Wild fruit collection and its impact on household food security in the Luapula Province, Zambia

Seege s, Ronja
Book Pa
Wild ui collec ion and i s impac on household ood
secu i y in he Luapula P o ince, Zambia
P o ided in Coope a ion wi h:
ARL – Akademie ü Raumen wicklung in de Leibniz-Gemeinscha
Sugges ed Ci a ion: Seege s, Ronja (2024) : Wild ui collec ion and i s impac on household
ood secu i y in he Luapula P o ince, Zambia, In: Finge , Anne Badel , Ole Dahmen, Ka hleen
Heilen, Lydia Mai, No a Seege s, Ronja Seewald, E a Śnieg, Filip Wieme , Leonie (Ed.):
T ans o ma ionsp ozesse in S ad und Land: E kenn nisse, S a egien und Zukun spe spek i en,
ISBN 978-3-88838-117-1, Ve lag de ARL - Akademie ü Raumen wicklung in de Leibniz-
Gemeinscha , Hanno e , pp. 164-183,
h ps://nbn- esol ing.de/u n:nbn:de:0156-1171121
This Ve sion is a ailable a :
h ps://hdl.handle.ne /10419/286128
S anda d-Nu zungsbedingungen:
Die Dokumen e au EconS o dü en zu eigenen wissenscha lichen
Zwecken und zum P i a geb auch gespeiche und kopie we den.
Sie dü en die Dokumen e nich ü ö en liche ode komme zielle
Zwecke e iel äl igen, ö en lich auss ellen, ö en lich zugänglich
machen, e eiben ode ande wei ig nu zen.
So e n die Ve asse die Dokumen e un e Open-Con en -Lizenzen
(insbesonde e CC-Lizenzen) zu Ve ügung ges ell haben soll en,
gel en abweichend on diesen Nu zungsbedingungen die in de do
genann en Lizenz gewäh en Nu zungs ech e.
Te ms o use:
Documen s in EconS o may be sa ed and copied o you pe sonal
and schola ly pu poses.
You a e no o copy documen s o public o comme cial pu poses, o
exhibi he documen s publicly, o make hem publicly a ailable on he
in e ne , o o dis ibu e o o he wise use he documen s in public.
I he documen s ha e been made a ailable unde an Open Con en
Licence (especially C ea i e Commons Licences), you may exe cise
u he usage igh s as speci ied in he indica ed licence.
h ps://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
Seege s, Ronja:
Wild ui collec ion and i s impac on household ood
secu i y in he Luapula P o ince, Zambia
h ps://nbn- esol ing.o g/u n:nbn:de:0156-1171121
In:
Finge , Anne; Badel , Ole; Dahmen, Ka hleen; Heilen, Lydia; Mai, No a;
Seege s, Ronja; Seewald, E a; Śnieg, Filip; Wieme , Leonie (H sg.) (2024):
T ans o ma ionsp ozesse in S ad und Land – E kenn nisse, S a egien und
Zukun spe spek i en.
Hanno e , 164-183. = Fo schungsbe ich e de ARL 23.
h ps://nbn- esol ing.o g/u n:nbn:de:0156-11713
h ps://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
164 23 _ TRANSFORMATIONSPROZESSE IN STADT UND LAND
Ronja Seege s
WILD FRUIT COLLECTION AND ITS IMPACT ON
HOUSEHOLD FOOD SECURITY IN THE LUAPULA
PROVINCE, ZAMBIA
Con en s
1 In oduc ion
2 Concep ual F amewo k
3 Da a and Me hods
3.1 S udy A ea
3.2 Da a Collec ion
3.3 Da a Analysis
3.3.1 Food Secu i y Indica o s
3.3.2 Econome ic Analysis
4 Resul s and Discussion
4.1 Gene al Household In o ma ion
4.2 Wild F ui Collec ion
4.3 Impac o Wild F ui Collec ion on Food Secu i y
4.4 Th ea s o he A ailabili y o Wild F ui s
5 Conclusion
6 Limi a ions
Re e ences
Abs ac
In many sub-Saha an A ican coun ies, wild ui s o e g ea po en ial o se e as a
nu i ional complemen and sa e y ne in imes o ood sho ages. Howe e , hei ue
con ibu ion o ood secu i y is s ill insu icien ly in es iga ed. This s udy, he e o e,
examines he impac o wild ui s on he ood secu i y o 215 households in No he n
Zambia. Da a we e collec ed h ough ocus g oup discussions and a census. The Food
Consump ion Sco e (FCS) and educed Coping S a egy Index ( CSI) we e calcula ed
as ood secu i y indica o s. Resul s o mul iple linea eg ession analysis e eal no
ela ionship be ween wild ui collec ion and he CSI. Howe e , households wi h a
lowe FCS ely mo e on wild ui collec ion o di e si y hei die s and can signi ican ly
imp o e hei ood secu i y he mo e ui s hey collec . Thus, households do no
conside wild ui collec ion as a coping s a egy in imes o ood sca ci y bu a he
use wild ui s as nu i ional complemen s o a egula die .
Keywo ds
Wild F ui s – Food Secu i y – Food Consump ion Sco e – Reduced Coping S a egy
Index – Zambia
165WILD FRUIT COLLECTION AND ITS IMPACT ON HOUSEHOLD FOOD SECURITY IN ZAMBIA
Das Sammeln on Wild üch en und seine Auswi kungen au die E näh ungs-
siche ung on Haushal en in de P o inz Luapula, Sambia
Ku z assung
In ielen a ikanischen Lände n südlich de Saha a bie en Wild üch e g oßes Po enzi-
al, als Nah ungse gänzung und Siche hei sne z in Zei en on Nah ungsmi elknapp-
hei zu dienen. Ih a sächliche Bei ag zu E näh ungssiche ung is jedoch noch un-
zu eichend e o sch . Diese S udie un e such dahe die Auswi kungen on Wild-
üch en au die E näh ungssiche ung on 215 Haushal en im No den Sambias. Die
Da en wu den du ch Fokusg uppendiskussionen und eine Volkszählung e hoben. De
Food Consump ion Sco e (FCS) und de educed Coping S a egy Index ( CSI) wu -
den als Indika o en ü die E näh ungssiche ung be echne . Die E gebnisse de mul-
iplen linea en Reg essionsanalyse zeigen keinen Zusammenhang zwischen dem Sam-
meln on Wild üch en und dem CSI. Haushal e mi einem nied ige en FCS sind je-
doch s ä ke au das Sammeln on Wild üch en angewiesen, um ih e E näh ung zu
di e si izie en, und können ih e E näh ungssiche ung deu lich e besse n, je meh
F üch e sie sammeln. Die Haushal e be ach en das Sammeln on Wild üch en also
nich als Bewäl igungss a egie in Zei en de Nah ungsmi elknapphei , sonde n nu -
zen diese ielmeh als E gänzung zu no malen E näh ung.
Schlüsselwö e
Wild üch e – E näh ungssiche ung – Food Consump ion Sco e – educed Coping
S a egy Index – Sambia
1 In oduc ion
Despi e global p og ess, ending hunge and ood insecu i y emains a challenge.
Almos 3.1 billion people wo ldwide a e cu en ly no able o a o d a heal hy die
(FAO 2022). This is especially ue o smallholde a me s in de eloping coun ies
who depend on hei own p oduc ion (Siba hu/Qaim 2017). Due o changing clima e
condi ions such as ainy and d y seasons, smallholde s a e ulne able o seasonal ood
sho ages, esul ing in pe iods o hunge (Chakona/Shackle on 2019; E skine e al.
2014). Clima e change- ela ed, ex eme wea he e en s u he exace ba e he isk o
insu icien ood p oduc ion and ha es loss. In many sub-Saha an A ican coun ies,
i is no only hunge ha poses a se ious h ea bu also malnu i ion. As small-scale
a ming households p edominan ly cul i a e and consume calo ie-dense s aple c ops,
hey equen ly lack impo an mic onu ien s ha a e equi ed o ul ill a di e si ied,
heal hy die (Siba hu/Qaim 2017). This lack o nu ien s can se e ely a ec human
heal h, leading o example o s un ing, was ing, anemia, and low bi h weigh .
S un ing, he s a e o child en unde he age o i e being oo small ela i e o hei
age, is he mos common o m o malnu i ion and a ec s 32.3% o child en in sub-
Saha an A ica (FAO e al. 2022).
An impo an s a egy o educe household ood insecu i y is he collec ion o na u al
o es esou ces such as wild ui s (Fen ahun/Hage 2009; Mahapa a e al. 2012;
Shackle on/Shackle on 2004). P e ious esea ch has shown ha collec ing and
166 23 _ TRANSFORMATIONSPROZESSE IN STADT UND LAND
consuming wild ui s om su ounding o es s and woodlands is common o
households in a ious A ican coun ies (Boedecke e al. 2014; Feyssa e al. 2011;
Keding e al. 2017; Maseko e al. 2017; Mhuji e al. 2018; Mi hö e /Waibel 2003;
Paumga en/Loca elli/Wi kowski 2018; Tebkew e al. 2018; Tebkew/As aw/Zewudie
2014). Households pa icula ly use wild ui s as a sa e y ne and coping measu e in
imes o ood sho ages due o shocks and insu icien c op p oduc ion (E skine e al.
2014; Paumga en/Loca elli/Wi kowski 2018). As shown in a s udy om Sou h A ica,
he majo i y o households inc ease he equency o wild ood collec ion du ing imes
o ood sca ci y and hunge . The highe collec ion equency, he e o e, mi iga es he
in ensi y o hunge pe iods, allows o cos -sa ing, and p e en s he need o pu sue
o he coping measu es (Paumga en/Loca elli/Wi kowski 2018).
Mo eo e , wild ui s a e impo an sou ces o a ious mac o- and mic onu ien s,
such as ca bohyd a es, ibe , and a ious i amins and mine als (Awo h 2015). In
India, Mahapa a e al. (2012) ound ha wild ui s con ained a simila o e en highe
amoun o ca bohyd a es, p o eins, suga , and i amins compa ed o cul i a ed
species. In Benin, Boedecke e al. (2014) ound ha he consump ion o wild edible
plan s (WEPs) can con ibu e o highe in akes o Vi amin C, ibo la in, coppe , i on,
ola e, and calcium. Wild ui species a e he e o e o g ea ele ance o add essing
malnu i ion among u al popula ions (Ngome e al. 2017).
Apa om hei po en ial o educe hunge and malnu i ion, wild ui s can also
se e as an income sou ce and, he e o e, inc ease households’ li elihood (Sa desh-
pande/Shackle on 2019; Tebkew e al. 2018). Mahapa a/Panda (2012) showed ha
Indian households gene a e 15% o hei income h ough he sale o wild ui s. In hei
s udy om Mu ehwa Dis ic in Zimbabwe, Mi hö e /Waibel (2003) e ealed ha ,
al hough households sell ewe wild ui s han exo ic ui s, hey ecei e simila
amoun s o cash pe uni sold o bo h ypes o ui . Since households equen ly use
he income ob ained h ough he sale o educa ional pu poses, medical consul a ions
and ea men , and o ood om ou side hei own p oduc ion, wild ui s also
indi ec ly con ibu e o ood secu i y (Asp illa-Pe ea/Díaz-Puen e 2019).
Po e y and malnu i ion a e also majo challenges in Zambia. In 2021, he p e alence
o unde nou ishmen accoun ed o 30.9%. In addi ion, an es ima ed 32.9% o chil-
d en unde he age o i e we e s un ed in 2020 (FAOSTAT 2022). The Miombo
woodlands, he p edominan ege a ion biome in Zambia, include mo e han 75
indigenous ui ee species, which a e o essen ial impo ance o imp o ing
household li elihood and ood secu i y (Chi wa/Syampungani/Geldenhuys 2008).
Ickowi z e al. (2021) es ima e ha he quan i y o wild ui s collec ed con ibu es
80% o o al household ui in ake in Zambia, which co esponds o 25% o he
consump ion amoun ecommended by he WHO. This amoun has been shown o be
pa icula ly high among households expe iencing ood secu i y (S eel e al. 2022).
Howe e , unsus ainable land use and de o es a ion pose se e e h ea s o he
a ailabili y o wild ui s in Zambia (FAO 2013). This h ea could ein o ce he
households’ isk o su e ing om po e y and ood insecu i y.

167WILD FRUIT COLLECTION AND ITS IMPACT ON HOUSEHOLD FOOD SECURITY IN ZAMBIA
Al hough wild edible ui s could play an impo an ole as a sa e y ne and
complemen a y ood, hey ha e been la gely o e looked in policy and esea ch
analyses in he pas (Awo h 2015; E skine e al. 2014; Keding e al. 2017; Ngome e al.
2017). Resea che s om di e en disciplina y ields ha e made e o s o include wild
oods in nu i ion and ood secu i y planning, and ill exis ing knowledge gaps, o
example, by conduc ing s udies o e hnobiology, nu i ional e alua ions, and plan ing
p ac ices (Asp illa-Pe ea/Díaz-Puen e/Ma ín-Fe nández 2022). Despi e he inc easing
numbe o s udies on wild ood u iliza ion, hei di ec impac on household ood
secu i y is s ill di icul o con i m and needs g ea e unde s anding (Asp illa-Pe ea/
Díaz-Puen e 2019). To da e, a ious s udies ha e e ealed ha households equen ly
consume wild oods o o e come pe iods o ood sho ages (E skine e al. 2014;
Shackle on/Shackle on 2004; Feyssa e al. 2011; Paumga en/Loca elli/Wi kowski
2018), sugges ing ha wild ui s play an impo an ole in inc easing ood secu i y.
Howe e , ewe s udies ha e empi ically in es iga ed he ela ionship be ween wild
ood consump ion and household ood secu i y by applying ho ough ood secu i y
indica o s (Chakona/Shackle on 2019) o nu ien in ake assessmen measu es
(Boedecke e al. 2014; Powell e al. 2013; Te mo e e al. 2012). In addi ion, he ew
s udies ha use ood secu i y o nu ien in ake assessmen indica o s ha e mos ly
in es iga ed he ela ion o mo e gene al ood g oups om he o es s, such as Non-
Timbe Fo es P oduc s (NTFP), wild oods (Chakona/Shackle on 2019), o Wild
Edible Plan s (WEPs) (Boedecke e al. 2014; Te mo e e al. 2012). Indeed, he
insu icien di e en ia ion o wild ui s om b oade e ms leads o limi ed
unde s anding o he ole o wild ui s as an independen ca ego y (Keding e al.
2017; Ngome e al. 2017), which migh lead o unde es ima ions o hei impo ance
o household li elihood.
Mo eo e , wi h ew excep ions (S eel e al. 2022), ha dly any s udy has examined
household ood secu i y wi h ega d o he quan i y o wild ood collec ed, speci ically
in Zambia. Mo e s udies should he e o e in es iga e he ela ionship be ween wild
ui collec ion and ood secu i y (Asp illa-Pe ea/Díaz-Puen e 2019; Chak a a y e al.
2016; Ngome e al. 2017), pa icula ly wi h ega d o bo h he quan i y o wild ui s
collec ed and ood secu i y indica o s.
To ill hese esea ch gaps, his pape in es iga es he ex en o wild ui collec ion
and i s impac on household ood secu i y in Zambia. Pa icula ly, he con ibu ion o
his s udy is h ee old. Fi s , i speci ically conside s he collec ion o wild ui s ins ead
o mo e gene al e ms such as NTFP, wild ood, o WEPs. Second, his pape no only
akes in o accoun he decision o households o collec wild ui s bu also in es iga es
he linkage be ween he quan i y o wild ui s collec ed and ood secu i y among
Zambian households. Thi d, he s udy uses wo widely used ood secu i y indica o s
o in es iga e he ole o wild ui collec ion on household ood secu i y. The
calcula ion o ood secu i y indica o s allows his in es iga ion o mo e p ecisely
analyze he ue impac o wild ui collec ion on household ood secu i y, which
migh help o d aw policy implica ions. In addi ion, since he li e a u e analyzing he
in luencing ac o s o ood secu i y among Zambian households is s ill limi ed
(Nkomoki/Ba o o á/Banou 2019), his s udy also in es iga es o he po en ial
de e minan s o hei ood secu i y s a us.
168 23 _ TRANSFORMATIONSPROZESSE IN STADT UND LAND
The pape is s uc u ed as ollows. Sec ion 2 i s p o ides a concep ual amewo k
explaining he impac o wild ui collec ion on household ood secu i y. Sec ion 3
desc ibes he da a and me hods used o his s udy, including in o ma ion on he
s udy a ea, da a collec ion p ocess, desc ip ion and calcula ion o he wo ood
secu i y indica o s, and da a analysis. Sec ion 4 epo s he desc ip i e and
econome ic esul s and discusses he indings. Sec ion 5 summa izes he esul s and
concludes wi h an ou look o u u e esea ch and policy ecommenda ions, be o e
Sec ion 6 closes wi h a discussion o he limi a ions o his s udy.
Figu e 1: Concep ual F amewo k / Sou ce: he au ho
2 Concep ual F amewo k
The collec ion o wild ui s o e s impo an bene i s o poo u al households o
de eloping coun ies who only ha e limi ed access o ma ke s and di e se ood apa
om hei own p oduc ion. Figu e 1 ep esen s he concep ual amewo k o his
s udy, which highligh s he mos meaning ul ad an ages o wild ui s and hei
impo ance o u al household ood secu i y. Since wild ui ees occu spon a-
neously and a e sel -p opaga ing plan s ha a e nei he domes ica ed no cul i a ed
(Heywood 1999), households can easily access hem wi h no cos s o he han labo
oppo uni y cos s (Shackle on/Shackle on 2004). Exis ing li e a u e has al eady
shown ha he a ailabili y o wild ui s is pa icula ly impo an in imes o low c op
169WILD FRUIT COLLECTION AND ITS IMPACT ON HOUSEHOLD FOOD SECURITY IN ZAMBIA
yield and insu icien ood p oduc ion, implying ha he consump ion o wild ui s
can help o o e come pe iods o hunge (Gumbo e al. 2018; Paumga en/Shackle on
2011; Feyssa e al. 2011). Due o hei high nu i ional alue, hey a e also conside ed
a nu ien - ich supplemen o he ypical unbalanced, ca bohyd a e-hea y die and,
hus, play a c i ical ole in educing malnu i ion (Vince i e al. 2013). Th ough hei
unc ion as a sa e y ne and nu i ional supplemen , i is expec ed ha wild ui s ha e
a di ec posi i e impac on household ood secu i y. In addi ion, collec ing ui s om
su ounding o es s p o ides a cos -sa ing s a egy, as households can subs i u e
pu chased ood wi h collec ed wild ui s and, he e o e, educe hei ood expen-
di u es (Chakona/Shackle on 2019; Paumga en/Shackle on 2011). Ano he indi ec
way o imp o e household ood secu i y is h ough he sale o wild ui s. The cash
income gene a ed om ui sales enables households o buy o he impo an ood
p oduc s, which again con ibu es o ood and nu i ion secu i y (Ngome e al. 2017).
Al e na i ely, he income ob ained om ui sales and he sa ings h ough lowe ood
pu chases may be used o in es men s in ag icul u e, educa ion, o o he non- ood
commodi ies (Ngome e al. 2017; Shackle on/Shackle on 2004). The collec ion o wild
ui s can hus inc ease household ood secu i y h ough a ious di ec and indi ec
pa hways.
3 Da a and Me hods
3.1 S udy A ea
The s udy a ea is loca ed in Man apala in he Nchelenge Dis ic , which is pa o he
Luapula P o ince in no he n Zambia (Figu e 2). Among all p o inces in Zambia, he
unde - i e mo ali y a e is highes in he Luapula P o ince (Zambia S a is ics Agency/
Minis y o Heal h (MOH) Zambia/ ICF 2018). In addi ion, i is one o he p o inces
wi h he la ges p e alence o s un ing and was ing a es o child en unde he age o
i e (Bellack/Richa ds 2016), accoun ing o 45% and 6%, espec i ely (USAID 2018;
Zambia S a is ics Agency/ Minis y o Heal h (MOH) Zambia/ ICF 2018).
Figu e 2: Loca ion o he s udy a ea Man apala in he Luapula P o ince, Zambia / Sou ce: G onau/
Win e /G o e (2018)
170 23 _ TRANSFORMATIONSPROZESSE IN STADT UND LAND
On a e age, people only ha e less han 1.90 US$ pe capi a pe day o li e on, which
e eals he se e e s a e o po e y in he Luapula P o ince (Mo ya-Mukuka/Mo u
2016). To secu e hei li elihood, households ely on subsis ence a ming and he use
o o es esou ces. They mainly cul i a e cassa a and maize, bu swee po a oes, ice,
mille , g oundnu s, and beans a e also g own o a lowe ex en (G onau/Win e /G o e
2018). Due o a lack o income and in as uc u e, households a e unable o buy
nu i ious oods such as ui s. The e o e, wild ui collec ion is conside ed an
impo an s a egy o imp o e household ood and nu i ion secu i y (G onau/
Win e /G o e 2018).
3.2 Da a Collec ion
The da a o his s udy o igina ed om he p ojec Food Secu i y in Ru al Zambia
(FoSeZa), which was unded by he Ge man Fede al Minis y o Food and Ag icul u e
(Bundesminis e ium ü E näh ung und Landwi scha − BMEL). Wi hin his p ojec ,
a census was conduc ed in Ap il 2018, including 215 households om eigh illages
wi hin Man apala. In addi ion, i e ocus g oup discussions (FGDs) wi h six andomly
selec ed pa icipan s we e conduc ed o ga he in-dep h knowledge on wild ui
collec ion.
3.3 Da a Analysis
3.3.1 Food Secu i y Indica o s
Acco ding o he de ini ion by he Wo ld Food Summi om 1996 “Food secu i y
exis s when all people, a all imes, ha e physical and economic access o su icien ,
sa e and nu i ious ood ha mee s hei die a y needs and ood p e e ences o an
ac i e and heal hy li e”. Following his de ini ion, ood secu i y cap u es ou di e en
dimensions, namely ood a ailabili y, ood access, u iliza ion, and s abili y. The i s
dimension e e s o he exis ence o a su icien quan i y and quali y o ood, whe eas
he second dimension means ha he a ailable ood p oduc s should be accessible o
e e y indi idual o enable a nu i ious die . The hi d dimension cap u es non- ood
inpu s like heal hca e, clean wa e , and sani a ion, which cons i u e impo an
componen s o assu ing ood secu i y. The las dimension o ood secu i y e e s o
he long- e m s abili y o ood a ailabili y, access, and u iliza ion (FAO 2006).
This s udy applies he Food Consump ion Sco e (FCS) and he educed Coping
S a egy Index ( CSI). Bo h indica o s measu e he ood access dimension o
household ood secu i y and a e based on a se en-day ecall pe iod (Ca le o/Zezza/
Bane jee 2013; Vai la/Coa es/Maxwell 2015). While he FCS e e s o die a y di e si y,
ood consump ion equency, and he nu i ional impo ance o ood g oups, he CSI
ocuses on he coping beha io o people in imes o ood sho ages (Maxwell/Caldwell
2008, WFP 2008). Fo u he in o ma ion on calcula ions, see o example WFP
(2008) and Vai la/Coa es/Maxwell (2015). The h ee inal ca ego ies o he FCS a e
“poo ”, “bo de line”, and “accep able”. The co esponding sco es o hese ca ego ies
ange om 0 o 21, om 21.5 o 35, and om 35.5 o 112, espec i ely, wi h highe
177WILD FRUIT COLLECTION AND ITS IMPACT ON HOUSEHOLD FOOD SECURITY IN ZAMBIA
Since households om he s udy a ea ha dly g ow any ui ees, he consump ion o
wild edible ui s om he su ounding o es s is o pa icula ele ance o diminishing
mic onu ien de iciencies. In his con ex , i is impo an o no e ha he calcula ion
o ui quan i y is based on a ime pe iod o o e one yea , whe eas he FCS e lec s
only a sho pe iod o one week du ing he ime o da a collec ion in Ap il. While
households ha es ed mos ui species in Oc obe , No embe , and Decembe , only
a ew species, such as A amomum a icanum we e ipe in Ap il. Thus, households
p obably consumed conside ably lowe amoun s o wild ui s a he ime o da a
collec ion han a he main ha es ime, especially since hey ha dly p ocess o s o e
any ui s. The ue e ec o wild ui consump ion on household ood secu i y migh
he e o e be unde es ima ed in hese s udy esul s.
In bo h models o he FCS, o he a iables apa om wild ui collec ion signi ican ly
in luence household ood secu i y. Fo example, a la ge a ea o c opland is signi ican ly
associa ed wi h highe ood secu i y. This inding coincides wi h he esul s o o he
s udies ha ound a posi i e ela ionship be ween size o land and ood secu i y,
implying ha households wi h mo e land can p oduce mo e ood (Mbwana e al. 2016;
Mu aoka/Jin/Jayne 2018; Nkomoki/Ba o o á/Banou 2019; Rammohan/P i cha d
2014; Te e a/Te e a 2014).
Ano he highly signi ican ac o ha posi i ely a ec s he FCS is annual household
income. This esul is also con i med by p e ious s udies ha iden i ied income as an
impo an de e minan o household ood secu i y, meaning ha households wi h
highe income can acqui e mo e ood and hus imp o e hei die (Asmelash 2014;
Mbwana e al. 2016; Sekhampu 2013).
Howe e , i households gene a e hei main income h ough ag icul u al ac i i ies,
hei FCS signi ican ly dec eases by app oxima ely 14 poin s in bo h models. This
inding is in line wi h p e ious s udies ha e eal a posi i e e ec o non- a m wo k on
ood secu i y. Fo example, Ze eyesus e al. (2017) iden i ied a lowe ulne abili y o
ood po e y in Ghana o households engaging in non- a m wo k. In hei s udy om
Nige ia, Baba unde/Qaim (2010) ound ha gene a ing o - a m income inc eases
household calo ie consump ion, die a y quali y, and mic onu ien supply. They a gue
ha o - a m income can help o compensa e o a lack o a m capi al and enhance
ood p oduc ion. In addi ion, o - a m income imp o es household esilience by
mi iga ing he nega i e e ec s o shocks ha jeopa dize ood secu i y (Ansah/
Ga deb oek/Ihle 2019; Kassie/Ndi i u/Shi e aw 2012). Ano he highly ele an
p edic o o household ood secu i y e e s o emale decision-making. I women
decide abou in a-household ood alloca ion, he FCS signi ican ly inc eases by 16
poin s. I is well known ha women play a i al ole in ood p oduc ion and in a-
household dis ibu ion. Ne e heless, hey o en ace inequi ies and cons ain s such
as insu icien access o educa ion, employmen , and p oduc ion asse s, which leads
o low ba gaining powe and ood and nu i ion insecu i y (ADB/ FAO 2013). Acco ding
o indings om S aboni e al. (2014), inc easing women’s empowe men can enhance
household ood secu i y ega ding calo ie a ailabili y and die a y di e si y.

178 23 _ TRANSFORMATIONSPROZESSE IN STADT UND LAND
Impac on he CSI
Rega ding bo h models o he CSI, wild ui collec ion was no a signi ican p edic o
o ood secu i y, nei he as a dummy a iable no as a con inuous a iable o he
quan i y collec ed. These insigni ican e ec s could imply ha households do no
conside wild ui collec ion as a coping s a egy o educe hunge in imes o in-
su icien ood a ailabili y. I can he e o e be concluded ha households a e awa e o
he posi i e bene i s o wild ui s and use hem as die a y supplemen s, ega dless o
he a ailabili y o o he oods. This esul is in line wi h he conclusions o Boedecke
e al. (2014), who e ealed ha in Benin, WEPs a e used as a die a y complemen
a he han as a subs i u e o o he ood. Howe e , he indings con as wi h a ious
s udies ha iden i ied he consump ion o wild ui s as a means o o e come shock-
ela ed and seasonal ood sho ages (Agyei/Asumadu 2018; E skine e al. 2014;
Fen ahun/Hage 2009).
Simila o he FCS, he esul s o he CSI should be in e p e ed wi h cau ion due o he
inconsis encies be ween he e e ence ime o he CSI and he ha es ing pe iod o
wild ui s. On he o he hand, i households had been able o collec ui s, his migh
ha e had an impac on al e na i e coping s a egies. Fo example, i households had
he oppo uni y o collec and consume wild ui s du ing imes o insu icien ood o
money o buy ood, hey would p obably less equen ly ely on bo owing ood,
educing he numbe o meals, o es ic ing consump ion by adul s o p o ide enough
ood o child en.
Conce ning o he in luencing ac o s o household ood secu i y, c opland size has
he same e ec on he CSI as on he FCS, meaning ha holding mo e c opland leads
o signi ican ly highe ood secu i y. Simila o he indings o he FCS, highe household
income esul s in g ea e ood secu i y based on he CSI. Howe e , his e ec is only
signi ican o he i s model ha includes he en i e sample, bu no i only ui -
collec ing households a e included. This change in he esul could be due o a
co ela ion be ween household income and he amoun o wild ui s collec ed, which
p o ed o be posi i e and signi ican . Ano he a iable ha signi ican ly a ec s he
CSI in bo h models is g oup membe ship. Fa me s who pa icipa e in social ne wo ks
o g oups can g ea ly bene i om in e ac ion wi h o he membe s, which is de ined
as social capi al. In hei li e a u e e iew on he impac o social capi al on ood
secu i y, Nos a abadi e al. (2020) ha e shown ha social capi al inc eases he sha e
o ood p oduc s wi hin communi ies and he exchange o knowledge and in o ma ion
among a me s. Th ough hese in e ac ions, households can enhance he a ailabili y
o ood and access o ood p oduc s. Hence, social capi al is pa icula ly ele an o
households, allowing hem o inc ease hei ood secu i y and esilience o shocks, as
highligh ed by he posi i e impac o g oup membe ship on he CSI.
4.4 Th ea s o he A ailabili y o Wild F ui s
Pa icipan s o he FGDs emphasized a ious isks ha lead o a decline in he
a ailabili y o wild ui s. Fo example, de o es a ion was said o be one majo ac o
in luencing he a ailabili y o wild ui ees. Due o inc easing popula ion g ow h,
he e is a g ea e need o clea land o expanding ag icul u al a eas and o ex ac
179WILD FRUIT COLLECTION AND ITS IMPACT ON HOUSEHOLD FOOD SECURITY IN ZAMBIA
na u al o es esou ces o building and hea ing. Du ing he FGDs, pa icipan s
men ioned ha hey also use wood om some wild ui ees such as Uapaca ki kiana
as building ma e ial, which leads o a dec eased abundance o wild ui s. Acco ding o
he pa icipan s, some main collec ion spo s wi h a g ea a ie y o wild ui species
had al eady been comple ely clea ed. Thus, households nowadays ha e o walk longe
dis ances o each collec ion spo s han in he pas .
A he same ime, pa icipan s exp essed conce ns ha an inc ease in popula ion
g ow h will ein o ce he compe i ion be ween collec o s and esul in o e ha es ing
o ui s. They u he mo e decla ed ha bush i es led o dec eased a ailabili y o
ui s, as hey des oy pa s o o e en en i e wild ui plan s. Ano he h ea
men ioned is clima e change, which ampli ies he decline in wild ui a ailabili y. Hea y
ain, wind, and hail du ing he p eceding season led o damaged buds and lowe s,
which in u n educed ui de elopmen in he ollowing season. Fu he mo e, hey
obse ed a ising end among younge gene a ions o igno e wild ui s, as hey
a he p e e he inc easingly popula exo ic ui s.
5 Conclusion
The collec ion o wild ui s is conside ed an impo an s a egy o u al households
in de eloping coun ies o o e come pe iods o hunge . Howe e , he ue con ibu ion
o wild ui s o household ood secu i y in Zambia emains unknown. This pape uses
census da a om 215 households and FGDs om he Luapula P o ince in Zambia o
in es iga e he impac o wild ui collec ion on household ood secu i y. Mul iple
linea eg ession models a e applied o examine he impac o households’ decision o
collec ui s and he quan i y o ui s collec ed on he FCS and CSI as ood secu i y
indica o s.
The esul s show ha a la ge p opo ion o households om he s udy a ea a e
classi ied as ood insecu e and a as majo i y collec wild ui s om su ounding
o es s. This s udy did no ind a link be ween wild ui collec ion and he CSI as a
ood secu i y indica o . Tu ning o he FCS, he esul s show ha households who a e
ood insecu e a e mo e engaged in wild ui collec ion, bu inc easing he collec ion
quan i y signi ican ly educes household ood insecu i y. O he ac o s ha signi i-
can ly a ec ood secu i y a e c opland size, household income, o - a m wo k, g oup
membe ship, and emale decision-making.
The indings o his s udy lead o se e al implica ions ega ding household ood
secu i y and wild ui consump ion. The high p e alence o ood-insecu e households
in he s udy egion highligh s he need o suppo a me s in imp o ing hei ood
secu i y. This can be done by os e ing he consump ion o wild ui s, since hey
cons i u e impo an supplemen s o u al households’ die s. Howe e , inc easing
demand and dec easing a ailabili y may lead o unsus ainable ha es ing, h ea ening
he ole o wild ui s as a sa e y ne and u ning hem in o a po e y ap (Le ang/
Dounias/Si o us 2005; Paumga en/Loca elli/Wi kowski 2018). To ensu e hei long-
e m a ailabili y and sa e y ne unc ion, cul i a ion o wild ui species is ecom-
mended. Thus, NGOs and go e nmen agencies should p o ide ee seedlings and
180 23 _ TRANSFORMATIONSPROZESSE IN STADT UND LAND
aining o a me s. Mo eo e , in oducing s o age acili ies and alue-added p o-
cessing is ad isable. This would ex end he a ailabili y o ui p oduc s beyond he
ha es season and ensu e consump ion a all imes. Enhancing access o ma ke s and
imp o ing comme cializa ion o ui s would be use ul o gene a e addi ional income,
which, in u n, can educe ood insecu i y. Inc easing awa eness abou he nu i ional
bene i s o wild ui s and making consump ion mo e a ac i e is pa icula ly
impo an among younge gene a ions who end o neglec wild ui s. This can be
done by o ganizing public in o ma ion campaigns and inc easing he demand by
in oducing e ec i e ma ke ing s a egies.
Besides p omo ing wild ui consump ion, s eng hening emale empowe men ,
p o iding o - a m oppo uni ies, enabling g oup pa icipa ion, and inc easing access
o p oduc i e esou ces can be conside ed impo an measu es o inc ease household
ood secu i y.
6 Limi a ions
Al hough his s udy p o ides impo an insigh s, i is subjec o h ee majo limi a ions.
Fi s , he wo ood secu i y indica o s a e calcula ed on a 7-day ecall pe iod, which
could imply he isk o ecall bias i esponden s canno accu a ely emembe hei
coping beha io and he ype o ood consumed. The pe iod o 7 days only ep esen s
a snapsho o household ood secu i y du ing he ime o he da a collec ion p ocess.
Howe e , household ood secu i y s a us can change o e he cou se o a yea ,
depending on he a ailabili y o ood. In acco dance wi h Maxwell/Caldwell (2008),
epea ed measu emen s o e a ious ime pe iods o ecei e mo e powe ul da a a e
ecommended.
Second, he FCS excludes ood ha was consumed ou side he home (WFP 2012). I
household membe s consume wild ui s di ec ly a e ha es , o example du ing
o he li elihood ac i i ies such as collec ing i ewood and du ing ieldwo k, wild ui s
a e no included in he calcula ion o he FCS. In addi ion, he consump ion equency
only e e s o he en i e household. To ecei e a b oade pic u e o in a-household
ood alloca ion and indi idual ood secu i y le els, no only he household head bu
also o he household membe s should be in e iewed.
Thi d, e e se causali y is suspec ed o be p esen in he da a. As discussed ea lie ,
collec ing wild ui s could, on he one hand, inc ease household ood secu i y, while,
on he o he hand, households who a e al eady ood insecu e may be mo e dependen
on consuming wild ui s and he e o e mo e inclined o collec hem. This is p obably
he mos ele an limi a ion o his s udy, which is why he esul s should be in e p e ed
wi h cau ion. By using panel da a a he han c oss-sec ional da a, esea che s a e
mo e likely o add ess he issue o e e se causali y and hus examine he ela ionship
be ween wild ui collec ion and ood secu i y.
181WILD FRUIT COLLECTION AND ITS IMPACT ON HOUSEHOLD FOOD SECURITY IN ZAMBIA
Re e ences
ADB; FAO (2013): Gende Equali y and Food Secu i y - Women’s Empowe men as a Tool agains
Hunge . Manila, Philippines.
DOI: 10.2307/j.c w04d83.16.
Agyei, J.; Asumadu, G. (2018): Food Secu i y and Li elihoods Implica ions o Households le behind
in he No he n Sa anna Ag o-ecological Zone in Ghana, 68-81.
Ansah, I. G. K.; Ga deb oek, C.; Ihle, R. (2019): Resilience and household ood secu i y: a e iew o
concep s, me hodological app oaches and empi ical e idence. In: Food Secu i y 11 (6), 1187-1203.
Asmelash, M. (2014): Ru al household ood secu i y s a us and i s de e minan s: The case o
Laelaymychew Wo eda, Cen al Zone o Tig ai, E hiopia. In: Jou nal o Ag icul u al Ex ension and Ru al
De elopmen 6 (5), 162-167.
Asp illa-Pe ea, J.; Díaz-Puen e, J. M. (2019): Impo ance o wild oods o household ood secu i y in
opical o es a eas. In: Food Secu i y 11 (1), 15-22.
Asp illa-Pe ea, J.; Díaz-Puen e, J. M.; Ma ín-Fe nández, S. (2022): Es ima ing he po en ial o wild
oods o nu i ion and ood secu i y planning in opical a eas: Expe imen a ion wi h a me hod in
No hwes e n Colombia. In: Ambio 51 (4), 955-971.
Awo h, C. O. (2015): P omo ing ood secu i y and enhancing Nige ia’s small a me s’ income h ough
alue-added p ocessing o lesse -known and unde -u ilized indigenous ui s and ege ables. In: Food
Resea ch In e na ional 76 (P4), 986-991.
Baba unde, R. O.; Qaim, M. (2010): Impac o o - a m income on ood secu i y and nu i ion in
Nige ia. In: Food Policy 35 (4), 303-311.
Bellack, S.; Richa ds, K. (2016): Malnu i ion in Zambia: Ha nessing Social P o ec ion o he Mos
Vulne able.
Boedecke , J.; Te mo e, C.; Assogbadjo, A. E.; an Damme, P.; Lacha , C. (2014): Die a y con ibu ion
o Wild Edible Plan s o women’s die s in he bu e zone a ound he Lama o es , Benin – an
unde u ilized po en ial. In: Food Secu i y 6 (6), 833-849.
Ca le o, C.; Zezza, A.; Bane jee, R. (2013): Towa ds be e measu emen o household ood secu i y:
Ha monizing indica o s and he ole o household su eys. In: Global Food Secu i y 2 (1), 30-40.
Chakona, G.; Shackle on, C. M. (2019): Food insecu i y in Sou h A ica: To wha ex en can social
g an s and consump ion o wild oods e adica e hunge ? In: Wo ld De elopmen Pe spec i es 13, 87-
94.
Chak a a y, S.; Bhu ia, K. D.; Su esh, C. P.; Shukla, G.; Pala, N. A. (2016): A e iew on di e si y,
conse a ion and nu i ion o wild edible ui s. In: Jou nal o Applied and Na u al Science 8 (4), 2346-
2353.
Chi wa, P. W.; Syampungani, S.; Geldenhuys, C. J. (2008): The ecology and managemen o he
Miombo woodlands o sus ainable li elihoods in sou he n A ica: The case o non- imbe o es
p oduc s. In: Sou he n Fo es s 70 (3), 237-245.
E skine, W.; Ximenes, A.; Glazeb ook, D.; Da Cos a, M.; Lopes, M.; Spycke elle, L.; Williams, R.;
Nesbi , H. (2014): The ole o wild oods in ood secu i y: he example o Timo -Les e. In: Food
Secu i y 7 (1), 55-65.
FAO (2006): Food Secu i y. Policy B ie (2).
FAO (2013): The S a e o Zambia’s Biodi e si y o Food and Ag icul u e. Coun y Repo .
FAO (2022): The S a e o he Wo ld’s Fo es s 2022. Fo es pa hways o g een eco e y and building
inclusi e, esilien and sus ainable economies.
DOI: 10.4060/cb9360en
FAO; IFAD; UNICEF; WP; WHO (2022): The S a e o Food Secu i y and Nu i ion in he Wo ld 2022.
Repu posing ood and ag icul u al policies o make heal hy die s mo e a o dable. Rome.
DOI: 10.4060/cc0639en
FAOSTAT (2022): Zambia: Selec ed Indica o s. A ailable om:
h ps://www. ao.o g/ aos a /en/#coun y/251 (31 Augus 2022).
Fen ahun, M. T.; Hage , H. (2009): Exploi ing locally a ailable esou ces o ood and nu i ional
secu i y enhancemen : wild ui s di e si y, po en ial and s a e o exploi a ion in he Amha a egion o
E hiopia. In: Food Secu i y 1 (2), 207-219.
Feyssa, D. H.; Njoka, J. T.; As aw, Z.; Nyangi o, M.M. (2011): Seasonal a ailabili y and consump ion o
wild edible plan s in semia id E hiopia: Implica ions o ood secu i y and clima e change adap a ion. In:
Jou nal o Ho icul u e and Fo es y 3 (5), 138-149.
Ga ekae, H.; Lepe u, J.; Thakadu, O. T. (2020): Fo es esou ce u ilisa ion and u al li elihoods:
insigh s om Chobe encla e, Bo swana. In: Sou h A ican Geog aphical Jou nal 102 (1), 22-40.
182 23 _ TRANSFORMATIONSPROZESSE IN STADT UND LAND
G onau, S.; Win e , E.; G o e, U. (2018): Papy us, Fo es Resou ces and Ru al Li elihoods: A Village
Compu able Gene al Equilib ium Analysis om No he n Zambia. In: Na u al Resou ces 09 (06), 268-
296.
Gumbo, D. J.; Dumas-Johansen, M.; Mui , G.; Boe s le , F.; Xia, Z. (2018): Sus ainable managemen o
Miombo woodlands. Rome.
Heywood, V. H. (1999): Use and po en ial o wild plan s in a m households. Rome.
Ickowi z, A.; Bwembelo, L.; Mulani, A.; Siamu ondo, A.; Banda, P.; Gumbo, D.; Moombe, K.; S eel, E. A.
(2021): Collec ion and consump ion o wild o es ui s in u al Zambia (324).
DOI: 10.17528/ci o /008086
Kassie, M.; Ndi i u, W.; Shi e aw, B. (2012): De e minan s o ood secu i y in Kenya, a gende
pe spec i e. In: 86 h Annual Con e ence o he Ag icul u al Economics Socie y, Uni e si y o Wa wick,
Uni ed Kingdom, 1-31.
Keding, G. B.; Kehlenbeck, K.; Kennedy, G.; McMullin, S. (2017): F ui p oduc ion and consump ion:
p ac ices, p e e ences and a i udes o women in u al wes e n Kenya. In: Food Secu i y 9 (3), 453-
469.
Leßmeis e , A.; Heubach, K.; Lykke, A. M.; Thiombiano, A.; Wi ig, R.; Hahn, K. (2018): The
con ibu ion o non- imbe o es p oduc s (NTFPs) o u al household e enues in wo illages in
sou h-eas e n Bu kina Faso. In: Ag o o es y Sys ems 92 (1), 139-155.
Le ang, P.; Dounias, E.; Si o us, S. (2005): Ou o he o es , ou o po e y? In: Fo es s T ees and
Li elihoods 15 (2), 211-235.
Mahapa a, A. K.; Mish a, S.; Basak, U. C.; Panda, P. C. (2012): Nu ien analysis o some selec ed wild
edible ui s o deciduous o es s o India: An explo a i e s udy owa ds non con en ional bio-nu i ion.
In: Ad ance Jou nal o Food Science and Technology 4 (1), 15-21.
Mahapa a, A. K.; Panda, P. C. (2012): Wild edible ui di e si y and i s signi icance in he li elihood o
indigenous ibals: E idence om eas e n India. In: Food Secu i y 4 (2), 219-234.
Maseko, H.; Shackle on, C. M.; Nagoli, J.; Pullanikka il, D. (2017): Child en and Wild Foods in he
Con ex o De o es a ion in Ru al Malawi. In: Human Ecology 45 (6), 795-807.
Maxwell, D. G.; Caldwell, R. (2008): The Coping S a egies Index: Field Me hods Manual - Second
Edi ion.
Mbwana, H. A.; Kinabo, J.; Lambe , C.; Biesalski, H. K. (2016): De e minan s o household die a y
p ac ices in u al Tanzania: Implica ions o nu i ion in e en ions. In: Cogen Food & Ag icul u e 2
(1), 1-13.
Mhuji, K.; Ba akaeli, A. N.; Dickson, M.; Paulo, O. O. (2018): E alua ion o socio-economic ac o s
in luencing exploi a ion o non- imbe o es p oduc s in Tanzania. In: In e na ional Jou nal o
Biodi e si y and Conse a ion 10 (8), 330-336.
Mi hö e , D.; Waibel, H. (2003): Income and labou p oduc i i y o collec ion and use o indigenous
ui ee p oduc s in Zimbabwe. In: Ag o o es y Sys ems 59 (3), 295-305.
Mo ya-Mukuka, R.; Mo u, M. (2016): The S a us o Hunge and Malnu i ion in Zambia: A Re iew o
Me hods and Indica o s. Technical Pape No. 5.
Mu aoka, R.; Jin, S.; Jayne, T. S. (2018): Land access, land en al and ood secu i y: E idence om
Kenya. In: Land Use Policy 70, 611-622.
Ngome, P. I. T.; Shackle on, C.; Deg ande, A.; Tieguhong, J. C. (2017): Add essing cons ain s in
p omo ing wild edible plan s’ u iliza ion in household nu i ion: Case o he Congo Basin o es a ea.
In: Ag icul u e and Food Secu i y 6 (1), 1-10.
Nkomoki, W.; Ba o o á, M.; Banou , J. (2019): Fac o s associa ed wi h household ood secu i y in
Zambia. In: Sus ainabili y (Swi ze land) 11 (9), 1-18.
Nos a abadi, S.; Khazami, N.; Abdallah, M. B.; Lackne , Z.; Band, S. S.; Mosa i, A.; Mako, C. (2020):
Social Capi al Con ibu ions o Food Secu i y: A Comp ehensi e Li e a u e Re iew. In: Foods 9 (11).
Paumga en, F.; Loca elli, B.; Wi kowski, E. T. (2018): Wild Foods: Sa e y Ne o Po e y T ap? A Sou h
A ican Case S udy. In: Human Ecology 46 (2), 183-195.
Paumga en, F.; Shackle on, C. M. (2011): The ole o non- imbe o es p oduc s in household coping
s a egies in Sou h A ica: The in luence o household weal h and gende . In: Popula ion and
En i onmen 33 (1), 108-131.
Powell, B.; Maundu, P.; Kuhnlein, H. V.; Johns, T. (2013): Wild Foods om Fa m and Fo es in he Eas
Usamba a Moun ains, Tanzania. In: Ecology o Food and Nu i ion 52 (6), 451-478.
Rammohan, A.; P i cha d, B. (2014): The ole o landholding as a de e minan o ood and nu i ion
insecu i y in u al Myanma . In: Wo ld De elopmen 64, 597-608.
Sa deshpande, M.; Shackle on, C. (2019): Wild edible ui s: A sys ema ic e iew o an unde -
esea ched mul i unc ional NTFP (Non-Timbe Fo es P oduc ). In: Fo es s 10 (6).

183WILD FRUIT COLLECTION AND ITS IMPACT ON HOUSEHOLD FOOD SECURITY IN ZAMBIA
Sekhampu, T. J. (2013): De e minan s o he ood secu i y s a us o households ecei ing go e nmen
g an s in Kwakwa si, Sou h A ica. In: Medi e anean Jou nal o Social Sciences 4 (1), 147-153.
Seyoum, Y.; Teke ay, D.; Shumi, G.; Woda i ash, M. (2015): Edible wild ui ees and sh ubs and hei
socioeconomic signi icance in cen al E hiopia. In: E hnobo any Resea ch and Applica ions 14, 183-197.
Shackle on, C.; Shackle on, S. (2004): The impo ance o non- imbe o es p oduc s in u al
li elihood secu i y and as sa e y ne s: A e iew o e idence om Sou h A ica. In: Sou h A ican Jou nal
o Science 100 (11-12), 658-664.
Shumsky, S. A.; Hickey, G. M.; Pelle ie , B.; Johns, T. (2014): Unde s anding he con ibu ion o wild
edible plan s o u al Socialecological esilience in semi-a id Kenya. In: Ecology and Socie y 19 (4).
Siba hu, K. T.; Qaim, M. (2017): Ru al ood secu i y, subsis ence ag icul u e, and seasonali y. In: PLoS
ONE 12 (10).
S aboni, E.; Malapi , H. J.; Quisumbing, A. R.; Ahmed, A. U. (2014): Women’s empowe men in
ag icul u e: Wha ole o ood secu i y in Bangladesh? In: Wo ld De elopmen 61, 11.52.
S eel, E. A.; Bwembelo, L.; Mulani, A.; Siamu ondo, A.; Benda, P.; Gumbo, D.; Mombe, K.; Ickowi z, A.
(2022): Wild ood om he o es s: Quan i ies collec ed ac oss Zambia. In: People and Na u e 00, 1.17.
S ock, J. H.; Wa son, M. W. (2020): In oduc ion o Econome ics, Global Edi ion. Ha low, Uni ed
Kingdom.
Tebkew, M.; As aw, Z.; Zewudie, S. (2014): Unde u ilized wild edible plan s in he Chilga Dis ic ,
no hwes e n E hiopia: Focus on wild woody plan s. In: Ag icul u e and Food Secu i y 3 (1).
Tebkew, M.; Geb ema iam, Y.; Mucheye, T.; Alemu, A.; Abich, A.; Fiki , D. (2018): Uses o wild edible
plan s in Qua a dis ic , no hwes E hiopia: Implica ion o o es managemen . In: Ag icul u e and
Food Secu i y 7 (1), 1-14.
Te e a, T.; Te e a, F. (2014): De e minan s o Households Food Secu i y and Coping S a egies o
Food Sho all in Ma eko Dis ic , Gu aghe Zone Sou he n E hiopia. In: Jou nal o Food Secu i y 2 (3),
92-99.
Te mo e, C.; Bwama Meyi, M.; Dhed’a Djailo, B.; Huyb eg s, L.; Lacha , C.; Kols e en, P.; an Damme, P.
(2012): A Biodi e se Rich En i onmen Does No Con ibu e o a Be e Die : A Case S udy om DR
Congo. In: PLoS ONE 7 (1).
USAID (2018): Zambia: Nu i ion P o ile (Feb ua y 2018), 1-6.
Vai la, B.; Coa es, J.; Maxwell, D. (2015): Compa ing Household Food Consump ion Indica o s o
In o m Acu e Food Insecu i y Phase Classi ica ion. Washing on, DC.
Vince i, B.; Te mo e, C.; Ickowi z, A.; Powell, B.; Kehlenbeck, K.; Hun e , D. (2013): The Con ibu ion
o Fo es s and T ees o Sus ainable Die s. In: Sus ainabili y (Swi ze land) 5 (11), 4797-4824.
WFP (2008): Food Consump ion Analysis: Calcula ion and use o he ood consump ion sco e in ood
secu i y analysis. Rome.
WFP (2012): Moni o ing Food Secu i y, Technical Guidance Shee 2. Rome.
Zambia S a is ics Agency; Minis y o Heal h (MOH) Zambia; ICF (2018): Zambia Demog aphic and
Heal h Su ey (ZDHS). Lusaka, Zambia, and Rock ille, Ma yland, USA.
Ze eyesus, Y. A.; Embaye, W. T.; Tsiboe, F.; Amano -Boadu, V. (2017): Implica ions o Non-Fa m Wo k
o Vulne abili y o Food Po e y-Recen E idence F om No he n Ghana. In: Wo ld De elopmen 91,
113-124.
Au ho
Ronja Seege s (*1992), s udied Ho icul u al Science in Hanno e and is now a
esea ch assis an and PhD s uden a he Ins i u e o En i onmen al Economics and
Wo ld T ade a he Leibniz Uni e si y Hanno e , Ge many. She is also a membe o he
in e disciplina y TRUST-/ARL doc o al college wo king on he opic o “T ans o ma i e
P ocesses in U ban and Ru al A eas”. Seege s’ esea ch ocuses on a me s’ decision-
making, ood secu i y, land-use, and na u al esou ces. Wi hin p ojec s in Sub-Saha an
A ica, she has gained expe ience in pa icipa o y esea ch and ole-playing games.