Environmental degradation due to intense climatic dynamics has raised frequency of natural disasters which particularly increased livelihood vulnerability of disaster-prone rural communities mainly inhabited in developing countries. Rangelands dilapidation and drought caused by climate change are some severe external disruptions confronted by pastoralists’ households. Anthropogenic and climatic stressors are anticipated to amplify pastoralists’ households’ vulnerability and pretense extra stress on rangelands. Examine and identify the livelihood outcomes, strategies and its profile more appropriate measure is to application the structure of sustainable livelihood. The particular purpose of this study is to investigate the effectiveness of environmental and economic livelihood management strategies in disaster-prone areas of Punjab, Pakistan. Multiple cluster sampling approach was applied for the data collection of 768 various pastoral groups as agro-craft pastoral, servicing pastoral, agro-pastoral and pastoral households and applied principal component analysis for empirical estimation of the study. Even so, in perspective of pastoralists household’s livelihoods status traditional pastoral group has played crucial role. Estimates of the study indicated as pastoralist’s livelihood assets significantly drives households engagements in several livelihood strategies. Outcomes of the study suggested as application of livelihood diversification in pastoralists households can sustain appropriate circumstances of rangelands and lessen poverty in pastoralist’s community. On the other significant aspect, due to livelihood assets diversity in pastoralist’s households still no sole approach can concurrently make available mutually most favorable ecological sustainability and economic returns.
Research Article
Livelihood management strategies effectiveness in mitigation the impact of drought and improving pastoral household’s livability in Punjab Pakistan
https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2620336/v1
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License
Version 1
posted
You are reading this latest preprint version
Economic sustainability
Environmental degradation
Livelihoods strategies
Punjab
Pakistan
In worldwide perspective earthquakes, droughts, cyclones, storms and floods are several common and repeated disasters during the couple of decades because of raising intense environmental dynamics (Barrett et al., 2019; Week and Wizor, 2020;Ahmad et al., 2021). Life style choices, geographical location and risk exposure manipulate natural disasters while such disasters having no confines of geographical, political, economic, social and culture limits of continents, countries and communities (IPCC[1], 2018; Huong et al., 2019; Teo et al., 2021; Ahmad et al., 2022). Natural disasters raising consistency and severity in the current epoch caused multifold human losses and economic cost (Tirivangasi, 2018; Ahmad et al., 2020; Hoq et al., 2021) while expected human fatalities will be twice in 2050 (IPCC, 2020; World Bank, 2021). Drought and floods often are the foremost cause of social and economic risks about livelihood of grazing rangeland and flood prone communities (Eckstein et al., 2019; Sam et al., 2021). Frequent climatic uncertainties have rigorously influenced human livelihood particularly rearing livestock and farming which are continuously encountering environmental diseases (Ahmad and Afzal, 2019; Loy and Spence, 2020), implementation of coping strategies in physical infrastructure to overcome tremendous climate of cold or heat related to consecutive disasters of droughts and floods (IPCC, 2018; Chu and Yang, 2018). In 21st century climate change is expected to raise multiple risks to agricultural of developing countries (Teo et al., 2019; IPCC, 2020) particularly akin to Pakistan because of squat capacity and reduced infrastructure (IPCC, 2018; Ahmad et al., 2020). During the present era, in South Asia and Southeast Asian region occurrence of drought and flooding have engorged and anticipated to move up in forthcoming scenario (Sam et al., 2021; Abbas et al., 2022).
In the region of South Asia China, Bangladesh and Pakistan and India considered the supermarkets of natural disasters the reason of higher intensity of most frequent occurrence drought, floods and earthquakes (Daniell et al., 2017; Abbas et al., 2021). In universal outlook, Pakistan is positioned 8th most climate influenced country related to Global Climate Risk Index and substantial discrepancy of rainfall the reason of 2-3◦ predictable raise of hotness by 2050 (Abid et al., 2019; Kreft et al., 2021; Shah et al., 2021). In the couple of decades, because of climatic susceptibility, Pakistan repeatedly face up to extreme disasters of drought and flood, which badly influenced farming and deteriorated rural livelihood (Gorst et al., 2015; Cao et al., 2019; Ahmad and Afzal, 2021). Majority population 64% of country settled in rural areas where agriculture related to their subsistence livelihood while drought and flood disasters due to climate change has worsen their livelihood as their living have become more susceptible to these consecutive disasters (GOP[2], 2017). Grazing rangelands, pastures and transhumance locations are considerable natural resources of pastoralist’s livelihood on which their living straight depends for nutritional needs and managing to rearing their livestock (Ambelu et al., 2017; Dong et al., 2020). Reduction and degradation of grazing rangelands area because of raising human encroachment which is severely affecting to squeeze natural resources (Nyberg et al., 2018; Udmale et al.,2020). Droughts, rising diseases and flood are persuaded influences of climate change (Cao et al., 2019; Ahmad et al., 2019) which harmfully influenced and deteriorated miserable environmental circumstances (Zhe et al., 2019; Muricho et al., 2020). Pastoralists living aspect have become worsen due to sever impact of drought (Opiyo et al., 2018; Barrett et al., 2019) with respect to state of insufficiency of water and pasture rangelands (Shreve and Kelman 2014; Tesso et al., 2018) such aspect straightly reduces livestock milk and meat production and circuitously raises concerns of food security (Alinovi et al., 2010; Ahmad and Afzal, 2021). Drought prolong scenario reduces livestock production, livestock death and such losses generate financial severity which ultimately causes households of pastoralists community to turn out to be higher susceptible to distress (Ngigi et al., 2015; Muricho et al., 2019).
In natural disasters, droughts severly influences agriculture and such vulnerable sector more particuraly in developing countries akin to Pakistan regarded as economy backbone and directly supports living of 60% rural inhabitants of country (Ahmad and Afzal, 2020; Dong et al., 2020; Rehman et al., 2021). Agriculture is employing 38.5 percent labour force, sharing 18.5 percent GDP, supply industrial raw material and nutrition of nation (PBS[3], 2021). In overall agricultural production livestock shares 60.54 percent and contributes 11.22 percent GDP where just only 7 percent formal credit access and majority 89 percent landless livestock farmers (SBP[4], 2018; PBS, 2021). In global perspective subsequent to China, India and US, Pakistan ranked 4th in milk production (FAO[5], 2020; Rehman et al., 2019) even as facing domestic deficiency of 4.57 billion liters milk annually (Burki et al., 2021) whereas more than 30 million peoples are employed by livestock sector (Sarwar et al., 2021). Fodder crops, shrubs, grasses and waste of agro manufacturing are foremost livestock nutrition's in Pakistan (Sarwar et al., 2021), required nutrition’s accessed only 75 percent livestock even as confronted edible basic protein shortage 60 percent on the other hand rising number of fodder and approximately 50 percent production of livestock can be amplified (Ramzan et al., 2019; Ahmad and Afzal, 2021). In Pakistan’s perspectives, with several natural disasters, drought and floods are the mainly ruthless during present decade which pessimistically affected the pastoral livelihood and livestock production (GOP, 2019; Ahmad and Afzal, 2020).
In Pakistan, nomads livelihoods supported by traditional mobile pastoralism where major rangelands are covered with medium and low qualility forages (PBS, 2020). Nomade in French language reported as peoples wandering in seeking of grazing land. Pasturalism has inexorably been linked with nomads as in scuh phase nomads tire out natural resouces by overgrazing but leave them renewable state and they look out for the insufficient harvest increase periodically in enormous tracts of unreceptive territories. Mobile pastoralism has signficant effects on livestock rearing and nomads livelihood while rangeland related lifestyles and rangeland enviornment are underneath rising presure reasoned by anthropogenic and climatic forces (Boero et al., 2015). Precipitation reduction, increasing temperature, droughts severity and consistancy have led to degradation to rangelands, fodder shortage and risen vulnerability to conventional living approach in drylands (Leal Filho et al., 2020, Ndlovu and Mjimba 2021). In future, it is anticiapted as climate change will intensify the adverse effects of frequent droughts, decline water availability and vegitation conver will modify in arid and semi-arid region while magnificent signficant alterations in rangeland based structure of livestock rearing (IPCC, 2020). It is alarming as climate change possibly will destroy several characteristics of mobile pastoralism structure such as land use flexiability and mobility (Karimi et al., 2018). Pastorl structure sensivity to climate unpredictability and revolutionize is provoked with anthropogenic forces (Cao et al., 2019; Leal Filho et al., 2020). Pastoral hosueholds signficant reliance on rainfed areas and overgarzing utilization of such areas have leads to higher dilapidation of such natural assets and growth of deforestation in arid areas rangelands (Farimani et al., 2017). Anthropogenic risks and extreme climatic conditions call for lucid utilizaton of pastoral structures. In developing countries some significant regions have focused to retain the productivity of rangelands by methods of livelihood diversification such as application the combination of livestock rearing with non-farm and off-farm activites to authorize simeltenious lessening of on the whole vulnerability of livelihood, maintaince of non-sedentary behaviors of life and conservation of enviornment of rangelands (Tsegaye et al., 2013; Farimani et al., 2017; Zhe et al., 2019).
In methodical structure of livelihood approches, framework of livelhood vulnerability and sustaianable livelihood method are some signficant approches applied in the emperical studies to examine household livelihood approches and its conclusions (Ellis, 2000; Soltani et al., 2012; Pour et al., 2018). To augmented our appreciative the aspect of choices to pastoral housheolds livelihood in emperical literature, sustaianble livelihood framework is the most applied approch which is alos used in this study as indicated in figure 1. Sustainable livelihood approch reflected on assets of livelihood, stratgies and conclusions (Ellis, 2000) where indicating the preference of livelihood stratgies in the centre of analytical model. In literature, household livelihood stratgies were investigated by income composition, allocation of land and labour while this aspect in this research work evaluates by the income shares of different activites. On the other hand, households preferences of various livelihood stratgies are bound to their social, human, financial, physical and natural capitals (Carr, 2014) which are mutually dependent and every captial can absolute the others.
[Figure 1]
In global perspective signficnat literature indicated about pastoral with various aspects, a number of studies addressed enviornmental affects on livestock diseases (Bollig and Schulte, 1999; Mandal et al., 2002; Adger et al., 2009; Hurst et al., 2012; Mahonge et al., 2014; Ashfaq et al., 2015; Debela et al., 2015; Sharma et al., 2016; Alam et al., 2017; Hidosa and Guyo, 2017 ; Magita and Sangeda, 2017; Abbas et al., 2019), environmental perception and production of livestock (Bohmanova et al., 2007; Galvin et al., 2009; Nassef et al., 2009; Nardone et al., 2010; Joshi and Schultz, 2013; Kasulo et al., 2013; Kimaro and Chibinga, 2013; Kgosikoma and Batisani, 2014; Dantas-Torres, 2015; Feleke et al., 2016; Kimaro et al., 2017; Ali et al., 2018; Kgosikoma et al., 2018). More particular to developing countries most of the literature elaborated perception of climate and adaptation strategies to controlling severe environmental affects about heard rearing pastoral community (Galvin et al., 2004; Steinfeld et al., 2006; Kabubo‐Mariara, 2008; Thornton, 2010; Silvestri et al., 2012; Thornton and Gerber, 2010; Younas et al., 2012; Megersa et al., 2014; Opiyo et al., 2015; Debela et al., 2015; Mote et al., 2016; Abate, 2016; Bett et al., 2017; Wako et al., 2017; Harrison et al., 2017; Ayal et al., 2018; Kimaro et al., 2018; Regasa and Akirso, 2019), pastoral community climate change mitigation and resilience (Dinucci and Fre, 2003;Thornton et al., 2007; Little and McPeak, 2014; Opiyo, et al., 2014; Ayal et al., 2015; Chatty and Sternberg, 2015; Grace et al., 2015; Joseph et al., 2016; Kagunyu et al., 2016 Ambelu et al., 2017; Mekuyie et al., 2018; Fenta et al., 2019; Muricho et al., 2019), environmental forecasting approaches of pastoral community (Luseno et al., 2003; Kabubo‐Mariara, 2008; Thornton et al., 2009; Silvestri et al., 2012; Nüsser and Holdschlag, 2012; Grace et al., 2015; Dong, 2016; Rojas-Downing et al., 2018; Arjjumend, 2018; Ahmad and Afzal, 2019; Nori, 2019). Limited literature subsists about pastoral household livelihood to address various aspects as some studies investigated assets as doorstep in sustaining pastoral household livelihood (Soltani et al., 2012; Tuyen et al., 2014; Omidvar and Mohtasham, 2015; Tilahun et al., 2016; Keshavarz et al., 2017; Karimi et al., 2018; Muricho et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2020), natualr resources and pastoral livelihood (Keshavarz et al., 2014; Martin et al., 2016), human and financial assets and pastoral livelihood (Hua et al., 2017; Muricho et al., 2019; Ahmad et al., 2022).
In global perspective and more particualry to developing countries some signficant literaure focuesed to livelihood vulnerabiity assesment and sustaianble livelihood structure application. Some signficant literure focuese just farm families while herder households aspect is ignored (Lkhagvadorj et al., 2013; Samuels et l., 2019; Teka et al., 2019), Furthermore, nomad households livelihood stratgies related to non-metrological and metrological risks is not well addressed in particular perpective of developing countries. In the scenerio of anthropogenic and climatic variations, resilance and welfare of pastroalists housheolds is complicated to develop lacking of realistic information about pastoral households. In dealing with this research gap, this research work focused to examine the livelihood activites changes and their inference on lifestyle of mobile pastoral households moreover look for to recognize the assets pastoral houehold necessitate for choosing an proper livelihood strategy. Furthermore, quite a lot of studies have examined stratgies of livelihood diversification and their influence on building resilance of pastorl households while it is not up till now obvious to what level the stratgies of diversification to livelihood would maintain rangeland enviornemt and economy of household as anthropogenic and climatic changes are substantial, diverse, swift and difficult to anticipate. In the conclusion, this reserch work focused to find out livelihood diversification stratgies impact on economic and ecological condition of rangelands and herder household welfare. The specific research questions tried to address in the study are firstly which stratgies of livelihoods are pursed by pastoral households?, secondly, what type of assests affects the livelihood stratgies selection? lastly, to what level the expectation of enviornmental and economic efficiency are contented by stratgies diversification of livelihood? This study is catogorized in to four sections as inroduction illistrated in the first segmet, segment two highlighted the material and methods, results of the study analyzed in thrid segement, discussion indicated in fourth segment while conclusion and suggestions are elobrated in the last segment.
[1] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
[2] Government of Pakistan
[3] Pakistan Bureau of Statistics
[4] State Bank of Pakistan
[5] Food and Agriculture Organization
2.1 Justification for selection of study area
Balochistan, Punjab, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Sind are Pakistan’s provinces whereas particularly known five river fertile land is Punjab, sharing area of 26%, 53% population and contributing 52% agricultural GDP of the country (PBS, 2021). On some relevant basis Punjab chosen for the study, firstly, relevant to other provinces Punjab due to plain and cropped area higher vulnerable of consecutive and intense natural disasters drought and floods so focused of this research work, secondly, in overall livestock production Punjab produces almost half 49% national livestock production (BOS[6] Punjab, 2020; PBS, 2020). Thirdly, in aspect of higher area of grazing rangeland and Ode nomad pastoralists group major population inhabited in Cholistan and Thal deserts region of southern Punjab purposely selected from province (Mohammad, 1989; BOS Punjab, 2019). Fourthly, Muzaffargarh and Rahim Yar Khan both major livestock producing districts positioned in grazing rangelands of Cholistan and Thal deserts were particularly preferred for this research work (Mohammad, 1989; PBS, 2021). Fifthly, in various nomads pastoralists groups Ode the major nomads pastoralists group due to significant contribution in livestock rearing in both districts particularly selected for the study. Lastly, related to critical, consecutive and severe scenario of drought in the grazing rangelands of Cholisthan and Thal both of these districts consider higher vulnerable (Mohammad, 1989; PDMA[7], Punjab 2019).
In such scenerio, nomads having signfcant input in exploitation of subsidiary resources, national income while their tough labour goes unrecongnized. Agriculturally unproductive and margianl land areas are mostly used by pastoral nomads while having close interaction with agriculatral settled areas for their basic needs such as ornaments, tools, pottery, cloths and grains. In Pakistan, there is sizeable number of nomads population, engaged in livestock rearing, regulary moving from one place to other and mostly inhabited semi-arid and arid rangelands of the country. Balochistan and Punjab region mostly related to nomads areas in Pakistan while in Punjab nomads pastoralists particualy relatd to Cholistan and Thal desert areas which promiently known with various names of nomads groups such as Changar, Ode, Beldar, Jhabeel, Pakhiwar, Thori and Kehal. Ode[8] nomads mostly inhabits in open places moving from place to place with their tents, household items and animals so Ode nomada pastoral group particulary selected for this study.
2.2 Geographical feathers of study area
Administratively Jatoi, Kot addu, Muzaffargarh and Alipur are tehsils of district Muzaffargarh with 93 union councils, population of 4.3 million and 8249 km2 areas (GOP, 2017; PBS, 2019). Thal desert grazing land vast area located in Muzaffargarh while in province considered major livestock producing district (Mohammad, 1989; PBS, 2021). In climatic aspect district frequently faced droughts in grazing lands and floods owing to position among two main rivers of country as Indus river streams western side whereas Chenab River streams eastern side (PBS, 2021). Mild winter and hot summer are various foremost feathers in this region with 127 mm standard rainfall with higher temperature53 °C (132 °F) and lowest 1 °C (19 °F) (PBS, 2019). In the present pair of decades, district deal with with recurrent droughts, unpredictable rains and severe floods which caused intense livestock damage, fatalities ‘of humans, infrastructure and crops (PDMA Punjab, 2019). These disasters increased the vulnerability of socioeconomic status because of lowest social progress index, social, economical and cultural dimensions (BOS, 2020; PBS, 2021) as the study districts are indicate in the figure 2.
[Figure 2]
Liaqatpur, Khanpur, Sadiqabad and Rahim Yar Khan are administratively tehsils of district Rahim Yar Khan with 11,880 km2 area and 4.8 million population (GOP, 2017). This district frequently faced severe droughts in sequence of rising temperature, and floods due to erratic rain because of critically situated on Indus river eastern bank (PBS, 2019). Higher aspect of rising temperature increased the summer and reduced winter season duration with increasing average temperature 26.2 °C (PMD[9], 2019). Rohi in local language the official name of Cholistan desert which surrounded in the area of Bahawalpur division which occupies almost ¼ area of Rahim Yar Khan district as majority inhabited population belong to Ode pastoral group community settled in district major grazing rangeland (GOP, 2019). In district agriculture major source of income where mostly population livelihood related to farming and rearing livestock (BOS Punjab, 2021) while from couple of decades higher severity of droughts and frequent flooding owing to climate changes caused major destruction in infrastructure, livestock and livelihood on inhabited population (PDMA Punjab, 2019).
2.3 Sampling techniques and targeted group
Multistage sampling methodology applied in the study for data collection procedure in first aspect, in provinces Punjab chosen owing to significant share 49% of national livestock production in contrast to other provinces Balochistan (8%), Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (20%) and Sind (23%) (BOS Punjab, 2018; PBS, 2021). In second stage, among Punjab 36 districts, Rahim Yar Khan and Muzaffargarh the major livestock production and having provincial significant cattle grazing rangeland districts were particularly chosen (BOS Punjab, 2018). In each district regional rangeland grazing community were chosen in sampling procedure related to provincial revenue department available list in the last stage. In the aspect of significant share in livestock supply and pastoral community significant transhumance locations both districts have distinctions in the province (Mohammad, 1989).
2.4 Data collection techniques
In this study for data collection procedure, respondent’s individual information, key consultation information households socio-demographic characteristics, adaptation strategies, shocks exposure and mechanism regarding coping strategies considered significant relevant information about data. Respondents those head of household, spouses or member more than 18 years, living in family more than a year and well aware daily routine matters were interviewed by individual survey of household. In each district there were conducted twenty interviews of key information consists of pastoralists having experience more than 30 years, livestock officers, officers of district disaster management authority and officials of agriculture extension. One from each district focus group discussion was managed including 20 participants as four pastoralists’ women, young pastoralists and experienced pastoralists communal experience related to climate challenges and changing endure pastoral community and provincial extension officials participated in activity. Well versed questionnaire including checklist of semi-structured was applied for the data collection in the study area for focus group discussion key information consultations and individuals’ survey households. Recent and historical tendency with shocks insights, coping information strategies and adaptive practices were significantly provided from participants.
2.5 Data collection procedure
Pastoral households survey data of 768 Ode pastoral group respondents was collected with 390 Ode pastoral respondents from each district by applying Krejcie and Morgan (1970) sampling approach while respondents considered those pastoral head/members/spouse and familiar to routine pastoral action and above 18 years. Convenient sampling method used in the study for data collection as pastoral were contacted at farms, grazing lands and homes according to their physical presence. Adopted questionnaire translated from English to Urdu while pastorals were inquired questions in Saraike and Punjabi local language according proper understanding and response while usage of data was already informed. Keeping in mind to acquiring the accuracy of data questionnaire was improved through pre-testing procedure. Students of economics and author himself were enumerators in data collection which were prior trained about understanding of questionnaire and inquiring procedure to respondents. Data procedure stated from August 2020 and remained in progress till November 2020 where required respondents connected while those hesitate to participate were replaced to others respondents.
2.5 Empirical model
In the empirical aspect of the study, sustainable livelihood structure was applied to examine various stages of livelihood, outcomes and strategies (Ellis, 2000). In more appropriate manner to selection of study variables various significant sources such as pastorals key information unstructured questionnaires, field work and current literature were applied as such study variables indicated in table 1. The activity selection procedure (such as for various livelihood strategies usage of relative time) was used to examine the strategies of livelihood as specified in table 1.
[Table 1]
Examining the livelihood strategies effectiveness, economic and environmental variables were applied in the study. Economic sustainability was analyzed by calculating the relatively line of poverty through multiplying annual income of household by conversation factor of 0.67. In the scenario of equation 2, household having annual income upper than poverty line denoted non-poor while those having lower annual income indicated as poor households. In application of government haulage capability of widespread rangelands environmental sustainability was evaluated (Farimani et al., 2017). In estimating the carrying capability of per household, total carrying capacity was divided by pastoral household numbers with legal or traditional privileges of applying the widespread rangelands. In the aspect of equation 2, if grazed livestock numbers exceeds the carrying capacity of per household, related to estimates their process was illustrated as vulnerable specified the government haulage capability whereas in some further means it was indicated as sustainable application of rangelands.
In the above mentioned equation SI indicated as sustainable index, Xin indicated carrying capacity base line or poverty line base while Xi illustrated per household annual income or actual carrying capacity.
2.6 Data Analysis
The relevant data of the study was investigated normal distribution and potential outlier while afterward of that cluster analysis of two steps applied as households classified in four homogeneous groups on the basis of their livelihood methods. Moreover, Modeler version of SPSS 18 was used for attaining such objectives. Principal component analysis applied to examine decision of pastoral household’s determinants in application of various livelihood approaches. Categorized process measured the matching variables and livelihood assets divided in to five groups such as social, financial, physical, natural and human capitals as indicated in table 2.
[Table 2]
In this aspect, presently the principal components having the eigenvalue higher than one were considered in the model. Moreover, principal component withdrawal, those principal components showed more variation significant part was taken in to description. Furthermore, to examine the every asset effect on adoption the method diversification of livelihood multinomial logit regression was used. In application the equation 3 marginal effects were deliberated.
In equation 3, livelihood assets indicated as x, particular livelihood strategy adopting likelihood as n while for all j livelihood strategies βkj/J in which the about the marginal related to all livelihood assets levels (Liu, 2014). In applying the software STATA version 15 multinomial logit regression model was investigated. In measuring the livelihood strategy economic and environmental efficiency this research work used the fuzzy inference system (FIS). In attaining the output information from input data three principal conversions were consummated such as defuzzification, fuzzy inference and fuzzy. In the first aspect of this study, livelihood assets crispy values and outcomes were transformed in to linguistic variable as illustrated in figure 3, which were attained trapezoidal and triangular membership meaning.
[Figure 3]
Moreover, input data decomposed fuzzy, fuzzy sets if than ruled were used for fuzzy output production while relating the values attributes to vectors of output (Konstandinidou et al., 2006). In appraise the association of the rule proceeding the logical and fuzzy activity was used in such application overall 243 (3*3*3*3*3) rules were developed. Furthermore, raising their interpretability and in reducing the complication of fuzzy, at minimum rules numbers were retrained in application of rules of higher level (Hilletofth et al., 2019). Defuzzification was last aspect, according to that the set of aggregated fuzzy was changed in to accurate numeral as an output. In attaining such objective the centroid defuzzification approach was applied. Examining the how accurate fuzzy inference system can predict the association in assets, livelihood strategies and outcomes data was categorized in to test sets and training (Hastie et al., 2009). In such aspect software of MATLAB version 14 was applied for the estimation of fuzzy inference system.
[6] Bureau of Statistics
[7] Provincial Disaster Management Authority
[8] Major group of pastoral community in Punjab province
[9] Pakistan Metrological Department
3.1 Pastoral household’s livelihood strategies
The study cluster analysis of pastoral household’s four distinct livelihood styles, 67.83% nomad pastoral households, 4.57% agro craft pastoral, 18.62% serving pastoral and 8.98% agro pastoral indicated in table 3. In earning based activities, rearing livestock considered significant determinant source in pastoral group as devoting their 97% activities time to livestock while agro pastoral group mostly relies and devoting their activities time 40% on rearing livestock, 53% on plantation and arable farming as indicated in table 3. Servicing pastoral group having like better and devoting more activities times 80% rearing livestock and 18% on off-farm laboring while agro craft pastoral having preference of devoting activities time 44% rearing livestock, 16% arable farming, 21% handicraft and 17% apiculture activities as illustrated in table 3.
[Table 3]
3.1.1 Factors influencing adoption livelihood strategy of pastoral households
Pastoral household’s determinants of adopted livelihood strategies illustrated in table 4 showing the estimated values of the study variables and at acceptable level fitted data model indicated by index of log likelihood value -397.43. Estimates of the study illustrated as pastoral households livelihood strategies adoption status show a discrepancy related to pastoral households livelihood styles and assets. Social, financial, physical, natural and human assets had considerably influences on implement livelihood styles of pastoral households as indicated in table 4. Physical assets positive and significant coefficient value showing like physical assets play significant role in adopting strategy of pastoral livelihood as illustrating raise one head heard size raises 7 percent likelihood of adopting livelihood style pastoral household. In determining the livelihood strategy of pastoral households natural and human resources plays significant role according to estimates of the study. In human assets aspect one more schooling year or addition of nomad family member lessen possibility of adopting livelihood strategy of pastoral household 6% and 5% while in natural assets aspect raising 1hectares area of rangeland increases 11% likelihood of adopting livelihood strategy of pastoral household as illustrated in table 4. Estimates elaborated as adopting livelihood strategy of pastoral household reduced financial assets increases illustrating as easy access of credit would lessens 28% likelihood of mere dependency on pastoral activities. Significant and positive effect of social assets and adopting livelihood strategy of pastoral households was estimated in the study indicating as cooperative companies’ membership additional years likelihood increases 34% adopting livelihood strategies of pastoral households.
[Table 4]
3.1.2 Factors influencing adoption livelihood strategy of agro-pastoral households
Estimates of the study indicated as financial and natural assets have generalized influence on adopting livelihood strategy of agro pastoral households illustrating as in aspect of natural resources one hectares increase in area of crop and orchards likelihood increases 8% and 7% adopting livelihood strategies while increase in per household credit access raises 2% adoption livelihood strategies of agro-pastoral households as indicated in the table 4. Social, human and physical assets have no statistical significant impact on adaption of livelihood strategies on pastoral households as illustrated in table 4.
3.1.3 Features affecting adoption the livelihood strategy of servicing pastoral households
Social, financial, natural and human assets positive and significantly influences in adoption of livelihood strategy of servicing pastoral households. In human assets, increase in one year schooling and addition of one family member raises 3% and 4% adoption of livelihood strategies of servicing pastoral households. In natural assets, one hectares increase in orchard and crop farm raises 16% and 11% adoption of livelihood strategies of servicing pastoral households. In aspect of financial assets having significant and positive effect on livelihood strategies adoption as having increase in one more pastoral household credit access raises 17% of adaption livelihood strategies while social assets with negative and significant affects indicated as increase in additional household membership reduces 28% adoption of livelihood strategies of servicing pastoral households.
3.1.4 Factors affecting adoption livelihood strategy of the agro-craft pastoral households
Financial, natural and human assets positive and significantly while physical assets have negative and significantly influences on the adoption of livelihood strategy of agro-craft pastoral households as indicated in table 4. In aspect of human assets, in the addition of one more household raises 1% in the adoption of livelihood strategies of agro craft pastoral households. Positive and significant influence of rangeland area, cropped and orchard area indicating as one hectare increase in area of orchards, crop and rangeland raises 1%, 2% and 1% adoption of livelihood strategies of agro-craft pastoral households. Physical assets positive and significant while financial assets negative and significant influences on adoption of livelihood strategies illustrating as one unit increase in head size reduces 1% while access of credit to one additional household increase 6% of adoption of livelihood strategies of agro-craft pastoral households as illustrated in table 4.
3.2 Economic and ecology viability
In the ecological aspect illustrated in figure 4 where ecological viability indicated among the pastoral, servicing pastoral, agro-patrol and agro-craft pastorals households. Pastoral households are confronted with higher degraded resources of rangeland while agro-pastoral households having to low extent reduced degradation of rangeland as indicated in the figure 4. In servicing pastoral households relatively higher overgrazing index was estimated while household of agro-craft pastoral relatively maintained rangeland appropriate ecological condition as elaborated in figure 4. In the aspect of economic variability among various pastoral groups, lowest score of economic sustainability was estimated about pastoral households while higher economic sustainability estimated about livelihood strategy of agro-craft pastoral households as illustrated in figure 4. Moreover, in comparison to pastoral households, households involved activities of agro-pastoral and servicing pastoral having higher income and more sustainable economic impact.
[Figure 4]
3.3 Livelihood assets impact on economic and ecological sustainability about livelihood strategies
3.3.1 Livelihood strategy of pastoral households
Pastoral households having higher level of economic and ecological un-sustainability with inadequate access of capital assets while higher access of physical assets. Moreover, in the reason of financial capital low level, physical and natural assets medium level and social and human assets high level influences the livelihood style of pastoral on economic and ecological sustainability was not significant for pastoral households as indicated in the table 5. In forecasting the economic and ecological efficiency the livelihood strategy of pastoral household fuzzy model accuracy was 81.79 and 87.94 as these estimated values indicated the strong evidence of model robustness.
3.3.2 Livelihood strategy of agro-pastoral households
In aspect of income resources development and natural rangeland usage activities of the of agro-pastoral were estimated sustainable when households of agro-pastoral having appropriate access of financial, human and natural resources and lower and medium access of physical and social capitals as indicated in table 5. Insidious poverty emerges among agro-pastoral households when having partial access to financial, natural and human resources with medium access of social and physical capitals. Those households indicated non-poor in the study area who were applying the strategy of agro-pastoral having more access of human and natural resources and medium access of social, financial and physical assets. Economic and ecological outcomes 80.98 and 83.64 in the model showed the accuracy and model robustness as indicated in the table 5.
[Table 5]
3.3.3 Livelihood strategy of servicing pastoral households
Estimates illustrated as households of servicing pastoral income and rangeland sustainability raises those having higher level social and human assets with medium rank of financial, physical and natural resources as indicated in table 5. In the same aspect rangeland overuse are reduced when servicing pastorals having limited access of financial, human and natural assets with high and medium level access of social and physical capital as such families involved in poverty due to un-sustainable households livelihoods. Estimates also indicated as families of servicing pastoral having low access to social, human, financial and natural resources and higher stage of physical resources were insolvent and make use of more stress on widespread rangelands as illustrated in the table 5. Households of servicing pastoral raises their reliance on rangelands when having low access to natural resources, medium access to human, financial and social resources while higher access of physical resources moreover such families by way of their assets exceeded by poverty. Model is considered to be good due to forecasted accuracy of model economic and ecological sustainability outcomes with indicated values of 73.64 and 76.25 as indicated in table 5.
3.3.4 Livelihood strategy agro-craft pastoral households
Estimates of the study illustrated as livelihood strategy of agro-craft pastoral households having sustainable economic and ecological strategy when agro-craft pastoral have medium access of social, physical and natural assets while higher access to human and financial capitals. Furthermore, agro-craft pastoral relatively remains fail to conserve suitable ecological conditions about rangelands having lower human assets, medium level social, financial and natural capitals and higher physical assets as illustrated in table 5. Agro-craft pastoral households having use of sustainable rangelands while facing long lasting poverty when with access of medium level social and human capitals and lower levels of financial, physical and natural assets. In the estimates fuzzy model accuracy was predicted economic and ecological outcomes of 88.53 and 72.49 as illustrated in the table 5.
4.1 Pastoral households’ livelihood strategies
Estimates of the study illustrated as pastoral community 67.83% continued their traditional activity of rearing livestock which played significant role in their livelihood while other pastoral households due to variations in anthropogenic and natural factors implemented diverse livelihood strategies. Pastoral households remained connected with their traditional pastoralism the reason of that pastoralism hand out them as a shock absorber contrasting the worsening of the other strategies of livelihood. In the scenario of natural disaster such as drought, market becomes stagnant and annually based crops becomes fails in supplying production in such aspect households moves to livestock to rangelands with a reduction of degraded capable households to lessen drought negative influence. Livelihood sustainability script has acknowledged rendezvous in non-pastoral actions as a managing approach of market opportunities comeback and climatic shocks such as drought (Tsegaye rt al., 2013). In the aspect of Ode nomads households overgrazing and climatic variability forces caused to forward their livelihood strategies diversification. Ode nomads inhabited of Thal and Cholistan plain areas have benefitted from rangeland with medium and high quality forages, forests and quite a lot of mechanism for livestock drinking and grazing (Omidvar and Mohtasham, 2015; Azizi et al., 2016). In another aspect, livestock overgrazing and rigorous continued drought have reasoned degradation of rangeland, stressing pastoral households to lessen their dependence on pastoralism. Some significant households were attracted to agricultural activities due to profitability motive while agricultural economic efficiency become to weekend due to consecutive incidences of drought effects as decreased of water resources and precipitation which caused significant households to come to a close their cropping lands for cultivation. Nevertheless, households of agro-pastoral sustained on depending continuation farming and they are inclined to act together with the varying circumstances associated to ecological and climatologically developments. Furthermore, servicing pastoral households’ favorite actions that cannot be straightforwardly affects the natural resources worsening such as off-farm laboring, retailing and teaching. On the other hand, households of agro-craft depends on the mixture of farming activates, apiculture, pastoral and handcraft. Agro-craft pastoral, agro-pastoral and servicing pastoral have branch out their earnings to endure non-metrological and metrological shocks to make certain sustainable livelihood as these findings are consistent with the studies of Flintan, (2011) Arjjumend, (2018) and Nori, (2019).
4.2 Factors affecting the livelihood strategies
Estimates of the study illustrated as implementation of livelihood strategies significantly affected by the household livelihood assets indicating as inhabited population engagement in non-pastoral and pastoral activities not only influenced by overgrazing rangelands and drought but also strong-minded by their accessed and own livelihood assets as these findings are consistent with the studies of Soltani et al., (2012), Hua et al., (2017), Keshavarz et al., (2017), Kwazu et al., (2021) and Pour et al., (2021).
4.2.1 Factors affecting the adoption the livelihood strategy of pastoral households
Natural and physical assets significantly influences the adoption the style of pastoral livelihood as pastoral continue their activities which having more own livestock and easy access of common rangeland for grazing as elaborated in the estimation of the study as such consequences are consistent with the research work of Mekuyie et al., (2018), Fenta et al., (2019) and Kwazu et al., (2021). Results of the study illustrated as human assets negatively affected pastoral livelihood strategy adoption the reason is that small household size having low schooling further possible to adopt livelihood strategy of pastoral households. In addition, adopting pastoral livelihood strategies financial assets play significant role because limited credit access pastoral households more likely to adoption pastoral livelihood strategies as such results are similar with the research work of Porro et al., (2015), Hidosa and Guyo, (2017), Muricho et al.,(2019) and Ahmad and Afzal, (2021). In pastoral adoption of livelihood strategy there is significant function of social capital. In the overall aspect, because of partial access of natural, human, and financial resources pastoral inhabitants were not capable to seize other strategies of livelihood.
4.2.2 Features affecting the adoption livelihood strategies of agro-pastoral
Financial and natural assets played considerable function in adoption the livelihood strategies of agro-pastoral as pointed out in the results of the study so in selection of livelihood strategies of pastoral households natural assets positive and significantly influences. Households in the study area having appropriate access of orchards and crop farmland were highly enthusiastic in performing farming practices this applied because of orchard and crop farmland bequest find out segregation of livelihood heard as such conclusions are similar with the research aspect of Hua et al., (2017) Ayal et al., (2018), Kimaro et al., (2018) and Regasa and Akirso, (2019). Moreover, livelihood strategies of pastoral households significantly related to financial assets such as households of agro-pastoral had appropriate chances for rendezvous in agriculture comparative to pastoral household group for the reason that such households had higher approach to credit required for agricultural inputs.
4.2.3 Features affecting the adoption livelihood strategies of servicing pastoral
Livelihood strategies of servicing pastoral households positive and significantly influenced by financial assets as indicated in estimates of the study. Households of servicing pastoral those having appropriate admittance of credit, capable them ascertain service based practices such as vehicle purchasing for passengers picking and retailing perspective. In servicing pastoral group livelihood sustainability, natural capital has significant role owing to their proper access of orchard and crop farmlands. Furthermore, there retains the significant role of human assets in adoption of livelihood strategies in servicing pastoral group the reason of that well literate households having significant opportunities of high income jobs as these findings are in line with the studies of Soltani et al., (2012), Ayal et al., (2018) and Muricho et al., (2019). In adoption of livelihood strategies in serving pastoral group household size significantly influences as most populated households more prefer to implementation of services practices such as trading and laboring as such conclusions are similar with the studies of Pour et al., (2018) Kimaro et al., (2018), Regasa and Akirso, (2019) and Ahmad et al., (2022). Social assets indicated the considerable influence in adoption of livelihood strategies among serving pastoral households illustrating as members can attain the consider benefits from this cooperative system.
4.2.4 Features affecting the adoption livelihood strategies of agro-craft pastoral
Natural and physical resources have considerable affect on adoption of livelihood approaches in agro-craft pastoral households as indicated in the estimates of the study. In agro-craft pastoral households mostly having limited livestock and reduced access of physical assets causes traditional pastoralism to reduced resilience. Agro-craft pastoral having higher access on rangeland resources more motivated to adoption of apiculture while those having appropriate access of orchards and crop farmland more encouraged to farming practices. Human and financial assets play significant and positively motivated adoption the practices of agro-craft pastoral. Labour demanding practices such as handicraft production, farming and pastoralism mostly contributed by households having higher labour capacity while stipulation of low interest loans make easy households stipulation of inputs necessary for handicraft production and cultivation as like results are similar with the research work of Hua et al., (2017), Hidosa and Guyo, (2017), Abbas et al., (2019) and Memon et al., (2020).
4.3 Economic and ecological capability
Outcomes of this research work pointed out as services pastoral 18.62% and pastoral 67.83% livelihood strategies significantly contribute in mostly overused resources of rangeland. On the other hand, household of agro-pastoral were more possible to apply sustainability of rangelands and they experienced overgrazing livestock to the lower level. Households of agro-craft pastoral implemented several approaches of livelihood to sustain rangelands in a rather appropriate environmental situation by dipping their pliability on rangeland related practices. Making an allowance for the haulage capability of rangeland nature and quality of forage such assets gives the impression to not sufficiently expert of given that livestock households with all related feeding necessity of upcoming era. Moreover, diversification strategy of living mainly supplied to economic sustainability as such findings are alike with the research work of Tuyen et al., (2014) Tilahun et al., (2016) and Pour et al., (2018). In the another aspect, majority pastoral households 68% adopting traditional pastoralism as significant basis of their livelihood while experienced lowly economic sustainability. It disguised so as to specialty in conventional rearing livestock is inadequate for continued existence and pastoral rearing group require to commitment in further livelihood practices. Estimates of the study showed that nomad households can increase economic sustainability by combining pastoralism, farming and servicing.
4.4 Livelihood assets influence on economic and ecological sustainability about livelihood strategies
4.4.1 Livelihood strategy of pastoral households
Livelihood assets access to pastoral households significantly affects the economic and ecological sustainability of their implemented livelihood strategies as revealed in the findings of the study. Unrelenting poverty and rangelands severe degradation would happen in near future if household continued on more livestock rearing and no other livelihood aid according to estimates of the study. Moreover, no poverty related to households chasing pastoral strategy if they have possession of several livestock such as physical assets, reasonable way in to financial aids, collaborate more with institutions of nomadic also having medium or low access to natural and human capitals. In the reality based fact rangelands have deteriorated from moderate to high because of pastoral household’s smooth and continuing practices as such outcomes are alike with the research work of Magita and Sangeda, (2017), Hidosa and Guyo, (2017), Abbas et al., (2019) and Ahmad and Afzal, (2020).
4.4.2 Livelihood strategy of agro-pastoral households
Limited livestock possession, enhanced labour capability, access of credit and arable land availability not only make wider sources of income however also embarrassed the natural rangelands overuse. In the another aspect, livelihood vulnerability of agro-pastoral households raises because of medium cooperation membership and heard size with limited access of vocational training, financial resources, orchards and farmlands. In agro-pastoral households owing to limited labor force, credits and livestock, anthropological impact of overgrazing of livestock was low. Agro-pastoral group having more family labor, more arable land, medium level financial, social and physical resources considered less economically vulnerable while due to their consecutive practices indicated low quality of rangelands as these results are alike with the research work of Keshavarz et al., (2017), Karimi et al., (2018), Muricho et al., (2019) and Zhang et al., (2020).
4.4.3 Livelihood strategy of servicing pastoral households
Common rangeland vulnerability reduces and servicing pastoral group livelihood becomes more secure when such group of households having medium size livestock, own farmland, moderate credit access, social institutes’ integration and family workforce as illustrated in estimates of the study. Outcomes of the study also illustrated as higher physical resources access cannot be rigorous as insurance related to financial, ecological and climatic shocks if servicing group rangeland management and livelihood were forced with social, human, financial and natural assets. In this perspective servicing pastoral households having limited arable land access, inadequate credit, limited labor force and having higher livestock caused unsustainable grazing land application raises such natural resources vulnerability. Servicing pastoral household’s livelihood sustainability is significantly enhanced by adequate access of these natural resources as finding are similar by studies of Ambelu et al., (2017) and Mekuyie et al., (2018) and in unlike with the research work of Fenta et al., (2019).
4.4.4 Livelihood strategy of agro-craft pastoral households
Adequate livestock owned arable land, financial potential and capability promoted labor force make possible the households of agro-craft pastoral to sustainably use rangelands and eradicate poverty. Agro-craft pastoral having social support, access of credit, orchard land, farm land more livestock with limited human resources as family labor force access mostly ruined widespread grazing land. In spite of substantial rangeland overuse agro-craft pastoral households never experienced the poverty and their livelihood remained sustainable. The aspect of income diversification significantly considered as buffer against poverty as such findings are contrast with the studies of Ambelu et al., (2017) and Fenta et al., (2019) and similar with the research work of Soltani et al., (2012), Tsegaye et al., (2013) and Pour et al., (2018). Rangeland conservation sustains and vicious poverty remains in agro-craft pastoral group when such households having inadequate access of social institutions, family labour, financial resources, livestock and arable land.
In achieving sustainable development goals (SDGs) this research work focused to examine the livelihood management strategies effectiveness in mitigation the impact of drought and improving pastoral household’s livability of Punjab Pakistan. In global perspective of arid and semi-arid regions rangeland environment and Ode nomad group livelihood is significantly maintained by mobile pastoralism. In mostly developing countries natural rangelands are worsening because of anthropogenic and climatic forces such as overgrazing of livestock and droughts. In the near future it is anticipated as nomad households vulnerability will highly increases and intensify rangeland deterioration with raising climatic dynamics. It is mandatory to adopt feasible and flexible strategies of livelihood management to develop mobile pastoral group resilience and lessen ecological dreadful conditions related to non-climatic and climatic risks. Estimates of the study illustrated as Ode nomads livelihood significantly influenced by traditional pastoralists. In the study area, few of pastoral households have taken up a broader combination of income engendering practices handicraft, apiculture, servicing and agricultural production. In non-pastoral group, livelihood diversification practices can play significant role to conservative of building resilience and nature of rangelands while the aspect of livelihood diversification among households hang about low. Implementation of livelihood strategies of non-pastoral households can enlarged by involvement in to diverse set of income sources.
Households having miscellaneous livelihood approaches had considerably various stages of access to different resources as illustrated in the estimates of the study so signifying the breakdown of one size fit all policy strategy. In sustaining the susceptible households it is mandatory to elastic and encircling mitigation strategies while households having low livelihood assets need major priority of government. Development in serious livelihood assets can kindle livelihood diversification and make possible changeover to additional sheltered livelihood with no natural rangeland dreadful conditions. This research work is application of fuzzy inference system provides significant insight about the combination of pull and push factors that contribute to ecological degradation and poverty. In further developing countries, such type of fuzzy deliberated models can hand round as orientation for replicate outcomes of livelihood with the purpose to attain ecological and economic sustainability. Estimated outcomes illustrated as poverty and indefensible application of widespread rangelands as unceasing issue of heard households. Anti-poverty interference and rangeland managing be supposed to be measured to reinstate rangelands worsening and get better household comforts. Moreover, rangeland sustaining and finale poverty is not mere easy assignment due to household’s discrepancy and their living assets and strategies. The study outcomes indicated as the reason of most prominent livelihood assets differences no sole livelihood strategy can concurrently make available best possible most environmental resonance approach and most favorable economic compensations. The aspect of livelihood assets diversification need to be considered by the government in formulates the policies of sustainable development.
Raising stress on widespread rangelands and determining heard size families’ livelihoods physical assets such as herd size play significant role according to outcomes of the study. Rangeland deterioration can reduce by status of rangeland monitoring and mounting programmes of grazing management. In such aspects, implementing the projects of rangeland management and pastoral societies engaging in planning considered more feasible measures for these objectives. Degraded rangelands restoration, managing stocks of livestock’s related to quality and availability of forages can be more feasible measures in mitigating severe influences of overgrazing of natural rangelands as such measures may reduce pastoral income for short time in long-term scenario restores natural rangelands and enhances pastoral households income in near future. Poverty aspect increases and rangeland deterioration enhances due to misuse of financial resources such as credit and state based donations facility. More feasible measures in such perspective are as government needs to make available evenhanded economic sustain to the pastoral households such as to make possible their right to use reduced interest rate loans. Subsidies and set of connections of social safety can also lessen the muscular dependence of moderately poor and poor community on natural reinfed areas. Moreover, outcomes of the study illustrated as human resources confines controlled the input of few households to the few miscellaneous combination of livelihood approaches and it cause rangeland dreadful conditions because of profound grazing. Enhancing the household’s human assets such as trainings and awareness about pastoral practices and overcoming rangelands degradations among the pastoral communities most relevant capability construction plans need to implement by government with appropriate legislation measures.
Ethical Approval
Ethical approval taken from the COMSATS University Vehari campus, ethical approval committee
Consent to Participate
Not applicable
Consent to Publish
Not applicable
Authors Contributions
DA analyzed data, methodology, results and discussion, conclusion and suggestions and manuscript write up whereas both DA, and MA finalized and proof read the manuscript and both authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Funding
This study has no funding from any institution or any donor agency.
Competing Interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interest.
Availability of data and materials
The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
- Abate T (2016) Contribution of indigenous knowledge to climate change and adaptation response in Southern Ethiopia. J Earth Sci Clim Change 7(11):377
- Abbas Khan K, Zaman K, Shoukry AM, Sharkawy A, Gani S, Ahmad J, …, Hishan SS (2019) Natural disasters and economic losses: controlling external migration, energy and environmental resources, water demand, and financial development for global prosperity. Environ Sci Pollut Res 26(14):14287–14299
- Abbas Q, Han J, Bakhsh K, Ullah R, Kousar R, Adeel A, Akhtar A (2022) Adaptation to climate change risks among dairy farmers in Punjab, Pakistan. Land Use Policy 119:106184
- Abid M, Scheffran J, Schneider UA, Elahi E (2019) Farmer perceptions of climate change, observed trends and adaptation of agriculture in Pakistan. Environ Manage 63(1):110–123
- Adger WN, Dessai S, Goulden M, Hulme M, Lorenzoni I, Nelson DR, …, Wreford A (2009) Are there social limits to adaptation to climate change? Clim Change 93(3):335–354
- Ahmad D, Afzal M (2019) Household vulnerability and resilience in flood hazards from disaster-prone areas of Punjab, Pakistan. Nat Hazards 99(1):337–354
- Ahmad D, Afzal M (2020) Climate change adaptation impact on cash crop productivity and income in Punjab province of Pakistan. Environ Sci Pollut Res 27(24):30767–30777
- Ahmad D, Afzal M (2020) Flood hazards and factors influencing household flood perception and mitigation strategies in Pakistan. Environ Sci Pollut Res 27(13):15375–15387
- Ahmad D, Afzal M (2021) Flood hazards and agricultural production risks management practices in flood-prone areas of Punjab, Pakistan.Environmental Science and Pollution Research,1–16
- Ahmad D, Afzal M (2021) Flood hazards and livelihood vulnerability of flood-prone farm-dependent Bait households in Punjab, Pakistan.Environmental Science and Pollution Research,1–21
- Ahmad D, Afzal M (2021) Flood hazards, human displacement and food insecurity in rural riverine areas of Punjab, Pakistan: policy implications. Environ Sci Pollut Res 28(8):10125–10139
- Ahmad D, Afzal M (2021) Impact of climate change on pastoralists’ resilience and sustainable mitigation in Punjab, Pakistan. Environ Dev Sustain 23(8):11406–11426
- Ahmad D, Afzal M (2021) Impact of violent conflicts and environmental hazards on pastoral sustainable development in Punjab, Pakistan. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 1–22
- Ahmad D, Afzal M (2021) Synchronized Agricultural Credit and Diversification Adoption to Catastrophic Risk Manage for Wheat Production in Punjab, Pakistan
- Ahmad D, Afzal M (2022) Flood risk public perception in flash flood-prone areas of Punjab, Pakistan.Environmental Science and Pollution Research,1–13
- Ahmad D, Afzal M, Rauf A (2019) Analysis of wheat farmers’ risk perceptions and attitudes: evidence from Punjab, Pakistan. Nat Hazards 95(3):845–861
- Ahmad D, Afzal M, Rauf A (2020) Environmental risks among rice farmers and factors influencing their risk perceptions and attitudes in Punjab, Pakistan. Environ Sci Pollut Res 27(17):21953–21964
- Ahmad D, Afzal M, Rauf A (2021) Farmers’ adaptation decisions to landslides and flash floods in the mountainous region of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa of Pakistan. Environ Dev Sustain 23(6):8573–8600
- Ahmad D, Afzal M, Rauf A (2021) Flood hazards adaptation strategies: a gender-based disaggregated analysis of farm-dependent Bait community in Punjab, Pakistan. Environ Dev Sustain 23(1):865–886
- Ahmad D, Kanwal M, Afzal M (2022) Climate change effects on riverbank erosion Bait community flood-prone area of Punjab, Pakistan: an application of livelihood vulnerability index.Environment, Development and Sustainability,1–29
- Ahmad D, Shabbir MR, Shah SZA (2022) Farmer’s Perceptions on Market and Climate Risks: Adaptive Behavior in Punjab, Pakistan. Sustainable Bus Soc Emerg Economies 4(1):1–12
- Alam GM, Alam K, Mushtaq S (2017) Climate change perceptions and local adaptation strategies of hazard-prone rural households in Bangladesh. Clim risk Manage 17:52–63
- Ali SA, Aadhar S, Shah HL, Mishra V (2018) Projected increase in hydropower production in India under climate change. Sci Rep 8(1):1–12
- Alinovi L, D’errico M, Mane E, Romano D (2010) Livelihoods strategies and household resilience to food insecurity: An empirical analysis to Kenya.European report on development,1–52
- Ambelu A, Birhanu Z, Tesfaye A, Berhanu N, Muhumuza C, Kassahun W, …, Woldemichael K (2017) Intervention pathways towards improving the resilience of pastoralists: A study from Borana communities, southern Ethiopia. Weather and Climate Extremes 17:7–16
- Arjjumend H (2018) Review of pastoralists’ resilience and adaptation to climate change: Can technology help pastoralists mitigate the risks? Int J Bio-resource Stress Manage 9(1):118–128
- Ashfaq A, Hussain N, Athar M (2015) Role of potassium fertilizers in plant growth, crop yield and quality fiber production of cotton–an overview. FUUAST J Biology 5(1):27–35
- Ayal DY, Radeny M, Desta S, Gebru G (2018) Climate variability, perceptions of pastoralists and their adaptation strategies: Implications for livestock system and diseases in Borana zone. Int J Clim Change Strateg Manag 10(4):596–615
- Ayal S, Rusou Z, Zakay D, Hochman G (2015) Determinants of judgment and decision making quality: the interplay between information processing style and situational factors. Front Psychol 6:1088
- Azizi Ghalati S, Rangzan K, Sadidy J, Heydarian P, Taghizadeh A (2016) Predicting locational trend of land use changes using CA-Markov model (Case study: Kohmare Sorkhi, Fars province). J RS GIS Nat Resour 7(1):59–71
- Barrett B, Zepeda E, Pollack L, Munson A, Sih A (2019) Counter-culture: does social learning help or hinder adaptive response to human-induced rapid environmental change? Front Ecol Evol 7:183
- Barrett LF, Adolphs R, Marsella S, Martinez AM, Pollak SD (2019) Emotional expressions reconsidered: Challenges to inferring emotion from human facial movements. Psychol Sci public interest 20(1):1–68
- Bett B, Kiunga P, Gachohi J, Sindato C, Mbotha D, Robinson T, …, Grace D (2017) Effects of climate change on the occurrence and distribution of livestock diseases. Prev Vet Med 137:119–129
- Boero R, Bianchini L, Pasqualini D (2015) Vulnerability and adaptation to severe weather events in the American southwest. Weather and Climate Extremes 8:12–25
- Bohmanova J, Misztal I, Cole JB (2007) Temperature-humidity indices as indicators of milk production losses due to heat stress. J Dairy Sci 90(4):1947–1956
- Bollig M, Schulte A (1999) Environmental change and pastoral perceptions: degradation and indigenous knowledge in two African pastoral communities. Hum Ecol 27(3):493–514
- Punjab BOS (2018) Annual Statistics 2018, Bureau of Statistics Lahore Punjab. Government of Pakistan
- Punjab BOS (2019) Annual Statistics 2019, Bureau of Statistics Lahore Punjab. Government of Pakistan
- Punjab BOS (2020) Annual Statistics 2020, Bureau of Statistics Lahore Punjab. Government of Pakistan
- Punjab BOS (2021) Annual Statistics 2021, Bureau of Statistics Lahore Punjab. Government of Pakistan
- Burki MAK, Burki U, Najam U (2021) Environmental degradation and poverty: A bibliometric review. Reg Sustain 2(4):324–336
- Cao J, Adamowski JF, Deo RC, Xu X, Gong Y, Feng Q (2019) Grassland degradation on the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau: reevaluation of causative factors. Rangel Ecol Manage 72(6):988–995
- Carr ER (2014) From description to explanation: Using the Livelihoods as Intimate Government (LIG) approach. Appl Geogr 52:110–122
- Chatty D, Sternberg T (2015) Climate effects on nomadic pastoralist societies. Forced Migration Review, (49)
- Chu H, Yang JZ (2018) Taking climate change here and now–mitigating ideological polarization with psychological distance. Glob Environ Change 53:174–181
- Dantas-Torres F (2015) Climate change, biodiversity, ticks and tick-borne diseases: The butterfly effect. Int J Parasitology: parasites Wildl 4(3):452–461
- Debela N, Mohammed C, Bridle K, Corkrey R, McNeil D (2015) Perception of climate change and its impact by smallholders in pastoral/agropastoral systems of Borana, South Ethiopia. SpringerPlus 4(1):1–12
- Dinucci A, Fre Z (2003) Understanding the indigenous knowledge and information systems of pastoralists in Eritrea. Communication for Development Case Study (FAO)
- Dong S (2016) Overview: Pastoralism in the world. Building Resilience of Human-Natural Systems of Pastoralism in the Developing World, 1–37
- Dong S, Shang Z, Gao J, Boone RB (2020) Enhancing sustainability of grassland ecosystems through ecological restoration and grazing management in an era of climate change on Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau. Agric Ecosyst Environ 287:106684
- Eckstein D, Künzel V, Schäfer L, Winges M (2019) Global climate risk index 2020. Bonn: Germanwatch
- Ellis F (2000) The determinants of rural livelihood diversification in developing countries. J Agric Econ 51(2):289–302
- FAO (2019) Agriculture and Climate Change: Challenges and Opportunities at global and local level collaboration on climate-smart agriculture, Food, and Agriculture Organization of United Nations Rome https://www.fao.org/3/CA3204EN/ca3204en.pdf
- Farimani SM, Raufirad V, Hunter R, Lebailly P (2017) Coping strategies during drought: the case of rangeland users in southwest Iran. Rangelands 39(5):133–142
- Feleke FB, Berhe M, Gebru G, Hoag D (2016) Determinants of adaptation choices to climate change by sheep and goat farmers in Northern Ethiopia: the case of Southern and Central Tigray. Ethiopia SpringerPlus 5(1):1–15
- Fenta AA, Hailu G, Hadush Z (2019) Integrating climate-smart approaches across landscapes to improve productivity, climate resilience, and ecosystem health. Climate-smart Agriculture: Enhancing resilient agricultural systems, landscapes and livelihoods in Ethiopia and beyond. World Agroforestry (ICRAF), Nairobi, Kenya, 15–23
- Flintan F (2011) The political economy of land reform in pastoral areas: lessons from Africa, implications for Ethiopia. Future Agricultures, IDS University of Sussex
- Galvin KA (2009) Transitions: pastoralists living with change. Annu Rev Anthropol 38(1):185–198
- Galvin KA, Thornton PK, Boone RB, Sunderland J (2004) Climate variability and impacts on East African livestock herders: the Maasai of Ngorongoro Conservation Area, Tanzania. Afr J Range Forage Sci 21(3):183–189
- Gorst C, Kwok CS, Aslam S, Buchan I, Kontopantelis E, Myint PK, …, Mamas MA (2015) Long-term glycemic variability and risk of adverse outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Diabetes Care 38(12):2354–2369
- Government of Pakistan (GOP) (2017) 6th Household and Population Survey. Ministry of Finance, Finance division Islamabad, Government of Pakistan
- Government of Pakistan (GOP) (2019) Economic Survey of Pakistan (2018-19) Ministry of Finance. Finance division Islamabad, Government of Pakistan
- Grace K, Davenport F, Hanson H, Funk C, Shukla S (2015) Linking climate change and health outcomes: Examining the relationship between temperature, precipitation and birth weight in Africa. Glob Environ Change 35:125–137
- Harrison MT, Cullen BR, Armstrong D (2017) Management options for dairy farms under climate change: Effects of intensification, adaptation and simplification on pastures, milk production and profitability. Agric Syst 155:19–32
- Hastie T, Tibshirani R, Friedman JH, Friedman JH (2009) The elements of statistical learning: data mining, inference, and prediction, vol 2. springer, New York, pp 1–758
- Hidosa D, Guyo M (2017) Climate change effects on livestock feed resources: A review. J Fish Livest Prod 5:259
- Hilletofth P, Sequeira M, Adlemo A (2019) Three novel fuzzy logic concepts applied to reshoring decision-making. Expert Syst Appl 126:133–143
- Hoq MS, Raha SK, Hossain MI (2021) Livelihood vulnerability to flood hazard: understanding from the flood-prone Haor Ecosystem of Bangladesh. Environ Manage 67(3):532–552
- Hua X, Yan J, Zhang Y (2017) Evaluating the role of livelihood assets in suitable livelihood strategies: Protocol for anti-poverty policy in the Eastern Tibetan Plateau, China. Ecol Ind 78:62–74
- Huong NTL, Yao S, Fahad S (2019) Assessing household livelihood vulnerability to climate change: The case of Northwest Vietnam. Hum Ecol Risk Assessment: Int J 25(5):1157–1175
- Hurst HT, Swarén M, Hébert-Losier K, Ericsson F, Sinclair JK, Atkins S, Holmberg HC (2012) Influence of course type on upper body muscle activity in elite cross-country and downhill mountain bikers during off road downhill cycling. J Sci Cycl (JSC) 1(2):2–9
- IIPCC (2018) Global Warming of 1.5°C Report Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/06/SR15_Full_Report_High_Res.pdf
- IPCC (2020) Climate Change and Land Summary for Policymakers Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/4/2020/02/SPM_Updated-Jan20.pdf
- Joseph O, Fred MI, Philip N, William O, Gerald M (2016) Applying social network analysis, centrality measures in identification of climate change adaptation opinion leaders. Int J Agricultural Res Innov Technol 6(1):1–7
- Joshi S, Schultz TP (2013) Family planning and women’s and children’s health: Long-term consequences of an outreach program in Matlab, Bangladesh. Demography 50(1):149–180
- Kabubo-Mariara J (2008, May) Climate change adaptation and livestock activity choices in Kenya: An economic analysis. Natural Resources Forum, vol 32. Blackwell Publishing Ltd., Oxford, UK, pp 131–141. 2
- Kagunyu A, Wandibba S, Wanjohi JG (2016) The use of indigenous climate forecasting methods by the pastoralists of Northern Kenya. Pastoralism 6(1):1–6
- Karimi V, Karami E, Keshavarz M (2018) Vulnerability and adaptation of livestock producers to climate variability and change. Rangel Ecol Manage 71(2):175–184
- Kasulo V, Chikagwa-Malunga S, Chagunda M, Roberts D (2013) The perceived impact of climate change and variability on smallholder dairy production in northern Malawi. Afr J Agric Res [Internet] 1(34):72–78
- Keshavarz M, Maleksaeidi H, Karami E (2017) Livelihood vulnerability to drought: A case of rural Iran. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 21:223–230
- Kgosikoma KR, Lekota PC, Kgosikoma OE (2018) Agro-pastoralists’ determinants of adaptation to climate change.International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management
- Kgosikoma OE, Batisani N (2014) Livestock population dynamics and pastoral communities’ adaptation to rainfall variability in communal lands of Kgalagadi South, Botswana. Pastoralism 4(1):1–9
- Kimaro EG, Chibinga OC (2013) Potential impact of climate change on livestock production and health in East Africa: A review. Livestock Research for Rural Development, 25(7), 2013
- Kimaro EG, Mor SM, Toribio JAL (2018) Climate change perception and impacts on cattle production in pastoral communities of northern Tanzania. Pastoralism 8(1):1–16
- Kimaro EL, Keong CC, Sea LL (2017) Government expenditure, efficiency and economic growth: a panel analysis of Sub Saharan African low income countries. Afr J Economic Rev 5(2):34–54
- Konstandinidou M, Nivolianitou Z, Kiranoudis C, Markatos N (2006) A fuzzy modeling application of CREAM methodology for human reliability analysis. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 91(6):706–716
- Kreft C, Huber R, Wuepper D, Finger R (2021) The role of non-cognitive skills in farmers' adoption of climate change mitigation measures. Ecol Econ 189:107169
- Krejcie RV, Morgan DW (1970) Determining sample size for research activities. Educ Psychol Meas 30(3):607–610
- Kwazu G, Chang-Richards AY (2021) A metric of indicators and factors for assessing livelihood preparedness: A systematic review. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 52:101966
- Leal Filho W, Taddese H, Balehegn M, Nzengya D, Debela N, Abayineh A, …, Wolf F (2020) Introducing experiences from African pastoralist communities to cope with climate change risks, hazards and extremes: Fostering poverty reduction. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 50:101738
- Little PD, McPeak JG (2014) Pastoralism and resilience south of the Sahara, vol 9. Intl Food Policy Res Inst
- Liu X (2014) Fitting stereotype logistic regression models for ordinal response variables in educational research (Stata). J Mod Appl Stat Methods 13(2):31
- Lkhagvadorj D, Hauck M, Dulamsuren C, Tsogtbaatar J (2013) Pastoral nomadism in the forest-steppe of the Mongolian Altai under a changing economy and a warming climate. J Arid Environ 88:82–89
- Loy LS, Spence A (2020) Reducing, and bridging, the psychological distance of climate change. J Environ Psychol 67:101388
- Luseno WK, McPeak JG, Barrett CB, Little PD, Gebru G (2003) Assessing the value of climate forecast information for pastoralists: Evidence from Southern Ethiopia and Northern Kenya. World Dev 31(9):1477–1494
- Magita SY, Sangeda AZ (2017) Effects of climate stress to pastoral communities in Tanzania: A case of Mvomero District. Livest Res Rural Dev 29(8):1–11
- Mahonge C, Mwilawa A, Ngendello M, Mtambuki A (2014) Policies issues for enhancing pastoralists’ resilience to climate variability versus reality in Longido district Tanzania. Livest Res Rural Dev 26(12):47–61
- Mandal BK, Suzuki KT (2002) Arsenic round the world: a review. Talanta 58(1):201–235
- Megersa B, Markemann A, Angassa A, Valle Zárate A (2014) The role of livestock diversification in ensuring household food security under a changing climate in Borana, Ethiopia. Food Secur 6(1):15–28
- Mekuyie M, Jordaan A, Melka Y (2018) Understanding resilience of pastoralists to climate change and variability in the Southern Afar Region, Ethiopia. Clim Risk Manage 20:64–77
- Memon QA, Baloch MH, Rajput MN, Shah MG, Khaskheli AA, Korejo TA, Solangi MA (2020) 54. Influence of water and feeding frequencies on milk composition of dairy cows. Pure and Applied Biology (PAB) 9(1):545–553
- Mohammad N (1989) Rangeland management in Pakistan
- Mote PW, Allen MR, Jones RG, Li S, Mera R, Rupp DE, …, Vickers D (2016) Superensemble regional climate modeling for the western United States. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 97(2):203–215
- Muricho DN, Otieno DJ, Oluoch-Kosura W, Jirström M (2019) Building pastoralists’ resilience to shocks for sustainable disaster risk mitigation: Lessons from West Pokot County, Kenya. Int J disaster risk Reduct 34:429–435
- Muricho G, Lokossou J, Affognon H, Ahmed B, Desmae H, Ajeigbe H, …, Ojiewo C (2020) Estimating and decomposing groundnut gender yield gap: Evidence from rural farming households in Northern Nigeria. Sustainability 12(21):8923
- Nardone A, Ronchi B, Lacetera N, Ranieri MS, Bernabucci U (2010) Effects of climate changes on animal production and sustainability of livestock systems. Livest Sci 130(1–3):57–69
- Nassef M, Anderson S, Hesse C (2009) Pastoralism and climate change: enabling adaptive capacity. ODI, London
- Ndlovu T, Mjimba V (2021) Drought risk-reduction and gender dynamics in communal cattle farming in southern Zimbabwe. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 58:102203
- Ngigi MW, Mueller U, Birner R (2017) Gender differences in climate change adaptation strategies and participation in group-based approaches: An intra-household analysis from rural Kenya. Ecol Econ 138:99–108
- Nori M (2019) Herding Through Uncertainties–Regional Perspectives. Exploring the interfaces of pastoralists and uncertainty. Results from a literature review. Exploring the Interfaces of Pastoralists and Uncertainty. Results from a Literature Review (September 2019). Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies Research Paper No. RSCAS, 68
- Nüsser M, Holdschlag A (2012) Herding on high grounds: diversity and typology of pastoral systems in the Eastern Hindukush (Chitral, Northwest Pakistan). Pastoral practices in High Asia. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 31–52
- Nyberg D, Wright C, Kirk J (2018) Dash for gas: Climate change, hegemony and the scalar politics of fracking in the UK. Br J Manag 29(2):235–251
- OMIDVAR E, MOHTASHAM NS (2015)RANGELANDS SUITABILITY FOR SHEEP GRAZING IN SEMI-STEPPIC RANGELANDS OF TORNAS EGHLID FARS PROVINCE BY GIS
- Opiyo FE, Wasonga OV, Nyangito MM (2014) Measuring household vulnerability to climate-induced stresses in pastoral rangelands of Kenya: Implications for resilience programming. Pastoralism 4(1):1–15
- Opiyo F, Wasonga O, Nyangito M, Schilling J, Munang R (2015) Drought adaptation and coping strategies among the Turkana pastoralists of northern Kenya. Int J Disaster Risk Sci 6(3):295–309
- Opiyo MA, Marijani E, Muendo P, Odede R, Leschen W, Charo-Karisa H (2018) A review of aquaculture production and health management practices of farmed fish in Kenya. Int J Veterinary Sci Med 6(2):141–148
- Pakistan Bureau of Statistics (PBS) (2020) Economic Survey of Pakistan (2019-20) Ministry of Finance. Finance division Islamabad, Government of Pakistan
- Pakistan Bureau of Statistics (PBS) (2021) Economic Survey of Pakistan (2020-21) Ministry of Finance. Finance division Islamabad, Government of Pakistan
- Pakistan Bureau of Statistics (2019) Economic Survey of Pakistan 2019. Ministry of Finance Islamabad, Government of Pakistan
- Punjab PDMA (2019) Annual Report 2019, Provincial Disaster Management Authority Lahore Punjab, Government of Pakistan
- PMD (2019) Annual Weather Report 2019. Pakistan Metrological Department, Government of Pakistan
- Porro R, Lopez-Feldman A, Vela-Alvarado JW (2015) Forest use and agriculture in Ucayali, Peru: Livelihood strategies, poverty and wealth in an Amazon frontier. For Policy Econ 51:47–56
- Pour MD, Barati AA, Azadi H, Scheffran J (2018) Revealing the role of livelihood assets in livelihood strategies: Towards enhancing conservation and livelihood development in the Hara Biosphere Reserve, Iran. Ecol Ind 94:336–347
- Ramzan M, Naeem-Ullah U, Abbas H, Adnan M, Rasheed Z, Khan S (2019) Diversity of hard ticks in goats and sheep in Multan, Punjab, Pakistan. Int J Agric Biol Res 35:7–9
- Regasa DT, Akirso NA (2019) Determinants of climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies: An application of protection motivation theory in konta District, South Western Ethiopia. Eur Rev Appl Sociol 12(19):49–73
- Rehman A, Ma H, Ahmad M, Ozturk I, Chishti MZ (2021) How do climatic change, cereal crops and livestock production interact with carbon emissions? Updated evidence from China. Environ Sci Pollut Res 28(24):30702–30713
- Rojas-Downing MM, Nejadhashemi AP, Abouali M, Daneshvar F, Masraf A, Dawood SA, …, Zhang Z (2018) Pasture diversification to combat climate change impacts on grazing dairy production. Mitig Adapt Strat Glob Change 23(3):405–431
- Sam AS, Abbas A, Padmaja SS, Sathyan AR, Vijayan D, Kächele H, …, Müller K (2021) Flood vulnerability and food security in eastern India: A threat to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals.International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction,102589
- Samuels MI, Allsopp N, Hoffman MT (2019) Traditional mobile pastoralism in a contemporary semiarid rangeland in Namaqualand, South Africa. Rangel Ecol Manage 72(1):195–203
- Sarwar MK, Haq IU, Ijaz S, Khan NA (2021) Application of Precision Agriculture: Mitigating the Effect of Climate Change on Winter Fodders. Sustainable Winter Fodder. CRC Press, pp 255–268
- Shah AA, Gong Z, Khan NA, Khan I, Ali M, Naqvi SAA (2021) Livelihood diversification in managing catastrophic risks: Evidence from flood-disaster regions of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province of Pakistan. Environ Sci Pollut Res 28(30):40844–40857
- Sharma SK, Al-Badi AH, Govindaluri SM, Al-Kharusi MH (2016) Predicting motivators of cloud computing adoption: A developing country perspective. Comput Hum Behav 62:61–69
- Shreve CM, Kelman I (2014) Does mitigation save? Reviewing cost-benefit analyses of disaster risk reduction. Int J disaster risk Reduct 10:213–235
- Silvestri S, Bryan E, Ringler C, Herrero M, Okoba B (2012) Climate change perception and adaptation of agro-pastoral communities in Kenya. Reg Envriron Chang 12(4):791–802
- Soltani A, Angelsen A, Eid T, Naieni MSN, Shamekhi T (2012) Poverty, sustainability, and household livelihood strategies in Zagros, Iran. Ecol Econ 79:60–70
- State Bank of Pakistan (2018) Annual Report State Bank of Pakistan’s Economy (2017-18) Statistical Supplement, 2017–2018, State Bank of Pakistan, Government of Pakistan
- Steinfeld H, Wassenaar T, Jutzi S (2006) Livestock production systems in developing countries: status, drivers, trends. Rev Sci Tech 25(2):505–516
- Teka AM, Woldu GT, Fre Z (2019) Status and determinants of poverty and income inequality in pastoral and agro-pastoral communities: Household-based evidence from Afar Regional State, Ethiopia. World Dev Perspect 15:100123
- Teo EJ, Vial MN, Hailu S, Kelava S, Zalucki MP, Furlong MJ, …, Barker SC (2021) Climatic requirements of the eastern paralysis tick, Ixodes holocyclus, with a consideration of its possible geographic range up to 2090. Int J Parasitol 51(4):241–249
- Teo M, Goonetilleke A, Deilami K, Ahankoob A, Lawie M (2019) Engaging residents from different ethnic and language backgrounds in disaster preparedness. Int J disaster risk Reduct 39:101245
- Tesso TT, Gobena DD, Duressa DO, Roozeboom K, Jagadish K, Perumal R (2018) Harnessing genetic and genomic resources to transform the production and productivity of sorghum. Achieving sustainable cultivation of sorghum Volume 1. Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing, pp 175–208
- Thornton PK, Gerber PJ (2010) Climate change and the growth of the livestock sector in developing countries. Mitig Adapt Strat Glob Change 15(2):169–184
- Thornton PK, Herrero MT, Freeman HA, Okeyo Mwai A, Rege JEO, Jones PG, McDermott JJ (2007) Vulnerability, climate change and livestock-opportunities and challenges for the poor.Journal of Semi-Arid Tropical Agricultural Research
- Thornton PK, van de Steeg J, Notenbaert A, Herrero M (2009) The impacts of climate change on livestock and livestock systems in developing countries: A review of what we know and what we need to know. Agric Syst 101(3):113–127
- Tilahun M, Angassa A, Abebe A, Mengistu A (2016) Perception and attitude of pastoralists on the use and conservation of rangeland resources in Afar Region, Ethiopia. Ecol Processes 5(1):1–10
- Tirivangasi HM (2018) Regional disaster risk management strategies for food security: Probing Southern African Development Community channels for influencing national policy. JÃ mbá: Journal of Disaster Risk Studies 10(1):1–7
- Tsegaye D, Vedeld P, Moe SR (2013) Pastoralists and livelihoods: A case study from northern Afar, Ethiopia. J Arid Environ 91:138–146
- Tuyen TQ, Lim S, Cameron MP, Huong VV (2014) Farmland loss and livelihood outcomes: a microeconometric analysis of household surveys in Vietnam. J Asia Pac Econ 19(3):423–444
- Udmale P, Pal I, Szabo S, Pramanik M, Large A (2020) Global food security in the context of COVID-19: A scenario-based exploratory analysis. Progress in Disaster Science 7:100120
- Wako G, Tadesse M, Angassa A (2017) Camel management as an adaptive strategy to climate change by pastoralists in southern Ethiopia. Ecol Processes 6(1):1–12
- Week DA, Wizor CH (2020) Effects of flood on food security, livelihood and socio-economic characteristics in the flood-prone areas of the core Niger Delta, Nigeria. Asian J Geographical Res 3(1):1–17
- World Bank (2021) Climate Risk Country Profile: Pakistan (2021); The World Bank Group and Asian Development Bank https://climateknowledgeportal.worldbank.org/sites/default/files/2021-05/15078-WB_Pakistan%20Country%20Profile-WEB.pdf
- Younas M, Ishaq K, Ali I (2012) Effect of climate change on livestock production in Pakistan. Proc. 2 nd Internat. Sem. Anim. Indus., Jakarta, 5–6
- Zhang Q, Wang Y, Tao S, Bilsborrow RE, Qiu T, Liu C, …, Song C (2020) Divergent socioeconomic-ecological outcomes of China’s conversion of cropland to forest program in the subtropical mountainous area and the semi-arid Loess Plateau. Ecosyst Serv 45:101167
- Zhe Y, Cili J, Mace RH, Juan D, Pengpeng B, Guozhen D (2019) Adaptive strategies adopted by herders against the decollectivization of rangeland in the Qinghai–Tibetan Plateau in China. Mt Res Dev 39(4):D11
Table 1: Explanation of study variables
|
Study variables |
|
Description of variables |
|
|
Strategies of livelihood |
Traditional Pastoralism |
Annual average hours dedicated to animal husbandry |
|
|
Horticulture |
Annual average hours dedicated to horticulture production |
||
|
Arable farming |
Annual average hours dedicated to crop production |
||
|
Apiculture |
Annual average hours dedicated to apiculture production |
||
|
Handicrafts |
Annual average hours dedicated to handicraft production |
||
|
Labor |
Annual average hours dedicated to off-farm and on-farm activities |
||
|
Teaching |
Annual average hours dedicated to teaching activates |
||
|
Trading |
Annual average hours dedicated to trading |
||
|
Assets of livelihood |
Respondents educational level |
Household head educational level in years |
|
|
Size of household |
Household members in number |
||
|
Vocational basis training |
Vocational skill attained by the family members to increasing farming and husbandry production |
||
|
Rangeland areas |
Area in hectares nomad households traditional or legal rights in grazing rangelands |
||
|
Size of crop farm |
Owned crop land total area in hectares |
||
|
Size of orchards farm |
Orchards total farm area in hectares |
||
|
Size of herd |
During year number of livestock sheep and goats held by nomads pastoral |
||
|
Equipment and structure of farm |
Equipment and fix structure numbers applied to increasing productivity of agriculture |
||
|
Financial institutions credit |
Total amount of credit received from financial institutions by nomad households in PKRs |
||
|
Nomadic membership cooperation |
Nomadic cooperative membership in years |
||
|
Nomadic household outcomes |
Economic outcomes |
||
|
Income of livestock |
Animal husbandry annual income in *PKRs |
||
|
Income of horticulture |
Plantation farming annual income in PKRs |
||
|
Income of arable farming |
Crop production annual income in PKRs |
||
|
Income of apiculture |
Bee-keeping annual income in PKRs |
||
|
Income of handicrafts |
Handicraft production annual income in PKRs |
||
|
Income of labor |
Off-farm and on-farm work annual income in PKRs |
||
|
Income of teaching |
Teaching based annual income in PKRs |
||
|
Income of trading |
Trading based annual income in PKRs |
||
|
Environmental outcomes |
|||
|
Heard carrying capacity |
Natural resource headquarter based allowed number of livestock to each nomad household |
||
* Pakistani currency in rupee as 1$=159.75PKRs
Table 2; Variation proportion elucidated for assets of livelihood and weights of principal component assets
|
Study variables |
Assets of livelihood |
||||
|
Human assets |
Natural assets |
Physical assets |
Financial assets |
Social assets |
|
|
Educational level |
0.81 |
-------- |
---------- |
---------- |
---------- |
|
Size of household |
0.73 |
-------- |
---------- |
---------- |
---------- |
|
Vocational based training |
0.34 |
-------- |
---------- |
---------- |
---------- |
|
Grazing rangelands |
------- |
-0.49 |
---------- |
--------- |
--------- |
|
Size of crop farm |
-------- |
0.84 |
---------- |
---------- |
---------- |
|
Size of orchard farm |
-------- |
0.76 |
---------- |
--------- |
---------- |
|
Size of herd |
------- |
--------- |
0.72 |
---------- |
---------- |
|
Equipment and structure of farm |
------- |
--------- |
0.79 |
--------- |
---------- |
|
Financial institutional credit |
-------- |
----------- |
--------- |
1.0 |
---------- |
|
Nomadic membership cooperation |
--------- |
--------- |
--------- |
---------- |
1.0 |
|
Explained variations in percentage |
80.0 |
90.0 |
70.0 |
100 |
100 |
Table; 3 Pastoralists households’ livelihood styles
|
Per capita average time allocation to activities (hours/year) |
Styles of livelihood |
|||
|
pastoral |
Servicing pastoral |
Agro- pastoral |
Agro craft-pastoral |
|
|
Conventional pastoralism activities |
3087 |
1049 |
627 |
894 |
|
Arable farming activities |
64 |
178 |
821 |
321 |
|
Handicraft activates |
10 |
26 |
93 |
416 |
|
Apiculture activities |
0 |
11 |
2 |
348 |
|
Trading and servicing activities |
6 |
437 |
13 |
29 |
|
Households numbers |
521(67.83%) |
143(18.62%) |
69(8.98%) |
35(4.57%) |
|
Measures of Silhouette |
0.67 |
|||
Table 4; Pastoralist household’s livelihood strategies adapted determinants
|
Livelihood assets |
Styles of livelihood |
||||||||
|
Pastoral |
Services pastoral |
Agro-pastoral |
Agro-craft pastoral |
||||||
|
Coefficient |
Marginal effects |
Coefficient |
Marginal effects |
Coefficient |
Marginal effects |
Coefficient |
Marginal effects |
||
|
Human assets |
Household educational level |
-1.78**(-2.99) |
-0.06 |
0.36***(2.14) |
0.03 |
0.31(0.49) |
0.04 |
0.53(0.91) |
0.02 |
|
Size of household |
-1.24*** (2.37) |
-0.05 |
0.29***(1.76) |
0.04 |
0.34(1.21) |
0.02 |
0.41**(2.18) |
0.01 |
|
|
Vocational based training |
-0.71(-0.48) |
-0.03 |
0.13(1.34) |
0.02 |
0.11(1.46) |
0.01 |
0.29(1.78) |
0.02 |
|
|
Natural assets |
Rangeland area |
0.93**(4.12) |
0.11 |
-0.64(-0.53) |
-0.14 |
-1.52(-1.37) |
-0.06 |
0.47**(1.87) |
0.01 |
|
Size of Crop farm |
-1.26(-0.73) |
-0.24 |
0.78*(2.34) |
0.16 |
2.08**(1.98) |
0.08 |
0.49**(2.68) |
0.02 |
|
|
Size of orchard farm |
-1.14(-0.98) |
-0.21 |
0.83**(2.49) |
0.11 |
1.86**(2.29) |
0.07 |
0.54***(1.89) |
0.01 |
|
|
Physical assets |
Size of herd |
3.98**(2.41) |
0.07 |
-0.21(-0.74) |
-0.03 |
-0.31(-1.74) |
-0.02 |
-0.73**(-2.56) |
-0.01 |
|
Farm equipments and structure |
5.16(1.49) |
0.06 |
-0.24(-1.28) |
-0.04 |
0.34(2.16) |
-0.03 |
-0.84(-1.46) |
-0.03 |
|
|
Financial assets |
Farm credit |
-4.98**(-4.87) |
-0.28 |
0.86***(3.14) |
0.17 |
1.59***(5.21) |
0.02 |
1.67***(4.89) |
0.06 |
|
Social assets |
Cooperation membership |
1.98***(3.84) |
0.34 |
-1.43**(-2.96) |
-0.26 |
0.26(0.47) |
0.04 |
-1.78(-0.96) |
-0.04 |
|
|
Constant |
3.21**(3.97) |
-0.24(-0.43) |
-2.74***(-3.91) |
-2.16***(-3.48) |
||||
|
|
Observation numbers |
768 |
|||||||
|
|
Likelihood log |
-397.43 |
|||||||
|
|
Probability>chi2 |
0.0001 |
|||||||
*,**,*** shows the 10%,5% and 1% level of significance
Parenthesis shows standard error values
Table 5; Livelihood assets role in economic and ecological sustainability about livelihood strategies of households
|
Pastoral households livelihood strategies |
Livelihood assets as inputs |
Sustainability as outputs |
|||||||
|
Human assets |
Natural assets |
Physical assets |
Financial assets |
Social assets |
Ecological sustainability |
Economic sustainability |
|||
|
Linguistic values |
Accuracy percentage |
Linguistic values |
Accuracy percentage |
||||||
|
Pastoral |
Low level |
Low level |
High level |
Low level |
Low level |
Un -sustainability |
87.94 |
Poverty |
81.79 |
|
Low level |
Low level |
Medium level |
Low level |
High level |
Relative Un-sustainability |
|
Poverty |
|
|
|
Medium level |
Low level |
High level |
Low level |
High level |
Un -sustainability |
|
Relative poverty |
|
|
|
High level |
Medium level |
Medium level |
Low level |
High level |
Sustainability |
|
Relative poverty |
|
|
|
Low level |
Low level |
High level |
Medium level |
High level |
Un-sustainability |
|
Non-poverty |
|
|
|
Medium level |
Medium level |
High level |
Medium level |
High level |
Relative Un-sustainability |
|
Non-poverty |
|
|
|
Servicing pastoral |
Low level |
Low level |
High level |
Low level |
Low level |
Un-sustainability |
76.25 |
Poverty |
73.64 |
|
Low level |
Low level |
High level |
Low level |
Medium level |
Relative Un-sustainability |
|
Poverty |
|
|
|
Low level |
Low level |
Medium level |
Low level |
High level |
Sustainability |
|
Poverty |
|
|
|
Medium level |
Medium level |
High level |
Low level |
High level |
Relative Un-sustainability |
|
Relative poverty |
|
|
|
Medium level |
Medium level |
Medium level |
Low level |
High level |
Sustainability |
|
Relative poverty |
|
|
|
Medium level |
Low level |
High level |
Medium level |
Medium level |
Un-sustainability |
|
Non-poverty |
|
|
|
High level |
Medium level |
Medium level |
Medium level |
High level |
Sustainability |
|
Non-poverty |
|
|
|
Agro-pastoral |
Low level |
Low level |
Medium level |
Low level |
Medium level |
Sustainability |
83.64 |
Poverty |
80.98 |
|
Medium level |
Medium level |
High level |
Low level |
Medium level |
Relative Un-sustainability |
|
Relative poverty |
|
|
|
High level |
Medium level |
Medium level |
Low level |
Medium level |
Sustainability |
|
Relative poverty |
|
|
|
High level |
High level |
Medium level |
Medium level |
Medium level |
Relative Un-sustainability |
|
Non-poverty |
|
|
|
High level |
High level |
Low level |
High level |
Medium level |
Sustainability |
|
Non-poverty |
|
|
|
Agro craft pastoral |
Medium level |
Low level |
Low level |
Low level |
Medium level |
Sustainability |
72.49 |
Poverty |
88.53 |
|
Medium level |
Medium level |
High level |
Medium level |
Medium level |
Relative Un-sustainability |
|
Relative poverty |
|
|
|
High level |
Medium level |
Medium level |
Medium level |
Medium level |
Sustainability |
|
Relative poverty |
|
|
|
Low level |
Medium level |
High level |
Medium level |
Medium level |
Un-sustainability |
|
Non-poverty |
|
|
|
Medium level |
Medium level |
High level |
High level |
Medium level |
Relative Un-sustainability |
|
Non-poverty |
|
|
|
High level |
Medium level |
Medium level |
High level |
Medium level |
Sustainability |
|
Non-poverty |
|
|