Content uploaded by Amy Quandt
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Amy Quandt on Oct 25, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and
Management
Perceptions of the effects of floods and droughts on livelihoods: lessons from arid
Kenya
Amy Quandt, Yunus Antony Kimathi,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Amy Quandt, Yunus Antony Kimathi, (2017) "Perceptions of the effects of floods and droughts
on livelihoods: lessons from arid Kenya", International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and
Management, Vol. 9 Issue: 03, pp.337-351, https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCCSM-11-2014-0132
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCCSM-11-2014-0132
Downloaded on: 13 June 2017, At: 09:27 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 49 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 25 times since 2017*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2017),"Assessing vulnerability of rural communities to climate change: A review of implications
for forest-based livelihoods in South Africa", International Journal of Climate Change
Strategies and Management, Vol. 9 Iss 3 pp. 374-386 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/
IJCCSM-04-2016-0044">https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCCSM-04-2016-0044</a>
(2017),"Migration in response to climate change and its impact in China", International Journal
of Climate Change Strategies and Management, Vol. 9 Iss 3 pp. 352-373 <a href="https://
doi.org/10.1108/IJCCSM-05-2016-0061">https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCCSM-05-2016-0061</a>
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by
Token:JournalAuthor:E894AB09-DB87-4EF9-8812-AF886B26A656:
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Downloaded by University of Colorado Boulder, Doctor Amy Quandt At 09:27 13 June 2017 (PT)
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
Downloaded by University of Colorado Boulder, Doctor Amy Quandt At 09:27 13 June 2017 (PT)
Perceptions of the effects of floods
and droughts on livelihoods:
lessons from arid Kenya
Amy Quandt
Department of Environmental Studies, University of Colorado –Boulder, Boulder,
Colorado, USA
Yunus Antony Kimathi
Department of Disaster Risk Reduction, Kenya Red Cross Society –Isiolo,
Isiolo, Kenya
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to understand how people practicing natural resource-based
livelihoods in arid Kenya perceive that their livelihoods are being affected by floods and droughts and how to
integrate these local perceptions of impacts into larger-scale climate change adaptation initiatives and policy.
Design/methodology/approach –In Isiolo County, Kenya, 270 households were surveyed in seven
communities, six focus group discussions were held and a document review was conducted.
Findings –The major livelihood practiced in Isiolo is pastoralism (71 per cent), but agriculture and non-
agro-pastoral activities also play an important role, with 53 per cent of the respondents practicing more than
one type of livelihood. In Isiolo, floods have a large impact on agriculture (193 respondents out of 270), while
droughts impact both agriculture (104 respondents) and livestock (120 respondents), and more specifically,
cattle-keeping (70 respondents).
Research limitations/implications –The research may have implications for the importance of using
local perceptions of the effects of climate change on livelihoods for larger-scale interventions. It also provides
a case study of local perceptions of the effects of floods and droughts on livelihoods in an arid area with
natural resource-dependent livelihoods.
Practical implications –To understand local perceptions and use local perceptions for larger-scale
adaptation interventions and policy.
Originality/value –This paper provides a specific example of a climate change adaptation initiative
integrating local perceptions of the impacts of floods and droughts into livelihood-focused interventions.
Keywords Kenya, Governance, Livelihoods, Flood, Adaptation, Drought
Paper type Research paper
This research was conducted in Isiolo County, Kenya, as part of the PfR Project. The Partners for
Resilience Project is a collaborative effort of several Dutch-based organizations including: The
Netherlands Red Cross (NLRC), The Catholic Organization for Relief and Development Aid (Cordaid),
CARE Netherlands, Red Cross/Red Crescent Climate Centre (RCCC) and Wetlands International (WI)
and operating in nine countries (Kenya, Uganda, Ethiopia, Mali, Indonesia, Philippines, India,
Nicaragua and Columbia). In Kenya, they are also partnered with the Kenya Red Cross Society, Merti
Integrated Development Project and Waso River Users Empowerment Platform. The authors wish to
thank all these organizations for their logistic and financial contributions to this research. The
Partners for Resilience Project partners funded all aspects of the research in the field, while Quandt
served as a Junior Researcher. In addition, the authors would like to thank all of the Kenya Red Cross
Society volunteers who helped conduct surveys and the communities themselves for participating in
this study. Lastly, the authors would like to thank three anonymous reviewers for their valuable
comments.
Effects of
floods and
droughts
337
Received 5 November 2014
Revised 19 October 2015
30 March 2016
16 January 2017
Accepted 27 January 2017
International Journal of Climate
Change Strategies and
Management
Vol. 9 No. 3, 2017
pp. 337-351
© Emerald Publishing Limited
1756-8692
DOI 10.1108/IJCCSM-11-2014-0132
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1756-8692.htm
Downloaded by University of Colorado Boulder, Doctor Amy Quandt At 09:27 13 June 2017 (PT)
Introduction
Globally, floods and droughts impact rural livelihoods dependent on natural resources.
For example, in times of drought, communities relying on natural resources may have
their crops affected and their cattle may perish (UNDP, 2010). As the impacts of climate
change continue to impact rural communities by threatening livelihoods, there is an
immediate need to understand those impacts and implement climate change adaptation
strategies at multiple scales, from the local to the global (Urwin and Jordan, 2008;
Amaru and Chhetri, 2013). However, it has been acknowledged that integrating
adaptation strategies, interventions and policies at various levels is difficult (Cannon,
2000;Van Aalst et al., 2008;Ayers, 2011;Amaru and Chhetri, 2013). Macro-level
adaptation policy and interventions can be disconnected with the needs of these
marginalized, rural communities, where local adaptation needs may exist
independently from larger-scale global or even national interventions and policies
(Amaru and Chhetri, 2013). This has been called the global governance/local reality
paradox and exists in many policy arenas, not just climate change adaptation. To
address this paradox, not only is understanding how livelihoods are impacted by
climate change important (Halder et al., 2012), but more specifically what livelihoods
are impacted by what types of disturbances at a local level to create appropriate
adaptation policy and intervention at larger scales.
This paper provides a case study of how understanding the perceived effects of
floods and droughts on livelihoods in seven communities in Kenya was a useful
tool for creating larger-scale adaptation interventions at the county level for the
Partners for Resilience (PfR) Project, a collaboration of Dutch-based organizations.
Local perceptions are important because households in Kenya have been found to
act on perceptions of environmental conditions, regardless of the trends indicated
by scientific research (Rao et al., 2011). There are two main objectives of this paper.
The first is to better understand how floods and droughts affect rural, natural
resource-dependent livelihoods by using Isiolo County, Kenya, as an example. The
second objective is to better inform potential livelihood-related climate change
adaptation strategies and policies in Kenya and inform how to integrate strategies
at various scales. This paper can therefore play an important role in linking
adaptation policy to local livelihoods by understanding how those livelihoods are
beingimpactedbyfloods and droughts. Isiolo County, Kenya, serves as an
excellent case study because of the projected impacts of climate change (Funk et al.,
2010), widespread food insecurity (Garrity et al.,2010) and a predominately agro-
and pastoral-based livelihood system (Acacia Consultants, 2011).
Impacts of floods and droughts on livelihoods
A livelihood consists of a household’s assets, capabilities and activities required for a means
of living (Dahlquist et al.,2007). A household’s livelihood may rely on one activity or be a
diverse portfolio of assets, capabilities and activities, which, in combination, support the
household. However, livelihoods dependent upon natural resources may be particularly
vulnerable to climate change or weather-related events such as floods and droughts.
Vulnerability to climate or weather-related events can be defined as “the extent to which a
natural or social system is susceptible to, or unable to cope with, adverse effects of climate
change, including variability and extremes”(Berry et al., 2006). Poor and food-insecure
people are often less resilient to such stresses and disasters, thus creating a cycle of
vulnerability (Oluoko-Odingo, 2011).
IJCCSM
9,3
338
Downloaded by University of Colorado Boulder, Doctor Amy Quandt At 09:27 13 June 2017 (PT)
Vulnerability to the impacts of climate change, such as floods and droughts, can
seriously, and negatively, impact rural livelihoods. Climate change is projected to increase
global temperature. This could affect the agricultural growing season, negatively impact
human health, increase drought and increase precipitation variability (IPCC, 2007). In turn,
this could have major impacts in areas where livelihoods are dependent on water
availability for farming or livestock. Agriculture, in particular, is inherently sensitive
to climatic conditions and is one of the most vulnerable livelihoods to the impacts of
global climate change (Reilly, 1995;Smit and Skinner, 2002). Specifically, rain-fed
agriculture is very susceptible to changes in water availability, and communities
relying on rain-fed agriculture could lose their livelihoods (Gentle and Maraseni, 2012).
On the other hand, floods can be just as problematic for natural resource-dependent
livelihoods. For example, floods can destroy crops and cause both livestock and human
disease, which in turn, can impact labor availability for livelihood activities (Armah
et al., 2010). Adapting to the impacts of climate change is therefore critical to reduce
vulnerability to floods and droughts and maintain rural, natural resource-based
livelihoods (Speranza, 2012).
Floods, droughts, and livelihoods in Kenya
Rural livelihoods in East Africa are often based around natural resources which serve as
important household assets. In sub-Saharan Africa as well, agriculture remains one of the
most vulnerable livelihoods to climate change because of potential declines in agricultural
production which may negatively impact food security (Odingo, 1990;McCusker and Carr,
2006). In East Africa, droughts and precipitation variability, in general, are among the most
important livelihood stressors (Misselhorn, 2005;Paavola, 2008). This is particularly true for
communities who rely on rain-fed agriculture or pastoralism for their livelihoods. Such
communities, many already struggling to cope effectively with the impacts of current
climate variability, will face the challenging task of adapting to future climate change
(Cooper et al.,2008).
Climate models for Africa predict between a 3° and 4°C increase in Africa by the end of
the twenty-first century, which is roughly 1.5 times the global mean increase (Bryan et al.,
2013). In Central Kenya specifically, the long rains have declined by more than 100 mm and
there has been a warming of more than 1°C since the 1970s, thus leading to a decline in the
amount of arable land (Funk et al.,2010). Additionally, arid and semi-arid mixed crop-
livestock systems are projected to see reductions in maize and bean production by 2050
(Thornton et al.,2010). These types of climatic and food production changes caused by
floods and droughts force natural resource-dependent communities to adapt. Policy
interventions that aim to assist in this adaptation process may help vulnerable communities
adapt more effectively. One specific example from Kenya is the 2011 drought that resulted in
3.75 million Kenyans and 500,000 refugees requiring food aid (Osano, 2012). This event led
to the formation of the National Drought Management Authority to deal with such events in
the future (Osano, 2012).
Adaptation interventions and the issue of scale
Climate change adaptation occurs at various levels: from farmers adapting farming
practices to national and international policy. The UNDP (2009) specifically defines
adaptation as “changing existing policies and practices and/or adopting new policies and
practices so as to secure Millennium Development Goals in the face of climate change and its
associated impacts”. Adaptation encompasses dealing with change both in the policy arena
and in individual action. Climate change therefore requires responses and policies at all
Effects of
floods and
droughts
339
Downloaded by University of Colorado Boulder, Doctor Amy Quandt At 09:27 13 June 2017 (PT)
spatial scales (Urwin and Jordan, 2008). Local, national and international policy should be
integrated and linked across scales (Björklund et al., 2009). These different scales are linked
and climate change policy and adaptation planning at one scale will play an important role in
creating environments conductive for appropriate adaptation measures at lower scales and vice
versa (Adger, 2001). Local response to climate is increasingly embedded in the global response
(Rodima-Taylor, 2012). Therefore, understanding the impacts of climate change at a local scale
is important for making adaptation policy and interventions at not only the local scale but also
for the regional and national scales. This is highlighted by Thomas and Twyman (2005) who
state that a key element for reducing vulnerability to the impacts of climate change is involving
local communities in the decision-making and policy process.
Climate change adaptation has often been framed as a matter of international governance
(Sarkar, 2011). Because of this, early approaches to adaptation took a top-down perspective
(Van Aalst et al., 2008). Since then, many observers have criticized globally uniform and top-
down approaches to managing climate change risks, showing that such approaches have
overlooked the contextual nature of risks, livelihoods and the factors that make people
vulnerable to climate change (Cannon 2000;Ayers, 2011). This growing dissatisfaction with
the top-down approach has led to the search for adaptation methods relevant at the local
scale, and for ways to work from the bottom-up (Van Aalst et al.,2008). Thus, documenting
local communities’perceptions of climate change is important for policy-making because it
reflects local concerns, focuses on the perceived impacts of climate change on livelihoods
and suggests what adaptive measures should be taken (Berkes and Jolly, 2001;Alessa et al.,
2008;Halder et al. 2012). It is important to understand the local context of vulnerability to
floods and droughts (Ayers, 2011). Thus, this paper aims to illustrate one case of an
adaptation intervention project in Isiolo, Kenya, aiming to understand local perspectives of
the impacts of floods and droughts on livelihoods, and how this might be integrated into
interventions and policy at other scales.
Methods
Research motivations and purpose
This livelihoods survey was conducted for the PfR Project. PfR is an alliance of Dutch-based
non-profit organizations, namely: The Netherlands Red Cross (NLRC), The Catholic
Organization for Relief and Development Aid (Cordaid), CARE Netherlands, Red Cross/Red
Crescent Climate Centre (RCCC) and Wetlands International (WI), and operates in nine
countries, namely, Kenya, Uganda, Ethiopia, Mali, Indonesia, Philippines, India, Nicaragua and
Colombia. In Kenya, PfR is implementing the Climate-Proof Disaster Risk Reduction (CPDRR)
programme in Ewaso Nyiro North River basin through local partners, namely, Kenya Red
Cross Society (KRCS), Merti Integrated Development Programme (MID-P) and Wetlands
International Kenya chapter. The program aims at increasing resilience of vulnerable
communities to increased disaster risks, the effects of climate change and environmental
degradation. The translation of their intervention strategy into practice is characterized by an
innovative integration of three approaches: disaster risk reduction (DRR), climate change
adaptation (CCA) and ecosystem management and restoration (EMR).
PfR aims to take a “livelihood”approach at the community level, and encourage people to
diversify and strengthen their livelihoods to reduce the risk of disaster, adapt to climate
variability and change and manage/restore their ecosystems. Therefore, PfR Kenya wished
to carry out this survey to assess how livelihoods in Isiolo County, Kenya were being
impacted by floods and droughts, and understand the possible options that could be best
promoted and encouraged by the program. Using the perspectives of the communities, the
assessment aimed to identify livelihood options that are both climate-smart and ecosystem-
IJCCSM
9,3
340
Downloaded by University of Colorado Boulder, Doctor Amy Quandt At 09:27 13 June 2017 (PT)
friendly that could be implemented and/or encouraged in the project areas by the PfR
partners and implementing organizations. This study serves as an excellent case for
examining the objectives of this paper because the study aims to understand local
livelihoods and then use that information to promote climatechange adaptation strategies.
Study area
Isiolo County is located in the Upper Eastern region covering approximately 25,000 km
2
and
has an estimated population of 143,294 persons according to Kenya National Bureau of
Statistics census (KNBS, 2009). Isiolo County borders Marsabit County to the north, Wajir and
Garissa Counties to the east, Tana River and Meru Counties to the south and Samburu and
Laikipia Counties to the west. Isiolo contains three sub-counties, namely, Isiolo, Merti and
Garbatulla. It is further sub-divided into ten administrative wards, namely, Oldonyiro,
Ngaremara, Isiolo East, Bulapesa, Burat, Kinna, Garbatula, Sericho, Chari and Cherab. Most of
thecountyisaflat, low-lying plain. To the west are the volcanic hills and foothill slopes of
Mount Kenya and Nyambene Hills. There are four perennial rivers in the county, including
Ewaso Nyiro which originates from Mt. Kenya and the Aberdare Range, and Kinna and
Bisanadi which originate from the Nyambene Hills. Isiolo County is hot and dry for most of the
year. It has two rainy seasons: long rains in October and November and short rains which fall
between March and May. The average rainfall ranges from 400 to 650 mm and is erratic and
unreliable (Republic of Kenya, 2013). High temperatures are recorded in the County throughout
the year, with a mean annual temperature of 29°C (Republic of Kenya, 2013). Borana are the
most populated ethnic community, with Turkana, Meru, Samburu and Somali also present.
Data collection
The livelihoods assessment used a mixed-methods approach that included document
review, field observations and notes, household surveys and focus group discussions. This
study took place in seven different communities in Isiolo County (Figure 1). The
communities included in this study were selected based on different, locally classified,
environment types as follows:
Riverine –Gotu, Manyangalo, Burat;
Town –Merti, Kinna;
Charri –Bulesa; and
Cherap –Basa.
Document review took place between May 23 and June 3, 2013. The document review was
accompanied by visits to government and organization offices in Nairobi and Nanyuki.
These offices supplied electronic and hard copies of documents based on their past work.
Offices visited include the National Drought Management Authority in Nairobi, the Ministry
of Northern Kenya ASAL Secretariat in Nairobi, Cordaid, Kenya Red Cross Society
Headquarters, Water River Management Authority in Nanyuki and the National Drought
Management Authority in Nanyuki.
Surveys and focus groups were conducted between June 18 and July 9, 2013. Overall, 270
household surveys were collected along with six focus group discussions. The household
surveys were carried out by enumerators in English, Swahili or Borana based on the
respondents’preference, and answers were recorded in English or Swahili. The focus group
discussions were moderated by Quandt with assistance in translation from Borana to
English/Swahili for four of the six focus group discussions. The other two focus group
discussions were conducted in Swahili.
Effects of
floods and
droughts
341
Downloaded by University of Colorado Boulder, Doctor Amy Quandt At 09:27 13 June 2017 (PT)
The household survey was created by Quandt and Kimathi with assistance from the Kenya
Red Cross Society –Isiolo Branch Office. Before conducting the household surveys, the
enumerators were given a training manual and an hour-long training with Quandt and
Kimathi. Male enumerators surveyed males, while female enumerators surveyed females.
Enumerators selected households randomly by surveying one household, skipping two,
surveying the next, and so forth. A summary of the household surveys is provided in Table I.
The survey was semi-structured and open-ended. It included information about
household livelihoods, sources of income, food security and demographic information.
Household livelihood classification were grouped into pastoral (livestock keeping),
agricultural (farming), agro-pastoral (both livestock-keeping and farming) and non-agro-
pastoral (neither livestock-keeping nor farming). The meaning of words such as “flood”and
“drought”were intentionally left open to interpretation by the respondent. This was done
Table I.
Summary of
household surveys
Community # Surveys # Male respondents # Female respondents
Basa 30 10 20
Bulesa 30 11 19
Merti 73 29 43
Gotu 15 8 7
Kinna 41 18 23
Burat 40 18 22
Manyangalo 41 21 20
Total 270 115 154
*
Note: For some surveys, the gender was not recorded by the enumerator and thus the total number of
surveys is higher than that in the male and female respondent categories
Figure 1.
Map of Isiolo County
and the starred
research sites
IJCCSM
9,3
342
Downloaded by University of Colorado Boulder, Doctor Amy Quandt At 09:27 13 June 2017 (PT)
because the impacts of climate change are felt at an individual level and this survey aimed to
capture perceptions of individual respondents. Additionally, we did not want to constrain
the respondents to a particular, scientificdefinition of flood or drought. The open-ended
nature of this survey allowed the respondents to answer each question without being
constrained by having to select from a range of answers, which makes it different from
many quantitative surveys. The survey was not meant to be a representative sample of the
seven communities. Instead, the goal was to capture a wide, diverse range of thoughts and
opinions through more qualitative, anthropological techniques. Randomly selecting
households to survey helped ensure that a diversity of responses was captured, as well as
nuances. Nuance is important when trying to understand human experiences because every
household may have different experiences and nuance is about showing that things are “not
always true or not true”(Rubin and Rubin, 2005).
Overall, six focus group discussions were conducted in Basa, Kinna and Burat. In each of
these three communities, one women’s focus group and one men’s focus group discussion
were conducted. The focus group discussions were organized by the community leadership
and took place in community government offices. Each focus group discussion had between
10 and 20 participants and lasted from 1.5 to 2 h.
Data analysis
Data were analyzed using Microsoft Excel and STATA 13. Both the household survey
and focus group data were entered into Microsoft Excel, cleaned and translated into
English, where needed. Statistical analysis was conducted using the same software.
Participant observation and field notes were left in their original form and used to add
depth to the survey and focus group data. The various sources of data (household
survey, document review, focus group discussions and field notes) were used to help
increase the general understanding of the research objectives through iterative
triangulation. Iterative triangulation is a theory development process that takes place
by using evidence, existing scholarly literature and intuition to compare and contrast
emerging constructs, ideas and theories (Lewis, 1998).
Results
Livelihoods practiced
Figure 2 illustrates the livelihoods practiced by respondents from the household survey in
all seven communities surveyed in Isiolo County, Kenya. Livelihoods were grouped into
Figure 2.
Livelihood types
practiced in Isiolo
County, Kenya
(n= 270)
Effects of
floods and
droughts
343
Downloaded by University of Colorado Boulder, Doctor Amy Quandt At 09:27 13 June 2017 (PT)
three categories: agriculture, pastoralism and non-agro-pastoral livelihoods, as explained
above. These categories are not mutually exclusive, and about half (53 per cent) of the
households practice more than one livelihood and 33 respondents (12.2 per cent) practice all
three livelihood categories. About half (132) of the respondents practice agriculture, while 71
per cent (192 respondents) practice livestock-keeping. It is important to note that 25
respondents (9.25 per cent) reported having no livelihood activities. This could be related to
the fact that 52 respondents (19.3 per cent) said that their main source of food is food relief/
food aid. Additionally, respondents were asked what the major source of income was for
their household. The top three answers were livestock sales (80 respondents), selling crops
(65 respondents) and casual labor (56 respondents).
During the focus group discussions, participants were asked to list all the livelihoods
practiced in their communities. Along with pastoralism and agriculture, groups named
many non-agro-pastoral activities including: temporary paid labor, selling firewood and
charcoal, working as a tailor, cooking, washing clothes, owning small stores, being maids,
selling used clothes, construction, repairing shoes, driving and fetching water. The
household survey results support these results and the top three non-agro-pastoral
livelihoods named by respondents were casual labor (50 respondents), business (29) and
charcoal making (17). These responses show the wide variety of livelihood activities outside
of natural resource-based livelihood activities.
Impacts of floods
Floods and droughts have different perceived effects on livelihoods, as presented in Figure 3.
According to survey respondents, agriculture was perceived to be affected by floods more
than livestock, and 192 respondents said that floods impact agriculture. The focus group
interviews provide a more nuanced understanding of the impacts of flood, and the women in
Kinna stated that their “farms are swept away and the farmers lose morale, the plants are
swept away.”
Livestock was also perceived to be affected by flood and the male focus group in Kinna
mentioned that goats in particular suffer during floods because their “hooves are hurt and
diseased during flood.”While livestock can be swept away in floods, livestock disease may
be a bigger problem caused by floods, as suggested in the quote above. Lastly, many of the
Figure 3.
Main livelihoods that
were named by
respondents as being
impacted by floods
(blue) and droughts
(red)
IJCCSM
9,3
344
Downloaded by University of Colorado Boulder, Doctor Amy Quandt At 09:27 13 June 2017 (PT)
focus groups discussed how flood indirectly impacts their livelihoods by creating poor or
impassable road conditions (Table II). This impacts their ability to access markets both to
buy and sell agricultural crops and livestock.
Impacts of droughts
Figure 3 illustrates that the most named livelihood activities perceived to be affected by
drought were livestock, agriculture and cattle specifically. Cattle were mentioned by the
most respondents (70) as being vulnerable to drought, compared to goats (25 respondents)
and sheep (37 respondents). Livestock-keeping, in general, can be negatively impacted, and
this is particularly important because livestock-keeping was the main livelihood in the area
(71 per cent of respondents). The Kinna women’s focus group told the story of how “in 2009
there was a severe drought and one person who had 800 cattle lost all but 50 of them.”The
Kinna men supported what the women said by stating “we used to have a lot of cows, but
recently there have been problems and we don’t have a plan, we lose all our wealth.”
Agriculture was named by 104 respondents as being impacted by drought, and many
respondents during both the focus group interviews and household surveys said that crops
dry up and access to water is difficult during droughts. Additionally, some respondents
seem to be transitioning from livestock-keeping to agriculture to support themselves and the
Basa men’s focus group went as far to say that “if you look ahead the most sustainable
livelihood is farming.”
The focus groups had mixed responses about the impact of drought on non-agro-pastoral
livelihoods such as business. The Kinna men’s focus group stated that “during drought
there is no money, so business goes down.”However, other respondents said that “during
drought business is good because people have no food so they must buy it at stores.”
Discussion
There were two main objectives of this paper: to better understand how floods and
droughts effect livelihoods, using Isiolo County, Kenya, as an example, and to better
inform potential livelihood-related climate change adaptation strategies and policies in
Kenya how to integrate strategies at various scales. This section will explore these
main objectives.
The effects of floods and droughts on livelihoods
The first step in understanding how livelihoods were perceived to be affected by floods and
droughts is to understand what livelihoods are being practiced and are important to people
in the area. The results for Isiolo County demonstrate that most respondents practiced one
or more of the three livelihood strategy categories: pastoralism, agriculture and non-agro-
pastoral livelihoods. From Figure 2, the two most practiced livelihood strategies are
pastoralism and agro-pastoralism. Isiolo is predominantly made up of traditional pastoralist
Table II.
Focus group
comments on floods
and infrastructure
Focus group Comment
Basa Women “floods block the roads”
“roads are bad”
Kinna Women “the stores suffer because the bad roads prevent transport”
Kinna Men “no business if it rains”
“no cars can get here during floods”
Burat Women “floods can break the bridge”
Effects of
floods and
droughts
345
Downloaded by University of Colorado Boulder, Doctor Amy Quandt At 09:27 13 June 2017 (PT)
groups such as the Borana, Somali, Samburu and Turkana, and thus, it is reasonable to
expect pastoralism to be the major livelihood. The second major livelihood strategy was
agro-pastoralism, and this is indicative of a recent switch to agriculture in the area. It has
been noted (Acacia Consultants, 2011) that some households may be adopting agriculture,
on top of pastoralism, as a coping mechanism to deal with the impacts of climate change.
Additionally, the spread of agricultural technologies, such as greenhouses and generator-
powered water pumps, have made small-scale farming increasingly possible in this arid
landscape (personal observation).
As seen in the results, many households in Isiolo County, Kenya, have diversified
livelihoods. Livelihood diversification involves the “creation of a portfolio of farming and
non-farming livelihoods”(Paavola, 2008). Generally, diversification is becoming an
increasingly utilized strategy of rural livelihood systems in both developed and developing
countries globally, as documented in the literature (Reardon, 1997;Ellis, 2000;Barrett et al.,
2001;Niehof, 2004;Rodima-Taylor, 2012). More specifically, studies have found that the
traditionally pastoral Maasai (McCabe, 2003;McCabe et al.,2010) and Kuria (Rodima-
Taylor, 2012) ethnicities in Tanzania have been diversifying their livelihood strategies for
decades to deal with climate change, increased population and a modernization trend
towards a monetary economy. This appears to be consistent with what is occurring in Isiolo,
where traditionally pastoral groups are now engaging in both agriculture and non-agro-
pastoral livelihoods such as business and paid labor.
The data presented in this paper illustrate the nuanced nature of the perceptions of
various impacts of climate change for different livelihoods, particularly agriculture.
Overwhelmingly, floods were perceived to be the most destructive to agriculture. This is
important because floods could then have a big impact on food security if farms and crops
are destroyed in floods. Food security is a serious issue in this already fairly food-insecure
area because almost 20 per cent of respondents said that food relief was their main source of
household food.
However, agriculture was also named by 104 respondents as being impacted by drought.
This makes agriculture a complex, nuanced challenge for adaptation policy and
interventions because it was perceived as being seriously impacted in Isiolo County by both
floods and droughts. Despite this, many respondents stated that agriculture was a more
desirable and sustainable livelihood in the future. However, this only further complicates
adaptation to agriculture because it is a desired livelihood, but also perceived as being
vulnerable to floods and droughts. This has been documented elsewhere more broadly, and
agriculture remains one of the most vulnerable economic sectors in Africa to climate change
(McCusker and Carr, 2006). Additionally, the impacts of floods and drought on agriculture
may be context-specific and dependent on local ecology, access to water sources, dependence
on rain-fed agriculture and technological skills.
Drought was perceived as being overall the most harmful for livestock, and cattle
specifically. While goats and sheep were also perceived as being impacted by drought, cattle
far outweighed them, with 70 respondents naming cattle specifically. Cattle are, at least
traditionally, the most important livelihood practiced by Borana (Rufael et al., 2008) and the
perceived severe impact of drought on cattle in Isiolo County is important.
In addition to the direct impacts that floods and drought have on natural resource-based
livelihoods, other indirect impacts were discussed. One of the most important was the
conditions of the roads which these communities rely on to reach larger markets to sell both
their livestock and farm produce. According to the focus groups, these roads are made worse
and sometimes are impassable during times of floods. This impacts their livelihoods
because stores can no longer obtain merchandise, and it is difficult to access markets to
IJCCSM
9,3
346
Downloaded by University of Colorado Boulder, Doctor Amy Quandt At 09:27 13 June 2017 (PT)
either buy or sell goods. This means that all three livelihood categories are impacted by a
lack of access to markets during floods. Farmers have nowhere to sell their produce,
pastoralists cannotsell their livestock and businesses are unable to restock supplies.
Recommendations to better inform adaptation at multiple scales
The second objective of this paper was to provide recommendations for policymakers and
climate change adaptation managers in Kenya specifically, while providing an example of
how to integrate adaptation at multiple scales. Documenting local communities’perceptions
of the effects of climate change on livelihoods, as done in this study, is important to policy
and intervention because perceptions reflect local concerns and focus on the impacts of
climate change on people’s livelihoods (Halder et al., 2012). This, in turn, influences their
decisions to act, and suggests what types of adaptation interventions should be undertaken
(Berkes and Jolly, 2001;Alessa et al.,2008;Halder et al.,2012). The study was conducted
specifically for the PfR Project, but there are four major recommendations that may also go
beyond the scope of the project.
First, local livelihood diversity should be taken into account even at larger scales of
adaptation interventions and policy. The diversification of livelihoods in Isiolo County may
represent an already existing coping mechanism and adaptation strategy to deal with socio-
economic and/or environmental change including floods and droughts. The diversity of
livelihoods is an important part of rural economies and survival, as documented in this
study, but it is often overlooked in the policy community (Ellis, 1999). Failure to
acknowledge livelihood diversity may hinder the effectiveness of any intervention or policy
because climate change adaptation can only be understood in context, and the context of
Isiolo County is one of increased livelihood diversity (Adger et al., 2009).
Second, the perceived threat of both flood and drought on agricultural livelihoods is
a serious problem that climate change adaptation interventions and policy need to
address. To sustain agriculture and improve food security, both the impacts of floods
and droughts must be dealt with at all levels, from the individual farm to the regional
farming networks. Adaptation policies aimed at agriculture need to consider the food
security of individual farmers but also the entire region during floods or droughts. All
of these factors make agriculture both complex and important for adaptation
interventions and policy.
Third, adaptation policy and interventions should acknowledge the risk of drought on
cattle in marginalized communities. Cattle are still an important livelihood in Isiolo County,
and a major drought could have a serious negative impact on cattle-dependent households.
A focus for adaptation policy should include ensuring access to water and pasture for all
households. This requires a larger-scale approach in landscape management and would
need the cooperation of the government, livestock organizations and communities. While
this is easier said than done, it is a way to integrate local perspectives of the effects of
drought into larger-scale climate change adaptation policies.
And lastly, there should be a focus on critical infrastructure development such as
roads, bridges and overall transportation networks. In Isiolo County, Kenya,
infrastructure was perceived to be seriously affected by floods. When roads are no
longer passable, all livelihoods in Isiolo County, Kenya, suffered. However, developing
flood-resistant infrastructure is a local perceived effect of floods that is easier to
address at larger scales of climate change adaptation policy. Indeed, infrastructure may
be easier to deal with at larger scales, as road maintenance and construction often fall
under the jurisdiction of a larger-scale authority, not individual households or even
communities.
Effects of
floods and
droughts
347
Downloaded by University of Colorado Boulder, Doctor Amy Quandt At 09:27 13 June 2017 (PT)
Conclusions
The discussion sections in this paper address the two major objectives of this paper by
illustrating first the local perceptions of the effects of climate change in Isiolo County,
Kenya, and then providing four recommendations that should be considered in climate
change adaptation policies at a multitude of scales. This second objective helps address the
problem of integrating adaptation policies at different scales.
The problem of connecting local perceptions of climate change with larger-scale policy
has been called the global governance/local reality paradox. While not operating on the
global scale, the PfR project undertook this livelihood survey for the purpose of planning
livelihood-based adaptation interventions at the county level in Isiolo based on communities’
perceptions of the effects of drought and flood. By sampling seven diverse communities
across the county, PfR was able to make recommendations and plan for adaptation
interventions throughout their project sites in Isiolo County. The process described here
illustrates how climate change adaptation interventions and policy could be scaled-up using
local perceptions. This paper provides one case study of an attempt to integrate adaptation
interventions from the local perceptions to a broader county-wide context. However more
research needs to be done to effectively connect macro-level adaptation policy with the
context-specific needs of marginalized communities (Amaru and Chhetri, 2013).
References
Acacia Consultants (2011), “Baseline survey for climate proof disaster risk reduction programme
(CPDRRP) in Kenya”, Final Report, Partners for Resilience, Isiolo.
Adger, W.N. (2001), “Scales of governance and environmental justice for adaptation and mitigation of
climate change”,Journal of International Development, Vol. 13 No. 7, pp. 921-931.
Adger, N.W., Dessai, S., Goulden, M., Hulme, M., Lorenzoni, I., Nelson, D.R., Naess, L.O., Wolf, J. and
Wreford, A. (2009), “Are there social limits to adaptation to climate change?”,Climatic Change,
Vol. 93 No. 3, pp. 335-354.
Alessa, L., Klinsky, A., Williams, P. and Barton, M. (2008), “Perception of change in freshwater in
remote resource-dependent Arctic communities”,Global Environmental Change, Vol. 18 No. 1,
pp. 153-164.
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, Vol. 3, pp. 128-139.
Armah, F.A., Yawson, D.O., Yengoh, G.T., Odoi, J.L. and Afrifa, E.K.A. (2010), “Impacts of floods on
livelihoods and vulnerability of natural resource dependent communities in Northern Ghana”,
Water, Vol. 2, pp. 120-139.
Ayers, J. (2011), “Resolving the adaptation paradox: exploring the potential for deliberative adaptation
policy-making in Bangladesh”,Global Environmental Policies, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 62-88.
Barrett, C., Reardon, T. and Webb, P. (2001), “Non-farm income diversification and household livelihood
strategies in rural Africa: concepts, dynamics, and policy implications”,Food Policy, Vol. 26
No. 4, pp. 315-331.
Berkes, F. and Jolly, D. (2001), “Adapting to climate change: social-ecological resilience in a Canadian
Western Arctic Community”,Conservation Ecology, Vol. 5 No.2, p. 18.
Berry, P.M., Rounsevell, M.D.A., Harrison, P.A. and Audsley, E. (2006), “Accessing the vulnerability of
agricultural land use and species to climate change and the role of policy in facilitating
adaptation”,Environmental Science and Policy, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 186-204.
Björklund, G., Tropp, H., Harlin, J., Morrison, A. and Hudson, A. (2009), “Water adaptation in National
Adaptation Programmes for action: freshwater in climate adaptation planning and climate
IJCCSM
9,3
348
Downloaded by University of Colorado Boulder, Doctor Amy Quandt At 09:27 13 June 2017 (PT)
adaptation in freshwater planning”, United Nations World Water Assessment Programme,
Dialogue Paper.
Bryan, E., Ringler, C., Okoba, B., Roncoli, C., Silvestri, S. and Herrero, M. (2013), “Adapting agriculture
to climate change in Kenya, household strategies and determinants”,Journal of Environmental
Management, Vol. 114, pp. 26-35.
Cannon, T. (2000), “Vulnerability analysis and disasters”, in Parker, D.J. (Ed.), Floods, Routledge,
London, pp. 45-56.
IPCC (2007), “Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability”, in Parry, M.L., Canziani, O.F., Palutikof, J.P., van
der Linden, P.J. and Hanson, C.E. (Eds), Contributions of Working Group II of the Fourth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, MA, New York, NY, p. 976.
Cooper, P.J.M., Dimes, J., Rao, K.P.C., Shapiro, B., Shiferaw, B. and Twomlow, B. (2008), “Coping better
with current climatic arability in the rain-fed farming systems of Sub-Saharan Africa: an
essential first step in adapting to future climate change?”,Agriculture, Ecosystems, and
Environment, Vol. 126Nos 1/2, pp. 24-35.
Dahlquist, R., Whelan, M., Winowiecki, L., Polidoro, B., Candela, S., Harvey, C.A., Wulfhorst, J.,
Mcdaniel, P. and Bosque-Perez, B. (2007), “Incorporating livelihoods in biodiversity
conservation: a case study of cacao agroforestry systems in Talamanca, Costa Rica”,Biodiversity
Conservation, Vol. 16, pp. 2311-2333.
Ellis, F. (1999), “Rural livelihood diversification in developing countries: evidence and policy
implications”, Natural Resource Perspectives No 40, Overseas Development Institute.
Ellis, F. (2000), Rural Livelihoods and Diversity in Developing Countries, Oxford University Press,
New York, NY.
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.andBayala,J.(2010),“Evergreen agriculture: a robust approach to sustainable
food security in Africa”,Food Security, Vol. 2, pp. 197-214.
Gentle, P. and Maraseni, T.N. (2012), “Climate change, poverty and livelihoods: adaptation practices by
rural mountain communities in Nepal”,Environmental Science and Policy, Vol. 21 No. 1,
pp. 24-34.
Halder, P., Sharma, R. and Alam, A. (2012), “Local perceptions of and responses to climate change:
experiences form the natural resource-dependent communities in India”,Regional
Environmental Change, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 665-673.
Kenya National Bureau of Statistics (KNBS) (2009), 2009 Kenya Population and Housing Census,
KNBS, Nairobi.
Lewis, M.W. (1998), “Iterative triangulation: a theory development process using existing case studies”,
Journal of Operation Management, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 455-469.
McCabe, J.T. (2003), “Sustainability and livelihood diversification among the Maasai of Northern
Tanzania”,Human Organization, Vol. 62 No. 2, pp. 100-112.
McCabe, J.T., Leslie, P.W. and DeLuca, L. (2010), “Adopting cultivation to remain pastoralists: the
diversification of Maasai livelihoods in northern Tanzania”,Human Ecology, Vol. 38 No. 3,
pp. 321-334.
McCusker, B. and Carr, E.R. (2006), “The co-production of livelihoods and land use change: case studies
from South Africa and Ghana”,GeoForum, Vol. 37, pp. 790-804.
Misselhorn, A.A. (2005), “What dries food security in Southern Africa? A meta-analysis of household
economy studies”,Global Environmental Change, Vol. 15 No.1, pp. 33-43.
Niehof, A. (2004), “The significance of diversification for rural livelihood systems”,Food Policy, Vol. 29
No. 4, pp. 321-338.
Effects of
floods and
droughts
349
Downloaded by University of Colorado Boulder, Doctor Amy Quandt At 09:27 13 June 2017 (PT)
Odingo, R.S. (1990), “Implications for African agriculture of the greenhouse effect”,Developments in Soil
Science, Vol. 20, pp. 231-248.
Oluoko-Odingo, A.A. (2011), “Vulnerability and adaptation to food insecurity and poverty in Kenya”,
Annals of the Association of American Geographers, Vol. 101 No. 1, pp. 1-20.
Osano, P. (2012), “Improving policy responses and finding sustainable solutions to drought in Kenya”,
Africa Portal, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 1-7.
Paavola, J. (2008), “Livelihoods, vulnerability and adaptation to climate change in Morogoro,
Tanzania”,Environmental Science and Policy, Vol. 11 No. 7, pp. 642-654.
Rao, K.P.C., Ndegwa, W.G., Kizito, K. and Oyoo, A. (2011), “Climate variability and change: farmer
perceptions and understanding of intra-seasonal variability in rainfall and associated risk in
semi-arid Kenya”,Experimental Agriculture, Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 267-291.
Reardon, T. (1997), “Using evidence of household income diversification to inform study of the rural
non-farm labour market in Africa”,World Development, Vol.25 No. 5, pp. 735-747.
Reilly, J. (1995), “Climate change and global agriculture: recent findings and issues”,American Journal
of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 77 No. 3, pp. 727-733.
Republic of Kenya (2013), “Isiolo county first county integrated development plan, 2013 - 2017”,Kenya
Vision 2030, Republic of Kenya, Kenya.
Rodima-Taylor, D. (2012), “Social innovation and climate adaptation: local collective action in
diversifying Tanzania”,Applied Geography, Vol. 33, pp. 128-134.
Rubin, H.J. and Rubin, I.S. (2005), Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of Hearing Data, 2nd ed., Sage
Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Rufael, T., Catley, A., Bogale, A., Sahle, M. and Shiferaw, Y. (2008), “Food and mouth disease in the
Borana pastoral system, southern Ethiopia and implications for livelihoods and international
trade”,Tropical Animal Health and Production, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 29-38.
Sarkar, A.N. (2011), “Global climate governance: emerging policy issues and future organizational
landscapes”,International Journal of Business and Information Technology, Vol. 4 No. 2,
pp. 67-82.
Smit, B. and Skinner, M.W. (2002), “Adaptation options in agriculture to climate change: a typology”,
Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Vol. 7, pp. 85-114.
Speranza, C.I. (2012), “Buffer capacity: capturing a dimension of resilience to climate change in African
smallholder agriculture”,Regional Environmental Change, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 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,Vol.15
No. 2, pp. 115-124.
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,
Vol. 103 No. 2, pp. 73-82.
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) (2009), United Nations Development Program: Africa
Adaptation Programme, United Nations Development Programme, New York.
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) (2010), The Community Water Initiative: Fostering
Water Security and Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation, UNDP, GEF Small Grants
Programme, New York.
Urwin, K. and Jordan, A. (2008), “Does public policy support or undermine climate change adaptation?
Exploring policy interplay across different scales of governance”,Global Environmental Change,
Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 180-191.
Van Aalst, M.K., Cannon, T. and Burton, I. (2008), “Community level adaptation to climate change: the
potential role of participatory community risk assessment”,Global Environmental Change,
Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 165-179.
IJCCSM
9,3
350
Downloaded by University of Colorado Boulder, Doctor Amy Quandt At 09:27 13 June 2017 (PT)
About the authors
Amy Quandt is a PhD Candidate at the University of Colorado Boulder, Environmental Studies
Program. Amy Quandt was part of this research as a Junior Researcher for the Partners for Resilience
Project from May to August 2013. She has an MS in Resource Conservation with an emphasis on
International Conservation and Development from the University of Montana, and a BS in Biology
from the University of Puget Sound. Amy Quandt is the corresponding author and can be contacted
at: amy.quandt@colorado.edu
Yunus Antony Kimathi is a Volunteer with the Kenya Red Cross Society –Isiolo Branch –in the
Disaster Risk Reduction Department. He has worked with the Kenya Red Cross Society –Isiolo –to
conduct disaster risk reduction trainings, surveys and livelihood improvement projects. He is one of
the main facilitators in the Partners for Resilience Project from the Kenya Red Cross Society –Isiolo
Branch.
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Effects of
floods and
droughts
351
Downloaded by University of Colorado Boulder, Doctor Amy Quandt At 09:27 13 June 2017 (PT)
