Submitted Successfully!
To reward your contribution, here is a gift for you: A free trial for our video production service.
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1
Nawab Khan
 -- 1669 2023-09-20 13:00:36 |
2 layout
Camila Xu
 Meta information modification 1669 2023-09-21 02:38:02 |

Video Upload Options

Do you have a full video?
Send video materials Upload full video

Confirm

Are you sure to Delete?
Yes No
Cite
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Khan, N.; Ma, J.; Zhang, H.; Zhang, S. Climate Change and Adaptation Policies on Pakistan Agriculture. Encyclopedia. Available online: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/49423 (accessed on 05 May 2024).
Khan N, Ma J, Zhang H, Zhang S. Climate Change and Adaptation Policies on Pakistan Agriculture. Encyclopedia. Available at: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/49423. Accessed May 05, 2024.
Khan, Nawab, Jiliang Ma, Huijie Zhang, Shemei Zhang. "Climate Change and Adaptation Policies on Pakistan Agriculture" Encyclopedia, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/49423 (accessed May 05, 2024).
Khan, N., Ma, J., Zhang, H., & Zhang, S. (2023, September 20). Climate Change and Adaptation Policies on Pakistan Agriculture. In Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/49423
Khan, Nawab, et al. "Climate Change and Adaptation Policies on Pakistan Agriculture." Encyclopedia. Web. 20 September, 2023.
Climate Change and Adaptation Policies on Pakistan Agriculture
Edit
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/atmos14081278

Climate change (CC) is a worldwide environmental issue affecting all economic sectors, especially agriculture. Pakistan is one of the countries most affected by CC due to the country’s vulnerability to catastrophic events and limited ability to adapt. Adaptation has been described as the act of reducing a community’s sensitivity to change. Climate adaptation requires reducing sensitivity to existing and future threats of CC.

climate change crop yield adaptation farmers rural Pakistan

1. Introduction

The effects of global warming jeopardize the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which include providing food security for all, promoting sustainable agriculture, helping farmers around the world, and encouraging climate change (CC) action at all levels [1]. The CC predictions and increasing climate hazards pose enormous difficulties for agricultural growth in less developed countries [2]. Pakistan has been identified as one of the countries most affected by CC due to its limited adaptive capacity and poor infrastructure [3]. It is expected that by 2050, the temperature in Pakistan will increase by two to three times, and there will be a significant change in the distribution of rainfall [4]. According to the Global Climate Risk Index, Pakistan ranks eighth in the list of countries most affected by CC and hazardous weather events from 1995 to 2014 [5]. Over the past two decades, extreme weather and CC have had a major impact on rural life and agricultural production of major crops such as rice, wheat, and sugar cane [6][7]. The historic floods from 2010 to 2014 and the extreme drought from 1999 to 2003 demonstrated the susceptibility of rural households to CC in Pakistan [2][6].
Given that more than 2–3% of Pakistan’s population live in remote areas and depend on the agricultural sector for their livelihoods, the resilience of the agricultural sector to CC is one of the most pressing issues for economic growth in the country [8][9]. CC has a negative impact on local food security in Pakistan, which is mainly dependent on food crops, destructively affecting food production and food costs [10][11][12]. According to one study, 37% of daily caloric intake in Pakistan comes from wheat, which is cultivated on 8.66 million hectares [2][13]. Nevertheless, the current average grain yield in the country (2797 kg/ha) is much lower than the world average yield (3268 kg/ha) [14]. In Pakistan, farmers harvested only 32% of the potential crop yield [13][15]. One of the main reasons for the lack of food supply across the country is the huge gap between crop yields and potential yields. For example, Abed et al. [2] and Lei et al. [16] pointed out that the gap between Pakistan’s per capita wheat demand and supply is widening from 2013 to 2050. Uneven agricultural expansion and continued population growth can have severe impacts on local food security and livelihoods [1][17]. Poor and slow management of CC can make things worse.
A successful farming adaptation level is needed to provide food security and safeguard rustic livelihoods from the negative influences of CC [18][19][20]. However, an important issue at the local level is that growers, as key stakeholders, must alone bear most of the adaptation load. Under ideal market conditions, farmers may still benefit and receive price increases to cover higher production costs. However, this is not always the case, especially in emerging countries such as Pakistan, where non-market influences (flawed environments) dominate price decisions and farmers may experience higher production costs and poorer returns. Therefore, there is an urgent need to develop public adaptation strategies that consider farmers’ goals and adaptation potential. From a policy perspective, it is critical to understand the variables that influence growers’ adaptation choices and the impact of their actions on agricultural productivity, which can vary across regions and scales [21][22][23]. Investigating the dynamics of advantages from continuing private adaption initiatives to CC may also be useful. According to Arshad et al. [24] and Abid et al. [2], if there are significant short-term adaptation advantages, for instance, this may encourage policymakers to make more efforts to assist growers in the adaptation procedure by granting them access to farm consulting services and assistance from experts.
In the last 10 years, research on CC and agriculture has progressed from research on mitigation [25][26]. However, in the analyses of the impact and studies on adaptation [27], the majority of the literature on agricultural adaptation to CC is from emerging or developed African nations [28]. However, there is limited research on how South Asian nations, particularly Pakistan, are adapting to CC, and limited studies such as Abid et al. [2] and Esham and Garfoth [29], look at CC from the angle of agricultural adaptations to changes in the environment. The majority of research on adaptation has emphasized farmers’ responses to shifting climatic circumstances, their adaptation tactics, drivers, and related restrictions for various geographic and socioeconomic contexts. Few studies have focused on this issue at the farm, and empirical assessments of the efficacy of adaptation efforts are difficult to come by [2][30]. Therefore, more research that economically evaluates existing adaptation processes may be able to show the size of the benefits and make policy recommendations on activities needed to accelerate community adaptation [2][8].

2. Rural Farmers’ Perceptions for the Impacts of Climate Change and Adaptation Policies on Wheat Productivity

Adaptation has been described as the act of reducing a community’s sensitivity to change [1]. Climate adaptation requires reducing sensitivity to existing and future threats of CC. An individual’s ability to adapt largely determines his vulnerability. While a few people are better equipped than others to respond to a crisis, not every community or family member will be equally affected by a given climate event. Therefore, the adaptation to CC depends on various situations [31]. Many studies emphasize the significance of farmer attributes in the adoption of CC adaptation techniques. In an investigation by Deressa et al. [32], gender has a favorable impact on growers’ adaptation decisions. According to Huffman [33], education enhances growers’ capability to study and obtain info and expertise regarding CC and adaptation technology. Diendéré et al. [34] argue that an increased understanding of climatic events and agricultural technology could help in adaptation. The potential for CC adaptation is also directly connected to household size. For example, Khatri-Chhetri et al. [35] determine that bigger household members are more likely to embrace innovative agricultural methods. Aside from these variables, the presence of a climatic shock influences the adoption of CC adaptation techniques [36][37]. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on CC [1], when a producer has previously experienced a temperature-linked climate shock, they are more inclined to apply adaptation approaches. According to Deressa et al. [32], decreasing precipitation induces producers to implement soil conservation techniques. Furthermore, some study indicates a beneficial association between the usage of digital technology and growers’ CC adaptation methods. According to Diendéré [38], innovative technology enables farmers to obtain actual data without incurring trip expenditures and so make suitable modifications.
The use of coping mechanisms is also influenced by farm features. Multiple investigations show that farm size influences the adoption of adaption techniques. According to Perz [39], pesticide adopters had a bigger amount of cleared land than non-adopters. Furthermore, some studies contend that economic variables explain the possibility of adopting various agricultural techniques in response to CC [39][40][41]. Some other authors demonstrated that agricultural funding, particularly transfers of cash, alleviates this cost restriction and hence encourages the adoption of CC adaptation measures [42][43][44]. Investigations show that, besides economic and farmer features, institutional variables are expected to play a significant influence in CC adaptation. According to Yegbemey et al. [45], show that farming groups and relative growers can help adapt to CC adaptation strategies because farmer groups frequently serve as venues for the exchanging of information, individual experiences, and social assistance. Furthermore, Diendéré and Ouédraogo [1] approve that interactions with agri-extension services improve the possibility of implementing soil conservation techniques. Agri-extension services educate and advise farmers on optimum agricultural techniques. This literature synthesis emphasizes four kinds of characteristics that are more likely to impact the selection of CC adaptation techniques. There are three categories: institutional considerations, financial factors, and characteristics of the farmer.
Many research investigations have been conducted to evaluate the influence of CC adaptation techniques on family profits and food guarantees. This section provides an overview of available research on the impact of coping methods. A few findings highlight the influence of CC adaptation technology on food insecurity and household income, via econometric and comparative empirical surveys. On the one hand, some research demonstrates that adopting CC adaptation measures improves food security and boosts adopters’ income. On the other hand, research indicates that adaption strategies have no beneficial or substantial influence on income or food insecurity. According to several investigations, adopting CC adaptation approaches increases food security and boosts adopters’ revenue.
Zakari et al. [46] employ matching approaches to indicate that producers’ adaptation tactics have a favorable effect on family revenue and food insecurity. Researchers claim that growers who utilized CC adaptation strategies have a higher likelihood of raising their family’s profits by 7722 FCFA than growers who do not. Authors found that those who employ adaptation tactics are seven to nine percent more probable to have access to food than people who do not. According to Ndiaye et al. [47], implementing CC adaptation techniques raises the average yearly farmers’ income by 607,000 to 702,000 FCFA. Furthermore, the authors discover that using adaptation techniques raises the average value of family nutrition utilization by 8–37 points. Farmers that use adaptation choices had greater caloric food ingestion [48]. Berhe et al. [49] suggest that coping measures such as income diversification, and land management methods are among the most significant indicators of family profits. In general, research shows that adopting agricultural methods has a favorable influence on production, household income, and food safety [1][50][51][52]. On the other hand, research indicates that adaption strategies have no beneficial or substantial influence on income or food insecurity. Mulumeoderhwa et al. [53] demonstrate that adaption measures employed by rural producers are unlikely to provide food for families in the long run in the Minembwe mountains of South Kivu. Correspondingly, Pailler et al. [54] indicate that in Tanzania, community-based natural resource management approaches had little effect on the income of households. Berhanu and Beyene [55] also found that the widespread practice of growing food with fences did not substantially contribute to household food security in southern Ethiopia.

References

  1. Intergovernemental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA; New York, NY, USA, 2022; Available online: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_SPM.pdf (accessed on 1 July 2023).
  2. Abid, M.; Schneider, U.A.; Scheffran, J. Adaptation to climate change and its impacts on food productivity and crop income: Perspectives of farmers in rural Pakistan. J. Rural Stud. 2016, 47, 254–266.
  3. Stocker, T. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis: Working Group I Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2014.
  4. Gorst, A.; Dehlavi, A.; Groom, B. Crop productivity and adaptation to climate change in Pakistan. Environ. Dev. Econ. 2018, 23, 679–701.
  5. Lesk, C.; Rowhani, P.; Ramankutty, N. Influence of extreme weather disasters on global crop production. Nature 2016, 529, 84–87.
  6. Abid, M.; Scheffran, J.; Schneider, U.A.; Ashfaq, M. Farmers’ perceptions of and adaptation strategies to climate change and their determinants: The case of Punjab province, Pakistan. Earth Syst. Dyn. 2015, 6, 225–243.
  7. Khan, N.; Ray, R.L.; Sargani, G.R.; Ihtisham, M.; Khayyam, M.; Ismail, S. Current progress and future prospects of agriculture technology: Gateway to sustainable agriculture. Sustainability 2021, 13, 4883.
  8. Abid, M.; Ashfaq, M.; Hassan, S.; Fatima, N. A resource use efficiency analysis of small Bt cotton farmers in Punjab, Pakistan. Pak. J. Agric. Sci. 2011, 48, 65–71.
  9. Khan, N.; Ma, J.; Zhang, H.; Zhang, S. Climate Change Impact on Sustainable Agricultural Growth: Insights from Rural Areas. Atmosphere 2023, 14, 1194.
  10. Ali, S.; Liu, Y.; Ishaq, M.; Shah, T.; Abdullah; Ilyas, A.; Din, I.U. Climate change and its impact on the yield of major food crops: Evidence from Pakistan. Foods 2017, 6, 39.
  11. Khan, N.; Ma, J.; Kassem, H.S.; Kazim, R.; Ray, R.L.; Ihtisham, M.; Zhang, S. Rural Farmers’ Cognition and Climate Change Adaptation Impact on Cash Crop Productivity: Evidence from a Recent Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 12556.
  12. Khan, N.; Ray, R.L.; Kassem, H.S.; Hussain, S.; Zhang, S.; Khayyam, M.; Ihtisham, M.; Asongu, S.A. Potential role of technology innovation in transformation of sustainable food systems: A review. Agriculture 2021, 11, 984.
  13. Prikhodko, D.; Zrilyi, O. Pakistan: Review of the Wheat Sector and Grain Storage Issues Country Highlights; Food and Agriculture Organisation: Rome, Italy, 2013; pp. 1–81.
  14. Ahmad, S.; Israr, M.; Yaseen, A.; Ahmad, N. Climate change trend analysis on selected food crops at central Khyber Pakhtunkhwa of Pakistan. Int. J. Dev. Sustain. 2017, 6, 2082–2093.
  15. Baig, M.B.; Shahid, S.A.; Straquadine, G.S. Making rainfed agriculture sustainable through environmental friendly technologies in Pakistan: A review. Int. Soil Water Conserv. Res. 2013, 1, 36–52.
  16. Ray, D.K.; Mueller, N.D.; West, P.C.; Foley, J.A. Yield trends are insufficient to double global crop production by 2050. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e66428.
  17. Abumhadi, N.; Todorovska, E.; Assenov, B.; Tsonev, S.; Vulcheva, D.; Vulchev, D.; Atanasova, L.; Savova, S.; Atanassov, A.; Keith, W. Agricultural research in 21st century: Challenges facing the food security under the impacts of climate change. Bulg. J. Agric. Sci. 2012, 18, 801–818.
  18. Vermeulen, S.J.; Aggarwal, P.K.; Ainslie, A.; Angelone, C.; Campbell, B.M.; Challinor, A.J.; Hansen, J.W.; Ingram, J.S.; Jarvis, A.; Kristjanson, P. Options for support to agriculture and food security under climate change. Environ. Sci. Policy 2012, 15, 136–144.
  19. Bryan, E.; Deressa, T.T.; Gbetibouo, G.A.; Ringler, C. Adaptation to climate change in Ethiopia and South Africa: Options and constraints. Environ. Sci. Policy 2009, 12, 413–426.
  20. Fan, L.; ZHANG, H.-j.; Khan, N. Commercial cash crop production and households’ economic welfare: Evidence from the pulse farmers in rural China. J. Integr. Agric. 2022, 21, 3395–3407.
  21. Niles, M.T.; Lubell, M.; Brown, M. How limiting factors drive agricultural adaptation to climate change. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2015, 200, 178–185.
  22. Niles, M.T.; Brown, M.; Dynes, R. Farmer’s intended and actual adoption of climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies. Clim. Chang. 2016, 135, 277–295.
  23. Khan, N.; Ray, R.L.; Kassem, H.S.; Khan, F.U.; Ihtisham, M.; Zhang, S. Does the Adoption of Mobile Internet Technology Promote Wheat Productivity? Evidence from Rural Farmers. Sustainability 2022, 14, 7614.
  24. Arshad, M.; Kächele, H.; Krupnik, T.J.; Amjath-Babu, T.; Aravindakshan, S.; Abbas, A.; Mehmood, Y.; Müller, K. Climate variability, farmland value, and farmers’ perceptions of climate change: Implications for adaptation in rural Pakistan. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 2017, 24, 532–544.
  25. Holzworth, D.P.; Huth, N.I.; deVoil, P.G.; Zurcher, E.J.; Herrmann, N.I.; McLean, G.; Chenu, K.; van Oosterom, E.J.; Snow, V.; Murphy, C. APSIM—Evolution towards a new generation of agricultural systems simulation. Environ. Model. Softw. 2014, 62, 327–350.
  26. Metz, B.; Davidson, O.; Bosch, P.; Dave, R.; Meyer, L. Climate Change 2007-Mitigation of Climate Change; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Geneva, Switzerland, 2007.
  27. Bryan, E.; Ringler, C.; Okoba, B.; Roncoli, C.; Silvestri, S.; Herrero, M. Adapting agriculture to climate change in Kenya: Household strategies and determinants. J. Environ. Manag. 2013, 114, 26–35.
  28. Bob, U.; Bronkhorst, S.; Sala, S. Climate change and conflict: Conflict-sensitive climate change adaptation in Africa. In Conflict-Sensitive Adaptation to Climate Change in Africa; Bob, U., Bronkhorst, S., Eds.; BWV: Berlin, Germany, 2014; pp. 27–55.
  29. Esham, M.; Garforth, C. Agricultural adaptation to climate change: Insights from a farming community in Sri Lanka. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Chang. 2013, 18, 535–549.
  30. Van Aalst, M.K.; Cannon, T.; Burton, I. Community level adaptation to climate change: The potential role of participatory community risk assessment. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2008, 18, 165–179.
  31. Juana, J.S.; Kahaka, Z.; Okurut, F.N. Farmers’ perceptions and adaptations to climate change in sub-Sahara Africa: A synthesis of empirical studies and implications for public policy in African agriculture. J. Agric. Sci. 2013, 5, 121.
  32. Deressa, T.T.; Hassan, R.M.; Ringler, C.; Alemu, T.; Yesuf, M. Determinants of farmers’ choice of adaptation methods to climate change in the Nile Basin of Ethiopia. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2009, 19, 248–255.
  33. Huffman, W.E. Human capital and adoption of innovations: Policy implications. Appl. Econ. Perspect. Policy 2020, 42, 92–99.
  34. Diendéré, A.; Nguyen, G.; Del Corso, J.-P.; Kephaliacos, C. Modeling the relationship between pesticide use and farmers’ beliefs about water pollution in Burkina Faso. Ecol. Econ. 2018, 151, 114–121.
  35. Khatri-Chhetri, A.; Regmi, P.P.; Chanana, N.; Aggarwal, P.K. Potential of climate-smart agriculture in reducing women farmers’ drudgery in high climatic risk areas. Clim. Chang. 2020, 158, 29–42.
  36. Boansi, D.; Tambo, J.A.; Müller, M. Analysis of farmers’ adaptation to weather extremes in West African Sudan Savanna. Weather Clim. Extrem. 2017, 16, 1–13.
  37. Khan, N.; Ray, R.L.; Kassem, H.S.; Ihtisham, M.; Siddiqui, B.N.; Zhang, S. Can cooperative supports and adoption of improved technologies help increase agricultural income? Evidence from a recent study. Land 2022, 11, 361.
  38. Diendere, A.A. Determinants Of The Awareness And Use Of Electronic Information Systems: Evidence From Farmers In Burkina Faso. Rev. Agric. Appl. Econ. (RAAE) 2019, 22, 3–13.
  39. Perz, S.G. Social determinants and land use correlates of agricultural technology adoption in a forest frontier: A case study in the Brazilian Amazon. Hum. Ecol. 2003, 31, 133–165.
  40. Serebrennikov, D.; Thorne, F.; Kallas, Z.; McCarthy, S.N. Factors influencing adoption of sustainable farming practices in Europe: A systemic review of empirical literature. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9719.
  41. Ghanian, M.; Ghoochani, O.M.; Dehghanpour, M.; Taqipour, M.; Taheri, F.; Cotton, M. Understanding farmers’ climate adaptation intention in Iran: A protection-motivation extended model. Land Use Policy 2020, 94, 104553.
  42. Barnes, M.L.; Wang, P.; Cinner, J.E.; Graham, N.A.; Guerrero, A.M.; Jasny, L.; Lau, J.; Sutcliffe, S.R.; Zamborain-Mason, J. Social determinants of adaptive and transformative responses to climate change. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2020, 10, 823–828.
  43. Piñeiro, V.; Arias, J.; Dürr, J.; Elverdin, P.; Ibáñez, A.M.; Kinengyere, A.; Opazo, C.M.; Owoo, N.; Page, J.R.; Prager, S.D. A scoping review on incentives for adoption of sustainable agricultural practices and their outcomes. Nat. Sustain. 2020, 3, 809–820.
  44. Uddin, M.N.; Bokelmann, W.; Entsminger, J.S. Factors affecting farmers’ adaptation strategies to environmental degradation and climate change effects: A farm level study in Bangladesh. Climate 2014, 2, 223–241.
  45. Yegbemey, R.N.; Yabi, J.A.; Tovignan, S.D.; Gantoli, G.; Kokoye, S.E.H. Farmers’ decisions to adapt to climate change under various property rights: A case study of maize farming in northern Benin (West Africa). Land Use Policy 2013, 34, 168–175.
  46. Zakari, S.; Ibro, G.; Moussa, B.; Abdoulaye, T. Adaptation strategies to climate change and impacts on household income and food security: Evidence from Sahelian region of Niger. Sustainability 2022, 14, 2847.
  47. NDIAYE, S.; Dieng, A.; Diagne, A. Impact of Adoption Adaptation Climate Change on Household Food Security and Incomes in Ferlo Semi-arid Area, Northern Senegal. Int. J. Curr. Adv. Res. 2018, 7, 13757–13763.
  48. Amare, A.; Simane, B. Does adaptation to climate change and variability provide household food security? Evidence from Muger sub-basin of the upper Blue-Nile, Ethiopia. Ecol. Process. 2018, 7, 13.
  49. Berhe, M.; Hoag, D.; Tesfay, G.; Tadesse, T.; Oniki, S.; Kagatsume, M.; Keske, C.M. The effects of adaptation to climate change on income of households in rural Ethiopia. Pastoralism 2017, 7, 12.
  50. Combary, O.; Traore, S. Impacts of health services on agricultural labor productivity of rural households in Burkina Faso. Agric. Resour. Econ. Rev. 2021, 50, 150–169.
  51. Shiferaw, B.; Kassie, M.; Jaleta, M.; Yirga, C. Adoption of improved wheat varieties and impacts on household food security in Ethiopia. Food Policy 2014, 44, 272–284.
  52. Ali, A.; Erenstein, O. Assessing farmer use of climate change adaptation practices and impacts on food security and poverty in Pakistan. Clim. Risk Manag. 2017, 16, 183–194.
  53. Mulumeoderhwa, M.; Mugisho, M.; Rushigira, C.; Biganiro, M.; Vwima, N.; Mushagalusa, N. Strategies d’adaptation et securite alimentaire des menages dans les hauts plateaux de minembwe au Sud-Kivu. Agron. Afr. 2020, 32, 207–220.
  54. Pailler, S.; Naidoo, R.; Burgess, N.D.; Freeman, O.E.; Fisher, B. Impacts of community-based natural resource management on wealth, food security and child health in Tanzania. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0133252.
  55. Berhanu, W.; Beyene, F. Climate variability and household adaptation strategies in southern Ethiopia. Sustainability 2015, 7, 6353–6375.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Upload a video for this entry
Information
Subjects: Agricultural Economics & Policy
Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :
Nawab Khan
,
Jiliang Ma
,
Huijie Zhang
,
Shemei Zhang
View Times: 94
Revisions: 2 times (View History)
Update Date: 21 Sep 2023
Table of Contents
    1000/1000
    Hot Most Recent
    Feedback