Article

Dynamics of Smallholder Farmers’ Livelihood

Adaptation Decision-Making in Central Ethiopia
Dula Etana 1,2,*, Denyse J. R. M. Snelder 3,
Cornelia F. A. van Wesenbeeck 4 and Tjard de Cock Buning 2
1 College of Development Studies, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa P.O. Box 385, Ethiopia
2 Athena Institute of Research, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1085,
1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands; [email protected]
3 Centre for International Cooperation, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1105,

1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands; [email protected]

4 Centre for World Food Studies, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1105,

1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands; [email protected]

* Correspondence: [email protected] or [email protected]

Received: 24 March 2020; Accepted: 22 May 2020; Published: 2 June 2020

Abstract: In previous studies mainly focusing on determinants of adaptation, evidence of the

dynamic process of adaptation decision-making is negligible. The objective of this study was to
investigate the effects of socio-cultural factors, changes in household characteristics, and climate
variables on the transition from non-use to use of adaptation strategies. The study integrated
primary data collected from households with secondary rainfall and temperature data. The
quantitative and qualitative data were analysed using a dynamic random-effects probit model and
a thematic approach, respectively. The result shows strong evidence of path dependence in which
use of a strategy during the previous year significantly increases its current use. Climate-related risk
perception and factual knowledge may not necessarily prompt adaptation action, whereas access to
financial resources and farming-related trainings were consistent positive predictors of farmers’
adaptation decisions. The findings entail that economic capacity and the associated intrinsic
motivation help few farmers to utilise robust and contesting adaptation strategies. For most
households, economic problems and the consequent fatalistic attitude and risk-avoidance behaviour
induce either non-use or use of responsive and accommodating strategies aimed at ensuring
survival. Path dependence in non-use of adaptation strategies and sub-optimal adaptation actions
demand effective institutional supports to address the behavioural and economic barriers of these
households in order to build overall community resilience.

Keywords: climate change; perception; value; resilience; path dependence

1. Introduction
It is almost invariably recognised that the livelihood of smallholder farmers in developing
countries is at increasing risk of the threats posed by climate change and variability (CCV). The
multifaceted environmental, economic (e.g., decline in crop yield) and social (e.g., health) effects of
CCV are already being observed in these countries. The adverse effects of CCV challenge not only
millions of smallholder farmers dependent on agricultural activities but also the national economy in
which substantial share of the national GDP comes from agriculture. The impacts of CCV have led to
an increasing concern about the importance of adaptation as a necessary response strategy to reduce
current and future vulnerability [1–3]. Owing to increasing recognition of the effects of CCV, and
advocacy for adaptation action, there is a surge of empirical works on the subject in the past decades

Sustainability 2020, 12, 4526; doi:10.3390/su12114526 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2020, 12, 4526 2 of 28

[4]. These studies widely documented that demographic and socio-economic characteristics of
households are important factors influencing adaptation decisions [5–11].
Nevertheless, there is scant evidence on the dynamics of adaptation decision-making and the
roles of socio-cultural factors in shaping decisions [2,8]. Most studies investigated adaptation based
on cross-sectional survey data that show the status of adaptation at the time of data collection.
Although these studies are insightful to understand farmers’ decision-making behaviour, they fail to
show changes in adaptation decisions over time. Adaptation is not a discrete measure taken only
once. It is a continuous and iterative process due to spatial and temporal variations in the contexts in
which climate is experienced and livelihood system operates [1]. For instance, vulnerability, which
necessitates adaptation, is a dynamic process that changes continuously as the sources and nature of
risk factors change over time [1]. There are temporal changes and spatial differences in the occurrence
of climate-related risk factors and their occurrence is also unpredictable to take precautionary
measures due to which adaptation responses are expected to vary correspondingly. The social
contexts in which CCV is experienced also vary across time [1]. These include changes in households’
demographic structure, access to livelihood assets and the adaptation roles of institutions that are
important for and have varying implications on adaptation decision-making. The societal dynamics
of adaptation also involves social learning which improves understanding of risks and response
strategies [4]. Barriers to adaptation change over time and may reinforce other barriers, leading to a
vicious cycle [2]. These changes shape how climate risks are framed and adaptation actions are taken.
Household adaptation decision-making processes are either enabled or constrained in these dynamic
contexts [2–4]. Hence, it is not plausible to assume that adaptation decisions made by farmers at one
time and in a given context will work when the context changes. This necessitates the importance of
investigating the intertwined linkages and dynamic effects of changes in climate risk factors, farmers’
sensitivity to CCV and the capacity to adapt.
Evidence on the roles of socio-cultural and behavioural factors in influencing adaptation is
negligible [2,8,12,13]. Economic resources are not the only drivers or deterrents of adaptation, while
economic outcomes are not also the only goals of adaptation. Barriers and facilitators of adaptation
are embedded in both economic resources and socio-cultural factors. Since adaptation decision is
often made in the context of uncertainty about climate risks, socio-cultural factors play important
roles in shaping adaptation intentions and actions [13,14] through their mediating roles in the
identification of risks, choices of adaptation strategies and implementation of adaptation [4,15,16].
Adaptation may necessitate changing existing ways of life to overcome the threats posed by CCV.
However, cultural factors mediate farmers’ readiness to deviate from traditional practices [16]. Even
in the context of exposure to the same climate risks, adaptation responses could differ due to cultural
practices [17]. Societal norms and values shape how farmers’ frame climate risks [18] and determine
the goals and priorities of adaptation, leading to differing decisions [16,19,20]. Therefore, in the
presence of economic capacity to take action, socio-cultural practices and the socially constructed
perception of climate risks, norms and values may constrain engagement in adaptation. These denote
that integrating the economic aspects of adaptation decision-making and the underlying socio-
cultural processes is central to the understanding of farmers’ adaptation decisions to respond to CCV.
The objective of this study was to understand how the decision on the use of in-situ adaptation
strategies changes over time, in response to households’ access to livelihood assets and socio-cultural
characteristics as well as changes in climate variables. Specifically, path dependence in adaptation
decision-making and transitions from non-use to use of adaptation strategies was investigated. The
study was based on mixed methods research in which qualitative and quantitative data were
collected from smallholder farming households and other stakeholders. Unlike previous studies that
considered adaptation action as a static decision, we generated a retrospective pseudo-panel dataset
to examine dynamic binary choice of the use or non-use of adaptation strategies, which was
integrated with qualitative data. Adaptation to CCV is a complex process in which biophysical,
economic, socio-cultural and institutional factors are intertwined to shape farmers’ preferences and
decisions. This requires the use of hybrid methodology and plural epistemology for a richer
understanding of the research problem [3,21,22]. This understanding is crucial for interventions
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4526 3 of 28

aimed at facilitating sustainable adaptation as well as ensuring sustainability of its livelihood

benefits.

2. Conceptual Framework
Adaptation involves changes in social-ecological systems in response to the impacts of CCV in
the context of interacting non-climate factors [3]. Adaptation decisions are made through non-linear
and dynamic interaction between objective aspects of access to and control over resources and
subjective aspects of socio-cultural factors in a given climate and non-climate contexts (Figure 1).
Culture is a latent variable that can be understood through its manifestations such as meanings,
beliefs, practices, norms and values [23]. Culture shapes the capacity to respond to CCV and people’s
motivation to take action [15].
Climate change risk perception is considered as a prerequisite for adaptation [24]. According to
the Social Amplification of Risk Framework, an event of hazard interacts with social, institutional
and cultural processes to amplify or attenuate people’s perception of and responses to risks [25].
While risk information is obtained in manifold ways from different sources, perception is attenuated
or amplified and meanings of the information are defined through social interactions, which, in turn,
influence action [26]. Studies show that high risk perception is positively associated with increased
likelihood of adaptation [10,27–29]. Nevertheless, perception is not sufficient for adaptation [30,31].
When people are uncertain about the occurrence of some climate events, they tend to interpret this
uncertainty in line with their self-interest and hence less likely to take action [32]. High risk perception
is translated to action when it is accompanied by high perceived behavioural control [32].
The differing effect of risk perception on adaptation is ingrained in knowledge about CCV, past
experience of climate-related events, social norms and value orientations [33]. Knowledge and
experience prompt adaptation by increasing understandings about the process of CCV and feelings
of its impacts. Some studies show that greater knowledge is positively associated with taking actions
[32,34]. Research also supports the positive effect of experiencing CCV on risk perception and
adaptation [27,29,35]. Experience has an indirect effect on adaptation behaviour through its influence
on perception, attitude and values [36]. Conversely, negative experience related to CCV could result
in people feeling helpless [29], resulting in inaction.

Figure 1. Conceptual framework of livelihood adaptation to climate change and variability.

Sustainability 2020, 12, 4526 4 of 28

According to Lo [28], the process of risk amplification or attenuation is shaped by social norms.
Risks are perceived and response actions are taken based on learnings that takes place in a social
fabric being influenced by social referrals, expectations and pressures. Empirical works in this area
show the positive effect of social norms on people’s responses to the impacts of CCV [13,28,37,38].
The role of social norm on human action stems from the fact that people often perform actions that
are popular and/or approved in their social settings [39]. However, norm does not always positively
affect behaviour unless, as argued by the focus theory of normative conduct, it is salient at the time
of action [40].
Value plays a significant role in adaptation decision-making [20,32]. According to cultural
cognition theory, people form beliefs about risks in ways that reflect and reinforce their personal
values and commitments to idealised form of social ordering [41]. The cultural ways of life that people
subscribe to form a belief and disposed to react involve, among other things, values associated with
adherence to tradition, responsibilities to take actions against risks, risk preferences and trusted
sources of information/knowledge. Traditional values, emphasising conformity, may give priority to
adaptation strategies that support local knowledge and cultural identities, whereas modern values,
emphasising openness-to-change and self-enhancement values, may prioritise scientifically based
technological adaptations [20]. Adaptation involves both proactive actions taken by individual
farmers and planned actions implemented by the government. Given that most adaptation decisions
are made at the household level [2], the roles that individuals play in adaptation and their
responsibility to take action are imperative [42]. Even though people may believe that CCV is a threat,
they may not take responsibility to take action due partly to externalisation of blame and
accountability as well as motivational factors [43]. Uncertainty in weather conditions puts farmers in
a value dilemma reflected in varying risk preferences and different response strategies. Studies show
that risk averse households are less likely to undertake adaptation strategies that are more profitable
but involve risks such as planting new crop varieties and using new technologies [8,10], but they do
increase crop diversification [44]. Cultural cognition also determines the types of information that
people find reliable [45]. Individuals attend to source of information/knowledge in a selective manner
that reinforces their cultural predispositions towards environmental risks [41]. These competing
value orientations result in different adaptation decisions and choices of strategies.
Notwithstanding the important roles of socio-cultural factors, demographic and economic
factors play vital roles in adaptation decision-making. Farmers’ adaptation decisions aimed at
maximising economic utilities are the functions of their demographic and economic resources. As
reported in several studies, farmers’ adaptation decisions are positively influenced by education [5,7],
being a younger farmer [11,46], male headship and household size [7], access to credit [5–7,9,46],
wealth [6,11,47], livestock ownership [7] and land ownership or its level of fertility [6]. Social capital
is also important for adaptation [5,11], as it helps to overcome constraints of adaptation activities.
These are not only resources required for adaptation but also factors that influence risk perception,
knowledge, experience, norm and value orientations [33]. Institutional support mechanisms are also
among the enablers or barriers of adaptation [3,48]. Institutions mediate access to and control over
livelihood assets that are crucial for households’ to be resilient to climate risks or to have the capacity
to adapt in the case of vulnerability. The adaptation roles of institutions are related to broader
development interventions that directly enhance resilience or that may involve activities that are
specifically tailored to adaptation. For instance, many studies have shown that access to agricultural
extension services significantly promotes adaptation [5–9,46]. As part of the extension services,
formal institutions support adaptation through provision of agricultural inputs (e.g., fertiliser, seed
and pesticide), trainings on the use of technologies (e.g., use of surface water for irrigation, use of
compost and crop storage techniques) and motivational activities (e.g., experience sharing visits) [49].
Informal institutions also serve as a safety net or build adaptive capacity by facilitating access to
livelihood assets [22,50].
In general, household adaptation decision is the function of: (i) risk perception, knowledge, past
experience, norms and values associated with CCV; (ii) access to livelihood assets; (iii) climate and
non-climate factors; and (iv) institutional factors. Due to non-linear relationships and complexities
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4526 5 of 28

involving multiple feedback mechanisms, the empirical interrelationships between these

components are inconclusive on the one hand, and the importance of the variables and the magnitude
of relationships between them are not the same in all contexts on the other hand. The framework of
this study (Figure 1) integrated these components to uncover the heterogeneity of the characteristics
of households and the contexts in which they make adaptation decisions and implement adaptation
strategies [2].

Figure 2. Location map of the study areas.

3. Data and Methods

Study areas: Ethiopia is one of the sub-Saharan African countries that is most vulnerable to the
impacts of CCV. Its vulnerability mainly arises from excessive dependence on nature-dependent
agricultural activities in a fragile environment and lower capacity to adapt to the impacts of CCV.
This study focused on agricultural system in three districts where mixed farming is the dominant
means of livelihood. These three districts were Kimbibit, Kuyu and Boset selected from North Shoa
and East Shoa Zones of Oromia region in Central Ethiopia (Figure 2). The districts were selected
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4526 6 of 28

based on the consideration of similarity of livelihood systems (i.e., mixed farming), prevalence of
food insecurity and representation of different agro-ecological settings. They dominantly represent
highland (H), midland (M) and lowland (L) agro-ecological settings, respectively. Farmers follow
bimodal rainfall distribution to produce crops: belg rain (short rainy season between March and May)
and kiremt rain (long rainy season between June and September). Livestock production is integrated
into crop production by almost all households in all areas. The areas are characterised by the
prevalence of climate related risks (i.e., climate variability and extreme events). Due to exposure to
these risks frequently occurring in the areas, they are under the support of the Productive Safety-net
Program aimed at reducing vulnerability to climate and non-climate risks.
Research design: This study used a mixed methods research design. It is a type of research
involving combination of quantitative and qualitative research techniques, methods, approaches and
concepts in a single study to address a research question [51]. Its main advantage is that it draws from
the strengths of quantitative and qualitative research methods, and it recompenses for their
respective limitations to provide stronger and complete understanding of a research problem,
validation of one set of findings with the other through corroboration of findings and further
exploration of knowledge based on contrasting findings than using either quantitative or qualitative
approach alone [52,53]. It also provides different types of information as well as detailed accounts of
the research participants [52]. The results of the quantitative strand enable generalisation, whereas
those of the qualitative strand capture understanding of respondents’ perspectives and contextual
explanatory factors [53]. Understanding the multifaceted interaction between and the dynamics of
adaptation decision-making require the generation of a broad spectrum of data for which mixed
methods is appropriate.

Figure 3. Flow chart of convergent mixed methods research design.

Among the diverse mixed methods research designs, this study employed convergent parallel
mixed methods [54] with an equal emphasis on the quantitative and qualitative research approaches.
In the convergent parallel mixed methods design, the quantitative and qualitative data are collected
concurrently but analysed separately and the two results are merged in the interpretation stage
[52,54]. As suggested in Creswell and Plano Clark [54] and shown in Figure 3, the convergent design
was implemented in four steps. First, both quantitative and qualitative data were collected
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4526 7 of 28

concurrently. Second, the quantitative and qualitative data were analysed separately and
independently. Third, the two sets of results were merged make comparisons. The results were
compared for the purpose of identification of convergences, divergences and complementarities of
the findings obtained from the two research methods [54]. Fourth, the comparative results were
interpreted.
Sample size and sampling techniques: Given that adaptation decisions are mainly made at the
household level, and barriers to adaptation operate at this level [2,12], this study focused on
households as the centre of adaptation decision-making. The sample size of the study was
determined using sample size calculation for finite population [55]. The population size of the district
with smallest number of households yielded a sample size of 270 households. Considering each study
area as an independent unit, the total sample size was computed to be 810 households. The sampling
unit was farming households and multi-stage sampling technique was used to identify them. While
the districts (agro-ecological settings) and the kebeles (lowest administrative units in Ethiopia) were
selected using purposive sampling being stratified by agro-ecological settings, households were
selected using simple random sampling technique. For qualitative data collection, the participants
were selected through purposive sampling technique with due consideration of different
demographic and socio-economic groups of farmers.
Sources of data and methods of collection: The primary sources of data were household heads and
officers in governmental and non-governmental organisations. Primary data were collected using
event history calendar, cross-sectional survey questionnaire, focus group discussion, in-depth
interview and key informant interview. The use of event history calendar is suitable to collect
retrospective data on farmers’ adaptation decisions across time. To overcome memory related
problems as well as the cognitive task of recalling the timing of various past events, visual cues (years,
ages and respondents’ reports of other life events) and “noteworthy” events (national and local) that
can be easily remembered by the respondents were used [56]. In addition, the reporting period was
limited to a maximum of 15 years to avoid the challenges of recalling events of the distant past. A
cross-sectional survey questionnaire was used to collect data on general household information;
households’ knowledge about CCV, past experience of climate variability and extreme events, social
norms and values. Twelve focus group discussions (FGD), 30 in-depth interviews (IND) and 19 key
informant interviews (KII) were conducted to generate data on how smallholder farmers deal with
the problem of CCV as well as on the roles of institutions in facilitating adaptation. Primary data
were collected between February and August 2018. The secondary data on rainfall and temperature
of the study areas were obtained from the National Meteorological Agency of Ethiopia. The data
covered a period of 30 years (1988–2017).
Definition of variables: The dependent variables were the status of use of adaptation strategies in
different years. They were time-varying variables recorded for a maximum of 15 years for each
household (2003–2017). They took the value of 1 during the years they were used by households and
0 otherwise. Three groups of explanatory variables were used: socio-cultural, demographic and
economic (livelihood assets) and climate variables. The socio-cultural variables were risk perception,
knowledge, experience, social norm and value orientations. The socio-cultural variables were
measured on Likert scale with number of responses ranging from three to five. The number of
responses was determined based on related literature, assumed complexity of the content to be
measured and convenience for farmers, with dominantly lower levels of education, to comprehend
and distinguish between the different choices. A well-known issue in Likert scale is the use of a
midpoint response option mostly referring to an undecided/neutral position. If its essence is wrongly
understood, attribution of specific values to midpoint responses biases the final computed score. In
our unidimensional measurement scale, the lowest values show absence of the attribute and highest
values show the maximum amount of the attribute. Thus, the midpoints indicate moderate amounts
of the attributes, instead of neutral or undecided position, as evidenced from the categories (low,
medium and high).
Risk perception was measured using a list of eight questions, measured on a five-point scale,
that comprehensively assess farmers’ concern about CCV (the questions had high scale reliability
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4526 8 of 28

coefficient to jointly measure risk perception, alpha = 0.93). The index was then classified into three
categories (low, moderate and high). Farmers’ knowledge was measured based on households’
responses to ten factual questions about causes and consequences of and responses to climate change
(alpha = 0.74). The knowledge index was grouped into three categories of responses (low, medium
and high). Past experience related to CCV was measured by asking respondents whether or not they
have experienced drought, flood, snowfall, frost, early termination and delayed onset of rainfall and
waterlogging during the last 15 years. It was a yes/no question and the responses were added-up to
get the number of events the households were exposed to. The variable was recoded into three
categories (low, medium and high). Descriptive norm was measured by asking four questions,
measured on four-point scale, on whether the household head observed important others (relatives,
neighbours, model farmers and most farmers in their village) on the use of different adaptation
strategies (alpha = 0.89). The index was categorised into three classes (low, medium and high). For all
indices, the cut-off points to create categories were determined using cumulative square root of the
frequency method.
Four value dilemma domains were used to collect data on farmers’ value orientations pertaining
to the impacts of and responses to CCV. These values, which were adapted from Schwartz’s value
scale and referring to openness-to-change vs. conservatism dimension, were tradition vs. change,
societal responsibility vs. individual responsibility, risk avoidance vs. risk taking and trust of
institutional knowledge vs. local knowledge. Value pairs were used as some farmers endorse one
value while others endorse its counter-value. Farmers were requested to indicate their positions on
how often they adhere to either of the two opposing values or both. Since households might be in a
value dilemma and less rigid to adhere to either of the extremes, the third category of response was
created for each value domain and labelled as “both”, which shows context-specificity in farmers
inclination to either of the two opposing values.
Demographic and socio-economic characteristics of households that were reported in previous
studies to be influencing adaptation decisions were used as control variables in this study. Following
the sustainable livelihoods framework [57], these variables were categorised into five groups of
assets: human, financial, physical, natural and social capital (Figure 1). Specifically, these variables
were age of the household head (grouped as 20–39, 40–59 and ≥ 60), sex of the household head,
educational level of the household head (no education, primary or above), size of land owned,
household size, number of oxen owned, financial capital (received credit/remittance/had savings or
not), attended farmer trainings, member of farmer groups and agro-ecological setting (highland,
midland and lowland).
Standardised scores were used to measure changes in belg and kiremt rainfall as well as extreme
events to make the indices comparable. Relative change was first computed as a difference between
annual values and the 30-years long-term average, followed by division by the standard deviation.
Extreme climate events were measured using Consecutive Dry Days (CDD) with precipitation of less
than 1 mm and Consecutive Wet Days (CWD) with precipitation of at least 1 mm. These indices,
developed by The World Meteorological Organization Expert Team on Climate Change Detection
and Indices, were computed using ClimPACT2 software [58]. Times of onset of belg and kiremt rainfall
were used to measure rainfall variability in the study areas. The probability of exceedance of 75%,
50% and 25% were computed using RAINBOW software [59] to categorise the time of onset of kiremt
rainfall as early, normal or late, respectively, during each year. All the climate indices were calculated
on annual basis.
Data analysis: The study used results-based convergent synthesis design in which quantitative
and qualitative data were analysed separately and the results were integrated during the final
synthesis. The changes in households’ adaptation decisions were investigated using a dynamic
random effects binary probit model in STATA [60,61]. Random effects models were preferred to fixed
effects models primarily for two reasons. First, estimates of fixed effects models are based on time-
variant characteristics with limited or no contribution of time-invariant variables to the analysis [62].
Random effects models, however, allow for estimation of the effects of both time-variant and time-
invariant explanatory variables, both of which were the key interests of this study. Second, although
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4526 9 of 28

fixed effects models control for unobserved characteristics that do not change over time, failure to
account for unobserved heterogeneity arising from unmeasured or unknown time-varying variables
biases the estimates [62].
Dynamic random effects probit model is used to model dichotomous outcomes of dynamic
processes which is suitable to examine transitions between different adaptation decisions. Dynamic
panel models are particularly important to estimate path dependence, the impact of past adaptation
decision on the current decision. In this model, path dependence was accounted for by modelling
lagged values of the adaptation decision (yit−1) on the outcome variable (yit). We investigated the
dynamic linkage between changes in adaptation decisions and household and community
characteristics over time by modelling time-varying and time-invariant household characteristics and
exogenous changes in climate variables.
Accurate parameter estimate of a dynamic random effects model requires addressing the
problems of initial condition and unobserved heterogeneity. The initial condition problem arises
from the difference between the beginning date of observation and the actual start of the process that
leads to the outcome variable [60]. When the two are different, as is the case in this study, there is
correlation between initial observation and unobserved factors, which biases the estimate [60]. The
other concern is the difficulty to distinguish between genuine path dependence and spurious
dependence when there is a correlation between outcome variable and unobserved heterogeneity. To
address these problems, modelling the unobserved effect conditional on the initial and within
average values of the explanatory variables (and also on the initial status of the dependent variable)
is suggested [61]. However, if the panels are short and the means are based on all periods, the use of
within means of time-varying explanatory variables performs poorly [63]. Thus, Rabe-Hesketh and
Skrondal [63] suggested the inclusion of initial-period values of the time-varying variables as
additional explanatory variables. Accordingly, the probability of transition from non-use to use of an
adaptation strategy between t−1 and t was estimated as a function of lagged values of the dependent
variable, a set of explanatory variables and household unobserved heterogeneity. Unobserved
heterogeneity was captured by modelling initial period of the dependent variable, initial period of
the time-varying explanatory variables and within-unit averages of the time-varying explanatory
variables [60]. Households entered the risk of adaptation in 2003 if they were established in or before
2003. For households established after this time, the year of establishment was the beginning year of
observation of their adaptation history. Households leave the risk at the end of the observation period
in 2017, with the duration of observation ranging from 1 to 15 years. Given that generation of lagged
values drops the first observation of each household, the computation was made based on
unbalanced panel of 792 households, yielding 9190 observations (household-years). Year fixed-effects
were included in all models to control for the effects of time on adaptation decisions.
Thematic analysis was used to analyse qualitative data [64] using ATLAS.ti. First, themes were
identified based on the research objectives and the conceptual framework. Second, coding schemes
were established through repeated readings of selected transcripts. Third, the issues in the transcripts
were coded following the coding scheme. Lastly, similarities, differences and connections between
the contents in the coding schemes were analysed to get qualitative understanding of the data
(interpretation and making of meanings). The findings were compared with the statistical results for
in-depth understanding and unpacking of new perspectives on the dynamics of adaptation decision-
making. Integration of the quantitative and qualitative results and comparison of the findings were
made when presenting the results of the study by major topics [54].

4. Results

4.1. Description of the Sample

Most households had male household heads (86.7%). About 37% of the households were headed
by young persons (20–39), whereas household headed by adults (40–59) constituted 39% of the
respondents (Table A1). The remaining one-fourth were headed by aged persons (≥ 60 years). Nearly
two-third of the household heads had no formal education. About 40% of the household heads had
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4526 10 of 28

high risk perception, whereas 21% had low risk perception. The share of households who had high,
medium and low knowledge about climate change was 47%, 36% and 17%, respectively. About 44.4%
of the households had high past experience of climate variability and extreme events, whereas
slightly over one-fourth (28.9%) had low experience. Higher proportion of the household heads
(43.7%) had low descriptive norm. About 40% of the households value tradition over change. Nearly
half of the household heads (49%) reported that addressing the problem of CCV is the responsibility
of both farmers and the government. More than half of the households (53%) were risk-averse and
43% of the households reported trust in institutional knowledge over local knowledge.
The average belg and kiremt rainfall for the period 2003–2017 were higher in the midland areas
(Table A2). Conversely, the average number of CDDs was higher in the highland and lowland areas.
Failure of belg rain was observed in slightly over half of the years of observation in the highland and
lowland areas but it was only one in five years that it occurred in the midland areas. During about
two-third of the year of observation in the lowland and midland areas, kiremt rain started at the
normal time.

4.2. Farmers’ Adaptation Responses to Multiple Threats and Selection Rationales

Farmers faced multiple threats to their livelihoods and these threats played key roles in
necessitating adaptation and shaping decision structures. As noted by farmers, rainfall variability (in
amount, distribution and time of onset and cessation) and extreme events (e.g., drought and flood)
were the common climate stimuli in the study areas. Farmers reported that their livelihoods were
further challenged by non-climate risk factors. These included price volatility of consumption goods
and farm products, youth unemployment, landlessness or owning small plot of land and inter-
communal conflict. There were also biophysical hazards such as worms affecting crops, yellow rust
(Puccina striiformis f. sp. Tritici) and landslides. Landslides were a major problem in the midland areas.
Households used a wide range of adaptation strategies to respond to these climate and non-
climate risks (Figure 4). Crop diversification was the most commonly used strategy in all areas. Due
to high variability in the time of onset of rainfall, farmers used changing planting time and crop type
as a response strategy. Although shifting to production of new types of crops was very limited in the
study areas, changing crop type mainly follows seasonal calendar. Maize and sorghum are planted
following belg rain in April. If there is no belg rain, farmers shift to sowing other crops such as teff (Tef
eragrostis)—an annual cereal crop, in kiremt. The percent of households using improved seed varieties
ranged from about 28% in the midland areas to 50% in the highland areas. The proportion of
households using irrigation was very small in the highland areas due to lack of water sources. In the
midland areas, many farmers relied on small streams to irrigate small plots of land to produce
vegetables. Irrigation in some parts of the lowland areas was mainly based on one of the largest rivers
in Ethiopia, Awash. Water harvesting and hand-dug wells were used by very few farmers to produce
vegetables. Terracing was the dominant land management activity in the study areas. Some
households also planted trees. Very few households produced compost for use around homesteads.
Most non-farm activities involved trading (grain, livestock, local drinks and small shops) and
daily labour works. Women engaged in activities such as spinning, preparation of locally prepared
alcoholic and non-alcoholic drinks and production of handcrafts. Due to uncertain climate conditions
and sensitivity of farming to manifold adversities, households in all areas used multiple adaptation
strategies and diversified sources of income. Although few in number, there were households
engaged in rearing dairy cows, poultry and apiculture. Farm-based adaptation strategies were also
coupled with the use of production-enhancing farm inputs such as inorganic fertiliser, herbicide and
pesticide. In the highland areas where waterlogging is highly problematic, a technology called Broad
Bed and Furrow Maker (BBM) was used by many farmers to drain water from the crop field.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4526 11 of 28

100
90
Percent of households
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Changing Changing Planting Improved Land Irrigation Non-farm
planting time crop type variety of seeds management
crops

Highland Midland Lowland

Figure 4. Variation in the use of adaptation strategies by agro-ecological settings.

Farmers’ selection of adaptation strategies was influenced by perceived importance of the

strategies, experimentation, peer experience, financial resources and physical factors. Farmers
explained the perceived importance of using improved seeds as follows: “people here are using
improved varieties…Unless we sow these, we do not get yield from other crops…Other crop types require longer
time to mature” [FGD-L-10]. There were also farmers who used their own experimentation to select
the most preferred strategies. One farmer explained this saying that “we use different amount of fertilizer
on a small plot of land to see its differential impacts as compared to the remaining farmland. If the yield is good,
we use that amount of fertilizer on wider farmland during the next cropping season” [IND-M-15]. In one
FGD, the role of peer experience in the selection of adaptation strategies was stated as follows: “if a
farmer in an adjacent plot obtains good production, other farmers start thinking about how that person obtained
good production. So, a farmer can observe the situation on the farm plot of others and use that strategy” [FGD-
M-5]. Denoting the selection effect of financial resources, farmers asserted that strategies such as
irrigation, livestock fattening and trading require relatively higher financial capital and hence less
used by most farmers. Farmers with limited capacity resort to conventional farming or activities that
are not capital-intensive such as daily labour works. Physical factors (e.g., soil fertility, plain or
sloping topography and rainfall conditions) were stated to have influenced selection by encouraging
or restraining the use of specific adaptation and productivity-enhancing strategies.

4.3. Correlates of Adaptation Dynamics

Smallholder farming households were highly heterogeneous in their decisions to use adaptation
strategies that there is a move between use and non-use of strategies. In addition, whilst some
households continuously use specific or a combination of adaptation strategies, others do not use the
strategies at all. The results of this study show that these variations in farmers’ adaptation decisions
are the functions of fatalistic attitude, path dependence, households’ access to livelihood assets, socio-
cultural factors and climate and non-climate risks.
Fatalism: Farmers’ fatalistic attitude as a cause for non-use or exit from use of adaptation
strategies was manifested through the belief that the problem of CCV is beyond the capacity of
actions to be taken; perceiving that available strategies are either inappropriate or ineffective; lack of
intrinsic motivation to attend farmers’ trainings presuming that it is not useful; and lack of
commitment to make efforts for improvement. This is clearly observed from farmers’ expressions
such as “nothing is undone by farmers”; “we did everything but no improvement”; “can’t do anything to
overcome this problem”; “we don’t have the capacity to tackle the cold weather condition”.
Path dependence: Table 1 shows the results of dynamic random effects binary probit model that
was fitted to examine adaptation decisions in different years. Controlling for unobserved
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4526 12 of 28

heterogeneity and households’ socio-cultural and economic characteristics as well as climate

variables, the results show strong evidence of path dependence in which the probability of using a
strategy in a given year was positively affected by the probability of using the strategy during the
preceding year. Path dependence was observed in all adaptation strategies considered in this study.
The findings from the qualitative data similarly show persistence in both adaptation and non-
adaptation, as evidently described in one of the FGDs that “those who have resources get improved
overtime whilst the poor continue going down from year to year” [FGD-H-3].
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4526 13 of 28

Table 1. Estimated marginal effects of dynamic random effects probit model for adaptation decisions (n = 9190).

Planting
Changing Changing Improved Land Non-
Variable Name Category Various Irrigation
Planting Time Crop Type Seeds Management Farm
Crops
0.139
Yt−1 (TV) Lagged status 0.107 *** 0.071 *** 0.024 *** 0.105 *** 0.218 *** 0.136 ***
***
Livelihood Assets
Age of the head (TV) (RC Young −0.012 0.005 −0.001 0.004 −0.011 0.005 −0.005
= Adult) Old 0.005 −0.001 −0.004 −0.003 −0.012 0.006 −0.017
Sex of the head Female −0.012 −0.004 0.001 −0.051 *** −0.025 * −0.008 * −0.013
Number of
Household size (TV) household 0.005 ** 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.002
members
At least primary 0.021
Education −0.004 0.012 ** 0.002 0.014 * −0.001 0.008 *
education ***
Land size (TV) Size of land owned −0.001 0.007 0.007 * −0.022 ** −0.001 0.011 −0.016
Number of oxen
Oxen (TV) 0.003 0.008 ** 0.004 ** 0.003 0.012 ** −0.002 0.004
owned
Attended
Farmer training (TV) 0.025 *** 0.019 *** 0.003 0.015 ** 0.037 *** 0.003 −0.013
farmers’ training
Member of farmer
Farmer group (TV) −0.013 0.001 0.002 0.013 0.021 −0.001 −0.002
group
Access to credit
Financial capital (TV) 0.012 * 0.013 ** −0.001 0.021 ** 0.021 ** 0.007 0.015 **
and had savings
Socio-cultural factors
Risk perception (RC = Medium −0.001 −0.005 −0.002 0.001 −0.004 0.003 0.003
Low) High −0.034 ** −0.004 −0.001 −0.009 0.011 0.001 0.004
Climate Change Medium −0.009 −0.021 ** −0.012 * −0.004 0.029 * 0.001 −0.011
Knowledge (RC = Low) High −0.006 −0.031 *** −0.003 0.011 0.028 * 0.002 −0.009
Descriptive Norm (RC = Medium 0.003 −0.007 −0.003 0.006 0.021 * −0.001 0.011 *
Low) High −0.007 −0.011 * −0.001 0.009 0.008 0.001 −0.011
Past Experience (RC = Medium 0.005 0.001 −0.001 −0.007 0.034 ** 0.008 * 0.003
Low) High −0.009 0.004 0.001 0.009 0.057 *** 0.007 * 0.014 **
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4526 14 of 28

Change and
Change vs Tradition (RC −0.009 0.009 0.008 * 0.024 ** 0.011 0.007 * 0.011
Tradition
= Tradition)
Change −0.001 0.007 0.002 0.023 ** 0.004 0.006 0.007
Social and −0.013
−0.019 * 0.015 ** 0.004 0.007 −0.029 ** 0.002
Responsibility (RC = individual *
Social responsibility) Individual
0.034 ** 0.043 *** 0.006 0.036 ** −0.009 0.012 ** −0.009
responsibility
Risk avoidance vs. Risk Avoidance and
0.015 −0.004 −0.014 ** 0.015 0.026 ** 0.005 0.014 *
taking (RC =Risk taking
avoidance) Risk taking 0.018 * −0.009 −0.008 0.002 0.027 ** 0.003 −0.005
Institutional and
Knowledge source (RC = 0.027 ** −0.011 0.001 0.017 ** −0.023 * −0.003 0.011
local
Institutional)
Local 0.004 −0.016 ** 0.003 0.002 −0.037 ** −0.004 0.011
* p < 0.1; ** p < 0.05; *** p < 0.001. TV—time varying variables; RC—reference category. Note: All models were estimated including initial status and mean values of
time-varying explanatory variables as well as climate variables.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4526 15 of 28

Livelihood assets: Adaptation involves the capacity to make investments. However, farmers do
not have the same capacity (livelihood assets) to use adaptation strategies, due to which they make
varying adaptation decisions. The probabilities of using improved seed varieties and land
management were lower respectively by 5.1% and 2.5% for female-headed households compared to
their male counterparts. Household size was positively associated with higher probability of
changing planting time in response to varying rainfall conditions. The propensity to change crop
type, use improved seeds and irrigation and engage in non-farm activities was positively affected by
educational level of the household heads (Table 1).
Increase in land size significantly increased crop diversification but significantly reduced the use
of improved seed varieties. The number of oxen owned by households significantly increased the
probability of changing crop type and planting various crops. The finding of the qualitative data
similarly showed that farmers who lack oxen fail to make use of the opportunity to sow seeds when
rain falls. “A person who does not have oxen waits for the support of others to plough his/her farmland. While
waiting to get oxen from someone, raining time may pass and the farmland gets dry” [FGD-L-9]. Access to
financial capital during a given year significantly increased the probability of changing planting time
and crop type, using improved seeds and engaging in land management and non-farm activities.
Complementing evidence from qualitative data show that the poor benefitted less from loans given
by microfinance institutions. Since it is provided as a group loan, the poor are often excluded from
groups assuming that they are unable to pay back the credit or claimed to use the money for purchase
of consumption goods without making any productive investments. When they get a loan, the money
is mostly used to buy fertilisers or improved seeds, the benefit of which is reliant on the weather
condition. If productions are lost, they will be obliged to dispose the very few assets they have to pay
back the money. These, coupled with high interest rate, discouraged farmers from taking loans for
adaptation investments.
Socio-cultural factors: Contrary to our expectation, high climate change risk perception was
associated with significantly lower probability of changing planting time. The use of the other
strategies did not differ by the level of risk perception. Surprisingly, households with high or medium
knowledge about climate change had lower probability of changing crop type and diversifying crops.
We found the same result with different model specifications. On the other hand, the probability of
undertaking land management activities was significantly higher for households with better climate
knowledge. Compared to households with low descriptive norm, those that have moderate
descriptive norm had higher probabilities of engaging in land management and non-farm activities.
Conversely, the probability of changing crop type was low for households with high descriptive
norm. The qualitative evidence similarly showed that observation of adaptation experience of other
farmers is both a motivating and discouraging factor. Farmers asserted that they use adaptation
strategies by observing the successes of others and also get demotivated when the outcome of the
observed behaviour is contrary to their expectation. Discontent discontinuation was particularly high
when the observed failure is associated with the use of new technologies. “In the past years, technologies
were changing. We were told to plant in line mixing together seeds and fertilizers. Farmers who used this
method obtained little production than those who have sown in the conventional way. So, farmers concluded
that the advice they received was wrong. In the other time, new method of sowing came. It was to spread fertilizer
first and then sow the seeds. We tried this method. We were not successful. This year, the third technology
came…We are swinging between diverse ideas. These issues are responsible for failure of farmers to follow
technologies in similar patterns” [FGD-M-5]. The model results further show the positive effect of high
past experience of climate events on the use of land management activities, irrigation and non-farm
activities.
Farmers’ adaptation decisions vary by value orientations. The use of improved seeds was
significantly higher by about 2% for household heads valuing change in farming activities instead of
adhering to traditional methods of production. Likewise, the qualitative evidence show that farmers
who tend to adhere to traditional farming practices were more conservative to try new technologies.
Farmers noted that “when we use emerging technologies, we try on small plot of land since we lack confidence.
We suspect that the traditional method may be superior and the new technology is risky. The trainer knows
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4526 16 of 28

only theoretically. But, we know the traditional method practically, which we feel it is better” [FGD-M-5].
Valuing individual responsibility to take adaptation action was significantly associated with higher
probability of changing planting time and crop type, using improved seeds and irrigation. Risk-
taking households had higher probability of changing planting time and engaging in land
management and non-farm activities. However, they were less likely to diversify crops. The
qualitative evidence complemented that risk avoidance behaviour is particularly related to the local
weather conditions. For instance, farmers’ preference to avoid risks tends to be high in the study areas
due to failure of belg rain which results in production only once a year. In FGD-M-5, this was
explained as follows: “Had we harvested every three or four months, we would have tried frequently. If this
annual production is damaged, the family will be severely affected by food shortage”. Repeated exposure to
weather-related problems seemed to have also increased risk avoidance behaviour. “We have stopped
sowing with the fear that lack of rain may occur again. Last rainy season [kiremt], most farmers did not plough
their farmland due to fear of lack of rainfall that they have experienced during the last five years” [FGD-L-11].
Trust of local knowledge was negatively associated with changing crop type and land management.
On the other hand, trusting both institutional and local knowledge increased the use of improved
seeds.
Institutional support: Informal institutions in the study areas supported adaptation through
facilitation of access to livelihood assets such as labour and oxen, supports that are crucial for poor
farmers. The supports were mainly based on reciprocity which not only excludes the poor but also
limits their social support domain to close relatives. As one farmer disclosed, “we help each other on
farming activities. If I help them, they also help me…No one helps you for free. There is no free service here”
[IND-M-16]. The power relation underlying the support system also seemed to have worked against
the poor. Another farmer succinctly pointed-out this as, “nobody thinks that they [better-off farmers]
should provide assistance to the weak and poor individuals. Even, those who are stronger [economically] are
exploiting the weak and the poor” [IND-H-6]. Furthermore, farmers emphasised the gradual decline in
mutual support due to the effects of CCV that made most people economically weak. Local
government offices were the main formal institutions providing adaptation support, through
agricultural extension workers, in terms of trainings and advices on farming techniques and use of
technologies, which was found to have favourably shaped farmers’ adaptation decisions. The
quantitative results indicated that the probability of changing planting time and crop type, using
improved seeds and undertaking land management activities was significantly higher for household
heads who attended farmers’ trainings. Government was also the main supplier of farm inputs (e.g.,
fertilisers, improved seeds and treatments). However, there was substantial difference between
households in access to and use of these inputs which farmers attributed to lack/inadequate supply,
delayed supply, unequal distribution and supply of poor quality inputs. When farmers failed to
obtain from the government, they were obliged to buy from the market. Despite limited availability
in the market, it is sold with highly inflated price which discouraged farmers from using. There was
also quality concern (required brand and expiry date). Farmers also disclosed that they do not get
adequate and continuous support from agricultural extension workers as their support is mainly
limited to geographically accessible areas. Farmers further explicated lack of access to modern
weather information as a constraint to their adaptation decisions. The interviewed agriculture officers
themselves noted that they do not have specific weather information to share with farmers. The
adaptation support of non-governmental organisations was observed in very few areas. Their
spatiotemporally limited supports included providing improved seed varieties, engagement in land
management activities, trainings and construction of water harvesting schemes and irrigation canals.
Climate factors: The probability of changing planting time was significantly low during years of
high belg rain but significantly high during years when the amount of kiremt rainfall was one standard
deviation higher than the 30 years average kiremt rainfall (Table 2). Compared to the years when the
time of onset of belg rainfall was normal, failure of belg rain was associated with significant decline in
changing planting time and crop type as well as the use of improved seed varieties. Similarly, the
probability of changing planting time and crop type was lower during years of early onset of belg rain
as compared to normal time of onset. However, during years of late onset of belg rain, the probability
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4526 17 of 28

of changing planting time was significantly higher. Late onset of kiremt rainfall was associated with
lower probability of changing planting time. Increase in the amount of belg rainfall significantly
increased crop diversification. The probability of undertaking land management activities was
significantly higher during years of increased CDD but lower during years of smaller CWD. While
increase in the number of CWD decreased the use of irrigation, late onset of belg rain and early onset
of kiremt rain increased the probability of using irrigation. The probability of involving in non-farm
activities was significantly lower during years when the amount of kiremt rain was higher than the
30 years average.

Table 2. Marginal effects of climatic variables and agro-ecological settings on adaptation decisions.

Changing Planting
Variable Changing Improve Land Non-
Planting Various Irrigation
Categories Crop Type d Seeds Management Farm
Time Crops
Average rainfall
Belg rainfall
−0.006 ** 0.001 0.003 * 0.001 0.004 0.001 0.003
(TV)
Kiremt rainfall
0.007 ** 0.003 −0.001 0.003 0.003 −0.002 -0.005 **
(TV)
Extreme events
CDD (TV) 0.001 0.001 −0.001 0.003 0.009 * −0.001 0.003
CWD (TV) −0.001 0.001 −0.001 −0.004 * −0.010 * −0.005 ** 0.004
Belg variability
Belg failure
−0.024 *** −0.013 ** 0.001 −0.024 ** 0.002 −0.001 0.009
(TV)
Early onset
−0.027 ** −0.012 * −0.003 −0.018 −0.007 −0.003 −0.004
(TV)
Normal onset (RC)
Late onset
0.017 ** −0.003 0.004 −0.007 0.011 0.011 ** −0.002
(TV)
Kiremt variability
Early onset
−0.001 −0.005 −0.004 0.002 −0.007 0.015 *** 0.004
(TV)
Normal onset (RC)
Late onset
−0.018 ** 0.004 −0.001 0.005 −0.012 0.001 0.001
(TV)
Agro-ecological setting
Highland −0.069 *** −0.004 0.009 0.025 ** −0.037 ** −0.022 ** 0.015
Midland (RC)
Lowland −0.026 ** −0.012 0.003 0.062 *** −0.012 0.011 ** 0.012
* p < 0.1; ** p < 0.05; *** p < 0.001; TV—time varying variables; RC- reference category.

The likelihood of undertaking different adaptation measures varied by agro-ecological settings.

Compared to midland areas, the probability of changing planting time was lower by about 7% and
3% in the highland and lowland areas, respectively. In both the highland and the lowland areas,
farmers had higher probabilities (3% and 6%, respectively) of using improved seed varieties than
those in the midland areas. Farmers in the highland areas had lower probabilities of using terracing
than farmers in the midland areas, which is partly related, as indicated by farmers, to the dominantly
plain topography of the area. In the highland areas where there is limited access to water, the
probability of using irrigation was significantly lower than the midland areas whereas farmers in the
lowland areas had significantly higher probability of using irrigation. There was no difference
between the three areas in changing crop type, planting various crops and involving in non-farm
activities.
Non-climate factors: In the midland areas, landslide was a critical challenge to the use of some
strategies as it damages farmlands and irrigation canals. As noted by one farmer, “there is no solution
for land slide. There are farmers who have totally abandoned their farmlands. I do not think that farmers can
earn their means of living from farming” [FGD-M-7]. Although it was observed only in one of the study
kebeles in the lowland areas, intercommunal conflict on natural resources was among the causes for
not using adaptation strategies. Farmers in this area explained that “this year [2018], there was mass
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4526 18 of 28

mobilization to construct terraces. We did not participate because of security problem. We have no confidence
in our security issues. There are water harvesting schemes constructed by the community though we did not
use because of security problems. People became hopeless. As you can see, we have no good houses; because we
are living in a dilemma” [FGD-L-11]. Lack of farmland and limited employment opportunities were
stated as pressing problems of young farmers in the study areas.

4.4. Transitions between Non-Use and Use of Adaptation Strategies

Figure 5 shows the probabilities of transition between non-use and use of adaptation strategies
by agro-ecological settings. Entry refers to the transition of households from not using a strategy at
year t−1 to using it at year t. Exit shows households using a strategy at year t−1 but not using it at
year t. While persistence refers to using a strategy during two consecutive years, steady-state means
continuous use of a strategy. These probabilities were predicted controlling for household
characteristics and climate variables. Since crop diversification was one of the widely used strategies
to manage various risks, it had higher probability of entry, persistence and continuous use than the
other strategies, with no noticeable difference between the three areas. Likewise, the probability of
entry to the use of land management was relatively higher in all areas but exit was lower, resulting
in a relatively higher persistent and continuous use. Conversely, the use of improved seeds was
characterised by low entry and higher exit probability. Perceptible difference was observed between
the agro-ecological settings in the transition probabilities of using irrigation. There was a very low
probability of entry to the use of irrigation (<6%) than all the other strategies which reflects lack of
access to water. However, once started using, the probability that the users exit during the subsequent
year was very small, signifying high persistent use. High probability of continuous use of irrigation
was observed in the lowland areas (67%) due to availability of perennial river covering some of the
villages in the district. There was lower entry (<15%) and higher exit (about 30%) probability of using
non-farm activities. The probability of continuously using this strategy ranges from 19% in the
highland areas to 32% in the midland areas.
Continuous use of adaptation was the function, among other things, of the economic benefits
obtained from the use of the strategies which is translated to behavioural adjustment in terms of
motivation, eventually leading to consideration of the use of the strategies as a normative behaviour.
Since human beings are positively motivated by their past successes, benefits obtained from using a
strategy made farmers more enthusiastic to sustainably use the strategies. Use for longer years also
built farmers’ confidence about its benefits, as clearly indicated in the following excerpts. “I use them
because they are profitable. According to my opinion, the strategies improve the life of my family. I realized
from the benefits I obtained that the strategies are beneficial” [IND-M-15]; “I am satisfied with the use of the
strategies. It is because I have seen improvements in the life of my family. My children and I are living in good
condition because of these strategies” [IND-M-17]; and “I use the strategies always. Once you see the benefits,
you will not refrain from using the strategies” [IND-L-21].
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4526 19 of 28

1
0.9
0.8
0.7
Probability

0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0

Steady state

Steady state

Steady state

Steady state

Steady state

Steady state
Steady state

Persistence
Entry

Entry

Entry

Entry

Entry

Entry

Entry
Persistence

Persistence

Persistence

Persistence

Persistence

Persistence
Exit

Exit

Exit

Exit

Exit

Exit
Exit

Changing Changing crop Planting Improved Land Irrigation Non-farm

planting time type various crops seeds management

Highland Midland Lowland

Figure 5. Predicted probabilities of transition between use and non-use of adaptation strategies by
agro-ecological settings.

Farmers’ aspiration for improved lives was an encouraging factor for continuous use of
strategies. One farmer explained that, “if we stop using these methods, we bring poverty on ourselves. We
need the use of more strategies this year than last year. If I get 105 birr this year, I should get 110 next year,
115 in the following year. I should not wear this year the clothes that I wore last year. I have to change it. If I
do not work and sit idle, it means that I will continue to live in poverty” [IND-H-9]. With intrinsic
motivation, the use of some strategies becomes normative behaviour of farmers that they are
continuously used. For instance, fertiliser and pesticides/herbicides were more persistently used as
farmers were well aware of their importance during long years of practice. In support of this, one
farmer explicated that “I am using fertilizer. If we stop using it, there is nothing that we will get to live.
There is no life without using fertilizer” [IND-H-4]. This is the case particularly when the strategies are
well-known by farmers as shown in the following quote: “I have chosen the strategies I use because I may
face a problem if I do not use them. In addition, the strategies are known” [IND-L-17].

4.5. Farmers’ Decision-Making Structures

The results of this study show that farmers’ decision to respond to the impacts of CCV generally
follow four patterns: innovative and experimental, nature-dependent, sub-optimal use and desperate
decision-making. Very few households used innovative and experimental approach to make
adaptation decisions. For example, in the midland areas, some farmers started forage production
using fertiliser due to high crop production risks. This helped to engage in more robust adaptation
strategies such as rearing dairy cows and cattle fattening. Some households also used innovative risk
minimisation strategies that prevent total asset disposal. For instance, “when they sell oxen, they buy
calves [as a replacement]; the remaining money is used to buy grain and fertilizer” [FGD-M-6]. In the
highland areas where the problem of waterlogging is common, some households used locally
prepared tools to drain water from the crop field. Multiple strategies were also utilised by many
farmers as a means to spread risks.
In nature-dependent decision-making logic, farmers followed the time of onset of rainfall to
decide on the type of crops to be sown. These households plant belg crops if there is rainfall. During
years of belg failure, they wait for the subsequent rainy season to produce kiremt crops. Season also
determined engagement in non-farm activities. For instance, one farmer noted his experience saying
that “I engage in daily labour work sometimes depending on the season. When there are farming activities, I
do not involve in daily labour works” [IND-M-18].
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4526 20 of 28

Farmers sub-optimal use of strategies is manifested through lower level investment, as vividly
described in the following excerpts: “I do not use the required amount of fertilizer due to lack of money. If I
use sufficient amount of fertilizer, I know I can increase my production. However, as I cannot afford buying the
required amount of fertilizer, I use the small amount I have managed to buy on the whole farmland” [IND-H-
3]. Another farmer similarly stated that “we just use fertilizer based on the capacity to cover its cost. Our
farmland could be 2 or 3 plots in different places. For these plots, 400–500 kg of fertilizer might be needed. We
have no capacity to afford all these. We take 100 or 150 kg and use on few farmlands. We have no capacity to
afford the cost to apply on the entire farmland we have” [IND-H-6].
Desperate decision-making includes borrowing money with high interest rate, renting-out or
sharecropping-out farmland and asset disposal. Sharecropping-out, mostly used by female-headed
households, was a less-preferred strategy as it leads to lower yield due to sharing of outputs. The
rental price of farmland was also claimed to be very small to cover subsistence requirements of
households for the whole year. In the worst form of desperate decision-making, farmers opted for
bad choices when they face decision dilemma. For instance, “when the poor fails to pay back the credit
because of the effect of climate change, they are accused by lending institutions and brought to court to face
charges. It is better for the poor to work for the rich people [as a daily labourer] to cope with climate change as
they have been doing before” [FGD-L-10]. Climate problems might also lead to children’s school drop-
out. “Our children are not able to go to school. They are engaged in daily labour works. That is how we live”
[FGD-M-8]. Selling oxen was another form of bad choice made under precarious living conditions.
One informant disclosed his experience saying that “we sold our ox to get some money as we have no land
and we depend on sharecropping. It is difficult for our children to live without food and clothing. We sold it to
solve household problems” [IND-M-16].

5. Discussion
Promoting adaptation is a development issue of higher priority in developing countries to
reduce the disproportionate impacts of CCV on smallholder farmers. Despite increase in awareness
about the impacts of CCV and in the proportion of adapting households across time, there is
noticeable difference between households in their adaptation decision-making logic and choice of
strategies. The findings from both quantitative and qualitative study similarly suggest that path
dependence, norms and values, financial constraint, institutional support mechanisms and climate
and non-climate factors explain the heterogeneity in farmers’ adaptation decisions.
There is strong path dependence in adaptation decision-making: Households that use a specific
adaptation strategy in the previous year are more likely to use in the subsequent year. This finding
suggests high persistence in adaptation and non-adaptation. Path dependence of adaptation
decision-making works through economic and behavioural mechanisms. In the economic path,
households using adaptation strategies in the past are more likely to gain economic benefits that
improve their adaptive capacity to make similar or additional investments in the following years,
leading to virtuous circle of improvement. For instance, as shown by a study in Chile, crop income
in the previous year positively affects farmers’ adaptation decisions [11]. Conversely, for households
that are unable to adapt in the past due to lack of resources, the likely consequent economic problems
increase the risk of not adapting in the subsequent year, leading to vicious circle of poverty and
vulnerability [47]. In the behavioural mechanism of path dependence, the possibility to observe the
benefits of adaptation is motivating for adapting households to take actions in the following years.
For non-adapting households, failure to adapt in the previous year and the associated economic
problem might be translated to fatalistic attitude as well as loss of motivation and commitment to
make use of even the tiny adaptation opportunity.
High risk perception does not necessarily translate to adaptation action: The result of this study shows
that high perception significantly reduces the use of changing planting time, while it has insignificant
effect on the use of the other strategies. It is consistent with a finding from Central America and
Mexico that showed lower likelihood of engagement in adaptation actions among farmers with high
risk perception [65]. Although risk perception is assumed to be a prerequisite for adaptation, farmers
may not take action based on their perception of climate risks for various reasons. Adaptation action
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4526 21 of 28

in response to uncertain climate condition might be associated with both gains or losses. In these
situations, farmers refrain from taking adaptation action as their decision is dominated by the
preference to avoid potential losses [24]. Farmers also do not intend to adapt when they perceive that
the actions cannot protect them from the impacts of CCV [13,31]. As evident from fatalistic attitude
of some farmers, they may also fail to act when they feel that they have little control over the problem
of CCV [32]. For households with low adaptive capacity and conservative in taking risks, their level
of perception does not also positively impact the use of adaptation strategies. Detailed understanding
of the non-linear linkage between perception and adaptation is the subject of future investigation.
General knowledge about climate change may not be sufficient to prompt adaptation action: Raising
knowledge is often considered as one means of boosting adaptation. However, as the unexpected
result of this study shows, the effect of knowledge is negative for climate-sensitive adaptation
strategies such as changing crop type but positive for land management activities that are less risky.
A possible explanation for this might be lack of specificity of general climate knowledge to be used
for household-level decisions. In this study, knowledge was measured focusing on factual questions
about the general and widely acclaimed causes and consequences of CCV and possible responses.
Since understanding and interpretation of scientific knowledge is mediated by socio-cultural
contexts, factual scientific information is not sufficient for adaptation action [24]. Knowledge
obtained from external sources are evaluated against one’s own knowledge and integration of this
knowledge is conditional on its fitness with the activities of farmers [48]. Unlike general knowledge
about CCV, contextually specific and locally relevant knowledge helps farmers to know more about
and be confident in their decision to use adaptation strategies. The consistently positive effect of
farmers’ trainings on adaptation found in this study signifies the decisive roles of knowledge
obtained through extension services and tailored trainings in prompting adaptation. Persistent use
of land management activities in the study areas might for instance be related to the effects of
successive awareness raising activities. On the other hand, as evident from the negative effects of
trust in local knowledge on changing crop type and land management, farmers’ local knowledge
does not suffice for adaptation. This entails the importance of integrating local knowledge with
scientifically relevant information to build farmers’ confidence on innovations and create better
opportunities for adaptation [22]. Otherwise, factual knowledge alone may increase worry, resulting
in inaction. Further research is needed to uncover the linkages between factual knowledge about
CCV, local knowledge and farmers’ choices of adaptation strategies.
Past experience translates to differing adaptation decisions: Past experience of climate risks and
previous use of strategies increase adaptation, which suggests the learning and motivational effects
of experience. In addition to one’s own adaptation experience, farmers observe several normative
adaptation behaviour in their surroundings that encourages them to comply with [37,38]. Another
important finding was that past experience also discourages adaptation. Unfavourable past
experience as a cause for non-use or interrupted use of adaptation strategies works in two ways. It
has behavioural effect in which trust of and confidence in the strategy is reduced due to its failure to
meet the expectation of farmers. Ineffectiveness of the strategy also decreases farmers’ economic
capacity to use in the following year. The negative effect of past experience is most pronounced, the
result of this study shows, when it is related to failure of newly introduced strategies. Since adoption
of a new strategy requires time to gain farmers’ confidence, introducing new methods of production
at shorter time intervals without enhancing their in-depth theoretical understanding and practical
demonstration reduces the likelihood of adoption. In relation to negative effect of peers’ experience,
it is not always compelling that a farmer positively conforms to what has been observed. Peer
experience has beneficial impact only when the observed behaviour is positively framed [39]. Given
that households implement adaptation strategies in different contexts, the outcome could be negative
as a result of which observed behaviour may not translate to positive adaptation decision. The
adaptation outcome of conformity might not also be positive due to underestimation of risk or
misperception by the social referents (peers). In addition, the possibility to observe inconsistent
behaviour and the tendency to evaluate the importance of conforming to certain normative behaviour
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4526 22 of 28

based on personal expectations might result in negative effects of descriptive norm (peers’
experience) on adaptation decisions.
Valuing change, individual responsibility and risk-taking positively affect adaptation decisions: Farmers
who value tradition over change are less likely to adopt new practices and tend to accept the existing
way of life acclaiming that the prevailing livelihood system is better than the newly introduced
alternative [32]. The preference of some farmers in this study for conventional seeds and conventional
method of sowing instead of improved seeds partly explains this tradition-based justification of
existing farming system. Conversely, for farmers who are cognizant that the persistent problem of
CCV requires change to new livelihood practices, the likelihood of adopting new technologies and
innovative production practices is high. Decision to adopt a given strategy depends on farmers’ risk
preferences and the extent to which the strategies are risky. Risk-taking households are more likely
to change planting time, whereas risk-averse households opt for crop diversification as also noted in
another study [44]. Farmers are likely to take action when they believe that they are individually
responsible for action than ascribing the roles to the government or non-governmental organisations.
This might reflect the motivation of these farmers to determine their destiny by themselves than being
passive victims of adverse climate conditions. Valuing knowledge/information obtained from
institutional sources or knowledge obtained from both institutional and local sources is more
important to prompt adaptation action than trusting local knowledge. One possible reason for this
might be the difficulty of relying on local knowledge to understand dramatic shifts and unpredicted
variabilities in weather conditions, and making changes to adaptation decisions.
Lack of access to financial resources is a key constraint of adaptation: Congruent to previous studies
[6,7], financial capital is a consistent predictor of adaptation. Financial capital (access to credit,
savings and remittance) enhances farmers’ adaptation investment which contributes to building their
adaptive capacity. Farmers with higher financial resources tend to diversify livelihood strategies
through engaging in high-return strategies such as irrigation, livestock fattening and use of improved
seed varieties and other productivity-enhancing inputs. Conversely, the poor either do not use
strategies at all, or focus on low-capital low-return strategies such as changing planting time and
daily labour works. Financial constraint also compels them to take delayed action to respond to
climate problems (e.g., late use of treatments). Lack of resources oblige poor farmers for sub-optimal
use of strategies or to shift from adaptation to coping as, for instance, they may not have options
except disposing the meagre assets they have to overcome food shortage. This not only incapacitates
them not to undertake adaptation actions but also likely to increase their risk avoidance behaviour
and vulnerability.
Climate variables, compounded by non-climate factors, influence adaptation decisions and choice of
strategies: It is evident from the results of this study that climate variables play important roles in
influencing farmers’ adaptation decisions. Increase in the amount of belg rain reduces the need for
changing planting time as it provides options for farmers to produce more crops. The negative effect
of belg failure on the use of various adaptation strategies suggests abandoning the production of belg
crops in most of the study areas. As noted by farmers, it is only once in many years that they produce
belg crops due to lack of rain during this season. Early onset of belg rain decreases the importance of
changing planting time (mainly delaying planting time) and crop type. Early onset of belg rain,
provided that it is not followed by extended period of consecutive dry days, helps farmers to plant
long-duration crops of the season (maize and sorghum) in time without the need to delay planting
time or change crop types. On the other hand, if belg rain comes late, farmers delay planting time to
the later period of the season, a risk-taking decision made to avoid production only once a year. If
kiremt rain comes late, it is highly unlikely that farmers change planting time due to shorter growth
period unless late onset is compensated by late cessation which is less observed in the study areas.
Engagement in non-farm activities was low during years of abundant kiremt rainfall, which suggests
the possibility of extensively engaging in farming and harvesting activities, reducing the time
available for non-farm activities. Non-climate factors such as landlessness, market failure, seasonality
of employment opportunities and landslide interact with climate factors to limit farmers’ adaptation
space for actions.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4526 23 of 28

Weakening of informal institutions and inefficient support of formal institutions hamper adaptation: As
observed in many developing countries [22,50], informal institutions are assumed to provide viable
support for farmers to adapt to CCV. Their roles in the study areas are mainly limited to facilitation,
through social networks, of access to resources such as labour and oxen and mutual support in the
case of emergencies. However, their support mechanism is largely based on reciprocity, which is less
beneficial for the poor who are in dire need of support for adaptation. In such cases, the poor either
decide not to take adaptation action or resort to nature-dependent and desperate adaptation
decisions. Moreover, CCV is waning the roles of these institutions through, for instance, weakening
of mutual support due to the effects of covariate climate risks on most farmers, consequently reducing
the adaptation roles of these community-based institutions. It has been shown in many studies that
formal institutions play an important role in facilitating adaptation [22,49,50]. They mobilise their
resources (legitimacy, technical and human expertise, information and budget) to expedite farmers’
adaptation by identifying and promoting the implementation of feasible and context-specific
strategies. Nevertheless, without undermining their roles in facilitating access to inputs and building
the capacity of farmers through trainings and other extension supports, these institutions are not
effective in supporting adaptation with their full potential mainly because of implementation
problems such as insufficient and delayed supply, as well as uneven distribution of farm inputs; and
inadequate extension services. These problems are partly reflected in the low entry and high exit
probability of using improved seeds. The problems of institutions are due in part to lack of adequate
number of staff, shortage of budget and weak monitoring system.

6. Conclusions
The livelihood of smallholder farmers in Ethiopia is under increasing pressure due to the effects
of unpredictable rainfall and non-climate factors being compounded by socio-economic and
institutional problems. Path dependence noticeably explains continuous use or non-use of adaptation
strategies, in which past history, success or failure, significantly explains current decisions and
preferences [47]. The characteristics being rooted in their high adaptive capacity, rich households that
are risk accepting, open to changes and individually responsible for actions to improve their lives
utilise contesting and robust adaptation strategies (e.g., livestock fattening and irrigation-based
production of cash crops) to build a livelihood that is resilient to the effects of climate and non-climate
risks. On the other hand, poor households are highly heterogeneous (more than rich households) in
terms of their decisions on the use and non-use of strategies as well as the type of strategies they use
to respond to the problems. Common to all is that their adaptation history heavily relies on climate-
sensitive strategies as well as sub-optimal investments. The livelihood system of poor households is
constrained by limited options and lack of flexibility in decision-making. These households mostly
follow responsive strategies that accommodate unfavourable climatic conditions to meet their
survival requirements. Path dependence in continuous non-use of adaptation strategies among these
households is ingrained not only in their low adaptive capacity but also in their behavioural features
involving risk-avoidance, externalisation of responsibilities to take action and fatalistic attitude. In
the context of being locked in economic and behavioural constraints, raising knowledge and risk
perception on CCV may not be a sufficient option to help the poor take adaptation measures [65].
Given the daunting challenges of CCV, the existing support of formal and informal institutions is not
sufficient-enough to support poor farmers’ adaptation efforts. The limited scope of the supports
given by these institutions help only to build short-term adaptive capacity which is easily eroded by
exposure to frequently occurring climate risks [50].
The study findings have significant scientific and practical implications. Climate, non-climate,
economic, socio-cultural and institutional factors have non-linear and intertwined linkages to frame
decision-making processes and choices of adaptation strategies. Hence, research on adaptation
should take into account the complex interaction between these components of livelihood adaptation
processes through a comprehensive system’s approach to thoroughly understand the dynamics of
farmers’ livelihood vulnerability and their trajectories of dealing with multiple climate and non-
climate risks. There is neither a linear approach to enhancing adaptation nor are there approaches or
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4526 24 of 28

strategies that work in all contexts. For instance, raising farmers’ risk perception may not be taken
for granted to facilitate adaptation as perception does not remain intact due to the effects of
knowledge, experience, norms and values. In addition, the extent of acceptance and utilisation of
innovative adaptation strategies are evaluated based on pre-existing normative beliefs and value
orientations. Hence, identification and implementation of adaptation strategies as well as monitoring
and evaluation of adaptation actions require proper consideration of the local biophysical, socio-
cultural and economic contexts. Particularly, persistence in non-use of adaptation demands effective
institutional support to address the behavioural and economic barriers of these households, which,
otherwise, would lead to limits to adaptation and thereby undermines overall community resilience.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, D.E., D.J.R.M.S., C.F.A.W. and T.D.C.B.; data curation, D.E.; formal
analysis, D.E, D.J.R.M.S., C.F.A.W. and T.D.C.B.; investigation, D.E.; methodology, D.E.; supervision, D.J.R.M.S.,
C.F.A.W. and T.D.C.B.; visualization, D.E.; writing—original draft, D.E.; writing—review and editing,
D.J.R.M.S., C.F.A.W. and T.D.C.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding: This research was funded by EP-Nuffic, grant number R/002597.01.

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Table A1. Descriptive statistics of the sampled households.

Variable Categories N % Highland Midland Lowland

Young 298 36.8 32.9 29.5 37.6
Age of household
Adult 313 38.6 31.3 32.6 36.1
head
Old 199 24.6 37.2 40.2 22.6
Sex of household Male 702 86.7 34.3 32.8 32.9
head Female 108 13.3 26.9 37.0 36.1
Household size Mean 810 4.96 4.80 4.80 5.28
Education of No education 547 67.5 36.0 30.2 33.8
household head Primary + 263 32.5 27.8 39.9 32.3
Land size Mean 810 1.82 2.34 1.31 1.81
Number of oxen Mean 810 1.37 1.66 1.28 1.16
Received farmers’ No 312 38.5 26.0 32.7 41.3
training Yes 498 61.5 38.0 33.7 28.3
Member of farmer No 623 76.9 30.3 35.2 34.5
group Yes 187 23.1 43.3 27.3 29.4
No 366 45.2 22.7 36.1 41.3
Financial capital
Yes 444 54.8 42.1 31.1 26.8
Low 173 21.4 88.4 4.0 7.5
Risk perception Moderate 312 38.5 32.1 30.4 37.5
High 325 40.1 5.2 51.7 43.1
Low 137 16.9 39.4 23.4 37.2
Knowledge about
Medium 292 36.0 34.6 36.3 29.1
climate change
High 381 47.0 30.2 34.6 35.2
Low 354 43.7 38.4 29.1 32.5
Descriptive norm Medium 222 27.4 24.3 40.5 35.1
High 234 28.9 34.2 32.9 32.9
Low 234 28.9 26.9 22.6 50.4
Past experience Medium 216 26.7 38.9 22.2 38.9
High 360 44.4 34.2 46.9 18.9
Change 284 35.1 30.6 36.6 32.7
Change vs. Tradition
Both 205 25.3 38.5 36.1 25.4
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4526 25 of 28

Tradition 321 39.6 32.4 28.7 38.9

Social 199 24.6 33.2 37.2 29.6
Responsibility Both 397 49.0 34.0 31.0 35.0
Individual 214 26.4 32.2 34.1 33.6
Risk avoidance 429 53.0 31.9 35.9 32.2
Risk preference Both 154 19.0 31.8 48.1 20.1
Risk taking 227 28.0 37.0 18.5 44.5
Institutional 350 43.2 30.0 30.0 40.0
Trusted source of Both 312 38.5 35.6 35.6 28.8
knowledge Local
148 18.3 36.5 36.5 27.0
knowledge

Table A2. Summary of climate measures (2003–2017).

Variable Category Boset Kimbibit Kuyu

Belg rainfall (mean) -- 87.5 67.1 212.7
Kiremt rainfall (mean) -- 385.2 680.5 962.9
CDD (mean) -- 116.8 161.4 77.1
CWD (mean) -- 9.7 14.4 19.9
Failure 53.3 53.3 20.0
Early 6.7 6.7 33.3
Belg onset (% of years)
Normal 20.0 20.0 26.7
Late 20.0 20.0 20.0
Early 13.3 26.7 20.0
Kiremt onset (% of years) Normal 66.7 40.0 66.7
Late 20.0 33.3 13.3

References
1. Dilling, L.; Daly, M.E.; Travis, W.R.; Wilhelmi, O.V.; Klein, R.A. The dynamics of vulnerability: Why
adapting to climate variability will not always prepare us for climate change. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev.
Clim. Chang. 2015, 6, 413–425, doi:10.1002/wcc.341.
2. Eisenack, K.; Moser, S.C.; Hoffmann, E.; Klein, R.J.T.; Oberlack, C.; Pechan, A.; Rotter, M.; Termeer, C.
Explaining and overcoming barriers to climate change adaptation. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2014, 4, 867–872,
doi:10.1038/nclimate2350.
3. Moser, S.C.; Ekstrom, J.A. A framework to diagnose barriers to climate change adaptation. Proc. Natl.
Acad. Sci. USA 2010, 107, 22026–22031, doi:10.1073/pnas.1007887107.
4. Wise, R.M.; Fazey, I.; Stafford Smith, M.; Park, S.E.; Eakin, H.C.; Van Garderen, E.A.; Campbell, B.
Reconceptualising adaptation to climate change as part of pathways of change and response. Glob.
Environ. Chang. 2014, 28, 325–336, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.12.002.
5. Below, T.B.; Mutabazi, K.D.; Kirschke, D.; Franke, C.; Sieber, S.; Siebert, R.; Tscherning, K. Can farmers’
adaptation to climate change be explained by socio-economic household-level variables? Glob. Environ.
Chang. 2012, 22, 223–235.
6. Bryan, E.; Deressa, T.T.; Gbetibouo, G.A.; Ringler, C. Adaptation to climate change in Ethiopia and
South Africa: Options and constraints. Environ. Sci. Policy 2009, 12, 413–426,
doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2008.11.002.
7. Deressa, T.T.; Hassan, R.M.; Ringler, C. Perception of Adaptation to Climate Change in Ethiopia. J.
Agric. Sci. 2011, 149, 23–31, doi:10.1017/S0021859610000687.
8. Di Falco, S. Adaptation to climate change in Sub-Saharan agriculture: Assessing the evidence and
rethinking the drivers. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 2014, 41, 405–430.
9. Di Falco, S.; Veronesi, M.; Yesuf, M. Does Adaptation to Climate Change Provide Food Security—A
Micro Perspective from Ethiopia.pdf. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2011, 93, 825–842, doi:10.1093/ajae/aar006.
10. 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.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4526 26 of 28

11. Roco, L.; Engler, A.; Bravo-Ureta, B.; Jara-Rojas, R. Farm level adaptation decisions to face climatic
change and variability: Evidence from Central Chile. Environ. Sci. Policy 2014, 44, 86–96,
doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2014.07.008.
12. Campos, M.; Velazquez, A.; McCall, M. Adaptation strategies to climatic variability: A case study of
small-scale farmers in rural Mexico. Land Use Policy 2014, 38, 533–540,
doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.12.017.
13. Grothmann, T.; Patt, A. Adaptive capacity and human cognition: The process of individual adaptation
to climate change. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2005, 15, 199–213, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2005.01.002.
14. Price, J.C.; Walker, I.A.; Boschetti, F. Measuring cultural values and beliefs about environment to
identify their role in climate change responses. J. Environ. Psychol. 2014, 37, 8–20,
doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.10.001.
15. Adger, W.N.; Barnett, J.; Brown, K.; Marshall, N.; O'brien, K. Cultural dimensions of climate change
impacts and adaptation. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2013, 3, 112.
16. Jones, L.; Boyd, E. Exploring social barriers to adaptation: Insights from Western Nepal. Glob. Environ.
Chang. Hum. Policy Dimens. 2011, 21, 1262–1274, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.06.002.
17. Nielsen, J.O.; Reenberg, A. Cultural barriers to climate change adaptation: A case study from Northern
Burkina Faso. Glob. Environ. Chang. Hum. Policy Dimens. 2010, 20, 142–152,
doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.10.002.
18. Etana, D.; van Wesenbeeck, C.F.; de Cock Buning, T. Socio-cultural aspects of farmers’ perception of
the risk of climate change and variability in Central Ethiopia. Clim. Dev. 2020, 1–13,
doi:10.1080/17565529.2020.1737796.
19. Adger, W.N.; Dessai, S.; Goulden, M.; Hulme, M.; Lorenzoni, I.; Nelson, D.R.; Naess, L.O.; Wolf, J.;
Wreford, A. Are there social limits to adaptation to climate change? Clim. Chang. 2009, 93, 335–354,
doi:10.1007/s10584-008-9520-z.
20. O’brien, K. Do values subjectively define the limits to climate change adaptation? In Adapting to Climate
Change: Thresholds, Values, Governance; Adger, W.N., Lorenzoni, I., O’Brien, K., Eds.; Cambridge
University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2009; pp. 164–180.
21. Nightingale, A.J. Adaptive scholarship and situated knowledges? Hybrid methodologies and plural
epistemologies in climate change adaptation research. Area 2016, 48, 41–47, doi:10.1111/area.12195.
22. Osbahr, H.; Twyman, C.; Adger, W.N.; Thomas, D.S.G. Effective livelihood adaptation to climate
change disturbance: Scale dimensions of practice in Mozambique. Geoforum 2008, 39, 1951–1964,
doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2008.07.010.
23. Schwartz, S.H. National culture as value orientations: Consequences of value differences and cultural
distance. In Handbook of the Economics of Art and Culture; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2014;
Volume 2, pp. 547–586.
24. Patt, A.G.; Schroter, D. Perceptions of climate risk in Mozambique—Implication for the success of
adaptation strategies. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2008, 18, 458–467, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.04.002.
25. Kasperson, R.E.; Renn, O.; Slovic, P.; Brown, H.S.; Emel, J.; Goble, R.; Kasperson, J.X.; Ratick, S. The
social amplification of risk: A conceptual framework. Risk Anal. 1988, 8, 177–187.
26. Renn, O. The social amplification/attenuation of risk framework: Application to climate change. Wiley
Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Chang. 2011, 2, 154–169.
27. Haden, V.R.; Niles, M.T.; Lubell, M.; Perlman, J.; Jackson, L.E. Global and local concerns: What
attitudes and beliefs motivate farmers to mitigate and adapt to climate change? PLoS ONE 2012, 7,
e52882.
28. Lo, A.Y. The role of social norms in climate adaptation: Mediating risk perception and flood insurance
purchase. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2013, 23, 1249–1257, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.07.019.
29. Spence, A.; Poortinga, W.; Butler, C.; Pidgeon, N.F. Perceptions of climate change and willingness to
save energy related to flood experience. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2011, 1, 46–49.
30. Bubeck, P.; Botzen, W.J.; Aerts, J.C. A review of risk perceptions and other factors that influence flood
mitigation behavior. Risk Anal. Int. J. 2012, 32, 1481–1495.
31. Frank, E.; Eakin, H.; López-Carr, D. Social identity, perception and motivation in adaptation to climate
risk in the coffee sector of Chiapas, Mexico. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2011, 21, 66–76.
32. Gifford, R.; Kormos, C.; McIntyre, A. Behavioral dimensions of climate change: Drivers, responses,
barriers, and interventions. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Chang. 2011, 2, 801–827.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4526 27 of 28

33. van der Linden, S. The social-psychological determinants of climate change risk perceptions: Towards
a comprehensive model. J. Environ. Psychol. 2015, 41, 112–124, doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.11.012.
34. Pothitou, M.; Hanna, R.F.; Chalvatzis, K.J. Environmental knowledge, pro-environmental behaviour
and energy savings in households: An empirical study. Appl. Energy 2016, 184, 1217–1229,
doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.06.017.
35. Whitmarsh, L. Are flood victims more concerned about climate change than other people? The role of
direct experience in risk perception and behavioural response. J. Risk Res. 2008, 11, 351–374.
36. Deng, Y.; Wang, M.; Yousefpour, R. How do people's perceptions and climatic disaster experiences
influence their daily behaviors regarding adaptation to climate change? A case study among young
generations. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 581, 840–847, doi:10.1016/jscitotenv2017.01.022.
37. Elgaaied-Gambier, L.; Monnot, E.; Reniou, F. Using descriptive norm appeals effectively to promote
green behavior. J. Bus. Res. 2018, 82, 179–191, doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.09.032.
38. Farrow, K.; Grolleau, G.; Ibanez, L. Social norms and pro-environmental behavior: A review of the
evidence. Ecol. Econ. 2017, 140, 1–13, doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.04.017.
39. Cialdini, R.B. Crafting normative messages to protect the environment. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 2003, 12,
105–109, doi:10.1111/1467-8721.01242.
40. Kallgren, C.A.; Reno, R.R.; Cialdini, R.B. A focus theory of normative conduct: When norms do and do
not affect behavior. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2000, 26, 1002–1012.
41. Kahan, D.M. Cultural Cognition as a Conception of the Cultural Theory of Risk. In Handbook of Risk
Theory: Epistemology, Decision Theory, Ethics, and Social Implications of Risk; Roeser, S., Hillerbrand, R.,
Sandin, P., Peterson, M., Eds.; Springer Netherlands: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2012; pp. 725–759,
doi:10.1007/978-94-007-1433-5_28.
42. Heyd, T. Climate change, individual responsibilities and cultural frameworks. Hum. Ecol. Rev. 2010,
17, 86–95.
43. Reser, J.P.; Swim, J.K. Adapting to and coping with the threat and impacts of climate change. Am.
Psychol. 2011, 66, 277.
44. Asravor, R.K. Farmers’ risk preference and the adoption of risk management strategies in Northern
Ghana. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2019, 62, 881–900.
45. Kahan, D.M.; Braman, D. Cultural cognition and public policy. Yale L. & Pol'y Rev. 2006, 24, 149.
46. Hisali, E.; Birungi, P.; Buyinza, F. Adaptation to climate change in Uganda: Evidence from micro level
data. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2011, 21, 1245–1261.
47. Yesuf, M.; Bluffstone, R.A. Poverty, risk aversion, and path dependence in low-income countries:
Experimental evidence from Ethiopia. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2009, 91, 1022–1037.
48. Naess, L.O. The role of local knowledge in adaptation to climate change. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim.
Chang. 2013, 4, 99–106, doi:10.1002/wcc.204.
49. Islam, M.; Nursey-Bray, M. Adaptation to climate change in agriculture in Bangladesh: The role of
formal institutions. J. Environ. Manage. 2017, 200, 347–358, doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.05.092.
50. Yaro, J.A.; Teye, J.; Bawakyillenuo, S. Local institutions and adaptive capacity to climate
change/variability in the northern savannah of Ghana. Clim. Dev. 2015, 7, 235–245,
doi:10.1080/17565529.2014.951018.
51. Leech, N.L.; Onwuegbuzie, A.J. A typology of mixed methods research designs. Qual. Quant. 2009, 43,
265–275.
52. Creswell, J.W.; Creswell, J.D. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods
Approaches; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2018.
53. Johnson, R.B.; Onwuegbuzie, A.J. Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has
come. Educ. Res. 2004, 33, 14–26.
54. Creswell, J.W.; Plano Clark, V.L. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research, 3rd ed.; Sage
Publications, Inc.: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2018.
55. Kothari, C.R. Research Methodology: Methods and Techniques; New Age International: 2004.
56. Axinn, W.G.; Pearce, L.D.; Ghimire, D. Innovations in life history calendar applications. Soc. Sci. Res.
1999, 28, 243–264.
57. Scoones, I. Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: A Framework for Analysis; Institute of Development Studies:
Brighton, UK, 1999.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4526 28 of 28

58. Alexander, L.; Herold, N. ClimPACT2: Indices and Software. A document prepared on behalf of the The
Commission for Climatology (CCI) Expert Team on Sector-Specific Climate Indices (ET-SCI); World
Meteorological Organization, Geneva, Switzerland: 2016.
59. Raes, D.; Willems, P.; Baguidi, F. RAINBOW—A software package for analyzing data and testing the
homogeneity of historical data sets. In Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on ‘Sustainable
management of marginal drylands’, Islamabad, Pakistan, 27–31 January 2006.
60. Grotti, R.; Cutuli, G. xtpdyn: A community-contributed command for fitting dynamic random-effects
probit models with unobserved heterogeneity. Stata J. 2018, 18, 844–862.
61. Wooldridge, J.M. Simple solutions to the initial conditions problem in dynamic, nonlinear panel data
models with unobserved heterogeneity. J. Appl. Econom. 2005, 20, 39–54.
62. Hill, T.D.; Davis, A.P.; Roos, J.M.; French, M.T. Limitations of fixed-effects models for panel data. Sociol.
Perspect. 2019, 1–13, doi:10.1177/0731121419863785.
63. Rabe-Hesketh, S.; Skrondal, A. Avoiding biased versions of Wooldridge’s simple solution to the initial
conditions problem. Econ. Lett. 2013, 120, 346–349.
64. Braun, V.; Clarke, V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol. 2006, 3, 77–101.
65. Tucker, C.M.; Eakin, H.; Castellanos, E.J. Perceptions of risk and adaptation: Coffee producers, market
shocks, and extreme weather in Central America and Mexico. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2010, 20, 23–32,
doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.07.006.

© 2020 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/).