Climate awareness and adaptation efficacy for livelihood ... · Mustafa Saroar* & Prof. Jayant K....
Transcript of Climate awareness and adaptation efficacy for livelihood ... · Mustafa Saroar* & Prof. Jayant K....
Climate awareness and adaptation efficacy for livelihood security against sea level rise in
coastal Bangladesh:
A multivariate analysis
Presented by Mustafa Saroar* & Prof. Jayant K. Routray
School of Environment, Resources and DevelopmentAsian Institute of Technology (AIT), Bangkok, Thailand
June 22 2010*Corresponding author’s email: [email protected]; [email protected]
1
International Conference on Climate Change and Human Security, 21-24 June 2010, Norwegian
University of Science & Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway
2
Structure of presentation
Research background
Problem statement and hypothesis
General methodology & study area
Result and discussion
Concluding remarks
3
Research background
IPCC’s several reports have confirmed-
climate is changing
Scientific advances have established a
clear link among global warming, climate
change and sea level rise (SLR)
Despite uncertainty about exact amount
and time of SLR, it is commonly agreed that
SLR will have an unprecedented impact on
livelihood security in low-lying deltaic coasts
Climate refugees with a new labelling
“SLR refugees” appears in the forefront of
debate. Bangladesh is often referred…
4
Problem statement & issue immerged
Most of the avenues of natural resource-
dependent livelihood are under threat.
Limited choice: Adaptation in situ or retreat?
Adaptation in situ requires anticipatory but
planned initiatives from various actors including
the community/individuals.
Community/individuals’ initiatives depend
on… perception about the threat on livelihood
security.
How does livelihood security threat differ for
different levels of climate awareness and
adaptation efficacy?
5
Research hypotheses
Livelihood security concern is a function of
climate awareness and adaptation
Let us put simply:
Livelihood security concern significantly
differ among people having different levels of
H1: Experience of climatic
anomaly/weather extreme events
H2: Perception about the CC-SLR
events
H3: Tacit/intuitive knowledge about the
impacts of SLR and associated events
H4: Self efficacy
H5: Perceptual efficacy
6
Theory & Concepts
Climate awareness is higher level of
consciousness, which someone achieves through
both experiential and rational system of
information processing.
Three dimensions: Familiarity with/experience of climatic
anomaly/weather extreme events;
Perception about CC-SLR events
Tacit/intuitive knowledge about the impacts of SLR
and associated events.
• Adaptation efficacy is the belief about own
ability to successfully adapt.
• Two dimensions: Perceptual efficacy- belief that the impacts can be
moderated/minimized;
Self efficacy- belief that he/she has the ability to …
7
Measurement of variable of interest
Based on reviews of literature and following a
relativist perspective 5 sets of question are
developed to measure the respondents:Familiarity with/experience of climatic
anomaly/weather extreme events;
Tacit/intuitive knowledge about the impacts of SLR
and associated events.
Perception about CC-SLR events
Perceptual efficacy- belief that the impacts can be
moderated/minimized;
Self efficacy- belief that he/she has the ability to …
Reliability of responses were measures by
Cronbach‟s alpha for each of the above construct
Finally 5 indices were developed, and each index
was dichotomized: average & above, and below
average
8
Measurement of variable of interest
Livelihood security concern was assessed by the
respondent through a 3-point (low to high) rating of 25
most plausible impacts of SLR and associated events.
These 25 impacts were prepared from review of
literature- pertinent for natural resource-dependent
coastal community.
9
General methodologyStudy area and sampling
Purposively selected: 3 coastal villages from
Kalapara Upazila (sub-district)
Recurrent exposure to coastal flooding, tidal
surge, cyclone, salinity intrusion, and susceptible to
inundation of 0.15-0.5 m by the middle of this
centaury
Crisscrossed by numerous rivers and natural
canals although protected by earthen embankment
built in 1960s.
A total of 285 respondents were randomly
interviewed
Natural resources dependent society-
agriculture and allied occupation followed by fishing
are the dominant source of earning livelihood
Study area :
1 meter SLR curve
Mithaganj site Dhulasar site Nilganj Site
Figure 1.1a Study sites in relation to Bay of Bengal Coast (Adopted from Ali, 2003)
Figure 1.1b Study sites: in Dhulasar, Mithaganj and Nilganj “Union Parishad”
Source: Islam (2003).
10
11
Figure 1.2: Study area
BANGLAD
ESH
INDI
A
Bay of
Bengal
NEPA
LDIA
MYANMA
R
BHUTA
N
Nilgan
j
Mithag
anjnj
Dulasa
r nj
12
Result and discussionRespondents’ concern about livelihood security threat
Higher concern:
physical damage of settlement,
damage of stock of food, biomass fuel and fodder,
complete harvest failure
Higher concern for these dimensions of livelihood security
probably attributed to the general fact that these dimensions are
by and large applicable to most occupational groups.
• Lower concern:
• over bank flow of fishponds/fish farm,
• higher risk in offshore fishing,
• increase number of non-fishing day,
• decrease in fish catch per go, and difficulty in preserving fish.
Lower concern is probably because, the livelihood challenges in
these dimensions are related to only a particular occupational
groups [fishing community].
13
Result and discussionMajor Dimension of livelihood security concern
PCA is employed to bring down 25 areas of concern in a few
meaningful broad/major categories;
PCA offers 7 major categories that explain 85% of the variance
of the construct ‘livelihood security threat concern”
1st dimension: “infrastructure damage and disruption in
mobility”, constitutes 5 variables and explains 19.44 percent of the
variances;
2nd dimension: “food and nutritional security”, constitutes 6
variables and explains 16.22% of the variances;
3rd dimension: “damage of shelter and emergency stock of
household commodity” includes 4 variables, and explains 15.86% of
the variance;
14
Result and discussionMajor Dimensions of livelihood security concern
4th dimension: “damage of shelter and emergency stock of
household commodity” includes 3 variables, and explains 11.90% of
the variance;
5th dimension: “loss of income from inland activities” includes 3
variables, and explains 9.36% of the variance;
6th dimension: “crisis of potable water and public health risk”
includes 3 variables, and explains 8.15% of the variances; and
7th dimension: “limited scope of socialization” explains 4.70% of
the variance of the construct- livelihood security concern.
15
Result and discussion: How does „livelihood
security concern‟ differ: A MANOVA application
Both Box M test [F (28, 250369.1) = 1.071, p = 0.364] & MANOVA [F
(7, 277) = 1.71, p= 0.106] are not significant; meaning- no simultaneous
differences exist in the 7 dimensions of livelihood security at a level of
0.05 due to the influence of climate experience;
Univariate pair-wise comparison at a level of 0.05:
Average & above scorers in climate experience index expressed
higher concern about only one dimension of livelihood security, i.e.
“crisis of potable water and public health risk”;
• Therefore, it is hard to argued that climate experience has significantly
strong influence on respondents concern for livelihood security against
the impacts of SLR.
• Thus the hypothesis is rejected.
Hypothesis testing
H1: Difference in „livelihood security concern‟ is
attributed to „Experience of climatic variation/weather
anomaly‟
16
Result and discussion: How does ‘livelihood
security concern’ differ: A MANOVA application
Both Box M test [F (28, 137914) = 2.47, p< 0.001] & MANOVA [F (7,
277) = 6.89, p<0.001] are significant; meaning- simultaneous differences
exist in the 7 dimensions of livelihood security at a level of 0.05 due to the
influence of Perception about CC-SLR;
Univariate pair-wise comparison at a level of 0.05:
average & above scorers in climate perception index express
higher concern about “infrastructure damage and disruption in
mobility” and “loss of income from offshore activities”
below average scorers in climate perception index express
higher concern about “damage of shelter and emergency stock of
household commodity”, “loss of income from inland activities”, and
“crisis of potable water and public health risk”.
Thus the hypothesis is not rejected; meaning- climate perception has
significantly strong influence on respondents concern for livelihood
security.
Hypothesis testing, H2: Difference in „livelihood security
concern‟ is attributed to „Perception about CC-SLR events‟
17
Result and discussion: How does ‘livelihood
security concern’ differ: A MANOVA application
Both Box M test [F (28, 247112.3) = 0.66, p = 0.912] & MANOVA [F (7,
277) = 1.39, p= 0.209] are not significant; meaning- no simultaneous
differences exist in the 7 dimensions of livelihood security at a level of
0.05 due to the influence of Tacit/intuitive knowledge SLR;
Univariate pair-wise comparison at a level of 0.05:
average & above scorers in SLR knowledge index expressed
lower concern about only two dimensions out of seven, i.e. “damage
of shelter and emergency stock of household commodity” and “loss of
income from inland activities”;
Therefore, it is hard to argue that SLR knowledge has significantly
strong influence on respondents concern for livelihood security against
the impacts of SLR. Thus the hypothesis is rejected.
Hypothesis testing, H3: Difference in „livelihood security
concern‟ is attributed to „Tacit/intuitive Knowledge about
SLR‟
18
Result and discussion: How does ‘livelihood
security concern’ differ: A MANOVA application
Both Box M test [F (28, 243735.3) = 6.97, p< 0.001] & MANOVA [F (7,
277) = 109.72, p<0.001], are significant; meaning- simultaneous
differences exist in the 7 dimensions of livelihood security concern at a
level of 0.05 due to the influence of Self efficacy;
Univariate pair-wise comparison at a level of 0.05:
Average & above scorers in self efficacy index express higher
concern about “infrastructure damage and disruption in mobility” and
“food and nutritional security”;
Below average scorers express higher concern about other
dimensions: “loss of income from offshore activities”, “damage of
shelter and emergency stock of household commodity”, “loss of
income from inland activities”, and “crisis of potable water and public
health risk”
Thus the hypothesis is not rejected; meaning- Self efficacy has
significantly strong influence on respondents concern for livelihood
security.
Hypothesis testing, H4: Difference in „livelihood security
concern‟ is attributed to „Self efficacy‟
19
Result and discussion: How does ‘livelihood
security concern’ differ: A MANOVA application
Both Box M test [F (28, 201374.8) = 6.33, p< 0.001] & MANOVA [F (7,
277) = 92.83, p<0.001], are significant; meaning- simultaneous
differences exist in the 7 dimensions of livelihood security concern at a
level of 0.05 due to the influence of Perceptual efficacy;
Univariate pair-wise comparison at a level of 0.05:
Average & above scorers in perceptual efficacy index express
higher concern about “infrastructure damage and disruption in
mobility” and “food and nutritional security”;
Below average scorers in self efficacy index express higher
concern about “loss of income from offshore activities”, “damage of
shelter and emergency stock of household commodity”, “loss of
income from inland activities”, and “crisis of potable water and public
health risk”
Thus the hypothesis is not rejected; meaning- Perceptual efficacy has
significantly strong influence on respondents concern for livelihood
security.
Hypothesis testing, H5: Difference in „livelihood security
concern‟ is attributed to „Perceptual efficacy‟
20
Concluding Remarks
While all the 5 variables/factors make differences in livelihood
security threat perception, Climate perception, self efficacy, and
Perceptual efficacy are the most dominant factor that cause
simultaneous differences.
Indeed, the livelihood security threat perception of natural resource-
dependent coastal people in Bangladesh, by and large, is influenced by
these two dimensions of adaptation efficacy. It is probably the cause of
the winning the battle of the resource poor coastal people of Bangladesh
against the various hydro-meteorological disasters throughout the history.
Program for enhancing the adaptive capacity of coastal people against
the likely threat of SLR on the livelihood security, is therefore, highly
recommended.
The limitation and future research direction: it does not identify whether
there exist any direct causal relationships among adaptation efficacy and
climate awareness, although there may have intractable relationship. This
needs to be investigated with deeper insight.
Thank You,
21
Q&A