Asset Portfolios in Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security: Lessons From Gokwe South District,Zimbabwe

Abstract

Climate variability and change are projected to continue impacting many of the poor and small-scale farmers in sub-Saharan Africa. This study aimed to examine how small-scale farmers in the Gokwe South district of Zimbabwe are building their adaptive capacity and resilience against climate change and achieving food security. Primary data was collected using questionnaires both in structured and semi-structured interviews, and participatory observations through a transect walk for physical observations. The study utilised the participatory climate change asset adaptation appraisal (PCCAA), as a methodological and analytical framework, to explore the different ways in which the small-scale farmers in the Gokwe South district of Zimbabwe are building their adaptive capacity and resilience against climate change. The study also explores the factors that influence small-scale farmers’ adoption of climate change adaptation and food security. The small-scale and rural farmers in Zimbabwe are not passive actors but are actively involved in developing innovative local adaptation strategies using an array of available assets. Findings from this study noted that asset absence or its replacement with the ‘wrong’ mix of assets and asset erosion exacerbated the food insecurity in the Gokwe South district.

Keywords

Climate change adaptation asset adaptation food security and Zimbabwe

Introduction

One of the challenges Zimbabwe is posed to face now and, in the future, is climate change and variability, which are projected to continue compromising rainfed agriculture and the livelihoods and incomes of rural populations. Climate change has now become recognised as a global challenge; Romm (2018), for example, concludes that ‘the warming of the climate system is an unequivocal and consolidated fact’ (p. 2). Existing literature and other anecdotal evidence suggest that Zimbabwe is among the African countries which will suffer significantly from the impacts of climate change-induced environmental change (Mashizha et al., 2017; Sultan and Gaetani, 2016). These changes have been argued to have severe implications on the ability of rural poor people in engaging in meaningful agriculture and food production activities (Samset et al., 2018). In the context of Zimbabwe, existing evidence suggests that climate-induced extreme weather events such as droughts, cyclones, flooding and heatwaves are already having significant impacts on the ability of small-scale farmers to engage in meaningful agricultural and food production activities. This development is increasingly compromising their ability to obtain secure and sustainable livelihoods as well as stable incomes used in the procurement of other services like education and health. Cunsolo and Ellis (2018: 275) further argue that changes in climate variability impact people’s mental health and well-being and this can adversely affect their ability to engage in productive activities. Despite this situation, the poor small-scale farmers of rural Zimbabwe, like other subsistence farmers in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), are not passive actors but are actively involved in identifying innovative and locally developed adaptive strategies to reduce the impacts of climate change. In this paper, we discuss the various ways in which climatic changes are impacting rural farmers in Zimbabwe, as well as the myriad strategies they are employing to minimise the social and economic implications triggered by climate change.

Climate change adaptation and food security: from the global to the local context

Food security has been defined as a situation whereby all people at all times, have physical, social and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life (Declaration of the World Summit on Food Security, 2009). Climate change can reverse the progress made towards attaining global food security. Changing precipitation patterns, together with warming and extreme weather events, are already affecting food security, threatening the complex global food system that is already struggling to meet the needs of a growing and changing population (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2019). Climate change and variability are projected to directly impact all pillars of food security (availability, access, utilisation and stability), as predicted changes in temperature, precipitation and humidity will affect agricultural production systems, by affecting water availability together with plant, livestock and aquatic health and productivity (IPCC, 2019). Furthermore, behavioural changes in pollinators and invasive species, together with pests and diseases, affect crop yields and as is already being experienced by the overall reduction in global production of staples such as rice and wheat (Ali and Erenstein, 2017; IPCC, 20: 5–8; Ray et al., 2019: 10). Climate change affects livestock production in multiple ways, both directly and indirectly. In various countries in SSA, 20%–60% losses in animal numbers were recorded during serious drought events in the past decades (FAO, 2015). Evidence shows that in various regions, climate change is contributing to decreased productivity and dieback of trees from drought and temperature stress, increased wind and water erosion, increased storm damage, increased frequency of forest fires, pest and disease outbreaks, landslides and avalanches (FAO, 2015).

Food security encompassed in Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 2 to end hunger by 2030 faces multiple stressors. These include conflict, and shifts in population and economic growth, distinctively in regions where inequality is high (FAO, 2021). Given the current food system, the UN Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that there is a need to produce about 50% more food by 2050, to feed the increasing world population (FAO, 2018). Food insecurity is a global concern due to the increasing number of people who remain undernourished, amounting to 842 million individuals, approximately 12% of the world’s population (Zhou et al., 2019: 201).

Food security as defined by the FAO in the World Food Summit of 1996 is the state in which all people, always, have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life (Samset et al., 2018: 1). Hence the four pillars of security were born food availability (production, distribution and exchange), food accessibility (affordability, allocation and preference), utilisation (food safety, nutrition and social value) and stability (distribution in the supply chain) (FAO, 2015).

While policy consensus is required to mitigate the prevailing symptoms of food insecurity, the underlying drivers of global food insecurity remain complex and inconclusive (Amekudzi et al., 2015; Chauhan et al., 2020; Hossain et al., 2019; Owusu et al., 2021). A plethora of studies associates hunger with changing farming activities imposed by the cumulative effects of climate change on all dimensions of food security – food access, availability, stability and utilisation – across regions (Easterling et al., 2007). These conditions are hardly met for populations in the least developed regions of the world like SSA. Furthermore, populations at greater risk are those whose livelihoods heavily depend on agriculture and natural resources and those highly exposed to climate change impacts but have limited capacity to adapt (FAO, 2015). First, climate extremes may influence the supply of food in Africa by reducing the area of viable arable land suitable for crop production (Amekudzi et al., 2015; Owusu et al., 2021), leading to a surge in the prevalence and number of undernourished people.

Climate change impacts on food security will be largely felt by the most vulnerable populations in the world. According to the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), at least 70% of the very poor live in rural areas, most of them depending partly (or completely) on agriculture¹ for their livelihoods. Several proponents argue that the vulnerability of the poor people in many rural communities in SSA to climate variability and change is exacerbated by limited technological advancement, low levels of education, rapid population growth, high rates of poverty, lack of social safety nets, and weak institutional setup and policy frameworks (Binns et al., 2012; IPCC, 2014; Perez et al., 2015; Roudier et al., 2011). Despite having a wide diversity of natural resources, SSA has a population with high food and nutritional insecurity and the highest number of poor people (FAO, 2018; Shetty, 2015). Food production assessment indicates that domestic food production has already declined by 10% in several of the sub-Saharan countries (Mashizha et al., 2017). Increased climate variability and extreme weather conditions like droughts may affect poorer households and more so women because of their vulnerability and restricted access (FAO, 2015). Africa has been particularly vulnerable: about 21% of people on the continent suffered from hunger in 2020, a total of 282 million people. Between 2019 and 2020, in the aftermath of the pandemic, 46 million people became hungry in Africa. No other region in the world presents a higher share of its population suffering from food insecurity (Richardo, 2020). Categorically, Africa is projected to feel the impact more because of slow technological changes within the continent and its economies depend more on agriculture (Mathews, 2016; Mathews et al., 2018). About 48% of the people in SSA live in absolute poverty, while an estimated 52% of women and children go to bed without basic needs daily (Shetty, 2015; Shumsky et al., 2014). While the debate on food security continues, ongoing discussions concern the implications of frequent temperature variations, rainfall variability and increased climatic events across African countries (Etana et al., 2021; Owusu et al., 2021). Saharan Africa has the highest prevalence of under nourishment.

According to Dang et al. (2019: 4), five groups of limits and barriers to adaptation to climate change include physical and ecological limits, technological limits, financial barriers, informational and cognitive barriers, and social and cultural barriers. Several factors have been commonly used in investigating farmers’ adaptive behaviour such as age, gender, education level, household size, income, access to agricultural extension, credit and information (Chete, 2019: 49). Gender was included in explaining the adjustments in doing business, and the adoption of improved technologies or adaptive measures (Nhemachena and Hassan, 2007). Male small-scale farmers are more likely to be risk-takers, to obtain new technologies and to adjust their farming practices. Education was found to increase the probability of taking adaptive measures such as soil conservation and changing planting dates and to influence adaptation positively (Deressa et al., 2011). Large household size allows the accomplishment of different agricultural tasks during peak seasons without seeking external labour hire, which increases production costs. Income was normally found to contribute positively to the adoption of agricultural technologies.

The availability and access to resources, services and technologies have been extensively identified as influential factors in farmers’ adaptive decisions (Antwi-Agyei, 2015). When farmers had access to extension, credit and land, they are more likely to adapt to climate change. Such factors can improve the adaptive capacity and resilience of small-scale farmers to climate change and variability. By looking at the asset portfolios, it is possible to determine those that will be able to adapt and recover swiftly from the impacts of climate change and become food secure. Food security adaptation to climate change is a relevant subject matter in Zimbabwe as it falls in the region that has been historically predicted to be impacted negatively by climate change and variability (Murombo et al., 2019).

Climate change and variability have resulted in a shift in the rainfall patterns in many parts of the world. Zimbabwe’s agroecological zones (AEZs) have shifted drastically due to the devastating effects of climate change and global warming. Zimbabwe comprises five AEZs (Natural regions I–V) and most of the agriculture is done in natural regions I, II and III, which have favourable climatic conditions for crop production. Regions IV and V are characterised by low annual rainfall activity and comprise the country’s low-lying areas, known as the low veld. According to research that was carried out by Mugandani et al. (2012), major shifts have occurred in the drought-prone Regions IV and V, which have become drier than previously experienced, and most of Gokwe South are now in those regions. Regions IV and V have expanded by 5.6% and 22.6%, respectively (Mugandani et al., 2012: 365–367). Zimbabwe’s climatic conditions are drifting towards relatively arid conditions that are not favourable for agriculture. Climate change has greatly affected agriculture in Zimbabwe, and this has consequently resulted in food insecurity, an increase in unemployment and a reduction in foreign currency earnings which has greatly crippled the economy. The negative influence of climate change and variability on agriculture in Zimbabwe has culminated into a hydra whose effects have choked the country’s economic growth.

Zimbabwe is heavily dependent on its natural resources and is particularly vulnerable due to its heavy dependence on rainfed agriculture and climate-sensitive resources (Shumba et al., 2012). It is projected that Zimbabwe, like most African countries, will be faced with reliance on ‘adaptation’ as the major strategy going into the future (Government of Zimbabwe (GoZ), 2014). There is already evidence in Zimbabwe that yields of major staple cereal food crops of the region such as maize, sorghum and millet are projected to decline due to climate change (Rurinda, 2014: 4). Furthermore, the proportion of food-insecure people has ranged between a low percentage of 6% in 2014 and a high percentage of 42% in 2016 (Zimbabwe Vulnerability Assessment Committee (ZimVAC), 2017).

Asset adaptation and sustainable framework to assess climate change adaptation

According to Bebbington (1999: 2022), assets ‘are not simply resources people use to obtain a livelihood; they also give people the capability to be and to act’. Hope (2017: 7) is of the view that asset adaptation, in the context of climate change, determines the extent to which a household will be food secure or insecure. However, some authors have argued that if policy developers utilise the asset-based adaptation framework developed by Moser and colleagues, it will be relatively easy to identify appropriate policy interventions and entry points necessary to build the resilience and adaptive capacity of the poor (Moser, 2011). The traditional pentagon of asset portfolios has omitted certain assets such as intangible and political assets, as suggested by McCormick (2015), who is also of the view that the concept of capital endowment can either be ‘tangible’ or ‘intangible’. In the development literature on poverty, tangible assets of the poor have been identified as referring to capital endowments such as natural, physical, human and financial resources, whereas intangible assets may include factors such as inspirational, psychological, social, civic and political assets, which to a large extent are increasingly becoming embedded in the human rights discourse (Moser, 2008). The DFID Livelihood Approach presents five core asset categories or types of capital upon which livelihoods are built (DFID, 1999: 3), and these are namely human capital; social capital; natural capital; physical capital and financial capital.

Transformational changes reflect higher-level adjustments in policies, programmes and institutions, or when thresholds are crossed in sociocultural or political economy systems (e.g. Nelson et al., 2007). Transformations and adaptations are reflected in outcomes. Livelihood outcomes include changes in human well-being, income, health and food security. The sustainable livelihoods framework (SLF) focus is on the people-oriented ability to utilise their available assets² to build capacity and to achieve life goals that are beneficial to their well-being (Karki, 2021; Woyesa and Kumar, 2021). Fundamentally, sustainable rural livelihoods address how the poor in rural areas can cope, secure and overcome the stress of shock (e.g. extreme weather conditions) to better their lives (Chambers and Conway, 1992; Karki, 2021). Furthermore, livelihood is deemed sustainable when people can effectively adapt their assets and emerge as victors to shocks such as changes to seasons without destroying the natural useful resource base (Karki, 2021: 266–271). The adaptation strategies that people adopt depended on their ability to access, defend and maintain a wide range of assets (also referred to as resources or capital) (Bebbington, 1999). This view has been supported by Mphande (2016: 1), who noted that assets play an important role in survival strategies for rural livelihoods. However, the assets, food security and livelihoods framework can complement the challenges faced by the SLF to achieve food security in Zimbabwe. Assets play a pivotal role to achieve food security at any level of the community ranging from individual households to national and global levels. The SLF depicts that accessibility to different assets reduces the vulnerability of small-scale farmers to climate change. The SLF depicts stakeholders as operating in a context of vulnerability, within which they have access to certain assets. Assets gain weight and value through the prevailing social, institutional and organisational environment (policies, institutions and processes). This context decisively shapes the livelihood strategies that are open to people in pursuit of their self-defined beneficial livelihood outcomes (Kollmair and St. Gamper, 2002). This study acknowledges that food availability, access and utilisation are hierarchical, in that food availability is necessary but not sufficient for access, and access is necessary but not sufficient for utilisation. Chronic food insecurity is typically due to a complex combination of some or all the four pillars, resulting in a long-term lack of sufficient food in quantity or quality.

Methodology

Study design

The paper sought to identify the different climate change adaptation strategies that small-scale farmers in the Gokwe South district adapted to ensure food security in the district. The SLF was developed and was used to investigate the relationship between assets and food security. A livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets (stores, resources, claims and access) and activities required for a means of living; a livelihood is sustainable and can cope with and recover from stress and shocks, maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets, and provide sustainable livelihood opportunities for the next generation; and which contributes net benefits to other livelihoods at the local and global levels and in the short and long terms (Chambers and Conway, 1992: 7). By using the asset vulnerability framework as a methodological approach to conducting a vulnerability assessment, the paper set out to highlight the factors that impede the maximisation of the capital assets (i.e. human, financial, social, natural and physical assets) of the poor as presented by Moser and Satterthwaite (2008) and Moser and Stein (2011). The advocacy for the use of the asset vulnerability analytical framework is premised on the widespread recognition that poverty comprises multiple deprivations that include the ‘lack of capabilities, assets and entitlements’ (Moser and Stein, 2011: 4).

Study area

This paper is based on primary data collected from the Gokwe South district at 18.2172°S and 28.9422°E, which lies northwest of the Midlands Province in Zimbabwe (Figure 1). It has 33 wards distributed as follows: Gokwe 5 wards, Sesame 7 wards, Kana 8 wards, Mapfungautsi 7 wards and Sengwa 6 wards, Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (2018), with a total population of 305,982 (Zimbabwe National Statistics Agency (ZimStat), 2012). It is sub-divided into communal, resettlement and small-scale commercial farming areas (SSCFA), with most of the populace residing in the communal areas (CAs; SIRDC, 2021: 1). The Shangwe and Tonga are the local inhabitants, but most people come from all over Zimbabwe (Madheruka). The district has two farming sectors which are the CA and SSCFA, 40% of the district falls under Agro-ecological region IV and 60% is in region III. Climatically, Gokwe South has a unimodal rainfall pattern which stretches from November to April. Rainfall ranges from 650 to 800 mm in the southern part and falls between 450 and 650 mm in the north. The district experiences two major seasons: summer, which stretches from September to April, and winter, stretching from May to August. The average temperature in summer is 30°C while the mean daily temperature in winter is 22°C. Gokwe South is also subject to severe mid-season dry spells and is, therefore, marginal for most crop-based enterprises. The climatic conditions are suitable for drought-resistant crops such as cotton, which is the main economic activity in the area; maize is grown at a small scale during the rainy season. The choice of Gokwe district will provide the most context-specific and updated knowledge on climate change and how its perceived effects are impacting rural people’s livelihoods. Gokwe has been chosen because it consists of marginal farming conditions and a district which is regarded as backward in terms of development. Gokwe South has also been chosen because of its unique population composition, which is mainly the Shona, Tonga and Ndebele people. The area is predominantly a Kalahari sand escarpment, but soils differ within specific locations. Further north, dominant soils belong to the kaolinite order, fersiallitic group. Soils in Jahana, in the east, are mainly vertisols that are formed on basalt and are black in colour. The farmers classify the soils into three major groups: Jecha (sands), Chiomvu or Mhukutu (red clays and loams) and Chidhaka (vertisols).

Figure 1.

Map of the study area Gokwe South district.

The specific research site is set within a CA in Gokwe South District, which is located about 200 km northwest of the Midlands provincial capital of Gweru. Within the district, the study area consisted of five constituencies, and these are Gokwe Central, Sesame, Kana, Sengwa and Mapfungabutsi (Figure 2). The altitude ranges from 600 m in the north, rising to 1200 m in the south, where the Charama and Mapfungautsi plateaus are located. The major rivers in the area include Chomumvuri, which dissects the milk shed into equal halves, Svisvi, which forms part of the north-western border, and Sesame and Sengwa further north.

Figure 2.

Constituencies and wards in Gokwe South district.

Access to markets for trading is challenged by poor infrastructure (SIRDC, 2021: 1). Major crops then included maize, sorghum and millet as the staples, groundnuts, bambara nuts and beans as important food crops providing variety. Sweet potatoes, melons and various vegetables were supplements to the main diet. Livestock numbers also swelled tremendously, but later declined due to tick infestation and poor animal health practices. Crop and livestock production was mainly for subsistence purposes, with little or no marketed output.

Data collection and sampling

The fieldwork was conducted from April 2021 to December 2021. A mixed-methods (both quantitative and qualitative) approach was used in the study because it reduces the epistemological differences between the qualitative and quantitative approaches. The use of both qualitative and quantitative research techniques was used to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the research problem and to compensate for the limitations of the other methods and thus provide a diversity of responses from the participants (Dawadi et al., 2021: 26–27). Quantitative data compiled information on the percentage of participants who answered the questionnaires and weighting of assets used in the Gokwe South district. Primary data sources consisted of structured and semi-structured interviews, and participatory observations through transect walk for physical observations. Transect walks were also made in the field to capture and crosscheck issues raised in the focus group discussions (FGDs) and key informant interviews, such as crop production and food security issues. A total of 15 FGDs were carried out from the five constituencies. Both open-ended and closed questions were mainly used to collect information from various selected households. Household interviews were conducted using structured and semi-structured questions. Each FGD was made up of at least 10 participants from the 25 wards.

Purposive sampling and snowball sampling was used to identify key informants, which included experts and stakeholders. Snowballing is a sampling technique which involves ascertaining eligible participant/s that then refers the researcher to the next participant/s of the study. Owing to logistical constraints, it was purposefully decided that a 5% margin of error for a sample size will be suitable for each of the five constituency locations. Using the Raosoft sample size calculator, a total of 225 participants were sampled at 95% confidence for the five constituencies Gokwe Central; Sesame; Kana; Mapfungabutsi and Sengwa. A proportional ratio was used to establish the new sample size per constituency (Table 1).

Table 1.

Study population and sample size used to inform this study.

Name of constituency	Number of wards	Sampled wards	Number of sampled households	Percentage of sampled participants (%)
Gokwe Centre	5	4	42	18.67
Sesame	7	6	48	21.33
Mapfungabutsi	7	5	45	20
Kana	8	6	45	20
Sengwa	6	4	45	20
Total	33	25	225	100

Source: Fieldwork-based data (2021).

Data analysis

The paper applied asset analysis to determine the importance of each asset from the communal people (Table 3). The method assigns point-based values to each asset, which represents the weight of the asset. This was practised by use of the Participatory Climate Change Asset Adaptation Appraisal (PCCAA) framework, which builds on the accumulation of assets, and was the main methodological and analytical data instrumentation employed. The PCCAA uses participatory research (PR) principles and practices, which is an extension of the asset-based vulnerability and adaptation framework as proposed by Blackwell (2016: 269). The Asset Adaptation Framework comprises two closely related components: the asset vulnerability analytical and the asset adaptation frameworks (Moser, 2011). The use of FDGs and semi-structured interviews facilitated the use of various PCCAA tools, among which were included transect walks, participatory community risk mapping, different matrixes and community workshops. Semi-structured interviews were used to get more information using the PCCAA tool shown in Table 2. Qualitative analysis was done through triangulation of data from FDGs, key informant interviews and evidence from field observations. The targeted key informants in the Gokwe South district comprised chiefs, headmen, community elders, traditional healers, agricultural extension workers, farmers, teachers, councillors, government officials and other knowledgeable members of the communities. The selected informants are rich in knowledge with experience acquired through different means, such as oral testimonies passed down from one generation to the other.

Table 2.

Participatory Tool Kit (Moser and Ekstrom, 2010).

Tool	Function
Transect Walk Listings and rankings	Helps break ice – critically important to dispel suspicion of outsiders Mechanism for first informal contact with a range of community members Visual identification of areas most vulnerable to climate change Identifies assets and perceptions of levels of importance at household, small business and community level Identifies adaptive strategies as identified by different groups and prioritisation of effective strategies
Matrix on general data	Provides information about the community Covers population, infrastructure, source of income by gender, family size and division of labour, assets of different households, communications and ethnic groups
Participatory mapping of: Community Areas affected by climate change Community Maps	Maps spatial characteristics of a community (can be combined with the transect walk) Maps the most important features of the community, such as boundaries, houses, roads, police stations, health posts and schools Identifies areas vulnerable to, or affected by, severe weather associated with climate change Location of assets

Table 3.

Asset availability and food security.

Constituency	Asset availability score (Likert value)					Average score for food security (Likert value)
Constituency	Financial assets	Human assets	Social assets	Physical assets	Natural assets	Average score for food security (Likert value)
Gokwe Centre	3	3	4	4	3	3.4
Mapfungautsi	1	2	2	1	1	1.4
Sengwa	1	1	1	1	2	1.2
Sesame	1	3	2	2	3	2.2
Kana	2	1	2	2	3	2.0
Average score per asset	1.6	2	2.2	2	2.4	2.04

Source: Fieldwork-based data (2021).

1: Strongly agree; 2: agree; 3: neither agree nor disagree; 4: disagree; 5: strongly disagree.

A range of participatory tools, shown in Toolbox 2 was useful to acquire different types of information from focus groups. Information collected through FGDs was then coded to come up with quantifiable data. The reason the asset-based vulnerability framework was used is that it consists of two components. First, the asset analytical framework identified the links between different vulnerabilities and assets of poor rural farmers. Second, the asset adaptation operational framework identified concrete measures taken by individuals or households to increase their resilience and reduce vulnerability in the face of long-term changes as well as immediate shocks that result from changes in climatic conditions as indicated by Moser and Stein (2010). Thus, by using the asset vulnerability framework as a methodological approach to conducting a vulnerability assessment, this paper explicitly highlighted the factors that impede the maximisation of the fundamental or capital assets (i.e. human, financial, social, natural and physical assets) of the poor. A psychometric response (Likert scale) was used to assess the relationship between asset availability and asset vulnerability.

Results

Climate change, asset adaptation and food security in Gokwe South District

It was quite evident that asset adaptation is important in ensuring household food security in rural communities as shown by the relationship between asset availability and food security in Table 3.

Field-based data revealed that the Gokwe South district is food insecure, with an average food security score of 2.04. The Gokwe Centre constituency had the best asset availability score of 3.4 compared with the other four constituencies. Sengwa constituency has the least asset availability and adaptation score of 1.2, which means it has the highest food insecurity score and is the most vulnerable to climate change and variability and given asset endowment and adaptability. Four of its five assets recorded a score of 1 and these are financial, social, human, physical and natural assets available the most for small-scale farmers. This was closely followed by Mapfungabutsi, with an average food security score of 1.4. Kana and Sesame had a food security score of 2.0 and 2.2 which was below average and therefore it is highly vulnerable compared with climate change and food security.

The asset weighting system showed that assets have different effects on vulnerability and food security in rural areas. Given the above results (Table 4), financial assets had the greatest influence on food security, and it weighted 39%, with social assets at 28%, while human and natural assets both weighted 10%. Human and natural assets had the least effect on food security and adaptive capacity to vagaries of climate change and variability. Migration to wetter was one of the adaptation strategies done in the Gokwe South district. Migration was both in the local area near floodplains of perennial rivers such as Svisvi, Sengwa, Ngondoma, Mupfure, Umsweswe and Munyati Rivers. Such migrations were mainly seasonally during the dry season so that they can do gardening and irrigation using water from such rivers. Some migrated to dambos, pans riparian wetlands and swamps dotted in the country to do fishing. It was interesting to note that some of the migrants crossed to other neighbouring countries mainly South Africa, Botswana, Zambia and Namibia. Figure 3 illustrates various climate adaptations preferred in Gokwe South district.

Table 4.

Asset weighting system.

Assets	Indicator	Times cited as most important	Relative importance	Weighting indicators (%)	Rank	Weighting components (%)
Social assets	Access to information	18	8.26	8.00	5	28
	Membership of any social grouping	32	14.68	15.00	2
	Availability of any extension	10	4.59	5.00	8
Financial assets	Farmers receiving remittances	20	9.17	9.00	2	39
	Ownership of livestock	30	13.76	14:00	3
	Access to credit facility	34	15.60	16:00	1
Human assets	Educational level	12	5.50	6:00	7	10
Human assets	Health of the household	9	4.13	4.00	9	10
Physical assets	Access to irrigation facilities	25	11.47	11.00	4	13
Physical assets	Ownership of radio, television, mobile phones	5	2.29	2:00	11	13
Natural assets	Type of land tenure system	14	6.42	6:00	6	10
Natural assets	Size of farm holding	9	4.13	4:00	9	10
	Total	218 (including informants and experts)	100	100		100

Source: Fieldwork-based data (2021).

NN = 200 households, 15 key informants, 5 extension officers and 5 experts.

Figure 3.

Adaptation strategies in Gokwe South district.

Multiple crop farming emerged as the dominant adaptation strategy used in the Gokwe South district with the highest frequency of 40 (Figure 3). Rain-making ceremonies were done when there was a delay in the start of the rains. In contemporary Zimbabwe, people invoke and consult the shrine during times of crisis such as illness and death, domesticated animal diseases, agricultural seasons of sowing and reaping, succession disputes, personal and ethnic conflicts, natural phenomena such as drought and rain failure, and even in times of politics and war. Rain-making ceremonies were regarded as an adapt strategy with respondents’ frequency of 27. The Shona local names are used by the indigenous farmers to understand the climate systems and adaptive to the changing climate. Rain-making ceremonies remained an integral climate adaptive strategy as a part of the indigenous knowledge system (IKS). The small-scale farmers believe in indigenous forecasting and as they believe that rain has a cultural and religious significance, limited rainfall means God and the ancestral spirits are not pleased and the inverse is true for abundant rainfall. The implications of IKS in climate change adaption have been observed in poverty alleviation and improving food security at the micro to meso scale. The Fulanini Jinta of Futa Jalon (West Africa) resorted to traditional food production, preservation and healing through traditional medicinal practices. The IKS have been exploited by traditional subsistence farmers as an early warning system for early preparedness. In Zimbabwe, Gokwe South district, several indigenous indicators were used to predict natural hazards through wind direction, the shape of the crescent moon and the behaviour of certain animals. The IKS has been used in many SSA communities in disaster management, which causes famine, food insecurity and poverty. The IKS approaches have been used in environmental conservation such as technologies and practices such as shifting cultivation, mixed cropping, intercropping and zero tillage. The implications and significance of IKS have been supported by Chanza (2014), who noted that IKS can fill the gaps and validate the current understanding of climate change, particularly at the local level.

Zero tillage was also introduced as a pro-poor adaptation strategy with a frequency of 35 respondents. Off-farm activities had 24 respondents and the use of diversified seeds as adaptive strategies had more than 26 respondents’ frequency. The off-farm activities that most of the respondents cited gold panning both alluvial and reef panning, fishing, woodcarving and hunting, including poaching in the Chirisa Game Reserve near Sengwa Constituency. Collection of mopane worms, gardening, brick-making and selling of chickens are other forms of off-farm activities which provide fair income and livelihoods to the small-scale farmers in the Gokwe South district.

The Pfumvunza (climate-smart proof agriculture) initiated by the government is a suitable climate adaptation strategy. This strategy is supported by Presidential Input Scheme, whereby rural small-scale farmers are given inputs to do farming successfully. In addition to the supportive efforts by the government, the climate change policy was also implemented, and mechanisation of agriculture and irrigation schemes were initiated across the country to improve the adaptive capacity and resilience of small-scale farmers. One programme or pro-poor policy to alleviate the small-scale farmers was through the Command Agriculture, which was viewed as a positive development that would enable farmers to be productive, and promote food security at the household level and for the nation at large. The Command Agriculture is a 3-year programme that supports farmers in different parts of the country. In 2013 the government launched a cluster-based economic blueprint, the Zimbabwe Agenda for Sustainable Socio-Economic Transformation (ZimASSET), which provides a clear and coherent plan to achieve sustainable development and tackle climate change in its Food and Nutrition Security as well as Infrastructure and utility clusters. Furthermore, the government has developed this National Climate Policy to drive the country towards climate resilience and a carbon-neutral Zimbabwe. As suggested by Zuka (2015), unstable donor funding to implement effective adaptation strategies and low institutional capacity are the major challenges in local community adaptation and climate variability. Similar findings were made by Nyahunda and Tirivangasi (2019) in the Bikita district that rural people lack adequate support systems that foster adaptive capacity against the vagary impacts of climate change. On the same note, in the Chimanimani district, Mutandwa et al. (2019) discovered that institutional support services were very minimal, despite the visibility of climate change impacts in these communities.

Data collected on food security pillars in Gokwe South reveal that Mapfungabutsi and Sengwa have a higher food insecurity value while Gokwe Centre and Sesame have better food security than all other constituencies Figure 4). The results also indicate that food stability was a challenge for Mapfungabutsi and Sengwa have, compared with most of the constituencies. Mapfungabutsi and Sengwa rely more on food aid from the government and non-governmental organisations. Small-scale farmers in Gokwe Centre, Sesame and Kana have a better asset mix compared with Mapfungabutsi and Sengwa constituencies. The Likert Scale level for food stability was low in all constituencies, with food availability satisfactory, but the other three pillars showed significant spatial variations.

Figure 4.

Pillars of food security in Gokwe South district.

Demographic and socioeconomic factors affected the small-scale farmers’ adaptation strategies and food security the most (84%) in Gokwe South District as illustrated in Figure 5. Of significant weight was also resource services and technologies as it was acknowledged by 75% to affect adaptation and food security. Participants perceived cognitive and psychological as a factor that contributed the least to adaptation and food security.

Figure 5.

Perceptions on factors affecting adaptation to climate change and food security.

Discussion

The results in the table in Figure 4 reveal that the dominant climate adaptation strategy is multiple cropping, with 40% of the respondents indicating that they used it. The respondents indicated that it is working well because of variations in edaphic and moisture availability across the five constituencies. Irrigation is also a popular climate adaptation strategy with 33% of the respondents acknowledging it as a viable adaptation strategy. Study respondents from Gokwe Centre and Sesame were the ones practising irrigation, although at a small scale. Rain ceremonies were practised in remote constituencies such as Mapfungabutsi and Sengwa. More than 28% of the respondents acknowledged the value of IKS and traditional values such as rainmaking. This practice has been handed down from one generation to the next. Constituencies away from the Gokwe town are the ones who value the rainmaking ceremonies. Due to a lack of draught power and ox-drawn plough, many small-scale farmers resorted to zero tillage Dhiga udye strategy to adapt to climate variabilities. The zero tillage (Dhiga Udye) strategy was conjoined with the Pfumvudza, which recently introduced climate-proofed agriculture supported by the Presidential Input Scheme. About 35% of the interviewed participants testified the positive results from the combined zero tillage adaptation strategy combined with Pfumvudza programmes. Dry planting and migrations to wetter areas were not very popular with the respondents since they commanded 10% and 15% respectively.

The food security situation in Gokwe South has revealed that the constituencies are disproportionally affected by climate variability and change. Gokwe Centre emerged as a constituency with better food security in all aspects. Sesame and Kana revealed that they have fair food security with their food security variable plus or minus the Likert value of 3. In the Kana constituency, food stability is a cause for concern with a value of less than 1 on the Likert scale. Results in Figure 3 show that the Mapfungabutsi constituency is the worst affected in terms of food insecurity. Food accessibility, affordability, stability and utilisation are all below average and are all less than 2. As the distance from Gokwe town increases, food insecurity also increases. Constituencies near Gokwe town have shown better food security than those far away, because near Gokwe town small-scale farmers can easily adapt due to the partial availability of financial assets.

The field survey data indicated that climate change and variability are compromising the ability of small-scale farmers to realise their full potential to achieve food security in Zimbabwe. In the Gokwe South district, the average asset vulnerability score was low, hence the region is collectively food insecure. A household’s asset portfolios strengthened and enhanced food security, hence the vulnerability to climate change of small-scale farmers in rural communities is dependent on the quality and quantity of the asset mix. For example, Gokwe Centre had the highest food security score in the district and its assets had the highest scores. Mapfungabutsi and Sengwa showed a high degree of asset vulnerability due to their weak asset endowment, resulting in food insecurity. It emerged that financial assets and social assets are critical for successful adaptation to be successful in the Gokwe South district. Furthermore, the most important assets affecting the food security levels of rural families are natural and financial assets. This has been also observed by Kollmair and St. Gamper (2002: 7), who stated that among the five categories of assets, financial capital is probably the most versatile as it can be converted into other types of capital, or it can be used for direct achievement of livelihood outcomes (e.g. purchasing of food to reduce food insecurity). Mapfungabutsi and Sengwa had the lowest scores on financial assets and physical and natural assets. The poor are more vulnerable and have a higher food insecurity score compared with the rich, with a perfect blend of ‘asset mix’, who can modify their assets to improve their adaptive capacity. Hence the degree of vulnerability is dependent on asset endowment and asset mix. These were insufficient in Mapfungabutsi and Sengwa constituencies, hence they had the highest vulnerability and high food insecurity. It was noted that financial assets can be modified to reduce vulnerability and increase the adaptive capacity for small-scale farmers in the Gokwe South district. Furthermore, all other assets can be modified by financial assets to improve their resilience and adaptive capacity.

A significant number of respondents from the five study sites confirmed that climate change has a significant influence on food security in the community. These findings suggest that Zimbabwe is already experiencing the impacts of climate change, which are predicted to intensify in the decades to come. Mashizha et al. (2017) and Sultan and Gaetani (2016) have argued that Zimbabwe will experience environmental change due to climate change. Climate variability and weather extremities have been the experience of the small-holder farmers in Gokwe South, threatening food availability as farmers have struggled to produce substantial harvests. It is the view of other authors that climate change negatively impacts food security (IPCC, 2019; Magdoff and Tokar, 2010).

Vulnerability and food insecurity vary spatially and temporally in Gokwe South constituencies, as access depends on the proximity to town centres. Gokwe Centre had better asset availability and adaptability compared with all other constituencies. Electricity, roads, radio and television reception and labour assets are by far much better in the Gokwe Centre constituency because of its proximity to Gokwe town. Sesame is the second constituency in terms of asset adaptation, and most likely so because of its proximity to Gokwe town, where the small-scale farmers can get access to most of the inputs. Furthermore, Mapfungabutsi and Sengwa had the least access, hence the most food insecure. The findings in the current study corroborate with Ogudegi’s (2022: 3) study, which found that adaptation strategies used by smallholder farmers to manage their crops include changing planting dates, crop diversification and the use of drought tolerant and fast-maturing crops and improved seeds. Pinstrup-Anderson (2009) also argued that food availability alone is not enough to determine food security; rather individual access to available food should also be taken into consideration. According to the author, availability does not assure access, and enough calories do not assure a healthy and nutritional diet. If food security is to be a measure of household or individual welfare, it must address access. Given the above observations, availability, access and utilisation depend on the broader food system, which in turn depends on the socioeconomic and political landscape of the country or area. Households are exposed to a range of covariant and idiosyncratic shocks, such as climatic fluctuations, conflict and disease, or job losses and food price increases, that can disrupt food availability, access and utilisation (Hendricks, 2015: 614).

Asset absence or its replacement with the ‘wrong’ mix of assets and production activities can exacerbate the food insecurity situation of a community. Similar observations were made by Mtambanengwe et al. (2012) in Makoni district, where smallholders also diversified production towards drought-resistant and drought-tolerant animal and crop varieties, practising irrigation in resettlement areas and along streambanks, outward migration in search of employment, selling livestock to buy food and reduce exposure, among several adaptive strategies. Chanza (2014) also identifies an assortment of drought adaptation crops, such as sorghum, bulrush millet, grain millet and cowpeas, which are used by farmers in dryland areas like the Gokwe South district as an adaptive strategy. Crop diversification ensures food security within the communities by strategically promoting of different foods to diversify food sources. Other popular strategies adopted by small-holder farmers include irrigation and zero tillage to achieve sustainable adaptation in the district.

The observations made in the study that noted the ideas of SLF are necessary to achieve sustainable adaptation of food security. Livelihoods are deemed sustainable when people can successfully adapt their assets to shocks (Karki, 2021). For the small-scale farmers in Gokwe, food security and livelihood security can only be sustainably achieved depending on a strong household asset base. The strategies employed depend on their assets and their ability to convert their assets to achieve food security. Mphande (2016) elaborates further and noted that assets play an important role in survival strategies for rural livelihoods. Hence, farmers in Gokwe and Sesame adapted better to shocks compared with Mapfungabutsi and Sengwa.

Conclusion and recommendations

The Government of Zimbabwe crafted various policies to reduce the devastating effects of climate change and variability. However, the efforts of the government to reduce climate vulnerability due to climate variability were turned into an undignified fiasco due to a lack of funding, corruption and ruthless natural disasters. The small-scale farmers in Gokwe South also noted that the political divide stifles climate adaptation efforts because while some are given Presidential Inputs, others are not. This study noted that variables which capture the availability, accessibility and affordability of adaptation strategies for Gokwe South smallholder farmers are important for successful adaptation. Food security in Gokwe South was typically limited due to lack of a sound financial base, poverty, poor public and, lack of infrastructure and services, marginalisation from decision-making processes and planning procedures, gender inequality, lack of education and information, natural disasters, reliance on rainfed agriculture and climate-sensitive resources, and insecure tenure. Assets mix and asset erosion affect food security in the Gokwe South district. Several factors are manifested in their effects on assets such as technological limits, financial barriers, informational and cognitive barriers, social and cultural barriers, and physical and ecological limits. Increased climate variability, increased frequency and intensity of extreme events as well as slow ongoing changes are projected to affect the stability of food supply, access and utilisation.

It is against this background that the following recommendations were made, such as suitable technology and decision support tools, removal of institutional barriers, and the need for basic research to increase knowledge and information on climate change and variability. More research and development, innovation and knowledge transfer are required to enable appropriate and sustainable climate change adaptation. Water harvesting through the construction of dams to provide water for irrigation in the five study sites, local boreholes and other water points for the promotion of local livelihood initiatives is recommended. The government is recommended to develop a household vulnerability index that will isolate households that are vulnerable to climate change and ensure that such households are well targeted. In addition, the Ministry of Agriculture should support the development of a sustainable and resilient multi-purpose production system in rural areas, especially mechanisms that improve the asset portfolios of small-scale farmers such as providing support towards strengthening livestock production; training for pasture-land management, disease control and crop-livestock husbandry and asset adaptation strategies, increase access to inputs, markets and financial resources, improved agricultural extension services and access to climate and weather forecast information. Finally, additional research is also needed on the drivers of change that influence smallholder practices – both negative (e.g. agriculture policies and subsidies) and positive drivers/incentives (e.g. secure land rights, collective institutions, and cultural values). In addition, there is a need to facilitate sustainable, autonomous, small-scale adaptation strategies and to enable small-scale farmers to develop their future.

Footnotes

Appendix 1

Research instrument for focus group discussions. (Author’s Construction, 2021).

Interview questions
Information required	General questions	Possible guiding questions	Interviewees
The long-term trend of changes in the key elements of climate (rainfall and temperature) at the local level with a minimum of the past 20 years	Are there any past and present changes in the local climate? How is it perceived and explained by the local communities?	Are there any changes in the state of the climate, for example, rainfall, temperature for the past years?	Districts/village Agricultural extension officers and Village leaders
		How do you perceive the changes?
		What are the reasons for the changes?
Changes in farming practices because of climate change and variability and sustainability of such changes	Are there any changes in farming practices that have been or are being made in the area within the past years? How sustainable are these changes?	How are the changes in farming practices as an adaptation response to climate change and variability? Also, as a result of the variability of food insecurity risk	Districts/village Agricultural extension officers and Village leaders
Perception, Capacity and Limitation of smallholder farmers to climate change adaptive strategies	How do you see the perception, capacity, and limitation of smallholder farmers on adaptive strategies to climate change and variability while linking with food security?		Districts/village Agricultural extension officers and Village leaders
Policy and strategic influence on adaptive capacity to CC and CV	How does ongoing policy intervention to CC and CV influence the farmer’s adaptive capacity?		Districts/village Agricultural extension officers and Village leaders

Source: Author’s Construction (2021).

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Chatsiwa Jaison

Notes

Author biographies

Chatsiwa Jaison is a PhD (Candidate) in Geography, faculty of Science in the School of Geography, Archaeology and Environmental Studies at the University of the Witwatersrand in South Africa. My research revolves around themes including: Climate change and variability, climate change and agriculture, climate change adaptation, water resources and, solid waste management, and environmental sustainability and peri-urban transformations. ORCID: 0000-0002-4833-7265

Doctor Memory Reid: An Environmental Scientist, with an interest in climate change adaptation,energy transitions and renewable energy,resource governance, food security and sustainable livelihoods.Currently, a Postdoctoral Researcher with the global Change Institute, looking into water-energy-food(WEF) nexus’ influenceon livelihoods, together with general wellbeingof populations in South Africa’s local urban context, particularly the participation of today’s youth in resource governance and decisions petaining to the sustainable use of WEF. Dr Memory Reid holds a PhD in Geography and Environmental Science from the University Witwatersrand and currently in the Energy Leadership Programme with Wits Business School.ORCID: 0000-0003-0861-734X

Prof. Mulala Danny Simatele : A professor of Environmental Management and Sustainability science in the school of Geography, Archaeology and Environmental Studies and the Global Change Institute at the University of the Witwatersrand in South Africa.

References

Ali

Erenstein

(2017) Assessing farmer use of climate change adaptation practices and impacts on food security and poverty in Pakistan. Climate Risk Management 16: 183–194.

Amekudzi

Yamba

Preko

, et al. (2015) Variabilities in rainfall onset, cessation, and length of the rainy season for the various agroecological zones of Ghana. Climate 3(2): 416–434.

Antwi-Agyei

(2015) Vulnerability and Adaptation of Ghana’s Food Production Systems and Rural Livelihoods to Climate Variability. Leeds: School of Earth and Environment, The University of Leeds.

Bebbington

(1999) Capitals and capabilities: a framework for analysing peasant viability, rural livelihoods, and poverty. World Development 27(12): 2021–2044.

Binns

Dixon

Nel

(2012) Africa: Diversity and Development. London: Routledge.

Blackwell

(2016) Climate Adaption Governance in Cities and Regions, Theoretical Fundamentals Practice and Evidence. Chichester: John Wily and Sons.

Chambers

Conway

(1992) Sustainable rural livelihoods: practical concepts for the 21st century. IDS discussion papers no. 296. Brighton: Institute for Development Studies.

Chanza

(2014) Indigenous Knowledge and Climate Change: Insights from Muzarabani, Zimbabwe. Port Elizabeth, South Africa: Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University.

Chauhan

Shukla

Joshi

(2020) Assessing the inherent vulnerability of farming communities across different biogeographical zones in Himachal Pradesh India. Environmental Development 33: 100506.

10.

Chete

(2019) Factors influencing adaptation to climate change among smallholder farming communities in Nigeria. African Crop Science Journal 27(1): 45–57.

11.

Cunsolo

Ellis

(2018) Ecological grief as a mental health response to climate change-related loss. Nature Climate Chang 8: 275–281.

12.

Dang

Nuberg

, et al. (2019) Factors influencing the adaptation of farmers in response to climate change: a review. Climate and Development 11: 765–774.

13.

Dawadi

Shrestha

Giri

(2021) Mixed-methods research: a discussion on its types, challenges, and criticisms. Journal of Practical Studies in Education 2(2): 25–36.

14.

Declaration of the World Summit on Food Security (2009) In Proceedings of World Summit on Food Security, Rome, 16–18 November.

15.

Department for International Development (DFID) (1999) Sustainable Livelihoods Guidance Sheets: Framework. London: DFID.

16.

Deressa

Hassan

Ringler

(2011) Perception of and adaptation to climate change by farmers in the Nile basin of Ethiopia. Journal of Agricultural Science 149: 23–31.

17.

Easterling

Aggarwal

Batima

, et al. (2007) Food, fibre, and forest products. In: Parry

Canziani

Palutik

, et al. (eds) Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.273–313.

18.

Etana

van Wesenbeeck

de Cock Buning

(2021) Socio-cultural aspects of farmers’ perception of the risk of climate change and variability in Central Ethiopia. Climate and Development 13(2): 139–151.

19.

FAO (2015) Climate Change and Food Security: Risks and Responses. London: United Nations.

20.

FAO (2018) The Future of Food and Agriculture: Alternative Pathways to 2050. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

21.

FAO (2021) World Food and Agriculture - Statistical Yearbook 2021. Rome: FAO.

22.

Field-based Data (2021) Information Collected from the Gokwe South Constituencies. Midlands, Zimbabwe: FAO.

23.

Ford Foundation (2004) Building Assets to Reduce Poverty and Injustice. New York: Ford Foundation.

24.

Government of Zimbabwe (GoZ) (2014) National Climate Change Response Strategy. Harare, Zimbabwe: Government of Zimbabwe. Available at: https://www.ies.ac.zw/downloads/draftstrategy.pdf

25.

Hendricks

(2015) The food security continuum: a novel tool for understanding food insecurity as a range of experiences. Food Security 7: 609–619.

26.

Hope (ed.) (2017) Climate Change and Food Security: Africa and Caribbean. London; New York: Routledge.

27.

Hossain

Arshad

Qian

, et al. (2019) The economic impact of climate change on crop farming in Bangladesh: an application of the Ricardian method. Ecological Economics 164: 106354.

28.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2014) Africa. Available at: https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg2/WGIIAR5-Chap22_FINAL.pdf (accessed 20 August 2020).

29.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2019) Climate Change and Land: an IPCC special report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems. Available at: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2019/11/SRCCL-Full-Report-Compiled-191128.pdf

30.

Karki

(2021) Sustainable livelihood framework: monitoring and evaluation. International Journal of Management and Social Sciences 8: 266–271.

31.

Kollmair

St. Gamper

(2002) Sustainable livelihoods approach: input. In: Integrated training course of NCCR, North-South Aeschiried, 9–20 September.

32.

McCormick

(2015) Awareness Session IFRC Livelihoods Resource Centre. Madrid: Spanish R QQed Cross.

33.

Magdoff

Tokar

(2010) Agriculture and food in crisis: an overview. In: Magdoff

Tokar

(eds) Agriculture and Food in Crisis: Conflict, Resistance and Renewal. New York: Monthly Review Press, pp. 9–30.

34.

Mashizha

Ncube

Dzvimbo

, et al. (2017) Examining the impact of climate change on rural livelihoods and food security: evidence from Sanyati District in Mashonaland West, Zimbabwe. Journal of Asian and African Social Science and Humanities 3(2): 56–68.

35.

Mathews

(2016) Building resilience to climate risk in the agricultural sector through adaptation education using a climate-smart approach: the case of the Mooifontein region. Mini Dissertation, North-West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa.

36.

Mathews

Kruger

Wentink

(2018)‘Climate-smart agriculture for sustainable agricultural sectors: the case of Mooifontein. Jàmbá: Journal of Disaster Risk Studies 10(1): a492.

37.

Moser

(2008) Assets and Livelihoods: A Framework for Asset-based Social Policy. Washington, DC: World Bank.

38.

Moser

(2011) A conceptual and operational framework for pro-poor asset adaptation to urban climate change comes home. Wires Climate Change 5: 337–358.

39.

Moser

Stein

(2010) Implementing urban participatory climate change adaptation appraisals: a methodological guideline. Global Urban Research Centre working paper no. 5. Manchester: The Global Urban Research Centre (GURC) the University of Manchester.

40.

Moser

Stein

(2011) Implementing urban participatory climate change adaptation appraisals: a methodological guideline. Environment and Urbanization 23: 463–485.

41.

Moser

Satterthwaite

(2008) Towards Pro-poor Adaptation to Climate Change in the Urban Centres of Low-and Middle-income Countries. Human Settlements Discussion Paper Series, Climate Change and Cities 3. London: IIED.

42.

Moser

Ekstrom

(2010) A framework to diagnose barriers to climate change adaptation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107(51):22026–22031.

43.

Mphande

(2016) Infectious Diseases and Rural Livelihood in Developing Countries. Berlin; Heidelberg: Springer.

44.

Mtambanengwe

Mapfumo

Chikowo

, et al. (2012) Climate change and variability: smallholder farming communities in Zimbabwe portray a varied understanding. African Crop Science Journal 20: 227–241.

45.

Mugandani

Wuta

Makarau

, et al. (2012) Re-classification of agro-ecological regions of Zimbabwe in conformity with climate variability and change. African Journal of Crop Science 20: 361–369.

46.

Murombo

Dhliwayo

Dhlakhama

(eds) (2019) Climate Change Law in Zimbabwe: Concepts and Insights. Harare, Zimbabwe: The Konrad Adenauer Foundation.

47.

Mutandwa

Hanyani-Mlambo

Manzvera

(2019) Exploring the link between climate change perceptions and adaptation strategies among smallholder farmers in Chimanimani district of Zimbabwe. International Journal of Social Economics 4(4): 6–9.

48.

Nelson

Adger

Brown

(2007) Adaptation to environmental change: contributions of a resilience framework. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 32(1): 395–419.

49.

Nhemachena

Hassan

(2007) Micro-level analysis of farmers’ adaption to climate change in Southern Africa. Discussion paper 00714. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).

50.

Nyahunda

Tirivangasi

(2019) Challenges faced by rural people in mitigating the effects of climate change in the Mazungunye communal lands, Zimbabwe. Jàmbá: Journal of Disaster Risk Studies 11(1): 1–9.

51.

Ogudegi

(2022) Adaptation to climate change and impact on smallholder farmers’ food security in South Africa. Agriculture 12: 589.

52.

Owusu

Emuah

, et al. (2021) Perceptions and vulnerability of farming households to climate change in three agro-ecological zones of Ghana. Journal of Cleaner Production 293: 126154.

53.

Perez

Jones

Kristjanson

, et al. (2015) How resilient are farming households and communities to a changing climate in Africa? A gender-based perspective. Global Environmental Change 34: 95–107.

54.

Pinstrup-Andersen

(2009) Food security: definition and measurement. Food Security 1(1): 5–7.

55.

Ray

West

Clark

, et al. (2019) Climate change has likely already affected global food production. PLoS ONE 14(5): e0217148.

56.

Richardo (2020) Growing hunger, high food prices in Africa don’t have to become worse tragedy. Africa Renewal: United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (ECA). Available at: https://www.un.org/africarenewal/magazine/may-2022/growing-hunger-high-food-prices-africa-dont-have-become-worse-tragedy

57.

Romm

(2018) Climate Change: What Everyone Needs to Know. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press.

58.

Roudier

Sultan

Quirion

, et al. (2011) The impact of future climate change on West African crop yields: what does the recent literature say? Global Environmental Change 21: 1073–1083.

59.

Rurinda

(2014) Vulnerability and Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change in Smallholder Farming Systems in Zimbabwe. Wageningen: Graduate School of Production Ecology and Resource Conservation, Wageningen University.

60.

Samset

Sand

Smith

, et al. (2018) Climate impacts from removal of anthropogenic aerosol emissions. Geophysical Research Letters 45: 1020–1029.

61.

Shetty

(2015) From food security to food and nutrition security: role of agriculture and farming systems for nutrition shortage in rural Zimbabwe. Ecology, Food and Nutrition 24(4): 251–265.

62.

Shumba

Wallgren

Carlson

, et al. (2012) Community Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment in Miombo Woodlands. Harare, Zimbabwe: WWF.

63.

Shumsky

Hickey

Johns

, et al. (2014) Institutional factors affecting wild edible plant (WEP)harvest and consumption in semi-arid Kenya. Land Use Policy 38: 48–69.

64.

SIRDC (2021) Food and Nutrition Security in the Context of COVID-19 in Zimbabwe. Harare, Zimbabwe: SIRDC.

65.

Sultan

Gaetani

(2016) Agriculture in West Africa in the twenty-first century: climate change and impacts scenarios and potential for adaptation. Frontiers in Plant Science 7: 1–20.

66.

Wendy Philips (2018) Cartographic Unit. Johannesburg, South Africa: The University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg.

67.

Woyesa

Kumar

(2021) Potential of coffee tourism for rural development in Ethiopia: a sustainable livelihood approach. Environment, Development and Sustainability 23: 815–832.

68.

Zhou

Shah

Ali

, et al. (2019) Factors affecting household food security in the rural northern hinterland of Pakistan. Journal of the Saudi Society of Agricultural Sciences 18: 201–210.

69.

Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (2018) Government of Zimbabwe. Harare, Zimbabwe: Zimbabwe Electoral Commission.

70.

Zimbabwe Vulnerability Assessment Committee (ZimVAC) (2017) Rural Livelihoods Assessment Report. Harare, Zimbabwe: Food and Nutrition Council.

71.

Zimbabwe National Statistics Agency (ZimStat) (2012) Population Census Office, Causeway. Harare, Zimbabwe: Zimbabwe Population Statistics.

72.

Zuka

(2015) Prospects and challenges of local community adaptation to climate change in developing countries: the case study of Malawi. In: Zuka

(ed.) Handbook of Climate Change Adaptation Cham: Springer, pp.1883–1898.