Does participation in livelihood education programs impact household food security? A comparative study in rural Uganda

Samuel Ikendi, Francis Owusu, D. Masinde, Ann Oberhauser, Carmen Bain
{"title":"Does participation in livelihood education programs impact household food security? A comparative study in rural Uganda","authors":"Samuel Ikendi, Francis Owusu, D. Masinde, Ann Oberhauser, Carmen Bain","doi":"10.5304/jafscd.2023.131.009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Food and nutrition security projections from global to household levels show that the future requires multifaceted approaches to achieve desired goals. In Uganda, the government has tried several strate­gies to promote food production, including a public-private partnership with Iowa State Univer­sity through its Center for Sustainable Rural Liveli­hoods. In this comparative study, we surveyed 454 households to explore whether participation in livelihood education programs (LEPs) impact household food security. We also determine which LEPs and household characteristics influence food security. Overall, 46.3% of the surveyed house­holds were food secure, while the remaining were insecure or extremely insecure. Significantly, 51.0% of LEP participants were more food secure, com­pared to 35.5% of nonparticipants. Specific LEPs including agronomy and postharvest technologies, and livestock integration significantly influence food security, but less so for programs on nutrition and infant feeding, water supply and public health, complementary services like therapeutic porridge and assistance with immunization, and income innovations. Multinomial logistic regression analy­sis revealed that the household characteristics of keeping livestock and the number of meals eaten during periods of scarcity, influenced households having more food security than insecurity or extreme insecurity. Households participating in LEPs, having larger acreage of land, and having clean water and sanitation facilities were more food secure. The time taken to fetch water, days of ill­ness of male adults, and belonging to community social groups, also influence the level of household food security. Based on these findings, we recom­mend that households should participate in LEPs to build their capacity to manage crop and live­stock production, and also to acquire knowledge of nutrition and feeding, public health, and income innovations.","PeriodicalId":505953,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development","volume":"183 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5304/jafscd.2023.131.009","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Food and nutrition security projections from global to household levels show that the future requires multifaceted approaches to achieve desired goals. In Uganda, the government has tried several strate­gies to promote food production, including a public-private partnership with Iowa State Univer­sity through its Center for Sustainable Rural Liveli­hoods. In this comparative study, we surveyed 454 households to explore whether participation in livelihood education programs (LEPs) impact household food security. We also determine which LEPs and household characteristics influence food security. Overall, 46.3% of the surveyed house­holds were food secure, while the remaining were insecure or extremely insecure. Significantly, 51.0% of LEP participants were more food secure, com­pared to 35.5% of nonparticipants. Specific LEPs including agronomy and postharvest technologies, and livestock integration significantly influence food security, but less so for programs on nutrition and infant feeding, water supply and public health, complementary services like therapeutic porridge and assistance with immunization, and income innovations. Multinomial logistic regression analy­sis revealed that the household characteristics of keeping livestock and the number of meals eaten during periods of scarcity, influenced households having more food security than insecurity or extreme insecurity. Households participating in LEPs, having larger acreage of land, and having clean water and sanitation facilities were more food secure. The time taken to fetch water, days of ill­ness of male adults, and belonging to community social groups, also influence the level of household food security. Based on these findings, we recom­mend that households should participate in LEPs to build their capacity to manage crop and live­stock production, and also to acquire knowledge of nutrition and feeding, public health, and income innovations.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
参与生计教育计划会影响家庭粮食安全吗?乌干达农村地区比较研究
从全球到家庭层面的粮食和营养安全预测表明,未来需要多方面的方法来实现预期目标。在乌干达,政府尝试了多种战略来促进粮食生产,其中包括通过爱荷华州立大学可持续农村生计中心与该大学建立公私合作伙伴关系。在这项比较研究中,我们对 454 个家庭进行了调查,以探讨参与生计教育计划(LEPs)是否会影响家庭粮食安全。我们还确定了哪些生计教育计划和家庭特征会影响粮食安全。总体而言,46.3% 的受访家庭有粮食安全保障,其余家庭没有粮食安全保障或极度没有粮食安全保障。值得注意的是,与 35.5%的非参与者相比,51.0%的 LEP 参与者更有粮食保障。包括农艺和收获后技术以及牲畜一体化在内的特定 LEP 对粮食安全有显著影响,但对营养和婴儿喂养、供水和公共卫生、食疗粥和免疫接种援助等补充服务以及收入创新计划的影响较小。多项式逻辑回归分析表明,饲养牲畜的家庭特征和匮乏时期的进餐次数对粮食安全的影响大于不安全或极端不安全。参加低保的家庭、拥有较大面积土地的家庭以及拥有清洁水和卫生设施的家庭更有粮食保障。取水所需的时间、成年男性生病的天数以及是否属于社区社会团体也会影响家庭的粮食安全水平。根据上述研究结果,我们建议家庭参加地方环境方案,以提高他们管理作物和牲畜生产的能力,并获得营养与喂养、公共卫生和收入创新方面的知识。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
“What does Ferguson mean for the food justice movement?”: Reading Black visions of food justice in times of social unrest In This Issue: Commentaries from the 2023 Agroecology Summit in the U.S., and open-call papers From market concentration to political corruption [Book review] Challenging agricultural norms and diversifying actors: Building transformative public policy for equitable food systems Barriers and opportunities to agrihood development in growing cities of the Rocky Mountain region: A comparative case study
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1