The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/1756-8692.htm

Livelihood
Livelihood vulnerability of Borana vulnerability
pastoralists to climate change and
variability in Southern Ethiopia
Shetie Gatew and Nura Guyo 157
Department of Biology, Arba Minch University, Arba Minch, Ethiopia
Received 11 June 2023
Revised 17 October 2023
Accepted 13 December 2023
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this study results and recommendations will have a paramount
significance for policymakers, policy advocates, development planners and practitioners who may be
in need of such information for reconsideration, evaluation and inclusion into their respective
development and humanitarian programming and operational strategies. Above all, the study result
has further provided the local community with viable adaptation strategies to climate-induced
changes in the study area.
Design/methodology/approach – This study was conducted to measure the livelihood
vulnerability of Borana pastoralists to climate change and variability in southern Ethiopia.
Pastoralists’ households were sampled using multistage sampling techniques. A total of 27 socio-
economic and biophysical indicators were used to reflect vulnerability components: adaptive
capacity, exposure and sensitivity. Principal component analysis was used to develop weights for
indicators and to produce livelihood vulnerability index to classify households according to their level
of vulnerability. Ordinal logistic regression was used to identify the determinants of vulnerability to
climate-induced stresses.
Findings – The results showed that 24.4% of households were highly vulnerable, 60.3% were
moderately vulnerable and 15.3% of households were less vulnerable to climate-induced stresses.
Factor estimates of the logistic model further revealed that early warning information, bush
encroachment, coping strategy, temperature, drought frequency, provision of humanitarian services
and food shortage during the normal season of the year have a significant influence on vulnerability in
the study area.
Social implications – The study’s results and recommendations will be of great significance to
policymakers, development planners, and practitioners who require such information for
reconsideration, evaluation, and inclusion in their respective development and humanitarian program
and operational strategies. Most importantly, the study’s findings have provided the local community
with practical adaptation strategies to climate-induced changes in the study area.

© Shetie Gatew and Nura Guyo. Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article
is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may
reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial
and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and
authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/
4.0/legalcode
The authors would like to express their gratitude to Arba Minch University for providing logistic
and financial support. They would also like to thank the Borana zone and Yabello district
Administrates, Pastoral Development Office, Disaster, Risk, Preparedness and Prevention office,
International Journal of Climate
Agriculture and Natural Resource Management office for providing valuable information. They are Change Strategies and
indebted to the district development agents and all the pastoralist respondents who participated in Management
Vol. 16 No. 1, 2024
the field survey and data collection. pp. 157-176
Funding: This research was financially supported by Arba Minch University, College of Natural Emerald Publishing Limited
1756-8692
computational Sciences. DOI 10.1108/IJCCSM-06-2023-0077
IJCCSM Originality/value – The study explored pastoralist perception of climate change and variability and
measured the livelihood vulnerability of pastoralists’ households to climate change and variability and finally
16,1 investigated viable adaptation and coping strategies in the study area.
Keywords Borana pastoralist, Climate variability, Drought, Livelihood vulnerability,
Vulnerability index
Paper type Research paper
158
1. Introduction
Climate change is a major challenge for natural ecosystems and human societies (IPCC, 2014).
The climate of Africa is warmer than it was 100 years ago, and model-based predictions of
future climate change for the continent suggest that this warming will continue and, in most
scenarios, accelerate (Hulme et al., 2001). The report by Intergovernmental Authority on
Development (IGAD), Climate Prediction and Applications Centre (ICPAC) in 2007 showed
that extreme climate events such as floods and droughts are devastating most economic,
social and environmental systems in Africa.
The Greater Horn of Africa (GHA) is home to a significant number of pastoralists whose
livelihood system is based on livestock production in the arid and semi-arid lands (ASALs).
The Borana lowlands of southern Ethiopia are among the most climate-vulnerable regions
in the country (Bekele and Kebede, 2014). The main livelihood of the Borana pastoralists,
livestock rearing, is severely affected by climate change and variability (Hurst et al., 2012
Amsalu et al.,2013; Iticha and Husen, 2018). These climatic factors, along with other
stressors such as land degradation, resource conflicts, poor infrastructure and
marginalization, have reduced the resilience and coping capacity of the pastoralist
communities (Iticha and Husen, 2018). The Borana lowlands are typical of the arid and semi-
arid areas in the Horn of Africa, where rainfall is low and erratic, temperatures and
evaporation rates are high (USAID, 2016). These areas have experienced increasing
frequency and intensity of droughts and floods, leading to food insecurity, human and
animal diseases and other crises (Oxfam, 2010).
Vulnerability is a complex and multidimensional concept that depends on the context
and discipline (Opiyo et al., 2014; UNEP, 2002). It has different aspects, such as exposure to
hazards (Deressa, 2010), socio-economic status and access to resources (Amwata, 2013) or
coping and recovery ability (Cutter, 1996). It also varies with the ecological situation and the
emergency preparedness of the community. Cutter (1995) defined vulnerability as “the
potential for loss” from the interaction of hazards and social profiles. Bohle (2001) described
it as a measure of human welfare that includes environmental, social, economic and political
factors. This study used an integrated method to assess the vulnerability of Borana
pastoralists to climate change, following the IPCC (2012) definition of vulnerability as a
function of exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity to climate change. This approach
differs from some previous studies that focused on either exposure (Deressa, 2010) or socio-
economic status and access to resources (Amwata, 2013).
Poor communities are more vulnerable to climate change, as they have limited resources,
housing, infrastructure, insurance, technology and information to cope (IPCC, 2013).
Vulnerability is defined differently by various studies, depending on the focus and context.
Some studies see vulnerability as the lack of adaptive capacity in social and natural
systems. Others measure vulnerability as a mix of adaptive capacity, sensitivity and
exposure to hazard (Adger, 1999; Brooks et al., 2005; Opiyo et al., 2014). Adaptive capacity is
the ability to adjust to or withstand the changing context; it is the ability to implement
adaptation measures that reduce the impacts of climate change (Ongoro and Ogara, 2012).
Sensitivity is the degree to which a system is affected by climate change and its extremes; it Livelihood
describes the conditions that trigger or mitigate an impact (IPCC, 2013). Exposure is the vulnerability
nature and change in climate variables and extreme events; it is the physical impact of
climate change such as a change in rainfall or temperature (Ongoro and Ogara, 2012;
IPCC, 2013).
Indicators are proxies to characterize and assess vulnerability, which cannot be directly
observed or measured (Carter and Makinen, 2011). The indicator method selects and
combines some indicators from the whole set to indicate the levels of vulnerability. 159
Vulnerability is usually a function of three indicators (Carter and Makinen, 2011): exposure
to climate change (E), sensitivity to its effects (S) and adaptive capacity for coping with the
effects (AC). These indicators are interrelated and influence each other. For example, high
exposure may increase sensitivity, while low adaptive capacity may worsen vulnerability
(Fortini and Schubert, 2017). It is important to assess vulnerability holistically and consider
the interactions among the indicators. The indicator selection process often involves a
combination of methods including literature review, survey, and expert and stakeholder
consultations (Sharma et al., 2016).
The ability of communities to cope with climate change depends on various demographic,
socio-economic and institutional factors (Carter and Makinen, 2011). Several studies have
identified different characteristics that influence the adaptation measures by communities,
such as age, gender, household size, income, assets, education, extension services, credit and
savings, facilities, climate change perceptions, social capital, membership of farmer-based
organizations, land ownership, agro-ecological environments and natural resource conditions
(Ndamani and Watanabe, 2016; Ayal and Leal Filho, 2017; Gebru et al., 2020).
Pastoralist households’ vulnerability and adaptation to climate change depend on
demographic (Awiti, 2022), socio-economic and institutional factors. Demographic factors
(household size, gender, age) affect labor, food security, resource access, decision-making
and knowledge. Older pastoralists have more traditional knowledge but less exposure to
new information (Mwadzingeni et al., 2022). Socio-economic factors (income, assets, credit,
livelihood diversification) affect farm technology adoption (Zamasiya et al., 2017),
adaptation investment (Atube et al., 2021), livestock reliance and adaptation methods
(Deressa et al., 2009). Institutional factors (extension services, information, awareness,
participation) affect climate information availability and timeliness (Deressa et al., 2009;
Belay et al., 2017), adaptation decision-making (Maddison, 2007), social capital and collective
action (Ayal and Leal Filho, 2017).
Africa needs an integrated assessment approach for vulnerability studies at a micro-
scale to account for local contexts (IPCC, 2013). Pastoral households need to understand their
vulnerability to climate change at a specific geographic level to tackle climate change
challenges effectively (Klein, 2008). However, most of the literature and discourses on
vulnerability focused on theoretical insights or analysis at a regional or national scale, with
implications for system-wide planning (Fussel and Klein, 2006; Hinkel, 2011). Moreover,
there is a lack of scientific information and in-depth analysis on household vulnerability and
adaptation strategies to climate variability in the ASALs of East African countries (Bryan
et al., 2013). Therefore, this study analyzes the vulnerability of Borana pastoralist
communities at the household level. The household-level analysis captures the local context
and specific characteristics of the pastoralist communities that influence their vulnerability
to climate change and variability. Unlike the earlier studies that used either predefined
indicators, (Brooks et al., 2005) or expert judgment (Adger, 1999) to assess vulnerability, this
study used a combination of indicators to measure vulnerability by computing indices and
the weighted average for the selected indicators. The indicators were selected based on
IJCCSM researchers’ observations, literature review and the opinions of the Borana pastoralist
16,1 community in the Yabello district. This is important for design of effective adaptation
strategies to reduce the risks associated with climate variability and change in the study
area.
This paper analyzes and evaluates the vulnerability of Borana pastoralists in southern
Ethiopia to climate change and variability using an integrated method. This is important for
160 designing interventions that can enhance the resilience of pastoralist households to climate
risks. The paper adds to the literature on climate change vulnerability assessment by
providing empirical evidence and insights on the pastoralist communities in ASALs, which
are often overlooked or marginalized in climate change research and policy. It also examines
the determinants of vulnerability and the coping strategies of pastoralists using quantitative
and qualitative data.

2. Methodology
2.1 Study area
The study was conducted in Yabello district of Borana zone, which is located in the extreme
southern lowlands of Ethiopia (Figure 1). Yabello has a large population of the Borana tribe,
and pastoralism is the main source of livelihood for the majority of households (Dalle et al.,
2005). The main livestock kept in the area includes cattle, sheep, goats, camels and equines.
The main crops (through small-scale farming) are maize, teff and haricot beans (Tilahun
et al., 2017). Borana zone is agro-ecologically comprised of arid and semi-arid ecological
zones with bi-modal rainfall patterns of an average range of 400–700 mm (Berhanu and
Beyene, 2015). The long dry season occurs from December to February, and the short dry
season occurs from June to August (Mintesnot, 2009). The mean annual temperature ranges
between 19 and 26°C (Aklilu and Alebachew, 2009).

2.2 Study design

This study used multistage sampling techniques that involved probability and
nonprobability sampling methods. Yabello district was purposively selected because it has a
high population of pastoralists who are affected by climate variability and change and its
extremes. The district was stratified into two groups based on its livelihood system: pastoral
and agro-pastoral. Two kebeles were randomly selected from each group using the lottery
method. Accordingly, Cholkasa and Dida Yabello kebeles were sampled from the agro-
pastoral group, whereas Dikale and Dambi kebeles were sampled from the pastoral group.
The formula developed by Cochran (1977) was used to determine sample size. A random
sampling technique was applied to select respondent household heads. For the selected
households whose heads were absent, the next household was chosen and interviewed.
To determine the sample size, Cochran’s (1977) formula was used as follows:

NZ 2 PQ ð2; 540Þð3:8416Þð0:9Þð0:1Þ 1; 189:36

n¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ 131
ð Þ
d N  1 þ Z PQ
2 2 ð Þ ð Þ ð Þ
0:0025 ð2; 539Þ þ 3:8416 0:9 0:1 ð Þ 8:9432

Where:
n ¼ required sample size;
P ¼ the proportion in the targeted population estimated to have characteristic being
measured (P = 0.9);
Q ¼ 1-P which, 1 – 0.9;
N ¼ total number of households in the study area (in four kebeles);
 Livelihood
vulnerability

161

Figure 1.
Map of the study area

Z ¼ Standardized normal variable and its value that corresponds to 95% Confidence
interval equals 1.96; and
d ¼ Allowable error (0.05).
The distribution of respondent household heads in each kebele was Dikale (total HH: 737;
sampled HH: 38), Dambi (420; 22), Dida Yabello (871; 45), Cholkasa (512; 26), total (2,540; 131).

2.3 Data collection and analysis

Data were collected using semi-structured questionnaires administered to household heads in
the four kebeles (the smallest administrative unit) in the Yabello district. A total of 131
household questionnaires were administered, four focus group discussions (FGDs) with gender
parity (each FGD consisting of six individuals) were conducted separately in sampled kebeles
and 20 key informant interviews were conducted between January 2020 and May 2020. The
questionnaire used for the study was divided into household demographics, socio-economic
IJCCSM characteristics, source of family income, livestock and crop production, basic amenities owned,
16,1 access to extension service, access to credit facilities, perception to climate change, adaptation
strategies, access to weather information and other relevant information. Quantitative and
qualitative data analyses were carried out using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS
version 20) software.

162 2.4 Vulnerability analysis

Vulnerability is the susceptibility or inability of a system to cope with the adverse effects of
climate change, including climate variability and extremes (Raghavan et al., 2018).
Vulnerability depends on three components: adaptive capacity, exposure and sensitivity.
Adaptive capacity is the ability of a system to adjust to climate change and reduce its
potential damages. Exposure is the extent to which a system is subject to climatic hazards,
such as droughts, floods and temperature changes. Sensitivity is the degree to which a
system is affected by climatic stimuli, both positively and negatively. These components
interact to determine the net effect of vulnerability, which can be expressed by the equation
(IPCC, 2012):

Vulnerability ¼ Adaptive capacity  ðExposure þ SensitivityÞ (1)

The integrated vulnerability assessment method was used to analyze the vulnerability of
Borana pastoralists to climate change. This method combines both the socio-economic and
bio-physical factors to measure vulnerability to climate change and its extremes (Cutter,
1996; Füssel, 2009; Deressa, 2010; Opiyo et al., 2014). The integrated approach also combines
both internal factors of a vulnerable system and its exposure to external hazards to
determine vulnerability (IPCC, 2012). It defines vulnerability as a function of the character,
magnitude and rate of climate variation to which a system is exposed, its sensitivity and its
adaptive capacity. The higher the adaptive capacity, the less vulnerable the household to
climate change impact and vice versa (Füssel, 2009; IPCC, 2012; Fenta et al., 2018; Olufemi
et al., 2019). This method uses a combination of indicators to measure vulnerability by
computing indices and the weighted average for the selected indicators. The indicators used
in this study were selected based on researchers’ observation, literature review and the
opinion of the Borana pastoralist communities in Yabello district. Community involvement
is important in selecting indicators for vulnerability analysis because vulnerability to
climate variability and change is location-specific (Adger, 2006; Gallopín, 2006; Olufemi
et al., 2019). This study identified 27 socio-economic and biophysical indicators to reflect
climate vulnerability components: adaptive capacity, sensitivity and exposure.
2.4.1 Selected indicators and their effects on vulnerability. This study used the IPCC
(2012) definition to categorize the vulnerability indicators. Adaptive capacity is represented
by wealth, infrastructure, access to information and literacy level. Wealth enhances the
ability of communities to cope and recover from climate extremes. The size of herds is one of
the indicators used by Borana pastoralists to measure the level of wealth of pastoralist
households. The household’s wealth was calculated using the Tropical Livestock Unit (TLU)
conversion factor adopted by Pica-ciamarra et al. (2011). Educated household heads can
understand, interpret and act on information and available opportunities. The availability of
basic infrastructures plays an important role in adaptation to climate change. It increases
the ability of pastoralists to diversify their sources of income, thereby enhancing their
adaptive capacity. Likewise, the availability of animal health posts can enhance the
provision of preventive treatments for diseases associated with climate change. O’Brien et al.
(2007) reported that areas with better infrastructure are more likely to have a higher
capacity to adapt to climate variability and change. Sensitivity, on the other hand, is Livelihood
represented by demographic characteristics like household size, gender and age of vulnerability
household head. Exposure in this study is represented by extreme climatic events such as
drought frequency, change in environmental temperature, amount of precipitation and bush
encroachment which in this study regarded as vegetation change.
2.4.2 Households vulnerability index (HVI). The principal component analysis (PCA) was
used to generate factor scores for calculating the vulnerability index (VI) for the households.
In this study, the first principal component is the linear index of all the variables that 163
captures the highest amount of information common to all variables. The VI was determined
based on three vulnerability components (adaptive capacity, exposure and sensitivity). The
VI of the household was calculated using the equation below:



Vi ¼ A1 X1J þ A2 X2J þ . . . . . . . . . þ An Xnj  A1 Y1j þ A2 Y2j þ . . . :: An Ynj (2)

where:
Vi ¼ vulnerability index;
Xs ¼ indicators for adaptive capacity;
Ys ¼ indicators for exposure and sensitivity; and
As ¼ First component score of each variable computed using PCA.
The values of X and Y were obtained by normalizing the values of vulnerability indicators
using their mean and standard deviations. In this study, the VI was calculated using 27
vulnerability indicators selected for adaptive capacity, exposure and sensitivity. VI was
generated for 131 pastoralist households interviewed in sampled kebeles. The vulnerability
of households was categorized into highly vulnerable, moderately vulnerable and less
vulnerable. The percentage of households that fall into each of the vulnerable categories in
four kebeles was also calculated. The average VI for each of the sampled kebeles was also
determined by calculating the mean VI of sampled households in kebeles.
2.4.3 Significance of the indicators. The level of influence of the indicators on the
vulnerability of the households was analyzed using the ordinal logistic regression model. The
model is used when results are presented in ordinal scales, as in this study where the vulnerability
was categorized into highly vulnerable, moderately vulnerable and less vulnerable households.
This model provides a more parsimonious representation of the data when the dependent
variable is ordered. This is different from some of the earlier studies that used either linear
regression models (Opiyo et al., 2014) or binary logistic models (Deressa, 2010) to analyze the
factors affecting vulnerability. The reduced form of ordinal logistics regression that was used in
this study is the one described by Greene (2002) is given as:

Yj* ¼ Xji b þ Uij (3)

where Y ¼ Level of vulnerability and involves ordered vulnerability categories, Y ¼ 1 is

given to highly vulnerable households, Y ¼ 2 is to moderately vulnerable households and
Y ¼ 3 is given to less vulnerable households. Y* is the given state of vulnerability. The Xij
are the explanatory variables determining vulnerability level. bs is parameters estimated,
and Uij is the disturbance term.

3. Results and discussion

The results showed that 17% of the households had herd size less than 2.5 TLU, 85% had
more than five family members and 82% of respondents had more than three dependents,
IJCCSM aged less than 15 years and 65þ years (Table 1). Pastoralism requires more labor
16,1 availability. Thus, households with more dependents were more vulnerable to climate-
related hazards. Smaller households were more likely to withstand climate change and its
extremes (Opiyo et al., 2014). The findings also showed that 77% of the households were
illiterate, which increased their vulnerability to climate-induced shocks and stresses.
Educated household heads could understand, interpret and act on information and available
164 opportunities.
As shown in Table 1, 15% of the household heads were women who were more
vulnerable to climate-induced shocks and stresses as they had low access to assets, credits,
social participation and climate information. On the other hand, 67%, 77% and 89% of the
households had no access to extension services, credit and early warning information,
respectively, indicating their vulnerability to climate-induced shocks such as droughts. The
findings also indicated that about 60% of the households had no multiple coping strategies,
and only 41% of households had diversified livestock (more than two domestic animal

No. household Influence on

Hypothesized variables (%) vulnerability

Adaptive capacity indicators

Herd size: own less than 2.5 TLU 17 þ
Mobility: able to move livestock freely 32 –
Crop-farming income: with income from crop farming 22 –
Non-farm income: with income from non-farm activities 35 –
Visit by extension officers: no access to extension services 67 þ
Access to early warning information: no access to the information 89 þ
Credit access: have no access to credit 77 þ
Livestock diversity: own 2þ domestic animal types 41 –
HH coping strategies: more than 2 coping strategies 40 –
Humanitarian service: have no access to food aid 63 þ
Own radio; have own radio 31 –
Own mobile phone: have own mobile phone 35 –
Access to electricity: have electricity access 4 –
Education level: no primary education 77 þ
Experience in the area: 45þ years 29 –
Distance to the veterinary clinic: more than 10 km 73 þ
Distance to market. more than 10 km 72 þ
Sensitivity indicators
Sex of HH head: female-headed households 15 þ
Age of HH head: 50þ years 48 þ
HH size: 5þ persons 85 þ
Marital status: single (including divorced and widowed) 23 þ
Households having food shortages during the normal season of the year 35 þ
Dependents: greater than 3 82 þ
Exposure indicators
Table 1. Rainfall: noticed decrease 86 þ
Adaptive capacity, Temperature: noticed increase 92 þ
sensitivity and Drought frequency: frequent (between 1 and 5 years) 85 þ
exposure indicators Vegetation change: high encroachments with low pasture 89 þ
and their effects on Notes: TLU ¼ tropical livestock unit (1 TLU is equivalent to 250 kg); þ ¼ positive sign shows that the
vulnerability (total variable increases vulnerability; – ¼ negative sign shows that the variable decreases vulnerability
HH: 131) Source: Author’s own creation
types). Also, 32% of households had access to free mobility, 22% and 35% had income from Livelihood
crop farming and non-farm activities. The results also revealed that 72% and 73% of the vulnerability
households complained that they had to travel more than 10 km to access markets and
veterinary services, respectively (Table 1). The availability of basic infrastructures played
an important role in adaptation to climate change. It increased the ability of pastoralists to
diversify their sources of income, thereby enhancing their adaptive capacity. Likewise, the
availability of animal health posts could enhance the provision of preventive treatments for
diseases associated with climate change. O’Brien et al. (2007) reported that areas with better 165
infrastructure were more likely to have a higher capacity to adapt to climate variability and
change. The results also revealed exposure to climate shocks and stresses (Table 1). Further,
86% of the respondents indicated that they experienced decreasing rainfall, while 92% of
the households noticed increasing temperatures for the past three decades. Furthermore,
85% of households experienced an increasing frequency of droughts, while 89% of the
household heads had observed vegetation change expressed by high encroachments (mostly
invasive species) with low pasture in the past 30 years. Dalle et al. (2006) reported that
encroachment of woody plants had been a major threat to the livelihood of Borana
pastoralists.

3.1 Pastoralist perception about climate change and variability

The study found that 86% of the Borana pastoralist perceived that rainfall amount is
decreasing, while 14% perceived that rainfall is either unpredictable or they do not know if
rainfall amount has changed over the past 30 years. Most respondents perceived that
seasonal and annual rainfall amounts and the number of rainy days have decreased, while
drought frequency and severity increased. FGDs also agreed that rainfall is reducing, and
there is an increase in drought and dry spell occurrences. They observed significant
environmental change over the past three decades, such as a reduction in the amount and
quality of grass, shorter rain seasons and insufficient rainfall for ponds and pastures. The
study result agreed with Alemayehu et al. (2020), which indicated that there were changes in
temperature and rainfall, expressed mainly in terms of patterns in weather experienced;
higher temperatures, below normal rainfalls and short rainy seasons, higher frequency and
intensity of extreme weather events.
The study found that most Borana pastoralists perceived that the average temperature is
increasing, rainfall is decreasing and drought frequency and severity are increasing. These
perceptions are consistent with the global climate model for East Africa, which indicates
that climate change may increase temperature by 4°C by the end of the century (IPCC, 2007).
The study also found that drought was a high risk for pastoralists. Previous studies
confirmed that drought had increased severely and shortened its cycle in ASALs of East
Africa (Hillier and Tim, 2011; Viste et al., 2013; Tofu et al., 2023). The survey data showed
that about 66% of respondents reported that drought occurred every 3–5 years, 14%
reported the occurrence every 2–3 years, 7% reported 5–7 years and 1% reported that the
drought occurred every year.

3.2 Measuring vulnerability of households

PCA was conducted (using SPSS vr.20) to develop the vulnerability indices and measure the
vulnerability of households quantitatively. The appropriateness of the data was first
checked depending on the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) and Bartlett’s tests values.
According to Li and Weng (2007), if the KMO value is greater than 0.5 and Bartlett’s test
value is less than 0.1, the factor analysis can be run. It is observed that the KMO measure of
sampling adequacy was 0.617, indicating that the model was fairly acceptable (Table 2).
IJCCSM PCA was finally run on the indicators listed in Table 1 to generate the factor scores. Table 3
16,1 shows the result of the factor score for the first PCA and its association with the
vulnerability variables. The result of PCA revealed that two components were extracted
with eigenvalues greater than 1, explaining 95.44% of the total variation. It is observed that
87.18% and 8.25% of the variation were explained by the first and second principal

166
KMO measure of sampling adequacy 0.617
Bartlett’s test of Sphericity
Approximate chi-square 862.284
Table 2. Df 351
KMO and Bartlett‘s Sig. 0.000
test result for the
factor score analysis Source: Author’s own creation

Factors Factor scores

Social vulnerability variables

Sex of HH head: female-headed households –0.137
Age of HH head: 50þ years 0.570
Education level: no primary education –0.299
Experience in the area: 45þ years 0.998
HH size: 5þ persons 0.333
Marital status: single (including divorced and widowed) 0.143
Visit by extension officers: no access to extension services –0.022
Access to early warning information: no access to the information 0.140
Households having food shortages during the normal season of the year –0.090
Dependent: greater than three 0.365
Economic vulnerability variables
Herd size: own less than 2.5 TLU –0.17
Mobility: able to move livestock freely –0.098
Crop-farming income: with income from crop farming 0.067
Non-farm income: with income from non-farm activities –0.165
Credit access: have no access to credit –0.105
Livestock diversity: own 2þ domestic animal types 0.011
HHs coping strategies: more than 2 coping strategies –0.094
Humanitarian service: have no access to humanitarian services 0.053
Own radio 0.005
Own mobile phone –0.024
Access to electricity: have electricity access 0.224
Distance to veterinary clinic: more than 10 km –0.079
Distance to market: more than 10 km –0.004
Environmental vulnerability variables
Table 3. Rainfall: noticed decrease 0.025
The first PCA of the Temperature: noticed increase –0.015
Drought frequency: frequent (between 1 and 5 years) –0.058
social, economic and Vegetation change: high encroachments with low pasture –0.003
environmental
variables’ factor Notes: HHs ¼ Households; TLU ¼ Tropical livestock unit (1 TLU ¼ is equivalent to 250 kg; FAO, 2011)
scores Source: Author’s own creation
components, respectively. The first principal component is the linear index of all the Livelihood
variables that captures the highest amount of information common to all variables. The first vulnerability
principal component was used in this study to generate the factor scores (weight) because it
explains 87.18% of the variations.
The VI of pastoralist households was computed as the net effect of adaptive capacity
(AC) minus exposure (E) and sensitivity (S) [equation (2)]. The indicators of AC, E and S
were derived from the first PCA, following the method of Olufemi et al. (2019). The variables
with higher factor scores had higher influence on VI in the study area. VI was calculated for 167
each of the 131 households studied and categorized into less vulnerable, moderately
vulnerable and highly vulnerable based on their VI scores. The criteria for categorizing VI
levels were based on expert’s opinion, literature review (Fenta et al., 2018; Olufemi et al.,
2019) and the analysis of the results of this study.
The VI of households in four kebeles of the Yabello district ranged from þ3.79 to –4.34,
indicating a high disparity in their vulnerability level. Table 4 shows the VI levels and
situations of pastoral households in the study area. Less vulnerable households (15.3% of
the total) had a VI score from þ1.5 to þ3.79 and could still cope with the effects of climate
change and variability but with a high risk of becoming more vulnerable in the future.
Moderately vulnerable households (60.3% of the total) had a VI score from –0.99 to þ1.49
and needed immediate, but short-term support during climate-induced shock. Highly
vulnerable households (24.4% of the total) had a VI score from –0.98 to –4.34 and could not
cope with climatic stress and needed urgent intervention. They were critically affected by
climate change and variability (Table 4).
VI: Vulnerability index; highly vulnerable: The most susceptible households for slight
shock and need intensive care; moderately vulnerable: households who need temporary
support to recover when they are hit by hard climate-induced shock; less vulnerable: coping
households – households in a susceptible situation but still capable to cope (Fenta et al.,
2018).
Table 4 shows that most of the households were moderately vulnerable in all of the
Kebeles. Dambi had the highest number of highly vulnerable households, followed by
Cholkasa, D/Yaballo and Dikale. D/Yaballo had the highest number of moderately
vulnerable households, followed by Dikale, Cholkasa and Dambi. Dikale had the highest
number of less vulnerable households, followed by D/Yaballo, Dambi and Cholkasa. The
vulnerability level of pastoralist households was related to their socio-economic and
demographic characteristics (Adhikari and Taylor, 2012; Zhang et al., 2018).
Pastoralism is a labor-intensive livelihood system (Fenta et al., 2018), and older
household heads are more vulnerable to climate-induced hazards. Households without
access to extension agents and adaptation options are significantly vulnerable to climate

Vulnerability level of households

Highly vulnerable Moderately vulnerable Less vulnerable
(VI from –0.98 to –4.34) (VI from –0.99 to þ1.49) (VI from þ1.5 to þ 3.79)
Kebele Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % Total (%)

Dikale 6 15.8 24 63 8 21 100

Dambi 9 41 10 45.4 3 13.6 100
D/Yabello 8 17.8 30 66.7 7 15.5 100
Cholkasa 9 34.6 15 57.7 2 9 100 Table 4.
VI of households in
Source: Author’s own creation four kebeles
IJCCSM change, as they lack information or economic capacity to cope with extreme events.
16,1 Households with restricted livestock mobility and no access to humanitarian aid are highly
susceptible to climate shocks. Female-headed households are more vulnerable than male-
headed households, due to gender discrimination for resources and opportunities. Adhikari
and Taylor (2012) reported that women and children are particularly affected by disasters,
accounting for more than 75% of displaced persons. A study of 141 countries over the period
168 1981–2002 found that natural disasters kill more women than men. Gender mainstreaming
into CBA can address the situation of men and women as equal actors in the development
process (UNDP, 2010). Several studies in Eastern Africa suggested that pastoralist women
need specific targeting in climate change adaptation planning (UNDP, 2010; Opiyo et al.,
2014; Mengistu, 2017; Fenta et al., 2018; Olufemi et al., 2019).
Findings by Hinkel (2011) and Opiyo et al. (2014) have shown that household size and age
of the household head have a significant influence on the vulnerability of the households to
climate change and climate extremes. The same study justified that smaller households are
usually less susceptible to climate extreme events such as drought because food scarcity is
one of the main challenges during drought, and the less the household size, the easier it is to
cope with the scarcity of food. Dambi kebele contains the highest mean age (54) of the
household heads, which might contribute to the highest index.
The result of VI statistics of sampled kebeles is also presented in Table 5. The VI of the
kebeles was determined by calculating the average VI for households in each kebele. The
result showed that there is no significant difference between kebeles as well as between
pastoral and agro-pastoral communities (P > 0.05). This difference can be attributed to
livelihood diversification (Zhang et al., 2018). Agro-pastoral households were practicing crop
farming alongside livestock keeping, while pastoralists were solely dependent on their
livestock as a source of income. The overall result showed that agro-pastoral households
had better adaptive capacity and were less vulnerable than pastoral households (Table 5).
3.2.1 Factors influencing household vulnerability in the study area. The vulnerability of
pastoral households to climate change is determined by various factors that affect their
resilience and sensitivity. Resilience is the ability of a household to absorb stresses and
maintain its structure, function and feedback, while sensitivity is the degree to which a
household is modified or affected by perturbations (Adger, 2006; Gallopín, 2006). These
factors can be classified into macro (economic, institutional and environmental setting) and
micro (access to resources, adaptation and coping strategies) levels at the household level
(Gallopín, 2006; Zhang et al., 2018). Based on an ordered logistic regression model, eight
predictor variables were found to have a significant influence (at 5% level of significance) on
the vulnerability of pastoral households in the study area. These variables are early warning

VI statistics
Kebele HH count Mean SD Range Variance Kurtosis

Dikale 38 0.29 1.53 6.64 2.3 –0.165

Dambi 22 –0.51 1.74 6.04 3.0 –0.898
D/Yaballo 45 0.18 1.53 7.49 2.4 0.568
Cholkasa 26 –0.31 1.79 7.39 3.2 –0.100
Community
Pastoralist 60 –0.0007 1.63 6.64 2.69 –0.651
Agro-pastoralist 71 0.0006 1.63 8.13 2.67 0.144
Table 5.
Average VI for Note: SD = standard deviation; P ¼ 0.934
kebeles/communities Source: Author’s own creation
information, bush encroachment (land cover change), coping strategy, temperature change, Livelihood
provision of humanitarian services, drought frequency and food shortages during the vulnerability
normal season of the year (Table 6). These variables affect the resilience and sensitivity of
pastoral households in different ways and have potential consequences on their livelihoods:
 Age of household head: The age of household head has a positive effect on
vulnerability. Older household heads are more vulnerable to climate change than
younger ones, as they have lower education, income and health levels (Tenaw, 169
2021). They also lack access to information, technology and innovation that can help
them adapt (HPG, 2009). Policies that support older households, such as social
security, health care, education and training, could reduce their vulnerability.
 Access to information: Access to information has a negative effect on vulnerability.
Information helps households to make informed decisions, plan and take actions to
cope and adapt (IPCC, 2007). It also increases awareness, knowledge and skills that
can improve livelihood outcomes. Therefore, policies that improve access to
information, such as providing radio, television, mobile phones and internet
services, disseminating climate forecasts and early warning systems, organizing
community meetings and workshops and involving local media and NGOs, could
reduce vulnerability.

Variables Estimate SE Wald p-value

Sex of HH head: female-headed households –3.146 3.927 0.642 0.423

Age of HH head: 50þ years –0.314 0.123 6.482 0.011*
Education level: no primary education –0.386 1.083 0.127 0.721
Experience in the area: 45þ years –0.026 0.081 0.107 0.743
HH size: 5þ persons 0.067 0.678 0.010 0.921
Marital status: single (including divorced and widowed) 0.801 1.931 0.172 0.678
Visit by extension officers: no access to extension services –0.184 1.458 0.016 0.899
Access to early warning information: no access to the information 8.033 3.058 6.900 0.009*
Households having food shortages during the normal season of the year –8.264 2.286 13.067 0.000*
Dependent: greater than three 0.129 0.902 0.020 0.886
Herd size: own less than 2.5 TLUþ 3.417 3.422 0.997 0.318
Mobility: able to move livestock freely 0.976 1.653 0.349 0.555
Crop-farming income: with income from crop farming –0.060 1.940 0.001 0.975
Non-farm income: with income from non-farm activities –0.606 2.434 0.062 0.803
Credit access: have no access to credit –2.056 2.373 0.751 0.386
Livestock diversity: own 2þ domestic animal types 0.043 1.630 0.001 0.979
HH coping strategies: more than 2 coping strategies –4.170 1.826 5.217 0.022*
Humanitarian service: have no access to humanitarian services 7.408 2.067 12.846 0.000*
Own radio –0.974 1.547 0.397 0.529
Own mobile phone 1.341 1.484 0.816 0.366
Access to electricity: have electricity access 1.902 10.885 0.031 0.861
Distance to veterinary clinic: more than 10 km 1.506 1.623 0.861 0.354
Distance to market: more than 10 km 0.306 1.461 0.044 0.834
Rainfall: noticed decrease 0.654 1.046 0.390 0.532
Temperature: noticed increase –4.222 1.697 6.189 0.013* Table 6.
Drought frequency: frequent (between 1 and 5 years) –9.047 2.175 17.306 0.000* Factors influencing
Vegetation change: bush encroachments with low pasture –10.489 3.268 10.305 0.001* household’s
Notes: SE ¼ standard error; The Wald statistics is the square of the ratio of the coefficient to its standard vulnerability to
error; p-value is statistical significance expressed at P < 0.05 climate change and
Source: Author’s own creation variability
IJCCSM  Household coping strategies: Household coping strategies have a negative effect on
16,1 vulnerability. Coping strategies help households to reduce losses, maintain assets
and sustain livelihoods in the face of shocks and stresses (Alemayehu et al., 2020).
Coping strategies also enhance adaptive capacity by increasing flexibility, diversity
and options (Opiyo et al., 2014). Therefore, policies that promote household coping
strategies, such as providing incentives, subsidies and insurance schemes,
170 facilitating collective action and cooperation, supporting local institutions and
networks and strengthening social capital and norms, could help increase household
coping strategies and reduce vulnerability.
 Humanitarian services: Humanitarian services reduce vulnerability to climate change.
Humanitarian services help households cope with and recover from disasters and
crises and protect their rights, dignity and security (Guye et al., 2023). Therefore,
policies that enhance humanitarian services, such as increasing funding, coordination
and accountability, improving targeting, delivery and monitoring mechanisms,
ensuring participation, consultation and feedback of beneficiaries and integrating
humanitarian and development interventions, could reduce vulnerability.
 Temperature: Temperature has a positive effect on vulnerability. It affects water
availability and quality, crop growth and yield, livestock health and productivity,
human health and comfort biodiversity and ecosystem services. Temperature also
worsens heat stress, evaporation rates, pest infestations and disease outbreaks
(Donatti et al., 2020). Therefore, policies that mitigate temperature rise, such as
reducing greenhouse gas emissions, promoting renewable energy sources,
improving energy efficiency and enhancing carbon sequestration, could reduce
vulnerability.
 Drought frequency: Drought frequency increases vulnerability to climate change. It
reduces water availability and quality, crop growth and yield, livestock health and
productivity, human health and well-being and biodiversity and ecosystem services.
Droughts also worsen food insecurity, poverty, conflict and migration (Opiyo et al.,
2015). Therefore, policies that prevent or reduce drought occurrence and impact,
such as improving water management and conservation, promoting drought-
tolerant crops and breeds, providing irrigation and fodder facilities, enhancing
drought preparedness and response plans and supporting drought recovery and
rehabilitation programs, could reduce vulnerability.
 Vegetation change: Vegetation change has a positive effect on vulnerability. Vegetation
provides food, fuel, fiber, medicine and income for pastoralists. Vegetation also regulates
water cycle, soil fertility, climate and biodiversity. Vegetation loss or degradation is
caused by overgrazing, deforestation, land conversion, fire and climate change (Ayal and
Leal Filho, 2017). Therefore, policies that restore or enhance vegetation cover and quality
such as promoting sustainable land use and management practices, encouraging
afforestation and reforestation activities, supporting community-based natural resource
management and conservation initiatives, enforcing environmental laws and regulations
and compensating environmental services, could reduce vulnerability.

The Borana pastoralists have a rich and diverse knowledge of their environment, which
helps them to manage natural resources and adapt to climate change. However, this
knowledge is threatened by external factors such as land degradation, population growth,
policy interventions and socio-economic changes. This could harm the biodiversity,
ecosystem services and resilience of the rangelands. The Borana pastoralists rely on
livestock production for their livelihoods. They use strategies such as herd splitting, cattle Livelihood
mobility, herd diversification and bush burning to cope with their environment. However, vulnerability
these strategies are challenged by factors such as market fluctuations, droughts, conflicts,
diseases and sedentarization. This affects their food security, income and well-being. The
pastoralists have a strong culture and identity that is based on their pastoral way of life.
They have a complex social organization that is regulated by customary institutions, norms
and values. However, these institutions are pressured by factors such as state policies, 171
modernization, education and migration. This affects their social capital, empowerment and
self-determination.
The present study result concurs with previous studies that Borana Lowlands are
encroached by woody plants beyond the critical level. This affects rangeland management
and pastoral livelihoods. The causes are less use of indigenous knowledge, poor
understanding of the pastoral system and conversion of pastoral land to other activities. The
fire ban in the 1970s also increased bush expansion. The rangelands in south and eastern
Ethiopia are poor due to drought, overgrazing and bush encroachment. The pastoralists in
Yabello district lack enough and good pasture because of bushes, land fragmentation and
livestock overstocking. They used to control pasture with fire, but the government
prohibited it and now spends money to clear the bush.
According to the study by the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent
Societies (IFRC), drought is an inevitable consequence of the weather patterns in the Horn of
Africa, and therefore, development efforts in pastoralist areas can be prioritized, strengthened
and refocused based on credible and specific early warning information. Severe droughts that
occurred in Borana during 2000, 2006, 2008 and 2011 seasons (Stark and Terasawa, 2011)
caused huge livestock deaths. Climate information is becoming a valuable resource for
confronting and living with an increasingly uncertain future (Care, 2014). Based on reliable
early warning information, early humanitarian services such as Productive Safety Net
Programs (PSNP) can be broadened and deepened; community capacities can be recognized
and enhanced. Above all, most of the negative impacts of climate change can be mitigated
through national and local government programs like IFRC. Readiness to respond to early
warning is critical to intervene timely. This involves some preparatory planning of the response
ahead of the emergency call when these systems send warning alarms (Yilma et al., 2009).

4. Conclusions
This study analyzed the vulnerability of Borana pastoralists in Yabello district to climate
change and variability using indicators developed by the researcher and the stakeholders.
The results showed that most households are highly or moderately vulnerable to climate-
induced stresses, and that several factors such as early warning information, bush
encroachment, coping strategy, temperature, drought frequency, provision of humanitarian
service and food shortage have significant influence on vulnerability. The study also found
that there is a direct link between the level of infrastructural development and the level of
vulnerability, and that there is high disparity in the vulnerability levels of households
within and among kebeles in the district. The study recommends four ways to enhance the
resilience of Borana pastoralists:
 supporting the integration of indigenous and scientific knowledge for natural
resource management and adaptation;
 improving the access and quality of basic infrastructures such as markets, veterinary
services, extension services, credit facilities and early warning information;
IJCCSM  promoting livelihood diversification and innovation through crop farming, non-farm
16,1 activities and livestock diversification; and
 recognizing and respecting the culture and rights of Borana pastoralists and
empowering them to participate in decision-making processes.

The study also suggests more studies on spatial and temporal variations of vulnerability
172 and adaptation strategies among different pastoral communities in Ethiopia and other
countries in the Horn of Africa.
To bridge the gap between local and global knowledge and to foster collaboration and co-
learning among different stakeholders, it is important to explore the potential synergies and
tradeoffs between indigenous and scientific knowledge systems for enhancing the resilience
and sustainability of pastoral livelihoods. It is also highly important to examine the role of
social, economic and institutional factors in influencing the adoption and implementation of
adaptation and coping strategies among pastoralists. This would help to understand the
drivers and barriers for adaptation and coping, as well as to address the underlying causes
of vulnerability among pastoralists.

References
Adger, W.N. (1999), “Social vulnerability to climate change and extremes in coastal Vietnam”, World
Development, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 249-269.
Adger, W.N. (2006), “Vulnerability”, Global Environmental Change, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 268-281, doi:
10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.02.006.
Adhikari, B. and Taylor, K. (2012), “Vulnerability and adaptation to climate change: a review of local
actions and national policy response”, Climate and Development, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 54-65, doi:
10.1080/17565529.2012.664958.
Aklilu, A. and Alebachew, A. (2009), “Assessment of climate change-induced hazards, impacts and
responses in the southern lowlands of Ethiopia”, FSS Research Report No. 4, Vol. 34, Issue 1,
available at: www.fssethiopia.org.et
Alemayehu, A., Maru, M., Bewket, W. and Assen, M. (2020), “Spatiotemporal variability and trends in
rainfall and temperature in Alwero watershed, Western Ethiopia”, Environmental Systems
Research, Vol. 9 No. 1, doi: 10.1186/s40068-020-00184-3.
Amsalu, A., Desalegn, W., Kassa, M. and Negash, T. (2013), “Brief climate change impacts on pastoral
women in Ethiopia: some evidences from the Southern lowlands”, pp. 1-6.
Amwata, D.A. (2013), Climate Variability, Land-Use and Livelihoods in Kiboko-Kibwezi the Influence of
Climate Variability and Change on Land-Use and Livelihoods in Kenya’s Southern Rangelands,
Department of Land Resource Management and Agricultural Technology University,
University of Nairobi, Nairobi.
Atube, F., Malinga, G.M., Nyeko, M., Okello, D.M., Alarakol, S.P. and Okello-Uma, I. (2021), “Determinants of
smallholder farmers’ adaptation strategies to the effects of climate change: evidence from Northern
Uganda”, Agriculture and Food Security, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 1-15, doi: 10.1186/s40066-020-00279-1.
Awiti, A.O. (2022), “Climate change and gender in Africa: a review of impact and gender-responsive
solutions”, Frontiers in Climate, Vol. 4 No. June, doi: 10.3389/fclim.2022.895950.
Ayal, D.Y. and Leal Filho, W. (2017), “Farmers’ perceptions of climate variability and its adverse
impacts on crop and livestock production in Ethiopia”, Journal of Arid Environments, Vol. 140,
pp. 20-28, doi: 10.1016/j.jaridenv.2017.01.007.
Bekele, N. and Kebede, G. (2014), “Rangeland degradation and restoration in semi-arid areas of
Southern Ethiopia:- the case of Borana rangeland”, International Journal of Environmental
Sciences, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 94-103.
Belay, A., Recha, J.W., Woldeamanuel, T. and Morton, J.F. (2017), “Smallholder farmers’ adaptation to Livelihood
climate change and determinants of their adaptation decisions in the Central Rift Valley of
Ethiopia”, Agriculture and Food Security, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 1-13, doi: 10.1186/s40066-017-0100-1.
vulnerability
Berhanu, W. and Beyene, F. (2015), “Climate variability and household adaptation strategies in
Southern Ethiopia”, Sustainability, Vol. 7 No. 6, pp. 6353-6375, doi: 10.3390/su7066353.
Bohle, H.-G. (2001), “Vulnerability and criticality”, IHDP Update, Vol. 2, pp. 1-6.
Brooks, N., Adger, W.N. and Kelly, P.M. (2005), “The determinants of vulnerability and adaptive 173
capacity at the national level and the implications for adaptation”, Global Environmental
Change, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 151-163, doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2004.12.006.
Bryan, E., Ringler, C., Okoba, B., Roncoli, C., Silvestri, S. and Herrero, M. (2013), “Adapting agriculture
to climate change in Kenya: household strategies and determinants”, Journal of Environmental
Management, Vol. 114, pp. 26-35, doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.10.036.
Care (2014), “Facing uncertainty: the value of climate information for adaptation, risk reduction and
resilience in Africa”, p. 23, available at: www.careclimatechange.org
Carter, T.R. and Makinen, K. (2011), “Approaches to climate change impact, adaptation and vulnerability
assessment: towards a classification framework to serve decision-making”, MEDIATION
Technical Report No. 2.1, Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE), Helsinki, Finland, p. 70.
Cochran, W.G. (1977), Sampling Techniques, 3rd ed., John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.
Cutter, S.L. (1995), “Living with risk, book reviews”, Applied Geography, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 86-92.
Cutter, S.L. (1996), “Vulnerability to hazards”, Progress in Human Geography, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 529-539.
Dalle, G., Isselstein, J. and Maass, B.L. (2005), “Indigenous ecological knowledge of Borana pastoralists
in Southern Ethiopia and current challenges”, International Journal of Sustainable Development
and World Ecology, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 113-130, doi: 10.1080/13504500609469666.
Dalle, G., Maass, B.L. and Isselstein, J. (2006), “Encroachment of woody plants and their impact on
pastoral livestock production in the Borana lowlands, Southern Oromia, Ethiopia”, African
Journal of Ecology, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 237-246, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2028.2006.00638.x.
Deressa, T.T. (2010), “Assessment of the vulnerability of Ethiopian agriculture to climate change and
farmers’ adaptation strategies”, July, 127.
Deressa, T.T., Hassan, R.M., Ringler, C., Alemu, T. and Yesuf, M. (2009), “Determinants of farmers’
choice of adaptation methods to climate change in the Nile basin of Ethiopia”, Global
Environmental Change, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 248-255, doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.01.002.
Donatti, C.I., Harvey, C.A., Hole, D., Panfil, S.N. and Schurman, H. (2020), “Indicators to measure the
climate change adaptation outcomes of ecosystem-based adaptation”, Climatic Change, Vol. 158
Nos 3/4, pp. 413-433, doi: 10.1007/s10584-019-02565-9.
FAO (2011), “Guidelines for the preparation of livestock sector reviews”, Animal Production and Health
Guidelines, Vol. 5, available at: www.fao.org/docrep/014/i2294e/i2294e00.pdf
Fenta, M., Jordaan, A. and Melka, Y. (2018), “Erratum: vulnerability of Southern Afar pastoralists to
climate variability and change, Ethiopia”, Jamba Journal of Disaster Risk Studies, Vol. 11 No. 1,
pp. 1-8, doi: 10.4102/jamba.v11i1.900.
Fortini, L. and Schubert, O. (2017), “Beyond exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity: a response
based ecological framework to assess species climate change vulnerability”, Climate Change
Responses, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 1-7, doi: 10.1186/s40665-017-0030-y.
Füssel, H.-M. (2009), “Development and climate change: review and quantitative analysis of indices of
climate change exposure, adaptive capacity, sensitivity, and impacts, World Developmental
Report, pp. 1-33, doi: 10.1126/science.1183876
Fussel, H.-M. and Klein, R.J.T. (2006), “Climate change vulnerability assessments: an evolution of
conceptual thinking”, Climatic Change, Vol. 75 No. 3, pp. 301-329, doi: 10.1007/s10584-006-
0329-3.
IJCCSM Gallopín, G.C. (2006), “Linkages between vulnerability, resilience, and adaptive capacity”, Global
Environmental Change, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 293-303, doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.02.004.
16,1
Gebru, G.W., Ichoku, H.E. and Phil-Eze, P.O. (2020), “Determinants of smallholder farmers’ adoption of
adaptation strategies to climate change in Eastern Tigray national regional state of Ethiopia”,
Heliyon, Vol. 6 No. 7, p. e04356, doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e04356.
Greene, W.H. (2002), Econometric Analysis, 5th ed., Pearson, London.
174 Guye, M., Legesse, A. and Mohammed, Y. (2023), “Pastoralists under threat continuum: quantifying
vulnerabilities of pastoralists to climate variability in Southern Ethiopia”, GeoJournal, Vol. 88
No. 2, pp. 1785-1806, doi: 10.1007/s10708-022-10710-8.
Hillier, D. and Tim, G. (2011), Briefing on the Horn of Africa Drought: Climate Change and Future
Impacts on Food Security, Oxfam International.
Hinkel, J. (2011), “Indicators of vulnerability and adaptive capacity’: towards a clarification of the
science-policy interface”, Global Environmental Change, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 198-208, doi: 10.1016/j.
gloenvcha.2010.08.002.
HPG (2009), “Pastoralism and climate change enabling adaptive capacity”, Synthesis Paper, April 2009.
Hulme, M., Doherty, R., Ngara, T., New, M. and Lister, D. (2001), “African climate change: 1900-2100”,
Climate Research, Vol. 17 No. 2 SPECIAL 8, pp. 145-168, doi: 10.3354/cr017145.
Hurst, M., Jensen, N., Pedersen, S., Sharma, A. and Zambriski, J. (2012), “Changing climate adaptation
strategies of Boran pastoralists in Southern Ethiopia”, Working Paper No. 15, CGIAR Research
Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS), available at: www.Ccafs.
Cgiar.Org
IPCC (2007), “Regional climate projections, climate change, 2007: the physical science basis”,
Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, November 2015, pp. 847-940.
IPCC (2012), “Managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to advance climate change
adaptation”, Special report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change, in Field, C.B.,
Barros, V., Barros, V., Dahe, Q., Dokken, D.J., Plattner, G.-K., Ebi, K.L., Allen, S.K., Mastrandrea,
M.D., Tignor, M., Mach, K.J. and Midgley, P.M. (Eds), Cambridge.
IPCC (2013), “Summary for policymakers. In: climate change 2013: the physical science basis.
Contribution of working group I to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on
climate change”, in Stocker, T.F., Qin, G.-K., Plattner, M., Tignor, S.K. and Allen, J. (Ed.),
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY.
IPCC (2014), “Summary for policymakers. In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and
Vulnerability. Part A: global and sectoral aspects. Contribution of working group ii to the fifth
assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change”, in Field, C.B. (Ed.), doi:
10.4324/9781315270326-109.
Iticha, B. and Husen, A. (2018), “Adaptation to climate change using indigenous weather forecasting
systems in Borana pastoralists of Southern Ethiopia”, Climate and Development, Vol. 11 No. 7,
pp. 564-573, doi: 10.1080/17565529.2018.1507896.
Klein, J.T. (2008), “Evaluation of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research”, American Journal of
Preventive Medicine, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 116-123, doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2008.05.010.
Li, G. and Weng, Q. (2007), “Measuring the quality of life in the city of Indianapolis by integration of
remote sensing and census data”, International Journal of Remote Sensing, Vol. 28 No. 2,
pp. 249-267, doi: 10.1080/01431160600735624.
Maddison, D. (2007), “The perception of and adaptation to climate change in Africa”, World Bank
Policy Research Working Paper 4308, Vol. 10, pp. 1-47.
Mengistu, S. (2017), “Livelihood vulnerability and coping strategies among the Karrayu pastoralists of
Ethiopia”, IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 33-39, doi: 10.9790/
0837-2201023339.
Mintesnot, Z. (2009), “Bush encroachment mapping using supervised classification and spectral Livelihood
mixture analysis in Borana rangelands: a case study in Yabello woreda”, MSc thesis.
vulnerability
Mwadzingeni, L., Mugandani, R. and Mafongoya, P.L. (2022), “Socio-demographic, institutional and
governance factors influencing the adaptive capacity of smallholder irrigators in Zimbabwe”,
Plos One, Vol. 17 No. 8, pp. 1-21, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0273648.
Ndamani, F. and Watanabe, T. (2016), “Determinants of farmers’ adaptation to climate change: a micro-
level analysis in Ghana”, Scientia Agricola, Vol. 73 No. 3, pp. 201-208, doi: 10.1590/0103-9016-
2015-0163. 175
O’Brien, K., Eriksen, S., Nygaard, L.P. and Schjolden, A.N.E. (2007), “Why different interpretations of
vulnerability matter in climate change discourses”, Climate Policy, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 73-88.
Olufemi, B.A., Williams, O., Gilbert, O. and Joshua, O. (2019), “Assessing vulnerability of Maasai
pastoralists in Kenya to climate change and variability”, Vol. 3 No. 6, pp. 97-107.
Ongoro, E.B. and Ogara, W. (2012), “Impact of climate change and gender roles in community
adaptation: a case study of pastoralists in Samburu east district”, Kenya. International Journal of
Biodiversity and Conservation, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 78-89, doi: 10.5897/IJBC11.174.
Opiyo, F.E.O., Wasonga, O.V. and Nyangito, M.M. (2014), “Measuring household vulnerability to
climate-induced stresses in pastoral rangelands of Kenya: implications for resilience
programming”, Pastoralism, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 1-15, doi: 10.1186/s13570-014-0010-9.
Opiyo, F.E.O., Wasonga, O., Nyangito, M., Schilling, J. and Munang, R. (2015), “Drought adaptation and
coping strategies among the Turkana pastoralists of Northern Kenya”, International Journal of
Disaster Risk Science, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 295-309, doi: 10.1007/s13753-015-0063-4.
Oxfam (2010), “Pastoralism demographics, settlement and service provision in the horn and east Africa:
transformation and opportunities”, May, available at: www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/
drought/docs/pastoralism_Demographictrends_settlementpatternsandserviceprovision.pdf
Pica-Ciamarra, U., Tasciotti, L., Otte, J., Zezza, A., Working, E.S.A. and No, P. (2011), “Livestock assets,
livestock income and rural households household surveys”, p. 11.
Raghavan, S.A., Funk, C., Aenis, T., Winker, P. and Breuer, L. (2018), “Sensitivity analysis of a climate
vulnerability index – a case study from Indian watershed development programmes”, Climate
Change Responses, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 1-14, doi: 10.1186/s40665-018-0037-z.
Sharma, J., Murthy, I.K., Esteves, T., Negi, P., Dasgupta, S., Barua, A., Bala, G. and Ravindranath, N.H.
(2016), “*Climate vulnerability and risk assessment: framework, methods and guidelines”,
Department of Science and Technology.
Stark, J. and Terasawa, K. (2011), “Climate change and conflict in pastoralist regions of Ethiopia:
mounting challenges, emerging responses”, p. 4.
Tenaw, Z.T. (2021), “Climate change, pastoral livelihood vulnerability and adaptation strategies: a case
study of sitti zone, Somali regional state in Eastern Ethiopia”, PhD Thesis, December.
Tilahun, A., Teklu, B. and Hoag, D. (2017), “Challenges and contributions of crop production in agro-
pastoral systems of Borana Plateau, Ethiopia”, doi: 10.1186/s13570-016-0074-9.
Tofu, D.A., Fana, C., Dilbato, T., Dirbaba, N.B. and Tesso, G. (2023), “Pastoralists and
agropastoralists’ livelihood resilience to climate change-induced risks in the Borana zone,
South Ethiopia: using resilience index measurement approach”, Pastoralism, Vol. 13 No. 1,
p. 4, doi: 10.1186/s13570-022-00263-3.
UNDP (2010), “Gender, community-based adaptation”, in Garmer, L.W. (Ed.), United Nations
Development Programme, available at: www.undp.org%0AAll
UNEP (2002), “Assessing human vulnerability to environmental change: concepts, issues, methods and
case studies”, UNEP, Division of Early Warning and Assessment, available at: www.unep.org
USAID (2016), “Climate Change risk profile, Ethiopia. Thought leadership and assessments (ATLAS)
Task Order No. AID-OAA-I-14-00013”, August.
IJCCSM Viste, E., Korecha, D. and Sorteberg, A. (2013), “Recent drought and precipitation tendencies in
Ethiopia”, Theoretical and Applied Climatology, Vol. 112 Nos 3/4, pp. 535-551, doi: 10.1007/
16,1 s00704-012-0746-3.
Yilma, Z., Haile, A. and Guernebleich, E. (2009), “Effect of climate change on livestock production and
livelihood of pastoralists in selected pastoral areas of Borana, Ethiopia, food and agriculture
organization of the united nations, Sub regional office for Eastern Africa (FAO/SFE)”,
Proceedings of the 17th annual conference of the Ethiopian Society of Animal Production (ESAP),
176 Issue October 2014, doi: 10.13140/2.1.4475.9044.
Zamasiya, B., Nyikahadzoi, K. and Mukamuri, B.B. (2017), “Factors influencing smallholder farmers’
behavioural intention towards adaptation to climate change in transitional climatic zones: a case
study of Hwedza district in Zimbabwe”, Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 198,
pp. 233-239, doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.04.073.
Zhang, Q., Zhao, X. and Tang, H. (2018), “Vulnerability of communities to climate change: application
of the livelihood vulnerability index to an environmentally sensitive region of China”, Climate
and Development, Vol. 11 No. 6, pp. 525-542, doi: 10.1080/17565529.2018.1442808.

Further reading
Onyango, L., Mango, J., Kurui, Z. and Wamubeyi, B. (2012), “Village Baseline Study: Site Analysis
Report for Usambara – Lushoto, Tanzania (TZ0105). October”.

Corresponding author
Shetie Gatew can be contacted at: [email protected]

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]