Send message to Author

Paper short abstract

Using expert elicitation and the Choquet integral, this study develops a Household Resilience Index. Experts differ in weighting criteria, yet asset ownership and adaptive capacity consistently emerge as the strongest determinants of household resilience.

Paper long abstract

Shocks such as floods and droughts disrupt both socioeconomic and ecological systems, with particularly severe impacts in sub-Saharan Africa, where heavy reliance on climate-sensitive sectors such as agriculture amplifies vulnerability (IPCC, 2022). Addressing these challenges requires a focus on resilience, a concept rooted in Holling’s ecological theory (Holling, 1973, 1996). In this study, resilience is defined as a household’s capacity to recover or return to a previous level of well-being, such as food security, following a shock (FAO, 2016). Household resilience can be measured using a composite index comprising multiple indicators (Ansah et al., 2019). The credibility, reliability, and public acceptance of such indices depend critically on transparent and robust methods for weighting indicators and aggregating them. However, limited transparency in these methodological choices often undermines confidence in composite resilience measures. To address these concerns, this study employs a seven-step expert elicitation process to derive indicator weights and applies the Choquet integral as a non-additive aggregation technique. This framework facilitates the construction of a Household Resilience Index (HRI) comprising four main criteria and eighteen sub-criteria. Data were collected from twelve experts selected based on their publication records through online interviews. In addition, ethnographic analysis was conducted to deepen understanding of the rationales underlying expert judgements. The findings reveal divergence among experts in prioritising the four main criteria, although asset ownership and adaptive capacity consistently receive higher weights. Ethnographic evidence further highlights a broad consensus on the importance of these criteria, alongside nuanced differences in the valuation of specific sub-criteria.