Presented by Taonga Banda Presented at 2015 ECAMA Research Symposium Malawi Institute of Management (MIM), Lilongwe, 4-5 June 2015

1. DETERMINANTS OF HOUSEHOLD
RESILIENCE TO DRY SPELLS AND
DROUGHT IN MALAWI: A CASE OF
SALIMA DISTRICT
T.F BANDA, M.A.R PHIRI, L.D MAPEMBA and B.B MAONGA
LUANAR

2. Outline
• Statement of the problem
• Definition: Resilience
• Objectives
• Data and methods
• Results and Discussion
• Conclusions
• Policy Implications

3. Statement of the Problem
 Agric. has been identified as the most severely
affected by dry spells & drought
 These have presented new challenges to
smallholder farmers because they are
exogenous.
 For example, about 1.1 million people were
reported to be food insecure due to unreliable
rainfall patterns (FEWS NET,2013).

4. Definition: Resilience
The ability of a system, community or society
exposed to hazards to resist, absorb,
accommodate and to recover from the effects of a
hazard in a timely and efficient manner, Phiri
(2010: 19)
 The ability of the community, society or even a
household to “spring back” from a shock, UNDG
(Undated:38).
 The amount of change a system can undergo and
still remain in the same state, Falkenmark and
Rockstrom (2009:94)

5. Objectives
 Main objective:
 To determine how prolonged dry spells and
droughts have affected the resilience of maize
farming households in Salima district.
 Specific Objectives:
 Determine factors that affect a household’s
resilience to dry spells and droughts in Chipoka EPA.
 Determine the effect of drought resilience on the
welfare of farming households in Chipoka EPA

6. Methods
• Principal Components Analysis (PCA) used to
construct DRI
• Probit model used to identify determinants of
resilience
• Stochastic frontier approach used to determine
the effect of drought resilience on household
output (proxy with welfare)

7. Bartlett’s test of sphericity
Determinant of the correlation matrix 0.424
Bartlett test of sphericity
Chi-square 363.87
Degrees of freedom 6
p-value 0.00
H0: variables are not inter-correlated
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy
KMO 0.52

8. Eigen values
Component Eigen value Difference Proportion Cumulative
Comp1 1.79 0.43 0.45 0.45
Comp2 1.36 0.87 0.34 0.79
Comp3 0.49 0.15 0.12 0.91
Comp4 0.35 . 0.09 1.00
n=427 Components = 4 Trace = 4 Rho = 1.0000

9. Principal components
Variable Comp1 Comp2 Comp3 Comp4 Unexplained
Production in good year 0.58 -0.40 0.12 -0.69 0
Production in bad year 0.57 -0.41 -0.07 0.70 0
Consumption months in good year 0.42 0.56 -0.71 -0.09 0
Consumption months in bad year 0.39 0.59 0.69 0.10 0

10. Results and Discussion
Variable n Mean Std. Dev. Min Max
DRI 427 -0.09 0 .88 -1.79 5.11
DRI >= 0 163 0.79 0.75 0.01 5.11
DRI< 0 264 -0.63 0.37 -1.79 -0.01

11. Results & Disc…

12. Results…
Coefficient P-value Marginal Effects P-value
Gender of household head -0.16
(0.17)
0.35 -0.06
(0.06)
0.34
Age of household head (years) 0.16**
(0.07)
0.03 0.06**
(0.02)
0.03
Size of household (number of people) 0.34***
(0.07)
0.00 0.12***
(0.02)
0.00
Years spent in school by household head 0.10
(0.75)
0.14 0.04
(0.03)
0.14
Land holding size (Acres) 0.39***
(0.09)
0.00 0.15***
(0.03)
0.00
Number of Chickens 0.07
(0.08)
0.38 0.03
(0.03)
0.38
Number of Goats 0.09
(0.09)
0.26 0.04
(0.03)
0.27
Number of Bicycles 0.01
(0.07)
0.84 0.01
(0.03)
0.84
Immediate family members in cities 0.07*
(0.03)
0.06 0.02*
(0.01)
0.06
Frequency of dry spells over 5 year period -0.03
(0.07)
0.64 -0.01
(0.03)
0.64
Participation in village savings and loans 0.23
(0.15)
0.12 0.09
(0.06)
0.12
Constant -0.33
(0.23)
0.16
N = 427 Wald chi2(11) = 79.8 Prob. > chi2 = 0.00 Log pseudo likelihood = -236.25 Pseudo R2 = 0.17
y = Pr(Resilience) = 0.37
***1% level of significance, **5% level of significance and *10% level of significance
Values in Parentheses are robust standard errors

13. Results…
Variable Coefficient Z P-value
Land (log) 0.08**
(0.04)
2.10 0.04
Seed (log) 0.18***
(0.04)
4.55 0.00
Lab (log) 0.07
(0.05)
1.41 0.16
Invest (log) 0.05**
(0.01)
5.86 0.00
Resilience Index 0.45***
(0.04)
12.69 0.00
Constant 5.78***
(0.24)
23.78 0.00
Likelihood-ratio test of sigma_u=0: chibar2(01)= 92.61 Prob.>=chibar2 = 0.00
Values in parentheses are robust standard errors
***1% level of significance and **5% level of significance

14. Conclusions
 62 percent are vulnerable to adverse effects
 Mean DRI of -0.0857 is below threshold of 0
for a household to be considered resilient.
 Determinants of resilience: age of Hh, Size of
Hh, Land and number of immediate family
members living outside household
 Resilience had a +ve effect on Hh welfare

15. Policy Implications
Govt. & non-state actors working in Chipoka to
consider introducing productivity enhancing
technologies such as irrigation in the study
area.
 Encourage farmers to diversify crop production
and participate in off-farm livelihood activities.
 Target beneficiaries to food aid and other relief
programs.

16. Acknowledgements

17. END
Thank You!!!