IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i2p602-d1316319.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Factors Influencing the Double-Up Adoption of Climate Change Adaptation Strategies among Smallholder Maize Farmers in Malawi

Author

Listed:
  • Blessings Youngster Tikita

    (Department of Public Policy and Leadership, Park Chung Hee School of Policy and Saemaul, Yeungnam University, 280 Daehak-ro, Gyeongsan 38541, Gyeongbuk, Republic of Korea)

  • Sang-Ho Lee

    (Department of Food Economics and Service, Yeungnam University, 280 Daehak-ro, Gyeongsan 38541, Gyeongbuk, Republic of Korea)

Abstract

Maize remains the staple grain in Malawi; hence, the cropping system of most smallholder farmers is dominated by the crop, often mono-cropped for food security. Consequently, Malawi’s agriculture sector is made vulnerable to the adverse impacts of climate change. For instance, crop failure results in food insecurity and the low income of farm households. In response, there are coping mechanisms, which can be adopted by farmers to mitigate these negative climate change effects, namely maize–legume diversification, organic manure use, and the practice of agroforestry. Therefore, the underlying objective of this study was to assess the factors influencing smallholder maize farmers’ decision to engage in the double-up adoption of climate change adaptation strategies in Malawi. Both descriptive statistics and the logistic regression model were employed to statistically analyze these factors, and the results of the analysis revealed that landholding size, inorganic fertilizer use, access to credit, seed access, adherence to extension services, and input coupon access were significant in influencing dual adoption. Furthermore, this study recommends policies, which underscore land access and safeguard the land rights of smallholder maize farmers, and also private sector engagement in complementing government efforts in ensuring increased access to seeds. Additionally, improving farmers’ adherence to agricultural extension services is recommended. Thus, addressing the constraints of small-scale farmers observed in this study will act as an incentive for farmers to consider dual adoption, which is perceived to be a feasible method to combat climate change effects.

Suggested Citation

  • Blessings Youngster Tikita & Sang-Ho Lee, 2024. "Factors Influencing the Double-Up Adoption of Climate Change Adaptation Strategies among Smallholder Maize Farmers in Malawi," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(2), pages 1-18, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:2:p:602-:d:1316319
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/2/602/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/2/602/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Aboubacar Diallo & Emmanuel Donkor & Victor Owusu, 2020. "Climate change adaptation strategies, productivity and sustainable food security in southern Mali," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 159(3), pages 309-327, April.
    2. Hoyos, David, 2010. "The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1595-1603, June.
    3. Salvatore Di Falco & Marcella Veronesi & Mahmud Yesuf, 2011. "Does Adaptation to Climate Change Provide Food Security? A Micro-Perspective from Ethiopia," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 93(3), pages 825-842.
    4. McFadden, Daniel, 1980. "Econometric Models for Probabilistic Choice among Products," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 53(3), pages 13-29, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Martin, Inès & Vranken, Liesbet & Ugás, Roberto, 2021. "Farmers’ Preferences to Cultivate Threatened Crop Varieties: Evidence from Peru," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315216, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    2. Prince Maxwell Etwire & Isaac Koomson & Edward Martey, 2022. "Impact of climate change adaptation on farm productivity and household welfare," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 170(1), pages 1-27, January.
    3. Alaya Spencer‐Cotton & Marit E. Kragt & Michael Burton, 2018. "Spatial and Scope Effects: Valuations of Coastal Management Practices," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 69(3), pages 833-851, September.
    4. Voravee Saengavut & Chintana Somswasdi, 2022. "Preference Heterogeneity of Local Participation in Coupling Conservation and Community-Based Entrepreneurship Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-19, June.
    5. Etayibtalnam Koudjom, 2022. "Climate change adaptation and maize productivity: a gender-based analysis," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 173(1), pages 1-22, July.
    6. Sènakpon Fidèle A. Dedehouanou & Luca Tiberti & Hilaire G. Houeninvo & Djohodo Inès Monwanou, 2019. "Working while studying: Employment premium or penalty for youth in Benin?," Working Papers PMMA 2019-03, PEP-PMMA.
    7. Shr, Yau-Huo (Jimmy) & Zhang, Wendong, 2024. "Omitted downstream attributes and the benefits of nutrient reductions: Implications for choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 222(C).
    8. Han-Shen Chen, 2020. "The Construction and Validation of a Sustainable Tourism Development Evaluation Model," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(19), pages 1-20, October.
    9. Thennakoon, Jayanthi & Findlay, Christopher & Huang, Jikun & Wang, Jinxia, 2020. "Management adaptation to flood in Guangdong Province in China: Do property rights Matter?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    10. Tambo, Justice A. & Wünscher, Tobias, 2016. "Beyond adoption: welfare effects of farmer innovation behavior in Ghana," Discussion Papers 235297, University of Bonn, Center for Development Research (ZEF).
    11. Alejandro Lopez-Feldman, 2013. "Climate change, agriculture, and poverty: A household level analysis for rural Mexico," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 33(2), pages 1126-1139.
    12. Chavez, Daniel E. & Palma, Marco A. & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Mjelde, James W., 2020. "Product availability in discrete choice experiments with private goods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 36(C).
    13. Martin Henseler & Ingmar Schumacher, 2019. "The impact of weather on economic growth and its production factors," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 154(3), pages 417-433, June.
    14. Paleti, Rajesh, 2018. "Generalized multinomial probit Model: Accommodating constrained random parameters," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 248-262.
    15. Kassie, Menale & Fisher, Monica & Muricho, Geoffrey & Diiro, Gracious, 2020. "Women’s empowerment boosts the gains in dietary diversity from agricultural technology adoption in rural Kenya," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    16. Roy Brouwer & Solomon Tarfasa, 2020. "Testing hypothetical bias in a framed field experiment," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 68(3), pages 343-357, September.
    17. Nguyen-Phuoc, Duy Q. & Currie, Graham & De Gruyter, Chris & Young, William, 2018. "Transit user reactions to major service withdrawal – A behavioural study," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 29-37.
    18. Han-Shen Chen & Chu-Wei Chen, 2019. "Economic Valuation of Green Island, Taiwan: A Choice Experiment Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-17, January.
    19. Chao Zhang & Ruifa Hu, 2022. "Adoption of Direct Seeding, Yield and Fertilizer Use in Rice Production: Empirical Evidence from China," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-15, September.
    20. de Ayala, Amaia & Hoyos, David & Mariel, Petr, 2015. "Suitability of discrete choice experiments for landscape management under the European Landscape Convention," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 79-96.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:2:p:602-:d:1316319. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.