environments

Article
Farmers’ Adaptation Strategies to Climate Change
and Their Implications in the Zou Department of
South Benin
Adégnandjou Mahouna Roland Fadina and Dominique Barjolle *
Department of Environmental Systems Science, ETH Zurich, 8092 Zurich, Switzerland; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +41-765-784-404

Received: 30 November 2017; Accepted: 18 January 2018; Published: 21 January 2018

Abstract: Climate change is a global phenomenon. Its impact on agricultural activities in developing
countries has increased dramatically. Understanding how farmers perceive climate change and how
they adapt to it is very important to the implementation of adequate policies for agricultural and
food security. This paper aims to contribute to an understanding of farmers’ adaptation choices,
determinants of the adaptation choices and the long-term implications of the adaptation choices. Data
were collected from 120 respondents in the Zou Department of Benin. A binary logit model was used
to analyze the factors influencing household decisions to adapt to climate change. Multinomial logistic
regression analysis was estimated to analyze the factors influencing households’ choice of adaptation
strategies to climate change. The results show that farmers have a developed perception of climate
change. These changes are translated by rainfall disturbances (rainfall delays, early cessation, bad
rainfall distribution etc.), shortening of the small dry season, increasing of temperature and sometimes,
violent winds. The survey reveals that Benin farmers adopt many strategies in response to climate
change. These strategies include “Crop–livestock diversification and other good practices (mulching,
organic fertilizer),” “Use of improved varieties, chemical fertilizers and pesticides,” “Agroforestry
and perennial plantation” and “Diversification of income-generating activities.” The findings also
reveal that most of the respondents use these strategies in combination. From the binary logit
model, we know that “farming experience” and “educational level of household head” positively
influence adaptation decisions. The result of the multinomial logit analysis shows that farming
experience, educational level, farm size and gender have a significant impact on climate change
adaptation strategies. Based on in-depth analysis of each strategy, we identify crop diversification
and agroforestry as being the most promising strategies with benefits for farmers, the environment
and future generations.

Keywords: climate change; adaptation strategy; agriculture; agricultural policy

1. Introduction
In sub-Saharan Africa, 63% of the population continues to depend on agriculture [1]. Climate
variability and change are major challenges hampering agricultural productivity in this region. Indeed,
Africa is one of the most vulnerable continents to the current climate variability with strong economic
impacts [2]. This vulnerability is accentuated by development challenges such as endemic poverty,
ecosystem degradation and limited access to capital, markets, infrastructure and technology [3].
In Benin, where agriculture is the second largest component of the economy with a contribution
of 38% to gross domestic product (GDP) and about 70–80% of export earnings [4], the negative impacts
of climate change on this sector are obvious. Indeed, Benin has been experiencing strong weather
variability characterized by a fluctuation of the period and duration of precipitation, a change in
annual rainfall, an increasingly hot climate, drought, soil degradation, unexpected flooding, high

Environments 2018, 5, 15; doi:10.3390/environments5010015 www.mdpi.com/journal/environments

Environments 2018, 5, 15 2 of 17

winds and the proliferation of diseases and pests [5–9]. Thus, the importance of adaptation measures
for the 61.1% of the population of the country living in rural areas [10] and dependent on agriculture
for their subsistence becomes an absolute priority. In order to reduce the potential negative, direct
or indirect effects of climate change on the agri-food system, populations must adapt and economic
systems must be adapted to future climatic contexts [11]. Adaptation to climate change is a process
that initially requires famers to perceive that the climate has changed and then identify the necessary
adaptations to be implemented [12].
In Africa, some work has been carried out in a global way on farmers’ perceptions of climate
change and adaptation strategies, in particular those of Simelton et al. [13] in Malawi and Botswana,
those of Comoé [14] in the Ivory Coast, those of Assoumana et al. [15] in Niger and those of
Gebreeyesus [16] in Kenya. These studies revealed that all respondents have observed a number
of changes in the overall climate pattern. The main perceptions are related to the duration of the rainy
season, the variability of onset and rainfall amount. In Benin, some studies have also been conducted
on farmers’ perceptions of climate change. These include the work of Houssou-Goe [17] in the Couffo
department, Gnanglè et al. [18] in the Center of Benin, Gnanglè [5] and Loko et al. [6] in the north
of Benin. This previous research has demonstrated that adaptation strategies to climate change are
context and locality dependent. Farmers’ perceptions and adaptation strategies to climate change in
the Zou Department have hardly been studied. However, this region is an area with a high agricultural
potential, with 60.7% of its population living in rural areas and 47% being farmers [19]. This raises the
following research questions: How do the actors in the agricultural sector, the smallholder farmers in
this region, perceive these climate changes and how do they react? Do their adaptation strategies take
into account future generations?

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Presentation of Study Area

The study was conducted in the Zou Department of southern Benin (Figure 1). It is a plateau area
from 200 m to 300 m altitude. There is a transitional climate between the sub-equatorial climate and the
humid tropical climate of the Sudan-Guinean type of North Benin. The average annual rainfall varies
between 900 mm and 1200 mm. The period of vegetative growth varies between 80 and 100 days.
In Zou, there are two rainy seasons (March to July) and (August to October). The agricultural calendar
follows the rainfall pattern [19]. The soils are clay-sandy ferralitic land, which is highly degraded but
very well drained with a low retention capacity. Deep and easy to work, they are suitable for almost
any crop. Vertisols and hydromorphic soils are also found in depressions. The vegetation is dominated
by a natural palm plantation (Elaeis guineensis) and grasses but a few classified or sacred forests are
also encountered [19]. The department of Zou is subdivided into nine communes namely: Abomey,
Agbangnizoun, Bohicon, Covè, Djidja, Ouinhi, Zangnanado, Za-kpota and Zogbodomey.
The population is mainly rural and agriculture is the main activity, occupying 47% of the
population [19].
Environments 2018, 5, 15 3 of 17
Environments 2018, 5, 15 3 of 18

Figure 1. Map of the Zou Department, the study area.

Figure 1. Map of the Zou Department, the study area.

2.2. Methodology
In this study, both quantitative and qualitative data were collected through household surveys.
For data collection, three communes were selected based on their agricultural production (total
yields of crop production and percentage of agricultural labor force). This specific criterion was used
because of the purpose of the study, which is to study farmers’ adaptation strategies to climate
change. These were the communes of Djidja, Ouinhi and Zogbodomey. The population of interest
was made up of the set of agricultural households in these three communes. The sampling unit was
Environments 2018, 5, 15 4 of 17

2.2. Methodology
In this study, both quantitative and qualitative data were collected through household surveys.
For data collection, three communes were selected based on their agricultural production (total
yields of crop production and percentage of agricultural labor force). This specific criterion was
used because of the purpose of the study, which is to study farmers’ adaptation strategies to climate
change. These were the communes of Djidja, Ouinhi and Zogbodomey. The population of interest
was made up of the set of agricultural households in these three communes. The sampling unit was
the agricultural household. In each commune, two villages were selected based on their agricultural
production. The respondents were selected randomly according to their availability and to a balanced
coverage of the socioeconomic diversity of the farms in the study villages. In each village, 20 farmers
(head of household) were surveyed. In all study areas, a total of 120 respondents were interviewed.
Additionally, six focus groups were conducted. Each focus group was attended by 8 to 12 farmers,
made up of men and women. The data collected relates to socioeconomic characteristics, farmers’
perceptions of climate change and adaptation strategies developed by farmers to address climate
change. The individual interview contained 32 questions in total including check-all and forced-choice
questions followed by a comprehensive discussion with the farmers. The questions focused on five
themes: (1) socioeconomic characteristics; (2) climate and climate change information; (3) farmers’
perception of climate change in general; (4) farmers’ perception of rainfall patterns; (5) farmers’
perception of temperature patterns; (6) farmers’ perception of climate change effects. The questions
related to the general climate change perception were open ended, while the specific questions related
to climate change effect and temperature and rainfall were organized with sequential options. Answers
were coded into different actual values. The objectives of the individual survey were to collect the
information needed for in-depth analysis of the research questions, whereas the ones of the focus
group were to verify the information obtained during the individual surveys. The same approach was
used by Simelton [13] and Gebreeyesus [16].
The Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) (19th edition) was used for descriptive statistics.
Means, percentages and frequencies were used to summarize and categorize the information gathered.
The binomial logit model was used to analyze the factors affecting farmers’ decisions to adapt
to climate change or not to adapt [6,12,20]. In this case, the dependent variable was dichotomous
i.e. farmers’ decision to adapt or not adapt to climate change. According to Muzamhindo [20] and
Fosu-Mensah [21], the binary logit model is appropriate in this case because it considers the relationship
between a binary dependent variable and a set of independent variables. In its reduced form, the binary
logit is expressed as follows [12,20]:

Y = f(X1, X2, . . . , X6) (1)

where Y is the adaptation status (1 = farmers who adapted, 0 = farmers who did not adapt).
The multinomial logit model was used to determine the factors influencing the choice of farmers
to use a particular method of adaptation to climate change [6,22,23]. In this model, the dependent
variable was multinomial with as many categories as the number of climate change adaptation methods
inventoried in the study area. The reduced form of the model is as follows [6]:

Yi = f(X1, X2, . . . , X6) (2)

where Yi, the polychotomic dependent variable, is the adaptation method chosen by the producer
and X1 to X6 are the explanatory variables. Based on the data collected on the adaptation strategies
developed by farmers in the study area, the dependent variable (Yi) is coded 1 for “no adaptation,” 2 for
“Crop–livestock diversification,” 3 for “Use of improved varieties, chemical fertilizers and pesticides,”
4 for “Agroforestry and perennial plantation (oil palm, orchard, tree species),” 5 for “Diversification
of income-generating activities” and 6 for “Multiple coping strategies.” The explanatory variables
Environments 2018, 5, 15 5 of 17

include: X1 = Farming experience, X2 = Farm size, X3 = education level, X4 = Gender, X5 = Percentage

of farm income and X6 = Belonging to a farmers’ organization.
Tazeze [22] gave more details on the hypothetical relationships between these variables and
adaptation to climate change. The standardization of a category, defined as “base category” or
“reference state,” was used to estimate the model of multinomial logical regression [6,22]. In this study,
the category “no adaptation” was used as the base category.

3. Results

3.1. Socioeconomic Characteristics of Household Heads

The socioeconomic characteristics of respondents were collected. These included gender, age,
occupation, farming experience, farm size and educational level. The study sample was dominated by
men (76.7%). Thus, the heads of agricultural households were predominantly men. Indeed, female
heads of households were most often widows or divorced. The age of farmers varied between 25
and 67 years (46 years on average) and 55.8% of them were illiterate. Agriculture (crop production)
was the main activity of the respondents (75%). The remainder consisted of livestock farmers (16.7%)
and food processors (8.3%). Respondents had an average of 16.57 years farming experience; the most
experienced had 40 years farming experience and the least, three years farming experience.
The farm size varied from 0.75 to 10 ha (4.74 ha on average). Only 43.3% of respondents had less
than 5 ha. This reflects the importance of agriculture in the study area. The majority of farmers (78.3%)
belonged to a farmers’ organization (a village association or cooperative or a communal union of
farmers). Very few (8.3%) had access to funding (microcredit) from regularly registered microfinance
institutions. Thus, they were struggling to finance their activities. The majority of them (65%) received
extension services (support-advice, capacity building, training, farmer field school).

3.2. Smallholder Farmers’ Perception of Climate Change

This section analyzes farmers’ perceptions of climate change. Analysis of the data showed that
farmers clearly perceive climate change. About 90.8% of respondents claimed that the climate had
changed. To the question of what these changes consist of, different answers were recorded and we
made a typology of the changes observed by the farmers. The main changes observed were: rainfall
disturbances (rainfall delays, early cessation, bad rainfall distribution etc.); shortening of the small dry
season, increasing of temperature, and, sometimes, violent winds and other extreme events such as
floods in some areas (see Figure 2).
Rainfall disturbances were perceived by 89% of respondents. In this region, like other regions of
the country, since agriculture is rainfed and the agricultural calendar is adapted to the rainfall regime,
it is quite normal for farmers to perceive any change in the rainfall regime. However, disturbances in
precipitation were perceived differently.
When farmers were asked how the rainfall patterns had changed, all the respondents had observed
a number of changes in the overall climate pattern (Figure 3). Most farmers claimed that the rainy
season started later (75.8%) and stopped earlier (70%). The majority of respondents (75.8%) noted
a delay in the onset of the rainy season. Sixty percent of respondents claimed that the rainy season
length had decreased. Regarding rainfall, 45% of respondents noted an increase in rainfall amount and
42.5% claimed that the rainfall amount had decreased.
Changes were perceived in temperature and droughts (Figure 4). Almost 64% noticed an increase
of the length of the long dry season and 85% of farmers claimed that the small dry season was
shortening. Most of the respondents observed an increase of temperature.
 the rainy season started later (75.8%) and stopped earlier (70%). The majority of respondents (75.8%)
noted a delay in the onset of the rainy season. Sixty percent of respondents claimed that the rainy
season length had decreased. Regarding rainfall, 45% of respondents noted an increase in rainfall
amount and 42.5% claimed that the rainfall amount had decreased.
Changes were perceived in temperature and droughts (Figure 4). Almost 64% noticed an
Environments of5,the
2018,
increase 15 length of the long dry season and 85% of farmers claimed that the small dry season 6 of 17
was shortening. Most of the respondents observed an increase of temperature.

Violent winds

Increasing temperature

Shortening of the small dry season

Rainfall disturbances

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Figure 2. Farmers’ perception of climate change.

Figure 2. Farmers’ perception of climate change.
Environments 2018, 5, 15 6 of 18
Environments 2018, 5, 15 6 of 18
80.0
80.0
70.0
70.0
60.0
(%) (%)

60.0
50.0
Respondents

50.0
40.0
Respondents

40.0
30.0
30.0
20.0
20.0
10.0
10.0
.0
Decreased

Decreased
EarlyEarly

EarlyEarly
No change

LateLate

No change

LateLate

Increased

Increased
Constant

Constant

.0
Decreased

Decreased
No change

No change

Increased

Increased
Constant

Constant

Onset Cessation Rainy season length Rainfall amount

Onset Cessation Rainy season length Rainfall amount
Figure 3. Farmers’ perception of changes in rainfall patterns.
Figure 3. Farmers’ perception of changes in rainfall patterns.
Figure 3. Farmers’ perception of changes in rainfall patterns.
90.0
80.0
90.0
70.0
80.0
(%) (%)

60.0
70.0
Respondents

50.0
60.0
Respondents

40.0
50.0
30.0
40.0
20.0
30.0
10.0
20.0
.0
10.0
Increased

No No
Constant

Decreased

Yes Yes

Increased

Constant

Decreased

.0
Increased

Constant

Decreased

Increased

Constant

Decreased

Length of the long dry season Shortening of the Temperature

small dry season
Length of the long dry season Shortening of the Temperature
small dry season
Figure 4. Farmers’ perception of changes in temperature and drought.
Figure
Figure 4. Farmers’
4. Farmers’ perceptionof
perception of changes
changes inintemperature andand
temperature drought.
drought.
3.3. Effects of Climate Change on Agriculture and Livelihood
3.3. Effects
Climateof Climate
change Change on an
is having Agriculture
effect on and Livelihood
agriculture and livelihood. Table 1 shows that only 15% of
the respondents
Climate change disagreed thatanclimate
is having change
effect on led to and
agriculture crop/livestock
livelihood. infestation andthat
Table 1 shows diseases, while
only 15% of
65.83% strongly disagreed
the respondents agreed withthatthe assertion.
climate changeTheledfindings also revealed
to crop/livestock that 33.8%
infestation of the farmers
and diseases, while
reportedstrongly
65.83% that climate
agreedchange
with isthe
responsible
assertion.for
Thethefindings
increasealso
in land degradation,
revealed while
that 33.8% of only 18.33%
the farmers
disagreed.that
reported It isclimate
therefore not surprising
change that their
is responsible strategies
for the increaseare
in based on pest and disease
land degradation, control
while only and
18.33%
Environments 2018, 5, 15 7 of 17

3.3. Effects of Climate Change on Agriculture and Livelihood

Climate change is having an effect on agriculture and livelihood. Table 1 shows that only 15% of
the respondents disagreed that climate change led to crop/livestock infestation and diseases, while
65.83% strongly agreed with the assertion. The findings also revealed that 33.8% of the farmers
reported that climate change is responsible for the increase in land degradation, while only 18.33%
disagreed. It is therefore not surprising that their strategies are based on pest and disease control and
land management.
Of the respondents, 87.5% reported that climate change led to a decrease in crop yields.
In addition, 90% of the respondents claimed that increased food costs are an effect of climate change.
The implication could be that the respondents developed strategies to improve productivity of food or
to secure income in the study area.
Almost 46% of smallholder farmers disagree that climate change has led to rural–urban migration
while 17.5% were neutral.

Table 1. Distribution of respondents by perceived effect of climate change (n = 120).

Farmers’ Perception of Climate Change Effect Frequency Percentage (%)

Increased crop/livestock pests and diseases
Strongly agreed 79 65.8
Agreed 23 19.2
No response 0 0
Disagree 18 15
Strongly disagreed 0 0
Increased land degradation
Strongly agreed 56 46.7
Agreed 31 25.8
No response 11 9.2
Disagree 16 13.3
Strongly disagreed 6 5
Decrease in yields
Strongly agreed 67 55.8
Agreed 38 31.7
No response 2 1.7
Disagree 11 9.2
Strongly disagreed 2 1.7
Increase in food costs
Strongly agreed 51 42.5
Agreed 57 47.5
No response 1 0.8
Disagree 5 4.2
Strongly disagreed 6 5
Increased rural–urban migration
Strongly agreed 13 10.8
Agreed 31 25.8
No response 21 17.5
Disagree 19 15.8
Strongly disagreed 36 30
Source: Survey result.

3.4. Farmers’ Strategies for Adaptation to Climate Variability and Climate Change
Farmers have adopted different strategies to adapt to climate change and climate variability.
Farming is the main occupation for the majority of the sample households. Based on the household
survey data collected from 120 households, 90.8% of farmers had observed changes in climate, while
85% of them reacted to this change. This is important, because, as reported by Mustapha [12],
adaptation to climate change is a process that initially requires farmers to perceive that the climate
Environments 2018, 5, 15 8 of 17

has changed and then identify the necessary adaptations to be implemented. When the respondents
were asked if they have responded through adaptation to reduce the impact of climate change, about
85.0% reported that they are using different adaptation strategies to reduce the negative impact of
climate change. These include: “Crop–livestock diversification and other good practices (mulching,
organic fertilizer),” “Use of improved varieties, chemical fertilizers and pesticides,” “Agroforestry
and perennial plantation (oil palm, orchard, tree species)” and “Diversification of income-generating
activities” (Table 2). Most of respondents (24.2%) used these strategies in combination.

Table 2. Adaptation strategies used by farmers.

Adaptation Strategies Frequency Percentage (%)

No adaptation strategies 17 14.2
Crop–livestock diversification and other good practices (mixed
44 36.7
cropping, crop rotation, mulching, organic fertilizer)
Use of improved varieties, chemical fertilizers and pesticides 46 38.3
Agroforestry and perennial plantation (oil palm, orchard, tree species) 43 35.5
Diversification of income-generating activities 17 14.2
Source: Survey result. Note that a farmer can adopt more than one adaptation strategy.

Crop–livestock diversification (mixed cropping, intercropping and crop rotation) is a common

practice in the Zou Department in general and in the study area in particular. From focus group
discussions with farmers, it was revealed that farmers had a wide knowledge of the advantages of
mixed cropping.
These include: reduction of the effects of adverse weather conditions (drought, erosion, etc.),
slowdown the spread of pests and diseases in the growing season, reduction in input requirements and
increasing of yields. The mixed cropping frequently mentioned by respondents were: maize–cassava,
maize–groundnut, maize–bean, maize–bean–cassava. It should also be noted that farmers associate
these practices with a concern for preserving food and nutritional security of the household. Farmers
are seeking to increase the chances of guaranteeing a minimum of products after harvesting. “If one
fails, the other can succeed,” said the respondents. About 36.7% of respondents used crop–livestock
diversification as an adaptation strategy to reduce the adverse effect of climate change on farm
productivity (Table 2). Some of the respondents also used mulching and organic fertilizers in addition
to crop–livestock diversification. In addition, some farmers have adopted small ruminant and poultry
farming to diversify their sources of income. These livestock are mainly fed with crop residues.
One of the major problems that farmers are facing in the study area is the increase of crop–livestock
pests and diseases. Thus, 38.3% of farmers used improved crop varieties as an adaptation strategy
to reduce the adverse effect of climate change. Farmers used drought tolerant and short maturing
varieties of crops. They also used chemical fertilizers to increase crop productivity and pesticides to
control pests and diseases.
The growing of perennial plants is a practice for supporting farm income. According to the
respondents, these plantations address a concern of securing household income. Oil palm, citrus and
teak trees are the most perennial species cultivated by farmers. This strategy is interesting for the
minimization of agroclimatic risks because arboriculture is a good bulwark against climate change.
It is worth noting that there were also some farmers who practice agroforestry (integrate trees and
crops); and these farmers had a deep knowledge of the benefits of such practice: preventing soil
erosion, reducing losses of water, availability of organic matter and nutrients, reducing the amount of
agricultural insect pests and associated diseases etc. About 35.5% of respondents adopted this strategy
to reduce the adverse effect of climate change on their farm.
The instability of farm incomes in the study area is not negligible. Some households diversify their
income-generating activities to earn additional funds or stabilize their incomes. Generally, they turn to
off-farm activities. Diversification of income-generating activities was used by 14.2% of households to
secure their incomes.
Environments 2018, 5, 15 9 of 17

3.5. Combination of Adaptation Strategies

The adaptation strategies developed by farmers to cope with climate change can be used in
combination. About 24.2% of respondents used these strategies in combination. This section analyzes
how respondents combined agronomic strategies to adapt to climate change. Four kinds of combination
were identified (Table 3).

Table 3. Combination of agronomic strategies.

Crop–Livestock Use of Improved Varieties, Agroforestry and

Adaptation Strategies Diversification and Chemical Fertilizers and Perennial
Other Good Practices Pesticides Plantation
Crop–livestock diversification
10 5
and other good practices
Use of improved varieties,
chemical fertilizers and 2
pesticides
Agroforestry and perennial
plantation
Mix of three strategies 12

Some combinations may seem contradictory. For example, “Crop–livestock diversification and
other good practices” and “Use of improved varieties, chemical fertilizers and pesticides” or “Use of
improved varieties, chemical fertilizers and pesticides” and “Agroforestry and perennial plantation.”
However, for farmers, each strategy has a specific purpose, although the ultimate and common goal is
adaptation to climate change.
Crop–livestock diversification aims to allow farmers to have various products at harvest and
to minimize losses due to climate change. Indeed, one of the manifestations of climate change is
rainfall disturbance. As this phenomenon has influenced the agricultural calendar, many farmers
do not know which crop to grow on what date. Crop–livestock diversification therefore remains a
way to increase the chances of having produce at the end of the season. This practice, apart from its
agronomic advantages and the fact that it offers a rich and varied landscape during the agricultural
season, contributes to the preservation of food and nutritional security of the household.
Crop–livestock diversification and other good practices (mixed cropping, intercropping and crop
rotation) have the advantage of slowing down the spread of pests and diseases in the growing season,
reducing input requirements and increasing yields. It is therefore questionable why some farmers
combine this practice with the use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides. First, it should be noted that
certain crops, whether in combination or in monoculture, require minimal pesticide application to
ensure production at harvest. This is the case, for example, with cowpea. Because organic pesticides
are not widely known, farmers use chemical pesticides to control pests and diseases. However, doses
are limited. This applies to chemical fertilizers that are sometimes not even used when farmers practice
some crop rotation, especially when maize comes after a leguminous plant. Therefore, it is easier to
understand why farmers combine crop–livestock diversification and the use of chemical fertilizers and
pesticides (and improved varieties).
The growing of fruit species and oil palm is an agricultural income support practice. Because the
perennial species are less sensitive to climatic shocks, they are grown to secure the household income.
Revenues come from the sale of fruit and are more regular than from crops. Some growers, instead of
growing fruit species, prefer forest species (Tectona grandis, Acacia auriculiformis, Eucalyptus sp.). In both
cases, the practice is to grow crops between the rows of perennial plants for the first three to five years.
What is interesting in this practice is that farmers opt for improved varieties, especially for fruit species
and oil palm. These improved varieties have some input requirements. These inputs, especially the
fertilizers that are given to these perennial plants, can benefit the crops that are grown between the
tree rows and vice versa. These practices combine easily with the first two described above.
Environments 2018, 5, 15 10 of 17

3.6. Determinants of Farmers’ Choice of Adaptation Strategies

The binary logit regression results are presented in Table 4. The logistic regression model was
statistically significant (p < 0.05). The model explained 79% (Nagelkerke R2 ) of the variance in farmers’
decisions to adapt to climate change and correctly classified 93.3% of decisions.
From the binary logit regression results, educational level and farming experience positively and
significantly influence farmers’ decisions to adapt to climate variability. The results indicate that only
the most experienced and well educated are able to define adaptation strategies to climate change
(Table 4).

Table 4. Determinants of the decision to adapt to climate change by farmers.

Explanatory Variables Odds Ratio Std. Err.

Gender 0.485 0.622
Educational level 10.462 ** 10.057
Farming experience 1.442 *** 0.18
Farm size 1.525 0.589
Belonging to farmers’ organization 5.292 6.636
Percentage of farm income 1.009 0.052
Constant 0.001 0.004
Number of respondents = 120
Prob > Chi2 = 0.0000
Log likelihood = −14.765105
Pseudo R2 = 0.7089
% of correct prediction = 93.3%
**, *** = Significant at 5% and 1% level respectively.

The analysis of multinomial logical regression to determine the factors influencing the choice of
farmers to use a particular method of adaptation to climate change revealed that farming experience
and educational level significantly affected the use of different methods of adaptation (Table 5).
• Farming experience: The results indicate that farming experience positively and significantly
affected the choice of all strategies except the diversification of income-generating activities.
The household head is more experienced and is expected to acquire more competence in weather
forecasting. This helps to increase the likelihood of practicing different adaptation strategies to
climate change.
• Educational level: This factor had a positive and strong effect on the dependent variable.
All adaptation strategies are influenced by this factor. This can be explained by the fact that
literate farmers are able to search for information and make choices based on their preference and
level of information gathered.
• Gender of household head: The results indicate that being female, as a household head, increases
the chance to choose diversification of income-generating activities as adaptation to climate
change. The possible reason is that much of the farming activities are done by men, while women
are more involved in processing or off-farm activities like trade.
• Farm size: Farm size had a positive and significant impact on multiple coping strategies. The larger
the farm, the more farmers opted for the combination of several coping strategies: agroforestry
and perennial plantation, crop–livestock diversification, improved varieties etc.
This model has limitations due to the choice of questions and the data, which induces the
explaining variables. The choice of the data collected is based on the state of the art in the literature
and on our empirical knowledge of the geographical and socioeconomic context of the country and the
precise region. Our research could have explored further possible variables if more time and human
resources were available. In particular, a round of preliminary exploratory qualitative interviews
would have allowed screening for new items to search and collect as explanatory variables.
Environments 2018, 5, 15 11 of 17

Table 5. Determinants of a farmer’s choice to use a specific climate change adaptation strategy.

Crop–Livestock Use of Improved Varieties, Diversification of

Explanatory Agroforestry and Perennial
Diversification and Other Chemical Fertilizers and Income-Generating Multiple Coping Strategies
Variables Plantation
Good Practices Pesticides Activities
B (coef) Sig (p-value) B (coef) Sig (p-value) B (coef) Sig (P-value) B (coef) Sig (P-value) Sig (P-value) Sig (P-value)
Farming
0.314 0.006 * 0.328 0.004 * 0.384 0.001 * 0.020 0.892 0.331 0.004 *
experience
Farm size −0.002 0.996 0.232 0.564 0.603 0.139 0.696 0.103 ** 0.888 0.030 *
Percentage of
−0.055 0.257 -0.004 0.927 -0.014 0.771 0.052 0.324 0.001 0.986
farm income
Educational level 2.009 0.019 * 2.300 0.007 * 2.211 0.010 * 1.755 0.040 * 2.249 0.009 *
Gender −1.687 0.215 −1.688 0.241 −2.041 0.189 4.203 0.035 * −1.577 0.304
Belonging to
farmers’ −0.183 0.877 −0.920 0.462 −1.607 0.230 −3.345 0.072 ** −0.853 0.502
organization
Base category No adaptation
Number of
120
observation
LR Chi2 148.526
Log likelihood −135.602
Prob > Chi2 0
* and ** significant at 5% and 10% probability level, respectively.
Environments 2018, 5, 15 12 of 17

4. Discussion

4.1. Farmers’ Perceptions of and Adaptation Strategies to Climate Change

The results of this study on the perceptions and adaptation strategies of farmers in the Zou
Department of Benin show that farmers are well aware of climate change, as more than 90% of farmers
interviewed perceived a change in the climate. Several studies in Africa [5,6,12,20,21,24] and around
the world have already yielded similar results. The main changes observed are: rainfall disturbances
(rainfall delays, early cessation, bad rainfall distribution etc.), shortening of the small dry season,
increasing temperature, sometimes violent winds and other extreme events such as floods. The same
perceptions have been reported from several studies in Benin [6,17,25], Niger [15], Nigeria [12,26] and
Kenya [16].
The shortening of the small rainy season has a real impact on cropping systems in the study area.
Indeed, this short dry season allows farmers to dry harvests from the great rainy season. However, this
shortening of the small dry season poses a real problem for conservation of cereals and leguminous
plants from the great rainy season. This phenomenon has led farmers to rethink their cropping systems
(choice of crops, choice of varieties according to the length of their cycle, crop management, etc.).
A similar situation in Tanzania and Senegal has been reported [27].
The majority of farmers who have perceived (90.8% of respondents) climate change have
developed an adaptation strategy (85% of respondents). This is contrary to the findings of
Fosu-Mensah [21] who showed that only a few farmers have developed adaptation strategies.
Two hypotheses could explain this difference. First, this difference could be due to the socioeconomic
characteristics of the respondents. The more experienced or literate farmers are, the better they
adopt climate change adaptation strategies. Unfortunately, Fosu-Mensah [21] did not present the
socioeconomic characteristics of his respondents in his article so that we can analyze the differences.
The second hypothesis that seems to be most likely is that there is now enough communication
and training on climate change adaptation strategies, so farmers have begun to adopt these strategies.
Indeed, Fosu published his article in 2010. The data have evolved a lot since then.
Comparing the results of this study with those already carried out in Benin, the same trend
emerges but with a clear improvement. In fact, more producers are adopting strategies for adapting to
climate change today.
The main adaptation strategies of farmers identified include “Crop–livestock diversification,”
“Use of improved varieties, chemical fertilizers and pesticides,” “Agroforestry and perennial plantation
(oil palm, orchard, tree species)” and “Diversification of income-generating activities.” Similar findings
were reported by several authors [15,16,28]. The various strategies adopted by farmers showed that
they are seeking to strengthen their farming systems through agrobiodiversity. Whatever the choice,
the farmers aim to ensure a minimum harvest for their own food security. This is why maize (most
consumed cereal) appears in all mixed cropping in the area. In fact, the yields of the crops grown in
association are often less affected by climatic accidents [27].
The results of factors influencing the choice of a specific adaptation strategy suggest that farming
experience, educational level, gender and farm size are the most significant factors affecting the
adaptation choice of farmers. Farming experience facilitates the identification and implementation
of any adaptation strategy. This finding is in line with previous work [6,22,29]. The educational
level has significantly influenced the choice of all adaptation strategies. This confirmed the results of
Assoumana [15] and Tazeze [22]. According to Kumari [30], educated and experienced farmers are
expected to have more knowledge and information about climate change and the agronomic practices
that they can use in response. Farm size determines the decision to combine multiple strategies to cope
with climate change. This is confirmed by Sani & Chalchisa [29] who reported that large-scale farmers
are more likely to adapt to climate change because they have more capital and resources.
Environments 2018, 5, 15 13 of 17

4.2. Implications of Farmers’ Choices

Farmers’ choices on adoption of given adaptation strategies could have two purposes; either
for expected profit or avoiding risk [16]. All strategies developed by farmers to adapt to climate
change fit into these two purposes. In this section, we analyzed the agroecological implications and
the sustainability of the strategies developed.
The mainstream strategy to cope with climate change is the use of improved variety, chemical
fertilizers and pesticides. However, important studies have revealed the negative impacts of chemical
fertilizers and pesticides (especially the over use) on the environment [30]. Given the increase in
agricultural pests and diseases, some farmers have no choice but must adapt in learning more
sustainable farming practices, like organic farming or integrated pest management, because long-term
effects of high-input agriculture are contamination of soils and water, water scarcity and losses in
biodiversity. According to Kumari [30], they all have direct negative consequences on animal and
human health.
Crop diversification is the practice of cultivating more than one variety of crop belonging to the
same or different species in a given area in the form of rotations and or intercropping. Farmers can
face growing stress from climate change by implementing a diversified agricultural system which may
be a productive way to build resilience into agricultural systems [31]. Crop diversification is perceived
as one of the most ecologically feasible, cost effective and rational ways of reducing uncertainties
in agriculture especially among smallholder farmers [32]. The results of this study show that many
farmers use this method to adapt to climate change. Crop diversification improves soil fertility, controls
for pests and diseases and brings about yield stability, nutrition diversity and health [31,32]. It can
also serve as a superior substitute for the use of chemicals to maintain soil fertility and control pests.
Certain crops in a rotation system, especially pigeon pea and mucuna, are reputed to control weeds
and improve soil fertility [33]. Diversified cropping systems, in general, tend to be more agronomically
stable and resilient [31,32]. In addition, several studies have shown that crop diversification, especially
in food crops, has positive effects on children’s nutrition [34,35].
Another major strategy is agroforestry and perennial plantation. Many studies have shown that
agroforestry may offer many economic and environmental benefits [36–39]. According to Zoysa [39],
agroforestry has an important role in climate change adaptation by enhancing resilience to climate
impacts on farming systems. Torquebiau [40] reported that agroforestry has a double potential to
address climate change issues: greenhouse gas mitigation strategy through carbon sequestration and
sustainable adjustment to changing conditions (because agroforestry systems can be called perennial
farming systems). More than an adaptation strategy, agroforestry is a mitigation strategy. Agroforestry
is a landscape-scale approach, thus favors synergy between adaptation and mitigation [40]. Apart
from its socioeconomic benefits [38], agroforestry, through its effects on soil conservation, protection of
biodiversity, carbon sequestration [40,41] is the most sustainable strategy.

4.3. Barriers to Effective Adaptation

Several studies carried out in Africa pointed out many barriers, which challenged the ability of
farmers to adapt to climate change. The main barriers identified are: institutional factors, access to
credit, lack of information and irregularity of extension services [15,29,42].
Juana et al. [42] reported that the institutional factors that influence adoption of new technologies
are access to information via extension services (climate information and production technologies)
and access to credit. According to the same author, farmers who have significant extension contacts
have better chances of being aware of changing climatic conditions as well as adaptation measures
in response to the changes in these conditions. This is confirmed by the findings of Assoumana [15].
Sani & Chalchisa [29] reported that insufficient access to inputs, lack of knowledge about other
adaptation options, no access to water, lack of credit, lack of information about climate change, high
cost of adaptation and insecure property rights were the main climate change adaptation constraints.
Environments 2018, 5, 15 14 of 17

4.4. Influence of Agricultural Policies

The evidence that climate change will adversely affect agriculture in Benin has become a crucial
challenge for sustainable development in the country. This challenge is composed of the likely
impacts on ecosystem services, agricultural production and livelihoods. Generally, losses in the
agriculture sector due to climate change has economy wide consequences, like loss in gross domestic
output, a decline in the income/consumption of the most vulnerable population; hence, a general
deterioration in household welfare [42]. To dampen the adverse consequences of climate change, Benin
agricultural policies, like in Western Africa, have focused on agricultural intensification through the
use of technological packages (improved varieties, diffusion of chemical fertilizers and pesticides,
etc.). In Benin, only the cotton sector has benefited from subsidies (fertilizers and pesticides) from the
state until the decline in its production in the 2000s. Thus, in order for farmers to benefit from the
subsidized input, they were obliged to grow cotton. This put farmers in a precarious situation.
However, after the decline of the Benin cotton sector, agricultural diversification has become a
policy priority. Therefore, several projects and programs have been implemented for that purpose.
Besides this new agricultural diversification policy, improving productivity remains a priority for the
state. To improve farm productivity, extension services provide farmers with information on the use of
certified improved seeds, chemical fertilizers and pesticides. The overall cost of implementing such
advice in the case of maize, for example, is so high that a poor harvest would be catastrophic for a
farmer and his family.
However, for a farming family, the goal is not necessarily to have the best yields but rather to
generate sufficient income that will support the family needs [27].
In the interviews conducted for our research, some farmers were clearly seeking a certain balance
between extension service advice and their know-how. Others were downright reluctant to adopt
technology packages.
On the other hand, many of the health impacts of food systems trace back to specific industrial food
and farming practices, e.g. intensive livestock production and chemical-intensive agriculture [43]. In this
context, diversified, agroecological systems refer to a model based on diversifying farms and farming
landscapes, replacing chemical inputs with organic matter, optimizing biodiversity and stimulating
interactions between different species, as part of holistic strategies to build long-term fertility, healthy
agroecosystems and secure livelihoods [43]. This approach has major advantages and can provide
strong and stable yields, health-promoting food and farming systems, environmental resilience and
secure farming livelihoods, thereby succeeding where current food systems are failing [43].
Indeed, agriculture has to simultaneously address three intertwined challenges: ensuring food
security through increased productivity and income, adapting to climate change and contributing to
climate change mitigation. To address these challenges, food systems have to become, at the same
time, more efficient and resilient, at every scale from the farm to the global level [44]. It is precisely to
articulate these changes that the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) has forged the concept of
climate-smart agriculture (CSA). CSA is “agriculture that sustainably increases productivity, enhances
resilience (adaptation), reduces/removes greenhouse gas (GHG)s (mitigation) where possible and
enhances achievement of national food security and development goals” [44,45]. In Benin, agricultural
sectors must become climate-smart to successfully tackle current food security and climate change
challenges. CSA contributes to food security, by addressing different aspects of current and projected
climate change impacts through adaptation and mitigation actions. While agriculture contributes
significantly to climate change, it also provides opportunities for adapting to and mitigating, climate
change effects [44,45]. In addition, the FAO is conducting several actions for agroecology around the
world and in sub-Saharan Africa in particular. As a set of practices, agroecology seeks sustainable
farming systems that optimize and stabilize yields. It is an approach that will help address the challenge
of ending hunger and malnutrition in all its forms in the context of climate change adaptation.
It is in this context that the FAO organized the first international symposium on agroecology in
2014 and five regional symposiums that took place between 2015 and 2016; and provided a space for
Environments 2018, 5, 15 15 of 17

discussion and the opportunity to share experiences, build a consistent database of agroecological
initiatives. To bring agroecology on a larger scale, in April 2018 the FAO will host the second
FAO International Symposium on Agroecology: Agroecology for Sustainable Development Goals
(SDGs)—scaling up.

5. Conclusions
This study revealed that farmers in the Zou Department are well aware of climate change
and have a good perception of both its effects and impacts on agricultural production. Thus, they
have adopted different strategies to adapt to these changes. The main adaptation strategies of
farmers identified include “Crop–livestock diversification,” “Use of improved varieties, chemical
fertilizers and pesticides,” “Agroforestry and perennial plantation (oil palm, orchard, tree species)”
and “Diversification of income-generating activities.” Several factors such as farming experience,
educational level, farm size and gender determine the choice of adaptation strategy. However, there
are some barriers which challenged the ability of farmers to cope with climate change.
This paper also showed that a farmer’s ability to adapt to climate change depends on his
perception of the phenomenon, the need to provide solutions and the opportunities, which are
given to him.
These findings have public policy implications. Governments should include climate change
adaptation policies in their development agenda. The findings of this study should help policymakers
to better think and plan agricultural policies in terms of adaptation to climate change. Indeed, choices
made in terms of public policies can be decisive. Some agricultural policies may exacerbate the impact
of climate change, while others may be effective in increasing and securing farmers’ incomes [27]. The
design and implementation of any climate change policy requires adequate knowledge about the level
of vulnerability, the existing knowledge the population has about the risks they are exposed to, the
adaptation practices adopted, the existing capacity to adapt and the perceived barriers to adaptation [42].
This study provides evidence to agree with the conclusion of Cochet et al. [27], that, to be effective,
agricultural policies in terms of adaptation to climate change should integrate at the same time:

• Equitable access to the means of production;

• Dissemination of technical levers to increase yields per hectare for the greatest number;
• Sufficiently stable and remunerative levels of agricultural prices;
• An endogenous growth strategy, initially favoring food sovereignty driven by family farming.

Author Contributions: Roland Fadina and Dominique Barjolle conceived and designed the methodology,
Roland Fadina performed the survey and analyzed the data; Roland Fadina and Dominique Barjolle wrote
the paper.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. World Bank. Benin Presentation. Available online: http://www.banquemondiale.org/en/country/benin/
overview (accessed on 12 October 2016).
2. Groupe D’experts Intergouvernemental sur L’évolution du Climat. Bilan 2007 des changements climatiques.
In Contribution des Groupes de Travail I, II et III au Quatrième Rapport D’évaluation du Groupe D’experts
Intergouvernemental sur L’évolution du Climat; GIEC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2007; 103p.
3. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability.
Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change;
Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2007; 976p.
4. Food and Agriculture Organization. FAO BENIN: Cadre de Programmation Pays, 2012.
5. Gnangle, P.C.; Egah, J.; Baco, N.M.; Gbemavo, C.; Glèlè, R.; Sokpon, N. Perceptions locales du changement
climatique et mesures d’adaptation dans la gestion des parcs à karité au Nord-Bénin. Int. J. Biol. Chem. Sci.
2012, 6, 136–149. [CrossRef]
Environments 2018, 5, 15 16 of 17

6. Loko, Y.L.; Dansi, A.; Agre, A.P.; Akpa, N.; Dossou-Aminon, I.; Assogba, P.; Dansi, M.; Sanni, A.; Akpagana, K.
Perceptions paysannes et impacts des changements climatiques sur la production et la diversité variétale
de l’igname dans la zone aride du nord-ouest du Bénin. International. J. Biol. Chem. Sci. 2013, 7, 672–695.
[CrossRef]
7. Assouma Imorou, A. Analyse Socio-économique Selon le Genre des Effets de la Variabilité Climatique sur les
Ménages Riziculteurs du Centre et du Nord-Ouest du Bénin. Master’s Thesis, Université D’Abomey-Calavi,
Abomey-Calavi, Benin, 4 April 2014.
8. Houessou, D. Vulnérabilité des Communautés d’éleveurs du Centre—Bénin à la Variabilité et aux
Changements Climatiques. Master’s Thesis, Université d’Abomey-Calavi, Abomey-Calavi, Benin,
29 March 2014.
9. Thoto, F. Vulnérabilité des Communautés de Pêcheurs du Sud—Ouest Bénin à la Variabilité et aux Changements
Climatiques. Master’s Thesis, Université d’Abomey-Calavi, Abomey-Calavi, Benin, 29 March 2014.
10. INSAE (Institut National de la Statistique et de l’Analyse Economique). Annuaire Statistique 2000–2004;
INSAE: Abomey-Calavi, Benin, 2004.
11. Sombroek, W.G.; Gommes, R. L’énigme: Changement de climat—Agriculture. In Changements du Climat et
Production Agricole; FAO, Ed.; FAO: Rome, Italy, 1997; p. 472.
12. Mustapha, S.B.; Sanda, A.H.; Shehu, H. Farmers’ Perception of Climate Change in Central Agricultural Zone
of Borno State, Nigeria. J. Environ. Earth Sci. 2012, 2, 21–28.
13. Simelton, E.; Quinn, C.H.; Batisani, N.; Dougill, A.J.; Dyer, J.C.; Fraser, E.D.G.; Mkwambisi, D.; Sallu, S.;
Stringer, L.C. Is rainfall really changing? Farmers’ perceptions, meteorological data, and policy implications.
Clim. Dev. 2013, 5, 123–138. [CrossRef]
14. Comoé, H. Contribution to Food Security by Improving Farmers’ Responses to Climate Change in Northern and
Central Areas of Côte D’ivoire; ETH: Zurich, Switzerland, 2013.
15. Assoumana, B.T.; Ndiaye, M.; Puje, G.; Diourte, M.; Graiser, T. Comparative Assessment of Local Farmers’
Perceptions of Meteorological Events and Adaptations Strategies: Two Case Studies in Niger Republic.
J. Sustain. Dev. 2016, 9, 118–135. [CrossRef]
16. Gebreeyesus, K.A. Impact of Climate Change on the Agro-ecological Innovation of Coffee Agroforestry
Systems in Central Kenya. Ph.D. Thesis, SupAgro, Montpellier, France, 28 April 2017.
17. Houssou-Goe, P. Agriculture et Changements Climatiques au Bénin: Risques Climatiques, Vulnérabilité et
Stratégies D’adaptation des Populations Rurales du Département du Couffo. Master’s Thesis, Universite
d’Abomey-Calavi, Abomey-Calavi, Benin, 19 Decembre 2008.
18. Gnanglè, P.C.; Yabi, J.; Glèlè, K.R.; Sokpon, N. Changements climatiques: Perceptions et stratégies
d’adaptations des paysans face à la gestion des parcs à karité au Centre-Bénin. SIFEComm 2005. Available
online: http://www.sifee.org/ressources/actes-des-colloques/actes-du-colloque-international-de-niamey
(accessed on 19 January 2018).
19. INSAE (Institut National de la Statistique et de l’Analyse Economique). Cahier des Villages et Quartiers de Ville
Département du Zou; INSAE: Abomey-Calavi, Benin, 2004.
20. Muzamhindo, N.; Mtabheni, S.; Jiri, O.; Hanyani-Mlambo, B. Factors Influencing Smallholder Farmers’
Adaptation to Climate Change and Variability in Chiredzi District of Zimbabwe. J. Econ. Sustain. Dev. 2015,
6, 1–9.
21. Fosu-Mensah, B.Y.; Vlek, P.L.G.; Manschadi, A.M. Farmers’ Perception and Adaptation to Climate Change;
A Case Study of Sekyedumase District in Ghana. In Proceedings of the World Food System—A Contribution
from Europe Farmers’, Tropentag, Zurich, Switzerland, 14–16 September 2010.
22. Tazeze, A.; Haji, J.; Ketema, M. Climate Change Adaptation Strategies of Smallholder Farmers: The Case of
Babilie District, East Harerghe Zone of Oromia Regional State of Ethiopia. J. Econ. Sustain. Dev. 2012, 3, 1–13.
23. Sani, S. Climate Change Adaptation Strategies of Smallholder Farmers: The Case of Assosa District of Benishangul
Gumuz Regional State, Western Ethiopia; Haramaya University: Haramaya, Ethiopia, 2014.
24. Ouédraogo, M.; Dembélé, Y.; Somé, L. Perceptions et stratégies d’adaptation aux changements des
précipitations: Cas des paysans du Burkina Faso. Sci. Chang. Planét. 2010, 21, 87–96.
25. Agossou, D.; Vissoh, V.P.; Agbossou, K.E. Adaptation aux changements climatiques: Perceptions, savoirs
locaux et stratégies d’adaptation des producteurs des communes de Glazoué et de Savalou au centre du
Bénin. Afr. Crop Sci. J. 2012, 20, 565–588.
Environments 2018, 5, 15 17 of 17

26. Oyekale, A.S.; Oladele, O.I. Determinants of climate change adaptation among cocoa farmers in Southwest
Nigeria. J. Sci. Technol. 2012, 2, 154–168.
27. Cochet, H.; Ducourtieux, O.; Garambois, N. Systèmes agraires et Changement climatique: Les chemins de
l’adaptation; Working Paper; AgroParisTech: Paris, France, 2017.
28. Sutcliffe, C.; Dougill, A.J.; Quinn, C.H. Evidence and perceptions of rainfall change in Malawi: Do maize
cultivar choices enhance climate change adaptation in sub-Saharan Africa? Reg. Environ. Chang. 2016, 16,
1215–1224. [CrossRef]
29. Sani, S.; Chalchisa, T. Farmers’ Perception, Impact and Adaptation Strategies to Climate Change among
Smallholder Farmers in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Systematic Review. J. Ressour. Dev. Manag. 2016, 26, 1–8.
30. Kumari, K.A.; Kumar, K.N.R.; Narasimba Rao, C.H. Adverse Effects of Chemical Fertilizers and Pesticides
on Human Health and Environment. Available online: https://www.jchps.com/specialissues/Special%
20issue3/34%20jchps%20si3%20addn%20K.Anitha%20Kumari%20150-151.pdf (accessed on 19 January 2018).
31. Lin, B.B. Resilience in Agriculture through Crop Diversification: Adaptive Management for Environmental
Change. BioScience 2011, 61, 183–193. [CrossRef]
32. Makate, C.; Wang, R.; Makate, M.; Mango, N. Crop diversification and livelihoods of smallholder farmers
in Zimbabwe: Adaptive management for environmental change. SpringerPlus 2016, 5, 2–18. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
33. Ayenan, A.M.T.; Ofori, K.; Ahoton, L.E.; Danquah, A. Pigeonpea [(Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp.)] production
system, farmers’ preferred traits and implications for variety development and introduction in Benin. Agric.
Food Secur. 2017, 1–11. [CrossRef]
34. Mofya-mukuka, R.; Kuhlgatz, C.H. Nutritional Effects of Agricultural Diversification and Commercialization
in Children in Zambia. In Proceedings of the AAEA Annual Meeting, Minneapolis, MN, USA, 27–29 July 2014.
35. Chen, S.E.; Salas, P.C. The Effect of Agricultural Diversification and Commercialization on the
Anthropometric Outcomes of Children: Evidence from Tanzania. Available online: https://ideas.repec.org/
p/ags/aaea15/205050.html (accessed on 19 January).
36. Valdivia, C.; Hodge, S.S.; Raedeke, A. Rural Livelihoods and Agroforestry Practices in the Missouri Flood
Plains. In Proceedings of the 17th Symposium of the International Farming Systems Association, Lake Buena
Vista, FL, USA, 17–20 November 2002.
37. Oelbermann, M.; Smith, C.E. Climate Change Adaptation using Agroforestry Practices: A Case Study from
Costa Rica. In Global Warming Impacts—Case Studies on the Economy, Human Health, and on Urban and Natural
Environments; Casalegno, S., Ed.; InTech: London, UK, 2011; pp. 125–138.
38. Bugayong, L.A. Socioeconomic and Environmental Benefits of Agroforestry Practices in a Community-based
Forest Management Site in the Philippines. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Rural
Livelihoods Forests and Biodiversity, Bonn, Germany, 19–23 May 2003.
39. Zoysa, M.D.; Inoue, M. Climate Change Impacts, Agroforestry Adaptation and Policy Environment in Sri
Lanka. J. For. 2014, 4, 439–456.
40. Torquebiau, E. Agroforestry and Climate Change; Working Paper; CIRAD: Montpellier, France, 2013.
41. Murthy, I.K.; Dutta, S.; Varghese, V.; Kumar, P. Impact of Agroforestry Systems on Ecological. Glob. J. Sci.
Front. Res. 2016, 16, 15–28.
42. Juana, J.S.; Kahaka, Z.; Okurut, F.N. Farmers’ Perceptions and Adaptations to Climate Change in Sub-Sahara
Africa: A Synthesis of Empirical Studies and Implications for Public Policy in African Agriculture. J. Agric
Sci. 2013, 5, 121–135. [CrossRef]
43. IPES-Food. Unravelling the Food—Health Nexus: Addressing Practices, Political Economy, and Power Relations to
Build Healthier Food Systems; IPES-Food: Rom, Italy, 2017.
44. Food and Agriculture Organization. Climate-Smart Agriculture; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2013.
45. Food and Agriculture Organization. “Climate-Smart” Agriculture: Policies, Practices and Financing for Food
Security, Adaptation and Mitigation; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2010.

© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).