Post on 13-Apr-2017
Registration No 150110406
Tanzania Report – An Examination of Adaptation Measures Implemented in the
Chagga Home Gardens
1.0 Introduction/Background
The Chagga Home Gardens (CHG) is a classic agroforestry system that encompasses
montane forestry vegetation into agricultural lands for multiple production and ecological
benefits (Kitalyi et al.,2014). The system has a unique multi layering of vegetation (see
figure1) that maximises restricted land space, and provides fodder, shade, nitrogen fixation,
as well as nutrient recycling and organic matter sources for crops (Hemp, 2004), thus
providing both environmental and socio-economic benefits to inhabitants. Agroforestry
systems are expressed by Kalinganire et al (2011) to triple the yields of that of ordinary
farmlands maximising income.
Figure1: typical layering of agroforestry in the Chagga Home Gardens (Hemp, 2004).
Farmers are attracted to practicing Chagga farming due to the livelihoods profitability,
acceptability, feasibility and sustainability (Windianto et al., 2003). However, rapidly
growing population pressures (up from 50,000 to over 1,000,000 during the 20th century
(Hemp, 2004)) on limited lands, decreasing cash crop market prices, ageing farmers, and
Registration No 150110406
most significantly climate change are rapidly threatening the sustainability of the CHGs
(Kitalyi et al., 2013). Implementations of appropriate and effective adaptation strategies are
therefore critical to ensure the long-term sustainability of the CHG and the population’s
livelihoods. This research therefore aims to examine the current adaptation measures
implemented in the rural communities through interviewing CHG farmers and local
organisations. This research will form part of a larger project that focuses upon the long-term
sustainability of the CHGs.
The research was conducted within the Rural Moshi District, and focused on villages (see
appendix) stemming from the towns of Marangu and Samanga where Chagga Farming is
widely practiced (see figure2).
Figure2: the research study area within the Rural Moshi District (Soini, 2005).
2.0 Literature Review
2.1 Defining Adaptation
The term of adaptation is variable, yet, the most commonly used terminology in literature is
the definition
“adjustments in natural or human systems in response to actual or expected climatic stimuli
or their effects, which moderates harm or exploits beneficial opportunities” (IPCC, 2007
p869),
provided by the IPCC. However, authors critique the definition for being limited to climate
change (Stern, 2007), with research such as Konijnendijk’s (2000) and Geels’ (2002)
indicating adaptation occurs due to changes in technology, industrial networks, culture,
economy, and environments. Denevan (1983) summarises this as:
Registration No 150110406
“a process of change in response to a change in the physical environment or change in
internal stimuli such as demography, economic and society” (Denevan, 1983 p401).
Thus, recognising the variety beyond biophysical pressures.
2.1.2 Adaptive Capacity
Adaptive capacity involves the ability of a community or individual to respond to threats
based on their resources, flexibility and attitudes (Brown, et al., 2013). Eriksen and Kelly
(2007) state adaptive capacity is associated with dynamics such as social capital, knowledge,
willingness and resource access, thus often why studies (Engle, 2011: Vincent, 2007) find
low adaptive capacities in the poorest communities. In resiliency contexts, adaptive capacity
enables transitions into more resilient socio-environment systems, when the older is
unsustainable (Folke, 2006). Therefore, systems of good adaptive capacities have greater
resiliency to impacts and pressures. Rather, in climate change contexts adaptive capacity is
recognised as a system that manages scarce resources in response to present or expected
pressures (Engle, 2011). However, Adger et al (2007) expresses capacities can differentiate
largely between community systems through imbalanced capacity distributions, exemplifying
the importance of recognising the reducing factors. Vulnerability and adaptive capacity are
strongly linked, with vulnerability to impacts and pressures being high without existing
effective adaptations (Thomas et al, 2007). Vulnerability is strongly associated with hazards,
such as flooding and drought, with studies associating these hazards with impacts on
agricultural production (Engle, 2011: Adger, 2006). Social vulnerability is equally important
due to the influential socio-economic, organisation and governance roles in determining
community adaptive capacities (Berman et al., 2011). A viewpoint emphasised by Vincent
(2007), who argues that adaptive capacity is strongly influenced by organisation strategies
because of its multifaceted structure.
2.2 Barriers to Adaptation
Barriers differ from limitations, as limitations involve obstacles that reduce strategy
effectiveness, whilst barriers are obstacles that are addressable through management and
education (Biesbroek et al., 2013). Limits are particularly apparent within ecological systems,
and barriers within social systems (Adger et al., 2007), thus revealing a high vulnerability to
both due to the CHGs embedment of human-social and ecological systems.
Registration No 150110406
Groups where barriers and limits are recognised involve natural, social and human variables
according to Jones and Boyd’s (2011) model (see figure3).
Figure3: The interconnected groupings of adaptation barriers and limitations (Jones and
Boyd, 2011).
Natural barriers encompassing ecological and physical limitations take multiple forms such
as ecosystem thresholds, geographic limitations and constrictions in resource access (Ibid).
Barnett and Adger (2003) state that the barriers vital apprehension is when the ecosystems
become unable to support human occupancy entirely, regardless of adaption.
Human and informational barriers and limits entail reducing awareness amongst individuals
and authorities, and creating information deficits that prevent adaptive strategies (Adams et
al., 1998). Jones and Boyd (2011) further this, stating barriers on knowledge, finance and
technology effect monitoring, projecting, devising and implementing capabilities.
Nevertheless, economic limitations are recognised as significant, due to most adaptation
strategies requiring money, as well as whether individuals distinguish the adaptation cost to
be worth the outcome (Smit and Skinner, 2002).
Cultural and social factors control how people recognise threats and the necessity to adapt,
therefore if potential harm is recognised they will adapt or evade the threat (Hamilton and
Registration No 150110406
Kasser, 2009). The barriers derive from normative ways of individual’s thinking that prevents
adaptation as it clashes with their cultural customs, or from cognitive limitations making
individuals unaware of harm until experienced (Jones and Boyd, 2011). Institutional barriers
play significant roles, as they shape community normalities, behaviours and organisation
structures (Jones, 2010). Commonly, institutions in this context take on forms of farmer
collectives, indigenous knowledge organisations and natural resource ownerships (Ibid).
2.6 Adaptation Measures
It was recognised by Misana et al’s (2012) and Fisher et al’s (2015) studies that the most
common agricultural adaptation approaches in Tanzania regions were related to expansion,
intensification, migration and livelihood diversification.
2.6.1 Livelihood Diversification
Diversification is regarded to be significant in the context of a long-term adaptation (Below et
al., 2015), due to a reduced agricultural dependency. This may be crucial in adapting to
potential loses in eco-services and unreliable climates by providing an alternate income
pathway to support individuals and families.
2.6.2 Conservation Agroforestry
The CHGs is recognised to intercrop forest vegetation, predominantly trees with crops due to
the improved nutrient fixating and recycling abilities increasing soil fertility and annual
yields (Hemp, 2006). Moreover, the unique multi-layering ecology forming networks
between trees, crops and livestock provides additional benefits such as windbreaks, natural
fences, erosion controls, shade and cloud forests, which sustain micro-climate hydrological
cycles for growing crops during wet and dry seasons (Mbow et al., 2014).
2.6.3 Crop Diversification
Diversifying crops to accord with climate changes is common, for example diversifications of
farm plots can benefit from rainfall spatial variability (Fisher et al, 2015). Furthermore,
research has indicated farmers who plant varieties of crops to adapt to variable climates have
higher yields (Bele et al., 2014: Di Falco et al., 2010). Drought resistant crop planting for
addressing climate changes were initially considered as a sustainable adaptation, particularly
with the DTMA (drought tolerant maize for Africa) program that covered Tanzania (Fisher,
Registration No 150110406
et al., 2015). Yet, success has varied due to inaccessibility to seedlings, high market prices
and a reluctance by farmers to use them (Ibid).
2.6.4 Irrigation
Incorporating irrigation canals into crop systems is considered an essential for ensuring
yearly production (You et al., 2011). Burke and Lobell (2010) state the strategy reduces costs
for inputs, dependencies on rainfalls and allows flexible planting of a diverse range of crops.
It is recognised irrigation canals exist mostly in regions where organisation inputs have been
made (Barbier et al., 2009), as there are needs for water efficiency managements, financial
investment and technology for implementation in smaller scale farms (Sofoluwe et al., 2011:
Barbier et al., 2009).
3 Research Aim and Objectives
While there is considerable literature on agricultural adaptations in Africa (Mertz et al.,
2008), deficits exist in adaptations undertaken by farmers in the CHGs, and the important
barriers they face. Therefore, the main aim of this research is to examine the agricultural
adaptation measures implemented in the CHGs, and will be addressed through the following
objectives.
Identify the approaches employed by Chagga farmers to adapt to the perceived
impacts on their livelihoods.
Identify the roles of local knowledge and organisations in these adaptation strategies.
To document any barriers faced by Chagga farmers that prevents effective adaptation.
4 Methodology
4.1 Data Collection
Semi-structured interviews and interviews with key informants were adopted as qualitative
methods for this research to capture responses, experiences and feelings (Patton, 2005) for
addressing the research objectives. Furthermore, this technique enabled us to control
discussion themes so they related to our projects, as well as allowing open ended questions to
be asked that could cover themes not recognised in the literature (Longhurst, 2003).
Moreover, this technique allowed us to document key responses in body language, such as
voice tones and enthusiasm that communicated feelings and frustrations. Interviews were
conducted at interviewee homes so participants felt at ease. Themes forming the questions
Registration No 150110406
related to experienced changes over time, and how participants were able to cope. Key
responses were noted into a field notebook after a necessary translator had translated the
questions and responses into the appropriate languages. Interviews with key informants, such
as local NGOs and governments acting in the area were conducted, in order to provide a
comprehensive insight into organisation involvement in community adaptation strategies.
The participants were selected using a combination of snowball and purposive sampling
techniques. Therefore this enabled participants to be selected based on features such as
gender, age and land size that could prove to be relevant in influencing individual’s capacity
to adapt. Whilst additionally using respondents to recommend potential participants and key
informant organisations based on the features expressed to limit possible bias. In total 12
interviews were conducted.
4.2 Research Data Analysis
The research analysis consists of 4 stages.
Stage Analysis
1 Immediate coding will highlight the key responses recorded, in addition
to reducing any bias that could occur if the responses were to be analysed
all during one stage (Saldana, 2015).
2 Open coding now separates the responses into groups so that emerging
themes can be recognised.
3 Axial coding can then relate these theme to one another as well as across
each group to examine the group dynamics (Priest et al., 2002).
4 Selective coding will group the response findings so that the research aim
and objectives of the project can be addressed.
Table1: Table summarising the method undertook for the data analysis stage of the research
project.
Registration No 150110406
4.3 Limitations and Ethics
Positionality wise, we could be perceived as, rich, educated westerners and could affect
participant responses. Furthermore, preliminary understandings of the literatures before
conducting the research means a pre-set knowledge of conceptions will be known (Willis,
2006). Consequently, participant responses could be observed as what the researcher wants to
hear (Ibid), therefore this limitation should be reflected upon. Nevertheless, this does not
weaken the research gathered in the project.
Before interviewing participants were debriefed on the project details and that participation
was voluntary, as well as being ensured response confidentially to address ethical concerns.
Any small degree of harm through this research is justifiable through the benefits the findings
can bring through KEDAs projects.
5 Findings and Discussion
5.1 Adaptation Strategies
Perceived Threat Adaptation
Market price changes Intensification: reduce low priced crop growth and focus inputs on other crops.
Use livestock fertilizer instead if purchasing
Diversification: Plant more of higher priced crops
Delaying and variability
of rainfall patterns
Diversification: livelihood diversification
Split wet season harvests to sell during dryer periods
increase crop diversity
Expansion: use farm plots in other regions for crop growth
Intensification:
Increased used of livestock manure as fertilizer
Social Capita: breed livestock’s with neighbour to produce greater fertilizer
sources
Population pressures Migration to cities by younger people
Reduced availability of
water
Conservation: Plant more trees into agriculture plots
Irrigation: Usage of farro irrigation canals
Use rivers and springs as irrigation sources
Pay for tap water
Table2: The common adaptation responses undertaken by individuals.
Registration No 150110406
Perceived Threat Adaptation
Delaying and variability of
rainfall patterns
Usage of food preservation tanks
Constructions of terraces to reduce flooding hazards
Teaching of agricultural science in schools
Population pressures Education: community meetings to encourage train efficient
resource usage
Encourage farmers to start small business to avoid resource
exhaustion
Reduced availability of water Conservation:
Encourage farmers to split land for more tree planting
Irrigation: Construction of irrigation canals
Table3: The adaptations undertaken by communities
5.1.1 Individual Adaptation Strategies
Concerning individual adaptations undertaken, the majority of participants expressed
identical responses towards intensification. This entailed greater usages of organic fertilizer,
ranging from chicken to cattle manure, to counteract rainfall uncertainties needed for soil
moisture and fertility. Steinfeld et al (2006) fortifies the importance of using organic fertilizer
for small-scaling farming, due to its sustainability, low cost and function inputting nitrogen,
phosphorus and carbon into cultivated soils. This accords with documented responses that
were enthusiastic about feeding livestock old plants as fodder for gaining fertilizer needed for
intensification practices. In the context of dynamic sustainability (see figure4), it implies the
adaptation is sustainable. Rasul and Thapa (2004) define this as a ‘sustainable agriculture’
system that is regenerative with low input. This system makes efficient usage of farmer’s
internal resources (economic) through integrations of natural processes (environment) and a
larger usage of knowledge and practice (social) (Ibid), thus recognising the dimensions of
dynamic sustainability.
Registration No 150110406
Figure4: the three dimensions of dynamic sustainability (Neurdoff, 2012).
Table1 reveals diversification strategies generally took forms of diverse crop planting and
diversifying livelihoods. Participants particularly referenced the unreliability of rains for
investing in alternate livelihoods, with one farmer expressing:
“My children only currently get fed and go to school now through the shop income, farming
does not cover the costs of daily meals” (P2, M, 55).
Thus revealing the significance of diversifying during drought periods as Below et al., (2015)
emphasises. Prowse and Scott (2008) propose this is effective due to the greater ability to
manage risks, which research reinforces (Weldegebriel and Prowse, 2013). Respondents
stated they integrated different crops into plots to increase diversity during drought, for
example soya beans with coffee and banana. However, they stated yields did not improve,
contrasting to Bele et al’s (2014) findings, and they just resorted to purchasing market
fertilizer. Therefore, potentially suggesting drought resistant crop planting, expressed by
Fisher et al (2005) to be a more viable adaption to unpredictable climates, would have an
appropriate alternative.
When asked on how they sustain annual production expansion was generally the response, as
farmers rented other land plots to adapt to the climatic spatial variability. Maize and beans
were commonly grown in these plots due to the crop integration being more resilient to the
unfavourable conditions in the lower eco-agricultural zone. This accords with what Caretta et
Registration No 150110406
al (2014) states is a renowned climate change adaptation that improves soil moisture and
fertility. However, this was only viable to certain farmers.
Respondents stated the irrigation canals had been implemented from mandatory requests of
community chiefs, and were referred to as ‘farros’. It was found this was an historical
agricultural adaptation to delayed rainfalls, which respondents presently use. This somewhat
contradicts Barbier et al (2009) and Sofoluwe et al (2011) that claim irrigation construction
requires investments of finance, resource management and technology. However, respondents
expressed concerns that farros water levels were decreasing due to deforestation and glacial
melting. Perhaps suggesting resource management and investments will become necessary in
order to make the strategy dynamically sustainable.
5.1.2 Community Adaptation Strategies
As table2 indicates, communities adaptive measures principally entail conservation
adaptation approaches. It was found that there was particular emphasis on afforestation,
conservation and resource management that was communicated to communities through
village meetings and schools. When asked the rationale behind these measures, community
members stated it was to counteract climate change effects on crop production, in addition to
addressing forest vegetation losses induced by increasing population densities. In reference to
Engle (2011) this represents a degree of adaptive capacity, due to communities recognising
the need to efficiently manage resources in response to current population pressures and
expected climate change. Furthermore, it reveals communities acknowledge the significant
role Chagga agroforestry system in reducing climate change impacts on crops, which Mbow
et al (2014) states is predominantly carried out through sustaining micro-climate hydrological
cycles that protect crop production during dryer seasons. In relation to the dynamic
sustainability model (figure4), it suggests that if conservation adaptation efforts are
successful and forests are reinstated with efficient resource management schemes the strategy
will be sustainable.
During one particular interview with a participant (P5) who had lived in the Marangu Semeti
community for 68 years, it was described through her experiences of past droughts during
1970-1980 that her community had devised preservation tanks out of tree materials to ensure
food security. Within literatures food preservation technology is often considered a future
adaption adaptation method (Specht et al., 2014), yet, the findings suggest that local
Registration No 150110406
knowledges were able to implement preservation strategies before developments of key
technologies.
5.2.1 The Role of Institutions/Organisations in Adaptation
It was found the principal roles of the local institutions were to distribute instructions,
knowledge and advice to village heads to be communicated during community meetings.
This relates to Vincent’s (2007) viewpoint that organisation strategies can increase adaptive
capacities through reductions in social vulnerability. Numerous respondents stated that they
were now more inclined to plant and conserve the trees in their farms due to instructions from
organisations such as FLORESTA (environment NGO). An interview with the NGO revealed
since 2009 1.5 million new trees had been planted through integrated approaches with other
organisations such as the church. The role of the church was well recognised by participants
as it functioned as a place to collect free tree seedlings, and seek environmental advice from,
categorising it in Jones’ (2010) literature as a farmer collective and knowledge organisation.
Brown et al (2013) emphasise the importance of communities being able to access the
necessary resources and knowledge to increase adaptive capacities, thereby outlining the
church organisation as key for adaptation.
Local governments were found to play a lesser influencing role, with respondents stating that
previously provided fertilizer subsidies had ceased. When the Marangu local government was
questioned regarding these changes, they stated it was due to supporter organisations such as
the Kilimanjaro Cooperative Union pulling out of integrated programs, reducing financial
resources. Mimura et al (2010) highlights the need for integrated approaches, especially in
the context of climate change. Consequently, governments have now adopted the form of a
‘natural resource ownership’ organisation (Jones, 2010), who conserve forests through
regulation enforcement.
5.2.2 The Role of Individuals and Local Knowledge
When respondents were asked on the knowledges and inputs behind their adaptations, the
majority were quick to state it was entirely their own. Potentially, our association with KEDA
could have made participants wanted to be viewed as individuals who lacked inputs from
organisations, so that they could be favoured in future projects. Nevertheless, a key finding
derived from discussions on irrigation canals, with respondents stating that a song was
devised in historical times so farmers could sing it to children, thereby communicating the
importance of building irrigation canals across generations. Schipper et al (2014) expresses
Registration No 150110406
the importance of transferring indigenous knowledge into adaptation practices for its
usefulness in addressing region specific needs. The fact that farro canals were documented to
be still widely used underpins this.
Social capita networks between individuals were found to increase adaptive capacities, with
an explicit case demonstrating this best. A young female participant described how she and
neighbours bred livestock in order to increase their sources of organic fertilizer, and shared
the necessary fodder resources. Adger et al (2013) emphasises the importance of social
networks between vulnerable people for increasing community adaptive capacities towards
climate change, which this case articulates well.
5.3 Barriers and Limitations for Adaptation
The barrier and limitation themes identified during the research were generally interlinked
with human informational and social barriers, with natural barriers recognised in occasional
cases. Knowledge barriers in the research area were uncommon, likely attributed to the
numerous conservation and education organisational programs across communities.
When questioned on why respondents no longer practiced certain adaptations, or if there were
challenges associated with certain adaptations the majority attributed this to financial
resource deficits. Inability to purchase market fertilizer due to the losses in subsidies, and
lack of income from declining market prices appeared as the predominant financial barrier
towards adaptation. A particular respondent put the barrier into perspective, stating:
“It is 17,000 shilling to buy fertilizer, and kilogram of coffee is only sold for 2500 shilling,
therefore we cannot buy the inputs we need” (P9, F, 75yo)
Consequently, famers expressed how they become forced to use organic fertilizer, explaining
documentation of the intensification practice in the earlier section. It could be argued
however this approach is more dynamically sustainable due to the lesser input required and
its environment sustainability (Rashul and Thapa, 2004).
Farmers additionally expressed a desire to expand their agricultural plots as an adaptation, yet
identically stated that financial barriers restricted them doing so. Bowler (2014) states issues
associated with population pressures and consequential limited land areas causes increases in
land costs. Therefore, farmers expressed they were unable to sufficiently diversify crops. This
barrier could potentially explain why crop diversification measures were unsuccessful, as
Registration No 150110406
Jones and Boyd (2011) state financial barriers can restrict the effectiveness of adaptive
measures undertaken.
Hamilton and Kasser (2009) state cultures and normatives can prevent individuals
implementing adaptations. This limitation was evident as respondents acknowledged that
land heritance traditions were continuously decreasing farmland sizes, as it is tradition to
divide your land up equally with all your children. Despite respondents recognising this
restricted the effectiveness of integrated crop planting and diversification, they stated that
they will always follow tradition. One respondent with 8 children was recorded as saying:
“I feel sorry for my children, I fear the land they will inherit will be too unproductive to farm
on, I dont see a future” (P8, M, 72yo).
Furthermore, such cultural barriers were recognised in types of crop planted, even though
current conditions were unfavourable for that crop. This was apparent for the cultivations of
maize, coffee and banana during dry seasons, which are recognised as indigenous Chagga
crops (Hemp, 2004). This finding corresponds with Jones and Boyd (2011) literature, who
state despite recognition of current and anticipated threats, individuals can remain reluctant to
adapt due to normative beliefs influencing decision making.
Natural barriers were found to exist in the form geographical isolations of water resources in
rural communities. The unreliability of rains and decreases in farro water levels have forced
some farmers to travel to distance springs to collect water. This barrier principally affected
elderly farmers, who stated they cannot continue to make the long distances required.
Respondents of older age stated that they had ‘given in’ and decided to pay for tap water
which they struggled to afford. In one particular interview an older lady claimed she now
only consumes one daily meal, due to financial resources spent on water. This particular case
complements Smit and Skinners (2002) theory, where an individual has adjudged the costs of
inputs to be worth the agricultural outcome.
6.0 Conclusion
Drawing from this research, it is evident that Chagga farmers have been adapting to changing
pressures and threats over long historical durations. Adaptation measures identified
principally encompassed a combination of intensification, expansion, diversification and
adaptation conservation measures. It was found organisations play key roles in distributions
of knowledge and influences on people’s behaviour and willingness to adapt, enhancing
Registration No 150110406
community adaptive capacity. Whilst local knowledges were useful in the contexts of
indigenous adaptation practices and decreasing vulnerability to pressures and threats.
However, financial, cultural, normative and geographical barriers to adaptation still persist,
and appear to be most detrimental to the elderly and when associated with climate change
impacts.
Therefore, it is recommended the elderly are prioritised when reworking and devising
adaptive schemes. Furthermore, it is recommended that climate change should be prioritised
in local and regional frameworks, and integrated into existing policy to improve community
adaptive capacities (Mimura et al., 2010) through enhanced distribution of resources and
flexibility. Moreover, incorporating local people into program decision making will ensure
that indigenous knowledges and strategies, for example farro construction, will be recognised
by the acting sectors so local needs are met.
Word count 3494
Registration No 150110406
Appendix
Participant Age Duration
lived in
Chagga
Gardens
Gender Land
Size
Livelihood Family Village
Location
P1 11 years Female ¼
hectare
Agriculture Husband
and 2
Children
Samanga
Kouyiko
P2 55 - Male 6000m2 Agriculture
and Shop
business
7
Children
Samanga
Kouyiko
P3 77 31 years Female 16
hectare
Agriculture,
retired nurse
7
Children
Samanga
Kouyiko
P4 26 24 years Male 3
hectare
Agriculture,
use to weld
2 siblings
mother
and
father
Marangu
Semeti
P5 85 68 years Female - Agriculture 5
children
Marangu
Semeti
P6 62 62 years Female 1
hectare
Retired
Teacher,
agriculture
4
children
Samanga
Headcoter
P7 72 Since
Child,
was away
for a few
years
Male 1 acre Retired from
working for
the U.N.
4
brothers
Samanga
Headcoter
Key
Informant
6 years Male - County
Director for
NGO
- Marangu
Ashira
Key
Informant
2
37 12 years Male - Teacher - Marangu
Mtoni
P8 72 72 years Male 1
hectare
Agriculture 9
children
and Wife
Marangu
Mamba
P9 75 55 years Female 1
hectare
Agriculture - Marang
Mamba
Key
Informant
3
78 - Male Former
Local
Government
Offical
Marangu
Kimangara
Key
Informant
4
25 - Female - Village
Executive
Officer
- Marangu
Kimangara
Registration No 150110406
Reference to Work
Adams, R.M., Hurd, B.H., Lenhart, S., Leary, N., 1998, “Effects of global climate change on
agriculture: an interpretative review”, volume 11, pp 19-30.
Agrawala S., Moehder A., Hemp A., Van Aalst M., Hitz S., Smith J., Meena H.,
Mwakifamba S., Hyera T., Mwaipopo O., 2003, “Development and Climate Change in
Tanzania: Focus on Mount Kilimanjaro” https://www.oecd.org/env/cc/21058838.pdf ,
accessed 09/05/16.
Adger, W.N., 2006, “Vulnerability”, volume 16, pp 268-281.
Adger, W.N., Agrawala, S., Mirza, M.M.Q., Conde, C., O’Brien, K., Pulhin, J., Pulwarty, R.,
Smit, B., Takahashi, K., 2007, “Assessment of adaptation practices, options, constraints and
capacity”, volume 20, pp 719-743.
Adger, W.N., Barnett, J., Brown, K., Marshall, N., O'Brien, K., 2013, “Cultural dimensions of climate
change impacts and adaptation”, volume 3, pp 112-117.
Barbier, B., Yacouba, H., Karambiri, H., Zoromé, M., Somé, B., 2009, “Human vulnerability
to climate variability in the Sahel: farmers’ adaptation strategies in northern Burkina Faso”,
volume 43, pp 790-803.
Barnett, J., Adger, W.N., 2003, “Climate dangers and atoll countries”, volume 61, pp321-
337.
Bele, M.Y., Sonwa, D.J., Tiani, A.M., 2014, “Local communities vulnerability to climate
change and adaptation strategies in Bukavu in DR Congo”, volume 23, pp 331-357.
Below, T.B., Schmid, J.C., Sieber, S., 2015, “Farmers’ knowledge and perception of climatic
risks and options for climate change adaptation: a case study from two Tanzanian villages”,
volume 15, pp 1169-1180.
Berman, R., Quinn, C., Paavola, J., 2012, “The role of institutions in the transformation of
coping capacity to sustainable adaptive capacity”, volume 2, pp 86-100.
Biesbroek, G.R., Klostermann, J.E., Termeer, C.J., Kabat, P., 2013. “On the nature of
barriers to climate change adaptation”, volume 13, pp 1119-1129.
Registration No 150110406
Biggs, H. M., Crump, J. A., 2013, “Estimating Leptospirosis Incidence Using Hospital-
Based Surveillance and a Population-Based Health Care Utilization Survey in Tanzania”,
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259337561_Estimating_Leptospirosis_Incidence_U
sing_Hospital-Based_Surveillance_and_a_Population-
Based_Health_Care_Utilization_Survey_in_Tanzania , accessed 09/05/16.
Bowler, I.R., 2014, “The geography of agriculture in developed market economies”
Routledge, London.
Brown, H.C.P., Smit, B., Somorin, O.A., Sonwa, D.J., Ngana, F., 2013, “Institutional
perceptions, adaptive capacity and climate change response in a post-conflict country: a case
study from Central African Republic”, volume 5, pp 206-216.
Burke, M., Lobell, D., 2010, “Food security and adaptation to climate change: What do we
know?”, pp 133-153.
Caretta, M., Westerberg, L.O., Östberg, W. and Börjeson, L., 2014, “LABOUR, CLIMATE
PERCEPTIONS AND SOILS IN THE IRRIGATION SYSTEMS OF SIBOU, KENYA &
ENGARUKA, TANZANIA”, Dept. of Human Geography,
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Martina_Angela_Caretta/publication/270760678_LABO
UR_CLIMATE_PERCEPTIONS_AND_SOILS_IN_THE_IRRIGATION_SYSTEMS_OF_S
IBOU_KENYA__ENGARUKA_TANZANIA/links/54b429580cf2318f0f96bcb8.pdf.
accessed 16/05/16.
Denevan, W.M., 1983. Adaptation, variation, and cultural geography”, volume 35, pp 399-407.
Di Falco, S., Bezabih, M., Yesuf, M., 2010, “Seeds for livelihood: crop biodiversity and food
production in Ethiopia”, volume 69, pp 1695-1702.
Engle, N.L., 2011, “Adaptive capacity and its assessment”, volume 21, pp 647-656.
Eriksen, S.H., P.M. Kelly, 2007, “Developing credible vulnerability indicators for climate
adaptation policy assessment. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change”,
volume 12, pp 495-524.
Fisher, M., Abate, T., Lunduka, R.W., Asnake, W., Alemayehu, Y., Madulu, R.B., 2015, “Drought
tolerant maize for farmer adaptation to drought in sub-Saharan Africa: Determinants of adoption in
eastern and southern Africa”, volume 133, pp 283-299.
Folke, C., 2006, “Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social–ecological systems
analyses”, volume 16, pp 253-267.
Registration No 150110406
Geels, F.W., 2002, “Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a
multi-level perspective and a case-study”, volume 31, pp 1257-1274.
Gill, P., Stewart, K., Treasure, E., Chadwick, B., 2008, “Methods of data collection in
qualitative research: interviews and focus groups”, volume 204, pp 291-295.
Hamilton, C., Kasser, T., 2009, “Psychological adaptation to the threats and stresses of a
four degree world”, http://www.integralworld.net/hamilton2.html , accessed 13/05/16.
Hemp, C., 2005, “The Chagga home gardens–relict areas for endemic Saltatoria species
(Insecta: Orthoptera) on Mount Kilimanjaro”, volume 125, pp203-209.
Hemp, A., 2006, “The banana forests of Kilimanjaro: biodiversity and conservation of the
Chagga homegardens”, volume 15, pp 1193-1217.
IPCC, 2007, “Appendix 1: Glossary”, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/glossary/ar4-wg2.pdf , accessed 11/05/16.
Jones, L., 2010, “Overcoming Social Barriers to Adaptation”,
https://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/6048.pdf ,
accessed 13/05/16.
Jones, L., Boyd, E., 2011, “Exploring social barriers to adaptation: insights from Western
Nepal”, volume 21, pp 1262-1274.
Kalinganire, A., Tchoundjeu, Z., Sinclair, F., Garrity, D., 2011, “Conservation agriculture
with trees in the West African Sahel: a review”, World Agroforestry Centre,
http://www.worldagroforestry.org/downloads/Publications/PDFS/OP17114.pdf , accessed
15/03/16.
Karnieli-Miller, O., Strier, R., Pessach, L., 2009, “Power relations in qualitative research”,
volume 19, pp 279-289.
Kitalyi, A., Wambugu, R.O.C. and Kimaro, D., 2013. “FAO characterization of Global
Heritage Agroforestry Systems in Tanzania and Kenya”, Agro Forestry and Development
Alternatives (AFOREDA), Tanzania,
http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/giahs_assets/Sites_annexes/FAO_GIAHS_Agrofores
try_characterisation_TZ_and_Ken_final_doc_January_2013_doc.pdf , accessed 16/05/16.
Registration No 150110406
Kitalyi, A., Nyadzi, G., Lutkamu, M., Swai, R., Gama, B., 2014, “New climate, new
agriculture: how Agroforestry contributes to meeting the challenges of Agricultural
development in Tanzania”, volume 10, pp 1-7.
Konijnendijk, C.C., 2000. “Adapting forestry to urban demands—role of communication in
urban forestry in Europe”, volume 52, pp89-100.
Le Dang, H., Li, E., Bruwer, J., Nuberg, I., 2014, “Farmers’ perceptions of climate
variability and barriers to adaptation: lessons learned from an exploratory study in
Vietnam”, volume 19, pp 531-548.
Longhurst, R., 2003. “Semi-structured interviews and focus groups”. Key methods in
geography, pp.117-132.
Mertz, O., Mbow, C., Reenberg, A., Diouf, A., 2008, “Farmers Perceptions of Climate
Change and Agricultural Adaptation Strategies in Rural Sahel”, volume 43, pp 804-816.
Mimura, N., Hiroshi, A., Seita, E., Takahiro, O., Kuga, H., Mitsuru, T., Kaoru, N., Toshihiro, H.,
Yasuaki, H., Koh-ichi, F., Takao, M., 2010, “Approaches to Climate Change Adaptation”, The
Committee on Approaches to Climate Change Adaption.
Misana, S.B., Sokoni, C., Mbonile, M.J., 2012, “Land-use/cover changes and their drivers
on the slopes of Mount Kilimanjaro, Tanzania”, volume 5, pp 151.
Mbow, C., Van Noordwijk, M., Luedeling, E., Neufeldt, H., Minang, P.A. and Kowero, G., 2014,
“Agroforestry solutions to address food security and climate change challenges in Africa”, volume 6,
pp 61-67.
Neurdoff, L. G., 2012, “Sustainable Transportation”, US DOT,
https://www.pcb.its.dot.gov/eprimer/module11.aspx , accessed 14/05/16.
Patton, M.Q., 2005, “Qualitative research”, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Priest, H., Roberts, P., Woods, L., 2002, “An overview of three different approaches to the
interpretation of qualitative data. Part 1: Theoretical issues”, volume 10, pp30-42.
Prowse, M., Scott, L., 2008, “Assets and adaptation: an emerging debate”, volume 39, pp 42-
52.
Rasul, G., Thapa, G.B., 2004, “Sustainability of ecological and conventional agricultural
systems in Bangladesh: an assessment based on environmental, economic and social
perspectives”, volume 79, pp 327-351.
Saldaña, J., 2015. “The coding manual for qualitative researchers” Sage, London.
Registration No 150110406
Schipper, E.L.F., Ayers, J., Reid, H., Huq, S., Rahman, A., 2014, “Community-based adaptation to
climate change: scaling it up”, Routledge.
Smit, B., M.W. Skinner, 2002, “Adaptation options in agriculture to climate change: a
typology. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change”, volume 7, pp 85-114.
Sofoluwe, N.A., Tijani, A.A., Baruwa, O.I., 2011, “Farmers' perception and adaptation to
climate change in Osun State, Nigeria”, volume 6, pp 4789-4794.
Steinfeld, H., Gerber, P., Wassenaar, T., Castel, V., Rosales, M., De Haan, C.,
2006, “Livestock's long shadow”, FAO, Rome.
Stern, N., 2007, “The economics of climate change: the Stern review”, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
Silverman, D., 2010, “Qualitative research”, Sage, London.
Soini, E., 2005, “Land use change patterns and livelihood dynamics on the slopes of Mt.
Kilimanjaro, Tanzania”, volume 85, pp 306-323.
Specht, K., Siebert, R., Hartmann, I., Freisinger, U.B., Sawicka, M., Werner, A., Thomaier,
S., Henckel, D., Walk, H., Dierich, A., 2014, “Urban agriculture of the future: an overview
of sustainability aspects of food production in and on buildings”, volume 31, pp 33-51.
Thomas, D.S., Twyman, C., Osbahr, H. and Hewitson, B., 2007, “Adaptation to climate
change and variability: farmer responses to intra-seasonal precipitation trends in South
Africa”, volume 83, pp 301-322.
Vincent, K., 2007, “Uncertainty in adaptive capacity and the importance of scale”, volume
17, pp 12-24.
Weldegebriel, Z.B., Prowse, M., 2013, “Climate‐Change Adaptation in Ethiopia: To What
Extent Does Social Protection Influence Livelihood Diversification?”, volume 31, pp 35-56.
Willis, K., 2006. Interviewing. Doing development research, Sage, London UK.
Widianto, K.H., Suharjito, D., Sardjono, M.A., 2003, “Fungsi dan peran agroforestri”,
http://www.worldagroforestry.org/downloads/Publications/PDFS/LN03309.PDF , accessed
15/06/16.
Registration No 150110406
You, L., Ringler, C., Wood-Sichra, U., Robertson, R., Wood, S., Zhu, T., Nelson, G., Guo,
Z., Sun, Y., 2011, “What is the irrigation potential for Africa? A combined biophysical and
socioeconomic approach”, volume 36 pp 770-782.