how do different indicators of household food security compare?

7/30/2019 How do Different Indicators of Household Food Security Compare?

1/26

Strengthening the humanity and dignity of people in crisis through knowledge and practice

Ag 2013

How Do Dierent Indicators o Household

Food Security Compare?

E Ev g

Daniel Maxwell, Jennifer Coates and Bapu Vaitla


2/26

2013 Feinstein International Center. All Rights Reserved.

Fair use of this copyrighted material includes its use for non-commer-

cial educational purposes, such as teaching, scholarship, research,

criticism, commentary, and news reporting. Unless otherwise noted,

those who wish to reproduce text and image les from this publication

for such uses may do so without the Feinstein International Centers

express permission. However, all commercial use of this material

and/or reproduction that alters its meaning or intent, without the ex-

press permission of the Feinstein International Center, is prohibited.

Feinstein International Center

Tufts University

114 Curtis Street

Somerville, MA 02144

USA

tel: +1 617.627.3423fax: +1 617.627.3428

c.tufts.edu


3/26

Suggested Citation

Mx, D, J C, B V (2013). How Do Different Indicators ofHousehold Food Security Compare? Empirical Evidence from Tigray. F IC, Uv: M, USA.

Acknowledgements

b b Lv Cg v (LCO) g S E. W k k D. G D. Ng Ab LCO, g Cg D Ag N R Mk Uv.

A F I C, k P Wk, R Pz, A OB,B OL, A Rbb, . W v g J Mx g g g .

A k k Ab S S g g gv kg vvg.

Fg S I Dv Ag(SIDA). W g kg SIDA g b.

A b , b .

AAg 2013

Cover Photo Credit

J P. W, GWk


4/26

Table of Contents

I. Introduction 3

II. Measuring food security 3

III. Empirical context and methodology 5

IV. Analytical results

A. H v 5

1. H 5

2. W b g

7

3. W b b

8

. S 9

b. D 10

4. H b 9

B. W

12

C. H b b

15

1. C- 15

2. Cg ggg 16

3. A g 17

V. Conclusions and discussion 20

References 22

Annexes ( b )

Ax A: F q

Ax B: Bv b

Ax C: F b g

Ax D: Db vb, b

Ax E: b , b

Ax F: Hg , b

Ax G: C-b

Ax H: C b b-q

Ax I: Avg f vb

Ax J: S

Ax K: Ig P C


5/26H D D I H F S C 3

v : (1) Cg Sg Ix (CSI); (2) RCg Sg Ix (CSI); (3) H F I- A S (HFIAS); (4) HHg S (HHS); (5) F C S(FCS); (6) H D Dv S (HDDS); (7) - (SAFS).2

W - g v z x - . F, g ,g b - v b . q v (1) , b , gv (2) g g , -.

II. Measuring Food SecurityGv , k v g gz v (K2002, FAO 2013). g b g v b, b v ,

. I v , g (C Mx 2012). F , g-j - k g v, - g - v v (H Y2002, W . 2006; C . 2007). B b , bg (Yg J 2006, 2009).

A - k q q , q ( v ), vb k, v .C k b v g xv x b .

Pg vg b x. FAO v

k g g

2 T g q v v Ax A.

I. IntroductionW b g gbv, j g, g b . F b g, g

UN F Ag Ogz (FAO) -.1 g ,, . B(2010) j vb, ,z, k ( v bb vb) . M b, k-g, g q

g, v -k , g vg g . M ,gv v Ig P C- (IPC) , bg b x k gg b.

D gb, g - b

. k b - v g g - (C, 2013). k g g v - . S, g q:

1) H v b - b -

2) W

3) H b b -

v 300 E

1 F x , , v f, - - v (W F S,1996).


6/26F I C4

M Dv G b v, b -g - g g (C2012). Sg g b zgH C Ex Sv(HCES) kg (S . 2006,F 2013), b k x

v . Lkg - , v v g b FC S (FCS) q v b W F Pg (WFP) , b g x v, v (IFPRI 2008, C . 2007).O v LA v FCS b g

( q)b g v v b bv xv, g q b v-, v vg FCS (WFP 2010). A v Cg S-g Ix b k (Mx 1996; Mx . 1999; Mx, C, Lg 2008).A v

H F I A S (C,S, Bk 2006; Wbb . 2006). R-, b - , b H (2011, 2013).

R, , -x v b v v . v gzb g:

Dietarydiversityandfoodfrequency.Thistype b k g q , - vv gg g. v k, b q, g v b b g q (IFPRI 2006, C . 2007). F C S (FCS) v x b W F Pg (WFP2009). H D Dv S(HDDS) FCS, b 24- q

g g - b b UN F Ag Og-z USAID (FANA 2006, FAO 2010).

Spendingonfood.Giventhepropensityofpeople g v g g , -g x b (S . 2006).

Consumptionbehaviors.Thesemeasurescapture , b g bv . P b

k x Cg Sg Ix CSI (Mx C 2008), q v bv gg v g g b . R k CSI v b- g bv b v 14 - x- CSI (Mx,C, Lg 2008). CSI (CSI) bb g , b

-v g bv. V CSI v b b WFP/VAM(W F Pg/Vb AMg ), FAO/FSNAU (UN F Ag Ogz/F S N- A U S), GbIPC (Ig P C) , g. H Hg S (HHSb) bv . I -v bv.

Experientialmeasures.Someindicatorscombine

bv g . L A Cbb F S S(ELCSA) H F IA S b k x(ELCSA S C 2012; S Bk 2006; C, S, Bk2006). HFIAS g - bv gg q q, x v . H Hg S (HHS) v HFIAS -v b q, q, g (D- . 2010). USAID, FAO, v HFIAS HHS.

Self-assessmentmeasures.Thoughhighlysubjec-v g x, - - v b . - g v v g . S-

g G x gb (H 2011, 2013).


7/26H D D I H F S C 5

R, H Ek (2013) q - v . I , - b kg - z ( g, b) v-g .3

g v g g b . Hv, v b - b g . q .

III. Empirical Context and

Methodology LvCg Ov (LCO) - -v () E b Ag 2011 Fb 2013. v bjv LCO v g k: g . z b v v k g

k. g g g , , g - g v. R - b , k , vk, b . F gg g bv b g 4.

- - v,

: g g Ag v Fb (-- v). Wx b v vb k, - v g .

3 F ; g ; -; v ; x .

4 F b ,

b V . (2012). T q .

E v g vg , b k -v q b x- v x- v (.., v ) , , v g v. A v .

v v-- - vb -: Ab (E g) S S(S g). I , 150 , 75 kb (b-). b-kb (.., vg- k-v)g b b . bb g bg vg z.W vg, g b .

IV. Analytical Results

A. How do these seven measures

compare?

1. How well do the different measures

correlate?

x q, g - g x g S, P b x- . HFIAS, HHS, CSI,CSI, SAFS j g g , gHDDS FCS g v q , , . ,v g x. S g v g q g,

x , g


8/26F I C6

g b v g ggg b b g/v ; Ax B - ggg b .

Ov, q g, g x v gg g b g , g bq

.

HHS g , HFIAS. x, HHS xq , HFIAS g g .B , CSI k -vg bv; , v k - b HHS CSI b b x b g v .

Table 1. Spearmans rho correlations between food security measures, all rounds pooled

CSI CSI HFIAS HHS FCS HDDS SAFS

CSI 1 0.95 0.85 0.44 -0.51 -0.56 0.45

CSI 0.95 1 0.84 0.42 -0.48 -0.53 0.46

HFIAS 0.85 0.84 1 0.48 -0.57 -0.63 0.46

HHS 0.44 0.42 0.48 1 -0.34 -0.34 0.23

FCS -0.51 -0.48 -0.57 -0.34 1 0.92 -0.24

HDDS -0.56 -0.53 -0.63 -0.34 0.92 1 -0.29

SAFS 0.45 0.46 0.46 0.23 -0.24 -0.29 1

* A g


9/26H D D I H F S C 7

2. What do the different measures tell

us about changes in food insecurityacross rounds?

M b ( x) g ( g v). D v - g . b -g, qv b g .

z b 2. (N HDDS v b g - z ; , x

b 2). I b, v

b g , - . b 2 b .5

W , b . Ax C .

b 3 Fg 1 gg , b , v v; vb g

5 Sv gg, g b , . T bv .

Table 3. Food insecure households as percentage of total, by round and

indicator

R CSI RCSI HFIAS HHS FCS HDDS SAFS

1 48.0 38.9 81.8 6.0 24.5 46.2 45.7

2 31.0 26.1 52.9 3.4 16.8 43.2 35.9

3 29.1 25.7 51.7 5.2 17.9 36.3 26.4

4 26.8 21.9 49.7 2.9 11.7 34.6 29.8

Figure 1. Food insecure households as percentage of total, by round and indicator


10/26F I C8


11/26H D D I H F S C 9

b Ax D gg bv b 4:

CSIandrCSI.Therelativelyhighv b CSI CSI g g b g 0 v (-g g bv ), -

. b5 g g b b , CSI, z v. I v , z CSI , q b : b, z (Mx . 1999;Mx, C, Lg 2008).7

HFIAS.TheHFIASshowsasimilardistribution CSI , g g z v. I -g z v x, g ( R 1) HFIAS b- CSI. (N b, q. R v b g q gg b v). b HFIAS bv

b HFIAS , b , b b g g CSI. Ax g g HFIAS g g , x .

HHS.Anextremelyhighpercentageofhouseholdsv z HHS . gx g v . A , HHS v

v k , gg g, gg g g .

FCSandHDDS.Thedietarydiversitymeasuresv b ; , FCS R 1 HDDS R 1 3 S-Wk .

7 W

; g v z , bq k b xv - g .

b g x v v .

SAFS.Thecomparativelylowrelativestandardv - g v vb (15 SAFS).

g g g v gg - . v g, v, b b. , x S B. F, v, k .

4. How differently are households

classified by each of the

measures?

a. Static classification

Ax E b , v g b v -. Ax F v g vg , HDDS , b . Ax G -b

( g) . N x - v, v g b .z Ax F b g x (.., b g) b v- - v 8; b 8 T g v .

F, q b g (b 2), g b g - b g. T,

Table 6. Under- or over-estimation of food insecurity

of the row measure relative to the column measure

CSI CSI HFIAS HHS FCS SAFS

CSI - +0.12 -0.49 +0.31 +0.04 -0.11

CSI -0.12 - -0.61 +0.29 +0.12 -0.23

HFIAS +0.49 +0.61 - +0.74 +0.57 +0.38

HHS -0.31 -0.29 -0.74 - -0.17 -0.38FCS -0.04 -0.12 -0.57 +0.17 - -0.22

SAFS +0.11 +0.23 -0.38 +0.38 +0.22 -


12/26F I C10

. F x, b 6 CSI - v HFIAS b b g (-0.49); , gv x CSI b g (.., ) g HFIAS . S, HFIAS v- v HHS b

-q g (+0.74). W v, x q g , v g .

Sv g b:

CSIandrCSI.Aswouldbeexpected,CSIandCSI ; CSI g -v CSI (+0.12). CSI CSI b

g HHS FCS, b HFIAS, g SAFS .

HFIASandHHS.HFIASwillgivethehighestv , g bx -v ,g g x - (g b g b). I , HHS v . H

- q v, x bv.

FCS.AfterHHS,FCSistheleastlikelytoidentify .

Self-assessment.SAFS,thefoodsecurityself- , k b HFIAS.

Ov, , b , - - q. A b . HFIAS v

g , bv . F v- g (g, v ) b g, b bv (.., gv g 1 ); v- g, b bv b 2 ; . T -, x b bv b -1 , b -2 , .

T g vb b bv q (.., v b).

g v, - b SAFS, CSI, CSI, FCS, HHS (HDDS v, k -). A g b, g , g g (.g., g ) - (.g., v )

v. A , zz : W

b. Dynamic correlation

W k : - v . Ag, , g b g ; b 2 g g v b g.

b 7 8 kg .b 7 v : b , b v b R 1 R 4 b g b , k g g b . Fx, CSI 144 ; , 87, 60.4 (C A),

R 4: v .9

C-v, 26 156 g , 16.7 (C B), b R 4. b - v 61: 87 - 26 = 61; b 42.4 g 144- (C C).

b 7 b . g b C A g v : FCS (.., k

), b HFIAS.CSI, CSI, SAFS, HHS v g v- . v - g (C B) . Ag HFIAS, SAFS, CSI, b -x - b (g b g g ).F b g HHS FCS. N (C C) g -

9 N R 1 g g R 4 v , v- k b .


13/26H D D I H F S C 11

g v CA, x SAFS, g v b.

b 8 v -v b . O vgv b R 1 4, g b vg v . F x, CSI vg v (), SAFS b v 43.7 ( ). S, HFIAS vg v , FCSb j 2.0 . xv g x b

R 1 4 b /.

b 8 v v . b k v b : x b v b gv . F x, CSI v ,

38.3 b b, g g HHS FCS. I , HHS v , b 23.3 . N CSI CSI b b .

, , gv ; g gv b

v b b. CSI, CSI, HFIAS b

Table 7. Net movement into food security from Round 1 to Round 4, by indicator

A. G v

B. G v

C. N g g b

CSI 60.4% (87/144) 16.7% (26/156) 42.4% (61/144)

CSI 60.7% (71/117) 12.0% (22/184) 41.9% (49/117)

HFIAS 38.6% (102/264) 23.7% (9/38) 35.2% (93/264)

HHS 100.0% (18/18) 2.8% (8/284) 55.6% (10/18)

FCS 21.6% (16/74) 1.8% (4/227) 16.2% (12/74)

SAFS 55.1% (76/138) 17.7% (29/164) 34.1% (47/138)

Table 8. Dynamic correlation between indicators of movement into food security between

Rounds 1 and 4

CSI CSI HFIAS HHS FCS SAFS Cb -

b CSI - 65.5% 51.7% 4.6% 5.7% 43.7% 34.3%

CSI 80.3% - 52.1% 3.9% 7.0% 43.7% 38.3%

HFIAS 44.1% 36.3% - 1.1% 2.0% 36.3% 24.3%

HHS 22.2% 27.8% 16.7% - 22.2% 27.8% 23.3%

FCS 31.3% 37.5% 12.5% 11.5% - 25.0% 26.3%

SAFS 50.0% 40.8% 48.7% 1.8% 5.3% - 30.3%

Cb b

52.7% 45.5% 46.3% 6.0% 5.9% 39.1%


14/26F I C12

bg52.7 , 45.5 , 46.3 , -v, v b . HHS FCS x, bg j 6.0 5.9 v - b . I g - v g

bjv. S bv bg b bg -. W v -b b g -, b kg , g g - .

B. What dimensions of foodinsecurity do each of these

measures capture?

W F S , b FAO, vk , , g , b b g g . F x , , v ,

v (W F S 1996). A b b C(2013), b :

Quantity(sufficiency):physicalandeconomicaccesstosufficient

Quality(diversity):nutritiousfoodthatmeetsdietaryneeds

Acceptability:preferences Safety:safefood Stability:atalltimes

b g. Ag g, x b (.., k vb,k ) q, b - -, b k k jz v (C 2013).

I b - b x x

x v . E q v

b 9. bgg b, b gz- bv.

W b b-q (Ax H). b-q g

, k g. Nkg b v, v . I Fg 2, /b-q, g ()b ; g , g. g vb g - g, k vb b k. E - z b 9 b Fg2: b vb b g, b, g q-, q/v.

g v q/-v () q q (g)q. g b () b- (b) , : SLPHUN(gg g) vb g NOWN (g g ) g. SENDBEG (g b bg), PULSE, GRAIN,

x SKIPEA (kg g) v , b x bv b v bv. B k .

P b g b b-q . B b b - q, q/v : , b-

b v , -. Sb- ( v, vb) bb .


15/26H D D I H F S C 13

Table 9. Indicators and component questions

I NAME Questionorspecificmeasure D

SAFS SAFS S- g 30 Sb

CSI/CSI RELY I , HH xv

Ab

CSI/CSI BORROW I , HH b ,

v

Quantity

CSI FDCRED I , HH

Quantity

CSI WILD I , HH g ,, v

Quantity

CSI EASEED I , HH k x

Quantity

CSI SENDEA I , HH HH b

Quantity

CSI SENDBEG I , HH HH b

bg

Quantity

CSI/CSI LMPOR I , HH z

Quantity

CSI/CSI ADULRS I , HH b

Quantity

CSI/CSI FWRMEAL I , HH b

Quantity

CSI SKIPEA I , HH k g

Quantity

HFIAS WORRY I 30 , HH

v g

Sb

HFIAS PREFER I 30 , HH b b k

Ab

HFIAS LIMVAR I 30 , HH b v v

Quality/v

HFIAS NOWN I 30 , HH b v

Ab

HFIAS SMLMEAL I 30 , HH b v k

Quantity

HFIAS FEWMEAL I 30 , HH b v

Quantity

HFIAS/HHS

NOFOOD I 30 , v HH Quantity

HFIAS/HHS

SLPHUN I 30 , HH b g g g

Sb*

HFIAS/HHS

NOEA I 30 , HH b v g g

Quantity

FCS/HDDS

GRAIN I , g

Quality/v

FCS/

HDDS

UBER I , b Quality/

vFCS/HDDS

PULSES I , Quality/v


16/26F I C14

FCS/HDDS

VEGE I , vgb Quality/v

FCS/HDDS

FRUI I , Quality/v

FCS/HDDS

MEA I , , Quality/v

FCS/

HDDS

EGGS I , gg Quality/

v

FCS/HDDS

DAIRY I , -

Quality/v

FCS/HDDS

SUGAR I , g

Quality/v

FCS/HDDS

OILFA I , , , b

Quality/v

* q gb b - , b x .

Figure 2. Network diagram of correlation coefficients of measures and sub-questions


17/26H D D I H F S C 15

CSI FCS . I g CSI, HFIAS FCS - b b . Hv, bg gz. I ,- k k Fg 3. b 10 11

, g , v b.

-b b z :

Green:ThelowCSI/highFCSareaisclearlythe- g k b g b q q.

Red:ThehighCSI/lowFCSareaisclearlythe- g g q k v.

Yellow:TheintermediategroupthosewithlowCSI b FCS, g CSI b gFCS, g b -b g qg - , gg b.

b 10 gg 27 b b g b b. b11 - FCS HFIAS x , HFIAS g v

, g g .

bv g k b ( -

C. How can measures be

combined or used in

complementary ways to yield

a more multidimensional

picture of a households food

insecurity situation?I b- b, k g S B - .I b-, - Ig P C (IPC P 2012).I b-, -- b v z .

1. Cross-classification

b q (v) q ().A g b bbg b . CSI HFIAS q q (g b -b b); FCS q- v (q) . A-x J CSI HFIAS, CSI FCS, HFIAS FCS, - , b,

Figure 3. Conceptual rendering of cross-classification between CSI/HFIAS and FCS

FoodConsumptionScore

Low

High

L Hg

Cg Sg Ix ( HFIAS)


18/26F I C16

g. g g g g 2012 v (R 4), . O . ; bbg v bjv . Hv, b k-g, IPC , v -g 2011 ( j

G H A).I - IPC ( v - : CSI, FCS, , , HFIAS,HHS, CSI), v gg b . Bkg, v, g b v P 2(R 2, 3, 4) P 3 (R 1). IPC g g q b

b ( v b q P 2, 3, 4, 5), v- (

F I C

-) g - -g b g . - gg .

2. Comparing with other aggregate

indicators

bv ggg

(v -v) Ig P C (IPCP 2013). IPC g v Ax K. F v, v P 2 (). IPC j g v v.O , , v g R 1, v- v g ,

g ( x) v g g R 3. IPC g R 1,

Table 10. Cross-classification of CSI and FCS categories, all rounds pooled

FCS g

CSIcategory

Ab B P

F (02) 39.1%(492)

2.4%(28)

0.3%(3)

41.7%(483)

M (312) 20.2%

(234)

3.6%

(42)

0.6%

(7)

24.5%

(283)M/v (13+)

22.8%(264)

8.3%(96)

2.7%(31)

33.8%(391)

82.1%(950)

14.3%(166)

3.5%(41)

100.0%

Table 11. Cross-classification of HFIAS and FCS categories, all rounds pooled

FCS g

HFIAScategory

Ab B P

F 33.4%(387) 1.0%(12) 0.1%(1) 34.5%(400)

M 5.2%(60)

0.9%(10)

0.2%(2)

6.2%(72)

M/v

43.6%(506)

12.4%(144)

3.3%(38)

59.3%(688)

82.2%(953)

14.3%(166)

3.5%(41)

100.0%


19/26H D D I H F S C 17

b b ). v q v IPC k .

3. An algorithmic approach

W g x g g k v .

A g - - 0.77 g gb (B . 2008, Lb .2009.) F , . I Fg 4, b : g g (-

), -g bv (g), g (), v bv (b),vb (g b), g v (),

(g). N g SENDBEG(g b bg), PULSE, GRAIN,, x, SKIPEA (kg

g).

H g, g -

, b z B, g g - .

F, x Ax H, v Fg 3 4, q b k-g . x, k vbvg vb; vb k bg b vb. Ax I g k. S - g. SMLMEAL LMPOR

Figure 4. Network diagram of correlation coefficients, color-coded by food security dimension


20/26F I C18

FEWMEAL FWRMEAL q; HFIAS q SMLMEAL FEWMEAL. RELY g PREFER, x RELY . ADULRS g LM-POR, SMLMEAL, FWRMEAL, xADULRS . SUGAR, UBER, OILFA

v b v -x b .

b 12 25 q,gz b . I , PC A R g b b v b g .

W g b HFIAS g g

g q v g- , , , v .

W x SAFS, q b , b HFIAS: , , , v, x g g b q.F SAFS, v (4 ), (3), (2), (1).

g Fg 5. - xq ( NOEA SENDEA) v v g; xv q ( PULSE NOWN) ; .

I v, x , - gv q 113,

-b q 1419, -g b q 2025.

F I C

Table 12. Questions used in multidimensional indicator

I N F S D

SAFS SAFS Sb

HFIAS WORRY Sb

CSI/CSI LMPOR Rg g

CSI/CSI FWRMEAL Rg g

HFIAS PREFER D g

HFIAS LIMVAR D g

HFIAS NOWN D g

CSI/CSI BORROW F-g bv

CSI FDCRED F-g bv

CSI WILD F-g bv

CSI EASEED F-g bv

FCS/HDDS VEGE Hg v

FCS/HDDS FRUI Hg v

FCS/HDDS MEA Hg v

FCS/HDDS EGGS Hg v

FCS/HDDS DAIRY Hg v

FCS/HDDS GRAIN D

FCS/HDDS PULSE D

CSI SENDEA R v bv

CSI SENDBEG R v bv

CSI SKIPEA R v bv

HFIAS/HHS NOFOOD R v bv

HFIAS/HHS SLPHUN R v bv

HFIAS/HHS NOEA R v bv


21/26H D D I H F S C 19

bjv, g - ( ) v .

F b v , g b g g v , , b b g x- b g. -

g ggg - b g g g v.

Ug g, M- F S- I (MFI) , g q v (Fg 6 7).

vg v MFI v - . F, -,g . S,b kg b , g v ; b k b v

. , b kg g , v b qv - g . g -

Figure 5. Algorithmic classification of food security

NAME 1 (b) 2 3 4 ()

1 NOEA

2 SLPHUN

3 NOFOOD

4 SKIPEA

5 SENDBEG

6 SENDEA

7 PULSE

8 GRAIN

9 EASEED

10 WILD

11 FDCRED

12 BORROW

13 NOWN

14 LIMVAR

15 PREFER

16 FWRMEAL

17 LMPOR

18 WORRY

19 SAFS

21 DAIRY

22 EGGS

23 MEA

24 FRUI

25 VEGE

Sv

M

M

F


22/26F I C20

g q). CSI CSI q . HFIAS x g .HHS x .

I , gb v v . B v gg b - . v g gg g gg k - b g , b , - . Hv, , k b . O b, CSI, CSI, HFIAS b b b b

-, b g v gv v v -.

I bg v - . A - b b 10 11, b-

g b v(q) b (q) v . A , b -v g FCS, b gv g CSI HFIAS. - g g - b q x q .

x g gg -g g -

V. Conclusions and

DiscussionSv b .F, , gg g ( -). B k gg xg , v q , g, g -- g . FCS HDDS

q v (g FCS b q ,

Figure 6. MFI dynamics, by round

Figure 7. MFI dynamics in comparison to other measures


23/26H D D I H F S C 21

U, v, v v bjv v ( qv ), - g g- g .Agg - qv jg

v b x g - v -b. Sv v bv gbg b g v x (WFP 2010, C .2007). F , CSI CSI gg gz - , - b b - (Mx C 2008).10 Nv, b qk xv x-

z. gg g , b q - gzg qv. g gz HFIAS MFI b b bv - g v : g bv g g, x,v bv ( Fg 5). gz

qv b -g gz .

g - q - , SAFS v g v ,g q g b k gz v. Hv, bv vg g ( g k -

), g v b bjv g v b -g.

- g b . - b z k g z vb g-. B v g k

10 A - x - bg k .

, q q . - --q . CSI,CSI, HFIAS, HHS, - k , g vg q .

g g b g v - b g j vg .

A q b gv g v v g , v, g . Sv g , -g (R 1) g (R 24). I , HFIAS MFI b g , b b g x v b v-. g g ; vg ,v x x b , . Hv, g v b

, b b g, x x , v v , .

M g , g b q v (b ). , - b v . O , HHS k -vbv v HHS x b g g S 2011 2012, b b 34 , HHS g v v , v g g v (H . 2013).U, v

g . A b g .


24/26F I C22

MA: F S N S P, Uv.

C, J, A S, P Bk.2006. H F I A S(HFIAS) M H FA: I G (v. 2). Wg, D.C.:F N A, A

E Dv.C, J, D Mx. 2012. Rg

S: Uv M O HF S. UN FAO I SS F S N M-, R, Fb 2012.

C, Fk A. 2009. Mg Iq. Ox:P A.

D, Mg, B, . 2010. V M H Hg C-C-

U. Wg, DC, F N A II Pj (FANA-2), AED.

ELCSA S C. 2012. E L- Cb Sg A(ELCSA): M U A. R,UN F Ag Og.

F, Jk. 2013. Sgg H C- Ex Sv Eb Ev-B N P. I- S S F N-

S . FAO: R.FANA. 2006. H D Dv S

(HDDS) M H FA: I G (V 2). WgDC: F N APj.

F Ag Ogz. 2013. P-g I S S F N S : V M Ev D Mkg.R, 1719 J 2012. R: FAO.

F Ag Ogz. 2010. G Mg H Iv DDv. 2010 ( 2013). R: UN F Ag Ogz.

___________. 2006. F S. P B N.2. J. R: FAO.

H, Dk. 2011. W Gb F C R- C S v S-Rg.IFPRI D P. Wg DC: IFPRI

H, Dk. 2013. I Gb FC S-A F S. W Bk

.., g b b g k. b -, v, gg .

gg gk IPC

q b . v v gvx q v g v (.., v k x) g g x gg . B , v b g vb b b . F v b g x b q - kg b v IPC .

ReferencesB, C. 2010. Mg F I-

. S. 327: 825828.

Bq, E., Y. M-Pv, P. . 2010.

H F I A S Ix-Mb D Dv SCb V C I- H F I UbW-A Sg. J N. 140:22332240.

B, V D., J-L G, RLb, E Lbv. 2008. FUg C Lg N-k. J S M P10008:10.1088/1742-5468/2008/10/P10008.

C, C. 2012. Av Hg M-: FAO M RIv. R: FAO.

C, J. 2013. B Bk B: D-g F S Iv M- A. Gb F S J.Avb 24 J 2013. P bg.

C, J, B L. Rg, Pk Wbb,D Mx, Rb H, C

MD. 2007. D Dv S. F W F Pg. M,


25/26H D D I H F S C 23

S, L, H A, D. A.2006. F Sb-S A: N x v.R R 146. Wg DC: IFPRI.

S, A, P Bk. 2006. Dv- Uv Ab H FI M : P, C

S, Og I. J N- 136:1449S1452S.

V, B, G , Mg Rv, D Mx. 2012. R vg g, E. F IC .

W, M. 1983. S V: F, F, P N Ng. Bk:Uv C P.

Wbb, Pk, J C, E A. Fg,

B L. Rg, A S, PBk. 2006. Mg H FI: W I S I Y SD D. J N 136(S):1404S1408S.

W, D, J H, N-LAb, M . R. 2006. Rv V D Dv, F Fq O Px I H FS. Wg, D.C.: I FP R I.

W F Pg. 2009. Eg F S- A M. R:WFP.

___________. 2010. V S WFPF C I CA Cx, F I-- Sg F. R: WFP.

Yg, H, S J. 2006. M-g M A M Eg: A P D-Mk.HPN Nk P 56.

__________. 2009. Rv N M- I Ig F SP C (IPC): R Lv D-kg. I-Ag Sg C- N C.

E Rv. Av A b J- 7, 2013.

H, Dk, Ov Ek. 2013. Rk-g M F S: FF P B P. F S.5:327343

H, J, Y Y. 2002. D

Dv F S I. Wg-, DC: IFPRI.

IFPRI. 2006. Rv V D Dv-, F Fq O Px I H F S. R: IF P R I.

IFPRI. 2008. V F Fq D Dv Px I H- F S. R b WFP.Wg DC: IFPRI.

IPC P. 2012. IPC M. V2.0. R: FAO.

Kennedy,Eileen.2002.QualitativeMeasuresofFoodI Hg. P I- S S M A F Dv U-, 2002, R, I.

Lb, R., J.C. Dv, M. B L-. 2009. D M MS Nk. XV:0812.1770 [-

.-].

Mk, P, M Yzbk. 2012. MgS H Iq P M Cg I. D E Wkg P #1208, Uv O.

Mx, D, C Ak, C Lv,Mg A-K, S Zk, G M L. 1999. Av F-S I: Rvg Fq

Sv Cg Sg. F P24:411429.

Mx, D, R C. 2008. Cg Sg Ix: F M M.

Mx, D, R C, Mk Lg-. 2008. Mg F I: C I B Lz Cg Bv BU C A Cx F P 33(6):533540.

Mx, D. 1996. Mg F I:

Fq Sv Cg -g. F P 21 (3):291303.


26/26

Feinstein International Center

Tufts University

114 Curtis Street

Somerville, MA 02144

USAtel: +1 617.627.3423

how do different indicators of household food security compare?

Documents