Factors affecting household food security in rural northern hinterland of Pakistan

Accepted Manuscript Factors affecting household food security in rural northern hinterland of Pakistan Abdullah, Deyi Zhou, Tariq Shah, Sajjad Ali, Waqar Ahmad, Izhar Ud Din, Aasir Ilyas PII: DOI: Reference:

S1658-077X(16)30170-9 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jssas.2017.05.003 JSSAS 274

To appear in:

Journal of the Saudi Society of Agricultural Sciences

Received Date: Accepted Date:

7 October 2016 4 May 2017

Please cite this article as: Abdullah, Zhou, D., Shah, T., Ali, S., Ahmad, W., Din, I.U., Ilyas, A., Factors affecting household food security in rural northern hinterland of Pakistan, Journal of the Saudi Society of Agricultural Sciences (2017), doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jssas.2017.05.003

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

1|P ag e

Factors affecting household food security in rural northern hinterland of Pakistan

a

Abdullah*, aDeyi Zhou, bTariq Shah, aSajjad Ali, aWaqar Ahmad, cIzhar Ud Din, aAasir Ilyas

a

College of Economics & Management, Huazhong Agricultural University Wuhan 430070, Hubei P.R China b

Department of Economics & Development, University of Swat, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan

c

College of Public Administration & Land Resource Management, Huazhong Agricultural University Wuhan 430070, Hubei P. R China

Abdullah will do all correspondence with the journal. Email: [email protected] Mobile: 008615927636145 Postal Address: College of Economics & Management Huazhong Agricultural University, No. 1, Shizishan Road, Hongshan District, Wuhan 430070, Hubei, P. R. China. Acknowledgement: The authors would like to thanks to China Scholarship Council (CSC) for providing financial assistance.

* Corresponding Author

2|P ag e

Factors affecting household food security in rural northern hinterland of Pakistan Abstract The purpose of this study is to explore the factors that affect rural household food security in northern area of Pakistan. The random sampling technique was applied to collected data from 294 rural households through a face to face interview. A binary logistic regression technique was used to determine the factors that influence household food insecurity. The results of our study revealed that age, gender, education, remittances, unemployment, inflation assets, and disease are important factors determining household food insecurity. Moreover, gender played a dominant role in food insecurity as female headed household were food insecure while male headed household were food secure. The policies should be set to promote education, more focus on female headed household and encourage the inflow of remittances. Keywords: Northern Pakistan; food security; logistic regression; Malakand

3|P ag e

Introduction Food availability is a problem for everyone and especially for the developing world. Food security means the provision and access to nutritionally sufficient and culturally accepted food by each member of the household for healthy life obtained through socially acceptable ways. Food insecurity, on the other hand, is the uncertain or limited access to nutritionally adequate and safe food (Andersen, 1990; FAO, 2006). Food security is multidimensional in nature and that makes accurate measurement and policy targeting quite challenging for the policy makers. However, food security means ‘‘consistent, dependable access to enough food for active, healthy living’’(Coleman-Jensen, Nord, Andrews, & Carlson, 2011). The definition of food security in this study is based on the FAO’s definition; “a situation that exists when all people, at all times, have physical, social, and economic access to sufficient, safe, and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life”. This definition consists of four central parts: availability, stability, accessibility and utilization. A food system is said to be vulnerable when one or more of the four components of food security are uncertain and insecure (FAO, 2008).

Food insecurity has become a worldwide concern due to the increasing number of people which remain undernourished amounting to 842 million, approximately 12% of the total world’s population. Developing countries are intensely affected. This is really true in the case of Asia and Africa where more than 92% of the world’s undernourished people are living; 552 and 226.4 million respectively. About 294.7 million people are food insecure only in South Asia which is almost 35 percent of the total undernourishment world population (FAO, 2013). Almost one out of ten households is still unable to secure its food despite the considerable efforts put forward by both public and private sectors to assist poor household in getting their food needs (Nord, Andrews, & Carlson, 2005). More than three million children live in households classified as ‘‘very low food security’’ (Nord et al., 2005).

Food security has many dimensions, ranging from global, regional, national, local, and household to the individual level.. The determinants of food security differ at different levels i.e. from global to regional and national to household and individual level because food security is deemed to be a multidimensional phenomenon encompassing climate change, civil conflicts,

4|P ag e

natural disasters, and social norms. The (WB, 2001) has recognized three significant factors which affect food security i.e. availability of food, accessibility of food and utilization of food. Availability of food means ample food available through personal production. Accessibility of food means a reduction in poverty, merely the availability is not enough, and the poor household should have the ability to purchase it. Utilization of food means food having all the required nutrients in it (Doppler, 2002).

According to (Rukuni, 2002) Sub-Saharan Africa is facing a huge challenge, how to feed the ever increasing population. About 90 percent of the rural population depends on agriculture for their livelihoods, do not have the power to resolve the problem of food insecurity, and this is mainly due to low productivity and belligerent agro-ecological factors. World food summits and international development has only one agenda; reduction of hunger and food insecurity since 2001 and 1996 respectively. Pakistan is one of the developing countries of south Asia with an average per capita income of $ 1512 in 2015. For the improvement of the agriculture sector, the government of Pakistan introduced various modern and scientific methods and techniques. Agriculture is responsible for contribution to GDP by about 20.88 percent and to employment by 43.5 percent. The agriculture sector has both mediated and unmediated connections with other sectors of the economy and is playing an indispensable role in socio-economic uplift of the country. Presently, Pakistan is the sixth populous country in the world having an estimated population of 191.71 million with a growth rate of 1.92 percent. Out of the total population, about 75.19 million are living in urban areas while 116.52 million in rural areas in 2015. The percentage of rural population reduced from 61.4 percent to 60.8 percent during one year period, while that of the urban area increased from 38.5 percent to 39.2 by 2015. Rural population directly or indirectly depends on agriculture for its livelihood. Pakistan Vision 2025 seeks a Pakistan where “all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life” (Pakistan Economic Survey, 2015).

Pakistan and India are among the largest cereal producers in the world and still 500 million people go to bed hungry, hence south Asia is considered one of the food insecure regions of the world. Pakistan is also suffering from this evil of food insecurity (Asghar & Muhammad, 2013).

5|P ag e

According to the report of Sustainable Development Institute Policy (SDPI), about 48.9 percent population is food insecure, ranking 11th and is placed at ‘extreme risk’ by the Food Security Risk Index (FSRI) (SDPI, 2009). In Human Development Index (HDI) Pakistan is placed at 147th out of 188 countries in2015. . Pakistan’s HDI value is 0.538 out of one which is lower than Asia’s average value of 0.607 and world’s average value of 0.711(Pakistan Economic Survey, 2015). Food security in Pakistan has been divided into four categories by SDPI (a) Extremely insecure, (b) insecure, (c) at the borderline, and (d) reasonably secure (SDPI, 2009). The results of the SDPI report revealed that the situation of food security in Pakistan went from bad to worse from national to household level as compared to 2003. The number of food insecure districts in Pakistan was 38 while this number rose to 102 by 2009. This clearly shows the food insecurity situation in the country. Enhanced agricultural production is required for food security which will make the farming system less susceptible to climate change (SDPI, 2009). To see Pakistan free from hunger and malnutrition, Pakistan has joined Scaling up Nutrition (SUN) movement in 2013 to reduce the malnutrition by 50 percent (Pakistan Economic Survey, 2015).

Food insecurity has affected Pakistan for the last many years. A number of historical and significant factors are accountable for this like the war on terror, military operations in the residential areas, devastating floods which destroyed infrastructure and crops, and most recently the earthquake. This is clear from the Global Hunger Index (GHI) which shows the degree to which the problem has persisted. Pakistan rank 93 out of 104 countries on Global Hunger Index, though the score decreased from 43.6 to 33.9 during the period 1990 to 2015, but the situation remain the same, as Pakistan is still in the category of ‘extremely alarming’ (IFPRI, 2015)1.

1

the categories are low (GHI ≤ 4.9), moderate (5.0 ≤ GHI ≤ 9.9), serious

(10.0≤GHI≤19.9), alarming (20.0 ≤ GHI ≤ 29.9), and extremely alarming (≥ 30.0)

6|P ag e

Food security is indeed a key problem in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KPK) as the province is not producing enough quantity to meet the demand and is importing food from other provinces which are subsidized. It is stressed to increase the yield of different crops by adopting advance tools and technology to bridge the gap between food supply and demand (The Nation, 2017). According to Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC, 2017) the province of KPK is classified into moderately food insecure as four districts are highly food insecure; ten districts are moderately food insecure and eleven districts are generally food secure including district Malakand as shown in Figure 1.

Malakand (Pashto: ‫ )مالکنډ‬is located in the north of Pakistan and is a district of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province. The total area of district Malakand is of 952 km2 (368 sq mi) and having a population of 567,581 with a density of 600/km2 (1500/sq mi). The majority of the people belong to Pashtun tribe and Pashto is their native language. The main source of income includes trade, public service and agriculture. The major source of income is agriculture and the total cultivatable land being 456,600 hectares (1,763 sq mi). Malakand is a hilly area; its soil is loamy and moist and is irrigated by the Swat River which flows from Swat, through Kohistan and joins the river Kabul near Peshawar. The average rainfall in the area is not enough; hence, the soil needs artificial irrigation. The district of Malakand is surrounded by high mountains rich with mineral resources which are yet to be exploited. Agriculture is the main activity in the area and the important crops were grown are rice, maize, millet, tobacco, sugarcane, barley and grain. The agriculture sector of this area is in transition phase and new technology is being adopted quite rapidly by smallholder farmers and as a consequence the production as well as the food security situation improved over the last few years.

The determinants of food security have been investigated for various countries including Ethiopia (Bogale, 2012), Ghana (Owusu, Abdulai, & Abdul-Rahman, 2011), Zimbabwe (Mango, Zamasiya, Makate, Nyikahadzoi, & Siziba, 2014), Kenya (Kassie, Ndiritu, & Stage, 2014), Brazil (Felker-Kantor & Wood, 2012) and Nigeria (Arene & Anyaeji, 2010). Some studies for Pakistan are (Asghar & Muhammad, 2013; Shaikh, 2007; Sultana & Kiani, 2011), but they are either for whole Pakistan (Gill & Khan, 2010) or for another province i.e. for Punjab (MK Bashir, S Schilizzi, & R Pandit, 2013a) and some studies also utilized secondary data (Asghar & Muhammad, 2013; Sultana & Kiani, 2011). A study examining the determinants of food security with respect to district Malakand KPK is missing, therefore, this research is planned to fill this gap.

7|P ag e

The purpose of this research is to examine the socio-economic factors that influence food security in district Malakand of the province of KPK, Pakistan.

Literature Review Definition of the concept The determinants of food security differ at different levels i.e. from global to regional and national to household and individual level because food security is deemed to be a multidimensional phenomenon encompassing climate change, civil conflicts, natural disasters, and social norms. Since world food crisis of 1972-74 and food price shock of 2006-08, food insecurity has attracted much attention from program implementers and policy makers due to the high impact of hunger and malnutrition on people (Gebre, 2012; Sasson, 2012). It is suggested based on the evidence from these two periods that poor household, especially from developing world, are hit hard by such crises because food is deficient and prices are skyrocketed and out of their purchasing power (Gebre, 2012; Tyner, 2013).

Factors determining food security A number of factors influence household food security including household assets (Guo 2011); homeownership (Rose, Gundersen, & Oliveira, 1998); household saving (Frongillo, Olson, Rauschenbach, & Kendall, 1997); financial constraints (Chang, Chatterjee, & Kim, 2014); access to credit (Gundersen & Gruber, 2001; Ribar & Hamrick, 2003); education (Kidane, Alemu, & Kundhlande, 2005); ownership of livestock (Ali & Khan, 2013); jobs loss and low level of income (Loopstra & Tarasuk, 2013); knowledge of the household about food storage, processing, nutrition and management of illness (Riely, Mock, Cogill, Bailey, & Kenefick, 1999); corruption, fiscal imprudence, huge debts and policy inconsistency (Akpan, 2009); nonfarm work (Owusu et al., 2011); gender of the household head (Kassie et al., 2014); size of the family, cultivated land size, fertility of soil, irrigation access, number of extension visits, fertilizer use and improved seed (Bogale, 2012); remittances and access to market information, and age of the household head (Mango et al., 2014); dependency ratio, electricity connection,

8|P ag e

irrigation availability (Asghar & Muhammad, 2013); monthly income, structure of the family (M. Bashir et al., 2013a); and infrastructural availability (Gill & Khan, 2010).

Sub-Saharan Africa Sub-Saharan Africa is facing a huge challenge of feeding the ever increasing population. About 90 percent of the rural population depends on agriculture for their livelihoods, still they are suffering from the problem of food insecurity, and this is mainly due to low productivity and belligerent agro-ecological factors. World food summits and international development has only one agenda; reduction of hunger and food insecurity(Rukuni, 2002), but still some household remain deficient in food resources. South Africans governments pledged to half poverty rate from 2004 to 2014. It is hard to manage this goal with household food security. Hence, in 2002, the government adopted Integrated Food Security Strategy (IFSS). The vision of this strategy is: “to attain universal physical, social and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food by all South Africans at all times to meet their dietary and food preferences for an active and healthy life” (IFSS, 2002). According to IFSS, South Africa is confronted with various key challenges regarding food security. Nevertheless, South Africa still is lacking precise and recognized ways to measure food insecurity and presently has no controlled method of monitoring the status of food security. (De Cock et al., 2013) examined the food security situation in Limpopo Province. Both qualitative and quantitative data were utilized for the purpose of analysis. The study found that 53 percent of the rural households were food insecure. Important determinants were human capital (education), household size, dependency ratio, household income and the area in which the study was undertaken. (Bogale, 2012) examined the factors which determine the household level of susceptibility to food insecurity by utilizing method of expected poverty approach having data obtained from 277 randomly selected household in Ethiopia. The food insecurity of household is associated with many factors including the size of the family, cultivated land size, the fertility of soil, irrigation access, number of extension visits, fertilizer use and improved seed. The cut-off level has been computed and household whose expenditure falls below the specified level was identified as vulnerable. The total number of food insecure household was lower (103) than vulnerable household (111). According to (Owusu et al., 2011) non-farm work affect household

9|P ag e

food security in Ghana and the result of the study supported the widely accepted view about nonfarm income; that it adds to eradication of poverty, while (Mango et al., 2014) investigated factors affecting household food security in district Mudzi of Zimbabwe by using data obtained from 120 randomly selected household through a structured questionnaire. Age of the household head, education of household head, household labor size, and ownership of livestock, remittances and access to market information were found to be positively influencing household food security.

Mexico and USA The (WB, 2001) has recognized three significant factors which affect food security i.e. availability of food, accessibility of food and utilization of food. Availability of food means ample food available through personal production. Accessibility of food means a reduction in poverty, merely the availability is not enough, and the poor household should have the ability to purchase it. Utilization of food means food having all the required nutrients in it (Doppler, 2002). (Appendini & Quijada, 2016) conducted a study for Mexico in which the main focus was on food security and quality. The study suggested motivating small farmers to produce high-quality maize. The Economic Research Service (ERS) of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) report said that about 14.9 percent American household were found food insecure, means that they were deficient in food and having trouble maintaining their healthy lifestyle, sometime during the year. In addition, 5.7 percent of American household had to reduce their quantity of food intake, this situation is rightly termed as ‘‘very low food security’’ by the USDA (Coleman-Jensen et al., 2011). Logistic regression model Different researchers employed different methods for the analysis of the data, but many of them utilized logistic regression technique including (Amaza, Umeh, Helsen, & Adejobi, 2006; Arene & Anyaeji, 2010; Felker-Kantor & Wood, 2012; Haile, Alemu, & Kudhlande, 2005) because of the nature of data. The determinants of household food security in Nigeria were investigated by employing logistic regression model and it was found that about 60 percent of the households were food insecure. Results revealed income and household head age to be the most significant factors determining food security (Arene & Anyaeji, 2010). The Brazil bureau of the census carried out a national household survey consisting of 121,708 representative

10 | P a g e

households in 2009. They applied logistic regression analysis and find that female-headed household are more insecure as compared to male-headed household. In addition, the result discloses that the existence of young children aging between zero and ten and older children age between 11 and 18 leads to food insecurity (Felker-Kantor & Wood, 2012). The factors influencing household food security in Nigeria were examined by (Amaza et al., 2006) by using logistic regression methodology. Results of the study revealed that household size is the key determinant of food security. Food insecurity increases with the increase in the number of family members and vice versa. (Haile et al., 2005) probed the determinants of food insecurity by employing logistic regression methodology on data collected from the household. The factors held accountable for food security are farm size, ownership of ox, use of fertilizer, household head education, the size of the household and household per capita production.

Role of gender Gender of the household has an important role in household food security. (Kassie et al., 2014) investigated association between food security and gender of household head in the rural area of Kenya. Some discernible and indiscernible characteristics were held accountable for the difference in food security between male headed household and female-headed household. The study suggests that even if the household head has same visible characteristics; invisible qualities are responsible for the difference in food security level. (Ibnouf, 2011) showed that women as compared to men are more likely to play a positive role in household food security; the latter group migrates seasonally and sometimes permanently. But (Felker-Kantor & Wood, 2012) found that female-headed household is more insecure as compared to male-headed household. According to (Ibnouf, 2011) women are solely responsible for household food preparation, processing and preservation. The study revealed that the major problems which women face as a producer are lacking access to advanced production techniques such as high-quality seeds, fertilizers, credit access, pesticides and marketing services due to gender-biased traditions. Food security in Pakistan Various studies have been undertaken in case of Pakistan to analyze the determinants of household food security encompassing (Ali & Khan, 2013; Asghar & Muhammad, 2013; MK

11 | P a g e

Bashir, S Schilizzi, & Ram Pandit, 2013b; Gill & Khan, 2010; Shaikh, 2007; Sultana & Kiani, 2011).

(Asghar & Muhammad, 2013) examined the determinants of food insecurity for the general household as well as for farmers. The data is obtained from Pakistan Social and Living standard Measurement (PSLM) 2007-08 survey which is conducted by the Federal Bureau of Statistics, Pakistan. Some variables like household size, income, number of rooms, dependency ratio, electricity connection, irrigation availability, and the age of household head were found significantly different from zero. The calorie intake methodology was utilized by (M. Bashir et al., 2013a) in examining the determinants of food security for Punjab. The data was collected from 12 districts and were consists of 1152 household. Results of the study indicated that about 23% of the household were found to be food insecure. A number of factors were found to play a significant role in household food security like livestock ownership, monthly income, and size of the family, the structure of the family, age and education of the household head.

(Sultana & Kiani, 2011) analyzed the determinants of household food security for Pakistan by utilizing logistic regression technique on microdata obtained from PSLM 2007-08. Some factors were identified to have significant and positive impact on household food security: place of residence, dependency ratio, social capital, the status of employment and educational attainment. While (Gill & Khan, 2010) examined the determinants of household food security at the district level and come up with the conclusion that household food poverty is higher for rural areas as compared to urban areas. A number of factors account for this i.e. infrastructural availability, access to education and health, gender, purchasing power and public utilities like safe drinking water and electricity. Food security at the national level does not imply food security at provincial, district or household level. The disparity exists among provinces, and even within household, it cannot be ensured that each member of the household is food secure, disregarding the fact that household as a whole is food secure. They emphasized on social factors and deemed it significant for policy makers.

Methodology and Data

12 | P a g e

Data Collection The data was collected by employing simple random sampling technique through a structured questionnaire. The questionnaire was pre-tested before the actual survey and then it was delivered verbally to the majority of the participant due to the prevalence of widespread illiteracy in the study area. A total of 294 households were covered in this study. About 196 respondents were taken from Tehsil Batkhela and 98 from Tehsil Dargai due to their size of population e.g. 339442 and 228139 respectively (KPBOS, 2017). Because of the extended family system and due to current transition in the family structure we consider household as those people who work and eat together and share the income and expenditures as one household. The survey covered many demographic and socioeconomic variables that affect household food security. The important socio-economic variables include age, gender, household head education, family size, credit access, ownership of assets (crop, land and livestock), respondent perception of his food security status, remittances, unemployment and inflation. We also inquire about the sources of food, whether they produce it by themselves or purchase from the market. Furthermore, they were asked about the causes of food insecurity. Several factors were identified as potentially responsible for food insecurity and the respondents were ask about them, like inflation, unemployment, selfish behavior of the household, unequal distribution of wealth etc. In developing world people generally try to get enough food for their family and they do not care about the nutritional value of food.

Model specification In this study we have used the definition of FAO for food security which states “a situation that exists when all people, at all times, have physical, social, and economic access to sufficient, safe, and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life” (FAO, 2008). Since the dependent variable food security is qualitative in nature means dichotomous, it can only take two values either the presence of something or absence, so by pursuing the conventional method of binary response it will either take the value of 1 or zero. This value of 1 means that household is food secure and zero means otherwise because this measure of food security in binary manner yields results which have more policy implications (Coleman-Jensen et al., 2011).. This can be achieved by using the linear probability model (LPM). But this LPM is plagued by many problems including heteroscedasticity of the

13 | P a g e

error term, the possibility of ‘y’ lying outside the range (0, 1). To avoid the problems associated with the LPM, we should model the relationship in such a way that ‘y’ is unobservable variable and the relationship is given by

Y = 1 if Y> 0 0 if Y < 0

Where 1 stands for food security and zero for food insecurity. Logistic regression technique can be used to model the relationship between the dichotomous dependent variable and set of independent variables that are hypothesized to affect the outcome. The logistic regression model characterizing the adoption of household food security is given by (Wooldridge, 2010)

This [Pi/(1 − Pi)] is simply the odds ratio in favor of food security i.e. the ratio of the probability that the household is food secure to the probability that it is not food secure. The subscript ‘i’ shows the ith observation in the data. β0 is the intercept of the model, while X1, X2, X3… Xn are the explanatory variables. It should also be kept in mind that the estimated coefficients do not directly affect the change in corresponding explanatory variables on the probability of the outcome. Rather, the coefficients reflect the effect of individual explanatory variables on its log of odds. The positive coefficient shows that the odds ratio will increase as the explanatory variables increases, and conversely, the odds ratio will decrease as the explanatory variables decreases. The logistic regression coefficients are estimated by utilizing the maximum likelihood estimation methodology. As we know that the dependent variable, food security is a dummy variable in its nature, we hypothesized the following demographic, socio-economic and some other factors to be influencing the food security status accounting for the specific locality as shown in Table 1, because the literature suggests that food security varied considerably from one state to another, and even within the same region (Bartfeld & Dunifon, 2006; Coleman-Jensen et al., 2011).

14 | P a g e

Results and Discussion The aim of this research is to examine the factors influencing household food insecurity in northern rural areas of Pakistan. Quantitative data were collected during the period from June 2016 to July2016 from 294 households. The information gathered include demographic characteristics of the respondents as well as a host of other factors that are deemed to affect household food insecurity. Descriptive statistics were used to examine the food security status in northern area of Pakistan. In addition, logistic regression analysis was utilized to identify the factors influencing household food security.

Characteristics of the household Table 2 shows the characteristics of households.. The household head was contacted for collecting information because all the decision regarding households and especially those of monetary terms are related to him. The respondents were divided gender wise as 233 (79.3%) male and 61 (20.7%) females. In majority of the household male is the head of the household as it is a male dominant society and also it is considered the responsibility of male member to provide food and shelter to his family members. In few cases females also leads the household due to death of husband or some other reasons. The respondents were quite mature with respect to ages and could provide food to their family members, they were distributed 3 (1%) in less than 20 category, 16 (5.4%) in 20-29, 93 (31.6%) in 30-39, 107 (36.4%) in 40-49, and 75 (25.5%) in 50 and above. The education of the respondents were not too bad as 96 (32.7%) had primary schooling, 35 (11.9%) high school, 52 (17.7%) college, 44 (15%) university and 67 (22.8%) did not discloses their education level. Many respondents 83 (28.2%) were government employees and were earning stable income and having security of job. Some were shopkeeper 53 (18%) and having good running business, but the most vulnerable section in the study area is of daily wagers 74 (25.5%), farmers 20 (6.8%) and fisherman 4 (1.4%) while others 60 (20.4%) had not reveal their occupation. The daily wagers were the most disadvantage section of the society, as their days work is insecure and so their nutritional intake of food is negatively affected. One other factor with respect to food security is household size. In the study area the majority of the household had big family size because it is considered as a norm to have high number of family

15 | P a g e

members. The distribution of household size is 14 (4.8%) had 2-3 members, 77 (26.2%) had 4-5 members, 90 (30.6%) had 6-7 members, 75 (25.5%) had 8-9 members, and 38 (12.9%) had 10 and above members. In the study area big family is considered as a social and economic norm and every household wish to have a bigger family. In addition, they prefer male babies over females, because males can work and earn some money while females do not. Rural Household food sources With the passage of time the nature of society is changing continuously. In the current scenario, most people prefer to work in the offices and avoid jobs involving physical labor. Although the study area is a rural one but still people are inclined towards businesses or government jobs and they avoid farming. As it is clear from Table 3 that most of the rural households about 253 (86%) were net purchaser of food. Some produce their own food and also purchase from the market 37 (12.58%), while only 4 (1.36%) depends on their own production for food which is extremely low percentage. Table 4 indicates the food security situation, about 22% of the respondents fear that food will run out in the near future. This means that they have access to food and were consuming a handsome amount of it, but their source of income is vulnerable. Moreover the mean of the meals per day is 2.89 which is less than the normally required three meals a day, and the number of days meat, fish or chicken is taken per week is 1.26 which is extremely low and results in malnutrition in children. Furthermore, exactly 81% of the respondents claimed that food is always sufficient for them indicating that the food security situation is quite satisfactory and people had access to food, while 19% fear that food is not sufficient for them.

Food insecurity causes The household food insecurity means that people either does not have access to food or are unable to purchase it. In either case they had to suffer from the hardships of hunger and poverty. The problem of food security has been debated for decades. It is a complex and multidimensional phenomenon. There are no universal causes of food security but vary with different countries and cultures. Previous literature suggests that causes of food insecurity include long period of poverty and lack of adequate productive resources (Barrett, 2010),

16 | P a g e

education of the household, size of the household, livestock ownership, access to market and remittances (Mango et al., 2014). In addition, low income is a major cause for household food insecurity because they do not have enough money to meet their food requirements (Asghar & Muhammad, 2013). Moreover, the role of productive resources such as agricultural technology has a transformative effect on the performance of agriculture (Kassie, Shiferaw, & Muricho, 2011). Agricultural technology has the potential to reduce food insecurity. For example such as improved seeds leading towards higher productivity (Kassie, Jaleta, Shiferaw, Mmbando, & De Groote, 2012), while the risk of crop failure can be reduced with the help of irrigation (Hagos, Jayasinghe, Awulachew, Loulseged, & Yilma, 2012). By conducting the survey this research identified many significant causes of food insecurity in the northern area of Pakistan as shown in Table5. The most important cause is inflation as 75 (25.5%) of the respondents believe that it is the crucial factor in determining food security. The rate of inflation remained consistently on the rise for the last few years and had decreased the purchasing power of the households resulting in food insecurity. The second most important cause in the eyes of the respondent is unemployment. Sometime the inhabitants might be unable to find jobs of their own choice or unemployed for other reasons which lead to food insecurity because household would not have enough money to purchase food items. The lack of enough labor is another cause of food insecurity. People consider male child as an asset because he can earn some money for the family, while females are not considered as a labor because they usually do not work outside. The fourth most important cause of food insecurity according to respondents was unequal distribution of wealth. . Many people are wealthy and have enough money to meet their basic needs while few are unable to fulfill their basic needs of life.. A famous saying “Health is wealth”. If someone is not healthy how could he be able to work and earn money. Health conditions are considered very important in causing food insecurity among the rural households. Moreover, most of the households belong to lower income group and if disease occur, they spent all of their income on health related issues and do not t had enough money left to purchase food. In addition, the behavior of the dwellers also matters. They do not take care of their neighbors which lead to the problem of food insecurity. Logistic regression model results

17 | P a g e

Various factors are responsible for food security including supply side factors, demand side factors, market related factors and many more. The socio-economic characteristics of the household are crucial in determining household food security. The most vulnerable groups to food security are rural households; they do not produce food by themselves and are net purchaser of food items. Vulnerability means the factors that place people at unfavorable situation where they are food insecure. During the interview it was found that majority of the households were living in extreme poverty and suffering from malnutrition. In the study area the relationship between food insecurity and poverty was very strong. Poverty not only leads to food insecurity but also decreases purchasing power for other goods and services such as housing, energy and water. Logistic regression model was applied to examine the effect of various independent variables on dependent variable, food security status. The food security status was modeled as a binary response variable where 1 = food secure and 0 = not secure. The overall predictive power of the model was high indicating that dependent variables had significant impact in explaining the food security status. The chi-square (96.85, p < 0.01) with df= 20). The independent variables which were found significant are gender, age, education, remittances, unemployment, inflation, assets and disease while the rest were found insignificant. The results are given in Table 6.

Age is an important factor in determining household food security status. The economic modeling indicates that age was significant with (odd ratio = 2.65, p=0.008). It was found in our sample data that household food insecurity varied significantly among different age groups. Household with older household were food secure and household with smaller heads were not food secure. The results are consistent with previous studies; all these studies confirm that older household head tend to have food security. In this research study, household were asked about assets, Does the household own assets (crop +land)? The variable was set by keeping in view the study area, because most of the household had not any asset at all. Assets in this study include crop and land or both. The effect of an asset on food security status was found significant (Odd ratio = 9.13, p = 0.03), meaning that household having assets were food secure compared to non-assets holders. The finding of this study is in conformity with other studies. For example, the lack of resources is associated with increased food insecurity at all levels of income (Chang et al., 2014). Moreover, the

18 | P a g e

assessment of food security at household level will be important for policy makers as most of the household grow their own food. The result of the study revealed that both physical and nonphysical assets are important in determining food security status of household (Mango et al., 2014).

Expenditure on health by the government is an important indicator of health situation in a country. In addition, civil society, individuals and other organizations also contribute in financing the health sector in Pakistan. According to World Bank the prescribed level of spending per capita on health is $44 while in Pakistan it is $37. However, the expenditure on health has increased to 0.45 percent of GDP over the period of one year. , still it is lower than the prescribed level. The loss of job and low income level were found to be the most important factors affecting food insecurity (Loopstra & Tarasuk, 2013). Income of the household cannot alone explain the food security status. Almost 58.9% of the household were living in poverty but were food secure while there were about 7% of the households in America whose income was high but were food insecure (Coleman-Jensen et al., 2011).

In this study education means the number of years the household head has attended the school. Approximately 28.2% of the respondents were government employees. Education was found significant (odd ratio = 0.60, p = 0.005). The odd-ratio is positive in case of higher education; people with higher education were more likely to get higher paying jobs. Education also gives them knowledge and awareness and increases the chances of obtaining job. Education played a key role in household food security. Specifically, female education is important because food preparation and serving is done by them (Asghar & Muhammad, 2013). The result of this study indicated that education has a positive influence on food security status. The more the educated household head is the more food secure the household will be and vice versa. The results of this study are consistent with (Amaza et al., 2006; Asghar & Muhammad, 2013; M. Bashir et al., 2013a; M. K. Bashir, Schilizzi, & Pandit, 2012; Gebre, 2012; Idrisa, Gwary, & Shehu, 2008; Kaiser et al., 2003; Makombe, Lewin, & Fisher, 2010).

19 | P a g e

The PSLM Survey 2015 indicated that there is an improvement in the literacy rate to 60% from 58% last year. The rate of literacy is higher in urban areas compared to rural areas and higher among male than female. The province of KPK is third in Pakistan with 53 % literacy rate. Education is significant in determining rural household food insecurity. So the food security level can be enhanced by promoting the level of education in the study area. The global food prices increased as reported by Food and Agriculture Organization. The current inflation rate of Pakistan is reported to be 4.2 percent in 2015. Rural Households are vulnerable to high inflation rate. Currently, inflation is a burning issue in Pakistan. In the study area the question related to inflation was formulated as Does inflation leads towards food insecurity? The study shows that inflation has negative impact on food security status of the rural household in northern area of Pakistan. High inflation leads to lower purchasing power and ultimately affects food security status. The fall in oil price in international market was one of the important factors that result in decreasing the inflation. Still household believe that inflation is the major factor influencing its food security status. The Benazir Income Support Program (BISP) is an effective program providing cash to poor household all over the country. The purpose of the program is to reduce poverty and promote equitable distribution of wealth. The rapid increase in population affects the development objectives of the government. The rise in population negatively affects employment, social security programs and economic resources.

Remittances had always been remained one of the important source of income and external finances for many poor people across developing countries and a promising source of economic growth (Jebran, Abdullah, Iqbal, & Ullah, 2016). In the current study area, majority of the people (at least one member from each family) are outside of the home and doing jobs in different foreign countries, especially in Gulf region. Every year they send a lot of money to home country. The household were asked whether they receive remittances or not? The effect of remittances was found significant (odd ratio = 85.496, P = 0.001). People receiving remittances were found food secure while those who do not receive remittances were lacking food security. Remittances provide an alternative form of income (Nyikahadzoi et al., 2012). Those household who receive remittances can purchase a variety of foods and are food secure. Household with remittances are food secure compared to that without remittances. Remittances are deemed an

20 | P a g e

important source of foreign earnings that can support different segment of the economy in developing countries. Remittances are the second largest source of foreign earnings after exports. Despite the decrease in oil prices, remittances remain on the same rate from GCC countries. During the fiscal year (2015) a high growth was observed in remittances about 18.2 percent and reached to 18.7 billion dollars. Similarly in 2016, the value of remittances reached to 16.034 billion dollars. A number of factors lead to the increase in remittances including the reduction in cost of sending money, skill matching and strengthening Pakistan remittance initiative (PRI). PRI is playing a key role in facilitation and efficient flow of remittances in the country. PRI encourage people to send their money through proper channel.

It remains one of the most important problems in Pakistan. The respondents were asked whether food insecurity is caused by unemployment. It was found significant at 10% level. People who were unemployed were food insecure and vice versa. Development and population growth are interconnected. Through this development resources are produced which can be used to improve health and education. But huge increase in population can be problematic for a country as it is difficult to provide health and education to the ever increasing people. Population structure is very important characteristics of populations as it gives us the overall population by age or by sex. The division of population is made into the following groups: children (0-14 years), adults (15-60 years) and old (more than 60 years). The dependent population includes children and old people. It is necessary to understand the relationship between household food security and employment because the urban poor do not have enough resources to produce their own production. The income of the worker is higher if he is working as a full time rather than part-time. Therefore, this increased income enables the household to buy food items and other services. Conclusion The present study indicates that education as an important factor determining household food security in the study area. Surprisingly female education was found insignificant. There may be one possible reason for it. In the study area all the decisions involving financial matters are taken by males and females do not have anything to say. Therefore, if a female has higher education it does not matter in the affairs of household.

21 | P a g e

The purpose of this research is to examine the factors that affect the food security status among rural household in northern area of Pakistan. The method of logistic regression analysis is employed to achieve the desired objectives. The food security situation in the study area is not very bad as only 22% of the household fear that their food will run out in the future while 80% of the respondents do not fear such things. The major factors which affect household food security status are gender of the household head, age, education, remittances, unemployment, inflation assets (includes crop & land) and diseases. These factors not only influence the food requirements of household but also negatively affect their lives. This study revealed that female headed household is more vulnerable to food security as compared to male headed household. Therefore, the government as well as the international organizations needs to focus more specifically on female headed household and provide them with social security allowance as most of them are poor and do not have other employment opportunity. The second most important factor is education. The dwellers should be taught about the importance of knowledge and its role in uplifting the standard of living of a person. The third factor is remittances. It is suggested by (Jebran et al., 2016) that government should focus on the enhancement of remittances inflow. So that inhabitants may have more income and quality life style. Lastly, assets including crop and land are one of the key factors influencing food security status of the household. Moreover, every year a lot of food crops and products are wasted due to natural disasters, pest attacks, miss-management and many more. A proper policy should be formulated to safeguard the household from the negative effects of natural calamities. The notion of crop insurance should be introduced. . In the future the authors intend to investigate cultural diversity with respect to food security as different cultures have different food pattern and habits.

Acknowledgement

22 | P a g e

We would like to thanks China Scholarship Council (CSC) for providing financial support to this study. In addition, we would also like to extend our gratitude to anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions.

References Akpan, Eme O. 2009. Oil resource management and food insecurity in Nigeria. In European Report on Development (ERD) Conference in Accra, Ghana. Ali, A, and MA Khan. 2013. Livestock ownership in ensuring rural household food security in Pakistan. The J. of Animal & Plant Sci 23 (1):313-318. Amaza, PS, Joseph Chinedu Umeh, J Helsen, and AO Adejobi. 2006. Determinants and measurement of food insecurity in Nigeria: some empirical policy guide. In international association of agricultural economists annual meeting, August. Andersen, Sue Ann. 1990. Core indicators of nutritional state for difficult to sample populations. J Nutr 120 (11):1555-1660. Appendini, Kirsten, and Ma Guadalupe Quijada. 2016. Consumption strategies in Mexican rural households: pursuing food security with quality. Agriculture and Human Values 33 (2):439-454. Arene, CJ, and C Anyaeji. 2010. Determinants of food security among households in Nsukka Metropolis of Enugu State, Nigeria. Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences 30 (1):9-16. Asghar, Zahid, and Ahmed Muhammad. 2013. Socio-Economic Determinants of Household Food Insecurity in Pakistan. Bartfeld, Judi, and Rachel Dunifon. 2006. State‐level predictors of food insecurity among households with children. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 25 (4):921-942. Bashir, MK, S Schilizzi, and R Pandit. 2013a. Impact of socio-economic characteristics of rural households on food security: the case of the Punjab, Pakistan. JAPS, Journal of Animal and Plant Sciences 23 (2):611-618. Bashir, MK, S Schilizzi, and Ram Pandit. 2013b. REGIONAL SENSITIVITY OF RURAL HOUSEHOLD FOOD SECURITY: THE CASE OF PUNJAB, PAKISTAN. JAPS, Journal of Animal and Plant Sciences 23 (4):1200-1206.

23 | P a g e Bashir, Muhammad Khalid, Steven Schilizzi, and Ram Pandit. 2012. The determinants of rural household food security in the Punjab, Pakistan: an econometric analysis. Bogale, Ayalneh. 2012. Vulnerability of smallholder rural households to food insecurity in Eastern Ethiopia. Food Security 4 (4):581-591. Chang, Yunhee, Swarn Chatterjee, and Jinhee Kim. 2014. Household finance and food insecurity. Journal of Family and Economic Issues 35 (4):499-515. Coleman-Jensen, Alisha, Mark Nord, Margaret Andrews, and Steven Carlson. 2011. Statistical Supplement to Household Food Security in the United States in 2010: AP-057, USDA, Economic Research Service. http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/ap-administrative-publication/ap057.aspx. De Cock, Nathalie, Marijke D’Haese, Nick Vink, Cornelius Johannes Van Rooyen, Lotte Staelens, Hettie C Schönfeldt, and Luc D’Haese. 2013. Food security in rural areas of Limpopo province, South Africa. Food Security 5 (2):269-282. Doppler, W. 2002. Farming and rural systems approaches. Published Lecturing Material. Hohenheim. FAO. 2006. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). (2006). The state of food insecurity in the world. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. FAO. 2008. Foof and Agricultur Organizaiton (2008). Deriving food security information from national household budget surveys: Experiences, achievements, challenges. Rome: Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. FAO. 2013. Food and Agriculture Organizaiton (2013). The state of food insecurity in the world the multiple dimensions of food security. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. FAO. 2014. FAO. (2014). The state of food insecurity in the world: Strengthening the enabling environment for food security and nutrition. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Felker-Kantor, Erica, and Charles H Wood. 2012. Female-headed households and food insecurity in Brazil. Food Security 4 (4):607-617. Frongillo, Edward A, Christine M Olson, Barbara S Rauschenbach, and Anne Kendall. 1997. Nutritional consequences of food insecurity in a rural New York State county. Institute for Research on Poverty, University of Wisconsin--Madison. Gebre, Girma Gezimu. 2012. Determinants of food insecurity among households in Addis Ababa city, Ethiopia. Interdisciplinary Description of Complex Systems 10 (2):159-173. Gill, Abid Rashid, and Rana Ejaz Ali Khan. 2010. Determinants of Food Security in Rural Areas of Pakistan. SSRN Working Paper Series. GOP. 2015. Government of Pakistan. Ministry of Finance Islamabad, Paskistan. Gundersen, Craig, and Joseph Gruber. 2001. The dynamic determinants of food insufficiency. In Second food security measurement and research conference: Food Assistance and Nutrition Research Report. Haile, HK, Zerihun Gudeta Alemu, and G Kudhlande. 2005. Causes of household food insecurity in koredegaga peasant association, Oromiya zone, Ethiopia. Agrekon 44 (4):543-560. Heflin, Colleen M, Mary E Corcoran, and Kristine A Siefert. 2007. Work trajectories, income changes, and food insufficiency in a Michigan welfare population. Social Service Review 81 (1):3-25. Ibnouf, Fatma Osman. 2011. Challenges and possibilities for achieving household food security in the Western Sudan region: the role of female farmers. Food Security 3 (2):215-231. Idrisa, YL, MM Gwary, and H Shehu. 2008. Analysis of food security status among farming households In Jere Local Government of Borno State, Nigeria. J Trop Agric Food Environ Ext 7 (3):199-205. IFPRI. 2015. IFPRI, Concern Woldwide and Welthungerhilfe (2015). The global hunger index 2015. The Challenge of hunger: Taming price spikes and excessive food price volatility. Washington, D.C.

24 | P a g e IFSS. 2002. IFSS. (2002). Integrated food security strategy. Pretoria: National Department of Agriculture Policy Document. IPC. (2017). http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/kp_ipc_jun_2015.pdf Accessed on 23 February, 2017. Jebran, K., Abdullah, Iqbal, A., & Ullah, I. (2016). EFFECTS OF REMITTANCES ON PER CAPITA ECONOMIC GROWTH OF PAKISTAN. Pakistan Business Review, 18(1), 1-18. Kaiser, L. L., Melgar-Quiñonez, H., Townsend, M. S., Nicholson, Y., Fujii, M. L., Martin, A. C., & Lamp, C. L. (2003). Food insecurity and food supplies in Latino households with young children. Journal of nutrition education and behavior, 35(3), 148-153. Kassie, M., Jaleta, M., Shiferaw, B. A., Mmbando, F., & De Groote, H. (2012). Improved maize technologies and welfare outcomes in smallholder systems: evidence from application of parametric and non-parametric approaches. Paper presented at the 2012 Conference, August 18-24, 2012, Foz do Iguacu, Brazil. Kassie, M., Ndiritu, S. W., & Stage, J. (2014). What determines gender inequality in household food security in Kenya? Application of exogenous switching treatment regression. World Development, 56, 153-171. Kassie, M., Shiferaw, B., & Muricho, G. (2011). Agricultural technology, crop income, and poverty alleviation in Uganda. World Development, 39(10), 1784-1795. Kidane, H., Alemu, Z. G., & Kundhlande, G. (2005). Causes of household food insecurity in Koredegaga peasant association, oromiya zone, Ethiopia. Agrekon, 44(4), 543-560. KPBOS. (2017). http://kpbos.gov.pk/prd_images/1399372174.pdf Accessed on 23 February, 2017. Loopstra, R., & Tarasuk, V. (2013). Severity of household food insecurity is sensitive to change in household income and employment status among low-income families. The Journal of nutrition, 143(8), 1316-1323. Makombe, T., Lewin, P., & Fisher, M. (2010). The determinants of food insecurity in Rural Malawi: Implications for agricultural policy. Malawi Strategy Support Program (MaSSP) Policy Note 4, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Washington, DC. Mango, N., Zamasiya, B., Makate, C., Nyikahadzoi, K., & Siziba, S. (2014). Factors influencing household food security among smallholder farmers in the Mudzi district of Zimbabwe. Development Southern Africa, 31(4), 625-640. Nord, M., Andrews, M., & Carlson, S. (2005). Household food security in the United States, 2004. USDAERS Economic Research Report(11). Nyikahadzoi, K., Siziba, S., Mango, N., Mapfumo, P., Adekunhle, A., & Fatunbi, O. (2012). Creating food self reliance among the smallholder farmers of eastern Zimbabwe: exploring the role of integrated agricultural research for development. Food Security, 4(4), 647-656. Owusu, V., Abdulai, A., & Abdul-Rahman, S. (2011). Non-farm work and food security among farm households in Northern Ghana. Food policy, 36(2), 108-118. Pakistan Economic Survey. (2015). Government of Pakistan. Ministry of Finance http://www.finance.gov.pk/survey_1516.html. Ribar, D., & Hamrick, K. (2003). An analysis of poverty and food sufficiency dynamics. Washington, DC: USDA Economic Research Service. Riely, F., Mock, N., Cogill, B., Bailey, L., & Kenefick, E. (1999). Food security indicators and framework for use in the monitoring and evaluation of food aid programs. Nutrition Technical Assistance Project (FANTA), Washington, DC. Rose, D., Gundersen, C., & Oliveira, V. (1998). Socio-Economic Determinants of Food Insecurity in the United States: United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.

25 | P a g e Rukuni, M. (2002). Africa: addressing growing threats to food security. The Journal of nutrition, 132(11), 3443S-3448S. Sasson, A. (2012). Food security for Africa: an urgent global challenge. Agriculture & Food Security, 1(1), 1. SDPI. (2009). Food Insecurity in Pakistan.Sustainable Development Policy Institute, Islamabad, World Food Program Pakistan, Swiss Agency for Development and Corporation. Shaikh, F. (2007). Determinants of household food security and consumption pattern in rural Sindh: nonseparable agricultural household model. IUB Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 5(2), 1839. Sultana, A., & Kiani, A. (2011). Determinants of food security at household level in Pakistan. African Journal of Business Management, 5(34), 12972. The Nation. (2017). http://nation.com.pk/national/31-Oct-2013/food-insecure-kpk Accessed on 23 February, 2017. Tyner, W. E. (2013). National and global market implications of the 2012 US drought. The Chicago Council on Global Affairs.(2 May 2013. WB. (2001). World Bank (2001). Nuts and Bolts. downloaded at http://wbinoo18worldbank.org/rdv/food,nsf. Wooldridge, J. M. (2010). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data: MIT press.

26 | P a g e

Table 1 Description of the variables used in the model Variables

Description and Measurement

Dependent Variable Food Security Status

D = 1 if HH is food secure; 0 = otherwise

Independent Variables Age (A)

Age of HH head in number of years

Gender (G)

D = 1 if HH head is male; 0 = otherwise

Education (ED)

D = 1if HH head is literate; 0 = otherwise

Household Size (HS)

Number of household members

Remittances (RM)

D = 1 if HH Receive Remittances; 0 otherwise

Unemployment (U)

D = 1 if food insecurity is caused by unemployment; 0 = otherwise

Inflation (INF)

D = 1 if food insecurity is caused by inflation; 0 = otherwise

Assets (AS)

D = 1 if HH owns Assets; 0 = otherwise

Labor (LR)

D = 1 if food insecurity is caused by lack of labor; 0 = otherwise

Distance from Main road

Number of kilometers by which the villages is away from main road

Livestock ownership

D = 1 if HH own livestock; 0 = otherwise

Credit (C)

D = 1 if HH has access to credit; 0 = otherwise

Market Access (MA)

D = 1 if HH has access to market; 0 = otherwise

Food Aid (FA)

D = 1 if HH receive food aid; 0 = otherwise

Food price (FP)

D = 1 if HH food insecurity is caused by Food price; 0 = otherwise

27 | P a g e Money (M)

D = 1 if HH food insecurity is caused by lack of money to buy food items; 0 = otherwise

Flood (FL)

D = 1 if food insecurity is caused by flood; 0 = otherwise

Diseases (DS)

D = 1 if food insecurity is caused by diseases; 0 = otherwise

Drought (DR)

D = 1 if food insecurity is caused by drought; 0 = otherwise

28 | P a g e

Figure 2 Characteristics of Households Variable Gender Male Female

Frequency

Percentage

233 61

79.3 20.7

Age Less than 20 20-29 30-39 40-49 50 & above

3 16 93 107 75

1 5.4 31.6 36.4 25.5

Education Primary High School College University Other

96 35 52 44 67

32.7 11.9 17.7 15 22.8

Household Size 2-3 Members 4-5 Members 6-7 Members 8-9 Members 10 & above

14 77 90 75 38

4.8 26.2 30.6 25.5 12.9

Occupation of HH Farmer Fisherman Shopkeeper Govt Employ Daily Wager Other

20 4 53 83 74 60

6.8 1.4 18 28.2 25.2 20.4

29 | P a g e

Table 3 Household food sources Source Own production Own + Market purchase Market purchase only Total

Frequency 4 37 253 294

Percent 1.36 12.58 86.05 100

Table 4 Status of household food availability Question Items

Frequency

Mean/%

Household Fear that food will run out

65

22%

Number of Meals per day (Mean)

294

2.89

294

1.26

238

80%

Number of days meat, fish or chicken is taken per week (Mean) Food is sufficient always for all members of the HH

30 | P a g e

Table 5 Food insecurity causes Food insecurity Causes

Frequency

Percent

Inflation Unemployment Lack of enough labor Unequal distribution of wealth Disease Selfish Behavior Other Total

75 70 72 27 32 12 6 294

25.51 23.8 24.48 9.18 10.88 4.08 2.04 100

31 | P a g e

Table 6 Logistic regression coefficient showing the factors influencing the status of household food security

Variables

Coefficient

Odds Ratio

Std. Err.

Z

P-Value

Gender HH (GHH)

-2.113

0.12

0.0768

-3.32

0.001***

Age HH (AHH)

0.977

2.656

0.981

2.64

0.008*

Education HH (EHH)

-0.498

0.607

0.108

-2.8

0.005**

Size HH (SHH)

0.095

1.099

0.339

0.31

0.758

Occupation (OC)

-0.214

0.807

0.183

-0.94

0.346

Remittances (RM)

4.448

85.496

119.099

3.19

0.001***

Unemployment (UN)

-3.192

0.041

0.079

-1.64

0.101*

Inflation (IN)

3.401

30.017

38.659

2.64

0.008*

Assets (AS)

2.211

9.132

9.284

2.18

0.03**

Labor (LB)

0.866

2.377

1.678

1.23

0.22

Distance (DS)

0.088

1.092

0.243

0.4

0.69

Livestock (LS)

-0.817

0.441

0.279

-1.29

0.197

Credit Access (CA)

0.659

1.933

1.747

0.73

0.466

Market Access (MA)

0.557

1.745

1.981

0.49

0.624

Food Aid (FA)

0.832

2.299

1.708

1.12

0.262

Food Price (FP)

-0.882

0.413

0.84

-0.43

0.664

Lack of Money (LM)

-1.335

0.263

0.307

-1.14

0.254

Floods (FL)

1.011

2.749

2.39

1.16

0.245

Disease (DE)

-1.348

0.259

0.217

-1.61

0.108*

32 | P a g e

Drought (DR)

0.067

Pseudo- R2

0.390

1.069

0.535

0.13

*, ** and *** indicates significance level of 10%, 5% and 1% respectively.

0.893

Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Food Security Phase Classification (based on acute food insecurity analysis conducted from 18th - 21st May, 2015)

å Chitral GILGIT BALTISTAN

± 20

40

80

Kilometers

å

Upper Dir

AFGHANISTAN

å

ä Swat

Kohistan

å

Lower Dir

Shangla

ä

Malakand

å Buner

å å Mardan Charsadda å å Swabi å Peshawar å Nowshera

å

å Tor

Batagram Mansehra

Ghar

å å Abbottabad å Haripur

AJK

ISLAMABAD

å Kohat

ä Hangu å

Karak

å

Bannu

ä

FATA

Food Security Phase

PUNJAB

Lakki Marwat

Generally Food Secure (Minimal Food Insecure)

1

Moderately Food Insecure (Stressed)

2

å

Tank

CHINA

ä D. I.

GILG IT BALTISTAN

Khan

KP

AFGHANISTAN

PA K

PUNJA B

IRAN SINDH

Ara b ia n S e a

Highly Food Insecure (Crisis)

4

Outlook

ä

FATA

BALOCHI STAN

3

ä

0

INDIA

å

Severely Food Insecure (Emergency) Likely to improve Likely to deteriorate Likely to be stable International Boundary

Province Boundary District Boundary Line of Control