East African Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities (2024) Volume 9 (1) 47–62

Determinants of Food Security for Rural Households and Coping Strategies: A Case
Study from Gimbi Woreda, Western Ethiopia

Gamachis Fayera Deressa*

Mattu University, College of Social Science and Humanities, Department of Geography and
Environmental Studies

Article History: Received: March 12, 2022; Accepted: July 24, 2023; Published: June 10, 2024

Abstract: The study examined rural household food security and coping strategies in the
study area. Food is required for all organisms including humans, and its security should be
ensured. The main objective of the study was to investigate determinants of the rural
households’ food security and coping strategies in Gimbi woreda, western Ethiopia. Cross-
sectional research design was applied in this study. The three study kebeles were
intentionally chosen, and 309 households were identified from these kebeles through simple
random sampling. The findings of the descriptive analysis indicated that 38.2% of the
households were food secure while 61.8% were food insecure. The results of the logit model
revealed that households’ education level, improper application of chemical fertilizers, land
fragmentation, a deficiency of farming oxen, lack of improved seeds, access to rural credit,
and absence of off farm/non-farm income were factors that significantly impeded food
security status of rural households in the region. Selling animal (livestock), collecting
firewood (charcoal), using crop residues, engaging in small scale trading, consuming less
food, borrowing food, and purchasing cereals represent some coping strategies employed by
households during periods of food insecurity. In conclusion, it is advised that agricultural
specialists from both governmental and non-governmental sectors collaborate on addressing
the issues to mitigate food security challenges in the research region.

Keywords: Coping strategies; Food security; Logit model

Licensed under a Creative Commons. Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

*Corresponding author. E-mail: gammee2018@[Link]

ISSN: 2521-2192 (print), 2959-149X (electronic) Haramaya University, 2024
Gamachis East African Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities Volume 9 (1) 47–62

1. Introduction
Food is a crucial issue for a whole and a productive human lifestyle as well as for the sustainable
development of a country for all (Sani and Kemaw, 2019). Food security is a concept that
encompasses multiple dimensions and can be attained at various levels, including individual,
household, national, regional, and global. Furthermore, four key pillars are acknowledged to define
food security in a broad sense. These pillars consist of food availability, food accessibility, the
utilization of food, and the stability of food supply (Committee for World Food Security [CWFS],
2013).
Thus, food security exists when individuals have physical, social, and economic access to a
sufficient, safe, and nutritious diet that fulfills their desire for an active and healthy life. Conversely,
the world reached a capacity to produce enough food to nourish every person on the planet thirty
years ago. However, Bechaye 2011 pointed out that universal feeding has never been realized due to
the unequal distribution of resources, disparities in opportunities, global constraints, and power
imbalances. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) reported in 2017 that 815 million
individuals worldwide are affected by undernourishment, with the issue being particularly severe in
developing countries. This indicates that developing nations face greater challenges regarding food
security compared to developed ones.
According to Von Braun (2012), millions of individuals in developing countries are currently
suffering from hunger, and the number of hungry people globally is rising alarmingly at a rate of four
million each year. The primary causes of food insecurity in developing nations, particularly in Africa
and specifically Ethiopia, stem from a complex interplay of various factors (United Nations
Development Programme [UNDP], 2012). The World Bank [WB] (2018) further confirmed that
Ethiopia is facing a severe food security crisis, with challenges particularly exacerbated in rural areas
where approximately 79% of the total population resides.
Consequently, effective food security programs for rural families can be implemented through a
thorough analysis of their food security condition and the identification of underlying issues. Various
research studies have been carried out in different regions, including Ethiopia, on this topic. As
reported by FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP, and WHO (2020), recent years have seen obstacles such as
climate fluctuations, conflicts, the Covid-19 pandemic, economic downturns, and desert locust
invasions significantly hinder efforts to address food security, hunger, and malnutrition globally.
Similarly, the study by Kahsay and Mulugeta (2014) showed the prominent factors such as problem of
pests, inconsistency of rainfall, drought related problem, disease affecting livestock, conflicts,
problem of corruption, lack of emergency plan, rapidly growing population, depending on cash crops,
serious degradation of environment, relief problem, lack income from non-farm, land fragmentation,
insufficient credit, problem of extension services and unsecured tenure for food insecurity.
In addition, the study conducted by Mulugeta (2012) found that repeated drought with inconsistency
of rainfall, eco-system damage, rugged configuration of relief, soil infertility, population increase and
very low rural social services were accounted for root causes of food security problem accompanied
with prevalent of poverty in the country. Furthermore, Tsegaw, Endris, and Assefa (2022) conducted
study in Benishangul Gumuz, Pawe woreda and found that education in grade, farm experience,
distance to near market, credit utilize, extension service and access to training of households were
observed to significantly affect food security status of households in the study area.
Another study undertaken by Mota, Lachore and Handiso (2019) in Damot Gale woreda, Wolaita
zone, Ethiopia, clearly notified that household size, education, age, small land size, not using
agricultural inputs and not involving petty trade were encounters of food security problem among
households at less than 0.05% significant level. Additionally, Getaneh, Alemu, Ganewo and Haile
(2022) in their study found that factors such as age, marital status, family size, access to credit and
irrigation land size that significantly affected the households’ food security status. The study
conducted by Abegaz (2017) on rural households’ determinants of food security in Ethiopia was also
other evidence. However, the study on such issue was not conducted in the current study area. This

48
Gamachis Determinants and Coping Strategies of Households’ Food Security

study focuses on food secure and insecure households which live as a neighbor, and share common
climate and weather situation. Nevertheless, one faces seasonal food crisis and needs aid while the
other remains food secured. In the study area, agriculture is the main source of livelihood for the
people but surplus production that initiates food security is not visible. Farmer households of the
study area are not food secured and most of them buy cereal crops from local traders supplying from
another place at market though they are expected to sell or supply for the market. Therefore, the main
purpose of this study was to investigate determinant factors of rural households’ food security and the
coping strategies followed in the study area.

2. Research Methods
2.1. Description of the Study Area
Gimbi Woreda is located 441 kilometers west of Addis Ababa. Astronomically, it is situated between
the latitude of 9o00’00”N to 9o20’30”N and longitude of 35o45’00”E to 36o7’30”E. The relative
location of the woreda in south is Illubabor Zone (Chawaka Woreda); in Southwest are Haru and
Homa Woreda; in West is Lalo Assabi woreda; in North is Benishangul Gumuz National Regional
State and in East and Northeast is Eastern Wollega (Fig.1).

Figure 1: The study area map

Source: Derived based on data from Ethio GIS

The annual temperature in the Woreda ranges between 18°C and 24°C, with the summer season
spanning from June to September, experiencing eight to ten hours of maximum sunshine accompanied
by significant cloud cover. In the study area, the annual rainfall fluctuates between 1400mm to
1800/1900mm spatially, and this amount of rainfall could potentially rise in the future if
environmental restoration efforts are sustained (National Meteorological Agency [NMA], 2020). The
four types of soil commonly found in the region are dystric nitosols (which cover the largest area),
orthic acrisols, pellic and chromic vertisols, and the fourth type is calcaric and eutric fluvisols. Gimbi
woreda is marked by swift population increase (with an annual growth rate of 2. 9%) that parallels
other regions, which see household growth at 4. 6% per year, and the woreda has a crude population
density of approximately 161 per km² (Central Statistical Agency [CSA], 2012).
The cross-sectional research design was employed in this research whereby data was collected at a
time from the sample population. Additionally, qualitative and quantitative approaches are used with

49
Gamachis East African Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities Volume 9 (1) 47–62

more of quantitative and pragmatism approach of philosophy was behind this research. Regarding
data types, both primary and secondary data are used. Primary data was collected from the sample
households, key informants of Development Agents (DA) experts, and kebele managers. Published
and unpublished materials, reports of relevant offices and organizations as well as websites are used
as secondary sources. The study area comprises 28 rural kebeles which only three of them purposively
selected as they are highly suffered with food security problem and accessibility for transport.
These include Lalisa Sarity, Garjo Bikilal and Lalisa Bikilal kebeles. Lalisa Sariti has 485 total
households with 85 female households and 400 male households. Garjo Bikilal has 440 total
households with 48 and 392 female and male households respectively. Finally, Lalisa Bikilal has 425
total households with 42 and 383 female and male households respectively. Thus, total sample used

for study was selected by Yemane (1967) formula stated as where; (n) represents sample
size; (N) represents total number of households in kebeles; (e) represents margin of error at 5% and
(1) represents the probability of the events occurring. As a result, the total sample size was calculated

as n = = 309 and in proportion to their household sample population is calculated for

all kebeles (Table 1).

Table1. Sample households of kebeles calculated in proportion to their population.

Sampled kebeles Households for kebeles Households’ sample

M F Total M F Total
Lalisa Sariti 400 85 485 92 19 111
Garjo Bikilal 392 48 440 90 11 101
Lalisa Bikilal 383 42 425 87 10 97
Total 1175 175 1350 269 40 309
Source: Data from kebeles’ administration offices (2021)

Finally, by using simple random sampling technique sample population of the study areas selected.
The methods intended to gather data in this study were questionnaires and key informant interviews
(KII). The researcher distributed both open and closed ended questions to the sample population in
order to get primary data regarding demographic and socio-economic characteristics, Institutional
support given, household production and income, and copping strategies undertaken during food
insecurity. Questionnaires become interpreted to the native language (Afan Oromo) to get reliable
data from respondents. Three enumerators are assigned to gather data from respondents based on their
education background and work experience with the researcher close supervision. Key informants
include the woreda administrator coded as Informant one (INF1), the woreda agriculture and rural
development office head was coded as Informant two (INF2), three development agents (DA) experts
coded as Informant three, four and five (INF3, INF4 and INF5), and the three kebele chairpersons
coded as Informant six, seven and eight respectively (INF6, INF7 and INF8) where these codes were
used in the discussion part of this study. Based on the interview checklist, the researcher interviewed
them for about an hour. As a result, data collected quantitatively through questionnaire was edited,
coded and fed into the SPSSversion23 software whereas data gathered through an interview is
analyzed through thematic narrations to make strong data gathered through questionnaire. Adding to
descriptive statistics, inferential statistics are also used that include independent t-tests and Pearson
Chi-square (X2) including logit model were used. The t-test was used to see the relation found
between the variable (dependent and independent) where chi-square is utilized to analyze association
between categorical independent variables.

50
Gamachis Determinants and Coping Strategies of Households’ Food Security

2.2. Description of Variables with Analytical Methods

In logit model analysis, the rural household food security (RHFS) variable was regarded as a
dependent and dichotomous variable. If the household is unable to meet its threshold (2200 kcal) need
per adult equivalent per day, the value of RHFS is 1 for food security and 0 for food insecurity.
Among the often-used models for estimating dummy dependent variables with Yes/No kinds are the
logit and probit regression models.
These models indicate that the 50 likely chances would fall between the 0 and 1 logical limit.
Gujarati (1995) proposed that the models are applicable when the dependent variables have
dichotomous characteristics. Consequently, this study adopted the logit model to examine the factors
influencing the food security status of the households in the study area. The Hosmer and Lemeshow
test was implemented to evaluate the model’s fitness. Prior to estimating the logit model, it is essential
to verify the presence of multicollinearity among the continuous variables and ascertain the
relationships between discrete variables (Hosmer and Lemeshow, 1989).
If multicollinearity turns out to be significant, the simultaneous presence of the two variables will
attenuate or reinforce the individual effects of these variables (Kothari, 1990). Accordingly, Variance
Inflation Factors (VIF) technique was used to detect the problem of multicollinearity for continuous
explanatory variables (Gujarati, 1995).
Each selected continuous variable is regressed on all the other continuous explanatory variables, the
coefficient of determination (R2 j) being made in each case. If an approximately linear relationship
exists among the explanatory variables, then this results, in a 'large' value for R2 j in at least one of the
test regressions. A popular measure of multicollinearity associated with the VIF is defined as:
VIF = (Xj) = (1-R2j) – 1…………………………..……..……………………… (1)
To detect the problem of association between discrete variables, coefficient of variation will be
computed as:
C= ……………………………………………….………………………… (2)
In this equation, C represents coefficient of contingency, X2 is the chi-square test and n = total sample
size.

Variables Definition
Hereunder, the variables expected to affect households of the study area to be regarded as food secure
or insecure are clearly described.

The dependent variable of the model

The model's dependent variable is dichotomous, and households are divided into two groups based on
the threshold number of food calories per adult equivalent per day required to affirm survival. As a
result, a score of 0 indicates food insecurity if it is below the threshold, while a value of 1 indicates
food insecurity. Besides, based on Gujarati (2004), the logit model is specified as:

LI = ln = Zi =  + Bi Xi + i ……………………………..……… (3)

Where; Zi= Dependent variable; = Intersection of the models; Bi= Unknown coefficient to estimate;
Xi= Vector of independent variables that can affect the dependent variable; Yi= Vector of dependent
variables; Ei= Perturbation condition of the model, and P= Probability of the occurring outcome.

Independent variables tested in the model

Based on the body of existing knowledge, variables that are expected to be independent and related to
households' food security status are selected. Variables related to biophysical, social, and

51
Gamachis East African Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities Volume 9 (1) 47–62

demographic aspects that are considered important in the farming system of the research region are
thus included. Thus, the data collected based on the following variables was used to create the
empirical model.

Table 2. Description, measurement and expected signs of independent variables

No Variables Description Its measurement Sign expected

1 X = age Household’s age Continuous variable in years + ve
2 X 2 = sex Household’s sex Dummy variable (1=female,
0=male) + ve
3 X 3 = edu Educational level of Dummy variable (1= read &
household write, 0= cannot read & write) + ve
4 X 4 = fsize Family size of household Continuous variable in number - ve
5 X 5 = ucf Chemical fertilizer per ha Continuous variable in + ve
kilogram
6 X 6 = uis Use of improved seed per Continuous variable in + ve
ha Kilogram
7 X 7 = nophh Number of oxen Continuous variable in number + ve
8 X 8 = irriuse Irrigation use Dummy variable (1=yes, 0=no) + ve
9 X 9 = fls Farmland size per Continuous variable in ha
household + ve
10 X 10 = Off-farm income per Continuous variable in ETB + ve
off/fa household
11 X 11 = arcre Access to rural credit per Continuous variable in ETB + ve
household
Source: Own calculation, 2022

The associated hypotheses for all independent variables are discussed hereunder.

Age of households: It was foreseen to have a beneficial impact on the food security status of
households at the household level. This implies that the older the household is, the more food insecure
they become, and the opposite is accurate as well.

Sex of households: This was anticipated to adversely affect the food security status of households.
This indicates that male-led households are more food secure compared to female-led households.

Educational status of households (edu): This independent variable was predicted to positively
impact the food security status of households. That is, the more educated the household, the greater
their food security.

Irrigation use of households (irriuse): This was anticipated to have a beneficial impact on the
household food security status.

Family size of households (fsize): It was estimated to exert a negative impact on the food security
status of households. The greater the family size, the less economically engaged in food consumption
at the household level.

Farmland area per hectare per households (fls): It was projected to have a beneficial impact on
household food security status. This indicates that the more extensive the farmland owned by
households, the greater the food security they achieve, and the opposite is also valid.

52
Gamachis Determinants and Coping Strategies of Households’ Food Security

Number of oxen owned by households (nophh): It was expected that this variable has a positive
influence on the food security status of households. Households having ox/oxen have a better chance
to escape the problem of food security and have an opportunity to increase their productivity.

Use of chemical fertilizer by households (ucf): This was anticipated to have a beneficial effect on
the food security situation of households. This implies that as households utilize fertilizer, their
productivity will rise.

Off-farm income of households (off/fa): This variable was also estimated to positively impact the
food security status of households. When a household possesses extra income apart from farm
income, it aids in enhancing the food security status at the household level compared to a household
that depends solely on farm income.

Access to rural credit of households (arcre): Households having the opportunity of getting credit
are expected to be more food secure than those who do not. Therefore, it was expected that this
variable has a positive influence on households’ food security status in the study area.

Use of improved seed per hectare of households (uis): It was expected that this variable has a
positive influence on farmers’ food security status in the study area. This means the more households
use improved seed, the more products they get from their farming. Therefore, if productivity is good,
it facilitates the opportunity of being food secure at the household level.

3. Results and Discussions

Not all people qualified by food security status in the similar manner totally at times (Hadley, Linzer,
Belachew, Mariam, Tessema, and Lindstrom, 2011). Based on various studies in Ethiopia, the
household’s food security status was measured by the direct assessment of consumption (Agidew and
Singh, 2018). The households in the study consume varieties of food items including cereals,
horticultural, pulse as well as oil seeds product. Milk, meat, butter and egg are also consuming animal
products. In this study, to make it more reliable and appropriate information (Gulled, 2006), in Gimbi
woreda, food security status of the households during year of 2021 production season was directly
surveyed and measured for products consumed in seven days in kilogram and converted in to
kilocalorie to separate food secure and food insecure households.
This calorie consumption outcome is determined by utilizing the standard food composition
developed by (Ethiopian Health and Nutrition Research Institute [EHNRI], 1997). Therefore, the
calorie consumed by the household is compared with the minimum recommended calorie of 2200
kilocalorie per adult per day. Therefore, the analysis result of the distributions of households’ food
security status showed that 118 (38.2%) of the households were food secure and 191 (61.8%) were
food insecure (Table 3). The study conducted by Sani and Kemaw (2019) revealed that more than half
(53.62%) of household in the study area were food insecure. Mota et al. (2019) also confirmed that
the majority, (71.6%) of rural households were food insecure. However, the study done by Yehuala,
Melak and Mekuria (2018) found that the minimum (35.8%) in their study area were food insecure
households.

Table 3. Food security status of households

Food security status Frequency Percentage
Food secure 118 38.2
Food insecure 191 61.8
Total 309 100.0
Source: Field Survey, 2022

53
Gamachis East African Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities Volume 9 (1) 47–62

Determinant Factors Affecting Food Security Status of Households in Study Area

Based on the result shown on Table 4, about 104 (34%) were food secure male-headed households
and 165 (53%) were food insecure. Besides, 14 (5%) were female-headed food secure and 26 (8%)
are female headed food-insecure one. In this study, female headed households are more of food
insecure than male headed one as they were vulnerable for domestic work, less energetic to cultivate
land and also left for bearing child. The result was consistent with the study of Kassa and Eniyew
(2018) that confirmed female-headed household farmers were left food insecure.
Table 4 also reveals that approximately 82 (26.5%) of households were food secure, while 75
(24.3%) were not food secure households engaged in off-farm income activities. The other 46 (11.7%)
food secure and 116 (37.5%) food insecure households did not take part in these activities.
Participation in off-farm work was assessed based on whether or not a household head engaged in
different income sources, including handicraft and small trade work. Therefore, farmers participating
less in off-farm activities exhibit lower food security in the study area.
The P-value = 0.000 shows a significant relation between income from off-farm and food security of
households. This output was consistent with Endale, Mengesha, Atinafu, and Adane (2014). However,
it is contrary to the finding by Faustine (2016), which assured that rather than taking time for nonfarm
activities, the time should be afforded for farming activities. Furthermore, 50 households (16.2%) and
160 households (51.8%) that were food secure and insecure, respectively, owned fewer than two
oxen. More than two oxen were owned by the remaining 68 (22%) food secure and 31 (10%) food
insecure households. Thus, in Gimbi Woreda, owning oxen has a significant impact on a household's
level of food security. The significant relationship between farm oxen and rural households' food
security status is indicated by the P-value of 0.000. This outcome is in line with research by Feyisa
(2018) and Leza and Kuma (2015), which found that farmers who own oxen have greater food
security than those who do not.
Technology acceptance shows the usage of farm inputs such as chemical fertilizer, pesticides, better
seeds, and getting water for irrigation with upgraded agronomic performs. However, in the study area,
households who were described as non-users of all or at least any one of these packages of technology
were considered as non-users. This implies that food insecurity was higher among non-users of full
agricultural technologies such as commercial fertilizer 151 (48.9%), better seed 154 (49.8%), and
irrigation technology 184 (59.5%) (Table 4). The result of P-value = 0.000 showed that there is a
statistically significant association between using chemical fertilizers and status of food security. This
output is consistent with the study made by Biyena, Wondu and Mewded (2021) that overstated the
farmer households using chemical fertilizer were more food secure. Moreover, the result of P-value =
0.000 reveals there is a significant association between farmers' use of improved seed and food
security status in the study area. However, as it can be observed from Table 3, more than half of the
sampled households do not use chemical fertilizers.
Many households were reluctant to apply agricultural inputs like inorganic fertilizer. This is because
the soil may simply be eroded away by heavy rains on the high plateaus of the study area. The
interviewee stated that the decline in soil fertility was caused by a decrease in poor soil management
practices, ongoing cultivation of termite-related land problems, and an increase in population density
in the area. Additionally, Table 4 shows that 38 (12.3%) households with food insecurity and 78
(25.2%) households with food security used rural loans. This is because the households are given the
chance to earn money and continue engaging in non-agricultural activities that could help them
maintain their food security. This finding is in line with Abera et al. (2021), who verified the
importance of food security in obtaining loans. Non-users included 40 (12.9%) who were food secure
and 153 (49.5%) who were food insecure. Access to rural finance services and food security issues are
positively correlated, according to the P-value of 0.047.

54
Gamachis Determinants and Coping Strategies of Households’ Food Security

Table 4. The t-test and chi-square (X2) result for determining factors affecting food security status

Variables Categories Household food security X2 value T-test P-value

status value
Secure Insecure
N % N %
Sex Male 104 34 165 53 1.01 - 0.919
Female 14 5 26 8
Off-farm Participated 82 26.5 75 24.3 - 52.93* 0.000
incomes Not participated 36 11.7 116 37.5
Farm <2 50 16.2 160 51.8 - 56.70* 0.000
oxen >2 68 22 31 10
Chemical User 112 36.3 40 12.9 - 3.82 0.000
fertilizer Nonuser 6 1.9 151 48.9
Improved User 109 35.3 37 12 - 187.49 0.000
seed Nonuser 9 2.9 154 49.8
Irrigation User 70 22.7 7 2.3 2.22 - 0.1362
use Nonuser 48 15.9 184 59.5
Access to User 78 25.2 38 12.3 - 3.94 0.047
rural Nonuser 40 12.9 153 49.5
credit
* & ** represents significant at 1% and 5% significant level respectively.
Source: Field Survey, 2022

Logit model application to identify households’ food security status

This model was used to determine the independent variables for the probability of households’ food
security status or not in the study area.

Logit model goodness of fit examination

Different ways are there to test whether the model fits or not to the data. For this study, Hosmer and
Lemeshow test is used to test for model fitness. Hence, Hosmer and Lemeshow test showed a
significance level of 0.99 which is greater than 0.05 showing the model is suitable to describe the
data. Additionally, the model goodness of fit was verified by the Log likelihood ratio (LR) test. The
output reveals the Chi-square of 372.48 and 0 alpha value. It shows that chi-square is statistically
significant and the model displays good fit. The Pseudo R2 of the model is 0.9064%. This confirms the
model has a good fit to the data and explicated significant non-zero variations in causes affecting food
security.

Multicollinearity test
The Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) was used to assess the degree of multicollinearity among
continuous variables and contingency coefficients, which measure the relationship among multiple
discrete variables based on chi-square value, since it is essential to recognize the multicollinearity
issue prior to estimating the model parameter.

Variance inflation factor of continuous variables

Continuous variables were found small for the value of VIF that is less than 10. To avoid the severe
problem of multicollinearity, it is quite vital to omit the variable with a value of 10 and greater from
the logit analysis. Grounded on VIF result, the data have no serious problem.

55
Gamachis East African Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities Volume 9 (1) 47–62

The contingency coefficient for fictitious explanatory factors

The contingency coefficients, which measure the relationship between several discrete variables based
on the chi-square, were computed to check the degree of association among them. The value of
contingency coefficient ranges from 0 and 1, with zero indicating no association between the
variables; and values close to 1 indicate a high degree of association. Accordingly, the results of the
computation reveal that there was no serious problem of association among discrete explanatory
variables.

Logistic regression model result for the factors influencing rural household food security
Here, a few factors were calculated to demonstrate how they affect food security. Households'
educational attainment, fertilizer use, farmland size, use of improved seed, off-farm income, number
of oxen owned by households, and farm credit were among the variables that were found to have a
significant effect on the likelihood of food security.

Table 5. Logit model result for factors affecting food security status of households

Logistic regression Number of obs. 309

Log-likelihood -19.238012 LR chi 2(10) 372.48
prob> chi 2 0.0000
pseudo R2 0.9064
Variables Coef [Link]. Z P>|Z| 95% Conf. Interval
Age .0509645 -0542429 0.94 0.347 -0553496, -157286
Sex -1652141 1.336147 0.12 0.902 -2.453587, 2.784015
Education 1.064754 1.077171 0.99 0.001* 3.175971, 1.046463
Fertilizer 6.81533 1.823712 3.74 0.000* 3.240921, 10.38974
Family size -0922451 -3003759 -0.31 0.759 -680971, 0.4964808
Irrigation use -2.790003 1.887637 -1.48 0.139 -6.489403, 0.9096964
Farmland size 4.292499 1.485942 2.89 0.004* 1.380106, 7.204892
Improved seed 4.425716 1.682335 2.63 0.009* 1.1284, 7.723031
Off-farm income .0025297 .0010778 2.35 0.019** -0004172, 0.0046421
Number of oxen 1.19889 -4370739 2.74 0.006* -3422409, 2.055539
Farm credit .5666921 .0423018 13.40 0.000* .4834418, 0.6499424
-Cons -13.9356 4.31353 -3.23 0.001 -22.38996, -5.481232
Estimated model result (2021), where * & ** denote significance at 0.01 & 0.05 significant level
respectively.
Source: Field survey, 2022

Households' level of education: Since education is thought to have a favorable impact on

households' food security status, the proportion of food secure households rises, and as education
levels rise, more sophisticated farm technology are adopted on farms. As a result, it makes it possible
for individuals to access greater employment options and increase their productivity. Household
education has a positive correlation with the kind of food security status and is significant at the 1%
significant level. The study result has consistency with (Feyisa, 2018) and (Habtewold, 2018) who
displayed the same result. On the other hand, it opposes with the study result of Million and Muche,
2020 that supported illiterate households were more food secure compared to literate households
because rather they stay their time at school; they exhaustively apply their time on farming activities.
Fertilizer use of households: The degree of food security is positively correlated with this
characteristic. That is, households that use chemical fertilizer significantly reduce the probability of
becoming food insecure. As can be seen from Table 5, fertilizer has a positive coefficient with
statistical support to show that households utilizing chemical fertilizer have a greater probability of

56
Gamachis Determinants and Coping Strategies of Households’ Food Security

being food secure than those who do not use it. Fertilizer was also found to be significant at the 1%
significance level. There is, thus, strong support for the argument that fertilizer usage increases the
probability of food security. Similar to the study by Biyena et al. (2021), which confirmed that
farmers using chemical fertilizer were more food secure, the variable's 1% probability level and
positive association highlight that households using fertilizer have a high probability of becoming
food secure compared to those who do not use chemical fertilizer.
Farmland size of households: Among the economic variables, farmland size appeared to be useful
in defining a household’s food security status in the research area. This variable is significant at a 1%
probability level and positively associated with the state of food security. This study's findings
contradict the notion that households with smaller amounts of farmland are more likely to experience
food insecurity because of the positive relationship between household farmland ownership and
production levels (Awoke, Eniyew, Agitew, and Meseret, 2022).
The oxen number owned by households: This variable is significant at the 1% probability level
and positively correlates with the food security status of households. As predicted, it influences food
security in a way that households with oxen are more likely to overcome severe food insecurity than
households without them. The positive effect of this variable shows how important this resource is in
determining the level of food security in rural households. Data gathered from interviewees indicates
that farmers who own oxen do not typically experience food insecurity because, even if they do not
own farmland, they may be able to rent their animals to those who do and receive a portion of the
capital or crops in exchange for their animals, unlike those who do not. The result obtained in this
study is similar to the study output of Mohammed and Mohammed (2021) and Million and Muche
(2020).
Use of improved seed of households: At the 1% significance level, this independent variable is
significant and positively affects the household's food security situation. The positive sign indicates
that it has an impact on the level of food security in households. One possible explanation is that
farmers who have access to better seed have a higher likelihood of being food secure than those who
do not. Compared to local types or landraces, the enhanced seeds can provide higher yields.
Farm credit access of households: As assumed, household food security status is positively
correlated with credit availability. In other words, households that utilize credit extensively are more
likely to engage in nonfarm businesses, buy plow oxen, etc., which can help them diversify and raise
their income and alleviate food insecurity. Furthermore, at the 1% probability level, credit was
determined to be substantial. As a result, households that use credit are more likely to be food secure.
The finding of this study is in line with those of a study conducted in 2021 by Mohammed, Wassie,
and Teferi, but it conflicts with those of Yehuala, Melak, and Mekuria (2018), who found that the
credit service's contribution to improving food security is not evident because the household may not
be able to pay off the debt.
The off-farm income of households: In this case, households engaged in off-farm activities are
better equipped with additional income to buy food. As expected, the existence of off-farm income
was positively interrelated with food security status. The 5% probability level of off-farm income with
a positive coefficient showed that it has a significant relation with household food security status. This
represents the total amount of nonfarm income that households receive in a given year. Smallholder
households, given their insufficient farm income, frequently seek out an additional source of income
to buy food and farm inputs. This output is consistent with the study findings of Negash and Alemu
(2013) and Sani and Kemaw (2019).

Coping strategies of food insecure households in the study area

In the study area, food insecure households used diverse coping strategies. Of the coping strategies,
the study magnified that the utmost common coping mechanisms used by the large number of food
insecure households were eating less preferred food 46 (14.6%). This is lessening variety of meal
intake rather than other mechanisms. Decreasing the amount of food eaten per day was the second

57
Gamachis East African Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities Volume 9 (1) 47–62

coping method accounting 43 (13.9%). This lessens the regularity of taking food. Borrowing food
from neighbors and relatives was the third mechanism that covers 32 (10.4%) of the food insecure
rural households respectively were the furthermost common coping strategies besides others (Table
6). According to the study conducted by Tigistu and Hegena (2022), the food insecure households of
their study area followed seasonal migration, remittance from relatives, sale of livestock, firewood
and charcoal sale during the time of food insecurity. Additionally, INF1 and INF2 justified that:
Most fuel wood and charcoal sellers are those forced to buy their day-to-day food and other basic
needs. If they stop this routine activity, it seems them not live as they do not have another
opportunity. Some of them are physically too shrink faced and live miserable life due to lack of food
and they are full of psychological tension for their day-to-day livelihood. So this needs the
intervention of governmental and nongovernmental concerned bodies or agents to improve the life of
such people.
Besides to this, INF6, INF7 and INF8 respectively asserted that some of such food insecure
individuals are found at neighborhood that they sometimes came to home and ask something edible,
especially when they could not get daily labor income to buy what is edible. Even, they do not eat
three times a day most of the time and they go to bed with a little bit eating or with hungering. Such
life is anxious for their health that exposes them for disease.
Food insecure individuals do not force themselves to eat in a variety of meal; rather they trigger to
get what to be eaten when they get hungry. For example, they eat rotten maize, yam, sweet potato,
cassava…etc. at lunch or dinner time though they need to eat something good like others (INF3, INF4
and INF5).

Table 6. Activities followed by food insecure households as a means of coping strategies

Coping strategies followed by households Frequency Percentage
Less eat of preferred food 46 14.9
Eating less food in a day (reduce amount) 43 13.9
Food borrowing from relatives or neighbors 32 10.4
Selling animals and livestock 24 7.8
Exchanging labor for food 13 4.2
Small scale trading participation 13 4.2
Buying cereals by cash loan from merchants 10 3.2
Charcoal or firewood selling 6 1.9
Crop residues selling 4 1.3
Total 191 61.8
Source: Households survey, 2022

4. Conclusions
This study looked at the factors that affect the food security and coping mechanisms of rural
households. As a baseline, the study used the minimum calorie requirement for an adult (2200 kcal)
to identify food-secure and insecure families based on the food or calorie acquisition or
consumption per adult per day. As a result, the descriptive analysis of the study revealed that 38.2%
of the households in the study region were classified as food secure, while 61.8% were classified as
food insecure. Based on the outcome of logistic regression analysis, factors disturbing food security
of households include educational status, use of chemical fertilizer, farmland size, improved seed,
number of oxen, and farm credit, which affect households’ food security status at a 1% significance
level, whereas off-farm income affects it at a 5% significance level. Additionally, food-insecure
households in the area follow some coping strategies, including eating less preferred food, reducing
the number of meals per day, borrowing food from neighbors, selling livestock, exchanging labor,
small-scale trading, firewood selling and charcoal production, and selling crop residues. So, the

58
Gamachis Determinants and Coping Strategies of Households’ Food Security

condition of these rural farmer households needs support from different bodies to solve their food
security problems. The following recommendations have been forwarded based on the study results.

5. Recommendations
So as to tackle the problem of rural households’ food security in the study area, the researcher
suggestions include the following.
The level of households’ education has significant and positive association with rural household
food security in the study area. But the level of households’ educational status was low in the area.
Therefore, it is recommended that Minister of education supported by government and NGO should
deliver adult education for those illiterate female and male rural farmer households.
Possession of farm oxen is positively with food security status of households in the area.
Households with oxen couldn’t cultivate their farmland at right time. Even, they rent their plot of
land to other farmers in the form of share; which would be openly posed them to the difficulty of food
security. As a result, it is better if monetary institutions help farmer households by granting them with
credit to help them buy farm oxen.
Off-farm income was positively and significantly associated with households’ food security status in
the study area. Therefore, it is better to link farmers with neighboring monetary institutions in order to
get loan and run income producing activities that in turn could help them win food security problem.
The household food security status was positively correlated with farm inputs like chemical
fertilizer and better seeds. Therefore, any governmental and non-governmental agricultural offices or
institutions should give support for the farmer households in how they get the inputs to increase their
farm productivity.

6. Acknowledgment
The author impressively thanked the farmers who took part and paid their precious time to this study
by giving genuine responses during data gathering through the questionnaire. The key informants,
woreda administrator, woreda agriculture and rural development office administrator, Development
agent experts, and kebele chairpersons who unreservedly contributed to the success of this study are
also highly thanked by the author.

59
Gamachis East African Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities Volume 9 (1) 47–62

Supportive Data

Table 7. Conversion factor used to estimate adult equivalent (AE)

Age group Male Female
<10 0.6 0.6
10-13 0.9 0.8
14-16 1 0.75
17-150 1 0.75
>150 1 0.75
Source: Storck, Bezabih, Berhanu, Borowiecki, and Shimelis (1991)

Table 8. Conversion factor used to estimate kcal of different food items

Food item Unit Kcal
Barely Kg 3723
Maize Kg 3751
Sorghum Kg 3850
Wheat Kg 3623
Lentils Kg 3522
Onion Kg 713
Pepper Kg 933
Milk Kg 737
Sugar Kg 3850
Edible oil Kg 8964
Coffee Kg 1103
Pea Kg 3553
Tomato Kg 216
Salt Kg 1700
Rice Kg 3330
Meat Kg 1148
Butter Kg 7364
Spaghetti/ Macaroni Kg 3550
Source: EHNRI (1997)

7. References
Abegaz, K. 2017. Determinants of food security: Evidence from Ethiopian rural household survey
(ERHS) using people cross sectional study. Agriculture and Food Security, 6 (1): 1−7.
Abera, A., Yirgu, T. and Uncha, A. 2021. Determinants of rural livelihood diversification strategies
among Chewaka settle’s communities of Southwestern Ethiopia. Journal of Agriculture and
Food Security, 10 (30): 9−10.
Agidew, A. M. A. and Singh, K. N. 2018. Determinants of food insecurity in the rural farm
households in South Wollo Zone of Ethiopia: The case of the Teleyayen sub-watershed.
Agricultural and Food Economics, 6 (1): 1−23.
Awoke, W., Eniyew, K., Agitew, G. and Meseret, B. 2022. Determinants of food security status of
household in Central and North Gondar Zone, Ethiopia. Cogent Social Sciences, 8 (1): 1−12.
Bechaye, T. 2011. Rural household food security situation analyses: The case of Boricha Wereda,
Sidama Zone. Unpublished Master’s thesis. Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia.

60
Gamachis Determinants and Coping Strategies of Households’ Food Security

Biyena, D. C., Wondu, H. and Mewded, B. 2021. Factors affecting household food security in Gumay
Woreda of Jimma Zone of Oromia, Ethiopia. International Journal of Economic Behavior
and Organization, 9 (3): 85−93.
CSA (Central Statistical Agency). 2012. Analytical report on the household consumption and
expenditure survey, Statistical Bulletin 563, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
CWFS (Committee for World Food Security). 2013. Global strategic framework for food security and
nutrition (GSF); Second Version, Rome.
EHNRI (Ethiopia Public Healthy Institution). 1997. Ethiopia national food consumption survey.
Addis Ababa. Ethiopia.
Endale, W., Mengesha, Z., Atinafu, A. and Adane, A. 2014. Food insecurity in Farta district,
Northwest Ethiopia: A community-based cross-sectional study. BMC Research Notes, 7 (1):
1−6.
Ethiopian Health and Nutrition Research Institute. 1997. Food composition table for use in Ethiopia.
Part III and IV, Addis Ababa.
FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization). 2017. The state of food security and nutrition in the
world, FAO: Rome, Italy.
FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP and WHO. 2020. In brief to the state of food security and nutrition in the
World 2020. Transforming food systems for affordable healthy diets. Rome, FAO.
Faustine, E. 2016. Coping strategies and household resilience to food insecurity in Chamwino and
Manyoni Districts Tanzania. Doctoral dissertation. Sokoine University of Agriculture.
Feyisa, M. N. 2018. Determinants of food insecurity among rural households of South Western
Ethiopia. Journal Development and Agricultural Economics, 10 (12): 404 − 412.
Getaneh, Y., Alemu, A., Ganewo, Z. and Haile, A. 2022. Food security status and determinants in
northeastern rift valley of Ethiopia. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research, 8: 100290.
Gujarati, D. N. 1995. Basic Econometrics, 4th edition. New York: United States Military Academy.
______. 2004. Basic Econometrics, 4th edition. Mcgraw-Hill, New York, NY, USA.
Gulled, A. 2006. Food insecurity and coping strategies of Agro-pastoral households in Awbare
woreda, Somali region Ethiopia. Doctoral thesis, School of Graduate Studies of Haramaya
University, Ethiopia.
Habtewold, T. M. 2018. Determinants of food security in Oromiya Region of Ethiopia. In: Economic
growth and development in Ethiopia, PP. 39−65.
Hadley, C., Linzer, D. A., Belachew, T., Mariam, A. G., Tessema, F. and Tefera, B., Lindstrom, D.
2011. Household capacities, vulnerabilities, and food insecurity: Shifts in food insecurity in
urban and rural Ethiopia during the 2008 food crisis. Social Science and Medicine, 73 (10):
1534−1542.
Hosmer, D. and Lemeshow, S. 1989. Applied Logistic Regression. New York: Wiley.
Kahsay, S. and Mulugeta, M. 2014. Determinants of rural household food insecurity in
Laelaymaichew woreda. Tigray, Ethiopia. African Journal of Agriculture and Food Security,
2 (1): 106−112.
Kassa, W. A. and Eniyew, K. 2018. Gender and youth challenges and opportunities in a rural
community: The case of Goregora, West Dembia district of North West Ethiopia. Journal of
Agricultural Extension and Rural Development, 10 (6): 108-114.
Kothari, C. R. 1990. Research Methodology: Methods and Techniques, 2nd edition. Washwa
Prakashan Pub. New Delhi, India.
Leza, T. and Kuma, B. 2015. Determinants of rural farm household food security in Boloso Sore
district of Wolaita zone in Ethiopia. Asian Journal of Agricultural Extension, Economics, and
Sociology, 5 (2): 57−68.

61
Gamachis East African Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities Volume 9 (1) 47–62

Million, M. and Muche, M. 2020. Factors determining the food insecurity status of rural households
in Manna woreda of Jimma zone, Ethiopia. Sustainability, Agriculture, Food and
Environmental Research, 8 (4): 250−264.
Mohammed, A., Wassie, S. B. and Teferi, E. T. 2021. Determinants of Smallholders’ food security
status in Kalu District, Northern Ethiopia. Challenges, 12 (2): 1−12.
Mohammed, S. and Mohammed, A. 2021. Determinants of food security: The case of Kurmuk
District in Benishangul Gumuz Regional State, Western Ethiopia. International Journal of
Natural Resource Ecology and Management, 6 (1): 16−26.
Mota, A. A., Lachore, S. T. and Handiso, Y. H. 2019. Assessment of food insecurity and its
determinants in the rural households in Damot Gale Woreda, Wolaita zone, southern Ethiopia.
Agriculture and Food Security, 8 (1): 1−11.
Mulugeta, M. 2012. Resettlement and food security nexus in Ethiopia: A case from Nanno
resettlement sites, central Ethiopia; Ethiopia. Synopsis of a PhD dissertation. Journal of the
Social Sciences and Humanities, 8 (2): 75−84.
Negash, T. and Alemu, S. 2013. Determinants and coping strategies of household food insecurity in
rural areas of Tigray: The case of rural Adwa Woreda. Ethiopian Journal of Agricultural
Sciences, 23 (1-2): 119-144.
NMA (National Meteorological Agency). 2020. Annual temperature and rainfall distribution of ten
years of the Gimbi Woreda. Raw data from NMA of Assosa Branch, Ethiopia.
Sani, S. and Kemaw, K. 2019. Analysis of household food insecurity and its coping mechanisms in
Western Ethiopia. Agricultural and Food Economics, 7 (5): 1−20.
Tigistu, S. and Hegena, B. 2022. Determinants of food insecurity in food aid receiving communities
in Ethiopia. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research, 10 (1−10): 100391.
Tsegaw, C., Endris, A. and Assefa, G. 2022. Determinants of food security status of rural households
in Benishangul Gumuz Region: The case of Pawe Woreda. International Journal of Natural
Resource Ecology and Management, 3 (3): 88−97.
UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). 2012. Africa 2012: Towards a food lease future.
New York.
Von, Braun. J. 2012. The world food situation: New driving forces and required actions. Washington
D.C.
WB (World Bank). 2018. World Bank open data. World Bank Group, Washington, D.C.
Yamane, T. 1967. Statistics: An Introductory Analysis, 2nd edition. New York: Harper and Row.
Yehuala, S., Melak, D. and Mekuria, W. 2018. The status of household food insecurity: The case of
West Belesa, North Gondar, Amhara Region, Ethiopia. International Journal of Scientific
Research and Management, 6 (6): 158−166.

62