Next Article in Journal
Decarbonizing Urban Mobility: A Methodology for Shifting Modal Shares to Achieve CO2 Reduction Targets
Previous Article in Journal
Environmental Sustainability in OECD Nations: The Moderating Impact of Green Innovation on Urbanization and Green Growth
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation in Nigeria: A Review

by
Chukwuebuka C. Okafor
1,*,
Charles C. Ajaero
1,*,
Christian N. Madu
1,2,
Chinelo A. Nzekwe
3,
Festus A. Otunomo
4 and
Nduji N. Nixon
1
1
Center for Environmental Management and Control, University of Nigeria, Enugu Campus, Enugu 410001, Nigeria
2
Department of Management and Management Science, Lubin School of Business, Pace University, New York, NY 10038, USA
3
School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University College Cork, Distillery Field Campus, North Mall, T23 TK30 Cork, Ireland
4
Nuclear Science and Technology, Department of Engineering, North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 11 Hoffman Street, Potchefstroom 2520, South Africa
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2024, 16(16), 7048; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16167048
Submission received: 20 June 2024 / Revised: 30 July 2024 / Accepted: 12 August 2024 / Published: 16 August 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Air, Climate Change and Sustainability)

Abstract

:
Nigeria is one of the most vulnerable countries to climate change (CC) impact. Thus, there is a need to mitigate emission and implement strategies to adapt to the impacts of CC. This study is a review of publications on CC mitigation and/or adaptation in Nigeria. The aims are as follows: to identify commonly adopted climate change adaptation strategies (CCAS) and their determinants; and to identify the climate change mitigation strategies (CCMS) that are widely deployed to reduce emissions in Nigeria. Relevant keywords were used to search for publications in Scopus and Google Scholar. Our dataset shows that from 1999 to the present, there has been an exponential growth in the number of publications on CCAS and CCMS. In total, 75.2% of the papers were on CCAS, 19.6% were on CCMS and 5.2% combined CCAS and CCMS. Many of the papers on CCMS were on ‘Energy’ and ‘Agriculture’. Other sectors identified from the included studies pertinent to mitigation in Nigeria included ‘forestry’, ‘waste management’, ‘industry’ and others. Most (80.7%) of the CCAS papers were related to ‘Agriculture’, showing the most important sector where CC-adaptive capacity is required in Nigeria. In all, 45% of the papers on CCAS were on ‘Social’ adaptation, followed by ‘Structural measures’ (42%), with the smallest amount being on ‘Institutional’ measures (13%). The relatively fewer number of papers on institutional CCAS highlights the need for more research. This is because institutional measures which include policies, legal and fiscal support are important to build resilience to climate change impact. The greatest determinant influencing the adoption of CCAS is ‘Education’. A higher number of publications on ‘Agriculture’ for both CCMS and CCAS underscores the importance of the sector and the need to develop its mitigation and adaptive capacity strategies. Our results and findings were also compared and discussed in line with similar works on CCMS and CCAS in Africa.

1. Introduction

Anthropogenic activities across the globe have increased the emissions of greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere [1], leading to climate change. Climate changes have caused many physical and biological alterations across the world. Such changes posit dangers to humans, affect the food supply change and degrade the natural environment. Developing countries in Africa are more vulnerable to climate change and they lack the capacity to build resilience and adapt to climate change. Empirical data show that Nigeria is already facing environmental challenges stemming from CC impacts [2]. About 6% of Nigeria’s land mass is vulnerable to extreme weather events, thus making the country among the top ten most exposed countries to the impacts of climate change [2,3]. The impacts of climate change include extreme weather conditions, unexpected temperature and rainfall variations. These changes have led to perennial flooding, population and settlement displacement and food insecurity [4]; growing desertification and drought in different climatic zones of Nigeria [5]; the erosion of shorelines along coastal areas and water temperature changes [6]; the modification of waterbodies [7]; and increased gender inequities and intra-gender inequalities (especially among women) [8]. Some have also attributed these socio-economic impacts to an increase in communal conflicts and violence [9].
Rural and poor communities are more vulnerable to climate change [7]. This is because rural communities are primarily engaged in subsistence farming. Further, because of the poor living conditions, those areas are more prone to environmental degradations and natural disasters. Climate change has also been blamed for harvests, thus leading to increased poverty in rural communities [10]. In the Sahel region of Nigeria alone, about 30 hectares of farmland are lost annually to desertification [2]. The poor are more susceptible to climate change and may resist some of the strategies to mitigate against climate change if such strategies threaten their economic wellbeing [11]. For example, the rate of diarrhea, measles and malaria is on the rise, and this is related to climate variability (increase in temperature) and poor environmental conditions [12]. Thus, there is need to understand the determinants of climate change in order to develop appropriate mitigation and adaptation strategies. Much of the CC research on Nigeria appears to focus more on evaluating the sensitivity of different attributes of bio-geophysical systems and places little emphasis on socio-economic issues. This has partly led to an isolated assessment of CC impacts, presenting inadequate awareness of the how and what of the current coping (mitigating and adaptation) strategies [13,14].
According to a 2020 estimate, the total GHG emissions from Nigerian agriculture was roughly 322,000 kt CO2-eq [3]. Livestock accounts for 69.2%, making it the major source of GHG emissions in the agricultural sector in Nigeria. The GHG emissions are projected to increase by 94% in 2050 (67.7 Mt CO2-eq) relative to 2010 levels [15]. Even though Nigeria has a huge amount of arable land for the cultivation of crops, the country imported about NGN 3.35 trillion’s worth of foodstuff between 2016 and 2019, versus only exporting NGN 803 billion’s worth in the same period. This shows that Nigeria’s agricultural import is four times higher than its exports [16]. Although there are several factors to explain the decline in agricultural production, climate change plays a significant role. Climate change-induced weather variabilities may further erode the country’s agriculture production, thus leading to more imports and unfavorable trade balances. Many works have been conducted on climate change mitigation and/or adaptation in Nigeria. Okon et al. [2] conducted a systematic review on climate change impact in Nigeria. However, our study focuses on identifying the means of mitigating and adapting to CC impact. Many studies on adaptation in Nigeria seems to focus on the agricultural sector. For example, Onyeneke et al. [17] conducted a systematic review on climate change adaptation in the Nigerian agricultural sector. Similarly, Ojo et al. [4], Jellason et al. [8], Ojo et al. [9], Tarfa et al. [18] and Ogunleye et al. [19] worked on various adaptive capacities for agriculture. However, our study differs as it aims to identify various adaptive capacities to CC. Similarly, our study relied on an International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) categorization of adaptation strategies (structural/physical, social measures and institutional measures) (Noble et al., 2014) [20] to identify the research directions of the included CCAS papers. This is important to identify research gaps and proffer direction for future research and policymaking. Furthermore, many studies have worked on various sectors potential for CC mitigation. Elum and Momodu (2017) [1], Dioha et al. [15], Abiodun et al. [21], Adeoti et al. [22], Okoroh et al. [23], Chenge et al. [24] and Arimi et al. [25] worked on agricultural potential for CC mitigation, while Ukoba et al. [26], Enongene et al. [27], Elum et al. [28] and Giwa et al. [29] studied the potential of renewable energy for CC mitigation in Nigeria. Etermire [30] focused on the import of legal instruments in applying mitigations. Our study synthesized findings from the included studies to present a comprehensive array of instruments for CC mitigation in Nigeria to enable evidence-based decision or policymaking. Further, the included studies (for mitigation and/or adaptation) adopted either primary and/or secondary research methods; our study, which is secondary research, generated both quantitative and qualitative data so as to synthesize from the existing body of knowledge and contribute to CC development in Nigeria.
Considering the exponential growth in population with dwindling resources to cater for the population, an increase in poverty, food insecurity and ecological disasters are inevitable. There is, therefore, a need to re-examine the current mitigation, adaptation and coping mechanisms with the intent to proffer resilient and robust strategies to climate change impacts. Thus, this research aims to address the following questions:
  • How have publications in climate change mitigation or adaptation evolved in Nigeria?
  • What are the determinants and commonly adopted CCAS in Nigeria?
  • What are the mitigation measures being deployed to reduce GHG emissions in Nigeria?
This study is important because by evaluating previous and recent research strategies, which are knowledge and data driven, the key determinants of mechanisms to mitigate, adapt and cope with climate change may be developed.
The paper is structured as follows: Section 1 gives the general introduction, including the research aim and research questions, while Section 2 presents the research methods which includes the search keywords, inclusion and exclusion criteria and others. In line with the research questions, the study result is presented and discussed in Section 3, while Section 4 compares our study with similar studies conducted for sub-Saharan Africa. The practical implications of the study are presented in Section 5, while the study conclusion is made in Section 6.

2. Materials and Methods

This research adopts a mixed-method approach that consist of both quantitative and qualitative analysis for analyzing the selected literature. The study adapted the method used by Okon et al. [2]. The review consists of two stages—finding the literature to study through a search in databases together with a number of rules for selecting the pertinent pieces of literature, and scrutinizing the content of the selected literature using a set of questions. Addressing climate change impacts involves generally two factors—mitigation/response and adaptation/coping. Mitigation measures aim at reducing or cutting GHG emissions, while adaptation measures decrease exposure/vulnerability or manage climate change impact risk to a tolerable level. UNFCCC [17] categorized mitigation sectors into seven groups: (i) energy supply, (ii) transportation, (iii) buildings, (iv) industry, (v) agriculture, (vi) forestry and (vii) waste. The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) categorized adaptation strategies into (i) structural/physical measures (engineering and built environment, technological options, eco-system-based adaptation and service options), (ii) social measures and (iii) institutional measures [20]. Figure 1 shows the method adopted for the review of the publications.
A literature search was conducted in the Scopus database and Google Scholar. Scopus was chosen because it is the most extensive database of peer-reviewed academic literature. Unlike Google Scholar, Scopus allows for the retrieval of documents based on researcher’s keywords. Scopus also features bibliographic information such as authors’ affiliation, year of publication, abstracts, keywords, etc. The rationale of combining both is that many peer-reviewed publications indexed in reputable indexes such as Web of Science or PubMed may not be indexed in SCOPUS. Google Scholar, a search engine, contains both peer-reviewed and gray literature. Google Scholar returns articles published and indexed in reputable databases including Scopus, Web of Science, Pub Med, etc., and other non-reputable ones. Many titles indexed in Scopus may not be indexed in such other reputable indexes. However, we screened to make sure that articles included from Google Scholar are indexed in reputable indexes. The search was conducted on both Scopus and Google Scholar on 29 November 2022, using the Boolean search string: “Climate change” AND “mitigation” OR “adaptation” OR “response” OR “coping measures” AND “Nigeria”. Mitigation connotes all measures to cutting greenhouse emissions from different sectors, while adaptation refers to measures to reduce exposure or vulnerability or managing risk from CC impacts [20,31]. Coping measures are also synonymous to adaptation. The Boolean operator “AND” was used between climate change and the other following keywords so as to return articles that contain either mitigation/adaptation. “OR” was used between ‘mitigation’, ‘adaptation’, ‘response’ and ‘coping measures’ so as to return articles that focus on any of the aforementioned keywords. Similarly, AND ‘Nigeria’ was used to return only articles that are on Nigeria. The query in the Scopus database gave a total of 570 documents. Many of the works were not related to Nigeria and were not relevant to the theme of the paper. The search query was then refined by limiting it to “article” and “review” documents and country “Nigeria”. This produced 265 documents. Google Scholar produced 711,000 records. Most of the articles were irrelevant and it was also difficult to manage the list. To further limit the search to a relevant and manageable set of literature, we limited the search to the following: (i) With all of the words: “Nigeria”; (ii) With the exact phrase: “climate change”; (iii) With at least one of the words “mitigation” “adaptation” “response” or “coping measures” and (iv) Where my words occur: “in the title of article”. The refinement produced a total of 844 records from Google Scholar. The search result was then exported to word processor. We set up the following selection rules, to select materials to include in the study:
  • Inclusion of studies carried out or related to Nigeria. This is because our study focuses solely on Nigeria. Accordingly, articles which included Nigeria in its panel data and whose results are pertinent to Nigeria were included.
  • Exclusion of studies in other languages other than English (which the authors understand fluently).
  • Inclusion of studies published in peer review and suitably indexed journals. Accordingly, conference proceedings, reports, etc., were excluded. Only articles and reviews from suitably indexed journals were included in the study because they have undergone peer-review, thereby promoting quality science.
  • Inclusion of studies which include quantitative or qualitative results or both.
  • Exclusion of papers with the same results published on different platforms. This is to avoid the inclusion of duplicates of the same paper with the same results and findings.
  • Exclusion of studies that focus only on climate change impact or effect. This is because the paper focuses on adaptation and mitigation and not CC impact.
  • Inclusion of studies which focus meaningfully on mitigation, adaptation or coping strategies or measures and climate change impact or effect.

3. Result and Discussion

3.1. Publication Evolution

The trend in the publications is presented in Figure 2 below. As is shown, there has been an exponential increase in the rate of production from 1999 to 2022. Figure 2 shows that the majority of the publications are research articles with a few research review publications.
As shown in Figure 2, publications on CC measures have steadily increased since 1999. This is four years after the first COP in 1995. However, while the number of articles fluctuates and is very negligible between 1999 and 2015, it started increasing steadily from 2016, which is after 2015 (COP 21, Paris Agreement) where Nigeria in its Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) pledged unconditionally to reduce its Business-as-Usual emissions by 20% by 2030, and also pledged itself to a 45% conditional reduction. In total, 73.2% of the studies were published between 2018 and 2022, while 1999–2017 accounts for 26.8% of the studies. Put differently, 83.5% of the included studies were published after 2015 (Paris Agreement). There were no identified publications from 2001 to 2011. As shown in Figure 3, 92.8% (90) of the publications were articles, while 2.2% (7) were reviews. A total of 73 papers (75.2%) focused solely on CCAS, 19 papers (19.6%) focused solely on CCMS, while 5 papers (5.2%) studied both CCAS and CCMS.
Location or geographical zones represent the actual places field samples or modeling were conducted. As shown in Figure 4, the highest number of publications on ‘CCAS’ and ‘CCMS’ were conducted in South-West Nigeria, while the North-East recorded the least overall. This indicates that CCAS research is highest in South-West Nigeria, while CCMS is highest in South-South Nigeria. The second highest amount of research on CCAS, CCMS and combined CCAS and CCMS was conducted in the South-East. The higher number of CCAs research in South-West Nigeria may be explained by geography. The vegetation of southwestern Nigeria is made up of freshwater swamp and mangrove forest, which favors agricultural production. However, extreme and varying weather events such as floods and droughts are challenging the sector in this area [32]. The higher number of CCMS research from the South-South may be explained by the oil exploration and the immense associated gas flaring taking place in the area. This may have prompted a greater focus on ways to reduce GHG emissions in the area.
In Figure 5, among the CCMS publications, eight papers focused on ‘Energy’ and ‘Agriculture’, four papers focused on ‘Forestry’, two papers focused on ‘Industry’ and one paper focused on ‘Waste Management’ and ‘Other’. The categorization of the CCAS papers is shown in Figure 6. This further indicates the strong role of Energy and Agriculture as sectors to consider in reducing or mitigating emissions or CC in Nigeria.
As shown in Figure 6, the analysis shows that most of the CCAS papers include a mix of different adaptation measures. Social measures accounted for about 45% of the papers and structural measures account for 42%. Institutional measures account for 13%. The high percentage of ‘Social measures’ may reflect ‘reactive’ rather than ‘anticipatory’ and/or preplanned actions [33]. The ‘reactive’ nature (social measures) of the CCAS reflect the papers’ focus on people’s attempt to adapt or survive. The relatively fewer number of papers on ‘Institutional’ includes ‘policies, laws and economic’. A total of 80.7% (63 papers) on CCAS focused on agriculture. Further, under Agriculture CCAS, 55.5% (35 papers) were related solely to crop production, 14.3% (9 papers) were on livestock, while 30.2% (19 papers) were general (Supplementary File). By factors, the higher number of the papers focused on Social CCAS, with ‘Behavioural’ recording the highest. Only very few dealt with ‘Institutional’ CCAS. This relatively lower number on Institutional CCAS papers creates a critical gap, as they should drive the laws, policies and economics required to scale or create innovative climate mechanisms.
The number of studies that focused on CCAS greatly surpassed that of CCMS. This is consistent with Nwobodo et al. [34] and Ikehi et al. [35]. Mitigation accounts for only 10%, while adaptation accounts for 90% of CC measures [22]. Conversely, in Nigerian Climate Change budgetary allocations, the amount of mitigation programs in a seven-year period (2013–2020) accounted for 60%, while adaptation strategies accounted for 40%. This indicates the federal government of Nigeria (FGN)’s preference for mitigation programs over adaptation programs. Comparatively, the government is focusing more of its budget on mitigation programs and less on adaptation programs [14]. There is divergence in the focus of government programs and identified research publications. The government’s major budgetary action or focus on CC mitigation is a strong indication of its commitment to the IPCC’s goal of limiting the temperature increase to below 1.5 °C by 2030, although the effectiveness of the CCMS is another question. The greater focus of research publications on CCAS may be related to research funding or the identification of the basic survivability of the people. Mitigation measures such as energy efficiency, solar-powered street lighting, carbon tax and renewable energy uptake are more expensive for the people [1,36]. Political tenure is also another factor that favors the government’s preference for mitigation over adaptation programs. CC impact often becomes observable in the future. Adaptation programs therefore require long-term corrective measures. Adaptation programs are long-term and may not be effective during a tenure in office. Also, due to the lack of continuity and inconsistencies in policies, such programs may not succeed. For example, federal lawmakers’ constituency projects lean towards mitigation projects which are immediate and clearly stand as landmarks. Accordingly, governments tend to focus on the immediate actions which are often mitigation programs. There is therefore a need for a scientific- and evidence-based balance between mitigation and adaptation programs. This is because Zickfeld et al. [37] report that if global emissions were to suddenly stop, it would take thousands of years for atmospheric temperatures to return to pre-industrial levels.

3.2. Determinants and Commonly Adopted CCAS in Nigeria

Among our dataset, CCAS papers that obtained statistically significant determinants influencing CCAS adoption were enumerated. The statistically significant determinant factors influencing the adoption of CCAS identified from the dataset are shown in Figure 7.
As shown in Figure 7, socio-economic factors such as education, age, family size, income sources [34,38], size and state of farmland and economic assets, institutional support (or corporate social responsibility) [39], access to an extension service, the membership of an organization or association [38], access to veterinary services [34] and access to credit facilities have an effect on the awareness and adoption of adaptation strategies [40]. Even among non-farm urban dwellers, age, education, household size and income, house type and house ownership significantly influence CCAS [33]. ‘Education’ is identified as the most re-occurring statistically significant determinant influencing the adoption of CCAS in our dataset. It is followed by ‘Age’, while ‘Marital Status’ is the least determinant. Other socio-economic factors include farm, institutional and location characteristics which significantly affect farmers’ choice of CCAS [41,42].
Age is a very important element in agricultural production because it is connoted with increasing level of experience [9] learned from observation and practice [43,44]. However, it seems the older the farmer, the less likely they are to adopt some technology-based CCAS [43,45]. The average age of farmers in Nigeria is about 52 years [44]. Household size is a determinant of labor availability [32]. A unit increase in household size increases the likelihood of CCAS by 0.231 [46]. The level of education increases the probability of adopting strategies such as irrigation, soil conservation and tree planting [45,47]. The farmers adopt mix-strategies. The effectiveness of some of them is complementary and interdependent [18] and significantly increase returns, profit and production [41]. A statistically interdependent example is planting cover trees, adjusting planting date and using improved plant varieties [18]. Integrating inorganic fertilization and varying planting dates significantly increased maize (27.53%) and rice (21.49%) yields [48]. Off-farming income or agro-diversification helps farmers to adapt and minimize losses [34,49] and serves as a buffer against CC effects such as drought, flooding, pest infestations, etc., [50]. A unit rise in off-farming income increases the probability of CCAS adoption by 9.4% [9].
Membership in agricultural associations or organizations such as cooperatives offers farmers various sources of information and improved access to credit facilities and intervention methods [4,19,38]. To reduce the risk from crop failure because of climate change-induced weather variability, other sources of income are often sought [17,51]. This could be off-farming activities that may include crop and livestock production [13,52,53]. The diversification of income increases the chances of small-scale farmers to engage in sustainable practices to increase their farm yields [46]. Access to loans significantly influences the adoption of most of the CCAS [45]. The location of financial institutions also affects access to credit. For example, the presence of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) and the Bank of Agriculture (BOA) in Osun State increases the probability of farmers in the area to apply for and receive loans [54]. The most common CCAS adopted among the dataset is shown in Figure 8.
As shown in Figure 8, soil conservation is the most-preferred and adopted CCAS, followed by the use of improved varieties, varying planting seasons and agrochemicals. ‘Integrated Pest Management’ was the least commonly adopted CCAS. CCAS practice adoption is influenced by its affordability, profitability and farm size [47]. Farmers with large farms are more likely to have mechanized farming practices and may likely invest in CCAS practices such as the utilization of improved seedlings and varieties [4]. They are also likely to diversify farms that may integrate crop and livestock production [55]. Gender has also been noted to affect the adoption of CCAS practices [8,56]. Males tend to have more access to resources to adopt CCAS [9,56]. However, females are more vulnerable to CC impact [57]. Females are also more likely than male household heads to diversify their risks by engaging in other off-farming activities [50]. Male household head (MHH) farmers also earn more than their FHH counterparts [58]. Females are less involved in opportunities for the advancement of human capital such as training [59]. To cope with food insecurity, females engage in diversified farming and off-farming activities more than males [57]. This may be the result of traditional social norms and culture to assign more responsibilities to women in taking care of their children [25,38]. The issue of land ownership where men own the land may also affect the practices of female farmers’ adoption of different CCAS, which is often co-dependent. Farmers adopt a mix of CCAS so as to increase efficiency and build resilience [32]. They are often based on observable and unobservable features [60]. Small-scale farmers lean towards investment in traditional adaptation strategies such as the stocking of local breeds, while medium- and large-scale farmers embrace contemporary technologies [61]. However, many farmers in the country adopt mixed adaptation strategies including the use of traditional and current technologies [62].
Structural/physical CCAS such as architectural design, materials use and energy efficiency enable the adaptation to CC impacts on buildings [63]. The ambient temperature variability induced by CC affects human physiology (human discomfort and heat stress), especially for a tropical climate. Accordingly, 64% of the urban population of the Niger Delta use electric fans, while 44.7% use air conditioners; 93% frequently drink plenty of water to avoid dehydration [64]. Technological measures include new crop and animal varieties (or improved varieties), genetic techniques, irrigation, etc., [20]. The use of a drought-resistant maize variety was shown to record a yield decline of between 1 and 6% compared to 13–43% of a non-drought tolerant variety. The utilization of improved varieties is also related to their resistance to pest and disease infestations which also decreases the adverse impact of climate change [65,66]. For example, some local stock such as West African Dwarf goats and sheep are more resistant to CC-induced extreme weather [34]. However, they do not grow too fast and usually have smaller body forms and may not solve the food insecurity problems. The use of Fadama (perennially waterlogged) land is an ecosystem CCAS that takes advantage of high water tables [67], especially for dry areas. Social CCAS such as ‘Education’ or literacy is correlated to the adoption of improved varieties or climate-smart agriculture [68]. Education may increase the ability to ‘obtain, analyze and interpret’ CCAS and CCMS information [45]. For example, a one-unit increase in the number of years of schooling increases the likelihood of adopting CCAS by 8.5% [9]. Access to extension services is positively and statistically significant in influencing or increasing the choices of adaptation strategies [4]. Contact with or access to agricultural extension officers offers valuable information critical to adopting timely climate change adaptation strategies [4,38]. Agricultural extension officers facilitate the dissemination of research output to farmers, enabling farmers to make appropriate decisions towards increased production. Contact with agricultural extension officers also increases the seeking of early warning information by 13.8%, the utilization of improved varieties by 9.6% and income diversification by 6.6% [60]. Younger farmers are more likely to adopt adaptation strategies, probably because of their higher level of education [46].
Institutional factors (for example, access to credit and/or information from extension or meteorological agencies) promote the adoption of CCAS. Access to finance increases the willingness and the capacity to adopt CCAS adaptation measures [17]. For example, because more than 88% of farmers in south-eastern Nigeria do not have access to credit facilities, they resort to their personal savings to fund adaptation strategies [69]. The lack of funding and public support may affect the adaptation strategies that are adopted.

3.3. Climate Change Mitigation Measures

Table 1 shows the action plans and mitigation potential of the different sectors identified from our dataset.

3.3.1. Energy

Energy demand in Nigeria is expected to increase by 4.5 times from 2010 to 2050 (6940 PJ to 17,239 PJ), in a business-as-usual (BAU) scenario. The power sector will account for 59% of total carbon dioxide emissions by 2050 (largest emitter), with per capita emission rising from the present 0.48 t/CO2 to 1.44 t/CO2. However, with energy efficiency and an emission tax, the energy demand may decrease by 23.8% across all sectors. Energy efficiency offers the opportunity of improving energy supply without a corresponding increase in the grid network or emissions. Achieving Nigeria’s 20% reduction on BAU emissions by 2030 and a conditional reduction of 45% via credit support requires multi-sectoral plans and actions. Energy consumption traverses all economic sectors. The mitigation measures include energy efficiency [36], a paradigm shift in transportation (for example, carpooling), a transition to cleaner fuels for cooking (liquefied gas, electricity), a ban on gas flaring, the control of fugitive emissions or leakages [78] and fuel substitution or energy transition [29].
Nigeria has immense renewable energy resources to meet the SDG-7 goals, which call for affordable cleaner energy. Solar power seems the most promising of all the renewable energy options for Nigeria. Nigeria has abundant sunshine, with solar radiation varying from 12.6 MJ/m2/day in the coastal latitudes to around 25.2 MJ/m2/day in the far northern part of the country. Considering various load capacities and efficiencies, the LCOE of standalone solar PV-generated electricity ranges from USD 0.39 to USD 0.74/kWh [27], which fares better than the USD 0.4—USD 0.9/kWh for the national grid [26] and that of diesel generators [27].
Agriculture linked to renewable energy development is a good start for Nigeria. In total, 75% of Nigeria’s land mass is arable. About 0.256 million tons/day of agricultural and forestry residues are generated, which have useful applications for bioenergy conversion [1]. Nigeria generates about 0.781 mt/d of animal waste and municipal solid waste (MSW) of about 0.08 mt/d (or 30 mt/yr). With the projected demand of about 900 million liters of biodiesel in 2020, the biomass can be converted into different forms of biofuels and biogas via biochemical or thermochemical processes. Annually, Nigeria has the potential to recover around 26 billion m3 of biogas from various organic wastes [28], while about 1.62 × 109 m3 of biogas potential can be produced from livestock manure per annum. Substituting fossil fuel (diesel) with biogas for electricity production will lead to emission savings of 683,600 t per annum [22]. The bioenergy promotion will reduce deforestation, thereby enhancing CC mitigation efforts [28]. Forests are a major carbon sink [74]. Bioenergy, especially from organic and agro-wastes, will mitigate GHG emissions (methane, etc.). It is estimated that forestation can mitigate around 638 × 106 t of carbon, at a total increment rate of 16 × 106 t of carbon per annum. The annual net increment in mitigation is higher than the estimated net emission of 9.5 × 106 t [73].

3.3.2. Agriculture and Forestry

Climate-smart agriculture (CSA) is one of the methods used to mitigate climate change in the agricultural sector. Livestock are major emitters of methane (CH4) [15]. Mitigating measures in agriculture also include a higher feeding of concentrates, reduced manure storage (which decreases nitrous oxides and methane emission), reduced temperature in manure storage and tree planting [34]. Reducing their enteric CH4 emissions requires supplementing their feed, which is usually grains, with diets comprising feeds such as fats, oilseed and concentrate [15]. By 2030, under a moderate scenario (MS) to aggressive scenario (AS), GHG emissions will be reduced as follows: the suitable feeding of livestock (cattle), 7.7–15.4% (4078 to 8156 GgCO2-eq); the proper management of pig manure, 0.6–1.5% (344–773 GgCO2-eq); the conversion of irrigated field rice to a drainage system, 1.8–2.6% (955–1370 GgCO2-eq); the reduction in the use of synthetic fertilizer, 1.1–1.3% (577–689 GgCO2-eq); and the reduction in the fraction of maize and rice residues that are burned, 0.9–1.8% (472–943 GgCO2-eq). Overall, by 2050, these mitigating measures will reduce emissions by 13–27.3% relative to the BAU scenario. Coupling bioenergy (bio-digester technology) and bio-fertilizer production from agricultural wastes is an important mitigating measure [28].
After livestock, rice production is the second biggest GHG emitter in Nigeria in the agriculture sector [15]. Efficient water management and occasional draining [70] or the aeration—comprising the alternate wetting and drying technique (AWD)—of paddy rice fields are strategies for decreasing or avoiding methane emissions [78]. Further, the open field burning of crop residues should be significantly eliminated [72]. Rather, through proper policy and cluster farm investments, they should be utilized as fuels (briquetting, AD, etc.) or feeds [78]. Similarly, the mechanization of agriculture production processes significantly reduces food losses induced by GHG emissions and increases rice yields by 16.6%. Estimates show that mechanizing Nigerian rice farms will reduce emissions by around 5.4 Mton CO2-eq per annum [71].
The carbon sequestration potential of agro-practices—such as agroforestry—shows that the transformation of agricultural lands to agroforestry management will be a valuable CCMS to mitigate climate change [74,79]. The average density of tree aboveground biomass (TAGB) in a southwestern Nigerian forest is about 402.5 trees ha−1. The tree aboveground carbon (TAGC) or carbon conversion fraction is estimated at 52.3% of that of TAGB [24]. Climate modeling shows that zonal afforestation will decrease warming by 0.5 °C in the Savannah and Sahel region of Nigeria. Without the afforestation, warming will increase by 1 °C (Guinea), 1.5 °C (Savannah) and 2 °C (Sahel) [21]. Deploying 39.5 million hectares of arable land in Nigeria to agroforestry will sequester around 1530 million tons of carbon by the year 2030 [74].

3.3.3. Waste Management

Globally, the waste sector is a significant contributor to human-made GHG emissions. The issue is more critical in Nigeria, which has a poor waste management system. The circular economy is therefore very important for mitigating emissions from the sector. It includes Recovery, Reduction, Reuse and Recycling (4Rs). The engagement of the public–private partnership (PPP) is instrumental in achieving the 4Rs [78]. This will have a great potential in saving GHG emissions, especially since burning and open-dumping is a major source of waste disposal in Nigeria. The proper collection of waste offers a strong viability for energy valorization which also helps to further mitigate emissions since bioenergy is mostly carbon neutral [1]. The recovery of energy and materials from waste also helps to conserve resources [80]. Proper disposal to sanitary landfills may help in energy recovery in strategies such as landfill gas-to-energy (LFGTE). It is estimated that waste recycling in the city of Ibadan in South West Nigeria alone will save between 90 and 150 tonnes of CO2-eq/yr, while a proper disposal method will save around 90 to 160 tonnes of CO2-eq/yr. However, these savings were shown to depend on the proper sorting of waste at the source. Unfortunately, 73.3% of urban dwellers attribute non-segregation of their wastes to poor knowledge [77]. Thus, there is need to create the necessary awareness.

3.3.4. Other Mitigation Measures

Other CCMS identified in our dataset are legal jurisprudence and finance. Climate litigation, which is at an infant stage in Nigeria, has a great role to play in mitigation and adaptation efforts. Typical examples include decisions in the cases of Gbemre v Shell Petroleum Development Corporation (SPDC) Nig Ltd. and Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC), 2005, and that of Centre for Oil Pollution Watch (COPW) vs. NNPC. In Gbemre v SPDC and NNPC, the federal high court adopted a constitutional human rights approach to gas flaring. The court decided that it violates the plaintiff’s human rights (“right to clean poison-free, pollution-free and healthy environment”) as gas flaring emits CO2 and GHG which may contribute to CC. The court restrained the defendants from further gas flaring. In the COPW v NNPC 2018 judgment, the Nigerian Supreme Court ruled that ‘public-spirited individuals and organizations’ can bring a court action against companies for a lack of compliance with appropriate laws and for not conducting the remediation, restoration and protection of the environment [30]. Both court rulings recognized the citizens’ human rights and the need for ecological and climate protection. They also paved ways for future litigations to mitigate CC.
Fiscal measures are critical legislative instruments in driving innovative low-carbon pursuits. Nigeria’s National Adaptation Strategy and Plan of Action on Climate Change 2011 recognized the importance of climate finance (NASPA—CCN) [14]. There is a significant association between green finance programs on emission control in Nigeria while there is an insignificant relationship between CO2 emissions and tax revenue [75]. This supports green bonds and a carbon tax to shift the economy towards low-carbon emissions.

4. Similar Studies (Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation) for Africa

4.1. Climate Change Mitigation in Africa

Africa as a continent contributes a relatively insignificant amount to human-made emissions. Yet, the continent disproportionately experiences the impact of CC in many ways such as in hydroclimate, biodiversity and wildfire changes [81]. Our results show that more emphasis on CC response seems to be on adaptation, and this is supported by other systematic reviews on Africa. For example, in Baninla et al., 72% of papers were on CCAS, while mitigation comprised 22% and 6% combined both. This creates a huge gap, as mitigation should be viewed as holding great importance. Still, the socio-ecological governance of the nexus between mitigation and ecosystem services is under-explored in Africa [82]. Granted, the body of research in climate change mitigation is increasing in Africa. For example, in a systematic review conducted by Blimpo et al. on energy transition to mitigate emissions in Africa, 90% of the included studies were published after 2015 (Paris Agreement) [83]. This is similar to our own study for Nigeria (which includes CCMS and CCAS), where 83.5% of the included studies were published after 2015. However, there is need to increase mitigation research so as to influence evidence-based policies. A review on climate change funding for Africa shows that within a 30-year period, 40% of the research grant for the continent was targeted at adaptation, while for mitigation it was 17% [84]. Accordingly, there is a need to balance mitigation and adaptation to achieve Africa’s CC objectives and potentials in consonance with Article 9.4 of the Paris Agreement (‘…scaled up financial resources should aim to achieve a balance between adaptation and mitigation…’) [85].
In Blimpo et al. [83], most of the papers focused on solar as the leading source to mitigate or transition to a decarbonized energy system in Africa. The use of solar PV favors an extensive mitigation potential (low-carbon energy) of the Nigerian energy supply mix [27,36]. However, inadequate research on climate mitigation policy designs and the institution concerned in their creation creates a gap for a more effective direction. For example, the means to fuel solar technical businesses was found to be lacking in the Nigerian national solar energy policy document [82,86]. Other examples include Ghana and Mali, whose policy document was shown to lack in strategy implementation [87]. Apart from solar, a large number of mitigation research in Africa seems to focus on carbon sequestration, soil organic carbon, REDD and REDD+, helping to promote the relationship between mitigation and ecosystem services [82]. Hydrogen energy, a very important technology for low-carbon transition and similar technologies, was among the least considered mitigation technologies for Africa in the literature [83] and this is supported by our works, as none of the included CCMS focused on it. The large focus on sequestration such as agroforestry in Africa is related to its dual benefits of mitigation and adaptation support, such as improved livelihoods or income from carbon, wood energy, improved soil fertility and local climate conditions [88]. This demonstrates a clear example of the link between CC mitigation and adaptation and offers the potential for community-level development, such as ecosystem restoration and sustainable land policy [89].
While climate-smart agriculture helps to mitigate emissions from agriculture in Nigeria [38,68,70] and sub-Saharan African countries, its wide-scale and accelerated adoption are faced with some difficulties. One of the difficulties is related to the area of prioritization associated with CSA benefits [90], which includes sustainably enhancing agricultural production, building adaptation and resilience to CC and mitigation or a reduction in GHG emissions. For example, Chigozirim et al. [68] and Onyeneke et al. [51] tended to focus on adapting or increasing agricultural productivity due to the impact of CC, while Mashi et al. [38] worked on the different levels of CSA, including carbon-smart, energy-smart, etc., which aim to reduce emissions as a way to mitigate CC. The tendency to focus CSA attention on agricultural productivity and building resilience in sub-Saharan Africa and Nigeria is understood, seeing that food security and poverty are major issues facing the continent and small-scale farmers. Thus, in the pursuit of CSA as a suitable CCMS, the issues (access to resources, land constraints and market directions) facing especially small-scale farmers, which differs at both the micro- and macro-scales, must be addressed [90].

4.2. Climate Change Adaptation in Africa

The relatively fewer number of papers on institutional (policies, legal and fiscal) instruments obtained in our study is similar to that of Daka [91], who conducted a systematic review on CC adaptation in Africa. Only 6% of papers focused on policy (institutional CCAS), while many focused on the technological aspect [44%] of CCAS [91]. Strong evidence-based policies are critical to stimulating CC responses. A review of CC adaptation in West African countries showed that 14 countries in the region have policy documents specifying the designated agencies and specific aims/objectives. The documents are connected to and integrated with other related national reports, laws, programs and policies. However, some of the policy documents are less developed. For example, the policy documents of Ghana and Mali are less developed in their implementation strategies [87]. In another systematic review on Africa, very few (1%) articles were on adaptation financing (an institutional CCAS). The interpretation implies that while there is a high number of approaches to adaptation policy, there is inadequate coverage on financing and implementation [92].
Similar to our result, most adaptation studies in Africa focus on the agricultural sector [82]. This is because the countries of the continent identify the serious role of agriculture in response to CC. The issues are highlighted in several Africa-wide policies, such as the 2014 Malabo Declaration, the African Green Stimulus Programme (2022) and others [81]. In a systematic review on the determinant factor for adopting CCAS by pastoral/agro-pastoral farmers in sub-Saharan Africa, household income was identified as the most important, followed by access to information. The education level and the gender of the household head were ranked as the sixth and eight most important determinants, respectively [93]. This differs from our study result, which shows that the education level and gender of the household head are the first and third most-significant determinants (from the included studies) in Nigeria. The issue of gender differentiation, which negatively affects the adaptive capacity of the female household head (FHH), as identified in our study, was also supported by another systematic review conducted on Africa by Kone et al. Their study identified the need to introduce gender factors in the evaluation of effectiveness of CCAS [94]. A typical example is Liberia’s action plan which stipulates “…ensure gender equality is mainstreamed into Liberia’s climate change policies, programs and interventions” to enable males and females benefit equally from the country’s CC schemes [87].
In another study (systematic review) [93], the leading adopted climate change adaptation strategies (CCAS) for smallholder farmers in sub-Saharan Africa was crop diversification, while it is soil conservation in our studies. However, the adoption or planting of improved varieties (tolerant or resistant crops) was recorded as the second most common adopted CCA by farmers in both Menghistu et al. [93] and our study. Similarly, for smallholder farmers, the varying plant season was the fourth most commonly adopted CCAS in Menghistu et al. [93], while it is the third in our study. Also, income diversification (off-farm activities) was the seventh for Menghistu et al. [93], while it is the sixth most commonly adopted CCAS in our study. Considering the huge diversity in agro-ecological features of sub-Saharan Africa (and Africa), it entails that there is not one general agro-technology or practice that can enable a climate-resilient and sustainable form of agriculture in the region [90]. As shown in our results (from included studies), CCAS seems to be more effective when various strategies are combined or applied than a single application [93,94]. For example, a systematic review on adaptation strategies focusing on West Africa shows that the increased application of fertilizer has substantially increased yields, but it has not alleviated the impact of CC on crops. However, the combination of fertilizer application and other sustainable cropping practices that leans into suitable climate conditions has the huge potential to secure and increase future crop production in the region [95]. The relative comparison between our study and other systematic reviews conducted for Africa, which may share similar attributes with other farmers in sub-Saharan Africa, shows the relevance of our studies beyond just Nigeria.
The importance of indigenous practices to adaptation cannot be overemphasized [13,40,47,69,90]. Accordingly, the incessant focus on technologies to increase food production, without a full understanding of local settings from which the farmers in sub-Saharan Africa operate, have not resulted in much success. Therefore, the approach to build CCAS in sub-Saharan agriculture is beginning to evolve from solely technology-driven to a systems approach. This takes into account the complexity of farming systems [90]. Similarly to the identified issues facing adaptation in the Nigerian agricultural sector, a systematic review of nineteen West African countries identified barriers in the region to include small-scale farming which have a limited adaptation capacity, inadequate access to information (such as weather/precipitation data), poor infrastructure, inadequate or poor access to finance, etc., [87]. About 33 countries in Africa are Least Developed Countries (LDCs), acutely vulnerable to the adverse effects of CC. Financial support for adaptation in Africa, sponsored by bilateral and multilateral funders, remains well below USD 5.5 billion per year, which amounts to around USD 5 per person per annum. This is well below the estimates of adaptation costs in Africa. These have greatly limited adaptation projects in the continent [96].

5. Practical Implications of the Study

There is a need to balance CCAS and CCMS to achieve the Paris Agreement. Considering the contributions of forestry and agroforestry to carbon mitigation, public policies should focus on programs to invest in afforestation or agroforestry. There is also a need to increase the budget for CCAS rather than focusing only on mitigation measures. The CCAS should utilize indigenous and traditional methods and should integrate them into climate-smart agriculture.
Education is a significant determinant in building adaptive capacity and developing mitigation. Gender equality in education should be encouraged in order to increase opportunity for human capital development for all. Our study suggests that socio-cultural factors may contribute to gender inequity. This may limit the adaptive capacity of females and may affect their access to land, credit and other opportunities. Thus, females are more vulnerable to CC effects.
CCAS requires funding to help farmers mitigate CC impact. Although rural farmers (mostly smallholders) account for more than 80% of Nigeria’s farmers, they received just 2% of the total loans given by commercial banks [10]. The lack of access to credits from commercial banks and different government intervention schemes portends great limitations. Credits are required to buy fertilizers, build water or irrigation systems, acquire better seedlings and others. All these point to the inability of farmers to build resilience against the growing impact of climate change. It is therefore essential that access to financial services is granted to rural and small-scale farmers. Some of the instruments to achieve this includes the CBN’s Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Fund. The primary goal of these programs is to assist small-scale and rural farmers, irrespective of gender, to obtain access to credits.

Future Directions

The practical implications of the study raise the need for future directions. Based on our research findings:
  • More research on institutional measures (policies, legal and fiscal instruments) of CCAS in Nigeria is needed to help accelerate adaptive capacity and resilience to CC impacts.
  • Policy instruments and actions (socio-cultural, education and economic opportunities) to increase the adaptive capacity of females and female household heads. Our findings show that they faces gendered differentiation (based on socio-cultural and economic opportunities)in building adaptive capacity.
  • Policy actions on technological and fiscal issues to support the wide-scale uptake of climate-smart agriculture as a means of mitigating emissions.
  • The comprehensive development of Nigerian agroforestry to support its carbon sequestration potential.
  • More research development for Nigeria is required in other innovative mitigation technologies such as hydrogen, carbon capture and storage, carbon capture utilization and sequestration to support the country’s pledged NDC.

6. Conclusions

This paper reviewed papers on CCAS and CCMS on Nigeria. This is important, considering the impact of climate change and the high vulnerability of the country. Our dataset shows that from 1999 to the present, papers on climate change adaptation strategies (CCAS) and mitigation strategies (CCMS) have steadily increased. For example, 73.2% of the papers were published from 2018 to 2022. In all, 92.8% of the papers were ‘research articles’ while 6.2% were ‘review’ articles. Most of the papers focused on CCAS (75.2%), 19.6% focused on CCMS, while 5.2% dealt with both CCAS and CCMS. Although adaptation is essential to survive or live with the impacts of CC, there is a need to study, research or implement mitigation measures to abate emissions that contribute to climatic change. Among the CCMS papers, 33.3% focused on ‘Energy’ and ‘Agriculture’. Of the CCAS papers, 45% dealt with ‘Social’ issues, 42% with ‘Structural’ and 13% with ‘Institutional’. Relatively fewer papers on ‘Institutional’ CCAS calls for more research efforts. Institutional CCAS include policies, legal and fiscal instruments, which are important to drive innovation, investment and policy actions for resilience to CC impacts. The greater focus of the CCAS papers on social factors may suggest the influence of behavior, information and education in building adaptive capacity. The relatively fewer number of papers on ‘Institutional’ may suggest the need for more policy direction on CCAS. Delineating by sector, 80.7% of the CCAS papers are related to ‘Agriculture’. The high number of articles relating to ‘Agriculture’ for both CCMS and CCAS shows the great importance of the sector in mitigating emissions and building resilience against CC. Thus, there is a need for more policy and fiscal support to the sectors to achieve Nigeria’s climate objectives. The greatest determinant for CCAS adoption is ‘Education’. Also, ‘Gender’ was identified as the third most important determinant of CCAS. Gendered differentiation (socio-cultural, economic opportunities and others) restricts adaptive capacity for females and female household heads. Accordingly, there is a need for policy actions to address the issue, since females are more vulnerable to CC impacts. The findings of our study were also supported by similar works in Africa, enabling their generalization (to some extent) to the continent.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/su16167048/s1.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, C.C.O., C.C.A. and C.A.N.; methodology, C.C.O., C.C.A. and C.N.M., writing—original draft preparation, C.C.O., C.C.A., C.A.N. and F.A.O.; writing—review and editing, C.C.O., C.N.M. and N.N.N.; visualization, C.C.O. and N.N.N. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data are contained within the article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

Words
CCASClimate change adaptation strategies
CCMSClimate change mitigation strategies
Mt CO2-eqMillion tonnes of CO2-eq
MHHMale household head
FHHFemale household head
UIVUnderutilized indigenous vegetables
MtMillion tons
Mt/dMillion tons per day
Mt/yrMillion tons per year
SCNSocial Capital Network
FBOFarm Base Organization
CSAClimate-smart agriculture

References

  1. Elum, Z.A.; Momodu, A.S. Climate change mitigation and renewable energy for sustainable development in Nigeria: A discourse approach. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 76, 72–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Okon, E.; Falana, B.; Solaja, S.; Yakubu, S.; Alabi, O.; Okikiola, B.; Awe, T.; Adesina, B.; Tokula, B.; Kipchumba, A.; et al. Systematic review of climate change impact research in Nigeria: Implication for sustainable development. Heliyon 2021, 7, e07941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. World Bank Report. Building Climate Resilience: Experience from Nigeria. 2019. Available online: https://www.worldbank.org/en/results/2019/04/18/building-climate-resilience-experience-from-nigeria (accessed on 19 June 2024).
  4. Ojo, T.; Baiyegunhi, L. Determinants of climate change adaptation strategies and its impact on the net farm income of rice farmers in south-west Nigeria. Land Use Policy 2019, 95, 103946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Shiru, M.S.; Shahid, S.; Chung, E.-S.; Alias, N. Changing characteristics of meteorological droughts in Nigeria during 1901–2010. Atmos. Res. 2019, 223, 60–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Anyanwu, I.N.; Ezema, C.A.; Ebi, S.; Nwajiuba, C.A.; Nworie, O.; Anorue, C.O. Modulation of water quality, plankton diversity and microbial community in tropical freshwater lakes in Nigeria. Afr. J. Aquat Sci. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Anyanwu, I.N.; Nwajiuba, C.A. Climatic impacts on socio-cultural behavior, health and psychology of rural communities in South East Nigeria. Environ. Chall. 2021, 4, 100102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Jellason, N.P.; Baines, R.N.; Conway, J.S.; Ogbaga, C.C. Climate change perceptions and attitudes to smallholder adaptation in northwestern Nigerian drylands. Soc. Sci. 2019, 8, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Ojo, T.O.; Ogundeji, A.A.; Emenike, C.U. Does Adoption of Climate Change Adaptation Strategy Improve Food Security? A Case of Rice Farmers in Ogun State, Nigeria. Land 2022, 11, 1875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Abraham, T.W.; Fonta, W. Climate change and financing adaptation by farmers in northern Nigeria. Financ. Innov. 2018, 4, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Ajibade, I.; McBean, G. Climate extremes and housing rights: A political ecology of impacts, early warning and adaptation constraints in Lagos slum communities. Geoforum 2014, 55, 76–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Oloukoi, G.; Bob, U.; Jaggernath, J. Perception and trends of associated health risks with seasonal climate variation in Oke-Ogun region, Nigeria. Health Place 2014, 25, 47–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Enete, A.A.; Madu, I.A.; Onwubuya, E.A. Climate change and the profitability of indigenous adaptation practices in smallholder agriculture in South East Nigeria. Outlook Agric. 2012, 41, 179–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Onyimadu, C.O.; Uche, D.S. Evaluating the Nigerian government’s financial obligations to climate change adaptation strategies. Clim. Serv. 2021, 24, 100261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Dioha, M.O.; Kumar, A. Exploring greenhouse gas mitigation strategies for agriculture in Africa: The case of Nigeria. Ambio 2020, 49, 1549–1566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. PwC and AfCFTA. Current State of Nigeria Agriculture and Agribusiness Sector. 2020. Available online: https://www.pwc.com/ng/en/assets/pdf/afcfta-agribusiness-current-state-nigeria-agriculture-sector.pdf (accessed on 19 June 2024).
  17. Onyeneke, R.U.; Nwajiuba, C.A.; Emenekwe, C.C.; Nwajiuba, A.; Onyeneke, C.J.; Ohalete, P.; Uwazie, U.I. Climate change adaptation in Nigerian agricultural sector: A systematic review and resilience check of adaptation measures. AIMS Agric. Food 2019, 4, 967–1006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Tarfa, P.Y.; Ayuba, H.K.; Onyeneke, R.U.; Idris, N.; Nwajiuba, C.A.; Igberi, C.O. Climate change perception and adaptation in Nigeria’s guinea savanna: Empirical evidence from farmers in Nasarawa state, Nigeria. Appl. Ecol. Environ. Res. 2019, 17, 7085–7111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Ogunleye, A.; Kehinde, A.; Mishra, A.; Ogundeji, A. Impacts of farmers’ participation in social capital networks on climate change adaptation strategies adoption in Nigeria. Heliyon 2021, 7, e08624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Noble, I.R.; Huq, S.; Anokhin, Y.A.; Carmin, J.; Goudou, D.; Lansigan, F.P.; Osman-Elasha, B.; Villamizar, A.; Patt, A.; Takeuchi, K.; et al. Adaptation needs and options. In Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Field, C.B., Barros, V.R., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2014; pp. 833–868. [Google Scholar]
  21. Abiodun, B.J.; Salami, A.T.; Matthew, O.J.; Odedokun, S. Potential impacts of afforestation on climate change and extreme events in Nigeria. Clim. Dyn. 2012, 41, 277–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Adeoti, O.; Ayelegun, T.; Osho, S. Nigeria biogas potential from livestock manure and its estimated climate value. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 37, 243–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Okoroh, J.P.; Olaolu Michael, O.; Igbokwe Edwin, M. Climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies used by farmers in Imo state, Nigeria. J. Agric. Ext. 2016, 20, 130–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Chenge, I.B.; Osho, J.S. Mapping tree aboveground biomass and carbon in Omo Forest Reserve Nigeria using Landsat 8 OLI data. South. For. A J. For. Sci. 2018, 80, 341–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Arimi, K.S. Determinants of climate change adaptation strategies used by fish farmers in Epe Local Government Area of Lagos State, Nigeria. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2014, 94, 1470–1476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Ukoba, M.O.; Diemuodeke, O.E.; Alghassab, M.; Njoku, H.I.; Imran, M.; Khan, Z.A. Composite multi-criteria decision analysis for optimization of hybrid renewable energy systems for geopolitical zones in Nigeria. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Enongene, K.E.; Abanda, F.H.; Otene, I.; Obi, S.; Okafor, C. The potential of solar photovoltaic systems for residential homes in Lagos city of Nigeria. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 244, 247–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Elum, Z.A.; Modise, D.M.; Nhamo, G. Climate change mitigation: The potential of agriculture as a renewable energy source in Nigeria. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2017, 24, 3260–3273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Giwa, S.O.; Nwaokocha, C.N.; Odufuwa, B.O. Mitigating gas flare and emission footprints via the implementation of natural gas vehicles in Nigeria. Energy Policy 2017, 111, 193–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Etemire, U. The Future of Climate Change Litigation in Nigeria: COPW v NNPC in the Spotlight. Carbon Clim. Law Rev. 2021, 15, 158–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. UNFCCC. Resource Guide for Preparing the National Communications on Non-Annex I Parties: Measures to Mitigate Climate Change; UNFCCC: Bonn, Germany, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  32. Ojo, T.; Baiyegunhi, L. Impact of climate change adaptation strategies on rice productivity in South-west, Nigeria: An endogeneity corrected stochastic frontier model. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 745, 141151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Okunola, O.H.; Simatele, M.D.; Olowoporoku, O. The influence of socioeconomic factors on individual and household adaptation strategies to climate change risks in Port Harcourt, Nigeria. J. Integr. Environ. Sci. 2022, 19, 273–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Nwobodo, C.E.; Nwokolo, B.; Iwuchukwu, J.C.; Ohagwu, V.A.; Ozioko, R.I. Determinants of Ruminant Farmers’ use of sustainable production practices for climate change adaptation and mitigation in Enugu State, Nigeria. Front. Vet. Sci. 2022, 9, 735139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Ikehi, M.E.; Ifeanyieze, F.O.; Onu, F.M.; Ejiofor, T.E.; Nwankwo, C.U. Assessing climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies and agricultural innovation systems in the Niger Delta. GeoJournal 2022, 88, 209–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Dioha, M.O.; Kumar, A. Exploring the energy system impacts of Nigeria’s Nationally Determined Contributions and low-carbon transition to mid-century. Energy Policy 2020, 144, 111703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Zickfeld, K.; Eby, M.; Naughten, K.; Alexander, K.; Crespin, E.; Edwards, N.R.; Eliseev, A.V.; Feulner, G.; Fichefet, T.; Forest, C.E.; et al. Long-term climate change commitment and reversibility: An EMIC intercomparison. J. Clim. 2013, 26, 5782–5809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Mashi, S.A.; Inkani, A.I.; Oghenejabor, O.D. Determinants of awareness levels of climate smart agricultural technologies and practices of urban farmers in Kuje, Abuja, Nigeria. Technol. Soc. 2022, 70, 102030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Uduji, J.I.; Okolo-Obasi, E.N. Gender sensitive responses to climate change in Nigeria: The role of multinationals’ corporate social responsibility in oil host communities. J. Glob. Responsib. 2022, 14, 89–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Mabel, U.D.; Eberechukwu, N.L. Indigenous climate change adaptation strategies used by honey producers in rural communities of Enugu state, Nigeria. J. Agric. Ext. 2018, 22, 180–192. [Google Scholar]
  41. Onyeneke, R.U. Does climate change adaptation lead to increased productivity of rice production? Lessons from Ebonyi State, Nigeria. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2020, 36, 54–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Otitoju, M.A.; Enete, A.A. Climate change adaptation: Uncovering constraints to the use of adaptation strategies among food crop farmers in South-west, Nigeria using principal component analysis (PCA). Cogent Food Agric. 2016, 2, 1178692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Tambo, J.A.; Abdoulaye, T. Climate change and agricultural technology adoption: The case of drought tolerant maize in rural Nigeria. Mitig. Adapt. Strat. Glob. Chang. 2012, 17, 277–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Chukwuone, N.A.; Chukwuone, C.; Amaechina, E.C. Sustainable land management practices used by farm households for climate change adaptation in south east Nigeria. J. Agric. Ext. 2018, 22, 185–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Sofoluwe, N.A.; Tijani, A.A.; Baruwa, O.I. Farmers’ perception and adaptation to climate change in Osun State, Nigeria. Afr. J. Agric. Res. 2011, 6, 4789–4794. [Google Scholar]
  46. Yila, J.O.; Resurreccion, B.P. Determinants of smallholder farmers’ adaptation strategies to climate change in the semi-arid Nguru Local Government Area, Northeastern Nigeria. Manag. Environ. Qual. Int. J. 2013, 24, 341–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Ekemini-Richard, M.; Ayanwale, A.B.; Adelegan, O.J. Factors Influencing Choice of Climate Change Adaptation Methods among Underutilized Indigenous Vegetable farmers. Int. J. Veg. Sci. 2022, 28, 111–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Olajire, M.A.; Matthew, O.J.; Omotara, O.A.; Aderanti, A. Assessment of Indigenous Climate Change Adaptation Strategies and Its Impacts on Food Crop Yields in Osun State, Southwestern Nigeria. Agric. Res. 2019, 9, 222–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Ayanlade, A.; Radeny, M.; Akin-Onigbinde, A.I. Climate variability/change and attitude to adaptation technologies: A pilot study among selected rural farmers’ communities in Nigeria. GeoJournal 2017, 83, 319–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Danso-Abbeam, G.; Ojo, T.O.; Baiyegunhi, L.J.S.; Ogundeji, A.A. Climate change adaptation strategies by smallholder farmers in Nigeria: Does non-farm employment play any role? Heliyon 2021, 7, e07162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Onyeneke, R.U.; Amadi, M.U.; Njoku, C.L. Climate change adaptation strategies by rice processors in Ebonyi State, Nigeria. Ekologia 2022, 41, 283–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Mortimore, M.J.; Adams, W.M. Farmer adaptation, change and ‘crisis’ in the Sahel. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2001, 11, 49–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Yakubu, D.H.; Akpoko, J.G.; Akinola, M.O.; Abdulsalam, Z. Climate Change Adaptation Practices and Rice Farmers’ Level of Living in North-West, Nigeria. J. Agric. Ext. 2020, 24, 49–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Ojo, T.O.; Baiyegunhi, L.J.S. Determinants of credit constraints and its impact on the adoption of climate change adaptation strategies among rice farmers in South-West Nigeria. J. Econ. Struct. 2020, 9, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Ajao, A.O.; Ogunniyi, L.T. Farmers’ strategies for adapting to climate change in Ogbomoso agricultural zone of Oyo state. Agris. -Line Pap. Econ. Inform. 2011, 3, 3–13. [Google Scholar]
  56. Yila, J.O.; Resurreccion, B.P. Gender perspectives on agricultural adaptation to climate change in drought-prone Nguru Local Government Area in the semiarid zone of northeastern Nigeria. Int. J. Clim. Chang. Strat. Manag. 2014, 6, 250–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Anugwa, I.Q.; Agwu, A.E.; Suvedi, M.; Babu, S. Gender-Specific Livelihood Strategies for Coping with Climate Change-Induced Food Insecurity in Southeast Nigeria. Food Secur. 2020, 12, 1065–1084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Koyenikan, M.J.; Anozie, O. Climate change adaptation needs of male and female oil palm entrepreneurs in Edo State, Nigeria. J. Agric. Ext. 2017, 21, 162–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Nnadi, O.I.; Lyimo, J.; Liwenga, E.; Madukwe, M.C. Gender Perspectives of Responses to Climate Variability and Change among Farm Households in Southeast Nigeria. Environ. Manag. 2022, 71, 201–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Onyeneke, R.U.; Igberi, C.O.; Aligbe, J.O.; Iruo, F.A.; Amadi, M.U.; Iheanacho, S.C.; Osuji, E.E.; Munonye, J.; Uwadoka, C. Climate change adaptation actions by fish farmers: Evidence from the Niger Delta Region of Nigeria. Aust. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 2020, 64, 347–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Liverpool-Tasie, L.S.O.; Sanou, A.; Tambo, J.A. Climate change adaptation among poultry farmers: Evidence from Nigeria. Clim. Chang. 2019, 157, 527–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Fatuase, A.I. Climate change adaptation: A panacea for food security in Ondo State, Nigeria. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 2017, 129, 939–947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Ogwu, I.; Long, Z.; Okonkwo, M.M.; Zhang, X.; Lee, D.; Zhang, W. Design review on indoor environment of museum buildings in hot-humid tropical climate. Adv. Comput. Des. 2022, 7, 321–343. [Google Scholar]
  64. Sampson, A.P.; Weli, V.E.; Nwagbara, M.O.; Eludoyin, O.S. Sensations of Air Temperature Variability and Mitigation Strategies in Urban Environments. J. Hum. Earth Future 2021, 2, 100–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Oruonye, E.D.; Adebayo, A.A. An assessment of the level of farmers awareness and adaptation to climate change in Northern Taraba State, Nigeria. J. Soc. Sci. Res. 2015, 1, 79–85. [Google Scholar]
  66. Tofa, A.; Kamara, A.Y.; Akinseye, F.M.; Bebeley, J.F. Assessing the use of a drought-tolerant variety as adaptation strategy for maize production under climate change in the savannas of Nigeria. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 8983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Adewole, I.F.; Agbola, S.B.; Kasim, O.F. Building resilience to climate change impacts after the 2011 flood disaster at the University of Ibadan, Nigeria. Environ. Urban 2014, 27, 199–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Chigozirim, O.N.; Ikechukwu, O.C.; Nneka, A.-A.F.; Ukeh, O.O. Institutional Interventions and Climate-Smart Practices of Farmers in Nigeria. Sarhad J. Agric. 2022, 38, 1314–1321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Asadu, A.N.; Ozioko, R.I.; Dimelu, M.U. Climate change information source and indigenous adaptation strategies of cucumber farmers in Enugu State, Nigeria. J. Agric. Ext. 2018, 22, 136–146. [Google Scholar]
  70. Onyeneke, R.U.; Amadi, M.U.; Njoku, C.L.; Osuji, E.E. climate change perception and Uptake of climate-smart agriculture in rice production in Ebonyi State, Nigeria. Atmosphere 2021, 12, 1503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Castelein, R.B.; Broeze, J.J.; Kok, M.M.; Axmann, H.H.; Guo, X.X.; Soethoudt, J.H. Mechanization in rice farming reduces greenhouse gas emissions, food losses, and constitutes a positive business case for smallholder farmers—Results from a controlled experiment in Nigeria. Clean Eng. Technol. 2022, 8, 100487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Owoade, F.M. Soil carbon management practices, knowledge of climate change and CO2 emission of some land use types in Ogbomoso agricultural zone, Oyo state, Nigeria. West Afr. J. Appl. Ecol. 2020, 28, 173–188. [Google Scholar]
  73. Siyanbola, W.O.; Adesina, F.A.; Pelemo, D.A.; Oketola, F.O.; Ojo, L.O.; Adegbulugbe, A.O. Towards global climate change mitigation: Assessment of an afforestation option for Nigeria. Environmentalist 2002, 22, 83–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Adesina, F.A.; Siyanbola, W.O.; Oketola, F.A.; Pelemo, D.A.; Momodu, S.A.; Adegbulugbe, A.O.; Ojo, L.O. Potential of agroforestry techniques in mitigating CO2 emissions in Nigeria: Some preliminary estimates. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 1999, 8, 163–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Omodero, C.O.; Alege, P.O. Green Fiscal Policy Mechanisms for a Low–Carbon Ecosystem: A Developing Country Assessment. Environ. Ecol. Res. 2022, 10, 550–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Anifowose, B.; Odubela, M. Methane emissions from oil and gas transport facilities—Exploring innovative ways to mitigate environmental consequences. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 92, 121–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Hammed, T.B.; Wandiga, S.O.; Mulugetta, Y.; Sridhar, M.K.C. Improving knowledge and practices of mitigating greenhouse gas emission through waste recycling in a community, Ibadan, Nigeria. Waste Manag. 2018, 81, 22–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Malley, C.S.; Omotosho, D.; Bappa, B.; Jibril, A.; Tarfa, P.; Roman, M.; Hicks, W.K.; Kuylenstierna, J.C.; Sandez, C.d.l.S.; Lefèvre, E.N. Integration of climate change mitigation and sustainable development planning: Lessons from a national planning process in Nigeria. Environ. Sci. Policy 2021, 125, 66–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Arimi, K.; Omoare, A. Motivating cocoa farmers to adopt agroforestry practices for mitigating climate change. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2021, 36, 599–604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Okafor, C.C.; Nzekwe, C.A.; Ajaero, C.C.; Ibekwe, J.C.; Otunomo, F.A. Biomass utilization for energy production in Nigeria: A review. Clean. Energy Syst. 2022, 3, 100043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Al-Zu’bi, M.; Dejene, S.W.; Hounkpè, J.; Kupika, O.L.; Lwasa, S.; Mbenge, M.; Mwongera, C.; Ouedraogo, N.S.; Touré, N.D.E. African perspectives on climate change research. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2022, 12, 1078–1084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Baninla, Y.; Sharifi, A.; Allam, Z.; Tume, S.J.P.; Gangtar, N.N.; George, N. An overview of climate change adaptation and mitigation research in Africa. Front. Clim. 2022, 4, 976427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Blimpo, M.P.; Dato, P.; Mukhaya, B.; Odarno, L. Climate change and economic development in Africa: A systematic review of energy transition modeling research. Energy Policy 2024, 187, 114044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Overland, I.; Sagbakken, H.F.; Isataeva, A.; Kolodzinskaia, G.; Simpson, N.P.; Trisos, C.; Vakulchuk, R. Funding flows for climate change research on Africa: Where do they come from and where do they go? Clim. Dev. 2022, 14, 705–724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. UNFCCC. Paris Agreement English. 2015. Available online: https://unfccc.int/files/meetings/paris_nov_2015/application/pdf/paris_agreement_english_pdf (accessed on 19 June 2024).
  86. Ozoegwu, C.G.; Akpan, P.U. A review and appraisal of Nigeria’s solar energy policy objectives and strategies against the backdrop of the renewable energy policy of the Economic Community of West African States. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 143, 110887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Sorgho, R.; Quiñonez, C.A.M.; Louis, V.R.; Winkler, V.; Dambach, P.; Sauerborn, R.; Horstick, O. Climate change policies in 16 West African countries: A systematic review of adaptation with a focus on agriculture, food security, and nutrition. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 8897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Mbow, C.; Smith, P.; Skole, D.; Duguma, L.; Bustamante, M. Achieving mitigation and adaptation to climate change through sustainable agroforestry practices in Africa. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2013, 6, 8–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Favretto, N.; Dougill, A.J.; Stringer, L.C.; Afionis, S.; Quinn, C.H. Links between Climate Change Mitigation, Adaptation and Development in Land Policy and Ecosystem Restoration Projects: Lessons from South Africa. Sustainability 2018, 10, 779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Abegunde, V.O.; Sibanda, M.; Obi, A. The dynamics of climate change adaptation in sub-Saharan Africa: A review of climate-smart agriculture among small-scale farmers. Climate 2019, 7, 132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Daka, E. Adopting clean technologies to climate change adaptation strategies in Africa: A systematic literature review. Environ. Manag. 2023, 71, 87–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Lwasa, S.L. A systematic review of research on climate change adaptation policy and practice in Africa and South Asia deltas. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2015, 15, 815–824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Menghistu, H.T.; Abraha, A.Z.; Tesfay, G.; Mawcha, G.T. Determinant factors of climate change adaptation by pastoral/agro-pastoral communities and smallholder farmers in sub-Saharan Africa. Int. J. Clim. Chang. Strat. Manag. 2020, 12, 305–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Kone, S.; Balde, A.; Zahonogo, P.; Sanfo, S. A systematic review of recent estimations of climate change impact on agriculture and adaptation strategies perspectives in Africa. Mitig. Adapt. Strat. Glob. Chang. 2024, 29, 1–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Carr, T.W.; Mkuhlani, S.; Segnon, A.C.; Ali, Z.; Zougmoré, R.; Dangour, A.D.; Green, R.; Scheelbeek, P. Climate change impacts and adaptation strategies for crops in West Africa: A systematic review. Environ. Res. Lett. 2022, 17, 053001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Savvidou, G.; Atteridge, A.; Omari-Motsumi, K.; Trisos, C.H. Quantifying international public finance for climate change adaptation in Africa. Clim. Policy 2021, 21, 1020–1036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Flow chart for the literature selection (adapted from Okon et al. [2]).
Figure 1. Flow chart for the literature selection (adapted from Okon et al. [2]).
Sustainability 16 07048 g001
Figure 2. Publication output over the years.
Figure 2. Publication output over the years.
Sustainability 16 07048 g002
Figure 3. Publication type and strategies studied.
Figure 3. Publication type and strategies studied.
Sustainability 16 07048 g003
Figure 4. Location and geographical zones of the study.
Figure 4. Location and geographical zones of the study.
Sustainability 16 07048 g004aSustainability 16 07048 g004b
Figure 5. Sectoral distribution of the CCMS papers.
Figure 5. Sectoral distribution of the CCMS papers.
Sustainability 16 07048 g005
Figure 6. CCAS categorization and sub-categorization of the papers.
Figure 6. CCAS categorization and sub-categorization of the papers.
Sustainability 16 07048 g006
Figure 7. Number of included studies with statistical significant determinants of CCAS adoption.
Figure 7. Number of included studies with statistical significant determinants of CCAS adoption.
Sustainability 16 07048 g007
Figure 8. Number of papers that identified the most commonly adopted CCAS practices in Nigeria.
Figure 8. Number of papers that identified the most commonly adopted CCAS practices in Nigeria.
Sustainability 16 07048 g008
Table 1. Mitigation potential of the different sectors in Nigeria.
Table 1. Mitigation potential of the different sectors in Nigeria.
SectorThemeActionMitigation Potential Authors
EnergyCC LitigationLiberalization of ‘Rule of Standing’ forcing shift from pro-economy to ‘greener’ approach, against poor oil companies’ practices-[30]
Nigeria’s NDCLow-carbon transition in energy system27–77% decrease in MtCO2 emissions by 2050[36]
RE Hybridized RE system including common energy resources available in Nigeria (wind, solar, biomass) with energy storageReduces between 0.0054 and 0.0059 kgCO2-eq/kWh[26]
RESolar PV is crucial to meeting energy demands and mitigating CCReduces between 31 and 7456 kgCO2-eq per building[27]
Renewable energy (RE)Addressing socio-political barriers such as eliminating fossil fuel subsidies, policy actions increasing RE penetration, etc.-[1]
REReducing emissions via bioenergy production from agro-wastes-[28]
Natural gas flaring (NG)Conversion of NG to fuel vehicles (natural gas vehicles, NGV)1.42 × 106–3.34 × 107
tCO2-eq p.a.
[29]
REConversion of livestock manure to bioenergy−683,600 tCO2 p.a.[22]
AgricultureSustainable production practices Fiscal support such as payments for ecosystem services-[34]
Agricultural Innovation system (AIS)Banning bush burning, sustainable tillage practices, tree planting, etc.-[35]
Climate-smart agricultureCrop, land and soil fertility management; climate-based services (including intermittent draining of paddy rice fields)-[70]
Carbon sequestrationPromotion of cocoa-plantation-based agroforestry-[24]
GHG emission abatementMechanization of rice cultivation and harvesting processes716–1696 kg CO2-eq per ha[71]
Agricultural and land use GHGFeeding management to reduce enteric CH4 emission of livestock; alternate wetting and drying (AWD) of rice fields; soil carbon storage and decrease in inorganic fertilizer use; bioenergy production from crop residues6426–11,931 GgCO2-eq by 2030[15]
Soil carbon managementTillage practices, tree planting (plantation and forestation), proper/reduced use of agrochemicals18,988–69,964 kgC per ha[72]
Agricultural practicesSoil carbon conservation practices; afforestation-[23]
ForestryCarbon sequestrationTree above ground biomass (TAGB) and carbon (TAGC); remote sensing and spectral variables373 ± 165 t of C per ha[24]
Weather variability controlAfforestation using regional climate model to simulate feedbacks between land surface conditions and local climate_[21]
Carbon sequestrationAfforestation of wasteland16 × 106 t of C p.a[73]
Carbon sequestrationAgroforestry using different plantations92.4–355.5 tC/ha[74]
IndustryLow-carbon economyGreen fiscal mechanisms such as carbon taxation, green finance and investment programs-[75]
Emission reductionImplementation of international schemes such as natural Gas STAR program, Global Methane Initiative to reduce methane emission from oil and gas related activities [76]
Waste managementBehavioral changeWaste recycling (energy and material recovery) to save emissions from poor waste disposal methods90 to 150 tCO2-eq p.a.[77]
OthersNational sustainability policiesIntegration of GHG mitigation into local development strategies and processes, spanning from transport to energy, waste management and agriculture [78]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Okafor, C.C.; Ajaero, C.C.; Madu, C.N.; Nzekwe, C.A.; Otunomo, F.A.; Nixon, N.N. Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation in Nigeria: A Review. Sustainability 2024, 16, 7048. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16167048

AMA Style

Okafor CC, Ajaero CC, Madu CN, Nzekwe CA, Otunomo FA, Nixon NN. Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation in Nigeria: A Review. Sustainability. 2024; 16(16):7048. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16167048

Chicago/Turabian Style

Okafor, Chukwuebuka C., Charles C. Ajaero, Christian N. Madu, Chinelo A. Nzekwe, Festus A. Otunomo, and Nduji N. Nixon. 2024. "Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation in Nigeria: A Review" Sustainability 16, no. 16: 7048. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16167048

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop