Livelihood Strategies and Household Resilience to … · Livelihood Strategies and Household Resilience to Food Insecurity: The Case of Niger Ruben DJOGBENOU ENSEA Abidjan [email protected]

Livelihood Strategies and Household Resilience to

Food Insecurity: The Case of Niger

Ruben DJOGBENOU

ENSEA Abidjan

[email protected]

June, 2015

1

Resilience, food insecurity 2

Abstract

Niger is a landlocked West African country where food insecurity is a major issue. The

country has been subject to many food crisis over time and actions have been set up

to cope with food insecurity in the country.

The concept of resilience raised in the literature but little applications have been

made in the context of food insecurity. To our knowledge, no study focused on the

measurement of resilience to food insecurity in the context of Niger.

This paper contributes to the literature as it uses a quantitative approach to measure

the level of resilience to food insecurity in the case of Niger. The data are drawn from

the Niger National Survey on Living Conditions and Agriculture 2011.

The findings show that the less resilient households are the poor agricultural house-

holds (-0,00058) and the nomadic cattle-breeders households (-0,00069). The results

also show high inequalities in the distribution of the resilience index and appeal to

some policy measures to facilitate the access to basic social services to the less resilient

households.

Key Words: Niger, Livelihood strategy, Resilience, food insecurity.

JEL Classification: Q12, Q18, I32, I38.


1 Introduction

1.1 Problem

Niger is a landlocked West African country of 16 million people. According to the

World Bank, the population of Niger grows at the rate of 3.3% per year, and is ranked

among the fastest growing countries in the world in terms of population. That rapid

population growth acts as vector, among others, of the spreading of poverty in the

country. According to the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD),

nearly 63% of the total population lives below the poverty line and 34% lives in extreme

poverty. This picture is even worse in rural spaces. In fact, 66% of the population lives

under the poverty line and 36% in extreme poverty. The recent political instability

doubled with high inequalities, weak infrastructure and extreme weather conditions

had exacerbated poverty in the country.

The driving sector of the economic performance of Niger is Agriculture. According

to the World Food Program, almost 82% of the population of the country make a

living with farming activities. Since the early 2000, Niger has been hit with negative

agricultural and weather events. In 2001-2002, Niger has suffered from the regional

equipments depletion doubled with the price inflation. Immediately after, in 2004-

2005, there was a severe drought and locust invasion that prompted a severe food

security crisis. Only two years after, in this general instability, Niger has been hit by

the increase of the prices of foodstuffs at the regional level. Recently in 2009-2010,

Niger faced a pastoral crisis with the increase of prices. This was due to poor harvests

along with unpredicted flooding that naturally led to a severe food security crisis that

affected around 3 million people in both urban and rural spaces. In 2012-2013 the Sahel

region faced a severe crisis coupled with general political instability in the region. In

line with that, poor harvests in 2011 resulted in cereal deficits that prompted 20%

of the population to fall into food insecurity in 2012. This ”sad” picture of apparent

successive food crisis contributed to the high level of malnutrition rates in the country.

According to the World Food Program, around 10% of the children under 5 suffer from

acute malnutrition and a total of 44% suffer from chronic malnutrition. It appears that


food insecurity is a tough concern and a topical issue in Niger.

In the literature, food security has become a widely discussed issue. Recently, focus

has been made on the various mechanisms households could use to cope with economic

shocks that affect their food security. Actually, the coping strategy of households de-

pends on their capabilities, their assets (which include material and social resources) as

well as the different activities they develop (Alinovi and al., 2010). Dercon and Krish-

man (1996) add that household livelihood strategy is also part of the coping strategy of

households. For them, household belonging to different socioeconomic groups have dif-

ferent strategies to earn their own living. These differences in response ensures different

levels of resilience to food insecurity.

In order to bring a contribution to the existing literature, this study investigates the

livelihood strategies and Household Resilience to food insecurity in Niger as it becomes

important that policymakers take that fact into account1 while implementing their food

strategies.

In this framework, the core assumption we make is that households belonging to

different socioeconomic groups (small farmer households versus non-farmer household

for instance) require different interventions. Consistent with this assumption, this study

intends to reply to following three main research questions. Is there any structure in

the grouping of households in Niger? What is the level of resilience to food insecurity in

each livelihood groups? What are the policy implications for empowering households?

1.2 Objectives

In this paper, we give focus to identifying the major determinants of the livelihood

strategy in Niger. Actually this is crucial for improving the response mechanisms

related to food insecurity and poverty in Niger. More specifically, firstly we develop a

cluster analysis to determine the structure of households in Niger. This cluster analysis

allows us to build up livelihood strategy groups in Niger households. Secondly we build

a resilience index by livelihood strategy groups to measure the level of resilience to food

1For instance, in Niger, the International Fund for Agricultural Development works to improve

food and nutrition security in rural households and to boost the resilience of local communities.


insecurity in Niger.

1.3 Contribution

Many empirical studies have focused on the measurement of resilience in various con-

texts. But to our knowledge, in the case of Niger, no study investigated the households

resilience to food insecurity. As food insecurity is a real issue in Niger, our study is a

major contribution to the comprehension of that ”resilience” aspect of food insecurity

in Niger. From another perspective, this study is policy-relevant since it enlightens the

efforts authorities have to do in order to cope with food insecurity in Niger.

The remainder of the paper is organized as follow. Section 2 explores the existent

literature on resilience to food insecurity. Section 3 presents the methodology adopted

to compute the resilience index in the case of Niger. Section 4 shows the main results.

Conclusions and policy implications are presented in section 5.

2 Literature Review

The purpose of this chapter is to present the theory on resilience. The literature on

the concept is very broad and diverse. We intend to give a short summary on the

theoretical considerations on the concept of resilience.

Resilience comes from the Latin ”resilientia”used in metallurgy, to reflect the ability

of a metal to return to its initial state after a shock or a continuous pressure. Etymo-

logically, resilience means therefore withstand and bounce in front of a significant and

persistent adversity.

Originally, resilience is a physical concept, adapted to social sciences, including

psychology and economics.

Not many studies focus on quantitative measures of households resilience to food

insecurity. Figure 1 shows a short synthesis of studies on the subject.


Figure 1: Empirical Approaches to Resilience Measurement

Source: Ciani and Romano (2014)

In the literature, the main issue is that resilience is not directly observable. For the

purpose, in general we identify two procedures to handle the problem.

Alinovi and al. (2008, 2010) suggest a strategy in which resilience is modeled as a

multidimensional latent variable. They use data from the Kenya integrated household

budget survey. They included six (6) various components:

• Social safety nets,

• Access to public services

• Assets

• Income and food access

• Stability and

• Adaptive capacity

In practice, all those components are treated as latent variables, because they are

not directly observable. Thus, Alinovi and al. (2008, 2010) suggest a two-stage process

to measure resilience to food insecurity (figure 3).


Figure 2: Household Resilience Index Estimation Procedure

Source: Alinovi and al. (2010)

In the first stage some observed variables (drawn from the survey data) are used to

estimate a first set of latent variables using a factor analysis. Then the latent variables

computed are used to compute a resilience index through the same technique.

Alinovi et al. (2010) perform a cluster analysis to classify the population in six sub-

groups corresponding to six livelihood strategies before running the computation of the

resilience index. So to speak, there are able to highlight the differences in livelihood

groups corresponding to different resilience levels and resilience building mechanisms.

From an other perspective, Carter and al. (2006) and Keil and al. (2008) suggest

to used an observable variable as a proxy of resilience2. In fact Keil and al. (2008)

measured resilience of Indonesian farmers to ENSO-related drought. They measured

resilience as ”the observed degree of drought-induced expenditure reductions for basic

necessities”. In that framework, the absolute value of negative variations is supposed

to be negatively correlated with resilience: a fully resilient household is expected to

record null variations of basic consumption. They use Principal Component Analysis to

aggregate the variables that describe consumption. In their analysis, the first principal

component is extracted and used to compute the scores. Then they specify a model to

identify the determinants of resilience.

However, as we stated earlier, the fact that resilience is a complex phenomenon

makes the proxy-based approach too simple to measure it.

For that reason and consistent with Ciani and Romano (2014), we adopt the ap-

2this is actually the most used approach to measure resilience


proach of Alinovi and al (2010).

3 Methodology

Our methodology is built on Alinovi and al. (2010). Using a Cluster Analysis, we first

identify the livelihood strategy of households in Niger. The objective of the cluster

analysis is to assign households to groups identified as coping strategy options against

food insecurity. In our case, we adopt the hierarchical cluster analysis to group the

households of our sample data.

After building the livelihood strategies, we built the resilience to food insecurity

index based on a two-stage factor analysis: the Multiple Factor Analysis.

At the first stage we perform various factor analysis on the identified dimensions of

the household resilience to food insecurity. These factor analysis allow us to compute

some sub-index (IGi)(1≤i≤K) representing the K components (latent variables) of the

resilience index.

At the second stage we use a factor analysis again to compute the resilience index.

The resilience index we compute has 10 components:

• Access to basic services

• Durable Goods

• House Characteristics

• Adaptive Capacity

• Physical Connectivity

• Food security

• Agricultural Assets

• Durable Assets value

• Connectivity Assets value


• Economics and demographics

The functional form of our Resilience Index, denoted RI is:

RI =

∑Kk=1 λkIGk∑K

k=1 λk(1)

In equation(1), λk is the weight of the component k and is drawn from the factor

loadings and the eigenvalues resulting from the Multiple Factor Analysis and IGkis the

sub index (latent variable) relative to the the component k.

The normalized resilience index (NormRI)is obtained by the following:

NormRI =RI − (minRIl)l=1,...,N

(maxRIl)l=1,...,N − (minRIl)l=1,...,N

(2)

Where N is the number of households in our sample.

3.1 Data and sources

The data are drawn from the Niger National Survey on Living Conditions and Agricul-

ture 2011. The ECVM/A is an integrated multi-topic household survey done for the

purpose of evaluating poverty and living conditions in Niger. This type of survey is

regularly done in Niger. The most two recent surveys were the QUIBB (Questionnaire

des Indicateurs de base du Bien-etre) in 2005 and the ENBC (Enquete Nationale sur le

Budget et la Consommation des Menages) in 2007/08. This survey was implemented

by the National Institute of Statistics (Institut National de la Statistique - INS) with

technical and financial assistance from the World Bank.

The survey covers a sample of 3,968 households with 1,538 in urban areas and 2,430

in rural areas. The sample was drawn using a stratified two-stage sampling, and to

cover urban areas (Niamey, Other urban) in two strata and all rural agro-ecological

zones (Agricultural, Agro-pastoral, Pastoral) in three strata. In the first stage of the

sampling, 270 enumeration areas (EA) were drawn among the nearly 10,000 EAs and

at the second stage, 12 or 18 households were drawn from each EA respectively in

urban and rural areas. Data collection was organized in two visits, a post-planting


visit from mid-July to mid-September 2011 and a post-harvest visit in November and

December 2011. Three questionnaires were designed to collect a range of information

on households, their farms and the communities in which they live. For the household

questionnaire, the data collected concerned the household roster, health, education,

employment, non-farm enterprises, housing, non-labor income and food and non-food

consumption. The community questionnaire is dedicated to information on access to

services and market prices. As for the agriculture questionnaire, it is designed to collect

data on access to land, inputs used (seeds, fertilizers, pesticides, etc.), labor (household

and hired labor), equipment, production, marketing and farm income, and extensive

data on livestock.

For the purpose of our analysis, we concentrate on the Household heads and reduce

the sample to 3578 households.

The variables used to identify the livelihood strategies are: the household head de-

mographic characteristics (age, gender, marital status, branch, socioeconomic group,

industry, socio professional category,etc.), the region, the food expenditures, the house-

hold size, the agricultural status, etc. Their descriptive statistics are presented in Annex

1.

4 Results

4.1 Livelihood groups

Our analysis identifies four (4) livelihood strategies groups in Niger households:


Figure 3: Livelihood strategy groups in Niger

Source: Author’s computation

The Independent sedentary households (21.83%): We note that 98.82% of house-

hold head in independent agriculture belong to this livelihood strategy. Over 90%

of Artisans and traders belong to this group. 63.05% of household living in Ni-

amey are in this group. We also note that 98.89% of household in this livelihood

strategy are sedentary, 91.91% household head in this group hold an individ-

ual enterprise and 87.89% of household heads are in a permanent employment.

Household heads of this group are in average 44 years old and the average size of

households is 5.

The richest non agricultural salaried households (5.80%): In this livelihood strat-

egy, 83.29% of household are in the 5th quintile of welfare. 81.88% of those of

work in health and education sectors are in this group. Household heads of this

group are in average 43 years old and the average size of households is 5.

The nomadic cattle-breeders households (5.11%): 84% of the nomad household

and 85.13% of the cattle breeders belong to this livelihood group. 93.28% of

household in this livlihood strategy are in rural areas. Household heads of this

group are in average 45 years old and the average size of households is 6.

The poor agricultural households (67.26): 96% of agriculture households are in

this livelihood strategy (most of them being small farmers). 94.42% of temporary

household head workers are in this group. Over 80% of agro-pastoral and pastoral

households are in this livelihood strategy. 86.85% of the poorest households are


in this group. 85.77% of the household heads of this group have the primary

educational level. 81.40% of the rural households are in this group. Household

heads of this group are in average 44 years old and the average size of households

is 7.

The distribution of livelihood strategy groups differ across Niger regions (table 1). For

exemple, Cattle-breeder households are mostly concentrated in Agadez region (53.60%),

while Independent sedentary are mostly concentrated in Urban areas (46.13%). The

distribution of Poor agricultural household is quite uniform across regions. This shows

the importance of agricultural activities in Niger.


Tab

le1:

Dis

trib

uti

onof

Liv

elih

ood

Str

ateg

yG

roups

Acr

oss

Nig

erR

egio

ns

(%)

Liv

elih

ood

Str

ateg

yG

roups

Aga

dez

Diff

aD

osso

Mar

adi

Tah

oua

Tilla

ber

iZ

inder

Urb

anR

egio

nT

otal

Indep

enden

tse

den

tary

10.3

43.

545.

2211

.00

9.88

3.91

9.97

46.1

310

0

Ric

hes

tnon

agri

cult

ura

lsa

lari

ed8.

061.

345.

114.

575.

913.

496.

7264

.78

100

Nom

adic

catt

le-b

reed

ers

53.6

029

.93

0.46

3.02

5.57

0.00

6.96

0.46

100

Poor

agri

cult

ura

l0.

8810

.34

18.6

317

.69

15.6

917

.22

17.3

92.

1710

0

Tot

al10

.82

9.73

11.0

112

.55

11.7

19.

7312

.80

21.6

610

0

Sou

rce:

Au

thor

’sco

mputa

tions


In table 2, we show the distribution of livelihood strategy groups within Niger

regions.


Tab

le2:

Dis

trib

uti

onof

Liv

elih

ood

Str

ateg

yG

roups

Wit

hin

Nig

erR

egio

ns

(%)

Liv

elih

ood

Str

ateg

yG

roups

Aga

dez

Diff

aD

osso

Mar

adi

Tah

oua

Tilla

ber

iZ

inder

Urb

anR

egio

nT

otal

Indep

enden

tse

den

tary

28.6

810

.92

14.2

126

.28

25.3

012

.07

23.3

663

.87

29.9

9

Ric

hes

tnon

agri

cult

ura

lsa

lari

ed7.

751.

444.

823.

795.

253.

745.

4631

.10

10.4

0

Nom

adic

catt

le-b

reed

ers

59.6

937

.07

0.51

2.90

5.73

0.00

6.55

0.26

12.0

5

Poor

agri

cult

ura

l3.

8850

.57

80.4

667

.04

63.7

284

.20

64.6

34.

7747

.57

Tot

al10

010

010

010

010

010

010

010

010

0

Sou

rce:

Au

thor

’sco

mputa

tions


It appears that the largest share of Cattle-Breeders can be found in Agadez region

(59.69%), the largest of Poor farming households is found in Tillaberi region (84.20%)

and the largest share of independent sedentary and non agricultural salaried is found

in Urban areas (63.87% and 31.10% respectively).

4.2 Resilience index

In this section we show the results for the resilience index. Details on the sub indexes

are reported in Annex 2. Our resilience index is built on 10 components, each rep-

resenting one dimension of the household resilience to food insecurity. For purpose

of comparisons, we compute the difference between each livelihood group index and

the overall resilience index for Niger (figure 4). The results show that the the rich-

est non agricultural salaried households are the most resilient (0,0022), followed by

the independent sedentary households (0,00054). The less resilient households are the

poor agricultural households (-0,00058) and the nomadic cattle-breeders households

(-0,00069).

Table 3: Resilience Index per Livelihood Strategy Group

Livelihood Strategy Groups Resilience Index

Independent sedentary 0.0013

Richest non agricultural salaried 0.0030

Nomadic cattle-breeders 0.00011

Poor agricultural 0.00022

Niger 0.0008

Source: Author’s computations


Figure 4: Resilience by Livelihood Strategy Group In Niger


In table 4, we show the value of the sub-indexes of the resilience index by livelihood

strategy group.


Tab

le4:

Sub

Index

esby

Liv

elih

ood

stra

tegy

grou

p

Su

bIn

dex

Ind

epen

den

tse

den

tary

Ric

hes

tn

onag

ricu

ltura

lsa

lari

edN

om

adic

catt

le-b

reed

ers

Poor

agri

cult

ura

l

Acc

ess

tobasi

cse

rvic

es0.4

4778

20.

5656

716

0.1

526498

0.1

488938

Dura

ble

Good

s0.5

1362

70.

7585

503

0.0

790622

0.1

838782

Hou

seC

hara

cter

isti

cs0.7

5707

250.

6875

680.5

326673

0.8

382487

Adap

tive

Capac

ity

0.77

8222

60.

8622

569

0.7

867682

0.7

820828

Physi

cal

Con

nec

tivit

y0.3

2779

650.

4491

399

0.2

66675

0.1

990561

Food

secu

rity

0.19

1869

30.

0852

194

0.1

928502

0.1

7628

Agri

cult

ura

lA

sset

s0.

9689

172

0.98

3572

30.9

70525

0.8

301454

Dura

ble

Ass

ets

valu

e0.

0013

870.

0027

892

0.0

0000817

0.0

00162

Con

nec

tivit

yA

sset

sva

lue

0.00

1402

20.

0042

087

0.0

000234

0.0

000198

Eco

nom

ics

and

dem

ogr

aphic

s0.

7986

050.

8343

739

0.8

214954

0.7

870247

Sou

rce:

Au

thor

’sco

mputa

tion


For instance it appears that access to water, electricity and other basic social services

is a tough issue for the less two resilient livelihood strategy groups, namely the Nomadic

cattle-breeders and the poor agricultural households.

Figure 5 shows the distribution of the resilience index by agroecological zone. It is clear

that Niamey households are the most resilient of all (0.0032). The less resilient of the group

are Agropastoral households.

Figure 5: Resilience by agroecological zone In Niger


Regarding gender issues, we show in figure 6 the distribution of our resilience index by

household head gender.It appears that households headed by male (0,0009) are more resilient

than those headed by female (0,0002). This raises awareness on the importance to strengthen

gender-base action in order to improve the resilience of households headed by females.


Figure 6: Resilience by Household head gender In Niger


Now we analyze the inequalities issues in terms of resilience of livelihood strategy group

in Niger. The percentile indexes for Niger resilience index show great inequalities within

households.

Table 5: Percentile Ratios

p90/p10 p90/p50 p10/p50 p75/p25

43.456 10.020 0.231 8.835


It appears that 10% most resilient households are 43 times more resilient than the 10%

less resilient ones showing a very high level of inequality in the distribution of the resilience

index in Niger. To confirm such a result, we compute the Gini index of the distribution of

the resilience index. It appears that the Gini of the resilience index is very high (Table 6).

The inequality is very high in the different livelihood strategy groups as well.

Table 6: Gini of the Resilience Index by Livelihood strategy group

Livelihood Strategy Groups Gini

Independent sedentary 0.96987

Richest non agricultural salaried 0.97980

Nomadic cattle-breeders 0.89295

Poor agricultural 0.94365

Niger 0.97459



5 Conclusion and policy implications

This study gave focus to household resilience to food insecurity in Niger. For the purpose, a

cluster analysis double with a Multiple Factor Analysis has been conducted. The objective

of the cluster approach was to identify livelihood strategy groups with Nigerien households.

The resilience index estimates show significant differences across region and identified

livelihood strategy groups. The leading findings show that the cattle-breeders households are

the less resilient in Niger and that households led by women are less resilient than those led

by men. As policy implication, it is suggested to improve the access to basics services for

cattle-breeders and to strengthen the gender-base policy in order to empower women and to

make them more resilient to food insecurity.

Some further investigation may deepen the gender disparities in household resilience to

food insecurity.

Resilience, food insecurity I

References

[1] Alinovi, L., Erdgin, M. and Donato, R. Towards the measurement of household

resilience to food insecurity: Applying a model to palestinian household data. In R.

Sibrian (ed. 2008), Deriving Food Security Information From National Household Budget

Surveys. Experiences, Achievement, Challenges, Rome: FAO, pages 137–52, 2008.

[2] Alinovi, L., D’Errico, M., Erdgin, M. and Donato, R. Livelihoods strategies and

household resilience to food insecurity: An empirical analysis to kenya. European Report

On Development, 2010.

[3] Carter M.R., Little P.D., Mogues T., and Negatu W. Shocks, sensitivity and

resilience: Tracking the economic impacts of environmental disaster on assets in ethiopia

and honduras. DSGD Discussion Paper, No 32, Washington D.C.: IFPRI., 2006.

[4] Ciani, F., and Romano, D. Testing for household resilience to food insecurity: Ev-

idence from nicaragua. University of Florence, Department of Economics and Manage-

ment, 2014.

[5] Dercon, S., and Krishnan, P. Income portfolios in rural ethiopia and tanzania:

Choices and constraints. Journal of Development Studies, (32(6)):850–75, 1996.

[6] Keil A., Zeller M., Wida A., Sanim B. and Birner R. What determines farmers’

resilience towards enso related drought? an empirical assessment in central sulawesi,

indonesia. Climate Change, (86):291–307, 2008.

Resilience, food insecurity II

6 Annex

6.1 Annex 1: Descriptive statistics of the variables used for

the cluster analysis

Figure 7: Marital Status of the Household Head


Figure 8: Lifestyle of the household


Resilience, food insecurity III

Figure 9: Socio Professional category of the household head


Figure 10: Status of the Household head


Resilience, food insecurity IV

Figure 11: Dwelling type of the household


Figure 12: Agroecological zone


Resilience, food insecurity V

Figure 13: Gender of Household head


Figure 14: Agricultural status of the household


Resilience, food insecurity VI

Tab

le7:

Cor

rala

tion

wit

hF

acto

rs

Variables

Mean

Sta

ndard

Deviation

Facto

r1

Facto

r2

Facto

r3

Facto

r4

Facto

r5

main

sala

ry18

6836

,00

206

1210

,00

-0.0

4195

720.

0282

262

-0.0

0492

245

-0.0

178893

-0.0

0490732

hh

size

6.4

5224

3.42

626

0.13

3483

0.04

4580

60.

0770

107

-0.0

311775

0.1

75368

fiel

dow

2.4

7743

2.10

929

0.51

9735

0.10

2405

0.23

2291

0.050959

0.1

36183

parc

ow5.

1496

44.7

9543

0.48

8041

0.06

4226

30.

2619

810.

0836138

0.1

78652

hage

43.

9004

13.8

976

0.00

1569

16-0

.061

8235

-0.0

3981

930.

000742062

-0.1

11696

dalim

8341

33,0

0508

535,

00-0

.303

663

0.06

6566

70.0

5883

430.

0500744

0.1

62746

dn

ali

479

622,

0060

0116

,00

-0.5

9817

20.

0845

724

0.0

647

404

0.0

588675

0.0

381117

dto

t131

3730

,00

100

6320

,00

-0.5

1011

80.

0841

098

0.0

6834

110.

060445

0.1

04999

Sou

rce:

Au

thor

’sco

mputa

tion

Resilience, food insecurity VII

6.2 Annex 2: Results of the sub indexes construction

6.2.1 Eigenvalues

Table 8: Access to basic services

Number Eigenvalue Percent Cumulative

1 0.550663 39.3331 39.3331

2 0.200665 14.3332 53.6663

3 0.200541 14.3244 67.9907

4 0.159389 11.3849 79.3756

5 0.115128 8.22343 87.5991

6 0.10373 7.40932 95.0084

7 0.0698825 4.99161 100


Table 9: Durable Goods


1 0.500878 50.0878 50.0878

2 0.19458 19.458 69.5457

3 0.170835 17.0835 86.6293

4 0.133707 13.3707 100


Table 10: House Characterisics


1 0.75916 32.5354 32.5354

2 0.514334 22.0429 54.5783

3 0.398031 17.0585 71.6368

4 0.268715 11.5164 83.1531

5 0.153478 6.57761 89.7308

6 0.130935 5.61151 95.3423

7 0.108681 4.65774 100

Resilience, food insecurity VIII


Table 11: Adaptive Capacity


1 0.531352 17.7117 17.7117

2 0.509005 16.9668 34.6786

3 0.5 16.6667 51.3452

4 0.5 16.6667 68.0119

5 0.490996 16.3665 84.3784

6 0.468648 15.6216 100


Table 12: Physical Connectivity


1 0.461 46.1 46.1

2 0.323573 32.3573 78.4573

3 0.215427 21.5427 100


Table 13: Food Security


1 0.461324 46.1325 46.1325

2 0.331237 33.1237 79.2561

3 0.207439 20.7439 100


Table 14: Agricultural Assets


1 1.83203 91.6016 91.6016

2 0.167968 8.39838 100


Resilience, food insecurity IX

Table 15: Durable Assets value


1 3.23 80.7501 80.7501

2 0.527795 13.1949 93.945

3 0.242154 6.05385 99.9989

4 0.0000459746 0.00114936 100


Table 16: Connectivity Assets value


1 1.9782 65.94 65.94

2 1.0002 33.34 99.28

3 0.0216014 0.720046 100


Table 17: Economics and demographics


1 1.30247 65.1235 65.1235

2 0.69753 34.8765 100


Documents

Livelihood Strategies and Household Resilience to … · Livelihood Strategies and Household Resilience to Food Insecurity: The Case of Niger Ruben DJOGBENOU ENSEA Abidjan [email protected]