1. Dr. Lucrezia Tincani Vulnerability prevented: measuring the resilience of rural households in Burkina Faso 02 July 2013

2. Understanding the absence of vulnerability Impact vs. process of vulnerability The absence of vulnerability: resilience Why focus on resilience? Identify households who do well in the face of drought Understand how they manage risk Use underlying principles to design policy which favours pre-conditions which result in a reduction of vulnerability 02 July 2013© 2013 Oxford Policy Management Ltd2

3. What is resilience? Return to status quo vs. ability to transform towards a new outcome? Process vs. outcome? Individual vs. systems-level? 02 July 2013© 2013 Oxford Policy Management Ltd3 Return to status quo vs. ability to transform towards a new outcome? Process vs. outcome? Individual vs. systems-level?

4. Defining resilience A ‘resilient’ livelihood system = ability to tolerate seasonal drought and periodic food shortage and still be able to maintain the household’s food security level. – The capacity to weather change (continuation of on-going livelihood activities) – The capacity to respond and reorganise in the face of change (pursuit of new activities). Spatial scale = household’s livelihood system Temporal scale = a whole agricultural cycle Stressor = seasonal drought stress. 02 July 2013© 2013 Oxford Policy Management Ltd4

5. Mixed-methods research design 1. Quantitative surveys: to measure the degree of resilience (three indicators) 2. Qualitative surveys: to understand how decisions were made (process of resilience construction) 02 July 2013© 2013 Oxford Policy Management Ltd5

6. Two field sites (triangles); Mossi ethnic group (dashed circle) Two villages per field site Two family compounds per village (15-25 adults each) Total sample: 98 adults 02 July 2013© 2013 Oxford Policy Management Ltd6

7. Quantitative: Capturing livelihood activities Repeated 6x per year Quantified the amount of food stemming from the following sources, for each cooked meal: 1. Home-grown – principally cereals; 2. Purchased from nearby towns with cash from agricultural sales or off-farm employment; 3. Gathered in the form of wild foods, e.g. leaves and fruits of a range of trees such as baobab; or 4. Gifts received from relatives, often sacks of rice or millet. 02 July 2013© 2013 Oxford Policy Management Ltd7

8. Quantitative: 3 resilience indicators (1) Resilience was measured by 1. The level of diversification of food sources used (risk-spreading strategy?) 2. Interdependence: being able to switch between different food sources (measured by covariance, which captured the interdependence present between different food sources) 3. Adaptive capacity: ability to undertake new or different livelihood strategies, observed via the capacity of separate food sources to respond to changing demand over the study period. HOLLING, C. S. (2001) Understanding the complexity of economic, ecological, and social systems. Ecosystems, 4 (5): 390-405 02 July 2013© 2013 Oxford Policy Management Ltd8

9. Quantitative: 3 resilience indicators (2) 1. The level of diversification of food sources used where n is the number of food entitlement channels (4), p is the proportion of each food stemming from each food entitlement channels designated by i. 2. Interdependence: Positive covariance signals high interdependence and low flexibility, whereas negative covariance signals low interdependence and high flexibility. Covariance between each pair of sources was calculated using the standard COVAR function in Microsoft Excel (see below, for source X and source Y). COVAR (X, Y) = mean of [(X – mean of X) · (Y – mean of Y)] 3. Adaptive capacity: ability to undertake new or different livelihood strategies, measuring the capacity to respond ex post, by calculating the standard deviation of food supplies through each food entitlement channel, capturing the variation in livelihood strategies. 02 July 2013© 2013 Oxford Policy Management Ltd9

10. Quant result: distinct phases of diversification The four phases of seasonal livelihood diversification, depicted via box plots of the seasonal diversity index, with median diversity levels indicated by the red line. 02 July 2013© 2013 Oxford Policy Management Ltd10 Dec. 2009 March May July Sept Nov. 2010

11. Quant result: distinct phases of diversification 02 July 2013© 2013 Oxford Policy Management Ltd11 Two peaks in diversification Only 1 phase of diversification during the rainy season

12. Qualitative analysis Understanding why decisions were made Who made them: individual interviews Tools – Matrix ranking – Historical time line analysis – Probing during FGD and in key informant interviews – Participant observation 02 July 2013© 2013 Oxford Policy Management Ltd12

13. Quant result: distinct phases of diversification 02 July 2013© 2013 Oxford Policy Management Ltd13 OUT OF OPPORTUNITY More labour (6 adults) Some savings Risk attitude Less labour (2 adults) Fewer savings Risk attitude

14. Quant result: distinct phases of diversification 02 July 2013© 2013 Oxford Policy Management Ltd14 Food-insecure household (due to many children) OUT OF NEED Food-insecure household (due to few breadwinners)

15. Benefits of mixed method approach Quantitative cooking surveys: identify what household members were doing (which food sources were used when and by whom), allowing changes to be plotted over time and by household. Qualitative interviews: identify the causal links of why household members were doing this (decision- making) Quality control (expose inconsistency through individual interviews) Capture intra-household dynamics 02 July 2013© 2013 Oxford Policy Management Ltd15

16. Challenge of mixed method approach ‘Regression by hand’ is time consuming; only possible for a small sample size Challenging to collect quant and qual data at same time, and analyse it in the field (allowed inductive approach) Unrealistic under researcher’s budget constraints? BUT more accurate policy implications? 02 July 2013© 2013 Oxford Policy Management Ltd16

17. Thank you

18. Findings Investment in social capital Diversification of activities – but for different reasons, not only to spread risk Planning ahead (reducing consumption, timing of social activities) 02 July 2013© 2013 Oxford Policy Management Ltd18

19. Benefits of mixed method approach Quantitative cooking surveys: identify what household members were doing (which food sources were used when and by whom), allowing changes to be plotted over time and by household. Qualitative interviews: identify the causal links of why household members were doing this (decision- making) Quality control (expose inconsistency through individual interviews) Capture intra-household dynamics 02 July 2013© 2013 Oxford Policy Management Ltd19

20. Challenge of mixed method approach ‘Regression by hand’ is time consuming; only possible for a small sample size Challenging to collect quant and qual data at same time, and analyse it in the field (allowed inductive approach) Unrealistic under researcher’s budget constraints? BUT more accurate policy implications? 02 July 2013© 2013 Oxford Policy Management Ltd20

21. More appropriate policy implications Diversification? More nuanced message. Benefits of risk-sharing in polygamous families Benefits of flexible tenure arrangements Benefits of nomadic livelihoods  Mixed-method approach allows better identification of underlying drivers 02 July 2013© 2013 Oxford Policy Management Ltd21

22. Thank you