1

OKONKWO, EUCHARIA ANULIKA

PG/M.SC/11/58376

THE EFFECTS OF CLIMATE VARIABILITY ON

THE CHOICES OF LIVELIHOOD AMONG FARM
HOUSEHOLDS IN ANAMBRA STATE, NIGERIA

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS

FACULTY OF ARTS

Digitally Signed by: Content manager’s Name

DN : CN = Webmaster’s name
Azuka Ijomah
O= University of Nigeria, Nsukka

OU = Innovation Centre
 2

THE EFFECTS OF CLIMATE VARIABILITY ON THE CHOICES OF

LIVELIHOOD AMONG FARM HOUSEHOLDS IN ANAMBRA STATE,
NIGERIA

BY

OKONKWO, EUCHARIA ANULIKA

PG/M.SC/11/58376

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS

UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA, NSUKKA

 3

DECEMBER, 2015.
 i

TITLE PAGE

THE EFFECTS OF CLIMATE VARIABILITY ON THE CHOICES OF

LIVELIHOOD AMONG FARM HOUSEHOLDS IN ANAMBRA STATE,
NIGERIA

A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF

AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS, UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA, NSUKKA

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE AWARD

OF MASTER OF SCIENCE DEGREE (M.Sc) IN AGRICULTURAL
ECONOMICS
 ii

DECEMBER, 2015.

CERTIFICATION

OKONKWO, EUCHARIA ANULIKA, a postgraduate student of the department of

Agricultural Economics with Registration number, PG/M.SC/11/58376 has satisfactorily completed
the requirements for the course and the research work for the award of the degree of Master of
Science (M.Sc) in Agricultural Economics. The work embodied in this work is original and has not
been submitted in part or full for any other diploma or degree of this university or any university.
The research work has been approved for the Department of Agricultural Economics, University of
Nigeria, Nsukka.

____________________ ____________________

DR. F. U. AGBO DATE

(SUPERVISOR)

____________________________ _____________________

PROF. S. A. N. D. CHIDEBELU DATE

(HEAD, DEPT. OF AGRIC. ECONOMICS

 iii

__________________________ _____________________

(EXTERNAL EXAMINER) DATE

DEDICATION

This work is dedicated to Merciful Jesus and Blessed Memory of Jonathan Okonkwo.
 iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

My unreserved gratitude goes to my supervisor Dr. F. U. Agbo for his kind, patience,
understanding, unceasing and tireless effort in guiding me in various stages of this work. Your
invaluable help, suggestions and priceless services made this research a success.

I am sincerely grateful to my mother Josephine Okonkwo, my uncles, brothers and sisters,

especially Prof. T. M. Okonkwo, Mr. P. I. Okonkwo, Mr. C. Okonkwo. Mr. M. O. Okonkwo, Mr.V. N.
Okonkwo, and Mrs. R. N. Akah. Others are Mrs. P. C. Okoye, Catherine, Christiana, Oluchukwu and
Chukwunwike for their moral and financial support especially in difficult moment of this work.
 v

My special thanks go to our H.O.D. Prof. S.A.N.D. Chidebelu, Prof. E. C. Okorji, Prof. N. J.
Nweze, Prof. C. J. Arene, Prof. C. U. Okoye, Prof. E. C. Eboh, Prof. A. I. Achike, Prof. E. O. Arua, Dr.
A.A. Enete, Dr. B. C. Okpukpara, Dr. E. C Amachina, Dr. P. I. Opata, Dr. N. A. Chukwuone, Mr. P. B. I.
Njepuome, Mrs. C. S Onyenekwe, Mrs. R. N. Arua, Mrs. C. U. Ike and others for their guidance and
contributions throughout the period of this work. My appreciation also goes to Madam Romaine,
Blessing and Ifeanyi and to all the staff of the department for their advice and encouragement.

To my friends and colleagues, Anthonia, Chidimma, Amaka, Sunday, Ebere, Grace,

Emmanuel, Maliki, Mr. Onyeisi, Mr. Chris Ogbanje, Oledimma, Onyinye Emeka, Johnpaul, Godwin,
Elijah, Adaobi, Mr. Okon, Sr. Chiemela and all Divine Mercy devotees Bravo!. For your prayers and
support throughout this course of study. May God reward you all.

Finally, for others who might have contributed in one way or the other and whose names
are not mention you are all appreciated for all your kindness and support.

ABSTRACT

The study analyzed the effects of climate variability on the choices of livelihood among farm
households in Anambra state, Nigeria. Data was collected using structured and pretested
questionnaire administered to 160 respondents drawn from 4 Agricultural zones, which were
selected through multistage sampling techniques. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics like
frequency, mean, pie charts, rating scales and inferential statistics like multinomial logit model
(MNL). The study showed that 57% of the sampled respondents were aged above 50 years, while
60% were male, Average household size was six persons. About 11% of the respondents had no
formal education while 47% had at least secondary education. The farming experience was 15years.
 vi

The mean land size was 1.75ha with a mean annual income of N100, 000. About 57% of the
respondents had access to credit, 86.3% had access to infrastructure while 75% were members of
social organizations. Family labour was the major source of labour. Also household income, gender,
marital status, household size, educational level and land size were the major determinants of
household choices of livelihood in the study areas. Household income had positively and significantly
influence on all livelihood choices in the study area. Gender had positive and significant influence on
fishing activities while marital status had negative and significant influence on both fishing and
livestock production, household size had negative and significant influence on livestock production
and agro forestry activities. Educational status had positive influence on livestock production. Also
land size had negative and significant influence on both fishing and livestock production. Farm
households in the study area perceived increase in precipitation, increase in temperature, and
increase in rate of erosion and decrease in agricultural yield as effects of climate variability. Also,
they used crop diversification, mulching, improved land management as adaptation strategies to
combating the effect of climate variability on their livelihood choices. The study therefore
recommended that extension agents should disseminate information and also make available
improved varieties of plant and animal species which the farmer could use in combating the effects
of climate variability.
 vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title page i

Certification ii

Dedication iii

Acknowledgments iv

Abstract v

Table of contents vi

List of tables vii

List of figures viii

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background Information 1

1.2 Statement of the problem 4

1.3 Objective of study 5

1.4 Justification of the study 6

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

2.1 Definition of Concepts 7

2.2 Climate variability in Nigeria 7

2.3 Anambras’ vulnerability to climate variability 8

2.4 Socio-economic and climate variability 9

2.5 Livelihood choices in Aanambra state 11

2.6 Factors influencing the choices of livelihood 11

 viii

2.7 Effects of climate variability on choices of livelihood 12

2.7.1 Effect on farming/ cropping system 13

2.7.2 Effect on fisheries and aquaculture 14

2.7.3 Effect of climate variability on livestock production 16

2.7.4 Effect on trade 17

2.7.5 Effect on biophysical 18

2.7.6 Effect on bio-energy 18

2.7.7 Effect on forest, agro-forestry 18

2.7.8 Effect on health 19

2.7.9 Effect on employment 20

2.7.10 Poverty and climate variability 21

2.7.11 Resources conflicts and climate variability 21

2.7.12 Environmentally- induced migration and climate variability 22

2.7.13 Socio- economic implication and climate variability 22

2.8 Adaptation strategies to combat the effects of climate 23

Variability

2.8.1 Adaptation strategies for cropping system 23

2.8.2 Adaptation and mitigation strategies for fisheries/ 25

Aquaculture

2.8.3 Adaptation strategies for trading 27

2.8.4 Adaptation strategies for agro-forestry 27

2.8.5 Adaptation and mitigation strategies for socio-economic 27

 ix

implication

2.9 Theoretical framework 28

2.9.1 Rational choice theory 28

2.9.2 Sustainable Livelihood Approach (SLA) 29

2.9.3 Utility theory 32

2.10 Analytical framework 33

2.10.1 Multinomial logit model 33

2.10.2 Rating scale 35

CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Study area 36

3.2 Sampling techniques 36

3.3 Method of data collection 37

3.4 Data analysis 37

3.4.1 Multinomial logit model 37

3.4.2 Likert scale rating 39

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Socio-economic characteristics of respondents 40

4.1.2 Age distribution of respondents 40

4.1.2 Gender of respondents 41

4.1.3 Marital status respondents 41

4.1.4 Households size of respondents 42

 x

4.1.5 level of education of respondents 42

4.1.6 Farming experience of the respondents 43

4.1.7 Annual household income 44

4.1.8 Farm size holding of the respondents 44

4.1.9 Access to credit among the respondents 45

4.1.10 Respondents access to infrastructure 45

4.1.11 Membership to Farmers organization 46

4.1.12 Source of labour 47

4.2 Livelihood choices of the respondents 47

4.3 Factors influencing the choices of livelihood among the respondents 48

4.4 Mean ratings of perception of the effects of climate variability on 52

Choices of livelihood by the respondents

4.5 Mean ratings of responses on the strategies adopted by farm households 53

in Combating effects of climate variability on their choices of livelihood

CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Summary 56

5.2 Conclusion 57

5.3 Recommendation 57

5.4 Contribution to knowledge 58

5.5 Area of further research 58

REFERENCES 59
 xi

APPENDIX 72
 xii

LIST OF TABLES

2.1 Climate impacts and Adaptation Strategies 25

3.1: The distribution of the local government area according to Agricultural zone 36

4.1: Percentage distribution of the respondents according to age 40

4:2: Percentage distribution of respondents according to household size 42

4.3: Percentage distribution of respondents according to 43

educational level of the households head

4.4: Percentage distribution of respondents according to farming experience 43

4.5: Percentage distribution of respondents according to annual households income 44

4.6: Percentage distribution of respondents according to farm size 44

4.7: Percentage distribution of respondents according to sources of labour used 47

4.8: Percentage distribution of the respondents according to choices of livelihood 48

4.9: Multinomial logit regression results of factors influencing the choices 51

of livelihood among the respondents in the area

4.10: Mean rating of the perception of the effects of climate variability 53

on the choices of livelihood by the respondents

4.11: Mean ratings of the responses of farm households’ strategies in combating 55

the effects of climate variability in the study area

xiii
 xiv

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1: Five capital of sustainable livelihood 30

Figure 2.2: Sustainable rural livelihoods framework 32

Figure 4.1: Pie chart showing percentage distribution of the respondents 41

according to gender.

Figure 4.2: Pie chart showing percentage distribution of the respondents 41

according to marital status.

Figure 4.3: Pie chart showing percentage distribution of the respondents according 45

to credit access.

Figure 4.4: Pie chart showing percentage distribution of the respondents according 46

to access to infrastructure.

Figure 4.5: Pie chart showing percentage distribution of respondents 47

according to membership of organization.

 15

INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER ONE

1.1 Background Information

Climate variability is a measure of the frequency of changes in the values of climate variables
and their range over a given time period. Temperature and precipitation are the climate variables
most critical to measure with regard to food systems, because not only does the range between high
and low value matter, but also the frequency at which these extremes occur and the intensity of the
event, (Zierovogel, Nyong, Osman, Conde, Cortes & Downing 2006). Climate variation refers to
change in one or more climate variables (rainfall, temperature, wind, light etc.) over a specified time.
Long-term fluctuation in temperature, precipitation, wind and other aspects of the earth’s climate
that relate to climate change are aspects of climate variability (Carbon dioxide Information Analysis
Centre (CADIA), 1990).

Farmers and the society in general are vulnerable to impacts of change in climate variables
(McCarthy, Canziani, leary, Dokken, & White, 2001). Downing (1992) asserted that changes in global
climate variables may present risks to farm households because shifts in temperature and
precipitation present a precarious future for the households that are dependent on agriculture for
their livelihood. According to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),
anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are significantly altering the earth’s climate. It is predicted
that mean annual global surface temperature will increase by 1 – 350C by year 2100 and the global
mean sea level will rise by 15 – 95cm with consequent changes in the spatial and temporal patterns
of precipitation (IPCC, 1990 & 1997). Some studies have shown that the potential impacts of changes
could be more severe on developing countries (Parry, 1990 & IPCC, 1997). Climate variations can
enhance or diminish a local area’s comparative advantage in agriculture. Heightened year to year
variation of climate and changing local factors can markedly affect income from agricultural
production, increase costs to consumers and could as well lead to food scarcity (Downing, 1992).
Climate stress is prevalent in most of sub-Saharan Africa. In the lands of East Africa, Climate stress is
exemplified in the present year to year variability, seasonality, uncertainty and patchiness of rainfall
and extreme events such as droughts, and flash flooding (McCarthy et al., 2001).
 16

According to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO, 2010) climate variability refers
to variation in the mean state and other statistics (such as standard deviations, the occurrence of
extremes etc) of the climate on all temporal and spatial scales beyond that of individual weather
events. Climate variability may be due to natural internal processes within the climate system
(internal variability) or variations in nature or anthropogenic forces (external variability). The United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), in WMO made a distinction between
“Climate change” which is attributable to human activities altering the atmospheric composition
and “Climate variability” attributable to natural internal climate system process. United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change (2007) agreed that human beings have been adapting to
the variable climate around them for centuries worldwide, local climate variability can influence
people’s social, political and personal conditions with severe consequences on their livelihoods.
According to IPCC (2007), the changes in climate are attributed directly or indirectly to human
activities that alter the composition of the global atmosphere over comparable time periods. These
changes occur due to variation in different climate parameters such as cloud cover, precipitation,
temperature and vapor pressure, etc (Federal Ministry of Environment, 2003). Agriculture in Nigeria
is not mechanized such that climate assumes significance in every phase including the timing of
cultivation, planting and harvesting operations, variety selection and transplanting (Odekunle, 2004;
Adejuwon, 2006; Nnamchi, Emeribe & Anyadike, 2009). It was projected that the climate conditions
are no longer the same as it used to be. Farmers have been misled and often threatened by the
uncertainties in rainfall pattern, temperature increase, sea level rise, prolonged drought, desert
encroachments, flooding, erosion, crop failures, low productivity, pests and diseases just to mention
a few. Farming and other human activities have led to a buildup of carbon (iv) oxide CO2, carbon
monoxide CO, methane (CH4), sulphur (iv) oxide SO2 etc which are collectively known as greenhouse
gases (GHG) (Ozor,2009). Agriculture based livelihood systems that are vulnerable to climate
variability run the risk of increased crop failure and destruction of productive assets. The effect of
climate variability is currently being felt in rural areas (LEISA, 2008). FAO (2008) states that rural
people inhabiting coastal flood plains and low lying river deltas, mountains, dry land as well as the
arctic are more at risk. Among those that are at risk, socio-economic characteristics are likely to
aggravate the effects of climate variability thereby causing deterioration in nutritional and economic
status for women, young children, the elderly, the sick and the disable.

Livelihoods can be defined as the combined activities and available social and physical assets
that contribute to the household existence (Carney, 1998). Each individual has his or her own means
of securing a livelihood and together, individuals make up the household’s packages of livelihood
assets and strategies. These strategies are pursued with larger context that often determines
 17

whether strategies will succeed or fail (Carney1998). The livelihoods approach is useful for
understanding food insecurity as it emphasizes the importance of looking at an individual’s capacity
for managing risks as well as the external threats to livelihood security, such as drought (Chambers,
1989; Scoones, 1998; Carney, 1998 & Moser, 1989). Livelihood of households can be compared if
similar characteristics and activities in household livelihoods are grouped together to cluster
livelihoods typologies. Examples of typologies might include small-scale farming livelihoods or
informal trade based livelihoods. These help focus on an intermediate system level that draws from
the local but has a unit of analysis greater than the local. Recognizing livelihood typologies is a useful
construct for comparing livelihood systems between region (Dixon, Guiliver & Gibbon, 2001). A
number of livelihood typologies can coexist and can vary in their geographical extent. In some
instances as coastal resources for fishing, and in other instances, they may cross national boundaries
such as livestock-based livelihoods. Livelihood can also be described as consisting of systematic
activities or enterprises undertaken by individual households using their capabilities as well as assets
to derive material or financial reward and improved status (Assan, 2006). However, the effort by
households to improve their well being through engaging in various livelihood options tend to be
distressed by environmental factors, unemployment and poverty which dominate the livelihood
patterns of the farm households (Barrett, Reardon &Webb, 2001 & Ellis, 1998).

Climate variability such as changes in rainfall events, changes in the frequency and
magnitude of extreme weather events may lead to changes in sea levels due to warming. The rate
and duration of warming observed during the 20th century are unprecedented. Increases in
temperature, numbers of hot days and the heat index have been recorded globally during the
second half of the 20th century. The warming trend in the global average surface temperature is
projected to continue with increases to a range of 1.4 – 5.80C by 2100 in comparison to 1990. Since
the early 1800s when people began burning large amounts of coal and oil, the amount of carbon
(1V) oxide in the earth’s atmosphere has increased by nearly 30% and average global temperature
appeared to have risen between 10 and 20F (Steinbrenner Institute for Environmental Education &
Research. (n.d.). Retrieved from http: // www.phi.cmu.edu/ cc/poiis/cc/-background.pdf. accessed
on 18th December 2015). Countries in sub-Sahara African including Nigeria are likely to suffer the
most because of their geographical location, low incomes, low institutional capacity as well as their
greater reliance on climate-sensitive ( Eboh, 2009). The effects of climate Variability on agriculture
are projected to manifest through changes in land and water regimes, specifically changes in the
frequency and intensity of drought, flooding, water shortages, worsening soil condition,
desertification, diseases and pests outbreaks on crops and livestock (Eboh, 2009).
 18

1.2 Problem Statement

The environmental consequences of global warming are impacting negatively on livelihoods

employment and sustainable economies of local peoples. Agriculture is a major victim of climate
impacts. The situation becomes more critical because agriculture contributes significantly to
employment, livelihoods sustenance and poverty reduction in developing countries, including
Nigeria. The effects of Climate Variability could manifest in declining agricultural productivity and
competitiveness, greater risks to human health systems, prospects of increased unemployment,
worsened poverty, diminished food security and conflicts of resource use. Daily life comprises a set
of activities in space and time during which physical hazard, social relations and individual choice
become integrated as patterns of vulnerability. These patterns are guided by the socio-economic
and personal characteristics of people involved. The effect of gender, age, income, physical
disability, religion, ethnicity as well as class may play a role in affecting livelihood, in addition to
poverty, class or social-economic status (Wisner, Blaikie, Cannon & Davis, 2003).

Climate variability threatens livelihoods along African coasts. It affects farmers, fishermen
and cattle-rearers. These predisposes them to hunger, sickness, resource over exploitation,
reduction in crop yields which lead to localized increases in food prices, displacement of people from
coastal and densely populated low-lying areas, inundation resulting in salinization of these fertile
areas, as well as water-borne disease like cholera and dysentery and other social vices such as
conflicts (Anyadike, 2009). Anyadike (2009) discloses how climate variability affect farming job as
choices of livelihood but not in Anambra state and does not identify other choices of livelihood in
Anambra state which this work will address. In Anambra state, farmers depend on the natural
environment for their livelihood due to poverty and paucity of resources. Extreme variation in
climate variables has made these farmers vulnerable and helpless. The destruction of the natural
environment due to human activities creates more poverty in the area as their sources of livelihoods
are under threat. Agriculture is the hardest hit by climate induced problems such as flood which is
ravaging the land area of a considerable part of the state leaving the people homeless and their
farmlands destroyed (Anayo, 2010). Accurate information about climate variability is lacking in
Anambra state, especially it affects their livelihood choices. Moreover where the people appear not
to have adequate knowledge of climate variability which affects their livelihood choices, they are
more vulnerable to its impacts (Anayo, 2010).

The impact of climate variability which is already here with us demands adaptatives and mitigation
strategies to tackle them but unfortunately these strategies have not been adequately circulated in
 19

Anambra state leaving the people to their primitive way of dealing with harsh weather induced
problems. Some adaptation strategies and measures have been identified by several researchers
including (Enete, Madu, Mojekwe, Onyekuru, Onwubuya &Eze 2011; Onyeneke and Madukwe, 2010;
Ozor et al., 2010; Apata, Ogunyinka, Sanusi & Ogunwande, 2010 & Agbo, 2012). Other studies dealt
majorly on appropriate coping strategies and measures to mitigate the negative effects of climate
variability and change (Zierovogel, et al., 2008). Strategies that can equip the farm household in
making the best choice of livelihood under existing climate variability have also been carried out.
Some of these adaptatives measures include crop diversification, mulching, crop rotation, tree
planting, improved land management techniques, cover cropping, application of organic manure and
fertilizer, controlled grazing, early planting, forestry regulation, reforestation and mixed cropping
(Agbo, 2012). Diversification from farming to non –farming activities, emergency relief strategies,
social relation and net work, use of resistant varieties of plant and animal species, are also some of
the coping strategies (Hassan & Nhemachena, 2008). Apata, Ogunyinka, Sanusi & Ogunwande
(2010) noted that there have not been sufficient studies on the effectiveness of these adaptation
measures. Klevin, et al., (2007) warned that even the most stringent mitigation effort cannot avert
further impacts of climate change and variability in the next few decades which make adaptation
unavoidable.

Despite the increase in frequency and magnitude of climate variability, studies on the
choices of livelihood among farm household have not been comprehensive especially in Anambra
state. Absence of such comprehensive data and information on adaptation strategies to Climate
variability and choices of livelihood motivated this study. The study therefore investigated the
livelihood choices and strategies adapted by farmers in Anambra state in dealing with the effects of
climate variability

1.3 Objectives of the Study

The broad objective of this study was to analyze the effects of climate variability on the
choices of livelihood among farm households in Anambra State.

The specific objectives were to:

(i) identify the socio-economic characteristics of the farm households;

(ii) identify their common livelihood choices;

(iii) determine the factors that influenced the choices of the livelihoods by the respondents;
 20

(iv) ascertain the perception of the respondents of the effects of climate variability on choices of
livelihoods;

(v) describe the strategies adopted by the farm households in combating the effects of climate
variability on their livelihood choices.

1.4 Justification of the Study

Over the past few years, Nigeria like many other African countries has been beset by a lot of
climate anomalies. Consequences of extreme climate events due to global warming have been so
dramatic that there has been considerable and disturbing concern among various governments and
peoples in the country. The variations in climate have led to a lot of devastating consequences and
effects in various parts of the country. These include flooding, desertification, erosion, drought, sea
level rise, heat stress, pest and diseases, erratic rain fall patterns and land degradation. More
specifically, the south-south geopolitical zone is mainly affected by sea level rise and deforestation
induced changes. The south -east faces severe erosion, flooding and land degradation. Besides the
effects on ecology and biodiversity the above mentioned effects of climate variability have negative
effects on choices of livelihood among farm households in Nigeria.

Hence, the result of this study is expected to give direction to policy makers in designing
appropriate policies to mitigate the effects of climate variability and suggesting the choices of
livelihood for the farm households in Nigeria especially in Anambra State. It will also provide a useful
guide to government and non government agencies interested in climate variability mitigation in
order to reduce the devastating impacts on many vulnerable Communities in Nigeria, especially in
Anambra state. It will also be beneficial to researchers as a good resource base for further work. The
output of the study will not only educate farmers on the effects of climate variability but improve
farmers’ awareness on the issue and livelihood options that would be effective in the face of such
disasters.
 21

CHAPTER TWO

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

2.1 Definition of Concept

A farm is an agricultural production system consisting of a combination of cropping and

livestock components that use labor, land, equipment, knowledge and capital resources overtime
and space to produce goods which are consumed by the household members or marketed (Legal,
Dugue, Faure & Novak, 2011). Fisheries and aquaculture components are sometime integrated with
crop and/or livestock components in a farm, and sometime they represent the unique components
of the farm (Legal et al., 2011). A household is defined as a family based co-residential unit that
takes care of resource management and the primary needs of its members. A household may be
composed of individuals that may not necessarily live together in the same house but share the
majority of the household resources and daily activities. The household livelihood systems includes
not only farming activities but also off farm activities that bring food and cash (Ruddy, 1995). Messer
(1983) defined household as a reference group defined by those who live together under one roof,
who sleep there, who eat at the same-table, who contribute money (income) to the common
coffers. Often a member of a household is also a member of several reference groups, depending on
the task at hand. (Heywood, 1990& Messer, 1983).According to the Federal Republic of Nigeria
population and housing census (2006), a household consists of persons or group of person living
together usually under the same roof or in the same building/compound, which share the same
source of food and recognize themselves as social unit. Bohannan, (1963) classified households on
the basis of the most fundamental kinship found in the house. He further said that those households
usually act to fulfill the function of providing food, shelter and bringing up of the children.

2.2 Climate Variability in Nigeria

In Nigeria, it is well known that climate has varied in time and space that it will
continue to vary in future (Ojo, 1987). Many variation in rainfall particularly have occurred for the
different climatic regions and individual locations in Nigeria, In Southeast state for example droughts
have been relatively less persistent, while rainfall is observed to be increasing and temperature
increases and reduces moderately over the years compared with others states in Northern part of
the country (Okorie, Okeke, Nnaji, Chido & Mbano, 2012). The past and current climatic disasters
and their disastrous consequences were not limited to or peculiar to Nigeria or Africa. The Sahelian
drought of 1992/1993 caused the death of many animals and about 60% drop in crop yield over
 22

Northeastern Nigeria (IPCC, 2007). Friday 26th August 2011, torrential rainfall triggered several
flooding in Ibadan, the state capital of Oyo province in Southwestern Nigeria, the flood caused 30
deaths and displaced nearly 2,000 people (Nigeria Metrological Agency, 2008). In Imo state of
southeast Nigeria, deforestation has triggered soil erosion, compounded by heavy seasonal rainfall
that has led to the destruction of farmlands, houses, roads ,coastal erosion, flooding and flashflood
disasters such as diseases and epidemics, heat waves with communicable diseases and disease
vectors due to increasing surface air temperature ,increased evaporation that affect streams and
rivers landsides and other climate related disasters are evidence of climate variability in Nigeria
(Okorie et al., 2012). Increase in precipitation and changes in extremes including floods and drought
would result to increase erosion and deterioration of ground water quality which would exacerbated
many forms of water pollution, particularly in southern Nigeria. This is because more sediment,
nutrient, dissolved organic matter, pathogens, heavy metal pesticides and salts are likely to infiltrate
many aquifers more rapidly. This pollution has potential negative impact on human health,
ecosystems and water system reliability and operating cost. The extremes charges quantity of
groundwater, particularly in the unsaturated zone, are expected to have adverse effects on food
availability, stability, accessibility, and utilization, thereby decreased food security and increased
vulnerability of poor rural farmers, especially in arid and semi-arid regions (IPCC, 2007).The impact
of climate variability particularly on water resources constitutes a major threat to development and
achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGS), especially with goals relating to poverty
eradication and mortality rate (Okorie et al., 2012). From Sahel in the north to the rainforest and
coastal zone in South, The population Coupled with high poverty levels and rapid economic growth,
are making huge demands on Nigeria's natural resource. Drought in the north, for example, has led
to poor crop yield, water scarcity and forced Migration. In the south, sea level rise increases the risk
of flooding, salt water intrusion and Displacement of people and livestock. Erosion associated with
heavy rain fall and flooding is now a frequent threat in most ecological zones in Nigeria, especially in
the Rain forest zone where Mudslides can occur. Loss of biodiversity is now a common trend in all
ecological zones of Nigeria and this trend only makes natural resource-dependent communities
more vulnerable (Building Nigeria’s Response to Climate Change(BNRCC), 2011).

2.3 Anambra’s Vulnerability to Climate Variability

The frequency of natural disasters has been increasing over the years, resulting in loss of life,
and property, and loss of farm land, loss of harvest crops and destruction of the environment. The
number of crop farmers at risk has been growing each year with high poverty levels making them
more vulnerable to disasters (living With Risk, 2006). Soil erosion resulting in gullies and land
 23

degradation and consequences of intense flooding have affected livelihood in Anambra state. The
soil type is porous with the particles being loose not compacted, thus making them easily
detachable. The topographic feature of pronounced rolling hilly terrain of the state having long
slopes enhances run-off velocity which escalates the gullies. 40% of the land areas of the state are
severely gullied, while 27.8% are mildly gullied. The state accounts for 65% of gully erosion in
Nigeria and there are over780 active gully erosion site in Anambra state (Chinweze,, Abiola-Oleke
&Jideani, 2013). In Anambra state, about eight local government areas were affected by the flood of
2012. These local government areas were Anambra west, Anyamelum, Anambra east, Awka north,
Onitsha,and south, Ihiala and Ogbaru which were highly submerged in water ( Okpala, 2013). More
than 3,000 students and staff of Atani Campus of Federal Polytechnic, Anambra states were displace
by flooding. The number of internally displaced persons ran into thousands with an estimated
10,000 homes fully or partially submerged (Oseloka, 2012). Leading industries in the south of
Onitsha metropolis were submerged and did not work in those periods. The situation for these
communities remained dire and very bleak. Homes, farmlands and properties estimated at billions of
naira were lost; there were minimal loss of lives with only few casualties, thanks to the early warning
and proactive intervention of the Anambra state government and State Emergency Agency (SEMA)
(Okpala, 2013). There were number of displacement of communities, loss of rivers, loss of farmland,
destruction of high ways, link roads and infrastructural development in Nanka, Obosi, Ekwulobia and
Abatete due to erosion (Chinweze, et al., 2013). According to Okpala, (2013) the primary, secondary
and tertiary effects of flood were called into play in the last flood disaster in Anambra state .These
were physical damages to structures, social dislocation, contamination of clean drinking water,
spread of water-borne diseases, shortage of crops and food supplies, rise in the price of food, death
of non tolerant tree species, disruption in transportation systems, serious economic loss and
psychological trauma. Huge amount of money meant for other purpose were spent to cushion the
effect of the natural disaster.

2.4 Socio –economic and Climate Variability.

Changes in the environment affect consumption of rural livelihoods through their impacts on
agricultural production and income, since farm yields are directly affected by weather elements. Ex
ante risk management and ex post-coping abilities of the household, respectively, may or may not
be able to insulate or smoothen consumption from yield effects. Given the income risk or shock,
some reallocation of resources within the household is also likely to take place. Health-related
effects may also be expected, indirectly if food or other resources are downsized, or directly if
changes in weather elements affect the prevalence of diseases or the level of the risk associated
 24

with the exposure to non-trivial weather changes (Skoufias & Vinha, 2012 ). Environmental shock
may have a positive indirect but a negative direct impact on health. For instance, Galindo (2009)
showed that in mexico, the same increase in temperature or precipitation may benefit or damage
crop yield depending on the region, the category of crops and the season in which they occur. While
these changes increase yields in temperate climates, negative health effects have also observed as
breeding conditions for illnesses improved in tropical regions. Thus malnutrition and other health-
related effects may appear, especially if an individual is already poorly nourished when the weather
event occurs in the tropical regions of the country. Nevertheless, increases in temperature and
rainfall are shown to affect crop yields positively as long as those increases do not go out of the
range that hinders the development of the plants. The displacement of people and damage to
infrastructure disrupts African societies in their development effects and impact on the achievement
of almost every Millennium Development Goal, for example, damage to schools in Uganda left at
least 100,000 children out of school. The destruction of roads, school and other infrastructure
delayed on-going development initiatives and political processes (Theron, 2007). Other socio-
economic characteristics such as age, the level of human capital and gender also influence the
impacts of climate variability and change. For instance, it has been shown that a positive rainfall
shock in Indian increases the survival probabilities of girls relative to the boys (Karfakis, Lipper&
Smulders, 2011). The impact of disaster is usually measured in quantifiable ways, such as adding up
the number of the dead and injured and estimating the physical damage to housing, land, livestock,
agriculture and infrastructure. But attention is not necessarily paid to how disaster impact on
different categories of people, men, women, children, aged, and people.etc. Disasters affect men
and women differently because of the different roles they occupy and the different responsibilities
given to them in life and because of the differences in their capacities, needs and vulnerabilities.
Yande (2009) observed that the marital status of household head played an important role in
determining livelihood strategy and that those who were married had a diversity of livelihoods as
opposed to the single ,divorce, separated and windowed household heads. Family size may change
at household level due to disasters. For example in Chitwan district, Nepal during the floods, the
extended family system collapsed, leaving the women and elderly without support (Ariyabandu &
Wickramasighe, 2005).Families living nearer to the river seem to have fewer opportunities to engage
in multiple economic activities which make them more vulnerable to natural disasters and may keep
them trapped in a poverty cycle (Brouwer, Aker, Brander & Haque, 2007).

2.5 Livelihoods Choices in Anambra State

The Climate and vegetation of Anambra state as fresh water, forest zone with arable
land, streams, lakes and rivers influence the occupation of the people. Anambra people are
 25

farmers, fishermen; palm wine tapers, hunters, craftsmen, artisans and traders. They also
worked as public and civil servant. Among crops grown by farmers in the state are palm
produce, rice, cassava, cocoyam, vegetable, yam and different varieties of fruit trees among
others. They are also involves in fishing, particularly those living in the river-line areas of the
state, while their craftsmanship are nationally recognized as evident in the iron smith works
of Awka people, the bronze sculpture of igbo-ukwu etc. Indigenes of the state pride
themselves on being the most widely travelled of the people and are extensively involved in
trading activities in the part of the country and beyond Nigeria Arts &Culture Directory
project, 2013).

2.6 Factors Influencing the Choices of Livelihood.

Farm households produce over 70% of the agricultural output in their characteristic small
sized plot (Nigeria Institutes for Social and Economic Research, (NISER), 2003).These Farm
households collectively form an important foundation upon which the nation’s agricultural economy
rests. Farm households not only provide employment and food for the country’s teeming
population, they also provide a more equitable basis for distribution of income as effective demand
structure for other sectors of the economy (Domer, 2010; Brava-Ureta & Evernson, 2011).The
livelihood Framework views farm households as being dependent upon a diversity of strategies in
order to generate income (Sigh & Gilman, 1999; Martin et al., 2000 & Sanderson, 2000). However,
behind higher vulnerability to poverty or food insecurity resulting from adverse climate events, there
is a range of factors that showed the weakness of households to cope ex post or manage ex ante the
climatic events. These factors reflect households lower adaptive capacity and higher susceptibility to
the impact of the events and refer to low level of human and physical capital, insufficient access to
assets and services (public or private ), weak institutional structures, inexistent or inefficient social
protection programme and greater exposure to uncertainty in the physical and economic
environment (Skoufias, Rabassa, oliver & Brahmbhalt,2011).

Bebbington, (1999) & Department of International Development (DfID),(2001 ) in their

separate studies gave breakdown of the farm household assets pentagon to include;
(i)Natural assets comprising of land, water, tree, genetic resources and soil fertility. (ii)
Physical capital consisting of the basic infrastructural facilities available to farm families. ,(iii) Human
capital consisting of education, skill, knowledge, health, nutrition , all of which impinge on labour or
 26

capacity of the individual family members to pursue different livelihoods (iv)financial capital
consisting of savings, credit and inflow like state transfers and remittances. (v) Social capital
consisting of membership in various organizations as well as social and professional group.The rural
poor have developed the capacity to cope with increasing vulnerability associated with agricultural
production - diversification, intensification and migration or moving out of farming (Ellis, 1998).
Diversification as a strategy involves the attempt by individuals and households to find new ways to
raise income and reduce environmental risk, which differs sharply by the degree of freedom of
choice (to diversify or not) and the reversibility of the outcome (Hussein & Nelson, 1998). It is
evident that rural households in Nigeria engage in multiple livelihood activities such as trading
(marketing or adding value to commodities), small scale business enterprises (carpentry, radio and
bicycle repairs), and processing of agricultural goods and arts and craft (weaving, mats and basket
making) in order to supplement earnings from agriculture ( Matthews-Njoku, & Adesope, 2007;
Ekong, 2003). These activities (livelihood diversification) are influenced by certain factors which
operate at both internal and external environments of rural households (Kinsella, Wilson, Jang &
Renting, 2000). A rural farmer is faced with a set of livelihood resources that influence its outcome.
These include; (1) Human resource e.g. skills, knowledge and ability to labour for successful different
livelihood strategies. (2) Financial resources e,g cash, credit, and other economic assets such as
farming and fishing equipment that are essential for pursuit of livelihood strategies. (3) Natural
resources e.g. land, wetlands, forests and water from which resources and services useful for viable
livelihood flow. (4) Social resources e.g. networks upon which farmers draw when pursuing
different livelihood strategies, when these resources are abundant, attainment of livelihood security
is assured.

2.7 Effects of Climate Variability on Choices of Livelihood

People’s means of sustenance will be threatened with the increasing effects of climate
variability. With low yields in crop and animals, farmer’s income will diminish and their ability to
meet household need (food, feed, fiber, fun, income etc.) will be difficult. The oceanic acidification
and increase in surface water temperature especially around the coast will affect fish stocks and as a
result, threaten the livelihood of small-scale fishing communities in the area (Ozor, 2009). Report on
the IPCC (2007) shows that climate variability will pose great threats to communities that depend on
fishing for their survival. The loss of lives, livelihood, assets, infrastructure, etc. from climate extreme
events will further deepen the vulnerability of the poor.

2.7.1 Effect on Farming /Cropping System

 27

Temperatures, droughts and flooding cause an absolute reduction in food and vegetative
biomass. Plant species are being lost, and increasing amounts of expensive pesticide are needed to
deal with the growing incidence of crop pests and diseases. Costs were passed on the consumers as
food prices continue to rise. In addition, the increased use of inorganic fertilizer to support
production, under these changing conditions has led to contaminated water systems, causing
polluted drinking water; fish kill and negative effect on the environment. The principal impacts of
climate variability on cropping system include: Reduced production due to changing rainfall pattern;
Emerging diseases, pests and vectors; spatial redistribution of pests; erratic rainfall pattern (Douguo
& Faso, 2008). Khanal, (2009) stated that heat stress might affect the whole physiological
development, maturation and finally reduces the yield of cultivated crop. Brussel, (2009) stated that
rising atmospheric carbon concentration, higher temperature, changes in annual and seasonal
precipitation patterns and in the frequency of extreme event affected the volume ,quality ,quantity,
stability of food production and the natural environment in which agriculture take place. The
degradation of agricultural ecosystems could mean desertification, resulting in total loss of the
productive capacity of the land in question. This likely to increased the dependence on food
importation and the number of people at risk of famine (Brussel, 2009).Expected changes in crop
development and phenology can cause shortening or lengthening of crop cycle that could lead to
decrease or increases in productivity. Structural changes in the carbohydrate status of plant can also
occur and this may affect nutritional value, taste and storage quality of fruits and vegetables (Eze et
al., 2008). Other impacts of climate variation on crops include stunted growth and drying of seedling
after germination.

Rises in temperature for example help to grow crops in high altitude areas and towards the
poles. In these areas increase in temperature extends the length of the potential growing season
allowing earlier planting, early harvesting and opening the possibility of completing two crop cycle in
the same season (khanal, 2009). Climate plays a dominant role in agriculture having a direct impact
on the productivity of physical production factors, for example the soils moisture and fertility.
Adverse climate effects can influence farming outputs at any stage from cultivation through the final
harvest (Smith & Skinner, 2002). Other potential impacts linked agriculture include erosion that
could be exacerbated by expected increase in the intensity of rainfall and the crop growth period
that is expected to be reduced in some areas. (Agoummi, 2008). Kamoru & Oludare (2007) noted
that due to dependency on food production on rain -fed agriculture in Nigeria, too heavy or scanty
rainy season would negatively affect harvest.

2.7.2 Effect on Fisheries and Aquaculture

 28

Changes in water temperature, precipitation and oceanographic variables, such as wind

velocity, wave action and sea level rise, can bring about significant ecological and biological changes
to marine and fresh water ecosystems and their resident fish populations and thereby impacting on
people whose livelihoods depend on those ecosystems (Cheung, Lam, Sarminento, Kearney, Waston
& Pauly, 2009; Drinkwater, Beaugrand, Kaeriyama Kim, Ottersen & Perry et al., 2009). Extreme
weather events may also disrupt fishing operations and land- based infrastructure while fluctuations
of fishery production and other natural resources can have an impact on livelihoods strategies and
outcome of fishing communities (Coulthard, 2008; Sarch &Allison, 2000). In coastal zones potential
decline in mangrove forest habitant resulting from sea level rise, changes in sediment and pollutant
loading from river and lake basin combined with land reclamation for agriculture or overexploitation
could also impact on fisheries by reducing or degrading critical coastal habitats. Mangrove forest loss
for instance can negatively affect the diversity of benthic invertebrates such as tiger prawns or mud
crabs, which are exploited or managed for profits exceeding US$ 4billon per year ( Ellison ,2008 ).
Faced with decline yields, income and food security. Fishers may seek alternative livelihoods, placing
pressures on other sectors or resources. For example in West Africa, when coastal fisheries are
scarce, fisherfolk adopt alternative livelihood strategies including hunting for bush meat (Brashares,
Arcese, Sam, Coppolillo, Sinclair & Balmford, 2004). Changes in availability of fish products (Natural
capital) can affect total revenues and harvesting costs (Net revenues), resulting in greater costs in
managing and accessing natural capital. A reduction to net revenue arising from declines in stock
abundance and subsequently catches is commonly cited as a consequence of climate variability
(Mahon, 2002; Rosessig, Woodely, Cec & Hansen, 2004), For example, it is estimated that coral cover
the complexity in the Caribbean basin has declined by 80% since 1970s due to climate –related
disease outbreaks, more frequent and severe hurricanes and elevated sea surface temperatures
(Burke & Maidens, 2004; Alvarez-Filip, Dulvy & Gill, 2009). Climate variability may favor certain
species over others and thereby changes the biogeography of fish stock and their relative abundance
(Arntz, Gallardo, Gutierrez, Isla, Levin & Mando et al.; 2006). These responses are likely to require
changes to harvest strategies and processing techniques (Broad, Pfaff & Glantz, 1998), and may
affect fishing costs through changes in travel time and associated fuel and ice consumption
(Mahon,2002). Other natural resources upon which fishing communities depend may also be
impacted by climate variability, freshwater, for example, limits life on small islands. Sea level rise and
extreme events like storm surges can lower the availability and quality of freshwater sources to
fishing communities and in addition disrupting fishing operations (Bridges& McClatchey, 2009).
Climate variability through sea level, storm and flood frequency can impact on the physical capital of
households or of entire communities, leading not only to decreased harvesting capacity but also to
 29

the disrupting of public infrastructure and services that support livelihood. More specifically storm
and severe weather events can destroy or severely damage productive assets and infrastructure
such as landing site, boats and gear (Jallow, Toure, Barrow & Mathieu, 1999).

In Peru, during the El Nino of 1997- 1998, rural fishing villages in Northern part of the
country were damaged by heavy rains and were unable to transport their products to market due to
washed out roads and bridges (CAF.Las leccciones del El Ninò, 2000). In fishing communities around
the world women are mainly engaged in post-harvesting activities and disruption of marketing
systems and infrastructure having thus particular gender implications and affecting productive
activities of men and women differently. Damage to fisherfolks non-productive physical assets such
as housing and community infrastructure (hospital, schools, sewage system etc.) are also
consequence of extreme climatic event .Poor housing conditions, loss of dwellings and community
infrastructure can result in resettlement and displacement, more broadly disruption of livelihoods
(Badjeck, 2008). In Peru, at the time of the 1997-1998 El Nino, a percentage of the catch value was
put into a recently privatized social security and health organization for individual fisherfolk (Broad,
Pfaff & Glantz, 1999). As a result of decreasing catches the agency ‘coffer quickly ran dry and left
fisherfolk without a safety net and access to financial resources to cope with the difficulty (Broad et
al., 1999). During climate events disrupting livelihoods, ad hoc government and international
emergency aid are the main sources of financial relief (Badjeck, 2009). The most affected people are
unable to raise formal bank loans due to lack of collateral (often lost during the event) and do not
have insurance (DeSilva & Yamo, 2007). Additionally as observed in many fishing communities,
informal source of credit are often the only ones available to fisher folks, typically with high rates of
interest and unfavorable terms and conditions (Tietze & Villareal, 2003). The different dimensions of
human capital, ranging from safety-at-net to food security, are also affected by climate variability.
The loss of lives can be most dramatic impact of extreme climatic events on human capital, affecting
not only surviving household members but also potentially disrupting economic and social activities
and systems outside the immediate family (Westlund, Paulain,, Bage & Van Anroony, 2007). The
Asian Tsunami provides an illustration of the gender gap between the vulnerability of females and
males to being killed by extreme events. In some locations the likelihood of death was twice as
great for female (Birkmann, & Fernando, 2008). This is attributed to the fact that female household
members were more exposed due to their traditional role of carrying out activities around the house
and in many cases, their inability to swim (Birikmann et al., 2008).

Decreased catches due to climate variability led to the risk of malnutrition and under nutrition
for communities highly dependent on fish for a source of protein. This is of particular relevance for
 30

Asia and Sub-Sahara African countries where nutritional reliance on fish as a source of animal
protein is greatest (Munday, Jones, Pratchett & Williams, 2008). Reductions in fishery-dependent
incomes can also reduce the ability to purchase store-brought food during periods of natural
resource scarcity (Callaway, Eamer, Edwarden, Jack, Marcy & Olrun et al., 1998). Similarly,
infrastructure damages due to extreme events or flooding can diminish access to local markets
reducing the availability of food products as well as increasing their prices (Birikman et al., 2008).
Climate variability can also alter the local institutions that form the basis of resource management,
specifically property right. At the local scale, it could be argued that changes in abundance patterns
and displacement of fisheries stock could lead to conflicts over property rights and resource access
(Bajeck et al., 2009). In African, Caribbean and Pacific countries (ACP), fishing communities in
general are impoverished and ill-prepared to adapt to the negative impacts of climate variability.
These include shifts in the geographical distribution and quality of fish that, in turn affect prices and
production costs. The principal impacts of climate variability on fisheries and aquaculture are,
disturbances in fish fertility cycles, increased mortality among young fish due to rising water
temperatures, particularly in lagoons and rivers, Effects of strong salinity in these surroundings
exacerbated by the penetration of sea water that seriously affects fishery resources and already
fragile ecologies (Douguo et al., 2008).

2.7.3 Effects of climate Variability on Livestock Production

One of the climate indicators that affect livestock performance mostly is the increasing
temperature caused by climate change. Usually an animal will perform according to the limits of its
genetics and environmental potentials. This is known as the thermo neutral zone or optimal zone.
When temperature rises above the thermo neutral or comfort zone, heat stress results. Under this
condition, the animal goes off feed and spends much time on non-productive behaviors as panting,
urination, salivation and sweating. The consequence is that there is drastic drop in the yield of the
animal (Onyimonyi, 2012). Alaku (2010) , observed that when an animal is subjected to high
ambient temperature, it attempts some compensatory measures in this order; increased skin blood
flow through vasodilatation of the blood vessels near the surface ; initiation of sweating ; increased
though shallow respiration (panting) , changes in behavior pattern; increased use of water (eg water
intake increases, wallowing etc); increased body temperature; changes in use of body water and
changes in hydration when and if these measures fail to renew equilibrium of heat balance or shift
it to a new plateau, there ensure progressive stages of failure of the heat mechanism. There follows
diarrhea, general weakness, staggering, convulsion and finally death due to hyperthermia.
Continuous exposure to high ambient temperatures leads to changes in the functioning of the
 31

endocrine glands. It is therefore evident that with the increasing ambient temperatures necessitated
by climate change, most farm animals will ordinarily not be able to manage the excess heat load.
Management approaches have to be directed in the finding ways to help animals maintain maximum
production in the face of emerging climatic changes. Using poultry as a case study, the ideal
environment for laying hen is 18.3-23.9 degree census. When temperature exceeds this level, there
is a drastic reduction in feed intake, low body weight for age, drop in production, small size eggs,
reduced shell quality and threatened survivability of the birds (Sobayo, et al., 2010).

2.7.4 Effect on Trade

Climate variability is likely to affect the inputs for feed production, both fish and crops
directly and indirectly through increased competition for human consumption (De Sliva &Soto,
2009). Rising temperatures and unpredictable rainy seasons will impact crop planting and harvesting
time and may lead to higher prices. Given that the main inputs for floating fish feed also serve as
food crops, decreased production resulting from climate variability will drive prices higher and
warrant less use of human food stuffs for animal feeds. It is expected that transport of produce will
be most affected by intense rains storms that leaves transport routes impassable and this lead to
lack of access to market. As with the case of fisheries, traditional processing methods done
outdoors on the ground are affected in rainy season leading to increased post harvest losses and
poor supply in the market. Supply scarcity in marketing may lead to poor relationships between
consumers and producers, or consumers and traders affecting future market transactions. As fish
stocks decline, higher market prices may attract additional fishers to common property water
resource, furthering the incentive, to utilize illegal gear and maximize catch (World Fish Centre,
2012).

2.7.5 Effect on Biophysical

Climate variability has led to changing land – use patterns as farmer seek more productive land
for forest and pastoral area. This type of movement leads to soil degradation and the reduction of
natural pastures, and has negative effects on water resources.

These impacts are manifested as

i Increased conflict over the use of water resources, especially in arid and semi-arid area.

ii Intense rainfall, floods and soil erosion.

 32

iii The filling of water courses and lakes as a result of the use of banks and slopes for agricultural
activities.

iv Losses of biodiversity and plant genetic resources as agricultural activities expand uncontrolled
into forest areas. (Douguo & Faso, 2008). It can also prompt massive emigration and settlement
of people to areas less threatened by desertification, erosion and flood. Such emigration gives
rise to social effects like loss of dignity and social values. It often result in increasing spate of
communal clashes and death among farmers and herdsmen. (Yuqunda, 2002 & Yaqub, 2007).

2.7.6 Effect on Bio-energy

There are serious concerns that the growing demand for bio-fuel will lead to food insecurity
as land is converted from food crop to bio-energy crop production (Douguo et al., 2008). Most
energy (electricity) production is by thermal means that is burning fossil fuel. For the two billion
people living without electricity, an increase in energy production is necessary to meet their basic
needs (International Institute for Sustainable Development, 2009). Energy is also required to fuel
economic development and to achieve and maintain a healthy standard of living in all countries,
Nigeria included. If greenhouse gas emission from thermal electric generation remain at current
levels the world could face an increase in average temperature of between 30 to 100 degrees Celsius.
Sea ice in the Arctic and Antarctica is already thinning and disappearing leading to a general rise in
sea levels (Anyadike, 2009).

2.7.7 Effect on Forest, Agro-Forestry

Unabated deforestation, propelled by increased exploitation by forest-dependent

communities, marks an important transition in man-forest relationships. Population pressure
combined with impacts of climate variability has contributed to undermining the regenerative
capacity of forest areas in many African, Caribean and Pacific countries (ACP). Along with impact of
weather extreme on production, increase carbon (IV) oxide may reduce the ability of grazing land to
supply adequate livestock feed (US Global Climate Research Program (USGCRP), 2009). Morgan et
al., (2004) found that higher levels of Carbon (IV) oxide increase forage productivity but reduced
forage quality because of effect of nitrogen and protein content. With warmer temperature, insect
pest and plant diseases are expected to increase due to range expansion, higher winter survival and
increased number of generation per season (USGCRP, 2009). This increase in pests and diseases can
lead to species extinction in various ecosystems in Nigeria, as it has already been the case for the
Iroko and Oil bean in the southeast; various mahogany species in Southwest; baobab and the locust
 33

bean in the northwest and gum Arabic in the northeast. Increasing temperature will naturally result
in increased number and intensity of extreme evaporation events, shift in the timing and nature of
plant growth and it will also lead to more extreme fire danger events and possible intense cyclones.
Modeling results indicated that a 20C increase in annual temperature could increase wind erosion by
15% to18% (Lee, Phillips & Dodson, 1996). Variation is expected to result in more erratic
precipitation patterns that will ultimately lead to higher soil erosion rate. Where rainfall amounts
increases, erosion and run-off will increase at an even greater rate and where annual rainfall
decrease, systems feedback related to decrease biomass production and soil drying could lead to
greater susceptibility of the soil to erode (Nearing, Pruski,& Oneal 2004). Tree as well as other
vegetative matter plays an important role in carbon sequestration. Rural communities can benefit
from the carbon markets and derive important livelihood products from non-timber forest and on-
farm tree resources through conservation and agro-forestry. The vast majority of developing
countries, however, are excluded from carbon markets, because both the Kyoto Protocol and the Eu
Emissions Trading Scheme do not recognize forest and land – use credits, despite the fact that most
of the developing world depends on farming and forest products. African Caribean and Pacific
countries policy makers and those involved in climate change negotiations need information that
will enable them to extend the provisions of Carbon dioxide market and simplify accreditation
procedure so that small holders can derive financial benefits from the carbon offset programmes
that also contribute to stabilization of greenhouse gases (Douguo, 2008).

2.7.8 Effect on Health

Health is closely linked to poverty, because poverty precludes most people from access to
health care facilities. The aspects of health that will be exacerbated by climate variability include,
increased cases of cataracts (eye disease) in the Northern part of Nigeria due to low cloud cover and
greater intensity of solar radiation, increased cases of malaria and typhoid due to increased rainfall
and temperature in certain parts of the country and increased cases of water borne diseases such as
cholera and dysentery due to urban flooding, and improper disposal of wastes (Anyadike, 2009).
Climate variability will induce health problems as a result of such factors like hunger and starvation,
water stress, diseases, resources conflicts and injuries (Ozor, 2009) Climate variability will increase
threats to human health thereby affecting their productivity (Pittock, 2005). Already, a study by the
World Health Organization showed that climate change is the cause of 150,000 deaths every year
(WBGU, 2003). A changing climate thus affects the prerequisites of population health; clean air,
water and sufficient food. A warmer and more variable climate leads to higher levels of some air
pollutants. It increases the rates and ranges of transmission of infectious diseases through unclean
 34

water and contaminated food. Effects of extreme climate events include cardiovascular disease,
asthma etc. However, the greatest health damage arises through indirect effect, as in the case of
vector – borne infectious disease (e.g. infections caused by mosquitoes, ticks or flies). Dengue fever
or tick transmitted meningitis are also vector-borne. IPCC predicts that by 2080 about 260 – 320
million people or more will be exposed to malaria worldwide (IPCC, 2001).

2.7.9 Effect on Employment

The employment implications of climate change will lead to closing down some industries
which exacerbate global warming. Many fishing communities along the west coast of Africa who are
fully dependent on the fishing industry will now depend on government grants, child support grants
etc for their survival due to the decline in the fishing industry (Anyadike, 2009). A one – meter rise
on the ocean will be tremendous in Africa. Nigerian’s economic capital of Lagos would be under
water, Alexandria, Egypt’s second city, could be lost. Oil production in Niger Delta and elsewhere
would be impaired (Mannak, 2007). The fertile Nile Delta would be lost and 10,000 hectares of
productive crop land would be subjected to erosion and salinization (Mannak, 2007). All these will
affect the employment level in the country. There is no doubt that jobs will be lost as a result of the
looming danger of climate change. This will further over-stretch the unemployment rate in Nigeria;
firstly industries that depend on agricultural products, fisheries and livestock for their raw material
supply will receive the initial blow. They will be forced to cut down their employees in the short run
in order to accommodate the reduction in scale of operation. At the long run, such industries might
fold up if nothing is done to reverse the situation (Ozor, 2009). Again closing down industries that
contribute to global warming will make more people to be unemployed. Climate change will lead to
reduction in stream flows which will cause reduction in hydropower production leading to negative
effect on industrial productivity and costly relocation of some industrial plant and this will have
effects on employment and income (Ozor, 2009).

2.7.10 Poverty and Climate Variability

Climate change is predicted to deepen poverty both directly and indirectly. The direct impact
includes the loss of life, livelihood, assets, infrastructure, etc from climate extreme events. For
example following Hurricane Mitch in 1998, 165,000 people in Honduras fell below the poverty line.
The poorest lost 18% of their assets, there was 29% loss of crops and 20% of the hospitals and
education Centers were affected (World Bank, 2002). On the other hand, the indirect effects are
predicated on economic growth. Continuing climate variation is predicted to alter the sectorial origin
of growth, including the ability of the poor to engage in the non-farm sector, as well as increase
 35

inequality, and therefore reduce the elasticity of growth (Environmental Resources Management
(ERM,), 2002). A key milestone in defining the poverty impacts of climate change is the third
Assessment Report of the IPCC in 2001. This confirmed that the poorest (countries and people) are
most at risk and identified a range of poverty-related climate change impacts to include: Reduction
in crop yield in most tropical and subtropical regions due to decreased water availability, and new or
changed insect pest incidence. In Africa and Latin America, many rain- fed crops are near their
maximum temperature tolerance, so that yields are likely to fall sharply for even a small climate
change. Fall in agricultural productivity up to 30% over the 21st century are projected (Richard,
2003). Such changes would have a major impact on food security, employment, incomes and
economic growth. Reduction in crop yields can be expected to lead to localized food price rises
.Malnutrition from the reduction in crop yields would increase the severity of diseases (ERM, 2002).
Africa is particularly susceptible due to the desertification process, declining run-off from water
catchments, declining soil fertility, the prevalence of AIDS and vector- borne diseases, inadequate
government mechanism and rapid population growth (Anyadike, 2009).

2.7.11 Resource Conflicts and Climate Variability

Climate change is anticipated to increase conflicts as a result of struggles for resource use.
The increasing supply and demand for resources such as food, water, oil etc. cannot be further
assured with the inability of the climate to support its provision apart from other pressures coming
from growth. Evidences abound in Nigeria between the Fulani cattle rearers and the farming
communities in Nigeria for struggle over graze land in Taraba State, and the Fufore Community in
Adamawa State. These crises have led to several deaths of farmers and pastoralists in the region
(Ozor, 2009). The drying of streams and rivers in some communities due to climate change
ultimately lead to their search for water in neighbouring communities with its attendant man hour
losses, propensity to trigger conflicts and hardship on the people. The demand for water is
increasing due to the country’s growing population and its mounting aspirations. This situation
triggers distributional conflicts and poses major challenges to water management system in Nigeria.
This will hit water stress because of our inadequate political and institutional framework necessary
for the adaptation of water and crisis management systems (Ozor, 2009).Climate change leads to the
continuing explosion in global demand for essential resources such as food, water and oil coming
just as our planets ability to deliver many of these materials is passing its peak. This scenario, in
harness with the climate crisis, threatens to pose challenges to security of an order not previously
faced in modern times (Moss, 2009). Climate change and rising sea levels pose one of the biggest
 36

threats to security in the pacific (as well as Nigerians’ coastal areas) and may also spark a global
conflict over energy reserves under melting Arctic ice (Taylor, 2009).

2.7.12 Environmentally – Induced Migration and Climate Variability

The effects of climate change are certain to displace some categories of people. The number
of environmental migrants will substantially increase in future due to the impacts of climate change
(WBGU, 2007). In developing countries, like Nigeria, the increase in drought, flood, soil degradation
and growing water scarcity in combination with high population growth, unstable institutions,
poverty means that there is a particularly significant risk of environmental migration occurring and
increasing in scale (WBGU, 2007). For instance, people living in low lying islands and Deltas face the
threat of being submerged by water, hence the only coping strategy will be to move out of the risk
sites to more habitable areas (Ozor, 2009). This movement will greatly affect such people in many
ways such as loss of their livelihoods, loss of social systems and values, loss of property and age-long
acquired wealth, injuries and sometimes death. At transit and destination points, it might generate
conflicts of different dimensions, hunger and starvation, and health problems (Ozor, 2009).

2.7.13 Socio-Economic Implications of Climate Variability

Demographic shifts within rural society as a response to the impact of climate change on the
productivity of local resources have left many households without young able bodies’ labour, low
levels of education and poorly developed communication and market infrastructures.

The main socio-economic implications of climate changes include:

i Reduced capacity of natural resources to support productive agriculture.

ii Food scarcity resulting in extreme hunger and malnutrition

iii Rising food prices that make it increasing difficult to access food.

iv Weakening of power and equity position of the most vulnerable (Douguo et al., 2007).

2.8 Adaptation Strategies to Combat the Effect of Climate Variability

 37

Adaptation may be seen as those measures that enable the natural systems and
communities to adjust or cope with the adverse effects of climate variability ( Achike & Okpara,
2012). IPCC (2001) defines adaptation as an adjustment in ecological, social and economic systems in
response to observed or expected changes in climatic stimuli, and their effects and impacts in order
to alleviate adverse impacts of change, or take advantage of new opportunities. Thus, adaptation is
considered to involve both building of adaptive or coping capacity to increase the ability of
individuals, groups, communities or organizations to adjust to changes, in implementing adaptive
decisions that is transforming that capacity or ability to action (Adger et al., 2003). It therefore
includes a wide range of measures and strategies that would increase the resilience of the
environment and the ability of vulnerable individuals and communities to cope with the possible
adverse effects of climate variability (Yanda, 2007). In the agricultural sector, adaptation
incorporates changes in agricultural management practices in response to changes in climatic
conditions (Nhemachena et al., 2007).

2.8.1 Adaptation for Cropping Systems

At farm level, the practice of organic agriculture is one of most important measures for
adaptation to climate change by farmers. Organic agriculture is a holistic production management
system which enhances agro ecosystem health, utilizing both traditional and scientific knowledge.
The process of organic agriculture, being a holistic approach in climatic change adaptation can be
classified as two major kinds of modification in the production system: (a) increased diversification
and (b) protecting sensitive growth stages by managing the crops to ensure that these critical stages
do not coincide with very harsh climatic condition, such as mid season droughts (Hassan &
Nhemachena, 2008). He noted that under these two modification techniques, the adaptation
strategies farmers perceive as appropriate includes crop diversification using different crop varieties,
varying the planting dates, harvesting dates, increasing the use of irrigation, increasing the use of
water and soil conservation techniques, shading and shelter, shortening the length of the growing
season and diversifying from farming to non-farming activities (Hassan et al., 2008). Agbo, (2012)
stated some climate impacts and Adaptation strategies as follows:

Climate Impacts and Adaptation Strategies

Climate impacts Adaptation /mitigation options

Increase weed. Cover cropping, early planting, prompt
weeding, regulated herbicides use, use of
 38

weed tolerant crop varieties, etc.

Increase in pest and disease infestation. Mixed cropping, early planting, use of pest and
disease resistant crop /species, controlled use
of pesticides, rouging crop replacement etc.
Reduction in moisture /drought. Mulching /irrigations schemes efficient water
harvesting and storage techniques, prevention
of forest losses along water bodies.
Uncertainty in weather conditions. Use of weather forecast technologies,
application of the daily weather reports from
radio, newspapers and television, prayers,
changing the time of farming operations etc.
Reduction in soil nutrient Green manuring compositing, mixed cropping,
crop rotation, fallowing etc.
Decrease in agricultural yield Use of organic fertilizer and manures,
diversification in crop and animal production,
use of improved resistant crop and animal
varieties / species, value-chain addition,
biotechnology and nanotechnology
application, irrigation, weather forecasting,
improved extension services, government
supports and interventions, climate change
education across all levels (curriculum
development in schools), changing timing of
farming operation, etc.
Loss of Agricultural lands to flood and erosion Diversification of enterprise, mulching, tree
planting, improved land management
techniques, biodiversity conservation,
controlled grazing, construction and
maintenance of drainage channel, construction
of rock molls and barriers against ocean
surges, planting across the slope, used of
weather forecasting technologies, emergency
relief strategies, etc
Loss of vegetation / deforestation and land Agro forestry practices, forestry regulation,
 39

degradation afforestation programme, reduced tillage,

biodiversity conservation, etc.

Table 2.1: Adapted from Agbo (2012) Cooperative as a vehicle for adaptation to Climate change in
Nigeria.

Others includes:

i Collecting robust data on the impact of climate change on crop lands, and potential yields

ii. Introducing technical and sustainable management measures to increase water-use efficiency
in rainfall and irrigated agriculture and encouraging research into water-efficient species.

iii Studying indications of climate change, including the opportunities as well as risks of rising
temperature and irregular precipitation of crop productivity.

iv Introducing strategies to preserve seed production of farm, including farm – level and
Community seed bank.

v Stimulating technologies such as conservation farming, staggered cropping, water harvesting

and water catchments restoration to enable farmers to maintain adequate level of food
security (Duogno et al., 2008).

2. 8 .2 Adaptation and Mitigation Strategies for Fisheries/Aquaculture.

The capacity to quickly adapt to changing natural capital through new harvesting
techniques and tools will be a significant factor determining the outcome of future fish
dependent livelihoods. In Peru, during El Nino event of 1997 -1998, boats previously
equipped with gill nets and pure seine nets were rapidly modified to utilize trawl nets to
exploit the new shrimp resource that appeared in the northern part of the country (Carbaja, &
Alvities, 1998). Re-tooling, and more broadly, changes in productive assets might require
additional investments and adoption of new technologies. The physical exposure to climate
variability can be reduced through disaster –risk reduction. Initiatives in coastal areas,
mangrove conservation can be promoted to create natural barriers against sea level rise and
extreme events, and combine to promote the building or relocation to housing areas that are
not at risk from flooding. These initiatives can contribute to sectoral mitigation efforts with
 40

the conservation of mangroves as carbon sinks. Private or public insurance schemes could be
put into place to avoid livelihood disruption arising from limited access to credit and loan, re-
build the asset base in the aftermaths of climatic disturbances [Skees, Hartel, & Murphy,
2007). And more broadly safety nets as tools to reduce the vulnerability of fisherfolk.
Education and skills up grading are powerful adaptive strategies for individual families and
communities (Brikiman et al., 2008). Higher educational attainment may enable fisherfolk to
make a broader series of choices, ranging from engaging in safe construction practices to
assessing potential risk that result in fewer deaths when an extreme event strikes [Toya &
Skidmore, 2005]. As an anticipatory adaptive measure, increasing access to climate
information and forecasting with early warning systems would also reduce the vulnerability
of the fishing sector (Broad, Pfaff & Glantz, 2002; Wooster, 2002). Recognizing and utilizing
traditional knowledge for developing adaptation strategies is also a key determinant for
communities’ ability to respond to climate variability impacts. During extreme events, the
lack of social cohesion and community ties and disaster awareness can lead to loss and
damage of material assets such as boats and dwellings [Iwasaki, Razafindrabe & Shaw,2009].
Investing in social relationships and communities for support during difficult times, and
building social relations and networks to increase cooperation, and the sharing of ideas and
technological innovation can increase the adaptive capacity of fisherfolks’ households [Perry,
& Sumaila, 2006;]. Fisheries livelihood can adapt to climate disturbances through
diversification. Diversification includes occupational multiplicity (several income generating
activities), occupational mobility and diversification outside fisheries. (Entering or exiting the
fishery sectors), geographical mobility (migration) and diversification with-in the fisheries
sector (species, multiple gear) (Allision & Elliis, 2001; Brugere, Holvoet & Allison, 2008).
Others include: Initiating studies into the socio-economic resilience and capacity for
adaptation of fish-dependent communities, given rising sea levels’ storms, changing thermal
structure and changes in the hydrological cycles of lake, rivers and lagoons. Compiling data
that support polices to ensure appropriate livelihood diversification, natural resource
management and technical innovation, as well as securing the financial, legal and aquatic
property right of communities dependent on fishing and aquaculture. Increasing the
coherence of national policies for climate – proofing fishery development initiatives.
Developing policies to respond to the risk of flooding in coastal areas and facilitates coastal
erosion control (Douguo et al., 2008). Appropriate infrastructure investments: build – up of
unblocked drainage patterns, flood defenses increasing investment, improved health care
through flood shelters and assistance shelters as part of community emergency preparedness
 41

programme. Issue and strictly enforce regulations banning building and residing in flood
prone zones (Kolawole, Olayemi & Ajayi, 2011).
2.8. 3 Adaptation Strategies for Trading.

Promoting and supporting of cooperative groups. Marketing and production would benefit from
increasing support to cooperative e.g fish farming associations which provide significant benefit,
however, its ability to reach out and support additional farmer is limited. Cooperative fish farming
groups can allow farmers to network and develop stronger ties to market and share knowledge of
best practices (World Fish Centre, 2012)

2.8.4 Adaptation Strategies for Agro-Forestry

 Increasing the resilience to climate change of present food production systems by

developing the capacity for better land and resources management.

 Integrating agricultural water management in national development plans and increasing

investment in sustainable land-use practices.

 Conserving biodiversity to food and agriculture in the wild and in the field to mitigate threats
of declining agro-biodiversity of global food security.

 Provision of shade and silvo pasture, which can reduce the energy expended for
thermoregulation leading to high feed conversion and weight again (USGCRP, 2009).

 Enhancing opportunities for biological pest control (Dix et al., 1995).

 Intensifying the coordination, harmonization and enforcement of environmental policies.

 Increasing awareness of the importance of agro forestry in food security diversification and
the provision of wide range of household products (Douguo et al., 2008).

2.8.5 Adaptation and Mitigation Strategies for Socio-Economic Implication

 Developing policies to ensure that domestic food production is sufficient for local needs and
to address the soaring price or resources needed to produce and buy food.
 Focusing attention on the particular vulnerability of African countries to the socio-economic
impacts of climate change, given the increasing frequency of climate extremes, institutional
and policy weakness, poor infrastructure and the slow uptake and transfer of technology.
 42

 Planning to anticipate social tension and conflicts, the consequence of declining economic
growth, climate change will affect power government and equity relations and disadvantage
the vulnerable.
 Developing models for vulnerability assessment.
 Stimulating investment in agribusiness and rural development from public and private
sources to ensure food security and welfare, with emphasis on the importance of applying
cost-benefit analysis to structure mitigation measures.
 Developing financial mechanisms – including credit and savings schemes and climate
insurance appropriate for rural communities (Douguo et al., 2009).

2.9 Theoretical Framework

2.9.1 Rational Choice Theory

Rational choice theory, also known as rational action theory, is a framework for
understanding social and economic behaviour (Abella, 2008). Rational choice theory uses a specific
and narrower definition of rationality simply means that an individual acts to balance costs against
benefits to arrive at action that maximizes personal advantage (Arrow, 1989). Rationality is widely
used as an assumption of the behavior of individuals in micro economics models of human decision-
making. According to Green (2002,) rational choice theory generally begins with consideration of the
choice behavior of one or more individual decision-making units which in basic economics are most
often consumers and firms. The idea of rational choice, where people compare the cost and benefit
of certain actions, is easy to see in economic theories The rational choice approach to the problem
of climate variability on choices of livelihoods is based on the fundamental premise that the choices
of livelihoods made by farmers are the best activities in which household engage to make their
living, given all relevant factors that are beyond their control. The basic idea behind rational choice
theory is that people do their best under prevailing circumstances. Farmers always want to make the
best results at lowest cost of their activities and want to judge the livelihood activities taken. In
general, farmers will prefer livelihood activities that provide the greatest benefit at the lowest
possible cost. Actions are often expressed as a set of j exhaustive and exclusive actions: A= (
𝑎1, … … … ai, … … aj, … … .. ). For example if a farmer is to engage in livelihood activities such as
either crop farming or fishing or livestock farming; their set of possible livelihood activities is A=
(Fishing; crop farming; livestock) Rational choice theory makes two assumptions about individuals’
preferences for actions (Alligham, 2002), these include: (a) Completeness – all actions can be ranked
in order of preference (and differences between two or more is possible).(b) Transitivity – if action a1
 43

is preferred to a2 and action a2 is preferred to action a3, then a1 is preferred to a3 .Together, these
assumptions form the result that given a set of exhaustive and exclusive actions to choose from, an
individual can rank them in terms of his preferences, and that his preferences are consistent. An
important element of the choice process is the presence of constraints (Green, 2002). It is believed
that a typical farmer could be faced with the constraint of how much of his resources or farm budget
goes for fishing as opposed to some other production activities. The presence of constraints makes
choice necessary, and one virtue of rational choice theory is that it makes the trade- offs between
alternative choices very explicit (Yuengert, 2001). A typical constraint in a sample of one- period
farmer’s choices of livelihood activities is the farm budget constraint, which implies that the farmer
cannot spend beyond his income limit. Green, (2002) stated that the solution to the constrained
optimization problem generally lead to a decision rule.

2.9.2 Sustainable Livelihoods Approach (SLA)

A livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets (including both material and social resources)
and activities required for a means of living. A livelihood is sustainable when it can cope with and
recover from stresses and shocks and maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets both now and
in future, while not undermining the natural resource base (DFID, 1999 & 2000).The livelihoods
approach attempts to put people at the centre of development ( in term of analysis and
participation). It is holistic, recognizing that there is a multiplicity of actors, influences, livelihood
strategies and outcomes. It also recognizes that livelihoods and the forces that influence them are
dynamic. It tries to bridge the gap between micro- and macro-level factors action (Twigg & Greig
2011). Sustainable livelihood approach is an example of multiple capital approach where
sustainability is considered in terms of available capital (Natural, human, social, physical and
financial) and an examination of the vulnerability context (Trend, shocks, and stress) in these assets
exists. The aim of the SL framework is to help stakeholders engage in debate about the many factors
that affect livelihoods, their relative importance and the way in which they interact. This should help
in identifying appropriate entry points for supporting livelihoods. It is emphatically participatory,
believing that only participatory approaches can identify problems and solutions. Figure.2.2 shows
the five capitals of sustainable livelihood.
Natural capital

Natural resource stocks (soil, water, air,

genetic resources etc.) and
environmental services (hydrological
cycle, pollution sinks etc)

Social capital Human capital

Social resources (networks, Skills, knowledge, labour

social claims, social relations, (includes good health and
affiliations, associations) physical capability)
 44

Figure 2.1: Five capitals of sustainable livelihood

Source: Adapted from Scoone (1998).

Some of the capitals are straight forward that is buildings, machinery, land, and cash and so-
on while some are less immediately obvious –social networks, knowledge and good health are
examples. All are important although clearly the balance will change from household to household
and over time. Once these assets have been identified and assessed in terms of the contribution
they make (or could make). It is necessary to explore the vulnerability context in which they exist;
what are the trends, shocks and stress? Thus it is not only a matter of knowing what is happening
now but also what the trends are and what could happen in the future. Some of the assets may
change little over time (e.g land and buildings) while others such as cash and social networks can be
volatile and depend upon movement of people into and out of the household (Morse, McNamara &
Acholo, 2009). Vulnerability to shocks can also vary. A drought for example, will impact upon natural
capital and in turn reduce crop yields, but may have little if any effect on the other capitals. In the
longer term, of course, as people emigrate. Similarly, flooding may damage physical and natural
capital while having little impact on the other. Thus the capitals will vary in terms of their resilience
 45

to different types of shock and the intensity of that shock. Moreover, it is necessary to examine the
policy and institutional context within which these capitals exist. While some capitals may be
vulnerable to certain shocks, it may be that authorities are able to act and limit any damaged which
occurs or perhaps provide recompense. It is not only government services which need to be
considered here as they may be non-governmental or even private agencies at hand that can
provide support for livelihoods. Only when all of this considered can it be possible to develop
strategies that help enhance livelihood (i.e generate positive livelihood outcomes). The assumption
is that these planned outcomes would feedback to enhance livelihood assets and make them more
resilient (Morse, McNamara & Acholo, 2009). The logic outlined above is the basis for SLA and is
typically represented as set out in figure 2.3 Thus SLA can be considered in a number of different
ways such as;:

(i) a set of principle guiding development interventions whether community-led or otherwise. The
fundamental issue here is the notion that an intervention has to be evidence- based rather than
instigated in top-down fashion without adequate knowledge of the community.
(ii) an analytical framework to help understand what is and what can be done. Thus the logic as set
out here is to appreciate the capitals which are present, their vulnerability, and the involvement
of institutions. The logic provides framework which can serve as the basis for an analysis.
(iii) an overall developmental objective. In this case development is the improvement of livelihood
sustainability perhaps by making capitals less vulnerable or by enhancing the contribution that
some capital can make or even by improving the institutional context. (Farrington, 2001). \

Human Development Approach, UNDP’S Human Development Approach was influenced by

the work of economist Amartya Sen and his writing on capability (Sen, 1984, 1985). Human
development took as central tenant the importance of enhancing capability. Human development is
a process of enlarging people’s choice. In principle, these choices can be infinite and change over
time. But at all levels of development, the three essential ones are for people to leave a long and
healthy life, to acquire knowledge and to have access to resources needed for a decent standard of
living. If these essential choices are not available many other opportunities remain inaccessible
(UNDP HDR, 1990). Enlarging choices can be achieved by widening the capital base, for example by
education. There are also nods in the direction of sustainable development albeit with an
unambiguous focus on people: “the development process should meet the needs of the present
generations without comprising the options of the future generations. However, the concept of
sustainable development is much broader than the protection of natural resources and physical
 46

environment. It includes the protection of human lives in the future. After all, it is people, not tree,
whose future need to be protected”. (More et al., 2009).
 47

Livelihood Assets

Laws, culture, policies and institution

Institutional and policy context

Public, private and NGO sectors
Shocks, trends, seasonality

Natural capital
Vulnerability context

Social capital Human capital

Livelihood

Strategies
Physical capital Economic or financial capital

Livelihood outcomes

More income, increased well-being,

reduced vulnerability, increased food
Figure 2.2. DFID Sustainable Rural security, more sustainable use of natural
resource base
Livelihoods Framework

Adapted from Carney, 1998).

Compare this wording from the Human Development Reports to that of SLA as envisaged
DFID: The livelihoods approach put people at the centre of development, people rather than the

resources they use or the governments that serve them, are the priority concern. Adhering to this
 48

principle may well translate into providing support to resource management or good governance for
example. But it is the underlying motivation of supporting people’s livelihood that should determine
the shape of the support and provide basis for evaluating its success. (DFID, 2009).

2.9.3 Utility Theory

Utility refers to satisfaction that each choice provides to the decision makers. It measures
the relative satisfaction. It is concerned with people’s choice and decision. Utility is also concerned
with preferences, and with judgments of preferability, worth, value, goodness or any of a numbers
of similar concepts (Fishburn, 1968). This theory provides a methodological framework for the
evaluation of alternative choices made by individual, firms and organizations. Theory assumes that
any decision is made on the basis of the utility (satisfaction) to the decision makers. It is often used
to explain the behavior of individual consumers. Farm household plays the role of the decision
maker that must decide how much each of the many available climate variability adaptation
strategies to use so as to secure the highest possible level of total utility subject to his or her
available income, resources and other factors. The traditional framework of utility has been
extended over the past three decades to multi-attribute case, in which decision are taken by
multiple criteria. In all cases the utility that the decision maker gets from a specific choice of climate
variability adaptation strategy is measured by a utility function U, which is a mathematical
representation of the decision markers (farm household) system of preferences such that; U (x1) > U
(x2), where choice of climate variability adaptation x1 is preferred over choice x2 or Ux1 = Ux2 both
choices are equally preferred. The climate variability adaptation strategies adapted by the farm
household will be modeled into likert scale to describe the strategies adopted by the farm
households in combating the effects of climate variability on their livelihood choices.

2.10 Analytical Framework

There are many analytical techniques but the choice of particular techniques depends on the
nature and purpose of the study. Descriptive tools of statistics such as mean, mode, percentage and
standard deviation, form the basic but important tools used in data analysis (McNally & Othman,
2002). Besides descriptive statistics, other tools that will be employed include:

1. Multinomial

2. Likert Rating scale.

2.10.1 Multinomial Logit Model

 49

The analytical approaches that are commonly used in adaptation decision studies involving
multiple choices are the multinomial logit (MNL) and multinomial probit (MNP) models. Both are
important for analyzing farmer’s adaptation decision making. One of the major tools for this study
therefore, is multinomial logit model. Multinomial logit model is polytomous and recognizes the
index nature of various response categories. According to Ying & Warren (2003), multinomial logit
model is used to model relationships between a polytomous response variable and a set of regressor
variables. It handles explanatory variables that are continuous or take different values for different
categories of responses. In multinomial logit model, the response Y of an individual unit is restricted
to one of m ordered values. Ying and Warren (2003) exemplified such model using the severity of a
medical condition which may be none, mild or severe. The cumulative logit model assumes that the
continuous nature of the observed response is due to methodological limitation in collecting the
data that results in lumping together values of an otherwise continuous response variable.

Generalized logit models like ordinary regression model can contain continuous or discrete
dependent variable. Let 𝜋1 (x1) denote the probability of response j, j = 1, …….j, at the ith setting of
values of k explanatory variables xi = (1, xi1, ………xik). In terms of response probabilities, the
generalized logit model is stated as;

ℓ𝑥𝑝(𝛽𝑗1 𝑥𝑖 )
πj (xi) = 𝑗

∑exp (𝛽ℎ1 𝑥𝑖 )……………………………………………….2.1

ℎ=1

𝛽𝑗 assumes 0 i.e 𝛽𝑗 = 0

log [𝜋𝑗(𝑥𝑖) /𝜋𝑗(𝑥𝑖) ] 𝛽𝑗1𝑥𝑖, 𝑗=1−1……………………………. … ... .… .2.2

Multinomial logit model is one of the most widely used models for ordinal response data.
Several empirical studies in which the dependent variable has to be measured in an ordinal
categorical manner and in which multinomial logit model has been employed include study
conducted by Pablo & Miguel (2005) on the factors influencing the adoption of environmental
technologies in the pulp and paper sector in Spain. In the study, three sets of interrelated factors
influencing the widespread adoption of these technologies are considered; factors of external to the
farm, characteristics of the environmental technologies, and internal characteristics/ conditions of
the potential adopters. Chukwuone (2009) carried out a study on analysis of conservation and
 50

utilization of Non-wood forest products in Southern Nigeria. The author used multinomial logistic
regression to determine the odds of a household being in one of the categories of production of
non-wood forest product species; production of non-wood forest product was categorized into four.
Stratton, O’toole & Wetzel (2003) also employed multinomial logit model to estimate the attrition
that distinguishes between stop out and dropout behavior. The respondents in the study were made
to face three choices; continuous enrolment =1, short term enrolment =2 and long-term dropout =3.
This category is modeled as a function of individual specific characteristics x that affect the category
associated with each choice differently; hence, 𝑈𝑗𝑖 = 𝑋𝑖 𝑎𝑗 + ℓ𝑗𝑖

Where; j = denotes the category,

i= denotes the individual

Therefore, for the case of this study in which the factors influencing the choices of
livelihoods of farm households are to be estimated, the dependent variable “factors that influence
the choices of livelihoods” is defined to have four (4) possible values; value 1, if the household chose
crop production; value 2, if fishing, value 3, if livestock production and value 4 if the major livelihood
choice is from agro forest resources. The socio-economic characteristics of the farm household
constitute the explanatory variables for this study. These variables are clearly defined under item
3.4.1 of the methodology. By implication, after estimating the parameters, one can predict the
probability that a sampled household either with a specified set of socio-economic characteristics
may chose either crop production, or fishing, livestock production or agro forestry resources as their
choice of livelihood.

2.10.2 Rating Scale

The Likert scale name after Resins Likert who developed it in 1932, is one of the most widely
techniques used to measure attitudes (Ary, Razavieh &Sorensen, 2006). They inferred that Likert
scale assesses attitude toward issues by presenting a set of statements about the issues and
requesting respondents to indicate for each whether they strongly agree, agree, disagree, or
strongly disagree .They can also come in form of very severe, severe, moderate and no effect. These
various agree- disagree responses are assigned a numeric value and the total scale score is found by
summing the numeric responses given to each item, which represents the individual attitude toward
the issue. This is why the scale is also called Summated- rating scale (Anaekwe, 2002).
 51

CHAPTER THREE

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Study Area

Anambra state was the study area. The state is bounded by Delta state to the West, Imo
state to the South, Enugu state to the East and Kogi state to the North. It has a land area of about
4,415.54 square kilometers (Anambra state Government, 2007) and a population of 4,182,032
persons (NPC, 2006). It has twenty one local government areas grouped into four Agricultural zones
namely: Anambra, Awka, Aguata and Onitsha zones. This is shown in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1 Distribution of the Local Government Areas According to Agricultural Zones

Anambra zone Awka zone Aguata zone Onitsha zone

Oyi Awka north Augata Ekwusigo

Ayamelum Awka south Orumba south Ogbaru

Anambra east Njikoka Orumba north Ihiala

Anambra west Dunukofia Nnewi south Onitsha south

Aniocha Nnewi north Onitsha north

Idemili north

Idemili South

Source: ANADEP report, 2007.

In Anambra state, about 60 percent of the population is engaged in profitable agricultural

production in the area of food crops, tree crops, livestock and fisheries (Anambra state Government,
2007). Crops grown in the state are yams, cocoyam, maize, okra, potatoes and amaranthus .Tree
crops include oil palm, mangoes, avocado pear, oil bean, paw-paw etc. (Uguru, 1996). Agriculture
remains a major source of employment in the state especially in the rural areas.
 52

3.2 Sampling Techniques

Multi -stage sampling techniques was used for this study.

First, the four agricultural zones were selected for the study because they are all affected by one
climatic variable or the other.

The second stage, two local government areas that are more prone to climate variations from each
of the four agricultural zones were purposively selected giving a total of eight local areas.

Third stage, all the communities in the eight selected local government areas were listed and two
communities each were randomly selected from the eight local government areas making it a total
of sixteen (16) communities for the study. The communities include, Enugwu-ukwu, Enugwu-Agidi,
Agulu, Agu-ukwu, Atani, Odekpe Abatete, Eziowelle, Aguleri, Umueri, Ifite-Ogwari, Anaku, Nnaka,
Oko, Ukpor and Osumenyi.

Fourth stage, ten (10) farm households were randomly selected from each of the sixteen (16)
selected communities making it a total of one hundred and sixty (160) respondents.

3.3 Method of Data Collection

Primary and secondary data were used for this study. The data were gathered by the
researcher using structured questionnaire. This was possible with the help of trained research
assistants and enumerators. Information gathered on the farm households included socio- economic
characteristics, choices of livelihood.Climatic variables including monthly mean temperature and
precipitation level within a period of one year from Hydro meteorology department ministry of
science and technology Anambra state, as well as the adaptatives strategies adopted by farm
households.

3.4 Data Analysis

Data for this study were analyzed using both descriptive and inferential statistics.

The specific objectives of the study were achieved through the following methods and techniques:
Objectives (i) and (ii) were realized using descriptive statistics, such as mean percentage and
standard deviation, objective (vi) and (v) were realized using Likert scale rating while objective (iii)
was achieved using Multinomial logit model.
 53

Model Specification

3.4.1 Multinomial Logit Model

Considering the categorical nature of the dependent variable (factors influencing the choices
of livelihood) in objective (iii) multinomial logit model was used to estimate socio-economic, farm
and institutional characteristics influencing the choices of livelihood in the study area. The livelihood
choices are in four categories; category 1, if the household chose crop production; category 2, if
fishing, category 3, if livestock production and category 4 if the major livelihood choice is from agro-
forest resources.

The multinomial logit model can be estimated with a set of coefficients 𝛽 (1) , 𝛽 (2) , 𝛽 (3) and
𝛽 (4) as follows:

ℓ𝑥𝛽(1)
Pr (Z = 1) = 𝑥𝛽(2) + 𝑥𝛽(3) ………………… 3.1
ℓ 𝑥𝛽(1) + ℓ ℓ 𝑥𝛽(3) ℓ

ℓ𝑥𝛽(2)
Pr (Z =2) = . …………………3.2.
+ ℓ𝑥𝛽(3)
ℓ𝑥𝛽(1) + ℓ𝑥𝛽(2) + ℓ𝑥𝛽(3)

ℓ𝑥𝛽(3)
Pr (Z =3) = …………….. 3.3
𝑥𝛽(3) + ℓ𝑥𝛽(3)
𝑥𝛽(1) + ℓ𝑥𝛽(2) + ℓ
ℓ

ℓ𝑥𝛽(4)
Pr (z =4) = …………………….3.4……………(
𝑥𝛽(3) + ℓ𝑥𝛽(3)
ℓ𝑥𝛽(1) + ℓ𝑥𝛽(2) + ℓ 4)

Multinomial logit model is a choice between three or more alternative response (Kartels,
Boztug and Muller, 1999). The model however is unidentified in the sense that there is more than
one solution to 𝛽 (1),𝛽 (2) , 𝛽 (3) 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝛽 (4) that lead to the same probabilities for Z =1, Z = 2, Z = 3 and Z
= 4. To identify the model, one of the 𝛽 (1),𝛽 (2) , 𝛽 (3) 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝛽 (4)is arbitrarily set to 0. That is if 𝛽 (4) is
arbitrarily set = 0, the remaining coefficients 𝛽 (1),𝛽 (2) , 𝛽 (3) measured the change relative to the Z
=4. In other words, this study compared the dependent variable “factors that influence the choices
of livelihood” is defined to have four (4) possible values; value 1, if the household chose crop
production; value 2, if fishing, value 3, if livestock production and value 4 if the major livelihood
source is from agro-forestry. The socio-economic characteristics of the farm household constitute
the explanatory variables for this study. By implication, after estimating the parameters, one can
predict the probability that a sampled household either with a specified set of socio-economic
characteristics may chose either crop production, fishing, livestock production or agro-forestry as
their choice of livelihood.
 54

Therefore, using four category response as in the model for this study and setting 𝛽 (4) = 0,
the equation becomes.

ℓ𝑥𝛽(1)
Pr (Z = 1) = ……………………………………………………3.5
𝑥𝛽(1) + ℓ𝑥𝛽(2) + ℓ𝑥𝛽(3)
ℓ

ℓ𝑥𝛽(2)
Pr (Z = 2) = ……………………………………………………..3.6
+ ℓ𝑥𝛽(2) + ℓ𝑥𝛽(3)
ℓ𝑥𝛽(1)

ℓ𝑥𝛽(3)
Pr (Z = 3) = 𝑥𝛽(2) ………………………………………………………3.7
+ ℓ𝑥𝛽(3)
ℓ𝑥𝛽(1) + ℓ

1
Pr (Z=4) ……………………………………………………3.8
ℓ𝑥𝛽(1) +
ℓ𝑥𝛽(2) + ℓ𝑥𝛽(3) + ℓ𝑥𝛽(4)

The relative probability of Z = 1 to the base category is

𝑝𝑟(𝑍=1)
. = ℓ𝑥𝛽(1) ………………………………………………………………… 3.9
𝑝𝑟(𝑍=4)
…………………………………
………………………………………………………
(1)
if this is called the relative likelihood and assume that X and 𝛽𝑘 are vectors equal to

(1) (1)
(X1, X2,…, Xn) and 𝛽1 , 𝛽2 , 𝛽3 𝑘 (1) respectively, the ratio of relative likelihood for one unit
change in Xi relative to the base category is then stated as;

(1)
ℓ𝛽1 𝑥 (1) (1)
1 + ……. +𝛽1 (𝑥1+ 1)+ ……+𝛽 𝑥𝑘
𝑘
(1) ……………………………………………………..3.10
ℓ𝛽1 𝑥 (1) (1)
1+ ………+ 𝛽1 𝑥1 + …………+ 𝛽 𝑥𝑘
𝑘

Enete (2003) citing StataCorp (1999) reported that, the exponential value of a coefficient is
the relative likelihood ratio for one unit change in the corresponding variable. As pointed out, the
dependent variable “choices of livelihood” have four (4) possible values; value 1, 2, 3 and 4 if it is
crop production, fishing, livestock production and agro-forestry respectively. However, choices of
livelihood could be a function of some socio- economic characteristics of the farm households.

X1 = Age of households head (in years)

X2 = Gender of the household head (if male 1; 0 if female)

X3 = Marital status (married 1 otherwise 0)

 55

X4 = Household size (number of individual in the family.)

X5 = Educational level of household head (years)

X6 = Farming experience (in years)

X7 = Access to credit (Access = 1, 0 otherwise)

X8 = Household income (In Naira)

X9 =Farm size (in hectares)

X10 = Membership of farmers organization (if any 1, otherwise 0)

X11 = Precipitation (monthly mean precipitation level in mm)

X 12= Temperature (monthly mean temperature of the area in degree celcius)

3.4.2 Likert Scale Rating

The mean score of respondents in a 4 point scale of’ “strongly agree= 4, agree = 3, disagree
=2, and strongly disagree =1” was used. The mean was 4+ 3 +2 +1 =10/4 = 2.5, using the interval
scale of 0.05, the upper limit cut-off was 2.5+ 0. 05 =2.55, while the lower limit is 2.5- 0.05 = 2.45.
Based on these limits any mean score above 2.55 was considered strongly agree and any score
below 2.45 was considered disagree while between 2.45 and 2.55 were considered agree. The mean
score of the respondents in a 4 point scale above was also applied in” very severe, severe, moderate
and no effect and any mean score above 2.55 was considered very severe while below 2.45 was
considered moderate and between 2.45 and 2.55 were considered severe.

CHAPTER FOUR
 56

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Socio-Economic Characteristics of Respondents

The analysis of socio- economic characteristics of the respondents was done with respect to
age, gender, marital status, household size, level of education, livelihood choices, farming
experience, annual household income, access to infrastructure, credit access, membership of
farmer’s organization and Farm size.

4.1.1 Age Distribution of Respondents

The respondents interviewed showed varying age distribution ranging from about 30 years
to above 70 years (Table 4.1). About 43.4% of the respondents fell within the age bracket of less
than 30-50 years, 33.4% fell within the age bracket of 51-60years, while 23.2% were above 60 years.
The table shows that 43.4% of the respondents were within the economically active age brackets
(<30-50years). The mean age was 53.29 with a standard deviation of 11.07, an indication that most
of the respondents were old. In addition, older household heads may not be willing to make choice
decision on livelihood sources that requires much energy. This could be because they may not be
energetic enough to carry on rigorous activities.

Table 4.1: Percentage distribution of the respondents according to age.

Farmers age Number of respondents Percentages

21- 30 4 2.5
31-40 20 12.4
41-50 45 28.5
51-60 49 33.4
61-70 37 23.2
Total 160 100
Mean = 53.29 std. dev. 11.07 Min=21 Max=70

Source: field survey 2014

4.1.2 Gender of Respondents

 57

The percentage distribution of respondents according to gender is presented in fig 4.1 (pie
chart). The pie chart indicated that 40% of the respondents were female, while 60% were male. This
implies that male dominated the female folks in the study area. In a traditional African society, male
usually have access to productive resources. Also, the findings support the belief that in the study
area, households are mainly headed by men.

Female=40% male
female
Male =60%

Source: field survey, 2014.

Figure 4.1: Pie chart showing percentage distribution of the respondents according to gender

4.1.3 Marital Status of the Respondents

The significance of marital status could be explained in terms of supply of agricultural labour.
It is believed that married households will have more family labour for agricultural production. Also,
being married increases the probability of a household involving in different livelihood choices. The
percentage distribution of the respondents according to marital status is presented in figure 4.2 (pie
chart). The figure shows that 10.6% of the respondents were single while 89.4% were married. This
finding is synonymous with Yande, (2005) & Kaine & Okoje (2014) who observed that those who
were married had a diversity of livelihoods as opposed to the single, divorced, separated and
widowed household heads.
 58

hama 78%
Single =10.6%

married
single

Married = 89.4%

Source: field survey, 2014.

Figure 4.2: Pie chart showing percentage distribution of the respondents according to marital
status.

4.1.4 Household Size of the Respondents

Percentage distribution of the respondents according to household size is presented in Table

4.2. The Table shows that about 29.4% of the respondents had households whose sizes ranged from
1-4 people. Between 5-8 people constituted about 58.2%, while above 8 category constituted only
12.5% of the sampled respondents. The mean household size was 6 people with a standard
deviation of 2.30. Big household size meant available production labour that could be used by
farmers in their daily production activities. This finding is similar to Okon, Enete & Amusa, (2012)
who found average household size to be six in their study.

Table 4.2: Percentage distribution of respondents according to household size.

Household size Number of respondents Percentage

1-4 47 29.4
5-8 93 58.2
9-12 20 12.5
Total 160 100
Mean = 6 persons Std.dev. = 2.30 Min=1 Max=12
 59

Source: Field survey, 2014.

4.1.5 Level of Education of Respondents

Education is an important factor influencing livelihood choices or choice decisions. Several

studies have shown that improving education and disseminating information is an important
measure for stimulating participation in various livelihood options and development of natural
resource management initiatives (Kandlinkar & Risbey, 2000; Dolisca, Carter, McDaniel, Shannon &
Jolly, 2006). Higher educational attainment may enable farm household to make a broader series of
choices, ranging from engaging in safe construction practices to assessing potential risk that result in
fewer deaths when an extreme event strike (Toya & Skidmore, 2005). The percentage distribution of
respondents according to level of education is presented in Table 4.3. Table 4.3 showed that 10.6 %
of the respondents had no formal education, while 19.4% of the respondents had primary
education. About 46.9% had secondary education, and 23.1% of the sampled respondents had
tertiary education.

Table 4.3: Percentage distribution of respondents according to educational level of the households
head

Level of Education Years Number of respondents Percentage

No formal education 0 17 10.6
Primary 1-6 31 19.4
Secondary 7-12 75 46.9
Tertiary 13-18 37 23.1
 Total 160 100
 mean = 10.025
 Std. Dev = 4.407  Min = 0, Max = 18

Source: Field survey, 2014.

 60

These results further implied that majority (89.4%) of the respondents were literate. This
could augur well for extension services, with special reference to adoption of climate variability
adaptation measures on their livelihood choices in the area. It could be easier to transfer research
results for increased productivity to food crop farmers in the study area.

4.1.6 Farming Experience of the Respondents

Table 4.4 shows the percentage distribution of the respondents according to farming
experience. The table showed that about 44.4% of the respondents had farming experience of 1-10
years, 26.9% of them had farming experience of 11-20 years, and 21.8% of them had 21-30 years of
farming experience while only 6.9% had farming experience of above 30 years. The respondents had
a mean farming experience of about 15 years with a minimum of 1 and maximum of 40 years. The
implication of this result is that majority of the respondents have been practicing their choice of
livelihood for long and are therefore conversant with the problems of the area as regards to climate
variability. This result is also similar to the findings of Ogunnuyi (2011).

Table 4.4 Percentage distribution of respondents according to farming experience.

Farming experience (years) Number of respondents Percentage

1-10 71 44.4
11-20 43 26.9
21-30 35 21.8
31- 40 11 6.9
Total 160 100
Mean = 15.43 years Max= 40 min = 1 Std. Dev. 10.07

Source: Field survey, 2014.

4.1.7 Annual Household Income

Table 4.5 below shows percentage distribution of respondents according to annual

household income. The respondents had varied annual income with a minimum income of N
100,000.00 and a maximum income of N 800,000.00. About 59.4 % of the respondents had annual
household income of between N 201,000 - 400,000, About 23 % had annual income of less than N
 61

200,000; while about 18 .1 % had annual household income of more than N 400,000. Considering
the mean annual income of N 100,000, this finding implies that an average household had a monthly
income of about N 8,333.33. This amount is below the national minimum wage of N 18,000 per
month, implying that they may experience poverty. Ozor (2009) observed that with low yield in crop
and animal production, farmer’s income will diminish and their ability to meet household needs will
be difficult.

Table 4.5 Percentage distribution of respondents according to annual household income

Amount in Naira Number of respondents Percentage

1000- 200,000 36 22.5
201,000-400,000 95 59.4
401,000-600,000 23 14.3
601,000- 800,000 6 3.8
Total 160 100
Mean = 100,000.00 Maxi= 800,000.00 Min=1000

Source: Field survey, 2014.

4.1.8 Farm Size Holdings by Respondent

The size of farm is an important factor in livelihood choices, hence, agricultural production.
Households with large farms will chose a livelihood option that requires large portion of land, while
households with small farms will tends to diversify their livelihood options (Hassan & Nhemachena,
2008). Percentage distribution of the respondents according to farm size is presented in Table 4.6. It
showed that average farm size was 1.75 hectare.

Table 4.6: Percentage distribution of respondents according to farm size.

Farm size (hectares) No of respondents Percentages

0.01-0.80 37 23.13
0.81-1.60 53 33.13
1.61-2.40 30 18.74
2.41-3.20 25 15.63

3.21-4.00 2 1.25

4.01-4.80 6 3.75

4.81-5.60 4 2.50
 62

5.61-6.40 3 1.87
Total 160 100
Mean = 1.75ha Min = 0.06ha Max = 6 hectares

Source: field survey, 2014

This implies that the respondents had sizable portion of land for their production activities,
and could offer them the opportunity to make more income from their livelihood choices (as regards
to crop and livestock production).

4.1.9 Access to Credit among the Respondents.

Access to credit is an important determinant enhancing the choice of various livelihood

options. This finding is line with Yamo (2007), who observed that most people affected by climate
variability are unable to raise formal bank loans due to lack of collateral. Skees, Hartel & Murphy
(2009) suggested that private or public insurance schemes could be put in place to avoid livelihood
disruption arising from limited access to credit and loan. Figure 4.3 shows the percentage
distribution of respondents according to access to credit. Accessibility to credit sources is important
in livelihood diversification and choice. The figure shows that about 43.1 % of the respondents had
no access to formal or informal credit, while 56.9 % of the respondents had access to formal or
informal credit facilities.

hama 78%

had access to credit =

No access to credit 56.9 %
=43.1% accessed credit 56.9
no access to credit 43.1

Source: field survey, 2014.

 63

Figure 4.3: Pie chart showing percentage distribution of the respondents according to credit
access.

4.1.10 Respondents Access to Infrastructure

Access to infrastructure refers to a situation where the surveyed households had access to
health care services, good road network, school and internet services. Brikiman et.al., (2008) noted
that infrastructure damages due to extreme climate events or flooding can diminish access to local
markets thereby reducing the availability of food products as well as increase their prices. Loss of
assets, infrastructure e.tc from climate extreme events will further deepen the vulnerability of the
poor (IPCC, 2007). The percentage distribution of respondents according to their access to
infrastructure is shown in figure 4.4. The figure shows that 13.7% of the respondents had no access
to infrastructure while 86.3 % had access to infrastructure such as schools, market, road, health
centre, and internet access. .Access to infrastructure could enhance their wellbeing, this implies that
majority of the respondents had enhanced wellbeing and this also will help them to make a better
choice of livelihood in existence of climate variability.

No access to
hama 78%
infrastructure =13.7 %

accessed infrastructure =86.3%

no access to infrastructure =13.7%
had access to
infrastructure = 86.3
%

Source: field survey, 2014.

Figure 4.4: Pie chart showing percentage distribution of the respondents according to access to
infrastructure.

4.1.11. Membership of Farmers Organizations.

 64

Membership of social organization could enhance credit access, hence determining

livelihood choices. Iwasaki et al., (2009) noted that lack of social cohesion and community ties and
disaster awareness can lead to loss and damage of material assets. Perry et al., (2006) observed that
investing in social relationships and communities for support during difficult times, and building
social relations and net work to increase cooperation, and the sharing of ideas and technological
innovation can increase the adaptive capacity of the farm households. The percentage distribution
of the respondents according to membership of organization is shown in figure 4.5. This implies that
majority of the respondents were members of social organizations which might have given them
access to credit facilities, hence improving their livelihood.

hama 78%

Non members of
organization = 25 %

non members of organization = 25%

members of organization = 75 %

Members of
organization =75 %

Source: field survey, 2014.

Figure 4.5: Pie chart showing percentage distribution of respondents according to membership of
farmer’s organization.

4.1.12 Source of Labor Used

Labour is one of the most important inputs in production. Percentage distribution of

respondents according to sources of labor used is shown in Table 4.7. The table showed that the
major source of labour used among the respondents in their various production activities was family
labor (47.5%).

Table 4.7: Percentage distribution of respondents according to sources of labour used

 65

Source of labor Number of respondents Percentage

Family labor 76 47.5
Hired labor 41 25.63
Both (family and hired) 54 33.75*

Source: field survey, 2014 * multiple responses were recorded

This might be due to high cost of hired labor.

4.2 Livelihood Choices of the Respondents

People make livelihood choices according to the level of their household assets or
availability of infrastructure in their community. The percentage distribution of respondents
according to their choices of livelihood is shown in Table 4.8. The Table shows that 50% (half) of the
respondents chose crop production as their major source of livelihood, 36.3% chose livestock
production, while 8.13%, 5.57% and 11.25% of the respondents chose fishing , agro forestry and
non- agricultural livelihood respectively. This is clear evidence that the communities sampled had
very limited livelihood options as most of them indicated to have little or no significant secondary
livelihood sources. This implication is such that the communities will

have reduced resilience to the effects of climate variability due to lack of wide range of livelihood
options.

Table 4.8 Percentage distribution of the respondents according to choices of livelihood

Level of Education Number of respondents Percentage

Crop production 80 50.0*
Fishing 13 8.13
Livestock production 58 36.3
Agro forestry 9 5.57
Non-agricultural occupation 18 11.25*

Source: Field survey, 2014. Multiple responses were recorded.

It is evident that rural households in Nigeria engage in multiple livelihood activities such as
trading, small scale business enterprises and processing of agricultural goods and arts and craft in
order to supplement earnings from agriculture (Mattews-Njoku & Adesope, 2007; Ekong, 2003).
 66

4.3 Factors Influencing Choices of Livelihood among the Respondents

Table 4.9 summarizes the multinomial logistic regression analysis of the socio-economic
factors that influenced livelihood choices adopted by the respondents in the study area. The base
category in the model is crop production. The model was estimated with maximum likelihood
procedure. The Chi- squared result was significant (P< 0.0000), suggesting that the model has a
strong explanatory power. The pseudo R2 was 27.85 %, thus confirming households’ choice decision
making process could be attributed to fitted covariates.

Gender coefficient was positive and significantly (p< 0.01) related to the probability of the
male headed household choosing fishing as a major livelihood source as compared to crop
production. This implies that male headed households are more likely to choose fish production as a
livelihood option while the female headed households are more likely to choose crop production.
Also in a traditional African society, serious fishing activities are always done by male folks. It is also
believed that male headed households have ready access to information about new technologies
and may not be confronted with traditional social barriers as in the case of female headed
households. Hence, they make their livelihood choices more freely than their female counterparts
(Asfaw & Admassie, 2004).

Age coefficient was not statistically significant in all the livelihood options, but was positively
related to the probability that the household will choose fishing or livestock production and
negatively related to the probability of the household choosing agro forestry as a livelihood strategy
as compared to crop production. This could mean that agro forest might be far from home, hence
older household heads may not have the strength to trek to forest for their livelihoods.

The coefficient of marital status was negatively and significantly (p<0.05) related to the
probability of the household choosing fishing and livestock production as their major sources of
livelihood in comparison with crop production. However, marital status was positively related to the
probability that the household head will choose agro forestry production. This implied that married
household heads could have bigger household size which could mean more family labour for crop
production and agro forest activities.

Household size was negative and significantly (p < 0.05) related to the probability that the
household chooses livestock production or agro forestry as their major sources of livelihood in
comparison with crop production. This means that households with bigger sizes are more likely to
choose crop production as their major source of livelihood. This could be because bigger household
 67

sizes mean more available family labour for crop production activities (Okon & Enete, 2009). This
finding is also in line with that of Hassan & Nhemachena (2004), who observed that household with
bigger sizes were more likely to choose crop production as their choice of livelihood.

Educational level of the household head was positive and significantly related to the
likelihood of the household head choosing livestock production in comparison with crop production.
This implies that educated household heads are more likely to practice livestock production in
comparison with crop production. Education is expected to impact positively on farmer’s decision
making, since educated households are expected to be more informed and knowledgeable on the
best livelihood choices to make in combating the effect of climate variability. This finding is in line
with that of Birkiman et al., ( 2008), who noted that education and skills up grading are powerful
adaptive strategies for individuals families and communities.

Farm size had a negative and significant (p < 0.01) relationship with the probability that the
household chooses fishing or livestock production as their major source of livelihood as compared to
crop production. The implication of this finding is that households with large land size are more likely
to choose crop production as their major source of livelihood.

Farming experience was positive and not statistically significant in fishing and forestry, but
was negative in livestock production, compared to crop production. This could mean that
households with more years of experience could chose fishing and agro forestry as their major
sources of livelihood.

Household income was positive and statistically significantly (p < 0.01) in all choices of
livelihood. This is to be expected because income is the major determinants of livelihood options.
There is every tendency of the household choosing a livelihood source that will generate more
income in other not to be crushed by the depressed economic situation. More income got from a
livelihood source, the greater the probability of a household choosing it as their major livelihood
option. This finding is in line with Kinsella, Wilson, Jang & Renting, (2000), who observed that
financial resources such as cash, credit and other economic assets are essential for pursuit of
livelihood strategies.

Credit access was not statistically significant in all the livelihood choices but was positive in
agro forestry option and negatively signed in both fishing and livestock production option as
compared to crop production. This could mean that household heads that had access to credit
facilities most likely chose agro forestry production as their major livelihood choice.
 68

Membership of farmer’s organization was not statistically significant and was positively
signed in both fishery and agro forestry as livelihood choices, but negatively signed in livestock
production. The implication of this finding is that household heads that are members of farmer’s
organization are more likely to choose fishing and agro forestry production as their major livelihood
sources.

The coefficient of precipitation was not statistically significant and was positive in agro
forestry as a livelihood source but negatively signed in both fishing and livestock production as
livelihood choices in comparison with crop production. This could mean that increase in
precipitation will more likely increase the probability of the household heads choosing agro forestry
production as their major livelihood source. Also, increase in precipitation will decrease the
probability of the household choosing fishing or livestock production as their major source of
livelihood.

Temperature was not statistically significant and was negatively related to the probability of
the household heads choosing fishing and agro forestry as livelihood options, while positively related
to the probability of the household heads choosing livestock production as compared to crop
production.

Table 4.9: Multinomial logit regression results of factors influencing the choice of livelihood among
the respondents in the area.

Variables Fishing (2) Livestock Agro forestry (4)

production (3)
Gender 2.5289*** 0.3314 (0.4624) -1.0216 (0.9030)

(0.9525)
Age 0.0057 0.0460 -0.0342
(.0473) (0.0342)
0.0633
Marital status -3.1588** -1.9673** (0.8848) 14.0730 (1176.587)
(1.3391)
 69

Household size -0.2146 (0.1875) -0.2577** -0.6769**

(0.1177) (0.2636)
Education -0.6869 (0.0789) 0.1245** -0.0916 (0.0954)
(0.0613)

Farm size -1.2944*** -0.0808*** -0.5983 (0.4424)

(0.3856) (0.2624)
Farming Exp 0.1068 -0.0016 0.1026 (0.0771)
(0.0673) (0.0471)
Household income 0.0001*** 6.91e-06*** 6.95e-06***
(2.13e-06) (3.28e-06)
(3.05e-06)
Credit access -0.7762 (0.6938) -0.2479 (0.4375) 0.7176 (0.8862)

Membership of org 1.2527 (0.9530) -0.1816 (0.4911) 0.2367 (1.0154)

Precipitation -0.0015 (0.0023) -0.0033 (0.0019) 0.0007

(0.0032)
Temperature -0.5528 (0.4021) 0.3014 (0.2409) -0.1508 (0.5669)

Intercept 12.9375 -2.4041 -10.1960

(9.8807)
(6.6004) (1176.656)

Statistics: chi2 (36) = 98.54, prob > ch2 = 0.0000; Pseudo - R2 = 0.2785; number of observation= 160.
Note: (1) Crop production is the comparison category. The figures in parenthesis are standard errors.
***p ≤ 0.01; **0.01 < p ≤ 0.05.4.4

Source: Field survey, 2014.

4.4 Mean Ratings of the Perceptions of the Effects of Climate Variability on Choices of Livelihoods
by the Respondents.

In table 4.10 the overall mean value (Summation across the 20 items) on the perception of
the farm household on the effects of climate variability on choices of livelihood in the study area was
3.06 and the standard deviation was 0.864. The overall perception on the effects of climate
variability on choices of livelihood shows that the farm household in all the communities sampled
 70

perceived the effects of these elements of climate variability which had adverse effects on their
choices of livelihood. This findings is in line with Jallow, Toure, Barrow & Mathiew (1999), who noted
that climate variability through sea level, storm and flood frequency can impact on the physical
capital of the households or of entire communities, leading not only to decrease harvesting capacity
but also to disrupting of public infrastructure and services that support livelihood. Gworgwor, (2008)
stated that the uncertainty on the magnitude of change make awareness imminent at all level. He
also suggested that the present solution to mans’ survival on the earths’ environment sustainably
hinge on the option of knowledge of climate variability and adopting mitigation and adaptation
measures as widely recognized as vital components or approaches to reducing climate variability.
The table observed that 14 out of twenty effects of climate variability perceived by the farm
households were above 2.55 indicating very severe (VS) (with a mean score of 3.18-3.49) These
perception on the effects of climate variability were assessed on four likert scale include: increase
precipitation (3.49), increase in temperature (3.48), decrease in soil fertility (3.18), loss of crop due
to flood (3.36), loss of income (3.43), increase of pest and disease (3.30), depletion of household
assets (3.41), increase in rate of erosion (3.39), poor supply in market (3.23), decrease in agricultural
yield (3.44), land degradation (3.26), high food price (3.47), loss of infrastructure (3.31) and poverty
(3.43). The table also showed that only two perceptions on effects of climate variability on choices of
livelihood were recorded severe (S) by the respondent. These were migration (2.46) and lack of
access to the market (2.48).

However, four out of the twenty perceptions on the effects of climate variability indicated
moderate by the respondents. They were changing from farming to non-farming activities (2.36),
decrease in precipitation (2.34), decrease in temperature (2.09) and increase in frequency of
drought (2.28). This finding was similar to Okorie et al., (2012) who noted that in the southeast state,
drought have been relatively less persistent, while rainfall is observed to be increasing and
temperature increases and reduces moderately over the year compare with others states in
northern part of the country.

Table 4.10: Mean Ratings of the perception of the effects of climate variability on the choices of
livelihoods by the respondent. (N=160).

S/N Perception of the effects of climate variability on the choices X Std.Dev

of livelihood.
1 Increase in precipitation 3.49*** 0.604
2 Decrease in precipitation 2.34* 1.263
3 Increase in temperature 3.48*** 0.582
 71

4 Decrease in temperature 2.09* 1.045

5 Decrease in soil fertility 3.18*** 1.007
6 Loss of crop due to flood 3.36*** 0.740
7 Loss of income 3.43*** 0.749
8 Increase in frequency of drought 2.28* 1.309
9 Increase of pest and disease 3.30*** 0.725
10 Migration 2.46** 1.033
11 Depletion of household assets 3.41*** 0.873
12 Increase in rate of erosion 3.39*** 0.691
13 Poor supply in the market 3.23*** 0.833
14 Decrease in agricultural yield 3.44*** 0.670
15 Land degradation 3.26*** 0.820
16 High food price 3.47*** 0.624
17 Changing from farming to non-farming activities 2.36* 1.174
18 Loss of infrastructure such as school, road &hospital 3.31*** 0.663
19 Poverty 3.43*** 0.650
20 Lack of access to the market 2.48** 1.233
Mean (Overall) 3.06 0.864

Note : *** Very severe (SV)

** Severe(S)

* Moderate (M)

Source: field survey, 2014.

4.5 Mean Ratings of the Responses on the Strategies Adopted by Farm Households in Combating
the Effects of Climate Variability on their Choices of Livelihood in the Study area.

In Table 4.11, the mean value of the overall (summation across the 20 items) strategies
adopted by farm households in combating the effects of climate variability on their choices of
livelihood in the study area was 3.02; the standard deviation was 0.938. The overall strategies in
combating the effect of climate variability showed that households generally agreed to the listed
strategies in combating the effect of climate variability on their choices of livelihood in the study
area. Suggesting that household perceives climate variability as a threat to their livelihood, although
this study does not focus on perception. The table further shows that thirteen (13) out of the twenty
strategies adopted by the farm households in combating the effect of climate variability on choices
of livelihood were above 2.55, indicating strongly agree (with a mean value ranging between 3.14-
3.54). These strategies with their corresponding mean values on a 4 point rating scale include: crop
diversification (3.23), mulching (3.44), improve land management techniques (3.54), application of
 72

organic manure/fertilizer (3.47), cover cropping (3.34), early planting (3.42), reforestation (3.37),
mixed cropping (3.33), crop rotation (3.31), fallowing (3.32), irrigation (3.48), diversification from
farming to non-farming (3.14), and migration (3.14). Also, only one strategy (social relation and
network with a mean response rating of 2.54) was affirmed agree (A) by the respondents.

Furthermore, six strategies were recorded as disagree (D) by the respondents. These
include: controlled grazing (2.39). The explanation to this could be that majority (50%) of the
respondents practised crop production as their major choice of livelihood; hence they may not use
controlled grazing as their adaptation strategy in combating the effect of climate variability on their
choices of livelihood. Use of weather forecast (2.33) as an adaptation strategy was disagreed by
most the respondent, a possible explanation to this could be that the household may not be
financially empowered to purchase weather forecasting equipment as the strategy in combating the
effect of climate variability on their choices of livelihood. Use of resistance varieties of plant/ animal
species (2.27) was also disagree, the reason here could be that most of the households may not have
gotten access to the resistance varieties of plant/ animal species; hence they did not use it as their
strategy. Education and skill upgrade (2.41), here the mean educational level of the respondent was
10.025 Suggesting that an average household head in the surveyed area did not complete secondary
education. This could be the reason why most of the household heads did not agree to skill and
education upgrade as their response strategy. This household heads need to be more educated in
other to get climate variability information. In line with this, Maddison (2006), asserted that one of
the major constraints encountered by farmers in adaptation is inadequate information and low level
of awareness. In addition, Enete et al (2011) emphasized the need for increased education and
awareness creation among farmers as a potent tool for combating climate variability in Nigeria.
Emergency relief strategies (2.43) and forest regulations (2.38) were also recorded as disagree (D) by
the respondents. This is not unconnected to corruption and poor policies/ implementation in the
country. This could be because most of the emergency relief items from government may not get to
the target population. In line with this, Ngwube & Okoli (2013) observed that corruption reduces
economic growth, hence, reducing government’s capacity to respond to people’s needs.

Table 4.11: Mean Ratings of the responses of farm households’ strategies in combating the effects
of Climate Variability in the study area. (N= 160).

S/N Strategies in combating the effects of climate variability on the Std. Dev
choices of livelihood X

1 Crop diversification 3.23*** 0.966

 73

2 Mulching 3.44`*** 1.671

3 Controlled grazing 2.39* 1.133

4 Improved land management technique 3.54*** 0.613

5 Application of organic manure/fertilizer 3.47*** 0.603

6 Cover cropping 3.34*** 0.785

7 Early Planting 3.42*** 0.780

8 Social relation and network 2.54** 1.186

9 Reforestation 3.37*** 0.814

10 Mixed cropping 3.33*** 0.783

11 Crop rotation 3.31*** 0.899

12 Fallowing 3.32*** 0.900

13 Use of weather forecast 2.33* 1.096

14 Irrigation 3.48*** 0.816

15 Use of resistance varieties of plant and animal species 2.27* 1.198

16 Diversification from farming and non-farming 3.29*** 0.857

17 Education and skill upgrade 2.41* 1.286

18 Emergency relief strategies 2.43* 1.079

19 Forest regulation 2.38* 1.282

20 Migration 3.14*** 1.015

Mean (Overall) 3.02 0.938

Note: *** Strongly Agree (SA)

** Agree (A)

* Disagree (D)

Source: Field Survey, 2014.

CHAPTER FIVE
 74

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Summary

The specific objectives of this study were to: (a) identify the socio-economic characteristics
of farm households; (b) identify their common livelihood choices; (c) determine the factors that
influenced the choices of the livelihoods by the respondents; (d) ascertain the perception of the
respondent on the effects of the climate variability on choices of livelihood (e) describe the
strategies adopted by the farm households in combating the effects of climate variability on their
livelihood choices. Using multi-stage sampling techniques, data were collected from 160
respondents drawn from the four agricultural zones in the State. A set of structured questionnaires
were used for the study. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics like mean, likert rating scales
and inferential statistics like multinomial logistic regression (MNL).

The findings of this study showed that 57% of the sampled respondents were aged above 50
years, while 60 % were males; an indication that the household heads in the study area were male
dominated. Average household size was six persons; about 89% of the respondents were married.
About 11% of the respondents had no formal education while 47% had at least secondary education.
The mean farming experience was 15 years indicating that most of the respondents had been in
their choice of livelihood for a long time and were therefore conversant with problems related to
food production in the study area. The mean farm size was 1.75 ha, with a mean annual income of N
100,000.00 an indication that the respondents had a sizeable portion of land for their production
activities. About 57% of the respondents had access to credit, 86.3% had access to infrastructure,
while 75% were members of social organizations. Family labor was the major source of labor as
indicated by about 48% of the respondents. Majority (50%) of the respondents were engaged in crop
production as their major choice of livelihood.

Household income had positive and significant influence on all livelihood choices in the
study area. Gender had positive and significant influence on fishing activities, while marital status
had negative and significant influence on both fishing and livestock production, household size had
negative and significant influence on livestock production and agro forestry activities. Educational
status had positive and significant influence on livestock production. Also, Farm size had negative
and significant influence on both fishing and livestock production.

The farmers perceived that increase in precipitation, increase in temperature, decrease in

soil fertility, loss of crop due to flood, loss of income, increase of pest and disease, depletion of
 75

household assets, increase in rate of erosion, poor supply in market, decrease in agricultural yield,
land degradation, high food price, loss of infrastructure and poverty had very severe effects on their
choices of livelihood. Also, migration and poverty were recorded as severe, while changing from
farming to non- farming activities, decrease in precipitation, decrease in temperature and increase in
frequency of drought were perceived as moderate effects by the respondents in the study area.

The respondents strongly agreed to using crop diversification, mulching, improved land
management, application of organic manure, cover cropping, early planting, reforestation, mixed
cropping, crop rotation, fallowing, irrigation, diversification from farming to non-farming activities
and migration, as an adaptation strategy in combating the effect of climate variability on their
choices of livelihood. Surprisingly, they did not use weather forecast, resistance varieties of plant/
animal species, education and skill upgrade, emergency relief strategies and forest regulations as
their adaptation strategy in combating the effect of climate variability on their choices of livelihood.

5.2 Conclusion

The research outcomes showed that the respondents were relatively old, educated, but
were more experienced in their livelihood choices. Also, household income, gender, marital status,
household size, educational level and Farm size were the major determinants of households’ choice
of livelihood sources in the study area. Household with large land sizes chose crop production as
their major livelihood choices. However, male headed households especially in riverine areas chose
fishing as their choice of livelihood, perhaps because they had no access to land. Educated
household heads chose livestock production as their major livelihood choices. Households used crop
diversification, mulching, improved land management, application of organic manure, cover
cropping, early planting, reforestation, mixed cropping, crop rotation, fallowing, irrigation and
migration strategy as a response to climate variability. Weather forecasting, resistance varieties of
plant/ animal species, education and skill upgrade, emergency relief strategies and forest regulations
were not the strategies use by the surveyed respondents.

5.3 Recommendations

Based on the findings of this study, the following recommendations have been made:

(a) Government (State and local) should make more land available for crop production, since
larger land sizes encouraged crop production as a major livelihood choice in the study area.
 76

This is because crop farmers could diversify their crops to spread the risk of loss associated
with climate variability;
(b) The respondents were relatively old with very low level of education, there is a need for
increased education and awareness creation among the respondents;
(c) Government in all tiers should make policies and strategic investment plans that will
improve access to climate forecasting and information so that farmer will know the
appropriate farm level adaptation technology to employ in combating climate variability;
and
(d) Extension agents should disseminate information and also make available improved
varieties of plant and animal species which the farmer could use in combating climate
variability.

5.4 Contribution to Knowledge

This study has contributed to the climate variability literature, socio- economic factors influencing
households’ choice decisions on their sources of livelihood in Anambra State. Also, identified in this
study are the strategies adopted by the households in combating the menace of climate variability in
the State.

5.5 Areas needing further research

(i) Awareness of actual and potential impact of climate variability in the study area.

(ii) Assessment of uncertainties and risk in climate variability adaptation strategies.

 77

REFERENCES

Abella, A. (2008). Soldier of Reason: The RAND Corporation and the Rice of the America empire, New
York: Harcourt

Achike, A. I. & Okpara, U. T. (2012). The Role of University Education in Adapting Nigeria Agriculture
to Climate Change In: Enete, A.A and Uguru, M.I. (2012). Critical Issues in Agricultural
Adaptation to Climate Change in Nigeria. A Production of the Faculty of Agriculture
University of Nigeria Nsukka.

Adejuwon, J. (2006). Food Security, Climate Variability and Climate Change in Sub-Sahara West
Africa. Assessment of Impacts and Adaptations of Climate Change (ALACC) project office,
Washington, D.C.

Adger, W., Hug, S., Brown, k., Conway, D. & Hulme, M. (2003). Adaptation to Climate Change in the
Developing World. Progress in Development Studies 3: 179-195.

Agbo, F. U. (2012). Cooperatives as Vehicle for Agricultural Adaptation to Climate Change in Nigeria
In: Enete, A. A. and Uguru, M. I. (2012). Critical Issues in Agricultural Adaptation to Climate
Change in Nigeria. A production of Faculty of Agriculture University of Nigeria, Nsukka.

Agoummi, A. (2003). Vulnerability of North Africa Countries to Climate Changes: Adaptation and
Implementation Strategies for Climatic Changes. In Developing Perspectives on Climate
 78

Change: Issues and Analysis from Developing Countries and Countries with Economics in
Transition IISD/Climate Change Knowledge Network pp 14. http://www.cckn.net//pdfNorth-
africa.pdf.

Alaku, S. O. (2010). Introduction to Animal Science. Jee communication Enugu.

Alderman, H. & Sahnn, D. (1989). Seasonal Variability in Third World Agriculture: The Consequences
for Food Security Chapter. Understanding the Seasonality of Employment, Wage and
Income, pp 81-106 Baltimore MD: John Hopkins University press.

Alligham, M. (2002). Choice Theory :A Very Shorty Introduction, Oxford University press.

Allision, E. H & Ellis F. (2001). The livelihoods approach and management of small –scale fisheries.
Mairne policy 35(5): 377-88.

Alvare-Fllip, L., Dulvy N. K., Gill, J. A., Cote, I. & Walkinson, A. R. (2009).Flattening of Caribbean Coral
Reefs Region Wide Declines in Architecture Complexity, Proceedings of the Royal Society
Biological Science ( series 8) 276 :3019-25.

Anaekwe, M. C. (2007). Basic Research Methods and Statistics in Education and Social Sciences 2nd
e.d. Onitsha: Sofie Publicity and Printing limited pp. 85-91.

Anayo, T. V. (2010). Perception of climate change in Akwa South.

Wikipedia(2010).http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/awka-south accessed on march7th 2013.

Anyadike, R.N.C. (2009). Climate Change and Sustainable Development in Nigeria: Conceptual and
Emperical Issues .In: Eboh, C., Ozor, N., Onuoha, C. & Chukwu, A. (2009). Implication of
Climate Change for Economic Growth and Sustainable Development in Nigeria. Enugu Forum
Paper10 Debating Policy Options for National Development. African Institute for Applied
Economics Enugu Nigeria.

Apata T. G., Ogunyinka, A. I., Sanusi R. A & S. Ogunwande (2010). Effects of Global Climate Change
on Nigeria Agriculture: Na Empirical Analysis. A paper presented at the 84th Annual
Conference of the Agricultural Economics Society, Edinburgh from 29-31st March,
2010.15pp.

Ariyanbandu, M. M.. & Wackramasingle, W. M. (2005). Gender Dimension in Disaster Management:

A guide for South Asia: Sri Lanka

Arntz, W. E., Gallardo, V. A., Gutierrez, D., Isla, E., Levin, L. A. & Mendo, J. (2006). EL Nino and Similar
Perturbation Effect on the Benthos of the Humboblt, California and Benguela Current
Upwelling Ecosystems Advances in Geosciences 6:243-65.

Arrow, K. J. (1989). “Economic Theory and the Hypothesis of Rationality” in: The NewPalgrave: Utility
and Probability, pp.25-39.

Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., Razavien, A. & Sorensen, C. (2006). Introduction to Research in Education
7th e.d .U.S.A: Vicki knight pp.167-172, 206-208, 417-420
 79

Asfaw, A.,& Admassare, A. (2004). The role of education on the adoption of chemical fertilizer under
different socio-economic environments in Ethiopia. Agricultural Economics, Vol.30 (3), 215-
228.

Assan, J. K. (2006). Effects Rural Out-migration and Remittance culture on livelihood Diversification
and Innovation in Ghana unpublished Ph.D. A thesis submitted, university of Liverpool.

Badjeck, M. C. (2008). Impacted, Coping or Adapting? Fishermen’s’ Response Strategies To ENSO-

Induced Climate Variability In Northern Peru, Invited Paper and Presented at the FAO
Headquarters: 28-29 February 2008.

Badjeck, M. C., Allision, E. H., Hall, A. S & Dulvy , N. K. (2009). Impacts of Climate Variability and
Change on Fishery-based livelihoods: Marine Policy. dol:10106/j marpol 200908007.

Barrett, C. B., Reardon, T. & Webb, P. (2001). Non Farm Income diversification and household
livelihood strategies in rural Africa: Concepts, Dynamics and Policy Implication. Food Policy
26(4) 315-317.

Bebbington, A. (1999). Capitals and Capabilities: A Framework for Analyzing Peasant Viability, Rural
Livelihood and Poverty, World Development 22(12) : 2021-2044.

BNRCC (2011). Reports of Research Projects on Impacts and Adaptation-Climate Change in Nigeria.
A Compendium of Reports, commissioned by Building Nigeria’s Response to Climate
Change (BNRCC) Project. Coordinated by Nigeria Environmental Study/Action Team NEST
Ibadan Oyo stat e Nigeria.

Bohannan, P. A . (1963). Social Anthropology, New York, Rinehart.

Brashares, J., Arece, P., Sam, M., Cooppolilllo, P., Sinclair, A. & Balmford, A. (2004). Bushmeat
hunting, Wildlife decline, and fish supply in West Africa. Science 306:1180-3.

Brava- Ureta, B. E & Everson, R. E. (2011). Efficiency in Agricultural Production: The Case of Peasant
Farmers in Paraguay, Agricultural Economic Journal 10 (17-37).

Bridges, K. W. & McClattchey, W. C. (2009). Living on the margin: ethnoecological Insights from
marshall Islanders at Rongelapatol Global Environmental Change. 19(2)140-6.

Brikman, J. & Fernando, N. (2008). Measuring revealed and emergent vulnerability of coastal
communities to Tsunami in Sirlanka. Disasters 32 (1)82-105.

Broad, K., Pfaff, A. S. P. & Glantz,, M. H. (2002). Effective and Equitable Dissemination of Seasonal –
to-International Climate Forecasts: Policy Implication from the Peruvian Fishery during EL
Nino 1997-1998. Climate Change: 54 (4) 415-38.

Broad, K., Pfaff, A. S. F. & Glantz, M. H. (1999). Climate Information and Conflicting goals: El Niño
1997-1998 and the Peruvian Fishery. Public philosophy, environment, and social justice,
Carnegie council on Ethics and International Affairs. New York: .21-22 October 1999.

Brugere, C., Holvet, K. & Allison, E. (2001). Livelihood diversification in coastal and inland fishing
communities: misconceptions, evidence and implications for fisheries management
.Working paper, Sustainable fisheries livelihoods programme (SFLP). FAO/DFID, Rome.
 80

Burke, L. & Maidens, J.(2004). Reefs at risk in the Caribbean Washington. Word Resources Institutes.

Burowers, R., Akter, S., Brander, L. & Haque, E. (2007). Soci-economic vulnerability and Adaptation
to Environmental Risk: A case study of Climate Change and Flooding in
Banglandesh.Journal,27(2):313.

CAF Las lescciones del El Niño 1997-1998 (2000). Retos Y propuestas’ parala Region Andian volumen
v.peru: CorporaciónAndina de fomento.

Calaway, D., Eamer, J., Edwarden, E., Jack, C., Marcy, S. & Olrun, A. et al.,(1998). Effect of Climate
Change for Alaka and the Bering sea region. Fairbank:Centre for Global Change and Arctic
System Reasarch, university of Alaska fairbank:29-30 october 1998.

Carbaja, W. & Alvites, V. (1998). Influencia de invertebrados en el departamento de lambayeque

Seminario-Tall: EL monitoro region: Lima, Peru ConcyTec, RIBEN. p111.

Carbondioxide Information Analysis Centre (CAIDA) (1990). Carbondioxide and Climate Change
glossary ORNL/CADIA-39, Oak Ridge National laboratory, Tennesses.

Carney, D. (1998). Sustainable rural livelihoods. What Contribution Can We Make? DELDS’ Natural
Resource Adviser Conference (July 1998) London: Department for International
Development (DFID).

Chambers, R. (1989) Vulnerability, Coping and policy. IDS Bull, 20;1-7.

Cheung, W. W. L., Lam, V. W. Y.,Sarmiento, J. L., Keaney, K., Waston, R & Pauly,D. (2009).Projecting
global marine biodiversity impacts under Climate Change scenario. Fisher and fisher
:Do110.1111/j,1467-2967.2008.00315x.

Chinweze, C., Abiola-Oleke, G & Jideani, C. (2013). Traditional Knowledge in Climate Change in
Anambra state, Nigeria Case study. European Climate Change Adaptation Conference
Integrating Climate into Action university of Hambury, Germany. March 18-2013. .

Chukwuone, N. A. (2009).” Analysis of Conservation and Utilization of Non-Wood Forest Product in

Southern Nigeria: Implications for Forest Management and Poverty Alleviation”, A PhD
Thesis Submitted to the Department of Agricultural Economics, university of Nigeria, Nsukka.

Coultand, S. (2008). Adaptation to environmental change in artisanal fisheries- insights from South
India lagoon. Global Environmental Change 2008:18(3):4

De Sliva, S. S & Soto D. (2009). Climate change and aquaculture potential impacts adaptation and
mitigation in Cochrane, K., De young, C., Soto. D. & Bahri, T.(eds). Climate change
implications for fisheries and aquaculture over view of current scientic knowledge. FAO
fisheries and Aquaculture Technical paper No 530. Rome, FAO pp 151-212.

De Sliva, D. &Yamao, M.(2007). Effects of the tsunami on fisheries and coastal livelihood: A study of
tsunami-ravaged Southern Sirlanka. Disasters 31(4) 386-404.

Department for International Development (DFID) (1999). Sustainable Livelihoods Current Thinking
and Practice. Department for International Development, London.
 81

Department of International Development (DFID) (2000) Sustainable Livelihood Current and Practice.
Development for International Development, London.

Department of International Development (DFID), (2001). Sustainable Livelihood Guidance

Sheets,<www.Livelihoods.org/info/info-guidancesheetshtmtt67.accessed 9th April, 2013.

Dix, M. E., R. J., Johnson, M. O., Hodge, J. R., Brandle, M. M., Schoeneberger, N. J., Sunderman, R. L.,
Fitzmanaurice, L. J., Young & K. G., Hubbard (1995). Influences of trees on abundance of
Natural enemies of insects pest: a review Agro forestry System 29:303- 311.

Dixon, J., Gulliver, A. & Gibbon, D. (2001). Farming Systems and Poverty: Improving farmers’
Livelihoods in a Changing World. Washington DC,USA: FAO & World Bank.

Dolisa, F.,Carter, R. I., McDaniel, J. M., Shannon, D. A. & Jolly, C. M.(2006). Factors Influencing
Farmers’ Participation in Forestry Management 236, 324-31.

Dommer, P. (2010). Land Reform and Economic Development, Baltimore, MD, Penguin Book.

Douguo, O. & Faso, B. (2008). Implications of Climate Change for Sustainable Agricultural Production
System in ACP Countries 2009, Williamart and Gillies press.

Downing, T. E. (1992). Climate Change and Vulnerable place global food security and country studies
in Zimbabwe, Kenya, Senegal and Chile Discussion paper on Environmental Change unit
university of Oxford, Oxford.

Drinkingwater, K. F., Beaugrand, G., Kaeriyama, M. K., Kim, S., Orierson, G & Perry R. L. ( 2009). on
the processes linking Climate to ecosystem changes. Journal of Marine Systems 2009 in
press, doi:10-1016/jmarsy.2008.12014.

Eboh, E. (2009). Implications of Climate Change for Economic Growth and Sustainable Development
in Nigeria: In Eboh, E., Ozor, N., Onuoha, C. and Amaechi ,C. (2009) Enugu Forum Policy
Paper 10 Debating Policy Options for National Development. Published by Africa Institute for
Applied Economics.

Ekong, E. E. (2003). Rural Sociology: An Introduction and Analysis of Rural Nigerian: Dove Education
Publication.

Ellis, F. (1998). Survey article: Household Strategies and rural livelihood diversification. The Journal
of Development Studies Vol -35 No.1, pp1-38.

Ellison, A. M. (2008). Managing Mangroves with benthic biodiversity in Mind: beyond roving
benditry .Journal of Sea Research:59 (1-2) :2-5.

Enete, A. A. (2003). “Resource Use, Marketing and Diversification Decisions in Cassava Producing
Household of Sub-Sharan Africa”. Ph.D Dissertation presented to the Department of
Agricultural Economics, Catholic University of Louvain, Belguim.

Enete, A.A., Madu, I.I., Mojekwe, J.C., Onyekuru, A.N., Onwubuya, E.A & Eze, F .(2011).Indigenous
Agricultural Adaptation to Climate Change:Study of Imo and Enugu States in Southeast
Nigeria. African Technology Policy Strudies Network Working Paper Series
No.53.Nairobi:APTS.
 82

Environmental Resources Management (ERM) (2002). Predicated Impact of Global Climate

Development Goals. Report Prepared for DFID by Environmental Resources Management.

Eze, C. V., Eze, O., Korie, J., Orebiyi, S., Onyemuwa, E., Mathews-Njoku, P. & Onoh, C. A.
(2008).Climate Change, Crop Production Adaptation Strategies in Nigeria In: C. Nwajiuba (ed)
Climate Change and Adaptation in Nigeria. Farming and Rural Systems Economics in Dopple,
W. & Bauer, S. Volume 95, Margraf Publishers, Weikersheim, Germany.

FAO (2008). Climate Change and Food Security: A Framework Document, Food and Agricultural
Organization Rome.

Farrington, J., Carney, D., Ashley, C. & Turton, C. (1999). Sustainable Livelihoods in Practice: early
application of concepts in rural areas. Natural Resources Perspectives No. 42. Oversea
Development Institute London.

Federal Ministry of Environment (FME) The Federal Republic of Nigeria (2003).Nigeria First National
Communication under the United Nations Framework on Climate Change.

Federal Republic of Nigeria Population and Housing Census (2006). In Asogwa, U.G (2012). Effects of
Remittances on Livelihood of the Farm Households’in Enugu state Nigeria.

Fishburn. P. C. (1968). “Utility theory” Management science, 14(5):335-378 (theory) series (January).
Retrived June 1, 2011 from http:www.jstor.org/stable/2628674.

Galindo, L. M. (2009). Laeconomia del cambio climatio en Mexico sintessi (avliable at

http:/www.eclac.org/dmaah/noticias/panginas/2/35382/Sintesis,2009.pdf,accessed13April2
012)

German Advisory Council on Global Change (WBGU) (2007): World in Transition: Climate Change as a
Security Risk. Berlin, Germany WBGU p 13.

Green, S. L., (2002). Rational Choice Theory: An Overview, Being a paper Prepared for the Baylor
University Faculty Development Seminar on Rational Choice Theory, Waco, Texas: Baylor
University.

Gworgwor, N. A. (2008).Climate change and sustainable Rural livelihood in the Sudan- Saliehan
zone of Nigeria. In T.Akande & A.Kumuji (Eds), Challenges of climate change for Nigeria..

Hassan, R. & Nhemachen, C. (2008). Determinants of Africa Farmers’ Strategies for adapting to
climate changes: Multinomial choice analysis. AFJARE ,2(1):85-104.

Heywood, P. (1990). Introduction to the problem of multiple group membership. In Roger, B. and
Schlossman, N. (eds) Issues and methods for developing policy. UnitedNation Press.

Hussein, K. & Nelson, J. (1998). Sustainable Livelihood and Livelihood Diversification, IDS working
paper 69.

Inter governmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) (1990). Climate Change: The IPCC Scientific
Assessment,: A Report from IPCC working Group 1 Cambridge university press.
 83

IPCC (2007). Impact, Adaptation and Vulnerability: Contribution on working Group 1 of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to the third Assessment Report of IPCC London
Cambridge university press.

IPCC (1997). The regional Impact of Climate in an assessment of Vulnerability: A Special Report of
IPCC working Group 11 Summary for policy makers. Cambridge university press.

IPCC (2001). Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability: Contribution of the
Working Group11 to the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC. Climate Factors in
Desertification..http//www.grida.no/climate/ipcc-tar/wg2/403.htm. Accessed on 17th June,
2011.

Iwasaki, S., Razafindrabe, B. H. N.& Shaw, R. (2009). Fishery livelihoods and adaptation to climate
change a case study of Chilika lagoon Indian. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global
Change 14(4):339-55.

Jallow, B. P., Toure, S., Barrow, M. M. K. & Mathieu, A. A. (1999). Coastal Zone of the Gambia and the
Abidjan region in Côte d’lvoire: Sea level rise vulnerability, response strategies and
adaptation options. Climate Research 1999:12 (2-3)129-36.

Kamoru, A., Orudare, & Babatude, O. (2007). Assessment of Nigeria Food Security Situation,
university of Ilorin, Department of Agricultural Engineering.

Kandlinkar, M. & Risbey, J. (2000). Agricultural Imparts of Climate Change: if adaptation is the
answer, what is the question?. Climate Change Vol.45, 529-39.

Karifais, P., Lipper, L. & Smulders, M. (2011). The Assessment of the Socio-economic Impacts of
Climate Change at Household Level and Policy Implications.Agricultural Economics Division,
FAO, Rome.

Khanal, R. C. (2009). Climate Change and Organic Agriculture. The Journal of agriculture and
environmental, Vol. 10 pp 100-110

Kinsella. J. Wilson, S., Jang, F. & Renting. H. (2000). Pluriactivity as a livelihood strategies in Irish farm
households and its Role in Rural Development Sociology, Ruralis 40 (4) :481-496, published
by Blackwell.

Klein, R. J., Hug, S., Denton, F., Dowing, T. E., Richel, R. G., Robinson, J. B. & Tolth, F. L. (2007) Inter-
relationships between adaptation and migration. In Parry, M.L. Canziani, O.F., Palutikof, J.P.
Van der Linden, P.J. & Hanson, C.E. (Editors), Climate change 2007:Impacts, Adaptation and
Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group 11 to the Fourth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate. Cambridge Uni, Press, 745-777.

Kolawale, O. M., Olayemi, A.B. & Ajayi, K. T. (2011). Managing Flood in Nigeria Cities: Risk Analysis
and Adaptation Option –Ilorin City as a Case Study. Archives of Applied Science Research
3(1) :17-24

Lee, J. J., Philiphs, D. L. & Dodson R. F. (1996). Sensitivity of the US Corn Belt on Climate Change and
Elevated CO2: Soil Erosion and Organ Carbon Agriculture Systems 52:503-521.
 84

Legal, P.Y., Dugue, P.,Faure &Novak (2011). How does research address the design of innovative in
agricultural production? http/:www ideas. repec/org/a/eee/agisys/vi04y2 accessed on 12th
july 2013.

Living with Risk (2006). A global: Review of Disaster Reduction Initiative, Geneva Switzerland.

Low External Input Sustainable Agriculture (LESIA) (2008). Dealing with Climate Change LEISA
Magazine Vol. 24:4.

Maddison, D. (2006). The Perception of and Adaptation to Climate Change in Africa. CEEPA
Discussion Paper No. 11. Center for Environmental Economics Policy in Africa, University of
Pretoria.

Mahon, R. (2002). Adaptation of fisheries and fishing communities to the impacts of Climate change
in the CARICOM region: Issues paper-draft mainstreaming adaptation to Climate change
(MACC) of the Caribbean centre for climate change (CCCC) Organization of American state
Washington, DC.

Mannk, M. (2007). Environmental; Climate Change Threatens Livelihood along Africa’s Coast.

Martin, A. Oludwater, N. & Meadows, K. (2000). Urban Agricultural and the Livelihoods of the Poor
in Southern Africa :Case Studies from Cape Town and Pretoria, South Africa and Harare,
Zimbabwe, Paper Presented at the International Symposium, Urban Agriculture and
Horticulture: the linkage with planning:7-9 July 2000.Berlin,

Massey, D. S., Alarcon, R., Durand, J. & Gonzàlez, H. (1987). Return to Azilan: The social process of
international migration from Western Mexico. Berkeley: University of California press.

Mathew-Njoku Edna,C & Adesope,C. (2007). Livelihood Diversity Strategies Rural Woman in Imo
State Nigeria. The Nigeria Journal of Agricultural Extension (10):117-123 published by
AESON.

McCarthy, J., Canziani, O., Leary, N. A., Dokken, D. J. & White, K. S. eds (2001). Climate Change,
Adaptation and Vulnerability Contribution of Working Group 11, Third Assessment Report of
IPCC. Cambridge University press.

McNally, R. & Othman M. S. H. (2002). Environmental Economics: A Practical Guide

Malaysia.WWF.UK.

Messer, E. (1983). The household focus in nutritional anthropology: An Overview: food nutrition
Bulletin: 5(4):2-12

More, S., McNamara, N. & Acholo. M. (2009). Sustainable Livelihood Approach: Critical analysis of
theory and practice. Geographical paper No.189. University of Reading, UK.

Morgan, Y. A., Mosier, D. G., Milchunes, L. D. R., Nelson, J. A. & Parton, W. J. (2004). Caborndioxide
Enhances Productivity, Alter Species Composition and Reduces Digestibility of Short Grass
Steppes Vegetation. Ecological Application 14:208-219.

Moser, C. O. N. (1998). Reassessing Urban Poverty Reduction Strategies: The Asset Vulnerability
Framework 1998.World DEV.26: 1-19.
 85

Moss, T. ( 2009). Climate of War: Climate Change and Resource Conflict.

Muunday, P. L., Jones, G. P., Pratchett M. S. & Williams, A. J. (2008). Climate Change and the Future
for Coral Reef Fishes. Fish and Fisheries 2008:9:261-85

National Population Commission (NPC) (2006). Provisional Population Census Report. Abuja.
National Bureau of Statistics.

Nearing, M. A., Pruski, F. F. & Oneal, M. R . (2004). Expected Climate Change Impacts on Soil Erosion
Rate: A review. Journal of soil and water conservation 59(1):43-50.

Ngwube, A. & Okoli, (2013). The role of the Economic Financial Crime Commission in the Fight
against Corruption in Nigeria. .Journal of Studies in Social Sciences, Vol.4 (1) 92-107.

Nhemachena, C. & Hassan, R. (2007). Micro-level analysis of farmers’ adaptation to climate change
in southern Africa. IFPRI Discussion paper, no 0074. Environment and Production technology
division, International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington DC, US.

Nigeria Arts & Culture Dictionary Project (NACD) (2013) http:/www.nacd.govng/Anambrastate

occupation.htm Retrieve from 22 July 2013.

Nigeria Institutes for Social and Economic Research (NISER) (2003) Understanding Poverty in Nigeria,
NISER Research Bulletin, No1. Ibandan Nigeria.

Nigeria Metrological Agency ( NIMET) (2008). Climate, Weather and Water Information for
Sustainable Development and Safety.

Nnamchi, H., Anyadike R. N & Emeribe E. N. (2009). “Spatial Patterns of Twentieth Century Mean
Seasonal Precipitation over West Africa” Nigerian Journal of Space Research Vol. 6, (in
press).

Odekunle, T. (2004).” Rainfall and the Length of the Growing Season in Nigeria” International Journal
of Climate Climatology 24,pp. 467-479.

Ogunniyi, L. T. (2011): Economic Efficiency of Leafy Vegetable Production in Oyo State, Nigeria,
Reports and Opinion, Vol.3, (2).

Ojo, S. O. (1987). The Climate Drama : An Inaugural Lecture Delivered at the University of Lagos
Nigeria. University of Lagos press Nigeria.

Okon, U. E. & Enete, A. A. (2009). Resource Use Efficiency among Urban Vegetable Farmers in Akwa
Ibom State, Nigeria. Tropicultura. Vol. 27 (4), 211-217.

Okon, U. E., Enete, A. A. & Amusa T. A. (2012): Enterprise Choice Decisions in Urban Food
Production in Nigeria : Empirical Evidence from Akwa Ibom State, Outlook on Agriculture.
Vol. 41 (1), 51-56.

Okpala, Don, V.U. (2013) The Environmental Effects Flood Disaster in Applied Science
Research.4(1):499-505.
 86

Okorie, F. C., Okeke, I., Nnaji, A.,Chido, C. & Mbano, E. (2012).Evidence of Climate Variability in Imo
State of Southern eastern Nigeria. Journal of Earth Science and Engineering 2(2012)544-553.

Onyimonyi, A. E. (2012). Climate Change and livestock Production in Nigeria Effects and Adaptation
Options in Enete, A.A. & Uguru, M.I. Critical Issues in Agricultural Adaptation to Climate
Change in Nigeria.

Oseloka, H. O. ( 2012). Flood Disaster in Anambra State, Nigeria .in Chinweze,Abiola-Okeke & Jideani
(2013)Traditional Knowledge in Climate Change in Anambra state, Nigeria: Case study.
European Climate Change Adaptation conference Integrating Climate into Action University
of Hambury, Germany, March 18-2013.

Ozor, N. (2009). Implications of Climate Change for National Development: The Way Forward
In:Eboh, C., Ozor.N., Onuoha, C. and Chukwu, A. 2009 Implication of Climate Change for
Economic Growth and Sustainable Development in Nigeria. Enugu Policy Paper 10, Debating
Policy Options for National Development. Africa Institutes for Applied Economics Enugu
Nigeria.

Ozor, N., Madukwe, M. C., Onokala, P. C., Enete, A. A., Garforth, C. J., Eboh, E. C., Ujah, O &
Amaechina, E. (2010). A Framework for Agricultural Adaptation to Climate Change in
Southern Nigeria. A development partnership in higher education (DelPHE) 326 project
executive summary supported by DFID and the British Council, Enugu: African Institute for
Applied Economics.

Pabo, D. R. G & Miguel, A. T. M. (2005). “A Multinominal Logit Model of the Factor Influencing the
Adoption of Environmental Technologies in the Pulp and Paper Sector in Spain”.
International Journal of Environment Technology and Management. Vol.5 No.4, pp 315-346.

Parry, M. L. (1990). Climate Change and World Agriculture .London, Earthscan Publication. British
Medical Journal 325:325:1481-9.

Perry R. l. & Sumaila, U. R. (2006). Maria ecosystem variability and human community responses :
the example of Ghana, West Africa. Marine Policy 31(2)81-4.

Pittock, A. B. (2012).Climate Change: Turning up the Heat London : Earth scan Pp 1-23.

Practical Action (2012) Disaster risk reduction: Case Study of Bangladesh Response to flood 2007.

Richards, M. (2003). Poverty Reduction, Equity and Climate Change. Global Governance Synergies
Oversea Development Institute Globalization and Poverty Programme.

Rosessing, J. M., Woodley, C. M., Cech, J. J. J. & Hansen, L. (2004) . Effects of global climate change
on marine and estuarine fish and fisheries. Review in Fish Biology and Fisheries 14:251-75

Ruddy, I. (1995). The Significance of eating: Cooperation, support and reputation in Kelantanmalay
households in male &female developing Southeast Asia ed .W.J Karim. 227-24 Oxford,
Washington: Berg publishers

Sanderson, P. (2000). Cities disasters and livelihood care, United Kingdom.

 87

Sarch, M. T. & Allison E .H. (2000). Fluctuating fishers in Africa’s inland water: Well adapted
livelihoods, maladapted management. In: Proceedings of the 10th international conference
of the institute of fisheries Economics and Trade, Corallis, Oregon .July 9-14.

Scoones, I. (1998). Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: A Framework for analysis; working paper No.72,
Institutes of Development Studies: Brighton, UK

Sen, A. K. (1984) Resource, Values and Development. Harvard University press, Cambridge Mass.

Sen, A. K. (1985). Commodities and Capabilities. Oxford University press, Oxford.

Sigh, N. & Gilman, J. (1999). Making Livelihood More Sustainable; International Social Science
Journal Vol. 51 No 4, pp 539-545.

Skees, J. R., Hartel, J. & Murphy A. G. (2007). Using Index-based risk transfer products to facilitate
micro lending in peru and vitenam American Journal of Agricultural Economics 89(5):1255-
61.

Skoufia, E & Vinha, k (2012). Climate variability and child height in rural Mexico Economics and
human Biollgy,10: 54-73.

Skoufia, E., Rabbassa, M., Oliver, & Brahmhalt (2011). The poverty impacts of climate change. PREM
POLICY NO 51.Washington D.C World Bank.

Smith, B. & Skinner, M. W. (2002). Adaptation option in agriculture to climate change :A typology,
volume 7 No 1, pp 85-1149 (30).

Sobayo, R. A., Oguntona, E. B., Osinowo, O. A., Oso, O. A., Fafiolu, A. O., Bawala, T. O. & Adeyemi, O.
A. ( 2008). Effect of ascorbic acid supplementation on the performance and egg equality of
laying birds in a humid environment.Proc.0f the 13th Ann. Conf. of the Ani.sc. Assoc. of
Nigeria (ASAN). .Pp1996-1999.

Steinberenner Institute for Environmental Education & Researcah. (n.d.). Campus Conversations :
Climate Change and the Campus.Retrieved from http://www.phi/cmu,edu/cc/polls/cc-
background.pdf accessed on 18th December 2015.

Stratton, L.S., O’toole, D.M. & Wetzel, J.M. (2003). “A Multinomial Logit Model of Attrition That
Distinguishes Between Stopout and Dropout Behaviour.” Retrieved June 14, 2008, from
http://www.erc.edgov/.

Taylor, H., & Skidmore, M. (2005). Economic development and impacts of natural disasters.
Whitewater, WI: Department of Economics, University of Wisconsin.
 88

Theron, M. (2007). Climate Change and Increasing Floods in Africa: Implication for Africa’s
Development.

Tietze, U. & Villareal L.V. (2003). Microfinance in fisheries and aquaculture. Guidelines and Case
Studies. Rome: FAO:2003.

Twing, J. & Greig, B. (2001).Sustainable Livelihoods and Vulnerability to Disasters

UNFCCC (2007). Climate Change Impact Vulnerability and Adaptation in Developing Countries.
Journal of Climate 8(3):4-8.

United National Development Programme (1990). Human Development Report1990, UNDP, Human
Development Report Office, New York.

US Global Climate Change Resource Program (USGCRP) (2009). Global Climate Change Impact in the
US Washington, D.C: US Global Change Research Program
http:/www.globalchange.gov/publications/scientific-assessment/US-impact.

Westlund, C., Paulain, F., Bage, H. &VanAnrroy, R. (2007). Disaster response and risk management in
the fisheries sector. Rome FAO:2007.

Wisner, B.., Blaikie, P., Cannon, T. & Davis, I. (2003). At Risk: natural hazards, people’s vulnerability
and disasters second edition.NewYork:Routiedge.

Wooster, W. (2002). ENSO Forecast and fisheries. In Glantz M.H. editor La Nina and its impacts facts
and speculation. Tokoyo New York Paris: United Marinas 30(1):204.

World Bank (2002). The Environmental and the Millennium Development Goals. Washington D.C: The
World Bank.
 89

World Fish Centre (2012). Impacts of Climate Change and Variability on Fisher Value Chains. In
Uganda Project Report 2012-1

World Meteorological Organization (WMO) (2010).What is the difference between climate change
and climate variability CCI/FAQS/WMO. http /www. /wmo int/ pages/ pro /wep/
ccl/faqs.html.

Yanda. P. (2010). Climate change impacts, vulnerability and adaptation in Southern Africa. In
Kotecha, P.(ed.) climate change, adaptation and higher education: securing our future.
Southern Africa Regional Universities Association (SARUA) leadership dialogue series,
volume 2.no. 4.

Yande, P. M. (2005). An Impact of Flood on the Soco-economic livelihoods of people: A Case Study of
Sikaunzwe Community in Kazungula District of Zambia.

Yaqub, (2007). Desert encroachment in Africa: Extent causes and impacts, Journal of Arid
Environment, 4(1):14-20.

Ying, S. O & Warren, F. K. (2003). “ Multinomial Logit Models” Retrieved June 14, 2008, from
http:/www.support.sas.com/techsup/tnote-start.

Yuengert, A. M. (2001). “Rational Choice with Passion: Virtue in a Model of Rational Addiction.”
Review of Social Economy 59(1), 1-21.

Yuqunda, B. S. (2002). Socio-economic and cultural impacts on desert encroachment in Nigeria.

Journal of environment 4(1):14-20.

Zierovogel, G., Nyong, A., Osman, B., Conde, C., Cortes, & Downing, T. (2006). Climate Variability and
Change: Implications for Household Food Security. AIACC Working Paper N0.20 January
2006. The AIACC Project Office, International START Secretariat Washington DC, USA.
 90

APPENDIX

Department of Agric Economics,

University of Nigeria, Nsukka

Enugu State.

Date:

Dear Respondent,

REQUEST FOR COMPLETION OF QUESTIONNAIRE

I am a post-graduate student in the above named Department and Institution. I am currently

carrying out an M.Sc research work titled: “The Effect of Climate Variability on Choices of
Livelihoods among Farm Households in Anambra State.” The attached questionnaire is to elicit
necessary information from you. Kindly respond to it as information supplied will be treated strictly
confidential.

Thank you.

Yours faithfully,

Okonkwo, Eucharia

PG/M.Sc/11/58376
 91

Researcher

QUESTIONNAIRE

Please apply the following information and tick () on the correct options in the boxes below

1.1 Locality:_____________________________

1.2 Zone: ________________________________

1.3 Local Government: ______________________

1.4 Community/Village:______________________

2 Socio-Economic Characteristics of the Farm Household

2.1 Gender: (a) Male (b) Female

 92

2.2 Age: (a) 21-30 (b) 31-40 (c) 41- 50 (d) 51-60

(e) 61-70 (f) 70 and above

2.3 Marital status: (a) Single (b) Married (c ) Divorced (d) Widowed 2.4

2.4 How many are you in your family? _______________________

2.5 Educational level: (a) No Formal Education (b) Primary Education

(c) Secondary Education (d) Tertiary Education

(e) Vocational/Technical Education

3 CHOICES OF LIVELIHOODS

3.1 What are the main choices of livelihoods for most farm household in your community (i) Crop
farming (ii) Fishing (iii) Livestock (iv) Forestry

3.2 What are the other secondary choices of livelihoods for most farm household in your

Community? (i)Trading (ii) Artisan (iii) Public/Civil servant

(v) Manufacturing

3.3 What is your own choice of livelihood?

(A) Farming job: ( i) Crop Farming (ii) Fishing (iii) Livestock (iv) Crop

Farming/Fishing (v) Crop Farming/Livestock (vi) Livestock/Fishing

 93

(B) Off-farm job: (i) Trading (ii) Artisans (iii) Public/Civil Servant

(iv) Others specify__________________

3.4 Do you combine farming job with any other job? Please specify_________________

3.5 How many years have you been in this your farming job?_________

3.6 What are the three main sources of food in your community (i) Rice (ii) Cassava (iii) Cocoyam

(iv) Yam (vi) Palm produce (vii) vegetable

3.7 What is your major source of income? (a) Farming (b) Off-farm

3.8 What is your last year income from your choice of livelihood or Occupation?

_______________

3.9 How would you describe the effect of climate variability on the choices of livelihood among

farm household? Low Moderate High

4 FACTORS INFLUENCING THE CHOICES OF LIVELIHOODS AMONG FARM HUSEHOLD

4.1 What factors influence the choices of livelihoods among farm household? Social –economic

Climate Natural capital Financial Capital Social capital Physical capital

Human capital others specify_________

4.2 What are the climatic factors that influence the choices of livelihoods among farm household?

Temperature Rainfall others specify____________

 94

4.3 What was the influence of these climate factors on the following choices of livelihoods among

farm household

Areas Level of influence Comment/ Reasons

1low

2Moderate

3 High

Crop farming

Fishing

Trade

Agro-forestry

Artisan

4.4 What are the socio- economics factors that influence or affect your choices of livelihood?

Age Income Gender Others specify_____________

4.5 What were the influences or the effects of these factors on the choices of livelihood?

Areas Level of Influence Comment/Reason

1Low

2Moderate

3High

Age
 95

Gender

Income

4.6 What are the natural assets that influence the choices of livelihoods of the farm household?

Land water others specify__________________________

4.7 Do you have any land? (a) Yes (b) No

4.8 What is the size of your farming land? ______________________________________

4.9 What type of labour do you used in your farm? Family labour (b) Hired labour

4.10 Does labour have any influence on the choices of livelihood of the farm household?

(a) Yes (b) No

4.11 If yes what was level of it influence? Low Moderate High

4.12 Is there availability of water bodies (lake, river, stream etc.) in your community?

(a) Yes (b) No

4.17 What are the sources of water supply in your community? Lake River Stream

pipe-borne well

4.18 Does water accessibility influence the choices of livelihood of the farm household?

(a) Yes (b) No

4.19 If yes to what extent? Low Moderate High

 96

4.20 Does farm household in your locality have access to credit facilities? (a)Yes

(b) No

4.21 How do credit facilities influence the choices of livelihood among farm household?

Low Moderate High

4.22 Does human capital such as level of education acquired by farm household having any

influence on their choices of livelihoods? (a) Yes (b) No

4.23 If yes to what extent? Low Moderate High

4.24 Are there any availability of physical capital in your community? (a) Yes (b) No

4.25 What types of physical factors are available in your community? Infrastructure Market

others specify___________________________________

4.26 Do you have access to market in your locality? (a) Yes (b) No

4.27 How does it influence your choices of livelihood? Low Moderate High

4.28 What type of infrastructure do you have in your community? School Health centre

Shop Road

4.29 To what extent do these infrastructures influence your choices of livelihood? Low

Moderate High

4.30 What are the social groups available in your community? Farmers’ Co-operative Trader

association other specify____________________

 97

4.29 Do you belong to any particular organization? (a) Yes (b) No

4.30 If yes to what extent does it influence your choice of livelihood? Low Moderate

High

4.31 Are people migrating out of your community? (a) Yes (b) No

4.32 If yes how many people migrated in your family as a result of Climatic factors or other factors

influencing their choices of livelihood?___________________________

4.33 Does this migration have any influence on your choice of livelihood? (a) Yes (b) No

4.34 To what extent does it influence your choices of livelihood? Low Moderate

High
 98

Please rate the effects of the following elements of climate variability on your choices of livelihood
by ticking against the answer column on a four point liker scale thus, VE-Very severe, S-
Severe, M- Moderate, NE- No effect

Elements of climate variability on choices of livelihood

VS S M NE
Increase in precipitation
Decrease in precipitation
Increase in temperature
Decrease in temperature
Decrease in soil fertility
Loss of crop due to flood
Loss of income
Increase in frequency of drought
Incidence of pest and disease
Migration
Depletion of household assets
Increase in rate of erosion
Poor supply in market
Decrease in agricultural yield
Land degradation
High food price
 99

Changing from farming to non –farming activities

Loss of infrastructure such as school, road, market ,
hospital
Poverty
Lack of access to the market

5 Please indicate your response by ticking against the answer column on a five point

likert scale thus, SA- Strongly agree, A- Agree, UD- Undecided, SD- Strongly disagree, D- Disagree
 100

Adaptation strategies adopted by farm household in SA A UD SD D

combating the effect of climate variability on their choices
of livelihood
Crop Diversification
Mulching
Control grazing
Improved land Management techniques
Application Organic Manure and Fertilizer
Cover Cropping
Early Planting
Social relation and net work
Reforestation
Mixed Cropping
Crop Rotation
Fallowing
Use of weather forecasting
Irrigation
Use of resistant varieties of plant and animal species
Diversification from farming and non-farming activities.
Education and skill upgrading
Emergency relief strategies
Forestry regulation
Migration