A Resilience-Driven framework for rural household livelihoods under climate shocks

Thesis Abstract

In the face of increasing climate variability and extreme weather events, rural household livelihoods in developing regions exhibit heightened vulnerability, driven by dependency on rain-fed agriculture, limited asset bases, and restricted access to financial and information channels, which collectively constrain adaptive capacity. This study develops a resilience-driven framework to understand and operationalize the pathways through which rural households absorb, adapt, and transform in response to climate shocks, with the aim of theorizing a parsimonious yet comprehensive model that integrates livelihood strategies, social-ecological feedbacks, and governance incentives. The specific objectives are (i) to identify the key dimensions of household resilience—asset endowments, diversification of income, social networks, and adaptive decision-making; (ii) to examine the role of institutions, markets, and risk-sharing mechanisms in shaping resilience outcomes; (iii) to quantify the relative importance of exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity in determining livelihood outcomes under climate shocks; (iv) to test a hypothesized resilience framework using cross-sectional data and to map policy implications for enhancing rural resilience. A mixed-methods design will be employed in a two-stage approach. The population comprises rural households in arid and semi-arid agro-ecological zones within a national context known for climate vulnerability. A stratified random sample of 600 households will be selected to ensure representation across farm sizes, gender of household head, and access to public extension services. Quantitative data will be collected through a structured survey instrument administered by trained interviewers, capturing asset endowments (land, livestock, savings), livelihood diversification (crop, livestock, off-farm activities), social capital (credit access, kinship networks, communal risk-sharing institutions), exposure and sensitivity indicators (drought frequency, soil quality, market access), and adaptive capacity measures (institutional support, information access, asset mobility). Qualitative data will be gathered via 40 in-depth interviews and 12 focus group discussions to elicit contextual narratives on adaptive strategies, governance constraints, and perceived shocks. Instrument validity will be established through expert review and pilot testing (n=60), with reliability assessed by Cronbach’s alpha for multi-item scales (target ? ? 0.7). Quantitative analysis will proceed with descriptive statistics and correlation analyses to profile resilience indicators, followed by structural equation modeling (SEM) to test the proposed resilience framework, including latent constructs for resilience, adaptive capacity, and livelihood outcomes. A hierarchical regression will assess the incremental explanatory power of social-ecological factors beyond conventional economic indicators. Thematic analysis will be applied to qualitative transcripts to identify salient pathways and contextualized mechanisms, triangulated with SEM results. The study will integrate theoretical constructs from the Sustainable Livelihoods Framework, the Social-Ecological Systems (SES) approach, and the Resilience Theory, drawing on key propositions from the Capability Approach and the Asset-Building perspective to interpret results. Where appropriate, robustness checks will include multi-group SEM to explore heterogeneity by gender and land size. Expected findings anticipate that diversified income sources, stronger social networks, and proactive information access will positively influence adaptive capacity, thereby reducing vulnerability to drought and flood shocks. Institutional support and market access are expected to moderate the resilience-outcome relationship, while asset depletion and limited savings are likely to exacerbate risk exposure. The framework is anticipated to offer a coherent structure linking household attributes, governance interventions, and resilience outcomes, enabling targeted policy levers such as credit facilitation, risk-sharing institutions, extension services, and climate information dissemination. The study contributes to knowledge by integrating resilience theory with empirical livelihood data to form a measurable framework for rural households facing climate shocks, advancing measurement of resilience constructs, and providing policy-relevant insights for enhancing adaptive capacity and livelihood sustainability. The conclusions are expected to advocate for integrated policy packages that combine financial inclusion, social protection, and governance reforms to strengthen resilience, with recommendations for scaling context-specific interventions, refining data collection instruments, and conducting longitudinal follow-up studies to capture dynamic resilience trajectories.