Comparative analysis of household food security and its determinants among Productive Safety Net Program (PSNP) beneficiary, graduated, and non-beneficiary in Northwestern Ethiopia

Figures & data

Figure 1. Location map of the study area.

Table 1. Description and hypothesis of explanatory variables.

Variables	Description and measurement	Hypothesis
Dependent Variable
Household food security	1 = Food secure; 0 = Food insecure
Independent variables
Livelihood zone	0= Abay Beshilo; 1 = Southwest 2 = Central highland	+
Household head Marital status	1= married; 0= single	+
Credit use	Household received credit (1= yes; 0= no)	+
Wealth Status	1= rich; 0= poor	+
Drought	1= yes; 0= no	–
Household size	Number of family members in adult equivalence	–
Land size	Cultivated land size in hectare	+
Dependency ratio	Ratio of non-working age (<15&>64) to working age (15-64) members	–
Amount of Fertilizer	Amount of chemical fertilizer used in kg	+
Crop diversification	Number of crop varieties produced by a household	+
Livestock ownership	Total livestock owned by the household in TLU	+
Number of Years benefited from PSNP	Number of Years benefited from PSNP	+
Number of clinic visits	Number of clinic visits by household head	–

Source: Own survey data (2023).

Table 2. Summary statistics for continuous variables by PSNP participation.

Continuous variables	Beneficiary		Graduated		Non-beneficiary		F-value
	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Mean	SD
Household size	2.93	1.43	3.95	1.40	3.55	1.28	18.67***
Dependency ratio	0.46	0.50	0.33	0.41	0.46	0.51	3.16**
Land size	0.63	0.41	0.87	0.44	0.79	0.59	8.79***
Livestock	1.20	1.41	2.85	1.48	2.63	2.01	32.15***
Crop diversification	2.53	1.17	2.85	1.02	2.92	0.92	5.17***
Amount of chemical fertilizer	107.57	101.85	150.76	120.59	160.17	130.55	7.48***
Number of Years benefited	4.95	2.10	6.42	3.73	NA	NA	15.10***
Number of clinic visits	1.27	2.12	1.48	2.14	0.82	2.15	3.29**

***, ** indicate significant at <1% and 5% probability levels, respectively; NA - not applicable.

Source: Own survey data (2023).

Table 3. Descriptive results for categorical variables by PSNP participation.

Variables	Categories	Beneficiary		Graduated		Non-beneficiary		X^2-value
		N	%	Freq	%	Freq	%
Marital status	Single	29	21.6	14	10.6	28	21.5	52.785***
	Married	52	38.8	99	75	86	66.2
	Divorced	51	38.1	16	12.1	16	12.3
Credit use	Yes	33	24.6	46	34.8	23	17.7	10.216***
Wealth status	Rich	83	61.9	68	51.5	87	66.9	6.770**
Drought	Yes	102	76.1	97	73.5	102	78.5	0.891
Livelihood zone	Abay basin	53	39.6	55	41.7	59	45.4	10.242**
	Southwest wheat	58	43.3	49	37.1	61	46.9
	Central highland	23	17.2	28	21.2	10	7.7

***, ** indicate significant at <1% and 5% probability levels, respectively.

Source: Own survey data (2023).

Table 4. Comparison in food security status among beneficiary, graduated and non-beneficiary households using FIES and HHS.

Variables		Beneficiary	Graduated	Non-beneficiary	F-value
	Description	Mean(SD)	Mean(SD)	Mean(SD)
FIES raw score	Count of items with yes (0-8)	4.45(3.05)	2.27(2.53)	2.86(3.46)	18.434***
HHS raw score	Count of items with yes (0-6)	1.17(1.34)	0.40(0.84)	0.92(1.38)	13.99***
	Categories	%(N)	%(N)	%(N)	X^2-value
FIES	Food secure	34.3% (46)	67.4% (89)	61.5% (80)	54.009***
	Moderately Food insecure	29.1(39)	25.8% (34)	10% (13)
	Severely Food insecure	36.6% (49)	6.8% (9)	28.5% (37)
HHS	No hunger	62.7% (84)	90.9% (120)	72.3% (94)	29.474***
	Moderate &Severe hunger	37.3% (50)	9.1% (12)	27.7% (36)

***, ** indicates significant at <1% and 5% probability levels, respectively.

Figure 2. Mean plots of Food Insecurity Experience scale and Household hunger scale by PSNP participations.

Figure 3. FIES questions and PSNP participation.

Table 5. Coefficients and marginal effects of Binary Probit estimation of determinants of household food security using FIES.

Variables	Beneficiary		Graduated		Non-beneficiary
	Coef. (St. Err.)	Marginal effects	Coef. (St. Err.)	Marginal effects	Coef. (St. Err.)	Marginal effects
Livelihood zone Southwest	2.443*** (0.402)	0.446 (0.035)
Livelihood zone Central highland	1.401** (0.551)	0.256 (0.092)
Number of years benefitted	−0.261** (0.109)	−0.048 (0.019)	−0.071** (0.036)	−0.016 (0.008)
Drought	−1.853*** (0.470)	−0.338 (0.069)
Number of clinic visits	−0.257** (0.114)	−0.047 (0.020)	−0.222*** (0.065)	−0.051 (0.013)	−0.140* (0.073)	−0.022 (0.011)
Credit use	−1.266*** (0.457)	−0.231 (0.076)	−0.492 (0.301)	−0.113 (0.067)
Household size					−0.410** (0.161)	−0.065 (0.023)
Dependency ratio			−0.647** (0.319)	−0.148 (0.069)	−0.766** (0.384)	−0.122 (0.058)
Marital status					1.483*** (0.390)	0.237 (0.051)
Land size	0.613(0.414)	0.112 (0.074)			1.173** (0.487)	0.187 (0.072)
Livestock TLU			0.329*** (0.116)	0.075 (0.024)	0.378*** (0.141)	0.060 (0.021)
Crop diversification			0.313** (0.155)	0.072 (0.034)
Amount of Chemical fertilizer					0.005*** (0.002)	0.001 (0.000)
Constant	0.963 (0.905)		0.163 (0.518)		−1.583** (0.655)
Observations	134		132		130

Standard errors in parentheses *** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.1.