| Literature DB >> 30174734 |
Sylvia Szabo1, Md Sarwar Hossain2, W Neil Adger3, Zoe Matthews1, Sayem Ahmed4, Attila N Lázár5, Sate Ahmad4.
Abstract
As a creeping process, salinisation represents a significant long-term environmental risk in coastal and deltaic environments. Excess soil salinity may exacerbate existing risks of food insecurity in densely populated tropical deltas, which is likely to have a negative effect on human and ecological sustainability of these regions and beyond. This study focuses on the coastal regions of the Ganges-Brahmaputra delta in Bangladesh, and uses data from the 2010 Household Income and Expenditure Survey and the Soil Resource Development Institute to investigate the effect of soil salinity and wealth on household food security. The outcome variables are two widely used measures of food security: calorie availability and household expenditure on food items. The main explanatory variables tested include indicators of soil salinity and household-level socio-economic characteristics. The results of logistic regression show that in unadjusted models, soil salinisation has a significant negative effect on household food security. However, this impact becomes statistically insignificant when households' wealth is taken into account. The results further suggest that education and remittance flows, but not gender or working status of the household head, are significant predictors of food insecurity in the study area. The findings indicate the need to focus scholarly and policy attention on reducing wealth inequalities in tropical deltas in the context of the global sustainable deltas initiative and the proposed Sustainable Development Goals.Entities:
Keywords: Climate change; Food insecurity; Ganges–Brahmaputra delta; Soil salinisation; Sustainable deltas; Wealth inequalities
Year: 2015 PMID: 30174734 PMCID: PMC6106090 DOI: 10.1007/s11625-015-0337-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sustain Sci ISSN: 1862-4057 Impact factor: 6.367
Fig. 1The study area in coastal Bangladesh
Fig. 2Complex mechanisms affect household food security in the coastal Ganges–Brahmaputra delta
Regression results with household food insecurity as the outcome variable
| Food insecurity | Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 | Model 5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | OR (CI) | OR (CI) | OR (CI) | OR (CI) | OR (CI) |
| Salinity affected area (%) | 1.63 (1.02; 2.60)** | 1.61 (0.97; 2.69)* | 1.12 (0.65; 1.92) | ||
| Salinity score | 1.04 (1.00; 1.08)* | 0.99 (0.95; 1.04) | |||
| HH socio-economic characteristics | |||||
| Wealth quintile | |||||
| Poor | 0.68 (0.40; 1.09) | 0.71 (0.44; 1.14) | |||
| Medium | 0.35 (0.21; 0.58)*** | 0.33 (0.20; 0.56)*** | |||
| Rich | 0.28 (0.16; 0.50)*** | 0.26 (0.15; 0.47)*** | |||
| Richest | 0.26 (0.13; 0.51)*** | 0.27 (0.14; 0.55)*** | |||
| Baseline: poorest | 1.00 | 1.00 | |||
| Religion | |||||
| Hinduism | 0.73 (0.50; 1.06) | 0.73 (0.49; 1.07) | 0.77 (0.52; 1.14) | ||
| Buddhism | 0.64 (0.10; 4.09) | 0.78 (0.12; 4.98) | 0.86 (0.13; 4.47) | ||
| Baseline: Islam | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||
| Number of HH members | 1.07 (0.98; 1.17) | 1.11 (1.01; 1.21)** | 1.09 (1.00; 1.20)* | ||
| Characteristics of HH head | |||||
| HH head is female | 0.65 (0.38; 1.13) | 0.67 (0.37; 1.19) | 0.70 (0.37; 1.26) | ||
| Baseline: HH head is male | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||
| Years of education of HH head | 0.90 (0.87; 0.93)*** | 0.93 (0.90; 0.97)*** | 0.93 (0.90; 0.97)*** | ||
| HH head worked during last seven days | 0.76 (0.48; 1.20) | 0.75 (0.46; 1.20) | 0.71 (0.44; 1.16) | ||
| Baseline: didn’t work | 1.00 | 1.00 | |||
| Age of HH head | 1.00 (0.99; 1.01) | 1.00 (0.99; 1.01) | 1.00 (0.99; 1.01) | ||
| HH agricultural activities | |||||
| HH engaged in crop cultivation | 0.78 (0.58; 1.06) | 0.82 (0.60; 1.11) | 0.83 (0.60; 1.14) | ||
| Baseline: HH not engaged in crop cultivation | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||
| HH raises livestock | 0.65 (0.44; 0.97)** | 0.69 (0.46; 1.04)* | 0.73 (0.48; 1.10) | ||
| Baseline: HH does not raise livestock | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||
| Remittances | |||||
| HH has been receiving remittances | 0.59 (0.39; 0.88)*** | 0.63 (0.41; 0.95)** | 0.60 (0.39; 0.92)** | ||
| Baseline: HH has not been receiving remittances | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||
| Constant | 1.53 (1.22; 1.92)*** | 3.78 (1.74; 8.18)*** | 5.32 (2.27; 12.49)*** | 1.59 (1.32; 1.94)*** | 5.70 (2.41; 13.48)*** |
| Log likelihood | −627.5 | −585.4 | −560.3 | −604.4 | −537.4 |
| LR test | 4.2 | 84.9 | 119.6 | 3.6 | 118.4 |
| P value | 0.040 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.056 | 0.000 |
| BIC | 1268.8 | 1253.4 | 1230.4 | 1222.4 | 1184.0 |
| AIC | 1259.0 | 1194.9 | 1152.5 | 1212.7 | 1106.8 |
| Number of observations | 973 | 969 | 958 | 933 | 918 |
*p < 0.1; **p < 0.05; ***p < 0.01
Descriptive statistics of key variables in the analysis
| Variable | Per cent (%) | Mean | SD |
|---|---|---|---|
| Food insecurity (% of food insecure HHs) | |||
| Based on expenditure on food | 44.71 | ||
| Based on calorie availability | 33.23 | ||
| Based on the combination of expenditure on food and calorie availability (at least one is present) | 65.56 | ||
| Salinisation | |||
| Saline area (%) | 0.40 | 0.28 | |
| Weighted salinity score (dS/m) | 3.62 | 3.50 | |
| HH socio-economic characteristics | |||
| Number of household members | 4.5 | 1.7 | |
| Years of education of HH head | 3.57 | 4.22 | |
| Age of HH head | 47.59 | 14.52 | |
| HH head is female | 12.39 | ||
| HH head worked during last 7 days | 79.46 | ||
| HH engaged in crop cultivation | 51.52 | ||
| HH raises livestock | 81.72 | ||
| HH has been receiving remittances | 16.20 | ||
| Overall n | 993 (n) | ||
Variables used in PCA
| Variable | Coding | Mean |
|---|---|---|
| HH has electricity | 1—no, 2—yes | 32.5 |
| HH has sanitary toilet | 1—no, 2—yes | 21.3 |
| HH has access to improved water sources | 1—no, 2—yes | 89.6 |
| Wall material | 1—natural, 2—rudimentary, 3—finished | Natural—13.7; rudimentary—75.0, finished—11.3 |
| Roof material | 1—natural, 2—rudimentary, 3—finished | Natural—10.5; rudimentary- 85.8; finished—3.7 |
| HH owns a computer | 1—no, 2—yes | 0.9 |
| HH has access to internet | 1—no, 2—yes | 0.8 |
| HH owns a radio | 1—no, 2—yes | 11.2 |
| HH has television | 1—no, 2—yes | 19.5 |
| HH has a fan | 1—no, 2—yes | 24.3 |
| HH has a bicycle | 1—no, 2—yes | 19.9 |
| HH has a motorcycle/scooter | 1—no, 2—yes | 1.7 |
| HH occupancy status | 1—squatter or other, 2—renter or free accommodation, 3—owner | Squatter or other—2.2; renter of free accommodation—7.6; owner—90.2 |