Nigerian Households Struggle as Conflict and Floods Deepen Economic Vulnerability

In a collaborative effort led by the Urban Disaster Risk Management, Resilience and Land Global Department of the World Bank, researchers Karima Ben Bih, Bramka Jafino, Chloe Desjonqueres, and Solene Masson have delivered a powerful and pioneering analysis of how conflict and flooding intersect to undermine the economic stability of Nigerian households. Their study draws from extensive data collected under the Nigeria Living Standards Measurement Survey (LSMS) and the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project (ACLED), producing one of the first rigorous quantitative evaluations of conflict and climate vulnerability experienced jointly by Nigerian families. Using advanced difference-in-difference regression techniques, the study offers strong empirical evidence that when conflict and flooding collide, the consequences for household consumption and income are devastating, more than either shock would produce on its own.

A Data-Driven Investigation of Compound Shocks

To understand the economic impact of conflict, especially when layered with climate disasters like flooding, the researchers constructed a balanced panel dataset from LSMS waves conducted in 2012, 2015, and 2018. From these, 1,135 households were consistently tracked across the years. The study focuses primarily on household consumption expenditure, chosen over income due to inconsistencies and high non-response rates in income reporting. Consumption was proxied through utility and non-food expenditures. Conflict exposure was defined using geolocated ACLED data, capturing violent events such as battles, attacks on civilians, and explosions. Importantly, only conflicts occurring from 2015 onwards were included, helping separate pre- and post-shock periods for causal analysis.

The research mapped household exposure by applying a 10km radius around each LSMS household point using 2012 GPS coordinates. This spatial analysis enabled classification of households into treatment and control groups, those exposed to post-2015 conflict events and those not. In parallel, flood exposure was determined using both LSMS self-reported flood experience and satellite flood maps from the significant 2012 flooding event. Combining these datasets allowed the authors to assess the singular and compounding effects of conflict and floods on economic outcomes.

The Conflict Toll: A 16.7% Drop in Consumption

The first major result of the study is a clear, causal connection between conflict exposure and declining household consumption. Households located within the 10km conflict radius saw their consumption expenditure fall by an average of 16.7% between 2016 and 2018, compared to households not exposed to conflict. This finding is statistically significant and visually confirmed through common trend analysis between 2012 and 2015, when neither group had yet been exposed to conflict. The evidence is bolstered by a large sample size and the robustness of the econometric model. The implication is unambiguous: conflict alone meaningfully disrupts the economic well-being of households, even in the absence of other shocks.

When Floods and Conflict Collide, the Impact is Catastrophic

The study’s second and most striking finding is that when conflict overlaps with flood exposure, the economic consequences intensify dramatically. For households that self-reported experiencing floods between 2012 and 2018 and were also affected by conflict, the average decline in consumption expenditure skyrocketed to 152%. Even when flood exposure was identified using satellite data, which limits the sample to households affected only by the 2012 floods, the average decline was still 58%. These figures represent a severe compounding effect. While conflict alone reduced consumption by 16.7%, the combined effect of conflict and flooding pushed some households into extreme economic distress.

The researchers caution that, due to smaller sample sizes and the limitations of both self-reported and satellite data, these estimates are better interpreted as strong correlations rather than definitive causation. Still, the consistency of the results across both flood-identification methods strongly supports the study’s central conclusion: dual shocks are far more damaging than isolated events.

Income Losses Confirm Economic Fragility

To reinforce their consumption findings, the authors performed a robustness check using income data, despite known limitations due to high rates of zero-income reporting in the LSMS. The results aligned closely with the consumption findings. Conflict-affected households experienced an average loss of ₦4,105 in annual income, while those facing both floods and conflict saw losses increase to ₦4,912. Given that the average income across the dataset was ₦4,643, these losses represent a substantial, and for many, crippling economic setback. Even though the data couldn’t support log-transformed models due to many zero values, the raw figures indicate a pattern of economic vulnerability and exclusion driven by conflict, and worsened by flooding.

Toward Integrated Resilience Policy in FCV Contexts

The implications of this research are far-reaching. The study highlights how Nigeria’s conflict-affected populations are significantly more vulnerable to climate disasters, and that resilience strategies must address these overlapping risks together. The authors call for enhanced integration of conflict dynamics into disaster risk management (DRM) policies. This includes improving survey tools like the LSMS to better capture data on disaster and conflict exposure, harmonizing survey waves, and increasing coordination between government agencies and development institutions. More fundamentally, it means moving beyond siloed approaches to development planning in FCV (fragile, conflict-affected, and vulnerable) contexts.

By shedding light on the compounded economic devastation faced by Nigerian households at the intersection of violence and climate shocks, this paper fills a crucial knowledge gap. It not only affirms the urgent need for intersectional resilience planning but also provides a robust empirical foundation for policymakers, humanitarian actors, and researchers to rethink how social protection and disaster recovery strategies are designed. In Nigeria and across the Global South, where climate change and instability are growing in tandem, the lessons of this study are both timely and essential.