Professional Documents
Culture Documents
JAERD
Research Article
This study analyses the factors affecting Ethiopian farmers choice of ex-ante adaptation
and ex-post coping strategies for climate risk. We use multivariate probit models to explain
the choice of various adaptation and coping strategies. We find that plot characteristics
such as slope, depth, soil type and soil fertility, and farm size are important factors affecting
the choice of adaptation strategy. These plot characteristics also significantly affect the
choice of particular coping strategies such as selling livestock, reducing meals and
borrowing. The results also show that plot management practices such as leaving crop
residues, intercropping and use of non-recycled hybrid maize are associated with a reduced
likelihood of choosing coping measures such as selling livestock. We advocate increased
farmer education on improved farm management practices to reduce household
vulnerability to climate change and variability.
Keywords: Adaptation, coping, climate risk, multivariate probit model, Ethiopia
INTRODUCTION
The African continent is projected to be adversely
affected by further global warming. Africa is particularly
vulnerable because it is amongst the hottest places on
the Earth and therefore any further warming is likely to
have adverse socioeconomic consequences. Africas
vulnerability is heightened by the fact that most of the
economies in this region rely mainly on natural
resources and rain-fed agriculture, which are very
sensitive to climate change and variability. For
example, biomass provides about 80% of the primary
domestic energy supply in Africa, while rain-fed
agriculture contributes some 30% of GDP and employs
about 70% of the population, and is the main safety net
of the rural poor (World Bank, 2012). In addition, and
perhaps more importantly, Africas vulnerability is
exacerbated by the fact that it is home to the largest
numbers of the worlds poor, with extreme poverty as
high as 48% (AfDB, 2013) which weakens its
adaptive capacity.
Strategies for Managing Climate Risk: A Case Study of Smallholder Farmers in Ethiopia
Asafu-Adjaye et al.
091
Using a computable general equilibrium model, AsafuAdjaye (2014) projects that climate change will have
the least economic impacts on the European Unionand
North America, and the largest impacts on African
economies.Southern Africa and the rest of SubSaharan Africa will be the hardest hit with adecline in
GDP growth of nearly 2 percentage points perannum
each by the 2050s, followed by North Africa (1.4
percentage points perannum). In line with the climatic
evidence, the East African region will experience the
least loss with output decline of about 0.6 percentage
points perannum. Cumulatively, the impacts of reduced
agricultural output on African economic growth from
20102080 are 6 percentage points (Southern Africa
and rest of SSA),4 percentage points (North
Africa),and2 percentage points (East Africa).
Like most African countries, Ethiopia is vulnerable to
the effects of climate change and variability because it
is heavily dependent on agriculture. Agriculture
accounts for about 45% of GDP and the overwhelming
majority of the 94 million inhabitants depend on it for
their income and livelihood. In contrast, manufacturing
accounts for only 12% of GDP (World Bank, 2014).
Kebede et al. (2013) have used two downscaled global
GCMs (REMO and CGCM 3.1) to project trends for
temperature and rainfall for Ethiopia. Using the REMO
model, they project a trend of +1.3C changes for
maximum temperature for the 2011 to 2050 period; and
using the CGCM3.1 model, they project +2.55C
changes in maximum temperature during the same
period. Rainfall changes show considerable uncertainty
over the basin during the rainy season with a range of
20% to +50%.
The major adverse impacts of climate variability in
Ethiopia include the following: food insecurity arising
from occurrences of droughts and floods; outbreak of
diseases such as malaria, dengue fever, water borne
diseases (such as cholera, dysentery) associated with
floods and respiratory diseases associated with
droughts; and land degradation due to heavy rainfall.
Climate change is projected to reduce yields of the
wheat staple crop by 33% (Tadege, 2007).
Desertification, brought on by human land-use
pressures and recurrent drought, has consumed
significant land area and continues to threaten arable
land.
Given the adverse climatic predictions, a better
understanding of how farmers have coped with past
and current climate change and variability would enable
us to propose more effective strategies to reduce their
vulnerability in the future. In this regard our study aims
to contribute to the growing literature on climate change
adaptation by examining the coping and adaptation
strategies of Ethiopian smallholder farmers. The study
makes two important contributions to the literature.
First, unlike many of the previous Ethiopian adaptation
studies, we use plot level data in addition to household
data, which allows us to explore the effects of a wider
range of variables that relate to plot characteristics and
TO
1Risk
Strategies for Managing Climate Risk: A Case Study of Smallholder Farmers in Ethiopia
092
Strategies
of
Strategies for Managing Climate Risk: A Case Study of Smallholder Farmers in Ethiopia
093
Number reporting
Asafu-Adjaye et al.
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Drought
Too much rain or floods
Crop pests/diseases
Hail storm
No. of times risk occurred in part 10 years
Percentage reporting
30.0
25.0
20.0
Drought
15.0
10.0
5.0
Crop pests/diseases
0.0
Hail storm
1
Strategies for Managing Climate Risk: A Case Study of Smallholder Farmers in Ethiopia
Frequency
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
094
drought
too much rain or floods
crop pests/diseases
hail storm
Frequency
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
drought
too much rain or floods
none
other
borrowing
out-migration
change from
selling land
selling livestock
replanting
change crop
crop pests/diseases
hail storm
Frequency
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
drought
too much rain or floods
crop pests/diseases
hail storm
< 10%
10-20%
21-40%
41-60%
61-80%
81-100%
Strategies for Managing Climate Risk: A Case Study of Smallholder Farmers in Ethiopia
Asafu-Adjaye et al.
095
1 if yi1* > 0
yi =
0 if otherwise
Strategies for Managing Climate Risk: A Case Study of Smallholder Farmers in Ethiopia
Descriptive Statistics
The means and standard deviations of the dependent
and independent variables are shown in Table 1. The
096
Strategies for Managing Climate Risk: A Case Study of Smallholder Farmers in Ethiopia
Asafu-Adjaye et al.
097
Variable
Mean
Std. Dev.
0.08
0.07
0.05
0.06
0.13
0.275
0.262
0.225
0.239
0.336
Adaptation to drought
Changing crop varieties
Early planting
Tree planting
0.05
0.05
0.04
0.222
0.224
0.192
0.14
0.24
0.32
0.16
0.344
0.428
0.467
0.368
0.09
0.26
0.292
0.439
43.89
4.49
0.92
1.28
12.725
11.669
0.271
1.138
15.50
1.32
2.45
1.58
1.17
27.940
0.527
0.725
0.630
0.471
1.76
2465.5
1.443
4884.8
1.02
0.07
0.07
98.13
0.53
0.80
0.30
2.105
0.262
0.246
0.774
0.499
0.778
0.457
Independent variables
Household characteristics
Age of household head in years
Education of household head in years
Gender (1=male 0=female)
Occupation (1=agric. self emp., 2 agric. wage labour, 3=non-agric. self
emp., 4=non-agric. wage labour)
Plot characteristics
Distance from homestead (minutes)
Soil slope (1=gentle, 2=medium, 3=steep)
Soil depth (1=shallow, 2=medium, 3=deep)
Soil fertility (1=good, 2=medium, 3=poor)
Plot tenure (1=owned, 2=rented/shared in, 3= rented/shared out,
4=borrowed in, 5=borrowed out, 6=other)
Own land area (ha)
Yield (kg/ha)
Plot management practice
Soil and water conservation (0=none, 1=terraces, 2=mulching, 3=grass
strips, 4=trees on borders)
Crop residues left on plot (1=yes, 0=no)
Composting (1=yes, 0=no)
Intercropping (%)
Fertilizer (1=yes, 0=no)
Improved maize variety use (1=yes, 0=no)
Non-recycled hybrid maize use (1=yes, 0=no)
Note:N=3694
Strategies for Managing Climate Risk: A Case Study of Smallholder Farmers in Ethiopia
098
Table 2.Multivariate probit estimates for ex-ante adaptation to any climate related risk
Changing crop
varieties
Variable
Coef.
Household characteristics
Age
0.003
Education
z Coef.
-0.005
Sex
Occupation
Crop
diversification
Early planting
-0.450
***
-0.129
***
1.04
1.44
4.00
3.48
-0.010
***
-0.004
0.254
-0.082
**
Tree planting
z Coef.
-3.79
0.001
0.51
-0.001
-0.29
-0.005
-0.91
0.003
1.32
0.001
0.47
0.001
1.80
0.012
0.167
1.23
0.222
-2.17
-0.063
0.09
1.72
-0.015
-0.45
0.003
0.12
0.58
0.001
***
0.004
-3.02
0.001
0.73
-3.64
-0.325
***
-2.31
-0.087
-1.59
2.26
-0.127
***
0.86
0.034
0.91
***
0.042
***
0.508
-7.38
-0.234
***
-5.13
0.089
***
0.223
1.48
-0.140
**
-2.26
-5.70
-0.220
***
-7.71
-0.021
-1.49
0.069
0.59
0.150
1.64
**
2.36
0.275
***
2.83
***
5.78
Coef.
Coef.
z
**
-2.14
0.54
**
2.08
Plot characteristics
Distance
-0.002
Slope
-0.191
Depth
**
0.002
Fertility
-0.351
Tenure
***
0.025
-0.044
1.46
2.74
0.001
-0.280
***
**
0.57
3.58
2.64
5.09
0.50
3.55
-0.184
**
0.05
5.94
0.107
-0.295
***
-4.88
-0.347
0.35
1.57
-0.219
***
-2.49
-0.043
-0.108
***
-3.43
-0.138
8.74
0.045
***
3.43
0.029
1.16
1.25
0.52
1.21
0.182
1.72
-0.099
1.99
0.72
0.002
0.01
0.098
0.73
0.273
0.102
1.42
0.164
0.342
-0.001
0.134
***
0.008
1.77
-2.39
-3.55
-0.007
1.49
2.00
0.246
5.13
-0.253
***
5.28
0.268
-1.00
-0.065
2.06
0.52
3.39
0.73
-2.26
-0.199
***
0.112
***
0.128
-0.161
-0.037
-0.003
0.072
-0.160
**
-0.006
**
***
-0.078
**
**
***
0.280
-0.184
**
***
***
***
-3.60
6.60
-3.14
Notes:
Wald statistics: 2 (110)= 4956.5, p-value = 0.000; LR test of rijs=0:
***Significant at the 1% level; **Significant at the 5% level; *Significant at the 10% level.
Strategies for Managing Climate Risk: A Case Study of Smallholder Farmers in Ethiopia
Asafu-Adjaye et al.
099
crop
Early
planting
Tree
planting
Coef.
0.000
-0.002
***
-0.542
***
-0.113
-0.003
***
-0.305
0.043
***
-0.291
0.010
z
0.05
-0.43
-4.17
-2.66
-1.57
-3.58
0.78
-4.17
0.12
Coef.
**
-0.003
-0.005
-0.020
**
-0.088
0.002
***
-0.355
0.092
***
-0.378
-0.117
z
-2.39
-0.99
-0.13
-2.04
1.71
-3.99
1.71
-5.39
-1.27
0.033
1.09
-0.092
***
-2.64
0.150
***
0.162
-0.161
-0.013
***
-0.009
10.23
1.24
-1.09
-0.16
-3.53
**
0.089
-0.301
0.026
0.085
*
-0.006
5.95
-2.04
0.20
1.06
-2.06
Coef.
0.002
**
0.006
0.125
*
-0.091
**
-0.005
***
-0.304
0.066
***
-0.713
0.108
***
0.62
2.05
0.69
-1.73
-2.37
-2.84
1.08
-7.24
1.46
-0.276
-5.08
**
2.28
-0.15
1.04
2.19
-2.66
0.042
-0.022
0.153
**
0.212
***
-0.008
Notes:
Wald statistics: 2 (110) = 3694.0, p-value = 0.000; LR test of ijs=0: 2 (10) = 1204.8, p-value = 0.000; N=3694
***Significant at the 1% level; **Significant at the 5% level; *Significant at the 10% level.
Strategies for Managing Climate Risk: A Case Study of Smallholder Farmers in Ethiopia
100
Early
planting
Variable
Age
Coef.
0.000
z
0.05
Coef.
**
-0.003
z
-2.39
Coef.
0.002
Education
-0.002
-0.43
-0.005
-0.99
0.006
Sex
-0.542
***
-4.17
-0.020
-0.13
0.125
Occupation
-0.113
***
-2.66
-0.088
-2.04
-0.091
-1.73
Distance
-0.003
-1.57
0.002
1.71
-0.005
**
-2.37
Slope
-0.305
-3.58
-0.355
-3.99
-0.304
***
-2.84
Depth
0.043
0.78
0.092
1.71
0.066
Fertility
-0.291
-4.17
-0.378
-5.39
-0.713
Tenure
Ownland
area
Soil & water
conservation
Residues
0.010
0.12
-0.117
-1.27
0.108
0.162
1.24
-0.301
Composting
-0.161
-1.09
Fertiliser use
-0.013
Intercropping
-0.009
***
***
0.033
0.150
1.09
***
***
10.23
-0.092
0.089
**
***
***
***
**
*
Tree
planting
-2.64
5.95
z
0.62
**
0.69
1.08
***
-7.24
1.46
-0.276
0.042
2.05
***
**
-5.08
2.28
-2.04
-0.022
-0.15
0.026
0.20
0.153
1.04
-0.16
0.085
1.06
0.212
-3.53
-0.006
-2.06
-0.008
**
***
2.19
-2.66
Notes:
Wald statistics: 2 (110) = 3694.0, p-value = 0.000; LR test of ijs=0: 2 (10) = 1204.8, p-value =
0.000; N=3694
***Significant at the 1% level; **Significant at the 5% level; *Significant at the 10% level.
Strategies for Managing Climate Risk: A Case Study of Smallholder Farmers in Ethiopia
Asafu-Adjaye et al.
101
Table 4.Multivariate probit estimates for ex-post coping with any climate related risk
Variable
Household
characteristics
Age
Education
Sex
Occupation
Plot characteristics
Distance
Tenure
Total output
Coef.
Coef.
Reducing meals
Borrowi
ng
Coef.
Coef.
-0.33
0.000
0.14
0.002
0.009
4.50
0.90
-0.005
-0.106
-2.77
-0.116
-0.002
***
0.311
***
0.098
-0.72
1.99
1.18
2.38
1.19
5.00
2.09
0.002
0.001
1.54
-7.84
-0.140
***
3.02
3.11
10.1
8
3.85
1.92
9.59
4.61
1.11
1.25
0.75
5.92
0.43
1.48
2.19
0.004
1.80
-0.001
0.007
***
3.58
0.003
1.90
0.002
0.045
0.44
0.083
0.93
0.006
0.22
0.053
0.179
***
0.061
1.70
0.87
0.19
4.30
0.95
1.66
**
**
***
2.49
0.003
***
3.26
-0.018
-0.38
0.002
***
0.350
0.043
***
0.246
1.35
0.098
3.24
0.339
-6.25
0.057
1.56
0.144
-0.039
-0.77
0.044
0.97
-0.094
0.006
0.34
-0.038
**
-2.08
-0.217
0.092
*
-0.205
8.99
-2.34
0.075
**
-0.198
***
7.05
-2.19
0.049
0.099
0.049
***
0.179
***
0.007
0.55
3.66
0.27
1.38
-0.117
0.038
-4.17
0.025
0.071
***
0.008
-3.87
-0.010
-0.005
***
0.173
1.88
0.42
4.84
0.13
2.54
0.076
2.31
0.024
0.68
-0.016
-0.071
-1.25
-0.130
-2.29
-0.088
0.000
0.57
0.000
-2.60
0.000
-1.52
0.000
-0.036
Plot
management
practices
Soil
&
water
conservation
Residues
Recycled maize
-0.056
Improved varieties
Coef.
-0.007
***
0.196
Fertility
Intercropping
Selling
livestock
-0.047
Depth
Fertiliser use
Early planting
0.001
Slope
Composting
Changing crop
varieties
-0.002
***
0.344
*
0.187
0.025
***
0.009
0.17
3.83
***
***
**
**
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
**
***
**
-0.114
-3.40
-3.83
-2.29
***
2.74
0.127
***
3.12
0.028
0.55
-0.143
-5.86
0.010
***
0.240
0.82
2.62
0.115
**
0.124
***
0.011
***
0.143
1.16
2.23
-0.074
-1.14
-1.83
0.095
0.000
-6.21
-3.54
Notes:Wald statistics: c2 (110) = 4091.5, p-value = 0.000; LR test of rijs=0: c2 (10) = 1200.7, p-value = 0.000; N=3693
***Significant at the 1% level; **Significant at the 5% level; *Significant at the 10% level.
Strategies for Managing Climate Risk: A Case Study of Smallholder Farmers in Ethiopia
102
Changing crop
varieties
Variable
Age
Education
Sex
Occupation
Distance
Slope
Depth
Fertility
Tenure
Ownland area
Soil
&
water
conservation
Residues
Composting
Fertiliser use
Intercropping
Improved varieties
Recycled maize
Early
planting
Selling
livestock
Coef.
Coef.
Coef.
0.004
**
0.007
0.049
0.006
0.001
-0.045
-0.014
**
-0.201
-0.054
-0.031
1.70
3.49
0.48
0.24
1.71
-0.84
-0.39
-4.39
-0.90
-1.45
-0.001
0.003
0.097
*
0.049
**
0.002
-0.015
*
0.074
**
-0.225
-0.040
0.003
-0.61
1.72
1.08
2.32
2.87
-0.33
2.30
-5.76
-0.78
0.18
0.000
0.001
**
0.183
**
-0.061
*
0.001
**
-0.361
**
0.100
0.069
0.040
**
-0.045
0.23
0.53
2.05
-2.81
1.78
-8.03
3.25
1.91
0.87
-2.46
-0.001
**
0.343
0.194
0.029
**
-0.009
-0.007
*
-0.172
-0.08
3.79
*
1.95
0.50
-4.66
-0.18
-2.59
0.044
0.005
**
0.218
**
0.236
**
-0.005
**
-0.085
**
-0.094
4.19
0.05
2.46
4.63
-2.95
-2.45
-1.66
0.090
**
-0.217
0.043
**
0.168
**
-0.007
*
0.062
*
-0.127
**
**
8.72
-2.48
0.48
3.45
-4.39
1.90
-2.34
Notes:
Wald statistics: 2(110)=2713.4, p-value=0.000; LR test of ijs=0: 2(3)=359.2, p-value=0.000; N=3694
***Significant at the 1% level; **Significant at the 5% level; *Significant at the 10% level.
Strategies for Managing Climate Risk: A Case Study of Smallholder Farmers in Ethiopia
Asafu-Adjaye et al.
103
REFERENCES
Asfaw A, Admassie A (2004).The role of education on
the adoption of chemical fertilizer under different
socioeconomic environments in Ethiopia. Agric. Econ.
30: 215228.
African Development Bank (AfDB) (2011). The Cost of
Climate Change in Africa. African Development
Bank,Tunis.
Anderson JR, Dillon JL, Hardaker JB (1997).
Agricultural Decision Analysis. Ames, IL: Iowa State
University Press.
Asafu-Adjaye J (2014). Climate change and agriculture
in Africa. J. African Econ. 23, ii17ii49,
doi:10.1093/jae/eju011.
Bharwani S, Bithell M, Downing TE, New M,
Washington R, Ziervogel G (2005). Multi-agent
modelling of climate outlooks and food security on a
community garden scheme in Limpopo, South Africa.
Strategies for Managing Climate Risk: A Case Study of Smallholder Farmers in Ethiopia
104
Copyright: 2016 Asafu-Adjaye et al. This is an openaccess article distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits
unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any
medium, provided the original author and source are
cited.