Socio-ecological vulnerability to climate change/variability in central rift valley, Ethiopia

Mekonnen, Zenebe; Woldeamanuel, Teshale; Kassa, Habtemariam

doi:10.1016/j.accre.2019.03.002

Cited by 42 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In this regard, belg dominated areas (0.041) were found to be more vulnerable to climate variability and change than meher (0.029) dominated ones. Similar finding was reported by Negatu et.al [28], where farmers in the same agroecology but different way of life had differential status of vulnerability. Such results implied that vulnerability analysis should be disaggregated even in similar agroecology.…”

Section: Livelihood Vulnerability Of Smallholder Farmers To Climate Variability and Change: Agroecology-based Comparative Analysissupporting

confidence: 90%

“…Overall, woinadega (0.572) was found to be better in adaptive capacity (less vulnerable) followed by dega (0.506) and the least in adaptive capacity (most vulnerable) was kolla (0.452) agroecology. Consistent with this finding, Mekonnen et al [28], had reported that low adaptive capacity in the lowland agroecology contributed smallholder farmers to be more vulnerable. Human capital, financial capital, and physical capital were found better in woinadega agroecology while social capital and natural capitals were found better in dega agroecology.…”

Section: Livelihood Assets and Adaptive Capacity Of Smallholder Farmers To Climate Changementioning

confidence: 52%

“…Indicators with the highest PCA result and have contributed more to adaptive capacity among the human capitals were: total family size in productive age group, educational status of the household head, frequency of contact with development agents (DAs), average number of food sufficient months, having capacity to cover medication costs, having financial capacity to fill out food deficit, proportion of households free from food aid, proportion of household producing enough and more food by themselves, proportion of households who completed all rural health packages and size of chronically ill members. In connection with this, Mekonnen et al [28], confirmed that human capitals, like educational status and age of the household head, played a paramount contribution in enhancing the adaptive capacity of farmers to the adverse impacts of climate change.…”

Section: Livelihood Assets and Adaptive Capacity Of Smallholder Farmers To Climate Changementioning

confidence: 89%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Smallholder farmers’ livelihood vulnerability to climate change-induced hazards: agroecology-based comparative analysis in Northcentral Ethiopia (Woleka Sub-basin)

Asfaw

Bantider

Simane

et al. 2021

Heliyon

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Due to its climate-sensitive agricultural system and low adaptive capacity of the subsistence farmers, Ethiopia is cited among the countries experiencing frequent drought and highly vulnerable to climate change associated impacts. Micro level vulnerability assessment, in the context of a changing climate, has a paramount significance in designing policies addressing climate change induced effects. Assessing vulnerability to climate change is important for defining the risks posed by the change and it provides a starting point for the determination of effective means of promoting remedial actions to minimize impacts by supporting coping strategies and facilitating adaptation options targeted at specific context. Methods We employed cross-sectional survey research design has to examine the extent of livelihood vulnerability of 384 randomly selected smallholder farmers from three agroecologies which was supplemented by interviews. Livelihood vulnerability index, using integrated indicator approaches and principal component analysis, has been used. Chi-square test, F-test and t-test were used to examine association and mean differences among three agroecologies and between cropping types in terms of different attributes. Findings Overall, smallholder farmers living in kolla agroecology were found to be the most vulnerable to climate change induced hazards followed by dega. In terms of type of cropping season, belg dominated areas were relatively more vulnerable than those residing in meher dominated areas. Different biophysical and socio-economic attributes contributed their own role both for exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity differences among smallholder farmers farming in different agroecologies and different types of cropping seasons. Conclusion We recommend that interventions undertaken to lessen the impact of climate change should be targeted to the factors which contribute to high extent of sensitivity and for those which could enhance the adaptive capacity of smallholder farmers. Specifically, we suggest that resilience-building adaptation interventions like expansion of small-scale irrigation, accessing of microfinance service, early warning and timely information, extension support, non-farm sources of income, training and skill development, expansion of infrastructure have to be promoted thereby increase the adaptive capacity of subsistence rainfed-dependent farmers to withstand the vagaries of the climate variability risk. Moreover, disparities in the same agroecology have to be addressed properly in livelihood vulnerability discourse.

show abstract

Section: Livelihood Vulnerability Of Smallholder Farmers To Climate Variability and Change: Agroecology-based Comparative Analysissupporting

confidence: 90%

Section: Livelihood Assets and Adaptive Capacity Of Smallholder Farmers To Climate Changementioning

confidence: 52%

Section: Livelihood Assets and Adaptive Capacity Of Smallholder Farmers To Climate Changementioning

confidence: 89%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Smallholder farmers’ livelihood vulnerability to climate change-induced hazards: agroecology-based comparative analysis in Northcentral Ethiopia (Woleka Sub-basin)

Asfaw

Bantider

Simane

et al. 2021

Heliyon

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Vulnerability will affect human systems and ecology at several levels including people, institutions, and places which in turn affect human welfare and livelihoods (Mekonnen, 2019). It also impacts farming production, farmers" decisions, and farming sub-systems in developing countries (Greene, 2018).…”

Section: Vulnerabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Analysis of Sustainable Livelihood level and its Influence on Community Vulnerability of Surumana Village, Central Sulawesi

Gai¹,

Poerwati²,

Maghfirah³

et al. 2020

JP2WD

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sustainable livelihood is an activity that can help households in meeting their needs for survival. However, frequent flooding, increase in population growth each year, lack of facilities that support livelihoods such as education and health facilities, has made community’s livelihoods decline. Frequent flood results in reduced agricultural production. As a result, resources available at the research site become unbalanced. Therefore, this study aims to formulate a village development concept based on sustainable livelihood. This research was conducted in Surumana Village, Donggala Regency, Central Sulawesi Province by using primary and secondary data with a sample of 82 households. Likert scale was employed to measure one’s or group’s attitudes, opinions, and perceptions regarding social events or symptoms experienced. Besides, the Delphi method was also employed and used to gather opinions from experts through questionnaires with feedback mechanism while maintaining the anonymity of experts’ responses. The study result show that the maximum resource strength is found in social capital. Meanwhile, the vulnerability that affects resources in Surumana Village is flooding. In addition, the factors that support realization are institutions, education, health, transportation, reducing flooding, and increasing agricultural production.

show abstract

“…Ethiopia is also one of the developing countries and its major portion of the communities (83%) depends on agriculture, which has facing recurrent drought since the 1970's (Mohammed et al, 2018) and land degradation. This poses a potential impact on the physicochemical quality of soil (Zhang et al, 2015; Fernandez et al, 2014), soil productivity (Wu et al, 2007), and socio-economic impacts like food insecurity, price hick of market commodities, and social instability (Abeje et al, 2019;Mekonnen, et al, 2019). On top of these, several studies concluded that land degradation was also leading to the current global headache which associated with global warming.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Soil Physicochemical and Macrobiota Diversity Dynamics Under Enclosed Areas of Central Rift Valley of Ethiopia

Demie¹,

Abera²,

Shiferaw³

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Area enclosures have been implemented for many decades to restore degraded areas. The objective of this study was to evaluate its contribution to the enhancement of soil physicochemical and macrobiata diversity.Results Among the soil physicochemical parameters, the overall mean BD (0.002*), soil-MC (0.000*), % sand (0.011*), % clay (0.038*), pH (p = 0.022*), SOM (p = 0.005*), and Exch. Ca (p = 0.000*), and exch. K (p = 0.000*) exhibited a significant mean difference across the different land-use while % silt, EC, ava. K, ava. P, TN, CEC, and exch. Mg was insignificant at α-0.05. Although the whole study area was dominated by sandy, the result of ANOVA indicated that there was a significant mean difference in %sand (p = 0.011*) fraction across the land uses. The SOM also varied significantly and it is very high in the CA1, followed by CA2, PA, and OA, respectively. Though the result of Tukey's HSDa and homogeneity test showed that there is no statistically significant mean difference in the amount of available soil nutrients across the study sites, there was a slight variation in their magnitude, and PA was characterized by having high ava. P (9.70 ± 3.261a) and TN (0.28 ± 0.064a) while ava. K is very low (1062.29 ± 110.018a) compared to other land uses. In terms of the soil macrofauna, the CA1 had higher species diversity (1.90), abundance (32.69%), and richness (30.95%), and the species were evenly distributed. Followed by CA1, PA has a good species diversity (1.30), richness (26.19%), and abundance (24.16%), although the soil macrofauna was less evenly distributed compared to other land uses.Conclusion Generally, the enclosed area contributed to the improvement of soil physicochemical and biological components, and hence, expanding such measures in consultation with concerned bodies of the study area and proper follow-up mechanisms have a crucial role in rehabilitating degraded areas.

show abstract

Socio-ecological vulnerability to climate change/variability in central rift valley, Ethiopia

Cited by 42 publications

References 27 publications

Smallholder farmers’ livelihood vulnerability to climate change-induced hazards: agroecology-based comparative analysis in Northcentral Ethiopia (Woleka Sub-basin)

Smallholder farmers’ livelihood vulnerability to climate change-induced hazards: agroecology-based comparative analysis in Northcentral Ethiopia (Woleka Sub-basin)

Analysis of Sustainable Livelihood level and its Influence on Community Vulnerability of Surumana Village, Central Sulawesi

Soil Physicochemical and Macrobiota Diversity Dynamics Under Enclosed Areas of Central Rift Valley of Ethiopia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About