Operationalizing household food security
in rural Nepal
Joel Gittelsohn, Sangeeta Mookherji, and Gretel Pelto
Abstract
Introduction
This paper operationalizes household food security and
links it to household food consumption patterns in rural
Nepal. Food security has long been used as a macro-level
indicator of agricultural stability by both agricultural and
economic researchers. However, little work has been done
to operationalize it at the household level. We view household food security as reflecting three different dimensions:
past food supply, current food stores, and future supply
of food adequate to meet the needs of all household members. A key method is the construction of scales that capture these different aspects of household food security. When
operationalized in this way, household food security is
associated with increased consumption of non-staple foods
in this setting. Past household food security is associated
with increased frequency of meat consumption and increased variety of food consumed. Current household food
security predicts a higher frequency of meat and dairy
intake and greater dietary variety. Future household food
security is associated with increased total dietary variety
and future consumption of dairy products. We feel that
this conceptual approach to assessing household food security, i.e., the use of scales to measure past, current, and
future components of food security, can be used as a framework in other settings.
Food security has long been used as an important
macro-level indicator of agricultural stability and
progress for both agricultural and economic researchers. However, little work has been done to operationalize
the concept at the household level. We view household
food security as a concept that integrates environmental,
economic, and cultural factors in a manner that can provide a useful tool for predicting dietary patterns within
the household. These factors affect the manner in which
households manage their food resources, either by
affecting initial food selection and acquisition or by
affecting the use of food once it has been selected. Household food security is an outcome of these decisions.
This paper seeks to further the operationalization of
household food security in three ways. First, a theoretical framework for household food security is presented,
describing the set of relevant independent, intervening, and dependent variables. Second, a framework for
operationalization is presented, using data collected from
rural households in Nepal. Third, the relevance of household food security, measured at the micro level, is examined through regression models that predict household food security and that use household food security
to predict diversity of diet at the household level.
Food security and household food security:
An economic perspective
Joel Gittelsohn is affiliated with the Center for Human
Nutrition and the Division of Human Nutrition in the
Department of International Health at the Johns Hopkins
University School of Hygiene and Public Health in Baltimore,
Maryland, USA. Sangeeta Mookherji is affiliated with the
Division of Health Systems in the Department of International
Health at the Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene
and Public Health. Gretel Pelto is affiliated with the World
Health Organization in Geneva.
Mention of the names of firms and commercial products
does not imply endorsement by the United Nations University.
210
Economic approaches to food security have traditionally focused on assessing aggregate levels of food supply, agricultural production, and the balance of agricultural trade [1–6]. In the 1970s, food security was
defined at the macro level as the ability to avoid shortterm deficits in aggregate food supply [7], and it was
directly linked to grain stocks at the global and national level [8]. At the micro level, food security was
conceptualized primarily as the ability to successfully
weather transitory shocks to food supply, such as
drought, floods, market failure, or civil strife [9]. The
focus was on food staples (i.e., grains), national stores
Food and Nutrition Bulletin, vol. 19, no. 3 © 1998, The United Nations University.
Delivered by Publishing Technology to: Guest User IP: 162.218.208.135 on: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 19:54:43
Copyright (c) Nevin Scrimshaw International Nutrition Foundation. All rights reserved.
Operationalizing household food security
of grain, and agricultural policy that ensured stable
supplies and stores of grain. Most importantly, food
security was conceptualized as the outcome measure
of agricultural policies.
As world food supplies stabilized at more than adequate levels and hunger and malnutrition continued
to be prevalent, it became clear that aggregate food supply was not a useful proxy for food consumption at
the household or individual level. From an economic
perspective, malnutrition was increasingly recognized
as the individual-level manifestation of a complex combination of household, community, regional, national,
and international factors [10–12]. Seminal work on the
phenomenon of famine by Sen [13] brought attention
to the issue of access to food by households and by
individuals, which could be constrained by economic,
social, and cultural factors and was most often a chronic,
not transitory, condition at the household level. Food
insecurity could occur at the household level, and was
occurring, in the absence of regional and national food
insecurity.
The neoclassical economic theory of household production added further to the concept of food security
by emphasizing the decision-making processes within
the household that determine how scarce resources are
allocated. Since households have limited access to resources and strive to fulfil a variety of basic needs, procurement of food competes with acquisition of health
services and other goods and services. Therefore, food
needs are not necessarily the most dominant basic needs
for a given household’s subsistence or survival [9].
Interest focused on household food security as a
measure that would link national-, regional-, and community-level measures of food security to household
food consumption and individual nutritional status.
Household food security is seen as a concept that will
relate agricultural policy to issues of nutrition [12]. Once
household food security was identified as an important variable in the food security–nutritional status
continuum, a variety of definitions and conceptual
frameworks of household food security were proposed
from the agricultural economic perspective. Whereas
previous definitions of macro-level food security focused on food availability (supply), most of the recent
household food security frameworks are concerned
primarily with household access to food, although all
recognize that access is just one component of household food security. The issue of food distribution at
the community level is also addressed by some of the
frameworks, in that all groups in a society are viewed
as requiring equal access to sufficient food.
The International Fund for Agricultural Development
concisely defines household food security as “the capacity of a household to procure a stable and sustainable basket of adequate food” [14]; however, some of
the terminology used is difficult to operationalize. Adequacy may be defined in terms of quality and quan-
211
tity of food, which contribute to a diet that meets the
nutritional needs of all household members. Stability
refers to the household’s ability to procure food across
seasons and transitory shortages, the more traditional
definition of food security. Sustainability is the most
complex of the terms, encompassing issues of resource
use and management, human dignity, and self-reliance,
among others [14].
Household food security:
An anthropological perspective
Anthropology has a great deal to contribute to the
conceptualization of household food security. Anthropologists have traditionally collected information
on food provisioning, preparation, and consumption
practices as part of their ethnographic descriptions of
cultural settings [15–19]. Anthropological perspectives
on food have focused on eliciting indigenous belief systems surrounding food, such as food classification, food
proscriptions and prescriptions, and so on.
Ecological and medical anthropologists have investigated household responses to food shortages, with a
particular emphasis on understanding and identifying
adaptive strategies for subsistence [20–22]. Although
“household food security” has not been a common
component of anthropological studies, in recent years
anthropologists have turned their attention to examining food security at the community level [23, 24].
Anthropologists have a number of tools at their disposal for investigating household food security. The
primary focus of anthropology is on human belief, perception, and behaviour at the community, household,
and individual levels. Through intensive study of small
groups, anthropologists are in a good position to uncover the subtle dynamics that mark household-level
decision making and activity and to understand this
behaviour to a certain degree from the point of view
of the people themselves.
Theoretical framework
The theoretical framework presented here draws on both
anthropological and economic perspectives. The ecological approach in nutritional anthropology typically
considers the physical and social environments, social
organization, available technology for food production,
and cultural and ideological systems when assessing
the determinants of food choices and diet [25]. Economists see household income as the key potential “shock”
to household food security, along with market food
prices. At a more micro level, it is important to acknowledge other types of coping strategies and social
mechanisms that function to buffer the effects of income and price fluctuations. Food gifts, loans, and other
mechanisms often alleviate short-term stresses on household food supply [26].
Delivered by Publishing Technology to: Guest User IP: 162.218.208.135 on: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 19:54:43
Copyright (c) Nevin Scrimshaw International Nutrition Foundation. All rights reserved.
J. Gittelsohn et al.
212
Our framework (fig. 1) begins at the macro level of
agricultural policies regarding both production and trade
that influence food supply. Regional food supplies are
affected by governmental inter-regional trade policies,
seasonality, and climate. The state of regional food supplies determines what foods are available in the community-level markets where households go to sell, trade,
and purchase foods for consumption. Community food
markets are affected by seasonality and climate, but also
by a host of cultural factors. The cultural factors are
primarily rules that determine food selection by households and patterns of inter-household food sharing.
The household is a multilevel construct, with cultural
factors influencing not only food selection and preparation but also intra-household allocation of food. Individual dietary intake is the outcome of the intra-household distribution of the food available in the family.
Community-level factors, such as the health services
available and the status of sanitation and water supply, are included as exogenous variables that influence
individual nutritional status through morbidity.
Figure 2 describes the household-level dynamics in
more detail. At the household level, food security is
determined by a household’s current food supplies, past
stable food supply, and potential future supply. Potential future food supply is a function of the household’s
available resources, such as capital (e.g., land), labour,
and time. Between household food security and individual nutritional status are patterns of food distribution within the household and individual food consumption, which may include differences in dietary
quality and quantity. Gittelsohn [27, 28] has looked at
Government
agricultural policy
• Trade
• Production
the complexity of factors affecting intra-household food
allocation and has found that in rural Nepal culturally
specific food-serving behaviours result in nutritional
penalties against women. Other exogenous factors include the composition of the household (number of
members, structures, female or male headed, number
of females versus males, etc.) and factors affecting the
social and economic status of the household (land ownership, earned income, caste, education, etc.). Morbidity,
a variable that is affected by community-level factors
and also by household-level factors such as food preparation and hygiene practices, also affects an individual’s
nutritional status [12, 29].
Using the theoretical framework proposed above, this
paper addresses the following key questions:
» Can an appropriate and reliable measure of food security be operationalized at the household level, and
what would such a measure look like?
» How does household food security relate to household food intake and dietary diversity (as a proxy
for dietary quality at the household level)?
» How does household food security relate to other
determinants at the household level, including socioeconomic status and (in the case of Nepal) caste?
Framework for operationalizing household
food security
We view household food security as reflecting three
different dimensions: the past (stable) food supply, the
current food stores, and the anticipated future supply
of food adequate to meet the nutritional needs of all
Cultural Factors
Rules for food selection, inter-household
food sharing, intra-household allocation
Regional food
supply
Community market
food supply
Household
Household food
security
Intra-household
food allocation
(behaviour)
Climate
seasonality
Individual
dietary intake
Individual
nutritional status
Morbidity
FIG. 1. Broad conceptual framework for examining household food security
Delivered by Publishing Technology to: Guest User IP: 162.218.208.135 on: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 19:54:43
Copyright (c) Nevin Scrimshaw International Nutrition Foundation. All rights reserved.
213
Operationalizing household food security
household members. We define a secure past food supply
as reflected by the stable flow of food into the household, its storage and consumption within the household, and its flow out of the household. The flow of
foods into a household via different modes (self-production, purchase, receipt as gifts, etc.) should theoretically meet or exceed the outflow of food sold, paid
as rent, given to others, etc. Our definition of current
food security is the presence of sufficient household
stores (defined broadly) to meet the immediate nutritional needs of the household members. In agricultural
communities we define future food security as that
portion of existing food stores which is invested in planting and in feed to animals to ensure adequate food supplies in the future.
Figure 3 presents a provisional theoretical model that
will be tested with empirical data from Nepal. Essentially, it is a model of food flow through the Nepali
household that illustrates the relationships outlined
above. The assumptions behind this model of household food security revolve around a concept of general household food stores. The various means by which
foods enter and leave the household represent a pattern of interactions. Households differ in their use of
one or more pathways for obtaining and reallocating
food. The model incorporates time-specific data on
current food stores. Information collected about food
flow through the household during the course of the
preceding year can be used to give a picture of past
household food security. By using a food-flow model
for household access to food, we can address issues of
both adequacy and stability of food supply. This approach is similar to those used in other studies to estimate household-level food security; however, the flow
of food out of the household is typically not included
in their estimations [29]. Finally, the model permits
an examination of food resources allocated for the pur-
pose of producing food some time in the future.
Operationalizing household food security according
to a household food-flow model has the potential to
incorporate food adequacy, stability, and sustainability
(to a more limited degree) into measurement of food
security. This provides a more comprehensive measure
of household food security and can permit associations
between household-level measures and individual-level
measures to be investigated. The food-flow model is
relevant for a variety of economic environments, both
rural and urban, and for subsistence farming, cash cropping, or market-dominated food procurement.
Methods
Description of the research site
The data used to operationalize household food security come from the principal author’s dissertation research, conducted from November 1986 through August 1987 in Pahargaon (a pseudonym) Village
Development Committee (formerly called a panchayat)
in the western hills of Nepal. A total of 115 households
were randomly sampled, representing 767 individuals
in six villages. The villages included in the study area
lie along the slopes of hills at altitudes ranging from
3,500 to 4,800 feet. Agricultural fields range from approximately 10,00 feet (down in the river valley) up to
5,000 feet. The lower river valley fields (irrigated cropland, or khet) are considered more valuable because
they are more productive. All study households owned
some land, but for many the amount was inadequate
for subsistence. A system of land rental (adhiyaa) is
well established in Pahargaon, in which landowners
permit villagers to cultivate plots of land and receive
half of the harvested produce as payment.
Household
Caste
Household food security
SES
Household size,
composition,
ages
Current stores Past food supply Future food
supply
(Adequacy)
Food flow
(Sustainability)
(Stability)
Intra-household
patterns of food
allocation
Individual
dietary intake
Quantity
Quality
•
•
FIG. 2. Detailed framework of food security within the household
Delivered by Publishing Technology to: Guest User IP: 162.218.208.135 on: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 19:54:43
Copyright (c) Nevin Scrimshaw International Nutrition Foundation. All rights reserved.
214
J. Gittelsohn et al.
Inflow
Produced by
household
Produced by
household
Bought in
market
Sold in the
market
Household
food stores
Received
as gifts
Received as
payment
Outflow
Given as gifts
Paid as rent
Fed to animals
Consumption
by household
members
Planted
FIG. 3. Food flow through the Nepali household
Villages in Pahargaon are largely isolated from the
larger market areas and centres of power for the region. The area around Pahargaon is heavily deforested,
and villagers must walk three to five hours to obtain
firewood. Water is available mainly from ground springs,
which vary in distance from a few minutes to a halfhour round-trip walk from Pahargaon households. Ethnically, Pahargaon is composed of members of all four
main caste groups in the Hindu Varna system: Brahmin, Chhetri, Vaisya, and Shudra. There are notable
differences between higher and lower castes in terms
of education, occupation, wealth, and, consequently,
political power. In rural Nepal these differences extend
also to food proscriptions related to caste status and
thereby to diet.
Data-collection techniques
Before the initiation of data collection using structured
instruments, exploratory qualitative research was conducted using key informant interviewing, focus groups,
and unstructured observation techniques. This period
of preliminary ethnographic data collection assisted in
developing culturally appropriate and valid quantitative instruments for later phases of the research and
contributed to the final interpretation of the quantitative data results.
Structured data collection was focused on four key
areas. All four instruments were administered from January to April 1996. This is generally the period of greatest food availability in the panchayat. The household
food-frequency instrument was administered a second
time in almost all study households approximately three
to five months later from June to August 1996. From
June to August is the pre-monsoon and early monsoon
season, which is generally regarded as the period of
greatest food scarcity in the panchayat.
Household and individual demographic data, including information on caste status, age, and sex, were collected using a survey administered to the male head of
the household.
Economic status indicators were collected at the household level from the male head of the household, including ownership of land, animals, and material possessions and quality of the house.
Household food stores and usage patterns were obtained
through a structured interview. The male head of the
household was asked to estimate the amounts of 20
key foods (identified in the ethnographic survey) acquired by the household over the preceding 12 months
and how the food had been used by household members (an indicator of past food security). He was also
asked to describe the amounts of each food currently
in storage (an indicator of current food security), limited to “storable” foods, such as grains and tubers. In
addition, the respondent was asked to describe the
amount of land currently planted and the numbers of
each kind of animal currently owned (indicators of
future food security).
The accuracy of recall by the informant over an extended period of time was of concern. Accuracy was
enhanced by several methods:
» Different means of food inflow and outflow were
identified by ethnographic methods and distinguished
from one another. For instance, respondents were
asked not only the total amount of rice that came
into the household, but also how much rice they produced on their land, received as payment, received
as gifts, received in trade, or purchased.
» Information was cross-checked during the interview,
Delivered by Publishing Technology to: Guest User IP: 162.218.208.135 on: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 19:54:43
Copyright (c) Nevin Scrimshaw International Nutrition Foundation. All rights reserved.
Operationalizing household food security
both within and between foods, and with other questions. The total food coming into the household
should be roughly equal to the amount reportedly
flowing out of the household, plus the amounts reported as eaten and stored. A household owning a lot
of rice-producing land but reporting very low rice production would be asked to explain the inconsistency.
» Respondents were encouraged to report quantities
using a variety of local measures, which were later
translated into grams.
» Other household members, especially those involved
in agricultural production, were encouraged to participate during the interview and often served to refresh the memory of the principal respondent.
Household food consumption patterns were estimated
using a weekly food-frequency instrument. This instrument was administered twice in each study household.
The female head of the household was asked to report
the number of times any household members had consumed 70 different foods during the previous week and
to give an estimate of the amount of food consumed
by household members each time (familiar household
measures were used to estimate quantity). The 70 foods
were identified as the most commonly consumed
through preliminary ethnographic interviews with key
informants; however, additional spaces were provided
for other foods.
Scale and score construction
This section describes how we operationalized food
security at the micro level of the household. A key
method was the construction of scales and scores that
captured the complexity of the factors that make up
household food security [30]. Separate exploratory
factor analyses were conducted to identify key components of three different scales representing past,
current, and future household food security. Factor
analysis is an appropriate analytic method when the
investigator wants to identify key constructs underlying a set of data [31]. The method has been used in
dietary studies to identify patterns of food consumption for specific populations [32–34]. Although we
initially experimented with developing our own scoring
system, we soon discovered that the complexity of the
data (multiple sources of food, multiple ways that food
could leave the household, multiple styles of managing food resources) necessitated an analysis strategy
that would permit underlying patterns to emerge, effectively summarize data, and provide optimal weights
for component variables.
The principal-factor method was used to identify
components of each scale [31]. A combination of scree
test (a plot of the eigenvalues of the factors) and assessment of the proportion of the variance accounted
for by the factors was used to determine the number
of factors to be retained for rotation (conducted using
215
the varimax method). In interpreting the rotated factor pattern, a selected item was considered to load on
a given factor if the loading was 0.40 or greater for that
factor and was less than 0.40 for all other factors. No
item was permitted to load on more than one factor.
Factor scores for each item in the three scales were computed by multiplying its value by its factor weighting.
Reliability for all scales was assessed by calculating coefficient alpha [35].
Past food stability scale
To obtain some indication of past food supply stability (PASTFDSC), respondents were asked to recall the
flow of 20 key foods into and out of the household
during the 12 months leading up to the interview date.
The foods were rice, shuto (dried ginger), wheat, corn,
mustard, potatoes, barley, lentils, millet, soya beans,
peanuts, vegetables, fruit, milk, eggs, goat, chicken, buffalo, and pig. The respondents were asked to estimate
the amount of each food coming into household stores
through five specific pathways: production, purchase,
gift, payment, and trade. The respondents were then
asked to estimate how much of these foods left household stores through six pathways: consumed by household members, sold, traded, given to others, paid in
rent, and fed to animals. Payment includes food received as rent for land use. Trade indicates food traded
for other types of food. Gifts can mean food received
either as a gift or, as many low-caste families do, as
compensation for services rendered (e.g., leatherwork,
blacksmithing, or tailoring). All 20 food categories were
combined on the basis of source (how they came into
the household) and use (how they left the household).
Each of these scores was then adjusted according to
household caloric requirements (to account for age and
sex composition differences between households). These
adjusted variables were then converted into common
“units” by recoding each score into quartiles.
Factor analysis was then used to identify the main
patterning in the scores. Most loaded on factor 1
(amount of food stored, sold, given in rent, produced,
fed to animals, or given as gifts). Traded (either received
or given) food consistently loaded on its own factor
(factor 2). Food purchased (bought) and food received
as pay consistently loaded on their own factor (factor
3). A second round of correlation analysis was conducted to verify the factor analysis findings. The final
Cronbach’s alpha of the six-item PASTFDSC scale was
0.747, indicating a reliable unidimensional scale. Finally, confirmatory factor analysis was used to generate standardized scoring coefficients for these items to
use as weights when combining the items into a singlescale score. All items loaded onto one factor. The final
PASTFDSC variable had a mean of 1.61, a standard
deviation of 1.06, a median of 1.63, and a range of 0
to 3.42 and was approximately normally distributed.
A high score on the PASTFDSC therefore indicates that
Delivered by Publishing Technology to: Guest User IP: 162.218.208.135 on: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 19:54:43
Copyright (c) Nevin Scrimshaw International Nutrition Foundation. All rights reserved.
J. Gittelsohn et al.
216
in comparison with households with lower scores, the
household produced a lot of its food, had a lot of food
in stores, gave out a lot of food in rent (and therefore
had people working on its land), gave out a lot of food
as gifts, and used a lot of food to feed its animals.
Current food supply/stores scale
The current food security scale (CURRFDSC) reflects
household food stores at the time of the household interview. The 20 foods recorded in the household food
stores and usage instrument were combined into 8 food
groups. For example, rice, corn, wheat, and millet stores
were combined into the grains group. Factor analysis
and correlation analysis were used to select food-store
variables to constitute a unidimensional scale. The final scale included grains, vegetables, nuts and beans,
and milk (based on current productivity estimates of
milk-producing animals) and had a Cronbach’s alpha
of 0.711. Factor analysis was then used to generate
weights that were used to combine the four food groups
into one scale. Univariate statistics on the scale
CURRFDSC indicated a fairly normal distribution, with
a mean of 1.5, a standard deviation of 0.96, and a range
of 0 to 3.26.
Future food productivity scale
This scale reflects the amount of land currently planted
in a variety of crops and the numbers of work animals
and meat- or milk-producing animals currently owned
as a means of indicating the potential of the household to produce food in the near future (FUTUFDSC).
For each of 11 planted food crops, the amount planted
in seed (e.g., the amount of rice seed) in the current
year was weighted by the proportion of total land that
was owned or rented by the household. Plantings on
rented land were weighted by 0.5, since the household
would only receive half of what they planted. These foods
included those crops that are most commonly planted
in large quantities and not in kitchen gardens (except
tirmilo [an indigenous black oilseed] and mustard).
For fruits and vegetables, households were only asked
whether or not they grew a particular variety on their
own land. Correlation analysis was done to construct
additive fruit variety (13 items, alpha=0.825) and vegetable variety (18 items, alpha=0.881) subscales. In terms
of animals, correlational analysis resulted in an additive subscale that included numbers of cows, bulls, goats,
and buffaloes (alpha=0.530).
Each of these scores—13 planted foods (amounts
planted), fruit variety subscale, vegetable variety subscale,
and animal ownership subscale—was then converted
into quartiles. Correlation analysis was done on the
converted variables to construct a scale for future household food security. Thirteen items remained in the final scale: fruits subscale, vegetables subscale, animals
subscale, and the following planted crops: tirmilo/baari,
peanuts/baari, millet/baari, lentils/baari, potatoes/baari,
mustard/baari, corn/baari, wheat/baari, wheat/khet, and
rice/khet. (Baari is unirrigated cropland and khet is irrigated cropland.) The final scale (FUTUFDSC) has
an acceptable Cronbach’s alpha of 0.784. The scale values
have a normal distribution, with a mean of 14.7, a standard deviation of 7.09, and a range of 0 to 30.
Data analysis
The effect of the three measures of household food security on household food consumption patterns was
examined using multiple regression. Separate models
were run to examine the effects of past, current, and
future food security on the frequency of consumption
of different food groups and on the variety of foods
consumed by the household (both between and within
food groups). Scale scores for each of the three measures were converted into quartiles, with the second,
third, and fourth quartiles entered into the models as
dummy variables. The primary outcome variables for
the analyses were based on the food-frequency results.
These data were summarized by calculating additive
scores by food group (grains, beans, green leafy vegetables, tubers, other vegetables, fruits, meats, and dairy
products). Dietary variety, a proxy for dietary quality,
was calculated in two ways: as total food group variety
(whether or not one or more foods were consumed
within each food group; maximum score, 8) and as
total food group intensity (summing all foods in all
food groups; maximum score, 30).
Other variables included in the models were dummy
variables for caste (Brahmin, Chhetri, and Vaisya were
included; Sudra, the lowest-caste group, was not included) and socio-economic status (the second and third
terciles were included; the lowest tercile was not included), based on the total value of all possessions. In
addition, an independency ratio (number of adult male
and female household members aged 15 to 60/number of children and elderly in the household) was calculated and incorporated into the models. Standardized beta coefficients were generated for each of the
models. Statistical analysis was performed using the SAS
statistical package (SAS/STST version 6.11, SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA).
Results
Tables 1 to 3 present models examining the relationships between the three measures of household food
security and weekly frequency of consumption of foods
in eight groups. In general, caste status and socio-economic status were more associated with frequency of
consumption of the different food groups than the food
security scales. Being Brahmin or, to a lesser degree,
Chhetri, was associated with significantly more frequent
consumption of green leafy vegetables, tubers, and dairy
Delivered by Publishing Technology to: Guest User IP: 162.218.208.135 on: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 19:54:43
Copyright (c) Nevin Scrimshaw International Nutrition Foundation. All rights reserved.
Operationalizing household food security
217
TABLE 1. Relationship between past food security variables and frequency of household consumption of different food
groups (standardized beta coefficients) (N=114 households)
Food group
Independent
Green leafy
Other
Dairy
variable
Grains
Beans vegetables Tubers vegetables Fruits
Meat
products
nsa
F
R2
ns
PASTQ4
PASTQ3
PASTQ2
Brahmin
Chhetri
Vaisya
SESL3
SESL2
Independency
ratio
2.419
0.172
–0.16
0.13
–0.04
0.21*
0.06
–0.11
0.12
0.18*
–0.08
2.406
0.171
–0.04
–0.17
–0.09
0.21*
–0.07
–0.17
0.26**
0.13
–0.02
ns
ns
3.725
0.242
0.26**
0.10
0.03
–0.39**
–0.26**
0.13
0.008
0.01
0.10
3.182
0.214
0.20
0.05
0.04
0.41***
0.03
0.08
0.09
0.08
–0.02
a. ns = not significant.
* p ≤ .10.
** p ≤ .05.
*** p ≤ .01.
TABLE 2. Relationship between current food security variables and frequency of household consumption of different food
groups (standardized beta coefficients) (N=114 households)
Food group
Independent
Green leafy
Other
Dairy
variable
Grains
Beans vegetables Tubers vegetables Fruits
Meat
products
F
R2
CURRQ4
CURRQ3
CURRQ2
Brahmin
Chhetri
Vaisya
SESL3
SESL2
Independency
ratio
1.902
0.140
0.004
0.16
0.18
–0.06
–0.01
0.25*
0.18
0.14
0.04
nsa
1.774
0.132
–0.08
0.06
–0.03
0.22*
0.04
–0.12
0.07
0.16
–0.04
2.314
0.165
0.12
0.01
–0.03
0.15
–0.12
–0.18
0.22*
0.14
–0.05
ns
ns
3.564
0.234
0.23*
0.19*
0.06
–0.43***
–0.3**
0.08
0.06
0.05
0.10
3.6
0.236
0.28**
0.19
0.10
0.34***
–0.04
0.02
0.10
0.10
–0.04
a. ns = not significant.
* p ≤ .10.
** p ≤ .05.
*** p ≤ .01.
products and significantly less frequent consumption
of meat. Households in the upper terciles of socio-economic status tended to be more likely to consume green
leafy vegetables and tubers. It is important to note that
caste and socio-economic status are highly correlated
in this setting (Spearman’s r =.3666), with higher-caste
households tending to be of higher socio-economic status. Independency ratio did not have a significant effect. High scores for past and current household food
security were associated with more frequent consumption of meat and, to a lesser degree, of dairy products.
Tables 4 to 6 model the relationships between the
three household food security scales and the dietary
variety scores. In these models, past, present, and future household food security and socio-economic status are all associated with the dependent variables. Caste
status and independency ratio are not significant in
any of the models. Higher socio-economic status appears to be particularly related to total food group variety score. On the other hand, the highest quartiles
for the past and current household food security scores
are associated with total food group intensity. Current
Delivered by Publishing Technology to: Guest User IP: 162.218.208.135 on: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 19:54:43
Copyright (c) Nevin Scrimshaw International Nutrition Foundation. All rights reserved.
J. Gittelsohn et al.
218
and future food security scores are associated with total food group variety.
Tables 7 to 9 present models depicting the relationships between the three household food security scales
and frequency of consumption from the eight food
groups in the second round of household food frequencies. In general, the effects of caste and socioeconomic status are much the same as those shown
in tables 1 to 3. High-caste status is associated with
increased frequency of intake of beans, green leafy
vegetables, dairy products, and tubers in some instances. Higher socio-economic status is associated
with increased frequency of intake of beans, tubers,
meat, and dairy products. Past and current food security are negatively associated with green leafy vegetable intake. Future food security is only associated
TABLE 3. Relationship between future food security variables and frequency of household consumption of different food
groups (standardized beta coefficients) (n=114 households)
Food group
Independent
Green leafy
Other
Dairy
variable
Grains
Beans vegetables Tubers vegetables Fruits
Meat
products
nsa
F
R2
FUTUQ4
FUTUQ3
FUTUQ2
Brahmin
Chhetri
Vaisya
SESL3
SESL2
Independency
ratio
ns
1.856
0.137
–0.03
0.12
0.08
0.22*
0.02
–0.14
0.06
0.14
–0.04
2.321
0.166
0.02
–0.04
0.16
0.16
–0.11
–0.2
0.19
0.13
–0.04
ns
ns
3.224
0.216
0.03
–0.001
–0.13
–0.36***
–0.21*
0.11
0.10
0.06
0.10
2.965
0.203
0.09
0.03
–0.04
0.42***
0.05
0.06
0.12
0.10
–0.03
a. ns = not significant.
* p ≤ .10.
** p ≤ .05.
*** p ≤ .01.
TABLE 4. Relationship between past food security variables TABLE 5. Relationship between current food security variand variety of household consumption of different food groups ables and variety of household consumption of different food
(standardized beta coefficients) (N=114 households)
groups (standardized beta coefficients) (N=114 households)
Dependent variable
Dependent variable
Total food
Total food
group variety
group variety
Total food
and intensity of
Total food
and intensity of
group variety
consumption
group variety
consumption
Independent
(across
(across and within
Independent
(across
(across and within
variable
food groups)
food groups)
variable
food groups)
food groups)
F
R2
PASTQ4
PASTQ3
PASTQ2
Brahmin
Chhetri
Vaisya
SESL3
SESL2
Independency
ratio
*
**
***
p ≤ .10.
p ≤ .05.
p ≤ .01.
1.777*
0.132
0.18
0.09
0.01
0.04
–0.06
0.02
0.28**
0.22**
–0.07
1.921*
0.141
0.28**
0.21*
0.12
0.04
0.03
0.18
0.18
0.13
-0.14
F
R2
CURRQ4
CURRQ3
CURRQ2
Brahmin
Chhetri
Vaisya
SESL3
SESL2
Independency
ratio
*
**
***
2.541**
0.179
0.28**
0.13
–0.04
0.01
–0.11
0.001
0.27**
0.25**
–0.08
p ≤ .10.
p ≤ .05.
p ≤ .01.
Delivered by Publishing Technology to: Guest User IP: 162.218.208.135 on: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 19:54:43
Copyright (c) Nevin Scrimshaw International Nutrition Foundation. All rights reserved.
2.100**
0.153
0.32**
0.16
0.18
0.02
–0.03
0.13
0.22*
0.15
–0.15*
Operationalizing household food security
219
with increased frequency of consumption of dairy
products.
Similar patterns were observed when the effects of
the three household food security scales on the two
dietary variety scores were examined, calculated from
the second round of food frequencies. Higher caste is
particularly associated with increased variety of foods
consumed at the household level.
Discussion and conclusions
We were able to operationalize three scales that each
reflects a different aspect of household food security.
Past household food security, as represented by patterns of food flow through the household during the
previous year, is associated with increased frequency
of meat consumption and increased variety of food consumed at the time of the interview. Its negative assoTABLE 6. Relationship between future food security variables ciation with consumption of green leafy vegetables in
and variety of household consumption of different food groups the second household food-frequency survey performed
(standardized beta coefficients) (N=114 households)
three to four months later is perplexing and requires
further investigation. Possibly more food-secure houseDependent variable
holds are replacing their intake of green leafy vegetables
with other foods. Current household food security, repTotal food
resented by household food stores, appears to be a useful
group variety
Total food
and intensity of
predictor of increased frequency of meat and dairy intake
group variety
consumption
and of overall dietary variety. Future household food
Independent
(across
(across and within security, represented by the amount of land planted in
variable
food groups)
food groups)
different crops and by animal holdings, is associated
with increased total dietary variety and future consumpF
2.166**
1.783*
tion of dairy products. The lack of associations between
2
R
0.157
0.133
future household food security and the second foodFUTUQ4
0.24*
0.19
frequency measure is unexpected, as one would hope
FUTUQ3
0.12
0.19
that measures of household food security would be
FUTUQ2
–0.03
0.02
Brahmin
0.04
0.06
useful in predicting inadequacies in household food
Chhetri
–0.07
0.04
supplies later in time. One possibility is that our secVaisya
–0.03
0.13
ond measure of household food consumption may have
SESL3
0.23*
0.18
been taken too early. It was conducted during the preSESL2
0.22**
0.14
monsoon and monsoon season when most crops had
Independency
–0.06
–0.13
not been harvested, and therefore we were apparently
ratio
unable to see the effects of planting on household supply
* p ≤ .10.
and consumption patterns. A limitation of this study
** p ≤ .05.
was that the household food security measurements
*** p ≤ .01.
TABLE 7. Relationship between past food security variables and future frequency of household consumption of different
food groups (standardized beta coefficients) (N=103 households)
Food group
Independent
Green leafy
Other
Dairy
variable
Grains
Beans vegetables Tubers vegetables Fruits
Meat
products
nsa
F
R2
PASTQ4
PASTQ3
PASTQ2
Brahmin
Chhetri
Vaisya
SESL3
SESL2
Independency
ratio
2.059
0.166
–0.147
–0.200
–0.058
0.072
0.290**
0.284**
0.299**
0.345***
–0.040
5.071
0.329
–0.274**
–0.229**
–0.253**
0.571***
0.116
0.004
0.058
0.045
–0.148*
2.639
0.203
–0.109
–0.139
0.147
0.265**
0.022
–0.144
0.245**
–0.044
–0.010
2.092
0.168
0.431***
0.064
0.216*
0.174
0.152
0.169
–0.098
–0.061
0.117
ns
1.751
3.476
0.145
0.252
–0.046
0.111
–0.170
0.124
–0.122
–0.068
–0.058
0.430***
–0.042
0.340**
0.050
0.242*
–0.185
0.174
–0.331*** 0.016
–0.111
0.004
a. ns = not significant.
* p ≤ .10.
** p ≤ .05.
*** p ≤ .01.
Delivered by Publishing Technology to: Guest User IP: 162.218.208.135 on: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 19:54:43
Copyright (c) Nevin Scrimshaw International Nutrition Foundation. All rights reserved.
J. Gittelsohn et al.
220
TABLE 8. Relationship between current food security variables and future frequency of household consumption of different
food groups (standardized beta coefficients) (N=103 households)
Food group
Independent
Green leafy
Other
Dairy
variable
Grains
Beans vegetables Tubers vegetables Fruits
Meat
products
nsa
F
R2
CURRQ4
CURRQ3
CURRQ2
Brahmin
Chhetri
Vaisya
SESL3
SESL2
Independency
ratio
1.991
0.162
–0.056
–0.088
0.086
0.034
0.270*
0.271*
0.278**
0.335***
–0.059
4.557
0.306
–0.118
–0.221*
–0.111
0.575***
0.126
0.041
–0.014
0.021
–0.145
1.750
0.145
–0.042
–0.011
–0.012
0.237*
0.001
–0.128
0.201*
–0.055
–0.033
ns
ns
2.000
3.586
0.162
0.258
0.165
0.201
–0.066
0.031
–0.046
–0.031
–0.096
0.440***
–0.093
0.317**
0.061
0.241*
–0.248**
0.155
–0.337*** 0.016
–0.136
0.011
a. ns = not significant.
* p ≤ .10.
** p ≤ .05.
*** p ≤ .01.
TABLE 9. Relationship between future food security variables and future frequency of household consumption of different
food groups (standardized beta coefficients) (N=103 households)
Food group
Independent
Green leafy
Other
Dairy
variable
Grains
Beans vegetables Tubers vegetables Fruits
Meat
products
nsa
F
R2
FUTUQ4
FUTUQ3
FUTUQ2
Brahmin
Chhetri
Vaisya
SESL3
SESL2
Independency
ratio
1.769
0.146
–0.094
–0.026
–0.049
0.018
0.251*
0.272*
0.289**
0.352***
–0.049
4.161
0.287
–0.081
–0.010
–0.034
0.513***
0.053
–0.006
0.015
0.037
–0.138
1.917
0.157
–0.051
0.088
0.045
0.213
–0.010
–0.147
0.209
–0.056
–0.030
ns
ns
ns
3.533
0.255
0.219*
0.173
0.010
0.431***
0.310**
0.167
0.104
–0.002
0.033
a. ns = not significant.
* p ≤ .10.
** p ≤ .05.
*** p ≤ .01.
were performed cross-sectionally. Future studies would
be wise to measure household food consumption 6, 9,
and even 12 months after the initial assessment of food
security status. In addition, the concept of household
food security also implies stability over time. Ideally,
estimates of household food stores should be obtained
several times throughout the year to capture the effects of seasonality and other secular trends.
No significant relationships were observed between
the household food security scales and the current consumption of grains and beans. This was an expected
result, as grains and beans constitute staple foods in
this region and are consumed daily in all households.
Nor were associations observed between the household
food security scales and consumption of other vegetables
and fruits. The availability of these foods is highly seasonal, which undoubtedly reduced the chance of finding significant associations.
It is clear also from the analyses that household food
consumption patterns are the product of several factors in this setting. Socio-economic status plays a role
in predicting the total dietary variety of foods consumed
and the frequency of consumption of food groups such
as beans, tubers, and green leafy vegetables. This find-
Delivered by Publishing Technology to: Guest User IP: 162.218.208.135 on: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 19:54:43
Copyright (c) Nevin Scrimshaw International Nutrition Foundation. All rights reserved.
Operationalizing household food security
ing agrees with other research in the region [36, 37].
Perhaps surprisingly, socio-economic status is not
correlated or, in some cases, is negatively correlated with
the consumption of meat and dairy products. The effect of caste status of the household is very strong and
appears to predict consumption in every food group.
In general, due to dietary prohibitions, members of
higher castes (especially Brahmins) are much less likely
to consume meat than members of lower castes. This
finding helps to explain why socio-economic status is
negatively correlated with meat consumption in this
setting. On the other hand, members of higher castes
are much more likely to consume dairy products and
to eat green leafy vegetables.
Overall, the operationalization of household food
security in research studies has traditionally focused
on specific, easily measured aspects, such as current
food supply, individual caloric intake, and so on, without
capturing the complexity of household food security.
It appears that the traditional economic focus on staple
grain supply as the indicator of national food security
has translated into a focus on total caloric intake and
anthropometric status as primary indicators of household food security [38]. This definition overlooks the
issue of stability in household food security as well as
the role of dietary quality. Recent studies indicate that
although total caloric consumption is correlated with
consumption of other macronutrients, it is not necessarily correlated with micronutrient intake, particularly
for vulnerable subgroups within the household [28].
Economic studies have found that the income elasticity of staple foods is much less than that of non-staple
foods; this reinforces the need to look at dietary quality rather than quantity, since this is where the most
variability among households occurs.
Operational frameworks used for empirical measurement of household food security therefore need to evolve
to encompass a broader range of components, such as
those identified in this paper. Our findings indicate that
our three components of household food security—
past stable supply, current stores, and future production—were differently associated with intakes of different foods. Both stability and adequacy of household
221
food supply need to be included in the operationalization. Within adequacy of food supply, both the quantity and the quality of food should be measured.
The conceptual approach used here to operationalize
household food security is based on the creation of
three scales, representing past, current, and future food
security. Factor analysis enabled us to construct these
scales in the rural Nepalese setting as stability of food
flow, current food stores, and investment in future food
production, respectively. It will be important to further
test and refine these scales in other settings. Further
analytic work needs to be done to examine the relationship between these scales and individual dietary
intake and nutritional status. Household food-frequency
data, while relatively easy to collect, are a crude indicator of consumption patterns within the household
and cannot reflect within-household differences.
We feel that we have developed a useful conceptual
framework for food security at the household level that
comes closer to capturing the complex dynamic that
results in the household production of nutritional status
and health. Using this conceptual framework, we were
able to identify components of household food security that can serve as proximate determinants of household food consumption patterns, and perhaps eventually as indicators of individual dietary intake and
nutritional status.
Acknowledgements
We gratefully acknowledge the field assistance of Meera
Thapa Gittelsohn. This research was supported by grants
from the Cultural Anthropology Program of the National Science Foundation, the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research, the University of
Connecticut Health Center, and the Office of Health
and Nutrition, US Agency for International Development, under Cooperative Agreement DAN 0045-A-005094-00 with Johns Hopkins University. We would also
like to acknowledge the helpful comments of Anita V.
Shankar and Margaret E. Bentley on earlier drafts.
References
1. Reutlinger S, Knapp K. Food security in food deficit countries. World Bank Staff Working Paper No. 393. Washington, DC: World Bank, 1980.
2. World Bank. Poverty and hunger: issues and options
for food security in developing countries. World Bank
Policy Study, xi, 69. Washington, DC: World Bank, 1986.
3. Kennedy E. The effects of sugarcane production on food
security, health and nutrition in Kenya: a longitudinal
analysis. Research Report No. 78. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute, December 1989.
4. Collomb P. Food security and rural development. Seventh World Congress for Rural Sociology, 25 June–2 July
1988, Bologna, Italy. Population 1990;2:29–36.
5. Schiff M, Valdes A. Poverty, food and malnutrition: implications for food security in developing countries. Am
J Agric Econ 1990;72:1318–22.
6. Romanoff S, Lynam J. Commentary. Cassava and African food security: some ethnographic examples. Ecol
Food Nutr 1992;27:29–41.
Delivered by Publishing Technology to: Guest User IP: 162.218.208.135 on: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 19:54:43
Copyright (c) Nevin Scrimshaw International Nutrition Foundation. All rights reserved.
J. Gittelsohn et al.
222
7. Staatz JM, D’Agostino VC, Sundberg S. Measuring food
security in Africa: conceptual, empirical, and policy issues. Am J Agric Econ 1990;72:1311–7.
8. Holmboe-Ottesen G, Wandel M. Household food security: application of a normative concept in research
for planning of sustainable development. Forum for
Utviklingsstudier, 1990;1:59–73.
9. Maxwell S, Frankenberger TR, eds. Household food security: concepts, indicators and measurements: a technical review. New York and Rome: UNICEF and Food
and Agriculture Organization, 1992.
10. Marek T. Ending malnutrition: Why increasing income
is not enough. World Bank Africa Technical Department,
Technical Working Paper No. 5. Washington, DC: World
Bank, October 1992.
11. Schiff M, Valdes A. The link between poverty and malnutrition—a household theoretic approach. Working
Paper No. 536. Washington, DC: World Bank, 1990.
12. Kennedy E, Bouis HE. Linkages between agriculture and
nutrition: implications for policy and research. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute, 1993.
13. Sen AK. Poverty and famines: an essay on entitlement
and deprivation. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981.
14. International Fund for Agricultural Development. Rural poverty alleviation and nutrition: IFAD’s evolving
experiences. A technical paper. Rome: IFAD, Technical
Advisory Division, 1992.
15. Molony C. Systematic valence coding of Mexican “hotcold” foods. Ecol Food Nutr 1975;4:67–74.
16. Currier R. The hot-cold syndrome and symbolic balance in Mexican and Spanish American folk medicine.
Ethnology 1966;5:251–63.
17. Wilson CS. Food beliefs affect nutritional status of Malay
fisherfolk. J Nutr Educ 1971;2:96–8.
18. Wilson CS. Food taboos of childbirth: the Malay example. Ecol Food Nutr 1973;2:267–74.
19. Walter JP. Internal-external poverty and nutritional determinates of urban slum youth. Ecol Food Nutr 1973;2:3–10.
20. Leonard WR. Household-level strategies for protecting
children from seasonal food scarcity. Soc Sci Med
1991;33:1127–33.
21. McElroy A, Townsend PK. Medical anthropology in ecological perspective. 2nd ed. Boulder, Col, USA: Westview
Press, 1989.
22. Orlove BS. Stability and change in highland Andean dietary patterns. In: Harris M, Ross EB, eds. Food and
evolution: toward a theory of human food habits. Philadelphia, Pa, USA: Temple University Press, 1987:481–516.
23. Feenstra G. Community food security: improving the
nutritional and social health of communities. Communicator 1996;19(2):3–4.
24. Crooks DL. Dietary quality among poor Appalachian
school children: a question of food security. Communicator 1996;19(2):5–8.
25. Jerome NW, Kandel RF, Pelto GH. An ecological approach. In: Jerome NW, Kandel RF, Pelto GH, eds. Nutritional anthropology: contemporary approaches to diet
and culture. New York: Redgrave Publishing Company,
1980:13–45.
26. Cassels C, Wijga A, Pant M, Nabarro D. Coping strategies
of East Nepal farmers: Can development initiatives help?
Report of the Impact of the Kosi Hill Area Rural Development Programme. Kathmandu, Nepal: Khardep, 1987.
27. Gittelsohn J. Opening the box: intrahousehold food allocation in rural Nepal. Soc Sci Med 1991;33:1141–54.
28. Gittelsohn J, Thapa M, Landman L. Cultural factors,
caloric intake and micronutrient sufficiency in rural
Nepali households. Soc Sci Med 1997;44:1739–49.
29. Alderman H, Garcia M. Poverty, household food security, and nutrition in rural Pakistan. Washington, DC:
International Food Policy Research Institute, 1993.
30. Mahoney CA, Thombs DL, Howe CZ. The art and science of scale development in health education research.
Health Educ Res 1995;10:1–10.
31. Hatcher L. Step-by-step approach to using the SAS system for factor analysis and structural equation modeling. Carey, NC, USA: SAS Institute, 1994.
32. Gittelsohn J, Wolever TMS, Harris SB, Harris-Giraldo
R, Hanley AJG, Zinman B. Specific patterns of food consumption and preparation are associated with diabetes
and obesity in a native Canadian community. J Nutr
1998;128:541–7.
33. Randall E, Marshall JR, Graham S, Braure J. Patterns in
food use and their association with nutrient intakes. Am
J Clin Nutr 1990;52:739–45.
34. Schwerin HS, Stanton JL, Smith JL, Riley AM Jr, Brett
BE. Food, eating habits and health: a further examination of the relationship between food eating patterns
and nutritional health. Am J Clin Nutr 1982;35:1319–25.
35. Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 1951;16:297–334.
36. Khatry SK, West KP Jr, Katz J, LeClerq SC, Pradhan EK,
Wu LS, Thapa MD, Pokhrel RB. Epidemiology of xerophthalmia in Nepal: a pattern of household poverty,
childhood illness and mortality. Arch Ophthalmol
1995;113:425–9.
37. Shankar AV, West KP Jr, Gittelsohn J, Katz J, Pradhan
R. Chronic low intakes of vitamin A-rich foods in households with xerophthalmic children: a case-control study
in Nepal. Am J Clin Nutr 1996;64:242–8.
38. Haddad L, Kennedy E, Sullivan J. Choice of indicators
for food security and nutrition monitoring. Food Policy
1994;19:323–53.
Delivered by Publishing Technology to: Guest User IP: 162.218.208.135 on: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 19:54:43
Copyright (c) Nevin Scrimshaw International Nutrition Foundation. All rights reserved.