157 78.1
Poor agronomics practices 76 37.8
Poor education on climate change and
adaptation mechanisms 156 77.6
Increase cases of human diseases (e.g.
malaria, HIV/AIDS) 109 54.2
Poor access to technology 133 66.2
Migration of youth 78 38.8
Source: Authors’ computation from fieldwork (2018).

Farmer-led Innovations
This section presents the farmer-led innovations adopted by smallholder farmers
in Mbire District of Zimbabwe.

Kanongo Open-pollinated Variety of maize

The use of open pollinated variety (OPV) maize as shown in Figure 2, according
to the participants, is new to farmers and began around 2011. A farmer (F4)
intimated that, ‘OPV practice is common among farmers in neighboring
Mozambique and might have been transferred to Mibire, due to its proximity and
farmer-to-farmer exchange’. Another farmer (F17) noted that ‘OPV is not popular
among farmers here because the National Marketing Board is reluctant to buy, as
it is considered an impure variety of maize’. Consequently, majority of farmers
do not engage in planting OPV maize. Nevertheless, farmers who plant OPV
maize presume it to be resilient to climate change. According to F6, which was
also confirmed by majority of the participants during the focus group discussion,
‘Kanongo, being OPV mixed variety, is resilient to seasonal change in climate’.
It emerged during the focus group discussion that Kanongo OPV gives better
yields under drought conditions compared to hybrid maize varieties. This
confirms the views of F1 that ‘I use both OPV and hybrid such as SC513, Pan 53
Asare-Nuamah et al. 13

and M7, but OPV performs better during drought and when planted along
riverbanks compared to the hybrid varieties’. Being a drought tolerant maize
variety, OPV promotes food security of farmer households.
The focus group discussion revealed that OPV is technically effective, as it
requires less effort after planting. According to a farmer, ‘OPV is drought tolerant
and requires less effort, unlike hybrids that have to be irrigated’ (F18). Kanongo
OPV, according to the participants, is economically viable, as it increases yields
and enhances household food security. In the case of environmental friendliness of
OPV, the participants asserted that though it does not degrade or destroy the
environment in anyhow, however, the ability of OPV to contaminate hybrid seeds
through cross pollination, was a major concern among the farmers. The participants
were ambivalent regarding the social acceptability of Kanongo OPV maize. While
some farmers believe that OPV is gradually gaining acceptance among farmers in
the district due to its ability to withstand the drought condition, others opine that
the reluctance of the National Marketing Board to trade in OPV and its contamination
of hybrids, make the innovation unpopular among majority of farmers.

Over Mulching
Over mulching (see Figure 3), as a farmer-led innovation strategy has been with
the farmers since 2009. Its origin is traced to the use of basins in combination with
the application of improved compost, under the Foundations for Farming training,
which ended in 2008. A farmer hinted that:

Figure 3. Farmers Show 100% Mulch Cover in Madziwa Communal Lands.

Source: Taken by the second author during fieldwork (2018).
14 International Journal of Rural Management

I was among the farmers who received training under the Foundation for Farming
training project. After the project ended in 2008, majority of the trained farmers
abandoned the use of basins and compost as they regarded the practice to be labour
intensive. However, few of us continued the practice. Based on the knowledge from the
use of basins and compost, we began to experiment over mulching on our farms. (F4)

The focus group discussion also revealed that over mulching has cultural or
traditional backing. For instance, the farmers indicated that those who practice
over mulching are motivated by the belief that mulch is gumbeze raMwari, which
means mulch is ‘God’s blanket’ to cover the soil, and conserve moisture in the
face of climate change. Although extension officers recommend mulching of up
to 30% to farmers, it was revealed that farmers who practice over mulching
experiment up to 100% mulch cover, which far exceeds the normal practice
recommended. A participant explained that ‘we apply about 100% mulch cover to
increase crop’s resilience to moisture stress’ (F7). Another participant intimated
that ‘over mulching is essential as crops temporarily wilt during severe dry spells
whilst conventional field plots are permanently wilting’ (F16).
The focus group discussion revealed that upon the application of mulch with a
height of up to 30 cm, crops became resilient to moisture stress. The majority of
the participants noted that over mulching requires the transfer of mulch from
grasslands by tractors, which increases their agricultural expenditure. Lack of
access to tractors make the practice technically ineffective to farmers. Nevertheless,
others reported that they substitute the use of tractors with hired and family labour.
In addition, over mulching makes it difficult to locate the exact spot of planting
basin during land preparation. Economically, over mulching has proven to be
viable as it increases crop yields, resulting in an increase in household income
from agriculture. For instance, a farmer (F10) hinted that ‘l harvested 3 tonnes of
maize on half a hectare because I over mulched’.
Although mulch serves as a soil cover, which promotes soil conservation and
reduces erosion, the collection of mulch from grassland increases environmental
degradation and soil erosion in grassland areas. The participants were ambivalent
with respect to social acceptability of over mulching. A participant hinted that

over mulching is socially acceptable compared to other conservation agricultural

practice where farmers fence their farms, thereby restricting the free movement of
livestock in the community. This practice creates tension between crop and
livestock farmers and hence affects social stability, as conservation agricultural
farmers are perceived by the community to be selfish. However, over mulching is
practiced on open fields and hence does not restrict livestock movement nor create
social tension. (F11)

Nevertheless, another farmer reacted that ‘over mulching affects livestock

keeping, as it reduces the availability of grass for livestock, particularly in
grassland regions’ (F3).
Asare-Nuamah et al. 15

Pen Fattening
Livestock farmers in Mbire, have since 2014 been experimenting organic pen
fattening, to reduce the adverse impact of climate change, particularly drought, on
livestock keeping activities. Changing climate such as drought and the
accompanying reduction in forage, water and increasing pests and diseases
triggered the need for farmers to innovate their livestock keeping practices.
Although pen fattening is not completely new to livestock farmers, they have
modified the manner in which it is practiced. Unlike conventional pen fattening
that involves the use of inorganic supplementary feed purchased in shops,
respondents in this study use homemade pen fattening from organic crop residue.
A farmer (F16) noted that ‘we do not have enough money to buy inorganic
supplementary feeds, which are always expensive. Hence, we now use organic
crop residue in pen fattening of livestock such as cattle and goat’. Residues from
leguminous crops such as groundnuts, soya beans, cow pea and sorghum, in
addition to wild grass, are mostly used by the participants. The focus group
discussion revealed that farmers are convinced to use these crops as they perceive
them to be rich in nutrient needed by livestock. Pen fattening, according to the
participants, contributes immensely to accelerate the rate of growth and the quality
of livestock, which increases their market value.
A farmer hinted that ‘you can only get good price for your livestock if they look
healthy and attractive. Organic pen fattening therefore helps farmers to gain high
market value for their livestock’ (F1). Pen fattening requires less technical skills in
the gathering and preparation of residue, hence the participants feel the innovation
is technically effectiveness. While the innovation has the potential to increase
productivity in livestock and yet less costly compared to inorganic supplements, it
requires extra labour and commitment to gather enough crop residues to feed the
livestock in the cattle pens. The environmental friendliness of pen fattening was
questioned, as some participants revealed during the focus group discussion that
the continuous collection of residue exposes the soil, which increases run off and
erosion during the raining season. In effect, the participants agreed that the
collection of residues will in the long run affect soil fertility and reduce crop yields.
This consequently affects the social acceptability of the innovation. In addition, a
participant expressed that ‘many livestock farmers prefer open range livestock
farming to pen fattening, which requires the animals to be confined’ (F8).

Cassava Cultivation
Mbire District is noted for its arid characteristics and hence deter farmers from
engaging in cassava cultivation. Nevertheless, the reduction in staple crops
particularly maize, due to erratic rainfall and high temperature, prompted some
farmers to experiment cassava cultivation. A farmer who has been cultivating
cassava for the past six years noted that
16 International Journal of Rural Management

‘we started experimenting cassava cultivation in 2013. At that time, we were

told by community members that cassava is a high water requirement crop and as
such unsuitable for a dry region like Mbire, but we were determined to try it in our
backyard garden’. (F5)
Another participant stated that

I heard of cassava cultivation in 2015 from a farmer friend. I was initially skeptical
to cultivate cassava but I tried it. I later realized that the notion among many farmers
that cassava cannot thrive well in this region was untrue, as cassava crop has proven
to be drought tolerant’ (F7)

According to F13, cassava crop came in handy in alleviating hunger and food
insecurity in a district characterised by successive droughts due to erratic rainfall.
It was observed that women farmers are more engaged in cassava cultivation. F5
intimated that ‘I am in a group of 5 women who engage in backyard cassava
gardening’. The multipurpose nature of cassava makes it a good alternative to
combat hunger and increase household food security, particularly among people
living in poverty. The focus group discussion highlighted that cassava has multiple
functions, as it can be processed into pounded powder, porridge powder and
bread, as well as it can be dried for future use. Notwithstanding, cassava cultivation
is not practiced by majority of farmers in the district, as many farmers are skeptical
of the suitability of the climatic conditions of the district for cassava.

Staggered Planting
A section of the participants practice staggered planting, due to the change in
rainfall season (onset and cessation). Explaining the reason for adopting staggered
planting of crops, a farmer reported that ‘I was motivated by years of being
chronically food insecure and increased poverty exacerbated by climate change’
(F2). Describing how farmers practice staggered planting, F9 hinted that ‘we
plant crops particularly maize, in three tiers. The first planting is done on 20
November, the second on 1 December and the third tier on 25 December’. The
practice enables smallholder farmers to minimise the adverse impact of climate
change on their agricultural activities. For instance, according to F15:

since we cannot predict the rainfall season, we cannot plant our crops at once. What
if there is no rain and the crops wither? As such, we plant in tiers, while increasing
the size of land gradually. In this case, if the first tier does not get rainfall, the second
and/or the third will certainly meet the raining season, thereby minimizing the
impact of poor rainfall on crop yields.

Since the practice is still in its experimental phase, the farmers expressed that it is
technically challenging as it is difficult to decide which planting phase to commit
more planting area due to the risk of crop failure. Consequently, the survival of the
first tier planted crop is by chance, since it is dry planted, without rainfall.
Asare-Nuamah et al. 17

In addition, the practice requires record keeping and a systematic observation

of the most ideal planting dates over time. The practice may not necessarily
increase crop yield but it offers farmers the potential to reduce the adverse impact
of poor rainfall on agricultural activities and hence their livelihood and food
security. The farmers practice staggered planting using conventional farming,
characterised by maximum soil disturbance, which increases run off and soil
erosion during rainfall. Staggered planting has not gained popularity among
farmers in the district as there is the belief that the practice somehow goes against
the cultural principle that prohibits planting too early before the traditional ritual
of requesting rains from the ancestors. In addition, the selection of staggered
planting dates mostly falls on a Friday, which is traditionally a field abstinence
day, known locally as Chisi. Hence, staggered planting is believed to violate
traditional beliefs and practices.

Discussion
This study adopted explanatory sequential mixed method design to investigate
adaptation strategies and farmer-led agricultural innovations to climate change
among smallholder farmers in Mbire District of Zimbabwe. The results from the
study show that respondents combine both on- and off-farm adaptation strategies
to reduce the adverse impact of climate change on livelihood and food security of
their households. On-farm adaptation strategies employed by the farmers include
planting improved maize variety and drought resistant crops, mixed cropping and
application of agrochemicals such as fertiliser, weedicides and pesticides. Others
include cultivating fewer plots, planting crops other than maize and beans, keeping
more livestock and applying agro-ecological knowledge in their agricultural
activities. Existing studies, particularly in developing economies, reported that
smallholder farmers have adjusted their agricultural activities due to climate
change, by planting improved and drought resistant crop varieties as well as
applying agrochemicals and ecological knowledge (Abid et al. 2015; Antwi-
Agyei et al. 2018; Sultan and Gaetani 2016). In Zimbabwe, Makate, Makate, and
Mango (2017) noted that smallholder farmers have adopted climate smart
agricultural practices such as planting improved and drought-resistant maize
varieties to minimise the impact of climate change. Previous studies show that the
adoption of climate-smart agricultural practices increases crop yields and reduces
loss of income (Lopez-Ridaura et al. 2018; Turner et al. 2017). According to
Fisher et al. (2015), cultivating drought-resistant maize has minimised food
insecurity in households in Zimbabwe.
Contrary to the findings of Mango, Siziba, and Makate (2017), that conservation
agriculture such as irrigation farming is highly practiced by smallholder farmers in
Zimbabwe, this study show that less than one-fifth of the respondents practice
irrigation farming. This is very surprising due to the arid condition of Mbire,
which demands irrigation farming system to increase crop yields and income of
farmers, thereby contributing to food security of households (Mango, Siziba, and
18 International Journal of Rural Management

Makate 2017). Nevertheless, high cost of irrigation facilities (Lopez-Ridaura et al.

2018) coupled with low technical knowledge deter farmers from practicing
irrigation farming. Farmers in Mbire also apply off-farm or livelihood
diversification strategies such as brick moulding and petty trade to increase their
income and enhance their capacity to adapt to climate change, which is consistent
with existing studies. For instance, in Ghana, Antwi-Agyei et al. (2018) reported
that smallholder farmers diversify their livelihood by fetching and selling fuelwood
and charcoal, as well as engaging in petty trade. However, Brown (2011) noted
that such short-term coping strategies affect adaptive capacity of smallholder
farmers to respond to future climate change, as they exert pressure on households.
The results further show that smallholder farmers in Mbire rely on social safety
net from government and donors, and remittances, as short-term coping strategies
to counter the adverse impact of climate change. Others include diet-based
strategies such as reduction in size and number of diets. These findings are
consistence with studies in Ghana (Antwi-Agyei et al. 2018; Aniah, Kaunza-Nu-
Dem, and Ayembilla 2019), India (Mehar, Mittal, and Prasad 2016) and Uganda
(Okonya, Syndikus, and Kroschel 2013), where smallholder farmers depend on
social network and change in diet to cope with climate change. Studies have also
reported health and nutrition related implications of diet based adaptation
strategies such as reduction in number and size of diets, particularly among poor
households (Antwi-Agyei et al. 2018; FAO et al. 2017). The results also show that
majority of farmers engage in sales of livestock as coping mechanism to reduce
climate change impact. Keeping livestock such as goats and sheep in Mbire is
influenced by the presence of sweetveld. Farmers in Mbire are noted for rearing
mainly goat and cattle. However, high market demand for sheep compared to
goat, has increased farmers’ engagement in keeping sheep. For instance, a matured
sheep is sold at an average of $60 while a goat is sold at $20. According to Wilson
(2014), sales of livestock creates lock-in effects by reducing stock of farmers,
which affects their potential to adapt to future changes in climate.
The results also point to the influence of gender, education and farm size on
smallholder farmers’ adaptation decisions, which is consistent with the literature.
For instance, Asare-Nuamah (2020) and Mehar, Mittal, and Prasad (2016) found
that the adaptation strategies of smallholder farmers in Ghana and India,
respectively, are differentiated by gender, due to higher access to resources among
males than females in rural communities. Male farmers in the study control
household resources and make essential socioeconomic decisions and therefore, in
a better position to adapt to climate change than female farmers. Zamasiya,
Nyikahadzoi, and Mukamuri (2017) reported a positive influence of education on
climate-change adaptation in Zimbabwe. Intuitively, education corresponds with a
better knowledge of climate change and emerging adaptation strategies. In addition,
farm size, which is also closely related to land ownership and economic status of
farmers in rural communities, considerably positively influences adaptive capacity
to respond to climate change (Mehar, Mittal, and Prasad 2016). Smallholder
farmers in Mbire are constrained by financial, technological, information, social
and institutional challenges that affect their capacity to respond to climate change,
which are consistent with previous studies (Antwi-Agyei, Dougill, and Stringer
Asare-Nuamah et al. 19

2014; Dang et al. 2014; Jones and Boyd 2011; Pasquini, Cowling, and Ziervogel
2011). For instance, low income and poor access to financial assistance reduce
farmer’s capacity to tackle climate change. Similarly, migration of youth as a
social barrier reduces human labour for agricultural activities, which exposes
aging farmers to the adverse impact of climate change. In addition, top-town
adaptation strategies neglect the experiences and local knowledge of smallholder
farmers, thereby excluding farmers from institutional policies, which affects
effective implementation of adaptation strategies among farmers. Beckford and
Barker (2007) therefore recommend the need to mainstream local knowledge into
climate change and adaptation policies, as a means to promote sustainable and
effective response to current and future changes in climate. Furthermore, poor
education on climate change and adaptation mechanisms as well as poor access to
reliable climate information serve as barriers to farmer’s response to climate
change. Hirons et al. (2018) and Chepkoech et al. (2018) noted that smallholder
farmers in Ghana and Kenya, respectively, face challenges in accessing reliable
climate information. Moreover, high incidence of human diseases, such as malaria
and HIV, also hinder sustainable adaptation by reducing labour productivity
(UNECA 2011). This finding is unique to this study as existing study have not
emphasised human diseases as a barrier to climate change adaptation.
In consonance with Critchley (2007), smallholder farmers are constantly
experimenting local knowledge and innovating their agricultural activities to
counter environmental shocks and stressors. The results from the study show that
farmer-led agricultural innovation strategies to climate change include planting
Kanongo OPV of maize, over mulching, pen fattening, cassava cultivation and
staggered planting. These practices are based on local knowledge and experiences
of smallholder farmers, which confirms Critchley's (2007) assertion that local
knowledge plays a significant role in driving local innovation system. Nevertheless,
community acceptance and adoption of farmer-led innovation strategies is
dependent on technical effectiveness, economic validity, environmental
friendliness and social acceptability (Critchley 2007). In addition, farmer-to-
farmer extension service also helps in diffusion of local innovation among
smallholder farmers (Asare-Nuamah, Botchway, and Onumah 2019; Rogers
2003), thereby demonstrating the critical role of social network in climate change
adaptation and local innovation (Dapilah, Nielsen, and Friis 2019). High tolerance
of cassava and OPV maize variety to harsh climatic conditions may explain their
adoption among smallholder farmers. Studies have reported that cassava, for
instance, possesses high potential to address food security and hunger challenges,
particularly in developing economies, due to its climate resistant ability (Jarvis et
al. 2012) and high calorie content (see FAO cited in Boansi 2017), as well as mass
consumption by about 800 million people across the world (Burns et al. 2010).

Conclusion
This study has shed light on adaptation and farmer-led innovation strategies of
smallholder farmers in Mbire District of Zimbabwe. The results confirm that
20 International Journal of Rural Management

smallholder farmers, particularly in developing economies, are responding to

climate change. Farmers in Mbire District employ both on- and off-farm adaptation
and coping strategies to reduce the impact of flood, drought, rising temperature
and erratic rainfall, on their livelihood and food security. Common adaptation
strategies of smallholder farmers included planting improved and drought-
resistant crops, cultivating fewer plots, mixed cropping, keeping more livestock,
applying agrochemicals and local ecological knowledge as well as livelihood
diversification, which are influenced by farmers’ socioeconomic characteristics.
The farmers have diversified their livelihood by engaging in brick moulding, sales
of livestock, petty trade and dependence on remittance and social safety net as
well as reduction in size and number of diets. Famers’ adaptation to climate
change is hindered by low financial capacity, poor climate change education,
inaccessibility to reliable climate information, spread of pests and diseases, and
rise in human diseases as well as exclusion of farmers from climate change and
adaptation policies. Nevertheless, smallholder farmers have experimented farmer-
led innovations based on their local knowledge and experiences, to reduce the
adverse impact of climate change and increase yields from agriculture. Farmer-
led innovations include planting Kanongo OPV of maize, pen fattening, over
mulching, cassava cultivation and staggered planting.
On the basis of these findings, the study recommends the need to involve
smallholder farmers and mainstream local knowledge into climate change and
adaptation policies, to increase their effectiveness in local communities where
vulnerability to climate change is high. In addition, social intervention programmes
that increase access to socioeconomic resources must be strengthened to improve
adaptive capacity of local farmers. The study also recommends that mass climate
change education must be promoted particularly in rural communities to boost
climate change knowledge of local farmers, which is necessary for effective and
sustainable adaptation. There is the need for central government support for local
innovation systems, to enhance their effectiveness and scalability. Further studies
should examine social, economic and environmental outcomes of local innovations
and how they can be scaled up.

Declaration of Conflicting interest

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship
and/or publication of this article: This study was funded by the African Union Commission
through the Pan African University Research Grant.

ORCID iD
Peter Asare-Nuamah https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3122-909X
Asare-Nuamah et al. 21

Note
1. In Zimbabwe, ecological zones are classified using roman numerals. There are no
specific names for ecological zones and these numerals distinquish one zone from
the other.

References
Abid, Muhammad, Scheffran, J., Schneider, U. A., and Ashfaq, M. 2015. “Farmers’
Perceptions of and Adaptation Strategies to Climate Change and Their Determinants:
The Case of Punjab Province, Pakistan.” Earth System Dynamics 6, no. 1: 225–43.
doi:10.5194/esd-6-225-2015.
Acquah, Henry de-Graft, Nunoo, Jacob and Nkansah, Kwabena Darfor. 2015. “Farmers’
Perceptions Adaptation to Climate Change : Evidence from Ghana.” In Environment,
Agriculture and Cross-Border Migrations, edited by Emmanuel Yenshu Vubo, 35–52.
Dakar, Senegal: CODESRIA. https://www.africabib.org/htp.php?RID=40167262X.
AGRA. 2014. “Africa Agriculture Status Report 2014: Climate Change and Smallholder
Agriculture in Sub-Saharan Africa.” Nairobi, Kenya. https://www.climateinvestment-
funds.org/sites/cif_enc/files/aasr-2014climate-change-and-smallholder-agriculture-
in-ssa.pdf.
AGRA. 2018. “African Agriculture Status Report 2018: Catalyzing Government Capacit
to Drive Agricultural Trasformation.” Vol. Issue 6. Nairobi, Kenya. https://agra.org/
wp-content/uploads/2018/10/AASR-2018.pdf.
Ahmed, Charan Iftikhar, Hu, Wang Bang, Suneel, Kumar. 2016. “Indigenous Knowledge
about Prediction in Climate Change.” International Journal of Humanities and Social
Sciences 5, no. 1: 45–62.
Ali, Akhter, and Olaf, Erenstein. 2017. “Assessing Farmer Use of Climate Change
Adaptation Practices and Impacts on Food Security and Poverty in Pakistan.” Climate
Risk Management 16. The Authors: 183–94. doi:10.1016/j.crm.2016.12.001.
Aniah, Philip, Kaunza-Nu-Dem, Millar Katherine, and Ayembilla, Joseph A. 2019.
“Smallholder Farmers’ Livelihood Adaptation to Climate Variability and Ecological
Changes in the Savanna Agro Ecological Zone of Ghana.” Heliyon. doi:10.1016/j.
heliyon.2019.e01492.
Antwi-Agyei, Philip, Dougill, Andrew J., and Stringer, Lindsay C. 2014. “Barriers to
Climate Change Adaptation : Evidence from Northeast Ghana in the Context of a
Systematic Literature Review.” Climate and Development, no. September 2014: 37–
41. doi:10.1080/17565529.2014.951013.
Antwi-Agyei, Philip, Dougill, Andrew J., Stringer, Lindsay C. and Samuel Nii Ardey,
Codjoe. 2018. “Adaptation Opportunities Maladaptive Outcomes in Climate
Vulnerability Hotspots of Northern Ghana.” Climate Risk Management 19. Elsevier:
83–93. doi:10.1016/j.crm.2017.11.003.
Asare-Nuamah, Peter. 2020. “Smallholder Farmers’ Adaptation Strategies for the
Management of Fall Armyworm (Spodoptera Frugiperda) in Rural Ghana.”
International Journal of Pest Management. doi:10.1080/09670874.2020.1787552.
Asare-Nuamah, Peter, Botchway, Ebo, and Onumah, Justina A. 2019. “Helping the
Helpless: Contribution of Rural Extension Services to Smallholder Farmers’ Climate
Change Adaptive Capacity and Adaptation in Rural Ghana.” International Journal of
Rural Management 15, no. 2: 244–68. doi:10.1177/0973005219876211.
Beckford, C., and Barker, D. 2007. “The Role and Value of Local Knowledge in Jamaican
Agriculture: Adaptation and Change in Small-Scale Farming.” Geographical Journal
173: 118–28.
22 International Journal of Rural Management

Boansi, David. 2017. “Effect of Climatic and Non-Climatic Factors on Cassava Yields in
Togo: Agricultural Policy Implications.” Climate 5, no. 2: 28. doi:10.3390/cli5020028.
Bola, G., Mabiza, C., Goldin, J., Kujinga, K., Nhapi, I., Makurira, H., and Mashauri, D.
2014. “Coping with Droughts and Floods: A Case Study of Kanyemba, Mbire District,
Zimbabwe.” Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, 67–69. Elsevier Ltd: 180–86.
doi:10.1016/j.pce.2013.09.019.
Braun, V, and Clarke, V. 2014. “What Can Thematic Analysis Offer Health and Wellbeing
Researchers?” International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-Being,
9. doi:10.3402/qhw.v9.26152.
Brown, Katrina. 2011. “Sustainable Adaptation: An Oxymoron?” Climate and Development
3 (1): 21–31. doi:10.3763/cdev.2010.0062.
Bryan, E., Deressa, T.T., Gbetibouo, G.A., and Ringler, C. 2009. “Adaptation to Climate
Change in Ethiopia and South Africa: Options and Constraints.” Environmental
Science & Policy 12, no. 4: 413–26. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2008.11.002.
Bryan, Elizabeth, Ringler, Claudia, Okoba, Carla, Okoba, Barrack, Roncoli, Carla, Silvestri,
Silvia, and Mario, Herrero. 2013. “Adapting Agriculture to Climate Change in Kenya:
Household and Community Strategies and Determinants.” Journal of Environmental
Management 114: 26–35. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.10.036.
Burns, Anna, Gleadow, Roslyn, Cliff, Julie, Zacarias, Anabela, and Drought, Timothy
Cavagnaro. 2010. “Cassava: The and War Famine Crop in a Changing World.” Sus 2,
no. 11: 3572–607. doi:10.3390/su2113572.
Chazovachii, B., Chigwenya, A., and Mushuku, A. 2012. “Adoption of Climate Resilient
Rural Livelihoods through Growing of Small Grains in Munyaradzi Communal Area,
Gutu District.” African Journal of Agricultural Research 7, no. 8: 1335–1345.
Chepkoech, Winifred, Mungai, Nancy W., Stöber, Silke, Bett, Hillary K., and Hermann,
Lotze-campen. 2018. “Farmers’ Perspectives: Impact of Climate Change on African
Indigenous Vegetable Production in Kenya.” International Journal of Climate Change
Strategies and Management 10, no. 4: 551–79. doi:10.1108/IJCCSM-07-2017-0160.
Christoplos, Ian, Klein, Richard J.T., Anderson, Simon, Goulven, Katell Le, Arnold,
Margaret, Galaz, Victor, and Merylyn, Hedger. 2009. The Human Dimension of
Climate Adaptation: The Importance of Local Institutional Issues. Copenhagen:
Commission on Climate Change and Development.
Creswell, Jonh W. 2014. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods
Approaches, 4th ed. London: Sage Publication.
Critchley, William. 2007. Working with Farmer Innovators: A Practical Guide.
Wageningen Netherlands: Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation.
Dang, Hoa Le, Li, Elton, Bruwer, Johan, and Ian, Nuberg. 2014. “Erratum to: Farmers’
Perceptions of Climate Variability and Barriers to Adaptation : Lessons Learned from
an Exploratory Study in Vietnam.” Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global
Change 19, no. 5: 549–549. doi:10.1007/s11027-013-9452-4.
Dapilah, Frederick, Nielsen, Jonas Østergaard, and Cecilie, Friis. 2019. “The Role of
Social Networks in Building Adaptive Capacity and Resilience to Climate Change: A
Case Study from Northern Ghana.” Climate and Development 0 (0). Taylor & Francis:
1–15. doi:10.1080/17565529.2019.1596063.
Dhanya, P., and Ramachandran, A. 2016. “Farmers’ Perceptions of Climate Change and
the Proposed Agriculture Adaptation Strategies in a Semi Arid Region of South India.”
Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences 13, no. 1, Taylor & Francis: 1–18.
doi:10.1080/1943815X.2015.1062031.
Ellis, Frank. 2000. Rural Livelihoods and Diversity in Developing Countries. Oxford, UK:
Oxford University Press.
Asare-Nuamah et al. 23

Ellis, Frank, and Freeman, Ade H. 2005. Sustainable Livelihoods and Rural Poverty
Reduction. Routledge Studies in Economic Development. London and New York:
Routledge.
FAO. 2012. “Fact Sheet: Smallholders and Family Farmers.” Rome, Italy. http://
www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/nr/sustainability_pathways/docs/Factsheet_
SMALLHOLDERS.pdf.
FAO. 2020. “Zimbabwe at a Glance.” http://www.fao.org/zimbabwe/fao-in-zimbabwe/
zimbabwe-at-a-glance/en/.
FAO IFAD UNICEF WFP, and WHO. 2017. “The State of Food Security and Nutrition
in the World 2017. Building Resilience for Peace and Food Security.” Rome. http://
www.who.int/nutrition/publications/foodsecurity/state-food-security-nutrition-
2017-inbrief-en.pdf?ua=1.
Fisher, Monica, Abate, Tsedeke, Alemayehu, Yoseph, and Madulu, Ruth B. 2015.
“Drought Tolerant Maize for Farmer Adaptation to Drought in Sub-Saharan Africa:
Determinants of Adoption in Eastern and Southern Africa” Climatic Change 133,
283–99. doi:10.1007/s10584-015-1459-2.
Fisher, Monica, and Carr, Edward R. 2015. “The Influence of Gendered Roles and
Responsibilities on the Adoption of Technologies That Mitigate Drought Risk: The
Case of Drought-Tolerant Maize Seed in Eastern Uganda.” Global Environmental
Change 35. Elsevier Ltd: 82–92. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.08.009.
Fleurbaey, Marc, Kartha, S., Bolwig, S., Chee, Y. L., Chen, Y., Corbera, E., and Lecocq,
F. et al. 2014. “Sustainable Development and Equity.” In Climate Change 2014:
Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by O.
Edenhofer, R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A.
Adler, et al., 283–350. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://www.ipcc.ch/
pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg3/ipcc_wg3_ar5_full.pdf.
Gyampoh, Benjamin A., Amisah, Steve, Idinoba, Monica, Johnson, Ndi Nkem. 2009.
“Using Traditional Knowledge to Cope with Climate Change in Rural Ghana.”
Unasylva 60, no. 231/232: 70–74. http://www.fao.org/docrep/011/i0670e/i0670e14.
htm.
Hirons, M., Boyd, E., McDermott, C., Asare, R., Morel, A., Mason, J., Malhi, Y., and
Norris, K. 2018. “Understanding Climate Resilience in Ghanaian Cocoa Communities
– Advancing a Biocultural Perspective.” Journal of Rural Studies 63 (August).
Elsevier: 120–29. doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2018.08.010.
IPCC. 2007. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution
of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
IPCC. 2014. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contributions of Working Groups
I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change.” Geneva, Switzerland.
Jarvis, Andy, Ramirez-villegas, Julian, Campo, Herrera Vanessa Beatriz, and Carlos,
Navarro-Racines. 2012. “Is Cassava the Answer to African Climate Change
Adaptation?” Tropical Plant Biology 5, no. 1: 9–29. doi:10.1007/s12042-012-9096-7.
Jones, L., and Boyd, E. 2011. “Exploring Social Barriers to Adaptation: Insights from
Western Nepal.” Global Environmental Change 21 no. 4: 1262–1274. doi:10.1016/j.
gloenvcha.2011. 06.002.
Juana, James Sharka, Kahaka, Zibanani and Francis, Nathan Okurut. 2013. “Farmers’
Perceptions Adaptations to Climate Change in Sub-Sahara Africa: A Synthesis of
24 International Journal of Rural Management

Empirical Studies and Implications for Public Policy in African Agriculture.” Journal
of Agricultural Science 5, no. 4: 121–35. doi:10.5539/jas.v5n4p121.
Khanal, Uttam, Wilson, Clevo, Hoang, Viet-Ngu, Boon, Lee. 2018. “Farmers’ Adaptation
to Climate Change, Its Determinants and Impacts on Rice Yield in Nepal.” Ecological
Economics, no. 144: 139–47. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.08.006.
Krejcie, Robert V., and Morgan, Daryle W. 1970. “Determining Sample Size for
Research Activities.” Educational and Psychological Measurement 30: 607–10.
doi:10.1177/001316447003000308.
Kumasi, Tyhra Carolyn, Antwi-Agyei, Philip, Obiri-Danso, Kwasi. 2019. Farmers’ “Small-
Holder Climate Change Adaptation Practices in the Upper East Region of Ghana.”
Environment, Development and Sustainability 21, no. 2. Springer Netherlands: 745–
62. doi:10.1007/s10668-017-0062-2.
Lopez-Ridaura, Santiago, Frelat, Romain, van Wijk, Mark T., Valbuena, Diego, Krupnik,
Timothy J., and Jat, M. L. 2018. “Climate Smart Agriculture, Farm Household
Typologies and Food Security: An Ex-Ante Assessment from Eastern India.”
Agricultural Systems 159. Elsevier: 57–68. doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2017.09.007.
Lunduka, Rodney Witman, Mateva, Kumbirai Ivyne, Magorokosho, Cosmos, and Pepukai,
Manjeru. 2017. “Impact of Adoption of Drought-Tolerant Maize Varieties on Total
Maize Production in South Eastern Zimbabwe.” Climate and Development 11, no. 1.
Taylor & Francis: 35–46. doi:10.1080/17565529.2017.1372269.
Lybbert, Travis J., and Carter, Michael R. 2015. “Bundling Drought Tolerance and Index
Insurance to Reduce Rural Household Vulnerability to Drought.” In Sustainable
Economic Development: Resources, Environment, and Institutions, 401–14.
Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-800347-3.00022-4.
Makate, Clifton, Makate, Marshall, and Nelson, Mango. 2017. “Smallholder Farmers’
Perceptions on Climate Change and the Use of Sustainable Agricultural Practices in
the Chinyanja Triangle, Southern Africa.” Social Sciences 6, no. 1: 30. doi:10.3390/
socsci6010030.
Makate, Clifton, Wang, Rongchang, Makate, Marshall, and Nelson, Mango. 2017. “Impact
of Drought Tolerant Maize Adoption on Maize Productivity, Sales and Consumption
in Rural Zimbabwe.” Agrekon 56 (1). Taylor & Francis: 67–81. doi:10.1080/030318
53.2017.1283241.
Mango, Nelson, Siziba, Shephard, and Clifton, Makate. 2017. “The Impact of Adoption of
Conservation Agriculture on Smallholder Farmers’ Food Security in Semi-Arid Zones
of Southern Africa.” Agriculture & Food Security 6, no. 1. BioMed Central: 4–11.
doi:10.1186/s40066-017-0109-5.
Masih, I., Maskey, S., Mussá, F. E.F., and Trambauer, P. 2014. “A Review of Droughts
on the African Continent: A Geospatial and Long-Term Perspective.” Hydrology and
Earth System Sciences 18, no. 9: 3635–49. doi:10.5194/hess-18-3635-2014.
Matarira, C. H, Makadho, J. C., and Mukahanana-Sangarwe, M. 2004. “Vulnerability and
Adaptation of Maize Production to Climate Change in Zimbabwe.” Harare, Zimbabwe.
Mehar, Mamta, Mittal, Surabhi, and Prasad, Narayan. 2016. “Farmers Coping Strategies
for Climate Shock: Is It Differentiated by Gender?” Journal of Rural Studies 44.
Elsevier Ltd: 123–31. doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2016.01.001.
Nyahunda, Louis, and Tirivangasi, Happy M. 2019. “Challenges Faced by Rural People
in Mitigating the Effects of Climate Change in the Mazungunye Communal Lands,
Zimbabwe.” Jàmbá - Journal of Disaster Risk Studies 11, no. 1: a596. doi:10.4102/
jamba.v11i1.596.
Okonya, Joshua S., Syndikus, Katja, and Kroschel, Jürgen. 2013. “Farmers’ Perception
of and Coping Strategies to Climate Change: Evidence From Six Agro-Ecological
Asare-Nuamah et al. 25

Zones of Uganda.” Journal of Agricultural Science 5, no. 8: 252–63. doi:10.5539/jas.

v5n8p252.
Pallant, Julie. 2016. SPSS Survival Manual - A Step by Step Guide to Data Analysis Using
SPSS Program, 6th ed. London, UK: McGraw-Hill Education.
Pasquini, L., Cowling, R.M., and Ziervogel, G. 2011. “Facing the Heat: Barriers to
Mainstreaming Climate Change Adaptation in Local Government in TheWestern
Cape Province, South Africa.” Habitat International 40: 225–232. doi:10.1016/j.habi-
tatint. 2013.05.003.
Phuong, Le Thi Hong, Robbert Biesbroek, G., Le Thi Hoa, Sen, and Arjen, E.J. Wals.
2018. “Understanding Smallholder Farmers’ Capacity to Respond to Climate Change
in a Coastal Community in Central Vietnam.” Climate and Development 10, no. 8,
Taylor & Francis: 701–16. doi:10.1080/17565529.2017.1411240.
Rogers, Everett M. 2003. Diffusion of Innovation, 5th ed. New York, NY: Free Press.
Sanogo, Karamoko, Sanogo, Souleymane and Abdramane, Ba. 2016. “Farmers’ Perception
Adaption to Land Use Change and Climate Variability in Fina Reserve, Mali.” Turkish
Journal of Agriculture - Food Science and Technology 4, no. 4: 291. doi:10.24925/
turjaf.v4i4.291-297.544.
Sarpong, Daniel Bruce and Nana, Akua Anyidoho. 2012. “Climate Change Agricultural
Policy Processes in Ghana.” Working Paper 045. Accra, Ghana.
Scerri, Mario (Ed.). 2016. The Emergence of Systems of Innovation in South(Ern) Africa:
Long Histories and Contemporay Debates. Johannesburg, South Africa: MISTRA &
Real African Publishers.
Scoones, Ian. 2009. “Livelihoods Perspectives and Rural Development.” Journal of
Peasant Studies 36, no. 1: 171–96. doi:10.1080/03066150902820503.
Simelton, E, Quinn, C. H, Batisani, N, Dougill, A. J, Dyer, J. C, Fraser, E. D. G,
Mkwambisi, D, Sallu, S, and Stringer, L.C. 2013. “Is Rainfall Really Changing?
Farmers’ Perceptions, Meteorological Data, and Policy Implications.” Climate and
Development 5: 123–38.
Sultan, Benjamin, and Marco, Gaetani. 2016. “Agriculture in West Africa in the Twenty-
First Century: Climate Change and Impacts Scenarios, and Potential for Adaptation.”
Frontiers in Plant Science 7 (August): 1–20. doi:10.3389/fpls.2016.01262.
Tessema, Yibekal Abebe, Joerin, Jonas, and Anthony, Patt. 2018. “Factors Affecting
Smallholder Farmers’ Adaptation to Climate Change through Non-Technological
Adjustments.” Environmental Development 25, Elsevier Ltd: 33–42. doi:10.1016/j.
envdev.2017.11.001.
Turner, James A., Klerkx, Laurens, White, Toni, Nelson, Tracy, Everett-Hincks, Julie,
Mackay, Alec, and Neels, Botha. 2017. “Unpacking Systemic Innovation Capacity
as Strategic Ambidexterity: How Projects Dynamically Configure Capabilities for
Agricultural Innovation.” Land Use Policy 68, Elsevier: 503–23. doi:10.1016/j.lan-
dusepol.2017.07.054.
Udmale, Parmeshwar, Ichikawa, Yutaka, Manandhar, Sujata, Ishidaira, Hiroshi, and
Kiem, Anthony S. 2014. “Farmers ’ Perception of Drought Impacts , Local Adaptation
and Administrative Mitigation Measures in Maharashtra.” International Journal of
Disaster Risk Reduction 10, Elsevier: 250–69. doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2014.09.011.
UNECA. 2011. “Climate Change and Health Across Africa : Issues and Options.” 20.
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. http://www.uneca.org/acpc/publications.
Vanheukelom Jan. 2016. “The Political Economy of Regional Integration in Africa.”
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
26 International Journal of Rural Management

Wilson, Geoff A. 2014. “Community Resilience: Path Dependency, Lock-in Effects and
Transitional Ruptures.” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 57, no.
1: 1–26. doi:10.1080/09640568.2012.741519.
World Food Programme. 2016. “Zimbabwe Monthly Food Security Monitoring Report.”
https://documents.wfp.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/ena/wfp287989.pdf?_
ga=2.235987458.2087756766.1571042887-108065798.1571042887.
Yaro, Joseph Awetori, Teye, Joseph and Simon, Bawakyillenuo. 2014. “Local Institutions
Adaptive Capacity to Climate Change/Variability in the Northern Savannah of
Ghana.” Climate and Development 7: 235–45. doi:10.1080/17565529.2014.951018.
Zamasiya, Byron, Nyikahadzoi, Kefasi, and Billy, Billiard Mukamuri. 2017. “Factors
Influencing Smallholder Farmers’ Behavioural Intention towards Adaptation to
Climate Change in Transitional Climatic Zones: A Case Study of Hwedza District in
Zimbabwe.” Journal of Environmental Management 198, no. 1: 233–39. doi:10.1016/j.
jenvman.2017.04.073.
ZimVAC. 2017. “Zimbabwe Vulnerability Committee (ZimVAC) 2017 Rural Livelihoods
Assessment Report.” Harare, Zimbabwe.