Determinants of Urban food security status at household level: The case of Bahir Dar and Gondar Cities of the Amhara Region, Ethiopia

Figures & data

Figure 1. A schematic diagram showing the relationship between predictor variables and household food in/security.

Source: Adapted from (Birhane et al., 2014; Berlie, 2020)

Table 1. Summary Table of Sample kebeles and Households

City Bahir Dar	Selected Sub-city	Selected kebeles	Sampling Frame/ Total Households			Sample Households		Total sample
			Male	Female	Total	Male	Female
	Tana-Fasilo	K.01	14,012	15,879	29,891	33	37	70
	Gish Abay	K.12	11,029	8,756	19,784	26	20	46
	Belay-Zeleke	K.7	26,458	24,756	51,214	62	58	120
Gondar	Fasil/Piasa	K.12	8, 351	8, 767	17,118	20	21	41
	Abajalie	K.4	8, 401	10, 012	18, 412	20	23	43
	Cherkos	K.6	9, 043	10, 423	19,476	21	24	45
Total Sample Size			77, 294	78, 601	155, 887	182	183	365

Source: Bahir Dar and Gonder city administrative offices, 2020/21

Table 2. The expected sign of the explanatory variables

Variable Name	Variable description	Expected sign
Sex	Dummy (0 = female 1 = male	±
Age	Continuous	+
Marital status	Dummy (0 = single 1 = married)	+
Marital status	Dummy (0 = single 1 = married)	±
Education	Continuous	+
Family size	Continuous	—
Household total income	Continuous	+
Employment status	Continuous	±
Housing ownership	Dummy (0 = no 1 = yes)	±
Total food expenditure	Continuous	+
Access to remittances	Dummy (0 = no 1 = yes)	+
Access to credit services	Dummy (0 = no 1 = yes)	+

Figure 2. Map of Bahir Dar & Gondar city, Ethio-GIS.

Table 3. Demographic Characteristics and kilocalorie intake of households per adult equivalent per day

Demographic variables		Households’ kilocalorie consumption/adult equivalent/day							χ^2
		% Food Insecure			% Food Secure
		600– 1100	1101—1600	1601— 2099	2100 − 2600	2601–3000	3001—3500	Total %
H.H. sex	Male	13	12	6	18	10	3	62	118.5**
	Female	9	10	4	10	4	2 1	38
	Total	22	22	10	28	14	4	100
Marital status	Single	3	19	15	9	1	0	47	114.6*
	Married	4	6	6	26	9	2	53
	Total	7	25	21	35	10	2	100
HH size	1–3	3	4	5	5	3	3	23	98.1*
	4–6	9	12	17	18	10	1	67
	≥7	3	2	2	2	1	0	10
	Total	15	18	24	25	14	4	100
HH age	20–40	7	4	3	4	3	0	21	27.5**
	41–60	15	15	10	29	7	1	76
	61–80	0	0	0.5	2	0.5	0	3
	Total	22	19	13.5	35	10.5	1	100
HH Educ.	Illiterates	5	7	6	10	4	0	33	26.6**
	Read & write	3	5	5	8	2	0	23
	2^ry Educ.	4	6	6	10	3	0	29
	Diploma & above	1	3	3	6	1	1	15
	Total	13	21	20	34	10	1	100

** = P < 0.001, * = P < 0.05

Table 4. Socio-economic & institutional variables and Kilocalorie consumption/A.E./day

Socio-economic and Institutional Variables		Households Kcal. Consumption/A.E./Day
		% Food Insecure			% Food Secure			Total (%)
Food expenditure	Eth. birr/ month	600— 1100	1101– 1600	1601— 2099	2100— 2600	2601– 3100	3101– 3500		X^2 390.7**
	1000–2000	4	2	0	0	0	0	6
	2001–3000	3	19	11	2	0	0	35
	3001–4000	0	5	10	22	1	0	38
	4001–5000	0	0	1	11	2	0	14
	>5001	0	0	0	5	1	0	6
	Total	7	26	22	38	4	0	100
Household Income	<2000	5	13	6	0	0	0	24	316.1**
	2001–4000	3	12	15	10	1	0	41
	4001–6000	0	0	0	24	4	0	28
	6001–8000	0	0	0	6	1	0	7
	>8001	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
	Total	8	25	21	40	6	0	100
Remittance Received	No	6	22	21	12	5	1	67	237.7**
	Yes	1	1	4	22	3	2	33
	Total	7	23	25	34	8	3	100
Occupational Status	Paid work	3	15	13	18	4	1	54	105.7**
	Daily labor	1	3	3	3	0	0	10
	merchant	1	2	2	10	2	1	18
	Small scale	1	2	2	5	2	0	12
	Pension	1	2	1	2	0	0	6
	Total	7	24	21	38	8	2	100
Housing ownership	Rental house	6	23	22	8	2	1	62	191.7**
	Own house	4	4	3	19	7	1	38
	Total	10	27	25	27	9	2	100
Access to credit service	No	7	18	20	12	4	1	62	24 1.85**
	Yes	7	4	4	20	2	1	38
	Total	14	22	24	32	6	2	100

** = P < 0.001, * = P < 0.05

Table 5. FGT: Food Insecurity Index Result

FGT measures	Sum	FGT	% FGT
(P0) Headcount ratio (Incidence of food insecurity)^a	197	0.538247	54
(P1) Food insecurity gap (Depth of food insecurity)^b	56.08571	0.153659	15
(P2) Squared food insecurity gap (Severity of food insecurity)^b	20.4959	0.05615	5.6

Source: Computed result (2021), where (a) indicates estimation from the total sample and (b) indicates estimation from Food insecure (197) households.

Table 6. Comparison of FGT between sample cities

Bahir Dar				Gondar
	Headcount (p0)	Food security gap (p1)	Severity (p2)	Headcount (p0)	Food security p1) gap (p1)	Severity (p2)
Sum	129	12.56142	3.22231	68	5.4890476	1.55342
FGT	0.5512821	0.053681	0.01377	0.519084	0.0419011	0.01185
% FGT	55%	5.3%	1.3%	52%	4%	1.2%

Source: Own competition, 2020/21

Table 7. Binary logistic regression results

Predictor Variables		B	S.E.	Wald	df	Sig.	Exp(B)	95% C.I.for EXP(B)
								Lower	Upper
Step 1^a	Sex	2.609	.765	11.649	1	.001	13.590	3.037	60.813
	Mar. status	2.984	.836	12.744	1	.000	19.770	3.841	101.756
	Remittance	4.501	.973	21.385	1	.000	90.135	13.377	607.354
	Credit service	2.613	.749	12.183	1	.000	13.645	3.145	59.200
	Own. house	3.988	.836	22.727	1	.000	53.920	10.466	277.793
	Constant	−6.573	1.037	40.147	1	.000	.001
Step 2^b	Foods expend.	4.736	1.143	17.175	1	.000	113.977	12.136	1070.427
	Income	7.103	1.516	21.964	1	.000	215.225	62.320	3696.773
	HH Age	1.758	.639	7.568	1	.006	5.798	1.658	20.282
	HH Size	−.579	.956	.366	1	.545	.561	.086	3.652
	Education.	−.368	.323	1.292	1	.256	.692	.367	1.305
	Occupation	.206	.181	1.292	1	.256	1.229	.861	1.753
	Constant	−18.181	3.611	25.351	1	.000	.000

** = P < 0.001, * = P < 0.05

Variable(s) entered on step 1: H.H. sex, Mar. status, remittance, credit service, ownership of a house.

Variable(s) entered in step 2: food expenditure, income, age, and size. Education and occupation,

Birhane, T., Shiferaw, S., Hagos, S., & Katia Sarla, M. (2014). Urban food insecurity in the context of high food prices: A community based cross sectional study in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. BMC Public Health, 14(1), 680. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-14-680

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Berlie, A. B. (2020). The invisible crisis of Urban food security in Amhara Regional State, Ethiopia. Journal of Hunger & Environmental Nutrition, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/19320248.2020.1838983

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar