Research Tite: “Assess the influencing factors of food

security of Women’s in North-Western Ethiopia: A

Community based Cross-sectional Study”
By: Mr. Eyayu Kasseye Bayu
Department of Gender and
Development Studies, College
of Social Science and
Humanities, University of
Gondar, Ethiopia;
ORCID:0000-0002-8105-4478

Research paper Presented to: 11th

International CEO Congress Program,13-
15 June 2025- Portalegre, Portugal.
1. Background

 Agriculture and food security are inextricably linked. Agriculture can be the engine of growth and is necessary for
reducing poverty and food insecurity, particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa (IFAD.200; World Bank, 2007a).
 The agricultural sector in each country is dependent on the available natural resources, as well as on national and
international policy and the institutional environment that governs those resources. These factors influence
women and men in their choice of crops and levels of potential productivity. Women are key players in the
farming sector.
 Women’s role in food production within agriculture is even greater. In many societies women supply most of
the labor needed to produce food crops and often control the use or sale of food produce grown on plots they
manage (World Bank, FAO, and IFAD, 2009).
 Even though the factors that hinder their food security, women are crucial in the translation of the products
of a vibrant agriculture sector into food and nutritional security for their households.

 They are often the farmers who cultivate food crops and produce commercial crops alongside the men in their
households as a source of income. When women have an income, substantial evidence indicates that, the
income is more likely to be spent on food and children’s needs. Women are generally responsible for food
selection and preparation and for the care and feeding of children. Women are the key to food security for their
households (Quisumbing et al., 1995).

 (source:https://www.usanafoundation.org/get-involved/what-does-food-insecurity-look-like-around-the-world-usana-
foundation/)
 Food security is achieved when all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to
sufficient, safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for
an active and healthy life (World Bank, 1986; Abduselam, 2017; FAO, 2001).
 Poverty-not food availability-is the major driver of food insecurity. Improvements in agricultural
productivity are necessary to increase rural household incomes and access to available food but are
insufficient to ensure food security.
 Evidence indicates that poverty reduction and food security do not necessarily move in
tandem. The main problem is lack of economic (social and physical) access to food at national
and household levels and inadequate nutrition (or hidden hunger).
 Food security not only requires an adequate supply of food but also entails availability, access,
and utilization by all—men and women of all ages, ethnicities, religions, and
socioeconomic levels (World Bank, FAO, and IFAD, 2009).
 Statement of the Problem

 Food insecurity is a growing concern worldwide. Progress continues in the fight against hunger, yet an unacceptably
large number of people still lack the food they need for an active and healthy life.

 The latest available estimates indicate that about 795 million people in the world just over one in nine - were
undernourished in 2014-16, down 167 million over the last decade,and 216 million lower than in 1990-92. In the
same period, the prevalence of undernourishment has decreased from 18.6% to 10.9% globally, reflecting fewer
undernourished people in a growing global population (FAO, 2015).

 In Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), about 220 million hungry people just under one in every four people, or 23.2%
of the population, were estimated to be undernourished in 2014-16. In fact, the number of undernourished people even
increased by 44 million between 1990-92 and 2014–16.
 Taking into account the region’s declining prevalence of undernourishment; this reflects the region’s
remarkably high population growth rate of 2.7% per year (FAO, 2015).
 As to the finding, Sub-Saharan Africa has the highest prevalence of undernourishment and the prevalence of under
nourishment declining from 32.7% to 24.8% over the last two decades
Continued.......

 According to FAO (2014b) Sub-Saharan Africa is the worst of all regions in prevalence of under-
nourishment and food insecurity; Ethiopia (ranking no.1) is the worst of all African countries as nearly 33
million people are suffering from chronic undernourishment and food- insecurity.

 This indicates that Ethiopia has one of the highest levels of food insecurity in the world, in which more
than 35% of its total population is chronically undernourished (Debebe, 2018).
 Food insecurity is an enduring, critical challenge in Ethiopia which is Africa’s second populous country after
Nigeria and among the famine affected countries.

 It is highly linked to recurring food shortage and famine in the country, which are associated to recurrent drought.
Accordingly, more than 41 percent of the Ethiopian population lives below the poverty line and above 31
million people are undernourished.

 By using the threshold of 2,550 kilocalories (Kcal) per adult equivalent per day, 40 percent of Ethiopian households
for whom their majority reside in rural parts of the country was food insecure and undernourished
(Abduselam, 2017; World Bank, 2005).
 Food insecurity............Continued
 The review indicates that, Ethiopia is chronically and seasonally food insecure country. Nearly 33 million people
are suffering from chronic undernourishment and food insecurity.

 Different studies indicated that the status, depth and severity of food insecurity in Ethiopia are dynamic.
 Ethiopia has experienced long periods of food insecurity.

 As a result, more than half of the population is poor and food insecure of which the largest group is rural people
with insufficient assets to produce and purchase food (Sisay, and Adugna, 2001). A large portion of the country’s
population has been affected by chronic and transitory food insecurity (African Development Bank, 2014).

 Chronic and acute food insecurity is prevalent, especially among rural populations and smallholder farmers. About
10% of Ethiopia’s citizens are chronically food insecure and this figure rises to more than 15% during frequent
drought years. 2.7 million People will require emergency food assistance in 2014 and 238, 761 children
reamers treatment for severe acute malnutrition in 2014(UNICEF, 2014).
Rationale............

 food insecurity is getting worse all the time, because of the factors cited, and the low status of women which has
led to misdirected development programs, that do not take into account women’s vital role in agriculture; fifteen
percent of the farming populations are women. It also demonstrates the vital and often unacknowledged role
that women play in agriculture, as well as how their critical role in ensuring sustainable agricultural
development translates into household-level improvements in food and nutritional security.

OBJECTIVE
 Therefore, the main purpose of this study is to identify the factors determine women’s food security status in
North-western Ethiopia, and the specific objective is to examine food security status (FSS) of Women (women’s
in MHH and Female-Headed Households) in the study area.
2. The Study Setting (Shebel Berenta District, Notth western Ethiopia) ..............

 These conditions lead to stagnation of economic growth, food insecurity, famine, resettlement and migration
or forcing the population to live with worsening situation.

 To cope with the impacts of drought, farmers opted to lower food consumption, sale of livestock and
reduced socialization (Adamu, 2010; Asnake, 2006). The available study also indicated that in 2002, it was
judged to be one of the four chronically food- insecure Woredas’ in this part of the Amhara region, due to much of
their farmland being extremely depleted, deforested and eroded(Hugo,2002).

 All physical and economic evidences shows that, the study area is facing a complex set of problems
ranging from rapid population growth and environmental degradation to drought, crop yield reduction, and
poverty and food shortage(Hugo, Rämi.2002; Asnake,Mekuriaw.,2006; Shebel Berenta Woreda
Communication Affairs Office. 2017 & 2018 ; Shebel BerentaWoreda Communication Affairs Office.2018).

 Despite of this, the productive safety net programme is still provided as preventive social protection. The
governmental response strategies also included relief aid and resettlement, food-for-work (Adamu, 2010; Asnake,
2006; Shebel BerentaWoreda Communication Affairs Office.2018).
Figure.1. Location Map of the Study area (Shebel Berenta District and Selected Kebeles).
3. Research Method and Design
 The objective of this research demands both quantitative and qualitative data and
taking into account this rationale, the study has applied a mixed research method.
Principally, women have faced a diverse food security problem, so their food
security status is determined by different demographic, socio-economic and
institutional factors.
 Thus, the factors that determined their food security status were assessed by the
quantitative research method. Therefore, to examine these issues, mixed research
method was relevant to produce both statistical results and verbal results and to
minimize some of the limitations of using single method.
 Moreover, the philosophy of pragmatism (i.e., what works is what should be
considered to be important to answer research questions) might conducted
concurrently (conducting both parts at roughly the same time) or sequentially
(conducting one part first and the other second) to address a research
 Sampling techniques and procedures
 The rationale for the choice of Shebel Berenta Woreda is based on 2019 Woreda communication affairs
reports stated the woreda has severe problems of low productivity of agriculture and food insecurity; it
also needs an insight about food insecurity problem. Thus, provide a clue about FISS is the best
alternative to recover from the vulnerability and risks.
 Principally, based on the observations and experiences in the study area, there is a deep-rooted problem of
feminization of poverty and food insecurity ,so there is a need to investigate the problems of women for
further interventions.
 Multi-stage sampling is one of the sampling techniques choosing a sample from the random
sampling schemes in multiple stages (Onwuegbuzie & Collins, 2007). Hence, this research was employed
multi-stage-sampling technique to select sample women. In the first stage, stratified random sampling was
employed to select rural Kebeles; because the rural Kebeles of the study area are already categorized into two
agro- ecological zones of Woyina Dega and Kolla.
 As quoted by Amugune, (2014); Singh and Masuku (2014), Cochran (1963) suggested the most
commonly used formula for a questionnaire survey study, sample size determination when the
population is large and the needed representative sample is to analyze proportion. The formula
2

Sample size
 the required sample size of this study was 267 women (in this study, 7 women did not respond their
questionnaire so it was not used for further analysis). While, the qualitative research used for
identifying and selecting individuals or groups of individuals that is knowledgeable or
experienced with a phenomenon (Creswell, 2003).
 So, in this study, the participants for qualitative information were selected using purposive
sampling for participants in interview and focus group discussion who had experiences in FIS
throughout the year regularly.

=266.77 ≈ 267,
(1.96)20.5(1−0.5)3.8416x0.5x0.5
(0.06) = 0.003
6
Then, the results showed that no: =
2
 Measuring of food security and Model Secification....................

 Following Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia FDRE (2001) in the study, households that managed to
attain 2,100 kilo calorie per AE per day were considered as food secure, and those households who had a lower
amount were deemed as food insecure. The study employed a logit model (Equation-1) with the dependent
variable (food security) being a binary variable having a value of one if a women was found to be food
secure, and a value of zero otherwise:
 Logistic regression is also planned for discrete dependent variable systems and to a number of independent
variables (Stock et al., 2007). It is called binary logistic regression model when the dependent variable is
articulated in two categories and several categories of applying the explanatory variables (Leech et al.,
2004). Thus, the logistic regression model that was employed in this study is a binary logistic regression
model, where the dependent variable is Y and independent one is X. In order to elucidate the model, the

Pi = (Y = 1 ) 1 =
following logistic distribution function was Zi
employed (Maddala ,1986; Greene,1993; Gujarati, 1995 & 2003).

= xi 1+e−zi
(Equation-1)
e
1+eZi
Where ℮ is an exponential term,

Pi is the probability of women i being food secure. It is 1 if a household is food secure, otherwise
0. Y is the observed food security status of a woman. Xi is the household set of
explanatory variables. Zi is a function of n-explanatory variables
(Xi) is which can be expressed in linear form as: Zi = β 0+β 1 X1 +β2X2+…. + βnXn
From Equation 1, the probability of a household being food insecure is given by (1 – Pi) which
can be written as Equation (2):

1 1 + e−Zi −
1 =1 = 𝑒−𝑍 (2)
− 1 + e−Zi 1 + e−Zi
𝑖
1+
Pi
𝑒−𝑍𝑖 1−Pi
Therefore, the odds ratio, (simply odds ratio): is given by Equation (3):

P 1+
= eZ i (3
1 i−
1+ )
Pi Pi
1−Pi e−Zi
Now, , is the odds ratio in favor of food-security. It is the ratio of the probability

household would be food secure, (pi) to the probability that a household would be
that a

food
4. Results
Demographic Characteristics of Sampled Women’s in the Study Area
 The age distribution of the respondents is an important for determining the ability to food security status of
women. As presented in Table.1, the age composition of the respondents has four categories and it indicates that 11.5
% of the respondents were found in the age range of 20 up to 30 years old. 23.8% of the respondents were in the age
range of 31 up 40 years old.

 About 31.5 % of the respondents were in the age range of 41 up to 50, while 33.1 % of the respondents were above 51
years old of age group. The result also showed that, the age group from 41-50 % were the food insecure than of the
aged women and other groups.

 The result revealed that, age of the respondents fall into adult and aged-age of labor force. In order to see whether
there is the association between women’s age category and their food security status, chi-square test was
employed. The result confirms that, the significant association was observed between women’s

2
Table.1. Percentage distribution of Respondents response to their age in the area (N=260)
Food security situation of women’s among their age categories (N=260)
Variables Food insecure Food secure Chi-square
(2)
Age categories Frequency Percent Frequency Frequency
20-30 30 11.5 9(3.46%) 21(8.07%)
31-40 62 23.8 37(14.2%) 25(9.61%) 0.001
41-50 82 31.5 53(20.3%) 29(11.15%)
greater than 51 86 33.1 36(13.8%) 50(19.23%)
Total 260 100.0 100.0 `
Source: Own survey data, 2019
dependency ratio, and their food security status with the value of (  2 =33.880, df =3,
p=0.000;

 2 =38.137, df =2, p=0.000;  2 =11.211, df =3, p=0.011, p<0.05), which is significant at all.

Table.2.
Food Respondents response
security situation of to
thetheir marital status
respondents amongin the study status,
marital area
family size and dependency ration(N=260)
Variables Options Frequen Percent Food-insecure Food-secure 2
cy
Marital Single 25 9.6 13(5%) 12(4.61%) 0.000

status Divorced 38 14.6 15(5.7%) 23(8.84%)

Widowed 35 13.5 15(5.7%) 20(7.69%)
of Women Married 162 62.3 92(35.38%) 70(26.9%)
Family size 1-2 85 32.7 25(9.61%) 60(23%)
3-4 98 37.7 50(19.23%) 48(18.46%) 0.000
≥5 77 29.6 60(23.07%) 17(6.5%)

Dependenc 0 98 37.7 43(16.5%) 55(21.1%)

y ratio 0.20-0.80 100 38.5 65(25%) 35(13.46% ) 0.011

0.81-1.5 47 18.1 20(7.69%) 27(10.38%)
≥1.51 15 5.8 7(2.69%) 8(3.07%)
Source: Own survey data, 2019
Educational background of the Respondents in the Study Area

2
Figure.1. Distribution of respondents‟ response based on their educational level
Source: Own survey data, 2019
 2 2

2
Table.3. Respondents response to their land access and size, extension, agricultural inputs
and transport services in the study area (N=260)

Food security situation of the respondents among land access and size,
extension, agricultural inputs, and transport services(N=260)
Variables Options Frequency Percent Food- Food secure 2
insecure
Access to Yes 151 58.1 68(26.15%) 83(31.9%)

land No 109 41.9 67(25.7%) 42(16.15%) 0.009

Land size <0.50 113 43.5 64(24.6%) 49(18.8%)
0.51-1 72 27.7 35(13.46%) 37(14.2%) 0.410
≥1 75 28.8 36(13.84%) 39(15%)

Access to Yes 145 55.8 63(24.23%) 82(31.5%)

extensio No 115 44.2 72(27.69%) 43(16.53% ) 0.003

n
services

Access Yes 93 35.8 62(23.84%) 31(11.9%)

No 167 64.2 73(28.07%) 94(36.1%) 0.000
to Agricultural
inputs(Fertili
zer)

Access to Yes 231 88.8 120(46.1%) 111(42.69%) 0.982

Transportatio
Source: Own survey data, 2019
n services No 29 11.2 15(5.7%) 14(5.38%)

As presented in Table 4, the crop income of respondents has a mean value of 2547.0385 and a
maximum of 10000. It has also a range value of 10000 with the standard deviation of
1924.41833. 17000 is a maximum and range value of livestock income of respondents,
while 618.6346 and 1576.03758 are the mean value and standard deviation of livestock
income respectively.
1072 and the maximum of 15000. 15000 and 2079 are the range value and the standard deviation
of non-farm income of women in the district respectively.
Table.4. Respondents response to their Crop income, Livestock income and Non-
Farm Income in the study area (N=260)

Range Minimu Maximum Mean Std.

m Deviation
Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Std. Error Statistic
Crop of 10000.0 .00 10000.00 2547.038 119.34736 1924.41833
income
respondents 0 5

Livestock of 17000.0 .00 17000.00 618.6346 97.74170 1576.03758

income respondents 0
Non-farm of 15000.0 .00 15000.00 1072.357 128.94717 2079.21063
income
respondents 0 7
Valid N (listwise) 260 data, 2019
Source: Own survey
Table.5. Respondents response to their Credit and Water access, Distant to nearest market,
and Agro-ecology in the study area (N=260)
Food security situation of the respondents among marital status,
family size and dependency ration(N=260)
Variables Options Frequency Percent Food- Food- secure 2
insecure
Access Yes 111 42.7 62(23.8%) 49(18.8%)

to credit No 149 57.3 73(28.07 ) 76(29.2%) .273

service
Distance to ≤2 53 20.4 15(5.7% ) 38(14.6%)

the nearest 2.01-4 70 26.9 39(15% 31(11.9%)

market 4.01-6 54 20.8 28(10.7%) 26(10%) 0.001
≥6.01 83 31.9 53(20.3%) 30(11.5%)

Access Yes 94 36.2 39(15% ) 55(21.1%)

to Water No 166 63.8 96(36.9%) 70(26.9%) 0.011

Agro- Woyina- 158 60.8 47(18.07% 111(42.69

ecological Dega ) %)

classifications Kolla 102 39.2 88(33.8%) 14(5.38%) 0.000

of Kebeles
Source: Own survey data, 2019
 Percentage Distribution of Respondents’ response to the Food security situation of
households heads (Women in MHH and FHH) in the District (N=260)

Food Security Status between the households heads of the Respondents(N=260)

Variables
Food-security status Household-head status
Options Frequency Percentage Female- Male-headed
(%) headed households Households
Food-Insecure 135 51.9 43(16.53%) 92(35.38%)

Food-Secure 125 48.1 55(21.15%) 70(26.9%)

Total 260
100.0 100.0 100.0

Source: Own survey data, 2019

Determinants Variables for Rural Women’s Food Security Status

Econometric Model analysis
Variables Categories ß S.E. Wald Sig. Exp(B)

Age 20-30years old (RC) - 3.237 1.570 4.247 .039* .039

31- 40 years old

41- 50 years old .070 .775 .008 .928 .932

≥51 years old -.327 .706 .214 .643 1.387

Marital status Unmarried (RC) 2.599 1.359 3.660 .056** 13.450

Divorced

Widowed -1.397 .738 3.585 .058** .247

Married -.408 .750 .296 .587 .665

Educational Illiterate (RC)
level can read and write -.889 1.528 .338 .561 .411

Primary education -1.522 1.566 .945 .331 .218

Secondary & above -2.179 1.524 2.044 .153 .113

Family size 1-2 Family size (RC) -2.992 .971 9.487 .002* .050
3-4 Family size -1.793 .643 7.766 .005* .166
≥5 Family size

Landholding size 0.0-0.5 hectare (RC) .427 .618 .479 .489 1.533
0.51-1 hectare .386 .709 .297 .586 1.471
> 1 hectare

Access to Yes(RC) -.872 .541 2.596 .107 .418

extension No

Access to Agri- Yes(RC) 2.879 .642 20.096 .000* 17.805

inputs No

Access to Yes(RC) 1.857 .766 5.879 .015* 6.401

Transport No

Distance to the <2 km (RC) -1.742 .736 5.602 .018* .175

nearest market 2-4 km .168 .622 .073 .787 1.183

4.01-6 km -.416 .690 .363 .547 .660
>6 Km

Crop income Crop income -.001 .000 15.003 .000* 0.999

Non-Farm- Non-farm income .000 .000 5.768 .016* 1.000

income
Access of Credit Yes(RC) -1.550 .633 5.995 .014* .212
No
Access of Water Yes(RC) -2.069 .565 13.416 .000* .126
No
Agro-ecology Woyina-Dega(RC) -3.994 .662 36.377 .000* .018

Kolla
Constant 6.596 2.100 9.865 .002 7
32.178
5. Recommendations and Implication for future research
Based on the findings of the study, the following points are forwarded for government institutions
and humanitarian agencies to reduce the feminization of food insecurity.
➢The local and regional government has to build basic infrastructure such as water supply,
road, market accessibility and others so as to improve the food security status.

➢The financial institutions should provide the financial services including credit for women for
women economic empowerment and strengthen other financial assets.
➢The local government should work on agricultural productivity in collaboration with
non-agricultural livelihood activities for the state of food security of women farmers.
➢The government and humanitarian agencies have to work on awareness transference on
how to reduce the feminization food insecurity and poverty reduction efforts rather than providing any aid in
the forms of social protection system.
Thank you for your attention and Time!

አመሰግናለሁ፡፡