ARSI UNIVERSITY

College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Bsc Degree in Agribusiness

and value chain management

Analysis of Food Insecurity and its Determinant in Asella town

Department of Agribusiness and value chain management

BY;Abayneh Alemu

Advisor; AYANTU.L (Ms.c)

April, 2024

Asella, Ethiopia

ii
Acknowledgement

To begin with I would like to provide my deepest and spatial thanks to God, who
help and guide me in right position. Next, I would also like to extend my thanks to
my advisor Ayantu leta who puts me in the right direction to do me research in the
right way and her polite relation with me. All in all, I have appreciated and
provided my sincere thanks to her. And in addition, I provide my thanks to Arsi
University College of Agriculture and Environmental Science workers specially
Mr. Nigus Tekletsadik who assisted me, as friend and direct me for the good
reference in all the way of my research activity.

iii
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
AE Adult Equivalent

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization

FGT Foster Greer Thorbeke

FSB Federal Food Security Coordination Bureau

GDP Gross Domestic Product

GNP Gross Nation Product

GOE Government of Ethiopia

HFI House Hold Food Insecurity

HYV High Yield Variety

MOFED Ministry of Finance and Economic Development

SNNPR Southern Nation Nationality People Region

USAID United States Aid for International Development

USD United States Dollar

iv
 Table of contents
Acknowledgement....................................................................................................iii

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS................................................................iv

Table of contents.......................................................................................................v

List of Tables...........................................................................................................vii

List of Figures........................................................................................................viii

ABSTRACT.............................................................................................................ix

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION.......................................................................1

1.1 Background and Justification...........................................................................1

1.2 Statement of the Problem.................................................................................3

1.3 Objective..........................................................................................................5

1.3.1 General Objective.......................................................................................5

1.3.2 Specific Objective......................................................................................5

1.4 Research Question............................................................................................5

1.5 Significance of the Study.................................................................................6

1.6 Scope and Limitation of the Study...................................................................6

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW...........................................................7

2.1 Theoretical Review..........................................................................................7

2.2 Empirical Review...........................................................................................10

v
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY................................................................13

3.1 Description of Study Area..............................................................................13

3.2 Sampling Techniques and Sample Size.........................................................13

3.3 Type, Source and method of data collection..................................................15

3.4 Method of Data Analysis and Analytical Model............................................15

3.5 Hypothesis......................................................................................................17

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION..............................................19

4.1 Food Insecurity Status of the Area.................................................................19

4.1.1 Descriptive Statistics for Continuous Variable........................................20

4.1.2 Descriptive & Inferential Statistics for Categorical Variables.................23

4.2 Determinants of Household Food Insecurity.................................................26

4.3 Marginal effect of Independent Variable.......................................................28

4.4 Coping Strategy..............................................................................................29

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION........................31

5.1 Conclusions....................................................................................................31

5.2 Recommendation............................................................................................32

REFERENCES........................................................................................................33

APPENDEXES........................................................................................................38

vi
List of Tables

Table 4.1:food insecurity status of house hold........................................................20

Table 4.2 descriptive statistics for continuous variables.........................................20

Table4.3: Inferential statistics result........................................................................21

Table 4.4, Chi-square test for sex of household......................................................23

Table 4.5: Crosstab for Educational level of house hold.........................................24

Table 4.6: Crosstab for farm input use in household...............................................24

Table4.7: income source of hh * food insecurity of household Cross tabulation...25

Table 4.8: Crosstab for credit access of household.................................................25

Table 4.9: Probit model result for determinant of food insecurity..........................26

Table 4.10:Result from probit model......................................................................28

Table 4.11& 4.12: coping strategies practiced by food insecure households.........30

vii
 List of Figures
Fig1: four dimensions of food security (http:://[Link]
/sites/default/files/What%20is%20Food%[Link]........................................8

Figure 2: sampling procedure.................................................................................15

viii
ABSTRACT

Agriculture is a key driver of Ethiopia’s long-term growth and food security.

Most the people are vulnerable to food insecurity and ensuring food security
remains a key issue for the Government of Ethiopia. In order to combat threats of
famine and persistent poverty and there by ensure food security for its population,
the government strategy has rested on increasing the availability of food grains
through significant investments in agricultural technologies. The impacts of these
policies, however, have been shadowed as there are still millions of people who
experience extreme hunger in the country. Ethiopia has experienced long periods
of food insecurity which may be ascribed to several factors which include
occasional droughts and also degradation of farm lands. These factors have
limited the “physical, social and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious
food necessary to meet the dietary needs and food preferences for leading an
active and healthy life” for majority of the residents. The objectives of this study
was to analysis food insecurity status, determinants of food insecurity and range of
coping strategies as well as measure the responsiveness of explanatory variable to
dependent (explained) variable in the study area. Multistage sampling technique
has been used to select both Tiyo wereda and Asella town for this study and a total
of 130 households were selected randomly from the study area. Both qualitative
and quantitative data were employed for this study. Primary data was collected by
direct interviewed of sample respondents; whereas, secondary data collected from
published and unpublished documents. Income expenditure method was employed
to identify the food insecurity status of household. Both descriptive and regression
analysis were also employed to analyze the collected data and we were used binary

ix
logit model to test our hypothesis and to reveal the effect of different variables on
house hold food insecurity.

Key words: Binary Logic, Determinant, Food insecurity, Dosha kebele, Rural

x
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background and Justification

Food insecurity is increasing in the world where 925 million people are
undernourished. Out of them, about 900 million people are living in developing
countries (FAO, 2010). More than 70% of these people live in rural areas and
depend, directly or indirectly, on agriculture for their living. The majority of the
developing countries invest in the agricultural sector due to which these
households are more vulnerable to price instability. The main focus of agricultural
investment remained on exportable crops to generate foreign exchange that forced
countries to rely on continued low international food prices to meet national food
demand (IAASTD, 2016).

The majority of food insecure and hungry people in the global context live in
Asia and the Pacific (16%), Sub-Saharan Africa (30%), and near East and North
Africa (8%), and Latin America and the Caribbean (9%). Among this the
proportion of food insecure and hungry people in Sub-Saharan Africa is showing
fast increment as compared to early 1990s (FAO, 2017).

The gap between food production and consumption in most SSA countries is
induced by the slowdown of the agricultural production growth rates. The major
causes for the slow growth rates of agriculture include various factors such as
unfavorable climatic conditions, undeveloped infrastructures, inappropriate
agricultural policies and predominantly traditional production systems (Mohamed,
1995).

1
 Most of the world’s poorest countries are in Africa and many of these face
chronic poverty and food insecurity. Agriculture, of which 85-90 percent is rain-
fed in Sub-Saharan Africa, accounts for 35 percent of the region’s gross national
product (GNP), 40 percent of exports and 70 percent of employment Babatunde et
al (2007).

Agriculture is a key driver of Ethiopia’s long-term growth and food security.

Agriculture directly supports 85 percent of the population, constitutes 43 percent of
Gross Domestic Product (GDP), and 80 percent of export value. Nearly 16 percent
of Government of Ethiopia (GOE) public expenditures are committed to the sector
(Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, 2010). Agriculture is the predominant and an
important economic sector in Ethiopia.

With a population projected to reach 80 million in 2010 and about 45 percent

living below the poverty line and most vulnerable to food insecurity. Ensuring food
security remains a key issue for the Government of Ethiopia. In order to combat
threats of famine and pervasive poverty and thereby ensure food security for its
population, the government strategy has rested on increasing the availability of
food grains through significant investments in agricultural technologies (high
yielding varieties of seeds, fertilizer), services (extension, credit, inputs), and rural
infrastructure (roads, markets). The impacts of these policies, however, have been
shadowed as there are still millions of people who experience extreme hunger in
the country (Bogale and Shimelis 2009).

According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

(FAO, 2010), reported that,41 percent of the Ethiopian population lives below the
poverty line and more than 31 million people are undernourished. However, the
2
latest undernourishment numbers show a positive trend (1990-92: 71% of the
population; 1995-97: 64%; 2000-02: 50%; 2004-06: 44%).

A report on the dynamics of poverty revealed that about 38.7% of the people in
Ethiopia were under the national poverty line in 2004/2005, and the poverty level
in rural areas (39.3%) was slightly higher than that of urban areas (35.1%)
(MoFED,2012).Between 2004/2005 and 2010/2011, the average headcount of
poverty decreased in both urban and rural areas of the country with the national
headcount poverty standing at 29.6% in 2010/[Link] of food
insecurity and malnutrition are prevalent in rural areas, with a population of six to
seven million chronically food insecure, and up to 13 million seasonally food
insecure(Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, 2010).

The performance of agriculture, however, in terms of feeding the country’s

population, which is growing at about 2.9 percent per annum, is poor. Currently in
Ethiopia, there are more than 10 million people who have been affected by
drought. Some 4.6 million people are threatened by hunger and malnutrition and
require urgent food assistance. The deteriorating situation is compounded by high
food prices, the cost of cereals has more than doubled in many markets since the
beginning of the year, hampering the ability of many people to meet their most
basic food needs and impoverishing them further (WFP2009).

1.2 Statement of the Problem

Several studies in the past have indicated that people of Ethiopia have
experienced long periods of food insecurity which may be ascribed to several
factors which include occasional droughts and also degradation of farm lands.

3
These factors have limited the “physical, social and economic access to
sufficient ,safe and nutritious food necessary to meet the dietary needs and food
preferences for leading an active and healthy life” for majority of the
residents(Gilligan et al, 2008).

According to (WFP, the 2018) Horn of Africa drought left 4.5 million
Ethiopians in need of emergency food assistance. Pastoralist areas in southern and
southeastern Ethiopia were the worst affected. In addition, cereal markets
experienced a supply shock and food prices were rose and resulting in high food
insecurity among poor people. By the beginning of 2012, the overall food security
situation had stabilized thanks to the start of the harvest season and sustained
humanitarian assistance. Still, even the Humanitarian Requirements Document
issued by the government in early 2012 estimates that 3.2 million people will
require relief food assistance from January to June 2012. This number is likely to
increase following the extended dry conditions and erratic start of the rain season.

Both transitory and chronic food insecurity are severe in Ethiopia. Moreover,
food insecurity is one of the defining features of rural poverty affecting millions of
people particularly in moisture- deficit and pastoral areas. Even in years of
adequate rainfall and good harvests, these people remain in need of food assistance
(FDRE, 2001).

Land degradation coupled with unpredictable rainfall, drought causes a serious

threat on households’ food security in Ethiopia. Besides, overgrazing, improper
cultivation practices, mismanagement of land resource are the main causes for land
degradation (Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, 2010). Poor soil fertility, land

4
shortage, frost attack, chronic shortage of cash income, poor farming technologies,
weak extension services, high labor wastage, and poor social and infrastructural
situation have caused the problem of food insecurity. Hence, a combination of
factors has resulted in serious and growing problem of food insecurity in Ethiopia
(Hussein, 2006). These would have cumulative effects on household level food
security status.

Through time, poor and hungry populations become less flexible to stress and
disasters as they rely a great deal on the natural environment and lack the capacity
and the resources required recovering from disasters (Oluoko et al, 2011). For
Ethiopia to achieve middle-income status by 2025 and to found solution for food
insecurity, concentrated and strategic investment and strategic choices in the
agricultural sector are vital. Over 90 percent of agricultural output is driven by
smallholder farmers. Without expanding cultivated land, and given forecast
population growth, the average land holding size in highland areas will be reduced
to 0.7 hectares by 2020, placing further pressure on rural incomes and food
security. Agriculture contributes substantially to the overall Ethiopian economy.
On a nominal GDP of USD 25.6 billion 43 percent was driven by the agricultural
sector; crop production accounts for 29 percent, with livestock at 12 percent,
followed by the forestry sector with 4 percent.

In Ethiopia, the seriousness of food shortage problem varies from one area to
another, depending on the state of the natural resources and the extent of
development of food shortage (Webb etal, 1994) as cited in (Amsalu et al, 2012).
Different factors aggravated the growing problem of food security in this country.
Among the major challenges of food security in Ethiopia are backward agriculture,
unstable weather recurrent drought, pests and disease, population pressure, weak

5
institutional capacity, and inadequate infrastructures and social services (FSB,
2007).

Few case studies have been conducted at household levels and food insecurity
studies at the national level fails to articulate household’s availability and access to
needed food (Hart, 2009).The majority of Ethiopians lives in rural areas tackle
similar challenges in securing sufficient food at household level due to the
topographic and biophysical variation throughout Ethiopia, transitory food
insecurity varies across geographic space and time.

Rationales to undertake my research on food insecurity are the issue of food

insecurity in today’s world, to address food security issue in the study area, my
desire to know about food security concept and measurement practically, to know
the analyses of food insecurity and its determinant in my study area (Dosha
kebele), and to share experience from food insecurity researcher to apply in the
future since my career is mostly involved in this issue.

1.3 Objective

1.3.1 General Objective

The overall objective of the study is to analyze food insecurity and its
determinant in Dosha kebele.

6
1.3.2 Specific Objective

The specific objectives of the study are

 Assess food security status in Dosha kebele
 Identify major determinants of food insecurity in the study area
 To analysis coping strategies of food insecure; and
 To measure the responsiveness of the determinants of food insecurity in
the study area.

1.4 Research Question

This study will answer basic research questions like
1. What does looks like food insecurity status in Dosha kebele?
2. What are the major determinants of food insecurity in the study area?
3. What are the coping strategies of food insecure?

1.5 Significance of the Study

This study provides information that would enable effective measures to be

undertaken so as to improve food security status in the study area. And it provides
information about the study area in relation to food security status, location,
farming system and other demographic data. This research is not only essential for
the society of that kebele but also for us to understand food insecurity determinant,
concept and measurement clearly in addition to the course rural development and
food security.

7
 1.6 Scope and Limitation of the Study

The study would be conducted in Dosha kebele of Tiyo wereda. This study
would focused on identifying food insecurity status, determinants of food
insecurity and coping strategies practiced by food insecure households would also
assessed at different levels at the time of food shortage. This study would be
conducted in only one kebel of Dosha kebele because of lack of budget, time and
other opportunity costs (resource) to accomplish the study. Moreover, the study
deals with a limited number of households and focused on the status and
determinants of food insecurity. Besides to this, the data were collected at one time
period and during the time of enough food is available.

8
 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Theoretical Review

2.1.1 Food Security Concept and Definition

Food security concept originated in the mid-1970s during the international

discussion on global food crisis. The initial focus of food security attention was
primarily on food supply problems- of assuring the availability and to some degree
the price stability of basic foodstuffs at the international and national level (Clay,
2002 and FAO, 2005). Thus, in the 1970s the issue of food security referred to the
national food supply's capacity to meet the population's energy and nutrient needs.
The concept of household food security has been understood by many development
workers as the availability of food in the world marketplace and on the food
production systems of developing countries (Fanta, 2003 and Bedeke, 2012).

Since the World Food Conference in 1974 due to food crises and major famines
in the world, the term Food Security was introduced, evolved, developed and
diversified by different researchers. 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 is perceived at the global, national,
household and individual levels. Food security at global level does not guarantee
food security at the national level. Moreover, food security at the national level
does not guarantee food security at the household or even the individual level
(Duffour, 2010).

9
 Afterwards, worldwide observations of different access to available food within
nations shifted interest and concern from food security from the national to the
household level. At the same time, the unit of analysis shifted from the global and
national level to the household and individual level (Hart, 2009).

In 1983, FAO analysis focused on food access, leading to a definition based on

the balance between the demand and supply side of the food security equation:
“Ensuring that all people at all times have both physical and economic access to
the basic food that they need”(FAO, 1983). In the World Bank (1986) report,
Poverty and Hunger, this concept of food security is further elaborated in terms of:
‘access of all people at all times to enough food for an active, healthy life.’

Food security is a condition that exists when all people at all times have
sufficient physical and economic access to safe and nutritious food to meet their
dietary needs including food preferences, in order to live a healthy and active life
(USAID,2008, FAO ,1983).

In the present study, food security is defined as adequate availability of and

access to food for households to meet the minimum energy requirements as
recommended by the Ethiopian government for an active and healthy life (Wali
and Penporn, 2013).
2.1.2 Dimensions of Food Security

Fig1: four dimensions of food security (http:://[Link]

/sites/default/files/What%20is%20Food%[Link]

Dimension Definition

Stability All people, at all times

10
 Utilization Sufficient food

Physical and economic access

Availability

Access Safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary

needs

Jrad et al, (2010), elaborated 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.

11
 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. Kuwornu et 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.

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 (Jrad et 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 (Jrad et 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.

12
 2.2 Empirical Review
2.2.1 Determinants of Food Insecurity

Factors that affect household food insecurity in various developing countries

especially in Africa have been documented in some literature and these factors or
determinants are most often than not location-specific (i.e. different study areas
were found to have variant attributes as food security determinants with some
attributes recurring) (Rober et al,2013).

The study conducted in Nigeria by Oluyole et al (2009) using probit model

found out that sex of household head, educational level, age and income have
negative influence on food insecurity whereas household size has positive
influence on household food insecurity.

Study by Sikwela (2008) in South Africa using logistic regression model showed
that per aggregate production, fertilizer application, cattle ownership and access to
irrigation have negative effect on household food insecurity whereas farm size and
household size have positive effect on household food security.

Fertilizer is used by most studies as a proxy for technology. According to Aliber

and Hart (2009), subsistence farming by its nature is production for direct
consumption. Any farm input that augments agricultural productivity is expected to
boost the production; this contributes to wards attaining household food security.

According to the study conducted by Muhammad et al(2012) in Pakistan

household’s monthly income, household heads education levels and Ownership of

13
Livestock has positive relation with house hold food security ;on the other hand,
age of the household head and household size have a negative relationship with
food security.

Study by Osei et al (2013) in the Sekyere Afram Plains District of Ghana, Farm
size, off farm income, and credit access were positively and significantly related to
the probability of a household being food secure; marital status and household size
had a negative and significant relationship with food security.

Nyangwesoi et al (2007) in a study of household food security in Vihiga district

of Kenya found that household income, number of adults, ethnicity, savings
behavior, and nutrition awareness significantly influence household food
insecurity. In a similar study, Kohoi et al. (2005) established that the significant
determinants of food insecurity in the Mwingi district of Kenya were participation
of households in the food-for-work program, marital status of the household heads,
and their educational level. Similarly, in a study of food security in the Lake Chad
area of Borno State, Nigeria, Goni (2005) reported factors that influence household
food insecurity, which include household size, stock of home-produced food, and
numbers of income earners in the household.

Paul Amaza et al (2009) in the study of Changes in household food security and
poverty status in Nigeria revealed that household size, cost of hired labor,
participation in Promoting Sustainable Agricultural activities and non-agricultural
income have significant positive effects on the food security status of the
household. Household size had a negative effect, indicating that large households
are more likely to be food insecure.

14
 According to studies conducted in Ethiopia, ownership of livestock, farmland
size, family labor, off farm income, market access, use of improved technology,
education, health, amount of rainfall and distribution, crop diseases, number of
livestock, and family size are identified as major determinants of household food
insecurity (Regassa, 2011; Eden et al, 2009 and Bedeke, 2012).

According to Wali and Penporn (2013) conducted in Jigjiga District of Ethiopia,

use of fertilizer by farming households, total household income, access to
veterinary services and access to extension services was found to have a negative
and significant impact on household food insecurity; whereas, the agro-ecology
stratum in which the Households’ farmland was located found to have a positive
and statistically significant impact on food insecurity.

As studied by Fekadu and Mequanent (2010), age of the household head, size of
land cultivated, use of fertilizer, livestock ownership, soil and water conservation
practices and oxen ownership have negative and significant relationship with
household food insecurity; whereas, education of household head, household size
(AE), and off–farm/non-farm income have a positive significant influence on
household food insecurity.

Income plays a key role in a household’s accessibility to food. It enables

households to modernize their production by giving them an opportunity to buy the
necessary inputs, and reduce the risk of food shortage during periods of unexpected
crop failures through purchases. It was expected the total annual income of the
household and food insecurity would be negatively related (Muluken, 2005).

15
 CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY

3.1 Description of Study Area

Location: The study area is found in the Oromia regional states, Arsi zone,
Tiyo woreda, specifically Dosha kebele.
Topographically, the area is plain, undulating, valley, mountainous and
water bodies. The elevation of the area ranges from 1893m to 2120m above sea
level with the average rain fall of 1120 mm/yr. The agro ecology is woyna dega
with the average temperature of 200 degree centigrade.
The total population of the kebele is estimated to be 1340 in the year 2013
with this 648 are male and 692 female, and the average family size is 5. All of the
peoples are belongs to the Oromo ethnic group and Afan Oromo and Amharic are
the only language spoken in the area.
Agriculture is the back bone of the economy and it is the main source of job
opportunity for this area. It is takes a greater part as service of income for the
farmers; however, it is unable to meet one of it is most important function, i.e. the
provision of food for the large expanding population. Cereals as wheat, teff, finger
millet, maize and others crop a resource of food and cash income. Not only these
cereal crop use as a cash income; but also khat production is the dominant uses as
the cash income for the households. Livestock production forms an integral part of
almost all farming systems in crop producing areas of the region and they used the
livestock as the complement of farm input and source of cash.

16
3.2 Sampling Techniques and Sample Size
A multistage sampling technique was applied for the study, where in first step;
from Asella city and Dosha kebele was selected purposively to analysis food
insecurity issue in the kebele and to know food security status of the kebele.

Then at the second step, a total of two gots are selected by using simple random
sampling. Then Slovin’s sampling formula with 95 percent confidence level had
been used to determine sample respondents.

Slovin Formula: n = N__

1+N (E) ²

Where: n = sample size

N = total number of household from two gots
E = margin of error

Numbers of households in the first gots = 190

Numbers of households in the second gots =250

N =190+250

N =440 households:
n= 440__ = 209
1+440 (0.05) ²

The above formula shows that the actual sample size for this study is 209 but due
to time and budget, we reduced the sample size into 130. A total of 130 households
were selected through two stage probability sampling. Two got were selected

17
randomly from the kebele. Thereafter, the required sample size was shared among
those selected gots using probability proportional to size method. Then the sample
households in the got were selected by using systematic random sampling
technique from the two gots.

Asella Town Purposively

Purposively

Dosha kebele

First gots Second gots Randomly

Household selected

Figure 2: sampling procedure

3.3 Type, Source and method of data collection

Both qualitative and quantitative data were collected from primary and
secondary sources to identify important variable that affect household food
security. Thus, primary data were obtained from sample respondents by using
structured questionnaire. Qualitative data were gathered from group discussion.
Secondary data were collected from published and unpublished materials related

18
to subject. It was the main source of information because it indicates the past and
the present food security.

The main data were collected for this study include household demographic
characteristics, socio economic characteristics, income source, livestock
ownership, land size and access to credit service.

Income expenditure method was used to measure house hold food security in
the study area. This method included food and non-food expenditure to identify the
house hold that spends more for food by evaluating the collected data from the
respondents from interviewed method.

To aggregate the data, some units of measurement have been standardized. As a

result, some conversion factors for tropical livestock unit (TLU) and hectare (ha)
has been employed.

3.4 Method of Data Analysis and Analytical Model

After the data had been collected from sample respondents by using income
expenditure method, the results obtained was compared with the income of the
house hold that purchase 252kg/head cereal per year. The household who has the
income to purchase 252kg/head per year excluding non-food expenditure were
categorized as food secure and those households whose income purchase less than
252kg/head per year are considered as food insecure.

After food secure and insecure households are identified; the next step was data
analysis. The data were analyzed by Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS)

19
version 20.0. SPSS were used to analyze descriptive statistics such as frequencies
and cross tabulation to generate tabulated reports, charts; and to analyze factors
influencing for house hold food insecurity in the study area. T-test; and Chi square
tests were also used to indicate the significance of continuous and discrete
variables on household food security, respectively. Descriptive statistic such as
percentage, mean, minimum, maximum, standard deviation, bar charts, table and
pie charts were used.

The existence of Multicollinearity problem between categorical variables and

continuous explanatory variables were detected by contingency coefficient (C) and
variance inflation factor (VIF) respectively.

I were also used the binary probit regression model to test proposed hypothesis
and to reveal the marginal effect of different variables on house hold food
insecurity. This model used binary or dichotomous variables as its name indicates
like food secured and food insecure in our subject matter.
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

20
n=number of explanatory variables

ui=error term

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

e 0  1xi1   2 xi 2 ... . k xik

p
1  e 0  1xi1   2 xi 2 ... . k xik …………… Law of exponential function

Where, e=the base of natural logarithm

In this study the explanatory variables those were included in the model are :
X1 = Age of Household Head (AHH).
X2 = Educational level of house hold head
X3=Family size
X4=Dependency ratio of household
X5 = Land size (LS) in hectare
X6=Use of arm input (1=yes, 0=no)
X7=Only On-farm income activity (Income source of household) (If yes =1,
otherwise= 0)
X8=Livestock ownership
X9= Credit Access (if yes =1, otherwise= 0)

21
 3.5 Hypothesis

The dependent variable in this study is Household Food Insecurity (HFI) status.
House hold food insecurity was hypothesized to be a function consisting of the
following components.

HFI=f(Age of house hold head, educational level of house hold, family size,
dependency ratio, income source , livestock ownership, use of farm inputs, farm
land size, credit access).

Educational level of house hold: It is a continuous variable defined as the level of

grades or schooling years attained by the household heads. This variable is an
important determinant of household food insecurity status in that, educated
households have a better chance of adopting soil conservation measures (Million
and Belay, 2004) which in turn increases crop production. Thus, education level is
hypothesized to have a positive effect on household food security.

Family size (FS): It is an important variable, which determines the household food
insecurity status in the study area. As the family size increases, the number of
mouths to be fed obviously increases which shares the available food in the
household. Hence, it is hypothesized that family size and food insecurity in the
study area are positively related.
Farm land size (LS): Farm size is the total area of land cultivated to food and
cash crop by households, measured in hectares. Positive relationship has been
established between farm size and improvement in households’ income and food
security (Jayne et al., 2005). The larger the farm size of the household, the higher

22
the expected level of food production. It is, therefore, expected of a household with
a larger farm size to be more food secure than a household with a smaller farm
size, all things being equal. Hence the expected effect on food security is positive.

Dependency ratio (DR): this is measured as total dependent family member

divided by the number of individuals working to support the household, due to the
scarcity of resources, an increase in household size especially the non-working
members put pressure on consumption than production (Feleke et al.,2003). An
increase in the number of non-working member of household or dependency ratio
increases the food insecurity level of household (Ojogbo, 2010). The expected
effect of this variable on food insecurity is positive.

Livestock ownership (LO): Households who own livestock have good food
security status as well as sustainable farming (Ramakrishna and Assefa,
2002).Negative correlation is expected between livestock ownership and house
hold food insecurity.

Source of house hold Income (IS): This refers to the sum of earnings of
household from off-farm, non-farm and on-farm sources (Babatunde el al., 2007).
According to Arene and Anyaeji (2010), the more household head engage in
gainful employment, the higher he/she earns income and the greater the chances of
being food secure. The income is expected to increase household’s food production
and access to more quantity and quality food. The expected effect on food
insecurity is, therefore, negative.

23
Use of farm inputs (chemical fertilizer and high yield variety (HYV)): This
variable refers to use of chemical fertilizer such as DAP, UREA, HYV, pesticide
and herbicide. The amount of farm input (improved inputs) used was converted to
monetary value based on market price during last year farming season. A
household who could have used farm inputs (chemical fertilizer and HYV) was
hypothesized to have negative relation with food insecurity status
(GeneneTsegaye, 2006).

Credit access (CA): Credit serves as a means to boost production and expand
income generating activities (Devereux, 2001). Thus, a household which has
access to credit does initiate investment in farm and non-farm activities and
achieve food security. Thus, it is hypothesized that credit access has negative
relation with household food insecurity.

24
 CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter includes all the objectives of the study in relation to different
socio-economic variables. It mainly contains three major sections: food security
status of households, determinants of household food security status and major
coping strategies practiced by food insecure households, and also the
responsiveness of the independent variable for food insecurity of the household.

4.1 Food Insecurity Status of the Area

It has been used household income and the amount they outlay to purchase the
food per head to measure household food insecurity in the study area. To identify
food secured and food insecured households, I did the following activities: I
collected the income, total and nonfood expenditure of the household from my
respondents after that I computed the food expenditure of the household by using
compute variables in SPSS. Then, I were identified the general price in current
price in the market in the time of survey for the most dominant crop in the study
area what they produced, and then I divided the amount of food expenditure of
each household by general price to get the amount of cereal they able to purchase
per household per year. But, I needed the amount of cereal per head per year to
identified the household whether food insecure or not, so the needed amount of
cereal per head per year was computed by dividing the amount of cereal per
household per year to family size. As a result, as shown from table 4.1, my survey
resulted as, 60 (46.2 %) and 70 (53.8 %) respondents were identified as food
secure and food insecure respectively. This means, from our 130 sample

25
respondents 60 (46.2 %) have been incomes that enable to purchase above and 252
kg/head/year, whereas 70 (53.8 %) of my respondent have not been incomes that
enables to purchase 252 kg/head/year.

Table 4.1:food insecurity status of house hold

Frequency Percent
food
60 46.2
secure
food
70 53.8
insecure
Total 130 100.0

4.1.1 Descriptive Statistics for Continuous Variable

Table 4.2 descriptive statistics for continuous variables

Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Variance

Deviation

age of
22.00 72.00 46.7385 1.09950 12.53618 157.156
household
Family size 2.00 9.00 4.9769 .14174 1.61613 2.612
dependency
.00 2.50 .8162 .05422 .61822 .382
ratio
land size .00 3.00 1.3691 .06756 .77027 .593

26
 livestock
.00 9.15 3.3893 .14495 1.65267 2.731
ownership

Source: Owen survey (2016)

4.1.2 Inferential Statistics for Continuous Variables

Table4.3: Inferential statistics result

Food Insecure (N=70) Food Secure

(N=60)
Variable Mean SD Mean Difference Mean SD Standard Error
Deference
t-value
AHH 46.74 (12.53) -5.67 43.68 (12.92 ) 2.16

27
FSHH 2.63***
DRH 4.97 ( 1.62 ) -1.13 4.36 (1.74 ) 0.27
LSHH 4.24***
LOHH 0.82 ( 0.62) -0.47 0.56 ( 0.65) 0.10
4.72***
1.37 ( 0.77) 0.20 1.38 ( .77 ) 0.14
-0.138 (NS)
3.13 (1.58) 1.90 3.49 ( 1.33 ) 0.24
2.413(NS)
` Source: own survey (2016)

From the result in Table above, the minimum and maximum age of the food
insecure households were 22 and 72 years respectively; on the other hand, 22 and
70 years for food secure households respectively. The mean ages of the food
insecure respondents were 49.35 and the food secured respondent also 43.68 years
with standard deviation of 12.9 years for food insecure and 11.43 years for food
secure households. This result indicates that the food secured households are
relatively younger than the food insecure households. The standard deviation of the
food insecure households were relatively higher than food secure households, this
indicates that relatively more inactive (the age > 64 ) households were
concentrated in households those were considered as food insecure.
I intended to analyze whether there is significant difference due to family size
between food secure and food insecure households. The minimum and maximum
family size was 2 and 9 for food insecure households respectively; whereas, the
minimum and maximum family size for food secure households were 2 and 7 in
number respectively. The mean number of family size of food insecure households
was 5.5 with standard deviation of 1.74 and for food secure households 4.36 and
28
1.2, respectively (see table 4. 2). The independent t-test shows that there is a
significant difference between food insecure and food secure households due to
the number of family size at p=0.00 significant level.

The result in Table 4.2 above indicates that the minimum and maximum number
of dependent ratio for food insecure households were 0 and 2.5 with mean and
standard deviation of 1.0 and 0.65, respectively. For the case of food secure
households the minimum and maximum dependents were 0 and 2 with mean 0.56
and standard deviation 0.45, respectively. The independent t-test between the food
insecure and the food secured households shows significant difference in the
presence of dependent members with in the family at p value of <0.05 significant
levels. The presence of dependent members within the household is challenging for
household food security because those inactive age groups don’t have contribution
for income generation. Simply, their role is creating high demand for food and non
food items within the household. As a result, dependency ratio is factor for
household food security.

Table 4.2 reveals the situation of distribution of land holdings in the study area.
The land holding of the sample respondents ranges from 0 to 3 hectare for food
insecure households and 0 to 2.8 hectare for food secure households. The average
land size owned by food insecure households were 1.36 hectare with standard
deviation of 0.77 hectare; whereas, 1.37 hectare with standard deviation of 0.76
hectare for food secure households. From the table, I observe that maximum land
holding from sample respondents found in food insecurity situation. This indicates
that, even if the household holds the large land size they could not attain their food
secure status. Because, beside of land size there were another factors those were
affect the productivity of land like, use of farm input, educational level and off
farm activity of households The independent t-test shows there is no a significant

29
difference between the mean size of land holding with the food insecure and the
food secured households at p value of 0.846 significance level.
The maximum number of livestock ownership in TLU for food insecure and
food secure households were 5.63 and 9.18 respectively (see table 4.2). The
average number of livestock owned by food insecure household was 2.83 and 3.48
for food insecure households in TLU. Mostly the farmers those have been involved
in mango and chat production; as a result, they didn’t have livestock for
cultivation because of shortage of land, use of hand tools (such as hoe, ) and their
own labor force and by daily laborer for their farm activity. But the household who
have been land and involved in cereal production have livestock’s used as
complementary for farm their farm activity and as source of cash to purchase farm
inputs (like, fertilizer, herbicide, pesticide and improved seeds)..

4.1.2 Descriptive & Inferential Statistics for Categorical Variables

As the survey result indicated that 81(62.3%) households were male headed;
whereas, 49(37.7%) were female headed households. Among male headed
households 44(54.32%) and 37 (45.67%) were found to be food insecure and food
secure, respectively; on the other hand, 23 (46.9%) and 26(53.07%) were food
secure and food insecure from female headed households, respectively. The
Pearson χ2-square test of association shows that there is no a significant difference
between the sex compositions and the food security status.

Table 4.4, Chi-square test for sex of household

30
 Food insecurity of Total Chi-
household square
food food
secure insecure
0. 19
sex of Female 23 26 49
(NS)
household
Male 37 44 81
Total 60 70 130

From 130 households interviewed, 33.07 % (43) households were illiterate and
66.92 % (87) were literate (Primary 48(36.9%), secondary 16(12.3%) and informal
23(17.7%). The Pearson χ2-square test of association shows that there is a
significant difference between the educational statuses of the household heads and
the food security status of the households at p<0.05 significant level.

Table 4.5: Crosstab for Educational level of house hold

Food insecurity of Total Chi-

household square
food food
secure insecure

31
 17.80
Illiterate 11 32 43
(Ns)
primary( grade1
Educational level 29 19 48
_8)
of hh
secondary and
12 4 16
above
Informal 8 15 23
Total 60 70 130

From the total households interviewed directly, 64 (49.2%) households were

found to be users of farm inputs; whereas, 66(50.8%) were non users of farm
inputs. From those who use farm inputs and were found to be food secure 57
(95.45%) and 3 (4.54%) food secure but they did not used farm inputs. From 70
households those were found to be food insecure 63 (88.9%) and 7 (11.2%) of
households did not used farm input and used farm input, respectively. The Pearson
χ2-square test of association shows that there is no a significant difference between
the users and non-users of farm input and the food security status.

Table 4.6: Crosstab for farm input use in household

Food insecurity of Total Chi-

household square

32
 food food
secure insecure
farm input No 3 63 66 93.39***
use Yes 57 7 64
Total 60 70 130

The survey result revealed that 71(54.6%) household from respondents involved
in off farm activity further than on farm activity, but 59 (45.4%) of household
involved in on farm activity for their livelihood. There is significance difference in
involving in off farm activity between food secure and in secure activity at <0.05 p
value.

Table4.7: income source of hh * food insecurity of household

Cross tabulation

Food insecurity of Chi-

household square
food food
secure insecure
Others 48 23 28.968***
income source
only on
of hh 12 47
farm
Total 60 70

33
 Credit plays an important role for household food security. Among 130
households, 65(50%) were users credit access; whereas, 65(50%) were not used of
credit access. Among the users of credit access, 53 (88.33 %) and 12 (17.14%)
household were found food secure and food insecure, respectively. In the other
hand, from non users of credit access 58(82.85%) and 7(11.66%) households were
found as food insecure and food secure, respectively. The Pearson χ2-square test of
association showed that there is a significant difference between the users and non-
users of credit access in the food security status. The household, who obtained
credit access, could be productive because as the collected data indicated that they
used for purchase of farm input, to pay tax and debt, to purchase livestock, for
petty trade and household consumption. This increase and diversify the income of
households from different sources. It also saved the livestock to be sold at the time
of food shortage and increase farm output obtained from agriculture because of
farm input application. Unless the credit is used for productive activity, the needs
of the household towards food security cannot be achieved because some
household heads used the credit for other non-productive activity.

Table 4.8: Crosstab for credit access of household

Food insecurity of Total Chi-

household square

34
 food food
secure insecure
Credit service No 7 58 65
of hh Yes 53 12 65 65.49***
Total 60 70 130

4.2 Determinants of Household Food Insecurity

This measured or done by using probit model and the result of this model in the
survey is as follows with brief and short explanation.

Table 4.9: Probit model result for determinant of food insecurity

| Standard Prob.
FOOINS Coefficient Error z |z|>Z*
--------+-------------------------------------------------------------
|
Constant| 1.64247 1.76386 .93 .3518
AHH| .01251 .03738 .33 .7379
INFORMAL| 1.54985 1.09524 1.42 .1570
PRIMARY| .04198 .94734 .04 .9647
HAABOVE| .35070 1.33074 .26 .7921
FS| .41080 .30855 1.33 .1831
DR| -.17519 .67647 -.26 .7957
LS| -.66963 .59149 -1.13 .2576
UFI| -2.69731*** .76095 -3.54 .0004

35
 ISHH| -1.82294** .92180 1.98 .0480
LOHH| -.41480* .22339 -1.86 .0633
CS| -2.31260*** .80494 -2.87 .0041
--------+-------------------------------------------------------------
Note: ***, **, * ==>Significance at 1%, 5%, 10% level.
Source: Own Survey (2016).

The interpretation for the above survey result with enough explanation is as
follows. As I have seen from the above table from nine variables what I have used
only four were found that significantly affect the food insecurity of the household.
These are use of farm input, livestock ownership in TLU, income source of
household, and credit access were significantly affect at less than 0.1 p value and
the following explanation were focused in those significant variables .As I depicted
in the above table the coefficient of use of farm input is negatively related with
food insecurity statistically significant at 0.01 p value. This means the household
who used farm input (pesticide, herbicide & fertilizer) could increase his
production and productivity of crop production and improve the food security
status of his family. Therefore, other things being constant when the household
increase the use of farm input by one unit the household being food insecure is
decreased by 2.69 coefficients.

The coefficient of income source of household (off farm activity) in the above
table is negative. So, income source (off farm activity) of household is negatively
related with food insecurity statistically significant at 0.05 p value. Evolving off
farm activity makes the household to diversify the income source and to minimize
the risks and uncertainties of crop production; thereby the household who involved
in off farm activity could maintain the food security rather than not involved.

36
The coefficient of livestock ownership in TLU is negatively related statistically
significant at p<0.1 significant level. Household food insecurity and number of
livestock in TLU owned is negatively related. As the data I obtained from
household interview, sale of livestock is the dominant coping strategy of food
insecure households to cope the problem food shortage and also they sale their
livestock for purchasing farm input (pesticide, herbicide & fertilizer) as well as for
repay their credit. This reduces the sale of crop produce for that purpose livestock
is an important source of income generation and used as complementary in crop
production. The probability of being food insecure is decreased by 0.041 when the
household own one more livestock in TLU by keeping other variables constant.
The coefficient of credit access in the result was negatively related with food
insecurity of household statistically significant at < 0.05 p value. This means, when
the household uses the credit access, who can be involved in off farm and nonfarm
activity and as a result diversify his income source and minimize the food shortage
problem of his family. In addition to that, the household can purchase the farm
input and increase the crop production even if the household have small cultivate
land. Thus, other things being constant when the farmer uses one more credit
access his food insecurity decreased by 2.31 coefficients.

4.3 Marginal effect of Independent Variable

Table 4.10:Result from probit model

Partial Standard Prob.

FOOINS Effect Error z |z|>Z*
--------+-------------------------------------------------------------

37
 AHH| .00071 .00213 .33 .7383
INFORMAL| .09961 .07422 1.34 .1796
PRIMARY| .00240 .05431 .04 .9648
HAABOVE| .02034 .07860 .26 .7958
FS| .02340 .01713 1.37 .1718
DR| .00998 .03833 -.26 .7946
LS| -.03815 .03324 -1.15 .2511
UFI| -.33256*** .12617 -2.64 .0084
ISHH| .11858** .05687 2.08 .0371
LOHH| -.02363* .01212 -1.95 .0513
CS| -.23046*** .08307 -2.77 .0055
--------+--------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: ***, **, * ==>Significance at 1%, 5%, 10% level.
Source: own survey (2016)

As I have discussed in the above table, from the result of the Probit model our
dependant (food insecurity) variable was significantly affected by the following
explanatory (independent) variables.
Use of farm Input: when the farmer uses one more farm input (pesticide,
herbicide and fertilizer) the food insecurity of household affected (decrease) by 23
percent but other things being constant.
Income Source of Household: Household income source affects food insecurity
negatively at 5 percent probability level. Thus, when the farmer involves in one
more off farm activity the food insecurity decreases by 11.8 percent but other
things being constant.
Livestock Ownership of Household: This also affects food insecurity negatively
at < 0.1 p value. Thus, when the farmer have one more livestock in TlU the
38
household’s food insecurity decreases by 2 percent, but other things being
constant.
Credit Access: The use of credit access is also negatively affecting the food
insecurity of household. Therefore, other things being constant when the house
hold uses credit access his food insecurity decrease by 23 percent.

4.4 Coping Strategy

Coping strategy is a strategy in which the people use during food shortage.
Various coping strategies were analyzed that enabled households to cope food
shortage. Those identified coping strategies were ranked based on the household
choice during interview. The coping strategy in which food insecure households
followed were classified in to two stages with three choices for each at the time of
household interview. These are at the initial stage of food shortage and at the
severe stage of food shortage with first choice, second choice and third choice for
each stage. From the interviewed result, the following coping strategies were
identified from households. These are; sale of small ruminants (like sheep),
borrowing grains & cash from relatives, and selling chat and purchase cereals for
food are their strategies used by households at the initial stage of food shortage.
They also followed different coping strategies when the problem of food shortage
is severe. Among the strategies, sales of large ruminants (like cattle), selling
equines, and reduce size of the meal were identified as the major coping strategy
practiced by food insecure households at sever stage. According to the information
obtained from respondents who were included in our studies in Dosha Kebele the
following coping strategies were practiced in addition to the above coping
strategies. These are; daily laborer, and sale of cash crops especially mango and

39
chat, consuming crop surplus rather than selling at market, selling more livestock’s
than usual ,ate seasonal food and they are outside the social obligation (like,
Mahiber and Teskar) are the major coping mechanismed by households. These are;
coping strategies obtained from household interview were presented in the
following chart for simplification. The table below presents range of coping
strategies chosen by the household as 1st, 2nd, and 3rd, at the initial stage and at
severe stage.

Table 4.11& 4.12: coping strategies practiced by food insecure households

Copying strategy at initial stage

Strategies Frequency Percent Cumulative
Percent
1. sale of small ruminant
28 40 40
and poultry
2. sale chat & purchase
22 31.4 71.4
cereal for food
3. borrow grain & cash
20 28.57 100.0
from relative

Total 70 100.0
Source: own survey (2016)

40
 Strategies Frequency Percent (%) Cumulative
percent
1st, Sale large ruminants 27 38.57 38.57
2nd, Sale of equines 23 32.8 71.4
3rd, Reduce size of mill 20 28.57 100
Total 70 100

Source: own survey (2016)

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

5.1 Conclusions

Food insecurity is the most crucial and persistent problem facing millions of rural
households in Ethiopia. Even though the country has considerable agricultural
potential, more than half of its rural households are unable to feed themselves
throughout the year and yet food availability in the country is largely determined
by domestic staple food production by subsistence agriculture. The objective of
this finding was that assessment of food insecurity status, determinants of
household food insecurity, measure the marginal effect of the explanatory variable
41
and coping strategies practiced by food insecure households. Household income
and expenditure for food with binary probit model were used to address the
objective of this study.
This study has shown that more than half of the respondent 70 (53.8%) of
households in the study area ( Dosha Kebele) were food insecure during the period
of the survey.
Age of the household head, educational status, family size, land size, dependency
ratio, farm input use , credit access, on farm income and livestock ownership in
TLU were included in the model.
Consistent with a priori expectation and findings from previous studies, land size,
use of farm input, off-farm income activity (income source of household) and
credit access were found to significantly influence household food insecurity in the
study area negatively. However, household’s size, dependency ratio, and age of
household head were found to influence food insecurity positively at the household
level. Contrary to a priori expectation, educational level of the household head was
found to be statistically insignificant in explaining the food insecurity situation at
the household level.
Two stage copying strategy (initial and severe stage) were identified in the study
area for food insecure households. Those are; sale of small ruminant & poultry,
sale chat & purchase cereal for food, and borrow grain & cash from relatives are at
initial stage and, sale of large ruminants, sale of equines, and reduce the size of
mill are at sever stage in order.

5.2 Recommendation

In the light of the findings from the study, I recommended the following;

42
1. Efforts to improve access to credit by farmers and the promotion of off-farm
activities as alternative livelihood options should be pursued by both local and
central government structures in Ethiopia to improve the household food security
situation in rural Kebele. Policies that will make micro-credit from government
and non-governmental agencies accessible to rural farmers will go a long way in
addressing their resource acquisition constraints and eventually improving
household food insecurity level in the country.
2. As family size and food insecurity are positively 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 household family planning through extension
service in the rural [Link], the ever-shrinking productive resources
in the study area coupled with increasing population would hamper any
development intervention from achieving its objectives.
3. As the survey result indicated, even though there is off farm activity movement
in the study area and it have been significance effect on household food insecurity
it is not enough to eradicate the food shortage problem in the area. Therefore, the
government should be facilitating by providing the financial and technical support
in the area. As a result the farmers should diversify their income source through
involved in different activities.

43
REFERENCES

Aliber. M, & Hart, T. G. B. (2009) Should subsistence agriculture be supported as

a strategy to address rural food insecurity?.Agrekon, 48(4), 434–458.
Amsalu .M, Bekabil.F and Beyene .T (2012).Emperical analysis of the
determinants of rural households food security in Southern Ethiopia:
The case of Shashemene District Basic Research Journal of
Agricultural Science and Review ISSN 2315-6880 Vol. 1(6) pp. 132-
138.
.
Babatunde, R. O., Omotosho, O. A. and Sholotan, O.S. (2007).Factors Influencing
Food Security Status of Rural Farming Households in North Central
Nigeria. Agric. J., 2(3): 351 – 357.
Bedeke S. (2012) Food insecurity and copping strategies: a perspective from Kersa
district,
East Hararghe Ethiopia. Food Science and Quality
[Link] 5, 2012.

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (2010).Accelerating Ethiopian Agriculture

Development for Growth, Food Security, and Equity. Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia.
Bogale, A. and Shimelis, A.(2009): Household level determinants of food
insecurity in rural areas of Dire Dawa, Eastern Ethiopia. African
Journal of Food and Agriculture, Nutrition and [Link]
9, No 9.
Clay.E (2002). Food Security: Concepts and Measurements. Paper for FAO Expert

44
 Consultation on Trade and Food Security: Conceptualising the
Linkages, Rome.

D.O. Gilligan (2008). An Analysis of Ethiopia’s Productive Safety Net Program

and Its Linkages, International Food Policy Research Institute,
Washington, D.C.
Definitions of food security online
[Link]

development. In: Development Policy Review 19 (4): 507-519.

Duffour, K .(2010). Budget Statement and Economic Policy of the Government of

Ghana for the 2011 Financial [Link] 49.
Eden M., Nigatu R. and Ansha Y. (2009) The Levels, Determinants and Coping
Mechanisms of Food Insecure Households in Southern Ethiopia. A
Case study of Sidama, Wolaita and Guraghe [Link] Drylands
Coordination Group. Report No. 55.

.
Fanta (2003) Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance Project (FANTA) and Food
Aid Management (FAM). Food Access Indicator Review Washington,
D.C, Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance, Academy for
Educational Development, 2003.

FAO (1996). Food security, Policy Brief Issue 2, Rome: Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations, 2006, Quoting World Food
Summit, Rome declaration on world food security Rome: Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
FAO (2005).Assessment of the world food security situation. Committee on World
Food Security, 31st session, 23–26 May
45
FAO, 2010. The state of food insecurity in the world: addressing food insecurity in
protracted crises. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations, Rome.

FAO(2013). The state of food insecurity in the [Link] multiple dimensions of

food security.

Fekadu.B and Mequanent. M (2010) Determinants of Food Security among Rural

Households of Central Ethiopia: An Empirical Analysis. Quarterly
Journal of International Agriculture 49 (2010), No. 4: 299-318
Feleke, S., Kilmer, R. L. and Gladwin, C. (2003). Determinants of Food Security
in Southern Ethiopia. A selected paper presented at the 2003 American
Agricultural Economics Association meetings in Montreal. Canada.
Retrieved on 12th December, 2005.
.
(FSB), (2007). Annual Report Amharic Version, Addis Ababa. 4:30-35.

Genene.T(2006). Farmers' perceptions of land degradation and Determinants of

household food security status At middle catchment of bilate
watershed A thesis submitted to college of agriculture, department of
agricultural Economics, school of graduate studies Alemaya university
Goni, M. 2005. Analysis of household food security in the Lake Chad area of
Borno State, [Link] dissertation, Department of Agricultural
Economics and Extension Services, University of Maiduguri,
Nigeria.67 pp.
Gregory, P., Ingram, J. S. I., Brklacich M, (2005). Climate Change and Food
Security. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B-Biological
Sciences, 360 (1463): 2139-2148.

46
Gujarati (2004).Basic Econometrics. Fourth [Link]- Hill, New
York .The McGraw−Hill Companies, 2004.
Hart T. (2009) Exploring definitions of food insecurity and vulnerability: time to
refocus
[Link], Vol 48, No 4.

Hussein .B (2006).Major Causes of Household Food Insecurity in Wuchale-Jidda

Woreda,
Oromiya National Regional State. MA Thesis, Addis Ababa University

IAASTD, [Link] security in a volatile [Link] Assessment of

Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Knowledge.

Jayne.T.S.,Marther,D. and Mghenyi, E (2005). Smallholder Farming in Difficult

Circumstances: Policy Issues for Africa in IFPRI (International Food
Policy Research Institute): The future of small farms:Proceedings of a
Research Workshop. PP.103- 123. Wye, UK, Washington, DC.
Jrad, S., Nahas, B., Baghasa, H. (2010).Food Security [Link] of
Agriculture and Agrarian Reform, National Agricultural Policy Center.
Policy Brief No 33. PP.32. Syrian Arabic Republic.
Kohai, E,B. Tayebwa, and B. Bashaasha. 2005. Food security status of households
in Mwingi district, Kenya. Pages 867–880 in Proceedings of the 7th
African Crop Science Society Conference, Kampala, Uganda,5–9
December.
Kuwornu, J. K. M., Mensah-Bonsu, A., Ibrahim, H. (2011). Analysis of Foodstuff
Price Volatility in Ghana: Implications for Food Security. European
Journal of Business and Management 3 (4.): 100-118.

47
MoFED (2012). Ethiopia’s Progress towards Eradicating Poverty: An Interim
Report on Poverty Analysis Study (2010/11) Development Planning
and Research Directorate, Ministry of Finance and Economic
Development March 2012, Addis Ababa.
Muhammad. K, Steven .S and Ram. P (2012) The Determinants of Rural
Household Food Security for Landless Households of the Punjab,
Pakistan School of Agricultural and Resource Economics, The
University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA 6009, Australia
University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, Pakistan.
Muluken, Y. (2005). Measuring household food security tatus and its determinants
in the BenshangulGumuz Region
Nyangwesoi, P.M., M.O. Odhaiambo, P. Odungari, M.K. Koriri, M.J. Kipsat, and
A.K. Serem. 2007. Household food security in Vihiga district, Kenya:
determinants of dietary diversity. Pages 1383–1390 in Proceedings of
the 8th African Crop Science Society Conference, El-Minia University,
Egypt. October 27-31.
Ojogho, O. (2010): Determinants of Food Insecurity among Arable Framers in Edo
State, Nigeria. Agricultural Journal5(3): 151-156.
Oluoko-Odingo and Alice Atieno (2011).Vulnerability and Adaptation to Food
Insecurity and Poverty in [Link] of theAssociation of American
Geographers. Jan 2011, Vol. 101 Issue 1, pp1-20. Blackmail
publishing.
Oluyole, K. A., Oni, O. A., Omonona, B. T. andAdenegan, K. O. (2009).Food
Security Cocoa Farming Households ofOndo State, [Link]
Journal of Agriculture. and Biological. Sciences 4:7-13.
Information Systems and Networks (accessed in10/3/2014).

48
Osei.M, James, Aidoo, RobertandTuffour, T (2013) Determinants of Household
Food Security in the Sekyere-Afram Plains District of
[Link] of Agricultural Economics, Agribusiness and
Extension, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology,
Kumasi-Ghana. Global Advanced Research Journal of Agricultural
Science (ISSN: 2315-5094) Vol. 2(1) pp. 034-040, January, 2013
Paul. A, Tahirou.A, Patrick.K, and Amare. T(2009). Changes in household food
security and poverty status in PROSAB area of Southern Borno State,
[Link] Institute of Tropical Agriculture Promoting
Sustainable Agriculture in Borno Stat.

Population and Housing Census of Ethiopia (2007): Results for Oromia Region,
Vol. 1, Tables 2.1, 2.5, 3.

Ramakrishna, G. and Assefa, D. (2002). An Emprical Analysis of Food Insecurity

in Ethiopia: The case of North Wollo. African development,
Vol.27:127-143.
Regassa N. (2011)Small holder farmers coping strategies to household food
insecurity and hunger in Southern [Link] Journal of
Environmental Studies and ManagementVol. 4 No.1

Robert .A, James. O, Thomas T (2013). Determinants of household food security

in theSekyere-afram plains district of [Link] International
Interdisciplinary Conference, AIIC 2013, 24-26 April, Azores, Portugal
– Proceedings.
Sikwela,M. M (2008): Determinants of Household Food security in the semi-arid
areas of Zimbabwe: A case study of irrigation and non-irrigation
farmers in Lupane and Hwange [Link] for the degree of

49
 Master of Science in [Link] of Agricultural
Economics [Link] of Fort Hare, Republic of South
Africa.
TsegayGebrehiwot(2009). Determinants of food security in rural households of
Thetigray region.A thesis submitted to school of graduate studies of
addisababaUniversity in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
Degree of master of science in applied statistics.
USAID (2008): United States Agency International Development. Madagascar
Food Security Development programming Framework, From the
American People, Madagascar
Wali .H and Penporn.J( 2013). Determinants of Rural Household Food Security in
Jigjiga District of [Link] J. (Soc. Sci) 34 : 171 – 180

WFP.(2009). Food security and vulnerability in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

VulnerabilityAssessment and Mapping (VAM), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

WFP(2012) . “Ethiopia – Overview.” World Food Programme (WFP),.

World Bank (1986). Poverty and Hunger: Issues and Options for Food Security in
Developing Countries. Word Bank, Washington DC.

APPENDEXES

Survey for Interview Schedule

50
Interviewing questionnaire prepared for determinants of rural household food
security in Dosha Kebele
1. Name of household head: _______________
2. Kebele
3. Age of HHH: _______
4. Sex of household head: [Link] [Link]
[Link] is your Educational status?
1. Can not read and write
2. Primary(grade1-6)
3. Junior(grade 7-8)
4. Secondary and above
5. Informal education
6. Marital status: [Link] [Link] 3. Divorced [Link]
7 Total number of family size ____

8. Religion: [Link] [Link] [Link] 4. Other (specify) _____

[Link] Ratio:_______
No Age Sex Active (15- Inactive(1- Inactive(>65)
64) 14)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

51
8
9
Asset possession of households
10. Do you have your own land for cropping and capture? 1= yes 2 =no

11. Do you use farm inputs? 1. Yes 2. No

12. If yes which inputs do you use? 1. Improved seed [Link] fertilizers
[Link]
4. Herbicide [Link]
(specify)________________
13. If you say no why
1. . Lack of income
2. Distance to input source
3. Shortage of input supply
4. Price of input
5. Others (specify): _________
14. How much yield did you get from cultivation of crops ? Fill the table below.
Crop Yiel Did you sale the crop Amount of
d last production season? income
1. Yes 2. No obtained
Barely
Wheat
Teff
Sorghum
Maize
Rice

52
Crop Yiel Did you sale the crop Amount of
d last production season? income
1. Yes 2. No obtained
Chat
Bean
Pea
Others
Total

15. Do you have livestock? 1. Yes 2. No

16. If yes fill the table below
S/N Type of Number In TLU Did you sale Income
livestock of your obtained
livestock livestock last from sale of
year and this livestock
year? 1. Yes
2. No
1 Oxen
2 Cow
3 Sheep
4 Mule
5 Horse
6 Donkey
7 Goat
8 Poultry

53
9 Bull
10 Heifer
11 Other (Specify)
Total
Source of household Income
17. What are your major sources of household income? (Rank if the response is
multiple answers).
1. On- farm [Link] -farm [Link]- farm
18. Have you earn income from the following sources? Indicate in the table below
No Income source Yes No Monthly Annual
income in income in
Birr Birr
1 Farm income
1.1 Sale of crop produce

1.2 Hiring agricultural

land( Renting out)
1.3 Sale of livestock and livestock
products(milk,eggs,
butter,chickens…)

2. Off farm
2.1 Daily laborer in
agriculture,labour
3 Non-farm
3.1 Hand craft
3.2 Construction work

54
No Income source Yes No Monthly Annual
income in income in
Birr Birr
3.3 Sale of Charcoal and Fire
wood
( collection)
3.4 Petty trade
3.5 Sale of local
drink(tella,areke,&tej) and
food(kolo,bread)
3.6 Weaving
4. Remittance
5. Other
6 Total
29. Household Expenditure

No Type Monthly Annual

expenditure in expenditure in
Birr Birr
1 Cloth
2 Health
3 Education
4 Kerosene
5 Social obligation
6 Farm input
6.1 Purchase of fertilizer
6.2 Purchase of improved

55
 seed
6.3 Purchase of chemicals
6.4 Farm labor
6.5 Purchase of farm tools
6.6 AI service
6.7 Tax for the land
6.8 Veterinary service
6.9 Other farm expenditures
7 Food expenditures
7.1 Purchase of cereals
7.2 Purchase of oil
7.3 Purchase of small
ruminants ( for
household consumption)
7.4 Purchase of poultry ….
7.5 Purchase of fruit,
vegetable,
coffee,onion,tea,chat...
7.6 Purchase of sugar, salt….
8 Others
Total Non-food expenditure
expenditure Food expenditure
20. Have you received credit service from lenders? 1. Yes 2. No

21. If yes for question 20 for what purpose did you spend? Justify

1. Prchase of farm input

56
 2. HH consumption
3. To pays tax and debts
4. Purchase of livestock
5. Other(specify) ___________

22. If you say no for 20 why 1. No access to credit 2. High interest rate 3. Fear of
inability to pay 4. Lack of awareness 5. Other (Specify)________________

27. Did you pay back the credit? 1. Yes 2. No

[Link] no, why? 1. Crop failure 2. Death of livestock 3. Fall in crop &livestock
price 4.other________
29. What are the major staple foods that your household consumes? (Multiple
answer possible).
[Link] [Link] 3 .Barley 4. Maize 5. Sorghum [Link]
(specify)_______________
30. How do you cope with the problem of food shortage?
Stage of the Coping mechanisms Code for the
problem During crop failure Numbers
in (Rank) 1. Sale of livestock
1 ____________ 2. Borrow grains or cash from relatives
2 ____________ 3. Reduce size of meals
At initial stage 3 ____________ 4. Sale firewood and charcoal
of a food 4 ____________ 5. Escaping of meal
shortage 5 ____________ 6. Food aid
7. Seasonal migration for laborer

57
 1 ____________ 8. Ate less preferred food
2 ____________ [Link] of agricultural tools
At severe stage 3 ____________ [Link] discontinue from school
of a food 4 ____________ [Link] laboring
shortage 5 ____________ [Link] in petty trade
13. Others, specify (Daily laborer)

58