VULNERABILITY MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AND LIVELIHOOD SECURITY STATUS IN GAMO LOWLANDS OF SOUTHWEST ETHIOPIA

Abstract

Vulnerability management is a pivotal concern of all for the role it plays in connection with the sustainability of development. It is among the prime worries for securing livelihoods and the entire well-being of the community. In areas prone to natural hazards such as droughts, due attention to community vulnerability is imperative to act proactively before the hazards yield disasters. The overall objective of the study was to scrutinize vulnerability management practices and the livelihood assets of drought-vulnerable households in the Gamo lowlands. A household-based cross-sectional survey design and mixed-methods research approach were implemented to accomplish the study. Multistage sampling was employed to identify the respondent households. The primary data were generated from 285 survey households, key informants, focus group discussants, office professionals, and field observations through transect walks. Secondary data were obtained from relevant published and unpublished materials to complement the primary data. The gridded meteorological data accessed from the Climate Engine dataset were used to substantiate the survey findings on households’ drought vulnerability extent ratings and impacts on food security. The eight Food Insecurity Experience Scale (FIES) questions of FAO were adopted to investigate the severity level of households’ food insecurity. Data analysis was conducted employing both quantitative and qualitative techniques. The Item Analysis Approach (IAA) for the Likert scale, the newly formulated Vulnerability Management for Survival (VMS) framework, the asset hexagon, binary logistic regression model, Rasch model, correlation analysis, Rainfall Anomaly Index (RAI), and various food security measures were the methods used in the data analysis. Grounded Theory Analysis (GTA), textual descriptions, narrations, annotations, and discussions were the qualitative data analysis techniques employed to substantiate the survey findings. The findings indicated that the households were characterized by differential perceptions and understanding of vulnerability. Among the households’ perceptions and understanding of vulnerability, exposure to the drought hazard, rainfall inconsistency, the prevalence of human and animal diseases, food and livelihood insecurity, and poor income were commonly acknowledged. Households were found to pursue diverse vulnerability management practices or survival strategies that can be grouped into two: ex-ante adaptive and ex-post coping strategies. Liquidation (converting livestock into cash), adoption of drought-tolerant crops, livelihood diversification, membership in social protection strategies, destocking and restocking, xvi engagements in off-farm activities, remittance, and reciprocity were the commonly recognized strategies. These survival practices are firmly linked with the livelihood security of the households wherein effective management of vulnerabilities yields sustainable livelihood security. The status of basic livelihood security components across the study areas was found unpromising which signals further exposure of the inhabitants to socioeconomic and environmental shocks. The constructed asset hexagon demonstrates respondents’ differential access status to mixes of the livelihood resources which dictates the likelihoods of livelihood in/security. Financial and natural capitals were identified to be households’ utmost deficient (35%) and better-accessed (74%) capitals, respectively. Drought hazard and food security status of the inhabitants were found closely related where drought is acknowledged as the main threat to household-level food security. The employed food security measures indicated the underlying food shortfalls across the study areas. The adapted Household Food Balance Model (HFBM) revealed the food insecurity of 53.68% of the households. The Household Dietary Diversity Score (HDDS) showed a low dietary diversity, and poor nutrition quality as the entire households consumed the food groups only equal to and below three in the considered 24 hours recall time. The Food Insecurity Experience Scale on the other hand disclosed only 13% of households’ food security or mild food insecurity. Hence, it has been recommended to enhance communities’ perceptions and understanding of vulnerability, strengthen people’s survival strategies, advance households’ access to multiple livelihood assets, and employ more drought coping and food insecurity relieving strategies by all the concerned stakeholders such as agriculture, education, and health professionals, the local administrative bodies, as well as governmental and non-governmental organizations among others.