given the mass of values at zero (Bellemare and Wichman, 2019; Chen and Roth, 2022; Mullahy and Norton, 2022). For these reasons, we report the (non-transformed) levels of hours worked in each activity in the main text but also provide the IHS-transformed results in the Appendix.

The descriptive statistics appear in six panels. All panels are limited to individuals that appear in the data in the 2018-2019 round and in at least one prior GHS round, meaning the sample roughly corresponds to panel specifications with the inclusion of an individual-level fixed effect. The GHS documentation notes that there was a change in the covered enumeration areas with the addition of a refresher set of enumeration areas in the 2018-2019 round. By limiting this sample to individuals who appear in the 2018-2019 round and at least one prior GHS round, any sample attrition originates from individuals who dropped from the sample for reasons other than changes in the areas enumerated.<sup>27</sup> The sample is also restricted to individuals who are at least 5 years old as of their first appearance in the data, as this is the age threshold for applying the labor module in the GHS. Panel A shows the descriptive statistics for the full sample in the post-planting round; Panel B the same, but in the post-harvest GHS data. Likewise, Panel C and D show the same figures for men, in both post-planting and post-harvest periods, respectively. Panels E and F show the same for women.

Some patterns are immediately evident.<sup>28</sup> A larger proportion of men, compared to women, work in agricultural work, in both seasons. Both men and women are more likely to work in agricultural work in the post-planting season, compared to the post-harvest season. At the same time, a larger proportion of women work in self-employment or household-enterprise work; and such work is comparatively lower in the post-harvest period (though this is driven by the reductions in such work among women). Both men and women also show a pattern of working fewer total hours in the post-harvest season, when compared to the post-planting season. This reduction in total hours seems to come—for both men and women—in the form of reduced hours worked in both agriculture and informal work (hours for work outside the home for someone else increase).

In Table A1, for completeness, we also include the descriptive statistics of some potential control variables, which we discuss in 3.3. Since there were many accounts that herder-related violent incidents tended to occur in more isolated, highly agricultural areas, specifically, we consider three measures of a household’s location: each a binary measure taking a value of 1 if a household was located within 10 km. of an administrative center, a market, or a population center with at least 20,000 people, respectively. The table is divided into three panels. The first is the full sample<sup>29</sup> ; the second is the sample of individuals who were exposed (at any time) to a herder-related violent event in the post-planting season; the third is restricted to individuals who were exposed (at any time) in the post-harvest period.<sup>30</sup> Indeed, across the three co-variates, those individuals exposed to a herder-related violent event tended to be more isolated

> 27Individuals who moved and were tracked are included.

> 28Each of the relative comparisons in this paragraph is also tested in a simple, difference of means test through an OLS specification.

> 29Excluding Borno state, and restricted to individuals appearing in the 2018-19 round and at least one previous GHS round.

> 30The table is at the individual level, however, the patterns are nearly indistinguishable when analyzed at the household level.

11