Next Article in Journal
Geochemistry Characteristics and Coal-Forming Environments of Carboniferous–Permian Coal: An Example from the Zhaokai Mine, Ningwu Coalfield, Northern China
Previous Article in Journal
Circular Economy in the European Union: A Prisma-Based Systematic Review and Meta-Synthesis
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 17
Issue 3
10.3390/su17031284
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Sustainable Livelihood Options Adopted by Rural Communities in Response to Climate Change Dynamics: A Case Study Approach in Vhembe District, South Africa

by
Khathutshelo Hildah Netshisaulu
1,*,
Hector Chikoore
2,
James Chakwizira
3 and
Zongho Kom
4
1
Department of Geography and Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Science, Engineering and Agriculture, University of Venda, Private Bag X5050, Thohoyandou 0950, South Africa
2
Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, University of Limpopo, Private Bag X1106, Sovenga 0727, South Africa
3
Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Faculty of Science, Engineering and Agriculture, University of Venda, Private Bag X5050, Thohoyandou 0950, South Africa
4
Department of Geography, College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences, University of South Africa, Florida Campus, Private Bag X6, Florida 1710, South Africa
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2025, 17(3), 1284; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17031284
Submission received: 5 December 2024 / Revised: 10 January 2025 / Accepted: 22 January 2025 / Published: 5 February 2025
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The Vhembe district of South Africa is dominantly rural, with agricultural practice being the main major livelihood activity. Furthermore, many of the rural subsistence farmers rely on rain-fed agriculture, making them highly vulnerable to climate change, particularly high temperatures. Changes in climate cause extreme losses in agricultural productivity, increasing the level of vulnerability among rural subsistence farmers. The study examines the livelihood options adopted by rural communities in response to climate change dynamics in the Vhembe district. Using qualitative and quantitative approaches, both primary and secondary data from 365 rural community members were employed. Questionnaires and semi-structured interviews were administered using purposive sampling and employed statistical analysis techniques. The results revealed that livestock production was the most dominant livelihood-resilient activity at 30%, while vendor activity is common in Ṱhohoyanḓou at 29%. The findings indicated that the highest establishment of water tanks was in the Madimbo area, with 51% as a form of livelihood resilience. Further, 70% of respondents demonstrated livelihood sustainability activities such as agricultural forums, conferences, and the practice of indigenous activities. The proposed strategies can be used by policymakers to effectively consider the most vulnerable groups and articulate unique local vulnerabilities.

1. Introduction

The sustainable livelihoods framework (SLF) (UNDP, 2017) [1] and the sustainable livelihoods approach (SLA) (DFID, 1999) [2] are typical practices in the academic field, especially in marginalized rural areas. Sustainable livelihood opportunities practiced by rural communities have become a crucial area of concern as many marginalized rural areas are vulnerable to hush climatic conditions and limited technology [3]. Indigenous agricultural practices, water availability, and natural resources have been disturbed by climate change, which includes floods, droughts, and long dry spells. To cope with such extreme weather conditions, marginalized rural communities have adopted innovative and sustainable livelihood practices which include agroforestry, rainwater harvesting, indigenous knowledge systems, and diversified cropping systems [4]. These practices enhance livelihood resilience as they strengthen food security, sustainable livelihoods, income stability, and ecological balance. With improvements in technology, rural communities have converted to non-farming income resources which include ecotourism, renewable energy initiatives, and small-scale entrepreneurship to expand their livelihood base [5]. These options assist in mitigating the dangers presented by climate change and advance sustainable development. However, the triumph of such adaptation often relies on the availability and accessibility of resources which include training, supportive policy frameworks, and markets that are not available in many rural areas [6]. Further, government agencies, NGOs, and international organizations are vital in uplifting sustainable livelihood strategies, ensuring that marginalized rural communities are equipped with tools and knowledge crucial to bringing solutions in a changing climate environment [1,6].
The adoption of sustainable livelihood options in rural communities is mainly influenced by wider socio-economic and environmental policies [3,7]. For example, different marginalized rural communities profit from government-assisted climate resilience programs that encourage sustainable agriculture and natural resources management. These programs include the distribution of drought-resistant seeds, organic farming practices, and the promotion of renewable energy technologies such as solar and wind power [6,8]. Cooperatives in rural communities led by organizations are central to sustainable livelihood development since they encourage widespread knowledge, collective action, and access to external funding. However, limited resources (infrastructure, weak institution support, and barriers to market access) are some of the constraints that have limited the effectiveness of strategies that benefit sustainable livelihood options in rural communities [1,4,9]. Furthermore, the impacts of climate change have limited the progress and development made by adaptation strategies [10].
Studies have indicated a decline in agricultural production through subsistence farming in South Africa (Lidzhegu and Kabanda, 2022, Sinyolo et al., 2021) [11,12]. The Agricultural Research of South Africa focuses on the yield of farming and as well as innovation. This led to a focus on the literature on climate conservation on the project’s productivity and adoption (Pretty et al., 2019, Fusco et al., 2020) [13,14]. The prediction of warming and moisture deficit by Wang et al., 2022 [15] pointed out that in sub-Sahara Africa, it is essential to assess the livelihood resilience of adaptation strategies concerning sustainability and holistic methods. The evaluation of climate change in rural communities has been essential for observing and transforming high-tech systems that are funded by the projects’ collaborators (Danielsen et al., 2022 [16]; Zakari et al., 2022 [17]). Therefore, the question of whether to adopt the needs of communities on climate change hangs in balance. A study conducted by Ziervogel (2019) [18] reported that the National Adaptation Plans (NAPAs) and National Climate Change Response Strategies (NCCRs) barely engage in biophysical vulnerabilities and adhere to project-based and sectorial methods in adaptation; as a result, they are unable to integrate responses or engage with many communities. However, the targeted populations and their mindsets are more important to the success of technological adoption than the actual technology (Sterrett and Richardson, 2019) [19]. This has been evident in South Africa, where climate change adoption and abandoning of projects is low despite technology improvements in climate change (Etwire et al., 2024) [20]. Therefore, rural societies need to be assessed in adaptation techniques and be resilient to climate change as well as in their sustainability toward climate change. The changes in climate within rural communities have increased the levels of vulnerability among community members regardless of implemented projects by the government.
Globally, the continuous increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases has resulted in global warming, which has influenced climate change. Warmer climates, long dry spells, floods, and droughts are expected to increase and have regular occurrence [4,14]. These weather patterns hurt livelihood resilience, especially in rural communities, impacting negatively on the second sustainable development goal, zero hunger (SDG 2) (food security) for poor communities on a global scale. Due to climate change, Southern Africa has experienced long dry spells and droughts for several decades, such as in the 1960s, 1980s, and 1990s [13,14]. The magnitude of droughts and their duration have intensified within the tropical and subtropical regions since the 1970s [13]. According to Nesamvuni (2024) [21] and Kom et al. (2024) [22], South Africa has observed a variation in weather patterns over the past decade. This has negatively impacted sustainable livelihood and resilience, resulting in behavioral change amongst communities in rural South Africa. In Limpopo Province, the Vhembe district faces an increase in climate change challenges, impacting resilience and livelihoods. These challenges have far-reaching impacts across different aspects of life and the economic sector. Climate change influences human behavior, warranting this research’s focus on livelihood options adopted by communities in response to climate change and dynamics within rural communities. Studies have been conducted to investigate the negative impacts of climate change on smallholder farmers and their adaptation strategies by Kom et al., (2022) [23] and on multi-shareholder support in Limpopo by Maponya and Mpandeli (2012) [24] as well as indigenous knowledge system strategies to enhance subsistence farmers’ livelihoods [22]. However, there is little knowledge of the livelihood options adopted by rural communities in response to climate change dynamics and how accessible this support is in the Vhembe district at the community micro scale. Also, there is little empirical research that relates adaptation techniques to household livelihood possibilities and perceptions of climate change dynamics in the Vhembe district and its localities. Therefore, this paper aims to fill the knowledge gap by determining and analyzing sustainable livelihood options adopted by rural communities in response to extreme climate change dynamics in the Vhembe district, South Africa.
The study aims to understand the specific sustainable livelihood resilience perceived by communities and how it influences their daily lives. This will involve examining a range of livelihood activities, such as water management strategies, acquiring farming, crop production, and the use of firewood. By understanding these sustainable livelihood activities to change the climate, the study seeks to identify factors that influence their sustainability, providing important aspects into copying mechanisms of vulnerable communities. Furthermore, the study aims to examine the wider implications of these sustainable livelihood activities on food security. Agricultural communities, particularly subsistence farmers, represent a bigger component of the local food chain, and their sustainability to climate change can significantly affect food security, accessibility and livelihood. This research will explore how livelihood resilience is employed by the community’s impact on food security, especially within vulnerable communities. This study will provide sound policy recommendations to improve livelihood resilience by assessing the livelihood options adopted by rural communities in the Vhembe district in South Africa.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Background

In South Africa, recent studies by Lidzhegu and Kabanda (2022) [11] and Sinyolo et al. (2021) [12] suggest that agricultural production has been declining. South African agricultural research has been focusing on the output of agrarian systems and technology. Furthermore, studies regarding climate conservation depend on projects’ output and implementation [11,12]. However, concerning changes in climate and climate variability, food security and resolving the issues caused by climate change are more important for livelihood sustainability than productivity and food supply. Further, an increase in temperature and moisture deficit in southern Africa has been predicted in a study by Wang et al. (2022) [15]. Therefore, it becomes imperative to assess the livelihood resilience of adaptation strategies concerning sustainability and holistic approaches.
Moreover, the assessment of climate change in rural communities has been carried out for processes of examining and the modernisation of technical approaches supported by the project’s partners, as stated by Danielsen et al. (2022) [16] and Zakari et al. (2022) [17]. What hangs in the balance is the question of whether conservation agriculture addresses the needs of communities concerning climate change. According to Ziervogel (2008) [18], countries’ National Adaptation Plans (NAPAs) and National Climate Change Response Strategies (NCCRs) are unable to integrate solutions and actively engage various groups. However, the populations being targeted and their mental models are more important to the success of technology adoption than the technology itself [19]. This is seen in South Africa, where there is still a low acceptance rate for climate change, and in the worst situations, farmers and the population have given up on the project despite advancements in climate change technology [20,21,22,23]. The demands of local communities must therefore be evaluated and included in adaptation plans, climate change resilience, and climate change sustainability. The changes in climate within poverty-stricken communities has increased the levels of vulnerability among community members regardless of implemented projects by the government and other stakeholders. Rural communities, facing adverse impacts of climate change, are diversifying their income sources as a strategy to reduce vulnerability and ensure food security.

2.2. Resilience Theory

Resilience theory is a multidisciplinary framework put into play to better understand how systems react to stress, challenges, and disruptions. It explains adaptation and transformation function (Maponya and Mpandeli, 2008 [24]; Den Hartigh et al., 2024 [25]). In communities, resilience is highly expected and seen when problems arise and affect everyone within the community. Resilience science began half a century ago, when psychiatry and paediatrics were trying to find ideas for the beginning and treatment of problems (Savelli et al., 2022) [26]. From the beginning, resilience research establishers tended to look at the process that explains how individuals manage situations of hardships (Sonenshein et al., 2024) [27]. Their convincing ideas proliferated the field of resilience science, running away from deficit-focused orientations toward models centred on positive aims, promotive and protective factors, and adaptive capacities (Savelli et al., 2022) [26]. Figure 1 visually articulates the framework’s key components that illustrate the theory’s understanding.
The concept of resilience has been attractive to practitioners who promote strength in vulnerable individuals, groups, and communities. “A wealth of research has documented processes by which individuals achieve positive developmental outcomes despite exposure to known threats to adaptation” (Cicchetti, 2010) [28]. The resilience process is a broader level of development that includes families (Finklestein et al., 2022) [29].
Drawing upon empirical studies and theoretical models of resilience, studies have articulated frameworks for translating resilience into applied efforts to push for positive development (Guo et al., 2023) [30]. There is a need for a resilience-guided practice that takes into consideration the dynamic nature of human development at various levels of analysis across communities, institutions, and nations. Additionally, age is within resilience-based practices as an underutilized resource for testing core tenets of resilience theory and broadening bidirectional paths from science-based practices to practice-based science.
Resilience is highly conceptualized as a developmental process or dynamic capacity. It is well applicable in a variety of systems from children and families to institutions and societies. Resilience includes the capacity of a dynamic system to adapt successfully to disturbances that threaten system function, variability, or development (Abadir et al., 2023) [31].

3. Material and Methods

3.1. Study Area Profile

The study was carried out in the Vhembe district (see Figure 2), situated in Limpopo Province, South Africa. The study focused on three local areas, namely Ṱhohoyanḓou, Madimbo, and Dzimauli. The three local areas provide detailed information on different communities that are experiencing climate change and are involved in climate-resilient activities. These climate-resilient activities help the communities in dealing with extreme weather conditions to sustain their livelihoods. The Vhembe district has a vast socio-economic and socio-ecological importance. It has a habitat comprised of different flora and fauna. With the availability of fertile land within the study area, rural communities in the Vhembe district rely on subsistence farming activities for their livelihood sustainability. Furthermore, subsistence farming is also the major economic backbone of the Vhembe district. The area is also suitable for tropical and subtropical fruits and vegetables that sustain livelihoods which are mainly produced in irrigation schemes.
The average annual temperature ranges between 14 °C and 29 °C. Rainfall is mainly received in summer, averaging between 300 mm and 400 mm per annum [17,19,29]. However, extreme temperatures are experienced in summer, with temperatures reaching highs of 40 °C. Due to climate change, the Vhembe district has been experiencing natural disasters such as floods and fires.
The Vhembe district’s geographical morphology is made up of flat landscape in the north and south, and the east-west contains the Soutspansberg peaks that range from 1400–1500 m high, separating a wetter and greener plain in the south [32]. Rivers are a major watercourse in the Vhembe district, which many farmers rely on for their livelihoods and as a source of small-scale irrigation. The river catchment area comprises 2436 square kilometres, collecting much of the drainage from the northern hill of the massive rocky formation of the Soutspansberg highlands [33]. Communities largely depend on agricultural activities for their livelihoods, especially maize farming, sweet potatoes, vegetables, and tomatoes.

3.2. Population and Economic Activity

The estimated number of inhabitants of the Vhembe district is 1,294,722, with a density of 50.6 persons per square kilometre, according to the 2011 Census survey. From 2001 to 2007 and the 2007 Community Survey to the 2011 Census, Vhembe’s population grew by 41,979 and 54,687, respectively. In total, 16% of the population is under 20 years old, 44.4% of the population is female, and 41.6% of the population is male, according to the VDM’s integrated development from 2012/13 to 2016/17, indicated within the annual report by Statistic SA (2011) [34]. A total of 1,375,053 black Africans make up most of the district’s population; 11,170 white people and 2689 persons of other races follow.
Economically, the district produced R 63.4 billion in GDP in 2008, growing from 17.09% in 2018, when the province’s GDP was R 358 billion [31]. The district’s share of the R 4.87 trillion GDP of South Africa in 2018 was 1.30%. Community services accounted for 33% of the district’s total Gross Value Added (GVA) in 2019 by the Vhembe District (VD) (2016/2017) [35]. This was the sector with the largest share. With an 18% share, the financial sector accounts for the second-largest component of the GVA, after the commerce (18%) and finance (17%) sectors. The two economic sectors that contribute the least, contributing 3% of the GVA total, are manufacturing and agriculture. In 2018, the trading sector, which employed over 40,500 people, saw the biggest growth in the number of jobs in the informal economy in 2018 [34].
Additionally, a total of 2,140,708 hectares makes up the Vhembe district, of which 247,757 hectares is arable land. Large-scale industrial agriculture and smallholder farming, also referred to as subsistence farming, make up the district’s agricultural system (VD, 2011/12 IDP Review). About 70% of the arable land is owned by white farmers, but just 30% belongs to a small, primarily black, local farming community. There are currently two agroecology locations in the district (VD, 2011/12 IDP Review). The Soutspansberg peaks’ mild slopes make up a portion of the Vhembe district [36]. Between November to March, the valleys receive a lot of rainfall; the alluvial soil is particularly productive and may be used to grow a variety of sub-tropical crops, including delicious sweet potatoes, beans, vegetables, maize, tomatoes, pumpkins, and more (Magombo et al., 2011) [37].
Furthermore, although cultivating crops and raising animals are important sources of food security for households in the study areas, the viability of these industries has declined over time. Traditionally, communities have produced their own food crops, such as groundnuts, sorghum, and maize, as well as livestock, such as pigs, chickens, sheep, goats, and cattle. Nowadays, the majority of households struggle to produce enough food from crops and livestock, and they are increasingly turning to purchased food items. Because of this, the study sought to ascertain how climate change and food production in this municipality are related.

3.3. Survey Design and Data Collection

To assess the climate-resilient model for communities in Vhembe district, the study adopts a process assessment design. Its capacity to address questions such as “what was done”, “by who”, and “how” as suggested by Landaverd et al., 2022 [38] and Akther and Nur (2022) [39] was the rationale behind the use of the design. The design of the assessment study was selected because it enhances the measures by providing the data required to modify tactics in a changing context. Moreover, the study provided a mixed method design, using local communities (Ṱhohoyanḓou, Madimbo, and Dzimauli) in the Vhembe district as a case study. The use of mixed method design in this study assists in maximizing data collection, which could have been jeopardized by employing just one technique [22,24]. Furthermore, this also improved the contextualization of qualitative data and generalizable, externally valid insights into both qualitative and quantitative approaches. To capitalize on the advantages of both qualitative and quantitative procedures, the mixed-methods approach was purposefully selected in a way that the strengths of one type of method often mitigate the weaknesses of the other.

3.4. Sampling Technique

The study used purposive sampling techniques allowing the selection of participants based on specific characteristics relevant to the research. Using purposive sampling, the study allowed participants that are relevant to be selected, ensuring the selection of a rich sample size. Through purposive sampling, the study adopted systematic sampling to collect sound information due to the limited time frame. This allowed each sample to have an equal probability of being selected, which reduced biases in collected data. Focus was given to three rural communities within the Vhembe district which were selected for their diverse ecological zones and livelihood activities in the changing climate. The rationale behind the use of the sampling technique was due to the large number of subsistence farming activities, and the high number of resilient livelihood activities the communities were involved in. The study target sample (1314) was drawn from households registered under the land management database in the local municipalities (Profile Vhembe District Municipality, 2019) [35]. From the target population, Slovin’s formula (Mutiawani, 2017) [40] was used to determine the sample size.
N is the population’s sample size.
N is the size of the population.
e = the 0.05 acceptable level of error.
N = 1 + N × e 2
1 + (1314 × (0.05)2) = 1314 n
=1314/(1 + 2.62)
1314/3.62
Thus, sample size (n) = 392 = 362.98 + 29
To account for non-responses, 10% (29) of the estimated sample size was added.
The selection of the study samples was randomized, to ensure a true reflection of the entire population. Furthermore, it also provided accurate data insights into subject matters. A questionnaire was used to establish livelihood options adopted by communities because of a change in climate and dynamics at a local level. A questionnaire and semi-structured interview were drawn in a way to collect data on various types of natural resources. For analysis, the study categorized various livelihood conditions and strategies to cope with them.
To classify livelihood strategies, the welfare of every selected household was calculated using Organization for Economic Operation Development (OECD) measuring per capita income standardized by the adult equivalence scale (AES), which accounts for intra-household variation in member access to household resources. Various elements related to livelihood status and household characteristics were used in the analysis. These variables provide sound components of livelihood development and sustainability (physical capital, social capital, livelihood activities, livelihood strategies) and livelihood options (cash produce farming, harvesting, selling, etc.). Additionally, information was gathered on the management of such natural resources. This includes management of water sources, in terms of where the community is obtaining water. The questionnaires lean much upon the conservation of the environment, such as firewood harvest. More data were collected, which makes it very clear when collecting and answering set objectives. This information provided the study with the ability to understand and present data from the research.
Table 1 indicates the number of targeted households provided with questionnaires within the three study localities. The size varied across administrative areas in the study areas due to the study locations and their socio-economic structures; hence, the number of questionnaires and interviews administered also varied in number.

3.4.1. Data Analysis

The study uses both semi-structured interviews and questionnaires for data collection. Qualitative analysis involved assessing the perceptions of climate change amongst participants using interviews and group discussions. Quantitative data were analyzed using the Microsoft Excel 2010 statistical package. To create graphs after quantitative data from the questionnaire, descriptive and inferential statistics were used including frequency and percentage analyzed using the SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) software Version 12.0 [22,24]. Content and ethnographic analytic techniques were used in the study as they were recommended to analyze data from interviews. The use of thematic content analysis provided the systematic coding of data by organizing information into groups to identify categories to determine patterns that are not recognized by merely listening to the tapes or reading the transcripts. The rationale for using thematic analysis was to identify themes such as patterns in the data collected. The use of themes was carried out to identify the related sustainability resilience livelihood activities related to climate change. Content analysis operates through dividing collected data into different topics, which tantalize the use by participants of indigenous knowledge strategies to adapt to climatic stressors. The ethnographic technique analyzes the participant’s behaviours and culture. This provided rich and in-depth analytical data, which drew primarily on direct quotes from the group discussions. The data were then coded and classified into different categories, which were used to analyze the adaptation of livelihood strategies and practices to avert unfavourable climate conditions in the various study sites.

3.4.2. Ethical Protocols

Research conducted within rural community populations raises many ethical issues. Interviewers were treated with dignity and had their opinions heard. Participant informed concerns were obtained by the researchers and field assistants before the start of data collection. Additionally, to enter the communities and conduct the research, authorization from the appropriate local authorities and traditional leaders was obtained.

4. Results

Livelihood resilience involves the aptitude of a social system to cope with and regain from an adverse condition. Livelihood resilience largely depends on how rural residents in Dzimauli, Ṱhohoyanḓou, and Madimbo perceive changes within their environment and how they are dealing with and modifying their behaviour based on the existing climate change condition. During the field survey, some data were collected through questionnaires and interviews, and the following results in Figure 2 illustrate that the resilient livelihood activities identified in the study areas were in Dzimauli, Ṱhohoyanḓou, and Madimbo. The findings of the study reported that livestock production was the most dominant livelihood-resilient activity in the Vhembe district, with a percentage of (N = 105, 30%). According to the three study sites, it is more dominant in Madimbo, whereas Ṱhohoyanḓou and Dzimauli are relatively small in terms of livestock production activity. Regarding vendor activity, the results indicated that in the Vhembe district (N = 126, 29%), the most vendor activity was dominantly coming from Dzimauli with (N = 59), followed by Ṱhohoyanḓou (N = 56) and Madimbo (N = 11), respectively, as shown in Figure 1. Meanwhile, in Ṱhohoyanḓou, buying and selling of crop produce has been a dominant livelihood activity.
The findings of the study from respondents indicated that crop production (N = 81, 20%) was the dominant activity in Dzimauli (N = 32), while Ṱhohoyanḓou (N = 31), which is relatively similar to this livelihood activity. During the questionnaire session, it was revealed that firewood was also an identified livelihood option with (N = 66, 13%), where it is dominant in Madimbo (N = 38), followed by Dzimauli (N = 16) and Ṱhohoyanḓou (N = 12). Aquafarming (N = 24, 8%) is relatively dominant in Dzimauli (N = 16) and Ṱhohoyanḓou (N = 8), but there were no aquafarming livelihood activities identified in Madimbo.
Additionally, the findings in Figure 3 reveal the activities that the participants participated in as their livelihood resilience. It provides a clear indication of different livelihood activities within Ṱhohoyanḓou, Madimbo, and Dzimauli.

4.1. Establishment of Water Resources

As found during data collection, in all three study sites, Ṱhohoyanḓou, Madimbo, and Dzimauli, the local population depends on water tanks as an evident practice of climate-resilient practice; see Figure 4. The results indicated that the highest establishment of water tanks was in the Madimbo area (51%), as well as 30% and 29% of water tank establishment in the Ṱhohoyanḓou and Dzimauli areas, respectively. During the questionnaire and interview, it was revealed by the population that there are about 875 water tank distribution initiatives that have been coordinated throughout the local municipalities in Dzimauli and Madimbo as a project relating to rainwater harvest through the collaboration of the government and private organizations. The following major stakeholders were involved in managing such programs: (a) the National Department of Water Affairs (b) the National Department of Environmental Affairs and (c) Lushaka Private Limited Company.

4.2. Livelihood Sustainability Engagements on Climate Change

The results show the participants’ perceptions regarding enlisted livelihood sustainability actions on climate change in the Vhembe region (Figure 5). The livelihood sustainability activities included agricultural forums, conferences, the practice of taboos, the establishment of the botanical garden, and the protection of sacred places. The results obtained during the survey pointed out that 70% of respondents in the Ṱhohoyanḓou area are knowledgeable about the Thulamela Agricultural Forum, which was established to connect people involved in agricultural practices. On the other hand, 15% of the respondents from both Madimbo and Dzimauli know this agricultural forum.
Further, regarding the study, indigenous practices, such as taboo, involve cultural beliefs that are enforced in the communities that everyone should follow, and they should not break rules or laws as a way of protecting the environment, such as protecting secret forest areas that should not be torched or destroyed. The practice of taboos seemed to be more prevalent in the Madimbo region (55%) and Dzimauli (35%) in the establishment of livelihood sustainability engagement to climate change problems.
Additionally, during a semi-structured interview, it was reported that taboo is described as an activity or behaviour that is considered completely unacceptable or forbidden. A taboo is also the prohibition from engaging in such an activity. However, certain activities were prohibited or forbidden within certain forestry areas, and the prohibition of the use of water from certain wetlands.
However, the results within the Ṱhohoyanḓou area demonstrated the lowest figures of respondents with only 10% agreeing that taboos seem to assist in the establishment of livelihood engagement in climate change. During an interview concerning knowledge of the botanical garden, it was reported by respondents that the botanical garden was more visible in the Ṱhohoyanḓou site with an estimate of 65%, while the Madimbo site indicated 25%, and Dzimauli site respondents reported 10%, having the least knowledge about the botanical garden. Further, results regarding sacred places were more prevalent in the Dzimauli area at 50%, followed by the Ṱhohoyanḓou area at 35% and the Madimbo area at 15%. The respondents indicated during the interview that sacred places that are regarded as special and traditionally important play a very crucial role in reducing the rate of deforestation and educating people culturally on how important the preservation of the natural environment is.
According to one of the rural respondents:
“Taboos and sacred places have an influence on livelihood practice and behavior of the community influencing sustainability engagements.”

5. Discussion

5.1. Resilience Livelihood Options Admist Climate Change at the Local Scale

The impact of climate change has shifted the behaviour of community livelihood resilience. The resilience options and the capacity of the communities to address the harsh realities of climate change have been the primary concerns in many vulnerable communal societies. The study demonstrated various options of resilience to livelihood, which included livestock production on a subsistence scale. The livestock livelihood option within marginalized vulnerable communities such as in Ṱhohoyanḓou, Madimbo, and Dzimauli indicates a key financial security option that the community members have opted for in a climate-changing environment despite its vulnerability to the changing climate. The livelihood options and activities in many marginalized communities are limited, with many becoming highly vulnerable to environmental change. The findings of this study concur with that of Richards and Stambaugh, (2021) [41] and Dutta, (2023) [42], who reported that local communities depend on the surrounding environment. These activities depend on several issues such as climate conditions, natural environmental factors, and association with community members. The key findings from the study demonstrate livelihood options in the three study sites as “Climate sustainable activities”, designed to suit the climatic and environmental problems of the local communities. The livelihood options incorporate sustainable techniques that are very efficient in coping and adapting to the changing environment. Akurugu et al. (2022) [43] and UNDP (2017) [4] reported that livelihood options seek to maximize much-needed benefits from the few environmental options that are available to all local community members.
Additionally, at the same time, the study findings revealed the use of firewood as one of the livelihood options in vulnerable disadvantaged societies, disturbing the ecosystem. This observation agrees with studies conducted by Steel et al. (2021) [44], who stressed that the acts of deforestation and the use of firewood significantly contribute to climate change and global warming. During the interviews, local community members revealed that firewood was one of the best options for adaptation. This is supported by Shinde (2023) [45] who suggested that the use of firewood among subsistent farmers has been a common practice as a form of a livelihood option during the farming season and climate change challenges. The use of fire and firewood in poor Vhembe district communities provides a key livelihood option which is a common practice in a changing climate.
The study further reported that livelihood options were observed within the study areas, which include the use of water tanks, use of firewood, aqua farming, and small-scale farming. A change in climate forces new ways for indigenous farming techniques and the need for alternative ways of living. This has propelled the use of water tanks, small-scale irrigation, and aqua farming in many areas impacted by climate change. It is also consistent with studies by Obubu et al., (2020) [46] who reported that the use of water tanks in areas that experience water scarcity indicates a level of livelihood resilience to climate change. The use of water tanks reduces water shortage stress as rainfall variation has increased shortages of water supply, especially in new peripheral rural development. Community engagement and taking practical action such as the use of water tanks in a climate change environment is evidence of the current climatic situation on both local and national levels [47].
Water resources management within the Vhembe district operates within a landscape of significant variability, driven by uneven rainfall caused by climate change. The reliance on surface water coupled with the changing climate has put immense pressure on existing resources. Fragmented governance and disparities in water access within rural areas present a continuous challenge, as they are worsened by a changing climate (Piemontese et al., 2024) [48]. Resolving these issues requires integrated management that depends on cooperation across sectors, fostering innovations, and strengthening rural local capacities to ensure sustainable livelihood resilience. The results illustrate an increase in water tank use within rural communities as a way of coping with climate change. South Africa’s vulnerability to droughts caused by climate change exacerbates the need for robust water management practices. The continuous occurrence of severe droughts in many parts of the country underscores the need for proactive policies that anticipate water shortages. Climate change further has intensified these risks by altering the rainfall patterns and increasing the frequency of extreme weather events.
In addition, adaptation and adoption approaches to climate variations are evident in the practices amongst communities that have developed to accommodate inherent temporal varieties from normal conditions. The study findings reveal that the implementation of water tanks points to the evidence that livelihood-resilient practices are indeed a reaction to the ever-changing climatic conditions, ensuring that households are better equipped to change. This has been a resilient practice implementation that ensures that the local communities cope with the adverse effects of climate change among community members in Ṱhohoyanḓou, Madimbo, and Dzimauli. These results mirror that of Dawson et al. (2021) [47] and Savari and Amghani (2022) [49], who suggested the introduction of water harvesting technology in areas where there was a water shortage.
As per the results of the study, there was an alignment of climate change livelihood resilience practices with existing government priorities and policies aligned to multiple objectives and improve livelihoods. This is supported by research conducted by Thorstas et al. (2021) [50], and Ziervogel et al. (2018) [18]. Based on the South African Second National Communication under the UNDP (2017) [1] and DFID (1999) [2], the country’s efforts in climate change science and the science–policy interface to date have resulted in progress on (i) the provision of a source of water in many communities, (ii) the donation of water tanks to many poor and less privileged, and (iii) an increase in the supply of water tanks to many communities in both rural and urban communities. The provision of water tanks improves livelihood and represents a positive reaction to resilience in a changing climate (Srivastav et al., 2021) [51].
Climate change practices in South African government priorities can improve environmental sustainability and socio-economic development, especially for rural communities. Government policies such as the National Development Plan (NDP) and Climate Change Adaptation Strategy emphasize poverty reduction and inclusive growth, which intersect with livelihood resilience initiatives (Rulashe et al., 2024) [52]. The promotion of sustainable agriculture, water conservation, and renewable energy projects can support the goals of food security, economic diversification, and rural development. Furthermore, the integration of climate adaptation into local governance frameworks and community-driven projects on climate change can assist in bridging the gaps in service delivery while at the same time fostering innovation and skills development. This can strengthen rural communities against the shock of changing climate and advance the national objectives of reducing inequality and promoting long-term food security.

5.2. Community Sustainable Actions on Climate Change

The study demonstrates several engagements that communities observed due to climate change. Sacred sites of worship, such as for praying to the Gods of the Rains and ancestors play a vital role in the Vhembe district. Rainmaking ceremonies in Madimbo and Dzimauli are practised especially in times of drought when there is little or no rainfall. This observation agrees with the studies carried out by Richards and Stambaugh (2021) [41] and Wackernagel et al. (2023) [53]. The sacred sites are demonstrated to be important to the Vhembe district, especially as the ancestors of the Venda reside at these sites, and because traditional rainmaking ceremonies are practiced at these sacred sites. These findings support the observation by Kom et al. (2022) [23] and Dutta (2023) [42] who reported that for many generations, the San people of southern Africa were known to perform “rainmaking” ceremonies at designated locations. Rain rituals continue to be fundamental to spiritual practices, particularly in rural areas by indigenous farmers against drought. Rainfall is important as farmers depend on it for planting crops. In the northern region of South Africa, Modjadji, the rain queen, is arguably the most well-known ritual expert. Further, the findings are consistent with studies by Savari and Amghani (2022) [49] who emphasized the significance of making rain because prolonged droughts appeared to be on the horizon. Rain-making rituals are still performed (albeit to a lesser degree) in the Manicaland province’s Ndau indigenous farmer communities at the start of the growing season [11,33].
The practices of taboos have been largely observed within the study area and this includes the conservation of certain forestry areas and the prohibition of the use of water from certain wetlands. This mirrors studies conducted by Ofoegbu et al. (2016) [54], who suggested that the use of taboos and rituals assists in improving the resilient livelihood in a changing climate. These traditional practices were and are still some of the livelihood-resilient methods used within climate change. This assertion is consistent with studies by Serote et al. (2023) [55]. The initiatives on climate change and resilience assist people in addressing issues of climate change in local government and private sectors as part of social corporate responsibility [49]. Moreover, the natural environment and the management principles of their environment, shaped by their knowledge and perceptions, are what have maintained their livelihoods. This observation is likened to the study conducted by Mafongoya and Ajaji (2017) [56]. It can be argued that despite there being no direct and clear adaptation method between traditional practices and climate change events, these indigenous knowledge beliefs and practices establish sustainable actions on climate change for local communities, and more importantly, affirm that they are part of the livelihood resilience.

6. Conclusions and Policy Implications

Developing sustainable livelihood options for rural communities requires embracing or adjusting to the negative effects of climate change through the creation and execution of workable programs and planning for enhancing rural area resilience based on their resources and crisis-related experiences. The findings of our case study in three Vhembe district communities indicated that livestock production was the most dominant livelihood-resilient activity at 30%, while vendor activity is common in Thohoyandou at 29% toward climate change. The impact that climate change has on local communities varies from one study area, community group, and region to another and is reliant on how resilient rural communities are. Accurately identifying and comprehending the aspects of people’s vulnerability and resistance is the first step in raising community thresholds for tolerance and adaptability.
The following policy recommendations can be made considering the actions taken.
To address the dynamic climate change, plans are being made to train households and small-scale farmers in sustainable livelihood options. They offer alternatives to agriculture, such as the development of handicrafts and agricultural and natural tourism, as well as prospects to produce crops that are resistant to the stress caused by climate change’s occurrence.
To improve climate change adaptation, a program that encourages rural residents to participate in self-mobilization can be adopted and implemented. This would include the construction of pre-aware water systems in the local community and the appropriate management of water resources using innovative techniques for their timely storage and transfer. Nonetheless, community members and the government should work together to address climate change adaptation as a component of the local development agenda. This will not only provide the extra services required for adaptation, but it will also complicate the attainment of other development goals for sustainable livelihood options. As a component of rural communities’ climate change adaptation systems, policymakers ought to take livestock management and better agricultural governance into account. The preservation and enhancement of social justice, economic well-being, and environmental quality will be facilitated by the adaptive and sustainable management of farming services. Furthermore, improving the involvement of the local population that depends on agriculture in adjusting to and reducing the effects of climate change is a must for sustainable development livelihoods.

Limitation and Future Research

One of the study’s main drawbacks was that it only examined sustainable livelihood as a case study in the Vhembe district of South Africa; as a result, the findings might not apply to other districts. Secondly, this study combined qualitative and quantitative methods, both of which have drawbacks. Therefore, we recommend that future researchers look at rural communities’ coping and adapting techniques using the multinomial logit model (MNL). Future research might focus more on the use of sophisticated technologies in rural communities to integrate vulnerable groups with livelihood resilience.

Author Contributions

K.H.N.: data collection, writing the draft, review, and editing; J.C.: Proofreading, resources, visualization, and supervision; H.C.: Proofreading, editing, and supervision; Z.K.: data entry, analysis, editing, and layout of manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research did not receive any funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and the protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences Ethics Committee (FNAS_REC), the Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences Ethics committee hereby approves your study as indicated. This implies that the North-West University Senate Committee for Research Ethics (NWU-SCRE) Grants its permission that, provided the specified are met and pending and other authorisation that may be necessary the study may be initiated using the ethic number: NWU-00533-21-A9, approved on the 24 June 2021.

Informed Consent Statement

The local community members were provided with written informed consent to participate in this study.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article and further inquiries can be directed at the corresponding authors.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to express their gratitude to the Editor and reviewers for their helpful criticism, which enhanced the quality of this article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no potential conflicts of interest.

References

  1. UNDP. Guidance Notes: Application of the Sustainable Livelihoods’ Framework in Development Projects; United Nations Development Programme, Regional Centre for Latin America and the Caribbean: Panama City, Panama, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  2. DFID. Key Sheets for Sustainable Development; Overview; DFID: London, UK, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  3. Roy, S.; Bose, A.; Basak, D.; Chowdhury, I.R. Towards sustainable society: The sustainable livelihood security (SLS) approach for prioritizing development and understanding sustainability: An insight from West Bengal, India. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2024, 26, 20095–20126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Pancholi, R.; Yadav, R.; Gupta, H.; Vasure, N.; Choudhary, S.; Singh, M.N.; Rastogi, M. The Role of Agroforestry Systems in Enhancing Climate Resilience and Sustainability-A Review. Int. J. Environ. Clim. Change 2023, 13, 4342–4353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Kyei-Baffour, R. Agricultural Land Conversion to Non-Agricultural Use and Its Impact on Farmers’ Income: A Study of Farmers in an Agricultural Area in Sub-Saharan Africa. Master’s Thesis, Estonian University of Life Sciences, Tartu, Estonia, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  6. Biswas, R.R.; Rahman, A. Adaptation to climate change: A study on regional climate change adaptation policy and practice framework. J. Environ. Manag. 2023, 336, 117666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Fahad, S.; Nguyen-Thi-Lan, H.; Nguyen-Manh, D.; Tran-Duc, H.; To-The, N. Analyzing the status of multidimensional poverty of rural households by using sustainable livelihood framework: Policy implications for economic growth. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2023, 30, 16106–16119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Batra, G. Renewable energy economics: Achieving harmony between environmental protection and economic goals. Soc. Sci. Chron. 2023, 2, 1–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Durga, N.; Schmitter, P.; Ringler, C.; Mishra, S.; Magombeyi, M.S.; Ofosu, A.; Pavelic, P.; Hagos, F.; Melaku, D.; Verma, S.; et al. Barriers to the uptake of solar-powered irrigation by smallholder farmers in sub-Saharan Africa: A review. Energy Strat. Rev. 2024, 51, 101294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Rezaei, E.E.; Webber, H.; Asseng, S.; Boote, K.; Durand, J.L.; Ewert, F.; Martre, P.; MacCarthy, D.S. Climate change impacts on crop yields. Nat. Rev. Earth Environ. 2023, 4, 831–846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Lidzhegu, Z.; Kabanda, T. Declining land for subsistence and small-scale farming in South Africa: A case study of Thulamela local municipality. Land Use Policy 2022, 119, 106170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Sinyolo, S.; Murendo, C.; Nyamwanza, A.M.; Sinyolo, S.A.; Ndinda, C.; Nwosu, C.O. Farm production diversification and dietary diversity among subsistence farming households: Panel data evidence from South Africa. Sustainability 2021, 13, 10325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Pretty, J.N.; Noble, A.D.; Bossio, D.; Dixon, J.; Hine, R.E.; Penning de Vries, F.W.; Morison, J.I. Resource-conserving agriculture increases yields in developing countries. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2019, 40, 1114–1119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Fusco, G.; Melgiovanni, M.; Porrini, D.; Ricciardo, T.M. How to Improve the diffusion of climate-smart agriculture: What the literature tells us. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Wang, L.; Jiao, W.; MacBean, N.; Rulli, M.C.; Manzoni, S.; Vico, G.; D’odorico, P. Dryland productivity under a changing climate. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2022, 12, 981–994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Danielsen, F.; Hajo, E.; Mikkel, F.; Noor, J.; Olivia, L.; Ida, T.; Dimitrios, A.; Neil, D.B. Community monitoring of natural resource systems and the environment. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2022, 47, 637–670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Zakari, A.; Khan, I.; Tan, D.; Alvarado, R.; Dagar, V. Energy efficiency and sustainable development goals (SDGs). Energy 2022, 239, 122365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Ziervogel, G.; Cartwright, A.; Tas, A.; Adejuwon, J.; Zermoglio, F.; Shale, M.; Smith, B. Climate Change and Adaptation in African Agriculture; Stockholm Environment Institute: Stockholm, Sweden, 2008; pp. 17–19. [Google Scholar]
  19. Richardson, R.B.; Olabisi, L.S.; Sakana, N.; Waldman, K.; Grabowski, P. The impact of Sustainable Intensification on Landscapes and Livelihoods (SILL) in Zambia; International Institute of Tropical Agriculture: Ibadan, Nigeria, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  20. Etwire, P.M.; Koomson, I.; Martey, E. Impact of climate change adaptation on farm productivity and household welfare. Clim. Chang. 2022, 170, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Nesamvuni, A. Sustainable Application of Water Footprint in Black Tea and Botanical Extract Production System; Water Research Commission: Pretoria, South Africa, 2024. [Google Scholar]
  22. Kom, Z.; Nicolau, M.D.; Nenwiini, S.C. The Use of Indigenous Knowledge Systems Practices to Enhance Food Security in Vhembe District, South Africa. Agric. Res. 2024, 13, 599–612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Kom, Z.; Nethengwe, N.S.; Mpandeli, S.; Chikoore, H. Indigenous knowledge indicators employed by farmers for adaptation to climate change in rural South Africa. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2022, 66, 2778–2793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Maponya, P.; Mpandeli, S. Climate change and agricultural production in South Africa: Impacts and adaptation options. J. Agric. Sci. 2012, 4, 48–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Den Hartigh, R.J.; Meerhoff, L.R.A.; Van Yperen, N.W.; Neumann, N.D.; Brauers, J.J.; Frencken, W.G.; Emerencia, A.; Hill, Y.; Platvoet, S.; Atzmueller, M.; et al. Resilience in sports: A multidisciplinary, dynamic, and personalized perspective. Int. Rev. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 2024, 17, 564–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Savelli, A.; Schapendonk, F.; Sarzana, C.; Dutta Gupta, T.; Caroli, G.; Duffy, M.; de Brauw, A.; Thornton, P.; Pacillo, G.; Läderach, P. The Climate Security-Mobility Nexus: Impact Pathways and Research Priorities; Position Paper No. 2022/2; CGIAR FOCUS Climate Security: Montpellier, France, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  27. Scott, S.; Nault, K. When the symphony does jazz: How resourcefulness fosters organizational resilience during adversity. Acad. Manag. J. 2024, 67, 648–678. [Google Scholar]
  28. Cicchetti. Resilience under conditions of extreme stress: A multilevel perspective. World Psychiatry 2010, 9, 145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Finklestein, M.; Pagorek-Eshel, S.; Laufer, A. Adolescents’ individual resilience and its association with security threats, anxiety and family resilience. J. Fam. Stud. 2022, 28, 1023–1039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Guo, Y.; Shengchao, L. A policy analysis of China’s sustainable rural revitalization: Integrating environmental, social and economic dimensions. Front. Environ. Sci. 2024, 12, 1436869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Abadir, P.M.; Bandeen-Roche, K.; Bergeman, C.; Bennett, D.; Davis, D.; Kind, A.; LeBrasseur, N.; Yaakov Stern, Y.; Varadhan, R.; Heather, E.W. An overview of the resilience world: Proceedings of the American Geriatrics Society and National Institute on Aging state of resilience science conference. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 2023, 71, 2381–2392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Botai, C.M.; Botai, J.O.; Adeola, A.M. Spatial distribution of temporal precipitation contrasts in South Africa. S. Afr. J. Sci. 2018, 114, 70–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Kom, Z.; Nethengwe, N.S.; Mpandeli, N.S.; Chikoore, H. Determinants of small-scale farmers’ choice and adaptive strategies in response to climatic shocks in Vhembe District, South Africa. GeoJournal 2020, 87, 677–700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Statistics South Africa (Statistic SA). Pretoria. Available online: https://nationalgovernment.co.za/units/view/43/statistics-south-africa-stats-sa (accessed on 23 October 2024).
  35. Profile Vhembe District Municipality; Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs: Pretoria, South Africa, 2019.
  36. Niang, A.; Becker, M.; Ewert, F.; Tanaka, A.; Dieng, I.; Saito, K. Yield variation of rainfed rice as affected by field water availability and N fertilizer use in central Benin. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 2017, 110, 293–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Magombo, T.; Kanthiti, G.; Phiri, G.; Kachulu, M.; Kabuli, H. Incidence of Indigenous and Innovative Climate Change Adaptation Practices for Smallholder Farmers’ Livelihood Security in Chikhwawa District, Southern Malawi; African Technology Policy Studies Network: Nairobi, Kenya, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  38. Landaverde, R.; Rodriguez, M.T.; Niewoehner-Green, J.; Kitchel, T.; Chuquillanqui, J. Climate change perceptions and adaptation strategies: A mixed methods study with subsistence farmers in rural Peru. Sustainability 2022, 14, 16015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Akther, T.; Nur, T. A model of factors influencing COVID-19 vaccine acceptance: A synthesis of the theory of reasoned action, conspiracy theory belief, awareness, perceived usefulness, and perceived ease of use. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, e0261869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Mutiawani, V.; Juvita, R.P.F.A.; Novitasari, D. Implementing problem-solving method in learning programming application. In Proceedings of the 2017 International Conference on Electrical Engineering and Informatics (ICELTICs), Banda Aceh, Indonesia, 18–20 October 2017; pp. 211–215. [Google Scholar]
  41. Richards, Z.J.; Stambaugh, T. National context of rural schools. In Serving Gifted Students in Rural Settings; Routledge: London, UK, 2021; pp. 1–21. [Google Scholar]
  42. Dutta, S. Traditional Livelihoods, Diversifications and Sustainable Alternatives. In Capital and Ecology; Routledge: Delhi, India, 2023; pp. 306–332. [Google Scholar]
  43. Akurugu, B.A.; Obuobie, E.; Yidana, S.M.; Stisen, S.; Seidenfaden, I.K.; Chegbeleh, L.P. Groundwater resources assessment in the Densu Basin: A review. J. Hydrol. Reg. Stud. 2022, 40, 101017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Steel, Z.L.; Foster, D.; Coppoletta, M.; Lydersen, J.M.; Stephens, S.L.; Paudel, A.; Markwith, S.H.; Merriam, K.; Collins, B.M. Ecological resilience and vegetation transition in the face of two successive large wildfires. J. Ecol. 2021, 109, 3340–3355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Shinde, Y.A. Strategies for Sustainable Agriculture. Technology 2023, 105, 71–79. [Google Scholar]
  46. Obubu, J.P.; Odong, R.; Alamerew, T.; Fetahi, T.; Mengistou, S. Application of DPSIR model to identify the drivers and impacts of land use and land cover changes and climate change on land, water, and livelihoods in the L. Kyoga basin: Implications for sustainable management. Environ. Syst. Res. 2022, 11, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Dawson, T.; Hambly, J.; Lees, W.; Miller, S. Proposed Policy Guidelines for Managing Heritage at Risk Based on Public Engagement and Communicating Climate Change. Hist. Environ. Policy Pract. 2021, 12, 375–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Piemontese, L.; Stefano, T.; Giuliano, D.B.; Diego, A.M.S.; Giulio, C.; Elena, B. Over-reliance on water infrastructure can hinder climate resilience in pastoral drylands. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2024, 14, 267–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Savari, M.; Amghani, M.S. SWOT-FAHP-TOWS analysis for adaptation strategies development among small-scale farmers in drought conditions. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2021, 67, 102695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Thorstad, E.B.; Bliss, D.; Breau, C.; Damon-Randall, K.; Sundt-Hansen, L.E.; Hatfield, E.M.; Horsburgh, G.; Hansen, H.; Maoiléidigh, N.; Sheehan, T.; et al. Atlantic salmon in a rapidly changing environment—Facing the challenges of reduced marine survival and climate change. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 2021, 31, 2654–2665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Srivastav, A.L.; Dhyani, R.; Ranjan, M.; Madhav, S.; Sillanpää, M. Climate-resilient strategies for sustainable management of water resources and agriculture. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 41576–41595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Rulashe, T.; Kutu, R. Local Economic Development as a Catalyst for Agricultural Growth and Poverty Relief Strategy: A Rural Eastern Cape Perspective. In Exploring Effective Municipal Planning and Implementation; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2024; pp. 77–108. [Google Scholar]
  53. Wackernagel, M.; Hanscom, L.; Jayasinghe, P.; Lin, D.; Murthy, A.; Neill, E.; Raven, P. The importance of resource security for poverty eradication. Nat. Sustain. 2021, 4, 731–738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Ofoegbu, C.; Chirwa, P.; Francis, J.; Babalola, F. Assessing forest-based rural communities’ adaptive capacity and coping strategies for climate variability and change: The case of Vhembe district in south Africa. Environ. Dev. 2016, 18, 36–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Serote, B.; Mokgehle, S.; Senyolo, G.; du Plooy, C.; Hlophe-Ginindza, S.; Mpandeli, S.; Nhamo, L.; Araya, H. Exploring the Barriers to the Adoption of Climate-Smart Irrigation Technologies for Sustainable Crop Productivity by Smallholder Farmers: Evidence from South Africa. Agriculture 2023, 13, 246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Mafongoya, P.L.; Ajayi, O.C. Indigenous Knowledge Systems and Climate Change Management in Africa; Wageningen, CTA: Burlingame, CA, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
Sustainability 17 01284 g001
Figure 1. Resilience framework on livelihood sustainability.
Figure 1. Resilience framework on livelihood sustainability.
Sustainability 17 01284 g001
Sustainability 17 01284 g002
Figure 2. Location of the study sites.
Figure 2. Location of the study sites.
Sustainability 17 01284 g002
Sustainability 17 01284 g003
Figure 3. Livelihood-resilient activities within the sites.
Figure 3. Livelihood-resilient activities within the sites.
Sustainability 17 01284 g003
Sustainability 17 01284 g004
Figure 4. Water tank distribution within three study sites.
Figure 4. Water tank distribution within three study sites.
Sustainability 17 01284 g004
Sustainability 17 01284 g005
Figure 5. Sustainable actions on climate change practised within the study sites.
Figure 5. Sustainable actions on climate change practised within the study sites.
Sustainability 17 01284 g005
Table 1. Distribution of respondents within the study sites.
Table 1. Distribution of respondents within the study sites.
NumberSampling SiteDistrictThe Number of Questions AdministeredThe Number of Questions Returned% of Questions Distributed
1ṰhohoyanḓouVhembe138/13013035.61%
2DzimauliVhembe128/12012032.87%
3MadimboVhembe125/12011531.50%
Total 365100%
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

Netshisaulu, K.H.; Chikoore, H.; Chakwizira, J.; Kom, Z. Sustainable Livelihood Options Adopted by Rural Communities in Response to Climate Change Dynamics: A Case Study Approach in Vhembe District, South Africa. Sustainability 2025, 17, 1284. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17031284

AMA Style

Netshisaulu KH, Chikoore H, Chakwizira J, Kom Z. Sustainable Livelihood Options Adopted by Rural Communities in Response to Climate Change Dynamics: A Case Study Approach in Vhembe District, South Africa. Sustainability. 2025; 17(3):1284. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17031284

Chicago/Turabian Style

Netshisaulu, Khathutshelo Hildah, Hector Chikoore, James Chakwizira, and Zongho Kom. 2025. "Sustainable Livelihood Options Adopted by Rural Communities in Response to Climate Change Dynamics: A Case Study Approach in Vhembe District, South Africa" Sustainability 17, no. 3: 1284. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17031284

APA Style

Netshisaulu, K. H., Chikoore, H., Chakwizira, J., & Kom, Z. (2025). Sustainable Livelihood Options Adopted by Rural Communities in Response to Climate Change Dynamics: A Case Study Approach in Vhembe District, South Africa. Sustainability, 17(3), 1284. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17031284

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