Determinants of Adaptation Strategies to Climate Change

among Rice Farmers in Southwestern Nigeria: A
Multivariate Probit Approach
 

T. Ojo; L. Baiyegunhi
 

University of KwaZulu-Natal, Agricultural Economics, South Africa

Corresponding author email: [email protected]
Abstract:
The study analyzed the determinants of rice farmers’ climate change adaptation strategies in Southwestern
Nigeria. A multistage sampling technique was used to collect cross sectional data from 360 rice farmers
selected from three States in the region. Out of 11 adaptation strategies identified by the farmers, the five
main identified adaptation strategy options were subsequently used as the dependent variables in the
multivariate probit model. The result of the Multivariate Probit Model indicated that some household
characteristics, access to services and location significant and statistically influenced the choice of
adaptation strategies employed by the farmers in the study area. It is obvious the farmers are aware of
long-term changes in climatic factors (temperature and rainfall, for example), they are unable to identify
these changes as climate change. However, the positive pair wise correlation matrix from the MVP model
indicate complementarities among all the adaptation strategies used by the farmers. The government could
build the capacity of agricultural extension systems and make available climate change education scheme
with ICT innovations. Government policies and investment strategies must be geared towards the support
of education, credit and information about adaptation to climate change, including technological and
institutional methods, particularly for smallholder farmers in the country.
Acknowledegment:
JEL Codes: Q54, A12
#565 

 
1.0 Introduction

Agricultural risks, such as climate risks are dominant in both developed and developing
countries, although the major sources and consequences may differ across countries, most
farmers in these countries largely experience them (Harlan et al. 2015). Agriculture in sub-
Saharan Africa (SSA) is an important sector of the economy serving as a stimulus for growth,
assisting in poverty reduction and the provision of food security. In spite of this, food insecurity
and poverty remains critical issue for most developing countries in SSA. One of the numerous
reasons of food insecurity and poverty is traceable to agriculture‟s susceptibility to production
risks, which affect farmers‟ income and welfare (Cervantes-Godoy, Kimura & Antón, 2013). As
the African populace strive to overcome poverty and advance economic growth, these production
risks portend to deepen vulnerabilities and the prospect of development is seriously undermined
(Zoellick, 2009). Agricultural production activities in Africa are generally more susceptible to
climate change than other socioeconomic sectors (Kurukulasuriya et al., 2006; Hassan &
Nhemachena, 2008). Rural farmers in Sub-Saharan Africa are likely to be more vulnerable to
climate change, particularly because of compounding challenges of poverty, low infrastructural
and technological development, and high dependence on rain-fed agriculture (Ericksen et al.,
2011; Lipper et al., 2014; Nelson et al., 2014; Adimassu and Kessler, 2014). Studies have shown
that more than 95% of agricultural production in sub-Saharan African is rain-fed (Simelton et al.
2013; Adebisi-Adelani and Oyesola 2014; and Zake and Hauser, 2014). According to Jones &
Thornton (2003), the crop yield projection for Africa may fall by 10-20% by 2050 or even up-to
50% due to climate change.

Many climate change indicators are reported in literature even though there are variations with
location. Erratic rainfall often combined with intermittent dry spells, salt stress, drought, flood
and change in temperature are commonly reported indicators in most studies (Adger et al., 2003;
Ajetomobi., 2010; Agbo, 2013; Okonya, et al, 2013; Tripathi, et al., 2014). Farmers may thus be
aware of climate change, but the degree of awareness of its short and long-term causes and
consequences may vary among the farmers. In the same vein, some farmers may not perceive
climate change and its effects while others may not be bothered (Deressa, et al, 2009; Okonya et
al., 2013). For example, age, low level of education, ignorance, lack of information; lack of
credit facilities and off-farm activities could be the reasons for farmers‟ low level of perception

1
on climate change (Deressa, et al, 2011). Several studies (Agarwal, 2008; Deressa et al. 2008;
Apata, 2009; Ajetomobi et al; 2010; Di Faclo et al. 2011) have examined the effects of weather
variations on crop production including rice and different adaptation practices employed by
farmers in SSA and beyond. However, the outcome in a given location depends on the
magnitude of these changes, the response of the particular crops and location-specific
management.

Despite these serious climate-related difficulties in SSA countries including Nigeria, is possible
to develop adaptive responses that could mitigate these effects. Empirical evidence recognizes
that adaptation to climate change can potentially reduce its adverse effects, protect the
livelihoods of poor farmers and reinforce any potential advantages it may bring (Gandure et al.,
2013; Wheeler et al., 2013). Adaptation refers to an adjustment in natural or human systems in
response to actual or expected climatic conditions or risks and can be regarded as a policy option
to contain the negative effects of climate change (Kurukulasuriya and Mendelsohn, 2008a).
Agriculture is an important sector of the Nigerian economy where adaptation to climate change
could be usefully applied, in particular to rice production. Despite the declining share in the
gross domestic product (GDP), agriculture remains a major contributor to the Nigerian economy.
It represents a critical source of income for the majority of the population, directly employing
about 60% of the total labor force (Adeoti, 2002). Furthermore, rural communities, that represent
the vast majority of the population, will continue to depend on agriculture even with structural
change in the economy (World Bank, 2013).

Rice is one of the most important food crops in Nigeria, its economic activities related to
production, processing, distribution, and consumption are widely considered a key for economic
development, food security, and poverty reduction (Tollens, 2006; Velde & Maertens, 2014 and
Demont and Ndour, 2015). Consumption of rice has already outpaced domestic production and
as a result, Nigeria is the leading importer of rice in the world today, with an 8.2 percent share of
imports in the global market (Gyimah-Brempong et al. 2016). This has made the Nigerian
government to actively intervene in the rice economy over the past few decades. In November
2016, FMARD announced a plan to facilitate the procurement of 40 new large integrated rice
mills. This plan would almost triple the current number of such mills that are operational in the
country. Johnson and Masias (2016) found that the large integrated rice milling sub-sector had

2
the most potential to compete with imports, but often has operated well below maximum
capacity due to insufficient access to high-quality paddy which is traceable to climate change
variability.

According to Manneh et al., (2007), Climate change through extreme temperatures, frequent
flooding, drought and increased salinity of water supply used for irrigation in rice fields also
constitute factors that affect agricultural productivity. Adoption of adaptation strategies therefore
remains an imperative option to mitigate against the effect of climate change and also address its
challenges prevailing on rice production (Deressa et al. 2008; Di Faclo et al. 2011). This has a
laudable relevance for developing countries seeking to maintain food security if planned with the
long-term policy priority among poor farmers (Di Faclo et al. 2011; Tubiello 2012).

Past studies (Pearce et al. 1996; McCarthy et al. 2001; Parry et al. 2004; Nkomo et al, 2006;
Stern 2007; Deressa, et al, 2008; Apata et al, 2009), that have examined the impact of climate
change on food production at the country, regional, or global level, have failed to provide critical
insights in terms of the determinants of choice of adaptation strategies used by the rice farmers;
although ideas from these studies created the background for the present study. Studies on the
impact of climate change (particularly rainfall and temperature) and climate related adaptation
measures on crop yield such as rice in Southwestern Nigeria are very scanty. A review of
literature on climate change, e.g. Liu et al, (2004) Mendelsoln et al, (2004), De-wit et al (2006),
Kurukulasuriya & Mendelsohn, (2006), Deresa (2007), Yesuf et al (2009), Apata et al (2009),
Ajetomobi et al (2010) and Ayanlade et al (2017), show that more attention has been paid to
climate change system modeling, climate change impacts, mitigation and risk assessment, with
relatively little attention to perceptions and adaptation options for those experiencing climate
change. It is against this backdrop that this study attempted to investigate the determinants of
climate change adaptation strategies adoption by rice farmers in Southwestern Nigeria.

2.0 Conceptual framework

Households make adoption decisions to maximize their expected utility. Household utility is a
function of expected costs and benefits of adoption as well as their preferences, which are
influenced by various factors. Adaptation strategies are a form of protection measure that reduce
the farmers‟ risk exposure by reducing the marginal effect of climate change on productivity

3
(Fisher-Vanden and Wing, 2011). The study used the theory of utility maximization in the
presence of risk to conceptualize climate change adaptation decisions. In this case, the utility to a
farmer is not defined by higher yields. In the context of adaptation, the utility derived from
adopting a practice could be yield stability and the implied reduction in risk. A risk-averse
farmer maximizes utility by choosing an adaptation strategy if the benefits of adaptation (risk
reduction) minus the cost of adaptation are higher than the benefits realized without adapting.
Following Hazell and Norton (1986), a farmers‟ utility function is defined as follows:

U y  E y   y (1)

Where U y is the perceived utility from choosing adaptation strategy 𝑦, E y is the nonstochastic

component and  y is the disturbance term indicating variation in yields, 𝛼 is a coefficient that

captures risk aversion of individual farmers which would affect the degree of the variability in
the yields  y . Following Finger & Schmid (2007), the coefficient is expressed as;

  (U y) / (U y) (2)

Where if 𝛼 < 0, the farmer is risk averse and thus more likely to adapt; 𝛼 = 0 indicates a risk
neutral farmer and 𝛼 > 0 indicates a risk preferred. The utility of implementing an adaptation
strategy 𝑦 (𝑈𝑦) is given by the revenue generated by the strategy less the variable costs incurred
in implementation of the adaptation strategy. Given the choices of adaptation strategies, a risk-
averse farmer will choose the strategy, say X that yields higher expected utility than the
alternatives, say Y , i.e.

E (U x )  M x  (U y )  M y (3)

Where the (U x ) is the expected utility of implementing strategy 𝑋 and the associated costs 𝑀𝑥,

while the second term U x is the expected utility of implementing strategy 𝑌 and associated cost

M y . Assumptions about the relationship of disturbance terms of the adaptation equations i.e.

whether correlated or not, determine the type of qualitative choice model to use in analysis.

4
2.1 Empirical MVP model for the Determinants of Adaptation Strategies to Climate
Change

When farmers are faced with adverse climatic changes, they may opt to adopt a mix of strategies
as a way of mitigation rather than relying on a single strategy to exploit complementarities or
substitutability among alternatives. Thus, in addition to adopting a particular adaptation strategy,
a farmer may choose other strategies. Adoption could be partly dependent on earlier adopted
strategies informing decisions on subsequent practices in the future (Kassie et al., 2013; Lin et
al., 2005). This study used a multivariate probit (MVP) econometric technique, which
simultaneously models the influence of the set of explanatory variables on each of the adaptation
strategies, while allowing the unobserved factors (error terms) to be freely correlated (Belderbos
et al. 2004; Lin et al. 2005). The source of correlation may be complementarities (positive
correlation) and substitutabilities (negative correlation) between different adaptation strategies
(Belderbos et al. 2004). The study follows Lin et al. (2005) in formulating the multivariate
model, the dependent variables were five dummy variables: soil and water conservation (SWC);
varying planting and harvesting date (VPHDATE); agrochemicals, improved variety and mixed
cropping equals to one if the household adopts the adaptation strategy option and zero if
otherwise. The summary statistics of the identified major adaptation strategies are presented in
Table 1

Yik*   k X ik   k Aik   k where (k  1,..., m) (4)

Yik  1 ifYik*  0 and 0 otherwise

Where Yik* , a latent variable which captures the observed and unobserved preferences is

associated with k th climate change adaptation strategies and Y ik denotes the binary dependent

variables, (k  1,..., m) represents the various adaptation strategies used by the farmers. Farmers
who practice adaptation strategies are adopters and non-adopters are those who did not. The
adopters of these adaptation strategies take value 1 and 0 otherwise. X ik is a vector of the
explanatory variables which denotes the observed household and farm-specific characteristics, as
well as institutional variables. Following Wooldridge (2003), A ik denotes climate change
variables such as annual means of temperature and precipitation to account for unobserved

5
heterogeneity.  k and  k are conformable vectors to be estimated. From eq. (4), positive

correlations between the error terms (  k ) of adaptation strategies indicate complementarity

between strategies, while negative correlations reveal substitutability. The error term,  k have
multivariate normal distributions, with zero means, unitary variance and an n×n correlation
matrix (Mulwa et al., 2015). Where  k  MVN (0, ) and the covariance matrix  is given by:

1 12 13  1m

 21 1  23   2 m
   31  32 1   3m 5
   1 
 m1  m2  m3  1

Where  represents the unobserved correlation between the stochastic components of the error
terms with regards to any two of the adoption equations to be estimated in the model. In
Equation (5), the correlation between the stochastic components of different adaptation strategies
adopted is represented by the off-diagonal elements (e.g.  21 , 12 ,  31 ,and 13 ) in the variance-
covariance matrix (Teklewold, Kassie, and Shiferaw 2013). The assumption of the unobserved
correlation between the stochastic component of the k th and m th type of adaptation strategies
means that equation (4) gives a MVP model that jointly represents decisions to adopt a particular
adaptation strategy. This specification with non-zero off-diagonal elements allows for correlation
across the error terms of several latent equations, which represent unobserved characteristics that
affect choice of alternative adaptation strategies.

2.2 Dependent variables

The adaptation strategies farmers employed to mitigate against the effect of climate change
include varying land size, sales of crops, varying the planting and harvesting dates; soil
conservation techniques; mulching. Other adaptation strategies include, livestock rearing; mixed
cropping, mono-cropping and no adaptation. These strategies can also be used to modify the
length of the growing season, for instance by using water conservation techniques. The
dependent variable in the empirical estimation for this study is the choice of an adaptation option
from the set of adaptation measures listed in Table 1. Resource limitations coupled with

6
household characteristics and poor infrastructure limit the ability of most farmers to take up
adaptation measures in response to changes in climate (Kandlinkar & Risbey, 2000). For the
purpose of this study, Table 1 summarizes the adaptation strategies employed by rice farmers.
Out of 11 adaptation strategies identified by the farmers, the five main identified adaptation
strategy options are used for empirical estimation.

Table 1: Distributions of Adaptation Strategies employed by the Rice Farmers in South

western Nigeria

Variables Percentage SD
Land size 0.46 0.50
Sales of crop 0.58 0.49
Improved variety 0.70 0.46
Agrochemical 0.68 0.47
VPHDATE 0.70 0.46
mulching 0.59 0.49
Livestock 0.60 0.49
Mixed cropping 0.66 0.47
Mono-cropping 0.54 0.50
SWC 0.67 0.47
No adaptation 0.48 0.50
SD: Standard deviation, VPHDATE: Varying planting and harvesting date, SWC: Soil and water conservation

2.3 Explanatory variables used in the empirical model

The choice of explanatory variables is dictated by theoretical behavioral hypotheses, empirical

literature and data availability. The explanatory variables considered in this study consist of
seasonal climate variables and socioeconomic factors.

Age influences farmers‟ exposure to different farming systems, experiences and seasons. Thus, it
is expected that farmers‟ age will positively affect his/her perception on climate change
(Shiferaw & Holden, 1998). In this study, age is hypothesized to have both positive and negative
impacts on the choice of adaptation strategies (or climate change adaptation adoption)

Various studies have shown that gender is an important factor affecting adoption decision at the
farm level. Female farmers have been found to be more likely to adopt natural resource
management and adaptation practices (Dolisca et al., 2006; Bayard et al., 2007). However,

7
Bekele & Drake, (2003) found that household gender was not a statistically significant factor
influencing farmers‟ decisions to adopt adaptation measures

Education and farming experience are important factors influencing farmers‟ decision on
adopting the choice of adaptation strategy. Several studies have shown that improving education
and disseminating knowledge is an important policy measure for stimulating local participation
in various development and natural resource management initiatives (Glendinning et al., 2001;
Dolisca et al., 2006; Anley et al., 2007; Tizale 2007). It is therefore expected that education will
positively influence farmers‟ decisions to take up adaptation strategies.

Large household size could help harmonize, perceive, discuss and share climate related
observations which could affect positively the perception of farmers on climate change. A larger
household size can depend mainly on hired labour, which results in poor perception on climate
change. Family size could thus influence positively or negatively the farmers‟ perception on
climate change (Shiferaw & Holden, 1998).

The credit access variable was categorized into those farmers who accessed credit (=1) and those
who did not (=0). Credit access relaxes liquidity constraints thus increasing technology adoption
(Simtowe and Zeller, 2006). Thus, a positive relationship between credit access and the
probability of adopting climate change adaptation strategies is expected. Access to climate
information, farmer‟s access to regular climate information sources such as radio, television, and
newspaper could improve perception on climate change and vice-versa. Better climate, and
agricultural information helps farmers choose strategies that enable them to cope well with
changes in climatic conditions (Baethgen et al., 2003). Accordingly and in line with technology
adoption literature, farmers‟ access to extension contact is expected to increase their perceptions
on climate change (Amsalu and de Graaff, 2007).

Location variables (Ekiti, Ondo and Osun State) were used in the MVP model to control for
locational differences. These are dummy variables „1‟ if a farmer belongs to that location and „0‟
otherwise. The dummies are to account for locational differences due to agro-climatic conditions
among the three regions, which are expected to have an impact on farmers‟ decisions to adopt
the choice of adaptation strategies.

3.0 The study area and method of data collection

8
The study was carried out in southwestern part of Nigeria. Southwestern Nigeria consists of
Lagos, Ogun, Oyo, Osun, Ondo and Ekiti States, collectively known as the South West
geographical zone of Nigeria. The area lies between longitude 20 311 and 60 001East and Latitude
60 211 and 80 371N with a total land area of 77,818 km2 and a projected population of 28, 767,
752 in 2002. It is bounded in the East by Edo and Delta States, in the North by Kwara and Kogi
States, in the West by the Republic of Benin and in the south by the Gulf of Guinea. The climate
of Southwest Nigeria is tropical in nature and it is characterize by wet and dry seasons. The
temperature ranges between 210 C and 340 C while the annual rainfall ranges between 150mm
and 3000mm. The wet season is associated with the Southwest monsoon wind from the Atlantic
Ocean while the dry season is associated with the northeast trade wind from the Sahara desert.
The vegetation is Southwest Nigeria is made up of fresh water swamp and mangrove forest at the
belt, the low land in forest stretches inland to Ogun and part of Ondo State while secondary
forest is towards the northern boundary where derived and southern Savannah exist (Agboola,
1979). The major source of occupation and income in the South West is agriculture. The food
crops include maize, yam, cassava, rice and cowpea while the cash crops include cocoa, oil palm,
kolanut, plantain, banana, cashew, citrus and timber.
A multistage sampling technique was used to select the respondents in the study area. The first
stage involved a purposive selection of three States namely; Ekiti, Ondo and Osun and the
second stage with the same technique was used to select four Local Government Areas (LGAs)
from each State based on the predominance of smallholder rice farmers in these areas. The third
stage involved a random selection of 5 villages each from the four LGAs selected in the second
stage. While the last stage involved a random selection of 6 smallholder rice farmers in each of
the villages to have a total of 360 respondents used for the study. Data were collected using a
pre-tested, well-structured questionnaire on socio-economic characteristics of the respondents,
adaptation strategies to climate change, determinants of adaptation strategies and as well as the
costs and returns to rice production. To take advantage of the rapidly growing technological
advancements that appreciates the limited available resources, an Open Data Kit (ODK) software
was used to obtain data rapidly while ensuring the quality, integrity and cost implications. ODK
is an open-source survey platform designed as a local application that can be installed on mobile
devices on the Android operating system. ODK is widely used in field research and data
collection, as it allows researchers to design surveys that enable responses to survey tasks (coded

9
to include standard data collection inputs such as open text inputs, check boxes, dropdown
menus, as well as smartphone-specific tools such as images, locations, and free-form sketches)
with finger taps and swipes (Francis et al., 2010 and Brunette et al,. 2013). In respect of climate
variables, January to December monthly means for precipitation and average temperature from
1970 to 2014 was specifically obtained from Nigeria Meteorological Agency at Oshodi in Lagos
Nigeria and International Institute for Tropical Agriculture (IITA) in Ibadan, Nigeria

Table 2: Definitions and summary statistics of variables used in the model

Variables Description of Variables Mean SD

Dependent
Mixed cropping Dummy = 1 if HH chooses Mixed cropping, 0 otherwise 0.66 0.47
Improved variety Dummy = 1 if HH chooses Improved variety 0 otherwise 0.70 0.46
Dummy = 1 if HH chooses Soil and Water conservation 0
SWC otherwise 0.67 0.47
Agrochemical Dummy = 1 if HH chooses Agrochemicals, 0 otherwise 0.68 0.47
Dummy = 1 if HH chooses Varying planting and harvesting
VPHDATE dates 0 otherwise 0.70 0.46
Independent
Gender Dummy=1 if HH head male and 0 if female 0.56 0.50
Age of the HH head Age of HH head in years 47.28 7.67
Marital Status Dummy = 1 if HH head is married, 0 others single, widowed 0.80 0.40
Educational Status Years of education of the HH head 6.45 5.70
Household size Number of HH size 4.66 1.24
Off-farm income 1 = if HH engages in any off-farm activity 0.54 0.50
Farming exp. Years of household experience in rice production 15.73 5.09
Access to credit Dummy = 1 if HH had access to credit, 0 otherwise 0.57 0.50
Farm size Total land owned by the HH in hectares 7.37 3.04
Dummy = 1 if HH had access to any information on climate
Acc to climate info change, 0 otherwise 0.36 0.48
Access to ext. Dummy = 1 if HH had access to government extension, 0
contacts otherwise 0.53 0.50
Membership Dummy=1 if HH belongs to Farmers' Association 0.54 0.50
Mean annual tempt Mean of annual Temperature 27.66 0.05
Mean annual Ppt Mean of annual Precipitation 111.05 16.09
Location_Ekiti State Dummy = 1 if HH is from Ekiti, 0 otherwise 0.38 0.48
Location_Ondo
State Dummy = 1 if HH is from Ondo, 0 otherwise 0.38 0.49
Location_Osun
State Dummy = 1 if HH is from Osun, 0 otherwise 0.35 0.48

10
The results in Table 2 show that the average age and years of education of the household head
were 47 years and six years, respectively. On extension access, about 53% of the respondents
had contacts extension agents. Access to credit is a major determinants in adoption of adaptation
strategies, about 57% of the sampled households had access to credit. However, there are clear
differences in terms of access to information, for instance, about 36% of the farmers who
adopted at least one strategy had access to climate related information.

Table 3: Correlation matrix of the choice of adaptation strategies from MVP model
SWC VPHDATE Mixed cropping Agrochemicals Improved variety
SWC 0.409(0.110) 0.337(0.097)c 0.537(0.085)c 0.641(0.091)c
VPHDATE 0.738(0.070)c 0.839(0.048)b 0.787(0.069)c
Mixed cropping 0.754(0.061)c 0.746(0.084)c
Agrochemicals 0.928(0.042)b
Improved variety

Likelihood ratio test (Chi2) chi2(10) = 249.042

P-value 0.000
Joint Probability (Success) 0.458
Joint Probability (Failure) 0.166
Linear Predictions
SWC 0.78
VPHDATE 0.75
Mixed cropping 0.68
Agrochemicals 0.65
Improved variety 0.79
b, c represent significance level at 5 &10%

4.0 Determinants of Rice farmers’ choice of Adaptation Strategies to Climate Change

This section discusses the results from the multivariate probit model. The likelihood ratio test
(chi2 (10) = 249.042, P > 0.000) of the independence of the error terms of the different
adaptation equations is rejected (Table 2). Thus, this study adopt the alternative hypothesis of the
mutual interdependence among the multiple adaptation strategies. The result therefore supports
the use of multivariate probit model. All the pairwise coefficients are also positively correlated
indicating complementarity among these strategies. The results show that the joint probability of
adopting the choice of adaptation strategies is approximately 46% while not adopting the choice
is 17%. It can also be inferred from the linear predictions of the result that the likelihood of

11
adopting SWC is 78%, while it is 75% for VPHDATE. The linear predictions for mixed
cropping, agrochemicals and improved variety are 68%, 65% and 79%, respectively.

12
Table 4: Estimates of the MVP for the Determinants of Adaptation Strategies to Climate Change

Variables SWC VPHDATE Mixed cropping Agrochemical Improved variety

Coef. Std.Err Coef. Std.Err Coef. Std.Err Coef. Std.Err Coef. Std. Err
Gender 0.086 0.18 -0.033 0.189 0.049 0.17 0.038 0.178 0.097 0.197
Age of household head 0.000 0.012 0.005 0.012 -0.029b 0.011 -0.019 0.012 -0.026b 0.013
Educational status -0.003 0.018 -0.002 0.019 -0.014 0.017 0.029 0.019 0.001 0.024
Household size 0.180b 0.075 0.027 0.075 -0.054 0.07 -0.02 0.071 0.1 0.075
Off farm income 0.758b 0.38 0.567 0.359 0.527 0.359 0.734b 0.369 1.260a 0.371
b
Farming experience 0.009 0.021 -0.051 0.022 -0.013 0.02 -0.013 0.021 -0.009 0.025
Credit access 0.399 0.242 -0.302 0.231 0.501b 0.234 0.173 0.224 0.430c 0.246
Farm size -0.053 0.033 0.032 0.036 0.02 0.032 0.027 0.034 0.075c 0.04
Acess to extenson 0.384 0.947 0.039 0.913 1.415b 0.565 -0.027 0.71 2.470a 0.541
Membership of Ass. 1.338 0.912 2.000b 0.913 0.282 0.567 1.887a 0.635 -0.668 0.527
Annual temp 4.096b 1.926 -0.926 2.61 -3.149 2.41 -3.651 2.542 -3.418 2.784
Annul ppt 0.061 0.012 0.014 0.011 0.028a 0.01 0.011 0.011 0.034b 0.014
Location_Ekiti 0.085 0.236 0.533b 0.246 0.904a 0.235 0.472b 0.234 0.166 0.266
Loc_Ondo -0.065 0.223 -0.169 0.225 -0.07 0.216 0.093 0.221 -0.378 0.254
Loc_Osun 0.195 0.254 0.019 0.287 0.284 0.263 0.268 0.278 0.23 0.306
Constant -121.315 53.642 23.915 72.397 84.989 66.73 99.588 70.538 90.83 77.024
a, b and c represent significance level at 1%,5% &10%

13
4.1 Household Characteristics

Among farmers‟ socio-economic characteristic variables that are statistically significant, the age
of the household head exhibited a negative relationship in influencing the decision to adopt the
choice of “mixed cropping and improved variety” but not significant with other adaptation
strategies. The negative relationship suggests that younger farmers are more likely to adopt
compared to their older counterparts possibly for being innovative and keen to try new
technology and methods to improve agriculture. Older farmers could not be aware of recent
innovations in agriculture and/or are reluctant to try new methods (Ali and Erenstein, 2016). The
result is also in consonance with the study of Denkyirah et al. (2016) who found a negative effect
of age on adoption of pesticides. The coefficient of household size is positive and statistically
significant in influencing only the choice of “soil and water conservation adaptation strategy”. A
positive association between household size and climate change adaptation strategies has also
been found in several studies (Croppenstedt et al., 2003; Deressa et al., 2009; Abid et al., 2015,
Ali and Erenstein, 2016). This association could be attributed to the ability of the household to
supply surplus labor to non-farm activities and the income generated could be invested in climate
change adaptation strategies as found by (Lanjouw and Lanjouw, 2001; Reardon et al., 2007;
Rahut and Micevska Scharf, 2012; Gautam and Andersen, 2016)

4.2 Household Assets

Recent empirical evidence has shown that household assets have a great influence on the
adoption of farm technology (Mmbando and Baiyegunhi 2016). In line with Fernandez-Cornejo
and Mishra, (2007), households that have access to off-farm income are likely to adapt to climate
change. The coefficient of off farm activities is positive and statistically significant in
influencing the choice of “soil and water conservation, agrochemicals and improved varieties”.
Farmers who engage in off-farm activities can purchase chemical inputs, invest in conservation
of soil and also improved varieties as their financial constraints may be overcome by being
involved in off-farm income activities. This is in line with study by Danso-Abbeam and
Baiyegunhi (2017) who found a positive relationship between off-farm income and adoption of
agrochemical management practices. Land is a major agricultural productive asset and wealth
indicator. Farm size is positive and statistically significant in influencing only the choice of
“planting improved varieties adaptation strategy”. This is in line with the generally reported

14
positive association between farm size and technology adoption (Tiwari et al., 2009; Bamire et
al., 2010; Bryan et al., 2013; Abid et al., 2015). Farmers with large landholdings are likely to
have more capacity to try out and invest in climate risk adaptation strategies through the use of
improved varieties. The coefficient of years of experience in farming is negative and statistically
significant in influencing the choice of “varying planting and harvesting date adaptation
strategy”. This implies that years of farming experience significantly decreases the probability of
choosing varying planting and harvesting date adaptation strategy

4.3 Access to services

The coefficient of access to extension services is positive and statistically significant in

influencing the choice of “mixed cropping and improved variety adaptation strategies”, likely
denoting the role of access to information and other resources which empower the farm
household to adopt such climate-risk coping strategies (Abid et al., 2016). This finding aligns
with other studies, including those that show positive effects of institutional membership
(Adesina et al., 2000) and extension services (Deressa et al., 2009), with extension services
enhancing the availability of information on climate risk and adaptation options (Maddison,
2007; Nhemachena and Nhem, 2007). The role of extension services is very critical in the
perception of and adaptation to climate change. As posited by Bryan et al., (2013) farming
households that did not receive extension agents‟ visits are more likely to either not perceive
climate change or perceive it wrongly. Contact with extension represents sources of information
(such as TV, radio, magazine, newspaper, personal observation, development agents, etc.)
required to make decision to adopt climate change adaptation strategies. An individual exposed
to climate information is more likely to take an immediate action to cope with risks related to
climate change.

Empirical findings have indicated that access to credit is a major determinant of climate change
adaptation decision. With resource limitations, farmers may fail to meet the costs of adaptation
and at times cannot make beneficial use of available information (Kandli and Risbey, 2000).
Recent studies (Gyinadu, Bakang, and Osei 2015; Mmbando and Baiyegunhi 2016) also opined
that inadequate funds or a lack of funds have impeded adoption of farm management practices in
developing economies. The coefficient of access to credit is positive and statistically significant
for the choices of mixed cropping and use of improved varieties adaptation strategies. Adaptation

15
strategies can be expensive with some requiring the purchase of new improved seeds while
others are capital intensive. Thus, in the absence of credit, farmers may find it difficult to adopt
any adaptation strategy even when provided with information on climate change, as they might
not be able to purchase the requisite inputs.

The coefficient of membership of association is positive and statistically significant in

influencing “varying planting and harvesting date as well agrochemical” adaptation strategies.
This could be attributed to the fact that members of farmers‟ groups can share experiences and
exchange information about new technologies when they meet (Kassie et al., 2013). Group
membership can, therefore, enhance social learning and knowledge spill-over (Bandiera and
Rasul, 2006) about agrochemicals. Information may shape problem awareness and attitudes
important in framing the expectations of farmers towards resource problems and choice of a
farming practice (Place and Dewees, 1999).

4.4 Location

Location typically plays an important role in climate change adaptation (Vincent, 2007; Tiwari et
al., 2008; Hinkel, 2011; Below et al., 2012). The coefficient for the location of Ekiti State is
positive and statistically significant in influencing choice of adaptation strategies through the use
of “agrochemical, mixed cropping and as well as varying planting and harvesting dates”.

4.5 Climate variables

As expected, the results suggest the importance of climatic variables in explaining the probability
of farm households‟ decision to adopt adaptation strategies. The coefficient of mean annual
temperature is positive and statistically significant in influencing the choice of “soil and water
conservation adaptation strategy”. Increasing annual temperature increases the likelihood of the
farmers to adopt changes in agricultural management practices. Increasing warming is associated
with reduction in water resources, high evaporation rate, this increases water scarcity and
shortage of food production and other uses (Nhemachena et al. 2014). In response to increasing
temperature, farmers tend to adopt the use of soil and water conservation adaptation strategy in
respect to conserve the little rain received. Consequently, the coefficient of mean annual
precipitation is also positive and statistically significant with mixed cropping adaptation strategy.
This could be attributed to the fact that mixed farming system is already diversified and farmers

16
have a number of alternative crop options to grow that can ensure that if one option fails, the
other will thrive even if there is a change in the climatic conditions. Diversification in farming
system is therefore important for farmers to adapt to climate change through mixed crop
practices.

5.0 Conclusion and Policy Implications

The study analyzed the determinants of climate change adaptation strategies, using the
multivariate probit model. The study rejected null hypothesis of the independence of the different
adaptation strategies. Thus, the alternative hypothesis of inter-dependence among the different
adaptation strategies which justifies the use of the multivariate probit for this analysis was
adopted for the study. The findings from multivariate probit model revealed that the farmers‟
choice of adaptation strategies are statistically significantly affected by factors such farming
experience, credit access, level of education, household size, age of the household head and
location of the farmers. Various sources of extension information significantly inform adoption
decisions. Key among these is government extension, awareness of climate change and measures
to mitigate its effects is thus depicted as a key factor in the adaptation process. The study
identifies credit access as a key factor to adaptation. Resource availability enables farmers to
implement adaptation decisions, the lack of which presents the household with a significant
challenge of adopting the adaptation measures. With the estimates of the multivariate model
indicating complementarities among the adaptation strategies choices used by the rice farmers.
The complementarities among these strategies shows that farm level policies that affect a choice
of adaptation strategies can have a trickle-down effect on others. It is therefore, recommended
for the stakeholders in the rice industry to ensure that decisions that support all the choices of
adaptation strategies are put in place. Government policies and investment strategies must be
geared towards the support of education, credit facilities and information about adaptation to
climate change, including technological and institutional methods, particularly for smallholder
farmers in the country. The government could build the capacity of agricultural extension
systems and make climate change education a priority through ICT innovations. There is a need
also for new institutions, such as Public-Private- Partnerships organized, which can take research
findings, into the field and help smallholder farmers adapt to a changing climate. Investment in
education is critical for overall development and may thus also provide a policy instrument for

17
increasing the use of climate risk coping strategies and reducing the vulnerability of farm
households.

References
Abid, M., Scheffran, J., Schneider, U. A., & 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(1), 225
Abid, M., Schilling, J., Scheffran, J., & Zulfiqar, F. (2016). Climate change vulnerability,
adaptation and risk perceptions at farm level in Punjab, Pakistan. Science of the Total
Environment, 547, 447-460.
Adebisi-Adelani, O., & Oyesola, O. B. (2014). Farmers‟ Perceptions of the Effect of Climate
Change on Tomato Production in Nigeria. International Journal of Vegetable
Science, 20(4), 366-373.
Adesina, A. A., Mbila, D., Nkamleu, G. B., & Endamana, D. (2000). Econometric analysis of the
determinants of adoption of alley farming by farmers in the forest zone of southwest
Cameroon. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 80(3), 255-265.
Adimassu, Z., Kessler, A., & Stroosnijder, L. (2014). Farmers‫ ׳‬strategies to perceived trends of
rainfall and crop productivity in the Central Rift Valley of Ethiopia. Environmental
Development, 11, 123-140.
Adger, W. N., Huq, S., Brown, K., Conway, D., & Hulme, M. (2003). Adaptation to climate
change in the developing world. Progress in Development Studies, 3(3), 179-195.
Agbo, F. U. (2013). Farmers‟ Perception of Climate Change in Ikwuano Local Government Area
of Abia State. Nigeria. Journal of Biology, Agriculture and Healthcare 6(3), 36-45,
Aggarwal, P. K. (2008). Global climate change and Indian agriculture: impacts, adaptation and
mitigation. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 78(10), 911-919
Ajetomobi, J. O., Abiodun, Ajoboye., & Hassan, Rashid (2010, September). Economic impact of
climate change on irrigated rice agriculture in Nigeria. In Contributed paper presented at
the Joint 3rd African Association of Agricultural Economists (AAAE) and 48th

18
 Agricultural Economists Association of South Africa (AEASA) Conference, Cape Town,
S. Africa, Sept (pp. 19-23).
Akudugu, M. A., Guo, E., & Dadzie, S. K. (2012). Adoption of modern agricultural production
technologies by farm households in Ghana: What factors influence their
decisions? Journal of Biology, Agriculture and Healthcare, 2(3), 1-14
Ali, A., & Erenstein, O. (2016). Irrigation water saving through adoption of direct rice sowing
technology in the Indo-Gangetic Plains: empirical evidence from Pakistan. Water
Practice and Technology, 11(3), 610-620.
Amsalu, A., & De Graaff, J. (2007). Determinants of adoption and continued use of stone
terraces for soil and water conservation in an Ethiopian highland watershed. Ecological
Economics, 61(2), 294-302.
Apata, T. G., Samuel, K. D., & Adeola, A. O. (2009). Analysis of climate change perception and
adaptation among arable food crop farmers in South Western Nigeria. In Contributed
paper prepared for presentation at the International Association of Agricultural
Economists’ 2009 Conference, Beijing, China, August 16 (22), 1-15
Asayehegn, K., Weldegebrial, G., & Kaske, D. (2012). Effectiveness of development agent‟s
performances in agricultural technology dissemination: The case of Southern Nations
Nationalities and Peoples Regional State (SNNPRS), Ethiopia. Journal of Agricultural
Extension and Rural Development, 4(17), 446-455.
Ayanlade, A., Radeny, M., & Morton, J. F. (2017). Comparing smallholder farmers‟ perception
of climate change with meteorological data: A case study from southwestern
Nigeria. Weather and Climate Extremes, 15, 24-33.
Balew, S., Agwata, J., & Anyango, S. (2014). Determinants of adoption choices of climate
change adaptation strategies in crop production by small scale farmers in some regions of
central Ethiopia. Journal of Natural Science Research, 4(4), 78-93.
Baethgen, W. E., Meinke, H., & Gimene, A. (2003, November). Adaptation of agricultural
production systems to climate variability and climate change: lessons learned and
proposed research approach. In Climate Adaptation. Net conference “Insights and Tools
for Adaptation: Learning from Climate Variability (pp. 18-20).

19
Below, T. B., Mutabazi, K. D., Kirschke, D., Franke, C., Sieber, S., Siebert, R., & Tscherning, K.
(2012). Can farmers‟ adaptation to climate change be explained by socio-economic
household-level variables? Global Environmental Change, 22(1), 223-235.
Bielders, C. L., Ramelot, C., & Persoons, E. (2003). Farmer perception of runoff and erosion and
extent of flooding in the silt-loam belt of the Belgian Walloon Region. Environmental
Science & Policy, 6(1), 85-93.
Bryan, E., Ringler, C., Okoba, B., Roncoli, C., Silvestri, S., & Herrero, M. (2013). Adapting
agriculture to climate change in Kenya: Household strategies and determinants. Journal
of Environmental Management, 114, 26-35.
Croppenstedt A, Demeke M, Meschi MM (2003) Technology adoption in the presence of
constraints: the case of fertilizer demand in Ethiopia. Review of Development Economics,
7(1), 58–70,
Danso-Abbeam, G., & Baiyegunhi, L. J. (2017). Adoption of agrochemical management
practices among smallholder cocoa farmers in Ghana. African Journal of Science,
Technology, Innovation and Development, 1-12. DOI: 10.1080/20421338.2017.1380358
Demont, M., & Ndour, M. (2015). Upgrading rice value chains: Experimental evidence from 11
African markets. Global Food Security, 5, 70-76.
De Wit, M., & Stankiewicz, J. (2006). Changes in surface water supply across Africa with
predicted climate change. Science, 311(5769), 1917-1921.
Di Falco, S., Veronesi, M., & Yesuf, M. (2011). Does adaptation to climate change provide food
security? A micro-perspective from Ethiopia. American Journal of Agricultural
Economics, 93(3), 829-846.
Deressa, T., Hassan, R. M., & Ringler, C. (2008). Measuring Ethiopian farmers' vulnerability to
climate change across regional states. International Food Policy Research Institute.
Discussion Paper 00806, 1-38
Deressa, T. T., Hassan, R. M., Ringler, C., Alemu, T., & Yesuf, M. (2009). Determinants of
farmers‟ choice of adaptation methods to climate change in the Nile Basin of
Ethiopia. Global environmental change, 19(2), 248-255.
Deressa, T. T., Hassan, R. M., & Ringler, C. (2011). Perception of and adaptation to climate
change by farmers in the Nile basin of Ethiopia. The Journal of Agricultural
Science, 149(1), 23-31.

20
D'souza, G., Cyphers, D., & Phipps, T. (1993). Factors affecting the adoption of sustainable
agricultural practices. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, 22(2), 159-165.
Eriksen, S., Aldunce, P., Bahinipati, C. S., Martins, R. D. A., Molefe, J. I., Nhemachena, C., ... &
Ulsrud, K. (2011). When not every response to climate change is a good one: Identifying
principles for sustainable adaptation. Climate and Development, 3(1), 7-20.
Fisher-Vanden, K., Wing, I. S., Lanzi, E., & Popp, D. (2011). Modeling climate change
adaptation: Challenges, recent developments and future directions. A Mimeographed
Paper Boston University.
Gandure, S., Walker, S., & Botha, J. J. (2013). Farmers' perceptions of adaptation to climate
change and water stress in a South African rural community. Environmental
Development, 5, 39-53.
Gautam, Y., & Andersen, P. (2016). Rural livelihood diversification and household well-being:
Insights from Humla, Nepal. Journal of Rural Studies, 44, 239-249.
Hassan, R., & Nhemachena, C. (2008). Determinants of African farmers‟ strategies for adapting
to climate change: Multinomial choice analysis. African Journal of Agricultural and
Resource Economics, 2(1), 83-104.
Hazell, P.B.R., Norton, R.D., 1986. Mathematical Programming for Economic Analysis in
Agriculture. Macmillan, New York, USA.
Hinkel, J. (2011). “Indicators of vulnerability and adaptive capacity”: Towards a clarification of
the science–policy interface. Global Environmental Change, 21(1), 198-208.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2014). Climate Change 2014–Impacts, Adaptation
and Vulnerability: Regional Aspects. Cambridge University Press.
Jones, P. G., & Thornton, P. K. (2003). The potential impacts of climate change on maize
production in Africa and Latin America in 2055. Global Environmental Change, 13(1),
51-59.
Kassie, M., Jaleta, M., Shiferaw, B., Mmbando, F., & Mekuria, M. (2013). Adoption of
interrelated sustainable agricultural practices in smallholder systems: Evidence from rural
Tanzania. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 80(3), 525-540.
Khadka, D., Babel, M. S., Shrestha, S., & Tripathi, N. K. (2014). Climate change impact on
glacier and snow melt and runoff in Tamakoshi basin in the Hindu Kush Himalayan
(HKH) region. Journal of Hydrology, 511, 49-60.

21
Komba, C., & Muchapondwa, E. (2012). Adaptation to climate change by smallholder farmers in
Tanzania. Economic Resources. Southern Africa (ERSA) working paper, 299(5).
Kurukulasuriya, P., Mendelsohn, R., Hassan, R., Benhin, J., Deressa, T., Diop, M., &
Mahamadou, A. (2006). Will African agriculture survive climate change? The World
Bank Economic Review, 20(3), 367-388.
Kurukulasuriya, P., & Mendelsohn, R. O. (2008). How will climate change shift agro-ecological
zones and impact African agriculture?. The World Bank Development Research Group
Sustainable Rural and Urban Development Team .Policy Research Working Paper, 1-28
Lanjouw, J. O., & Lanjouw, P. (2001). The rural non‐ farm sector: issues and evidence from
developing countries. Agricultural Economics, 26(1), 1-23.
Lipper, L., Thornton, P., Campbell, B. M., Baedeker, T., Braimoh, A., Bwalya, M., & Hottle, R.
(2014). Climate-smart agriculture for food security. Nature Climate Change, 4(12), 1068.
Liu, B., Xu, M., Henderson, M., & Gong, W. (2004). A spatial analysis of pan evaporation trends
in China, 1955–2000. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 109(D15).
Liu, J., Fritz, S., Van Wesenbeeck, C. F. A., Fuchs, M., You, L., Obersteiner, M., & Yang, H.
(2008). A spatially explicit assessment of current and future hotspots of hunger in Sub-
Saharan Africa in the context of global change. Global and Planetary Change, 64(3),
222-235.
McCarthy, J. J., Canziani, O. F., Leary, N. A., Dokken, D. J., and White, K. S. (eds.): 2001,
Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge
Mendelsohn, R., & Neumann, J. E. (Eds.). (2004). The impact of climate change on the United
States economy. Cambridge University Press.
Mmbando, F. E., and L. J. S. Baiyegunhi. 2016. “Socio-Economic and Institutional Factors
Influencing Adoption of Improved Maize Varieties in Hai District, Tanzania.” Journal of
Human Ecology 53 (1): 49–56.
Mulwa, C., P. Marenya, D. B. Rahut, and M. Kassie. 2017. “Response to Climate Risks Among
Smallholder Farmers in Malawi: A Multivariate Probit Assessment of the Role of
Information, Household Demographics, and Farm Characteristics.” Climate Risk
Management 16:208–221.

22
Mulwa, C., Marenya, P., & Kassie, M. (2017). Response to climate risks among smallholder
farmers in Malawi: A multivariate probit assessment of the role of information,
household demographics, and farm characteristics. Climate Risk Management, 16, 208-
221.
Nhemachena, C., Nhem, R., 2007. Micro-level analysis of farmer‟s adaption to climate change in
Southern Africa. International Food Policy Research Institute. Discussion Paper 00714
Nkomo, J. C., Nyong, A. O., & Kulindwa, K. (2006). The impacts of climate change in
Africa. Final draft paper submitted to The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate
Change.
Okonya, J. S., Syndikus, K., & Kroschel, J. (2013). Farmers‟ perception of and coping strategies
to climate change: Evidence from six agro-ecological zones of Uganda. Journal of
Agricultural Science, 5(8), 25-34.
Parry, M. L., Rosenzweig, C., Iglesias, A., Livermore, M., & Fischer, G. (2004). Effects of
climate change on global food production under SRES emissions and socio-economic
scenarios. Global Environmental Change, 14(1), 53-67.
Rahut, D. B., & Micevska Scharf, M. (2012). Livelihood diversification strategies in the
Himalayas. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 56(4), 558-582.
Rabe-Hesketh, S., & Everitt, B. (2004). Random Effects Models: Thought Disorder and
Schizophrenia'. A Handbook of Statistical Analyses using Stata, Boca Raton: Chapman &
Hall/CRC, 151-178.
Shannon, H. D., & Motha, R. P. (2015). Managing weather and climate risks to agriculture in
North America, Central America and the Caribbean. Weather and Climate Extremes, (10)
50-56.
Shiferaw, B., & Holden, S. T. (1998). Resource degradation and adoption of land conservation
technologies in the Ethiopian highlands: A case study in Andit Tid, North Shewa.
Agricultural Economics, 18, 233-247.
Simtowe, F., & Zeller, M. (2006).The impact of access to credit on the adoption of hybrid maize
in Malawi: an empirical test of an agricultural household model under credit market
failure. Munich Personal RePec Archive (MPRA) Paper No. 45.

23
Simelton, E., Quinn, C. H., Batisani, N., Dougill, A. J., Dyer, J. C., Fraser, E. D., ... & Stringer,
L. C. (2013). Is rainfall really changing? Farmers‟ perceptions, meteorological data, and
policy implications. Climate and Development, 5(2), 123-138.
Stern, N. H. (2007). The economics of climate change: the Stern review. Cambridge University
press.
Sylla, M. B., Elguindi, N., Giorgi, F., & Wisser, D. (2016). Projected robust shift of climate
zones over West Africa in response to anthropogenic climate change for the late 21st
century. Climatic Change, 134(1-2), 241-253.
Tazeze, A., Haji, J., & Ketema, M. (2012). Climate change adaptation strategies of smallholder
farmers: the case of Babilie District, East Harerghe Zone of Oromia Regional State of
Ethiopia. Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development, 3(14), 1-12.
Taruvinga, A., Muchenje, V., & Mushunje, A. (2013). Climate change impacts and adaptations
on small-scale livestock production”. International Journal of Development and
Sustainability, 2(2), 664-685.
Terdoo, F., & Feola, G. (2016). The Vulnerability of Rice Value Chains in Sub-Saharan Africa:
A Review. Climate, 4(3), 1-15.
Tubiello, F. (2012). Climate change adaptation and mitigation: challenges and opportunities in
the food sector. Natural Resources Management and Environment Department, FAO,
Rome.
Uaiene, R. N. (2008). Determinants of agricultural technical efficiency and technology adoption
in Mozambique (Doctoral dissertation, Purdue University).
Vincent K (2007) Uncertainty in adaptive capacity and the importance of scale. Global
Environmental Change 17:12–24
Wheeler, T., & Von Braun, J. (2013). Climate change impacts on global food
security. Science, 341(6145), 508-513.
Zake, J., & Hauser, M. (2014). Farmers' perceptions of implementation of climate variability
disaster preparedness strategies in Central Uganda. Environmental Hazards, 13(3), 248-
266.

24