Climate Resilience Index as a tool to explore households’ resilience to climate change-induced shocks in Dinki watershed, central highlands of Ethiopia Households’ resilience to climate change impacts

This study assessed households’ resilience to climate change-induced shocks in Dinki watershed, northcentral highlands of Ethiopia. The data were collected through cross-sectional survey conducted on 288 households, six focus group discussions and 15 key informant interviews. The Climate Resilience Index (CRI) and the Livelihood Resilience Index (LRI) based on the three-resilience capacities (3Ds) frame, using absorptive, adaptive and transformative, were used to measure households’ resilience to climate change-induced shocks on agro-ecological unit of analysis. Findings indicate that the CRI and the resilience capacities based on the indexed scores of major components clearly differentiated the study communities in terms of their agro-ecological zones. Specifically, the LRI score showed that absorptive capacity (0.495) was the leading contributing factor to resilience followed by adaptive (0.449) and transformative (0.387) capacities. Likewise, the midland was relatively more resilient with a mean index value of 0.461. The study showed that access to and use of livelihood resources, such as farmlands and livestock holdings, diversity of income sources, infrastructure and social capital were determinants of households’ resilience. In general, it might be due to their exposure to recurrent shocks coupled with limited adaptive capacities including underdeveloped public services, poor livelihood diversification practices, among others, the study communities showed minimal resilience capacity with a mean score of 0.44. Thus, in addition to short-term buffering strategies, intervention priority focusing on both adaptive and transformative capacities, particularly focusing on most vulnerable localities and constrained livelihood strategies, would contribute to ensure long-term resilience in the study communities.


53
Climate change-induced shocks are the major livelihood threats of humanity, where 54 underdeveloped countries are disproportionately hit by adverse effects (1). The projections 55 by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) shows that the frequency and 56 intensity of climate change-induced shocks, such as heat waves, droughts, floods, etc. are 57 growing all over the world (2). The effects of such extreme weather events would add extra 58 stress on human health, food security and water resources, where the rural poor are 59 extremely susceptible and adversely impacted [3,2]. The IPCC report emphasized that 60 disaster risk management programs should focus on reducing exposure and vulnerability 61 while enhancing resilience to shock impacts (2). 62 The concept of resilience stems to the Latin 'resilire' to denote to 'bouncing back' or 63 'recoiling' (4). The term was primarily applied in mechanics in 1858 to denote the capability 64 of a material to resist a force (rigidity) as well as to absorb the force with deformation; later 65 it was used in psychology in 1950s, in system ecology in 1973 and in social-ecological 66 systems in 1990s (4). The intensification of two huge societal trends-climate change and 67 globalization, which amplify multifaceted and non-directional impacts have caused resilience 68 to be acknowledged in wide range of disciplines globally (5). Aiming to address the 69 overwhelming environmental issues, such as disaster risk reduction, climate change 70 adaptation, vulnerability, social protection, etc. (6), its application has gradually expanded 71 into social-ecological system and defined as the potential of a social-ecological system to 72 sustain basic structures and continue functioning following shock events [7,8]. Being a 73 multidisciplinary term, it has been applied in diversity of connotations, yet all share common 74 point on 'the ability to respond to changes, particularly unprecedented changes' (5). 75 The capability of a social-ecological system to respond to extreme shock events 76 encompasses multiplicity of abilities including "shock absorbing", "buffering", "bouncing 77 back", and "transforming" (8). Its application in various disciples has broaden its 78 understanding from its original narrowed engineering resilience-'the potential of a system 79 to bounce back after disturbance' into more comprehensive concept-'the ability not only to 80 bounce back but also to adapt to and even to transform into new system' (6). Furthermore, 81 a socio-ecological resilience is perceived as a process than a static state and should acquire 82 and maintain the three-core resilience capacities, namely absorptive, adaptive and 83 transformative to sustain long-term resilience [6,10]. As absorptive, adaptive and 84 transformative capacities are considered as the three major structural elements and best to 85 capture resilience (6), this study followed the three-capacities (absorptive, adaptive and 86 transformative capacities) frame to explore households' resilience to climate change-87 induced shocks. 88 The three core responses or resilience capacities can be linked depending on shock 89 intensity. Accordingly, during minimal shock incidence, it is natural that the system would 90 block or resist it (6). Hence internal resistance is known as the natural characteristic of a 91 system manifested on daily basis where resources could block the shock enabling the 92 system to continue functioning-highly comparable to the human immune system (9).

93
Absorptive capacity is especially basis to buffer short-term disturbances as well as during 94 the beginning phase of coping of huge shocks (5).

95
The next adaptive resilience involving system adjustment to sustain system functioning will 96 be exercised if the shock exceeded the absorptive capacity (10). Adaptive capacity is "the 97 ability of a system to adjust itself to sustain system functioning" (11). These adjustment 98 practices are incremental as well as learning through failure and success that adds to 5 99 adaptability (12). This capacity involves "resourcefulness-the potential to identify challenges, 100 develop priorities, mobilize resources, to integrate experience and knowledge during crises, 101 to plan for upcoming shock impacts" (5). These multi-level (individuals, households, 102 community) and incremental adjustment mechanisms for farming communities may include 103 livelihood diversification, establishing market networks, empowering storage facilities, 104 developing pooling among communities, introducing of shock resistance varieties, new 105 farming practices, strengthening social networks, etc. (6). 106 In the case of high intensity and recurrent shocks, it may be difficult to sustain system 107 functioning through adaptive resilience, involving transformative resilience. It is often 108 associated to system-level changes in factors like infrastructure (example: road, 109 communication, credit access, health facilities, etc.), governance, formal safety nets which 110 substantially strengthen long-term resilience (13). For instance, changing of the agrarian 111 livelihood into resource extraction economy, ecotourism, change in resource management 112 practices, etc. Transformative response may require institutional reforms, behavioral 113 changes and technological innovations (14). Factors like socioeconomic policies, land-use 114 policies, resource management trends, institutions and technology may limit the 115 performance of transformative resilience (14). 116 In the face of environmental uncertainty, households' capacities to effectively respond to the 117 alarmingly growing shock events needs to be strengthened (5) to enable smallholder 118 farmers to better withstand the upcoming shock impacts (15). Because resilient households 119 are more active to anticipate, resist, cope with and recover against shock impacts (16) as 120 well as to sustain or improve standard of living in the face of environemntal changes (17).

121
The findings of the study would help to prioritize intervention measures for livelihood resilience by identifying adaptation limits in Dinki watershed, northcentral highlands of 123 Ethiopia.

126
Dinki watershed is found in Ankober district in central highlands of Ethiopia (Fig. 1).

128
Most of the district area are hills and mountainous (75%), where rugged terrains and plain 129 topography account for 17% and 8%, respectively. More than half of the district (53%) has Whereas indicators expected to have inversely related to resilience, such as household food 194 insecurity and access score (HFIAs), illness score, shock events, etc. were standardized 195 using equation (2): Where Ia is the standardized value for the indicator a, Sr is the observed (average) value of   246 The study households perceive resilience as a state of recovery against climate  Table 2 below.

254
Discussant noted that access to and size of farmland to be determinants of household' 255 livelihood and resilience to shock impacts. They stressed that land ownership is a priority 256 for farming community for long-term decision and soil fertility management options.    Participants disclose that social networking is a determinant factor for mankind to share 292 labor and resources, manage disputes as well as to mitigate with, adapt to and quickly 293 recover against shock impacts. See also [10,29,26,30]. In terms of ecological stability, 294 discussants disclosed that households whose farm lands are located in steep slopes and 295 near to river banks are highly vulnerable to soil erosion and flooding impacts. Likewise, land 296 fertility is also reported as a principal factor influencing households' productivity and wealth 297 status. Accordingly, households whose farm lands are in gentle slope and with better soil 298 fertility are better off in production and are relatively resilient to shock impacts than their 299 counter parts. impacts. In line with this finding, studies disclose that land location and fertility are critical to 307 determine farm productivity. Accordingly, households with improved land fertility are better 308 off in farm production and more resilient to shocks [27,26]. opportunities [33,27]. Likewise, Alinovi et al. (32) argue that access to basic infrastructure 333 is determinant in promoting households' resilience to shocks by enhancing their access to 334 assets. Access to credit services was also minimal where only 59.38% of households access 335 credit facilities in their proximity. Studies state that insufficient physical structures 336 significantly limit access to basic services like health and credit facilities, contributing 337 socioeconomic marginalization (33). In effect, lack of access to cash needs during crises is 338 a major factor limiting households' resilience to climate change-induced shocks (26).

Households' resilience as measured by Climate Resilience Index and resilience
The livelihood resilience analysis through the three-capacities and Climate Resilience Index 342 showed relatively comparable results. Accordingly, the highland is better off in 343 sociodemographic profile, water and health; the midland is better off in exposure to natural 344 disaster and livelihood strategies and the lowland is better off in income and food access, 345 asset, stability, social capitals and access to basic services (Annex 1; Table 3).
346 The livelihood resilience analysis through resilience capacities more clearly differentiated 352 the agro-ecological zones in terms of their absorptive, adaptive and transformative 353 capacities. In effect, the leading contributing factor to the resilience of Dinki watershed socio-354 ecological system to climate change-induced shocks was observed to be absorptive 355 capacity with a mean index value of 0.495 followed by adaptive capacity with a mean index value of 0.449 (Fig.2a). In terms of agro-ecology, the midland was found to be relatively 357 more resilient to climatic shocks with a mean index value of 0.461 (Fig. 2b).
358 Figure 2. The resilience capacities (a) and resilience score of agro-ecological zones (b)

359
Relatively higher score of absorptive capacity in the lowland agro-ecology is evident by the In line with this study, Boka (34)  adaptive capacity to shock impacts (13).

383
Although the mean resilience score in terms of transformative capacity (0.387) is lower to 384 other resilience scores (Fig. 2a), the lowland showed the highest transformative capacity 385 (0.402) than the other agro-ecological zones ( per day), households falling to the right of the mean include rich but not resilient, resilient 409 and extremely resilient. Whereas households who were poor but resilient, vulnerable and 410 extremely vulnerable were presented in the left of the mean (Fig.3). The average daily income value is far below the poverty line of sub-Saharan Africa, 413 indicating the poverty level of the study communities. Moreover, even with this minimal 414 cutoff, more than half of the households (56.59%) were vulnerable for poverty (Fig. 3).