Skip to main content

Table 2 Household Food Insecurity Access (logistic regressions)

From: Food security in rural Burkina Faso: the importance of consumption of own-farm sourced food versus purchased food

  Lean perioda Flush perioda
Intercept − 2.41 (− 5.14, 0.23) 1.01 (− 1.96, 4.80)
Household head literacyb 0.17 (− 0.44, 0.76) 0.42 (− 0.13, 0.97)
Household head gender 0.00 (− 1.03, 1.00) 0.06 (− 0.86, 0.97)
Household inhabitants (adult eq.) − 0.2 (− 0.10, 0.06) 0.03 (− 0.05, 0.10)
Crop market participation (% kcal sold) 0.27 (− 0.10, 0.65) 0.03 (− 0.38, 0.32)
Livestock market participation (% kcal sold) 0.21 (− 0.08, 0.49) 0.16 (− 0.42, 0.11)
Gross income (‘000 USD year−1) 0.26 (0.01, 0.54)* 0.17 (0.02, 0.41)*
Relative female control (> 40% income year−1) − 0.96 (− 2.00, 0.05) 0.34 (− 1.16, 0.47)
Number of crop species 0.05 (− 0.23, 0.33) 0.04 (− 0.24, 0.31)
Number of livestock species 0.28 (0.05, 0.53)* 0.09 (− 0.12, 0.30)
Aid receivedb 0.22 (− 0.70, 1.15) 0.18 (− 0.91, 1.26)
Provincec − 0.61 (− 2.18, 1.13) − 0.60 (− 2.33, 1.23)
Gross income: province − 0.43 (− 0.83, − 0.10)* NS
  1. Estimates are presented as posterior β estimate and 95% credible interval (CI)
  2. * CI does not cross zero
  3. aReference category is ‘severely food insecure of access’ (0), alternative is a higher classification of food security of access (1)
  4. bReference category for dichotomous variable is ‘no’ (0), alternative is ‘yes’ (1)
  5. cReference category is Yatenga province, alternative is Seno