香京julia种子在线播放

The West Africa sub-region is faced with major interlinked development challenges in ensuring sustainable livelihoods in the context of resource degradation and climate change. The economies in the region are particularly vulnerable due to their reliance on rain-fed agriculture and limited adaptive capacity (Masson-Delmotte et al., 2018; Seipt et al., 2013; Tachie-Obeng et al., 2013). Building resilient agriculture and expanding production has become increasingly urgent, given the region’s rapid population growth (United Nations, 2022).

The northern region of Ghana has been identified to be a climate change vulnerability hotspot (Riede et al., 2016), experiencing recurrent droughts, floods, rising temperatures and erratic rainfall patterns (Adu-Prah et al., 2019). These trends threaten agricultural productivity and impede efforts to achieve sustainable development goals, particularly goals 1 and 2 (Yiran and Stringer, 2016). Without boosting the uptake of responsive coping and adaptation measures to strengthen agricultural resilience, the region’s production is forecasted to decline (Pinto et al., 2012). Yield of major crops in northern Ghana has become unstable over the years due to the impact of climate change and land degradation (File et al., 2023; Nakasone et al., 2021). Schlenker and Lobell (2010) reported that maize production could decline up to 18% by 2050, if adaptation measures are not put in place.

While research has recommended an array of coping and adaptation strategies, including agroforestry (Antwi-Agyei and Nyantakyi-Frimpong, 2021; Toth et al., 2017), drought/flood resistant varieties (Antwi-Agyei and Nyantakyi-Frimpong, 2021; Tachie-Obeng et al., 2013), and crop diversification and rotation (Asmare et al., 2019), uptake by farmers has been low, and scaling up from a few farmers in the context of projects to regional levels has been a challenge (Alidu et al., 2022; Asante et al., 2024; Zakaria et al., 2020). This limited uptake can be attributed to various factors, including weak institutional and policy support (Yang et al., 2021), variations in farming systems, household heterogeneity (Pinto et al., 2012), and the lack of locally specific solutions (Apraku et al., 2021).

This paper argues for the critical importance of farmers’ perceptions of environmental stress and their local strategies for addressing these challenges. Recent studies highlight the importance of incorporating farmers’ perceptions, traditional knowledge, and local strategies into climate adaptation and soil fertility management efforts (Apraku et al., 2021; Ebhuoma et al., 2023). However, the role of gendered experiences and social cohesion mechanisms in shaping these perceptions and responses is still underexplored, despite growing recognition that social networks and identity-based dynamics influence how communities cope with environmental stress (Akullo et al., 2007; Antwi-Agyei and Nyantakyi-Frimpong, 2021). Also, while several studies, notably Adimassu et al. (2014), Alam et al. (2017) and Fanadzo et al. (2021), have explored farmers’ perceptions of climate change or land degradation, these studies have nevertheless fallen short of examining both phenomena simultaneously. With this study, we contribute to this conversation by examining how farmers in northern Ghana perceive climate change and land degradation, the strategies they use to cope, and the social cohesion mechanisms or collective actions that support or constrain their adaptation. In specific terms, the study aims to: (1) Assess farmers’ perception of climate change and land degradation, (2) Analyse the coping strategies used by farmers in addressing the impacts of land degradation and climate change, (3) Examine the role of social cohesion mechanisms in supporting farmers cope and adapt to climate change and land degradation, and (4) Identify factors that hinder farmers from adapting to climate change.

The impacts of climate change and land degradation are intensifying existing vulnerabilities in agrarian communities of northern Ghana (Adu-Prah et al., 2019; File et al., 2023). These impacts threaten food production and undermine rural livelihoods, particularly among smallholder farmers with limited adaptive capacity (Masson-Delmotte et al., 2018). Evidence shows that the impacts of climate change in Northern Ghana are not uniform across farming households but are shaped by socio-economic, gender, and livelihood typologies. For instance, studies by Alhassan et al. (2019), Antwi-Agyei et al. (2013) and Tambo (2016) show that resource-poor and female-headed households tend to experience greater vulnerability due to limited access to productive assets and extension services. Antwi-Agyei et al. (2013) further reported that youth-headed households and migrant returnees also experience differentiated risks, often due to weaker social networks and insecure land tenure.

Studies increasingly emphasize the importance of incorporating farmers’ perceptions and indigenous knowledge into climate adaptation efforts (Ebhuoma et al., 2023; Mortimore, 2010). These perceptions shape both risk interpretation and the willingness to adopt new technologies or practices (Baars, 2011; Pinto et al., 2012). Yet, literature has largely focused on technical or behavioral solutions, while often neglecting broader sociocultural dynamics that influence adaptation decisions, particularly gender relations and social cohesion.

Social cohesion refers to the strength of social relationships, shared norms, and trust within and between communities, which facilitate collective action and mutual support during times of crisis (Aldrich, 2017; Aldrich and Meyer, 2015) and acts as a central component of effective adaptation (Adger, 2010). Communities with strong social ties are more able to mobilize (community) labour, share resources, and disseminate indigenous knowledge, thereby enhancing their resilience to environmental stressors (Fanadzo et al., 2021; Sanfo et al., 2014). However, the evidence on the role of social cohesion in adaptation is mixed. While some studies report strong communal bonds enhancing coping and adaptive capacity, others including Bahta et al. (2016) highlight fragmentation due to migration, land pressures, or elite capture. In Ghanaian contexts, traditional institutions such as communal labour groups and local savings associations play a crucial role in buffering shocks and supporting recovery (Antwi-Agyei and Nyantakyi-Frimpong, 2021; Assan et al., 2018).

Gender plays a crucial role in shaping how climate change is experienced and addressed at the household and community levels. Studies show that women and men have differential perception and vulnerabilities based on gendered roles in agricultural production, resource access, and decision-making (Adeola et al., 2024; Antwi-Agyei and Nyantakyi-Frimpong, 2021; Eastin, 2018). In northern Ghana, Adeola et al. (2024); Antwi-Agyei and Nyantakyi-Frimpong (2021) reported that female farmers perceived food insecurity and water scarcity as impacts of climate change, while male farmers on the other hand perceived increase in crop pests and diseases and crop failure as the main impacts of climate change.

While the literature acknowledges the complex interplay between climate change, gender, and social cohesion, there remains a clear gap in integrative empirical research, particularly in West Africa. Most studies focus on one or two dimensions in isolation, rather than examining how these factors converge to shape vulnerability and adaptation (Akullo et al., 2007; Olsson et al., 2019). This study seeks to fill this gap by exploring how smallholder farmers in northern Ghana perceive climate change and land degradation, the coping strategies they employ, and the social cohesion mechanisms that support (or hinder) adaptation. In doing so, it builds on and extends prior research by providing a more holistic and context-sensitive analysis that recognises the relational nature of vulnerability and resilience.

The study is guided by the Sustainable Livelihoods Framework (SLF) presented in Figure 1. This conceptual framework focuses on how livelihood assets are used to achieve livelihood outcomes. SLF provides a comprehensive viewpoint for examining the livelihoods of poor individuals to determine optimal interventions, developmental priorities, and effective strategies for alleviating poverty (Krantz, 2001 cited in Serrat, 2017). The framework was developed by the Sustainable Rural Livelihoods Advisory Committee of the British Department for International Development Studies. According to them “A livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets and activities required for a means of living. A livelihood is sustainable when it can cope with and recover from stresses and shocks and maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets both now and in the future, while not undermining the natural resource base” (Department for International Development (DFID), 1999, p. 1).

The research was conducted in Ghana’s northern region, situated between longitude 0° and 1°W, and latitudes 1°00′N and 9°30′N. The region is the largest among the country’s 16 administrative regions, spanning an extensive land area of 70,384 km² (Abdul-Razak and Kruse, 2017). Geographically, the region falls within the Guinea Savannah agro-ecological zone and is characterized by significant rainfall variability.

The Northern Region was chosen based on several criteria, including the region’s high vulnerability to climate change, prevalence of poverty, food insecurity (Yiran and Stringer, 2016; Azupogo et al., 2023), and its critical role in agriculture (Abatania et al., 2012; Ndah, 2020). Among the 14 districts of this region, three were selected purposefully in consultation with local experts for the study. This was mainly based on accessibility and proximity while ensuring diversity in responses. Two districts closer to each other were not selected. The selected districts were Mion, Tolon, and Savelugu. The study site is represented in Figure 2. Two communities were selected from each of the three districts. Thus, the study was conducted in six rural agricultural communities.

The study employed a mixed-methods approach, combining a quantitative household survey with qualitative interviews and field observations. The integration of qualitative and quantitative methods enhances complementarity, triangulation, and facilitates a more comprehensive understanding of phenomena compared to mono-method approaches (Lall, 2021; Timans et al., 2019). The quantitative aspect comprised 60 interviews, 20 from each district. To address potential biases associated with self-reported data, multiple qualitative methods were employed for triangulation. These included 8 focus group discussions (FGDs) across the three districts, 2 key informant interviews, 2 expert interviews, and 3 field observations. Additionally, data collection was conducted during the farming season (October to November 2023), which minimized recall challenges and allowed respondents to report ongoing experiences more accurately. The data collection process was done in three phases. See Table 1 for the summary of the data collection process.

Responses to the socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents came from a total of 60 farm households across three districts of the study region. Out of the pooled sample, 55% were males and females comprised 45%. The summary of the socio-economic characteristics of the respondents is presented in Appendix 2. The average age of respondents was 40 years. The minimum and maximum ages were 18 years and 65 years, respectively. On average, respondents shared a household population size of 11 members. Regarding farming experience, 71.7% of the respondents have been engaged in farming for more than 10 years prior to the study. 80% of farmers had no formal education, 8.3% have a primary education, 10% have secondary school education (i.e., Junior and secondary education) and 1.7% have tertiary education. 62% of respondents were members of farmers’ groups and 73% were in self-help groups. While only 19% of the farmers have a land size greater than 10 acres, the average land size was 9.2 acres.

The thematic analysis revealed that farmers perceive climate change along with five extreme climatic events (see Table 2). These are irregular rainfall patterns, erratic rainfall, increased incidence of flooding, increased incidence of drought, and increased temperature. These findings align with observations by Antwi-Agyei and Nyantakyi-Frimpong (2021), who similarly reported erratic rainfall, increased windstorms, and heightened flooding incidents in farming communities in Northeast Ghana.

Apart from the indicative signs of climate change which were common to both male and female farmers we observed that perceived cause and impacts of climate are divided along gender lines (see Table 2 and Appendix 4). Regarding perceived cause, male farmers associated climate change and land degradation with social and environmental changes, population growth, urbanization, and poor farming practices. This is in line with Engdawork and Bork (2016) and Tesfahunegn et al. (2016) who reported that farmers attributed climate change to deforestation and other anthropocentric activities. This is, however, contrary to Fanadzo et al. (2021) and Sanfo et al. (2014) who reported that farmers perceived climate change to be triggered by supernatural powers. According to our result from the FGDs, some female farmers attributed climate change to the work of “god,” perceiving it as a phenomenon beyond human influence. This finding is in line with what was reported by Fanadzo et al. (2021) and Sanfo et al. (2014), but contrary to Engdawork and Bork (2016) and Tesfahunegn et al. (2016).

The results further show that male farmers perceive total crop failure, increase in production cost, reduction of income, increase in crop pests and diseases, and reduction in working hours on farm as the major impacts of climate change. Female farmers reported high incidence of illness, food insecurity, total crop failure and water scarcity as main impacts of climate change. It can be inferred that while male farmers primarily associate perceived impacts of climate change with production, females revealed a broader range of concerns that extend beyond production and encompass the general welfare of life (see Table 2 for summary of extreme climate events reported and their respective impact by gender). These differences suggest that coping and adaptation strategies may also differ by gender, with men likely to prioritize on-farm adjustments, while women may adopt strategies focused on household welfare, food security, and health. This has implications for resilience planning, emphasizing the need for gender-responsive approaches that address the distinct risks and adaptive capacities of both men and women. Gender disparity on impact of climate change in Africa has been reported in literature including Adeola et al. (2024), Antwi-Agyei and Nyantakyi-Frimpong (2021) and Eastin (2018) whose studies focused on northern Ghana, reported that female farmers perceived food insecurity and water scarcity as impacts of climate change. Male farmers on the other hand perceived increase in crop pests and diseases and crop failure as the main impacts of climate change.

Regarding land degradation, the thematic analysis revealed no gender disparity in perception. Farmers used six main indicative signs including plant growth, soil colour, and erosion in describing soil degradation. This is in line with previous literature including Ebhuoma et al. (2023), Engdawork and Bork (2016) and Fanadzo et al. (2021). Engdawork and Bork (2016) reported that farmers in southern Ethiopia have good knowledge on land degradation and have developed a diverse array of traditional land management practices. Similarly, our study’s findings confirm the report of Engdawork and Bork (2016), as the results show that farmers were using various SLM practices including composting, intercropping, planting leguminous crops, and mulching to improve soil fertility.

A Mann–Whitney U test (see Table 3) was conducted to compare the perceptions of land degradation and climate change between males and females. The assumptions of the test, including the independence of observations, ordinal measurement scale, and similar shapes of distributions, were checked and met. The result shows that there is no significant difference in perception of land degradation between the genders. However, for climate change, a significant difference is observed between the groups (p < 0.01), indicating that male farmers and female farmers differ in their perceptions or experiences of climate change. This result confirms the findings from the qualitative analysis.

Results on environmental stressors faced by farmers revealed that farmers ranked climate change, and land degradation as severe stressors, deforestation and pests and diseases as moderate stressors, and biodiversity loss and pollution were ranked as low stressors (Appendix 3). While it may appear obvious to rank climate change and land degradation as the top two stressors, the placement of deforestation in the third position ahead of pests and diseases might seem unexpected. However, insights from interviews with farmers shed light on their concerns about the rapid loss of trees. According to the farmers although pests and diseases pose significant environmental challenges, farmers indicated that they were able to get solutions to pest and disease in the immediate or short term, whiles restoring land cover is a process that cannot be promptly achieved. It can be inferred that the farmers are very concerned about environmental sustainability, and this could be an entry point for promoting and supporting environmentally friendly farming approaches like agroecology. Similar to this finding, Ebhuoma et al. (2023), reported that farmers perceive deforestation as the primary driver of land degradation and climate change.

The results show that farmers use a range of practices in coping and adapting to the impacts of climate change and land degradation. The analysis here was guided by the livelihood assets component of the framework, drawing primarily on qualitative data from FGDs with supplementary insights from survey data. Below, the strategies are categorized and discussed according to the five livelihood assets.

This section provides insights beyond social assets (resources available through relationships) shedding light on the main social structures and processes (social systems) that exist and the role they play in helping farmers cope and adapt. Farmers reported receiving support from both formal social structures (e.g., farmer associations) and informal social structures (e.g., self-help groups, religious groups, extended family networks, and neighbourhood groups). Overall, farmers’ associations and self-help groups were the main social structures reported. The data revealed that 73% of farmers participated in self-help groups, while 62% were involved in farmers’ associations. A gender disparity was evident, male farmers were pronounced in farmers’ groups whilst females were dominate in self-help groups. Out of the sampled male farmers, 73% of them were in farmers’ groups. Female farmers on the other hand were more active in self-help groups, with 95% of them in self-help groups. This is in line with Shayamunda (2021) who reported for a study in Ethiopia 82% female membership in savings and lending groups against 18% of male.

The groups play distinct roles with few commonalities. The farmers’ groups were mainly into supporting members in their farming operations. Members were farmers who cultivate the same or similar crops. Each group is led by a farmer. The lead farmers play a critical role in disseminating information and transferring knowledge to their group members. The farmer groups primarily provide agricultural training, peer-to-peer learning, information sharing, and communal labour to its members. Members could also access humanitarian assistance like food items and planting materials when they experience extreme climate events. Appendix 6 presents a summary of illustrative quotes from the interviews.

Self-help groups on the other hand were concerned mainly with provision of micro financial services (micro savings and loans), and non-financial services like humanitarian support, communal labour, training, and peer-to-peer learning (see Appendix 6 for the summary of illustrative quotes from the interviews). The group collects savings from members based on individual financial strength. This is then used to extend loans to group members at an interest rate of 10% per annum. The loans were given based on one’s savings, and membership as collateral. The groups operate on a non-profit basis, utilizing interest accrued from loan activities to provide humanitarian and emergency assistance (such as giving planting materials, food items, cash) to members who have experienced total crop failure due to extreme climate events. FGDs reveal that the groups were not having collective action problems as members expressed strong transparency, trust, and commitment among members.

The role of micro loans in helping smallholder farmers cope with the impacts of climate change has been reported in literature. Assan et al. (2018) found that provision of micro-loans by self-help groups to members plays a crucial role in helping farmers, particularly female farmer to cope with climate change. Antwi-Agyei and Nyantakyi-Frimpong (2021) reported that relying on social networks is one of the most important coping strategies by farmers in the Upper East of Ghana. Abdul-Rahaman and Abdulai (2018) reported that farmers in groups are more likely to enhance their profits through increased yield and technical efficiency compared to those operating individually. Shayamunda (2021) observed that farmers that are part of social groups are more likely diversify their income and improve household food and nutrition security.

The results of the study further show that most of the members of both groups have adopted SLM practices. The Kendall’s Tau correlation analysis (presented in Table 5, see Appendix 5 for the complete table), show a positive (moderate) correlation between crop rotation and farmers’ group at 1% significance level. Likewise, intercropping had a positive (weak) association with self-help group (p ≤ 0.10). This aligns with findings from Tanti et al. (2022), who reported that farmers in self-help groups are 10% more likely to adopt crop rotation, and members of farmer cooperative societies are 17% more likely to engage in crop diversification. It can be inferred from the study results that social cohesion plays a key role in enhancing the resilience of farmers, enabling income diversification, strengthening livelihoods, and promoting sustainable agro-ecological practices.

The results revealed that despite farmers’ efforts to adopt different adaptation and coping strategies, they nonetheless face diverse hindrances. These hindrances border across economic, socio-cultural, and technical domains, with most of the socio-cultural challenges disproportionately affecting female farmers compared to their male counterparts.

Lack of access to credit emerged as the primary economic barrier, limiting farmers’ ability to invest in agricultural innovations. In one of the FGD, a farmer remarked that: “One of our biggest hindrances is money and the lack of access to credit. So, if the price of the innovation is higher than what we can afford, then that will hinder us from adoption.” This is in line with several studies including Antwi-Agyei et al. (2021); Antwi-Agyei and Nyantakyi-Frimpong (2021); Ayisi et al. (2022), which highlight financial exclusion as a persistent structural constraint for smallholder farmers in Ghana.

In terms of labour and operational costs, innovations with high labour demands and operational costs were considered as unattractive. One of the farmers elaborated this point in a FGD as follows: “We also consider the innovation’s relevance to labour requirement. If we think that technology is going to lift much of our farm burden, then it might influence our decision to adopt it” (Male farmer, FGD, Yipalsi-Savelugu District, 2023). This is in line with evidence reported by Antwi-Agyei and Nyantakyi-Frimpong (2021) and Ndah (2020).

Farmers expressed a desire to verify the yield impact of an innovation through demonstrations or field visits before adoption. Similar findings were reported by Ndah (2020) and Maredia et al. (2019). According to Ndah (2020), farmers seek assurance of an innovation’s impact on crop yield before deciding to adopt it. Maredia et al. (2019) found that farmers are willing to pay for improved seeds once they have verified their higher yield returns. However, this study deviates slightly from Maredia et al. (2019) as it found that farmers, despite recognizing the benefits, cannot adopt innovations that are financially out of reach. One farmer commented: “A few years ago, some individuals do bring us improved seeds at a low price but now the prices have increased, so we are unable to buy” (Male farmer, FGD, Nakpanzoo-Savelugu district, 2023).

The results from the FGDs also show that the region has a complex land tenure system that is of disadvantage to women. This is documented in previous literature including Antwi-Agyei and Nyantakyi-Frimpong (2021). The results revealed that women do not own land but were only given a piece of land (usually less productive lands) to cultivate under an undefined period. The prevailing notion, gathered from interviews was that women were good at transforming unproductive lands into fertile ones. This is in line with Tourtelier et al. (2023) and Unay-Gailhard and Bojnec (2021). However, there was a concern that once the lands were rejuvenated, they could be reclaimed by men. Despite the prevailing notion suggesting that female farmers exhibit high sensitivity to the environment and engage in sustainable agricultural practices more than their male counterparts, our data reveals a contrasting perspective (see Table 5).

Kendall’s Tau correlation coefficient test was computed to examine the relationships between various agricultural practices and demographic factors among farmers (presented in Table 5, see Appendix 5 for the complete table). The result shows that most of the sustainable agricultural practices, notably crop rotation, livestock integration, planting of fertilizer crops, and composting, were negatively associated with the female gender. This paradox may signify a strategy by female farmers to avoid making long-term investments in land they may later lose, highlighting how tenure insecurity undermines both innovation and sustainability. Moreover, even in cases where land is held by families, land titles are often registered solely in the names of male heads of households. This reinforces the fact that women typically occupy secondary decision-making positions regarding sustainability-oriented decisions on farms in Northern Ghana as highlighted by Doss and Meinzen-Dick (2020).

The results further show that female farmers have a limited access to essential inputs such as land, tractors, fertilizers, and agrochemicals. This finding is in line with Antwi-Agyei et al. (2021). A female farmer expressed her worry in a FGD as follows. “(…) for instance, if a tractor is here for ploughing. Unless all the men finish with their land before the women can get access to the tractors. And sometimes when the men are certain that, oh, I do not need a particular land anymore, then they give it out to the women to farm” (Female farmer, FGD, Nakpanzoo, Savelugu district, 2023). This illustrates how gender hierarchies in access to key production resources like land, tractors, and fertilizers, persist through both cultural norms and institutional practices. The Kendall’s Tau analysis reinforces this, showing negative correlations between female gender farm size, livestock ownership, extension services, and female gender (p ≤ 0.010). These findings highlight systemic gender disparities that restrict women’s capacity to adopt and benefit from innovations and suggest a pressing need for gender-targeted interventions.

Social norms and perceptions also appeared to be a major hindrance to innovation adoption. The analysis of key-informant and expert interviews revealed community-held beliefs, such as equating large farms to industriousness and small farms to laziness. Also, the presence of weeds on one’s farm was perceived as a sign of laziness. These perceptions are contrary to the principles of sustainable intensification, minimum tillage, and other SLM practices, and could deter innovation uptake. The farmers reported unwillingness to adopt a technology that is not endorsed by their peers or social circles. This aligns with findings from Asare-Nuamah et al. (2022), who highlighted that social perception and acceptance plays a vital role in innovation adoption.

Lastly, low literacy and limited technical capacity further inhibited adoption. Many farmers, especially older ones and those with no formal education, reported that they found certain technologies too complex to understand or operate. One key reason given for non-adoption was the perceived difficulty in applying innovations correctly. While this supports the findings of Popoola et al. (2020), it contrasts with Ayisi et al. (2022), who found no significant relationship between education and adoption. Our findings suggest that it is not formal education per se, but rather how technologies are introduced, demonstrated, and explained, that matters most.