Author
Listed:
- Abdullah Al-Zabir
- Camillus Abawiera Wongnaa
- Md. Ariful Islam
- Md. Nur Mozahid
Abstract
This study examined the difference in food security status of recipients and non-receivers of institutional support living under similar socioeconomic conditions. The study used data collected from 160 farming households in five upazilas in Sylhet district using stratified sampling. Descriptive statistics, Household Dietary Diversity Score and binary logistic regression analysis were the methods of analysis employed. The results showed that number of ultra-poor, hardcore poor and absolute poor were higher in the case of non-receivers of institutional support as their per capita food consumption was low. Rice was reported as the most consumed food item by both groups per day. People with access to institutional support had more dietary diversity scores than the counterpart group. The food security index was 0.95 and 1.08 for non-receivers and recipients of institutional support, respectively. On the basis of calorie intake, with an average calorie intake of 2298.58 KCal, recipients of institutional support were found to be more food secured than non-receivers who reported 2020.75 KCal. The results also revealed that, though recipients of institutional support were more food secured, higher fluctuations were found in individual calorie intake by recipients than non-receivers. Finally, the food security of the farming households was found to be influenced by educational level, family size, number of facilities received and size of cultivable land area. The positive effect of education of especially non-receivers of institutional support on food security calls for policies aimed at strengthening education of farming households.
Suggested Citation
Abdullah Al-Zabir & Camillus Abawiera Wongnaa & Md. Ariful Islam & Md. Nur Mozahid, 2021.
"Food security status of farming households in Bangladesh: A comparison of recipients and non-receivers of institutional support,"
African Journal of Science, Technology, Innovation and Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(4), pages 449-462, June.
Handle:
RePEc:taf:rajsxx:v:13:y:2021:i:4:p:449-462
DOI: 10.1080/20421338.2020.1804100
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:rajsxx:v:13:y:2021:i:4:p:449-462. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/rajs .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.