Farmers’ adaptation strategies to climate change on agricultural production in Arsi zone, Oromia National Regional State of Ethiopia

Abstract

Climate change has a greater influence on agricultural production due to the effects of floods, droughts, and crop pests. The objective of the study was to explore farmers’ perceptions of climate change, adaptation strategies, constraints to adaptation strategies, and identify factors affecting the choice of climate change that affect adaptation strategies for agricultural production. Data was collected from 303 households selected using a multistage sampling technique to collect data using structured questionnaires. Descriptive statistics, Mann–Kendall statistical test, the weighted average index, and a multivariate probit model were used. The result shows that farmers used multiple adaptation strategies, mostly improved varieties, improved livestock, and mixed farming. Farmers’ choices of adaptation strategies were affected by education, household size, cooperative membership, extension services, climate information, perception of climate change, and farm income. Thus, efforts to create awareness about climate change through mass media, extension services, and enabling cooperative unions are essential.

Full text

Frontiers in Climate 01 frontiersin.org
Farmers’ adaptation strategies to
climate change on agricultural
production in Arsi zone, Oromia
National Regional State of
Ethiopia
IbsaDawid * and EphremBoka
Oromia Agricultural Research Institute, Asella Agricultural Engineering Research Center
Socioeconomics Research Team, Asella, Ethiopia
Climate change has a greater influence on agricultural production due to the
eects of floods, droughts, and crop pests. The objective of the study was to
explore farmers’ perceptions of climate change, adaptation strategies, constraints
to adaptation strategies, and identify factors aecting the choice of climate change
that aect adaptation strategies for agricultural production. Data was collected
from 303 households selected using a multistage sampling technique to collect
data using structured questionnaires. Descriptive statistics, Mann–Kendall statistical
test, the weighted average index, and a multivariate probit model were used. The
result shows that farmers used multiple adaptation strategies, mostly improved
varieties, improved livestock, and mixed farming. Farmers’ choices of adaptation
strategies were aected by education, household size, cooperative membership,
extension services, climate information, perception of climate change, and farm
income. Thus, eorts to create awareness about climate change through mass
media, extension services, and enabling cooperative unions are essential.
KEYWORDS
adaptation strategies, climate change, farmers, Ethiopia, multivariate probit
Introduction
Climate change is hurriedly evolving as the greatest challenging ecological problem
inuencing numerous sectors, mostly in agriculturally dependent countries (Fadina and
Barjolle, 2018). It inuences the most marginalized societies with limited access to resources
and potentials to deal with changing weather patterns (FAO, 2019). Due to the overdependence
of economies on climate-sensitive sectors, Sub-Saharan Africa is chiey vulnerable to climate
change (AGRA, 2018). e majority of developing countries, expressly those in Africa, rely
mostly on rain-fed agriculture for their food, making them particularly vulnerable to the
adverse eects of climate change (Evariste etal., 2018; Serdeczny etal., 2017).
In Ethiopia, the impact of climate change is more severe because more than 85% of
the country’s population is dependent on agriculture as a source of livelihood (Ayal and
Filho, 2017). Increased climatic variability (changing rainfall patterns, increased
temperature, and lower precipitation), drought, ooding, shortage of water, and increased
incidence of pests and diseases like the spread of cereal stem borers lead to greater
instability in agricultural production and are responsible for low productivity as well as
limiting options for coping with adverse weather conditions for farmers (Asrat and
Simane, 2018). Due to that, the Ethiopian government has launched the Climate-Resilient
Green Economy (CRGE) program to shield the nation from the adverse inuences of
OPEN ACCESS
EDITED BY
Benedicta Essel Ayamba,
Council for Scientific and Industrial Research
(CSIR), Ghana
REVIEWED BY
Rajiv Kumar Srivastava,
Texas A&M University, UnitedStates
Tagesse Melketo,
Wolaita Sodo University, Ethiopia
Ahsan Naseem,
Ghent University, Belgium
*CORRESPONDENCE
Ibsa Dawid
dawidibsa33@gmail.com
RECEIVED 12 June 2024
ACCEPTED 21 January 2025
PUBLISHED 05 February 2025
CITATION
Dawid I and Boka E (2025) Farmers’
adaptation strategies to climate change on
agricultural production in Arsi zone, Oromia
National Regional State of Ethiopia.
Front. Clim. 7:1447783.
doi: 10.3389/fclim.2025.1447783
COPYRIGHT
© 2025 Dawid and Boka. This is an
open-access article distributed under the
terms of the Creative Commons Attribution
License (CC BY). The use, distribution or
reproduction in other forums is permitted,
provided the original author(s) and the
copyright owner(s) are credited and that the
original publication in this journal is cited, in
accordance with accepted academic
practice. No use, distribution or reproduction
is permitted which does not comply with
these terms.
TYPE Original Research
PUBLISHED 05 February 2025
DOI 10.3389/fclim.2025.1447783

Dawid and Boka 10.3389/fclim.2025.1447783
Frontiers in Climate 02 frontiersin.org
climate change as well as to develop a green economy that will help
Ethiopia accomplish its objective of becoming a middle-income
nation by 2025. One of the pillars of CRGE is enhancing
agricultural production systems to achieve food security and raise
farmers’ incomes to enhance resilient and adaptive systems to
climate change (FDRE, 2011).
Climate change without adaptation is anticipated to impact the
livelihoods of rural communities strongly (Kosec and Mo, 2017).
Agriculture (both crop and livestock) production is aected by climate
change in a number of ways (Workalemahu and Dawid, 2021). In fact,
climate change and agriculture are interrelated because the output
from climate change oen becomes the input for agricultural
processes, and vice versa (IPCC, 2014). In Ethiopia, farmers used
adaptation strategies such as soil and water conservation practices,
agroforestry, crop diversication, livestock diversication and use of
cross-breeds, small-scale irrigation, and changing sowing dates (Belay
etal., 2017).
Climate change adaptation has the potential to signicantly
contribute to reductions in negative impacts from changes in climatic
conditions. Hence, adaptation measures are essential to help
vulnerable societies to better face extreme weather conditions and
associated climatic variations (Tesfaye and Seifu, 2016). A study in
Ethiopia suggests that adaptation options are location-specic and
that policy for adaptation options should bearea-specic (Deressa
et al., 2009). Besides, climate change adaptation strategy is not a
one-size-ts-all condition and varies both spatially and temporarily
based on agro-ecological contexts and existing infrastructural capacity
(Adger etal., 2009). Farmers’ responses to climate change vary from
place to place and among local smallholder farmers in order to
maintain food security in the face of production losses aggravated by
climate change (Bewket etal., 2015).
ere are few studies on climate change perception and adaptation
determinants in Ethiopia, such as smallholder farmers adaptation to
climate change and determinants of their adaptation decisions in the
Central Ri Valley of Ethiopia (Belay etal., 2017); smallholder farmers
adaptation strategies to climate-related risk factors in wheat
production in selected districts of central Oromia, Ethiopia (Zeray
etal., 2017); and determinants of smallholder farmers adaptation to
climate change and variability in Sire district of Arsi zone (Kasim and
Feto, 2018) are empirical studies worth referencing. ose studies are
somehow aggregated and failed to exactly indicate farmers’ adaptation
strategies to climate change on agricultural production (both crop and
livestock) and adaptation determinants in the Arsi zone. Although
some eorts are exerted to examine farmers’ perceptions of climate
change and framers’ choices of adaptation strategies to climate change
in some parts of the country, empirical work is scanty in
southeastern Ethiopia.
In the Arsi zone, farmers mainly suer from climate change
hazards and weather-related impacts. ese are changes in rainfall
distribution in the rainy seasons, hailstorms, crop disease and pests,
livestock disease, oods, and high temperatures. In the study areas,
most crops, especially wheat, barley, and potatoes, are aected by the
weather conditions. Due to this, crop yield is aected by many factors
associated with climate change, which include temperature, rainfall,
and other extreme weather events. Similarly, livestock production is
aected by many factors, such as a shortage of grazing land and
feeding, a shortage of water, and dierent diseases that especially aect
productive cattle. So from the foregoing, it becomes imperative that
adequate adaptation strategies beexplained to help cope with the
challenges and impacts of climate change on agricultural production.
Despite the fact that farmers in the study area have responded to
the adverse eects of climate change through a variety of adaptation
strategies, there was insucient empirical data to support the existing
adaptation strategies used by smallholder farmers in the study area.
Although farmers mostly apply strategies in combination with other
strategies, previous studies failed to address this gap. ere is,
therefore, a need for a better understanding of farmers’ perceptions of
climate change, adaptation strategies of climate change on agricultural
production, constraints to adapt dierent adaptation strategies, and
factors inuencing farmers’ choice of a dierent set of climate
adaptation strategies. us, this study intends to ll these knowledge
gaps. Such empirical knowledge is critical for designing policies to
tackle the challenges and strengthening farmers’ climate change
adaptation capabilities.
Research methodology
Description of the study area
e study was carried out in Lemu-Bilbilo, Dodota, and Sire
districts of the Arsi zone of the Oromia national regional state of
Ethiopia. e zone is divided into 25 districts and one administrative
town, Asella. e Arsi zone is located 175 km to the south-east of
Addis Ababa, with a surface area of about 19,825.22 km
2
(1,982,522 ha). e zone is divided into ve agro-climatic zones, with
moderately cool (40%) and cool (34%) annual temperatures. Similarly,
the mean annual temperature of the zone ranges between 20°C- 25°C
in the lowlands and 10°C- 15°C in the central highlands. Mixed
farming systems, including rain-fed and irrigation, are common, but
climate change has exaggerated agricultural production due to
recurrent droughts and erratic rainfall (AZANRO (Arsi zone
agriculture and natural resource oce), 2021).
Data types, sources and methods of data
collection
For this study, both primary and secondary data sources were
used to collect qualitative and quantitative data at dierent levels. e
data at the household level was collected through a household survey.
A household survey was used to collect quantitative information
from sample household heads who were the unit of analysis. e
quantitative data were collected from sample households by using a
semi-structured questionnaire. e qualitative data at the community
level was collected through focus group discussions (FGDs), key
informant interviews (KIIs), and observations. ree FGDs, which
contained 8–10 individuals, were held to clarify issues not fully
covered by the interview schedule and to obtain other supportive
information for the study. e FGDs were purposively selected from
model farmers, village leaders, and elders of society who had
experience, knowledge, and information on climate change. Similarly,
KIIs were held with experts, the head of the district agriculture oce,
and knowledgeable people from the community who have access to
climate information regarding the dynamics of climatic parameters,
the existing trend of climate change and its impacts, the response

Dawid and Boka 10.3389/fclim.2025.1447783
Frontiers in Climate 03 frontiersin.org
strategies so far practiced to adapt climate change, and constraints to
the adaptation strategies in the area. Focus group discussions and key
informants’ interviews were used to supplement and triangulate the
data collected through structured interviews. On the other hand,
secondary data were composed from dierent records of each District
Oce of Agriculture, Kebele administration oces, journals and
other relevant sources. Moreover, the 31 years rainfall and
temperature data for the period 1990–2020 have been collected from
the National Meteorological Agency branch in Kulumsa Agricultural
Research Center.
Sampling procedures and sample size
Multi-stage sampling procedures were used to select the study
districts, kebeles, and households. In the rst stage, the districts were
classied into three strata based on the agro-ecological zones as
highland, mid-highland, and lowland by using stratied sampling
methods. en, three districts (Lemu-Bilbilo, Sire, and Dodota) were
selected randomly among stratied districts found in the zone (one
from each agro-ecological zone). In the second, from the selected
districts, four kebeles from each district were selected according to
their agro-ecological zones. In the third stage, respondent farmers
were selected randomly using simple random sampling from the
sample frame of the study. Finally, a total of 303 sample respondents
were selected (Table1).
Methods of data analysis
Descriptive statistics, Likert scale measurement, the Mann-
Kendall statistical test, the weighted average index, and an econometric
model were used for data analysis. Descriptive statistics such as mean,
frequency, percentage, graphs, and tables were used to recap
adaptation strategies and constraints. Farmers’ perceptions of climate
change were analyzed by using the Likert scale; further comparisons
were made in correspondence with climate data recorded by Kulumsa
sub-station for 31 years of temperature and rainfall by using the
Mann-Kendall statistical test. e qualitative data collected from key
informant interviews, focus group discussions, and observational
notes was analyzed, recorded, categorized, and interpreted.
Farmers’ adaptation strategies to climate change on crop and
livestock production were ranked using weighted average Indices
using the formula (Kosgey, 2004):
6 1 52 4
3 34
25 16
6 1 52
43 34
25 16
× +× +×
+× +
× +×
=
× +× +
× +× +
× +×










st nd
NR fot rank for rank
rd th
sumof for rank for rank
th th
for rank for rank
Index st nd
TR fot rank for rank
rd th
sun of for rank for rank
th th
for rank for rank
(1)
In determining farmers’ perceived adaptation practices, respondents
were requested to rank their perceived strategies based on a 1–6 rank,
where 1 is the most important rank for adaptation practices and 6 is the
least important rank for practices. Where, NR is number of individual
responses and TR is number of total of total responses (Equation 1).
In addition, a multivariate probit (MVP) model was employed to
investigate the determinants that inuence farmers’ choice of climate
change adaptation strategies on agricultural production. e data was
analyzed with STATA 17 soware.
Specification of the econometric model
A multivariate probit (MVP) model was employed in this study
to determine the factors that inuence the selection of climate change
adaptation strategies. Some recent empirical studies of technology
adoption and climate change adaptation choices assume that farmers
consider a set or bundle of possible technologies or adaptation
strategies and choose a particular option that maximizes expected
utility (Shiferaw, 2014). Because of this, adopting a decision is
intrinsically multivariate, and attempting to employ univariate
models ignores important economic information found in
simultaneous and interdependent adoption decisions. Most
smallholder farmers are more likely to adopt a combination of
adaptation strategies to deal with a multitude of climate-induced risks
and constraints than adopting a single strategy. Based on this
argument, the study adopted a multivariate probit econometric
technique to simultaneously model the inuence of the set of
explanatory variables on the choice of each of the dierent strategies
while allowing the unobserved and/or unmeasured factors to
befreely correlated. e correlation could bepositive or negative
between dierent strategies (Belderbos etal., 2004; Lin etal., 2005).
us, weemployed an MVP model in this study to investigate the
interdependent adaptation strategies to climate change in the study
area. According to Lin etal. (2005), in formulating the multivariate
probit model such that as follows (Equation 2, 3):
10
i ii
Y if X
βε
+
′
= >
(2)
0 0 1, 2 , 3
i ii
Y if X i n
βε
= +>
′= ……
(3)
Where,
i
Y
is a vector of dependent variables, X′ is a vector of
explanatory variables,
i
β
is a vector of coecients,
ei
is the error term,
and n is the number of observations with zero means and
unitary variance.
Following Lin etal. (2005), the MVP model used for this study is
specied as (Equation 4):
0 11 2 2 3 3 nn i
Y XXX X
ββ β β β ε
= + + + +…+ +
(4)
TABLE1 Distribution of sample respondents in selected districts.
Districts (Agro-
ecological zone)
Sample size Percent (%)
Lemu-Bilbilo (Highland) 104 34.32
Sire (Mid-highland) 99 32.67
Dodota (Lowland) 100 33.00
Tot al 303 100

Dawid and Boka 10.3389/fclim.2025.1447783
Frontiers in Climate 04 frontiersin.org
Where Y = adaptation strategies,
β
= vector of unknown
parameters to beestimated,
i
ε
= is a random error term, X
1
= sex of the
household head, X2 = age of the household head; X3 = education status
of the household head; X
4
= household size of the household head;
X
5
= landholding size; X
6
= cooperative membership; X
7
= livestock
holding (TLU); X8 = access to credit services; X9 = access to extension
services; X
10
= climate information; X
11
= perception of climate change;
X12 = farm income of the household; X13 = agro-ecological zones.
Hypothesized variables
Dependent variables: In this study, the major adaptation strategies,
namely, improved crop varieties, improved livestock breeds, crop-
livestock diversication (mixed farming), soil and water conservation
practices, and adjusting planting dates, were selected. e choice of
adaptation strategies is based on the actions the sample households take
to counteract the adverse eects of climate change in the study area.
Independent variables: e hypothesized independent variables
of the study are those that are expected to have an association with the
use of adaptation strategies. ey are presented in Table 2 and
described briey.
Results and discussion
Farmers’ perceptions of climate change
In the study areas, 73.60% of the sampled households perceived that
climate change had changed, whereas 26.40% of the sampled households
did not perceive climate change. is shows that most of the farmers
understood or perceived climate change. Farmers perceive climate
change commonly through changes in rainfall distributions and
temperature. Temperature and rainfall parameters were used to describe
farmers’ perceptions of climate change. is result is consistent with
Belay (2020), who revealed that changes in rainfall distribution and high
temperatures are the most common indicators of climate change. e
farmers’ perceptions of climate change were measured as increasing,
decreasing, and moderate. Hence, the majority of farmers responded
that there had been a decrease in rainfall and an increase in temperature.
Perception of temperature changes and
trend analysis
e result showed that 70.96% of the respondents perceived that
there has been an increase in temperature in the past 31 years. About
4.95% of respondents also perceived that there was a decrease in
temperature, while 24.09% recognized that there was no change in
temperature (Figure1). is result proved that most of the respondents
recognized the increase in temperature. e result from the National
Meteorological Agency (Kulumsa sub-station) data for the years
1990–2020 also supports that the trend of maximum temperatures in
Lemu-Bilbilo and minimum temperatures in Dodota and Sire districts
has increased (Figure2). e increasing trends were observed for
minimum temperatures except for the Lemu-Bilbilo district. In Sire
district, the long-term temperature has less variability. e result
showed signicant increases in the minimum temperature.
Perception of rainfall changes and trend
analysis
e result indicated that 73.93% of the respondents recognized that
there is a decrease in rainfall patterns, 18.81% of the respondents
supposed that there is an increase in rainfall availability, whereas the
remaining 7.26% of the respondents perceived that there is no change
in the availability of rainfall (Figure3). e result of the study also
assured that most of the farmers perceived a decrease in rainfall patterns
in the study area. e changes include delaying and decreasing rainfall,
early terminating, and raining during harvesting, as conrmed by FGDs.
e analysis of rainfall data over the past 31 years (1990–2020)
from the NMA revealed a decreasing trend of annual rainfall in the
study area (Figure4). It showed that there was a problem of instability
and volatility in the amount of annual rainfall in the districts. e
meteorological record rainfall data of the study area veries the
perception of most farmers.
Farmers adaptation strategies to climate
change
Adaptation to climate change is a two-step process that requires
that farmers observe climate change in the rst step and respond to
changes in the second step through adaptation. According to the
survey results, signicant proportions of farmers have observed
changes in climate over the past 31 years. To reduce the adverse
inuences of climate change and thereby maximize productivity, most
smallholder farmers used several adaptation strategies. e usual
adaptation strategies were the use of improved crop varieties,
TABLE2 Summary of hypothesized explanatory variables in the model.
Variables Types of
variables
Expected
sign
Dependent variables
Adaptation strategies (Y) Dummy
Independent variables
Sex of household head (1 = Male 0 = Female) Dummy +/−
Age of the household head (years) Cont inuous +/−
Educational status (years of schooling) Continuous +
Household size (Number) Continuous +
Landholding size (ha) Continuous +
Cooperative membership (1 = Yes 0 = No) Dummy +
Livestock holding (TLU) Continuous +
Access to credit services (1 = Yes 0 = No) Dummy +
Access to extension services (1 = Yes 0 = No) Dummy +
Access to climate information (1 = Yes 0 = No) Dummy +
Perception of climate change (1 = Yes 0 = No) Dummy +
Farm income of the household (ETB) Continuous +
Agro-ecological(1 = highland, 2 = midland,
3 = lowland)
Categorical +

Dawid and Boka 10.3389/fclim.2025.1447783
Frontiers in Climate 05 frontiersin.org
improved livestock breeds, crop-livestock diversication (mixed
farming), soil and water conservation practices, and adjusting planting
dates (Table3).
ese strategies are mostly used in combination with other
strategies to safeguard against losses that could result from climate
change. is result supports the ndings of Belay etal. (2017) and
Tanto and Laekemariam (2019).
Crop farmers’ adaptation strategies
Farmers used dierent adaptation choices against climate change
in order to reduce the eects of climate change on crop production in
the study area. Six best climate change adaptations were selected and
prepared to beranked by the respondents from the most preferred to
the least preferred. ese strategies, which include growing short-
seasoned crops, crop rotation, early planting, drought-tolerant crops,
agroforestry, and mulching, were selected based on previous literature.
Hence, the results of the study revealed that among the crop adaptation
strategies perceived by the farmers, crop rotation was ranked as the
rst most important climate change adaptation strategy, with a mean
index value of 0.230 (Table4). Crop rotation was the most preferable
among the adaptation strategies because it maintains soil fertility and
prevents soil from weeds, pests, and dierent crop diseases.
e second and third most preferred adaptation choices against
climate change were planting drought-tolerant crops and mulching
as a strategy to combat climate change, with mean index values of
0.177 and 0.160, respectively (Table4). Planting drought-tolerant
FIGURE1
Farmers’ perception about trends in temperature.
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Average Temperature (°C)
Year
Trends of Average Temperature
Lemu-B ilbilo Tmax Le mu-Bilbilo Tmin Dodota Tmax
Dodota Tmin Sire Tmax Sire Tmin
FIGURE2
Trend of annual temperature of the study area from 1990 to 2020.

Dawid and Boka 10.3389/fclim.2025.1447783
Frontiers in Climate 06 frontiersin.org
crops and mulching with crop residue is a very important strategy
when there is a shortage of rainfall, especially in drought-prone
areas, to cope with climate change. In the study area, smallholder
farmers used mulching as a choice adaptation to combat climate
change eects since it was easy to get mulching materials as they
were locally available and most of them hadlocal knowledge on how
to use the strategy, and it could also beused as both a manure and
soil conservation measure. As a result of soil cover by vegetation and
residues, soil erosion through runo is eliminated or greatly
reduced, thus making crop production more reliable. Planting short-
season crops and early planting were the fourth and h most
preferred climate change adaptation strategies, respectively, while
agroforestry was the least preferred adaptation strategy in the study
area. is nding was similar to those of Shiferaw (2014) and
Oloo (2013).
Livestock farmers’ adaptation strategies
In this study, the respondents well perceived the eects of climate
change and practiced several livestock adaptation strategies, such as
reducing the number of livestock, diversifying livestock kinds, zero-
grazing, forage production, and changing livestock types. Among
these adaptation strategies, diversication of livestock breeds is the
most preferred climate change adaptation strategy with a mean index
value of 0.223, whereas reducing livestock numbers and changing
livestock types were ranked as the second and third most preferred
climate change adaptation strategies with a mean index value of 0.216
and 0.204 by the farmers, respectively (Table5). Forage production
(planting grass) was the fourth most preferred climate change strategy,
while zero grazing was ranked as the least important adaptation
practice. is could beattributed to a lack of awareness and experience
FIGURE3
Farmers’ perception on rainfall patterns.
FIGURE4
Trend of annual rainfall of the study area from 1990 to 2020.

Dawid and Boka 10.3389/fclim.2025.1447783
Frontiers in Climate 07 frontiersin.org
with zero-grazing and a lack of information and seeds for forage
production. A similar nding is reported by Abazinab etal. (2022) and
Lomiso (2020).
Constraints on climate change adaptation
strategies
In the study area, farmers encountered dierent constraints that
made the adaptation mechanisms unsuccessful at the farm level. e
sampled households stated that they had several interlocked
constraints that can make their lives very dicult in the presence of
climate change and climate-related hazards. Smallholder farmers also
classify their major challenges for their failures to adapt, which include
lack of technical knowledge, shortage of information, shortage of
capital and high prices of inputs, shortage of grazing land and feed for
livestock production, lack of improved inputs (including seeds,
fertilizers, and chemicals for pesticides) and their supply on time that
adapts to the environment and weather conditions, and shortage of
improved livestock breeds.
Hence, from the total sampled households, 74.26% faced lacks of
improved inputs (including seeds, fertilizers, and chemicals for
pesticides) and their supply on time that adapts to the environment
and weather conditions; 67.33% lacked capital and high prices of
dierent agricultural inputs to nance their adaptation strategies;
63.37% lacked grazing land and feed for livestock production due to
the land changed to crop production were the major constraints
(Figure5).
In addition, the FGDs also revealed that lack of support from the
government as well as not giving emphasis by the farmers themselves
are also among the constraints to climate change adaptation in the
study area. is is consistent with previous studies by Zeleke
etal. (2022).
Determinants of smallholder farmers’
choices of adaptation strategies
In this study, the multivariate probit model was used to identify
the determinant factors that inuence the choice of adaptation
strategies of sampled smallholder farmers in response to climate
change. It was estimated through the simulated maximum likelihood
(SML), which was drawn 100 times. It is important to check the
robustness and validity of the MVP model before embarking on the
identication of factors that aect the choice of adaptation strategies.
e MVP model is signicant because the null hypothesis that the
probability of adoption of the ve adaptation strategies is independent
was rejected at 1% signicance level. e Wald χ2 test value of 112.53,
p = 0.0010, which is statistically signicant at 1% signicance level,
indicated that a separate estimation of the choice of these adaptation
strategies was biased and the decisions to choose the ve strategies
were interdependent.
Besides, the model result illustrates that the likelihood ratio test
(all Rho
ij
= 0) of the null hypothesis was rejected (χ
2
(10) = 590.68,
p = 0.0000; Table6). is shows that the null hypothesis that all the
regression coecients of all equations are simultaneously zero was
rejected at less than 1% signicance level. is conrms the goodness-
of-t of the model. e Chi-square test result veries that a separate
estimation of the adoption of these adaptation strategies is biased, and
the decisions to use those ve adaptation strategies are interdependent
household decisions.
e results of the correlation coecients of the error terms show that
there is complementarity (positive correlation) between dierent
adaptation strategies being used by farmers. e results support the
assumption of interdependence between the dierent adaptation options,
which may bedue to complementarity in the dierent adaptation options
and other factors that aect the uptake of all the adaptation strategies.
e maximum likelihood method of estimation results suggested that
there was positive and signicant interdependence between household
decisions to adapt using those ve adaptation strategies.
e model result indicated that education, household size,
cooperative membership, access to extension services, climate
information, perception of climate change, and farm income positively
and signicantly aected farmers choices of adaptation strategies at
dierent levels of signicance (Table6). us, the signicant variables
were discussed as follows:
Education level of the household head: e formal years of
education were positively and signicantly inuencing the use of
improved crop varieties and improved livestock breeds at 10%
signicance levels. e coecient results specied that a unit
increase in years of education could possibly increase the likelihood
of using improved crop varieties and improved livestock breeds by 4
and 4.1%, respectively (Table6). is suggests that being educated
would improve access to information and help farmers easily
understand and analyze the situation better than less educated
farmers. e result also shown that educational status increases
farmer awareness about the consequences of climate change on
agricultural productivity and the benets of improved crop varieties
to reduce the impact of climate change. erefore, farmers with more
years of schooling are more informed and more likely to adopt
climate change adaptation practices than those with fewer years of
schooling. is nding was similar to those of Belay etal. (2017),
Megabia etal. (2022), and Assaye etal. (2020). ey noted that
higher levels of education are likely to enhance information access
for farmers, leading to improved technology adoption and higher
farm production and productivity.
Household size: As expected, household size has a signicant
impact on improved crop varieties and crop-livestock diversication
TABLE3 Summary of major adaptation strategies used by farmers in the
study area.
Adaptation
strategies
Responses Frequency Percent
Use of improved crop
variety
No 131 43.23
Ye s 172 56.77
Use of improved
livestock breeds
No 152 50.17
Ye s 151 49.83
Crop-livestock
diversication
No 132 43.56
Ye s 171 56.44
Soil and water
conservation
No 126 41.58
Ye s 177 58.42
Adjusting planting dates No 146 48.18
Ye s 157 51.82

Dawid and Boka 10.3389/fclim.2025.1447783
Frontiers in Climate 08 frontiersin.org
at 5 and 10% signicance levels, respectively. e coecient results
indicated that as a family size increases by one unit in a household,
the probability of using crop varieties and crop-livestock
diversication as adaptation strategies increases by 7.8 and 6.4%,
respectively (Table6). e more likely reason could bethat a large
household size is normally associated with a higher labor
endowment, which would enable a household to accomplish various
agricultural tasks. is nding is also in line with the results of
Assaye et al. (2020) and Abdulai et al. (2023), who state that
households with larger household sizes are expected to use dierent
adaptation strategies.
Membership in cooperatives: The results revealed a positive
and significant influence of cooperative membership on farmers’
use of improved crop varieties, improved livestock breeds, and
crop-livestock diversification as adaptation strategies to climate
change at 5% significance level. Keeping other variables constant,
being a member of a cooperative enhances the likelihood of using
improved crop varieties, improved livestock breeds, and crop-
livestock diversification by 42.4, 35.5, and 37.3%, respectively, as
climate adaptation strategies (Table6). This implies that farmers
who are members of agricultural cooperatives are more likely to
use improved crop varieties, improved livestock breeds, and crop-
livestock diversification practices to ameliorate the adverse effects
of climate change. Moreover, farmers who belong to farmers’
cooperatives have better chances of sharing relevant information
on climate change among themselves than their counterparts who
do not belong to any farmer cooperatives. The positive impacts of
cooperative memberships on the deployment of climate change
TABLE4 Crop farmers’ ranking of adaptation strategies in the study area.
Crops adaptation
strategies
1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th Total Index Rank
Growing short seasoned crops 60 30 43 51 31 79 976 0.158 4
Crop rotation 121 72 54 32 12 3 1,425 0.230 1
Early planting 22 40 56 62 71 43 927 0.150 5
Drought tolerant crops 42 64 52 66 50 20 1,098 0.177 2
Agroforestry 15 33 33 48 63 102 759 0.123 6
Mulching 33 56 56 35 68 46 989 0.160 3
Tot al 293 295 294 294 295 293 6,174
TABLE5 Livestock farmers’ ranking of adaptation strategies in the study area.
Livestock adaptation
strategies
1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Total Index Rank
Livestock breeds diversication 95 34 77 48 37 975 0.223 1
Zero grazing (fodder) 20 62 44 48 117 693 0.158 5
Forage production 29 69 74 104 15 866 0.198 4
Reducing livestock number 51 88 68 49 35 944 0.216 2
Change livestock breeds 98 40 26 39 88 894 0.204 3
Tot al 293 293 289 288 292 4,372
FIGURE5
Major constraints of smallholder farmers that hinder adaptation strategies.

Dawid and Boka 10.3389/fclim.2025.1447783
Frontiers in Climate 09 frontiersin.org
adaptation strategies in this study are consistent with the results
of Abdulai etal. (2023) and Mwinkom etal. (2021).
Access to extension services: e model results demonstrated
that there was a positive and statistically signicant association
between access to extension services and all climate change adaptation
practices (Table6). e results also showed that households with
access to extension services are more likely to use dierent adaptation
strategies due to higher awareness. e possible reason is that farmers
who get more extension services, like regular advice and information
related to climate change, are more likely to use adaptation practices
than those who do not have extension services. e ndings of this
study are also more likely to bein line with those of Megabia etal.
(2022) and Zeleke et al. (2022) showed that extension services
increase the chance of adopting dierent adaptation strategies in
response to climate change.
Access to climate information: The results display that access
to climate information has a positive and significant effect on
farmers’ choice of adaptation strategies. This shows that farmers
who have access to climate information are more likely to use
mixed farming, soil and water conservation, and adjust planting
dates by 35.1, 28.8, and 27.6%, respectively (Table6). This suggests
that gaining access to climate-related information improves the
knowledge of farmers on how to adjust to climate change-related
risks for better preparation before it causes adversity by
diversifying their farming, soil and water conservation practices,
and planting dates in response to climate change. According to
FGDs, farmers acquired climatic information through radio,
development agents, and other sources. This finding is also in line
with the findings of Abdulai etal. (2023) and Ahmed etal. (2023).
Perception of climate change: e results displayed that
farmers who perceived climate change were more likely to use
improved crop varieties, crop-livestock diversication, and
adjusting planting dates as adaptation strategies in response to
climate change. e results show that households that perceive
climate change as well can possibly increase the likelihood of
adapting choices on the use of improved crop varieties, crop-
livestock diversication, and adjusting planting dates by 40, 39.2,
and 44.9%, respectively (Table 6), keeping all other variables
constant. is implies that as the farmers recognize climate change
and its inuence, they can use dierent adaptation practices against
it in the study area. A study by Nyang'au etal. (2021) and Ahmed
etal. (2023) found similar results.
Annual farm income of the household: e farm income of the
household has a positive and signicant impact on improved livestock
breeds, mixed farming, and adjusting planting dates at 10, 1, and 5%
signicance levels, respectively (Table6). Alternatively, farmers with
large annual farm incomes are more likely to adopt improved livestock,
mix farming, and adjust planting dates than those with lower annual
incomes. is could beapparent because the use of improved livestock
breeds, diversifying crops and livestock, and adjusting planting dates
requires nancial resources. ese results are consistent with previous
studies by Belay (2020) and Atube etal. (2021).
TABLE6 Multivariate probit simulation results for smallholder farmers’ adaptation strategy to climate change.
Variables Use of
improved crop
variety
Use of improved
livestock breeds
Crop-livestock
diversification
Soil and water
conservation
Adjusting
planting dates
Coef. Std.er Coef. Std.er Coef. Std.er Coef. Std.er Coef. Std.er
Sex of the households −0.199 0.327 −0.001 0.317 0.157 0.323 0.391 0.327 0.033 0.328
Age of the households −0.007 0.008 −0.006 0.008 −0.008 0.008 0.003 0.008 −0.009 0.008
Educational status 0.040*0.023 0.041*0.023 0.032 0.024 −0.012 0.024 0.008 0.023
Household size 0.078** 0.034 0.013 0.033 0.064*0.034 0.004 0.033 0.006 0.032
Total land size 0.014 0.055 0.044 0.052 −0.034 0.058 0.076 0.056 0.036 0.056
Cooperative membership 0.424** 0.164 0.355** 0.161 0.373** 0.161 −0.208 0.164 0.219 0.160
Livestock (TLU) −0.003 0.024 −0.006 0.024 −0.014 0.025 0.002 0.024 −0.003 0.024
Access to credit services −0.297 0.177 0.055 0.175 −0.045 0.175 0.027 0.175 −0.086 0.173
Access to extension services 0.349*0.185 0.718*** 0.189 0.457** 0.183 0.315*0.190 0.645*** 0.184
Climate information 0.184 0.157 0.211 0.157 0.351** 0.159 0.288*0.158 0.276*0.157
Perception of climate change 0.400** 0.168 0.256 0.168 0.392** 0.169 0.259 0.172 0.449*** 0.172
Farm income 0.097 0.089 0.167*0.090 0.328*** 0.091 0.122 0.089 0.186** 0.087
Midland 0.109 0.216 −0.265 0.215 0.004 0.216 0.213 0.214 0.187 0.215
Lowland 0.076 0.218 −0.262 0.216 0.034 0.220 0.314 0.217 0.326 0.216
Constant −1.955*1.058 −2.83*** 1.052 −4.58*** 1.057 −2.43** 1.047 −2.99*** 1.034
Predicted probability 0.551 0.486 0.549 0.584 0.499
Joint probability(success) = 26.34% Log likelihood = −648.04
Joint probability(failure) = 18.02% Wald χ2 (70) = 112.53
Number of observations = 303 Prob > chi2 = 0.0010
Number of simulations (# draws) = 100 Likelihood ratio test of H0: Rhoij = 0; χ2(10) = 590.68 Prob > chi2 = 0.0000
***, ** and * signicant at 1, 5 and 10% probability level, respectively.

Dawid and Boka 10.3389/fclim.2025.1447783
Frontiers in Climate 10 frontiersin.org
Conclusion
e study intended to explore farmers’ adaptation strategies to
climate change in the Arsi zone, focusing on perceptions, constraints,
and factors aecting their choices. Data was collected from 303
households and analyzed using descriptive statistics, Likert scale
measurement, Mann–Kendall statistical test, weighted average index,
and multivariate probit model. Farmers are facing decreased rainfall
patterns and increased temperatures, which are aecting agricultural
production. To mitigate climate change, they have been using
adaptation strategies like improved seeds, livestock, mixed farming, soil
and water conservation, and shi in planting dates. Also, among the
crop adaptation strategies, crop rotation was the rst most important
adaptation strategy commonly used, followed by drought-tolerant
crops and mulching for crop-based adaptation strategies against climate
change, respectively. Similarly, diversication of livestock types is the
most preferred livestock adaptation strategy. However, lack of inputs,
shortage of capital, high prices of inputs, limited grazing land, poor
technical knowledge, lack of improved livestock, and lack of climate
information were the major constraints in the study area. e MVP
model reveals that education, household size, cooperative membership,
extension services, climate information, perception of climate change,
and farm income signicantly aect farmers’ choices of adaptation
strategies. e study aims to inform policymakers and extension
workers on farm-level adaptation strategies to lessen climate change’s
adverse eects, promoting agricultural and economic development,
and requiring suitable policy formulation and implementation.
Recommendations
e research ndings found that concerned bodies have to work
on the development agents’ knowledge by continually updating the
extension workers’ knowledge so as to improve the productivity and
production level of agricultural production (both crop and livestock)
through the transfer of improved technologies, knowledge, and
practices that are ecologically, socially, and economically feasible.
Generally, governments, policymakers, and researchers should focus
on raising awareness about climate change through dierent sources,
such as mass media, extension services, facilitating agricultural
cooperative unions to obtain inputs, enhancing research on the use of
crop varieties, improving livestock breeds that are more suited to the
local environment, improving farmers farm income earning
opportunities, and improving literacy status, which would do the most
to accelerate adaptation and increase households’ decision-making
regarding key adaptation practices.
Limitations of the study and future work
e major limitation of this study is that it identied only ve
major adaptation strategies in the model. However, there are a large
number of adaptation measures that could betaken by smallholder
farmers in the area. Another limitation of this study is the use of cross-
sectional data and its focus only on three districts, and the sample size
was also not large because of nancial and time constraints. Moreover,
this study did not consider the impact of each adaptation strategy.
us, the researcher recommends that future policy and research
should focus on evaluating the impacts of each adaptation strategy on
the livelihood of smallholder farmers to build their adaptive capacity
and their resilience.
Data availability statement
e original contributions presented in the study are included in
the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can bedirected
to the corresponding author.
Ethics statement
Ethical review and approval were not required for the study on
human participants in accordance with local legislation and
institutional requirements. Written informed consent for participation
was not required for this study in accordance with the national
legislation and the institutional requirements.
Author contributions
ID: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis,
Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Soware, Supervision,
Writing– original dra, Writing– review & editing. EB: Data curation,
Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Supervision,
Visualization, Writing– review & editing.
Funding
e author(s) declare that no nancial support was received for
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Acknowledgments
e authors would like to express their sincere gratitude to the
Oromia Agricultural Research Institute and the Asella Agricultural
Research Center for providing the nancial support. anks to the
interviewees, the enumerators, and Arsi zone Agriculture Oce.
Conflict of interest
e authors declare that the research was conducted in the
absence of any commercial or nancial relationships that could
beconstrued as a potential conict of interest.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors
and do not necessarily represent those of their aliated organizations,
or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product
that may beevaluated in this article, or claim that may bemade by its
manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Dawid and Boka 10.3389/fclim.2025.1447783
Frontiers in Climate 11 frontiersin.org
References
Abazinab, H., Duguma, B., and Muleta, E. (2022). Livestock farmers' perception of
climate change and adaptation strategies in the Gera district, Jimma zone, Oromia
regional state, Southwest Ethiopia. Heliyon 8:e12200. doi: 10.1016/j.
heliyon.2022.e12200
Abdulai, A. M., Sulemana, M., and Ayambila, S. N. (2023). Smallholder farmer
adaptation strategies to climate change in northern Ghana: evidence from Gushegu.
IJFMR 5, 1–16.
Adger, W. N., Lorenzoni, I., and O'Brien, K. L. (2009). Adapting to climate change:
resholds, values, governance. rst Edn. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
AGRA (Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa) (2018). Africa agriculture status
report: e business of smallholder agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa. Alliance Green
Revolut Afr AGRA, 5, 3–19.
Ahmed, B., Haji, J., Ketema, M., and Jemal, K. (2023). Impacts and adaptation extents
of climate smart agricultural practices among smallholder farmers of Ethiopia:
implication to food and nutrition security. Cogent Eco & Finance 11:2210911. doi:
10.1080/23322039.2023.2210911
Asrat, P., and Simane, B. (2018). Farmers’ perception of climate change and adaptation
strategies in the Dabus watershed, North-West Ethiopia. Ecol. Process. 7, 1–13. doi:
10.1186/s13717-018-0118-8
Assaye, A., Ketema, M., and Bekele, A. (2020). Smallholder farmers’ adaptation
strategies to climate change: the case of Ankesha Guagusa District of Awi zone,
northwestern Ethiopia. J Agric Econom Rural Develop 6, 760–772.
Atube, F., Malinga, G. M., Nyeko, M., Okello, D. M., Alarakol, S. P., and Okello-Uma, I.
(2021). Determinants of smallholder farmers’ adaptation strategies to the eects of
climate change: evidence from northern Uganda. A Food Secur 10, 1–14. doi: 10.1186/
s40066-020-00279-1
Ayal, D. Y., and Filho, W. L. (2017). Farmers’ perceptions of climate variability and its
adverse impacts on crop and livestock production in Ethiopia. J of Arid Envints 140,
20–28. doi: 10.1016/j.jaridenv.2017.01.007
AZANRO (Arsi zone agriculture and natural resource oce). (2021). Annual Report.
Belay, A. Determinants of farmers’ choices of adaptation strategies to climate change:
e case of Guangua District of Awi zone, Amhara National Regional State,
Northwestern Ethiopia. MSc esis, Haramaya University, Ethiopia. (2020).
Belay, A., Recha, J. W., Woldeamanuel, T., and Morton, J. F. (2017). Smallholder
farmers’ adaptation to climate change and determinants of their adaptation decisions in
the central Ri Valley of Ethiopia. Agri & Food Security 6, 1–13. doi: 10.1186/
s40066-017-0100-1
Belderbos, R., Carree, M., Diederen, B., Lokshin, B., and Veugelers, R. (2004).
Heterogeneity in R&D cooperation strategies. Int. J of industrial orgn 22, 1237–1263. doi:
10.1016/j.ijindorg.2004.08.001
Bewket, W., R adeny, M., and Mungai, C. (2015). Agricultural adaptation and
institutional responses to climate change vulnerability in Ethiopia. CCAFS working
paper. 106:60.
Deressa, T. T., Hassan, R. M., Ringler, C., Alemu, T., and Yesuf, M. (2009). Determinants
of farmers’ choice of adaptation methods to climate change in the Nile Basin of Ethiopia.
Glob. Environ. Chang. 19, 248–255. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.01.002
Evariste, F. F., Jean, S. D., Victor, K., and Claudia, M. (2018). Assessing climate change
vulnerability and local adaptation strategies in adjacent communities of the KribiCampo
coastal ecosystems. South Cameroon. Urb Climate 24, 1037–1051. doi: 10.1016/j.
uclim.2017.12.007
Fadina, A. M. R., and Barjolle, D. (2018). Farmers’ adaptation strategies to climate
change and their implications in the Zou Department of South Benin. Envirnts 5, 15–25.
doi: 10.3390/environments5010015
FAO (Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia). (2019). e state of food insecurity
in the world. Rome, Italy: FAO.
FDRE. (2011). Ethiopia’s climate-resilient green economy strategy (CRGE). Addis
Ababa. Ethiopia. cmpethiopia.org.
IPCC. (2014). “Climate change 2014: Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Part a:
Global and sectoral aspects.” Contribution of working group II to the h assessment
report of the IPCC university press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and NewYork, NY,
USA, 1132.
Kasim, M., and Feto, A. (2018). Determinants of smallholder farmers’ adaptation to
climate change and variability: the case study of Sire District, Arsi zone, Oromia
National Regional State, Ethiopia. Arsi J. Sci. Innovation 3, 1–41.
Kosec, K., and Mo, C. H. (2017). Aspirations and the role of social protection:
evidence from a natural disaster in rural Pakistan. Wor ld D ev. 97, 49–66. doi: 10.1016/j.
worlddev.2017.03.039
Kosgey, I. S. (2004). Breeding objectives and breeding strategies for small ruminants
in the tropics: Wageningen University and Research.
Lin, C. T. J., Jensen, K. L., and Yen, S. T. (2005). Awareness of foodborne pathogens
among US consumers. Food Qual. Prefer. 16, 401–412. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2004.07.001
Lomiso, T. F. (2020). Climate change, its eect on livestock production and adaptation
strategies in Hawassa zuria and hula districts of Sidama region, Ethiopia. I.J.E. Mit. Anal
8, 117–129.
Megabia, T. T., Amare, Z. Y., and Asmare, A. M. (2022). Rural household perception
and adaptation strategies to climate change and variability: in the case of Libo-
kemkem Woreda. Ethiopia. Envtl Sys Res. 11, 1–10. doi: 10.1186/s40068-022-00270-8
Mwinkom, F. X., Damnyag, L., Abugre, S., and Alhassan, S. (2021). Factors inuencing
climate change adaptation strategies in North-Western Ghana: evidence of farmers in
the black Volta Basin in upper west region. Discover applied sci. 3, 1–20. doi: 10.1007/
s42452-021-04503-w
Nyang'au, J. O., Mohamed, J. H., Mango, N., Makate, C., and Wangeci, A. N. (2021).
Smallholder farmers’ perception of climate change and adoption of climate smart
agriculture practices in Masaba south sub-county, Kisii, Kenya. Heliyon 7:e06789. doi:
10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e06789
Oloo, G.I. Evaluation of climate change adaptation strategies and their eect on food
production among farmers in Bungoma County, Kenya. PhD Dissertation, Egerton
University, Kenya. (2013).
Serdeczny, O., Adams, S., Baarsch, F., Coumou, D., Robinson, A., Hare, W., et al.
(2017). Climate change impacts in sub-Saharan Africa: from physical changes to their
social repercussions. Reg. Environ. Chang. 17, 1585–1600. doi: 10.1007/
s10113-015-0910-2
Shiferaw, A. (2014). Smallholder farmers’ adaptation strategies to climate change in
Ethiopia: evidence from Adola Rede Woreda, Oromia region. J Eco Sust Devpt 5,
162–182.
Tanto, T., and Laekemariam, F. (2019). Impacts of soil and water conservation
practices on soil property and wheat productivity in southern Ethiopia. Envtal Sys
Research 8, 1–9. doi: 10.1186/s40068-019-0142-4
Tesfaye, W., and Seifu, L. (2016). Climate change perception and choice of adaptation
strategies: empirical evidence from smallholder farmers in East Ethiopia. Int. J. Climate
Change Strat. Manag. 8, 253–270. doi: 10.1108/IJCCSM-01-2014-0017
Workalemahu, S., and Dawid, I. (2021). Smallholder farmers’ adaptation strategies,
opportunities, and challenges to climate change: a review. Int J Food Sci Agric 5, 592–600.
doi: 10.26855/ijfsa.2021.12.005
Zeleke, T., Beyene, F., Deressa, T., Yousuf, J., and Kebede, T. (2022). Smallholder
farmers' perception of climate change and choice of adaptation strategies in east
Hararghe zone, Eastern Ethiopia. IJCCSM 15, 515–536. doi: 10.1108/
IJCCSM-01-2022-0014
Zeray, Z., Sime, G., and Shallo, L. (2017). Smallholder farmers adaptation strategies
to climate-related risk factors in wheat production in selected districts of Central
Oromia, Ethiopia. Int. J. Current Res. 9, 60186–66019.