Adaptation has been described as the act of reducing a community’s sensitivity to change [1]. Climate adaptation requires reducing sensitivity to existing and future threats of CC. An individual’s ability to adapt largely determines his vulnerability. While a few people are better equipped than others to respond to a crisis, not every community or family member will be equally affected by a given climate event. Therefore, the adaptation to CC depends on various situations [31]. Many studies emphasize the significance of farmer attributes in the adoption of CC adaptation techniques. In an investigation by Deressa et al. [32], gender has a favorable impact on growers’ adaptation decisions. According to Huffman [33], education enhances growers’ capability to study and obtain info and expertise regarding CC and adaptation technology. Diendéré et al. [34] argue that an increased understanding of climatic events and agricultural technology could help in adaptation. The potential for CC adaptation is also directly connected to household size. For example, Khatri-Chhetri et al. [35] determine that bigger household members are more likely to embrace innovative agricultural methods. Aside from these variables, the presence of a climatic shock influences the adoption of CC adaptation techniques [36,37]. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on CC [1], when a producer has previously experienced a temperature-linked climate shock, they are more inclined to apply adaptation approaches. According to Deressa et al. [32], decreasing precipitation induces producers to implement soil conservation techniques. Furthermore, some study indicates a beneficial association between the usage of digital technology and growers’ CC adaptation methods. According to Diendéré [38], innovative technology enables farmers to obtain actual data without incurring trip expenditures and so make suitable modifications.

The use of coping mechanisms is also influenced by farm features. Multiple investigations show that farm size influences the adoption of adaption techniques. According to Perz [39], pesticide adopters had a bigger amount of cleared land than non-adopters. Furthermore, some studies contend that economic variables explain the possibility of adopting various agricultural techniques in response to CC [39,40,41]. Some other authors demonstrated that agricultural funding, particularly transfers of cash, alleviates this cost restriction and hence encourages the adoption of CC adaptation measures [42,43,44]. Investigations show that, besides economic and farmer features, institutional variables are expected to play a significant influence in CC adaptation. According to Yegbemey et al. [45], show that farming groups and relative growers can help adapt to CC adaptation strategies because farmer groups frequently serve as venues for the exchanging of information, individual experiences, and social assistance. Furthermore, Diendéré and Ouédraogo [1] approve that interactions with agri-extension services improve the possibility of implementing soil conservation techniques. Agri-extension services educate and advise farmers on optimum agricultural techniques. This literature synthesis emphasizes four kinds of characteristics that are more likely to impact the selection of CC adaptation techniques. There are three categories: institutional considerations, financial factors, and characteristics of the farmer.

Many research investigations have been conducted to evaluate the influence of CC adaptation techniques on family profits and food guarantees. This section provides an overview of available research on the impact of coping methods. A few findings highlight the influence of CC adaptation technology on food insecurity and household income, via econometric and comparative empirical surveys. On the one hand, some research demonstrates that adopting CC adaptation measures improves food security and boosts adopters’ income. On the other hand, research indicates that adaption strategies have no beneficial or substantial influence on income or food insecurity. According to several investigations, adopting CC adaptation approaches increases food security and boosts adopters’ revenue.

Zakari et al. [46] employ matching approaches to indicate that producers’ adaptation tactics have a favorable effect on family revenue and food insecurity. Researchers claim that growers who utilized CC adaptation strategies have a higher likelihood of raising their family’s profits by 7722 FCFA than growers who do not. Authors found that those who employ adaptation tactics are seven to nine percent more probable to have access to food than people who do not. According to Ndiaye et al. [47], implementing CC adaptation techniques raises the average yearly farmers’ income by 607,000 to 702,000 FCFA. Furthermore, the authors discover that using adaptation techniques raises the average value of family nutrition utilization by 8–37 points. Farmers that use adaptation choices had greater caloric food ingestion [48]. Berhe et al. [49] suggest that coping measures such as income diversification, and land management methods are among the most significant indicators of family profits. In general, research shows that adopting agricultural methods has a favorable influence on production, household income, and food safety [1,50,51,52]. On the other hand, research indicates that adaption strategies have no beneficial or substantial influence on income or food insecurity. Mulumeoderhwa et al. [53] demonstrate that adaption measures employed by rural producers are unlikely to provide food for families in the long run in the Minembwe mountains of South Kivu. Correspondingly, Pailler et al. [54] indicate that in Tanzania, community-based natural resource management approaches had little effect on the income of households. Berhanu and Beyene [55] also found that the widespread practice of growing food with fences did not substantially contribute to household food security in southern Ethiopia.