Understanding the Resilience of Different Farming Strategies in Coping with Geo-Hazards: A Case Study in Chongqing, China
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
2.1. Adaptation Strategies to Hazards
2.2. Factors that Influence Adaptation strategy
3. Study Area and Sample Data
3.1. Study Area
3.2. Sample Data
4. Empirical Model and Explanatory Variables
4.1. Econometric Model
4.2. Selection of the Explanatory Variables
4.2.1. Social Support Factors
4.2.2. Disaster experience factors
5. Modeling Results and Discussion
5.1. Estimation of Parameters
5.2. Marginal Effects Results
6. Conclusions and Policy Implications
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Xu, D.D.; Peng, L.; Su, C.J.; Liu, S.Q.; Wang, X.X.; Chen, T.T. Influences of mass monitoring and mass prevention systems on peasant households’ disaster risk perception in the landslide-threatened three gorges reservoir area, China. Habitat Int. 2016, 58, 23–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, D.D.; Peng, L.; Liu, S.Q.; Su, C.J.; Wang, X.X.; Chen, T.T. Influences of migrant work income on the poverty vulnerability disaster threatened area: A case study of the three gorges reservoir area, China. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2017, 22, 62–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barua, A.; Katyaini, S.; Mili, B.; Pernille, G. Climate change and poverty: Building resilience of rural mountain communities in South Sikkim, Eastern Himalaya, India. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2014, 14, 267–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). Gender and Energy for Sustainable Development: A Toolkit and Resource Guide; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Vlaeminck, P.; Maertens, M.; Isabirye, M.; Vand.erhoydonks, F.; Poesen, J.; Deckers, S.; Vranken, L. Coping with landslide risk through preventive resettlement. Designing optimal strategies through choice experiments for the Mount Elgon region, Uganda. Land Use Policy 2016, 51, 301–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vu, Q.M.; Le, Q.B.; Frossard, E.; Vlek, P.L. Socio-economic and biophysical determinants of land degradation in Vietnam: An integrated causal analysis at the national level. Land Use Policy 2014, 36, 605–617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- White, G.F. Human Adjustment to Floods: A Geographical Approach to the Flood Problem in the United States; University of Chicago: Chicago, IL, USA, 1945. [Google Scholar]
- Gaillard, J.C.; Mercer, J. From knowledge to action: Bridging gaps in disaster risk reduction. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 2013, 37, 93–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Doberstein, B. Post-Disaster Assessment of Hazard Mitigation for Small and Medium Magnitude Debris Flow Disasters in Bali, Indonesia and Jimani, Dominican Republic. Nat. Hazards 2009, 50, 361–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- World Bank. Economics of Adaptation to Climate Change in Viet Nam; The World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Gebrehiwot, T.; van der Veen, A. Farm Level Adaptation to Climate Change: The Case of Farmer’s in the Ethiopian Highlands. Environ. Manag. 2013, 52, 29–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McCarthy, J.J.; Canziani, O.F.; Leary, N.A.; Dokken, D.J.; White, K.S. Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability: Contribution of Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Mendelsohn, R.O.; Massetti, E. The Use of Cross-Sectional Analysis to Measure Climate Impacts on Agriculture: Theory and Evidence. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 2017, 11, 280–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Peng, L.; Xu, D.D.; Wang, X.X. Vulnerability of rural household livelihood to climate variability and adaptive strategies in landslide-threatened western mountainous regions of the Three Gorges Reservoir Area, China. Clim. Dev. 2019, 11, 469–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bhattacharjee, K.; Behera, B. Determinants of household vulnerability and adaptation to floods: Empirical evidence from the Indian State of West Bengal. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2018, 31, 758–769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Summary for Policymakers, Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Orindi, V.A.; Eriksen, S. Mainstreaming Adaptation to Climate Change in the Development Process in Uganda; Africa Centre for Technology Studies (ACTS) Press: Nairobi, Kenya, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Trinh, T.Q.; Rañola, R.F.; Camacho, L.D.; Simelton, E. Determinants of farmers’ adaptation to climate change in agricultural production in the central region of Vietnam. Land Use Policy 2018, 70, 224–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alam, G.M.; Alam, K.; Mushtaq, S. Influence of institutional access and social capital on adaptation decision: Empirical evidence from hazard-prone rural households in Bangladesh. Ecol. Econ. 2016, 130, 243–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, J.K.; Jiang, J.; Wang, J.X.; Hou, L.L. Crop Diversification in Coping with Extreme Weather Events in China. J. Integr. Agric. 2014, 13, 677–686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Panda, A.; Sharma, U.; Ninan, K.N.; Patt, A. Adaptive capacity contributing to improved agricultural productivity at the household level: Empirical findings highlighting the importance of crop insurance. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2013, 23, 782–790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Demuth, J.L.; Morss, R.E.; Lazo, J.K.; Trumbo, C. The Effects of Past Hurricane Experiences on Evacuation Intentions through Risk Perception and Efficacy Beliefs: A Mediation Analysis. Weather Clim. Soc. 2016, 8, 327–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brink, E.; Wamsler, C. Citizen engagement in climate adaptation surveyed: The role of values, worldviews, gender and place. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 209, 1342–1353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kreibich, H.; Seifert, I.; Thieken, A.H.; Lindquist, E.; Wagner, K.; Merz, B. Recent changes in flood preparedness of private households and businesses in Germany. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2011, 11, 59–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Taylor, A.; De Bruin, W.B.; Dessai, S. Climate Change Beliefs and Perceptions of Weather-Related Changes in the United Kingdom. Risk Anal. 2014, 34, 1995–2004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Peng, L.; Lin, L.; Liu, S.Q.; Xu, D.D. Interaction between risk perception and sense of place in disaster-prone mountain areas: A case study in china’s three gorges reservoir area. Nat. Hazards 2017, 85, 777–792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wagner, K. Mental Models of Flash Floods and Landslides. Risk Anal. 2007, 27, 671–682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bierbaum, R.; Smith, J.B.; Lee, A.; Blair, M.; Carter, L.; Chapin, F.S.; Wasley, E. A comprehensive review of climate adaptation in the United States: More than before, but less than needed. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Chang. 2013, 18, 361–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Agarwal, A. The Role of Local Institutions in Adaptation to Climate Change, Paper Prepared for a Workshop on “Social Dimensions of Climate Change”, Organized by the Social Development Department; The World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Armitage, D.; Berkes, F.; Dale, A.; Kocho-Schellenberg, E.; Patton, E. Co-management and the co-production of knowledge: Learning to adapt in Canada’s Arctic. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2011, 21, 995–1004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Amaru, S.; Chhetri, N.B. Climate adaptation: Institutional response to environmental constraints, and the need for increased flexibility, participation, and integration of approaches. Appl. Geogr. 2013, 39, 128–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deressa, T.T.; Hassan, R.M.; Ringler, C.; Alemu, T.; Yesuf, M. Determinants of farmers’ choice of adaptation methods to climate change in the Nile Basin of Ethiopia. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2009, 19, 248–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lemos, M.C.; Lo, Y.J.; Kirchhoff, C.; Haigh, T. Crop advisors as climate information brokers: Building the capacity of US farmers to adapt to climate change. Clim. Risk Manag. 2014, 4, 32–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Adger, W.N. Social capital, collective action, and adaptation to climate change. Econ. Geogr. 2003, 79, 387–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lo, A.Y. The role of social norms in climate adaptation: Mediating risk perception and flood insurance purchase. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2013, 23, 1249–1257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Asfaw, S.; McCarthy, N.; Lipper, L.; Arslan, A.; Cattaneo, A.; Kachulu, M. Climate Variability, Adaptation Strategies and Food Security in Malawi. In Proceedings of the International Association of Agricultural Economists (IAAE) Conference, Milan, Italy, 9–14 August 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Nhemachena, C.; Hassan, R.M. Rashid: Micro-Level Analysis of Farmers’ Adaptation to Climate Change in Southern Africa; IFPRI Discussion Paper 00714; IFPRI: Washington, DC, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Nabikolo, D.; Bashaasha, B.; Mangheni, M.N.; Majaliwa, J.G. Determinants of climate change of climate change adaptation among male and female headed farm households in eastern Uganda. Afr. Crop Sci. J. 2012, 20, 203–212. [Google Scholar]
- Uddin, M.N.; Bokelmann, W.; Entsminger, J.S. Factors Affecting Farmers’ Adaptation Strategies to Environmental Degradation and Climate Change Effects: A Farm Level Study in Bangladesh. Climate 2014, 2, 223–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wossen, T.; Berger, T. Climate variability, food security and poverty: Agent-based assessment of policy options for farm households in Northern Ghana. Environ. Sci. Policy 2015, 47, 95–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abebaw, D.; Haile, M.G. The impact of cooperatives on agricultural technology adoption: Empirical evidence from Ethiopia. Food Policy 2013, 38, 82–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alauddin, M.; Sarker, M.A.R. Climate change and farm-level adaptation decisions and strategies in drought-prone and groundwater-depleted areas of Bangladesh: An empirical investigation. Ecol. Econ. 2014, 106, 204–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Greene, W.H. Econometric Analysis, 5th ed.; Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, H.; Wang, J.X.; Huang, J.K. Policy support, social capital, and farmers’ adaptation to drought in China. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2013, 24, 193–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mendelsohn, R.O.; Kurukulasuriya, P.; Basist, A.; Kogan, F.; Williams, C. Climate analysis with satellites versus weather station data. Clim. Chang. 2007, 81, 71–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hausman, S.; Mcfadden, D.L. Specification tests for the multinomial logit model. Econometrica 1984, 52, 1219–1240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kumar, S.; Sidana, B.K. Farmers’ perceptions and adaptation strategies to climate change in Punjab agriculture. Indian J. Agric. Sci. 2018, 88, 1573–1581. [Google Scholar]
- Oo, A.T.; Van Huylenbroeck, G.; Speelman, S. Determining factors for the application of climate change adaptation strategies among farmers in Magwe District, dry zone region of Myanmar. Int. J. Clim. Chang. Strateg. Manag. 2017, 9, 26–55. [Google Scholar]
- Acosta, L.A.; Eugenio, E.A.; Macandog, P.B.M.; Magcale-Macandog, D.B.; Lin, E.K.H.; Abucay, E.R.; Cura, A.L.; Primavera, M.G. Loss and damage from typhoon-induced floods and landslides in the Philippines: Community perceptions on climate impacts and adaptation options. Int. J. Glob. Warm. 2016, 9, 33–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Variable | Description | Mean | S.D. |
---|---|---|---|
Gender | The gender of the respondent. Dummy (male = 1, female = 0) | 0.448 | 0.498 |
Family size | The number of your family members. Discrete (number) | 4.155 | 1.943 |
Smallholder age | The age of the smallholder. Discrete (years) | 59.432 | 11.265 |
Smallholder education level | The schooling years of the smallholder. Discrete (years) | 5.434 | 3.741 |
Farming acreage | The acreage of cultivated land. Continuous (mu) | 6.185 | 24.314 |
Main livelihood of the smallholder | What is your mainly major source of income? Dummy, (Agriculture = 1; non- Agriculture = 0) | 0.790 | 0.407 |
Agricultural income | The family annual agricultural income. Continuous (10,000 yuan) | 1.874 | 1.727 |
State subsidy | The amount of state subsidy your family receive a year. Continuous (10,000 yuan) | 2.109 | 1.494 |
Maximum loan amount | How much money can your family borrow from the bank? Continuous (10,000 yuan) | 2.421 | 2.366 |
Main information source | What is the main information channel? Dummy (Government = 1; otherwise = 0) | 0.558 | 0.497 |
Effectiveness of government information | Whether local governments can provide effective information for farmers after a disaster? Dummy (yes = 1; no = 0) | 0.587 | 0.975 |
Presence of disaster prevention construction | Is there a disaster prevention construction? Dummy (yes = 1; no = 0) | 0.602 | 0.572 |
Role of media information | Do you often watch television, read the newspaper, or browse the Internet for news on hazards? Dummy (yes = 1; no = 0) | 0.624 | 0.485 |
Number of relatives who will lend money | The number of relatives who would lend money if necessary. Discrete (number) | 2.645 | 1.179 |
Number of relatives who can introduce off-farm employment | The number of relatives who can introduce off-farm employment if necessary. Discrete (number) | 2.187 | 2.697 |
Number of disasters experienced | The number of disasters experienced in the current lifetime. Discrete (number) | 6.465 | 9.849 |
Property damage experience | Is there any disaster-caused property damage? Dummy (yes = 1; no = 0) | 0.787 | 1.410 |
Crop loss experience | Is there any disaster-caused crop loss? Dummy (yes = 1; no = 0) | 0.378 | 0.485 |
Variables | Model 1: Binary Logit | Model 2: Multinomial Logit (Reference Group = not Adjusting/no Adaptation) | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Adaptation Strategy (1 = yes) | 1: Adjusting Crop Varieties | 2: Reducing Farming Acreage | 3: Changing Planting Dates | 4: Changing Planting Sites | ||||||
Coef. | p | Coef. | p | Coef. | p | Coef. | p | Coef. | p | |
Gender | 0.310 | 0.163 | 0.551 * | 0.083 | −0.056 | 0.873 | 0.628 | 0.255 | 0.284 | 0.442 |
Family size | 0.082 | 0.147 | −0.004 | 0.965 | 0.171 * | 0.051 | 0.272 ** | 0.037 | 0.060 | 0.522 |
Smallholder age | 0.017 * | 0.098 | 0.035 ** | 0.027 | −0.008 | 0.623 | 0.012 | 0.636 | 0.015 | 0.420 |
Smallholder education level | 0.023 | 0.461 | 0.079 * | 0.066 | −0.072 | 0.143 | 0.070 | 0.340 | −0.007 | 0.890 |
Farming acreage | 0.007 * | 0.089 | 0.011 ** | 0.013 | −0.069 | 0.130 | −0.007 | 0.749 | 0.009 | 0.157 |
Main livelihood of the smallholder | 0.042 | 0.881 | -0.345 | 0.368 | 0.937 * | 0.071 | −0.414 | 0.521 | 0.056 | 0.901 |
Agricultural income | 0.188 *** | 0.005 | 0.231 ** | 0.022 | 0.190 * | 0.071 | 0.115 | 0.500 | 0.329 *** | 0.007 |
State subsidy | 0.339 ** | 0.044 | 0.322 | 0.102 | 0.000 | 0.221 | 0.439 | 0.105 | 0.418 * | 0.052 |
Maximum loan amount | 0.023 ** | 0.012 | 0.036 *** | 0.002 | 0.287 *** | 0.005 | −0.063 | 0.253 | −0.009 | 0.688 |
Main information source | 0.303 | 0.175 | 0.838 ** | 0.011 | −0.035 | 0.276 | 0.646 | 0.240 | 0.157 | 0.676 |
Effectiveness of government information | 0.179 | 0.113 | 0.333 ** | 0.045 | −0.146 | 0.403 | 0.164 | 0.557 | 0.334 * | 0.078 |
Presence of disaster prevention construction | 0.333 ** | 0.014 | 0.419 ** | 0.044 | 0.210 | 0.303 | 0.283 | 0.409 | 0.444 * | 0.063 |
Role of media information | 0.372 | 0.126 | 0.416 | 0.245 | 0.072 | 0.850 | −0.209 | 0.734 | 1.084 *** | 0.008 |
Number of relatives that will lend money | 0.179 * | 0.075 | 0.293 ** | 0.045 | 0.075 | 0.648 | 0.245 | 0.305 | 0.158 | 0.353 |
Number of relatives who can introduce off-farm employment | 0.118 *** | 0.007 | 0.096 * | 0.088 | 0.131 ** | 0.027 | 0.033 | 0.748 | 0.163 *** | 0.004 |
Number of disasters experienced | 0.012 | 0.246 | 0.032 ** | 0.017 | −0.011 | 0.551 | 0.005 | 0.855 | 0.013 | 0.421 |
Property damage experience | 0.669 ** | 0.022 | 0.266 | 0.505 | 1.656 ** | 0.012 | 0.375 | 0.593 | 0.661 | 0.195 |
Crop loss experience | 0.999 *** | 0.000 | 0.762 ** | 0.020 | 1.123 *** | 0.001 | 0.943 * | 0.093 | 1.261 *** | 0.001 |
Constant | −6.321 *** | 0.000 | −9.037 *** | 0.000 | −5.924 *** | 0.001 | −8.352 *** | 0.002 | −8.403 *** | 0.000 |
LR chi2 | 118.51 | 201.06 | ||||||||
Pseudo R2 | 0.1776 | 0.1772 |
Variables | Model 1: Binary Logit | Model 2: Multinomial Logit (Reference Group = not Adjusting/no Adaptation) | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Adaptation Strategy (1 = yes) | 1: Adjusting Crop Varieties | 2: Reducing Farming Acreage | 3: Changing Planting Dates | 4: Changing Planting Sites | ||||||
dy/dx | p | dy/dx | p | dy/dx | p | dy/dx | p | dy/dx | p | |
Gender | 0.039 | 0.160 | 0.045 | 0.117 | −0.016 | 0.549 | 0.016 | 0.352 | 0.010 | 0.691 |
Family size | 0.010 | 0.145 | −0.005 | 0.529 | 0.012 * | 0.071 | 0.008 * | 0.067 | 0.002 | 0.812 |
Smallholder age | 0.002 * | 0.095 | 0.003 ** | 0.030 | −0.001 | 0.305 | 0.000 | 0.821 | 0.001 | 0.663 |
Smallholder education level | 0.006 | 0.460 | 0.008 ** | 0.033 | -0.007 * | 0.070 | 0.002 | 0.362 | -0.001 | 0.729 |
Farming acreage | 0.001 * | 0.085 | 0.002 *** | 0.008 | −0.006 | 0.115 | −0.000 | 0.901 | 0.001 * | 0.058 |
Main livelihood of the smallholder | 0.050 | 0.881 | −0.042 | 0.212 | 0.080 ** | 0.049 | −0.014 | 0.463 | 0.001 | 0.980 |
Agricultural income | 0.012 *** | 0.004 | 0.013 | 0.136 | 0.009 | 0.295 | 0.001 *** | 0.008 | 0.018 ** | 0.039 |
State subsidy | 0.030 ** | 0.042 | 0.018 | 0.230 | 0.013 | 0.431 | 0.009 | 0.216 | 0.020 | 0.107 |
Maximum loan amount | 0.002 ** | 0.010 | 0.003 *** | 0.000 | 0.003 *** | 0.002 | -0.002 | 0.205 | -0.001 | 0.375 |
Main information source | 0.040 | 0.172 | 0.077 *** | 0.009 | −0.046 | 0.104 | 0.016 | 0.325 | 0.000 | 0.997 |
Effectiveness of government information | 0.020 | 0.110 | 0.027 * | 0.071 | −0.020 | 0.138 | 0.003 | 0.752 | 0.020 | 0.128 |
Presence of disaster prevention construction | 0.024 ** | 0.012 | 0.028 | 0.132 | 0.006 | 0.705 | 0.004 | 0.675 | 0.022 | 0.184 |
Role of media information | 0.043 | 0.123 | 0.022 | 0.491 | 0.010 | 0.721 | −0.013 | 0.493 | 0.072 ** | 0.012 |
Number of relatives that will lend money | 0.018 * | 0.072 | 0.023 * | 0.084 | 0.000 | 0.994 | 0.005 | 0.468 | 0.005 | 0.668 |
Number of relatives who can introduce off-farm employment | 0.008 *** | 0.006 | 0.005 | 0.313 | 0.007 * | 0.079 | 0.001 | 0.872 | 0.009 ** | 0.013 |
Number of disasters experienced | 0.002 | 0.244 | 0.003 ** | 0.012 | −0.001 | 0.306 | 0.000 | 0.992 | 0.001 | 0.631 |
Property damage experience | 0.051 ** | 0.020 | 0.008 | 0.832 | 0.122 ** | 0.021 | 0.002 | 0.907 | 0.024 | 0.502 |
Crop loss experience | 0.037 *** | 0.000 | 0.033 * | 0.063 | 0.064 ** | 0.013 | 0.017 ** | 0.012 | 0.064 ** | 0.013 |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Peng, L.; Tan, J.; Deng, W.; Liu, Y. Understanding the Resilience of Different Farming Strategies in Coping with Geo-Hazards: A Case Study in Chongqing, China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 1226. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17041226
Peng L, Tan J, Deng W, Liu Y. Understanding the Resilience of Different Farming Strategies in Coping with Geo-Hazards: A Case Study in Chongqing, China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020; 17(4):1226. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17041226
Chicago/Turabian StylePeng, Li, Jing Tan, Wei Deng, and Ying Liu. 2020. "Understanding the Resilience of Different Farming Strategies in Coping with Geo-Hazards: A Case Study in Chongqing, China" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17, no. 4: 1226. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17041226