climate change_ who adapts what

7/30/2019 Climate Change_ Who Adapts What

1/45

The Fourth International Conference on Climate Change

Seattle, WA * July 13, 2012


2/45

Introduction

Methodology

Climate change knowledge

Risk perception and concern

Adaptation and adaptation barriers

Conclusion

Outline
http://www.earthweek.com/2009/ew090313/ew090313c.jpghttp://www.huroncountyema.com/liteningbg.jpghttp://ahmadalikarim.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/ali-disasters.jpg


3/45

2011 The year of extreme

weather


4/45

Climate change

2010 : Record CO2 emission 10 billion tons(Peters et al, 2012) & 49% increase since 1990

Planet is out of energy balance

Last decade and 2010 was the warmest since

1880.

2oC warming target in Cancun, Mexico, now

seems out of reach - Yvo de Boer, ex UN climate

chief


5/45

Current and Future

Risk of climate

change in India:

Increased nos. and

intensity of

DroughtHeavy rain

Flood

Cyclone

Dry spell

Sea level rise

Glacier melting

Loss of biodiversity


6/45

People perceive climate

change within the local

context, filtered by theirlocal knowledge, experience

and socio economic

condition.

Thus, Peoples knowledge, risk

perceptions, and their levels of

concern for climate change arevery important for initiating

any action to stop it or reduce

its adverse impacts.


7/45

From policy perspective it is important to know

How people understand climate change?

What they perceive as risk? and

How they behave to adapt to those risks of

climate change?


8/45

Introduction

Methodology


Risk perception and concern

Adaptation and adaptation barriers

Conclusion

Outline


9/45

Study Area

Map of Gujarat. Source: http://maps.newkerala.com/Gujarat-Travel-Map.jpg
http://maps.newkerala.com/Gujarat-Travel-Map.jpghttp://maps.newkerala.com/Gujarat-Travel-Map.jpghttp://maps.newkerala.com/Gujarat-Travel-Map.jpghttp://maps.newkerala.com/Gujarat-Travel-Map.jpghttp://maps.newkerala.com/Gujarat-Travel-Map.jpghttp://maps.newkerala.com/Gujarat-Travel-Map.jpghttp://www.earthweek.com/2009/ew090313/ew090313c.jpghttp://www.huroncountyema.com/liteningbg.jpghttp://ahmadalikarim.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/ali-disasters.jpg


10/45

Research methods

Quantitative Questionnaire survey

Qualitative Interviews

6 Interview respondents

447 Survey participants

Supplemented by a few numbers of


11/45

Knowledge


12/45

Climate Change Knowledge

Yes33%No

67%

Heard aboutclimate change?

More familiar :

Younger

Educated

Residents of cyclone

prone and drought

prone areas

Familiarity:

However, respondents accepted that their climate

has changed significantly


13/45


Overall good knowledge of causes and

mitigation measures of climate change

(M = 0.75, SD = 0.15).

1.34 % 2.24 %

29.31 %

67.11 %

Levels of climate change knowledge

Fair knowledge

Little knowledge

Good knowledge

Very goodknowledge


14/45

Different theories

Local knowledge contained to some extent a

mix of hybridity and mistranslations (Gupta, 1998)reflecting a blending of ideas from a wide range

of sources.

Some respondents identified over population asthe cause, while some others believed

reforestation and efficient use of energy as

solutions to climate change.

Right ::::: since carbon emissions are connected

to all of these causes

But, peoples explanation of these causes or

solutions relied on a very different reasoning


15/45

Different theories

Some interviewees who cited efficient energy

usage said that light bulbs emit heat into the

atmosphere, so having less lighting from a bulb

means less heat.

Reforestation increases flow of cold air orabsorption of heat by trees.

Bostrom et al (1994) and Leiserowitz (2010) inthe USA, and Crate (2008) in Siberia also

reported respondents connecting spacecraft

launches as the cause of global warming by

linking it with punching holes in the ozone layer.


16/45

Risk perception


17/45

Climate Change Risk Perception

Four-point Likert scale ranging from very

unlikely (1) to very likely (4)

Risk index scores were grouped in four

subjective levels of perceived risk: less risk,

moderate risk, high risk, and very high risk.

1-2='Little perceived risk' 2.01-3='Moderate perceived risk' 3.01-3.5='High perceived risk' 3.51-4.0='Very high perceived risk


18/45

Risk perception

ANOVA Area Edu

F Value 23.68 7.51

DF 2, 235 4, 435

Pr > F


19/45

Risk perception

Contributors to individuals perception of risk

Parameters Coefficients P value

Family income 0.0005, 0.017

Education 0.1067 0.0001

Climate Change

knowledge

0.3201 0.016

Cyclone prone

environmental condition

0.1923 0.0001

Drought prone


-0.1082, 0.016

R2

= .17


20/45

Climate Change Concern

Overall little to

moderate concern 31.10% - Little

51.23% - Moderate

Marked difference inlevel of concern

between residents of

different areas.

Farmers of cyclone

prone area are more

concerned than those

of drought prone area

2.20

2.40

2.60

2.80

Cycloneprone

Droughtprone

Normal

2.7

4

2.4

2

2.6

2

Concer

nIncex

Mean level of concern

Mean

ANOVA

F Value 6.84

DF 2, 437

Pr > F 0.0012


21/45

Concern

Contributors to individuals level of concern

Variables Coefficients P value

Level of perceived risk 0.3109 0.0001

Income -0.0007 0.0695

Drought prone


-0.1530 0.0384

R2 = .087

Sjoberg (1997): worry and risk

perceptions are independent,

and weakly correlated


22/45

Risk perception vs Concern

0%

41.83 %

39.6 %

18.57 %

Distribution of climate changeperceived risk

Little perceived risk Moderate perceived risk

High perceived risk Very high perceived risk

31%

51%

10%

8%

Distribution of respondents' levelsof concern

Little concern Moderate concern

High concern Very high concern

M = 3.11 M = 2.58

Peoples level of concern was less

than their degree of perceived risk.


23/45

Risk perception Vs Concern

Why people are not strongly concerned!!!!

Do not think their

livelihoods will sufferdue to climate change

(M = 2.53).

Believe that innovationsin agricultural science

will address unwarranted

situations.

Assume that growth inoff-farm sources of

income will sustain

their livelihood

people underestimate

the impacts of climate

change on non-

agricultural sectors of

economy

It is not necessary that individuals are more worried (concerned)

when a hazard is judged to be large (Sjoberg, 1997) .


24/45

Adaptation


25/45

Research questions

What are adaptation responses of rural

households to climate change impacts?

What socio cultural and cognitive factors

influence rural households adaptation to climate

change?

What constraints do rural households perceive

for adaptation to climate change?


26/45

Adaptation

12.7515.66

55.48 55.7

60.4 61.97

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

No adaptation Financialmanagement

Waterharvesting and

irrigation

Farmtechnological

adaptation

Landmanagement

Cropdiversification

Respondents,

%

Adptation categories

Climate change adaptation categories


27/45

Adaptation - Determinants

Multivariate Probit analysis

Education and Land ownershipsignificantly influenced adaptation and

adaptation choices.

Household income significant

determinant for adoption of water

harvesting and modern of technologies.

Demographic determinants


28/45

Adaptation - Determinants

Climate change knowledge, risk perceptionand concern not significant determinants

of adaptation choices

Cyclone prone areas : More likely to adopt landmanagement and water harvesting activities,

Drought prone areas: More likely to take up crop

diversification, land management andtechnological adaptation to climatic variation


29/45

Who adapts what

Educated individuals are more likely to take up

varying choices of adaptation measures.

Families with large farm size are also more likely

to take up all adaptation actions except

household financial management.

Family with large income are more likely to take

up costly adaptations such as water harvesting

and adoption of modern technology

Older farmers are ore likely to take up modern

farm technologies


30/45

Understanding result : system framework:

Socio -

Culturalfactors

Education

Demography

Experience

Environme

ntal

factors

Weathervariability

Climaticextremes

Crop pest &diseases

AdaptationPsychological

factors

Affect Image

Emotion

Concern

Risk perception

Outcomes

Knowledge

Barriers


31/45

Putting results into a framework:

External demographic factors : significant determinants

Education and income: influenced adaptation behavior;

independent of its influence on risk perception and

concern

Land holdings: no predictors of risk perception or

concern, but determinant of adaptation behavior.

Environmental conditions - prominent contributor to

knowledge, risk perception, concern, and adaptation

behavior

Internal psychological factors: risk perceptions and emotional

worry (concern) were not significant predictors of adaptation

decisions in rural Saurastra and Kutch.


32/45

Do people act for climate change!

Although respondents responses were inrelation to climate change , many times it is

difficult for them and for us to distinguish those

actions if they were initiated in response to

climate change or they were merely a part of

regular development process.

Our results indicate that peoples adaptation

actions were more likely in response to

comb9nation of many factors including climate

change.


33/45

Adaptation time

Adaptation Time Frequency PercentAdaptation after noticing the

impacts of Climate change

111 26.24

Adaptation before noticing any

impact of climate change

150 35.46

Adaptations are not related to

climate change

162 38.30

For many households, their actions might be

profit driven; initiated in response to general

development process and in conjunction with

climate change


34/45

Adaptation barriers

1.57 2.68

21.0324.38 25.50

34.68

41.39

66.44

75.6278.52

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

No barriers Other barriers

Shortage oflabor

Lack ofappropriateinsurancescheme

Lack ofknowledge

onadaptation

Lack ofcredit

availability

Lack ofopportunity

Access toimproved

seed

Lack ofweather

information

Lack ofmoney

Responden

ts%

Barriers to adaptation


35/45

What confirms

In real world situation: Households with large

farm size and high annual income usually take up

costly adaptation measures and invest in

technology.

Our results are in conformity with these real

world saturations. Wealthy households in

Saurastra and Kutch are more likely to take

up costly adaptation measures.


36/45

What differs

In real world situation: it is believed that people

usually react to perceived or existing risks for

minimizing adverse impacts of those risks.

Our results differ from the real world

situation. Relationship between risk

perception, concern and adaptation to

climate change in Saurastra and Kutch wasvery weak and not significant.


37/45

What we missed

Use of improved crop varieties such as Bt cotton or

increased use of chemicals are common practicesacross the Surastra and Kutch, but many

respondents did not mention it.

Pastoralists migration with their flocks and herds tograzing grounds during summer.

Pastoralists diversification of occupation in farming ,

transport or mining sectors.

Many farmers diversification of livelihood sources in

diamond polishing, small scale businesses and

employment in private and public sectors.


38/45

Conclusion

Rural household in Surastra and Kutch are not

concerned enough to take action in response toclimate change

Better communication strategy in place!!!!!

Awareness do not converts into action

Focus on local research

Use learning from successful events

Improve capacity of local communities byjoining them in local disaster plans

Improvement in credit system and delivery of

weather and agriculture information services


39/45

Ad t ti P ti A l


40/45

Adaptation Practices - A glance

Land leveling Check dam

Sprinkler irrigation Farm bund /soil berm

Ad t ti P ti A l


41/45

Adaptation Practices - A glance

Horticulture Open well for irrigation

Use of organic manure Deep plouging

References:


42/45

Bord, R. J., Fisher, A., & O'Connor, R. E. (1998). Public perceptions of global warming: United States and

international perspectives. Climate Research, 11(1), 75-84.

Bostrom, A., Morgan, M. G., Fischhoff, B., & Read, D. (1994). What Do People Know About Global Climate

Change? 1. Mental Models. Risk Analysis, 14(6), 959-970.

Brody, S. D., Zahran, S., Vedlitz, A., & Grover, H. (2008). Examining the Relationship Between PhysicalVulnerability and Public Perceptions of Global Climate Change in the United States. Environment and

Behavior, 40(1), 72-95.

Crate, S. A., & Nuttall, M. (2009).Anthropology and climate change : from encounters to actions. Walnut

Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.

Henry, A. D. (2000). Public Perceptions of Global Warming. Human Ecology Review, 7(1), 25-30.

Gupta, A. (1988). Postcolonial developments: Agriculture in the Making of Modern India. Durham: Duke

University Press.

IPCC, 2012: Summary for Policymakers. In: Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance

Climate Change Adaptation [Field, C.B., V. Barros, T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, D.J. Dokken, K.L. Ebi, M.D.

Mastrandrea, K.J. Mach, G.-K. Plattner, S.K. Allen, M. Tignor, and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. A Special Report of

Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA, pp. 3-21.

IPCC (2007). Summary for Policymakers. In Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution

of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In S.

Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (Ed.). Cambridge,

United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press.

Kempton, W. (1991). Lay perspectives on global climate change. Global Environmental Change, 1(3), 183-

43


43/45

References:

Leiserowitz, A. (2005). American Risk Perceptions: Is Climate Change Dangerous? Risk Analysis,

25(6), 1433-1442.

Leiserowitz, A. (2007). International public opinion, perception and understanding of global climate

change (No. 2007/31): Human Development Report Office, Occasional Paper, UNDP.

Peacock, W. G., Brody, S. D., & Highfield, W. (2005). Hurricane risk perceptions among Florida's

single family homeowners. Landscape and Urban Planning, 73(2-3), 120-135.

Peters, G. P., Marland, G., Le Quere, C., Boden, T., Canadell, J. G., & Raupach, M. R. (2012).

Rapid growth in CO2 emissions after the 2008-2009 global financial crisis. Nature Clim. Change,2(1), 2-4.

Savage, I. (1993). Demographic Influences on Risk Perceptions. Risk Analysis, 13(4), 413-420.

Sundbald, E., Biel, A. & Galing, T. (2009). Knowldege and confidence in knowledge about climate

change among experts, journalist, ploticians, and laypersons. Envirtonment and Behavior, 41(2),

281-302.

World Public Opinion (2006). Most Indians Say India Should Limit its Greenhouse Gases Retrieved

7th April, 2011, from

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brasiapacificra/169.php?lb=bte&pnt=169&nid=&id=
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brasiapacificra/169.php?lb=bte&pnt=169&nid=&id=http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brasiapacificra/169.php?lb=bte&pnt=169&nid=&id=


44/45


45/45

Ifwe use less electricity then climate change

can stop. What you believe about this? Yes it

is right. Let me tell one experience. If you sleep in

this open room without keeping the bulb on and

sleep with the bulb on and see how much heat

you feel. This gives you a practical experience.That is right but other than is there any other

reason? The way it affects human, it will affectclimate. Any light we burn (use electricity), the

heat is going to be in the environment. That

means electricity use (burning) might have equal

impact with that of petroleum products. Both areequally responsible. May be electricity may

increase less heat but it is sure that both

increases heat in the environment. (Village

leader from cyclone prone area)

climate change_ who adapts what

Documents