Adapting livelihoods to floods and droughts in arid Kenya: Local perspectives and insights

Full text

Adapting livelihoods to floods and droughts in arid Kenya: Local perspectives and insights
A. QUANDT1 and Y.A. KIMATHI2
1University of Colorado – Boulder, Environmental Studies Program, Environmental Studies Program,
Arts and Sciences Office Building 1, 1201 17th Street, 397 UCB, Boulder, Colorado 80309
2Kenya Red Cross Society- Isiolo Branch, P. O. Box 223, Isiolo County - 60300, Kenya
Corresponding author: amy.quandt@colorado.edu
African Journal of Rural Development, Vol. 1(1): 2016: pp. 51 - 60
This article is lincenced under a Creative Commons license, Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
ABSTRACT
Adaptation of rural livelihoods to climate change hazards such as floods and droughts is critical. However,
policy has focused on large scale adaptation policies that often ignore local knowledge. In this paper, we
explore local perceptions and insights about viable livelihood adaptation strategies in arid Isiolo County,
Kenya. Research included 270 household surveys and 6 focus group discussions in 7 communities.
Results indicate that the three livelihoods that communities saw as being a viable option for themselves
in the context of future climate change included camel keeping, business, and modern agriculture. Camels
were cited as being resilient to drought. Business was seen as an option less impacted by floods and
droughts than other livelihood options, and modern agriculture could improve food security and income.
These local insights should be included in climate change adaptation policy in order to sustain, and even
improve, the livelihoods of vulnerable communities in the future.
Key words: Adaptation, drought, flood, Kenya, livelihoods, policy
RÉSUMÉ
L’adaptation des moyens ruraux d’existence aux aléas du changement climatique comme les risques
d’inondations et les sécheresses est critique. Toutefois, cette politique a porté sur l’adaptation à grande
échelle de politiques qui ignorent souvent les connaissances locales. Dans ce document, nous explorons
les perceptions locales et des éclaircissements sur le mode de subsistance viable des stratégies d’adaptation
dans les zones arides à Isiolo, Kenya. La recherche a pris en compte 270 enquêtes auprès des ménages et
6 discussions de groupe dans sept localités. Les résultats indiquent que les trois moyens de subsistance
que les collectivités percevaient comme étant une option viable pour eux-mêmes dans le contexte de
futurs changements climatiques inclus, le maintien de chameau et l’agriculture moderne. Les chameaux
ont été cités comme étant résistants à la sécheresse. Le commerce a été considéré comme une option
moins touchée par les inondations et les sécheresses que d’autres moyens de subsistance, et l’agriculture
moderne pourrait améliorer la sécurité alimentaire et les revenus. Ces aperçus locaux devraient être inclus
dans la politique d’adaptation au changement climatique afin de maintenir et même d’améliorer les moyens
de subsistance des communautés vulnérables dans l’avenir.
Mots clés : adaptation, sécheresse, inondation, Kenya, moyens de subsistance, politique
INTRODUCTION
Livelihood adaptation to climate change
Climate change is expected to cause an increase in
natural hazards such as floods and drought (Blanco,
2006; Porter et al., 2014). These impacts are often
found to be more severe at the local scale where lives
and livelihoods are affected (Shaw, 2006). For
example, climate change is likely to cause or increase
food insecurity (Porter et al., 2014), livestock disease
and death (Niang et al., 2014), environmental
degradation through unsustainable resource use, and
to negatively impact human health (Morton, 2007).
Particularly, economically poor, natural resource-
dependent rural households are likely to experience a
disproportionate burden of these adverse impacts of
climate change (Agrawal and Perrin 2008; Olsson et
al., 2014).
To cope and survive under the impacts of climate
change, households, communities, and countries must
adapt (Speranza, 2012). Adaptation refers to the
process of adjusting to actual or expected climate
Date received: 11 December, 2015 Date accepted: 25 March, 2016

52
Adapting livelihoods to floods and droughts in arid Kenya
change and its impacts. Adaptation of natural resource-
dependent livelihoods is particularly critical. Generally,
livelihoods depend on access to natural, human,
physical, social, and financial assets (Bebbington, 1999;
Dahlquist et al., 2007); and adaptation needs are highly
diverse and context specific (Noble et al., 2014) .
Therefore, adapting livelihoods to climate change at a
small scale means households need to adjust their
livelihood assets and activities to maintain the ability to
make a living under the impacts of climate change.
Adaptive strategies to cope with change are nothing
new. People have adapted their livelihoods to changing
contexts in the past, are actively engaged in this
presently, and will continue to adapt in the future
(Matthews and Sydneysmith 2010). Livelihoods
change and people adapt to disturbances and
opportunities provided by many variables, climate
change being one variable (Campbell and Olsson, 1991;
Thomas and Twyman, 2005; Thomas et al., 2007).
Livelihood diversification has long been used by
households in Africa to cope with climate shocks, and
can also assist in building resilience for longer-term
climate change by spreading risks (Niang et al., 2014).
However, because of the potentially severe impacts
climate change is expectedg to have on food security
(Brown and Funk 2008), agriculture (Verchot et al.,
2007), and livestock (Nardone et al., 2010), it will
continue to be especially important for poor, rural,
natural resource-dependent communities to adapt their
livelihoods to impacts such as floods and droughts in
order to subsist.
Adaptation strategies do occur autonomously in
households or communities, and can have positive
impacts on poverty reduction and building resilience,
particularly when supported by policy (Adger et al.,
2003; Urwin and Jordan 2008). Households undertake
incremental adaptation where they extend or modify
actions or behaviors that are already in place (Denton
et al., 2014). In this paper we explore local experiences
and perspectives on future livelihood adaptation options
in the face of floods and drought in rural, arid Isiolo
County, Kenya. We ask, in the context of the climate
change hazards floods and droughts, what do local
residents see as the way forward for their own lives
and livelihoods?
Isiolo County provides an excellent case study because
it generally fits the description of a poor, rural, natural
resource-dependent area (Acacia Consultants Ltd,
2011). Furthermore, this paper focuses on floods and
droughts because in East Africa, droughts and
precipitation variability are among the most important
livelihood stressors (Misselhorn 2005: Paavola 2008).
The region where this research took place is already
experiencing climate change; the long rains have
declined more than 100 mm and there has been a
warming of more than 1°C since the 1970s (Funk et
al., 2010). There are also issues of food insecurity in
the county (Garrity et al., 2010) as arid and semi-arid
mixed crop-livestock systems in Kenya are projected
to see reductions in maize and bean production by 2050
(Thornton et al., 2010). Therefore, understanding
local insights and perspectives on livelihood adaptation
in Isiolo County is important for understanding potential
livelihood adaptation options for the future.
Importance of local perceptions and insight
But why focus this paper on local perspectives of
climate change adaptation when there is a large body
of scientific literature on adaptation at larger scales
already? There are two answers to this question we
wish to address: 1. the importance of local knowledge
and experience, and 2. the role local insights can play
in policy and decision making.
To address the first point, local knowledge and
experience are important because it is these people’s
livelihoods that are directly impacted by floods and
droughts (Morton, 2007; Agrawal and Perrin, 2008;
Gentle and Maraseni, 2012). Communities in some
areas of the world are already reporting the effects of
variation in climate and are now responding to these
new conditions (Blanco, 2006). Through direct
experience and learning, these communities may be
capable of generating livelihood adaptations that could
likely work for them (Gupta and Hisschemoller, 1997;
Blanco, 2006). Through bottom-up learning-by-doing,
communities generate their own locally-driven
adaptation strategies in what is called community-based
adaptation (Noble et al., 2014). Communities are
equipped with local knowledge and insights, and this
should be considered important knowledge about viable
livelihood adaptation options. As explained by Haraway
(1988) there are a multiplicity of knowledges and
viewpoints that exist (i.e. scientific, local, feminist,
poor, etc.). Scientific knowledge is not the only valid
type of information about climate change adaptation,
and therefore it is important to also consider local
knowledge and experience. Indeed, there is a need to
bridge the gap between scientific and local knowledge
in order to create interventions and policy capable of
withstanding natural hazards like floods and droughts
(Blanco, 2006).
Secondly, local insights can and should play a role in
policy and decision making. However, in the climate
change adaptation literature, there has been little focus
on the community-based adaptations taking place and
attempting to integrate those adaptation methods and
experiences into the larger policy perspective (Shaw,
2006). Instead, macro-level adaptation policy is often
disconnected with the needs of poor, rural

53
A. QUANDT and Y.A. KIMATHI
communities where local adaptation needs can exist
independently from larger-scale policy and interventions
(Amaru and Chhetri, 2013). Top-down decision
making policy processes are often not adequate because
of their potential inability to create viable solutions for
local communities (Blanco, 2006). On the other hand,
bottom-up research employs the experience and
knowledge of community members to characterize
adaptive strategies and decision making processes for
livelihood adaptations in the future (Smit and Wandel,
2006). There is a need to identify desired and successful
adaptation responses that can be scaled up into national,
and even international policy frameworks (Blanco,
2006). Therefore, documenting local perspectives and
insights as this paper aims to do can assist in the
integration of adaptation policy at all scales and create
solutions that work. As described by Agrawal and
Perrin (2008), “adaptation is inherently local.”
RESEARCH APPROACH
Research purpose
The research presented in this paper was part of a
larger livelihoods study conducted for the Partners for
Resilience Project (PfR). PfR was a cooperative project
undertaken by Dutch-based organizations including the
Netherlands Red Cross, the Catholic Organization for
Relief and Development Aid, Red Cross/Red Crescent
Climate Centre, and Wetlands International; as well as
Kenya-based partners the Kenya Red Cross Society,
Merti Integrated Development Program, and the
Wetlands International Kenya chapter. The overall aim
of PfR was to increase the resilience of vulnerable
communities in Isiolo County, Kenya while addressing
disaster risks, the effects of climate change, and
environmental degradation. PfR undertook this
livelihoods study in order to better understand how
livelihoods are being impacted by floods and droughts
and how to build livelihood resilience against these risks
in an environmentally-friendly way.
Study area
Isiolo County is located in the Upper Eastern Region
of Kenya; bordering Marsabit, Wajir, Garissa, Tana
River, Meru, Samburu, and Laikipia Counties. It covers
approximately 25,000 km2, and is divided into 10
administrative wards. According to the 2009 census
it has an estimated population of 143,294 people (Kenya
National Bureau of Statistics 2009). The Borana are
the largest ethnic community but the county is also
home to sizable Turkana, Samburu, Meru, and Somali
communities. Most of the county is flat, low lying
plain, but there are volcanic hills and the foothill slopes
of Mount Kenya. Isiolo is hot and dry for most of the
year, with a mean annual temperature of 29°C and has
biannual rains in October – November and March –
May (Republic of Kenya 2013). The average rainfall
ranges from 400 – 650 mm and is erratic and often
unreliable (Republic of Kenya, 2013).
Data collection and analysis
The data presented in this paper comes from household
surveys and focus group discussions that were
conducted in 7 different communities around Isiolo
County. These communities were selected by PfR
staff members because of their diversity in livelihood
practices and ecology. The communities included
Burat, Basa, Bulesa, Merti, Kinna, Manyangalo, and
Gotu.
Data collection was conducted between June 18th and
July 9th, 2013. In total, 270 household surveys were
conducted and 6 focus group discussions. The
household surveys were created by Quandt and Kimathi
with the assistance of the Kenya Red Cross Society –
Isiolo Branch Office. Three practice interviews were
conducted to ensure the quality of the survey. The
household surveys were translated into English,
Swahili, and Borana and the surveys were conducted
in the language of the respondents’ preference.
Surveys were conducted by local enumerators, and
answers were recorded in either English or Swahili.
Households were randomly selected by surveying one
household, skipping two, surveying the next, and so
forth. Female enumerators surveyed female household
heads and male enumerators surveyed male household
heads, with the goal of a 50/50 breakdown in gender.
The survey was semi-structured and focused on
understanding the respondents’ perspectives on
livelihoods during times of flood and drought and what
livelihoods they thought would thrive in the future with
a changing climate. Household surveys were analyzed
with Microsoft Excel. The household survey data was
entered into Microsoft Excel, cleaned, and translated
into English before analysis.
Additionally, six focus group discussions were
conducted in Basa, Kinna, and Burat; one discussion
with men and one with women in each community.
The focus group discussions were organized by the
community leadership and took place in the community
government offices. Each focus group discussion had
between 10 to 20 participations and took approximately
1.5 hours. The focus group discussion included
participatory ranking of livelihood activities and how
well each does in drought, flood, and high temperature.
Notes were recorded during the discussions. The main
purpose of the focus group discussions was to help
triangulate the data from the household surveys and
provide a more nuanced narrative of local perspectives
on livelihoods and the impacts of climate change.

54
Adapting livelihoods to floods and droughts in arid Kenya
RESULTS
Livelihoods in Isiolo
This study found that livelihoods in Isiolo are largely
natural resource dependent. Pastoralism was the most
common livelihood (43% of respondents), followed
by agriculture (29%). Surprisingly, 6% of respondents
reported having no livelihood. Almost a quarter of
households practiced a non-agro-pastoral livelihood,
including casual labor, business, and charcoal burning.
Furthermore, food security is important in the face of
climate change and therefore understanding where
households obtain their food is critical to effective
adaptation. The most common source of food for the
households surveyed was the store (36% of
respondents). Additionally, almost a fifth (17%) of
households depended on food aid to feed themselves
and 2% of households relied on other people (neighbors,
friends, family) for food. Only 22% of respondents
farmed their own food.
Adapting livelihoods for the future: local perspectives
Household survey respondents were asked what
livelihood activities do well in times of drought, high
temperatures, and floods (Figure 1). As seen in Figure
1, certain livelihoods were named relatively equally for
all three scenarios (such as agriculture and casual labor),
while others were named as being particularly well-
suited to a specific hazard such as flood (i.e. livestock
generally) or drought (i.e. camels). Some respondents
(20 to 40) also stated that nothing does well during
drought, high temperatures, or floods.
In summary, some livelihood activities were perceived
to do better in drought, while others were perceived to
do better during floods. But what about livelihood
activities that locals perceived as being able to prosper,
or at least survive, during both drought and flood? This
question was also asked to household survey
respondents (Figure 2). Responses were similar to
Figure 1, where livestock, and specific livestock
species were included, but different from above was
the perceived viability of business and modern farming
methods. Modern farming refers to farming methods
other than rain-fed agriculture and includes utilizing
generators, pipes, water canals, greenhouses, tractors,
irrigation ponds, etc.
Similar perspectives as illustrated in Figures 1 and 2
were noted during the focus group discussions;
particularly the viability of modern types of agriculture
and business under both drought and flood conditions.
For example, in Kinna the men’s focus group talked
about how businesses such as small stores can do well
in drought because people do not have food so they
have to buy it.
Figure 1: Respondent perspectives on major livelihoods and livelihood activities that do well in drought, high
temperatures, and floods. Respondents (n=270) could name more than one livelihood that does well
Figure 2: Respondent perspectives on which livelihoods
and livelihood activities do well in BOTH floods and
droughts, by percent of respondents (n = 270);
Respondents could name more than one livelihoods

55
A. QUANDT and Y.A. KIMATHI
In addition to understanding local perspectives of what
livelihood activities currently do well in different
conditions, it is important to explore how local residents
perceive livelihoods in the future. With climate change-
related risks in mind, what livelihood activities are
perceived as being more sustainable and which are more
desired in the future? Household survey participants
were asked, given the impacts of climate change, what
livelihood activities they would like to adopt in the future
(Table 1) and what livelihood activities they would like
to learn more about (Figure 3). These questions were
meant to help guide PfR in understanding what types
of livelihood improvement projects local populations
might be interested in. As seen in Table 1, business
was by far the livelihood most desired in the future
under uncertain climate change related risks. This
corroborates the results presented above as business
being perceived as less vulnerable to floods and
droughts. Agriculture was second on the list and also
more specifically modern farming and large-scale
farming. Figure 3 supports these findings in illustrating
the desire of household survey respondents to learn
more about business and agriculture in order to improve
their livelihoods in the future. Lastly, household survey
respondents were asked specifically how PfR could
support their livelihoods and the top four answers were
all are related to business or farming.
The emphasis on ‘modern’ agriculture and business
as desired future livelihoods perceived to be more
resilient to climate change-related risks was also
reflected in the focus group discussions. In Basa, the
men stated that as they look ahead the most sustainable
livelihood is farming and they want to learn more about
farming. The women in Basa also stated a desire to
learn more about farming because they are new to
farming and want more skills to make them more
successful. In Kinna, interest was shown by both
focus group discussions for help with both capital for
business and business capacity building. The men in
Kinna stated an interest to learn about business and
also practical skills to start their own businesses
including construction, tailoring, driving, and
mechanics. The women in Kinna wanted to combine
their interests in business and agriculture to learn more
about how to time their crops with the market when
they could get the highest prices.
DISCUSSION
That data presented above illustrates local perspectives
and insights into what respondents considered to be
livelihoods that can cope with the impacts of climate
change both under the present conditions and into the
future. Livelihoods in Isiolo County are predominantly
natural resource-based, which, according to Agrawal
and Perrin (2008), means that these communities may
be disproportionately impacted by floods and droughts
because their livelihoods are highly dependent on rainfall
and water availability for both farming (Gentle and
Maraseni, 2012) and livestock keeping (Nardone et al.,
2010).
The fact that respondents perceive certain types of
livestock herding such as camel keeping to be a viable
livelihood adaptation option is not surprising due to the
fact that pastoralism is the main livelihood in Isiolo
County. However, the dominance of agriculture and
business as adaptation strategies is unexpected given
the arid, rural environment of the area.
Camel keeping to survive drought
Loss of livestock during prolonged droughts is a major
risk given the impacts of drought on rangelands and
water availability (Niang et al., 2014). While livestock
keeping in general was highlighted throughout the
results, respondents perceived camel keeping as a viable
livelihood adaptation strategy specifically in the context
of drought (Figure 1). Livelihood adaptations that can
survive drought are particularly important given the
local context in Isiolo County, which falls into three
agro-climatic zones, semi-arid (5% of the land), arid
Figure 3: Types of activities that household survey
respondents would like to learn more about, in percentage
of respondents (n = 270)
Table 1: Livelihoods that respondents would like to adopt
in the future
Major livelihoods Number of respondents
Business 73
Agriculture 43
Camels 21
Livestock 15
Larger-scale farming 16
Goats 14
Cattle 14
Kiosk 7
Modern farming 6
Livestock business 6

56
Adapting livelihoods to floods and droughts in arid Kenya
(30%), and very arid (65%) (Mati et al., 2010) and
where rainfall has been decreasing since the 1970s
(Funk, 2010).
The local perspective and insight of camel keeping as
a viable livelihood adaptation in the context of drought
is supported by scientific research. Camels have been
documented to be uniquely adapted to hot and arid
environments (Schwartz et al., 1991; Khan and Iqbal,
2001; Farah et al., 2004). East Africa already contains
about 60% of the world’s camels (Farah et al., 2007)
and for the Somali community in Isiolo camels already
play an important role in their local economy (Farah et
al., 2004). Camels can also have an important
contribution to food security and nutrition. Kenyan
camels produce from 1,300 to 2,500 liters of milk over
a lactation period of 9 to 18 months (Khan and Iqbal,
2001). This is a good supply of nutritious milk to the
household, and in some pastoral communities camel
milk contributes up to 30% of their annual caloric intake
(Onono et al., 2010). Nevertheless, because camel
milk seldom enters into a formal marketing system, its
contribution to the national economy is often
underestimated and camel keeping has been given little
attention in national development planning (Farah et
al., 2004). For example, in Kenya, the major livestock
development effort between 1969 and 1982 which was
aimed at developing range areas simply ignored the
camel (Njiru, 1993). Thus, the combination of local
insights from Isiolo County, scientific research, and a
historic lack of priority in development planning mean
that there is a great opportunity to expand upon and
promote camel keeping as a viable livelihood adaptation
to drought specifically.
Adapting through starting small businesses
Can starting a business be a viable livelihood adaptation
to deal with floods and droughts? As results indicate,
local residents in Isiolo County seem to think so. We
found these results both surprising and eye-opening
because we could not find any other studies reporting
the idea that small business could be a viable livelihood
adaptation for rural communities to the impacts of
climate change. Therefore, while more research needs
to be done on business as a potential climate change
adaptation, it may warrant consideration in both
adaptation interventions and policies.
Furthermore, this finding is significant because it shows
a general shift away from livelihoods directly dependent
on natural resources. Local residents might perceive
business to be a viable livelihood adaptation option
because it is somewhat removed from natural resources
such as soil, water, and fodder, which can be seriously
impacted by floods and droughts. However, it is
important to note that most customers likely would
still be relying on agriculture or livestock for their own
livelihood, linking business indirectly to natural
resource-based livelihoods. If customers have less
income due to livelihood destruction from floods or
drought, they may have less money to spend at
businesses. On the other hand, as suggested in the
Kinna men’s focus group, shops selling food and basic
goods thrive in drought because people often have no
choice but to buy their food. This is one area for
future research because before promoting business as
an adaptation strategy it is important to understand what
are, most likely, complex relationships between small,
rural businesses and the impacts of climate change.
Additionally, the term business is very broad and
respondents were not clear during the household
surveys about what specific types of businesses they
see as being able to cope with climate change impacts
in the future. Typical rural businesses in the area
include a variety of activities such as small shops,
sewing, selling used clothes, small tea shops,
construction, and selling fruits and vegetables (either
wholesale directly from the farms or at small kiosks).
However, without more detailed information we cannot
guess about which types of businesses the respondents
were referring to. This is a second area for future
research because understanding what types of
businesses are perceived to be able to cope with climate
change is important before creating adaptation
interventions or policies.
Modern agriculture for food security
Agriculture, food security, and nutrition are all very
sensitive to changes in rainfall (Porter et al., 2014). A
reliance on rain-fed agriculture in Africa’s food
production system makes it one of the most vulnerable
to droughts and floods (Niang et al., 2014).
Respondents seem to recognize this vulnerability and
in general thought very highly of modern agriculture,
not rain-fed agriculture, as a viable livelihood adaptation
option. Agriculture was named as one of the top
livelihoods respondents want to adopt in the future,
about 60% of respondents want to learn more about
agriculture, and respondents named projects such as
water for farming, farming inputs, and equipment for
farming as ways that PfR can support their livelihoods.
Even in areas of Isiolo County which are classified as
‘very arid’, such as Basa, the focus group discussed
wanting to know more about agriculture because they
are just starting to farm. To put it simply, these
traditionally pastoralist communities are getting more
involved in agriculture (and want help doing so).
This was an unanticipated finding given the prevalent
scientific opinion that agriculture is the most vulnerable
livelihood to the impacts of climate change (Smit and
Skinner, 2002; Shaw, 2006; Howden et al. ,2007;
Morten, 2007; Verchot et al., 2007). Particularly, rain-

57
A. QUANDT and Y.A. KIMATHI
fed agriculture is susceptible to changes in water
availability and households relying on rain-fed
agriculture for their livelihoods could be seriously
negatively impacted (Gentle and Maraseni, 2012). It
appears that respondents have already reached the
conclusion that rain-fed agriculture may not be a viable
option in the future and that is why they specifically
named what they consider ‘modern’ agriculture such
as the use of machines, irrigation, farm inputs, and
greenhouses as a desired livelihood adaptation.
Effective adaptation of agriculture, as perceived by
respondents to be ‘modern agriculture’ is critical in
enhancing food security and providing sustainable
livelihoods (Porter et al., 2014).
Based on the local insights presented in this paper,
adaptation policy and interventions should seriously
look at how to adapt agriculture to climate change,
particularly when considering the importance of food
security. Schmidhuber and Tubiello (2007) project
that between 5 million and 170 million additional people
will be at risk of hunger by 2080 due to climate change.
Godfray et al. (2010) predict that with current
population growth, in addition to a growing middle class,
the global demand for food will continue to increase
for at least the next 40 years. There is a need to improve
food security, and this provides a strong rationale for
increasing the focus of climate change adaptation on
agriculture (Howden et al., 2007). While the data does
not give specific reasons for why respondents want
to adopt agriculture, the data on food security from
this study is telling. A surprising 36% of respondents
rely on stores for food, while 17% rely on food aid.
Additionally, only approximately a quarter of
respondents grow their own food. These facts suggest
that the residents of Isiolo County may already be food
insecure, and focusing on improving food security in
the county is exceeding important, regardless of climate
change impacts.
Therefore, a desire to learn about and adopt modern
agriculture could reflect respondents’ desire to become
more food secure and be able to rely on themselves to
provide food for the household. Agricultural
technological sophistication, as respondents perceive
to be a viable livelihood adaptation, has been shown to
determine a farm’s productivity more than its climate
(Brown and Funk, 2008). Thus, a wider adoption of
modern farming (i.e. more technologically
sophisticated) may help improve the residents’ general
well-being, and also buffer residents against the
impacts of climate change. The livelihood adaptation
of modern agriculture, despite its challenges, should
be seen as a potential opportunity to attain food security
in the food insecure Isiolo County through improved
seeds, fertilizer, technologies, and irrigation (Brown
and Funk, 2008).
Agriculture in the pastoralist-dominated Isiolo County
also represents a livelihood diversification strategy
where residents do not necessarily give up practicing
pastoralism, but instead practice agriculture as an
additional livelihood activity. Diversification of
livelihoods in general is a widely recognized strategy
for reducing risk and increasing well-being (Ellis, 2000;
Ellis and Allison, 2005). The same holds true for climate
change risks such as floods and droughts. More
diversified farming systems have been documented to
suffer less from shocks and maintain the household’s
ability to adapt to changing conditions (Verchot et al.,
2007; Niang et al., 2014). While there is also an
inherent risk of floods destroying farms regardless of
modern agricultural practices, the fact that respondents
may still continue practicing livestock keeping, which
is perceived as a strong livelihood during floods (Figure
1), may help the household cope. Therefore, both on-
farm and general livelihood diversity may be important
for reducing livelihood risks to flood and drought both
currently and into the future.
Connecting local insights to policy
The main goal of this bottom-up research is to identify
both desired and successful adaptation responses which
can be scaled up into adaptation interventions and policy.
The three major insights (camel keeping, business, and
modern agriculture) represent what the respondents
perceived as viable livelihood adaptation options for
their communities. It is important to integrate these
regional-level perspectives into national and even
international policy for effective integration of
adaptation policy and frameworks at multiple scales
(Smit and Wandel, 2006).
As stated by Amaru and Chhetri (2013), large scale
adaptation policy can often be disconnected from the
needs of poor, rural communities; but how can we
connect these needs with policy without first
understanding the needs and perspectives of local
communities? While more research needs to be done,
hopefully this paper can provide some insight into the
perspectives and needs of local communities and begin
to bridge the disconnect.
PfR itself has taken these findings and integrated them
into their livelihood interventions, particularly focusing
on modern agriculture by assisting with improved
seeds, greenhouses, tree seedlings, and irrigation canals
and pipes to some of these communities in Isiolo
County. While PfR is a regional intervention focused
on Isiolo County, this still illustrates how understanding
specific communities can help create region-wide
livelihood improvement interventions which aim to
adapt livelihoods to be more resilient in the face of
climate changes impacts including floods and droughts.

58
Adapting livelihoods to floods and droughts in arid Kenya
CONCLUSION
Adaptation needs are complex and context specific
(Noble et al., 2014). The aim of this paper was to
provide specific examples of what local communities
in Isiolo County perceive to be viable livelihood
adaptation strategies in the context of the climate change
hazards floods and droughts. By providing these
examples, we hope to have shed some insight into what
poor, rural, natural resource-dependent communities
see as the way forward for their own livelihoods.
Additionally, we hope to have highlighted the importance
of integrating these local perspectives and insights into
larger scale adaptation policy and interventions in order
to sustain, and even improve, the livelihoods of
vulnerable communities into the future.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research was conducted in Isiolo County, Kenya
as part of the Partners for Resilience Project. We thank
all these organizations for their logistic and financial
contributions to this research. The Partners for
Resilience project partners - The Netherlands Red
Cross, The Catholic Organization for Relief and
Development Aid, Red Cross/Red Crescent Climate
Centre, and Wetlands International - funded all aspects
of the research in the field while Quandt served as a
Junior Researcher. In addition, we thank all of the
Kenya Red Cross Society volunteers who worked as
enumerators and conducted surveys and the
communities themselves for participating in this
research. We also thank Kimberly Roberts for her
feedback in a previous draft of this paper.
STATEMENT OF NO CONFLICT OF
INTEREST
We the authors of this paper hereby declare that there
are no competing interests in this publication.
REFERENCES
Acacia Consultants Ltd. 2011. Baseline survey for
climate proof disaster risk reduction
program(CPDRRP) in Kenya. Final Report,
Partners for Resilience, Isiolo, Kenya.
Adger, W.N., Huq, S., Brown, K., Conway, D. and
Hulme, M. 2003. Adaptation to climate change in
the developing world. Progress in Development
Studies 3(2):179 – 195.
Agrawal, A. and Perrin, N. 2008. Climate adaptation,
local institutions, and rural livelihoods. IFRI
Working Paper #W081-6.
Amaru, S. and Chhetri, N.B. 2013. Climate adaptation:
institutional response to environmental constraints,
and the need for increased flexibility, participation,
and integration of approaches. Applied Geography
3:128-139.
Bebbington, A. 1999. Capitals and capabilities: a
framework for analyzing peasant viability, rural
livelihoods and poverty. World Development
27(12):2021-2044.
Blanco, A.V.R. 2006. Local initiatives and adaptation
to climate change. Disasters 30(1):140-147.
Brown, M.E. and Funk, C.C. 2008. Food security
under climate change. Nasa Publications Paper 131.
Campbell, D.J. and Olson, J.M. 1991. Environment
and development in Kenya: flying the kite in Kajiado
District. Centennial Review 35:295-314.
Dahlquist, R., Whelan, M., Winowiecki, L., Polidoro,
B., Candela, S., Harvey, C.A., Wulfhorst, J.,
Mcdaniel, P. and Bosque-Perez, N. 2007
Incorporating livelihoods in biodiversity
conservation: a case study of Cacao agroforestry
systems in Talamanca, Costa Rica. Biodiversity
Conservation 16:2311-2333.
Denton, F., Wilbanks, T.J., Abeysinghe, A.C., Burton,
I., Gao, Q., Lemos, M.C., Masui, T., O’Brien, K.L.
and Warner, K. 2014. Climate-resilient pathways:
adaptation, mitigation, and sustainable development.
In: Field, C.B., Barros, V.R., Dokken, D.J., Mach,
K.J., Mastrandrea, M.D., Bilir, T.E., Chatterjee, M.,
Ebi, K.L., Estrada, Y.O., Genova, R.C., Girma, B.,
Kissel, E.S., Levy, A.M., MacCracken, S.,
Mastrandrea, P.R. and White, L.L. (Eds.) 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. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY,
USA. pp. 1101-1131.
Ellis, F. 2000. Rural livelihoods and diversity in
developing countries. Oxford University Press, New
York.
Ellis, F. and Allison, E.H. 2005. Livelihood
diversification and natural resource access.
Working Paper No. 9, Livelihood Support
Programme, Rome, Italy, FAO, p. 50.
Farah, K.O., Nyariki, D.M., Ngugi, R.K., Noor, I.M.
and Guliye, A.Y. 2004 The Somali and the camel:
ecology, management and economics.
Anthropologist 6(1):45-55.
Farah, Z., Mollet, M., Younan, M. and Dahir, R. 2007
Camel dairy in Somalia: Limiting factors and
development potential. Livestock Science 110:187-
191.
Funk, C., Eilerts, G., Davenport, F. and Michaelsen, J.
2010. A climate trend analysis of Kenya - August
2010. US Geological Survey. Fact Sheet, 3074.
Garrity, D.P., Akinnifesi, F.K., Ajayi, O.C.,
Weldesemayat, S.G., Mowo, J.G., Kalinganire, A.,
Larwonou, M. and Bayala, J. 2010. Evergreen
agriculture: a robust approach to sustainable food
security in Africa. Food Security 2:197-214.
Gentle, P. and Maraseni, T.N. 2012. Climate change,
poverty and livelihoods: adaptation practices by rural

59
A. QUANDT and Y.A. KIMATHI
mountain communities in Nepal. Environmental
Science and Policy 21:24-34.
Godfray, H.C.J., Beddington, J.R., Crute, I.R., Haddad,
L., Lawrence, D., Muir, J.F., Pretty, J., Robinson,
S., Thomas, S.M. and Toulmin, C. 2010. Food
security: the challenge of feeding 9 billion people.
Science 327: 812-818.
Haraway, D. 1988 Situated knowledges: The science
question in feminism and the privilege of partial
perspective. Feminist Studies 14(3):575-599.
Gupta, J. and Hisschemöller, M. 1997. Issue linkages
as a global strategy toward sustainable development:
a comparative case study of climate change.
International Environmental Affairs 9(4):289-307.
Howden, S.M., Soussana, J.F., Tubiello, F.M., Chhetri,
N., Dunlop, M. and Meinke, H. 2007 Adapting
agriculture to climate change. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences 104(50):19691-
19696.
Kenya National Bureau of Statistics (KNBS), 2009.
2009 Kenya Population and Housing Census.
Republic of Kenya.
Khan, B.B. and Iqbal, A. 2001 Production and
composition of camel milk: review. Pakistan 1
Agricultural Sciences 38(3-4):64-68.
Mati, B.M., Muchiri, J.M., Njenga, K., de Vries, F.P.
and Merrey, D.J. 2005. Assessing water availability
under pastoral livestock systems in drought-prone
Isiolo District, Kenya. International Water
Management Institute Working Paper 106, Colombo,
Sri Lanka.
Matthews, R. and Sydneysmith, R. 2010. Climate
change and institutional capacity in an “arctic city:
A CAVIAR case study of Whitehorse. In: Hovelsrud,
G.K. and Smit, B. (Eds.) CAVIAR: community
adaptation and vulnerability in arctic regions.
Springer Science and Business Media, New York,
pp. 239-261.
Misselhorn, A.A. 2005. What dries food security in
Southern Africa? A meta-analysis of household
economy studies. Global Environmental Change
15:33-43.
Morton, J.F. 2007. The impact of climate change on
smallholder and subsistence agriculture.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
104 (50):19680-19685.
Nardone, A., Ronchi, B., Lacetera, N., Ranieri, M.S.
and Bernabucci, U. 2010. Effects of climate changes
on animal production and sustainability of livestock
systems. Livestock Science 13:57-69.
Niang, I., Ruppel, O.C., Abdrabo, M.A., Essel, A.,
Lennard, C., Padgham, J. and Urquhart, P. 2014.
Africa. In: Field, C.B., Barros, V.R., Dokken, D.J.,
Mach, K.J., Mastrandrea, M.D., Bilir, T.E.,
Chatterjee, M., Ebi, K.L., Estrada, Y.O., Genova,
R.C., Girma, B., Kissel, E.S., Levy, A.M.,
MacCracken, S., Mastrandrea, P.R. and White,
L.L. (Eds.), 2014. Climate Change: 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.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United
Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 1199-1265.
Njiru, G.K. 1993. Economics of camel production. In:
Simpkin SP (ed) Camel Production. A series of
lectures given by FARM-Africa at Nairobi
University.
Noble, I.R., Huq, S., Anokhin, Y.A., Carmin, J.,
Goudou, D., Lansigan, F.P., Osman-Elasha, B. and
Villamizar, A. 2014. Adaptation needs and options.
In: Field, C.B., Barros, V.R., Dokken, D.J., Mach,
K.J., Mastrandrea, M.D., Bilir, T.E., Chatterjee, M.,
Ebi, K.L., Estrada, Y.O., Genova, R.C., Girma, B.,
Kissel, E.S., Levy, A.M., MacCracken, S.,
Mastrandrea, P.R. & White, L.L. (Eds.) 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. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY,
USA, pp. 833-868.
Olsson, L., Opondo, M., Tschakert, P., Agrawal, A.,
Eriksen, S.H., Ma, S., Perch, L.N. and Zakieldeen,
S.A. 2014. Livelihoods and poverty. In: Field, C.B.,
Barros, V.R., Dokken, D.J., Mach, K.J.,
Mastrandrea, M.D., Bilir, T.E., Chatterjee, M., Ebi,
K.L., Estrada, Y.O., Genova, R.C., Girma, B., Kissel,
E.S., Levy, A.M., MacCracken, S., Mastrandrea,
P.R. and White, L.L. (Eds.) 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.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United
Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. pp. 793-832.
Onono, J.O., Ogara, W.O., Okuthe, S.O., Nduhiu, J.G.,
Mainga, A.O. and Nduati, D. 2010 Challenges of
camel production in Samburu District, Kenya.
Journal of Camelid Science 3:1-5.
Paavola, J. 2008. Livelihoods, vulnerability and
adaptation to climate change in Morogoro, Tanzania.
Environmental Science and Policy 11:642-654.
Porter, J.R., Xie, L., Challinor, A.J., Cochrane, K.,
Howden, S.M., Iqbal, M.M., Lobell, D.B. and
Travasso, M.I. 2014. Food security and food
production systems. In: Field, C.B., Barros, V.R.,
Dokken, D.J., Mach, K.J., Mastrandrea, M.D., Bilir,
T.E., Chatterjee, M., Ebi, K.L., Estrada, Y.O.,
Genova, R.C., Girma, B., Kissel, E.S., Levy, A.M.,
MacCracken, S., Mastrandrea, P.R. and White, L.L.
(Eds.), 2014. Climate Change: Impacts,
Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and

60
Adapting livelihoods to floods and droughts in arid Kenya
Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group
II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United
Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 485-533.
Republic of Kenya, 2012. Isiolo County First County
Integrated Development Plan, 2013 – 2017. Kenya
Vision 2030.
Schmidhuber, J. and Tubiello, F.N. 2007. Global food
security under climate change. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences 104(50):19703-
19708.
Shaw, R. 2006. Community-based climate change
adaptation in Vietnam: inter-linkages of environment,
disaster, and human security. In: Sonak, J. (Ed.).
Multiple dimensions of global environmental
changes, TERI publications, pp. 521-547.
Schwartz, H.J., Shabani, S. and Walter, D. 1991.
Marsabit District Range Management Handbook of
Kenya, Vol II.I. Ministry of Livestock
Development, Nairobi, Kenya.
Smit, B. and Skinner, M.W. 2002. Adaptation options
in agriculture to climate change: A typology.
Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global
Change 7:85-114.
Smit, B. and Wandel, J. 2006. Adaptation, adaptive
capacity, and vulnerability. Global Environmental
Change 16:282-292.
Speranza, C.I. 2012. Buffer capacity: Capturing a
dimension of resilience to climate change in African
smallholder agriculture. Regional Environmental
Change 13:521-535.
Thomas, D.S.G. and Twyman, C. 2005. Equity and
justice in climate change adaptation amongst natural-
resource-dependent societies. Global
Environmental Change 15:115-124.
Thomas, D.S.G., Twyman, C., Osbahr, H. and
Hewitson, B. 2007. Adaptation to climate change
and variability: Farmer responses to intra-seasonal
precipitation trends in South Africa. Climatic Change
83:301-322.
Thornton, P.K., Jones, P.G., Algarswamy, G., Andresen,
J. and Herrero, M. 2010. Adapting to climate
change: agricultural system and household impacts
in East Africa. Agricultural Systems 103:73-82.
Urwin, K. and Jordan, A. 2008. Does public policy
support or undermine climate change adapation?
Exploring policy interplay across different scales
of governance. Global Environmental Change,
18(1):180-191.
Verchot, L.V., Van Noordwijk, M., Kandji, S., Tomich,
T., Ong, C., Albrecht, A., Mackensen, J., Bantilan,
C., Anupama, K.V. and Palm, C. 2007. Climate
change: Linking adaptation and mitigation through
agroforestry. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies
for Global Change 12:901-918.