Vulnerability assessment for livelihood inclusion and social empowerment(VALISE) of farmers: a post flood analysis of Kerala state

Abstract

The study entitled ‘Vulnerability Assessment for Livelihood Inclusion and Social Empowerment (VALISE) of farmers: a post flood analysis of Kerala state was conducted during 2018 to 2021 with the major objectivesto establish a Societal Vulnerability Index for Floods and Landslides(SVIFL) and map the vulnerability hotspots for the affected areas. The study also delineated the coping strategies adopted during various phases of the floods and the impact of various post flood schemes and measures by the Government. The study also developed a Climate Adaptive Agricultural Extension Approach (CAAEA) to formulate mitigation strategies and suggest adaptation strategies for the farmers. For this study, four of the 14 districts of Kerala, namely, Alappuzha and Pathanamthitta from lowlands, Idukki and Wayanad districts from highlands were purposively selected for flood and landslide vulnerability assessment. Two severely flood affected panchayats of Alappuzha, namely Kainakari (KK) and Ambalappuzha (AP), were selected for the study. From Pathanamthitta, Kadapra (KD) and Niranam (NM), two low lying panchayats where floods occur almost every year were selected. Adimali (AD) and Vellathooval (VT) panchayats were particularly selected for landslide vulnerability assessment in the Idukki district. Panamaram (PM) and Meppadi (MD) panchayats from Wayanad district were considered for the landslide vulnerability assessment. A multistage sampling method was adopted for data collection in this study. A total of 520 farmers were selected for the study using proportionate sampling method. In this study, a Societal Vulnerability Index for Floods and Landslides (SVIFL) was established for highlands and lowlands to assess the flood vulnerability according to the local situation. The SVIFL developed for this study consists of four major components such as social, physical, environmental and economical, which were estimated in terms of the three factors of exposure, sensitivity and resilience. Component wise results revealed that social vulnerability is highest in the highlands. Among them, MD (0.514) has the highest vulnerability to disasters, especially landslides, followed by VT (0.485) and AD (0.456). In case of lowlands, social vulnerability to flooding is highest in AP (0.442) of Alappuzha. In the case of economic component, economic vulnerability to floods and associated landslides is highest in the MD (0.715) of Wayanad district followed by PM (0.626) of Wayanad and VT (0.571) of Idukki district. In the context of environmental component too, the highlands are more vulnerable compared to the lowlands. Among the highlands, VT (0.549) of Idukki has the highest vulnerability, followed by MD (0.526) of Wayanad. In the case of Physical component, KK (0.667) has the highest physical vulnerability followed by AP (0.626) of Alappuzha. According to the SVIFLvalues, panchayat MD in Wayanad appeared to be the most vulnerable region among the study areas with a SVIFL index value of 0.555. The second highest vulnerability was recorded for panchayat KK (0.509), the low-lying flood-prone region of Alappuzha. The lowest vulnerability when compared to other regions was found for KD (0.369) of Pathanamthitta. Coping mechanisms played an important role in reducing the disaster risk factors, and smoothening the consequences of the disaster to improve the livelihood and living conditions of disaster affected communities. In this study, coping mechanisms adopted at farmer level, community level and government level have been documented with the help of a Coping Strategies Index for Floods and Landslides (CSIFL). Results revealed that at farmer level in highlands, borrowing of money, in the post disaster situation (669), homestead vegetable gardening (661), and crop diversification (627) scored the highest scores and in the case of lowlands, increased dependence on chemical fertilizers (776) have scored the highest value. At the community level, in both highlands and lowlands, coping strategies were frequently adopted in the food security component with CSIFL values 626.33 and 642.5 respectively. At the government level, in highlands and lowlands, setting up of community kitchens (837) and relief camps (766) were ranked first and second according to CSIFL values. Documentation of post flood livelihood inclusive activities, helped us to understand the extent to which the farmers were affected by the disaster and the different livelihood options adopted by the farmers after the disaster. The results of post flood livelihood analysis revealed that in highlands, farm diversification was the most adopted (60.8%) post flood livelihood mechanism followed by switching to non-farm based livelihoods (27.6%). In the case of lowlands, switching to nonfarm based livelihoods (36.78) was the most adopted post flood livelihood mechanism followed by farm diversification. An impact assessment was conducted to analyse, the impact of Punarjani scheme among the farmers in the flood and landslide affected panchayaths. The results of the study revealed that, in highlands, 10.8% farmers have benefitted from the scheme economically, 7.6% benefitted from the scheme in the aspect of crop production, 5.2% in the socio psychological aspect and 2.8% in terms of human capital. In the case of lowlands, Punarjani scheme had an impact on farmers mostly in the area of crop production (26.05%), followed by monetary benefits (19.16%). Five personal and psychological characteristics of the farmers were selected as independent variables of the study. In the case of neighbourhood cohesion, about 53% of the farmers in highlands and 61.22% farmers in lowlands were found to have medium neighbourhood cohesion. In terms of self-efficacy, 58% of the farmers in highlands and 60.84% of the farmers in lowlands were reported to have medium level of self-efficacy. Similarly, majority of the farmers in highlands (57.98%, 52.53%) and lowlands (65.02%, 58.17%), were observed to have medium level of optimism and altruism respectively. In the case of risk propensity, 68.48% of the farmers in highlands and 62.36% of the farmers in lowlands belonged to the medium category of optimism. A Climate Adaptive Agricultural Extension Approach (CAAEA) was developed to suggest adaptation strategies to the farmers as well as policy makers to various climate risks. For the construction of framework, major problems faced by the farmers in relation to climate change, were scored on a four point continuum. The results further revealed, wild animal attack, landslide and excessive rain in a short period of time, to be the major climate risks in highlands and scarcity of drinking water, increased pest and disease infestation and poultry and livestock diseases in lowlands. These individual problems were further correlated with the climate risks, to understand the relation and construct the framework. To conclude, SVIFL can be used as an effective tool for assessing farmers' vulnerability to floods and landslides. The results of this study may enable stakeholders to determine the vulnerability of their residential areas. For policy makers, the documentation of coping mechanisms adopted at various levels may be useful in formulating disaster risk reduction strategies at the panchayat or community level. Results of post flood livelihood mechanisms shows the areas in which livelihood alternatives may be formulated in the post disaster phase. Impact study of Punarjani scheme shows that, the program could not achieve the major objectives, it was primarily implemented for and only few farmer respondents benefitted from this post flood scheme.