Adama Science and Technology University

ADAMA SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF HUMANITIES AND LAW DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES

FOOD SECURITY STATUS OF RURAL HOUSEHOLDS FOOD SECURITYIN GIMBI STATUS WOREDA, AND WESTERN COPING STRATEGIES ETHIOPIA AMONG RURAL HOUSEHOLDS IN GIMBI WOREDA, WESTERN ETHIOPIA

BY: WAKSHUMA TAYE BY:

WAKSHUMA TAYE A THESIS SUBMITTED TO DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTERS OF ARTS IN GEOGRAPHY AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES

AUGUST, 2017 AUGUST, 2017 ADAMA, ETHIOPIA ADAMA, ETHIOPIA

ADAMA SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF HUMANITIES AND LAW

DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES

FOOD SECURITY STATUS AND COPING STRATEGIES AMONG

RURAL HOUSEHOLDS IN GIMBI WOREDA, WESTERN ETHIOPIA

BY:

WAKSHUMA TAYE

ADVISOR:

MESSAY MULUGETA (PH.D)

A THESIS SUBMITTED TO DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY AND

ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE

REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTERS OF ARTS IN GEOGRAPHY AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES

AUGUST 2017

ADAMA, ETHIOPIA

ADAMA SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF HUMANITIES AND LAW DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES

As thesis advisor, I hereby certify that I have read and evaluated this thesis prepared under my guidance, by Wakshuma Taye Mako entitled “Food Security Status and Coping strategies Among Rural Households in Gimbi Woreda, Western Ethiopia.” Therefore, I recommend that it is accepted and submitted as fulfilling the MA thesis requirement. Advisor signature Date Messay Mulgeta (Ph. D) ______As members of the Board of Examiners of the Thesis Open Defense Examination, we certify that we have read and evaluated the MA thesis prepared by Wakshuma Taye Mako and examined the candidate.

We recommend that the thesis be accepted as fulfilling thesis requirement for the MA degree.

______Chairperson Signature Date ______Internal Examiner Signature Date ______External Examiner Signature Date

A thesis rated as______

Acknowledgements

In writing this master thesis, I have received enormous support and guidance and this is the opportunity to say thank you. Above all, I would like to thank the Almighty God for giving me the wisdom, strength and the inspiration to carry on day after day to pass all during the study periods of my thesis work. My heartfelt appreciation goes to my adviser Dr. Messay Mulgeta who gives me valuable direction, contribution, assistance and constructive comments.

The thesis work was only possible through the guidance and financial support. So my special thanks go Adama Scince and Technology University (ASTU), Department of Geography and Environmental Studies for their guidance and financial supports as well as the collaboration of the good work of the 6 enumerators from the three kebeles of Gimbi Woreda.

I can not forget to say a big thank you to workers of Ethiopian Evangelical Church of Mekana Yasus Gimbi Jorgo Synodos , Debeso branch clink and my honorable supporters and facilitators especially Ato Desta Guma, Ato Tamiru Igazu , Ato Fikadu Bula, Ato Sabir Adam, Mr. Markos Abdisa and Mr. Marga Kebede for their assistance, social and materials support. I am also thankful to all 2017 Master of Geography and Environmental Studies Students at Adama Science and Technology University (ASTU).

A special thank you goes to my father; Ato Taye Meko and my mother; Desatu Kitila my brothers; Dereje Taye, Sirika Taye and Bikila Taye for their moral suport, financial support and wonderful contributions for being there for me always. The moral and financial support of my wife, Fayise Fufa and my twins’ children Elsay Wakshuma and Elsabet Wakshuma, who devoted their energies and struggle for me to reach this level, will always be remembered.

Last but not least, I would like to extend my appreciation to my relatives for their unreserved cooperation during the study periods and during all ups and downs of my private life, my special thanks goes to Ato Fufa Tujuba, Turunesh Bayana, Alamayo Fufa, Tadase Fufa and Abiram Etana.i

DECLARATION I, the undersigned, declare that this thesis is my original work and that all sources of materials used for this thesis have been duly acknowledged. I solemnly declare that this thesis is not submitted to any other institution anywhere for the award of any other academic degree. Brief quotations from this thesis are allowable without special permission provided that accurate acknowledgment of source is made.

Name: Wakshuma Taye Meko. Signature ______Place :Adama Science and Technology University. Date ______

DEDICATION

To My Much-Loved Twins’ Children, Elsay Wakshuma and Elsabet Wakshuma

This thesis is dedicated for them. I declare you that you are the heart of my love. All along, you have been a personal source of encouragement and motivation in bringing this work to a successful completion. I hope, you remember that, the challenges I faced during my study and the way I managed to these challenge will set a good example for you. Almighty God helps you to follow me from my baseline.

Name:Wakshuma Taye Meko. Signiture:______Place :Adama Science and Technology University. Date of submission:______

iii

Table of Content Contents Page Acknowledgement………………………………………………………………………………..…...…...i Declaration...... ii Dedication………………………………………………………………………………………...... iii Table of Contents……………………………………………………………………………………...... iv List of Tables……………………………………………………………………………….....………....vii List of Figures………………………………………………………………………………………..….viii List of Appendices………………………………………………………………………...... ix Acronyms…………………………………………………………………….....…………..…...... x Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………………..….....xi CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION..……………..…………….………………………....……...... 1 1.1. Background of the Study………...……………………………………………..……………...... 1 1.2. Statement of the Problem…...………………………………..………………...... 3 1.3. Objectives of the Study……...... …………….………………...…..……………………..…………...4 1.3.1. General Objective….……..…………………..……...……………………….……...... 4 1.3.2. Specific Objectives……………..…...……...………………………………..…….…...... 4 1.4. Research Questions…………….……………………………………………… ………...... 5 1.5. Scope of the Study ………….…………..……………………………………………………………5 1.6. Significance of the Study…...…………..…………...……………...…………………...…...... ….6 1.7. Limitations of the Study…………………..…………………………………………..………...... 6 1.8. Organization of the Study …………………….....……………………………………..………….....7 CHAPTER TWO: RELATED LITERATURE REVIEW ………………………….……….…...... 8 2.1. Basic Concepts and Definition………..………..……..………….....…...…………...... 8 2.1.1. Theoretical Frameworks …….………………...…....….…...……….…….....…………....10 2.1.2. Food security measurement…………….………………….……………...…….……...... 11 2.1.3. Major causes of food security/insecurity status in Ethiopia…….…….…...…………...... 12 2.1.4. Policies and Strategies Related to Food Security/Insecurity in Ethiopia……….….…...... 15 2.1.5. Farm households’ Food Insecurity Coping Mechanisms in Ethiopia…...... ………...... 15 2.2. Empirical Literature Review………….……………………...………….…..…….………..…...... 16 2.2.1. Household Food Security Status in Other Countries….....…...……...... ……...…..…..….16

2.2.2. Previous Studies ……………...…………...... ……..………….…...….…...... 17 2.3. Research Gap……………...……………………………………………………………...…………19 2.4. Analytical Framework……...…..…...... ………….………...……..…..………...………...... 21 CHAPTER THREE: DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA, THE RESEARCH METHODS AND MATERIALS ……...……………………………………….23 3.1. Description of the Study Area…………………………………………………………..…....….…...23 3.1.1. Location and Physical Background of the Study Are……………………….……...... …..23 3.1.2. Demographic and Socioeconomic Condition of the Study Area.……….……….…...…...... 26 3.2. Research Methods and Materials…………...………………..……….………………....………...... 28 3.2.1. Research Design ….…….…..……...…..….………………………..……………...... …...... 28 3.2.2. Study Population ………………...…..………………….……..……………...…..…...….....28 3.2.3. Sampling Procedure……..………………………..……………………………...... ……...... 28 3.2.4. Data Types and Sources….…..…...….....……….…...... ….……...…….………...... 30 3.2.5. Data Collection Methods……...….…….…...... ……….……….....………..…..…….…...…30 3.2.6. Data Analysis Techniques ………....…...…...... ……….……...………………...... 32 3.2.7. Variables and Analytical Methods……..……...... ….………………………....…...... 32 3.2.8. Validity and Reliability Measures………...………….…..……….……….….………...... 38 3.2.9. Ethical Considerations ………………...………………...….…………….….....…...... 38 CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION…...……………………………………...….…..40 4.1. Measuring the Food Security Status of the Households’ in the Gimbi Woreda …………….…...….40 4.2. Distribution of Households’ Food Security Status by Expenditure Range Per AE in 2016/17.….….43 4.3. Demographic Characteristics of the Sampled Households’…………...…………..……………...... 44 4.3.1. Percentage Distribution of Households’ Food Security Status by Sex…….……...…...... …..44 4.3.2. Percentage Distribution of Households’ Food Security Status by Age………..…....….…….45 4.3.3. Percentage Distribution of Households’ Food Security Status by Family Size….…....…...... 46 4.3.4. Distribution of Households’ Food Security Status by Educational Level ………….……...... 47 4.4. Analysis of Socio Economic Characteristics of the Sampled Households’…………...….……….…48 4.4.1. Percentage Distribution Of Households’ Food Security Status by Farm Land Size …...... 49 4.4.2. Households’ Food Security Status by Yearly Income From Off-Farm/Non-Farm Activities……………………………………………………...... 50 4.4.3. Distribution Households’ Food Security Status by Farm Oxen Ownership …….……...... 51

4.4.4. Percentage Distribution of Households’ Security Status by in the Full Application of Modern Farm Inputs...... 52 4.4.5. Distribution of Households’ Food Security Status by Major Crop Production...... 54 4.4.6. Distribution of Households’ Food Security Status by Main Sources of Food…….....……....56 4.4.7. Distribution of Household Heads by Main Sources of Income………………...... …….….....56 4.4.8. Households’ Food Security Status by Frequency of Meals……...…….…...…...…….…...... 57 4.5. Factors Influencing the Food Security Status of Households………..….……..……………….....…59 4.6. Summary of Explanatory Variables……….….….…….……………………….………………...…..61 4.6.1. Summery Statistics of Independent T-Tests for Continuous Variables………….….…...…..61 4.6.2. Summary of Households’ Food Security Status Scores on Some Discrete Variables…….....62 4.7. Application of Logit Model to Identify Factors that Affect Households Food Security Status……64 4.7.1. Examining the Goodness of Fit of the Logit Model……..……….……...... ………..…….…64 4.7.2. Multicollinearity Test……….…….………….……....…...…………………...………...…...64 4.8. Logistic Regression Model Results on Factors Influencing the Food Security Status ……….…….66 4.9. Coping Strategies Employed by Households to the Effects of Households’ Food Insecurity………………………………………………………...……….….…69 CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS….….………………...... …....71 5.2. Conclusion……………...………………………………………...... …………………..…………..71 5.3. Recommendations……...……………….……………………………………………….………...... 73 REFERENCES……………………………………………………………………...…………...…..…….75 APPENDICES……………………………………………….………………………...…………...... 80

LIST OF TABLES Tables Page Table 3.1. Annual average temperature and rainfall of the ten year of the GimbiWoreda ……...…...... 24 Table 3.2. Land Use Pattern of the Study Area…………………………………………………...... ….26 Table 3.3. School Distribution in Gimbi Woreda…………………………………………………...…..27 Table 3.4. Health Facility Distribution in Gimbi Woreda………………………………………………27 Table 3.5. Number of Sample Households’ from Each Sample Kebeles……………………...…...... …29 Table 3.6. Variables and Their Descriptions, Measurements and Expected Sign………………..….....35 Table 4.1. Distributions of Sample Households’ Food Security Status by Expenditure Range Per AE in 2016/17…….....…………………………………………...... 44 Table 4.2. Percentage Distribution of Households’ Food Security Status by Sex……………....…...... 45 Table 4.3. Percentage Distribution of Households’ Food Security Status by Age………...…..……...46 Table 4.4. Percentage Distribution of Households’ Food Security Status by Family Size …………...47 Table 4.5. Distribution of Households’ Food Security Status by Educational Level ……..……….....48 Table 4.6. Distribution of Households’ Food Security Status by Land Holding Size …….……….....50 Table 4.7. Households’ Yearly Income from Off Farm /Non-Farm Activities……...... ….…....…....51 Table 4.8. Distribution of Households’ Food Security Status by Farm Oxen Ownership ...………....52 Table 4.9. Participation of Households in the Full Application of Modern Farm Inputs………….…..54 Table 4.10. Distribution of Households’ Food Security Status by Major Crop Production ……..…...55 Table 4.11: Distributions of Households’ Food Security Status by Main Sources of Food………..….56 Table 4.12. Distribution of Households’ Food Security Status by Main Sources of Income ………...57 Table 4.13. Households’ Food Security Status by Frequency of Meals…………………...…...…...... 58 Table 4.14. Proportion of Households’ Food Security Status with the Main Factors …………...…...61 Table 4.15. Summery Statistics of Independent T-Tests for Continuous Variables……………..….…62 Table 4.16. Summary of Households’ Food Security Status by Some Discrete Variables……....…....63 Table 4.17. Hosmer and Lemeshow Test of Goodness of Fit……...……...………………………...…64 Table 4.18.Variance Inflation Factors (VIF) of the Continuous Explanatory Variables……….….…..65 Table 4.19. Contingency Coefficients for Discrete Explanatory Variables………………………..…..66 Table 4.20. Logistic Regression for Food Security Status by Using Different Variables…………..…67 Table 4.21. List of Coping Strategies in the Study Area……………………………………………....70

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figures Page Figure 2.1. Conceptual Framework of the Study………...………....……...….……………...... 22 Figure 3.1. Map of the Study Area……...…….……...……………………….…..……...……….…23

viii

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendices Page Appendix 1. Estimation 0f Minimum Expenditure Required Per AE Per Year in 2016/17….…..80 Appendix 2. Average Price of Food Items in The Study Area in 2016/17……………....…….…80 Appendix 3. Contingency Coefficients for Discrete Explanatory Variables…………..……….....81 Appendix 4. Questionnaire…………...……….....………………………………..……….….…..82 Appendix 5. Interview……………….....………………………………………………..….....….88 Appendix 6. Check List for Secondary Data………………………...……………………...….....90 Appendix 7. An Afan Oromo Version of Questionnaire.………………….………………...... …91 Appendix 8. An Afan Oromo Version of Interview..…………………..………………..…....….97

Acronyms AE: Adult Equivalent ADLI: Agricultural Developmental Led Industrialization CWFS: Committee for World Food Security DA: Developmental Agent EPHI : Ethiopian Public Health Institute EPRDF: Ethiopia People Revolutionary Democratic Front FSS: Food Security Strategy/Food Security Status FANTA: Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance FAO: Food and Agricultural Organization FDRE: Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia GNP: Gross National Product GWARDO: Gimbi Woreda Agricultural and Rural Developmental Office GWCTO: Gimbi Woreda Culture and Tourism Office GWTMDO: Gimbi Woreda Trade and Market Developmental Office HHFSS: Household Food Security Status KII: Key Informant Interviews MoARD: Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development MRA: Minimum Recommended Allowance NGO: Non Governmental Organization NMA: National Meteorological Agency SPSS: Statistical Package for Social Sciences UNHR: United Nations Human Rights UNESC: United Nations Economic and Social Council USAID: United States Agency for International Development UNECA: United Nations Economic Community for Africa UNWFP: United Nations World Food Program WB: World Bank WFS: World Food Summit WHO: World Health Organization

Abstract The study examined households’ food security status among rural households from the three Kebeles in the Gimbi Woreda, west wollega zone in western Ethiopia. Purposive and simple random sampling techniques were employed to obtain a sample of 309 household heads from three selected rural areas. The main objective of the study was to examine rural households’ food security status in terms of the household production, income and expenditure. Data were collected by using structured questionnaires and interviews. The collected data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, inferential statistics and binary logistic regression. In order to determine the outcome variable household food security status, comparing the total household expenditure per AE per annum to the minimum level of expenses is computed based on the amount of calorie requirement by AE (2100 kcal/AE/day or 225 kg/AE/year). Accordingly, 4195 Birr is computed as the sum of all these and considered as the minimum subsistence expense (benchmark) beyond which the household is to be food secure or not. The descriptive analysis of the study revealed that, 38.2% of the households were categorized as food secure and 61.8% of them are food-insecure households. Eleven variables were candidates for the analysis of logistic regression. By employing the method, seven out of eleven that is, lack of education, inappropriate uses of chemical fertilizes, inadequate land availability, lack of farm oxen that processing farming, lack of improved seed, lack of access to rural credit and lack of non-farm/off-farm income are predictor variables that strongly affected households’ food security status in the study area. The researcher recommended that government should provide informal education for farming households as correctly used and adopting full agricultural technology to increasing their productivity as well as promoting farmers access to land and improving farm household productivity through extension services on irrigation uses and non-farm income generating activities. Key words: Household Food Security Status, Expenditure, Determinant, and Coping, Strategies

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 1.1. Background of the Study

A wider definition of food security incorporates to the four pillars of food security. These are availability, access, utilization and stability (CWFS, 2013). Accordingly, food security exists when all people at all times have physical, social and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life. Therefore, every government in the world declares the provision of sufficient and adequate food as its first development aim, because food is one of the necessities of human life (FAO, 2000).

The world attained the status of sufficiently producing enough food to feed every individual on this planet three decades ago. However, feeding all has never happened in reality due to uneven distribution of resources, difference in opportunities and constraints around the world and power imbalance (Bechaye, 2011). Currently, millions of people are affected by hunger in developing countries and the number of hungry people in the world is growing at an alarming rate of four million a year. This trend is not falling quickly enough to achieve the food security goals particularly in Africa and southern Asia (Von Braun, 2012).

The disruptions of food security status are resulted to raising food prices, financial crisis and the economic depression. Thus, it is again a topic of discussion at the world food conference (WFS, 1996). Despite the growing world food crises continue to occur. differences in food security status within countries of the world are common, even during normal periods (FAO, 2008).

Improved food security is important for global reduction of hunger and for economic development (Adeniyi and Ojo, 2013). On the global scale, food insecurity highlighted that the number of people suffering from hunger has increased every year since 1996. In addition, about 925 million people worldwide are still suffering from chronic hunger, in which 235 million hunger sufferers are from sub-Sahara Africa (FAO, 2010). This brings to the fact that the right to food is still one of the most often violated right today (UNHR, 2010).

In Africa, food has become the most important item in any discussion of development in any time (UNECA, 2012). The most common causes of food insecurity in African and other third world countries is a result of multiple and integrated factors (UNDP, 2012). These are drought, rainfall variability, Pests, livestock diseases, military conflicts, lack of emergency plans, corruption, political instability, cash crops dependence, rapid population growth, unstable relief, severe environmental degradation, small land size, lack of off-farm income opportunity, inadequate credit, lack of extension services, and tenure insecurity (Messay and Shishay, 2014).

In Ethiopia, agriculture plays important roles in the development of the national economy, contributes about 50 percent of the GDP, and employs 85 percent of the population (MoARD, 2015). According to Samuel (2011), Ethiopian agriculture is primarily subsistence based using simple traditional tools that is controlled by climatic variation and the meager resources of the farmers. Continued cultivation, overgrazing, deforestation, fast population growth, political instability, types of economic activities and cultural practices are factors that are related to the peasants’ agricultural activities of the country (Messasy, 2012). In the other hand, environmental degradation tied with a fast growing population have aggravated the problem of environmental management and created food crises (Shumate, 2009).

In terms of food security, Ethiopia is one of the world’s most food insecure countries, where about one in three people live below the poverty line (UNWFP, 2016). Currently more than 10.2 million people are suffering from drought conditions, which are expected to worsen due to the El Nino phenomenon (UNWFP, 2016). Today, word food program and disaster risk management sector tasked to assist 10.2 million of those drought- affected people. For this, world food program urgently needs one billion and four hundred million US$ to continue relief food distributions until the end of 2016 (UNWFP, 2016). Even during normal harvest, there are some 5 million chronically food insecure people in Ethiopia (MoARD, 2005).

1.2. Statement of the Problem

While Ethiopia may be considered as a food insecure country, several food security studies show that many households, especially those in the rural areas are food insecure (Samuel, 2011; Messay, 2012). According to Alem, (2007) and Samuel, (2011), the fact that many rural households in Ethiopia were continue to experiences food insecurity due to the problem of the natural and man-made factors. This can bring series food shortage and disturb the food security status of households. Food insecurity is therefore a major problem in Ethiopia. Several studies have also shown that food insecurity is a big problem in many regions of Ethiopia including the Oromia region (Degefa, 2005).

The poor performance of the agricultural sector of Ethiopia may be attributed to cumulative causation of demographic and non-demographic factors. As noted by Samuel (2011) and Messay and Shishay, (2014), the causes of the existing food insecurity problem in Ethiopia are numerous and interrelated. These includes rainfall variability, dependence on rain fed agriculture, traditional farming practices, oxen ploughs, manually operated hand tools, soil degradation, inappropriate storage facility, small land size, lack of off-farm income, inadequate credit and extension services, and tenure insecurity. In this regard, the combination of these factors can bring series food shortage and disturb the food security status of households (Alem, 2007).

The seriousness of the food shortage problems in Ethiopia vary from one area to another depending on the natural and man-made factors (Degefa, 2002). This means, food scarcities are quite different in all regions of Ethiopia. The pilot study conducted by Gemechis, (2012), on the determinants of food insecurity at Gimbi woreda indicated that about 28.6% of sample households in Gimbi woreda have no any cattle. The absence of cattle, in other hand, results in food insecurity.

According to Degefa, (2005) and Bichaye, (2011), many of the researches being conducted on food insecurity/security status by majority of local researchers in Ethiopia are too general and geographical based. As a result, it cannot be applied to solve the problem of food insecurity existing at each and every households in different parts of the country.

In connection to the assessment of rural household food security status, no research has been conducted yet at Gimbi Woreda only Gemechis, (2012), conducted a pilot study on determinants of food insecurity at Woreda level. However, he considers the problem at Woreda level by ignoring the objective reality at individual and household level. Then, he could not successfully determine the food security status of this woreda either household’s are really food secure or not. Therefore, the researcher inspired to assess the further study on households’ food security status at individual household level in order to search reliable and timely information in the three kebeles of Gimbi Woreda of the West Wollega zone.

1.3. Objectives of the Study

1.3.1. General Objective

The overall objective of the study is to assess the food security status of the rural households in Gimbi Woreda.

1.3.2. Specific Objectives

The specific objectives of this study are to:  examine the current extent and magnitude of food security status in Gimbi Woreda.  analyze food security status in terms of household food production, income and expenditure in the study area.  investigate the factors that influence households’ food security status in Gimbi Woreda.  assess coping strategies employed by the households to overcome food insecurity in the study area.

1.4. Research Questions

The purpose of this study is to answer the following questions based on the objectives of the study:

 What is the current extent and magnitude of food security status look like in Gimbi Woreda?  What does the households’ food security status look like in terms of households’ food production, income and expenditure in Gimbi Woreda?  What major factors that tat influence rural households’ food security status in Gimbi Woreda?  What coping strategies are employed by the households to overcome while they face food insecure in the study area? 1.5 Scope of the Study

Spatially, this research has focused on addressing the food security status and the type of coping strategies pursued by rural households in Gimbi Woreda of West Wollega zone of Oromia Regional State. In order to make the study more manageable within the given time and resource, the study is also limited specifically to selected three kebeles of the woreda namely known as Lalisa Sarity, Garjo Bikilal and Lalisa Bikilal, but not any other kebeles or woredas. Delimiting the study in this way helps the researcher to successfully manage and complete it.

The analytical scope of the study was not included all the methods and tools that could used for data analysis. Rather, it delimited to some descriptive and some inferential data analysis techniques. It also included description, narration and interpretation of the qualitative data. The study was tried to access household food security status in terms of households’ production, income and expenditure as well as factors that can affect the food security status and coping strategies employed by the households while facing seasonal food insecurity in the study area at the current time.

1.6. Significance of the Study

Household food security issues have become the concern of national governments as well as the international communities during the last few decades. Household level food shortage is one of the problem of the social and economic life of household members. In the present time, the government devoted much of its financial and material resource for food insecure areas of the country. Currently, many scholars give more attention to study the rural households’ food security status and the factors that influencing food security status of the rural household in Ethiopia. This is the reason why the researcher wants to make a study on the food security status in Gimbi woreda at rural household level.

Therefore, this study is intended to give significant information for the people in the area, the governmental organizations, the non-governmental organizations, and the agricultural experts who are engaged in the task of sustainable rural household food security. Hence the outcome of the study will generate information for policy makers, governmental and non-governmental organization to design and develop effective rural household food security strategies. The findings of the study give adequate information about the current situation of household food security and the factors that disturb rural household food security status to local, regional government and NGOs. The findings of this study can also be used as literature of food security and serve as bench mark for future investigations on the study area. Thus, the study could help as a documentary source for those who want to work on the same or similar research problems in the study area.

1.7. Limitations of the Study

During the whole of study time, some limitations were confronted. These were refuce of of some household’s head to answer questions related to their asset possession, income and production level, inadequacy of some written documents concerning the socio- economic, and unwillingness of the stakeholders to cooperate of giving detailed information on coping strategies could also be mentioned as one of the limitation of this thesis. However, this problem was overcome by convincing the respondents about the real aim of the study positively.

1.8. Organization of the Study

This research paper is divided in to five chapters. The first chapter deals with the introduction part which comprises background of the study, statement of the problem, objectives of the study, research questions, scope, significance, limitation and organization of the study.

The second chapter focuses on the theoretical orientation and literary review. This part makes a brief assessment of written document and various approaches in relation to the targeted research topic and other reviews of related literature. The third chapter is the description and interpretation of the study area, sampling Process, and the method in which the researcher used to gather information from the targeted kebeles. The fourth chapter has centered on the data analysis and discussion. The last Chapter deals with conclusion and recommendations.

CHAPTER TWO: RELATED LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. Basic Concepts and Definition

The concepts and term of food security first originated in the 1970s, when the World Food Conference defined food security in terms of food supply assuring the availability and price stability of basic foodstuffs at the international and national level to reflect changes in official policy thinking (Clay, 2002; Heidhues et al., 2004). The definition based on the balance between the demand and supply side of the food security equation: “Ensuring that all people at all times have both physical and economic access to the basic food that they need” (FAO, 1983). The definition revised to include the individual and household level in addition to the regional and national level of aggregation in food security analysis (WFS, 1996). Food and human rights are not separable rather goes together; because, the concepts of food security is related to the legal commitment and considered as the right to adequate standard of living (UNHR, 2010). The definition of food security incorporated to the four pillars (components) of food security that includes- food availability, food access, food Utilization and food stability (FAO, 2011).

Food Availability: is the sufficient quantity of food to appropriate quality, supplied through domestic production or supply side (FAO, 2006). Its sub dimensions include the agro-climatic fundamentals of crop and pasture production and the entire range of socio- economic and cultural factors that determine where and how farmers perform in response to markets. It is strongly related to the overall availability of food, which is determined by domestic food production, commercial food imports and food aid. At a local level, it is strongly contingent on road and market infrastructure, the degree of market integration, and local market institutions (Hannah, et al., 2013).

Food Access: is covers access by individuals to the adequate resource (entitlements) for acquiring appropriate foods for a nutritious diet (FAO, 2006). Entitlements are defined as the set of all those commodity bundles over which a person can establish command given the legal, political, economic, and social arrangements of the community of which he or she is a member (Hannah, et al., 2013). Thus, a key element is the purchasing power of consumers and the evolution of real incomes and food prices. Food access depends

largely on household purchasing power, which varies in relation to market integration, price policies and temporal market conditions (CWFS, 2013).

Food Utilization: is a state of nutritional well-being where all physiological needs (good health) are adequately utilize food to meet specific dietary needs. It encompasses all food safety and quality aspects of nutrition that related to health which including the sanitary conditions across the entire food chain (FAO, 2007). Also food utilization is determined by food safety and quality, how much a person eats and how well a person converts food to energy, all of which affect proper biological use of food, nutritional status and growth. Adequate food utilization requires a diet providing sufficient energy and essential nutrients, potable water, adequate sanitation, access to health services, proper feeding practices, and illness management (UNWFP, 2007).

Food Stability: refers to both the availability and access dimensions of food security at all times (CWFS, 2013). It should not risk losing access to food because of sudden shocks like economic or climatic crisis or cyclical events (CWFS, 2013). It relates to individuals who are at high risk of temporarily or permanently losing their access to the resources needed to consume adequate food. An important cause of unstable access is climate variability, e.g. landless, agricultural laborers, who almost exclusively depend on agricultural wages in a region of erratic rainfall and have few savings, would be at high- risk of losing their access to food (Dohrmann and Thorat, 2007)

Types of food insecurity: Food security analysts have defined two general types of food insecurity:

I. Chronic/permanent food insecurity: refers to a continuously inadequate food caused by lack of resources to produce or obtain food (Devereux, 2006). It is a common feature of poor households in most parts of the world.

II. Transitory/seasonal food insecurity: refers to a temporary decline in households’ access to enough food. This happens due to instability in food prices, food production or household incomes. In its worst forms, it produces famine (Devereux, 2006).

A household is said to be food insecure when its consumption (available food) falls below the daily standard Minimum Recommended Allowance (MRA) of caloric intake for an individual to be active and healthy. The worst form of transitory food insecurity is famine. In this study, the concepts of transitory food insecurity and seasonal food shortage are synonymous and will be used interchangeably.

2.1.1. Theoretical Frameworks

The theory of food security is an essential element to have better understanding sustainability of household food security status and its determinants. The main theories considered in the study were includes: general explanations of food insecurity and sustainable livelihood approach.

I. General explanation theory: It mainly emphasized on the impacts of drought, flood, land degradation, inaccessibility to productive resources and population pressure on the performance of household food security status. This results implies that, the disruption of agricultural production and attributes the household to decline in food availability (Meskerem and Degefa, 2015). Household food security situation in rural areas is whether the household can produce sufficient food from own production or sell livestock and purchase food grain of the right quality in the market place. This implies availability of enough food and the capacity of the household to acquire it determines household food security.

II. Sustainable livelihood approach: It enables to identify and understand a multiple of natural, cultural, social, economic, and political factors that constrain peoples living situation in general and household food security in particular; and it offers more attention and priority on human environment. It is used to understand the sustainability of the quality of life and food security of the poor and recognizes the complexity, diversity and continuous change of people’s activities and their strategies over time. In addition, the approach helps to holistically addresses how context interact with various forms of assets in affecting the livelihoods and strategies that households depend on (Degefa, 2005; Meskerem and Degefa, 2015).

2.1.2. Food Security Measurement

There is no standard methodology and fixed rule, which should be employed to measure the diversified indicators of food insecurity. The indicators were measured differently depending on the objective of the study, data availability and complexity of the situation (FAO, 2006). However, at national level, food security can be measured in terms of food demand (requirement) and supply indicators; that is, the quantities of available food versus needs. The supply of food at this stage may be from current production and stocks from previous production whereas the needs can be determined on the basis of biological or nutritional requirement of a given society for a certain period of time usually a year or a day (CSA and MoFED, 1999-2000).

At the household level, food security is best measured by direct surveys of income, expenditure and consumption and compares that with the adequacy norm appropriate to the households. Such household surveys may be costly to be carried out often and as a proxy, the level and changes in socioeconomic and demographic variables such as real wage rates, employment, price ratios, migration, etc. may be used if properly collected and analyzed at the individual level (Markos, 2016). The main targets to study household food security status at household level are not only to identify either households are food insecure or not, but also to identify the factors that affect household food security status. Food insecure households defined as households those consuming less than 80% of minimum recommended calories, or less than 70% of recommended intake (CSA, 2012).

There are two major approaches that have been widely used in measuring food consumption. The first is the “expenditure technique” used by economists where by gross household’s production and purchases over time are estimated, estimates of the growth or depletion of food stock held overtime is made and the balance is considered as consumed. The second method, which is utilized by nutritionist, measures the amount of food consumed by the family members during 24hrs recall. It enables generating information necessary to determine the extent of undernourishment, malnutrition and under nutrition. This method results in more reliable consumption data and captures intra-household distribution differences (Mulugeta, 2002; CAS, 2012).

Both of these methods result in consumption figures, which can be used as proxy of household food security status, neither provides a full assessment of food security because measures either vulnerability or sustainability. For both methods, conversion of gross household food consumption into calories, and dividing the calories by the number of adult equivalents in the household results in concise figure for average calories consumed per adult equivalent per day, which is then compared with an estimate of caloric requirements (CSA, 2012).

Generally, there are different methods of analysis household food security status. However, many of them should be relevant, timely, and cost effective. To this effect, in this study, the minimum level of expenses which should at least be met or required per adult equivalent per annum would be computed based on the amount of food required by an adult person, minimum expenses needed for clothes, health care, education, short term loans, taxes, social obligations, etc (CSA and WB, 2013). Therefore, the value of food required (2100 kcal per day per AE or 225 kg of cereal per AE per year) and the sum of estimated minimum amount of money needed to cover the above mentioned expenses per AE per annum is used as a benchmark beyond which the household is said to be food secure or not in the study area (EPHI, 2013).

2.1.3. Major Causes of Food Security/Insecurity Status in Ethiopia

According to Degefa, (2005) and Mesay, (2008), Ethiopia is listed among those countries in Sub- Saharan Africa with the most dangerous, long-term food situations. Ethiopia has faced many severe famine catastrophes including the disaster of the great famine that hit the country towards the end of the 19th century (Degefa, 2005). The term famine is used to explain the worst manifestation of food insecurity (Devereux, 2005). Generally, the causes of food Security/insecurity in Ethiopia as reviewed from various literatures are categorized and presented as follows.

I. Environmental factors

The degree of environmental influence varies depending on the level of development, and subsistence farmers in developing regions are generally regarded as more susceptible to environmental shocks (Degefa, 2002). Environmental factors include land, water,

12 vegetation, soil, and climate upon which agricultural activities (crop production, livestock rearing, etc) are based. Hence, any hazard against these resources can affect food security of a given community (Messay, 2012).

As Mesay (2008), explaining in his research the effects of environmental changes on the livelihood of farmers are interrelated to each other. The traditional farming system of the Ethiopian peasants consumes and exploits the natural resource base, therefore, resource degradation, depletion and environmental problems are inevitable. They also elaborated that environmental disturbances and over exploitation of natural resources leads to the prevalence of natural catastrophes including flood, drought, water logging, excessive heating and the like which are the immediate causes of food insecurity in Ethiopia (Shumate, 2009). It was also discussed that the rainfall variability, degraded soil, scanty vegetation cover which cause ecological imbalances attached with improper and poor land management practices and the accelerating population significantly add to the occurrence of food insecurity in Ethiopia (Messasy, 2012).

II. Demographic factors

According to the CSA, (2007), Ethiopia is one of the lowest GNPs in Sub-Saharan Africa. On the other hand, the population growth rate is one of the highest not only in Africa but also in the world. Rapid population growth leads to a demand for additional land and clearing of new areas for expansion of farmland and settlement. As stated by FDRE, (2002), high population growth rate is one of the main obstacles to ensure food security, provide effective education, health and other essential social and economic services. In support of the above statement Samuel (2011), argues rapid population growth among other factors is the cause for natural resource degradation, which aggravates food insecurity problems in rural households. In his study on seasonal food insecurity in Oromiya Zone, Degefa (2002), also revealed that the rate of population growth, which exceeds the rate of economic growth, has resulted in small land holding, resource exploitation, and limited fallow period among the rural communities in Ethiopia.

III. Economic factors

According to Degefa (2002), some of the manifestations of economic problems that are considered as the constraints of agricultural production include lack of cash, absence of off-farm incomes, and shortage of farm oxen, shortage of modern farm inputs, traditional farm implements and practices. In explaining the implications of these constraints, farmers with no ox are more vulnerable to household food a shortage as they rent out their land to other farmers with better pulling power or has to get oxen on a rent which makes them loose some of their produce through shares. As noted by Mesay, (2008), the agricultural inputs such as improved seeds, fertilizers, herbicides and farm implements, which are vital to increase production and productivity, are not well accessed by most peasants. This is due to high cost of chemical fertilizers and improved seeds, poor performance of the market, lack of competitions and lack of access to credit facilities and low market values of agricultural products are directly or indirectly disturb rural household food security status in many areas of Ethiopia.

IV. Social Factors

According to Degefa, (2002), and Mesay, (2008), social factors such as shortage of human labor, health problems, low levels of education, poor food rationing and absence of saving tradition are among the causes to the occurrence of seasonal food shortages in farm households. In support to the above statement, Misgan (2014), states labor is an important determinant in peasant food production as most agricultural operations in small farming systems are labor intensive. Similarly, he argues that farmers’ access to appropriate technologies and knowledge is crucial for raising agricultural production.

V. Infrastructural Factors

According to Degefa, (2002), infrastructural constraints such as inaccessibility to road, absence of irrigation, absence of rural credit, inadequate extension service, poor storage facilities, and low prices of agricultural output and lack of veterinary services could be reflected in households’ food insecurity. On the other hand, credit provisions among the most important infrastructural facilities could contribute to peasants’ access to production

14 inputs such as oxen, seed and fertilizers. However, literature indicates that there is very limited access to this crucial form of capital in many rural parts of the country.

2.1.4. Policies and Strategies Related to Food Security/Insecurity in Ethiopia

A review of food security study reveals that, Ethiopia has the highest number of food insecure people in Sub-Sahara Africa. An estimated 52 percent of the country’s population is food insecure (FDRE, 2002). To overcome the problem of food insecurity, the Ethiopian Government, in addition to the ongoing macroeconomic policies that are targeted to re-orient the economy toward a free market system, has endorsed a number of other policies. Among these are the draft Food Security Strategy, the National Policy of Disaster Prevention and Management, the Population Policy and Environmental Policy.

Food Security Strategy (FSS) is to ensure food security at household level, while the rural development policies and strategies (ADLI), would focus on ensuring national food self- sufficiency (FDRE, 2002). The strategy is intended to address both supply and demand sides of the food equation: availability and entitlement, respectively within the framework of National Agricultural and Rural Development Strategies. This could be effected from the perspective of ensuring both food security at national and household levels taking in to consideration the diverse nature of the country’s economy. The strategy adopted rests on three pillars. These three pillars are; increasing the availability of food through domestic (own) production; ensuring access to food for food deficit households; and strengthening emergency response capabilities (FDRE, 2002).

2.1.5. Rural Households’ Food Insecurity Coping Mechanisms in Ethiopia

According to Corbett’s (1998) cited in Mesay (2008) , the case studies conducted from South Asia, it was identified that rural people facing food crises first use those strategies which have little long- run cost (such as drawing down savings and calling on remittances). Then follows strategies with higher long run costs such as selling the households’ plough. Finally, there are strategies that show economic destitution and failure to cope. These include leaving their village in search of better livelihood options. Similarly, Stephen Devereux argued that peasants fist sell an asset that minimizes the return lost per unit of cash raised by its sell (Devereux, 2005).

Scholars like Messay (2012) and Samuel (2011) suggest that households in rural parts of Ethiopia employ different coping strategies to survive seasons of food shortages. According to them, farm households adopt different strategies to mitigate the effect of food shortages. However, the strategies vary depending on the nature and intensity of shocks on the one hand and on the households’ own condition on the other. Farm households adopt strategies that have little long-run costs earlier, while strategies with higher long run costs that are difficult to reverse are adopted later. In time of food shortage, farm households employ a various strategies. These include: livestock sales, agricultural employment, off-farm employment, and migration to other areas, requested grain loans, small scale trading, selling wood and charcoal, selling crop residues, reduction of food consumption, consumption of wild plants, reliance on relief assistance and relying on remittances from relatives (Messay, 2002; Samuel, 2011).

2.2. Empirical Literature Review

The empirical literature review of household food security status for this study was structured under two sections. The first section presented some of the household food security status that documented in some other countries. The second part summarized some of the previous studies conducted concerning the food security situation and the factors that influence household food security/insecurity status in Ethiopia over the recent years.

2.2.1. Household Food Security Status in Other Countries

Government in the third world countries are always declares the provision of sufficient and adequate nutrition as the first goal. This is why; food is one of the basic human needs (Sijm, 1997). Rural household seasonal food insecurity was facing in various regions of developing continents, Particularly Africa, Latin America and Asia. Much of the Sub- Saharan African population, particularly in rural areas, experiences some degree of hunger over the many period of time (FAO, 2010). The international community has long been concerned about eradication of hunger and malnutrition especially of vulnerable groups. Despite, the recent report on world food insecurity highlighted that the number of people suffering from hunger has increased every year since 1996. In addition, about 925

16 million people worldwide still suffer from chronic hunger, in which 235 million hunger sufferers are from sub-Sahara Africa (FAO, 2010).

Africa and famine have been expressed as the same (UNDP, 2012). To mean that, much drought and famine have been the notice of different parts of the continent and the food security status in Africa still remains challenging and worrisome (UNDP, 2012). Some 239 million people are struck by hunger across the region, which is greatly lagging behind in the quest for the poverty and hunger millennium development goal (UNECA, 2012).

Overall, low food and agricultural productivity and production, land degradation, climate variability and change, high population growth and rapid urbanization, high and unstable food and fuel prices, are all part of the complicated set of factors that contribute to this situation. Therefore, food has become the most important item in any discussion of development during the last three decades in Africa (FAO, 2010). To this end, there have been attempts of varying degrees to find effective ways of ensuring that all Africans have access at all times to the minimum quantities of food necessary to lead active and healthy lives (UNECA, 2012).

The food deficiency remains a determined problem in Africa, particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa, a number of hungry and malnourished people in the 1970s reached 80 million, which jumped to a level beyond 100 million in 1984, and reached 140 million in 1990s (FAO, 2012). Recently, in Africa, the number of people not eating adequate food for an active and healthy life rose from 130 million to 170 million and reached 239 million in year of 2012.

2.2.2. Previous Studies

Many studies were conducted concerning the food security situation and the factors that influence household food security/insecurity in Ethiopia over the recent years. However, different scholars conducted the study, which is close to this research paper, in many other part of Ethiopia. According to them, the food security situation in Ethiopia has been extremely unstable due to the combination of environmental, socio-demographic, socio-

17 economic, political and developmental instabilities. According to Alem (2007) and Messay and Shishay (2014), the Current problem of food insecurity in Ethiopia are too small landholdings, population growth, recurrent drought and limited-off farm income

Alem (2007) investigation in Tehuludere Woreda, South Wello Zone of Ethiopia indicates that most farmers could not produce enough to meet the annual requirements from the farmers' annual requirement perceptions. Samuel (2011) in his study conducted in Arssi Negelle zone considered to be a surplus grain producer at an aggregate level, examined the seasonal food shortage among farm households and variations between households practicing double cropping (during meher and belg seasons) and those relying on a single harvest (meher). The proportion of farmers practicing double cropping and single harvester who reported to have faced seasonal food deficit.

Another research finding by MoAED (2005), showed that household's average cereal production during normal harvest years is persistently lower than annual food requirements and hence many households feed themselves from their farm outputs only for less than three-fourth of the year. According to Bechaye, (2011), rural household food security situation analyses of Boricha Wereda, Sidama Zone, were unable to satisfy the food demand of their family for more than five months in a year. He also argued that the seasonality of agriculture introduced fluctuations in the income, expenditure, and nutritional patterns of peasant households.

Debebe (1995) came out with model that demonstrated the major factors for farm households' vulnerability to famine. He stated that vulnerability to famine is a product of a system, that is, a subsistence system production, which consists of three components: the peasant world, the natural forces (physical environment) and the socio-economic forces. Regarding the relationship between these factors, Debebe (1995) argued that an agricultural population must first be made vulnerable to famine by socioeconomic and political forces before any adverse natural factor initiates the process of food shortage that leads to famine.

As stated by Shumete, 2009; and Samuel, 2011; Ethiopia is challenging by the basic factors that influencing the food security status of rural households ranging from those

18 induced by environmental crises to those caused by demographic and socio-economic constraints, which adversely affect peoples` production system. The country characterized by extreme poverty, continued and high population growth rate, severe environmental degradation, recurrent drought ,overgrazing, deforestation, shortage of agricultural land ,inappropriate policies and strategies, traditional using simple and archaic tools (Misgana, 2014; Teklay et al., 2015).

Resulting from these, the performance of agriculture, the sector that makes livelihood for 85% of the country’s population, has been poor over the last few decades, to the extent that the country could not adequately feed its population from domestic production (Alem, 2007). This manifested in the prevailing chronic and transitory food insecurity, which has almost become structural phenomena and the way of life for a significant proportion of the population of the country (Devereuxet et al., 2005). Frequently recurring droughts and erratic rainfall patterns, ecosystems degradation, ruggedness of topography, poor soil, rapid population growth, poor rural infrastructure, and legacies of the past policy constraints are considered as basic causes that disturb food security status and widespread poverty in the country (Degefa, 2002; Samuel, 2011 and Messay, 2012).

2.2.3. Research Gap

Many of the research that have been done so far on food security status and its determinants by different researchers like Degefa (2002 and 2005), Alem (2007), Mesay (2008), Shumate (2009), Samuel (2011), Bichaye (2011), Messay and Shishay (2014), Messay (2012), Teklay,.et al (2014) and Misgana (2014) in context of Ethiopia were based on the four pillars/components of the food security. That is food availability, food access, food utilization and food stability (sustainability). Again, each pillar (components) are measured by different tools like household food security access scale, household food balance model, household consumption score and food security index based on the national calorie intake for adult person (2100 kcal) to determine either household were food insecure or not focused on the household production, household income and different household assets excluding household expenditure.

Total annual expenditure is one of the measurement tools of the household food security status to decide either household are food secure or not. It also good measurement tools of household food security status in order to get true and timely data about individual households. Measuring household food security status in case of household production, income and assets only not good. Those ways, households are not willing to give true data/information regarding to their production, income and assets rather tell in reality true data/information about their expenditure. Considering this issue, the researcher was conducted rural household food security status based on the total annual expenditure of households. The total annual household expenditure per AE per annum to the minimum level of expense required to ensure survival per AE per annum is computed based on the amount of calorie requirement for adult person (2100/kcal/day ) was used as benchmark which household is to be food secure or not.

On the other hand, the sample sizes of many researches that have been done in the recent years were very small, especially, below 180 respondents. Since many rural household in Woredas of Ethiopia are peasants, small sample size is not recommended for the largest households. Therefore, the researcher was investigate rural household food security status by using large sample size in each three selected kebeles in order to clarify either households are food secure or not

Geographically, many research that have been done on rural households food security status and its determinant in many different parts of Ethiopia were emphasized only in areas of unfavorable climate like scant rainfall areas, land degraded areas and densely populated areas. However, this issue is not get attention in areas of high rainfall and rugged topography such as Wollega zone in general and Gimbi Woreda in particular. Therefore, since food security is one of the necessities for human being, food security research must be needed in all areas either environmental condition is good or not. Thus, why the researcher said; there is no any research was conducted on rural household food security status in Gimbi Woreda except the case study of Gemechis on determinant of food insecurity in 2012 with very small sample size by considering the problem at woreda level by ignoring the objective reality at individual household level. Therefore,

the researcher was conduct rural household food security status at individual household level with the reliable and timely information about the issue.

2.4. Analytical Framework of the Study

The framework of this study was developed in line with the general definition of food security mentioned below: availability, food access, utilization, and stability. A number of factors are closely interconnected to affect a rural household’s food security status. These include the demographic, biophysical, productive asset, infrastructural and socio- cultural factors (Frank et al., 1999; USAID, 2009). The interactions between household food security status and the factors that can affect household food security status of this study was modified from Meskerem and Degefa (2015) as the following figure.

Household Food security status

Food Utilization Food Availability

Biophysical Productive Demographic Socio-cultural factors asset factors factors factors Educatio -Family size, nal level -Erratic rainfall -Farm size, -Eating habit, -Sex of of the -Recurrent drought -Farm oxen, Skill, -Food rationing, households - househol -Soil erosion -Farm income -Social and Age of d head -Poor soil fertility, -Off-farm income religion household -Crop pest disease - Modern farm ceremonies input utilization -Livestock disease -Healthy status -Water supply

-Health services Food Accessibility Food Stability Infrastructural factors

-Saving habit and -Adverse weather conditions, -Access to road, -Rural credit, -Political instability -Social support -Economic factors -Extension service - Irrigation practice Figure 2.1: Analytical framework of study (Modified from Meskerem and Degefa, 2015).

I. Food availability: is addresses the households’ adequate supply of food. It determined by the level of home production, purchase in the market or food transfer (Degefa, 2002). Food availability can be affected by disruptions of food production due to biophysical factors, poor access to productive asset and demographic factors. The bio-physical factors included; erratic rainfall distribution, recurrent drought, soil erosion, poor soil fertility, crop pest and livestock disease, On the other hand, the productive asset factors are farm size, oxen, skill, farm and off-farm income, farm implements, modern farm input utilization. The demographic factors mainly included family size, sex and age of household (see figure 2.1).

II. Food access: is the way in which households acquire available food in different forms that include home production, purchase in the market, borrowing and gifts from relatives/friends (Degefa, 2002). This can be determined by household productive asset, socio-cultural factors and infrastructural factors. The household productive asset factors are farm size, oxen, skill, farm and off-farm income, farm implements, modern farm input utilization and socio-cultural factors such as saving habit and social support and as well as infrastructural factors are like access to road, rural credit, storage facility, extension services, irrigation practice and location of market ( see figure 2.1).

III. Food utilization: is the way in which people consume their food (Degefa, 2005). This can be determined by demographic factors (educational level of household), socio- cultural factors (eating habit, food preferences, food rationing, social and religious ceremonies, nutritional knowledge and health status) and infrastructural factors (water supply and health services) (see figure 2.1).

IV. Food Stability: refers to both the availability and access dimensions of food security at all times (CWFS, 2013). Food Stability can be affected by disruptions of food production due to both the availability and access dimensions factors like adverse weather conditions, political instability, and economic factors (unemployment and rising food prices) (see figure 2.1).

CHAPTER THREE: DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA, THE RESEARCH METHODS AND MATERIALS

3.1. Description of the Study Area 3.1.1. Location and Physical Background of the Study Area Gimbi woreda (district) is one of the 259 woredas in the Oromia National Regional State of Ethiopia, and is located at about441 kilometers west of Addis Ababa. It has 32 rural administrative kebeles and 4 urban kebeles. Astronomically, Gimbi Woreda is located between 9000’00”N and 9020’30” N latitudes, and 35045’00”E and 3607’30”E longitudes (CSA, 2007). In its relative location is situated in West Wollega zone of Oromia National Regional State bounded on the south by Ilu Aba Bora Zone (Chawaka woreda), on the west by Lalo Asabi, on the north and north-east by Benishangul Gumuz Regional State and on the east by east wollega zone (CSA, 2007).

Figure 3.1: Map of the study area, (Source: CSA, 2007 and Ethio- GIS II, 2015).

Gimbi Woreda experiences tropical climatic conditions mainly due to its location. According to raw data obtained from NMA (2015), the annual temperature of the Woreda varies from 180c to 24Oc. It has long hours of sun shine. Summer season (June to September) is a period of longest average sunshine (8-l0 hours/day) and it is also period of high cloud cover.

The annual rainfall in the Woreda generally decreases from east wards to west following the physiographic nature of the land. Annual rainfall of the study area varies from place to place. That is, 1400 mm to 1800mm (NMA, 2015). Being located in the southwestern highland, the elevation of Gimbi woreda is between 1800 and 2130m above sea level. At least 4-6 months heavy rain season in the woreda is during June to November, while lowest rains occur during February to May.

Table 3.1: Annual temperature and rainfall of the ten year of Gimbi Woreda

Year 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Annual Temp.(0C) 19.6 20.4 21.5 21.1 24 19.9 18 22.5 20.5 21 Annual RF(mm) 1400 1575 1405 1420 1480 1615 1460 1800 1525 1780 Source- Raw data obtained from NMA of Asosa Branch (2015)

Gimbi woreda and its surroundings are characterized by undulating topographic and dissected small plateaus. As far as the altitudinal variation of the area, the highest altitude is located in the southern part (2130m) and the lowest altitude is found on the northern (1800m) part of the woreda. The highlands in this woreda are located in the southern areas and the local people liveing call them”Gaara Gimbii or Gubbaa Gimbii”. While moving from the south to the north steepness of the ridge is decreased from 2130 meter above mean sea level to 1830 meter above mean sea level (GWCTO, 2012).

Gimbi Woreda has high water resource potential both surface and sub-surface water resources. Most of the rivers of the woreda are perennial and there are also seasonal streams. Many of the relief structure of Gimbi Woreda are convex (narrow ridge) land that surrounded/encircled by the watershed of Baro and Diddesa rivers. Gimbi Woreda is

24 bounded to the northwest by river Gafare and Gelel, which drained to the Diddesa river and to the northwest, encircled by the river of Ursa malka Hola that flow to the river Baro. The drainage pattern of the study area is found in a rich drained catchment (GWARDO, 2016).

The geological structures (surface rock distribution, the configuration and other natural phenomenon) of Gimbi Woreda are the results of geologic history and tectonic movements of Precambrian and Cenozoic eras. Gimbi Woreda is dominantly covered by the rocks of the cenozoic era and has rich mineral resources such as ferrous mineral and non-ferrous minerals like Iron and Phosphate respectively. The Precambrian era rocks are sources for the ferrous, none-ferrous and the precious metals (GWARDO, 2016).

There are four soil units recognized in the Gimbi Woreda. These include; Dystric

Nitosols, Orthic Acrisols, Chromic and Pellic Vertisols and Calcaric and Eutric Fluvisols

(GWARDO, 2016). Most part of the Woreda has Dystric Nitosols soil group. This soil group is deep, clay red soils and occurs on almost flat to sloping terrain in high rainfall areas. They have uniform Profile, porous, stable structure and deep rooting volume. This soil type has high agricultural potential (GWARDO, 2016).

The main land use of the Woreda is dominated by rain fed agriculture, which is owned by large holder farmers. In the study area, most of the farmers practice rain fed farming system and irrigation in few areas. The major crops grown in Gimbi Woreda are maize, coffee, Teff, Sorghum and Millet. Animal husbandry such as rearing livestock, donkey, sheep and poultry are also the other economic activities in addition to the crop production

(GWARDO, 2016). There are different land use systems in Gimbi Woreda. Details of land use/ land cover in the Woreda are presented in tables 3.2 as the following.

Table 3.2: Land Use Pattern of the Study Area No Land use type Area (ha) Percent of the total area 1 Cultivate land 65670 hectares 58.1 2 Forest land 23783 hectares 21.1 3 Grazing Land 5171 hectares 4.6 4 Uncultivated land 3300 hectares 2.9 5 Settlements 4442 hectares 3.9 6 Rehabilitated land 8769 hectares 7.8 7 Others 1834 hectares 1.6 Total 112969 hectares 100 Source- Existing data obtained from GWARDO (2016)

3.1.2. Demographic and Socioeconomic Condition of the Study Area

Based on the information obtained from Gimbi Woreda Agriculture and Rural Development Office (2015), Gimbi Woreda has an estimated total population of 100705 of these 22446 (22.2%) are urban and 78259 (77.8%) are rural. From the total population of the woreda 49,500 male and 51,250 female populations. There are 12412male households and 1,953 female households, totally 14,365 households in the woreda.

The study area is characterized by rapid population growth similar to other parts of the country with annual growth rate of 2.9% and the household grows by 4.6% per year and the woreda’s crude population density is about 161/km2. The major ethnic groups of the woreda are Oromo (94%), Amahara (3%), Guragea (2%) and others constitute the remaining 1%. In urban areas, the population proportions differ from that in rural areas. (GWCTO, 2012).

The most common socio-economic and environmental problems of the woreda are food insecurity, land degradation, termite infestation, unemployment of the youths, shortage of farmlands and grazing, low utilization of modern agricultural inputs, and the problem of transportation and health facilities among others.

According to the information gained from GWARDO indicated that, almost all the rural population of Gimbi woreda engaged in agricultural activities and therefore it remains by far the most important sector in the woreda. Maize, Sorghums, Teff, Barley, Wheat and Millet are the most dominant cereal crops produce in the woreda. In addition to these, cash crops like Coffee, ‘Chat’, and others are also produced. Besides agriculture, in few area, perennial crops such as fruits and vegetables like mango, abukado and banana are grown in the study sites and their contribution either for home consumption or for sale.

Livestock as one type of agriculture play a significant role in the economy and livelihood for it provide food (milk , meat, egg, etc.), hides, skins, and serve as a means of transportation, draught power for cultivation. The major types of reared livestock in the study area are Cattle, Sheep, Goat, Donkey. Cattle constitute (78%), Sheep (13.3%), Goat (5.2%) and Donkey (3.5%). But, due to the traditional animal husbandry practices, poor genetic potential of the local breeds, prevalence of diseases, insufficient veterinary services, and poor nutrition, the productivity of the livestock have remained low in the woreda. The distribution of social services foud in Gimbi Woreda like schools and health facility are shown in tables below. Table 3.3. School Distribution in Gimbi Woreda S/N Name of School Private Government Total 1 Elementary school 1 46 47 2 Secondary school - 5 5 Total 1 51 52 Source: Gimbi Woreda Education Office, 2016

A number of health facilities are found in the woreda which provides medical services for the residents. The health facility of the town is shown in table below. Table 3.4. Health Facility Distribution in Gimbi Woreda S/N Health Facility Private Government Total 1 Health centres - 5 5 2 Clinic 6 - 6 Total 6 5 11 Source: Gimbi Woreda Health Office, 2016

3.2. Research Methods and Materials

3.2.1. Research Design

Research needs a strong design or structure before beginning of data collection and general research process. To achive the goal of this study cross sectional research design and mixed research approach were employed. Cross-sectional survey design involves a collection of data at defined time, by using different data gathering tools which helps to triangulate the data sources to assess the determining factors that affects the effectiveness of household food security status at household level.

3.2.2. Study Population

Gimbi woreda consist of 32 rural kebeles and 4 urban kebeles respectively with a total population of 100705. This total population composed of 78259 rural dwellers and 22446 urban dwellers. The total population of the target population is 9250; which consists 4750 male population and 4500 female population of which 1350 are household heads. (GWARDO, 2016).

3.2.3. Sampling Procedure

The study area comprised of 32 kebeles. From these 32 kebeles, three kebeles were purposively selected based on the severity of the problem and to get relevant information. The reason to choose these three kebeles purposely is primarily for the intensity of vulnerability of the areas to seasonal food insecurity and the relatively significant number of households that expose to food insecurity. Besides, the accessibility of the kebeles to the woreda town, transport network and the researcher’s prior exposure to the selected sites, the researcher mentioned as the strong factors for purposively choosing those sites. According to the data obtained from the Woreda Agricultural Office, there are 1350 households in selected kebeles in the year 2016/17.

After a clear delimitation of the study sites, the researcher selected 309 sample households from the aforementioned total households of Lalisa Sarity, Garjo Bikilal and Lalisa Bikilal were took as sample frame. That is, out of 485 households in Lalisa Sarity Kebele, there are 85 female-headed and 400 male-headed households. On the other hand,

28 out of 440 households in Garjo Bikilal Kebele, there are 48 female- headed and 392 male- headed households. Lastly, there are 425 households in Lalisa Bikilal Kebele. Out this, 42 are female-headed and 383 male-headed households.

The sample size is determined using equation 1 with a 95% level of confidence, 0.05 degree of variability and 1 margin of error (e) (Yamane, 1967 cited in Israel, 2012). N n= ………………………………………..…………….………..1 1 N(e) 2 Where; n- designates the sample size the research uses; N- designates total number of households in three Kebeles e - designates maximum variability or margin of error 5% (0.05) 1 -designates the probability of the event occurring A total of 309 respondents were selected from the three kebeles by using statistical formula. Accordingly, the total sample size for the study area were calculated. N 1350 n  =  309 (sample size) 1 N(e)2 11350(0.05)2 The sample size from each sample kebeles was determined from the total households, by using proportional stratified random sampling technique. Therefore, from; 485 309 1. Lalisa Sarity kebeles: = 111 1350 440 309 2. Garjo Bikilal Kebele: = 101 1350 425 309 3. Lalisa Bikilal Kebele: = 97 1350 The proportionality of sample size for each kebele is summarized as the following table

Table 3.5: Number of Sample Household from Each Sample Kebeles.

HHs HHs

Total Total

Woreda Woreda

Kebeles Kebeles

Kebeles

Sampled Sampled

Total HHs HHs Total

Household

in Sampled Sampled in

Total Rural Total

Non Non response Lalisa Sarity 485 111 - Gimbi 32 13978 Garjo Bikilal 440 101 - Lalisa Bikilal 425 97 - Total 1350 309 - Source; GWARDO and Kebele Administration Offices (2017)

Finally, Systematic random sampling was employed to select final sample from the list of the households in the study kebeles. Systematic random sampling was employed due to its easy to carry out for small number and every household has a chance of being included in the study. To select a sample size “n” from each kebelles the interval (k) was determined by using the formula K=N/n. Then, the first household of the list were determined based on day- coding of sample selection techniques.

3.2.4. Data Types and Sources

It is important to recognize that both quantitative and qualitative techniques play useful and complementary role in improving our understanding of household food security status in a study area. Qualitative methods are useful for improving the depth of our understanding of the local circumstance that households operate in, while quantitative tool help us to determine the extent to which observed behavioral practice, resources, or problems are distributed within a population. Because of these, both qualitative and quantitative data types employed in this study. Based on this, the researcher used both primary and secondary data.

The primary data were collected from the first-hand information that obtained from the household questionnaire survey and key informants with experts, kebele manager, elders and DAs based on the demographic, socio-economic and institutional variables that influences households food security status. The secondary data were gathered from published or unpublished sources, reports from relevant organizations and different journals of rural household food security/insecurity status and other relevant internet resources reviewed in order to triangulate the analysis.

3.2.5. Data Collection Methods

In order to study rural household food security status, a single method of data collection could not satisfy the data requirement. The combinations of techniques of data collection were employed to generate adequate and reliable data. Therefore, Data for this particular study obtained from household questionnaire survey and key informant interview.

Household Questionnaire Survey

Questionnaire was designed by the researcher with the support, supervision and comment of advisor. Close-ended questions prepared and used to gather relevant information in relation to the objectives of the study. The necessary quantitative and qualitative data on households demographic characteristics, socio-economic, institutional variables, household production, household income, food and non-food expenditure of households, copping strategies of households and other related data were collected from the sampled household. Household questionnaire survey developed in English and translated to Afan Oromo language in order to create common understanding between the respondent and the researcher himself. Six enumerators, which is two from each kebele were selected based on their profession and educational background. Training was given to enumerators on the procedures to follow while conducting and filling the necessary data from the households. The draft questionnaire was pre-tested on 30 randomly selected rural households in order to check for its reliability and clarity for the respondents and accordingly revision made on the final questionnaire. Then, questionnaires distributed to the sample households and administered by the sample kebeles DA workers. Sample household heads were invited to fill the questionnaire under a close supervision of the researcher.

Key Informant Interview

Qualitatively, the necessary data for the study was collected from the key informants from community by structured interview that were selected purposively based on some criterion such as experiences on agricultural activities and off-farm employments of the key informats in order to get detailed relevant data on rural households food security status and the determinant factors that disturb the food security status of the households with the main copping strategies that were applied while faced to food insecurity.

The key informants were nine in number. It involved two village elders, one woreda agriculture and rural developmental office food security desk experts, three Development Agents; three Kebele chairpersons were discussed on the current situations of household food security status and determinants factors that disturb household food security status

31 to generate qualitative data. Interview checklist guide was prepared in order to get necessary data and carried out at the work place of the key informants for hour with the good participation. The information gathered from key informants has been used in the study to strengthen the findings obtained through household survey. 3.2.6. Data Analysis Techniques

The data was generated through quantitative and qualitative methods. Therefore, some qualitative and quantitative techniques have been used to analyze the data. The qualitative data obtained from key informant interviews are analyzed through simple description, narrating and interpreting the situation. Descriptive and inferential statistics have been used to analyze the collected data. In descriptive statistics; cross tabulation, averages, percentages and standard deviation was used. Along with these descriptive statistics, data have been displayed in graphic presentation.

In inferential statistics, t-tests and chi-square (χ2) tests was used to see the relationship between independent variables. The quantitative data that generated through household survey were systematically organized, coded, edited and entered in spreadsheets of Microsoft excel and spreadsheets of SPSS version 20 for both analyses of descriptive and inferential statistics. Lastly, the data that analyzed in descriptive and inferential statistics have been used in application of logit model.

3.2.7. Variables and Analytical Methods

Measuring Food Self-Sufficiency and Food Security Status

The Dependent variable of the model the households’ food security status(HHFSS), which is, the dependent variable for the logit analysis is a dichotomous variable representing the household food security status. It was represented in the model by 1 for food secure and 0 for food insecure households. The information to categorize households into two groups can be obtained by comparing the total household expenditure per AE per annum to the minimum level of expenses required to ensure survival per AE per annum. This minimum level of expense required per AE is computed based on the amount of calorie requirement by AE (2100kcal/AE/day or 225 kg/AE/year) (CSA, 2012). Accordingly, Birr 4195 is computed as the sum of all these and considered

32 as the minimum subsistence expense (benchmark) beyond which the household is to be food secure or not. (See appendix1)

Logit and Probit regression are among the commonly used approaches that estimating dummy dependent variaqbles (‘Yes’ or ‘No’ type). Both models guarantee that the 50 estimated probabilities will lie between logical limit 0 & 1. For this reason, the models are frequently used when dependent variables are found to be dichotomous (Gujarati, 1995, as cited in Marikos, 2016).

The two models are actually quite similar except some differences. Both models yield estimated choice probabilities are only differ by less than 0.02. In addition, logit is advantageous over probit not only because the predicted probabilities are easily arrived but it is also preferred for observation at the extremes of distributions. For this reason, this research work should apply logit model to show the factors influencing household food security status in the study area. It employs household food security status as the dichotomous dependent variable. That is, 1 for food secure and 0 for food insecure household. The binary logistic regression models were employed to address the objectives of the survey.

Estimation Procedure for the logistic model

In order to examine whether the model fits the data, Hosmer and Lemeshow test was used. In this study, Hosmer and Lemeshow test was used to assess whether the model fits the data or to check goodness of fit of the model.

Before estimating the logit model, it is necessary to check if multicollinearity exists among the continuous variables and verify the associations among discrete variables. The reason for this is that the existence of multicollinearity will affect seriously the parameter estimates. If multicollinearity turns out to be significant, the simultaneous presence of the two variables will attenuate or reinforce the individual effects of these variables (Kothari, 1990). Accordingly, Variance Inflation Factors (VIF) technique was employed to detect the problem of multicollinearity for continuous explanatory variables (Gujarati, 1995, as cited in Markos, 2016). Each selected continuous variable is regressed on all the other continuous explanatory variables, the coefficient of determination (R2 j) being

33 constructed in each case. If an approximate linear relationship exists among the explanatory variables then this result, in a ‘large’ value for R2 j in at least one of the test regressions. A popular measure of multicollinearity associated with the VIF is defined as:

2 -1 VIF (Xj) = (1 - R j) …………………………………………………….2 Similarly, there may be also interaction between discrete variables, which can lead to the problem of association. To detect this problem, coefficients of contingency were compounded as follows:

C= ……………………………………………………………………..3

Where C is coefficient of contingency, χ2 is chi-square test and n= total sample size.

Definition of Variables Once the analytical procedure and its requirements are known, it is necessary to identify the potential explanatory variables and describe their measurements. Different variables are expected to affect household food security status in the study area. The major variables expected to have influence households to be food secure or not explained below. The Dependent Variable of the Model (HHFSS): the household food security status, which is the dependent variable for the logit analysis is a dichotomous variable representing the status of household food security. It was represented in the model by 1 for food secure and 0 for food insecure. The dependent variable of the model is discrete variables that represent the status of households on food security to determine the factors affecting household food security status. Here, the minimum food calorie needed to ensure survival per adult equivalent per day is used to classify households into two groups. In this model, the dependent variable takes a value of 0 if the household belongs to below the calorie requirement, i.e. food insecure with the probability of Pi, otherwise a value of 1, i.e. food secure with the probability of 1-Pi. Specification of the model is as follow Logit

(secured) = ln p/1-p = a +bixi +u p = probability of being food secure 1-p = probability of being food insecure Pi=1/1+e-L Where, Pi: is 1 the probability that the household is secure; 0 otherwise.

LogitY1 = + + ------4

The Independent Variables of the model: The independent variables expected to have association with household food security status, were selected based on available literature. Efforts were made to incorporate demographic, biophysical and socioeconomic factors, which are reasonable and relevant in the farming systems of the Gimbi woreda in particular. Accordingly, the empirical model was built using the data collected on the following variables. Xi: is explanatory variables are chosen based up on available related literatures on the subject at issue. These variables were summarized as the following table with their description, measurement and expected signs.

Table 3.6: Variables and their Descriptions, Measurements and Expected Sign

No Dependent(Y1) and Independent (explanatory) variables (X1-Xn) description Variables Variables description Measurement Expected Name sign 1 Y1=HHFSS Probability of being Dummy (1=Food secure, Dependent food secure or not 0 = Food insecure) 2 X1= Age Age of household head Continuous variable measured in +ve years 3 X2=Sex Sex of household head Dummy(1=Female,0=Male) +ve 0= for cannot read and write) 4 X3= Edu Educational level of 1= 1-4 +ve Household head 2= 5-8 3= 9-12 5 X4=Fsize Family size of Continuous variable measured in -ve household head number 6 X5=Ucf Use of chemical Dummy (1= Yes, 0=No) +ve fertilizer 7 X6=Uis Use of improved seed Dummy (1= Yes, 0=No) +ve 8 X7=Nophh Number of oxen per Continuous variable measured in +ve household number 9 X8=Irriuse Irrigation use Dummy(1= Yes, 0=No) +ve 10 X9=Fls/Hh Farm Land Continuous variable measured in +ve size/household hectare 11 X10=Off/Fa Off farm/non-farm Continuous variable measured in +ve income birr 12 X11=Arcre Access to rural credit Dummy (1=Yes, 0= No) +ve Source: Field Survey, 2017

Thus, the model for household Food Security status can be represented by:

HHFSS = f ( AGE, SEX, EDUC, FAMSIZ ,FERTIL, IPROVEDSEED, NOXEN, IRRIUSE, F LS, OFFIR, ARCRE, )...... 5

HHFSS=LogitY=α+β1age+β2sex+β3educβ4famsiz+β5improvedseed+β6fertil+β7noxen+β8irr iuse+β9Fls +β10offir +β11arcre + .

Where, i‘s=Parameter estimates for independent variables (Xi‘s), = Random term The associated hypotheses of the study with respect to each one of the regressors of independent variable is also presented below:

1. Age of the household heads: Continuous variable expected to positively influence the household food security status at household level. Mostly observed that old aged households were food insecure and young aged households were food secure.

2. Sex of the household heads: This is a dummy variable, which takes 1 if sex of respondent is female, 0 otherwise. Sex of household negatively influences food security in the study area. i.e female headed household are mostly food insecure and male headed household were food secure.

3. Educational status of the household heads (educ): It is a dummy variable, which takes 1 for can read, and write and 0 for cannot read and/or write. It was expected to have a positive influence on household food security status.

4. Use of Irrigation (irriuse): this is a dummy variable, which takes 1 for irrigation use and; 0 otherwise. It was expected to have a positive influence on HHFSS.

5. Family Size of the household heads (Size): The larger the household size (economically inactive) the more implication on food consumption than on labor supply to boost production. In this study, it was expected that the larger the household size, the more likely to have impact on food consumption. The expected effect of family size on HFSS was negative.

7. Farm Land size per hectare per household heads (Fls): Farm land size refers to the total farmland owned by the household and measured in hectares. This variable stands for the total land area cultivated. In this particular study, total cultivated land owned by the household is taken as proxy for farm size is an indicator of wealth and income and is expected to be associated with food security status. The smaller the farmland owned by

36 the household, the smaller the level of production and the more likely to be food insecure. The expected effect of farm land size on HHFSS was positive.

8. Number of Oxen owned (noxen): oxen are the most important means of land cultivation and basic farm assets. Households who own more oxen have better chance to escape serious food shortages. Moreover, oxen possession can enable good performance of crop production through improving household access to land. The number of oxen available to the household was, therefore hypothesized to enhance the probability of being food secure. The expected effect of number of oxen owned (noxen) on HHFSS was positive.

9. Use of Chemical Fertilizer (Fertil): It is represented by a dummy variable taking value 1, if the farmers used; 0, otherwise. Fertilizer use has often been perceived as improving yield per unit area. Therefore, it was hypothesized that households using fertilizer are expected to have better food secure household than the food insecure households. The expected effect of use of chemical fertilizer (Fertil) on HHFSS was positive.

10. Off-Farm Income per (offi): This represents the amount of off-farm income (in cash or in kind) the farmer or any of the household members earned in the year. Since small holder households have inadequate farm income they often look for external source of income to purchase food and farm inputs. The success of households and their members in managing food insecurity is largely determined by their ability to get access to off farm job opportunities in the study area. In this regard, households engaged in off-farm activities are better endowed with additional income to purchase food. Hence, it is expected that the availability of off-farm income is positively associated with household food security status.

11. Household head access to credit (crd): It was represented by a dummy variable taking value 1 if the household has access to credit and 0 otherwise Households having access to credit have better chance of involving in non-farm activities, purchasing ploughing oxen, etc. Therefore, those households having access to credit have better chance of food secure than the other.

Because of this, households could increase and diversify their income and resist them from food shortage. The expected effect of household head access to credit (crd) on HHFSS was positive.

3.2.8. Validity and Reliability Measures

Research must have truth-value, applicability, consistency, and neutrality in order to consider the rationalistic paradigm (Hopkin, 2000; Morse, et al., 2002). Reliability refers to the degree to which observed scores free from errors of measurement that can be gauged by consistency of scores, while validity refers to the appropriateness, meaningfulness of the specific inferences made from given measurements (Hopkin, 2000). In order to assure the validity of the finding, the researcher tried to review different literatures related to the problem under the investigation and the tools were pre tested (pilot testing) with the household head respondents from Gimbi Woreda.

In order to keep the reliability of measurements in household questionnaire survey, the researcher carried out pilot study prior to actual survey in order to prove legibility, formats and logical sequences of questions for actual survey. This enables the researcher to prove the legibility of the questionnaire for the actual survey. Therefore, to keep data validity and reliability of this research, the researcher used the triangulation method to increase the credibility and validity of the research results to overcome the weakness or intrinsic biases.

3.2.9. Ethical Considerations

Primarily, the researcher has an obligation to respect the rights, needs, values, and desires of the informants (Creswell, 2009). The researcher needs to consider the potential for risk such as physical, psychological, social, economic, or legal harm to participants in a study (Andy, 2009). By taking this idea in to consideration, the researcher planned to get the consent of the households’ questionnaire survey and key informants. Therefore, before starting to conduct the study the researcher tried to be ethical in a manner that not disappoint the respondents. First, the researcher had a formal letter from the concerned bodies in order to assure permission for primary and secondary data collection before going ahead with his research.

Then after, he contacted the government officials and then, the sample respondents to explain the purpose of the study. That is, The data collected from them is used only for educational purposes.

The participants were fully informed that their personal information is kept confidentiality that researcher never expose them in any way and never mention their name in the paper and they were remained anonymous throughout the study and that the study process involves no situation to be put them in any risk of harm. The participant’s willingness and consent to participate would be considered and they were participated with their full willingness.

Beyond the ethics on human subjects, research ethics also considers acknowledgement of data generated by others and appropriate citations of scholarly research outputs, books, websites to cite and acknowledge all the information taken from scholarly literatures and data generated by other individuals or organizations.

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

In this chapter, the data obtained through household survey and key informant interviews are presented. To make the finding more meaningful and appropriate, the information gathered through key-informant interviews are integrated with the household survey based on the main research questions. The findings from descriptive, inferential statistics, and logistic regression analyses are presented and discussed. The collected data were analyzed using descriptive statistics tools like tabulation, graphs, mean, standard deviation, percentage and frequency distributions. The inferential statistic such as chi- square and t-test were used in assessing the household food security status in to a number of independent variables. Binary Logistic regression analysis was employed to identify factors that affect the food security status of the households in the study area.

4.1. Measuring the Food Security Status of the Households in the Gimbi Woreda

This study was based on the food security definition put forward by CWFS (2013). This definition explicitly focuses on four fundamental concepts (elements) of food security i.e, food availability, food access, food utilization and food stability. Furthermore, as shows in the conceptual framework and general indicators of food security, this concept consists of a number of components including resources, production, income, consumption and nutrition. Specifically, food consumption as a component or indicator of food security can be measured by expenditure technique, where by gross households production and purchases over definite period of time usually a year are estimated. It was further assumed that, at the household level, food security status is best measured by direct survey of expenditure and relates that with acceptability rule appropriate to the household.

For the purpose of this study, the concept of food security is defined as the extent to which a total household expenditure per AE meets its subsistence requirement. Total household expenditure in this study is defined as total expenditure incurred by the household or any of its members and includes expenditure on consumption as well as non-consumption items. More specifically, total expenditure consists of expenditures on

40 food including own produce, stimulants, clothing and footwear, household equipment, social obligation and various services.

In summary, the reason why the total household expenditure/AE employed in this study is justified by the fact that in survey of this kind, the income statistics reported by the households usually tends to under estimate the actual income level of households due to various reasons. Since the income of the household is not known with certainty, household expenditure is usually taken as a proxy of income (CSA, 1999-2000). Other study further indicates that total household expenditure reflects purchasing power of the household and has been employed as proxy of total household income.

On the base of the above argument, and a conceptual framework of this study, the total household expenditure for the year 2016/2017 was taken as a best measure of households food security status . The average expenses, which at least be met or required per adult equivalent was computed usig proxy indicators of household food security status. In order to start analysis of the household food security status, the household expenditure per AE has been compared with the minimum expense required to cover the minimum subsistence requirement per AE per annum that can be used as a benchmark for measuring households’ food security status. Accordingly, evaluating the extent to which the household expenditure covers the minimum level of expense needed for subsistence can assess the extent to which the sample households are food secure or not.

The minimum level of expenditure required per AE was computed based on the amount of food required by an adult person (a calorie requirement of 2100 kcal per day or 225 kg of cereal per AE per year), minimum expenses needed for cloths, minimum health care, the amount of money required paying short term loan and land use tax. The estimation of the minimum staple food needed per AE based on the minimum calorie an adult person requires. The calorie intake result is calculated by using the standard food composition table prepared by Ethiopian Public Health Institute (EPHI, 2013).

Thus, the country level calorie intake per AE per day is about 3000 kcal of which daily calorie intake from cereals constitute 70% or 2100 kcal (CSA, 1999-2000). With the presumption that a kg of cereals provides 3400 kcal, as established by Ethiopian Nutrition

Institute, 225 kg of cereals is needed per AE per year. According to Authors computation in 2016/2017 (Appendix1) on average the price of grain in Gimbi woreda (10 birr/kg) would be about 2250 birr.

Moreover, information from different available sources was used to estimate the minimum amount of money needed to purchase cloths, health care and other expenses such as land use tax. In line with this, CSA, (2013) undertaken household consumption and expenditure survey, while World Bank (2013) made monitoring of the money spent by farmers of some regions in Ethiopia for different purposes. In estimating minimum expense required per AE per annum, although there is information on average per capita expenditure per annum surveyed by CSA (2013), this particular study made use of some information reported by World Bank (2013, Page 55-59). The reason to utilize this information from the World Bank is due to the fact that this survey report was undertaken on rural and small town households in Ethiopia. With regard to health care expense, in a low-income economy, the CSA and World Bank (2013, Page 55-59) estimates the minimum expenses per person for a minimum package of essential clinical services to be $US 8 per year or 176 Ethiopian birr in 2016/17. This estimate is assumed applicable to the study area.

According to CSA and WB (2013), Clothing and shoes are the most important non-food expenditure in both rural and small town areas. In a given year, over half of the households in the rural areas spend on average about birr 1040 (approximately USD 48) on clothing and shoes. Taxes and levies are also important expenditure items. On average, rural households pay birr 99($ 4.5 USD) per year in taxes. Ceremonial expenses are also included in the survey result. In rural areas average household expenditures on these activities is 410 birr ($21.5 USD) per year and the minimum income required for provision of education is 165 birr ($7.5 USD). This estimation is also applicable to the study area. (See appendix 1)

In order to be able to continue production in the future and to have command over its assets, the household should be able to meet minimum land use tax obligation and also settle the current loan balance. The sum of all these expenses was used as the beginning beyond which the household is said to be food-secure or not in the study area. The estimated minimum level of income required for subsistence depends very much on the

42 level of the prices of the commodities and services. This implies that the higher the variation in prices, the more food-insecure the consumer who depends much on purchased food would be.

4.2. Households’ food security status by expenditure per AE in 2016/2017

In this study, the households food security status in Gimbi Woreda during 2016/2017 production year was measured by direct survey of the total household expenditure per AE per annum was converted to calorie requirement needed for adult person (2100kcal) was employed as a benchmark between food secured and food insecure households.

Accordingly, 4195 birr is considered as minimum subsistence expense (benchmark) beyond which household is to be food secure or not (table 4.1).

Therefore, the analysis result of distributions of households’ food Security status by expenditure range per-Adult Equivalent in 2016/17 shows that, about 118(38.2%) of the households were food secure and their total yearly expenditure is greater than 4195 birr

(2100kcal) and the remaining 191(61.8%) of the households were food insecure and their total yearly expenditure is less than 4195 birr (2100kcal) (table 4.1).

With regard to annual household expenditure per AE, in 2016/17 production year, the average expenditure of the sample respondents was 1700 Ethiopian birr per AE with the range lies between minimum birr less than 2195 birr per AE and maximum Birr 9200 per

AE (table 4.1). The survey result shows that the average expenditure for the food secure households was 5914.542 birr per AE as compared to 3463.031 birr per AE for food insecure. The statistical t-test supports the presence of expenditure differentials between these two groups at less than 5% significant level.

Table 4.1: Households’ Food Security Status by Expenditure Per Adult Equivalent in 2016/17 Expenditure Food Secure Food Insecure Numbers HH Total range(Birr/AE) N=118 N=191 309 percentage <2195 - 2 2 0.65 2195-3195 - 26 26 8.41 3195-4195 - 163 163 52.8 4195-5195 105 - 105 34 >5195 13 - 13 4.2 Mean 5914.542 3463.031 4399.207 ST. dev. 1503.939 427.0286 1547.553 Min 4200 1700 1700 Max 9200 4150 9200 t-value = 49.40, p =<0.05

Source: Own Households Survey, 2017

4.3. Demographic Characteristics of the Sampled Households

Household demographic characteristics of the sampled respondents were discussed in this section. The demographic characteristics includes variables such as sex, age, family size and educational status of the households as shown on the following tables.

4.3.1. Percentage Distribution of Households Food Security Status by Sex

Analysis of sex indicates that the proportion of food secure households is more in male- headed households than the female-headed households. The analysis shows that the study areas had fairly higher proportion of male-headed households (85.8 %); only 14.2 % of the household heads are female (Table 4.2). This pattern of male domination of household heads position was similar across all the three Kebeles in the study area. Among male- headed households 52.1% and 33.7% were found to be food insecure and secure, respectively; on the other hand, 9.7% and 4.5% were food insecure and secure from female-headed households, respectively. According to Mesay (2008), households headed by male have higher probability of being foods secure than female-headed households.

Table 4.2: Percentage Distribution of Households’ Food Security Status by Sex

Food Security status Variable Categories Frequency Percent Food secure Food insecure Sex of Male 265 85.8 104(33.7%) 161(52.1%) household heads Female 44 14.2 14(4.5%) 30(9.7%) Total 309 100 118 (32.2%) 191(61.8%) X2 = 1.01, p= <0.05 Source: Own Households Survey, 2017

4.3.2. Percentage Distribution of Household Food Security Status by Age

The average age of the respondents was about 44.35 years. The maximum age observed was 77 whereas the minimum was 21 years. The results of analysis on the age of respondents in the study area reveals that, largest of the food secure households head accounted 60(19.4%) were between the ages of 36 and 50 years. It implies that most of them are still active young adults who could apply maximum physical labor and skills needed in the farming activity as well as their ability to obtain off-farm jobs to boost their income in order to access for more food. According to Shumete (2009), this age bracket contained the innovative and adoptable individuals. The result agrees with the findings of Markos (2016) which revealed that younger household heads are stronger and are expected to cultivate large farm size than older households. However, they are food insecure households because of the landless and small land holding of the them.

On the other hand, age group statistics shows that the mean age of the food secure household head is 44 as compared to 44.57 for the food insecure household heads. The t-test shows a significance difference in the mean age of the household head between food secure and food insecure ones. This finding is contrary to a priori expectation that younger farmers are more likely to be food insecure than older farmers due to better position the elder may have in terms of land resources accumulation compared to that of adult farmers.

Table 4.3: Percentage Distribution of Households’ Food Security Status by Age

Food Security status Variable Categories Frequency Percent Food secure Food insecure 21-35 70 22.6 28(9%) 42(13.6%) Age of the 36-50 135 43.7 60(19.4%) 75(24.3%) households 51-64 75 24.3 14(4.5%) 61(19.7%) > 65 29 9.4 16(5.2%) 13(4.3%) Total 309 100 118(38.2%) 191(61.8%) Min=21 Total mean=44.34628 Mean=44 Mean=44.56

Max=77 ST. dev.=8.61 ST. dev.=10.21

t-value= 1.09, P = <0.05 Source: Own Households Survey, 2017

4.3.3. Percentage Distribution of Households’ Food Security Status by Family Size

With reference to family size, the analysis shows that household heads with 6-8 persons per household were majority accounting for (47.9%) in study areas. The result implies that families with small household size with 1-2 persons were more food secure than those have large household size like 6-8 persons. This is because increase in members of household added more responsibilities to household heads especially when many of the family member are depend totally on the household head. Again, as household size increases, income per head declines and the less food secure the household becomes. This result agrees with the findings of Misgana (2014) which revealed that as the household size increases, the probability of households being food secure decreases.

With respect to the specific characteristics of food secure and food insecure households, family size was hypothesized to have a negative impact in determining the state of food security, in such a way that a household with large family size tends to be food insecure than those with small numbers. In light of this the statistical analysis shows that significant difference in mean family size between food secure and food insecure

46 households, which is 3.79 for food secure and 5.27 for food insecure households. This finding is in complete agreement with a priori expectation.

According to one of the women household KII, regarding to the large family size, explained her ideas as the following paragraph’s; It is always good to be having one or two children rather than many children. I have lost the father of my children due to illness before fifteen years. I have three daughter and two boys’ and they were dependent on me. I have no one to plough my a few lands that I get from my parent. So I gave my land to the sharecropper. The crop produced from the land is decreasing from time to time and I get a few shared crops from my land. Therefore, I apply petty trading to get some income to buy food at the time of food shortage. Now, I am struggling to survive. If I had a small family which matched to my resources and husband at home, I would not suffer this much

Table 4.4: Percentage Distribution of Households’ Food Security Status by Family Size

Household size Food Security status Variable (persons) Fre. Percent Food Secure Food Insecure 1-2 45 14.5 40(12.9%) 5(1.6%) 3-5 98 31.7 38(12.3%) 60(19.4%) Family size 6-8 148 47.9 34(11%) 114(36.9%) (Numbers) 9-10 16 5.2 6(1.9%) 10(3.3%) >11 2 0.6 - 2(0.7%) Total 309 100 118(38.2%) 191(61.8%) Min=1 Mean=3.79 Mean=5.27 Max=11 ST. dev=1.38 ST. dev=1.68 t-value= 6.36, P = <0.05

Source: Own Households Survey, 2017 4.3.4. Distribution of Households Food Status by Educational Level

With regard to the educational status, among sample households, (61.2%) of the surveyed household heads were not able to read or write. From literate household heads, 20.4% and 18.4% households were food secure and insecure, respectively. Whereas, 17.8% and 43.4% of illiterate household heads were food secure and insecure respectively (see table

4.5). About 12% of the households attended between grades 1 up to 4 and 5.8% attended grade 5 up to 8. The remaining 2.9% attended grade 11 up to12. This implies that majority of them were not in the better position to access information, have no better understanding and not adopt new improved farm techniques.

Illiterates have a negative impact on food security status of rural households in the study area. This is because lack of education decreases understanding and adoption of improved technology, which will rapidly increase food production, and decrease the probability of a household being food secure. This study is in line with the previous studies of Messay (2012); Mequanent, et al., (2014). This study also agrees with the findings of Messay and Shishay (2014) which revealed that an increase in the number of years in educational attainment will increase the probability of households being food secure. This finding is in complete agreement with a priori expectation. Table 4.5: Distribution of Households’ Food Security Status by Educational Level

Food Security status Variable Categories N % Food secure Food insecure Can’t read and 189 61.2 55(17.8%) 134(43.4%) write (0) Educational Informal edu. 56 18.1 23(7.4%) 33(10.6%) status of 1-4 37 12.0 20(6.5%) 17(5.5%) households 5-8 18 5.8 12(3.9%) 6(1.9%) . 9-12 9 2.9 8(2.6%) 1(0.3%) Total 309 100 118(38.2%) 191(61.8%) Min=1, Max=12 X2= 2.01, P = <0.05 Source: Own Households Survey, 2017

4.4. Analysis of Socio Economic Characteristics of the Sampled Households

In this study, household socio-economic characteristics were analyzed and presented. The main socio-economic characteristics includes in this section were farm land size, off/non-farm activities, farm oxen ownership, full application of modern farm inputs,

48 household production, household income, household sources of food and household frequency of meals.

4.4.1. Households’ Food Security Status by Farm Land Size

As shows in table 4.6, cultivated land size of sampled households ranges from <0.25 to >1.5 hectare. The average land holding size of all respondents was 0.631 with standard deviation of 0.387 hectare. However, households who have access to land above 0.61-1.4 hectare and 1.5 hectare appear to be more food secures (table 4.6). As expected, the proportion of landless households account for about 42(13.6%) which is totally failed under the food insecure categories. According to the evident from the table 4.6, many of the respondents 64 (20.7%) are replied to own land between 0.26-0.5 hectare of land and only insignificant proportion of the households are reported to own land size greater than 1.5 hectare 42 (13.2%).

The findings indicate that, majority of the respondents in the study area have small land holding between (0.76-1.0) and 13.6% of them are landless households. This implies that, lack of this resource forced to produce little production. This result agrees with Samuel (2011) who reported that agricultural production is still highly influenced by lack of farmland.

According to KII of one woreda agricultural food desk expert and three kebele developmental agents (DA), small land holding in the study area has discouraged many farm households to use crop rotation and fallowing in general in Gimbi woreda and particular in the study kebeles. Therefore, ploughing permanently and continuous use of land with limited soil conservation practices resulted in degradation of soil in many areas. Hence, declining land size and poor land quality have worsened the condition of declining crop production and land productivity in the study area, which indirectly affects the availability of food crops in many households. Small land holdings also affect the food security of households as farm households face shortage of land to grow more types of crops to ensure the availability of grain at different periods of a year.

Table 4.6: Distribution of Households’ Food Security Status by Land Holding Size

Land Categories Food Security status Variable in hectare N % Food Secure Food Insecure Landless(0) 42 13.6 - 42(13.6%) <0.25 45 14.6 7(2.3%) 38(12.3%) land holding 0.26-0.5 64 20.7 14(4.5%) 50(16.2%) size of 0.51-0.75 56 18.1 11(3.6%) 45(14.5%) households 0.76-1.0 60 19.4 51(16.5%) 9(2.9%) per hectares > 1.5 42 13.6 35 (11.3%) 7(2.3%) Total 309 100 118(38.2%) 191(61.8%) mean= .631 Mean=2.21 Mean=.430 ST. dev.= .387 ST. dev.= 9.60 ST. dev.=.212 t-value=33.20, P=<0.05 Source: Own Households Survey, 2017

4.4.2. Households Food Security Status by Yearly Income from Off-Farm /Non- FarmActivities

Table 4.7 reveals that small proportion (15.5%) of the households earned less than <575 birr from non-agricultural activities and entirely they are food insecure households. 29.8% of the respondents earned between 575-1675 Birr from their non–agricultural activities and more of them are food secure households. About 48.9% households earned income between 676-2500 Birr from nonfarm activities and majorty are food insecure households. The remaining 5.8% households earn yearly income >2500 Birr and they are completely food secure households (table 4.7). With regard to the mean of income from off-farm activities, mean of the food secure households are 961 with the standard deviation of 749 as well as the mean income of food insecure household are also 497 with the standard deviation of 410(see table 4.7).

In this regard, larger proportions of households in the study are not participated on off/non-farm activity rather majority of them are depending on only agricultural activities. This result agrees with Degafa (2005), low income earned from off-farm activities in rural areas has not proven to be adequate to meet household food security status. Hence, households sources of their income mainly only from agricultural

50 production, households are not gained their food needs. The statistical analysis shows that there is significant mean difference between the two groups at 5% probability level.

Table 4.7: Households Yearly Income From off Farm /Non-Farm Activities

Households yearly Food security status income Frequency Percent Food secure Food insecure <575 birr 48 15.5 - 48(15.5%) 575-676 birr 92 29.8 36(11.7%) 56(18.1%) 676-2500 birr 151 48.9 64(20.7%) 87(28.2%) >2500 birr 18 5.8 18(5.8%) - Total 309 100.0 118(38.2%) 191(61.8) mean= 674.466 Mean=961 mean= 497 ST. dev.= 606.6719 ST. dev.= 749 ST. dev.= 410 t-value=49.40 , p = <0.05 Source: Own Households Survey, 2017

4.4.3. Distribution of Households’ Food Security Status by Farm Oxen Ownership

The study findings on farm oxen ownership shows that about 13.9% of the households are without farm oxen and they are used traditional farming equipment like hoe and the others. This implies that, all of them were faced to the problem of food insecurity in the study area. About 54.1% of the households own only one ox. This represents more than half of the households in the study area. The remaining 23.6% and 8.4% of the studied households own two and greater than two oxen respectively. Oxen ownership was significant factor, which distinguishes food secure from food insecure households in the study area (see table 4.8).

Therefore, this result agrees with Degafa (2005) and Mesay (2008), finding which showed that, farm oxen possession would be a critical production factor for the rural households. This variable was significant at 1% probability level and has a positive relationship with household’s food security status.

Table 4.8: Distribution of Households’ Food Security Status by Farm Oxen Ownership

Food security status

Number of farm oxen Frequency Percent Food security Food insecurity

0 43 13.9 - 43(13.9%)

1 167 54.1 50 (16.2%) 117(37.9%)

2 73 23.6 42(13.6%) 31(10%)

>2 26 8.4 26(8.4%) -

Total 309 100 118(38.2%) 191(61.8%)

Min=0, Max=4 t-value=56.07, p= <0.05

Source: Own Households Survey, 2017

4.4.4. Percentage Distribution of Households’ Food Security Status in the Full Application of Modern Farm Inputs

As shows in table 4.9, only 49.2 % of households were used improved farm inputs in the year under study. Accordingly, 34.3 % of households used fertilizers, improved seeds and herbicides together, while 25.2 % utilized fertilizers and herbicide only. Similarly, 49.2 % of respondents applied fertilizers alone on their farmlands. The remaining 47.2 % and 22.7 % of the respondents were used fertilizer and improved seed and as well as users of fertilizers, improved seed, herbicides and pesticides respectively. The types of input utilized are determine household food security status (see table 4.9).

The result also shows that, household who use only improved fertilizer are more food insecure than those who used full farm technology (fertilizers, improved seed, herbicides and pesticides). This implies uses of fertilizer, improved seeds, pesticides and herbicides in combination, helps to increase crop production (See table 4: 9). Therefore, this study was agree with findings of Mesay (2008), i.e. users of full modern farm inputs such as chemical fertilizers, improved seeds and herbicides can increase crop yield and productivity as well as more food secure than the non-user (food insecure households). The importance of these inputs becomes more significant in highly eroded soils and

52 fragile environments to improve land productivity and to boost overall production. Therefore, utilizations of modern farm inputs are expected to enhance farm households' food security (see table 4.9).

Rural farm credits and savings are keys to improve economic access of the rural people

(FAO, 2012). In the study area, the little access to credit limits their ability to purchase seeds, fertilizers and other productive assets. The study shows that about 62.5% of the respondents have no access to savings. But about 37.5% of them have developed their saving both by modern and traditional (see table 4: 9).

The facts that, majority of the households (77.3%) in the study area are practiced rain-fed agriculture. This clearly implies that, the magnitude of the demand for irrigation practices are very law. The achievement so far, however, seems discouraging as only 22.7% of the respondents were found to practice crop cultivation under small-scale irrigation.

Agricultural extension would play a significant role in a country like Ethiopia, where the majority of farmers are illiterate. However, only 41.1% of the sample households identified themselves to be beneficiaries/users of extension services and the remaining majorities (58.9%) of the respondents were non-user of the extension services (table 4.9).

As explained by KII of households in the study area, the majority of households have still resisted the use of farm inputs on their land. As a result, their production is decreasing from time to time. Again, those who are unable to use these inputs especially fertilizer, improved seed, farm credit and extension service are mostly faced to the problem of the food insecurity

Table 4.9: Participation of Households in the Full Application of Modern Farm Inputs

Food security status Types of modern Food Secure=(118) Food Insecure=(191) Total=(309) farm inputs Users Non users Users Non users Users Non users N % N % N % N % N % N % Fertilizer only 112 94.9 6 5.1 40 20.9 151 79.1 152 49.2 157 50.8 Fertilizer and improved seeds only 109 92.4 9 7.6 37 19.4 154 80.6 146 47.2 163 52.8 Fertilizer and 50 42.4 68 57.6 28 14.7 163 85.3 78 25.2 231 74.8 herbicides only Fertilizer, improved seeds and herbicides 72 61 46 39 34 17.8 157 82.2 106 34.3 203 65.7 Fertilizer, improved seed, herbicides, 70 59.3 48 40.7 - - 191 100 80 22.7 229 74.1 pesticides, irrigation Extension services 85 72 33 28 42 22 149 78 127 41.1 182 58.9 Farm credits and 78 66.1 40 33.9 38 19.9 153 80.1 116 37.5 193 62.5 savings Source: Own Households Survey, 2017 4.4.5. Households’ Food Security Status by Major Crop Production Table 4.10 gives the most important crops grown by the households in the study area. Crop production is the main economic activity for the studied households. Even though there are variation in the type of crops grown and the size of farmland possessed by households, almost all of the respondents in the study sites are engaged in crop production. This includes the landless and those who are able to access land through sharecropping. The most widely cultivated crops in the study area were maize (53.1%), millet (30.1%), sorghum (16.2%) and teff (0.6%) respectively. Maize appears to the most widely grown cereal crop across two kebeles except in Lalisa Bikilal kebele where millet and teff production is small amount. Maize is the main staple crop in the study area.

According to KII of three kebele developmental agents (DA) and three kebele managers,

households in in the study kebeles cultivation of crops and cash crops such as maize,

millet, sorghum, barley, teff, coffee and chat are grown in the study sites. Households

grow all these different types of crops both for household consumption and for sale.

Maize is largely produced for home consumption. Among these crops, coffee and chat

are largely produced for sale in the study sites. In a few area perennial crops such as fruits

and vegetables like mango, abukado and banana are grown in the study sites and their

contribution either for home consumption or for sale.

As one of the peasant key informant, cash crops such as coffee and chat are not developed in areas were not fertile. Then, many of the peasants were cultivated and becoming difficult for many households due to declining soil fertility and lack of enough cultivated land in the study area. Therefore, most households depend only on growing annual crops such as maize, sorghum, millet and teff both for food and sale.

Table 4.10: Distribution of Households’ Food Security Status by Major Crop Production

Food security status

Types of crops Frequency Percent Food secure Food insecure

Maize 164 53.1 68(22%) 96(31%)

Millet 93 30.1 27(8.7%) 65(21.1%)

Sorghum 50 16.2 20(6.5%) 30(9.7%)

Teff 2 0.6 3(0.97%) -

Total 309 100.0 118(38.2%) 191(61.8%)

Source: Own Households Survey, 2017

4.4.6. Households’ Food Security Status by Main Sources of Food

The majority of households surveyed ranked first own production 212(68.6%) as the main source of household food consumption for both food secure and insecure households. The food items such as maize were the main source of food for both food secure and insecure households (table 4.11). The market parches 73(23.6%) was ranked second to own production as a source of food for both food secure and insecure households. Market purchases food items such as maize and maize products as well as sorghum and millet for both poor and non-poor households. The third other sources of food for households that were identified include both own production and parches 22 (7.1%) and The last sources of food for the households in the study areas were labor exchange for food but these constituted 2(0.6 % ) of the source of food for food secure

Table 4.11: Distributions of Households’ Food Security Status by Main Sources of Food

Sources of income Food security status N % food secure food insecure Rank Own production (Maize, 212 68.6 96(31.1%) 116(37.5%) 1st Millet, Sorghum, Teff, Burly, Wheat Purchase of Maize, Millet, 73 23.6 12(3.9%) 61(19.7%) 2nd Sorghum, Teff, Burly, Wheat Own production and Market 22 7.1 10(3.2%) 12(3.9%) 3rd purchase Labor exchange for food 2 0.6 - 2(0.6%) 4th Total 309 100 118(38.2%) 191(61.8%) Source: Own Households Survey, 2017

4.4.7. Households’ food Security Status by Main Sources of Income

A highly diversified income generation patterns were found in the study area. Table 4.12 shows the main income generating activities that were identified. Agricultural activities such as cash, food and vegetable production, livestock rearing and sales, assistance/

56 remittances and small business operations serves as the main income source for both food secure and insecure households in the study area.

Many food secure and insecure households are engaged in formal work with obtaining their main incomes from cash crop production 147(47.6%) sales like coffee and chat. Agricultural activities such as food and vegetable production, livestock rearing and sales serves as the main income source for just about 27.8% of food secure and insecure households. Among the food secure and insecure households, 16(5.2 %) receive remittances from a relative who is working outside of their community or village. About 21(6.8%) food secure and insecure households sources of income were identified through small business operations and petty trading such as the sale of firewood amongst others. Many households obtained their income from a combination of different activities or sources. Table 4.12: Distribution of Households Food security status by Main Sources of Income

Sources of income Frequency Percent Food Security status Food Secure Food insecure Cash crop production/sales 147 47.6 62(20%) 85(27.5%) Food crop production/sales 86 27.8 36(11.7%) 50(16.2%) Vegetable production/sales 24 7.8 3(0.97%) 21(6.8%) Livestock and Livestock 15 4.9 7(2.3%) 8(2.6%) production sales Assistance/remittances 16 5.2 2(0.6) 14(4.5%) Small business operations 21 6.8 8(2.6%) 13(4.2%) Total 309 100 118(38.2%) 191(61.8%)

Source: Own Households Survey, 2017 4.4.8. Households’ Food Security Status by Frequency of Meals

As shows in table 4.13, the number of meals per day and the composition of each meal vary for studied rural households, according to the season. The study result on the frequency of food intake during the food shortage shows some differences between the household heads. It can be understood that regardless of the type of foods they consume,

57 the majority of households, which account for nearly 37.5% of the total respondents were food insecure and 1.6% food secure households are consume two times a day.

Smaller number of household heads in which around 23.7% food insecure and 36.6% food secure households were able to consume/eating three times a day. The remaining very small percent (0.7%) of food insecure households in the study area were eating less preferred food items one times a day. The prevailing gap between food secure and food insecure households in terms of frequency of meals per day in the study area can be explained in different ways. This could be due to the shortage of available food and lack of access to food, food habits and the coping mechanisms to food shortages in households which may be reflected by reducing the number of meals.

According to one of the household heads who participated during the KII explained in his own words: it is common to reduce the number of meals even one or two meal a day in times of food shortages. He said that, “I usually pass the day with a piece of dry bread and roasting maize served with coffee ceremony in the morning. Sometimes I don’t even remember whether I have eaten with in a day or not as I usually leave the house early in the morning and return back home late in the evening to get some income to my family to buy a food.“

Table 4.13: Households’ Food Security Status by Frequency of Meals Household Food security status frequency of meals Frequency Percent Food secure Food insecure

One times 2 0.7 - 2(0.6%)

Two times 121 39.1 5(1.6%) 116(37.5%)

Three times 186 60.2 113(36.6%) 73(23.7%)

Total 309 100 118(38.2%) 191(61.8%)

Source: Own Households Survey, 2017

4.5. Factors Influencing the Food Security Status of Households

Analysis of sex indicates that the proportion of food insecure households more in female- headed households than the male-headed households. The analysis also shows that, about

33.7% and 52.1% of the food secure and insecure households are male-headed households respectively. The remaining 4.5% and 9.7% of the food secure and insecure households are of male-headed households respectively. In this study, food insecurity was higher among households led by women because of the female-headed households are not equally granted lade and less energetic to cultivate different crops as male headed households in the study area (table 4.14).

The results in table 4.14 indicate that, about 26.5% and 24.3% of the food secure and insecure households did not participate in off-farm income earning activities respectively.

The remaining 17.7% and 37.5% food secure and insecure households participated in off- farm income earning activities respectively. Participation in off-farm activities was measured by whether or not a household head involved in diversified income sources such as handicraft and running petty or small trade. Therefore, households who did not engage in off farm activities are more likely to be food insecure in the study area (table

4.14).

According to table 4.14, about 16.2% and 51.8% of the food secure and insecure households have owned blow two oxen respectively. The remaining 22% and 10% food secure and insecure households have owned above two oxen respectively. This resource in influencing the household’s food security status in the study area. It implies that, those households who owned two and greater than two oxen have better chance to escape serious food insecurity than those who do not own (table 4.14).

Technology adoption refers to the use of farm inputs like chemical fertilizer, pesticides, improved seeds, farm credit and access to irrigation water with improved agronomic practices. However, in the study area, households who described as non-users of all or at least any one of this package of technology were considered as non-users. This implies that, food insecurity was higher among non-users of full agricultural technologies such as commercial fertilizer (48.9%), improved seed (49.8%) and access to rural credit (49.5%)

(see table 4.14).

The t-test and chi-square analysis shows that, low educational status of the households, lack of chemical fertilize, inadequate land availability, lack of oxen that processing farming, use of improved seed, lack of access to rural credit, lack of non-farm/off-farm income, lack of irrigation uses, and large family size were strongly associated with the household food security status at 1% probability level (table 4.14).

From key informant interviews, and observation of the study sites, it is possible to tell that, all the three study kebeles have faced the problem of rugged topography with poor soil fertility and termite problem. It was noted from the interviews with the kebeles’ development agents that the fertility of the soil has continued to decline due to poor soil management practices and permanently cultivated land joined with termite problem and huge pressure created on land due to increasing population density in the study area. It was also observed that some households were sharecroppers due to shortage of land plough. For these reasons, many households are discouraged to apply agricultural inputs such as fertilizers as the soil may easily be washed away because of heavy rain during the rainy period on the rugged topography.

Table 4.14: Proportion of Households’ Food Security Status with the Main Factors Factors that Household food security status χ2- t- Significance can affect Variables Food secure Food insecure Values value Value at 5% HHFSS categories N % N % probabi. level

Sex Male 104 33.7 161 52.1 1.01 - 0.919 Female 14 4.5 30 9.7 Off-farm participated 82 26.5 75 24.3 - 52.93* 0.000 incomes Not participated 36 11.7 116 37.5 Farm oxen < 2 50 16.2 160 51.8 - 56.70* 0.000 > 2 68 22 31 10 Chemicall User 112 36.3 40 12.9 13.92* - 0.0002 fertilizer Non user 6 1.9 151 48.9 Improved User 109 35.3 37 12 6.89* - 0.0087 seed Non user 9 2.9 154 49.8 Irrigation User 70 22.7 7 2.3 2.22* - 0.1362 use Non user 48 15.9 184 59.5 Access to User 78 25.2 38 12.3 8.25* - 0.013 rural credit Non user 40 12.9 153 49.5 Source: Own Households Survey, 2017, * -represent at 5% probability levels

4.6. Summary of Explanatory Variables

Table 4.15 and Table 4.16 below provide the summary of means and standard deviations of the household scores of the two groups on some hypothesized discrete variables and continuous variables. 4.6.1. Summary Statistics of Independent T-Tests for Continuous Variables

As indicate in table 4.15 above, food secure and insecure households differ significantly with respect to various interval-scaled socio-economic variables. Out of five hypothesized continuous variables, food secure and insecure households differ significantly in four of them at probability level less than 5%. The result of the test statistics (table 4.15) reveals that there is significant difference in farmland,

61 off-farm income, family size and number of oxen owned of household heads of between food secure and insecure households at the 0.05 level of significance. On the other hand, there is no significant difference age of food secure and insecure households has been supported. Table 4.15: Summery Statistics of Independent T-Tests for Continuous Variables

Household food security status Range test

N Food secure Food insecure statistics

o Variables Mean St. dev. Mean St. dev. Min Max (t-values)

1 Age 44 8.605305 44.56021 10.21584 21 77 1.09

2 Family size 3.79661 1.387116 5.272251 1.682484 1 11 6.32*

3 Farm land size 2.213983 9.605814 .4306806 .2121092 0 1.5 33.20*

4 Off- farm income 961.2712 749.1688 497.2775 410.3271 200 3000 52.93*

5 Number of oxen 2.788136 1.280035 .539267 .949946 0 4 56.70*

*Indicates Independent t- test, statistically significant at 5% Source: Own Computation, 2017

4.6.2. Summary of Households Food Security Status on Some Discrete Variables

Table 4.16 indicates that, out of six hypothesized discrete variables, food secure and insecure groups were differentiated with four of them. Accordingly, chi-square (χ2) tests were used to substantiate the presence or absence of differences between the two groups of households and the value for each variable were presented in table 4.16, Education, fertilizer, improved seed uses and access to rural credit are one of the most important determinant factors for food at household level. The above survey data indicates the relationship between farm inputs uses (fertilizer, irrigation, improved seed and access to rural credit) and food security status of households are interrelated to each other. As it is given in table 4.16, majority of the respondents (69.57%) were users of farm inputs like fertilizer, irrigation, and improved seed. However, a comparison made between food secure and insecure households with

62 regard to farm inputs uses (fertilizer, irrigation, and improved seed). The analysis reveals that 36.3%, 22.7% and 35.3% of the food secure households were users’of fertilizer, irrigation, and improved seed respectively; whereas the remaining 48.9%, 59.5% and 49.8% of food insecure households are not users of fertilizer, irrigation, and improved seed respectively (table 4.16).

The result of Chi-square statistics verifies the existence of significant difference between food secure and insecure on the bases of chemical fertilizer, irrigation and improved seed at 5% significant level. The result shows that averagely large number of households those used chemical fertilizer, irrigation, and improved seed for their farmland were food secured. In other words, there is a positive relationship between education, fertilizer, improved seed uses, access to rural credit and food security (table 4.16).

Table 4.16: Summary of Households’ Food Security Status by Some Discrete Variables

Food secure Food insecure X2 No Variables N % N % Values P-Values 1 sex 14 4.5 30 9.4 0.01 0.902 104 33.7 161 52.1 2 Education 55 17.8 134 43.4 2.01 0.0214* 73 21 57 18.4 3 Chemical 112 36.3 40 12.9 13.92 0.0002* fertilizer uses 6 1.9 151 48.9 4 Irrigation uses 70 22.7 7 2.3 2.22 0.139 48 15.9 184 59.5 5 Uses of 109 35.3 37 12 6.89 0.0087* improved seeds 9 2.9 154 49.8 6 Access to rural 78 25.2 38 12.3 8.25 0.013* credit 40 12.9 153 49.5 *represent significance at 5% and probability levels. Source: Own Households Survey, 2017

4.7. Application of Logit Model to Identify Factors that Affect Household Food Security Status. In the above parts of this thesis the descriptive analysis of important explanatory variables, which are expected to have factors that can be affecting food security status of households were presented. In this section, the selected explanatory variables were used to estimate the logistic regression model to analyze factors that can be affecting household food security status. A logit model was fitted to estimate the effects of the explanatory variables on the probabilities of being food secure or not (See table 17).

4.7.1. Examining the Goodness of Fit of the Logit Model There are various ways to assess whether the model fits the data or not. In this study, Hosmer and Lemeshow test was used. Hosmer and Lemeshow test (table 4.17) display significance level of 0.99, which is above 0.05 indicated that the model is adequate to describe the data was accepted and that is a good model the dependent variable household food security status. Table 4.17: Hosmer and Lemeshow Test of Goodness of fit.

Chi square Df Sig

0.94 8 0.99

Source: Own Computation, 2017

4.7.2. Multicollinearity Test Prior to the estimation of the model parameters, it is crucial to look into the problem of multicollinearity or relationship among the independent variables. To this end, the variance inflation factor (VIF) was used to test the degree of multicollinearity among the continuous variables and contingency coefficients, which measure the association between various discrete variables based on the chi-square (see table 4.18 and 4.19 blow)

Variance Inflation Factors (VIF) of the Continuous Explanatory Variables

The values of VIF for continuous variables were found to be small (i.e. VIF values less than 10). To avoid serious problem of multicollinearity, it is quite essential to omit the variable with value 10 and more from the logit analysis. Based on the VIF result, the data

64 have no serious problem of multicollinearity. As a result, all the six explanatory variables were taken and entered in to logistic analysis.

Table 4.18: Variance Inflation Factors (VIF) of the Continuous Explanatory Variables

. vif

Variable VIF 1/VIF

noxen 1.47 0.682384 expenditure 1.35 0.740004 offincome 1.23 0.812347 famsize 1.15 0.873328 fls 1.06 0.944362 age 1.03 0.967002

Mean VIF 1.21

Source: Own Computation, 2007

Contingency Coefficients for Discrete (Dummy) Explanatory Variables

Similarly, the contingency coefficients, which measure the association between various discrete variables based on the chi-square, were computed in order to check the degree of association among the discrete variables. The value of contingency coefficient ranges between 0 and 1, with zero indicating no association between the variables; and values close to 1 indicate a high degree of association. Accordingly, the results of the computation reveal that there was no serious problem of association among discrete explanatory variables. Hence, all the six discrete variables were entered into logistic analysis.

Table 4.19: Contingency Coefficients for Discrete Explanatory Variables

(obs=309)

sex educ fertil irriuse improv~d farmcre

sex 1.0000 educ -0.1586 1.0000 fertil 0.2802 -0.0055 1.0000 irriuse 0.3004 0.1143 0.6290 1.0000 improvseed 0.2290 0.1636 0.5372 0.6872 1.0000 farmcre 0.0190 0.2012 0.4311 0.5281 0.7828 1.0000

Source: Own Computation, 2017

4.8. Logistic Regression Model Results on Factors Influencing the Food Security Status of Households.

The investigation of factors tha influence household food security status was made using logistic regression model. The dependent variable is the household food security status, which is expressed as a dummy variable where zero represents households that fail to meet minimum food calorie requirement (2100 kcal) and one otherwise. Some variables were dropped merely to avoid multicollinarity among independent variables (table 4.20).

Table 4.20: Logistic Regression for Food Security Status by Using Different Variables

logistic regration Number of obs = 309 Log likelihood=-19.238012 LR chi 2(10) = 372.48 prob> chi 2 = 0.0000 pseudo R2 = 0.9064 Hhfss Coef Std.Err. Z P>|Z| (95% Conf. Interval) Age .0509645 -0542429 0.94 0.347 -0553496 -157286 Sex -1652141 1.336147 0.12 0.902 -2.453587 2.784015 Education 1.064754 1.077171 0.99 0.001* 3.175971 1.046463 Fertilizer 6.81533 1.823712 3.74 0.000* 3.240921 10.38974 Family Size -0922451 -3003759 -0.31 0.759 -680971 .4964808 Irrigation Use -2.790003 1.887637 -1.48 0.139 -6.489403 .9096964 Farm Land Size 4.292499 1.485942 2.89 0.004* 1.380106 7.204892 Improved Seed 4.425716 1.682335 2.63 0.009* 1.1284 7.723031 Off-farm Income .0025297 .0010778 2.35 0.019** -0004172 .0046421 Number Of Oxen 1.19889 -4370739 2.74 0.006* -3422409 2.055539 Farm credit .5666921 .0423018 13.40 0.000* .4834418 .6499424 -Cons -13.9356 4.31353 -3.23 0.001 -22.38996 -5.481232 * and ** represent significance at 1% and 5% probability levels respectively. Source: Own Computation, 2017

Education of Household Head: Education is expected to have positive influence on household food security. As the level of education increases, the percentage of food secure households increases. This is expected because with increase in the level of education, individuals will be able to adopt more modern farm technologies on their farms thus improving their productivity and again have access to better job opportunities. This variable is significant at 1% probability level and positively associated with the state of food security.

Chemical fertilizer: As expected, fertilizer is positively associated with food security status. That is, the households those used chemical fertilizer significantly reduce the

probability of becoming food insecure. As one can be seen from the model it has positive coefficient with statistical ground to support the premise that households have high probability of becoming food secure while they use chemical fertilizer. Fertilizer was also found to be significant at 1% level. There is, thus, a strong ground to support the question that fertilizer usage increases the probability of being food secure. This all may result from possibility of fertilizer use in raising varied types of food and cash crops. Fertilizer use, thus, increases the possibility of income diversification which all enables households to have access and there by fulfilling their necessities. The result of the model, therefore, Put it differently, those households use chemical fertilizer have high probability of becoming food secure as compared to households without chemical fertilizer.

Farmland Size: among the economic variables, farmland size appeared to be significant in determining household’s food security status in the study area. This variable is significant at 1% probability level and positively associated with the state of food security. The positive relationship indicates that the smaller the farmland owned by the households, the smaller the level of production and the more likely to be food insecure.

Number of Oxen owned (noxen): this variable is significant at 1% probability level and has a positive relationship with households’ food security status. This variable as hypothesized affects the households food security in such a way those households who owned oxen have better chance to overcome serious food insecurity than those who do not own. The positive effect of this variable reflects the importance of this resource in influencing rural household food security status.

Use of improved seed (improvseed): have come out to be significant and positive influence on the food security status of the household at 1% probability level. The positive sign is an indicator of its influence in affecting household food security status. The possible explanation is that those farmers who have access to improved seed use are more likely to be food secure than those who have no access to use it.

Access to farm credit (acrd): As expected, credit is positively associated with food security status. That is, the households those used credit significantly have better chance of involving in non-farm activities, purchasing ploughing oxen, etc. as a result of which

68 households could increase and diversify their income and escape out of food insecurity.

Credit was also found to be significant at 1% level. There is, thus, credit usage households increases the probability of being food secure.

Off-farm income per AE (offincome): this represents the amount of off-farm income, the household member earned in the year. Since smallholder households have inadequate farm income they often look for external source of income to purchase food and farm inputs. The success of households and their members in managing food insecurity is largely determined by their ability to get access to off-farm job opportunities in the study area. In this regard, households engaged in off-farm activities are better endowed with additional income to buy food. As expected, the availability of off-farm income is positively and significantly, 5% probability level related with household food security status.

4.9. Coping Strategies Employed By Households to the Effects of Household Food Insecurity.

Table 4.21 reveals a list of coping strategies that food insecure household in the study area used to take to cope up with food shortage. However, the types of strategies used at study area are different. Accordingly, they identified coping mechanisms such as eating less preferred food items, limiting size and frequency of food, borrowing and gifts from relatives and friends, selling of livestock, selling of firewood, participating on small scale trading and cash for work as the main coping strategies.

The survey result indicates that, 24.6%, 20.9%, 15.2% and, 12.6% of food insecure households practiced eating less preferred food item, reduce number of meals, borrowing and gifts from relatives and friends and, selling of livestock and small animals, as 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th choice respectively. Whereas, 9.4%, 6.8%,5.2%, 3.1% and 2.1% of the practiced labor exchange for food, small scale trading, cash loan from merchant, selling fire wood

69 and/or charcoal and selling crop residues as 5th ,6th and 7th, 8th and 9th choice ,respectively to cope up food shortage.

Table 4.21: List of Coping Strategies in the Study Area

List of Local Coping Strategies Frequency Percentage

Eating less preferred food items 46 14.9

Reduce number of meals eaten in a day 43 13.9

Borrow food from neighbors or relatives 32 10.4

Livestock and small animal sales 24 7.8

Labor exchange for food 18 5.8

Participating on small scale trading 13 4.2

Cash loan from merchant and buy different 10 3.2 cereal production

Selling firewood or charcoal 6 1.9

Selling crop residues 4 1.3

Total 196 63.4

Source: Own Households Survey, 2017

CHAPTER 5: CONCULUTION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1. CONCULUTION

The study has tried to answer the four basic research questions. First, what does the current extent and magnitude of food security status look like in Gimbi Woreda? Second, what does the households’ food security status look like in terms of households’ production, income and expenditure in Gimbi Woreda? Third, what major factors that influence food security status ofrural households in Gimbi Woreda? Fourth, what coping strategies are currently employed by the households to overcome while they face food insecure in the study area?

The focus of the study was to access rural household food security status in Gimbi Wereda. The objective of the study was to examine rural households’ food security status in terms of the households’ production, income and expenditure in the study area.

In order to achieve the objective of the study, different techniques were employed for data collection, presentation and analysis. For data collection questionnaire and key informant interview were utilized. The researcher used questionnaire to gather quantitative information from 309 eligible sample household residing in the three kebeles at the study area. In order to gather the qualitative data, interview was used for nine purposively selected persons that inclue the community elders, DAs, and the agricultural experts of the district. The community elders were interviewed inorder to describe the past and current situation of households’ food status in reletion to demographic, socio-economic and environmental problems of the study area

The collected data was organized and analyzed using both descriptive and inferential statistics employing the computer Excel and SPSS Version 20. The statistical data that came from the sample household survey was analysed using descriptive statistics such as frequency, percentage, graphs and mean value, to describe the sample households in terms of demographic, socioe-conomic and environmental factors. Besids, the inferential statistics such as chi-square and t-test was used to determine the degree of association of the factors that influences household food security status. Binary Logistic regression

71 analysis was employed to identify factors that affect the food security status of the households in the study area.

In order to determine the outcome variable household food security status, comparing the total household expenditure per AE per annum to the minimum level of expenses required to ensure survival per AE per annum is computed based on the amount of calorie requirement by AE (2100 kcal/AE/day or 225 kg/AE/year). Accordingly, 4195 Birr is computed as the sum of all these and considered as the minimum subsistence expense (benchmark) beyond which the household is to be food secure or not. Based on this, the descriptive analysis of the study reveals that approximately 38.2% of the households were categorized as food secure and 61.8% of them are food-insecure households.

At first, the study employed eleven predictor variables that were categorized under the demographics characteristics, economic resources, agricultural technology uses and environmental factors that can be affected household food security status

The findings clearly categorize that educational level of household head, uses of chemical fertilize, inadequate land availability, lack of oxen that processing farming, use of improved seed, lack of non-farm/off-farm income and lack of access to credits are strongly affect household food security status in the study area. Additionally, some constraints such as, family size of the household head and lack access to irrigation were identified as some of the factors influencing against the achievement of food security in the study area.

The results of logistic regression analysis indicated that each of the eleven predictors (education, sex, age, family size, land size, uses of chemical fertilize, improved seed, off-farm, lack of access to irrigation, lack of access to rural credit and lack of oxen) had the expected sign and were significant to be considered as candidates of the logistic regression model. By employing the method, seven out of eleven i.e. educational status of the households, uses of chemical fertilizer, inadequate land availability, lack of oxen that processing farming, use of improved seed, lack of access to rural credit and lack of non- farm/off-farm income are a predictor variables that were strongly affect household food security status at 1% probability level except non-farm/off-farm income at 5% probability

72 level in the study area. The significance test of each predictors of the logistic regression model was statistically significant results. This implies that the predictor variables have significant joint and separate influence in explaining the variation in the outcome variable.

5.2. Recommendations

It has already been indicated that the scope of this research is limited to three kebles in Gimbi wereda. In order to address the problem of food security status in the study area, the researcher used to suggest a number of measures that can be used to alleviate the food security problems and brings sustainable household economy. Therefore, the researcher suggest the following points based on the findings of the research:

1. Education status of the household heads: Education level was found to be significant and positive correled with rural household food security status at 1% probability level in the study area. Therefore, the level of education of household heads was quite low. Hence, it is recommended that government, minister of education, NGO and developmental efforts should provide quality adult education programme for those illiterate households for both males and females households, which set as national adult educational program.

2. Number of oxen owned by household heads: farm oxen was significant at 1% probability level and has a positive relationship with households food security status in the study area; Lack of oxen and having only one oxen is the main characteristics of the households in the study area. The farmers with no ox cannot properly cultivate timely their farmlands. They rent out their land to other farmers through shares, which would be directly reflected them to the problem of households' food security. Therefore, improvement is needed on oxen ownership of household heads through provision of rural credit to overcome the farmers capital

3. Access to land: land accessible could serve as a major incentive for agricultural production, especially for both male and female-headed households. Therefore, improving the problem of land accessibility through shifting landless households from

73 agricultural activity to non-agricultural activities through promoting off-farm employment opportunities.

4. Promotion of non/off-farm employment: Off-farm income was positively and significantly associated at 5% probability level related to the household food security status in study area. Promotion of off-farm employment generating schemes could enable the household get diversified income sources. It is advisable to link farmers to nearby saving and credit organization to attain small trade to enhancing their income.

5. Increasing full agricultural technology adaptation: Household food security status was positively correlated and significantly, at 1% probability level related to the utilization of modern farm inputs, like chemical fertilizers, improved seeds and farm credit. Accordingly, the food security status of households who use technological inputs is better than of those who do not use. Use of agricultural inputs that are used to improve productivity such as fertilizer, improved seeds and farm credit is very limited in the study area. Therefore, increasing the productivity of major cereal crops by increased farm inputs such as fertilizers, improved seeds and farm credit would help to address food insecurity through giving continuous short term and long-term farmer training, encouraging the farmers to grow crop varieties practice and improving traditional farm implements.

REFERENCES Adeniyi OR and OA Ojo. 2013. Food Security Status of Rural Farming Households in Two, Ayedire and Ayedaade Local Government Areas of Osun State, South-Western Nigeria.

Alem Shumiye. 2007. Determinants of Food Insecurity in Rural Households in Tehuludere Woreda, South Wello Zone of the Amhara Region; Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia.

Andy Field. 2009. Discovering Statistics using SPSS (sex and drugs and rock ’n’ roll) third edition London

Bechaye Tesfaye. 2011. Rural Household Food Security Situation Analyses: The Case of Boricha Wereda, Sidama Zone. Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia.

Clay, E. 2002. Food Security Concepts and Measurement, Paper for FAO Expert Consultation on Trade and Food Security: Conceptualizing the Linkages Rome, 11-12 July 2002. Published as Chapter 2 of Trade Reforms and Food Security: Conceptualizing the linkages. Rome. Central Statistical Agency and Ministry of Finance and Economic Development. 1999-2000. Household Income, Consumption and Expenditure Survey. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Central Statistical Agency. 2007. Agricultural Sample Survey 2007/2008. Report on Land Utilization. Vol. V Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Central Statistical Agency 2012. Analytical Report on the Household Consumption and Expenditure Survey, 2010/11 Statistical Bulletin 563, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Central Statistical Agency & World Bank (2013). Report on Ethiopia Rural Socio Economic Survey. Pp.55-59, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Committee for World Food Security(CWFS). 2013. Global Strategic Framework for Food Security &Nutrition (GSF); Second Version, Rome.

Creswell, J.W. 2009. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches. 3rd ed., Sage Publications, London.

Debebe Habte wolde. 1995. Food Security: A Brief Review of Concepts and Indicators. In Mulat, et.al (eds.) Proceedings of the Inaugural and First Annual Conference of the agricultural Economics Society of Ethiopia.

Degefa Tolasa. 2002. Household seasonal Food Insecurity in Oromia Zone: Causes. Organization for Social Sciences Research in Eastern and Southern Africa. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Degefa Tolosa. 2005. Causes of Seasonal Food Insecurity in Oromia Zone of Amhara Region: Farmers’ View: Department of Geography, Norwegian University of Science and Technology. Devereux, S; Teshome, A; and Sabates-Wheeler, R,. 2005. ‘Too Much Inequality or Too Little? Inequality and Stagnation in Ethiopian Agriculture’, Institute of Development Studies Bulletin, Vol. 36, No. 2, June. Devereux, S. 2006. Distinguishing between chronic and transitory food insecurity in emergency needs assessments. SENAC. WFP. Rome. Dohrmann, J.A., and Thorat, S. 2007. “Right to Food Security and Discrimination in the Indian Context.” ASIEN (January): 9–31 Development, IFAS, and University of Florida. PEOD- 5 October. Ethiopia Public Healthy Institution. 2013. Ethiopia National Food Consumption Survey Addis Ababa. Ethiopia. Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. 2002. Sustainable Development and Poverty Reduction program. MoFED, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Frank Riely, Nancy Mock, Bruce Cogill, Laura Bailey, and Eric.1999. Food Security Indicators and Framework for use in the Monitoring and Evaluation of Food Aid Programs; Arlington, Va: Tulane University. Food and Agricultural Organization. 1983. World Food Security: A Reappraisal of the Concepts and Approaches. Director Generals Report, Rome, Italy. Food and Agricultural Organization. 2000. Food security, nutrition and livelihoods: A people- centered approach to achieve the MDGS. Rome, Italy. Food and Agricultural Organization. 2006. The State of Food Insecurity in the World. Vialedelle Rome, Italy. Food and Agricultural Organization. 2007. World Food Summit: Five-Year Later, Rome, Italy. Food and Agricultural Organization. 2008. Integrated Food Security Phase Classification Manual, Version 1.1. Rome, Italy.

Food and Agricultural Organization. 2010. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and the eight Millennium Development Goals, Geneva, Switzerland. Food and Agricultural Organization. 2011. The State of Food Insecurity in the World; “How does international price volatility affect domestic economies and food security. Rome. Food and Agricultural Organization. 2012. Food Security Information for Decision Making: Price Monitoring and Analysis Ethiopia Country Brief, September 2011- February 2012, www.foodsec.org. Gemechis Tefera. 2012. Determinant of food insecurity in Gimbi Woreda; case study conducted at Woreda level. Gimbi, Ethiopia. Getachew Diriba. 1995. Economy at the Crossroad: Famine and Food Security in Rural Ethiopia. Addis Ababa. Care International in Ethiopia. Gimbi Woreda Cultural and Tourism Office (GWCTO). 2012. Historical foundation of the Gimbi Woreda and its cultures. Unpublished, Gimbi, Ethiopia. Gimbi Woreda Agricultural and Rural Development Office (GWARDO). 2015. Biophysical and Socio-economic profiles of the Gimbi Woreda. Unpublished; Gimbi, Ethiopia. Hannah Pieters, Andrea Guariso, and AnneleenVandeplas. 2013. Conceptual framework for the analysis of the determinants of food and nutrition security: LICOS – Centre for Institutions and Economic Performance & Department of Economics, KU Leuven, Belgium. Heidhues, F., Atsain, A., Nyangito, H.Padilla, M.,Ghersi, G. & J. Le Vallée. 2004. Development Strategies, Food, and Nutrition Security of Africa Assessment. Discussion Paper No.38. Hosmer.D.W, and Lemeshow, S. 1989. Applied logistic Regression. A Wiley_Inter Science publication, New York. Hopkins, W,. 2000. Measures of Reliability in Sports Medicine and Science. University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand. Israel.D.G. 2012. Determining sample size. University of Florida. USA. Kothari, C.R. 1990. Research Methodology: Methods and Techniques Second Edition. Washwa Prakashan Pub. New Delhi, India. Markos Abdisa. 2016. Impact of Resettlement on Food Security: In Case Of Chewaka Resettlement Scheme, Iluababor Zone. Arba Minch University, Ethiopia.

Mequanent Muche, Birara Endalew , Tesfalem Koricho. 2014. Determinants of Household Food Security among Southwest Ethiopia Rural Households. College of Agriculture and Veterinary Medicine, Jimma University, Ethiopia. Mesay Kebede. 2008. Gender Household Food Security and Coping Strategy: the case of Meskan Woreda of the Gurage Zone, Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia. Messay Mulgeta. 2012. Resettlement and Food security Nexus in Ethiopia: A case from Nanno Resettlement Sites, Central Ethiopia; Ethiopia Journal of the Social Sciences and Humanities, Vol. Viii, No 2. Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia. Messay Mulugeta and Shishay Kahsay. 2014. Determinants of rural household food insecurity in laelaymaichew woreda. Tigray, African journal of agriculture and food security vol. 2 (1), pp. 106-112, Ethiopia. Meskerem Abi and Degefa Tolossa. 2015. Household Food Security Status and Its Determinants in Girar Jarso Woreda, North Shewa Zone of Oromia Region, Ethiopia. Journal of Sustainable Development in Africa (Volume 17, No.7, 2015) ISSN: 1520-5509 Clarion University of Pennsylvania, Clarion, Pennsylvania. Ministry of Agricultural and Rural Development. 2015. Development Planning and Research Department; The Millennium Development Goals Needs Assessment Synthesis Report; Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Misgana Asmeselch. 2014 . Rural household food security status and its determinants: The case of Laelaymychew Woreda, central Zone of Tigray; Aksum University, Ethiopia. Morse, J. M., Barrett, M., Mayan, M., Olson, K., & Spiers, J. 2002. Verification strategies for establishing reliability and validity in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods; University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada. Mulugeta Tefera. (2002). Determinants of Household Food Security in Eastern Oromia, Ethiopia: The Case of Boke District of Western Hararghe Zone. M.Sc. Thesis of Graduate Studies of Alemaya University. National Meteorological Agency (NMA). 2015. Annual Temperature and Rainfall Distribution of ten year of the Gimbi Woreda. Raw data from NMA of Asosa Branch, Ethiopia. Samuel Assefa. 2011. Farm Households Food Insecurity and their Coping Strategies; Ethiopia Journal of the Social Sciences and Humanities, Vol. Vii, No 1&2. Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia.

Shumete Gizaw Woldeamanuel. 2009. Poverty, Food insecurity and Livelihood strategies in Rural Gedeo: The case of Haroressa and Chichu Pas, SNNP. Sijm, J. 1997. Food security in developing countries: An introduction; Rotterdam: Centre for Developing Planning. Teklay, Aynalem and Nega. 2015. Determinants and Coping Strategies of Household Food Insecurity Evidence from Agro Pastoralists of Afar Region. Journal of Poverty, Investment and Development ISSN 2422-846X An International Peer-reviewed Journal Vol.12, 2015. United Nations Development Programme. 2012. Towards a Food Lease Future Helen Clark. USA. United Nations Economic Commission for Africa. 2012. The Status of Food Security in Africa, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. United Nation Human Right. 2010. The Right to adequate food, Fact sheet No. 34. Geneva, Switzerland. United Nations World Food Program. 2007. World Hunger Series 2007: Hunger and Health. Earth scan, Rome, Italy. United Nations World Food Programme. 2016. Comprehensive Food Security & Vulnerability Analysis, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. United States Agency for International Development (USAID). 2009. Livelihood & Food Security Conceptual Framework. Washington, D.c. Vanderstoep, W. S. & Johnston, D. 2009. Research Methods for Everyday Life: Blending Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches.S an Francisco: Jossey- Bass. Von Braun. 2012. The World Food Situation; New Driving Forces and Required Actions. Washington D.C World Food Summit. 1996. Declaration on World Food Security, Rome, Italy. World Health Organization. 2012. Global and Regional Food Consumption Patterns and Trends. Rome, Italy.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1: ESTIMATION OF MINIMUM EXPENDITURE REQUIRED PER AE PER YEAR IN 2016/17

Expenses category $US Expenditure per AE Ethio.Birr Stable food 225kg x10 or 102.3x22 2250.00 Clothes and shoes 48x22 1056.00 Taxes and levies on average per HH 4.5x22 99.00 Ceremonial expenses 20.5x22 451.00 School expenses 7.5x22 165.00 Health care 8x22 176.00 Total 4195.00 Source: CSA and World bank (2013). APPENDIX 2: AVERAGE PRICE OF FOOD ITEMS IN THE STUDY AREA IN 2016/17

Food items Price/kg/item/liter Maize 4.50 sorghum 4.00 Millet 5.00 Tomato 12.00 Wheat 13.00 Barley 11.00 potato 10.00 egg 2.00 Onion 12.00 Teff 20.00 Salt 8.00 Sugar 18.00 Mean price 10.00 Source: GWTMDO and Own observation, 2016/17

APPENDIX 3: CONTINGENCY COEFFICIENTS FOR DISCRETE (DUMMY) EXPLANATORY VARIABLES

. corr (obs=309)

obsn hhfss age sex educ fertil famsize irriuse fls improv~d offinc~e expend~e noxen farmcre

obsn 1.0000 hhfss -0.1204 1.0000 age -0.0564 -0.0593 1.0000 sex -0.3527 -0.0186 0.0451 1.0000 educ -0.3497 0.0495 -0.1601 -0.1586 1.0000 fertil -0.4142 0.6491 0.0134 0.2802 -0.0055 1.0000 famsize -0.0405 -0.3260 0.0271 -0.1887 0.1439 -0.3159 1.0000 irriuse -0.7216 0.4354 0.0165 0.3004 0.1143 0.6290 -0.1787 1.0000 fls -0.0140 0.1495 0.0402 0.0932 -0.0582 0.1399 -0.1186 0.0750 1.0000 improvseed -0.5129 0.6842 -0.0652 0.2290 0.1636 0.5372 -0.2632 0.6872 0.0620 1.0000 offincome 0.3962 0.3882 -0.0221 -0.1120 -0.0392 0.0554 -0.1928 -0.1431 -0.0025 0.1051 1.0000 expenditure -0.1527 0.5637 -0.0150 0.1244 -0.0059 0.4625 -0.2581 0.3494 0.2022 0.4842 0.3231 1.0000 noxen 0.0444 0.6535 -0.1592 0.0270 -0.0067 0.4403 -0.3204 0.2208 0.1129 0.4835 0.3858 0.4428 1.0000 farmcre -0.3509 0.7942 -0.0558 0.0190 0.2012 0.4311 -0.2557 0.5281 0.0823 0.7828 0.2008 0.4635 0.4838 1.0000

(obs=309)

sex educ fertil irriuse improv~d farmcre

sex 1.0000 educ -0.1586 1.0000 fertil 0.2802 -0.0055 1.0000 irriuse 0.3004 0.1143 0.6290 1.0000 improvseed 0.2290 0.1636 0.5372 0.6872 1.0000 farmcre 0.0190 0.2012 0.4311 0.5281 0.7828 1.0000

APPENDIX 4: QUESTIONNAIRE Adama Science and Technology University School of Humanities and Law Department of Geography and Environmental Studies Dear respondent, This questionnaire is prepared with the intension to gather information on the rural household food security status in Gimbi woreda. Your response to the following questions would have paramount importance to the result and completion of the study. Therefore, you are kindly requested to frankly generate your genuine responses to the questions. All of your responses will be kept in secret and used for only research purpose. Thank you in advance!

Part I. Basic Information Regarding Households 1. Name of household head______2. Sex of household head: 0=Male 1=Female 3. Age of household head (in years) ______4. What is your literacy status? ______0=Illiterate 1=Informal education 2=1-4 class 3= 5-8 class 4= 9-12 class 5. Total number of family size (number) ______Part II. Food Security Status and Land Tenure Situations of the Respondents 6. Do you have enough food throughout the year? 1=Yes 0= No 7. If No question number six, which one you are categorized households? 0= Food insecure household 1= Food secure household 8. Do you face your family ever experienced periods of food shortage? 1=Yes 0= No 9. If yes Question No 8, how did the family cope during this period ? 1 = Sold asset 2 = Worked for payment in kin 3 = Depend on charity/welfare 4 = Borrowed money/food 10. Do you have access to land for agricultural use? 1 = Yes 0 = No 11. If yes question No10, how much is your total farmland size (using local measurement Unit) ? ______

12. If yes question No 10, how do you get access to it? 1 = Through land distribution 2 = Shared with relatives 3 = Inherited from parents 4 = Purchased 13. What do you use to plough your land? 1=Oxen 2=Hand tools/hoes 14. Slope of your land: 1= Plain 2=Hilly 3=Steep 15. How do you perceive the quality or fertility of your land? 1 = Fertile 0= infertility Part II. Main Factors that Influence Household Food Security Status in the Study Area. 16. What are the main factors that influencing household’s food security status in your area? If there, tick () at least ten of them those are the most series one in the following table NO Factors/Constrained household’s food Answer Rank order security status 1=Yes 0=No (List the most series) 16.1 Shortage of farm oxen 1.______16.2 Lack of education 2.______16.3 Termite problems 3.______15.4 Absence of off-farm incomes 4.______16.5 Frequent change of rural policies 5.______16.6 Ruggedness of the land 6______16.7 Pest , disease, Weeds 7.______16.8 Large family size 8.______16.9 Age of the household heads 9.______16.10 Lack /shortage of farm Land 10. ______16.11 Sex of the household heads 16.12 Soil infertility 16.13 Lack of irrigation uses 16.14 Dependence on rain feed farming 16.15 Lack/ inappropriate uses of fertilizers 16.16 Lack of access to rural credit 16.17 Lack of improved seeds

Part III. Household Sources of Food and Major Crop Production

17. What are the different sources of food for yourself and your family in your area? Choose and fill the following table.

Sources of Food Production in Consumed Sold in Store in (kg) in (kg) (kg) (kg) From Own production: like maize, sorghum, millet, Teff, burly, wheat Market purchase: such as maize, sorghum, millet, Teff, burly, wheat From Own production and Market purchase Labor exchange for food

2.4 List the type of crops you cultivated and their average production for the year2016/17 GC

Types of crops 2016/17 GC Total production(Qt) Annual crops 1 2 3 4 5 Perennial crops 1 2 3 4 5

17. How many you eating a day? Please tick ( ) in following table of household food frequency of meals per day Household frequency of meals Household response One times Two times Three times More than three times 18. Do you have own oxen? 1= Yes 0 = No 19. If yes to 18, how many of the following oxen do you have? Please tick () in front of the number oxen owned.

Number of oxen owned Currently owned (number) 0 1 2 3 4 >5

Part IV. Sources of Cash (income) For the Households 20. During last year 2016/17, how much estimated cash income did you earn per year from the following activities and sources? Source of cash or activity Response Earning per year (Birr) Yes No From sale of cash crops like coffee, chat, etc From sale of firewood, charcoal, From livestock products(milk, eggs, butter, chickens) From sales of own produced crops/ Sorghum, Teff, Maize, wheat, barley and Millet/ From non-farming activities(pottery, weaving, etc) From off-farm jobs (daily, labor, farm labor) Women household activities (tella, areke, tej, ,bread selling) Remittances from family members and relatives who live in elsewhere Total

21. Do you or any member of your family have off-farm/non-farm job? 1= Yes 0= No 22. If say yes question No 21 indicates the type of work and annual income for the year 2016/17 GC. No Type of job Annual income (birr) 1 2 3 4

Part V. Purchase of food and non-food items 23. How much did you spend per month and per year for the purchase of food and non- food items in the following table, during the period 2016/17?

Expenditure Item Total expenditure per year (Birr) Food & stimulant items: • Purchase of cereals, pulses, oil, fruits, vegetables, coffee, tea, sugar, salt, Kitchen equipment, Cosmetics, Entertainment and Public goods Non-food items: • Purchase of farm inputs (fertilizer, seed, pesticide, veterinary drugs), Farm oxen • Clothing, shoes, candle, Ceremonial expense, Tax, medical treatment expenditure, education for children, Contribution to EDIR and Donation to church, • Purchase of farm tools and implements, Furniture,

Building materials for house and Transportation

Total

Part VI. Uses of agricultural technologies 24. Have you used any of the following agricultural technologies during production season? 1=Yes 2 = No 25. If yes question No 24 tick at those used from the listed in the following table

Type of modern agricultural farm inputs Answer 1 =User 0 = Non-user Use of hoe , oxen and local seed only Fertilizer only Fertilizer and improved seeds only Fertilizer and herbicides only Fertilizer, improved seeds and herbicides Fertilizer, improved seed, herbicides, pesticides, irrigation

Part VII. Coping Strategies 26. What are the main coping strategies adopted while you faced food insecurity those listed in the following table? Please tick () those used from the listed in the following table.

Coping strategies Answer 1 = Yes 0= No Rank order Grain loan from kin Labor sales/migration Livestock and Small animal sales Sale of wood or charcoal Small scale trading Sale of crop residues Cash/Cereal loan from merchants Reduction of food consumption Productive asset sales Farm land pledging Farm land sales

APPENDIX 5: INTERVIEW: INTERVIEW CHECKLIST Adama Science and Technology University School of Humanities and Law Department of Geography and Environmental Studies Key informants Interview Guide to be Gimbi Woreda Agricultural Bureau experts, Kebele Elders and Kebele Developmental Agents (DA) This Interview is prepared with the intension to gather information on the rural household food security status in Gimbi woreda. Your response to the following questions would have paramount importance to the result and completion of the study. Therefore, you are kindly requested to frankly generate your genuine responses to the questions. All of your responses will be kept in secret and used for only research purpose. . Thank you in advance! Part I .General Questions Survey Kebele ------Survey date: ------1. How many household are there in the kebele? ------2. How long does it take to walk from the center of this kebele to the market? ------3. What is the main altitude zone of this kebele? ------1 = dega, 2= woina dega, 3=kola, 4=extreme kola 4. Which rain are you dependent on? Priorities importance------1 =Belge, 2=Meher, 3=Both 5. What look like rural household food security status in your Woreda ? ______6. Do you think that there is a seasonal food shortage in your community? 1= Yes 0=No 7. Do you believe your woreda rural households get enough food throughout the year? 1=Yes 0=No 8. If say No question number 7 what are the main factors that influencing household’s food security status in your area? ______9. Do you think that rural household annual crop output is sufficient to their family in your area? 1= Yes 0=No

10. Do you believe that all households have equally access to land? 1= Yes 0=No 11. Averagically, how much is the total farmland size for each rural household by local measurement unit? 12. What are the different sources of food and major crop production produced by the rural households in your area? 13. What are the main sources of cash (income) for the rural households’ in your area? ______

14. Did you use farm inputs during the production period? 1=Yes 0= No 15. If say Yes, list what type of agricultural technology those you are used. 16. If ‘No’ what are the reasons; 17. What are the main coping strategies adopted while rural households food security status are disturbed? Mention the main adaptation mechanisms. ______

18. What is your attitude on large family size? 1= good 2= not good 19. If say question No 19 good or not good mention the reasons for both chooses ______20. Do you think that the peasants obtain fertilizer on appropriate time and space? 1=Yes 0= No 21. Did you apply all/ full farm input technologies on your farmlands? 1 = Yes 0 =No 22. Do you fallow your land so that it regains its fertility? 1 =Yes 0 = No 23. Do you use oxen for your farm operation?______1. Yes 0= No 24. If yes, are your oxen enough for your farm operations?______1=Yes 0 = No 25. If you say question No 25, how do you get additional oxen you need? ______

APPENDIX 6: CHECK LIST FOR SECONDARY DATA

Part I. Assessment on the major livelihood 1. Present status of food security status in the study area 2. Land holding size 3. Main problems of food insecurity 4. Income from non-farm activities 5. Cash loan in times of food insecurity 6. Uses of credit and irrigation 7. Uses of Agricultural extension 8. Main stable food crops of the households Part II. Physical environment 1. Area of the woreda in ha or km2 2. Agro Climate zone 3. Relief pattern (distribution of various types) 4. Land use land cover (type & distribution) 5. Soil types and distribution 6. Rainfall: (amount and availability) 7. Number of rural kebeles and urban kebeles Part III. People and Culture 1. Population size 2. Ethnic Composition 3. Religion Part IV. Economy and Livelihood 1. Constraints of production 2. Off-farm and non-farm incomes

APPENDIX 7:-AN AFAN OROMO VERSION OF QUESTIONNAIRES

Univeersiitii Saayinsii fi Tekinoolojii Adaamaa Kutaa Namuummaa fi Seera Muummee Ji’ograafii fi Sayinsii Naannoo

Gaaffiiwwaan Jiraattoota Abbootii Warraa Baadiyyaatiin Guutaman Gaaffiin Kun kan qophaa’eef odeeffannoo sadarkaa midhaan nyaataa aanaa Gimbii fi gandeen aanichaa maal irraa akka jiru adda baasee qorachuuf kan qophaa’ee dha. Deebii isin gaaffiwwaan armaan gaditti dhiyytaniif kenitan bu’aa qorrannoo kanaaf murteessaa fi baayyee barbaachiisa dha. Kanaaf 91all fi of-qabuu tokko malee waan gaafatamtan hunda irrati deebii sirrii fi gahaa akka naaf laatan kabajan isin gaafadha. Deebiin isin laatan iccitiin isaa kan eegamu fi qorannoo kana qofaf kan oluu dha. Deebii naaf laataniif Galatoomaa Kutaa I :- Odeeffannoo dhuunfaa kan Abbootii Warraa Guyyaa______Nama Qorate______Maqaa Gandaa Qotee Bulaa______1. Maqaa Abbaa Warraa______2. Saala; 0= Dhi 1 = Dha 3. Umurii (waggaan); ______4. Sadarkaa barnootaa; 0= Kan hin dubbifnee fi hin 1 = Barnoota al-idilee 2 =kutaa 1-4 3=kuta 5-8 4=kutaa 9-12 5.Baayina maatii:- Dhi______Dha______Ida’ama______Kutaa II :-Sadarkaa Midhaan nyaataa irraa jiru fi Qabbiyyee lafaa abbootii warraa ilaalchiisee; 6. Midhaan nyaata ati galfattuu waggaa guutuu si ga’aa? 0 = Lakki 1 = Eeyyee 7. Deebii 6ffaa lakki yoo jette ati abbaa warraa kam jalatti ramadamta? 1=Abbaa warraa midhaan nyaataa ga’aa qabu 0=Abbaa warraa hanqina midhaan nyaataa qabu 8. Maatiin kee hanqina midhaan nyaataaf saaxilamaanii beekuu? 0= Lakki 1 = Eeyyee 9. Gaaffii 8ffaa eeyyee yoo jettee maatiin kee hanqina midhaan nyaataa kana akkamin dandammachuu danda’u? 1= Qabeenya gurguurudhan 2 =Hojii humnaa namaaf hojjechuun 3 = Gargaarsa irrati hirkachuun 4= Midhaan ykn Maallaqa liqeeffachuun 10. Lafa qonnaa qabdaa? 0= Lakki 1 = Eeyyee 11. Gaaffii 10ffaa yoo eeyyee jette lafa qonnaa kana akkamin argattee? 1= Hirmaannaa lafaatiin 2=Dhaala maatii irraan 3=Kennaa fira irraan 4=Bittaa lafaan

12. Lafa mataa keetii kan callaa adda addaa irra qotaattu fi kan dheedichaa adda baaftee qabdaa? 0= Lakki 1 = Eeyyee 13. Gaaffii 12ffaa yoo eeyyee jette qabiyyeen bal’ina lafa keetii hektataaran ammam ta’a?______14. Haalli teessums lafa keeti maal fakkaata? 1 = Diriira 2 = Tabba 3 = Bu’aa ba’ii 15 Haalli gabbina lafa keetii maal fakkaata? 1= Gabbataa 0=Borqii(Gabbina hin qabu) 16. Haallii waqtii eegee roobuu roobaa maal fakkaata? 1 = Ga’aa’ 2 = Baayyee ga’aa 3 = Baayyee Xiqqaa Kutaa III. Sababoota gurguddoo sadarkaa midhaan nyaataa Abbootii warraa jeeqan 17. Sababoota gurguddoo sadarkaa midhaan nyaataa kee jeeqan maal fa’i? Warreen Ijoo ta’an kudhan wal duraa-duuban tarreessi

Deebii Sadarkaan Sababoota (guffuwwaan) 1=Eeyyee 2=Lakki Xiqqachuu ykn dhibamuu horii ykn sangoota qonnaa 1______Barnoota dhabuu abbootii warraa 2______Rirmaan midhaamuu lafa qonnaa 3______Dhibamuu galii qonnaan alaa 4______Jijijjiramuu tarsiimoo misooma qonnaa 6______Bu’aa-ba’ii haala teessuma lafaa aanichaa 6______Ilbisoota, dhukkuba fi haramaa midhaan miidhan 7______Baayyina maatii 8______Umurii hojii qonnaa irratti bobbaa’uu 9______Dhibamuu ykn xiqachuu qabiyyee lafa qonnaa 10.______Haala Saala abbootti warraan wal qabatee Hanqina gabbina biyyee Dhibamuu qonnaa jallisii Dhibamuu ykn xiqachuu Liqii fi kusanaa Qonnaa waktiilee roobaa irrati hirkate qofa Dhibamuu ykn xiqachuu sanyii filatamaa Sirrtti fayyadamuu ykn dhibamuu xa’oo

Kutaa IV. Maddawwan Midhaan Nyaataa Abbootii Warraa fi gosawwan midhan callaa ijoo gandawwaan filataman keessatti omishamanii.

18. Maddawwan midhaan nyaataa atii fi maatiin kee bara 2008/09 irraa argatan maal fa’i?

Maddawwan midhaan nyaataa Hamma Hamma Hamma Amma omishamee kg fayyadame kg bitamee kg qusatame kg Kan ofii omishaan irraa: kanneen boqolloo, bisingaa, daguuzaa, xaafii, garbuu fi qamadii Kan gabaa irraatti dhihaatuu irraa: kanneen boqolloo, bisingaa, daguuzaa, xaafii, garbuu fi qamadii Kan ofii omishaan fi Kan gabaa irraatti dhihaatuu irraa. Hojii human midhaniin

18. Gosawwan midhaan nyaataa ijoo atii bara 2009 omishtuu ijoon tan’an kam fa’i?

Gosawwan midhaan callaa waggaatti Bara 2009 T/L omishamanii Baayina waliiga waggatti omishamu kuntalan; 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Ida’ama

19. Guyyatti yeroo meeqa soratta? Marsa sorata gabaatee armaan gadii irratti mallattoo() ibsi

Marsaa sorataa guyyatti Deebii mallatto () fulduratti gochuun Yeroo tokko Yeroo lama Yeroo sadii

20. Sangoota qonnaa mataa keetii qabdaa? 1 = Eeyyee 0= Lakki

21. Gaaffii 19ffaa yoo eeyyee jette bayyina sangoota qonnaa gabaatee armaan gadii keessatti dhiyyatan fulduratti mallattoo () fayyadamuun ibsi. Bayyina sangoota qonnaa Amma lakkoofsan kan qabdu 0 1 2 3 4 >5

Kutaa V. Maddawwan Galii Abbooti warraa

22. Tilmaaman maddawwan galii bara 2008/9 gabaatee armaan gadii keessa jiran irraa, ji’a fi waggaan ammam argattuu?

Maddawwan galii GaliiJi’an Galii waggan argatuu qarshiin argatuu qarshiin Bunaa fi chaatii Gurgurtaa qoranii fi kasalaa Bu’awwaan bineeldootaa irraa argaman(aannan, hanqaaquu, dhadhaa,…) Gurgurtaa oomishaa qonnaa argannuu irraa Hojiiwwaan qonnaan alaa(suphee dha’uu, wayyaa dha’uu, hojii guyyaa/humnaa, …) Galii dalagawwaan dubbartoota irraa (farsoo, araqee, dadhii, daabboo tolchuu….) Gargaarsa ijoollee fi fira iddoo garagaraa jiran irraa. Ida’ama

Kutaa VI. Baasii bittaa gosaawwaan midhaan nyaataa fi kan biroo kan abbootii warraa 23. Baasii ati bittaa gosoowwaan midhaan nyaataa fi kan biroof akkasumas kan itti fayyadamtu kan bara 2009 giddu-galeessaan qarshiin ammam ta’a?

Gosoowwaan midhaan nyaataa fi kan biro bitaman Waggaan Qarshiin Midhaan nyaataa fi mi’eessitoota • Bittaa midhaan biilaa(agadaa), zayita, fudura fi kuduraa, buna, sukkara ashaboo, , . Gosaawwaan midhaan nyaataa hin taanee •Bittaa calla guudiftuuf(Xa’oo, sanyii, qorichaa farraa ilbisaa, qoricha bineeldoota/horii fi qorichaa farraa aramaa • Wayyaa, kophee, naaxaa, shamaa, baasii geejibaa, qoricha, barnootaf, kafaltii gibira, wamicha gumataaf,, dibataa, kafaltii kurnoo, Kafaltii Idirii/Gidibii, baasii ayyana waggaa… •Bittaa mi’a qonnaa kan akka marashaa, qonyee, babatee, gindii, harqoota fi hurtuu, meshaalee ijaarsa, meeshaalee koshinaa Ida’ama Kutaa VII. Itti Fayyadama Tekinoolojii Qonnaa Guutuu Ilaalchisee; 24. Yeroo waqtilee omishaa teekinoolojiiwwaan qonnaa guutuu armaan gadii ni fayyadamtaa?

Gosaawwan callaa guudiftuu qonnaa Deebii 1=Eeyyee 0=Lakki Qonnaaf sangaa, gasoo fi sanyii aadaa qofatti fayyadamuu Xa’oo ammayyaa qofatti fayyadamuu Xa’oo fi qorichaa farraa haramaa qofatti fayyadamuu Xa’oo fi sanyii filatamaa qofatti Xa’oo, sanyii filatamaa fi qoricha farraa haramaatti fayyadamuuu Xa’oo, sanyii filatamaa fi qoricha farraa haramaa fi qoricha farraa ilbisootatti fayyadamuuu

Kutaa VIII. Tooftaawwaan/Tarsiimawwaan dandammaana hanqina midhaan nyaataa 25. Waqtiilee hanqinni midhaan nyaayaa si madaatu tooftawwaan dandammaana gabaatee armaan gadiiti tarreeffaman keessaa kamfaa fayyadamta? Warreen Ijoo ta’an shan wal duraa-duuban tarreessi.

Tooftawwaan Dandamannoo Deebii

1=Eeyyee 0=Lakki Sadarkaan

Fira irraa midhaan calla liqeeffachuu 1______

Kafaltii olmaa humnaa/qansiiraa 2______

Gurgurtaa bineeldoota xixiqoo kan manaa 3______

Mallaqa/callaa daldaaltoota irraa 4______liqeeffachuun

Qabaeenya adda addaa irraa bu’aawwaan 5______argaman gurguruun

Godaansa waqtilee yeroo gabaabaan

Gurgurtaa qoranii fi kasala

Daldala xixxiqoo geeggeessuun

Galabaa midhaan adda addaa irraa

Yeroo soorataa gabaabsuun

APPENDIX 8: AN AFAN OROMO VERSION OF INTERVIEW. Univeersiitii Saayinsii fi Tekinoolojii Adaamaa Kutaa Namuummaa fi Seera Muummee Ji’ograafii fi Sayinsii Naannoo Gaaffii Qomaa kan filatamtoota Ogeesoota waajjira qonnaa aanaa, ogeeyyii qonnaa gandeenii fi Bulchiitoota Gandeeniif qophaa’ee Gaaffiin qomaa kun kan qophaa’eef odeeffannoo sadarkaa midhaan nyaataa aanichaa fi gandeenii maal irraa akka jiru adda baase qorachuuf kan qophaa’ee dha. Deebii isin gaaffiwwaamn armaan gaditti dhiyytaniif kenitan bu’aa qorrannoo kanaaf murteessaa fi baayyee barbaachiisa dha. Kanaaf sodaa fi of-qabuu tokko malee waan gaafatamtan hunda irrati deebii sirrii fi gahaa akka naaf laatan kabajan isin gaafadha. Deebiin isin laatan iccitiin isaa kan eegamu fi qorannoo kana qofaaf kan oluu dha. Galatoomaa, Deebii naaf laataniif Kutaa .I Gaaffii waliigalaa kan filatamtoota ogeessaa waajjira qonnaa aanaa, ogeeyyii qonnaa gandeenii fi Bulchiitoota Gandeeniif qophaa’ee 1. Maqaa ganda gaaffiin qomaa itti geeggeeffame______2. Guyyaa gaaffiin qomaa itti geeggeeffame______3. Maqaa______Saala______Umurii______4. Abbootii warraa meeqatu ganda kee keessaa jiru? Dhi ____ Dha____Ida’ama______5. Fageenyi gandi kun giddugala magaalaa aanaa irraa qabu Kmn amama? ______6. Halli sadarkaa midhaan nyaataa abbootii warraa baadiyyaa irra jiranii waggaa guutuu isaan ni gahaa? 1= Eeyyee 0=Lakki 7. Gaafii 6ffaa Lakki yoo jettaan sababootni sadarkaa midhaan nyaataa abbooti warraa jeeqanmaalfa’i?______8. Abbotiin warraa hundi qabbiyyee lafa qonnaa qabu? 1= Eeyyee 0=Lakki 9. Haala safara naannoon giddu-galeessaan abbaan warraa tokko lafa qonnaa ammam qaba?______10. Maddawwan midhaan nyaataa abbootii warraa kanneen gurguddoo ta’an maalfa’i? ______11. Maddawwan galii abbootii warraa gandeenii maal irratti bu’uureffame jira? ______

12. Abbootiin warraa aanaa ykrn gandeen keessan keessatti argaman gosaawwan midhaan nyaataa fi kan midhaan nyaataan alaa ta’anii isaan bittaan maalfa’i? baasii isaan waggaan baasan giddugaleessaan qarshii meeqa ta’a? ______12. Yeeroo waqtilee oomishaa, abbootiin warraa aanaa ykn gandeen kana keessa jirattan tekinoolojii qonnaa guutuutti ni fayyadamu? Yoo hin fayyaadaman ta’e maalitti fayyadamu?______13.Waqtiilee/wayitii hanqinni midhaan nyaataa abbootii warraa mudaatu tooftawwaan dandammaana isaan fayyadama maalfa’i? ______14. Haalli teessuma lafa ganda kana godina qilleensaa kam keessatti argama? 1 = Baddaa 2 = Badda-daree 3 = Gammoojjii 4 = Gammoojjii Ho’aa 15. Waqtilee kam irratti hundooftee Oomisha Oomishtaa? 1=Arfaasaa 2=Gannaa 3=Arfaasaa fi Gannaa 4=Bona 16. Waqtilee jiran keessaa hanqinni midhaan nyaataa sii fi hawaasa keessa jiraatu mudaatee beekaa jettee yadaa? 1=Eeyyee 0=Lakki 17. Gaaffii 6ffaa yoo Eeyyee jettee waqtilee kam keessaa? 1=Arfaasaa 2=Gannaa 3=Arfaasaa fi Gannaa 4=Birraa fi Bona 18. Galii Oomishaa kee irraa waggaatti argatu maatii kee ni gahaa? 1=Eeyyee 0=Lakki 19. Ilaalchi ati baayina/heddumia maatii irratti qabdu maal fakkaata? 1=Gaarii 2=Gaarii miti 20.Gaaffii19ffaa gaarii ykn garii miti yoo jettee sababa isaa tarreessi. ______21. Qonnaan bultootni callaa guddiftuu guutuutti itti fayyadamu jettaa? 1=Eeyyee 0= Lakki 22. Callaa guddiftuu lafa qonnaa kee irratti sirritti ni fayyadamtaa? 1=Eeyyee 0= Lakki 23. Lafa qonnaa kee akka gabbatuuf lafa baaftee(bajjeesstee) beektaa? 1=Eeyyee 0= Lakki