AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIAL AND MANAGEMENT SCIENCES

ISSN Print: 2156-1540, ISSN Online: 2151-1559, doi:10.5251/ajsms.2014.5.1.19.26

© 2014, ScienceHuβ, http://www.scihub.org/AJSMS

Socioeconomic characteristics and food diversity amongst high income

households: a case study of maiduguri metropolis, borno state, Nigeria.
Ahmed, Funmilola Fausat and John, Naphtali (Ph.D)
Department of Economics, University of Maiduguri, Nigeria. funmilolafausat@yahoo.com
ABSTRACT

The study examined the socioeconomic characteristics and food diversity among households in
Maiduguri Metropolis of Borno State, Nigeria. Data for the study were generated from 120 high
income households using purposive and multi-stage random sampling techniques. Descriptive,
Cost-of-calories method, Logit model and household dietary diversity scores were used as
analytical techniques for the study. Based on the recommended daily energy levels of 2260 kcal,
a food security line of N31,572.00 per adult equivalent per year was obtained for the households.
The findings of the study revealed that about 73% of the sampled households are food secure.
The Logit analysis revealed that the major determinants that positively influence food security in
the study area among others are income, level of education, assets, cooperative membership and
diet diversity while household size, child dependency ratio, hired labour and gender negatively
influenced food security. Adequate family planning and engagement of family labour to reduce
cost of hired labour are recommended.

INTRODUCTION

At more than 160 million people, the population of
Nigeria is the largest in Africa and accounts for 47
percent of West Africa’s total population (World Bank,
2012). Nigeria is also the biggest oil exporter in
Africa, with the continent’s largest natural gas
reserves. Nigeria’s oil wealth has helped it maintain
relatively steady economic growth despite recent
global financial downturns. The country’s gross
domestic product (GDP) grew from 6 percent in 2008
to 8.4 percent in 2010 (World Bank, 2012). Despite
the huge resources from oil, Nigeria is characterized
by threat of hunger, about 70 percent of the
population living on less than N100 ($ 0.7) per day,
about 41 percent are food poor. Hunger and
malnutrition continue to plague the Nigerian economy
(FAO, 2008). This is because with the advent of
commercial oil exploration in the early 1970s, the
fortunes of agriculture started to dwindle with a
resultant downward decline in productivity and
consequently food insecurity. Agricultural sector has
not been able to deal effectively with the problem of
food security for the Nigerian people when viewed
from the stand point of the nutritional status of
Nigerians’ household food security and price (Vision,
2010). Consequently, in Nigeria, food security which
goes with food self sufficiency and sustainability is
still elusive (Nworgu, 2006).
Food security is deemed to exist when all people at
all times have the food needed for an active and
healthy life. Food security is a complex phenomenon
attributable to a range of factors that vary in
importance across geographic and social boundaries
and the concept is multi-dimensional, providing
valuable insights into the nature and extent of a
population’s food situation (Arene, et al. 2010).
Obamiro et al. (2004) has identified three pillars
under-pinning food security to include food
availability, food accessibility, and food utilization.
Food availability means ensuring that sufficient food
is available through own production. Food
accessibility means poverty reduction: simply making
food available is not enough because low income
households must also be able to purchase it. Food
utilization means ensuring a good nutritional
outcome, which can be termed nutrition security.
Having sufficient food will not ensure a good
nutritional outcome if poor health results in frequent
sickness (Doppler, 2002).
The Nigerian food security problem has been
reported to have increased with urbanization
(Omonona, et al. 2007). Therefore the growth of the
metropolis has triggered important transformation
towards increasing food production to sustain the
metropolitan setting because rapid population growth

in the metropolis is a major factor influencing food
production, food demand and nutritional status of
individuals constituting the household. Progressive
increase in population from 103.3 million in 1996 to
140.6 million in 2007 and at more than 160 million in
2012 without corresponding increases in food output
seem to have worsened the food security situation in
Nigeria. The definitions of food security make it clear
that the concept of food problem is a complex one
with many dimensions. These dimensions include
food availability, food access, food utilization and not
loosing such access (World Bank, 1986). Much of the
studies on this topical issue as it relates to availability
and access have focused on rural households. Little
has been done to target metropolitan households
especially the high income households considering
the level of food security and importantly, the level of
food utilization. This paper intends to bridge this gap.
It is in the light of these that the study was designed
to examine the socioeconomic characteristics and
food diversity among high income households. The
specific objectives of the study were to:
i. examine the socio-economic
characteristics of the respondents;
ii. identify sources of income available to
the respondents;
iii. measure the calorie intake;
iv. examine the determinants of food
security; and
v. identify food intake diversity of high
income households in the study area.
METHODOLOGY
The Study Area: The study was carried out in
Maiduguri Metropolis, the capital city of Borno state.
0 0
It is located on latitude 115 N and latitude 135 E.
Maiduguri is the largest and main commercial city in
the North Eastern Nigeria. It occupies an area of
2 percentages and were used to catalogue and
69,436 square kilometers (km ). According to the
2006 population census, Maiduguri has a population
of 521,492 people with an annual growth rate of
2.8%. Maiduguri Metropolis is ecologically
characterized as a sehelian savannah with mainly
grasses, shrubs, and few trees. The climate condition
of the State is hot and dry for most part of the year. It
has low rainfall which ranges from 500 mm to 1000
mm annually and a low relative humidity ranging from
0
42% to 49%. The average temperature is about 20 C
(Maryah, 2005).
The majority of the populace of the Maiduguri
Metropolis is civil servants, traders, military and
paramilitary and artisans. Major crops cultivated in
20
Am. J. Soc. Mgmt. Sci., 2014, 5(1): 19-26
the study area are millet, sorghum, maize, groundnut,
wheat, cowpea and the major livestock reared are
cattle, sheep, goats and poultry production hence the
determinants of food security and food security status
of the high-income group could reflect to some
extent, the food security situation in the State.
Data collection: Purposive sampling was used to
select the study area and wads based on population
density. The multi-stage sampling technique was
used in selecting households in the study area. Two
(2) urban wards purposively chosen based on
population density were New Government
Residential Area (GRA) and Federal Low Cost
quarters to represent the high income group.
Households in Maiduguri vary in terms of income
levels due to its cosmopolitan nature. Residential
locations were used as proxy to capture different
income groups in the study area. However, this does
not mean that a particular ward consist only a
particular income group residing there. It is possible
that all the three (3) income groups (low, medium and
high) may be found in a particular ward. But this is
done to ensure that the high-income group was
adequately captured. Sixty (60) households were
randomly selected from each of these wards making
a total of 120 high-income households in the study
area. Data were collected on socio-economic
characteristics, food expenditure and food
consumption pattern.
Data measurement and analytical technique:
Descriptive statistics and inferential statistics (the
cost-of-calories [COC], Logit models and Household
Dietary Diversity Score [HDDS]) were the analytical
techniques used for the study.
Descriptive statistics: This was used to examine
the socio-economic characteristics of respondents.
These techniques include means, frequencies and
categorize households by socio-economic
characteristics.
Cost-of-Calories [COC]: The COC method
proposed by Greer and Thorbecke (1986) was used
to estimate the food security line. The method yields
a value that is usually close to the minimum calorie
requirements for human survival. A minimum level of
nutrition necessary to maintain healthy living was
identified. This minimum level is referred to as the
‘food security line’ for the area under study, below
which people are classified as food insecure,
subsisting on inadequate nutrition. Calorie adequacy
was estimated by dividing the estimated calorie
 Am. J. Soc. Mgmt. Sci., 2014, 5(1): 19-26

supply for the households by the household size The implicit form of the model is expressed as:
adjusted for adult equivalence using the consumption
Yi = g (Ii) -- - 3
factor for age-sex categories. The food security line is
given as: m
lnX = a + bC - - - (1) Ii = bo ∑ bj Xji - 4
Where: j=1
X = adult equivalent food expenditure (in Naira) Where:
and
Yi is the observed response for the ith observation
C = actual calorie consumption per adult (i.e., the binary variable, Yi = 1 for a food secure
equivalent of a household (in kilocal). household and Yi = 0 for a food insecure household);
Ii is an underlying and unobserved stimulus index for
The calorie content of the recommended minimum th *
the i observation for each household; if Ii > Ii the
daily nutrients level (L) 2260Kcal employed by *
household is observed to be food secure, if Ii ˂ Ii the
(Babatunde et al. (2007): FAO, 2009; Oluyole 2009)
household is observed to be food insecure; g is the
was used to determine the food security line S using
functional relationship between the field observations
the equation: *
(Yi); (Ii ) the stimulus index determines the probability
(a+bL)
of being food secure; and (Ii) the stimulus index
S = e -- - - (2)
determines the probability of being food insecure.
Where: S = cost of buying the minimum calorie The empirical model used for determining factors that
intake (food security line); influenced food security status among low-income
households in Maiduguri was specified as:
a = Intercept;
Ii = bo + b1X1 + b2X2 + b3X3 + b4X4 +
b = Coefficient of the calorie consumption;
b5X5 + b6X6 + b7X7 + b8X8 + b9X9 b10X10 + b11X11 +
L = FAO recommended minimum daily b12X12 + b13X13 + b14X14+ b15X15+ b16X16 + e -- 5
energy (calorie) level.
where:
Table 1: Conversion factors for calorie requirement for
different age groups Pi = the probability of an ith household being food
secure stands for dummy, X1 = Age of household
Years of age Male Female head (AGE) in years; X2 = Income of household
0-1 0.27 0.27
(HHINC) in Naira; X3 = Farm size of a household
(FARMSZ) in hectares; X4 = Household size (HHSZ);
2-3 0.45 0.45 X5 = Farming experience (FARMEXP) in years; X 6 =
4-6 0.61 0.61 Co-operative membership; (COOP) D = 1, if yes; D =
0, otherwise; X7 = Level of education (EDUC) in
7-9 0.73 0.73 years; X8 = Sex of household head (SEX) D = 1 for
10-12 0.86 0.78 male, D = 0 for female; X9 = Household assets
(HHAST) in Naira; X10 = Household production
13-15 0.96 0.83
enterprise (FARMENT); D = 1, if yes; D = 0,
16-19 1.02 0.77 otherwise; X11 = Household head’s access to credit
20 and above 1.00 0.73 facilities (CREDIT) D=1 if yes, otherwise D = 0; X12 =
Child dependency ratio (CDR); X13 = Household
Source: FOS, (2004) head’s access to extension agents (EXTAG) D=1 if
Logit Model: In the Logit model, the data on the yes, otherwise D=0; X14 = Hired Labour (HLAB) in
dependent variable (food security status) is bivariate, man/day; X15 = Family Labour (FLAB) in Naira; and
that is, food secure and food insecure households. X16 = Diet Diversity (DD) in HDDS scores D = 1, high
The model assumes that being food secure is a diet diversity (6-12); D = 0, (0-5) low diet diversity; bo
continuous status. The model expresses households’ = constant; and e = error term.
food security status as a function of linear A priori Expectations: It was expected that the
combination of observable explanatory variables, independent variables such as household income,
some unknown parameters and an error term (e). membership of cooperative, educational level of

21
 Am. J. Soc. Mgmt. Sci., 2014, 5(1): 19-26

household head, ownership of assets, household 60 and above 18 15

enterprise, nutrition education of household head, Household size
farm size, farming experience, family labour and Less than 5 60 50
access to extension agents would have positive 5–9 52 43.3
influence on the level of food security in semi-urban 10 – 14 6 5
and urban settlements. Age of the household head, Above 15 2 1.7
gender, hired labour, and family size would have Farm size (hectares)
No farm 89 74.2
negative influence on the level of food security in the
Less than 2 18 15
study area.
2 – 3.99 11 9.2
Household Dietary Diversity Score (HDDS): 4 – 5.99 2 1.7
Dietary diversity was measured by summing the Level of formal education
number of foods or food groups consumed over a (years)
reference period. The HDDS which ranged between Primary sch. (completed) 8 6.7
0-12 was used to measure household’s dietary Secondary sch. (not 4 3.3
completed)
diversity and also ranked accordingly into high dietary
Secondary sch. 39 32.5
diversity (6-12) and low dietary diversity (0-5) (FAO, (completed)
2008). HDDS indicator for sample population was Post secondary 69 57.5
also measured by the sum of HDDS of households Child dependency ratio
divided by the total number of households. Twelve No dependency 58 48.3
(12) food groups included in the HDDS were: 0.1 – 0.4 34 28.3
Cereals; roots and tubers; Vegetables; Fruit; Meat, 0.5 – 0.8 26 21.7
poultry, offal; Eggs; Fish and sea foods; Legumes, 0.9 and above 2 1.7
nuts and seeds; Milk and milk products; Oils and Fat; Farm experience (years)
Sugar/honey; condiments; and Beverages (FAO, Not involved in farming 107 89.2
2007). These food groups were used to identify food Less than 10 8 6.7
intake quality of the households. Foods locally 10- 19 5 4.2
consumed in these food groups were determined and Membership of
considered for the measure of food intake diversity in cooperative
Membership 27 22.5
the study area.
Non membership 93 77.5
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Extension agent’ contact
Contact 13 10.8
The socioeconomic characteristics of urban No contact 107 89.2
households examined were discussed under social Source: Field Survey, 2011.
and economic factors. The social factors included:
sex, age, household size, farm size, farming that about 8% of the MIH were headed by females.
experience, educational level, child dependency ratio, The households were headed by males in
cooperative membership and extension agents’ consonance with the hierarchical order in homes;
contact. The results are presented in Table 2. The however, those headed by females could be as a
sex distribution of household heads showed that the result of death of spouse or separation. Majority of
percentage of male-headed households was 97%. the household heads, about 73% were within the age
The result also shows range of 40 to less than 60 years. This suggests that
the majority of the respondents were within their
Table 2: Distribution of Households by Social Factors economic active age and this will enhance their
Social Factors HIH production in order to be food secure. The study
Freq. % revealed further that 50% of the respondents had
Sex less than 5 household members. This result suggests
Male 116 96.7 that most respondents have relatively small
Female 4 3.3 household size. Table 2 also showed that about 74%
Age (years) had no farm, 89% are not involved in farming, 89%
Less than 30 5 4.2 had no contact with extension agents. This implies
30 – 39 9 7.5 that households’ level of engagement in farming and
40 – 49 45 37.5 especially crop production is low. Also, about 33%
50 - 59 43 35.8 and 58% of the respondents had secondary and

22
 Am. J. Soc. Mgmt. Sci., 2014, 5(1): 19-26

tertiary education respectively. This implies that Freq. %

majority of the respondents had one form of Petty trading 48 17.7
education or the other. The level of education can
Agro-Micro processing 06 2.2
enhance their food security status.
Fishing 08 3
Table 3: Distribution of Households by Economic
Factors Poultry 47 17.3

Economic factors High Income Local livestock husbandry 11 4

Households (HIH) Wages (civil service) 120 44.3
Freq. %
Access to Loan Crop production 23 8.5
Accessible 93 77.5 * Multiple responses existed
Not Accessible 27 22.5
Monthly Income (N) Source: Field Survey, 2011
Less than 60,000 - -
60,000 – 119,000 83 69.2
Households in the study area engaged in different
120,000 – 179,000 21 17.5 income generating activities. These economic
Above 180,000.00 18 15.1 activities provided for immediate needs of the
Types of Assets* households and also served as buffers during lean
Land 112 16 periods. Generally, results in Table 4 showed that
Motor vehicle 120 17.1 income earned from civil service (44%) is commonest
Motor cycle 23 3.3 income generating activity followed by petty trading
Hand sets 120 17.1 (18%), poultry (17%) and crop production (9%).
Radio/T.V. set 120 17.1
Livestock 27 3.8
Nature/depth of food security among
Bicycle 35 5 respondents: The summary statistics of food
Shares 102 14.5 security measures in the study are presented in
Others(sewing machines, 17 2.4 Table 5. Based on the recommended daily energy
fridges, guns etc ) levels (L) of 2260 Kilocalories, the food security line
(Z) for the high income households was estimated at
* Multiple responses existed
N87.70 per day per adult equivalent and N2,631.00
Source: Field Survey, 2011 per month per adult equivalent. The result showed
that 73% of the sampled households were food
Results from Table 3 showed that most respondents
secure while only 27% of the sampled households
(78%) had access to loan to accomplish one
were food insecure. Furthermore, the aggregate
economic activity or the other. The income earned
income gap (G) of -662.79 indicates the food
was also investigated and the analysis showed that
insecure households would need N662.79 to meet
most (69.2%) respondents fell within the range of
their monthly basic food requirements. The income
₦60, 000 – ₦119, 000 per month. This ultimately has
gap of the respondents may be due to high taste and
impact on household access to food. Results also
preferences of these households.
showed that mobile phones and radio/television were
the most common assets owned by these Table 5: Summary statistics and food security
households followed by motor vehicles, shares and measures among households
land. Amaza et al. (2009) observed that the level of Households High Income Households
assets ownership is an indication of its endowment
and provides a good measure of household resilience Variables Value
in terms of food crisis, resulting from famine, crop Cost-of-calorie lnX=a + bC
failures, or natural disasters. Small proportion of equation
households own assets such as sewing machines,
commercial deep freezers and guns. Constant 4.474(53.764)*

Income Generating Activities

Slope coefficient 0.0000(5.469) *
Table 4: Income generating activities utilized by
households in ensuring food security.
Activities High Income Households

23
 Am. J. Soc. Mgmt. Sci., 2014, 5(1): 19-26

FAO recommended 2260Kcal HHINC(X2) .710 .178 3.989***

daily energy Levels (L)
FARMSZ(X3) 1.715 .856 2.004**
Food security line N87.70 per day HHSZ(X4) -.301 .150 -1.997**
Z:Cost of the minimum
energy requirements N613.90 per week FARMEXP(X5) .0712 .07450 .956
per adult equivalent N2,631.00 per month COOP(X6) .240 .124 1.931**
N31,572.00 per year EDUC(X7) .324 .0983 3.298***
Head Count (H) 0.27(food insecure) GEND(X8) -.490 .209 -2.337**

0.73(food secure) ASSETS(X9) .0000073 .00000176 4.155***

Percentage Household 27%(food insecure) FARMENT(X10) -.191 .377 -.507

73%(food secure) CREDIT(X11) .234 .134 1.740

Aggregate income gap -662.79 CDR(X12) -.00031 .0912 -.003

(G)
Source: Calculations from OLS estimates and cost-of-
calories equation, 2011
*Figures in parenthesis are t-values.
Determinants of food security status among urban
households: The results of the Logit regression for
urban households are presented in Table 6. Analysis
of the survey data revealed that 11 out of 16
variables included in the model were significant in
explaining the variation in food security status among
the high income households. The significant variables
were age, income, farm size, household size, farm
size, co-operative membership, level of education,
gender of household head, asset, extension agent’s
contact and diet diversity. The coefficient of variables
in the model were significant at 1% (P<0.01) and at
5% (P<0.05) levels respectively. This indicates that
the model was a good fit to the data. The summary of
the significant determinants among the HIH are
discussed as follows:
AGE: Contrary to expectation, the coefficient of the
variable was found to be positive among the HIH at
1% significant level. This suggests that as household
heads advance in age, their food security status
increases. This is expected because incomes of
these households are likely to be higher as a result of
longer stay on their public or private endeavours.
Table 6: Logit Regression Analysis for High Income
Households
Variable High Income Households (HIH)
Coefficient Standard t-value
Error
Constant 14.012 4.025 3.481***
AGE(X1) .211 .0651 3.244***
EXTAG(X13) .469 .177 2.647***
HLAB(X14) -.000180 .0000589 -3.057***
FLAB(X15) .000379 .00006721 .564
DD(X16) .0889 .0356 2.494**
***=significant at 1% **= significant at 5%
Source: Computer Printout, 2011
Income: As expected a priori, a significant positive
relationship existed between food security level
experienced by HIH and their income level at 1%.
This implies that as the level of income of household
heads increases, the food security status of their
respective households increases. Income is an
important factor to food access especially in the
metropolis where food production is limited and food
items are purchased at prevailing market prices.
Farm Size: Also, a significant positive relationship as
expected existed between food security level
experienced by the HIH and their farm size at 5%
level. This indicates that farm size under cultivation
largely influenced the level of food availability in
these households. Household size: The coefficient
of the variable household size was negative as
expected and significant at 5% level among HIH. This
implies that as the household size increases, food
security intensity decreases. Increase in family size
necessitates increase in household expenditure,
especially, in a situation where many of the
household members do not generate any income but
only depend on the household head. Cooperative
membership: As expected, the coefficient for
cooperative membership was positive and also
significant at 5% level indicating that the food security
status of households increased with cooperative
membership. This according to Amaza et al. (2008)
can be closely linked to the beneficial effects of their

24

memberships in terms of production and other
welfare enhancing services.
Level of Education: The coefficient of level of
education was positive as expected a priori, and also
significant at 1% level. The regression result shows
that as the level of education of household heads
increases, the food security intensity increases and
vice versa. This suggests that the level of formal
education could impact positively the households’
production and nutrition decision thereby reducing
food insecurity intensity. Gender: The coefficient of
gender was significant at 5% level among HIH, the
negative relationship between food security status
and gender in the HIH was expected. Female
household heads are usually saddled with the
responsibility of home keeping and raising children
which usually limits their engagements in some
income generating activities compared to their male
counterparts. Household Assets: A significant
positive relationship as expected existed between
food security level and household assets at 1% level.
This implies that food security status increases as
assets level increases. Amaza et al. (2008) had
earlier recognized that assets’ holding is considered
as one of the measures of household resilience.
Some assets could be sold off if need be to cushion
the effects of adverse circumstances, such as crop
failure or drought on household food security.
Extension Agent Contact: The coefficient of
extension agent’s contact as expected a priori was
positive and significant at 1% level among the
households. The regression result suggests that
extension agent’s contact is important in the adoption
of modern farm practices that ultimately influences
the level of farm output, hence food availability in the
study area. Hired Labour: The coefficient of hired
labour, was negative as expected and significant at
1% level. This result implies that the more
households engage the services of hired labour in
food production, the more food secure the
households. However, cost of hired labour could
ultimately have negative effect on households’
income if their engagement does not result in food
availability. Diet Diversity: The coefficient of diet
diversity was found to exert significant influence at
5% among the HIH. It also showed a positive
relationship on households’ food security status. This
indicates that the higher the household’ diet diversity
level, the higher the probability that the household
would be food secure.
Food Diversity Intake: Dietary diversity was
employed as a qualitative measure of food
25
Am. J. Soc. Mgmt. Sci., 2014, 5(1): 19-26
consumption. High food diversity result of 81.7% was
obtained among HIH in the study area. This may
likely be an indication of a relatively stable income.
This, in line with Maxwell (2003) provides direct
access to a larger number of nutritionally richer foods
(vegetables, fruits, and meat), a more varied diet and
can also increase the stability of household food
consumption against seasonality or other temporary
shortage. This ultimately have a positive impact on
the food security situation of the households.
Table 7: Dietary diversity among high Income
households
Diet High income households
Diversity Freq* %
Low 22 18.3
High 98 81.7
Total 120 100
Source: Field Survey, 2011
Ruel (2006) have also shown that households that
engage in farming may have access to relatively
cheaper food, and to a wider variety of particularly
nutritious foods, such as vegetables and products of
animal origin (milk, eggs, meat). Also, direct access
to food may allow households to consume greater
amounts of food and a more diversified diet, richer in
valuable micronutrients.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION: The
paper assessed socioeconomic characteristics and
food diversity amongst high income households in
Maiduguri Metropolis, Borno State. Based on the
result of the findings, the study concludes that
multiple sources of income of the respondents are
important factor to meet up with food security status,
hence high food diversity. However, household size,
child dependency ratio, hired labour negatively affect
food security status of households.
Based on the results of the study, it is recommended
that households should be encouraged to give
adequate attention to better family planning
strategies. Also, family members should be
encouraged to participate in households’ business to
reduce the cost of hired labour.
REFERENCES
Amaza, P.S., Adejobi, A.O., and Fregene, T. (2008).
Measurement and Determinants of food
insecurity in northeast Nigeria: Some empirical policy
guidelines. Journal of Food, Agriculture and
Environment. 6 (2): 92-96.
Amaza, P.S., Abdoulaye, T., Kwaghe, P.V., and Tegbaru,
A, (2009). Changes in household food security and
poverty status in PROSAB area of Southern Borno

State, Nigeria. International Institute of Tropical
Agriculture (IITA) and Promoting Sustainable
Agriculture in Borno State (PROSAB). Pp 1- 40.
Arene C.J. and Anyaeji R. C. (2010). Determinants of Food
Security among Households in Nsukka Metropolis of
Enugu State, Nigeria. Pakistan Journal of Social
Sciences (PJSS).30 (1): 9-16.
Babatunde, R.O., Owotoki, G.M., Heidhues, F. and
Bucheenrieder, G. (2007b).Vulnerability and Food
Insecurity Differentials among Male And Female-
Headed Farming Households in Nigeria. Medwell
Journals, 4(3): 414-418.
Doppler, W. (2002). Farming and Rural Systems
Approaches. Published Lecturing Material.
Hohenheim University, Stuttgart, Germany.
Federal Office of Statistics (2004). Nigeria Living Standard
Survey. Report prepared by FOS in collaboration with
EU, World Bank, Department for International
Studies. Pp. 9-24.
Food and Agriculture Organization. (2008). Food Security
Information for Action: Vulnerability Indicators. Food
and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations:
Rome, Italy.
Food and Agriculture Organization. (2009). Measuring
Food Security Using Respondents Perception of
Food Consumption Adequacy. Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy.
Greer, J., and Thorbecke, E. (1986). A methodology for
measuring poverty applied to Kenya. Journal of
Development Economics 24(1):59-74.
Maxwell, D. (2003). “The Importance of Urban Agriculture
to Food and Nutrition”, in sida and ETC, pp. 22-129.
26
Am. J. Soc. Mgmt. Sci., 2014, 5(1): 19-26
Maryah, U. M. (2005). Forage availability and Livestock
Management Systems in Semiarid Zone of North East
Nigeria. Ph.D. Thesis submitted, Department of
Geography, Bayero University, Kano.
Nworgu, F. C. (2005). Prospects and Pitfall of Agricultural
Production in Nigeria Ibadan. Blessed Publication
Consultants / Publication.
Obamiro, E.O., Doppler, W., and Kormawa, P.M. (2004).
Pillars of Food Security in Nigeria. International
Institute of Tropical Agriculture, Ibadan, Nigeria.
Oluyole, K.A., Oni, O.A., Omonona, B.T., and Adenegan,
K.Q. (2009). Food Security among Cocoa Farming
Households of Ondo State, Nigeria. ARPN Journal of
Agriculture and Biological Science. 4(5):7-14
Omonona, B.T., and Agoi, G.A. (2007). An analysis of Food
Security Situation Among Nigerian Urban
Households: Evidence from Lagos State, Nigeria.
Journal of Central European Agriculture. 8(3): 397-
406.
Ruel, M.T. (2006). “Operationalizing Dietary Diversity: A
Review of Measurement Issues and Research
Priorities”, Journal of Nutrition. Pp 1-11.
Vision (2010): Agriculture 1997 Final Report of the Sub
Committee of Agricultural Economic Sector. Abuja,
FGN.
World Bank, (1986). “Poverty and Hunger: Issues and
Options for Food Security in Developing. Countries”.
Washington D.C., World Bank.
World Bank, (2012). Nigeria Agricultural Production: World
Bank Indicators. Washington D.C., World Bank .