climate awareness and adaptation efficacy for livelihood ... · mustafa saroar* & prof. jayant...

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

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

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;


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



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;


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.


concern‟ is attributed to „Tacit/intuitive Knowledge about

SLR‟

18



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;


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


security.


concern‟ is attributed to „Self efficacy‟

19



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;


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


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

climate awareness and adaptation efficacy for livelihood ... · mustafa saroar* & prof. jayant...

Documents