Abstract
Abstract Climate variability, characterised by erratic rainfall patterns and frequent droughts, poses a significant threat to crop and livestock production in arid and semi-arid regions. However, the vulnerability of livelihoods to climate variability and change remains insufficiently quantified at the district level, creating a significant knowledge gap in understanding the local dimensions of vulnerability and the key factors driving it. The current study analysed the vulnerability of agro-pastoral households to climate variability and change in Miesso and Gumbi Bordode Districts, thereby addressing the gap in localised climate vulnerability research. Primary data were collected using a multistage sampling procedure through a household survey conducted from February to May 2024 across both districts. The survey yielded a sample of 375 respondents. Data collection tools included a structured interview questionnaire, field observations, focus group discussions, key informant interviews, and 35 years (1988–2023) of meteorological data. Annual rainfall and temperature were analysed by using the modified Mann–Kendall trend test and the coefficient of variation (CV). In addition, secondary data were accessed from diverse sources. The data from the household survey were analysed using percentages, mean, standard deviation, the Livelihood Vulnerability Index (LVI), and the LVI-IPCC approach. A total of 28 indicators from five major capitals (human, natural, physical, financial, and social) were applied to calculate the vulnerability of households to climate variability and change. The result shows that CV>30%, indicating high rainfall variability and substantial year-to-year rainfall fluctuations in both districts. The annual TMAX showed statistically significant increasing trends at both districts (p = 0.008). At Gumbi Bordode, minimum temperature (TMIN) showed a strong and statistically significant increasing trend (P = 0.0001), while Miesso showed a slight but statistically insignificant decreasing trend in minimum temperature (P = 0.902). The LVI revealed that households in Gumbi Bordode district were slightly more vulnerable (0.665), while those in Miesso district were relatively less vulnerable (0.62), benefiting from better human, physical, natural, and social capital. Moreover, the overall LVI-IPCC score revealed that Gumbi Bordode (0.030) was more vulnerable than Miesso (0.023). This higher vulnerability was primarily attributable to lower adaptive capacity rather than differences in exposure or sensitivity. The study concludes that vulnerability differences among districts are mainly driven by disparities in water access, livelihood diversification, exposure to climate shocks, and adaptive capacity. The study recommends targeted interventions such as improving water availability, strengthening livelihood diversification, enhancing climate information and early warning systems, and implementing district-specific adaptation strategies that prioritise the most vulnerable areas.