Int.J.Curr.Res.Aca.Rev.

2018; 6(7): 76-80

International Journal of Current Research

and Academic Review
ISSN: 2347-3215 (Online) Volume 6 Number 7 (July-2018)
Journal homepage: http://www.ijcrar.com

doi: https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcrar.2018.607.008

Review on Determinants of Rural Household Food Security Status in Ethiopia

Agidew Abebe*

Department of Rural Development and Agricultural Extension, College of Agricultural Sciences, Arba Minch
University, Arba Minch, Ethiopia

*Corresponding author

Abstract Article Info

This review was focused on the determinants of rural household food security status and coping Accepted: 04 June 2018
strategies in Ethiopia. The similarities and variation among different findings in different area Available Online: 10 July 2018
were reviewed. Some of variation reviewed in the methodology part was some authors have used
binary logistic model and others have used probit model. The model findings were also varied Keywords
i.e. in some areas significantly positive effect variables also showed that significantly negative Probit; Logistic; Food; Security
effect in the other areas.

Introduction The smallholder peasant sector is the most important

agricultural sub-sector in the country. Its emphasis is on
Nearly a quarter of the population in Ethiopia is food crops as well as animal husbandry where
malnourished where the largest proportion suffers from considerable improvements of cultivation practices,
chronic hunger. Some assessments indicate that the management and marketing need to be realized.
probability of crop failure in certain parts of Ethiopia
could reach 10 per cent (FAO, 2006). The production volume of food crops as well as the per
capita food production has shown tremendous
This can be much worse where policies in attaining food fluctuations throughout the 1980s thus resulting in severe
security are underemphasized and the gap between per food shortage in the country. The main reasons for these
capita food production and consumption is induced by are stochastic shocks such as recurrent drought, lack of
the slowdown of the agricultural production growth rates market incentives for the small-scale food producers and
(FDRE, 2001). Researchers, planners, donors and poor extension services (Dercon and Krishnan, 2000).
international development agencies have given high
priority to the study of food system and the problem of Adverse changes in climate, combined with long-term
food security due to deepening food crises. Despite the factors (technology, environmental, institutional) led to a
available resources and the efforts made by governments decline of landholding, soil degradation and a decline in
in different times, food insecurity remained one of the yield per hectare (Anley et al., 2007). Having peaked at
most crucial challenges to economic development and about 26.2 % in 1984/85, food aid imports amounted to a
has been aggravated by recurring rainfall shocks and significant proportion of domestic production of food
wars (WHITE, 2005). crops, often, about 10% or more. The food insecurity

76
 Int.J.Curr.Res.Aca.Rev.2018; 6(7): 76-80

situation in the west ShewaZone of Ethiopia shares Cultivated land has positive impact on the probability of
similar features with that of the other regions (WVE, food security status of farm households in the study area
2007). and was found significant at 10% probability level. In
this sense, ownership of the larger cultivated land, the
Empirical findings higher the probability of being food secure to the farm
households. This means, the farm households due to
Determinants of rural household food security status ownership of larger size of cultivated land would have
higher the probability to produce more food and sources
Age of the household head was significant at less than of cash products than households with smaller size of
10% probability level and showed positive relationship cultivated land. As a result of using this resource, the
in explaining the household food security status. Which farm households would have probability of acquiring
means, as the age of the household head increases by a capital which might enable them to invest on other
single year, keeping other factors remain the same, the production resources and inputs that contributes to food
likelihood of the households being food secure increases security of the households. In this study, all other factors
by a factor of 1.07. This finding supports the assumption kept constant, as the size of cultivated land increased by
that when the heads age advances, they were expected to one hectare, the odds ratio in favor of being food secure
have stable economy, accumulate wealth, experience and increases by a factor of 3.298 implying the size of
food secure than younger heads. This shows that the cultivated land positive influence on food security status.
household heads who are at adulthood age engage in
different off farm activities and get income to be invested Use of improved seed has positive impact on the
to improve their household food security status. The probability of being food secure among the farm
educational attainment of the head of the household was households. In this study it is significant at 10%
important in explaining the variations in household food probability level. This implies that farm households who
security and it was fond significant at less than 10% use improved seed properly have more chance to be food
level. As a result, education does help much to improve secure than those who do not use. The result of this study
the food security status of households. Keeping other reveals that, all other factors are remaining constant, the
factor constant, an increase in a year of schooling of the odds ratio in favor of being food secure increases by a
household head improves the likelihood of the factor of 5.365 as a farm households improved seed use
households being food secure by a factor of 0.171. increases by one unit.

Household size measured in number of household Livestock holding (in TLU) is significantly related at less
members was found to negatively and significantly than 5% probability level and the odds ratio in favor of
influence household food security status at less than 1 % being food secure increase by a factor of 3.783 when
probability level. The presence of relatively more other factors remain constant. Livestock contribute to
number of household members in a household food security status of households in different ways such
demanding a minimum of 2100 Kilo Calories on the face as by providing cash income, nutrition (meat, milk, etc.),
of small degraded physical and natural farm resources draft power, manure, etc. Also livestock serve as savings
could be the justification for family size to affect food of assets and used for coping food insecurity problems
security negatively. If all other things are held constant, during food shortage. It was hypothesized that
the odds ratio in favor of being food insecure (exp ), households who own larger size of livestock in TLU are
shows that an increase in the size of family by one less likely to be food insecure than households who own
person, increases food insecurity by a factor of 0.4 unit. no or smaller size of livestock in TLU. According to this
It was prior hypothesized that family size has negative study, total size of livestock holding is positively and
impact on the state of food security, in such a way that significantly associated with the probability of
households with large family size are food insecure than households’ being food secure in the study area.
those with small numbers of family members. So, the
finding favors the prior hypothesis. Tshediso also Development Agent (DA) contact has significant
reported larger household sizes are associated with a positive influence on food security status of households
negative food security status as larger household sizes at 1% probability level. Increased contacts or visits of
require increase food expenditure and competition for DAs to the farm households increases the probability of
limited resources Tshediso Joseph Sekhampu (2013). households to be food secure as a result of dissemination
of agricultural extension and improved technologies to

77
 Int.J.Curr.Res.Aca.Rev.2018; 6(7): 76-80

the farm households by DAs that in turn increases Although we hypothesized that education of household
production and productivity. Holding other variables head has positive impact on state of household food
constant, the odds ratio in favor of being food secure security, the model output revealed that it has negative
increases by a factor of 9.019 as a farm household’s association. The possible explanation for the unexpected
contacts/visits of DAs to increases by one round. output might be literate households might not have
chance to apply their knowledge towards achievement of
As expected absence of adequate rainfall influence household food security. Similarly, GARRETT and
household food security status negatively and RUEL (1999) found negative and significant association
significantly at 5%. The finding reveals that as the between educational level of a household head and with
household perception changed from having adequate food security. Whereas, others found out that it is
rainfall during cropping season to inadequate, the odds mother’s attendance of primary education that positively
ratio in favor of food security decrease by a factor of contributes to food security (BIGSTEN et al., 2002). In
0.028. our sample, a greater proportion of female headed
households are food insecure, in agreement with this
Absence of plant disease, insect and pest damage also finding.
contribute to household food security status and its
influence was significantly at 10% level. The variable is Consistent with the hypothesis, household size (AE) has
measured as dummy and the result implies that when the a negative significant (at p<5%) influence on household
household status changed from absence of plant disease, food security. The negative sign in the model output
insect and pest damage to experience incidence of plant implies that family planning policies that will have an
disease, insect and pest damage the likelihood of food impact in reducing household size will increase the
insecurity increase by a factor of 9.066. probability of a household to be food secure. The odds
ratio in favor of food security decreases with increasing
Off-farm income per AE was hypothesized to have household size and was found to be 0.625. This implies,
positive impact on food insecurity. It is an income of the ceteris paribus, the odds ratio in favoring food security
households in cash or in kind. Households in the study decreases by 0.625 as household size increases by one
area engaged in different off-farm activities, particularly AE. This reaffirms the findings of others in which a
when they face crop failure and food shortage as a source household with large size, composed mainly of non-
of food. So, it serves as one of the major coping productive members is more likely to be food insecure
strategies of food shortage/insecurity. due to high burden levied on active labor (BIGSTEN et
al., 2002).
In this study, in agreement with the hypothesis, off-farm
income per AE is positively and significantly associated The model also reveals the important role of off–
with food security status of farm households at 5% farm/non-farm income in contributing to household food
probability level. The odds ratio, other factors held security as expected (at p<5%). In this circumstance,
constant, in favor of food security increases by a factor smallholders who solely depend on farm activities have
of 1.007 as the off-farm income per AE of farm inadequate income to purchase farm inputs and fulfill
households increases by one unit. family needs and thus, they are found to be food
insecure. The odds ratio in favor of food security
According to Fekadu and Mequanent, 2010, the model increases by a factor of 1.004 when off-farm/non-farm
reveals that age of the household head has positive and income increases by one birr.
significant (at p <10 %) relationship with household food
security. The logit increases by a factor of 1.042 as the Moreover, it indicates that the size of land cultivated, as
age of a household head increases by one year keeping a basic input in farming, is significantly associated with
the other variables constant. The possible explanation for food security status of a household. Land in this district
such positive association is that an older household head serves as means of coping mechanism during serious
devotes his/her time on farming activities compared to food shortage and collateral to receive credit service.
young farmers. Young people spend much time in towns This means households with large cultivated land
and prefer urban life than the rural for a number of produce more for household consumption and for sale
reasons. Moreover, as age increases, one can acquire and have better chance to be food secure than those
more knowledge and experience becoming effective in having relatively small size of cultivated land. The odds
exploiting these experiences. ratio for this variable is1.356. This indicates that

78
 Int.J.Curr.Res.Aca.Rev.2018; 6(7): 76-80

maintaining other determinants constant, additional Household coping strategies

hectare of cultivated land will enhance food security
status of the household by factor of 1.356 and vice versa. According to Most households in Marekoworeda are
affected by chronic food insecurity for many years. The
Use of fertilizer is another variable which was found to level of the food shortage problem varies from household
have a positive and significant impact on household food to household. Food insecure households use different
security (at p<5%). The odds ratio for this variable was strategies to cope with the food shortage Debebe
found to be much higher 6.084 where the odds ratio from Habtewold et al., (1998). Various coping strategies are
the use of chemical fertilizer favors attaining food practices that a household take as a decision to mitigate
security with a factor of 6.084. Most households in the and escape during shortfall of food availability and
rural communities in Ethiopia accumulate their wealth in access. So, there are about 10 strategies being practiced
terms of livestock. Results here support such a practice by the households at early stage of food shortfall.
where households with relatively large livestock size Accordingly at initial stage of food insecurity 60% and
(larger TLU) were found to be less vulnerable to food 73.5% of food secure and food insecure households were
insecurity. In this case, the odds ratio in favor of food reducing the number of meals, respectively. Reducing
security increases by factor of 1.273 for a unit increment size of meal also was employed as coping strategy by
in TLU. 60% and 72.5% of food secure and food insecure
households, respectively. Borrowing grain and cash was
Oxen are the main source of traction power among rural used as third coping mechanism was employed by 42%
households of the district. of food secure and 62.5% of food insecure households.
About 38% and 45% of food secure and food insecure
This is clearly indicated in the model where oxen households, respectively practiced receiving food aid as
ownership was positively and significantly associated the fourth coping mechanism. Sale of small livestock
with household food security. was used as fifth coping mechanism by 36% and 42.5%
of food secure and insecure households, respectively.
The odds ratio in favor of household food security Participation in food for work programs, which is ranked
increases by a factor of 1.934 for each additional ox sixth, was practiced by 38% and 37.5% of food secure
owned. Among poor households, having even a single ox and insecure households. Wage from daily paid laborer
enables them to tie with others having same status to was equally used as coping mechanism by 26% of food
cultivate their plots of land. secure and insecure households. Renting out and
mortgaging of land was the eighth and ninth coping
The sign for the soil conservation measure in the model mechanism. Renting out land was practiced by 10% and
is also consistent with the hypothesis in which the odds 16.25% of food secure and insecure households whereas
ratio is in favor of being food secure for adoption of mortgaging land by 4% and 11.25% of food secure and
certain soil conservation measures. insecure households, respectively. Pity trade was used as
the tenth coping mechanism by 10% and 3.7% of food
This result conforms to the findings of the studies secure and insecure households, respectively.
conducted elsewhere which have also shown a positive
relationship between food insecurity and natural resource At sever stage of food shortage households in the study
degradation that stand to be a prominent challenge to area practiced set of coping mechanisms more or less
developing countries (HOLDEN and SHIFERAW, corresponding to that of the initial stage. However, the
2004). orders of importance of the activities and coping
mechanisms were different. About 50% and 76.2% of
In some countries, poor farmers may practice a biomass food secure and food insecure households respectively
transfer from hedges which can increase yield used renting land out as the first coping mechanisms. On
enormously in the short-term other than the use of other the other hand 46% and 70% of food secure and insecure
expensive soil conserving technologies whose effects are households respectively were using mortgaging land as
observed in the long-term (SANCHEZ, 2000). A similar the second coping mechanisms. Close to 46% and 70%
practice could be adopted in Ethiopia when farmers of food secure and insecure households was receiving
cannot afford to pay for fertilizer since its price has food aid to cope food shortage. About 22% and 31.2% of
increased enormously subsequent to the removal of input food secure and insecure households respectively were
subsidies and due to other reasons. borrowing cash or grain from friends and relatives as

79
 Int.J.Curr.Res.Aca.Rev.2018; 6(7): 76-80

means of coping food insecurity. Off-farm income Framework for Use in the Monitoring and
(income from agricultural wage) was also used in the Evaluation of Food Aid Programs.
study area as coping strategy by households to cope food Holden, S. and B. Shiferaw (2004): Land degradation,
insecurity. As the severity of the problem continued drought and food security in a less favored area in
some of the members of the households forced to migrate the Ethiopian highlands: a bio-economic model with
in search of employment ranging from nearby areas to market imperfections. In: Agricultural Economics
furthest towns. Close to 16% and 32.2% of food secure 30 (1): 31-49.
and insecure households respectively used seasonal Sanchez, P.A. (2000): Linking climate change research
migration for coping mechanisms. Sale of livestock, with food security and poverty reduction in the
especially cow and ox, was used by 22% and 22.5% of tropics. In: Agriculture, Ecosystems and
food secure and insecure households, respectively. Environment 82 (1-3): 371-383.
Tewodros Tefera and Fikadu Tefera (2014).
References Determinants of Households Food Security and
Coping Strategies for Food Shortfall in Mareko
Bigsten, A, B. Kebede, A. Shimelis and M. Taddesse District, Guraghe Zone Southern Ethiopia,Hawassa
(2002). Growth and Poverty Reduction in Ethiopia: University, College of Agriculture, School of
Evidence from Household Panel Surveys. In: World Environment, Gender and Development Studies.
Development 31 (1): 87-106. Tshediso Joseph Sekhampu., (2013). Determinants of the
Debebe Habtewold, Daniel C. Clay, and Daniel Molla, Food Security Status of Households Receiving
(1998). Food Aid Targeting in Ethiopia: A Study of Government Grants in Kwakwatsi, South Africa,
Household Food Insecurity and Food Aid Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences Vol. 4 (1)
Distributions. Michigan State University, Famine January 2013.
Early Warning System Project, USAID/Ethiopia, WHITE, P. (2005): War and food security in Eritrea and
Ministry of Economic Development and Ethiopia. In: Disasters 29 (1): 92-113.
Cooperation. WVE (World Vision Ethiopia) (2007): Five years Design
FAO (2006): State of food insecurity in the World: Document (2007-2011). World Vision Ethiopia,
Eradicating world hunger, taking stock ten years the Addis Ababa Program Office, Ada Berga Area
World Food Summit. Rome, Italy. Development Program.
Frank Riely, Nancy Mock, Bruce Cgill, Laura Bailey,
Eric Kenefic., (1999). Food Security Indicators and
How to cite this article:

Agidew Abebe. 2018. Review on Determinants of Rural Household Food Security Status in Ethiopia.
Int.J.Curr.Res.Aca.Rev. 6(7), 76-80. doi: https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcrar.2018.607.008

80