Elaborations of Climate Change and Vulnerability

Climate change and vulnerability are two important core concepts on which many parts of our article lean. Therefore, these concepts are explained and elaborated in this section. Authoritative definitions, illustrations, and considerations are presented. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 2021) has provided one of the most widely used definitions of the former, defining “climate change” as statistically significant changes in fluctuations in weather averages, persisting over extended periods (decades or longer). This is regardless of whether the changes result from natural variation or human intervention. Climate change thus also refers to long-term shifts in averages and variabilities of established related indicators. It is ascribed to both processes intrinsic to nature and to forces external to it. Persistent man-made changes in the composition of the atmosphere are considered the most crucial external force. Land use leading to distortions of nature, for instance deforestation and overcultivation of land, are other, more direct man-made environmental threats (Connolly-Boutin and Smit 2016). Climate change encompasses changes of frequency and amplitude of occasional extreme weather events and the gradual increase in the global mean surface temperature (Ajibade et al. 2014). Universal scientific evidence allows for the conclusion that climate change is a fact and the most significant environmental danger to twenty-first-century sustainable development. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) announced as early as 2007 that the last decade of the twentieth century and the early years of the twenty-first were the hottest periods globally since records began in the mid-nineteenth century. Global warming of the atmosphere has led to variations of surface temperature and precipitation all over the world. As we will discuss later, it is also seriously impacting Nigeria (Ziervogel et al. 2014). As a result of the experienced hazards resulting from climate change, both to the sustainability of the physical and biological environment and the living conditions of humanity, global concerns today are seriously increasing (Gouel 2022).

Various origins intrinsic to nature, such as solar output, earth–sun geometry, and interstellar dust, play roles in global climate change (Merem et al. 2019). But the man-made nature of climate change and its enormous environmental impacts on the living world is nowadays universally accepted. For example, Nigeria's oil and gas industry, notably in the Niger Delta and offshore, is to blame for disastrous changes in peoples’ environment due to emissions from gas flaring. Other man-made interventions, like deforestation caused by cutting trees, collecting firewood, and the expansion of slash-and-burn agriculture, also play their adverse parts. Notably, around 1.7 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide per year are emitted as a result of deforestation and land clearance (Makondo and Thomas 2018). Durodola (2019) estimates that 18 percent of the world's CO₂-equivalent emissions stem from cattle farming. Additionally, of course, car and truck emissions, generators, and other equally demanding machinery contribute to CO₂ emission and thus to global warming.

“Vulnerability” has been defined by the IPCC as “the degree to which a living system can be affected by climate change, climate variability and extremes and its sensitivity to those effects (Reinman 2012; Asadnabizadeh 2022). Vulnerability is mostly related to exposure, sensitivity, and adaptability. Direct threats (stressors) and the nature and degree of regional expressions of climatic change (such as temperature, precipitation, and severe weather events) may be classified as exposure. The sensitivity and adaptability (resilience) of a living system—in combination with the nature, quantity, and rate at which it is exposed to the consequences of climate change—result in the specific degree of a system's vulnerability (Asadnabizadeh 2022). Adverse forces of climate change on the one hand and factors determining the degree of vulnerability on the other determine the detrimental impacts that occur. When assessing a country's vulnerability, the stability and flexibility of its institutions and public infrastructure are crucial factors (Chidiebere-Mark et al. 2019). An adequate public infrastructure and a well-connected and informed population are indispensable conditions to react rapidly and appropriately and thus decrease the risk of disastrous impacts. These characteristics appear to be most critical in societies where the vulnerability of people and society under normal conditions is minimal. Extreme levels of weather variability (storms) and the speed of change of normal weather conditions disproportionally impact countries with a high vulnerability (Ajibade et al. 2014). The emerging challenges of climate change concern considerable natural and human complexities. A manifold of reciprocal interactions between man and nature—heightening or lessening a threat or its impacts—constitute the processes leading to the significant challenges that humankind is facing.

Theoretical Frameworks

As noted above, since it concerns extremely complex, multidimensional processes of causation, manifestation, and solutions, our aim is to understand and approach (the impacts of) climate change in a comprehensive manner. The pursuit of comprehensiveness is quite familiar to the indigenous holistic perspective that may be observed in many realms of African thinking (Adodo and Iwu 2020). The understanding of the world as a whole of interconnected natural and human forces in our African indigenous thinking, however, has not been explicitly articulated in logical rational frameworks that enable us to conduct scientific research and analyses.

In order to approximate the holistic understanding of the world, we make use of the social quality theory (SQT) and approaches (SQA) (IASQ 2020). In the social quality scientific perspective, processes between personal, societal, and environmental (e.g., climate) factors, enhancing or disturbing a particular degree of the social quality of daily life, are conceived of as interconnected. The so-called conditional factors (e.g., socioeconomic security) are in constant interplay with personal or constitutional factors (e.g., personal capacity). These processes result in a particular degree of social quality of the daily circumstances of human life (Abbott et al. 2016). The outcomes of this interplay in our study are assessed as specific degrees of vulnerability. This realm of interactions is referred to as “the analytical framework.” The outcomes of these processes are strongly influenced and can be judged by normative factors (e.g., eco-equilibrium, social justice, solidarity, human dignity, and equal value). In the SQT these processes are understood to have a dialectical nature: they work both ways and are seen to be reciprocal. In our empirical study, we look at various conditional and personal factors that are related to the adverse impacts of (direct) environmental and ecological changes at the local level. These in turn are seen as consequences of global climate change. The factors concern socioeconomic security (e.g., livelihood) and personal security (e.g., well-being and health), as well as social empowerment and personal capacity (IASQ 2020).

From the social quality perspective, the processes between these sets of factors are considered to be determined inside and between the so-called four societal dimensions, in the so-called “procedural framework.” Four societal dimensions or spheres are distinguished: (1) the political and legal, (2) the economic and financial, (3) the cultural and welfare-based, and (4) the environmental and ecological dimension. This framework was recently presented in the editorial of the double themed issue of the IJSQ about the societal impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic (Nijhuis and Van der Maesen 2021: xviii). In our empirical study we focus on the disturbing impacts of processes from the global socioenvironmental and ecological dimension on the interplay between conditional and personal factors (such as personal security). In line with the universal scientific consensus, we consider the threats of climate change “man-made.” This implies that the interplay between man-made national and international socioeconomic and financial realities, sociopolitical and legal patterns, and sociocultural forces should be considered responsible for the impacts of climate change. These determine to a large extent the impacts on the daily existence of the rural dwellers in northern Nigeria that were the subjects of our study.

We assume that the social quality perspective provides an adequate configuration of (analytical and conceptual) frameworks to achieve a comprehensive understanding of the complexities involved in the emergence and manifestations of climate change, its adverse impacts, and strategies for its prevention and mitigation. Though not consistently explicitly, this perspective implicitly guides the order of our findings and their conclusions and interpretations in a wider regional and global context. We use social quality terminology in our research and our reasoning. This perspective enables us to approximate the holistic perspective of our African tradition that, we are convinced, is still a good guide to adequately understanding the world.

For the exploration of the protective effects of the NCCPR, we lean on the “theory of change” (TOC). According to Isabel Vogel (2012), this theory represents an outcome-based strategy that elaborates processes and outcomes of social change. The theory supports the design, implementation, and evaluation stages of community interventions (Rogers 2000). It is generally seen as a theory that underpins the methodology for developing and evaluating social programs (Stein and Valters 2012; Ebele and Emodi 2016). In our explorations into the protective effects of the NCCPR plan against environmental threats of climate change, it has not been possible to precisely elaborate and measure all factors that may be involved. Yet the outcomes of these explorations represent valuable pieces of information and clues, both for policymaking and further scientific work.

Climate Change in Low-Income Countries: The Case of Nigeria

The severity of the environmental and ecological consequences of climate change varies significantly between nations and regions, as well as population groups and economic sectors. The impacts depend on the specific nature and severity of the consequences themselves, as well as the degree of vulnerability or resilience of the communities concerned. Patterns of temperature increases, wind, and precipitation are unevenly distributed. Specific geobiological zones that are affected by the adverse impacts in specific ways react to extreme manifestations (Jamal and Dredge 2014). As populations within distinct ecological zones have at their disposal varying levels of resources, so do their capacities to adapt adequately to climate change vary. Each country's level of vulnerability depends on its stress level and its adaptation capacity to deal with the detrimental consequences of climate change, often related to unpredictability and extremity. The African continent, for example, has shown to be extraordinary vulnerable to climate change. According to Peter Elias and Ademola Omojola (2015), its high levels of vulnerability are connected to its relatively weak adaptive capacity, originating from its deficiency of developmental resources and a high prevalence of poverty. Sub-Saharan Africa at present is and is expected to remain particularly hard hit by climate change's effects. The main reason is that it experiences extremely high temperatures and extremely low (and variable) levels of precipitation. Moreover, its economies are heavily reliant on rainfed agriculture, whereas a low capacity for adopting modern technologies is prevalent.

There is now widespread scientific consensus about the magnitude of climate change's severe effects on environmental and ecological systems and on conditional factors determining the social quality of daily life (e.g., agriculture, food and water supply) (Otitoju and Enete 2016). The IPCC's third Assessment Report evaluated climate research up to 2001 and concluded that the global average temperature increased by 0.60°C over the twentieth century, and was predicted to increase by 5.80°C between 1990 and 2001 (Ratcliff 2022). In addition, average precipitation increased by about 2–3 percent over tropical latitudes, but decreased by about 3 percent in the subtropics (Fanen and Olalekan 2014). These changes seriously affect environmental and ecological balances: the global average sea level has risen by 10–20 cm over the previous century (and is anticipated to rise another 10–90 cm by 2100), and droughts have become more frequent and intense in regions of Asia and Africa in recent decades. Climate change has even been considered the new threat to Africa's socioeconomic security (Otitoju and Enete 2016). The consequences of catastrophic climatic events caused by global warming have become so severe that there has been widespread alarm among countries’ various governments and citizens (Makondo and Thomas 2018). There is no doubt that global mean temperatures have risen by around 0.30–0.60°C since the twentieth century (Connolly-Boutin and Smit 2016). Recent years, notably since the 1950s, have been among the hottest on record since 1860, while evidence of regional warming has been discovered in other regions. Climate fluctuations and changes, particularly since the late 1960s and early 1970s, have affected numerous natural processes and thus human activities across nations (ibid.).

The 2022 floods in Pakistan, impacting over 20 million people, are the worst in history. Already in 2008, the Nigerian president Umaru Musa Yar'adua stated that the annual losses in Nigeria due to the adverse effects of climate change (degradation, deforestation, terrible droughts, desertification, loss of biodiversity, heavy rainfalls, flooding, erosion, and urban decay) approximated USD 5.1 billion. Today, devastating droughts continue to ravage parts of northern Nigeria. Nigeria's oil and gas industry, notably in the Niger Delta and offshore, induces climate changes due to emissions from gas flaring (Ologhadien 2019). Pakistan and Nigeria are just two examples of poor countries that speak volumes. Millions of poor people in low-income developing countries will face water and food shortages in the following decades. Pending the implementation of radical CO₂-reducing measures, the consequences of global warming are predicted to increase, even if temperatures do not rise significantly (Mbow et al. 2014). Developing countries in the coming decades will face frequent and severe extreme weather events, such as tropical cyclones (including hurricanes and typhoons), devastating floods and droughts, and extreme rainfall. The human disasters caused by these environmental extremities in particular hit the poorest in these countries. It is anticipated that billions of people, particularly those in low-income developing nations, will face economic losses due to climate change in the coming decades.

Nigeria has to struggle with various environmental issues that are common in the sub-Saharan region, most notably the increasing desert in the north and flooding (due to increasing sea levels) in the south (Adepoju and Osunbor 2018). Since 1960, Nigeria's climatic trends have shown an average rise in temperature of 0.21°C each decade, with the northern portions of the nation seeing a faster increase in temperature (Doku and Phiri 2022). Drought-induced hunger and locusts, as well as a significant rise in the frequency of extremely hot days, plague Niger and northern Nigeria. These recent tragedies demonstrate how vulnerable people become if extreme weather events affect their daily lives (Ahmed and Aliyu 2019). Extreme heat events have increased in frequency during the last four decades, a trend that continues in Nigeria and around the globe, affecting millions of people (ibid.). In 2010 Nigeria and a large number of other countries around the globe were ravaged by terrible floods. Like many other countries, Nigeria has been plagued by various climatic oddities that have had a detrimental effect on civilization (ibid.).

Nigeria is seemingly vulnerable to climate change. Preexisting barriers to development of its economic and welfare standards lie at the roots of this vulnerability, such as poverty, inadequate infrastructure, food insecurity, and an ineffective governance system. Vulnerability in African countries has long been associated with their inadequate adaptive capacity regarding access to development resources and high poverty rates (Mbow et al. 2014). The World Bank (World Bank and Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and Climate Analytics 2013) states in this regard that prior climatic extremes, notably those of the 1980s, are predictive of future climate uncertainties. Climate extremes have resulted in harsh periods of severe drought, decreased agricultural production and animal herds, and significant food shortages throughout the nation. Climate change's adverse effects on rural communities’ natural resource base and capacity to provide sustainable livelihoods may exacerbate already-existing socioeconomic development issues. Furthermore, Nigeria's dependence on primary production, particularly rainfed agriculture, its rapid population growth, and widespread poverty make the nation more vulnerable to climate change than most other countries (Fadairo et al. 2020). It is obviously extremely vulnerable to the consequences of climate change (Abaje et al. 2016). The effects range from drought and aridity to increased environmental exposures, crop failures, pest and disease infestations, depletion of livelihoods, biodiversity loss, natural resource depletion, shifts in ecological zones, and declines in soil fertility (Makondo and Thomas 2018). Eleven of the country's thirty-six states, dubbed the “frontline states,” are progressively being gobbled up by desertification, while sea level rise is steadily eroding the country's eight coastline states (Connolly-Boutin and Smit 2016). These are states where climate change is predicted to have a significant effect because it will exacerbate environmental deterioration. By 1985, deforestation had destroyed 1,544 kilometers of the country's forest acreage. Nigeria lost 20 percent of its forest and woodland lands between 1983 and 1993.

Northern Nigeria, the region of focus of our study, is particularly hit by the earth's increasing surface temperatures. Serious droughts have recurred in this region, particularly the Sudano-Sahelian area. Here desertification has constituted a major environmental concern over the last three decades. It damages agriculture and food security, but also exacerbates cardiorespiratory health problems caused by increased dust pollution (Ziervogel et al. 2014). In particular, northern Nigeria for many reasons has a low potential for adaptation and relies more on local ecosystem services such as water, agriculture, and local food security (Abaje et al. 2016). The most vulnerable to the hazards of climate change are the people with the least resilience to threats: landless farmers, livestock keepers, people in poor health, those who are malnourished, those with little economic power, women-headed families, those with a low level of education, and those with limited technical know-how.

Various development plans addressing the socioeconomic security and capacities of communities and people also experience serious adverse impacts. The National Fadama Development Project (NFDP) and the Local Empowerment and Environmental Management Project (LEEMP), aiming to empower underserved communities, have been harmed by the effects of climate change (Dada and Muhammad 2014). As a result, achieving targeted socioeconomic objectives, like poverty reduction, food security, and gender equality, has become almost impossible. Since the late 1990s, when the idea of the importance of increasing adaptation capacity first gained prominence, several initiatives launched by NGOs have failed to include adaptation techniques to cope with environmental imbalances in their development goals. Effective national and international institutional frameworks provide mitigation strategies that enable communities with a high vulnerability to adapt or plan for alternative sources of livelihood (Ayanlade et al. 202O). Still, rural communities’ participation in policy formulation and implementation is limited. Government bodies responsible for ensuring development objectives until recently have given little attention to climate change adaptation as a development agent (Odemerho 2015).

On the other hand, the alarming anomalies and their repercussions in Nigeria have gradually but significantly increased overall awareness and stimulated the country's socioeconomic planning and development policies and strategies to include coping strategies for climate disasters (Oladosu and Rose 2007). In recent years, government institutions have recognized the need to integrate development and adaptation capacities at the community level. As a result, for instance, the National Climate Change Policy Response (NCCPR) has been launched as a viable tool for adaptation and development. It has grown in importance in recent years (Odemerho 2015).

In the following section the findings of our community-based research are presented. We will demonstrate the perceptions of rural residents in northern Nigeria regarding the impacts of climate change on the circumstances of their daily lives. These perceptions can be taken on board in the strategies involved in development and adaptation plans. Explorations of the workings of the NCCPR will be part of the study. Evidence about the effectiveness and efficiency of such programs is vital to justify their advocacy and underpin their further implementation. In our conclusions, the findings of our study will be more closely interpreted and generalized, against the background of the above-depicted impacts of climate change on people and communities in Nigeria and other low-income countries.

Methodology of the Empirical Study

The aim of the community-based study was to gather information on perceptions and experiences of residents in rural areas in northern Nigeria concerning (1) general changes over time as consequences of climate and weather conditions, (2) specific changes of the local environmental and ecological conditions related to disruptive weather conditions, and (3) impacts of climate change on conditional and personal factors (like socioeconomic security, personal security, health, vulnerability, and adaptation capacities) of people and communities. The major focus of our investigation is rural areas, since the impacts of climate change—as shown above—disproportionally affect people and communities that depend on agriculture and livestock farming.

The major part of the study has a descriptive nature. Facts about and perceptions of residents regarding the nature and the impacts of socioenvironmental and ecological changes ascribed to climate change are presented. In our research, we strongly lean on the social quality perspective. The interactions between (external) conditional and (personal) constitutional factors determining the social quality of people's daily lives are identified and analyzed (Van der Maesen and Walker 2012; Abbott et al. 2016; IASQ 2020). In the conclusions and the interpretation of the findings of our investigation, reflections are made using normative principles including social justice and human dignity.

The study was conducted in nine states in northern Nigeria. The total study population consisted of 399 people. Aspects on which the selection was based included: the representativeness of areas and communities, personal judgment of adequateness, and deliberate attempt. The organizational unit in the study was the state. In each state, respondents to be interviewed were selected from rural areas. Various aspects of perceived environmental and ecological changes (e.g., rainfall, droughts, de-vegetation) were assessed as independent variables. As outcome variables, various conditional factors (e.g., socioeconomic security and food supply) and personal factors (e.g., personal security, well-being, health) determining the social quality of the circumstances of daily life were analyzed. In our study these social quality outcomes are labeled as different degrees of vulnerability. For the exploration of the effects of the NCCPR, 199 people benefiting from this plan (participants) were identified, as well as two hundred people not receiving benefits of the plan (nonparticipants). The total income of residents, expressing the level of socioeconomic security, was deployed as a major outcome variable to assess the difference between participants and nonparticipants. Crop income, income from livestock, and income from regular employment were used for the calculation of total income. Through multivariate analysis, differences in this outcome variable, and thus the protective effect of the NCCPR, were explored.

Data was obtained using different observational techniques: individual questionnaires, focus group discussions (FGDs), and field observation. The questionnaire contained well-structured closed and open-ended questions. The questions were structured according to the Likert Scale (LS) and a fixed question format.

FGDs were held in each of the selected study areas. Participants were men and women drawn from community-based organizations representing average households, elders, and village heads. FGDs discussed issues of weather and climate change, adaptive capacity, resilience, and vulnerability, as well as community characteristics and institutional efforts to deal with the perceived problems.

In addition to these sources, field observations were conducted by a team of researchers in order to gather factual information about the environmental and ecological situation in the areas of study.

Findings

The findings of our empirical study concern the rural residents’ perceptions of the local environmental consequences of climate change, as well as their perceptions of the impacts on the social quality of their daily lives.

In Tables 1 and 2 figures on the sociodemographic and personal characteristics of the respondents are presented. These provide information about the nature of the studied population and the representativeness of the study group.

More than two-thirds of the respondents were male. Thirty-seven percent were aged between 30 and 39 years. The majority were aged 40 and above. 64.4 percent of the respondents had lived in the area for over thirty years: 19 percent for twenty to twenty-nine years, and a minority (7 percent) for fewer than ten years. This leads to the conclusion that most respondents have sufficient experience to have adequate knowledge of the area's climatic conditions. This is in line with the findings of Fadairo et al. (2022) that the longer the period over which a respondent has been living in a community, the better their understanding of the environmental and ecological conditions there.

More than two-thirds of the respondents had enjoyed one or another form of formal education. For our study this is relevant. Makondo and Thomas (2018) found that an educated person is more able to utilize information, for instance in taking decisions. Moreover, education enables individuals to perform tasks more efficiently. In contrast, lower education constrains the ability to access and understand information concerning recovery.

The majority of the respondents were farmers (49.8 percent), while a few (11 percent) were in trading. A handful (3.5 percent) were involved in other forms of occupation: studying, artisan work, business, laborer's work, and so on. Most engaged in farming as their primary activity, sometimes alongside other activities.

The presented sociodemographic and personal data reflects the typical, representative situation of rural dwellers, which has also been found in other studies (Elias and Omojola 2015). It may be concluded that the composition of the respondent population is more or less representative of the targeted population in rural areas at large.

The respondents’ perceptions concerning the seriousness of different impacts of change in climate and weather were assessed through the questionnaire. The results are presented in Table 3. The types of impact were pre-structured in the questionnaires. The listed categories are directly related to the environmental and ecological imbalances caused by climate change.

The averages and ranking reflect the order of the subjective perceptions and concerns that the respondents expressed regarding the various types of impact. They are not objective, and most likely are related to the perceptions of the impacts’ seriousness. Flood occurrence, drought increase, temperature increase and increased rainfall were ranked as the most serious impacts of climate change. De-vegetation, fuel scarcity, and the costs of food crops were perceived as the least serious impacts.

In Table 4, perceived levels of vulnerability, areas of threat, and reasons for increased vulnerability to climate change are shown. In the upper part, the cumulative perceptions of levels of vulnerability are presented for distinct occupational groups. In the lower part, the cumulative numbers for distinct kinds of vulnerability and reasons for increased vulnerability are listed.

It is evident (and logical) that with 83.7 percent, farmers were the occupational group that most frequently expressed experiences of increased vulnerability due to the environmental consequences of climate change. Regarding areas of threat, most respondents perceived health (45.9 percent) and food supply (38.8) as the major threats of climate change to their social quality of daily circumstances. This finding is in accordance with Abaje et al. (2016), who prioritized various characteristics of societal, environmental, and personal life as most susceptible and sensitive (and hence at risk) to climate change, namely: water supply, agriculture, tourism, natural resources and biodiversity, health, food supply, and socioeconomic security.

Furthermore, it is important that most respondents (61.4 percent) perceived low income, as a conditional factor of socioeconomic security, as the major reason for being vulnerable to the threats of climate change.

The above findings, assembled through the questionnaires, were supported by the outcomes of the FGDs held concerning similar subjects. Below, some statements of individual respondents from the FGDs further illustrate and enrich the quantitative information in the tables.

One respondent noted: “The farmers are the group most affected by climate change because they rely on the weather, which is no longer stable, unlike in the past years. Some years we may experience flooding or drought depending on the magnitude; while onset and cessation of rains is no longer predictable; sometimes the strong wind can affect our productivity.”

Concerning threats of climate change to health and food supply, a participant from the FGDs noted: “In the past, the rains were predictable, but now the predictable rainfall patterns have led to some villagers not planting at all in some seasons because they would have waited for the proper rains until it was too late to plant.”

Another respondent observed: “The incidence of flooding as well as increased heat has led to pollution and has increased the incidence of diseases such as malaria, typhoid, and cholera, whose recent outbreak led to the death of my son.”

In Table 5, the perception of different types of hazards, their frequencies, and the season in which they occur is presented.

The table reveals that people felt that various hazards of distinct severity and frequency occur. They occur mostly in the wet and warm season, followed by the dry and hot season. Floods are perceived to occur most frequently (31.1 percent), usually in the wet and warm season. Next are hazards of invasive biological species (25.8 percent), of drought (22.1 percent), and of erosion (12.3 percent). Bush- and wildfire and other dangers account for only 3.8 percent and 5.0 percent respectively of the perceived hazards. It is obvious that, in the perception of residents, their living area and their livelihood resources are seriously at risk of hazards directly or indirectly related to the impacts of climate change. These findings correspond with related studies (Amos et al. 2015).

Participants of the FGDs illustrated the above findings: “Hazards affect us in the community but usually occur within 3–5 years, depending on the severity. Flooding is one of the hazards that we experience most commonly, and it usually affects us directly or indirectly. Directly is due to increased rainfall, while indirect is erosion, pollution, sicknesses, and diseases.”

Further interpretation of the above findings justifies the following conclusions. People judge hazards caused by climate change to appear due to serious disturbances in complex balances of the natural environment that are constitutive to sustaining the life of flora, fauna, and mankind. People also view climate changes as induced by human action. The frequency of occurrence and severity of the hazards seriously impact on one or more aspects of the social quality of rural life. From the social quality perspective, harm is done to the conditional factors that sustain an acceptable standard of people's daily life circumstances, in particular socioeconomic security, social empowerment, and well-being and health. The respondents and the FDG participants clearly reveal a consciousness that what is inflicted on rural communities is caused by man. People's acknowledgment of the man-made nature of climate change refers to processes in the societal dimensions that lie beyond the scope of the average rural dweller. These concern environmental disturbances caused by CO₂ emission and other toxic industrial outputs, originating and in the most part emitted far away from Nigeria. Yet, as shown in the above figures, the consequences of the existing global economic and political patterns that underlie the ecological disturbances in Nigeria appear in the daily lives of the rural dwellers as profound hazards to their livelihood, health, and well-being.

The results indicate that crop season lengthening is most frequently applied as a strategy (34.6 percent), followed by food storage (31.3 percent). The supply of government subsidies follows at 25.6 percent. Just a few respondents listed contemporary agricultural practices (3.8 percent), extension worker training (2.5 percent), and current technology (2.3 percent). The findings thus show that crop season lengthening, food storage, and the supply of government subsidies contributed significantly to coping with the impacts of climate change, whereas contemporary agricultural practices, extension worker training, and current technology turned out to be the least practiced remedies. The outcomes of our study support the intended coping strategies outlined in the First National Communication (2003) and the NCCPR project. In these polices the importance of diversification to new plant species and varieties with increased resistance is highlighted. This diversification constitutes a barrier to anticipated temperature increase and reduced rainfall. The same holds true for the adoption of zero or minimum tillage and other appropriate technologies to reduce soil erosion and loss of organic nutrients.

Again, some statements may illustrate the outcomes of the above quantitative analyses.

According to a farmer participating in an FGD: “The government has done well to provide an improved variety of seeds and short-seasoning crops. For instance, some agricultural researchers have set up some of their research site in our locality and have enlightened us on diversified land-use practices as well as the use of short-season and improved variety of crops to boost our production.”

This statement is revealing and consistent with the observations of Ayanlade (2017). They assert that farmers in northern Nigeria have shifted their crop rotations due to rising temperatures and decreased rainfall amounts caused by climate change.

Finally, some notable outcomes of our comparison between the NCCPR plan participants and nonparticipants are presented. These explorations suggest that there is indeed a protective effect stemming from this community development plan.

Another relevant aspect is the effect of the remediation strategies of the NCCPR concerning climate change. These are of course of utmost importance to coping with the impacts of environmental disasters. In Table 6, the frequencies of types of remediation strategies employed by the NCCPR participants are listed. These remediation strategies were significantly more present in the NCCPR-participating group as compared to the nonparticipating group.

In Table 7 the most important outcome of the multivariate analysis (expressed as a standardized coefficient) is presented to demonstrate the protective effect of the NCCPR plan. The total income of residents is assumed to reflect a reasonable measure indicating the protective capacity against environmental hazards.

There is a significant favorable correlation between the total income of residents and the NCCPR plan, standing at 0.589 (58.9 percent). A contribution of 52.5 percent more income appears to stem from participation in this community development initiative. With a p-value of 0.0130.05 at 5 percent, it may be assumed that this project had a substantial impact on the income of the participants, and thus on reducing their vulnerability and increasing their resilience to the socioenvironmental and ecological hazards resulting from climate change.

The mean annual income of NCCPR participants is significantly higher compared to that of the nonparticipants. This most likely will enable the participants to choose more varieties of seed and livestock breeds, which strengthens their resilience against environmental hazards. The same holds true regarding their possibilities to receive training on the most effective and resistant agricultural practices.

Conclusion and Recommendations

Exploring universal scientific insights and policy documents, we have depicted the adverse consequences of climate change on weather and other environmental conditions for people living in low-income countries, in particular Nigeria. Pending the implementation of radical CO₂-reducing measures, the consequences of global warming will continue to increase, even if temperatures rise to a limited extent. If industrial countries succeed in reducing CO₂ emissions by 2035, the environmental imbalances and their humanitarian impacts will still remain a threat for poor countries for decades to come. The impacts will be even more serious if the recent failure of global talks on a climate “loss and damage” fund is not resolved. Although these countries have a minimal contribution in the causal chain leading to damaging CO₂ emissions, they disproportionally suffer from the socioenvironmental and ecological disturbances and disasters caused by the warming of the earth's surface.

In the empirical part of our article we have specified and explored more deeply the impacts on the social quality of the daily lives of poor people that arise from environmental disturbances. We observed that the study population perceived current climate change primarily as changes in weather-related events. The findings revealed that climate change significantly impacts their socioeconomic security, compromising their personal security, food supply, well-being, and health. According to our study, especially farmers with a relatively low income are vulnerable and have been hit seriously in many respects. In search of protective arrangements against these adverse consequences, we explored the effects of the NCCPR community development plan in northern Nigeria. Participants of this plan benefited compared to nonparticipants because they had implemented various preventive adaptation measures. The farmers’ income increased significantly, reinforcing their socioeconomic resilience. This has strengthened the farmers’ ability to cope with the natural threats that keep befalling their communities. Policies and initiatives of governments and NGOs apparently have a beneficial effect on the socioeconomic security and sustainability of the social quality of their daily circumstances. However, even for the NCCPR beneficiaries, climate change's impacts are still intrusive, and much needs to be done in the realm of community development to support rural dwellers. More importantly, though, effective structural causative measures need to be developed on a global scale to remedy the environmental and ecological disturbances. In other words, the disastrous CO₂ emissions on our planet need to be reduced.

So far, we have studied the ecological imbalances caused by climate change and its direct humanitarian impacts. Through our data we observed serious disturbances of “eco-equilibria,” resulting in serious threats to rural residents. Employing the social quality perspective, we have focused on the analytical framework, in which the social quality of daily circumstances is seen as the outcome of reciprocal processes between conditional and personal factors. In order to interpret our findings on a less individual and more collective level, we will reflect on them in terms of three global societal dimensions: the sociopolitical and legal, the socioeconomic and financial, and the sociocultural and welfare dimensions. It is evident that processes in these dimensions lie at the roots of climate problems and allow national and transnational corporations to persist in their behavior of emitting unacceptable levels of CO₂.

In the dominant discourse regarding climate change, through mathematical devices, only the natural processes and outcomes in the socioenvironmental and ecological dimension are exposed and discussed. These calculations are often connected with technological devices to reduce emissions. There is universal consensus that climate change is “man-made.” Yet elaborations and studies of related societal patterns in the sociopolitical, socioeconomic, and sociocultural dimensions rarely appear in international contexts such as the IPCC meetings. We will discuss and conclude on some issues on a societal level that are related to our study subject and findings.