Understanding adaptation to climate variability in smallholder farming systems in eastern Zimbabwe: a sociological perspective

Abstract

The literature on climate change in Zimbabwe continues to grow, but literature specifically focusing on how people in rural communities are responding to it is still comparatively limited. Only a few scholars have sought to offer a reasonably detailed account of farmers' concerns and adaptation from localised, qualitative case studies based on farmers' narratives. As such, this article is empirically based, using mainly qualitative data from a broader research on understanding climate variability and livelihood adaptation conducted in Mutoko District in rural Zimbabwe. In doing so, the aim is not only to contribute empirical data to existing knowledge but also more importantly to theorise adaptation sociologically. The main argument is that farmers are reflexively engaged in various adaptive strategies predominantly at the household level not only to adapt to increasing climatic variability but also to simultaneously navigate a difficult socioeconomic landscape. The adaptive strategies are underpinned by diverse structures, processes and conditions that are enabling and constraining. Hence adaptation is unfolding as a complex and reflexive process under specific socio-spatial conditions.

Barriers to Effective Climate Change Management in Zimbabwe’s Rural Communities

“…From the view point of Chanza et al (2019), barriers are human or natural factors that impede adaptive efforts. As for Bhatasara (2018), barriers in the context of climate change adaptation are constraints faced during the adaptation processes. Despite a plethora of definitions and characteristics of barriers submitted by different scholars, in this study, the researchers paid homage to the definitions of barriers that point to conditions or factors rendering adaptation less effective or factors behind low adaptive capacity of rural people.…”

“…Results from a study conducted in Gwanda district by Ndlovu et al (2020) reveal that pit planting is a key adaptation strategy and this is complemented by mulching activities to retain soil moisture. Conservation farming was also identified in Mutoko district by Bhatasara (2018). Also, in Mutoko, micro irrigation systems through the syphoning of water manually from the rivers was on the rise when water sources are not dry.…”

“…In Chivi and Umzingwane districts, IKS is relevant through reading the abundance of wild fruits and flowering of certain plants as a guarantee of the quantity of rain expected. In Zvimba, Bikita, Gwanda, Mutoko, and Murehwa districts, plenty of wild fruits guarantees a good season and a few wild fruits signals drought (Bhatasara 2018;Soropa et al 2019;Mashizha 2019;Nyahunda and Tirivangasi 2019;Ndlovu et al 2020). In Chiredzi, early flowering of trees and many mopane worms signals good harvests.…”

“…In the foregoing, a plethora of studies in the climate change discourse in Zimbabwe's rural communities, Chivi south and Umzingwane districts included, testifies that rural people are not passive victims to the vagary impacts of climate change but they are responding to it through a plethora of adaptation and mitigation strategies (Gukurume 2013;Dube and Phiri 2013;Ndebele-Murisa and Mubaya 2015;Bhatasara 2018;). These adaptation strategies are aimed at insulating their lives and livelihoods from climatic shocks.…”

Quantifying Farmers’ Initiatives and Capacity to Cope with Drought: A Case Study of Xinghe County in Semi-Arid China

“…However, such intangible resources as the farmers' enthusiasm and initiative are often neglected in these measurements. Such subjective and intrinsic motivating factors as the initiatives taken by farmers to face drought, including investing in irrigation [32], communicating with other farmers [33], and buying crop insurance [34], also affect the ability to cope with drought. These initiatives often depend on such subjective aspects as the farmer's experience of disasters, views on the mechanism of responding to disasters, and awareness of future risks from disasters [35,36].…”