Rural Households in Ethiopia. Livelihood Vulnerability and Coping Strategies

Master's Thesis , 2021 , 84 Pages , Grade: 2,0

Politics - Topic: Development Politics

Rural households, particularly smallholder farmers, are frequently predisposed to various vulnerabilites. This paper tries to investigate causes of livelihood vulnerability that rural households face and analyze coping strategies they apply.

The analysis is done using data from household survey in Weradejo woreda of Halaba zone. The primary data was collected from 264 households, the secondary data was obtained from line office records and the review of related literature. The author then applies descriptive statistics and the econometrics model of multinomial logistic regression to identify the causes of vulnerability.

Based on the descriptive analysis, the identified causes of households’ livelihood vulnerability are drought, farmland fragmentation, crop and livestock diseases, flooding, erratic rainfall, and shortage of agricultural inputs and shortage of capital. The capacity of the households and the community to cope with and recover from shocks remains low, despite the different strategies they adopt. The result of the multinomial logistic regression indicates that sex of the household head, age of household head, family size, and educational level of the household in schooling years, land size owned, pest/diseases, distance to market, and frequency of extension contact are the main determinants influencing the choice of the coping strategies by the respondents.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

DEDICATION

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF FIGURES

ABSTRACT

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background
1.2. Statement of the Problem
1.3. Objectives
1.3.1. General objective
1.3.2. Specific objectives
1.4. Research Questions
1.5. Significance of the Study
1.6. Scope of the Study
1.7. Limitation of the Study
1.8. Organization of the Thesis

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
2.1. The Concept of Vulnerability
2.2 Vulnerability and Poverty
2.3 Rural Households Vulnerability and Poverty in Ethiopia
2.4 Households Coping Strategies
2.5 Sustainable Livelihoods Framework (SLF) and Vulnerability
2.5.1 Sustainable Livelihoods Framework
2.5.2 Vulnerability Context in the SLF
2.6. Conceptual Framework of the Study

CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1. Description of the Study Area
3.2. Research design
3.3. Study Population and Sample Size
3.3. Sampling Procedure
3.4. Types of Data and Sources
3.5. Method of Data Collection
3.6. Method of Data Analysis
3.6.1. Econometrics analysis
3.7. Operational Definition of Variables

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1. Summary statistics for continuous variables of the study
4.2. Summary statistics for dummy variables of the study
4.3. Causes of vulnerability in the study area
4.4. Households Coping Strategies to Vulnerability
4.5. Determinants of coping strategies of the households in response to livelihood vulnerability
4.6. The link between households’ characteristics and choice of coping strategies
4.6.1. Sex of the household head
4.6.2. Age of the household head
4.6.3. Family size of the respondents’ household
4.6.4. Educational status of the respondents and choice of coping strategies
4.6.5. Landholdings of the respondents and choices of coping strategies
4.6.6. Extension services and choices of coping strategies
4.6.7. Use of credit services by the households
4.8. Sources of information for households in warning the disasters
4.9. Sources of support for disasters
4.10. Food shortage months and its severity
4.11. Livelihood assets ownership

CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
5.2. Conclusion
5.3. Recommendations

REFERENCES

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I express my deepest gratitude to my major advisor, Dr Ayele Tessema, for his comments on the main idea of the thesis work at an early stage of the work and for his subsequent and valuable technical support in the whole process of this study. I could say that no words can express his assistance and supervision throughout my thesis work. I acknowledge my co-advisor, Mr. Zerhun Ganewo (Assis. Prof), for his immeasurable advices throughout the whole work of this thesis. I am very glad to acknowledge the sample households for their willingness and patience in responding to my questionnaire at the expense of their invaluable time. I also extend my grateful thanks to those enumerators for their effort devoted in collecting the data from the respondents with full willingness.

DEDICATION

I dedicate this Thesis work for my family for their efforts and encouragement throughout my journey.

ABBREVIATIONS

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Distribution of Sample Households

Table 2: Description of variables used for the determinants of choice of coping strategy: MLM

Table 3: Descriptive statistics for continuous variables of the study

Table 4: The summary statistics for dummy variables

Table 5: Major causes of households vulnerability to shocks, stresses and hazards in the study area

Table 6: Perceived level of households livelihoods vulnerability

Table 7: Determinants of coping strategies of households for vulnerabilities

Table 8: Sex of the household head

Table 9: Age of the household head and choice of coping strategies

Table 10: Household size and choices of coping strategies

Table 11: Educational status of the household and coping strategies

Table 12: Landholding of the households and their coping strategies

Table 13: Frequency of extension contact and coping strategies

Table 14: Use of credit services

Table 15: Sources of information about the occurrences of disaster

Table 16: Sources of in kind and cash support for recovery from disasters

Table 17: Severity and months of food shortage in the study area

Table 18: Livelihood assets owned by the households and its descriptions

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Conceptual framework of the study

LIST OF TABLES IN APPENDICE

Table in Appendix 1: Variance Inflation factors value for continuous variables

Table in Appendix 2: Contingency coefficient for dummy variables

ABSTRACT

Rural households, particularly smallholder farmers, are frequently predisposed to various vulnerability. This paper tries to investigate causes of livelihood vulnerability that rural households face and analyze coping strategies they apply. The analysis is done using data from household survey in Weradejo woreda of Halaba zone. The primary data were collected from 264 households. Secondary data were obtained from line office records and the review of related literatures. Descriptive statistics and econometrics model of multinomial logistic regression were applied. To compare the existence of mean differences between groups of households in their choice of coping strategies to livelihood vulnerability, F-test were used. Multinomial logistic regression was applied to identify the determinants of livelihood vulnerability and coping strategies. Based on the descriptive analysis, the identified causes of households’ livelihood vulnerability were drought, farmland fragmentation, crop and livestock diseases, flooding, erratic rainfall, and shortage of agricultural inputs and shortage of capital. The capacity of the households and the community to cope with and recover from shocks remains low despite the different strategies they adopt. The identified coping strategies used were, sale of productive/non-productive assets (36.73%), food aid (26.5%), loan (9.8%) engagement in off/non-farm activities (17.8%), and loan plus off/non-farm activities (9.2%). Small proportion of the households (7.19% and 15.53%) received support from friends and family members respectively outside their community. Concerning the severity of food insecurity in the study area, 28.3% of the households were found to be at severe level, 48% at moderate level, and 23.6% at less food shortage level. The result of multinomial logistic regression indicates that sex of the household head, age of household head, family size, and educational level of the household in schooling years, land size owned, pest/diseases, distance to market, and frequency of extension contact found to be the main determinants influencing the choice of the coping strategies by the respondents. It was concluded that natural disasters are the main factors/sources of livelihood vulnerability, and the main coping strategies depend on short term solutions such as selling assets and rely on food aid. Therefore, more emphasis should be given to early warning, focusing on sustainable livelihood activities to improve the livelihood of the smallholder farmers and their coping strategies.

Key words: Coping strategies, Disasters, Food insecurity, Livelihood, Multinomial model, Shocks

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

1.1. Background

Rural households are subjected to different types of shocks and stresses. And when these households are unable to cope and recover from such events, they suffer from lose of livelihood outcomes. In general, the exposure to shocks, stresses and associated risks is termed as vulnerability and the impact on people’s livelihood is often devastating and leading to poverty.

The World Bank Groupe Report (Hallegatte et al 2017) explains the impact and consequence of vulnerability on people’s livelihood. According to the report, for instance vulnerability to natural hazards such as droughts, floods, and earthquakes have socioeconomic consequences that go beyond their most obvious impacts; they can affect the lives of their victims for years. Job losses and falling incomes can have significant impacts on people’s well-being and long-term prospects especially those of the poorest who live close to subsistence levels. Assets and savings accumulated over years such as homes and livestock can be wiped out in a few minutes by a flood or an earthquake.

At global level the impact of disaster has been significantly devastating on the lives and livelihoods of people. Joseph (2007) states the impact of disaster that it affected more than 3 billion people, killed over 750,000 people, and cost more than US$600 billion in the previous ten years. According to Tabish and Nabil (2013) nearly three million people worldwide may have been killed in past 20 years due to natural disasters such as landslides, earthquakes, floods, tsunamis, snow avalanches, cyclones etc. Ninety per cent of the natural disasters and ninety five percent of the total disaster related deaths worldwide occur in developing countries in which India has the second largest share. China, the United States, Indonesia, the Philippines and India constitute together the top 5 countries that are most frequently hit by natural disasters.

In 2017, total global losses from disasters exceeded USD 330 billion and claimed more than 13,000 lives in 121 countries (Kontar et al 2018). This trend of loss of human lives and property damage suggests that our communities are more vulnerable and not coping enough to the vulnerability they are exposed.

According to IFRC (2011) drought has become common across the Horn since the 1990s and severe records in 2000, 2001, 2005, 2006, 2008 and 2009. And in 2011, drought has suffered 13.5 million people across Somalia, Kenya, Ethiopia and Djibouti, and it has subjected around 3.2 million people in Somalia to famine. These indicate that, African countries particularly the Horn of Africa are the most exposed to hazard and natural disasters that have become recurrent and severe incidences.

Vulnerability in Ethiopian context is multifaceted and protracted. It has both micro and macro levels impact. According to MOA (2014) Disaster Risk Management Strategic Programme and Investment Framework, Ethiopia regardless of its substantial progress in economic, social, and human development has faced a series of disasters with increased intensity, coverage, and frequency, largely due to the country’s diverse geographic, agro-climatic, and socio-economic conditions, partnered with climate change induced factors. The lack of predictable rain, flooding, drought, crop diseases, livestock diseases, disturbance, and conflicts (inter-clan or inter-ethnic) are some of the most important hazards perceived by rural households in Ethiopia.

Severity of drought and food insecurity various from place to place in the country and a considerable portion of its area is drought prone. Previous studies conducted by Webb et al (1992), Bigsten et al (2003) and Dercon and Krishnan (1996) cited in Kemeria (2015) and Tesfahun (2017) classified areas of mixed farming production system of the north, central and north-eastern highlands that stretch from northern Shewa through Wello into Tigray; the range-based on pastoral economy of lowland ranging from Wello in the north through Hararghe, Bale to Sidama and Gamo Gofa in the south; as well as the Eastern and southern pastoral lowlands of the country under such contexts. Recent study by Getachew (2018) indicate highly vulnerable areas with frequent and severe drought impacts exist in arid and semi-arid areas (annual rainfall less than 600 mm) and peripheral pastoralist areas, and these areas cover about 25–30% of the country.

The purpose of this study is, therefore, to investigate the causes of vulnerability that rural households face and the coping strategies they undertake. The study will provide useful conclusion and recommendation that help improve households’ livelihood and coping strategies in the study area, if considered and embedded in development program and policies designing.

1.2. Statement of the Problem

Ethiopia is one of the poorest and most populous country in Sub-Sahara Africa, where the scourge of poverty continues to haunt the lives of millions. Like that of many countries in sub-Sahara Africa, poverty is pervasive, and vulnerability is widespread in the country. Agriculture and rural development is the core component of the country economic growth and poverty reduction strategy.

However, according to Devereux (2000) the agriculture sector is vulnerable to multiple and intertwined short-term transitory shocks and long-term structural factors overall driven by poverty. These include high dependency on low input-low output rain-fed agriculture system subject to unreliable rainfall pattern with likely drought and other extreme weather events. Furthermore, households earning their livelihoods from the sector and the sector itself is challenged with rapid population growth with declining land holdings (Dessalegn, 2013); high rate of land degradation; underdeveloped market and technological innovations; and lack of alternative income sources outside of agriculture (Negatu, 2008).

MOA (2014) further asserts, Ethiopia is confronted by a wide range of natural and human-induced hazards. Millions of Ethiopians have been affected by drought and flood in the last decade. The number of people who suffered from drought peaked at 14 million in 2003 and, in the period between 2000 and 2007, was never below 1.5 million persons. The floods of 2006 were the most disastrous affecting about 1.7 million persons. Rural households also often quote frost and hail, crop pests and diseases, livestock disease and conflict as important hazards. Human diseases, landslides, and earthquakes are also often reported by the existing early warning system.

Halaba zone falls under the southern lowland area with most of its part constituting Weina dega (temperate) agro-climate. As a result of its susceptibility and experience of recurrent drought household livelihoods is severely threatened. Despite this vulnerability context of the area, few studies have been conducted to understand livelihood vulnerability and coping strategies at the household level.

A community level disaster risk profile conducted by MOA (2014) Disaster Risk Management and Food Security Sector indicate drought, flood and hailstorm are the three major hazards in the area. Lack of enough farming land, use of free oxen for tillage, deforestation, shortage of rain, high temperature, lack of soil and water conservation, population growth (poor family planning) and lack of infrastructures such as road and electricity are factors which make the community vulnerable to disaster.

Most of the studies conducted in Halaba emphasis on empirical investigation of the production, efficiency and marketing of crops and livestock produce such as teff, wheat, sheep and goats as well as the role and economic empowerment of women in agriculture (Yemisrache 2010, Deribe 2009, Muhammed 2011, Messay 2012, Bedru 2011).

The study report by Yericho et.al (2015) and Freddy (2012) that are conducted on climate variability and livelihood strategies in Halaba respectively reported that, the common livelihood vulnerability in the area is extreme events of climate variability causing flooding and drought in each year. The extreme events both drought and flood occur at least for one month in every year and they may extend up to four months. This has exerted a significant impact on the livelihoods of the rural households by reducing agriculture productivity and income as well as reversing development gains. Another study by Freddy (2012) asserts the area is significantly water stressed with no forest cover, except for individual acacia trees and some small plots of Eucalyptus.

Accordingly, there exists a research gap in investigation of causes of livelihood vulnerability and coping strategies of rural households in Habala at the local levels. Therefore, the study was conducted with this concern in order to investigating the causes of livelihood vulnerabilities of rural households in Oudana Mano and Chobare Mano kebeles of Weradejo woreda of Halaba zone. It aims to it contribute to fill the knowledge gap about the specific situation of the study area and thereby proposing policy implication and development interventions that explicitly target the studied households and community.

1.3. Objectives

1.3.1. General objective

The general objective of this study is to investigate the causes of household vulnerability and their coping strategies in Weradejo woreda of Halaba Zone, Southern Ethiopia

1.3.2. Specific objectives

The specific objectives were to:

1. assess the causes of rural livelihood vulnerabilities in the study area,
2. analyze the coping strategies employed by the rural households to adapt to the vulnerability,
3. analyze the determinants of coping strategies of the households in response to livelihood vulnerability.

1.4. Research Questions

The following research questions were drawn

- What are the causes of households’ vulnerability in the study area? What makes households vulnerable?
- What are the coping strategies that households commonly choose when faced with different shocks and stresses in the area?
- What are the determinants of coping strategies of the households in response to livelihood vulnerability?

1.5. Significance of the Study

This research aims to investigate the causes of vulnerability rural households face, and coping strategies in two selected kebeles of Weradejo woreda of Halaba zone. Therefore, this study, first aims to provide in-depth information on the context of vulnerability specific to the households at local level. In addition, as the study will make an investigation of the households’ coping mechanisms to vulnerability it will be significant in expanding the existing knowledge about the different coping strategies households apply in the study area.

Hence, the findings of the study will advance informed programme and policy decisions by government, non-government organization, researchers, policy makers and planners in their endeavor poverty reduction through livelihood improvement and building coping mechanism of rural households.

1.6. Scope of the Study

This study was conducted in Weradejo woreda of Halaba zone. Household survey was conducted in two kebeles (Oudana Mano and Chobare Mano) purposively selected from the woreda based on their exposure and susceptibility to vulnerability. The subject of study were rural households earning their livelihood mainly from agriculture.

The major issues studied were causes of households’ vulnerability, and the coping strategies employed by households. Hence, the study identified the causes of vulnerability in the study area and the coping strategies households apply to adapt. As a result, the study as such was not engage in the analysis of the whole components of livelihood such as the capitals, strategies and measurement of outcomes.

1.7. Limitation of the Study

This research employed cross-sectional survey design to capture information on the study variables at a specific period in time, in this case without any attempt to follow-up over time. This may limit understanding of the situations and trends changed over time as it not gathered ample data to make comparative analysis through years. Furthermore, as the study was conducted in two kebeles, its findings could not be generalized to either the whole zone or other geographic areas.

1.8. Organization of the Thesis

This study was structured in five chapters. The first chapter presents introduction having statement of the problem and objectives of the study. Chapter two reviews related literatures including theoretical and empirical reviews. In chapter three research methodology is presented. The fourth chapter presents the results and discussion of the study. Summary, conclusion and recommendations are presented in the last chapter.

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

This chapter presents the theoretical framework on which this study is based, and reviews relevant literatures based on the study variables and objectives mainly vulnerability and coping strategies that households choose when the experience different vulnerability. It highlights the vulnerability context under the sustainable livelihood framework. Also, it gives an overview of vulnerability and poverty, as they are mostly interrelated concepts.

2.1. The Concept of Vulnerability

Vulnerability studies involve different disciplines with many conceptual approaches to vulnerability analysis. The diversity of disciplines and knowledge domains gave rise to issues of interpretation of vulnerability. Accordingly, vulnerability has been defined and conceptualized in many different ways by various researchers. It is used in disciplines such as livelihoods, food security, natural hazards, disaster risk management, public health, global environmental change, and climate change.

The disaster management literature generally associates vulnerability with natural hazards, while both human geography and human ecology relate vulnerability to environmental change (Adger 2006). Food insecurity and poverty literature, as well as social risk management literature, define vulnerability in terms of future negative effects on welfare (Dercon, 2005). Others define vulnerability in terms of the level of risk and capacity to recover and respond to it. Thus, not only does vulnerability imply a measure of risk associated with physical, social, and economic aspects, but also describes the ability to cope with different risks and shocks (Chambers and Conway, 1992).

Adger (2006, p. 268) generally define vulnerability “is the state of susceptibility to harm from exposure to stresses associated with environmental and social change and from the absence of capacity to adapt”. Adger argues vulnerability to environmental change does not exist in isolation from the wider political economy of resource use, rather it is driven by unintended or deliberate human action that reinforces self-interest and the distribution of power in addition to interacting with physical and ecological systems.

According to Adger (2006) overall in the theoretical approaches, vulnerability is most often conceptualized as being constituted by a components that include exposure and sensitivity to perturbations or external stresses, and the capacity to adapt. Exposure is the nature and degree to which a system experiences environmental or socio-political stress. The characteristics of these stresses include their magnitude, frequency, duration and areal extent of the hazard. Sensitivity is the degree to which a system is modified or affected by perturbations.

The concept of vulnerability implies some risk combined with the level of social and economic liability, and the ability to cope with the resulting event. It is the degree to which a system, or part of a system, may react adversely during the occurrence of a hazardous event. People become vulnerable if access to resources either at a household, or at an individual level is the most critical factor in achieving a secure livelihood or recovering effectively from a disaster. The households with direct access to capital, tools and equipment, and able-bodied members are the ones which can recover most quickly when a disaster strikes. Hence, the most vulnerable people are the poorest, who have little choice but to locate themselves in unsafe settings (Virendra 2014).

In nutshell there are two components of vulnerability: the external side referring to the structural elements that determine sensitivity and risk to exposure, and the internal side that concerns the ability of households to respond and cope with stressors and the actions required to overcome them.

2.2 Vulnerability and Poverty

Vulnerability and poverty, although related, they are different concepts. Vulnerability is a dynamic concept, as it allows for changing processes and circumstances. The definition of poverty in terms of vulnerability has taken various forms. Chaudhuri and Suryahani (2002) pointed out that vulnerability is the ex-ante measure of well-being that households will be poor, whether they are currently poor or not, the risk that they will remain poor and poverty is as an ex-post measure of well-being (or the lack thereof) that is not having enough now of something valuable. Other scholars like Pritchett et. al. (2000) defines the term vulnerability from a poverty dynamics point of view as a probability of falling to poverty in the future and/or at least falling once into poverty in one of the periods ahead.

Poverty is a multidimensional concept with several definitions and measures in its analysis. It is dynamic and complex scenario that is manifested in different dimensions. Its conceptualization is generally categorized under the two most widely used approaches viz the welfarist approach and non-welfarist approach. The welfarist define poverty as the lack of command over commodities, measured by low income or/and consumption which are imperfect proxies for utilities (Birhan, 2018).

For the non-welfarist, poverty is failure or low level of capability on the attainment of basic fundamental needs such as an adequate level of literacy, health and physical security as well as achieving the various valuable functioning (entitlements) as a part of a living (Sen, 1997). Hence, it could be summarized the poverty as a deprivation of a given individual or society at point in time considered as a static measure of welfare. Whereas vulnerability is a concept that takes into account the impact of shocks on the households that are well-off now but will be affected sometime in the future.

2.3 Rural Households Vulnerability and Poverty in Ethiopia

People everywhere face different vulnerability that expose and risk them to poverty. Poor people, especially those living in rural areas and dependent on agriculture face more than others. This is also true for a large proportion of population in rural Ethiopia. in particular.

A study conducted by Dercon (2005) on incidence of serious shocks from 1999-2004 in rural Ethiopia reported that 95 percent of households experienced a shock that had caused substantial loss of income, assets or consumption. Of those, 47 percent of households reported that a drought had affected them, 43 percent that a death and 28 percent that an illness in the household had seriously affected their livelihoods.

A study by Dessalegn (2013) asserts rural households in Ethiopia remain highly vulnerable to shocks such as drought. Over 30 million of its population classified as either transitory or chronically food insecure and fall underneath the national poverty line. A report by USAID (2014) further strengthen this argument stating the main cause for vulnerability in Ethiopia is draught that cause losses of crops and livestock with extreme negative impact on the lives and livelihoods of farmers and pastoralists.

Despite her double-digit economic growth rate since 2005, Ethiopia ranks 174th out of 188 countries in the 2015 UN Human Development Index and 104th out of 119 countries in the Global Hunger Index classified as suffering from a serious level of hunger (IFPRI 2017). The rate of rural poverty is also high, with 26% of rural households living below the poverty line (UNDP 2018).

Recent report by FDRE Planning and Development Commission (PDC, 2018) highlights its understanding of poverty as pronounced deprivation in well-being. Lack of income and assets to attain basic necessities, lack of access to education and other basic services, and vulnerability to adverse shock are the main causes of poverty. The report indicates, despite poverty pervasive, deeprooted, and multi-faceted in Ethiopia it has declined from 45.5% in 1995/96 to 29.6% in 2010/11 and further down to 23.5% in 2015/16. This means that the proportion of population living under the national absolute poverty line fell from one in two Ethiopians in 1995/6 to one in four in 2015/16.

2.4 Households Coping Strategies

Households whenever faced whether with a sudden and unanticipated shocks and stresses they usually engage in one or more mitigation methods to sustain and survive their livelihoods. These measures are general termed as coping mechanism or strategies. Coping mechanisms are not universally uniform rather they are adapted to local circumstances and practices.

In the literature, there are various definitions of coping strategies. Devereux (2000) defines coping strategies as a response to adverse events or shocks on livelihoods. According to Ellis (2000) coping mechanisms refer to the methods used by households to survive when confronted with unanticipated livelihood failure and it is the involuntary response to disaster of unanticipated failure in major sources of survival.

Coping strategies are mostly studied in related to food security or insecurity households. These studies specifically look for the coping mechanisms households apply when they don’t have enough food, and don’t have enough money to buy food. The widely used analytical tool to answer this question is the Coping Strategy Index (CSI) developed by Maxwell and his colleagues for CARE and WFP (CARE/WFP (2003).

However, households not only respond to food shock rather they apply various coping mechanism to different livelihood vulnerabilities. On this premises, Ellis (2000) associates coping mechanisms to households and individuals’ response and management strategies when faced with natural and civil disasters including droughts, floods, hurricanes, pests and civil war as well as sudden shocks to the family such as illness, divorce or dispossession.

2.5 Sustainable Livelihoods Framework (SLF) and Vulnerability

2.5.1 Sustainable Livelihoods Framework

Following the rise of livelihood thinking and the advocacy of the approach as a central programing and organizational structure in development by many agencies various frameworks for sustainable livelihood analysis emerged. Accordingly, in the 1980s the use of the livelihoods approach as an analytical framework became common, and it has contributed to a paradigm change in rural development thinking from a predominantly top-down, reductionist view of agricultural development to a more holistic perspective.

One such approach is Sustainable Livelihoods Framework (SLF) developed in the early 1980s to guide development programming in poverty ridden developing countries. Drawing on the definition of sustainable livelihood by Chambers and Conway (1992), the British Department for International Development (DFID) developed the widely accepted and applied Sustainable Livelihood Framework (SLF) with guidance sheets in 1999.

The basic theme of sustainable livelihood framework is that, it is people-centered, responsive and participatory, multilevel, dynamic, and eventually aims to attain sustainable livelihood. The framework presents the main factors that affect people’s livelihoods and typical relationships these factors. It is used in planning new development activities and assessing the contribution to livelihood sustainability made by existing activities.

According to Alinovi et al (2010) the conceptual framework aids the analysis of the factors affecting peoples’ livelihoods including their priorities which is livelihood outcomes, their access to assets and their ability to put these to productive use, the different strategies they adopt, the policies, institutions and processes that shape their access to assets and opportunities, the context in which they live, and factors affecting vulnerability to shocks and stresses.

In this regard, it can be realized that SLF is a key to understanding the way people cope with hazards and survive vulnerable livelihoods. Cognizant of the relevance of the framework, this study adopted the SLF in order to investigate the specific factors/sources of vulnerabilities, identify the coping mechanisms used by the rural households and assess their possession of livelihood assets.

2.5.2 Vulnerability Context in the SLF

The vulnerability context forms the external environment in which people exist (DFID, 1999). Factors in the vulnerability context are important because they first have a direct impact upon people’s asset status, and second open the options in the pursuit of beneficial livelihood outcomes.

People’s livelihoods and the wider availability of assets are fundamentally affected by critical trends (i.e. demographic trends; resource trends; economic trends, trends in governance and technological trends), shocks (i.e. human, livestock or crop health shocks; natural hazards, like floods or earthquakes; economic shocks; conflicts) as well as seasonality (i.e, seasonality of prices, products, health or employment opportunities) over which they have limited or no control.

2.6. Conceptual Framework of the Study

The conceptual framework for this study is developed based on the above literature review and the study objectives. Accordingly, its basic conceptual idea is that a household with varying degree of access to resources such as human, physical, financial, natural and social capitals as well as capabilities engage in a single or multiple activity to pursue a secured livelihood. While in the due course, the household is often exposed to and experience various vulnerability that influence its livelihood as a result of changes in environmental, social, and economic circumstances which are either internal or external to the household. However, when faced with such situation, household apply response and management strategies aimed at coping with and recovering from the vulnerability and securing sustainable livelihood.

The figure shows the conceptual framework in which the arrows indicate the relationship between influential variables. This study considers three main variables namely causes of vulnerability, households’ contexts and coping strategies. The dependent variable in the study is coping strategies whereas, the independent variables are vulnerability causes and the households’ context the have an influence on the depend variable. Households’ context mainly refers to the external and internal components of the physical, social, economic and environmental dimension that households are exposed to sensitivity and risk as well as make them capable to respond and cope with vulnerability stresses.

Furthermore, the conceptual idea lays on the argument that, the choice and application of coping strategies by the household depends mainly on the household’s contexts and the vulnerability causes (Rashid et al, 2005). Household’s with diverse and greater access to livelihood capitals have multiple options for coping strategies. Also, the coping strategies the household chose to apply depend on and varies with the specific causes of vulnerability it experiences. Hence, a household choose and apply a specific or sequential coping strategies based on livelihood options and capabilities and the causes vulnerability to cope with and recover from shocks and hazards then secure sustainable livelihood.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Figure 1: Conceptual framework of the study

CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1. Description of the Study Area

Halaba zone is located 310 km south of Addis Ababa and about 85 km from Hawasa regional capital of South Nations, Nationalities and Peoples’ Regional State. It extends from 70-180North and 350 -3805′′E and covers area about 99,470 hectares bearing 3 woredas (Wera, Weradejo, and Atotiulo) and 83 kebeles. Its area constitutes 60,682 hectares cultivated, 13,140 hectares forest covered, 7383 hectares cultivable, 3541 hectares degraded, and 7121 hectares allotted for grazing land. Its elevation varies from 1554- 2149m above sea level and has an annual rainfall range between 857 and 1085mm. The zone has a relatively warm weather condition with temperatures between 23oc-28oC. The zone is divided into three different ecological zones namely; Kola¹ (500m – 1500m) covering 71.66% of the zone, Weyna-Dega² (1500m to 2500m) 28.17% and Dega³ (2300m to 3200 m) 0.17% (BoANRM, 2005).

[Note from the editor: This image had to be removed due to copyright issues.]

The livelihood of the community mainly depends on crop production such as maize sorghum, teff, haricot bean and also pepper as cash crop. Also, livestock production such as cattle poultry, shoats and equines. Selling cereal food crops, agricultural labourer and selling animals are the main source of income in the area. According to USAID (2005) livelihood zone report, Halaba area is generally classified into two major zone viz: Alaba-Mareko Lowland Pepper livelihood zone and Badewacho-Alaba Maize livelihood zone. The first is relatively food secure zone has a valuable cash crop industry that attracts migrant laborers from other zones. The population is relatively sparse and landholdings are large enough to allow even poor households to grow nearly 60% of their food needs, and to earn 60% of their cash earnings through the sale of peppers. Livestock production, especially cattle, is important including for the poor through butter sales. The second is low population density, relatively large landholdings per household, flat and fertile soils, and a woina dega agroecology together provide a conducive environment for agricultural production in this zone. The basic staple is maize while teff and maize are the main marketed crops, with good road access to main markets, including Shashamene. However, for the better-off livestock sales are the highest income earner. Beyond selling some crops and livestock, poor households make ends meet by a variety of economic activities, including casual labor, selling firewood, and petty trade.

Weradejo woreda, the study area, is located in Halaba zone of Southern Nations Nationalities and Peoples (SNNP) regional state. It is 32Kms away from the zone capital Halaba Qulito. The woreda has a total of 26 Kebeles. It has a total household population of 12,427 out of which 2,231 are female headed household. Two kebeles, Oudana Mano and Chobare Mano are purposively selected for this study since they are under the productive safety net program due to their frequent exposure to different vulnerability.

3.2. Research design

This study used cross-sectional survey research design that is applied to gather the required data at a given a period in time. Survey method is used to collect data from households. As stated earlier the objectives of this research were to identify causes of households’ vulnerability and coping strategies in the study area.

[...]

---

¹ an area with an altitude ranging between 500 and 1500m asl

² an altitude ranging between 1500 and 2300m asl,

³ an area with an altitude between 2300 and 3200m asl

• College: Hawassa University (Faculty of environment, gender and development studies)
• Course: Rural Development
• Grade: 2,0
• Author: Tsegaw Hirpa (Author)
• Publication Year: 2021
• Pages: 84
• Catalog Number: V1347285
• ISBN (PDF): 9783346852342
• ISBN (Book): 9783346852359
• Language: English
• Tags: Coping strategies, Disasters, Food insecurity, Livelihood, Multinomial model, Shocks