International Journal of Food and Nutrition Sciences

Vol. 5(1), pp. 098-108, March, 2020. © www.premierpublishers.org. ISSN: 2362-7271

Research Article

Analysis of Rural Households Food Security Status in

Dibatie District, Western Ethiopia
Adem Endiris
Lecturer, Department of Agricultural Economics, Assosa University, P.O.Box 18, Assosa, Ethiopia
Email: aendris76@gmail.com

This study examines the rural household’s food security status and its determinants in the Dibatie
district of Bebishangul Gumuz region. The simple random sampling technique was used to select
respondents with proportionate sample size based on the number of households that exists in
sampled kebele administrations. The data were collected using structured questionnaires and key
informants interviews. Both descriptive statistics and econometric model (binary logit model)
were used to analyze this data at household levels. Food Security Index is used to measure the
food security status of sample households based on average kcal/day/adult equivalent. The
results of this study revealed that households of 59.4% were found food secure and 46.6% food
insecure. The mean calorie intake of all sampled households was 2431.68kcal/day/equivalent.
Furthermore, estimated a binary logit model results show that the variables such as education
level of household head, utilization of formal credit, cultivated land size, access to training, farm
experience, household size and distance to nearest market were found significant influence on
households’ food security status in the study area. However, the remaining variables were not
found significant effect on households’ food security status. Finally, the study suggests that any
interventions designed to promote farmers to increase food security status at household level in
the study area are welcome.

Keywords: Binary Logit, Determinants, Dibatie, Ethiopia, Food Security

INTRODUCTION

In Ethiopia, agriculture is the predominant and important
for economic growth and also it is the most dominant tool
for reduction of poverty and food insecurity (Beyene, 2008;
WB, 2017). There are a number of factors which motivated
by food insecurity problems in Ethiopia. These are limited
access of farmlands (IFAD, 2011), low levels of output per
farm and a high degree of subsistence farming (MoARD,
2010), and land degradation and little technological
progress in agricultural sector that create significant
challenges in an attempt to reduce rural poverty and to
achieve food security in the rural community (Ahmad,
2010). In addition soil erosion, lack of oxen, decline food
production capacity, occurrence of plant and animal
disease, poor soil fertility, chronic shortage of cash
income, weak extension services, high labor wastage and
poor infrastructural facility and pre and post-harvest crop
loss (Birara et al., 2015).
Nowadays, food security is a situation when all people at
all times have physical and economic access to safe,
sufficient and nutritious food needed to maintain healthy
and active life’ (FAO, 2008; FAO, 2013). On the other
hand, food security is defined as adequate availability of
and access to food for households to meet the minimum
energy requirements as recommended for active and
healthy life (Hussein and Janekarnki, 2013). However,
about 44.2% of the Ethiopian people are under food
security line that is unable to get the minimum required
calorie intake due to insufficient food production of rural
population from their farm (Tassew, 2008). And also about
31.6 million people are undernourished (FAO, 2010). The
government has been formulating and implementing a
long-term strategy (such as Growth & Transformation Plan
I and II) which takes ensuring food security as its main
objectives (FAO, 2012). Due to this, food security remains

Analysis of Rural Households Food Security Status in Dibatie District, Western Ethiopia
Endiris A. 099
a serious issue for many rural households and for the
country as a whole (Demese et al., 2010).
There are different measurements and methods of food
security in terms of qualitative and quantitative ways. Food
security is a cross-cutting, complex and multifaceted
phenomenon as with poverty because it covers a wide
range of disciplines. The most common measures of
household food security are elaborated in four dimensions
such as food availability, food accessibility, food utilization
and stability of each confinement in a different way (FAO,
2008; Jrad et al., 2010).In the first approach, food security
measured by food utilization through nutritional status of
dietary deficiencies. It is considered food intake and other
factors such as sanitation, health and childcare practices.
Next approach, food accessibility is the little use of food if
households or individuals do not have enough financial
resources to acquire food. This approach returns around
the concept of access to food and can be proxy of
measured by total food consumption expenditures. The
final approach is food calorie intake method that measures
the amount of food actually consumed at the individual or
household level through a number of techniques.
However, there is no single indicator to capture all aspects
of food security and one best food security measure that is
universally accepted. Therefore, the purpose of this study
the researcher employed food calorie intake method in the
rural households of the study area were employed
because it represents the actual food consumption pattern
of the households (Tewodros and Fikadu, 2014; Osarfo et
al., 2016; Tithy et al., 2016).
In the study district, agriculture is the main source of
income or livelihood of the people, is dependent on rain,
and the pattern of rainfall is erratic and insufficient. In the
absence of rainfall farmers constantly faced with food
shortages and crises. Even in a good season, the onetime
harvest is too little to meet the yearly household needs.
Various efforts have been made to overcome problems of
Figure 1: Location map of the study area
Analysis of Rural Households Food Security Status in Dibatie District, Western Ethiopia
declining agricultural product and productivity which have
direct effect on food security but problems still a serious
and critical issue of the people in the study area. There is
no significant research done on the determinants of
household food security in the study area. Therefore, this
study planned to fill this gap to assess household food
security status and analyses the determinant of
household’s food security in the study area.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Description of the study area
Dibatie district is located in Metekel zone of Benishangul
Gumuz Regional State. This study area covers 368,289
hectares. The study district is bordered in the west by
Bulen district, north by Mandura district and south by Yaso
district in Abay River. It is also bordered in Dura River on
the east, which separate from the Amhara region. This
district is around 436 km away from the capital city of
Benshangul Gumuz region (Assosa) in the north- east
direction. The current total human population in the district
is 90,577. Out of these 46,013 are males and 44,564 are
females (DDAO, 2018). The district has largest ethnic
groups such as Gumuz (30.6%), Amhara (26.3%), Oromo
(24%), Shinasha (16.5%) and Awi (2%) (CAS, 2007).
The mean annual temperature of the district is between
13.9oc and 28.3oc. The absolute maximum temperature
usually occurs from February to May and the minimum
temperature also occurs from June to September. The
rainy season starts in May and extends to the half of
October (DDAO, 2018). The major economic activity of
district is agriculture, which are finger millet, teff,
groundnut, sesame and maize as the major crops
produced in the district. In addition off-farm activities are
economic activities that support farm activities (DDAO,
2018).

Sampling technique and sample size
For this study, two stage sampling techniques were
employed. The first stage was involved simple random
sample to select three kebele administrations (namely
Girth, Parzyt and Berber) out of twenty nine kebeles in the
study area. In the second stage, probability of proportional
sample size was employed to determine the number of
households in sample kebeles and then, to select all
respondent households by employing a lottery method in
sample kebeles. This implies that 202 sampled
households were selected randomly from a total of
households existed in sample kebele administrations.
In this study, the sample size was determined by using
Yamane formula (Yamane, 1967). This formula expressed
as:
n=
𝑁
⇔ n=
18115
= 201.8081 ≈ 202
1+𝑁(𝑒)2 1+18115(0.07)2
Where: n = denotes statistically acceptable sample size N
= denotes total size of target households (18,115) in the
study area and e = denotes level of precision/margin error
(7%).
Therefore, we can find 202 households acceptable sample
size from the given households in study area.
Sources and methods of data collection
Both primary and secondary sources of data were used for
this study. To achieve the purpose of this study, primary
data was collected by using two phases. In the first phase,
an informal survey was used to obtain supplementary
information by key informant interview and focus group
discussion. A focus group discussion was held with a
group of 8-12 persons in each three sampled kebeles. In
the second phase, formal survey was used the cross-
sectional data pertaining to socio-economic, demographic,
and institutional variables that influence household food
security status and the physical consumption of food each
item of the households was collected by using structure
questionnaire (open and closed ended questions). This
questionnaire was first prepared in English language and
then translated into Amharic language to make questions
clear for the enumerator and to facilitate data collection
during household survey. For the data collection,
enumerators who speak the Local language and Amharic
fluently were hired from the study area and then
researchers were given training for enumerators on how to
conduct the interview questions and the way of approach
to farmers during the interview. It is administered on
representative respondents. And also, secondary sources
of data were gathered from different published and
unpublished documents such as district administration
office report.
Method of data analysis
The raw quantitative and qualitative data were collected
from the survey households and then edited, coded,
Analysis of Rural Households Food Security Status in Dibatie District, Western Ethiopia
Int. J. Food Nutr. Sci. 100
entered, cleaned and analyze the data by employing
STATA-14 software. Descriptive, inferential statistics and
econometric models were used for this study.
In this study both descriptive and inferential statistics were
used to analyze the survey data. Descriptive statistics
such as frequency and percentage were used for dummy
variables in qualitative way and minimum-maximum, mean
and standard deviations were used for continuous
variables that used to summarize and present the
quantitative data. Inferential statistics were used t-test for
the continuous and chi-square test was employed to test
the significance of discrete independent variables with
respect to dependent variable. Measuring food security
status and econometric models were discussed below.
Measuring food security status of sample rural
households
Food security at household level is a subjective measure
in many ways. In most cases, there are two methods
widely used to measure the food security status (Zi) of
households. The first method is called expenditure
method, the index is food security = food expenditure of ith
household ÷ two-third of mean per capita food expenditure
of all study households (Omonona and Agoi, 2007;
Amurtiya, 2015). The second method is called calorie
intake method. This direct daily calorie intake method
(consumption calorie intake method) was represented the
actual food consumption pattern of farm households
(Tewodros and Fikadu, 2014; Osarfo et al., 2016; Tithy et
al., 2016). In Ethiopia, the minimum acceptable mean food
requirement calorie intake per person per day is 2200 kcal
(MoFED, 2012; FAO, 2017). Then, to identify food security
status of each households (food security index), the
following procedures was undertaken by physical
consumption of food items in the study area. First, this
physical consumption of food items converted into
kilocalories through food composition table (Appendix 1)
compiled by the Ethiopian Health and Nutrition Institute
(EHNRI, 2000). Second, all food calories were added up
and then converted to daily amounts. Then, household
members converted for the adjustment of household age
and sex composition for Adult Equivalent (AE) (Appendix
2). Finally, Food Security Index (Zi) is constructed to
determine the food security status of each household
based on recommended daily calorie required approach.
This is given by the following the formula (1).
𝐴𝑖
𝑍𝑖 = ………………………………1
𝑅𝑖
Where: Zi =Food security status for the ith household; Ai =
Actual daily calorie intake of ith household include food
consumed from own production, market purchases, and
out-of-home meals and Ri = Recommended food security
line of the ith household per capita daily calorie intake
(2200 kcal/day/AE). This minimum acceptable food
security line (2200 kcal/day/AE) set by (MoFED, 2012;
FAO, 2017). Finally in analysis part, food secured
Endiris A. 101

household = 1 if the value Zi ≥ 1, whose daily per capita 𝑒 𝑧𝑖

calorie intake is above or on the recommended per capita
𝑃𝑖 = 𝐹(𝑍𝑖) = 𝐹( a + ∑𝑚
𝑖−1 𝛽𝑖𝑋𝑖) = 1+ 𝑒 𝑧𝑖
…..2
daily calorie intake line (≥ 2200 kcal/day/AE) and the Thus, 1–Pi is the probabilities of households’ food security
household food insecure = 0 if the value Zi <1). Therefore, status (probability of failure). This implies that:
in this paper the dependent variable is binary outcome. 𝑒 𝑍𝑖 1
1 − 𝑃𝑖 = 1 − 1+ 𝑒 𝑍𝑖 = 1+𝑒 𝑍𝑖 ……………....3
𝑒𝑧𝑖
Model specification for determinants of households’ 𝑃𝑖 𝑚
1+ 𝑒𝑧𝑖
food security status Therefore:
1−𝑃𝑖
= 1 = 𝑒 𝑧𝑖 = 𝑒 (𝛼+ ∑𝑖=1 𝛽𝑖𝑋𝑖) ………4
1+𝑒𝑍𝑖

The relevance of logit and probit models are quite similar;

they usually predicted probabilities are almost identical The above econometric model can be represented in
and they have a common methodology for analyzing the terms of logarithms as follows:
𝑃𝑖
survey data, when the dependent variable is qualitative in ln ( ) = ln ( 𝑒 𝑍𝑖 ) = 𝛼 + 𝛽1𝑋1 + 𝛽2𝑋2 + ⋯ + 𝛽𝑚𝑋𝑚
1−𝑃𝑖
nature and a mixture of continuous and dummy .…5
independent variable. The main difference being that logit
model assumed to follow the standard logistic distribution Thus, log-odds ratio is a linear function of the explanatory
of errors, whereas probit assumes standard normal variable. The above equation (5) has certainly helped the
distribution of errors (Gujarati, 2003; Greene, 2008). The popularity of the logit model transformation. Therefore, a
binary food security is therefore dichotomous between two binary logit model was employed to estimate the
mutually exclusive alternatives: either to food secured or probability of household food security that can be
food insecure. Thus, a binary logit model was used to represented as:
identify the factors influencing the rural household food Zi = 𝛼 + 𝛽𝑖𝑋𝑖 + 𝑈𝑖
security status and maximum likelihood estimation method Zi=1 if Zi ≥ 2200kcal⁄day⁄AE
With 𝑍𝑖 = { or ......…..6
was used to estimate the model. Zi=0 if Zi< 2200kcal⁄day⁄AE
Where, Zi=the probability household food security status
The dependent variable is household food security status (dependent variable), Xi= independent variables,𝛼 =
(Zi), which is specified as a function of many independent intercept,𝛽𝑖= coefficient of independent variables and
variables. So, Hosmer and Lemshew (1989), the logistic Ui=error term
distribution functions for identification of the household *Note that 2200 kcal/day/AE is the threshold value of food
food secure (Zi=1) and food insecure (Zi=0) can be defined security stated by (MoFED, 2012; FAO, 2017).
as:

Table 1: Definition of variables and working hypothesis

No. Code Variables Variables Measurement of variables in (Value) Expected
description type Sign
Dependent variable
FSS Food Security Dummy It is the dependent variable, which is (Food secure if
Status the value Zi >1; Food insecure if the value Zi <1)
Independent variables
1 AGEHH Age of the HH head Continuous Age of respondent in years +ve
2 SEXHH Sex of the HH head Dummy Sex of the respondent (1=Male and 0= Female) +ve
3 EDUHH Education level of Continuous Formal education in year of schooling grade +ve
household head
4 MHHSIZ Household size Continuous Total household members in adult equivalent -ve
(Appendix 2).
5 TCL Total cultivated land Continuous Size of cultivated land in hectare +ve
6 TLU Total livestock Continuous The respondents’ total livestock owned in TLU +ve
owned (Appendix 3)
7 FARMEXP Farm experience Continuous Farm experience in years +ve
8 CREDTU Utilization of formal Dummy If the respondents to utilized formal credit(1= if yes; +ve
credit 0=if no)
9 DISNMT Distance to the Continuous Walking from home to the nearest market in minute. -ve
nearest market
10 ACELCTY Access to electricity Dummy If the respondents did have access to electricity +ve
power (1= if yes; 0=if no)
11 TRIAN Access to training Dummy If the respondents get training (1= if yes, 0= if no) +ve
Source: Own Design, 2019

Analysis of Rural Households Food Security Status in Dibatie District, Western Ethiopia

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Study results were presented the way to distinguish
between food secure and food insecure households that
presented from descriptive statistics and econometric
model analysis result.
Demographic and socio-economic characteristics of
sample households
The study results revealed that descriptive statistics of
continuous variables across food security status of
households in table (2). The mean age of all sampled
household headed was 43.5years and mean farm
experience is 21.2 years. A t- test indicated that both
variables are not statistically significant mean difference
between food secure and food insecure households.
The survey results also revealed the mean education level
of sample households was 2.356 grades. The mean
education level of sample households for food secure and
food insecure household’s was 3.83 and 0.21 grades,
respectively. A t- test indicated that there was statistical
significant mean education level difference between food
secure and food insecure households at 1% significant
level. In addition, the mean cultivated land size of sampled
Table 2: Descriptive statistics of continuous variables across households’ food security status
Food secure
Variable descriptions N=120 (59.4%) N= 82 (40.6%)
( A)
Mean St. Dv. Mean St. Dv. Mean
Age of household head (year) 44.04 11.54
Household size in (AE) 5.75 2.22
Education level of household head in (grade) 3.83 3. 49
Cultivated land size (ha) 4.203 0.176
Farm Experience in (year) 21.93 13.57
Livestock size in (TLU) 8.173 0.418
Walking distance to nearest market (minutes) 27.31 1.96
Note that: *** Significant at P <0.01 significant levels and St. Dv = standard deviation
Source: Survey result, 2019
The survey results also revealed that the descriptive
statistics of dummy variable across food security status of
sampled households in table 3. Among all respondent
households, 82.7% were male headed households and
17.3% were female headed households. As a ratio of
household headed, male headed households were greater
than female headed. In addition, distributions of
respondents by access to electricity power, 48.51% of
sampled households did have access to electricity power
and 51.48% of respondents didn’t have access to
electricity power. From those,65.5 % of food secured
households and 23.2% of food insecure households did
have access to electricity power. Similarly, 34.2% of food
secured households and 76.8% of food insecure
households didn’t have access to electricity power. There
was statistically significant association between food
secured and food insecure households with chi-square
test at 1% significance level (table3).
Analysis of Rural Households Food Security Status in Dibatie District, Western Ethiopia
Int. J. Food Nutr. Sci. 102
households was 3.761 hectare. The mean values of total
cultivated lands for food secure and food insecure
households were 4.203 and 3.112, respectively. The t-
test revealed that the average cultivated land in hectare
was significant mean difference between food secured and
food insecure households significantly at 1% significant
level.
The mean livestock ownership of all sampled households
was 7.04 tropical livestock unit. The mean values of
livestock holding in tropical livestock unit for food secured
and food insecure households were 8.173 and 5.514 with
the standard deviation of 0.418and 0.338, respectively.
The result of t-test showed that the size of livestock
ownerships had significance mean difference between
food secured and food insecure households at 1%
significant level. Finally, the mean walking minute to
nearest market of sampled households was 43.01
minutes. The mean of walking minute for food secured and
food insecure households were 27.31and 65.98minutes.
Therefore, the mean of walking minute of food insecure
households were greater than mean of walking minute for
food secured households. The t- test indicated that
average walking minute was significant mean difference
between food secure and food insecure households at 1%
significant level.
Food insecure Sampled T- test or
households mean difference
(B) N= (202) (A-B)
42.79 11.536 43.53 1.249 (0.755)
5.805 2.348 5.772 -0.054 (0.168)
0.207 1.49 2.356 3.617(8.195)***
3.112 0.1467 3.761 1.09 (4.437)***
20.08 9.624 21.178 1.839 (1.059)
5.513 0.338 7.093 2.657(4.595)***
65.98 3.83 43.010 -38.68 (9.77)***
From the survey households in terms of receiving training,
49% of them were received training and 51% didn’t take
any types of training. From those 79.2% of food secured
households and 4.9% of food insecure households were
received training. And about 20.8% of food secured
households and 95.1% of food insecure households didn’t
receive any types of training. As a result, the statistical
analysis also shows that there is statistically significant
association between food secure and food insecure
households in terms of received training at 1 %
significance level. Finally, the survey results revealed that
about 49.5% of sample households did utilized formal
credit and 50.5% of sample households didn’t utilize formal
credit. From food secure households, 72.8% of
households did utilize formal credit and 24.2 % of
households didn’t utilized formal credit. Similarly, about
10.9% of food insecure households did utilize formal loan
and 89.1% food insecure households didn’t utilize formal
Endiris A. 103
Table 3: Descriptive statistics of dummy variables across food security status
Variables Variable Food secure Food insecure Total households Pearson
descriptions N=120 (59.4%) N=82 (40.6%) (N=202) chi-square
Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % value (χ2)
SEXHH Female 17 14.2 18 22 35 17.32 2.0608
Male 103 85.8 64 78 167 82.67
ACELCITY Yes 79 65.8 19 23.2 98 48.51 35.496***
No 41 34.2 63 76.8 104 51.48
TRAIN Yes 95 79.2 4 4.9 99 49 107.577 ***
No 25 20.8 78 95.1 103 51
CERDTU Yes 91 72.8 9 10.9 100 49.5 81.972***
No 29 24.2 73 89.1 102 50.5
Note that: *** Significant at P<0.01 significant levels
Source: Survey result, 2019
Table 4: Descriptive of households’ food security status
Food security status Statistical estimation (Daily calorie intake per adult equivalent)
Frequency % Mean Min Max St. Dev
Food secure 120 59.4 2948.53 2208.14 4811.22 613.03
Food insecure 82 40.6 1921.65 942.37 2198.97 292.85
Source: Survey result, 2019
loan. As survey results, there was statistical significant Determinants of rural households’ food security
association between food secure and food insecure status
households in terms of utilization of formal credit at 1 %
significance level. In general, model specification error may have occurred
when one or more irrelevant variables are included in the
Food security status of rural households in the study model or relevant variables are omitted from the model.
area Then, we need the diagnosis test were employed before
interpreting the result of the model. Therefore, the
In this study, direct daily calorie intake method was used
existence of multicollinearity problem among continuous
to measure household food security by physical
and dummy explanatory variables was tested by using
consumption of food items in the study area. Thus, sample
variance inflation factor (VIF) and contingency coefficient
respondents whose daily calorie intake is greater than or
(CC), respectively. Accordingly, the data have no serious
equal to recommend minimum food security line (≥2200
problem of multicollinearity among continuous variables
kcal/day/AE) were considered as food secure. While the
and there no problem of association between the dummy
sample respondents whose daily calorie intake is less than
variables (Appendix 4 and 5).
2200 kcal/day/AE were considered as food insecure.
Accordingly, the result of the study indicated that
After compute diagnosis test, to analyze the determinants
percentages of food secure and insecure households of
of household food security status by using a binary logit
total sampled households in the area were found to be
model. The eleven explanatory variables were used in this
59.4% and 40.6%, respectively.
model. Among those variables, seven variables were
significantly determining households’ food security status
The mean calorie intake of all sampled households was
(table 5). Thus, only significant variables at less than 10%
2431.68 kcal/day/AE. The result of the study show that the
probability levels were discussed.
mean value of calorie available for food secured
households was 2948.53 kcal/day/AE and mean calorie Education level household head: This variable was
available for food insecure households was 1921.65 fitted with pre-assumed expectation sign. As the model
kcal/day/AE. The minimum and maximum calorie intake result revealed that the variable education had a positive
for food secure households were 2208.14 and 4811.22 and significant influence on households’ food security
kcal/day/AE, respectively. While the minimum and status at less than 1% significant level. It indicated that the
maximum available of calorie for food insecure households higher education level does help much to improve the food
were 942.37 and 2198.85 kcal/day/AE, respectively (Table security status of households. As the model result, one
4). As a result of this study, more than half of households more grade of education can increase, the probability of
were food secured with an average daily calorie intake was being households’ food security status increased by
2948.53 kcal/day/AE,in which was about 34.02% greater 3.69%, keeping other things constant. The results are in
than the recommended minimum daily calorie requirement line to (Mada, 2015; Amurtiya, 2015; Alemnesh et al.,
and 40.6% of the households were food insecure with 2018).
average daily calorie intake of 1921.65 kcal/day/AE, which
was less than the recommended daily calorie intake
requirement.
Analysis of Rural Households Food Security Status in Dibatie District, Western Ethiopia
 Int. J. Food Nutr. Sci. 104

Table 5: Binary logit model result for determinants of household’s food security status
Explanatory variables dy/dx (mfx) Coef Sta. err Z P>|z|
Sex of household head -0.0596 -1.3328 0.8546 -1.56 0.119
Age of household head -0.0068 -0.1093 0.0613 -1.78 0.095
Member of household sizes (AE) -0.0245 0.3924** 0.1823 -2.15 0.031
Education level of household head 0.0369 0.5918*** 0.1975 3.00 0.003
Access to training 0.3037 3.7823*** 1.2602 3.00 0.003
Total cultivated land size 0.0777 1.2451*** 0.3887 3.20 0.001
Farm experience 0.0073 0.1174** 0.0527 3.23 0.026
Owned livestock in (TLU) 0.0137 0.2192 0.1376 1.59 0.111
Utilization of formal credit 0.2689 3.4289*** 1.0354 3.31 0.001
Distance to nearest market -0.0021 0.0334* 0.0181 -1.85 0.065
Access to electricity 0.0747 1.1735 0.8701 1.35 0.177
Constant 2.0417 2.6094 5.00 -0.78 0.434
Number of observations 202 Pseudo R2 0.7635
LR chi2(11) 208.32 Likelihood ratio -32.2623
Prob>chi2 0.0000
Note: ***, ** and * Significant at P<0.01, 0.05 and p<0.1 respectively
Source: Survey result, 2019
Utilization of formal credit: This result is completely in probability to produce more foods, which helped them to
agreement with the prior expectation from definition of be food secure.
variable. It has a positive and significant influence on
households’ food security status in the study area at1% Access to training: The result of this variable completely
significant level. This was due to the fact that households fitted with the prior expectation. It found to be a positive
which have an opportunity to receive credit would build a and significant influence on households’ food security
better food security status or a means to escape status at 1% significance level. The positive sign
vulnerability to food insecurity. The model result show that coefficient of access to training indicates that households’
the probability of being households’ food security status food security status increase as access to training
increased by 26.89% as the household did utilized formal increase in a unit. Particularly, the probability of being
credit increased in one unit, other things are held constant. households’ food security status increased by 0.21% as
The results are in line to (Tewodros and Fikadu, 2014). access to training increased in a unit, all other things are
held constant.
Household size: The model result revealed that
completely agrees with the prior expectation. This variable Distance to the nearest market: The result is completely
has a negative and significant influence on households' fitted with the prior expected. It found to be significant and
food security status at 5% significant level. The negative negatively influence on households’ food security status at
sign shows that the probability of household food security 10% level of significant. The negative sign coefficient of
status decreases as household size in adult equivalent distance to nearest market indicates that households’ food
increases. From the model output, the household size in security status decrease as walking minute to market
adult equivalent increased in one adult equivalent, the increase. Specifically, the probability of being households’
probability of being households’ food security status food security status decreased by 0.21% as distance to
decreased by 2.45%, all other things are held constant. nearest market increased by one minute, all other things
More household size in a limited and marginalized land are constant. The implication reason that households
agricultural income alone could not meet their food nearer to market center have the probability of selling their
security. The results are in line to (Amurtiya, 2015; produce and purchase food from market. This result is
Alemnesh et al., 2018). confirmed with the finding of (Adem, 2018; Tibebu and
Sisay, 2017).
Total cultivated land size: The result also showed as
cultivated land size is a positive and significant effect on Farm Experience: The model result revealed that
households’ food security status at 1% probability level. completely agrees with the prior expectation. This variable
This means households have large cultivated land to more has a positive and significant influence on households'
products for more household consumption and for sale food security status at 5% significant level. The positive
and have well chance to be food secured than those sign shows that the probability of household food security
having relatively small size of cultivated land size. As one status increase as farm experience increases. From the
additional hectare of farm size, the probability of being model output, the probability of being households’ food
households’ food security status increased by 2.45%, security status decreased by 0.73% as the farm
keeping other things constant. The results were the same experience increased in one year, all other things are held
as Amurtiya (2015); Adem (2018);Tibebu and Sisay constant.
(2017). An increase in land means household will have a
Analysis of Rural Households Food Security Status in Dibatie District, Western Ethiopia
Endiris A. 105
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Food security is one of the critical issues that need to be
addressed in Ethiopia. Both government and non-
governmental organizations played a key role to reduce
the food security problem in the country. Various studies
recommended that improving the livelihood of the rural
poor plays a key role. Thus, this study assessed
households’ food security status and its determinants in
Dibatie district. The primary data were collected from 202
sampled households in the study area. The method of data
analysis was carried out descriptive statistics and
econometric model.
Accordingly, the study finding indicated that more than half
of (59.4%) of rural households were food secure and
40.6% of households were food insecure. Also the result
of the model show that around seven variables were
significant effect on households’ food security status such
as education level of household head, utilization of formal
credit, farm experience, distance to the nearest market,
access to training, household size and cultivated land size.
However, the remaining variables were not found
significant effect.
Therefore, urgent actions aimed at reducing vulnerability
of the households’ food insecurity or to improve household
food security status in the study area should focus on:
❖ Education level of household head is a positive and
significant influence on households’ food security status
in the study area. So, concerned body has to work more
to increase access to education in the study area in
order to improve households’ food security status.
Moreover, community health and nutrition related
education should be strengthened through direct
educational support as well as awareness raising
programs.
❖ As household size and food security are negatively
related serious attention has to be given to limit the
increasing population size in the study area. This can
be achieved by creating sufficient awareness of
effective family planning in the rural households.
Further, household heads are advised to reduce the
size of household and their dependency ratio.
❖ Enhancing rural household utilization of credit as it
enables them to purchase different inputs to improve
their production and consumable products and there by
helps them to reduce and/or eliminate food insecurity
and improve their wellbeing.
❖ As distance to market and food security are negatively
related. As low distance market to reduce transport cost
buying from and selling to the market that helps the
households to enhance their food security status. So,
enhancing households’ food security status by better
access to markets on their choice of output to be
produced and purchased from market and selling to the
market.
❖ Generally, this finding recommends that appropriate
policy measures be taken towards limiting dependent
Analysis of Rural Households Food Security Status in Dibatie District, Western Ethiopia
population size through integrated and accessible
health and education services; improve training that
could help remove cultural barriers and manageable
cultivated land through extension service. In addition,
to enhancing households’ awareness about the
importance of better access to markets on their choice
of output to be produced and products to be purchased
and sale in the market that helps the households to
enhance their food security status.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author would like to thank my sponsor Assosa
University for providing both financial and technical
assistance in the research work. Just as much, author
would like to thank all Dibatie District Agriculture Officers
and also enumerators for their permission and cooperation
to use available data. Moreover, the researcher would like
to thank my Agricultural Economics staff members for their
valuable assistance during the study.
REFERENCES
Adem Mohammed 2018. Determinants of Income
Diversification and Its Effect on Food Security of Small
Holder Farmers in Asayita Woreda, Afar Regional
State. M.Sc. Thesis in Agricultural Economics. Bahir
Dar University, Bahir Dar, Ethiopia.
Ahmad Mhbuba 2010.The Determinants of Off-Farm
Employment and the Impact of Off-Farm Employment
on Food Consumption in Rural Ethiopia, School of
Economics, Degree of Masters in Economic Science,
University of Cape Town.
Alemnesh Diramo, Rahmeto Negash, Agidew Abebe
2018. “Determinants of Household Food Security and
Coping Strategy: (Evidence From Amaro Woreda of
Southern Ethiopia).” Int. J. Res. Granth. 6(5): 128-137
Amurtiya Michael 2015. The Effect of Livelihood Income
Activities on Food Security Status of Rural Farming
Households in Yola South Local Government Area,
Adadmawa State, Nigeria. M.Sc thesis In Agricultural
Economics. School of Agriculture and Agricultural
Technology.
Beyene, AD 2008. Determinants of Off-Farm Participation
Decision of Farm Households in Ethiopia', Agrekon:
Agricultural Economics Research Policy and Practice in
Southern Africa.
Birara Endalew, Mequanent Muche and Samuel Tadesse
2015. Assessment of Food Security Situation in
Ethiopia: A Review. Asian J. Agricult. Res.9: 55-68.
CSA (Central Statistical Agency) 2007.The Ethiopia
Reports of Population and Housing Census and
Federal state.
DDAO (Dibatie District Agriculture Office) 2018. Socio
Economic Profile of Dibatie district.
Demese Ch, Berhanu A, John M 2010. Ethiopian`s
Agricultural Sector Policy and Investment Framework:
Ten year Roadmap (2010-2020).

EHNRI. 2000. Food Consumption Table for Use in
Ethiopia, Part III, Addis Ababa.
FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization) 2008. The State
of Food Insecurity in the World. Food and Agriculture
Organization.
FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization) 2010. The State
of Food Insecurity in the World 2010: Addressing Food
Insecurity in Protracted Crises. Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.
FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization) 2013.. The
State of Food Insecurity in the World. Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome,
Italy.
FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization) 2017. The State
of Food Security and Nutrition in the World. Rome
Greene, WH. (2008). Econometric Analysis 6th edition,
Prentice-hall Inc. Upper SaddleRiver, New Jersey.
Gujarati, DN. (2003). Basic Econometrics: 3rd Edition,
McGraw- Hill Companies, New York
Hosmer, D., Lemeshew S. 1989. Applied Logistic
Regression. A Wiley-Inter science Publication,
Newyork
Hussein, W., Janekarnki P. 2013. “Determinants of rural
household food security in Jigjiga district of Ethiopia”.
Kasetsart.
IFAD (International Funds for Agricultural Development)
2011. Rural Poverty Report. New Realities, Challenges
and New Opportunities for Tomorrow’s Generation,
Rome, Italy.
Jrad, Nahas S., Baghasa H. 2010. Food security models,
Ministry of Agriculture & Agrarian Reform, National
Agricultural Policy Center, Syrian Arabic Republic, No.
33
Mada Melkamu 2015. Small-Scale Agriculture And It's
Hope To Food Security In Africa: The Case of Kamba
District In Ethiopia. Int. J. Mgmt Res. Bus. Strat. Vol. 4,
No. 2
MoARD (Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development of
Ethiopia) 2010. Annual Progress report, Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia.
MoFED (Ministry of Finance and Economic Development)
2012. Assessing Progress towards the MDGs. MDGs
report. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Analysis of Rural Households Food Security Status in Dibatie District, Western Ethiopia
Int. J. Food Nutr. Sci. 106
Omonona, BT., Agoi, GA. 2007. Analysis of food security
situations among Nigerian urban households: Evidence
from Lagos State. J. Central Europ. Agricult. 8(3):397-
406.
Osarfo Daniel, Senadza B., Nketiah-Amponsah E. 2016.
The Impact of Nonfarm Activities on Rural Farm
Household Income and Food Security in the Upper East
and West Regions of Ghana.
Tassew W. 2008. Correlates of poverty in rural and urban
Ethiopia: Department of Economics, Addis Ababa
University, Ethiopia. Ethiopian J. Agric. Econ. 7(1):49-
81.
Tewodros Tefera, Fikadu Tefera 2014. Determinants of
Households Food Security and Coping Strategies for
Food Shortfall in Mareko District, Guraghe Zone
Southern Ethiopia. J. Food. Secu. 2(3): 92-99.
Tibebu Aragie and Sisay Genanu. 2017. Level and
Determinants of Food Security in North Wollo Zone
(Amhara Region – Ethiopia). J.Food Security, vol. 5, no.
6;232-247
Tithy Dev, Naznin Sultana, Md. Elias Hossain 2016.
Analysis of the Impact of Income Diversification
Strategies on Food Security Status of Rural
Households in Bangladesh: A Case Study of Rajshahi
District. Amer. J. Theor. Appl. Buisn. 2(2): 46-56.
WB (World Bank) 2017. The over view of Agriculture. April
04, 2017.
Yemane, T. 1967. Statistics: An Introductory Analysis. 2nd
ed. Harper and Row Inc.
ABBREVIATIONS
kcal: kilocalorie
AE: Adult Equivalent
FAO: Food and Agriculture Organization
CSA: Central Statistical Agency
DDAO: Dibatie District Agriculture Office
EHNRI: Ethiopian Health and Nutrition Research
Institution
IFAD: International Funds for Agricultural Development
MoARD: Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development
MoFED: Ministry of Finance and Economic Development
TLU: Tropical Livestock Unit; WB: World Bank.
Endiris A. 107

APPENDIX

Appendix 1: Conversion factor of calorie content in each food items

Food items Unit Calorie Food items Unit Calorie
Wheat Kg 3570 Sweet Potato Kg 1360**
Teff Kg 3589 Irish Potato Kg 1037**
Barely Kg 3723 Oats Kg 3599**
Lentils Kg 3522 Egg Each 61
Hose bean Kg 3514 Honey Kg 3605
Sorghum Kg 3805 Red Pepper Kg 933
Peas Kg 3553 Maize Kg 3560
Vetch Kg 3470 Millet Kg 3260
Linseed Kg 5109 Check peas Kg 3630
Sugar Kg 3850 Onion Kg 713**
Coffee Kg 1103 Garlic Kg 118
Meat Kg 1148 Rice Kg 3640***
Milk Lit 737 Groundnut Kg 3320***
Butter Kg 7363 Tomato Kg 70***
Edible oil Lit 8964** Spegthetii /Macaroni Kg 3550*
Source: EHNRI, 2000, * Dire Dawa Food Complex, **EHNRI, 1998, ***WHO

Appendix 2: Conversion factor for adult equivalent (AE)

Age group Male Female
<10 0.6 0.6
10-13 0.9 0.8
>13 1 0.75
Source: Storck et al., 1991

Appendix 3: Conversion factor of tropical livestock unit (TLU)

Livestock Category TLU Livestock Category TLU
Ox 1 Donkey (Young) 0.35
Cow 1 Horse 1.1
Woyfen 0.34 Sheep and Goat (Adult) 0.13
Heifer 0.75 Sheep (Young) 0.06
Calf 0.25 Goat (Young) 0.06
Donkey (Adult) 0.7 Hen 0.013
Source: Storck et al., 1991

Appendix 4: Multicollinearity test

Variable VIF 1/VIF
Farm Experience 3.09 0.324092
Age of household head 2.39 0.418371
Tropical livestock unit 2.27 0.440823
Total cultivated land size 1.88 0.532781
Distance to nearest market 1.68 0.596657
Member of household size 1.34 0.746427
Education level of household head 1.45 0.691625
Mean VIF 2.01

Analysis of Rural Households Food Security Status in Dibatie District, Western Ethiopia
 Int. J. Food Nutr. Sci. 108

Appendix 5: Contingency coefficient for explanatory variables

MHHSIZ SEXHH EDUHH TCL FARMEXP TLU TRIA AGEHH DISNMT ACCRED ACELCIT
MHHSIZ 1.0000
SEXHH 0.0522 1.0000
EDUHH -0.0954 -0.0056 1.0000
TCL 0.4164 0.1417 -0.0163 1.0000
FARMEXP 0.2886 0.0327 -0.2304 0.3659 1.0000
TLU 0.4465 -0.0085 -0.0049 0.6224 0.5317 1.0000
TRIA -0.0370 0.2133 0.4715 0.1195 -0.0112 0.1442 1.0000
AGEHH 0.1806 0.0327 -0.1552 0.1172 0.6306 0.3250 0.0879 1.0000
DISNMT 0.0101 -0.1636 -0.3852 -0.0664 0.0670 -0.1419 -0.5880 -0.0558 1.0000
ACCRED 0.0515 0.1394 0.3894 0.1389 -0.0678 0.1754 0.6534 0.0168 -0.4892 1.0000
ACELCITY -0.0249 0.1565 0.2490 0.1294 0.0086 0.0801 0.5542 0.0565 -0.3983 0.4058 1.0000

Accepted 14 February 2020

Citation: Endiris A (2020). Analysis of Rural Households Food Security Status in Dibatie District, Western Ethiopia.
International Journal of Food and Nutrition Sciences. 5(1): 098-108.

Copyright: © 2020. Endiris A. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original
author and source are cited.

Analysis of Rural Households Food Security Status in Dibatie District, Western Ethiopia