The cost and benefit analysis of climate change adaptation strategies among smallholder crop producers in the case of Sekela district, West Gojjam zone, Ethiopia

Tilahun, Yaregal Article The cost and benefit analysis of climate change adaptation strategies among smallholder crop producers in the case of Sekela district, West Gojjam zone, Ethiopia Cogent Economics & Finance Provided in Cooperation with: Taylor & Francis Group Suggested Citation: Tilahun, Yaregal (2021) : The cost and benefit analysis of climate change adaptation strategies among smallholder crop producers in the case of Sekela district, West Gojjam zone, Ethiopia, Cogent Economics & Finance, ISSN 2332-2039, Taylor & Francis, Abingdon, Vol. 9, Iss. 1, pp. 1-21, https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2021.1999590 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/270177 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=oaef20 Cogent Economics & Finance ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/oaef20 The cost and benefit analysis of climate change adaptation strategies among smallholder crop producers in the case of Sekela district, West Gojjam zone, Ethiopia Yaregal Tilahun | To cite this article: Yaregal Tilahun | (2021) The cost and benefit analysis of climate change adaptation strategies among smallholder crop producers in the case of Sekela district, West Gojjam zone, Ethiopia, Cogent Economics & Finance, 9:1, 1999590, DOI: 10.1080/23322039.2021.1999590 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2021.1999590 © 2021 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license. Published online: 27 Nov 2021. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 1560 View related articles View Crossmark data DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS | RESEARCH ARTICLE The cost and benefit analysis of climate change adaptation strategies among smallholder crop producers in the case of Sekela district, West Gojjam zone, Ethiopia Yaregal Tilahun 1 * Abstract: Climate change has adversely affected the livelihoods of people in Ethiopia since a large proportion of the population is heavily dependent on agriculture as their adaptive capacities are perceived to be below. Therefore, this study aimed to identify determinants of farmer adaptation strategies with their costs and benefits of each adaptation strategy. The data were collected from 155 farm households using a random sampling method through semistructured questionnaires. The result of the multivariate probit model revealed that the likelihood of farmers to adopt adjustment of planting date, changing crop varieties, intercropping, crop rotation, irrigation, and minimum tillage were 51.6%, 61.9%, 56.1%, 38.1%, 10.3%, and 27.1%, respectively. The joint likelihood of using all adaptation strategies was 4.2%, while their failure to adopt all the adaptation strategies was 9.8%. Among the given adaptation options, intercropping, adjusting planting dates, crop rotation, and changing crop varieties are economically viable climate adaptation strategies. Regarding the intensity of adaptation, 78% of sampled respondents were used more than one adaptation option, and their NPV and BCR were higher Yaregal Tilahun ABOUT THE AUTHOR Yaregal Tilahun (MSc) is a lecturer and researcher in the department of Agricultural Economics at Mizan-Tepi University, Ethiopia. He is currently engaged in teaching, research and community service work at Mizan-Tepi University. His research interests are mainly focused on market chain analysis, value chain analysis, climate change, food economics, food security, willingness to pay, and green-economy development. He conducts collaborative research works including value chain analysis of enset, production and marketing constraint of tea, spices, coffee, honey and livestock in Southwest Ethiopia. PUBLIC INTEREST STATEMENT Climate change is a global issue that affects all countries in the world. Particularly, the occurrence of climate change extremely affects agricultural production, productivity, and quality. Smallholder farmers in sub-Saharan Africa, including Ethiopia, are more vulnerable to climate change due to substance nature and low capacity to adopt technologies. In this regard, adaptation can be taken to minimize the harm or maximize the gains from weather variability and climate change. However, every adaptation is not advantageous for farmers to adopt; only the selected adaptations whose benefits exceed costs are advantageous and worthwhile. Adjustment of planting date, changing crop varieties, intercropping, crop rotation, irrigation, and minimum tillage are the six strategies practiced to override the negative impacts of climate change. Policies from different stakeholders that build farmers' capacity to adapt to climate change based on economic efficiency are critical for the successful responses to climate change impacts. Tilahun, Cogent Economics & Finance (2021), 9: 1999590 https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2021.1999590 Page 1 of 21 Received: 18 April 2021 Accepted: 26 October 2021 *Corresponding author: Yaregal Tilahun, Department of Agricultural Economics, College of Agriculture and Natural Resource, Mizan-Tepi University E-mail:[email protected] Reviewing editor: Lanouar Charfeddine, Finance and Economics, Qatar University, Qatar Additional information is available at the end of the article © 2021 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license. when they used at least one adaptation option. Farmers who did not adopt any adaptation options were able to receive the lowest income per unit production. The study recommends that households should use multiple combinations of adaptation practices rather than the use of a single adaptation option. Thus, the government and stakeholders must provide educational and extension service, training, and updated climate information to smallholder crop producers to use and select the best and combination of adaptation strategies. Subjects: Agriculture & Environmental Sciences; Agricultural Economics; Environmental Studies; Climate Change; Environment & Economics Keywords: Climate change; adaptation strategies; cost-benefit analysis; net present value; determinants; multivariate probit 1. Introduction Climate change is a global concern as it severely affects the livelihoods of the world community in general and the agricultural production and food security of the farming community in particular (Connolly-Boutin & Smit, 2016; Thompson et al., 2010). Its consequences are severe in developing countries in which agriculture is the primary source of livelihood (Maharjan & Joshi, 2013; Morton, 2007). It could hurt various biophysical and economic activities like agriculture, water resources, forestry, human health, biodiversity, and wildlife (Ahmed, 2016; Chalchisa, 2016). Even though climate change is a global problem, the need for adaptation is considered higher among developing countries where vulnerability is presumably higher and in the interest of individual farmers who rely on the revenue generated from agricultural production (Holzkämper, 2017; Williams et al., 2019). The adaptation strategy of climate change and its impact is mainly dependent upon the influencing determinants related to smallholder farmers’ perception about the phenomena and intervention of the policy to practice properly (Azumah et al., 2020; Holzkämper, 2017; Osewe et al., 2020). Adaptation policy was designed by considering the knowledge and perceptions of smallholder farmers and their adaptation strategies can bring a fruitful and sustainable adaptation response to the effect of climate change (Niles & Mueller, 2016). Smallholder farmers’ perception plays a big role in the successful implementation of adaptation strategies to mitigate climate change impacts as agricultural practices are concerned (Arsiso et al., 2017; Gebreyes, 2018). Some of the adaptation measures are crop rotation, mixed farming, early planting, soil conservation, crop diversification, and minimum tillage practices (T. T. Deressa et al., 2009; Tazeze et al., 2012; Legesse et al., 2013; Addisu et al., 2017; Devkota et al., 2018; Upadhyay, 2019). However, adaptation decision is location-specific and influenced by key drivers, such as socio-economic, environmental, and institutional factors (Asrat & Simane, 2018). T. T. Deressa et al. (2009) found that adaptation at the farm level involves two stages: perceiving a change in climate and deciding whether to adopt or not (including which adaptation strategy to use). Thus, there is a need to understand location-specific drivers of perception and adaptation to climate change among smallholder farmers (Asrat & Simane, 2017). This helps to design applicable policy responses based on the liability and sensitivity level of each location, as well as the convenience of the adaptation methods (Asrat & Simane, 2017, 2018; Simane et al., 2016). In this regard, adaptation can be taken to minimize the harm or maximize the gains from weather variability and climate change (Devkota et al., 2018). In the same vein, efficient adaptations are the set of adaptations that maximize net benefits (Mendelsohn, 2000; Devkota et al., 2018). However, not every adaptation is advantageous for farmers to adapt, only the selected adaptations whose Tilahun, Cogent Economics & Finance (2021), 9: 1999590 https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2021.1999590 Page 2 of 21 benefits exceed costs are advantageous and worthwhile (Devkota et al., 2018; Pant, 2013). Such adaptations, which maximize benefits, should be encouraged. To understand this, an economic analysis is necessary to determine whether or not it is advantageous to do any adaptation at all (Devkota et al., 2018). This involves calculating and comparing all costs and benefits expressed in monetary terms (De Bruin et al., 2014). Therefore, understanding the costs and benefits of climate change adaptation in agriculture is important for mobilizing support and providing timely resources to the institution to improve resilience and adaptive capacity (Sova et al., 2012; Shongwe et al., 2014; Mugula et al., 2015; Devkota et al., 2018). There have been extensive research studies have been performed on the perceptions and impact of climate change (Ali & Erenstein, 2017; Morton, 2007; Mulwa et al., 2017; Nkondze et al., 2013; Ojo & Baiyegunhi, 2019), the effect of climate change and variability (Nkondze et al., 2013; Minwuye, 2017; Arsiso et al., 2017;) and climate adaptation strategies (Addisu et al., 2017; Adeagbo et al., 2021; Ahmed et al., 2019; Asrat & Simane, 2018; Belay et al., 2017; Gebru et al., 2020). So far, there have not been any research studies on the cost and benefit of climate change adaptation strategies in Ethiopia in general and in the study area in particular. This left a knowledge gap in the assessment of the cost and benefits of adaptation to climate change adaptation strategies for crop producers. Therefore, this study aims to contribute to addressing this research gap. With this background, these studies were focused on identifying farmer adaptation strategies with their determinants implemented in crop production and quantify the costs and benefits of farmers’ adaptation strategies to climate change in the study area. Findings from the present study are relevant for formulating climate-related policies for adapting against climate change in the study area as well as other areas in Ethiopia. In the same way, the findings of the study would result in a reference for other studies who want to conduct further research on a similar topic within the country or abroad Figure 1. Figure 1. Location of the study area. Tilahun, Cogent Economics & Finance (2021), 9: 1999590 https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2021.1999590 Page 3 of 21 2. Literature review 2.1. Climate change and crop production Studies indicate that Africa’s crop production is negatively affected by climate change (Fankhauser, 1997; McCarthy et al., 2001). Climate change has resulted in increased temperatures, which increase transpiration and evapotranspiration rate causing severe water stress as plants lose a lot of water and soil moisture is depleted (Aydinalp & Cresser, 2008). Reduced soil moisture decreases available water for irrigation and hinders plant growth in non-irrigated plants. Higher temperatures, reduced rainfall, and increased rainfall variability reduce crop productivity that would be affecting food security in low-income and agriculture-based economies (Gezie , 2019). Climate change is a global concern as it severely affects the livelihoods of the world community in general and the crop production of the farming community in particular. Its impacts disproportionately affected sub-Saharan African countries, such as Ethiopia because their economies are highly dependent on climate-sensitive activities with low adaptive capacity (Minwuye, 2017). It could hurt various biophysical and economic activities like agriculture, water resources, forestry, human health, biodiversity, and wildlife (Chalchisa, 2016). Climate change alters the distribution, incidence, intensity of pests, diseases, and invasion of alien species. High temperatures coupled with wet conditions create new niches and favor the growth of pests and pathogenic organisms (Selvaraju, 2011). Droughts and floods kill animals that are used by small-scale farmers for plowing, thereby leaving them with no choice, but to hire tractors. However, most rural households do not afford such services because of their poor financial background. Planted areas are therefore reduced and food insecurity increases, forcing them to rely on food aid.. 2.2. Adaptation strategies to climate change Adaptation to climate change refers to the adjustment of natural or human systems in response to actual or expected climatic stimuli and/or their effects, which moderates harm or exploits beneficial opportunities . The common adaptation methods in agriculture in different literature include the use of new crop varieties, irrigation, crop diversification, adoption of mixed crop and livestock farming systems, use of organic fertilizers, planting drought-resistant varieties, changing planting dates, minimum tillage, soil conservation, agroforestry practice, different farming system, and fallowing (Abdulai, 2018; Adeagbo et al., 2021; Ahmed et al., 2019; Atube et al., 2021; Chalchisa, 2016; Diallo et al., 2020; Fagariba et al., 2018; Kassie et al., 2017; Lemessa et al., 2019; Minwuye, 2017; Osewe et al., 2020; Tadesa, 2020). Tesfaye and Seifu (2016) conducted a study on climate change perception and choice of adaptation strategies based on empirical evidence from smallholder farmers in eastern Ethiopia. The study found that the major adaptation strategies used by farmers in response to adverse effects of climate change include cultivating different crops, planting different crop varieties, changing planting dates, use of soil and water conservation techniques, conservation agriculture practices and engaging in non-farm income activities. The MVP model result revealed that the choice of adaptation strategies is influenced by the gender of household head, household size, farm size, distance from market and number of farm plots. Belay et al. (2017) investigated smallholder farmers’ adaptation to climate change and determinants of their adaptation decisions in the Central Rift Valley of Ethiopia using descriptive statistics and the MNL model. It is found that farmers made attempts to adapt using practices like crop diversification, planting date adjustment, soil and water conservation and management, increasing the intensity of input use, integrating crop with livestock, and tree planting. The econometric model result Tilahun, Cogent Economics & Finance (2021), 9: 1999590 https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2021.1999590 Page 4 of 21 indicated that education, family size, gender, age, livestock ownership, farming experience, frequency of contact with extension agents, farm size, access to market, access to climate information and income were the key factors determining farmers‟ choice of adaptation practice. According to Atube et al. (2021), farmers’ adaptation of climate change adaptation strategies is influenced by access to credit, gender, access to extension services, farming experience, time taken to market and farm income. Minwuye (2017) found that agroecological setting, sex, education level, landholding, farm income, non-farm income, livestock ownership, access to credit, extension visit, farmer-to-farmer extension, access to climate information, and the average distance from home to the farm have a significant influence on the choice of climate adaptation strategies. Karki et al. (2020) revealed that changing crop types and varieties, adding fertilizers, the use of new technologies, soil and water management, diversification of income sources, and migration are the climate change adaptation options used by subsistence and smallholder farmers in Nepal. 3. Methodology 3.1. Description of the study area Sekela Woreda is one of the 15 Woredas in the West Gojjam Zone of Amhara National Regional State. It is located 459 km to the North West away from Addis Ababa, the capital city of Ethiopia, 160 km away to the South East from Bahir Dar, the capital of Amhara National Regional State, and 74 km away North East from Finote Selam, the capital town of West Gojjam Zone. The administrative center of Sekela Woreda is Gish Abay town. The district has a total of 27 kebeles of which 26 are rural-based kebeles and only 1 urban kebeles . According to the Sekela Wreda Health Office (2017), the total population of the district was 162,204 of which male accounts for 79,071 (48.7%) and female accounts 83,133 (51.3%) of the total population. Besides 48.7% of the male population of the district, 92.65% of them are living in rural areas and the remaining 7.35% are urban residents. The estimated total area coverage of the district is 6534.5 hectares. It is located at an elevation of 3062 meters above sea level and 10°55 0  N latitude and 37°31 60  E longitude. The average annual rainfall of the area ranges from 1600 mm to 1800 mm with an average temperature of 18 ᵒ C. The district is characterized by 70% highland (Dega), 18% midland (Woynadega), and 12 % lowland (Qola) agro-ecological zones (SWAO, 2017). 3.2. Sources and methods of data collection The study used both primary and secondary data sources to collect qualitative and quantitative data. Data were obtained from the 2019/2020 cropping season. A semi-structured questionnaire was used to gather primary data on socioeconomic characteristics, crop management, farm inputs and output, access to institutional services, current adaptation measures are undertaken, and limitations to adaptation. Before the data collection, the questionnaire was pretested and amended based on the feedback received during the pretest to evaluate the appropriateness of the design, clarity, interpretation of the questions, and the relevance of the questions. Subsequently, appropriate modifications and corrections were made to the questionnaire based on their answers. The enumerators received field training on the study objectives and farm household survey. In addition to the questionnaire, a focus group discussion consists of 10 purposely selected participants and five key informants were interviewed to obtain additional supporting information for the study. Secondary data on climate change adaptation options with their costs and benefits for each adaptation strategy were collected from different sources like the Meteorological Service Department and from reviewing documents such as reports and databases of government institutions and from published and unpublished documents to secure relevant secondary information. Tilahun, Cogent Economics & Finance (2021), 9: 1999590 https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2021.1999590 Page 5 of 21 3.3. Sampling procedure and sample size determination A two-stage random sampling technique was applied to select sample households. In the first stage, four kebeles were randomly selected. In the second stage, a total of 155 household heads were selected randomly with a probability proportional to size. The reason for using simple random sampling is that the kebeles are located in the same agro-ecological zone. Therefore, the sample selection was free of bias. The formula provided by Yamane (1967) was used to determine the required sample size at 95% confidence level and 8% level of precision. In total, 155 sample households were selected from a total of 21,615 households in the selected kebeles. 3.4. Methods of data analysis Descriptive analysis: A cost-benefit analysis for the different adaptation strategies was conducted using net present value (NPV) and benefit-cost ratio (BCR). A high NPV indicates the most efficient and economical adaptation strategy. Similarly, adaptation strategies with the highest BCR were the most economical compared to those with low BCR. This can be done by; (i) Identifying the adaptation strategies employed in the communities. (ii) For each adaptation strategy, the total costs incurred when using that strategy and benefits were identified and used to compute the net benefit for that particular adaptation strategy. NB ¼∑TB ∑TC (1) Where; NB represents the net benefits TB represents the total benefits TC represents the total costs For adaptations that do not have direct costs and benefits, the shadow pricing and opportunity costs were used to quantify and computed. NPV is computed as: NPV ¼∑t¼0 TBtð1þrÞt∑T t¼0Ctð1þrÞtor NPV ¼∑T t¼0BtCtð1þrÞt(2) BCRi¼∑T t¼0Bt1þrð Þt ∑T t¼0Ct1þrð Þt(3) where: BCR i = Benefit Cost Ratio of the ith strategy; NPV = Net Present Value; B t = Total benefit in year t; C t = Total cost in year t; r = Discount rate and (1+r) t = Discount factor for year t Since the practice of climate adaptation strategies was recorded for one year, adoption with immediate costs and benefits (t) was assumed to be one, while r was assumed to be 15%. Then, the decision was drawn and concluded based on the value of NPV and BCR for each adaptation strategy. Generally, the higher the BCR, the better the adaptation strategy, while the lower the BCR, the less economically viable the adaptation practice. Tilahun, Cogent Economics & Finance (2021), 9: 1999590 https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2021.1999590 Page 6 of 21 4. Econometric analysis: determinants of farmers’ choice on adaptation strategies (MVP) A multivariate probit (MVP) approach was used for the empirical analysis. MVP models the effect of a set of regressors for each of the adaptation strategies simultaneously while allowing free correlation among the unobserved factors (Lin et al., 2005). The multivariate probit model is a form of a correlated binary response regression model that simultaneously estimates the influence of independent variables on more than one dependent variable, and allows for the error terms to be freely correlated. The dependent variable represents positive (chosen or 1) or negative (not chosen or 0) responses to the question regarding the importance of each factor on the adaptation option. The general specification for a multivariate probit model of dependent variables (or alternatives) can be expressed as (Greene, 2003). In the study area, six adaptation options were used by farmers to mitigate the effect of climate change on their farms. These variables were adjusting planting date, change crop varieties, intercropping, irrigation, crop rotation, and minimum tillage. The observed outcome of adaptation strategies can be modeled following a random utility formulation. Let U k represent the benefit of the farmer in choosing the Kth adaptation options: where K denotes the choice of different adaptation strategies. The farmer decides to choose the K th adaptation strategies if Y� ik = U� k — U0 > 0. Where U0 refers to alternative adaptation strategies. Y� ik ¼Xi βkþ 2 i With k ¼1;2;3;4;5;6 (4) Yik ¼1 if Y� ik>0 and 0 otherwise The net benefit (Y� ikÞthat the farmer drives from choosing climate adaptation strategies is a latent variable determined by observed explanatory variables (Xi) and the error term (iÞ, and (k = 1,2,3,4,5,6) represents the various practices used by smallholder crop farmers in the study area. Xiβk is a vector of explanatory variables used in the model for k = 1 (adjusting planting date), k = 2 (irrigation), k = 3 (change crop varieties), k = 4 (intercropping), k = 5 (crop rotation) and k = 6 (minimum tillage). Thus empirically, the model can be specified as follows: Y� i1¼X1βi1þ�1(5) Y� i2¼X2βi2þ�2(6) Y� i3¼X1βi3þ�3(7) Y� i4¼X1βi4þ�4(8) Y� i5¼X1βi5þ�5(9) Y� i6¼X1βi6þ�6(10) In the multivariate model, where the choice of several adaptation options is possible, the error terms of the above equations (1;2;3;4;5and6) may be correlated and jointly follow a multivariate Tilahun, Cogent Economics & Finance (2021), 9: 1999590 https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2021.1999590 Page 7 of 21 intercropping is higher than their counterparts and its BCR is also greater than 1. The result is supported by the finding of Azumah et al. (2020) who revealed that the use of intercropping is vital to increase yield through improving soil fertility and effective utilization of fertilizers. Minimum tillage reduces the cost of plowing and conserves moisture. These improved the waterholding capacity of the soil, reduce evaporation, and make more water available for the plants. However, most households are not using the right to implement minimum tillage such that the benefits are not maximized. Households are using hand hoes for digging and this makes the plant roots not to be deep enough, such that during very hot days, the plants easily wilt. 5.5. Factors influencing the choice of climate change adaptation strategies The Chi-square statistic with 64 degrees of freedom is 134.26 indicating rejection of the null hypothesis at a 1% significance level. This indicates that the subset of coefficients in the model is jointly significant and that the explanatory power of factors in the model is satisfactory. The result of the log-likelihood ratio test indicated that the multivariate Probit model fits the data reasonably well and that the choices of climate change adaptation strategies are not mutually independent. Furthermore, the result of the multivariate Probit model shows that the probability of households to adjust planting date, changing crop varieties, intercropping, irrigation, crop rotation, and minimum tillage was 51.6%, 61.9%, 56.1%, 10.3%, 38.1%, and 27.1%, respectively. The result also conveyed that the joint probability of using all adaptation strategies was only 9.8% and the joint probability of failure to adopt all the adaptation strategies was 4.2%. 5.5.1. Adjusting planting date The result in Table 5 indicates, except family size, farm income, off-farm income, frequency of extension contact, credit being taken, farmer-to-farmer extension, access to information, and training affect adjusting planting date positively and significantly. The negative coefficient of the family size indicates that the increase in family size reduces the probability of farmers selecting a change in planting date as an adaptation option. The result is consistent with the finding of Tesfahunegn et al. (2016) and Sani et al. (2016) who found that family size affects adjusting planting dates negatively and significantly. Meanwhile, an increase in income, extension services, training, and market information had an increase in the probability of a change in planting date. This result is reliable with the outcomes of Tazeze et al. (2012), Tambo and Abdoulaye (2013), Devkota et al. (2017), Ahmed et al. (2019), and Ishfaq (2019). 5.5.2. Irrigation The probability of farmers selecting irrigation practice as an adaptation strategy was affected positively by family size (5%), an education level (5%), farm income (10%), off-farm income (5%) and negatively by farm size 1% significant level. This indicated that the probability of using alternative irrigation was higher for farmers whose education and income levels of the household increased. The implication of the result implied that farm improvement and off/non-farm income improves farmers’ financial position, which enables them to purchase farm inputs such as seeds, fertilizers, and other materials needed for irrigation. This finding is in line with the investigation of Tazeze et al. (2012), Sani et al. (2016), and Mulwa et al. (2017), and Devkota et al. (2017). The landholding of the households hurts the use of irrigation as an adaptation strategy. According to the focus group discussions, they reach a consensus that farmers who have a very limited land size could use irrigation. The result is agreed to by Temesgen et al. (2008), Seid et al. (2016), and Lemessa et al. (2019) that revealed large landholding size decreases the use of irrigation. 5.5.3. Changing crop varieties The likelihood of selecting different crop varieties as adaptation options was affected by farming experience (10%), family size (5%), an education level (1%), farm income (5%), and off-farm income Tilahun, Cogent Economics & Finance (2021), 9: 1999590 https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2021.1999590 Page 14 of 21 (110%) positively and significantly with their significance level. This implies that as farmers were more educated the readiness to accept new ideas, innovation, farm income, and off/non-farm becomes improved which consequently enhances farmers’ willingness to change more on crop varieties as an adaptation strategy to climate change. Changing crop varieties through the adoption of improved varieties with early maturity, drought tolerance, and pests and disease resistance can slow down or even halt the adverse effects of climate change (Abdulai & Abdulai, 2016; Kassie et al., 2017; Tadesa, 2020). Thus, smallholder farmers adopt and cultivate such varieties that are highly resistant to the adverse effects of climate change and that can provide high yields (Lemessa et al., 2019; Zizinga et al., 2017). Emphasis on more drought-resistant varieties of drought-prone areas could help in reducing vulnerability to climate change (Akinnagbe & Irohibe, 2015; Mburu et al., 2015; Ngigi, 2009). The result is also consistent with the finding of T. T. Deressa et al. (2009), Legesse et al. (2013), Sani et al. (2016), Minwuye (2017), Belay et al. (2017), and Abdulai (2018) pointed out that increasing farming experience, education level and their farm income can increase their farm productivity through selecting improved varieties. 5.5.4. Intercropping Factors that affected the choice of intercropping as an adaptation option were affected by sex, family size, education level, and access to training positively and by livestock ownership negatively and significantly. Intercropping of different crop varieties in the same field is identified as one of the adaptation strategies to climate change as it is widely applied in the study area. Since farm size in the study area is very small, farmers use their limited land by choosing intercropping rather than the use of crop diversification. The result is in contrast to Tesfaye and Seifu (2016), Sani et al. (2016), and Belay et al. (2017) that revealed crop diversification was identified as adaptation strategies rather than intercropping as a suitable strategy. The significant positive coefficient of education and training access showed that farmers with higher educational attainment and more trained were more likely to use intercropping to combat adverse climate change effects. A positive relationship between family size and education level on the adoption of climate change adaptation strategies through intercropping methods exists in previous studies (T. T. Deressa et al., 2009; Abid et al., 2015; Gautam & Andersen, 2016; Ali and Erenstein, 2017,; Adeagbo et al., 2021). The knowledge gained through training can capacitate farmers with the technical know-how required for implementing adaptation measures in their agricultural production system and make them far-sighted to look for long-term benefits rather than immediate gains obtained. This is in agreement with the finding of Ketema and Bauer (2012), Guteta and Abegaz (2016), and Asrat and Simane (2017) who reported that access to extension and training is instrumental in promoting sustainable use of land-based climate change adaptation measures. 5.5.5. Crop rotation The likelihood of using crop rotation practice was affected by livestock ownership, education level, credit access, and farmer-to-farmer extension positively and family size negatively and significantly at different significance levels. Crop rotation can improve yield and profitability, control weeds, break disease cycles, provide an alternative source of nitrogen, reduce soil erosion, and increase soil organic matter and nutrients. This result is consistent with the finding of Holzkämper (2017) and Gebru et al. (2020) who found that access to credit, farmer-to-farmer extension, and education level of the household head were affected crop rotation significantly. Inline with sampled respondents, focus group discussions and key informants pointed out that producers who are implementing in diversifying their cropping systems and management strategies will be more successful than others who are not. In line with this, they found that extensive crop rotations are largely considered an age-old farming practice that has many agronomic, economic, and Tilahun, Cogent Economics & Finance (2021), 9: 1999590 https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2021.1999590 Page 15 of 21 environmental benefits over continuous cropping. The result consistent with the finding of Wittwer et al. (2017), and Degani et al. (2019) who revealed that long-term rotation of crops with high levels of replication is essential to improve crop production and food security in an uncertain future climate. 5.5.6. Minimum tillage Climate adaptation options through minimum tillage practice were negatively affected by sex and farming experience and access to training, information, and extension contact positively and significantly. Since minimum tillage is part of the solution to mitigate climate change effects and to ensure sustainable agriculture through a reduction in soil erosion and improve soil organic matter content, farmers who can be more trained, informed, and in contact with extension, agents can improve their crops. The result is consistent with the finding of Lenka and Lenka (2014), and Osewe et al. (2020) who revealed that extension contact and access to training and climate information to farmers can be reducing cultivation costs, reducing soil temperature fluctuation, and conserving soil moisture. Osewe et al. (2020) also found that minimum tillage adoption has positive impacts on reducing total household labor demands and improve smallholder households’ per capita net crop income. 6. Conclusions and recommendations Climate change is one of the most important factors in agricultural production, which could have a direct and indirect influence on production since the climate is linked to biological processes. Therefore, it is essential to understand the various strategies used by farmers to mitigate the adverse effect of climate change and the factors that influence farmers’ adoption and intensity of climate change adaptation strategies among smallholder crop farmers in the Sekela district. Results from the study show that only 77% of the farmers had used any type of adaptation strategies to mitigate climate change. Regarding NPV and BCR, farmers who do not adopt any type of adaptation practices have the lowest average net profit, and farmers who adopt two adaptation options have the highest average net profit followed by the farmers who practice three adaptation options. So, farmers should use a combination of two or more adaptation strategies rather than a single type of adaptation option to increase their farm income and to reduce the negative impact of climate change. To reduce the impact of climate change, farmers can use a climate adaptation option of changing crop varieties, adjusting planting dates, intercropping, crop rotation, minimum tillage, and irrigation. The result of the multivariate probit model revealed that the probability of using adjusting planting dates was significantly affected by family size, farm and off-farm income, extension contact, credit taken, farmer-to-farmer extension, and access to training and information. The probability of using irrigation was significantly affected by family size, education level, landholding, and farm, and offfarm income. The probability of using changing crop varieties was significantly affected by the farming experience, family size, education level, and farm and off-farm income. Similarly, the probability of using intercropping, crop rotation, and minimum tillage was affected by credit taken, livestock ownership, education level, and access to training and information. Since farmers are agents who undertake adaptation to climate change, their outlooks towards adaptation are a key determinant of the success or failure of adaptation options. This study recommends that there is a need to improve the dissemination of up-to-date climate information and training to smallholder farmers to select the best adaptation strategies based on their economic efficiency. Access to up-to-date climate information and training for farmers will improve their knowledge and enhance their decision-making. Access to reliable climate information will improve their knowledge and enhance their decision-making. Therefore, its policies and strategies of the government should be geared towards supporting improved extension service to Tilahun, Cogent Economics & Finance (2021), 9: 1999590 https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2021.1999590 Page 16 of 21 extension agents and with other farmers and disseminating information about climate change adaptation strategies among smallholder farmers to increase crop productivity. It is recommended that households should consider planting drought-tolerant crops like leguminous crops. This is because the improved adaptive capacity of crops can contribute to reducing the adverse effects of climate change and generally help to raise agricultural outputs. Finally, the study recommends that the concerned stakeholders should give capacity-building training and awareness on climate change to raise smallholder farmers consciousness on the adaptation options to climate change; farmers access to worth schooling to enable them to use environmentally friendly and best adaptation practices to climate change, and enhancing access to updated climate change information and farmers extension service on adaptation measures would be key to the development of government efforts on climate change adaptation. Therefore, in addition to assessing the determinant of climate change adaptation strategies in smallholder crop producers, future studies should evaluate the impact and determinants of adaptation strategies on environments as well as on societies. Funding I confirmed that there is no fund, grants, or other support was received. Author details Yaregal Tilahun 1 E-mail: [email protected] ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9721-8257 1 Department of Agricultural Economics, Mizan-Tepi University, Mizan-Tefri, Ethiopia. Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author. References Citation information Cite this article as: The cost and benefit analysis of climate change adaptation strategies among smallholder crop producers in the case of Sekela district, West Gojjam zone, Ethiopia, Yaregal Tilahun, Cogent Economics & Finance (2021), 9: 1999590. Abdulai, A. (2018). Simon brand memorial address: The challenges and adaptation to climate change by farmers in Sub-Saharan Africa. Agrekon, 57(1), 28–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/03031853.2018.1440246 Abdulai, A. N., & Abdulai, A. (2016). Allocative and scale efficiency among maize farmers in Zambia: A zero efficiency stochastic frontier approach. Applied Economics, 48(55), 5364–5378. https://doi.org/10. 1080/00036846.2016.1176120 Abid, M., Scheffran, J., Schneider, U. A., & Ashfaq, M. J. E. S. D. (2015). Farmers’ perceptions of and adaptation strategies to climate change and their determinants: The case of Punjab province, Pakistan. Earth System Dynamics, 6(1), 225–243. https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-6-225-2015 Addisu, A., Daniel, O., Shem, W., Philip, O., & Silas, O. (2017). Farmers’ adaptation choices to climate change impacts and implications on agricultural productions in Kolla Temben district, Tigray regional state, Northern Ethiopia. Journal of Environmental Science, Toxicology and Food Technology (IOSRJESTFT), 11(10), 39–45. https://doi.org/10.9790/24021110043945 Adeagbo, O. A., Ojo, T. O., & Adetoro, A. A. (2021). Understanding the determinants of climate change adaptation strategies among smallholder maize farmers in South-west, Nigeria. Heliyon, 7(2), e06231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e06231 Ahmed, I., Ullah, A., Ur Rahman, M. H., Ahmad, B., Wajid, S. A., Ahmad, A., Ahmed, S., & Hassain, S. (2019). Climate change impacts and adaptation strategies for agronomic crops. In Climate change and agriculture (pp. 1–14). IntechOpen. Ahmed, M. H. (2016). Climate change adaptation strategies of maize producers of the central rift valley of Ethiopia. Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development in the Tropics and Subtropics (JARTS), 117(1), 175–186. Akinnagbe, O. M., & Irohibe, I. J. (2015). Agricultural adaptation strategies to climate change impacts in Africa: A review. Bangladesh Journal of Agricultural Research, 39(3), 407–418. https://doi.org/10.3329/ bjar.v39i3.21984 Ali, A., & Erenstein, O. (2017). Assessing farmer use of climate change adaptation practices and impacts on food security and poverty in Pakistan. Climate Risk Management, 16, 183–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. crm.2016.12.001 Arsiso, B. K., Tsidu, G. M., Stoffberg, G. H., & Tadesse, T. (2017). Climate change and population growth impacts on surface water supply and demand of Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Climate Risk Management, 18, 21–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2017.08.004 Asrat, P., & Simane, B. (2017). Characterizing vulnerability of crop-based rural systems to climate change and variability: Agro-ecology specific empirical evidence from the Dabus watershed, north-West Ethiopia. American Journal of Climate Change, 6(4), 643–667. https://doi.org/10.4236/ajcc.2017.64033 Asrat, P., & Simane, B. (2018). Farmers’ perception of climate change and adaptation strategies in the Dabus watershed, North-West Ethiopia. Ecological Processes, 7(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/ s13717-018-0118-8 Atube, F., Malinga, G. M., Nyeko, M., Okello, D. M., Alarakol, S. P., & Okello-Uma, I. (2021). Determinants of smallholder farmers’ adaptation strategies to the effects of climate change: Evidence from northern Uganda. Agriculture & Food Security, 10(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40066-020-00279-1 Aydinalp, C., & Cresser, M. S. (2008). The effects of global climate change on agriculture. American-Eurasian Tilahun, Cogent Economics & Finance (2021), 9: 1999590 https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2021.1999590 Page 17 of 21 Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Sciences, 3(5), 672–676. https://doi.org/10.5772/interchopen.79188 Azumah, S. B., Adzawla, W., Osman, A., & Anani, P. Y. (2020). Cost-benefit analysis of on-farm climate change adaptation strategies in Ghana. Ghana Journal of Geography, 12(1), 29–46. https://doi.org/ 10.4314/gjg.v12i1.2 Belay, A., Recha, J. W., Woldeamanuel, T., & Morton, J. F. (2017). Smallholder farmers’ adaptation to climate change and determinants of their adaptation decisions in the Central Rift Valley of Ethiopia. Agriculture & Food Security, 6(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/ s40066-017-0100-1 Chalchisa, S. T. (2016). Farmers’ perception, impact and adaptation strategies to climate change among smallholder farmers in Sub-Saharan Africa. A Systematic Review, 26, 1–8. www.iiste.org Connolly-Boutin, L., & Smit, B. (2016). Climate change, food security, and livelihoods in sub-Saharan Africa. Regional Environmental Change, 16(2), 385–399. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-015-0761-x de Bruin, K., Goosen, H., van Ierland, E. C., & Groeneveld, R. A. (2014). Costs and benefits of adapting spatial planning to climate change: Lessons learned from a large-scale urban development project in the Netherlands. Regional Environmental Change, 14(3), 1009–1020. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10113-013-0447-1 Degani, E., Leigh, S. G., Barber, H. M., Jones, H. E., Lukac, M., Sutton, P., & Potts, S. G. (2019). Crop rotations in a climate change scenario: Short-term effects of crop diversity on resilience and ecosystem service provision under drought. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 285(1), 106625. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2019.106625 Deressa, T. T., Hassan, R. M., Ringler, C., Alemu, T., & Yesuf, M. (2009). Determinants of farmers’ choice of adaptation methods to climate change in the Nile Basin of Ethiopia. Global Environmental Change, 19(2), 248–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.01.002 Devkota, N., Phuyal, R. K., & Shrestha, D. L. (2018). Cost and benefit analysis of adoption of climate change adaptation options among rural rice farmers in Nepal. Asian Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development, 7(7), 136–148. https://doi.org/10. 18488/journal.1005/2017.7.7/1005.7.136.148 Diallo, A., Donkor, E., & Owusu, V. (2020). Climate change adaptation strategies, productivity and sustainable food security in southern Mali. Climatic Change, 159 (3), 3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-020-02684-8 Dinku, T., Block, P., Sharoff, J., Hailemariam, K., Osgood, D., Del Corral, J., Cousin, R., & Thomson, M. C. (2014). Bridging critical gaps in climate services and applications in Africa. Earth Perspect, 1(1), 1e13. https:// doi.org/10.1186/2194-6434-1-15 Fagariba, C. J., Song, S., & Soule Baoro, S. K. G. (2018). Climate change adaptation strategies and constraints in Northern Ghana: Evidence of farmers in Sissala West district. Sustainability, 10(5), 1484. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10051484 Fankhauser, S. (1997). The aggregation of climate change damages: A welfare theoretic approach. Environmental and Resource Economics, 10(3), 249–266. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026420425961 Frankenberger, T., Mueller, M., Spangler, T., & Alexander, S. (2013). Community resilience: Conceptual framework and measurement feed the future learning Agenda. Westat. Gautam, Y., & Andersen, P. (2016). Rural livelihood diversification and household well-being: insights from Humla, Nepal. Journal of Rural Studies, 44, 239–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2016.02.001 Gebreyes, M. (2018). ‘Producing’ institutions of climate change adaptation and food security in north eastern Ethiopia. NJAS-Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, 84(1), 123–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. njas.2017.10.007 Gebru, G. W., Ichoku, H. E., & Phil-Eze, P. O. (2020). Determinants of smallholder farmers’ adoption of adaptation strategies to climate change in eastern Tigray national regional state of Ethiopia. Heliyon, 6(7), e04356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e04356 Gezie, M., & Tejada Moral, M. (2019). Farmer’s response to climate change and variability in Ethiopia: A review. Cogent Food & Agriculture, 5(1), 1613770. https://doi. org/10.1080/23311932.2019.1613770 Greene, W. H. (2003). Econometric analysis. Pearson Education India. Guteta, D., & Abegaz, A. (2016). Factors influencing scaling up of agroforestry-based spatial land-use integration for soil fertility management in arsamma watershed, Southwestern Ethiopian Highlands. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 59(10), 1795–1812. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 09640568.2015.1090960 Holzkämper, A. (2017). Adapting agricultural production systems to climate change—what’s the use of models? Agriculture, 7(10), 86. https://doi.org/10.3390/ agriculture7100086 Isabirye, B. E., Isabirye, M., & Akol, A. M. (2010). Picturing adoption of below-ground biodiversity technologies among small holder farmers around Mabira Forest, Uganda. Tropicultura, 28(1), 24–30. Ishfaq, S. M. (2019). Rural-urban migration and climate change adaptation: Policy implications for Pakistan. Sustainable Development Policy Institute. http://hdl. handle.net/11540/10393 Juana, J. S., Kahaka, Z., & Okurut, F. N. (2013). Farmers’ perceptions and adaptations to climate change in sub-Saharan Africa: A synthesis of empirical studies and implications for public policy in African agriculture. Journal of Agricultural Science, 5(4), 121. https:// doi.org/10.5539/jas.v5n4p121 Karki, S., Burton, P., & Mackey, B. (2020). Climate change adaptation by subsistence and smallholder farmers: insights from three agro-ecological regions of Nepal. Cogent Social Sciences, 6(1), 1720555. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/23311886.2020.1720555 Kassie, G. T., Abdulai, A., Greene, W. H., Shiferaw, B., Abate, T., Tarekegne, A., & Sutcliffe, C. (2017). Modeling preference and willingness to pay for drought tolerance (DT) in maize in rural Zimbabwe. World Development, 94, 465–477. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.worlddev.2017.02.008 Ketema, M., & Bauer, S. (2012). Determinants of adoption and labour intensity of stone terraces in eastern highlands of Ethiopia. Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development, 3(5), 7–17. Kibue, G. W., Pan, G., Joseph, S., Liu, X., Jufeng, Z., Zhang, X., & Li, L. (2015). More than two decades of Climate change alarm: Farmers’ knowledge, attitudes and perceptions. African Journal of Agricultural Research, 10(27), 2617e2625. http://dx.doi.org/10. 5897/AJAR2013.835 Legesse, B., Ayele, Y., & Bewket, W. (2013). Smallholder farmers’ perceptions and adaptation to climate Tilahun, Cogent Economics & Finance (2021), 9: 1999590 https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2021.1999590 Page 18 of 21 variability and climate change in Doba district, west Hararghe, Ethiopia. Asian Journal of Empirical Research, 3(3), 251–265. Lemessa, S. D., Watebaji, M. D., & Yismaw, M. A. (2019). Climate change adaptation strategies in response to food insecurity: The paradox of improved potato varieties adoption in eastern Ethiopia. Cogent Food & Agriculture, 5(1), 1640835. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 23311932.2019.1640835 Lenka, S., & Lenka, N. K. (2014). Conservation tillage for climate change mitigation—the reality. Climate Change and Environmental Sustainability, 2(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.5958/j.2320-642X.2.1.001 Lin, C. T. J., Jensen, K. L., & Yen, S. T. (2005). Awareness of foodborne pathogens among US consumers. Food Quality Preference, 16(5), 401–412. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.foodqual.2004.07.001 Maddison, D. (2006). The perception of and adaptation to climate change in Africa. CEEPA. Discussion Paper No. 10. Centre for Environmental Economics and Policy in Africa. University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa. Maharjan, K. L., & Joshi, N. P. (2013). Climate change, agriculture and rural livelihoods in developing countries (No. BOOK). Springer. Mburu, B. K., Kung’u, J. B., & Muriuki, J. N. (2015). Climate change adaptation strategies by small-scale farmers in Yatta District, Kenya. African Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 9(9), 712–722. https://doi.org/10.5897/AJEST2015.1926 McCarthy, J. J., Canziani, O. F., Leary, N. A., Dokken, D. J., & White, K. S. (Eds.). (2001). Climate change 2001: impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability: contribution of Working Group II to the third assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Vol. 2). Cambridge University Press. Mendelsohn, R. (2000). Efficient adaptation to climate change. Climatic Change, 45(3/4), 583–600. https:// doi.org/10.1023/A:1005507810350 Minwuye, B. (2017). Farmers ’perception and Adaptation Strategies to Climate Change: The case of Woreillu District of Amhara Region, Northeastern Ethiopia (No. 634-2020-166). https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/ record/302090 Mohammed, D., Kwaghe, P. V., Bukar, U., & Umar, J. (2013). Economics of adaptation to climate change among farmers in Adamawa state, Nigeria. IOSR Journal of Agriculture and Veterinary Science, 5(4), 61–66. https://doi.org/10.9790/2380-0546166 Morton, J. F. (2007). The impact of climate change on smallholder and subsistence agriculture. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(50), 19680–19685. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas. 0701855104 Mugula, V. J., Kadigi, I. L., Mutabazi, K. D., & Tumbo, S. D. (2015). Economics of climate change adaptation in smallholder rice production in Wami-river .basin, Tanzania. Research Journal of Agriculture, 2(5), 1–16 Mulwa, C., Marenya, P., Kassie, M., & Kassie, M. (2017). Response to climate risks among smallholder farmers in Malawi: A multivariate probit assessment of the role of information, household demographics, and farm characteristics. Climate Risk Management, 16, 208–221. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.crm.2017.01.002 Ngigi, S. N. (2009). Climate change adaptation strategies: Water resources management options for smallholder farming systems in sub-Saharan Africa. The Earth Institute at Columbia University. Niles, M. T., & Mueller, N. D. (2016). Farmer perceptions of climate change: Associations with observed temperature and precipitation trends, irrigation, and climate beliefs. Global Environmental Change, 39, 133–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.05.002 Nkondze, M. S., Masuku, M. B., & Manyatsi, A. M. (2013). The impact of climate change on livestock production in Swaziland: The case of mpolonjeni area development programme. Journal of Agricultural Studies, 2(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.5296/jas.v2i1.4416 Ojo, T. O., & Baiyegunhi, L. J. S. (2019). Determinants of climate change adaptation strategies and its impact on the net farm income of rice farmers in south-west Nigeria. Land Use Policy, 95, 1–10. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.landusepol.2019.04.007 Osewe, M., Miyinzi Mwungu, C., & Liu, A. (2020). Does minimum tillage improve smallholder farmers’ welfare? Evidence from Southern Tanzania. Land, 9(12), 513. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/land9120513 Pant, K. P. (2013). Economics of climate change for smallholder farmers in Nepal: A review. Journal of Agriculture and Environment, 12, 113–126. https:// doi.org/10.3126/aej.v12i0.7571 Sani, S., Haji, J., & Goshu, D. (2016). Climate change adaptation strategies of smallholder farmers: The case of assosa district, Western Ethiopia. Journal of Environment and Earth Science, 7, 9–15. Sarkar, A., Aronson, K. J., Patil, S., Hugar, L. B., & vanLoon, G. W. (2012). Emerging health risks associated with modern agriculture practices: A comprehensive study in India. Environmental Research, 115, 37–50. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.envres.2012.03.005 Selvaraju, R. (2011). World food security: The challenges of climate change and bioenergy. In Climate change and food security in South Asia (pp. 185–211). Shongwe, P., Masuku, M. B., & Manyatsi, A. M. (2014). Factors influencing the choice of climate change adaptation strategies by households: A case of mpolonjeni area development programme (ADP) in Swaziland. Journal of Agricultural Studies, 2(1), 86–98. https://doi.org/10.5296/jas.v2i1.4890 Simane, B., Zaitchik, B. F., & Foltz, J. D. (2016). Agroecosystem specific climate vulnerability analysis: Application of the livelihood vulnerability index to a tropical highland region. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 21(1), 39–65. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11027-014-9568-1 Sofoluwe, N. A., Tijani, A. A., & Baruwa, O. I. (2011). Farmers’ perception and adaptation to climate change in Osun state, Nigeria. African Journal of Agricultural Research, 6(20), 4789–4794. https://doi. org/10.5897/AJAR10.935 Sova, C., Chaudhury, A. S., Helfgott, A. E., & CornerDolloff, C. (2012). Community-based adaptation costing: An integrated framework for the participatory costing of community-based adaptations to climate change in agriculture. www.ccafs.cgiar.org Tadesa, E. (2020). Review on climate change adaptation strategies in Ethiopia. International Journal of Energy and Environmental Science, 5(3), 51. https://doi.org/ 10.11648/j.ijees.20200503.12 Tilahun, Cogent Economics & Finance (2021), 9: 1999590 https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2021.1999590 Page 19 of 21 Tambo, J. A., & Abdoulaye, T. (2013). Smallholder farmers’ perceptions of and adaptations to climate change in the Nigerian savanna. Regional Environmental Change, 13(2), 375–388. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10113-012-0351-0 Tazeze, A., Haji, J., & Ketema, M. (2012). Climate change adaptation strategies of smallholder farmers: The case of Babilie district, East Harerghe zone of Oromia regional state of Ethiopia. Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development, 3(14), 1–12. Tesfahunegn, G. B., Mekonen, K., & Tekle, A. (2016). Farmers’ perception on causes, indicators and determinants of climate change in northern Ethiopia: Implication for developing adaptation strategies. Applied Geography, 73, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.apgeog.2016.05.009 Tesfaye, W., & Seifu, L. (2016). Climate change perception and choice of adaptation strategies: Empirical evidence from smallholder farmers in east Ethiopia. International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management, 8(2), 253–270. https://doi.org/10. 1108/IJCCSM-01-2014-0017 Thompson, H. E., Berrang-Ford, L., & Ford, J. D. (2010). Climate change and food security in sub-Saharan Africa: A systematic literature review. Sustainability, 2 (8), 2719–2733. https://doi.org/10.3390/su2082719 Upadhyay, P. (2019). Climate change and adaptation strategies: A study of agriculture and livelihood adaptation by farmers in Bardiya District, Nepal. Adv Agr Environ Sci, 2(1), 47–52. https://doi.org/10.30881/ aaeoa.00022 Williams, P. A., Crespo, O., & Abu, M. (2019). Adapting to changing climate through improving adaptive capacity at the local level–The case of smallholder horticultural producers in Ghana. Climate Risk Management, 23, 124–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. crm.2018.12.004 Wittwer, R. A., Dorn, B., Jossi, W., & Van Der Heijden, M. G. (2017). Cover crops support ecological intensification of arable cropping systems. Scientific Reports, 7(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep41911 Yamane, T. (1967). Problems to accompany “statistics, an introductory analysis”. Harper & Row. Zizinga, A., Kangalawe, R. Y., Ainslie, A., Tenywa, M. M., Majaliwa, J., Saronga, N. J., & Amoako, E. E. (2017). Analysis of farmer’s choices for climate change adaptation practices in South-Western Uganda, 1980–2009. Climate, 5(4), 89. https://doi.org/10.3390/cli5040089 Tilahun, Cogent Economics & Finance (2021), 9: 1999590 https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2021.1999590 Page 20 of 21 © 2021 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license. You are free to: Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format. Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially. The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms. Under the following terms: Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use. No additional restrictions You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits. Cogent Economics & Finance (ISSN: 2332-2039) is published by Cogent OA, part of Taylor & Francis Group. Publishing with Cogent OA ensures: • Immediate, universal access to your article on publication • High visibility and discoverability via the Cogent OA website as well as Taylor & Francis Online • Download and citation statistics for your article • Rapid online publication • Input from, and dialog with, expert editors and editorial boards • Retention of full copyright of your article • Guaranteed legacy preservation of your article • Discounts and waivers for authors in developing regions Submit your manuscript to a Cogent OA journal at www.CogentOA.com Tilahun, Cogent Economics & Finance (2021), 9: 1999590 https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2021.1999590 Page 21 of 21