The Fourth International Conference on Climate Change

Seattle, WA * July 13, 2012

Outline
Introduction
Methodology Climate change knowledge Risk perception and concern

Adaptation and adaptation barriers

Conclusion

2011 The year of extreme weather

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

Current and Future Risk of climate change in India: Increased nos. and intensity of Drought Heavy rain Flood Cyclone Dry spell Sea level rise

Glacier melting
Loss of biodiversity

People perceive climate change within the local context, filtered by their local knowledge, experience and socio economic condition.

Thus, Peoples knowledge, risk perceptions, and their levels of concern for climate change are very important for initiating any action to stop it or reduce its adverse impacts.

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?

Outline
Introduction

Methodology
Climate change knowledge
Risk perception and concern Adaptation and adaptation barriers Conclusion

Study Area

Map of Gujarat. Source: http://maps.newkerala.com/Gujarat-Travel-Map.jpg

Research methods
Quantitative Questionnaire survey 447 Survey participants

Supplemented by a few numbers of

Qualitative Interviews 6 Interview respondents

Knowledge

Climate Change Knowledge

Familiarity: More familiar :
Heard about climate change?
No 67% Yes 33%

Younger Educated

Residents of cyclone prone and drought prone areas

However, respondents accepted that their climate

has changed significantly

Climate change knowledge

Levels of climate change knowledge
1.34 % 2.24 % Fair knowledge Little knowledge 29.31 % 67.11 % Good knowledge Very good knowledge

Overall good knowledge of causes and mitigation measures of climate change (M = 0.75, SD = 0.15).
<0.25='Fair knowledge', 0.251 to 0.50='Little knowledge', 0.501 to 0.75='Good knowledge', and 0.751 to High='Very good knowledge'

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 as the 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

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 or absorption of heat by trees.

Bostrom et al (1994) and Leiserowitz (2010) in the 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.

Risk perception

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

Risk perception
Perceive moderate to high risk
Mean perceived risk

Mean perceived risk of climate change

Mean prisk 3.40 3.20 3.00 2.80 2.60

41.83% - Moderate 39.60% - high

* *
3.29

*
3.28 3.36

3.29

*
3.11 2.97

3.15

2.99

Concerned for themselves and family (78.30%)

Marked spatial differences in perception

ANOVA F Value DF Pr > F Edu Area 23.68 7.51 2, 235 4, 435 <.0001 <.0001

Risk perception
Contributors to individuals perception of risk Parameters Family income Education Coefficients P value 0.0005, 0.017 0.1067 0.0001 0.016 0.0001 0.016
R2 = .17

Climate Change 0.3201 knowledge Cyclone prone 0.1923 environmental condition Drought prone -0.1082, environmental condition

Climate Change Concern

Overall little to moderate concern
Concern Incex
31.10% - Little 51.23% - Moderate

Mean level of concern

2.80 2.60 2.40 2.20
Cyclone Drought Normal prone prone
2.74

Mean
2.62 2.42
ANOVA

Marked difference in level of concern between residents of different areas.

Farmers of cyclone prone area are more concerned than those of drought prone area

F Value

6.84

DF
Pr > F

2, 437
0.0012

Concern
Contributors to individuals level of concern Variables Level of perceived risk Coefficients P value 0.3109 0.0001

Income -0.0007 Drought prone -0.1530 environmental condition

0.0695 0.0384
R2 = .087

Sjoberg (1997): worry and risk perceptions are independent, and weakly correlated

Risk perception vs Concern

Distribution of climate change perceived risk
Little perceived risk High perceived risk Moderate perceived risk Very high perceived risk

Distribution of respondents' levels of concern

Little concern High concern Moderate concern Very high concern

0% 8% 18.57 % 41.83 % 10% 31%

39.6 %

51%

M = 3.11

M = 2.58

Peoples level of concern was less than their degree of perceived risk.

Risk perception Vs Concern

Why people are not strongly concerned!!!!
It is not necessary that individuals are more worried (concerned) when a hazard is judged to be large (Sjoberg, 1997) .

Do not think their livelihoods will suffer due to climate change (M = 2.53). Assume that growth in off-farm sources of income will sustain their livelihood

Believe that innovations in agricultural science will address unwarranted situations. people underestimate the impacts of climate change on nonagricultural sectors of economy

Adaptation

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?

Adaptation
Climate change adaptation categories
70 60.4 61.97

60
50 Respondents, % 40 30 20 12.75 10 0 No adaptation 15.66

55.48

55.7

Financial Water Farm management harvesting and technological irrigation adaptation Adptation categories

Land management

Crop diversification

Adaptation - Determinants
Multivariate Probit analysis

Demographic determinants
Education and Land ownership significantly influenced adaptation and adaptation choices.

Household income significant determinant for adoption of water harvesting and modern of technologies.

Adaptation - Determinants
Cyclone prone areas : More likely to adopt land management and water harvesting activities, Drought prone areas: More likely to take up crop diversification, land management and technological adaptation to climatic variation

Climate change knowledge, risk perception and concern not significant determinants of adaptation choices

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

Understanding result : system framework:

Education Demography Experience

Outcomes

Socio Cultural factors

Knowledge

Psycho logical factors

Affect Image Emotion

Concern

Adaptation
Risk perception
Barriers

Weather variability Climatic Environme extremes ntal Crop pest & factors diseases

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.

Do people act for climate change!

Although respondents responses were in relation 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.

Adaptation time
Adaptation Time Frequency Percent Adaptation after noticing the 111 26.24 impacts of Climate change Adaptation before noticing any 150 35.46 impact of climate change Adaptations are not related to 162 38.30 climate change

For many households, their actions might be profit driven; initiated in response to general development process and in conjunction with climate change

Adaptation barriers
90 80 70 60 50 41.39 40 30 34.68 24.38 25.50 78.52

75.62

66.44

Respondents %

21.03
20 10 1.57 2.68
Other barriers Shortage of Lack of Lack of Lack of Lack of Access to Lack of labor appropriate knowledge credit opportunity improved weather insurance on availability seed information scheme adaptation Lack of money

0
No barriers

Barriers to adaptation

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.

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 was very weak and not significant.

What we missed
Use of improved crop varieties such as Bt cotton or increased use of chemicals are common practices across the Surastra and Kutch, but many respondents did not mention it. Pastoralists migration with their flocks and herds to grazing 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.

Conclusion
Rural household in Surastra and Kutch are not concerned enough to take action in response to climate 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 by joining them in local disaster plans Improvement in credit system and delivery of weather and agriculture information services

Adaptation Practices - A glance

Land leveling

Check dam

Sprinkler irrigation

Farm bund /soil berm

Adaptation Practices - A glance

Horticulture

Open well for irrigation

Use of organic manure

Deep plouging

References: 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 Physical Vulnerability 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 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=

If we 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 affect climate. 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 are equally 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)