Accepted Manuscript

Managing the agricultural calendar as coping mechanism to climate variability:

A case study of maize farming in northern Benin, West Africa

Rosaine N. Yegbemey, Humayun Kabir, Oyémonbadé H.R. Awoyé, Jacob A.

Yabi, Armand A. Paraïso

PII: S2212-0963(14)00017-5
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2014.04.001
Reference: CRM 13

To appear in: Climate Risk Management

Please cite this article as: R.N. Yegbemey, H. Kabir, O.H.R. Awoyé, J.A. Yabi, A.A. Paraïso, Managing the
agricultural calendar as coping mechanism to climate variability: A case study of maize farming in northern Benin,
West Africa, Climate Risk Management (2014), doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2014.04.001

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers
we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and
review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process
errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
Managing the agricultural calendar as coping mechanism to climate variability: A case
study of maize farming in northern Benin, West Africa

Rosaine N. Yegbemey1,2,*; Humayun Kabir1,3 ; Oyémonbadé H.R. Awoyé4; Jacob A. Yabi2;

Armand A. Paraïso5

1
: Institute of Project and Regional Planning, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, Nutritional Sciences,
and Environmental Management, Justus-Liebig University of Giessen, Senckenbergstrasse 3, D-
35390, Giessen, Germany.
2
: Département d’Economie et Sociologie Rurales, Faculté d’Agronomie, Université de Parakou; BP:
123 Parakou, République du Bénin.
3
: Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh-2202, Bangladesh.
4
: Institute of Geography and Geology; Physical Geography; Julius-Maximilians-University of
Wuerzburg; Am Hubland, D-97074, Germany.
5
: Département de Techniques de Production Végétale, Faculté d’Agronomie, Université de Parakou;
BP: 123 Parakou, République du Bénin.
*: Corresponding author: [email protected] or [email protected]
Managing the agricultural calendar as coping mechanism to climate variability: A case
study of maize farming in northern Benin, West Africa

Abstract
Nowadays climate variability and change are amongst the most important threats to
sustainable development, with potentially severe consequences on agriculture in developing
countries. Among many available coping mechanisms, farmers adjust some of their farming
practices. This article aims at exploring observed changes in the agricultural calendar as a
response to climate variability in northern Benin. Interviews with local experts (agricultural
extension officers and local leaders such as heads of farmer and village organisations) and
group discussions with farmers were organised. A household survey was also conducted on
336 maize producers to highlight the factors affecting decisions to adjust the agricultural
calendar as a coping mechanism against climate variability. As a general trend, the duration of
the cropping season in northern Benin is getting longer with slight differences among and
within agro-ecological zones, implying a higher risk of operating under time-inefficient
conditions. Farmers receive very limited support from agricultural extension services and
therefore design their agricultural calendar on the basis of personal experience. Socio-
economic characteristics, maize farming characteristics as well as farm location determine the
decision to adjust the agricultural calendar. Consequently, providing farmers with climate
related information could ensure a rational and time-efficient management of the agricultural
calendar. Moreover, research and extension institutions should help in establishing and
popularising clear agricultural calendars while taking into account the driving forces of
behaviours towards the adjustment of farming practices as a climate variability response.

Key words: Climate variability, coping mechanism, agricultural calendar, farmers’

behaviours, driving forces, Benin.
1. Introduction
There is increasing evidence that both climate variability and climate change will strongly
affect the African continent and will be among the most challenging issues for future
development, particularly in the drier regions [1]. Several studies have concluded that
agriculture in Africa will be negatively affected by climate change [2,3,4,5]. In Benin,
agriculture depends heavily on rainfall and whether in the short or long term, climate
variability is acting negatively on yields and production [6]. Exploring the relationships
between climate and agricultural production in Benin using predictions from high-resolution
regional climate model, Paeth et al. [7] projected a decrease in agricultural production - with
respect to most crops of 5 to 20%. Adger et al. [8] and Kurukulasuriya and Mendelsohn [9]
state that adaptation is one of the policy options for reducing the negative impact of climate
change, while Mendelsohn et al. [10] note that famers will be especially hard hit if they do not
adjust at all to new climates.
Adaptation to climate change refers to adjustment in natural or human systems in response to
actual or expected climatic stimuli [11]. It helps farmers to achieve their food, income and
livelihood security objectives in a context of changing climatic and socioeconomic conditions
[12]. Common adaptation methods in agriculture include the use of new crop varieties and
livestock species that are better suited to drier conditions, irrigation, crop diversification,
adoption of mixed crop and livestock farming systems, and changes in agricultural activity
dates [13,14,15,16]. Some of these methods (e.g. changes in agricultural activity dates)
undertaken in response to short-term climate variability are classified as coping responses.
Considering the strategies developed by farmers for coping with climate variability, a large
number of studies [14,15,16] have reported changes in sowing dates. Nevertheless, there is no
literature on how exactly the agricultural calendar is currently moving. Whereas it is
acknowledged that seasons and even agro-ecological zones are shifting due to climate change,
there is still no investigation with the focus on how farmers adjust their whole agricultural
calendar in face of climate variability. Thus, this paper aims at exploring observed changes in
the agricultural calendar as a response to climate variability in northern Benin. It also attempts
to highlight the factors affecting the farmers’ decision to adjust their agricultural calendar as
coping mechanism against climate variability.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Study zone, sampling and data
The study took place in northern Benin, located between 8.30° and 12.20° North, and 1.00°
and 3.90° East. This region is expected to be more affected by projected climate change than
the southern part of the country [17]. There are four distinct agro-ecological zones in northern
Benin. The sampling took into account one municipality per agro-ecological zone (Figure 1)
and two villages per municipality. The choice of municipalities and the villages was made
with the support of agricultural extension officers, based on the importance of the agricultural
production.

INSERT FIGURE 1

The study was conducted through interviews with local experts (agricultural extension
officers and local leaders such as the heads of farmer and village organisations), group
interviews with farmers, and a household survey. Interviews with local experts were aimed at
discussing the suitability of the agricultural calendar adjustment as a climate variability
coping mechanism and identifying a list of its major socio-economic drivers. Group
interviews with farmers from the selected villages were aimed at cross-checking the
information obtained from the local experts and the household interviews, and understanding
changes in the agricultural calendar and their drivers.
The household survey, which was conducted with a questionnaire, was aimed at collecting
primary data for assessing the factors which influence decisions to adjust the agricultural
calendar as coping mechanisms against climate variability. The scope of the questionnaire
covered information related to the farmers perceptions of and mechanisms for coping with
climate variability, and the decision to adjust the agricultural calendar as a climate variability
response. As well, the socio-economic characteristics (i.e. age, educational level, experience
in agriculture, contact with extension service, organisation membership, access to credit, and
land ownership) and some farming system characteristics, including the farm location were
also considered. Since maize is expected to be more affected by climate change [17], the
study respondents were maize producers. A total of 336 maize producers were randomly
selected for individual interviews. The collected data were analyzed with the statistical
softwares SPSS 19 and STATA 11.
2.2. Empirical modelling of farmers’ decision to adjust the agricultural calendar
Choices or behaviours towards the decision to adopt agricultural technologies, innovations or
new practices are explored by using the Multinomial Logit (MNL) or the Multinomial Probit
(MNP) models [14,16,19,20]. Both models are appropriate for evaluating alternative
combinations of choices, including single choices [14,19,20]. In these models, the dependent
variable is the set of choices (strategies or options) defined as one variable with multiple
modalities. Since this study focuses only on the decision to adjust the agricultural calendar in
a context of climate variability, the dependent variable is rather a binary process defined as
"1" if the farmer decided to adjust or "0" otherwise. Following Paraïso et al. [21], a simple
logistic regression (Logit or Probit) is sufficient to model the probability for a farmer to move
from "0" (decision not to adjust) to "1" (decision to adjust).
Previous studies have analyzed factors affecting choices in crop, livestock and mixed crop-
livestock production systems in Africa at regional or local levels [18,8,16]. Following the
findings of these studies, farmers’ socio-economic characteristics play important roles in the
decision-making process. In addition, we assumed that the farming system characteristics (e.g.
land under cultivation, labour, and capital) and the farm location (agro-ecological zone for
instance) could also determine the decision to adjust the agricultural calendar as climate
variability response. This implies that the decision (D) whether to adjust the agricultural
calendar is a function of three major driving forces: the socio-economic characteristics (Z),
the characteristics of the maize farming system (Y), and the farm locations (W), expressed by:

D = (Z, Y, W) [1]

Considering j farmers’ socio-economic characteristics, j’ characteristics of the maize farming

system, and j’’ farm locations, the model is represented by the equation:

d = α +  β z +  δ y +  θ w + u

  
[2]

where d i is the decision of the ith farmer to adjust the agricultural calendar as a mechanism for
coping with climate variability; α0 is a constant term; β, δ, and θ are parameters (coefficients
of the explanatory variables Z, Y, and W, respectively) to be estimated, and u is the error
term. In this model, we note that:
 1 if α +  β z +  δ y +  θ w + u > 0
d =  &
 


0 otherwise
[3]

The parameters α, β, and δ were estimated by using a Probit model based on the Maximum
Likelihood method [22]. What matter in such estimation are the signs and magnitudes of the
parameters and their levels of statistical significance. A positive (or negative) sign indicates
that the explanatory variable under consideration is positively (or negatively) correlated with
the decision to adjust the agricultural calendar as a mechanism for coping with climate
variability. This simply implies that the explanatory variable is a factor that increases
(decreases) the likelihood (probability) of a farmer adjusting the agricultural calendar. The
level of significance is the probability of rejecting the null hypothesis (e.g. βj=0) when it is
true.

2.3. Selection of the explanatory variables and hypotheses to be tested

The choice of the explanatory variables (Z, Y, and W) presented in Table 1 was determined
by hypotheses stated in the literature and personal observations in the study zone.

The set of socio economic characteristics (Z)

- Age: Older farmers produce for self sufficiency. Consequently, they might be less likely to
consider climate variability and to cope with it [23]. Thus, we expect that older farmers
are less likely to adjust their agricultural calendars as climate variability response.
- Educational level: Educated farmers are more likely to respond to climate change by
making at least one adaptation [18,16]. So, we hypothesize that a higher level of education
will be positively correlated with the decision to adjust an agricultural calendar.
- Experience in agriculture: Farmers who have many years of farming experience have
interacted much with the climate in relation to their farming activities and, therefore, have
good knowledge of environmental factors as they relate to their farming operations [24].
As well they are more likely to adapt [16]. Thus we hypothesize that the experience in
agriculture will be positively correlated with the decision to adjust an agricultural
calendar.
- Contact with extension service: Farmers who have benefited from extension services are
likely to adapt [17]. Accordingly, we hypothesize that the contact with extension service
will affect positively the farmers’ decision to cope with climate variability.
- Farmers’ organisation membership: In rural areas, farmer organisations are powerful
information channels through which farmers exchange knowledge and experiences. Thus,
we hypothesize that membership of a farmers organisation might be positively correlated
with the decision to adjust the agricultural calendar.
- Access to credit: Access to credit is a key determinant of farmers’ decision [25]. We
hypothesize that access to credit enhances financial capital and enables famers to cope
with climate variability.
- Land ownership: Land ownership provides farmers with land security and has a positive
effect on the decision to adapt [16]. Thus, we assume that the land ownership is positively
correlated with the decision to adjust the agricultural calendar as climate variability
response.

The set of farm system characteristics (Y)

We made the assumption that with respect to climatic risk, farmers are risk averse agents
[26,27,28,29]. In addition, we also assumed that 1) farmers do not have any information on
the climate predictions or forecasts and 2) have no alternative activities to meet both food and
cash needs. Considering such frame, we derived the hypotheses related to the farming system
characteristics as follow:
- Land under maize cultivation: We hypothesize that, if farm size is increasing, the maize
production is likely to be more exposed to climate variability. Thus, larger farms are more
likely to respond to climate variability by adjusting the agricultural calendar.
- Household size: Bigger households have more labour available for performing agricultural
activities. So, we hypothesize that bigger households are more flexible in terms of
undertaking changes of the agricultural calendar.
- Rotation/Association: Farmers applying crop rotation/association consider the use of more
crop varieties in the production system. They are more risk averse and then more likely to
cope with climate variability by adjusting the agricultural calendar.
- Capital: The more farmers invest capital in the production, the more they will take
initiative to secure their investments by coping with climate variability. Thus, we assume
that the capital invested is positively correlated with the decision to adjust the agricultural
calendar.
The set of farm location variables (W)
Here we consider only the agro-ecological zones, each considered as one dummy variable.
Given that climate variability is not occurring only in one particular agro-ecological zone, we
expect a positive correlation between each agro-ecological zone and the farmers’ decision to
adjust the agricultural calendar as climate variability response.

INSERT TABLE 1

3. Results
3.1. Descriptive statistics of primary data
Descriptive statistics of quantitative and qualitative primary data are summarized in Table 2
and Table 3, respectively. On average, the respondents were about 40 years old. The level of
education was very low (3 years of primary school on average). The respondents were well
experienced in agriculture. Indeed, the average experience was twenty-two years. The contact
with extension dealing with climate variability issue was low (only 18% of the respondents).
About 71% and 22% of the respondents belonged to at least one farmer organization and had
access to credit, respectively. The number of respondents per agro-ecological zone was about
eighty.
Considering the maize farming characteristics, the average size of maize farms in the study
zones was 6.98 (± 5.09) hectares. On average, the household was composed of 13 people (±
8.45). The main inputs involved in maize farming were land, labour and capital to access
fertilizers, pesticides, additional labour, etc. On average, the respondents spent per year
Francs CFA1 773,889 (± 450,440), which constituted the maize farming capital.

INSERT TABLE 2

INSERT TABLE 3

3.2. Adjusting the agricultural calendar as a climate variability response

All of the respondents mentioned that they have perceived climate variability. The farmers’
perception of climate variability was mainly related to uncertainty in changes to rainfall
patterns, especially the onset of the rainy season and the temporal distribution of rainfall. To
some extent, many strategies are developed by farmers as climate variability coping

1
Code ISO 4217 : XOF
mechanisms. Among other strategies, farmers could diversify their crops (87% of the
respondents), implement some land use management strategies (15% of the respondents) or
adjust some farming practices (93% of the respondents).
The agricultural calendar adjustment belongs to the last group of climate variability coping
mechanisms. Implemented by 84% of the respondents, it aims at changing the dates of the
farming activities to coincide with the rainy season. In northern Benin, agriculture in general
and maize farming in particular are rainfed-based activities. Therefore, adjusting the
agricultural calendar becomes an important means to cope with climate variability.

3.3. Management of the agricultural calendar as coping mechanism to climate

variability
In terms of agricultural calendar adjustment, farmers mainly change land preparation and
sowing dates. Due to the fact that all the remaining activities depend on the sowing date, they
also moved the dates of other activities either forward or backward with respect to the former
calendar (Figures 2 to 9). Because of uncertainties related to climate variability, farmers have
to start land preparation activities earlier to be ready in case the onset of the rainy season
occurs earlier. As well, they have to use strategies such as double sowing2 in case they faced
dry spells shortly after the first sowing which took place at the onset of the rainy season.
Regardless of the type of adjustment, most of the farmers designed their agricultural calendar
by themselves, relying on personal experience. Despite the existence of agricultural extension
services, farmers receive limited support from them concerning the management of the
agricultural calendar in the face of climate variability.
To explore the observed changes in the agricultural calendar as a response to climate
variability, the study focused on five agricultural activities defined with local experts
(agricultural extension officers and local leaders). These activities are land preparation,
sowing (including double sowing in some cases), weeding, fertilizing, and harvesting. Land
preparation generally took place at the beginning of the rainy season, with well loosened
ridges or furrows 15 to 30 cm deep, which ensure that maize plants are sufficiently exposed to
light in order to obtain higher yields [30]. Sowing activities were achieved at 3 to 4 cm depth,
with 0.80 m spacing between rows and 0.50 m between pockets. In northern Benin, maize is
sown from late May to early July. In general, the onset and the length of the rainy season, the
amount of rainfall and the temporal distribution of rainfall events are highly variable. This

2
Double sowing consists of a second round of sowing after the first. This becomes necessary when farmers
notice that the first sowing was not successful due water stresses (i.e. lack of rainfall) or other factors such as
floods or livestock grazing.
requires farmers to make staggered plantings and even to modify their production
expectations and forecasts. In this prospect, some farmers practice double sowing.
To ensure good growth and development of maize plants, two to three manual weedings are
necessary: the first weeding is undertaken two to three weeks after sowing, the second, at the
time of urea’s intake, and the third one before the harvest when the plot is very weedy. Some
of the maize growers use herbicides to control weeds on their plots. After sowing and before
the lifting of maize, the field is treated with a pre-emergent herbicide as Primagram Gold 660
SC (S-metolachlor 290 g/l + atrazine 370 g/l) at a dose of 3 l/ha. During the development of
the plants, Roundup (Glyphosate 360 g/l) is used at 1 l/ha dose, while preserving the leaf
system of the plant against the product. Fertilization depends on the requirements of the
variety and the soil conditions. Immediately after the first weeding, it brings 200 kg/ha of
NPK and 50 kg or 25 kg of urea and just after the second weeding 50 kg/ha of urea. Chemical
insecticides are used to control pests. However, preventive protection by appropriate farming
practices such as regular weeding or the seedling of resistant varieties is preferable.
Ears of maize are harvested fresh or dry with the husks or feldspars according to the use. Dry
ears are harvested when the husks of the spur have yellowed and the leaves are drying. The
ears are collected from 60-75 days after planting for early varieties and 75 to 85 days for late
varieties. Yields varied from 0.8 T/ha to 1.5 T/ha for traditional culture; 2 T/ha to 3 T/ha for
the improved culture and 4T/ha to 6T/ha in research stations. These activities lead to an
extension of the cropping season.

INSERT FIGURES 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9

3.4. Driving forces of the decision to adjust the agricultural calendar

The key factors determining the decision to adjust the agricultural calendar are reported in
Table 4. The results show the Probit regression model to be highly significant (P < 0.01),
implying an appropriate goodness of fit. About 33% of the variations in the decision to adjust
the agricultural calendar were explained by variations in the explanatory factors used in the
model. Age, contact with extension services, land under maize, crop rotation/association,
capital, and the agro-ecological zones were the main factors determining the adoption of
agricultural calendar adjustment as a mechanism for coping with climate variability. Variables
such as level of education, experience in agriculture, farmers’ organisation membership,
access to credit, land ownership and household size had no significant effects on the farmers’
decision to cope with climate variability.
INSERT TABLE 4

4. Discussion
The history of agriculture reflects that farmers have undertaken a series of adaptations to a
wide range of climate, social and agronomic factors [31]. They have been able, to a large
extent, to develop their livelihood strategies in a way that enables them to constantly cope
with climate variability, severe pest attacks, and changing policies at local, national, and
global levels [32].
The changes in farming activities dates, especially the sowing date is widely reported in the
literature on climate change adaptation [14,15,16,18]. Once the sowing date has been
changed, the whole agricultural calendar is adjusted. The observed changes in the agricultural
calendar as a response to climate variability reveal that the cropping season is getting longer
because farmers have to start the land preparation activities earlier while the onset of the rainy
season might occur later than usual. In Benin and Sub-Saharan West Africa in general,
farmers indeed tend to sow maize after the first main rainfall (> 20 mm) occurring at the start
of the rainy season [33,34]. Given the high climate variability, farmers usually face dry spells
after the first sowing. To deal with this lack of rains, they practice a second sowing. As a
result, the duration of the cropping season lasts longer than usual, posing the issue of time-
inefficiency.
At present, adjustments to the agricultural calendar do not seem consistent across locations.
This finding could be explained by the fact that the villages belong to different agro-
ecological zones. Nevertheless, even within the same agro-ecological zone, the adjustments
are sometimes slightly different. Indeed, the distribution of rainfall is not likely to be spatially
homogeneous across a given agro-ecological zone (e.g. it rains on farmer-A’s farm but not on
farmer-B’s although the 2 farms are less than 10 km far away from each other and in the same
agro-ecological zone). This also explains the observed adjustment differences either among or
within agro-ecological zones. The findings indicate also that there are no guidelines towards
the management of the agricultural calendar under climate variability conditions as reported
by the agricultural extension officers.

Socio-economic characteristics and behaviours towards the agricultural calendar adjustment

The farmers’ socio-economic characteristics affect their decision to cope with climate
variability through the adjustment of the agricultural calendar. The farmer’s age for instance
is negatively correlated (P < 0.05) with the decision to adjust the agricultural calendar. Older
farmers have less land and most of the time, produce for self sufficiency [23]. Thus, they
show less interest in coping with climate variability. Additionally, they rely on external
support (e.g. food and cash) through their relatives. As expected, farmers who benefited from
extension services are likely to adjust their agricultural calendar. Indeed, contact with
extension was positively correlated to the farmer’s decision to adjust the agricultural calendar
(P < 0.05).

Maize farming characteristics and behaviours towards the agricultural calendar adjustment
The land under maize cultivation was negatively correlated with the farmer’s decision to
adjust the agricultural calendar (P < 0.05). This unexpected result might be explained by the
fact that larger maize producers keep the former agricultural calendar and use the double
sowing strategy which limits the potential losses after the first sowing. Farmers applying crop
rotation/association are likely to adjust their agricultural calendar to cope with climate
variability (P < 0.05). By adopting the rotation/association system, farmers are more
constrained to adapt to rainfall variability in order to reduce the risk of losing the production
of all crops.
The total amount of capital invested in maize farming was positively correlated with the
farmer’s decision to adjust the agricultural calendar (p < 0.01). Following the producer theory,
farmers aim at maximising the output under the inputs constraints. The more farmers invest in
the production, the more they are likely to adjust their system to climate variability. Again,
farmers are not likely to be neutral to risk and actually tend to be risk averse agents [35,36].
Therefore, as long as farmers increase the capital invested in the production process, they set
out strategies (e.g. adjustments to the agricultural calendar) so that they could be able to make
the maximum profit at the end of the production.

Farm location and behaviours towards the agricultural calendar adjustment

All the agro-ecological zones had positive and significant effects on the farmers’ decision to
adjust the agricultural calendar, which was due to the fact that climate variability was
occurring in all agro-ecological zones.

Level of education, experience in agriculture, farmers’ organisation membership, access to

credit, land ownership, and household size are mixed socio-economic characteristics with
different but no significant effects on the farmer’s decision to adjust the agricultural calendar
(P > 0.10).
5. Conclusion
Given climate variability, farmers develop coping mechanisms such as adjusting some of their
farming practices. Farmers in northern Benin adjust among other measures, the agricultural
calendar as a response to climate variability. They design their agricultural calendar by
relying on personal experience. Due to climate variability, the duration of the cropping season
is getting longer with slight differences among or within agro-ecological zones. As a result,
the risk for farmers to be operating under time inefficient calendar conditions becomes higher.
Socio-economic characteristics, maize farming characteristics and farm location are found to
be driving forces of the decision to adjust the agricultural calendar as mechanism for coping
with climate variability. These findings suggest that providing farmers with climate related
information could help to ensuring rational and time-efficient management of the agricultural
calendar. As well, research and extension institutions should help in designing clear
agricultural calendars to be based on the driving forces of farmers’ behaviours towards the
adjustment of their farming practices as a climate variability response.
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) for its financial
support. We thank Ghislain Aihouton and Michel Atchikpa for helping in data collection, and
the three anonymous reviewers for their relevant suggestions and comments. We are also
grateful to Gerald Forkuor for his contribution and finally, to Prof. Dr. Siegfried Bauer for his
scientific support.
References
[1] N. Adger, S. Agrawala, M.M.Q. Mirza, C. Conde, K. O’Brien, J. Pulhin, R. Pulwarty, B.
Smit, T. Takahashi, Assessment of adaptation practices, options, constraints and
capacity. In: Parry ML, Canziani OF, Palutikof JP, van der Linden PJ, Hanson CE (eds)
Climate Change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of Working
Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp 717–743.
[2] D. Pearce, W. Cline, A. Achanta, S. Fankhauser, R. Pachauri, R. Tol, P. Vellinga, The
social costs of climate change: greenhouse damage and benefits of control. In: Bruce, J.
Lee, H. Haites, E. (Eds.), Climate Change, 1995: Economic and Social Dimensions of
Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
[3] J. McCarthy, O.F. Canziani, N.A. Leary, D.J. Dokken, C. White, C. (Eds.), Climate
Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group
II to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
2001. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
[4] J. Christensen, B.C. Hewitson, L.O. Mearns, Regional Climate Projections. In Climate
Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis: Contribution of Working Group I to the
Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. S.
Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning (Eds), 2007. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
UK.
[5] C. Müller, W. Cramer, W.L. Hare, H. Lotze-Campen, Climate change risks for African
agriculture. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
America 108 (2011): 4313–4315.
[6] N. Aho, M. Boko, A. Afouda, Evaluation concertée de la vulnérabilité aux variations
actuelles du climat et aux phénomènes météorologiques extrêmes. 2006, PANA/Bénin.
93p.
[7] H. Paeth, A. Capo-Chichi, W. Endlicher, Climate change and food security in tropical
West Africa – A dynamic-statistical modeling approach. Erdkunde Vol. 62(2008): 101-
115.
[8] W.N. Adger, S. Huq, K. Brown, D. Conway, M. Hulme, Adaptation to climate change in
the developing world. Progress in Development Studies 3(2003): 179–195.
[9] P. Kurukulasuriya, R. Mendelsohn, A Ricardian analysis of the impact of climate change
on African cropland. CEEPA Discussion Paper No. 8 (2006). Centre for Environmental
Economics and Policy in Africa, University of Pretoria.
[10] R. Mendelsohn, W. Nordhaus, D. Shaw, The Impact of Global Warming on Agriculture:
A Ricardian Analysis, American Economic Review 84(1994): 753-771.
[11] IPCC, 2001. Climate Change 2001. Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution
of Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change.WMO for Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, UK.
[12] M. Kandlinkar, J. Risbey, Agricultural impacts of climate change: If adaptation is the
answer, what is the question? Climatic Change 45(2000): 529–39.
[13] B. Bradshaw, H. Dolan, B. Smit, Farm-Level Adaptation to Climatic Variability and
Change: Crop Diversification in the Canadian Prairies. Climatic Change 67(2004): 119–
141.
[14] C. Nhemachena, R. Hassan, Micro-Level Analysis of Farmers’ Adaptation to Climate
Change in Southern Africa. IFPRI Discussion Paper No. 00714 (2007). International
Food Policy Research Institute. Washington DC.
[15] P.C. Gnanglè, J.A. Yabi, N.R. Yegbemey, L.R. Glèlè Kakaï, N. Sokpon, Rentabilité
économique des systèmes de production des parcs à Karité dans le contexte de
l’adaptation au changement climatique du Nord-Bénin. African Crop Science Journal,
Vol. 20 (2012), Issue Supplement s2, pp. 589 – 602.
[16] R.N Yegbemey, J.A. Yabi, D.S. Tovignan, G. Gantoli, S.E.H. Kokoye, Farmers’
Decisions to Adapt to Climate Change under Various Property Rights: A Case Study of
Maize Farming in Northern Benin (West Africa). Land Use Policy, (2013). DOI:
10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.03.001. In press.
[17] MEHU, Deuxième Communication Nationale de la République du Bénin sur les
Changements Climatique. Bénin, 2001, MEHU, Cotonou. 168 p.
[18] Maddison, D., The perception and adaptation to climate change in Africa. CEEPA
Discussion Paper No 10 (2006). Centre for Environmental Economics and Policy in
Africa, University of Pretoria, South Africa.
[19] J. Hausman, D. Wise, A conditional probit model for qualitative choice: Discrete
decisions recognizing interdependence and heterogeneous preferences. Econometrica
46(1978): 403–26.
[20] J. Wu, B.A. Babcock, The choice of tillage, rotation, and soil testing practices: Economic
and environmental implications. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 80(1998):
494–511.
[21] A.A. Paraïso, G.C.A. Sossou, Iz-H. Daouda, N.R. Yegbemey, A. Sanni, Perceptions and
adaptations of beekeepers and honey hunters to climate change: The case of Natitingou
and Tanguiéta in Northwest of Benin. African Crop Science Journal, Vol. 20(2012),
Issue Supplement s2, pp. 527 - 536.
[22] D.N. Gujarati, Basic Econometrics, Fourth Edition. 2004. The McGraw−Hill Companies.
New-York, pp 602.
[23] R.T. Walker, A. Homma, Land Use and Land Cover Dynamics in the Brazilian Amazon:
An Overview. Ecological Economics 18(1996):67–80.
[24] Ofuoku, A.U., Rural farmers’ perception of climate change in central agricultural zone of
Delta state, Nigeria. Indonesian Journal of Agricultural Science 12(2), 2011: 63-69.
[25] R. Shahidur, M. Sharma, M. Zeller, Micro-lending for small farmers in Bangladesh: does
it affect farm households’ land allocation decision? Markets and Structural Studies
Division. International Food Policy Research Institute. MSSD discussion paper No.
45(2002).
[26] J.M. Antle, Econometric estimation of producers' risk attitudes. American Journal of
Agricultural Economics 69(1987): 509–522.
[27] Z. Bar-Shira, R.E. Just, D. Zilberman, Estimation of farmers' risk attitude: an
econometric approach. Agricultural Economics 17(1997): 211–222.
[28] J.P. Chavas, M.T. Holt, Acreage decisions under risk: the case of corn and soybeans.
American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72(1990): 529–538.
[29] D.A. Hennessy, The production effects of agricultural income support policies under
uncertainty. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 80(1998): 46–57.
[30] M. Escalante-Ten Hoopen, A. Maïga, Production et transformation du maïs. La
collection Pro-Agro est une coédition d’Ingénieurs Sans Frontières Cameroun (ISF
Cameroun) et du Centre technique de coopération agricole et rurale (CTA). 2012, ISBN
du CTA: 978-92-9081-494-8.
[31] E. Wall, B. Smit, 2005. Climate Change Adaptation in Light of Sustainable Agriculture.
Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 27(1): 113-123.
[32] O. Mertz, C. Mbow, A. Reenberg, A. Diouf, Farmers' perceptions of climate change and
agricultural adaptation strategies in rural Sahel. Environmental Management 43(2009):
804–816.
[33] P.B.I. Akponikpè, B. Gérard, K. Michels, C.L. Bielders, Use of the APSIM model in
long term simulation to support decision making regarding nitrogen management for
pearl millet in the Sahel. European Journal of Agronomy 32(2010):144-154.
[34] E.K. Agbossou, C. Toukon, P.B.I. Akponikpè, A. Afouda, Climate variability and
implications for maize production in Benin: A stochastic rainfall analysis. African Crop
Science Journal 20 (2012), Issue Supplement s2, 493 – 503.
[35] T. Serra, D. Zilberman, B.K. Goodwin, A.M. Featherstone, Effects of decoupling on the
mean and variability of output. European Review of Agricultural Economics 33(2006):
269–288.
[36] M. Yesuf, R. Bluffstone, Risk aversion in low income countries, experimental evidence
from Ethiopia. IFPRI Discussion Paper 00715 (2007).
Figures

Figure 1: Study area

Note:
AEZ: Agro-Ecological Zone
AEZ 1= Zone extrême Nord-Bénin
AEZ 2= Zone cotonnière du Nord-Bénin
AEZ 3= Zone vivrière zone du Sud-Borgou
AEZ 4= Zone Ouest-Atacora
AEZ 5= = Zone cotonnière du Centre-Bénin
AEZ 6= Zone des terres de barre
AEZ 7= Zone de dépression
AEZ 8= Zone des pêcheries
Agro-ecological zone 1, Municipality of Malanville
Land
prepara
tion
First
sowing
Second
sowing
First
weedin
g
Second
weedin
g
Third
weedin
g
Fertiliz
ing
Harves
ting
Janu Febru Mar Ap M Ju Ju Aug Septe Octo Nove Dece
ary ary ch ril ay ne ly ust mber ber mber mber
Note: Former agricultural calendar (Before 2007)
Current agricultural calendar (2011-2012)
Figure 2: Agricultural calendar in the Village of Isséné (11.73° N; 3.19° E)

Land
prepara
tion
First
sowing
Second
sowing
First
weedin
g
Second
weedin
g
Third
weedin
g
Fertiliz
20
ing
Harves
ting
Janu Febru Mar Ap M Ju Ju Aug Septe Octo Nove Dece
ary ary ch ril ay ne ly ust mber ber mber mber
Note: Former agricultural calendar (Before 2007)
Current agricultural calendar (2011-2012)
Figure 3: Agricultural calendar in the Village of Kora-Tèdji (11.77° N; 3.23° E)

21
Agro-ecological zone 2, Municipality of Banikoara
Land
prepara
tion
First
sowing
Second
sowing
First
weedin
g
Second
weedin
g
Third
weedin
g
Fertiliz
ing
Harves
ting
Janu Febru Mar Ap M Ju Ju Aug Septe Octo Nove Dece
ary ary ch ril ay ne ly ust mber ber mber mber
Note: Former agricultural calendar (Before 2007)
Current agricultural calendar (2011-2012)
Figure 4: Agricultural calendar in the Village of Bouhanrou (11.36° N; 2.47° E)

Land
prepara
tion
First
sowing
Second
sowing
First
weedin
g
Second
weedin
g
Third
weedin
g
Fertiliz
22
ing
Harves
ting
Janu Febru Mar Ap M Ju Ju Aug Septe Octo Nove Dece
ary ary ch ril ay ne ly ust mber ber mber mber
Note: Former agricultural calendar (Before 2007)
Current agricultural calendar (2011-2012)
Figure 5: Agricultural calendar in the Village of Ounet (11.22° N; 2.40° E)

23
Agro-ecological zone 3, Municipality of Bembèrèkè
Land
prepara
tion
First
sowing
Second
sowing
First
weedin
g
Second
weedin
g
Third
weedin
g
Fertiliz
ing
Harves
ting
Janu Febru Mar Ap M Ju Ju Aug Septe Octo Nove Dece
ary ary ch ril ay ne ly ust mber ber mber mber
Note: Former agricultural calendar (Before 2007)
Current agricultural calendar (2011-2012)
Figure 6: Agricultural calendar in the Village of Guéré (10.23° N; 2.67° E)

24
Land
prepara
tion
First
sowing
Second
sowing
First
weedin
g
Second
weedin
g
Third
weedin
g
Fertiliz
ing
Harves
ting
Janu Febru Mar Ap M Ju Ju Aug Septe Octo Nove Dece
ary ary ch ril ay ne ly ust mber ber mber mber
Note: Former agricultural calendar (Before 2007)
Current agricultural calendar (2011-2012)
Figure 7: Agricultural calendar in the Village of Pédarou (10.30° N; 2.70° E)

25
Agro-ecological zone 4, Municipality of Natitingou
Land
prepara
tion
First
sowing
Second
sowing
First
weedin
g
Second
weedin
g
Third
weedin
g
Fertiliz
ing
Harves
ting
Janu Febru Mar Ap M Ju Ju Aug Septe Octo Nove Dece
ary ary ch ril ay ne ly ust mber ber mber mber
Note: Former agricultural calendar (Before 2007)
Current agricultural calendar (2011-2012)
Figure 8: Agricultural calendar in the Village of Pam-Pam (10.08° N; 1.48° E)

26
Land
prepara
tion
First
sowing
Second
sowing
First
weedin
g
Second
weedin
g
Third
weedin
g
Fertiliz
ing
Harves
ting
Janu Febru Mar Ap M Ju Ju Aug Septe Octo Nove Dece
ary ary ch ril ay ne ly ust mber ber mber mber
Note: Former agricultural calendar (Before 2007)
Current agricultural calendar (2011-2012)
Figure 9: Agricultural calendar in the Village of Takonta (10.03° N; 1.34° E)

27
Tables

Table 1: Explanatory variables considered in the model

Variables Types Modalities
Socio-economic characteristics (Z)
Age (years) Continuous --
Level of education (school years) Continuous --
Experience in agriculture (years) Continuous --
Contact with extension Discontinous No = 0 ; Yes = 1
Farmers organisation membership Discontinous No = 0 ; Yes = 1
Access to credit Discontinous No = 0 ; Yes = 1
Land ownership Discontinous No = 0 ; Yes = 1
Maize farming characteristics (Y)
Land under maize (hectare) Continuous --
Household size (person) Continuous --
Rotation/Association Discontinous No = 0 ; Yes = 1
Capital (francs cfa) Continuous --
Farm locations (W)
Agro-ecological zone 1 Discontinous No = 0 ; Yes = 1
Agro-ecological zone 2 Discontinous No = 0 ; Yes = 1
Agro-ecological zone 3 Discontinous No = 0 ; Yes = 1
Agro-ecological zone 4 Discontinous No = 0 ; Yes = 1

28
Table 2: Descriptive statistics of quantitative primary data
Characteristics Mean Standard deviation
Age (years) 39.52 11.97
Level of education (school years) 3.27 4.02
Experience in agriculture (years) 21.77 11.65
Land under maize (hectare) 6.98 5.09
Household size (person) 12.59 8.45
Capital (francs cfa) 773888.9 450440.3
Note: Francs CFA 655.95 = Euro 1.

Table 3: Descriptive statistics of qualitative primary data

Characteristics Absolute frequency Relative frequency (%)
Contact with extension 56 18.18
Farmers organisation membership 219 71.10
Access to credit 66 21.43
Land ownership 267 86.69
Rotation/Association 202 66.01
Agro-ecological zone 1 86 25.60
Agro-ecological zone 2 84 25.00
Agro-ecological zone 3 83 24.70
Agro-ecological zone 4 83 24.70
Note: Absolute frequency of variable x is the number of respondents for which x is
applicable. Relative frequency is of variable x is the share of respondents for which x is
applicable. It is the absolute frequency of x normalized by the total number of respondents.

29
Table 4: Results of the Probit model
Variables Coefficient Std. Err. Z P>z
Socio-economic characteristics (Z)
Age -0.036** 0.018 -2.03 0.042
Level of education -0.246 0.154 -1.59 0.111
Experience in agriculture -0.001 0.018 -0.11 0.914
Contact with extension 1.361** 0.639 2.13 0.033
Farmers organisation membership -0.807 0.559 -1.44 0.149
Access to credit 0.090 0.376 0.24 0.810
Land ownership 0.235 0.374 0.63 0.530
Maize farming characteristics (Y)
Land under maize -0.114** 0.057 -1.98 0.047
Household size 0.245 0.277 0.89 0.376
Rotation/Association 0.908** 0.390 2.32 0.020
Capital 2.43e-06*** 9.66e-07 2.52 0.012
Farm locations (W)
Agro-ecological zone 1 1.728*** 0.554 3.12 0.002
Agro-ecological zone 2 2.123*** 0.613 3.46 0.001
Agro-ecological zone 3 1.309** 0.607 2.16 0.031
Agro-ecological zone 4 (omitted) -- --
Constant term 0.503 0.941 0.53 0.593
Model summary LR chi2(14) = 51.38; Prob > chi2 = 0.0000; Pseudo R2 =
0.3251
*, **, ***: significant at 10% (0.05 < p < 0.10), 5% (0.01 < p < 0.05), and 1% (p < 0.01), respectively.

30
• We explored changes to the farming calendar as response to climate variability.
• We investigated factors affecting decisions to adjust the calendar.
• The cropping season duration in northern Benin is getting longer:
• Changes imply a higher risk to operate under time-inefficient conditions.
• Different variables determine changes to the agricultural calendar in northern Benin.

31