An Evaluation of Adaptation Options to Climate Pressure on Highland Robusta Coffee Production, Daklak Province, Vietnam

Veiw figure View Table

3.1.2. Assigning Weights to Evaluation of Adaptation Options

Facing on changes in temperature and rainfall, the coffee growers selected the adaptation options (Table 2) for their farm in order to cope with climate pressure. In the total 176 farmers, there were 101 farmers adjusted to one adaptation option; 54 respondents adapted to two options and 21 remaining farmers acclimatized to three options.

Table 2. The Adaptation Options in Proportion to Number of Farmers

Download as

Veiw figure View Table

3.1.3. Crop Diversification

In recent years, most of the coffee growers have been faced with the simultaneous risks of drought, abnormal rainfall and pest and disease outbreak coupled with the falling coffee price in the world market. They developed their coffee farms under the intercropping coffee with other crops such as fruit trees with banana, mango, avocado, soursop, rambutan; black pepper or shading trees to reduce the external and internal risks in production and stabilizing income. However, the size of intercropping currently was not large enough to make significant contributions to farmers’ income compared with the dominant coffee tree. These crops planted as the boundary for the coffee garden for windbreak purpose, planted at uproot coffee areas with low yield, pests and diseases destroyed and home consumption.

There were 59.3% and 34.6% farmers who adapted to crop diversification, asserted that crop diversification adaptation had the moderately effectiveness (4) and neutral (3) scales respectively. By contrast, 6.1% farmers responded that it was a moderately ineffective (2) option because of the capital and knowledge requirements in investing and controlling diseases for other crops, especially black pepper. The neutral and moderately effectiveness evaluation were explained that crop diversification reduced the risk of income loss as a result of climate conditions, but was not considered highly effective because changes in temperature and aberrant rainfall still impacted on some crop varieties, likely leading to some income loss. In addition, some farmers claimed that plantation shading trees with inappropriate density and techniques in the coffee gardens could obstruct the coffee’s photosynthesis resulting in the adverse quality of coffee.

In terms of economic efficiency, crop diversification was moderately effective (4) by 59.3% and neutral (3) with 29.6% of respondents as the benefits of reduced income loss were expected to exceed the costs of implementation when the pressure of climate conditions took in place in recent years. They claimed that there were some additional costs expected with growing a wider variety of crops, including the possible additional farm equipment for planting, harvesting, storing, labor costs or disease control which were dependent on the nature of the change in cropping practices. There were 11.1% responded that it was a moderately ineffective (2) adaptation.

However, it was considered as a very flexible (5) adaptation option with 8.6% and 80.2% with moderately flexible (4) by giving its potential for yield production under a variety of climate conditions. 11.1% respondents answered with neutral (3).

There were 59.3% of farmers answered that this adaptation had moderate implement-ability (4). About 40.7% responded that it had neither high nor low farmer implement-ability (3) given current social and cultural norms. They were discouraged by the potential complexity of the practice, the need to change established practices, attitudes and norms and additional equipment or contracting, the potential demands on time, knowledge, resources for production and marketing. Moreover, crop diversification as an adaptation was difficult to implement for some farmers who lacked training, skills or investment.

In independent benefits dimension, 86.4% of farmers responded that crop diversification had moderately independent benefits (4) and 13.6% with neutral (3) because in addition to reducing the risks associated with changing temperature and rainfall, it reduced risks associated with improvement in soil fertility and reductions in pesticide use through improvements in natural pest resistance.

3.1.4. Irrigation Techniques

The irrigation technique which farmers applied included the basal technique, sprinklers system from up to down and saving water irrigation. The coffee farmers claimed that, the implementation of irrigation was a predominant adaptation option for the purpose of improving productivity and reducing risk of income loss, due to recurring drought and rainfall delay. There were 44% farmers asserted that implementation of irrigation was a very effective (5) adaptation option and moderately effective (4) comprised 54%. It allowed for the artificial application of moisture during times of stress, maintained and enhanced crop yields relative to climate conditions. The irrigation application helped to meet water demand, improve quality and enhance coffee yield. Only 2% of farmers responded with moderately ineffective (2) because of unavailability water.

Under economic efficiency aspect, irrigation technique needed more investment cost such as the purchase of irrigation equipment and on-farm distribution infrastructure, while other costs associated with pumping and water allocation volumes would be incurred, they also contributed in proportion of the total costs of irrigation implementation. Thus, irrigation implementation was considered to be very effective (5) with 25%, moderately economically efficient (4) with 73% and 2% responding moderately ineffective (2).

Implementation of irrigated agriculture for coffee was considered moderately flexible (4) accounted for 79%. When water was available for irrigation, the adaptation was considered under flexible a variety of moisture constraints over a five-year period. However, given the uncertainties in predicting local and regional changes in precipitation, evaporation and the amount of available soil moisture, implementation of an irrigation system was moderately flexible (2) adaptation strategy with 21% due to repercussions of water availability and access to irrigation practices.

In terms of farmer implement-ability of irrigation techniques adaptation, there were 17% of farmers implied very implement-ability (5), moderately implement-ability (4) with 50% and neutral (3) took up 33%. Application irrigation technique for their farm required substantial investment in time to learn new skills related to irrigation management given the specific soil and land characteristics of the farm property, the nature of the crop types intended to be irrigated, fertilizer application techniques and credit capacity as well. On the other hand, irrigation as an adaptation need little additional learning and effort, especially if farmers had irrigated in the past such as other farm properties and adjacent fields.

Implementation of irrigation had high independent benefits (5) with responses comprising 77%. The remained 23% presented with moderately independent benefits (4). Irrigation enhanced the productivity of many crops irrespective of climate pressure and increases the moisture of soils.

3.1.5. Soil Conservation

Overuse of chemicals, groundwater level decrease and increase in evapotranspiration would magnify the vulnerability of coffee plantations to climate pressure. Thus, approaches to enhance the resilience of soils such as organic fertilization, planting trees and bushes or legumes that helped to prevent from soil erosion, enhancement of water storage capacity of the soils should be identified and implemented early enough to avoid serious damages and yield loss. The survey result indicated that there were 91 farmers adopted soil conservation for dealing with climate pressure.

Under effectiveness dimension, 49.5% of farmers considered soil conservation as a moderately effective adaptation (4) and neutral (3) with 50.5%. They explained that it promoted in soil fertility, enhanced carbon sequestration, reduced potential for wind and water erosion. This also helped to improve the yield of coffee. However, lack of knowledge and appropriate technique in fertilizer application caused the adverse effects on soil fertility and quality of coffee.

Soil conservation provided and maintained an optimum condition of the root-zone to maximum possible depth for coffee roots to function more effectively and without hindrance by capturing high amounts of desired plant nutrients and water passes down to the groundwater and stream flow, not over the surface as runoff. There were 49.5% respondents claimed moderately effective (4) for term of economic efficiency and 43.9% answered in neutral scale (3). Soil conservation enhanced soil fertility leading to improve and increase coffee yield. But this also spent more cost for kind of fertilizer, which had high quality and more labor cost as well. Only 6.6% noted in moderate ineffective (2) scale. They mentioned enhancement coffee productivity and soil moistures thank to irrigation techniques rather than soil conservation.

Dimension of flexibility and implement-ability was evaluated moderate level (4) comprised 49% respectively. The remaining percent responded with neutral (3). Meanwhile, 58% farmers considered this adaptation had moderately independent benefits (4) and neutral (3) constituted 42%.

From the survey results about farmers’ different scales for each adaptation under various criteria, the study used the unity based normalization tool in order to normalize the original values into the range in [0, 1]. The scales for the groups who adapted to two and three adaptation options were defined by calculating the average values of scales that they answered for each adaptation. The weight method was also employed to compute the weighted scale for each adaptation option. The result of Table 3 presented how each adaptation performed for each criterion. The finding deposed that crop diversification adaptation had high weight on flexibility. Implementation of irrigation was evaluated high weight scale on effectiveness, economic efficiency and independent benefits. Meanwhile, the weight of scales of economic efficiency, flexibility and implement-ability for soil conservation adaptation were the same. The weighted scale of effectiveness and economic efficiency of the groups who adjusted to crop diversification and irrigation techniques, irrigation techniques and soil conservation and three of the options were higher than the group of crop diversification and soil conservation. In addition, the adaptation groups which involved in the irrigation technique were evaluated strongly in all of criteria. This expressed that irrigation techniques played an essential role for coffee production and appropriately responded to pressure of temperature and rainfall changes.

Table 3. Criteria Weighted Scale and Selected Farmer Adaptations

Download as

Veiw figure View Table

Using the weighted sum method, the rank of the adaptation options was presented in Table 4. Two criteria related to effectiveness and economic efficiency had high weight in adaptation evaluation. The different weights evaluated the relative overall merit of adaptation options. The finding indicated that the groups who adapted to irrigation techniques, crop diversification and irrigation techniques had the highest sum of weight while the adaptation groups of soil conservation, crop diversification and soil conservation had the lowest weight.

Table 4. Sum of Weighted Scale of Adaptation Evaluation

Download as

Veiw figure View Table

From the result of Table 4, using the equal interval scale method defined the ordinal three categories of adaptation options (Table 5).

The Table 5 result revealed that in the total of 176 coffee farmers, the low adaptation level, which had the weighted sum from 2.15 to 2.49, constituted 26.14%. The weighted sum which ranged between 2.50 and 2.84 was considered as the medium adaptation group comprised 42.61% while the high adaptation was evaluated with equal or over 2.85 of weighted sum and took up 31.25%.

Table 5. Level of Adaptation Options

Download as

Veiw figure View Table

Even though a large number of farmers interviewed noticed changes in temperature and rainfall and selected the adaptation options for their farm, the coffee growers have still faced to difficulties in practicing the adaptations. More than 80 percent of farmers cited lack of access to credit for undertaking the remedial actions. Around 35.80 percentage of farmers designed lack of knowledge of appropriate adaptation measures as barriers to adaptations. There was 28.41 percent of respondents also cited a shortage of labor in adaptation undertake (Figure 1)

Figure 1. Adaptation barriers (% of the respondents) Source: Survey data, 2013

Download as

View current figure in a new window

Figures index

Veiw figure View Figure

3.2. Factors Influencing the Farmers’ Adaptation Level

The Table 6 noticed that the estimated coefficients for education, coffee growing experience, coffee farming size, coffee income, non-coffee income, access to credit, access to climate information, access to extension services and irrigation option had statistically significant influence on level of adaptation dealing with climate pressure. Only age and gender were insignificant.

The R-squared of model represented the statistical explanatory variables could explain about 44.5 percent of the variation level of farmers’ adaptation. The likelihood ratio statistics as indicated by χ² statistics were highly significant (P < 0.00000), suggesting the model had a strong explanatory power or high goodness of fit.

The value of threshold parameter explained that, subjects that had a value of 2.43 or less on the underlying latent variable would be classified as moderate adaptation. And the subjects that had a value more than 2.43 on the underlying latent variable would be classified as high adaptation option.

Education of head of household was negatively contributed to levels of low and moderate adaptation while it was positively affected to level of high adaptation. The coefficient value presented that a one unit increase in education would result in a 0.164 unit increase in the ordered log-odds of being in a higher adaptation category while the other variables in the model were held constant. The numbers of schooling years of the head of household increased the probability of adapting to climate pressure. A unit increase in the number of years of schooling would result in a 0.038 percent increase in the probability of choosing high adaptation at significance level 1%.

The coffee growing experience had a positive relationship for choosing high adaptation options and a contrary, the negative effect to low and moderate adaptation. One unit increase in coffee growing experience would lead to a 0.047 unit increase in the ordered log-odds of being in a higher adaptation category while the other variables in the model were held constant. Farmers’ coffee growing experience increased one year, the probability of choosing high adaptation increased 0.011 percent at 5% level.

Table 6. The Estimation of Coffee Farmers’ Adaptation on Climate Pressure

Download as

Veiw figure View Table

The coffee farming size: One unit increase in coffee farming size resulted in a 0.116 unit increase in the ordered log-odds of being in a higher adaptation category while the other variables in the model were held constant. The value of marginal effect indicated that a unit increased in the coffee farming size made increasing the probability in high adaptation 0.026 percent at 10% level.

The coffee income: One unit increase in coffee income would lead to a 0.012 unit increase in the ordered log-odds of being in a higher adaptation category while the other variables in the model were held constant. The coffee income of the households surveyed had a positive and significant impact on high adaptation level. A unit increased in the coffee income resulted in increasing the probability in high adaptation 0.002 percent at 5% level. Farmers, who had higher income, increasing more time for irrigation, building the big tanks to contain storage water as well when raining and apply sprinkler techniques to save water and labor hiring also. However, rising irrigation time spent more cost for fuel and labor. Irrigation technique was limited by requiring abundant water availability and more capital investment. It also required substantial investment in time for farmers learn new skills related to irrigation management and changing in technology as well.

Non-coffee income: The non-coffee income had a positive effect on choosing high adaptation options. One unit increase in non-coffee income would lead to a 0.004 unit increase in the ordered log-odds of being in a higher adaptation category while the other variables in the model were held constant. The marginal effect value highlighted that a unit increased in non-coffee income led to increasing in the probability of level of adaptation with 0.001 percent at 10% level.

Access to credit: The farmers, who accessed to credit, had more chance or money to invest for high adaptation option. The ordered log-odds for accessing to credit being in a higher adaptation category was 0.637 higher than no access when the other variables in the model were held constant. The probability in adapting high adaptation strategies was higher 0.174 percent than otherwise at 5% level.

Access to climate information: The ordered log-odds for access to climate information in higher adaptation strategy was 0.765 higher than no access. The farmers, who accessed to climate information or had more information, had a higher probability in high adaptation with 0.143 percent than otherwise at 1% level.

Access to extension services: the result was in line with various studies in developing countries that report a positive relationship between access to information and the adoption behavior of farmers (Yirga, 2007). The farmers, who had more information, training by extension service programs, had higher the ordered log-odds with 0.638 and higher probability with 0.141 percent in choosing high adaptation strategy at 5% level.

Irrigation option: The farming households who had irrigation option, the ordered log-odd in a higher adaptation option was 0.977 higher than no irrigation option when the other variables in the model were held constant. The probability in choosing high adaptation was higher than those no option with 0.221 percent at 1% level.

The insignificant of age was explained that the coffee tree was a perennial crop that required more experience and knowledge for taking care and improving new techniques in processing of coffee cultivation. It hinged on the coffee growers’ experience, education or income for investment and development of coffee rather than you were elders.

The result of negative relationship and insignificance between gender and adaptation levels explained that female’ probability for selecting adaptation options to climate pressure was lower than male. Through the survey, the women appeared more likely than men to rely on neighbors for information, whereas men appeared more likely than women to hinge on traditional knowledge. Male and female farmers had identical perceptions of temperature and precipitation trends and over time these perceptions matched well with the climate records which shown an increase in climate condition over the past ten years. However, the gender differences in access to institutions, information and acclimatize to climate variability reflected differences in male and female’s education levels and literacy as well as culturally defined roles in decision making and division of labor. The role of women in making decision was still weak and did not interact with extension agents or training programs. As a result would be less likely to report having the choice to adaptation strategies.

The result of Table 7 showed that there were more actual farmers with low adaptation level than predicted, 46 of actual versus 38 of predicted. Similarly, there were more actual farmers with moderate adaptation level than predicted, 75 of actual versus 54 of predicted and 55 of actual versus 41 of predicted for high adaptation level. The high predicted percent concluded that the model was more appropriate in explaining the variation of dependent variables when the explanatory elements changed.

Table 7. The Accuracy of Ordered Logit Model

Download as

Veiw figure View Table