Rural livelihood vulnerabilities, contributing factors and coping strategies in Takusa Woreda, North Western Ethiopia

Figures & data

Figure 1. Map of the study area.

Table 1. The relationships between dependent and independent variables of the study

Independent variables	Nature	Measurement	Expected sign
Age of household head (AGEHH)	Continuous	In year	-ve
Sex of household head (SEXHH)	Dummy	1 if male and 0 if female	-ve
Marital status (MSHH)	Dummy	1 if married and 0 otherwise	+ve
Family size (FAMSZHH)	Continuous	In Adult Equivalent	+ve
Education level of household head (EDUHH)	Dummy	1 for able to read and write and above, and 0 otherwise	+ve/-ve
Dependency ratio(DPRTHH)	Continuous	The ratio of dependent age groups (adult equ.)	+v/-ve
Livestock holding (TLUHH)	Continuous	Size of Livestock holding in TLU	-ve
Membership to cooperatives (MEMCOHH)	Dummy	1 if households are member of cooperatives and 0 otherwise	+ve
Land size (LDSZHH)	Continuous	In hectare	-ve
Access to irrigation(IRRIGHH)	Dummy	1 if households are access to irrigation and 0 otherwise	+ve
Market distance (MKTDSHH)	Continuous	In kilometers	+ve
Access to extension contact(EXTCO)	Dummy	1 if households access to extension contact and 0 otherwise	+ve
Access to credit (ACCCRHH)	Dummy	1 if access to credit & 0 otherwise	-ve
Crop production risk (CPRHH)	Dummy	1 if there is crop production risk and 0 otherwise	+ve
Livestock production risk(LPR)	Dummy	1 if there is livestock production risk and 0 otherwise	+ve
Total income(INCOMEHH)	Continuous	The total income of a household(in ETB)	+ve

Table 2. Sources of vulnerability on crop and livestock production

Crop production risk households	Response	Frequency	Percentage
	No	49	24.5
	Yes	151	75.5
Vulnerability of crop production:	Rank	Yes (%)	No (%)
crop pests	3^rd	87.2	12.8
crop diseases like root rot of pepper	1^st	89.9	10.1
lack of rainfall	9^th	28.5	71.5
Frosts	8^th	34	66
low fertility of the soil	6^th	41	59
land degradation and flood	7^th	36.8	63.2
shortage of capital and labour	5^th	72.2	27.8
Shortage of farm land	2^nd	89.2	10.8
low accessibility of improved seed and fertilizer	4^th	81.6	18.4
Livestock production risks:		Frequency	Percentage
	No	65	32.5
	Yes	135	67.5
Vulnerability of livestock production	Rank	Yes (%)	No (%)
Presence of animal disease	3^rd	82.7	17.3
Insufficient grazing land	1^st	93.2	6.8
Inaccessibility of veterinary medicine	2^nd	88	12
Lack of drinking water	4^th	23.7	76.3

Source: Own survey, 2019/2020; Note: multiple response are possible.

Table 3. Sources of vulnerability to off-farm and non-farm activities

Sources of Vulnerability on off-farm activities	Rank	Yes (%)	No (%)
Security problem	2^nd	79.8	20.2
Lack of job /un employment	3^rd	75.6	24.4
Price fluctuation	4^th	73.1	26.9
Transportation problem	1^st	81.5	18.5
Sources Vulnerability on non-farm activities	Rank	Yes (%)	No (%)
Price fluctuation	6^th	71.4	28.60
Lack of job/ unemployment	7^th	64.3	35.7
Security problem	4^th	76.2	23.8
Shortage of capital	1^st	84.1	15.9
Low market linkage	5^th	75.4	24.6
Death of small ruminants/cattle	9^th	12.7	87.3
Lack of non-farm training	2^nd	79.4	20.6
Poor infrastructure(transportation)	3^rd	77.8	22.2
High tax on small trade	8^th	58.7	41.3

Source: Own survey, 2019/2020; Note: (Multiple responses are possible).

Figure 2. Source: own survey, 2020; photo taken during field survey.

Table 4. The logistic regression results for the contributing factors of livelihood vulnerability

Variable	Coefficient	Standard error	Marginal effect
Sex	−1.728	0.094	0.26***
Age	.048	0.004	0.007
Marital status	.4198	0.07	0.063
FAMSZ	.1869	0.019	0.028
DPRT	.4736	0.111	0.071
EDUC	.181	0.045	0.027
CPR	1.226	0.083	0.184**
TLU	−.192	0.013	0.289**
EXTENCON	−.0744	0.073	0.011
LDSZ	−.2637	0.059	0.039
ACCIRRIG	−1.5387	0.067	0.231***
MKDST	.0160	0.005	0.002
MEMCOP	.4232	0.075	0.063
ACCCREDIT	−.3649	0.061	0.055
INCOME	−.0002	0.000	0.01***
LPR	1.615	0.554	0.242***
Number of obs. = 200 Log likelihood = −92.628981 LR chi2(17) = 71.16 Prob > chi2 = 0.0000 Pseudo R2 = 0.2775

Source: Own survey, 2020 ***, ** refers significant at 1% and 5% probability level respectively.

Table 5. Coping strategies adopted by rural farm households

Strategy selected by households	Frequency	Percentage
Engage in off-farm activities	187	95.4
Engage in non-farm activities	125	74
Cultivate drought resistant crop varieties	62	63.8
Grow a diverse crops within the available plot size	99	50.5
Migrated in to more fertile and productive land (low land area)	29	14.8
Get food aid and safety net program	41	20.9
Reducing participation in local and religious associations (locally called: mahiber, senibete, zikir etc.)	22	11.2

Source: Own survey, 2020; Note: multiple answers are possible.

Table

Breusch-Pagan/Cook-Weisberg test for heteroskedasticity Ho: Constant variance Variables: fitted values of vulnerability

chi2(1) = 4.78 Prob > chi2 = 0.5287