HARAMAYA UNIVERSITY

CHIRO CAMPASE COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS

SENIOR RESEARCH PROJECT

ANALYSIS OF FOOD INSECURITYRURAL HOUSEHOLDS OF ZENZELIMA KEBELE

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR B.Sc. DEGREE IN

AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS

By: ID NO

Elaine Gebeyawu 5183/08

i
Chiro, Ethiopia

May,5/2018

ii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Contents Page
Abbreviation and Acronyms................................................................iv

Acknowledgment..................................................................................v

Abstract................................................................................................vi

1. INTRODUCTION.............................................................................1
1.1 Back ground of the study...................................................................................................................1
1.2 Statement of the Problem.................................................................................................................2
1.3 Objective of the study........................................................................................................................3
1.3.1 General objectives......................................................................................................................3
1.3.2. Specific objectives......................................................................................................................3
1.4 Significance of the Study....................................................................................................................4
1.5 Scope and limitation of the study......................................................................................................4

2. LITERATURE REVIEW..................................................................4
2.1 Theoretical review.............................................................................................................................4
2.1.1 Definition and Concept of Food Security....................................................................................4

Food availability....................................................................................5

Food access:..........................................................................................5

Food utilization;....................................................................................5

Stability of Food:...................................................................................6

Food and nutrition safety:.....................................................................6

2.1.2 Sources of Food Insecurity...........................................................6

iii
 2.2 Empirical Literature...........................................................................................................................7
2.2.1 Food Security Situation in Ethiopia.............................................................................................7

2.2.2 Determinants of Food security in Ethiopia..................................8

3. METHODOLOGY..........................................................................10
3.1. Description of the study area.........................................................................................................10

Population: -........................................................................................10

Climate:-..............................................................................................10

3.2 Sampling technique and sample size...........................................11

3.3 Method of data collection...............................................................................................................12
3.4 Method of data analysis..................................................................................................................12

3.5 Hypothesis.....................................................................................14
3.5.2 The Independent Variables of the Model.................................................................................14

7...........................................................................................................16

4 .RESULT AND DISCUSSION.......................................................16

4.1 Descriptive statistics........................................................................................................................16
From the above table results ,............................................................................................................17
4.2 Food expenditure method of measuring Food security...................................................................18
4.3 Constraints of food security.............................................................................................................18

4.4. Inferential statistics......................................................................19

4.4.1 Cross tabulation of sex of household head and food security status........................................19
4.4. Compare means..............................................................................................................................20
4.5 Binary logistic regression model......................................................................................................21

5. Conclusion.......................................................................................23

6. RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................24

7. REFERENCE..................................................................................25
iv
 List of tables

Table 1; source of food insecurity...............................................................................................................14

Table 2; Hypothesized determinants of food security in zenzelemakebele.................................................23
Table 3: description of catagorical variables’..............................................................................................24
Table 4: summery of the minimum, maximum mean and std. deviation for continuous variables.............24
Table 5: constraints of food security in zenelima kebele.............................................................................26
Table 6: categorical variables and food security cross tabulation...............................................................27
Table 7: means and std. deviation of food security in zenelima kebele......................................................28
Table 8:parameters of a binary logistic model for factor affecting food security status.............................29

v
Abbreviation and Acronyms

AHH Age of household head

CA Credit Access
EDU Educational level of household head
FAO Food and Agricultural Organization
FHH Female Headed Household
GDP Gross Domestic Product
LO Land ownership
MSHH Marital status of household head
SOHH Size of household head
SPSS Statistical package of Social science
TLU Tropical livestock unit
USAID United States Aid for International Development
WB World Bank

vi
 Acknowledgment
First and foremost, our greatest gratitude reaches to the almighty God, who helps
us just from the beginning to the end and permits us to see the fruit of our effort.
Next, we are indebted to and gratefully acknowledge to our advisor
AntenehMulugetawho put us in the right track of the research. Successful and
timely accomplishment of this study would have been very difficult without his
generous time devotion from the early title selection till the final write up of this
research through adding his constructive and ever teaching comments. Thus we
were very much indebted to him for his willingness to advise us and day-to-day
efforts that enabled me to finalize the study. In addition, we would like to thank all
of our key informants, group discussion participants, and respondent households
who provided me the necessary information in the study kebeles.

vii
 Abstract
Achieving food insecurity for all people at all-time remains huge challenges for several
developing countries including Ethiopia. Attainment of food security was the core problem
confronting farming households, especially women and rural population due to low productivity.
The study was carried out to assess of household food security among rural household in Nejebas
kebele in Chiro woreda and to identify the major determinants of food insecurity in the study
area, for the study purposive sampling technique was used to select the appropriate samples
households in Nejebas kebele. For this study total of 200 households were selected randomly
from the kebeles. Descriptive statistics and binary logistic regression were used to analyze the
data, food expenditure method shows that households on average expend 284.9515kg/household
heads/year, indicated that it is also greater than the standard annual food available 250
kg/household heads/year, the main constraints of households were lack of market access , low
economic status ,low livestock and unimproved technology . Binary logistic model was selected
to identify the determinants of food security in Nejebas kebele. It showed sex, age, family size,
education, and land owner are highly influenced on odds being food secured.

viii
 1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Back ground of the study

Food security and insecurity are terms used to describe whether or not households have access to
sufficient quality and quantity of food. Food security issues gained prominence in the 1970s, and
have since been given considerable attention. Food security perceived the global, national,
households and individual level.

Food security at global level does not granite food security at the national level. Ethiopian
economy until recently had been strongly dominated by the agricultural sector. The agricultural
sector if the first largest contributor to the country GDP, yet it is characterized by low
productivity and limited competiveness. This is because the sector is dominated by subsistence
and small holder production units applying mostly basic and low level of technology (Duffor,
2010). It is a source of level hood for majority of Ethiopian population. It is the source of raw
materials for industries, a major foreign exchange earner and also the main source of food
security for the country, agriculture is the main employer of rural households. It is the small scale
formers who produce for incomes .Food and employment.

Food insecurity is a global hazard that is threatening every country of the world. It exists when
People do not have adequate physical, social or economic access to food. A total number of 925
million people are undernourished. Of whom 239 million are sub-Saharan Africa (FAO, 2010).
Accordingly, Ethiopia is among the poorest and most Food in secured countries of the world
where 44% of its population live below the national Poverty line and 46% of its population get
below the minimum Levels of dietary energy consumption (Alem,2007). On the other hand, in
terms of food security, Ethiopia is one of the seven African countries that constitute half of the
food insecure population in sub-Saharan Africa (Girma,2012). This is why almost every
government in the third world countries declare the provision of sufficient and advocate nutrition
and food as its first development objectives. According to the existing literature, Ethiopia is one
of the world’s poorest countries with indicators suggesting low levels of development. Many

1
Ethiopians live in conditions of chronic hunger with a low average daily energy supply. It has
been plagued with food insecurity for decades (Beyene, 2008).

Similarly, in the ranking of countries on the prevalence of food energy deficiency, from highest
to lowest; Ethiopia is the leading insecurity level by 76.4 % (Smith et. al., 2006). A combination
of factors has resulted in serious and growing food insecurity problem in Ethiopia, affecting as
much as 45% of the population .The problem is worsening, despite massive resources invested
each year into humanitarian aid and food security programs one stark indicator of the
precariousness of food security in Ethiopia is the rising dependence on foreign food
Aid .Food aid has kept people alive, but done nothing to address the causes of food insecurity
(EC, 2009).
Different sources also reflect similar idea on foreign food aid dependency of Ethiopia. Over the
course of the last decade, Ethiopia has received an average of 700,000 million ton of food aid
annually, and the figure has risen dramatically in recent crisis years (since 1996, the quantity of
food appealed for has multiplied by 4.5, while the number of beneficiaries has multiplied by 6).
The un predictable timing and level of relief resources flowing through the emergency channel
means there are few opportunities to do more than addressing humanitarian needs (UNDP
2009).There is no problem of under development that can be more serious than food
insecurity .The majority of Ethiopians lives in rural areas and confronts similar challenges in
securing sufficient food, but given the topographic and biophysical variation throughout
Ethiopia, seasonal under nourishment varies across geographic space and time. Access to
sufficient food and nutrients is essential for Households with in sufficient access to food often
face other challenges related to food insecurity including poor health and a decline in
productivity. These challenges can often create a vicious circle whereby households are unable to
produce enough food, even in good years, because they are battling chronic health issues and are
unable to work to their full potential (FAO, 2009).

2
1.2 Statement of the Problem
Few case studies have been conducted at household levels and food insecurity studies at the
national level fails to articulate households availability and access to needed food (Hart,
2009).The majority of Ethiopia lives in rural areas tackle similar challenge in securing suffient
food at household level due to the topographic and biophysical variation throughout the country,
transistor food insecurity varies across geographic space and time.

We analyzed the status of food security in Nejebas kebele, because there is no recent studies
considering food insecurity problem. Due to this reason the factor which determine food security
were not identified, verified and quantified. The study was conduct at household level by
considering food insecurity is more crucial and persistent problem facing human being in
Nejebas kebele

The main economic stay of the population in Chiro Woreda, Nejebas Kebele was mixed forming
system at subsistence level, produce both crop and livestock. The study in Nejebas Kebele
particularly share of food defect situation due to the erratic, unpredictable and law amount of
rainfall situation (Nejebas extension service, 2015).

In Nejebas, the current crop production and productivity was found in declining trend because of
various production constraints, including soil fertility, high crop losses due to insect pest (such as
cut worm, stalk borer, armyworm, maize warm), and disease such as rust, and low level of input
utilization like fertilizer.

1.3 Objective of the study

1.3.1 General objectives
 The principal purpose of this study is to determinant of the status of food security or
insecurity in Zenzelima kebele at rural household level.

3
1.3.2. Specific objectives
 To assess the status of food insecurity among households in Zenzelima Kebele.
 To identify determinants of food security among households in the study area.

1.4 Significance of the Study

A study of house hold food security is vital because it provides with information that was enable
effective measures to be undertaken so as to improve food Security status and bring the success
of food security development programs. It also enables development practitioners and policy
makers to have better knowledge as to where and how to intervene in rural areas to bring food
security .Identification of its determinants can help service providers to examine the changing
needs for assistance and the effectiveness of existing programs that operate at national, state, and
local levels. This study is not only essential for the society of that district but also for us to
understand food security determinant, concept and measurement clearly in addition to the course
rural development and food security.
Furthermore; the study gives insight to researchers and students interested in the topic to
stimulate further investigations of the problems in the study area and other similar places.

1.5 Scope and limitation of the study

The study was conducted in Nejebas rural household to determaine the status of food security. It
was limited in identifying food secure and food insecure households in the Kebele of the study
areaand limitted samples (200). So, we were face with some difficulties while carrying out this
study. Lack of appropriate computer skill, unhappiness of some respondents, lack of enough time
and budget will the major obstacles.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Theoretical review

2.1.1 Definition and Concept of Food Security

Food security is defined in different ways by international organizations and researchers without
much change in basic concept. According to FAO (2003), food security is defined as Ensuring
that all people at all times have both physical and economic access to the food they need.

4
Similarly FAO’s revised definition stated that Food security is a multidisciplinary concept which
includes economic, political, demographic, social (discriminatory food access), cultural (eating
habits) and technical aspects. We can say people are food secure when they have all-time access
to sufficient, safe, nutritious food to maintain a healthy and active life (FAO, 2006). The World
Food Summit also defined food security as ‘Food security exists when all people at all times,
have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary
needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life(WB,1996, as cited IRIN, 2012).

Scholars analyze food security based on four dimensions of food security as food availability,
food accessibility, food utilization and stability.

Food availability refers to the physical presence of food which may come from own production,
purchases from internal market or import from overseas. Gregory et al., (2005) explained that
food availability refers to the existence of food stocks for consumption.

The same source, availability refers to the physical existence of food, be it from own production
or on the markets. On national level food availability is a function of the combination of
domestic food stocks, commercial food imports, food aid, and domestic food production, as well
as the underlying determinants of each of these factors. Use of the term availability is often
confusing, since it can refer to food supplies available at both the household level and at a more
aggregate (regional or national) level. However, the term is applied most commonly in reference
to food supplies at the regional or national level.

Food access: Household food access is the ability to obtain sufficient food of guaranteed quality
and quantity to meet nutritional requirements of all household members. Here, the food should
be at right place at the right time and people should have economic freedom or purchasing power
to buy adequate and nutritious food. Kuwornuet al, (2011), explained that food access is
determined by physical and financial resources, as well as by social and political factors. Access
depends normally on; income available to the household, the distribution of income within the
household, the price of food, and other factors worth mentioning are individuals’ access to
market, social and institutional entitlement/rights.

5
Food utilization; this refers to ingestion and digestion of adequate and quality food for
maintenance of good health. This means proper biological use of food, requiring a diet that
contains sufficient energy and essential nutrients, as well as knowledge of food storage,
processing, basic nutrition and child care and illness management (Jradet al, 2010).

Food utilization: proper biological use of food, requiring a diet with sufficient energy and
essential nutrients, potable water and adequate sanitation, as well as knowledge of food storage,
processing, basic nutrition and child care and illness management (USAID, 2008).

Stability of Food: refers to the continuous supply of adequate food all year round without
shortages (Jradet al, 2010). To be food secure a population, household, or individual must have
access to adequate food at all times. They should not be at risk of losing access to food as a
consequence of a shock (e.g. an economic or climatic crisis), or cyclically (e.g. during a
particular period of the year – seasonal food insecurity). The concept of stability can therefore
refer to both the availability and access dimensions of food security.

Food and nutrition safety: - is part of a wide range of issues which go beyond the avoidance
of food borne biological pathogens’, chemical toxicants’, and other hazards (FAO, 2002). There
is growing concern of consumers of developed countries about the effects of the food they eat on
their health. Several studies have food nutritional status measured through energy and protein
intake as one major indictor of poverty (srinvsan, 1988; datt and jolliffe, 1999, dattetal, 2000).
Other criteria used to identify the poor in the society are household income (sen, 1976;
sedeshietal, 2002), employment (fofack, 2002), and food consumption expenditures Greer and
thorbelke, 1986; fofack, 2002). Adopted from Frank et al. (1999) and Majda (2000) with major
modification

2.1.2 Sources of Food Insecurity

Both Rural and urban households faced a variety of risks, which may vary from natural to
manmade factors. Some of them are given in the table below.

Table 1; source of food insecurity

Risks Households and people at risk of food
insecurity

6
 Crop production risks (pests, drought, and - Smallholders with little income
diversification and limited access to improved
others)
technology, such as improved seeds, fertilizer,
irrigation, and pest control
Agricultural trade risks (disruption of exports - Landless farm laborers smallholders who are
or imports highly specialized in an exported food Urban
Food price rises (large, sudden price rises poor, net food-purchasing households Wage-
Unemployment risks earning households and informal-sector
employees (that is, in poor urban areas and
when there is sudden crop production failure,
in rural areas)
Health risks - Entire communities, but especially
(Infectious diseases, for example, households that can -not afford preventive or
curative care and vulnerable members of these
resulting in labor productivity decline)
households
Political and policy failure risks Households in war zones and areas of civil
Unrest - Households in low potential areas that
are not connected to growth centers via
infrastructure
Demographic risks - Women, especially when they have no access
to education
(Individual risk affecting large groups
- Female-headed households
- children at weaning age – aged
Source: Tesfaye (2005)

2.2 Empirical Literature

2.2.1 Food Security Situation in Ethiopia

According to Mulugeta (2002), Food insecurity and poverty in Ethiopia are attributed to the poor
performance of the agricultural sector, which in turn is attributed to both policy and non-policy

7
factors. Among the non-policy factors, recurrent drought is mentioned as the number one cause
of food shortage in Ethiopia. Existing literature reveals ,Between 1998 and 2012 ,the average
number of Ethiopians in need of food assistance fluctuated between 3 million and 14 million
where as other African countries that have comprehensive and sound plans to make their people
food secure in the long-term like Ghana and Saheilian countries like Niger (IRIN, 2012)

Ethiopia is considered a least developed country ranked 171 out of 182 countries in the UNDP
Human Development Index for 2009.Moreover , in the 2010 Global Hunger Index, which ranks
developing countries and countries in transition based on proportion of undernourished people,
proportion of underweight children under five, and child mortality rate, Ethiopia was given a
29.8, on a scale of 0-100, with 0 being the best and 100 the worst possible score. Ethiopia is one
of the countries that made the most absolute progress improving its score between 1990 and
2010; in 1990 it had a score of 43.7, and now it’s down to 29.8. However, this score is still
highly troubling – it’s currently ranked 80th out of 84 countries. Life expectancy has also
increased markedly in recent years, from 40 years at birth in 1950 to 55 years today, slightly
above the average for Africa, but still well below the global average of 68.9 years. (Evans,
2012). Generally, Social transfers and nutrition have received special attention in recent years as
important components in the debate about development.EU reference documents provide
guidance on how social transfers can play an important role in improving nutrition outcomes
(EU, 2011).

Food security document of Ethiopia also recognizes a combination of short-term and long-term
Causal factors explaining the trend of the increasing food insecurity at household level (FDRE,
2002). Long-term factors, such as the interaction between environments, high population growth,
diminishing land-holdings, and a lack of on-farm technological innovation have led to a
significant decline in land productivity per household. Ayalneh (2002) describes the food
insecure groups of households as those who live on the edge of subsistence often located in
remote areas far from markets.

2.2.2 Determinants of Food security in Ethiopia

Different Empirical evidences have shown that many factors are responsible for household food
insecurity. According to World Food Programmed, the common factors that cause household

8
food-insecurity in rural areas of the country are: household size, age of household, sex of
household head, marital status of household, education level of household, dependency ratio,
access to credit, ownership of saving account, total income per adult equivalent, expenditure
level (food and non-food), asset possession, access to social services, owner of home garden,
access to subsidized food, sources of food, availability of food commodities, and supply of food
commodities (WFP, 2009). However; Girma’s study showed that access to credit service, asset
possession, and household head education and access to employment were negatively related
with probability of being food insecure (Girmma,2012).Similarly, Mequanint’s study result
shows that education level of household was negatively related with probability of being food
insecure (Mequanint, 2009).

Internationally, the emerging causes of food insecurity include; declining world food stocks,
price volatility in the food and energy market, demographic growth, changing food habits, urban
growth, the boom in bio fuels, climate changes that affect production, above all, the links
between the financial markets and speculation within agricultural futures markets (EC, 2009).
The government of Ethiopia have witnessed that a combinations of factors, such as adverse
changes in climate; draught, poor technology, soil degradation, and inefficient water
management are the major factors for poor agricultural performance in Ethiopia (FAO, 2009),
and policy induced, as well as program implementation problems have resulted in serious and
growing problems of food insecurity in Ethiopia. Since the country is dependent on agriculture,
crop failure usually leads to household food deficit. The absence of off-farm income
opportunities, and delayed food aid assistance, poor access to credit, lack of access to inputs,
leads to asset depletion and increasing levels of destitution at household level (FDRE, 2002;
2003).

The government of Ethiopia (FDRE, 2003) has framed the overall causes of food insecurity in
the country as lack of access to input, lack of information, lack of access to credit, lack of access
to technology, limited access to basic services, land degradation and decreased productivity, lack
of income generation activities and alternatives. For instance, Abebaw (2003), from a case study
of Dire Dawa, investigated that family size, annual income, amount of credit received, irrigation
use, age of household head, status of education, cultivated land size, livestock ownership and
number of ox owned to be the most determinants of food insecurity. In the context of increased

9
food prices, household income is an independent predictor of food insecurity only among
households in the low income, urban households. Sex of household head, educational status of
primary or less and being a member of households with high dependency ratio were independent
predictors of food insecurity in urban, semi-urban, and rural areas (Tefera, et. al, 2012).
According to Meskerem and Awolu, age of households, Family size, dependency ratio, average
income and kilo calorie intake per adult equivalent are the major determinants of urban
household food insecurity (Meskerem and Awolu, 2013).

10
 3. METHODOLOGY
3.1 Description of the study area.

Nejebas (the study area) is one of the kebele in Chiro woreda, West
hararghe, Zone Oromia regional state of Ethiopia. Nejebas is bounded
on south Gemechis kebele, on the west Medichis and Shekadem kebele,
on the north by Chiro town and mache Kebele,and on the east by Chiro
kelo kebele. The total land area of study kebele is 67428 ha, of land from this 26531 ha, is

11
used for cultivation 7261 ha, coverd by forest and bosh,5000 ha are grazing land, 11926 ha, are
communal land the rest 21210 ha, are gully and rocky. The farming system of the community in
the study area is mixed farming system both agricultural crop production and animals rearing.
Some common crop types are grown in the area including Chat,mize , Sorgum,potatoes,

The total population of Kebele is 7300. Throw this 3175 are men and 4125 are Women, the
livelihood of people in the kebele depending on agricultural activity, HHs(Nejabas Keble
Administrative Office, 2010).

The climate condition of the study area characterized by fluctuate rain fall pattern and
temperature.The study area has mean annual minimum and maximum rain fall is 700mm and
900mm and the mean annual temperature is range from 17.5°c to 25 oc respectively. The agro
ecological climate zone of the study area is characterized by 46% Dega and 34% Kola.

3.2 Sampling technique and sample size

Simple random and sampling cluster technique was used for the study. Where, first step; Nejebas
Kebele was selected purposively to address food security issue in the area; to know food status of
the kebele and due to shortage of time and budget; it is difficult to conduct in other far places we
didn’t known before.

Slovin Formula: n= N__

1+N (E) ²
Where: n = sample size
N = total number of household from three sub-kebeles
E = margin of error

N =1939 house holds

: n= 1939_ = 95
1+1939 (0.1) ²

12
The above formula shows that the actual sample size for this study is 95, but we were use a total
of 200 households for this study from 1939 HHs of three sub kebeles.
Proportional sample size based on house hold is essential to determine the number of respondent
from three sub kebeles that means the first sub kebele Michelnuse 47, gedro 87 and the other sub
kebele sesberet 66 respondents from each sub kebele.

3.3 Method of data collection

Both qualitative and quantitative data was collected from primary and secondary source to
identify the important variable that affect household food security .To generate qualitative and
quantitative information at household level, household interview survey was used by developing
open and closed ended question .This questionnaire was translated in into Amharic language to
make question clear for the respondent and to facilitate data collection during household
survey .The primary data was obtained from sample respondent using household interview
survey method to get first-hand information about food security situation ,extent or level of
household food security practiced by food insecure household in the study area .Qualitative data
was gathered through focused group discussion and key informant interview .Secondary data
was collected from published and unpublished material related to the subject .The data to be
collected for this study mainly include household demographic characteristics ,socio-economic
characteristics ,income source ,food and non-food expenditure and other institutional factor that
cause household food insecurity in the study area.

3.4 Method of data analysis

The collected data for the study the determinants of food security was processed and analyzed by
using descriptive statistics like mean, percentage, minimum, maximum, tabulation and with the
help of Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) also using Independent t-test and chi
square for continuous and discrete variables respectively .In addition, inferential statistics to
estimate the status of food security about the target population.
Food security at household level is best measured by the direct survey of dietary intake (in
comparison with appropriate adequacy norms). The level of, and changes in, socio economic and

13
demographic variables can be properly analyzed, and can serve as proxies to indicate the status
of and changes in food security (Von Braun et al, 1992).

Food security at the household level is measured by direct survey of income, expenditure, and
consumption and comparing it with the minimum subsistence requirement. In this regard, income
and expenses are used to compute the status of food security. The minimum level of income,
which is required per adult equivalent, was calculated on the basis of amount of food required by
an adult person. The government of Ethiopia has set the minimum acceptable weighted average
food requirement per person per day at 2100 kilo calorie (FDRE, 1996; cited in Kifle, 1999),
which is estimated to be 250kg of food (grain equivalent) per person per year. Consequently, a
threshold level is set by computing the value of this amount of cereal by the existing local market
price of grain. Thus, those households beyond this thresholds level will be deemed to be food
secured otherwise not food secured.

Having identified the food insecure and food secured groups of households, the next step is to
identify the socio economic characteristics that are correlated with the food security. In light of
this, it was hypothesized that there are some household characteristics like household size,
income, household head educational level, etc that have got relative importance in determining
the state of food security at household level.

To analyze determinants of food security at household level, the binary logistic model was
employed.. The binary logistic model was selected since the aim of the study was identifying
foods insecure and food secure households in the study area .

The dependent variable in this study is Household Food Security (HFS) status. House hold food
security is hypothesized to be a function consisting of the following components.

HFS=f(Age of house hold, educational level of house hold, family size ,credit access , livestock
ownership ,farm land size,).
So hypothesized predictor variables on house hold food security in Zenzelima Kebele at rural
household were;
So the dependent variable for this model formulation is household food security status ,(0 for
food insecure and 1 for food secure) and independent variable for this study were; age of house

14
hold , family size ,education level of household head,sex of household , ,household marital status
).So the binary logistic model as follows as :
Mathematical expression of the model
 p 
Ln     0  1 xi1   2 xi 2  .... k xik  u i
1 p  (Gujararti, 2004)

Where;
Ln= natural logarithm

P=probability of being food secure

1-p=probability of food insecure

β0,β1,β2,… and βk are coefficients of explanatory variables

x1, x2, … and xk are explanatory variables

n=number of explanatory variables

ui=error term

From the above equation, we can derive p as follows:

e  0  1 xi 1   2 xi 2 ... .  k xik
p
1  e  0  1 xi 1   2 xi 2 ... .  k xik …………… Law of exponential function

Where, e=the base of natural logarithm

3.5 Hypothesis
3.5.1 The Dependent Variable of the Model

The dependent variable for this study was household food security status.( 0 for food insecure
and 1 for food secure)

3.5.2 The Independent Variables of the Model

15
The following explanatory variables are hypothesized to be the major determinants of household
food security
Age of household head: age is a continuous explanatory variable peculiar to the household
head. As age of household increases, it is assumed that households could acquire more
knowledge and experience. They are more risk averter and the chance of a household to become
more food secure increases along an increase in age (Mulugeta, 2002; Ayalew, 2003). Therefore,
it is hypothesized that age of the household heads has positive impact on food security.

Family size: Family size refers to the total number of household members who lived and eat
with household head at least for six months. An increase in household size implies more mouth
to be fed from the limited resources. Large family size has negative relationship with food
security (Mulugeta, 2002; Abebaw (2003). Thus, it is hypothesized that family size has negative
impacts on food security.

Education level of household head: It is a dummy variable defined whether the household head
is literate or illiterate. Education is an important variable determining of household food security.
Guled (2006), However, Mequanint found significant and negative influence of education on
household food security. On the other hand, Mequanint thesis found that education of household
has no positive impact to food security (Mequanint, 2009). In this study, this variable is
expected to have positive relationship with household food security.

Sex of household: It is a dummy variable that is taken as one factor for food security .the
hypothesis shows food insecurity worse in female headed household (Ayalew, 2003;Tefera, et.
al, 2012). Therefore, it is hypothesized that being female headed house hold worsens food
security.
Land owner:It is hypothesized that as the land owner increased food insecurity situation will be
decreased (Abebaw, 2003; WFP, 2009) in other words food security increase,other things constant.
Access to credit service: It is expected that household who has access to credit has better
opportunity to be food secure than the one who doesn’t have access. Therefore, it is hypothesized
that there is positive association between access to the credit and household food security (FDRE;
2003; Abebaw, 2003).
Household Heads’ Marital Status: - Marital status is a continuous explanatory variable
peculiar to the household head. It includes: Never Married, Married, Widowed, Divorced and

16
Separated. As head of household is married, it is assumed that people could acquire more
knowledge and experience. Thus, it is hypothesized that marital status of the household heads
and food security are positively correlated.

Table 2; Hypothesized determinants of food security in Nejebas kebele

No Determinants Continuous Categorical Effect on food

security
1 Age  +
2 Family size  -
3 The education level of household  +
level
4 Sex  -
5 Marital status  +
6 Land owner  +
Credit access  +
7

17
 4 .RESULT AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Descriptive statistics

Based on the reviewed literatures, some of the common predictors that are expected to
influence rural household’s food security in Nejebas Kebele could be categorized into
demographic and socio-economic variables. Those variables shows by the following table
descriptions.

Table 3: description of catagorical variables’

variables categories Frequency Percent

SHH female 7 3.5%
male 193 96.5%
EDUSH illiterate 131 65.5%%
H literate 69 34.5%
MARSHH single 5 2.5%
married 193 96.5%

widowed 2 1%

As the survey result indicated that, most of the respondents 193(96.5%) were male and the rest 7
(3.5%) were female from the total household head. Education is could have positive impact on
household ability to take good and well informed production and nutritional status. The higher
the educational level the household head, the more food secure the house hold is expected to be.
From 200 respondents about 131 (65.5%)were illiterate and the remaining 69 ( 34.5%) were
literate that means the household head can read and write only.The marital status were single,
married and widowed. As the survey result indicates that about 193(96.5%) were married,(2.5
%) single and the remaining 2(1%) were widow.

18
Table 4: summery of the minimum, maximum mean and std. deviation for continuous variables

Variables N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

family size 200 2.00 11.00 5.8000 1.81285
age of the house hold head 200 24.00 82.00 48.6400 12.05725

total land own timad

200 0 12.5 5.1148 2.90722
total rent in in timad
200 0 6.5 0.37 0.93136
cultivated land own
200 0 10 3.1571 2.09503
expenditure per adult
200 66.38 1344.8 284.9515 233.9285

From the above table results, the maximum family size was 11 and also the minimum family size
was 2, mean 5.8, std deviation also (1.81285) . The minimum age of house hold head was
( 24),and the maximum(82) ,and also mean age (48.6400), std deviation(12.05725).Farm Land
size; the survey result indicates, farm land size is the total land own by the house hold measured
in timed. The maximum land owned by the household was 12.5 timad (3.125 ha) and the
minimum is 0 tamed (0 ha). The mean of total land own for 200 household was about 5.1148
timad and also on average each household land own deviates from the mean by 2.90722 timad,
std.deviation was (2.90722). Cultivated land; It was also important determinant of house hold
food security.It was the total cultivated land own by the house hold measured in timad and
cultivated land own the maximum is around 10 timad or 2.5 ha. The mean of cultivated land is
about 3.1571 timad and also in this cultivated land std.deviationis ( 2.09503).Rented land; rented
land own the maximums around 6.5 tamed or 1.5 ha and the minimum is 0 timad (0 ha). The
mean rented land is about 3.1572 tamed and also in this rented land landstd.deviation
were(2.09503).

4.2 Food expenditure method of measuring Food security

Food security at household level is best measured by the direct survey of dietary intake. The
minimum level of income, which is required per adult equivalent, was calculated on the basis of
amount of food required by an adult person. The government of Ethiopia has set the minimum
acceptable weighted average food requirement per person per day at 2100 kilo calorie (FDRE,
1996; cited in Kifle, 1999), which is estimated to be 250 kg of food (grain equivalent) per person
per year. Consequently, a threshold level is set by computing the value of this amount of

19
cerealby the existing local market price of grain. Thus, those households beyond this thresholds
level will be deemed to be food secured otherwise not food secured.The household expenditure
method shows that, the total expenditure per adult equivalent is about 284.5915 kg per adult
equivalent which is greater than 250 kg/adult equivalent as a standard for the household.

4.3 Constraints of food security

From the table below most of the respondents were food secured because they used improved
technology, extension services, and herbicides. The farmers are in good status and on shortage of
livestock, drought, lack of market access and credit access were found to be the main constraints.
The study area(zenelima),the response of drought, land degradation, credit access were medium
constraints, and livestock, insufficient land were severe constraints. The frequency and percent
of each constraint shown by the following table.

Table 5: constraints of food security in Nejebas kebele

constraint response
Frequency Percent
drought constraint severe 79 39.5%

medium 99 49.5%

minor 22 11%

land degradation severe 83 41.5%

constraint medium 96 48%
minor 21 10.5%

shortage of severe 93 46.5%

livestock medium 63 31.5%
minor 44 22%

severe 105 52.5%

insufficient land
medium 75 37.5%
minor 20 10%

unimproved severe 82 41%

technology

20
 medium 82 41%
minor 36 18%

lack of market severe 59 29.5%

access
medium 83 41.5%
minor 58 29%

infrastructures/ severe 83 41.5%

road, information midium 83 41.5%
minor 34 17%

4.4. Inferential statistics

4.4.1 Cross tabulation of sex of household head and food security status

The cross tabulation is table that shows the association of sex ,education and credit access on
food security status.

Table 6: categorical variables and food security cross tabulation

Food security status Chi- df p-value
food food Total square
insecured secured
SHH female count 2 5 7 3.818 1 0.052
%sfhh 28.6% 71.4% 100%
male count 125 68 193
%smhh 64.8% 35.2% 100%

total % of Total 63.5% 36.5% 100.0%

EDHH illiterat count 89 44 133 2.000 1 0.157

e
%ilhh 66.9% 33.1% 100%
literate count 38 29 67
%lhh 56.7% 43.3% 100%
total % of Total 63.5% 36.5% 100.0%
CA No count 103 54 157 1.396 1 0.237
%nohh 65.6% 34.4% 100%
yes count 24 19 43
%yeshh 55.8% 44.2% 100%
% of Total 63.5% 36.5% 100.0%
total

21
Form cross tabulation table, about 64.8 percent of the food insecure households was male headed
and the remaining 28.6 percent were female. Likewise, 35.2 percent and 71.4 percent of the food
secure households were male and female headed, respectively. From the result education 66.9
percent were illiteracy of food insecured and 56.7 percent were literate became less food
insecured. Most of the food insecure households were received less credit access whereas of the
food secure households received more credit. Though in this research it was hypothesized that
male headed households are less likely to be food insecure than female headed ones, the survey
result shows that Pearson chi square were 3.818 on 1 df ,and p -value were 0.57. Education were
2.00 chi-square and 0.157 p- value .Literacy of household can lead food secured but illiterate are
became more food insecured. Credit form the result were 1.396 chi square and 0.237 on 1 df .
Most of the households are not received credit access, among this food insecure households were
the main than food secure households. The effect of categorical variables on food security are
expressed by the following

4.4. Compare means

In the sample survey the mean difference of continuous variables such as age of household,
family size of household, and land ownership were analyzed by compare means and
std.deviation

Table 7: means and std. deviation of food security in Nejebas kebele

Variables food security status N Mean Std. Deviation

age of the house food secured 74 44.6216 11.55061

hold head food insecured 126 51.0000 11.76231

the total family food secured 74 4.8649 1.59901

size food insecured 126 6.3492 1.70795

total land own food secured 74 4.4772 2.81925

timad food insecured 126 5.6499 3.35317

22
In the survey the mean age of food secure is about 44.62 years whereas the mean age of food
insecured is about 51 years and the std.deviations are (11.55061)and(11.76231) respectively . In
addition, the corresponding foods secure households whose family size was around 4.8649
members per household and food insecure household was about 6.3492 members per household.
There was a mean difference between land ownership of food secured and food insecured
household that means the mean land size of food secured was about 4.4772 timad per household
head and the land ownership of food insecured household were about 5.6499 timad

4.5 Binary logistic regression model

Binary logistic model was selected to identify the determinants of food security in zenzelima
kebele. The result shows that the sample households were found to be secured and insecure
according to the consumption expenditure per adult equivalent level, hence our next step is to
know the contribution of factors to food security in reasarch area(in zenelima kebele) , it was
clear that , food security is affected by many socio economic factors . Almost seven variables
were used to find the main factors that contribute to food security.

Table 8:parameters of a binary logistic model for factor affecting food security status

Variables B S.E. Wald df Sig. Odds ratio

age -.040 .015 6.920 1 .009 .961

Sexhh(1) 1.765 1.036 2.903 1 .088 .171

tfm -.622 .672 .855 1 .055 .537

Eductionhh(1) .010 .008 1.568 1 .011 1.010

totlandown .029 .059 .240 1 .024 .972

livowwner .049 .028 3.051 1 .050 .952

credcc(1) .493 .369 1.786 1 .181 1.638

Constant 5.747 2.983 3.711 1 .054 313.320

.
Out of the seven variables to affect household food security, among these,three were found to be
statistically significant at 5% level of significance, and one was found to be statistically
significant at 1% level of significance. The maximum likelihood estimates of the binary logistic
model shows that family size (FHH),age of the household head (AHH), educational level of the

23
household head (EDU),land ownership(LO) were important determinants identified to influence
household food security status in zenzelma kebele. That means, the coefficient of age household
head was found to be statistically significant at 1% level of significance.Education of household,
livestock ownership and land ownership were found to be statistically significant at 5 percent
level of significance. Whereas the coefficients of three explanatory variables, namely, sex of
household head, total family size were statistically significant at 10 percent level of significance.
And the remaining insignificant.

Family size of household head(SOHH); it was found to be significantly influnced and to

determine household food security in the zenenelima Keble. Household size highly associated
with odds being food secure of household. The relationship indicates that, the odd ratio of being
food secured decreases by a odds ratio of 0.537, cetris paribus when the family size increases by
one number due to an increase in household size implies more mouth to be fed from the limited
resources.

Age of household head (AGE) it was found that the age of household had highly and
significantly influenced the odds ratio of likelihood for the household to become food secure .the
binary logistic model results in the above table as the age of household increase , the household
food security decrease ,means that the older farmer were less to do in farming activity(in the
production system). This means that an increase in the age of the household head decreases the
likelihood for the household to become food secure. Keeping other factor unchanged, the odds
of being food secured decreases by a factor of 0.961 when age of the household head increases
by a one unit.

Land Owner(LO): it was found that the amount of land own had positively and significantly
influenced the odds of being food secured at 5 percent significant level. This result implies the
household who had more land was food secured easily than the household who had less land
owner. The odd ratio 0.972 for land shows that, other thing being constant, being food secured
by the factor of 0.972 as land owner increased by one unit.

24
Education of household head (EHHH):The binary logistic model table shows that, education
has highly associated with household head food security odds level. The possible reasons
wereeducated household heads were more willing to adopt better production technologies,
accept technical advice from extension workers, and diversifying their source of income than the
illiterate ones. As compared to illiterate, literate (read and write only) were more being food
secured than illiterate, keeping other factor constant. the odds of being food secured increased by
a odds ratio of 1.010 as the household head becomes literate (read and writes only).

25
 5. Conclusion

This study considers 200 sample household heads and of these about 96.5 was male headed and
the rest 3.5 were female head. The educational level of household was 65.5% were illiterate and
the remaining 34.5% are literate which means the households are read and write only the mean
age of household in the sample data is about 48.64 years and the mean household size was
about 5.8 members per households. The mean land owner of household in sample data is about
5.1148, and cultivated land 3.1571.The effects of categorical variables (like sex, education, credit
access e.t.c) on food security based on surveys were; about 64.8 percent of the food insecure
households were male headed and the remaining 28.6 percent were female. Likewise, 35.2
percent and 71.4 percent of the food secure households were male and female headed,
respectively. From the result literacy of household can lead food secured but illiterate were
became more food insecured. Most of the food insecure households were received less credit
access whereas of the food secure households received more credit.In the survey the mean age of
food secure is about 44.62 years whereas the mean age of food insecured is about 51 years at.The
corresponding food secure households whose family size was around 4.8649 members per
household and food insecure household are about 6.492 member per house hold.The study has
shown that almost (52%) of households in the Nejebas kebele were food secured during the
period of the study. It was analyzed using expenditure approach of measuring food security, It
was estimated that the available food expenditure per year was about 284.9515 kg/aduleq/ year
indicated that it is also greater than the standard annual food available 250 kg/households.. The
constraints identified in the sample farm households were land degradation, market access, and
unimproved technology. Binary logistic model was selected to identify the determinants of food
security in Nejebas kebele. The logistic model result shows age, family size,education ,land
owner are highly influenced on odds being food secured .

26
6. RECOMMENDATIONS

Possible policy recommendations that emanate from the results of the research study are
presented as follows:As family size and food security are negatively related serious attention has
to be given to limit the increasing population in the study area. This can be achieved by creating
sufficient awareness to effect family planning in the rural households. Even thought every
individual has a natural right to multiply himself with his willing partner, this right should be
effected with the ability to furnish his descendants with all the necessary or basic needs, specially
food. Otherwise, the ever-shrinking productive resources in the study area coupled with
increasing population would hamper any development intervention from achieving its objectives.
So, along with creation of effective family planning through effective extension services some
methods of incentives, such as material reward for those households accepting a given number of
children by the end of reproductive age, to limit the family size should be considered.

 Rural households in the study area have very limited room for generation of income.
Hence, for these households to enhance their welfare in general and food security in
particular, they must have diversified access to income alternatives. In the face of this,
provision of credit must be taken as a measure, though not the only one, to build the
capacity of farmers to invest in the agricultural sector, such as purchase of fertilizer,
pesticides, improved seed, live and productive animals

 The effect of education on household food security confirms the significant role of the
variable in consideration for betterment of living condition. The more household head
educated, the higher will be the probability of educating family member and familiar with
modern technology. So, strengthening both formal and informal education and vocational
or skill training should be promoted to increase food security

 The Development of livestock also helps in crop production by raising the traction power
and manure. From all livestock resources oxen are strategic asset especially for farming

27
 households; since they serve as a source of traction in the rural households. Therefore,
provision of common grazing land, better husbandry and management system, and better
veterinary facilities.

7. REFERENCE

Alem.S(2007). Determinates of Food Insecurity in Rural Households

TehuluderWoreda, South Wello Zone of the Amhara Region Addis Ababa
University School of Studies Master’s Thesis, Ethiopia

Alex Evans, (2012);Resources, risk and resilience: scarcity and climate change in
Ethiopia

AmdissaTeshome2006),a paper for the Future Agricultures Consortium workshop.

28
Aschalew F., (2006). Determinants and dimensions of household food insecurity in
Diredawa city, Ethiopia. Thesis submitted to the department of Agricultural
Economics, School of Graduate Studies of Alemaya University, and Alemaya.

BeyeneTadesse, (2008), measuring validity in Food grain prices and its impact on
the Demand for fertilizer and improved seeds in Cereal production in Ethiopia.
Eth. J.of.Agrc.Econ. 7(1), 1-29

World Bank Policy Study. Washington, D.C., 1986, me, 2003,

European Union,(2011), Development and cooperation-EUROPEAID: The role of

social transfers in improving nutrition.

FAO, (2003), Commodities and Trade Division: Trade Refororm

FAO, (2009), Global Hunger Index. International Food Policy Research Institute.

FAO (2006) Food security in Africa challenges and policy options to ensure
Africa’s future.

FAO (2010) Food insecurity in the world addressing food insecurity in protracted
crises.

Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Addis Ababa, 2002, Federal Democratic

Republic of Ethiopia: Food Security Strategy.

GezimuGebre, (2012): Determinants of food insecurity among households in

Addis Ababa, Aksum University, Ethiopia.

29
GirmaGezimu(2012), Determinants Of Food Insecurity Among Households in
Addis Ababa City, Ethiopia, Aksum University, Shire CampusInvestment
potentials of Ethiopia, Addis Ababa.
IRIN Africa, 2012 Ethiopia: Food security and the Meles' legacy

Maxwell, D., Levin, C., Armar-Klemesu, M., Ruel, M., Morris, S., and Ahiadeke,
C. 20002.

Mequanent M., 2009: Determinants of Household Food Security and Coping

Strategy: Thesis Haramaya University, Ethiopia.

Meskerem M. and Awolu E., (2013): Determinates and Coping strategies of Food
insecurity in Jimma Town, A research reported to Jimma university,
Ethiopia

Ministry of Finance and Economic Development (MoFED), 2002.Sustainable

Development and Poverty Reduction zero Draft Ministry of Finance
Economic Development, Addis Ababa.

Mulugeta Tefera, 2002. Determinants of household food security in Eastern

Oromiya: An MSc Thesis, Alemaya University: 84-12.

Smith, L C., Alderman, H and Aduayom, D., 2006, Food Insecurity in Sub-
Saharan Africa New Estimates from Household Expenditure Surveys:
International Food Policy Research Institute Washington, DC

30
 USAID, (2011): See the future feed change, Ethiopian multi –year strategy (2011-
2015). Verlage, Germany

Structural Questionnaire for Determinants of household food security

General information

1. Agro ecology 1) Dega 2) Woinadega 3) Kola

2. kebele_________________.
3. Name of household head________
4. Date of interview_____________
I. Household characteristics
5. Sex of household head 1) male 2) female
6. Marital status of household: 1) Married (2) Single (3) Divorced (4) Widowed
7. Age of the respondent ---------------------years
8. Education level 1) illiterate 2) Literate (read and write only) 3) Grade 1 to 4
4) Grade 5 to 8 5) Grade 9 to12
9. How far is the distance from your home to the main road? _____in(hr).

31
 10. Total family/household size(in number)?
11. Could you list out the age category of your household members?
II. Age groups Male female Total

Land and livestock ownership of households

12. Total Land ownership /own land in hectare/timad_____ ?
13. Cultivated land in hectare/timad _______?
14. Do you have rent-in land in the preceeding cropping season ?
a) Yes b) no
If yes ,amount----------(timad)

15 Do you have Rented-out land hectare /timad_______.

a) Yes b) no

If yes ,amount ---------(timad)

II Source of income
15. Livestock ownership of households
Type TLU Number
Livestock
Cow
Oxen
Calf
Sheep
Goat
Bull
Mule
Horse
Donkey
Poultry
Chicken
Beehive

32
 Bee

16. Income from crop produced of households/ in birr/

Type Quintal/Kg Price in birr value
1. Cereal crops
Teff
Wheat
f. millet
Maize

2. Fruits and vegetables

3. Tree crops

Have you sold crop for last cropping season ?

a) Yes b) no
If yes , amount ---------

Did you purchase crop for household consumption ?

a) Yes b) no
If yes , amount ---------------

18 Food security level /HH food balance Model /

18.1How many of food grain was AVILABLE for your family consumption purpose during the past one
year production time (in Quintal)?
Item How How How How many How many How How How Net grain
many many many grain grain lost many many many available
grain grain grain obtained after Post grain grain graingiv inqt/year/h
produced bought gains as through harvest in reserved sold in en to h (NGA)
in qt/year inqt/ye food aid gift/remittan qt/year for seed qt/year others in
? (GP) ar (GB) inqt/yea ce in qt/year (HL)/hh inqt/year (GS)/hh qt/year
r (FA) (GG) (GR)/hh (GV)
Teff
Maize
F.
Millet
Barely

33
 Sorghu
m
Chick
pea
Lentils
Pulses
Beans
Potatoes
Others

Source:Degefa in 1996 adopted from the FAO Regional Food Balance Model,

19. Do you have enough food for your family throughout the year? 1. Yes 2. No
20. If no, for how many months you face food shortage? ______________ Months.

21 Household expenditures
21.1. Food consumption and expenditure during the year in birr/ from last Ginbot-now/

No List of food items Week Month Per year Current market

( birr ) ( birr) ( birr) price
I Food s expenditure per
1 Teff
2 Wheat
3 Maize
4 f. millet
5 Potato
6 Tomato
7 Pepper
8 Ceremonies / meat. poultry , salt
oil , sugar etc
15 oil

34
16 sugar
17 Onion
II Non- food items
18 Farm inputs
19 Seed
20 Fertilizer
21 Cloth
22 Health
23 Education
24 Electricity/ gas
Etc
III Social obligations
25 Edir
26 Tax
Total

22. What do you think the main causes of food deficit/food insecurity/ in your locality?
No Constraints Yes/ no Suggested solutions
1 Extreme variability in rainfall/Drought
2 soil ferity decline/ land degradation
3 Low economic status /income /poverty
4 Pest and disease weed infestation
6 Shortage of livestock
7 Insufficient land holding
8 Unimproved technology
9 Lack of inputs(seed, fertilizer etc)
10 Limited extension service
11 Credit access / availability
12 Lack of market access and
13 Infrastructures/ road, information, etc.

35
36