COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE

SCHOOL OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS AND AGRIBUSINESS

PROGRAM OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS

SNIENOR RESEARCH ON ANALAYSIS OF DETERMINANT OF RURAL HOUSE HOLD
FOOD SECURITY.(INCASE OF HARAMAYA WOREDA, EASTERN HARARGE ZONE)

BY: AREGAY GERMEW

ADVISOR: NEWAY H. (MSc)

MAY, 2015

HARAMAYA, ETHIOPA

i
 TABLE CONTENTS

Contents Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT................................................................................................................i
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS........................................................................................ii
LIST OF FIGURES........................................................................................................................iii
LIST OF TABLES..........................................................................................................................iv
ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................................v
1. INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................1
1.1 Background and Justification................................................................................................1
1.2 Statement of the Problem.......................................................................................................2
1.3 Objective................................................................................................................................3
1.3.1 General Objective...........................................................................................................3
1.3.2 Specific Objective...........................................................................................................3
1.4 Research Question.................................................................................................................4
1.5 Significance of the Study.......................................................................................................4
1.6 Scope and Limitation of the Study........................................................................................4
2. LITERATURE REVIEW............................................................................................................5
2.1 Theoretical Review................................................................................................................5
2.1.1 Food Security Concept and Definition...........................................................................5
2.1.2 Dimensions of Food Security.........................................................................................6
2.2 Empirical Review..................................................................................................................7
2.2.1 Determinants of Food Security.......................................................................................7
2.2.2 Coping Strategy..............................................................................................................9
3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY..............................................................................................11
3.1 Description of the Study Area.............................................................................................11
3.2 Sampling Techniques and Sample Size...............................................................................12
3.2 Type, Source and method of data collection.......................................................................13
3.3 Method of Data Analysis.....................................................................................................13
3.4 Hypothesis...........................................................................................................................14
4. RESULT AND DISSCUSION................................................................................................17
4.1 Food Security Status............................................................................................................17
4.2 Descriptive Statistics of Continuous Variables...................................................................18
4.3 Descriptive Statistics of Discrete Variables........................................................................21
4.4 Coping Strategy...................................................................................................................24
5. SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION..................................................26
5.1 Summary..............................................................................................................................26
5.2 Conclusion and Recommendation.......................................................................................27
REFERENCES..............................................................................................................................29

i
i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First of all I would like to thank for most gratitude and spatial thanks to God. I would like to
extend thanks to my advisor, Mr. Neway H, who puts me in the right direction to do our senior
research project in the right way and his polite relation with me. He has advised and guided me
about the format of the research project.
I also extend my sincere thanks to Mr.Mustofa Mohammed (action planning bureau) and
Mr.Ehitnesh Belete (Haramaya woreda disaster profile management bureau) for their
unforgettable encouragement and provision of the required data for the accomplishment of this
senior research project.

i
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

AE Adult Equivalent

ETB Ethiopian Birr

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization

FGT Foster Greer Thorbeke

GDP Gross Domestic Product

GNP Gross Nation Product

GOE Government of Ethiopia

HFS House Hold Food Security

HYV High Yield Variety

MOFED Ministry of Finance and Economic Development

PPS Population Proportional to Sampling

SNNPR Southern Nation Nationality People Region

SPSS Statistical Package for Social Science

USAID United States Aid for International Development

USD United States Dollar

VIF Variance Inflation Factor

WFP World Food Program

ii
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1. Distribution of caloric intake per day/AE………………………………………………………………….18

2. Distribution of households by their average family( in number)……………………………….20
3. Distribution of respondents by sex composition……………………………………………………….22
4. Distribution of households by educational status………………………………………………………23

iii
LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. Hypothesized predictor variables on house hold food security in Haramaya

woreda………………………………………………………………………..17

2. Descriptive statistics of continuous variables………………………………….19

3. Descriptive statistics of discrete variables………………………………………25

4. Coping strategies practiced by food insecure households………………………..26

iv
ABSTRACT

The aim of this study was to analyze determinants of household food security in Haramaya
woreda of East Hararghe zone. As a specific objective, this study assessed food security status,
identified determinants of food security and analyzed range of coping strategies practiced by
food insecure households in the study area. Purposive sampling technique was used to select
both East Hararghe Zone and Haramaya woreda. For this study a total of 70 households were
selected randomly followed by PPS from two kebeles’. Both primary and secondary data were
collected for this study. Primary data were collected by direct interview of sample respondents;
whereas, secondary data were also collected from published and unpublished documents.
Household caloric acquisition was employed to identify food secure and food insecure
households. Both descriptive and regression analysis were also used to analyze the collected
data. Regression model was used to reveal the effect of different variables on household food
security .Accordingly 42.9 % households were found to be food insecure; whereas, 57.1% of
them were found to be food secure. Educational status of household head, family size, farm input
and number of oxen owned by households were found to be significant at less than 10%
probability level. Sale of cash crop, borrow grains and cash from relative and reduce size of
meal were identified at initial stage as first, second and third choice; whereas, escaping of meal,
ate less preferred food and reduce size of meal were also identified at severe stage as first,
second and third choice in which food insecure households practiced during food shortage. To
improve household food security, the farmer should use their oxen for cultivation purpose,
engaged in different income generating activity, use family planning and allocate their income
for all expenditure; and the woreda education office together with minister of education should
provide adult learning program to reduce illiteracy.

Key words: Determinant, Food Security, Haramaya Woreda, Regression Model, Rural household

v
1
2
1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background and Justification

Food insecurity is decreasing in the world where 925 million people are undernourished. Out of
them, about 900 million people are living in developing countries (FAO, 2010). The same
source indicated that, the majority of food insecure and hungry people in the global context live
in Asia and the Pacific (16%), Sub-Saharan Africa (30%), and North Africa (8%), and Latin
America and the Caribbean (9%). Among this the proportion of food insecure and hungry people
in Sub- Saharan Africa is showing fast increment as compared to early 1990s.On the other hand,
about 870 million people are estimated to have been undernourished (in terms of dietary energy
supply) in the period 2010–12. This figure represents 12.5 percent of the global population, or
one in eight people. The vast majority of these, 852 million, live in developing countries, where
the prevalence of undernourishment is now estimated at 14.9 percent of the population (FAO,
2012).Whereas, FAO (2013) showed that, a total of 842 million people in 2011–13, or around
one in eight people in the world, were estimated to be suffering from chronic hunger, regularly
not getting food to conduct an active life. This figure is less than the 870 million reported with
reference to 2010–12. The total number of undernourished has fallen by 17 percent since 1990–
92.

With a population projected to reach 80 million in 2010 and about 45 percent living below the
poverty line and most vulnerable to food insecurity. Ensuring food security remains a key issue
for the Government of Ethiopia. In order to combat threats of famine and pervasive poverty and
there by ensure food security for its population, the government strategy has rested on increasing
the availability of food grains through significant investments in agricultural technologies (high
yielding varieties of seeds, fertilizer), services (extension, credit, inputs), and rural infrastructure
(roads, markets). The impacts of these policies, however, have been shadowed as there are still
millions of people who experience extreme hunger in the country (Bogale and Shimelis, 2009).

The performance of agriculture, however, in terms of feeding the country’s population, which is
growing at about 2.9 percent per annum, is poor. Currently in Ethiopia, there are more than 10
million people who have been affected by drought. Some 4.6 million people are threatened by

1
hunger and malnutrition and require urgent food assistance. The deteriorating situation is
compounded by high food prices, the cost of cereals has more than doubled in many markets
since the beginning of the year, hampering the ability of many people to meet their most basic
food needs and impoverishing them further (WFP, 2009).

Agriculture is a key driver of Ethiopia’s long-term growth and food security. It directly supports
85 % of the population, constitutes 43 % of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), and 80 % of export
value. Nearly 16 % of Government of Ethiopia (GOE) public expenditures are committed to the
sector (Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, 2010).

According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO, 2010), 41 %
of the Ethiopian population lives below the poverty line and more than 31 million people are
undernourished. However, the latest undernourishment numbers show a positive trend (1990-
92:71% of the population; 1995-97: 64%; 2000-02: 50%; 2004-06: 44%). The concentrations of
food insecurity and malnutrition are prevalent in rural areas, with a population of six to seven
million chronically food insecure, and up to 13 million seasonally food insecure (Bill and
Melinda Gates Foundation, 2010).

A report on the dynamics of poverty revealed that about 38.7% of the people in Ethiopia were
under the national poverty line in 2004/2005, and the poverty level in rural areas (39.3%) was
slightly higher than that of urban areas (35.1%) (MoFED, 2012). Between 2004/2005 and
2010/2011, the average headcount of poverty decreased in both urban and rural areas of the
country with the national headcount poverty standing at 29.6% in 2010/2011.

1.2 Statement of the Problem

Different factors were identified in various studies that aggravate food insecurity problem in
Ethiopia. According to Hussein (2006) poor soil fertility, land shortage, frost attack, chronic
shortage of cash income, poor farming technologies, weak extension services, high labor
wastage, and poor social and infrastructural situation have caused the problem of food insecurity.
Hence, a combination of factors has resulted in serious and growing problem of food insecurity
in Ethiopia these will have cumulative effects on household level food security status.

2
 As several studies in the past have indicated that people of Ethiopia have experienced long
periods of food insecurity which may be ascribed to several factors that include occasional
droughts and degradation of farm lands. These factors have limited the “physical, social and
economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food necessary to meet the dietary needs and
food preferences for leading an active and healthy life” for majority of the residents(D.O.
Gilligan et al, 2008).

Through time, poor and hungry populations become less flexible to stress and disasters as they
rely a great deal on the natural environment and lack the capacity and the resources required
recovering from disasters (Oluokoet al, 2011).

In Ethiopia, the seriousness of food shortage problem varies from one area to another, depending
on the state of the natural resources and the extent of development of food shortage (Webb etal.,
1994) as cited in (Amsaluet al, 2012).

Since 1970s food security is still current and attracts many researchers to involve on this issue.
Especially, household food security has gained great attention because it is a guarantee for food
security at national level. As a result, this has been used as a rationale to undertake this research
on household food security in addition to address food security issue in the study area.
Many of the researcher studies, especially those studies with food security concentrate on the
role and contribution regarding to human capital development, most studies and literature have
exclude or given a little attention in the analysis of determinant of food security at house hold
level, so there is knowledge gap. To address this gap the researcher was tried to generate data
and information on this specific area to identify food secure and insecure household.

1.3 Objective
1.3.1 General Objective
The overall objective of the study was to analyze determinants of rural household food security
in Haramaya Woreda.

1.3.2 Specific Objective

The specific objectives of this study were:
 To assess food security status of Haramaya woreda
 To identify major determinants of household food security of the study area

3
  To analyze coping strategies of food insecure households

1.4 Research Question

This study address the following basic research questions like

1. What does food security status of Haramaya woreda looks like?
2. What are the major determinants of household food security of the study area?
3. What coping strategies do food insecure households practice?

1.5 Significance of the Study

This study provides information that was enabled effective measures to be undertaken so as to
improve food security status in the study area. This study also essential to provide secondary
data to other researchers to conduct further research on this and related issue; provide
information about the study area in relation to food security status, location, and other
demographic data.

1.6 Scope and Limitation of the Study

This study focused on identifying food security status, determinants of household food security
and coping strategies practiced at initial and severe strategies by food insecure households at the
time of food shortage. This study identified food secure and insecure households but not the
extent or level of food security. This study was conducted only in one district of East Hararghe
zone because of lack of budget, time and costs.

4
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Theoretical Review
2.1.1 Food Security Concept and Definition
The concept of food security was originated in the mid-1970s during the international discussion
on global food crisis. The initial focus of food security attention was primarily on food supply
problems of assuring the availability and to some degree the price stability of basic food stuffs at
the international and national level (Clay, 2002 and FAO, 2005). Thus, in the 1970s the issue of
food security referred to the national food supply's capacity to meet the population's energy and
nutrient needs. The concept of household food security has been understood by many
development workers as the availability of food in the world market place and on the food
production systems of developing countries (Bedeke, 2012and Fanta, 2003).

Since the World Food Conference in 1974 due to food crises and major famines in the world, the
term Food Security was introduced, evolved, developed and diversified by different researchers.
Food security and insecurity are terms used to describe whether or not households have access to
sufficient quality and quantity of food. Food security issues gained prominence in the 1970s and
have since been given considerable attention. Food security is perceived at the global, national,
household and individual levels. Food security at global level does not guarantee food security at
the national level. Moreover, food security at the national level does not guarantee food security
at the household or even the individual level (Duffour, 2010).

The following official definitions were given for food security by different international
organizations. These are:

Food security was defined in the Proceedings of the 1974 World Food Summit as: ‘availability at
all times of adequate world food supplies of basic foodstuffs to sustain a steady expansion of
food consumption and to offset fluctuations in production and prices’ (UN 1975).

In 1983 FAO expanded its concept to include a third point:’ ensuring that all people at all times
have both physical and economic access to the basic food that they need.’ (FAO, 2008).

In an influential World Bank (2009) report, Poverty and Hunger, this concept of food security is
5
further elaborated in terms of: ‘access of all people at all times to enough food for an active,
healthy life.’

The 1996 World Food Summit in its Plan of Action adopted a still more complex definition:
‘Food security, at the individual, household, national, regional and global level is achieved when
all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food
to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life.’(FAO, 2009).

This definition is again refined in The State of Food Insecurity in 2001: ‘Food security is a
situation that exists when all people, at all times, have physical, social and economic access to
sufficient, safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an
active and healthy life.’ (FAO, 2002)

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

In the present study, food security is defined as adequate availability of and access to food for
households to meet the minimum energy requirements as recommended by the Ethiopian
government for an active and healthy life (Wali and Penporn, 2013).

2.1.2 Dimensions of Food Security

Jradet al, (2010), elaborated on four dimensions of food security as food availability, food
accessibility, food utilization and stability.

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

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

6
level and at a more aggregate (regional or national) level. However, the term is applied most
commonly in reference to food supplies at the regional or national level.

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

Food utilization: This refers to ingestion and digestion of adequate and quality food for
maintenance of good health. This means proper biological use of food, requiring a diet that
contains sufficient energy and essential nutrients, as well as knowledge of food storage,
processing, basic nutrition and child care and illness management (Jradet al, 2010, USAID,
2008).

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

2.2 Empirical Review

2.2.1 Determinants of Food Security
Income plays a key role in a household’s accessibility to food. It enables households to
modernize their production by giving them an opportunity to buy the necessary inputs, and
reduce the risk of food shortage during periods of unexpected crop failures through purchases. It
was expected the total annual income of the household and food security would be positively
related (Muluken, 2005).

Nyangwesoiet al (2007) in a study of household food security in Vihiga district of Kenya found
that household income, number of adults, ethnicity, savings behavior and nutrition awareness

7
significantly influence household food security. In a similar study, Kohoiet al(2005) established
that the significant determinants of food security in the Mwingi district of Kenya were
participation of households in the food-for-work program, marital status of the household heads,
and their educational level. Similarly, in a study of food security in the Lake Chad area of Borno
State, Nigeria, Goni (2005) reported factors that influence household food security, which
include household size, stock of home-produced food, and numbers of income earners in the
household.

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

The study conducted in Nigeria by Oluyoleet al (2009) using probit model found out that sex of
household head, educational level, age and income have positive influence on food
security ;whereas, household size has negative influence on household food security.

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

As studied by Fekadu and Mequanent (2010), age of the household head, size of land cultivated,
use of fertilizer, livestock ownership, soil and water conservation practices and oxen ownership
have positive and significant relationship with household food security; whereas, education of
household head, household size (AE), and off–farm/non-farm income have a negative significant
influence on household food security.
According to studies conducted in Ethiopia, ownership of livestock, farmland size, family labor,
off farm income, market access, use of improved technology, education, health, amount of
rainfall and distribution, crop diseases, number of livestock, and family size are identified as
major determinants of household food security (Bedeke, 2012, Eden et al, 2009, and Regassa,
2011).

8
According to the study conducted by Muhammad et al (2012) in Pakistan household’s monthly
income, household heads education levels and Ownership of Livestock have positive relation
with household food security ;on the other hand, age of the household head and household
size have a negative relationship with food security.

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

Factors that affect household food security in various developing countries especially in Africa
have been documented in some literature and these factors or determinants are most often than
not location-specific (i.e. different study areas were found to have variant attributes as food
security determinants with some attributes recurring (Rober et al,2013). For further review, see
the appendix part.

2.2.2 Coping Strategy

Coping mechanisms used by farm households in rural Ethiopia include livestock sales,
agricultural employment, and certain types of off-farm employment and migration to other areas,
requesting grain loans, sale of wood or charcoal, small scale trading, selling cow dung and crop
residues, reduction of food consumption, consumption of wild plants, reliance on relief
assistance, relying on remittance from relatives, selling of clothes, and take to pieces of parts of
their houses for sale. Some of them are likely to be implemented only after the possibilities of
certain other options have been pursued. In addition, households who have diversified source of
income are often able to cope with crisis than others (Dessalegn 2009, FFP 2007, Yared 2009).
Maxwell (2003) classified household responses to food insecurity into two: coping strategies and
adaptive strategies. Coping strategies are responses made by households to improve the declining
situation of households food security ;whereas, adaptive strategies involve a permanent change
in the mix of ways in which food is required, irrespective of the year in question and it refer to
long term adjustment. The most commonly practiced coping strategies during abnormal season
include short term dietary change, changing intra household food distribution like skipping

9
adults to feed children, limiting size and frequency of food, borrowing and gifts from relative
and friends, mutual support mechanism, selling of livestock and fire wood, cash for work and
relief assistance, etc. while the commonly used adaptive strategies include risk minimization,
food and income diversification mechanism, planting damage resistance crop, cultivating
marginal soils, etc. (Degefa, 2005,IBID,2003).

Farm households respond to the problems caused by seasonal and disaster related food insecurity
in different ways. Food availability can be affected by climatic fluctuations, depletion of soil
fertility, or the loss of household productive assets or some other related problems. In that case
farmers’ try to reduce this problem by taking actions that result in trade-offs between current and
future consumption. The range of coping and adaptive strategies is large and differs according to
the particular conditions. It includes expansion of production and improving productivity, food
grain purchase through sales of livestock and institutional and societal income transfer systems
such as gift and relief food distribution (Frehiwot, 2007).

According to Shumete (2009) the following coping strategies were identified in his study at
Rural Gedeo. These are: daily wage labor, firewood gathering and charcoal burning, handicrafts
and petty trade.

10
3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 Description of the Study Area
Location and size
Haramaya woreda is one of the 17 woreda of Eastern Hararghe Oromia national regional state in
Ethiopia. It is located at a distance of 510km away from Addis Ababa along the main road
toward Harar Town. The longitude is 23400 meters above sea level. Of its total, 90% is mid high
land while the remain 10% to the west of Harar town it is bordered by Dire Dawa Administration
council in the Northern Kombolcha district in North east, Harar, people National Regional state
in the east, feds districts in the south east, Kurfachele district in the south West and kersa district
in the West. Haramaya has a total area of 521.63km2 accounting for about 2.31% of total area of
the zone. Its capital city, Haramaya is located at 16 km West of Harar Town, (HAD, 2011).
Haramaya woreda is straitening between is lowland,(BOFED, 2008).
Climate
Haramaya found in the semi-arid tropical belt of the eastern Ethiopia and characteristics by a
sub-humid climate with an average annual rainfall about 790mm,and annual temperature about
170c0 with minimum and maximum temperature 9.4 and 24.20c.The woreda experience biannual
type of rainfall classified short and long rain seasons. The short rain seasons occur from end of
February to mid-May and the long grain seasons occur from July to end of September, (District
MOA, 2008).

Population
According to the 2007 national census reported total populations of Haramaya woreda are
271,018 of whom 136,282 were men and 132,732 are women. The majority of the populations
were ethnically Oromo and they were Muslim religion.
Economic characteristics and resource
The livelihood of the community in the area is mainly based on mixed farming with crops and
livestock production and off farm activity, especially for urban dweller. The dominant of crops
grown in the study woreda are sorghum, maize, wheat haricot beans, vegetable and chat. Chat
and vegetable are the two major cash crops grown in the Area. Agriculture sector is highly
depending on rainfall, coupe with low modern input use and land fragmentation. The farm
productivity is mostly for substance of House hold consumption and not aimed of marketing
except for chat and vegetable. In addition to various impediment such as high population
pressure, natural disaster like forest and environmental imbalance resulting to drought and poor
infrastructure development have decrease the development of the sector in the woreda and food
security of the population.(HDARDO,2006).

11
3.2 Sampling Techniques and Sample Size

A multistage sampling technique was used for this study; where in the first step East Harerghe
Zone was selected purposively due to proximity, and second step Haramaya Woreda was
selected to address food security issue. Then at the third step, a total of two Kebeles namely: Tuji
Gebisa and Damota were selected by using simple random sampling followed by PPS among 19
Kebeles to represent target population.

Then Slovin’s sampling formula with 90 percent confidence level was used to determine sample
size for this study.
Slovin Formula: n= N__
1+N (E) ²

Where: n = sample size

N = total number of household
E = margin of error

The totals of 70 households were selected for this study from two Kebeles. Proportional sample
size based on household was used to determine the number of respondent from two kebeles’.
Based on PPS a total of 38 and 32 households were selected from Tuji Gebisa and Damota
kebele, respectively.

12
3.2 Type, Source and method of data collection

Both primary and secondary data were collected from different sources to identify important
variable that affect household food security. To generate primary data, household interview
schedule was used to ask the respective households directly about food security issue. The
question was translated into local language (Oromifa)to make questions clear for the respondent
and to facilitate data collection during household survey method of data collection is crucial to
get firsthand information about food security status, determinants of household food security and
range of coping strategy practiced by food insecure households in the study area. Secondary data
were collected from published and unpublished sources (such as: internet, Haramaya woreda
profile of disaster management, action planning bureau and central statistical agency of
Haramaya branch) related to the subject. It is an important source of information because it
indicates the past and the present data.

3.3 Method of Data Analysis

Household caloric acquisition was used to measure food security in the study area. After the data
were collected from sample respondents, the results obtained were compared with the minimum
requirements per day per adult equivalent. As this finding used household caloric acquisition
measurement of food security, the household whose caloric consumption greater than or equal to
2100Kcal/day/AE was categorized as food secure; on the other hand, those who consumes less
than 2100 Kcal/day/AE was categorized as food insecure.

After food secure and insecure households were identified; the next step was data analysis. The
data were analyzed by Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 16.0. It has been
used to analyze different variables through regression analysis, custom table and descriptive
statistics such as frequencies and cross tabulation to generate tabulated reports and charts. T-test
and Chi square tests were also used to indicate the significance of continuous and discrete
variables on household food security, respectively. Descriptive statistic such as percentage,
mean, minimum, maximum, standard deviation, charts, and table were used for this study.

13
 The existence of Multicollinearity problem between discrete and continuous explanatory
variables will be detected by contingency coefficient (C) and variance inflation factor (VIF)
respectively. Multicollinearity exists when the relationship between explanatory variables are
perfect. Multicollinearity problem makes significant variable insignificant.

The researcher will use binary logistic regression model to test proposed hypothesis and to reveal
the impact of different variables on household food security. This model uses binary or
dichotomous variables as its name indicates like food secured and food insecure in our subject
matter.

Mathematical expression of the model

Li = lnP
______ = β0+ β1X1 + βx2+ β3x3+ β4x4+ β5x5+………+ βnxn+ ui (Gujarati, 2004)
1–P
Where
Ln=natural logarithm
P=probability of being food secure
1-p=probability of being food insecure
β0, β 1, β2, β3, β4, β5 and β n are coefficients of explanatory variables
x1, x2, x3, x4, x5 and xn are predictor variables
n=number of explanatory variables
ui=error term
From the above equation, we can derive p as follows:
P = eβ0 + β1X1 + βx2+ β3x3+ β4x4+ β5x5+………+ βnxn …………… Law of exponential function
1+ eβ0 + β1X1 + βx2+ β3x3+ β4x4+ β5x5+………+ βnxn
Where, e=natural exponential function

3.4 Hypothesis

The dependent variable for this study is Household Food Security (HFS); 1 for food secure and
0 for food insecure. It is hypothesized to be a function of the following variables.

HFS=f(Age of HHH, educational status of HHH, family size, dependency ratio, on-farm income
, number oxen owned, use of farm inputs ,farm land size, credit access).

Age of household head: is a continuous explanatory variable measured by year. As age of a

household head increases, it is assumed that farmers could acquire more knowledge and
experience. They are more risk averter and their chance to become more food secure increases
with age (Fekadu and Mequanent, 2010). Thus, it is hypothesized that age of the household
heads and household food security are positively correlated.

14
Educational status of household head: Educational status of the household head is dummy
variable and an important determinant of household food security status in that, educated
households have a better chance of adopting soil conservation measures (Million and Belay,
2004) which in turn increases crop production. Thus, education status is hypothesized to have a
positive effect on household food security.

Family size: Family size refers to the total number of household members who lived and eat
with household head at least for six months. It is an important variable which determines the
state of household food security and expected to have negative effect on household food security
(Mequanent, 2009).According to reviewed literatures, increasing family size tends to exert more
pressure on consumption than the labor it contributes to production (Tsegaye, 2009). Thus a
negative correlation between family size and food security is expected in this study.

Farm land size: it is continuous explanatory variable and an important determinant of household
food security. Farm size is the total area of land cultivated to food and cash crop by households,
measured in hectares. Positive relationship has been established between farm size and
improvement in households’ income and food security (Jayne et al., 2005). The larger the farm
size of the household, the higher the expected level of food production. It is, therefore, expected
of a household with a larger farm size to be more food secure than a household with a smaller
farm size. Hence the expected effect on food security is positive.

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

Number of oxen owned: Oxen are the most important means of land cultivation and basic factor
of production. Households who own more oxen have better chance to escape food shortages
since the possession of oxen allows effective utilization of the land and labor resources of the
household (TesfayeKumbi,2005). Positive correlation is expected between number of ox/oxen
15
ownership and household food security.

On farm income: it is the most important source of income in the study area. This source of
income is collected from sale of crop produce, sale of livestock and livestock product and hiring
of agricultural land. According to Arene and Anyaeji (2010), the more household head engage in
gainful employment, the higher he/she earns income and the greater the chances of being food
secure. Therefore, on farm income is expected to increase household’s food production and
access to more quantity and quality food. The expected effect on food security is, therefore,
positive.

Use of farm inputs: This variable refers to use of chemical fertilizer such as DAP, UREA and
HYV. The amount of farm input (improved inputs) used was converted to monetary value based
on market price during time of the survey. A household who could have used farm inputs
(chemical fertilizer and HYV) was hypothesized to have positive relation with food security
status (Genene, 2006).

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

16
Table1: Hypothesized predictor variables on house hold food security in Haramaya woreda

No Determinant Continuous Categorical Effect on household

food security

1 Age of household head  +

2 Educational status of household head +

3 Family size  _

4 Dependency ratio  _

5 Farm land size  +

6 Number of oxen owned  +

7 Use of farm inputs +

8 On-Farm Income  +

9 Credit access +

17
4. RESULT AND DISSCUSION
4.1 Food Security Status
Household caloric acquisition was used to measure household food security in the study area. To
identify food secure and food insecure households, the researcher did the following activities:
Food items consumed for seven days were obtained from respective households. Then after it
was converted to kcal/day basis and it has been made ready to calculate kcal/day/AE. On the
other hand family size which was collected in number was converted to adult equivalent. Lastly,
the household whose caloric consumption is greater than or equal to 2100Kcal/day/AE was
categorized as food secure; on the other hand, the household caloric consumption is less than
2100 Kcal/day/AE was categorized as food insecure.

According to the survey result obtained, 42.9% (30) households were food insecure; whereas,
57.1% (40) of them is food secure among 70 households. The mean of household caloric
consumption for food insecure households were 1866.5 Kcal/day/AE with standard deviation of
140.8 Kcal/day/AE and 2906 Kcal/day/AE with standard deviation of 755 Kcal/day/AE for food
secure households. The minimum and maximum levels of household caloric acquisition for food
insecure households were 1580.9and 2048.9 Kcal/day/AE respectively; whereas 2150 and
4922Kcal/day/AE for food secure households.

Figure 1: distribution of caloric intake per day/AE

18
4.2 Descriptive Statistics of Continuous Variables

Table 2: descriptive statistics of continuous variables

Food Security Status

Food Insecure(N=30) Food Secure(N=40)
Min Max Mean SD Min Max Mean SD
Variable t-value

Age 25 80 45.1 12.6 28 65 41.5 10.2 1.31(NS)

Family Size 3 12 6.1 1.72 2 8 5.1 1.4 2.82***
Dependeny.R 0 1.9 0.3 0.3 0 0.5 0.2 0.1 1.98*
land size 0.25 3 1.4 0.7 0.25 4 1.6 0.8 1.31(NS)
On-Farminc 3500 24250 10922 4462 800 40000 12717 7314.6 -1.19(NS)
Off-Farminc 0 2400 176.7 611.2 0 10800 1994 3587.4 -2.74**
Non-Farminc 0 14800 1447.5 3458.7 0 10000 2085 3439.7 -0.77(NS)
Ox 0 2 0.8 0.7 0 2 1.1 0.8 -1.53(NS)

***, ** and* significant p<0.01, P<0.05 and p<0.1respectively NS= Non-significant

Source: own survey (2015)

From the result in Table 2 the minimum and maximum age of the food insecure households were
25 and 80 years respectively; on the other hand, 28 and 65 years for food secure households
respectively. The mean ages of the food insecure respondents were 45.1 and the food secured
respondent also 41.5 years with standard deviation of 12.6 years for food insecure and 10.2 years
for food secure households. The independent t-test shows there is no a significant difference
between the mean ages of the food insecure and the food secured households.

Family size refers to the number of individuals live in the same house having common goal. I
intended to analyze whether there is significant difference due to family size between food
secure and food insecure households. The minimum and maximum family size was 3 and 12 for
food insecure households respectively; whereas, the minimum and maximum family size for
food secure households were 2 and 8 in number respectively. The mean number of family size of
food insecure households was 6.1 with standard deviation of 1.7 and for food secure households

19
5.1 and 1.4, respectively (see table 2). The independent t-test shows there is a significant
difference between the mean number of family size of the food insecure and the food secured
households at p<0.01 significant level.

Figure 2: Distribution of households by their average family size (in number)

This analysis aimed to see whether there is a significant difference in the presence of dependent
members between the food insecure and the food secured households. The result in Table 2above
indicates that the minimum and maximum number of dependents for food insecure households
were 0 and 1.9 with mean and standard deviation of 0.3 and 0.3, respectively. For the case of
food secure households the minimum and maximum dependents were 0 and 0.5 with mean 0.2
and standard deviation 0.1, respectively. The independent t-test between the food insecure and
the food secured households shows significant difference in the presence of dependent members
with in the family at p<0.1 significant level. The presence of dependent members within the
household is challenging for household food security because those inactive age groups don’t
have contribution for income generation. Simply, their role is creating high demand for food and
nonfood items within the household. As a result, dependency ratio is factor for household food
security.

Table 2 reveals the situation of distribution of land holdings in the study area. The land holding
of the sample respondents ranges from 0.25 to 3 hectare for food insecure households and 0.25 to

20
4 hectare for food secure households. The average land size owned by food insecure households
were 1.4 hectare with standard deviation of 0.7 hectare; whereas, 1.6 hectare with standard
deviation of 0.8 hectare for food secure households. From the table, I observe that maximum
land holding from sample respondents found in food security situation. This indicates that land is
an important resource for household food security because when the household produce more
from the land he has, he become food secure and obtain income from his produce. The
independent t-test shows there is no a significant difference between the mean size of land
holding with the food insecure and the food secured households.

The matter is not only having land but also the act of using the land for productive activity.
Unless the land is used purposively to produce more, the requirements of high consumption need
never full filled. As a result, proper cultivation of the available land enable the farm households
to be food secure.

The table above shows that the source of income respondents generated from sales of crops,
animal and animal products, daily laborer in agriculture , petty trade, hand craft, and sale of
charcoal. The major sources of income for households in the study area were mostly sale of crop
produce (vegetable and chat). On average food insecure households earned total cash income of
10,922 ETB from on farm source; on the other hand, food secure households generated
12,717ETB from on farm source. The independent t-test showed that there is no significant
difference food security status of households by on farm income source.

Off-farm is another source of household income generated during production season working as
a daily laborer in agriculture. The average income generated by food insecure households was
176.7 ETB; on the other hand; food secure households generated on average 1,994 ETB from off
farm income (table 2). The independent t-test showed that there is significant difference between
the food secure and food insecure households at p<0.05 significant level.
Non-farm income is the third source of household income generated from petty trade, handicraft,
and sale of charcoal and construction work during off farm season. On average food insecure
households generated 1447.5 ETB from non-farm income; whereas, food secure households
generated average income of 2085 ETB from non-farm income. The independent t-test showed
that there is no significant difference between food security status and non-farm income source.

21
The maximum number of oxen for food insecure and food secure households were two
respectively (see table 2).The average number of oxen owned by food insecure household was
0.8; and 1.1 for food secure households in number. Mostly the farmers involved in vegetable and
chat production; as a result, they didn’t use oxen for cultivation because of shortage of land, use
of hand tools (such as hoe, zaba, gajera etc) for their farm activity, sale of oxen for house
construction and those crops are perennial in nature. Unless the farmers used the oxen for
cultivation purpose, the presence of oxen for hegemony is not a guarantee for household food
security.

4.3 Descriptive Statistics of Discrete Variables

As the survey result indicated that 67(95.7%) households were male headed; whereas, 3(4.3%)
were female headed households. among male headed households 28(40%) and 39(55.7%) were
found to be food insecure and food secure, respectively; on the other hand, 2(2.9%) and 1(1.4%)
were food insecure and food secure from female headed households, respectively. The X 2
indicated that sexes of the respondents were found to be non-significant.

Figure 3: distribution of respondents by sex composition

Among 70 households 64(94.2%) household heads were found to be married; whereas, 4(5.8)
were divorced. From married household heads 28(40%) and 38(54.3%) were food insecure and
food secure households; whereas, 2(2.9%) for divorced households were food insecure and food
secure equally. The Pearson χ2-square test of association shows that there is no a significant
difference between households due to marital status for household food security.

From 70 households interviewed, 45.7 %( 32) households were literate and 54.3% (38) were
illiterate. This also indicated that more of the household heads are illiterate. Table3 below reveals
that of the 12.9% (9) food insecure households were literate and 30% (21) of them were illiterate.

22
Similarly, 32.9% (23) literate households and 24.3 % (17) of the illiterate households were food
secured. Education is an important variable for household food security because literate
household head shape the activity of his/her family to involve in different income generating
activity; and he/she allocates their income in a better way than illiterate household heads. The
Pearson χ2-square test of association shows that there is a significant difference between the
educational statuses of the household heads and the food security status of the households at
p<0.05 significant level. This finding is congruent with Amsalu and Wondimu (2013) and
statistically significant at 5%.

Figure 4: Distribution of households by educational status

From the total households interviewed directly, 49(70%) households were found to be users of
farm inputs; whereas, 21(30%) were non users of farm inputs. From those who use farm inputs,
21(30%) and 28(40%) were found to be food insecure and food secure households, respectively:
on the other hand, from non-users of farm input 9(12.9%) and 12 (17.1%) were food insecure
and food secure, respectively. The Pearson χ2-square test of association shows that there is no a
significant difference between the users and non-users of farm input and the food security status.

The survey result revealed that 27.3%, 59.1%, 20.5%, and 4.5 % of them were used improved

23
seed, chemical fertilizer, herbicide; and chemical fertilizer and herbicide, respectively. Lack of
income, price of farm input, shortage of land and use of compost were identified as the major
reasons from non-users of farm inputs.

Credit plays an important role for household food security. Among 70 households, 44(62.9%)
were users credit access; whereas, 26(37.1%) were not users of credit access. Among the users of
credit access, 61.4 %( 27) of the users obtained credit from formal source whereas the remaining
38.6 %( 17) obtained from informal source. Among the food insecure households, 16(22.9%)
and 14(20%) were found to be users and non users of credit access; on the other hand, 28(40%)
and 12 (17.1%) of food secure households were users and non users of credit access. The
Pearson χ2-square test of association showed that there is no a significant difference between the
users and non-users of credit access and the food security status. The household, who obtained
credit access from formal and informal source, could be productive because as the collected data
indicated that they used for purchase of farm input, to pay tax and debt, to purchase livestock, for
petty trade and household consumption. This increase and diversify the income of households
from different sources. It also saved the livestock to be sold at the time of food shortage and
increase farm output obtained from agriculture because of farm input application. Unless the
credit is used for productive activity, the needs of the household towards food security cannot be
achieved because some household heads used the credit for other non-productive activity.

24
Table 3: descriptive statistics of discrete variables
Food Security Status
Food Insecure Food Secure
Variable Categories N=30(%) N=40(%) Chi-square
Sex Male 28(40) 39(55.7) 0.73(NS)
Female 2(2.9) 1(1.4)
Marital status Married 28(40) 38(54.3) 0.09(NS)
Divorced 2(2.9) 2(2.9)
Educational Status Literate 9(12.9) 23(32.9) 5.22**
Illiterate 21(30) 17(24.3)
Farm Input Yes 21(30) 28(40) 0.0(NS)
No 9(12.86) 12(17.14)
Credit Access Yes 16(22.86) 28(40) 2.04(NS)
No 14(20) 12(17.14)
**And *Significant P<0.05 and p<0.1, NS= Non-significant
Source: own survey (2015)

4.4 Coping Strategy

Coping strategy is a strategy in which the people use during food shortage. The identified coping
strategies were ranked based on the household choice during interview schedule. The coping
strategy in which food insecure households followed were classified in to two stages for this
study with three choices for each. These are at the initial stage of food shortage and at the severe
stage of food shortage with first, second and third choice for each stage. From the interview
result, the following coping strategies were identified from households. These are; sale of
livestock, borrowing grains and cash from relatives and reduce size of meal at the initial stage of
food shortage as first, second and third choice. Escaping of meal, ate less preferred food and
reduce size of the meal were identified as the major coping strategy practiced by food insecure
households as first, second and third choice at severe stage of food shortage. The table below
presents range of coping strategies practiced by food insecure households as 1 st, 2ndand 3rdchoice
both at the initial and severe stage of food shortage.

25
Table 4: coping strategies practiced by food insecure households (N=30)

Stage of food shortage Coping strategy Number Percent

Initial stage 1stSale of livestock 19 63.3
2ndBorrow grains or cash from relatives 22 73.3
3rdReduce size of meals 25 83.3
Severe stage 1stEscaping of meal 16 53.3
2ndAte less preferred food 9 30.
3rdReduce size of meals 13 43.3
Source: own survey (2015)

26
5. SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

5.1 Summary
The objective of this finding is assessment of food security status, determinants of household
food security and coping strategies practiced by food insecure households. Household interview
schedule was employed to collect the required data for this study. The collected data were
analyzed by SPSS version 16.0. In general, household caloric acquisition and binary logistic
regression model were used to address the objective of this study. Accordingly, 42.9% (30)
households were food insecure; whereas, 57.1% (40) of them were food secure among 70
households.

Variance inflation factor and contingency coefficient were used to test multi-collinearity problem
between explanatory variables. Age of the household head, educational status, family size, land
size, dependency ratio, farm input, credit access, on farm income and number of oxen owned
were included in the model. The result of the binary logistic regression model revealed that out
of nine variables, four explanatory variables were found to be significant at less than 10%
probability level. Accordingly, family size (p<0.05) and use of farm input (P<0.05) were found
to have negative association with household food security; on the other hand, educational status
of household head (p<0.1) and number oxen owned (p<0.1) were found to be significant and
positive relationship with household food security.

[ Different coping strategies were identified based on the data obtained from household survey and
secondary data from Haramaya Woreda disaster profile management bureau. The coping
strategies in the study area were classified into two: at the initial stage of food shortage and at the
severe stage of food shortage. The following coping strategies were identified in both stages.
These are: sale of livestock, borrow grains and cash from relatives, reduce size of meal, escaping
of meal and ate less preferred food.

5.2 Conclusion and Recommendation

27
This finding concluded and recommended the following core idea related to the issue of
household food security based on the result obtained and reviewed document.

Family size was found to be negatively related with household food security. The main case
behind is that as family size increase the chance of obtaining sufficient food decreases because
large family size also one cause for the increment of the number of dependent members with in
the household. Due to this reason, having more household size aggravate the problem of
obtaining adequate food for healthy and active life; as a result the household head should use
family planning service to limit their family size; and awareness creation for the society should
be prepared to teach them.

From 70 households interviewed, 45.7 %( 32) households were literate and 54.3 %( 38) were
illiterate. Education is an important variable for household food security because it is found to be
statistically significant and positively related with household food security. Therefore the
minister of education in collaborated with the Woreda education office should provide adult
learning program for those illiterate households which is already set as national adult learning
program.

Use of farm input was found to be negatively related and statistically significant. This means as
the farmer gets access to farm input; he/she become food insecure. This is due to the income
generated from different source is invested for farm input by ignoring other expenditure.
Therefore, the farmer should allocate their income not only for farm input but also for household
consumption and this finding also need further research; as a result other researchers should
conduct further research to clarify the effect.

Number of oxen owned by the households and household food security were found to be
positively related and statistically significant. As a result, the farmers should use their oxen for
cultivation of crops to get the required yield from crop cultivation and engaged in income
generating activity through renting of land from other farmers so as to be food secured.
As the survey result indicated, income generation from off farm is not common. It is a crucial
source of income generated during production season working as a daily laborer in agriculture.
As a result the farmers should diversify their income source through involved in different
activities to reduce the shock of food shortage.
28
The survey result indicated that, 61.4% of households obtained credit from formal source;
whereas, the remaining 38.6% obtained from informal source. Having this in mind, awareness
creation program is necessary for those of non users of credit access and it is better for users to
obtain credit from formal source because better interest rate as compared to informal sectors.

REFERENCES

29
Abebaw S.A (2003).Dimensions and determinants of food insecurity among Rural households in
Dire Dawa, Eastern Ethiopia A Thesis Submitted to The School of Graduate Studies
Alemaya University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Degree of
Masters of Science in Agriculture Economics

Amsalu .M, Bekabil.F and Beyene .T (2012).Empirical analysis of the determinants of rural
households food security in Southern Ethiopia: The case of Shashemene District
Basic Research Journal of Agricultural Science and Review ISSN 2315-6880 Vol.
1(6) pp. 132-138.

Aschalew F .A (2006). Determinants and dimensions of household food Insecurity in dire dawa
city, Ethiopia A thesis submitted to the Department of agricultural economics,
school of graduate studies Alemaya university.

Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (2010).Accelerating Ethiopian Agriculture Development for
Growth, Food Security, and Equity. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Bogale, A. and Shimelis, A.(2009).Household level determinants of food insecurity in rural areas
of Dire Dawa, Eastern Ethiopia. African Journal of Food and Agriculture, Nutrition
and Development.Volume 9, No 9.

Eden M., Nigatu R. and Ansha Y. (2009).The Levels, Determinants and Coping Mechanisms of
Food Insecure Households in Southern Ethiopia.A Case study of Sidama, Wolaita
and GuragheZones.TheDrylands Coordination Group. Report No. 55.
Ejigayhu S.T (2011). Determinants and dimensions of household food insecurity in Addis Ababa
City, Ethiopia . Thesis submitted to the faculty of development studies in partial
fulfillment of the requirements for award of the degree of master of science in
agricultural and applied economics university of Malawi Bunda College Of
Agriculture.

FAO (2010). The state of food insecurity in the world: addressing food insecurity in protracted
crises. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, 2010.

FAO (2012).The State of Food Insecurity in the World Economic growth is necessary but not
sufficient to accelerate reduction of hunger and malnutrition Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations Rome, 2012
FAO(2013). The state of food insecurity in the world.The multiple dimensions of food security.
Fekadu.B and Mequanent.M (2010). Determinants of Food Security among Rural Households of
Central Ethiopia: An Empirical Analysis. Quarterly Journal of International
Agriculture 49 (2010), No. 4: 299-318.

Frehiwot.F.S(2007).Food insecurity and its determinants in rural Households in Amhara region.

Addis ababa university School of graduate studies Faculty of business and
economics Department of economics.

30
Genene.T(2006). Farmers' perceptions of land degradation and Determinants of household food
security status At middle catchment of bilate watershed A thesis submitted to college
of agriculture, department of agricultural Economics, school of graduate studies
Alemaya university.

Gujarati (2004).Basic Econometrics.FourthEdition.McGraw- Hill, New York .The McGraw−Hill

Companies, 2004.

Jrad, S., Nahas, B., Baghasa, H. (2010).Food Security Models.Ministry of Agriculture and
Agrarian Reform, National Agricultural Policy Center. Policy Brief No 33. PP.32.
Syrian Arabic Republic.

Meskerem.A.T (2011).Household Food Security Situation in GirarJarso Woreda, North Shewa

Zone of Oromiya National Regional State, Ethiopia. A Thesis Submitted to the
College of Development Studies of Addis Ababa University in Partial Fulfillment of
the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Food Security Studies

MoFED (2012). Ethiopia’s Progress towards Eradicating Poverty: An Interim Report on Poverty
Analysis Study (2010/11) Development Planning and Research Directorate, Ministry
of Finance and Economic Development March 2012, Addis Ababa.

Mequanent.M(2009) determinants of household food security and coping strategy: the case o
Adaberga woreda, West Shoa zone, EthiopiaM.Sc. Thesis Haramaya university.

Muhammad. K, Steven .S and Ram.P(2012). The Determinants of Rural Household Food Security
for Landless Households of the Punjab, Pakistan School of Agricultural and Resource
Economics, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA 6009, Australia
University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, Pakistan.

Mulugeta .T. W (2002).Determinants of household food security in eastern Oromia, ethiopia: the
case of boke district of western Hararghe zone A thesis presented to The school of
graduate studies Alemaya university.

Oluoko-Odingo and Alice Atieno (2011).Vulnerability and Adaptation to Food Insecurity and
Poverty in Kenya.Annals of theAssociation of American Geographers. Jan 2011,
Vol. 101 Issue 1, pp1-20. Blackmail publishing.

Osei.M, James, Aidoo, RobertandTuffour, T (2013). Determinants of Household Food Security in

the Sekyere-Afram Plains District of Ghana.Department of Agricultural Economics,
Agribusiness and Extension, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and
Technology, Kumasi-Ghana. Global Advanced Research Journal of Agricultural
Science (ISSN: 2315-5094) Vol. 2(1) pp. 034-040, January, 2013.

Regassa N (2011).Small holder farmers coping strategies to household food insecurity and
hunger in Southern Ethiopia.Ethiopian Journal of Environmental Studies and

31
 ManagementVol.4 No.1
Robert .A, James. O, Thomas.T (2013). Determinants of household food security in theSekyere-
afram plains district of Ghana.Annual International Interdisciplinary Conference,
AIIC 2013, 24-26 April, Azores, Portugal – Proceedings.

Tagel.G(2008). Rural Food Security in Tigray, Ethiopia: Policy Impact Evaluation.

Tesfaye.B(2003). Influence of land size on household food security The case of deder district of
oromiya region a thesis presented to the school of graduate studiesalemaya
university.

Tesfaye.K(2005). Household food insecurity in dodota- sire district, Arsi zone: coping strategies
and policy options M. Sc. Thesis Alemayauniversity.

Tsegay.G(2009). Determinants of food security in rural households of Thetigrayregion.A thesis

submitted to school of graduate studies of addisababaUniversity in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the Degree of master of science in applied statistics.

USAID (2008).United States Agency International Development. Madagascar Food Security

Development programming Framework, From the American People, Madagascar.

Wali .H and Penporn.J( 2013).Determinants of Rural Household Food Security in Jigjiga District
of Ethiopia.Kasetsart J. (Soc. Sci) 34 : 171 – 180.

Wendmsyamregne.M(2004).Socio-economic determinants of child Malnutrition in the rural areas

of Harari national regional state, Ethiopia. A thesis presented in partial fulfilment for
the degree of Masters of science in agricultural economics Alemaya university.

Yilma .M (2005).Measuring rural household food security status and its Determinants in the
benishangulgumuz region, ethiopia: The case of assosa woreda M.sc. Thesis
Alemayauniversity.

32