Cogent Food & Agriculture ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/oafa20 Climate variability indicators - scientific data versus farmers perception; evidence from southern Ghana Daniel Adu Ankrah, Jojo Mensah, Jonathan Nicholas Anaglo & Seth Dankyi Boateng To cite this article: Daniel Adu Ankrah, Jojo Mensah, Jonathan Nicholas Anaglo & Seth Dankyi Boateng (2023) Climate variability indicators - scientific data versus farmers perception; evidence from southern Ghana, Cogent Food & Agriculture, 9:1, 2148323, DOI: 10.1080/23311932.2022.2148323 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2022.2148323 © 2022 The Author(s). This open access View supplementary material article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license. Published online: 16 Dec 2022. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 886 View related articles View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=oafa20 Ankrah et al., Cogent Food & Agriculture (2023), 9: 2148323 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2022.2148323 SOIL & CROP SCIENCES | RESEARCH ARTICLE Climate variability indicators - scientific data versus farmers perception; evidence from southern Ghana Received: 05 May 2022 Daniel Adu Ankrah 1*, Jojo Mensah1, Jonathan Nicholas Anaglo1 and Seth Dankyi Boateng1 Accepted: 12 November 2022 Abstract: Even though copious knowledge has been advanced in the extant lit- *Corresponding author: Daniel Adu Ankrah, Department of Agricultural erature on climate variability and change. Two schools of thought exist—one that Extension, School of Agriculture, views farmers’ perceptions of climate indicators as erroneous and inferior, while the College of Basic and Applied Sciences (CBAS), University of Ghana, P.O. Box other views, scientific data, specifically meteorological data, to be superior and LG 68, Legon Accra, Ghana E-mail: dankrah@ug.edu.gh accurate. The accuracy of farmers perception of climate variability indicators is in doubt relative to the scientific data. This article targets assessing farmers percep- Reviewing editor: Manuel Tejada Moral, University of tion of climate variability indicators compared to the scientific data with an eye to Seville, Seville SPAIN distil policy implications for climate variability resilience and adaptation. Using Additional information is available at cross-sectional data on 197 smallholder maize farmers in southern Ghana, the the end of the article article answers the research question: To what extent do smallholder farmers perception of climate variability indicators align or vary from objective climate data? We find variation between farmers perception of climate indicators and the objec- tive data from the Ghana Meteorological Agency. Specifically, while farmer percep- tions showed a decrease in rainfall over the past 10 years (2009–2018), the objective data proved otherwise. Again, a contradiction existed between farmers perception of sunshine and the scientific data. However, farmers’ perceptions of temperature aligned with the objective data. The scientific data established coeffi- cient of variations of 0.21, 0.04, 0.03, and 0.12 for rainfall, sunshine, maximum, and minimum temperatures respectively. We recommend collaborative efforts between the national research council’s, Ghana Meteorological Agency, and academic insti- tutions to commission further studies that will test, confirm, and harmonize the reliability of smallholder perceptions of climate variability and change in climate adaptation efforts. Subjects: Agriculture & Environmental Sciences; Hazards & Disasters; Environmental Geography Keywords: climate crisis; meteorological data; smallholder farmers; maize farmers 1. Introduction This article interrogates smallholder farmers perception of climate variability factors, specifically rainfall, temperature, and sunshine, relative to the scientific data obtained from the Ghana Meteorological Agency (GMeT), which is considered objective data. We answer the research ques- tion: To what extent do smallholder farmers perception of climate variability indicators align or vary from the objective climate data? This is a question that demands recognition and action. Particularly predicated within a context where most smallholder farmers in the global south are © 2022 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license. Page 1 of 19 Ankrah et al., Cogent Food & Agriculture (2023), 9: 2148323 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2022.2148323 rain-dependent and less sophisticated. Additionally, the adverse effects of climate variability and change are even more devastating within rural spaces rendering smallholder farmers in non-urban settings most vulnerable. This compound existing systemic challenges such as infrastructural deficits, endemic poverty, technological gaps, limited electricity access, limited economic oppor- tunities, and the exodus to urban spaces. Given the challenges posed by climate variabilities and change, scientific prediction, and model- ing have come in handy in mitigating the effects. Thus, scientific prediction and modeling have taken center stage in the quest to minimize climate variability and change effects (Baig et al., 2021; Jourdan et al., 2021; Solaraju-Murali et al., 2022). Ayanlade et al. (2017) indicated that climate variability and change impacts remain principally assessed through rigorous quantitative data and modeling. However, most farmers, given their peculiarities in rural spaces, do not readily obtain information on scientific weather prediction to guide their farming activities. They tend to rely heavily on their perception in predicting climate variables such as rainfall, temperature, and sunshine intensity. Especially in contexts where meteorological data remain limited and, in some instances, unavailable for the rural folks, farmers perception proves useful (Roco et al., 2015). Smallholders tend to rely on their indigenous knowledge in making such predictions, given their experience in farming. Indeed, Ankrah et al. (2022) indicated that the indigenous knowledge base of farmers proved useful in climate prediction and hence should be harnessed with scientific data in climate prediction in their study in Ghana. Other studies (Ayanlade et al., 2017; Imran et al., 2020) cast doubt on the reliability and accuracy of farmer’s predictions and perceptions concerning climate variability and change prediction. For instance, Osbahr et al. (2011) found a variation between farmers’ perceptions of decreases in rainfall with the scientific data in Uganda. Yaro (2013) observed variation in farmer perception of decreased rainfall and the objective scientific data in southern Ghana. The related literature (Ado et al., 2019; Le Dang et al., 2014) shows that farmers climate variability and change adaptation strategies are shaped by their perceptions and interpretation of climate variability and change. Imran et al. (2020) and Hasan and Kumar (2019) indicated that it is, therefore, essential to understand farmers’ perceptions for effective adaptation strategies. For instance, Imran et al. (2020) indicated that farmers’ perceptions about increases in temperature aligned with objective data from the meteorological services in Pakistan. Le Dang et al. (2014) also found consistency between farmers’ perceptions and scientific data. Krishna Bahadur et al. (2020) argued for integration of scientific data with the subjective perception of farmers since a single reliance on subjective perception alone limits the reliability given the subjectivities and biases. However, climate variability and change scholarships that address such integration remain limited in SSA (Akponikpè, Gérard, et al., 2010; Ayanlade et al., 2017; Dakurah, 2021; De Longueville et al., 2020; Mcsweeney et al., 2010; Simelton et al., 2013; Yaro, 2013). For instance, Gbetibouo (2009) compared farmers’ perceptions of climate variables such as temperature and rainfall in South Africa and observed an alignment of farmers’ perceptions with the scientific data from the meteorological agency. Abid et al. (2015) compared farmers’ percep- tions with the objective data in Pakistan, while Mkonda et al. (2018) undertook such a comparison in Tanzania. Osbahr et al. (2011) found an alignment between farmers’ perceptions of temperature increase with the scientific data in Uganda. In the specific case of Ghana, Yaro (2013) examined farmer perception of rainfall and temperature and found agreement in farmers’ perceptions and the objective scientific data in southern Ghana. Most studies do not examine sunshine in the climate variables, even though it remains an important variable for plant growth and productivity. Most studies have heavily focused on the analysis of scientific historical data on climate variables, especially rainfall, and temperature (Addisu, Selassie, Fissha, & Gedif, 2015; Asare-Nuamah et al., 2019; MacKellar et al., 2014; Mengistu et al., 2014). Others (Ajuang et al., 2016; Lee et al., 2015; Mamba, 2016; Owusu et al., 2019; Roco et al., 2015) have focused solely on farmers subjective perceptions of climate variability and change. For instance, in Ghana, Limantol et al. (2016) examined Page 2 of 19 Ankrah et al., Cogent Food & Agriculture (2023), 9: 2148323 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2022.2148323 farmers’ subjective local perceptions of climate variability in the Vea catchment and observed reduced rainfall precipitation, intensity, and duration. Some scholarships (Dickinson et al., 2017; Kuivanen et al., 2016; Niles & Mueller, 2016; Simelton et al., 2013) in Ghana have advocated for the integration of local subjective perceptions and the scientific data in northern Ghana. The general conclusion from the related literature shows mixed conclusions between farmers’ perceptions of climate variability variables and the scientific data. In particular, variations exist between the perception of temperature and rainfall relative to the scientific data. While some studies (Dhanya & Ramachandran, 2016; Gbetibouo, 2009; Mekonnen et al., 2018; Mertz et al., 2009; Yaro, 2013) found agreement, others (Ayal & Leal Filho, 2017; Le Dang et al., 2014; Fatuase & Ajibefun, 2013; Niles & Mueller, 2016; Osbahr et al., 2011; Simelton et al., 2013) showed variations. This article seeks to answer the research question: To what extent do farmers’ perceptions of climate variables i.e. rainfall, temperature, and sunshine align with the scientific data from the Ghana Meteorological Agency (GMeT) in a non-arid space? Specifically, the objective of the study is to determine the extent to which farmers perception of climate variables (sunshine, rainfall, temperature) align with the scientific data from GMeT. This article makes two contributions to the farmers subjective perceptions of climate variability and scientific data nexus literature. First, in addition to rainfall and temperature variables which have been examined adequately (Abid et al., 2015; Akponikpè, Johnston, et al., 2010; Dadzie, 2021; Osbahr et al., 2011; Yaro, 2013), the third variable of sunshine intensity has been introduced into the conversation. Given that its merits discussion, but sunshine intensity has remained under- discussed in the climate variability discourses. Even though sunshine intensity remains vital in crop growth, performance, production, and consequently outputs. Generally, earlier studies confirmed smallholder farmers perception of the changes occurring in climate. And consequently, the efforts that they put in place to mitigate the negative effects (adaptation strategies). However, subjective perceptions may not necessarily reflect the reality; hence, climate trends may be misinterpreted, and not understood, characterized by variances between farmers perceptions and the scientific data leading to counter-productive climate adaptation strategies. It remains imperative to assess the alignment or otherwise of farmers perception and the objective data, given that it is valid starting point for scientific prediction (Ayanlade et al., 2017). And this study deepens our under- standing in this light. Finally, the article adds to the scant (Ayanlade et al., 2017; Dadzie, 2021; Hasan & Kumar, 2019, 2020; Imran et al., 2020) literature on farmers perception versus objective scientific data in the global south, particularly considering a non-arid space in southern Ghana. This remains important because most of the few (Amadou et al., 2015; Guodaar et al., 2021; Nyadzi, 2016) studies tend to focus more on northern Ghana, a space that experiences the extremes of the weather. There is, however, the need to bring into perspective the accounts from southern Ghana to nuance the conversation. Dadzie (2021) appears to be the closest who attempted to examine farmers percep- tion and the scientific data in the study area (Central Region) but missed out on the inclusion of sunshine intensity. The rest of the article is structured as follows: the next section presents pertinent literature to the study. Section 3 presents the study’s methodology. Section 4 presents the results and discus- sions. The final section concludes and provides policy recommendation. 2. Extant literature To start off, perception has been viewed as a complete image of a phenomenon in question, that constitutes the final part of the psychological process preceded by information gathering (sensory input) and ends with a subjective interpretation to the information gathered (Kalat, 2016; Steg et al., 2019). Bickerstaff (2004) and Niemeyer et al. (2005) viewed the perception of climate variability and change as a subjective evaluation that drives adaptation strategies. Climate variability and change perception is multidimensional and has remained extensively Page 3 of 19 Ankrah et al., Cogent Food & Agriculture (2023), 9: 2148323 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2022.2148323 examined with regard to the impacts, causes, and adaptation (Alam et al., 2017; Haque et al., 2012; Kabir et al., 2016; Shameem et al., 2015; Uddin et al., 2014). Climate variability and change inflicts climate-related hazards (Howe,), that vary across geographical space and scale. It creates fond memories among farmers across space, time, and scale, the extremes, are most often remembered. Thus, climate variability and change perceptions are differentiated by spatial locations, demographic, and socio-economic characteristics (Ahmed et al., 2016; Haq & Ahmed, 2017; Hasan & Kumar, 2019; Shukla et al., 2019). For instance, the literature (Foguesatto et al., 2020; Kais & Islam, 2019) shows that experience, social relationships, loca- tion, and culture affect the interpretation of climate events and variables. Demographic char- acteristics (age, sex, education, family size), economic status (asset endowment, job), social networks, communication, and education affect farmer perceptions of climate variability and change (Henslin, 2017; Liu et al., 2014; Roco et al., 2015). The effect of farmers perception of climate variability and change is mediated by the channel of communication i.e. interpersonal communication and mass communication (Clayton et al., 2015; Imran et al., 2020). Generally, two schools of thought exist in the related literature. First, the thought that rural smallholder farmers’ knowledge and opinions about climate variability and change, coupled with their adaptive strategies, are erroneous and subjective. The IPCC (2014) report revealed that several scientists perceive farmers’ knowledge to be less rigorous and reliable to be used in evaluating planned adaptation. The literature (Abid et al., 2015; Li et al., 2013) shows that globally farmers adapt to climate variability and change based on their subjective perceptions. Farmers subjective perception of climate variability and change has been well documented (Ajuang et al., 2016; Lee et al., 2015; Mamba, 2016; Owusu et al., 2019; Roco et al., 2015). In particular, Crona et al. (2013) compared perceptions of climate change across countries in Fiji, Ecuador, Australia, United Kingdom, New Zealand, and United States of America where they found convergence in climate variable (rainfall and temperature) among highly educated individuals. The second school of thought, views science-based predictors (meteorological or objective data) as superior and accurate relative to farmers perception. For instance, Ayanlade et al. (2017) argued that more focus had been paid to scientific prediction, including modeling of climate change systems, and the use of meteorological data for climate adaptation and risk assessment. Morton (2017), indicated that even though the scientific data has been very useful for climate change prediction and adaptations, there is a need to integrate farmers local knowledge and perception. Indeed, Ankrah et al. (2022) advocated for the integration of farmers indigenous knowledge into the scientific-based approaches towards climate mitigation in Ghana. The evidence appears mixed. Specifically, farmers subjective perception of climate compared with the scientific data reveals that farmers correctly predicted increases in temperatures but wrongly perceived decreases in rainfall relative to the meteorological data (Akponikpè, Johnston, et al., 2010; Osbahr et al., 2011; Yaro, 2013). Alam et al. (2018) showed that farmers subjective perception of extreme climate events aligned with the scientific evidence but varied from the long-term climate variations in terms of maintaining consistency of the measurement (Shameem et al., 2015). There was a consensus between farmers perception and the scientific data in Bangladesh where smallholder farmers perception of temperature increase, and a reduction in rainfall aligned (Alam et al., 2017; Haque et al., 2012; Hasan et al., 2018; Shameem et al., 2015). Ahsan and Brandt (2015), also observed variations between farmers perception and the objective data in Bagerhat and Satkhira in Bangladesh. The literature generally appears mixed. Some literature (Dhanya & Ramachandran, 2016; Mekonnen et al., 2018) shows divergence, while others (Ayal & Leal Filho, 2017; Niles & Mueller, 2016; Simelton et al., 2013) show convergence between farmers’ perceptions and the objective data from meteorological agencies. Ayanlade et al. (2017) argued that a gap exists in the analysis of climate variability and change impacts between farmers subjective opinions and awareness and the scientific data, justifying the need for further interrogation. Page 4 of 19 Ankrah et al., Cogent Food & Agriculture (2023), 9: 2148323 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2022.2148323 There has been a call for the integration of farmers subjective opinions into the science-based predictions in Africa (Ankrah et al., 2022; Heltberg et al., 2009; Mubiru et al., 2015; Tschakert et al., 2014; Van Griensven et al., 2016). Effective adaptation requires the right alignment of the integra- tion of subjective perceptions and scientific data (Dickinson et al., 2017; Kuivanen et al., 2016; Niles & Mueller, 2016). Generally, the related literature (Anyoha et al., 2013; Le Dang et al., 2014; Yaro, 2013) has adduced adequate evidence about farmers’ perceptions of climate change and the objective data based on indicators such as temperature and rainfall. In the case of Bangladesh, Hasan and Kumar (2019) indicated that limited studies have compared farmers’ subjective perception of climate variables with the meteorological data. Few studies have attempted to add additional weather variables such as windstorms and sunlight intensity. For instance, the literature (Addisu et al., 2015; Asare-Nuamah et al., 2019; MacKellar et al., 2014; Mengistu et al., 2014) shows adequate focus on the scientific objective data taking into account rainfall and temperature. Sunshine intensity is deficient in the literature. Our study fills the gap in the literature by focusing on sunshine intensity to open up further empirical enquiries (Please see a summary of the related literature captured in Table 1). 3. Materials and methods 3.1. Research design The study employed a cross-sectional survey covering 197 smallholder farmers through question- naire administration. Cross-sectional survey enables quantitative analysis of trends, attitudes, knowledge, opinions, and the determination of relationships among variables of a population by studying a sample (Creswell & Creswell, 2017). A structured questionnaire enabled the researchers to find out the perceptions of maize farmers concerning climate variability indicators. Cross- sectional surveys allow a researcher to collect two types of information—descriptive information (perceptions of maize farmers), and relational information (effects of climate variability adaptation strategies on maize yields). The cross-sectional survey consisted of a section that captured the socio-demographic characteristics of respondents, perception of maize yield differential due to climate variability and change. This method also allowed the collection of a wide range of data from a sampled population and the generalization to the larger population from which the sample was drawn (Leavy, 2017). 3.2. Study area The study was conducted in the Cape Coast Metropolitan Assembly of Ghana (See study commu- nities in Figure 1). This is because data from the Statistics Research and Information Department (SRID) of the Ministry of Food and Agriculture (MoFA) indicated the Metropolitan to be one of the places in the Central Region where maize production has been low. GMeT also had data on maize yields from 2009 to 2018. Low yields in the Metropolitan Assembly, among others, could be attributed to climate variability, hence the need to examine farmers perception of the climate variables relative to the scientific data. Additionally, the Ghana Meteorological Agency (GMeT) had available data on all climate variables (temperature, rainfall, and sunshine) from 2009 to 2018, unlike other locations where data appeared scanty. The Cape Coast Metropolis is the smallest in the country, with a total area of 122 square kilometers. Longitude 1o 15 W and latitude 50 06 N are the coordinates for this location. It is bounded on the south by the Gulf of Guinea, West by Komenda Edina Eguafo or Abrem Municipality, East by the Abura Asebu Kwamankese District, and North by the Twifo Hemang Lower Denkyira District. The population of the Metropolis, according to the 2010 population and housing census, was 118,106, out of which 57,365 were males and 60,741 females. Farmers, fishermen and those in agricultural-related activities, form about 60% of the population (Ghana Statistical Service, 2010). Active agricultural population is approximately 28,000. Commercial farmers are approximately 0.3% and peasants (majority) approximately 99.7%. The metropolitan Page 5 of 19 Ankrah et al., Cogent Food & Agriculture (2023), 9: 2148323 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2022.2148323 Figure 1. Map of cape coast metropolitan assembly showing study communities.source: cen- tre for remote and geographic information services, 2021. has about 8,000 Ha of available land for agriculture, out of which 3,500 Ha is currently under cultivation. This implies that higher production levels could be achieved for crops to meet both domestic and export markets. Vegetation is mainly secondary forest with thickets and shrubs growing to an average height of 4.5 m. There is a coastline that is about 13 km long. Temperatures range from 240 C to 320 C with a relative humidity of between 60% and 80%. There are two seasons of rainfall, with a peak in May to June and October. The annual rainfall ranges between 90 mm to 110 mm along the coast to between 110 mm to 160 mm in the hinterland. Dry periods (harmattan) are experienced between November and February (Ghana Statistical Service, 2010). 3.3. Study population A study population, as defined by Babbie (2020) as the theoretically specified aggregation of survey elements in a study area. The population of this study comprises all maize farmers in the Cape Coast Metropolis. 3.4. Sampling and sample size The sample size refers to subsets of units or individuals from the population that has been selected for the study. Using Yamane (1967) sample size determination formula, widely used by (Yaseen et al., 2018; Zulfiqar et al., 2017), the minimum sample size for the study was calculated as follows: N n ¼ 1 N 2 þ ðeÞ Page 6 of 19 Ankrah et al., Cogent Food & Agriculture (2023), 9: 2148323 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2022.2148323 Figure 2. Sampling framework. CENTRAL REGION Cape Coast Metropolitan Efutu Mampon Mpeasem Ekon Dahia Community Community Community Community 50 farmers 50 farmers 47 farmers 50 farmers Where n is the sample size, N is the population size, and e is the level of precision. At the time of data collection, the population size was 28,000. Adopting a 95% confidence level, a degree of variability (p = 0.5) and a level of precision or sampling (e = 5%). The minimum required sample size was: n ¼ 28;000 = 28;000 28;000 1þ28;000 2 ð0:05Þ 1 28 = ¼ 394 þ ;000ð0:025Þ 1þ70 When this formula was applied, the sample size obtained was 394 farmers, but given the onset of Covid-19, it was challenging to get all the farmers to interview based on the fear of contracting the virus even though the safety protocols were followed. Given that the research was time-bound, time constraints did not allow the research to travel beyond certain months. Eventually, the authors, in consultation with the Agricultural Extension Agents (AEAs) as well as time constraints, eventually, the authors in consultation with the Agricultural Extension Agents (AEAs) agreed to sample half of the sample proportionate to the number of farmers in the community. Ekon had the lowest number of farmers, hence, 47 farmers were randomly selected from the community. Eventually, a final sample size of 197 farmers was obtained. Simple random sampling is a method that gives everyone in the target population an equal chance of being selected (Creswell & Creswell, 2017). The simple random sampling was used to select respondents because of its representativeness and reduction in biases. A list of farmers was obtained from the Department of Agriculture (DoA), and farmers were randomly selected using the Stata 14.2 software to select 197 proportionate to the total number of farmers in the study communities. Figure 2 below represents the communities and the number of farmers. 50 farmers from each community were selected, but three failed to turn up in one community (Ekon), there- fore bringing the total number of respondents to 197. 3.5. Development of data collection instrument A data collection instrument was developed by taking into consideration the research objective. The objective was to assess farmers perception of climate variables (rainfall, temperature and sunshine) in comparison with the scientific data from GMeT. Specific questions on To what extent do you agree that temperature increased over the past 10 years? 5 = Strongly agree, 4 = Agree, 3 = Neutral, 2 = Disagree, 1 = Strongly disagree, How has temperature impacted your maize yield over the past 10 years. 1 =Increased, 2 =decreased, 3 = No changes, To what extent do you agree that rainfall increased over the past 10 years? 5 = Strongly agree, 4 = Agree, 3 = Neutral, 2 = Disagree, 1 = Strongly disagree, How has rainfall impacted on your yield over the past 10 years. 1 =Increased, 2 =decreased, 3 = No changes, Has sunshine increased over the past 10 years? 5 =Strongly agree, 4 = Agree, 3 = Neutral, 2 = Disagree 1 = Strongly disagree, To what extent do you agree that sunshine impacted on your yield over the past 10 years. 1 =Increased, 2 =decreased, 3 = No changes, What was the average quantity of fertilizer applied per year for the past 10 years bags, Was there any loss in the value of Page 7 of 19 Ankrah et al., Cogent Food & Agriculture (2023), 9: 2148323 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2022.2148323 yields as a result of climate variability?, and What is the quantity of maize produced bags. The first instrument was a structured questionnaire with closed and open-ended questions to collect primary data from correspondents on their perception of climate variables i.e. rainfall, temperature and sunshine intensity. Secondary data on rainfall, sunshine, and temperature were obtained from the Ghana Meteorological Agency (GMeT) covering 2009 to 2018. The data collection instrument was pre- tested for the validity and reliability. Kumar (2018) views validity as a concept of appropriateness and accuracy that is applied to a research process and is concerned with the accuracy of the measure- ment. The questionnaire was pre-tested at the Agona West Municipality in the Central Region. The preliminary interview started with the administration of questionnaires to 20 farmers. The informa- tion obtained through this informal consultative process led to changes that refined the final ques- tionnaire. The pre-test did not influence the subsequent survey results but helped identify weaknesses, and ambiguities in the questionnaire. The reference period for the questionnaire was the past ten (10) years i.e. 2009–2018. 3.6. Data collection Secondary data on rainfall, sunshine, and temperature covering 2009 to 2018 was obtained from the GMet. The GMeT uses synoptic stations/data, satellite, radar, numerical weather prediction (NWP) models with a full range of meteorological instruments and equipment, operated 24 hours a day covering over 350 stations. Climate data is picked in real time and compiled on a daily basis through computer-assisted software’s. There are applications that support the 350 stations to measure temperature, wind, precipitation, sunshine intensity, evaporation, humidity, air temperature, and clouds. Based on a formal request to GMeT, relevant climate information pertaining on the Cape Coast Municipal Assembly was given to the researchers. Primary data covering farmers started in June, 2021 and ended in August, 2021. The administration of questionnaires were through face-to- face interview of respondents, and the participants were contacted early to reduce non-responses. The researchers ensured conformity to the necessary Covid-19 protocols such as wearing of masks, social distancing, washing hands, and using hand sanitizers. Few participants who were difficult to reach were interviewed through telephone calls, and the data collection ended in July, 2021. 3.7. Data analysis and processing Data collected were analyzed using Stata 14.2. To describe the trends of climate variability indicators and maize farmers perception from 2009 to 2018 in the Cape Coast Metropolis, a linear trend model was employed. We recognized that recall of data over a long period of time could be challenging for farmers as argued by Ankrah, Agyei-Holmes, et al. (2021) . The researchers however, made a conscious effort using key events, and milestones in the past to help farmers recall changes in climate variables over time. The trend of climate variability factors such as rainfall, sunshine, minimum, and maximum temperature was compared to farmers subjective perceptions covering a 10-year period (2009–2018) in the Cape Coast Metropolis. Additionally, the descriptive statistics of these time series data were presented in a tabular form. That is, the minimum, maximum, mean, standard deviation, and coefficient of variations of each climate factor and maize yield were tabulated. The literature is dominated by several predictive models for analyzing climate variability. However, following Kyei-Mensah et al. (2019) and Omoyo et al. (2015), we utilized the coefficient of variation model to determine the variabilities in the climate indicators. The coefficient of variation remained critical because it measures the variability of the data or how dispersed the distribution of the data is from or around the mean. The higher the value of the coefficient of variation (CV), the higher the variability of the data. Similar models such as precipitation concentration index (PCI) model, only focus on the seasonal analysis of rainfall variability. Coefficient of variation is specified as: CV σxx ii ¼ μ . Where xi is the climate variability indicators (rainfall, temperature, and sunshine), μ is x i the mean, and σ is the standard deviation of each climate variability indicator. Page 8 of 19 Ankrah et al., Cogent Food & Agriculture (2023), 9: 2148323 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2022.2148323 4. Results and discussions 4.1. Socioeconomic characteristics of the respondents This section presents the socioeconomic characteristics of the respondents. The socioeconomic variables such as sex, age, marital status, level of education, income, religious affiliation, farm size, and experience were captured during the data collection. These socioeconomic characteristics are required to understand and contextualize the objectives of the study (see Table 2). Table 2 presents the distribution of the sex of the respondents. The result shows that the majority (85%) of the respondents are males. Men are predominantly engaged in agricultural activities than women in the Cape Coast Metropolis. This trend observed is supported by the Ghana Statistical Service (2020) report that shows male dominance in agricultural activities.The result indicates that the majority (66%) are married. Only (19%) are single, with 7% divorced. Also, about 8% of the respondents lost their spouses, hence widowed. The levels of education of respondents were categorized into six levels: no formal education, basic education (primary and JHS), Secondary/senior high school, and Tertiary education level. Sixty-seven percent of the respondents had no formal education. For those who had formal education, the highest level was a basic school (21%), followed by secondary school education (5%). The proportion of respondents who had tertiary and technical/vocational education were 4%, and 3%, respectively. 4.2. Continuous variables summary statistics Table 3 presents other smallholder farmers socioeconomic characteristics such as income, farm experience, farm size, and maize yield. The result (Table 3) shows the average income of a maize farmer to be GH¢ 2,693 (US$ 456).1 The minimum and maximum income of the farmers were GH¢ 960.00 (US$163) and GH¢ 8400.00 (US$ 1424), respectively. The average farming experience was estimated to be approximately 13 years, with an average farm size is about 1.08 hectares, with the minimum farm size being 0.4 hectares. The mean maize yield of the respondents was about 1.12 tonnes. Table 1. Summary of related literature Theme References Studies on farmers perception of climate trends with Dadzie (2021), Yaro (2013); Osbahr et al. (2011); the objective data in Africa. Akponikpè, Gérard, et al. (2010); Gbetibouo (2009) Adaptation to climate change based on farmers Abid et al. (2015); Ajuang et al. (2016); Lee et al. subjective perception globally. (2015); Li et al. (2013); Mamba (2016); Owusu et al. (2019); Roco et al. (2015). Studies that focus on the scientific data for analysis Addisu et al., (2015); Asare-Nuamah et al. (2019); and prediction based on temperature and rainfall MacKellar et al. (2014); Mengistu et al. (2014) Studies that show right alignment of farmers Akponikpè, Johnston, et al. (2010); Osbahr et al., subjective perception and the objective data 2011; Yaro (2013). Alam et al. (2018), Ayal and Leal Filho (2017); Niles and Mueller (2016); Simelton et al. (2013), Ayal and Leal Filho (2017); Niles and Mueller (2016); Simelton et al. (2013) Studies that show wrong alignment of farmers Shameem et al. (2015), Ahsan and Brandt (2015), subjective perception and the objective data (Dhanya and Ramachandran (2016); Mekonnen et al. (2018) Studies that show consensus between farmers Alam et al. (2017); Haque et al. (2012); Hasan et al. subjective perception and the objective/scientific (2018); Shameem et al. (2015). data. Studies that call for integration of farmer perception Ankrah et al. (2022); Heltberg et al. (2009); Mubiru with the objective data et al. (2015); Tschakert et al. (2014); Van Griensven et al. (2016) Page 9 of 19 Ankrah et al., Cogent Food & Agriculture (2023), 9: 2148323 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2022.2148323 Table 2. Farmers demographic characteristics Variables Percentage (%) sex Male 15 Female 85 Total 100 Marital Status Single 19 Married 66 Divorced 7 Widow 8 Total 100 Education Basic School 21 SHS/Secondary 5 Technical/Vocational 3 Non-formal 67 Tertiary 4 Total 100 Source: Fieldwork, 2021. Table 3. Summary statistics of continuous variables Continuous Mean Std. Dev. Min. Max. Variable Income (GH¢) 2693 1313.33 960 8400 Farm experience 13.41 5.41 2 30 (years) Farm size (hectares) 1.08 0.59 0.4 4 Maize yield (tonnes) 1.12 0.548 0.4 3.5 Source: Field survey, 2021. Table 4. Summary statistics of climate variables Climate Mean Std. Dev. Minimum Maximum CV factors Rainfall (mm) 1044.06 215.75 817.4 1360.8 0.21 Sunshine (Hrs/ 197.80 8.75 176.90 210.10 0.04 year) Max. Temp (°C) 29.76 0.98 27.50 31.12 0.03 Min. Temp (°C) 21.94 2.66 18.09 25.83 0.12 Source: GMeT, 2021 4.3. Trend analysis of climate variability indicators and perception of maize from 2009-2018 We first analyze the trend of climate variability indicators by computing the summary statistics. The results (Table 4) revealed that the average annual rainfall in the Cape Coast Metropolis is about 1044.06 mm. The minimum and maximum annual rainfall are about 817.40 mm and 1360.80 mm respectively. The coefficient variation value showed about 21% rainfall variability within the reference period (2009–2018). Indeed, rainfall remained variable, but Fig 7 shows Page 10 of 19 Ankrah et al., Cogent Food & Agriculture (2023), 9: 2148323 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2022.2148323 a small proportion (0.5%) of farmers using only irrigation in their agricultural activities. Irrigation can serve as a risk mitigation measure, but few farmers resort to it due to the high cost. Ankrah, Kwapong, et al. (2021) also showed that even though agricultural insurance is a useful risk mitigation measure, insurance penetration remains low among smallholder farmers. The average sunshine is about 197.80 hours per year, and the least and highest sunshine is around 176.90 and 210.10 hours per year. The sunshine coefficient variation (4%) signifies slight variation in sunshine over the past ten years. The mean maximum temperature is about 30°C, while the mean minimum temperature is about 22°C. For the least and highest temperature, the maximum temperature recorded was about 28°C and 31°C, respectively, while that of the minimum temperature was 18°C and 26°C, respectively. The temperature coefficient of variations indicates appreciable variations in the minimum temperature (12%) than the maximum temperature (3%). 4.4. Rainfall trend analysis (2009-2018) Figure 3 depicts an oscillating annual rainfall trend in the Cape Coast metropolis. There was a steady decline in rainfall from 2009, followed by a steady rise in 2011. However, there was a sharp decline in annual rainfall in 2013, before a steady rise, with the highest rainfall recorded in 2015. Afterward, there was a sharp decline in rainfall in 2016, and thereafter, there were oscilla- tions. The graphical illustrations in figure 8 show that rainfall experienced many variations within the period under consideration (2009–2018). Again, the coefficient of variation shows the degree of rainfall variability in the Cape Coast Metropolis from 2009 to 2018. It could be observed from the trend equation that rainfall increased marginally and also depicted a positive trend. The result is consistent with Kyei-Mensah et al. (2019), who analyzed rainfall trends and found a significant variation and positive rainfall trend in the Fanteakwa District. Johnson (2020) also found an upward decadal trend of rainfall in Winneba. Figure 3. Rainfall trend in the Rainfall cape coast metropolis (2009– y = 18.916x + 940.021600 2018). Source: Ghana meteoro- 1400 logical agency (GMeT), 2021. 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Years Rainfall Linear (Mean Rainfall) Figure 4. Sunshine trend in the Sunshine y = -0.7733x + 202.05 cape coast metropolis (2009– 220 2018). Source: Ghana meteoro- 210 logical agency (GMeT), 2021. 200 190 180 170 160 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Years Sunshine Linear (Mean Sunshine) Page 11 of 19 Sunshine (hours/year) Rainfall (mm) Ankrah et al., Cogent Food & Agriculture (2023), 9: 2148323 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2022.2148323 4.5. Sunshine trend analysis (2009-2018) Figure 4 shows that from 2009, there was a marginal increase in sunshine in 2010, followed by a sharp decline in 2012, i.e. the least sunshine, of 176.90 hours per year, was recorded in 2012. Sunshine increased sharply in 2013 and declined again in 2014. Since 2015, sunshine remained fairly stable. However, the trend equation shows a negative trend of sunshine in the Metropolis. This trend and the coefficient variation of sunshine is evident that sunshine experienced less variability over the period under consideration. The downward trend of sunshine could impact farming activities that require sunshine. An example includes drying food crops such as cereals, cash crops, and the tasseling of maize. Few studies examine sunshine intensity, and this article attempts to fill the void and open further conversations. 4.6. Minimum temperature trend analysis (2009-2018) From Figure 5, it is evident that minimum temperature witnessed some variations but with a small degree of variability. There was a steady decline in minimum temperature from 2009 to 2011, it stabilized until 2014, when the minimum temperature increased. The increase in minimum tem- perature from 2014 did not go beyond the 2009 value. This shows that the minimum temperature under the reference period decreased marginally with less degree of variation. The trend equation further indicates a positive trend of minimum temperature in the Cape Coast Metropolis. Similarly, Guodaar (2015) found a positive minimum temperature trend in the Offinso North District of the Ashanti Region. This shows that temperature kept rising at an increasing rate due to climate variability and change. 4.6.1. Maximum temperature trend analysis (2009-2018) Unlike the minimum temperature, where there was an initial decline, maximum temperature begun with an initial increase. The maximum temperature went up from 2009 to 2011, before witnessing decline. The highest maximum temperature was recorded in 2011, with a temperature of about 31°C. From 2014, the maximum temperature in the Cape Coast Metropolis started rising, but with a marginal increase. Similar to the minimum temperature, the Cape Coast Metropolis Figure 5. Minimum temperature trend in the Cape Coast Metropolis (2009–2018). Source: Ghana Meteorological Agency (GMeT), 2021. Figure 6. Maximum tempera- ture trend in the Cape Coast Metropolis (2009–2018). Source: Ghana Meteorological Agency (GMeT), 2021. Page 12 of 19 Ankrah et al., Cogent Food & Agriculture (2023), 9: 2148323 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2022.2148323 experienced less maximum temperature variability within the reference period (2009–2018). The trend equation shows a positive trend of maximum temperature. The annual maximum tempera- ture in the Metropolis is expected to increase marginally by about 5%, all things being equal. The result is similar to Guodaar (2015), who found a positive maximum temperature trend in the Offinso North District of the Ashanti Region. In the Central Region of Ghana, Johnson (2020) found a similar trend in temperature in the capital town of Effutu Municipal (Winneba). 4.7. Farmers perception of climate variability indicators Farmers’ perception of the climate variability indicators was ascertained for alignment or variation with the scientific data from GMeT for the reference period (2009–2018). The results from Table 5 below show that majority of the farmers disagreed that rainfall increased over the past ten years. Indeed, the extant literature (Fatuase & Ajibefun, 2013; Osbahr et al., 2011; Tambo & Abdoulaye, 2013; Yaro, 2013) generally indicates smallholder farmers widely perceived view of reduced rainfall over three decades. Table 5, however, shows that the rainfall perception by farmers was contrary to the rainfall trend of the scientific data depicted in Figure 3. Even though there were declines and oscillations, rainfall increased marginally over the years. Farmers might have perceived the mar- ginal increase to indicate no increase over time. The reason for the difference could be attributed to changes in rainfall patterns. Farmers may assume that rainfall decreases when rainfall is delayed in the cropping season. This finding is consistent with Osbahr et al. (2011), which showed farmers perceived decreases in rainfall, while the scientific data showed no regular pattern in Uganda. Yaro (2013) also observed this disagreement between farmers’ perceptions and the scientific data in southern Ghana. Table 5 shows that most (79%) farmers agreed that there had been increases in temperature over the past 10 years. Farmers perception of temperature increases was consistent with the positive trend of both the minimum and maximum temperatures recorded by the scientific data (See Fig 5 & 6). Generally, there had not been consistent increases in the maximum temperature, the increase fluctuated, and where increases were recorded, they appeared marginal. Southern Ghana does not typically experience extreme climatic conditions relative to northern Ghana. The comparative analysis indicates that farmer perceptions even though remain subjective are credible and can be helpful in climate variability adaptation strategies. It will therefore be useful if continuous efforts are made to validate farmers’ perceptions of temperature over time to build resilient adaptations that are readily available to the farmer. Indeed, Osbahr et al. (2011) observed farmers’ perceptions of increases in temperature as consistent with the increases recorded by scientific data in Uganda. Yaro (2013) indicated consistency between farmers’ perceptions of temperature increases with the objective data from the GMeT. Gbetibouo (2009) observed the Table 5. Smallholder farmers perception of climate variables Farmers Level of Agreement Frequency Responses Perception of Climate Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Variables Disagree Agree Increase in 20 148 8 14 7 rainfall over the past 10 years (10%) (75%) (4%) (7%) (4%) Increase in 4 29 9 126 29 temperature over the past 10 (2%) (15%) (4%) (64%) (15%) Increase in 8 9 4 67 109 sunshine over the past (4%) (5%) (2%) (34%) (55%) 10 years Source: Fieldwork, 2021. Page 13 of 19 Ankrah et al., Cogent Food & Agriculture (2023), 9: 2148323 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2022.2148323 same finding regarding farmers’ perceptions of increases in temperature with the scientific data in South Africa. Most (89%) smallholder farmers agreed that sunshine increased over the past ten years. This perception, however, was at variance with the scientific data, which showed a decline. This has implications for agricultural activities that are conditioned on increased sunshine. For instance, the tasseling and drying of grains. A false perception of consistent increases in sunshine when indeed, there are rather decreases can affect adaptation strategies. Few studies have, however, examined this pathway of examining the consistency of farmers’ views on sunshine with the scientific data. This finding seeks to bridge such gaps and stimulate further interest in more empirical findings to deepen understanding. To the best of our knowledge, this study appears to be among the few that focus on sunlight in the climate variables. We note, however, that variabilities exist in the climate even in the same geographic space, hence the need to further understand how farmer perceptions vary across different spatial locations and even the same location in informing climate variability adaptation strategies. 5. Conclusion and policy recommendations This article examined smallholder farmers’ perceptions of climate variability factors such as rain- fall, temperature, and sunshine relative to scientific data obtained from the meteorological services, which are considered objective data. The findings showed variation between farmers’ perceptions of climate indicators and the scientific data from the Ghana Meteorological Agency (GMeT). Specifically, while farmers perception showed a decrease in rainfall over the past 10 years (2009–2018), the scientific data showed increases. The scientific data showed that rainfall experi- enced many variations within the period under consideration (2009–2018), and the trend equation revealed marginal increases in rainfall with a positive trend. Rainfall showed higher variations with a coefficient of variation of 21%. Minimum temperature witnessed some variations but with a small degree (0.12) of variability. The trend equation further indicated a positive trend of minimum temperature. Similar to the minimum temperature less (0.03) maximum temperature variability within the reference period (2009–2018). The trend equation shows a positive trend of maximum temperature. Most of the smallholder farmers’ perceptions of sunshine was inconsistent with the scientific data. Whilst most farmers agreed that sunshine increased over the past ten years, the scientific data declined. The scientific data showed minimal (0.04) variability over the period. The Ghana Meteorological Agency is encouraged to explore innovative ways of providing farmers with timely and accurate data on climate variables through daily weather forecast information to guide farmers in their decision-making in minimizing the adverse effects of climate variability. We suggest that farmers’ perceptions should not be relegated to the background but integrated into the scientific(objective) data for climate forecasting. 6. Limitation of study The study did not statistically analyze the perceptions of the farmers relative to the objective data but only used farmers subjective perceptions. Acknowledgements (CBAS), University of Ghana, P.O. Box LG 68, Legon Accra, We acknowledge Mr. Emmanuel Oduro Okata for his Ghana. assistance in the analysis of the data. Disclosure statement Author details No potential conflict of interest was reported by the Daniel Adu Ankrah1 author(s). E-mail: dankrah@ug.edu.gh ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9360-0854 Citation information Jojo Mensah1 Cite this article as: Climate variability indicators - scientific Jonathan Nicholas Anaglo1 data versus farmers perception; evidence from southern Seth Dankyi Boateng1 Ghana, Daniel Adu Ankrah, Jojo Mensah, Jonathan 1 Department of Agricultural Extension, School of Nicholas Anaglo & Seth Dankyi Boateng, Cogent Food & Agriculture, College of Basic and Applied Sciences Agriculture (2023), 9: 2148323. Page 14 of 19 Ankrah et al., Cogent Food & Agriculture (2023), 9: 2148323 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2022.2148323 Note Geography, 7(1), 47–74. https://www.ajol.info/index. 1. 1US$ to an average exchange rate of GHC 5.9 in 2021. php/gjg/article/view/126290 Ankrah, D. A., Agyei-Holmes, A., & Boakye, A. A. (2021). Supplementary material Participatory farm budgeting–A case of pineapple Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online farmers in Ghana. African Geographical Review, 1–15. at https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2022.2148323 https://doi.org/10.1080/19376812.2021.1958691 Ankrah, D. A., Kwapong, N. A., & Boateng, S. D. (2022). References Indigenous knowledge and science-based predictors Abid, M., Scheffran, J., Schneider, U. A., & Ashfaq, M. reliability and its implication for climate adaptation (2015). Farmers’ perceptions of and adaptation stra- in Ghana. African Journal of Science, Technology, tegies to climate change and their determinants: The Innovation and Development, 1–13. https://doi.org/ case of Punjab province, Pakistan. Earth System 10.1080/20421338.2021.1923394 Dynamics, 6(1), 225–243. https://doi.org/10.5194/ Ankrah, D. A., Kwapong, N. A., Eghan, D., Adarkwah, F., & esd-6-225-2015 Boateng-Gyambiby, D. (2021). Agricultural insurance Addisu, S., Selassie, Y. G., Fissha, G., & Gedif, B. (2015). access and acceptability: Examining the case of Time series trend analysis of temperature and rain- smallholder farmers in Ghana. Agriculture & Food fall in lake Tana Sub-basin, Ethiopia. Environmental Security, 10(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40066- Systems Research, 4(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10. 021-00292-y 1186/s40068-015-0051-0 Anyoha, N., Nnadi, F., Chikaire, J., Echetama, J., Utazi, C., & Ado, A. M., Leshan, J., Savadogo, P., Bo, L., & Shah, A. A. Ihenacho, R. (2013). Socio-economic factors influen- (2019). Farmers’ awareness and perception of cli- cing climate change adaptation among crop farmers mate change impacts: Case study of aguie district in in Umuahia South Area of Abia State, Nigeria. Net Niger. Environment, Development and Sustainability, Journal of Agricultural Science, 1(2), 42–47. https:// 21(6), 2963–2977. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668- netjournals.org/pdf/NJAS/2013/2/13-019.pdf 018-0173-4 Asare-Nuamah, P., Botchway, E., & Onumah, J. A. (2019). Ahmed, A., Lawson, E. T., Mensah, A., Gordon, C., & Helping the helpless: Contribution of rural extension Padgham, J. (2016). Adaptation to climate change services to smallholder farmers’ climate change or non-climatic stressors in semi-arid regions? adaptive capacity and adaptation in rural Ghana. Evidence of gender differentiation in three agrar- International Journal of Rural Management, 15(2), ian districts of Ghana. Environmental Development, 244–268. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 20, 45–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2016. 0973005219876211 08.002 Ayal, D. Y., & Leal Filho, W. (2017). Farmers’ perceptions of Ahsan, D., & Brandt, U. S. (2015). Climate change and climate variability and its adverse impacts on crop coastal aquaculture farmers’ risk perceptions: and livestock production in Ethiopia. Journal of Arid Experiences from Bangladesh and Denmark. Journal Environments, 140, 20–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. of Environmental Planning and Management, 58(9), jaridenv.2017.01.007 1649–1665. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2014. Ayanlade, A., Radeny, M., & Morton, J. F. (2017). 942414 Comparing smallholder farmers’ perception of cli- Ajuang, C. O., Abuom, P. O., Bosire, E. K., Dida, G. O., & mate change with meteorological data: A case study Anyona, D. N. (2016). Determinants of climate from southwestern Nigeria. Weather and Climate change awareness level in upper Nyakach Division, Extremes, 15, 24–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wace. Kisumu County, Kenya. SpringerPlus, 5(1), 1–20. 2016.12.001 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-016-2699-y Babbie, E. R. (2020). The practice of social research. Akponikpè, P. I., Gérard, B., Michels, K., & Bielders, C. Cengage learning. (2010). Use of the APSIM model in long term simu- Baig, M. A., Zaman, Q., Baig, S. A., Qasim, M., Khalil, U., lation to support decision making regarding nitrogen Khan, S. A., Ismail, M., Muhammad, S., & Ali, S. (2021). management for pearl millet in the Sahel. European Regression analysis of hydro-meteorological vari- Journal of Agronomy, 32(2), 144–154. https://doi.org/ ables for climate change prediction: A case study of 10.1016/j.eja.2009.09.005 chitral basin, Hindukush region. Science of the Total Akponikpè, P. I., Johnston, P., & Agbossou, E. K. (2010). Environment, 793, 148595. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Farmers’ perception of climate change and adaptation scitotenv.2021.148595 strategies in Sub-Saharan West-Africa. Paper pre- Bickerstaff, K. (2004). Risk perception research: sented at the 2nd International Conference: Climate, Socio-cultural perspectives on the public experience Sustainability and Development in Semi-arid Regions. of air pollution. Environment International, 30(6), Fortaleza - Ceará, Brazil, held from August 16 - 20, 827–840. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2003.12. 2010. 001 Alam, G. M., Alam, K., & Mushtaq, S. (2017). Climate Clayton, S., Devine-Wright, P., Stern, P. C., Whitmarsh, L., change perceptions and local adaptation strategies Carrico, A., Steg, L., Swim, J., & Bonnes, M. (2015). of hazard-prone rural households in Bangladesh. Psychological research and global climate change. Climate Risk Management, 17, 52–63. https://doi.org/ Nature Climate Change, 5(7), 640–646. https://doi. 10.1016/j.crm.2017.06.006 org/10.1038/nclimate2622 Alam, G. M., Alam, K., Mushtaq, S., & Leal Filho, W. (2018). How Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: do climate change and associated hazards impact on Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods the resilience of riparian rural communities in approaches. Sage publications. Bangladesh? Policy implications for livelihood Crona, B., Wutich, A., Brewis, A., & Gartin, M. (2013). development. Environmental Science & Policy, 84, 7–18. Perceptions of climate change: Linking local and https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.02.012 global perceptions through a cultural knowledge Amadou, M., Villamor, G., Attua, E., & Traoré, S. (2015). approach. Climatic Change, 119(2), 519–531. https:// Comparing farmers’ perception of climate change doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0708-5 and variability with historical climate data in the Dadzie, S. K. N. (2021). FARMERS’PERCEPTION OF CLIMATE upper east region of Ghana. Ghana Journal of CHANGE COMPARED WITH OBJECTIVE DATA: Page 15 of 19 Ankrah et al., Cogent Food & Agriculture (2023), 9: 2148323 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2022.2148323 EVIDENCE FROM THE CENTRAL REGION OF GHANA. and human health risks: A community perspective. Climate Change Economics, 12(1), 2050015. https:// Environmental Health, 11(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10. doi.org/10.1142/S2010007820500153 1186/1476-069X-11-1 Dakurah, G. (2021). How do farmers’ perceptions of cli- Hasan, M. K., Desiere, S., D’Haese, M., & Kumar, L. (2018). mate variability and change match or and mismatch Impact of climate-smart agriculture adoption on the climatic data? Evidence from North-west Ghana. food security of coastal farmers in Bangladesh. Food GeoJournal, 86(5), 2387–2406. https://doi.org/10. Security, 10(4), 1073–1088. https://doi.org/10.1007/ 1007/s10708-020-10194-4 s12571-018-0824-1 De Longueville, F., Ozer, P., Gemenne, F., Henry, S., Hasan, M. K., & Kumar, L. (2019). Comparison between Mertz, O., & Nielsen, J. Ø. (2020). Comparing climate meteorological data and farmer perceptions of cli- change perceptions and meteorological data in rural mate change and vulnerability in relation to West Africa to improve the understanding of house- adaptation. Journal of Environmental Management, hold decisions to migrate. Climatic Change, 160(1), 237, 54–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019. 123–141. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-020- 02.028 02704-7 Hasan, M. K., & Kumar, L. (2020). Meteorological data and Dhanya, P., & Ramachandran, A. (2016). Farmers‘ per- farmers’ perception of coastal climate in Bangladesh. ceptions of climate change and the proposed agri- Science of the Total Environment, 704, 135384. culture adaptation strategies in a semi arid region of https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135384 south India. Journal of Integrative Environmental Heltberg, R., Siegel, P. B., & Jorgensen, S. L. (2009). Sciences, 13(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/ Addressing human vulnerability to climate change: 1943815X.2015.1062031 Toward a ‘no-regrets’ approach. Global Dickinson, K. L., Monaghan, A. J., Rivera, I. J., Hu, L., Environmental Change, 19(1), 89–99. https://doi.org/ Kanyomse, E., Alirigia, R., Adoctor, J., Kaspar, R. E., 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.11.003 Oduro, A. R., & Wiedinmyer, C. (2017). Changing Henslin, J. M. (2017). Sociology: A Down-to-Earth weather and climate in Northern Ghana: Comparison Approach. Pearson Education. of local perceptions with meteorological and land Imran, M., Shrestha, R. P., & Datta, A. (2020). Comparing cover data. Regional Environmental Change, 17(3), farmers’ perceptions of climate change with 915–928. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-016-1082- meteorological data in three irrigated cropping zones 4 of Punjab, Pakistan. Environment, Development and Fatuase, A., & Ajibefun, A. (2013). Adaptation to climate Sustainability, 22(3), 2121–2140. https://doi.org/10. change: A case study of rural farming households in 1007/s10668-018-0280-2 Ekiti state, Nigeria. Impacts World 2013. Paper pre- IPCC. (2014). Contribution of working groups I, II and III to sented at the International Conference on Climate the fifth assessment report. intergovernmental panel change Effects, Potsdam. on climate chang. Foguesatto, C. R., Artuzo, F. D., Talamini, E., & Johnson, A. (2020). Assessing the impacts of climate Machado, J. A. D. (2020). Understanding the diver- change of coastal Winneba-Ghana. https://reposi gences between farmer’s perception and meteoro- torio-aberto.up.pt/bitstream/10216/127986/2/ logical records regarding climate change: A review. 410090.pdf Environment, Development and Sustainability, 22(1), Jourdan, M., François, C., Delpierre, N., St-Paul, N. M., & 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-018-0193-0 Dufrêne, E. (2021). Reliable predictions of forest Gbetibouo, G. A. (2009). Understanding farmers’ percep- ecosystem functioning require flawless climate tions and adaptations to climate change and varia- forcings. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 311, bility: The case of the Limpopo Basin, South Africa 108703. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2021. (Vol. 849). Intl Food Policy Res Inst. 108703 Ghana Statistical Service. (2010). 2010 Population and Kabir, M. I., Rahman, M. B., Smith, W., Lusha, M. A. F., Housing Census. Ghana Statistical Service (GSS). Azim, S., & Milton, A. H. (2016). Knowledge and per- Ghana Statistical Service. (2020). Ghana Census of ception about climate change and human health: Agriculture-National Report. https://ejournal.poltekte Findings from a baseline survey among vulnerable gal.ac.id/index.php/siklus/article/view/298%0Ahttp:// communities in Bangladesh. BMC Public Health, 16(1), repositorio.unan.edu.ni/2986/1/5624.pdf%0Ahttp:// 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-016-2930-3 dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jana.2015.10.005%0Ahttp:// Kais, S. M., & Islam, M. S. (2019). Perception of climate www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/12/58% change in shrimp-farming communities in 0Ahttp://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE= Bangladesh: A critical assessment. International refe Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, Guodaar, L. (2015). Effects of climate variability on tomato 16(4), 672. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16040672 crop production in the Offinso North District of Ashanti Kalat, J. W. (2016). Introduction to psychology. Cengage region. Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Learning. Technology. Krishna Bahadur, K., Elliott, V., Seng, R., Pomeroy, R. S., Guodaar, L., Bardsley, D. K., & Suh, J. (2021). Integrating Schenkels, J., & Fraser, E. D. (2020). Evaluating com- local perceptions with scientific evidence to under- munity fishery management using Fishers‘ percep- stand climate change variability in northern Ghana: A tions in the Tonle Sap lake of Cambodia. mixed-methods approach. Applied Geography, 130, Environmental Development, 33, 100503. https://doi. 102440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2021. org/10.1016/j.envdev.2020.100503 102440 Kuivanen, K., Michalscheck, M., Descheemaeker, K., Adjei- Haq, S. M., & Ahmed, K. J. (2017). Does the perception of Nsiah, S., Mellon-Bedi, S., Groot, J. C., & Alvarez, S. (2016). climate change vary with the socio-demographic A comparison of statistical and participatory clustering dimensions? A study on vulnerable populations in of smallholder farming systems–A case study in Bangladesh. Natural Hazards, 85(3), 1759–1785. Northern Ghana. Journal of Rural Studies, 45, 184–198. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-016-2664-7 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2016.03.015 Haque, M. A., Yamamoto, S. S., Malik, A. A., & Sauerborn, R. Kumar, R. (2018). Research methodology: A step-by-step (2012). Households’ perception of climate change guide for beginners. Sage. Page 16 of 19 Ankrah et al., Cogent Food & Agriculture (2023), 9: 2148323 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2022.2148323 Kwapong N Afranaa, Ankrah D Adu, Anaglo J Nicholas Mkonda, M. Y., He, X., & Festin, E. S. (2018). Comparing and Vukey E Yao. (2021). Determinants of scale of smallholder farmers’ perception of climate change farm operation in the eastern region of Ghana. Agric with meteorological data: Experience from seven & Food Secur, 10(1), 10.1186/s40066-021-00309-6 agroecological zones of Tanzania. Weather, Climate, Kyei-Mensah, C., Kyerematen, R., & Adu-Acheampong, S. and Society, 10(3), 435–452. https://doi.org/10.1175/ (2019). Impact of rainfall variability on crop produc- WCAS-D-17-0036.1 tion within the worobong ecological area of fan- Morton, J. (2017). Climate change and African agriculture: teakwa district, Ghana. Advances in Agriculture, 2019, Unlocking the potential of research and advisory 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/7930127 services. In Fiona N (Ed.) Making climate compatible Leavy, P. (2017). Research design: Quantitative, qualita- development happen (pp. 87–113). Routledge. tive, mixed methods, arts-based, and community- Mubiru, D. N., Kyazze, F. B., Radeny, M. A., Zziwa, A., based participatory research approaches. Guilford Lwasa, J., & Kinyangi, J. (2015). Climatic trends, risk Publications. perceptions and coping strategies of smallholder Le Dang, H., Li, E., Bruwer, J., & Nuberg, I. (2014). Farmers’ farmers in rural Uganda. CCAFS Working Paper. CGIAR perceptions of climate variability and barriers to Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture adaptation: Lessons learned from an exploratory and Food Security (CCAFS). Copenhagen, Denmark. study in Vietnam. Mitigation and Adaptation Available online at: https://www.ccafs.cgiar.org Strategies for Global Change, 19(5), 531–548. https:// Niemeyer, S., Petts, J., & Hobson, K. (2005). Rapid climate doi.org/10.1007/s11027-012-9447-6 change and society: Assessing responses and Lee, T. M., Markowitz, E. M., Howe, P. D., Ko, C.-Y., & thresholds. Risk Analysis: An International Journal, 25 Leiserowitz, A. A. (2015). Predictors of public climate (6), 1443–1456. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924. change awareness and risk perception around the 2005.00691.x world. Nature Climate Change, 5(11), 1014–1020. Niles, M. T., & Mueller, N. D. (2016). Farmer perceptions of https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2728 climate change: Associations with observed tem- Limantol, A. M., Keith, B. E., Azabre, B. A., & Lennartz, B. perature and precipitation trends, irrigation, and cli- (2016). Farmers’ perception and adaptation practice mate beliefs. Global Environmental Change, 39, to climate variability and change: A case study of the 133–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016. Vea catchment in Ghana. SpringerPlus, 5(1), 1–38. 05.002 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-016-2433-9 Nyadzi, E. (2016). Climate variability since 1970 and Li, C., Tang, Y., Luo, H., Di, B., & Zhang, L. (2013). Local farmers’ observations in Northern Ghana. Sustainable farmers’ perceptions of climate change and local Agriculture Research, 5 (2), 41. Sustainable adaptive strategies: A case study from the middle Agriculture Research, 5(526-2016-37880). https://doi. yarlung zangbo river valley, Tibet, China. org/10.5539/sar.v5n2p41 Environmental Management, 52(4), 894–906. https:// Omoyo, N. N., Wakhungu, J., & Oteng’i, S. (2015). Effects doi.org/10.1007/s00267-013-0139-0 of climate variability on maize yield in the arid and Liu, Z., Smith, W. J., & Safi, A. S. (2014). Rancher and semi arid lands of lower eastern Kenya. Agriculture & farmer perceptions of climate change in Nevada, Food Security, 4(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/ USA. Climatic Change, 122(1), 313–327. https://doi. s40066-015-0028-2 org/10.1007/s10584-013-0979-x Osbahr, H., Dorward, P., Stern, R., & Cooper, S. (2011). MacKellar, N., New, M., & Jack, C. (2014). Observed and Supporting agricultural innovation in Uganda to modelled trends in rainfall and temperature for respond to climate risk: Linking climate change and South Africa: 1960-2010. South African Journal of variability with farmer perceptions. Experimental Science, 110(7–8), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1590/sajs. Agriculture, 47(2), 293–316. https://doi.org/10.1017/ 2014/20130353 S0014479710000785 Mamba, S. F. (2016). Factors influencing perception of Owusu, M., Nursey-Bray, M., & Rudd, D. (2019). Gendered climate variability and change among smallholder perception and vulnerability to climate change in farmers in Swaziland. Indian Journal of Nutrition, 3 urban slum communities in Accra, Ghana. Regional (2), 138–142. Environmental Change, 19(1), 13–25. https://doi.org/ Mcsweeney, C., New, M., Lizcano, G., & Lu, X. (2010). The 10.1007/s10113-018-1357-z UNDP climate change country profiles: Improving the Roco, L., Engler, A., Bravo-Ureta, B. E., & Jara-Rojas, R. (2015). accessibility of observed and projected climate Farmers’ perception of climate change in Mediterranean information for studies of climate change in devel- Chile. Regional Environmental Change, 15(5), 867–879. oping countries. Bulletin of the American https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-014-0669-x Meteorological Society, 91(2), 157–166. https://doi. Shameem, M. I. M., Momtaz, S., & Kiem, A. S. (2015). Local org/10.1175/2009BAMS2826.1 perceptions of and adaptation to climate variability Mekonnen, Z., Kassa, H., Woldeamanuel, T., & Asfaw, Z. and change: The case of shrimp farming commu- (2018). Analysis of observed and perceived climate nities in the coastal region of Bangladesh. Climatic change and variability in Arsi Negele District, Change, 133(2), 253–266. https://doi.org/10.1007/ Ethiopia. Environment, Development and s10584-015-1470-7 Sustainability, 20(3), 1191–1212. https://doi.org/10. Shukla, R., Agarwal, A., Sachdeva, K., Kurths, J., & Joshi, P. 1007/s10668-017-9934-8 (2019). Climate change perception: An analysis of Mengistu, D., Bewket, W., & Lal, R. (2014). Recent spatio- climate change and risk perceptions among farmer temporal temperature and rainfall variability and types of Indian Western Himalayas. Climatic Change, trends over the Upper Blue Nile River Basin, Ethiopia. 152(1), 103–119. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584- International Journal of Climatology, 34(7), 018-2314-z 2278–2292. https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.3837 Simelton, E., Quinn, C. H., Batisani, N., Dougill, A. J., Dyer, J. C., Mertz, O., Mbow, C., Reenberg, A., & Diouf, A. (2009). Fraser, E. D., Mkwambisi, D., Sallu, S., & Stringer, L. C. Farmers’ perceptions of climate change and agricul- (2013). Is rainfall really changing? Farmers’ perceptions, tural adaptation strategies in rural Sahel. meteorological data, and policy implications. Climate Environmental Management, 43(5), 804–816. https:// and Development, 5(2), 123–138. https://doi.org/10. doi.org/10.1007/s00267-008-9197-0 1080/17565529.2012.751893 Page 17 of 19 Ankrah et al., Cogent Food & Agriculture (2023), 9: 2148323 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2022.2148323 Solaraju-Murali, B., Bojovic, D., Gonzalez-Reviriego, N., Van Griensven, A., Vetter, T., Piontek, F., Gosling, S. N., Nicodemou, A., Terrado, M., Caron, L.-P., & Doblas- Kamali, B., Reinhardt, J., and Alemayehu, T. (2016). Reyes, F. J. (2022). How decadal predictions entered Inter-sectoral comparison of model uncertainty of the climate services arena: An example from the climate change impacts in Africa. Paper presented at agriculture sector. Climate Services, 27, 100303. the EGU General Assembly Conference Abstracts. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cliser.2022.100303 Vienna, Austria. Steg, L. E., Van Den Berg, A. E., & De Groot, J. I. (2019). Yamane, T. (1967). Elementary Sampling Theory (1rd ed.). Environmental psychology: An introduction. John Prentice Hall Inc. Englewoods Cliffs. 405 Wiley & Sons. Yaro, J. A. (2013). The perception of and adaptation to Tambo, J. A., & Abdoulaye, T. (2013). Smallholder farmers’ climate variability/change in Ghana by small-scale perceptions of and adaptations to climate change in and commercial farmers. Regional Environmental the Nigerian savanna. Regional Environmental Change, 13(6), 1259–1272. https://doi.org/10.1007/ Change, 13(2), 375–388. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10113-013-0443-5 s10113-012-0351-0 Yaseen, M., Ahmad, M. M., & Soni, P. (2018). Farm Tschakert, P., Dietrich, K., Tamminga, K., Prins, E., households’ simultaneous use of sources to Shaffer, J., Liwenga, E., & Asiedu, A. (2014). Learning access information on cotton crop production. and envisioning under climatic uncertainty: An Journal of Agricultural & Food Information, 19(2), African experience. Environment and Planning A, 46 149–161. https://doi.org/10.1080/10496505.2017. (5), 1049–1068. https://doi.org/10.1068/a46257 1325743 Uddin, M. N., Bokelmann, W., & Entsminger, J. S. (2014). Zulfiqar, F., Datta, A., & Thapa, G. B. (2017). Determinants Factors affecting farmers’ adaptation strategies to and resource use efficiency of “better cotton”: An environmental degradation and climate change innovative cleaner production alternative. Journal of effects: A farm level study in Bangladesh. Climate, 2 Cleaner Production, 166, 1372–1380. https://doi.org/ (4), 223–241. https://doi.org/10.3390/cli2040223 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.08.155 Page 18 of 19 Ankrah et al., Cogent Food & Agriculture (2023), 9: 2148323 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2022.2148323 © 2022 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license. You are free to: Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format. Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially. The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms. Under the following terms: Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use. No additional restrictions You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits. Cogent Food & Agriculture (ISSN: 2331-1932) is published by Cogent OA, part of Taylor & Francis Group. Publishing with Cogent OA ensures: • Immediate, universal access to your article on publication • High visibility and discoverability via the Cogent OA website as well as Taylor & Francis Online • Download and citation statistics for your article • Rapid online publication • Input from, and dialog with, expert editors and editorial boards • Retention of full copyright of your article • Guaranteed legacy preservation of your article • Discounts and waivers for authors in developing regions Submit your manuscript to a Cogent OA journal at www.CogentOA.com Page 19 of 19