Auwal Garba*
Department of Environmental Management Technology, Abubakar Tafawa University, Bauchi, Nigeria
Bukar Abba Gana
Department of Environmental Management Technology, Abubakar Tafawa University, Bauchi, Nigeria
Isah Mohammed
Department of Environmental Management Technology, Abubakar Tafawa University, Bauchi, Nigeria
Haruna Adamu
Department of Environmental Management Technology, Abubakar Tafawa University, Bauchi, Nigeria
*Corresponding author: agwuntee@gmail.com
Abstract
Climate change vulnerability is the function of exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity of its natural and socioeconomic systems. Following spatial “scale” of the assessment, administrative-territorial units were selected for this study. A field survey questionnaire was used to collect data for the study based on the sample size of 500 questionnaires that was administered to household heads in the study area. In the questionnaire, questions were designed to give respondents the opportunity to choose from several alternatives given in the instrument while descriptive statistics was for the analysis of data. Descriptive statistics analysis based on mean ranking was carried out to identify the level of peoples’ vulnerability to climate change in the study area. The exposure assessment was based on the response analysis of baseline information. The sensitivity assessment for the study was analyzed by using physiographical and socioeconomic characteristics, described by a set of specific indicators and responses of the residents. The adaptive capacity was captured by general economic and agricultural indicators, taking into consideration the major occupation the predominant lifestyle of the residents. Through a ranking approach, the relative vulnerability of each ATU was calculated by summing its sensitivity and adaptive capacity ranks; the latter were obtained as combinations of their primary indicator ranks, arranged in an increasing and decreasing order, respectively. The major climate change exposure pathway in the study area were reduction in green environment, decrease in total annual rainfall, warmer weather, early cessation of rainfall, late on-set of rainfall and shrinkage of water bodies. The major sensitivity to climate change was decrease in crop yield, whereas increase in cost of food crops, drought incidents, famine, poverty, indiscriminate falling down of trees and disaster. It was also established that the major adaptive strategies to climate change in the study area were irrigation farming, use of organic manure, planting of drought tolerant varieties and early planting.
Keywords: Assessment, Climate change, Nigeria, Sensitivity, Vulnerability
DOI: https://doi.org/xx
Conflicts of interest: None
Supporting agencies: None
Received XX; Revised 13.02.2022; Accepted XXXX
Cite This Article: Garba, A., Gana, B.A., Mohammed, I., & Adamu, H. (2022). Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment: An Evaluation of Social Dimension. Journal of Sustainability and Environmental Management, 1(2), x-x. doi: xxxxxxxx
Download full article
1. Introduction
The
world's climate is shifting rapidly, presenting new challenges and
opportunities. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2016)
defines climate change as a change in the average state of the climate that
lasts for a long time (typically decades or longer). Climate change is one of
the most important environmental concerns facing humanity worldwide. Available
research demonstrates that climate change is a global issue, as are its
affects; nevertheless, poor countries bear the brunt of the negative
consequences due to their low technical development (UNFCCC, 2014). Despite
being one of the world's poorest continents, climate change poses a major
threat to Africa's long-term growth and development, as well as its
accomplishment of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Despite the fact
that the continent is one of the least accountable for its causes (Cutter,
2009). This necessitates immediate action in the areas of vulnerability,
adaptation, and mitigation. Reduced agricultural production, worsening food
insecurity, increased incidence of both flooding and drought, disease spread,
and an increased risk of conflict over scarce land and water resources and
migration due to the continent's weak adaptive capacity, limited finance, and
lack of technological advancement are all issues to be concerned about.
Africa
is particularly vulnerable to climate change due to its overdependence on
rain-fed agriculture (over 95% of Africa's agriculture is rain-fed), which is
exacerbated by widespread poverty and limited ability (Nwafor, 2007). Climate
change is expected to have a significant impact on African countries and
subregions, the amount of land suitable for agriculture, the length of growing
seasons, and yield potential are all predicted to diminish, especially around
the edges of semi-arid and arid areas. This would have a negative impact on
food security on the continent and worsen malnutrition. Rain-fed agriculture
yields in some countries might be decreased by up to 50% by 2020, according to
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This would have an impact on
food security, with the most vulnerable individuals bearing the brunt of the
impact (IPCC 2007). Because it contains some of the world's poorest countries,
the continent is particularly vulnerable to climate change. The climate of
Africa is mostly tropical, and it may be divided into three primary climatic
zones: humid equatorial, dry, and humid temperate. Within these zones, altitude
and other localized variables significantly influence regional climates
(Adejuwon, 2004).
In
Nigeria, the situation is similar, as no part of the country is immune to the
effects of climate change. Drought, wind erosion, and related sand dune
development, drought, and desertification are the most significant climate
change-related land degradations in northern Nigeria's Sahel zone. Sheet
erosion, or the full disappearance of arable ground, is a severe hazard to
agriculture in south-eastern Nigeria. Nigeria's 800-kilometer coastline is
low-lying, making it vulnerable to coastal erosion and flooding. All of them
are induced kinds of land degradation as a result of climate change (Ajani,
2012). The current climate has a significant impact on ecological organization.
Forests have a crucial role in the biosphere's functioning, and they have an
indirect impact on the provision of other products and services such as lumber
production. Nigeria's woods would be harmed by changes in climatic and
atmospheric composition. Forest resources have become very vulnerable to minor
changes in climate systems due to the sensitive character of forest ecosystems.
As a result of changes in temperature, precipitation, and water cycle dynamics,
significant forest cover loss can occur (Odjugo, 2010).
Enete
(2011) stated that extreme weather events such as drought and decreased soil
moisture are on the rise as a result of rising temperatures, which causes rapid
evaporation of soil moisture and, as a result, drought. Climate change might
wreak havoc on biodiversity as a result of all of these factors. Climate
change, according to researchers, is a single potentially cataclysmic current
occurrence with no historical parallel. Due to climate change, a 0.2m rise in
sea level could flood nearly 3,400 km2 of Nigeria's coastal area. According to
one estimate, Nigeria will lose over $9 billion as a result of the tragedy, and
at least 80% of the people in the Niger Delta will be relocated as a result of
major portions of the oil-rich region being below sea level (Onyenechere,
2010). The Nigeria Meteorological Agency had predicted "above normal"
rainfall in crucial sections of the country earlier in 2012, which could result
in flooding events in twelve states. Lagos, Ogun, lta, Cross River, Akwa Ibom,
Bauchi, Gombe, Kano, Katsina, and Jigawa were among the states. However,
between July and October 2012, roughly nine states in the country experienced
flooding (Ajani, 2012), resulting in the loss of lives, homes, properties,
farmlands, and agricultural products, totaling millions of naira. According to
the Minister of the Environment, almost 5,000 acres of agriculture have been
washed away, resulting in food shortages, starvation, and increased people's
vulnerability to the effects of climate change (Okocha, Muhammad & Oyeyipo,
2012).
Meanwhile,
climate change vulnerability is defined as the degree to which a system is
vulnerable to and unable to cope with the negative effects of climate change,
and is determined by the system's exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive
capability. The nature and degree to which a system is exposed to significant
climatic variations is known as exposure; sensitivity is the degree to which a
system is affected either negatively or positively by climate-related stimuli
is known as sensitivity; and adaptive capacity is the ability of a system to
adjust to climate change variability and extremes is known as adaptive capacity
(Odjugo, 2010). Vulnerability to climate change impacts arises from the dangers
connected with climate change's negative effects. Vulnerability is a measure of
a person's, group's, or system's exposure to natural disasters, as well as the
degree to which that individual, group, or system recovers from the event's
effects (Onyenechere, 2010). Vulnerability is defined by Fatile and Adejobi
(2012) as the capacity of a system (people) to foresee, cope with, resist, and
recover from the effects of a natural hazard. It is important to emphasize that
individuals’ vulnerability is dictated by their access to resources and social
network membership, i.e., persons with access to resources and social networks
are less sensitive to climate change consequences. The poorest individuals in
developing countries are widely assumed to be the worst affected, as they are
primarily reliant on climate-sensitive industries (Nanda, 2009). Mani (2008)
also believes that the poorest countries and populations will suffer the most
as a result of their geographical position, low income, and institutional
capacity, as well as their greater reliance on climate-sensitive industries
such as agriculture. Furthermore, ecologically fragile places are more
vulnerable to climate change stressors, and this is especially true for
marginalized groups who rely on natural resources (Nath & Behera, 2011). It
has also been demonstrated that the level of susceptibility varies even within
areas or sectors due to differences in their adaptability to numerous pressures
(IPCC, 2007).
1.1.
Phenomenon of climate change
Climate
change is defined by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC, 2014) as a change in climate that is caused by human activity and
alters the composition of the global and/or regional atmosphere, in addition to
natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods. Climate
change, according to the IPCC (2007), is associated with a change in the state
of the climate that can be detected (e.g., by statistical tests) by variations
in the mean and/or variability of its attributes, and that lasts for decades or
more. Although the Earth's climate is always changing and global climate change
is inevitable, future climate change may be faster than it has been in the last
10,000 years. Because of human actions, the majority of the world's scientists
studying this topic conclude that this predicted climate change will be
different from prior climate shifts. As a result, climate change is the gradual
alteration of the global atmosphere's composition, which is influenced both
directly and indirectly by numerous human activities, as well as natural
climate variability through time (Koehler-Munro & Goddard, 2010). The
alteration, according to Koehler-Munro and Goddard (2010), has a greenhouse
effect on the earth's atmosphere. The energy that reaches the earth from the
sun is counterbalanced by the energy that the earth sends back into space. Some
of the energy that the planet releases into space is trapped by greenhouse
gases (GHGs). The atmosphere's GHGs operate as a thermostat, regulating the
planet's climate. The average temperature on Earth would be –18oC instead of
+15oC if it weren't for the natural greenhouse effect. As a result, life as we
know it would be unthinkable (Koehler-Munro & Goddard, 2010).
1.2. Climate change vulnerability
Vulnerability
is one of the system characteristics of adaptation in the context of climate
change, and can be defined as the "degree to which a system is susceptible
to injury, damage, or harm" (Smit, 2000). Natural hazards, entitlement and
sustainable livelihoods, resilience, and integrated research traditions can all
be used to do vulnerability research (Adger, 2006; Gumel, 2022). To identify
variables within a single sector, an integrated method analyses susceptibility
to climate change and leans more explicitly on a modified sustainable
livelihoods approach. The traditional approaches to natural hazards and
disaster risk management (DRM) first focused on the biophysical vulnerability
of human systems as a result of external hazards and present climatic
variability (Cutter, 2009). More contemporary hazards traditions look at the
dynamic processes that alter social, economic, and biophysical vulnerability to
hazards, as well as the social and economic origins of these vulnerabilities
(Nwafor, 2007). In recent years, natural disasters and climate change research
have found common ground in order to better understand the underlying reasons
of susceptibility and become more forward-thinking with climate change
adaptation measures (Prabhakar, Srinivasan, & Shaw, 2009).
1.3. Exposure to climate change
"The
nature and degree to which a system is exposed to substantial climatic
fluctuations" is how exposure is defined (IPCC, 2007). The variation of
numerous climatic elements (temperature, precipitation, etc.) as well as global
climate change and the system's location are all intimately tied to a system's exposure
(Füssel & Klein, 2006). According to Brooks (2003), a country's
vulnerability is defined as the percentage of the population in a
hazard-affected area who is exposed to the first-order effects of the hazard,
and the number of exposures is determined by a variety of social and
environmental factors. Vulnerability is frequently referred to as a social
notion that is inextricably linked to exposure, which can be defined as the
spatial and temporal distribution of people and assets. The IPCC defines
"the presence of people, livelihoods, species or ecosystems, environmental
services and resources, infrastructure, or economic, social, or cultural assets
in places that could be negatively affected" as "the presence of
people, livelihoods, species or ecosystems, environmental services and
resources, infrastructure, or economic, social, or cultural assets in places
that could be negatively affected" (2017). According to Hallegatte (2014),
a natural phenomenon must have an impact on a human system and cause negative consequences
to become a hazard. The interaction of extreme weather events or climate
stressors with sensitive settings determines disaster risk (Surminski, 2013).
Disaster, loss, and damage result from the interplay of hazard events with the
characteristics of the exposed object or subject that render it vulnerable to
destruction (Surminski, 2013).
1.4. Sensitivity and resilience
Climate
sensitivity is defined as "the degree to which climate fluctuation or
climate change affects a system, either negatively or positively" (IPCC,
2001). A system's sensitivity is defined by a combination of non-climatic
elements and climatic activity, such as its exposure. If a system's exposure to
a threat is altered, the sensitivity is altered as well, either favorably or
negatively (Füssel & Klein, 2006). The term "resilience" has
numerous definitions, all of which come from the concept of a country's
richness in terms of natural, environmental, and social capital (Bahadur,
2010). The term comes from the field of natural sciences. Holling (1973) was
the first to define ecological resilience, which he defined as a combination of
persistence, resistance, and transformation. In ecological terms, resilience is
defined as the amount of disturbance that can be absorbed before the system's
structure changes due to changes in the variables and processes that influence
behavior (Gunderson, 2000). A system's ability to persevere in the face of
change may be enhanced by a certain amount of volatility (Holling, 1973). In
economics, the idea of resilience has been applied to general shocks and
exceptional occurrences that affect the economy. In general, economic
resilience is described as an economy's or society's ability to cope, recover,
and rebuild (macroeconomic resilience) while minimizing household welfare
losses (microeconomic resilience) in the face of a calamity of a certain
severity (Hallegatte, 2014). The concept of social resilience can be defined as
"communities' ability to absorb shocks to their social infrastructure"
when applied at the community level (Oyekale, 2009).
1.5. Adaptive capacity
A
country's or region's adaptive capability is defined as "the sum of a
country's or region's capabilities, resources, and institutions for
implementing effective adaptation measures" (IPCC, 2007). Exposure and
sensitivity are difficult to separate from a system (Hjerpe & Wilk, 2010),
however by controlling exposure and sensitivity to reduce vulnerability, a
system's adaptive capacity can be boosted (Yohe & Tol, 2002). Adaptive
capacity is a desirable unique and positive quality of a system that has been
accepted in vulnerability research since it is influenced by both biophysical
and social factors (Eakin & Luers, 2006). Adaptive capacity has its origins
in biology, where it was used to describe a species' or organism's ability to
adapt to a specific set of environmental conditions (Gallopin, 2006).
2.
Materials and methods
Toro is a Bauchi State Local Government Area located in the southern portion of the state with a landmass of 6,932 km2 (Hassan, 2013). Toro LGA has a population of 350,404 people, according to NPC (2006). The interaction of two air masses, the relative warm and moist tropical maritime (mT) air mass, which originates from the Atlantic Ocean and is associated with southwest winds in Nigeria, and the relatively cool, dry, and stable tropical continental (cT) air mass, which originates from the Sahara Desert and is associated with the dry, cool, and dusty North-East Trades known as the Harmattan, influences seasonal variation in rainfall in the study area. The Inter-tropical Discontinuity is the zone where these two air streams meet (ITD). The ITD's journey northwards across the state in August marks the start of the rainy season in the entire state, while its migration southwards in February marks the start of the dry season (Odekunle, 2006). Temperatures are consistently high. The highest air
Figure 1: Map of the study area
temperature, which can reach 380°C - 400°C in some regions, occurs in April/May, while the lowest temperature occurs in December and January. Throughout the year, evapo-transpiration is normally high. The evaporation rate is higher during the dry season. The area's vegetation is of the Sudan Savanna variety, which contains the traits and species of both the Guinea and Sahel Savannas (Olorode, 2002).
The
study used a field survey questionnaire to collect data, with a sample size of
500 questionnaires sent to household heads in the study area. Questions in the
questionnaire were intended to allow respondents to choose from a variety of
options provided in the instrument, while descriptive statistics were used to
analyze the results. The level of people's vulnerability to climate change in
the study area was determined using descriptive statistics based on mean
ranking. The decision for mean ranking was taken based on the rating scale by
Abd, Majid and McCaffer (1997) as Very low (1.00 ≤
Mean < 1.50) Low (1.50 ≤
Mean < 2.50) Moderate (2.50 ≤
Mean < 3.50) High (3.50 ≤
Mean < 4.50) and Very high (4.50 ≤
Mean < 5.00). The People’s
vulnerability to climate change was measured based on vulnerability indicators
of exposure to climate change, sensitivity to climate change and adaptive
capacity to climate change. However, in presenting results for exposure to
climate change, other relevant information such as people most exposed to
climate change, activities the climate change exposure is more felt on, and
human reasons for climate change exposure were examined.
3.
Results and discussion
The demographic data of the respondents’ details were collected and has been presented in Table 1. The results on the age of the respondents indicated that the age between 41-50 years has the highest percentage of 39.6%, followed by age above 60yrs with 24.1%. The age between 31- 40yrs with 19.7% follows, and the least age was less than 30 years with 16.5%. This indicated that age between 41-50 years dominated the age of the respondents and less than 30yrs was the least age of the respondents in the study area. On the question of educational qualification, where Qur’anic/Non-Formal Education holders have the highest percentage of 44.9% followed by secondary school certificate holders with 21.0% percentage, then first school leaving certificate holders with 18.6% and the least education qualification was tertiary education holders with 15.5%. This means that majority of the respondents were Qur’anic/Non-formal education holders in the study area. Meanwhile, on the question on occupation of the respondents, most of them were farmers with 44.4%, followed by traders with 18.9%, then cattle rearing with 15.7%, civil servants with 11.5%, and least occupation was fisheries with 9.4% in the study area.
Table 1: Demographic details of the
respondents
|
S.N. |
Questions |
Options |
Frequency |
Percentage |
|
1 |
Age |
Less
than 30 years |
63 |
16.5 |
|
31-40
years |
75 |
19.7 |
||
|
41-50
years |
151 |
39.6 |
||
|
Above
60 years |
92 |
24.1 |
||
|
2 |
Educational
Level |
Qur’anic/Non-Formal
Education |
171 |
44.9 |
|
Primary
Education |
71 |
18.6 |
||
|
Secondary
Education |
80 |
21.0 |
||
|
Tertiary
Education |
59 |
15.5 |
||
|
3 |
Occupation
|
Farming |
169 |
44.4 |
|
Trading |
72 |
18.9 |
||
|
Fishing |
36 |
9.4 |
||
|
Civil
Service |
44 |
11.5 |
||
|
Cattle
Rearing |
60 |
15.7 |
These
results imply that most of the household heads in the study area were above the
dependent age i.e. not within the early youthful age range, which means that
they were old enough to have climatic experience within the study area and
beyond. This further implies that most of the household heads in the study area
were middle age men which are of great advantage to the communities in the
study area. These findings agree with the study of Fajuyi (2016) that found out
that household heads in Ibadan who affected by flood were of average age of 49
years, and also agrees with the study of Enete (2011) that the respondents were
of the average age of about 47 and 50 years for smallholder food crop farmers
using indigenous adaptation strategy in Imo State, Nigeria. But this disagrees
with the findings of Manyena (2006) which found out that small and medium-scale
soybean farmers in Benue State, Nigeria had average age of about 33 and 39
years respectively. On the question of educational qualification, where
Qur’anic/Non-Formal Education holders have the highest percentage of 44.9%
followed by secondary school certificate holders with 21.0% percentage, then
first school leaving certificate holders with 18.6% and the least education
qualification was tertiary education holders with 15.5%. This implies that
majority of the respondents only attended Qur’anic/Non-formal education schools
in the study area. This result disagrees with the finding of Adebayo, K. (2011)
that found out that a greater parentage of farmers in Akure only attempted
secondary school or its equivalent. The findings agree with the findings of
Mani, M (2008) that majority of the rain fed rice farmers in Kura had only
attended non- formal education centers. On the question on occupation of the
respondents, most of them were farmers with 44.4%, followed by traders with
18.9%, then cattle rearing with 15.7%, civil servants with 11.5%, and least
occupation was fisheries with 9.4% in the study area. This implies that
majority of the respondents were farmers. This suggests that farmers are more
vulnerable to climate change (Folke, 2006). The findings agree with Awotoye
& Mathew (2010) that more than 3.4 billion people live in rural areas, with
most working on small farms to produce food for their communities, most depend
on small, family farms for their income and sustenance, rural people grow the
food that feeds their nations, but they are also disproportionately poor: 80
per cent of the women, children and men living in extreme poverty live in rural
areas, not cities.
The results in Table 2 reported that the major climate change exposure in the study area are reduction in green environment, decrease in total annual rainfall, warmer weather, early cessation of rainfall, late on-set of rainfall and shrinkage of water bodies with mean values of 4.5827, 4.5039, 4.4331, 4.4147, 4.4016 and 4.3386 ranked 1 to 6 respectively. The least climate change exposure was pest and disease due to climate change with mean value of 3.4331 ranked 7 among the exposure to climate change. The result also indicated high level of exposure to climate change in the study area, with average mean of 4.3011. This agrees with findings of BASEED (2005) that the level of deforestation in Toro L.G.A as a result the activities of loggers and charcoal producers is extremely alarming and it’s increasing the rate of desertification the entire state.
Table 2: Exposure to climate change
|
Exposure |
Mean |
Std. Deviation |
Rank |
Remark |
|
Reduction in green environment |
4.5827 |
.70458 |
4.3011 |
High
level of exposure |
|
Decrease in
total annual rainfall |
4.5039 |
.78681 |
||
|
Warmer weather |
4.4331 |
.86988 |
||
|
Early
cessation of rainfall |
4.4147 |
.78552 |
||
|
Late
on-set of rainfall |
4.4016 |
.72104 |
||
|
Shrinkage of water bodies |
4.3386 |
.83559 |
||
|
Pest and disease due to climate change |
3.4331 |
1.09249 |
Table 3: Sensitivity to climate change
|
Sensitivity |
Mean |
Std. Deviation |
Rank |
Remark |
|
Decrease
in crop yield |
4.7113 |
.51361 |
4.3581 |
High
Sensitivity |
|
Increase
in cost of food crops |
4.4252 |
.73111 |
||
|
Increase in drought incidents |
4.3648 |
.85269 |
||
|
Famine |
4.3517 |
.94433 |
||
|
Poverty |
4.3491 |
.92704 |
||
|
Indiscriminate falling down of trees |
4.3412 |
.88799 |
||
|
Increase in disaster |
4.3018 |
.95185 |
||
|
Decrease
in livestock numbers |
4.2126 |
.94281 |
||
|
Disease out break |
4.1654 |
1.01901 |
Ajani (2012) also found out that the onset and cessation of the rainy season which has become irregular over the years is posing a problem for farmers as regards optimization of the seed planting and the need to adjust to the length of the growing season.
The results in Table 3 shows that the major sensitivity to climate change were decrease in crop yield, increase in cost of food crops, increase in drought incidents, famine, poverty, indiscriminate falling down of trees, increase in disaster, decrease in livestock numbers and disease outbreak at mean values of 4.7113, 4.4252, 4.3648, 4.3517, 4.3491, 4.3412, 4.3018, 4.2126 and 4.1654 ranked 1 to 9 respectively. The overall result also reported high level of sensitivity to climate change in the study area, with a mean score of 4.3581. This implies that decrease in crop yield was the major sensitivity pathway in the study area. Hassan (2013) opined that changes, temperature increase has the most likely negative impact on crop yields and regional temperature changes can be projected from climate models with more certainty than precipitation. It is thus necessary to quantify the impact of temperature increase on global crop yields, including any spatial variations, to first assess the risk to world food security, and then to develop targeted adaptive strategies to feed a burgeoning world population. The result also agrees Fatile & Adejobi (2012) that the destructive impacts of climate change like droughts, floods and increasingly severe storms are the primary culprits behind decreased farming output and rising hunger worldwide. Almost a quarter of the populations of least developed countries suffer food insecurity, with vulnerable populations in Nigeria and other developing countries even facing the risk of famine.
Table 4: Adaptive capacity to climate change: Adaptive strategies
|
Adaptive
Strategies |
Mean |
Std. Deviation |
Rank |
Remark |
|
Irrigation farming |
4.2887 |
.93786 |
3.5841 |
Moderate
Adaptive Capacity
|
|
Use of organic manure |
4.2493 |
1.17127 |
||
|
Planting
of drought tolerant varieties |
4.2362 |
.92728 |
||
|
Early Planting |
4.0945 |
1.04201 |
||
|
Shifting
cultivation |
3.8425 |
1.08646 |
||
|
Mixed
cropping |
3.7927 |
1.23397 |
||
|
Construction of water reservoirs |
3.7822 |
1.18201 |
||
|
Shelter Belts |
3.6063 |
1.30681 |
||
|
Mulching |
3.5984 |
1.30541 |
||
|
Wind Breakers |
3.3202 |
1.41694 |
||
|
Use terraces |
2.9029 |
1.32923 |
||
|
Empowerment strategies |
2.5092 |
1.29901 |
||
|
Prompt disaster control measures |
2.3701 |
1.43529 |
Table 5: People’s vulnerability to climate change in the study area
|
Vulnerability
Indicators |
Mean |
Std. Deviation |
Rank |
Remark |
|
Sensitivity
to climate change |
4.3581 |
.55562 |
4.0811 |
High
Vulnerability |
|
Exposure
to climate change |
4.3011 |
.49360 |
||
|
Adaptive
strategies |
3.5841 |
.54721 |
The results in Table 4 shows that the major
adaptive strategies to climate change in the study area were irrigation
farming, use of organic manure, planting of drought tolerant varieties and
early planting at mean scores of 4.2887, 4.2493, 4.2362 and 4.0945 ranked 1 to
4. These are followed by second major adaptive strategies to climate change in
the study area which are shifting cultivation, mixed cropping, construction of
water reservoirs, shelter belts, mulching and wind breakers with mean scores of
3.7927, 3.7822, 3.6063, 3.5984 and 3.3202 ranked 5 to 9 respectively. The least
adaptive strategies to climate change in the study area were use terraces,
empowerment strategies and prompt disaster control measures at mean scores of
2.9029, 2.5092 and 2.3701 ranked 10 to 12 respectively. This implies that major
adaptive strategy used in the study area was irrigation farming. The result
agrees with Agwu & Amadu (2011) that societies and individuals have adapted
to changing climate conditions by a mixture of practices, these practices
include early planting, irrigation farming, mulching cropping changes, new
water technologies and innovative modes for resource management, it forces
farmers to depend on low input and low risk technologies. Non-adoption of new
technologies to derive maximum gains during favorable seasons delays recovery
after disasters. The development of the irrigation system in the 70s led to
increased rice production in recent years. This, however, was at the cost of
other rain-fed crops, including pulses and oil seeds, which led to lower
nutrition levels in the population, as large areas were converted to rice
farms. However, contrary result was reported by Cardona (2012) that farmers
preferred to cultivate more crops during the risky dry season due to its
associated high demand, new ways and methods are needed to better inform
farmers to help them identify alternative, technically viable options for
livelihood adaptation (Chikaire, Ajaero, & Atoma, 2022). Better access to
climate information could encourage farmers to adopt new risk/opportunity
management practices under changing climatic conditions. Similar result was
also reported by Smit & Wandel (2006) that adaptation strategies will not
be successful unless there is a willingness to adapt among those affected, as
well as a degree of consensus regarding what types of actions are appropriate.
Adaptive capacity, therefore, depends on the ability of a society to act
collectively, and to resolve conflicts between its members. Nonetheless, it
must be recognized that adaptation will ultimately be a localized phenomenon.
The results in Table 5 shows that the
pattern of peoples’ vulnerability to climate change in the study area is more
on sensitivity to climate change, followed by exposure to climate change, and
adaptive strategies at mean values of 4.3581, 4.3011 and 3.5841. The results
show that high level of Peoples’ vulnerability to climate change in the study,
with mean value of 4.0811. The result implies that there is high level of
Peoples’ vulnerability to climate change in the study area. IPCC (2014) reports that developing countries
are the most vulnerable to climate change impacts because they have fewer
resources to adapt: socially, technologically and financially, climate change
is anticipated to have far reaching effects on the sustainable development of
developing countries, many developing countries’ governments have given
adaptation action a high, even urgent, priority. Hinkel (2011) opined a similar
result that developing countries have very different individual circumstances
and the vulnerability to climate change of a country depend on the climate it
experiences as well as its geographical, social, cultural, economic and
political situations. As a result, countries require a diversity of adaptation
measures very much depending on individual circumstances. From a global
perspective, it is more likely that people living at or below poverty will be
affected the most by climate change and is thus the most vulnerable, because
they will have the least amount of resource to invest in resiliency
infrastructure. UNHabitat (2007) reported that around the world, climate change
affects rural communities that heavily depend on their agriculture and natural
resources for their livelihood. Increased frequency and severity of climate
events disproportionately affects women, rural, dryland, and island
communities, this leads to more drastic changes in their lifestyles and forces
them to adapt to this change. It is becoming more important for local and
government agencies to create strategies to react to change and adapt
infrastructure to meet the needs of those impacted. USAID (2007) also reported
that various organizations work to create adaptation, mitigation, and
resilience plans that will help rural and at risk communities around the world
that depend on the earth's resources to survive, those in poverty have a higher
chance of experiencing the ill-effects of climate change due to the increased
exposure and vulnerability.
4.
Conclusion
Reduced greenery, decreased total annual
rainfall, warmer weather, early cessation of rainfall, late on-set of rainfall,
and shrinking of water bodies were the key climate change exposure pathways in
the research area. Farmers and fishermen were the most affected by climate
change in the study area. Low income, insufficient understanding, bad farming
practices, industrial activity, and poor planning were the key human causes of
climate change vulnerability. The major sensitivity to climate change were
decrease in crop yield, increase in cost of food crops, increase in drought
incidents, famine, poverty, indiscriminate falling down of trees, increase in
disaster, decrease in livestock numbers and disease outbreak; the overall
result also reported high level of sensitivity to climate change in the study
area. It was also established that the major adaptive strategies to climate
change in the study area were irrigation farming, use of organic manure, planting
of drought tolerant varieties and early planting.
References
Adejuwon, S. A. (2004). Impacts of climate variability and climate
change on crop yields in Nigeria. Climate Change Unit, Department of
Environmental Assessment (FMEnv).
Adger. (2006). Uncertainty
in adaptive capacity. Comptes Rendus
Geoscience, 337(4), 339-410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crte.2004.11.004
Agwu, A. E. Amadu. (2011). Agricultural innovations for climate change
adaptation and food security in West Africa.
Ajani, J. (2012). Rage of nature: Flood raveges communities
across Nigeria. Ibada, Nigeria: University Press.
Awotoye, O. O. &
Mathew, O.J. (2010). Effects of temporal changes in climate variables on crop
production in tropical sub-humid South-western, Nigeria. African Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 4(8),
500-505
Bahadur, A. V. (2010). The resilience renaissance? Unpacking of
resilience for tackling climate change and disasters. Brighton: CRS.
BASEED (2005). Bauchi state economic empowerment and
development strategy.
Brooks, N. (2003). Vulnerability, risk and adaptation.
Norwich: Tyndall center for climate change research.
Cardona, O. D. (2012). Determinants of risk: exposure and
vulnerability. A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Chikaire, J.U., Ajaero,
J.O., & Atoma, C.N. (2022). Socio-economic Effects of Covid-19 Pandemic on
Rural Farm Families’ Well-Being and Food Systems in Imo State, Nigeria. Journal of Sustainability and Environmental
Management, 1(1), 18-21.
Cutter, S. (2009). Social
vulnerability to climate variability hazards. USA: Hazards and Vulnerability
Research Institute, University of South Carolina.
Eakin, H., & Luers, A.
L. (2006). Assessing the vulnerability of social-environmental systems. Journal of Environment and Resource. 31,
365-394 https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144352
Enete, A. A. (2011). Indigenous agricultural adaptation strategy
to climate change. A study of southeast Nigeria.
Fajuyi, R. (2016). Climate change and household vulnerability.
Ibadan, Nigeria: University Press.
Fatile, J. O. and Adejobi,
O. S. (2012). Climate change, environment and conflicts in Nigeria. British Journal of Arts and Social Sciences,
6(1), 11-20.
Folke, J. (2006). Vulnerable or resilient: A multi-scale
assessment of climate impacts and vulnerability in Norway , 193-225.
Fussel, H.M. & Klein,
R. (2006). Climate change vulnerability assessments: An evolution of conceptual
thinking. Global Environmental Change.
75, 301–329. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-006-0329-3
Gallopin, G. (2006). A systematic
synthesis of the relationship between vulnerability, hazard, exposure and
impact, aimed at policy identification. Mexico: Economic Commission for
Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC).
Gumel, D.Y. (2022). Assessing Climate Change
Vulnerability: A Conceptual and Theoretical Review. Journal of Sustainability and Environmental Management, 1(1),
22-31. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6206933
Hallegatte, S. (2014). The economics of natural disasters: Concepts and methods. Washington
DC: World Bank.
Hassan, R. (2013). Vulnerability, adaptation and performance of
maize in north-eastern Nigeria. London: CAB International.
Hinkel, J. (2011). Indicators of vulnerability and adaptive
capacity: Toward clarification of the science-policy interface.
Hjerp and Wilk. (2010).
Ecosystem service and vulnerability. Climate
change Europe, 133-137.
Holling, C. (1973).
Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Ecology and Systematics, 1-23.
IPCC. (2014). Climate change impacts, adaptation, and
vulnerability. New York: IPCCAR5.
IPCC. (2007). Climate change 2007. United Kingdom:
Cambridge University Press.
IPCC. (2016). Climate change 2001. Climate change
impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability.
Koehler-Munro, &
Goddard (2010). Climate change and
agriculture, agriculture and rural development. Alberta: ACVCR.
Mani, M. (2008). Climate change adaptation and mitigation in
development programmes. Washington DC: World Bank.
Manyena, S. (2006). Issues on disaster management: The Concept
of Resilience Revisited, 433-450.
NPC. (2006). Population census of Bauchi state in census
2006 national summary. Abuja. Nigeria: National Population Commission
(NPC).
Nath P. K; and Behera B. (2011).
Climate change challeng: A critical
review of impact and adaptation to climate change in developed and developing
economies, 141-162.
Nanda, N. (2009). Climate change and trade policy: A
preliminary discussion.
Nwafor, J. C. (2007).
Global climate change: The driver of multiple causes of flood intensity in
Sub-Saharan Africa. International
Conference on Climate Change and Economic Sustainability. Enugu, Nigeria:
Nnamdi Azikiwe University.
Odekunle, T. (2006).
Determining rainy season. Onset and
cessation Retreat in Nigeria, 83, 193-201.
Odjugo, P. A. (2010).
General overview of climate change impacts in Nigeria. Journal of Human Ecology, 29(1), 47-55.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09709274.2010.11906248
Okocha, C., Muhammad, B., &
Oyeyipo, S. (2012). Flooding and food
crisis in Nigeria. Ibadan: University Press.
Olorode, O. (2002). Vegetation and fauna. Atlas of Nigeria,
66-67.
Onyenechere, E. C. (2010).
Climate change and spatial planning concerns in Nigeria. Journal of Human Ecology, 32, 137-148.
Oyekale, A. S. (2009).
Effects of Climate change on crop production and vulnerability in Nigeria. Journal of Agriculture, 77-85.
Prabhakar, S. V. R. K.,
Srinivasan, A., & Shaw, R. (2009). Climate change and local level disaster
risk reduction planning, need opportunities and challenges. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for
Global Change, 7-33.
Smit, B. (2000). Climatic Change: An anatomy of adaptation to
climate change and variability, 223-251.
Smit, B. & Wandel, J.
(2006). Adaptation, adaptive capacity and vulnerability. Global Environmental Change, 16(3), 228-292.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.03.008
UNFCCC. (2014). Climate impacts, vulnerabilities and
adaptation in developing countries. New York: UNEP.
UNHabitat. (2007). Climate change vulnerability: Global report
on human settlement.
USAID. (2007). From assessment to implementation:
Approaches for adaptation option analysis.
Yohe, G. & Tool, R. (2002). Indicators for social and economic coping capacity. Moving toward a working definition of adaptive capacity. Global Environmental Change, 12(1), 25-40 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-3780(01)00026-7
|
|
©
The Author(s)
2022. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license. |
