Kenyan households, as in many rural areas in developing countries, suffer frequently from effects of shocks. Yet, they have limited access to effective coping strategies. Vulnerable households end up resorting to ineffective coping strategies such as distressed sales of farmland. Distress land sales limit household productive capacity and increase vulnerability to future shocks, thus entrenching poverty. Using a nationally representative data collected in two waves, we examine the circumstances under which rural households in Kenya sell farmland following shocks. We find that specific shock characteristics, household characteristics and the household social and physical environments are associated with distress sales of farmland. The likelihood of selling farmland was higher for idiosyncratic shocks and those that resulted in higher monetary and material losses. The likelihood of engaging in distress land sales was also higher in households with older heads, with more land holding, where land markets existed and in households that depended on social safety nets. The likelihood of distress sales was however lower in households with more educated heads, more livestock value and access to all-weather roads. These findings are thereafter discussed in the Kenyan context, and policy suggestions are offered for building rural households' resilience to shocks.

No abstract

This study tests the hypothesis that livelihood diversification mitigates vulnerability to climate shocks among rural households in Kenya. The study is based on two waves of nationally-representative household survey data collected in 2005/06 and 2015/16. A measure of livelihood diversification in the sampled households was computed using Simpson Diversity Index. Comparison of means and correlation analysis was used to test the study’s hypothesis on a sample of 8,483 and 12,217 rural households in 2005/06 and 2015/16 respectively. Consistent with the study’s hypothesis, results indicate lower mean values of livelihood diversification indices for rural households that reported loss in welfare due to climate shocks compared to those that reported no adverse effects in both 2005/06 and 2015/16. Correlation analysis results indicate an inverse relationship between livelihood diversification and vulnerability to climate shocks for all sampled households. Distinctive and nuanced differences in results were found when analysis was disaggregated along income classes and agro-ecological zones. Sensitivity analysis confirmed robustness of the results. Based on these results, it is recommended that rural households be supported to pursue a diverse portfolio of income generating activities and assets in order to build resilience against climate shocks.