Skip to main content

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

From: Prevalence of household food insecurity in wetland adjacent areas of Uganda

Variable (code) Food security categories Chi-square P value
Frequency (%) Secure (N = 34) Moderately insecure (N = 59) Highly insecure (N = 162) Totally insecure (N = 265)
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 0.001a
Sex of household head
 Female (0) 74 (14.2) 3 (4.05) 4 (5.41) 27 (36.49) 40 (54.05)   0.248b
 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 0.383b
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 0.001a†
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 0.047a
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 0.157b
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 0.147a
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 0.000a†
  1. Figures in parentheses are % of households
  2. Post hoc test (standardized residual against Z-critical vales) statistically significant at: c P < 0.001; d P < 0.01; e P < 0.05
  3. aPearson’s Chi-square test for independence
  4. bKruskal–Wallis equality of populations rank test
  5. c, dMore/fewer households than expected