Abstract
Protected-area landscapes across Sub-Saharan Africa face escalating climate-induced disruption of livelihoods, biodiversity, and ecosystem services, yet how fringe communities perceive and respond to these changes remains poorly documented in Nigeria. Guided by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) vulnerability framework, conceptualizing vulnerability as a function of exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity, this study examined climate change perception, livelihood vulnerability, and perceived wildlife change among 180 households across nine communities surrounding Old Oyo National Park (OONP), using structured questionnaires and Chi-square tests. Climate change awareness was near-universal (96.7%), and respondents overwhelmingly regarded changes as detrimental (97.8%), reporting declining rainfall (73.7%), delayed onset (92.6%), and variability (92.2%). This exposure translated into pronounced sensitivity, reflected in diminishing water sources (90.6%), narrowing crop diversity (87.2%), rising food insecurity (86.7%), and perceived wildlife rarity (94.5%), most pronounced for grasscutter (81.6%), patas monkey (71.7%), and bushbuck (69.3%). Adaptive capacity remained largely reactive, centered on food storage and shelter provision (96.1% each), with limited water conservation uptake (39.4%). Perceptions varied significantly by age, education, and occupation (p < 0.05), but not by gender, marital status, or religion, revealing a disconnect between sensitivity and adaptive capacity that underscores the need for targeted climate information and adaptation support in protected-area fringe communities. The study highlights the potential for interpreting climate-induced sensitivity and vulnerability factors as significant contributors to the emergence of collective human trauma in communities adjacent to OONP.
Introduction
Climate change is widely recognized as one of the most pressing environmental challenges of the twenty-first century, with profound implications for both human societies and natural ecosystems. Rising temperatures, altered precipitation patterns, increasing frequency of extreme weather events, and prolonged droughts are reshaping ecological processes, reducing agricultural productivity, and threatening human well-being worldwide (). These impacts are particularly severe in developing countries, where livelihoods are strongly dependent on climate-sensitive natural resources and where adaptive capacity is often constrained by socio-economic and institutional limitations (). Sub-Saharan Africa is among the region’s most vulnerable to these changes: rising temperatures, rainfall variability, and recurrent climate extremes have intensified pressures, causing losses of agriculture, water resources, food security, and biodiversity conservation across the region (; Serdeczny et al., 2017).
These losses, when perceived, have the tendency to influence human well-being through diverse mechanisms, affecting both physical and mental health and often generating emotional responses, including ecological grief (; ). Beyond scientific measurements, local perceptions provide an important source of knowledge for understanding how climate change is experienced and acted upon at the community level (). Rural populations often possess extensive experiential knowledge acquired through long-term interactions with their environment, enabling them to detect subtle environmental changes that may not be immediately captured through formal monitoring systems (Nkomwa et al., 2014; ). Across Africa, communities commonly associate climate change with increasing temperatures, rainfall variability, declining agricultural productivity, water scarcity, and changes in vegetation cover ().
These perceptions matter well beyond documenting environmental change itself: they are also a primary basis on which households and communities evaluate risk, allocate labor and resources, and decide whether and how to adapt. How climate change is perceived locally, therefore, has a direct bearing on livelihood vulnerability, the extent to which a community’s economic security, food systems, social stability, and capacity to cope are exposed to climatic stress. Livelihood vulnerability arising from climate-sensitive actions can manifest in a range of serious downstream consequences, including declining food security and child hunger, economic instability, rural-to-urban migration, heightened competition or conflict over increasingly scarce natural resources, gender-based vulnerabilities tied to shifting labor burdens, and gaps in household and community disaster preparedness (Serdeczny et al., 2017; ).
Alongside these manifestations and social consequences, perceived and anticipated environmental losses may also trigger collective human trauma for people with strong attachments to place and ecosystem, responses that may follow both sudden environmental disruptions and more gradual ecological decline, and that have been discussed in the literature as ecological grief and climate anxiety (; ; Pihkala, 2024; ; ). Ecological grief simply explains the emotional suffering characterized by sadness, mourning, and yearning that accompanies actual, anticipated, or ongoing losses of “home environments, local culture, landscapes, species or ecosystems” (Comtesse et al., 2021).
In Nigeria, where rural livelihoods depend heavily on rain-fed agriculture, forest resources, and ecosystem services, climate variability has become a major development and environmental concern (), with evidence from the country’s ecological zones pointing to rising temperatures, shifting rainfall patterns, drought episodes, flooding, and shortened growing seasons (). Although existing studies have demonstrated that ecological grief can emerge in response to both abrupt environmental events, including floods and storms (; ), and gradual ecological deterioration linked to climate change (; ), these experiences have never been interpreted through the lens of ecological grief in Nigeria. This gap may be reinforced by cultural norms that frame open expression of distress as a sign of vulnerability, particularly among men, potentially leaving climate-related expressions unarticulated and, in turn, undocumented (Trudell et al., 2021).
Much of this scholarship, however, originates from high-income, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) settings, for instance Canada’s Northwest Territories (), extended drought conditions in Australia’s Wheatbelt region (), and diminishing sea ice in the Canadian Arctic (), leaving its relevance to resource-limited contexts where formal mental health support is often scarce, largely unexamined (), such as Nigeria. We raise the context of the potentiality of collective human trauma stemming from climate change-induced environmental losses only as one of several plausible outcomes of the vulnerability that perceived climatic and ecological change may set in motion, and further as a limitation to our study that requires urgent attention since our present study was not primarily designed to measure, trauma, grief, distress, or any other emotional response, and we do not treat collective human trauma as a primary framework for interpreting our findings. Rather, our central concern is with the perceptions themselves and with the livelihood, food security, and ecological consequences that local communities describe, outcomes that carry direct and demonstrable relevance for climate vulnerability, local decision-making, and adaptation planning.
The interactions between climate change, biodiversity conservation, and rural livelihoods are especially evident in landscapes surrounding protected areas. Protected areas play a critical role in safeguarding biodiversity, maintaining ecosystem functions, and supporting ecosystem service provision, but they are increasingly exposed to climate-induced changes that may alter habitat suitability, species distributions, and ecosystem productivity (; Pecl et al., 2017). Communities living adjacent to protected areas frequently depend on ecosystem services such as water resources, agricultural land, non-timber forest products, grazing areas, and tourism-related opportunities, and they are often among the first to detect changes in rainfall patterns, vegetation structure, and wildlife abundance (Nkomwa et al., 2014).
As a result, climate-driven ecological changes in these landscapes can simultaneously affect biodiversity conservation outcomes and the socio-economic well-being of local populations, and community perceptions of both environmental and wildlife change offer a valuable, complementary source of information alongside formal ecological monitoring (; Pecl et al., 2017; Pörtner et al., 2021) in designing effective adaptive measures for those affected. Old Oyo National Park, located within Nigeria’s Guinea savanna ecosystem in the southwest of the country, exemplifies these dynamics. The park supports diverse wildlife populations and contributes significantly to regional biodiversity conservation, while surrounding communities rely heavily on agriculture and other natural-resource-based livelihoods that render them particularly exposed to climatic and environmental change. Increasing climatic variability, habitat modification, and biodiversity decline threaten both the ecological stability of the park and the livelihoods of adjacent populations (Shotuyo et al., 2020; Onihunwa et al., 2023).
Existing research in Nigeria has predominantly examined climate change awareness among farmers, agricultural adaptation strategies, or biodiversity conservation as separate research themes (; ), leaving relatively few empirical studies that combine cumulative figures and information on how climate change perceptions, livelihood vulnerability, and perceived wildlife population change intersect within protected-area landscapes. Addressing this broader gap matters because effective, locally led adaptation and conservation interventions depend on a clear understanding of communities’ lived experiences, their perceptions, sensitivity, resilience, and response to environmental change, and because that understanding, in turn, is what allows regional, national, and global support for adaptation to be targeted and useful rather than generic and ineffective.
Concerning the aforementioned situations, the present study investigates climate change perception, livelihood vulnerability, and community-perceived wildlife population changes among communities surrounding Old Oyo National Park, Nigeria. Specifically, the study examines respondents’ socio-demographic characteristics; assesses their knowledge and awareness of climate change; evaluates perceived impacts of climate variability on livelihoods, food security, and ecosystem services; explores local perceptions of wildlife population change; identifies indigenous adaptation strategies; and examines the relationship between socio-demographic characteristics and climate change perceptions. By integrating social and ecological dimensions of climate change, the study contributes to a growing body of knowledge on climate vulnerability, community-based conservation, and locally grounded adaptation in a changing climate.
Research Questions
What climate change indicators do residents around Old Oyo National Park perceive?
How do residents perceive climate change to be affecting their livelihoods, food, water, and forest resources?
What changes in wildlife species do residents perceive?
What adaptation strategies have residents adopted?
How do socio-demographic variables of residents relate to their perception of climate change?
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) vulnerability framework
Scholars have approached climate vulnerability from multiple angles (; ). One way to understand it is as an interaction between social conditions and environmental hazards, where hazards are described as the physical dimensions of climate-related threats that originate outside the social system (). Because these parameters shift over time, vulnerability itself is not static. A shift away from a community’s baseline vulnerability reflects broader processes of socio-economic change, together with how livelihoods are reshaped in response to climatic conditions and how governing institutions and political arrangements evolve (). Given its central position in global climate assessment, this study adopts the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) framing of vulnerability as its point of departure. Under the IPCC’s earlier (2001/2007) formulation, vulnerability was described as the extent to which a system is prone to, and lacks the capacity to manage, the harmful consequences of climate change, encompassing both variability and extreme events; it was treated as a product of the type, scale, and pace of climatic change a system encounters, along with that system’s sensitivity and its capacity to adapt (). Three components thus anchor vulnerability assessment under this framing: exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity.
Exposure denotes the nature and extent to which a system encounters meaningful climatic shifts (), essentially the stressor itself, along with the scope of change occurring in a given region’s climate variables. It reflects how much climate-related stress bears on a system, whether through gradual shifts in average conditions or through changes in variability, including how often and how severely extreme events occur (O’Brien et al., 2004). Sensitivity concerns how a system responds, whether positively or negatively, to climatic variability or change, a response that can be direct, such as altered crop output tied to shifting temperature patterns, or indirect, damage resulting from more frequent coastal flooding linked to rising sea levels (). This concept matters because it assumes adaptation is not a matter of restoring some earlier conditions; social and ecological systems are inherently dynamic and evolve alongside one another (Tompkins and Adger, 2004). Following , this study therefore treats sensitivity as the threshold connecting a system’s exposure to its adaptive capacity.
Adaptive capacity refers to a system’s ability to adjust to climatic change in ways that lessen possible harm, capitalize on emerging opportunities, or manage resulting consequences (). It captures a system’s potential to enact measures that stave off climate-related harm (), making it a core element of vulnerability overall (). When climate-related extreme events grow more frequent, human systems with limited adaptive capacity simultaneously face elevated vulnerability (). More broadly, a system’s adaptive capacity reflects its potential to lower social vulnerability and, by extension, reduce the risk tied to a particular hazard. Since vulnerability has also been characterized as a composite measure of human welfare spanning environmental, social, economic, and political exposure to damaging disturbances (), the barriers to adaptive capacity likewise cut across each of these dimensions. Furthermore, adaptive capacity can accordingly be understood as a “meta-capability” built from multiple, interacting capacities across natural, economic, social, and political domains. Although numerous factors shape a system’s overall capacity to respond to hazards, certain elements of that capacity remain specific to the hazard in question ().
The IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report introduced a revised, risk-centered approach in 2014, framing risk as an interaction among hazard, exposure, and vulnerability (). Within this updated structure, vulnerability is reconceived as an inherent characteristic of a system, separated from its exposure to hazards (); as a result, evaluating vulnerability under this newer framework relies solely on measures of sensitivity and adaptive capacity. Taken together, these definitions point to two core dimensions of vulnerability: how an event affects people (social vulnerability) and the likelihood of that event occurring in the first place (exposure) (Adger, 1996). Vulnerability, then, has both an internal and an external face. Internally, it involves susceptibility and lack of protection, alongside the capacity to foresee, withstand, resist, and recover from a hazard’s effects. Externally, it involves the degree of exposure to climatic variability and extremes. In this study, the internal dimension is understood through socio-economic circumstances, the context in which vulnerability is shaped and through which adaptive responses are carried out, while the external dimension is understood through biophysical and location-specific factors.
Materials and methods
Study area
This study was conducted in selected fringe communities surrounding the Marguba, Tede, and Sepeteri administrative ranges of Old Oyo National Park (OONP) in southwestern Nigeria as shown in Figure 1. The Park lies between latitudes 8°10′–9°05′N and longitudes 3°35′–4°21′E, with a central coordinate of approximately 8°36′N and 3°57′E. Covering about 2,512 km², OONP is one of the largest protected areas in Nigeria (Oladeji et al., 2012). Old Oyo National Park spans parts of northern Oyo State and southern Kwara State and supports a diverse assemblage of flora and fauna. The Park is surrounded by several towns, including Saki, Iseyin, Igboho, Sepeteri, Tede, and Igbeti, which serve as important socio-economic and cultural centers for local communities and visitors (; ). Historically, the Park evolved from two native administrative forest reserves: the Upper Ogun Forest Reserve, established in 1936, and the Oyo-Ile Forest Reserve, established in 1941. Both reserves were designated as game reserves in 1952 before being merged and upgraded to National Park status in 1979. Administratively, Old Oyo National Park comprises five management ranges: Marguba, Sepeteri, Tede, Oyo-Ile, and Yemoso/Tessi (). The present study focused on communities located within the Marguba, Sepeteri, and Tede ranges due to their proximity to the park and their direct dependence on natural resources and ecosystem services derived from the protected area.
Figure 1
Research design
A quantitative research design was adopted to assess local perceptions of climate change, awareness indicators, livelihood impacts, indigenous adaptation practices, and community-perceived changes in wildlife populations among communities surrounding OONP. This approach enabled triangulation of evidence and enhanced reliability and contextual interpretation of findings, particularly for socio-ecological studies involving protected-area fringe communities. The study was conducted across selected communities located within the Marguba, Tede, and Sepeteri administrative ranges of OONP.
Sampling procedure and sample size determination
A multistage sampling technique was employed to select study participants. In the first stage, three administrative ranges of Old Oyo National Park (Marguba, Tede, and Sepeteri) were purposively selected because of their proximity to the park boundaries and the high level of human–environment interactions occurring within them. In the second stage, three communities were randomly selected from each administrative range, resulting in a total of nine communities. These communities served as spatial units of aggregation for the study. Within each selected community, twenty (20) respondents were selected using systematic sampling, yielding a total sample size of 180 (Table 1). Adults from ages 18 and above were selected for questionnaire administration. This is to ensure that individuals with adequate knowledge of household activities and environmental conditions were interviewed.
Table 1
| Range | Selected communities per range | Respondents per community (n) | Total respondents per range (n) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Marguba | 3 | 20 each | 60 |
| Tede | 3 | 20 each | 60 |
| Sepeteri | 3 | 20 each | 60 |
| Total | 9 | N/A | 180 |
Sampling distribution of respondents across selected communities surrounding Old Oyo National Park.
Bold values indicate the overall totals across all selected ranges (9 communities and 180 respondents).
Data collection
Primary data were collected through structured questionnaire surveys. A semi-structured questionnaire was designed based on established climate change perception and community adaptation studies conducted in protected-area landscapes (; Shaffril et al., 2018). Prior to the main survey, the questionnaire was pretested in a neighboring community that was not included in the final sample to assess its clarity, reliability, and contextual appropriateness. Feedback obtained during the pretest was used to refine the instrument before full-scale administration. The questionnaire gathered information on respondents’ socio-demographic characteristics, knowledge and awareness of climate change, perceptions of climate variability and long-term climatic trends, and sources of climate-related information. It also examined the perceived impacts of climate change on local livelihoods, community perceptions of changes in wildlife populations, and the effects of climate change on resources within and around Old Oyo National Park. In addition, respondents were asked to identify the indigenous adaptation and coping strategies they employed to address climate-related challenges. To complement the questionnaire data, direct field observations were conducted throughout the study communities. These observations provided contextual information on environmental conditions, livelihood activities, evidence of climate-related impacts, and local adaptation practices, thereby enhancing the interpretation and validation of survey responses.
Questionnaire administration
‘The structured questionnaires were administered face-to-face by four trained research assistants from the Federal University of Agriculture, Abeokuta, who are native speakers and fully fluent in Yoruba, the predominant local language of the fringe communities. The instrument was forward-translated from English into the local Yoruba dialect by a linguistic expert and subsequently back-translated by an independent researcher to ensure semantic equivalence, construct validity, and operational consistency across languages. Responses from non-literate participants were carefully translated in real-time by the enumerators, and final survey entries were re-translated into English for data standardization and processing. The copies of questionnaires were administered through face-to-face contact to improve response accuracy, particularly among respondents with limited literacy levels. The administration of the survey questionnaire was conducted in local languages where necessary and later translated into English for data processing and analysis. Respondents were asked to indicate their perceptions of changes in climatic variables, including rainfall patterns, temperature fluctuations, drought occurrence, flooding events, and seasonal rainfall timing. In addition, respondents provided information regarding perceived impacts of climate change on agricultural productivity, water resources, livelihoods, and biodiversity. To improve scientific rigor, wildlife-related responses were framed as community-perceived wildlife population changes, rather than direct ecological assessments. Thus, respondents reported perceived trends in abundance (increased, decreased, unchanged, or uncertain) for selected wildlife species historically known to occur within Old Oyo National Park.
Missing data and response rates
A total of 192 questionnaires were distributed across the nine selected communities to obtain the targeted sample of 180 complete questionnaires. Of these, 180 questionnaires were completed and returned, representing a response rate of 93.75%. Twelve questionnaires were not included in the final analysis because respondents declined participation or the questionnaire could not be completed despite repeated visits. Among the completed questionnaires, a small number of item-level missing responses occurred, particularly for species-specific wildlife perception questions. These missing responses reflected unanswered questionnaire items and were treated as missing values rather than being recorded as “Don’t know,” which represented a separate response category. Consequently, the number of valid responses varied slightly across wildlife species. Missing data was handled using pairwise deletion for descriptive analyses and listwise deletion for inferential analyses. Because the proportion of missing responses was low, they were not considered sufficient to affect the overall interpretation of the findings.
Data analysis
Socio-demographic profiles and climate awareness indicators were modeled using descriptive statistics, including percentages, arithmetic means, and standard deviations. To evaluate the consensus and intensity of Likert-scale perception scores, a mean score ranking framework was implemented. Inferential analysis was conducted using Chi-square (χ²) tests of independence to rigorously evaluate the statistical relationships between categorical socio-demographic independent variables (age, education, occupation) and climate change perception variables. Statistical significance was evaluated against a default alpha level of 0.05. Software utilities (IBM SPSS v26 and MS Excel) were used strictly for computational execution.
Results
Socio-demographic characteristics of respondents in communities surrounding Old Oyo National Park
Tables 2a and 2b present the socio-demographic characteristics of respondents residing in communities surrounding Old Oyo National Park. The sample was slightly male-dominated, with males accounting for 52.2% of respondents, while females constituted 47.8%, indicating relatively balanced gender representation. The age structure revealed that respondents were predominantly economically active adults, with the highest proportion (49.4%) falling within the 30–44 years age group, followed by respondents aged 18–29 years (25.0%). Older respondents aged 60 years and above represented only 5.5% of the sample. Regarding marital status, married respondents constituted the majority (71.1%), whereas single (15.5%), widowed (11.6%), and divorced respondents (1.7%) accounted for smaller proportions. Educational attainment showed that most respondents possessed some level of formal education, with secondary education being most prevalent (36.1%), followed by primary education (31.1%), while only 5.0% attained tertiary education. Religiously, Islam was the dominant faith (49.7%), followed closely by Christianity (42.7%), while adherence to traditional religion was comparatively low (8.3%). Farming represented the principal occupation among respondents (51.7%). The majority of respondents were Nigerians (92.2%), and the dominant ethnic group was Yoruba (80.0%), reflecting the historical settlement pattern of the study area rather than implying that all respondents were long-term residents. Indeed, although 27.2% of respondents had resided in the communities for 31–40 years, 21.1% had lived there for 10 years or less, indicating that the study population comprised both long-established residents and more recent settlers. Most households (91.1%) comprised between 1 and 10 members. Family-related reasons accounted for the principal basis for residence (58.3%), followed by farming (32.8%).
| Variable | Category | Percentage (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 52.2 |
| Female | 47.8 | |
| Age (years) | 18–29 | 25.0 |
| 30–44 | 49.4 | |
| 45–59 | 20.0 | |
| ≥60 | 5.5 | |
| Marital status | Single | 15.5 |
| Married | 71.1 | |
| Divorced | 1.7 | |
| Widowed | 11.6 | |
| Level of education | No formal education | 27.8 |
| Primary | 31.1 | |
| Secondary | 36.1 | |
| Tertiary | 5.0 | |
| Religion | Christianity | 42.7 |
| Islam | 49.7 | |
| Traditional religion | 8.3 | |
| Occupation | Artisan | 14.4 |
| Self-employed | 12.2 | |
| Trading | 21.7 | |
| Farming | 51.7 |
| Variable | Category | Percentage (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Nationality | Nigerian | 92.2 |
| Foreigner | 7.8 | |
| Ethnicity | Yoruba | 80.0 |
| Idoma | 2.8 | |
| Fulani | 1.1 | |
| Hausa | 7.8 | |
| Ibariba | 0.6 | |
| Togolese | 7.8 | |
| Household size | 1–10 | 91.1 |
| 11–20 | 7.2 | |
| 21–30 | 1.7 | |
| Duration of stay (years) | 1–10 | 21.1 |
| 11–20 | 22.2 | |
| 21–30 | 14.4 | |
| 31–40 | 27.2 | |
| 41–50 | 9.4 | |
| 51–60 | 5.5 | |
| Reason for residence | Business | 6.1 |
| Family | 58.3 | |
| Farming | 32.8 | |
| Work | 2.8 |
Respondents’ initial awareness and recognition of climate change in communities surrounding Old Oyo National Park
Table 3 presents respondents’ knowledge and awareness regarding climate change in communities surrounding Old Oyo National Park. Nearly half of the respondents (47.2%) described their initial impression of the area as good, while 40.0% considered it fair. A substantial majority (96.7%) reported observing changes in climatic conditions over time, demonstrating strong local awareness of environmental variability. Similarly, 96.7% perceived changes in temperature patterns, indicating widespread recognition of increasing thermal fluctuations. Most respondents (94.4%) also reported noticeable changes in rainfall amounts, highlighting strong community awareness of altered precipitation regimes. However, when asked whether such climatic changes had been beneficial, an overwhelming majority (97.8%) responded negatively.
Table 3
| Variable | Response | Percentage (%) |
|---|---|---|
| First impression of the area | Very good | 9.4 |
| Good | 47.2 | |
| Fair | 40.0 | |
| Poor | 3.3 | |
| Observed changes in climatic conditions over the years | Yes | 96.7 |
| No | 3.3 | |
| Perceived temperature change | Yes | 96.7 |
| No | 3.3 | |
| Perceived change in rainfall amount | Yes | 94.4 |
| No | 5.6 | |
| Perception of whether climatic changes are beneficial | Yes | 2.2 |
| No | 97.8 | |
| Awareness of climate change | Yes | 86.1 |
| No | 13.9 |
Respondents’ initial awareness and recognition of climate change in communities surrounding Old Oyo National Park.
This table presents respondents’ initial awareness and recognition of climate change using screening (Yes/No) questions.
Respondents’ primary sources of climate change information in communities surrounding Old Oyo National Park
Table 4 presents respondents’ sources of climate change information. Personal observation constituted the dominant information source, reported by 73.9% of respondents. Information obtained through fellow inhabitants (10.0%) and village meetings (7.2%) represented secondary sources of climate-related awareness. Formal institutional channels, including wildlife extension officers (5.6%), mass media (2.2%), and meteorological agencies (1.1%), contributed minimally to climate information dissemination.
Table 4
| S/N | Source of information | Percentage (%) |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Personal observation | 73.9 |
| 2 | Wildlife extension officers | 5.6 |
| 3 | Village meetings | 7.2 |
| 4 | Fellow inhabitants | 10.0 |
| 5 | Mass media | 2.2 |
| 6 | Meteorological agency | 1.1 |
Respondents’ primary sources of climate change information in communities surrounding Old Oyo National Park.
Respondents perceived environmental indicators of climate change in communities surrounding Old Oyo National Park
Table 5 presents respondents’ awareness indicators regarding climate change in communities surrounding Old Oyo National Park. Awareness of rainfall-related changes was particularly high, with 92.6% of respondents reporting delayed rainfall onset and 92.2% perceiving rainfall as increasingly unpredictable. Similarly, a substantial proportion (83.0%) observed drying of streams and reduced river flow. A shortened growing season was identified by 80.2% of respondents, while 76.7% reported declining crop productivity. Likewise, 73.7% perceived declining rainfall amounts. Conversely, only 10.7% of respondents perceived rainfall as arriving earlier in the season, while 18.9% reported increased rainfall amounts. Perceptions regarding increasing temperature were relatively divided, with 47.6% reporting warming trends. Furthermore, more than half of respondents (54.2%) reported the disappearance of some plant species, implying perceived biodiversity changes associated with climatic stress. However, relatively few respondents (19.6%) reported the emergence of new plant species, while drying of natural springs was perceived by only 21.6%.
Table 5
| S/N | Indicator | Yes n in % | No n in % | Don’t Know n in % | Mean ± SD | Perception |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Shortened growing season | 80.2 | 14.7 | 5.1 | 1.25 ± 0.54 | High indicator |
| 2 | Rainfall coming late in the season | 92.6 | 5.1 | 2.3 | 1.10 ± 0.37 | High indicator |
| 3 | Rainfall coming early in the season | 10.7 | 87.1 | 2.2 | 1.92 ± 0.35 | Low indicator |
| 4 | Increased rainfall amount | 18.9 | 69.2 | 11.8 | 1.93 ± 0.55 | Low indicator |
| 5 | Decreased rainfall amount | 73.7 | 20.4 | 6.0 | 1.32 ± 0.58 | High indicator |
| 6 | Rainfall variability | 92.2 | 3.9 | 3.9 | 1.12 ± 0.43 | High indicator |
| 7 | Increased incidence of floods | 54.1 | 37.6 | 8.2 | 1.54 ± 0.65 | Moderate indicator |
| 8 | Increasing temperature | 47.6 | 45.2 | 7.1 | 1.60 ± 0.62 | Moderate indicator |
| 9 | Decreasing crop productivity | 76.7 | 18.2 | 5.1 | 1.28 ± 0.55 | High indicator |
| 10 | Disappearance of some plant species | 54.2 | 24.7 | 21.1 | 1.67 ± 0.80 | Moderate indicator |
| 11 | Emergence of new plant species | 19.6 | 62.0 | 18.4 | 1.99 ± 0.62 | Low indicator |
| 12 | Drying up of natural water springs | 21.6 | 74.9 | 3.5 | 1.82 ± 0.47 | Low indicator |
| 13 | Drying of streams and reduced river flow | 83.0 | 12.5 | 4.5 | 1.22 ± 0.51 | High indicator |
| 14 | Other indicators | 10.3 | 13.8 | 75.9 | 2.66 ± 0.67 | Low indicator |
Respondents’ perceived environmental indicators of climate change in communities surrounding Old Oyo National Park.
“Other indicators” represent responses obtained from an open-ended questionnaire item that allowed respondents to identify additional local signs of climate change not included in the predefined list. These responses were infrequent and therefore combined into a single category.
Perceived effects of climate change on local livelihoods in communities surrounding Old Oyo National Park
Table 6 presents respondents’ perceptions of climate change impacts on livelihoods in communities surrounding Old Oyo National Park. The results show that the most widely perceived impact was reduction in water sources (90.6%). This was followed by reduction in crop varieties and species (87.2%) and increased food shortage, hunger, and poverty (86.7%). Crop damage and persistent low yield (81.7%) further confirm widespread vulnerability of agricultural systems to climatic variability. More than half of respondents (58.9%) also reported increased crop pests and diseases. Livestock-related impacts were also more frequently reported, with only 77.8% indicating increased livestock diseases and while, 7.8% reporting reduction in pasture and milk production. Diversification into non-farm/off-farm activities (31.7%) indicates emerging adaptive livelihood responses, although still limited in scale.
Table 6
| S/N | Livelihood effect | Yes n in % | No n in % |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Crop damage and persistent low yield | 81.7 | 18.3 |
| 2 | Reduction in pasture, livestock and milk production | 7.8 | 92.2 |
| 3 | Increased livestock diseases | 77.8 | 22.2 |
| 4 | Increased crop pests and diseases | 58.9 | 41.1 |
| 5 | Reduction in water sources | 90.6 | 9.4 |
| 6 | Reduction in crop varieties and species | 87.2 | 12.8 |
| 7 | Increased non-farm/off-farm activities | 31.7 | 68.3 |
| 8 | Increased food shortage, hunger and poverty | 86.7 | 13.3 |
Perceived effects of climate change on local livelihoods in communities surrounding Old Oyo National Park.
Community-perceived wildlife population changes associated with climate change around Old Oyo National Park
Table 7 presents community-perceived wildlife population changes associated with climate change around Old Oyo National Park. For several large mammals, including lion (Panthera leo), leopard (Panthera pardus), buffalo (Syncerus caffer), civet cat (Civettictis civetta), and warthog (Phacochoerus africanus), the dominant response was “don’t know.”. Nevertheless, respondents strongly perceived population declines among several wildlife taxa. Declining trends were most evident for grasscutter (Thryonomys swinderianus) (81.6%), Patas monkey (Erythrocebus patas) (71.7%), bushbuck (Tragelaphus scriptus) (69.3%), duiker (Cephalophus spp.) (68.7%), and hunting dog (Lycaon pictus) (67.6%). Similarly, hare (Lepus spp.) and roan antelope (Hippotragus equinus) were also perceived to be declining by 59.3% and 56.2% of respondents, respectively.
Table 7
| S/N | Species | Increased n in % | Unchanged n in % | Decreased n in % | Don’t know n in % | Mean ± SD | Dominant perception |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Lion (Panthera leo) | 0.0 | 0.0 | 4.7 | 95.3 | 3.95 ± 0.21 | Don’t know |
| 2 | Civet cat (Civettictis civetta) | 0.0 | 0.0 | 11.8 | 88.2 | 3.88 ± 0.32 | Don’t know |
| 3 | Leopard (Panthera pardus) | 0.0 | 0.0 | 3.6 | 96.4 | 3.96 ± 0.19 | Don’t know |
| 4 | Buffalo (Syncerus caffer) | 0.0 | 1.8 | 4.8 | 93.5 | 3.92 ± 0.34 | Don’t know |
| 5 | Kob (Kobus kob) | 0.0 | 1.2 | 22.8 | 75.9 | 3.75 ± 0.46 | Don’t know |
| 6 | Roan antelope (Hippotragus equinus) | 0.6 | 1.7 | 56.2 | 41.6 | 3.39 ± 0.55 | Decreased |
| 7 | Western hartebeest (Alcelaphus buselaphus major) | 0.0 | 2.2 | 19.4 | 78.2 | 3.76 ± 0.48 | Don’t know |
| 8 | Warthog (Phacochoerus africanus) | 0.0 | 1.1 | 17.4 | 81.4 | 3.80 ± 0.43 | Don’t know |
| 9 | Patas monkey (Erythrocebus patas) | 3.3 | 7 | 71.7 | 17.8 | 3.04 ± 0.62 | Decreased |
| 10 | Bushbuck (Tragelaphus scriptus) | 1.1 | 1.7 | 69.3 | 27.4 | 3.25 ± 0.55 | Decreased |
| 11 | Duiker (Cephalophus spp.) | 0.6 | 2.8 | 68.7 | 27.4 | 3.25 ± 0.54 | Decreased |
| 12 | Aardvark (Orycteropus afer) | 0.0 | 3.8 | 17.3 | 78.8 | 3.75 ± 0.52 | Don’t know |
| 13 | Hunting dog (Lycaon pictus) | 1.1 | 15 | 67.6 | 16.2 | 2.99 ± 0.60 | Decreased |
| 14 | Grasscutter (Thryonomys swinderianus) | 2.8 | 5.6 | 81.6 | 10.1 | 2.99 ± 0.52 | Decreased |
| 15 | Mongoose (Herpestes spp.) | 0.6 | 4.2 | 9.6 | 85.5 | 3.80 ± 0.53 | Don’t know |
| 16 | Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes) | 0.0 | 2.4 | 7.3 | 90.3 | 3.88 ± 0.40 | Don’t know |
| 17 | Hare (Lepus spp.) | 0.0 | 1.7 | 59.3 | 39.0 | 3.37 ± 0.52 | Decreased |
Community-perceived wildlife population changes associated with climate change around Old Oyo National Park.
Wildlife responses represent community-perceived population changes rather than ecological census estimates. Response categories were coded as Increased = 1, Unchanged = 2, Decreased = 3, and Don’t know = 4. The number of valid responses varied slightly among species because some respondents did not provide responses to every species-specific question. Percentages are calculated using the number of valid responses for each species.
Perceived effects of climate change on park resources and ecosystem services in Old Oyo National Park
Table 8 presents respondents’ perceptions of the effects of climate change on park resources and ecosystem services within Old Oyo National Park. A strong majority of respondents agreed that climate change has contributed to wildlife rarity, with 94.5% either strongly agreeing (40.6%) or agreeing (53.9%) that some species have become rare. Similarly, most respondents perceived climate change as contributing to the depletion of food and forest resources, with 86.6% agreeing or strongly agreeing. Perceptions regarding reductions in natural beauty of the area were also substantial, with 85.6% of respondents expressing agreement. Respondents further perceived reductions in ecosystem services, with approximately 73.9% agreeing that climate change has negatively affected ecological benefits derived from the park. However, opinions regarding increasing land bareness and forest recession were comparatively mixed, reflected by neutral mean scores (2.75 ± 0.91 and 2.76 ± 0.93, respectively). Likewise, perceptions regarding reductions in eco-tourism potential remained relatively divided, as respondents were largely neutral (mean = 2.92 ± 0.97).
Table 8
| S/N | Statement | SA n in % | A n in % | UN n in % | D n in % | SD n in % | Mean ± SD | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Climate change has caused some wildlife species to become rare | 40.6 | 53.9 | 3.3 | 2.2 | 0.0 | 1.67 ± 0.65 | Agreed |
| 2 | Climate change has contributed to the depletion of food and forest resources | 22.8 | 63.3 | 6.1 | 7.2 | 0.6 | 1.98 ± 0.76 | Agreed |
| 3 | More lands are becoming barren | 5.1 | 41.1 | 26.7 | 26.1 | 1.1 | 2.75 ± 0.91 | Neutral |
| 4 | Forest land is receding | 6.4 | 39.0 | 26.7 | 27.9 | 0.0 | 2.76 ± 0.93 | Neutral |
| 5 | Climate change has reduced the natural beauty of the area | 10.0 | 75.6 | 6.1 | 8.3 | 0.0 | 2.13 ± 0.69 | Agreed |
| 6 | Climate change has reduced ecosystem services | 6.1 | 67.8 | 8.9 | 16.7 | 0.6 | 2.36 ± 0.83 | Agreed |
| 7 | Climate change has reduced the ecotourism potential | 6.7 | 32.2 | 26.1 | 35.0 | 0.0 | 2.92 ± 0.97 | Neutral |
Perceived effects of climate change on park resources and ecosystem services in Old Oyo National Park.
SA, Strongly Agree; A, Agree; UN, Undecided; D, Disagree; SD, Strongly Disagree. Response categories were coded on a five-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Agree to 5 = Strongly Disagree). Mean values of 1.00–2.49 indicate agreement, 2.50–3.49 indicate neutrality, and ≥3.50 indicate disagreement.
Indigenous adaptation strategies adopted by local inhabitants to cope with climate change impacts
Table 9 presents indigenous adaptation strategies adopted by local inhabitants to cope with climate change impacts. Food storage during unpredictable harvest periods emerged as the most widely practiced adaptation measure, reported by 96.1% of respondents. Similarly, the availability of shelter during extreme weather conditions was reported by 96.1% of respondents, reflecting community-based preparedness for climatic disturbances. More than half of respondents (55.6%) reported familiarity with traditional indigenous coping practices. In contrast, water conservation during drought periods was practiced by only 39.4% of respondents.
Table 9
| S/N | Adaptation strategy | Yes n in % | No n in % | Mean ± SD | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Familiarity with traditional indigenous coping practices | 55.6 | 44.4 | 1.44 ± 0.50 | Moderate adoption |
| 2 | Water conservation during drought periods | 39.4 | 60.6 | 1.61 ± 0.49 | Low adoption |
| 3 | Food storage during unpredictable harvest periods | 96.1 | 3.9 | 1.04 ± 0.22 | High adoption |
| 4 | Availability of shelter during extreme weather conditions | 96.1 | 3.9 | 1.04 ± 0.22 | High adoption |
Indigenous adaptation strategies adopted by local inhabitants to cope with climate change impacts.
Association between socio-demographic characteristics and respondents’ perceptions of climate change
Table 10 presents the association between respondents’ socio-demographic characteristics and perceptions of climate change. The chi-square analysis revealed that age significantly influenced respondents’ perceptions of climate change (χ² = 22.276, p = 0.035). Educational level was also significantly associated with climate change perceptions (χ² = 58.867, p < 0.001). Similarly, occupation demonstrated a statistically significant relationship with climate change perception (χ² = 31.572, p = 0.002). Conversely, gender (χ² = 9.108, p = 0.058), marital status (χ² = 18.623, p = 0.098), and religion (χ² = 9.070, p = 0.697) were not significantly associated with respondents’ perceptions of climate change.
Table 10
| Variable | χ² value | df | p-value | Decision |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | 9.108 | 4 | 0.058 | Not significant |
| Age | 22.276 | 12 | 0.035* | Significant |
| Marital status | 18.623 | 12 | 0.098 | Not significant |
| Education | 58.867 | 12 | <0.001* | Significant |
| Religion | 9.070 | 12 | 0.697 | Not significant |
| Occupation | 31.572 | 12 | 0.002* | Significant |
Association between socio-demographic characteristics and respondents’ perceptions of climate change.
χ² = Chi-square statistic; df, degree of freedom. Statistical significance was determined at p < 0.05. Asterisk (*) indicates statistically significant relationships.
Discussion
The discussion section is organized around the three components of vulnerability specified in the Conceptual Framework, that is, the exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity (), and around the internal and external dimensions through which these components operate (Adger, 1996): The near-universal recognition of changing climatic conditions, including rising temperatures and altered rainfall patterns, reflects the external dimension of vulnerability: the direct climatic stressor to which the study communities are exposed (Adger, 1996; ). This pattern of exposure is consistent with observations reported across sub-Saharan Africa, where rural communities frequently identify increasing temperatures, declining rainfall, and greater climatic uncertainty as major environmental concerns (; ). Respondents’ perceptions of declining rainfall, increased drought occurrence, and heightened climatic variability are similarly consistent with documented climatic trends across West Africa, where changes in rainfall seasonality and increasing precipitation variability have been shown to disrupt agricultural calendars and reduce crop productivity (Sultan et al., 2019).
In southwestern Nigeria specifically, delayed rainfall onset and shortened growing seasons can adversely affect crop establishment and increase the risk of harvest failure (Serdeczny et al., 2017), indicating that the exposure reported here corresponds to tangible, already-materializing climatic stimuli rather than a purely subjective impression. The predominance of personal observation as the primary source of climate information further indicates that this exposure is being registered experientially rather than through formal monitoring: a pattern reported in many rural African communities where limited access to meteorological services and extension support encourages reliance on local environmental observations (; ). The long-term residency of many respondents strengthens the credibility of these exposure-based observations, since sustained interaction with the environment enables communities to recognize gradual ecological and climatic changes over time ().
Following Füssel and Klein’s () treatment of sensitivity as the point at which a system’s exposure translates into effects on livelihoods and ecosystems, the perceived impacts reported in this study illustrate the internal dimension of vulnerability at work. The predominance of economically active adults and farming households among respondents suggests that perceptions are strongly shaped by direct dependence on climate-sensitive natural resources; rural households reliant on rain-fed agriculture are particularly sensitive to climate variability because their livelihoods depend on rainfall patterns, water availability, and ecosystem productivity (; ). Water scarcity emerged as the most severe concern, followed by reduced crop diversity, food shortages, and declining agricultural productivity, findings that support broader evidence that climate change disproportionately affects rural populations dependent on rain-fed agriculture (; ).
Reduced crop diversity may weaken household resilience, since diversified farming systems generally provide greater protection against climatic shocks and environmental uncertainty (), while perceptions of increasing food insecurity correspond with projections that climate change will pose significant challenges to agricultural production and rural livelihoods across West Africa throughout the twenty-first century (Serdeczny et al., 2017). At this juncture, it is likely convincing to note that the findings of this study may have implications for collective human trauma as suggests that groups whose livelihoods are closely tied to farming, pastoralism, and fishing often exhibit more pronounced trauma and grief to environmental loss, and comparable recurring climatic disruptions elsewhere have been linked to psychological strain among farming populations, including feelings of helplessness and diminished wellbeing ().
The reported increase in crop pests and diseases is likewise consistent with evidence that rising temperatures and changing precipitation regimes enhance the survival, reproduction, and geographic spread of agricultural pests (), while concerns regarding increasing livestock diseases suggest that climate change may also affect animal health through heat stress, pathogen proliferation, and declining forage quality (Rojas-Downing et al., 2017). This sensitivity extends beyond agricultural systems: respondents also reported delayed rainfall, precipitation variability, drying streams, declining crop productivity, and the disappearance of some plant species, corresponding with evidence from Nigeria and other tropical regions where climate variability increasingly affects water resources, agricultural systems, and ecosystem functioning (), and with studies documenting climate-driven shifts in vegetation composition and species distributions across African savanna ecosystems (Parmesan and Yohe, 2003; ).
The widespread perception of declining wildlife populations, particularly grasscutter, bushbuck, duiker, patas monkey, and roan antelope, further reflects this ecological sensitivity and is consistent with evidence that climate change, habitat degradation, and anthropogenic pressures collectively threaten wildlife populations across African protected areas (Trisos et al., 2020), potentially through altered habitat suitability, reduced water availability, changes in vegetation productivity, and increased disease occurrence (). Uncertainty regarding larger mammals such as lions and leopards, by contrast, may reflect their naturally low abundance, restricted occurrence, or infrequent encounters with local residents rather than genuine population trends. Because ecosystem services provided by protected landscapes, including water regulation, biodiversity conservation, carbon sequestration, and livelihood support, are increasingly vulnerable to climate-related disturbances (; Watson et al., 2014), the perceived rarity of wildlife species may reflect broader perceptions of declining ecosystem health, which matters because community support for conservation initiatives is often influenced by how local people perceive environmental change and ecosystem benefits (Oldekop et al., 2016).
Consistent with the Conceptual Framework’s treatment of adaptive capacity as the ability of a system to adjust to climate change and moderate potential damage (; ), the adaptation measures identified in this study suggest that communities are actively responding to climatic uncertainty through locally developed coping strategies. Food storage during uncertain harvest periods and provision of shelter during extreme weather events were among the most commonly reported responses, reinforcing previous studies highlighting the value of indigenous knowledge systems in strengthening resilience to climate variability in rural African settings (Nyong et al., 2007). Nevertheless, the relatively limited adoption of water conservation practices, despite widespread concerns regarding declining rainfall and water scarcity, illustrates a gap between sensitivity and realized adaptive capacity of the kind the framework anticipates: when a system’s exposure and sensitivity are high but the resources needed to convert awareness into action (infrastructure, financial resources, technical knowledge, institutional support) are constrained, adaptive capacity remains low even as vulnerability rises (). Expanding access to water-harvesting technologies and climate-smart agricultural practices could therefore enhance local adaptive capacity and reduce vulnerability.
The significant relationships observed between age, education, occupation, and climate change perceptions further emphasize that adaptive capacity is unevenly distributed along the internal, socio-economic dimension of vulnerability (AAdger, 1996): older individuals often possess extensive experiential knowledge that enables them to identify long-term environmental changes more readily than younger residents (); education improves access to climate information and enhances the capacity to interpret environmental change; and occupational differences, particularly between farming and non-farming households, are expected because dependence on natural resources determines the extent to which climatic impacts are experienced directly (). Conversely, the absence of significant associations with gender, religion, and marital status suggests that climate-related exposure is perceived broadly across social groups, even as the internal capacity to respond to it varies with resource dependence and accumulated experience.
Limitations and future research
This study is subject to several limitations that warrant consideration. First, ecological grief and its associated emotional responses were not directly assessed. Rather, the study examined community perceptions of climate change impacts on livelihoods and park resources, together with the adaptive strategies adopted locally in response. Given that the study communities demonstrate substantial exposure and sensitivity to climate-related stressors, it is reasonable to infer the potential existence of collective human trauma, for example, ecological grief within these populations. Accordingly, future empirical research is encouraged to directly measure the presence and extent of ecological grief and climate anxiety among these communities, as well as to identify appropriate interventions for addressing it. Second, the study assessed perceptions of climatic change without examining whether respondents attributed these changes to anthropogenic climate change or natural climatic variability. Future studies should incorporate questions on causal attribution to better understand local interpretations of environmental change. Finally, the findings are based on community perceptions drawn from nine communities surrounding Old Oyo National Park and may not be fully generalized to other ecological or socio-cultural settings. Future studies that combine community perceptions with ecological monitoring across multiple locations would provide a more comprehensive understanding of climate change impacts and their broader implications.
Conclusion
This study demonstrates that communities surrounding Old Oyo National Park face substantial climatic exposure, register that exposure primarily through experiential rather than institutional channels, and translate it into pronounced livelihood and ecological sensitivity, while their capacity to adapt remains constrained and unevenly distributed. Near-universal recognition of shifting temperature and rainfall patterns, alongside an overwhelming consensus that these changes have been detrimental, confirms a high degree of external exposure. Furthermore, the detrimental effects of such exposure may redirect attention towards a phenomenon that often goes unnoticed in developing contexts like Nigeria: the issue of collective human trauma, which can manifest as ecological grief and climate anxiety. The vulnerabilities related to livelihoods and ecological sensitivity highlighted in this study serve as typical examples of factors that predispose individuals to ecological grief and climate anxiety, similar to those identified in other regions where collective human trauma has garnered considerable attention from researchers.
For instance, revealed that prolonged drought in Australia’s Wheatbelt region transformed local landscapes and disrupted farmers’ sense of identity and place, leading to increased levels of anxiety and depression. Similarly, underscored the vulnerability of smallholder farmers in semi-arid environments, showing that extended drought periods and significant rainfall fluctuations can result in psychological exhaustion and diminished social functioning. As such, this study is conceptualized to help enhance the public understanding of various livelihood and ecological sensitivities associated with climate change, as well as how individuals perceive and communicate their experiences. This understanding may provide a foundational pathway for identifying and conceptualizing the unforeseen manifestations of collective human trauma associated with livelihood and ecological sensitivities stemming from climate change in developing contexts, thereby paving the way for potential solutions.
The fact that awareness of climate-related indices is built almost entirely on personal observation rather than on formal meteorological or extension services points to a structural gap in the external information infrastructure, leaving communities reactive rather than anticipatory in their responses to climatic stress. A critical finding is the disconnect between sensitivity and adaptive capacity: while reduction in water sources was the most widely reported livelihood impact, water conservation was the least adopted coping strategy. Consistent with the framework’s treatment of adaptive capacity as dependent on resource access rather than awareness alone (; ), this pattern suggests that heightened sensitivity does not automatically generate adaptive capacity when infrastructure, technical knowledge, and institutional support are lacking. Efforts to strengthen climate resilience in this landscape should therefore prioritize water-harvesting technologies and climate-smart agricultural extension over further awareness campaigns.
The significant associations between age, education, and occupation with climate perception, contrasted with the absence of significant differences by gender, marital status, or religion, indicate that the internal dimension of vulnerability in this landscape is shaped more by direct resource dependence and accumulated experience than by broader social categories (Adger, 1996). Adaptation programming should therefore be differentiated by livelihood exposure and educational access rather than applied uniformly. The widespread perception of decline among smaller, more visible wildlife species, alongside pervasive uncertainty about larger carnivores, highlights a conservation blind spot within the sensitivity component of this framework: without systematic ecological monitoring to corroborate these perceptions, it remains unclear how much reflects genuine climate-driven decline versus hunting pressure or reduced detectability. Because the ecological grief framework was not directly measured, claims linking these perceived losses to psychological distress remain hypothetical and should be treated as a direction for future interdisciplinary research rather than a conclusion drawn from the present data. Integrating perception-based findings with ecological census data and psychosocial assessment would substantially strengthen future work in this landscape.
Statements
Data availability statement
The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.
Ethics statement
The studies involving humans were approved by Department of Forestry and Wildlife Management, College of Environmental Resources Management, Federal University of Agriculture, Abeokuta. The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.
Author contributions
BBI: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – review & editing. TA: Methodology, Software, Validation, Visualization, Writing – review & editing. OI: Methodology, Software, Validation, Visualization, Writing – review & editing, Resources. MI: Methodology, Software, Validation, Visualization, Writing – review & editing. AS: Methodology, Software, Validation, Visualization, Writing – review & editing. BHI: Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Software, Visualization, Writing – original draft.
Funding
The author(s) declared that financial support was not received for this work and/or its publication.
Conflict of interest
The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1
AbidM.ScheffranJ.SchneiderU. A.ElahiE. (2019). Farmer perceptions of climate change, observed trends and adaptation of agriculture in Pakistan. Environ. Manage.63, 110–123. doi: 10.1007/s00267-018-1113-7
2
AdebowaleT. K.OduntanO. O.IjoseO. A.OnamadeB. B. (2021a). Wild animal-crop raiding conflict: a case study of Old Oyo National Park, Nigeria. J. Res. For. Wildl. Environ.13, 145–156. Available online at: https://www.academia.edu/105988938/Wild_animal_crop_raiding_conflict_A_case_study_of_old_Oyo_national_park_Nigeria (Accessed April 2, 2026).
3
AdgerW. N. (1996). Approaches to vulnerability to climate change (CSERGE Working Paper GEC 96-05). ( Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment), 1–63. Available online at: https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=a2a024240c5e6eb981dbc4be0c1703055c8bbc14 (Accessed March 12, 2026).
4
AdgerW. N. (1999). Social vulnerability to climate change and extremes in coastal Vietnam. World Dev.27, 249–269. doi: 10.1016/S0305-750X(98)00136-3
5
AdgerW. N.VincentK. (2005). Uncertainty in adaptive capacity. C.R. Geosci.337, 399–410. doi: 10.1016/j.crte.2004.11.004
6
AkinsorotanO. A. (2017). Status and Determinants of Large Mammal Occupancy in a Nigerian Protected Area (Nottingham: Nottingham Trent University). Available online at: https://www.proquest.com/openview/03506d545e20208da4eb858d15dc86b2/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y (Accessed January 15, 2026). Ph.D. thesis.
7
AltieriM. A.NichollsC. I.HenaoA.LanaM. A. (2015). Agroecology and the design of climate change-resilient farming systems. Agron. Sustain. Dev.35, 869–890. doi: 10.1007/s13593-015-0285-2
8
AmoakD.KwaoB.IsholaO. T.MohammedK. (2023). Climate change-induced ecological grief among smallholder farmers in semi-arid Ghana. SN Soc Sci.3, 131. doi: 10.1007/s43545-023-00721-8
9
ApataT. G.SamuelK. D.AdeolaA. O. (2009). Analysis of Climate Change Perception and Adaptation among Arable Food Crop Farmers in South Western Nigeria. (Accessed January 4, 2025).
10
AraújoM. B.AlagadorD.CabezaM.Nogués-BravoD.ThuillerW. (2011). Climate change threatens European conservation areas. Ecol. Lett.14, 484–492. doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2011.01610.x
11
AtuoyeK. N.LuginaahI. (2017). Food as a social determinant of mental health among household heads in the Upper West Region of Ghana. Soc Sci. Med.180, 170–180. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.03.016
12
AtwoliL.BaquiA. H.BenfieldT.BosurgiR.GodleeF.HancocksS.et al. (2021). Call for emergency action to limit global temperature increases, restore biodiversity, and protect health. Lancet398, 939–941. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)01915-2
13
BellardC.BertelsmeierC.LeadleyP.ThuillerW.CourchampF. (2012). Impacts of climate change on the future of biodiversity. Ecol. Lett.15, 365–377. doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2011.01736.x
14
BohleH. G.DowningT. E.WattsM. J. (1994). Climate change and social vulnerability: toward a sociology and geography of food insecurity. Glob. Environ. Change4, 37–48. doi: 10.1016/0959-3780(94)90020-5
15
BrooksN. (2003). Vulnerability, risk and adaptation: a conceptual framework. Tyndall Cent. Clim. Change Res. Work. Pap.38, 1–16. Available online at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/200032746_Vulnerability_Risk_and_Adaptation_A_Conceptual_Framework (Accessed March 19, 2026).
16
CianconiP.BetròS.JaniriL. (2020). The impact of climate change on mental health: a systematic descriptive review. Front. Psychiatry11, 490206. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2020.00074
17
ClaytonS.MyersG. (2010). Conservation psychology: understanding and promoting human care for nature. Environ. Conserv.37, 222–225. doi: 10.1017/S0376892910000457
18
ComtesseH.ErtlV.HengstS. M.RosnerR.SmidG. E. (2021). Ecological grief as a response to environmental change: a mental health risk or functional response?. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health18, 734. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18020734
19
CunsoloA.EllisN. R. (2018). Ecological grief as a mental health response to climate change-related loss. Nat. Clim. Change8, 275–281. doi: 10.1038/s41558-018-0092-2
20
CunsoloA.HarperS. L.MinorK.HayesK.WilliamsK. G.HowardC. (2020). Ecological grief and anxiety: the start of a healthy response to climate change? Lancet Planet. Health4, e261–e263. doi: 10.1016/S2542-5196(20)30144-3
21
Cunsolo WilloxA.HarperS. L.FordJ. D.LandmanK.HouleK.EdgeV. L.et al. (2012). From this place and of this place: climate change, sense of place, and health in Nunatsiavut, Canada. Soc Sci. Med.75, 538–547. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.03.043
22
Department of Climate Change (2021). National Climate Change Policy for Nigeria (2021–2030). Available online at: https://www.preventionweb.net/publication/nigeria-national-climate-change-policy-2021-2030 (Accessed January 15, 2026).
23
DeutschC. A.TewksburyJ. J.TigchelaarM.BattistiD. S.MerrillS. C.HueyR. B.et al. (2018). Increase in crop losses to insect pests in a warming climate. Science361, 916–919. doi: 10.1126/science.aat3466
24
DoddW.ScottP.HowardC.ScottC.RoseC.CunsoloA.et al. (2018). Lived experience of a record wildfire season in the Northwest Territories, Canada. Can. J. Public Health109, 327–337. doi: 10.17269/s41997-018-0070-5
25
EbeleN. E.EmodiN. V. (2016). Climate change and its impact in Nigerian economy. J. Sci. Res. Rep.10, 1–13. doi: 10.9734/JSRR/2016/25162
26
EbhuomaO. O.GebreslasieM.EbhuomaE. E.LeonardL. (2022). The future looks empty": embodied experiences of distress triggered by environmental and climatic changes in rural KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. GeoJournal87, 3169–3185. doi: 10.1007/s10708-021-10426-1
27
EllisN. R.AlbrechtG. A. (2017). Climate change threats to family farmers' sense of place and mental wellbeing: a case study from the Western Australian wheatbelt. Soc Sci. Med.175, 161–168. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.01.009
28
FagaribaC. J.SongS.Soule BaoroS. K. G. (2018). Climate change adaptation strategies and constraints in Northern Ghana: evidence of farmers in Sissala West District. Sustainability10, 1484. doi: 10.3390/su10051484
29
Fernández-LlamazaresÁ.Díaz-ReviriegoI.LuzA. C.CabezaM.PyhäläA.Reyes-GarcíaV. (2015). Rapid ecosystem change challenges the adaptive capacity of local environmental knowledge. Glob. Environ. Change31, 272–284. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.02.001
30
FüsselH. M.KleinR. J. (2006). Climate change vulnerability assessments: an evolution of conceptual thinking. Clim. Change75, 301–329. doi: 10.1007/s10584-006-0329-3
31
GbetibouoG. A.RinglerC. (2009). Mapping South African Farming Sector Vulnerability to Climate Change and Variability: A Subnational Assessment. Available online at: https://www.preventionweb.net/files/10954_IFPRIDP00885.pdf?startDownload=true (Accessed February 13, 2026).
32
GeorgC. (2009). “ Climate change and social vulnerability,” in Conference Report From the IHDP Open Meeting, April 26–30, 2009 ( World Conference Center, Bonn).
33
GobsterP. H.WeberE.FloressK. M.SchneiderI. E.HainesA. L.ArnbergerA. (2022). Place, loss, and landowner response to the restoration of a rapidly changing forest landscape. Landsc. Urban Plan.222, 104382. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2022.104382
34
HeadL. (2016). Hope and Grief in the Anthropocene: Re-Conceptualising Human–Nature Relations (London: Routledge).
35
Ifejika SperanzaC. (2010). Resilient Adaptation to Climate Change in African Agriculture. Available online at: https://www.econstor.eu/handle/10419/199179 (Accessed March 18, 2026).
36
IPBES (2019). Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (Bonn: IPBES Secretariat). doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3831673
37
IPCC (2007). “ Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability,” in Working Group II Contribution to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Fourth Assessment Report. Eds. ParryM. L.CanzianiO. F.PalutikofJ. P.van der LindenP. J.HansonC. E. ( Cambridge University Press, Cambridge), 976.
38
IPCC (2022). Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). doi: 10.1017/9781009325844
39
IPCC (2023). Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Eds. Core Writing TeamLeeH.RomeroJ. (Geneva: IPCC). doi: 10.59327/IPCC/AR6-9789291691647
40
IPCC (2014). Summary for policymakers. In: FieldC. B.BarrosV. R.DokkenD. J.MachK. J.MastrandreaM. D.BilirT. E.et al. (Eds.). Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 1–32.
41
LeeH.CalvinK.DasguptaD.KrinnerG.MukherjiA.ThorneP.et al. (2023). Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (Geneva, Switzerland: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)).
42
MortonJ. F. (2007). The impact of climate change on smallholder and subsistence agriculture. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.104, 19680–19685. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0701855104
43
MubayaC. P.NjukiJ.MutsvangwaE. P.MugabeF. T.NanjaD. (2012). Climate variability and change or multiple stressors? Farmer perceptions regarding threats to livelihoods in Zimbabwe and Zambia. J. Environ. Manage.102, 9–17. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.02.005
44
National Population Commission (2012). Population and Housing Census of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. (Abuja, Nigeria: National Population Commission)
45
NdamaniF.WatanabeT. (2016). Determinants of farmers' adaptation to climate change: a micro level analysis in Ghana. Sci. Agric.73, 201–208. doi: 10.1590/0103-9016-2015-0163
46
NhemachenaC.HassanR. (2007). Micro-Level Analysis of Farmers' Adaptation to Climate Change in Southern Africa (Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute). Available online at: https://books.google.com.ng/books?hl=en&lr=&id=YSIiKvsfgZwC&oi=fnd&dq=Nhemachen (Accessed April 2, 2026).
47
NkomwaE. C.JoshuaM. K.NgongondoC.MonjereziM.ChipunguF. (2014). Assessing indigenous knowledge systems and climate change adaptation strategies in agriculture: a case study of Chagaka Village, Chikhwawa, Southern Malawi. Phys. Chem. Earth Parts A/B/C67, 164–172. doi: 10.1016/j.pce.2013.10.002
48
NyongA.AdesinaF.Osman ElashaB. (2007). The value of indigenous knowledge in climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies in the African Sahel. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Change12, 787–797. doi: 10.1007/s11027-007-9099-0
49
O’BrienK.EriksenS.SchjoldenA.NygaardL. (2004). What's in a Word? Conflicting Interpretations of Vulnerability in Climate Change Research. Available online at: http://www.cicero.uio.no/media/2682.pdf (Accessed May 8, 2026).
50
OladejiS. O.AgbelusiE. A.AjiboyeA. S. (2012). Assessment of aesthetic values of Old Oyo National Park. Am. J. Tour. Manage.1, 69–77. doi: 10.5923/j.tourism.20120103.02
51
OldekopJ. A.HolmesG.HarrisW. E.EvansK. L. (2016). A global assessment of the social and conservation outcomes of protected areas. Conserv. Biol.30, 133–141. doi: 10.1111/cobi.12568
52
OnihunwaJ. O.AkandeO. A.MohammedH. L.JoshuaD. A. (2023). Assessment of wildlife distribution in relation to waterholes in Marguba Range of Old Oyo National Park, Nigeria. FUDMA J. Sci.7, 177–181. doi: 10.33003/fjs-2023-0703-1835
53
ParmesanC.YoheG. (2003). A globally coherent fingerprint of climate change impacts across natural systems. Nature421, 37–42. doi: 10.1038/nature01286
54
PeclG. T.AraújoM. B.BellJ. D.BlanchardJ.BonebrakeT. C.ChenI. C.et al. (2017). Biodiversity redistribution under climate change: impacts on ecosystems and human well-being. Science355, eaai9214. doi: 10.1126/science.aai9214
55
PihkalaP. (2024). Ecological sorrow: types of grief and loss in ecological grief. Sustainability16, 849. doi: 10.3390/su16020849
56
PörtnerH. O.ScholesR. J.AgardJ.ArcherE.ArnethA.BaiX.et al. (2021). Scientific Outcome of the IPBES-IPCC Co-Sponsored Workshop on Biodiversity and Climate Change. Available online at: https://researchers.mq.edu.au/en/publications/scientific-outcome-of-the-ipbes-ipcc-co-sponsored-workshop-on-bio/ (Accessed April 22, 2026).
57
Rojas-DowningM. M.NejadhashemiA. P.HarriganT.WoznickiS. A. (2017). Climate change and livestock: impacts, adaptation, and mitigation. Clim. Risk Manage.16, 145–163. doi: 10.1016/j.crm.2017.02.001
58
SerdecznyO.AdamsS.BaarschF.CoumouD.RobinsonA.HareW.et al. (2017). Climate change impacts in Sub-Saharan Africa: from physical changes to their social repercussions. Reg. Environ. Change17, 1585–1600. doi: 10.1007/S10113-015-0910-2
59
ShaffrilH. A. M.KraussS. E.SamsuddinS. F. (2018). A systematic review on Asian farmers' adaptation practices towards climate change. Sci. Total Environ.644, 683–695. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.06.349
60
ShotuyoA. L. A.AkintundeO. A.LanlehinF. G. (2020). Impact of human-wildlife conflict in the surrounding villages of Old Oyo National Park. J. Agric. Sci. Environ.20, 23–39. doi: 10.51406/jagse.v20i1.2099
61
SultanB.DeFranceD.IizumiT. (2019). Evidence of crop production losses in West Africa due to historical global warming in two crop models. Sci. Rep.9, 12834. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-49167-0
62
TompkinsE. L.AdgerW. N. (2004). Does adaptive management of natural resources enhance resilience to climate change? Ecol. Soc9, 1–14. doi: 10.5751/ES-00667-090210
63
TrisosC. H.MerowC.PigotA. L. (2020). The projected timing of abrupt ecological disruption from climate change. Nature580, 496–501. doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2189-9
64
TrudellJ. P.BurnetM. L.ZieglerB. R.LuginaahI. (2021). The impact of food insecurity on mental health in Africa: A systematic review. Soc Sci. Med.278, 113953. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.113953
65
WatsonJ. E.DudleyN.SeganD. B.HockingsM. (2014). The performance and potential of protected areas. Nature515, 67–73. doi: 10.1038/nature13947
Summary
Keywords
climate change-induced environmental loss, livelihood vulnerability, Old Oyo National Park, protected areas, wildlife population change
Citation
Ibiyomi B, Adebowale T, Ijose O, Ibiyomi MO, Shotuyo AA and Idowu BH (2026) Community perceptions of climate change–induced vulnerabilities in Nigeria: local indicators and livelihood impacts. Front. Conserv. Sci. 7:1897432. doi: 10.3389/fcosc.2026.1897432
Received
01 June 2026
Revised
13 August 2026
Accepted
13 August 2026
Published
03 September 2026
Volume
7 - 2026
Edited by
Jamie K. Reaser, Rain Crow Consulting, United States
Reviewed by
Megan S. Jones, Oregon State University, United States
Amon K, Masinde Muliro University of Science and Technology, Kenya
Updates
Copyright
© 2026 Ibiyomi, Adebowale, Ijose, Ibiyomi, Shotuyo and Idowu.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Opemipo A. Ijose, oai0004@auburn.edu
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.