Environmental Science and Pollution Research

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-13089-0

SELECTED CASE STUDIES ON THE ENVIRONMENT OF THE MEDITERRANEAN AND SURROUNDING

REGIONS

Assessing and building climate change resilience of farming systems

in Tunisian semi-arid areas
Jamel Ben Nasr 1 & Hatem Chaar 1,2 & Fadoua Bouchiba 1 & Lokman Zaibet 3

Received: 1 April 2020 / Accepted: 17 February 2021

# The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH, DE part of Springer Nature 2021

Abstract
The agricultural sector plays a strategic role in the Tunisian economy, particularly in rural areas. Resilience and adaptation to
climate change are the main challenges facing this sector. This paper aims to analyze climate change resilience of agricultural
production systems in Tunisian semi-arid areas and to propose options for policy interventions. A path Structural Equation Model
(SEM) was used to predict the resilience of these systems using the partial least squares method (PLS). Results show that farming
systems in Tunisian semi-arid areas remain threatened against negative impact of climate change since 80% of farms in the
sample have shown low resilience levels. The most important determinants of agricultural systems’ resilience are farmers’
income and access to food, adaptive capacity, and access to productive and non-productive assets. Results indicate also that
integrated systems, income diversification, along with cooperation and collective action are the key options to enhance resilience
of rural households and farming systems. It is recommended to raise awareness of stakeholders and decision-makers about
climate change challenges and to develop integrated approaches to better engaging with local stakeholders and institutions in
adaptation programs and strategies development.

Keywords Climate change . Resilience . Adaptive capacity . Farming systems . PLS-SEM

Introduction over comparable time periods” (UNFCCC 2011). CC is ex-

Climate change (CC) refers to any change in climate state over
time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human
activity (Roger and Pielke 2004; IPCC 2007; UNDP 2010;
CCAFS and FAO 2012).The United Nation’s Framework
Convention on Climate Change defines climate change as “a
change of climate that is attributed directly or indirectly to
human activity that alters the composition of the global atmo-
sphere, and that is in addition to natural climate variability
Responsible Editor: Philippe Garrigues
* Jamel Ben Nasr
jamelnasr@yahoo.fr
1
National Agronomic Institute of Tunisia (INAT), University of
Carthage, Tunis, Tunisia
2
National Agricultural Research Institute of Tunisia (INRAT). Field
Crops Laboratory, University of Carthage, Tunis, Tunisia
3
College of Agriculture and Marine Sciences, Sultan Qaboos
University, Muscat, Oman
pected to create new opportunities in some parts of the world;
Belyaeva and Bokusheva (2017) suggest that a number of
regions in Russia could actually benefit from future changes
in the climate. According to Safonov and Sfonova (2013) the
northwestern regions of Russia are expected to experience
grain yield increases of 8–9% due to increasing temperatures
scenario. However, CC is also expected to cause considerable
distress particularly in arid regions. In fact, it has substantially
increased the frequency of extreme weather events, and it is
considered one of the most serious threats to sustainable de-
velopment and to natural ecosystems around the world
(Kalungu et al. 2013; Bombi 2018; Yu et al. 2018).
According to Anwar et al. (2019), at the global level and
between 1997 and 2016, more than 524,000 people have died
as a direct consequence of over 11,000 extreme climate events
and economic losses are estimated to US$3.16 trillion.
Climate change not only generates uncertainty and natural
disasters, but also has different effects on daily life in different
regions. Farmers consider drought as the most important cli-
mate factor affecting crop production (Kansiime and
Mastenbroek 2016; Kelvin et al. 2018), and resilience and

adaptation to CC seems to be the main challenge for agricul-
ture. Due to its geographical characteristics, (e.g., typhoons
and earthquakes), Tunisia is one of the Mediterranean coun-
tries particularly vulnerable to CC, since it has a climate
marked by pronounced seasonality and “unpredictable” prob-
abilities of the occurrence of extreme events, which can often
reach a catastrophic magnitude. The Tunisian climate has a
high frequency of extreme events such as frequent droughts
and catastrophic floods (the years 1969, 1973, 2002, 2018)
causing enormous damage to the country’s economy and its
potential resources (water, soil, forest) (Nefzi 2012; MARHP
2018).
The agricultural sector plays a strategic role in the Tunisian
economy, particularly in poor rural areas. Nearly 34% of the
population lives in rural areas and is directly or indirectly
dependent on agriculture. The sector contributes about 9.6%
to GDP (Gross domestic product) (World Bank, 2019). The
climate projections for Tunisia according to the Had CM3
model predict a general increase in temperatures ranging from
+0.8 °C to + 1.3 °C by 2020 and from +1.8 °C to +2.7 °C by
2050 (MARHP and GIZ 2007; MARHP 2011; MARHP and
GIZ 2012; Touzi and Ben Zakour 2015). For precipitation,
there would be decreases ranging from −5 to −8% in 2020,
and from −10 to −30% by 2050. These trends would affect all
seasons. Such climate variability would aggravate droughts
and water stress leading to more degradation of both natural
ecosystems and agricultural production systems.
The consequences of CC on Tunisian agricultural produc-
tion systems would then be a change in land use, the disap-
pearance of some rainfed crops in arid area, and significant
declines in crop yields. There is an expected decrease in the
cereal areas by 20% by 2020, causing a 40% fall in the pro-
duction of rainfed cereals and a decrease of 52% of olive oil
production and 36–50% of animal production by 2030
(CIHEAM 2016).Without adaptation strategies, policies, and
support measures on a large scale, the effects of climate
change on crop production are irreversible. The poorest rural
communities will suffer the most severe impacts and suffer
disproportionately from its negative effects.
Resilience is now widely used by the scientific community
working on CC (Füssel 2007) with no consensus about the
definition, sometimes leading to confusion (Gallopin 2006;
Janssen and Ostrom 2006; O’Brien et al. 2005; Lindoso
2017) The links between the different concepts of vulnerabil-
ity, resilience, adaptation, and adaptive capacity are also the
subject of intense debate (Cutter et al. 2008; Edmonds et al.
2020; Yavuz et al. 2020). There are at least two approaches
that can currently be distinguished (Galderisi et al. 2010). The
first approach considers resilience as the “opposite face” of
vulnerability (Folke et al. 2002; Villagran de Leòn 2006;
Proag 2014); a negative connotation has been attributed to
the vulnerability that is sought to reduce and a positive one
credited to the resilience that seeks rather to increase (Klein
Environ Sci Pollut Res
et al. 2003). High levels of vulnerability imply low levels of
resilience and vice versa (Villagran de Leòn 2006; Shah et al.
2018). The second approach, based on an inclusive relation-
ship, considers resilience as one of the embedded and nested
components and/or determinants within the broader concept
of vulnerability (McEntire 2001; Turner et al. 2003; Pelling
2003; Hoterova 2020). It is included in adaptive capacity,
which represents the system ability to modify or change its
characteristics or behavior in order to better cope with existing
or anticipated external stress (Adger et al., 2004). According
to Adger (2006), Birkmann (2006) and Folke (2006),
Adaptive capacity forms, exposure, and sensitivity of the sys-
tem to hazard are some of the vulnerability components.
Literature about CC vulnerability and resilience points to
several factors that can influence vulnerability, adaptive ca-
pacity, and resilience levels of agricultural systems. In this
respect, there is a clear link between agroecosystem resilience
and social resilience, particularly for social groups or commu-
nities that are dependent on ecological and environmental re-
sources for their livelihoods (FAO 2007, Kelvin et al. 2018).
Adger (2000) defines social resilience as the ability of groups
or communities to cope with external stresses and distur-
bances as a result of social, political, and environmental
change. Rapid and uncertain changes in temperature and rain-
fall patterns increase the vulnerability of smallholder farmers
and accentuate rural poverty (AGRA 2014; Kansiime and
Mastenbroek 2016; Fahad and Wang 2020). Resilience can
reflect both the individual’s ability to cope with a difficult or
stressful situation. It depends also on collective action, espe-
cially on how farming communities well develop their natural
and social capital. These capitals make farmers and their
systems more or less vulnerable to climatic shocks. Altieri
et al. (2015) recognized this link and explained that the fact
of reducing social vulnerability through the extension and
consolidation of social networks, both locally and at regional
scales, can contribute to increases agroecosystem resilience.
According to NapiWouapi and Sanni (2018), levels of re-
silience, diversification, and risk management within the
smallholder production systems depend on agricultural
management and enabling policy environments. Gil et al.
(2017) found that integrated agricultural systems were more
resilient to climate variability and climate change than special-
ized agricultural systems. Literature dealing with agro-system
vulnerability and resilience has concentrated mostly on large-
scale global and national level scenarios of climate change and
on the recommended international-level policy options
(Osbahr 2008; Kais and Islam 2016). Since CCs will have
spatially and socially differentiated impacts experienced pri-
marily at local levels, it is crucial to understand the
community-level climate change vulnerability and resilience
(Markkanen and Anger-Kraavi 2019; Thomas et al. 2019).
This paper aims to assess resilience of agricultural production
systems to CC in arid and semi-arid rural areas of
Environ Sci Pollut Res
northwestern Tunisia, where farms are traditional, soils are
degraded, technology is poorly developed, and the population
is poor. We use the RIMA approach (resilience index mea-
surement and analysis) as a systemic approach integrating
individual farmer characteristics, formal and informal factors,
internal and external factors, and social capital (FAO 2015) to
analyze resilience and vulnerability of agricultural systems.
Structural equation modeling (SEM) has the advantage over
traditional multivariate techniques to incorporate simulta-
neously several latent variables and construct with a high va-
lidity level. This approach allows the estimation of latent var-
iables from observed variables and the explicit assessment of
measurement error with model testing (Novikova et al. 2013).
Hence, SEM will be combined to RIMA approach to asses
and explain resilience of agricultural systems.
Materials and methods
The RIMA approach to measuring resilience
Resilience index measurement and analysis (RIMA) is a quan-
titative approach that provides a conceptual framework for
measuring and interpreting resilience including the systemic
factors that characterize resilience, which provides a complete
and detailed estimate of resilience. RIMA has been technically
improved based on its application in many countries (Kenya,
Sudan, Somalia, South Sudan, Ethiopia, Uganda, Niger,
Burkina Faso, Tanzania, Malawi, Nigeria, Palestine, etc.).
This innovative approach allows to explain why and how
some systems cope with climate shocks and change better
than others do (Alinovi et al. 2010; FAO 2010; FAO 2015).
To assess resilience of farms with RIMA approach, we
need a combination of the six latent variables (LVs). The
structural model (Eq. 1) consists of the set of relationships
between the dependent latent variable (LV), resilience, and
explanatory LVs (Alinovi et al. 2010; FAO 2015).
Ri ; t ¼ f ðIFAi ; ABSi ; ACi ; SSNi ; AAi ; Si Þ ð1Þ
In Eq. (1), the resilience (R) of a given system (i) at time (t)
is the result of the combination of six latent variables
(Table 1).
Structural equation modeling and partial least
squares approach
To assess resilience of farms with RIMA approach, we need a
combination of the six latent variables (Table 1). Hence, this
study uses structural equation modeling (SEM) to incorporate
all the influencing factors (latent and observed variables) and
to analyze the structural relationship between variables.
SEM is a general statistic modeling technique widely used
in the behavioral sciences (Hox and Bechger 1999; Tambwe
and Mbise 2020). It can be viewed as a combination of factor
analysis and regression or path analysis. The interest is on
theoretical constructs represented by the latent variables
(LV) or indicators. A LV is a variable that is not observable
and cannot be measured directly. Conversely, for a manifest
variable (MV), a measure can be collected directly. LVs can
be estimated from overt variables (LV or MV) by isolating
their share of common variance. Structural equation models
(SEM) consist of a system of equations that can be visualized
by graphical path diagram, and nodes represent variables in
the form of squares for MVs, and as rounds for LVs, arcs
model causality. Each MV is associated with a single LV
and the LVs can be related to each other.
SEM is now commonly used by researchers in different fields
because it allows causal links between several variables, includ-
ing moderators and mediators, while incorporating measurement
errors (Fan et al. 2016; Tarka 2018). But it happens that the
prerequisites for its use are not perfectly respected and so is the
normality of the data which is a requirement of the covariance
and maximum likelihood analysis method (Bentler and Chou
1987; Malthouse 2001). The violation of normality can lead to
erroneous or aberrant results (Chin et al. 2003). However, there is
a method of estimating parameters that is less demanding in these
conditions of use (no normality, small samples accepted), and
which, moreover, is more suitable for exploratory and predictive
research where the data are generally collected by surveys. It is
the partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-
SEM), developed, according to Chatelin et al. (2002), Wold
(1985), and Lohmöller (1987 and 1989). Considered as a soft
modeling, PLS-SEM has the advantage of checking several links
between several explanatory variables and explaining at different
levels. It is based on a partial least squares algorithm and analysis
of variance. It has given rise to several computer applications,
including LVPLS by Löhmoller (1984), PLS Graph by Chin
(1998) and software developed at the University of Hamburg
called Smart-PLS by Ringle et al. (2015).
The PLS-SEM consists of two parts: In the first part, a
measurement model refers to the identification and estimation
of LV from indicators that are observed or MVs. In the second
part, a structural model refers to the determination of the
causal relationships between the latent variables and which
makes it possible to trace the meaning of the hypotheses com-
posing the research model to be tested. This model can be
represented by a directed graph or “path diagram” consisting
of a set of LVs, each one can be described by a set of MVs.
Path models are diagrams used to visually display the hypoth-
eses and variable relationships that are examined when SEM
is applied (Hair et al. 2011; Hair et al. 2017)
The PLS approach is based on an iterative algorithm that
alternates a construction of LVs by an external estimate with
another construction by an internal estimate. These two
 Environ Sci Pollut Res

Table 1 Latent variables

according to the FAO-RIMA Latent Definitions
model (FAO 2010). variables

R Resilience is the ability of a system, community or society exposed to the risks to resist, absorb,
accommodate, and correct the effects of a hazard in a timely and effective manner.
IFA Income and access to food provide an approximation of the status and the livelihood security.
ABS Access to basic services, showing the ability of a system to meet their basic needs, as well as
access and effective use of basic services. Examples of indicators: access to schools, drinking
water, electricity and health.
AC Adaptive capacity is the ability of a system to adapt to a new situation and develop new
livelihood strategies.
SSN The social safety net component measures the ability of households to access timely and reliable
assistance provided by international agencies, associations, and NGOs, as well as the help of
relatives and friends.
AA Assets are composed of productive and non-productive assets. Examples of indicators include
land, livestock, and durable goods. Other tangible assets such as home, vehicle, and house-
hold equipment reflect the standard of living and wealth.
S Degree to which a system is affected by a shock and the degree to which the system has been
affected in the recent past.

estimates are repeated until convergence. We start with an
external estimate of the LVs by linear combination of their
MVs. Each LV is estimated using the MVs of its block ac-
cording to the following formative scheme:
ξ k ¼ ∑ j ωk j  Χ k j þ δ k
where (Χkj) is the vector associated with the jth MV of the LV
(ξk); (ωkj) is a weight associated with (Χkj), and (δk) is an error
vector of the latent variable.
In a second step, the LVs are estimated based on the inter-
nal model, each LV being estimated using only the other LVs
related to it:
ξk ¼ ∑i β ki  ξi þ δk
where (βki) represents the structural coefficient associated
with the relationship between the variables (ξk) and (ξi), and
(δk) is an error term associated with the endogenous LV (ξk).
Structural equation modeling is recently used to analyze
climate change vulnerability, risk perceptions and behavioral
intentions, mitigation and adaptation (Dang et al. 2018; Lee
et al. 2019; Lee and Lin. 2019; Lee 2018; Sha et al. 2017).
Results of all these studies conducted in different countries,
showing that is an appropriate model for this topic.
Structural equation model with PLS approach (PLS-SEM)
was specified in order to build a path model that can predict
the resilience of agricultural production systems in the study
area. PLS-SEM was fitted with SmartPLS 3.0 software
(Ringle et al. 2015). This path model provides empirical mea-
sures of the relationships between the constructs or LVs and
their indicators (measurement models), as well as between
LVs (structural model). The PLS path model can follow a
reflexive or formative construct. Referring to FAO’s RIMA
approach, the constructs of their resilience model estimated
with the PLS are formative, since the indicators (= MV) form
(and not caused by) the construct (= LV). LVs of PLS model
are the six fundamental pillars of resilience in the FAO’s
RIMA conceptual model: income and food access (IFA), ac-
ð2Þ
cess to basic services (ABS), assets (AA); social safety nets
(SSN), sensitivity (S), and adaptive capacity (AC). The indi-
cators of the resilience latent variables belong to three types
(Table 2): type 1, the categorical indicators where the value
can be quantified according to a scale; type 2, the binary
indicators where the value is 0 or 1; and type 3, continuous
indicators.
ð3Þ
Study area and data
The study uses a survey data, collected from a sample of 60
farms during 2018 in the Bargou-Siliana region, in northwest-
ern Tunisia. Its economy is based mainly on agricultural ac-
tivity (cereals, arboriculture, and sheep farming).
The climate of this region is warm and temperate with high
spatial and temporal variability (Fig. 1). The annual average
temperature is 16°C. The maximum temperature can reach
35°C in July. On average, the rainfall is 477 mm/year.
Owing to the geographical conditions of Siliana, the sensitiv-
ity of the environment to natural hazards is high, particularly
in Bargou area (ONAGRI, several years). According to Fig. 2,
there was a downward trend in annual precipitation over the
study area. The decrease in precipitation, combined to in-
crease in temperature would cause drought, which has become
longer, more frequent, and more intense in this area. Drought
preoccupies and affects the rural population, its activities, and
its wellbeing
Environ Sci Pollut Res

Table 2 Latent variables (LV) or

constructs, their expected effect LV Effect Indicators Code Type Value
on resilience to CC, and their in-
dicators, Code type: 1, qualitative IFA (+) Self-consumption IFA1 3 Average 80.2 TD/month/farmer
ordinal; 2, binary (with yes = 1 or Total expenditure IFA2 3 Average 57.7 TD/month/farmer
no = 0); 3, continuous (value) Income diversity IFA3 3 Average Number = 3
ABS (+) Drinking water access ABS1 2 % of 1 71.6%
Electricity access ABS2 2 % of 1 96%
AC (+) Irrigated areas AC1 3 Average 3.23 hectares
Adaptation strategies AC2 3 Number % of Number = 2
available 1
Use of family labor AC3 2 48%
SSN (+) Member of an organization SNN1 2 % of 1 52%
Cooperation SNN2 2 % of 1 40%
AA (+) Own private land AA1 3 Average 40 hectares
House owner AA2 2 % of 1 90%
Buildings: storage, stable AA3 2 % of 1 35%
Vehicle owner AA4 2 % of 1 31.6%
Tractor owner AA5 2 % of 1 33.3%
Irrigation equipment AA6 2 % of 1 70%
S (−) Conflict with other farmers S1 2 % of 1 65%
Abandonment of some S2 2 % of 1 33%
crops
Yield over the past S3 1 Scale (1–3) 3: decrease in yield = 80%

4040000,000000
420000 ,000000 450000 ,000000 480000 ,000000 510000 ,000000 540000 ,000000 570000 ,000000

7,000000 8,000000 9,000000 10,000000 11,000000 12,000000

38,000000

38,000000
37,000000

37,000000

BOU ARADA
4020000,000000

4020000,000000
EL KRIB EL AROUSSA
36,000000

36,000000

GAAFOUR
35,000000

35,000000
4000000,000000

4000000,000000
BOU ROUIS
34,000000

34,000000

BARGOU
SILIANA NORD
33,000000

33,000000
3980000,000000

3980000,000000
SILIANA SUD
32,000000

32,000000

MAKTHAR
31,000000

31,000000
3960000,000000

3960000,000000

Tunisia KESRA
30,000000

30,000000

Legend
7,000000 8,000000 9,000000 10,000000 11,000000 12,000000
Climate
ER-ROUHIA
3940000,000000

3940000,000000

sub-humide
semi aride sup
semi aride moy
semi aride inf
0 5 10 20 30 40 Siliana governorate
Kilometers aride

420000 ,000000 450000 ,000000 480000 ,000000 510000 ,000000 540000 ,000000 570000 ,000000

Fig. 1 Geographical location and bio-climate of the study area


Fig. 2 Irregularity and decrease
in annual precipitations in the
study area (ONAGRI n.d., several
years)
Results
Structural model
Once the construct measures have been confirmed as being
reliable and valid, the next step addresses the assessment of
the structural model. The first step consists of checking the
structural model for collinearity among the predictor con-
structs by examining VIF values of all sets of these constructs.
In the next steps, the model’s predictive capabilities as well as
the relationships between the constructs are evaluated (Hair
et al. 2017). The most important evaluation metrics are R2
(explained variance), f 2 (effect size), Q2 (predictive rele-
vance), and the size and statistical significance of the structur-
al path coefficients.
The VIF values of all combinations of endogenous con-
structs and corresponding exogenous constructs were clearly
below the threshold of 5 (Table 4). Therefore, collinearity
among the predictor constructs seems not to be a critical issue
in the structural model.
The coefficient of determination (R2) was equal to 0.652,
indicating a moderate predictive power accuracy of the endog-
enous resilience construct. The R2 adjusted was equal to 0.613.
Except for the exogenous construct S, all the other variables
had effect size (ƒ2) values higher than 0.02 indicating signifi-
cant effects on resilience construct. The AC construct had a
large effect (f2 = 0.37). The path coefficients of three constructs,
AA, AC, and IFA were significant at 0.05 level, whereas the
path coefficient of ABS, S, and SSN were not (Table 3).
Table 3 Model path coefficients
Formative indicators Path coefficients
AA → resilience 0.224
ABS → resilience 0.130
AC → resilience 0.342
IFA → resilience 0.398
S → resilience −0.054
SSN → resilience 0.113
*Significant at 5% level
Environ Sci Pollut Res
The blindfolding procedure was executed in order to assess
the predictive relevance of the path model. The Q2 value of the
resilience endogenous construct (0.236), assessing the
model’s predictive relevance, was above zero. This result pro-
vides clear support for the model’s predictive relevance re-
garding the endogenous latent variables.
Measurement model
The formative measurement model was first assessed for col-
linearity issues. High levels of collinearity between formative
indicators could be a crucial issue since they have an impact
on the estimation of model weights and their statistical signif-
icance (Hair et al. 2018). The level of collinearity could be
assessed by computing the tolerance (TOL) or its reciprocal
(VIF = 1/TOL). TOL represents the amount of variance of one
indicator not explained by the other indicators, measuring the
same construct (Hair et al., 2017). VIF values of 5 and higher
respectively show a potential collinearity problem (Hair et al.,
2011). The two indicators, AA2 and AA4, had a high level of
collinearity (VIF > 5) and were removed from the AA con-
struct, whereas the remaining indicators (AA1, AA3, AA5,
and AA6) still sufficiently capture the construct’s content of
latent variable AA and were not redundant. For the other for-
mative model constructs (ABS, IFA, S, and SSN), there were
no problems of multicollinearity since VIF< 2.5 for remaining
indicators (Table 4).
The measurement model was then assessed by evaluating
the significance and relevance of the formative indicators. The
t value p value 95% BCa confidence interval
1.918 0.055* [−0.069, 0.398]
1.096 0.273 [−0.087, 0.365]
2.121 0.034* [−0.010, 0.584]
2.319 0.021* [0.113, 0.807]
0.572 0.567 [−0.228, 0.140]
1.101 0.271 [−0.081, 0.330]
Environ Sci Pollut Res

contribution of a formative indicator, and thereby its rele- households and farming systems in this semi-arid bioclimatic
vance, is evaluated by testing the significance of its outer area remain threatened by negative impacts of CC.
weight by means of bootstrapping procedure (Table 5). Based on estimated resilience (R) values (Fig. 3), three
Outer weights of all formative indicators were significant at groups of production systems can be distinguished
a 5% level, except those of AA1, AA3, AA5, ABS1, AC3, (Table 6): the first group with low resilience value R ≤ 0.4,
IFA1, IFA3, R2, S1, and SSN2 (Table 5). Furthermore, outer the second group of systems with medium resilience (0.4 < R
loadings of AA5, IFA1, IFA3, and S1 were statistically sig- ≤ 0.7), and the third group corresponds to systems with high
nificant, and those of R2 and SSN2 were relatively high and level of resilience to climate change (R > 0.7)
should be retained. The most resilient systems to CC seem to have the highest
Moreover, prior research provides support for the relevance AC, IFA, and AA (Fig. 4). AC corresponds to adaptive capac-
of AA1, AA3, ABS1, and AC3 indicators for capturing some ity which represents system ability to adapt to the changing
parts of AA, ABS, or AC dimensions (according to the RIMA environment in which it operates. This is a multidimensional
approach (FAO 2015)). Thus, these indicators were also concept being determined by complex inter-relationships
retained in the formative constructs, even though their outer among a number of factors at different scales (Vincent,
weights and outer loadings were not significant. 2007). AC is positively correlated with the observed variables
In our model, R1 and R2 are two indicators which help to irrigated areas (AC1), Adaptation strategies available (AC2),
calibrate the estimated value of resilience. In this model, we and use of family labor (AC3). The third group, the most
use two categorical variables: farmer’s perception of income resilient at the CC, contains medium-sized farms (Table 6),
level (R1) and the level of risk perception (R2). which have access to irrigation water. They integrate irrigated
crops or they practice complementary irrigation in the dry
periods. The production system is relatively diversified among
these farmers. This crop diversification is adopted as an adap-
Discussion tation strategy. In fact, unlike group1 and group 2, where
cereal farming accounts for 92%, group 3 presents relatively
The most important variables influencing resilience were IFA diversified production systems with the integration of olive
(Income and food access), AC (Adaptive Capacity), and AA trees, apple trees, peach trees, and vegetable. All of these
(Own Private Land) (Table 3). farms group do not adopt technologies and innovation. Our
Resilience value of these production systems varies be- results are in agreement with Seo (2010), Martin et al. (2016),
tween 0 and 1. Results show that 80% of the farms have and Gil et al. (2017) who conclude that integrated farming
resilience levels below 0.7. This indicates that rural systems are more resilient under global warming than special-
ized farms. The use of family labor can also be considered as a
Table 4 Collinearity test
of measurement model Construct Indicators VIF positive factor of adaptive capacity, especially during peak
periods such as sowing and harvesting periods. Thus, 48.3%
AST AA1 1.286 of surveyed farmers use family labor.
AA3 1.918 The latent variable IFA positively affects the resilience lev-
AA5 1.975 el of agricultural production systems. Since agriculture is the
AA6 1.116 main source of income for 63.3% of farm managers and
ABS ABS1 1.073 households, high level and diversification of income with
ABS2 1.073 safety food access of household enhance farms resilience
AC AC1 1.188 level. This is confirmed by a positive and significant
AC2 1.283 correlation of IFA with the two observed variables IFA2,
AC3 1.120 total expenditure as a proxy of income level, and IFA3
IFA IF3 1.355 which represents the income diversification. This is in
IFA1 2.025 accord with Opiyo et al. (2014) who conclude that households
IFA2 2.428 without livelihood diversification activities are likely to be
S S1 2.179 more vulnerable than households with complementary
S2 1.052 sources of income and less dependents.
S3 2.117 The model result confirmed that productive and non-
SSN SSN1 1.024 productive assets are observed to be significant determinants
SSN2 1.024 of farming system resilience. In fact all indicators and proxy
R1 1.008 (own private land (AA1), house owner (AA2), buildings
R2 1.008 (AA3), vehicle owner (AA4), tractor owner (AA5), and irri-
gation equipment (AA6) are positively correlated with the
 Environ Sci Pollut Res

Table 5 Formative constructs

outer weights significance testing Formative Formative Outer t p 95% BCa confidence Outer
results constructs indicators weights value value interval loadings

AA AA1 0.007 0.023 0.982 [−0.554, 0.536] 0.377 **

AA3 0.035 0.156 0.876 [−0.394, 0.499] 0.324 **.
AA5 0.380 1.653 0.099 [−0.003, 0.858] 0.584 ***
AA6 0.833 * 5.983 0.000 [0.585, 1.047] 0.917 *
ABS ABS1 0.111 0.272 0.786 [−0.687, 0.899] 0.363 **
ABS2 0.965 * 2.718 0.007 [0.224, 1.128] 0.994 *
AC AC1 0.490 * 2.561 0.011 [0.109, 0.862] 0.767 *
AC2 0.675 * 3.893 0.000 [0.291, 0.950] 0.889 *
AC3 0.064 0.307 0.759 [−0.386, 0.432] 0.370 **
IFA IFA1 −0.001 0.001 0.999 [−0.874, 1.339] 0.709 ***
IFA2 0.978 * 1.772 0.077 [−0.341, 1.789] 0.999 *
IFA3 0.043 0.201 0.841 [−0.328, 0.530] 0.542 ***
Resilience R1 0.919 * 9.749 0.000 [0.705, 1.004] 0.948 *
R2 0.320 1.574 0.116 [−0.246, 0.570] 0.403 ***
S S1 −0.185 0.391 0.696 [−0.996, 0.843] 0.568 ***
S2 0.647 * 2.055 0.040 [−0.073, 1.011] 0.638 *
S3 0.893 * 1.977 0.048 [−0.083, 1.492] 0.776 *
SSN SSN1 0.847* 3.754 0.000 [0.313, 1.029] 0.911 *
SSN2 0.416 1.058 0.290 [−0.676, 0.946] 0.547 ***

*Significant indicator’s outer weight; ** 0.1<outer loading<0.5 but absolutely important indicator. ***No sig-
nificant indicator’s outer weight but its outer loading is high (above 0.50) and significant

latent variable AA. Assets are so important to the equilibrium Conclusions

of system and rural household when they contribute directly to
the income generation process (productive assets). Since
farms and household access to productive assets are
different, the shocks can have different consequences and
lead to different system behaviors. This was confirmed by
finding of FAO (2016) that income and assets should be part
of the resilience pillars to climate change. Also by Opiyo et al.
(2014) who confirmed that own private land combined to
credit access have a positive impact on farming system resil-
ience level. Tatwangire (2011) established a significant rela-
tionship between welfare increasing and access to additional
livestock holdings and productive farm equipment.
This study confirms that rural areas in semi-arid Tunisia are
characterized by overall vulnerability (more than 80%). It
showed that income and access to food (IFA), adaptive capac-
ity (AC), and productive and non-productive assets (AA) are
key determinants of farm’s resilience levels. Irrigation water
access and diversification of farmers’ activities are the main
adaptation strategies adopted by farmers. However, the lack of
technological progress and innovations reduce the adaptation
of these farming systems and increase farms vulnerability.
Understanding environmental change, vulnerability, and
resilience of agricultural production systems is necessary for
policy makers and for different stakeholders to develop

Table 6 Production system

category and resilience values Production system Group 1 Group 2 Group 3

Resilience R ≤ 0.4 0.4 < R ≤ 0.7 R >0.7

Production systems (Number) 27 21 12
Percentage 45% 35% 20%
Average resilience 0.21 0.51 0.83
Farm size 1 ha < area <100 ha* >50 ha* 10 ha < area <50 ha*
Area average 17 ha 75 ha 35 ha

*ha hectare
Environ Sci Pollut Res
Fig. 3 Resilience path model estimated with Smart-PLS
adaptation programmers against negative impacts of climate
change. By assessing resilience level of farming systems in
Tunisians semi-arid areas, and by analyzing determinants of
this resilience, this study aims to help to formulate and define
effective strategies for adaptation to climate change and en-
hance adaptive capacity.
Our study points to the need to increase awareness of stake-
holders and decision-makers about climate change challenges.
Based on the findings, cooperation and collective actions are
key strategies to deal with climate change. Indeed, climate
change requires cooperation and collective actions in certain
areas; especially in the case of management of groundwater
and other common resources in rural communities. It is time to
look at strategic actions that minimize resource degradation
including water and soils which are fundamental assets.
Fig. 4 Resilience level and
determinants
Strategic actions depend on social capital and the capacity of
rural people to invert opportunistic behavior. We recommend
such an approach of working with farmers and engaging with
local stakeholders and institutions based on cooperation and
collective actions to enhance resilience of rural households
and farming systems.
While this approach and the results provide a starting point,
particularly for stakeholders and policy-makers to understand
vulnerability of agricultural systems and sources of resilience
at local levels, it is important to note that these results concern
a small scale of analysis, which represents a major limitation
of this study. Since climate change is a global phenomenon,
the scope of this work should be extended to cover the country
level. Therefore, The resilience index measurement and anal-
ysis approach (RIMA) could be extended to the resilience

analysis and policies approach (RAP with RIMA II) which is
more appropriate at the national level (FAO 2016). This ex-
tended model should improve the relevance of decision sup-
port tools in the policy process of climate change mitigation
and adaptation.
Author contribution Conceptualization and methodology: Jamel BEN
NASR., Hatem CHAAR and Fadoua BOUCHIBA.
Investigation and data collection were performed by Jamel BEN
NASR and Fadoua BOUCHIBA
Analysis and visualization were performed by Jamel BEN NASR,
Hatem CHAAR and Lokman Zaibet.
The first draft of the manuscript was written by Jamel BEN NASR.
All the authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript
especially Hatem CHAAR and Lokman Zaibet.
All the authors contributed to review and editing according to re-
viewer’s comments.
All the authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Data availability The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current
study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate Not applicable
Consent for publication Not applicable.
Competing interests The authors declare that they have no competing
interests.
References
Adger WN (2000) Social and ecological resilience: are they related? Prog
H u m G eo g r 2 4 ( 3 ): 3 4 7 – 3 6 4 . h tt p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 1 9 1 /
030913200701540465
Adger WN (2006) Vulnerability. Glob Environ Chang 16:268–281.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.02.006
Adger WN, Brooks N, Bentham G, Agnew M and Eriksen S (2004) New
indicators of vulnerability and adaptive capacity, Tyndall Centre for
Climate Change Research. Technical Report 7, Norwich
AGRA (2014) Africa agriculture status report: climate change and small
holder agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa. Alliance for a Green
Revolution in Africa, Nairobi, Kenya. (AGRA)
Alinovi L, Mane E, Romano D (2010) Measuring household resilience to
food insecurity: Application to Palestinian Households. In:
Benedetti R, Bee M, Espa G, Piersimoni F (eds) Agricultural survey
methods. Wiley, Chichester. https://doi.org/10.1002/
9780470665480.ch21
Altieri MA, Nicholls CI, Henao A, Lana MA (2015) Agroecology and the
design of climate change-resilient farming systems. Agron Sustain
Dev 35(3):869–890. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-015-0285-2
Anwar MA, Zhou R, Sajjad A, Asmi F (2019) Climate change commu-
nication as political agenda and voters’ behavior. Environ Sci Pollut
Res 26:29946–29961. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-06134-
Belyaeva M and Bokusheva R (2017) Will climate change benefit or hurt
Russian grain production? A statistical evidence from a panel ap-
proach, Discussion Paper, No. 161, Leibniz Institute of Agricultural
Environ Sci Pollut Res
Development in Transition Economies (IAMO), Halle (Saale),
http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:gbv:3:2-69113.
Bentler PM, Chou CP (1987) Practical issues in structural modeling.
Sociol Methods Res 16(1):78–117. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0049124187016001004
Birkmann J (2006) Measuring vulnerability to promote disaster-resilient
societies: conceptual frameworks and definitions. In J. (Ed.)
Measuring vulnerability to natural hazards – towards disaster resil-
ient societies. United Nations University Press. Hong-Kong. New
York. 9-54 pp.
Bombi P (2018) Potential impacts of climate change on Welwitschia
mirabilis populations in the Namib Desert Southern Africa.
Journal of Arid Land 10(5):663–672. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s40333-018-0067-1
CCAFS and FAO (2012) Training guide - gender and climate change
research in agriculture and food security for rural development.
www.fao.org/climatechange/micca/gender/en
Chatelin YM, Vinzi VE, Tenenhaus M (2002) State-of-art on PLS model-
ling through the available software. HEC Business School. Jouy-en-
Josas
Chin WW (1998) The partial least squares approach to structural equation
modeling. In: Marcoulides GA (ed) Modern methods for business
research. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, pp 295–358
Chin WW, Marcolin BL, Newsted PR (2003) A partial least squares
latent variable modeling approach for measuring interaction effects:
results from a Monte Carlo simulation study and an electronic-mail
emotion/adoption study. Inf Syst Res 14(2):189–218
CIHEAM (2016) Avec le changement climatique. quel avenir de
l’agriculture en Tunisie?. Centre International de Hautes Etudes
Agronomiques Méditerranéennes. Lettre n°37. Septembre 2016.
1.4 pp.
Cutter SL, Barnes L, Berry M, Burton C, Evans E, Tate E, Webb J (2008)
A place-based model for understanding community resilience to
natural disasters. Glob Environ Chang 18(2008):598–606
Dang HL, Li E, Nuberg I, Bruwer J (2018) Vulnerability to climate
change and the variations in factors affecting farmers’ adaptation:
a multi-group structural equation modelling study. Clim Dev 10(6):
509–519. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2017.1304885
Edmonds HK, Lovell JE, Lovell CAK (2020) A new composite climate
change vulnerability index. Ecol Indic 117:106529. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106529
Fahad S, Wang J (2020) Climate change, vulnerability, and its impacts in
rural Pakistan: a review. Environ Sci Pollut Res 27:1334–1338.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-06878-1
Fan Y, Chen J, Shirkey G, John R, Wu SR, Park H, Shao C (2016)
Applications of structural equation modeling (SEM) in ecological
studies: an updated review. Ecol Process 5:19. https://doi.org/10.
1186/s13717-016-0063-3
FAO (2007) Adaptation to climate change in agriculture. forestry and
fisheries: perspective. framework and priorities. Inter-Departmental
Working Group On Climate Change. Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations (Rome. 2007)
FAO (2010) Measuring resilience: a concept note on the resilience tool.
Available at http://www.fao.org/3/al920e/al920e00.pdf
FAO (2015) Analyzing resilience for better targeting and action.
Resilience analysis in Senegal 2005. By Resilience Analysis and
Policies team. Agricultural Development Economics Division
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. available
in http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4456e.pdf
FAO (2016) Analysing resilience for better targeting and action.
Resilience Index Measurement and Analysis II RIMA-II.
Resilience Analysis and Policies team. Agricultural Development
Economics Division Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations. available in http://www.fao.org/3/a-i5665e.pdf
Folke C (2006) Resilience: the emergence of a perspective for social-
ecological systems analyses. Glob Environ Chang 16:253–267
Environ Sci Pollut Res
Folke C, Carpenter SR, Elmqvist T et al (2002) Resilience and sustainable
development: building adaptive capacity in a world of transforma-
tion. Ambio. 31(5):437–440
Füssel HM (2007) Vulnerability: a generally applicable conceptual
framework for climate change research. Glob Environ Chang
17(2):155–167
Galderisi A, Ferrara F, Ceudech A (2010) Resilience and/or vulnerabili-
ty? Relationships and roles in risk mitigation strategies. In Ache P.
Ilmonen M. Space Is Luxury. Selected Proceedings 24th Annual
AESOP Conference.
Gallopin GC (2006) Linkages between vulnerability. resilience. and
adaptive capacity. Glob Environ Chang 16(3):293–303
Gil JDB, Cohn AS, Duncan J et al. (2017) The resilience of integrated
agricultural systems to climate change. Wiley Periodicals. Inc.
Volume 8. July/August 2017. WIREs Clim Change 2017. 8:e461.
https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.461.
Hair JF, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M (2011) PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet.
J Mark Theory Pract 19(2):139–151
Hair JF, Hollingsworth CL, Randolph AB, Chong AYL (2017) An up-
dated and expanded assessment of PLS-SEM in information sys-
tems research. Ind Manag Data Syst 117(3):442–458
Hair JF, Sarstedt M, Ringle CM, Gudergan SP (2018). Advanced issues
in partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM).
Thousand Oaks: Sage
Hoterova K (2020) Comparative analysis of the resilience and vulnera-
bility of the railway infrastructure. MEST Journal 8(2):100–106.
https://doi.org/10.12709/mest.08.08.02.10
Hox J and Bechger T (1999) An introduction to structural equation
modeling. Family Science Review 11:354–373. http://joophox.net/
publist/semfamre.pdf
IPCC (2007) Climate change 2007: synthesis report. Contribution of
Working Groups I. II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing
Team. Pachauri. R.K and Reisinger. A. (eds.)]. IPCC. Geneva.
Switzerland. 104 pp
Janssen MA, Ostrom E (2006) Resilience vulnerability and adaptation: a
cross-cutting theme of the International Human Dimensions
Programme on Global Environmental Change. Glob Environ
Chang 16(3):237–239
Kais SM, Islam MS (2016) Factors influencing farmer’s choice of crop
production response strategies to climate change and variability in
Narok East Sub Community capitals as community resilience to
climate change: conceptual connections. Int J Environ Res Public
Health 13(12):E1211
Kalungu W, Filho WL, Harris D (2013) Smallholder farmers perception
of the impacts of climate change and variability on rain-fed agricul-
tural practices in semi-arid and sub-humid regions of Kenya. J
Environ Earth Sci 3(7):129–141
Kansiime MK, Mastenbroek A (2016) Enhancing resilience of farmer
seed system to climate-induced stresses: Insights from a case study
in West Nile region. Uganda. J Rural Stud Volume 47:–230. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2016.08.004
Kelvin J, Kinuthia S, Inoti K et al (2018) Factors influencing farmer’s
choice of crop production response strategies to climate change and
variability in Narok East Sub-county. Kenya. J Nat Resour Dev 08:
69–77
Klein RJT, Nicholls RJ, Thomalla F (2003) Resilience to natural hazards:
how useful is the concept? Environ Hazards 5:35–45
Lee Y-J (2018) Relationships among environmental attitudes, risk per-
ceptions, and coping behavior: a case study of four environmentally
sensitive townships in Yunlin county, Taiwan. Sustainability
2018(10):2663
Lee Y, Lin S (2019) Vulnerability and ecological footprint: a comparison
between urban Taipei and rural Yunlin Taiwan. Environ Sci Pollut
Res 27:34624–34637. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-05251-6
Lee Y, Tung C, Lin S (2019) Attitudes to climate change, perceptions of
disaster risk, and mitigation and adaptation behavior in Yunlin
County, Taiwan. Environ Sci Pollut Res 26:30603–30613. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-1358-y
Lindoso D P (2017) Vulnerability and resilience: potentials, conver-
gences and limitations in interdisciplinary research. Ambient. soc.
[online]. 2017, vol.20, n.4 [cited 2020-12-01], pp.127-144.
Available from: <http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_
arttext&pid=S1414-753X2017000400127&lng=en&nrm=iso>.
ISSN 1809-4422. https://doi.org/10.1590/1809-
4422asoc0248r1v2042017.
Lohmöller J B (1984) LVPLS Program Manual, Version 1.6,
Zentralarchiv für Empirische Sozialforschung, Universität zu
Köln, Köln
Lohmöller J B (1987) PLS-PC. Latent Variables Path Analysis with
Partial Least Squares. Version 1.8 for PCs under MS-Dos.
Lohmöller JB (1989) Latent variable path modeling with partial least
squares. Heildelberg: Physica-Verlag.
Malthouse EC (2001) Checking assumptions of normality before
conducting factor analyses. J Consum Psychol 10:81
MARHP (2011) Atelier régional forets. parcours et changement
climatique dans la région du moyen orient”. Rapport national:
Tunisie. Ministère de l’Agriculture et de l’environnement :
Direction Générale des Forêts-Tunisie. 22 septembre 2011.
MARHP (2018) Ministère de l’agriculture des ressources hydrauliques et
de la pêche. Les statistiques de l’Onagri. Tunisia.
MARHP and GIZ (2007) Stratégie nationale d’adaptation de l’agriculture
tunisienne et des écosystèmes aux changements climatique. Tunisia
MARHP and GIZ (2012) Stratégie Nationale sur le Changement
Climatique SNCC : Rapport de la stratégie. Rapport final. Octobre
2012.
Markkanen S, Anger-Kraavi A (2019) Social impacts of climate change
mitigation policies and their implications for inequality. Clim Pol
19(7):827–844. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2019.1596873
Martin G, Moraine M, Ryschawy J, et al. (2016) Crop–livestock integra-
tion beyond the farm level: a review. Agronomy for Sustainable
Development, Springer Verlag/EDP Sciences/INRA, 2016, 36 (3),
pp.53. 53 https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-016-0390-x
McEntire DA (2001) Triggering agents vulnerabilities and disaster reduc-
tion: towards a holistic paradigm. Disaster Prev Manag Vol.
10(Issue: 3):189–196
NapiWouapi HA, Sanni M (2018) Enhancing resilience of livelihoods
and production systems to climate variability and other related risks
in Africa. In: Leal FW (ed) Handbook of Climate Change
Resilience. Springer, Cham
Nefzi A (2012). Evaluation économique de l’impact du changement
climatique sur l’agriculture : étude théorique et application au cas
de la Tunisie. Thèse de doctorat en Economie de l’environnement et
des ressources naturelles. Soutenue le 29-03-2012 à Paris.
AgroParisTech . Dans le cadre de Ecole Doctorale Agriculture.
Alimentation. Biologie. Environnement. Santé (2000-2015 ; Paris)
Novikova SI, Richman DM, Supekar K, Barnard-Brak L, Hall D (2013)
Chapter three - NDAR: a model federal system for secondary anal-
ysis in developmental disabilities research. In: Urbano RC (ed)
International Review of Research in Developmental Disabilities,
vol Vol. 45. Academic Press, Cambridge, pp 123–153. https://doi.
org/10.1016/B978-0-12-407760-7.00003-7
O’Brien K L, Eriksen S, Schjolden A and Lygaard L (2005) What’s in a
word? Interpretations of vulnerability in climate change research.
Climate Policy.
ONAGRI, (n.d.)several years. Observatoire National de l’Agriculture.
Statistical directory « Annuaire Statistique ». Available in http://
www.onagri.nat.tn/statistiques.
Opiyo FE, Wasonga OV and Nyangito MM (2014) Measuring household
vulnerability to climate-induced stresses in pastoral rangelands of
Kenya: Implications for resilience programming. Pastoralism

Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13570-014-
0010-9
Osbahr H (2008) Building resilience: adaptation mechanisms and
mainstreaming for the Poor. UNDP; New York. NY. USA: 2008.
Background Paper for UNDP Human Development Report.
Pelling M (2003) The vulnerability of cities: natural disasters and social
resilience. Earthscan. London. UK.
Proag V (2014) The concept of vulnerability and resilience. Procedia
Econ Finance 18:369–337
Ringle CM, Wende S and Becker J-M (2015) SmartPLS 3.
Boenningstedt: SmartPLS GmbH, http://www.smartpls.com.
Roger A and Pielke J (2004) What is climate change?. Issues in Science
and Technology. VOL. XX. NO. 4.
Safonov G and Sfonova Y (2013) Economic analysis of the impact of
climate change on agriculture in Russia, National and Regional
Aspects. Oxfam Research Reports. Available at https://www.
oxfam.org/en/research/economic-analysis-impact-climate-change-
agriculture-russia.
Seo SN (2010) Is an integrated farm more resilient against climate
change? A micro-econometric analysis of portfolio diversification
in African agriculture. Food Policy Vol.35(1):32–40. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.foodpol.2009.06.004
Sha Z, Xie Y, Tan X, Bai Y, Li J, Liu X (2017) Assessing the impacts of
human activities and climate variations on grassland productivity by
partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). J
Arid Land 9:473–488. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40333-017-0022-6
Shah AA, Ye J, Abid M, Khan J, Amir SM (2018) Flood hazards: house-
hold vulnerability and resilience in disaster-prone districts of Khyber
Pakhtunkhwa province, Pakistan. Nat Hazards 93(1):147–165
Tambwe M, Mbise ERC (2020) Determinants of farmers’ entrepreneurial
intention in Tanzanian agricultural sector: a structural modelling
approach. Adv Soc Sci Res J 7:376–396. https://doi.org/10.14738/
assrj.710.9256
Tarka P (2018) An overview of structural equation modeling: its begin-
nings, historical development, usefulness and controversies in the
social sciences. Qual Quant 52:313–354. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11135-017-0469-8
Tatwangire A (2011) Access to productive assets and impact on house-
hold welfare in rural uganda. Thesis number 2011: 27 ISBN: 978-
82-575-0933-0. Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås.
Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/11250/2434107
Thomas K, Hardy RD, Lazrus H et al (2019) Explaining differential
vulnerability to climate change: a social science review. Wiley
Environ Sci Pollut Res
Interdiscip Rev. Clim Chang 10(2):e565. https://doi.org/10.1002/
wcc.565
Touzi S and Ben Zakour M (2015) Expérience tunisienne pour faire face à
la Variabilité et au Changement Climatique en Zones Côtières.
Rapport national dans le cadre du projet ClimVar (Med
Partnership). Available in https://planbleu.org/sites/default/files/
publications/rapport_national_tunisie_october_2015.pdf
Turner BL, Kasperson RE, Matson PA et al (2003) A framework for
vulnerability analysis in sustainability science. Proc Natl Acad Sci
100(14):8074–8079
UNDP (2010) Gender. Climate Change and Community-Based
Adaptation. New York. New York. United States. (Also available
at: www.beta.undp.org/undp/en/home/librarypage/environment-
energy/climate_change/gender/gender-climate-change-and-
community-based-adaptation-guidebook-.html
UNFCCC (2011) Report of the global environment facility to the confer-
ence of the parties. Framework Convention on Climate Change.
Also available at: https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2011/cop17/eng/
07.pdf
Villagràn de Leòn J.C. (2006) Vulnerability: a methodological and con-
ceptual review. Source, n° 4, UNU-EHS.
Vincent K (2007) Uncertainty in adaptive capacity and the importance of
scale. Glob Environ Chang 17(1):12–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
gloenvcha.2006.11.009
Wold H (1985) Partial least squares. In: Kotz S, Johnson NL (eds)
Encyclopedia of Statistical Sciences, vol 6. Wiley, New York, pp
581–591
World Bank (2019) https://donnees.banquemondiale.org/indicateur/NV.
AGR.TOTL.ZS?locations=TN. The reference was last accessed on
06/03/2019
Yavuz C, Kentel E, Aral MM (2020) Tsunami risk assessment: economic,
environmental and social dimensions. Nat Hazards 104:1413–1442.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-020-04226-y
Yu Y, Pi Y, Yu X, Ta Z, Sun L, Disse M, Zeng F, Li Y, Chen X, Yu R
(2018) Climate change. Water resources and sustainable develop-
ment in the arid and semi-arid lands of Central Asia in the past 30
years. J Arid Land 11(1):1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40333-018-
0073-3
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdic-
tional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.