the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Simulating the effects of sea level rise and soil salinization on adaptation and migration decisions in Mozambique
Abstract. Coastal flooding and sea level rise (SLR) will affect farmers in coastal areas, as increasing salinity levels will reduce crop yields, leading to a loss of net annual income for farming communities. In response, farmers can take various actions. In order to assess such a response under SLR, we applied an agent-based model (ABM) to simulate the adaptation and migration decisions of farmers in coastal Mozambique. The ABM is coupled with a salinization module to simulate the relationship between soil salinity and SLR. The decision rules in the model (DYNAMO-M) are based on the economic theory of subjective expected utility. This theory posits that households can maximize their welfare by deciding whether to (a) stay and face losses from salinization and flooding, (b) stay and adapt (switching to salt-tolerant crops and enhancing physical resilience such as elevating houses), or (c) migrate to safer inland areas. The results show that coastal farmers in Mozambique face total losses of up to US$12.5 million per year from salt intrusion and up to US$800 million per year from flooding of buildings (RCP8.5 in the year 2080). Sorghum farmers may experience little damage from salt intrusion, while rice farmers may experience losses of up to US$15,000 per year. We show that medium-sized farmers (1–20 ha) are most at risk. This is because their farm size means that adaptation costs are substantial, while their incomes are too low to cover these costs. The number of households adapting varies between different districts (6 %–50 %), with salt adaptation being the most common, as costs are lowest. Despite adaptation measures, about 13 %–20 % of the total 300,000 farmers in coastal flood zones will migrate to safer areas under different settings of adaptive behaviour and different climatic and socioeconomic scenarios.
- Preprint
(1799 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(557 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-17', Anonymous Referee #1, 25 Jan 2024
I have read the abovementioned paper. The analysis is executed well, and I am generally well satisfied with the paper. However, there are some small issues that should be solved before the paper is accepted. I list them in the order I encountered them in the paper.
- line 66. Gravity model is a statistical, i.e. empirical model. Therefore, writing "statistical and gravity models are less suitable" is confusing for a reader. Authors should explain what other empirical models apart from gravity models are used and reformulate this part.
- I find motivation for the use of ABM very brief and insufficient. Authors could for example refer to Savin et al. (2023) who argued that ABMs help to combine insights from different disciplines (in this case, behavioural economics/psychology, agriculture and climate adaptation) by seriously addresing the role of bounded rationality, social interaction and agent heterogeneity. You could also refer to a recent literature review on the use of ABM to climate issues like by Castro et al., 2020.
Savin I. F. Creutzig, T. Filatova, J. Foramitti, T. Konc, L. Niamir, K. Safarzynska and J. van den Bergh, 2023 Agent-based modeling to integrate elements from different disciplines for ambitious climate policy, WIREs Climate Change 14(2): e811 https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.811
Castro J., Drews S., Exadaktylos F., Foramitti J., Klein F., Konc T., Savin I. and van den Bergh J., 2020 A Review of Agent-based Modelling of Climate-Energy Policy, WIREs Climate Change 11(4):e647 https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.647
- reference error on p. 6 lie 148
- font size in figures like 4 and 5 is too small. Please make sure all figures are readable. Similarly, indices (a,b,c) in figures like 9 and 10 could be improved by putting them outside the plot. Currently they are too small and sometimes overlap with plot content
- Finally, the text should be spell checked. e.g. on p. 22 "Third, The input" or "from Ton, Marijn, (2023)"
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-17-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Kushagra Pandey, 02 Apr 2024
RESPONSE to RC1
Simulating the effects of sea level rise and soil salinization on adaptation and migration decisions in Mozambique
Kushagra Pandey, Jens A. de Bruijn, Hans de Moel, Wouter Botzen, and Jeroen C. J. H. Aerts
________________________________________________________________________________
I have read the abovementioned paper. The analysis is executed well, and I am generally well satisfied with the paper. However, there are some small issues that should be solved before the paper is accepted. I list them in the order I encountered them in the paper.
We would like to thank Referee #1 for the kind words and helpful suggestions to improve the paper. We have assessed each comment, and in our reply below, we explain how we would address the comments in our revised manuscript.
line 66. Gravity model is a statistical, i.e. empirical model. Therefore, writing "statistical and gravity models are less suitable" is confusing for a reader. Authors should explain what other empirical models apart from gravity models are used and reformulate this part.
The reviewer is correct. We propose changing the text to: "Gravity models are less suitable for individual adaptation and migration decision-making. This is why we selected an agent-based model to simulate these decisions."
I find motivation for the use of ABM very brief and insufficient. Authors could for example refer to Savin et al. (2023) who argued that ABMs help to combine insights from different disciplines (in this case, behavioural economics/psychology, agriculture and climate adaptation) by seriously addressing the role of bounded rationality, social interaction and agent heterogeneity. You could also refer to a recent literature review on the use of ABM to climate issues like by Castro et al., 2020
This is a valuable suggestion. We propose extending the motivation for selecting the agent-based model (ABM) by including the reviewer's suggestion to incorporate Savin et al. (2023) and other relevant literature such as Castro et al. (2020). In the revised paper, we will better highlight the benefits of ABMs for adaptive decision-making by combining insights from different disciplines and addressing aspects like bounded rationality, social interaction, and agent heterogeneity. ABMs are increasingly used for adaptation modeling, as shown by de Ruig et al. (2022) and Haer et al. (2020). Klabunde et al. (2016) have conducted a review study that suggests using different behavior theories within ABMs for migration. This includes the Expected Utility Theory we have included in our model. Thank you for noting this; we will increase the font size accordingly.
Minor comments:
reference error on p. 6 lie 148
Correct, we will change this to Fishburn et al. (1981).
font size in figures like 4 and 5 is too small. Please make sure all figures are readable. Similarly, indices (a,b,c) in figures like 9 and 10 could be improved by putting them outside the plot. Currently they are too small and sometimes overlap with plot content
Thank you for noting this, we will increase the font size accordingly.
Finally, the text should be spell checked. e.g. on p. 22 "Third, The input" or "from Ton, Marijn, (2023)"
Thank you, this should be Ton et al. (2023). We will take extra care to check the references in the final revised version.
References
Castro, J., Stefan Drews, Filippos Exadaktylos, Joël Foramitti, Franziska Klein, Théo Konc, Ivan Savin, Jeroen van den Bergh (2020) A review of agent-based modeling of climate-energy policy. WIRES CC, doi.org/10.1002/wcc.647
Haer, T., Husby, T., Botzen, W.J., Aerts, J.C.J.H. (2020). The safe development paradox: an agent-based assessment for flood risk in the European Union. Global Environmental Change, doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.102009
Klabunde, A., Willekens, F. Decision-Making in Agent-Based Models of Migration: State of the Art and Challenges. Eur J Population 32, 73–97 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-015-9362-0
Ruig, L., Botzen W.J., Haer, T., Brody, S., Czajkowski, de Moel, H., Aerts, J.C.J,.H. (2022) How the U.S. can benefit from risk-based premiums combined with flood protection. Nature Climate Change https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-022-01501-7 (2022).
Savin, I., Felix Creutzig, Tatiana Filatova, Joël Foramitti, Théo Konc, Leila Niamir, Karolina Safarzynska, Jeroen van den Bergh (2022) Agent-based modeling to integrate elements from different disciplines for ambitious climate policy. WIRES CC, doi.org/10.1002/wcc.811
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-17-AC1
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-17', Anonymous Referee #2, 02 Feb 2024
The paper presents a comprehensive and well-constructed model addressing a significant issue, showcasing both the quality of writing and the relevance of the problem tackled. However, to ensure its suitability for publication, it's essential to address several major concerns crucial for enhancing the paper's credibility and impact within the scientific community.
Major Comments:
- The paper introduces a model focused on adaptation strategies in rural Mozambique but does not convincingly justify its suitability for this specific environment. The application of expected utility theory seems incongruent with the decision-making realities of rural Mozambican farmers, especially considering insights from urban coastal households (Noll et al., 2022). These insights suggest that adaptation behaviors are heavily influenced by non-economic factors, which are presumably more pronounced in rural settings where traditional knowledge and heuristics play a larger role. Furthermore, the use of urban housing values to assess expected annual damages further questions the model's applicability, potentially leading to skewed results. Moreover, the model proposes structural adaptation strategies like elevation that may be impractical and unreflective of the actual measures farmers in rural Mozambique might undertake. This incongruity points to a critical need for the model to integrate a more nuanced understanding of the behavioral patterns and economic realities pertinent to the rural Mozambican context, raising the question of the reliability of the projections presented.
- Another significant point that makes me doubt the results presented in this study is the lack of any type of validation. Validation is crucial for establishing the reliability of model outputs, and the absence of any such exercise undermines the strength of the conclusions drawn. Although the challenge of obtaining empirical data for rural Mozambique is acknowledged, the paper would benefit from an attempt to validate the model, perhaps through comparisons with historical trends or alignment with known stylized facts about the region. Without this, the model's predictions remain hypothetical and their relevance to actual scenarios in Mozambique is uncertain.
- The sensitivity analysis presented in the study appears to be insufficient. A more robust analysis should consider a wider range of parameter values beyond a few discrete scenarios, which would allow for a better understanding of the model's behavior under different conditions (especially given the points raised before). For instance, the potential impact of soil salinization could be examined over a spectrum of possibilities, such as a 50% increase in salinity levels, to reflect possible variations in climate change outcomes.
- The he paper needs to clearly articulate the relationship between income dynamics and environmental factors such as crop salinization. It is important to determine whether farmers' incomes are fixed regardless of the salinization process. The change in crop yield would have a significant impact on farmers’ income, which would play a crucial role in their ability to undertake adaptation action or migrate. This is essential for realistically modeling farmers' capacity to adapt or migrate. Maintaining constant income despite climate changes risks underestimating the economic impact of salinization, potentially restricting farmers' options and leading to misleading results.
Minor Comments:
- The justification for the choice of 50 repetitions within the model simulations is unclear. I am not saying it is wrong, but such methodological decisions should be supported by a metric that validates the number's adequacy to capture the variability in results.
- The manuscript has omissions in referencing (reference not found), such as missing citations in figure captions and on page 6, line 145.
- The consideration of demographic trends, such as the impact of young people's outmigration on fertility rates and population growth, is lacking. I'm not suggesting that the authors should include it explicitly, but they should reflect upon its implications (Hauer et al., 2024).
- A reflective discussion on the broader implications of the study's results for the scientific literature and their practical significance would be beneficial. The paper should emphasize how its findings contribute new understanding in the field of climate adaptation.
In summary, the paper presents a valuable model but risks drawing conclusions that may not align with the complexities of the real-world situation in rural Mozambique. More robust and detailed analyses, along with an expanded discussion on the implications of the results, are necessary to ensure the paper's relevance and contribution to the scientific community.
References:
Hauer, M. E., Jacobs, S. A., & Kulp, S. A. (2024). Climate migration amplifies demographic change and population aging. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 121(3), e2206192119. https://doi.org/10.1073/PNAS.2206192119/SUPPL_FILE/PNAS.2206192119.SAPP.PDF
Noll, B., Filatova, T., Need, A., & Taberna, A. (2022). Contextualizing cross-national patterns in household climate change adaptation. Nature Climate Change, 12(1), 30–35. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01222-3
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-17-RC2 - AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Kushagra Pandey, 02 Apr 2024
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-17', Anonymous Referee #1, 25 Jan 2024
I have read the abovementioned paper. The analysis is executed well, and I am generally well satisfied with the paper. However, there are some small issues that should be solved before the paper is accepted. I list them in the order I encountered them in the paper.
- line 66. Gravity model is a statistical, i.e. empirical model. Therefore, writing "statistical and gravity models are less suitable" is confusing for a reader. Authors should explain what other empirical models apart from gravity models are used and reformulate this part.
- I find motivation for the use of ABM very brief and insufficient. Authors could for example refer to Savin et al. (2023) who argued that ABMs help to combine insights from different disciplines (in this case, behavioural economics/psychology, agriculture and climate adaptation) by seriously addresing the role of bounded rationality, social interaction and agent heterogeneity. You could also refer to a recent literature review on the use of ABM to climate issues like by Castro et al., 2020.
Savin I. F. Creutzig, T. Filatova, J. Foramitti, T. Konc, L. Niamir, K. Safarzynska and J. van den Bergh, 2023 Agent-based modeling to integrate elements from different disciplines for ambitious climate policy, WIREs Climate Change 14(2): e811 https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.811
Castro J., Drews S., Exadaktylos F., Foramitti J., Klein F., Konc T., Savin I. and van den Bergh J., 2020 A Review of Agent-based Modelling of Climate-Energy Policy, WIREs Climate Change 11(4):e647 https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.647
- reference error on p. 6 lie 148
- font size in figures like 4 and 5 is too small. Please make sure all figures are readable. Similarly, indices (a,b,c) in figures like 9 and 10 could be improved by putting them outside the plot. Currently they are too small and sometimes overlap with plot content
- Finally, the text should be spell checked. e.g. on p. 22 "Third, The input" or "from Ton, Marijn, (2023)"
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-17-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Kushagra Pandey, 02 Apr 2024
RESPONSE to RC1
Simulating the effects of sea level rise and soil salinization on adaptation and migration decisions in Mozambique
Kushagra Pandey, Jens A. de Bruijn, Hans de Moel, Wouter Botzen, and Jeroen C. J. H. Aerts
________________________________________________________________________________
I have read the abovementioned paper. The analysis is executed well, and I am generally well satisfied with the paper. However, there are some small issues that should be solved before the paper is accepted. I list them in the order I encountered them in the paper.
We would like to thank Referee #1 for the kind words and helpful suggestions to improve the paper. We have assessed each comment, and in our reply below, we explain how we would address the comments in our revised manuscript.
line 66. Gravity model is a statistical, i.e. empirical model. Therefore, writing "statistical and gravity models are less suitable" is confusing for a reader. Authors should explain what other empirical models apart from gravity models are used and reformulate this part.
The reviewer is correct. We propose changing the text to: "Gravity models are less suitable for individual adaptation and migration decision-making. This is why we selected an agent-based model to simulate these decisions."
I find motivation for the use of ABM very brief and insufficient. Authors could for example refer to Savin et al. (2023) who argued that ABMs help to combine insights from different disciplines (in this case, behavioural economics/psychology, agriculture and climate adaptation) by seriously addressing the role of bounded rationality, social interaction and agent heterogeneity. You could also refer to a recent literature review on the use of ABM to climate issues like by Castro et al., 2020
This is a valuable suggestion. We propose extending the motivation for selecting the agent-based model (ABM) by including the reviewer's suggestion to incorporate Savin et al. (2023) and other relevant literature such as Castro et al. (2020). In the revised paper, we will better highlight the benefits of ABMs for adaptive decision-making by combining insights from different disciplines and addressing aspects like bounded rationality, social interaction, and agent heterogeneity. ABMs are increasingly used for adaptation modeling, as shown by de Ruig et al. (2022) and Haer et al. (2020). Klabunde et al. (2016) have conducted a review study that suggests using different behavior theories within ABMs for migration. This includes the Expected Utility Theory we have included in our model. Thank you for noting this; we will increase the font size accordingly.
Minor comments:
reference error on p. 6 lie 148
Correct, we will change this to Fishburn et al. (1981).
font size in figures like 4 and 5 is too small. Please make sure all figures are readable. Similarly, indices (a,b,c) in figures like 9 and 10 could be improved by putting them outside the plot. Currently they are too small and sometimes overlap with plot content
Thank you for noting this, we will increase the font size accordingly.
Finally, the text should be spell checked. e.g. on p. 22 "Third, The input" or "from Ton, Marijn, (2023)"
Thank you, this should be Ton et al. (2023). We will take extra care to check the references in the final revised version.
References
Castro, J., Stefan Drews, Filippos Exadaktylos, Joël Foramitti, Franziska Klein, Théo Konc, Ivan Savin, Jeroen van den Bergh (2020) A review of agent-based modeling of climate-energy policy. WIRES CC, doi.org/10.1002/wcc.647
Haer, T., Husby, T., Botzen, W.J., Aerts, J.C.J.H. (2020). The safe development paradox: an agent-based assessment for flood risk in the European Union. Global Environmental Change, doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.102009
Klabunde, A., Willekens, F. Decision-Making in Agent-Based Models of Migration: State of the Art and Challenges. Eur J Population 32, 73–97 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-015-9362-0
Ruig, L., Botzen W.J., Haer, T., Brody, S., Czajkowski, de Moel, H., Aerts, J.C.J,.H. (2022) How the U.S. can benefit from risk-based premiums combined with flood protection. Nature Climate Change https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-022-01501-7 (2022).
Savin, I., Felix Creutzig, Tatiana Filatova, Joël Foramitti, Théo Konc, Leila Niamir, Karolina Safarzynska, Jeroen van den Bergh (2022) Agent-based modeling to integrate elements from different disciplines for ambitious climate policy. WIRES CC, doi.org/10.1002/wcc.811
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-17-AC1
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-17', Anonymous Referee #2, 02 Feb 2024
The paper presents a comprehensive and well-constructed model addressing a significant issue, showcasing both the quality of writing and the relevance of the problem tackled. However, to ensure its suitability for publication, it's essential to address several major concerns crucial for enhancing the paper's credibility and impact within the scientific community.
Major Comments:
- The paper introduces a model focused on adaptation strategies in rural Mozambique but does not convincingly justify its suitability for this specific environment. The application of expected utility theory seems incongruent with the decision-making realities of rural Mozambican farmers, especially considering insights from urban coastal households (Noll et al., 2022). These insights suggest that adaptation behaviors are heavily influenced by non-economic factors, which are presumably more pronounced in rural settings where traditional knowledge and heuristics play a larger role. Furthermore, the use of urban housing values to assess expected annual damages further questions the model's applicability, potentially leading to skewed results. Moreover, the model proposes structural adaptation strategies like elevation that may be impractical and unreflective of the actual measures farmers in rural Mozambique might undertake. This incongruity points to a critical need for the model to integrate a more nuanced understanding of the behavioral patterns and economic realities pertinent to the rural Mozambican context, raising the question of the reliability of the projections presented.
- Another significant point that makes me doubt the results presented in this study is the lack of any type of validation. Validation is crucial for establishing the reliability of model outputs, and the absence of any such exercise undermines the strength of the conclusions drawn. Although the challenge of obtaining empirical data for rural Mozambique is acknowledged, the paper would benefit from an attempt to validate the model, perhaps through comparisons with historical trends or alignment with known stylized facts about the region. Without this, the model's predictions remain hypothetical and their relevance to actual scenarios in Mozambique is uncertain.
- The sensitivity analysis presented in the study appears to be insufficient. A more robust analysis should consider a wider range of parameter values beyond a few discrete scenarios, which would allow for a better understanding of the model's behavior under different conditions (especially given the points raised before). For instance, the potential impact of soil salinization could be examined over a spectrum of possibilities, such as a 50% increase in salinity levels, to reflect possible variations in climate change outcomes.
- The he paper needs to clearly articulate the relationship between income dynamics and environmental factors such as crop salinization. It is important to determine whether farmers' incomes are fixed regardless of the salinization process. The change in crop yield would have a significant impact on farmers’ income, which would play a crucial role in their ability to undertake adaptation action or migrate. This is essential for realistically modeling farmers' capacity to adapt or migrate. Maintaining constant income despite climate changes risks underestimating the economic impact of salinization, potentially restricting farmers' options and leading to misleading results.
Minor Comments:
- The justification for the choice of 50 repetitions within the model simulations is unclear. I am not saying it is wrong, but such methodological decisions should be supported by a metric that validates the number's adequacy to capture the variability in results.
- The manuscript has omissions in referencing (reference not found), such as missing citations in figure captions and on page 6, line 145.
- The consideration of demographic trends, such as the impact of young people's outmigration on fertility rates and population growth, is lacking. I'm not suggesting that the authors should include it explicitly, but they should reflect upon its implications (Hauer et al., 2024).
- A reflective discussion on the broader implications of the study's results for the scientific literature and their practical significance would be beneficial. The paper should emphasize how its findings contribute new understanding in the field of climate adaptation.
In summary, the paper presents a valuable model but risks drawing conclusions that may not align with the complexities of the real-world situation in rural Mozambique. More robust and detailed analyses, along with an expanded discussion on the implications of the results, are necessary to ensure the paper's relevance and contribution to the scientific community.
References:
Hauer, M. E., Jacobs, S. A., & Kulp, S. A. (2024). Climate migration amplifies demographic change and population aging. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 121(3), e2206192119. https://doi.org/10.1073/PNAS.2206192119/SUPPL_FILE/PNAS.2206192119.SAPP.PDF
Noll, B., Filatova, T., Need, A., & Taberna, A. (2022). Contextualizing cross-national patterns in household climate change adaptation. Nature Climate Change, 12(1), 30–35. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01222-3
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-17-RC2 - AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Kushagra Pandey, 02 Apr 2024
Model code and software
DYNAMO-M salt intrusion Kushagra Pandey https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10455705
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
393 | 162 | 28 | 583 | 49 | 17 | 14 |
- HTML: 393
- PDF: 162
- XML: 28
- Total: 583
- Supplement: 49
- BibTeX: 17
- EndNote: 14
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1