impact of shocks vary across regions and household livelihoods? This is particularly useful for the analysis of vulnerability and resilience of households to shocks. Therefore, we augment this basic model by relating exposure to shocks with regions, household livelihoods, and other household characteristics related to vulnerability and resilience (such as intensity of using coping strategies and access to credit and help) as follows: The extent to which ρ is significantly different from zero illustrates the degree of heterogeneity in the effect of shocks across household characteristics. We examine these results through the lens of vulnerability and resilience of Sudanese households to shocks.

# 3.2 Results

## 3.2.1 Impact of Shocks on Household Welfare

In this subsection, we discuss the estimated impact of the effect of shocks on household welfare. To capture the multidimensionality of the impact of shocks, we consider various indicators of household welfare such as consumption per capita, the FCS, assets, poverty, and dietary diversity.

The FCS is calculated by weighting the different food groups (cereals, meat/fish, fruits, oils, sugar, and so on) consumed by the household. This indicator combines indicators of dietary diversity, food frequency, and nutritional importance of food groups. Food groups such as meat/fish, eggs, and so on are allocated higher weights whereas food groups such as sugars, coffee/tea, mineral water, and so on receive lower weights. Therefore, higher values of the FCS imply that households consume more healthier food items. The household asset index is constructed by weighting different assets (such as motor vehicles, mobile phones, television, radio, and so on) owned by households. It is an indication of household wealth and accumulation of assets. Higher values indicate that households have more assets. Low dietary diversity is identified from the number of food groups consumed by the household. Households who consumed less than 7 of the 13 food groups have low dietary diversity. The coping strategy index (CSI) is a measure of the severity in the use of coping strategies by households faced with a shock, and it is constructed by weighting strategies used to mitigate the impact of shocks by the frequency of their use—typically the number of days in a week. Higher values of the CSI indicate an intense use of coping strategies when faced with a shock, hence a higher likelihood of food insecurity.<sup>12</sup> Table 3: Estimating the Impact of Shocks on Welfare of Sudanese Households: Regression Results

|**Variables**|**Ordinary**<br>(1)<br>**Log (Consumption**<br>**per Capita)**|**Least Square**<br>(2)<br>**FCS**|**s**<br>(3)<br>**Asset**<br>**Index**|**Lo**<br>(4)<br>**Household**<br>**Poverty**|**git**<br>(5)<br>**Low Dietary**<br>**Diversity**|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|**Shock type**<sup>**a**</sup>**:**||||||
|Flood/drought|−0.0530***|−1.933***|−4.915**|0.276**|0.606*|
||(0.0140)|(0.701)|(2.111)|(0.129)|(0.349)|
|Crop/livestock loss|0.00696|−0.190|-3.048*|-0.0310|−0.427|

12 In constructing the FCS, CSI, and dietary diversity indicators, we relied on guidance provided by the World Food Programme (see https://www.humanitarianresponse.info/en/operations/afghanistan/document/guidance-note-calculation-household- <u>food-security-outcome-indicators)</u> 28