Journal of Agriculture and Food Research 11 (2023) 100461

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Agriculture and Food Research

journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com/journal/journal-of-agriculture-and-food-research

Status of household food security, its determinants, and coping strategies in

the Humbo district, Southern Ethiopia
Adanech Bahiru a, Marisennayya Senapathy b, Elias Bojago c, *
a
Collage of Rural Development and Agricultural Extension, Alage Agricultural Technical and Vocational Education and Training College (AATVETC), Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia
b
Department of Rural Development and Agricultural Extension, College of Agriculture, Wolaita Sodo University, Ethiopia
c
Department of Environmental Science, College of Natural and Computational Sciences, Wolaita Sodo University, Wolaita, Sodo, Ethiopia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Background: Food security is a critical issue and a top priority in the policies of developing countries. The ob­
Food security jectives of this study were to analyze the status of rural food security, determine the factors affecting rural family
Kilocalorie food security, and identify the coping methods used by rural households in the study area.
Binary logistic regression model
Methods: A cross-sectional study design was used in the present study. The study was conducted from March to
Rural households
Humbo district
June 2021. Overall, 143 households from three rural Kebeles were chosen using a stratified random sampling
technique. Both primary and secondary data were gathered. Descriptive statistics and economic regression
models were used. To identify the factors that influence the food security of rural households, a binary logistic
regression model was developed.
Results: Less than a third of the households (29.4%) were found to be food secure, while households (70.6%) were
found to be food insecure. The estimated logistic model outcome on household food security confirmed the size
of the family and drought occurrence affected negatively in 1% and 5% probability levels, respectively, while
education, size of farm land, TLU, total annual cereal yields, on-farm income, off-farm income, use of agricultural
input, and use of credits affect positively. Expect the use of credit (5%), all are statically significant at the 1%
probability level. Withdrawing children from school (1st) and Beginning (2nd) food secure/insecure households,
respectively, practices are the main coping methods used by the household.
Conclusion: According to the results of the model, approximately ten explanatory variables had a statistically
significant relationship with household food security. Food insecure household heads are more familiar with the
coping strategy than food secured. Households in the study area were relying on preferred foods to deal with food
scarcity and starvation. The government agent should be households treated differently depending on the issue
raised.

1. Introduction Furthermore, achieving food security requires that adequate quan­

tities of food are regularly available, people have adequate income or
1.1. Background of the study other resources to purchase or exchange food, food is adequately pre­
pared and stored, people have good nutrition and childcare knowledge
Food is one basic need of mankind and a necessity for survival. that they use, and people have access to adequate health and sanitation
Today, the world produces enough food to feed all seven billion people, services [48]. Over the last two decades, Ethiopia has made significant
but nearly a billion people continue to go hungry due to due to inade­ development gains by reducing poverty and increasing investments in
quate distribution-related issues [34,136,140]. Food security is a uni­ essential social services [72,105]. However, despite numerous initia­
versally important aspect of household and personal well-being [85, tives aimed at reducing general food insecurity in Ethiopia, it remains a
113]. Food insecurity and hunger are undesirable in every way, but they serious issue that has been present for a long time [98,147]. Ethiopia’s
can also be precursors to issues with nutrition, health, and development food security situation deteriorated significantly in 2017.
[13,14,55,78,80]. The Ethiopian government has a long-term agricultural

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: ebojago@wsu.edu.et (E. Bojago).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafr.2022.100461
Received 1 October 2022; Received in revised form 3 November 2022; Accepted 22 November 2022
Available online 30 November 2022
2666-1543/© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
A. Bahiru et al. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research 11 (2023) 100461

development-led industrialization strategy that continues to address specific goal was to assess the state of food security in rural households
food insecurity in the country. This strategy is supplemented by the in the study area, identify the factors that influence food security in rural
Ethiopian Food Security Program, which includes the Productive Safety households in the study area, and identify the coping strategies used by
Net Program, the Household Asset Building Program, and other pro­ rural households in the study area. More specifically, the study’s find­
grams designed to help households escape food insecurity [25,139]. As a ings assist affected agencies in developing policies and intervention
result, it is critical to identify the determinants of food security at the mechanisms that are tailored to the specific needs of the study area.
household level using a household-based cross-sectional study to Finally, the research will help with future research, extension, and
develop appropriate strategies to eradicate food insecurity [3,91,112]. development plans.
According to the Humbo District Agriculture Office, the district is
one of the least self-sufficient in the Wolaita zone. The district’s main 1.2. Conceptual framework
source of income is small-scale subsistence agriculture, and approxi­
mately 12,398 households have benefited from the safety net program By definition, food security refers to all people having access to food
[71]. at all times to live a healthy life [137]. This study adopts a conceptual
The region is vulnerable to child and maternal malnutrition (stunt­ framework (Fig. 1) that takes into account this definition of food secu­
ing, wasting, and underweight), malaria infection, starvation, de­ rity. Food availability is a component of food security that refers to the
pendency, school dropouts, migration, and the need for emergency food amount of food available to the family. In this sense, the current study
assistance [135,143]. Additionally, to reduce the prevalence of food assumes that crop yield and livestock holding are key contributors. As a
insecurity, households use a variety of coping strategies to improve their result, animal control and crop yield are considered. Another somewhat
standard of living. According to Ref. [60]; the country’s food security related concept is food access [84,116]. This conceptual framework il­
status has improved, demonstrating the role of improved livelihood lustrates the idea or body of knowledge on the factors that influence the
assets as well as investment strategies and policies that promote status of household food security based on understanding the relation­
household food security, and they concluded that there is still room for ship between dependent and independent variables. In this study,
improvement. However, to be effective, improvement programs must be fourteen (14) explanatory variables were identified as the main factors
supported by empirical data specific to the location (Van der Veen and influencing food security. These include sex, age, education level, family
Tagel, 2011). size, farm land size, annual cereal yield, on-farm income, livestock
This research could also provide much needed baseline data on food ownership, agricultural inputs, use of credit and membership of co­
security. Furthermore, it may contribute to the existing literature by operatives, drought, flood, pest & disease. Therefore, the illustration
assisting in the implementation of a fair policy on the vulnerability of below shows the variables and the hypothesized relationship between
the population to food insecurity [73,125]. Because household food them (Fig. 1):
security is volatile, it is critical to investigate its determinants to un­
derstand how households respond to food insecurity [11,127]. 2. Methodology
Furthermore, the study can help determine and document a rural
household’s food security status in the study area. Previous research has 2.1. Description of the study area
found that a variety of factors influence smallholder food security in
various parts of the country [2,4,52,68,100,120] and [51]. However, The study area, Humbo District, is one of the 21 rural districts in the
there are no longer findings in this area concerning the issue of food Wolaita Zone, the Regional State of the Southern Nations, Nationalities,
security. This implies that location-specific research that considers slight and Peoples, which is located in the Great Rift Valley. The study area
differences in sociocultural, institutional, and economic characteristics (Humbo District) is one of the least self-sufficient districts in the Wolaita
across the country will help policymakers to make a sound decision. To Zone [71]. The district is located at a distance of 408 km (to the south)
fill this gap this study used both descriptive and econometric method from Addis Ababa. It is located 18 km south of Sodo, the administrative
deeply. centre of the Wolaita Zone. It is bordered in the southeast by Lake
The study is unique in that it first examined food security in the study Abaya, which separates it from the Oromia Region, in the south by the
area based on the types of off-farm and non-farm income-generating Gamo Zone, in the west by Offa, in the northwest by Sodo Zuria, in the
activities and their coping strategies. Second, in this study, a seven-day northeast by Damon-Woyde, and in the east by the Bilate River which
recall method was used because it provides more reliable data than the separates it from the Sidama Zone (Fig. 2). It is located at 6◦ 39′ 59.99′′ N
household expenditure method (Bouis, 1993; [28,118,130]. Addition­ latitude, and 37◦ 49’ 59.99” E longitude [70].
ally, there is an erratic distribution of rainfall and zonal degradation of The population of the study area based on the 2007 census conducted
natural resources in the study area. Food insecurity varies greatly be­ by the [32] Humbo District has a total population of 125,441, of whom
tween regions and districts within a single region in terms of its extent, 63,017 are men and 62,424 women; 6247 or 4.98% of its population are
cause, vulnerability, and coping strategies. The severity of Ethiopia’s urban dwellers [70]. The climate conditions of the area in addition to the
food shortage problems varies by region, depending on the availability district are located at an altitude of 1100–2335 m above sea level. The
of natural resources and the extent of food shortage development [24, district receives an average annual rainfall of 840–1400 mm and the
58,94,97,100,114]. This implies that location-specific studies that ac­ temperature ranges between 15 and 29 ◦ C. The Humbo district is located
count for unobservable differences in sociocultural, institutional, and in the ‘Kolla’& ‘Woina Dega’ agro-ecological zone & has a maximum
economic characteristics will help government practitioners to make an temperature of 32 ◦ C and a minimum of 27 ◦ C respectively. The mini­
informed decision. This study contributes to the existing literature in mum and maximum rainfall for this is approximately 200 mm and 600
this regard by using a consumption expenditure approach to measure mm, respectively [70]. The agricultural conditions of the area include
food security, which is based on unique primary data from the Humbo mixed farming in the district and subsistence crop production as the
district of the southern region. primary livestock husbandry livelihood strategy. Maize, Teff, Haricot
The study is, in some way, an attempt to provide specific answers to bean, Enset, Sweet potato, Irish potato, and Taro are some of the main
the following questions: (a) what do the food security statuses of rural crops grown in the area. Agricultural production in the district is
households look like? (b) What are the factors that influence the state of affected by erratic rainfall, soil degradation, low soil fertility, moisture
food security among rural households?’ (c) What are the possible coping stress, pests and diseases, and the use of low modern inputs. Feed
strategies used by rural households? The general aim of this study was to shortages, animal disease, and the lack of veterinary services are sig­
examine the status of food security in rural households and it’s de­ nificant challenges for livestock. The District people are mainly farmers,
terminants in the Humbo district, in Southern Ethiopia. The study’s with an average land holding size of 0.25 ha. As a result, subsistence

2
A. Bahiru et al. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research 11 (2023) 100461

Fig. 1. Conceptual framework of food security developed for the study11,22.

Fig. 2. Map of the study area (Source: [142],31.

agriculture is the mainstay of the population [70]. hold head respondents residing in the three sample kebeles were ob­
tained. The total number of household heads residing in the study
kebeles is 1748. Of the sampled household heads, the researcher
2.2. Research design selected 143 household headings following the formula [145]. It is used
to calculate the sample size with a 95% confidence level, 0.05, degree of
A cross-sectional study design was used. This was a mixed-method variability, and margin of error at 8% = 0.08, the level of precision
study that included both qualitative and quantitative methods. The measures, and how close an estimate is to the actual characteristics of
concurrent triangulation technique was used in this investigation to the population that are inserted into the equation:
describe concepts, characteristics, descriptions, and measures to express
N
scenarios of the issue (Fig. 3). n= (1)
1 + N(e)2
2.2.1. Sample size
where.
To take representative samples, first lists of all appropriate house­

3
A. Bahiru et al. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research 11 (2023) 100461

Fig. 3. Graphical representation of a cross-sectional study design.41.

n = total sample respondents. sample frame, the systematic random sampling approach was used. In
N = Total number of households (1748) the three chosen Kebeles, there are 1748 households (Table 1). The
e = margin of error at 8% (0.08). agricultural office of the district in the study region provided the list of
households. When 1748 was divided by the sample size (143), the result
1748
n= = 143 was 12. As a result, the nth value is 12. As a result, every 12th number
1 + 1748(0.08)2
was chosen to represent a sampled household. It also ensures that the
population is sampled uniformly [75].
2.3. Method of data collection

This study used primary and secondary data. Primary data were 2.4. Methods of data analysis
collected from a sample of the head of a rural household through a
structured questionnaire prepared for the study with open and closed 2.4.1. Descriptive analysis
questions and interviews. Secondary data was collected from published This study used descriptive statistics and econometric models to
and unpublished documents (status of respondents, food security in­ analyze the data collected from sample households. Quantitative data
formation from Administrative). Furthermore, the related literature was types were analyzed using percentage, frequency, minimum, maximum,
reviewed. Focus group discussions and key informant interviews were mean and standard deviation, t-test, and chi-test. The information
used to triangulate data obtained from the interview schedule. Small­ gathered through key informant interviews and focus group discussions
holder farmers and specialists were included in FGD and KII (from the was qualitatively examined. Following the calculation of descriptive
Agriculture office and the Food Safety net program). With 5–7 partici­ data, a binary logistic regression model was used to identify character­
pants, each, Kebele had two focus group discussions (one with small­ istics that influence rural household food security. Data analysis was
holder farmers and one with experts). FGD and KII had 25 and 10 performed using Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS version 20)
participants, respectively. Secondary data was gathered through the computer software.
examination of published and unpublished documents. Secondary data
are information collected by government and non-government organi­ 2.4.2. Measurement of food security status
zations for a variety of purposes. Furthermore, documents on food se­ Different ways of measuring food security are commonly employed
curity in the study area produced by various organizations were used as in most food security research. Calorie intake was chosen as a direct
secondary data. proxy for physical food consumption in this study, as it is also the pri­
mary proxy to address progress in alleviating food poverty in Ethiopia
2.3.1. Sampling procedure [95]. To measure the food security status of the sampled households,
The Humbo District was purposively selected based on food insecu­ physical food consumption data were’ synthesized as follows. Using a
rity conditions. This district has a high number of beneficiaries from the structured questionnaire, respondents were asked to report food items
Productive Safety net program. This study included two agro-ecological consumed in kind and the amount purchased or otherwise, by their
zones (midland and lowland). In the first stage, one kebele from the families in the one week preceding the survey. A series of steps were
midland and two kebeles from the lowlands were randomly selected required to convert the data into calories adjusted for household age and
proportionate to the size of the agro-ecological zone. Therefore, a total gender composition. For each food item, different units of local mea­
of three kebeles were selected out of 20 kebeles from two agro- surement were first converted into a common measure. Second, the
ecological zones. In the second stage, the household lists of selected
kebeles were used as a sample frame to select 143 households propor­ Table 1
tionally and systematically. When selecting the nth element of the Sample kebeles and sample size in the study area.
Selected Number of HHs in sample Kebeles
Kebeles
3 Male Female Total Percent Sample
SNNPR: Southern Nations, Nationalities, and Peoples’ Region.
2 HHH HHH HHH size
*The Light blue line indicates that food secured households satisfy the daily
calories requirement despite they also faced some months of food deficit over Ella-Kabala 508 206 714 41% 59
the year and forced to employ less coping strategies. Red line indicates the Anka-Ocha 440 192 632 36% 51
Ampo-Koyisha 320 82 402 23% 33
effect of influencing factories on calorie intake and forced to employ highly on
Total 1268 480 1748 100% 143
coping strategies.
3
SNNPR: Southern Nations, Nationalities, and Peoples’ Region. Source: Own survey, 2021

4
A. Bahiru et al. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research 11 (2023) 100461

purchase of each food item was converted to calories using the Ethiopian 2.6. Definitions and hypotheses of variables
Health and Nutrition Research Institute’s food composition table [44,
110]. Finally, all food calories were totaled and converted into daily 2.6.1. The dependent variable
amounts. Finally, the aggregate food calories were adjusted in equiva­ The status of household food security (HFS) is the dependent variable
lent units of adults per household to make a meaningful analysis of in this study. It was hypothesized to be a function of the variables listed
intra-household calorie intake [27,33]. To obtain the daily per capita below.
household calorie intake, the per capita household calorie intake was
divided by 7 days. The fourth stage is the comparison of the per capita 2.6.2. Independent variables of the study
per day calorie consumption with the standard requirement of 2200 kcal Different variables affect the food security status of rural households
per capita per day calorie consumption, established by Ref. [96]. The in the study area and are listed in (Table 2): Demographic Factors (Age
same author expresses the 2200 kcal food poverty line as a calorie of the Household Head (AGEHHH), Sex of the Household Head
requirement that is only sufficient for an individual to walk and perform (SEXHHH), Educational level of the Household Head (EDUCA­
light tasks. Thus, households that exceeded the level of estimated calorie TIONLHHH) and Family size (FAMILY SIZE)); Economic Factor (On-
requirement (2200 kcal per person per day) were considered food Farm Income (ONFINCOME), Off-farm activities (OFFFA), Total farm
secure, while others were considered food insecure. Land Size (FARMLSIZE), Total livestock owned (TLU) and Total annual
cereal yield (ANNUALCYIELD)); Institutional Factor (Membership of
2.5. Econometric model analysis cooperatives (MEMBERCOOP), Uses of Credit (USESOFCREDIT), Use of
agricultural inputs (USEAINPUTS); Natural Factor (Drought
To assess the status of food security in a rural household, the logit (DROUGHT), Flooding (FLOODING); and Pests and Diseases
model was used. (PESTDESEASE)).
Model specification: Following [66]; the functional form of the
logistic regression model is specified as follows: 2.6.3. Operational definitions
( ) Food insecurity occurs in two forms as chronic and transitory.
1 1
Pi = E Y = = (2) Chronic food insecurity happens when a household is unable to meet the
xi 1 + e− (β0+β1x1)
minimum amount of food needed for healthy life over a long period
Pi is the probability that a given household is food insecure, (1) for (three or more months). But if this food insecurity is less than 3 months,
the case of exposition; it can be simply as; it will be transitory food insecurity.
Food security is ascertained in households if the given household is
1
Pi = zi
free from two kinds of food insecurity: chronic and transitory.
1 + ei− Off-farm income is any kind of income that households have got
where;

Z = βo + β1X1 + β2X2 + β3X3 — βn/Xn (3) Table 2

Variable definitions, measurement, and hypotheses.
The function of nth explanatory variables i.e., Z is calculated as the Variables Type Definition Hypothesis
summation of β′ s at each exogenous variables (x). β′ s are population
Dependent Variable Dependent Variable Definition
regression coefficients that are to be estimated from the data. The
+/−
Food security status The food security status is bivariate, taking
probability that a given household food secure is. the value of 1 = for a food-secure household
and 0 for food insecure household
1
1 − Pi (4) Independent Independent Variables Definition +/−
1 + ezi Variables
AGEHHH Age of household head in years (Continuous -
Therefore, the odds ratio in favor of food insecurity is
variable)
Pi SEXHHH 1 = if the HH is male,0 = otherwise (dummy þ
= ezi (5) variable)
1 − Pi EDUCATIONLHHH 1, if the HH is literate, 0 otherwise þ
Taking the natural logarithm of (4), obtained (Continuous variable)
FAMILYSIZE the number of members of the household -
Li = ln = Zi (Continuous variable)
ONFINCOME Annual on-farm income in Birr (Continuous þ
= β0 + β1 X1 + β2 X2 + β3 X3 + − − − − − − − − − − +β14 X14 variable)
OFFFA 1 = if they had participated, 0 = otherwise þ
+ Ui (Dummy variable)
(6) FARMLSIZE Total farm size of household in hectare þ
(Continuous)
Thus, the model is specified as follows for this study; TLU Total livestock owned by the household þ
= β0 + β1AGE + β2SEX + β3EDUCL + β4FAMILYSIZE + β5ONFAR­ (Continuous variable)
MINC + β6OFFFA + β7TLU + β8CREDUSE+ β9FLNDSIZE + ANNUALCYIELD 1 = if the HH produced high quantity of þ
production, 0 otherwise (Continuous
β10USEAINPUT + β11ANNUALCYIELD + β12MEMBERCOOP +
variable)
β13FOOLD + β14DROUGHT + β15PAST&DISEASE + Ui MEMBERCOOP 1 = if the household member. of coop., 0 = þ
Where Li is logarithmic of the odds ratio, Zi is the function of nth otherwise (Dummy variable)
explanatory variables, Pi is the probability of food insecurity, 1- Pi is the USESOFCREDIT 1 = if the household use credit, 0 = otherwise þ
probability of food security, and 1- Pi is the intercept of the equation, β1, (Dummy variable)
USEAINPUTS 1 = if the household uses agricultural input,0 þ
β2, …. … β14 are the slopes of the equation in the model and Xi are the otherwise(Dummy variable)
explanatory variables included in the model. DROUGHT 1 = if the HH is not affected by drought,0 -
otherwise (Dummy variable)
FLOODING 1 = if the HH is not affected by flooding, 0 = -
otherwise (Dummy variable)
PESTDESEASE 1 = if the HH is not affected by pest and -
4 disease, 0 = otherwise (Dummy variable)
FGD: Focus group discussion; KII: Key informant interview.

5
A. Bahiru et al. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research 11 (2023) 100461

beyond farm activity including government food aid. Table 4

On-farm income is any kind of income that households have got from Demographic factors concerning household food security.
farm activity. Category Food Food Total t-test
Secured Insecure
3. Results Age group 24–45 33 66 99 0.166
(23.1%) (46.1%) (69.2%)
This section briefly presents the status of food security, the rela­ 46–66 9(6.3%) 35 44
(24.5%) (30.8%)
tionship of the selected predictor variables with the outcome variable in
Total 42 101 143
farm households, and the analysis of the econometric model in the study (29.4%) (70.6%) (100%)
area. Minimum 33 24 24
Maximum 65 60 65
Mean 41.95 42.21 42.13
3.1. Food security status of sample households
SD 7.991 8.527 8.346
Sex of the Female 8 (5.6%) 23 31 Chi-sq =
Household food security was measured using calorie intake as a household (16.1%) (21.7%) 0.242
direct proxy for physical food consumption. The dependent variable was head Male 34 78 112
(23.8%) (54.5%) (78.3%)
coded as the following: Household food security status (1 = food secure,
Family size 1–3 10(7%) 15 25 2.615***
0 = food insecure). (AE) (10.5%) (17.5%)
Less than a third of the households (29.4%) were found to be food 4–6 25 47 72
security and households (70.6%) were found food insecure. Of the total (17.5%) (32.8%) (50.3%)
food-secure households, (5.6%) were women. The results presented in 7–9 7(4.9%) 36 43
(25.2%) (30.1%)
(Table 3) reveal that the mean per capita calorie intake of the sample
10 and above 0(0%) 3(2.1%) 3(2.1%)
household was 1961.64 kcal (SD = 1281.637), which is less than that of Total 42 101 143
the sample household. (29.4%) (70.6%) (100%)
The standard required amount of kilocalories is 2200 Kcal. The Minimum 1 1 1
Maximum 8 10 10
minimum and maximum kilocalories recorded were 565.39 and
Mean 4.5 5.63 5.3
5742.23 Kcal, respectively. The minimum and maximum calories SD 1.851 2.331 2.255
recorded for food-secure households were 2254.06 Kcal and 5742.23 Education Not able to 16 62 78 Chi-sq =
Kcal, respectively, while the minimum and maximum calories recorded level of read and (11.2%) (43.3%) (54.5%) 7.841**
for food-insecure households were 565.39 Kcal and 2051.22 Kcal, household write
heads Primary 20(14%) 34 54
respectively.
education (23.8%) (37.8%)
Secondary 6(4.2%) 5(3.5%) 11
3.2. Independent variables education (7.7%)
Total 42 101 143
(29.4%) (70.6%) (100%)
3.2.1. Demographic factors
The demographic factors focusing on these studies were sex, age, ***, ** significant at the probability level of 1% and less than 5% (Source: own
household family size, and education level which have a relationship survey, 2021).
with household food security.
important factor in determining the food security of the household. In
3.2.1.1. Age of the household head. Age is one of the variables that affect the study area, the average household size was about 5.3, ranging from 1
the food security status of households. As hypothesized in the definition to 10. The mean difference between food insecurity and food security
of variables, age negatively affects household food security. Of a total of was 1.13.
143 households sampled, the majority (99.3%) fell into the age range of
24–65. The minimum age of the respondents is 24 years and the 3.2.1.4. Education level of the household head. Education is an important
maximum age is 65 years with a mean age of 42.13(SD = 8.346). factor in gaining access to agricultural information for the farm com­
munity. It has a significant impact on the adoption of new technologies
3.2.1.2. Sex of the household head. A total of 143 households sampled and improved manufacturing techniques. It has a direct relationship
(20.7%) were female-headed households and (77.3%) were male- with the level of food security in households. The results of the study
headed households. According to the survey data, (5.6%) were food revealed that (54.5%) of the respondents cannot read and write, of
secure in households with female heads sampled and (16.1%) were food which (43.3%) are concentrated in food insecurity categories.
insecure. The same (23.8%) male-headed households are food-secured
and (54.5%) are food-insecure (Table 4). 3.2.2. Economic factors

3.2.1.3. Family size. The number of members of the household is an 3.2.2.1. Farm land size. The results of the study show that the minimum
and maximum holdings are 0.125 and 1.5 ha, respectively. The mean
total land size of the household is 0.3339(SD = 0.3256). The mean land
Table 3
Food security status of the sample households. size of food-secure and food-insecure households is 0.4613 ha (SD =
0.4557) and 0.2809 ha (SD = 0.2361). One possible explanation is that
Energy available per Food Food Total t-value
AE/Kcal/ Secured Insecure
the primary source of food in the study area is self-production, and there
was limited access to other sources of income. As a result, households
42(29.4%) 101(70.6%) 143
with a large amount of cultivated land produce more, giving them a
(100%)
better chance of food security.
Minimum 2254.06 565.39 565.39 19.155a
Maximum 5742.23 2051.22 5742.23
Mean 3511.43 1315.04 1961.64 3.2.2.2. Livestock owned by tropical livestock unit (TLU). According to
SD 1019.00 352.42 1181.26 the results of the survey (Table 5), the average size of the livestock
a holding is approximately 1.6383 (SD = 1.1863). The amount was
Significant at a probability level less than 1% (Source: own survey, 2021).

6
A. Bahiru et al. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research 11 (2023) 100461

Table 5 total sample, about (35%) of farm households have less than Birr 500, of
Economic factors in both food security and food insecurity. which (90%) are food insecure. The mean farm income of food-secure
Category Food Food Total t- and food-insecure households is 2809.52(SD = 2896.66) and 989.11
Secured Insecure value (SD = 926.59).
Total farm >0.5 26 87(60.8%) 113(79%) 3.108a
size (ha) (18.2%) 3.2.2.4. Off-farm activities. Table 5 shows the number of households
0.5–1.0 12(8.4%) 14(9.8%) 26(18.2%) that have access to off-farm and/or non-farm income-generating activ­
1–1.5 4(2.8%) 0(0%) 4(2.8%)
ities, as well as the number of households that do not. Table 5 also shows
Total 42 101 143
(29.4%) (70.6%) (100%) that approximately (18.2%) of the food secure and (9.8%) food insecure
Mean 0.4613 0.2809 0.3339 respondents participated in off-farm activities, while the remaining
SD 0.4557 0.2361 0.3256 (11.2%) of the food secure and (60.8%) of the food insecure were not.
Livestock 0–1 14(9.8%) 43(30.1%) 57(39.8%) 4.441a Supplementary material (Annex: 1) revealed that different sources of
number 1.01–3 23 58(40.5%) 81(56.6%)
(16.1%)
food in the study area from those of women’s household activities such
3.01–5 1(0.7%) 0(0%) 1(0.7%) as making "coffee and small market field business" and sales of firewood,
5.01–7 3(2.1%) 0(0%) 3(2.2%) feed grass, charcoal, food, etc., 11 (7.7%) and participation in produc­
>7 1(0.7%) 0(0%) 1(0.7%) tion and/or sales of non-agricultural products, participation in small
Total 42 101 143
trade activities, enterprises, etc., (5.6%) took a high percentage of the
(29.4%) (73.6%) (100%)
Minimum 0 0 0 other food sources presented.
Maximum 7.34 2.39 12
Mean 2.28 1.37 1.6383 3.2.2.5. Total annual cereal yield. According to the results of the survey
SD 1.6379 0.8082 1.1863
a (Table 5), the mean annual total cereal yield is approximately
Annual on- >500 5(3.5%) 45 50(35%) 5.323
farm (31.45%) 1003.4965 (SD = 723.1983), ranging from a minimum of 100 to a
income in 501–2500 25 45 70(49%) maximum of 3500 kg. On the other hand, the average cereal yield of
Birr (17.5%) (31.45%) food-secure households was 652.3810 (SD = 600.9091). The result
2501–4500 4(2.8%) 11(7.7%) 15(10.5%) shows that; the larger the total annual cereal yield, the less likely a
4501–6500 4(2.8%) 0(%) 4(2.8%)
>6500 4(2.8%) 0(%) 4(2.8%)
household is to be food insecure.
Total 42 101 143
(29.4%) (73.6%) (100%) 3.2.3. Institutional Factors
Minimum 200 100 100
Maximum 12,000 4500 12000
Mean 2809.52 989.11 1523.78
3.2.3.1. Credit uses. Farmers in the study area have access to credit.
SD 2896.66 926.59 1928.619 However, the problem is its utilization due to a lack of knowledge of
Off-farm Yes 26 14(9.8%) 40(28%) 4.200a small business management. The survey revealed (Table 6) that about
activities (18.2%) (52.5%) are users of the total sample households and (47.5%) do not use
No 16 87(60.8%) 103(72%)
credit. In the food-secured category, a large percentage (19.6%) of
(11.2%)
Total 42 101 143 households that were used credit.
(29.4%) (73.6%) (100%)
Total annual 100–1000 16 79(55.2%) 95(66.4%) 3.930a 3.2.3.2. Uses of agricultural inputs.
cereal yield (11.2%)
in Kg 1100–2000 16 14(9.8%) 30(21%)
(11.2%) i. Utilization of chemical fertilizers: As Table 6 shows, about (49%)
2100–3000 9(6.3%) 8(5.6%) 17(11.9%) of the total sample households use chemical fertilizers, of which
Above 1(0.7%) 0(0%) 1(0.7%) (57.1%) are food insecure. The chi-square value, which is 12.023, is
3000 evidence of a statistically significant association between the use of
Total 42 101 143
chemical fertilizers and the level of food security.
(29.4%) (70.6%) (100%)
Minimum 100 300 100
Maximum 2500 3500 3500 ii. Use improved seed: As Table 6 shows, about (37.1%) of the total
Mean 652.3810 1149.5050 1003.4965 sample households use improved seeds, of which (21%) are food
SD 600.9091 722.0282 723.1983
insecure. The Chi-square is 7.986***, indicating that there is a sta­
a
significant with a probability less than 1% (Source: own survey, 2021). tistically significant association between the utilization of improved
seeds and food security.
varying from a minimum of 0 to a maximum of 7.34 TLU. Livestock
holding was relatively concentrated in the food secure category of 3.2.3.3. Membership of cooperatives. According to the study (Table 6),
sample households. Of the 29.4% food-secured categories, about 26.6% (43.4%) of the households sampled were cooperative members. Of the
of households have livestock holdings ranging from 0 to 5 TLU and 2.8% total food security categories (16.1%), cooperative members were 2.8%,
of households having livestock holdings of more than 5 TLU are in the that is, higher than nonmembers. This implies that membership in co­
food-secured category. The mean difference between food-secure and operatives has little impact on food security and food insecurity of
insecure households is 0.91 TLU. households. The Chi-square test (3.150) indicates that there is no sta­
tistical association between food security and membership in
3.2.2.3. On-farm income. 0n-farm income includes the value obtained cooperatives.
from crop production and livestock production. The result shows that
the average income in both farm categories is approximately Birr 3.2.4. Natural factors
1523.78 (SD = 1928.619), with the maximum being Birr 12000. Table 5
shows that the minimum amount of farm income for the food security 3.2.4.1. Pests and disease. The prevalence of pests and diseases is one of
and insecurity group is Birr 200 and Birr 100, respectively; however, the the factors that affect agriculture production. It is assumed that this
maximum amount of farm income is approximately Birr 12,000 and variable negatively affects food security. Pest & disease prevalence of
4,500, for food security and insecure households, respectively. From the pests and diseases was collected during the study period and showed

7
A. Bahiru et al. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research 11 (2023) 100461

Table 6
Institutional factors of both food security and food insecurity.
Category Food Secured Food Insecure Total Statistical values

Credit use Yes 28(19.6%) 47(32.8%) 75(52.5%) Chi-sq. 4.821a

No 14(9.8%) 54(37.8%) 68(47.5%)
Total 42(29.4%) 101(70.6%) 143(100%)
Uses of Agricultural Inputs Utilization of chemical fertilizer Yes 30(21%) 40(28%) 70(49%) Chi-sq.12.023***
No 12(8.4%) 61(42.6%) 73(51%)
Total 42(29.4%) 101(70.6%) 143(100%)
Use improved seed Yes 23(16.1%) 30(21%) 53(37.1%) Chi-sq. 7.986***
No 19(13.3%) 71(49.6%) 90(62.9%)
Total 42(29.4%) 101(70.6%) 143(100%)
Membership of cooperatives Member 23(16.1%) 39(27.3%) 62(43.4%) Chi-sq. 3.150
Not member 19(13.3%) 62(43.3%) 81(56.6%)
Total 42(29.4%) 101(70.6%) 143(100%)
a
, *** Significant probability level of at least 5% and 1% (Source: own survey, 2021).

that (71.3%) said that there was no pest & disease occurrence during the
Table 8
study period. In the (24.9%) of households in the food-secured group,
Results of the logit regression of factors that influence the status of food security
the majority (23.1%) Chi-square test (2.351) indicates that there is no
among rural households.
statistical association between food security and Pest & Disease occur­
rence (Table 7). Variables Coefficients(β) Odds ratio EX(β) Significance

SEXHHH 0.004 0.996 0.867

3.2.4.2. Drought. A total of 143 households sampled (46.2%) said that AGEHHH − 0.226 0.798 0.623
EDUCLHHH 0.789 2.202 0.007***
drought occurred during the study period. Drought often results in in­ FAMILYSIZE -0.233 0.792 0.007***
creases in the prices of food products, and most households that depend FARMLSIZE 1.617 5.037 0.004***
solely on their own production lack the purchasing power to buy food to TLU 0.768 2.156 P ≤ 0.001***
satisfy the needs of their members. The Chi-square test (8.066) indicates ANNUALCYIELD 0.001 0.999 P ≤ 0.001***
ONFINCOME 0.001 1.001 P ≤ 0.001***
that there is a statistical association between food security and drought.
OFFFA 0.001 1.000 P ≤ 0.001***
USEAINPUTS 1.229 0.293 0.008***
3.2.4.3. Flooding. The results (Table 7) also revealed a negative and USEOFCREDIT 0.832 0.435 0.030**
significant association between flooding and food security. The preva­ MEMBEROFCOOP 0.655 1.924 0.078
PESTDESEASE − 0.679 1.971 0.1251
lence of floods was collected during the study period and shows that
DROUGHT − 0.753 2.122 0.045**
(65%) of the respondents said that there was no flood occurrence during FLOODING − 0.105 1.111 0.781
the study period. Total food security group (22.9%), the majority
***, and **significant at the probability level of 1% and 5% probability level
(18.2%) said there was no food on their farm. The Chi-square test
(Source: output of the binary logistic regression model (2021)).
(0.256) indicates that there is no statistical association between food
security and food.
credit use, head of household, education level, farm land size, family
size, TLU, use of agricultural input, drought, and total annual cereal
3.3. Factors influencing the food security status of rural households
yield and own food production as relevant in significantly influencing
the food security status of farming households in the study area. Among
To determine the factors that influence the status of food security of
them, family size and drought have a negative relationship with food
agricultural households, the socioeconomic characteristics of the
security, but all other variables had a positive relationship with food
households were regressed on their food security indices and the results
security. The same sex, age, membership in cooperatives, pest & disease,
are presented in Table 8. The results showed ten variables: farm income,
and flooding insignificantly influence the status of farming households
in food security in the study area. Except for the membership of co­
Table 7 operatives that showed a positive relationship with food security, all
Natural factors in both food security and food insecurity.
other variables had a negative relationship with food security. For
Category Food Food Total Statistical additional information, both the Summary of x2-test values for cate­
Secured Insecure values gorical variables and the summary of t-test values for continuous vari­
Pest & Disease Yes 9(6.3%) 32 41 Chi-sq. ables were presented in (Supplementary Data Annex 3 and 4).
occurrence (22.4%) (28.7%) 2.351
No 33 69 102
(23.1%) (48.2%) (71.3%) 3.4. Household coping strategies
Total 42 101 143
(29.4%) (70.6%) (100%) In contrast, the rest 137 households reported that they use various
Drought Yes 27 39 66 Chi-
coping mechanisms during food shortages (Fig. 4). The results revealed
occurrence (18.9%) (27.3%) (46.2%) sq.8.066a
No 15 62 77 that farmer practices at the severe stage of coping mechanisms include;
(10.5%) (43.3%) (53.8%) selling livestock, reducing meals, selling firewood, borrowing cash or
Total 42 101 143 grain from relatives and friends, purchasing preferred crops, and selling
(29.4%) (70.6%) (100%) charcoal, among others. Solid livestock is widely practiced in the study
Flood Yes 16 34 50(35%) Chi-sq.
occurrence (11.2%)) (23.8%) 0.256
area (Supplementary Data Annex: 2)
No 26(18.2% 67 93(65%) Simple descriptive statistics frequencies were used to analyze the
(46.8%) coping strategies of the respondents’ households. The households
Total 42 101 143 sampled used a total of 12 coping strategies (Fig. 4) in the study area. As
(29.4%) (70.6%) (100%)
indicated above in Fig. 4, the main coping strategies used by farm
a
significant at 5% probability level (Source: own survey, 2021). households were the sale of livestock, the reduction of the number and

8
A. Bahiru et al. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research 11 (2023) 100461

Fig. 4. Response to coping strategies during the initial food shortage (Note: the total of each coping strategy is not summed for the 137 households sampled. Each
household can use many coping strategies together).

size of meals, the sale of fire wood, borrowing cash or grain, the pur­ day to live an active and healthy life) and 1315.04(SD = 352.42) Kcal
chase of preferred crops and the sale of charcoal, and others. 68.5% per AE per day, respectively. The value of t (19.155) indicates that the
households of the total of households insecure for food in the sample mean difference between food-secure and food-insecure households was
practice the sale of livestock. significant. This finding supports the findings of [7,15,138]; and [63];
who found a significant mean difference between food-secure and
3.5. Focus group and key informant discussion (qualitative data) food-insecure households. Furthermore, this finding is in line with [64];
who discovered significant differences in poverty perceptions between
In addition to the information collected through the individual sur­ food-secure and food-insecure households.
vey questionnaires, focus group discussions were also used in two of the
PAs sampled to get a general picture of the study’s objective. In each KII 4.1.2. Influence of independent variables on food security
& FGD, 5–7 members from various segments of the society participated.
Development agents, elders, influential women, and district officials I. Demographic Factors
participated in discussions with key informants to obtain general in­
formation. 25 and 10 individuals participated in FGD and KII, According to the data, a large proportion of the sampled households
respectively. are of productive age. This finding contradicts the findings of [13], who
The discussion was carried out on the situation of food security, its discovered that the mean and median ages of the household heads were
influence factors, and coping strategies in the district. The group dis­ 57.4 and 60 years, respectively. As a result, most of the households
cussion revealed that, except for minimal participation in cash crop sampled are of economically active age. Almost (69.2%) of the total
production, the study area is more or less limited to the production of households are between the ages of 24 and 45, while (30.8%) are be­
food crops for subsistence. Annual production is small and not enough to tween the ages of 46 and 66. The t-value (0.166) in (Table 4) indicates
feed their families year-round. As a result, households received food aid that the age difference between food-insecure and food-secure house­
from the government and non-governmental organizations during the holds is insignificant. The findings contradicted the findings of [49];
food deficit period of the year and participated in safety net programs. who discovered a significant difference in the age of food-insecure and
food-secure households.
4. Discussion The gender of the household head is assumed to be one of the vari­
ables that influence food security. It was hypothesized that male-headed
4.1. Descriptive results discussion households are more likely than female-headed households to be food-
secure. Female households experiencing food insecurity account for
4.1.1. Food security status of sample households 74.2% of all female households. In contrast [122], discovered that
Data on available food for consumption from home production, women’s households had greater food security than male-owned
purchases, lost, and/or gifts/loans/wages in kind were collected by the households due to better resource utilization. According to the data
household for the seven days preceding the survey day (Table 3). Data (Table 4), the status of food security in the study area is not significantly
were then converted to kilocalories and divided by the size of the AE different for both sexes. The Chi-square test (0.242) shows that there is
household [15,16,120,149,150]. Subsequently, the amount of energy no statistically significant relationship between food security and the
available to the household in kilocalories is compared to the standard gender of the head of the household. In contrast to the findings of [15],
survival requirement per adult per day (that is, 2200 kcal). As a result, who discovered a strong relationship between age and food security and
42 of all households of respondents were found to be food-secure, while the gender of household heads at 5%.
101 were found to be food-insecure. According to Devereux (2006), the According to the study, households with a large number of family
available per capita kilocalorie estimates can be used directly to classify members are more likely to experience food insecurity than households
households into various levels of food security. This was also used in this with a small number of family members. This family size was higher
study to estimate the headcount ratio and the level of food insecurity in than the regional average of 4.9 per family [31]. According to the study
the rural areas of the district. However, the mean calorie intake between findings, most of the households in the sample (more than 80%) have a
the food-secure and food-insecure households sampled was 3511.43 (SD large number of family members (more than four) (Table 4). At a
= 1019.00) (which is higher than the standard requirement per adult per probability level of 1%, the relationship between food security and

9
A. Bahiru et al. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research 11 (2023) 100461

household size is statistically significant. An increase in the number of Another important variable with significant implications for house­
families that do not use improved technology contributes to food inse­ hold food security is participation in off-farm and non-farm income-
curity. In other words, households with fewer members are more likely generating activities (IGA). Off-farm and/or non-farm income-gener­
to have food security than households with many members. This finding ating activities help farmers diversify their income sources, reducing
is consistent with those of [42,45,103,107,120,122,138,146]. On the their vulnerability to food insecurity. According to studies, households
contrary [49], discovered that increasing family size helps provide more with higher farm and nonfarm incomes are less likely to be food insecure
labour for production and has a positive relationship with a household’s because they can purchase a variety of food items to meet their family’s
food security status. This is due to a lack of land resources; if there were needs [1,23]. As a result, farm income was expected to have a positive
plenty of land resources, everyone would have a role in farm activities; impact on the level of food security. This is because, in the study area,
however, the opposite is true in this case. households engaged in off-farm and nonfarm income-earning activities
As shown in (Table 4), as the level of education increases, so does the are more concerned with accumulating physical and financial resources
level of food security, indicating a positive relationship between the to improve their future well-being than with spending their income on
level of education and the status of food security. This indicates that purchasing food products to meet their current food requirements, and
households with a lower level of education are more likely to be food this result supports the finding of [74]. Non-farm income opportunities
insecure than households with a higher level of education. The higher- are critical for filling the gap created by consuming their own produc­
level of education households are frequently well-informed and have tion. Only 1/5 (18.2%) of those who were food secure and 1/10 (9.8%)
easy access to media, new skills, and improved technologies. The chi- of those who were food insecure reported non-farm income-generating
square value of this variable (7.841) indicates a significant relation­ activities. Given the scarcity of alternative sources of income, one can
ship between the educational level of the head of the household and food imagine the situation of food insecurity, particularly for those who have
security. Findings in the area revealed that the level of education has a only been eating their own produce for 3–6 months. Households may
significant effect on food security (Abebaw Shimelis, 2003). That is, have a variety of food sources for consumption in general. Under­
better-educated household heads are more likely to be food secure than standing the basic patterns of the sources, as well as how they vary
less educated ones. This is consistent with other studies that found an between locations, population groups, and time, will be a critical first
increased likelihood of being food secure with increased household step towards understanding the overall nature of the food security issue
education attainment [19,36,50,104], as opposed to Ref. [56]; who [98,117].
found no significant association between education and urban and rural The value of t (3.930) indicates a significant relationship between
food security in Mozambique. household food security and household production quantity [106]. As a
result, the total annual cereal yield was found to be positive and sig­
II. Economic factors nificant. The positive sign of the variable indicates that the higher the
level of output of households, the greater the probability of food secu­
According to the results of the survey, most households (79%) own rity. As a result, increasing household cereal production increases the
more than 0.5 ha of farmland (Table 5). The difference in farm land size likelihood of food security.
between the two groups, food secure and food insecure, is statistically
significant with a probability of less than 1%, which is consistent with III. Institutional Factors
the findings of [61,76,108], who discovered that agricultural intensifi­
cation methods, such as irrigation land, could play a dominant role in Credit use increases income-generating activities of the household,
increasing agricultural production and productivity. It has a substantial resulting in increased derived income and purchasing power of the
and positive impact on household food security. The size of farm land is household to avoid the risk of food insecurity in the study area. As a
important for food security. According to Ref. [6]; the farm land owned result, the availability of credit has a positive impact on the state of
by the household is used to produce crops and livestock and is an household food security [15]. This demonstrates a direct relationship
important factor in determining food security. between credit utilization and household food security. Furthermore,
During times of food scarcity, livestock serves as a coping mechanism the chi-square value (4.821) indicates a statistically significant rela­
[39,57,150]. As a result, it was hypothesized that the increase in tionship between credit use and household food security, which is
household livestock ownership and food security are directly related. In consistent with previous findings [17,108].
the study area, livestock is a significant source of income. It aids in Agricultural inputs are one of the most important factors in deter­
transportation, nutrition, and earning income. It also serves as a coping mining production levels. Chemical fertilizers and improved seeds, for
mechanism during times of food scarcity. At a probability level of 1%, example, play an important role in increasing productivity and agri­
the difference between the two social groups is statistically significant. cultural output [40]. Farmers have easy access to chemical fertilizers but
This implies that households with a large herd may have a better chance are said to have limited purchasing power, small farmland sizes, and a
of earning more money and, as a result, resolving their food security lack of awareness. The chi-square value of 12.023 indicates that there is
issues. According to this empirical finding, total livestock holding is a statistically significant relationship between the use of chemical fer­
important in explaining the likelihood of food security in the study tilizers and the level of food security. The same situation was observed
district. As a result, they can purchase the necessary amount of food when improved seeds were used. According to farmers, the main issue is
even when other resources are scarce. This finding is consistent with its scarcity and high acquisition cost. For example, chemical fertilizers
those of [61,99,101], who discovered that household heads can sell a are not widely available to farmers, particularly on a credit basis.
portion of their input to increase food purchasing power and direct Farmers were forced to increase crop production to meet food demand
consumption of milk and meat. due to the scarcity of seed and its high cost. The Chi-square value is
At the 1% level of significance, farm income is statistically significant 7.986***, indicating that there is a statistically significant relationship
and the t value (5.323) indicates that there is a significant relationship between improved seed use and food security [77,86].
between farm income and household food security. As a result, there is a Membership in such institutions broadens the household’s social
positive relationship between farm income and the food security of rural network and enables it to obtain pooled labour and cash-based credit
households. Farmers who earn a lot of money from farming are more that individual households cannot. There is no statistically significant
likely to have food security than their counterparts, which could explain relationship between food security and cooperative membership, ac­
the positive relationship. This finding is consistent with the findings of cording to the Chi-square test (3.150). This finding contradicts other
[82,87,126], who discovered that farmers who intensify crop diversifi­ studies that show that cooperative societies have a positive and signif­
cation outperform their counterparts in terms of food security. icant impact on poverty reduction by creating jobs, empowering

10
A. Bahiru et al. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research 11 (2023) 100461

women, and stabilizing markets [20,30,35,62,69,79,93,109,115,128] & a factor of 5.037 (Table 8). That is, larger farm households are more food
[47]. Other research has found that cooperative societies contribute secure than smaller farm households and vice versa. This could be
insignificantly to food security and poverty reduction because of het­ because the size of the landowner is a proxy for a variety of factors such
erogeneous membership, organizational management, passive partici­ as wealth, credit availability, capacity for beer, risk, and income. Larger
pation, lack of trust among members, equal dividend sharing regardless farms are associated with greater wealth and income, as well as greater
of the level of participation, and other issues [41]; Andrew, 2001; [46, capital availability, increasing the likelihood of investment in farm in­
65]. puts that increases food production and ensure food security. Large
farms are associated with greater efficiency in the use of farm resources
IV. Natural factors than small farms. They noted that small holdings discourage the use of
modern inputs due to a lack of purchasing power in the hands of small
The several possible factors that influence food security in the study farmers, and this finding is consistent with [53,67,124,131], who
area were identified through the survey, among which drought occur­ discovered that farmers with larger farm landholdings are less likely to
rence was the most significant. The findings (Table 7) also revealed a be food insecure.
link between drought and food insecurity. The Chi-square test (8.066)
indicates that there is a statistical association between food security and 4.2.4. Total livestock owned (TLU)
drought, which is consistent with the findings of [10]; Tora et al., 2021; This variable is related to the availability of calories in households
[12,59,81,123], who discovered that drought is the most common cause and is statistically significant at the 1% probability level. The odds ratio
of food insecurity. of the variable indicates that an increase in one unit of TLU in house­
Flooding is a frequent threat to food security because it reduces holds increases caloric consumption by 2.156 (Table 8). Livestock is a
harvest and production. Food is linked to high production losses or even significant source of revenue. An increase in the number of animals
farm abandonment, which affects the availability of household food. available to sustain the household per adult suggests enhanced food
The Chi-square test (0.256) found no statistically significant link be­ security and household resilience. Changes in the TLU are a direct in­
tween food security and flooding. This finding contradicts global and dicator of food security risk. A household with a larger number of
national research findings [3,5,9,43,111,148]; [37] and [24]. This is due livestock consumes more calories than a household with a smaller
to the inclusion of medium and low land in the study, as well as the number of livestock. This study supports the findings of (Almaz et al.,
district’s reputation for watershed and forest management activities 2015; [18,26], who discovered that farmers with a higher number of
(Humbo carbon project). livestock are less likely to be food insecure.

4.2. Discussion of the output of the binary logistic regression model 4.2.5. Total annual cereal yield
As a result, the amount of self-production was found to be positive
As shown in (Supplementary data: Annexes 3 and 4) the 14 explana­ and highly significant. The positive sign of the variable indicates that the
tory variables used in the model have a significant positive and negative higher the output levels of households, the higher the probability of food
influence on the household’s food security situation in the Humbo dis­ security, which is consistent with [15,90], who discovered that higher
trict at significance levels of 1% and 5%. These are the variables that annual incomes have a higher probability of being food secure. The odds
were found to be significant in the logit model test: family size (AE), ratio of increasing household production by one unit (1 kg) increases the
TLU, total annual cereal yield, farm income, agricultural input use, probability of food security by 0.999.
credit use, household head, education level, farm land size, and drought.
4.2.6. On-farm income
4.2.1. Educational level of household heads This variable was hypothesized to have a positive impact on food
The model result shows that education influences household caloric security in households. The total annual income of the household on the
consumption in a positive and significant way, and it is statistically farm and food security are positively related [102]. This study also
significant at the 1% probability level, which is the same as the hy­ found that the relationship was positive and significant at the 1%
pothesized effect. The positive odds ratio of 2.202 indicates that in­ probability level. The odds ratio of 1.001 indicates that as farm house­
creases yearly in education increased food security in households by holds earn one birr, their chances of being food secure increase by a
2.202 (Table 8). This implies that a well-educated household leader is factor of 1.001. This suggests that households with a higher income are
more open to implementing technology to increase farm output. This more likely to be food secure, which supports the finding of [6,38].
study supports a previous study [16,88,100,142,149]) that discovered
that the educational status of the head of the household was positively 4.2.7. Off-farm activities
and significantly related to the food security status of the household. The relationship was statistically significant at the 1% probability
level. Controlling for other variables, households with nonfarm income
4.2.2. Family size is (18.2%) more likely to be food secure than those without, and it has a
The size of the family was statistically significant at the 1% level and significant association with food security, with a p ≤ 0.000. Most food-
had a negative odds ratio of 0.792, implying that for every increase in an secure households, according to Refs. [68,101], rely on off-farm activ­
individual in a household, food security decreases by 0.792 kilocalories ities, and farm activities have a significant impact on food security in
per day (Table 8). As a result, having a larger family has a negative households.
impact on the availability of kilos of calories in the home. This means
that as the number of family member’s increases, the household is less 4.2.8. Use of agricultural input
likely to be food-secure. A study by Refs. [121,133,134] [54,100] In this study, the use of agricultural inputs is a significant determi­
discovered a negative relationship between family size and household nant and is positively related to the security of household food. At the
caloric consumption per adult equivalent. 1% probability level, it is statistically significant. The odds ratio of 0.293
indicates that households that used more input increased their food
4.2.3. Farm land size security by (caloric consumption) 0.293 caloric consumption (Table 8).
The study findings indicate that the size of farmland is positively The findings are consistent with those of a similar study conducted by
related to food security and is statistically significant at the 1% proba­ Refs. [29,89]. However, because farm inputs are expensive, if a farmer’s
bility level. The odds ratio of the variable implies that increasing the size cash income is not enough to cover the cost of farm inputs, he or she will
of the farm by 1 ha increases the availability of household kilocalories by invest the money earned by foregoing other expenses and selling crop

11
A. Bahiru et al. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research 11 (2023) 100461

production. and second in the hierarchy for food-secure households and one of the
positive coping strategies. Second, the main coping strategies in
4.2.9. Use of a credit service food-insecure households were reduced frequency and size of meals.
Credit service use was significant at a probability level of 5% and had Selling livestock is the second most common coping strategy among
a positive odds ratio of 0.435, implying that credit service users food-insecure households, with 79 households using it. For food
increased food security by 0.435 kilocalories consumed (Table 8). This secure/insecure households, the third (18 and 45 households), fourth
demonstrates that when households receive credit, they engage in (16 and 30 households), and fifth (13 and 23 households) and coping
various income-generating activities that help improve household food strategies were the reduction in the number and size of meals per day &
security. As a result, because they lacked the means to increase their selling firewood, sale of grass & borrowing cash/grain, borrowing
income, their food insecurity was exacerbated. As a result, now that cash/grain, borrowing cash/grain and the purchase of preferred crops,
access to credit improves food security, at least for those who use it, respectively. As a result, higher proportions of households were
policy interventions should broaden the scope of microfinance and local concentrated in food insecure categories [131,132]. The purchase of
savings mechanisms to rural farm households. The findings are consis­ preferred crops is one of the negative coping strategies in the future and
tent with those of a similar study conducted by (Hiwot, 2014; [21,83]. will have a negative impact on farm household productivity because
they do not receive the energy required for daily activities [129]. The
4.2.10. Drought other main coping methods used by households when the first options
The draught coefficient has a negative and significant impact on the are completed are withdrawing children from school (9 & 16) and
security of household food. Drought is associated with high production Beginning (9 & 16) food secure/insecure households, respectively,
losses or even abandonment of the farm, affecting the availability of practice it.
household food. The findings also revealed a negative and statistically
significant relationship between lack of money (poverty) and food se­ 4.4. FGD and KII discussion (qualitative data)
curity. The findings of this study indicate that it was significant at the
probability level of 5%. The odds ratio of 2.122 indicates that as the Family size, educational level of the head of the household, total
draught increases by 2.122, the number of food-insecure household’s farm land size, agricultural inputs, total livestock ownership, farm in­
increases by a factor of 2.122. This finding was consistent with the come, credit use, total annual cereal production, and drought have all
findings of [119,141], who discovered that drought can have a signifi­ been identified as significant factors influencing household food
cant impact on food security in households. security.
Education level: Concerning education, the members stated that
4.3. Household coping strategies those who read and write can have greater access to information and a
better chance of benefiting from improved technologies. They also in­
The co-management strategy is a mechanism that households use to fluence the use of household resources, income-generating activities,
avoid food shortages and crises. To deal with food shortages, households and the adoption of new technologies. This FGD response is consistent
always resort to a variety of measures ranging from mild to severe. with the findings of [144], who discovered that the educational level of a
According to research conducted in Ethiopia, households employ a va­ household influences resource utilization, income-generating activities,
riety of coping mechanisms during times of food insecurity and/or and the adoption of new technologies.
scarcity [22,123]. The study’s findings confirmed that households in the Family size: Members mentioned during the discussion that those
study area used a variety of coping mechanisms during times of food who have a large number of children or economically dependent family
scarcity and/or insecurity. Depending on the severity of the crisis, members will face food insecurity due to the high burden of dependency.
households in the study area employ a variety of coping strategies. Re­ The presence of many children under the age of 15 and adults over the
spondents used various coping strategies to cope with varying levels of age of 60 in the family can have an impact on the food security of the
food stress. When we compare the two stages of coping mechanisms household. That is, the working-age population (aged 15 to 60) supports
(Figure: 4), the sample households that use coping mechanisms at later themselves and any additional dependents in the family.
stages outnumber those that use coping mechanisms at the beginning. Total livestock holding: Members also mentioned the contribution
On the other hand, the majority of coping strategies are used by of livestock to the household economy and food security in a variety of
food-insecure households rather than food-secure households. This ways, including as a source of pulling power, a source of cash income, a
finding is in line with [13] who found that instead of food-secure source of supplementary food, and a mode of transportation. Addition­
households, households with food insecurity use the majority of ally, livestock is considered a source of security and a means of coping
coping mechanisms. Only six of the total number of households in the during crop failure and other disasters.
sample reported having no food deficit. This coping strategy is first Total annual cereal yield: The less grain food produced by the
compared to other strategies and is one of the negative coping strategies household, the more likely the household will be food insecure. During
for food-insecure households. However, in the long run, it depreciates the focus group discussion, it was reported that the main problems in the
the livestock assets of the household because once lost, it is difficult to study area were the small size of the small cultivated land, the scarcity of
replace. During the focus group discussion and interview time, it was plough oxen, and the variability of rainfall. Plant disease, poor land
mentioned that as the severity of the food shortage increases and other quality, soil erosion, improper use of agricultural input (fertilizers) and
options are lost, households sell small ruminants like sheep and goats lack of water for irrigation systems are also reported as major bottle­
before selling cattle [8]. This coping strategy is first compared to other necks to crop production.
strategies and is one of the negative coping strategies for food-insecure Total size of the farm land: During the Focus Group and Key
households. However, in the long run, it depreciates the livestock assets Informant Interview discussions, it was noted that the study area is
because once lost, it is difficult to replace. characterized by very small and fragmented landholdings. The size and
During the focus group discussion and interview time, it was quality of the landowners have steadily decreased due to redistribution
mentioned that households should first sell small ruminants such as among family members and continuous cultivation, resulting in soil
sheep and goats and then sell cattle as the severity of the food shortage nutrient depletion and soil erosion.
worsens and other options become unavailable [8]. The safe household Credit use: The members of the discussion mentioned credit in­
practice, selling firewood and selling livestock is 17% and 16% house­ stitutions such as service cooperatives, Omo-Micro Finance, and Wis­
holds out of the total sampled food secured as the first and second dom that are currently operating in the district. Members of the group
strategy. Compared to other strategies, this coping strategy is the first also mentioned that households obtain informal credit from family and

12
A. Bahiru et al. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research 11 (2023) 100461

friends. However, fear of repayment, collateral, and risk prevents them a higher annual income. The total number of livestock owned In
from using credit. contrast, livestock production has been hampered by a lack of grazing
Household Income: According to the focus group discussion, land and feed, as well as the prevalence of animal diseases. The lack of
households earn money from a variety of sources. On-farm income is the oxen power has also remained a critical issue in the utilization of land
income generated by crop and livestock sales on the farm. During the and labour power. Total annual cereal yield is important because it
discussion and interview period, the members explained that crop sales, determines effective land cultivation and increased production. House­
coffee sales, and sales of livestock and livestock products generate farm holds with lower yields were more likely to be food insecure. The size of
income. the farmland has a significant positive impact on the security of
Agricultural input uses: Chemical fertilizers and improved seeds, household food. Households with quality and large land sizes had more
for example, play an important role in increasing productivity and food security than those without. Chemical fertilizers and other inputs
agricultural output. Members of the discussion mentioned that they that improve yield have had a significant positive impact on food se­
have easy access to chemical fertilizers and improved seeds. They did, curity in households. Chemical fertilizer applications are limited due to
however, explain that the cost of fertilizer and improved seed is high and a lack of purchasing power and apprehension about not being able to
rising year after year. Farmers report that the current price is two to repay credit. Other factors that contribute to the low utilization of
three times higher than in the previous five years. As a result, poor modern inputs include the risk of agricultural production and market
farmers are forced to use much smaller amounts of fertilizer than prices. Credit utilization has a positive impact. Credit users, for example,
recommended. have greater food security than nonusers. Drought has a negative impact
Drought: Members of the discussion mentioned that the drought is on food security in households. Drought frequently causes an increase in
severe, with periods of drought frequently followed by devastating flash the prices of food products by reducing production. Most households
floods. Water resources are short-lived, unbalanced, and difficult to that rely solely on their own products do not have the purchasing power
obtain. As a result, a large part of the district is no longer suitable for to meet the food needs of their members. To deal with food shortages,
rain-fed agriculture and natural pastures are being depleted. Drought the households sampled used a combination of negative and positive
frequently raises food prices and most households that rely solely on coping strategies.
their own production lack the purchasing power to buy food to meet the Based on the findings discussed above, the following recommenda­
needs of their members. tions are crucial to improving improved food security at the household
Coping Strategies: A discussion was held with members of the focus level. Possible areas of intervention include:
group discussion and key informants from district sector offices. All
explained that during times of food scarcity, households used various • Family size: More attention should be paid to the district health of­
coping strategies. Purchases of preferred crops, reduction in the size and fice and health extension workers to limit family size in the study
number of meals, sale of firewood and charcoal, labour work, and district by raising awareness of the impact of the population on
borrowing crops or money from relatives are examples of these. household food security, providing contraceptives for family plan­
Furthermore, as the severity of the food shortage worsens, households ning, and strengthening the health extension on family planning
start selling livestock, renting land and then migrating. The findings of through frequent home visits to households by extension agents and
the household survey are supported by key informants from district provision of on-site advice.
sector offices and focus group discussion participants. To save money • Education level: In collaboration with the organizations involved,
and resist, they also reduce the number and size of meals consumed per the education sector should pay more attention to adult learning
day; this second coping strategy is used by 55.2% of insecure HHs. This programmers for illiterate households already established as na­
is because forage and other livestock needs are more expensive in the tional adult learning programs.
dry season than in the wet. This finding is consistent with [92]; who • Total size of the farmland: The agricultural sector must promote
stated that the most common available feeds during wet seasons are biophysical conservation activities (proper land use systems, soil,
harvested local grass (fresh grass for cut and carry feeding), grazing, and and water conservation) that are essential to maintain the produc­
collected fodder (weeds and leaves from various herbs and shrubs). tivity of arable land and improve the fertility of soils.
Food-secured HHs, on the other hand, used sold firewood (17.4%) and • Total livestock owned: Government and non-governmental organi­
sold livestock (16%) as the first and second orders. zations must pay more attention to livestock production and their
management; strengthen animal health services through extension
5. Conclusions and policy implications services.
• On-farm income: The district agricultural office pays more attention
5.1. Conclusions to the capacity building of those in the productive age group, which
is recommended through training on the farm and non-farm diver­
The food security status of rural households in the study area was sification, income-generating activities and skills, vocational
assessed using descriptive statistics and a binary logit model. According training, and the provision of materials and start-up capital.
to the study findings, many people in the study area (70.6% of the • Total annual cereal yield: The agricultural sector must improve
households sampled) are food insecure. This is because the production agriculture, production, and productivity and has strong links to
and income of these households were insufficient to cover the required research, extension, and education. Fertilizer use, improved seed,
calorie intake. The results of the logistic regression show that 9 of the 14 and management practices should be implemented.
variables have a significant impact on household food security. Among • Credit uses: The government should pay attention to credit-
them are educational level, family size, farm income, total annual cereal advancing institutions such as microfinance, make the loan avail­
yield, TLU, total farmland size, credit use, agricultural input use, and able in time to farmers, and create awareness of repayment and how
drought. These factors make households vulnerable to food insecurity to use it. This will help distribute the loan on time and encourage
and determine the food security of households. Education is a significant farmers to use the loan for a given goal as intended.
variable, and it is believed that a household leader with more knowledge • Use of agricultural inputs (chemical fertilizers and improved seeds):
has a better chance of diversifying income from various sources. The size Development agents should be strengthened and expanded to get
of the family (AE) has a strong relationship with the security of house­ farmers to use inputs and increase agricultural production. Further­
hold food. The level of food security at home decreased as the number of more, attention should be paid to the agricultural sector to facilitate
households increased. On-farm income is a significant determinant of the timely supply of chemical fertilizers and improved seeds.
household food security. Food security is more likely in households with

13
A. Bahiru et al. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research 11 (2023) 100461

• Drought: To reduce or avoid this problem, awareness and exposure paper.

visits to farm households on afforestation and cutting tree conser­
vation structures are recommended. Interventions of government/ Data availability
non-governmental organizations should pay due attention to
drought conservation activities both in farmers, farms, and nonfarm Data will be made available on request.
lands. Planting trees on communal land is highly recommended as
there is massive deforestation in the area. Acknowledgements
• Governments or non-governmental organizations should base their
support on scaling up positive coping methods and making house­ We would like to express our deepest gratitude to the Humbo District
holds aware of negative coping mechanisms. Households need the administration and agricultural office. Furthermore, we express our
support of development actors before starting a negative coping gratitude to the development agents and informants of the study area for
mechanism. providing us with all the important information during the study.
Wolaita Sodo University also deserves gratitude for giving us the op­
In general, this study aimed to produce analysis results within a portunity to undertake the study.
specific scope, but many questions remain unanswered. Future re­
searchers must concentrate on providing fundamental knowledge on the Appendix A. Supplementary data
social, political, natural, and environmental dimensions that determine
food security status, livelihood strategy selection, and the effect of Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
climate change on crop products using descriptive data on food insecure org/10.1016/j.jafr.2022.100461-.
purchasing patterns, as well as specific traits that make the rural poor
more vulnerable to food insecurity. References

5.2. Limitations [1] J. Abafita, K.R. Kim, Determinants of household food security in rural Ethiopia:
an empirical analysis, J. Rural Develop. 37 (1071–2016-86950) (2014) 129–157,
https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.196613.
In general, this finding meets all food security research methods [2] A.M. Abdulla, Determinants of household food security and coping strategies: the
based on the stated objectives. However, because this study mainly case of Bule-Hora District, Borana Zone, Oromia, Ethiopia, Eur. J. Food Sci.
Technol. 3 (3) (2015) 30–44.
focused on identifying the determinants of household food security in [3] K.H. Abegaz, Determinants of food security: evidence from Ethiopian Rural
rural Ethiopia, some variables believed to have an impact on food se­ Household Survey (ERHS) using pooled cross-sectional study, Agric. Food Secur.
curity, such as the use of improved seeds, soil fertility, irrigation sur­ 6 (1) (2017) 1–7, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40066-017-0153-1.
[4] M. Abubeker, B. Ayalneh, S. Aseffa, Options to reduce poverty among agro-
vival, distance to market, climatic and weather conditions, rainfall, and pastoral households of Ethiopia: a case study from Aysaita district of Afar
temperature, were not addressed. As a result, the authors are encour­ national regional state, J. Dev. Agric. Econ. 6 (6) (2014) 257–266, https://doi.
aged to take these factors into account in future studies. org/10.5897/JDAE12.163.
[5] F. Achoja, D.C. Okeke, Causal linkages between flood hazards and food
insecurity: evidence from Nigeria, Çukurova Tarım ve Gıda Bilimleri Dergisi 34
6. Ethiopia technical terms (2) (2019) 91–99, https://doi.org/10.36846/CJAFS.2019.1.
[6] M. Adem, E. Tadele, H. Mossie, M. Ayenalem, Income diversification and food
security situation in Ethiopia: a review study, Cogent Food Agric. 4 (1) (2018),
Kebele means Village.
1513354, https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2018.1513354.
Woreda means District. [7] A.M.A. Agidew, K.N. Singh, Determinants of food insecurity in the rural farm
Woina Dega (Subtropical zone): The highlands areas range in households in South Wollo Zone of Ethiopia: the case of the Teleyayen sub-
elevation from 1830 to 2440 m, with an average annual temperature of watershed, Agric. Food Econom. 6 (1) (2018) 1–23, https://doi.org/10.1186/
s40100-018-0106-4.
about 22◦ Celsius and annual rainfall ranging from 510 to 1530 mm. [8] B.S. Akejo, O. Otto, Ruminants, Resilience and Poverty: Assessing the
Kolla (Tropical Zone): it is located below 1830 m in elevation and Socioeconomic Role of Small Ruminants in the Pastoral Areas of Northeastern
has an annual temperature of about 27◦ Celsius with an annual rainfall Uganda, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, 2017.
[9] T.I. Akukwe, A.A. Oluoko-Odingo, G.O. Krhoda, Do floods affect food security? A
of about 510 mm. before-and-after comparative study of flood-affected households’ food security
status in South-Eastern Nigeria, Bull. Geogr. 47 (47) (2020) 115–131, https://doi.
Consent org/10.2478/bog-2020-0007.
[10] D. Akwango, B.B. Obaa, N. Turyahabwe, Y. Baguma, A. Egeru, Effect of drought
early warning system on household food security in Karamoja subregion, Uganda,
Not applicable. Agric. Food Secur. 6 (1) (2017) 1–12, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40066-017-
0120-x.
[11] I.G.K. Ansah, C. Gardebroek, R. Ihle, Resilience and household food security: a
Authors’ contributions
review of concepts, methodological approaches and empirical evidence, Food
Secur. 11 (6) (2019) 1187–1203, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-019-00968-1.
Ms.Adanech Bahiru: Conceptualization; Data curation; Funding [12] G.S. Asefawu, Seasonal migration and household food security status in the
drought-prone areas of Northeast Ethiopia, Environ. Challen. 8 (2022), 100566,
acquisition; Investigation; Methodology; Validation; Visualization;
1016/j.envc.2022.100566.
Writing-original draft; Writing-review & editing. Marisennayya Sena­ [13] M. Asesefa Kisi, D. Tamiru, M.S. Teshome, M. Tamiru, G.T. Feyissa, Household
pathy (PhD): Conceptualization; Visualization; Writing-review & edit­ food insecurity and coping strategies among pensioners in Jimma Town, South
ing. Mr. Elias Bojago: Contextualization, revision, rewriting, West Ethiopia, BMC Publ. Health 18 (1) (2018) 1–8, https://doi.org/10.1186/
s12889-018-6291-y.
proofreading, editing, and submission of the article. [14] A. Atara, D. Tolossa, B. Denu, Assessment of food security situation of the rural
households: the case of Boricha Woreda of Sidama Zone, Ethiopia, Geojournal 86
Funding statement (2) (2021) 711–727, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-019-10094-2.
[15] W. Awoke, K. Eniyew, G. Agitew, B. Meseret, Determinants of food security status
of household in central and north Gondar zone, Ethiopia, Cogent Soc. Sci. 8 (1)
There is no specific grant for this work. The study received no (2022), 2040138, https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2022.2040138.
funding from government, commercial, or non-profit financing [16] A.W. Ayele, Determinant Factors of Food Security Among Households in Northern
Ethiopia: an Application of Binary Logistic Regression Model, 2020, https://doi.
organizations. org/10.37421/economics.2020.8.352.
[17] R.O. Babatunde, O.A. Omotesho, E.O. Olorunsanya, G.M. Owotoki, Determinants
Declaration of competing interest of vulnerability to food insecurity: a gender-based analysis of farming households
in Nigeria, Indian J. Agric. Econ. 63 (2008) 902–2016, 67954.

There is no conflict of interest between the authors regarding this

14
A. Bahiru et al. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research 11 (2023) 100461

[18] S. Bahta, F. Wanyoike, H. Katjiuongua, D. Marumo, Characterisation of food [44] EHNRI, The Government of Ethiopia through the Former Ethiopia Nutrition
security and consumption patterns among smallholder livestock farmers in Institute and Ethiopian Health and Nutrition Research Institute, 1997 (Food
Botswana, Agric. Food Secur. 6 (1) (2017) 1–11, https://doi.org/10.1186/ Composition table for use in Ethiopia).
s40066-017-0145-1. [45] W. Endalel, Z. Mengesha, A. Atinafu, A. Adane, Food insecurity in Farta District,
[19] M.K. Bashir, S. Schilizzi, R. Pandit, The Determinants of Rural Household Food Northwest Ethiopia: a community-based cross-sectional study, BMC Res. Notes 7
Security for Landless Households of Punjab, Pakistan, 2012, https://doi.org/ (130) (2014) 1–6, https://doi.org/10.1186/1756-0500-7-1.
10.22004/ag.econ.126035. No. 1784-2016-141849). [46] M. Ernest-Jones, D. Nettle, M. Bateson, Effects of eye images on everyday
[20] M. Baviah, Microfinance for women empowerment and gender Equality: cooperative behaviour: a field experiment, Evol. Hum. Behav. 32 (3) (2011)
experiences of some Asian countries and lessons for Ethiopia, in: Biannual 172–178, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2010.10.006.
Conference of the Association of Ethiopian Microfinance Institutions (AEMFI) [47] P.O. Ezekiel, A study on co-operative societies, poverty reduction and sustainable
Hosted by Dedebit Credit and Saving Institutions (DECSI), Mekelle, Ethiopia, development in Nigeria, IOSR J. Bus. Manag. 16 (6) (2014) 132–140.
2006, January. [48] FAO and UNICEF, WFP and WHO, The state of food security and nutrition in the
[21] A. Berhanu, A. Amare, B. Gurmessa, Y. Bekele, T. Chalchisa, Does microcredit use world, Build. Clim. Resilien. Food Secur. Nutr. 4 (2017) (2018).
helps farmers win the battle against food insecurity: evidence from Jimma zone of [49] E. Faustine, Coping Strategies and Household Resilience to Food Insecurity in
Southwest Ethiopia, Agric. Food Secur. 10 (1) (2021) 1–17, https://doi.org/ Chamwino and Manyoni Districts [Tanzania. A Thesis for Degree of Doctor of
10.1186/s40066-021-00323-8. Philosophy of the Sokoine University of Agriculture], Sokoine University of
[22] A.B. Berlie, Coping strategies and household food security in drought-prone areas Agriculture, 2016. http://www.suaire.sua.ac.tz/handle/123456789/1493.
in Ethiopia: the case of lay Gayint District, Ghana J. Dev. Stud. 12 (1–2) (2015) [50] O. Faye, A. Baschieri, J. Falkingham, K. Muindi, Hunger and food insecurity in
1–18, https://doi.org/10.4314/gjds.v12i1-2.1. Nairobi’s slums: an assessment using IRT models, J. Urban Health 88 (Suppl. 2)
[23] F. Beyene, M. Muche, Determinants of food security among rural households of (2011) S235–S254, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-010-9521-x.
Central Ethiopia: an empirical analysis, Q. J. Int. Agric. 49 (892–2016-65219) [51] S.T. Feleke, R.L. Kilmer, C.H. Gladwin, Determinants of Food Security in Southern
(2010) 299–318, https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.155555. Ethiopia (No. 376-2016-20550, 2003, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-
[24] E. Birara, M. Mequanent, T. Samuel, Assessment of food security situation in 0864.2005.00074.x.
Ethiopia, World J. Dairy Food Sci. 10 (1) (2015) 37–43. [52] A.H. Fikire, M.B. Zegeye, Determinants of rural household food security status in
[25] E. Boere, A. Mosnier, G. Bocquého, A. Garbero, T. Krisztin, P. Havlík, T. Elhaut, north shewa zone, Amhara region, Ethiopia, Sci. World J. 2022 (2022), https://
IFAD RESEARCH SERIES 32-Developing Country-wide Farming System doi.org/10.1155/2022/9561063.
Typologies: an Analysis of Ethiopian Smallholders’ Income and Food Security [53] Z. Fikire, A.P. Bekele, Determinants of Food Security in the Rural Households of
(No. 2165-2019-029), 2018, https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.281291. Meskan Llino, Gurage Zone, SNNPR, Illinois, Doctoral dissertation, St. Mary’s
[26] E.T. Broaddus-Shea, S. Manohar, A.L. Thorne-Lyman, S. Bhandari, B.A. Nonyane, University, 2014.
P.J. Winch, K.P. West Jr., Small-scale livestock production in Nepal is directly [54] S. Frimpong, S. Asuming-Brempong, Comparative study of determinants of food
associated with children’s increased intake of eggs and dairy, but not meat, security in rural and urban households of Ashanti region, Ghana, Int. J. Econ.
Nutrients 12 (1) (2020) 252, https://doi.org/10.3390/nu12010252. Manag. Sci. 2 (10) (2013) 29–42.
[27] S. Bromage, B. Rosner, J.W. Rich-Edwards, D. Ganmaa, S. Tsolmon, [55] D. Fróna, J. Szenderák, M. Harangi-Rákos, The challenge of feeding the world,
Z. Tserendejid, W.W. Fawzi, Comparison of methods for estimating dietary food Sustainability 11 (20) (2019) 5816, https://doi.org/10.3390/su11205816.
and nutrient intakes and intake densities from household consumption and [56] J.L. Garrett, M.T. Ruel, Are determinants of rural and urban food security and
expenditure data in Mongolia, Nutrients 10 (6) (2018) 703, https://doi.org/ nutritional status different? Some insights from Mozambique, World Dev. 27 (11)
10.3390/nu10060703. (1999) 1955–1975, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(99)00091-1.
[28] M. Brzozowski, T.F. Crossley, J.K. Winter, A comparison of recall and diary food [57] B. Gebre, H.Y. Ayenew, S. Biadgilign, Drought, hunger and coping mechanisms
expenditure data, Food Pol. 72 (2017) 53–61, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. among rural household in Southeast Ethiopia, Heliyon 7 (3) (2021), e06355,
foodpol.2017.08.012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e06355.
[29] H. Busse, H. Kurabachew, M. Ptak, M. Fofanah, A food-based approach to reduce [58] G.G. Gebre, Prevalence of household food insecurity in East Africa: linking food
vitamin a deficiency in southern Ethiopia: a cross-sectional study of maternal access with climate vulnerability, Clim. Risk Manag. 33 (2021), 100333, https://
nutrition and health indicators, Afr. J. Food Nutr. Sci. 17 (3) (2017) doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2021.100333.
12227–12243, https://doi.org/10.18697/ajfand.79.16115. [59] A.G. Geffersa, Effects of Climate Shocks on Household Food Security in Rural
[30] R.C. Coon, F.L. Leistritz, Economic Contribution North Dakota Cooperatives Make Ethiopia: Panel Data Estimation (Doctoral Dissertation, Master’s Thesis
to the State Economy (No. 1193-2016-94463, 2005, https://doi.org/10.22004/ (Unpublished), Wageningen University, Gelderland, Netherlands, 2014. Available
ag.econ.23663. at: http://edepot.Wur.Nl/309208.
[31] CSA (Central statistical agency), The National Statistics, Addis Abeba, Ethiopia, [60] F. Gemechu, L. Zemedu, J. Yousuf, Determinants of farm household food security
2005. in Hawi Gudina district, West Hararghe zone, Oromia regional state, Ethiopia,
[32] CSA (Central statistical agency), Ethiopia Mini Demographic and Health Survey Wudpecker J. Agric. Res. 4 (6) (2015), https://doi.org/10.5897/
Report, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2014. JAERD2014.0660, 066–074.
[33] A. D’Souza, S. Tandon, Intrahousehold nutritional inequities in rural Bangladesh, [61] Y. Getaneh, A. Alemu, Z. Ganewo, A. Haile, Food security status and determinants
Econ. Dev. Cult. Change 67 (3) (2019) 625–657, https://doi.org/10.1086/ in North-Eastern rift valley of Ethiopia, J. Agric. Food Res. 8 (2022), 100290,
698311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafr.2022.100290.
[34] T. Daszkiewicz, Food production in the context of global developmental [62] P. Glasbergen, The environmental cooperative: self-governance in sustainable
challenges, Agriculture 12 (6) (2022) 832, https://doi.org/10.3390/ rural development, J. Environ. Dev. 9 (3) (2000), https://doi.org/10.1177/
agriculture12060832. 107049650000900303.
[35] W. Dayandiach, Cooperatives and Rural Development: Success, Failures and [63] C.A. Gregory, L. Mancino, A. Coleman-Jensen, Food Security and Food Purchase
Prospects of Cooperatives Experiences from the Rural Areas of the Republic of Quality Among Low-Income Households: Findings from the National Household
Sudan, Presented in the Annual Conference of Cooperative Societies in Ethiopia, Food Acquisition and Purchase Survey (FoodAPS) (No. 1477-2019-3005), 2019,
Selam Publishing Private Limited, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2004. https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.292269.
[36] P. De Muro, F. Burchi, Education for Rural People: a Neglected Key to Food [64] W.C. Grobler, Perceptions of poverty: a study of food secure and food insecure
Security (No. 0078), Department of Economics-University Roma Tre, 2007. households in an urban area in South Africa, Procedia Econ. Finance 35 (2016)
[37] U.N. Desa, Transforming Our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable 224–231, https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(16)00028-9.
Development, 2016. [65] D.E. Guest, The psychology of the employment relationship: an analysis based on
[38] H.G. Dinegde, A.E. Bekele, A.D. Sima, The impact of cash saving on the food the psychological contract, Appl. Psychol. (2004), https://doi.org/10.1111/
security status of smallholder coffee farmers: evidence from southwest Ethiopia, j.1464-0597.2004.00187.x.
Int. J. Soc. Econ. (2022), https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSE-12-2020-0800. [66] D.N. Gujarati, Basic Econometrics, fourth ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, 2003.
[39] A. Diramo, R. Negash, A. Abebe, Determinants of household food security and [67] A. Hagos, R. Dibaba, A. Bekele, D. Alemu, Determinants of market participation
coping strategy☹Evidence from Amaro Woreda of Southern Ethiopia), Int. J. among smallholder mango producers in Assosa Zone of Benishangul Gumuz
Regul. Govern. 6 (5) (2018) 128–137, https://doi.org/10.29121/granthaalayah. Region in Ethiopia, Int. J. Fruit Sci. 20 (3) (2020) 323–349, https://doi.org/
v6.i5.2018.1434. 10.1080/15538362.2019.1640167.
[40] J.A. Dogbatse, A. Arthur, G.K. Awudzi, A.K. Quaye, S. Konlan, A.A. Amaning, [68] H.K. Haile, Z.G. Alemu, G. Kudhlande, Causes of Household Food Insecurity in
Effects of organic and inorganic fertilizers on growth and nutrient uptake by Koredegaga Peasant Association, Oromiya Zone, Ethiopia (No. 1773-2016-
Young Cacao (Theobroma cacao L.), Int. J. Agronom. 2021 (2021), https://doi. 141613, 2005, https://doi.org/10.1080/03031853.2005.9523727.
org/10.1155/2021/5516928. [69] P. Hallett, The car sharing cooperative of Edmonton: paving the way to a greener
[41] S. Dongfeng, Research on the impact of cooperative behaviors in Alliance future, Synergy 10 (1) (2001).
organization in member psychological contract, Afr. J. Bus. Manag. 6 (29) (2012) [70] HDAO & RD, Humbo Woreda Agricultural Office and Rural Development, 2019.
8737–8742, https://doi.org/10.5897/AJBM11.2838. [71] HDAO, Humbo Woreda Agricultural Office Annual Report, 2021.
[42] R. Echebiri, C. Onwusiribe, D. Nwaogu, Effect of livelihood diversification on the [72] S. Henly-Shepard, Z. Zommers, E. Levine, D. Abrahams, Climate-resilient
food security status of rural farm households in Abia State Nigeria, Sci. Papers development in fragile contexts, in: Resilience, Elsevier, 2018, pp. 279–290,
Series Manag. Econom. Eng. Agric. Rural Develop. 17 (1) (2017) 159–166. http:// https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-811891-7.00023-2.
managementjournal.usamv.ro/pdf/vol.17_1/Art22.pdf. [73] O.W. Ibok, H. Osbahr, C. Srinivasan, Advancing a new index for measuring
[43] A.J. Echendu, Flooding, food security and the sustainable development goals in household vulnerability to food insecurity, Food Pol. 84 (2019) 10–20, https://
Nigeria: an assemblage and systems thinking approach, Soc. Sci. 11 (2) (2022) 59, doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2019.01.011.
https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci11020059.

15
A. Bahiru et al. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research 11 (2023) 100461

[74] S. Indris, Assessment of Food Insecurity, its Determinants and Coping [99] A. Motbainor, A. Worku, A. Kumie, Level and determinants of food insecurity in
Mechanisms Among Pastoral Households of Afar National Regional State, the East and West Gojjam zones of Amhara Region, Ethiopia: a community based
Case of Chifra District, An MSc thesis presented to the School of Graduate Studies comparative cross-sectional study, BMC Publ. Health 16 (1) (2016) 1–13, https://
of Haramaya University, 2012. doi.org/10.1186/s12889-016-3186-7.
[75] R.B. Johnson, A.J. Onwuegbuzie, L.A. Turner, Toward a definition of mixed [100] M. Muche, B. Endalew, T. Koricho, Determinants of household food security
methods research, J. Mix. Methods Res. 1 (2) (2007) 112–133, https://doi.org/ among Southwest Ethiopia rural households, Food Sci. Technol. 2 (7) (2014)
10.1177/1558689806298224. 93–100, https://doi.org/10.13189/fst.2014.020701.
[76] G.R. Joshi, B. Joshi, Household Food Security: Trends and Determinants in [101] M. Mulugeta, G. Tiruneh, Z.A. Alemu, The magnitude and associated factors of
Mountainous Districts of Nepal, 2017. household food insecurity in Fedis Woreda East Hararghe zone, Oromia region,
[77] A.R. Kaliba, A.G. Gongwe, K. Mazvimavi, A. Yigletu, Impact of adopting Ethiopia, Agric. Food Secur. 7 (1) (2018) 1–8, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40066-
improved seeds on access to broader food groups among small-scale sorghum 017-0140-6.
producers in Tanzania, Sage Open 11 (1) (2021), https://doi.org/10.1177/ [102] Y. Muluken, Measuring Household Food Security Status and its Determinants in
2158244020979992. the Benshangul Gumuz Region of Ethiopia, Alemaya University, Ethiopia, 2005.
[78] J. Ke, E.L. Ford-Jones, Food insecurity and hunger: a review of the effects on [103] B. Mut, Determinants of Seasonal Food Insecurity and Coping Mechanism in a
children’s health and behaviour, Paediatr. Child Health 20 (2) (2015) 89–91, Rural Household in Lare District in Nuer Zone of Gambella, Ethiopia. Master of
https://doi.org/10.1093/pch/20.2.89. Science Thesis in Economics, Mekelle University College Of Business and
[79] N. Kabeer, Resources, Agency and Achievements: Reflections on the Measurement Economics, Mekelle, Ethiopia, 2013.
of Women’s Empowerment. Development and Change, Vol. 30, Institute of Social [104] M. Mutisya, M.W. Ngware, C.W. Kabiru, N.B. Kandala, The effect of education on
Studies, Oxford, UK, 2005. Available at: www.Utsc.Utoronto.Ca/~kmacd/ household food security in two informal urban settlements in Kenya: a
IDSC10/Readings/research%20design/empwerment.Pdf. accessed on, 29(10), longitudinal analysis, Food Secur. 8 (4) (2016) 743–756, https://doi.org/
2018. 10.1007/s12571-016-0589-3.
[80] H. Kidane, Z.G. Alemu, G. Kundhlande, Causes of household food insecurity in [105] P. Nakawuka, S. Langan, P. Schmitter, J. Barron, A review of trends, constraints
Koredegaga peasant association, Oromiya zone, Ethiopia, Agrekon 44 (4) (2005) and opportunities of smallholder irrigation in East Africa, Global Food Secur. 17
543–560. (2018) 196–212, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2017.10.003.
[81] F. Kogan, W. Guo, W. Yang, Drought and food security prediction from NOAA [106] I.A. Naser, R. Jalil, W.M.W. Muda, W.S.W. Nik, Z.M. Shariff, M.R. Abdullah,
new generation of operational satellites, Geomatics, Nat. Hazards Risk 10 (1) Association between household food insecurity and nutritional outcomes among
(2019) 651–666, https://doi.org/10.1080/19475705.2018.1541257. children in Northeastern Peninsular Malaysia, Nutr. Res. Prac. 8 (3) (2014)
[82] P. Kristjanson, H. Neufeldt, A. Gassner, J. Mango, F.B. Kyazze, S. Desta, R. Coe, 304–311, https://doi.org/10.4162/nrp.2014.8.3.304.
Are food-insecure smallholder households making changes in their farming [107] T. Negash, S. Alemu, Determinants and coping strategies of household food
practices? Evidence from East Africa, Food Secur. 4 (3) (2012) 381–397, https:// insecurity in rural areas of Tigray: the case of rural Adwa Woreda, Ethiopian J.
doi.org/10.1007/s12571-012-0194-z. Agric. Sci. 23 (1–2) (2013) 119–144. https://www.ajol.info/index.php/ejas/arti
[83] S. Kyamanywa, I.N. Kashaija, E. Getu, R. Amata, N. Senkesha, A. Kullaya, cle/view/142873.
Enhancing Food Security through Improved Seed Systems of Appropriate [108] P.Z. Ngema, M. Sibanda, L. Musemwa, Household food security status and its
Varieties of Cassava, Potato and Sweet Potato Resilient to Climate Change in determinants in Maphumulo local municipality, South Africa, Sustainability 10
Eastern Africa, 2011. (9) (2018) 3307, https://doi.org/10.3390/su10093307.
[84] A. Kydd, Trust building, trust-breaking: the dilemma of NATO enlargement, Int. [109] W.Z. Nugusse, G. Van Huylenbroeck, J. Buysse, Household food security through
Organ. 55 (4) (2001) 801–828, https://doi.org/10.1162/002081801317193600. cooperatives in Northern Ethiopia, Int. J. Cooper. Stud. 2 (1) (2013) 34–45,
[85] J.L. Leroy, M. Ruel, E.A. Frongillo, J. Harris, T.J. Ballard, Measuring the food https://doi.org/10.11634/216826311706299.
access dimension of food security: a critical review and mapping of indicators, [110] G. Oseni, J. Durazo, K. McGee, The Use of Non-Standard Units for the Collection
Food Nutr. Bull. 36 (2) (2015) 167–195, https://doi.org/10.1177/ of Food Quantity, LSMS Guidebook, Washington, DC, USA, 2017.
0379572115587274. [111] H.R. Oskorouchi, A. Sousa-Poza, Floods, food security, and coping strategies:
[86] C. MacLaren, K.T. Aliyu, W. Waswa, J. Storkey, L. Claessens, B. Vanlauwe, evidence from Afghanistan, Agric. Econ. 52 (1) (2021) 123–140, https://doi.org/
A. Mead, Can the right composition and diversity of farmed species improve food 10.1111/agec.12610.
security among smallholder farmers?, in: Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems [112] Z. Oyetunde-Usman, K.O. Olagunju, Determinants of food security and technical
(Vol. 6) Frontiers Media SA, 2022 https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2022.744700. efficiency among agricultural households in Nigeria, Economies 7 (4) (2019) 103,
[87] N. Mango, C. Makate, L. Mapemba, M. Sopo, The role of crop diversification in https://doi.org/10.3390/economies7040103.
improving household food security in central Malawi, Agric. Food Secur. 7 (1) [113] K. Patel, H. Gartaula, D. Johnson, M. Karthikeyan, The interplay between
(2018) 1–10, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40066-018-0160-x. household food security and well-being among small-scale farmers in the context
[88] S.E. Massresha, T.Z. Lema, M.M. Neway, W.A. Degu, Perception and determinants of rapid agrarian change in India, Agric. Food Secur. 4 (1) (2015) 1–16, https://
of agricultural technology adoption in north shoa zone, llino regional state, doi.org/10.1186/s40066-015-0036-2.
Ethiopia, Coagent Econom. Fin. 9 (1) (2021), 1956774, https://doi.org/10.1080/ [114] Y. Peng, H. Hirwa, Q. Zhang, G. Wang, F. Li, Dryland food security in Ethiopia:
23322039.2021.1956774. current status, opportunities, and a roadmap for the future, Sustainability 13 (11)
[89] H.O.P. Mbow, A. Reisinger, J. Canadell, P. O’Brien, Special Report on Climate (2021) 6503, https://doi.org/10.3390/su13116503.
Change, Desertification, Land Degradation, Sustainable Land Management, Food [115] D. Pichiavaram, Cooperative Practice in Welfare Improvement of Poor Rural
Security, and Greenhouse Gas Fluxes in Terrestrial Ecosystems (SR2), Ginevra, Members: Irrigation and Multipurpose Cooperatives, 2003 (New Delhi, India).
IPCC, 2017, p. 650. [116] H. Pieters, A. Guariso, A. Vandeplas, The Conceptual Framework for the Analysis
[90] D.A. Mekonnen, E.F. Talsma, L. Trijsburg, V. Linderhof, T. Achterbosch, of the Determinants of Food and Nutrition Security (No. 2201-2019-1442), 2013,
A. Nijhuis, I.D. Brouwer, Can household dietary diversity inform about nutrient https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.285141.
adequacy? Lessons from a food systems analysis in Ethiopia, Food Secur. 12 (6) [117] F. Riely, N. Mock, B. Cogill, L. Bailey, E. Kenefick, Food Security Indicators and
(2020) 1367–1383, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-020-01056-5. Framework for Use in the Monitoring and Evaluation of Food Aid Programs,
[91] S.W. Mengistu, A.W. Kassie, Household level determinants of food insecurity in Nutrition Technical Assistance Project (FANTA), Washington, DC, 1999.
rural Ethiopia, J. Food Qual. 2022 (2022), https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/ [118] B. Rothausen, J. Matthiessen, M. Groth, P. Brockhoff, L. Andersen, E. Trolle,
3569950. Comparison of estimated energy intake from 2× 24-hour recalls and a seven-day
[92] S. Mengistu, A. Nurfeta, A. Tolera, M. Bezabih, A. Adie, E. Wolde-meskel, food record with objective measurements of energy expenditure in children, Food
M. Zenebe, Livestock production challenges and improved forage production Nutr. Res. 56 (1) (2012), 12221, https://doi.org/10.3402/fnr.v56i0.12221.
efforts in the Damot Gale District of Wolaita Zone, Ethiopia, Adv. Agric. 2021 [119] S.C. Sabi, Poverty, compromised dietary intake and health implications among
(2021), https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/5553659. South Africa’s sub-populations: a conceptual analysis, Lifestyle Epidemiol.:
[93] C. Merrett, N. Walzer, M. Holmes, B. Roger, New Generation Cooperatives: Double Burd. Pover. Cardiovasc. Dis. Afrn. Popul. 29 (2021), https://doi.org/
Alternative Measures of Success, llinois institute for rural affairs presentation at 10.5772/intechopen.96520.
Madison, WI, Value-Added Conference, 2001. [120] S. Sani, K. Kemaw, Analysis of household food insecurity and its coping
[94] A. Mitiku, B. Fufa, B. Tadese, Empirical analysis of the determinants of rural mechanisms in Western Ethiopia, Agric. Food Econo. 7 (5) (2019) 1–20, https://
households food security in Southern Ethiopia: the case of Shashemene District, doi.org/10.1186/s40100-019-0124-x.
Basic Res. J. Agric. Sci. Rev. 1 (6) (2012) 132–138. [121] F. Sarker, T. Daum, R. Birner, Intrahousehold Allocation of nutritious food in
[95] MoFED, (Ministry of Finance and Economic Development). A Plan for Accelerated livestock farming communities in Bangladesh: does women’s empowerment make
and Sustained Development to End Poverty (PASDEP), vol.1, 2005/2006-2009/ a difference? Curr. Develop. Nutr. 6 (Supplement_1) (2022) https://doi.org/
2010, 2006. 10.1093/cdn/nzac077.036, 533-533.
[96] MoFED, Development and Poverty in Ethiopia. Addis Abeba, Ethiopia, Ministry of [122] T. Sekhampu, Determination of the factors affecting the food security status of
Finance and Economic Development, 2013 (Federal Democratic Republic of households in Bophelong, South Africa, Int. Bus. Econ. Res. J. 12 (5) (2013)
Ethiopia). 543–550, https://doi.org/10.19030/iber.v12i5.7829.
[97] A.A. Mohamed, The food security situation in Ethiopia: a review study, Int. J. [123] Y. Sewnet, Causes and coping mechanisms of food insecurity in rural Ethiopia,
High Energy Phys. 2 (3) (2017) 86–96, https://doi.org/10.11648/j. Agric. Biol. J. North Am. 6 (5) (2015) 123–133.
hep.20170203.11. [124] O.B. Sheikomar, Determinants of Food Insecurity in the League of Arab States
[98] G.T. Moroda, D. Tolossa, N. Semie, Food insecurity of rural households in Boset (Doctoral Dissertation), 2022, https://doi.org/10.13016/5l0g-mv5e.
district of Ethiopia: a suite of indicators analysis, Agric. Food Secur. 7 (1) (2018) [125] M. Sileshi, R. Kadigi, K. Mutabazi, S. Sieber, Analysis of households’ vulnerability
1–16, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40066-018-0217-x. to food insecurity and its influencing factors in East Hararghe, Ethiopia,

16
A. Bahiru et al. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research 11 (2023) 100461

J. Econom. Struct. 8 (1) (2019) 1–17, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40008-019-0174- [138] M. Welderufael, Analysis of households vulnerability and food insecurity in the
y. Amhara Regional State of Ethiopia: using value at risk analysis, Ethiopian J.
[126] S. Silvestri, D. Sabine, K. Patti, F. Wiebke, R. Maren, M. Ianetta, R.M. Cristina, Econom. XXIII (II) (2014) 37–78, https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.259401.
Households and food security: lessons from food secure households in East Africa, [139] D. Welteji, K. Mohammed, K. Hussein, The contribution of the productive safety
Agric. Food Secur. 4 (1) (2015) 1–15, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40066-015- net program for food security of rural households in the case of bale zone,
0042-4. southeast Ethiopia, Agric. Food Secur. 6 (1) (2017) 1–11, https://doi.org/
[127] T.A. Sisha, Household level food insecurity assessment: evidence from panel data, 10.1186/s40066-017-0126-4.
Ethiopia, Sci. Afr. 7 (2020), e00262, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sciaf.2019. [140] WHO, The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2018: Building
e00262. Climate Resilience for Food Security and nutrition.Food and Agricultural Org
[128] M. Sobrado, From navies to entrepreneurs: the OW in Costa Rica, in: A Future for (2018), Organization WHO, 2018.
the Excluded. Edited by Raff Carmen and Miquel Sobrado, Zed Books, London, [141] V. Wight, N. Kaushal, J. Waldfogel, I. Garfinkel, Understanding the link between
2000. poverty and food insecurity among children: does the definition of poverty
[129] L.C. Stringer, E.D. Fraser, D. Harris, C. Lyon, L. Pereira, C.F. Ward, E. Simelton, matter? J. Child. Poverty 20 (1) (2014) 1–20, https://doi.org/10.1080/
Adaptation and development pathways for different types of farmers, Environ. 10796126.2014.891973.
Sci. Pol. 104 (2020) 174–189, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2019.10.007. [142] M.G. Wordofa, J.Y. Hassen, G.S. Endris, C.S. Aweke, D.K. Moges, D.T. Rorisa,
[130] C.E.L.E. Sununtnasuk, Individual Energy and Nutrient Intake from a 24-hour and Adoption of improved agricultural technology and its impact on household
7-day Recall: Comparing Estimates Using the 2011/2012 Bangladesh Integrated income: a propensity score matching estimation in eastern Ethiopia, Agric. Food
Household Survey, United States Agency for International Development (USAID), Secur. 10 (1) (2021) 1–12, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40066-020-00278-2.
Washington, DC, USA, 2014. [143] World Health Organization, The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World
[131] A. Tadesse Tantu, T. Demissie Gamebo, B. Kuma Sheno, M. Yohannis Kabalo, 2021: Transforming Food Systems for Food Security, Improved Nutrition and
Household food insecurity and associated factors among households in Wolaita Affordable Healthy Diets for All (Vol. 2021), Food & Agriculture Org, 2021.
Sodo town, 2015, Agric. Food Secur. 6 (1) (2017) 1–8, https://doi.org/10.1186/ [144] F. Wu, Adoption and income effects of new agricultural technology on family
s40066-017-0098-4. farms in China, PLoS One 17 (4) (2022), e0267101, https://doi.org/10.1371/
[132] S.A. Tefera, T.B. Tadesse, G.W. Asmare, Prevalence of household food insecurity journal.pone.0267101.
in Ethiopia during the COVID-19 pandemic: evidence from panel data, Sci. Afr. 16 [145] T. Yamane, Statistics: an Introductory Analysis-3, 1973.
(2022), e01141, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sciaf.2022.e01141. [146] S. Yehuala, D. Melak, W. Mekuria, The status of household food insecurity: the
[133] T. Tefera, F. Tefera, Determinants of households’ food security and coping case of west belesa, north Gondar, Amhara region, Ethiopia, Int. J. Sci. Res.
strategies for food shortfall in Mareko District, Guraghe Zone Southern Ethiopia, Manag. 6 (6) (2018) 158–166, https://doi.org/10.18535/ijsrm/v6i6.ah02.
J. Food Secur. 2 (3) (2014) 92–99, https://doi.org/10.12691/jfs-2-3-4. [147] G. Yigezu Wendimu, The challenges and prospects of Ethiopian agriculture,
[134] L. Tekle, K. Berhanu, Determinants of rural farm household food security in Cogent Food Agric. 7 (1) (2021), 1923619, https://doi.org/10.1080/
Boloso sore district of Wolaita Zone in Ethiopia, Asian J. Agric. Extens. Econom. 23311932.2021.1923619.
Sociol. 5 (2) (2015) 57–68. [148] G.A.B. Yiran, J.A. Atubiga, J.M. Kusimi, C. Kwang, A.B. Owusu, Adaptation to
[135] UNICEF, The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2021, 2021. perennial flooding and food insecurity in the Sudan savannah agroecological zone
[136] M. Uyttendaele, E. Franz, O. Schlüter, Food safety, a global challenge, Int. J. of Ghana, Environ. Res. 214 (2022), 114037, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Environ. Res. Publ. Health 13 (1) (2016) 67, https://doi.org/10.3390/ envres.2022.114037.
ijerph13010067. [149] Seydou Zakari, Ying Liu, Baohui Song, Factors influencing household food
[137] J. Von Braun (Ed.), Improving Food Security of the Poor: Concept, Policy, and security in West Africa: the case of Southern Niger, Sustainability 6 (3) (2014)
Programs, Intl Food Policy Res Inst, 1992. 1191–1202, https://doi.org/10.3390/su6031191.
[150] D.D.N. Zeray, Determinants of rural household food security in Wolaita Zone: the
case of Humbo Woreda, J. Pver. Invest. Develop. 32 (2017).

17