Food Security Status and Its Determinant Factors in Central Ethiopia: Empirical Evidence from Walmara District

The study was conducted with the objective of assessing factors associated with farm households’ food security status using primary data collected from 220 sample households from Walmara district, central Ethiopia. The multistage sampling technique was the sampling procedure followed to take the required sample. Descriptive and econometric data analyses were executed. The descriptive result revealed that sex of the head, access to credit services, access to extension contact, educational level of the household head, livestock holding, and land owned were positively related, while the occurrence of crop pests, age of the household head, dependency ratio, family size, market distance, and irrigation distance negatively related to household food security status. Logistic regression was the model used, and the result revealed that sex of the household head, livestock holding, land owned, access to extension contacts, access to irrigation services, and access to credit services showed a positive association, while the family size and dependency ratio negatively and significantly associated with household foods security status. Therefore, policies and strategies focusing on the provision of gender-based training, establishing irrigation facilities, promoting mixed farming of crop and livestock, and availing institutional facilities that providing financial and technical services to farm households are recommended as they contribute more in improving the food security status of farm households.

23 percent is mid-highland. The average annual rainfall of the district is 1,144 mm, ranging from 795 to 1300 mm. The annual temperature ranges from 6 ºc to 24ºc, with an average of 14 ºc. According to the CSA population projection report, the population of the district was 112,498 (56,200 male and 56,298 female) during 2019. According to the information from the district's office of agriculture and rural development, the farming system of the district is characterized by both crop and livestock production. Wheat, barley, tef, pulses, and oilseeds are the major crops, while potatoes, cabbages, tomatoes, carrots, and onions are the major vegetable grown in the district respectively.

Sampling procedure and sample size determination
To select the required representative sample, a multistage sampling method was followed. The district was purposively selected at first. Second, the district was classified into highland and mid-highland based on the ecology. Third, four representative peasant associations, two from each ecology were randomly selected. In the fifth stage, systematic random sampling was used to sample the representative households.
To decide the required sample size, the rule of thumb followed. Based on this, the total sample size was 220 households including 10 percent contingency for non-response. The sample size from each kebele was selected based on the proportional sampling method which is determined using the following formula: (1) Where ni -the sample to be selected from i th kebele Ni -the total population living in i th kebele. ƩNi -the summation of population living in selected four kebeles n -total sample size for the district

Sources of data and method of collection
Both data sources were used for this research. Structured and semi-structured questionnaires used to collect primary data from selected sample households. Secondary data collected by reviewing published journals, from records of the district's agricultural office, from the records of peasant association administration office, from the records of the farmers' training centers (FTCs), and etc.

Method of data analysis
Data analysis was performed using descriptive statistics and econometric models, and STATA version 15.3 was the package used to perform data analysis.

Descriptive data analysis
The included variables were summarized using percentage, mean, and standard deviation. T-tests and chi-square tests were executed to account for the statistical significance of the continuous and dummy variables respectively.

Econometric data analysis
Food security of the farm households was measured in daily calorie intake and converted to dummy, food secure if calorie consumption exceeding 2200kcal and food insecure if the calorie consumption is less than 2200kcal and used in the model. Logit was the model used and its functional form can be articulated as: This can be simplified and expressed as: Equation 3 is expressing the probability that the household is food secure and the probability that the household is food insecure can also be expressed as: The odds ratio (the ratio of probability of food secure to food insecure) functionally expressed as: The natural log. of the above eqn. can be articulated as: Where: Li = log of odds ratio Pi = likelihood of being food secure 1-Pi = likelihood of being food insecure = the odds ratio β 1 , β 2 , β 3 , & βn = coefficients to be estimated X i = independent variables included U i = error term 3. RESULT AND DISCUSSIONS 3.1. Descriptive results 3.1.1. Descriptive results of dummy variables As presented in Table 2, the result revealed that 68.6 percent of female-headed households and 92.4 percent of male-headed households were food secure. This indicates that male-headed households are more food secure than female-headed households. The Chi-square test also showed that the mean difference was statistically significant at a 1 percent probability level.
Table 2 also revealed that 895.9 percent of households having access to credit services and 76.1 percent of the households not having access to credit services were food secure. This shows that the mean food security status of households having access to credit services is better than that of households not having access to credit services. The chi-square test revealed that the mean difference was statistically significant at a 10 percent significance level.
Similarly, 90.5 percent of household heads having access to extension contact and 76.7 percent of the household heads not having access to extension contact were food secure. This indicates that mean food security status of households having access to extension contacts is better than those not having access to extension contacts. The chi-square test showed the mean difference was statistically significant at 5 percent.
The result also indicated that 82.7 percent of household heads whose crop field affected by crop pests, and 94.5 percent of the household whose crop field not affected by pests were food secure. From this result, the mean food security status of households whose crop fields not affected by crop pests was better than that of households whose crop fields were affected by pests. The chi-square test result also indicated that the mean difference is statistically significant at a 1 percent probability level. 0.000*** 0.059* -0.006*** 0.026** Note: *, ** and *** shows the significance levels at 10% 5% and 1% Source: Own household survey conducted during 2020

Descriptive results of continuous variables
According to the result in Table 3, the average age for food secure and non-secure household heads was 43.3 and 48.9 years with standard deviations of 9.75 and 9.7 respectively. It was negatively related to household food security, and from the t-test result, the mean difference was statistically significant at 5 percent. Similarly, the mean dependency ratio for both food secure and insecure households were 0.8 and 1.5 with standard deviations of 0.68 and 0.7 respectively. From this result, the dependency ratio is negatively related to household food security. The t-test result also showed the mean difference was statistically significant at 1 percent. Moreover, the mean family size for food secure and insecure households were 4.5 and 5.9 with standard deviations of 1.8 and 2.5 respectively. This result is showing that family size is negatively related to household food security. From the t-test result, the mean difference was statistically significant at 1 percent. The average educational level for food secure and non-secure households were 4.3 and 2.3 years with standard deviations of 3.9 and 2.9 respectively. It is positively and significantly related to household food security at 5 percent. The result also showed that the mean livestock holding for food secure and insecure households were 7.2 and 5.5 with standard deviations of 4.1 and 2.1 respectively. This shows that livestock holding is positively and significantly related to household food security at a 5 percent significance level. Moreover, the mean land holding for food secure and insecure households were 1.5 and 0.6 with standard deviations of 1.2 and 0.6. This means the landholding is positively and significantly related to household food security at 1 percent.
The mean market distance for food secure and insecure households were 5.3 and 6.3 respectively. This is showing that market distance is negatively related to food security status. The t-test showed the mean difference was statistically significant at 5 percent. Similarly, the mean irrigation distance for food secure and insecure households were 2.1 and 2.6 respectively. This result is indicating that irrigation distance is negatively related to household food security status, and the t-test result was significant at 5 percent. 1.5 1.2 0.6 0.6 1.5 1.2 3.9*** Note: ** and *** shows the significance levels at 5% and 1% Source: Own household survey conducted during 2020

Econometric results
To do logistic regression, food security measured in the daily calorie intake method was used as a dummy dependent variable. The households with individual daily calorie intake exceeding 2200 kilocalorie were considered food secure and the rest were taken as food insecure. Before running the model, variance inflation factor (VIF) was tested to check for multicollinearity, and the mean VIF was 1.25. Accordingly, sex of the head, livestock holding, landholding, access to extension contact, irrigation use, and credit access positively and significantly affected household food security status, while the family size and dependency ratio negatively and significantly affected household food security status. Sex of the household head: As expected, the sex of the household head affected household food security positively and significantly at a 5 percent probability level. This means male-headed households are more likely to be food secure than female-headed households. The possible reasons might be due to physical, socio-cultural, and time constraints that females are facing as compared to males, and these contributed to the food insecurity status of female-headed households. This result is consistent with the findings of Ahmed (2015), Mustapha et al. (2018), and Sani and Kemaw (2019). Family size AE: In contrary to the hypothesis, adult equivalent family size negatively and significantly affected household food security at a 1 percent probability level. This result is indicating that the households with larger adult equivalent family size are less likely to be food secure compared to the households with smaller family size. This might be because adding family members to limited resources may cause scarcity and lead the family to food insecurity status. This result is consistent with the findings of Mesele et al. (2018), Mustapha et al. (2018), and Temesgen (2019). Dependency ratio: As expected, the dependency ratio affected household food security negatively and significantly at a 5 percent significance level. Households with a high dependency ratio were less likely to be food secure compare to households with a less dependence ratio. The reason for this is that as dependent family members increase, it will impose pressure on household resources. Additionally, as dependents increase per family, there will be a higher burden on the active family members and this, in turn, affects households' food security status. This result is consistent with the results reported by Goshu (2016), Dawit and Zeray (2017), Mustapha et al. (2018), and Akukwe (2020). Livestock holding in TLU: As hypothesized, livestock holding affected household food security positively and significantly at a 5 percent significance level. From this result, the households having more livestock are more likely to be food secure compared to those households holding lesser numbers of livestock. The reason for this was the multi-dimensional contributions of livestock products and by-products in combating household food insecurity. Livestock serves as a source of food as well as a source of income to purchase food during the time of food shortage. This result is consistent with the findings reported by Haileyesus (2019), Mesele et al. (2018), Habtewold (2018). Land owned: Land owned also affected household food security positively and significantly at a 5 percent significance level. This result is consistent with the hypothesis and the households having more land are more likely to be food secure than those households owning lesser land. This is because households with a wider area of land would have the possibility to produce more or diverse agricultural products which would diversify consumption either through the product that they produce or through the additional income that they would get and hence contribute to improve food security. This result is consistent with the findings reported by Mustapha et al. (2018), Mesele et al. (2018), Habtewold (2018), and Haileyesus (2019). Access to extension services: This variable positively and significantly affected household food security at a 5 percent significance level. This means that households getting extension services are more likely to be food secure compared to households without the services. This is because agricultural extension plays a significant role in improving production, productivity, food security, and rural livelihood. This result is also consistent with the findings reported by Mustapha et al. (2018) and Haileyesus (2019). Access to credit services: As expected, this variable also affected household food security positively and significantly at a 10 percent significance level. The households having access to credit services are more likely to be food secure than a household without the services. This is because of those households having access to credit services can easily buy agricultural inputs like improved seed, fertilizer, labor, rent farmland, etc., and improve their production and productivity which improves their food security status. This result is also consistent with the findings reported by Mustapha et al. (2018), Habtewold (2018), and Sami and Kemaw (2019). Participation in irrigation: As expected, participation in irrigation positively and significantly affected household food security at a 1 percent significance level. From this result, irrigation user households are more likely to be food secure than households not using irrigation. The reason for this is because participation in irrigation enables the households to efficiently use the available agricultural inputs like land, labour, and other resources during the off (dry) season and increase their production. This result is also consistent with the results reported by Hamda (2016), Agena (2017), Ngema et al. (2018), Mesele et al. (2018), and Sami and Kemaw (2019).

CONCLUSION AND RECOCCEMDATIONS
The study was conducted with the main objective of assessing factors affecting household food security status in central Ethiopia using evidence from Walmara district, Oromia. Both primary and secondary data were used. Primary data were collected from 220 sample households and secondary data were collected from journals, district office of agriculture, peasant administration offices, etc. The multi-stage sampling technique was the sampling method used. Descriptive and econometric data analyses were performed, and logistic regression was the model used.
From the descriptive result, sex of the household head, access to credit services, occurrence of crop pests, access to extension contact, age of the household head, education level of the household head, dependency ratio, livestock holding, family size, market distance, distance from irrigation site and land ownership were the variables that significantly related to household food security.
The logistic regression results also revealed that household food security status was significantly affected by eight variables. These variables were the sex of the head, family size, dependence ratio, livestock holding, land owned, access to extension contacts, access to irrigation services, and access to credit services. Among these variables, sex of the household head, livestock holding, land owned, access to extension contacts, access to irrigation services, and access to credit services positively affected household food security status, while family size and dependency ratio negatively affected household foods security status.
Finally, intervention policies focusing on the provision of gender-based training, construction of small-scale irrigation facilities, promoting mixed farming of crop and livestock, and availing institutions providing financial and technical services to farm households are recommended as they contribute more in improving the food security status of farm households.