WOLAITASODO UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE

DEPARTMENT RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND AGRICULTURAL

EXTENSION

ANALYSIS OF FACTORS AFFECTING HOUSEHOLD FOOD

SECURITY CASE OF JABITEHNAN WOREDA, WEST GOJJAM

ZONE, ETHIOPIA

This senior Research project seminar Submitted to Department of Rural

Development and Agricultural Extension as Partial Fulfilment of the
Requirements for BSc Degree in Rural Development and Agricultural
Extension

BY:

WUDU ALAMNEH

ADVISOR: TEKETEL M. (MSC)

July, 2021

Wolaita Sodo, Ethiopia

 ACKNOWLEDGMENT

First of all, I would like to thank the almighty GOD for giving me strength and wisdom to
accomplish this work. I would like to extend my advisor, Mr., Teketel M, (MSC) for his help
he gave me throughout the preparation of my research and his readiness for my help and
guidance every time in my research project. He has advised and guided me about of the
research. He is not only advisor for me for this project because he devoted much time to teach
me all about that I needed. I also give my special thanks to jabitehnan wereda rural
households in their help by giving me the information I needed. Finally, I thank my family
and all those, who in one way or the other have contributed to the success of my research.
 ACRONYM

FAO Food Agricultural Organization

Gross Domestic Product
GDP
GOE Government of Ethiopia
CSA Central Statistical Agency
WW World wide
WFC World food conference
USAID US.Agncy for international development
IAASTD Assessment of agricultural knowledge ,science, and technology
for development
FSB Financial stability board
FFP Free food program
Table of Contents page

ACKNOWLEDGMENT.........................................................................................2
ACRONYM..........................................................................................................3
ABSTRACT........................................................................................................9
1. INTRODUCTON.........................................................................................10
1.1. Background of the study...........................................................................................................10
1.2 Statement of the Problem...........................................................................................................11
1.3.1 General Objective of the study............................................................................................11
1.3.2. Specific Objective of the study..........................................................................................11
1.4 Research Question.....................................................................................................................11
1.5 Scope and Limitation of the Study.............................................................................................11
1.6 Significance of the Study...........................................................................................................12
1.7 Organization of the paper..........................................................................................................12

2.1 Theoretical Review.....................................................................................13

2.1.1 Food Security Concepts and definition...............................................................................13
2.1.2 Dimensions of Food Security..............................................................................................14
2.1.3 An analytical framework of food security states.................................................................15
2.2 Empirical Review......................................................................................................................17
2.2.1 Determinants of Food Security...........................................................................................17
2.3 Coping Strategy.........................................................................................................................18

3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY................................................................19
3.1 Description of Study Area.........................................................................................................19
3.1.1. Location, relief and climate...............................................................................................19
3.1.2. Agriculture and demographic characteristics of the study area..........................................20
3.1.3 Institution services of the study area...................................................................................20
3.2 Research design.........................................................................................................................21
3.3 Sampling method and sample size determination......................................................................21
3.3.1 Sampling method................................................................................................................21
3.3.2 Sample size determination..................................................................................................22
3.4 Data type, Source and method of collection...............................................................................22
3.4.1 Data type.............................................................................................................................22
3.4.2 Data source.........................................................................................................................22
 3.4.3 Methods of Data Collection................................................................................................23
3.5 Method of Data Analysis...........................................................................................................23
4.1 Demographic characteristics of respondents..............................................................................24
4.1.1 Age distribution of respondents..........................................................................................24
4.1.2 Sex distribution of respondent............................................................................................24
4.1.3 Marital status of respondent................................................................................................25
4.1.4 Religious types of respondents...........................................................................................25
4.2 Food Security Status..................................................................................................................26
4.2.1 Status of food supply..........................................................................................................26
4.2.2 Crop production in the area.................................................................................................27
4.2.3 Meal taken /day...................................................................................................................28
4.2.4 Family size..........................................................................................................................29
4.2.3 Land access.........................................................................................................................29
4.2.4 Agricultural input /fertilizer use..........................................................................................31
4.2.5 Size of livestock..................................................................................................................32
4.3 Coping Strategy.........................................................................................................................33

5. Conclusion and recommendation................................................................34

5.1. Conclusions..............................................................................................................................34
5.2 Recommendations.....................................................................................................................34

APPENDIXE.....................................................................................................38
List of tables page

List of figures page

 ABSTRACT
Food security is condition that exists when all people at all-time sufficient physical and
economic access to safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary need including food
preference in order to live health and active life (USAID, 2020) and FAO, 2020).The
 overall aim of this study was to analyse determinants of food security and household
copying strategy in jabitehnan wereda of west gojjam zone. As a specific objective, this
study assessed food security status, identified determinants of food security and analysed
coping strategies practiced by food insecure households in the study area. A total of 450
households were selected randomly from finte selam 02, kebele. Both primary and
secondary data were collected for this study. Primary data were collected by direct
interview of sample respondents; whereas, secondary data was collected from published
and unpublished documents. Educational status of household head, family size, farm
input, sale of livestock, borrow grains, reduce size of meal, sale of fire wood and
charcoal, daily labourer, escaping of meal, engaged in petty trade and ate less preferred
food were identified as major coping strategies practiced by food insecure households.
The determinants of food security in the study of house hold head family size are level of
the house hold head, size of land accessed, size of livestock owned by house hold and
agriculture input used by house hold are factors that affect food security in study area.
From the total households interviewed, 430(95%) households were found to be users of
farm inputs; such as fertilizer herbicides insecticides, whereas, 20(5%) were non-users of
farm inputs. Then user is productive and secured. The Woreda agriculture office together
with extension agent should prepare a program for awareness creation for the farmers to
use farm inputs in their land.

1. INTRODUCTON
1.1. Background of the study
Food security is condition that exists when all people at all-time sufficient physical and
economic access to safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary need including food
preference in order to live health and active life (USAID, 2020,and FAO, 2020).Food
insecurity is increasing in the world where 925 million people were undernourished. Out of
them, about 900 million people were living in developing countries (FAO, 2019). More than
70% of these people live in rural areas and depend, directly or indirectly, on agriculture for
their living. The majority of the developing countries invest in the agricultural sector due to
which these households were more vulnerable to price instability (IAASTD, 2020).

Agriculture is a key driver of Ethiopia’s long-term growth and food security. Agriculture
directly supports 85 percent of the population, constitutes 43 percent of Gross Domestic
Product (GDP), and 80 percent of export value. Nearly 16 percent of Government of Ethiopia
(GOE) public expenditures were committed to the sector (Bill and Melinda Gates
Foundation, 2018). Agriculture is the predominant and an important economic sector in
Ethiopia. Agriculture contributes substantially to the overall Ethiopian economy (Bogal and
Shimels, 2018). 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. According to the Food
and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO, 2019), 41 percent of the Ethiopian
population lives below the poverty line and more than 31 million people were
undernourished.

Coping strategies is an indicator of household food security that is relatively simple and quick
to use, straight forward to understand and correlates well with more complex measures of
food security. A series of question about how manage of households to cope with a shortfall
in a food for consumption result in a simple numeric score. It is simplest form, monitoring
change in the coping strategies score indicates whether household food security status decline
or improving.
The situation of Jabitehnan found is not an exception to the food insecurity problem.
Therefore, in order to comprehensively address the problem of food insecurity identify the
major determinants of food security becomes crucial.

1.2 Statement of the Problem

Several studies in the past have indicate that people of Ethiopia have experience long periods
of food insecurity which may be ascribe to several factors which include occasional droughts
and also degradation of farm lands. These factors have limit 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, 20018).Land degradation coupled with unpredictable rainfall and drought
cause a serious threat on households’ food security in Ethiopia. Besides, overgrazing,
improper cultivation practices, mismanagement of land resource were the main causes for
land degradation (Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, 2020).

Different factors aggravate the growing problem of food security. Among the major
challenges of food security in Ethiopia were backward agriculture, unstable weather,
recurrent drought, pests and disease, population pressure, weak institutional capacity, and
inadequate infrastructures and social services (FSB, 2019). our desire to know about food
security concept and measurement practically, to know food security status of the wereda do
to these reason the determinant of problem to study food security in rural house hold.

1.3 Objectives of the study

1.3.1 General Objective of the study

TO analysis the determinants of household food security and copying strategies in study
area.

1.3.2. Specific Objective of the study

1. Assess food security status in the study area.
2. Identify the determinants of household food security in the study area.

1.4 Research Question

1. What does food security status look like in study area?
2. What are the major determinants of household’s food security in the study area?
1.5 Scope and Limitation of the Study

This study focus on identifying food security status, determinants of food security and coping
strategies practice by food insecure households were also assessing at different levels at the
time of food shortage. This study was conducted only on jabitehnan wereda. This study
would have been limited not only in area coverage but also time because of lack of budget,
time and other opportunity costs.

1.6 Significance of the Study

This study provides information that will enable effective measures to be undertaken so as to
improve food security status in the study area. The effective performance of this study is
essential to provide secondary data to other researchers to conduct further research on this
issue; provide information about the study area in relation to food security status, location,
farming system and other demographic data. This research is not only essential for the society
of that district but also for us to understand food security determinant, concept and
measurement clearly in addition to the course rural development and food security.

1.7 Organization of the paper

The study will be organized in five chapters. First chapter it contained the introduction part
deals with the background of the study, statement of the problem, objective of the study,
research question, significance of the study, scope and limitation and organization of the
paper (study).The second chapter deals with related literature review that consist of
theoretical, and empirical review and The third chapter is about methodology of the study, it
consist of location, relief and climate of the study area, Agricultural and Demographic
characteristics of the study area, institutional serves of the study area, research dings,
sampling method, sample size determination, data type, data source, data collection method
and data analysis method. . Fourth chapter deals with result and discussion and finally the
fifth chapter is about conclusion and recommendation will be presented.
 2. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Theoretical Review

2.1.1 Food Security Concepts and definition

Food is one of the most important basic of life. From the nutrition aspect of food stuffs were
two main kinds organic and inorganic the major source of food are plant and animal
(weldeghaber, k 2020).

Food security concepts 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, 2016 and FAO, 2018). Since the World
Food Conference in 1974 due to food crises and major famines in the world, the term Food
Security was introducing, evolve, develop and diversify by different researchers. Food
security and insecurity are terms use 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 perceives 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, 2018).
Afterwards, worldwide observations of different access to available food within nations shift
interest and concern from food security from the national to the household level. At the same
time, the unit of analysis shift from the global and national level to the household and
individual level (Hart, 2018).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,
2019). 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 recommend by the
Ethiopian government for an active and healthy life (Wali and Penporn, 2018). ‘

2.1.2 Dimensions of Food Security

Acoring to (Jrad et al, 2019), elaborate 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, 2018)
explained that food availability refers to the existence of food stocks for consumption. the
same source indicates 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 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 guarantee and
quantity to meet nutritional requirements of all household members. Here, the food should be
at right place at the right time and people should have economic freedom or purchasing
power to buy adequate and nutritious food. (Kuwornu et al 2018]
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 were and illness management (Jrad et al, 2018).
Stability of Food: refers to the continuous supply of adequate food all year round without
shortages (Jrad et al, 2019). To be food secure a population, household, or individual must
have access to adequate food at all times.
 Fig1: four dimensions of food security

2.1.3 An analytical framework of food security states

Sustainable livelihood framework was utilized to analysed household food security status of
the study area. The framework was developed in line with the general definition of food
security mentioned above: availability, food access and utilization. Within the framework,
five factors determining household food security status were incorporated. These include the
demographic, bio-physical, productive asset/resources, infrastructural and socio-cultural
factors (Figure 2). The outcome of the study provided an understanding of whether the
household in the study area are food secure or not. The linkages and interactions between
household food security status and determining factors are briefly explained as follows:

I. Food availability addresses the households’ adequate supply of food and is

determined by the level of home production, purchase in the market or food transfer
(Degefa, 2018)Food availability can be affected by disruptions of food production
due to bio-physical problems (erratic rainfall distribution, recurrent drought, soil
erosion, poor soil fertility, crop pest and disease, and livestock disease), poor access
to productive resources (farm size, oxen, skill, farm and off-farm income, farm
implements, modern farm input utilization) and demographic factors (family size, sex
and age of household) (Figure 1).
II. Food access is the way in which households acquire available food in different forms
that include home production, purchase in the market, borrowing, gifts from
relatives/friends, and provisions through relief systems or food aid, this can be
determined by household productive asset (farm size, oxen, skill, farm and off-farm
income, farm implements, modern farm input utilization), socio-cultural factors
(saving habit and social support) and infrastructural factors (access to road, rural
credit, storage facility, extension services, irrigation practice and location of market)
III. Food utilization is the way in which people consume their food . This can be
determined by demographic factors (educational level of household),
sociocultural factors (eating habit, food preferences, food rationing, social and
religious ceremonies, nutritional knowledge and health status) and infrastructural
factors (water supply and health services)
2.2 Empirical Review

2.2.1 Determinants of Food Security

that household size, cost of hired labour participation in Promoting Sustainable Agricultural
activities and non-agricultural income have significant positive effects on the food security
Factors that affect household food security in various developing countries especially in
Africa have been document in some literature and these factors or determinants were 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,2017).

The study conduct in Ethiopia by (Bogale, 2017) show 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. Study by (Sikwela 2016)
showed that per aggregate production, fertilizer application, cattle ownership and access to
irrigation has positive effect on household food security whereas farm size and household
size have negative effect on household food security.

Fertilizer is use by most studies as a proxy for technology. According to (Aliber and Hart,
2018), subsistence farming by its nature is production for direct consumption. Any farm input
that augments agricultural productivity is expect to boost the production; this contributes
towards attaining household food security. household heads education levels and Ownership
of Livestock has positive relation with house hold food security; on the other hand, age of the
household head and household size have a negative relationship with food security (Paul
Amaza:et al, 2019). in the study of Changes in household food security and poverty status in
Nigeria revealed status of the household. Household size has a negative effect, indicating that
large households were more likely to be food insecure.

According to studies conduct in Ethiopia, ownership of livestock, farmland size, family labor,
off farm income, market access, use of improve technology, education, health, amount of
rainfall and distribution, crop diseases, number of livestock, and family size were identifies as
major determinants of household food security (Regassa, 2016; Eden et al, 2019 and Bedeke,
2018).
According to Wali and Penporn (20118) conduct that, use of fertilizer by farming households,
total household income, access to veterinary services and access to extension services were
found to have a positive and significant impact on household food security;

2.3 Coping Strategy

Farm households respond to the problems cause by seasonal and disaster relate food
insecurity in different ways. Food availability can be affect by climatic fluctuations depletion
of soil fertility, or the loss of household productive assets or some other relates problems. In
that case farmers’ try to reduce this problem by taking actions that result in trade-offs
between current and future consumption. 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, 2016).

Coping mechanisms use 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
(in central Ethiopia) and crop residues, reduction of food consumption, consumption of meat
from their livestock, consumption of wild plants, reliance on relief assistance, relying on
remittance from relatives, selling of clothes, and dismantling of parts of their houses for sale.
Some of them were likely to be implementing only after the possibilities of certain other
options have been pursued. In addition, households who have diversifies source of income
were often able to cope with crisis than others (FFP 2018, Yared 2016, Dessalegn 2018). The
most commonly practice coping strategies during abnormal season include short term dietary
change, changing intra-household food distribution like skipping 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 use adaptive strategies include risk minimization, food and income
diversification mechanism, planting damage resistance crop, cultivating marginal soils, etc.
(Maxwell,2017; Degefa, 2016). According to Global report on food crises, (GRFC, 2020) the
following coping strategies are identifies in the study area.
1. Daily wage labour: Wage labour is among the most important means of generating
income in times of chronic poverty and food shortage. For some young and working age
people who often were landless and land short, non-agricultural wage labour is an important
source of income. Children usually work both for themselves and for their parents. Water
fetching, quarrying, mud making, latrine digging, cloth washing, loading and unloading,
conveying of house staffs from place to place and assisting in the construction of houses were
some of the daily wage labour that were mention by the respondents.
2. Firewood gathering and charcoal burning: Charcoal burning and fuel wood selling
subsidize farming households in the study area at varying degrees. The respondents indicate
that these strategies were sources of daily income especially during bad times.
3. Handicrafts: Handicrafts were another major side line activity performed by farmers
when having the necessary background skills. Traditional blacksmiths produce various
implements and household equipment’s such as hoe tips, axes, sickles and knives. Weavers
were also mainly active in some areas producing various types of cloths from cotton. Basket,
plate and rope making for sale were among the subsidiary activities
4. Petty Trade: Both men and women were actively involved in petty trading. Trading items
such as fruits and root crops, and others, were mainly bought from smallholder farmers, and
transport to the market centres either by drought board animals or human portage. But, lack
of capital, little margin of profit and depreciation when consume for home were still
discouraging those who engage in this activity.
Fruits and root crops, and others, were mainly bought from smallholder farmers, and
transport to the market centres either by drought animals or human portage. But, lack of
capital, little margin of profit and depreciation when consume for home were still
discouraging those who engage in this activity.
 3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Description of Study Area

3.1.1. Location, relief and climate

Jabitehnan is one of the 169 woreda in the Amhara Region of Ethiopia. The capital city of
Jabitehnan is Finoteselam. Finoteselam is Located in the Mirab Gojjam Zone of the Amhara
Region, it is 387 km from Addis Ababa and 176 km from Bahir Dar. It is the "Pacific Road",
the name given by Emperor Haile Silassie during the Italian attack on Ethiopia. Formerly its
name was Wojet. This town has a longitude and latitude of 10°42′N 37°16′E with an
elevation of 1917 meters above sea level. It is surrounded by Jabitehnan woreda.

Climate Condition

In Finoteselam, the wet season is comfortable and overcast and the dry season is warm and
partly cloudy over the course of the year, the temperature typically varies
from 52°F to 86°F and is rarely below 47°F or above 91°F.

The hottest months, are from February 8 to May 17, with an average daily high temperature
above 83°F. The hottest day of the year is April, with an average high of 86°F and low
of 60°F.

The coolest months, are from June 29 to September 20, with an average daily high
temperature below 73°F. The coldest day of the year is November 5, with an average low
of 52°F and high of 75°F.

3.1.2. Agriculture and demographic characteristics of the study area

The main agricultural practices of this woreda are both crop and animal production and little
tirades are performed, such tirades are pepper and maize and some production of crops are
teff, maize, peppers, bean and "shimbira", fruit and vegetables and rising livestock are well
known.

Based on the 2007 national census conducted by the Central Statistical Agency of Ethiopia
(CSA), this town has a total population of 25,913, of whom 13,035 are men and 12,878
women. The majority of the inhabitants practiced Ethiopian Orthodox Christianity, with
95.91% reporting that as their religion, while 3.34% were Muslim
3.1.3 Institution services of the study area
In 1964, a hospital for lepers had been built in Finoteselam by the private fund "Swedish Aid
to Leprous Children in Ethiopia". Two years later, it had still not been put into use. The
hospital, Finoteselam Hospital, is a district hospital serving the community for many years,
even though it not upgraded to a general hospital. The hospital has a limited resources and the
local government didn't give due attention in expanding the hospital. Recently, there was a
peaceful demonstration of hospital staffs, asking for good governance and "the hospital shall
be general hospital", little due attention given. There are notable and historic schools in
Finoteselam like Damot Higher and Secondary School and Damot Preparatory school, which
have been the centre of excellence starting from the era of Emperor Haile Silassie. There are
also different colleges in this town; Finoteselam Teachers College and Finote Damot TVET
College are frontier.

3.2 Research design

The selected design to conduct this research was not experimental or laboratory research
design because the research was not carried out under controlled systematic way rather it
design in to descriptive and explanatory, to describe and explain the determinant of
household food security. The data were collected from respondents to analyze based on the
pattern and relation among that data group.

3.3 Sampling method and sample size determination

3.3.1 Sampling method

Out of 450 household of the one sample household in the kebele were selected 40 households
randomly using lottery methods this was due to homogenous nature of the society in addition
to the cost and time limited.

Figure 2: sampling procedure

Jabitehnan woreda Purposively

Purposively

Finite selam kebele

First gots Second gots Randomly

3.3.2 Sample size determination
Multi stage sampling techniques were used in this study. In the first step jabitehnan wereda
was selected purposively based on severity of food insecurity, agricultural productivity, near
distance for the research number of household by considering of time and financial
constraints. In the second stage out of14 kebele in Finoteselam 02 kebele was selected, lastly
I identified the exact household respondents of the selected kebele by using system random
sampling there were 450 households in this kebele, so I used to slovins formula to determine
simple size.

N=total no of house hold =450

n=simple sise=?
e=error=10%=0.1
n=N/1+N (e) 2
n=450/1+450(0.1)2
n=450/5.5
n=82
i.e The above formula shows that the actual sample size for this study is 82, but due to covid-
19, time and budget, we reduced the sample size into 40.

3.4 Data type, Source and method of collection

3.4.1 Data type

I used to two types of data such as quantitative data and qualitative data. The qualitative data
were collected by interview, focuses group discussion it includes: textual or visual example
video recedes, interview, etc. quantitative data were collected by using survey and questioner
sent and retrieve across the specific section of a population.
3.4.2 Data source
The two most data sources were primary and secondary data sources. While, primary data
was obtained directly interviewing sampled households and secondary data was obtained
from Jabitehnan woreda agricultural and natural resources development office annual reports
documents and other publish and un-published materials.

3.4.3 Methods of Data Collection

Two types of data collection methods were used; those are primary and secondary methods of
data collection. Primary data collection was conducted using survey by means of interview
schedule for the quantitative part of the data. The interview schedule was pre-tested among
the non-sampled respondents of matching characteristics and on the results; it were revised
accordingly. The qualitative data were found from the discussion with focus group members
who would suppose clear insight about the overall context of the Woreda. Besides, personal
interview was also conducted with the Woreda disaster prevention and preparedness officers.
Enumerators who have adequate knowledge about the area and well acquainted with the
culture and language were recruited. Secondary data were collected by reviewing related
literature documents, record of published and unpublished documents.

3.5 Method of Data Analysis

After the data, had been analysis, the interpretation of the data was undertaken. It is help to
describe, summarize and present quantitative as well as qualitative data. The quantitative data
was analysed by using descriptive statistics, such as percentage, and frequency. But
qualitative data was analysed by interpretation, narration and discussion
 4. RESULT AND DISSCUSION

4.1 Demographic characteristics of respondents

The demographic characteristics of respondent consists age, sex, marital status, religion type
of respondents and which are summarized as follow.

4.1.1 Age distribution of respondents.

Pertaining on the age distribution, the respondent consisting of 40 % (31-49) years, 20%
above 60 year, 15% (51-60) years. It was observed that majority of potential force from the
respondent found in the 31-49 years old. In case of food supply those group in labour force
age (31-49) were relatively high status of food supply.

Table 1. Age distribution

Age Frequency percentage
15-30 10 25%
31-49 16 40%
51-60 6 15%
61-above 8 20%
Total 40 100%
Source:-own survey 2013 E.C

4.1.2 Sex distribution of respondent

Based on the sex distribution, the respondents classified in the male headed household and
female headed household. As indicated in the table below, 62.5% of the respondent is male
and 37.5% were female. In case of food supply for their household, female headed household
had low status of food supply for their household because of lack of labour force and mostly
depend on petty trade which have low income.

Table 2.sex distribution of respondent

Sex Frequency percentage
Male 25 62.5%
 Female 15 37.5%
Total 40 100%
Source:-own survey 2013 E.C

4.1.3 Marital status of respondent

Pertaining on the marital status majority of respondent 20(50%) were married, and 8(20%)
widowed respondent. The remaining were divorced and single respondents accounting
4(10%) and 8(20%) respectively. The states of food security for married, divorced and
widowed were high ,medium and low respectively, Because of this married had high labor
force to diversify their livelihood, and those widowed household headed un productive age
group(above 60 years).

Table 3. Marital status of respondent

Marital status Frequency Percentage
Married 20 50%
Single 8 20%
Divorced 4 10%
Widowed 8 20%
Total 40 100%
Source: Own survey 2013 E.C

4.1.4 Religious types of respondents

The following table shows that the religious distribution of respondents in the study were as it
was revealed on the table below, the majority 95.91 of respondent were orthodox religion
follower, 3.34 % was Muslim and 0.75% was protestant religion follower.

Table 4. Religious distribution of respondents

Religious Frequency Percentage
Orthodox 39 97.5%
Muslim 1 2.5
Protestant - -
Total 40 100%
Source:-own survey2013 E.C

4.2 Food Security Status

We measure status of household’s food security of the study were a based on different status
of the interviewed respondent which were derived from the data that we collect from the
respondent and analysed in different forms. Those were status of food supply by household
comparing with the past five years.

4.2.1 Status of food supply

The data collected from the respondent show that the status of food supply by the household
is not the same some of the respondent’s. Food supply status increase when compared with
the past some of them were constant throughout the time and other were decrease when
compared with the past. According to data collected from the respondent, 37.5% of
respondent, food supply status increase when compared with the past. In the other way the
data show that the 17.5% of respondent’s food supply status were the same throughout the
year. From the table below 45% of the household food supplying status was decreased when
compared with past five year.

Table 5.food supply status of respondent

Status of food supply Number of Percentag

respondent e

Increase 15 37.5%

Constant 7 17.5%

Decrease 18 45%

Total 40 100%
Source: Own survey, 2013 E.C
4.2.2 Crop production in the area

There were different types of crop produced by the community in the study area. The types
of crop produced were different from household to house hold. The consideration for
production is different from respondent to respondent. However, most of the respondent
consider productivity per area of land , convenience for consumption and same time price
on market the crop more produced by the respondent were maize, teff and peppercorn
45%, 25%, 18% respectively.

Table 6.crop more produced by respondent

Types of crop Percept Purpose of

production

Maize 45% consumption

Teff 25% Consumption

peppercorn 18% for marketing

Others 12% For marketing

Source: Own survey 2013 E.C
4.2.3 Meal taken /day

The food consumed by house hold is not for its nutrient content, but for service, most of the
time per household relatively consumption almost the same time of good throughout the
time even though the amount consumed and the time of consumption per day is different
from household to household and time to time, almost most of the household consumption
three time per a day and the other two time per a day during a period of food shortage most of
house hold food consumption amount decrease and the frequency of meal taken per a day
decrease even to one time a day in normal season even though the amount of food
consumption different60% of respondent consume two time per a day and 40%consume
three time per a day .in the shortage season 70% of household consumption two time per a
day and 30% household three time per a day.

Table 7. Meal taken per day

Normal season Food shortage season
Meal taken per a day present Meal taken per day percentage
 2 time 60 2times 70%
3 time 40 3 times 30%
Source; own field survey, 2013 E.C

4.2.4 Family size

The status of food supply in case of family size is different from household to household. The
data indicates that 22.5%(9) respondent have 2 -3 family size , 47.5%(19) of respondent
have 4-6 family size and the other remain 30%(2) have 7-9 family size.

Table 8.family size of the respondent

No. of family in house Frequency of house Percentages

hold hold

1-3 9 25.5%

4-6 19 47.5%

7-9 12 30%

Total 40 100%

Source: Own survey, 2013 E.C

4.2.3 Land access

Most of household income generated from land directly or indirectly in the study area. The
size of land accessed by the respondent is different; even some respondents have no land for
production. According to the table below, 14(35%) of respondent have no land, 13(32.5%)
access 1-2 hectares, 7(17.5%) access, 2-3 hectares, 4(10%) of respondents have access to 3-4
hectares, 2(5%) access to more than 4 hectares of land. Most of household income generate
from land directly and indirectly. Directly the household uses their own land to produce crop
for consumption. Indirectly the land less and other house hold engaged in petty trade of
agriculture. They buy from the producer and again sell to consumer.
Table 9. Land ownership

Area of land hectares Frequency Percentage

No access land 14 35%

1-2 13 32.5%

2-3 7 17.5%

3-4 4 10%

More than 4 2 5%

Total 40 100%
Source: - own survey 2013 E.C
4.2.4 Agricultural input /fertilizer use

Most of the farmers who have land participate in crop production. They use different input to
increase their productivity. However the type of input they use and amount of input used is
different from household to household. Almost all of the farmers mean 95% of the
respondent use fertilizer, only 25% were used efficiently and effect very. These who use
fertilizers efficiently were those educated and have relationship with development agents.
Most of the respondent, about 70% use only herbicide which is the cheapest and only used
for leave and the other 25% use both herbicide and insecticide and 5% of the respondent not
use fertilizer. Then input user respondents were secured than non-user.
Table 10. Input used by respondent

Types of input Frequency of respondent Percentage

non fertilizer user 2 5%

Fertilizer and herbicide 28 70%

Fertilizer , herbicide and 10 25%

insecticide

Total 40 100%
Source:-own survey 2013 E.C
4.2.5 Size of livestock

Livestock is the source of food supply for the house hold directly or in directly. The
households directly generate their income from livestock by product and directly using their
meat, milk, blood, etc. Indirectly they use to produce crop, by selling to purchase food for
family. However, the size of livestock owned by respondent were different some respondent
have many livestock, some have nothing. According to the table 4.10 below, from 40
respondent 12(30) have no livestock, 7(17.5%). Respondent have 5-6 livestock and 6(15)
have more than 6 number of livestock.
Table 11.size of livestock ownership

Size of livestock Frequency Percentage

No access 12 30%

1-2 8 20%

3-4 5 12.5%

5-6 7 17.5%

More than 6 6 15%

Total 40 100%

Source: Own survey 2013 E.C

4.3 Coping Strategy

Coping strategy is a strategy in which the people use during food shortage. Various coping
strategies were analysed that enabled households to cope food shortage. Those identified
coping strategies were ranked based on the household choice during interview. The coping
strategy in which food insecure households followed were classified in to two stages with
three choices for each at the time of household interview. From the interview result, the
following coping strategies were identified from households. These were; sale of livestock,
borrowing grains from relatives, reduce size of meal, sale of fire wood and charcoal and daily
labourer at the initial stage of food shortage from all choices. They also followed different
coping strategies when the problem of food shortage is severe. Among the strategies,
escaping of meal, ate less preferred food, reduce size of the meal, daily labourer, sale of
livestock, borrowing of grains and cash from relatives were identified as the major coping
strategy practiced by food insecure households. According to the information obtained from
jabitehnan Wereda profile of risk management, published document secondary data and
survey the following coping strategies were practiced in addition to the above coping
strategies which were identified in 2021 food shortage problem in the study area. These were;
daily labourer in coffee washing machine, sale of small and large ruminant animals and sale
of cash crops especially coffee and chat, reducing expenditure on non-essential items (such as
chat), consuming crop surplus rather than selling at market, growing drought tolerant and root
crops (such as enset), and selling more livestock’s than usual were the major coping
mechanisms adopted by households against more disasters in the Wereda.
5. Conclusion and recommendation

5.1. Conclusions
The objective of this is that assessment of food security status, determinants of household
food security and coping strategies practiced by food insecure households. According to this
study of food security were, 62.5 %( 25) households were food insecure; whereas, 37.5% (15)
of them were food secure among 40 households.

Different coping strategies were identified based on secondary data obtained from household
survey and jabitehnan wereda profile risk management office. According to the information
obtained from jabitehnan wereda profile of risk management the following coping strategies
were practiced. These were; daily labourer in coffee washing machine, sale of small and large
ruminant animals and sale of cash crops especially coffee and chat, reducing expenditure on
non-essential items (such as chat), consuming crop surplus rather than selling at market,
growing drought tolerant and root crops, and selling more livestock’s than usual were the
major coping mechanisms adopted by households against more disasters in the Wereda.

5.2 Recommendations
The following core ideas were recommended based on the data obtained from respondents.
The 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.

• As we know livestock has multiple purposes for household food security. Consequently,
the farmers should also engage in livestock production activity to generate the required
income from this activity.

• Mostly farmers were involved in banana and chat production. Cultivation of cereals as a
source of cash income and household consumption is low in the study area. It is advisable
for the respondents to practice cultivation of cereals in addition to banana and chat to save
their income spends for household consumption.
• As the survey result indicated, income generation from off farm and non-farm activity is
not common. Both off farm and non-farm income were crucial for household food
security. As a result the farmers should diversify their income source through involved in
different activities.

• From the total households interviewed, 38(95%) households were found to be users of
farm inputs; such as fertilizer herbicides insecticides, whereas, 2(5%) were non users of
farm inputs. Then user was productive and secured. The Wereda agriculture office
together with extension agent should prepared a program for awareness creation for the
farmers to use farm inputs in their land.

• Age and household food security is related negatively. This indicates that when the age of
the household head increases, he become food insecure. As a result it is advisable for the
farmers to save some money from the income they obtained for future consumption.

Number of oxen owned by the households and household food security were found to be
negatively related because the farmers didn’t use their oxen for cultivation of crops rather for
house construction and rent for others. Therefore the farmer should use their oxen for
cultivation purpose to get the required yield from crop cultivation so as to be food secured
For other researchers who have a desire to conduct further research should use income
expenditure method of food security measurement to reflect the food security status of the
area for some months if it is correctly done for a year.

REFERENCE
Aliber. M, & Hart, T. G. B. (2018) should subsistence agriculture be supported as a strategy to
address rural food insecurity? Agrekon, 48(4), 434–458.
Bogale, A. and Shimelis, A. (2018): 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.
Clay.E(2016). Food Security: Concepts and Measurements. Paper for FAO Expert
Consultation on Trade and Food Security: Conceptualizing the Linkages,
Rome.
D.O. Gilligan, J. Hoddinott, A.S. Taaffe’s (2017). An Analysis of Ethiopia’s Productive Safety
Net Program and Its Linkages, International Food Policy Research Institute,
Washington, D.C.
Dessalegh Ramato (2018), famine and Survival strateraties, A Case Study from Northeast
Ethiopian, Nordiska Afrika ininstitutet, Uppsala.
Duffour, K. (2016). Budget Statement and Economic Policy of the Government of Ghana for
the 2011 Financial Year. Pp 49.
FAO (2019). The state of food insecurity in the world. The multiple dimensions of food
security.
FAO (2020). Assessment of the world food security situation. Committee on World Food
Security, 31st session, 23–26 May
FAO, 2019. The state of food insecurity in the world: addressing food insecurity in protracted
crises. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.
IAASTD, (2020). Food security in a volatile world. International Assessment of Agricultural
Knowledge, Science and Technology for Knowledge.
Jrad, S., Nahas, B., Baghasa, H. (2019). Food Security Models.Ministry of Agriculture and
Agrarian Reform, National Agricultural Policy Centre. Policy Brief No 33.
PP.32. Syrian Arabic Republic.
Muhammad. K, Steven. S and Ram. P (2018) 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.
Regassa N. (2016) Small holder farmers coping strategies to household food insecurity and
hunger in Southern Ethiopia. Ethiopian Journal of Environmental Studies and
ManagementVol. 4 No.1
Robert. A, James. O, Thomas T (2018). Determinants of household food security in the
Sekyere-afram plains district of Ghana. Annual International Interdisciplinary
Conference, AIIC 2013, 24-26 April, Azores, Portugal – Proceedings.
USAID (2020): United States Agency International Development. Madagascar Food
Security Development Programming Framework, From the American People, Madagascar
Wali .H and Penporn. J (2017). Determinants of Rural Household Food Security in Jigjiga
District of Ethiopia. Kasetsart J. (Soc. Sci) 34: 171 – 180

APPENDIXE
1. Name of household head: _______________ 2. Kebele
3 Age of HHH: _______4. Sex of household head: 1. male 2. Female
4. Education status: 1. Literate 2. Illiterate
5 Marital statuses: 1. Single 2. Married 3. Divorced 4. Widowed 6 Family size ____
8 Religion: 1. Orthodox 2. Muslim 3. Protestant 4. Other (specify) _____9. Dependency
Ratio: _______
10 Do you have your land? 1 Yes 2 No

11. If yes, please mention land size in hectares. Own_____, Rented in_______, rented
out______, shared cropped in_____ shared cropped out_____, Gift_____ other (specify)
_____ Total: ______
12. Do you use farm inputs? 1. Yes 2. No
13. If you say yes question number 12 which inputs do you use?
1. Improved seed 2. Chemical fertilizers 3. Pesticide
4. Herbicide 5. Other (specify)________________
14. If you say no in question number 12 why? 1. Lack of income 2. Distance to input source
3. Shortage of input supply
15. What has been the condition of the land productivity compared with last years?
1. Increasing 2. Decreasing
16. How much yield did you get from cultivation of crops? Fill the table below.

Crop Yield Did you sale the crop last production Amount of income
season? obtained
1Yes 2. No
Barley
Wheat
Teff
Sorghum
Maize
Rice
Chat
Coffee
Bean
Pea
Castor
bean
Others
Total

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

Source of household Income
18. Did you pay back the credit? 1. Yes 2. No
19. What were your major sources of household income? (Rank if the response is multiple
answers).
1. On- farm 2. Off -farm 3.Non- farm
20. Source of credit: ____ 1. Formal 2. Informal
21. If no, why? 1. Crop failure 2. Death of livestock 3. Fall in crop &livestock price 4.
other________
Food Security Situation
22. For how long did you use your produce? _____________________
23. What were the main causes of food deficit?
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
_________
24. During which month food shortage is severe ________________________
25. Do you know the reason? 1. Yes 2. No
26. If you say yes justify
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
______
27. What were the major staple foods that your household consumes? (Multiple answer
possible).
1. Teff 2. Wheat 3. Barley 4. Maize 5. Sorghum 6. Other (specify)_______________
28. How do you cope with the problem of food shortage?