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.