About the Author(s)


Lokuthula Msimanga Email symbol
Department of Chemical and Earth Sciences: Geography and Environmental Science, Faculty of Science and Agriculture, University of Fort Hare, Alice, South Africa

Sonwabo P. Mazinyo symbol
Department of Chemical and Earth Sciences: Geography and Environmental Science, Faculty of Science and Agriculture, University of Fort Hare, Alice, South Africa

Geoffrey Mukwada symbol
Department of Geography, Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences, University of the Free State, Phuthaditjhaba, South Africa

Citation


Msimanga L, Mazinyo SP, Mukwada G. Efficacy of adaptation strategies in alleviating climate change impacts on livelihoods in Thabo Mofutsanyane District, South Africa. J transdiscipl res S Afr. 2026;22(1), a1670. https://doi.org/10.4102/td.v22i1.1670

Original Research

Efficacy of adaptation strategies in alleviating climate change impacts on livelihoods in Thabo Mofutsanyane District, South Africa

Lokuthula Msimanga, Sonwabo P. Mazinyo, Geoffrey Mukwada

Received: 19 Oct. 2025; Accepted: 25 Feb. 2026; Published: 11 June 2026

Copyright: © 2026. The Author(s). Licensee: AOSIS.
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Abstract

Local communities in mountainous regions are increasingly exposed to the impacts of climate variability, threatening household livelihoods and well-being. In response, many households employ a range of strategies to withstand environmental stresses. However, limited evidence exists on how communities in Thabo Mofutsanyane District in the Eastern Free State Region of South Africa evaluate the success of these adaptation efforts. This study investigates the climate adaptation strategies adopted by households in the region and examines local perceptions of their effectiveness. A multistage sampling approach was used to identify 400 households, and data were collected through questionnaires. Quantitative analysis, including descriptive statistics, Chi-square tests and logistic regression, was applied to identify patterns and significant relationships. Households reported a mix of agronomic, livestock-related and socio-economic strategies, including improved soil and water management practices, supplemental livestock feeding and cultivation of climate-tolerant crop and animal varieties. Findings suggest that while these adaptive practices contribute to reducing vulnerability, they remain insufficient without supportive institutional structures. Strengthened extension services, community-based climate initiatives and targeted policy interventions are therefore critical to enhance climate resilience outcomes. These insights offer valuable guidance for policymakers and development practitioners working to strengthen adaptive capacity in rural Southern African contexts.

Transdisciplinary Contribution: This study involves the analysis of climate data, household adaptation strategies, socio-economic analysis and institutional policy to evaluate household-based coping measures for climate change. Through this integration, the study provides a transdisciplinary framework for comprehending and strengthening community resilience in vulnerable mountainous regions.

Keywords: household strategies; mountain communities; Thabo Mofutsanyane district; perceived effectiveness; logistic regression.

Introduction

Global climate change produces lasting consequences for vulnerable nations and communities.1 Climate variability and change influence human livelihoods and natural ecosystems.2 In addition, the largely irreversible nature of these shifts disrupts ecological and biological systems, threatens long-term ecosystem stability and compromises livelihood security and the well-being of both current and future generations.3 Evidence from various studies in developing countries confirms the detrimental effects of climate change on rural livelihoods and socio-economic development.4

Attention to climate change adaptation has grown substantially as the effects of global climatic shifts on household welfare and production systems become more apparent.5 As defined by Piggott-McKellar et al.,6 adaptation refers to adjustments made in response to actual or anticipated climatic impacts. Strengthening adaptation efforts is critical for safeguarding agricultural productivity and rural well-being over time.7 Communities do not respond uniformly to climate stressors; their adaptive approaches are shaped by resource access, cultural context and environmental conditions.2,8

However, many global adaptation assessments remain insufficiently detailed for specific agro-ecological systems and rarely identify measures tailored to context-specific risks.9 Although adaptation strategies play a vital role in addressing both immediate and long-term climate challenges, they are frequently implemented at household or small community levels rather than through broader institutional mechanisms.10

A wide range of climate adaptation studies have examined various livelihood factors such as food security, energy access, income generation and housing. These studies highlight that many local communities employ diverse strategies to protect their livelihoods from climate shocks, including shifting crop types and planting schedules, expanding cultivated areas, intensifying irrigation use, applying soil and water conservation practices and diversifying income sources.11,12,13,14,15,16,17 Yet, with the emergence of new and more extreme climatic events, some traditional coping mechanisms are becoming less effective or sustainable.18 According to Kangalawe,2 adaptation strategies are more successful when they build on existing livelihood systems.

Scholars such as Dilling et al.19 argue that the emphasis should shift towards building capabilities that enable communities to respond effectively to climate risks rather than solely debating the concept of adaptation. Similarly,18 notes that although much research has examined how communities adapt, fewer studies have critically evaluated the effectiveness of these strategies in specific regions. Because livelihood outcomes depend on multiple dynamic variables, they differ across households and locations. As20 explains, earlier studies often attempted to generalise coping strategies instead of recognising variations across agro-ecological zones, villages and household types. Identifying these diverse responses is crucial for designing context-appropriate mitigation and adaptation policies.21 As demonstrated in the author’s previous thesis, adaptation dynamics in rural Southern African communities reflect complex interactions between resource access, institutional support and environmental pressures.22

To investigate the adaptive capacity of household farmers, it is essential to consider local and socio-economic contexts.23 Furthermore, while household-level drivers of climate resilience vary, they remain inadequately documented in developing countries.24 Mpandeli et al.23 insist that while general adaptation strategies exist, it is necessary to evaluate their efficacy in the context of the individual household, village and community. Despite this, studies on livelihood adaptation strategies at the household level are still limited.24

Moreover, the factors affecting farmers’ selection of adaptation measures, particularly their socio-economic backgrounds, have not been deeply explored.25 Previous studies highlight that farmers’ willingness to adopt certain strategies is largely determined by their capacity, which is shaped by socio-economic factors and institutional support.26,27 While adaptation options typically emphasise technical skills and technologies, they often neglect crucial social dimensions that significantly impact the adoption and effective implementation of new adaptation measures.25 This study seeks to fill this research gap by examining the factors affecting farmers’ adaptation choices in a mountainous region of South Africa.

Adaptation success can be assessed by identifying, at the local level, what has to be adapted to, as well as who must adapt.28 Assessing the effectiveness of adaptation measures is challenging because of the fragmented nature of adaptation processes and the long time horizons over which their impacts unfold.19 Moreover, there is no universal consensus on what constitutes effective adaptation in practice,29 as adaptive responses are shaped by context-specific factors such as political dynamics, financial resources, social motivation, power structures and cultural norms.30

As noted by Owen,29 evaluating the outcomes and implications of climate adaptation is a critical but often overlooked component. Variations in how risk is understood and whether or how it should be mitigated can influence perceptions of adaptation success.19 Consequently, determining the effectiveness and long-term sustainability of community-level adaptation strategies under changing climatic conditions remains uncertain. Significantly, few studies have examined the efficacy of adaptation methods employed by communities in mountainous environments, particularly in the Eastern Free State Region (EFSR) of South Africa. Hence, the primary objective of this study is to identify the most preferred adaptation strategies adopted by the local communities in the EFSR (also referred to as the Thabo Mofutsanyane District Municipality) and the extent to which these strategies are perceived to be effective in building resilient mountain communities. In addition, the study seeks to examine how socio-demographic and perceived environmental factors influence the adoption of these strategies, thereby uncovering key drivers of adaptive behaviour across diverse households.

This study adopts a transdisciplinary approach by integrating socio-economic information and household-level adaptation narratives to co-produce knowledge relevant to both policy and practice. The results of this research, based on the Thabo Mofutsanyane District, could provide valuable suggestions for designing and implementing mountain-specific adaptation plans and evaluating their effectiveness. This paper builds on prior work by introducing new statistical analyses to examine the relationships between socio-demographic variables, climate perceptions and the adoption of adaptation strategies. Unlike earlier studies that focused on perceived effectiveness, these analyses investigate the underlying factors influencing adaptation decisions at the household level.

Methodology

Study area

This study was undertaken in the Thabo Mofutsanyane District in the EFSR of South Africa. The district covers six local municipalities: Setsoto, Dihlabeng, Nketoana, Maluti-a-Phofung (M-a-P), Phumelela and Mantsopa (Figure 1).22 Four municipalities – M-a-P, Phumelela, Mantsopa and Setsoto – were selected. The EFSR is one of the most agriculturally productive regions of South Africa.31,32 The eastern part of the region receives relatively higher rainfall,33 making it more suitable for rain-fed agriculture.34 Thabo Mofutsanyane District, which has the highest rural population in the Free State province (59.8%), was selected for this study in part because of its population density. Additionally, the EFSR was chosen because of its complex geography, which includes significant altitudinal variation and a variety of settlement types. Rural settlements are typically located on the outskirts of small towns, which serve as hubs connecting agricultural lands and surrounding villages.22 In recent years, the region has experienced pronounced climate variability, including fluctuating and intense rainfall events, rising temperatures and severe droughts.33,35,36,37 Studies have pointed out that, besides shifting climatic trends, climate change has affected agriculture and socio-economic systems.26,38,39 According to Moeletsi and Walker,34 the eastern part of the province receives 500 mm – 600 mm of rainfall, while the western and southern parts receive below 400 mm. The average daily maximum temperatures in the region vary from 20°C to 22°C, while minimum temperatures range from 5°C to −1°C.32

FIGURE 1: Location of the Thabo Mofutsanyane District.

The environmental conditions in the Eastern Free State Region
Elevation

The EFSR is characterised by mountainous terrain, with rainfall, temperature and the occurrence of natural hazards varying according to elevation. According to Mbiriri et al.33 this region exhibits complex terrain and thus offers a convenient case for comparing the impact of climatic events between different altitudes. These altitude variations provide an opportunity to examine diversity in household activities, attitudes towards climate change and household adaptation strategies across elevation zones. For the purpose of this study, the district was divided into two elevation zones: the lower zone (1364 m – 1726 m above sea level [masl]) and the higher zone (1727 masl – 3277 masl;40). Figure 2 shows the two elevation zones of the Thabo Mofutsanyane District.

FIGURE 2: Relief of the Thabo Mofutsanyane District showing elevation zones, location of sampled towns and sampled households.

Data collection

This study employed a mixed-methods approach, combining quantitative and qualitative techniques through semi-structured questionnaires and interviews. The questionnaires collected information on household perceptions of climate change impacts and the adaptation strategies they employ. To evaluate adaptation measures that were implemented by the households, respondents commented on whether the strategies were effective for them and cited evidence. Heads of households were interviewed or, if unavailable, the next senior member participated. Formal interviews were conducted with two veterinary officers, the Disaster Management Officer from M-a-P Local Municipality and the Environmental Management Officer at the Thabo Mofutsanyane District. Insights from these interviews were used to corroborate the data obtained from the questionnaire survey. By combining interviews with local officials and surveys from community members, the study was able to triangulate its findings effectively.

Sampling design

A proportional sampling method was applied to calculate the sample size based on the proportion of the number of households in the local municipality. Detailed calculations and sample allocations are presented in Table 1.40 A multi-stage sampling approach guided site selection. First of all, the study area was divided into low and high elevation zones using natural breaks classification in ArcMap 10.7 (Figure 2), with elevations ranging from 1364 masl to 3277 masl. Setsoto, Nketoana and Mantsopa fell under the low elevation zone (1364 masl – 1668 masl), while M-a-P, Phumelela and Dihlabeng were classified as high elevation (1669 masl – 3277 masl). Municipalities were then ranked by population size within each elevation zone using the 2016 Community Survey data. From the low elevation group (Setsoto, Mantsopa and Nketoana), Setsoto (15%) and Mantsopa (7%) were selected, while from the high elevation group (M-a-P, Phumelela and Dihlabeng), M-a-P (45%) and Phumelela (7%) were selected. Stratified sampling was applied across settlements to capture both urban areas and their surrounding rural environments. Within each selected settlement, households were chosen through random sampling.

TABLE 1: Chi-square results: adaptation strategies versus explanatory variables.
Data analysis

Household responses were coded and analysed using descriptive statistics (frequencies and percentages), cross-tabulation, Chi-square tests and logistic regression. The Chi-square test assessed significant distinctions in the adoption of climate adaptation measures across different sampled towns, settlement types and elevation zones. Logistic regression was employed to identify significant predictors of perceived effectiveness for key adaptation measures, including soil management, water strategies, supplementary feeds and drought-resistant livestock and different seed varieties. This model helped to determine which spatial, demographic (such as household size, education level, age of respondent, source of water, duration of residence, elevation and settlement) and perceived climate-related factors influenced household perceptions of strategy relevance and success. Key informant data were narrated and interpreted into different emerging themes based on the transcripts of interviews.

Ethical considerations

Prior to the start of the study, ethical clearance was obtained from the University of the Free State General and Human Research Ethics Committee (GHREC; ethical clearance number: UFS-HSD2020/1277/0709).

Results and discussion

This section examines the adaptation strategies employed by communities across various settlement types and elevation zones within the Thabo Mofutsanyane District Municipality. The results highlight how household characteristics, perceived climate stressors and resource accessibility influence both the adoption and perceived effectiveness of local adaptation strategies across the sampled rural communities.

Adaptation strategies in response to climate change
Water management strategies

More than half of the respondents across the sampled sites identified water management strategies as key components of climate change adaptation, including 21 respondents (55%) from Ladybrand, 42 (52%) from Marquard, 155 (59%) from Phuthaditjhaba and 20 (63%) from Vrede. According to the results from the Chi-square test (Table 1), there was no statistically significant association (χ2 = 3.398, p = 0.334) between town and the adoption of water strategies. This might indicate that water conservation is broadly relevant and uniformly practised across the district (Table 1). However, further analysis showed that households with more diverse water sources were significantly more likely to adopt water strategies (χ2 = 31.723, p = 0.001), highlighting the role of infrastructure access in enabling adaptation. This aligns with findings by,41 who reported that in South African residential areas, households with access to multiple water sources were more likely to adopt water conservation practices. As indicated in Table 1, adoption of water management strategies varied significantly by household size (χ2 = 16.179, p = 0.003). This contrasts with findings from Muthelo et al. (2019), where household size was not a significant determinant of water adaptation measures in Thaba ’Nchu, Free State province, South Africa.42

Perceived climate stress also played a critical role, as households reporting reduced water availability because of climate change (χ2 = 103.285, p = 0.001), increased maximum temperatures (χ2 = 16.568, p = 0.001) and drought events (χ2 = 32.466, p = 0.001) were more likely to implement water conservation measures. Fanteso43 and Prins et al.44 reported that perceived water scarcity has led households to adopt a combination of traditional water conservation methods influenced by local knowledge and perceived risk. Zhou et al.45 maintain that drought experience is a major driver of adaptive behaviour in smallholder systems. Fanteso43 found that rural communities in the Eastern Cape Province, facing temperature extremes and unreliable water access, relied on a mixture of traditional conservation methods often shaped by local knowledge and perceived risk. Water conservation strategies are required in response to persistent drought and unreliable supply systems.46

Informal support networks also contributed, with significant associations between water management measures and social assistance (χ2 = 11.584, p = 0.003), suggesting that community ties help buffer water-related stress. Nthabeleng47 emphasised the role of social assets in facilitating household-level water harvesting and adaptation responses. Households that have resided in the area for a longer period (χ2 = 29.976, p = 0.001) are more likely to implement water conservation measures, indicating that experience with water scarcity, environmental awareness and familiarity with coping strategies influence this behaviour. Ofoegbu et al.48 support this observation, showing that longer-term residents are more likely to engage in climate-related adaptation measures.

Crop management strategies

To mitigate climate-related impacts on crop production, households across the Thabo Mofutsanyane District Municipality adopted commonly used local crop management strategies, particularly crop diversification and the use of drought- or frost-resistant seed varieties. Crop diversification was practised by 74% of respondents in Ladybrand, 71% in Phuthaditjhaba, 70% in Marquard and 60% in Vrede, with significant town-level variation (χ2 = 16.954, p = 0.001). Crop diversification was significantly associated with education (χ2 = 12.807, p = 0.025), household size (χ2 = 13.602, p = 0.009), number of water sources accessed (χ2 = 9.159, p = 0.027) and perceived increases in maximum temperature (χ2 = 16.618, p = 0.001). These findings are consistent with Vilakazi et al.,49 who found that education level, household size and irrigation access significantly influenced diversification decisions among smallholder farmers in Bergville, South Africa. These findings suggest that both demographic factors and climate awareness influence diversification, while the lack of association with age or duration of residence indicates that the strategy is adopted across generational and tenure lines. A significant association was observed between the use of crop diversification (χ2 = 6.911, p = 0.009) and perceived water stress. This may suggest that households experiencing water scarcity opt for more water-efficient or commercially viable crops rather than diversifying broadly.

The use of drought- or frost-resistant seed varieties showed similarly strong spatial disparities (χ2 = 20.093, p = 0.001), with the highest uptake in Phuthaditjhaba (38%), followed by Ladybrand (35%) and Vrede (30%) and the lowest in Marquard (10%). The adoption of these varieties was significantly associated with, number of water sources (χ2 = 32.060, p = 0.001), drought perception (χ2 = 5.026, p = 0.025), water availability perception (χ2 = 9.184, p = 0.002) and perceived increases in maximum temperature (χ2 = 19.301, p = 0.001), reinforcing findings by Olabanji and Chitakira,50 who emphasised that climate-smart agriculture uptake is shaped by both resource access and institutional support. This suggests that households anticipating reduced rainfall or erratic weather are more inclined to adjust crop varieties in order to increase resilience. These results indicate that households with better resource access and climate awareness are more likely to invest in resilient seed varieties. These results align with Myeni and Moeletsi,51 who found that education and climate stress perception significantly influenced adoption of improved seed varieties in M-a-P, EFSR, South Africa. The low uptake in Marquard may reflect limited availability, institutional support gaps or entrenched cropping practices. A significant association was observed between seed adoption and duration of residence (χ2 = 24.678, p = 0.001). Long-term residents were more likely to adopt drought- or frost-resistant seed varieties, possibly because of deeper engagement with agricultural extension services or greater exposure to climate variability. Strengthening awareness alone may not be sufficient; enabling conditions such as access to inputs, technical support and institutional responsiveness are essential to translate household perception into action.

Soil management strategies

Adopted soil management strategies varied significantly across towns, with Ladybrand (61%) and Phuthaditjhaba (48%) reporting higher adoption than Marquard (28%) and Vrede (30%; χ2 = 29.478, p = 0.001). Soil management strategies were significantly associated with several household-level factors: age of respondents (χ2 = 10.510, p = 0.033), household size (χ2 = 12.266, p = 0.015) and duration of residence (χ2 = 15.393, p = 0.004), suggesting that experience, labour capacity and community embeddedness enhance adaptive behaviour. These findings support findings from earlier studies by Bahta and Myeki,52 who found that tenure and age significantly influence drought resilience and soil conservation uptake among smallholder farmers in the Northern Cape. Access to multiple water sources also played a critical role (χ2 = 64.761, p = 0.001), enabling practices such as composting and irrigation. This is supported by Kalumba et al.,53 who emphasise that water infrastructure access is a key enabler of soil and water conservation practices in rural South Africa. Climate change perceptions further influenced uptake, as households reporting increased maximum temperatures (χ2 = 19.277, p = 0.001) and perceived water stress (χ2 = 6.017, p = 0.014) were more likely to adopt soil conservation measures. Zenda and Rudolph54 note that perceived climate stress often prompts smallholder farmers to adopt mulching, organic inputs and erosion control practices to buffer crops against seasonal extremes. Marginal associations with education (χ2 = 10.646, p = 0.059) suggest that awareness and knowledge may also contribute, though less decisively.

Overall, these findings highlight the interplay between ecological stress, resource access and demographic factors in shaping soil-related adaptation. Households perceiving water scarcity may be more inclined to conserve soil moisture and fertility through organic inputs and mulching.

Livestock management strategies

Households across the Thabo Mofutsanyane District Municipality employed a range of strategies to manage climate-related uncertainties in livestock farming. Supplementary feeding was reported by 56% of respondents in Ladybrand, 47% in Phuthaditjhaba, 42% in Marquard and 36% in Vrede. Although the implementation of supplementary feeds varied, town-level differences were not statistically significant (χ2 = 7.314, p = 0.063).

However, the adoption of supplementary feeds was significantly associated with several household-level factors, including education (χ2 = 19.761, p = 0.001), age (χ2 = 11.894, p = 0.018), number of water sources accessed (χ2 = 22.251, p = 0.001) and duration of residence (χ2 = 10.298, p = 0.030). These findings are consistent with Cooke et al.,55 who highlight that education and experience shape feed supplementation decisions, especially under seasonal stress. The implementation of supplementary feeds was significantly associated with perceived water availability (χ2 = 5.683, p = 0.017), reflecting the need to compensate for reduced pasture or fodder availability during dry spells.

The adoption of drought-resistant livestock breeds was highest in Ladybrand (50%), followed by Phuthaditjhaba (37%), Marquard (30%) and Vrede (18%). While town-level differences were not statistically significant (χ2 = 5.762, p = 0.124), factors such as education (χ2 = 11.534, p = 0.042), age (χ2 = 11.083, p = 0.026), duration of residence (χ2 = 10.718, p = 0.030) and perceived water stress (χ2 = 6.753, p = 0.009) were significantly associated with breed adoption. These results are in agreement with earlier research by Bahta et al.,56 indicating that experiential and demographic factors drive adoption more than geographical ones. Households anticipating water stress favour resilient livestock breeds. Mapiye et al.57 highlight that indigenous cattle breeds such as Nguni and Mashona are crucial for smallholder farmers facing climate stress, particularly in low-input systems characterised by water scarcity and heat tolerance. The lower adoption in Vrede and Marquard may be attributed to financial barriers, limited access to improved breeds or differing drought risk perceptions.58,59

Formal support

Formal support mechanisms, primarily government-issued grants, were widely reported across the district, with the highest uptake in Vrede (64%) and Marquard (59%), followed by Phuthaditjhaba (45%) and Ladybrand (39%). A Chi-square test revealed no significant association between town and formal support uptake (χ2 = 3.374, p = 0.338), suggesting uniform access. However, formal support adoption was significantly associated with education (χ2 = 37.613, p = 0.001), age (χ2 = 67.112, p = 0.001), number of water sources accessed (χ2 = 31.737, p = 0.001) and duration of residence (χ2 = 23.796, p = 0.001), suggesting that institutional engagement is shaped by demographic characteristics and resource access. These findings support earlier work, for instance60 and,61 highlighting the influence of demographic factors and climate perceptions on institutional engagement in South African settlements. Long-term residents may have stronger administrative ties or greater awareness of available services, which facilitate access. Additionally, perceived changes in precipitation were significantly linked to formal support (χ2 = 6.401, p = 0.041), indicating that rainfall-related stress may prompt households to seek institutional assistance. In contrast, perceived increases in maximum temperatures showed no significant association, suggesting that formal support may be less responsive to heat-related impacts.

Informal support from friends and relatives

Informal support networks were crucial for household-level adaptation to climate change across the Thabo Mofutsanyane District Municipality, as indicated by various forms of assistance, including temporary employment, shared labour, financial assistance and the provision of essential resources. Adoption rates were highest in Vrede (50%) and Phuthaditjhaba (47%), followed by Ladybrand (42%) and Marquard (30%; χ2 = 7.517, p = 0.057), indicating potential town-level variation. Statistical analysis indicated a significant association with water access (χ2 = 21.628, p = 0.001) and perceived rising temperatures (χ2 = 11.584, p = 0.003), suggesting these social networks help mitigate heat-related stress and resource shortages. Marginal associations with education (χ2 = 10.083, p = 0.073) and perceived water stress (χ2 = 3.262, p = 0.071) suggest that access to resources and climate perceptions influence the role of informal support networks. Such community-based strategies enhance social cohesion and cooperation within households, aligning with findings from Ofoegbu et al.62 regarding the importance of these networks in rural South Africa for managing climate-related livelihood shocks. However, respondents acknowledged that such networks may be challenged during widespread climate shocks such as droughts or floods, when many households face simultaneous hardships, thus revealing both the strengths and limitations of informal systems in building climate resilience.

Popularity of climate change adaptation strategies according to elevation zone

Figure 3 presents the results of climate change adaptation strategies adopted by the respondents in the high elevation zone (Phuthaditjhaba and Vrede) and the low elevation zone (Ladybrand and Marquard). The questionnaire survey conducted across the two elevation zones highlighted both similarities and variations in the adaptation measures adopted by local households. The results indicated that certain strategies differed between respondents living in the high elevation zone and those in the low elevation zone. A Chi-square test (Table 2) revealed that elevation was significantly associated with several key strategies. Households in higher elevation zones were more likely to adopt frost- or drought-resistant seed varieties (χ2 = 5.790, p = 0.016), purchase supplementary livestock feeds (χ2 = 7.369, p = 0.007), utilise drought-resistant livestock breeds (χ2 = 3.994, p = 0.046) and rely on informal support from friends and relatives (χ2 = 6.737, p = 0.009).

FIGURE 3: Percentages reflecting the popularity of climate change adaptation strategies according to (a) settlement and (b) elevation.

TABLE 2: Chi-square associations between household adaptation strategies and settlement type and elevation.

This indicates that households in the two elevation zones experienced differences in crop yield reductions, livestock health and feed availability, as well as variations in their social networks and connections with family and friends.

These findings corroborate results from research by Gbetibouo and Ringler,63 which demonstrate that elevation influences both exposure and adaptive capacity within South African farming systems. Rankoana.64 highlights that smallholder farmers in elevated areas face greater challenges in maintaining crop productivity because of erratic rainfall and temperature extremes. In contrast, no significant associations were found between elevation and other adaptation measures, including water management strategies (χ2 = 3.265, p = 0.071), soil management strategies (χ2 = 0.179, p = 0.673), crop diversification (χ2= 0.001, p = 0.970) and access to formal assistance (χ2 = 0.403, p = 0.525). This might indicate that some responses, particularly those related to land use and institutional support, may be uniformly distributed or shaped more by policy and service delivery than by geographic elevation. Differences in crop yield vulnerability, livestock health and feed availability may be more pronounced in higher elevation areas, prompting more targeted strategies. Similarly, differences in informal support may reflect differences in community cohesion or proximity to family networks. Overall, the results underscore the need for adaptation interventions tailored to local topography, recognising that elevation can shape both exposure and resilience pathways.

Perceived climate change adaptation strategies according to settlement type

The findings of this study highlighted variations in the adoption of adaptation measures between urban and rural households (Figure 3). The study had anticipated that adaptation strategies would differ between urban and rural communities within the study area. The Chi-square test confirmed that settlement type was strongly associated with a wide range of adaptation measures, with more rural households inclined to adopt drought-resistant livestock (χ2 = 21.260, p = 0.001), supplementary feeding (χ2 = 17.152, p = 0.001) and seed variety changes (χ2 = 27.173, p = 0.001). The analysis also revealed a strong association for soil management strategies (χ2 = 14.311, p = 0.001), crop diversification (χ2 = 10.522, p = 0.001) and water conservation practices (χ2 = 8.033, p = 0.005), with rural respondents reporting higher uptake. This disparity likely arises from the greater vulnerability of rural livelihoods to climate events because of their dependence on natural resources. These findings are consistent with Zhou et al.,45 who found that rural households in South Africa experience higher sensitivity and adaptive responses to environmental changes because of their dependence on natural resources and limited infrastructure.

Furthermore, rural respondents received more formal (n = 115, 62%) and more informal support (n = 77, 41%) compared to respondents in urban areas: 56 (26%) for formal support and 46 (21%) for informal support.

According to Chi-square results, access to formal assistance (χ2 = 51.702, p = 0.001) and informal support from relatives and neighbours (χ2 = 8.117, p = 0.004) both varied significantly across settlement types. These patterns reflect the findings of Botai et al.,61 who observed that rural communities are more likely to engage with both formal and informal support systems in response to rainfall variability and drought stress. This aligns with PLAAS,65 who argue that rural communities face compounded vulnerabilities because of both institutional gaps and limited access to technical support, underscoring the need for adaptation support tailored to specific settlement contexts, as emphasised by Gbetibouo and Ringler.63

Perceived effectiveness of adaptation measures to climate change in the Eastern Free State Region

A considerable proportion of participants (90.5%, n = 362) implemented different adaptation strategies to combat climate change impacts, with 304 (84%) reporting that some of the adaptation measures worked effectively for them. The positive evaluations came from Ladybrand,32 Marquard,62 Vrede22 and Phuthaditjhaba (188), where the sourcing of supplementary feeds, soil management, adoption of drought-resistant livestock, the use of different seed varieties and water management were the most effective. Owen29 argues that the challenge in evaluating adaptation strategies is that climate change operates over longer periods, with local assessments typically reliant on perceived outcomes over the last 5–10 years. Owen29 argues that evaluating adaptation effectiveness is challenging because of the long timescales of climate change, and local assessments often rely on perceived outcomes over 5–10 years.

Among the 238 households that reported adapting to reduced water quantity and quality, 105 (44%) indicated that they employed various water management strategies to cope. The effectiveness of these strategies was influenced by factors such as access, affordability and local implementation quality, as shown by Barnard et al.66 The perceived effectiveness of these strategies differed across local communities, depending on their livelihood activities, the climate events they experienced and the specific measures implemented to mitigate impacts.22 Logistic regression analysis (Table 3) revealed that household perceptions of water strategy effectiveness were significantly affected by spatial and climate-related factors, with rural and urban respondents less likely to view these strategies as effective (B = –0.872, p = 0.003), suggesting potential disparities in access and institutional support. Households perceiving reductions in water availability were over five times more likely to view water strategies as effective (B = 1.690, p = 0.001), highlighting the impact of direct climate stress on adaptive strategies. Drought perception positively influenced effectiveness perceptions (B = 0.959, p = 0.025), underscoring the connection between climate awareness and strategy relevance. Marginal effects related to elevation (B = 0.584, p = 0.058) and perceived increases in Tmax (B = 0.355, p = 0.059) suggested that geographic and heat-related stressors could shape perceptions. These findings concur with Adom and Simatele,67 who highlighted that water strategy perceptions are shaped more by direct climate stress than demographic factors such as age, education, household size and duration of residence, which were not significant in affecting perceived effectiveness.

TABLE 3: Logistic regression results for perceived effectiveness of adaptation strategies.

Analysis of the questionnaire data indicated that the majority of respondents considered crop- and livestock-related adaptation measures to be effective. In particular, 49 respondents (65%) reported improvements in livestock health because of the provision of supplementary water and feed. Approaches such as using harvested grass (hay), crop residues and additional feed proved effective for addressing fodder shortages, with some farmers noting that mixed livestock feeds were more economical than pre-mixed options. The logistic regression results revealed that households in certain settlement types were significantly more likely to perceive supplementary feeds as effective (B = 1.274, p = 0.005, Exp[B] = 3.577), while those at higher elevations showed a reduced perception (B = –1.524, p = 0.001, Exp[B] = 0.218). Access to diverse water sources (B = 0.547, p = 0.016, Exp[B] = 1.729) positively impacted perceptions of feed supplementation effectiveness, highlighting the significance of resource availability. Consistent with Bahta et al.,56 the study suggests geography, water access and institutional support shape livestock adaptation perceptions.

In addition, introducing drought-resistant livestock31 55% also enhanced livestock health, with spatial and resource factors heavily influencing perceptions of the effectiveness of drought-resistant livestock. Settlement type was a crucial predictor of this view (B = 1.931, p = 0.001, Exp[B] = 6.898), whereas households with limited reliable water sources were less likely to perceive this strategy as effective (B = –0.814, p = 0.016). Long-term residents showed a stronger predictive association (B = –0.475, p = 0.005), further supporting findings by Kom et al.68 on the impact of water access, tenure and climate perceptions on livestock adaptation choices.

Concerning crop farming strategies, 64 respondents (58%) indicated that soil management practices, including mulching and the use of organic and inorganic fertilisers, were effective in improving crop yields. The logistic regression analysis indicated that household size and water source diversity were the only statistically significant predictors of the perceived effectiveness of these strategies. Specifically, larger households were 1.4 times more likely to perceive soil strategies as effective (B = 0.355, p = 0.023), possibly because of enhanced labour capacity and shared responsibilities. Similarly, households with more diverse water sources were 1.6 times more likely to view soil strategies as effective (B = 0.482, p = 0.012), suggesting that broader resource access may enhance confidence in land-based interventions. van Antwerpen et al.69 emphasise that labour capacity and water access improve soil management interventions. While settlement type showed some variation (B = 0.514, p = 0.147), the effect was not statistically strong. Other variables, including elevation, education level, age, duration of residence and perceptions of precipitation, temperature changes, drought and water availability were not significant, pointing to the importance of experiential and infrastructural factors over demographic or climate perception variables in shaping views on soil strategy effectiveness.

Forty (50%) respondents acknowledged the benefits of drought- or frost-resistant seed varieties, citing improved crop yields and resilience under variable conditions. However, logistic regression analysis revealed limited predictors for perceived effectiveness in this area, with settlement type showing a significant factor (B = 0.907, p = 0.030, Exp[B] = 2.477), indicating that some households were approximately 2.5 times more likely to perceive seed strategies as effective. Precipitation perception showed a marginal effect (B = 0.516, p = 0.055), suggesting that rainfall variability may influence strategic evaluations. The findings mirror those of Myeni and Moeletsi,51 who found that the success of seed variety adoption is more influenced by local contexts and institutional support than by demographic variables. Other variables such as elevation, household size, education, age, water source, duration of residence and perceptions of temperature changes, drought and water availability were not statistically significant.

Conclusion

The study examined the adaptation strategies implemented by communities in the Thabo Mofutsanyane District Municipality, assessed their effectiveness in building resilience in mountain areas and used statistical analysis to identify the demographic and perceived environmental factors influencing these measures.

Respondents adopted various measures, including livestock and crop management, water and soil management and crop diversification, with some reporting these adaptation measures as effective in reducing climate change impacts. Other adaptation measures reported by households included both formal and informal support mechanisms, as well as on- and off-farm diversification strategies. However, 16% of respondents indicated that some measures were ineffective, potentially because of socio-cultural, economic or institutional constraints. Results from the logistic regression analysis showed that household size, access to water sources, settlement types and perceived climate stressors were significant predictors of perceived adaptation effectiveness. Understanding these factors is crucial for future adaptation efforts and policies that guide local community decisions to adopt successful adaptation measures. However, institutional challenges remain a concern. Officials from the Disaster Management Office and the National Department of the Environment reported that more than 6 years have passed since the Climate Change Response Plan was developed, yet it has not been implemented or evaluated. This delay underscores the disconnect between policy design and its practical execution, which can hinder the effectiveness of adaptation strategies at the community level.

Study limitations

This study has some limitations, as household attitudes were assessed solely through self-reported responses. Actual agricultural production records for crops and livestock were not examined to validate respondents’ claims, and households engaged in backyard gardening did not maintain records of crop yields. Consequently, perceptions of the effectiveness of adaptation measures may be biased, and reported behaviours may not fully reflect actual practices. Additionally, the limited adoption of strategies such as cultivating drought- or frost-tolerant crops in areas like Marquard may stem from insufficient knowledge or lack of resources to implement these measures at the household level.

Acknowledgements

This article includes content that overlaps with research originally conducted as part of Lokuthula Msimanga’s doctoral thesis titled ‘Dynamism of rural mountain livelihoods under a changing climate: The case of the Eastern Free State Region of South Africa’, submitted to the Department of Geography, University of the Free State, in 2023. The thesis was supervised by Professor Geoffrey Mukwada. Portions of the data, analysis and/or discussion have been revised, updated and adapted for journal publication. The original thesis is publicly available at: https://scholar.ufs.ac.za/server/api/core/bitstreams/59e0e6a4-5dfb-4cd1-b480-baf4e819e7f0/content. The author affirms that this submission complies with ethical standards for secondary publication and appropriate acknowledgement has been made of the original work.

This article is based on data from a larger study. Three other articles were published from the same thesis. The first article, focusing on an assessment of the perceptions of local communities in the Eastern Free State Region of South Africa regarding the impacts of climate change on livelihoods, has been published in Transactions of the Royal Society of South Africa, Volume 79. The second related article, focusing on themes in climate change and variability within the context of rural livelihoods: a systematic literature review, has been published in Research in Globalization, Volume 5. The last related article, focusing on examining spatiotemporal trends of temperature and precipitation and households’ perceptions of climate change in the Eastern Free State Region of South Africa, has been published in Advances in Meteorology, Volume 2025.

The authors are grateful for the support provided by the officials and local communities of Thabo Mofutsanyane District in the Eastern Free State Region.

Competing interests

The authors reported that they received funding from the National Research Foundation (NRF), which may be affected by the research reported in this publication. The authors have disclosed those interests fully and have implemented an approved plan for managing any potential conflicts arising from their involvement. The terms of these funding arrangements have been reviewed and approved by the affiliated university in accordance with its policy on objectivity in research.

CRediT authorship contribution

Lokuthula Msimanga: Conceptualisation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Software, Writing – original draft. Sonwabo P. Mazinyo: Resources, Supervision, Writing – review & editing. Geoffrey Mukwada: Conceptualisation, Funding acquisition, Resources, Supervision, Writing – review & editing. All authors reviewed the article, contributed to the discussion of results, approved the final version for submission and publication and take responsibility for the integrity of its findings.

Ethical considerations

Ethical clearance to conduct this study was obtained from the University of the Free State General and Human Research Ethics Committee (GHREC; No. UFS-HSD2020/1277/0709).

Funding information

This work was supported by the National Research Foundation (NRF).

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, Lokuthula Msimanga, upon reasonable request.

Disclaimer

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and are the product of professional research. They do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated institution, funder, agency or that of the publisher. The authors are responsible for the results, findings and content of this article.

References

  1. Mechler R, Singh C, Ebi K, et al. Loss and damage and limits to adaptation: Recent IPCC insights and implications for climate science and policy. Sustain Sci. 2020;15(4):1245–1251. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-020-00807-9
  2. Kangalawe RYMM. Climate change impacts on water resource management and community livelihoods in the southern highlands of Tanzania. Clim Dev. 2017;9(3):191–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2016.1139487
  3. Clarke T, Mcnamara KE, Clissold R, Nunn PD. Community-based adaptation to climate change: Lessons from Tanna Island, Vanuatu. Isl Stud J. 2019;14(1):59–80. https://doi.org/10.24043/isj.80
  4. Dube T, Moyo P, Ncube M, Nyathi D. The impact of climate change on agro-ecological based livelihoods in Africa: A review. J Sustain Dev. 2016;9(1):256–267. https://doi.org/10.5539/jsd.v9n1p256
  5. Karki S, Burton P, Mackey B. Climate change adaptation by subsistence and smallholder farmers: Insights from three agro- ecological regions of Nepal climate change adaptation by subsistence and smallholder farmers: Insights from three agro-ecological regions of Nepal. Cogent Soc Sci. 2020;6(1):1720555. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2020.1720555
  6. Piggott-McKellar AE, McNamara KE, Nunn PD, Watson JEM. What are the barriers to successful community-based climate change adaptation? A review of grey literature. Local Environ. 2019;24(4):374–390. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2019.1580688
  7. Talanow K, Topp EN, Loos J, Martín-López B. Farmers’ perceptions of climate change and adaptation strategies in South Africa’s Western Cape. J Rural Stud. 2020;81:203–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2020.10.026
  8. Maharjan SK. Stocktaking of local adaptation plans and initiatives in the changing political context in Nepal. Environ Dev Sustain. 2020;23:3199–3217. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-00713-1
  9. Brown PR, Tuan V Van, Nhan DK, Dung LC, Ward J. Influence of livelihoods on climate change adaptation for smallholder farmers in the Mekong Delta Vietnam. Int J Agric Sustain. 2018;16(3):255–271. https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2018.1472858
  10. Adzawla W, Kane A. Gender perspectives of the determinants of climate adaptation: The case of livelihood diversification in Northern Ghana. Rev Agric Appl Econ. 2018;XXI(2):113–127. https://doi.org/10.15414/raae.2018.21.02.113-127
  11. Ombogoh DB, Tanui J, McMullin S, Muriuki J, Mowo J. Enhancing adaptation to climate variability in the East African highlands: A case for fostering collective action among smallholder farmers in Kenya and Uganda. Clim Dev. 2018;10(1):61–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2016.1174665
  12. Currenti R, Pearce T, Salabogi T, et al. Adaptation to climate change in an interior Pacific Island village: A case study of Nawairuku, Ra, Fiji. Hum Ecol. 2019;47(1):65–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-019-0049-8
  13. Mabuku MP, Senzanje A, Mudhara M, Jewitt GPW, Mulwafu WO. Strategies for coping and adapting to fl ooding and their determinants: A comparative study of cases from Namibia and Zambia. Phys Chem Earth. 2019;111:20–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pce.2018.12.009
  14. Abebe G. Dealing with climate change and other stressors: Small-scale coffee farmers in the Fero-two Peasant Association in the Wensho district, southern Ethiopia. GeoJournal. 2020;86:2539–2554. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-020-10210-7
  15. Amfo B, Ali EB. Climate change coping and adaptation strategies: How do cocoa farmers in Ghana diversify farm income? For Policy Econ. 2020;119:102265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102265
  16. Aryal JP, Sapkota TB, Rahut DB, et al. Major climate risks and adaptation strategies of smallholder farmers in coastal Bangladesh. Environ Manage. 2020;66(1):105. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-020-01291-8
  17. Saalu FN, Oriaso S, Gyampoh B. Effects of a changing climate on livelihoods of forest dependent communities: Evidence from Buyangu community proximal to Kakamega tropical rain forest in Kenya. Int J Clim Chang Strateg Manag. 2020;12(1):1–21. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCCSM-01-2018-0002
  18. Nembilwi N, Chikoore H, Kori E, Munyai RB, Manyanya TC. The occurrence of drought in Mopani District Municipality, South Africa: Impacts, vulnerability and adaptation. Climate. 2021;9:1–18. https://doi.org/10.3390/cli9040061
  19. Dilling L, Prakash A, Zommers Z, et al. Is adaptation success a flawed concept? Nat Clim Chang. 2019;9:572–574. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-019-0539-0
  20. Aniah P, Kaunza-nu-dem MK, Ayembilla JA. Smallholder farmers’ livelihood adaptation to climate variability and ecological changes in the savanna agro ecological zone of Ghana. Heliyon. 2019;5(4):e01492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e01492
  21. Dhungana N, Khadka C, Bhatta B, Regmi S. Barriers in local climate change adaptation planning in Nepal. J Law Policy Glob. 2017;62:20–24.
  22. Msimanga L. Dynamism of rural mountain livelihoods under a changing climate: the case of the Eastern Free State region of South Africa [PhD thesis]. Bloemfontein, South Africa: University of the Free State; 2023.
  23. Mpandeli S, Nhamo L, Moeletsi M, Masupha T, Magidi J, Tshikolomo K. Assessing climate change and adaptive capacity at local scale using observed and remotely sensed data. Weather Clim Extrem. 2019;26:100240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wace.2019.100240
  24. Abid M, Schneider UA, Scheffran J. Adaptation to climate change and its impacts on food productivity and crop income: Perspectives of farmers in rural Pakistan. J Rural Stud. 2016;47:254–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2016.08.005
  25. Tangonyire DF, Akuriba GA. Socioeconomic factors influencing farmers’ specific adaptive strategies to climate change in Talensi district of the Upper East Region of Ghana. Ecofeminism Clim Chang. 2021;2(2):50–68. https://doi.org/10.1108/EFCC-04-2020-0009
  26. Nkonki-mandleni B, Ogunkoya F. Socioeconomic factors influencing livestock production among smallholder farmers in the Free State province of South Africa. Int J Enterp. 2018;23(1):1–12.
  27. Ngwenya SJ, Mukwada G. Impacts of climate hazards on households along the Drakensberg Mountains in the Free State Province of South Africa. GeoJournal. 2024;89:66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-024-11061-2
  28. Tompkins EL, Vincent K, Nicholls RJ, Suckall N. Documenting the state of adaptation for the global stocktake of the Paris Agreement. WIREs Clim Change. 2018;9:e545. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.545
  29. Owen G. What makes climate change adaptation effective? A systematic review of the literature. Glob Environ Chang. 2020;62:102071. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102071
  30. Nsubuga FNW, Mearns KF, Davis NC, Kalumba AM, Komen K. Exploring the influence of climate change and capital assets on livelihood formations in central region of Uganda. Environ Dev Sustain. 2021;23(6):9223–9242. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-01020-5
  31. Moeletsi ME, Walker S. Rainy season characteristics of the Free State Province of South Africa with reference to rain-fed maize production. Water SA. 2012;38(5):775–782. https://doi.org/10.4314/wsa.v38i5.17
  32. Dube JP, Valverde A, Steyn JM, Cowan DA, Van der Waals JE. Differences in bacterial diversity, composition and function due to long-term agriculture in soils in the Eastern Free State of South Africa. Diversity. 2019;11:61. https://doi.org/10.3390/d11040061
  33. Mbiriri M, Mukwada G, Manatsa D. Influence of altitude on the spatiotemporal variations of meteorological droughts in mountain regions of the Free State Province, South Africa (1960–2013). Adv Meteorol. 2018;2018:5206151. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/5206151
  34. Moeletsi ME, Walker S. Agroclimatological suitability mapping for dryland maize production in Lesotho. Theor Appl Climatol. 2013;114(1–2):227–236. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00704-012-0829-1
  35. Botai CM, Botai JO, Dlamini LC, Zwane NS, Phaduli E. Characteristics of droughts in South Africa: A case study of free state and North West provinces. Water (Switzerland). 2016;8(10):439. https://doi.org/10.3390/w8100439
  36. Mohamed, Ahmed A, Mukwada G. Temperature changes in the Maloti-Drakensberg region: An analysis of trends for the1960–2016 Period. Atmosphere. 2019;10:471. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos10080471
  37. Abubakar HB, Newete SW, Scholes MC. Drought characterization and trend detection using the reconnaissance drought index for setsoto municipality of the Free State province of south africa and the impact on maize yield. Water (Switzerland). 2020;12(11):1–16. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12112993
  38. Melore TW, Nel V. Resilience of informal settlements to climate change in the mountainous areas of Konso, Ethiopia and QwaQwa, South Africa. Jamba J Disaster Risk Stud. 2020;12(1):1–9. https://doi.org/10.4102/jamba.v12i1.778
  39. Mukwada G, Mazibuko SM, Moeletsi M, Robinson GM. Can famine be averted ? A spatiotemporal assessment of the impact of climate change on food security in the Luvuvhu River catchment of South Africa. Land. 2021;10:527. https://doi.org/10.3390/land10050527
  40. Msimanga L, Mukwada G. Examining spatiotemporal trends of temperature and precipitation and households’ perceptions of climate change in the Eastern Free State region of South Africa. Adv Meteorol. 2025;2025(1):7161645. https://doi.org/10.1155/2025/7161645
  41. Moghayedi A. Discover sustainability enhancing water recycling adoption in South African residential properties: A multi – Dimensional analysis for sustainable water management. Discov Sustain. 2024;5:285. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-024-00469-y
  42. Muthelo D, Owusu-Sekyere E, Ogundeji AA. Smallholder farmers’ adaptation to drought: identifying effective adaptive strategies and measures. Water. 2019;11(10): 2069. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11102069
  43. Fanteso B. Unlocking alternative water conservation technologies: the case study of the rural Eastern Cape Province, South Africa [MSc dissertation]. Johannesburg, South Africa: University of Johannesburg; 2020.
  44. Prins FX, Etale A, Ablo AD, Xaverius F, Etale A, Ablo AD. Water scarcity and alternative water sources in South Africa: Can information provision shift perceptions? Urban Water J. 2022;20(10):1438–1449. https://doi.org/10.1080/1573062X.2022.2026984
  45. Zhou L, Slayi M, Slayi M, Ngarava S, Jaja IF. A systematic review of climate change risks to communal livestock production and response strategies in South Africa. Front Anim Sci. 2022;3:868468. https://doi.org/10.3389/fanim.2022.868468
  46. Tumaini A, Urassa JK, Moshi JA. Influence of social capital on adaptation to climate variability and vulnerability in farming households in Chamwino District, Tanzania. Tanzania J Agric Sci. 2022;21(2):223–233.
  47. Nthabeleng T. Change adaptation: Implications for household food security. [MSc dissertation]. Durban, South Africa: University of KwaZulu-Natal; 2017.
  48. Ofoegbu C, Chirwa PW, Francis J, Folarannmi D. Socio-economic factors influencing household dependence on forests and its implication for forest-based climate change interventions. South For J For Sci. 2017;79(2):109–116. https://doi.org/10.2989/20702620.2016.1255420
  49. Vilakazi B, Odindo AO, Phophi MM, Mafongoya PL. Socioeconomic factors influencing crop diversification among smallholder farmers in Bergville, South Africa. Agriculture. 2025;15(9):1–24. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15090914
  50. Olabanji MF, Chitakira M. The adoption and scaling of climate-smart agriculture innovation by smallholder farmers in South Africa: A review of institutional mechanisms, policy frameworks and market dynamics. World. 2025;6(2):51. https://doi.org/10.3390/world6020051
  51. Myeni L, Moeletsi ME. Assessing the adoption of improved seeds as a coping strategy to climate variability under smallholder farming conditions in South Africa. S Afr J Sci. 2023;119(9):1–7. https://doi.org/10.17159/sajs.2023/15001
  52. Bahta YT, Myeki VA. Adaptation, coping strategies and resilience of agricultural drought in South Africa: Implication for the sustainability of livestock sector. Heliyon. 2021;7(11):e08280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e08280
  53. Kalumba AM, Afuye GA, Mazinyo SP, et al. Spatial assessment of climate change, water resource management, adaptation and governance in South Africa. Front Water. 2025;7:1–17. https://doi.org/10.3389/frwa.2025.1376943
  54. Zenda M, Rudolph M. A systematic review of agroecology strategies for adapting to climate change impacts on smallholder crop farmers’ livelihoods in South Africa. Climate. 2024;12:33. https://doi.org/10.3390/cli12030033
  55. Cooke AS, Machekano H, Gwiriri LC, et al. The nutritional feed gap: Seasonal variations in ruminant nutrition and knowledge gaps in relation to food security in Southern Africa. Food Secur. 2025;17:73–100. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-024-01509-1
  56. Bahta YT, Maré F, Moshugi E. Strengthening agricultural drought resilience of commercial livestock farmers in South Africa: An assessment of factors influencing decisions. Climate. 2025;13(8):154. https://doi.org/10.3390/cli13080154
  57. Mapiye C, Chikwanha OC, Chimonyo M, Dzama K. Strategies for sustainable use of indigenous cattle genetic resources in Southern Africa. Diversity. 2019;11:214. https://doi.org/10.3390/d11110214
  58. Bahta YT, Nyaki SA, Maré F. South African commercial livestock farmers’ adaptation and coping strategies for agricultural drought. Open Agric. 2025;10(1):20250454. https://doi.org/10.1515/opag-2025-0454
  59. Zenda M. Climate change adaptation and mitigation in different livestock production systems and agro-ecological zones in South Africa: A systematic review. Trop Anim Health Prod. 2025;57:440. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11250-025-04660-9
  60. Oskam MJ, Pavlova M, Hongoro C, Groot W. Socio-economic inequalities in access to drinking water among inhabitants of informal settlements in south africa. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(19):10528. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph181910528
  61. Botai CM, Botai JO, Mukhawana MB, et al. Evaluation of rainfall distribution based on the precipitation concentration index: A case study over the selected summer rainfall regions of South Africa. Hydrology. 2025;12(6):1–22. https://doi.org/10.3390/hydrology12060136
  62. Ofoegbu C, Chirwa PW, Francis J, Babalola FD. Assessing forest-based rural communities’ adaptive capacity and coping strategies for climate variability and change: The case of Vhembe district in south Africa. Environ Dev. 2016;18:36–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2016.03.001
  63. Gbetibouo GA, Ringler C. Mapping South African farming sector vulnerability to climate change and variability: A subnational assessment. Amsterdam Conf Hum Dimens Glob Environ Chang ‘Earth Syst Gov People, Places Planet’. 2009 Dec 2–4; Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 2009: p. 1–27.
  64. Rankoana SA. Small-scale farmers’ vulnerability to the impacts of climate change in Limpopo Province, South Africa: A review. Int J Dev Sustain [serial online]. 2022 [cited 2025 Aug 05]; 11(7):236–48. Available from: www.isdsnet.com/ijds
  65. PLAAS. Climate change and rural livelihoods in southern africa: An agenda for policy-oriented research. Cape Town: University of the Western Cape; 2022.
  66. Barnard C, Shuttleworth J, Verwoerd MC. An assessment of the effectiveness of water management in South Africa. African J Environ Econ Manag [serial online]. 2018 [cited 2025 Aug 05]; 6(1):384–393. Available from: www.internationalscholarsjournals.org
  67. Adom RK, Simatele MD. Enhancing water management in South Africa: The need for efficiency in monitoring and evaluation programmes. Environ Syst Res. 2025;14(1):9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40068-025-00400-y
  68. Kom Z, Nethengwe N, Mpandeli N, Chikoore H. Determinants of small-scale farmers’ choice and adaptive strategies in response to climatic shocks in Vhembe District, South Africa. GeoJournal. 2020;87(2):677–700. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-020-10272-7
  69. Van Antwerpen R, Laker MC, Beukes DJ, Botha JJ, Collett A, Du Plessis M. Conservation agriculture farming systems in rainfed annual crop production in South Africa. S Afr J Plant Soil. 2021;38(3):202–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/02571862.2020.1797195


Crossref Citations

No related citations found.