agriculture

Article
Adaptation to Climate Change and Impact on Smallholder
Farmers’ Food Security in South Africa
Abiodun A. Ogundeji

Disaster Management Training and Education Centre for Africa, University of the Free State,
Bloemfontein 9300, South Africa; [email protected]

Abstract: If not adequately managed, climate change is predicted to have a large negative impact on
smallholder subsistence farmers, posing a significant danger to household food security. However,
the role of adaptive techniques used by farming households to reduce these negative effects and,
as a result, their food insecurity status has not been sufficiently evaluated. This study explores the
factors that influence smallholder farmers’ adoption of climate change adaptation measures, as well
as their impact on household food security. Using an endogenous treatment-effect ordered probit
model, agricultural households’ food security status is likely to significantly improve when they
employ measures to adapt to adverse climatic conditions. The empirical findings also show that
the gender makeup of the household, age, tropical livestock unit, and access to climatic information
improve the likelihood of smallholder farmers adopting climate change adaptation measures. Based
on the findings, this study advocates that governments and non-governmental organizations (NGOs)
support smallholder farmers’ Indigenous adaptation options with various institutional, regulatory,
and technological assistance, with a particular emphasis on female-headed households.

Keywords: food security; climate change; adaptation strategies; treatment-effect ordered probit

Citation: Ogundeji, A.A. Adaptation

to Climate Change and Impact on 1. Introduction
Smallholder Farmers’ Food Security Climate change continues to be a threat to global economic development, and it may
in South Africa. Agriculture 2022, 12, have an impact on different aspects of domestic life, such as agricultural productivity
589. https://doi.org/10.3390/ and food security [1–3]. Between 2004 and 2014, the risks and costs connected with the
agriculture12050589 consequences of climate change on agricultural output, such as crop and animal losses, due
Academic Editor: Sanzidur Rahman to flooding and droughts, totaled more than a hundred billion USD globally [4]. Despite the
recorded losses, other empirical studies reveal a further projected increase in future extreme
Received: 16 March 2022
weather events such as droughts, storms, precipitation variations, and temperature varia-
Accepted: 16 April 2022
tions, with Africa reported to be more prone to destructive consequences [5,6]. Sub-Saharan
Published: 22 April 2022
African countries, such as South Africa, have suffered seasonal and yearly unpredictability
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral in rainfall and temperature in recent years, resulting in a number of negative effects on the
with regard to jurisdictional claims in agricultural sector’s sustainability [7]. As a result, South Africa’s food security remains
published maps and institutional affil- jeopardized; for example, a reduction in crop yields and livestock production translated to
iations. low farm earnings and a decrease in food availability in many provinces [2,8].
In South Africa, the food security of rural households is inextricably linked to the
sustainability of the country’s agriculture industry, which supplies food, income, and
employment to more than 70% of the population [9]. Sustaining rural households’ food
Copyright: © 2022 by the author.
security in the face of climate change becomes a critical challenge, as climate change
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
offers a terrible danger to rural areas where agricultural production is largely practiced
This article is an open access article
by smallholder farmers who rely heavily on rainfall for water [10]. Relying on rainwater
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
may be more difficult for smallholder farmers because South Africa is regarded as a water-
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
scarce country, reducing agricultural production and contributing to food security [11].
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
Smallholder farmers are particularly vulnerable to climate change due to their reliance
4.0/). on rain-fed agriculture, insufficient access to land, high poverty, and poor education

Agriculture 2022, 12, 589. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12050589 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/agriculture

Agriculture 2022, 12, 589 2 of 16

levels, limited access to extension training, and lack of financial support to adopt adaptive
measures [12,13]. Therefore, a study that focuses on understanding the factors that influence
smallholder farmers’ decision to adopt climate change adaptation strategies (CCAS) is
important for mitigating the risks and eliminating the negative effects on agricultural
production and food security [14,15].
Smallholder farmers’ resilience to climate change could be directly linked to various
adaptation strategies and smallholder farmers’ adaptive capacity (typically seen as low
in comparison to commercial farmers) as documented in the literature [15–18]. Farmers
who respond to climate change through various adaptation measures, according to [19], are
more likely to boost agricultural productivity and improve their livelihood. Furthermore,
adaptation to climate change contributes to improved household food security and, in gen-
eral, farm household welfare [20]. Adaptation strategies such as improved crop variety and
early maturing crops, agrochemical application, livelihood diversification, irrigation, and
livestock reduction were found to have significantly reduced the impact of climate change,
increased smallholder farmers’ net income, and improved farmers’ food security [15,21,22].
While climate change adaptation has proven to be an effective strategy to manage climate
change threats, smallholder farmers face several challenges when deciding whether or not
to adapt. Several factors, such as inadequate credit access, inadequate education training,
infrequent extension visits, and so on, have been reported in the literature as contributing
to a decrease in the likelihood of farmers adapting, which in turn has a negative impact
on agricultural output and food security in rural areas [15,17]. Given that the smallholder
agricultural sector in South Africa is one of the main livelihood options for most rural
households [23], more rigorous research is needed to investigate how decisions to adopt
CCAS are made and how they affect the food security of smallholder farmers’ households.
Previous empirical studies, e.g., [24–30], examined farmers’ adaptation strategies for
mitigating the negative consequences of changing climatic conditions, as well as their
repercussions on food security in many parts of the world. However, empirical work on
how climate change affects smallholder farmers’ food security in South Africa has been
underexplored. As a result, this study adds to existing information by examining the
factors influencing climate change adaptation techniques and how they affect food security.
The study also focused on identifying and recommending applicable policies that could
increase climate change adaptation in order to improve the welfare of smallholder farmers
in South Africa’s rural areas.

2. Methodology
2.1. Conceptual Framework
For decades, the governmental and private sectors, as well as farmers themselves, have
ignored natural resource management in rainfed-dependent areas [31]. Due to the high
exposure to environmental risks and the little accumulated capital of the majority of rainfed-
dependent farmers, most developing countries, particularly in Africa, have weak and
uncertain farm incomes [32]. Farmers also face social and psychological challenges such as
inequities, alienation, and economic misery [33]. Figure 1 depicts the relationship between
climate variability and change, exposure to climate hazards, adaptation techniques, and
the food security status of households. Changes in climate factors may expose households
to a variety of dangers, including floods, droughts, land degradation, water salinity, and
casualties. These exposures may have several repercussions on household livelihood
indicators, such as crop productivity loss, livestock death, employment and income loss,
asset loss, and the outbreak of pests and diseases, which may cause illnesses among
household members. Households frequently employ a variety of adaptation tactics to
protect themselves from these threats.
Agriculture 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 16

Agriculture 2022, 12, 589 among household members. Households frequently employ a variety of adaptation3 of
tac-
16
tics to protect themselves from these threats.

Figure
Figure 1. Conceptual framework
1. Conceptual framework showing
showing climate
climate change,
change, exposure
exposure to
to hazards,
hazards, adoption
adoption of
of climate
climate
change
change adaptation
adaptationstrategies,
strategies,and households’
and food
households’ security
food status.
security The The
status. arrows indicate
arrows the expected
indicate the ex-
direction of effectofoneffect
pected direction the corresponding variables.
on the corresponding variables.

These adaptation strategies include improved crop variety (e.g., early maturing,
These adaptation strategies include improved crop variety (e.g., early maturing,
drought-tolerant, etc.), varying planting dates, soil and water conservation, herd size
drought-tolerant, etc.), varying planting dates, soil and water conservation, herd size re-
reduction, tree planting, organic fertilizer/mulching application, livelihood diversification,
duction, tree planting, organic fertilizer/mulching application, livelihood diversification,
and crop diversification insurance purchase, affect their food security status. According to
and crop diversification insurance purchase, affect their food security status. According
the focus group discussion, these are the most often used climate change adaptation strate-
to the focus group discussion, these are the most often used climate change adaptation
gies in the study areas. Household decisions to implement multiple adaptation measures
strategies in the study areas. Household decisions to implement multiple adaptation
may be influenced by demographic characteristics such as age, educational attainment,
measures may be influenced by demographic characteristics such as age, educational at-
experience, and so on, as well as assets and social capital such as ownership of information
tainment, experience, and so on, as well as assets and social capital such as ownership of
gadgets (radio and television), engagement in non-farm employment, access to credit, and
access to extension services, among others. The study hypothesized that implementing
many adaptation methods at the same time (intensity of adaptation strategies) would
reduce households’ vulnerability to hazards and protect their livelihood indicators, hence
Agriculture 2022, 12, 589 4 of 16

improving their adaptive capacity. Thus, household food security is contingent on agricul-
tural productivity, which is vulnerable to climate change. Thereby, with a proper reaction
to climate change’s unfavorable consequences, smallholder farmers can produce their own
food and earn a higher farm income from the surplus, enabling them to purchase food and
thus enhance their food security status. Increased productivity results in a more consistent
supply of food and greater revenues, which results in access to food and, thus, food security.

2.2. Food Security Measurement

Having adequate food for a healthy and active lifestyle is what is meant by the term
“food security” [34]. Food security, or the ability of households and people to obtain food, is
one of the most essential characteristics of well-being, yet its measurement has considerable
difficulties. However complex it may be, ensuring that everyone has access to enough food
is still critical for global food security. There are numerous indicators used to determine the
food security status of households. Among these are the food consumption score (FCS), the
household dietary diversity score (HDDS), the household coping strategy index (HCSI), the
household hunger scale (HHS), and the household food insecurity and access scale (HFIAS).
According to [35], no food security proxy can capture all of the many different aspects of food
security. However, a comprehensive indicator of food security is legitimate, dependable, and
comparable through time and space and covers many different aspects [36].
This study, therefore, adopts HFIAS as a food security indicator to evaluate the food
security status of households in the study area. Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance II
(FANTA) sponsored the development of the HFIAS between 2001 and 2006 in partnership
with Tufts and Cornell universities and other collaborators. The HFIAS, like some of
the other experience-based metrics, is based on a short questionnaire that captures the
behavioral and psychological aspects of insecure food access, including having to decrease
the number of meals taken or cut back on the quality of the food owing to a lack of
resources. When it comes to assessing food insecurity, the HFIAS metric is unique because
it may identify both the physical and psychological aspects of food insecurity, which can
impair health and well-being [37]. According to [38], it can be applied in both urban and
rural settings. Additionally, it is a brief survey that can be incorporated simply into other
household questionnaires. HFIAS is based on nine questions aimed to assess whether
households have experienced problems accessing food during the last 30 days. Questions
were ordered in a way that they represent a generally increasing level of severity of food
insecurity and can be divided into three domains: anxiety (question 1), inadequate quality
(questions 2–4), and insufficient intake (questions 5–9) [39]. Respondents were asked about
frequency, i.e., if the situation had never occurred or occurred rarely (once or twice in the
past month), sometimes (three to ten times in the past month), or often (more than ten times
in the past month). A continuous or discrete food security index can be derived from the
responses. HFIAS is calculated as a continuous indicator by calculating a score for every one
of the nine questions from 0–3, where 3 is the maximum frequency of occurrence. The total
HFIAS might vary from 0 to 27, described as the level of insecurity in food availability that
an individual is experiencing. Thus, the higher the HFIAS score, the more food insecurity a
household can experience, and vice-versa. To categorize households (as in this study), the
study utilizes the categorical variables “food-secure”, “mildly food-insecure”, “moderately
food-insecure”, and “severely food-insecure” [39].

2.3. Empirical Specification

Estimating the impact of the adoption of CCAS on household food security of small-
holder farmers entails using an econometric model outside the binary model. This study is
based on the evaluation models, which use non-observational or non-experimental data.
The problem one is likely to run into with such data is sample selection bias [40]. It is
imperative to deal with the problem of sample selection bias, as intrinsic characteristics do
not provide the excessive advantage of some households to be food-secure regardless of
whether they adopt CCAS or not. It is also necessary to take into account the possibility
Agriculture 2022, 12, 589 5 of 16

that the adoption of CCAS is endogenous when assessing its impact on food security [41]
as another methodological concern. There is a risk that CCAS estimations may be skewed
by the presence of endogeneity. Reverse causality (simultaneity bias), omitted variables,
and measurement mistakes are also potential sources of endogeneity [42].
Many research studies have found statistically significant links between the adoption
and well-being of CCASs. In order to offset the negative effects of climate change on liveli-
hoods, adopters may employ CCAS as a control approach [43]. In dealing with such issues,
Heckman sample correction, propensity score matching (PSM), endogenous switching re-
gression model, and generalized propensity score (GPS) matching in continuous treatment
framework and treatment effects are mostly used to circumvent selectivity bias [40,44].
However, these models are suitable for unordered outcome variables. Since the outcome
variable (i.e., food insecurity level) is ordered, this study employed treatment-effect ordered
probit regression model as developed by [45] and applied [46]. Following [45], the selection
equation, which represents the treatment model measuring the factors influencing the
adoption of CCAS among smallholder farmers, as is specified in Equation (1):

1 i f CCASi∗ = Zi δ + ε i > 0

CCASi = (1)
0 i f CCASi∗ = Zi δ + ε i ≤ 0

In Equation (1), CCASi represents the individual adoption status of CCAS, Zi is a vector
of explanatory variables, δ and ε i are estimated parameters and the error term, respectively.
The outcome of the treatment (adoption of CCAS) could be explained by the ordered
discrete food security (FS) levels in ascending order from food-secure to severe food-
insecure, and the equation can be specified as:

1 i f − ∞ < Xi β + υi ≤ µ 1



2 i f µ 1 < Xi β + υi ≤ µ 2

FS = (2)

 J− 1 i f µ J − 1 < Xi β + υi ≤ µ J
J i f µ J < Xi β + υi ≤ ∞


where µ1 , µ2 , . . ., µ J denote cut parameters to be estimated, j = 1, 2, . . . , J represent

possible food security categories, and FSi∗ is the latent food security variable for the ith
household. Xi is a set of variables explaining variation in household food security status
and β is a parameter to be estimated. υi is the error term for the outcome equations. In
addition to the vector of explanatory variables in the CCAS equation (Equation (1)), access
to climatic information was used as an instrument for the treatment variable (CCAS). The
fundamental assumption is that farmers’ access to climatic information (e.g., through an
early warning system) can directly influence farmers’ decision to employ CCAS but have
no direct effect on food security. Thus, access to climatic information was included in
the CCAS equation but not the outcome food security equation. As mentioned, in this
study, we used a treatment estimator with ordered probit outcomes. In this case, a latent
factor framework is used to handle any joint normality violations in the error terms, ε i
and υi which are formed by a factor structure in the treatment and outcome equations [46].
The underlying assumption of this model is that the factors determining the ordered
outcome differ between the treated and the untreated groups. Nevertheless, this underlying
assumption can yield inconsistent estimates if it is not entirely the case. To overcome
this, Halton-based sequences, as posited by [47], drawn from the distributions of latent
factors, were used (factors that are unobserved but affect the adoption of CCAS and food
insecurity levels). As recommended by [48,49], the advantages of Halton sequences cover
the domain of distribution, reduction of the variances, and reduction of the computational
time. The estimators of the two Equations (1) and (2) were estimated through likelihood
simulation techniques.
Agriculture 2022, 12, 589 6 of 16

Average Treatments: ATE and ATT

An outcome’s response to treatment is expressed in terms of its treatment effects.
The average treatment impact determines how much better-off and how much worse-off
households would have been (in terms of food security) if they had not adopted any
of the CCAS. Like many impact evaluation studies, this study estimated two treatment
effects: average treatment effects (ATE), and the probability difference between observing
an outcome with and without treatment. Similarly, the average effect of treatment on
the treated (ATT) parameter can be defined as the treatment on those households who
adopted any of the CCAS. Thus, ATT is the difference in the response variable (food security
outcomes) of the treated group (Adopters of CCAS) with and without treatment.
Following [45], ATE specification with treatment-effect ordered probit structured is
given as:
N S [Φ{µk − ( Xi β + φ + ληis )} − Φ{µk−1 ( Xi β + φ + ληis }]−
1 1
ATECCAS
j = NS ∑ ∑ (3)
i =1 S =1 [Φ{µk − ( Xi β + ληis )} − Φ{µk−1 − ( Xi β + ληis )}]

For ATT, it can be specified as:

S
 
1 Φ{µk − ( Xi β + φ + ληis )}−
1 1 ∑ Φ( Zi δ + ηis ) × −
ATTjCCAS = NS ∑ E{Φ( Zi δ)}
S =1 Φ{µk−1 ( Xi β + φ + ληis } (4)
[Φ{µk − ( Xi β + ληis )} − Φ{µk−1 − ( Xi β + ληis )}]

In this case, k = 1, . . . k, k = J + 1, and J is the number of outcome categories (food

security). µ0 = −∞ and µk = ∞, Φ is the standard normal cumulative distribution.

2.4. The Study Areas, Sampling and Data Collection Techniques

The study was conducted between November 2017 and June 2018 in nine districts
within four provinces: KwaZulu-Natal, Limpopo, Free State, and North West. The nine (9)
district municipalities included eThekwini, uGu, Amajuba, and Ilembe in the KwaZulu-
Natal, and Mopani and Vhembe in the Limpopo Provinces. The remaining district mu-
nicipalities are Lejweleputswa, Thabo-Mofutsanyane in the Free State, and Dr. Kenneth
Kaunda situated in the mid-highlands (semi-arid) areas of North West province. These
areas are within the Comprehensive Rural Development Programme (CRDP) sites. They
were selected because they are situated in the core of rural extents with high climate and
weather variations, particularly in droughts, flooding, and bush encroachment [50]. The
choice of the study areas was also motivated by different demography and typological
zones and linked to the priority municipalities for the implementation of the CRDP frame-
work, which is a departmental strategy to implement projects and programmes within the
prioritized poor districts [50].
Moreover, the provinces and districts were selected based on their incidence and
vulnerability to climate-related issues and their recent designation as drought disaster
regions. The study areas have only one major rainy season (September to February). Given
this, the yearly precipitation distribution is imbalanced as there are more below-average
than over-average precipitation years and the median is more expressive than the mean.
Soil and water conservation practices are extensively used in the research areas. Figure 2
shows the map of the study areas.
Agriculture 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 16

than over-average precipitation years and the median is more expressive than the mean.
Agriculture 2022, 12, 589 7 of 16
Soil and water conservation practices are extensively used in the research areas. Figure 2
shows the map of the study areas.

Figure2.2.Map
Figure Mapof
ofthe
theselected
selecteddistrict
districtmunicipalities.
municipalities.Source
Source[15].
[15].

AAcombination
combination of ofthree
threedifferent
differentapproaches
approacheswas wasused
usedforforthe
thedata
datacollection.
collection.These
These
are key informant
are informant interviews
interviews(KIIs),
(KIIs),FocusFocus Group
Group Discussions
Discussions (FGDs),
(FGDs), andand
household
householdsur-
veys. Experts such as agricultural extension agents were interviewed
surveys. Experts such as agricultural extension agents were interviewed to understand to understand the
climate
the climatechange
changesituation
situationin in
the
thestudy
studyareas
areasand andsome
someadaptation
adaptation strategies farming
strategies the farming
households have been adopting,
households adopting, according
accordingtototheir theiropinion.
opinion.One One FGDFGD waswasconducted
conducted for
each
for district,
each withwith
district, eacheach
FGD FGDconsisting of 9–12
consisting offarmers, including
9–12 farmers, both men
including bothandmenwomen.
and
An informal
women. semi-structured
An informal questionnaire
semi-structured questionnaireformatformat
was used wasfor
usedtheforFGDs. Village
the FGDs. char-
Village
characteristics, perceptions
acteristics, perceptions of climate
of climate change,change, and ways
and ways of coping
of coping with with climate
climate changechange
were
were
gathered through the FGDs. The FGDs asked three different questions to make suresure
gathered through the FGDs. The FGDs asked three different questions to make that
that farmers’
farmers’ adaptation
adaptation strategies
strategies were were a direct
a direct result
result of climate
of climate change
change rather
rather than than being
being the
the result
result of of other
other external
external influences:
influences: (1)(1)is isthere
thereanyanyevidence
evidencethat that the
the local climate
climate hashas
shifted
shifted ininthe
thelast
last15–20
15–20years?
years? IfIf so,
so,describe
describe them; them; (2)
(2)how
howhavehavethese
thesechanges
changesaffected
affected
your
your agricultural
agricultural activities;
activities; and
and (3)
(3) what
what have have been
been your
your strategies
strategies to to deal
deal with
with these
these
changes? Describe
changes? Describe them in detail. The adaptation strategies were then
The adaptation strategies were then incorporated into incorporated intoa
aquestionnaire
questionnaireforfor a household survey to assess how the households
a household survey to assess how the households in the sampled popu- in the sampled
population
lation actuallyactually
dealtdealt
withwith
thesethese
issues.issues.
Following
Following the conclusion of
the conclusion ofthethekeykeyinformant
informant interviews
interviews andand FGDs,FGDs, household
household sur-
surveys
veys were were conducted.
conducted. A pre-test
A pre-test withwith non-sampled
non-sampled households
households was conducted
was conducted to
to deter-
determine the questionnaire’s applicability before it was administered.
mine the questionnaire’s applicability before it was administered. As a result of pre- As a result of
pre-testing, KII and FGDs, the survey questionnaire was refined. Although the survey
questionnaire was written in English, it was translated into the various local languages
(IsiZulu, Setswana, South Sotho, and Tshivenda) so that the field workers could obtain
Agriculture 2022, 12, 589 8 of 16

accurate information from the farmers, as these languages are spoken by all of the residents
and farming communities in these areas.
The study was designed in a multi-stage stratified random sampling procedure where
a combination of purposive and random sampling procedures was used to identify and
select a sample of the districts and smallholder farmers, respectively. Nine (9) districts in the
four provinces were purposively selected in the first stage since the districts are frequently
susceptible to climate-related problems and were recently declared drought disaster areas.
Second, the farmers were selected from district municipalities proportionally using a
systematic sampling method. In this case, the lists of the farmers were collected first from
the field workers. An element of randomness was introduced in the systematic sampling
method by using random numbers to pick with which to start. This sampling procedure
is useful when a sampling frame is available (i.e., in the form of a list). In such a design,
the selection process starts by picking some random points in the list, and then every nth
element is selected until the desired number is secured. The participants were randomly
selected according to their availability and to balanced coverage of the socioeconomic
diversity of the farms in the study villages. In each district municipality, an average of
twenty (20) farmers (head of household) was surveyed. Based on a formula suggested
by [51], the sample sizes needed a 95 percent confidence level, 5 percent variability, and
8 percent precision. As a result, 183 of the 200 households surveyed were included in
the study. In this study, households that adopted at least one strategy in response to
climate change are termed as “adapters”, and those adopting none were described as “non-
adapters”. In all, 53 farming households (29%) were non-adapters while the remaining
were adapters.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Descriptive Statistics
This section describes both dependent variables (severity of food security and adap-
tation strategies) and the socioeconomic characteristics of the respondents. The study
classified households into those that adopted and those who did not adopt CCAS in order
to assess how these measures affected the food security of the farming households. The re-
sults in Table 1 showed that adapters were more food-secure and mildly food-insecure than
non-adapters (13.9 and 48.9%, respectively) (6.6 and 43.0%, respectively). Non-adapters
were also more likely than adapters to experience moderate or severe food insecurity (25.8
and 24.4%, respectively) (20.0 and 17.2%). According to the t-test results, there were no
significant differences between the groups. However, the econometric analysis carefully
tested these descriptive results in Section 3.3.
As a result of climate change, agricultural households adopted a wide range of adapta-
tion measures. These adaptation strategies are viewed as normal [52]. However, farmers in
the study area adopted eight common adaptation methods, as depicted in Figure 3. Farmers’
adaptation techniques to climate change often differ from household to household because
they are based on their own unique requirements and capacities. Using improved crop
varieties as an adaptation method is the most extensively utilized adaptation measure, as
shown in Figure 3, with approximately 47% of agricultural households adopting it. This is
due to the fact that enhanced cultivars may contain some characteristics that battle climate
change, such as drought tolerance, early maturity, and high yield. Farmers also change
their planting date to coincide with the changes in the pattern of climatic variables, partic-
ularly rainfall and temperature, and they usually rely on their long-standing experience,
information from metrological agencies, or agricultural extension agents.
Agriculture 2022, 12, 589 9 of 16

Table 1. Descriptive statistics of the farming households.

Variables Pooled Sample Adopters Non-Adopters t-Values

Description Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD)
Food insecurity severity
Food secure Yes = 1; otherwise 0 0.1038 0.1398 0.0666 1.62
Mild food insecurity Yes = 1; otherwise 0 0.459 0.4888 0.4301 0.79
Moderate food
Yes = 1; otherwise 0 0.23 0.20 0.258 0.93
insecurity
Severe food insecurity Yes = 1; otherwise 0 0.208 0.172 0.244 1.21
Independent variables
Age of respondent in
Age 43.83 (12.68) 42.19 (12.50) 45.52 (12.60) 1.72 ***
years
Gender Male = 1; otherwise 0 0.61 (0.49) 0.55 (0.49) 0.66 (0.47) 1.41
Education Years in formal education 3.95 (1.54) 4.08 (1.58) 3.83 (1.49) 1.17
Experience Years in crop production 10.54 (4.75) 10.15 (4.49) 10.94 (4.91) 1.14
Non-farm income Yes = 1; otherwise 0 0.38 (0.49) 0.51 (0.50) 0.24 (0.43) 3.93 *
Own Television Yes = 1; otherwise 0 0.65 (0.43) 0.63 (0.42) 0.62 (0.48) 0.42
Own Radio Yes = 1; otherwise 0 0.48 (0.50) 0.56 (0.49) 0.55 (0.49) 0.19
Own mobile phone Yes = 1; otherwise 0 0.36 (0.48) 0.79 (0.40) 0.30 (0.49) 7.71 *
Received training Yes = 1; otherwise 0 0.48 (0.50) 0.47(0.58) 0.47 (0.50) 0.06
Membership of FBO Yes = 1; otherwise 0 0.64 (0.42) 0.69 (0.41) 0.58 (0.38) 1.67 ***
Access to extension Yes = 1; otherwise 0 0.33 (0.47) 0.31 (0.46) 0.35 (0.48) 0.62
Access to credit Yes = 1; otherwise 0 0.45 (0.50) 0.44 (0.49) 0.46 (0.50) 0.34
KwaZulu-Natal Yes = 1; otherwise 0 0.20
Free State Yes = 1; otherwise 0 0.19
Limpopo Yes = 1; otherwise 0 0.39
North
Agriculture 2022,West Yes = 1; otherwise 0
12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 0.22 10 of 16
Note: * & *** represent significance level at 1% & 10%, respectively.

Distribution of adaptation strategies

Reduce herd size

Insurance
Adaptation strategies

Livelihood diversification
Tree planting
Varying planting dates Percentage
Application of organic fertilizer/mulching
Soil and water conservation
Improved crop varieties

0 20 40 60
Percentages

Figure 3. Distribution of adaptation strategies used by farmers in the study area.

Figure 3. Distribution of adaptation strategies used by farmers in the study area.

Only 6% of
Similarly, farmers
[53,54] get crop
observed thatinsurance
changingtothe
protect theirand
planting crops from adverse
harvesting dates weather
of crops
events such as floods and droughts. Some farmers also use livelihood diversification
is one of the key adaptation measures practiced by smallholder farmers in Ethiopia and to
mitigate climate-related concerns. It is common for farmers to diversify their
Nigeria, respectively. In addition to planting trees to protect crops from storms, about agricultural
and non-agricultural
12% of the smallholder occupations
farmers use by this
cultivating
approachcrops and livestock
to provide shadeand petty crops
for their trading.
in
One of thetomost
response highimportant long-term
temperatures. Droughtadaptation
or high measures is herd
temperatures management,
dehydrate which
the soil, is
which
typicallywater
reduces accomplished
retention,through
kills soildestocking
pathogens,or a reduction
and renders the insoil
theinfertile.
size of the herd. Inonly
However, the
event of bad weather, farmers can sell some of their livestock and accumulate purchasing
power to buy food and engage in other activities, such as crop cultivation, through de-
stocking. There were still just 12% of farmers that adopted this strategy.
A comparison of the socioeconomic characteristics of adapters and non-adapters is
also shown in Table 1. These variables have been hypothesized to influence households’
Agriculture 2022, 12, 589 10 of 16

approximately 8% of smallholder farmers use mulching or inorganic fertilizer to boost soil

moisture content in response to soil infertility. Soil and water conservation measures like
watershed management, irrigation, or terracing on the slope are used by around a third
(33%) of farmers in order to cope with the harsh climatic conditions. A number of other
studies, such as [17,22], found that farmers in Nigeria exploited soil and water conservation
as an adaptation strategy.
Only 6% of farmers get crop insurance to protect their crops from adverse weather
events such as floods and droughts. Some farmers also use livelihood diversification to
mitigate climate-related concerns. It is common for farmers to diversify their agricultural
and non-agricultural occupations by cultivating crops and livestock and petty trading. One
of the most important long-term adaptation measures is herd management, which is typi-
cally accomplished through destocking or a reduction in the size of the herd. In the event
of bad weather, farmers can sell some of their livestock and accumulate purchasing power
to buy food and engage in other activities, such as crop cultivation, through destocking.
There were still just 12% of farmers that adopted this strategy.
A comparison of the socioeconomic characteristics of adapters and non-adapters
is also shown in Table 1. These variables have been hypothesized to influence house-
holds’ decision to adopt CCAS and food security status. The male-headed households
were significantly more than the female-headed households, and the average age of the
farming household was 44 years. On average, household heads attained at least primary
education and had about 10 years of experience in crop production. For engagement in
non-agricultural economic activities, climate change adapters are considerably more (51%)
than non-adapters, as indicated by the t-test value. In addition, about 25% and 48% of the
respondents owned television and radio, respectively. These two assets could serve as key
sources of information on climate change to the households. There is also a statistically
significant difference in mobile phone use between adapters and non-adapters. Moreover,
about 48%, 64%, 33% and 45% had received training on agricultural practices, including
climate change, are FBO members, and had access to extension services and agricultural
credit, respectively.

3.2. Determinants of Climate Change Adaptation

The first output from the treatment-effect ordered probit regression model, which
identified factors influencing farmers’ decision to take measures to fight the negative
consequences of climate change, is presented in Table 2. From the econometric output, age,
gender, TLU, and access to climatic information through early warning system contributed
to farmers’ decision to adapt.
The empirical result shows that the age of smallholder farmers is statistically significant
and negatively influenced the adoption of CCAS in the study areas. This implies that as
smallholder farmers grow older, they may be less interested in investing in CCAS, perhaps
due to more family responsibilities. Therefore, the result indicates that the younger farmers
are more likely to adopt the CCAS compared to the older farmers. The result agrees with
that of [17,55], who found that age negatively influenced the adoption of CCAS. Similarly,
the gender variable is a negatively signed and statistically significant variable, indicating
that the adoption of climate change adaptation is more likely to be practiced by the female
farmers as compared to the male farmers. This could be ascribed to the fact that women
are risk-averse and therefore find interest in adopting strategies that could help to avoid
the risks associated with climate change. These findings correspond with the reports from
the literature where women have been found to be risk-averse [56,57]. In addition, the
perspectives and significant interest of women to adopt climate change strategies could
be linked to the fact that they are more vulnerable to the consequences of climate change
risks such as floods, droughts, and storms. Most importantly, women have been reported
to have inadequate access to resources, limited rights, and insufficient mobility and voice
in household decision-making [58].
Agriculture 2022, 12, 589 11 of 16

Table 2. Factors influencing the adoption of CCAS.

Variables Coef. Std. Err. p-Value

Age of the respondent −0.0187 0.0092 0.042 **
Gender of the
−0.4111 0.2228 0.065 *
respondent
Educational
0.0428 0.0744 0.565
attainment
Experience −0.0173 0.0229 0.451
Owned television 0.05007 0.1313 0.703
Owned radio 0.0427 0.2475 0.598
Tropical livestock unit
0.1121 0.0586 0.056 *
(TLU)
Accessed extension
0.1120 0.1128 0.321
services
Accessed agricultural
0.0836 0.2675 0.753
credit
Access to climatic
1.4333 0.2180 0.000 ***
information
KwaZulu-Natal 0.2549 0.3664 0.474
Free State 0.0737 0.3308 0.824
Limpopo 0.1529 0.2792 0.689
Constant 0.1179 0.6244 0.850
*, ** & *** represent significance level at 1%, 5% & 10%, respectively.

Livestock is one of the primary means of livelihood and income generation by small-
holder farmers. The income generated from livestock is usually used to combat the negative
effects of climate change through the purchase of inputs such as drought-tolerant crop
varieties. TLU is one of the critical factors contributing to the probability of adopting
the CCAS by the smallholder farmers. It was estimated to be positively and significantly
influenced by the likelihood of adopting the CCAS. Thus, farmers who owned a large stock
of livestock measured by TLU had a higher probability of employing measures to combat
the negative effect of climate change. The study results further established that farmers
who had access to climatic information or were made aware of changes in the weather
pattern through an early warning system had a higher probability of employing climate
change measures. This early warning system probably helps prepare farmers physically
and psychologically for future changes in climatic conditions. The pivotal role of access to
climatic information through early warning systems confirms previous studies by [59,60].

3.3. Determinants of Household Food Insecurity

The empirical results in Table 3 show the factors that influence households’ food
insecurity in relation to the adoption of CCAS in the study areas. The empirical results
show a positive and statistically significant relationship between the ownership of a radio
and a television with household food security in the study areas. Farming practices
and technologies, including climate change measures, are frequently discussed on radio
and television. Farming households who own these devices will have easier access to
information on how to boost farm output and diversify their livelihoods, and consequently,
improve their food security status. Similar to this study, communication devices such
as radio and television have a positive role in many empirical studies such as [61]. The
results further indicate that TLU had a positive and significant influence on household food
security. Higher TLU lowered the likelihood of food insecurity and raised the likelihood
of food security. Households with livestock, such as cattle, small ruminants (such as
pigs, sheep, and goats), and poultry are less likely to suffer from food insecurity. Studies
conducted by [61,62] show that livestock can help alleviate food insecurity by increasing
household cash income as well as improving household diets.
Agriculture 2022, 12, 589 12 of 16

Table 3. Factors influencing households’ food insecurity.

Variables Coef. Std. Err. p-Value

Age of the respondent 0.0089 0.0073 0.222
Gender of the respondent −0.0062 0.1781 0.972
Educational attainment −0.0711 0.0560 0.204
Experience −0.0081 0.0181 0.654
Owned television 0.2686 0.1360 0.048 **
Owned radio 0.4094 0.2058 0.047 **
Tropical livestock unit (TLU) 0.1413 0.0440 0.000 ***
Accessed extension services −0.2141 0.1419 0.131
Accessed agricultural credit 0.8291 0.2308 0.000 ***
KwaZulu-Natal −0.1617 0.2448 0.509
Free State −0.1751 0.2351 0.456
Limpopo −0.2313 0.2248 0.304
Adoption of Adaptation strategies 0.6093 0.3101 0.049 **
Cut 1 −0.805 0.256 0.001
Cut 2 0.487 0.142 0.001
Cut 3 1.111 0.182 0.000
Atanh_rho −1.751 0.591 0.003
rho −0.941 0.067 0.000
Wald chi2(13) 63.06
Prob > chi2 0.0000
Note: ** & *** represent significance level at 5% & 10%, respectively.

Farmers’ access to agricultural credit contributes positively to the food security status
of the rural household in the study area. Farmers’ access to rural financing is seen as a
critical instrument for reducing poverty and improved food security. With financial access,
crop types that are better able to withstand extreme weather conditions can be purchased
by farmers in order to offset the effects of climate change and consequently reduce the
probability of being food insecure. An earlier study observed that agricultural financing has
a higher probability of increasing food production to ensure food security among farming
households in Pakistan [63].
The study showed that the variable adaptation of climate change strategies is statis-
tically significant and positively affected household food security. This implies that the
more the household adapts to climate change, the more they can produce more food, which
translates to improved food security. Farmers who adapt to climate change using various
adaptation strategies such as soil and water conservation, new crop varieties, livestock
vaccination, etc., are protected against the climate change hazards and enhance their food
security. Climate change effects, such as the changes in temperature, precipitation patterns,
and the variation in the length of the growing season, are well managed with the mentioned
adaptation strategies and play a key role in avoiding the food insecurity issues in the rural
household. This study agrees with the investigations of [60,61], who found that adapting
to climate change is vital for protecting farmers from climate shift and securing food for
rural households.

3.4. Impact of Climate Change Adaptation on Food Security

The descriptive results in Table 1 show no significant influence between adopters
and non-adopters of CCAS in all the four categories of food security: food-secure, mild
food-insecure, and severe food-insecure. This is probably because the issue of selection
bias, endogeneity, and missing data cannot be accounted for using a simple t-test. Table 4
presents the results of the treatment effects (ATE and ATT) from the treatment-effect
ordered probit model using the maximum likelihood estimator. The ATE results indicate
that adopting at least one of the adaptation strategies increases the food security and
mild food insecurity status of the entire study population by 10.9% and 12.9%, respectively.
However, adopting adaptation strategies reduces the probability of entire study households
being moderately and severely food-insecure by 6.5% and 17.2%, respectively.
Agriculture 2022, 12, 589 13 of 16

Table 4. ATE and ATT of adaptation strategies on the severity of food insecurity.

Food Security Status ATE ATT

Mean SD Mean SD
Food secure 0.109 0.046 0.125 0.089
Mild food insecurity 0.129 0.066 0.239 0.12
Moderate food insecurity −0.065 0.035 −0.075 0.072
Severe food insecurity −0.172 0.047 −0.289 0.112

Similarly, the mean value of the ATT suggests that adopters of CCAS have the possi-
bility of increasing their food security status by 12.5% and mild food insecurity status by
23.9% more than their food (in)security situation if they had not adopted any of the CCAS.
In addition, adopters of CCAS have a probability of reducing their moderate and severe
food insecurity status by 7.5% and 28.9%, respectively, which is better than if they had not
adopted any of the CCAS. According to these findings, households in drought-pruned
areas (like those under study) are more likely to be resilient to the harsh conditions of the
areas through climate adaptation measures. In addition, the results confirm those of a
previous study by [60] about the effect of climate change on the food security of pastoral
farmers in Kenya.

4. Conclusions
Climate change is expected to have a significant negative impact on smallholder
subsistence farmers, posing a substantial threat to household food security. This study
analyzed farmers’ adaptation strategies to climate change among smallholder farmers
and further analyzed the adoption impact on the food security of the farming households,
based on a cross-sectional survey data collected from the provinces of KwaZulu-Natal, Free
State, North West, and Limpopo, South Africa. Key adaptation measures most farmers em-
ploy include improved crop varieties, varying planting dates, soil and water conservation
practices, and livelihood diversification. The econometric results suggest that household
socioeconomic factors, particularly non-farm income, access to credit, and access to media
devices such as TVs, radios, and mobile phones, increase smallholder farmers’ likelihood
of adopting CCAS. The results further show that farmers who adapted climate change
strategies have access to extension support, non-farm income, and communication devices
such as mobile phones had a greater tendency of decreasing their food insecurity status.
Moreover, climate change adaptation had a probability of significantly increasing house-
holds’ food security by about 12% while reducing severe food insecurity by about 29%.
Thus, farming households that employed strategies to counteract the adverse effects of
climatic conditions were better off in terms of their food security status than those that did
not adapt.
The study’s findings have some implications for farm-level policy decisions and im-
plementations. First, the study recommends that governments and non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) must support smallholder farmers’ Indigenous adaptation options
with a wide range of institutional, regulatory, and technology support, with part of it
focusing on female-headed family households. Farm-level policy decisions should priori-
tize training farmers to enhance climate change information and raising climate change
awareness. Second, facilitating funding and market access, particularly for adaptable
technology, could also help smallholder farmers spread their adaptation methods across
various adaptation portfolios and levels of adaptation measures. Third, due to the variable
and uncertain rainy season in South Africa in general, rainfed agriculture is less possible;
hence policy-driven activities are critical to improve farmers’ irrigation participation and
develop surface water irrigation infrastructure. Fourth, income diversification should be
prioritized, focusing on non-farm income streams that are less vulnerable to climate change,
as the results suggest that farmers with non-farm income are more likely to be food-secured.
Thus, government and other stakeholders like non-governmental organizations should
Agriculture 2022, 12, 589 14 of 16

prioritize the strengthening and training of small enterprises where women and youth are
encouraged to engage in the cottage industry where farm waste materials are used.
Finally, the results reveal that farmers use more than a single adaptation measure,
which suggests a combination of possible measures farmers can choose. Therefore, an
analysis of the best combination of strategies that will give the best economic returns to
farmers is important for farm-level policy design and implementation. Beyond climate
change adaptation strategies, future studies should consider internal and external factors
that can lead to farmers’ distress and vulnerability by developing a farmer distress index
(FDI). According to the literature, a FDI goes beyond adaptation and mitigation and
includes risk exposure, adaptive capacity, sensitivity, and socio-psychological factors,
among others.

Funding: This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement: Data will be available on request from the author.
Conflicts of Interest: The author declares no conflict of interest.

References
1. Bhuiyan, C.; Saha, A.K.; Bandyopadhyay, N.; Kogan, F.N. Analyzing the impact of thermal stress on vegetation health and
agricultural drought–a case study from Gujarat, India. GIScience Remote Sens. 2017, 54, 678–699. [CrossRef]
2. Masipa, T. The impact of climate change on food security in South Africa: Current realities and challenges ahead. Jàmbá J. Disaster
Risk Stud. 2017, 9, 1–7. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
3. Bakht, S.; Safdar, K.; Khair, K.U.; Fatima, A.; Fayyaz, A.; Ali, S.M.; Munir, H.; Farid, M. The Response of Major Food Crops to
Drought Stress: Physiological and Biochemical Responses. In Agronomic Crops; Springer: Singapore, 2020; pp. 93–115.
4. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. The Impact of Natural Hazards and Disasters on Agriculture and Food
Security and Nutrition: A Call for Action to Build Resilient Livelihoods; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations:
Rome, Italy, 2015.
5. Bwalya, M. Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP) to Reduce Food Security Emergencies in Africa; NEPAD
Planning and Coordinating Agency: Johannesburg, South Africa, 2013.
6. Nangombe, S.; Zhou, T.; Zhang, W.; Wu, B.; Hu, S.; Zou, L.; Li, D. Record-breaking climate extremes in Africa under stabilized
1.5 C and 2 C global warming scenarios. Nat. Clim. Change 2018, 8, 375–380. [CrossRef]
7. Sousa, P.M.; Blamey, R.C.; Reason, C.J.; Ramos, A.M.; Trigo, R.M. The ‘Day Zero’Cape Town drought and the poleward migration
of moisture corridors. Environ. Res. Lett. 2018, 13, 124025. [CrossRef]
8. Mugambiwa, S.S.; Tirivangasi, H.M. Climate change: A threat towards achieving ‘Sustainable Development Goal number two’
(end hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture) in South Africa. Jàmbá J. Disaster
Risk Stud. 2017, 9, 1–6. [CrossRef]
9. Cammarano, D.; Valdivia, R.O.; Beletse, Y.G.; Durand, W.; Crespo, O.; Tesfuhuney, W.A.; Antle, J. Integrated assessment of climate
change impacts on crop productivity and income of commercial maize farms in northeast South Africa. Food Secur. 2020, 12,
659–678. [CrossRef]
10. Shisanya, S.; Mafongoya, P. Adaptation to climate change and the impacts on household food security among rural farmers in
uMzinyathi District of Kwazulu-Natal, South Africa. Food Secur. 2016, 8, 597–608. [CrossRef]
11. Adetoro, A.A.; Abraham, S.; Paraskevopoulos, A.L.; Owusu-Sekyere, E.; Jordaan, H.; Orimoloye, I.R. Alleviating water shortages
by decreasing water footprint in sugarcane production: The impacts of different soil mulching and irrigation systems in South
Africa. Groundw. Sustain. Dev. 2020, 11, 100464. [CrossRef]
12. Morton, J.F. The impact of climate change on smallholder and subsistence agriculture. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2007, 104,
19680–19685. [CrossRef]
13. Harvey, C.A.; Viguera, B.; Vignola, R.; Viguera, B.; Chain-Guadarrama, A.; Vignola, R.; Alpizar, F. Climate change impacts and
adaptation among smallholder farmers in Central America. Agric. Food Security 2018, 7, 1–20. [CrossRef]
14. Wiebe, K.; Robinson, S.; Cattaneo, A. Climate change, agriculture and food security: Impacts and the potential for adaptation and
mitigation. Sustain. Food Agric. 2019, 55–74. [CrossRef]
15. Ojo, T.O.; Adetoro, A.A.; Ogundeji, A.A.; Belle, J.A. Quantifying the determinants of climate change adaptation strategies and
farmers’ access to credit in South Africa. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 792, 148499. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
16. Owen, G. What makes climate change adaptation effective? A systematic review of the literature. Glob. Environ. Change 2020, 62,
102071. [CrossRef]
Agriculture 2022, 12, 589 15 of 16

17. Adeagbo, O.A.; Ojo, T.O.; Adetoro, A.A. Understanding the determinants of climate change adaptation strategies among
smallholder maize farmers in South-west, Nigeria. Heliyon 2021, 7, e06231. [CrossRef]
18. Akanbi, R.T.; Davis, N.; Ndarana, T. Climate change and maize production in the Vaal catchment of South Africa: Assessment of
farmers’ awareness, perceptions and adaptation strategies. Clim. Res. 2021, 82, 191–209. [CrossRef]
19. Fadina, A.M.R.; Barjolle, D. Farmers’ adaptation strategies to climate change and their implications in the Zou department of
South Benin. Environments 2018, 5, 15. [CrossRef]
20. Kogo, B.K.; Kumar, L.; Koech, R. Climate change and variability in Kenya: A review of impacts on agriculture and food security.
Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2021, 23, 23–43. [CrossRef]
21. Asare-Nuamah, P.; Mandaza, M.S. Climate change adaptation strategies and food security of smallholder farmers in the rural
Adansi North District of Ghana. In Handbook of Climate Change Management: Research, Leadership, Transformation; Springer
International Publishing: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020; pp. 1–20.
22. Ojo, T.O.; Baiyegunhi, L.J.S. Determinants of climate change adaptation strategies and its impact on the net farm income of rice
farmers in south-west Nigeria. Land Use Policy 2020, 95, 103946. [CrossRef]
23. Oluwatayo, I.B. Towards assuring food security in South Africa: Smallholder farmers as drivers. AIMS Agric. Food 2019, 4,
485–500. [CrossRef]
24. Di Falco, S.; Veronesi, M.; Yesuf, M. Does adaptation to climate change provide food security? A micro-perspective from Ethiopia.
Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2011, 93, 829–846. [CrossRef]
25. Webber, H.; Gaiser, T.; Ewert, F. What role can crop models play in supporting climate change adaptation decisions to enhance
food security in Sub-Saharan Africa? Agric. Syst. 2014, 127, 161–177. [CrossRef]
26. Below, T.B.; Schmid, J.C.; Sieber, S. Farmers’ knowledge and perception of climatic risks and options for climate change adaptation:
A case study from two Tanzanian villages. Reg. Environ. Change 2015, 15, 1169–1180. [CrossRef]
27. Douxchamps, S.; Van Wijk, M.T.; Silvestri, S.; Moussa, A.S.; Quiros, C.; Ndour, N.Y.B.; Buah, S.; Somé, L.; Herrero, M.;
Kristjanson, P.; et al. Linking agricultural adaptation strategies, food security and vulnerability: Evidence from West Africa. Reg.
Environ. Change 2016, 16, 1305–1317. [CrossRef]
28. Donkor, E.; Owusu, V.; Owusu-Sekyere, E.; Ogundeji, A.A. The adoption of farm innovations among rice producers in Northern
Ghana: Implications for sustainable rice supply. Agriculture 2018, 8, 121. [CrossRef]
29. Asfaw, A.; Simane, B.; Bantider, A.; Hassen, A. Determinants in the adoption of climate change adaptation strategies: Evidence
from rainfed-dependent smallholder farmers in north-central Ethiopia (Woleka sub-basin). Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2019, 21,
2535–2565. [CrossRef]
30. Soglo, Y.Y.; Nonvide, G.M.A. Climate change perceptions and responsive strategies in Benin: The case of maize farmers. Clim.
Change 2019, 155, 245–256. [CrossRef]
31. Montana, E.; Diaz, H.P.; Hurlbert, M. Development, local livelihoods, and vulnerabilities to global environmental change in the
South American Dry Andes. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2016, 16, 2215–2228. [CrossRef]
32. Reddy, A.A.; Bhattacharya, A.; Reddy, S.V.; Ricart, S. Farmers’ Distress Index: An Approach for an Action Plan to Reduce
Vulnerability in the Drylands of India. Land 2021, 10, 1236. [CrossRef]
33. Guerrero Lara, L.; Pereira, L.M.; Ravera, F.; Jiménez-Aceituno, A. Flipping the Tortilla: Social-ecological innovations and
traditional ecological knowledge for more sustainable agri-food systems in Spain. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1222. [CrossRef]
34. Cafiero, C.; Viviani, S.; Nord, M. Food security measurement in a global context: The food insecurity experience scale. Measurement
2018, 116, 146–152. [CrossRef]
35. Maxwell, D.; Coates, J. Reaching for the Stars? Identifying Universal Measures of Food Insecurity; Paper presented at the Presentation
at the FAO International Scientific Symposium; Food and Agriculture Organization: Rome, Italy, 2012.
36. Maxwell, D.; Coates, J.; Vaitla, B. How Do Different Indicators of Household Food Security Compare? Empirical Evidence from Tigray;
Feinstein International Center, Tufts University: Medford, MA, USA, 2013; p. 26.
37. Ballard, T.J.; Kepple, A.W.; Carfielo, C. Food Insecurity Experience Scale: Development of Global Standard for Monitoring Hunger
Worldwide; FAO Technical Paper Version 1.1; Food and Agriculture Organization: Rome, Italy, 2013.
38. Mohammadi, F.; Omidvar, N.; Houshiar-Red, A.; Mohammad-Reza, K.; Abdollahi, M.; Mehrabi, Y. Validity of an adapted
household food insecurity experience access scale in urban households in Iran. Public Health Nutr. 2012, 15, 149–157. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
39. Coates, J.; Swindale, A.; Bilinsky, P. Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS) for Measurement of Food Access: Indicator Guide
(Version 3); Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance Project (FANTA); Academy for Educational Development: Washington, DC,
USA, 2007.
40. Heckman, J.J. Sample Selection Bias as a Specification Error. Econometrica 1979, 47, 153–161. [CrossRef]
41. Fang, H.; Ali, M.M.; Rizzo, J.A. Does smoking affect body weight and obesity in China? Econ. Hum. Biol. 2009, 7, 334–350.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
42. Wooldridge, J.M. Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data, 2nd ed.; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2010.
43. Copeland, A.L.; McVay, M.A.; Martin, P.D.; Rash, C.J.; Kendzor, D.E.; Baillie, L.E.; Spearsg, C.A.; Geiselmanab, P.J. Smoking
relapse and weight gain prevention program for postmenopausal weight-concerned women: A pilot study. Eat. Behav. 2015, 18,
107–114. [CrossRef]
Agriculture 2022, 12, 589 16 of 16

44. Asfaw, S.; Di Battistab, F.; Lipper, L. Agricultural Technology Adoption under Climate Change in the Sahel: Micro-evidence from
Niger. J. Afr. Econ. 2016, 25, 1–33. [CrossRef]
45. Gregory, C.A. Estimating treatment effects for ordered outcomes using maximum simulated likelihood. Stata J. 2015, 15, 756–774.
[CrossRef]
46. Mabe, F.N.; Mumuni, E.; Sulemana, N. Does smallholder farmers’ awareness of sustainable development goal 2 improve
household food security in the Northern Region of Ghana? Agric. Food Secur. 2021, 10, 9. [CrossRef]
47. Jaworowska, A.; Blackham, T.; Davies, I.G.; Stevenson, L. Nutritional challenges and health implications of takeaway and fast
food. Nutr. Rev. 2013, 71, 310–318. [CrossRef]
48. Drukker, D.M.; Gates, R. Generating Halton sequences using Mata. Stata J. 2006, 6, 214–228. [CrossRef]
49. Deb, P.; Trivedi, P.K. Maximum simulated likelihood estimation of a negative binomial regression model with multinomial
endogenous treatment. Stata J. 2006, 6, 246–255. [CrossRef]
50. Department of Rural Development and Land Reform (DRDLR). Land Reform News. 2015. Available online: http://www.
ruraldevelopment.gov.za/ (accessed on 20 March 2015).
51. Cochran, W.G. Sampling Techniques, 3rd ed.; John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY, USA, 1977.
52. Abid, M.; Ali, A.; Rahut, D.B.; Raza, M. Ex-ante and Ex-post coping strategies for climatic shocks and adaptation determinants in
rural Malawi. Clim. Risk Manag. 2020, 27, 100200. [CrossRef]
53. Asfaw, E.; Suryabhagavan, K.V.; Argaw, M. Soil salinity modeling and mapping using remote sensing and GIS: The case of Wonji
sugar cane irrigation farm, Ethiopia. J. Saudi Soc. Agric. Sci. 2018, 17, 250–258. [CrossRef]
54. Danso-Abbeam, G.; Ojo, T.O.; Baiyegunhi, L.J.S.; Ogundeji, A.A. Climate change adaptation strategies by smallholder farmers in
Nigeria: Does non-farm employment play any role? Heliyon 2021, 7, e07162. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
55. Islam, A.R.M.T.; Shill, B.K.; Salam, R.; Siddik, M.N.A.; Patwary, M.A. Insight into farmers’ agricultural adaptive strategy to
climate change in northern Bangladesh. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2021, 23, 2439–2464. [CrossRef]
56. Fosu-Mensah, B.Y.; Vlek, P.L.; MacCarthy, D.S. Farmers’ perception and adaptation to climate change: A case study of Sekyedu-
mase district in Ghana. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2012, 14, 495–505. [CrossRef]
57. Jianjun, J.; Yiwei, G.; Xiaomin, W.; Nam, P.K. Farmers’ risk preferences and their climate change adaptation strategies in the
Yongqiao District, China. Land Use Policy 2015, 47, 365–372. [CrossRef]
58. Jin, J.; Wang, X.; Gao, Y. Gender differences in farmers’ responses to climate change adaptation in Yongqiao District, China. Sci.
Total Environ. 2015, 538, 942–948. [CrossRef]
59. Getachew, S.; Tilahun, T.; Teshager, M. Determinants of agro-pastoralist climate change adaptation strategies: Case of Rayitu
Woredas, Oromiya Region, Ethiopia. Res. J. Environ. Sci. 2014, 8, 300–317. [CrossRef]
60. Ndiritu, S.W.; Muricho, G. Impact of climate change adaptation on food security: Evidence from semi-arid lands, Kenya. Clim.
Change 2021, 167, 1–20. [CrossRef]
61. Danso-Abbeam, G.; Baiyegunhi, L.J.S.; Laing, M.D.; Hussein, S. Understanding the determinants of food security among rural
households in Rwanda. Ecol. Food Nutr. 2022, 61, 1–19. [CrossRef]
62. Tefera, T.; Tefera, F. Determinants of households food security and coping strategies for food shortfall in mareko district, guraghe
zone southern ethiopia. J. Food Secur. 2014, 2, 92–99.
63. Asghar, N.; Salman, A. Impact of agriculture credit on food production and food security in Pakistan. Parkistan J. Commer. Social
Sci. 2018, 12, 851–864.