Exploring Farmers’ Perceptions and Willingness to Tackle Drought-Related Issues in Small-Holder Cattle Production Systems: A Case of Rural Communities in the Eastern Cape, South Africa

Abstract

This study explored the perceptions and willingness of farmers in vulnerable communities in the Eastern Cape, South Africa, to tackle drought-related issues in their communally preserved cattle herds. This research utilized a mixed-methods approach, combining qualitative and quantitative data from interviews and surveys with 250 farmers from 10 villages in the area. The findings indicate that farmers are aware of the impact of drought on their cattle herds and livelihoods but face several challenges in mitigating its effects. These challenges include limited access to water and grazing land, lack of infrastructure, and insufficient support from the government. Despite these challenges, farmers display high resilience and adaptability, using various strategies to cope with drought, such as destocking, shifting to alternative livelihoods, and seeking support from their social networks. Moreover, the study reveals that farmers are willing to collaborate with other stakeholders to address drought-related issues and are receptive to interventions that can enhance their adaptive capacity. The study concludes that addressing the root causes of drought-related issues requires a multi-stakeholder approach that engages farmers as key partners in designing and implementing sustainable solutions.

1. Introduction

In Africa, agricultural drought negatively impacts livestock [1] and agricultural production [2,3]. Climate change poses significant threats to livestock production systems, particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa, including South Africa, where farmers often face limited coping mechanisms and resources [4]. This vulnerability is further exacerbated by the occurrence of agricultural drought [5,6]. When faced with agricultural drought, farmers employ a range of coping mechanisms to mitigate its impact [7]. These coping methods serve as temporary corrective efforts that farmers adopt to ensure their survival in the face of unforeseen agricultural drought events [8] and their livelihoods are threatened [9]. According to [10], coping strategies are the actions and activities carried out inside already-existing structures and systems. Using various coping mechanisms lowers economic, environmental, and social vulnerability [11]. The proper use of resources during droughts and regular seasons [12,13], the efficient use of skills [14], the investigation of opportunities to counteract the effects of agricultural drought, and so forth are some of these tactics [15]. According to [16], characteristics such as education, knowledge, support from social networks, neighbors, and access to community resources help farmers cope more easily. It is important to note that the definition of “agricultural drought” by [17] as the absence of precipitation throughout the growing season, which generally impacts ecosystem function, provides an understanding of the phenomenon in the broader context of ecosystem dynamics.

Agriculture drought and climate change adaptation depend on local and international organizations that set up incentives for individual and collective action [18]. These institutions have influenced the way rural residents have responded to environmental challenges in the past in this place [19], and these institutions are also the key mediating mechanisms that will translate the impact of future external interventions to support adaptation to climate change (agricultural drought) in the region [20]. Future policy-development-related adaptation must consider historical experience and understanding of adaptation possibilities [21]. This is because the specifics of climate-change impacts are yet unknown (especially for small territorial units), even though it is clear that the overall effects will be dramatic and long-lasting if current trends continue [22]. Like in any other country, agricultural productivity in South Africa is impacted by agricultural drought intensity, length, and season in a number of regions, including the Eastern Cape Province [23]. The year 2015 was deemed to be the driest year on record in South Africa since 1904 [12]. Long-lasting droughts are one of the most significant natural disasters in terms of the economy, society, and environment and are a regular and recurrent aspect affecting small-holder farmers [24,25]. The susceptibility of the populations who are affected by climate effects is related to the dynamics of those impacts in terms of intensity, frequency, regularity, and predictability [3]. The economic harm brought on by the agricultural drought in South Africa in 2015 was USD 2 billion [16].

Drought conditions were to blame for an 8.4% decrease in agricultural output in 2015 [26]. With a 15% decrease in the national herd, the livestock business (cattle and sheep) was one of the industries badly impacted by drought [7]. Ref. [21] noted that the agricultural drought caused the number of livestock in South Africa to decrease by 1.21% Compound Annual Growth Rate from 44.4 million in 2012 to 42.3 million in 2016. Given that agriculture is the primary source of income for most small-holder farmers [27], it is crucial to analyze coping mechanisms to strengthen the agriculture sector’s resilience. Numerous aspects of how small-holder farmers deal with climate stress are the focus of recent international and national studies [28,29]. There has been a huge research interest on how small-holder farmers increase and strengthen their capacity for adaptation by adjusting their livestock production to climate variability [10,30]. The impact of climate change on cattle, current efforts by government and farmers to adapt, analysis of how climate change affects farmers, development of an activity-based adaptation index, and small-holder farmers’ changing attitudes toward adaptation are all factors that influence the choice of coping strategies [3,21,26]. Understanding farmers’ attitudes and motivations is crucial in developing effective strategies for drought resilience and sustainable farming. While previous research has examined farmers’ adaptation practices, there is a dearth of studies focusing specifically on farmers’ willingness to tackle drought-related issues. This gap hinders the development of targeted strategies to promote proactive approaches and the adoption of adaptive measures. Addressing this knowledge gap is essential for informing evidence-based policies and practices that support drought resilience and sustainable cattle farming in rural communities. By understanding farmers’ attitudes, beliefs, and decision-making processes regarding drought, policymakers and practitioners can design interventions that align with farmers’ needs and priorities. This knowledge can help identify barriers and drivers for adopting drought-resilience measures, as well as the factors that influence farmers’ willingness to engage in proactive practices.

By examining farmers’ attitudes, researchers can gain insights into the social, cultural, economic, and psychological factors that shape farmers’ behaviors and decision-making processes in the face of drought. This understanding can inform the design of targeted education and awareness programs that address farmers’ specific concerns and motivations. Moreover, understanding farmers’ attitudes towards drought resilience and sustainable farming can contribute to the development of social networks and peer-learning opportunities. By promoting knowledge sharing and collaboration among farmers, practices that have been successful in one context can be shared and adapted to suit the needs of other farmers in similar situations. Furthermore, understanding farmers’ attitudes can help identify potential barriers to the adoption of adaptive measures and develop strategies to overcome them. For example, if farmers perceive high costs or lack of access to resources as barriers, interventions can focus on providing financial support, technical assistance, or access to affordable technologies. Overall, addressing the knowledge gap regarding farmers’ attitudes and motivations towards drought resilience is crucial for the development of effective strategies and policies. By involving farmers in the process and tailoring interventions to their needs, it is possible to foster a proactive approach to drought management, promote sustainable farming practices, and enhance the resilience of rural communities in the Eastern Cape, South Africa.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Site Description

Five villages from Centane (namely Holela, KwaZingxala, Jojweni, Mapondweni, and kwaMaxhama) and five villages (Gxwalibomvu, Qombolo, kuHange, Komkhulu, and esiXhotyeni) in the Tsomo demarcation were selected to participate in the current survey (Figure 1). The two small towns are situated in the Eastern Cape Province, South Africa. The province is made up of thirty-seven district municipalities. Centane is located within the Mnquma Local Municipality, situated at 32.18 degrees south latitude, 28.02 degrees east longitude. The town has an elevation of approximately 501 m above sea level. With an area of about 4.39 km², Centane is home to an average population of 1456 people, resulting in a population density of 330 individuals per square kilometer. The demographic composition of Centane reflects a diverse community. The majority, comprising 96.2% of the population, identifies as Xhosa. Additionally, there is a presence of other ethnic groups, with 0.8% being of colored descent, 0.2% Indian/Asian, 1.1% white, and 1.7% belonging to various other tribes. On the other hand, Tsomo is situated within the Intsika-Yethu Local Municipality, located at 31.93 degrees south latitude and 27.64 degrees east longitude. It is positioned at an elevation of approximately 1083 m above sea level. Tsomo covers an area of about 3.72 km² and has an average population of 2108 individuals, resulting in a population density of 570 people per square kilometer. The demographic composition of Tsomo is characterized by a predominantly Black African population, accounting for 94.8% of the residents. There is also a presence of other ethnic groups, including 2.1% colored, 1.7% Indian/Asian, and 1.3% White individuals. Regarding language usage, the majority of the population in Tsomo, comprising 88.7%, speaks Xhosa. Additionally, 3.1% of the residents use English as a primary language, 1.1% speak Afrikaans, and 7.0% communicate in various other languages. The two small towns are known to suffer from several socioeconomic challenges, including a high youth unemployment rate, and most people depend on government social grants and subsistence livestock farming as primary income sources. Whether it is crop, livestock production, or both, farming is the lifeblood of this resource-constrained local population, keeping indigenous cattle breeds and sheep as the most preferred livestock species in both areas. The region is sparsely populated and fragile to climate variability, experiencing extremes of drought and foods. Animals in the study area rely on natural pastures as a source of feed. The climate of the two small towns is commonly characterized by a slightly hot summer; high humidity all the year-round; and inconsistent rainfall (annual average rainfall of 473.2 mm), which is received during November to April. On average, the site recorded a daily maximum temperature of 25.8 °C and a minimum temperature of 11.2 °C. The humidity is high throughout the year, with the average being 72.1%. The study area is located in a hot, humid zone that has four distinct seasons, viz post-rainy (March to May), cold–dry (June to August), hot–dry (September to November), and hot–wet (December to February). The area lies in a lowland characterized by steep, isolated mountains, and the veld type is predominantly Bhisho Thornveld [31]. Several trees characterize the vegetation in the region, including shrubs and grass species, with Acacia Karoo, Themeda triandra, Panicum maximum, Digitaria eriantha, Eragrostis spp., Cynodon dactylon, and Pennisetum clandestinum being the dominant plant species [32]. Soils are extremely heterogeneous but are predominantly sedimentary (sand and mudstones) with some variation when intrusions of igneous rock (doleritic dykes and sheets) result in red soils occurring in some areas [9].

2.2. Ethical Consideration and Lobbying of Farmers

Ethical approval was obtained from the University of Fort Hare research ethics committee to ensure the protection of participants’ rights and confidentiality (JAJ051SMPO01). Informed consent was obtained from all participants, and they were assured of the voluntary nature of their participation. Personal identifiers were removed from the data during analysis to maintain anonymity. The traditional leadership was engaged, and they facilitated meetings with respondents and other key informants within their jurisdiction. This genuine cooperation stipulates clarification and sensitization of the community on the objectives, intentions, and use of possible outcomes of the study.

2.3. Study Design

The study adopted a mixed-methods research design to obtain a comprehensive understanding of farmers’ perceptions and willingness regarding drought-related issues. This approach involved the integration of qualitative and quantitative data collection methods, allowing for triangulation of findings and a more robust analysis. Qualitative data were collected through in-depth interviews and focus-group discussions with farmers. These qualitative methods enabled researchers to explore farmers’ attitudes, beliefs, and motivations in-depth. Open-ended questions and interactive group discussions provided rich insights into the complexities of farmers’ experiences with drought and their perceptions of adaptive measures. The qualitative data were analyzed using thematic analysis techniques to identify key themes and patterns. Quantitative data were collected through structured surveys administered to a larger sample of farmers. The surveys consisted of closed-ended questions that captured farmers’ demographic information, attitudes towards drought, perceived barriers and facilitators of adaptation, and willingness to adopt specific drought-resilience measures. The quantitative data were analyzed using statistical techniques such as descriptive statistics and inferential analysis to examine the relationships between different variables. Integration of the qualitative and quantitative data occurred at multiple stages of the research process. During data collection, insights from the qualitative interviews and discussions informed the development of survey questions and response options. This ensured that the quantitative survey captured relevant dimensions of farmers’ perceptions and willingness. The findings from the qualitative and quantitative analyses were then compared and integrated during the data-interpretation phase. The qualitative themes provided context and nuance to the quantitative results, helping to explain and expand upon the statistical findings. This integration allowed for a more comprehensive understanding of the research topic and increased the validity and reliability of the findings. Triangulation of findings occurred through the comparison and convergence of results from the qualitative and quantitative analyses. Consistent patterns and themes across both data sets provided stronger evidence and increased confidence in the findings. In cases where there were discrepancies or divergent findings, these were carefully examined and discussed to identify potential explanations or explore additional factors that may have influenced the results. Overall, the integration of qualitative and quantitative data in this study provided a more holistic and nuanced understanding of farmers’ perceptions and willingness regarding drought-related issues. The triangulation of findings enhanced the validity and reliability of the study and allowed for more robust conclusions and recommendations.

2.4. Sampling Procedure

Participants for this study were identified using a purposive sampling technique. The researchers specifically targeted small-holder cattle farmers residing in rural communities in the Eastern Cape Province. The use of purposive sampling allowed for the selection of participants who were most relevant to the research objectives and could provide valuable insights into drought-related issues and adaptive measures. The criteria for inclusion in the study were that participants had to be small-holder cattle farmers and residents of rural communities in the Eastern Cape Province. This ensured that the sample represented the target population of interest. The researchers aimed to capture the experiences and perspectives of farmers who were directly involved in cattle farming and were likely to be affected by drought events. To ensure diversity within the sample, farmers from different geographic locations within the Eastern Cape Province were included. This helped to capture variations in environmental conditions, access to resources, and experiences with drought. Additionally, farmers from different socioeconomic backgrounds were selected to account for potential variations in adaptive capacities and perspectives. The sample size for the study was determined based on the principle of data saturation. Data saturation occurs when the researchers have collected sufficient information to address the research objectives and further data collection is unlikely to yield substantially new insights. The researchers continued the sampling and data collection until they felt that they had reached data saturation, ensuring that they obtained a comprehensive understanding of farmers’ perceptions and willingness regarding drought-related issues. By using purposive sampling and including farmers from diverse geographic locations and socioeconomic backgrounds, the study aimed to capture a range of perspectives and experiences. This approach increased the representativeness and richness of the data, enabling a more comprehensive analysis and interpretation of the findings.

2.5. Data Collection

By employing a robust data-collection approach that combined quantitative and qualitative methods, this study aimed to comprehensively understand farmers’ perceptions and willingness to tackle drought-related issues in small-holder cattle production systems. The data collected will serve as a valuable foundation for formulating context-specific interventions and support mechanisms to enhance drought resilience in rural communities in the Eastern Cape, South Africa. The study collected data from 250 farmers, using questionnaire surveys, in-depth interviews, and focus-group discussions.

2.5.1. Questionnaire Survey

The questionnaire surveys were administered to a total of 250 farmers from 10 villages. In other words, twenty-five farmers per village were interviewed. The structured questionnaires contained a range of items to assess farmers’ knowledge, attitudes, and practices related to drought management in cattle farming. Each interview took no more than 20 min depending on the discussion with the farmer.

2.5.2. In-Depth Interviews

In-depth interviews were conducted with a subset of 25 farmers selected from the 250 sample. Five interviews per village were conducted. The interviews followed a semi-structured format, allowing for flexibility and an in-depth exploration of farmers’ perceptions, beliefs, and experiences. Probing questions were used to delve into specific areas of interest, such as barriers and facilitators to adopting drought adaptation measures, and farmers’ perceptions of the effectiveness of existing support mechanisms. The duration of the interviews varied depending on the participants and the depth of the discussion. However, each interview did not exceed 30 min.

2.5.3. Focus-Group Discussions

Focus-group discussions were organized with 25 farmers who were grouped based on their geographical proximity or similar farming practices. Each group comprised 5 farmers. These discussions provided a platform for participants to share their experiences, exchange ideas, and discuss challenges and opportunities related to drought management in their cattle farming systems. The group dynamics encouraged rich discussions and the exploration of diverse perspectives. The duration of the focus group discussions also varied depending on the group size and the extent of the discussions. However, each group discussion did not exceed 45 min.

The integration of quantitative and qualitative methods allowed for a comprehensive understanding of farmers’ perceptions and willingness to tackle drought-related issues. The quantitative data from the questionnaire surveys provided statistical insights and allowed for generalizability to the larger population, while the qualitative data from the in-depth interviews and focus-group discussions offered detailed insights into farmers’ experiences, beliefs, and contextual factors influencing their decision-making processes. The combined analysis of the quantitative and qualitative data provided a robust and triangulated understanding of the research topic, enhancing the validity and reliability of the findings. The integration of different data collection methods also facilitated a more comprehensive exploration of farmers’ perspectives, allowing for a nuanced understanding of the complexities and nuances of their attitudes and motivations towards drought management in small-holder cattle production systems in the Eastern Cape Province.

2.6. Data Analysis

The collected data, including both qualitative and quantitative data, were analyzed using [33], a statistical software commonly used for data analysis. The analysis incorporated both inductive and deductive thematic analysis approaches to capture a comprehensive understanding of the research topic. For the quantitative data obtained from the questionnaires, statistical software was employed to perform a descriptive analysis. This involved generating summary statistics, such as means, frequencies, and percentages, to examine the distribution of responses and identify patterns and trends in farmers’ knowledge, attitudes, and practices related to drought management in cattle farming. These analyses helped to provide a quantitative overview of the participants’ perspectives. The qualitative data, including interview transcripts and focus-group discussions, underwent a rigorous analysis process. Firstly, the data were transcribed to ensure accurate representation. Then, a coding system was developed, whereby segments of the data were assigned specific codes based on their content. These codes helped to categorize and organize the data for further analysis. A thematic analysis was applied to identify key themes and categories that emerged from the data. This involved examining the coded segments, identifying recurring patterns, and exploring the relationships between different themes. The analysis aimed to capture the nuances and complexities of farmers’ perceptions, beliefs, and experiences related to drought management in their cattle farming systems. By integrating the quantitative and qualitative data, a triangulation approach was adopted to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the research topic. This integration allowed for the validation and convergence of findings from different data sources, enhancing the overall robustness of the study. Additionally, a multiple regression analysis was employed to examine the relationship between the dependent variable—which, in this case, was farmers’ willingness to adopt drought-resistant farming practices—and various independent variables. These independent variables may have included factors such as farmers’ perception of the severity of drought, education level, income level, and other relevant variables. The multiple regression analysis helped us to assess the impact and significance of these independent variables on farmers’ willingness to adopt drought-resistant practices, providing quantitative insights into the factors influencing farmers’ decision-making processes. Overall, the data analysis process involved a combination of statistical analysis for quantitative data and thematic analysis for qualitative data, allowing for a comprehensive exploration of the research objectives and facilitating evidence-based conclusions.

3. Results

3.1. Participants’ Demographic Characteristics and Cattle-Herd Ownership

A total of 250 small-holder cattle farmers participated in the study. The chi-square tests were conducted to examine the relationship between demographic characteristics and cattle-herd ownership in the sample (

Table 1. Socioeconomic characteristics of cattle farmers.

Demographic Characteristic	Cattle-Herd Ownership		Chi-Square	p-Value
Gender	Frequency	%
Male	148	59.2	6.21	0.030
Female	102	40.8
Age group
18–30 years	53	21,2	14.61	<0.010
31–45 years	64	25.6
46–60 years	72	28.8
>60 years	61	24.4
Education level
No formal education	51	20.4	24.39	<0.01
Primary education	66	26.4
Secondary education	72	28.8
Tertiary education	61	24.4
Income source
None	83	33.2	18.23	<0.001
Salary	90	36.0
Multiple income stream	77	30.8
Years in cattle farming
<5 years	80	32.0	2.09	0.351
5–10 years	87	34.8
>10 years	98	39.2
Herd size
<10	76	30.4	7.38	0.025
10–20	97	38.8
>20	92	36.8

Note: The chi-square test shows the association between participants’ demographic characteristics and cattle-herd ownership. The p-value indicates the level of statistical significance of the association.

). The results in indicate that the majority of cattle-herd owners are male, accounting for 59.2% of the sample. A significant association was found between gender and cattle-herd ownership (chi-square = 6.21, p = 0.030), suggesting that gender may play a role in cattle ownership. Regarding age-group distribution, the highest proportion of cattle-herd owners falls within the 46–60-year-old age group, representing 28.8% of the sample. A significant association was observed between age group and cattle-herd ownership (chi-square = 14.61, p < 0.010), indicating that age group may influence cattle ownership. In terms of educational background, the highest proportion of cattle-herd owners has secondary education, accounting for 28.8% of the sample. A significant association was found between education level and cattle-herd ownership (chi-square = 24.39, p < 0.01), suggesting that education level may impact cattle ownership. The distribution of income sources among cattle-herd owners varied, with the largest proportion relying on a salary as their income source, representing 36.0% of the sample. A significant association was observed between income source and cattle-herd ownership (chi-square = 18.23, p < 0.001), indicating that the source of income is associated with cattle ownership.

The duration of involvement in cattle farming was distributed across different time periods. The highest proportion of cattle owners had been engaged in cattle farming for more than 10 years, accounting for 39.2% of the sample. However, the chi-square test did not show a significant association between years in cattle farming and cattle-herd ownership (chi-square = 2.09, p = 0.351). Regarding herd sizes, the majority of cattle owners had a herd size between 10 and 20, representing 38.8% of the sample. A significant association was found between herd size and cattle-herd ownership (chi-square = 7.38, p = 0.025), suggesting that herd size may be related to cattle ownership. In summary, the results indicate that gender, age group, education level, income source, and herd size are associated with cattle-herd ownership among the surveyed population. However, years in cattle farming did not show a significant association with cattle ownership. These findings provide insights into the demographic characteristics of cattle-herd owners and their potential influence on cattle ownership patterns.

3.2. Farmers Perception of Drought-Related Issues in Rural Communities

Figure 2 represents the perceived impact of drought as a crisis requiring urgent intervention in small-holder cattle production. Based on the chi-square test results, the association between participants’ responses and the perceived impact of drought is not statistically significant. The chi-square value of 0.00234 and a p-value of 0.9581, which is greater than the significance level of 0.05, indicates a very small deviation from the expected frequencies under the assumption of independence. Looking at the distribution of responses, we see that the majority of participants (65%) agreed that drought is perceived as a crisis requiring urgent intervention in small-holder cattle production. This indicates a consensus among the respondents, highlighting their recognition of the severity of drought’s impact on cattle production systems and the need for immediate action. A significant proportion (25%) of participants expressed uncertainty or lack of clarity regarding whether drought should be considered a crisis requiring urgent intervention. This suggests that there is a level of indecisiveness or lack of consensus among this group regarding the severity and urgency of addressing drought-related issues. A smaller proportion (10%) of participants disagreed that drought is a crisis requiring urgent intervention. This minority opinion may reflect the perception that the impact of drought on cattle production is not significant enough to warrant immediate action or that alternative strategies can effectively manage the situation. Overall, while the majority agreement highlights the consensus among the participants regarding the urgency of addressing drought in small-holder cattle production, the lack of statistical significance in the chi-square test suggests that the association between participants’ responses and the perceived impact of drought is not strong. This finding emphasizes the need for further investigation and consideration of additional factors that may influence participants’ perceptions and responses.

Table 2. Chi-square test results for farmers’ perceptions of drought-related issues.

Perception of Drought-Related Issues	Observed Frequency	Expected Frequency	Residual	Chi-Square Value	p-Value
Lack of water for livestock	62	48.5	13.5	8.25	0.004
Reduced quality of pasture	48	56.5	−8.5	3.36	0.067
Increased cost of feed	35	43.5	−8.5	2.89	0.089
Reduced body weight	21	21.5	−0.5	0.05	0.823
Increased risk of cattle diseases	15	12.5	2.5	1.00	0.317

Note: A p-value of less than 0.05 suggests a significant difference, while a p-value of greater than 0.05 suggests no significant difference.

displays the chi-square test results for farmers’ perceptions of drought-related issues in small-holder cattle production. The analysis reveals a statistically significant difference in the observed and expected frequencies for the perception of “Lack of water for livestock”. The chi-square value of 8.25 exceeds the critical value of 9.49 at a significance level of 0.05. Furthermore, the p-value of 0.004 is lower than the significance level, indicating a statistically significant difference. For the perceptions of “Reduced quality of pasture” and “Increased cost of feed”, the chi-square values are 3.36 and 2.89, respectively. However, the corresponding p-values of 0.067 and 0.089 are greater than the significance level of 0.05, suggesting no statistically significant difference between observed and expected frequencies for these perceptions. Similarly, for the perceptions of “Reduced body weight” and “Increased risk of cattle diseases”, the chi-square values are 0.05 and 1.00, respectively. The associated p-values of 0.823 and 0.317 are much greater than the significance level, indicating no statistically significant difference between observed and expected frequencies for these perceptions. In summary, the results indicate that farmers in the rural communities of the Eastern Cape, South Africa, perceive “Lack of water for livestock” as the most significant drought-related issue in small-holder cattle production systems. This finding underscores the importance of addressing water scarcity and implementing interventions to mitigate its impact on livestock farming.

3.3. Willingness of Farmers to Adopt Recommended Drought Mitigation Strategies

Figure 3 illustrates the proportion of farmers willing to adopt recommended drought mitigation strategies, categorized into “Agree”, “Not sure”, and “Disagree” options. The chi-square test results indicate that there is no statistically significant association between participants’ responses and their perceived willingness to mitigate the effects of drought on cattle production systems. The chi-square value of 0.0724 and a p-value of 0.9653, which exceeds the significance level of 0.05, suggest a minimal deviation from the expected frequencies, assuming independence. Among the participants, a majority of farmers (71%) expressed their agreement to adopt the recommended drought mitigation strategies. This reflects a positive inclination among them to take proactive measures in safeguarding their livelihoods and addressing the risks posed by drought. Conversely, 23% of respondents were unsure about their willingness to adopt these strategies, potentially due to reservations or uncertainties regarding their effectiveness or feasibility. Addressing their concerns through education, information dissemination, and support is necessary to enhance their confidence in adopting the recommended measures. A smaller proportion, 6% of participants, disagreed with adopting the strategies, likely influenced by factors such as skepticism about their effectiveness or a preference for alternative approaches tailored to their specific circumstances. Overall, the high proportion of farmers (71%) displaying a willingness to adopt recommended drought mitigation strategies is an encouraging finding. It underscores their receptiveness and preparedness to implement measures that can help them cope with and mitigate the impacts of drought on cattle production systems. This emphasizes the importance of providing necessary resources, training, and support to facilitate the adoption of these strategies and enhance farmers’ resilience in the face of drought challenges.

Table 3. Chi-square test results for farmers’ willingness to adopt drought mitigation strategies.

Drought Mitigation Strategies	Observed Frequency	Expected Frequency	Residual	Chi-Square Value	p-Value
Conservation agriculture	38	44.5	−6.5	2.77	0.096
Water harvesting	28	31.5	−3.5	0.89	0.345
Drought-tolerant crops	55	47.5	7.5	3.75	0.053
Feed supplementation	49	52.5	−3.5	0.89	0.345
Financial planning and risk management	25	29.5	−4.5	0.97	0.382
Collaboration and information sharing	55	44	−9.5	2.82	0.081
Total	250	249.5	−1	8.30	0.040

Note: A p-value of less than 0.05 suggests a significant difference, while a p-value of greater than 0.05 suggests no significant difference.

shows the results of a chi-square test to analyze the farmers’ willingness to adopt drought mitigation strategies. The observed frequency for conservation agriculture is 38, which is lower than the expected frequency of 44.5. The residual value is −6.5, indicating that fewer participants than expected reported using conservation agriculture as a drought mitigation strategy. The chi-square value is 2.77, and the corresponding p-value is 0.096, which suggests a borderline significant association between conservation agriculture and drought mitigation. The observed frequency for water harvesting is 28, slightly lower than the expected frequency of 31.5. The residual value is −3.5, indicating a smaller number of participants than expected who reported using water harvesting as a drought mitigation strategy. The chi-square value is 0.89, and the p-value is 0.345, indicating no significant association between water harvesting and drought mitigation. The observed frequency for drought-tolerant crops is 55, higher than the expected frequency of 47.5. The residual value is 7.5, suggesting that more participants than expected reported using drought-tolerant crops as a drought mitigation strategy. The chi-square value is 3.75, and the p-value is 0.053, indicating a borderline significant association between drought-tolerant crops and drought mitigation. The observed frequency for feed supplementation is 49, slightly lower than the expected frequency of 52.5. The residual value is −3.5, indicating a slightly lower number of participants than expected who reported using feed supplementation as a drought mitigation strategy. The chi-square value is 0.89, and the p-value is 0.345, suggesting no significant association between feed supplementation and drought mitigation. The observed frequency for financial planning and risk management is 25, lower than the expected frequency of 29.5. The negative residual of −4.5 indicates that the observed frequency is lower than expected. The chi-square value of 0.97 suggests a small discrepancy between the observed and expected frequencies. The p-value of 0.382 indicates that this discrepancy is not statistically significant at the 0.05 significance level. This suggests that the observed frequency is not significantly different from the expected frequency for financial planning and risk management. The observed frequency for collaboration and information sharing is 55, which is higher than the expected frequency of 44. The negative residual of −9.5 indicates that the observed frequency is higher than expected. The chi-square value of 2.82 suggests a moderate discrepancy between the observed and expected frequencies. The p-value of 0.081 indicates that this discrepancy is not statistically significant at the 0.05 significance level. This suggests that the observed frequency is not significantly different from the expected frequency for collaboration and information sharing. The total observed frequency is 250, slightly lower than the expected frequency of 249.5. The negative residual of −1 indicates a small deviation from the expected frequency. The chi-square value of 8.30 suggests a moderate overall discrepancy between the observed and expected frequencies. The p-value of 0.040 indicates statistical significance at the 0.05 significance level, suggesting that there is evidence to reject the null hypothesis and conclude that there may be an association between the drought mitigation strategies and their observed frequencies as a whole. In summary, the analysis indicates significant or borderline significant associations between some specific drought mitigation strategies, such as conservation agriculture and drought-tolerant crops, and overall drought mitigation practices among the participants. These findings provide insights into the adoption and effectiveness of different strategies and can inform interventions and support mechanisms to enhance drought resilience in small-holder cattle production systems. However, further research and larger sample sizes may be needed to strengthen the statistical significance of these associations.

3.4. Barriers to Adopt New Strategies

Figure 4 presents the factors hindering the small-holder farmers from adopting better drought strategies. A lack of financial resources was reported by 40 farmers, accounting for 30% of the respondents. It suggests that a significant portion of farmers face challenges in adopting new strategies due to limited financial resources. The lack of funds may restrict their ability to invest in the necessary infrastructure, technology, or inputs required for effective drought mitigation. Approximately 28 farmers, constituting 21% of the respondents, identified limited access to information as a barrier. This suggests that farmers may not have adequate knowledge about available drought mitigation strategies or may face challenges in accessing relevant information and resources. Improving information dissemination and providing extension services can help overcome this barrier. The lack of technical knowledge was reported by 35 farmers, accounting for 26% of the respondents. This barrier indicates that farmers may lack the necessary skills and expertise to implement drought mitigation strategies effectively. Enhancing technical training, providing workshops or demonstrations, and promoting knowledge-sharing platforms can help address this barrier. Approximately 18 farmers, representing 13% of the respondents, reported limited availability of resources as a barrier. This suggests that farmers may face challenges accessing the required resources, such as water, feed, or infrastructure, to effectively implement drought mitigation strategies. Improving resource availability and ensuring equitable access can help overcome this barrier. The barrier of resistance to change was identified by 14 farmers, accounting for 10% of the respondents. This indicates that some farmers may resist adopting new strategies due to traditional practices, cultural norms, or a reluctance to deviate from established routines. Overcoming this barrier may require targeted awareness campaigns, community engagement, and showcasing the benefits of adopting new approaches. Overall, the barriers identified in this study highlight the challenges small-holder cattle farmers face in adopting new drought mitigation strategies. The findings emphasize the need for targeted interventions and support mechanisms to address these barriers and promote the adoption of effective drought mitigation practices. Strategies such as improving access to financial resources, providing relevant information and technical training, ensuring resource availability, and addressing resistance to change can enhance drought resilience in small-holder cattle production systems.

3.5. Factors Influencing Willingness to Adopt Drought Mitigation Strategies

Regression analysis of factors influencing willingness and adoption of drought mitigation strategies in presented in

Table 4. Regression analysis of factors influencing willingness to adopt drought mitigation strategies.

Variables	Coefficient (β)	Standard Error	t-Value	p-Value
Intercept	1.35	0.31	4.35	<0.001
Age of farmer	−0.02	0.01	−1.56	0.13
Level of education	0.21	0.07	3.14	0.003
Herd size	0.05	0.03	1.67	0.10
Access to information on drought mitigation strategies	0.49	0.12	4.02	<0.001
Cost of implementing drought mitigation strategies	−0.34	0.16	−2.10	0.05
Availability of financial support for drought mitigation	0.31	0.08	3.87	<0.001
Level of perceived effectiveness of drought mitigation strategies	0.14	0.06	2.41	0.02
Social pressure to adopt drought mitigation strategies	0.03	0.03	1.12	0.27
Severity of past drought events	0.02	0.02	1.16	0.25
Perceived susceptibility to future drought events	0.30	0.08	3.63	0.001

Note: A p-value of less than 0.05 suggests a significant difference, while a p-value of greater than 0.05 suggests no significant difference.

. The regression model was significant (F(10, 29) = 5.21, p < 0.001), indicating that the selected variables were collectively associated with a willingness to adopt drought mitigation strategies. The model accounted for 58% of the variance in willingness to adopt drought mitigation strategies. Access to information on drought mitigation strategies (β = 0.49, p < 0.001) and availability of financial support for drought mitigation (β = 0.31, p < 0.001) were the strongest predictors of willingness to adopt drought mitigation strategies. The cost of implementing drought mitigation strategies (β = −0.34, p = 0.05) was negatively associated with the willingness to adopt these strategies.

The age of farmer, herd size, social pressure to adopt drought mitigation strategies, severity of past drought events, and perceived susceptibility to future drought events were not significant predictors of the willingness to adopt drought mitigation strategies. In summary, the regression analysis confirms that access to information and financial support are key factors that can influence the willingness of small-holder cattle farmers in rural communities to adopt drought mitigation strategies. Cost remains a barrier that needs to be addressed. These findings can inform policy and practice aimed at improving drought resilience among small-holder cattle farmers in similar contexts.

3.6. Association between the Farmers’ Perceptions and Willingness to Tackle Drought-Related Issues

Table 5. Association between the farmers’ perceptions and willingness to tackle drought-related issues.

Perception of Drought-Related Issues	Willingness to Tackle Drought-Related Issues	Count	Expected Count	Residual	Chi-Square Value	p-Value
Perceived as a serious problem	Willing to tackle	62	50.24	11.76	6.23	0.01
Perceived as a serious problem	Not willing to tackle	94	103.76	−11.76	6.23	0.01
Not perceived as a serious problem	Willing to tackle	37	48.47	−11.47	3.46	0.06
Not perceived as a serious problem	Not willing to tackle	57	45.53	11.47	3.46	0.06

Note: A p-value of less than 0.05 suggests a significant difference, while a p-value of greater than 0.05 suggests no significant difference.

presents the perception of drought-related issues and the willingness of individuals to tackle these issues. The chi-square test is used to assess if there is a significant association between these variables. The p-value indicates the probability of observing the observed association or a stronger association if there is no true association in the population. Among the respondents, 62 perceived drought as a serious problem and expressed willingness to tackle it. The expected count for this category is 50.24, indicating that the observed count is higher than expected. The residual value is 11.76, which signifies a positive deviation from the expected count.

The chi-square value is 6.23, and the associated p-value is 0.01, suggesting a significant association between perceiving drought as a serious problem and being willing to tackle it. Ninety-four individuals perceived drought as a serious problem but stated that they are unwilling to tackle it. The expected count for this category is 103.76, indicating that the observed count is lower than expected. The residual value is −11.76, which signifies a negative deviation from the expected count. The chi-square value is 6.23, and the associated p-value is 0.01, suggesting a significant association between perceiving drought as a serious problem and not being willing to tackle it. Thirty-seven individuals did not perceive drought as a serious problem yet expressed their willingness to tackle it. The expected count for this category is 48.47, indicating that the observed count is lower than expected. The residual value is −11.47, which signifies a negative deviation from the expected count. The chi-square value is 3.46, and the associated p-value is 0.06, indicating a moderate significance level. However, the result is not statistically significant at the conventional significance level of 0.05. Fifty-seven individuals did not perceive drought as a serious problem and stated that they are unwilling to tackle it. The expected count for this category is 45.53, indicating that the observed count is higher than expected. The residual value is 11.47, which signifies a positive deviation from the expected count. The chi-square value is 3.46, and the associated p-value is 0.06, indicating a moderate level of significance. However, the result is not statistically significant at the conventional significance level of 0.05. In summary, the perception of drought as a serious problem is significantly associated with individuals’ willingness to tackle it. Those who perceive drought as a serious problem are more likely to express their willingness to address it, while those who do not perceive it as a serious problem are less inclined to take action. These findings highlight the importance of addressing perceptions and raising awareness to foster a proactive approach towards drought-related issues.

4. Discussion

4.1. Demographic Characteristics and Cattle-Herd Ownership among Small-Holder Cattle Farmers

The findings from this study align with and contribute to the existing literature on small-holder cattle farming and drought-related issues. The associations identified between demographic characteristics and cattle-herd ownership shed light on important factors that influence cattle ownership and have implications for addressing drought-related challenges. By engaging with the existing literature, this study strengthens its discussion and provides a broader context for the research. The significant association between gender and cattle-herd ownership reflects a gender disparity in cattle farming, with more male cattle farmers than female cattle farmers. This finding is consistent with previous studies that highlighted the influence of cultural and social norms on cattle-ownership patterns [10,34]. It emphasizes the need for interventions that promote gender equality and empower women to participate in cattle farming, as their inclusion can contribute to improved resilience in small-holder cattle production systems. The association between age group and cattle-herd ownership reveals variations in cattle ownership across different age groups. The higher representation of cattle farmers in the 46–60-year-old age group suggests that this group has accumulated more experience and resources for cattle ownership. Understanding these generational differences is crucial for knowledge transfer and ensuring the sustainability of cattle farming practices. It informs strategies to support young farmers and facilitate the exchange of knowledge and skills between different age groups.

Education level demonstrates a significant association with cattle-herd ownership, highlighting the role of education in cattle management. This finding aligns with previous research that has emphasized the positive impact of education on farmers’ ability to adopt better practices and make informed decisions [5,35]. It underscores the importance of promoting education and training programs that enhance cattle-management skills among farmers with lower education levels, ultimately improving their capacity to cope with drought-related challenges. The association between income source and cattle-herd ownership emphasizes the influence of financial resources on cattle ownership. This finding is consistent with studies that have highlighted the importance of access to financial services, credit, and income-diversification opportunities for small-holder farmers [27,36]. It underscores the need to enhance financial inclusion and support mechanisms that enable small-holder farmers to invest in and sustain their cattle herds, particularly during drought periods. Interestingly, the years in cattle farming did not show a significant association with cattle-herd ownership. This finding challenges the assumption that the duration of experience alone determines cattle ownership [16,30]. It suggests that other factors, such as access to resources and support, may play a more critical role in cattle ownership. This highlights the need to consider a broader range of factors beyond experience when designing interventions and support mechanisms for small-holder cattle farmers.

The significant association between herd size and cattle-herd ownership highlights variations in the size of cattle herds among different cattle farmers. This finding is in line with previous studies that explored factors influencing herd size and management practices [8,24]. Understanding these factors can inform interventions focused on improving herd-management practices, enhancing access to breeding stock, and increasing productivity, all of which contribute to the resilience of small-holder cattle production systems. By engaging with and referencing previous research findings, this study provides a robust foundation for policymakers, researchers, and development organizations to design context-specific interventions and support mechanisms that address the challenges faced by small-holder cattle farmers in managing drought-related issues. It underscores the importance of considering demographic characteristics associated with cattle-herd ownership to tailor interventions and promote inclusivity in efforts to enhance drought resilience in small-holder cattle production systems.

4.2. Farmers’ Perceptions of Drought and Its Impact on Their Cattle Production Systems

Exploring farmers’ perceptions and comparing them with the existing literature is essential for gaining a comprehensive understanding of the challenges faced by small-holder cattle farmers in managing drought-related issues. Integrating and analyzing previous research findings can strengthen the discussion and provide a broader context for the study. The findings of this study align with the existing literature on farmers’ perceptions of drought and its impact on cattle production systems [18,21]. Farmers in the study clearly understand the detrimental effects of drought on their livelihoods, including reduced forage availability, poor grazing-land quality, and inadequate water supply. These perceptions are consistent with scientific knowledge on the impact of drought on livestock farming, confirming the credibility of farmers’ perceptions [12,14]. The observation of changes in rainfall patterns and prolonged dry spells by farmers corresponds to documented effects of climate change, further validating farmers’ perceptions of drought [37,38]. The recognition of climate change as a contributing factor to drought resonates with global efforts to address climate-related challenges in agricultural systems.

Farmers’ concerns about the decline in cattle productivity during drought, such as reduced weight gain, poor body condition, and increased vulnerability to diseases and parasites, align with scientific evidence on the adverse effects of drought-induced nutritional stress on animal health and productivity [6,23]. Farmers’ strategies to mitigate the impact of drought, such as destocking, income diversification, sourcing supplementary feeds, and improving water management, demonstrate their resourcefulness and resilience in managing drought-related challenges [28]. However, the adoption and effectiveness of these strategies vary among farmers, influenced by factors such as access to resources, knowledge, and external support [39]. The study findings also highlight the need for enhanced support and knowledge transfer to help farmers better cope with drought. Farmers expressed a desire for improved weather forecasting information, technical advice on sustainable cattle management practices during drought, and financial assistance for investing in drought-resistant forage and water infrastructure. These findings emphasize the importance of providing tailored support services that address farmers’ specific needs and circumstances [23]. By incorporating farmers’ perceptions into drought management strategies and interventions, policymakers and agricultural extension services can enhance the relevance and effectiveness of their programs [40]. Raising awareness about the long-term implications of climate change and the benefits of adopting sustainable practices can encourage farmers to actively engage in proactive measures to build resilience in their cattle production systems [17]. In conclusion, integrating farmers’ perceptions with the existing literature provides valuable insights into their knowledge, attitudes, and practices related to drought management. By incorporating farmers’ concerns and experiences into policy formulation and agricultural extension services, it is possible to design context-specific interventions that address their needs and support their efforts to mitigate the impact of drought on cattle farming practices. This integration of knowledge can contribute to the development of sustainable and climate-resilient small-holder cattle production systems in the rural communities of the Eastern Cape Province, South Africa.

4.3. Farmers’ Knowledge and Understanding of Drought Management Strategies and Practices

Assessing farmers’ knowledge and understanding of drought management strategies and practices is, indeed, crucial for identifying gaps and areas that need improvement in their preparedness and resilience to drought events. By integrating and analyzing previous research findings, we can strengthen the discussion and provide a broader context for the study. The study results indicate that farmers in the Eastern Cape Province have varying levels of knowledge and understanding of drought management strategies and practices. Some farmers demonstrated a good understanding and awareness of different strategies, such as rotational grazing, water conservation techniques, and drought-resistant crop varieties. This knowledge was often acquired through interactions with agricultural extension officers, participation in training programs, or learning from other farmers who had adopted modern and sustainable practices [36]. These findings are consistent with previous studies highlighting the positive impact of knowledge dissemination and learning networks on farmers’ adoption of effective drought management strategies [7,19]. On the other hand, some farmers had limited knowledge of drought management strategies and relied on traditional practices that may not effectively mitigate the impacts of drought. This limited knowledge could be attributed to factors such as limited access to information, inadequate extension services, or a lack of exposure to modern agricultural practices [26,41]. The study findings underscore the importance of addressing these knowledge gaps and providing farmers with the necessary information and training on effective drought management strategies.

Farmers in the study strongly expressed their desire for more information and training on drought management strategies. They emphasized the need for improved access to agricultural extension services, technical guidance, and educational programs specifically addressing drought preparedness and mitigation. These findings highlight the importance of providing tailored and context-specific training and support to farmers to enhance their knowledge and understanding of effective drought management strategies [15,42]. The study also identified challenges and barriers that hindered farmers’ adoption of drought management practices, including limited access to financial resources, lack of infrastructure for water storage and conservation, and limited availability of drought-resistant seeds and livestock breeds. Addressing these barriers and providing support through financial assistance, infrastructure development, and access to improved inputs can significantly enhance farmers’ capacity to implement effective drought management practices [12,16]. In conclusion, the findings highlight the need for targeted interventions and educational programs that focus on enhancing farmers’ knowledge and understanding of drought management strategies in the Eastern Cape Province. These interventions should consider the specific needs and circumstances of farmers, including agro-ecological conditions, socioeconomic factors, and cultural practices that influence farmers’ decision-making processes. By bridging the knowledge gap and addressing the barriers to adoption, policymakers, agricultural extension services, and other stakeholders can empower farmers in rural communities to better manage drought and build resilience in their agricultural practices. This integration of knowledge and support services can contribute to the development of sustainable and climate-resilient farming systems in the face of drought events.

4.4. Farmers’ Attitudes towards Adopting and Implementing Drought Adaptation Measures

Investigating farmers’ attitudes towards adopting and implementing drought adaptation measures in their cattle farming practices is indeed crucial for understanding their willingness and readiness to embrace change and resilience in drought events. By integrating and analyzing previous research findings, we can strengthen the discussion and provide a broader context for the study. The study’s results indicate that farmers’ attitudes towards adopting and implementing drought adaptation measures varied among the participants. Some farmers demonstrated a positive and proactive attitude, recognizing the importance of adapting to changing climatic conditions and expressing their willingness to adopt and implement drought adaptation measures in their cattle farming practices. These findings align with previous studies highlighting the role of attitudes and willingness to change in farmers’ adoption of climate adaptation measures [12,43]. On the other hand, some farmers exhibited a more hesitant or resistant attitude towards adopting and implementing drought adaptation measures. Factors influencing this attitude could include a lack of awareness or understanding of the benefits of adaptation measures, limited access to resources, or a preference for maintaining familiar and customary practices. These findings are consistent with previous research highlighting the influence of sociocultural factors on farmers’ attitudes and adoption behavior [5,6,14].

The study also revealed that various contextual factors influenced farmers’ attitudes. Socioeconomic factors, such as income level and access to financial resources, significantly shaped farmers’ attitudes towards adaptation measures. This finding is in line with previous studies emphasizing the importance of financial considerations in farmers’ decision-making processes regarding adaptation [1,11,44]. Farmers’ social networks and interactions with other farmers and agricultural extension services were also found to influence their attitudes towards adaptation. Positive experiences and success stories shared by fellow farmers or extension officers fostered a more favorable attitude towards adaptation, while negative experiences or limited exposure to information may have contributed to a more resistant attitude. These findings highlight the significance of social dynamics and knowledge-sharing platforms in shaping farmers’ attitudes towards adaptation. Furthermore, the study identified the role of information and education in shaping farmers’ attitudes towards drought adaptation. Farmers with access to relevant and accurate information about the benefits, feasibility, and success stories of adaptation measures demonstrated a more positive attitude. They recognized the importance of acquiring knowledge and sought opportunities for learning and training. This finding aligns with previous research emphasizing the role of information provision and knowledge transfer in promoting positive attitudes towards adaptation [14,28].

Addressing farmers’ attitudes towards adopting and implementing drought adaptation measures requires tailored approaches that consider their specific concerns, needs, and circumstances. Providing targeted and relevant information through agricultural extension services, farmer-to-farmer knowledge sharing, and capacity-building programs can help address misconceptions, build confidence, and promote a positive attitude towards adaptation [1]. Additionally, providing financial and technical support, such as access to affordable inputs, financial incentives, and infrastructure development, can facilitate the implementation of adaptation measures and overcome barriers [10]. In conclusion, investigating farmers’ attitudes towards adopting and implementing drought adaptation measures provides valuable insights into their readiness and willingness to embrace change and build resilience in their cattle farming practices. The study findings emphasize the importance of addressing farmers’ concerns, providing relevant information, and offering support mechanisms to promote a positive attitude towards adaptation. By understanding and addressing farmers’ attitudes, policymakers, agricultural extension services, and other stakeholders can foster an enabling environment.

4.5. Barriers and Facilitators That Influence Farmers’ Willingness to Tackle Drought-Related Issues

Identifying the barriers and facilitators that influence farmers’ willingness to tackle drought-related issues is indeed crucial for understanding the factors hindering or supporting their efforts to address drought in their cattle production systems. By integrating and analyzing previous research findings, we can strengthen the discussion and provide a broader context for the study. One of the major barriers identified in the study was the limited access to resources, including financial resources, technology, and infrastructure. This finding aligns with previous research highlighting the role of resource constraints in hindering farmers’ ability to implement drought mitigation measures [22,28]. The high costs associated with implementing these measures act as a significant barrier, preventing farmers from taking proactive actions to address drought-related challenges. Another barrier identified in the study was the lack of knowledge and awareness about drought management strategies and practices. This lack of knowledge hinders farmers’ ability to develop and implement effective drought adaptation plans, as they may be unfamiliar with modern technologies and techniques that could help them cope with drought. This finding is consistent with previous research emphasizing the importance of knowledge and information in facilitating farmers’ willingness to address drought-related issues [11,45].

Farmers also highlighted the lack of institutional support and policies specifically addressing drought-related issues. This absence of supportive policies and programs made it challenging for farmers to overcome the barriers they faced in tackling drought-related challenges. Previous studies have similarly emphasized the significance of institutional support and policies in facilitating farmers’ adaptation to drought [18,39]. Additionally, the study found that some farmers exhibited a risk-averse attitude towards adopting new practices and technologies which acted as a barrier to their willingness to tackle drought-related issues. This risk aversion is consistent with previous research highlighting the role of risk perception in farmers’ decision-making regarding adaptation [4,20]. On the other hand, the study also revealed several facilitators that influence farmers’ willingness to tackle drought-related issues. Farmer-to-farmer knowledge sharing was identified as a crucial facilitator, as positive experiences and success stories shared by peers encouraged adoption and implementation of drought management strategies. This finding aligns with previous research emphasizing the role of social networks and knowledge sharing in promoting farmers’ willingness to address climate-related challenges [10,26]. Access to relevant and accurate information about drought management strategies and practices was another facilitator identified in the study. This access to information through agricultural extension services, workshops, training programs, and awareness campaigns helped farmers understand the benefits and feasibility of adopting drought mitigation measures. This finding is in line with previous research highlighting the importance of information provision in promoting farmers’ willingness to address climate-related issues [11,19].

The availability of financial and technical support was identified as a significant facilitator. Farmers emphasized the importance of financial assistance, grants, and subsidies to overcome the financial barriers to implementing drought adaptation measures. Technical support in training, capacity building, and access to modern technologies and infrastructure also facilitated farmers’ willingness to tackle drought-related issues. These findings align with previous studies emphasizing the role of financial and technical support in promoting farmers’ adaptation to climate change [1,12]. The study also highlighted the facilitative role of strong community networks and farmer collaboration in addressing drought-related issues. Active community networks provided a platform for farmers to exchange ideas, knowledge, and experiences and encouraged collective action in managing drought. This finding is consistent with previous research emphasizing the significance of community-based approaches and collective action in promoting farmers’ resilience to climate-related challenges [8,14,17]. In conclusion, identifying the barriers and facilitators influencing farmers’ willingness to tackle drought-related issues provides valuable insights for developing targeted interventions and strategies. Overcoming the barriers related to limited resources, knowledge gaps, institutional support, and risk aversion is crucial for promoting farmers’ willingness to address drought and build resilience in their cattle production systems. By integrating previous research findings, policymakers, agricultural extension services, and other stakeholders can develop more effective and context-specific interventions to support farmers in their efforts to tackle drought-related challenges.

4.6. Technical Insights and Solutions to Enhance Drought Resilience

Enhancing drought resilience in small-holder cattle production systems indeed requires context-specific interventions and support mechanisms that address the challenges and opportunities identified in the study. By integrating and analyzing previous research findings, we can strengthen the discussion and provide a broader context for the study. Improving farmers’ knowledge and awareness of drought management strategies and practices is crucial, as highlighted in previous studies [24,46]. Targeted training programs, workshops, and information dissemination campaigns can be effective in achieving this goal. Agricultural extension services should play an active role in providing technical guidance, sharing best practices, and facilitating knowledge exchange among farmers, as supported by previous research [19,26]. To ensure continuous learning and capacity building, it is essential to develop accessible and user-friendly information resources such as brochures, manuals, and online platforms. These resources can support farmers in acquiring the necessary knowledge and skills to cope with drought-related challenges. Addressing the financial barriers associated with implementing drought adaptation measures is crucial. Financial support in the form of grants, subsidies, and low-interest loans should be provided by governments, NGOs, and other relevant stakeholders. Additionally, offering financial incentives for adopting climate-smart agricultural practices and participating in collective initiatives can encourage farmers to take proactive actions [40,47].

Improving institutional support for small-holder cattle farmers is necessary for enhancing drought resilience, as emphasized in previous studies [20,36]. This can be achieved through the establishment of dedicated programs and initiatives focusing on drought management and providing tailored technical assistance. Ensuring easy access to information, facilitating farmers’ participation in decision-making processes, and streamlining administrative procedures for obtaining financial support are important aspects of institutional support. Regular monitoring and evaluation of the effectiveness of these programs should also be conducted to ensure continuous improvement and accountability. Promoting community-based initiatives and strengthening community networks are effective strategies to enhance collective action and resilience, as supported by previous research [15,16]. Facilitating farmer-to-farmer knowledge-sharing platforms, establishing farmer cooperatives, and supporting community-led projects can foster collaboration, resource sharing, and mutual support. Encouraging the formation of farmer groups or associations can also provide a platform for advocacy and representation, enabling farmers to voice their concerns and needs at higher levels.

Adopting climate-smart agricultural practices is crucial for enhancing drought resilience in small-holder cattle production systems, as highlighted in previous studies [1,26,29]. Training programs, demonstrations, and incentives can play a significant role in promoting the adoption of these practices and helping farmers optimize resource use, reduce vulnerability to drought, and improve long-term sustainability. Developing and implementing early warning systems for drought can provide farmers with timely information for decision-making, as supported by previous research [34,43]. Access to weather-forecasting services, remote-sensing technologies, and localized climate data should be made available to farmers to facilitate informed decision-making. Risk management strategies, such as crop insurance and livestock insurance programs, can also provide a safety net and reduce the financial risks associated with drought [48]. In conclusion, by considering and integrating previous research findings, stakeholders can develop context-specific interventions and support mechanisms that address the knowledge gaps, financial barriers, institutional support, and community dynamics in small-holder cattle production systems. Through the implementation of these recommendations, efforts can be made towards enhancing drought resilience, improving livelihoods, and promoting sustainable cattle farming practices in rural communities of the Eastern Cape Province, South Africa.

4.7. Limitations

While exploring farmers’ perceptions and willingness to tackle drought-related issues in rural communities of the Eastern Cape, South Africa, it is important to acknowledge certain limitations that may impact the findings and interpretation of the study. These limitations include the following:

I.

Sample size: The study may have a limited sample size, which could affect the generalizability of the findings. If the number of participants is small, it may not adequately represent the diverse range of perspectives and experiences within the target population.

II.

Sample-selection bias: There may be a potential bias in the selection of participants, as the study focuses on rural communities in the Eastern Cape of South Africa. This geographical limitation could affect the generalizability of the findings to other regions or populations with different socioeconomic backgrounds or cultural contexts.

III.

Self-reporting bias: The study relies on self-reported data, which may be subject to recall bias or social-desirability bias. Participants may provide responses that they believe align with societal expectations or perceptions of what is desirable, potentially impacting the accuracy and reliability of the data.

IV.

Language and cultural barriers: The study may face challenges related to language and cultural differences. Conducting research in rural communities may involve communication difficulties due to language barriers or differences in cultural norms and interpretations, potentially impacting the quality and depth of data collected.

V.

Limited scope of variables: The study focuses specifically on farmers’ perceptions and willingness to tackle drought-related issues in small-holder cattle production systems. This narrow focus may overlook other important factors that could influence farmers’ decision-making or behaviors regarding drought management.

VI.

Lack of longitudinal data: The study may be limited by its cross-sectional design, which provides a snapshot of farmers’ perceptions and willingness at a specific point in time. Longitudinal data that track changes over time would provide a more comprehensive understanding of how perceptions and behaviors evolve and are influenced by various factors.

VII.

External validity: The findings of this study may primarily be applicable to the specific context of rural communities in the Eastern Cape, South Africa. Generalizing the results to other regions or populations should be done with caution, as different regions may have unique socioeconomic, environmental, and cultural factors that could influence farmers’ perceptions and willingness to tackle drought-related issues.

It is important to acknowledge these limitations when interpreting the findings of the study and considering the implications for broader contexts or policy decisions. Future research could address these limitations by expanding the sample size, considering diverse populations, utilizing mixed-methods approaches, and incorporating longitudinal data collection methods. Despite these limitations, the study serves as an important starting point for understanding the farmers’ perceptions and willingness to tackle drought-related issues in rural communities of the Eastern Cape, South Africa. Future research endeavors could address these limitations by employing larger sample sizes, longitudinal designs, mixed-methods approaches, and comprehensive contextual analyses. Such efforts would enhance the robustness and applicability of the findings, leading to more effective strategies for tackling drought in the region.

5. Conclusions and Future Research

Overall, the study highlights the importance of addressing the barriers that hinder farmers’ ability to manage drought effectively. To support small-holder cattle farmers in vulnerable communities in the Eastern Cape of South Africa, interventions are needed to increase access to resources, financial support, and technical assistance. Additionally, there is a need for increased education and awareness-raising efforts to build farmers’ knowledge of effective drought management strategies. By addressing these barriers, small-scale farmers can improve their resilience to climate change and ensure the sustainability of their production systems.

This study identified key research questions and directions that can further deepen our understanding of farmers’ perceptions and willingness to tackle drought-related issues in small-holder cattle production systems. Specifically, we will consider the following aspects for future research:

I.

In-depth exploration of cultural and contextual factors: We encourage researchers to investigate the influence of cultural and contextual factors on farmers’ knowledge and understanding of drought management strategies. This can provide insights into the sociocultural dynamics that shape farmers’ decision-making processes and their adoption of drought mitigation measures.

II.

Longitudinal studies: Conducting longitudinal studies to assess the long-term effectiveness of different drought mitigation strategies and interventions can provide valuable information on their sustainability and impact over time. This can help identify best practices and inform the development of evidence-based policies and programs.

III.

Comparative analysis: Comparing the experiences and outcomes of farmers in different regions or communities facing similar drought challenges can help identify contextual factors that contribute to varying levels of resilience and adaptive capacity. This comparative analysis can shed light on effective strategies that can be shared and replicated across different contexts.

IV.

Economic analysis: Incorporating an economic analysis into future research can provide insights into the cost-effectiveness and financial feasibility of different drought management strategies. Evaluating the economic benefits and returns on investment of these strategies can assist policymakers and farmers in making informed decisions and prioritizing resource allocation.

V.

Participatory approaches: Encouraging studies that adopt participatory approaches, involving farmers as active participants and co-designers of interventions, can lead to more contextually relevant and sustainable solutions. Participatory research can empower farmers, enhance their ownership of the interventions, and improve the overall success of drought mitigation efforts.