Prevalence of household food insecurity in wetland adjacent areas of Uganda

Table 4 Bivariate analysis of the relationship between socio-economic and demographic characteristics of respondents and household food security

Variable (code)	Food security categories					Chi-square	P value
Variable (code)	Frequency (%)	Secure (N = 34)	Moderately insecure (N = 59)	Highly insecure (N = 162)	Totally insecure (N = 265)	Chi-square	P value
Wetland systems
Lake Nakivale (1)	260 (50)	13 (5.00)	21 (8.08)	72 (27.69)	154 (59.23)
Lake Kyoga Basin (2)	260 (50)	21 (8.1)	38 (14.6)	90 (34.6)	111 (42.7)	15.7580	0.001^a
Sex of household head
Female (0)	74 (14.2)	3 (4.05)	4 (5.41)	27 (36.49)	40 (54.05)		0.248^b
Male (1)	446 (85.8)	31 (6.95)	55 (12.33)	135 (30.27)	225 (50.45)	1.332
Land ownership
No (0)	37 (7.1)	1 (2.70)	4 (10.8)	11 (29.70)	21 (56.8)
Yes (1)	483 (92.9)	33 (6.83)	55 (11.39)	151 (31.26)	244 (50.52)	0.761	0.383^b
Permanent house
No (0)	434 (83.5)	30 (6.9)	39 (9.0)	143 (32.9)	222 (51.2)
Yes (1)	86 (16.5)	4 (4.65)	20 (23.26)^c	19 (22.09)	43 (50.00)	16.1768	0.001^a†
Group membership
No (0)	213 (41)	10 (4.70)	17 (8.0)	65 (30.5)	121 (56.8)
Yes (1)	307 (59)	24 (7.80)	42 (13.7)	97 (31.6)	144 (46.9)	7.942	0.047^a
Crop production
No (0)	14 (2.7)	0 (0)	0 (0)	5 (35.7)	9 (64.3)
Yes (1)	506 (97.3)	6.72	11.66	31.03	50.59	2.003	0.157^b
Livestock production
Non-commercial (0)	349 (67.1)	20 (5.70)	33 (9.50)	113 (32.4)	183 (52.0)
Commercial (1)	171 (32.9)	14 (8.19)	26 (15.20)	49 (28.65)	82 (47.95)	5.3656	0.147^a
Off-farm employment
No (1)	423 (81.3)	23 (5.4)	34 (8.0)^e	146 (34.5)	220 (52)
Yes (2)	97 (18.7)	11 (11.34)	25 (25.77)^c	16 (16.49)^d	45 (46.39)	34.7931	0.000^a†

Figures in parentheses are % of households
^†Post hoc test (standardized residual against Z-critical vales) statistically significant at: ^c P < 0.001; ^d P < 0.01; ^e P < 0.05
^aPearson’s Chi-square test for independence
^bKruskal–Wallis equality of populations rank test
^{c, d}More/fewer households than expected

ISSN: 2048-7010