WACHEMO UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS

DEPARTEMENT OF ECONOMICS

FACTORS AFFECTING
HOUSEHOLD FOOD SECURITY

(In case of BilloBosheWoreda.)

A RESEARCH PAPER SUBMITTED TO PARTIAL

FULFILLMENT OF REQUIREMENT FOR THE BACHELOR OF
ARTS DEGREE IN ECONOMICS

BY:- SENBETO CHEMEDA

ID NO. 6826/07

ADVISOR:-FISSAHA A. (MSC)

June, 2017
Hosanna, Ethiopia
APPROVAL

Collage of business and economics

Department of economics

Factors affecting household food security in case ofBilloBosheworeda.

Approved name Signature Date

Adviser __________________ _______________ _______________

I
ACKNOWLEGMENT
First of all , I would like thanks go to the almighty God who providing us the opportunity to
join the university and complete BA degree in Economics and who help us in preparation of
this research paper.

Secondly I would like to extend the most profound graduated or appreciation in greatest thanks
from my heart it goes to my adviser FisshaAsmare (MSc) for his deep advice, un reserved
comments , constructive idea and stimulating guidance from his heart for the accomplishment of
this research paper .

Thirdly, I would like to thank my families who have been helped us in providing financial
support and encouragement which has create value in to accomplish University study.

Furthermore I would like to thanks the agricultural and rural development office of
BilloBosheWoreda and also respondents. My acknowledgment would not end without giving
deep whole hearted graduated and in datedness to those who help has in giving relevant data to
my research paper.

II
ABSTRACT
The overall objective this study is to identify the major factors that affect the house hold Food
security in the study area. This study would be use full for the people of BilloBosheworeda and
also provide use full information for researchers. This study was conducted by using both
primary and secondary source of data. Primary data were collected by using Questionaries’ from
60 respondents out of total house hold targeted population of 150 of BilloBosheWoreda by using
Yamane formula (1967 ) , and by using proportionate stratified random sampling techniques.
Again where selected three Kebeles house hold from total Kebeles households by using simple
random simple techniques as the representation of all Kebeles of this study area . This study
was carried out by employing closed ended question which made the respondents free to
answer the question on the other hand secondary data were collected from different document in
the study area in general available like BilloBosheWoreda agriculture and rural development
office recorded documents , reports, books , magazines , journal and etc. Finally, the collected
data where processed, analyzed and interpreted by using different tables, percentages, and model
specification. According to the findings there are various factors that affect the house hold Food
security such as high level of education difference in land size , saving habit, low income from
farm and non-farm activities , large family size , livestock owned households and lack of
coordination and various organization , gender in equality whether condition and etc. based on
this result the concerned body should be give support and training and also preparing awareness
creation about those factors which affect household food security and minimizing the gap
between male and female households in the study area .

III
ACRONOMY M

FAO-Food and Agricultural organization.

ERS- Earnings Related Supplement.
NNMRR- National Nutrition Monitoring Related Research.
WWW-World Wide Wabe.
MOFED- Ministry of Finance and Education Development.
ADLI-Agricultural Development Lead Industrialization.
OXFAM- Oxford Committee for Faming Relief.
WFC-World Food Conferences.
ICTSD- International Center for Trade and Sustainable Development.

NGO- Non –Governmental Organization

IV
V
Table of Contents page
ACKNOWLEGMENT................................................................................................................................II
ABSTRACT...............................................................................................................................................III
ACRONOMY M........................................................................................................................................IV
Table of Contents.......................................................................................................................................VI
CHAPTER ONE..........................................................................................................................................1
INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................................1
1.1 Back ground of the study...................................................................................................................1
1.2 Statement of the problem...................................................................................................................2
1.3 Research question..............................................................................................................................3
1.4 Objective of the study........................................................................................................................3
1.4.1 General objective of the study....................................................................................................3
1.4.2 Specific Objectives of the Study.................................................................................................3
1.5. Significance of the study..................................................................................................................3
1.6. Scope of the study.............................................................................................................................4
1.7. Limitation of the study......................................................................................................................4
1.8. Organization of the study..................................................................................................................4
CHAPTER TWO.........................................................................................................................................5
LITERATURE REVIEW............................................................................................................................5
2.1Theoritical Literature Review.............................................................................................................5
2.1.1 The Concept of Food Security....................................................................................................5
2.1.2 Food Security Measurement and Indicator.....................................................................................6
2.1.3 Food Security Strategies and Interventions in Ethiopia:-............................................................6
2.13.3 Food Security and Strategies of Donor Communities:-.............................................................7
2.2 Empirical literature review................................................................................................................8
CHAPTER THREE...................................................................................................................................10
METHODOLOGY....................................................................................................................................10
3.1 Description of the study area...........................................................................................................10

VI
 3.2 Type of Data and Sources................................................................................................................10
3.3 Method of Data Collection..............................................................................................................11
3.4 Model specification and data analysis..............................................................................................11
3.4 Sampling Techniques and Sampling Size........................................................................................14
3.5 Method of data analysis and interpretation......................................................................................15
CHAPTER FOUR.....................................................................................................................................16
RESULTS AND DESCUSSION...............................................................................................................16
4.1. Descriptive statistics.......................................................................................................................16
4.1.1. Demographic characteristics of households.............................................................................16
4.1.2. Household asset holding..........................................................................................................17
4.1.3. Households choric problem of production and shops...............................................................18
4.1.4. Households safety net program participation and access to food aid.......................................18
4.2. Measuring the food security status of households...........................................................................19
4.3. Households demographic characteristics food security...................................................................19
4.3.1. Family size and age of households...........................................................................................19
4.3.2. Educational level of the head...................................................................................................20
4.3.3. Crop production.......................................................................................................................21
4.3.4. off farm income.......................................................................................................................22
4.3.5. Number of live stock owned....................................................................................................23
4.4.Results of econometrics analysis.................................................................................................23
4.5.Estimated regression parameters of the model and their explanation...............................................24
CHAPTER FIVE.......................................................................................................................................26
CONCULUSION AND RECOMMENDATION......................................................................................26
5.1 CONCULITION..............................................................................................................................26
5.2 PolicyRecommendations.................................................................................................................27
APPENDIX...............................................................................................................................................29

VII
 LIST OF TABLE page

Table .1 demographics characteristics of household

……………………………………………………………….…17

Table.2 Household land

holding……………………………………………………………………………………………………18

Table.3 Main production problem of

household………………………………………………………………………..18

Table.4 Distribution of household by family

……………………………………………………………………………..…20

Table.5 Age group of household

head………………………………………………………………………………………..…20

Table.6 Educational level of

household……………………………………………………………………………………….…21

Table.7 Household land holding and food security

………………………………………………………………………..21

Table.8 Fertilizer
application……………………………………………………………………………………………………
……..22

Table.9 Agricultural production

failure……………………………………………………………………………………………..22

Table .10 Household of farm

activity………………………………………………………………………………………………23

Table.11 The maximum livelihood of the logit

model………………………………………………………………………24

VIII
IX
 CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION
1.1 Back ground of the study
In the mid 1970’s the world’s perceived to be in midst of severe food crisis where adverse
weather condition prevailed in South Asia, Europe, North America and the formal USSR. Those
regions were affected by inadequate cereal supplies. This led to change in USSR livestock
policy, which coincidently increased in the price of imported food items in 1973 which also
increase the price of energy and other inputs used in agricultural sector like fertilizer which
further exacerbated the world food shortage (FAO, 1998).In the world around 800 million people
consume food less than the requirement for required to the lead healthy and active life. The food
security statistics reported by ERS (Earnings Related Supplement) are based on a survey
measure developed by the U.S food security measurement project, an ongoing collaboration
among federal agencies, academic researchers and private commercial and nonprofit
organizations. The measure was developed in response to the National Nutrition Monitoring and
Related Research Act of 1990(NNMRR). The ten year comprehensive plan developed under that
Act specified task of recommend a standardized mechanism and instruments for defining and
obtaining data on the prevalence of food security or food sufficiency in the United states and
methodologies that can be used across the National Nutrition Monitoring and Related Research
Act (NNMRR) program and at state and local level (food security concept, 2008)

The gap between food production and consumption in sub- Saharan countries is induced by
declining agricultural productivity. The major causes for the slow growth rate of agricultural
productivity include unfavorable climate condition, under developed infrastructure and in
appropriate agricultural policies and predominantly traditional system(Had ad, L, 1997) Ethiopia
is one of most food insecure country of the world with about 50 percent of its population being
food in secured(MOFED, 1992). They are living at subsistence level and depending on
traditional forms of production which are highly vulnerable to severe drought.

1
The main reason identified for food shortages are low agricultural production, lack of skill and
technology to utilize the available resources, lack self-motivation, dependency syndrome,
absence of saving habit, lack of infrastructure etc. (OXFAM Canada WIBO,2003)

1.2 Statement of the problem

Agriculture which is practiced in most part of the oromia region in general and BilloBoshe
worked in particular the study was conducted remains backward and it is dominated by shifting
cultivation. The food security related problem were further investigated whether the food
security problem of the region are similar or not similar to that of the country as well as the
world’s problems. In order to ensure such food security related problems, this study was
established food security and hunger related problems among households of the region in general
and BilloBoshe worked in particular has been a long standing challenge. Complex combination
of several factors would be cited as much possible and reasons for this increasing level of
vulnerability of food insecurity had been tried. The principal causes includes over dependence on
subsistence farming, land of productivity asset, limited access to basic serviced (fertilizer credit,
education) backward technology, un balanced income and expenditure, low saving habit, land
size holding, gender inequality and other related factors. Hence this study was identified the
major factors that affect household food security.

As have seen from the past study various researchers like Assegai mind(2013) from micelle
university identified many factors which affect household food security like over dependence on
subsistence farming, low saving habit, unbalanced income and expenditure and Tumescent
Honed(2010) also from micelle university more or less identified factors like back ward
technology, limited access to basic services (fertilizer, credit, education) which affect household
food security, but they did not include equitable distribution as one of the component of food
security across the household level and lack of coordination among various organizations to
provide food security at household level. On the other hand, those past studies did not group their
total population based on strata of male and female as the decision maker (head of family) and

2
also there is no research which has been done recently in this area identifying the factors
affecting household food security. Hence this study was fill this gap by conducting an intensive
investigation on the on the factor affect food security in the study

1.3 Research question

This study was tries to answer the following question.

 What is the nature of household on food security?

 .What is the major factors affecting household food security and current situation of h
household food security?

1.4 Objective of the study

1.4.1 General objective of the study
The major objective the study is to identify the major factors that affect the household food
security in BilloBosheworeda

1.4.2 Specific Objectives of the Study

The specific objective of the Study is

 . To analyze the nature of household on food security

 .To identify major factors affecting household food security and to examine the current
situation of households food security.

1.5. Significance of the study

The study is significant in several ways. From those, having better understanding of the major
causes of food in security is vital to the formation of need based policies and programs that
enhance food security at different levels .The study was identified areas of intervention to reduce
poverty in general and food in security in particular .This study was also tried to identified the
lack of coordinated approach among varies organization involved in implementing food security
at household level. This study had been explorer the variation among households based on male
or female being the decision m maker (head of the family).It helps a new researchers has a guide
line to conduct another related research and also serves as a reference for other to know the
major hindrances or factors which affect household and for the improvement of food security
problem.

3
1.6. Scope of the study
The study was carried out in order to identify factors that affect household food security In case
of BilloBoshe Worde on the available primary data and secondary data.

1.7. Limitation of the study

The main problems that were faced while conducting this study are:-

 .Lack of financial resources or lack of capital.

 Lack of time to collect enough data from the study area.
 .Some concerned bodies which are the source of data where answered the questions
carelessly.
 .Limited knowledge of respondents and difficulty of getting appropriate response from
the respondents.

1.8. Organization of the study

The paper is organized in to five chapters. The first chapter is the introduction part which
includes background of the study, statement of the problem, research questions, and objective of
the study, significance of the study, scope of the study and limitation of the study. The second
chapter related with review literature which consists theoretical literature and empirical
literature. The third chapter deals with general methodology of the study like description of the
study area ,type and source of data, method of data collection, sampling techniques and method
of data analysis. The fourth chapter deals with data analysis and interpretation. The fifth chapter
deals with recommendation and conclusion.

4
 CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1Theoritical Literature Review
2.1.1 The Concept of Food Security
Food security is condition related to the supply of food and individuals access to it. Concerns
over food security have existed throughout history. There is evidence of granaries being in use
over 10,000 years ago, central authorities in civilization including ancient China and Egypt being
known release food from storage in times of famine. At the 1974 world food conferences (WFC)
the term food security was defined with an emphasis on supply. Food security, they said, is the
availability at all times of adequate world food supplies of basic food stuff to sustain a steady
expansion of food consumption and to offset fluctuations in production and price. The 1996
world summit on food security declared that food should not be used as an instrument for
political and economic pressure. According to the International center for Trade and Sustainable
Development (ICTSD), failed agriculture market regulation and ant-dumping mechanism cause
much of the world’s food security and malnutrition.

According to World Bank (1936) food security is defined as access by all people at all time to
enough food for an active health life following this definition lade access to enough food is
denoted as food in security in Umlauted, as (1995) secured access to all times to sufficient food
has been identified as the core concept of above definitions.

This definition explicitly focuses on four core concepts.

Access to food (through production, purchase, exchange)

Sufficiency (defined as the calories required for an active health life)

Security (defined by the balanced between vulnerability, risk and insurance and

Time (when food security can be chronic or cyclical) the above definition is modified in

November 1996, of the food summit heed in Rome and described as follows

5
Food security exists when every person has physical and economic access at all times to health
nutrition food insufficient quantify to cover the needs of their daily ration and food performance
in order to live a healthy active live (Siam, 1999,).The concept of developed and improved
through time as a result of increasing development in modern economic relationship which was
caused significant changes and new path in system of food entitlement than to food availability,
which

2.1.2 Food Security Measurement and Indicator

Assessment of food security is difficult issue as there are no universally established indicators
that serve as measuring tools Food security require multidimensional consideration since it has
been influence by different interrelated socio-economic, environmental and political factor.
Along with the development of the concept of food security a number of food security indicators
have been identified to make monitoring a food situation possible. These include food supply
(meteorological data , Information on natural resources ,agricultural production data , market
Information on past damage and regional conflict ).Food access indicator(diversification of
indicator ,change of food source, access to food credit ,sale of production asset and expenditure ,
food consumption frequency , nutritional status and storage estimate. House world level
measures of food security are concerned with food security dynamics between and within
households. Because these measures rely on data from household surveys, they are able to more
accurately capture the access component of food security than measures that rely on nationally
aggregate data.

2.1.3 Food Security Strategies and Interventions in Ethiopia:-

2.1.3 .1 the Federal Government Strategies

The federal food security strategies are based on two principles .First, it underlines that food
security should be preserved in the context of international comparative advantage and second
food security assistance should continue to enable the transitions to self-reliance. Accordingly,
the strategy investigates three borders components: additional access and integrated, programs
and emergency capabilities, Federal programs implementation has started through funds secured
from World Bank and European Union. Program management unit has been established under
the ministry of rural development.

6
2.1.3.2 The Regional Government Strategies and Intervention in Ethiopia
Amara, Oromia, Southern region and Tigray region has prepared food security strategies which
includes the following:-

Increasing agricultural production through better extension service irrigation and diversification
measures.

Natural resources development and rehabilitation.

Infrastructural development.

Rural credit and non-farm income promotion including skill training and

Large-scale resettlement

2.13.3 Food Security and Strategies of Donor Communities:-

Many donor programs emphasis the need for long terms oriented food security policies and
program that aims to:-

Strengthen the link between development, rehabilitation, relief operation and food aid needs.

Enhance crises prevention capability and relief and rehabilitation operation by development
early warning system, enhance the reaction capacity of the food security reserve and support
relief and rehabilitation intervention.

Adopts rights based principles for programming.

For more some donors gradually adopting cash based transfers.

Encourage EGs as targeted interventions for chronically food insecure areas.

Supports supply based approaches neither based on donor comparative advantages.

Non-governmental organizations promote labor based safety (net cash and food for work).

2.1.3.4 Food Security Intervention of NGOS:-

The proliferation of NGO is over the last 20 years and increased of NGOS as channels for
international and humanitarian assistance relief flows but also in the political process. This, it
would be good to look at what NGOs doing out of 132CRD members:-some 60 are active in

7
food security area. According to this information most NGOS implement the following mixture
of activities.

Improving agriculture practices.

Rural credit.

Food –for-work.

Promotions of improved storage facilities.

Promotion of non-agricultural incomes.

2.2 Empirical literature review

Endowed with considerable potential, Ethiopia has been self-sufficient in staple food and was
classified a net exporter of food grain till the late 1950 (Alemayehu,1988).it was reported that the
annual export of grains to the world market amount to 150000 tons in 1954 Ethiopia lies one of
the most food insecure regions in the last three decades with large number of its population
living at subsistence levels and dependent on farm production is highly vulnerable to serve
drought (Mulate ,et al 1995). Domestic food supply has failed to meet the basic food
requirement of the county total grain production in Ethiopia has improved in recent .However,
the increase is so small that it could not affect the level of per capital production and
consumption.

The country produced, for instance, 162kg of grains in 2000/01 and 2000/02 meter season,
respectively on per capital basis, even 2003/04 record level of production of 117.5 million
Quintals of grains only a modest improvement when looked in term of per capital production
(i.e. 165kg per person) which together with the level of per capital income, indicates the progress
or the lack towards realizing the objective of food security. In general average per capital grain
production fluctuate between looking in recent years which on average indicates a deficit of 60
to 100kg of grain per person( Samuel,GebreSelassie: 2004). According to World Emanuel (2009)
the following coping strategies were identified in his study at rural Geode. This is daily wage
labor, fire wood gathering and charcoal burning, hand crafts and petty trade.

8
Farmhouses 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 asset or some other related problems. In that case
farmers try to reduce this problem by taking actions that result in tradeoffs between current and
future consumption. Empirical evidence of food security in Ethiopia indicates prevalence of a
high level of food insecurity with significant individuals and spatial characteristics. The specific
food security studies by Hail (2012). In the 1970s the issue of food security referred to the
national food supply capacity to meet the population energy and nutrient needs. The concept of
household food security has been understood by many development works as the availability of
food in the world market place and on the food production systems of developing countries
(Bedeke2012).

Food security 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 even at the
individual level (Duff our, 2010). On the other hand (Kuwornuetal, 2011) explained that food
access is determined by physical and financial resources as social and political factors. Access
depends normally on income available to the household, price of food and other factors worth
mentioning are individual’s access to market, social and institutional entitlement or rights.

9
 CHAPTER THREE

METHODOLOGY
3.1 Description of the study area
This study had been carried out in BilloBosheworeda .BilloBoshe worked is one of the districts
which is located in east Walega zone .it border by sib sire and way taka from east ,
sassiga.anddigga from west ,gudayabilla ,abedogoro and giddaayana from north and from the
south leqadullacha. The relative location of the district is 331 km away from capital city of
addisababa .this level and the mean annual rain full of 1600mm to 2000mm. the climate
condition is sub-tropical type .the major soil that covers distinct, loam soil 47.8 percent, clay
loam covers 16.33 percent; sandy soil covers 23 percent, of the others soil type exist in the
district.

BilloBoshaworeda has 23 kebele which are 3 urban centers and 20 rural kebeles .the district has
estimated population of 10,798 out of this 5484, are male and 5314 are female the major
agriculture products that produced in district are crop ,cereals ,pulse ,and oil seeds .from their
total land 901.8km2 cultivate land covers 80 %(percent) of the area and livestock of 17086
including poultry .previously the distinct was highly covers with dense forest s and savanna
grasses and high land even around the capital town ,Nekmate .there are permanents or big
mother trees which shows the presences of forest in the past which is now denude and left the
area barren without any regret .today man- made and natural forest of the district like konch and
some 0thers are under savior condition ,which needs close control in order to save for future
ecological balance for the surrounding. The largest portion of fuel wood consumption Nek mate
from the district.

BilloBoshe district 17 health posts to 18 primary schools and 3 high schools. Roads are available
in some difficult situation like summer season with full services (Agricultural and rural
development offices 2007/2016)

3.2 Type of Data and Sources

For accomplishing the study the researcher had been used both primary and secondary data. Both
primary and secondary data was used to address objectives .the primary data was collected from

10
the sample respondents and the secondary data was the data collected from BilloBoshe offices,
documents, reports, books, journals.

3.3 Method of Data Collection

For the purpose of study, both primary and secondary data had been used by researcher .primary
data are like discussion, interview and questionnaires which had been developed from household.
Secondary data was collected from the different documents in BilloBosheWoreda in general
available like from BilloBosheworeda agricultural and rural development office, reports,
recorded, documents, books, magazines, journals.

3.4 Model specification and data analysis

The collected data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and econometrics model. Descriptive
statistics like mean, standard deviation were used to summarize the result. Econometrics was used to
analyze the relation between the household characteristics and food security.

To assess the association between food security (dependent variable) and the relative importance of
independent variable. The study uses logit model to examine factor influencing food insecurity.
Following the selection of the logit model for analysis, a dependent variable is assigned a value of 1 and
0, for food secure and food insecure households respectively. The data was interned in SPSS version 160,
software programs for analysis. Then the parameters of the model were estimated using maximum
likelihood regression model.

Y=Bo+B1X1+B2X2+B3X3+B4X4+……. ……. +B10X10+Ui………………….1

Y = {1> 2200 KCal }

{ 1<220 kcal }

Where a= is the base of natural logarithm

X1= represent the explanatory variable

Pi= the probability of being food secure

Bi= coefficient of explanatory variable

Bo= constant

Ui= probabilistic nature of the disturbance term

11
Assume Bo+B1X1+B2X2+B3X3+B4X4+…………………+B10X10+Ui= Z

Probability that is given household is being food secure is expressed by

P(y= 1+ez……………………..2

Probability of household begin food insecurity is given by

(1-P)=(1−ez /1+ ez)………………………………3

Therefore, the probability of household begin food secure to the probability of being food insecure is
given

P/1-P………………………………………….4

By taking equation 4 to natural logarithm

Z=ln( P/ 1−P)=Bo+B1X1+B2X2+B3X3+B4X4+……………………+B10X10+Ui

3.5 Variables

Dependent variable

A farm households caloric gaining pair adult equivalent per day was used to identified the food security
status of the household. This is represented by 1 if households whose daily chlorine in takes was above or
equal to the 2200 Kcal per adult equivalent(AE) per day (or 2200KG of cereals per AE per year) and 0 if
households whose daily chlorine in take were below 2200 Kcal per adult equivalent(AE) per day ( or
2200 KG of cereals per AE per year).

Independent variables

The independent variables expected to have associated with food security status of the feeds districts were
selected based on different literature.

1. Family size of the households

It is continues variable that measures the number of family size in household. It is measured in this study
by the number of adult equivalent units in household. Those it is expected that large family affected
household food security negatively.

2. Sex of household head

12
This is dummy variable taking value 1, if the household head is male and 0, if the household head is
female. So, it is expected that male headed household are less likely to be food secure compared to female
headed households.

3. Educational level of household head

It is the continues variable that measure education level of the household head. It measure in the grade
level of each household head. It is expected that educational status of the household head and household
food security have positive association.

4. Age of household head

This is the continues variable that measure the age of household head in years. That in this study it is
hypothesized that age is positively related to food security.

5. Off farm income

Most farmers commonly generate their income from their farm the variable takes a value of 1, if the
household have off farm income and 0, otherwise. Therefore , it is hypnotized that of farm income and
food security has a positive relationship.

6. Food aid

Appropriate use of food aid especially that goes with the production like productive safety net program
creates assess to food for vulnerable households. It is expected that households receive food aid from
safety net escape harsh food insecurity and affect food security of the households negatively.

7. Size of cultivated land

Size of cultivated land in the rural area it is measured by hectares. Those it is expected that the land size
cultivated and food security have positive relationship.

8. Number of livestock owned

The number of livestock holding in the rural are it is measured by tropical livestock unit(TLU). It is
expected that food security and the rural households livestock owned have a positive relationship.

9. Agro-ecological zone

Different agro ecologies have different amount and distribution of rainfall. Their potentials of food crop
production are also different. In midlands the distribution and the amount of rainfall is better compared to

13
lowland. Agro-ecological zone is a dummy variable taking a value 1, if midland, 0,otherwise. It is
assumed that the magnitude of household food security increase has gone from midland to lowlands. It is
expected that agro-ecology and food security are negatively related.

10. Credit service

The variable takes the value 1, if the household receive credit and 0, if the household does not receives
credit from credit association. Hence, it is hypostasized that credit availability and food security are
positively related.

11. Illness if household head

The variable takes the value 1, if the household head face illness and 0, if household head does not sick.
Hence, it is expected that illness of household head has negatively affected the food security.

12. Death of household head

This is dummy variables 1, if the household head is death in the family and 0, if the household head is not
dying in the family. In this study it is expected that death of household head has negatively affected the
food security.

3.4 Sampling Techniques and Sampling Size

Due to in sufficiency of resources like time budget, and other limitations to observe the entire e
population, had been selected the respondents of the questionnaires through simple random
sampling from three kebeles specifically and taking small group or portion of the population
stratified sampling is the technique which dividing the population in to homogenous groups
each groups containing subjects with similar characteristics. Hence the population is
heterogeneous had been classified sample which were selected by simple random sampling
technique and again classified sample based on the sex of the population (Female and Male)
through proportionate stratified random sampling techniques. By using Yamane formula (1967)

n =N/1+N (e) 2

Where n =Sample Size required.

N = Total population and

E =Margin of error or level of precision.

14
From total population of BilloBosheWoreda there are large numbers of households. Out of the
total population of 10,798 there are 150 of households. Then sample was collected from the
whole targeted household populations which were existing in BilloBosheWoreda.

Sample had been calculated by using Yamane formula in the following way with 90℅ level of
confidence, 0.1 degree of variability and 10% level of precision.

N=150

e=±10%=0.1 where N=Total household population

no=? no=required sample size

e=margin of error(level of precision)

no= N/1+N(e)2

no=150/1+150(0.1)2

no=150/1+150(0.01)

no=150/1+1.5

no=150/2.5= 60

After these calculated sample size by above formula where grouped target population in to strata
of male and strata of female by using proportionate stratified sampling techniques.

3.5 Method of data analysis and interpretation

The data which were collected through different techniques from different sources to ensure the
validity and reliability of data was analyzed the research objectives by using descriptive statistics
such as percentage and table. On the other hand data analysis is the most important component of
this study. In this case the responses of the respondents collected using the above tools were
organized, analyzed and interpreted in a rational way. The analysis was based on descriptive
analysis which helps to analysis of the basic characteristics of respondents using descriptive
methods such as table and percentage.

15
 CHAPTER FOUR

RESULTS AND DESCUSSION

4.1. Descriptive statistics
4.1.1. Demographic characteristics of households
Demographic characteristics are the main determinant of households living condition, so that
identifying and knowing them enables to assess easily the living standard of every society. In this
regard the age, educational level, marital status and other characteristics of the respondents are
shown below.

Table 1. Demographic characteristics of household

16
 Status of household member Frequency Percentage Percentage of Percentage of
female male
Dependent ( 1-15 and >60) 118 61.5 59.1 40.9
Independent (15-60) 74 38.5 52 47.1
Total 192 100 - -
Source: own survey, 2017

Has it been obtained from the table 61.5% of the total population was found to be dependent and
unproductive, while the remaining 38.5% were going to be independent. From the total
dependent people 40.9% were male and 59.1% female on the other hand, 47.1% were male and
52.9% female. In general it is easy to conclude that in the area the majority of household
members were unproductive and dependent on other.

4.1.2. Household asset holding

Even if having an asset is guarantee for being food secure but it is the main fall back resource in
the time of difficulties in line with this the main assets of the households in the area were land
and livestock. But absence of land for grazing was obstacle for expanding their livestock rising
to make the sector commercialized.

Table 2: household land holding

Size of cultivated land Frequency % age

< 1 hectare 10 16.6
1 hectare 5 8.3
>1 hectare 30 50
No total 15 25
60 100
Source: own survey 2017

As one can observe from the above table 50% of the respondents had cultivated land area of
prefer than one hectare, while 16.6% had less than one hectare. As it were generated from the
survey look of enough cultivated land was highly responsible for the existence of high-level of
food insecurity in the area.

17
4.1.3. Households choric problem of production and shops
There are many problems that affect the production system of every society. These problems
may be natural roman made and the extents to which the problem prevails affect the living
standard of the production yield of that society. Associated with this the main problem that face
households in their normal functioning was found to be existence of high frost and absence of
enough rainfall. The table below showed that of the respondents mentioned continues absence of
rainfall 25%.

Respond that existence of this problems but their continuation from year to year with higher
magnitude.

Table3: main production problem of households

Main problem Frequency % age

Lack of rainfall 30 50
zAbsence of enough fertilizer 15 25
Existence of high freshet 15 25
Total 60 100
Source: own survey, 2017

4.1.4. Households safety net program participation and access to food aid
There are different government activities that are undertake to protect any society from various
problems activities may include, unemployment fee, income maintenance, safety net programs
and direct food aid. But society of the area did not recovered from the problem. Most of the
respondents proved that there is no any sort of food aid and content program in their area. The
basic reason was attributed to the considerations of the government as reach by assuming they
were generated higher income from saftynet.

4.2. Measuring the food security status of households

In this study to analysis the contribution of that production to food security, household’s calories
in take per adult equivalent (AE) per day was used to identify the food secure (FS) and food
insecure (FI) household groups.

As their daily intake of each household per AE was calculated, the next step was comparing the
result with the minimum substance energy requirement of 2200kcl per AE per day. Following

18
this procedure 42 sample households were found to meet their minimum substance energy
requirement while, 18 sample households were founds to be unable to meet the minimum
substance equipment. From the 18 sample households 10 were that producer while, 8 were no
producer. In other words 55.5% of the FI were that producers and only 44.5% was no producer.

4.3. Households demographic characteristics food security

4.3.1. Family size and age of households
There was greater different between family size and food security status of households. Because the
amount of consumption and production was depending upon then size of the existed family member. If
the majority family member was on the working age that household may be food secure and vice versa.
Associated with this family size of FS households about 6.4 adult equivalent units, whereas the 7.2 was
for FI groups. This means the households that had more family size were food insecure than the
households that had smaller family size.

Table 4: distribution of household by family

Family size Food secure (N=42) Food insecure (N=18) Total (N=60)
in AE No % No % No %
< 3 5 83.3 1 16.5 6 100
3-4 7 87.5 1 12.5 8 100
>5 30 65.2 16 34.7 46 100
Total 42 18 60
Source: own survey, 2017

There are mainly two groups of labor face namely reproductive working age and the dependent
can work age group. Doing the working age an individual was producing many products and can
sustain it and others, but when it was under the non-working age group it was subject to
assistance from others. So that, in household position of the age group of the household head was
found to be the main determinant factor in the food security status of a household. In line with
this idea the average age of FS household head at time was 53 years which that of FI households
was 54 years. This show that has the age of HH head increased the household was found to be FI
and when it decreased it would be FS.

19
Table 5: age group of household head

Age group Food secure (N+42) Food insecure (N=18) Total (N=60)
No % No % No %
20-40 16 76.2 5 23.8 21 100
41-60 14 58.3 10 41.6 24 100
>60 12 80 3 20 15 100
Total 42 - 18 - 60
Source: own survey, 2017

4.3.2. Educational level of the head

As it is observed in the table below from the total interact household heads only were 33.3%
food in secure and the other 66.6% were food secure on the other hand among household heads
who achieved primary education 70.5% were food secured and only 29.4% were insecure.

Table 6: educational level of HH head

Level of Food secure (N=42) Food insecure (N+18) Total (N=60)

No % No % No %
education
Illiterate 20 66.6 10 33.3 30 100
Primary 12 70.5 5 29.4 17 100
educations
Secondary 10 76.9 3 23.1 13 100
education
Total 42 18 60
Source: own survey, 2017

4.3.3. Crop production

When we talk about crop production those were other complimentary activities that are under
went with it. Their activity is usage of chemical fertilizer size of cultivated and holding. In
reference to this assessments had made in the study area and were discussed below. Even though,
many types of crops growing the district maize and sorghum were the staple and the food crops
for the population of the districts. The average production yields of food secured households
were found to be 4.5 until per annually while, 4.6 until per annual. The average land size hold FS
and FI were 1.9 and 1.7 hectares respectively.

20
Table 7: household land holding and food security

Own land Food secure (N=42( Food insecure (N=18) Total (N=60)
No % No % No %
Yes 40 72.5 15 27.3 55 100
No 2 40 3 60 5 100
Total 42 18 60
Source: own survey, 2017

As we can see descriptive result should that the household which owned large size of land is
food secured household. This because even it land was found to be determinant factor for food
source it, the existence of with natural hazard during the last year harvesting season makes the
land holders table food insecure. On the other hand these who food secured were because of their
participation in off farm activity.

In the study area the availability and access to chemical fertilizer was high. Has the respondents
reported the high cost of using chemical fertilizer due to its higher price and the lower supply of
the fertilizing government in the area had made to do use chemical fertilizer mostly residents out
of the total 60 sample households 31 had used chemical fertilizer, while 29 of them did not from
the farmer 96.7 were food secure 3.3 were insecure.

Table 8: fertilizer application

Chemical Food secure (N=42) Food insecure(N=18) Total (N=60)

No % No % No %
fertilizer
Yes 30 96.7 1 3.3 31 100
No 12 41.4 17 58.6 29 100
Total 42 18 60
Source: own survey, 2017

Having large size of cultivated land and wide provision of chemical fertilizer had contributed
positively for food security status of the household in the area but existence of high agricultural
production failure decrease their probability of being food secure. From the total sample
households 33 of them were saying that faced problem of agricultural production failure and only
27 were not suffering from this problem. From those households who face the problem of
agricultural production 96.9 were food secure and 3.1 were not secure.

Table 9: agricultural production failure

21
 Status of agricultural Food secure (N=42) Food insecure (N=18) Total (N=60)
production failure No % No % No %
Fail 32 96.9 1 3.1 33 100
Not fail 10 37.1 17 62.9 27 100
Total 42 18 60
Source: own survey, 2017
4.3.4. off farm income
There are mainly two ways of livelihood in the rural area of our country these are farm and
nonfarm activities. Farming activities include all activities that are related to cultivation of land
livestock grazing and other activities. On the other hand nonfarm activities include ear pantry
and building were employment (for works in public and the private sectors such as teachers). In
the farming sector activates there are also other of farm activities like pity trading, agricultural
wage labor and others. The participation of households in such of farm activities had greater
impact on the food security status of the household. From the total households which were
participated in off farm activities 93.7% were food secured and 57.1% of the non-participant
were food insecure.

Table 10: household off farm activity

Off farm income Food secure (N=42) Food insecure (N=18) Total (N=60)
No % No % No %
Yes 30 93.7 2 6.2 32 100
No 12 42.8 16 57.1 28 100
Total 42 18 60
Source: own survey, 2017

4.3.5. Number of live stock owned

The main livestock raised in the district were including cow, bull, goat, sheep and poultry. The
mean livestock holding of FS households were accounted to be 8.3 and that of the FI were 8
TLU. This is show that those household who had higher amount of TLU were found to be food
secure and those who had lower TLU found to be food insecure.

4.4.Results of econometrics analysis

Before estimating the econometric model that allows looking the contributions of that production for food
security, the problem of hetroscadacity did not exist in the model since the robust value was taken. If
robust value was taken there is no problem hetroscadacity. After having all the above tests the regression
was estimated using the maximum likelihood estimation.

22
Table 11: the maximum likelihood of the logit model

Variable Dy/dx Std. Err Z p>z mE

Gen* .0212759 .12361 0.17 0.863 .75
Age -.0058694 .00843 -0.70 0.486 53.7667
Edulv .0121427 .01548 0.78 0.433 3.95
Famsize -0038579 .00268 -1.44 0.150 121.583
Marist .185385 .19773 094 0.348 1.88333
Fet* .0134973 .14072 0.10 0.924 .783333
Shoc* .25062 .12419 0.20 0.840 .466667

Tlu -.012383 .00838 -1.48 0.140 31.26

Sav* .2818347 .16351 1.72 0.085 .7
Cultla~I .0140998 .03261 0.43 0.665 4.43333

Offa* -.0847069 .13619 -0.62 0.534 .383333

Foodai* .5372893 .10103 5.32 0.000 .1

Safteyn* -.912807 .02606 -35.02 0.000 .0833

(*) dy/dx is for discrete change of dummy variable from 0 to 1

Number of obs= 60

Wald chi2(13)= 188.57

Prob> chi2 = 0.0000

Peudo R2 =0.1534

Source : own model result ( 2017)

23
4.5.Estimated regression parameters of the model and their explanation
The estimated parameters of food security model for the sample households were shows in the above
table. The peudo R2 of the model was 0.1534 for the sample area. Additionally the overall significant test
should that has the model was not significant the basic reason behind this problem was the impossibility
of including many variable that best explain in the problem. So has the result of this problem the overall
significant the model was not significant. But if it was possible and if we can include this variables
without any development the model would be significant.

Family size

Family size of household was found to be not significant determinants of food security in the sample area.
The probability to be food secure will increase by 121.58 when family size increases by 1
unit.when family size increase by AE. This result was also in line with the work of Belayneh (2005).

Size of cultivated land

Theoretically it was known that if household had large area of cultivated and it was possible to generate
higher amount of yield is either cash crop or staple crop. Our result also should this reality area of
cultivated land contributes positively to food security.

Livestock holding

Even if having a livestock was very important to cultivate agricultural lands, by then avoid the problem of
food security, but in this area in contrary to the above statement having large amount of livesokock does
not contribute to increase the food security status of the household. The logit result should that when
livestock holding increased by TLU the marginal effect in favor of food security decreased by ratio of
31.26. The basic reason was in this area the main actors of cultivation were the individuals themselves.
There was no any usage of draft power for cultivation purpose; rather it was under taken by the
individuals through digging. In addition to this having more livestock diverts the individuals labor from
digging to that of looking after the livestock, not only this but also they used cultivated land for the
purpose of grazing to feed their livestock. So that generally contribution was found to be negligible and
negative.

Off farm income

Off farm income determine the food security status of the household. If the household had plenty of farm
income it possible to use that income when there failure of farming income. In the sample area, too the
more the household low of farm income the lower probability to be food secured. The work of Aschakew
and Ayalneh (2009) were a support this idea.

Safety net program

24
From the above table shows that there was significant association between safety net program
and food security. Because p value is less than α i.e. 0.00<0.05.

Educational level

Education combined with health was considered as human capital which expected to spur
economic development in the future. So that theoretically it was expected that the development
in educational access would lead to avoid problems that were retard economic growth.

Saving
From the above table there was significant association between saving and food security because
p-value is less than the level of significant.

25
CHAPTER FIVE

CONCULUSION AND RECOMMENDATION.

5.1 CONCULITION

This study analyzed the factors that affecting household food security in the study area. from the three
kebeles randomly selected by distributing questioner and conducting interview and by using descriptive
and econometric analysis.

According to the findings the following conclusion has been made based on overall analysis and
interpretation. In the study area 18 and 42 0f households were found food insecure and food
secure respectively. The figure show that the proportionate of food secure households higher
than the food insecure households. The importance of that factors in ensuring food security of
household in the study area the number of livestock owned and amount of land to be cultivated
and land holding size was one of the importance factors in ensuring the food security for the
households. The existence of the problem from this area by using the simple random sampling 60
samples was selected. By using the data from these selected samples the problem were deeply analyzed.
The sample households were classified in to food secure and insecure groups based on household
consumption status.

In generally to the base group of food insecure households to conclude that an increase land holding
size,increaselivestock,decrease family size, increase fertilizer use,increase educational level of households
and increase the likelihood of household to be classified in the group of food secure in the study area.

5.2 PolicyRecommendations.
Based on the finding and conclusion the suggestion are recommended for talking the various
problems. Rural house hold food security is not only a regional problem, but also national
problem. Therefore tangible efforts must be made to improve the countries rural household food
security in general and the study area in particular. in this regard the possible recommendations
that can be Drawn from the results of the study are the following.

 The should note that an increase in family size leads to household food insecurity;
therefore the households size need to further decrease. Hence the government and other
concerned parties appropriate interventions in Promoting family planning should work
more on the area and education that encompasses all aspects training and which brings

26
 attitudinal changes targeting at reducing fertility level is important and for the households
in the study area.

 The livestock sub-sector is very important in ensuring food security in the study area
Hence this sector has to be enhanced through the provision of common grazing lands
better husbandry and management system and better veterinary facilities.
 The yield of that production was deteriorating from year to year because of absence of
pesticides and improved Fertilizers. So that he government should provide these
complimentary inputs with subsidized price.
 Based on the study, households with educated head are better in food security status than
household with non-educated heads in the study area.Therefor for it is recommended that
regional and federal governments should provide access to education for households.

 The society should limit their consumption spending so as increase their output and to
improve food security situation in the study area.
Finally,recommend for further studies to be conducted on the area of food security by con
sidering detail and accurate information on the various variables and factors that affect
foodsecurity.

27
REFERENCES

 Almugir M. and P. Arone (1991), providing food security . IT puplisher.UK

 Bedeke . S.B (2012). Food in security and cropping strategies :Aperspective from Ker
sadistic , East Hararge Ethiopia .
 CSA(Central statistical agency). 2001/ 2002. Economic and social development in
Ethiopia .
 Duffour. K(2010). The budget statement and economic policy of the Government Ghana
for the 2011 financial year.
 FAO(Food and Agriculture organization ). 1996, vo144 Rome Italy .
 FDRE ( Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia ). 2001 Food security strategy . Addis
Ababa, Ethiopia ministry of agriculture and rural development.
 Hadad. L. (1997). Human Nutrition in Developing countries.
 HailuM.R(2012). Causes of house hold Food in security in rural Bosteworeda Ethiopia
lap lambert academic publishing : German.
 KassaBalay(2004). Managing Drought and famine in Ethiopia, Journals of social
development in Africa .
 MOFED(1992). Analysis of households Food Expenditure pattern in Ethiopia, Food and
nutrition unit; Addis Ababa , Ethiopia.
 MOFED (2000/2001). Bureau of finance and economic development of Oromiaregion .
 OXFAM-CANADA and WIBO (2003). Proceeding on conceptualization work shop on
food.
 Rut liger . S and H. Alder man (1980).the prevalence of caloric deficit diets in
developing countries .
 WoldeAmanuel, S.g (2009). Poverty food in security and livelihood strategies in rural
Gedeo , the case of Haroressa and Chichu Pas, SNNP.
 Food security concept ( 2008).

28
APPENDIX
Questionnaires

This questionnaire is prepared to collect household data about the food security condition of
BilloBoshe distract fist and for most I would like to thank all the respondents for you assistant in
filling these questionnaires .the respondent is requested to provide the necessary information
without any cheating and the collected data are only used for the researcher purpose so be sure
that the data no used for other information.

Thank you!!
1, Agro ecological zone - high land
- Low land
Main occupation, where HH: Household
Household information

No 01 02 03 04 05 06
Name of the HH member Educationa R/N to HH Age Sex Marital
l level member status
1
2
3
4
5

03 1 brother / sister 2.Husband /Wife 3. Son /Da

06 1.Single 2.Tyultiple 3.Divorse 4.Windowed 5. Other

02 1. Illiterate 2.Grade1-8 3.Grade9-10 4. Certificate-/diploma 5.If any other

4.6 If yes the state the amount received (annul)?

2. Production and production system

29
 What do you produced last year Amount
1.wheat
2.sorghum
3.corn
4.onion
5.chat
6.coffe
7.tomato
0ther
2. Do you use fertilizers? 1. Yes 2.no
3. If no who?
3. Shocks
1. Have your hold faced any of shock in the past year? Multiple responses is possible
2. Illness of the he head
3. Drought
4. Illness of other family
5. Death of animal
6. Death of the head/wife
7. Crop falling
8. Famine
9. Other………………………………………………………
4. Source of income
1. What is your main source income?
2. Terms of income received; 1. Monthly 2.daily 3.year
3. Is the income received enough for your subsistence? 1. Yes 2. No

5. Household Asset

1. Do you have own land? 1. Yes 2. No

2. If yes; 1.amount for
crop……………………………………………………………………………
2. Amount for
grazing……………………………………………………………………

What type of livestock How many do you Have you he

30
do you have have carried an income
from this item
if yes how much no
Calf
Cow
Heifer
Goat
Sheep
Chicken
Donkey
Oxen
Bull
Camel
Other
6. House hold off farm income
1. Do you have an off farm job? 1. Yes 2.no
2. If yes what type job do you have………………………………
3. Have you he received any transfer? 1. Yes 2.no
4. If yes from where 1.local 2.abroad
7. Food Aid
1. Have received food aid? 1. Yes 2.no
2. If yes indicate the type and amount received?
3. If no why?
4. I there any safety net program in your area 1.yes 2.no
5. Do you participate in safety net program 1.yes 2? No

31