Taye, An eneh Tenaw; Dam ie, Yilebes Addisu; Kassie, Tes ahun Asmamaw
A icle
De e minan s o li elihood di e si ica ion and i s
con ibu ion o ood secu i y o u al households in
Gozamin Wo eda, E hiopia
Cogen Economics & Finance
P o ided in Coope a ion wi h:
Taylo & F ancis G oup
Sugges ed Ci a ion: Taye, An eneh Tenaw; Dam ie, Yilebes Addisu; Kassie, Tes ahun Asmamaw
(2024) : De e minan s o li elihood di e si ica ion and i s con ibu ion o ood secu i y o u al
households in Gozamin Wo eda, E hiopia, Cogen Economics & Finance, ISSN 2332-2039, Taylo &
F ancis, Abingdon, Vol. 12, Iss. 1, pp. 1-19,
h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/23322039.2024.2384962
This Ve sion is a ailable a :
h ps://hdl.handle.ne /10419/321555
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/4.0/
Cogen Economics & Finance
ISSN: 2332-2039 (Online) Jou nal homepage: www. and online.com/jou nals/oae 20
De e minan s o li elihood di e sifica ion and i s
con ibu ion o ood secu i y o u al households
in Gozamin Wo eda, E hiopia
An eneh Tenaw Taye, Yilebes Addisu Dam ie & Tes ahun Asmamaw Kassie
To ci e his a icle: An eneh Tenaw Taye, Yilebes Addisu Dam ie & Tes ahun Asmamaw Kassie
(2024) De e minan s o li elihood di e sifica ion and i s con ibu ion o ood secu i y o u al
households in Gozamin Wo eda, E hiopia, Cogen Economics & Finance, 12:1, 2384962, DOI:
10.1080/23322039.2024.2384962
To link o his a icle: h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/23322039.2024.2384962
© 2024 The Au ho (s). Published by In o ma
UK Limi ed, ading as Taylo & F ancis
G oup
Published online: 05 Aug 2024.
Submi you a icle o his jou nal
A icle iews: 1205
View ela ed a icles
View C ossma k da a
Ci ing a icles: 2 View ci ing a icles
Full Te ms & Condi ions o access and use can be ound a
h ps://www. and online.com/ac ion/jou nalIn o ma ion?jou nalCode=oae 20
GENERAL & APPLIED ECONOMICS | RESEARCH ARTICLE
De e minan s o li elihood di e si ica ion and i s con ibu ion o ood
secu i y o u al households in Gozamin Wo eda, E hiopia
An eneh Tenaw Taye, Yilebes Addisu Dam ie and Tes ahun Asmamaw Kassie
Ins i u e o Disas e Risk Managemen and Food Secu i y S udies, Bahi Da Uni e si y, Bahi Da , E hiopia
ABSTRACT
This s udy was conduc ed o assess he de e minan s o u al households’li elihood
di e si ica ion and i s con ibu ion o household ood secu i y s a us in Gozamin
Wo eda, Amha a egion, E hiopia. A c oss-sec ional esea ch design and mixed
esea ch app oach we e used. P ima y da a we e collec ed wi h he aid o household
su eys, key in o man in e iews, and ocus g oup discussions. A mul i-s age s a i ied
andom sampling me hod was used o selec 218 households. The Simpson di e si y
index esul showed ha 22.94%, 11.93%, 44.5%, and 20.64% o he households we e
no, low, a e age, and high li elihood di e si ie s. The ood consump ion sco e esul
indica ed ha 41.28%, 10.09%, and 48.62% o households we e ound in poo , bo de -
line, and accep able ood secu i y s a us espec i ely. In addi ion, he o de ed logis ic
eg ession model e ealed ha educa ion le el, ag oecology, membe ships o
coope a i e, access o aining, access o anspo , access o c edi , ag icul u al isk,
and o al annual income posi i ely a ec while sex nega i ely a ec he s a us o li e-
lihood di e si ica ions. The o de ed logis ic eg ession analysis also e ealed ha he
s a us o li elihood di e si ica ion wi h has a posi i e and highly signi ican e ec on
he s a us o ood secu i y. The s udy concluded ha when he s a us o households’
li elihood di e si ica ion inc eased, he s a us o ood secu i y also highly inc eased in
he s udy a ea. The e o e, o imp o e he s a us o ood secu i y, ex ension wo ke s,
local go e nmen al and non-go e nmen al o ganiza ion and policymake s should gi e
highe a en ion o inc easing he s a us o li elihood di e si ica ion o u al house-
holds. Finally, policy implica ions we e made acco ding o he inding o he s udy.
IMPACT STATEMENT
Ru al li elihood di e si ica ion is a key issue o imp o e ood secu i y. This s udy aims
o iden i y he de e minan s o li elihood di e si ica ion and i s con ibu ion o ood
secu i y o u al households. As a esul , his s udy e ealed ha educa ion le el, ag o-
ecology, membe ships o coope a i e, access o aining, access o anspo , access o
c edi , ag icul u al isk, and o al annual income a e he de e minan s o u al li eli-
hood di e si ica ion in Gozamin Wo eda, E hiopia.
ARTICLE HISTORY
Recei ed 26 Oc obe 2023
Re ised 19 July 2024
Accep ed 23 July 2024
KEYWORDS
Li elihood di e si ica ion;
ood secu i y; de e minan s
SUBJECTS
Economic Theo y &
Philosophy; Ru al
De elopmen ; De elopmen
Theo y
1. Backg ound
In E hiopia, like in many o he A ican na ions, he e is an u gen need o enhance household ood
secu i y. Food insecu i y in E hiopia is closely ela ed o eliance on undi e si ied li elihoods based on
low-inpu and low-ou pu ain- ed ag icul u e (Kassegn & End is, 2021). Fu he mo e, ag icul u e is he
p ima y sou ce o ood and income o many u al households in E hiopia, making i a c i ical compo-
nen o ini ia i es aimed a alle ia ing po e y and achie ing ood secu i y. Since he sec o is aced
wi h many challenges, u al households a e compelled o de elop s a egies h ough di e si ica ion o
cope wi h he inc easing ulne abili y associa ed wi h ag icul u al p oduc ion (Abebe e al., 2021).
Mo eo e , in E hiopia, undi e si ied li elihood al e na i es and o al eliance on ag icul u al ou pu
a e he key issues ha cause ood insecu i y in u al egions. The capaci y o di e si y a all is equen ly
CONTACT An eneh Tenaw Taye [email p o ec ed] Ins i u e o Disas e Risk Managemen and Food Secu i y S udies, Bahi
Da Uni e si y, Bahi Da , E hiopia
ß2024 The Au ho (s). Published by In o ma UK Limi ed, ading as Taylo & F ancis G oup
This is an Open Access a icle dis ibu ed unde he e ms o he C ea i e Commons A ibu ion License (h p://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by/4.0/), which
pe mi s un es ic ed use, dis ibu ion, and ep oduc ion in any medium, p o ided he o iginal wo k is p ope ly ci ed. The e ms on which his a icle has been
published allow he pos ing o he Accep ed Manusc ip in a eposi o y by he au ho (s) o wi h hei consen .
COGENT ECONOMICS & FINANCE
2024, VOL. 12, NO. 1, 2384962
h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/23322039.2024.2384962
i al o he ood secu i y o he mos ulne able u al people (Ellis & F eeman, 2004). As Zeleke e al.
(2017) he limi ed oppo uni y o li elihood di e si ica ion, due o he absence o supplemen a y
income om o he non- a m ac i i ies has made he E hiopian u al poo mo e ulne able. In addi ion o
he abo e, Zeleke e al. (2017) also speci ied he inabili y o mos E hiopian smallholde s o make a li -
ing om ag icul u e, because o esou ce cons ain s and ecu en shocks, inc easing policy a en ion
has u ned o suppo al e na i e li elihood ac i i ies. Simila ly, he decline in he size o cul i able land
is en isaged o u he exaspe a e he cu en ly obse ed wo se ood insecu i y si ua ion unless non-
a m ac i i ies a e made o compensa e o he li elihood s ess p e alen in he u al a eas.
Fu he , acco ding o FDRE (2002), u al li elihood di e si ica ion aims o educe isk which is ela ed
o ag icul u al ac i i y and o supplemen a m income. Al hough li elihoods a e p edominan ly ag icul-
u e-based, labo p oduc i i y is low and mos E hiopians a e ne ce eal buye s. Because o he p ima y
dependence on subsis ence c op p oduc ion in he coun y, ha es ailu e leads o household ood de i-
ci s, which in he absence o o and non- a m income oppo uni ies leads o asse deple ion and,
inc easing le els o des i u ion a he household le el (FDRE, 2002). E en hough ag icul u e is he dom-
inan economic ac i i y and he p ima y sou ce o li elihood in u al households, o sol e he abo e
p oblem in E hiopia people o look o al e na i e employmen op ions o he han ag icul u e o achie -
ing ood secu i y and educing po e y in u al a eas due o small a m size and uncon olled popula ion
g ow h, ag icul u al p oduc ion has declined o e ime and has o ced (Abebe e al., 2021).
Nowadays, due o he issue o ood insecu i y is inc eased, o sol e his p oblem, se e al schola s
s udied li elihood di e si ica ion and ood secu i y. As a esul , ela ed o his s udy in di e en coun ies
di e en schola s a di e en imes s udied o sol e he p oblem o ood insecu i y (Abebe e al., 2021;
Amaka & Muhammad, 2022; Cha as e al., 2022; Dedehouanou & McPeak, 2020; De e al., 2016;
Ebeneze & Abbyssinia, 2018; Echebi i e al., 2017; Ma suu a-Kanna i e al., 2023; Osa o e al., 2016;
Yazdanpanah e al., 2021; Yenesew & Mas esha, 2019; Zeleke e al., 2017) Simila ly ela ed o his
esea ch in E hiopia, some esea ch is conduc ed (As aw e al., 2019; Challa e al., 2019; Kassegn &
End is, 2021; Weldegeb iel, 2016).
The e o e, o do his esea ch, he e we e h ee easons. The i s and majo eason was by using simi-
la and di e en me hodologies s udied a di e en places and imes, de e mina es o li elihood di e si-
ica ion we e di e en . Fo example, Beka a (2016) s udied de e minan s o household li elihood
di e si ica ion s a us in he Hawassa Zu ia Dis ic o Sidama Zone using o de ed logis ic eg ession. He
ound ha educa ion, land size, ex ension se ice, membe ship o coope a i es, c edi access, and house-
hold income posi i ely a ec ed household li elihood di e si ica ion, while age and amily size o he
household head nega i ely a ec ed li elihood di e si ica ion. Geb u e al. (2018) conduc ed on de e mi-
nan s o li elihood di e si ica ion s a egies in he Eas e n Tig ay Region o E hiopia, using he mul i-
nomial logis ic eg ession model. They ound ha he households’le el o educa ion, access o c edi ,
income, membe ship o coope a i es, emi ance income, a mland, access o i iga ion, and access o
c edi posi i ely a ec ed households’choice and adop ion o li elihood di e si ica ion s a egies.
Whe eas age, dependency a io, amily size, access o ex ension se ices, dis ance o ma ke , li es ock
owne ship, and ag oecology we e ound o ha e nega i e ela ionships and signi ican ly a ec house-
holds’choice and adop ion o li elihood di e si ica ion s a egies (Gao & Mills, 2018). Wondem (2020)
also s udied simila o his esea ch in Degadamo Dis ic , Amha a Na ional Regional S a e, E hiopia
using o de ed logis ic eg ession. He ound ha age, educa ional le el, access o anspo , and o al
annual income o household heads posi i ely a ec ed he li elihood di e si ica ion s a us o he house-
holds, whe eas, land size and ma ke dis ance o household heads nega i ely a ec ed hei li elihood
di e si ica ion s a us. Mo eo e , Yenesew and Mas esha (2019) s udied he impac o li elihood di e si i-
ca ion on u al household ood secu i y in Goncha-Siso Enesie wo eda o Amha a Regional S a e using
Bina y logis ic and PSM model hey ound ha a m size, adul -equi alen , i iga ion, and c op di e si i-
ca ion de e mined di e si ica ion o household’s li elihood nega i ely. On he o he hand, ca owne -
ship, mobile phone, and access o o mal c edi we e s a is ically in luencing li elihood di e si ica ion
posi i ely.
The second eason, e en in E hiopia hese some esea che s (Abebe e al., 2021; Wondem, 2020; Yenesew
& Mas esha, 2019; Zeleke e al., 2017) ha e done simila o his s udy, he e is limi ed empi ical e idence o
assess ac o s a ec ing o he s a us o li elihood di e si ica ion and i s e ec on ood secu i y in a u al
2 A.T. TAYE ET AL.
household. The las eason was in he Gozamn wo eda had no s udied like o his s udy ye . The e o e, o ill
hese gaps he esea che s s udied wi h mo e ocus on ac o s a ec ing he s a us o li elihood di e si ica-
ion and i s ela ionship wi h ood secu i y in u al households in he Gozamn wo eda, Amha a Regional
S a e, E hiopia.
2. Concep ual amewo k o he s udy
The e iew o he li e a u e leads o he de elopmen o a concep ual amewo k ha de ines he ela-
ionship be ween dependen and independen a iables. The concep ual amewo k se es as he oun-
da ion o he da a-collec ing p ocess, displaying he da a ha mus be ga he ed, p ocessed, and
e alua ed. I connec s he de e mining elemen s associa ed wi h weal h accumula ion and li elihood
ac i i ies o household ood secu i y. The concep ual amewo k o his s udy (Figu e 1) is based on he
con ex o he s udy a ea, which is aken om ins i u ional, socioeconomic, and demog aphic a iables.
This amewo k consis s o a iables o household endowmen ha a ec he beha io o hese house-
holds in e ms o li elihood di e si ica ion. Asse endowmen s ha e a signi ican e ec on u al house-
hold ac i i y pa icipa ion in li elihood di e si ica ion s a us (Ama e & Belaineh, 2013; Geb u e al., 2018).
These asse s se e as he ounda ion o a household’s abili y o engage in income-gene a ing ac i i ies
and li elihood di e si ica ion and also household asse s a e he abili y o imp o e hei s a us o ood
secu i y (Abebe e al., 2021; Yenesew & Mas esha, 2019; Zeleke e al., 2017). The e o e, based on he
empi ical li e a u e e idence he assump ion is dependen a iables which is he s a us o li elihood
di e si ica ion is in luenced by independen a iables (ins i u ional, socioeconomic, geog aphical, and
demog aphic a iables) (Ge ine & Lo a o, 2020; Kassegn & End is, 2021). And also as explana o y
a iable li elihood di e si ica ion in luences he s a us o ood secu i y.
3. Me hodology
3.1. Desc ip ion o he s udy a ea
Gozamen is one o he 18 wo edas in he Eas Gojjam zone o Amha a Na ional Regional S a e. I is loca ed in
he sou hwes pa o he zone be ween 37
0
23’50’’ E la i ude and 37
0
55’03’’ E and 10
0
00’50’’ N and 10
Figu e 1. Concep ual F amewo k o he S udy.
Sou ce: De eloped by au ho s (2023).
COGENT ECONOMICS & FINANCE 3
41’10’’ N, longi ude and a a dis ance o 300 and 264 km om Addis Ababa and Bahi Da , espec i ely
(Figu e 2). I has a o al a ea o 1174 Km
2
(GDAO, 2022). Deb e Ma kos is he capi al o he wo eda and i con-
ains 25 u al kebeles. The wo eda has a p ojec ion o a o al popula ion o 162,070 o which 80,419 and
81,651 a e male and emale espec i ely whe e a 4.82% o he popula ion li es in u ban and 95.18% in u al
a eas (GDAO, 2022). The wo eda has an al i udinal di e ence o 1200–3510 me e s abo e sea le el. Based on
hese al i udinal di e ences, he wo eda has h ee ag o-clima ic zones namely, high-land, midland, and low-
land me e s abo e sea le el. The a e age annual ain all o he dis ic was 1628 mm. The maximum and
minimum a e age empe a u es a e 25 C and 11 C, espec i ely.
Ag icul u e is he mains ay o a me s in he wo eda which is cha ac e ized by mixed c op-li es ock
p oduc ion sys ems (Negussie & Leul, 2006). The mos impo an c ops g own in he wo eda a e ce eals
like whea , e , maize, ba ley, and oa s. Pulse c ops such as ho se beans and chickpeas a e p oduced.
Oil seed c ops [linseed and Nige seed], Vege ables [onion, ga lic, po a o, oma o, peppe , and ca o ],
and ui s [banana, mango, papaya, o ange, and lemon] a e also p oduced in he wo eda (Negussie &
Leul, 2006). The wo eda has a li es ock popula ion o 155,287 ca le, 97,263 sheep, 8577 goa s, 25,473
equines, 56,920 poul y, and 10,019 beehi es (Gashe e al., 2017).
3.2. Resea ch design and esea ch app oach
A c oss-sec ional esea ch design was used o his esea ch. The pu pose o adop ing a c oss-sec ional
esea ch design o he s udy was o assess he ac o s ha a ec he s a us o li elihood di e si ica ion, and i s
con ibu ions o ood secu i y a a gi en poin in ime. To conduc he s udy in a ep esen a i e way and o
inc ease i s eliabili y and alidi y, bo h pu posi e and simple andom sampling p ocedu es we e employed.
Fo his s udy, mixed esea ch app oaches we e employed which include bo h quali a i e and quan i-
a i e esea ch app oaches. A quali a i e app oach was used o gain a deep unde s anding o he sou -
ces o household, li elihood di e si ica ion, and opinions o households ega ding how o imp o e
li elihood di e si ica ion and ensu e ood secu i y in he s udy a eas. Semi-s uc u ed in e iews and
ocus g oup discussions we e ca ied ou o ga he quali a i e da a. The quan i a i e app oach in ol es
he measu emen o quan i y o amoun and was used o quan i y and see he ela ionship among a i-
ables. The household su ey was ca ied ou o conduc a c oss-sec ional s udy o collec da a on he
socioeconomic and demog aphic in o ma ion o households, he ac o s ha a ec he s a us o u al
li elihood di e si ica ion, and i s ela ionships o ood secu i y.
Figu e 2. Maps o he s udy a ea.
Sou ce: Au ho s p oduc ion, 2023.
4 A.T. TAYE ET AL.
3.3. Sampling echnique and sample size de e mina ion
Sampling echnique
Fo his s udy, mul i-s age s a i ying andom sampling was used o choose he sample egion and sam-
ple esponden s. Fi s , he Eas Gojam zone is pu posi ely selec ed om he en i e Amha a egion zone,
because he Eas Gojam zone was one o he highes p e alence o ood insecu e a ea because o he
highly ce eal-based which is a c op-p oducing a ea, and he die o he households lacks animal sou ce
oods and ege ables (Wolelie, 2021). And hen, om he en i e 18 Eas Gojam zone wo eda, he
Gozamin wo eda was pu posi ely selec ed because, in Gozamin wo eda, 49% o u al households li e
below he po e y line (Molla e al., 2014). And also no p io esea ch has been conduc ed on he ac o s
ha e ec on he s a us u al household li elihood di e si ica ion and i s con ibu ions o ood secu i y
in he Gozamin wo eda. Second, by s a i ying in o h ee s a a, h ee u al Kebele Adminis a ions,
En a a om 5 high-lands, Aba Libanous om 18 mid-lands, and Chimi om 2 low-land kebeles an-
domly we e chosen om he 25 kebeles. Thi d, 218 sample households we e chosen a andom om a
o al o 3090 households in h ee di e en kebeles.
Sample size de e mina ion
Chouche an’s o mula was used o ge he sample size o his s udy. To de e mine he igh sample
size, h ee c i e ia (pa ame e s) mus be s a ed. These include p ecision (e ¼5%), con idence o isk
( ¼1.96), and deg ee o a iabili y in he quali ies being assessed (p) (G eene, 2017; A. S. Singh &
Masuku, 2014). When p is unce ain, i is usually ad isable o se i o 0.5 (G eene, 2017). Howe e , a p o-
po ion o 50% indica es a highe le el o a iabili y han ei he 80% o 20% (G eene, 2017; A. S. Singh &
Masuku, 2014) and a p opo ion o 0.5 indica es he maximum a iabili y in a popula ion, and i is e-
quen ly used in de e mining a mo e conse a i e sample size, ha is, he sample size may be la ge
han i he ue a iabili y o he popula ion a ibu es we e aken in o accoun . Bu , o his s udy,
acco ding o Molla e al. (2014), he p opo ion o he popula ion o be included in he sample is 9.5%.
The e o e n¼ 2pð1-pÞ
e2¼ð1:96Þ20:095ð1−0:095Þ
ð0:05Þ2¼132
whe e ¼1.96, P ¼0.095, q ¼1−p, e ¼0.05
Conside ing he design e ec as 1.5 om he mul i-s age s a i ying andom sampling echnique and
a non- esponse a e o 10%, he o al sample size becomes (132 þ10%) 1.5 ¼217.8 218.
3.4. Me hod o da a collec ion
This s udy used bo h quan i a i e and quali a i e da a which was collec ed om bo h seconda y and
p ima y sou ces.
P ima y da a sou ce
P ima y da a was collec ed by using he household su ey o collec quan i a i e da a and also ocus
g oup discussion, and key in o man in e iews we e used o ga he quali a i e da a. A household su ey
was used o collec quan i a i e da a. The ques ionnai e was p e- es ed wi h andomly selec ed 10 male-
headed and 10 emale-headed households who we e no membe s o he sampled households. In add-
i ion, key in o ma s in e iew we e employed wi h pu posi ely selec ed local leade s, ex ension wo ke s,
elde s and c edi and sa ing associa ion leade s. Fu he mo e, Focus G oup Discussion (FGDs) we e pe
kebele engaging 8 pa icipan s.
Seconda y da a sou ce
In addi ion o p ima y da a collec ion echniques, in ensi e desk e iews o published and unpublished
li e a u e such as jou nals, books, a icles, hesis, disse a ions, and epo s o ele an o ices o ge
in o ma ion on he o al popula ion li ing in he s udy a ea and he numbe s o household li e in h ee
kebeles we e used.
COGENT ECONOMICS & FINANCE 5
3.5. Me hod o da a analysis
Quan i a i e da a analysis me hod
The aw quan i a i e da a collec ed om he household su ey was edi ed, coded, en e ed, and analyzed
using Excel and STATA-17 so wa e. To analyze he collec ed da a he s udy used desc ip i e s a is ics and
in e en ial s a is ics. Desc ip i e s a is ics such as equency, pe cen age, minimum, maximum, mean, and
s anda d de ia ion, and ables, and ba g aphs we e used o summa ize and p esen he da a in a manage-
able o m, and o desc ibe he socioeconomic cha ac e is ics and ypes o li elihood s a egies o sample
households. Likewise, in in e en ial s a is ics, he chi-squa e es and F- es we e used o show he ela ion-
ship o mean di e ence be ween a g oup o a iables o pai o a iables o ca ego ical o dummy, and
con inuous a iables espec i ely. Simpson Di e si y Index and Food Consump ion Sco e we e used o
measu e he s a us o li elihood di e si ica ion and s a us o ood secu i y espec i ely. Spea man’s ank
co ela ion analysis was used o es he ela ionship be ween he s a us o li elihood di e si ica ion and
he s a us o ood secu i y because hese wo a iables a e o de ed. And also he O de ed Logis ic
Reg ession Model was employed o iden i y he de e minan s o li elihood di e si ica ion and examine he
e ec s o li elihood di e si ica ion on he s a us o ood secu i y in u al households.
Quali a i e da a analysis me hod
Fo his s udy, he hema ic analysis me hod was used o analyze he quali a i e da a in a quali a i e o m
abou u al households’pe cep ions, opinions, and unde s andings o he s a us o ood secu i y in he
s udy a ea, ypes o li elihood s a egy ac i i y, he de e mina es o li elihood di e si ica ion, he s a us o
li elihood di e si ica ion, and he ela ionships o li elihood di e si ica ion and ood secu i y s a us in u al
households in he s udy a ea. Because, he hema ic analysis was used o analyze da a ob ained om ocus
g oup discussions and key in o man in e iews and also i was used o suppo , and iangula ion.
3.6. Li elihood di e si ica ion and ood secu i y analysis me hod
The Simpson Di e si y Index (SDI) was used o measu e he s a us o li elihood di e si ica ion. Among
he se e al indices a ailable, his s udy p e e s SDI o e he a ious me hods because i conside s bo h
he numbe o sou ces o li elihood income as well as how equally he income dis ibu ions amongs
he di e en sou ces a e dis ibu ed. SDI has a alue be ween 0 and 1. Thus, ze o ep esen s specializa-
ion (ha ing only one sou ce o income, whe e Z ¼1), while one ep esen s he ex eme o di e si ica-
ion. Fu he mo e, SDI was chosen due o i s wide applica ion, compu a ional simplici y, and eliabili y
in cap u ing household income om li elihood di e si ica ion.
The e o e, SDI ¼1−Pn
i¼0Z2
whe e: SDI is a measu e o li elihood di e si ica ion and Z is he income sha e o each ac i i y, and Z is
exp essed ma hema ically as Z¼Ki
K n is he numbe o income sou ces; ki is he income om each ac i i y,
and k is he household’s o al li elihood di e si ica ion s a egy income. When SDI is less han 0.01 he e is
no di e si ica ion; be ween 0.01-0.25 low di e si ica ion, Be ween 0.26-0.50 a e age di e si ica ion, and
When g ea e han 0.50 he e is high di e si ica ion (Aboaba e al., 2019; Addisu, 2017; Ahmed e al., 2018).
Fo his s udy, ood consump ion sco e was used o measu e he s a us o ood secu i y o households
because as s a ed by Jones e al. (2013) ood consump ion sco e is e y impo an o moni o ing ood
secu i y measu es and i needs o be low cos o collec da a. FCS also helps us o assess he linkage
be ween die a y di e si y and household ood access (WFP, 2008). The ood consump ion sco e is a ood
secu i y me ic ha conside s he di e si y, quan i y, and adequacy o ood in ake. I is a equency-
weigh ed die a y a ie y sco e de e mined using a 7-day ecall o he equency wi h which a amily con-
sumed eigh ood ypes (i.e. s aples (2), pulses (3), ege ables (1), ui s (1), mea / ish/egg (4), milk (4), suga
(0.5) and oil (0.5)). The equency o ood in ake should no exceed 7 imes he numbe o ecall pe iods.
The FCS is calcula ed by mul iplying each ood in ake equency by i s weigh s (which a e gi en in b ack-
e s abo e) and hen summing hem. The sco e goes om 0 o 112, wi h 0 indica ing ha a amily did no con-
sume any ood in he p e ious 7 days and 112 indica ing ha he household inges ed each ood ca ego y
e e y day o he p e ious 7 days. Acco ding o WFP (2008), o his s udy, he 21 and 35 c i e ia we e used o
6 A.T. TAYE ET AL.
e alua e ood secu i y s a us. As a esul , e e y hing below 21 is ega ded bad o poo , any hing o e 35 is
conside ed good o accep able, and any hing be ween 21 and 35 is conside ed bo de line (WFP, 2008).
3.7. Econome ics model (o de ed logis ic eg ession model)
In his s udy O de ed logis ic eg ession model was used o examine he de e minan s o u al house-
holds’li elihood di e si ica ion. The o de ed logis ic eg ession model is used o p edic an o dinal
dependen a iable gi en one o mo e independen a iables. An o dinal a iable is a ca ego ical a i-
able o which he e is a clea o de ing o he ca ego y le els. The explana o y a iables may be ei he
con inuous o ca ego ical (Pa y, 2020). In his s udy, he dependen a iable is li elihood di e si ica ion
s a us, which includes, income sou ces o li elihood s a egies ac i i ies om on- a m only, o - a m,
non- a m, on- a m þo - a m, o - a m þnon- a m, on- a m þnon- a m, and on a m þo - a m þnon- a m
based on he cu poin used by Aboaba e al. (2019), Addisu (2017), and Ahmed e al. (2018): (y <0.01)
no di e si ica ion, (y ¼0.01 −0.25) low di e si ica ion, (y ¼0.26 - 0.50) a e age di e si ica ion, and
(y >0.50) high di e si ica ion.
Based on he concep ual and empi ical li e a u e e iew, explana o y a iables which ha e been
logical and a ionale in in luencing s a us li elihood di e si ica ion in u al households a e iden i ied.
Thus, his sec ion p esen s he independen explana o y a iables o he s udy wi h hei hypo hesized
in luence on he dependen a iable.
Dependen a iables
Li elihood di e si ica ion s a us is a dependen ca ego ical a iable and indica es he le el o li elihood
di e si ica ion o a household engaged in on- he- a m, o - a m, non a m, on- a m þo - a m, on- a m-
þnon a m, o - a m þnon- a m, and on- a m þo - a m þnon a m income-gene a ing ac i i ies (Wondem,
2020). I is measu ed by Simpson Di e si ica ion Index (SDI) as o de ed alues wi h ou le els o ca ego ies
such as “No di e si ica ion (SDI 0.01); Low le el o di e si ica ion (SDI ¼0.02-0.25); A e age le el o di e si-
ica ion (SDI ¼0.26-0.50) and high le el o di e si ica ion SDI>0.50) because i has wide applica ion, com-
pu a ional simplici y, and eliabili y in cap u ing household income om li elihood di e si ica ion (Aboaba
e al., 2019; Ahmed e al., 2018).
Household ood secu i y
Household ood secu i y is a ca ego ical a iable. I was measu ed by using ood consump ion sco es. I
is a dependen a iable and was examined by aking li elihood di e si ica ion s a us as an explana o y
a iable.
Explana o y a iables
Based on he in o ma ion ob ained om an in-dep h e iew o bo h heo e ical and empi ical li e a u e
on simila opics o his s udy, he po en ial explana o y a iables o li elihood di e si ica ion s a us a e
iden i ied, and desc ibed, and hei ela ionship wi h he dependen a iables is p esen ed in Table 1.
The e ec o explana o y a iables on li elihood di e si ica ion s a us was es ima ed wi h he o de ed
logi model, because li elihood di e si ica ion s a us ou come was o de ed o anked.
Fo mo e han one independen a iable, he o de ed logi model can be w i en as:
Yi¼X
j
j¼1
bjXji þe¼Zi þe
Y¼li elihood di e si ica ion s a us o households (0, 1, 2, 3)
P ob (Yi ¼j) ¼J¼li elihood di e si ica ion s a us o households in he o de se as:
j¼0, i no li elihood di e si ica ion;
j¼1, i low di e si ica ion;
j¼2, i a e age li elihood di e si ica ion, and
j¼3, i high li elihood di e si ica ion.
COGENT ECONOMICS & FINANCE 7
4.4. Food secu i y s a us o households
Acco ding o WFP (2008), o his s udy, he s a us o ood secu i y o households was calcula ed by
ood consump ion sco e. As a esul , e e y hing below 21 is ega ded bad o poo , any hing o e 35 is
conside ed good o accep able, and any hing be ween 21 and 35 is conside ed bo de line (WFP, 2008).
The e o e, as shown in Table 5, om he o al sample o households 218, 90(41.28%), 22(10.09%), and
106(48.62%) we e ound o be poo , bo de line, and accep able o he s a us o ood secu i y o u al
households espec i ely. Fu he mo e, as shown below in Table 5 in low-land (Chimi kebele) om a
o al o 50 (100%) sample o households 36 (72%), 4 (8%), and 10 (20%) we e ound in poo , bo de line,
and accep able o he s a us o ood secu i y o u al households espec i ely. In mid-land (Abalibanous
kebele) om a o al o 95(100%) sample o households 52 (54.74%), 14(14.74%), and 29 (30.53%) we e
ound in he poo , bo de line, and accep able s a us o ood secu i y o u al households espec i ely. In
high-land, (En a a kebele) om a o al o 73(100%) sample o households 2(2.74%), 4 (5.48%), and 67
(91.78%) we e ound in he poo , bo de line, and accep able s a us o ood secu i y o u al households
espec i ely in Table 5. The mean FCS among he households is 27.15 which indica es ha he majo i y
o he households a e bo de line s a us o ood secu i y.
Based on he indings o KII households li ing in di e en ag oecology zone, e en hough some
households we e li ing in poo and accep able s a us o ood secu i y, mos o he households a e li ing
in bo de line s a us o ood secu i y in he s udy a ea.
4.5. E ec s o households’li elihood di e si ica ion on ood secu i y
Unde his subsec ion, o examine he e ec o li elihood di e si ica ion on he ood secu i y s a us o
households in he s udy a ea, by aking li elihood di e si ica ion s a us as an explana o y a iable and
he s a us o ood secu i y as a dependen a iable, he s udy used a simila model o he abo e second
subsec ion (o de ed logis ic eg ession model).
The su ey esul shows ha om he o al o 50 (22.94%) no li elihood di e si ica ion s a us o
households 48 (53.33%), and 2(9.09%) we e only ound in he poo and bo de line s a us o ood secu -
i y espec i ely. F om he o al o 26 (11.93%) low li elihood di e si ica ion s a us households 23
(25.56%), and 3 (13.64) we e only ound in he poo and bo de line s a us o ood secu i y espec i ely.
F om he o al o 97(44.5%) a e age li elihood di e si ica ion s a us o households 19 (21.11%), 17
(77.27%), and 61 (57.55%) we e ound in poo , bo de line, and accep able s a us o ood secu i y
espec i ely. O he o al 45(20.64%) high li elihood di e si ica ion s a us o households all 45(100%)
we e only ound in he accep able s a us o ood secu i y (see Table 6). As hypo hesized, Spea man’s
ank co ela ion analysis esul showed ha li elihood di e si ica ion s a us has a posi i e and highly
s a is ically signi ican associa ion wi h he ood secu i y s a us o households a a 1% le el o
Table 6. Rela ionship be ween li elihood di e si ica ion and ood secu i y s a us.
S a us o Li elihood Di e si ica ion
Poo Bo de line Accep able To al
ῥ- alue P- alueF eq % F eq % F eq % F eq %
No 48 53.33 2 9.09 0 0 50 22.94 0.787 0.000
Low 23 25.56 3 13.64 0 0 26 11.93
A e age 19 21.11 17 77.27 61 57.55 97 44.50
High 0 0 0 0 45 45 45 20.64
To al 90 100 22 100 106 100 218 100
Sou ce: Own su ey esul (2023).
Table 5. Food secu i y s a us o he households.
Ag oecology
Low-land Mid-land High-land To al
MeanFe q % Fe q % Fe q % F eq %
Poo 36 72 52 54.74 2 2.74 90 41.28 13.818
Bo de line 4 8 14 14.74 4 5.48 22 10.09 27.818
Accep able 10 20 29 30.53 67 91.78 106 48.62 38.26
To al 50 100 95 100 73 100 118 100 27.15
Sou ce: Own su ey esul (2023).
14 A.T. TAYE ET AL.
signi icance. This indica ed ha as li elihood di e si ica ion inc eased, he ood secu i y s a us o he
household also inc eased. The eason is ha households di e si y hei sou ces o li elihood in o on-
a m, o - a m, and non- a m li elihood s a egy ac i i ies p o iding an addi ional income ha enables
hem o spend mo e on hei basic needs like ood consump ion, educa ion, clo hing, and heal h ca e o
household membe s. An inc ease in he le el o li elihood di e si ica ion helped he households o
egene a e om he shocks ha made hem ood insecu e. The esul is consis en wi h he s udy o
Onunka and Olumba (2017), and Olawuyi and Olawuyi (2022) ound ha ood secu i y among a ming
households was in luenced by li elihood di e si ica ion.
As pe he esul shown in Table 7, he s a us o li elihood di e si ica ion a ec ed he s a us o ood
secu i y o he household’s head posi i ely and signi ican ly a P <0.01 o 1% (P ¼0.000) p obabili y
le el. The posi i e sign indica es ha o one uni inc ease in he s a us o li elihood di e si ica ion, he
odds o ood secu i y s a us also inc eased by 21.683, gi en ha all o he a iables in he model a e
held cons an . This esul is in ha mony wi h he s udy o Abebe e al. (2021), Wondem (2020), Yenesew
& Mas esha (2019), and Zeleke e al. (2017). By assuming keeping ano he a iable in he model con-
s an , he ma ginal e ec esul indica ed ha he s a us o li elihood di e si ica ion inc eased by one
uni (mo e likely), he s a us o ood secu i y poo , and bo de line households dec eased (less likely) by
26.5% and 9.7% espec i ely. On he o he hand, keeping o he in luence a iables cons an , he s a us
o li elihood di e si ica ion inc eased (mo e likely) by one uni , and he ma ginal e ec indica ed ha
accep able ood secu i y s a us inc eased (mo e likely) by 36.2%.
5. Conclusions and ecommenda ions
In gene al, his s udy aimed o assess he ac o s ha a ec he s a us o li elihood di e si ica ion and
i s con ibu ion o u al household ood secu i y in he Gozamin wo eda. Based on desc ip i e analysis,
and FGD, in his wo eda, u al households pa icipa ed in di e en li elihood di e si ica ion s a egies,
including on- a m ac i i ies (c op p oduc ion and animal p oduc ion ac i i ies, poul y p oduc ion, and
beekeeping), o - a m ac i i ies (local daily wage labo a he illage le el, ag icul u al wo k a ano he
pe son’s a m in exchange o a po ion o he ha es in kind, and selling i ewood and cha coal), non-
a m ac i i ies (handic a ac i i ies like ca pen y and house emodeling), and pe y ade (g ain ade,
ui ade, and ege able ade) o sus ain hei li e.
The esul o he Simpson Index o di e si y shows ha he uppe mos (44.5%) households ypically
di e si y hei li elihood a e age s a us o li elihood di e si ica ion. The pe cen age o no, low and high
di e si ie s we e (22.94%), (11.93%), and (20.64%) espec i ely. The mean SDI among he households was
0.331 which implies ha in he s udy a ea, he majo i y o he households a e agely di e si y hei
li elihood.
Simila ly, he esul s o he Food Consump ion Sco e e ealed ha a sample o households (41.28%),
(10.09%), and (48.62%) we e ound in poo , bo de line, and accep able s a us o ood secu i y in u al
households espec i ely. The mean FCS among he households is 27.15 which indica es ha in he s udy
wo eda, he majo i y o he households a e bo de line s a us o ood secu i y.
Fu he mo e, o de ed logis ic eg ession model esul s indica e ha ou o six een explana o y a ia-
bles, nine a iables signi ican ly in luenced he li elihood di e si ica ion s a us o households. F om hese
a iables, educa ional le el, ag oecology, access o aining, access o anspo , ag icul u al isk, and
annual o al income posi i ely a ec he li elihood di e si ica ion s a us o households a less han a 1%
le el o signi icance. Membe ship in coope a i es and access o c edi posi i ely a ec he li elihood
di e si ica ion s a us o households a less han 5℅signi icance le els. Bu sex has a nega i e e ec on
he le el o li elihood di e si ica ion a less han 10℅signi ican le els. In line wi h his, se e al ac o s
Table 7. E ec o li elihood di e si ica ion on he s a us o ood secu i y.
S a us o ood secu i y Odds a io S d. E p>jzj
Ma ginal e ec (dy/dx) s a us o ood secu i y
Poo Bo de line Accep able
SDI 21.683 8.746 000 −0.265 −0.097 0.362
p<.01, indica es signi icance a less han 1%.
Sou ce: - Own su ey esul (2023).
COGENT ECONOMICS & FINANCE 15
such as access o c edi , access o anspo , lack o esou ces, lack o awa eness, inabili y o p omo e a
cul u e o wo k on di e en ac i i ies, and ag oecology hinde he s a us o household li elihood di e si-
ica ion in he s udy a ea as explained by FGD and KII.
Finally, as shown in bo h Spea man co ela ion and o de ed logis ic eg ession analysis esul s, he
s a us o household li elihood di e si ica ion has a posi i e and s a is ically highly signi ican e ec on
he s a us o ood secu i y a a 1% le el o signi icance. The e o e, he s udy concluded ha when he
s a us o household li elihood di e si ica ion inc eased, he ood secu i y s a us o households also
highly inc eased in he s udy a ea.
Based on he indings o he s udy, he ollowing ecommenda ions ha e been p o ided o possible
in e en ions and help o enhance he s a us o household li elihood di e si ica ion o imp o e he s a-
us o ood secu i y in he s udy a ea. On- a m ac i i ies (c op p oduc ion and animal p oduc ion ac i -
i ies, poul y p oduc ion, and beekeeping), o - a m ac i i ies (local daily wage labo a he illage le el,
ag icul u al wo k a ano he pe son’s a m in exchange o a po ion o he ha es in kind, and selling
i ewood and cha coal), non- a m ac i i ies (handic a , po e y, ac i i ies like ca pen y and house
emodeling), and pe y ade (g ain ade, ui ade, and ege able ade) should be mo e expand and
con inue in his wo eda. And also households should ge suppo ing aining o s eng hen hei li eli-
hood s a egies ac i i ies.
Fu he , o inc ease he s a us o household li elihood di e si ica ion, go e nmen al and non-go e nmen-
al o ganiza ions, ex ension wo ke s, policy make s, s a egies, p og ams, and o he conce ned bodies should
gi e mo e a en ion o he a iables educa ion le el, ag oecology, membe ships o coope a i e, access o
aining, access o anspo , access o c edi , ag icul u al isk, and o al annual income. Finally, policies
imp o ing he ood secu i y s a us o households in he s udy a ea should ocus on inc easing he s a us o
li elihood di e si ica ion. Any policies a ge ed a p omo ing ood secu i y should go beyond jus inc ease
ood p oduc ion only; i needs o di e si y u al household li elihood h ough he de elopmen o al e na-
i e li elihood oppo uni ies o make i sus ainable and sel - esilience. Mo eo e , addi ional esea ch should
be ca ied ou o acqui e mo e empi ical indings on he ac o s ha a ec ing o u al household li elihood
di e si ica ion and i s con ibu ion o he ood secu i y s a us si ua ion in he Gozamn wo eda as well as in
o he simila u al a eas in E hiopia.
Consen o m
The au ho s p o ide consen o publica ion o his manusc ip in his jou nal.
Au ho s con ibu ions
An eneh Tenaw Taye engaged on concep ion and design, analysis and in e p e a ion o he da a; and d a ing o
he manusc ip . Yilebes Addisu Dam ie and Tes ahun Asmamaw Kassie wo ked on ad ising he o e all wo k, e ising
i c i ically o in ellec ual con en ; and he inal app o al o he e sion o be published. All he au ho s ag ee o be
accoun able o all aspec s o he wo k.
Disclosu e s a emen
No po en ial con lic o in e es was epo ed by he au ho (s).
Funding
The au ho s co e he budge need o he s udy.
Abou he au ho
An eneh Tenaw Taye, Yilebes Addisu Dam ie, and Tes ahun Asmamaw Kassie a e all young esea che s in Ins i u e
o Disas e Risk Managemen and Food Secu i y S udies. They ha e ample expe ience in he a ea disas e isk man-
agemen , ood secu i y, li elihoods, clima e change, ea ly wa ning sys ems and ela ed concep s.
16 A.T. TAYE ET AL.
Da a a ailabili y s a emen
The da ase suppo ing he conclusions and ecommenda ions o he s udy a e included in he a icle.
Re e ences
Abebe, T., Chalchisa, T., & Eneyew, A. (2021). The impac o u al li elihood di e si ica ion on household po e y:
E idence om Jimma Zone, O omia Na ional Regional S a e, Sou hwes E hiopia. The Scien i ic Wo ld Jou nal,
2021,1–11. h ps://doi.o g/10.1155/2021/3894610
Aboaba, K., Sowunmi., & Akinade, A. (2019). Nexus be ween po e y and li elihood di e si ica ion among u al
households in Nige ia: A mul idimensional po e y index app oach. In e na ional Jou nal o Ad ances Resea ch and
Publica ion,3(5), 168–175.
Addisu, Y. (2017). Li elihood s a egies and di e si ica ion in wes e n ip pas o al a eas o E hiopia. Pas o alism,7(1),
1–9. h ps://doi.o g/10.1186/s13570-017-0083-3
Ahmed, M., Bhanda i, H., Go doncillo, P., Quicoy, C., & Ca naje, G. (2018). Fac o s a ec ing ex en o u al li elihood
di e si ica ion in selec ed a eas o Bangladesh. SAARC Jou nal o Ag icul u e,16(1), 7–21. h ps://doi.o g/10.3329/
sja. 16i1.37419
Akinyemi, M., Olayinka, J., Junaidu, M., Ekpa, D., Bodaga, T., & Ib ahim, U. (2021). The de e minan s o li elihood
income di e si ica ion among u al a ming households in Osun S a e, Nige ia. Fudma Jou nal o Sciences,5(2),
79–84. h ps://doi.o g/10.33003/ js-2021-0502-527
Amaka, O. C., & Muhammad, F. (2022). Impac o u al li elihood di e si ica ion among u al households in Nige ia.
OIRT Jou nal o Humani ies and Social Sciences,1(2), 11–16. h ps://doi.o g/10.53944/ojhss-2105
Ama e, D., & Belaineh, L. (2013). De e minan s o income di e si ica ion among u al households: The case o small-
holde a me s in Fedis dis ic , Eas e n Ha a ghe zone, E hiopia. Jou nal o De elopmen and Ag icul u al
Economics,5(3), 120–128.
A agie, T., & Genanu, S. (2017). Le el and de e minan s o ood secu i y in No h Wollo Zone (Amha a Region—
E hiopia). Jou nal o Food Secu i y,5(6), 232–247. h ps://doi.o g/10.12691/j s-5-6-4
As aw, S., Scognamillo, A., Di Cap e a, G., Si ko, N., & Ignaciuk, A. (2019). He e ogeneous impac o li elihood di e si-
ica ion on household wel a e: C oss-coun y e idence om Sub-Saha an A ica. Wo ld De elopmen ,117, 278–295.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.wo ldde .2019.01.017
Bealu, T. (2019). Analysis o li elihood di e si ica ion p ac ice o p omo e u al households’ ood secu i y: he case o
Hawassa Zu ia Dis ic o Sidama Zone, E hiopia. Jou nal o De elopmen and Ag icul u al Economics,11(1), 1–8.
h ps://doi.o g/10.5897/JDAE2018.0926
Beka a, B. T. (2016). De e minan s o sa ings beha io among u al households in case o Bo icha Wo eda, Sidama
Zone, Sou he n E hiopia.
Challa, T. G., Mamo, A. T., Tibeso, A. N., & Dawud, I. (2019). Ru al li elihood di e si ica ion s a us and de e minan
ac o s in A si, E hiopia.
Cha as, J. P., Ri ieccio, G., Di Falco, S., De Luca, G., & Capi anio, F. (2022). Ag icul u al di e si ica ion, p oduc i i y,
and ood secu i y ac oss ime and space. Ag icul u al Economics,53(S1), 41–58. h ps://doi.o g/10.1111/agec.12742
Daniel, T., Seble, T., & Jemal, Y. (2016). Analysis o li elihood s a egy de e mina es among di e en weal h ca ego-
ies o u al households: A case om Amha a Region o E hiopia. De eloping Coun y S udies,6(2), 85–95.
Dedehouanou, S. F., & McPeak, J. (2020). Di e si y mo e o less? Household income gene a ion s a egies and ood
secu i y in u al Nige ia. The Jou nal o De elopmen S udies,56(3), 560–577. h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/00220388.
2019.1585814
De be, T. (2020). De e minan s o smallholde a me s’li elihood s a egies in Woge a dis ic o E hiopia. E hiopian
Renaissance Jou nal o Social Sciences and he Humani ies,7(1), 106–116.
De , T., Sul ana, N., & Hossain, M. E. (2016). Analysis o he impac o income di e si ica ion s a egies on ood secu -
i y s a us o u al households in Bangladesh: A case s udy o Rajshahi dis ic . Ame ican Jou nal o Theo e ical and
Applied Business,2(4), 46–56.
Ebeneze , M., & Abbyssinia, M. (2018). Li elihood di e si ica ion and i s e ec on household po e y in Eas e n Cape
P o ince, Sou h A ica. The Jou nal o De eloping A eas,52(1), 235–249. h ps://doi.o g/10.1353/jda.2018.0014
Echebi i, R. N., Onwusi ibe, C. N., & Nwaogu, D. C. (2017). E ec o li elihood di e si ica ion on ood secu i y s a us
o u al a m households in Abia S a e Nige ia. Scien i ic Pape Se ies Managemen , Economic Enginee ing in
Ag icul u e and Ru al De elopmen ,17,1–8.
Ellis, F., & F eeman, H. A. (2004). Ru al li elihoods and po e y educ ion s a egies in ou A ican coun ies. Jou nal
o De elopmen S udies,40(4), 1–30. h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/00220380410001673175
Ellis, F., & Woldehanna, T. (2005). E hiopia pa icipa o y po e y assessmen 2004-05. Minis y o Finance and
Economic De elopmen (MoFED).
FDRE. (2002). Fede al democ a ic epublic o E hiopia: Food secu i y s a egy documen . Addis Ababa.
Gao, J., & Mills, B. F. (2018). Wea he shocks, coping s a egies, and consump ion dynamics in u al E hiopia. Wo ld
De elopmen ,101, 268–283. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.wo ldde .2017.09.002
COGENT ECONOMICS & FINANCE 17
Gashe, A., Zewdu, T., & Kassa, A. (2017). Feed esou ces Gozamen Dis ic , Eas Gojjam Zone, Amha a Region. Jou nal
o En i onmen al and Anal Toxicology,7, 437.
Gay, M. (2010). Th ee essays on buye powe heo y, dominan HMOs and echnology ans e . No heas e n Uni e si y.
GDAO. (2022). Gozamin Dis ic Adminis a ion O ice annual epo . Deb e Ma kos.
Geb eyesus, B. (2016). De e minan s o li elihood di e si ica ion: he case o Kemba a Tamba o Zone, Sou he n
E hiopia. Jou nal o Po e y, In es men and De elopmen ,23,1–10.
Geb u, G. W., Ichoku, H. E., & Phil-Eze, P. O. (2018). De e minan s o li elihood di e si ica ion s a egies in Eas e n
Tig ay Region o E hiopia. Ag icul u e & Food Secu i y,7(62), 1–9. h ps://doi.o g/10.1186/s40066-018-0214-0
Gecho, Y. (2017). Ru al a m households’income di e si ica ion: The case o Wolai a Zone, Sou he n E hiopia. Social
Sciences,6(2), 45–56. h ps://doi.o g/10.11648/j.ss.20170602.12
Ge ine , B., & Lo a o, T. (2020). The ole o u al li elihood di e si ica ion s a egies o household ood secu i y in
Sou he n E hiopia: Empi ical E idence om Kecha Bi a Dis ic o Kemba a Temba o Zone. Jou nal o Finance and
Economics,8(3), 142–151.
G eene, S. (2017). Me hods o de e mining andom sample size. UW-S ou O ice o Planning, Assessmen , Resea ch
and Quali y.
Guja a i, D. N. (2022). Basic econome ics. P en ice Hall.
Jones, A. D., Ngu e, F. M., Pel o, G., & Young, S. L. (2013). Wha a e we assessing when we measu e ood secu i y? A
compendium and e iew o cu en me ics. Ad ances in Nu i ion (Be hesda, Md.),4(5), 481–505. h ps://doi.o g/
10.3945/an.113.004119
Kassegn, A., & End is, E. (2021). Re iew on li elihood di e si ica ion and ood secu i y si ua ions in E hiopia. Cogen
Food & Ag icul u e,7(1), 1882135. h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/23311932.2021.1882135
Kassie, G. W., Kim, S., Felliza , F. P., J ., & Ho, B. (2017). De e minan ac o s o li elihood di e si ica ion: E idence
om E hiopia. Cogen Social Sciences,3(1), 1369490. h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/23311886.2017.1369490
Liyew, D. M., & Dam ie, Y. A. (2024). De e minan s o u ban household income di e si ica ion and i s ela ion o ood
secu i y: lessons om Yejube own in E hiopia. Cogen Social Sciences,10(1), 2368946.
Ma suu a-Kanna i, M., Luh, Y. H., & Islam, A. H. M. S. (2023). Wea he shocks, li elihood di e si ica ion, and household
ood secu i y: Empi ical e idence om u al Bangladesh. Ag icul u al Economics,54(4), 455–470. h ps://doi.o g/10.
1111/agec.12776
Molla, T., Zemedu, L., & Legesse, B. (2014). Analysis o u al po e y and exi ime: he case o Gozamn dis ic o
eas Gojjam zone, E hiopia. Jou nal o Economics and Sus ainable De elopmen ,5(27), 315.
Mooi, E., Sa s ed , M., Mooi-Reci, I., Mooi, E., Sa s ed , M., & Mooi-Reci, I. (2018). Reg ession analysis. In Ma ke
Resea ch: The P ocess, Da a, and Me hods Using S a a (pp. 215–263). Sp inge .
Negussie, B., & Leul, N. (2006). Da a collec ion and analysis epo : The applica ion o policies and s a egies amewo k
o he Gozamein WIDP o mula ion. Deb e Ma kos.
Olawuyi, S. O., & Olawuyi, T. D. (2022). Li elihood di e si ica ion and a me s’well-being: Lessons om Sou h-Wes ,
Nige ia. The Jou nal o De eloping A eas,56(4), 231–246. h ps://doi.o g/10.1353/jda.2022.0074
Onunka, C., & Olumba, C. (2017). An analysis o he e ec o li elihood di e si ica ion on he ood secu i y s a us o
he u al a ming households in Udi LGA o Enugu s a e. In e na ional Jou nal o Ag icul u al Science and Resea ch,
7(6), 389–398.
Osa o, D., Senadza, B., & Nke iah-Amponsah, E. (2016). The impac o non a m ac i i ies on u al a m household
income and ood secu i y in he Uppe Eas and Uppe Wes . Regions o Ghana.
Pa y, S. (2020). O dinal logis ic eg ession models and s a is ical so wa e: Wha you need o know. Co nell S a is ical
Consul ing Uni ,1,1–4.
Qushim, B., Gillespie, J., & McMillin, K. (2015). E iciency analysis o sou heas e n US mea goa p oduc ion.
Singh, A. S., & Masuku, M. B. (2014). Sampling echniques & de e mina ion o sample size in applied s a is ics
esea ch: An o e iew. In e na ional Jou nal o Economics, Comme ce and Managemen ,2(11), 1–22.
Singh, K. (2007). Quan i a i e social esea ch me hods. Sage.
Tizazu, M. A., Ayele, G. M., & Oga o, G. S. (2018). De e minan s o u al households li elihood di e si ica ion s a -
egies in Kua i dis ic , Wes Gojjam zone o , Amha a egion, E hiopia. In e na ional Jou nal o Economic Beha io
and O ganiza ion,6(3), 61.
Weldegeb iel, Z. B. (2016). Non- a m di e si ica ion and i s impac s on income inequali y and po e y: E idence om
Ru al E hiopia. E hiopian Jou nal o De elopmen Resea ch,37(2), 1–22.
WFP. (2008). Food consump ion analysis: calcula ion and use o he ood consump ion sco e in ood secu i y
analysis.
Wolelie, B. (2021). The Cu en Food Insecu i y and he Need o Li es ock P oduc s o Food Secu i y and Fu u e
P ospec s o Li es ock P oduc ion in Eas e n Gojjam. Global Jou nal o Animal Scien i ic Resea ch,9(1), 1–20.
Wondem, A. (2020). De e minan s o household li elihood di e si ica ion and i s ela ion o ood secu i y s a us: The
case o Degadamo Dis ic , Amha a Na ional Regional S a e, E hiopia.
Yazdanpanah, M., Taje i Moghadam, M., Sa a i, M., Zobeidi, T., Siebe , S., & L€
oh , K. (2021). The impac o li elihood
asse s on he ood secu i y o a me s in Sou he n I an du ing he COVID-19 pandemic. In e na ional Jou nal o
En i onmen al Resea ch and Public Heal h,18(10), 5310. h ps://doi.o g/10.3390/ije ph18105310
18 A.T. TAYE ET AL.
Yenesew, E., & Mas esha, D. (2019). Impac o li elihood di e si ica ion on u al household ood secu i y: E idence
om Goncha-Siso-Enesie Des ic o Amha a Regional S a e, E hiopia. In e na ional Jou nal o Ag icul u al
Economics,4(6), 288. h ps://doi.o g/10.11648/j.ijae.20190406.16
Zeleke, T., Yousu , J., & Zemedu, L. (2017). Impac o li elihood di e si ica ion on u al household’s ood secu i y in
Fedis We oda, Eas e n Ha a ge Zone, O omiya Region, E hiopia, Uni e si y o Ha amaya, Ha amaya-E hiopia.
Jou nal o Po e y, In es men and De elopmen ,32,36–42.
Ze ai, B., & Geb eegziabhe , Z. (2011). E ec o non a m income on household ood secu i y in eas e n Tig ai,
E hiopia: An en i lemen app oach. Food Science and Quali y Managemen ,1(10), 1–23.
Ze ihun, B. (2017). Non- a m di e si ica ion in E hiopia: Wha de e mines pa icipa ion and e u ns. Addis Ababa
Uni e si y.
COGENT ECONOMICS & FINANCE 19
