Hindawi

e Scientific World Journal

Volume 2022, Article ID 1316409, 15 pages
https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/1316409

Research Article
Determinants of Food Insecurity and the Choice of Livelihood
Strategies: The Case of Abay Chomen District, Oromia Regional
State, Ethiopia

Bacha Gebissa and Wandu Geremew

Department of Agricultural Economics, Faculty of Resource of Management and Economics, Shambu Campus,
Wollega University, Nekemte, Ethiopia

Correspondence should be addressed to Bacha Gebissa; bachagebissa@gmail.com

Received 9 April 2022; Revised 8 June 2022; Accepted 15 July 2022; Published 9 August 2022

Academic Editor: Cristiano Capurso

Copyright © 2022 Bacha Gebissa and Wandu Geremew. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons
Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is
properly cited.
Most of the sub-Saharan African countries including Ethiopia were affected by the food insecurity issue. This study aimed to
analyze the drivers of food insecurity, the choice of livelihood strategies, and factors that impact the choices of food security
strategies in response to food insecurity in Abay Chomen District of Ethiopia’s Oromia region, Ethiopia. The result of this study is
based on primary data and obtained from 150 randomly chosen sample households and secondary data generated from various
sources. As for the technique of data analysis, this study employed descriptive statistics for the food insecurity index, as well as a
binary logistic model and a multinomial logit model for the choice of household livelihood techniques. The findings of the survey
showed that 51.3% of the households were found to be food-insecure and 48.7% food-safe in the study area. Furthermore, the
result indicated that the average calorie consumption of the households surveyed was 2008.54 kcal for each adult equivalent per
day, which is below the lowest calorie necessity of 2200 kcal. The estimated logistic model outcome on the drivers of household
food insecurity confirmed the oldness of the household leader, larger family holder, and off-farm income affects negatively, while
the gender of the household leader, the size of the built-up area, the number of livestock holdings (except oxen), the number of
oxen owned, access to credit, the participation in the sale of cattle, and others affect positively. In addition, the multinomial logit
model result indicates that the educational status of the household leader, the size of livestock farming, the number of oxen
possessed, access to credit, remoteness to the market, and monthly agricultural earning are the main drivers of the choice of
livelihood strategies of concern for the food insecurity of households. As a result, this research attempted to produce a result of
analysis with a defined scope, although many questions remain unsolved. Future studies should concentrate on presenting
fundamental data on the factors that affect food security status and livelihood strategy, the social, political, natural, and en-
vironmental aspects, the descriptive information on the shopping habits of people who experience food insecurity, and the key
aspects that increase the vulnerability of the rural poor to food insecurity.

1. Introduction Sudan, and Yemen in 2021 [2]. Ethiopia is one of the nations
that is most heavily impacted by hunger and food shortages.
It is predicted that around 870 million people worldwide Chronic food insecurity and temporary food insecurity af-
were undernourished (in terms of food energy) between fect a large share of people in the country. The situation of
2010 and 2012. After the 2016 rainy season failed, the people with chronic food insecurity is becoming increasingly
government estimated in early 2017 that 5.6 million people serious. Food security in Ethiopia is closely related to pe-
lived from February to June [1]. Severe food insecurity af- riodic food shortages and starvation in the country that have
fected roughly 1.4 million people in the Democratic Re- been linked to recurrent droughts. In 2017, almost 124
public of the Congo, Ethiopia, Northern Nigeria, South million people in 51 countries and territories confronted
2 The Scientific World Journal

acute or worse meal insecurity (2). Food availability is a useful strategy for managing risk. Without crop insurance,
problem for everyone and specifically for developing na- the nation has long had to deal with the losses caused by
tions. Food is both a basic need and a human right, as having natural calamities. Pakistan is the nation that is most vul-
enough food in terms of quantity and quality is a crucial nerable to severe climatic disasters, such as floods and
issue for a wholesome and productive lifestyle, as well as for droughts [5, 6]. Different parts of Ethiopia have been
the sustainable development of a country for all people [3]. influenced by the problem of climate change, which results
As a portion of Africa and developing countries, Ethiopia is in the problem of food insecurity [7–9].
one of the countries most severely affected by food insecurity The concept of food security has changed greatly over
and famine, as a large part of the country’s population is time, with many researchers, scholars, and organizations
affected by both chronic and temporary food insecurity [3]. refining and broadening its definitions. The word “food
In Ethiopia, the severity of the food shortage problem varies security” is dynamic and has expanded over time to embrace
from one place to another, depending on the country’s new dimensions and levels of examination [10]. With a
natural assets and the quantity to which those assets have lengthy history of famines and food shortages that dates back
developed. There are quite a number of things that have to the 1960s and has left a sizable section of the population
created food insecurity problems in Abay Chomen. Low food-insecure, Ethiopia is one of the nations most suscep-
degrees of production in line with farm and land degra- tible to famine [7]. According to Ref. [1], since it is difficult to
dation and little technological development within the ag- measure food security, it is typically food insecurity that is
ricultural sector pose great challenges in seeking to lessen evaluated, appraised, or studied in order to identify the
rural poverty and obtain food security within the rural potential causes of this scenario or potential future causes
community, such as soil degradation, termite trouble, Dum and to choose the best course of action. Food insecurity,
Nashe and Amarti problem, loss of oxen, incidence of plant according to the FAO, is a condition in which some people
and animal sicknesses, terrible soil fertility, weak advisory lack access to appropriate supplies of wholesome foods and,
services, high lack of painting and poor infrastructure, in as a result, do not eat the food they require to develop
addition to crop losses before and after the harvest [4]. There normally and live active, healthy lives [1]. Lack of resources,
is no adequate study that has been done on the subject to unable to get resources, lack of food (no availability of food),
date. So, this study was done to fill this information gap by and improper use of resources result in food insecurity, and
setting the following objectives: to analyze the determinants changes in time result in instability. In order to move from
of food insecurity in the study area and to analyze the factors one to the other, a movement is needed. When analyzing
affecting the choices of livelihood strategies in response to food security, one will look at this change and also at the
food security in the study area. Thus, the importance of this probability that such a change occurs. Susceptibility to food
research can be pointed out from different beneficiaries’ insecurity refers to the full range of factors that place people
points of view: The primary importance of the study is that it at risk of becoming food-insecure. The degree of vulnera-
is assumed to assist the policy-formulating bodies and de- bility of individuals, households, or groups of people is
cision-makers to give due emphasis to the food insecurity determined by their exposure to the risk factors and their
situation of the area in their attempt to save household ability to cope with or withstand stressful situations. Food
livelihoods and lives. The secondary importance of this study security, as well as poverty, is used to describe people’s
is that it might use the findings as a guideline to address food welfare at the present time. Vulnerability complements this
(in) security problems. Finally, the study can serve as a static picture with a dynamic, “forward-looking” perspective
reference for further researchers for those who have an that is used to predict how the welfare of individuals and
interest in the subject matter and study location. It might households may change in the future as a consequence of not
help them acquire knowledge and skills. being able to face adverse events that may happen to them
[1]. There are several tiers of food security, from the family to
2. Analytical Review of the Study the individual level and from the global, regional, national,
and local levels. At various levels, the factors that determine
2.1. Theoretical Framework of the Study. The central eco- food security are diverse. In other words, food security is
nomic sector that is consistently negatively impacted by seen as a multifaceted phenomenon that includes social
climate change is agriculture [5]. All parts of the world are problems at all scales—global, regional, national, household,
impacted by climate change, which leads to significant ag- and individual—along with climate change, armed conflict,
itations in natural systems that might be anticipated to have natural disasters, and social crises. The agriculture industry,
an impact on upland regions’ economic systems. Climate groundwater, nutrition, soil quality and organic matter,
change has a detrimental effect on several sectors, including health conditions, and poverty are all negatively impacted by
agriculture, groundwater, and diet, soil quality and organic climate change [5, 11]. Food security can be considered at
matter, health problems, and poverty [6]. A developing national, household, and individual levels. At a national
nation is among those in the region most susceptible to level, it is related to the physical existence of food stocks for
extreme climatic events, such as famines and overflows, consumption, be it from own production or from markets. It
changes in temperature, and variations in rainfall, which are is related to the availability dimension of food security and is
the main causes of climatic variability. In Pakistan, agri- a function of combinations of domestic food stocks, com-
culture is subject to a variety of dangers, especially in places mercial food imports, food aid, and domestic food pro-
that are prone to flooding, and crop insurance may be a duction, including determinants of each of these factors. On
The Scientific World Journal 3

the contrary, household food security is related to the ability regression analysis. It finds that the resilience capacity of
to obtain sufficient food of sufficient quality to meet the households in the study area is very weak to shocks from
nutritional requirements of all household members. food insecurity. Family size, age, wealth, distance to the
Household-level food security mainly relies on the economic market, irrigation access, utilization of soil and water
freedom and purchasing power of household members, conservation techniques, credit access, and the livestock
which is again related to income distribution in the diversification index significantly explain the variations in
household [7]. the resilience status of households.
Conferring to a study [14] in Kitui County, the most
popular coping mechanisms used by farmers were selling
2.1.1. Choice of Livelihood Strategies. Tactics for making a
animals to buy food, cutting back on daily meals, selling off
living are actions taken by households to support their way
family assets, and looking for off-farm employment in
of life. It varies on both the micro- and macro-scales. The
metropolitan areas. Additionally, there was a statistically
various approaches to describing household livelihood
significant difference (P � 0.01) in the farmers’ use of
strategies that are available in the real world have been
nonincome to purchase food, food assistance for asset
reviewed. Rural families create a diverse range of activities
programs, reliance on relief food, sale of livestock to pur-
and social support abilities known as “livelihood diversifi-
chase food, sale of forest products, reduction in the number
cation” in their struggle for survival and development in
of meals consumed daily, and the movement of herds be-
their standards of living and ways of generating a living. The
tween locations within the four agroecological zones.
problem of food insecurity, according to Ref. [5], can be
Analysis using a multivariate probit regression model
remedied through a greater understanding of social and
revealed that various socioeconomic factors had diverse
behavioral patterns, as well as through an integrated and
effects on the farmers’ decision-making.
comprehensive view of agriculture, climate change, and
Another study conducted by [9] on the determinants
livelihood processes when assessing vulnerability. According
of rural livelihood diversification strategies among Che-
to another study, promoting local enterprises and govern-
waka resettlers’ communities in southwestern Ethiopia
ment financial assistance improves farmers’ long-term
showed that agriculture (43.2%), agriculture plus nonfarm
livelihoods and eliminates absolute poverty. It also shows
(25.5%), agriculture plus off-farm (19.3%), and a com-
that poverty alleviation strategies and natural and social
bination of agriculture plus nonfarm plus off-farm (12%)
capital for long-term survival have a beneficial relationship
activities are the most pertinent livelihood strategies in the
[6].
study area. It was found that agriculture has a leading
contribution to the total households’ income (72.5%),
2.2. Review of Empirical Studies [21]. A study conducted by followed by nonfarm (20%) and off-farm (7.5%) activities.
[8] found that the diverse socioeconomic characteristics of Multinomial logit model results revealed that land holding
the household have a significant influence on the level of size, educational status, livestock holding, gender, age,
livelihood diversification in Borena pastoralist communities market distance, credit access, annual income, access to
of Oromia regional state, Ethiopia, using a multinomial logit training, and household size were the major determinants
model. The results of this model show that the main factors of livelihood diversification strategies. Moreover, poor
are the age of the household head, farm input use, extension infrastructural development, lack of working capital, the
contact, market access, credit access, and the size of owned absence of technical support, inadequate skill training,
cattle. Therefore, household livelihoods are highly diverse, and lack of awareness are constraints to livelihood di-
and policymakers need to reflect on the most suitable ways versification in the area.
to support this diversity.
According to a study [12] on farmers’ risk perception,
vulnerability, and adaptation to climate change in rural
3. Methodology
Pakistan, the study’s findings also revealed that participants 3.1. Description of the Study Area
in the study area faced a variety of challenges in adopting
specific adaptation measures to deal with climate variability, 3.1.1. Geographic Location. The research was carried out in
including a labor shortage, an unstable land tenure system, a Abay Chomen District, one of the districts of the Horo
lack of market access, poverty, a lack of governmental Guduru Wollega Zone, Oromia, Ethiopia. It is located about
support, an inability to access assets, and a lack of assets 295.1 km northwest of Addis Ababa, the capital of Ethiopia.
themselves. Abay Chomen is bordered to the south by Lake Fincha
As shown in a study conducted by [13] on the deter- (created when the Fincha Dam flooded the Chomen
minants of pastoral household resilience to food insecurity Swamp), to the southwest by Jimma Ganati and Horo
in the Afar region, northeast Ethiopia, pastoralism in District, to the northwest by Horo Bulk and Jarte Jardaga
Ethiopia is under increasing pressure, caught in a downward District, to the southeast by Guduru District, to the north by
spiral of resource depletion and diminishing resilience the Abay River, which separates it from the Amhara region,
against shocks and stresses. This article identifies the de- and to the northeast by Hababo Guduru (Figure 1). The
terminants of pastoral household resilience to food inse- capital of the district is Fincha; other cities are in Migiru and
curity in Mille, Afar, and Ethiopia. The data analysis consists Homi districts of Abay Chomen. The height of this woreda
of principal component analysis and general linear model ranges from 880 to 2,400 meters above sea level.
4 The Scientific World Journal

Map of Horo Guduru Wolega Zone

Map of Ethio-Boundery and Oromia Regions
36º39'0''E 37º0'0''E 37º21'0''E 37º42'0''E
35º0'0''E 40º0'0''E 45º0'0''E N
15º0'0''N N
10º16'30''N
W E 10º6'0''N
S
9º55'30''N
10º0'0''N
9º45'0''N
9º34'30''N
5º0'0''N 9º24'0''N
9º13'30''N
Homa Kulkula Rular Kebele
Map of Abay Chomen District
37º15'30''E 37º17'30''E 37º19'30''E
9º48'30''N 37º10'0''E 37º20'0''E 37º30'0''E
9º48'0''N 10º0'0''N
9º47'30''N
9º47'0''N N
9º46'30''N
9º46'0''N 9º50'0''N
Homa Kulkula
9º45'30''N
9º45'0''N
9º44'30''N
9º44'0''N 9º40'0''N
9º43'30''N
9º43'0''N
Sandabo Dongoro Rular Kebele
37º13'0''E 37º14'0''E 37º15'0''E 37º16'0''E
9º44'0''N Kolobo Rular Kebele
º
9 43'30''N 37º21'30''E 37º23'0''E 37º24'30''E 37º26'0''E
9º36'30''N
9º43'0''N
9º36'0''N
9º42'30''N 9º35'30''N N

9º42'0''N Sendabo Dengoro 9º35'0''N

Kelobo
9º34'30''N
9º41'30''N N
9º34'0''N
9º41'0''N 9º33'30''N

Legend Scale
Ethio boundery Kolobo Rular Kebele 1:20000
Oromia Region Sandado Dongoro Kebele 0 4.5 9 KM
18 27 36
Horo Guduru Wolega Zone Homa Kulkula kebele
Abay Chomen Woreda
Figure 1: Location map of study area. Source: extracted from the Arc GIS software.

3.2. Types, Data Sources, and Data Collection Techniques. 3.3. Sampling and Sample Size Determination. Because there
This study uses a mixed-methods approach that combines was no document covering all rural homes in Abay Chomen
qualitative and quantitative techniques. To comprehend a County, multilevel cluster selection was utilized to select a
study problem, the blended approach entails gathering and sample. Agroecology was utilized as a stratifying variable
analyzing several forms of data [15]. The evaluation of since the study of rural livelihoods in Ethiopia is agro-
household-specific data, such as food security indicators, ecologically sensitive. As a result, this study’s sampling
household composition, asset ownership and access, method was a stratified area-cluster sample design. As
household income, and food consumption patterns, is made previously mentioned, the procedure began with the clas-
easier with the use of the quantitative method. With the use sification of the district into three agroecological zones:
of a standardized questionnaire, the survey method is used lowlands, temperate zones, and highlands. Based on data
to gather quantifiable data from sample households. Qual- from the Abay Chomen District Agriculture and Natural
itative data on agricultural households’ livelihoods and food Resource Bureau, seventeen rural kebeles have been divided
security are linked to a variety of livelihood security ac- into three agroecological zones. According to an unpub-
tivities, institutional contexts of resource access, suscepti- lished document [4], there are around 3944 households in 3
bility to shock, subjective importance in relation to food selected rural kebeles. A lottery process was used to select the
security, experiences, social relationships, and rural liveli- study’s household sample from the three kebeles’ target
hood networks. population. The three criteria were crucial in determining
The Scientific World Journal 5

the sample size because they let us gather the information we Table 1: Sample size determination from selected kebeles.
needed from the sample participants. These include the Name of the Total Sample
accuracy, the level of confidence or risk, and the degree of No Sample
kebeles sample proportion
variability in the attributes measured that enable researchers 1 Kolobo 1556 0.39 59
to determine an appropriate sample size [15]. Consequently, 2 H/Kulkula 1145 0.29 44
with these aspects in mind, the sample size for the collection 3 Sandabo 1243 0.32 47
of data through a questionnaire for this research was de- Total 3944 1 150
termined using the following formula [16]: Source: study kebele profile.
N
n� , (1)
1 + N(e)2
P i � F Zi 􏼁 �
1
􏽐 βi Xi 􏼁
, (3)
where n � the sample size, N � the study population, e � the 1 + e− α+
level of precision (the acceptable sampling error) (assumed
to be 8%), 1 � the probability of the event occurring at the where Pi is the probability that an individual i is being food-
95% confidence level. secure given Xi (explanatory variables); α and β are pa-
Accordingly, rameters to be estimated. The logs of odd of the probability
that an individual is being food-secure is given by
3944
n� � 150. (2)
ln􏼠 􏼡 � Zi � α + β1 X 1 + β2 X 2 + . . . + β k X k .
1 + 3944(0.08)2 pi
(4)
1 − pi
Therefore, for this study 150 sample respondents were
selected from those selected kebeles randomly (Table 1). If an error term is assumed, the logit model is expressed
as
3.4. Method of Data Analysis. Descriptive statistics and k
ln􏼠 􏼡 � Zi � α + 􏽘 βi Xi + Ui .
pi
econometric data analysis techniques were used in this (5)
1 − pi i�1
investigation.
In the case of a dummy dependent variable, OLS is not
3.4.1. Descriptive Statistics. The data collected from the suitable for estimating the coefficient of the vector of pa-
households in the sample and other sources were analyzed rameters. Therefore, parameters were estimated using
descriptively. Descriptive statistics such as frequency dis- maximum-likelihood (ML) techniques. The maximum-
tributions and means were used to describe the character- likelihood method suggests choosing estimates of the values
istics and distribution of strategies for livelihood. of the parameters that maximize the likelihood function. In
many cases, it is a common practice to maximize the log-
arithm of the likelihood function itself, and the same results
3.4.2. Econometric Model. The factors of food insecurity and would be obtained.
livelihood choices among farmers were studied using
econometric models. The causes of food insecurity and the
choice of livelihood alternatives in the district were inves- 3.5. Operational Definition of Variables with Expected Sign
tigated using logistic regression models and multinomial
logistic regression models, respectively. 3.5.1. Dependent Variables

(1) Determinants of Food Insecurity. For weighted average (1) Status of Household Food Security. The household’s level
daily kcal adequacy per AE (adult equivalent), the Federal of food security is a binary dependent variable with values of
Democratic Republic of Ethiopia’s government has estab- 1 for those that are secure in their food supply and 0 for those
lished a minimum demand of 2200 kcal AE (adult equiva- who are not. The grouping of households was caused by the
lent). The threshold is used to differentiate between food- compression between household AE (adult equivalent) per
secure and food-insecure households. Food-secure or oth- day calorie consumption levels and the average AE (adult
erwise food-insecure households are those whose daily in- equivalent) per day calorie consumption in rural Ethiopia,
take of kilocalories per AE (adult equivalent) surpasses the which was 2100 kcal/AE/day/person [17].
subsistence line. The home food security status was the
dependent variable, which had two values: 1 for food security (2) Choice of Major Livelihood Strategies and Its Determi-
and zero for food insecurity. Food insecurity is influenced by nants. This study, like most others, developed livelihood
a variety of interconnected socioeconomic and climate plans using income shares from each livelihood activity. The
variables, necessitating multidimensional analysis. The de- agricultural sector of respondents in the study area had three
pendent variable, household food security status, is a binary main sources of income, namely income from agricultural
variable. The logit model was used to estimate factors production; income from nonagricultural income-generat-
influencing food security status based on the results of the ing activities; and nonagricultural income. These categories
literature review. The cumulative logistic probabilistic model of income included a different number of activities: income
is specified as follows: from agricultural production derived from the activities of
6 The Scientific World Journal

staple foods, crops, and livestock; nonagricultural income If the household maximizes its utility defined over in-
from small businesses, rural handicrafts, remittance, food/ come realizations, then the household’s choice is simply an
cash, loans, and rent; and farm income derived from re- optimal allocation of its asset endowment to choose a
cruitment in various forms of employment opportunities livelihood that maximizes its utility. Thus, the ith household’s
such as work and others. For the purposes of this study, the decision can therefore be modelled as maximizing the ex-
following mutually exclusive combinations of livelihood pected utility by choosing the jth livelihood strategy among J
security strategies were designed for the further analysis of discrete livelihood strategies.
MAXj � E􏼐Uij 􏼑 � fj 􏼐xj 􏼑 + εij ,
the determinants of livelihood diversification in the study
area: The second objective of this study, the choice of major j � 0 . . . j. (8)
livelihood strategies and factors influencing them, is de-
In general, for an outcome variable with j categories, let
scribed by four mutually exclusive livelihood strategies. The
the jth livelihood strategy that the ith household chooses to
dependent variables have the following four nominal
maximize its utility could take the value 1 if the ith household
outcomes:
chooses jth livelihood strategy and 0 otherwise. The prob-
Agriculture only (y � 1): This major livelihood strategy ability that a household with characteristics X chooses
included staple crop production, cash crop production, livelihood strategy j (Pij ) is modelled as
exp􏼐X′iBj 􏼑
and livestock production.
Pij � , j � 0.
􏽐Jj�0
Agriculture plus nonfarm (y � 2): The combination of (9)
agriculture and nonfarm livelihood strategy included exp􏼐X′iBj 􏼑

with the requirement that 􏽐JJ�0 Pij � 1 for any i, where

agriculture plus petty trades (grain and fruit trade),
rural craft, remittance, food/cash aid, loan, small ru-
Pij � probability representing the ith respondent’s chance of
minants, and cattle trade.
falling into category j, X � predictors of response proba-
Agriculture plus off-farm (y � 3): The combination of bilities, and Bj � covariate effect specific to jth response
agriculture and off-farm livelihood strategy included category with the first category as the reference.
agriculture plus daily labor work, other forms of hire Appropriate normalization that removes an indetermi-
either formal or informal, and natural resource-based nacy in the model is to assume that B1 � 0 (this arises because
activity (firewood collection and charcoaling). the sum of probabilities is equal 1, so only j parameter
Agriculture plus nonfarm plus off-farm (y � 4): This vectors are needed to determine the J + 1 probabilities) so
livelihood strategy combined all activities mentioned that exp(X′iBj ) � 1, implying that the generalized equation
above. (8) is equivalent to
Then, the relationships between these four livelihood exp􏼐X′iBj 􏼑
Pr􏼠yi � 􏼡 � Pij �
j
(10a)
1 + 􏽐Jj�0 exp􏼐X′iBj 􏼑
, for j � 0, 2, . . . J,
strategies and socioeconomic variables that deemed to have Xi
influence were analyzed using the categorical multinomial re-
gression model. The most widely used categorical multinomial and
regression models are multinomial logit and multinomial probit
Pr􏼠yi � 􏼡 � Pi1 �
1 1
models. These two multinomial categorical models have more ,
1 + 􏽐Jj�0 exp􏼐X′iBj 􏼑
(10b)
or less similar results, but in case of multinomial logit model Xi
estimation, it is necessary to conduct the Hausman test of
independence of irrelevant alternative (IIA) assumption. Hence, where y � a polychromous outcome variable with categories
the multinomial logit model is preferred for this study. To coded from 0, J.
analyze the determinants of rural household decisions to engage The multinomial logistic regression model was used
in different livelihood strategies, the assumption is that in a when the outcome of the reliant variable has more than two
given period, a rational household head is chosen among alternatives for the decision-maker to choose between dis-
different mutually exclusive livelihood strategy alternatives that ordered qualitative or polychrome variables. A multinomial
offer the maximum utility. Following [18], suppose for the ith logistic (MNL) model was used to explain the determinants
respondent faced with j choices, the utility choice j is specified as of household livelihood decisions.

Uij � Zij β + εij . (6)

3.5.2. Independent Variables (Summarized in Table 2).
If the respondent makes choice j in particular, then we Family size is a continuous variable that describes the size of
assume that Uij is the maximum among j utilities. So, the the household’s family unit. [8] It is pointed out that in-
statistical model is derived by the probability that choice j is creasing (higher) household component tends to exert more
made, which is pressure on consumption than on the labor it contributes to
production. Therefore, this study hypothesizes that a larger
P􏼐Uij > Uik 􏼑, for all other K ≠ j, (7) household size is expected to affect both food security status
and livelihood strategies of households undesirably.
where Uij is the utility to the ith respondent from livelihood The educational level of the head of household is a
strategy j, and Uik is the utility to the ith respondent from continuous variable measured in years of schooling. Edu-
livelihood strategy k. cation is a form of social capital that can have a positive
The Scientific World Journal 7

Table 2: Description of variables. Source: own articulation, 2021.

No. Variable Type Measurement Expected sign
1 Family size Continuous Numbers −
2 Educational level of head of household Continuous Numbers +
3 Livestock ownership (excluding oxen) [19] Continuous TLU ±
4 Number of oxen ownership Continuous Numbers ±
5 Frequency of extension contact Continuous Number per month +
6 Cultivated land size Continuous Hectares +
7 Credit service Dummy No � 0, Yes � 1 −
8 Off-farm income Continuous Birr ±
9 Monthly farm income Continuous Birr ±
10 Participation in selling livestock [20] Dummy Not participate � 0, participate � 1
11 Dependency ratio Continuous Numbers ±
12 Age of head of household Continuous Years ±
13 Gender of the head of household Dummy Female � 0, male � 1 +
14 Distance to market Continuous Kilometers +
15 Cultivable land holding Continuous Hectares
16 Fertilizer use Dummy Not uses � 0, Yes � Uses

impact on a household’s capacity to make informed pro- different livelihood strategies [8]. Thus, this study hypoth-
duction decisions and nutritional status [22]. Based on Ref. esizes that the frequency of extension visits is expected to
[14] and other literature, the higher the educational level of affect food security and the choice of livelihood strategies
the household head, the more food secure the household is positively.
and the more livelihood strategies are expected to be. Thus, Cultivated land size is an incessant variable that refers to
this study hypothesizes that advanced years of schooling are the total cropping land cultivated by a household in the past
expected to affect food security status and the choice of one-year production period. A larger area of cultivated land
livelihood strategies positively. implies more production and availability of food grains [14].
Livestock possession (excluding oxen) is a continuous Higher production and the increased availability of grains
variable measured by the number of tropical livestock units produced help in assuring the food security status of
(TLU). Livestock is an important source of food and income households. Hence, the size of cultivated land is expected to
for rural households. Households with more livestock have a positive impact on both household food security
produce more milk, milk products, and meat for direct status and the choice of livelihood strategies.
consumption. Besides, livestock enables farm households to A dummy variable called “Credit Service” has a value of 1
have a better chance to earn more income from selling if farmers have access to credit and 0 otherwise. Credit is
livestock and livestock products, which enables them to readily available, which relieves cash shortages and enables
increase their purchasing power of stable food during food farmers to purchase inputs such as fertilizer, better crop
shortages and could invest in purchasing farm inputs that varieties, and irrigation systems. Due to the usage of agri-
increase food production and be able to ensure household cultural inputs, which improve food production and ulti-
food security [9]. Thus, this study hypothesizes that owning a mately raise household food security status, farmers who
greater number of livestock is expected to have a positive have access to finance would therefore have a favorable
effect on food security status and a negative effect on the impact on crop production. That demonstrates the clear link
choice of livelihood strategies of households. between loans and the security of household food [9].
The number of oxen owned is a continuous variable that Therefore, it is expected that having access to credit will both
refers to the number of ploughing oxen. Oxen serve as a positively and negatively impact households’ levels of food
source of traction in many developing countries, thereby security and their decision-making about means of
significantly affecting households’ crop production. Animal subsistence.
traction power enables households to cultivate their own Off-farm income, measured in birr, is a continuous
land and others’ lands through renting, sharecropping, etc., variable that tracks the total amount of monetary income
and execute agricultural operations timely [9]. This study that any household member earns from jobs or other sources
hypothesizes that ownership of a larger number of oxen and that are not related to farming. [13] As their income im-
donkeys is expected to have a positive effect on food security proves, they may buy more food to meet their family’s needs;
status and a negative effect on the choice of household a previous research shows that households with nonfarm
livelihood strategies. income sources are less likely to experience food insecurity.
The frequency of extension contact is a continuous Off-farm income is therefore anticipated to have a favorable
variable that involves a monthly visit by an extension agent. impact on households’ food security status and a negative
Frequent extension contact enhances households’ access to impact on the tactics they choose to pursue a living.
better crop production techniques, improved inputs, and Monthly farm income is a continuous variable that
other production incentives, and these help to improve the measures the amount of income obtained from crop pro-
food security status of households and participate in duction and livestock rearing, measured in birr. [22] Noted
8 The Scientific World Journal

that the more the household heads who work in agriculture, participation in livestock sales is hypothesized to have an
the higher their income and the greater their likelihood of effect on both households’ food security status and their
having access to food. Household heads with substantial choice of livelihood strategies.
agricultural incomes are more likely to buy a variety of foods A dummy variable called “fertilizer use” has a value of 1
to meet their family’s food needs. Therefore, it is hypoth- if the farmer applies fertilizer and 0 otherwise. In order to
esized for this study that farm revenue will both positively increase farm production, chemical fertilizers such as urea
and negatively impact households’ levels of food security and and diammonium phosphate (DAP) are used. Utilizing
their decision-making over means of subsistence. fertilizer is frequently thought to increase farm yield per
The dependency ratio is the ratio of the economically square foot [9]. Therefore, it is hypothesized that fertilizer
active labor force (those aged between 15 and 65) to the use has a beneficial impact on household food security and a
economically inactive labor force (those aged between 15 negative impact on the choice of livelihood alternatives.
and 65) [8]. A larger reliance ratio lowers the level of food
security in households due to resource limitations as it places 4. Conceptual Framework
a strain on other household members to meet their urgent
food needs. The higher dependency ratio also suggests a There are five trigger means, such as demographic, insti-
small labor force, excessive expenditure, and a constraint on tutional, infrastructural, technological, and income factors
household per capita income, all of which affect household (Figure 2), by which food insecurity and the choice of
members’ well-being. It is therefore predicted that the re- livelihood strategies can be determined.
liance ratio will negatively affect households’ levels of food
security and their choice of livelihood. 5. Results and Discussion
Age in years is a continuous variable that represents the
age of the head of the family. The social and physical settings, 5.1. The Food Security Status of the Households in the Study
as well as farming activities, are significantly more richly Area. In this study, the distinction between families with
experienced by older people [14]. In other words, when and without access to enough food is made based on the
leaders age, they are expected to have a steady agrarian number of calories consumed by each adult daily at home.
economy. Additionally, it is projected that older household The household’s calorie consumption is contrasted with the
heads will have better access to land than younger heads daily minimum suggested intake of 2100 kcal for adults (the
since younger males must either wait for land redistribution standard calorie intake). The household is categorized as
or share land with their family. Therefore, the projected having food insecurity if consumption or intake is below the
impact of age on the level of food security in the home and advised quantity, and as having food safety if it is above the
the tactics used to support it could be either good or required amount. The food security status of households was
negative. measured through a direct consumption survey. The
A dummy variable, the gender of the head of the family, weighted technique was used to gather information on the
has a value of 1 if the head of the household is a man and 0 kind and quantity of food consumed by the household over
otherwise. According to Ref. [22], women may have a harder the course of seven days. Then, the data were transformed
time than men getting access to key resources, which helps into kilocalories and then shared into household mass
them increase their productivity and income. They are measured in AE (adult equivalent) and number of days.
consequently more likely to experience food insecurity. Then, the amount of energy consumed in kilocalories for the
Therefore, it is anticipated that in this study, gender will be household is compared with the subsistence level per adult
favorably correlated with households’ levels of food security and day (i.e., 2100 kcal).
and negatively correlated with their selection of livelihood The result showed that of all households in the sample,
choices. 77 (51.3%) households were classified as food-insecure and
The market’s distance from the closest market centers is 73 (48.7%) of them were classified as food-safe (Figure 3).
expressed in kilometers. Because off-farm employment The findings showed that more than half of the households
dictates the income level of rural households, proximity to in the study area experienced food insecurity.
the nearest market may present a chance for increased in- This result was deep-rooted by the study made by [3] on
come. Additionally, the farmer is more likely to obtain the analysis of rural households’ food security in western
important information and buy agricultural inputs and Ethiopia. With regard to the breakdown of the nourishment
finished goods needed for family consumption the closer he security status of households according to kebeles, 22 (40.7%
is to the market [13]. As a result, it is anticipated that this of the total sample) of 54 households in Kolobo kebele were
variable will positively impact households’ level of food food-insecure and 32 (59.5% of the total sample) households
security and the choice of subsistence tactics. were food-safe (Table 3). This shows that there are more
Participation in selling livestock is a dummy variable households with food security in Kolobo kebele than
taking a value of 1 if the farm household participated in households with food insecurity. In addition, the study
selling livestock and 0 otherwise. Households that sell found that of the 50 homes in Homa Kulkula kebele that
livestock are expected to fare better than their counterparts were surveyed, 23 (or 46% of the total sample) experienced
in terms of food security. This is due to the fact that selling food insecurity, while the other 27 (or 54% of the total
livestock increases their revenue and decreases the risk of sample) experienced food safety (Table 2). In both kebeles,
food insecurity that households can face. Hence, there are more food-secure households than food insecure
The Scientific World Journal 9

Demographic Factor Institutional Factor

Family size Extension service
Gender of the HH Credit use
Age of the HH
Educational level of HH
Dependency ratio of household

Infrastructural
Determinants of food insecurity Factor
and choice of livelihood Proximity to market
strategies center

Income Factor
Income from off/non-farm
activities
Technological Factor
Total annual income
Improved seed use
Cultivable Land holding
Fertilizer use
Livestock owned
Oxen owned
Livelihood strategies of HH

Figure 2: Conceptual framework. Source: developed by the researcher, 2021.

Table 3: Household’s food security status and its breakdown be-

tween districts.
Household’s food security status
Food Food
Kebeles Total
insecure secure
N % N % N %
Kolobo 22 14.67 32 21.33 54 36
48.7% 51.3% Homa Kulkula 23 15.33 27 18 50 33.33
Sandabo Dongoro 32 21.33 14 9.33 46 30.67
Total 77 51.3 73 48.7 150 100
Source: survey result (2021), N  150.

5.2. Livelihood Strategies for Rural Households. Farmers in

the study area have used a variety of approaches to secure
their livelihoods. A breakdown of the various livelihood
security techniques used by households in the research area
Food security status
food insecure
is provided below. Based on the analysis of the activity
food secure portfolios of households, approximately four different pat-
terns of livelihood security strategies may be identified
Figure 3: Household’s food security status in the study area. (Figure 4).
Source: Survey Result (2021), N  150.
The outcome of the descriptive statistics (pie chart)
revealed that farmers in the research area most usually
ones. Furthermore, the research showed that of the 46 employ agricultural activities alone as a strategy for liveli-
families examined in Sandabo Dongoro kebele, 32 (69.6 hood. About 29.3% of the sampled families relied solely on
percent of the total sample) experienced food insecurity, agricultural (plant and animal production) activities for
while the other 14 (30.4 percent of the total sample) had their means of subsistence. Additionally, roughly 26.7
access to a supply of food that was safe (Table 3). In this percent of households relied on both farming and non-
district, too, there are a larger number of food-insecure farming occupations for a living. To make a living, farmers in
households than food-secure households. the study region combined farming and raising cattle with
10 The Scientific World Journal

odds ratio for the head of the household revealed from the
model’s results that the food safety was reduced by a factor of
0.0489 for every year that the household head’s age in-
creased. This suggests that older household heads are more
likely than younger ones to experience food insecurity. This
22.7% 29.3% is because older household heads are less productive and lack
the confidence to manage larger farms than their younger
counterparts. In addition, older households could not
participate in other income-generating activities. On the
contrary, older households have large numbers of families
and their resources have been distributed among their
21.3% members. This result is in line with the findings of Refs.
26.7% [22, 23].

5.3.2. Gender of the Household Head. In line with the ex-

pectations of the study, it was discovered to have a positive
Main source of livelihood and significant impact on the food security status of
Agriculture alone
households at a level of significance of 5%. From the model
Agriculture and off-farm activity
Agriculture and non-farm activity
result, the odds ratio of the variables showed that households
Agriculture, off-farm and non-farm activity with male bosses increase the households’ food safety by a
factor of 1.5912. This implies that households with male
Figure 4: Rural households’ livelihood strategies. management are more likely to be food-safe than households
off-farm pursuits including beekeeping, raising chickens, with female management. This is due to the fact that mostly
and working on other farms. On the contrary, agricultural male-headed households have better access to different types
and nonagricultural activities were used as a source of in- of resources, which gives them the opportunity to buy and
come in roughly 21.3 percent of the rural households in the consume the products they want. This result is in conformity
research area. To make a living, they combined farming and with the findings of Ref. [24].
ranching with nonagricultural pursuits including sporadic
work and small-scale trading. Finally, in order to support 5.3.3. Family Size. As expected, the family size of the heads
their families, about 22.7% of the sample’s households en- of households was found to have a negative impact on the
gaged in a mix of agriculture, nonfarm, and off-farm food security status of households at a level of significance of
activities. 1%. As indicated in the table above, the odds ratio of the
family size showed that an additional person in the
household reduces food safety by a factor of 0.3499. This
5.3. The Determinants of Rural Households’ Food Insecurity
suggests that a larger family size compared with a smaller
Status in the Study Area. To investigate the factors influ-
family size in the study area tends to indicate food insecurity.
encing rural families’ food security status, a binary logistic
This is because households in rural areas with large family
model was applied. The model was chosen based on the
sizes, composed mostly of nonproductive members, could
rationale explained in the Methodology section above. Re-
struggle to maintain food security, and, ultimately, due to the
sults of the binary logit model of the determinants of food
high stress on the active workforce and the lower availability
security in households using data from a cross-sectional
of food to each person in the household end up struggling to
survey of 150 sample households are shown in Table 4. The
achieve food security [25].
likelihood-ratio test from the model result showed that the
overall model is significant with 1%(P < 0.001). The result of
the model estimation also showed that 9 of the 14 ex- 5.3.4. Cultivated Land Size. The variable was discovered to
planatory variables have a significant influence on the food be associated with the household’s level of food security and
security of households. to have a significance level of 10% when it came to influ-
As a result, only the household head’s age, gender, family encing the dependent variable. According to the model
size, amount of cultivated land, number of livestock holdings, output’s chance ratio for acreage size, a household’s food
number of oxen owned, access to credit, involvement in security is increased by 0.0672 for every additional hectare of
selling livestock, and off-farm income were statistically sig- land. Greater output and availability of food grains are
nificant factors in determining a household’s food security implied by a greater cultivated area [26]. Increased avail-
status (Table 4). Therefore, only variables with statistically ability of the produced grain and greater production both
significant coefficients were considered in this study. contribute to family food security.

5.3.1. Age of the Household Head. With a probability of 5%, 5.3.5. Livestock Ownership (excluding Oxen). At a level of
this variable has a negative and significant impact on the significance of 1%, it was discovered that raising farm an-
food security status of households in the research area. The imals is positively and significantly associated with
The Scientific World Journal 11

Table 4: Estimates of the binary logit model’s parameters for factors affecting the level of food security in rural households.
Binary logistic regression result
Explanatory variables
Odds ratio Std. error. P > |t|
Age of the household head −0.0489∗∗ 0.025 0.047
Gender of the HH head 1.5912∗∗ 0.759 0.036
Education status of the household head −0.0765 0.071 0.281
Family size −0.3499∗∗∗ 0.130 0.007
Dependency ratio 0.1941 0.205 0.343
Cultivated land size 0.0672∗ 0.038 0.073
Livestock holding (except oxen) 0.2778∗∗∗ 0.104 0.008
Number of oxen owned 0.3745∗∗ 0.151 0.013
Occurrence of extension contact −0.1711 0.106 0.105
Access to credit 1.7217∗∗∗ 0.548 0.002
Distance to market 0.2549 0.377 0.499
Sell livestock 1.5609∗∗∗ 0.537 0.004
Access to fertilizer −0.7681 0.598 0.199
Off-farm income −1.5896∗ 0.656 0.015
Constant 0.0417 1.689 0.980
Number of observations 150
Likelihood chi2 (15) 63.63
Log likelihood −72.04
Prob > chi2 0.001
Pseudo-R2 0.3064
∗∗∗ ∗∗ ∗
, , and indicate significance at 1%, 5%, and 10% probability levels, respectively. Source: survey result (2021), N � 150.

households’ food security status. The model’s output households to participate in income-generating activities, so
revealed that the odds ratio of livestock ownership increased the income generated increases the household’s financial
by a factor of 0.2778 for every additional unit of tropical standing and purchasing power to avoid the risk of food
livestock in the household. For rural households, livestock is insecurity. Additionally, it helps to smooth out consumption
a significant source of food and money. For immediate when the household is faced with temporary food problems.
consumption, households with more cattle produce more This result is confirmed by the results of Ref. [22].
milk, dairy products, and meat. Additionally, livestock
farming provides farm households with better chances to
increase their income from the sale of livestock and livestock 5.3.8. Selling Livestock. It was found that the sale of livestock
products, allowing them to increase their ability to purchase has a positive and significant impact on the food security
stable food during food shortages and to invest in the status of households at a level of significance of 1%. From the
purchase of agricultural inputs that boost food production output of the binary logit model, the odds ratio of the
and can ensure household food security [27]. variables shows that selling livestock increases the proba-
bility of household food security by a factor of 1.5609. The
result implies that households that sell livestock have a
5.3.6. Number of Oxen Owned. As expected, the number of greater chance of food safety than their counterparts. This is
ox owners was found to be positive and statistically sig- because selling livestock increases their income and reduces
nificant, with a significance level of 5%. From the model the risk of food insecurity for households [28].
output, the odds ratio of the variables showed that having an
additional number of oxen in the household increases food
security by a factor of 0.3745. Oxen are used as a source of 5.3.9. Off-Farm Income. Contrary to predictions, it was
energy and thus have a considerable negative impact on discovered that this variable, at a level of significance of 10%,
household crop production in many developing countries. had a negative and significant impact on the food security
The animal traction enables households to farm their own status of households. The odds ratio supported the binary
land and others’ lands through renting, sharecropping, etc., logit model’s finding that a one birr increase in nonagri-
and carry out agricultural activities on time [26]. cultural household income lowers food safety by a factor of
1.5896. This shows that households in the study area with
low earnings are more likely to have food security than
5.3.7. Access to Credit. As expected, this variable has a households with greater nonagricultural incomes. This
positive and significant influence on the food security status outcome is consistent with that of Ref. [13].
of households at a significance level of 1%. From the model
result, the odds ratio of the variables shows that access to
credit increases household food security by a factor of 5.4. The Study Area’s Rural Households’ Livelihood Strategies’
1.7217. This implies that households that have had access to Determinants. The factors that influence a rural household’s
credit services are more likely to have a safe diet than decision about its mode of subsistence were determined
households without access. This is because lending enables using the multinomial logistic model. The model study
12 The Scientific World Journal

Table 5: Parameter estimates of the multinomial logit model for determinants of the choice of livelihood strategies.
Livelihood strategies (base category � agriculture alone)
Explanatory variables Agriculture + off-farm Agriculture + nonfarm Agriculture + off-farm + nonfarm
Coeff. Std. er Margins Coeff. Std. er Margins Coeff. Std. er Margins
Age of the HH head −0.0159 0.0261 −0.0056 0.0378 0.0314 0.0045 0.0292 0.0302 0.0032
Gender of the HH head −0.4884 0.6645 −0.1767 0.8503 0.9063 0.0834 1.4601 1.2196 0.1789
Education status 0.1492∗∗ 0.0699 0.0232 0.1418∗ 0.0858 0.0137 −0.1195 0.1036 −0.0248
Family size −0.0347 0.1329 −0.0125 0.0500 0.1589 0.0043 0.1163 0.1511 0.0146
Dependency ratio −0.1825 0.2436 −0.0419 0.1489 0.2427 0.0238 0.0953 0.2512 0.0145
Cultivated land 0.0045 0.0219 0.0024 −0.0282 0.0413 −0.0034 −0.0088 0.0344 −0.0005
Livestock (except oxen) −0.0289 0.1118 −0.0097 −0.0864 0.1378 −0.0159 0.2369∗ 0.1312 0.0337
Number of oxen owned −0.1688 0.1435 −0.0428 0.0718 0.1412 0.0081 0.2909∗∗ 0.1341 0.0411
Freq. of extension contact −0.1789 0.1218 −0.0296 −0.0014 0.1395 0.0088 −0.0203 0.1417 0.0041
Access to training 0.3309 0.5115 0.0608 −0.1259 0.6271 −0.0318 0.0366 0.5978 −0.0039
Access to credit −0.0060 0.1081 −0.0093 0.2579∗∗ 0.1003 0.0345 −0.1019 0.2109 −0.0202
Distance to market −0.1955 0.6318 0.0743 −1.7384∗∗∗ 0.6548 −0.1808 −0.7128 0.6804 −0.0329
Off-farm income 1.1444 0.8116 0.1786 0.3936 0.7729 −0.0038 −0.0678 0.7096 −0.0624
Monthly farm income 0.0002∗∗ 0.0001 0.00001 0.0002∗∗ 0.0001 0.00001 0.0001∗ 0.0001 0.000005
Constant −0.0388 1.7479 −3.4828 2.3543 −4.9226∗∗ 2.3815
Diagnostics: base category: agriculture (on-farm) alone; number of observations: 150; likelihood ratio chi2(42): 105.58; log likelihood: −165.96486; Prob > chi2:
0.0013; and pseudo-R2: 0.1845. ∗∗∗ , ∗∗ , and ∗ indicate significance at 1%, 5%, and 10% probability levels, respectively. Source: survey result (2021), N � 150.

analyzed the other options as alternatives to this option and their consumption and other family needs and also rely on
simply depended on agriculture (agricultural) as the basic needs-oriented livelihoods. In this way, they can easily
category for no diversification (Table 5). The overall model is overcome financial constraints to engage in alternative
significant at 1%. For this reason, only those variables were nonagricultural activities [9].
discussed in this study whose coefficients were statistically
significant with a probability of less than or equal to 10%.
Head of household education, livestock farming, number of 5.4.3. Livestock Holding. At a significance level of 10%, it
oxen owned, access to credit, distance to market, and had a favorable and substantial impact on the usage of a
monthly farm income were important variables in deter- combination of on-farm, off-farm, and nonfarm livelihood
mining household livelihood choices (Table 5). Yet, the rest methods. Ceteris paribus, this implies that a 1 TLU increase
were insignificant variables. in animal husbandry improves the likelihood of using a
strategy for the agricultural operation + external plus non-
agricultural operations as the basis of life by 23.69 percent
5.4.1. Education Level of the Household Head. The level of compared with the benchmark alternative simply on the
education of the household head had a positive and sig- farm (Table 5). This is explained by the fact that a farmer’s
nificant influence on the use of agriculture (on-farm), wealth position can be approximated by herd size. Farmers
nonagricultural and agricultural (on-farm), and nonfarm with big herd sizes can easily provide for the food and other
strategies to secure a livelihood with a probability of 5% and needs of their families, and they have a better chance of
10%. That is, if all other factors remain the same, every extra earning more money to put into off- and off-farm income-
year of education raises the likelihood of employing tech- generating ventures with the aim of accumulating assets for
niques for a living that combine farming and nonfarming by the future [9].
2.32 percent and 1 percent, respectively, and 37 percent as
compared to just the most fundamental sector of agriculture
(on-farm) (Table 5). This is the fact that education increases 5.4.4. Number of Oxen Owned. It was discovered that the
the ability of farm households to employ various livelihood number of oxen owned, at a level of significance of 5%, had a
strategies [22]. favorable and significant impact on the combined use of
livelihood methods such as on-farm, off-farm, and nonfarm.
The outcome reveals that, when all other factors are held
5.4.2. Access to Credit. It was found that this variable has a constant, an increase in the number of oxen possessed by 1
positive and significant influence on the choice of household ox decreased the likelihood of relying solely on farming for a
livelihood strategies for securing a livelihood in and outside living by 29.09 percent compared with the base category-
the company with a probability of 5%. A household’s only farm yard.
likelihood of engaging in agricultural and nonfarm activities
has improved by 3.45 percent, according to the model’s
results, while access to credit has increased by 25.79 birr, all 5.4.5. Distance to the Market. The variable has a negative
other parameters being held constant (Table 5). This is due to and significant impact on households’ decisions in favor of
the fact that households with access to credit can easily cover the diversification approach for agricultural and
The Scientific World Journal 13

nonagricultural livelihoods, with a likelihood of less than while 48.7% did not. This suggests that there was a food
1%. According to the model’s marginal effect, ceteris par- insecurity problem in the research area for more than half of
ibus, there has been a 173.84% decline in the likelihood that a the examined households. The report also showed that the
household will utilize an agricultural (on-farm) plus non- sampled families’ average daily calorie consumption was
farm strategy. This is due to the fact that households located 2008.54 kcal per adult equivalent, which is less than the
far from the market center lack access to knowledge about recommended minimum of 2100 kcal. The report also
engaging in nonagricultural activities, which has led to a fall showed that the range of calorie intake was between 4186.98
in livelihood and livelihood strategies [13]. and 697.69.
To investigate the factors influencing the level of food
security in rural families, a binary logistic model was
5.4.6. Monthly Farm Income. As expected, this variable has a estimated. The model’s findings supported the notion that
positive and significant influence on households’ choice a household’s level of food security was significantly
between farms (agriculture only) plus off-farm, farm plus influenced by the head of the household’s age, gender,
nonfarm, and a combination of farm, off-farm, and nonfarm family size, amount of cultivated land, number of livestock
diversification strategies for agricultural livelihood with a holdings, number of oxen owned, access to credit, in-
probability of less than 5%, 5%, and 10%, respectively. With volvement in livestock sales, and off-farm income. To
otherwise constant factors, the result of the model results in investigate the households’ choice of rural livelihood
the marginal effect that the probability that a household will strategy, a multinomial logistic model was estimated. In
be used in-house plus outside, in-house and outside of the light of this, the household’s choice of livelihood methods
company, and a combination of in-house, off-farm, and was significantly influenced by the household head’s ed-
nonagricultural activities. The activities increased by 0.001%, ucation level, livestock holding, number of oxen pos-
0.001, or 0.0005% among farm households whose monthly sessed, access to finance, distance to market, and monthly
income increased by 0.02 birr (Table 4). This is so that farm income.
households with high total monthly incomes may easily The coverage of the study area was primarily responsible
cover their consumption demands and other family needs for this study’s limitations. Due to time and money con-
while also relying on results based on their needs for live- straints, the investigation was limited to Abay Chomen
lihood (such as wealth accumulation, more income). By District. A cross-sectional household survey was conducted
doing this, individuals can easily get over financial limita- because there are not many of the time series or panel data
tions and indulge in pursuits other than farming. This needed to measure food security in the research area. The
finding is consistent with that found by Ref. [22]. study could only use cross-sectional data as a result.
Based on the evidence obtained from this finding, there
6. Conclusions and Policy Implications is a need for urgent action aimed at addressing the need for
improving the food security status of rural households to
Poverty and food insecurity are significant issues that the enhance their well-being and to reduce the consequences of
majority of Ethiopians currently face. Both chronic and different shocks in the study area. These may include the
temporary (seasonal) food insecurity are acute across the following:
nation. According to several research papers, improving the Since the gender of the household head is one of the
lives of the rural poor will be crucial in reducing the oc- variables that affect rural households’ food insecurity status,
currence. Therefore, every endeavor to improve the lives of improving female-headed households’ knowledge and ac-
the rural poor and their livelihood strategies must include an cess to different livelihood assets to improve the food se-
assessment of the food security status, the livelihood curity status of the rural poor should be prioritized, because
strategies, and their determinants by taking into account families led by women are more impacted by a lack of in-
food security dimensions at the household level. In order to formation than households headed by men.
examine rural households’ levels of food security, their The creation of awareness for the elderly should be
means of subsistence, and the factors that influence their reinforced because the age of the family head affects food
decision to avoid food insecurity, researchers looked at Abay security. Therefore, it is important to provide old household
Chomen District. heads with capacity building so that precise information may
Data from 150 sampled household heads who were be made available and spread, allowing them to increase
interviewed on a set schedule were used in the study. In production and ensure food security.
order to shed light on the many socioeconomic features of As access to credit affected food security status positively,
farmers, their level of food security, and the differences future interventions should focus on improving rural
between households with and without food security, de- household’s access to credit, because access to credit helps
scriptive statistics (mean, percentage, and frequency) were rural households to purchase different inputs to improve
utilized. The study also used a binary logit model and a their production and consumable products and thereby
multinomial logistic regression model to examine household helps them to ensure food security and improve their well-
livelihood strategies, food security status, and their re- being. Therefore, development partners operating in the
spective factors. study area should implement provision of credit to eligible
The study’s findings indicated that, in the study region, households using targeting criterion that reflects actual
51.3% of the tested households experienced food insecurity, characteristics of households.
14 The Scientific World Journal

As farm income affected the choice of livelihood strategy References

positively, future interventions should focus on improving
farmer’s farm income-earning opportunities. Therefore, it is [1] Food and Agricultural Organization, Regional Overview of
important to emphasize adequate input supply as a policy Food Security and Nutrition in Africa. The Challenges of
Building Resilience to Shocks and Stresses, FAO, Rome, Italy,
option for guaranteeing food security because it boosts farm
2017.
revenue in rural areas. [2] FAO and WFP, Monitoring Food Security in Countries with
Even though it is presumed that easier access to markets Conflict Situations. A Joint FAO/WFP Update for the Members
will result in lower transportation and other market-related of the United Nations Security Council, FAO, Rome, Italy,
transaction costs, study results show the contrary. Therefore, 2021.
raising farmers’ awareness of the value of improved market [3] S. Sani and B. Kemaw, “Analysis of rural household’s food
access on their ability to make informed decisions about the security in Western Ethiopia,” Food and Nutrition Sciences,
type of output to be produced, the kind of inputs and products vol. 10, no. 03, pp. 249–265, 2019.
to be purchased in the market, etc., aids farmers in improving [4] ACHANRO (Abbay Choman Agricultural and Natural Re-
their current state of food security in the near future. sources Office) and DRMO (Disaster Risk Management Of-
In general, this study has sought to produce the outcome fice), Food Insurity, ACHANRO, Fincha, Ethiopia, 2021.
of the analysis within a given scope, but there are still many [5] S. Fahad and J. Wang, “Climate change, vulnerability, and its
questions that need to be addressed. Future researchers must impacts in rural Pakistan: a review,” Environmental Science
pay close attention to provide fundamental knowledge on and Pollution Research, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 1334–1338, 2020.
the social, political, natural, and environmental dimensions [6] F. Su, N. Song, N. Ma et al., “An assessment of poverty al-
that determine food security status and livelihood strategy leviation measures and sustainable livelihood capability of
choice, descriptive data on food insecure purchasing pat- farm households in rural China: a sustainable livelihood
terns, and specific traits that make rural poor more vul- approach,” Agriculture, vol. 11, no. 12, p. 1230, 2021.
[7] W. Endale, Z. B. Mengesha, A. Atinafu, and A. A. Adane,
nerable to food insecurity.
“Food Insecurity in Farta District, Northwest Ethiopia: a
community based cross–sectional study,” BMC Research
Data Availability Notes, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 130–136, 2014.
[8] A. M. Dinku, “Determinants of livelihood diversification
The authors would like to state that they are willing to strategies in Borena pastoralist communities of Oromia re-
provide the publisher with the information and datasets gional state, Ethiopia,” Agriculture & Food Security, vol. 7,
utilized for this work. no. 1, pp. 41–48, 2018.
[9] A. Abera, T. Yirgu, and A. Uncha, “Determinants of rural
livelihood diversification strategies among Chewaka reset-
Ethical Approval tlers’ communities of southwestern Ethiopia,” Agriculture &
Food Security, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 30–19, 2021.
To take care of the data gatherers and researchers, ethical [10] WFP (World Food Program), Tracking Food Security Trends
clearances were secured from the Horo Guduru Wollega in Vulnerable Countries. Global Food Security Update, WFP,
Zone Administrative Office and the Wollega University Rome, Italy, 2015.
Research and Community Services Directorate. Participants [11] A. Coleman-Jensen, C. Gregory, and A. Singh, “Household
in the study were made aware that they have a complete legal food security in the United States in 2014,” USDA-ERS
right to stop the study if they become disinterested. Thus, Economic Research Report, USDA, Washington, DC, USA,
every survey process went off without a hitch. 2014.
[12] S. Fahad and J. Wang, “Farmers’ risk perception, vulnera-
bility, and adaptation to climate change in rural Pakistan,”
Conflicts of Interest Land Use Policy, vol. 79, pp. 301–309, 2018.
[13] T. Melketo, M. Schmidt, M. Bonatti, S. Sieber, K. Müller, and
The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest. M. Lana, “Determinants of pastoral household resilience to
food insecurity in Afar region, northeast Ethiopia,” Journal of
Authors’ Contributions Arid Environments, vol. 188, Article ID 104454, 2021.
[14] C. K. Ndungu, E. J. Mutunga, M. Mwangi, and P. C. Kariuki,
Bacha Gebissa and Wandu Geremew designed the project, “Food insecurity coping strategies and determinants of
collected the field data, and analyzed the result. Bacha households’ choice of specific coping strategies in Kitui
Gebissa prepared and edited the write-up of the article. county, Kenya,” Journal of Food Security, vol. 9, 2021.
[15] G. Miaoulis and R. Michener, An Introduction to Sampling,
Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, Dubuque, IL, USA, 1976.
Acknowledgments [16] T. Yamane, Statistics: An Introductory Analysis, Harper &
Row, New York, NY, USA, 1967.
The researchers are extremely grateful to the Wollega [17] C. Carletto, A. Zezza, and R. Banerjee, “Towards better
University, Research and Community Service Vice President measurement of household food security: harmonizing in-
Office, Ethiopia (Ref. No. WU/V/PRCS/982/2020) for dicators and the role of household surveys,” Global Food
providing funding for their work. Security, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 30–40, 2013.
The Scientific World Journal 15

[18] H. W. Green, Econometric Analysis, New York University

Macmillan Publishing Company, New York, NY, USA,
Fourth Edition, 2003.
[19] T. Abo and B. Kuma, “Determinants of food security status of
female-headed households: the case of wolaita sodo town,
south nations, nationalities and peoples region, Ethiopia,”
International Journal of Scientific Footprints, vol. 3, no. 2,
pp. 8–24, 2015.
[20] W. Peng and E. M. Berry, “The concept of food security,” in
Encyclopedia of Food Security and Sustainability, P. Ferranti,
E. M. Berry, and J. R. Anderson, Eds., vol. 2, pp. 1–7, 2019.
[21] S. Y. Yenesew, N. O. Eric, and B. Fekadu, “Determinants of
livelihood diversification strategies: the case of smallholder
rural farm households in Debre Elias Woreda, East Gojjam
Zone, Ethiopia,” African Journal of Agricultural Research,
vol. 10, no. 19, pp. 19 98–2013, 2015.
[22] G. W. Gebru, H. E. Ichoku, and P. O. Phil-Eze, “Determinants
of livelihood diversification strategies in eastern tigray region
of Ethiopia,” Agriculture & Food Security, vol. 7, no. 1,
pp. 62–69, 2018.
[23] W. Zeweld Nugusse, G. Van Huylenbroeck, and J. Buysse,
“Determinants of rural people to join cooperatives in
Northern Ethiopia,” International Journal of Social Eco-
nomics, vol. 40, no. 12, pp. 1094–1107, 2013.
[24] O. Busari Ahmed, K. M. Idris-Adeniyi, and A. O. Lawal,
“Food security and post-harvest losses in fruit marketing in
Lagos metropolis, Nigeria,” Discourse Journal of Agriculture
and Food Sciences, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 52–58, 2015.
[25] B. Endalew, M. Muche, and S. Tadesse, “Assessment of food
security situation in Ethiopia: a review,” Asian Journal of
Agricultural Research, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 55–68, 2015.
[26] A. Bekele and A. Amsalu, “Household responses to drought in
Fentale pastoral Woreda of Oromia regional state, Ethiopia,”
International Journal of Economic Development Research and
Investment, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 36–52, 2012.
[27] C. Y. Okyere, Y. Yacouba, and D. Gilgenbach, “The problem
of annual occurrences of floods in Accra: an integration of
hydrological, economic and political perspectives,” Theoret-
ical and Empirical Researches in Urban Management, vol. 8,
no. 2, pp. 45–79, 2013.
[28] S. Asfir, “Determinants of rural households’ livelihood
strategies: evidence from Western Ethiopia,” Journal of
Economics and Sustainable Development, vol. 7, no. 15,
pp. 103–109, 2016.