NAME: BABATOPE TEMILOLUWA REBECCA

MATRIC NO:220101045

LEVEL: 200 LEVEL

FACULTY: AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE

DEPARTMENT: AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS

AND EXTENSION SERVICES

COURSE CODE: SRE 211

QUESTION;
CLIMATE CHANGE PHENOMENON AND ITS
IMPACT ON RURAL INCOME LIVELIHOOD AND
HEALTH

LECTURER IN CHARGE:
Dr. Nurudeen O.O
Introduction
Climate change implies a shift in the main state of a climate or in its variability, persisting for an
extended period that can be decades or longer (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change 2007). It has been known for a while to have major global environmental, social, and
economic impact (Scholze et al. 2006; Douglas et al. 2008) and poses a major serious threat to
sustainable development with adverse effects on the environment, human health, food security,
economic activities, natural resource management, and physical infrastructure (Government of
Kenya (GOK) 2010). Climate change poses serious risks to society because of the physical
characteristics of the planet, the biological resources on which human lives depend, and current
social systems that are adapted to existing rather than changing climate conditions -
(Higgins 2014).
Nigeria is seriously threatened by climate change with a significant proportion of its terrestrial
ecosystem on dry land mass which is frequently affected by desertification, sheet erosion, and
droughts. The coastal and mangrove agroecological zones in the south are also prone to incessant
flooding because of their proximity to the Atlantic Ocean, riverine nature of the setting, the very
low altitude, and all-year-round and high volume of rainfall. In recent times, variations in
climatic conditions have resulted in undesirable effects on food production and nutritional
security. Unfortunately, the country has very weak adaptive strategies and capacity to mitigate
the effects of a changing climate. Presently, the impacts of rising temperatures and rainfall
variability on farming are being felt across major agroecological zones in Nigeria (Ayanlade et
al. 2018).
Agricultural systems are dependent on ecosystem services such as nutrient cycling, pollination,
soil fertility, hydrological balances, and biological pest control which ensure a balance in the
ecosystem (Power 2010). However, agricultural intensification in the last century has distorted
the ecosystem equilibrium and led to loss of ecological integrity, land degradation, and loss of
environmental services provided by the ecosystems. These conditions are further worsened due
to increasing effects of climate instability (Pretty et al. 2011). For instance, environmental
problems such as groundwater depletion, variability in the onset and amounts of rainfall, increase
in concentration of greenhouse gases, soil degradation, depletion of pollinators’ habitat, which
all have negative consequences on sustainable agriculture, are climate change-induced.
Forest communities, which are highly vulnerable to these adverse effects, are occupied by low-
income earners who depend on the ecosystem for their income, food, nutritional security, and
livelihoods. Hence, these rural populations will be seriously affected by climate change, with
little or no resources to adapt or mitigate its effects. It has been reported that the livelihoods of
these communities are made vulnerable by land use variation such as continuous grazing and
monoculture plantation. For example, in coastal and mangrove regions, there is a shortage of
food resources obtained from streams coupled and agricultural instability due to increased
flooding (Ward et al. 2016). Similarly, savannah and rainforest agroecosystems are recording a
decline in agricultural production outputs (Ayanlade et al. 2018).

Vulnerability in scientific use has its roots in geographic and natural hazard researches.
Nevertheless, vulnerability is now conceptualized differently by scholars from different areas of
knowledge (Füssel 2007). Based on the aims to be achieved and the methods used, studies have
been conceptualizing vulnerability differently (Downing et al. 2005; Gallopín 2006; ERI 2006;
Deressa et al. 2008; Deressa 2010). The literature on the conceptual and methodological
approaches to vulnerability analysis is summarized by Adger (1999), Füssel and Klein (2006),
and Füssel (2007). The principal conceptual approaches in the analysis of vulnerability to climate
variability and extreme events are the socioeconomic, biophysical, and integrated assessments.
The socioeconomic vulnerability assessment approach principally emphasizes on identifying the
socioeconomic and political status of households (Adger 1999). Individual variation in
education, gender, wealth, health status, access to credit, information and technology, formal and
informal social capital, political power, and so on in a community are responsible for the
variations in vulnerability levels (Deressa 2010; Deressa et al. 2008; Allen 2003). A study by
Kelly and Adger (2000) is also an example of this approach focuses on the analysis of
vulnerability based on variations in socioeconomic attributes of individuals and social groups.
However, this conceptual approach fails to see the environmental factors that trigger
vulnerability, because social groups having similar socioeconomic status can have different
levels of vulnerability to environmental attributes and vice versa (Deressa 2010; Deressa et
al. 2008).
The biophysical approach chiefly emphasizes on the vulnerability of the biophysical settings
which is broadly used the natural hazards and climate change vulnerability studies (Füssel 2007).
The approach generates the impact of the biophysical environment on human inhabitants
(Liverman 1999). The impact is computed by distinguishing sensitivity indicators and
determining the potential or actual hazards (Cutter et al. 2000). This approach, as suggested by
Adger (1999), focuses on sensitivity to climate change and misses much of the adaptive capacity
of people related to their capital assets.
The integrated assessment approach, on the other hand, combines the socioeconomic and
biophysical approaches to measure the level of vulnerability. The framework, threat of an area by
Cutter et al. (2000) and the biophysical approach of Füssel and Klein (2006) suggested that the
interaction between the biophysical dimension and the social profile of communities (social
dimensions) is studied as components of vulnerability. The adaptive capacity is also well-
matched with the socioeconomic approach (Füssel 2007). Füssel (2007) and Füssel and Klein
(2006) argued that the IPCC (2001) definition accommodates the integrated approach to
vulnerability analysis—which conceptualizes vulnerability to climate change as a function of
exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity. The vulnerability mapping approaches of O’Brien et
al. (2006), Feyissa et al. (2018), and Shawn et al. (2016) combine the biophysical and
socioeconomic components as a function of exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity to assess
the level of vulnerability causations. The integrated vulnerability assessment approach includes
the interactions among the components of vulnerability (exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive
capacity) for the coupled human-environment systems (Turner et al. 2003). This study adopted
the integrated approach to analyze rural household livelihood vulnerability to climate variability
and extremes as a theoretical framework of livelihood vulnerability assessment.
The vulnerability analysis of this study follows the Third Assessment Report of IPCC expressed
vulnerability as a function of exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity (Schneider et al. 2001).
As the vulnerability framework (Fig. 1) depicted, climate variability and extreme variables
(exposure), biophysical and socioeconomic conditions (sensitivity), and adaptive capacity are
components expecting to determine rural household’s livelihood vulnerability level.

The exposure variables: rate of change in rainfall variability, increasing in maximum and
minimum temperature, and agricultural/meteorological drought frequency, are directly linked
with the susceptible biophysical and socioeconomic components to determine households’
livelihood vulnerability. The magnitude, frequency, timing, and duration of climate variability
and extremes affect the rainfed agricultural livelihood activities of the study households.
Physical attributes (topography, soil types, and land cover type) and human activities such as
tillage systems, water management, resource depletion, and population pressure shaped the
sensitivity of households to the livelihood vulnerability level (Fritzsche et al. 2014). At this
juncture, the biophysical environments and socioeconomic variables such as slope/topography,
population pressure, and accessibility to travel time with inadequate adaptive capacity influence
the livelihood activities and increase the vulnerability of households. For instance, according to
Fritzsche et al. (2014), heavy rainfall events in combination with steep slope vulnerability of soil
to erosion will result in a direct impact of erosion and reduction of yield and loss of income as
indirect impacts. The degree of adaptive capacity based on the sustainable livelihood capitals can
determine the effect of exposure and sensitivity variables on households’ livelihood
vulnerability. The interaction of climate variability and extremes, biophysical and socioeconomic
conditions, and adaptive capacity capitals determine overall households’ livelihood vulnerability
level.
Fig. 1
A schematic diagram showing a set of predictor variables of exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive
capacity to the overall households’ livelihood vulnerability level

Climate change is rapidly emerging as one of the most serious global problems affecting many
sectors in the world especially livelihood. Negative consequences in Africa are already prevalent
in terms of frequent floods, droughts, and shift in marginal agricultural systems (Collier et
al. 2008). Deschenes and Greenstone (2012) explained that climate change affects the two most
important direct agricultural production inputs, precipitation, and temperature, which in turn
affects livelihood. Studies have shown that Africa is getting more vulnerable to climate
change/variability impact on livelihood compared to other parts of the World. This is because the
livelihoods for 80% of the African population are dependent on rain-fed agriculture which are
vulnerable to multiple stresses such as climate change (World Bank 2008).
Countries in sub-Saharan Africa may likely suffer most from these consequences because of
their greater reliance on climate-sensitive resources like agriculture for sustenance of livelihoods
(Eboh 2009).

In Nigeria, about 60% of the populations are rural residents depending on agriculture for their
livelihood (Central Bank of Nigeria 2006) and studies have confirmed serious effects of climate
change on this population. Their vulnerability to climate change impacts is largely due to the
socioeconomic and political context (Thornton et al. 2014). However, all households within a
community are not equally vulnerable to climate change impact (Adger 2003). This is because
vulnerability is highly differentiated (O’Brien et al. 2007) and varies across: age, gender,
income, and type of livelihood. In Nigeria, women, children, and the elderly will be most
vulnerable to climate change impact, especially the rural elderly who are economically less
productive due to physical weakness brought about by ageing and ill health (Anele 2012).
Mcleman and Hunter (2010) explained that climate change events, impacts on livelihood and
vulnerability differ considerably across geographic and ecological regions. This is because
livelihoods are ecologically dependent and some regions and activities are more sensitive to
climate change than others (Saarinen et al. 2012). It is therefore relevant to consider ecological
characteristics in relation to climate change impacts on livelihood. Also in Sub-Saharan Africa,
extreme droughts is already constraining production of food and rearing of livestock (Kebede et
al. 2011). For 2050, it is projected that, especially in West Africa, yields could drop by 20–50%
due to variability of rainfall reducing length of the growing season (Sarr 2012). There are many
studies on climate change/variability and livelihood (Ofoegbu et al. 2017; Ubisi et al. 2017;
Aniah et al. 2016; Egbe et al. 2014; Okonkwo et al. 2015; Zeleke and Aberra 2014). For
instance, Aniah (2016) examined the effects of climate change on livelihoods of smallholder
farmers in the Upper East Region of Ghana. The results revealed that droughts, floods, pest and
diseases, postharvest losses, declining crop yields, and animal production have threatened
smallholder farmers’ livelihood activities. Also, Ubisi et al. (2017) investigated the perceived
effects of climate change on crop production and household livelihoods of smallholder farmers
in Mopani and Vhembe district, South Africa.
Their study showed that subsistence farmers perceived prolonged droughts as an impact of
climate change leading to low crop yield and high crop failure. These studies focused on the
impact of climate change/variability on livelihood activities but the impacts on the livelihood
activities of the aged were not considered. Against this backdrop, we have reason to believe that
climate change impact on livelihood among the rural aged is likely to vary with geographic
location and livelihood activities. Based on Nigeria as a case, this chapter provides answers to
this question: How does the perceived climate variability affect rural livelihood activities of the
aged population in selected rural communities of the different ecological zones of Nigeria?

Multistage Selection of Ecological Zones and

the Aged

Nigeria, situated in West Africa on Latitudes 4°0 to 14°0′ North and Longitudes 2°2′ and 14°30′
East, is bounded in the west by the Republic of Benin, in the East by Chad and Cameroon, in the
North by Niger Republic, in the South by Gulf of Guinea, and in the North-East by Lake Chad
(Map 1). Nigeria is a multiethnic and culturally diverse society divided into 36 autonomous
states (World Bank Group 2017). Nigeria has two seasons, the dry and the rainy season, and six
ecological zones: Mangrove zone, Forest zone, Montane zone, Guinea savannah zone, Sudan
savannah zone, and Sahel savannah zone. This chapter is set in four ecological zones with one
state representing each zone–Guinea savannah zone of Oyo State (Oyo State), Mangrove zone of
Ondo State (Ondo State), Sudan savannah zone (Kebbi State), and Montane zone (Plateau State)
(see Map 1).
Map 1

Map of Nigeria showing the selected states. (Source: Adopted from Popoola
and Ajayi 2019)

In the initial stage, the ecological zones (They are: Mangrove zone, Rain forest, Montane region,
Guinea savannah, Sudan savannah and Sahel Savannah) were identified based on Keay (1949),
Kueppers (1998) classification. Four Ecological Zones were randomly selected out of the six
zones. They are: Guinea savannah zone, Mangrove zone, Montane zone, and the Sudan savannah
zone. One State was then selected from each of the selected ecological zones. The states are Oyo
State in the Guinea savannah zone (Guinea savannah zone of Oyo State), Ondo State in
Mangrove zone (Mangrove zone of Ondo State), Plateau State in Montane zone, and Kebbi State
in the Sudan savannah zone. In the next stage, two local government areas were selected from
each of the States based on their rurality and climate change impact.
The local government areas are: Ilaje and Eseodo in Ondo State; Oorelope and Atisbo in Oyo
State; Riyom and Kanke in Plateau State; Jega and Yauri in Kebbi State. In the third stage, three
rural settlements were selected from each of the local government areas through a simple random
selection process. They are: (Ilepete, Obenla, Ebijimi) in Ilaje LGA; (Igbalekagbo, Uropati,
Olorunpupa) in Ese-odo LGA; (Alaguntan, ologundudu, Sooro)in Oorelope LGA; (Alakuko,
Sabe, Yowere) in AtisboLGA; (Ambob, Tahoss, Kwakwi) in Riyom LGA; (Tse, Jinglay,
Lebwit) in Kanke LGA; (Akalawa, Duduke, Gindi) in Jega LGA; (Unguwar Kurya, Zara Bimi,
Giwa Tazo) in Yauri LGA. To ensure a fair draw for all settlements each settlement in the
respective local government area was assigned a number written on a piece of paper, placed in a
container, and then drawn from the container without replacement. In the fourth stage, snowball
approach was used to identify the houses where the rural aged resides. The aged were defined as
people who are at least 60 years of Age.

Both qualitative and quantitative data were used (Primary Data Source). The quantitative data
were obtained through structured questionnaire administered to an aged male and an aged female
available in the selected houses in the selected rural communities of the selected ecological
zones. Where there were no combinations of the two (aged men and aged women), either of the
two was also sufficient. The qualitative data includes observations, key informant interviews,
and open as well as semi-structured interviews with four aged men and four aged women
selected purposively in each of the selected villages. The interviewer used progressive focusing
to ask the participants both new and follow up questions. Detailed field notes and audio
recording were made throughout the field observations. Data collected was disaggregated by
gender to recognize the different experiences of male and female and analyzed using various
methods such as descriptive statistics (frequencies and percentages) and SPSS. In the qualitative
analysis, Content Analysis Method was used to identify commonalities in terms of recurring
aspects and themes as well as differences and contradictions in terms of deviating views and
outliers .
 Ageds’ Experience of Climate Variability Impact on Their
Livelihood Security

In this section findings of climate variability impact on livelihood security of the rural aged in
selected ecological zones of Nigeria was presented. In focus, the following domains: agriculture
and food security; environment; energy; and water resources; as well as human and animal
health; dwellings, transport, and migration were placed. According to Ashwill et al. (2011),
climate change impact refers to the social and environmental consequences in terms of water
scarcity, loss in agricultural yields, and drops in livestock production, to mention a few. It is
important to examine the climate variability impact on livelihood security of the people because
it helps informing and tailoring directions for adaptation (Mendelsohn 2008). It is also important
to examine the impact on livelihood by gender and geographical locations. Examining the impact
by gender helps to understand that the different roles, resources, opportunities, and agency of
men and women influence how they experience, perceive, and respond locally to climate change
(Ashwill et al. 2011). Vulnerability to climate change impact is highly correlated with its
geographical peculiarities (Callo-Concha et al. 2013). Therefore, examining the impact by
geographical location helps to determine both the perceived need to adapt and the acceptability
of particular adaptive measures because of factors such as: attachment to place, cultural values,
social identity, and regional risk attitudes (Adger et al. 2009).
Figure 1 shows the climate variability impact on livelihood security of the rural aged in selected
ecological zones of Nigeria. Findings revealed that climate variability has affected the livelihood
of the aged to a great extent. For instance, from the table, in Guinea Savannah Zone, 68.3% of
the men and 69% of the women complained of water shortage and 60% men and 49.2% women
felt the need for irrigation. Also, 42.4% men and 26.2% had to delay their planting; 94.6% of the
men and 91.8% of the women lamented about crop failure; 37% of the men and 35.9% of the
women worried about their animals getting weak and sick while 32.6% men and 27.9% women
had their livestock dead. All these can be attributed to climate variability impact. Below, selected
comments from aged men and women sharing their experience of climate variability impact on
their livelihood security in the different selected villages of Oorelope and Atisbo Local
Government Areas of Oyo State, Guninea Savannah Region of Nigeria were included.
Fig. 1

Climate variability impact of livelihood security of aged men and women in

Guinea Savannah Region of Nigeria. (Source: Author’s Fieldwork)

Before the change in weather, we planted maize twice a year. But now, we plant it only once. If
we try to plant the second time, which is usually done in the eight month, the produce will be
very small and not profitable. Just like the one I am holding now (respondent holding a sample
maize), who will buy this from us? (Waliu Hamuzat, Male, 64 years)
Our yam produce is not as big as before again. The presence of yam leaf is a positive sign of a
possible bountiful harvest. During the 10th and 11th month of plantation, some cultivated yams
will still have their leaves intact, like before, but now, in the 9th month, some yams would have
lost their leaves. Infact, the period when tubers had begun to grow proper, that is when we
usually experience the lack of rain (drought). And it is usually when the yam needs the rain the
most. Most importantly, these are the periods we usually have constant rainfall before. Now the
story is different.
Take for example, if I planted about 3000 yam and I was only able to harvest 100. This can only
be related to the heat generated from the dry land and I cannot be at peace with such result
(Kazeem Lawal, Male, 65 years)
There is shortage of food and water, and our cows are going seriously hungry. This has led to a
clash between farmers and the Fulani herdsmen because the cows now go to feed on people’s
farmland. Any cow caught on a farmland, automatically belongs to the farmland owner. In
addition, a lot of cows cannot even stand up on their own again due to hunger. The herdsmen at
times usually help them up (Yussuf Dammani, Male, 62 years)
Fever most especially, and several other ailment usually surface at this period. Since food is what
our body needs most, a shortage of it will lead to sickness in the body (Durodola Lamina,
Female, 73 years)
The little rain we had was more of heavy storm than water. The storm was too much; in fact the
structure we erected as mosque was totally destroyed by the storm. It also destroyed a lot of
buildings. The storm is a new experience in this area (Ajao Abebi, Female, 68 years)
Figure 2 also shows the climate variability impact on livelihood security of the aged men and
women in the Coastal Zone of Nigeria. The table indicated that 81.8% of the men and 72.5% of
the women complained about decline in fish species and populations. This is because in a small-
scale fishing community, many households are involved in fishery-related livelihood activities
such as fishing, postharvest fish processing, fish trading, making and mending of fishing
materials (OECD 2001). Therefore, decline in fish species and populations will affect their
means of livelihood. Also 79.2% of the aged men and 42.9% of aged women in the area
complained about water logging and 59% men and 40.6% women had their small animals drown
in the water. Moreover, 69.7% men and 40.9% lamented and worried about the deterioration of
their dwellings because of heavy rainfall and flood. In most rural coastal communities of Nigeria,
many dwellings are built on piles and raft foundations. These houses easily deteriorate during
harsh weather conditions and thus affect the habitability of the aged in the region.
Fig. 2

Climate variability impact of livelihood security of aged men and women in

Coastal Zone of Nigeria. (Source: Author’s Fieldwork)

However, in some instances climate variability has some positive impacts on livelihood of rural
coastal communities. For instance, one of the positive effects of flooding in the rural coastal
communities is the increase in fish catch, especially during ocean flooding (Fabiyi and
Oloukoi 2013). The study revealed that the Atlantic brings large fish to the continental shelf and
some large fish are even found in the creeks during extensive flooding. Therefore, climate
variability impact is not necessarily negative but can also be positive. Below, are some of the
views on the impact of climate variability on their livelihood shared by aged men and women in
Ilaje and Eseodo LGAs of Ondo:
Floodwater does not damage our land and properties in the past, it comes for some few hours and
subsides back into the ocean but within the past few years it has been staying longer than a
month, destroying lives and properties (Olayemi Elijah)
Floods are usually associated with heavy rainfall and ocean tides causing damages to our
properties and drowning a number of people and animals. During Heavy rainfall, between June
and July houses and land becomes waterlogged. The soil becomes saturated with water making it
difficult for us to move from one place to another, disturbs our daily activities and causes
retrogression in our socio-economic activities. (Thomas Ogunmola, Male, 67 years)
Flood has destroyed our crops, fishes and animals. Many of our animals die because of high salt
level in the water. The flood water after mixing with sea water becomes polluted causing purging
in human. The crude oil clogs the mat making plant (ifere), degrades the bamboo plantation
(Opee), and also kills the aquatic animal, which serves as the major source of income to us
(Osamoluwa Male, 71 years)
Socio-economic activities comes to a standstill during the flooding period, we women will not be
able go to the market to trade. There is also high mortality rate in infants and the pregnant
women during child labor because we lack health facilities. The only health centre available is
too far from the community and there is no means of transportation most especially during the
time of flooding (Adeola Ebijiimi Female 75 years)
In this year, from January to April, the rainfall was so scanty, resulting into heat wave, the
weather became unbearable hot and the soil became too dry and too hot to grow crops on, any
crop planted at this period dies off, but from May to July the rainfall became so intense which
eventually resulted into flooding (Ebipatei Jonathan)
We do encounter a lot of health and environmental hazard, these includes: rheumatism, purging,
death of animals, degraded water and soil, erosion, drowning of our children and loss of life in
general. (Obele)
Many of us aged suffer from rheumatism due to extreme cold weather while some of us have lost
their lives due to drowning during flooding or tidal surge (Eyinmiieka Ayebogbon)
Figure 3 also indicated the impact of climate variability on livelihood security of the rural aged
men and women in the Sudan Savannah Zone of Nigeria.
The table revealed that 77.2% of the men and 89.3% of the women complained about loss of
land. 85.3% of the men and 78.0% of the women complained of reduced pasture for their
animals. 78.3% of the men and 71.4% of the women are worried because of water shortage and
67.7% men and 48.9% women felt the need for irrigation. Also, 90.6% of the men and 82.1% of
the women lamented about crop failure and 77.2% men and 42.9% lamented about their dying
livestock. From all these analysis, it is obvious that livelihood in Sudan Savannah Zone are
affected by climate variability impact of drought and irregular rainfall. This is in line with
Challinor et al. (2007) who explained that agricultural potential of the Sudan Savanna in West
Africa is limited by insufficient water availability due to high rainfall variability and frequent
droughts.
Fig. 3

Climate variability impact of livelihood security of aged men and women in

Sudan Savannah Region of Nigeria. (Source: Author’s Fieldwork)

Our major occupation here is faming and rearing of livestock animals. Everything is okay. The
only change is the issue of rain and drought. Before, rain starts around April and sometimes
March. But now, that the climate has changed, it may start around June or July (Al Haruna)
We have a river here. Sometimes this river overflows and leads to flood.
There is nothing we can do about such a situation because we do not have a choice. (Aisha
Muhammad)
If you observe the route we followed here, the erosion has affected the bridge there. We have got
about 30 bags of cement to do the bridge again. Even as we speak, if rain shouldfall, no one will
be able to leave this town until the water level reduces (Kulu Galadima)
The drought usually affects our cultivated crops, in most cases we do re-planting after the
drought might have destroyed the cultivation. So we plant immediately after the first rainfall that
comes after a drought. For the flood, there is nothing we can do about it. What we do in most
cases is to gather the redeemable crops and plant again after flood. (Amina Hakimi)
Figure 4 reveals the impact of climate variability on livelihood security of the rural aged men and
women in the Montane Zone of Nigeria. The table revealed that 70.6% of men and 81.8% of
women were not happy about disrupted transport reducing sales of goods; 58% of the men and
59% of the women complained of crop failure; 54.8% men and 73.8% talked about delayed
planting; 49% of men and 61.5% of the women worried about their animals getting weak and
sick while 54.4% men and 69.8% women complained about their dead livestock. This analysis
was further corroborated with comments on the experiences of the aged men and women’s
climate variability impact on their livelihood security in the different selected villages of Plateau
State of Montane Zone of Nigeria.
Fig. 4
Climate variability impact of livelihood security of aged men and women in
Montane Region of Nigeria. (Source: Author’s Fieldwork)

In this area we do not experience flood, but over there (neighboring village), all their houses and
roads are filled with flood (Sunday Gaarus)
Lot of houses are usually affected. But for crops, only rice will do well in such condition. Last
year we harvested plenty rice because rice needs a lot of water to grow. But crops like corn,
guinea corn did not survive the weather. Millet also, for those farmers that had enough rain
harvested it as well. We got millet here last year because we cultivated it around July ending to
October ending, because it also can survive heavy rain. But crops like the ones I mentioned
earlier, corn, and guinea corn will not survive it (Zababiya)
In other places, they have not even had any rainfall at all this year. But we here are very lucky to
have experienced several rainfall, though heavy. If we now start complaining about heavy rain,
what should other places that have not experienced rain say? We do not know why God has
decided to do it this way. So, to tell you I have an idea is unexplainable. Everything is God’s
doing (Mrs Ngyuk)
Generally, the impact and the experience of climate change on livelihood security of the aged
men and women is peculiar to each ecological zone. This is because each ecological zone has its
own peculiar characteristics. This is in line with Callo-Concha et al. (2013) that says
vulnerability to climate change impact is highly correlated with its geographical peculiarities.
Therefore, the impact on the respondents is relative to the geographical characteristics.

Conclusion
Climate change is rapidly emerging as one of the most serious global problems affecting many
sectors in the world especially rural livelihoods in agriculture, cattle rearing, crop farming,
fishing, hunting, mining, tourism, and craft and weaving. It was found that the rural aged
populations in Nigeria are highly vulnerable to climate change impact, especially in their
livelihood security which was discovered to differ by region and by activity. This is in line with
Garai (2014) which assessed climate change impact on the livelihoods of coastal people in the
south-western part of Bangladesh revealed the elderly as part of the most at risk and vulnerable
to climate change impact because of their inability to adapt to unfavorable environmental
condition.
While some areas are generally more sensitive to climate change (Saarinen et al. 2012), some
livelihoods and activities are more ecologically dependent and exposed to climate change
impact. In consequence, the rural aged experience climate variability impact on their livelihood
differently in different ecological zones, and their experience is based on the prevailing climate
variability characteristics in each ecological zone.
In the Guinea and Sudan savannah zones, the prevailing climatic variability characteristics are
drought, desertification, excessive heat and increased temperature, decline in rainfall, delayed
onset of rainfall to mention a few. This is also in line with Ayanlade and Ojebisi (2019) which
assessed herders’ responses to climate variability and changes in the Guinea Savannah region of
Nigeria. The study confirmed climate variability characteristics like excessive heat, reduced and
delay onset of rainfall, prolonged dry spell, drought to mention a few in the area. Also in the
Coastal zone the prevailing climatic variability characteristics are flooding, earlier onset of rain,
erosion, increased frequency in storms. The impact on their livelihood in these zones is mainly
associated with livestock death, lack of pastures for herds, scarcity of water, pest invasion,
delayed planting crop failure, need for irrigation, water logging, drowning of small animals,
human and animal illness. This implies that government planning and decision making related to
climate change should take the views of the aged populations into consideration, especially for
those rural areas affected most by climate change impact.
References
Appiah DO, Akondoh ACK, Tabiri RK, Donkor AA (2018) Smallholders farmers’ insight on climate
change in rural Ghana. Cogent Food and Agriculture 4:1–
16. http://www.congentoa.com/article/10.1080/23311932.208.1436211.pdf/27/April/2018. Assessed 17
June 2018
Aruwajoye AS, Ajibefun IA (2013) Assessment of livelihood strategies among households in forest reserve
communities in Ondo state, Nigeria. Int J Sci Eng Res 4(7):1650–1655
Ayanlade A, Radeny M, Morton JF, Muchaba T (2018) Rainfall variability and drought characteristics in
two agro-climatic zones: an assessment of climate change challenges in Africa. Sci Total Environ
630:728–737
Ayuk ET, Fonta WM, Ichoku HE (2011) Forest income and household welfare in rural
Nigeria. https://unu.edu/publications/articles/forest-income-and-household-welfare-in-rural-
nigeria.html#info. Accessed 20 Nov 2019
Azeez IO, Ikponmwonba OS, Popoola L, Amusa TO (2010) Land use activities among forest
environments’ dwellers in Edo State, Nigeria: implications for livelihood and sustainable forest
management. Int J Soc For 3(2):164–187
Bassey BJ, Obong LB (2008) The role of non-timber forest products (NTFR) in community livelihoods: a
case study of Okiro, Obudu Local Government Area Cross River state, Nigeria. J Environ Res Policies
3:98–105
Carloni AS, Crowley E (2005) Rapid guide for missions: analysing local institutions and livelihoods.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome
Coates J (2013) Build it back better: deconstructing food security for improved measurement and action.
Global Food Secur 2(3):188–194
Cooper PJM, Dimes J, Rao KPC, Shapiro B, Shiferawa B, Twomlow S (2008) Coping better with current
climatic variability in the rain-fed farming systems of sub-Saharan Africa: an essential first step in
adapting to future climate change. Agric Ecosyst Environ 126:24–35
Vidaurre de la Riva M, Lindner A, Pretzsch J (2013) Assessing adaptation – climate change and
indigenous livelihood in the Andes of Bolivia. J Agric Rural Dev Trop Subtrop 114(2):109–122
Enete IC (2014) Impacts of climate change on agricultural production in Enugu State Nigeria. J Earth
Sci Clim Change. https://doi.org/10.4172/2157-7617.1000234
Fadairo OS, Calland R, Mulugetta Y, Olawoye JE (2017) A corruption risk assessment of reducing
emissions from deforestation and forest degradation project in Nigeria. Int J Clim Change Impact
Responses 10(1):1–22
Fadairo O, Williams PA, Nalwanga FS (2019) Perceived livelihood impacts and adaptation of vegetable
farmers to climate variability and change in selected sites from Ghana, Uganda and Nigeria. Environ
Dev Sustain. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-019-00514-1
Fisher PA, Paveglio T, Carroll M, Murphy D, Brenkert-Smith H (2013) Assessing social vulnerability to
climate change in human communities near public forests and grasslands: a framework for resource
managers and planners. J For 111(5):1–9. https://doi.org/10.5849/jof.12-091
Idowu AA, Ayoola SO, Opele AI, Ikenweiwe P (2011) Impact of climate change in Nigeria. Iranica J
Energy Environ 2(2):145–152
Kinsey J (2005) Will food safety jeopardize food security? Agr Econ 32(s1):149–158
Levang, P., Dounias, E. & Sitorus, S. (2005). Out of the forest, out of poverty? Forests, trees and
livelihoods, 15(2): 230
Lindner A, Pretzsch J (2013) An international network on climate change impacts on small farmers in the
tropical Andes – global conventions from a local perspective. Sustain Agric Res 2(2):92–
98. https://doi.org/10.5539/sar.v2n2p92
Malhi Y, Wright J (2004) Spatial patterns and recent trends in the climate of tropical rainforest regions.
Philos Trans Biol Sci 359:311–329
Morton JF (2007) The impact of climate change on smallholder and subsistence agriculture. PNAS
104(50):19680–19685
Mwampamba TH (2007) Has the woodfuel crisis returned? Urban charcoal consumption in Tanzania and
its implications to present and future forest availability. Energy Policy 35(8):4221–4234
Nayak BP, Kohli P, Sharma JV (2012) Policy brief: livelihoods of communities and forest degradation in
India: issues for REDD+ policy. Https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Livelihood-of-local-
communities-and-forest-in-India-Nayak-Kohli/4a45c80a48147a4c607b96905212d6bf5f5622f6. Accessed
17 Nov 2019
Osuafor AM, Nnorom NR (2014) Impact of climate change on food security in Nigeria. Int J Sci Technol
3(1):1–16
Petkova EP, Ebi KL, Culp D, Irwin R (2015) Climate change and health on the U.S. Gulf Coast: public
health adaptation is needed to address future risks. Int J Environ Res Public Health 12:9342–9356
Petersen EK, Pedersen ML (2010) The sustainable livelihoods approach: from a psychological
perspective. Institute of Biology, University of Aarhus
Power AG (2010) Ecosystem services and agriculture: trade-offs and synergies. Philos Trans R Soc
365:2959–2971. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0143
Pretty J, Toulmin C, Williams S (2011) Sustainable intensification in African agriculture. Int J Agric
Sustain 9(1):5–24
Saka MG, Jatau DF, Olaniyi WA (2013) Status of indigenous tree species in Girei forest reserve of
Adamawa State. J For Res Wildlife Environ 5:28–40
Shackleton CM (2004) Assessment of livelihoods importance of forestry, forests and forest products in
South Africa. Rhodes University, Grahamstown
Somorin OA (2010) Climate impacts, forest-dependent rural livelihoods and adaptation strategies in
Africa: a review. Afr J Environ Sci Technol 4(13):903–912
Stringer LC, Dougill AJ, Fraser E, Hubacek K, Prell C, Reed MS (2006) Unpacking “participation” in
the adaptive management of social–ecological systems: a critical review. Ecol Soc
11(2):39. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/art39/. Assessed 12 July 2018
Sunderlin W, Angelsen A, Belcher B, Burgers P, Nasi R, Santose L, Wunder S (2005) Livelihoods, forests
and conservation in developing countries: an overview. World Dev 33(9):1383
Tiani AM, Besa MC, Devisscher T, Pavageau C, Butterfield R, Bharwani S, Bele M (2015) Assessing
current social vulnerability to climate change: a participatory methodology (Working paper no. 169).
Center for International Forestry Research, Bogor. ISBN 978-602-1504-70-
3. https://doi.org/10.17528/cifor/005463
Tompkins EL, Adger WN (2004) Does adaptive management of natural resources enhance resilience to
climate change? Ecol Soc 9(2):10. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art10. Assessed 17 Aug
2018
Veenendaal EM, Swaine MD (1998) Limits to tree species distribution in lowland tropical rainforests. In:
Newbery DM, Prins HHT, Brown M (eds) Dynamics of tropical communities. Blackwell Publishing,
Oxford
Ward RD, Friess DA, Day RH, Mackenzie RA (2016) Impacts of climate change on mangrove ecosystems:
a region by region overview. Ecosyst Health Sustain 2(4)
Warner K (2000) Forestry and sustainable livelihoods; what part can forest and forestry play in reducing
poverty? Unsilver: FAO, 51(202), 3–12
Wunder S (2005) Forestry and sustainable livelihoods. World Commission on Environment and
Development (1999). Our Common Future. Oxford University Press, pp 1817
Nacional. Guerra, A., Pochmann, M., & Silva, R.A. (2014). Atlas da exclusão social no Brasil: Dez anos
depois. Cortez. Helfand, S., & Pereira, V. (2012). Determinantes da pobreza rural e implicações para as
políticas públicas no Brasil. In C. Miranda & B. Tiburcio (Eds.), A nova cara da pobreza rural: desafios
para as políticas públicas (pp. 121-160). IICA. Heltberg, R. (2002). The poverty elasticity of growth.
Discussion Paper no. 2002/21, United Nations University/ World Institute for Development Economics
research. https://www.wider.unu.edu/sites/default/files/dp2002-21.pdf . Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e
Estatística. (2011). Censo Demográfico 2010: Resultados Preliminares do Universo. Ministério do
Desenvolvimento Social e Combate à Fome (MDS): Brasília. Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e
Estatística. (2019a). Panorama de Cidades 2019: Cascavel.
https://cidades.ibge.gov.br/brasil/pr/cascavel/panorama. Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística.
(2019b). Panorama de Cidades 2019: Pentecoste.
https://cidades.ibge.gov.br/brasil/ce/pentecoste/panorama. Instituto de Pesquisa Econômica Aplicada
(IPEA) (2015). Políticas sociais: Acompanhamento e análise, 23.Ipea. Landini, F.P. (2015). La noción de
psicología rural y sus desafíos en el contexto latinoamericano. In F. P. Landini (Ed.), Hacia una
psicología rural latino-americana (pp. 21- 32). CLACSO. Leite, J.F., Macedo, J.P.S., Dimenstein, M., &
Dantas, C. (2013). A formação em Psicologia para atuação em contextos rurais. In J. F. Leite & M.
Dimenstein (Eds.), Psicologia e contextos rurais (pp. 27-55). EDUFRN. Leite, J.F. (2015). Movimentos
sociais e ruralidades no Brasil. In F. P. Landini (Eds.), Hacia una psicología rural latino-americana (pp.
97-102). CLACSO. Levy, B.S., & Patz, J.A. (2015). Climate change, human rights, and social justice.
Annals of Global Health, 81(3), pp.310–322. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.aogh.2015.08.008 Lustosa, M.G.O.
P. (2012). Reforma agrária à Brasileira: Política social e pobreza. Cortez. Maia, A.G., & Buainain, A.M.
(2015). O novo mapa da população rural brasileira. Confins, 25, 1-26.
https://doi.org/10.4000/confins.10548 Maluf, R., & Mattei, L. (2011). Elementos para construção de uma
agenda de políticas públicas para o enfrentamento da pobreza rural. In C. Miranda, C. & B. Tibúcio.
(Eds.), Pobreza Rural: Concepções, determinantes e proposições para a construção de uma agenda de
políticas públicas (pp. 15-26). IICA. Martín-Baró, I. (1998). Psicología de la Liberación. Editorial
Trotta. Mikulewicz, M. (2018). Politicizing vulnerability and adaptation: On the need to democratize
local responses to climate impacts in developing countries. Climate and Development, 10(1), 18-34.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2017.1304887 Minayo, M.C.S., & Minayo-Gómez, C. (2003). Difíceis e
possíveis relações entre métodos quantitativos e qualitativos nos estudos de problemas de saúde. In P.
Goldenberg, R. M. G. 138 Marsiglia, & M. H. A. Gomes (Eds.), O Clássico e o Novo: Tendências, objetos
e abordagens em ciências sociais e saúde (pp. 117-142). Editora FIOCRUZ. Minayo, M.C.S., Deslandes,
S.F., & Gomes, R. (2010). Pesquisa Social: Teoria, método e criatividade. 29. ed. Vozes. Montaño, C.
(2012). Pobreza, "questão social" e seu enfrentamento. Serviço Social & Sociedade, 110, 270-287.
https://doi.org/10.1590/S0101-66282012000200004 Moura, J.F., Almeida, D.S.A, & Barbosa, V.N.M.
(2019). The stigmatization of poverty as a basis of the class prejudice and its psychological
consequences.