Shocks, coping strategies, and livelihood security in the drylands of Uganda and Kenya

Abstract

Recurrent shocks and crises threaten dryland household livelihood security by jeopardizing their income and other means of sustenance. In the absence of social protection and weak institutional support, households resort to problematic coping strategies that have the potential to trap them in a vicious cycle of livelihood insecurity. This study employed a panel data set from 698 households in the drylands of Uganda and Kenya to assess seasonal and country-level variations for 21 shock events experienced by households, coping strategies adopted and their determinants, and the determinants of livelihood security. Shocks and coping strategies were analyzed using student t-tests, while the determinants of coping strategy choices and livelihood security were analyzed using the multivariate probit and Tobit models respectively. Descriptive statistics show that shock incidences are significantly higher in Uganda’s drylands, particularly in the wet season. Results further show that in the event of livestock deaths, livestock illness, and reduced crop harvest, the important factors that determine coping strategies employed by households are gender of the household head, membership to groups, the farmland size that is available to households for crop and livestock farming, the number of income sources, access to extension services and credit, and the proportion of shocks experienced by households. The livelihood security index shows that all households in the drylands of Uganda and Kenya are at precarious livelihood security levels, with economic security being the lowest for both countries. Results further show that households whose heads have higher levels of education, which have more livestock (TLUs), which belong to a group and have access to credit, and those living in the agropastoral region are more likely to have higher livelihood security levels. On the other hand, households with older heads, a higher dependency ratio, access to extension, those that experienced a higher proportion of shocks, and those in the drylands of Uganda are more likely to have lower livelihood security levels. The study recommends strengthening social protection programs, promoting improved livestock management, building resilient agropastoral systems, promoting financial inclusion, strengthening social networks, and complementary investment in human capital and land productivity to build resilient livelihoods.