Current World Environment

Introduction

The desire of the national, regional and international policy makers to combat global environmental challenges is unquestionable¹. This is evidenced by the crafting and adoption of seventeen (17) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) – agenda 2030, wherein the fight against climate change features prominently as goal number thirteen^2,3. The increasing concentration of greenhouse gases especially nitrous oxide, methane, carbon dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons and others in the atmosphere has led to unusual levels of global warming^1,4. These unprecedented concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere result mainly from human activities like tropical forest degradation, burning of fossil fuels, and wanton deforestation^5,6,7,8. Adaptation and/or mitigation are the two options mankind has to deal with the existential threats posed by climate change⁶. For the agricultural sector, adaptation to climate change is seemingly the short-term option while mitigation of climate change is the long-term option^{9,10,11,12,13}. Thus, it is incumbent to promote climate-smart, environmentally friendly, and sustainable agricultural practices especially in the smallholder farming sector which is amongst the most vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change.

Smallholder farmers being amongst the most vulnerable to climate change adversities, their livelihood is seriously threatened¹⁴. ¹⁵ indicated that the low level of resilience of smallholder farmers confronted with climate change makes them highly vulnerable. With smallholder farms contributing towards the feeding of a vast majority of the world’s population, especially in the developing world, the limited resilience of smallholder farms and farmers in the face of climate change is a major call for concern. In sub-Saharan Africa and Asia in particular, and the developing world in general, estimates have shown that there are over 500 million smallholder farms, catering for the food needs of over 80% of the population – i.e. feeding over two billion persons¹⁶. Studies have shown that smallholder farms have continued to increase across the world in general and the developing world in particular^13,17,18,19. Thus, it is imperative to examine the levels of resilience of smallholder farms as well as the factors affecting smallholder farmers’ resilience in the face of climatic variations and changes.

In Cameroon and more specifically north western Cameroon where this study was carried out, food-focused agricultural systems are the order of the day, with most (over 90%) owned by smallholder farmers^20,21. These smallholder farms which are mainly rainfall dependent have been negatively affected by the adverse effects of climate variability and change^22,23,24. It has been shown that placing financial, material, logistic and other vital resources at the disposal of smallholder farmers could play a crucial role towards enhancing their resilience to climate change^21,25,26. It was within this backdrop that this study sought to examine the resilience levels of smallholder farmers and the factors affecting smallholder farmers resilience faced with the adversities of climate change.

Materials and Methods

Description of the Study Area

The study was carried out in north western Cameroon located latitudinally between5áµ’4’N to 7áµ’15’N and longitudinally between 9áµ’30’E to 11áµ’15’ E. North western Cameroon is among the most densely populated areas in Cameroon with a population density greater than 103 inhabitants/Km². It has a surface area of roughly 17,812 km² and a population of over 1,840,500 inhabitants. It is characterized by a tropical highland climate, a vegetation cover dominated by savannah grassland. It has a rolling topography with mountains like Mt Oku and Mt Lefo, and plains like the Ndop and Mbaw plains.

A vast majority of the population is mainly involved in agricultural activities with most being smallholders. Smallholders are farmers whose farm sizes are generally smaller than two hectares, using mainly family labour for cultivation; consume most of the food produced, with excess sold to generate income for the household. Crops generally grown include food crops (maize, beans, groundnuts, potato, sweet potato, plantains, cassava, cocoyams (Taro), yams and many other), cash crops (coffee), and market gardening crops (tomatoes, vegetables, spices and many others).

Selection of Study Site and Sampling Procedure

The study made use of the multiphase sampling procedure. Firstly, north western Cameroon (the study area) was purposively chosen because most of the farmers are smallholders as well as the high level of vulnerability of these smallholders to climatic variations and changes. Secondly, taking into consideration the environmental, agro-ecological and socio-economic characteristics of the study area, ten (10) villages were randomly selected from the different districts found in the study area. Owing to their mastery of the study area as well as the broad knowledge they possessed concerning smallholders, agricultural extension agents aided in the process of selection of the different villages. Thirdly, focus group discussions smallholder farmers and other stakeholders, as well as key informant interviews with resource persons were carried out. Focus group discussions and key informant interviews allowed for the collection of general information on the level of resilience of smallholder farmers which was triangulated with data collected from farmers during household surveys. Fourthly, using simple random sampling, household surveys were conducted with smallholder farmers in the ten (10) selected villages. A total of 350 smallholder farmer household heads were sampled in the ten (10) selected villages using semi-structured questionnaires.

Data Collection

Data for the study were sourced from primary and secondary sources. Review of relevant literature and climate data from weather stations in the study area were the main sources of secondary data. The collection of primary data was done through household survey wherein 350 smallholder farmer household heads were sampled. This was complemented with key informant interviews (30), focus group discussions (05), and direct observations which allowed for the triangulation of information.

The use of Likert scale style questions enabled farmers to rank their levels of resilience to climate change on the basis of their different livelihood assets. These livelihood assets were human, natural, physical, social and financial. The livelihood assets were the explanatory variables of the study (Table 1 and Table 2). Thus, based on the livelihood assets, farmers ranked their levels of resilience to climate change as high, low, or not resilient.

Direct field surveys on smallholder farmers’ farm plots equally allowed for the collection of primary data. This was done in order to see firsthand the different resilience options of smallholder farmers confronted with climatic variations and changes.

Data Analysis

Collected data were coded and imputed into Microsoft Excel 2007 and SPSS 20.0 for descriptive and inferential statistical analyses. Percentage indices and charts were the main descriptive statistics computed while chi-square statistic, t-test statistic and logistic regression were the main inferential statistics computed.

To indicate the non-cause-effect relationship existing between explanatory variables and smallholder farmers’ resilience to climate change, chi-square and t-test statistics were used. To show the cause-effect relationship existing between explanatory variables and smallholder farmers’ resilience to climate change, the binomial logistic regression was used. The binomial logistic regression enables the analysis of decisions across two categories, and predicts the probability of making one decision or the other^27,28.

Dependent and Explanatory Variables of the Study

The study had both dependent and explanatory variables. The explanatory variables which in most cases represented livelihood capital assets were income of household, number of farms, access to extension services, household size, educational level of household head, information accessibility, gender of household head, credit accessibility, practice of agroforestry, age of household head, vulnerability to climate change, and land accessibility (Table 1 and Table 2).  The dependent variable on its part was resilience (Table 1 and Table 2).

Table 1: Dependent and Explanatory Variables of the Study.

Source: Own survey; adapted from ^{29, 30}

Table 2: Description of Dependent and Explanatory Variables of the Study.

Source: Own Survey; adapted from ^29,30

From Table 1 and Table 2 above, it is noticed that the dependent and explanatory variables of the study were mostly qualitative in nature. This explains why most of the statistical analyses were done using non-parametric tests and the non-linear or discrete regression model (binomial logistic regression).

Results

Climatic Variations and Changes

From the analysis of climate data, it was found that climatic elements especially temperature and rainfall have experienced significant fluctuations in the past five decades (Figure, 1, 2 and 3). Mean temperature was found to be much higher while quantity of rainfall and number of rainy days were decreasing and becoming fewer respectively. Thus, rainfall has been scanty and erratic within the past five decades.

Figure 1: Temperature Variations. Click here to view Figure

Figure 2: Rainfall Variations. Click here to view Figure

Figure 3: Variations in Rainy Days. Click here to view Figure

In the present dispensation of climatic variations and changes, findings showed that the relationship between different climatic elements was varied. From scatter plots, it was found that an insignificant negative correlation existed between rainfall and temperature, as well as rainy days and temperature. Meanwhile a relatively strong positive correlation existed between rainfall and rainy days.

Resilience Options of Smallholder Farmers Confronted with the Adverse Effects of Climate Change

From the analysis of empirical data, it was found that in the face of climate change adversities, agroforestry was a resilience option par excellence, practiced by most smallholder farmers (Table 3). It was equally found that confronted with climate extremes, some farmers practiced sole cropping and mono-livestock practices as a resilience option (Table 3). Common crops planted in sole cropping systems by smallholder farmers in the face of climate change were food crops (maize, cassava, plantains, yams, cocoyams, beans, and groundnuts), market gardening crops (tomatoes, vegetables, spices) and cash crops (coffee).

Table 3: Small-Scale Farmers’ Resilience Options Faced with the Adverse Effects of Climate Change.

Source: Own survey; adapted from ^50,51.

Perceptions of Smallholder Farmers as to the Factors Affecting Resilience to Climate Change

From empirical data analysis, it was found that the most common factors perceived by smallholder farmers as influencing resilience to climate change were household income, accessibility to land, market accessibility, the practice of agroforestry, accessibility to information, access to extension services, and access to credit (Figure 4). From all these factors perceived by smallholder farmers as influencing resilience to climate change, the three main factors were household income, accessibility to land, and the practice of agroforestry.

Figure 4: Factors Influencing Resilience to Climate Change Perceived by Smallholder Farmers. Click here to view Figure

Smallholder Farmers’ Ranking of their Level of Resilience to Climate Change

From the analysis of empirical data it was found that on the basis of livelihood assets, most smallholder farmers perceived that they were not resilient to climate change (Figure 5). Just few smallholder farmers perceived that they were highly resilient, or resilient to climate change. Thus, on the basis of smallholder farmers’ perceptions, most of them were not resilient to climate change adversities (Figure 5).

Figure 5: Resilience to Climate Change Perceived by Smallholder Farmers. Click here to view Figure

Factors Influencing Smallholder Farmers’ Resilience to Climatic Variations and Changes

Influence of Continuous or Quantitative Explanatory Variables on Smallholder Farmers’ Resilience to Climatic Variations and Changes.

From the computation of the t-test statistic, a statistically significant non-cause-effect relationship (p<0.05) was found to exist between some continuous explanatory variables and smallholder farmers’ resilience to climatic variations and changes (Table 4).

Table 4: Non-Cause-Effect Relationship between Continuous Explanatory Variables and Smallholder Farmers’ Resilience to Climatic Variations and Changes.

*** Significant at 5% Probability Level.

From Table 4, it is seen that all the four continuous explanatory variables i.e. age of household head, income of household, number of farms, and size of household, all had a statistically significant non-cause-effect relationship with smallholder farmers’ resilience to climatic variations and changes. This shows that the aforementioned variables could play a great role in influencing smallholder farmers’ resilience to climatic variations and changes.

Influence of Discontinuous or Qualitative Explanatory Variables on Smallholder Farmers’ Resilience to Climatic Variations and Changes

Computation of chi-square test statistic revealed the existence of a statistically significant non-cause-effect relationship (0<0.05) between discontinuous explanatory variables and smallholder farmers’ resilience to climate change (Table 5).

Table 5: Non-Cause-Effect Relationship Between Discontinuous Explanatory Variables Smallholder Farmers’ Resilience to Climatic Variations And Changes.

*** Significant at 5% Probability Level; R. = Resilient; N.R. = Not Resilient; L.R. = Likelihood Ratio.

Table 5 shows that the different discontinuous explanatory variables i.e. information accessibility, land accessibility, level of education of household head, access to agricultural extension services, practice of agroforestry, gender of household head, and credit accessibility, all had a statistically significant non-cause-effect relationship (p<0.05) with smallholder farmers’ resilience to climatic variations and changes. This confirms that, these variables have a propensity to influence smallholder farmers’ resilience to climate change.

Influence of Explanatory Variables on Smallholder Farmers’ Resilience to Climatic Variations and Changes

From the coefficients of the binary logistic regression model, it was found that five explanatory variables had a statistically significant causal relationship (p<0.05) with smallholder farmers’ resilience to climate change (Table 6).

Table 6: Logistic Regression Predicting Influence of Explanatory Variables on Smallholder Farmers’ Resilience to Climate Change.

*, Significant at 5% Probability Level.

Based on the coefficients of the logistic regression model, explanatory variables including credit accessibility, number of farms, land accessibility, income of household, and information accessibility, all had a statistically significant direct cause-effect relationship (p<0.05) with smallholder farmers’ resilience to climate change. Thus, credit accessibility, land accessibility, number of farms, household income, and information accessibility, have a great role to play towards enhancing smallholder farmers’ resilience to climate change.

It is worth mentioning that the parameter estimates of the binary logistic regression model were valid looking at the number of cases correctly classified, Likelihood Ratio X², and the Nagelkerke R². The model correctly classified up to 80% of the factors influencing smallholder farmers’ resilience to climate change. Looking at the Nagelkerke R² (Pseudo R²) of the model which stood at 0.648, it is found that up to 64.8% of the changes in smallholder farmers’ resilience to climate change could be explained by changes in the continuous and discontinuous explanatory variables of the model. Likelihood Ratio X² (5, n = 350 = 145.835, p<0.01), indicated that the model was statistically significant and had a strong explanatory power. Hence, from statistics of the number of cases correctly classified, Likelihood Ratio X² and Nagelkerke R², it could be said that the predictions of the model were very much valid as far as determining the factors influencing smallholder farmers’ resilience to climatic variations and changes were concerned.

Discussion

Climatic Variations and Changes

Recurrent extreme weather/climate events have been the order of the day in north western Cameroon as evidenced by the findings of this study. These extreme weather and climatic events could be attributed to climate change. Some studies carried out in north western Cameroon^{24,26,28,29,30}, have shown that extreme variations in climate parameters is a reality in north western Cameroon. However, most of these studies used only a few years of climate data (less than 30 years) to make inferences. This study by making use of over five decades of climate data has filled this knowledge gap.

Through the use of correlation and regression analyses, it was equally proven that some sort of interdependent relationship exists between different climate parameters in the face of climatic variations and changes. Although, some studies undertaken across different parts of the world by^{31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38} equally showed the existence of an interdependent relationship between climate parameters, little or no research has been done to assess the interdependent relationship existing between climate parameters in the present dispensation of climate variability and change. This study by shedding light on this has somehow filled the knowledge gap.

Resilience Options of Smallholder Farmers Confronted with the Adverse Effects of Climate Change

This study found that agroforestry is among the most used by smallholder farmers as a resilient option faced with the adversities of climate change. Most studies carried out across Africa have generally shown that smallholder farmers take to different indigenous and modern adaptation options in their drive to combat the adverse effects of climate change^{39,40,41,42,43,44,53}. Few studies have identified agroforestry as a major resilience option used by smallholder farmers, with most studies^52,54 focusing on agroforestry as a sustainable farming practice good for farmers with limited research done to assess the role of agroforestry as a resilience option to climate change adversities. With this paper showing that a majority of smallholder farmers take to agro-ecological farming practices like agroforestry to mitigate the adverse effects of climatic changes, a key knowledge gap has been filled.

Perceived Factors Affecting Smallholder Farmers’ Resilience to Climatic Variations and Changes

Smallholder farmers’ perception is vital to understanding how they feel and react when faced with adversities like climate change. In this study, it was found that smallholder farmers perceived three main factors as the most important influencing their resilience to climate change i.e. income of household, practice of agroforestry and land accessibility. Studies have generally focused on the adaptation choices of smallholder farmers faced with climate change^12,45,46,47, with little or nothing done to examine smallholder farmers’ resilience to climate change. The few existing studies on resilience^42,48,49, are mostly conceptual, descriptive and theoretical with little or no empirical backing. This study by employing inferential statistical tools and using empirical data breaks away from the norm, and therefore fills a major knowledge gap.

Influence of Explanatory Variables on Smallholder Farmers’ Resilience to Climatic Variations and Changes

The existence of a statistically significant non-cause-effect and cause-effect relationship between explanatory variables and smallholder farmers’ resilience to climate change could be attributed to the fact that most of the explanatory variables like information accessibility, income of household, credit accessibility, land accessibility, and number of farms are major livelihood assets which can play a great role in the enhancement of smallholder farmers’ resilience.

Studies carried out across Africa and other parts of the world^{12,29,30,42,45,46,47,48,49}, mostly focused on the non-causal and causal relationship existing between explanatory variables and smallholder farmers adaptation choices to climate change. This study has therefore filled a knowledge gap by examining the non-causal and causal relationship existing between explanatory variables and smallholder farmers’ resilience to climatic variations and changes.

The existence of a statistically significant direct causal relationship between five explanatory variables (information accessibility, land accessibility, credit accessibility, income of household, and number of farms) and smallholder farmers’ resilience to climate change in particular has many ramifications for these variables have a great role to play towards enhancing smallholder farmers’ resilience faced with climate change:

For accessibility to land, the existence of a statistically significant direct causal relationship implies that smallholder farmers with more access to land have a better resilience to climate change than their counterparts with limited or no land which can be attributed to the fact that land is an indispensable asset to any farmer, for it is the most important fixed asset, and without it, no farming activity can take place.

Concerning information accessibility, the existence of a statistically significant direct causal relationship means that smallholder farmers with better information accessibility are more resilient to climate change than their counterparts with limited or no access which could be attributed to the fact that smallholder farmers with easy access to information are able to make plans into the future which helps them to adopt best practices.

With respect to credit accessibility, a statistically significant direct causal relationship indicates that smallholder farmers with more access to credit are more resilient to climate change adversities than their fellow farmers with limited or no access to credit. This could be due to the fact that smallholder farmers with easy access to credit facilities are able to buy better farm inputs and can easily switch to best practices which act as a buffer to the adverse effects of climate change. Meanwhile smallholder farmers with little or no access to credit facilities are unable to buy good farm inputs and cannot switch to best practices on time which renders them weak and vulnerable in the face of climatic extremes.

For number of farms, the existence of a statistically significant direct causal relationship implies that smallholder farmers with many farms are more resilient to climate change which could be attributed to more yields obtained from these many farms which nourishes the household and excess sold to buy farm inputs. It could equally be that these farmers have more access to social and financial resources and or better education which allows them to control more land and therefore enhanced resilience.

Most studies carried out across Africa and the world^{29,30,45,48,49,55}, have shown the existence of a causal relationship between farmers’ adaptation choices to climate change and different explanatory variables. This study by making use of inferential statistics and empirical data to examine the causal relationship between resilience and different explanatory variables fills a major knowledge gap.

Conclusion and Policy Implications

Smallholder farmers’ resilience faced with the adversities of climate change is influenced by a plethora of factors with the main one being income of household, number of farms, credit accessibility, information accessibility, and land accessibility. This implies that these livelihood assets are key determinants of resilience and could play a major role towards enhancing smallholder farmers’ resilience to climate change.

Policy makers therefore need to critically examine information accessibility, household income, credit accessibility, number of farms, and land accessibility when crafting policies geared towards enhancing smallholder farmers’ resilience to climate change.

Funding Source

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

Conflict of Interest

The authors do not have any conflict of interest.

References
 

1. IPCC. (2018). Summary for Policymakers. In: Global warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty [V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, H. O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P. R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C. Péan, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J. B. R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M. I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor, T. Waterfield (eds.)]. World Meteorological Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, 32 pp.
2. Chanana-Nag, N., and Aggarwal, P.K. (2018). Woman in agriculture, and climate risks: hotspots for development, Climatic Change, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-018-2233-z
   CrossRef
3. Niles, M.T., and Salerno, J.D. (2018). A cross-country analysis of climate shocks and smallholder food insecurity. PLoS ONE 13(2): e0192928. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0192928
   CrossRef
4. Aggarwal, V.R.K., Mahajan, P.K., Negi, Y.S., and Bhardwaj, S.K. (2015). Trend Analysis of Weather Parameters and People Perception in Kullu District of Western Himalayan Region. Environment and Ecology Research 3(1): 24-33, 2015. DOI: 10.13189/eer.2015.030104.
   CrossRef
5. Biermann, F. (2007). ‘Earth system governance as a crosscutting theme of global change research. Global Environmental Change, Global Environmental Change 17 (2007) 326–337. Intergovernmental Panel on Cli­mate Change (IPCC), (2007). Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Summary for Pol­icymakers, IPCC AR4 WGII, Cam­bridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg2/ar4-wg2-spm. pdf.
   CrossRef
6. Intergovernmental Panel on Cli­mate Change (IPCC). (2007). Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Summary for Pol­icymakers, IPCC AR4 WGII, Cam­bridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg2/ar4-wg2-spm. pdf
7. The Royal Society. (2010).  Climate change: a summary of the science, September 2010 . https://royalsociety.org/~/media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2010/4294972962.pdf
8. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the Royal Society (RS)., (2014). Climate change, evidence and causes. An overview from the Royal Society and an the United States Academy of Sciences. http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/exec-office-other/climate-change-full.pdf 
9. Adger, W.N., Agrawala, S., Mirza, M.M.Q., Conde, C., O’Brien, K., Puhlin, J., Pulwarty, R., Smit, B., and Takahashi, K. (2007). Assessment of adaptation practices, options, constraints and capacity. In climate change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment of the IPCC, ed. Palutikof J.P, van der Linden PJ, and Hansen CE. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/AR4/website/17. pdf
10. Challinor, A. J., and Wheeler, T.R. (2008). Crop yield reduction in the tropics under climate change: processes and uncertainties. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 148: 343-356.
    CrossRef
11. Challinor, A. J. (2009). Developing adaptation options using climate and crop yield forecasting at seasonal to multi-decadal timescales. Environmental Science and Policy, 12(4): 453-465. ISSN 0168-1923.
    CrossRef
12. World Bank. (2013). Turn Down the Heat: Climate Extremes, Regional Impacts, and the Case for Resilience. A report for the World Bank by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and Climate Analytics. Washington, DC:World Bank. License: Creative Commons Attribution—NonCommercial–NoDerivatives3.0 Unported license (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). http://www.worldbank.org/content/dam/Worldbank/document/Full_Report_Vol_2_Turn_Down_The_Heat_%20Climate_Extremes_Regional_Impacts_Case_for_Resilience_Print%20version_FINAL.pdf
13. FAO., IFAD., UNICEF., WFP., and WHO. (2018). The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2018. Building climate resilience for food security and nutrition. Rome, FAO. Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO.
14. Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO). (2011). Framework Programme On Climate Change Adaptation, Fao-Adapt. http://www.fao.org/docrep/014/i2316e/i2316e00. pdf
15. Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO). (2016). Climate change and food security: risks and responses. http://www.fao.org/3/a-i5188e.pdf
16. International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD). (2012). Sustainable smallholder agriculture: feeding the world, protecting the planet. Proceedings of the Governing Council Events. In conjunction with the thirty-fifth session of IFAD’s Governing Council, February 2012. https://www.ifad.org/documents/10180/6d13a7a0-8c57-42ec-9b01-856f0e994054 pdf
17. Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO). (2010a). Homestead gardens in Bangladesh. Technology for agriculture. Proven technologies for small holders.  http://www.fao.org/teca/content/homestead-gardens-bangladesh. Accessed 26 October 2014 pdf
18. Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO). (2010b). Incorporation of tree management into land management in Jamaica - guinea grass mulching. Technology for agriculture. Proven technologies for small holders. http://www.fao.org/teca/content/ incorporation-tree-management-land-management-jamaica-%C2%BF-guinea-grass-mulching. Pdf
19. IPCC. (2014). Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 151 pp. https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full.pdf
20. Molua, E.L. (2006). Climate trends in Cameroon: implications for agricultural management, Climate Res. 30, 255–262.
    CrossRef
21. Molua, E.L. (2008).Turning up the heat on African agriculture: The impact of climate change on Cameroon’s agriculture. AfJARE 2(1): 20 p. http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/56967/2/0201%20si%20malua%20-%2026%20may.pdf
22. Tingem, M., Rivington, M., and Bellocchi, G. (2009). Adaptation assessments for crop production in response to climate change in Cameroon. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, Springer Verlag (Germany), 2009, 29 (2), pp.247-256. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1051%2Fagro%3A2008053.
    CrossRef
23. Azibo, B.R., and Kimengsi, J.N. (2015). Building an indigenous agro-pastoral adaptation framework to climate change in Sub-Saharan Africa: experiences from the North-West Region of Cameroon, Procedia Environmental Sciences 29: 126 – 127.
    CrossRef
24. Awazi, N.P. (2018). Adaptation Options Enhancing Farmers' Resilience to Climate Change. LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing (September 24, 2018), 132 pages. ISBN-10: 3330027940; ISBN-13: 978-3330027947.
25. Azibo, B.R., Kimengsi, J.N., and Buchenrieder, G. (2016). Understanding and Building on Indigenous Agro-Pastoral Adaptation strategies for Climate Change in Sub-Saharan Africa: Experiences from Rural Cameroon, Journal of Advances in Agriculture, 6 (1): 833-840. https://doi.org/10.24297/jaa.v6i1.5391.
    CrossRef
26. Innocent, N.M., Bitondo, D., and Azibo, B.R. (2016). Climate variability and change in the Bamenda Highlands of North Western Cameroon: Perceptions, Impacts and Coping mechanisms, British Journal of Applied Sciences and Technology, 12(5): 1 – 18.
    CrossRef
27. Di Falco, S., Veronesi, M., and Yesuf, M. (2011). Does Adaptation to Climate Change Provide Food Security? A Micro-Perspective from Ethiopia, Am. J. Agr. Econ. 93(3):829-846. doi: 10.1093/ajae/aar006.
    CrossRef
28. Awazi, N.P., and Tchamba, N.M. (2018). Determinants of small-scale farmers’ adaptation decision to climate variability and change in the North-West Region of Cameroon. Afr. J. Agric. Res.  13:534-543.
    CrossRef
29. Awazi, NP., Tchamba, N.M., and Tabi, F.O. (2019a). An assessment of adaptation options enhancing smallholder farmers’ resilience to climate variability and change: Case of Mbengwi Central sub-Division, North-West Region of Cameroon. Afr. J. Agric. Res. 14(6): 321-334.
30. Awazi, N.P., Tchamba, N.M., and Avana, T.M.L. (2019b). Climate change resiliency choices of small-scale farmers in Cameroon: determinants and policy implications. Journal of Environmental Management 250: 109560.
    CrossRef
31. Chen, Y-L., and Wang, J-J. (1995). The effects of precipitation on the surface temperature and Airflow over the island of Hawaii. American Meteorological Society, 123, 681 -694.
    CrossRef
32. Buishand, T.A., and Brandsma, T. (1999). Dependence of precipitation on temperature at Florence and Livorno (Italy). Climate Research, 12, 53-63.
    CrossRef
33. Seleshi, Y., and Zanke, U. (2004). Recent Changes in Rainfall and Rainy Days in Ethiopia. International Journal of Climatology 24: 973–983.
    CrossRef
34. Cong, R-G., and Brady, M. (2012). The Interdependence between Rainfall and Temperature: Copula Analyses. The Scientific World Journal, Volume 2012, Article ID 405675, 11pages. doi:10.1100/2012/405675.
    CrossRef
35. Berg, P., Moseley, C., and Haerter, Jan O. (2013). Strong increase in convective precipitation in response to higher temperatures. Nature Geoscience 6: 181–185.
    CrossRef
36. Olsson, T., Jakkila, J., Veijalainen, N., Backman, L., Kaurola, J., and Vehviläinen, B. (2015). Impacts of climate change on temperature, precipitation and hydrology in Finland – studies using bias corrected Regional Climate Model data. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 19: 3217–3238. doi:10.5194/hess-19-3217-2015.
    CrossRef
37. Nkuna, T.R., and Odiyo, J.O. (2016). The relationship between temperature and rainfall variability in the Levubu sub-catchment, South Africa. International Journal of Environmental Science 1: 66 – 75  http://iaras.org/iaras/journals/ijes
38. Weng, F., Zhang, W., Wu, X., Xu, X., Ding, Y., Li, G., Liu, Z., and Wang, S. (2017). Impact of low-temperature, overcast and rainy weather during the reproductive growth stage on lodging resistance of rice. Scientific Reports, 7, 1-9.
    CrossRef
39. Easterling, W.E., Aggarwal, P.K., Batima, P., Brander, K.M., Erda, L., Howden, S.M.A., Kirilenko, A., Morton, J., Soussana, J.F., Schmidhuber, J., and Tubiello, F.N. (2007). Food, fibre and forest products. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Parry, M.L., Canziani, O.F., Palutikof, J.P., van der Linden, P.J., and Hanson, C.E., Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 273-313. https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg2/ar4-wg2-chapter5. pdf
40. Boko, M., Niang, I., Nyong, A., Vogel, C., Githeko, A., Medany, M., Osman-Elasha, B., Tabo, R., and Yanda, P. (2007). Africa. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Parry, M.L., Canziani, O.F., Palutikof, J.P., van der Linden, P.J., and Hanson, C.E. Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK, 433-467. https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg2/ar4-wg2-chapter9. pdf
41. Hassan, R., and Nhemachena, C. (2008). Determinants of African farmers’ Strategies for Adapting to Climate Change: Multinomial Choice Analysis. African Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 2(1), 83- 104. http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/56969/2/0201%20Nhemachena%20%26%20Hassan%20-%2026%20may. pdf
42. Gbetibouo, A.G. (2009). Understanding Farmers' Perceptions and Adaptations to Climate Change and Variability: The Case of the Limpopo Basin, South Africa. IFPRI Discussion Paper No. 00849. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, D.C, 36pp. http://www.ifpri.org/publication/understanding-farmers-perceptions-and-adaptations-climate-change-and-variability pdf
43. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). (2009). Climate Change and Agriculture Policies; How to mainstream climate change adaptation and mitigation into agriculture policies, Rome, Italy, 76pp. http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/ex_act/pdf/Climate_change_and_agriculture_policies_EN. pdf
44. Deressa, T.T., Ringler, C., and Hassan, R.M. (2010). Factors Affecting the Choices of Coping Strategies for Climate Extremes: The Case of Farmers in the Nile Basin of Ethiopia. IFPRI Discussion Paper No. 01032. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, D.C, 25pp. http://ebrary.ifpri.org/cdm/ref/collection/p15738coll2/id/5198 pdf
45. McCarthy, J., Martello, J., and Marybeth, L. (2004). Climate Change in the Context of Multiple Stressors and. Resilience. ACIA Scientific Report, Cambridge University Press, p. 945-983. www.acia.uaf.edu/PDFs/ACIA_Science_ Chapters_Final/ACIA_Ch17_Final.pdf 
46. Gbetibouo, G.A., and Ringler, C. (2009). Mapping South African Farming Sector Vulnerability to Climate Change and Variability; A Sub national Assessment. IFPRI Discussion Paper 00885. http://www.ifpri.org/publication/mapping-south-african-farming-sector-vulnerability-climate-change-and-variability. pdf
47. Folke, C., Carpenter, S.R., Walker, B., Scheffer, M., Chapin, T., and Rockström, J. (2010). Resilience thinking: integrating resilience, adaptability and transformability. Ecology and Society 15(4): 20. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss4/art20/. Pdf
    CrossRef
48. Gordon, C.R. (2009). The science of climate change in Africa: Impacts and Adaptation, Grantham Institute for Climate Change, Discussion Paper N^O 1, Imperial College London, https://workspace.imperial.ac.uk/climatechange/public/pdfs/discussion_papers/Grantham_Institue_-_The_science_of_climate_change_in_Africa. pdf
49. Thorlakson, T. (2011). Reducing subsistence farmers’ vulnerability to climate change: the potential contributions of agroforestry in western Kenya, Occasional Paper 16. Nairobi: World Agroforestry Centre. http://www.worldagroforestry.org/downloads/Publications/PDFS/OP11183.pdf
    CrossRef
50. Awazi, N.P., Tchamba, N.M., Temgoua, L.F. (2020). Enhancement of resilience to climate variability and change through agroforestry practices in smallholder farming systems in Cameroon. Agroforestry Systems 94: 687–705. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-019-00435-y
    CrossRef
51. Awazi NP, Tchamba MN, Temgoua LF (2021) Climate-Smart Practices of Smallholder Farmers in Cameroon Confronted with Climate Variability and Change: The Example of Agroforestry. Agric Res 10(1):83–96.
    CrossRef
52. Shidiki, AA., Ambebe, TF., Awazi, NP. (2020). Agroforestry for Sustainable Agriculture in the Western Highlands of Cameroon. Haya: The Saudi Journal of Life Sciences, 2020; 5(9): 160-164.
    CrossRef
53. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). (2010). Collaborative Change; A Communication Framework for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security, Rome, Italy, 47pp. http://www.fao.org/docrep/012/i1533e/i1533e00. pdf
54. Awazi, N.P., and Tchamba, N.M. (2019). Enhancing Agricultural Sustainability and Productivity under Changing Climate Conditions through Improved Agroforestry Practices in Smallholder Farming Systems in sub-Saharan Africa. African Journal of Agricultural Research 14(7): 379-388.
    CrossRef
55. Deressa, T.T., Hassan, R.M., Ringler, C., Alemu, T., and Yesuf, M. (2009). Determinants of Farmers’ Choice of Adaptation Methods to Climate Change in the Nile Basin of Ethiopia. Global Environmental Change 19: 248-255. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378009000156 pdf
    CrossRef