Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Climate change poses substantial risks to agriculture and food security in Ethiopia, particularly among smallholder farmers in the southern Rift Valley. This study investigates the key determinants influencing adaptation choices among farmers in the Gedeo Zone. Employing an explanatory research design, the study integrates both quantitative and qualitative methodologies. A structured questionnaire was administered to a sample of 384 households across three districts, complemented by focus group discussions and key informant interviews to enrich qualitative insights. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and a propensity score matching (PSM) framework, combined with a binary logistic regression model to estimate treatment effects and control for confounding variables. Concurrently, qualitative data were examined through thematic analysis, where emergent patterns and recurrent concepts were systematically identified, categorized, and synthesized into coherent thematic constructs. Findings reveal that the majority of farmers in Kochere (65.67%) and Wonago (62.16%) districts do not adopt agroforestry, whereas Yirgachefe district exhibits a higher adoption rate (51.08%). Factors significantly influencing agroforestry-based adaptation choices include household age, gender, farm size, access to basic services, participation in local institutions, and wealth and asset status. The study demonstrates that agroforestry substantially enhances climate resilience, with 59.75% of adopters reporting improved resilience compared to only 5.78% of non-adopters (t-value = 14.32). This proven the synergy between agroforestry and climate resilience firmly establishes it as a strategic pillar of sustainable rural development. The results underscore the urgent need for targeted policy interventions and community-driven strategies to promote agroforestry, thereby fostering resilience, sustainability, and food security in the Gedeo Zone.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gezahegn et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: