Food Economics

ISSN: 2164-828X (Print) 2164-8298 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/sagc21

Households' food security status and its

determinants in the North-Central Nigeria

Abiodun Elijah Obayelu

To cite this article: Abiodun Elijah Obayelu (2012) Households' food security status
and its determinants in the North-Central Nigeria, Food Economics, 9:4, 241-256, DOI:
10.1080/2164828X.2013.845559

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/2164828X.2013.845559

Published online: 25 Oct 2013.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 185

View related articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=sagc21

Download by: [University of Lethbridge] Date: 14 May 2016, At: 02:53

 Food Economics, 2012
Vol. 9, No. 4, 241–256, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/2164828X.2013.845559

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Households’ food security status and its determinants in the

North-Central Nigeria

ABIODUN ELIJAH OBAYELU*

Department of Agricultural Economics and Farm Management, Federal University of Agriculture, Abeokuta (FUNAAB),
Abeokuta, Ogun State, Nigeria
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 02:53 14 May 2016

Abstract
Study on household food security is very essential now that Nigeria is currently facing the problem of food crisis. This study
presents findings on household food security in the North Central Nigeria (NCN). The first objective was to review and
highlight the commonly used measures of households’ food security with their pros and cons; second, to determine the food
security status of households; and third, to analyse the determinants of household food security status in the study area. This
study employed a well-structured questionnaire to obtain data from a cross-sectional survey of 396 households selected from
Kwara and Kogi States of NCN with a multi-stage sampling technique. To analyse the data, descriptive statistics and
multivariate-ordered logit analyses were used. The descriptive results revealed that only 16% of the households were food
secure (FS), 36% food insecure without hunger, 28% FS with moderate hunger and 21% food insecure with severe hunger.
The results from the ordered logit revealed that geographical location, marital status, gender of the household head,
household size, food dietary diversity, total household expenditure, level of education, occupation of household head,
household dependency ratio, social capital and agricultural land-holding size significantly affect households food security
status. To transit from food insecure to FS, birth control, participation in agriculture, gender-sensitive food insecurity
alleviation policies that enhance endowments of female-headed households are imperative.

Keywords: Household; food security status; ordered logit; Rasch model; North-Central Nigeria.

1. Introduction life (USAID, 2008). This is one of the targets of the

Discussion on food security in different countries of
the world has been an issue of considerable attention
since 1970 (Ayalew, 1997) and still remains an
ongoing issue. Household food security, although
complex, and a multi-dimensional phenomenon like
poverty with an approximately 200 definitions and
450 indicators (Hoddinott, 1999); is most important
for the analyst since the household is the basic
economic unit which determines the level of con-
sumption by the individual. The importance of
households’ food security has become the concern
of national governments as well as the international
communities during the last few decades. A household
is FS when all people at all times in a household 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
Millennium Development Goals and widely consid-
ered as a useful measure for evaluating the progress
of a country in terms of well-being (Vasco, 2006).
Attaining food security in its totality at household
level continues to be a challenge not only for the
developing nations but also for the developed world
(FAO, 1997; IFPRI, 1996). For instance, the
Nigeria government has initiated a number of inter-
vention policies and programs aimed at ensuring
food security at household level in the country but
all these attempts have not yielded the much
acclaimed goals and objectives (Orewa & Iyangbe,
2009). Despite programs such as the River Basin
Development Authorities (1977 to Date); Operation
Feed the Nation (1976–1979); Green Revolution
(1979–1983); Directorate of Foods and Roads and
Rural Infrastructure (1986–1993); National Agricul-
tural Land Development Authority (1991–1999);

Correspondence: A. E. Obayelu, Department of Agricultural Economics and Farm Management, Federal University of Agriculture, Abeokuta (FUNAAB),
Abeokuta, P.M.B. 2240, Ogun State, Nigeria. Tel. +234-8034146503. Email: obayelu@yahoo.com

(Received 2 April 2013; accepted 8 August 2013)

# 2012 Taylor & Francis
 242 A. E. Obayelu
Presidential Initiatives on Cocoa, Cassava, Cocoa,
Rice, Livestock, Vegetables (1999–2007); FADAMA
(irrigable land) I (1993–1999), FADAMA II (2004–
2007) and the ongoing FADAMA III projects
(2008–2013); the seven points agenda (2009–
2012), the launch of commercial agriculture (2009–
2014) and ongoing Agricultural Transformation
Agenda which started in 2012 using the value chain
approach on some specific agricultural products like
rice, cassava (Federal Ministry of Agriculture and
Water Resources, 2008; A. E. Obayelu & O. A.
Obayelu, 2012), only 18% Nigerians were FS in
1996, 40% in 2005 (Sanusi et al., 2006) and 35% in
2008 (Zoellick, 2008). One of the reasons for this is
the fact that food production in Nigeria has not
increased at the rate that can meet up with the food
demand of the increasing population of about 167
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 02:53 14 May 2016
million (NPC, 2012). The apparent disparity
between the rate of food production and food
demand has led to the increasing rate of food and
livestock importation, as well as high rates in food
prices thereby making it difficult for the poor to meet
their food requirement (Adeoti & Egwudike, 2003;
Ogundari & Ojo, 2007). The inability to provide
regular information on household food security
status in Nigeria has remained a source of concern
to both the government and the policy-makers alike.
The policy-formulators and programme implemen-
ters are increasingly seeking measurement techni-
ques for food security that are simple to use, easy to
analyse and interpret as well as factors affecting food
security status of their people. Close examination
and analysis of household food security status and its
determinants is therefore very important not only
from the economic point of view but also for human
survival. Although, there are several factors affecting
food security that have been empirically investigated
in one part of the Nigeria or the other using different
sets of target groups such as rural farm households in
just a state (e.g. Fakayode et al., 2009) or a Local
Government Area (LGA) within a state (e.g. Idrisa
et al., 2008); we are not aware of any recent studies
on households food security that have used micro-
level data to analyse households food security status
and its determinants from a broader view like this
study. The area-specific nature of the determinants
of the households’ food security status in this study
will not only lead to the right formulation and
implementation of food policy in the study areas
but contribute to the existing empirical literature on
households’ food security in Nigeria and other
developing countries.
This study has the following specific objectives:
. to highlight the most commonly applied meth-
ods of measuring household food security in
both developed and developing countries with
their pros and cons;
. to empirically classify households in the North-
Central Nigeria (NCN) into food security status
based on some available food security indica-
tors and
. to analyse the basic demographic, economic and
social determinants of household food security.
2. Methodology
This section gives a brief review of methods of
measuring households’ food security status, the
study area sampling procedure, methods of data
collection, methods and basis of models selection
and specifications for data analysis of the study.
2.1. Review of methods of measurement of household food
security
Measurement of food security represents a challenge
due to the complexity and wide array of factors
associated with this phenomenon (Abuelhaj, 2007).
Literature had shown that modeling of food security
and its determinants at household levels comprise
many different methodologies and techniques. While
in developed countries, several methods have been
used by researchers to establish household’s food
security status, in developing countries, the use of
some of the methods are prone to quite a number of
challenges (Table I).
2.2. Study area and sampling procedure
The NCN is one of the six geopolitical zones of
Nigeria. It comprises of Benue, Kogi, Kwara, Nasar-
awa, Niger, Plateau states and the Federal Capital
Territory Abuja. A multistage random sampling was
employed in the study to select the household heads.
The first stage was the random selection of Kogi and
Kwara States from NCN. The second stage was the
random selection of five LGAs per selected state
proportionate to the size of the LGAs in the state.
The third stage was the random selection of 5
Enumeration Areas (EAs) per LGA using the
Nigeria National Bureau of Statistic Core Welfare
Indicator Questionnaire survey of 2006 categoriza-
tion of 10 EAs per LGA as a baseline. The strati-
fication of the study areas and selection of
respondents (household heads) were based on geo-
graphy and random method, respectively, without
any regard to the socioeconomic characteristics
(such as education, income, age or gender distribu-
tion) of the area or those who were sampled. The
fourth stage was the random selection of 400
household heads from the sampling frame of all the
 Table I. Methods of measuring household food security/insecurity status.

Methods What is measured How does it measure Strengths Weaknesses References

United State Measure the Food security status of each household is i) It provides accurate and valid This method fails to capture food Bickel et al.
Household severity of assessed by their responses to 18 questions measurements of food security in the insecurity in elderly households as relevant (2000), Wolfe
Food Security household food (10 in households with no children) about general population, ii) the 18-item “core information to capture that are not et al. (2003),
Survey security food-related behaviors, experiences and module” of HFSSM is able to show both included in the module. That is, a Nord
Module (US- conditions that are known to characterize the prevalence and the severity of food situation where food maybe available and et al. (2008)
HFSSM) households having difficulty meeting their insecurity and hunger (Hamilton et al., accessible but may not be used due to
food needs. The questions cover a wide 1997), iii) the questions in the module are limited physical functioning by elderly
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 02:53 14 May 2016

range of severity of food access problems able to measure four underlying people. This result to an underestimation

ranging from worrying about running out of
food to children not eating for a whole day
Household Measures HFIAS is an adaptation of the HFSSM
Food household food developed for developing or poor countries
Insecurity insecurity as by Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance
Access Scale reported by the in 2007 to assess whether households have
(HFIAS) households experienced problems with accessing food
themselves access during the last 30 days. It contains 9
items rather than 18 to capture experiences
associated with varying levels of food
insecurity severity. It reflects three domains
perceived as central to the experience of food
insecurity cross-culturally: i) anxiety about
household food supply; ii) insufficient
quality, which includes variety, preferences
and social acceptability and iii) insufficient
food supply and intake and the physical
consequences
Coping This is a relative In-depth interview to identify action people
Strategies measure of food take when they do not have enough food or
Index (CSI) insecurity money to buy food. A questionnaire
assessing the frequency of use of the strategy
is developed from which food security score
is derived by applying security weightings
Household Measures It provides a direct estimate of the food gap
Economy household food by establishing a household “food balance”
Approach security and early which matches “resources” (all income and
(HEA) food sources converted into kilocalorie or
conditions or behavior in the households:
anxiety about the food budget or food
supply; perceptions that food is inadequate
in either quantity or quality; reduced food
intake in adults and reduced food intake in
children
It is a useful measure for comparing food
access across different population groups.
It recall period used 4 weeks (30 days)
against 12 months often used by HFSSM.
HFIAS provides information about the
current state of food insecurity (rather
than past or future state of food
insecurity). This method classifies
households into three food security groups
(FS, low food security, very low food
security)
CSI is relatively easy to construct, using
household information with focus group
(community) perceptions and is well
suited to assess the short-run impact of a
food shock (transitory food insecurity). It
can also be used to monitor the impact of
various food aid interventions
i) allows insights into the crisis-induced
“change” in food security compared with
baseline information, ii) it allows
identification of chronic food insecurity,
Households’ food security status and its determinants in the North-Central Nigeria
of the number of elderly who are food
insecure
The information arising from HFIAS can Deitchler
be interpreted at community, district and et al. (2010)
national level. It is not appropriate for
interpretation at individual or household
level, in the sense that it cannot be used
for targeting of specific households/
individuals
It is not an absolute measure of food Maxwell
insecurity that can provide an indication of (1996),
the food gaps. It also does not have Maxwell
information to distinguish between pre- et al. (1999)
crisis coping strategies (associated with
chronic poverty and food insecurity) and
crisis-driven strategies; hence, posing
difficulties in distinguishing chronic food
insecurity from transitory food insecurity
i) Information gathering is through key Boudreau
informant and focus group interviews, (1999)
which may compromise representativeness
and requires high skills to avoid biased

243

Table I (Continued)
Methods What is measured How does it measure
warning food cash equivalents) against “requirements”
crises (food intake and other essential needs
converted in kilocalories or cash equivalents)
Household Measures Simple sum of the number of different foods
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 02:53 14 May 2016
Dietary household food eaten by that person over the specified time
Diversity insecurity period or a weighted sum, where the weights
Score reflect the frequency of consumption, and
(HDDS) not merely the number of different foods. In
this method, the proportion of households
deviating from the score corresponding to a
minimum balanced and sufficient diet can be
calculated according to given thresholds. A
calibration of the score is needed to provide
equivalences with kilocalorie (and, ideally,
macronutrient) intakes
Dietary Intake To determine The method estimates an average daily per
Assessment food security capita calories consumed, adjusting for the
(DIA) status access to culturally appropriate food. Cost of
or COC minimum recommended energy level (Z) is
calculated as: Z = e(a+bL), where L denotes
Recommended Daily Energy Level (Kcal);
“a” is the intercept term; b = coefficient of
the calorie consumption. A household whose
average cost of daily calorie consumption is
equal to or more than Z is said to be food
secure while a household with average cost of
daily calorie consumption lower than Z is
considered food insecure
Food security To determine This method is based on the food security
index food security line using the Recommended Daily Calorie
status approach. Household whose food security
index is greater or equal to the
Recommended Daily Calorie Intake are
regarded as food secure and those whose
food security index is lower than the
recommended Daily Calorie Intake (2260
Kcal) are considered food insecure
Food Insecurity To determine The method is based on the perception or
Experienced- food security experience reported by the respondents. The
based status extent of severity is based on a series of
Strengths
iii) has the capacity to estimate a food
deficit taking into account both the impact
of a shock on food availability, prices, food
and non-food incomes and savings and the
households’ potential to cope
Household-level dietary diversity is
strongly associated with per capita con-
sumption (a proxy for income) and
energy availability, suggesting that diet-
ary diversity could be a useful indic-
ator of
household food security
i) It measures food consumption directly,
not the food availability; ii) it addresses
both dietary quality and calorie intakes at
individual levels
It has the similar strengths as the use
of COC
i) It captures psychosocial dimensions of
food security along with the physical
experience; ii) measures directly the
244
Weaknesses References
A. E. Obayelu
information and undertakes the internal
cross-checking for consistency that is
integral to the method; ii) it requires good
judgment and considerable experience to
quantify qualitative information, for
example on coping strategies
i) Household-level consumption patterns Ruel (2002)
and changes have to be recorded, which
can be time-consuming, ii) the method
does not shed light on causes (incomes,
prices, own-production) of a consumption
deterioration, iii) technique may result in
estimates biased upwards because of the
tendency to exaggerate shortfalls when
external aid is expected
i) It rely heavily upon respondents’ Jenson and
memory that can lead to measurement Miller (2010),
errors; ii) the assessment of adjusted recall Oluyole et al.
estimations is a very difficult task that may (2009),
lead to high measurement errors; iii) the Babatunde
cost of applying recall methods in national et al. (2007)
survey is high. iv) there is no consensus on
the thresholds needed for subsistence and
any of the recommended thresholds would
vary significantly across individuals, their
jobs and geographical locations
Has similar weaknesses as COC Arene and
Anyaeji (2010),
Omotesho
et al. (2010)
i) It is a difficult task to establish cut-off Rose and
points for classifying households into Charlton
different levels of food insecurity; ii) The (2001)
 Table I (Continued)

Methods What is measured How does it measure Strengths Weaknesses References

Measurement questions, a number of which rely on phenomenon of food security based on the scales do not have questions on issues
Scales qualitative and subjective assessments experiences of individuals; iii) better related to water access, and food and
(FIEMS) understanding of causes and water safety hazards caused by microbial
consequences of food insecurity and and other environmental contaminants
hunger
Food Measures Food items are grouped into eight standard The method appears to be relatively un- i) It is slightly more time consuming and WFP/
Consumption household food food groups with a maximum value of seven biased ii) cut-offs are hard to justify FAO (2008)
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 02:53 14 May 2016

Score (FCS) insecurity days/week. The consumption frequency of

Households’ food security status and its determinants in the North-Central Nigeria
each food group is multiplied by an assigned
weight that is based on its nutrient content.
Those values are then summed obtaining
the FCS
Food poverty Measures food It is calculated as the ratio of food The method allows for determination of There is lack of knowledge of the type of Devereux
(purchasing security expenditures to the cost of the food basket. It food access gap (deviation of food foods on which the expenditures are made (2006)
power) involves converting food quantities into expenditures from the cost of a minimum when using this method
approach calorie (and other nutrient) equivalents using food basket)
nutrient conversion tables; deriving estimates
for apparent calorie consumption per person
per day using household composition data;
and comparing the apparent consumption
with the reference levels - the nutritional
norm (2100 kcals) and previous
consumption levels
Household Measures food It requires getting information about the i) It is used for the evaluation of national i) It measures the available amount of food Amaza et al.
Expenditure security quantity of food bought and expenditures on food and nutrition programs; ii) dietary and ignores the consumed amount at a (2006), Rose
Survey different food types (items) consumed within quality data can help understand the food given timeframe; ii) it does not account for and Charlton
Method and outside the house security dimensions the amount of food consumed outside the (2001), Bickel
(HESM) household, for example food consumed et al. (2000)
when visiting the relatives and friends; iii)
conversion of available food to the calorie
intakes involves major assumptions that
can cause measurement errors; iv)
difference of data collection methods
worldwide make it difficult to compare the
estimates across countries, regions and
different purchasing power parities
Anthropometry Indirect measure It involves in-depth interviews and i) It is highly standardized measurements The method is costly both monetarily and Wolfe and
of food security observation of individual characteristics like of weight and ii) it allows for mapping time wise; i). the indicators measure Frongillo
weight and height of infants, young children, nutritional security from the local to the nutritional status that results from the (2000), Mariara
youth and adults national levels interaction of food security and health et al. (2006)
status, hence is an indirect method to
measure food security

245
Source: Computed by the author from various sources.
 246 A. E. Obayelu
houses within the selected EAs. Household heads
were selected because they were assumed as the
major decision makers. A total of 219 and 181
household heads were selected from Kogi and Kwara
States, respectively, based on a higher population
size in Kogi (3,314,043) compare to Kwara
(2,365,353) as given by 2006 Nigeria Population
Census (NPC, 2006). However, of the 400 house-
hold heads sampled and interviewed, only 396 were
found useful for the analysis.
2.3. Types of data and methods of data collection
All the data on households’ demographic and socio-
economic characteristics (such as location, age,
educational level, marital status, gender, income,
household size) as well as food security variables
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 02:53 14 May 2016
(like the types, the quantity and quality food con-
sumed in the previous seven days to the time of the
interview, access to credit, total food expenditure
share, access to public health services) were collected
through a cross-sectional survey of selected house-
hold heads in Kogi and Kwara States, Nigeria
between 2006 and 2007. The main survey instru-
ments used were structured questionnaire and per-
sonal interview methods.
A major limitation to this study is that due to lack
of physical records, data collected on households’
food production, food purchases and food consump-
tion were based largely on memory recalls which are
subject to bias on the part of the respondents.
2.4. Empirical model selection and specification
The model selection procedure employed in this
study involves two phases. The first phase was the
selection of appropriate model for classification of
households into food security status and the second
was selection of appropriate model to determine
factors affecting food security status in the
study area.
2.4.1. Rasch measurement model. We employed
Household Food Security Survey Module (HFSSM)
methodology in this study. The questions (Annexure
1) in the food security module measured four
underlying conditions/behaviors in the households:
anxiety about the food budget or food supply;
perceptions that food is inadequate in either quantity
or quality; reduced food intake in adults and reduced
food intake in children. Although HFSSM has
extensively been used in developed countries such
as United States of America based on their ability to
keep record on foods they consume, before we
adapted this technique to our data, we checked for
the reliability as well as validity of our data with fit
statistics. Mean square residuals (MnSq) estimated
as odd ratio were used to assess the goodness-of-fit
of each item compared with the assertions of the
Rasch model. MnSq are ratios of the observed versus
the expected scores. The expected MnSq values >
1.3 are judged indicative of a poorly fitting or erratic
item and MnSq values < 0.8 indicates that the item
is redundant or lacked variability with respect to the
information it shares with another item (Hamilton
et al., 1997). That is, infit range of 0.8–1.3 are
generally considered to be quite good, The out-
comes of our data show that many questions of the
18 food security items were redundant and were
therefore removed from the scale because of their
failure to demonstrate goodness-of-fit to the Rasch
model. Only eight “basic” adult and household items
were therefore used (Annexure 2). Nearly all the
items infit mean squares of our data from the eight
items were within the fit criteria of 0.8–1.3 showing
that our data fit the model (Annexure 1). Other
items were only omitted from measurement analysis
but were used in the classification of households into
food security status.
Responses to the questions in the food security
survey module are combined into a scale using non-
linear statistical methods based on the Rasch meas-
urement model. We applied this model through
Conditional Maximum Likelihood Estimation from
winsteps scientific software implemented in SAS
with a STATA subcommand.
Rasch measurement model is a non-linear factor
analysis with binary variable such as “yes” or “no”
response to a survey item and it falls into the family
of Item Response Theory models (Hamilton et al.,
1997). The model is a one-parameter model, mean-
ing that it models the “one” parameter difference
between person position and item difficulty. The
model assumes specifically that the log of the odds of
a household affirming an item is proportional to the
difference between the “true” severity level of the
household and the “true” severity level of the item as
shown in Equation 1. A household’s responses
across the 18 food security questions are summed
(where yes = 1; no = 0) and this raw score value
represents the household’s food security/insecurity
score. The model calculates a value on the scale for
each household based on the number of questions
answered affirmatively adjusted for the number and
severity of the questions answered.
lnfPtðhÞ=½1  PtðhÞg ¼hbt, ð1Þ
where ln is logarithm, Pt(h) is the probability of an
affirmative response to item “t” for a household that
has a food-insecurity score of h; 1 − P is the
probability that the household will deny the item.
Because the logits are equal units of measurement,
 Households’ food security status and its determinants in the North-Central Nigeria
they are additive. The index “t” runs over the 10
adult-referenced items for childless households and
over all 18 items for households with children
(Annexure 1). The food security scale provides a
continuous, graduated measure of the severity of
food deprivation across the range of severity repre-
sented by the items. Based on their food security
scale scores, households are also classified into food
security status categories of the population. Follow-
ing the recommended cut-points by Gulliford et al.
(2006), USDA (2000), households with all affirmat-
ive response to the 18 questions or 0–2 are classified
as FS, those with 3–7 as food insecure without
hunger (FIWH); 8–12 as food insecure with moder-
ate hunger (FIWMH) and those between 13–18 as
food insecure with severe hunger (FIWSH). For
adult-referenced items, households with 0–2 affir-
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 02:53 14 May 2016
matives are classified as FS; those between 3 and 5
affirmatives as FIWH; 6 and 8 affirmatives as
FIWMH and between 9 and 10 affirmatives
responses as FIWSH.
Key assumptions of Rasch model. Households with a
higher food-insecurity score have a higher probability
of answering “yes” to each item. The more FS an
individual is, the more likely he or she will respond
negatively to dietary quality items. The probability of
an affirmative response to each item is statistical
independent for all households that share the same
level of food insecurity.
Strengths of the model. The model helps at converting
series of questions in the HFSSM into a food
security scale and provides a concept of food security
that is well understood by policy makers. It provides
a means of measuring both the prevalence of food
security and the severity of hunger by incorporating
the essential elements of perceptions of food insec-
urity and hunger by the people most affected. There
is no provision in the model for deliberate or
unconscious deception, guessing or any other vari-
able that might impinge on the responses provided
because the left asymptote always approaches a zero
probability. With the model, we are able to divide
the studied population into four distinct categories of
food security (FS, FIWH, FIWMH and FIWSH)
based on the differing conditions, experiences and
behavior patterns that characterize each range of
severity.
Weaknesses of Rasch model. As a limitation, Rasch
model is overly restrictive or prescriptive because it
does not permit each item to have a different
discrimination. The model also requires larger sam-
ple sizes compared to classic testing procedures. The
model is termed a “strong” model since its
247
assumptions are more difficult to meet than those
of classical test theory. The benefits derived from its
use come at the cost. When data do not adequately
fit the model, the instrument construction process
must begin anew. Fit indices in the Rasch model are
being influenced by the testing context, making
definition of a standard for defining fit versus misfit
difficult. Varied standards exist for deciding fit to be
adequate or not, and for deciding on deletion of item
or person data.
2.4.2. Ordered logit (Ologit) model. Literature has
provided various models for determining factors
influencing food security status of households with
key among them that have been used by many
researcher in developing countries as Tobit model
(Etim & Solomon, 2010), Probit model (Oluyole
et al., 2009) and Logit (Babatunde et al., 2007)
based on the method they have employed to classify
their respondents into food security status. This
study however employed the ordered logit model
(the proportional odds model) to analyse factors
affecting food security status of households. The
selection of the model is in line with Greene (2000)
since our dependent variable (the household food
security status) is both categorical and ordinal. The
coefficients show that for one unit increase in the
predictor (independent variable), the response vari-
able (dependent variable) is expected to change by
its respective regression coefficient while the other
variables in the model are held constant. In this
study, a significant positive coefficient indicates that
a one unit increase in the independent variable
increases the likelihood that household will be FS.
On the other hand, a significant negative coefficient
indicates that a one unit increase in the independent
variable increases the likelihood that household will
be food insecure.
In the case of a dummy, we cannot really take a
derivative with respect to “X.” So we estimated the
effect on the predicted probability of switching the
dummy from zero to one, holding other x variables
at their means. The estimates are not dependent on
the ancillary parameters (the cut-offs); the ancillary
parameters are used to differentiate the adjacent
levels of the response variable.
In the ordered logit model, there is a continuous,
unmeasured latent variable Y*, whose values deter-
mine what the observed ordinal variable Y (food
security status) equals. The model is explicitly stated
in Equation 1:
XK
Yi ¼ b X þei ¼Zi þei .
k¼1 k ki
ð2Þ
where Y* continuous latent variable, bk is the vector
of parameters or coefficients to be estimated by the
 248 A. E. Obayelu
model, Xki represent vector P of the explanatory or
independent variables, Zi ¼ Kk¼1 bk Xk , zi is the
random disturbance term reflecting that relevant
variables may be left out of the equation, or variables
may not be perfectly measured. The probabilities of
respondents being in any of the identified categories
are determined using the natural log of the cumu-
lative distribution following Booroah (2002).
The marginal effects of changes in the independ-
ent variables are computed as in Equation 2:
 
dprop y ¼ 0 x
¼ f ðl0  xb Þ.b,
dx
 
dprop y ¼ 1 x
¼ ½f ðl1  xb Þ  f ðl0  xb Þ.b,
dx
 
dprop y ¼ 2 x
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 02:53 14 May 2016
¼ ½f ðl2  xb Þ  f ðl1  xb Þ.b
dx
 
dprop y ¼ 3 x
¼ f ðl2  xb Þ.b.
dx
Where 0, 1, 2, 3 are the various categories (FS,
FIWH, FIWMH and FIWSH); χ is the independent
variable, µ0, µ1, µ2 are the cut-off values for the
ordered logit model and f is the cumulative probab-
ility function. The marginal effect for the dummy
variable was calculated by taking the probabilities for
each category at v = 0 and at v = 1, and take the
difference.
2.5. Selection and definition of food security and
explanatory variables with their a priori expectations
There are some variables that have been previously
considered in Nigeria and other countries as affect-
ing household food security status. The selection of
food security variables in this study relies on previ-
ous empirical studies as well as economic theory like
demand and consumption theory. For instance, we
included the total household expenditure as a proxy
for total household income and food expenditure
share following Adenegan and Adewusi (2007),
Babatunde et al. (2007), Omonona and Agoi
(2007), Arene and Anyaeji (2010), Oni et al.
(2011), Tshediso (2013) and a study (Umeh &
Asogwa, 2012) and other analysis of food sector in
Nigeria that revealed a demand shift for certain types
of foods as income changes. The inclusion of the two
variables was also based on the indirect relationship
between food security and food expenditure in the
total household expenditure using the Engel’s Law,
which states, “the proportion of consumer’s budget
spent on food declines with increase in the house-
hold income” (Mundlak, 2000). The selection of our
explanatory variables was also based on empirical
findings as presented in Table II.
3. Empirical results and discussion
3.1. Results of findings
There are four household food security categories
classified by the Rasch measurement model in this
study (Table III) which many of the previous studies
(such as, Omotesho et al., 2010; Adenegan and
Adewusi, 2007; Oluyole et al., 2009) in Nigeria and
other developing countries overlooked by just classi-
fying households into FS or insecure through the use
of the notable Cost-of-calorie approach and Food
Security index approach. In Table III, only about
16% households in the study area were FS, 36%
FIWH, 28% FIWMH and 21% FIWSH. This shows
that about 84% of people in the study area are still
food insecure at very levels of food insecurity.
ð3Þ The results in Table IV are displayed as probab-
ility function. A total of 17 explanatory variables
were included in the econometric model of which 11
explanatory variables had significant influence on
household food security in the study area. The
likelihood ratio chi-square of 418.28 with a p-value
of 0.0004 suggests the fitness of the model. There
was no intercept because it was not identified
independently of the cut-points and the STATA
package sets the constant to zero and estimates the
cut points for separating the various levels of the
response variable. The pseudo R-square associated
with ordered logit model was observed as inappro-
priate measure of the predictive power of ordered
response models. Therefore, the chi-squared value
and the log-likelihood ratio criteria were used to
evaluate the effectiveness of the model in line with
Megan (2010). Also, geographical location, marital
status, gender, household size, food dietary diversity
(Fddiv), total household expenditure, level of edu-
cation, Occupation, Dependency ratio of household,
social capital, agricultural land holding had signific-
ant influence on food security status of the house-
holds (Table IV). The cut-off points shown at the
top of the output in Table IV indicate where the
latent variable is cut to make the four food security
groups.
If the latent variable Y* takes the value less than
−5.1811, the ordinal dependent variable will take the
value of 0 (FS). If it is between −5.1811 and
−1.3422, the ordinal dependent variable is 1
(FIWH). If the Y* is between −1.3422 and 1.4824,
the ordinal dependent variable will take the value of
3 (FIWMH) and if it is more than 1.4824, the
households will be FIWSH (Table IV).

Table II. Description of the variables specified in the model.
Variable acronym
Dependent variables
State of the household
(State)
Geographical
location (Gloc)
Marital status (Mstat)
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 02:53 14 May 2016
Age of household head
( Age)
Educational status (Edu)
Household size (Hhsz)
Gender (Gend)
Occupation (Occup)
Total expenditure (Texp)
Household food
expenditure share (Fes)
Dependency ratio of
household (Drh)
Social capital (Soccap)
Remittances (Rem)
Access to credit (Acrd)
Fddiv
Agricultural land
holding (Land)
Access to public health
services (Aphs)
*Rural areas are areas lacking access to some basic social and infrastructural facilities like good road network system, telecommunication
system, water, electricity and so on with primary occupation of people living in this areas as farmers. Respondents were asked to identify
their location themselves.
Households’ food security status and its determinants in the North-Central Nigeria 249
A priori
expectation
with respect
Variable meaning Types of measure to FS Source(s)
Whether household is FS, FIWH, Dummy (FS = 0, Nord (2000), Gulliford et al.
FIWMH, or FIWSH FIWH = 1, (2006), USDA (2000)
FIWMH = 2,
FIWSH = 3)
Whether respondent is from Kogi or Dummy (Kogi = ± Obamiro et al. (2003)
Kwara state 1, otherwise 0)
Whether respondent is in rural* or Dummy (rural = ± Babatunde et al. (2007),
urban area 1 not rural = 0) Ibrahim et al. (2009), Arene
and Anyaeji, (2010), Sultana
and Kiani (2011)
Whether respondent is married or not Dummy variable + Oni et al. (2011)
married (married = 1,
otherwise 0
Age of the household head - in years ± Oni et al. (2011), Sultana and
Kiani (2011)
Educational level of household head Number of years + Oni et al. (2011), Sultana and
of formal Kiani (2011)
education
Number of adults and children who Number − Oni et al. (2011), Adebayo
are resident member (2012), Shaikh (2007)
Sex of the household head Dummy (male = ± Babatunde et al. (2007),
1, otherwise = 0 Paddy (2003)
Occupation of the household head (1 Dummy (if into + Oni et al. (2011), Shiferaw
= farm 0= nonfarm) agriculture = 1, et al. (2003)
non-agriculture
= 0)
Total expenses of households on food Amount in + Gebrehiwot (2009),
and non-food items (a proxy for naira (N) Omotesho et al. (2010),
household total income) Sultana and Kiani (2011)
Proportion of household spent on food No unit because ± Hofferth (2003), Adenegan
expenditure from total households it is in ratio form and Adewusi (2007),
expenditure (food and non-food items) Olorunfemi et al. (2009)
This is the ratio of the number of non- Number − Hofferth (2003), Gebrehiwot,
working members of the household to (2009), Sultana and
total household size Kiani (2011)
Whether respondent belong to any Dummy variable + Babatunde et al. (2007),
local level institutions (member of social Bamire (2010), Sultana and
group = 1, Kiani (2011), Miller
otherwise 0) et al. (2011)
Cash received from migrant members Amount in + Babatunde et al. (2007),
of family, friends and other groups naira (N) Babatunde and
Martinetti (2010)
Privilege of getting credit for Dummy variable + Arene and Anyaeji (2010)
household food consumption (having access =
1, otherwise 0)
How often household have consumed Number + Obayelu (2009), Hoddinott
different food groups over a referenced and Yohannes 2002)
period of seven days
Size of agricultural land held by ha + Pankomera et al. (2009),
household head Bamire (2010)
Access to public health services by Dummy variable + Khan and Gill (2009),
respondents (having access = Omotesho et al. (2010)
1, otherwise 0)
 250 A. E. Obayelu

Table III. Ordered dependent variable representing household food security status.

Ordered Cut-off rate based on affirmative response to the 18 Percentage

value Food security status food security questions Frequency (%) Probability

Y = 0 FS 1–2 63 15.9 0.1591

Y = 1 FIWH 3–7 141 35.6 0.3561
Y = 2 FIWMH 8–12 111 28.0 0.2803
Y = 3 FIWSH 13–18 85 20.5 0.2146
Total households sampled 396 100.0 1.0

The estimated coefficients and standard errors ordinal levels. The following sub-section discusses
reveal which factor influence respondents food the statistical significance of the coefficients and the
security status while a significant coefficient suggests marginal effects with particular reference to the FS
that the likelihood of food security will increase/ group (Y = 0).
decrease as the response on the explanatory variable
increase/decrease (Booroah 2002).
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 02:53 14 May 2016

3.2. Discussion of findings

Table V shows that marginal effects of each
explanatory variable on the probability of food The results show that geographical location (rural =
security status. The marginal effects provide insights 1, otherwise = 0) had a significant, and negative
into how the explanatory variables shift the probab- relationship with the probability of being FS indic-
ility of household food security between the four ating that households who are in rural area, had
lower probability of being FS. Although this sound
Table IV. Results of the ordered logistic regression.
contrary to our expectation that people in rural areas
whose predominant occupation is farming are always
FS. This result is consistent with past studies such as
Number of
observation 396 Pseudo R2 0.3942 Arene and Anyaeji (2010), Ibrahim et al. (2009) who
LR chi2(17) 418.28 log-likelihood −321.42115 observed that urban households are more FS than
rural households but contrary to Sultana and Kiani
Prob> chi2 0.0004
(2011), Babatunde et al. (2007) who employed Cost
Variables Estimated β Standard P > ∣z∣
values error of Calorie (COC) function proposed by Greer and
Cut1 −5.1811 0.9885 Thorbecke (1986) to establish food security status
Cut2 −1.3422 0.9229 and logit model for its determinants and observed
Cut3 1.4824 0.9345 that rural households are more FS than urban
+
State of −0.0795 0.2595 0.759
households in Pakistan and Kwara State Nigeria,
household
+
Geographical −0.5697*** 0.2196 0.009 respectively. The results might be as a result of high
location quantity of food households consume in rural areas
+
Marital status −0.4840* 0.2518 0.055 rather than the quality. Households’ educational
Age of 0.0187 0.0124 0.133 status was significant (p < 0.1) and had a positive
household head
relationship with food security in line with our a
Educational status 0.0000158* 8.74e-06 0.070
Household size −0.4213*** 0.0641 0.000 priori expectation. This implied that increasing
+
Gender 1.8960*** 0.3845 0.000 education level is associated with an increasing
+
Occupation 1.3474*** 0.3201 0.000 probability of being FS (Table IV). The coefficient
Total expenditure 0.8672*** 0.2286 0.000 of the gender of the household head was also positive
Food expenditure 0.1511 0.4275 0.724
and significant at p < 0.01. This shows that respon-
share
Dependency ratio 1.4673*** 0.5173 0.005 dents who are male in the study area had higher
of household probability of being FS. This was in line with several
+
Social capital 0.3488*** 0.0952 0.000 other studies such as Oluyole et al. (2009), Omo-
Remittances 0.0000165 0.0000396 0.677 nona and Agoi (2007) used a household-based
+
Access to credit 0.0903 0.1568 0.564
survey, COC and logit model to both classify cocoa
Fddiv 1.8271*** 0.2831 0.000
Agricultural land 1.0660*** 0.2320 0.000 farming and urban households to food security status
holdings and factor influencing them respectively. This how-
Access to public −0.1859 0.3790 0.624 ever is in contrast to Paddy (2003) who observed
health services that female-headed households are more FS than the
(+) represent dummy variable (0 or 1). ***Significance at 1% male-headed. The coefficients of occupation and
level, **Significance at 5% level, *Significance at 10% level. social capital were positive and significant at p <
 Households’ food security status and its determinants in the North-Central Nigeria 251

Table V. Results of the marginal effects on probability.

Marginal Standard Marginal Standard Marginal Standard Marginal Standard

Variables (Xs) effect (Y0) error effect (Y1) error effect (Y2) error effect (Y3) error
+
State of −0.002096* 0.00699 −0.017457 0.05665 0.016219* 0.05295 0.003335* 0.0107
household
+
Geographical −0.015238** 0.00679 −0.123879*** 0.04721 0.11508*** 0.04427 0.024040** 0.00999
location
+
Marital status −0.012847 0.00731 −0.105642* 0.05441 0.098029 0.05086 0.020461 0.01102
Age of 0.0004843 0.00033 0.0041357 0.00276 −0.003819 0.00256 −0.000801 0.00055
household
head
Educational 4.09e − 07* 0.00000 3.50e − 06* 0.00000 −3.23e − 06* 0.00000 −6.77e − 07* 0.00000
status
Household size −0.010888*** 0.00273 0.092973*** 0.0153 0.085862*** 0.01475 0.017998*** 0.00383
+
Gender 0.1032013*** 0.03907 0.267870*** 0.03467 −0.323363*** 0.04941 −0.047708*** 0.01032
+
Occupation 0.0525163*** 0.019 0.246130*** 0.04605 −0.255527*** 0.0534 −0.043119*** 0.01054
Total 0.0238758*** 0.00812 0.185742*** 0.04805 −0.173038*** 0.04541 −0.036580*** 0.01127
expenditure
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 02:53 14 May 2016

Food 0.0039046 0.01108 0.033342 0.09437 −0.030792*** 0.08719 −0.006454 0.01827

expenditure
share
Dependency 0.0379201*** 0.0148 0.323806* 0.11577 −0.299043*** 0.10748 −0.062683*** 0.02383
ratio of
household
+
Social capital 0.0090139*** 0.003 0.076971*** 0.02144 −0.071085*** 0.01999 −0.014900**** 0.00469
Remittances 4.27e − 07 0.00000 3.65e − 06 0.00001 −3.37e − 06 0.00001 −7.06e − 07 0.00000
+
Access to 0.0023342 0.00409 0.019932 0.03461 −0.018408 0.03198 −0.003859 0.00673
credit
Food dietary 0.0482961*** 0.01237 0.377444*** 0.05418 −0.332073*** 0.04851 −0.093667*** 0.02139
diversity
Agricultural 0.026088*** 0.00752 −0.233127*** 0.05038 0.207684*** 0.04451 0 .051531*** 0.01469
land
holdings
Access to 0.0044798 0.00853 0.0416651 0.08605 −0.037633 0.07599 −0.008512 0.01861
public health
services
Pr(y = 0) 0.02655 Pr(y = 1) 0.53240 Pr(y = 2) 0.39632 Pr(y = 3) 0.04472
(predict, (predict, (predict, (predict,
outcome (0)) outcome (1)) outcome (2)) outcome (3))

(+) dy/dx (marginal effects on probability) is for discrete change of dummy variable from 0 to 1, ***Significance at 1% level, **Significance
at 5% level, *Significance at 10% level.

0.01. This implies households who are into agricul-
tural production (either primary or secondary occu-
pation) has probability of increasing their FS status
by 1.35 while those who are members of social
network groups have the probability of increasing
their food security by 0.35 while holding other
factors constant.
The results of the marginal effects in Table V
shows a unit decrease in household size is expected
to lead to 0.01 increases in the probability of being
FS. The findings agree with our a priori expectation
and previous studies carried out in recent study in
Nigeria. A unit increase in the level of education of
household head will increase the probability of
household to be FS by 4.09 when all other factors
are held constant. This is in conformity with
Babatunde et al. (2007), who also observed that the
level of education of the household heads has
significant effect on the probability of households
being FS in Kwara State, Nigeria. Larger household
sizes are associated with a negative food security
status. Larger household sizes require increase food
expenditure and competition for limited resources.
A unit increase in household size will decrease the
probability of being FS by 0.011. This is also in line
with other previous findings such as Babatunde
et al. (2007).
Furthermore, by one unit increase in total house-
hold expenditure (proxy of total household expend-
iture), we expect 0.02 increase in the probability of
being in FS with other factors held constant. This is
expected because, increased in income all things
being equal will results to increase access to food.
The result is also consistent with Kuwornu et al.
 252 A. E. Obayelu

(2013), Arene and Anyaeji (2010), Babatunde et al. 4.2. Policy recommendations
(2007), Adenegan and Adewusi (2007) who
There are several implications of our findings. We
employed COC intake to classified their respondents
considered some of these by individually looking at
into food security status and logit models to deter-
each factor that has shown significant influence on
mined factors affecting the status with a positive and
household food security.
significant relationship between household income
The effect of geographical location captured by a
and food security. For household dependency ratio,
dummy (rural 1, otherwise 0) on household food
a one unit increase in households’ dependency ratio,
security status shows that there may not be uniform
is expected to lead to a 0.04 increase in the
factors affecting household food security across rural
probability of being in an FS, given that all other
and urban areas. So, there is need to put into
variables in the model are held constant. This
consideration the geographical location of house-
finding is contrary to our a priori expectation of a
holds while planning and designing policies for food
decrease in the probability of being in FS as increase
security.
in the number of non-working member of household
The study has provided evidence that gender of
or dependency ratio is expected to increase the food
head of a household play a key role in determining
insecurity level of household (Ojogho, 2010). A unit
food security status of households. Thus, gender-
increase in membership of social network (social
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 02:53 14 May 2016

sensitive food insecurity alleviation policies that

capital) is expected to increase the probability of
being FS by 0.009 in the study area. This findings is
consistent with Oni et al. (2011) who observed that a
unit increase in social capital (p < 0.01) increases the
probability of household in Ogun State, Nigeria to
be FS by 0.0991. A unit increase in household
diversity foods intake (Fddiv) is expected to lead to
0.05 increases in the probability of being in an FS
group, given that all other variables in the model are
held constant. This is in accordance to our a priori
expectation. In addition, a unit increases in the size
of agricultural land held by household head increase
the probability of being FS by 0.026. This result is
also in line with our a priori expectation and
Pankomera et al. (2009) and Bamire (2010 who
observed that increase in the land holdings size of
farm households in the dry Savannas of Nigeria
improves probability of a household being FS by
0.07 units.
4. Conclusion and recommendations
4.1. Conclusion
Results of the assessment of households’ food
security status in the NCN, revealed that 16% of
households were FS, 36% FIWH, 28% FIWMH
and 21% FIWSH. Household size, gender of
household head, geographical location, occupation
of household head, total expenditure, household
dependency ratio, social capital, agricultural land-
holding size of the household head and Fddiv are
important determinants of household food security
status that have to be taken into consideration by
governments and development agencies wishing to
promote the food security status of households in
the study area.
enhance endowments of female-headed households
should be a key ingredient of food insecurity reduc-
tion strategy.
Land-holding size was also found as one of the
significant factors in ensuring food security to the
households. Household head with greater farm land
size showed better food security status than the less
endowed households. It is therefore very important
for the government to reform the land use act in the
country so as to make agricultural land available to
people in attempt at solving the problem of food
insecurity in the country.
To transit from food insecure to FS class as
revealed by the other significant variables in this
study, birth control through enlightenment pro-
gramme on number of children that household
head can cater for, participation in agricultural
production, increase in diversity of food intakes,
membership of social network ( social capital)
become very imperative.
References
Abuelhaj, T. (2007) Methodological concerns in the measurement
of undernourishment, dietary diversity and household food
insecurity. Accessed 1 October 2008, available at: http://km.
fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/fsn/docs/fao_tareq.pdf
Adebayo, O. O. (2012) Effects of family size on household food
security in Osun State, Nigeria. Asian Journal of Agriculture
and Rural Development, 2(2), 136–141.
Adenegan, K. O. & Adewusi, A. O. (2007) Determinants of food
security status of rural households living with HIV/AIDS in
Southwestern Nigeria. African Journal of Biomedical Research,
10(1), 9–18.
Adeoti, A. I. & Egwudike, O. I. (2003) Determinants of house-
hold food security among urban farmers. ASSET - Series A, 3
(3), 99–105.
Amaza, P. S., Umeh, J.C., Helsen, J. & Adejobi, A. O. (2006)
Determinants and measurement of food insecurity in
Nigeria: Some empirical policy guide. Paper presented at
 Households’ food security status and its determinants in the North-Central Nigeria
International Association of Agricultural Economists Annual
Meeting, Queensland, Australia, August 12–18, pp. 15
Arene, C. J. & Anyaeji, R. C. (2010) Determinants of food
security among households in Nsukka Metropolis of Enugu
State, Nigeria. Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences (PJSS), 30
(1), 9–16.
Ayalew, M. (1997) What is food security and famine and hunger?
Internet Journal of African Studies, 2, P.4.
Babatunde, R. O. & Martinetti, E. C. (2010) Impact of remit-
tances on food security and nutrition in rural Nigeria. A
paper prepared and presented at Department of Public
Economics, Centre for International Cooperation and Devel-
opment University of Pavia, March, 2010, Italy.
Babatunde, R. O., Omotesho, O. A. & Sholotan, O. S. (2007)
Socio-economics characteristics and food security status of
farming households in Kwara State, North-Central Nigeria.
Pakistan Journal of Nutrition, 6(1), 49–58. doi:10.3923/
pjn.2007.49.58
Bamire, A. S. (2010) Effects of tenure and land use factors on
food security among rural households in the dry Savannas of
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 02:53 14 May 2016
Nigeria. African Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and
Development, 10(1), 1981–2000. doi:10.4314/ajfand.
v10i1.51470
Bickel, G., Nord, M., Price, C., Hamilton, W. & Cook, J. (2000)
Guide to Measuring Household Food Security. Revised 2000
(Alexandria, VA: US Department of Agric, Food and
Nutrition Service).
Booroah, V. K. (2002) Logit and probit: Ordered and multinomial
models. Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences Series
No. 138 (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications).
Boudreau, T. (1999) The food economy approach: A framework for
understanding rural livelihoods. Relief and rehabilitation net-
work paper no. 26 (London: Overseas Development
Institute),.
Charlton, S. (2001) Low-income housing in South Africa: Practice &
policy reflections on the work of metro housing, Durban Metro-
politan Council, 1997–2000. Unpublished report, Metro
Housing Unit, eThekwini Municipality, Durban.
Deitchler, M., Ballard, T., Swindale, A. & Coates, J. (2010)
Validation of a Measure of Household Hunger for Cross-Cultural
Use (Washington, DC: Food and Nutrition Technical
Assistance II Project (FANTA-2), AED, 2010).
Devereux, S. (2006) Distinguishing between Chronic and Transitory
Food Insecurity in Emergency Needs Assessments (Rome:
SENAC, WFP).
Etim, N. A. & Solomon, V. A. (2010) Determinants of rural
poverty among broiler farmers in Uyo, Nigeria: Implications
for rural household food security. Journal of Agriculture and
Social Sciences, 6(1), 24–28.
Fakayode, S. B., Rahji, M. A. Y., Oni, O. A. & Adeyemi, M. O.
(2009) An assessment of food security situations of farm
households in Nigeria: A USDA Approach. The Social
Sciences, 4 (1), 24–29.
Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources (2008)
National Food Security Programme, May 2008.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)
(1996) Rome Declaration on World Food Security and
World Food Summit Plan of Action. Accessed 3 January
2012, available at: http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/003/
W3613E/W3613E00.HTM
Gebrehiwot, T. (2009) Determinants of food security in rural house-
holds of the Tigray. Unpublished MSc. in Applied Statistics,
Thesis submitted to School of Graduate Studies of Addis
Ababa University, June 2009.
Greene, W. H. (2000) Models with discrete dependent variables.
Econometric Analysis, vol. 4 (NJ: Prentice-Hall), pp. 499–521.
253
Greer, J. & Thorbecke, E. (1986) A methodology for measuring
food poverty. Applied at Kenya. Journal of Development
Economics, 24, 59–74. doi:10.1016/0304-3878(86)90144-6
Gulliford, M. C., Nunes, C. & Rocke, B. (2006) The 18
Household Food Security Survey Items Provide Valid Food
Security Classifications for Adults and Children in the
Caribbean. BMC Public Health, 6, 26. doi:10.1186/1471-
2458-6-26
Hamilton, W. L., Cook, J., Thompson, W. W., Buron, L. F.,
Frongillo, E. A., Olson, C. M. & Wehler, C. A. (1997)
Household food security in the United States in 1995. Summary
report of the food security measurement project. United
States Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC.
Hoddinott, J. (1999) Operationalizing Household Food Security in
Development Projects: An Introduction. Technical Guide 1.
Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Insti-
tute (IFPRI).
Hoddinott, J. & Yohannes, Y. (2002) Dietary diversity as a food
security indicator. Food Consumption and Nutrition Division
Discussion Paper No. 136. Washington, DC: International
Food Policy Research Institute.
Hofferth, S. L. (2003) Persistence and change in the food security
of families with children, 1997–1999. Department of Family
Studies, University of Maryland. Available at: http://www.
findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1309/is_3_40/ai_111027115
Ibrahim, H., Uba-Eze, N. R., Oyewole, S. O. & Onuk, E. G.
(2009) Food security among urban households: A case study
of Gwagwalada area council of the Federal Capital Territory
Abuja, Nigeria. Pakistan Journal of Nutrition, 8(6), 810–813.
doi:10.3923/pjn.2009.810.813
Idrisa, Y. L., Gwary, M. M. & Shehu, H. (2008) Analysis of food
security status among farming households In Jere Local
Government of Borno State, Nigeria. Journal of Tropical
Agriculture, Food, Environment And Extension, 7(3), 99–205
International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) (1996)
Feeding the World, Preventing Poverty and Protecting the Earth:
A 2020 VISION (Washington, DC: International Food
Policy Research Institute).
Jenson, R. T. & Miller, N. H. (2010) A revealed preference approach
to measuring hunger and under-nutrition. Working paper no.
16555, NBER Working Paper Series. Available at: http://
www.nber.org/papers/w16555.pdf
Khan, R. E & Gill, A. R. (2009) Determinants of food security in
rural areas of Pakistan. A paper presented at National
Conference on Socio-Economic Stability in Pakistan, Feb-
ruary 16–17, 2009at Sarhad University of Science and
Technology Peshawar, Pakistan.
Kuwornu, J. K. M., Suleyman, D. M. & Amegashie, D. P. K.
(2013) Analysis of food security status of farming households
in the forest belt of the Central Region of Ghana. Russian
Journal of Agricultural and Socio-Economic Sciences, 1(13),
26–42.
Mariara, J. K., Ndenge, G. K. & Kirii, D. M. (2006) Determinants
of children’s nutritional status in Kenya: Evidence from demo-
graphic and health surveys. Presented at the Conference on
Reducing Poverty and Inequality: How can Africa be
included? (Oxford: Centre for the Study of African Econom-
ies (CSAE)).
Maxwell, D. (1996) Measuring food insecurity: The frequency
and severity of “coping strategies.” Food Policy, 21(3), 291–
303. doi:10.1016/0306-9192(96)00005-X
Maxwell, D., Ahiadeke, C., Levin, C., Armar-Klemesu, M.,
Zakariah, S. & Lamptey, G. M. (1999) Alternative food
security indicators: Revisiting the frequency and severity of
coping strategies. Food Policy, 24(4), 411–429. doi:10.1016/
S0306-9192(99)00051-2
 254 A. E. Obayelu
Megan, G. (2010) Three essays on buyer power theory, dominant
HMOs and technology transfer. Unpublished PhD Dissertation
submitted to Department of Economics, Northeastern Uni-
versity. Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/2047/d20000287
Miller, C. M., Tsoka, M. & Reichert, K. (2011) The impact of the
Social Cash Transfer Scheme on food security in Malawi.
Food Policy, 36(1), 230–238. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2010.
11.020
Mundlak, Y. (2000) Agriculture and Economic Growth: Theory and
Measurement (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
National Population Commission (NPC) (2006) Population Cen-
sus of Federal Republic of Nigeria: Analytical Report.
Available at: http://www.population.gov.ng/index.php/state-
population
National Population Commission (NPC) (2012) Nigeria’s popu-
lation stands at 167 million. Nigeria Punch Newspaper, August
5. Available at: http://www.punchng.com/news/nigerias-
population-stands-at-167-million-npc/
Nord, M. (2000) Does it cost less to live in rural areas? Evidence
from New Data on Food Security and Hunger. Rural Sociology,
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 02:53 14 May 2016
65, 104–125. doi:10.1111/j.1549-0831.2000.tb00345.x
Nord, M., Andrews, M. & Carlson, S.2008. Household Food
Security in the United States, 2007. ERR-66, 2008 (Washing-
ton, DC: ERS/USDA).
Obamiro, E. O., Dopper, W. & Kormawal, P. M. (2003) Pillars of
food security in Rural Areas of Nigeria. Internet Forum of food
Africa. March 31 to April 11.
Obayelu, A. E. (2009) Households’ Food Consumption Patterns and
Food Security Status in the North-Central Nigeria. Unpublished
PhD Thesis submitted to Department of Agricultural Eco-
nomics, University of Ibadan, Oyo State, Nigeria.
Obayelu, A. E. & Obayelu, O. A. (2012) Assessment of Food
Insecurity Status and Government Interventions in Nigeria:
The Challenges and Prospects in the Next Decades. In J. M
Jibrilet al. (eds.), Proceedings of the 46th Annual Conference
“KANO 2012” Agricultural Society of Nigeria (ASN)Confer-
ence on “Agricultural Transformation in a Deregulated Eco-
nomy: Prospects and Challenges” November 5–9, at the Bayero
University, Kano, Nigeria (Nigeria: Agricultural Society of
Nigeria), pp. 48–53.
Ogundari, K. & Ojo, S. O. (2007) Economic efficiency of small
scale food crop production in Nigeria. A Stochastic Frontier
Approach. Department of Agricultural Economics and
Extension, Federal University of Technology Akure, Nigeria.
Journal of Social Science, 14(2), 123–130.
Ojogho, O. (2010) Determinants of food insecurity among Arable
Framers in Edo State, Nigeria. Agricultural Journal, 5(3),
151–156. doi:10.3923/aj.2010.151.156
Olorunfemi, S.Aderinola, E. A. & Ajibefun, A. I. (2009) Deter-
minants of household food security in Southwestern Nigeria.
International Journal of Business Research, 9(3). Available at:
http://www.questia.com/library/1G1-208535099/determinants-
of-household-food-security-in-southwestern
Oluyole, K. A., Oni, O. A., Omonoma, B. T., &Adenegan, K. O.
(2009) Food security among cocoa farming households of
Ondo State, Nigeria. Journal of Agricultural and Biological
Sciences, 4, 7–13.
Oni, O. A., Salam, K. K. & Idowu, B. O. (2011) Social capital
dimensions and food security among farming households in
Ogun State, Nigeria. Journal of American Science, 7(8),
776–783.
Omonona, B. T. & Agoi, A. G. (2007) An analysis of food security
situation among Nigerian urban households: Evidence from
Lagos State, Nigeria. Journal of Central European Agriculture,
8, 397–406.
Omotesho, O. A., Adewumi, M. O. & Fadimula, K. S. (2010)
Food security and poverty of the rural households in Kwara
State, Nigeria. Libyan Agriculture Research Center Journal
International, 1(1), 56–59.
Orewa, S. I. & Iyangbe, C. O. (2009). The food insecurity profile
among the rural and low income urban dwellers in Nigeria.
American-Eurasian Journal of Scientific Research, 4(4),
302–307.
Paddy, F. (2003) Gender differentials in land ownership and their
impact on household food security: A case study of Masaka
district. Master Thesis, Uganda. Available at: http://www.troz.
uni-hohenheim.de/research/Thesis/MScAES/Paddy.pdf
Pankomera, P., Houssou, N. & Zeller, M. (2009) Household food
security in Malawi: Measurements, determinants, and policy
review. A paper presented at the Conference on International
Research on Food Security, Natural Resource Management
and Rural Development, October 6–8, 2009, University of
Hamburg, Tropentag.
Rose, D. & Charlton, K. E. (2001) Prevalence of household food
poverty in South Africa: Results from a large, nationally
representative survey. Public Health Nutrition, 5(3), 383–389.
Ruel, M. T. (2002) Is dietary diversity an indicator of food security or
dietary quality? A review of measurement issues and research
needs. FCND Discussion Paper No. 140. Washington, DC:
IFPRI.
Sanusi, R. A., Badejo, C. A. & Yusuf, B. O. (2006) Measuring
household food insecurity in selected Local Government
Area of Lagos and Ibadan, Nigeria. Pakistan Journal of
Nutrition, 5(1), 62–67. doi:10.3923/pjn.2006.62.67
Shaikh, F. M. (2007) Determinants of Household Food Security and
Consumption Pattern in Rural Sindh: An Application of Non-
Separable Agricultural Household Model. Paper presented at
the Mediterranean conference on agro-Food Social Scien-
tists, 103 EAAE Seminar ‘Adding Values to the Agro-Food
Supply Chain in the future Euro-Mediterranean space, April
23–25, Barcelona, Spain.
Shiferaw, F., Kilmer, R. L. & Gladwin, C. (2003) Determinants of
food security in Southern Ethiopia. A selected Paper Presented
at the 2003 American Agricultural Economics Association
Meetings, May 12, 2003, in Montreal, Canada.
Sultana, A. & Kiani A. (2011) Determinants of food security at
household level in Pakistan. African Journal of Business
Management, 5(34), 12972–12979.
Tshediso, J. S. (2013). Determinants of food security status of
households receiving government grants in Kwakwatsi,
South Africa. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 4(1),
147–153.
Umeh, J. C. & Asogwa, B. C. (2012) Determinants of farm
household food expenditure: Implications for food security
in rural Nigeria. A paper presented at the International
Conference on Ecology, Agriculture and Chemical Engin-
eering, December 18–19, 2012, Phuket (Thailand), pp.
212–217.
United States Agency International Development (USAID)
(2008) United States Agency International Development.
Madagascar Food Security Development programming
Framework, From the American People, Madagascar.
United State Department of Agriculture (USDA) (2000) A Guide
to Measurement of Food Security, United State Department
of Agriculture.
Vasco, M. (2006) Food Security in Vietnam during the 1990s: The
Empirical Evidence. WIDER Research Paper No. 2006/67.
Helsinki, Finland: United Nations University (UNU)-
World Institute for Development Economics Research
(WIDER).
 Households’ food security status and its determinants in the North-Central Nigeria 255
WFP/FAO (2008) Measures of Food Consumption - Harmonizing Wolfe, W. S., Frongillo, E. A. & Valois, P. (2003) Understanding the
Methodologies. Interagency Workshop Report WFP – FAO, experience of food insecurity by elders suggests ways to improve
April 9–10, 2008, Rome. its measurement. Journal of Nutrition, 133(9), 2762–2769.
Wolfe, W. S. & Frongillo, E. A. (2000) Building household food Zoellick, R. (2008) Food crisis: How prepared is Nigeria? THIS-
security measurement tools from the ground up. Background DAY Nigeria Newspaper, April 27, 2008. p. 25.
Paper, Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance Project,
Washington, DC. USA.
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 02:53 14 May 2016
 256 A. E. Obayelu

Annexure 1. Eighteen (18) households’ food security items. Annexure 2. Logistic conditional analysis odds ratio estimates.

Number Questions 95%

Point confident
Q1 Adult cut size or skipped meals because there was not Parameter estimate level Infit
enough money for food*
Q2 Adult cut size or skipped meals three or more times in Worries whether food will run 0 0 0.8303
the last 30 days* out before buying
Q3 Adult does not eat whole day because there was no Food bought did not last and no 0.633 0.416 0.8307
enough food* money to buy new one
Q4 Adult does not eat whole day three or more times in Can not eat balanced meal 0.593 0.390 0.1658
the last 30 days* Cut/skip meals due to lack of 0.263 0.173 0.9618
Q5 Adult eat less than what they felt they should* money to buy food
Q6 Adult hungry but did not eat* Eat less than what we should 0.739 0.484 1.2696
Q7 Adult lost weight because there was not enough food* Hungry but did not eat due to 0.290 0.191 0.9756
Q8 Cut size of child’s meals** lack of food
Q9 Child skipped meal because there was not enough Lose weight due to lack of 0.189 0.124 0.9946
money for food** enough food to eat
Q10 Child skipped meal, three or more times in the last Eight not eaten for a whole day 0.093 0.060 1.0526
30 days** because of not having enough
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 02:53 14 May 2016

Q11 Child being hungry but did not eat because we could money for food
not afford more food**
Q12 Child not eating for a whole day because there was Generated from author data set.
not food**
Q13 Worried whether food would run out before getting
money to buy more*
Q14 Food bought did not last and no money to get more*
Q15 Adult could not afford to eat balanced meals*
Q16 Could not feed child with balanced meals because we
could not afford that**
Q17 Child not eating enough because we could not afford
enough food**
Q18 Adult feed child with low-cost foods because of
inability to buy food**

*Are the 10 adult-referenced food security items and **are the

child-referenced items. (Nord, 2000)