Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 26, Issue 3, pp 2939–2949 | Cite as

Vulnerability to recurrent shocks and disparities in gendered livelihood diversification in remote areas of Nigeria

  • Saifullahi Sani IbrahimEmail author
  • Huseyin Ozdeser
  • Behiye Cavusoglu
Research Article


New multidimensional indicators of vulnerability to disaster from external shocks were constructed using survey data covering 1750 respondents from rural Nigeria. Simple ordinary least squares and decomposition analysis were then used to examine the effect of recurrent shocks on livelihood diversification. The results elicited several findings. Although findings from the constructed vulnerability indices revealed overall high risks of disasters, females were disproportionally more vulnerable to cattle rustling. Conversely, both natural hazard-induced and cattle rustling-driven shocks have a strong negative impact on livelihood diversification. This effect is invariant regardless of the perceived gender of the respondents. Decomposition results show that recurrent shocks have moderate influences on inter-gender income disparities, as a larger proportion of the inequalities are explained by demographic characteristics. The findings point to a number of policy recommendations, most notably that the disaster prevention and management strategies should prioritise interventions that have a direct bearing on an individual’s economic, human, and social capitals.


Disaster Vulnerability Natural hazards Cattle rusting Livelihood diversification 



We would like to commend the editors and two anonymous reviewers for providing insightful and constructive comments on an earlier version of this paper.


Data collection was partly supported by the Tertiary Education Trust Fund.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Supplementary material

11356_2018_3854_MOESM1_ESM.docx (23 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 23 kb)


  1. ActionAid International (2005) Participatory vulnerability analysis: a step-by-step guide for field staff. ActionAid International, LondonGoogle Scholar
  2. Adger WN (2006) Vulnerability. Glob Environ Chang 16(3):268–281Google Scholar
  3. Akbar MS, Aldrich DP (2018) Social capital’s role in recovery: evidence from communities affected by the 2010 Pakistan floods. Disasters 42(3):475–497Google Scholar
  4. Alam GMM, Alam K, Mushtaq S, Clarke ML (2017) Vulnerability to climatic change in riparian char and river-bank households in Bangladesh: Implication for policy, livelihoods and social development. Ecological Indicators 72:23–32Google Scholar
  5. Alexander D (2002) From civil defense to civil protection–and back again. Disaster Prev Manag 11(3):209–213Google Scholar
  6. Aliero HM, Ibrahim SS (2013) The challenges of youth empowerment through access to credit in the rural areas of Nigeria. European Journal of Sustainable Development 2(3):25–34Google Scholar
  7. Altay N, Prasad S, Tata J (2013) A dynamic model for costing disaster mitigation policies. Disasters 37(3):357–373Google Scholar
  8. Bankoff G (2001) Rendering the world unsafe: “vulnerability” as Western discourse. Disasters 25(1):19–35Google Scholar
  9. Birkmann J (2006) Measuring vulnerability to natural hazards: Towards disaster resilient societies. Tokyo: United Nations. University PressGoogle Scholar
  10. Birkmann J, von Teichman K (2010) Integrating disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation: key challenges—scales, knowledge, and norms. Sustain Sci 5(2):171–184Google Scholar
  11. Bradshaw S (2014) Engendering development and disasters. Disasters 39:s54–s75Google Scholar
  12. Cannon T (2006) Vulnerability analysis, livelihoods and disasters. In: Ammann W, Dannemann S, Vulliet L (eds) Coping with risks due to natural hazards in the 21st Century. Taylor & Francis/Balkema, LeidenGoogle Scholar
  13. Chambers R (1989) Vulnerability, coping and policy. IDS Bull 20(2):1–8Google Scholar
  14. Dercon S, Hoddinott J, Woldehanna T (2005) Shocks and consumption in 15 Ethiopian villages, 1999–2004. J Afr Econ 14(4):559–585Google Scholar
  15. Enarson E, Fordham M (2001) From women’s needs to women’s rights in disasters’. Environmental Hazards 3(3):133–136Google Scholar
  16. Facchetti S (2003) Environmental disasters: anthropogenic and natural. Sci Pollut Res 10(3):199–199Google Scholar
  17. Falaris EM (2003) The effect of survey attrition in longitudinal surveys: evidence from Peru, Côte d’Ivoire and Vietnam. J Dev Econ 70(1):133–157. Google Scholar
  18. Fekete A, Damm M, Birkmann J (2010) Scales as a challenge for vulnerability assessment. Nat Hazards 55(3):729–747Google Scholar
  19. Fell R, Corominas J, Bonnard C, Cascini L, Leroi E, Savage WZ (2008) Guidelines for landslide susceptibility, hazard and risk zoning for land use planning. Eng Geol 102(3):85–98Google Scholar
  20. Fielding J (2018) Flood risk and inequalities between ethnic groups in the floodplains of England and Wales. Disasters 42(1):101–123Google Scholar
  21. Fielding D, Lepine A (2017) Women’s empowerment and wellbeing: evidence from Africa. J Dev Stud 53(6):826–840Google Scholar
  22. Fields GS (2003) Accounting for income inequality and its change: a new method, with application to the distribution of earnings in the United States. Res Labor Econ 22(3):1–38Google Scholar
  23. Fjelde H (2015) Farming or fighting? Agricultural price shocks and civil war in Africa. World Dev 67:525–534Google Scholar
  24. Fordham M (1998) Making women visible in disasters: problematising the private domain. Disasters 22(2):126–143Google Scholar
  25. Fuchs S, Kuhlicke C, Meyer V (2011) Editorial for the special issue: vulnerability to natural hazards—the challenge of integration. Nat Hazards 58(2):609–619Google Scholar
  26. Gaillard JC, Sanz K, Balgos BC, Dalisay SNM, Gorman-Murray A, Smith F, Toelupe V (2017) Beyond men and women: a critical perspective on gender and disaster. Disasters 41(3):429–447Google Scholar
  27. Ibrahim SS, Aliero HM (2012) An analysis of farmers’ access to formal credit in the rural areas of Nigeria. Afr J Agric Res 7(47):6249–6253Google Scholar
  28. Ibrahim SS, Ibrahim A, Na-Allah A, Saulawa LA (2016) Building of a community cattle ranch and radio frequency identification (RFID) technology as alternative methods of curtailing cattle rustling in Katsina State. Pastoralism 6(10):1–9Google Scholar
  29. IPCC (2014) 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 PressGoogle Scholar
  30. Kouvelis P, Chambers C, Wang H (2006) Supply chain management research and production and operations management: review, trends, and opportunities. Prod Oper Manag 15(3):449–469Google Scholar
  31. Lee YJ, Tung CM, Lin SC (2018) Attitudes to climate change, perceptions of disaster risk, and mitigation and adaptation behavior in Yunlin County, Taiwan. Environ Sci Pollut Res. Google Scholar
  32. Manyena SB (2006) The concept of resilience revisited. Disasters 30(4):434–450Google Scholar
  33. Miller DS, Rivera JD (2011) Guiding principles: rebuilding trust in government and public policy in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. J Crit Incident Anal 2(1):22–32Google Scholar
  34. Neumayer E, Plümper T (2007) The gendered nature of natural disasters: the impact of catastrophic events on the gender gap in life expectancy, 1981–2002. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 97(3):551–566Google Scholar
  35. Olaniyan A, Yahaya A (2016) Cows, bandits, and violent conflicts: understanding cattle rustling in Northern Nigeria. Afr Spectr 51(3):93–105Google Scholar
  36. Oliver-Smith A (2013) Theorizing vulnerability in a globalized world: a political ecological perspective. In Mapping Vulnerability 29-43. Routledge.Google Scholar
  37. Ouma YO, Tateishi R (2014) Urban flood vulnerability and risk mapping using integrated multi-parametric AHP and GIS: methodological overview and case study assessment. Water 6(6):1515–1545Google Scholar
  38. Paavola J (2008) Livelihoods, vulnerability and adaptation to climate change in Morogoro. Tanzania Environmental Science and Policy 11:642–654Google Scholar
  39. Pantuliano S (2007) From food aid to livelihoods support: rethinking the role of WFP in eastern Sudan. Disasters 31:S77–S90Google Scholar
  40. Prasad S, Su HC, Altay N, Tata J (2015) Building disaster-resilient micro enterprises in the developing world. Disasters 39:447–466Google Scholar
  41. Ray-Bennett NS (2010) The role of microcredit in reducing women’s vulnerabilities to multiple disasters. Disasters 34: 240–260.Google Scholar
  42. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB (1983) The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 70:41–55Google Scholar
  43. Scoones I (1998) Sustainable rural livelihoods: a framework for analysis. IDS working paper 72. Brighton: IDS.Google Scholar
  44. Sewando PT, Mutabazi KD, Mdoe NYS (2016) Vulnerability of agro-pastoral farmers to climate risks in northern and central Tanzania. Dev Stud Res 3(1):11–24Google Scholar
  45. Stone M, Brooks RJ (1990) Continuum regression: cross-validated sequentially constructed prediction embracing ordinary least squares, partial least squares and principal components regression. J R Stat Soc Ser B Methodol 52(2):237–269Google Scholar
  46. Terry G (2009) No climate justice without gender justice: an overview of the issues. Gend Dev 17(1):5–18Google Scholar
  47. Theisen OM, Gleditsch NP, Buhaug H (2013) Is climate change a driver of armed conflict? Climate Change 117 (3): 613-625.Google Scholar
  48. Tibesigwa B, Visser M, Collinson M, Twine W (2016) Investigating the sensitivity of household food security to agriculture-related shocks and the implication of social and natural capital. Sustain Sci 11:193–214Google Scholar
  49. Tschakert P (2012) From impacts to embodied experiences: tracing political ecology in climate change research. Geografisk Tidsskrift-Danish Journal of Geography 112(2):144–158Google Scholar
  50. United Nations General Assembly (2016) Report of the open-ended intergovernmental expert working group on indicators and terminology relating to disaster risk reduction. United Nations General Assembly, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  51. Webb P, Harinarayan A (1999) A measure of uncertainty: the nature of vulnerability and its relationship to malnutrition. Disasters 23(4):292–305Google Scholar
  52. Wisner B, Blaikie P, Cannon T, Davis I (2004) At risk. Natural hazards, people’s vulnerability and disasters. Routledge, London.Google Scholar
  53. Wisner B, Gaillard JC, Kelman I (2012) Handbook of hazards and disaster risk reduction. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  54. Yang W, Xu K, Lian J, Bin L, Ma C (2018a) Multiple flood vulnerability assessment approach based on fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method and coordinated development degree model. J Environ Manag 213:440–450Google Scholar
  55. Yang W, Xu K, Lian J, Ma C, Bin L (2018b) Integrated flood vulnerability assessment approach based on TOPSIS and Shannon entropy methods. Ecol Indic 89:269–280Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsNear East UniversityNicosia/TRNCCyprus
  2. 2.Department of Economics and Development StudiesFederal University Dutsin-maDutsin-maNigeria

Personalised recommendations