Farmers’ Perceptions of the Efficacy of Current Climate Risk Adaptation and Mitigation Strategies on Agriculture in The Gambia

Abstract

Agricultural systems face increasing challenges due to climate change, necessitating effective adaptation and mitigation strategies. This study investigates smallholder farmers’ perceptions of the efficacy of these strategies in The Gambia, employing a mixed-method approach that includes a perception index (PI), effectiveness score (ES), importance–performance analysis (IPA), and statistical analysis. A structured survey was conducted among 420 smallholder farmers across three agricultural regions. Farmers rated adaptation and mitigation strategies using a Likert scale, and a PI was developed to quantify their responses. The index was 0.66, indicating a moderate level of perceived effectiveness. Additionally, ES was calculated to assess the performance of various strategies, while IPA categorized strategies based on their adoption and perceived impact. Chi-square tests and factor analysis were applied to explore differences in perceptions. The findings reveal that strategies such as crop diversification, pesticide application, irrigation, and the use of inorganic fertilizers are widely adopted and perceived as effective. The IPA matrix identified key strategies needing improvement, particularly those with high importance but low performance. Barriers to adoption include limited financial resources (77%), lack of government support (64%), and insufficient knowledge (52%), with no significant gender-based differences in perceptions. This study underscores the need for policy interventions that integrate farmers’ perceptions to enhance climate resilience. Targeted investments in adaptive technologies, financial support, and knowledge-sharing platforms can improve adoption and effectiveness. This research provides valuable insights into the interplay between farmer perceptions, adaptation strategies, and agricultural sustainability in The Gambia.

1. Introduction

Climate change poses a major global threat to agriculture [1], causing disruptions in the production and food supply due to extreme weather variations. Rising temperatures, erratic rainfall, prolonged droughts, and the increased frequency of extreme weather events threaten global food security, cause biodiversity loss, and alter ecosystem dynamics [2]. Moreover, climate variations increase the risk of food- and waterborne diseases as well as the emergence of antimicrobial resistance, presenting further risks to human health. Adverse weather phenomena, including water scarcity, storms, heatwaves, floods, erratic rainfall, and pest outbreaks, are disrupting agricultural output and impacting the socioeconomic well-being of farmers [3]. The impacts are particularly severe in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), where agriculture is the key driver of economic development and the primary source of income for smallholder farmers. The occurrence of extreme weather events such as droughts, heat waves, and cold spells present significant risks to crops, while the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide levels continues to rise [4]. Akhtar and Masud [5] revealed that higher temperatures and increased energy consumption have a detrimental effect on rice and vegetable output, while CO₂ emissions notably impact coffee production. Their results underscore the detrimental effects of climate change on agriculture in Malaysia. Soil drought presents a major risk to agriculture due to its uncertain range, length, and effects, which are worsened by climate change and result in the desertification of agricultural lands [5].

Climate risk adaptation and mitigation strategies are vital for enhancing the resilience and sustainability of agricultural systems, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). Adaptation strategies such as crop diversification, soil conservation, crop rotation, using quality seeds, and agroforestry aim to mitigate the negative effects of climate change on agriculture and reduce GHG emissions [6,7]. Despite the potential of these strategies, their implementation is limited by financial constraints, minimal stakeholder engagement, insufficient access to weather data, and weak institutional support [8]. One study explored the association between agricultural specialists’ perceptions of climate change and their willingness to participate in mitigation efforts on both personal and professional levels. Key elements influencing intentions to engage in mitigation activities included the new ecological paradigm (NEP), risk awareness, personal efficacy, accountability, belief in climate change, and psychological distance. Key prioritized strategies identified in SSA countries include the use of improved seeds, good agricultural practices, and conservation agriculture.

The Gambia is highly vulnerable to drought hazards due to climate change. Irregular precipitation patterns and mid-season dry spells exhibit variability and negative trends that are largely attributed to the effects of climate change. Insufficient hydrometeorological data pose a significant threat to the agriculture sector, which employs more than 70% of the population. Bayo and Mahmood [9] identified various adaption and mitigation strategies for agriculture in The Gambia. These strategies included the use of climate-resilient crop varieties, crop diversification, climate information services, weather-indexed insurance, soil and water conservation, the use of manure and inorganic fertilizer, and agroforestry. Studies have examined climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies in The Gambia, focusing on agriculture and forestry [10,11]. Despite contributing less than 0.01% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, the country has taken significant steps toward climate action. The nation submitted a long-term, low-carbon strategy under the Paris Agreement and aims for carbon neutrality by 2050. Its mitigation efforts include enhanced land management, decreased inputs derived from fossil fuels, bushfire control, agroforestry, education awareness, and renewable energy as complements to adaptation strategies. The Gambia is confronted with substantial challenges in addressing the increasing food demand, driven by climate change and the need to ensure the supply of adequate and nutritious food for its population. Enhancing fertilizer access, establishing sustainable irrigation systems, and implementing climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies could significantly reduce the food supply gap [12]. The agriculture sector is heavily impacted by climate change, resulting in a sharp reduction in the consumption of essential commodities and an anticipated 35% decline in production by 2085. Belford [13] revealed that climate change will worsen challenges such as hunger, poverty, and human suffering, predicting a rise in agricultural commodity prices and altered trade patterns leading to decreased exports and increased imports. The study [11] highlights the critical need for climate change adaptation in developing nations, especially the Gambia, which is highly vulnerable to the impact of global warming.

Identifying and assessing adaptation options are key pre-requisite steps to adaptation prioritization and effective adaptation planning [8]. Furthermore, the Paris Agreement mandates that all parties evaluate their adaptation progress, which includes assessing the effectiveness of adaptation strategies to guide climate action planning and commitments. Considering smallholder farmers’ perceptions of the effectiveness of adaptation and mitigation strategies is highly pertinent for policy decisions aimed at assisting farmers in addressing the impacts of climate change [14,15]. In developing and least-developed countries (LDCs), where interconnected climate risks may impede the attainment of the SDGs, urgent adaptation is required [16,17,18]. Adaptation is even more critical in highly vulnerable countries like The Gambia [19], where climate-sensitive sectors such as agriculture are vital to economic development. The study [20] found that while risk perception has a lesser impact, a farmer’s perceived capacity to adopt mitigation measures is a strong predictor of their intentions to engage in climate change mitigation efforts. Climate risk and adaptation strategies in agriculture include modifying crop production to respond to current climate impacts, such as adjusting planting dates or selecting crop varieties that effectively accommodate changing weather conditions. Mitigation strategies, on the other hand, include measures that prevent or reduce future climate change effects, such as the reduction of GHG emissions through the implementation of improved agricultural methods. Both strategies are critical for sustaining agricultural productivity and ensuring food security, particularly in climate-vulnerable regions. The study [21] assessed the efficacy of climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies in the Niger Delta, with a specific emphasis on their ability to promote sustainable agricultural systems. The successful implementation of these strategies requires cooperation among farmers, government entities, and other key stakeholders.

The scarcity of evidence from The Gambia along with the highly contextual impacts of the identified adaptation strategies underscore the need for a thoughtful examination of barriers to implementing policies and interventions aimed at enhancing productivity and income and, at the same time, fostering resilience to climate risks and mitigating GHG emissions [8]. The studies [8,22] identified significant knowledge gaps regarding the efficacy and viability of adaptation strategies in The Gambia, and the effectiveness of various adaptation strategies in future climates remains unclear. Furthermore, the Paris Agreement mandates that all parties evaluate adaptation progress, which encompasses reviewing the efficacy of adaptation to guide climate action planning and commitments. Consequently, the assessment of adaptation effectiveness has become imperative [15,22]. Incorporating smallholder farmers’ perspectives on the efficacy of farm-level adaptation and mitigation techniques is crucial for policy formulation aimed at assisting farmers in alleviating the effects of climate change.

Despite the growing importance of adaptation and mitigation strategies, the efficacy of climate risk adaptation has received little attention [23,24,25]. The researcher has not found any study that assesses farmers’ perceptions of the efficacy of current adaptation and mitigation strategies. There is limited comprehensive knowledge regarding perceptions of the efficacy of climate risk adaptation and mitigation options among smallholder farmers in The Gambia. Without this understanding, it is difficult to design and implement appropriate adaptation strategies that align with the needs and circumstances of farmers.

This research explores smallholder farmers’ perceptions of the effectiveness of current climate risk adaptation and mitigation strategies in agriculture. It evaluates how these strategies impact agricultural productivity, economic outcomes, and resilience to climate change while also developing a perception index to quantify farmers’ views on the effectiveness of adaptation and mitigation strategies used. This study highlights the importance of incorporating smallholder farmers’ perspectives into policy decisions to enhance the adoption of sustainable agricultural practices. Engaging with farmers allows policymakers to tailor climate risk adaptation and mitigation strategies to more effectively address the specific needs of local agricultural communities.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

The Gambia, the smallest country in mainland Africa, encompasses a total land area of 11,300 km², of which 1300 km² consists of aquatic bodies. The country is situated on the western coast of Africa, bordered by Senegal to the north, east, and south and the Atlantic Ocean to the west (Figure 1). Geographically, it lies between 13° and 14° north latitude and 13° and 17° west longitude. The Gambia has a population of 2.4 million people, with an annual growth rate of 2.5%. More than 70% of the population works in the agriculture sector, with around 90% of rural people directly or indirectly dependent on farming activities for livelihood. Agriculture is practiced by 47.2% of households, with crop farming being the most common activity, involving 28.8% of these households [26]. Poverty is more pronounced among the rural population and those with less education than among the urban or educated populations. The Gambian economy comprises three main sectors: agriculture, forestry, and fishing; services; and industry. With a GDP annual growth rate of 4.8%, agriculture, forestry, and fishing contributes 24.8%; services account for 57.4%; and industry makes up 17.8% [27]. Rural households rely on agriculture for income and subsistence farming, ensuring socio-economic stability. However, climate-induced hazards like soil degradation, water scarcity, and pest outbreaks have reduced agricultural productivity, necessitating urgent adaptation and mitigation strategies to sustain rural communities. The Gambia has a tropical climate characterized by distinct dry and wet seasons. The dry season, lasting from mid-October to mid-June, features warm, dry weather with temperatures between 70 °F (21 °C) and 80 °F (27 °C) and humidity ranging from 30% to 60%. The rainy season commences from mid-June and ends in mid-October, with August being the wettest month. During this period, temperatures are generally hot, reaching up to 105 °F (41 °C) [28]. A 27% decline in annual rainfall has been reported since 1951, accompanied by a shorter rainy season and increased variability in year-to-year rainfall patterns. The primary crops cultivated within this agroecology encompass a variety of crops. These include early millet, groundnut, and several types of rice such as rain-fed upland and lowland, irrigated lowland, mangrove, and salt-tolerant mangrove varieties. Additionally, maize, vegetable, sesame, and cowpea are among the principal crops cultivated within this agroecological context.

2.2. Sampling and Data Collection

The study population consisted of 38,614 households, with the sample size determined using the Raosoft online sample size calculator, with a 5% margin of error and 95% confidence level. The sample was subsequently adjusted to account for missing data. A multi-stage sampling technique was employed to select the study area and 420 smallholder farmers. The multi-stage sampling technique effectively captured diverse farming experiences across different agro-ecological zones.

Multi-stage sampling techniques are efficient for resource optimization and managing logistics in a large and diverse population [29]. Initially, three main agricultural production regions were chosen. These regions are predominantly characterized by cereal crop farming and experience extreme climatic events such as floods, windstorms, droughts, poverty, and food insecurity. In the second stage, 5 districts from the North Bank Region (NBR), 4 districts from the Upper Revier Region URR), and 3 districts from the Central River Region (CRR) were randomly selected. In the third stage, 5 villages were randomly chosen from each district, and, in the fourth and final stage, 7 smallholder farmers were randomly chosen from the village registry. A structured survey was conducted among smallholder farmer’s household heads to meet the research objectives. The questionnaires involved different sections that were used to collect a series of information pertaining to the smallholder farmers. The first section centered on household, institutional, and farm characteristics. The second section covered smallholder farmers’ adaptation strategies, perceived impacts, and the efficacy of adaptation strategies. The last section focused on constraints to climate risk adaptation. The tools were administered by trained enumerators whose selection was based on fluency in the English language and local dialects in June 2023.

2.3. Methods

The effectiveness of adaptation strategies depends on the perceived risk level. The risk perception theory explains how individuals perceive climate risk and assess the adequacy and effectiveness of climate risk adaptation strategies. The theory asserts that people’s perception of risk is shaped by different factors such as beliefs about the intensity and probability of the risks, personal experience, norms, and values. This study employed a mixed-method approach and included the development of a perception index (PI) and effectiveness score (ES) to quantitatively assess farmers’ views. Furthermore, an importance–performance analysis (IPA) framework was applied to categorize strategies based on their adoption levels and perceived impact [30]. The model combined indices chi-square tests and importance–performance analysis (IPA) to ensure comprehensive analysis.

2.3.1. Effectiveness Score (ES)

The effectiveness score (ES) provided a comparative measure of perceived impacts. The formula calculated a score based on the percentage of frequency and the weight assigned to each Likert option and was used to rank the adaptation measures.

$$\mathrm{E}\mathrm{S}=\left\{\left(\mathrm{P}\mathrm{H}\mathrm{I}\times 1\right)+\left(\mathrm{P}\mathrm{I}\times 2\right)+\left(\mathrm{P}\mathrm{N}\mathrm{U}\times 3\right)+\left(\mathrm{P}\mathrm{E}\times 4\right)+\left(\mathrm{P}\mathrm{H}\mathrm{E}\times 5\right)\right\}$$

(1)

where

• PHI = percentage of highly ineffective;
• PI = percentage of ineffective;
• PNU = percentage of not understanding;
• PE = percentage of effective;
• PHE = percentage of highly effective.

The frequency of strategies represented the percentage of farmers who identified each strategy as relevant or used in their adaptation practices. Additionally, the mean value of perceived efficacy reflected the average perceived effectiveness of each strategy on a scale of 1 to 5, with higher values indicating greater perceived effectiveness. To facilitate a relative comparison of perceived efficacy among strategies, a normalized score (NS) was derived to place the perception of each strategy on a comparable scale (ranging from 0 to 1).

$$\mathrm{N}\mathrm{S}={\displaystyle \frac{{\mathrm{E}\mathrm{S}-\mathrm{E}\mathrm{S}}_{\mathrm{m}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{n}}}{{\mathrm{E}\mathrm{S}}_{\mathrm{m}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{x}}-{\mathrm{E}\mathrm{S}}_{\mathrm{m}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{n}}}}$$

(2)

where ${ES}_{min}$ and ${ES}_{max}$ are the minimum and maximum effectiveness scores, respectively. The normalized score ranged from 0 to 1.

2.3.2. Perception Index (PI)

The PI measured the perceived effectiveness of adaptation and mitigation strategies based on frequency or relevance, as reported by farmers.

$${PI}_x={\displaystyle {\sum }_{i=1}^n}{\displaystyle \frac{F_i}{N}}$$

(3)

where

• $F_i$ is the frequency of a strategy used by farmer $i$;
• $N$ is the total number of farmers surveyed.

The effectiveness score (ES) was modeled as a function of the independent variables:

$${ES}_i={\beta }_0+{\beta }_1{Age}_i+{\beta }_2{Gender}_i+{\beta }_3{Edu}_i+{\beta }_4{exp}_i+\cdots +{ϵ}_i$$

(4)

where

• ${\beta }_0=$ intercepts;
• ${\beta }_x=$ coefficients of the explanatory variable;
• $ϵ=$ error terms.

2.3.3. Importance–Performance Analysis (IPA)

The IPA framework, developed by Martilla and James [31] and further refined by Azzopardi and Nash [32], was utilized as a diagnostic tool to identify areas for improvement prioritization. The IPA was used to analyze attributes’ importance and corresponding performance using a Likert scale [32,33]. It generated a 2-dimensional graph that measured the importance and satisfaction levels of different attributes, thereby offering insights into the existing situation and practical recommendations [34]. Despite the significant value and application of the IPA by researchers, the original model has limitations, which have prompted several researchers to use modified or extended versions of the model [35]. In the context of farmers’ perceived effectiveness of adaptation and mitigation strategies, performance was typically assessed through direct ratings obtained from surveys. Farmers were asked to rate the effectiveness of each strategy on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from “very ineffective” to “very effective”. Similarly, the importance of these strategies was measured using the frequency of the strategies used in addressing their agricultural or climate-related challenges.

Table 1. Quadrant categorization.

Quadrant	Importance (Frequency)	Performance (Effectiveness)
Q1: Keep Up the Good Work	High (≥58.55)	High (<3.56, mostly scored 1–3)
Q2: Possible Overkill	High (≥58.55)	Low (≥3.56, score 4–5)
Q3: Low Priority	Low (<58.55)	Low (<3.56, mostly score 1–2)
Q4: Concentrate Here	Low (<58.55)	High (≥3.56, score 4–5)

shows the categorization of the four quadrants. Quadrant 1 represents strategies that are highly important and perceived as effective or highly effective by farmers. Farmers should rely on these strategies as they consistently deliver expected results. The management approach for this quadrant is to “keep up the good work” as it reflects areas where farmers excel in performance while addressing critical needs. These strategies should be preserved, expanded, or optimized. In this study, no adaptation strategy fell in this quadrant.

Quadrant 2 represents strategies that are effective but not widely adopted by farmers due to resource constraints or specialized natures.

This means that the strategies yield positive results but are not widely adopted. The management approach for this quadrant is “possible overkill”, suggesting that resources allocated to these strategies might be more effectively utilized in areas of greater significance to enhance overall performance.

Quadrant 3 signifies strategies that farmers do not prioritize or consider ineffective. These strategies have low adoption rates and moderately low effectiveness, often misaligning with farmers’ immediate needs or local circumstances. They are either perceived as not effective or are not well understood, making them less effective in mitigating the impact of climate change. The management approach for this quadrant is “low priority”.

Quadrant 4 includes strategies that are widely utilized and considered crucial by farmers but not perceived as effective in mitigating the impact of climate change. Despite their low perceived effectiveness, farmers rely on these strategies in addressing climate challenges. These strategies require urgent attention for improvement to meet farmers’ needs and deliver meaningful results. Efforts should be directed toward identifying the main cause of their ineffectiveness and addressing them to enhance their performance. “Concentrate here” is the management strategy for this quadrant.

This classification of adaptation strategies helps prioritize strategies according to their perceived effectiveness, allowing for targeted initiatives to support farmers in overcoming the impact of climate risks on agricultural production.

To explore potential differences in effectiveness scores across different subgroups of the population (e.g., by age, gender, and region), statistical analyses such as the chi-square test were employed. This highlighted differences in how various demographic groups perceived adaptation measures. To further enhance the analysis, factor analysis was conducted to identify underlying relationships among the variables.

3. Results

3.1. Descriptive Statistics

Table 2. Descriptive statistics.

Variable	Category	Freq.	Percent
Gender	Male	299	71
	Female	121	29
Region	NBR	175	42
	CRS	105	25
	URR	140	33
Age Category	Young farmers	80	19
	Middle age farmers	209	50
	Old farmers	131	31
Education	None/No formal	338	80
	Primary	35	8
	Secondary	37	9
	Tertiary	10	2
Average annual farming income	Very Low Income	255	61
	Low Income	114	27
	High Income	51	12
			100

shows the demographic characteristics of farmers in three regions: the North Bank Region (NBR = 42%), the Central River Region South (CRR = 25%), and the Upper River Region (URR = 33%). Most of the farmers were middle-aged with no formal education, and there was a significant gender disparity. The average annual farming income was minimal, with most farmers earning less than GMB 30,000.00 (USD 415) annually.

3.2. Farmers’ Perceptions of Different Adaptation and Mitigation Strategies

Figure 2 illustrates the frequency and perceived efficacy of adaptation and mitigation strategies implemented by farmers. Strategies like crop rotation (CR), the use of inorganic fertilizers (UIF), changing planting dates (CPD), and changing crop variety (CCV) were the most used strategies and had high perceived efficacy. UIF was widely adopted, with high perceived efficacy, supporting findings in [36] that chemical fertilizers are preferred despite their cost. Agroforestry-related strategies such as stopping cutting trees (SCT), soil conservation (SC), and non-agricultural strategies like praying (Pr) and petty business had low adoption. Still, they were considered effective in mitigating the impact of climate change.

External support from the government and non-governmental organizations and migration was perceived as effective but less commonly used by smallholder farmers. Irrigation (Ir) was perceived as effective by smallholder farmers but had low adoption rates, likely due to high initial costs, labor requirements, and maintenance expenses, as outlined in [37]. Despite its low frequency of use, its significant perceived efficacy reflects potential impacts if barriers were mitigated. Despite the low adoption rate, insurance was largely perceived to be effective in mitigating the effects of climate change [8], mirroring the lack of empirical studies in The Gambia evaluating the effectiveness of microfinance and weather-indexed insurance in bolstering household resilience.

Wage employment functions as a crucial economic diversification strategy that enhances farmers’ resilience to climate variability. In periods of agricultural productivity decline due to climate-related factors such as droughts and erratic rainfall, rural households often supplement their income through off-farm employment. Empirical studies indicate that a significant proportion of farm households engage in wage or self-employment activities as part of their adaptation strategies.

Furthermore, wage laboring has been recognized as a long-standing adaptation strategy historically utilized by rural households to manage economic shocks and environmental uncertainties [38]. Similarly, research in [39] found that 29.4% of households in the administrative wards of the Morogoro region of Tanzania employed wage labor as an adaptation mechanism. This widespread adoption underscores its importance in sustaining rural livelihoods amid climate-induced challenges.

Praying serves as a cultural and spiritual adaptation strategy among farmers, reflecting their reliance on religious practices to seek divine intervention in response to climate-related uncertainties. Empirical studies highlight the prevalence of prayer as an adaptation measure in various agricultural communities. For instance, Ref. [40] reported that 9.2% of respondents identified praying as an adaptation strategy. The inclination to perceive climate issues as being influenced by supernatural forces is particularly common in highly religious societies, such as Ethiopia. Similarly, Ref. [41] found that 77.8% of respondents in his study considered prayer as a means of mitigating the effects of climate change. Additionally, Ref. [42] noted that some farmers exclusively relied on prayer without adopting any other adaptation practices. The study [43] further observed that 22.8% of surveyed farmers employed prayer as a coping mechanism against climate variability.

Table 3. Adaptation and mitigation strategies implemented by farmers and their effectiveness.

Strategies	Frequency of Respondents Against Each Likert Option					Percentage of Respondents Against Each Likert Options					Effectiveness
	1	2	3	4	5	1	2	3	4	5
Adaptation
Change crop to livestock (CCL)	0	0	20	16	0	0	0	56	44	0	Not understanding
Change crop type (CCT)	0	0	63	21	0	0	0	75	25	0	Not understanding
Change crop variety (CCV)	0	2	111	77	0	0	1	58	41	0	Not understanding
Change livestock to crop (CLC)	0	0	8	17	0	0	0	32	68	0	Effective
Change planting date (CPD)	0	0	91	71	0	0	0	56	44	0	Not understanding
Pesticide application (PA)	0	0	3	9	0	0	0	25	75	0	Effective
Use of inorganic fertilizers (UIF)	0	0	48	97	0	0	0	33	67	0	Effective
Praying (Pr)	0	0	20	36	0	0	0	33	67	0	Effective
Use insurance (UI)	0	0	1	2	0	0	0	33	67	0	Effective
Wage (W)	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	100	0	Effective
Migration (Mg)	0	0	3	10	0	0	0	23	77	0	Effective
Petty business (PB)	0	0	14	10	0	0	0	58	42	0	Not understanding
Irrigation (Ir)	0	0	1	3	0	0	0	36	64	0	Effective
Assistant from gov’t/NGOs (AGN)	0	0	1	3	0	0	0	25	75	0	Effective
Mitigation
Crop diversification (CD)	0	0	11	8	0	0	0	58	42	0	Not understanding
Crop rotation (CR)	0	1	103	102	0	0	0	51	49	0	Not understanding
Soil conservation (SC)	0	0	17	9	0	0	0	65	35	0	Not understanding
Planting shaded trees (PST)	0	1	23	20	0	0	2	52	45	0	Not understanding
Stop cutting trees (SCT)	2	0	18	27	0	4	0	38	57	0	Effective
Change seed quality CSQ)	0	0	23	48	0	0	0	32	68	0	Effective

Note: 1 = Totally Ineffective, 2 = Ineffective, 3 = Not Understanding, 4 = Effective, 5 = Highly Effective. Pearson Chi2 (57): 111.44, p = 0.000. Likelihood Ratio Chi2 (57): 98.99, p = 0.000.

presents the frequency of each adaptation and mitigation strategy implemented by farmers, indicating the number of farmers adopting each measure. Additionally, it includes the effectiveness score for each strategy based on farmers’ perceptions. Strategies such as changing livestock to crop (CLC), pesticide application (PA), the use of inorganic fertilizers (UIF), praying (Pr), use of insurance (UI), wage (W), migration (Mg), irrigation (Ir), assistance from gov’t/NGOs (AGN), stop cutting trees (SCT), and change seed quality (CSQ) were perceived as effective strategies by farmers, as evidenced by the higher effectiveness scores. While some strategies are widely used and perceived as effective, there remains a significant gap in farmer’s understanding of critical strategies, which could limit their ability to address the impact of climate change fully.

3.3. Analysis of the Perception Index

Table 4. Perception index.

Strategies	Frequency of Strategies %	Mean Value of Perceived Efficacy	Normalized Score
CCL	9	3.44	0.44
CCT	20	3.25	0.25
CCV	45	3.38	0.79
CLC	6	3.68	0.68
CPD	39	3.44	0.43
CSQ	17	3.68	0.68
UIF	35	3.67	0.67
CD	5	3.42	0.42
CR	49	3.49	0.75
SC	6	3.35	0.45
SCT	11	3.49	0.83
PA	3	3.75	0.75
PST	10	3.43	0.72
Ir	1	3.75	0.75
Pr	13	3.64	0.64
UI	1	3.67	0.67
W	0	4	0.77
PB	6	3.42	0.42
AGN	1	3.75	0.75

presents the perception index of various strategies implemented by smallholder farmers. It highlights the percentage of strategies, mean perceived efficacy, and normalized scores. The index was developed to assess farmers’ perceptions of the efficacy of adaptation and mitigation strategies in The Gambia. The index was calculated by assigning numerical values based on the Likert scale responses provided by farmers for each adaptation strategy. The mean scores for each adaptation strategy were then normalized to a scale of 0 to 1 to ensure consistency and comparability across different strategies.

The perception index for each adaptation strategy was computed by averaging the normalized scores across all farmers. Change crop variety and crop rotation were the most adopted strategies employed by smallholder farmers, with robust normalized scores of 0.79 and 0.75, respectively, underscoring their importance in agricultural resilience. Despite their low adoption rates, changing seed quality, crop diversification, stopping cutting trees, pesticide application, planting shaded trees, irrigation, praying, the use of insurance, and using wages were valued highly by smallholder farmers, indicating the need for more awareness and promotion of these strategies. The overall perception index of farmers in this study was determined to be 0.66, indicating a moderate level of perceived effectiveness of climate risk adaptation strategies among farmers in The Gambia. This index serves as a quantitative measure of farmers’ perceptions, offering valuable insights into the efficacy of different adaptation measures and highlighting areas where awareness and understanding may need improvement. The result of the chi-square test showed a statistically significant (p < 0.05) association between the adaptation strategies and the effectiveness score. Both the Pearson and likelihood-ratio chi-square tests had a p-value of 0.000, indicating that different strategies lead to varying levels of perceived efficacy.

Each strategy was accompanied by three metrics: frequency of strategies (%), mean value of perceived efficacy, and a normalized score.

• High-perceived-efficacy strategies

SCT had a high normalized score of 0.83 and a mean score of 3.49, indicating that it is considered one of the most effective strategies. CR and PA both showed strong perceived efficacy, with normalized scores of 0.75, suggesting that farmers value them. W also had a high perceived efficacy score of 4 and a normalized score of 0.77, despite being used by a small number of respondents.

• Moderate- and low-perceived-efficacy strategies

CCT had a frequency of 20% but a low normalized score of 0.25, indicating that while it is relatively known or used, its perceived efficacy is comparatively weak. CCL, CD, and PB had moderate mean efficacy scores of around 3.4 and normalized scores of around 0.4, reflecting a moderate but less significant perceived impact.

Table 5. Chi-square test on region.

Region	Score 1	Score 2	Score 3	Score 4	Total
NBR	1	0	325	283	609
CRS	1	0	189	100	290
URR	3	2	62	206	273
Total	5	2	576	589	1172

Pearson Chi2 (6): 117.28, p = 0.000. Likelihood Ratio Chi2 (6): 121.45, p = 0.000.

2 shows that the results of the chi-square test comparing the effectiveness scores across different regions were statistically significant at 1%, indicating that the effectiveness score varies across regions. This implies that different regions have different patterns of effectiveness, providing strong evidence against the null of independence.

Table 6. Chi-square test on gender.

Gender	Score 1	Score 2	Score 3	Score 4	Total
Male	3	1	393	433	830
Female	2	1	183	156	342
Total	5	2	576	589	1172

Pearson Chi2 (3): 4.64, p = 0.200. Likelihood Ratio Chi2 (3): 4.60, p = 0.204.

3 shows that the relationship between gender and perceived effectiveness was not statistically significant. This means there was no difference between the perceived effectiveness of adaptation strategies among men and women. Gender does not influence the perceived effectiveness of various adaptation strategies used by farmers.

3.4. Importance–Performance Analysis Matrix

Figure 3 illustrates the IPA matrix that categorized adaptation strategies based on their importance (frequency) and performance (perceived effectiveness). The IPA reflects the importance of adaptation strategies that farmers employ and their performance. The means of performance and importance divide the matrix into four quadrants, each showing actionable insights into priority areas. The categorization of the adaptation strategies was based on their importance (frequency) and performance (perceived effectiveness) [44,45,46].

IPA is extensively used in various sectors where customer satisfaction is crucial for business success [46,47,48,49,50]. Consumer satisfaction is determined by consumer perceptions, which encompass the quality of an organization’s product or service and customer expectations. Kanyangale and Lee [51] examined farmers’ and non-farmers’ adaptation and management perspectives regarding Invasive Alien Plant Species (IAPS), highlighting their understanding, importance, and effectiveness in IASP management. More recently, Ref. [52] employed the IPA to assess farmers’ satisfaction, facilitating the ongoing adoption of Agromet Advisory Services.

The positioning of all strategies in quadrants 3 and 4 raises substantial concerns about the agricultural strategies for climate adaptation. Quadrant 3, characterized by strategies perceived as ineffective, suggests a discrepancy between what is available and what farmers truly need, indicating obstacles to effectively implementing these strategies. Farmers relying on the strategies in quadrant 4 signifies a paradox in which farmers persist in using strategies that fail to produce intended outcomes. This situation calls for the immediate adjustment of current measures to address farmer’s challenges. It requires understanding the causes of the ineffectiveness of current adaptation strategies, highlighting critical needs for innovation and research to develop new, more effective alternatives. Involving farmers in the development and evaluation of these strategies will guarantee that solutions are practical and pertinent to their experience.

3.5. Perceived Economic, Social, and Environmental Outcomes of These Strategies

In Figure 4, the perceived economic impact of various adaptation strategies in the IPA matrix offers valuable insights into how stakeholders can assess the performance of each adaptation strategy in relation to its importance.

In quadrant 1, CR and CCV are rated highly in both importance and performance, meaning farmers recognize their economic value and believe that they will increase crop yield and income. These strategies should be maintained and further promoted. CCT, CSQ, CCL, PST, SCT, and UIF fall in quadrant 3. These strategies are neither performing nor perceived as economically important. In quadrant 4, CPD is found to be highly important but not performing well. This means that it has the potential to increase the crop yield and income of farmers.

In quadrant 1, CR is perceived to be socially relevant by farmers; this means that it contributes to reducing poverty, improving nutrition, and increasing food security. In quadrant 2, the CCV strategy is effective but not widely adopted by farmers. This means that despite its potential to reduce poverty, improve nutrition, and increase food security, it is not well utilized by farmers. CPD, CCT, CSQ, CCL, PST, and SCT fall in quadrant 3. These strategies are neither performing nor perceived as socially important; they provide limited social benefits in reducing poverty, improving nutrition, and increasing food security. In quadrant 4, UIF is found to be highly important but not performing well. This means that it has the potential to reduce poverty, improve nutrition, and increase food security if implemented well.

Figure 5 shows the perceived impact of adaptation and mitigation strategies. The perceived economic impact of adaptation and mitigation strategies was measured across two key outcomes: increased crop yield and increased income [53]. Farmers viewed CCV as having a positive impact, as 34% anticipated a rise in income and 25% predicted a boost in crop yield. CCT as an adaptation strategy was believed to increase farmers’ income by 16%, while 7% expected higher crop yields. CR enhanced income by 20% and boosted crop yield by 44%. The implementation of CPD was expected to increase income by 17% and increase yield by 27%. The CSQ was believed to increase income and yield by 11% and 14%, respectively.

The economic benefit of CLC production seems very minimal, as just 4% of farmers expect increased income. These adaptation strategies aim to mitigate the negative effects of climate change, particularly the declining crop yields documented in previous studies, such as [54,55]. CR demonstrated the most significant positive impact on crop yield, contributing nearly 50%, which is consistent with prior research indicating yield reductions in cereal crops in Africa due to climate change.

Changing crop variety also significantly enhanced both yield and income, suggesting that crop diversification is an effective adaptation strategy to mitigate the adverse effects of rising temperatures and increased evapotranspiration demands in West Africa. Conversely, strategies such as pesticide application and the use of inorganic fertilizers exhibited minimal effects on yield and income, indicating that these measures alone may not adequately address climate-related losses. Overall, adaptation strategies like crop rotation, changing crop variety, and adjusting planting dates show the highest potential for mitigating the negative impacts of climate change on crop yield and income. This supports the notion that, while some studies have reported yield reductions of up to 17% due to climate change [56], implementing strategic agricultural interventions can help offset these losses, thereby stabilizing agricultural productivity and enhancing farmer income. The perceptions of farmers can influence the adoption of these measures to mitigate the impact of climate on agricultural production, emphasizing the importance of taking economic concerns into account in adaptation planning.

The perceived social impact of adaptation and mitigation strategies was measured across three key outcomes: reducing poverty, improving nutrition, and increasing food security. The perceived social impact of adaptation strategies varied among different strategies. Implementing CR was perceived to be the most effective strategy for enhancing food security, with about 32% of respondents acknowledging its significance, although its effect on reducing poverty and improving nutrition was relatively modest. The use of inorganic fertilizers (UIF) had the potential to increase food security by 25% but had minimal effects on poverty reduction. Strategies like changing crop variety (CCV) and changing seed quality (CSQ) showed balanced effectiveness across all three outcomes, confirming the results [57,58,59]. Additionally, changing planting dates (CPD) was perceived to increase food security by 15%. Other strategies such as pesticide application (PA), irrigation (Ir), and soil conversion (SC) showed minimal perceived benefits across the three dimensions, signifying their lesser role in enhancing livelihoods. Agroforestry strategies like stopping cutting trees (SCT) and planting shaded trees (PST) aim to enhance nutrition and food security, with similar findings reported by [8]. Additional strategies such as changing livestock to crop (CLC) and soil conservation (SC) were perceived to have little social impact by farmers. These perceptions can influence the adoption and implementation of strategies in agricultural practices, emphasizing the importance of considering social factors in adaptation planning. Anderson [60] reported that on-farm crop diversification improved food security and facilitated effective adaptation to climate change. Van Der Geest and Warner [61] also found that households that planted drought-resistant crop varieties were better able to mitigate loss and damage during the 2011 drought in The Gambia. Agroforestry strategies in West Africa made a significant impact on adaptation, mitigation, and improved food security [62,63,64].

The perceived environmental impact of adaptation and mitigation strategies was measured across three dimensions: regulating soil moisture and temperature, enhancing soil fertility, and reducing soil contamination. Crop rotation (CR) and the use of inorganic fertilizers (UIF) were perceived as the most effective strategies for enhancing soil fertility. Smallholder farmers perceived that crop variety (CCV) can positively impact the environment. Specifically, 12% of farmers believed that this strategy could enhance soil fertility. Changing crop type (CCT) was perceived to have minimal environmental impact, with no significant perceived benefits in terms of reducing soil contamination, improving nutrition, or enhancing the environment. Other strategies were also perceived to have minimal environmental impacts.

Overall, farmers perceived that certain adaptation strategies, particularly changing crop variety and converting livestock to crop production, have positive environmental impacts by enhancing soil fertility, regulating soil moisture, and improving overall environmental conditions. These perceptions can influence the adoption and implementation of these strategies in agricultural practices, emphasizing the importance of considering environmental factors in adaptation planning. No studies were found that assess the impact of conservative agriculture (CA) on the pillars of climate-smart agriculture (CSA) in the Gambia [8]. However, in West Africa, evidence shows that CA supports the productivity and adaptability of CSA by improving soil structure, water retention, and organic matter; replenishing soil fertility; and mitigating soil erosion [62,64]. Additionally, a CA-based system greatly improves soil health, leading to higher farm productivity and income [62,65]. This has the potential to reduce the GHG emissions associated with plowing [37,64].

3.6. Challenges of Adaptation and Mitigation Strategies

Figure 6 illustrates the diverse challenges that smallholder farmers face in adopting adaptation and mitigation strategies.

The most significant obstacle accounted for 77% of the lack of credit and money, indicating that financial constraints hinder farmers from investing in vital tools and infrastructure for climate resilience. Inadequate government support is also a major concern (64%), indicating that farmers do not receive the necessary aid or policies to support their adaptation and mitigation efforts.

Inadequate government support is also a major concern (64%), indicating that farmers do not receive the necessary aid or policies to support their adaptation and mitigation efforts. Additionally, 59% of farmers are constrained by poverty. A lack of knowledge and information was identified by 52% as a challenge in implementing adaptation and mitigation strategies. Low education was prevalent among 37%, highlighting that information gaps limit farmers’ ability to implement adaptation and mitigation strategies. Other challenges include a lack of assets, inadequate extension services, and insufficient irrigation, with 35%, 29%, and 32%, respectively. Barriers such as labor shortages, limited availability of land, lack of market access, old age, and insecure land tenure systems added to these hurdles though were less frequently cited.

4. Discussion

The findings of this study reveal critical insights into the perception and effectiveness of climate adaptation and mitigation strategies employed by smallholder farmers in The Gambia. These results align with prior research, reinforcing both the challenges and opportunities that lie in adopting effective agricultural practices to mitigate climate risks. A notable aspect of this study is the moderate level of perceived efficacy of the strategies, as reflected in the perception index of 0.66. This suggests that while smallholder farmers acknowledge the importance of certain adaptation and mitigation strategies, their understanding and usage of these strategies remain limited. These findings are consistent with the work [8], which reported significant knowledge gaps regarding the efficacy of climate adaptation strategies in The Gambia, noting that the effective implementation of such strategies remains hindered by a lack of awareness and accessibility.

For strategy improvement, emphasis should be placed on promoting strategies with high perceived efficacy, such as SCT, CR, and W, to strengthen adaptation measures. Strategies like CCT may require additional support to improve their perceived effectiveness and adoption. High-perceived-efficacy strategies with a low frequency of adoption (e.g., W) suggest an opportunity for increased awareness and training. Strategies with lower normalized scores but relatively high frequencies (e.g., CCT) may require further refinement or additional resources to enhance their perceived effectiveness. Highly rated strategies like CR and SCT could improve overall resilience and adaptation outcomes.

The frequent use of strategies such as crop rotation, the use of inorganic fertilizers, and changing planting dates, which were highly rated for their perceived efficacy, mirrors findings from [36], which highlighted a preference for inorganic fertilizers among farmers, despite their costs. These strategies are recognized for their ability to boost agricultural productivity, especially in areas like West Africa, where erratic rainfall and changing climatic conditions have necessitated adaptive responses. However, this preference for inorganic inputs may need to be balanced with more sustainable practices, as pointed out in [66], which emphasized the need for long-term solutions that promote environmental health.

The low adoption rates of agroforestry-related strategies such as stopping cutting trees and soil conservation, despite their perceived effectiveness, highlight a critical barrier to scaling sustainable agricultural practices. This is in line with findings in [64], which observed similar challenges in West Africa, where agroforestry practices, though beneficial, are not widely adopted due to financial and labor constraints. The low uptake of such strategies in The Gambia indicates the need for stronger policy frameworks and support systems to encourage the adoption of agroforestry and other environmentally sustainable practices.

The economic impact of adaptation strategies is also noteworthy; strategies like crop rotation and changing crop varieties are perceived as having the most significant positive effect on income and crop yields. This finding corresponds with the studies [54,56], which demonstrated the effectiveness of crop rotation and varietal changes in improving yields under climate stress. Conversely, strategies like pesticide application and inorganic fertilizers showed minimal effects on income, suggesting that while these methods may temporarily mitigate losses, they are not sustainable solutions for enhancing long-term productivity.

Moreover, the social impact analysis of these strategies suggests that while agricultural interventions can improve food security, their impact on other socio-economic factors like poverty alleviation requires a more comprehensive approach that includes access to markets, financial support, and education [59]. The environmental benefits of adaptation strategies also show a discrepancy between perception and adoption. Strategies like crop rotation and the use of inorganic fertilizers are perceived as effective for enhancing soil fertility [62], but there is still a need for increased awareness and education about the long-term environmental advantages of certain adaptation strategies, a gap that [11] also identified in The Gambia.

Research in Ghana [64] and Nigeria [67] indicates that smallholder farmers in both locations face similar challenges in implementing climate adaptation and mitigation strategies. In Ghana, farmers struggle with access to climate information and financial assistance, hindering their ability to adopt sustainable agricultural practices. Similarly, in Nigeria, the adoption rates of agroforestry and soil conservation practices are low due to economic constraints and little government intervention. Comparing the context of The Gambia to these countries underscores the importance of targeted interventions, policy support, and education programs to enhance farmers’ adaptive capacities.

This study highlights the urgent need for more targeted interventions and support, such as increased governmental support, financial aid, and enhanced knowledge-sharing platforms to enhance the understanding, adoption, and effectiveness of climate risk adaptation and mitigation strategies in The Gambia. It shows the importance of integrating farmers’ perceptions into the development of climate adaptation and mitigation policies for their efficacy and sustainability. While farmers are aware of the strategies available to them, there is still considerable room for improving their knowledge and capacity to implement these strategies effectively. Addressing these gaps will be crucial in ensuring that Gambian agriculture can adapt to the increasing pressures of climate change.

5. Conclusions

This study highlights the importance of integrating farmers’ perceptions into climate adaptation and mitigation strategies to better meet the needs of local agricultural communities. By acknowledging and addressing farmers’ realities, policymakers can better tailor interventions for improved effectiveness and sustainability in the face of global climate change. Farmers’ perceptions of adaptation and mitigation strategies can influence the adoption and implementation of these strategies in agricultural practices, emphasizing the importance of considering social and environmental factors in adaptation planning.

The findings indicate a moderate level of perceived efficacy of these strategies, underscoring the need for greater awareness and knowledge among farmers. While widely adopted strategies like crop rotation, the use of inorganic fertilizers, and changing planting dates are perceived as effective in improving agricultural productivity, the low perceived efficacy of agroforestry-related practices and other environmentally sustainable strategies signals the need for stronger support and education. The perceived efficacy of the economic, social, and environmental impacts of these strategies reveals that crop rotation and changing crop varieties have the greatest potential to improve yields and income, enhance food security, and promote soil fertility. However, strategies like pesticide application and inorganic fertilizers, though perceived as effective in mitigating short-term losses, may not offer sustainable long-term solutions. Addressing the challenges faced by smallholder farmers in implementing adaption and mitigation strategies through financial support, education, extension services, and improved infrastructure coupled with strong government support could significantly enhance farmers’ ability to adopt climate adaptation and mitigation strategies.

This study’s findings have practical applications in informing policymakers and other stakeholders about the importance of integrating farmers’ perceptions into climate adaptation and mitigation strategies. By establishing interventions to tackle the distinct challenges posed by climate change on agricultural productivity, policymakers can develop targeted initiatives that support farmers in alleviating the adverse effects of climate risks. The results provide a framework for creating impactful, community-oriented solutions that promote resilience in agricultural systems. This can help to improve the effectiveness and sustainability of interventions aimed at addressing the impact of climate change on agricultural productivity. Policymakers and practitioners can use the findings to inform adaptation planning and promote the adoption of effective adaptation and mitigation strategies in agricultural practices.

This study did not comprehensively analyze the cost benefits of various adaptation strategies. Future work should focus on assessing the economic trade-offs associated with adaptation and mitigation strategies and the possible interactions between different adaptation strategies.