Impact of climate change on sustainability in semi-arid, rural Africa: Lessons from rural Zimbabwe

Figures & data

Table 1. Wards with the highest multi-hazard indices

Lupane			Gokwe south			BuLilima
Ward number	Multi-hazard index	Number of HHs^a in ward	Ward number	Multi-hazard index	Number of HHs in ward	Ward number	Multi-hazard index	Number of HHs in ward
12	0.7686	762	1	0.5982	2,231	17	0.8112	466
7	0.7297	360	2	0.5982	1,573	15	0.7390	1,252
15	0.7186	1,388	5	0.5834	2,432	14	0.7344	364
16	0.7186	783	19	0.5686	2,877	3	0.6963	1,134
13	0.7167	898	3	0.5464	691	19	0.6890	743
11	0.6926	899	4	0.5464	1,653	6	0.6834	1,820
10	0.6667	889	20	0.5389	1,344	18	0.6668	824

^aNumber of households (ZIMSTATS, 2012).

Figure 1. Maps showing the study area locations in Zimbabwe

Table 2. Indicators used to derive the climate change socio-economic vulnerability index

Factor	Subcomponent (with the year of reference in brackets)	Increase (+)/Decrease (−) in vulnerability
Infrastructure	Percentage of households using enclosed toilet facilities (2017)	−
	Percentage of households with members treated at a modern clinic (2016–2017)	−
	Percentage of households with members not receiving medical attention+ (2016–2017)	−
	Percentage of households with access to mobile communication (2017)	−
	Percentage of households with access to weather information (2017)	−
	Percentage of households with access to boreholes (2017)	−
	Percentage of households with access to dams (2017)	−
Natural	Percentage of households with access to home gardens (2017)	−
	Percentage of households with access to large fields (2017)	−
	Percentage of households that harvest ecosystem goods (2017)	−
	Percentage of households with a positive overall access to natural capital (2017)	−
Human	Percentage of female population (2017)	+
	Percentage of female-headed households (2017)	+
	Percentage of population below 6 years of age (2017)	+
	Percentage of the population above 60 years of age (2017)	+
	Percentage of illiterates in the population (2017)	+
	Percentage of the population with tertiary education (2017)	+
	Percentage of the population unemployed (2017)	+
	Percentage of the population formally employed (2017)	−
	Percentage of who have recently fallen sick in the population (2017)	+
Social	Percentage of the households who think trust is high in the community (2017)	−
	Percentage of the households with individuals who participate in community gatherings (2017)	−
	Percentage of household heads who believe community gatherings are effective (2017)	−
	Percentage of members involved in voluntary work (2016–2017)	−
	Percentage of community members that provide community labour (2016–2017)	−
	Percentage of households with extended family members (2017)	−
	Percentage of households able to support family and friends in times of hardship (2016–2017)	−
Produced	Percentage of households that own livestock (2017)	−
	Percentage of households that do not graze livestock in paddocks (2017)	−
	Percentage of households that consume large livestock (2016–2017)	−
	Percentage of households that purchase livestock (2016–2017)	−
	Percentage of households that fatally lost livestock (2016–2017)	−
	Percentage of households selling crop produce (2016–2017)	−
	Percentage of households with staple crops lasting more than 9 months (2016–2017)	−
	Percentage of households whose harvest has declined over the years (2016–2017)	+
	Percentage of households using high breed seeds (2016–2017)	−
Financial	Percentage of households with access to loans (2016–2017)	−
	Percentage of households with bank accounts (2017)	−
	Percentage of households with using mobile money transfer platforms (2017)	−
	Percentage of households receiving remittances (2016–2017)	−
	Percentage of households with income generating enterprises (2017)	−
	Percentage of households with a favourable general access to financial capital (2017)	−
Institutional	Percentage of households benefiting from government or NGO support (2016–2017)	−
	Percentage of households aware of community DRR plans (2017)	−
	Percentage of households aware of national plans that deal with CC issues (2017)	−
	Percentage of households that believe that community DRR plans consider both men and women (2017)	−
	Percentage of households that are aware of customary laws and norms that reduce sensitivity to climate change (2017)	−

DRR: Disaster risk reduction.

Box 1. Exposure perspectives in the districts

“Since 1992 we have been receiving low rainfall in an inconsistent manner. This has affected pastures resulting in death of our livestock. Moreover, wetlands that used to sustain us with drinking water during the dry season have all been invaded by people.” Ward councillor, Malanswazi, BuLilima “People now fear the rains as they are now accompanied by severe and dangerous thunder and lightning which was not the case long back. People used to bath using rainfall but not anymore as they being struck by lightning.” KI, Ward councillor (Lupane) “Most of the dams and rivers in the district have been silted because people cut down trees for commercial purposes and some practise stream bank cultivation as normal rain fed farming no longer yields anything. The capacity of dams to hold significant amount of water has been significantly reduced and I suspect deforestation is responsible for less water getting into the soil hence boreholes also dry up quickly.” District Agricultural Officer (DAO), BuLilima “Seasons have changed in comparison to the past. Unlike the past, rains now come end of November followed by long dry spells until end of January when crops have long dried up.” KI, Ward councillor (Lupane) “Gokwe south is a flood prone area. Gokwe south recently received 116 mm during one day (most in the 20 years).” District Administrator, Gokwe south “The frequency of droughts has increased significantly in the last 10–15 years. We used to have drought once after a long period of time but now it’s almost every year. I think the `gods` are now very angry with us.” Headman, Malalume village, BuLilima “Weather has been changing from year to year thus affecting planning especially on crop choice and weather to do cropping. In this rainy season (2016/2017) incessant rains have destroyed houses, roads and bridges.” (Village head Lupane)

Box 2. Institutional limitations

“The Agritex extension office mans six rain-gauges on behalf of Met-Office as Agritex always requires weather and climate information in programming. However, gaps and challenges include shortages of standard rain gauges that cover all areas. Weather Information dissemination to Agritex and subsequently farmers is also a challenge as seasonal forecast and subsequent updates reach us late when the season has already started. This delay makes planning and crop variety choice difficult yet it is a critical adaptation measure. There is need for evaporation pans, standard rain gauges and thermometer especially in the irrigation schemes. These are critical especially in winter where frost sometimes becomes a challenge.” AGRITEX (Lupane)

Table 3. BuLilima SECCVI

Village	Infrastructure	Natural	Human	Social	Produced	Financial	Institutional	SECCVI
Tjaguta	0.468	0.500	0.350	0.353	0.520	0.490	0.250	0.419
Malalume	0.320	0.451	0.396	0.536	0.553	0.530	0.429	0.459
Malopa	0.395	0.466	0.349	0.235	0.495	0.439	0.286	0.381
Malitikwa	0.349	0.480	0.270	0.345	0.421	0.472	0.297	0.376
Mboma	0.333	0.458	0.441	0.390	0.565	0.340	0.190	0.388
Village	0.281	0.420	0.213	0.414	0.424	0.176	0.255	0.312
Bulilima overall	0.357	0.463	0.337	0.379	0.496	0.408	0.285	0.389

Table 4. Gokwe south SECCVI

Village	Infrastructure	Natural	Human	Social	Produced	Financial	Institutional	SECCVI
Bamba	0.474	0.469	0.298	0.447	0.728	0.327	0.286	0.433
Masimba	0.359	0.445	0.292	0.389	0.731	0.344	0.217	0.397
Kasamara	0.250	0.446	0.317	0.426	0.535	0.244	0.143	0.337
Choko	0.302	0.431	0.412	0.320	0.595	0.321	0.435	0.402
Kwangwa	0.418	0.482	0.416	0.265	0.462	0.252	0.397	0.385
Musundire	0.320	0.451	0.396	0.536	0.553	0.530	0.429	0.459
Jackson	0.388	0.483	0.205	0.387	0.532	0.494	0.545	0.433
James	0.454	0.494	0.182	0.149	0.468	0.308	0.506	0.366
Bheura	0.446	0.493	0.158	0.313	0.628	0.310	0.539	0.412
Gokwe south overall	0.426	0.524	0.335	0.404	0.654	0.391	0.437	0.453

Table 5. Lupane SECCVI

Village	Infrastructure	Natural	Human	Social	Produced	Financial	Institutional	SECCVI
Jotsholo	0.533	0.500	0.430	0.353	0.652	0.410	0.300	0.454
St Georg	0.384	0.483	0.388	0.473	0.537	0.338	0.194	0.400
Manganga	0.216	0.400	0.445	0.367	0.565	0.396	0.273	0.380
Makuni	0.487	0.486	0.311	0.392	0.573	0.463	0.455	0.453
Mazankila	0.428	0.500	0.350	0.394	0.534	0.325	0.437	0.424
Mpahlwa2	0.306	0.460	0.240	0.409	0.560	0.405	0.429	0.401
Munyathi	0.337	0.986	0.192	0.302	0.833	0.366	0.286	0.472
Ndimimbi	0.392	0.597	0.241	0.269	0.520	0.385	0.467	0.410
Somankon	0.359	0.438	0.221	0.462	0.428	0.516	0.485	0.416
Lupane overall	0.382	0.539	0.313	0.380	0.578	0.401	0.369	0.423

Table A1. BuLilima district qualitative data respondents

District KI		Traditional leadership		Technical organisations		Arms of government		NGOs		Other
District administrator	1	Chief	1	AGRITEX	1	Ministry arms	3	NGO in area	3	Education	1
RDC	1	Village head	4	MET, EMA	2	CPU	1
	2		5		3		4		3		1
Total key informants in Bulilima									18
Mixed FGD		3	Ward 14			Ward 15				Totals
			Males	Females		Males		Females
			5	6		6		7		24
Female FGD		3	10			13				23
Youth FGD		3	Males	Females		Males		Females
			6	6		4		9		25
Total group discussion participants in Bulilima										72

Table A2. Gokwe south district qualitative data respondents

District KI		Traditional leadership		Technical organisations		Arms of government		NGOs
District administrator	1	Chief	1	AGRITEX	1	Ministry arms	5	NGO in area	5
RDC	1	Village head	7	Meteorological services; EMA	2	CPU	1
	2		8		3		6		5
Total key informants in Gokwe south									24
Mixed FGD	3	Ward 2		Ward 4		Ward 20		Totals
		Males	Females	Males	Females	Males	Females
		8	8	6	9	7	10	48
Female FGD	3	12		9		15		36
Youth FGD	3	Males	Females	Males	Females	Males	Females
		4	7	6	9	8	7	41
Total group discussion participants in Gokwe south								125

Table A3. Lupane district qualitative data respondents

District KI		Traditional leadership		Technical organisations		Arms of government		NGOs		Other
District administrator	1	Chief	1	AGRITEX	1	Ministry arms	2	NGO in area	2	Education	3
RDC	1	Village head	8	MET, EMA	2	CPU	1
	2		9		3		3		2		3
Total key informants in Lupane									22
Mixed FGD	3	Ward 7		Ward 11			Ward 13			Totals
		Males	Females	Males		Females	Males	Females
		7	6	4		9	6	10		44
Female FGD	3	15		13			16			44
Youth FGD	3	Males	Females	Males		Females	Males	Females
		5	6	6		9	4	8		38
Total group discussion participants in Lupane										166

Zimbabwe National Statistics Agency (ZIMSTATS). (2012). Preliminary census report. Harare: Causeway.

 Google Scholar

Data Availability Statement

Raw data were generated at The Institute of Development Studies of the National University of Science and Technology and the Ministry of Environment Water and Climate. Derived data supporting the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author (Nqobizitha Dube) on request.