article · PLoS ONE
An evaluation of household resilience to climate-induced shocks across agro-ecological zones in the Dinki watershed of northcentral Ethiopia reveals overall minimal resilience, with an average index score of 0.44. Across measured capacities, absorptive capacity was the strongest contributor at 0.495, followed by adaptive capacity at 0.449 and transformative capacity at 0.387. Geographic variations emerged, with the midland zone displaying higher relative resilience than other zones, averaging an index value of 0.461. Key determinants shaping household capacity include access to farmland, livestock ownership, diverse income sources, local infrastructure, and social capital. Because recurrent shocks combined with poor public services and limited livelihood diversification depress community resilience, long-term security requires development initiatives that prioritise building adaptive and transformative capacities alongside short-term buffering measures.
Recurrent climate shocks threaten vulnerable rural populations whose resilience is constrained by limited public infrastructure and undiversified incomes. Understanding which specific capacities and livelihood assets sustain households allows policymakers and development planners to design targeted interventions. Addressing weak adaptive and transformative capacities helps communities transition from temporary coping mechanisms to durable, systemic resilience across varied agro-ecological environments.
The findings can inform development organisations, regional planners, and agricultural service providers designing resilience programmes and infrastructure investments. While the analytical framework using the Climate Resilience Index is tested and applied locally, the work represents early-stage decision-support insights rather than a direct commercial product, highlighting opportunities for interventions in rural infrastructure, microfinance, and agricultural diversification.
AI-generated from the published abstract. Always read the original work before citing.
This study assessed households' resilience to climate change-induced shocks in Dinki watershed, northcentral highlands of Ethiopia. The data were collected through a cross-sectional survey conducted on 288 households, three focus group discussions, and 15 key informant interviews. The Climate Resilience Index (CRI) based on the three resilience capacities (absorptive, adaptive and transformative) frame was used to measure households' resilience to climate change-induced shocks on an agro-ecological unit of analysis. A principal component analysis (PCA) and multiple regression analysis were used to identify determinant factors and indicators to households' resilience, respectively. Findings indicate that the indexed scores of major components clearly differentiated the study communities in terms of their agro-ecological zones. Specifically, the absorptive capacity (0.495) was the leading contributing factor to resilience followed by adaptive (0.449) and transformative (0.387) capacities. Likewise, the Midland was relatively more resilient with a mean index value of 0.461. Both the PCA and multiple regression analysis indicated that access to and use of livelihood resources, such as farmlands and livestock holdings, diversity of income sources, infrastructure and social capital were determinants of households' resilience. In general, it might be due to their exposure to recurrent shocks coupled with limited adaptive capacities including underdeveloped public services, poor livelihood diversification practices, among others, the study communities showed minimal resilience capacity with a mean score of 0.44. Thus, in addition to short-term buffering strategies, intervention priority focusing on both adaptive and transformative capacities, particularly focusing on most vulnerable localities and constrained livelihood strategies, would contribute to ensuring long-term resilience in the study communities.
This page summarises published work. The authoritative version sits with the publisher.
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0219393
Is something wrong with this record? Report it or request removal.
Discussion
Have you built on this work, tried to replicate it, or seen it applied in practice? Share what you know. Verified researchers and MARATTO™ domain experts can open a discussion, and any member can reply. Contributions are reviewed before they appear.
No discussion yet. Open the first thread.
New to MARATTO™? Create a free account.
