Utilisation of Ecosystem-based drought adaptation options among smallholder farmers in Kiboga District, Uganda
Abstract
There is growing interest in promoting the use of Ecosystem-based Adaptation (EbA) to help
smallholder farmers adapt to climate change; however there is limited understanding of the
characteristics of the EbA options available and used by smallholder farmers and what factors
influence their choice. Using a cross sectional survey, this study sought to characterise EbA
options used to respond to perceived drought impacts and established the determinants of EbA
choice among smallholder farmers in Kiboga district. The EbA options were characterised
basing on ecosystem services, adaptation benefits and livelihood improvement categories which
unveiled the different proportions of each EbA option under each category. A Chi square test to
determine if there was an association between the EbA options and the categorical variables
(ecosystem services, adaptation benefits to drought and livelihood improvement) was conducted.
An agglomerative hierarchical clustering (AHC) test to obtain the relationship among the EbA
options was also conducted. A multinomial logit model (MNL) was used to analyze the
determinants of farmers’ choice of EbA options. The most prevalent perceived drought impacts
were water, food and forage shortages, increased temperatures, crop withering and increased
prevalence of pests and diseases. Although, there were majorly ten EbA options, the smallholder
farmers coped and/or adapted to these impacts majorly using agroforestry, water conservation
and management, and alternative EbA livelihoods. Agroforestry and alternative EbA livelihoods
were the most used EbA options based on ecosystem services and adaptation benefits to drought
while alternative EbA livelihoods and water conservation and management were the most used
EbA options based on livelihood improvement. The chi square test results showed that there was
a significant relationship between the EbA options and the categorical variables. Agroforestry,
water conservation and management and alternative EbA livelihoods showed a close relationship
following the AHC test. The major determinants of EbA choice were access to extension
services, hours spent on farm daily, acreage occupied by crops, major agricultural activity,
average annual income, membership to farmer organisation and use of indigenous knowledge.
This study suggests conservation of ecosystems because they provide multiple benefits to
smallholder farmers. The determinants of EbA choice should be considered in policy
formulation, implementation and in monitoring climate change trends. Basing on the findings
that agroforestry was closely related to water conservation and management and alternative EbA
livelihoods, further studies should be undertaken to explain relatedness of these closely related
EbA options among smallholder farmers. In addition, climate change adaptation initiatives
should put this close relatedness into consideration during their planning and implementation.
This study revealed that EbA improves livelihoods of smallholder farmers, further studies should
be undertaken to show the extent to which EbA has done so.