communities to on-farm trees for their own purposes until their attitudinal change
towards such trees.
The results also suggest that in the adaptation process farmers exhibit different
stages of behavioral chances in various livelihood domains. For example, in rural
communities in Burkina Faso, 84 % and 58 % of the story-tellers respectively
expressed changes in knowledge of agricultural techniques and practicing improved
agricultural techniques. In the Doggoh community in Ghana, none of the
interviewed farmers expressed changes in knowledge about implementing assisted
natural regeneration techniques, but 33 % of interviewed women and men farmers
revealed changes in applying on-farm assisted natural regeneration. These differences reflect the likelihood that farmers in a community will be in different stages
of behavioral changes in early parts of adaptation initiatives such as the CCAFS
program.
Finally, some characteristics of changes were not identified in the individual
stories of changes. This should not necessarily be interpreted as an absence of such
changes, because the M&E questions only asked the farmers to report the significant changes they had experienced through participation in the CCAFS program’s
adaptation activities. Thus, they may have considered some changes too insignificant to describe in their stories of change.
Overall, the results indicate that participating farmers have initiated behavioral
changes in various domains. Furthermore, the application of planned behavior
theory allowed identification of the initiation of behavioral change at both individual and group levels in communities participating in the intervention in all three
countries. Thus, the applied technique has clear potential utility for monitoring the
implementation of farming systems and production technologies adapted to climate
change, the spatial and temporal dissemination of adaptations, and the sustained
changes in people’s livelihoods and lifestyles that may be required to reduce
vulnerability to its impacts.
These results are consistent with findings of innovative adoption studies, unsurprisingly as changes in behavior represent adoption of new behaviors and/or
innovative practices, which is one of the most frequently advocated strategies for
adapting agriculture to climate change. It should be noted that numerous variables
will influence results of initiatives to foster changes. Notably, Rogers (1983)
reported that factors such as attitudes, values, motivations, and perceptions of risk
differ between decision-makers (producers) who are ‘innovators’ and those who are
‘laggards’ with respect to the adoption of particular innovations. In addition,
according to Rothman (2000), individual or group decisions regarding behavioral
initiation depend on people holding favorable expectations of the future outcome of
the new pattern of behavior. However, maintenance of these new behavior patterns
will mostly depend on farmers’ satisfaction with the outcome they obtain (Rothman
2000).
14 Adaptation Processes in Agriculture and Food Security: Insights from. . .
263
towards such trees.
The results also suggest that in the adaptation process farmers exhibit different
stages of behavioral chances in various livelihood domains. For example, in rural
communities in Burkina Faso, 84 % and 58 % of the story-tellers respectively
expressed changes in knowledge of agricultural techniques and practicing improved
agricultural techniques. In the Doggoh community in Ghana, none of the
interviewed farmers expressed changes in knowledge about implementing assisted
natural regeneration techniques, but 33 % of interviewed women and men farmers
revealed changes in applying on-farm assisted natural regeneration. These differences reflect the likelihood that farmers in a community will be in different stages
of behavioral changes in early parts of adaptation initiatives such as the CCAFS
program.
Finally, some characteristics of changes were not identified in the individual
stories of changes. This should not necessarily be interpreted as an absence of such
changes, because the M&E questions only asked the farmers to report the significant changes they had experienced through participation in the CCAFS program’s
adaptation activities. Thus, they may have considered some changes too insignificant to describe in their stories of change.
Overall, the results indicate that participating farmers have initiated behavioral
changes in various domains. Furthermore, the application of planned behavior
theory allowed identification of the initiation of behavioral change at both individual and group levels in communities participating in the intervention in all three
countries. Thus, the applied technique has clear potential utility for monitoring the
implementation of farming systems and production technologies adapted to climate
change, the spatial and temporal dissemination of adaptations, and the sustained
changes in people’s livelihoods and lifestyles that may be required to reduce
vulnerability to its impacts.
These results are consistent with findings of innovative adoption studies, unsurprisingly as changes in behavior represent adoption of new behaviors and/or
innovative practices, which is one of the most frequently advocated strategies for
adapting agriculture to climate change. It should be noted that numerous variables
will influence results of initiatives to foster changes. Notably, Rogers (1983)
reported that factors such as attitudes, values, motivations, and perceptions of risk
differ between decision-makers (producers) who are ‘innovators’ and those who are
‘laggards’ with respect to the adoption of particular innovations. In addition,
according to Rothman (2000), individual or group decisions regarding behavioral
initiation depend on people holding favorable expectations of the future outcome of
the new pattern of behavior. However, maintenance of these new behavior patterns
will mostly depend on farmers’ satisfaction with the outcome they obtain (Rothman
2000).
14 Adaptation Processes in Agriculture and Food Security: Insights from. . .
263