Use of Household Dietary Diversity Score (HDDS) in Measuring Food

Security Status in Bindizi Locality of Central Darfur, Sudan

Abdelmoneim Awadalla Babiker and Reem Fadul Kabbar

Department of Agricultural Extension and Rural Development.

Faculty of Agriculture, University of Khartoum. Shambat, Sudan

Corresponding auther: Abdelmoneim Awadalla Babiker

Abstract: Measuring food security status is an important issue to help decision

making, development planning and type of intervention in food-insecure areas.
This study was conducted in Bindizi locality of Central Darfur as part of the
program activities by the French Tri-angular Generation Humanitaire (TGH)
organization, acting in Central Darfur since 2004 in fields of food security and
livelihood opportunities. House –hold Dietary Diversity Score (HDDS) was
used as a guide indicator to measure house-hold food security status. It reflects
food access and availability. The main purpose of the study was to measure the
current food security status of the target population. One hundred sixty seven
respondents were selected through simple random sampling (133 males and 34
females)from villages of bindizi Shamal, Bindizi Camp, Kalambasina and
surrounding villages. The primary data were gathered through focus group
discussion(FGD) and sample survey with the aid of questionnaire. Respondents
were asked about 12 food groups they consumed in a 24 hour recall period the
day or night prior the interviewing. Data were analyzed with descriptive
analysis and the indicator HDDS for the target population. The results of the
study indicated that food security of the whole population was 69%(HDDS
greater than 4) and that of female-headed house-holds (FHH) was 56%, and
that of male-headed house-holds (MHH) was 71% indicating better food
security status among MHH than FHH. The study recommended interventions
to improve food diversity of vegetables, fruits, tubers, roots, yams, cassava,
and eggs in the area and protect staple food crops from animal attack.

INTRODUCTION

Food security has three components, namely, availability, access, and

utilization. Household food access, which is defined as the ability to acquire
sufficient quality and quantity of food to meet all household members’
nutritional requirements for productive lives, is therefore a key component of
food security. Food security also encompasses the social acceptance, example
for that is that Muslim societies do not consume pig meat. Food access is
measured in a number of ways including quantitative food consumption surveys
or income and expenditure analyses, but some of these approaches are time
consuming and require sophisticated analytical methods (Saaka and Osman
2013).Bilinsky and Swindale ( 2005) stated that
“ as a household manages its resources over the course of a year, the
ability to meet their food needs may vary due to any number of factors
such as inadequate crop production by the household due to poor soils or
lack of labor, loss or decrease in income sources such as employment,
social obligations, or natural disaster. The overall goal of food security
programs is to reduce the degree to which a household is vulnerable to
any factor that results in insufficient food or to enhance community
resilience and livelihood capacities in the face of shocks”.
Household dietary diversity score (HDDS) is a measure of the total number of
different food groups eaten in the previous 24 hours by any household member
at home, including food prepared at home but eaten outside, such as a sack
lunch (FANTA project 2006, J. Hoddinott and Y. Yisehac (2002).This measure
is a reflection both of food availability and in particular of food access, on the
premise that households consume a variety of foods when they have the means
to acquire them. According to Bilinsky and Swindale ( 2006) to better reflect
a quality diet, the number of different food groups consumed is calculated,
rather than the number of different foods consumed. Knowing that households
consume, for example, an average of four different food groups implies that
their diets offer some diversity in both macro- and micronutrients. This is a
more meaningful indicator than knowing that households consume four
different foods, which might all be cereals indicating food insecurity within the
house hold. The following set of 12 food groups is used to calculate the HDDS:
Cereals, root and tubers, vegetables, fruits, meat, poultry, offal, eggs, fish and
seafood, pulses/legumes/nuts, milk and milk products, oil/fats, sugar/honey ,
and miscellaneous.
Dietary diversity has been defined by Ruel (2003) as the number of individual
food items or food groups consumed over a given period of time and the
reference period can vary, but is most often the previous day or week (FAO
2011, WFP 2009).This measure is a reflection both of food availability and in
particular of food access, on the premise that households consume a variety of
foods when they have the means to acquire them. Bilinsky and Swindale
( 2006) Household dietary diversity - the number of different food groups
consumed over a given reference period - is an attractive proxy indicator for the
following reasons. 1st a more diversified diet is an important outcome in and of
itself. 2nd questions on dietary diversity can be asked at the household or
individual level, making it possible to examine food security at the household
and intra- household levels.3rd Obtaining these data were relatively
straightforward. According to FAO (2008)
“ the HDDS was strongly related to a socio-economic status indicator
(SES), showing that food access, increased with higher SES. The tool was
also found to identify vulnerable groups, such as women-headed
households and households in which the adult women had had no
schooling. This analysis provides evidence that HDDS can be used to
assess household access to food within a food security context and that,
given its strong association with SES, can provide valid information for
assessing food security when information on income or other household
characteristics is not available ”.

METHODOLOGY

Population and Sampling procedure:

No population data was available in the locality as a result of displacement

The sample was decided by the TGH organization.

One hundred sixty seven respondents were selected through simple random
sampling 133 males representing Male-Headed House-holds (MHH) and 34
females, representing Female-Headed House-holds (FHH) , from villages of
bindizi Shamal, Bindizi Camp and Kalambasina and other villages surrounding
Bindizi Locality namely Birgi, Geiger, Osingera, Kofinga, Mono ( Kosolow),
Kobuk, Goosier and Amargedeed.

Table showing sampling of the target Male-Headed House-holds (MHH) and

Female-Headed House-holds (FHH)

Villages MHH FHH Total

bindizi Shamal 31 25 56
Bindizi Camp 30 20 50
Kalambasina and 29 32 61
surroundings
 Total 90 77 167
Source: TGH reports (2016)

Data collection methods:

Method of the study :In this study both quantitative and qualitative methods
were used.

Primary data:

1.The questionnaire: Primary data were collected using a questionnaire, in

which respondents were asked about 12 food groups they consumed during the
day or night prior to the survey, whether consumed within the house-hold or
prepared within the house-hold and consumed outside .

2.The Focus Group (FGD): The Focus Group Discussion was another tool
used to collect the primary data. It is a support for the primary data gathered
by the questionnaire. Vhurumuku (2014) assured that
“focus groups have started to gain popularity in research relating to
different social groups and in cross-cultural and development research.
The main argument for using them in this context is their collective
nature. This may suit people who cannot articulate their thoughts easily
and provide collective power to marginalized people”.
(Hennink 2007) added that methodologically, focus group interviews involve a
group of 6–8 people who come from similar social and cultural backgrounds or
who have similar experiences or concerns. They gather together to discuss a
specific issue, food groups consumed in this context, with the help of a
moderator in a particular setting, where participants feel comfortable enough to
engage in a dynamic discussion for one or two hours. As a qualitative method,
focus groups do not aim to reach consensus on the discussed issues, rather,
focus groups ‘encourage a range of responses which provide a greater
understanding of the attitudes, behavior, opinions or perceptions of participants
on the research issues’.
Secondary Data: the secondary data were gathered from relevant sources and
the internet.
Data analysis:
Each food security indicator has its own analytical technique, in this study
calculation and setting targets of HDDS were clarified below.

Calculations and setting targets of HDDS:

One option for the calculation of HDDS is established by Faber (2009) where
Households were grouped according to the DDS, using four as the critical value.
Steyn et al. (2006) identified a DDS of four as the critical value below which a
diet of poor nutritional adequacy is indicated .
On the other hand it was indicated that In the absence of income or economic
data from the baseline survey, a HDDS target can be established by taking the
average diversity of the 33 percent of households with the highest diversity
(upper tercile of diversity) (Bilinsky and Swindale 2006). The first option is
used in this study , where HDDS of 4 was considered as cut-off point to
categorize the target population of the study into food-secure and food-insecure
groups .
Kennedy et al (2013) It is also useful to focus on individual food groups of
interest in addition to using the information as a score. For example, the
proportion of households or individuals consuming fruits and vegetables can be
calculated. Information on consumption of individual food groups can also be
used to investigate dietary patterns.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

As shown in table 1, food groups were consumed by the local population in

varying percentages. 99.4 were consuming group A. as it was the main staple
crop and 100% were consuming tea and coffee (group L.) and Eggs (group F)
indicating the predominance of poultry in the area. 64.1% consumed group J
fat , oil, and butter as the area was famous for livestock production , 79% were
consuming sugar and honey reflecting the fact of available bee-keeping in the
area. The results showed an urgent need to improve fruit and vegetable
production as they appeared in low percentages.
Whereas the results in table 2, shows the distribution of HDDS (ranging 1 - 9)
gained by different house-holds where 10.2% of house-holds recorded score 6,
21% recorded score 4 and 5, 12.5% attained score 3, , 10.8% of house-holds
attained score 1, the scores (1 - 9) represent the number of food groups
consumed by the household. Based on these results, the % of food security was
found to be 69%, Whereas the % of food insecurity was found to be 31%
within the total households.
Table1.Distribution of households according to consumption of major food
groups

Food group Frequency %

A. Kisra, Cereals,bread,biscuit 166 99.4
B. Tubers, roots, yams, cassava 2 1.2
C. Any vegetable 29 17.4
D. Any fruit 6 3.6
E. Meat ,meat-made food 71 42.5
F. Any eggs 167 100
G. Fish or dried fish 42 25.1
H. Beans,pulses,lentil, nuts 31 18.6
I. Milk and milk products 28 16.8
J. Fat,oil, butter 107 64.1
K. Sugar, honey 132 79
L. Coffee, tea, condiments 167 100

Table 2.Distribution of house-holds (whole) by frequencies and percentages of

dietary diversity scores

HDDS F of HH %
1 18 10.8
2 12 7.2
3 21 12.6
4 35 21
5 35 21
6 17 10.2
7 20 12
8 7 4.2
9 2 1.2
167
Key:

HDDS: Household Dietary Diversity Score. Holds.

F of HH: Frequency of Household.

Comparison of Male and Female respondents:

The results of table 3, display the comparison between male and female
populations for the food groups' consumption scores. Male scores exceed
female scores in nearly all food groups. This was attributed to the fact that
females were heading their households due to absence or death of the spouse.
To surprise, groups B (Tubers, roots, yams, cassava), C(vegetables), D(fruits)
and F(eggs) were zero consumed by female-headed households, which might be
caused by the many interrelating determinants (Meggetto 2012) influencing a
community or individuals food security. Such as transport, financial situation,
low socioeconomic community, lack of availability, lack of knowledge and
skills and low density of supermarkets selling affordable fresh fruit and
vegetables.

Table3. Distribution of male and female respondents according to consumption

of major food groups

Male Female
Food group F(%) F(%)
A.Kisra, Cereals, bread, biscuit 132(99.2) 34(100 )
B. Tubers, roots, yams, cassava 3(2.3) 0(0)
C. Any vegetable 28(21.1) 0(0)
D. Any fruit 5(3.8) 0(0)
E. Meat ,meat-made food 58(43.6) 13(38.2 )
F. Any eggs 133(100) 0(0)
G. Fish or dried fish 38(28.6) 4(11.8)
H. Beans, pulses, lentil, nuts 26(19.5) 5(14.7)
I. Milk and milk products 23(17.3) 5(14.7)
J. Fat, oil, butter 89(66.9) 18(52.9)
K. Sugar, honey 107(80.5) 25(73.5)
L. Coffee, tea, condiments 102(76.7) 26(76.5)

The results from table 4, shows the distribution of HDDS among MHH and
FHH that the male population recorded HDDS of 8 and 9 and the maximum
HDDS for females was 7 ,
These comparison results were summarized in table 5, where food security was
predominant among male-headed households (71%) than female-headed house-
holds (56%), Although women direct almost much of their income to the
welfare of their house-hold members. García, (2012) stated that Women
cultivate, look after the livestock, select and prepare the food. What is more,
any income they may obtain from selling surplus goods is invested back into the
family in the form of food, education or health care.

Table 4.Distribution of male and female house-holds by HDDS scores

Male Male Female Female

HDDS F (%) HDDS F (%)
1 13 (9.8) 1 5 (14.7)
2 10 (7.5) 2 2 (5.9)
3 15 (11) 3 6 (17.6)
4 28(21.1) 4 7 (20.6)
5 26 (19.5) 5 8 (23.5)
6 16 (12) 6 1 (2.9)
7 16 (12) 7 4 (11.8)
8 7 (5.3)
9 2 (1.5)
Total

Table 5.Comparison of food security status between MHH and FHH

Categories DDS ≤ 4( Food insecure) DDs > 4(Food secure)

Total households (167) 86 51% 81 49%
Male-headed (133) 66 50% 67 34%
Female-headed (34) 20 59 14 41%
Key:
MHH: Male House-hold.
FHH: Female House-hold.

Conclusion

This research, to my knowledge, is a pioneering work in using HDDS for

measuring food security status in Sudan in general and in Darfur State in
particular. Many literature sources insisted that HDDS was , and still, an
effective tool to reflect food security situation for the purpose of effective
planning and wise decisions. Based on the calculations and setting targets of
the HDDS used in this study the % of food security was found to be 69%,
within the total households. and the % of food security among male-headed
households (71%) exceeded that of female-headed households (56%).
 The study recommended diversification of tools for measuring food security
and improving the production of vegetables, fruits, tubers, roots, yams,
cassava, and eggs which were zero consumed by female-headed households
within the target community , or appeared in low percentages in the results.

AKNOLEDGEMENT

The authors are grateful to the French Tri-angular Generation Humanitaire

(TGH) organization on giving chance for us as national consultants (Me and
Babiker M. Elmanna) and to use the data for conducting this paper . Finally, this
paper is also the result of the considerable input of the our colleagues from
different universities.

REFERENCES

Bilinsky P. and Swindale A. ( 2005) Months of Inadequate Household Food

Provisioning (MIHFP) for Measurement of Household Food Access:
Indicator Guide . Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance Project
(FANTA). Academy for Educational Development.

Faber M. (2009) Dietary diversity in relation to other household food security

indicators. Int. J. Food Safety, Nutrition and Public Health, Vol. 2,
No. 1, 2009 Nutritional Intervention Research Unit, Medical Research
Council.
FANTA Project, (2006) “Household Dietary Diversity Score (HDDS) for
Measurement of Household Food Access: Indicator Guide,” Version
2
FAO (2008) Report on use of household food insecurity access scale and
household dietary diversity score in two survey rounds in Manica and
Sofala Provinces, Mozambique 2006/2007. Version 2
FAO,( 2011) Guidelines for Measuring Household and Individual Dietary
Diversity, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations,
Rome, Italy.

García, M. M. (2012) The role of women in food security. FAO’s Gender,

Equity and Rural Employment Division
Hennink, M.M. (2007). International focus group research: A handbook for the
health and social sciences. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

Hoddinott, J. and Y. Yisehac, J. (2002.) “Dietary diversity as a food security

indicator,” FCND Discussion Paper No 136, International Food
Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC, USA,

Kennedy, G., Ballard, T. and Dop, M. (2013) Guidelines for measuring

household and individual dietary diversity. Nutrition and Consumer
Protection Division, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nation.

Meggetto , L. ( 2012) Food Security Recommendations Report. Central West

Gippsland primary care partnership.

Ruel, M.T. (2003). “Operationalizing dietary diversity: a review of

measurement issues and research priorities, In: “ Journal of
Nutrition”, 133, (11), pages 3911–3926.

Saaka, M. and Osman, S. M. (2013)Does Household Food Insecurity Affect

the Nutritional Status of Preschool Children Aged 6–36 Months?
School of Medicine and Health Sciences, University for Development
Studies, P.O. Box 1883, Tamale, Ghana. Hindawi Publishing
Corporation. “International Journal of Population Research”
Volume 2013, Article ID 304169, 12 pages

Steyn, N.P., Nel, J.H., Nantel, G., Kennedy, G. and Labadarios, D. (2006)
‘Food variety and dietary diversity scores in children: are they good
indicators of dietary adequacy?’.In: “Public Health Nutrition“, Vol.
9, pp.644–650.

Swendale, A. and Paula B.( 2006)Household Dietary Diversity Score (HDDS)

for Measurement of Household Food Access: Indicator Guide. (v.2).
Washington, D.C.: FHI 360/FANTA.
Vhurumuku, E. (2014) Food security indicators. Integrating Nutrition and
Food Security Programming for Emergency response workshop. WFP
East and Central Africa Bureau, Nairobi.
World Food Program (WFP) (2009), Comprehensive Food Security&
Vulnerability Analysis Guidelines, United Nations World Food
Program, Rome, Italy,.

‫إستخدام معيار التنوع الغذائي لقياس األمن الغذائي األسري‬

‫ السودان‬، ‫بمحلية بنديزي بوسط دارفور‬
 ‫د‪ .‬عبدالمنعم عوض هللا بابكر‬
‫د‪ .‬ريم فضل كبار‬
‫جامعة الخرطوم ‪ -‬كلية الزراعة ‪ -‬قسم اإلرشاد الزراعي والتنمية الريفية‬

‫موجز البحث ‪:‬قياس حالة األمن الغ‪T‬ذائي من المواض‪TT‬يع الهام‪T‬ة ال‪T‬تي تس‪T‬اعد علي عملي‪T‬ة ص‪TT‬نع الق‪T‬رارات‬
‫والتخطيط التنموي إضافًة إليضاح نوع التدخل المناسب في المناطق التي تعاني ش‪T‬حًا في الغ‪T‬ذاء‪ .‬أج‪T‬ريت‬
‫هذه الدراسة في محلية بنديزي بوسط دارفور ‪ ،‬كجزء من أنشطة برامج منظم‪TT‬ة المثلث اإلنس‪TT‬انية فرنس‪TT‬ية‬
‫األصل التي تعمل في تلك المنطقة منذ العام ‪2004‬م في حقل األمن الغذائي وتوفير سبل كس‪TT‬ب العيش ‪ .‬تم‬
‫استخدام معيار التنوع الغذائي لقياس حال‪TT‬ة األمن الغ‪TT‬ذائي األس‪TT‬ري وال‪TT‬ذي يعكس إمكاني‪TT‬ة الحص‪TT‬ول علي‬
‫الغذاء ووفرته‪ .‬الهدف األساسي من هذه الدراسة هو قياس الوضع الراهن لحالة األمن الغ‪TT‬ذائي للمجتم‪TT‬ع‬
‫المس‪TT‬تهدف‪.‬تم اختي‪TT‬ار ‪ 167‬مبحوث ‪ًT‬ا عن طري‪TT‬ق العين‪TT‬ة العش‪TT‬وائية البس‪TT‬يطة (‪ 133‬من الرج‪TT‬ال و ‪ 34‬من‬
‫النساء) من قري بنديز شمال وبنديز المعسكر وكالمباسينا والقري المحيطة‪.‬‬
‫تم جمع البيانات األولية عبر نقاش المجموعات والمسح العيني بمس‪TT‬اعدة اس‪TT‬تمارات اإلس‪TT‬تبيان ‪ .‬تم س‪TT‬ؤال‬
‫المستهدفين عن ‪ 12‬مجموعة غذائية تم استهالكها في اليوم أو الليلة السابقة إلجراء المقابل‪T‬ة الشخص‪T‬ية‪ .‬تم‬
‫تحليل البيانات باستخدام اإلحصاء الوصفي وحساب معي‪TT‬ار التن‪TT‬وع الغ‪TT‬ذائي‪ .‬أوض‪TT‬حت نت‪TT‬ائج الدراس‪TT‬ة أن‬
‫نس‪TT‬بة األمن الغ‪TT‬ذائي لمجتم‪TT‬ع الدراس‪TT‬ة ‪( %69‬معب‪TT‬ار التن‪TT‬وع الغ‪TT‬ذائي أك‪TT‬بر من ‪ ،)4‬كم‪TT‬ا أن نس‪TT‬بة األمن‬
‫الغذائي للمنازل التي تتمتع بوجود الرجل (‪ )%71‬تفوق نسبة األمن الغذائي للمنازل ال‪TT‬تي تقوده‪TT‬ا النس‪TT‬اء‬
‫(‪)%56‬‬
‫أوص‪TT‬ت الدراس‪TT‬ة بت‪TT‬دخالت من أج‪TT‬ل تحس‪TT‬ين التن‪TT‬وع الغ‪TT‬ذائي لمحاص‪TT‬يل الخض‪TT‬ر والفاكه‪TT‬ة وال‪TT‬درنيات‬
‫والج‪TT‬ذريات والي‪TT‬ام والكس‪TT‬افا وال‪TT‬بيض بالمنطق‪TT‬ة ‪ ،‬إض‪TT‬افًة لحماي‪TT‬ة محاص‪TT‬يل الغ‪TT‬ذاء الرئيس‪TT‬ة من تغ‪TT‬ول‬
‫الحيوان‪.‬‬