Lisa Rees Department of Agricultural Economics University of Missouri-Columbia December 5, 2008
description
Transcript of Lisa Rees Department of Agricultural Economics University of Missouri-Columbia December 5, 2008
What is the Impact of Livelihood Strategies on Farmers’ Climate Risk Perceptions in the
Bolivian Highlands?
Lisa ReesDepartment of Agricultural EconomicsUniversity of Missouri-ColumbiaDecember 5, 2008
Introduction• Risk Management Strategies Climate Risk Perceptions
• Ordinal Logistic Regression▫ Dread▫ Diversification▫ Access to Credit▫ Climate Knowledge
• Focus Groups conducted▫ Weather/Climate Change▫ Weather Event Severity▫ Ex-Ante Risk Management Strategies▫ Ex-Post Risk Management Strategies
Objectives
• Main objective- Understand how farmers’ climate risk perceptions are impacted by livelihood strategies▫ Perceptions are linked to their assets (financial
capital and social capital) within their livelihood
• Specific objective 1- Identify and describe farmers’ climate risk perceptions of climate hazards▫ Identify differences by region
Literature• Livelihood and Risk Management Strategy
▫ Livelihoods are created by livelihood resources natural capital, financial capital, human capital and social capital
▫ Ex-Ante Risk Management Strategies (Morduch, 1995) Diversification Off-Farm Income
▫ Ex-Post Risk Management Strategies (Morduch, 1995 Credit Insurance
• Risk Perception▫ Psychometric model is risk perception being a function of the
properties of the hazard (Sjoberg, 2000)▫ Slovic (1987) identified dread and unknown
Conceptual Framework
Household
RiskManagement
Actual Risk Level Risk Perception
Unknown
Dread
Risk Attitude
LivelihoodStrategies
Unknown
Dread
Initial Risk Perception
TIME
Hypotheses• H1: diversified portfolio lower climate risk
perceptions
• H2: access to credit lower climate risk perceptions
• H3: access to climate information lower climate risk perceptions
• H4: lower dread feelings lower climate risk perceptions
Overview of Ancoraimes & Umala
Altiplano
A. B.
C. Ancoraimes D. Umala
LakeTiticaca Ancoraimes
Umala
Chinchaya
Kellhuiri
San José de Llanga
San Juan Cerca
Vinto Coopani
Chojňapata
CohaniKarcapata
Calahuancani
Lake Titicaca
La Paz
Objective vs. Subjective Risk
•Garcia, Raes, Jacobsen and Michel (1997)
SubjectiveObjective Subjective ObjectiveNorth 3.88 30% 3.81 40%Central 4.29 18% 4.72 58%Combined 4.085 24% 4.265 49%
Flood Drought
Focus Group FindingsWeather/Climate ChangeHazard Severity
•Experience Weather/Climate Change▫Umala- drier conditions, more wind, lower
temperatures and fewer frosts▫Ancoraimes- drier conditions
•Weather Event Severity▫hail, frost, drought
Focus Group FindingsEx-Ante Risk Management Strategies
•Frost and Hail- rituals•Planting in three different areas
▫Umala Frost- chemicals, varieties Drought- planting multiple times Flooding- higher elevation, vertical furrows
▫Ancoraimes Relatives Drought- certain areas, higher elevation,
plow deep, store more products
Focus Group FindingsEx-Post Risk Management Strategies•Rituals•Can’t Cope
▫Umala Institutions, government Children- jobs Migrate Works for neighbors
Drought- chuno▫Ancoraimes
Don’t ask government Migrate
Model•Other Income + Total Cattle + Total
Sheep + Location + Dread + Access to Credit + Shock Experience + Contact Family Outside + Spanish Speaking Climate Risk Perceptions
Ordinal Logistic Regression FindingsB S.E. Sig
Dependent Variable Moderate Climate Risk Perception- 1 -2.667 1.197 0.026
Low High-2 -0.117 1.140 0.918
Mid-High-3 1.463 1.136 0.198
High-4 3.008 1.164 0.010
Extreme-5 -
B Odds Ratio S.E. Sig
Parameter Estimates
Other Income (Bolivianos) -0.005 0.995 0.002 0.013 **
Sheep 0.005 1.005 0.009 0.581
Cattle 0.018 1.018 0.077 0.819
Chinchaya -2.034 0.131 1.047 0.052 *
Karcapata -0.580 0.560 1.300 0.656
Chojñapata -2.173 0.114 1.271 0.087 *
San Jose Llanga 1.728 5.632 1.109 0.119
San Juan Circa 2.427 11.326 1.368 0.076 *
Vinto Coopani 1.485 4.415 1.132 0.190
Kellhuiri 2.259 9.569 1.271 0.075 *
Calahuancani 0.977 2.657 1.254 0.436
Cohani - - - -
Ordinal Logistic Regression FindingsLow Dread- 6 -1.220 0.295 1.439 0.396
Dread-7 -1.626 0.197 1.968 0.409
Dread- 8 -2.670 0.069 0.620 0.000 ***
Dread- 9 -0.722 0.486 0.448 0.107
Dread-10 - - - -
Access to Credit -0.870 0.419 0.435 0.046 ** No access - - - -
High Experience Shocks- 5 -0.680 0.507 2.213 0.759
Shocks-6 1.140 3.128 0.754 0.131
Shocks-7 1.099 3.001 0.433 0.011 **
No experience shocks-8 - - - -
Contact family outside -5.405 0.004 2.151 0.012 **
No contact family outside - - - -
Spanish speaking 0.594 1.811 0.641 0.354
Not able to speak Spanish - - - -
Conclusion• Significant Explanatory Variables
▫ Diversification- income ▫ Access to credit▫ Trusted Knowledge
• Non-Significant Explanatory Variables▫ Dread▫ Livestock
• Further Research▫ Gender▫ Individual hazards▫ Rituals
References•Morduch, J. (1995). "Income Smoothing
and Consumption Smoothing." The Journal of
•Economic Perspectives 9(3): 103-114.
•Slovic, P. (1987). “Perception of Risk.” Science 236: 280-285.
•Sjoberg, L. (2000). "Factors in Risk Perception." Risk Analysis 20(1): 1-12.