Analysis of Smallholders’ Livelihood Vulnerability to Drought across Agroecology and Farm Typology in the Upper Awash Sub-Basin, Ethiopia

Husen Maru, Amare Haileslassie, Tesfaye Zeleke and Befikadu Esayas
Additional contact information
Husen Maru: Center for Environment and Development Studies, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa P.O. Box 1176, Ethiopia
Amare Haileslassie: International Water Management Institute (IWMI), Addis Ababa P.O. Box 5689, Ethiopia
Tesfaye Zeleke: Center for Environment and Development Studies, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa P.O. Box 1176, Ethiopia
Befikadu Esayas: Hailemariam and Roman Foundation, Addis Ababa P.O. Box 27858 Code 1000, Ethiopia

Sustainability, 2021, vol. 13, issue 17, 1-28

Abstract: Assessing the magnitude of smallholder farmers’ livelihood vulnerability to drought is an initial step in identifying the causal factors and proposing interventions that mitigate the impacts of drought. This study aimed to assess smallholders’ livelihood vulnerability to the drought in the upper Awash sub-basin, Ethiopia. Household (HH) and climate data were used for indicators related to sensitivity, exposure, and adaptive capacity that define vulnerability to drought. The vulnerability of farmers’ livelihood to drought was compared among the studies agroecological zone (AEZ) and farm typologies. The result illustrated a diverse magnitude of vulnerability index (VI) ranging from −1.956 to −4.253 for AEZ. The highest magnitude of VI was estimated for livelihood in the lowland AEZ, while the lowest magnitude of VI was estimated in midland AEZ. This could be accounted for by the fact that lowland farmers shown the highest exposure (0.432) and sensitivity (0.420) and the lowest adaptive capacity (0.288). A closer look at farmers’ livelihood typology, in each of the AEZ, showed substantial diversity of farmers’ livelihood vulnerability to drought, implying potential aggregations at AEZ. Accordingly, the vulnerability index for livestock and on-farm-income-based livelihood and marginal and off-farm-income-based livelihood typologies were higher than the intensive-irrigation-farming-based smallholders’ livelihood typology. Based on the result, we concluded that procedures for smallholders’ livelihood resilience-building efforts should better target AEZ to prioritize the focus region and farmers’ livelihood typology to tailor technologies to farms. Although the result emphasizes the importance of irrigation-based livelihood strategy, the overall enhancement of farmers adaptive capacity needs to focus on action areas such as reducing the sensitivity and exposure of the households, improving farmers usage of technologies, diversify farmers’ livelihood options, and, hence, long-term wealth accumulation to strengthen farmers’ adaptive capacity toward drought impacts.

Keywords: vulnerability to drought; exposure; sensitivity; adaptive capacity; farm typology; resilience (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: O13 Q Q0 Q2 Q3 Q5 Q56 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2021
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (6)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/17/9764/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/17/9764/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:17:p:9764-:d:625835

Access Statistics for this article

Sustainability is currently edited by Ms. Alexandra Wu

More articles in Sustainability from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().