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