研究ノート

A Comparison of Socioeconomic
Characteristics, Disaster Experiences,
and Coping Strategies for Food Security:
The Case of Farmers in Laguna
Province, Republic of the Philippines,
and Gifu Prefecture, Japan
Armand Christopher Casiple Rola

I. Introduction
The East Asia and the Pacific, which is composed mostly of developing
countries, is the most exposed region to natural disasters in the world,
according to the World Risk Report1. Its proximity to the Pacific Ocean and thePacific Ring of Fire makes the region prone to climate-related disasters such as
typhoon and flooding, and geophysical disasters such as earthquake andvolcanic eruption. Out of the top ten countries at risk, seven of them are in the
East Asia and the Pacific region2 .
Agriculture in the East Asia and the Pacific region is highly exposed to the
key climatic risks of typhoon, flood, and drought. For many of the Pacificislands, there are also major exposures to tsunamis 3 . In the most northerly
territories such as China, Japan, Mongolia, and Nepal, agriculture is also
exposed to hail, frost , a nd snow damage. Hail a nd frost are also major
exposures in parts of Australia and in New Zealand4.Climate change is a major
hindrance to increasing agricultural productivity through the more frequent
occurrence of extreme events resulting to more disasters, such as floods anddroughts. With this amplified frequency of extreme events, there is growing
concern over its impact on future global food production and food security5. The
hardest-hit of this phenomenon would be the developing countries, which still
rely on agriculture as the backbone of their economies6.
The most vulnerable to these events are the farmers located in isolated rural303

研究ノートareas in developing countries. To illustrate, in December 2010, overwhelming
flooding in Colombia resulted to over 200 fatalities and 1.7 million displaced
residents. The catastrophe saw 628 cities and towns hit by floodwaters and over
1,800 homes devastated7. Most of the affected who lost their relatives, homes
and belongings will have no compensation for their losses and would need torestore their lives from scratch. Many of them were poor farmers living in
isolated rural areas which are similar for all victims of most natural disasters
all over the world8.
These r isk a nd v u l nerabi l it y to r isk a re f u nda ment a l rea s ons ofunderdevelopment9. Sudden misfortunes induce loss of income and production―
which usually force the exposed poor to dispose of productive assets. These
result to lower productivity, lower income, and higher vulnerability in the future:a process known as the poverty-vulnerability vicious circle10 . Moreover, theexpectation of such shocks stimulates the vulnerable to invest their resources in
low-yield activities such as production of drought-resistant subsistence crops, toprotect themselves against the shocks, and thus dampens the potential incomeof the poor below what it would be if they were not exposed to shocks. For bothreasons, the costs of risk to the livelihoods of poor people are severe11.
The fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change has recognized the intensification in frequency and intensity of extreme
weather events as one of the most confrontational impacts of climate changethat the world’s population has to deal with at the moment and in the prompt
future12 . In disaster vulnerable countries, this is even of greater concern. The
increasing frequency and intensity of typhoons in these countries, paired withother climate change-induced extreme weather such as extreme heat, heavy
rains, and the surge in the intensity of floods and droughts, have been posing
grave threats to the food security of the citizens, especially of the poor and thefarming households, due to the large-scale damages to food production, food
distribution channels, assets and livelihood, and human life13.
Depending on the extent of vulnerability and coping capacity of the people tothe shocks brought about by extreme weather events, their state of foodinsecurity may worsen into a chronic condition14 . Chronic food insecurity is along-term or the persistent inability to acquire enough food for a healthy andactive life due to inadequate access to productive or financial resources or due
to extended periods of poverty15. Given the chronic and transitory distinctions of304

A Comparison of Socioeconomic Characteristics, Disaster Experiences, and Coping Strategies for Food Security:
The Case of Farmers in Laguna Province, Republic of the Philippines, and Gifu Prefecture, Japan

household food insecurity, the interaction between food security and extreme
weather events cannot be understated16. Exposure to risks and shocks and theability to cope with them are important factors that can affect food security.
Maharjan and Khatri-Chhetri (2006) argued that a high level of exposure torisks of natural disasters and an incapacity to cope with it has a substantial
impact on the status of food security of households. People who are alreadyvulnerable and suffering from food insecurity are possibly the first ones to beaffected by the impacts of climate change17. Poor people with limited risk
absorption capacity are unlikely to cope with the variability and uncertainties
in food system performance. In many developing countries, rural households
who mostly depend on agriculture for their livelihoods tend to be more exposedand vulnerable to risks and shocks that disrupt their food access and are
thereby prone to food insecurity18.
Coping strategies are defined as the “practices that households employ inorder to minimize the risks threatening their survival”19 . The World Food
Program (2009) added that it is in the nature of people to use coping strategies
when they feel that they do not have enough food to eat.
Agricultural production has been and will always be disturbed by the natural
disasters, causing vast global damages20. The losses in agriculture create a hugethreat to global food security, especially for those who are in disaster vulnerable
developing countries such as the Philippines21. To lessen the impacts of theserising global natural disasters and to achieve food security, these countries canadopt new ways to improve their coping strategies.

II. Rationale of the Study
Yearly, substantial crop damages have been attributed to natural calamities.
The Philippines and Japan are two of the countries in the East Asia and thePacific Region that are very much vulnerable to these events.
In a span of ten years from 2006 to 2015, the total cost of damage caused bymajor natural extreme events and disasters in the Philippines was estimated to
be at 374.199 billion Philippine Pesos (7.2 billion U.S. Dollars)22 .The country’s
agricultural sector is very much reliant on the weather and climate variability
and any bad harvest from extreme events such as typhoons, flood, drought andinfestations from rats and diseases will pose a big threat in farming activities23
305

研究ノート(Magno and Bautista, 1989).
In Japan, the “Great East Japan Earthquake” (GEJE) was one of the major
natural disasters that caused significant amount of damages to the country. The
physical damage was estimated to be around 195 billion U.S. Dollars to as muchas 305 billion U.S. Dollars which is comparable to Greece’s Gross Domestic
Product (GDP) of 330 billion U.S. Dollars at that time24 . In excess of 27,000
persons in Japan were killed or missing, and more than 202,000 homes andother buildings have been totally or partially damaged. The negative effects ofthe earthquake and tsunami are being compounded by the continuing crisis at
the Fukushima nuclear reactors and the resulting evacuations, radioactive
contamination, and shortages of electricity; continuing aftershocks; and theextensive damage to infrastructure, homes, manufacturing plants, and otherbuildings25.
According to t he World R isk I ndex report , out of 172 cou nt ries , t hePhilippines’ risk to natural disasters ranked 3rd while Japan ranked 29th.
Among the countries in the region, Japan has been the leader in terms ofadapting and coping to natural disasters. The country has a similar score interms of exposure to disasters such as earthquake, cyclones, floods, droughts
and sea-level rise with most countries in the region, but is ranked lower interms of risk. The exposure scores are not far apart, with Japan tallying ascore of 46.55 and the Philippines with 49.94, according to UNUEHS (2018).
This is because Japan has strong scores in adapting capacities (depending on
indicators such as governance, health care, and social and material security)and coping capacities (related to coming natural events, climate change andother challenges). This implies that even though Japan experiences the sameamount of natural disasters every year, the country can adapt and cope better
than most of their neighbors.
By looking at the comparisons of the cases of Japan, which has strong coping
and adaptive capacities, and the Philippines, which is a representative of thecountries with weak coping and adaptive capacities in the region, this researchseeks to answer the question of how disaster developing countries, such as thePhilippines, can employ better coping strategies to achieve food security amidst
the rising global natural disasters.

306

A Comparison of Socioeconomic Characteristics, Disaster Experiences, and Coping Strategies for Food Security:
The Case of Farmers in Laguna Province, Republic of the Philippines, and Gifu Prefecture, Japan

III. Objectives of the Paper
Given that both Japan as a representation of a developed nation, and thePhilippines as developing country, experience numerous natural disasters
annually and each of the country’s agriculture sector are very much vulnerable
to risks, the objective of this paper is to look at the comparisons between thesocio-economic profile and the agricultural practices; disaster impacts, and thetypes and number of coping strategies employed by the farmers from bothcountries.

IV. Methodology
1. Fieldwork and Description of the Location of the Study
The specific study areas were the agricultural communities in Gifu prefecture
in Japan and the province of Laguna, in the Philippines. The study sites specificstudy sites were selected given that both agricultural areas have similar farmcharacteristics and similar disaster experiences. The field work was done
during the months of July, August, and September of 2018 in Laguna Province
in the Philippines; February, March, June, and July of 2019, in Gifu Prefecture in
Japan; and again in the months of Augusta nd S eptember of 2 019 i n Lag u na
Province in the Philippines.
1.1. Laguna Province, Philippines26
The i n for mat ion about t he Lag u na
Province can be found at the Provincial
Government of Laguna website. The fieldwork in the Philippines was conducted in
the agricultural municipalities of Santa
Cruz, Liliw, and Nagcarlan in the provinceof Lag una due to the vulnerability ofthese areas. The municipalities of Santa
Cruz and Liliw are vulnerable to climatic
hazards like typhoons and flood while themunicipality of Nagcarlan is vulnerable to

Figure 1. Map of the Province of Laguna

Source: Wikipedia (www.en.wikipedia.org)

307

研究ノートtyphoons27.
The province has a total land area of 175, 973 hectares (1, 759.73 square
kilometers) and is situated in the southeast of Metro Manila, south of theprovince of Rizal, west of the province of Quezon, north of the province of
Batangas and east of Cavite province. The province of Laguna is the 63rd
largest in the entire country and has 6 0, 62 4 hectares of alienable anddisposable agricultural land.
1.2. Gifu Prefecture, Japan28
The information about Gifu Prefecture can be found at the Gifu Prefectural
website. The Japan part of the field work was done in Gifu Prefecture in the
Chubu Region, specifically in Gifu City and Takayama City (Figure 2). The
prefecture’s population was 1,991,390, as of June 2019 with approximately 1.7
million people in the cities and the rest in towns and villages.

Figure 2. Map of Gifu Prefecture

Source: Gifu Convention and Visitors Bureau (www.gifucvb.or.jp)

2. Data Collection
The research activities of this study included collection of secondary data;
courtesy calls to local government officials; and face-to-face interviews and focus
group discussion to farmer respondents.
Interviews were done with a total of 70 farmer respondents in the Philippinesand 7 family run farms and farm business corporations in Japan (88 in total)
308

A Comparison of Socioeconomic Characteristics, Disaster Experiences, and Coping Strategies for Food Security:
The Case of Farmers in Laguna Province, Republic of the Philippines, and Gifu Prefecture, Japan

with a grand total of 158 respondents
All interviews in the Philippines were conducted in Tagalog language, whichis the author’s mother language. On the other hand, all the data collection in
Japan were conducted in Japanese. The author was accommodated by aJapanese doctoral student in his fieldwork in Gifu prefecture, in which thedoctoral student acted as a translator. Moreover, the Japanese documents weretranslated by a professional Japanese-English translator.
3. Data Analysis
Descriptive statistics such as means, frequencies, and percentages werecomputed and used to describe the socio-economic and farming systemcharacteristics, occurrence of natural disasters during the past ten years, themean score rating of the perceived impact of extreme events on agricultural
production and number and types of coping strategies employed.

VI. Results and Discussions
1. Comparison of the Socio -Economic and Agricultural Practices of the
Respondents
Table 1 compares farming profile and the farming systems set-up of the
respondents in selected municipalities of Laguna Province in the Philippines,
and Gifu Prefecture in Japan. The key differences between the Japanese andFilipino farmers are the farm set-up, size and ownership. The Filipino farmers
operate singularly and can either own, lease, or rent the land they farm,whereas Japanese farmers own the land and operate either as a family-run
farm, farm business, or a farm corporation or company.
Aside from engaging in farming activities, Filipino farmers take part in offfarm work while awaiting for their crops to be ready for harvesting or while
waiting for a certain amount of days (depending on the crops they grow) until
the agricultural land is ready for planting again. Female farmers usually own a“sari-sari store” which is a small informal grocery store common all over thePhilippines. Female farmers also usually work as “labanderas” or someone who
is doing laundry for more well-off families. On the other hand, male farmers
usually work as on-call drivers or engage in construction work or carpentry.
Most of the Japanese farmer respondents do not have off-farm work at present309

研究ノートbut had full time jobs as a “salaryman” and engaged full time in farming after
they retired from their corporate jobs. Before they engaged in full time farmwork, their wives were the ones who managed their farms full time. This is thecase for the family-ran farms, while the farmer leaders of the farm corporations
engaged full time in farming at the beginning of their careers.
Unlike Japanese farmers, Filipino farmers operate singularly and most do not
own their farm lands ever since the Spanish colonial era. During these times, as
illustrated by Sen Nag (2017), the Spanish, mixed Spanish and native, and otherelite families in the region enjoyed exclusive rights over vast tracts of fertile
lands, and exploited the native Filipino workers to toil on their lands for theirbenefit at the locals’ expense. This was called the “Hacienda System”29.
The average number of crops grown in Japan is two on an average six
hectares of farm land, while three is the average in the Philippines on a 1.4
hectares of farm land. All Japanese farmers are members of the Japan
Table 1. Comparison of Farmer Profile and Farming Systems Set-up of the
Respondents in the Philippines and Japan
Frame of ReferenceJapan

Philippines

Family Farm/Farm BusinessCompany

Individual Farmer

Farm Tenure Status

Land Owner

Varies (Land Owner, Lessee,
Tenant)Farm Location

Gifu Prefecture

Laguna Province

2

3

Farmer type

Crops and Livestock (number)
Farm Size (hectare)6

1.4

Cooperative MembershipAll

Not All

JPY 76,250,000 (PhP
35,856,269) per farm; JPY
6,354,167 per farmer (PhP
2,988,022)

PhP 408,896 (JPY 869,345) per
farmerAverage Annual Income of
Salary Workers

JPY 4,140,000 (PhP 1,904,400)

PhP 810,055 (JPY 1,749,719)

Salary Difference of Farmers
vs Average Salary Worker

Individual Farmer Annual
Salary About 53% Higher

Salary Worker Annual Salary
About 98% HigherAge

71 for main farmers; 53 forfarmer workers

55

Annual Income

Education (in years)

15

10

Other Occupation Now

No

Non-Farm Work

Source: Author’s Fieldwork in Laguna Province, Philippines, and Gifu Prefecture, Japan 20182019; Kawano, 2019; and Average Salary Survey, 2019310

A Comparison of Socioeconomic Characteristics, Disaster Experiences, and Coping Strategies for Food Security:
The Case of Farmers in Laguna Province, Republic of the Philippines, and Gifu Prefecture, Japan

Agriculture group and other various cooperatives, while not all Filipino farmers
belong to a cooperative.
Both countries’ farmers are aging as the Japanese population are generally
aging and the Filipino youth are discouraged from venturing into agriculture
because they see as a kind of “dirty work”. The average age of Japanese farmerrespondents is 71, while the average age of Japanese farm workers is 53. The
average age of Filipino farmer-respondents is 55, which is considered old age in
the Philippines. The average years spent in school of the Filipino farmers is ten
years (finished high school) whereas Japanese farmers spent 15 years in school
and were bachelor degree holders in various fields such as Business Economics,
Mechanics, Commerce, and Agriculture. Most of the female Japanese farmers
were into farming activities while their husbands work in the corporate world
before retiring in the farm. On the other hand, Filipino farmers do farming as amain occupation and get involved in non-farm work as another source of income.
There is a huge difference between the average income of the Japanese andFilipino farmer respondents. The average annual income of a Japanese farmrespondent is 76,250,000 Japanese Yen (JPY) or 35,856,269 Philippine Pesos(PhP) whereas the average annual income of a Filipino farmer respondent is
PhP 408,896 (JPY 869,345). The average annual income of a Japanese farmrespondent is the income generated for the whole farm and given these figures,the average annual income of Japanese individual farmer respondents would
amount to JPY 6,354,167 (PhP 2,988,022) which is about 630% higher than the
average annual income of the Filipino farmer respondents.
The Filipino farmer respondents’ annual incomes are above average comparedto the annual incomes of the farmers in the Philippines. The average grossprofit per hectare of farmers amounts to PhP 89,070 as of 201930. This is lower
than the per hectare annual income of the farmer respondents in Laguna
province whose average annual income per hectare valued at PhP 138,052. On
the other hand, farmer-respondents from Gifu prefecture are in the lowest
income group of farmers in Japan31.Chiba prefecture has the highest income perhectare while Hokkaido has the highest average annual income per farm32 .
Although Hokkaido’s income per hectare is low, its income per farm is fivetimes greater than the national average because its agricultural land area per
farm is 14.6 times larger than the rest of Japan33.
The average annual income of a salary worker in Japan is about JPY
311

研究ノート4,140,000 (PhP 1,904,400)34 which means that the annual income of an individual
farmer in the study areas in Gifu prefecture is about 53% higher. On the other
hand, the average annual income of a salary worker in the Philippines35 is PhP
810,055 (JPY 1,749,719) which is almost double the annual income of the averageannual salary of the farmers in the study areas in Laguna province.
2. Natural Disaster Experience
Generally, the Filipino farmers were affected more by destructive natural
disasters from 2009 to 2019 as they were affected around seven more than their
Japanese counterparts (Table 2). Farmer respondents in both countries
experienced typhoon the most, while flooding brought about by typhoons andheavy rains are prevalent in the Philippines. There were more pest and diseases
problems for the Japanese farmers than the Filipino farmers.
Even though both countries experienced earthquakes, these geographicaldisasters were not strong enough to inflict damages and disruption to thefarming activities of the farmer respondents. Drought is present in both areas,
but the Filipino farmers are more susceptible to them. A reason for this is thelack of agricultural technology in the Philippines. Shallow tube wells are acommon site in Japanese farms that use heavy irrigation, which can be usefulin times of drought. Lowland rice farming systems are present in bothcountries, and that particular farming system heavily relies on irrigation. The
lowland rice farming systems in the Philippines generally have less use of
Table 2. Comparison of the Average Number of Extreme Events That Affected the
Respondents’Farms from 2009 to 2019 in the Philippines and Japan
Extreme Event

Philippines

Japan

Typhoon

10.00

6.00

Flood

5.20

0.57

Landslide

0.21

0.00

Earthquake

0.06

0.00

Pest and Diseases

1.98

4.29

Drought

1.07

0.29

Total

18.56

11.57

Source: Author’s Fieldwork in Laguna Province, Philippines, and Gifu Prefecture, Japan 20182019*Flood is most dominant extreme event in Philippine lowland; Typhoon in Upland**Typhoon is most dominant extreme event in both elevations in Japan312

A Comparison of Socioeconomic Characteristics, Disaster Experiences, and Coping Strategies for Food Security:
The Case of Farmers in Laguna Province, Republic of the Philippines, and Gifu Prefecture, Japantechnology and not all farms have shallow tube wells and pumps which provide
additional irrigation. This makes Philippine farms more susceptible to drought.
Yearly, almost the same number of natural disasters hit both the Philippines
and Japan. Yet, the results revealed that Filipino farmers were more affected bythese disasters. This is because the Philippines lacks the ag ricultura ltechnologies and infrastructure that can help its farmers combat the effects ofnatural disasters. Japanese farmers have agricultural technologies to combat
disasters such as drought, while infrastructure such as flood control gates andboulder wa lls protect Japa nese fa rmers from f loodi ng a nd la ndslides ,respectively. Therefore, the Japanese farmers are generally less affected bynatural disasters compared to their Filipino counterparts. These case study
results justify the World Risk Report by the United Nations University Institutefor Environment and Human Security (2018) which indicated that Japan ranked
lower (29th out of 172 countries) than the Philippines (3rd) in terms of risk yetboth countries have similar exposure scores. The report mentioned that Japan
has stronger scores in adaptive and coping capacities which is why the country
was ranked lower overall.
According to the report by the United Nations International Strategy for
Disaster Reduction (2018), climate-linked calamities dominated all disasters overthe past 20 years. It added the most frequent disaster was floods followed bytyphoons, earthquakes, and extreme temperature. The results found this to becorrect, with the occurrence of floods and typhoons identified as the mostcommon disasters in both countries.
3. Comparison of Coping Strategies
The Filipino farmers employed more coping strategies than their Japanesecounterparts to minimize the effects of destructive disasters (Table 3). The
average coping mechanism employed by the Filipino farmers is around five,
while Japanese farmers employ two to three types of coping mechanisms.
Farmer respondents in both countries use savings as a coping strategy. In
Japan, aside from savings, they use agricultural insurance and multi-cropping (amethod of cropping where the farmer interchanges the crops).
In the Philippines, aside from using their savings, the farmers resort tostocking and producing their own food and borrowing money from formal andinformal sources. Similar results were found by Quilloy et al. (2016, pp. 185-210),313

研究ノートTable 3. Comparison of Number of Coping Strategies Employed by the Respondents
for Extreme Events in the Philippines and Japan
Number of Coping
Mechanisms
None

Philippines

Japan

3

0

Only 16

2

2 to 314

3

4 to 520

2More than 5

270Average Number of
Coping Strategies

5.26

2.57

Dominant Coping
Strategyusing savings, stocking andproducing own food, and borrowmoneyusing savings, agricultural
insurance and multicropping

Source: Author’s Fieldwork in Laguna Province, Philippines, and Gifu Prefecture, Japan 20182019

as they discovered that the most common coping strategies of Filipinos wererelated to income flows such as use savings, borrowing money or purchasing
food on credit, delaying payment of their utility bills, reducing health andeducation expenses to prioritize food spending, and selling assets to generate
income for purchasing food.
For the case of Filipino farmers, borrowing money is a common coping
mechanism but should not be practiced (Figure 4). Continuous borrowing maylead the farmers further down to poverty. According to a farmer leader
respondent, most of the Filipino farmers resort to borrowing from informal
sources because those who continued to borrow from formal sources such as
banks and other financial institutions were not allowed to borrow anymore forthe reason that they were not able to settle their previous debts. The Filipino
farmers have no other choice but to borrow from informal sources which
normally have high interest rates. The farm leader mentioned that theseinformal sources, termed “5-6”, have an interest rate of twenty percent.
The “5-6” scheme is a practice where someone, usually a neighbor or an
official from the barangay (village) will lend you 5 Philippine Pesos (PhP) andyou have to pay PhP 6 in return in within a week. For instance, if a person
borrows PhP 10, that person should pay back PhP 12. Although most of thetime, the borrower is not able to pay the lender thus creating tensions between
them. This is why the borrower usually borrows money from their friends and314

A Comparison of Socioeconomic Characteristics, Disaster Experiences, and Coping Strategies for Food Security:
The Case of Farmers in Laguna Province, Republic of the Philippines, and Gifu Prefecture, Japan

Type of Coping Strategies
60

50

40

30

20
All Farmers (n=70)
100Figure 4. Types of Coping Strategies Employed by the Respondents for Extreme
Events, by Elevation, Laguna Province, Philippines

Source: Author’s Fieldwork in Laguna Province, Philippines, 2018-2019

Type of Coping Strategies
7654All Farmers

3
2
1
0

Use Savings

Borrow
Money

Eat Less Food Agricultural
Insurance

Other
Insurance

Multi‐
Cropping

Figure 5. Types of Coping Strategies Employed by the Farm Groups for Extreme
Events, by Elevation, Gifu Prefecture, Japan

Source: Author’s Fieldwork in Gifu Prefecture, Japan, 2018-2019315研究ノートFigure 6. Flood Control Gates in Gifu City, Gifu Prefecture

Author’s Fieldwork in Gifu Prefecture, Japan, 2019

relatives. Generally, their more well-off friends and relatives lend them a certain
amount of money that they know will never be paid. This practice of borrowing
as a coping strategy should therefore be terminated as much as possible.
Because of constant borrowing and failing coping strategies, the Filipino
farmers rely on relief goods and aid provided by the Philippine government, andot her foreig n sou rces such a s foreig n gover n ment s a nd i nter nat iona lorganizations to save them in times of natural disasters.
The Japanese farmers, on the other hand, have more effective individual
coping mechanisms as compared to the Filipino farmers. The types of coping
strategies they employed is summarized in figure 5.
The Japanese farmers normally have larger income savings from their income
per hectare compared to Filipino farmers. Moreover, the Japanese farmers use
multi-cropping as a coping mechanism, so they can still harvest other crops in
the event that their main crops fail. In addition to these coping mechanisms,
Japanese farmers have agricultural insurance, which give them the assurance
that they will only lose about 20% of their income if they will be affected by316

A Comparison of Socioeconomic Characteristics, Disaster Experiences, and Coping Strategies for Food Security:
The Case of Farmers in Laguna Province, Republic of the Philippines, and Gifu Prefecture, Japannatural disasters. The Japanese government also provides subsidies to thefarmers as the government view that agriculture is very important to Japanesesociety. Moreover, the government installed strong infrastructure to lessen theimpacts of destructive disasters, such as flood control gates to constrain
flooding, as well as boulder walls to prevent landslides (figure 6).

VII. Conclusion
The Japanese government provides infrastructure to minimize the effects ofnatural disasters as well as establish responsive agricultural insurance inaddition to subsidies given to farmers during times of disasters. Moreover,Japanese farmers have effective individual coping mechanisms compared to theFilipino farmers, partly because they have higher income, which gives them theability to rebuild their capital even after the occurrence of a natural disaster.
The Japanese farmers’ savings as well as government subsidies are enough tocushion them from the effects of natural disasters.
The Filipino farmers on the individual level resort to multiple yet ineffective
and unsustainable coping strategies. Unlike the Japanese farmers, Filipinos do
not use insurance as a coping strategy. Similar to other developing country
cultures such as in Africa, (Ajayi, no date), insurance is alien to the Filipino
culture. It is not a popular practice especially in most poor households, who mayneed this more in order to mitigate losses due to human and non- human
uncertain events.
Filipino Farmers lack “insurance culture” because the Filipino culture havestrong familial and community ties that bind them in cases of uncertainties.
This explains why some answers on coping mechanisms were “borrowing fromfriends and family” or “eating at other people’s house”. Filipinos have a strongsocial capital, which they can rely on even in times of uncertainties. In contrast,
the Japanese do not have this kind of “strong social capital”, thus, when it comesto uncertainties, they turn to insurance and use their own savings. Kobayashi’s(19 9 7 ) book about insura nce philosophy mentioned that insura nce is a“philosophy of helping somebody who is in trouble a nd is defined in a nextremely wide sense as a philosophy that points out measures to be taken
regarding a guaranteed order in human life or death”. In addition, in Japaneseculture, people do not want to cause trouble to others as much as possible. That317

研究ノートis why they view insurance as a “total approach” or have created an “insurance
culture” in which they have all kinds of. Whenever any kind of uncertainty
occurs, Japanese people can always turn to insurance to lessen their anticipatedfinancial burden.
Although at present time the Filipino culture have strong social capital, thismight not be the trend in the future. Thus, the coping mechanisms employed by
the Filipino farmers can be deemed unsustainable compared to the Japanese
mainly using insurance. Thus, establishing “insurance culture” and insurance
utilization can be a more sustainable and effective coping strategy which
disaster vulnerable developing countries can adopt to cope better to the rising
natural disasters.

318

A Comparison of Socioeconomic Characteristics, Disaster Experiences, and Coping Strategies for Food Security:
The Case of Farmers in Laguna Province, Republic of the Philippines, and Gifu Prefecture, Japan

Endnotes
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31

UNUEHS, World Risk Report (2018)
Ibid.
FAO, Agricultural insurance in Asia and the Pacific region, (2011)
Ibid.
Kurukulasuriya, P., and Rosenthal, S. Climate Change and Agriculture: A Review of the
Impacts and Adaptations (2003), pp. 7-23
Ibid.
The Guardian, Can Micro-insurance Protect the Poor?, (2011)
Ibid.
World Bank, World Development Report , (2000); Dercon, S., Vulnerability: a micro
perspective, (2006); and Islam, N., Can Microfinance Reduce Economic Insecurity andPoverty? By How Much and How?, (2007)
Mosley, P., Assessing the success of microinsurance programmes in meeting theinsurance needs of the poor, (2001), p. 1
Ibid.
Pachauri, Rajendra K., Andy Reisinger, and the Core Writing Team, Climate Change
2007: Synthesis Report. Geneva: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, (2007)
Quilloy, K.P., Z.M. Sumalde and Rola,A.C.C., 2016. Food Vulnerability of Households andTheir Coping Strategies During Extreme Weather Events, (2016), p. 186
Ibid.
Kennes, W., The European Community and Food Security, (1990) and FAO, Climate
Change and Food Security: A Framework Document, (2008)
Quilloy, K.P., Z.M. Sumalde and Rola,A.C.C., 2016. Food Vulnerability of Households andTheir Coping Strategies During Extreme Weather Events, (2016), p. 186
FAO, Climate Change and Food Security: A Framework Document, (2008)
Quilloy, K.P., Z.M. Sumalde and Rola,A.C.C., 2016. Food Vulnerability of Households andTheir Coping Strategies During Extreme Weather Events, (2016), p. 186
Maxwell, D. and Caldwell. R., The Coping Strategies Index: Field Methods Manual, (2008),
p. 2
Marza, B., Angelescu, C., and Tindeche, C., Agricultural Insurances and Food Security,(2015), pp. 594-599
Ibid.
Businessworld, Natural disaster damage at P374B in 2006-2015, (2018)
Magno, M.T. and Bautista, E.D., Is there a role for crop insurance in Philippine
agricultural development?, (1989)
Nanto, D.K., Cooper, W.H., Donnelly, J.M., Johnson, R., Japan’s 2011 Earthquake andTsunami: Economic Effects and Implications for the United States, (2011), pp. 2-6
Ibid.
The Provincial Government of Laguna (https://laguna.gov.ph/) (Accessed April 5, 2020)
Rola, A.C., Z.M. Sumalde, Garcia, J.N.M., Environment and Food Security Interaction
Amid Climate Change: A Multi-scale Analysis in a Philippine Watershed, (2016)
Gifu Prefectural Government (https://www.pref.gifu.lg.jp/foreign-languages/English/
info/gifu/1.html) (Accessed April 5, 2020)
Sen Nag, O., What Is The Hacienda System?, (2017)
The Philippine Statistical Office. 2019 Selected Statistics on Agriculture, (2019)
Hori, C., Regional Characteristics of Japanese Agriculture as Revealed by the Data, (2017),

319

研究ノート

32
33
34
35

320

pp. 2-3
Ibid.
Ibid.
Kawano, K., What is the Average Salary in Japan in 2019?, (2019)
Average Salary Survey, Annual Average Survey in the Philippines, (2019)

A Comparison of Socioeconomic Characteristics, Disaster Experiences, and Coping Strategies for Food Security:
The Case of Farmers in Laguna Province, Republic of the Philippines, and Gifu Prefecture, Japan

References
Ajayi, E.F.G., N.D. The Need to Further Imbibe the Culture of Insurance in Africa. Retrieved
from: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2608527 (Accessed November 25, 2020)
Average Salary Survey. 2019. Annual Average Survey in the Philippines. Accessed from:https://www.averagesalarysurvey.com/philippines (Accessed November 24, 2020)
Businessworld. 2018. Natural disaster damage at P374B in 2006-2015. Retrieved from: http://
www.bworldonline.com/natural-disaster-damage-p374b-2006-2015/(Accessed April 5,
2020)
Dercon, S . 2 0 0 6 . Vulnerability: a micro perspective. Paper for Annual World Ba nk
Conference on Development Economics (ABCDE), Amsterdam, May. Published as
chapter 6 in F. Bourguignon, B. Pleskovic, J. van der Gaag (eds.) Securing development
in an unstable world, Washington DC: World Bank.
FAO. 2008. Climate Change and Food Security: A Framework Document. Rome: Food andAgriculture Organization of the United Nations.
FAO. 2011. Agricultural insurance in Asia and the Pacific region. Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations, Bangkok, Thailand. Retrieved from: www.fao.org/
docrep/015/i2051e/i2051e00.pdf (Accessed April 29, 2019)
Gifu Convention and Visitors Bureau, 2020. Map of Gifu Prefecture. Retrieved from: https://www.gifucvb.or.jp/en/00_aboutgifu/ (Accessed April 5, 2020)
Gifu Prefectural Government. 2019. Facts About Gifu Prefecture. Retrieved from: https://www.pref.gifu.lg.jp/foreign-languages/English/info/gifu/1.html (Accessed April 5,
2020)
Hori, C. 2017. Regional Characteristics of Japanese Agriculture as Revealed by the Data.
Mizuho Economic Outlook and Analysis. Retrieved from: https://www.mizuho-ri.
co.jp/publication/research/pdf/eo/MEA171016.pdf (Accessed May 16, 2020)
Islam, N. 2007. “Can Microfinance Reduce Economic Insecurity and Poverty? By How Much
and How?” Development Policy Analysis Division, Department of Economic and Social
Affairs, United Nations, New York.
Kobayashi, T. 1997. Hoken Shiso no Genryu. “The Origins of the Philosophy of Insurance”.
Chikura Shobo.
Kawano, K. 2019. What is the Average Salary in Japan in 2019? Retrieved from: https://blog.
gaijinpot.com/what-is-the-average-salary-in-japan-in-2019/(Accessed April 9, 2020)
Kennes, W. 1990. The European Community and Food Security. Institute of Development
Studies Bulletin, Issue number 21(3), pp. 67-71.
Kurukulasuriya, Pradeep and Shane Rosenthal. 2003. “Climate Change and Agriculture: A
Review of the Impacts and Adaptations.” Paper prepared and published for the Rural
Development Group and Environment Department of the World Bank. Retrieved from:https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/16616/787390WP0Cli
ma0ure0377348B00PUBLIC0.pdf?sequence=1 (Accessed November 18, 2019)
Magno, M.T. and E.D. Bautista. 1989. Is there a role for crop insurance in Philippine
agricultural development? ACPC Staff Paper 89-06. Quezon City: Agricultural Credit
Policy Council, Department of Agriculture.
Marza, B., Angelescu, C., and Tindeche, C. 2015. Agricultural Insurances and Food Security.
The New Climate Change Challenges. Procedia Economics and Finance issue number
27. pp. 594 – 599.
Maxwell, D. and Caldwell. R. 2008. The Coping Strategies Index: Field Methods Manual.
Second edition, Atlanta: Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere, Inc.

321

研究ノート(CARE).
Mosley, P. 2009. Assessing the success of microinsurance programmes in meeting theinsurance needs of the poor. DESA Working Paper No. 84.
Nanto, D.K., Cooper, W.H., Donnelly, J.M., Johnson, R. 2011. Japan’s 2011 Earthquake andTsunami: Economic Effects and Implications for the United States. Congressional
Research Service. Retrieved from: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R41702.pdf (Accessed
March 8, 2020)
Pachauri, Rajendra K., Andy Reisinger, and the Core Writing Team, eds. 2007. Climate
Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Geneva: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Retrieved from: https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf(Accessed November 24, 2020)
Provincial Government of Laguna, 2019. The Website of the Provincial Government of
Laguna. Retrieved from: https://laguna.gov.ph/ (Accessed April 5, 2020)
PSA, 2019. The Philippine Statistical Office. 2019 Selected Statistics on Agriculture.
Accessed Retrieved from: https://psa.gov.ph/sites/default/files/Selected%2 0
Statistics%20on%20Agriculture%202019.pdf (Accessed April 11, 2020)
Quilloy, K.P., Z.M. Sumalde and A.C.C. Rola. 2016. Food Vulnerability of Households andTheir Coping Strategies During Extreme Weather Events. Chapter 9. Environment
and Food Security Interaction Amid Climate Change: A Multi-scale Analysis in a
Philippine Watershed. 2016. Quezon City: University of the Philippines Center for
Integrative and Development Studies.
Rola, A.C., Z.M. Sumalde, Garcia, J.N.M. 2016. Environment and Food Security Interaction
Amid Climate Change: A Multi-scale Analysis in a Philippine Watershed. Quezon
City: University of the Philippines Center for Integrative and Development Studies
Sen Nag, O. 2017. What Is The Hacienda System? WorldAtlas. Retrieved from: https://www.
worldatlas.com/articles/what-is-the-hacienda-system.html (Accessed November 22,
2020)
The Guardian. 2011. Can Micro-insurance Protect the Poor? Retrieved from: https://www.
theguardian.com/global-development/poverty-matters/2011/feb/21/micro-insuranceprotect-poor (Accessed November 23, 2020)
UNUEHS. 2018. World Risk Report. United Nations University Institute for Environmentand Human Security. Retrieved from: https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/
resources/WorldRiskReport-2018.pdf (Accessed January 19, 2020)
Wikipedia, 2020. Map of Laguna Province. Retrieved from: www.en.wikipedia.com (Accessed
April 5, 2020)
World Bank. 2000. World Development Report 2000/01: Attacking Poverty. The World Bank.
1818 H Street, N.W. Washington, D.C., USA.

322

A Comparison of Socioeconomic Characteristics, Disaster Experiences, and Coping Strategies for Food Security:
The Case of Farmers in Laguna Province, Republic of the Philippines, and Gifu Prefecture, Japan

Abstract

A Comparison of Socioeconomic
Characteristics, Disaster Experiences,
and Coping Strategies for Food Security:
The Case of Farmers in Laguna
Province, Republic of the Philippines,
and Gifu Prefecture, Japan
Armand Christopher Casiple RolaThe East Asia and the Pacific, which is composed mostly of developing
countries, is the most exposed region to natural disasters in the world,
according to the World Risk Report (2018). Its proximity to the Pacific Ocean
and the Pacific Ring of Fire makes the region prone to climate-related disasters
such as typhoon and flooding, and geophysical disasters such as earthquake andvolcanic eruption. Out of the top ten countries at risk, seven of them are in the
East Asia and the Pacific region (UNUEHS, 2018). Among the countries in theregion, Japan has been the leader in terms of adapting and coping to natural
disasters. The country has a similar score in terms of exposure to disasters
such as earthquake, cyclones, floods, droughts and sea-level rise with mostcountries in the region, but is ranked lower in terms of risk. For instance, Japanis 2 9 th in the ra nkings in terms of risk to natura l disasters while thePhilippines is 3rd even though both countries’ exposure score is not far apartwith Japan having a score of 46.55 and the Philippines score of 49.94 according
to UNUEHS (2018). This is because Japan has strong scores in adapting
capacities (depending on indicators such as governance, health care, and socialand material security) and coping capacities (related to coming natural events,
climate change and other challenges). This implies that even though Japan
experiences the same amount of natural disasters every year, the country canadapt and cope better than most of their neighbors. This research nitedcompared the socio-economic characteristics, disaster experiences, as well as
323

研究ノートidentified the coping strategies used to minimize the effects of disasters,
between farmers in the Philippines as a representation of a developing nation
and Japan as a developed nation. The study showcased the differences ofJapanese farmers’ coping strategies vis-à-vis the Philippine farmers and identify
lessons which other disaster vulnerable developing countries can use to improve
farmers’ coping strategies and promote food security.
Key words: agriculture, natural disasters, disaster management, coping
strategies, food security324