Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [Akdeniz Universitesi]On: 20 December 2014, At: 02:22Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Canadian Journal of DevelopmentStudies / Revue canadienne d'études dudéveloppementPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcjd20
Household Food Security: An AssessmentMethodTruman P. Phillips a & Daphne S. Taylor aa Centre for Food Security , University of Guelph , CanadaPublished online: 24 Feb 2011.
To cite this article: Truman P. Phillips & Daphne S. Taylor (1998) Household Food Security: AnAssessment Method, Canadian Journal of Development Studies / Revue canadienne d'études dudéveloppement, 19:4, 257-275, DOI: 10.1080/02255189.1998.9669787
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02255189.1998.9669787
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
?fousehold 'Food Security: 3 n 3ssessment Method *
'Truman T. Phillips Daphne 6. 'Taylor
Centre for Food Security University of Guelph, Canada
ABSTRACT
This paper describes a method for assessing household food insecurity. The method determines the level of current food insecurity experienced by individual households, whether they are at risk of food insecurity in the short term and whether they are likely to experience improving or worsening food insecurity in the long term. The method, which is based on the households' own description of their conditions, uses a household questionnaire and a quasi-expert system. The quasi-expert system greatly increases the speed of assessment because the questionnaire and the analysis are developed simultane- ously. To date, the method has been used to survey and describe household food security in six developing countries. The method and the results of these applications are discussed in this paper.
SOMMAIRE
La mkthode d'kvaluation dkcrite ici permet de dtterminer le niveau d'incertitude alimentaire d'un mknage donnk. Elle utilise un questionnaire destink au mknage et un systkme d'analyse quasi expert. Les systkmes experts sont des programmes informatiques interactifs qui simulent le dialogue question-rkponse qui pourrait s'ktablir si l'on demandait l'avis d'un expert sur un problkme et sa solution kventuelle. En l'occurrence, le systkme est dit quasi expert parce qu'il n'est pas interactif: Le programme utilise plutdt l'information contenue dans les rkponses au questionnaire pour arriver d des conclusions concernant l'ktat de la skuritk alimentaire de chacun des mknages rkpondants. La rnkthode d'analyse se fonde sur la description que le mknage fait de sa situation et comporte une variable temporelle. Elle dktermine le niveau d'inskcuritk alimentaire actuel du mknage, que celui-ci risque de manquer de nourriture dans un avenir immkdiat
* We gratefully acknowledge the work and dedication of many individuals who have contributed over the years to developing this assessment method. We also gratefully acknowl- edge numerous institutions for their support and financing of the projects described in this paper: the University of Guelph; CIDA; the Regional Centre for Graduate Study and Research in Agriculture in Los Bafios, Philippines and its cooperating institutions - the Lao Council of Medical Sciences; IDRC in Singapore; World Vision Canada; and World Vision Mozambique.
Canadian Journal of Development Studies, VOLUME XIX, SPECIAL ISSUE, 1998
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Akd
eniz
Uni
vers
itesi
] at
02:
22 2
0 D
ecem
ber
2014
ou bien de voir sa situation alimentaire s'arnkliorer ou se dttkriorer b plus long terme. Cette mkthode acctlkre knormtment l'tvaluation, puisque le questionnaire et l'analyse se formulent simultantment. A ce jour, la mkthode a servi b recenser et b dkcrire l'incerti- tude alimentaire de mknages particuliers dans six pays : l'lndonbie, la Malaisie, les Philippines, la Thai'lande, le Laos et le Mozambique. L'article examine les rkgles dkcision-
Canadian nelles et les rksultats gknkraux de son application dans ces pays.
Journal of Development INTRODUCTION
Studies In 1986, the Centre for Food Security (CFS) at the University of Guelph and the Regional Centre for Graduate Study and Research in Agriculture (SEARCA) in the Philippines established a cooperative program to identify strategies to alleviate food insecurity and develop training programs to assist decision makers, scientists, agricultural extension workers and farmers in the area of food security.
The first task was to develop a replicable method for assessing food security. Because the project was designed to include partners from four countries: Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines and Thailand, the assessment tool had to be applicable to the various conditions found in these countries, be able to provide comparable results, and be relatively easy and inexpensive to implement.
Right or wrong, the collaborating institutions were not satisfied that the then popular methods of assessing food security met all of these conditions. The partners therefore agreed to develop their own assessment tool that would focus on the food security of rural agricultural households. This focus partly reflected the development focus of SEARCA and its associated institutions. The partners also felt that SEARCA had a comparative advantage in develop- ing programs and policies directed at rural household and community problems.
The definition adopted by the project in 1986, based on that of the World Bank, was that household food security is "the ability of households to ensure themselves sustained access to sufficient quantity and quality of food to live healthy and active lives, both now and in the future" (World Bank, 1986).
~ u i d e d by this definition and the aforementioned constraints on the assess- ment tool, SEARCA and the CFS convened a meeting in the Philippines to identlfy indicators of household food insecurity. The meeting brought together community workers, development experts, nutritionists, agriculturists, and individuals from government, academic institutions and non-governmental agencies from the four partner countries. Using a modified Delphi technique'
1. Each person in the workshop was asked to identify the most important items of infor- mation they would like to have to assess food security status. These items were collectively ranked (or voted on) in order of importance, and methods of collecting the desired information were identified.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Akd
eniz
Uni
vers
itesi
] at
02:
22 2
0 D
ecem
ber
2014
Truman T . Phillips e+ Daphne 5. Taylor 259
the group identified a number of indicators it felt captured the essence of household food security.
CFS and SEARCA then used these indicators as a guide in developing a survey instrument and method of analysis for assessing household food inse- curity. The survey instrument was first applied in 1989 to a total of 1,206
Wousehold households from the four countries. Partners from the four countries* met in SecuriN the Philippines in 1989 to review the approach and results. This led to a gng,s,s,en, modified questionnaire, which was used to survey an additional 787 house- Method holds in 1992. Another meeting to discuss the approach and assess the results was held in 1992.
The success of the methodology led to its use in 1993 in the Laos Democratic Republic, working with the Lao Council of Medical Science with funding from the IDRC in Singapore. This project helped the Lao Council of Medical Science assess household food security, surveying 306 households from three regions of the country. An additional feature of the Lao project was the inclusion of anthropometric measurements and information on feeding practices for 506 children under five years of age from the surveyed house- holds. This assessment method was most recently applied in 1995, when the authors were contracted by World Vision Mozambique (WVM) to help assess food security in three provinces of Mozambique. The WVM project entailed surveying 2,160 households representing over 2.2 million people from Sofala, Tete and Zambezia.
The common thread between these projects was the use of a similar ques- tionnaire, method of analysis and classification of households. This paper provides an overview of the assessment approach and general discussion of the results from these six countries.
I. METHOD AND APPLICATION
This method of assessing household food security originated in 1986 with the establishment of the SEARCA-CFS Project. The definition of household food security as the ability of households to ensure themselves sustained access to sufi- cient quantity and quality of food to live healthy active lives, both now and in the future led to the development of a conceptual equation of household food security (1).
2. In the Philippines, our partner was the dean's office at the College of Agriculture at the University of the Philippines at Los Bafios; in Indonesia, the Department of Statistics, Faculty of Mathematics and National Sciences of the Institute Pertanian Bogor; in Malaysia, the Faculty of Economics and Management, Universiti Pertanian Malaysia; and in Thailand, the Department of Agricultural Extension and Communication, Faculty of Agriculture, Kasetsart University.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Akd
eniz
Uni
vers
itesi
] at
02:
22 2
0 D
ecem
ber
2014
Canadian Journal of
Development & tudies
260
Figure 1. Conceptual framework of food security
FS = CS + f (R, I, HT, t) (1)
This equation has three components: the household's potential for food security in the future, FS; the household's current state of food security, CS; and the household's likelihood of deviating from its current state. The third component is a function of the level of risk of food security faced by the household, R; the level of food security insurance available to the household, I; the attributes of the household, HT; and time, t. The conceptual components of this equation are illustrated in figure 1.
CS is mapped in the matrix (or plane) to. The rows in the matrix represent the level of household food security, while the columns of the matrix represent households grouped by household type, HT. The taxonomy of household type is based on household attributes such as the sex of the head of household, geographic location, sources of income or market dependency in food consumption. CS reflects the frequency, duration and intensity of inadequate food consumption. For planning or policy purposes, this initial matrix is useful for describing the number of households currently experiencing food insecu- rity, the severity of this insecurity and the characteristics of households needing assistance.
The third dimension of the matrix is time. This dimension reflects the possibility of deviating from the current level of household food security and
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Akd
eniz
Uni
vers
itesi
] at
02:
22 2
0 D
ecem
ber
2014
Truman T . Thillips 6 Daphne S. Taylor 261
incorporates the term f (R,I,HT,t) from equation (1). The columns continue to represent household types, but the rows now illustrate the potential future states of household food security, FS. The future state is based on the assess- ment of the effectiveness of food security insurance to offset food security risks.
Food security risks refer to events that may worsen food insecurity and are !Household measured by the likelihood that such events will occur and the potential 7oodSecurity:
damage caused to food security. Examples of risk include food shortages ~ n ~ s s e , s , e , t before harvest, temporary marketing problems, seasonal or unforeseen unem- Method
ployment, exceptional increases in prices and civil strife. Food security insurance, on the other hand, refers to actions that may
improve food security, by either reducing the likelihood that risky events will occur (addressing the root causes of food insecurity), or by reducing the damage caused by such events once they have occurred (addressing the symptom of food insecurity - hunger). Insurance may be actions taken by a household, such as stock piling; actions taken by communities, such as food distribution programs; or actions taken by regional or national governments, such as employment programs or land reform. Insurance may be short term or protective, addressing the need for emergency food; or long term and preventive, addressing the root causes of food insecurity, such as poverty.
The time dimension indicates how many households are at risk of being food insecure in the future. For planning purposes, understanding the nature and extent of food security risks faced by particular household types and the effectiveness of actions that may decrease their risk is essential to developing effective food security programs.
This conceptual model was put into practice through a questionnaire that captured the information needed to define the measurable components of this conceptual equation. The questionnaire (see appendix for an outline) contains open-ended questions, both qualitative and quantitative with limited but inclusive pre-coded responses. Focus groups from each country were used to identify appropriate responses, such as the major threats to household food security and the main coping mechanisms used by households. In all countries, enumerators and their supervisors were trained in the use of the question- naire. The training included an explanation of the concepts being measured and the interpretation of results. It also included field-testing of the question- naire. As a rule, once an enumerator became proficient with the questionnaire, a single household could be surveyed in about 90 minutes, with three households being surveyed in a single day.
A random sampling of households was always used to select households within each village surveyed. The selection of villages ranged from conve- nience to random, depending on the project. In the 1992 surveys in Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines and Thailand, sites were purposefully selected and
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Akd
eniz
Uni
vers
itesi
] at
02:
22 2
0 D
ecem
ber
2014
limited to areas of particular interest to our partners. The Lao sites were also selected to represent three different Laotian lifestyles. One area was a rural site along the Mekong River; another was a site of indigenous, Lao loam peoples; and another was a semi-urban area. The selected areas in Mozambique were of interest to the agencies supporting and funding that project.3
Canadian yournal of Once the questionnaires were complete, the data was entered into databases
~~~~l~~~~~~ using a data entry program that resembled the questionnaire. Each page of the Studies questionnaire resembled a screen on the computer. This similarity greatly
increased the accuracy and speed of data entry. Once proficient with the data entry program, a researcher could enter a single questionnaire in approxi- mately 5 minutes. Over the various projects, we have seen the questionnaire and data entry program successfully administered and understood by a variety of personnel, including undergraduate and graduate students in community development, agriculture, agricultural business and statistics; agricultural officers; community workers; nutritionists; public health workers; government officials; and women's group representatives.
The data analysis uses a complex set of database programs, which emulates an expert system.
An Expert System is a program that emulates the interaction a user might have with a human expert to solve a problem. The end user provides input by selecting one or more answers from a list or by entering data. The program will ask questions until it has reached a conclusion. The conclusion may be the selection of a single solution or a list of possible solutions arranged in order of likelihood. (EXSYS Inc., 1995)
In our approach, the "user" is the household and the "human expert" is the analyst who is trying to draw conclusions about the food security status of the household. The conclusions are reached by analyzing the responses of the household to various food security questions. Decision rules of the if-then-else type are used to reach conclusions about the current level of household food security, the amount of food security risks the household faces, and the degree of food security insurance the household has. The conc1usions are saved in a new database of approximately 250 variables. As an example of the speed of these programs, 2,000 questionnaires of over 1,500 variables each can be run though these programs to establish these new variables in a matter of minutes.
3. For example, UNICEF works primarily in Namacurra, and CIDA and World Vision Canada were primarily interested in Tete since that is where they have done their food distrib- utions. UNHCR and World Vision Mozambique were interested in the status of food security in all three provinces because funding for food, seeds and tools has been provided in all surveyed districts.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Akd
eniz
Uni
vers
itesi
] at
02:
22 2
0 D
ecem
ber
2014
Truman T . Phillips Q Daphne S. Taylor 263
The analytical technique is described as a quasi-expert system because, although the analysis behaves like an expert system, it is written as a series of non-interactive programs. Both the data entry and analysis programs were developed in dBase IV and have been maintained using a relatively low level of computer technology to accommodate our colleagues who have limited
wousehold computer facilities. In each survey, great effort has been taken to ensure that Food Serrity. our counterparts in developing countries were able to use the programs and 3, ~,ess ,e , t software used in the assessment method. The development of a truly interac- Method tive expert system shell is slowed by the fact that most of our users in devel- oping countries could not access or fully use such a system with their present technology. Nevertheless, the expert system shell is in the development stages for when that time comes.
In an expert system approach, the questionnaire and analysis system must be developed simultaneously. This is an important advantage of this type of system because it forces researchers to structure a questionnaire where the response to each question has a place in the analysis. Every question and response in the questionnaire is therefore reviewed and justified many times before being implemented. Another benefit is that this type of analysis may apply to individual households. In the pre-testing of the questionnaire, the analysis is also tested and validated from what was observed by everyone involved in the pre-test. Very small samples can therefore validate the ability of the analysis to classify households accurately. This approach is quite different from statistical analysis that uses sample averages and regression analysis. Another benefit of this system is that once the data have been collected, the analysis and report are virtually complete. These benefits mean that the process of assessment is rapid, replicable, comparable, easy, inexpen- sive, accurate in terms of the decision rules agreed to, and that the results are applicable to each household. Aggregation to larger units requires only a statistically representative sample.
As an example of speed, the Mozambique project surveying 2,160 house- holds took three months from the time the prototype questionnaire was reviewed by key respondents to the release of the first report of the results. As an example of cost, the 1992 survey in the four Southeast Asian countries was undertaken at approximately C$17.50 per household.
As the various decision rules are described below, the importance we place on the households' authority to evaluate its own food situation will become apparent. One of the unique features of the questionnaire design and the method of analysis is the fact that food security classifications rely on several key qualitative responses by the household. Acceptance of indicators based on personal perceptions seems to be a difficult task for many. Maxwell (1990) argues, however, that the relevant food security is as actually perceived by a household,
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Akd
eniz
Uni
vers
itesi
] at
02:
22 2
0 D
ecem
ber
2014
not as decided on by researchers or policy makers, stating that households will behave according to their perception, not according to indicators defined by outsiders. Sen (1985), too, argues in favour of focusing on the capability to function, meaning what a person can do or can be, instead of focusing on standard indicators such as real income estimates.
Canadian Journal of The following three subsections outline the decision rules and results used
~ e v e l o p m e n t to determine each household's current, short-term and long-term food Studies security status.
A. CURRENT STATUS DECISION RULES AND RESULTS
The decision rule used to determine a household's current status of food security was based on the household's description of its consumption of key food items as excessive, sufficient or insufficient. The key food items represent four food groups: staples, vegetables and fruits, protein alternatives, and other food items such as sugar, fats and oil. With each application of the question- naire, the list of food items was examined by focus groups and was pre-tested. Although the consumption of particular food items changed from country to country, the method of analysis remained constant.
If the household described its consumption of all consumed items as suffi- cient or excessive, the household was assigned to the currently food secure category. If a household described its consumption of some food items or all food items in one group as insufficient, the household was assigned to the mild food insecurity category. If the household described its consumption of all food items in two groups as insufficient, the household was assigned to the moderate food insecurity category. If the household described its consump- tion of all food items in three groups as insufficient, the household was considered severely food insecure.
Throughout the analysis, the degree of consumption was defined by the household, as was the choice of foods consumed within each food group. No particular food item was given special weight or importance in the analysis. The advantage of this method is that the results are based on what the surveyed household considers adequate in terms of the quantity, frequency, variety and quality of foods consumed. An additional feature of the survey is that by capturing information on sufficiency as well as frequency of consump- tion, the survey captures desired consumption. For example, if a household stated that it did not consume meat and that meat consumption was insufficient, then we would understand that meat consumption was desirable. Conversely, if the household stated that fruit and vegetable consumption was sufficient although the household did not consume any food items from that group, it could be concluded that fruit and vegetable consumption was not desired by that household, such that even if these food items were made available, the household
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Akd
eniz
Uni
vers
itesi
] at
02:
22 2
0 D
ecem
ber
2014
'Truman T . Thillips & Daphne 5. Taylor 265
Table 1. Household food security: current status
Country Percentage of households Number of households
Food secure Food insecure
mild moderate severe !Household
Indonesia 25% 29% 31 % 14% 180 Food Security: Malaysia 82 % 11% 3 % 3% 232 2 n 3lssessment Philippines 41 % 37% 7 % 14% 200 Method Thailand 73 % 18% 4 % 3 % 175 Laos 0% 41 % 38% 20% 316 Mozambique 2% 42 % 23% 33 % 2,160
would still choose not to consume them. Normal nutrition and consumption approaches tend to identify what is or should be consumed as opposed to what is desired consumption.
The results of current food security status are illustrated in table 1. These results are not intended to depict the food security status of all households from the given countries. Because of the sampling procedures used, the results of the first five countries are indicative of the food security status of the sampled communities at the time of surveying. The Mozambique results may be considered to be indicative of the current food security status of 2.2 million people from the surveyed regions. This represents approximately 43% of the total population of the three provinces surveyed, Tete, Sofala and Zambezia.
The results illustrate that the surveyed regions of Malaysia and Thailand had a higher percentage of food secure households (over 73%). At the other extreme, the surveyed regions of Mozambique and Laos had more than 50% of the households classified as moderately or severely food insecure.
The results indicate that households perceive different types of food shortages. Of the moderately food insecure households in Mozambique, 56% felt they had insufficient food from both the vegetable and protein groups. In Laos, the moderately food insecure households felt they had insufficient food from the staples and vegetable groups. The mildly food insecure households in Mozambique felt they had insufficient food from the protein group, while the mildly food insecure households in Laos felt they had insufficient food from the vegetable group.
B. SHORT-TERM STATUS DECISION RULES AND RESULTS
The decision rule used to determine the degree of short-term risk faced by a household is based on the household's assessment of the likelihood and potential deleterious effect on food consumption of unexpected events or cyclical conditions such as natural disaster; pests; diseased crops and animals;
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Akd
eniz
Uni
vers
itesi
] at
02:
22 2
0 D
ecem
ber
2014
Table 2. Decision rules for assigning short-term risk level
Impact on Probability of occurrence food consumption
Less than 50% chance Greater than None 50% chance or don't know 50% chance
Canadian Journal of None none none none none
Small none minor minor mild Bevelopment Moderate none minor mild moderate
Studies Severe none mild moderate severe
unexpected income loss or increase in the cost of consumed goods; theft or pilfering; loss of access to market to buy food; unexpected inavailability of foods in the marketplace; sudden increase in household size; sudden illness in the household; or sudden civil unrest or lack of security.
The evaluation of short-term risk uses the answers to questions on the likely impact and occurrence of each risky event. A household is assessed as facing severe short-term risk if it states that any one risky event caused a significant or severe impact on household consumption and had a greater than 50% chance of recurrence. A household is assessed as facing no short- term risk if it states that none of the risky events is likely to occur or affect household consumption. The permutations and associated short-term classi- fications are illustrated in table 2.
The decision rule to determine the effectiveness of short-term insurance, or "coping mechanisms:' to use the terminology of Sen (1988), is based on a household's description of its confidence in its ability to sustain normal food consumption patterns in the face of a minor food shortage. The mechanisms identified by households include use of food stocks; use of household savings to purchase food; purchasing lower cost food items; seeking additional employment or food for work opportunities; seeking informal assistance, charity or credit from relatives, friends, stores or churches; seeking formal assistance from local governments or aid organizations; gathering from the countryside; or harvesting roots and tubers.
Short-term household food security is assessed by combining the results of the short-term risk and insurance assessments with the assessment of a household's current food insecurity. Households are then categorized into three groups based on short-term food security: stable, at risk, and chronic. If a household was in a relatively good current food security category (food secure or mild insecurity) and short-term risk was equal to or less than insurance, it was identified as being in a stable food security position in the short term. If the household was in a relatively good current food security category and risks were assessed at a higher level than insurance, the household
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Akd
eniz
Uni
vers
itesi
] at
02:
22 2
0 D
ecem
ber
2014
Truman T . Thillips 6 Daphne 5. Taylor 267
Table 3. Household food security: short-term status
Country Percentage of households Number of households Stable At risk Chronic
Indonesia 38% 17% 45 % 180 Malaysia 64 % 30% 6% 232 !Household Philippines 61 % 18% 23 % 200
39% 175 'Food Security: Thailand 54% 7 %
Laos 34% 7% 59% 316 3 n gssessmen t Mozambique 29% 15% 55 % 2,160 Method
was identified as a household at risk of short-term food insecurity. If the household was in a position of moderate or severe current food insecurity, it was identified as in a chronic state of food insecurity, irrespective of insurance or risk. This is so because the availability of short-term insurance, conceptu- ally, does not improve a household's current state of food security. At best, it can temporarily stabilize the household's current food security status during a food crisis, but if food is not available, household food security can only worsen during a food crisis.
The most interesting of these three categories is the at risk group. This group probably includes those households that suffer transitory food insecu- rity. These are households that do not currently appear to have food problems but that are unable to cope with food security stresses. Very few analyses are able to identify this category of households, especially if the risk is not cyclical.
Table 3 presents the short-term results for the survey areas of the six countries studied. In comparison with table 1, of the 93% of households surveyed in Malaysia that were food secure or only mildly insecure, 30% are at risk in the short term. Similarly, of the 91% in Thailand that are relatively food secure, 39% are at risk in the short term. This is in contrast with the Philippines, where only 18% of the 78% currently food secure households are at risk in the short term. In the other three countries, where a high percentage of households of the surveyed areas were in a chronic state of food insecurity, the percentage of at risk households among the relatively secure was lowest in Laos, followed by Indonesia and Mozambique.
C. LONG-TERM STATUS DECISION RULES AND RESULTS
The decision rule used to determine long-term risk assessments in this analysis involves three step4: (1) determine whether a household has experienced
4. These long-term risk and insurance rules were used in the analysis of the Mozambique survey. In the Southeast Asia surveys, long-term risk and insurance assessments were more closely related to responses about income, production, health and education.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Akd
eniz
Uni
vers
itesi
] at
02:
22 2
0 D
ecem
ber
2014
declining income and/or food production; (2) determine the magnitude of the decline relative to total household income and production; and (3) determine the potential impact on household food consumption.
Determining long-term insurance assessments involves three steps: (1) determine whether the household believes it is feasible to increase income
Canadian Journal of and/or food production; (2) determine the magnitude of the potential increase;
Development and (3) determine the impact such increases could have on household food Studies consumption. The ability to improve household income or food production, if
desired, contributes to the long-term food security of the household since it provides the household alternative or additional food sources and/or income to access food.
Combining the results of the long-term risk and insurance with the assess- ment of a household's current state of food insecurity produces an assessment of the long-term food security status of the household. Four long-term food security categories are defined: stable, improving, at risk and chronic. An important caveat is that insurance potential is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for improvement. Often, potential may not be realized without considerable investment in agricultural and income productivity.
If the household was in a relatively good current food security category (food secure or mild insecurity) and the long-term insurance level was equal to or greater than the long-term risk, the household was identified as being stable in the long term. If the household was in a poor current food security category (moderate or severe) and insurance was greater than risk, the household was identified as improving in the long term. If the household was in a relatively good current food security situation, but risks were higher than available insurance, the household was considered at risk in the long term. Finally, if the household was in a relatively poor current food security category and insurance assessments were less than or equal to risk assessments, the household was in a chronic state of food insecurity.
Interpreting the prediction of the long-term status requires caution because it is based on the expressed assumption or belief that the necessary support, household and otherwise, will be available. "Improving" households are those that are undertaking changes, or are being assisted in such a way that suggests that they will be in an improved food security position in the future. This is in contrast to the chronically food insecure households, which do not appear to have the support systems to enable them to improve their already poor food security status.
With this caveat in mind, the assessment of long-term status for the six countries is presented in table 4. For the regions surveyed, the greatest long- term food security problems would appear to be in Indonesia, Laos and Mozambique, where over one third of the households surveyed are considered
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Akd
eniz
Uni
vers
itesi
] at
02:
22 2
0 D
ecem
ber
2014
Truman T. Phillips & Daphne S. Taylor 269
Table 4. Household food security: long-term status
Country Percentage of households Number of households
Improving Stable At risk Chronic food security insecurity
Indonesia 7 % 31 % 32 % 38% 180 9fousehold Malaysia 2% 65 % 29% 4% 232 Philippines 9% 63 % 16% 13% 200
Food Security:
Thailand 3 % 50% 42 % 13% 175 8 n 8ssessmeni Laos 16% 29% 12% 42 % 316 Method Mozambique 19% 32 % 12% 37% 2,160
to be facing chronic food insecurity. The Laotian and Mozambican results, however, have a positive side in that 16% or more of the households might be experiencing improving food security status. Given the recent history of Mozambique, this is hope for improvement. The results for surveyed regions of Thailand are cause for some concern because of the high percentage of households that appear to be at risk. In the absence of the occurrence of long- term risky events, these households may be expected to retain their current food security status. However, they do not appear to have effective insurance to make them resilient in the face of long-term adverse events.
11. VALIDATION OF RESULTS
Chung et al. (1997) outline a method of comparing alternative indicators, such as personal perceptions, against "gold standard" indicators of food inse- curity, such as household income and dietary intake. If agreement exists between indicators, it is assumed that the alternative indicator is correct. If there is little or no agreement between the alternative and gold standard indi- cators, one is forced to either re-examine the alternative indicator or question the appropriateness of the gold standard. While there is no real gold standard of household food security, we looked at the relative validity of our food security groupings against other household characteristics normally associ- ated with food security status.
In the case of the Mozambique survey, the current food security rankings were associated with several household characteristics. Households with greater food insecurity also demonstrated less frequent meals, longer duration of food insufficiencies, lower food stocks, less home-grown food consump- tion, less income from farm sources, less marketed produce, fewer adult household members, less area and fewer plots cultivated, and fewer household possessions. These observations generally concur with a priori expectations of household characteristics that are associated with food insecure households.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Akd
eniz
Uni
vers
itesi
] at
02:
22 2
0 D
ecem
ber
2014
Table 5. Household characteristics by level of household food security
Food secure Food insecurity Sample Mild Moderate Severe average
Average per capita income (US$) Canadian Indonesia 287 1 64 99 50 163
Youma1 of :::y:ia** 43 22 18 29
457 268 347 202 423 Mozambique 11 10 11 11 11
Studies phi(ippines+* 2 65 196 199 183 220 Thailand 842 800 61 0 1,094 834
Average family size Indonesia*' 5.8 5.4 5.4 4.6 5.4 Laos* 5.9 6.4 7.1 6.3 Malaysia 4.7 5.0 4.4 4.6 4.7 Mozambique 5.9 5.6 5.5 5.6 5.7 Philippines** 4.7 5.3 5.8 5.9 5.2 Thailand 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.4 4.5
Average available land (hectares) Indonesia 0.3 0.5 5.5 0.2 2.0 Laos 1 .O 1 .O 0.8 1 .O Malaysia*' 3.2 2.0 1.5 1.1 3.0 Mozambique 2.4 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.4 Philippines 0.9 0.9 0.5 0.4 0.8 Thailand n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Index of number and frequency of foods consumed Indonesia 1,220 1,109 914 71 2 1,019 Laos" 1,390 948 1,051 1,153 Malaysia" 1,281 1,054 771 871 1,228 Mozambique" 7,247 6,075 5,060 4,697 5,632 Philippines" 1,511 1,408 1,340 1,317 1,432 Thailand" 1,459 1.458 1,450 1,183 1,449
Note: the Mozambique calculation included more food items, hence the different range of values. Significance based on Analysis of Variance test, or the non-parametric equivalent the Kmskal- Wallis test.
Significantly different at the 1 % level " Significantly different at the 5% level
"'Significantly different at the 10% level
Table 5 provides an overview of some key relationships found in the six countries. The aggregated data, however, camouflages the regional differences that were observed. This is particularly true for per capita income in Mozambique. The average income for the surveyed households in Tete is US$15, Sofala US$7 and Zambezia US$lO, with food secure households in each province having significantly higher income than food insecure households.5
5. The level o f household income may appear to be very low, but the results are similar to those reported in a 1992 survey carried out in the province o f Nampula. Also, the conversion o f per capita income to US dollars, particularly for Laos and Mozambique with rapidly rising exchange rates, is sensitive to the exchange rate used.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Akd
eniz
Uni
vers
itesi
] at
02:
22 2
0 D
ecem
ber
2014
Truman T . Thillips Q Daphne 6. Taylor 2P
Household income benchmarks or poverty lines are commonly used to differentiate food secure and food insecure households. In our experience, however, it is difficult to set this benchmark before understanding how house- holds perceive their food security. In almost all surveys, we found that food secure households in a given region have statistically higher incomes than
!Household those classified as severely food insecure, although all of them may be consid- Food Security: ered poor. We also found that average household income at a given food inse- gn gs,e,,ent curity level varies from region to region. An income or poverty line Method benchmark, therefore, is not transferable across regions. It may be suggested that food insecurity levels be used to better define poverty lines in a given population.
Little association with food security was also found for indicators such as the area of farmed land and household size. The fact that household food security may not show an association with cultivated area is consistent with the fact that many rural agricultural households derive income from non- agricultural sources and that many purchase part or most of their food for consumption. We found that totally food self-sufficient households are few. Similarly, family size has not shown a consistent pattern of association with household food security. In a number of locations, this relationship was found to be statistically significant, but in some cases, larger households were more food secure (Indonesia), and in still other cases, the reverse was observed, with smaller households enjoying higher food security (Laos and the Philippines).
The Lao study provides a glimpse of the relationship between the percep- tion-based assessment of household food insecurity and the nutritional status of the children of those households. Height, weight and age measurements were taken from 506 children under five years of age. This information was used to calculate standard height-for-age, weight-for-age and weight-for- height z-scores (Beaton et al., 1990). The estimates of the percentage of wasting and stunting based on these 506 children were similar to those of a large nutritional survey undertaken by FA0 in Laos in 1992 (FAO, 1994).
Figure 2 shows the relationship of child stunting (height-for-age scores less than -2.0 standard deviations) and household food security level according to age. For children over one year of age, the average HAZ score decreases (meaning that stunting increases) as the food insecurity of the household increases. During the first year of life, the results suggest that the food security status of the household is not a major contributor to the nutritional status of children. It is possible that breast-feeding and general care for the child are more significant determinants at this early age, and that as children grow, their nutritional status is increasingly related to household food security status (see also, Begin et al., 1993).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Akd
eniz
Uni
vers
itesi
] at
02:
22 2
0 D
ecem
ber
2014
Figure 2. Average child HAZ scores by age and curreiit food security status of households (Laos)
Canadian Journal of -3
Development N
Studies I g .2
B 1
0
0 to 12 months (3 lo 24 menths 26 l o 60 months
Age 01 ohlld
.Mild Insecurity .Mod.rrte Inreourity OSevete Insecurity
In Mozambique, households classified as improving on the long term were found to have reached a higher level of education and to have resided in the area longer than households in the other three food security groups had. At- risk households tended to have the lowest level of education. A comparison of stable (food secure) with chronic (food insecure) households showed that the former tend to have more food stocks than do the latter. While the aggregate Mozambican results suggest a rather consistent relationship between household food security and such factors as income, education, and percent- age of food grown and purchased, the relative importance of these indicators appears to differ from district to district.
The short- and long-term predicted food security status is probably best validated with repeated assessments over time. This has not yet been done. Current food secure households, however, tend to have more insurance than risk, and households with severe food insecurity tend to have less insurance than risk. These observations seem logical, because a household's current status is determined by its recent past. Food secure households had to be food secure in the past or had to improve from a lesser state by having more insurance than risk. Conversely, households with severe food insecurity had to be severely food insecure in the past or to have worsened from a better position by having food insecurity risk greater than insurance. Current status, insurance and risk are independently determined.
Finally, we have always believed that the results of the survey are for the communities and should be presented to the survey site community leaders for their use. In this way, the people themselves can examine the appropriateness of the perception-based household food security classifications. Our partners in
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Akd
eniz
Uni
vers
itesi
] at
02:
22 2
0 D
ecem
ber
2014
Truman T . Thillips & 'Daphne S. Taylor 273
all countries, except Mozambique, have returned to the survey sites and discussed the results with community leaders. The consensus of community leaders in all cases has been that the characterization of the communities by levels of food insecurity accurately describes their communities.
CONCLUSION: FUTURE WORK Pousehold Food Security: 3ln 3lssessment
This paper presents an assessment of household food security from six Method
countries over seven years. The results are comparable in that a similar survey instrument and method of analysis was used in all countries. While the results are comparable, they do not imply that the characteristics of a food secure household in Mozambique are the same as those of a food secure household in the surveyed regions of Malaysia, for example. Closer examination of the individual survey site and country results reveals that the causes of food inse- curity and the coping mechanisms used by households differ from region to region and from country to country.
The different studies also differ in the scope of the population they represent. In all cases, the studies should be representative of the surveyed villages. The Mozambican survey is the only case that used a sampling approach where the results could be expressed in terms of districts and zones. The Mozambican project illustrates that given sufficient resources and dedi- cation, the approach can be used to provide representative results for a much larger than surveyed population.
In the future, we hope to do more work in year-round surveying to examine the impact of season or timing on the results. We would also like to conduct longitudinal studies in order to validate the forecasted food security grouping, particularly for at-risk and improving groups.
Since the approach has been applied almost exclusively to rural areas in developing countries, we would also like to apply the assessment method to urban areas in developing countries, as well as to households in developed countries. Whether the method can be used repeatedly, or what would be needed to undertake or modify the approach so that it could be used repeat- edly must still be determined. Finally, we would like to expand the expert system analysis to identify household-level food security solutions that can be aggregated for community- or district-level implementation.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Akd
eniz
Uni
vers
itesi
] at
02:
22 2
0 D
ecem
ber
2014
REFERENCES
Beaton, G., A. Kelly, J. Kevany, R. Martorell and J. Mason, "Appropriate Uses of Anthropometric Indices in Children:' Nutrition Policy Discussion Paper No. 7, Geneva, ACCISCN, United Nations, 1990.
G-~n~dian Begin, F., M. Alladoumgue, K. Nandjingar and H. Delisle, "Household Dietary Journal of Adequacy and Individual Nutritional Status: Relationship and Seasonal Effect
Development in a Sahelian Community of Chad:' Food Nutrition Bulletin, 14, 1993, p. 304- Studies
313.
Chung, K., L. Haddad, J. Ramakrishna and F. Riely, Identifying the Food Insecure: The Application of Mixed-Method Approaches in India, Washington, DC, International Food Policy Research Institute, 1997.
dTp Studies, Report I Household Food Sufficiency Status in the Zambezi Valley and Central Mozambique, Guelph, Ontario, 1996.
, Report 11 Household Food Security Statw in the Zambezi Valley and Central Mozambique, Guelph, Ontario, 1995.
EXSYS, Inc., The EXSYS Developer Overview, Albuquerque, New Mexico, EXSYS, Inc., 1995.
FAO, Diagnostic de la situation nutritionnelle et consommation alimentaire au Laos, Vientiane, Laos, Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, 1994.
Lao Council of Medical Science, Food Security and Nutritional Analysis, Vientiane, Laos, Ministry of Health, 1996.
Maxwell, S., Food Security in Developing Countries: Issues and Options for the 1990s, IDS Bulletin, 21,3, 1990.
MOAIMSUIUA Research Team, The Determinants of Household Income and Consumption in Rural Nampula Province: Implications for Food Security and Agricultural Policy Reform, Maputo, Ministry of Agriculture, 1992.
Phillips, T.P. and D.S. Taylor, "Food Security: An Analysis of the SEARCAIGuelph Survey:' Working Paper No. 1, Guelph, Ontario, Centre for Food Security, 1990.
Sen, A., Food and Freedom, Cambridge, Mass., Harvard Institute of Economic Research, 1988.
, Commodities and Capabilities, Amsterdam, North-Holland, 1985.
Taylor, D.S. and T.P. Phillips, Who? Where? and Why?Are Households Food Insecure in Southeast Asia: An Analysis of the Phase 11 SEARCA/Guelph Survey, Guelph, Centre for Food Security, 1993.
World Bank, Poverty and Hunger - Issues and Options for Food Security in Developing Countries, Washington, DC, World Bank, 1986.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Akd
eniz
Uni
vers
itesi
] at
02:
22 2
0 D
ecem
ber
2014
Truman T . Thillips & Daphne 5. Taylor
APPENDIX
Questionnaire identification: location of household and name of respondent. Household composition and education: roster of household members, their sex, age,
education, literacy, and occupations. Household facilities: length and status of residence, construction of
home, water source, sanitation facilities, lighting, access to land, and household fixtures.
Health: common complaints, frequency, severity, timing. and health needs.
Food consumption: frequency, sufficiency, timing and duration of insufficiencies, and quality of 16 food items.
Food sources for consumption: percentage of consumed food that is home grown, purchased, in-kind, gathered, or received as a gift, and duration of food reserves for 16 food items.
Food shortages and resources: experience, impact and likelihood of 10 events that can disrupt consumption, household coping mechanisms, confidence in coping mechanisms, market and consumption needs.
Household expenses and income: expenses, sources, sufficiency and changes in income, marketing, employment and credit needs, and purchasing flexibility.
Household production: composition, changes, losses, marketing, and satisfaction with household production activities.
Farm production techniques: access, use and benefits from extension services, use of improved technologies, and production needs.
Intervention programs: participation, role, benefit, and need for intervention programs.
The following outlines the questionnaire and provides a brief description of the information sought in each section.
flousehold 'Food Security: 3ln 3lssessment Method
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Akd
eniz
Uni
vers
itesi
] at
02:
22 2
0 D
ecem
ber
2014
