Food Insecurity As a Disaster Risk Among Rural Households of Zuway Dugda Woreda, Arsi Zone, Ethiopia

FOOD INSECURITY AS A DISASTER RISK AMONG RURAL HOUSEHOLDS OF ZUWAY DUGDA WOREDA, ARSI ZONE, ETHIOPIA

M.A Thesis

BY: FISSEHA SHENKUTE

ADAMA, ETHIOPIA AUGUST, 2017

FOOD INSECURITY AS A DISASTER RISK AMONG RURAL HOUSEHOLDS OF ZUWAY DUGDA WOREDA, ARSI ZONE, EHIOPIA

A THESIS SUBMITTED TO SCHOOL OF HUMANITIES AND LAW DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES ADAMA SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY UNIVERSITY

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER’S OF ARTS IN GEOGRAPHY AND ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SPECIALIZATION IN EVIRONMENTAL DISASTER RISK MANAGEMENT

ADAMA, ETHIOPIA AUGUST, 2017

DEDICATION I dedicate this thesis manuscript to my families who played indispensable role and nursing me with affection and love and for their dedicated partnership in the success of my life.

i 3

Declaration

I, Fisseha Shenkute Manneggerew, do hereby declare to Adama Science and Technology University, School of Graduate Studies that this thesis is a product of my original research work, and it has not been submitted to any other university for any academic degree. Any materials and information in a report other than my own are duly acknowledged. Name: Fisseha Shenkute Manneggerew Signature: ______Date of submission: August, 2017 Department of Geography and Environmental Management, Adama Science and Technology University

4ii

Biographical sketch

The author was born in September, 1988 in Zuway Dugda Woreda particularly in Ogolcho (Abura) town, Arsi Zone of Oromia Regional State. He attended his elementary and junior secondary education at Ketar fuafuate and transferred to Asela Senior Secondary School to continue his study where he finally finished his preparatory education.

In October, 2006, he joined Bahirdar University and graduated with B.A degree in Pedagogical Science composite Geography in July 2008. Soon after his graduation, he was employed in Bilo Secondary and Preparatory School in east Welega Zone of Oromia Regional State for four years. He was then transferred to Digalu Secondary School in Digalu and Tijo Woreda in Arsi Zone and worked for three years. He also later was transferred to Sagure Preparatory School in Digalu and Tijo Woreda in Arsi Zone.

After graduation of B.A by Pedagogical Science composite Geography in 2006, he had been joined Adama Science and Technological University after six year later to pursue his graduate studies for M.A degree in Environmental Disaster Risk Management.

iii 6

Acknowledgements

I have no words to express my deepest sense of gratitude to Almighty God, the Most Merciful, and the Beneficent, who bestowed upon me the courage and helped me complete this research and who made all my way comfortable and did everything to me in the past and who keeps doing so in the future too.

I offer my sincerest gratitude to my advisor, Dr.Messay Mulugeta, who has supported me throughout my study with his patience guidance, encouragement and advice. Great thanks to Gadisa Shume, Getu Shiferaw and Gashaw Tasaw for their guidance and friendly advice.

I would also like to thank my family for supporting me financially and spiritually throughout my study. Especially, I would like to address my appreciation to my beloved mother, Yeshi Bayana , my sisters Egegayew and Zintalem and my brother Kefelegn and Teshome for their deep motivation and supports.

I am indebted to my colleagues, especially Mulugeta Habte,Askale, Sarawit Tefera, Abdane , Abiyot Nurlgn , Daraje Girma ,Oumer Ibrahim , Mazgabu Haylu and Makdes Leta.

Lastly, but not least, my appreciation goes to Zuway Dugda Woreda Agricultural Development Office, Zuway Dugda Woreda Safety Net Agent, Development Agents of the Woreda workers of these organization who assisted me during data collection and Tatek Degefu the manager of Disaster Prevention and Preparedness Office.

iv 7

Contents page Dedication ...... i Declaration………………………………………………………………………………..……….ii Biographical Sketch ...... iii Acknowledgements ...... iv Table of Content ...... v List of Tables ...... vi List of Figures ix List of Table in the Appendix ...... x Acronyms and Abbreviation ...... xi Abstract ...... xii

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 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. Significance of the Study ...... 5 1. 6.Scope of the Study ...... 5 1.7. Limitation of the Study ...... 6 1.8. Organization of the Thesis ...... 6

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURES 2.1. Concept of Food Security ...... 7 2.2.Measurement and Indicators of Food Insecurity ...... 10 2.3. Food Security Situation in Ethiopia ...... 12 2.4. Causes of Food Insecurity in Ethiopia ...... 14 2.5. Coping Strategies of food insecurity Practiced in Ethiopia ...... 16 2.6. Empirical Studies on Food Security ...... 17 2.6.1. Studies on Food insecurity ...... 18 2.7. Literature Gap……………………………………………………….20 2.8. Conceptual Framework ...... 20 2.9. Theoretical Orientation ...... 22

CHAPTER THREE: THE STUDY AREA, METHODS AND MATERIALS 3.1. Description of the Study Area ...... 25 3.1.1. Location of the Study Area ...... 25 3.1.2. Climate Conditions ...... 27 3.1.3. Demographic Characteristics ...... 27 3.1.4. Infrastructures and Service ...... 28 3.1.5. Agricultural Production ...... 28 3.1.6. Vegetation Characteristics ...... 29 3.2. Research Methods an Materials……………………………………...... 30 3.2. 1. Study Population ...... 30 3.2. 2. Research Design...... 30 3. 2.3.Data Type and Source ...... 31 3. 2.4. Sample Size and Sampling Techniques ...... 32 3. 2.5.Tools of Data Collection ...... 33 3. 2.6.Techniques of Data Analysis ...... 35 3.2.7. Definition of Variables ...... 38 3.2.8. Validity and Reliability of the Data ...... 42 3.2.9. Ethical Consideration ...... 44

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 4.1. Demographic and Socioeconomic Characteristics ...... 46 4.1.1. Age and Sex Composition ...... 46 4.1.2. Family Size ...... 47 4.1.3. Dependency Ratio ...... 49 4.1.4. Education of the Households ...... 49 4.1.5. Access to Credit and Fertilizer ...... 50 4.1.6. Irrigation and Market Infrastructure Access ...... 51 4.1.7. Resource Ownership ...... 53 4.2. Measuring the Food insecurity Status of the Households ...... 55 4.3. Econometric Model Results ...... 57 4.3.1. Determinants of Rural Households Food Insecurity ...... 57 4.3.2. Significant Explanatory Variables ...... 59

vi 9

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1. Conclusion ...... 60 5.2. Recommendations ...... 61 References ...... 64 Appendix ...... 75

vii 10

List of tables Table 3.1: Trends in population Growth and crude density of Zuway Dugda Woreda 28 Table 3.2: Proportionate size of allocated sample households 33 Table 3.3: Summary of variables definition, measurement and hypothesis 42

Table 4.1: Distribution of sample households by age and sex types 47

Table 4.2: Distribution of sample households by family size 48

Table 4.3: Distribution of sample households by family size in Adult equivalent 49

Table 4.4: Distribution of households by status of education 50

Table 4.5: Mean and proportion difference test of variables between institutional factor between food insecure and food secure households 51

Table 4.6: Mean and proportion difference test of variables between market ,irrigation and infrastructure access factor between food insecure and food secure household 53

Table 4.7: Mean and proportion difference test of variables between resource ownership, food insecure and food secure households 53

Table 4.8: Households food insecurity status 55

Table 4.9: Maximum likelihood estimates of binary logistic model 58

viii 11

List of figures Figure 2.1: Conceptual Framework ...... 22 Figure 3.1: Location Map of the Study Area ...... 26

ix 12

Acronyms and Abbreviation

BoDPP: Bureau of Disaster Prevention and Preparedness CSA: Central Statistical Agencey DA: Development Agent DPPC: Disaster Prevention and Preparedness Commission FAD: Food Availability Decline FAO: Food and Agricultural Organization FDRE: Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia FED: Food Entitlement Decline GDP: Gross Domestic Product GIS: Geographic Information System HICE: Household Income, Consumption and Expenditure KA: Keble Administration KII: Key Format Interview MoARD : Ministry of Agricultural and Rural Development NGO: Non Governmental Organization PSM : Propensity Score Matching Method PSNP: Productive Safety Nets Program SPSS: Statistical Package for Social Sciences TLU: Tropical Livestock Unit UN: United Nation USAID: United States America Aid Department WCDR: World Conference on Disaster Reduction WFP: World Food Program

13x

ABSTRACT

The aim of this study was assessing the level of food insecurity among rural households in Zuway Dugda Woreda in Arsi Zone. As a specific objective, this study to measure the rural households’ food security status, identify the extent of food insecurity as disaster risk among rural households and identify determinant of food insecurity as disaster risk among rural households. Purposive sampling technique was used to select both Arsi Zone and Zuway Dugda Woreda. For this study a total of 315 households were selected randomly from three kebeles. Both primary and secondary data were collected for this study. Primary data were collected by direct through semi-structured questioners sample respondents and key informant interview during January and February 2017; whereas, secondary data were also collected from published and unpublished documents. Household caloric acquisition was employed to measure household food security in the study area. The collected data were analyzed using SPSS version 20.0. Binary logistic regression model was used to reveal the effect of different variables on household food security. Accordingly, The results of descriptive and inferential statistics indicated that using the calorie intake approach and recall period, 65% of sample respondents were food insecure, while 35% were food secure. The findings show that there was a significant mean difference between food secure and food insecure households in terms of family size, annual household income from off/nonfarm source, irrigation and educational status of the household head were determinant variables included in the regression equation that the model included as influential factors for households food security in the study area. Finally, to improve household food insecurity, use social supporting mechanisms like remittance, use of irrigation, reducing poverty of capital assets ,use family planning and allocate their income for all expenditure; and the woreda education office together with minister of education should provide adult learning program to reduce illiteracy.

Keywords: Zuway Dugda Woreda , Food Security, Rural Households, Arsi Zone ,Kebele, Food insecurity.

xi 14

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the Study

Over the last decade human population has suffered from increasingly frequent environmental emergencies, natural and human-induced disasters such as food insecurity, droughts, floods, hurricanes, cyclones, earthquakes, landslide and forest fires that are happening all over the world with increasing redundancy severity (WCDR,2004).

In spite of this intention and great emphasis of food security exists when in a society all people at all times have enough food for an active, healthy life. In contrast, food insecurity exists when food is not easily accessible and households have difficulty securing adequate food. Food insecurity has emerged as a global crisis following the global economic meltdown. According to FAO, in 2010-2012, about 870 million people or one in eight people in the world did not consume enough food to cover their minimum dietary energy requirements. Of these people, 852million were in developing countries, making up 14.9 % of the total population of these countries. Besides, over seventy percent of the food insecure population in Africa lives in the rural areas. Ironically, smallholder farmers, the producers of over 90 percent of the continent‟s food supply, make up the majority (50 percent) of this population. (WCDR, 2004)

Chronic food insecurity now affects about 200 million people who are suffering from malnutrition. Acute food insecurity in 2003 affected 38 million people in Africa who are facing the outright risk of famine, with 24,000 dying from hunger daily. Famines are the most visible and extreme manifestation of acute food insecurity. Out of the 39 countries worldwide that faced food emergency need at the beginning of 2003, 25 are found in Africa including Ethiopia (Clover, 2003). As part of Africa, Ethiopia faces daunting poverty and food insecurity challenges that are worsening over time. About half of Africa‟s food insecure population lives in Ethiopia, Chad, Zaire, Uganda, Zambia and Somalia ( Ramakrishana , 2002).

Additionally, Sub-Saharan African populations face a number of causes that challenge the struggle against food insecurity. Within the region, progress towards improving human welfare is constrained by the high prevalence of hunger, malnutrition, and wide-spread poverty. Not surprisingly, African countries have collectively made the least progress towards achieving the Millennium Development Goal of reducing hunger by half by 2015. In fact, Africa is the only region in which levels of hunger increased in recent decades (Sanchez, 2005) and currently, close to one third of its population lives in chronic hunger (Lobell, 2008). On the whole, these constraints can have deleterious consequences for human development in the region. They also underscore the fact that there are still significant challenges to achieving food security in sub-Saharan Africa. At the same time, these challenges are not insurmountable. Progress towards the goal of food security requires new efforts to develop appropriate interventions for mitigating its causes and consequences for populations at risk. For these efforts to succeed, policy makers need to develop a comprehensive understanding of the causes that results in food insecurity in sub-Saharan Africa in the coming decades (Sanchez, 2005)

Ethiopia is currently facing challenging problems ranging from those induced by environmental crises to those caused by demographic and socio-economic constraints, which adversely affect peoples' production system. The country is generally characterized by extreme poverty, high population growth rate, severe environmental degradation and recurrent drought (World Bank, 1992).This has resulted in agriculture being poor for several years, to the extent that the country could not adequately feed its population from domestic production. This has been manifested in the prevailing food insecurity as disaster risk both chronic and transitory, which has almost become a structural phenomenon and the way of life for a significant proportion of the population of the country. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the level of food insecurity among rural households in the case of Zuway Dugda Woreda.

1.2. Statement of the Problem

In Ethiopia, food shortage problem varies from one area to another depending on the state of the natural resources, lack of rainfall and the extent of development of these resources. According to various sources, some 42 periods of food shortages (including the 1999 and 2000 food shortages) have been recorded in Ethiopia (Webb ,1992), Ethiopia is one of the world‟s poorest countries with indicators suggested that low levels of development and it has been plagued with food insecurity for decades (Eneyew, 2012). Food insecurity exists when people lack secure access to sufficient amounts of safe and nutritious food for normal growth and an active and healthy life (FAO, 2005). In communities, where overall life is highly relied on climate sensitive livelihood strategy, like Zuway Dugda Woreda, the vulnerability to food insecurity shocks is too great. To date, the vulnerability of rural households to food insecurity has become severe with its worsening trend coupled with chronic poverty.

Chronic food insecurity has been a defining feature of poverty that has affected millions of Ethiopians for decades. The vast majority of these extra ordinarily poor households live in rural areas that are heavily reliant on rain fed agriculture and thus, years of poor rainfall, the threat of wide spread starvation is high. Since the tragic 1983-84 famine, the policy response to this threat has been a series of ad-hoc emergency appeals for food aid and other forms of emergency assistance (Webb et al. 1992), the same is true at the study site. Even though emergency food aid and Productive Safety Nets (PSNPs) were introduced to secure the rural households wellbeing at Zuway Dugda Woreda, because of the food insecurity is frequent and severe, still the majority of the poor remain food insecure. As per Arsi Zone BoDPP noted in Getnet (2010), since 1994, every year Zuway Dugda Woreda is experiencing an agricultural damage of 42.2% crop loss and also exposed to the food insecurity.

Household food security is a situation in which a household does not live in hunger or fear of starvation. There are two types of household food insecurity: chronic and transitory food insecurity. Chronic food insecurity is persistent in that it can be considered to be a continuous state of affairs, while transitory food insecurity is a 3

temporary and refers to short periods of decline in a household‟s availability and access to needed food (Barrett and Sahn, 2001 and Hart, 2009). According to studies conducted in Ethiopia, ownership of livestock, farmland size, family labor, off farm income, market access, use of improved technology, education, health, amount of rainfall and distribution, crop diseases, number of livestock, and family size are identified as major determinants of household food security (Regassa, 2011).

This is why the issue of the problem of food security has become the concern of many academicians and other professionals these days. However, the majority of the researches that have been done so far on issues related to food-insecurity in Ethiopia are very general and considered the problem from national level. Only very few case studies have been done on kebele and household level. The majority of Zuway Dugda Woreda lives in rural areas and confronts similar challenges in securing sufficient food at household levels is as a disaster risk however, no similar studies have been conducted for Zuway Dugda Woreda at resent time which is located at Arsi zone. Therefore, the primary focus of this research was to assessing the level of food insecurity among rural household‟s the case of Zuway Dugda Woreda.

1.3 .Objectives of the Study

1.3.1 General Objective

This paper generally aims at assessing the level of food insecurity among rural households in Zuway Dugda Woreda.

1.3.2 Specific Objectives

More specifically, this study Aspires to: measure the rural households‟ food security status.. identify the extent of food insecurity as disaster risk among rural households in Zuway Dugda Woreda. identify the determinant of food insecurity as disaster risk among rural households of Zuway Dugda Woreda.

1.4. Research Questions The purpose of this study was to answer the following questions. The questions were drawn from the objectives stated above.

 How can households‟ food security status be measured?  What is the extent of food insecurity as disaster risk among rural households of Zuway Dugda Woreda?  What are the determinants of food insecurity among rural households‟ of Zuway Dugda Woreda?

1.5 Significance of the study

This study was carried out for academic purposes and it is confined only to a single woreda in Ethiopia. However, the findings of the study are thought to be very helpful to have a deeper comprehension about the food security status of the country's rural community in general and the surrounding area in particular. It contributes a lot to figure out the food insecurity problems of the rural households that are practically challenging them at present. Therefore, the result of this study is thought to be a crucial input to the current government's endeavor to alleviate the prevailing food insecurity problems in rural areas and bring about sustainable development. Particularly, concerned governmental and non-governmental bodies

1.6 .Scope of the Study

The scope of this study was confined to assessing the level of food insecurity among rural households in Zuway Dugda Wored specifically Arata,Ubo Baricha,Burka Lemafo kebele. It also The study explored food insecurity status, extent of food insecurity and the determinants of food insecurity among rural households of Zuway Dugda Woreda were identified by households consumption survey during the last Seven days. Methodologically the research has utilized various descriptive analyses made use of tools such as mean, percentage, standard deviation and frequency distribution and also econometric analysis was used to identify the determinants of food insecurity.

1.7. Limitations Of The Study

The study has some limitations of which the readers of the study should be noted in recognizing its findings. Particularly, researcher only used consumption data collected on the basis of seven days recall method, lack of data about number of beneficiaries supported by PSNPs and other aid that is collected from different sources and Lack of willingness of most of the surveyed respondents to disclose real information. In fact, multiple data verification and validation techniques were employed to lessen the limitations of this study. moreover, the researcher has encountered a problem to run some powerful statistical analysis tools such as regression than graphical manipulations because any significant or insignificant results reported from small samples were not valid enough to report actual associations between variables and predictions of a variable based on explanatory factors (Howell, 2007) that work to increase the probability of committing errors of reporting unreliable results.

1.8 Organization of the Thesis

This research report has five major chapters. The first chapter is an introductory part that comprises background of the study, statement of the problem and justifications for the research, objectives of the study, research questions, scope, significance and limitation of the study and organization of the report. Reviewed literature related to the problem is vested in the second chapter. Chapter three gives a brief description of a study area and the overall methodological aspects the study has utilized. Results and discussion were dealt in fourth chapter. At chapter five, overall study is summarized, its findings were concluded and recommendations were given.

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE

2.1 The Concept of Food Security

Food security is a concept that has evolved considerably over time. Most definitions of food security vary around that proposed by the World Bank (Maxwell, 1996); wherein, food security defined as access by all people at all times to enough food for an active, healthy life (World Bank, 1986).The essential elements in this definition are the availability (adequate supply of food); access through home production, purchase in the market or food transfer; stability, when availability and access are guaranteed at all times; and utilization which refers to the appropriate biophysical conditions (good health) required to adequately utilize food to meet specific dietary needs and security, as the balance between vulnerability, risk and insurance; and time (Maxwell and Fran kenberger,1992; EC, 2009).Gradually, the concept of food security took on a more subjective meaning than at the outset, integrating the quality and diversity of needs from one individual to another, respect for local eating habits beyond a purely quantitative approach. Food security is a multidisciplinary concept, which includes economic, political, demographic, social, cultural and technical aspects (EC, 2009).

Food insecurity, on the other hand, is a situation that exists when people lack secure access to sufficient amounts of safe and nutritious food required for normal growth and development and an active and healthy life (WFP, 2004). It is a dynamic phenomenon: its impact varies depending on its duration, its severity, and the local socioeconomic and environmental conditions (EC, 2009). Chronic food insecurity means that a household runs a continually high risk of inability to meet the food needs of household members. In contrast, transitory food insecurity occurs when a household faces temporary decline in the security of its entitlement and the risk of failure to meet food needs is of short duration (World Bank, 1986).

Food availability means that sufficient quantities of appropriate, necessary types of domestically produced food, commercial imports or food aid are consistently available to individuals or are within reasonable proximity to them. At the national level, it is the sum of domestic food stocks, net commercial imports, food aid, and domestic production. Individuals have sufficient access to food when they have 7

adequate incomes or other resources to purchase or barter to obtain levels of appropriate foods needed to maintain consumption of an adequate diet/nutrition level. Finally, adequate food utilization is realized when food is properly used, proper food processing and storage techniques are employed, adequate knowledge of nutrition and child care techniques exists and is applied, and adequate health and sanitation services exist (USAID ,1992).

2.2. Current Thinking on Food Security

Currently, food security has become one of the burning issues across the world. The question of how to feed the rapidly growing population of the world, geared by developing countries, has become one of the prominent discussion points of politicians, academician and other concerned bodies in the world at present. Some scholars or schools of thought believe that it is by no means possible to feed the population of the world in the future; and others believe that both agricultural productivity and population number will continue rising hand-in-hand and there will be no problem of food scarcity in the future. Recently, there are five major schools of thought that deal with the prediction of agricultural production and food security situation of the world in the future (Hinchcliffe, et.al. 1996). These are briefly considered below:

Optimists and complacent: The proponents of this school of thought say that the growth in food production will continue in the future alongside reductions in the world's population growth. They hope that the biotechnology research will fully develop and the area under production will significantly expand in the near future which in turn results in development of both crop and livestock productivity. They also expect a significant reduction in population growth in developing world, and more diversified economic system so that the society gets less GDP from agricultural sector than the present situation.

Environmental pessimists: These groups of thinkers suggest that the world has approached the ecological (environmental) limits to growth. These limits are soon to be passed; or have already been reached. As a result, yield growth of major crops will 8

be slower than the present situation. The growth will even stop or fall particularly due to soil erosion, land degradation, deforestation, and over exploitation of other resources. They recommend the control of population growth to be put as the first priority.

Industrialized world to the rescue: This group of thinkers believes that the countries in the developing world will never be able to feed their population. So the industrialized countries should fulfill their food deficit. According to this group of people the Third World countries will continue facing the present production constraints such as ecological, institutional and infrastructural problems.

New modernists: The New Modernists believe that the maximum food production growth is possible only when high external farm inputs are used on existing lands. This idea is supported by the World Bank, Winrock International, FAO and the Sasakawa Global 2000. This group argues that maximum productivity can be obtained by increasing the farmers' use of modern farm inputs such as fertilizers and pesticides.

Sustainable intensification: These groups argue that substantial growth is possible in unimproved or degraded areas through farmer participation in technology development and extension. According to this school of thought, protecting and regenerating natural resources while performing agricultural practices, particularly in degraded and unimproved areas, can help for sustainable agricultural development and food production. The protection and regeneration of natural resources could increase the substitution of natural resources for external farm inputs which could in turn reduce the adverse impact of the external farm inputs on the environment.

These all schools of thought, probably except the environmental pessimists, agree that food production will have to increase substantially over the next decades so that the world's increasing population will have access to enough, nutritious and culturally acceptable and palatable food supply sustainably. The environmental pessimists do not see any means of boosting the volume of production owing to ecological limits to growth.

2.3. Measurement and Indicators of Food Insecurity

Food insecurity is measured at different level of aggregation and purpose. Three distinct levels of measurements including, national, household and individual levels are often applied in a given country. The measurement at national level is relatively more aggregated and mainly focuses on the food availability. At household level, the measurement takes different forms including food access and nutrition indicators. Some of these indicators show past food stresses that do not serve as an instrument for current interventions. Nutritional outcome, for example, is the consequence of both in adequate food intake and poor absorption of food caused by environmental factors such as diseases and lack of health care Maxwell et al., (2008) describe the frequently available and utilized indicators which potentially measure food security as: nutritional status, actual food consumption at the household level by a 24-hour recall, coping strategies index, as well as proxy indicators such as calorie intake, household income, productive assets, food shortage, under 5 nutritional status, dietary diversity, and household food insecurity access scale. Although these indicators reasonably capture and designate a small portion of the problem, they do not provide comprehensive picture. Maxwell et al., (2008) further note that “although some progress has been made, the search for more broadly applicable measures of food security continues”.

According to Hoddinott (1999), there are four ways of measuring household and individual food security: individual intakes (either directly measured or 24-hour recall), household caloric acquisition, dietary diversity, and indices of household coping strategies. This ordering of methods is deliberate, moving from methods that are very time-and skill-intensive, but are regarded as being more accurate, to those that can be implemented quickly, are relatively undemanding in terms of the skills required by the implementers, but are more impressionistic (Maxwell, 2007).

Income or consumption has been traditionally used as measures of material deprivation. Consumption is typically preferred over income as the former better captures long run welfare. Consumption may also better reflect household‟s ability to meet their basic needs. Income is one of the factors that enable consumption, though consumption also reflects a household‟s access to credit and saving at times when

their income is too low. Hence, consumption is a better measure of a household‟s welfare than income. Moreover, in a developing country setting, households are likely to underreport their income level more than they do with their consumption (Nicholas, 2006).

There are four components that indicate the food security status of rural households (FAO,1998). These are access, availability, use /utilization and asset creation. Access: refers to the stock of food in the market as well as the purchasing power created by saving money or in the form of assets such as cattle and other possessions. The first one is asset ownership (in size and types of productive assets). The second one is income (sources of income earning activities and employment). In most cases, employment generation schemes (EGS) and off-farm employment opportunities are considered as ways of improving access to food in Ethiopia. The capacity of local markets to deliver the food demand is as equally important as the degree of entitlements or capacity that individuals have to purchase the food they need at all times (Kifle, 1999 as cited in Dagnew, 2002). The same author also stated in Ethiopia, the major attempts are only concentrated around creating access to food through an increase in production and productivity with little emphasis to creating access through product and income diversification.

Availability: refers to the availability of active family labor that is able to create incomes and assets. In addition, it also refers to own production and capacity to produce enough food. On the supply side, cereal output is the key indicator, as cereals provide about 60 percent of dietary energy in developing countries, the figure being higher in least developing countries. To improve food availability, promotion of irrigation, adoption of low-cost inputs and drought-resistant crop varieties are among the key factors. In general, at micro level, availability could be taken as households‟ capacity to produce the food they need. Although there is no national data on this issue, some studies in Kindo Koisha conducted by SOS/Sahel suggest that households cannot feed their members for more than six months from their own production even in „normal years‟ (Dagnew, 2002).

Use/ Utilization: this aspect of food security component relates to changes in household consumption pattern, which includes eating habits or creating strategic mix in feeding patterns to stabilize the availability of food, food stocks and income management (Dessalegn, 1987). Utilization of food can be improved through the expansion of safe water supply and sanitation, and promotion of community health services and prevention. It underlines the importance of such processes, including marketing, storage, processing, cooking practices and nutrition to the attainment of food security (World Bank, 2001). It has however proved difficult to support the study by micro-level findings, relating to the actual food utilization and management at household level in Ethiopian situation.

Asset Creation: asset creation at household level is a very important component of food security indicator. In times of food shocks, households adopt specific kinds of „coping strategies‟. As indicated by Kifle (1999), these strategies involve behavioral change in terms of food choice, frequency of eating, seeking other income sources, borrowing from kith and kin, etc. In times of emergencies, vulnerable households begin to sell their belongings or „assets‟ such as livestock, tools, personal possessions or household goods. Thus, food security interventions should enable to create assets at household level.

In respect to the time dimension, food insecurity is divided in to two broad categories: chronic (permanent) food insecurity and transitory food insecurity. (Reutlinger, 1987) (a) Chronic/permanent food insecurity: refers to a continuously inadequate food caused by lack of resources to produce or obtain food .It is a common feature of poor households in most parts of the world. (b) Transitory/seasonal food insecurity: refers to a temporary decline in household‟s access to enough food. This happens due to instability in food prices, food production or household incomes. In its worst forms, it produces famine

2. 4. Food Security Situation in Ethiopia

Extreme poverty is widespread in Ethiopia. The major causes of poverty and food insecurity in rural areas include land degradation, recurrent drought, population pressure, low input subsistence agricultural practices, lack of employment opportunities and limited access to services. As a result more than 38% of rural 12

households fall below the food poverty line and 47% of children under five suffer from stunting (MoARD, 2009).

Fifteen percent of the rural population in Ethiopia report that they experience a food gap of greater than three months. The lowest prevalence can be found in the rural areas around Addis Ababa and Benishangul (3% and 7% respectively) where the PSNP is not operational, while the highest rates can be found in Dire Dawa, Oromiya and Afar (23%, 20% and 14%, respectively). Critical to achieving food security are asset holdings. In most settings in rural Ethiopia lack of assets in terms of livestock holdings, land and labor are repeatedly cited as the major causes of poverty. Furthermore, changes in these asset holdings are commonly mentioned by people whose food security status has recently changed. They are also often interrelated illness or death of a household member results in labor shortages, but can also cause the household to sell livestock assets to meet expenses. Lack of plough oxen means that the household is now forced to rent out land for share cropping (MoARD, 2009).

According to an early 2010 human development report of the united nation development program, 5.2 million people in Ethiopia face a precarious food security situation. The worsening food security situation is attributed primarily to poor rainfall last year during the February–May and June–October seasons. A series of successive droughts had already weakened Ethiopia‟s food situation, with “poor and erratic rainfall over the last two years.” Global conditions such as the high food and fuel prices that have persisted in the country since 2008 and the global financial crisis have also contributed to Ethiopia‟s failing food security. Ethiopia is considered a least developed country ranked 171 out of 182 countries in the UNDP Human Development Index for 2009. In the 2010 Global Hunger Index, which ranks developing countries and countries in transition based on proportion of undernourished people, proportion of underweight children under five, and child mortality rate, Ethiopia was given a 29.8, on a scale of 0-100, with 0 being the best and 100 the worst possible score. Ethiopia is one of the countries that made the most absolute progress improving its score between 1990 and 2010; in 1990 it had a score of 43.7 .On the other hand, urban poverty has shown only a marginal decline especially due to the limited capacity of the manufacturing sector to absorb the

increasing number of economically active population in towns as well as the negative impact on household budget of increasing prices of food commodities (FAO and WFP, 2010).

Chronic poverty and chronic food insecurity are widespread in money out of Ethiopia. Despite record rates of economic growth in recent years, the levels of poverty in rural Ethiopia remained high. From 1999/00 - 2004/05 Ethiopia experienced a 6-percentage point decline in rural poverty. Yet 38.5% of rural households still live below the food poverty line. Most of these households are engaged in subsistence farming on small fragmented plots of degraded land, a livelihood increasingly subject to weather fluctuations as a result of climate change, every year for over two decades the Government has launched international emergency appeals for assistance. This annual emergency assistance was channeled to meet the consumption needs of all food insecure households (WFP, 2012).

At the time (2016), 16 million Ethiopians were in need of food aid. Thirteen years later, more than 20 million Ethiopians are facing chronic food shortage. For more than two decades the government in Ethiopia repeatedly claimed that it was so focused on tackling pervasive poverty and acute food deficit in the country. So why are so many Ethiopians still starving? What went wrong? The government's standard answer to these questions is usually to point its fingers on external factors; this time the sole culprit is El Niño .However, the fact is Ethiopia had been, and remains to be, one of the world's most food-insecure countries where one in four people live below the poverty line, according to the latest human development index on Ethiopia. Food insecurity is a structural problem in many parts of rural Ethiopia. 32% of Ethiopians suffered from malnutrition in 2015; and as late as 2014 Ethiopians' daily food calorie intake stood at 2,100, below the standard 2,200 required to sustain life, according to FAO statistics. (Urgesa Tura, 2016).

2.5. Causes of Food Insecurity in Ethiopia

Globally, the emerging causes of food insecurity include; declining world food stocks, price volatility in the food and energy market, demographic growth, changing food habits, urban growth, the boom in bio fuels, climate changes that affect production,

above all, the links between the financial markets and speculation within agricultural future markets (EC, 2009). Poor land policies and management practices, which lead to land degradation and deforestation, contributed to increased flood disasters in sun Saharan Africa. The causes of food insecurity are both temporary and structural. Food insecurity can result from the deterioration of food production capacity or lack of income to purchase adequate food.

The government of Ethiopia have witnessed that a combination of factors, such as adverse changes in climate; draught, poor technology, soil degradation, and inefficient water management are the major factors for poor agricultural performance in Ethiopia (Berhanu, 2004; FAO, 2009), and policy induced, as well as program implementation problems have resulted in serious and growing problems of food insecurity in Ethiopia. Since the country is dependent on agriculture, crop failure usually leads to household food deficit. The absence of off-farm income opportunities, and delayed food aid assistance, poor access to credit, lack of access to inputs, leads to asset depletion and increasing levels of destitution at household level (FDRE, 2002; 2003).

The government of Ethiopia (FDRE, 2003) has framed the overall causes of food insecurity in the country as lack of access to input, lack of informative, family size, number of oxen owned, use of chemical fertilizer, size of cultivated land, farm credit use, total annual income per adult equivalent, food consumption expenditure, livestock owned, and off-farm income per adult equivalent to be the major causes of food insecurity.

Since the country is dependent on agriculture, crop failure usually leads to household food deficit. The absence of off-farm income opportunities, and delayed food aid assistance, poor access to credit, lack of access to inputs, leads to asset depletion and increasing levels of destitution at household level (FDRE, 2008).The government of Ethiopia (FDRE, 2008) has framed the overall causes of food insecurity in the country as lack of access to input, lack of information, lack of access to credit, lack of access to technology, limited access to basic services, land degradation and decreased productivity, lack of income generation activities and alternatives. Devereux (2010) indicated that food insecurity in Ethiopia derived directly from dependence on undiversified livelihoods based on low-input, low-output rain fed agriculture

Shumete (2009) also summarized the causes of food insecurity as, population growth and scarcity of resources, small landholding, low level of farmers education, lack of good-governance, participation and empowerment; in appropriate production systems and marketing services, drought and variability of rainfall, politics and ethnic conflicts: urban expansion, lack of access to credit services and income opportunities, lack of access to health services, and cultural factors. So-called acute (short-term) food shortages, malnutrition, insecurity, etc., are now a permanent (chronic) feature of Ethiopia‟s the food political economy.

Droughts are blamed year after year for the suffering of millions of Ethiopians and year after year the regime‟s response is to stand at the golden gates of international donors panhandling emergency humanitarian aid. The regime has done next to nothing to deal with the underlying problems aggravating the conditions leading to famine, including high population growth, environmental degradation, low agricultural productivity caused by subsistence farming on fragmented small plots of land, government ownership of land, poor transportation and dysfunctional markets that drive up the real cost of food for the poor and other factors.

2.6. Coping Strategies to Food Insecurity Practiced in Ethiopia

Classified household responses to food insecurity into two: Coping strategies and Adaptive strategies. Coping strategies are responses made by households to improve the declining situation of households food security while adaptive strategies involve a permanent change in the mix of ways in which food is required, irrespective of the year in question and it refer to long term adjustment. The most commonly practiced coping strategies during abnormal season include short term dietary change, changing intra household food distribution like skipping adults to feed children, limiting size and frequency of food, borrowing and gifts from relative and friends, mutual support mechanism, selling of livestock and fire wood, cash for work and relief assistance, etc., while the commonly used adaptive strategies include risk minimization, food and income diversification mechanism, planting damage resistance crop, cultivating marginal soils ( Maxwell ,1996).

Coping mechanisms used by farm households in rural Ethiopia include livestock sales, agricultural employment and certain types of off-farm employment and migration to other areas, requesting grain loans, sale of wood or charcoal, small scale trading, selling cow dung (in central Ethiopia) and crop residues, reduction of food consumption, consumption of meat from their livestock, consumption of wild plants, reliance on relief assistance, relying on remittance from relatives, selling of clothes and dismantling of parts of their houses for sale. Some of them are likely to be implemented only after the possibilities of certain other options have been pursued. In addition, households who have diversified source of income are often able to cope with crisis than others as cited in (Frehiwot, 2007).

Coping strategies practiced by food insecure households are different depending on the degree of food shortage. Coping strategies practiced at the moderate stage of food shortage include, sale small ruminants and buy grain, sale fire wood and buy grain, engage in wage labor, cultivate and sale vegetable crops, sale chicken and eggs and buy grain, engage in petty trading, sale oxen/cows and buy grain, sale wool and carpets and buy grain, reduce the number, amount and type of meals and borrow some money or grain from acquaintances (relatives, neighbors); whereas, eat wild foods, sale property, eat crops reserved for seed, borrow some money or grain from acquaintances (relatives, neighbors), request for food aid, reduce the number of meals, go hungry for up to two days, sale cattle, move to other places in search of temporary employment, migrate to other area permanently and temporarily were practiced at the severe stage (Tilaye , 2004).

Farm households respond to the problems caused by seasonal and disaster related food insecurity in different ways. Food availability can be affected by climatic fluctuations, depletion of soil fertility, or the loss of household productive assets or some other related problems. In that case farmers‟ try to reduce this problem by taking actions that result in trade-offs between current and future consumption. The range of coping and adaptive strategies is large and differs according to the particular conditions. It includes expansion of production and improving productivity, food grain purchase through sales of livestock and institutional and societal income transfer systems such as gift and relief food distribution (Frehiwot, 2007).

2.7. Empirical Studies on Food Security

A wide range of empirical studies are available in the areas of food insecurity. But, insignificant number of previous study in Ethiopia has applied propensity score matching Method (PSM) for social program evaluation. However, elsewhere, ample empirical applications of this method are found in the literature. Below, only a selected sample of such studies is presented.

2.7.1. Studies on Food in Security

The study of (Berhanu , 2001) conducted in Ethiopia, identified different factors that cause food insecurity as disaster risk. These are deterioration of food production capacity (due to drought and land degradation), population pressure and instability and armed conflict. Similarly (Tilaye, 2004) conducted in Amhara region identified the following factors that cause food insecurity. These are drought (erratic rainfall, shortage of farmland due to population pressure, soil erosion, and lack of oxen, low price of sheep and sheep diseases, frost, water logging and problem of pests and plant diseases caused the problem of food insecurity. Hence, a combination of factors has resulted in serious and growing problem of food insecurity in Ethiopia .These will have Poor soil fertility, land shortage, frost attack, chronic shortage of cash income, poor farming technologies, weak extension services, high labor wastage, poor social and infrastructural situation have cumulative effects on household level food security status. (Hussein, 2006).

According to (Shiferaw, 2005) household food security is strongly associated with demand side factors such as household size, market access and per capita aggregate production. On the supply side, the authors, reported technology adoption, farm size, and land quality as significant determinants of household food security. On the other hand, (Berhanu ,2004), emphasized institutional factors like land policy, input and output market system and poor rural infrastructure in relation to food insecurity problem in Ethiopia. Another study in South Wollo of Ethiopia by Workneh (2006) reported that household food security is directly related to farm size, oxen, livestock holding and non-farm income, and inversely associated with household size.

Indris (2012) carried out study on assessment of food insecurity, its determinants and copping mechanism among pastoral household of Afar national regional state the case of zone one, chifra district. Logistic regression model was applied in the study and found that large family size, dependency ratio, age of the household head affect food insecurity positively where non farm income affect household food security negatively.

Bashir (2010) conducted study on assessment of analysis of food security status and copping strategy in Kabri Bayah District of Jigjiga Zone of Somali Regional State. Using logistic regression model results make known that among explanatory variable large family size, dependency ratio, age of the household head and pastoral conflicts affect food security negatively where as non farm income, total livestock owned and total food aid received affected household food security positively.

Zerihun (2012) made a study on household food insecurity in rural areas of Guraghe zone, Southern Ethiopia using logistic regression model found that education level, land holding, livestock holding, oxen ownership, off-farm and non-farm income, credit received, extension contact, safety net receipt and access to market are negatively related to food insecurity while household size is positively related to food insecurity.

Tagel (2008) studied rural food security in Tigray for the case of Hintalo Wajerat and Kilte Awelaelo districts of Tigray region using logistic regression model. His results showed that household income, technology adoption, policy intervention, local leadership, land size, irrigation participation, type of household, age of household head, education level of household head, household participation in safety net program, and off-farm activity were found to have a positive impact on food security status of households. There are diverse and interrelated causes for household food insecurity: The underlying factors for household food insecurity can be grouped in three main types as natural, socio-economic factors and policy failures. Natural resource degradation, recurrent drought and environmental degradation are important natural factors that make households vulnerable to food shortages. Social factors such as population pressure, traditional farming system and practices, and economic 19

limitations like poor infrastructural services, shortage of farm land and other productive assets are also factors responsible for household‟s food insecurity in the region. Poor infrastructural services such as poor marketing, rural transport and communications are the main constraints to achieve household food security.

A study done by Mohammed (1995) demonstrated that livestock play a major role in food security at national and household levels. Livestock are the living bank for pastoralists and agro-pastoralists. They are means of accumulating wealth and are sources of foreign earrings. In his study he also mentioned several factors such as animal diseases, poor genetic improvement, feed supply, and policy factors that negatively contribute to livestock production and affect its role in ensuring food security. The same source revealed that annual loss due to animal diseases is as high as 30-50% of the total value of livestock production.

2.8. Literature Gap Having encroached on conceptual and empirical literatures reviewed above, the researcher has developed some gaps of which this research has tried to fill. The first thing as my perception is that there is a lack of research output undertaken at the grass level or specific local scale, However, majority of the researches that have been done so far on issues related to food-insecurity as a disaster risk in Ethiopia are very general and considers the problem from national level. Only very few case studies have been done on kebele and household level and also lack similar studies have been conducted for Zuway Dugda Woreda at resent time which is located at Arsi zone .In addition to this, most of the time research that conducted for one area is not the same in all time for other area and also it does not solve the problems of all area. So the research that conducted in another area is not the same all time with Zuway Dugda Woreda. Therefore, the primary focus of this research was to assessing the level of food insecurity among rural household‟s the case of Zuway Dugda Woreda.

2.9. Conceptual Framework

Based on the empirical study reviewed determinants of food insecurity status can be affected by demographic, human capital, economic and institutional factors which will fall in any of the three dimension of food availability, access, and utilization

(Figure, 1.1 ). The demographic factors including age of the household head, sex of the household head, family size and dependency ratio whereas age, family size and dependency ratio affected the household food insecurity status positively while sex of the household head affected the household food insecurity status negatively. That is, households with large family size are more prone to food insecurity than others.

In addition, households with high dependency ratio have high risk of food which means as the age of the household head increase that household is unable to work hard for survival for his family members. However, households headed by female are more food insecure than households headed by male. Variables like size of cultivated land, livestock ownership, number of oxen owned, remittance and income earned from off/non-farm activities were the important economic factors affecting the food insecurity status of households. That is households with large cultivated land, large number of livestock, oxen, remittance from their relatives and large income from off/non-farm income have more probability to be food secure than others. Variables like fertilizer use and access to credit use were the important institutional factors affecting the food insecurity status of the households negatively. However, distance to nearest market affects food insecurity status of households positively. Variable Educational level of the household head is important human capital affecting food insecurity negatively which means as the education level of the household head increase the food insecurity status of that household decrease

Institutional factors Human capital

Use of chemical fertilizers, access Educational level of the to credit and distance to nearest household head market centre, Irrigation facility

Household food insecurity as a disaster risk

Economic factors: Demographic factors:

Size of cultivated land, livestock Age of household head, sex ownership, oxen owned, of household head, family remittance and off/non-farm size, dependency ratio income

Figure 1.1: Conceptual framework of the study (Source: Author preparation)

2.10. Theoretical Orientation

There exist two broad methodological approaches to the analysis of famine. The first approach is the general explanation. In this regard, a number of environmental and socio-economic attributes assumed to explain famine have been pointed out. The principal ones include: rapid population growth, war and civil strife, drought, ecological degradation, government mismanagement, unequal access to resources and unequal exchange, and socio-economic and political dislocation (Da Corta ,1985 cited in Getachew,1995). The argument of this approach is that one or a combination of these can disrupt food production. However, production failure may or may not result in famine. Due to this fact, the attributes (factors) are not precise explanations of the causation of the process of famine. It is in response to this major weakness that the specific models of famine emerged.

2.11. Theoretical Orientation

There exist two broad methodological approaches to the analysis of food insecurity. The first approach is the general explanation. In this regard, a number of environmental and socio-economic attributes assumed to explain food insecurity have been pointed out. The principal ones include: rapid population growth, war and civil strife, drought, ecological degradation, government mismanagement, unequal access to resources and unequal exchange, and socio-economic and political dislocation (Da Corta ,1985 cited in Getachew,1995). The argument of this approach is that one or a combination of these can disrupt food production. However, production failure may or may not result in food insecurity. Due to this fact, the attributes (factors) are not precise explanations of the causation of the process of food insecurity. It is in response to this major weakness that the specific models of food insecurty emerged.

The second approach comprises models of food insecurity: Food Availability Decline (FAD) model and Food Entitlement Decline (FED) model. (Alamgir, 1980) defines FAD as the availability decline per capita of food for the consuming unit. The central argument of this model is that "anything which disrupts food production such as drought, flood or war can cause food insecurity, the logic being that a drought, flood or war causes crop failure and cattle death, reducing the availability of food in the affected region, and that such a food availability decline for an extended period by definition constitutes a food insecurity" (Devereux 1988).

The model demonstrates the situation of subsistence farmers, such as the farmers under investigation, and reveals how a failure of production during one growing season would lead to food shortage. Nevertheless, the model is criticized because it overemphasizes food supply and undermines the demand for available food. The FED model was pioneered by Sen. (1981) as an alternative method for the analysis of food insecurity. The model suggests that food availability in the economy or in the market does not entitle a person to consume it, and food insecurity can occur without aggregate availability decline. This means access to food plays a crucial role in securing command over food, which is, in turn, determined by production, exchange or transfer.

Generally, food security signifies the Complementarities of the two models because enough food must be available, and households must have the capacity to acquire it. The framework of the study, as depicted, mixes the premises of the general explanations to food insecurity' and the food insecurity models briefly highlighted above. It consists of five major variables adversely affecting the farmers' food production, which in turn determines the situation of the households' food security. These are environmental crises, population pressure, poor asset base, social (cultural) issues, and poor rural infrastructure.

Environmental crises: comprise two elements, i.e. climatic hazards (drought, flood hailstorm, frost, etc.), and land degradation through soil erosion, loss of nutrients, deforestation and over grazing. Population pressure: rapid growth of human and livestock population resulting in diminish in holding size and fragmentation of farmland and absence or shortage of fallow periods. Poor asset base: involve aspects such as lack of investable surplus cash, lack of farm oxen, absence of off-farm employment opportunities and inability to purchase modern farm inputs. Social issues: poor rationing of grain produced at home because farmers utilize considerable proportion of their annual production for various ceremonies and celebrations immediately in post-harvest periods. Low level of educational background among the people in the area under study can also be the other variable and poor rural infrastructure: inaccessibility to roads, absence of rural credit, lack of irrigation practices, and lack of agricultural extension services, poor health facilities, poor storage and unfavorable market for agricultural produce.

CHAPTER THREE: THE STUDY AREA, METHODS, MATERIALS

3.1. Description of the Study Area

3.1.1 Location of the Study Area

Zuway Dugda is one of the wored as found in the Oromia Region of Ethiopia. It is part of the Arsi Zone which is located in the Great Rift Valley of Ethiopia. Its present name was derived from two words Zuway and Dugda. The name Zuway was derived from Lake, Zuway and ethnic group living in the island of the lake namely Zay. The study area, Zuway Dugda Woreda is one of administrative units of 25 Woredas in Arsi zone of the Oromia national regional state. This is found in the western part of Arsi zone and shared boundary line with East Shoa Zone in the western and north part, Hetosa and Tiyo districts in the eastern parts, Munesa district in the southern part. It also shares its boundary line with Dodota district in the north part. Astronomically the woreda is found between 7044‟0”N - 8016‟0” N latitude and 38042‟0”E-39022‟30” E longitude .The total area of the district is 1043km2 and divided in to 29 administrative units of which 28 are rural kebele administrations and one is urban administrative unit. Ogolcho (Abura) is the administrative center of the district. It is found at 160km and 42km from Addis Ababa to the south east, and Asela (Arsi Zone Administrative Center), respectively.

Figure: 3.1 map of the study area

3.1.2 Demographic Characteristics

According to Efrem (2012), generally the population dynamism in the Central Ethiopian Rift Valley, where the study site is situated, has shown overarching trend of increment. As per the study, unless interventions were mode, population is continued to increase while menacing farm size and household income; deteriorating forest resources simultaneously worsening land degradation. The situation at Zuway Dugda Woreda is also likely to assure their claim because within previous decade it has shown a tremendous growth (See Table 3.1.).

According to CSA (2007), summary and statistical report of national population and housing census, the total population of Zuway Dugda Woreda was 126,436 of which males account 60,431 while 60,556 of them were females. From the total 126,436 population 4,691 have resided in urban areas while the remaining 116,296 people have been settled in rural areas. As per the data compiled from Ethiopian Central Statistical Agency yearly population statistical abstracts of 2001 to 2011, the area has experienced an increment in total population with respective crude density. In 2001 the crude density of the woreda was 82.1 peoples per square kilometer while in 2011 the crude density has increased to 123.5 persons per square kilometers which can be a direct manifestation for presence of overarching population dynamics at the study site. Table 3.1: Trend in population and crude density of Zuway Dugda Woreda Year Total population Area in km2 Crude Density (person/km2 2001 108,094 1269.09 85.2 2002 111,033 1269.07 92.2 2003 114,004 1269.07 89.8 2004 114,004 1269.07 92.2 2005 120,121 1269.07 94.7 2006 123,258 1269.07 97.1 2007 126,436 1269.07 99.6 2008 135,427 1127.26 120.1 2009 132,475 1127.26 111.5 2010 135,425 1127.26 120.1 2011 139,248 1127.26 123.5

Source: Own Compilation from CSA 2001 to 2011 yearly Statistical abstract 3.1.3 Infrastructure and Services

According to CSA (2011), Zuway Dugda Woreda with a total rural population of 116,356, has educational facilities of 51 elementary, four junior secondary schools, one preparatory school and Vocational education training (TVET). At the study site there were seven clinics that were providing a service for 16,622 populations, who have shared it while there were 30 public taps and two water tanks for the provision of water services. Agricultural development service was provided by 12 Development Agents (DAs) and two public market places – Ogolcho and Arata Chufa in a complete absence of Farmers Training Centers (FTCs), veterinaries and agricultural cooperatives. This is causing a detrimental impact on agricultural input delivery, provision of extension service and output transaction in a market.

3.1.4 Climatic Conditions

The altitude of this woreda ranges from 1500 to 2300 meters above sea level from this warm temperature(kola) is 89.65% and mid temperature ( weina dega) is 10.35%. Data obtained from National Metrological Agency (NMA), recorded at Ogelcho station reveals that, the area receives an annual rainfall ranging from around less than 10mm in Bega (December, January, and February) to around 142mm in kiremt (Jun, July and August). Especially July and August are the wettest months. Long-term mean annual rainfall of the area is 711.2mm.The rainfall was scanty a lot and below from national average. As the area is situated in the Central Ethiopian Rift Valley region, it has been experienced with erratic rainy seasons and recurrent drought episodes (Jensen, 2007).

3.1.5. Agricultural Production

According to Getachew and Ranjan (2012), the sole livelihoods strategy of rural population in Central Ethiopian Rift Valley is rain-fed subsistence agriculture. Likely to the general region, the major economic activity in a specified study site, in Zuway Dugda Woreda production of crops and rearing of animals was undertaken. This made land and animals as main livelihood assets of rural people. This predominant rain-fed agricultural livelihood put rural households at the study site extremely vulnerable for

climate variability related livelihood shock. As per project document compiled by Zuway Dugda BoARD Water Harvesting Technical Team (2003), more or less the livelihood strategy of the resident people is dominated by mixed subsistence farming system, which is sensitive for climate variability risks that unreliable rainfall pattern inhibits the local peoples to be self-sufficient for food production and food security attainment.

The major crops grown in the study area were maize (Zea mays), wheat (Triticum vulgare), haricot bean (Phaseolus vulgaris), teff (Eragrostis teff), barley (Hordeum vulgare), sorghum (Sorghum bicolor), chickpea (Cicer arietinum) and lentils (Lens culinaris); while cattle, goat, sheep, donkey, hen and camel were main domestic animals reared at the study site. The cropping pattern of these crops at Central Ethiopian Rift Valley in general and Zuway Dugda woreda in particular is determined by different factors of which onset and duration of rainy season remain the sole one (Walker et al., n.d). Because of this, the crop sector is experiencing noticeable loss as rainfall failure is frequent (Getnet, 2010). In line with this, Daniel and Tariku (2002) have reported that live animals were used as source of power, milk, sources of income and guarantees for livelihood security during seasons of crop failure caused by recurrent droughts and erratic rainfall pattern.

3.1.6. Vegetation Characteristics

As Zuway Dugda Woreda is located in the Central Ethiopian Great Rift Valley floor, more or less, the area is endowed with lowland arid and semi-arid floristic biota. More specifically, as broader vegetation distribution map of Ethiopia presented in Zerihun (1999), the study area is grouped to an ecosystem dominated by Acacia-Commiphora (small-leaved) deciduous woodland vegetation type. This vegetation type is dry ecosystem vegetation dominating semi-arid and sub-humid climate where harsh and hot temperature with low and uneven rainfall dominates. Vegetation at this ecosystem is dominated by drought resistant trees and shrubs either deciduous or with small evergreen leaves (IBC, 2005).

As the researcher has also observed during the reconnaissance survey for preliminary background information collection and main field observation, the area is dominated by vegetation types that has thick, narrow and thorny leaves with waxy and thick barks, which enabled it to reduce potential evapo-transpiration and resist prevailing water stress and moisture deficits in the study area. Farm plots and degraded grazing lands were dominated by existing remnant open wood land Acacia (Acacia lahi, Acacia nilotica and Acacia persici flora) 4 trees; while rugged mountains, hills and degraded gully sides were dominated by dwarfed Cacti (Euphorbia candelabrum), Abalo (Terminalia brownii), small and thorny bushes like Kontr (Entada abyssinica) and waxy shrubs.

3.2 Research Method and Materials

3.2.1 Study Population

In order to generate the required sample units, the determination of sampling frame is essential. The basic sampling unit in this case has the farmers‟ household who derive their livelihood entirely from agricultural activities. Determining the size of the universe of the frame also requires demarcation of the boundary in which this survey was conduct reasonably with the available time and financial resources. According to CSA (2007), The total number of population that live in the Zuway Dugda Woreda is 60,431 male and 60,556 female all together 126,436.Out of this population 116,356 is rural population and 4506 is urban population, but study is focused on three selected kabales that are Arata,Ubo Baricha, and Burka Lamafo from twenty-eight(28) kebeles in the woreda and also the total number of population that live in the three kebele were 1489 households. Then, total samples of 315 rural households were selected randomly using probability proportional to size (PPS) sampling technique

3.2.2. Research Design

The research design for this study is cross sectional survey design which aim examining and describing level of food insecurity among rural households in Zuway Dugda Woreda. The researcher is used both qualitative and quantitative or mixed

approach. This mixed approach has enabled a researcher to focus on research problem rather of methodology in order to effectively respond for raised research questions as per their focal dimension. Taking this in recognition, (Denscombe, 2007) call it „problem-driven‟. Therefore, by using mixed approach, both quantitative and qualitative data generation methods were utilized just to explore the problems over all objective and subjective aspects. Quantitatively information concerning‟ food security status, extent of food insecurity and determinant of food insecurity was generated by instrumentation of household questionnaire survey that is the strand of quantitative research approach. Supplementary data for it has been generated by participatory approach using observation and key informant interview of the area under investigation .Therefore, the researcher has got mixed approach as conceptually and methodologically logical for the problem investigated that has both empirically quantifiable objective reality and socially constructed

3.2.3. Data Types and Sources

In this study, primary and secondary methods of data gathering were made to address the formulated objectives so far. The primary data was gathered from selected households of kebeles and which are families who participated in the awareness test and attitude scale, about their food insecurity and the reason behind to food insecurity, status of food security also the effect of food insecurity as disaster risk among rural households. Key informant interviews and semi-structured interview were used with experts and stockholders and direct observation of the area, and household survey.

The secondary information was gathered from library sources, on line searches on issues related to food insecurity and theoretical background of the study. Besides, secondary data about food insecurity pattern, impact and its causes in Ethiopia in general and in Zuway Dugda Woreda in particularly were collected from government offices. Data concerning number of people supported by safety nets and emergency and other humanitarian aid programs were also collected from governmental offices like, Rural and Agricultural office of the Woreda and Bureau of Disaster Prevention and Preparedness. In addition to these, the research were utilized some research outputs as supportive secondary data sources

3.2.4. Sampling Size and Techniques

Zuway Dugda Woreda was purposively selected for its accessibility to transportation and because of large number of households which are productive safety net programme beneficiaries and food in security problems is series for a long period of time and also socio economic problems of the society, social life and income of the society has been low from time to time for a long period of time. A two-stage sampling procedure was applied to select the required number of sample units. First, three Kebeles namely Arata, Ubo Baricha and Burka Lemafo were selected purposively depending on agro ecological zone and highly vulnerable to the food insecurity from the total number of 28 kebeles, two kebeles were selected from kola (Burka Lemafo and Ubo Barich) and one kebele from woynadega (Arata), by discussing with the Disaster Prevention and Preparedness Bureau, Zuway Dugda Woreda rural and agricultural bureau and Development agent working at the study sites.Then, total samples of 315 rural households were selected randomly using probability proportional to size (PPS) sampling technique from the total households of the woreda (1489). This study applied a simplified formula provided by Yamane (Yamane, 1967 cited in: Indris, 2012) to determine the required sample size at 95% confidence level, degree of variability=0.5 and level of precision= 9% (0.05)

Totally sample size 315 The sample size taken from each kebele was on the basis of the household size proportion to each kebele of the woreda. 315 sample households were taken for this study after determining the total household‟s units sample for study. Therefore 98 sample household‟s from Arata, 117 sample households from Ubo Baricha and 100 sample households from Burka Lemafo.

Table 3.2: Definition of Proportionate sample size of allocated sample households

Female Total Sample Kebele Male Proportionate Sample Households Selected from each kebele Arata 425 40 465 98 Ubo Baricha 500 52 552 117 Burka Lemafo 450 22 472 100 TOTAL 1370 114 1489 315 Source: Data obtained from Zuway Dugda Woreda Rural and Agricultural Bureau.

3.2.5. Tools of Data Collection

The researcher used the main tools of data collection: key informant interviews questionnaire and direct observation of the study area.

A. Household Questionnaire Survey

The researcher used questionnaires for households to generate both qualitative and quantitative data pertaining to the social, demographic and economic characteristics of the households. Information on food consumption patterns, food insecurity indicators, and determinants of food insecurity data were also collected through the questionnaires. For this purpose, questionnaires (a combination of open-ended and close-ended questionnaire) were designed to 315 households at three selected site (Arata, Ubo Baricha and Burka Lemafo) in March 2017. Sample household‟s heads were request to fill in the questionnaire under a close supervision of the researcher and/or trained assistants. Essentially, the respondents were made aware of the purpose of study prior to responding to the question. Moreover, the questions were translated in to Afan Oromo (Oromo language) for simplicity and precision purpose.

B. Key Informant Interview

These were undertaken just with well-experienced and informed individuals to get in depth information on which the investigator wants to go through on (Messer & Townsley, 2003). In order to extract and have a flash perspective on the issued problem in general and research questions in focus, formal and informal interviews would be undertaken. In order to identify the level food insecurity among rural households, semi structured interviews with 5 well –informed household from the host community. Likewise, experts from different administrative level food security disaster prevention and preparedness and Bureau of Agriculture and Rural Development offices of the woreda were interviewed. Development agents working in the study area (DAs), Chairmen and managers of each kebele were also key informants for the study, each interview was carried out by researcher with the aim of making further investigation on the basis the information received from the respondents .While to investigate well-experienced wisdom on past and present food insecurity at the study area from perspectives of resident‟s informal interview.

C. Observation

By nature observation have numerous advantages over other qualitative data collection tools in providing supplementary and confirmative on the issue under investigation (Foster, 2006). In order to have an insight on the biophysical settings of the study site, such as physical land degradation, the state of forest resources, grazing land condition, farming land and climatic condition, the researcher has made unstructured observation on selected kebeles. In addition to the above data collection method, multiple field visits were executed by the researcher to substantiate and segment the information obtained through other primary and secondary data collection tools. Biophysical and socioeconomic condition of the three selected kebele (Arata, Ubo Bericha and Burka Lemafo) were explored through a series of field observation .In the meantime, various experts and administrators and the potentials of the area. Moreover, first hand GPS based spatial attribute data (latitude, longitude and altitude) for ground verification and anthropometric data were generated for three selected kebele through field survey. 34

3.2.6. Techniques of Data Analysis

Descriptive Statistics

Descriptive statistics like percentages, mean and standard deviation, minimum, maximum and others were used to describe determinants of food insecurity status in the study area based on the socio-economic, institutional, human capital and demographic situations. Statistical tests like t-test and chi-square test were also used to compare food insecure and food secure households in the study area based on different demographic, socio-economic and institutional factors.

Measuring Food Insecurity Status of the Households

Food security and food insecurity at the household level is best measured by direct survey of income, expenditure, and consumption and comparing it with the minimum subsistence requirement (Von Braun et al, 1992). Hence, the household food insecurity status was measured by direct survey of household consumption. The person responsible for preparing meals was asked how much food was prepared for consumption from purchase, stock and/or gift/loan/wage over a period of seven days. In this study, a seven-day recall method was used since such a measure gives more reliable information than the household expenditure method (Bouis, 1993). These seven days recall period was selected due to the fact that it is appropriate for exact recall of the food items served for the household within that week. If the time exceeds a week, for instance 14 days, the respondent may not recall properly what she has been served before two weeks.

Therefore, the consumption data collected on the basis of seven days recall method was converted into kilocalorie using the food composition table adopted from Ethiopian Health and Nutrition Research Institute (EHNRI, 1997). Then, in order to calculate the household„s daily food consumption, the total household„s caloric food consumption for seven days was divided by seven. The household„s daily caloric food consumption per adult equivalent will be calculated by dividing the household„s daily food consumption by the family size after adjusting for adult equivalent using the consumption factor for age-sex categories.

Then the result was compared with the minimum subsistence requirement per AE per day of 2,100 Kcal/AE which is set by the Ethiopian Government (MoFED, 2008) and it has changed from the previous set by the government of Ethiopia for the minimum acceptable weighted average food requirement per person per day at 2100 kcal (FDRE, 1996; cited in Kifle, 1999). Accordingly, this value of 2,100 Kcal/AE minimum subsistence requirements was used as a cut-off point between food secure and insecure households in which case the household is said to be food secure if it meets this minimum and insecure otherwise.

Econometric Method

In order to identify the determinants of the food insecurity situation of the households a Logit model was used. In this study, the dependent variable Y (household food insecurity) is dichotomous variable taking value 1 if the household is food insecure and 0 otherwise. In the case where the dependent variable is dichotomous, probability regression models are the most fitting to study the relationship between dependent and independent variables. In the case where the response variable is qualitative, it is the probability of the dependent variable given independent variable that is determined. The most common qualitative regression modelis logit model (Gujarati, 2004).

Linear probability model like a typical linear regression model, determine the conditional expectation of the dependent variable given independent variable. Beside this, the model is encountered with many problems like non-normality and hetero scedastic variances of the disturbance and the probability fails to fall in between 0 and 1 values. For this reason, linear probability model is not attractive model and it is fallen out of use in many practical applications. These problems could be easily solved by using probity and logit models. In these two models the probability will fall in between 0 and 1. In most applications these two models are quite similar. The main difference being the logistic distribution has slightly fatter tails, that is to say, the conditional probability Pi approaches zero or one at a slower rate in logit than in probity.

Therefore, there is no compelling reason to choose one over the other. In practice many researchers choose the logit model because of its comparative mathematical

simplicity (Gujarati, 2004). Therefore, in this study logit model was chosen for its simplicity and less complexity of its interpretation.

Then, following Gujarati (2004) logit model is specified as follows

: ⁄ (2)

For ease of exposition, the probability that a given household is food insecure is expressed as:

(3)

Probability of being food secure is 1-Pi:

(4)

Thus;

(5)

This is the ratio of the probability that a household is food insecure to the probability of that it is food secure. It is the odds ratio in favor of food insecurity.

Taking the natural log of the above equation:

( ) (6)

Where, Pi is the probability that the household is food insecure ranges from 0 to 1 and Zi is a function of n explanatory variable and is expressed as:

- (7)

Where, β0 is an intercept and β1, β2…..βn are the slopes of the equation and Li is logs of odds ratio in favor of food insecurity which is not only linear in parameters but also linear in terms of explanatory variables. If the disturbance term Ui is introduced, the logit model will become:

- (8) 37

3.2.7. Definition of Variables

Dependent Variable

The household food insecurity status, which is the dependent variable for the logit analysis is a dichotomous variable representing the status of the household food insecurity. It is represented in the model by 1 if the household is food insecure and 0 otherwise. The information, which identifies the food secure from food insecure, was obtained by comparing the total food calorie available for consumption in the household per AE to the minimum level of subsistence requirements per AE (2,100 Kcal) which is set by the Ethiopian government (FSS, 2002) used as a minimum required for an active and healthy life. Records below this threshold is said to be food insecure, otherwise not.

Independent Variables

It is hypothesized that the household food insecurity at any time is influenced by the combined effect of a number of factors. The independent variables that are expected to have association with the household food insecurity are selected based on available literature and scientific research done somewhere else. Any explanatory variable having negative coefficient is expected to reduce food insecurity of the household whereas explanatory variable found to be positive will aggravate the food insecurity of the households. Therefore, the major variables expected to have influence on the household food insecurity are explained below:

Sex of the Household Head(X 1): is a dummy variable taking a value of 1 if male and 0 otherwise. Household head is a person who economically supports or manages the household or some reason of age or respect is considered as head by other members of the household. It could be male or female (Bashir, 2010). Male household heads have more tendency of engaging in different activities as they are less occupied with domestic activities and this will improve their income. In this study, it is hypothesized that male headed households have more chance to be food secure and signaled negative impact on food insecurity.

Age of Household Head (X2): is a continuous explanatory variable measured by year. Older people have relatively richer experiences of the social and physical environments and greater experience of farming activities. Older household heads are expected to have better access to land than younger heads, because younger men either have to wait for land redistribution, or have to share land with their families .Thus, it is hypothesized that age of the household heads and household food security are positively correlated.

Family Size of Households (X3): refers to the total number of household members who lived and eat with household at least for six months. It is an important variable which determines the state of household food security and expected to have negative effect on household food security. According to reviewed literatures, increasing family size tends to exert more pressure on consumption than the labor it contributes to production.

Dependency Ratio Per active Member (X4): is measured as total household size divided by the number of individuals working to support the household. Due to the scarcity of resources, an increase in household size especially the non-working members put pressure on consumption than production. An increase in the number of non-working member of household or dependency ratio increases the food insecurity level of household.

Educational Status of Household Head (X5): is dummy variable and an important determinant of household food security status in that; educated households have a better chance of adopting soil conservation measures which in turn increases crop production. Educated household head has the capacity to innovate and to adopt timely technology and has better understanding of the cash crops that can help them to have a better income than the non-educated households. Thus, education status is hypothesized to have a positive effect on household food security.

Farm Land Size Per hectares (X6): is continuous explanatory variable and an important determinant of household food security. Farm size is the total area of land 39

cultivated to food and cash crop by households, measured in hectares. Positive relationship has been established between farm size and improvement in households‟ income and food security. It is, therefore, expected of a household with a larger farm size to be more food secure than a household with a smaller farm size.

Total Livestock Owned by Household (X7) : is the total number of livestock holding of the pastoralists measured in Tropical Livestock Unit (TLU). Livestock are the source of livelihood of pastoralist community in the low land of Ethiopia. Households who have better possession of livestock are expected to be less vulnerable to food insecurity. Since households with more number of livestock obtain more milk, milk products and meat for direct consumption. Besides, households with large livestock holding can obtain more cash income from the sale of live animals and livestock products which are often used for purchase of food grains during time of food shortage (Bashir, 2010; Indiris, 2012). Therefore, it is expected that livestock holding have a negative impact on food insecurity.

Number of Oxen owned by Household (X8): Oxen are the most important means of land cultivation and basic factors of production. Households who own more oxen have better chance to escape food shortages since the possession of oxen allows effective utilization of the land and labor resources of the household. Positive correlation is expected between number of ox/oxen owned and household food security.

Use of Farm Inputs per Farm Land (X9): refers to use of chemical fertilizer, improved seed, pesticide and herbicide. The amount of farm inputs used was converted to monetary value based on market price during time of the survey. A household who could have used farm inputs was hypothesized to have positive relation with food security status because he/she produces more.

Access to Credit (X10): Credit serves as a means to boost production and expand income generating activities (Devereux, 2001). It is a dummy variable taking the value 1, if the household takes credit 0 otherwise. Thus, a household which has access to credit does initiate investment in farm and non-farm activities and achieve food 40

security. Thus, it is hypothesized that a household which has access to credit is more likely to be food secure.

On Farm Income Opportunity of Households (X11): This reflected source of income collected from sale of crop produce, sale of livestock and livestock product and hiring of agricultural land. The more household head engaged in gainful employment, the higher he/she earns income and the greater the chances of being food secure.

Remittance from Relatives in Birr (12): This is a variable where most households in the study area are benefiting from supporting each other. It is hypothesized that relative economic support from abroad and within the country has negatively related to the food insecurity status of the household.

Irrigation use (13): It is a dummy variable in the model taking a value of 1 if the household uses irrigation, 0 otherwise. In areas where agriculture is the prime source of livelihood of the society, soil moisture is very crucial. Even if the climatic condition in a given area is conducive, then it would be far better to be supplemented with irrigation so that increased output could be attained. However, in the study area drought, erratic rainfall patterns and other factors limit the output per hectare, and made it one of the food insecure districts in the region. Hence, it was hypothesized that the use of irrigation and food insecurity are negatively related.(Sadik,2012)

Distance from Market Center in kilometer (X14): proximity to market centers create access to additional income by providing opportunities of selling livestock and livestock products as well as get opportunities of engaging in employment and easy access to inputs and transportation (Wali, 2012). It is therefore, expected that household nearer to market center have better chance to improve food security status than who do not have a proximity to market center (Sadik, 2012). Proximity to market center is hypothesized to affect food insecurity negatively.

Table 3.3 Summary of variables definition, measurement and hypothesis

Variable Variable type Variable definition and Hypothesis measurement Food insecurity status Dummy 1 if the household is food insecure; 0 otherwise Sex Dummy 1 if the household is female; 0 + otherwise Age Continuous Age of the household head in years - Family size in AE Continuous Family size in adult equivalent + Dependency ratio Continuous Ratio of dependents to active members + Education Dummy 1 if the household is illiterate, 0 - otherwise Land size Continuous Land cultivated in hectares - Livestock ownership Continuous Livestock owned in TLU - Oxen Continuous Number of oxen owned - Fertilizer Dummy 1 if the household not use - fertilizer, 0 otherwise Credit Dummy if the household not access - credit 0 otherwise Off/non-farm income Continuous Income from off/non-farm activities in - Birr Remittance Continuous Income from relatives in Birr - Irrigation Dummy 1 if the household not use irrigation, 0 - otherwise Distance to nearest Continuous Distance to market centers in KM + market

3.2.8 .Validity and Reliability of the Data

One of the defining conceptualization concerning validity given by American Psychological Association ( APA, 1985) as it was noted in Dooley (2003) has stated validity as the appropriateness, meaningfulness and usefulness of the specific inferences made from a given measurements. In other way, from positivist perspective Aguinaldo (2009) has argued that research is valid to the extent if its findings can offer access to an objective reality. Often the quality of a research design can be expressed in terms of how well it counters threats to validity (Gomm et al, 2009). As of this, validity is the strength of our conclusions, inferences or propositions.

Therefore to keep theoretical principle of validity vested in literatures in practice the study has made some attempts. In order to keep face validity of the research, the study has tried to incorporate major facets of food insecurity research. To keep the content validity of the research (Vanderstoep & Johnston, 2009), the author has reviewed many conceptual and empirical literatures on the problem investigated in order to incorporate major themes in data generating instruments that enabled to investigate the problem in all-inclusive way. In addition to this, validity can also be related to research methodology on which the study is frame worked (Marczyk et al., 2005). Therefore, to keep construct validity of the study (Marczyk et al., 2005; Gomm, 2009), the researcher has consulted methodological aspects on past research outputs and scholarly articles undertaken whether in Ethiopia or abroad in order to select accurate data generation tools and techniques that were with appreciation to complex nature of food insecurity. Moreover, by doing this, the study has tried to reassure internal and external validity (Reinar & Bradley, 2007) of the research output.

A test is valid if test scores reflect the underlying characteristic that they are supposed to. Steps were taken to enhance content validity of the instrument. Firstly, the researcher used undertaking a review of literature related to food security. Secondly, the researcher made a discussion on the issue with Zuway Dugda Woreda agricultural office expertise and comments were given by the advisor of the thesis and modification was made on the questionnaire and also the researcher used triangulation method by using of DAs, and Disaster Prevention and Preparedness manager. 43

One of the defining conceptualization concerning reliability given by American Psychological Association (APA, 1985) as it was noted in Dooley (2003) has stated reliability as reliability refers the degree to which observed scores are free from errors of measurement that can be gauged by consistency of scores. In order to keep the reliability of measurements (Gaur & Gaur, 2007) in household questionnaire survey, the researcher has undertaken pilot study prior to actual survey to prove legibility, formats and logical sequences of questions for actual survey. In other way, to keep the reliability of qualitative data collection tools, during key informant interview session the researcher has kept himself in friendly and good interpersonal relation with research subjects to extract consistent and reliable responses.

In addition to this In order to test the reliability of the instruments the initial (pre-test) version of the instrument was administrated to households‟ Arata, Ubo Baricha and Burka Lemafo Kebele. The awareness of test and attitude scale had completed by 10 households. The best items, i.e. items that differentiate mostly between households who were selected by using an adjustor correct item to total correlation index, i.e. by correlating households score on each item with their total score minus the score for the item in question.

3.2.9. Ethics Consideration

When carrying out a research, the researcher always used to take ethical issues into consideration because any form of a research affects people in a wide variety ways. Some qualitative research deal with sensitive, intimate and innermost issues in people„s lives, and ethical issues accompany the collection of such information (Punch, 1998).

The respondents‟ rights, autonomy and sensitivities were respected and they were given an informed consent. Their possibility of being harmed as a result of their involvement was also considered. Respondents were known where they are letting themselves into. People were not being treating unfairly or with lack of consideration or respect .Their privacy and autonomy were also being guaranteed. The researcher not exerting any pressure on people in persuading them to become involved in the research and people give full information about the research (Robson, 2007). All of

the 5 interviews are based on voluntariness, and the villagers were not obliged to take part in the interviews. They are given full information about the purpose of the study and they were treated equally, not depending on their education, age or religion.

Beyond the ethics on human subjects, ethics on research also considers acknowledgements of data and concepts generated by others and appropriate citations of past scholarly research outputs in order to keep intellectual and scientific integrity (Dooley et al, 2003; Holm, 2007). By recognizing this, the researcher has tried to cite and acknowledge all concepts, quotations, words and phrases taken from past scholarly literatures, reports, repository documents and any other literature works and data generated other than this research process.

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULT AND DISCUSSION

This chapter presents the way to distinguish between the food secure and food insecure households, and presents the findings from the descriptive and econometric analysis made in this study. The descriptive analysis made use of tools such as mean, percentage, standard deviation and frequency distribution. Inferential statistics were also employed to compare the food secure and food insecure household groups in respect of some explanatory variables. Econometric analysis was used to identify the determinants of food insecurity

4.1 Demographic and Socio-economic Characteristics

Needless to mention that household‟s productivity and escaping from food insecurity are determined by various household attributes. Of these attributes, demographic and socioeconomic characteristics are the ones. Hence, this section will discuss household characteristics, which determine food insecurity like sex, age, family size, education, household access to productive resources like land and livestock, cash income etc.

4.1.1 Age and Sex Composition

The total size of sample household members was 1741 out of this sample household members 905 (52%) and 887 (48%) were female and male, respectively. Of the total sample household members 315 (15%) were household heads. The sample household members less than 15 years of age in the sample accounted for 52 percent. The economically active age members, 15-64 years, constituted 45.6 percent. Thus, the remaining 2.3 percent of sample household members were in the age bracket of above 64 years. The children (0-14 years) and youth (15-24) constituted 69.4 percent of the total sample household members. This generally indicated that the majority of the sample household members were less than 25 years of age. Moreover, the ratio between percent of the young age group (0-14) and the old age group (>64) indicates the dependency ratio. The young dependency ratio, i.e., the proportion of persons between 0-14 year to 15-64 years and the old dependency ratio, the proportion of persons above 64 years to that of the active age group (15-64) members of the sample amounted to 119.29 percent and 5.04 percent, respectively. Hence, the overall 46

dependency ratio, the proportion of young and old to the working age group in the sample accounted to 124.33 percent. The distribution of sample household members by age group and sex is given in Table 4.1. Table4.1. Distribution of Sample Households by Age and Sex types

Age group Male Female Total (N=315) Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent <7 188 21.2 172 19 360 21.1 7-14 281 31.7 289 32 570 32.0 15-25 162 18.3 145 16 307 17.3 26-45 176 19.8 235 26 411 22.0 46-64 59 6.6 37 4.1 96 5.4 >64 21 2.4 20 2.2 41 2.3 Total 887 100 905 100 1741 100 Source: Based on survey data (2017

4.1.2 Family Size

Family size was considered and hypothesized as one of the potential variables that would have due contribution for food insecurity. The proportion of sample households becoming food insecure increased as the family size increases. About 32.1 percent of the 110 food secure and 15.4 percent of the 205 food insecure sample households were found to have family size less than or equal to 4. While only the food insecure households had family size over 7, which constituted 43.6 percent and 33.9 percent of the food insecure and the total sample households, respectively.

The survey result also revealed that there was significant difference in the mean family size at less than 1 percent probability level (p<0.01) between food secure and food insecure sample household groups. In that, the mean was found to be 6.08 and 4.3 for food –insecure and food secure households, respectively. While the overall mean family size of the sample household was 5.45. This was above the national average of 5.2 persons (CSA, 2007). This result is in agreement with the prior expectation. The largest family size of the sample households was 14 and the smallest was 2 (Table 4.2). 47

Table.4.2 Distribution of Sample Households by Family Size

Family size Food insecure (N=205) Food secure (N=110) Total (N=315) in number Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent  4 7 3.4 35 32.1 42 10.4 5-7 125 60.9 69 63.2 197 62.6 8-10 68 33.3 5 4.6 73 25.2 11-13 47 5 - - 47 1.7 Total 205 100 110 100 315 100 Mean 7.0287 4.4577 6.2 SD 2.56528 1.66110 2.6 t-value 8.531*** Source: Based on Survey data (2017)

The minimum family size in AE was 2.35. Most respondents were married, some single widowed with few numbers of children or divorced but also having some children, which sum up 2.35 AE and more, other than the household head. The maximum family size in AE was 13.56. From food insecure households (77%) have got a family size which ranges from 5.23 to 13.56. On contrary, only (20.1%) of food secure households, got family size, which ranges from 5.24 to 9.25. On the other hand, only (6.11%) of food insecure and about (23%) of the food secure got a family size, measured in AE, which ranges from 2.35 to 3.11. The mean family size in adult equivalent of food insecure and food secure households was 7.03 and 4.45, respectively. The standard deviation of household size in AE for food insecure was 2.56 and that of food secure was 1.66, while that of the total respondent households was 2.6.

Table 4.3 Distribution of Sample Households by Family Size in AE

Family size Food insecure (N=205) Food secure (N=110) Total (N=315) in AE Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 2.75-3.75 31 15 47 43 78 14.8 3.89-4.75 12 6 34 31 46 45.2 5.23-7.20 55 27 20 18 75 34.8 7.21-8.76 65 31.5 8 7.7 73 4.3 9.11-13.56 43 21 1 1.3 44 .9 Total 205 100 110 100 315 100 Mean 7.0287 4.4577 6.2 SD 2.56528 1.66110 2.6 t-value 4..517*** Source: Based on Survey data (2017)

4.1.3 Dependency Ratio

Dependency ratio is obtained by dividing inactive labor force (age less than 15 and above 64) by the productive labor (age between 15 and 64) with in a household. The mean value of the indicator of all respondents was 1.11. Whereas the value corresponds to food insecure and secure households was 1.13 and 1.1, respectively. This implies that one active labor force in food insecure and secure households on average shoulder about one economically inactive family member.

4.1.4. Education of the Household Head

The educational status of sample household heads was very low. Out of 315 respondents, 71.4% were illiterate, and only 28.6% could only read and write without formal schooling (Table 4.4). Most of the sample farmers have learnt only through non-formal education. About 56% of the food secure households and 26% of food insecure could read and write respectively. The difference between the two sample groups with regard to education was found to be statistically significant with less than

10 percent probability level of chi-square value. On average the proportion of literate food secure household heads were larger than the proportion of literate food insecure household heads. Therefore, the Chi-square test showed a systematic association between food insecurity and education level of household heads. Table 4.4 Distribution of Households by Status of Education

Status of education Food Insecure Food Secure Total Pearson χ2-chi

(N =205) (N=110) (N= 315) square value

Literate 15.7 69.2 32.8

Illiterate 84.3 30.8 67.2 -13.289***

Overall 100 100 100

Source: Based on Survey data (2017)

4.1.5 Access to Credit and Fertilizer

Appropriate application of modern farm inputs such as chemical fertilizers increases crop yield and productivity, and this bring food insecure households to become food secure. Because of this fact, farmers have been encouraged to adopt utilization of modern farm inputs to improve land productivity and to boost overall production (Degefa, 2002; Tesfaye, 2005).Therefore, in the study area utilization of chemical fertilizers are expected to affect food insecurity status of the households‟ negatively.

From the total sampled households, users of chemical fertilizers accounted for 23 percent while non-users of chemical fertilizers accounted for 77 percent. The proportion of chemical fertilizer users was 11.6 percent of total sampled food insecure households. In addition to this; chemical fertilizer users accounted for about 37.7 percent of the total food secure households. Whereas, the proportion of non-users of chemical fertilizers out of total sampled food secure and food insecure households were 62.3 and 88.4 percent respectively. There was statistically significant proportion difference between food secure and food insecure households in terms of use of chemical fertilizers.

Credit decreases the probability of the households to become food insecure because credit is used for many purposes like consumption or purchase of agricultural input 50

such as chemical fertilizers and improved seeds, etc. As a result, it was hypothesized that households who are getting the amount of credit they required have less probability of becoming food insecure than others. From the total sampled households, which were able to access credit accounted for 25.4 percent while households, which were not able to access credit, accounted for 74.6 percent. The proportion of access to credit household heads was 17.4 percent of total sampled food insecure households. In addition to this access to credit headed households that have had access to credit accounted for about 35.8 percent of the total food secure households. Whereas, the proportion of these had no access to credit users household heads out of total sampled food secure households and food insecure female headed households were 64.2 percent and 82.6 percent respectively. There was statistically significant proportion difference between food secure and food insecure households in terms of credit at less than five percent probability level. Thus, the result shows that households, which were able to access credit, were more food secure than households, which were not able to access credit.

From the key informant interview, households were found to be users and non-users of farm inputs. From those who use farm inputs were found to be food secure on the other hand, from non-users of farm input was food insecure. Among food secure households most of them were users of credit and more of the who had no access non users credit were food insecure.

Table 4.5 Mean and Proportion difference test of variables between institutional factor between food insecure and food secure households

Variable Mean/proportion Pearsonχ2-chi square value Food Insecure Food Secure Total (N =205) (N=110) (N= 315) Fertilizer access 0.11 0.37 0.23 11.58** Credit access 0.17 0.35 0.25 -5.4** Note: ** Significant at < 5% probability level of significance

4.1.6 Irrigation and Market Infrastructure Access

Good infrastructure is essential for food security by ensuring low food price and efficient market that can respond to changes in demand. It also reduces the cost of transporting produce and inputs such as fertilizers and food shortage. It allows information transfer between producers and traders, and gives farmers access to new technologies (FAO, 2009). As a result it was hypothesized that the distance of the household„s residence from the nearest market centre was negatively related with food insecurity status and households nearest to the market centre have less probability of becoming food insecure. The mean distance of food insecure households to the nearest market was 11.49 Km whereas for those of food security was 8.16 Km. Even though it seems that food insecure households were travelling more distance than food secure households, statistical test for the equality of mean distance shows there was significant difference between the food insecure and food secure households in the market centre at 1% probability level.

The fact that the largest part of the district is characterized by dry low land would clearly indicate that the extent of demand for irrigation practices is unquestionable. The achievement so far, however, seems discouraging as only 24% of the respondents were found to practice crop cultivation under small-scale irrigation. There is considerable variation between food secure and food insecure farmers regarding irrigation use. The percentage of food secure farmers using irrigation was 35.5%, while only 7 % of the food insecure respondents reported the use of irrigation. The potentiality of water resource and area to be irrigable is more than 1000 ha and 0.5 ha per household can be cultivated.

From the key informant interviewed, the potentiality of water resource and area to be irrigated was good but most of the households were not the user of irrigation because of lack of capital and other related factors, which led to food insecure. Good infrastructure also essential for food security by ensuring low food price and efficient market that can respond to changes in demand. It also reduces the cost of transporting produce and inputs such as fertilizers and food shortage but in the woreda lack of infrastructure.

Table 4.6 Mean and proportion difference test of variables between market, irrigation and infrastructure access factor between food insecure and food secure households

Mean/proportion Pearson χ2-chi Variable square value Food Insecure Food Secure Total (N =205) (N=110) (N= 315) Proximity to market 11.49 8.16 9.23 11.58** center ( Km) Irrigation access(p/hr) 0.07 0.35 0.19 -5.4** Source: Based on survey data (2017)

4.1.7 Resource Ownership

This sub section presents the economic factors affecting the food insecurity status of the households that include the size of cultivated land, livestock owned in TLU, number of oxen owned and off/non-farm income activities

Table 4.7 Mean and proportion difference test of variables between resource ownership, food insecure and food secure households

Variable Mean/proportion t value

FI (N =205) FS (N=110) Total (N= 315)

Number of oxen owned 0.54 1.85 0.96 -16.480***

Cultivated land size (ha) 0.75 1.56 1.15 -10.243***

Off/non-farm income (birr) 225.87 882.22 493.64 3.14***

Livestock owned in TLU 3.75 7.25 4.25 -16.076***

Remittance (birr) 41.89 183.60 103.45 3.21***

Note: *** Significant at less than one percent probability level of significance

Livestock production is an important part of crop production in the rural areas in that it enables households to earn better income with which they can purchase food when they are in short of their stock and invest in purchase of inputs that increase their production. And this in turn enables households to ensure food security at household level (Adunga and Wogayehu, 2011).

It was hypothesized that livestock holding in TLU is negatively related with the problems of food insecurity in that households with large number of livestock in TLU have better chance of becoming food secure than otherwise. The mean livestock holding of the sampled households was 4.25 TLU (SD=3.35) with minimum of 0 TLU and maximum of 13.88 TLU. The mean livestock holding was 3.75 TLU (SD=2.26) and 7.25 TLU (SD=3.71) for food insecure and food secure households respectively. The t- test for the equality of the means in livestock holding between food insecure and food secure households shows that there was statistically significant mean difference at less than one percent probability level.

Oxen availability is vital in farming household as the agriculture depends on traditional farming system and it is also a source of income for the household. In the study area oxen is the most important traction power for the production of crops. As a result, it was hypothesized that the number of oxen owned is negatively related with the food insecurity status of households in the study area. That is, the more the number of oxen owned the less the probability of the household to become food insecure. The number of oxen owned by the sampled households varies from the minimum of zero to a maximum of three. The average number of oxen owned by the sampled households was 0.96 with a standard deviation of 1.05. The average number of oxen owned was 0.54 (SD=0.72) and 1.85 (SD=1.11) for food insecure and food secure households respectively. The average number of oxen owned was appeared to be greater for food secure compared to food insecure households and this difference was statistically significant at less than one percent probability level and it is in line with result of Fekadu,(2008)and Abebaw( 2003).

Off/non-farm income is very important for the wellbeing of the households in that it help the households to access food when income from agriculture is inadequate to enable households to access food throughout the year. Consequently, it was hypothesized to

affect the food insecurity status of the households negatively in which households which were managed to earn more income from such activities are more food secures than others. The sampled households which have engaged in off/non-farm activities had generated an average income of Birr 493.64 with its standard deviation of 1049.40. Food insecure households have generated very low average income of about Birr 225.87 (SD=748.94) while their counterparts generated an average of Birr 882.22 (SD= 1268.86) in the study period. The t-test for the equality of the mean of income generated shows that there was statistically significant difference between food insecure and food secure households at less than one percent probability level.

The presences of sufficient farmland size in the farm households determine the food security status of the household and encourage them to use new agricultural technologies such as rural water harvesting, fertilizer, pesticides and so on. It is necessary to see whether there is a significant mean farmland size difference between the food insecure and the food secured households. It was hypothesized that the size of cultivated land by the household negatively affects the food insecurity status of the households. That is, households with large cultivated land in hectares have more probability of escaping the problem of food insecurity than household with small- cultivated land in hectares. Cultivated land per household for the sampled households varies from a minimum of 0.25ha to a maximum of 4 ha. Average cultivated land of the sampled households was 1.15 ha with a standard deviation of 0.35. The average cultivated land was 0.75 ha (SD=0.31ha) and 1.56 ha (SD=0.32 ha) for food insecure and food secure households respectively. There is statistically significant difference between food insecure and food secure households in their mean cultivated land at less than one percent probability level. The result shows that food insecure households were relying on very small pieces of land than the food secure households to meet their food requirement. This result is in consistent with research results trying to capture the relation between food insecurity and land holding size conducted in the woreda by Fikadu (2008).

4.2 Measuring the Food Insecurity Status of the Households

Although food security at the household level is best measured by direct survey of income, expenditure, and consumption and comparing it with the minimum 55

subsistence requirement, in this study households‟ food or calorie acquisition per AE per day was used to identify the two groups. The reason for use of this measure was that it produces a crude estimate of the amount of calorie available for consumption in the household. Moreover, it is not obvious to respondents how they could manipulate their answers. Because the questions are retrospective, rather than prospective, the possibility that individuals or households will change their behavior as a consequence of being observed is lessened (Hoddinott, 2001). In addition, the reliability of income data in subsistence farming where record keeping is limited is always questionable (Tesfaye, 2003). Of course, it cannot be denied that measuring food security in terms of income is consistent with objectives of many rural development interventions aimed at raising the level of income of rural households. However, the correlation between income and food security status of household is not always strong (Hoddinott, 2001).

The households‟ food security status was measured by direct survey of consumption. Data on the available food for consumption, from home production, purchase, and /or gift/loan/wage in kind for the previous seven (7) days before the survey day by the household was collected. Then the data were converted to kilocalorie and then divided to household size measured in AE. Following this, the amount of energy in kilocalorie available for the household is compared with the minimum subsistence requirement per adult equivalent per day (i.e. 2100 kcal). As a result, from all 315 respondent households, 205 households were found to be food insecure and 110 of them food secure. It means that 65 % of the respondent households were food insecure and 35 % of them were food secure.

Generally Ethiopian Great Rift Valley is identified as climate related food insecurity risk zone (Funk, 2012). To the same manner as the general geographic region, at Zuway Dugda climate variability, especially rainfall variability remains a sole problem constraining people to be self-sufficient in food production (BoARD/WHTT, 2003). This made Zuway DugdaWoreda a target geographic area for emergency relief of many NGOs and humanitarian agencies (Piguet, 2003). In line with these justifications reported by literatures, from key informant interview, reported as they receive emergency reliefs to fill short term food production gaps and continuously

helped by Productive Safety Net Programs (PSNPs) for long term food self- sufficiency. When asked about their reasons for persistent and frequent over dependence on emergency relief from government and support of PSNPs to fill food gaps. Table4.8. Households Food insecurity Status

Energy Available per Food secure Food insecure Total t-value

AE in (Kcal) (N=110) (N=205) (N=315)

Maximum 2985 2065 2985 -5.328***

Minimum 2112 712 712

Mean 2394.8 1758.4 1958

St. Deviation 215.5 246.71 490.13

Note: *** Significant at one percent probability level of Significance

4.3 Econometric Model Results

Binary logistic regression model applied to see the relative influence of household„s demographic, socio-economic, human capital and institutional variables on food insecurity status. Identification of the descriptive statistics is not enough to stimulate policy actions unless the relative influence of each factor is known for priority-based intervention.

4.3.1. Determinants of Rural Household Food Insecurity

Empirical findings of econometric model result are discussed and presented in this section. Estimates of the parameters of the variables expected to determine rural household food insecurity are displayed in Table 4.9 shown below. The goodness-of- fit was tested by the Log likelihood ratio (LR) test. The result shows the chi-square of 155.0 with 13 df and p-value of zero. This means that is statistically significant and the model displays a good fit. The Pseudo R2 of the model is also 77.3%. This verifies that the model has a good fit to the data and explained significant non-zero variations in factors influencing food insecurity. Among the total of fourteen independent variables included in the model, ten variables were found to be statistically significant

in influencing the food insecurity status while the remaining four independent variables were statistically insignificant.

Table 4.9 Maximum Likelihood Estimates of Binary Logistic Model

Variable Coefficient Wald statistics Odds ratio

Sex of HHH 1.561 5.390 0.811 Age of HHH 0.041 3.733 1.042 Family size AE -0.470 0.141*** 0.383

Dependency ratio 1.777 15.561** 0.040 Education level -2.548 21.084*** 0.784 Land cultivated -3.080 15.086** 1.513 Livestock owned TLU -0.242 3.583* 1.273 Oxen holding -0.660 3.422*** 1.934 Fertilizer 0.818 1.257 0.582 Credit -0.448 0.649** 1.566 Off/non farm income -0.040 5.984** 1.004 Remittance -0.014 4.621** 1.014 Irrigation -8.290 4.393*** 0.045 Distance to nearest market centre -21.896 6.775 0.258 Constant 5.920 10.891 0.003

- 2 Log likelihood 102.2 Pearson Chi-squared ( ) 155.0*** Pseudo R2 77.3% Correct prediction of all sample (Count R2)/ (%) 87% Sensitivity/ Correct prediction of food insecure (%) 83% Specificity/ Correct prediction of food secure (%) 79% Sample size 315 *** Significant at <1% probability level ** Significant at <5% probability level * Significant at <10% Probability level Source: (Survey, 2016) 58

The likelihood ratio test statistics exceeds the chi-square critical value with 13 degree of freedom. The result is significant at less than 1 percent probability level indicating that the hypothesis that the coefficient except the intercept are equal to zero is rejected. Another measure of goodness of fit used in logistic regression analysis is the count R2, which indicates the number of sample observations correctly predicted by the model. The count R2 is based on the principle that if the estimated probability of the event is less than 0.5, the event will not occur and if it is greater than 0.5 the event will occur (Maddala, 1989). In other words, the observation is grouped as a food insecure if the computed probability is greater than or equal to 0.5, and as a food secure otherwise. The model results show the logistic regression model correctly predicted 274 of 315, or 87 % of the sample households. The sensitivity (correctly predicted food insecure) and the specificity (correctly predicted food secure) of the logit model are 83% and 79%, respectively. Thus, the model predicts both groups accurately.

4.3.2 Significant Explanatory Variables

Out of the fourteen variables hypothesized to influence household food insecurity, ten were found to be statistically significant. The maximum likelihood estimates of the logistic regression model showed that family size, annual household income from off/nonfarm source, irrigation use and educational status of the household head were determinant variables included in the regression equation that the model included as influential factors for household food insecurity status in the study area.

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

5.1 Conclusion

From the attempts made to draw attention to the food supply situation in the world, it is clearly evident that millions of peopple has been suffering from hunger though there is adequate amount of food in the world. This is because the world is said to be food secure if and only if every person is assured of access at all times to the food required for a healthy and productive life. In other words, the availability of food at global, regional or national level does not guarantee every household's or individual's access to adequate food owing to several factors such as the ability to produce or purchase enough amount of food.

The problems related to food crisis are very acute in Africa, especially in Sub-Saharan regions, than it is in the other parts of the world. What seems more miserable in Sub- Saharan Africa is the fact that the food security trend in this Sub-region is not encouraging. Rather, food crisis in this sub region is expected to persist and the peoples face the bleariest prospects. Furthermore, Sub-Saharan Africa is the only region in the world in which the number of poor has been growing roughly at the same rate as population growth. The food security/insecurity situation in Ethiopia seems not out of the general picture of the Sub-Saharan Africa.

Like many other rural areas in Ethiopia, the economic situation in general and food security status of the rural households in particular in Zuway Dugda Woreda was found to be precarious. The result from this study, as it has been discussed over the proceeding portions of this study about the determinants of food insecurity, it has been realized that the determinants of household food insecurity were broad, interrelated and varies over spatial distribution. These can be addressed by a wide comprehensive interventions from different angles of social aspects for minimizing the severity of food insecurity and finally get mitigate the food impoverishments. Therefore, this paper advocates that food insecurity could be substantially reduced in all of its dimension intervention. This can be achieved by dramatic feed back if government as well as NGOs‟ efforts are harmonized and directed in proper manner by addressing the root causes of this tragedy.

The study revealed that the majority of rural households under the survey (65%) experienced food insecurity problems. The descriptive statistics revealed that large family size coupled with lack of sufficient productive resources like cultivated land and oxen have contributed to food insecurity condition of the household. The result of logistic regression showed that out of the fourteen variables hypothesized to influence household food insecurity, ten were found to be statistically significant. The maximum likelihood estimates of the logistic regression model revealed that family size, annual household income from off/non-farm source, irrigation use, educational status of the household head and number of oxen owned were important determinants identified to influence household food insecurity in the study area .

5.2 Recommendation

Hence, after summarizing the findings of this study, the possible recommendations that can be made from this study are as follows:

 As family size and food insecurity are positively related serious attention has to be given to limit the increasing population in the study area. This can be achieved by creating sufficient awareness to effective family planning in the rural households. Even thought every individual has a natural right to multiply oneself with own willing partner; this right should be effected with the ability to furnish own descendants with all the necessary or basic needs, especially food. Otherwise, the ever-shrinking productive resources in the study area coupled with increasing population would hamper any development intervention from achieving its objectives. So, along with creation of effective family planning through effective extension services some methods of incentives, such as material reward for those households accepting a given number of children by the end of reproductive age, to limit the family size should be considered. Therefore, to prevent devastating food insecurity in the future, there should be focuses on integrated health and education services of the woreda.  Productive resources especially land is very limiting and highly binding resource in the study area. The model result showed farm size and food 61

insecurity have inverse relationship, tackling the problem of food insecurity through increasing farm size would bring sustainable improvement. So a medium and long term food insecurity strategy through increased food production must be introduced. In a medium or  shorter term, distribution and allocation of cultivable land, which was not under cultivation, thereby increasing output should be made. This would give short period relief from the problem; otherwise the amount of return from such a strategy would not be by any means sufficient and sustainable to up-root the problem from the present setting. As a result, strong effort should be made to improve the production and productivity in the agricultural sector in the longer term. The possible measures that can be undertaken to achieve this strategy include promotion of drought resistant crop variety, runoff and flood harvesting, timely and low cost supply of inputs like fertilizer, improved seed, agrochemicals, further development of micro-irrigation. Therefore, to prevent devastating food insecurity in the future Disaster Prevention and Preparedness Bureau, Education office and BoARD of the woreda should work on this problem.  Sustainable food security intervention must not exclude the improvement of production and productivity of agricultural sector through use of irrigation. As the findings of this study assured, irrigation and food insecurity are negatively and significantly related in the study area .Therefore, development strategies, programmes, or any intervention related with food security through agricultural production should not neglect the paramount importance of irrigation and water harvesting technologies. However, it should be integrated with proper management of water use and input supplies. Therefore, farmers who have irrigable farmland should be encouraged to use inputs such as fertilizer, improved seed, and pesticides through effective extension services and credit facilities. So to prevent devastating problem in the future BoARD and Credit organization of the woreda should work on this problem.  Adult education programme should be strengthened as majority of food in secured household heads are illiterate and face difficulties to adopt technologies in agriculture and other areas helpful to improve their household food security condition. Therefore the minister of education in collaborated 62

with the Woreda education office should provide adult learning programme for those illiterate.  Social supporting mechanisms like remittance have strong relation with household food security. So, this must be further strengthened from different stakeholders. Therefore woreda administration bureau should be improving social supporting mechanisms.  Since vulnerability to food insecurity is correlated with lack of assets, any development intervention that increases poor households control over assets may directly enhance household food security and livelihood security. Thus, reducing poverty of capital assets is the key in improving food security of the vulnerable and poor rural households. These include access to clean water, education, health, micro rural credit, infrastructure, tenure security, agricultural inputs and promotion of employment and income generating schemes. Therefore the Woreda education office, BoARD bureau, Micro rural Credit Bureau, Health Service Bureau should work on this problem.

Reference

Abebaw Shimeles.(2003).Dimensions and determinants of food insecurity among rural households in Dire Dawa area, eastern Ethiopia. An M.sc Thesis Presented to the School of Graduate Studies of Haramaya University. 112p

Adugna Eneyew and Wogayehu Bekele.(2011).Causes of household food insecurity in Wolayita: Southern Ethiopia. Journal of Stored Products and Postharves Research 3(3):35–48.

Aguinaldo, P.J. (2009). Rethinking Validity in Qualitative Research from a Social

Anderson, P. (1997): 2020 Vision for Food, Agriculture, and the Environment in South Africa. In: Haddad, L. (ed.): Achieving Food Security in South Africa New Challenges New Opportunities. IFPRI Washington, D.C.

Barrett,C and Sahn. D. (2001), Food policy in crisis management (draft) university (onlinhttp://aem comeell.edu/ faculties/cbb2/ papers/world bank paper pdf.

Basher Sheikh, (2010). Analysis of Food Security Status and Copping Strategy in Kabri Bayah District of Jigjiga Zone of Somali Regional State. An M.sc Thesis Presented to the School of Graduate Studies of Haramaya University. 60p

Berahanu Adenew (2004).The food security Role of Agriculture in Ethiopia Journal of Agriculture and development Economics 1(1):138 -153

Berhanu, G.B., (2001). Food insecurity in Ethiopia: The impact of socio-political forces. Development Research Series Working Paper No. 102, DIR & Institute for History, International and Social Studies, Aalborg University, Denmark

Clay,E.(2002) Food Security :Concepts and Measurements. Paper for FAO Expert Consultation on Trade and Food Security: Conceptualizing the Linkages, Rome.CSA, (2007) .Population census. CSA: Addis Ababa.

Clover. J. (2003) . Food Security in Sub-Saharan Africa, a review paper.

CSA, (2007) .Central Statistical Agency Population Estimates. Ethiopia, Addis Ababa

CSA, (2011).Atlas of Agricultural Statistics 2006/07-2010/11. Addis Ababa: CSA

Dagnew Eshete (2002). Food Security, Sustainable Agriculture & Trade: Issues of Concern for lobbying & Advocacy. A Report by IDCoF. Addis Ababa

Degefa Tolossa.( 2002). Rural Livelihoods, Poverty and Food Insecurity in Ethiopia, A case study at Erenssa and Garbi communities in Oroniya Zone, Amhara National

Dercon, S.(2000): Vulnerability, seasonality and poverty in Ethiopia. In: Journal of DevelopmentStudies36(6):25-53.

Dercon, S. and J. Hoddinott (2003): Health, shocks and poverty persistence. Discussion Paper No 2003/08. United ations University/WIDER, Helsinki Regional State. Doctoral Theses at NTNU. Printed by NTNU-try

Dessalegn Rahmato (1987). Famine and Survival Strategies a case study from North East Ethiopia. Food and Famine. Monograph No. 1, IDR. Addis Ababa.

Devereux,S.(1988).Entitlements, availability and famine: A revisionist view of Wello,1974. FoodPolicy13,no.3.

Devereux, S.(2010).Food in Security in Ethiopia Department for International Development.

Devereux, S. (2001): Livelihood insecurity and social protection: a reemerging issue in rural development. In: Development Policy Review 19 (4): 507- 519.

Dooley, D. (2003). Social Research Methods (3rd ed). New Delhi: Prentice Hall

Efrem Garedew, Sande wall, M. & Soder berg,U. (2012). A Dynamic Simulation Model of Land-Use, Population and Rural Livelihoods in the Central Rift Valley of Ethiopia. Environmental Management 49(1), 1162.doi: 10.1007/s00 267- 011- 9783-4.

EHNRI,(1997).Ethiopian Health and Nutrition Research Institute. Food Composition Table for use in Ethiopia. Part III, from 1968-1997. A research project sponsored by Government of Ethiopia through former ENI and EHNRI.

Eneyew,A.Bekele,W.(2012).Causes of household food insecurity in Wolayta: Southern Ethiopia Journal of Stored Products and Postharvest Research Vol. 3(3), pp. 35 48.

European Commission (EC), (2009). Food security: understanding and meeting the challenge of poverty, Belgium.

FAO.(2005).Assessment of the world food security situation Committee on World Food 3Security, 31st session, 23–26 May 2005 [Online].

FAO. (2012) . The State of Food and Agriculture, Rome.

FANTA. (2003). Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance Project (FANTA) and Food Aid Management (FAM). Food Access Indicator Review Washington, D.C, Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance, Academy for Educational Development.

FAO.(2006).World Reference Base for Soil Resources: A Framework for International Classification, Correlation and Communication. World Soil Resources Report No. 103. Rome: FAO.

FAO . (1998). The Right to Food in Theory and Practice. Rome, Italy.

FAO.(2009).Livelihood assets protection and improvement to mitigate effects of soaring food prices on vulnerable households in Afar, Amhara, Oromia, SNNPR, Somali and Tigray Regions.

FAO.(2012).The State of Food Insecurity in the World: Economic growth is necessary but not sufficient to accelerate reduction of hunger and malnutrition. Rome.

FAO and WFP,(2010).Crop and Food Security Assessment Mission to Ethiopia. Rome.

FDRE,(2002).Dimensions and causes of food insecurity Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Addis Ababa.

FDRE,(2003). The new coalition for food security in Ethiopia Food security program Volume I, Addis Ababa.

FDRE, (2008).Summary and statistical report of the 2007 population and housing census: Population size by age and sex. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Fekadu. N (2008).“Determinants of Household Food Security the case of Bulbula in Adami Tulu Jido Kombolcha, Oromia Region”.M.Sc Thesis Addis Ababa University, 2008

Feleke, S. Kilmer R. and Gladwin C. (2005).Determinants of food security in Southern Ethiopia. Agricultural Economics Journal 33: 351-363.

Foster, P. (2006). Observational Research. pp. 57-92. In Saps ford, R. & Jupp, V. (eds).Data Collection and Analysis (2nded). London: SAGE Publications Inc.

Foster, P. (1992): The World Food problem: Tackling the Causes of under Nutrition in the Third World. Lynne Rienner Publisher, London and Boulder,

Frehiwot, F.S.( 2007). Food insecurity and its determinants in rural households in

Amhara region Master Thesis, Department of Economics, Faculty of Business and Economics, School of Graduate Studies, Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia.

FSS (The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Food Security Strategy), 2002. Poverty and Poverty Policy in Ethiopia. Special Issue of Consultation

Papers on Poverty No.7.Proceeding of the workshop organized by Forum for social Studies. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, March 8, 2002, Forum for Social Studies.

Funk, C., Rowland, J., Eilerts, G., Emebet, K., Biru, N. (2012). A Climate Trend Analysis of Ethiopia Fact Sheet 2012-3053. FEWSNET Information on Climate

Getachew Diriba,(1995). Economy at the crossroad: Famine and food security inrural Ethiopia. Addis Ababa: Care International in Ethiopia.

Getnet Feyissa, (2010). Comparative Analysis of Climate Variability and Impacts in Central Rift Valley and Adjacent Arsi Highlands Using GIS and Remote Sensing MSc Thesis Submitted to Addis Ababa University

Faculty of Science, Department of Earth Science, and Addis Ababa.

Gaur,S. A. and Gaur, S. S. (2007).Statistical Methods for Practice and Research: A Guide to Data Analysis Using SPSS. (2nd ed). London: SAGE Publications Inc.

Gomm, R. (2009). Key Concepts in Social research Methods. MacMillan: Palgrave.

Guajarati, D.N., 2004.Basic econometrics, 4th Edition, Mc Graw-hill Inc. New York.

Gulled Abdullahi,(2006). Food Insecurity and Coping Strategies of Agro-Pastoral Households in Awbare Woreda, Somali Region Ethiopia. An M.sc Thesis Presented to the School of Graduate Studies of Haramaya University. 63p.

Getachew Sime and Ranjan, R. (2012).Growing Vulnerability: Population Pressure, Food Insecurity and Environmental Degradation, Central Rift Valley, Ethiopia. Journal of Biodiversity and Environmental Sciences, 2(3), 341.

Hart, T. (2009).Exploring definitions of food insecurity and vulnerability: time to refocus assessments. Aggreko, Vol 48, No 4.

Haswell, M.(1953).Economics of agriculture in savannah village. Colonial Research Study, no8.

Hincheliffe, P (1996). Sustainable Agriculture and Food Security in East and Southern Africa: An Analytical Analysis of Current Initiatives and a Review of the Literature. International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED): London. Holm,S.(2007).Ethics and Scientific Conduct. In Lake, P., Benes tad, B.H., and Olsen, R.B. (eds).Research Methodology in the Medical and Biological Sciences. London: Elsevier

Hoddinott, J. (edn), 2001.Methods for rural development projects. Food security in practice, Vol.1, IFPRI, Washington D.C.

Hoddinot J. (1999).Operational zing household food security in Development project: A introduction. International food policy research institute Technical Guide NO.1

Howell, C.D. (2007). Statistical Methods for Psychology (7th ed). Wadsworth: Cengage Learning Washington .DC.

Hussenin B. (2006).Major Cause of households food insecurity in Wuchale– Jidda Woreda, Oromia national regional Sate .M.A Thesis, Addis Ababa university Ethiopia

Indiris Siraje, 2012, Assessment of food insecurity, its Determinants and Coping Mechanisms Among Pastoral Household Case of Zone One Chifra District Afar National Regional State, An M.sc Thesis of Graduate Studies of Haramaya University. 70p.

Jensen, H., Dagnachew Legesse, (2007). Land and Water Resources Assessment in the Central rift Valley; Project: Ecosystem for Water, Food and Economic Development in the Ethiopian Central rift Valley. Alters report 1587, Wegeningen: Alters.

Kifle Lemma (1999). Food Security Situation in Ethiopia .The Concept, Status and Trends. Paper Presented on NOVIB partners Forum on Sustainable Land Use

Longhurst,R.(1986).Household food strategies in response to seasonality and famine. IDS Bulletin 17, no.3: 73-80.

Machi, M (2011). Framework for Community Based Climate Vulnerability and Capacity Assessment in Mountain Areas. Kathmandu: ICIMOD

Maxwell S. (2006). Household food security: Concepts, indicators, and measurement. IFAD and UNICEF, Roma. Mimeo, International Disaster Institute, London, UK

Maxwell S, Franken Berger F. (1992). Household Food Security: Conceptual indicators and measurements; A technical review. UNICEF, New York and IFAD, Rome.

Maxwell S. (2003).The evolution of thinking about food Security, in: Devereox S Maxwell (eds). Food Security in sub –Saharan Africa. Pietermaritzburg University of Natal Press.

Maxwell,D.G.(1996).Measuring food insecurity: The frequency and severity of coping strategies. Food Policy, 21: 291-303.MOARD,(2009). Food Security Program: A.A

Maxwell, D.and Richard. (2007). The Coping Strategies Index: A Tool for Rapidly Monitoring Food Security in Emergencies. Field Methods Manual, Second Edition (Atlanta, GA: CARE).

Maxwell, D. (2008).Measuring food insecurity: Can an indicator based on localized coping behaviors be used to compare across contexts? Food Policy, 33, 533–540.

Messer, N. & Townsley, P.(2003). Local Institutions and Livelihoods: A Guideline for Analysis. Rome: FAO

Marczyk, M., DeMatteo, D. & Festinger, D. (2005).Essentials of Research Design and Methodology. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Maxwell, S. (1992): Household food Security: Concepts, Indicators, measurements. International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) and UNICEF, Rome

MoFED (Ministry of Finance and Economic Development). (2008). Ethiopia: Sustainable Development and Poverty Reduction Program. pp. 34, 71& 76.Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (FDRE) Ministry of Finance and Economic Development. (Addis Ababa Ethiopia

Mohammed Khalid, 2009. Disaster Risk Management in Support of Community- based Adaptation to Climate Change Impact in North Turkana District of Kenya

Piguet, F. (2003). Promising 2003 Harvest in Arsi Zone With the Exception of Some Pocket Areas. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) Assessment Mission Report.23 September to 27 September2003.Addis Ababa,OCHA. Accessedfromhttp://www.who.i nt/disasters/repo/11349.pdf on 9/11/2012

Punch, K.F.(1998).Introduction to Social Research Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches. Sage Publications.

Ramakrishana G. (2002). An Empirical Analysis of Food Insecurity in Ethiopia: The Case of North Wollo. Africa Development 27 (1&2)

Reinar, M. L.and Bradley, M.P. (2007). Evidence-Based Practice and Critical Appraisal of Systematic Reviews. pp. 365-382. In Laake, P., Benestad, B. H., & Olsen, R. B. (eds).Research Methodology in the Medical and Biological Sciences. London: Academic Press

Reutlinger, S.(1987). “Food Security and Poverty in Developing Countries: In Food policy: Integrating Supply, Distribution & Consumption, Baltimore.

Robson,C.(2007).How to do research project .Aguide for undergraduet student ,Blackwell publishing

Sanchez A, (2005). Cutting World Hunger in Half. Journal of Science, 357-359.

Sen A. (1981). Qualitative response models: A survey. Journal of Economic Literature, 29, 1483-1536.

Shumete Gizaw. (2009). Poverty, Food insecurity and Livelihood strategies in Rural Gedeo: The case of Haroressa and Chichu PAs, SNNP. In: Proceedings of the 16th International Conference of Ethiopian Studies, ed. by Sven Age, Harald Aspen.

Shiferaw Feleke, (2005).Determinants of Food Security in Southern Ethiopia at the Household Level. Journal of Agricultural Economics 33(2): 351–363.

USDA,(1999).Soil Taxonomy: A Basic System of Soil Classification for Making and Interpreting Soil Surveys (2nd ed). Washington DC: USDA/Soil Staff.

Tagel Gebrehiwot, 2012. Rural food security in Tigray: Policy impact Evaluation. The case of Hintalo Wajerat and Kilte Awelaelo districts ot Tigray region, Ethiopia.

Tesfaye Kumbi. (2005). Household Food Insecurity in Dodota-Sire District, Arsi Zone Coping strategies and policy options. A Thesis Prepared to the school of graduate.

Tesfaye Lemma, (2003).Livelihood strategies in context of population pressure. A case study in Hararghe Highlands,East Ethiopia. Ph. D. Dissertation. University of Pretoria

Tilaye .T.D,(2004). Food security ;Extent, determinant and households coping mechanisms in Gera Keya woreda , Amhara region .M.A Thesis,Addis Ababa university, Ethiopia

Thrupp, L. (2002): Linking Agricultural Biodiversity and Food Security: the Valuable Role of Agro-biodiversity for Sustainable Agriculture. In: International Affairs 76 (2): 283-297.

United Nations World Food Program (WFP), (2004). Baseline Food Security Analysis in Iraq, WFP Iraq country office.

Urgesa Tura, (2016).Reflection on the root cause of persistent food insecurity in Ethiopia, late Melees convened a joint meeting with major western donor in Addis Ababa.

USAID,(United State Agency for international Development),(1992).Definition of food security

Von Braun, J. (1992). Improving Food Security of the Poor: Concept, Policy, and Programs International Food Policy Research Institute. Washington, D.C, U.S.A.

Vanderstoep, W.S. & Johnston,D. D. (2009).Research Methods for Everyday Life: Blending Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass.

Yamane.Taro,(1967). Statistics: An Introductory Analysis, .2nd Ed: New York.: Harper .

Walker, S., Yohannes, G., Kindie, T., Girma, M., Abebe, Y., & Endalkachew, B. (n.d). The use of Agro-climatic Zones as a Basis for Tailored Seasonal Rainfall Forecasts for the Cropping Systems in the Central Rift Valley Ethiopia.Accessedon 14/1/2013from.http://www.climateadaptatio n.net/ docs/papers/Wal ker Ethiopia F INAL.pdf

Wali ,H. 2012. Determinants of Rural Household Food Security in Jigjiga District of Ethiopia Kasetsart J. (Soc. Sci) 34 : 171 - 180 (2013).

World Bank,(1986).Poverty and Hunger: Issues and Options for Food Security in Developing Countries .A World Bank Policy Study,

Washington, D.C World Conference on Disaster Reduction (WCDR) (2004).Kobe, Hygo, Japan.

World Bank. (2001). World Development Report 2000/2001: Attacking Poverty.

Workneh Negatu, (2006).Determinants of Small Farm Household Food Security: Evidence from South Wollo, Ethiopia: Ethiopian Journal of Development Research 28(1): 1-33.

Zerihun Nigussie, 2012. Levels of household food insecurity in rural areas of Guraghe zone, Southern Ethiopia Wudpecker Journal of Agricultural Research ISSN 2315-7259 Vol. 2(1), pp. 008 - 014, January 2013.

Zerihun Woldu.(1999).Forests in the Vegetation Types of Ethiopia and Their Status in the Geographical Context. Proceedings of the National Forest Genetic Resources Conservation Strategy Development Workshop, 21-22 June 1999, Addis Ababa ,Ethiopia

Zuway Dugda BoARD Water HarvestingTechnical Team (2003). Rain Water HarvestingTechnical Project for Five Peasant Associations. Unpublished Project Document. Ogolcho.

ADAMA SICIENCE AND TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF HUMANITY AND LOW DEPARTEMENT OF GEOGRAPH AND ENVIROMENTAL STUDIES ISPETIALAZATION IN ENVIROMENTAL DISASTER RISK MANAGEMENT

Appendix A

Questionnaire developed for Research entitled food in security as disaster risk among the rural households in Zuway dugda Woreda, Arsi zone Ethoipia.

Household Survey Questionnaire

Part.1. General Information

1. Kebele: ______2. Name of Household Head:______3. Household Code No: ______4. Date of Interview: ______5. Name of Enumerator: ______6. Signature:______7. Name of Supervisor: ______8. Signature: ______

Part.2. Demographic Characteristics of the Household (Make a complete lists of all individuals who normally live and eat their meals together in this household, starting with the household head)

S/N Name of the Sex Relation to Ag Marital Highest Religion do Ethnic o household Male the head of e status educationa you (code members =1 household (code l level you practices below) Female (code below) ever (code =0 below) completed below) (code below) 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Code for 04: Relation Code for 06: Marital Code for 07: Educational status level Household head__1 single ___1 Wife/husband__2 married with one___2 illiterate ___01 Son/Daughter___3 divorced or separated__3 Read and Write____02 Brother/sister____4 widowed___4 Grand child___5 married with more than Other relatives__6 one__5 Others (specify) __7 Code for 08: Religion Code for 09: Ethnicity Orthodox_1 Oromo__1 Islam __2 Amhara___2 Others (specify) __3 others (specify) ___3

Part 3.Related to Agriculture:

3. Land use information

3.1. Do you have your own agricultural land? Yes =1 No = 0

3.2. If yes to question no. 3.1 above, what is the total size of your land holding ? by Hectare.

1. Cultivated area___ 2.Grazing area____3. Forest land_____ 4.Other (specify) __

3.3. How did you acquire your own land? 1Inherited/ gifts from family 2. Purchase 3.Land distribution 4.Other(specify) ______

3.4. Did you produce enough for your family to eat throughout the year? ___Yes = 1 No = 0

3.5. If no, what are the constraints in order of importance, that prevent you from doing So?

1) Shortage rainfall 2) Lack of early maturing variety 3) Lack of plough oxen

4) lack of money to rent a tractor 5) Others (specify) ______

3.6. Do you have irrigation access to produce crops? Yes =1 No = 0

Part 4. Livestock ownership

4.1. Do you own livestock? Yes =1 No=0

4.2. If yes, fill the following table

S/No Type of the No. Average price in Sold during last 6 months livestock owned (Birr) No Total sales Reasons for value sale (code) 1. Oxen/bull 2. Young bull 3. Cows (Milking) 4. Cows (Non milking) 5. Sheep 6. Goat 7. Donkey 8. Camels 9. Others specify Code:

01 = to buy some food items for family consumption 02 = to pay a loan 03 = to buy other animals 04 = to purchase agricultural inputs & implements 05= to cover health and education expenses 06 = others, specify

4.3. Gross income from the sale of milk

Milk type Production in Price of milk in For home For sale in Litres* Birr per Litre consumption in Litre Litre

N.B.: Please covert other locally available milk measuring units to Litre

4.3 Did you use oxen for your farm operation? Yes=1 No=0

4.4. If yes, are your oxen enough for your farm operation? Yes =1 No=0

4.5. If you do not have enough oxen, how do you get additional oxen you need? 1. Pulling oxen to form a pair 2. Borrow from friends & relatives 3. Oxen obtained for labour exchange 4. Oxen obtained with sharecropping

5. Manually 6. With other livestock

7. Hire from someone/renting in 8. Others (specify) ______

Part 5. Input Use

5.1 Do you use any fertilizer? Yes = 1 No = 0 5.2. If yes, which ones? 1) Inorganic DAP and/or Urea 2) Organic (manure) 3) Both 4) None 5.3. If no, why? 1) Not necessary for cultivated crops 2) Not available 3) Harmful to the soil 4) It is costly 5) Land is fertile 6) others (specify) ______5.4. Did you use improved seed on your farm in last year production period? Yes = 1 No = 0 5.5. If yes, what type of improved seed did you use ______

5.6. Where did you obtain these improved seeds? 1. Research bureau 2. Seed enterprise 3. Cooperatives 4.Agricultural bureau 5.District of agricultural office 6. Others (specify) ______5.6. If no, why? 1. Not heard about it 2. To expensive 3. Not available (no supply) 4. Not know its importance 5. Not enough land 6. Other (specify)______5.7. Did you use herbicides or insecticides at least on one of your plots in the last production year? Yes = 1 No = 0

Part 6. Marketing

6.1. Which market (s) does your household use? 1) Main market 2) local market 3) both 6.2. What is average market distance you travelled to nearest market from your home measured in hours of walk? 1) ½ 2) 1 3) 1 ½ 4) 2 5) 2 ½ 6) 3 7) 3 ½ 8) 4 9) 4 ½ 10) > 4 ½ 6.3. Where do you sell your farm produce? (multiple answers possible) 1. On farm 2. Local market 3. Through services of cooperatives 4. Other (specify) ______6.4. What means of transport do you use to transport your produce to the market? 1.Truck (vehicle) 2. Animal power 3. Human power 4. Others (specify) ______6.5. When do you sell most of your produce? _____month 6.6. Did you get reasonable price for your produce at this particular time? Yes =1 No=0 6.7.If no why did you sell at that particular time of lower (unreasonable) price? 1. To settle debt 2. To pay taxes 3. For social obligation 4.To meet family requirement 5. Others (specify) _ 6.8. What are the problems in marketing of your produce? 1. Transportation 2. Low price 3. Low bargaining power 4. To far from market. 5, Others (specify) ______

Part 7. Credit Services 7.1. Have you received any type of credit for the last years? Yes = 1 No = 0 7.2. If yes, for what purposes? (Multiple answers possible) 1. Purchase of seeds 2. Purchase of fertilizers 3. Purchase of chemicals 4. Purchase of oxen 5. Purchase of farm implement 6.For family consumption 7. To buy other livestock

8. School fee 9. For medication 10. Others (specify) ______7.3. What are the sources of your credit? (Multiple answers possible) 1. Cooperatives 2. Neighbors and friends 3. Relatives 4. Local money lenders 5. Micro finance institution 6. Commercial banks 7. Others (specify) __ 7.4. Amount borrowed in Birr last year ______

Part.8. Off-farm and Non-farm employment

8.1. Do you or any member of your family have off/non-farm job? Yes =1 No=0

8.2. If yes indicate the type of work and annual income:

Family member Types of jobs(see below) Annual income( birr)* 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) *if payment were made in kind, convert them into birr at price prevailing at time.

1. Weaving/spinning 2. Milling 3. Other handcrafts (pottery, metal works, etc.) 4. Livestock trade 5. Sale of local drinks 6. Agricultural employment 7. Petty trade (grain, vegetables, fruits, etc.) 8. Sell of fire wood and grass 9. Charcoaling 10.Government employment 11. Others (specify) ____ 8.3. Has the household received remittance in this year? Yes =1 No=0 8.4. If yes, the amount in birr/ year: ______

Part 9. Household Expenditure and Income

9.1.Household consumption expenditure

9.1.1.What food Food Total Source items were used type Cons for consumption umed Home Purchased Gift/loan/wage in Rem during the last produced kind ark Seven days in your household? Unit Unit Qu Uni Qua Price/ Total Qua Sou ant t ntit unit expen ntity rce ity y diture 9.1.2.Did your household consume any cereals such as sorghum, teff, Maize, wheat, barley,millet, wheat flour, maize floor etc.? Sorghu m Maize Wheat Barley Millet Teff Wheat flour Maize flour Teff flour

9.1.3.Did your household consume any

81 animal product? Cow Milk Camel milk Cattle meat Camel meat Goat meat Sheep meat Egg Butter

9.1.4 Did your household consume any chat, cigarettes, tea, tella, areke, or soft drinks? Tea Chat Cigarett e Soft drink Tella Areke 9.1.5. Did your household consume any sugar, edible oil, salt or any other spices? Sugar Edible oil Salt

9.1.6 Did your household consume any fruits, vegetables or root crops? Potato S. potato Spinach Onion Carrot Tomato

ADAMA SICIENCE AND TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF HUMANITY AND LOW DEPARTEMENT OF GEOGRAPH AND ENVIROMENTAL STUDIES ISPETIALAZATION IN ENVIROMENTAL DISASTER RISK MANAGEMENT

Appendix B

Questionnaire developed for Research entitled food in security as disaster risk among the rural households in Zuway Dugda Woreda, Arsi zone Ethiopia.

KII and Secondary data gathering checklist

Demographic profile

 Has anything changed recently concerning the movements of people in relation to food insecurity? Why? Are certain household members leaving? Why and where are they going?  Do men live in the community year round? If not, why do they move?  Can you describe the HH dynamics & trends in terms of size, gender role & others from HH food insecurity perspective? History and Sequence of Event  Have there been major changes recently, including sudden hazards, slow development of a crisis or fighting? When did this take place? How people make their Living  What are the major agricultural activities? Which crops are grown, cash or food crops? Who does what on the land? Who has access to land? Who owns the land?  What are the types of livestock? Who owns them? Do herds move, when and where? How big are the average herds for poor and wealthy people?  What other types of income exist? What labour is there, for money or goods? Who works as a labour?  Have people received aid in recent years, why and how?

 How do different people in the community earn an income? What are the different livelihood groups? Agriculture Crop Production (more Specific)  Did you produce enough for your family to eat throughout the year?  How is the crop performance? What agricultural problems do the people face to produce enough food? Is there a change from past, why?  Do you practice irrigation? If no, why? If yes, how is the impact on food availability & HH income? What are the constraints related to irrigation in this area? Please rank the problem  What is the quality of the seeds, tools and fertilizers? Who owns the tools? Has anything changed recently?  What do you think is the major risks to agricultural crop production in this kebelle? (Rank the problem!!!)  What do you think is the best solution to tackle agricultural problems to produce enough food in this area? Livestock Production  . How is the milk and meat yield? Are there currently changes in that, why?  . What are major problems to livestock production now and reasons for this problem? (rank the problem)  . What do you think will be the solution? Income and Expenditure  What are the main sources of income?  Does this change over the year, how? Has this recently changed, why and how?  What income differences are there?  What is the main HH expenditure for the people based on HH wealth category? Does this change over the year, how? Has this recently changed, why and how?  What kind of labour opportunities do people have? Who does what? Has this changed recently? Why and how?  What are the average salaries in a normal year and now?  Do children work in a normal year? What kind of work? Has this changed recently?  Is it difficult to get work?

How do people obtain their Food  How do people obtain their food? Does this change over the year, how? Has this recently changed, why and how? Food consumption pattern  What is the average family diet in a normal year? Who is responsible for meeting the food needs? What is the number of meals? Who prepares these and how?  Where does the food come from (production, market, exchange, donation, solidarity)?  Who eats what? Are their differences in diet between children, women and men? What are they?  Are there seasonal shortages of food in the household in a normal year? What do people do to meet their food needs then? Do you normally collect wild foods, what kind?  Has there been any change recently in the people‟s diets, since when and how? Why?  What do people do to avoid food shortage in the family? Market price and Evolution  Can you give me prices of important commodities (cash crops, food crops, as well as sugar, salt, vegetables)? What were the prices a year ago of these commodities? Do you see any strong trends over the last few months or years? Why?  Do you think the prices will fall or rise? Why?  How is the access to market? What are the main market days? Have there been any changes in people selling or buying? Why?.  What is the livestock/grain ratio, for example, how much grain do you need to buy one goat?  Has this changed over time? When, how and why? Food insecurity Problem  At the moment, what do you think are the reasons(causes) for food insecurity problems for the community? Can you describe & rank them in order of importance?  How and when do you think food become insecure in this locality?  Which groups of people do you think are more vulnerable to food insecurity and why?

 Has this always been the case? If not, when and how has this changed and why? Will this food shortage problem become worse, why?  What are the impacts of food shortage in various aspects of the life's of the people?  What did people do in the past to overcome this problem? What are they doing now?  How chronically food insecure households survive in this community?  What role do the cultural/religious values or institutions organized by the community have in ameliorating the impacts of food shortages? What measures have been or are being done by the government to improve household food security?  How such measures are suitable to this locality?  How such measures do you think improve the food security situations in this community?  what are the problems with the government measures undertaken?  How the government encourages and strengthens the existing local strategies?  How much do you think peoples participate in the planning and implementation of government programs and activities?  How do you see the effectiveness of PSNP/OFSP/relief food aid operations carried out so far?  What are the problems do you think in the above operations of programs?  What alternative solutions do you recommend in order to alleviate the problems of food insecurity in this community? General issues, including health and water  Who is engaged in firewood or coal collection or purchase? Is it difficult to obtain this? Have there been any recent changes?  Who collects water, how is the quality of the drinking water? Where do the people collect water? Is it far and safe? Is there enough?  Are there any seasonal diseases? What are their local names and symptoms? Has there been a change in this pattern, if so, how and why? Have there been any major disease outbreaks?  Where are the functioning health centers? Do people attend these, if not, why?  Do people need to pay for drugs or for consultation, how much? Have there been any changes in this?

Infrastructure, including transport, housing and school  Have there been any changes recently in the quality of road, housing, school or transport (buses, trucks)? What were these changes?  Who is affected and why? What do people do to cope with this?

Daily activity pattern  On average, what are the daily activities for men, for women, for children? Has this changed recently, how and why?  Do children attend school, if not why?

Appendix C Appendix table 1: Calorie value of food items conversion

Food Item Unit Kcal Wheat kg 3623 Tomato Kg 216 Sweet Potatoes Kg 1360 Sugar Kg 3850 Spaghetti/Macaroni Kg 3550 Sorghum Kg 3805 Salt Kg 1700 Rice Kg 3330 Peas Kg 3553 Onion Kg 713 Edible oil Lt 8964 Milk Lt 737 Meat Kg 1148 Maize Kg 3751 Egg Each 61 Coffee kg 1103 Butter Lt 7364 Barely kg 3723 Source: EHNRI, (1997)

Appendix table 2: Conversion factor used to calculate Adult Equivalent

Years of age Male Female

0-1 0.33 0.33

1-2 0.46 0.46

2-3 0.54 0.54

3-5 0.62 0.62

5-7 0.74 0.70

7-10 0.84 0.72

10-12 0.88 0.78

12-14 0.96 0.84

14-16 1.06 0.86

16-18 1.14 0.86

18-30 1.04 0.80

30-60 1.00 0.82

Source: World Health Organization (1998) as cited by Abdulkerim (2013)

Appendix table 3: Conversion factor used to calculate adult equivalent

Age Category (Years) Female Male

Less than 10 years 0.60 0.60 10-13 0.80 0.90 14-16 0.75 1.00 17-50 0.75 1.00 Greater than 50 0.75 1.00 Source: Institute Pan African Pour le Development (1981) cited in Strock et al. (1991)

Appendix table 4: Conversion factor used to estimate the Tropical Livestock Unit /TLU/

S/No. Animal Category TLU 1 Calves 0.50 2 Heifer 0.75 3 Cow 1.00 4 Ox 1.00 5 Horse/Mule 1.10 6 Goat/sheep(adult) 0.13 7 Goat/sheep(young) 0.06 8 Donkey(adult) 0.70 9 Donkey(young) 0.35 10 Camel 1.25 11 Chicken 0.013 Source: Storck et. al. (1991)