Examines risk management strategies of farmers in flood-prone areas, suggesting targeted interventions.
Multiple factors such as global climate warming and environmental degradation have increased natural disaster frequencies, threatening the safety of citizens’ lives and properties seriously. Existing literature primarily focuses on livelihood diversification, resilience, and vulnerability in flood-prone areas, with limited research systematically examining farmers’ livelihood risks and management strategies across multiple dimensions. To address this gap, this study advances the understanding of multidimensional livelihood risks by systematically identifying the key risk perceptions and management strategy choices of farmers, thereby providing empirical evidence essential for designing targeted interventions and sustainable adaptation policies in flood-prone regions. Specifically, this study employs an unordered multinomial logistic model to examine farmers’ risk management strategy choices, drawing on a field survey of 540 farmers from floodplain areas in Sichuan Province, China. The analysis systematically covers four livelihood risk dimensions (health, environmental, financial, social) and five management strategies (expansion, adjustment-oriented, contraction, aid-oriented, dependency-based). The results indicate that: (1) The most significant livelihood risk is environmental, and the most commonly selected risk management strategy is adjustment-oriented management; (2) When farmers face health risks, they tend to adopt dependency-based management strategy; in dealing with financial and social risks, farmers perceive no significant difference in the selection of the five management strategies. Accordingly, targeted strategies are proposed: insurance and information for environmental risks, medical security for health, employment training for social, and income diversification for financial risks.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ma et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: