IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2016) 7-1

Research article
erd

Prevalence and Determinants of Household Food Security in
Resettled Areas in Sekong Province, Lao PDR
INPONG SILIPHOUTHONE*
The United Graduate School of Agricultural Sciences, Tottori University, Tottori, Japan
Email: inpong007@gmail.com

KUMI YASUNOBUFaculty of Agriculture, Tottori University, Tottori, Japan
Received 11 November 2015

Accepted 11 April 2016(*Corresponding Author)

Abstract Relocating isolated villagers from upland to lowland areas is an important ruraldevelopment strategy to eradicate poverty and food insecurity in Laos. However, previous
research found several social and livelihood problems after resettlement, including poverty andfood insecurity. This study investigated the level of food insecurity after resettlement andidentified factors influencing household food security. We surveyed 60 households through astructured questionnaire in Tok Ong Keo village of Lamam district, Sekong province. The U.S.
Food Security/Hunger Survey Module was employed to measure the severity of food insecurity.
In addition, we applied a logistic regression model to examine the factors influencing foodsecurity. The results show that about 55% of the sample households experienced rice shortages
for about 1–3 months and 61.7% were food insecure with moderate hunger. The education levelof household heads, household size, and livestock ownership all had statistically significant
influences on food security.
Keywords food security, determinants, resettlement, upland areas, Sekong province, Laos

INTRODUCTION
Food security is defined as “a situation that exists when all people, at all time, have physical andeconomic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food for an active and health life.” Food security
remains one of the critical challenges for developing countries owing to multifaceted factors, such as
persistent poverty, rapid population growth, and natural disasters (Smith et al., 2000). More than 868
million people (or 12.5% of the global population) are estimated to suffer from chronic
undernourishment in terms of dietary energy supply. Approximately 64.8% of undernourished people(563 million people) live in rural areas in Asia, including Lao PDR (FAO, 2012). Lao PDR is a poor
country in Southeast Asia with an estimated per capita gross domestic product (GDP) of USD 1,320 in2012, and with roughly 68% of the population residing in rural areas. According to the Lao
Expenditure and Consumption Survey 2007/08, about 27.6% of Lao people live below the national
poverty line and 24.6% are classified as food insecure (Government of Laos, 2010). The highest foodinsecurity levels are found mostly in mountainous areas, in particular, in Sekong province, where foodinsecurity affects 50.3% of people, about 60% of children less than 5 years of age are stunted, andnearly half are underweight. The mountainous terrain is a major constraint in eradicating foodinsecurity; most upland villagers live in scattered small villages where they are unable to access roads,
markets, and social services, such as education and health care.
In order to improve the livelihood of villagers, the government has combined households fromvarious ethnic groups and scattered villages in the remote highlands to lowland areas and along roads.
Through implementation of the policy, there have been several positive changes in villagers’ lives,Ⓒ ISERD

37

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2016) 7-1

including improvement of roads, electricity, education, health services, water, and sanitation.
Nevertheless, it is expected that the level of food insecurity will remain high at the start of relocationfor various reasons. For example, based on a literature review, a number of land-use conflicts andsocial and livelihood problems have occurred in the resettled areas (Douangsila, 2012). High mortality
rates and the prevalence of water-borne diseases and malaria have arisen (Romagny, 2006). Some
newcomers in resettled villages have had access to less land and a shorter fallow period of shifting
cultivation, resulting in rice deficiency (Evrard, 2004). In addition, there has been inadequate
availability of natural resources and social services (World Food Programme, 2007). Even so, there islimited literature on household-level food security among resettled households. In addition,
understanding the cause of food insecurity at the household level is essential to provide information to
local, national, and international organizations in order to eradicate food insecurity and improve thelivelihoods of rural people.
Our research sought to address the following two questions. First, what is the food insecurity
situation after resettlement? Second, what are the socioeconomic factors and individual resource
factors that influence food security among resettled households? Therefore, the aims of this study wereto 1) investigate the incidence of food insecurity in resettled villages, and 2) identify the factors
affecting household food security.
METHODOLOGY
Background Information of the Study Village
This study was conducted in Sekong province, which is located in the southern region of Laos and has
an area of 8,742 km2, comprising 229 villages, 17,158 households, and a total population of 104,499 in
2012. In this province, people from several small mountainous villages were moved to villages in thelowland areas, which have more opportunities to access social services. For our study area, we selected
Tok Ong Keo village of the Lamam district in Sekong province.
In 1978, the villagers were relocated from the original highland areas to a plains area near roads(about 2 km away from the original highland place). For the first year of resettlement, the local
government provided households with zinc roofing sheets and, in some cases, goats and pigs. All
villagers continued to cultivate upland rice through shifting cultivation methods in their original uplandfields; the total land available for cultivation was about 336 ha with an average fallow period of 6–10
years. Thereafter, in 2010, all villagers were moved again to a larger permanent location, which was
about 1 km away from the previously settled place. This was because the government had selected thevillage for implementing the Focal Site Development (FSD) project, and the previous location of thehouses was reclaimed for lowland paddy fields. Of the total village area of 2,100 ha, about 48 ha areused to grow rice in the lowland paddy field, but only 36 households are able to use the areas owing to
insufficient land for development. Consequently, all villagers continue to rely on upland ricecultivation for their primary livelihood activities. However, the land available for upland rice has
reduced from 336 ha during 1978–2010 to 220 ha after resettlement in 2010 as a result of thegovernment policy to promote resettlement, which has led to the reduction of shifting cultivation.
Accordingly, the average fallow period has been shortened to 3–5 years. Above all, we consider thedata of our study, which was collected in 2013, as the initial stage of resettlement because more than
30 years has passed between the first and second resettlement stage.
Measurement of Food Insecurity at Household Level
To measure the severity of food insecurity, a subjective method, namely the U.S. Household Food
Security/Hunger Survey Module (U.S. FSSM) was used. The U.S. FSSM is one of the most reliableⒸ ISERD

38

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2016) 7-1

indicators and has widely used to access food security. It was first developed in the early 1990s by thefederal interagency Food Security Measurement Project (Bickel et al., 2000). The reliability andvalidity of this indicator has been proven by previous research, and a mean score of the U.S. FSSM has
a statistically significant correlation with calorie and nutrient intake, income poverty and weekly foodexpenditure (Tarasuk, 1999; Edward et al., 2007).
The concept of the U.S. FSSM is essentially used for 18 items related to experience of food deficit
among adults and children due to lack of resources (money and food) over a specific period of 30 daysor 12 months. Household food security is categorized by ranging a scale score of the affirmative
responses from 0 to 10, with 0 representing no evidence of food insecurity and scores close to 10
indicating cumulative evidence of the severest degree of hunger. The answer from 18 items provides acontinuous measure scale score that can be used to classify households into four categories, as follows:
1. Food secure (0–2.32): Households show no or least evidence of food insecurity.
2. Food insecure without hunger (2.33–4.56): Household members are concerned about theadequacy of household food supply and have adjusted to household food management,
including reduced quality of food and increased unusual coping patterns.
3. Food insecure with moderate hunger (4.57–6.53): Adults have decreased food intake, meaning
they have repeatedly experienced the physical sensation of hunger.
4. Food insecure with severe hunger (6.54–10): All households with children have reduced thechildren’s food intake to an extent indicating that children have experienced hunger.
Data Collection and Analysis
The primary data were gathered through a field survey conducted in January 2013. Of the total 82
households living in the village, 22 households were excluded from the survey because they were notavailable during the survey; thus, only 60 were interviewed using a structured questionnaire. The
questionnaire consists of information on household composition, upland/lowland rice areas, riceproduction, household income, and experience of food insecurity over 12 months.
We employed a logistic regression model to identify the determinants of household food security.
To set up a dependent variable, the food security status was reorganized from four categories into two.
Households that were food insecure with moderate and severe hunger were combined into a single
broader category and classified as a food insecure or households with hunger (Y = 0). In contrast,
households that were both food secure and insecure without hunger were classified as food secure orhouseholds without hunger (Y = 1). With regard to the independent variables, education, household
size, number of relatives and friends, cultivated upland areas, upland rice yield, cultivated rain-fed
lowland rice, and livestock ownership were selected.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The results show that about 55% of households experienced at least 1–3 months of rice shortages, and38.3% reported longer rice shortage periods of more than 3 months, from July to October (Table 1).
Having said that, only 6.7% households were able to produce sufficient rice to meet the requirementsof their households all year round. The results of the U.S. FSSM reveal that about 61.7% of households
were categorized as “food insecure with moderate hunger.” This means that most adults in the study
area frequently experienced the physical sensation of hunger. They employed rationing as a coping
strategy, which includes limiting the amount of food given to each household member at mealtimes
and reducing the number of meals eaten in a day. Moreover, about 11.7% of households surveyed were
“food insecure with severe hunger,” indicating that the amount for food intake for children living inthese households was reduced owing to lack of food and money to purchase food. Conversely, aboutⒸ ISERD

39

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2016) 7-1

21.6% and 5% of households surveyed were categorized as “food insecure without hunger” and “foodsecure,” respectively.
Table 1 Rice shortage and food insecurity
Month of rice shortage (month)
N = 60%No experience
4
6.7
1-3 months
33 55.0
More than 3 months
23 38.3
Food security status (scale score)
Food secure
3
5.0
Food insecure without hunger
13 21.6
Food insecure with moderate hunger
37 61.7
Food insecure with severe hunger
7 11.7
Source: Author’s calculation based on 2013 household survey

The anxiety, experiences, perceptions, and adjustment regarding food insecurity and hunger
reported by respondents are illustrated in Table 2. Of the sample households, 96.7% reported that they
could not afford balanced meals for both adults and children and they relied on a few kinds of low-cost
food for children. In addition, the majority of respondents (93.3%) had worried that food would run out,
about 83.3% stated that the food they bought did not last owing to lack of money to purchase more,
75% had cut or skipped meals for adults, and 43.3% had felt hungry but did not eat. Moreover,approximately 66% of households with hunger acknowledged that they had cut the size of children’s
meals and skipped meals for children (50%). This implies that half of households in the resettled areas
relied on non-nutritious food for their children and children did not have enough to eat. Declining foodconsumption among children can lead to poor health and malnutrition in the future. It was observedthat rice was often eaten together with chili paste, vegetables, bamboo shoots, and sometimes, fish andchicken. However, meat was eaten only occasionally, mainly at such events as traditional spirit
sacrifices, wedding parties, and village festivals.
Table 2 Affirmative response from the U.S. FSSM questionnaires
Question
No. (Q) a

List of 18 questions from the FSSM

N = 60(%)

2
Worried food would run out
56 (93.3)
3
Food bought did not last
50 (83.3)
4
Could not afford to eat balanced meals b
58 (96.7)
5
Few kinds of low-cost food for children
58 (96.7)
6
Could not feed children a balanced meal
58 (96.7)
7
Children were not eating enough
33 (55.0)8Adult(s) cut or skipped meals
45 (75.0)8aAdult(s) cut or skipped meals, 3+ months
0 (0)9You ate less than felt you should
44 (73.3)
10
You were hungry but did not eat
26 (43.3)
11
You lost weight because not enough food
N/S
12Adult(s) not eat for whole day
18 (30.0)12aAdult(s) not eat for whole day, 3+months
0 (0)13
Cut size of children’s meals
29 (48.3)
14Children skip meals
22 (36.7)
14aChildren skip meals, 3+months
0 (0)15Children ever hungry
21 (35.0)
16Children not eat for whole day
1 (1.7)
Source : Author’s calculation based on 2013 household survey.

Household without
hunger c
N =16 (26.7%)
12 (75.0)
12 (75.0)
15 (93.7)
14 (97.5)
14 (87.5)
4 (25.0)
6 (37.5)0 (0)5 (31.5)
2 (12.5)
N/S
1 (6.3)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)

Household withhunger d
N = 44 (73.4%)
44 (100)
38 (86.4)
43 (97.7)
44 (100)
44 (100)
29 (65.9)
39 (88.6)0 (0)39 (88.6)
24 (54.5)
N/S
17 (38.6)
0 (0)29 (65.9)
22 (50.0)0 (0)21 (47.7)
1 (2.7)t-test0.00***
0.30
0.45
0.02**
0.02**
0.00***
0.00***
N/S
0.00***
0.00***
N/S
0.02**
N/S
0.00***
0.00***
N/S
0.00***
0.55

Note : *** and ** denotes significance at 1% and 5%; a The first question (Q1), which is asked whether do you have enough food to
eat or not, is a screening question. This question is not part of the actual scale in the U.S. FSSM so it is excluded from Table 2; bBalanced meal is defined as “at least three types of food group, such as rice, meat, fish, egg, green leafy vegetables”; c “Householdwithout hunger” refers to those households that are food secure and insecure without hunger; d “Household with hunger” refers to
those households that are food insecure with moderate and severe hunger.

Ⓒ ISERD

40

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2016) 7-1

The results of the logistic regression model show that the education level of the household head isa positively significant influence on household food security. From Table 3, the marginal effect showsthat a unit increase in education level of the household head, holding all other variables at their mean,leads to a 6% increase in the probability of the household being food secure. This implies that higher
education levels make household heads more likely to have the capacity to use the resources that he or
she owns more rationally, and to learn more idea about how to increase agricultural productivity.
Moreover, those who are educated seem to have the ability to escape from food insecurity throughparticipating in non-farm income generating activities, such as construction work, petty trade, andother services. It was reported that there were only five people in the village who go to work in towns
or big cities. Language barriers are a possible explanation as about 60% of the respondents, especiallythose among food insecure households, were unable to read and write the official Lao language. As aresult, their access to non-farm work was limited and their average non-farm income was only USD
190 per household per year, whereas that of literate households was USD 370 per year. In addition, theimpact of education on food security can be viewed as a key factor in accessing public information,such as agricultural information, concerning health, nutrition, and hygiene because most information isoften written in Lao language. It was observed that the majority of villagers lived in unhealthy
environments and lacked health knowledge, such as information about how to avoid and treat illnesses.
Some households did not even boil their drinking water. As a result, about 69% and 62% of households
that were food insecure with moderate hunger had experienced malaria and diarrhea, respectively, overthe previous 12 months.
Table 3 Determinants and “Marginal” effect of household food security
Variables
Mean
S.D
Constant
Education (year)
2.35
2.32
Household size (person)
9.95
5.41
Number of relatives and friends
18.35
16.30
(household)
Cultivated upland size (ha)
1.06
0.44
Upland rice yield (kg/ha)
747
0.45
Cultivated rain-fed lowland rice(ha)
0.33
0.35
Livestock ownership (tropical livestock
0.63
0.46
unit, TLUa)
Log-Likelihood: -23.854 Pseudo R2 = 0.314 (Prob.chi : 0.000)

Coeff.
-1.15
0.43
-0.35

t-value- 0.952.19 **-2.88 ***

dy/dx

t-value

0.06
0.05

2.48 **-2.96 ***

-0.04

-1.29

0.01

-1.42 *

0.68
0.38
0.57
2.42

0.52
0.85
0.92
2.62 ***

0.11
0.06
0.09
0.51

0.75
0.46
0.53
2.45 **

Source : Author’s calculation based on 2013 household survey.
Note : ***, **, and * represent significance at the 0.01, 0.05, and 0.10 levels, respectively; a TLU is calculated based on the numberof livestock and the exchange ratio for livestock (e.g., cattle = 0.7, pig = 0.2, and poultry = 0.01)

As expected, household size was statistically significant at the 1%. A one-unit increase in thenumber of household members, computed at sample means, resulted in a 5% decrease in theprobability of the household being food secure. This indicates that larger household size may notprovide more labor for food production but represents more mouths to feed and higher consumption
demand. In the case of the study area, about 51.6% of sample households comprised at least two
families who lived in the same dwelling and shared food. Of these, about 90.3% were among the foodinsecure households. Most were young married couples living with parents and were likely to dependon their parents because of resource constraints to construct a new house. Moreover, the majority did
not generate any income owing to limited non-farm income activities around the village and lack of
micro credit to start livestock farms.
With regard to livestock ownership, the marginal effect reveals that a one-unit increase in the
livestock ownership (TLU), calculated at sample means, resulted in a 51% increase in the possibility offood security. Livestock production, especially pigs and poultry, contributed to about 88% of farm cash
income (USD 66 per household per year), which was used mainly for buying rice and other food toⒸ ISERD

41

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2016) 7-1

meet the basic nutritional needs of all household members, resulting in increasing self-consumption.
Another key point to remember is that about 7% of the households surveyed obtained cash income
from selling cattle and buffalo, which was used to cover expenses for building houses. The resultshows that the average number of livestock (cattle=1.7, pigs=3, and poultry=25) reared by food securehouseholds were higher than those of food insecure household (cattle=0.4, pigs=1.8, and poultry=8.3).
The major problems in livestock rearing were insufficient technical knowledge to prevent livestock
disease, lack of funding to purchase young animals, such as calves and piglets, and lack of feed. About
75% of households indicated that their poultry had died from disease, while 50% of households that
kept larger livestock, such as buffaloes and cattle, indicated that there was a lack of feed near thevillage during the dry season. Insufficient number of female laborers was a constraint to keeping morepigs and poultry. In the study area, women played a vital role in not only domestic works, such as foodpreparation and gathering wild food, but also in productive tasks. According to the survey results,
women had 95% of responsibility for poultry and local pig rearing. However, they seem to beoverlooked from agricultural programs because the majority of women did not speak or understand theLao language.
It is essential to note that both the cultivated upland farm size and the upland rice yield were notstatistically significant, but positively influenced food security. The marginal effect shows that a oneunit increase in cultivated upland rice areas and rice yields would lead to the probability of foodsecurity increasing by 11% and 6%, respectively. This implies that households that have larger
cultivated upland rice areas and gain higher yields are likely to have higher production levels to
support their home consumption. However, villagers were not allowed to expand upland rice areas
owing to a ban on shifting cultivation, resulting in a shorter fallow period (3–5 years). The decline infallow period was accelerated by land use restriction and resulted in poor soil fertility, a cause of lowrice productivity (747 kg/ha). In addition, weeds, rodents, wild pigs, ants, and birds were anotherimportant cause of low productivity.
With regard to lowland rice cultivation, the results show that rain-fed lowland areas have nostatistically significant correlation with household food security. This is because many resettled
villagers lacked knowledge on farm management practices, such as methods of land preparation,
fertilizer application, and use of improved rice varieties. They were likely to receive less support fromagricultural officers, especially on how to increase lowland rice productivity. Accordingly, the averagerain-fed lowland yield cultivated by resettled villagers was very low (904 kg/ha). In addition, most of
the resettled villagers from mountainous areas were new rain-fed lowland cultivators, so they could notsuddenly adapt to the new technologies of lowland paddy fields (Douangsila, 2012). The number ofrelatives and friends had a negative influence on household food security. A possible explanation is the
tradition and culture of the Alak ethnic group, whose people depend highly on relatives and friends
when they face food shortages. It was reported that although the total rice production in resettled
households did not cover their annual needs, they shared their own rice or other food with relatives andfriends who experienced food shortage.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
The main aims of this study were to investigate household-level food security in a resettled area in
Laos, and to identify the factors influencing whether households were food secure. We concluded thatthe prevalence of food insecurity in the resettled villages was enormously high; approximately 61.7%
were “food insecure with moderate hunger” and 11.7% were “food insecure with severe hunger.”
However, our findings did not indicate that the resettlement program had a negative impact on the foodsecurity of the resettled households. Further studies are needed to monitor whether the prevalence ofhousehold food insecurity persists and the living condition improves.

Ⓒ ISERD

42

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2016) 7-1

Other important findings of this study were that the education level of household heads,
household size, and livestock ownership had a statistically significant influence on household foodsecurity in the resettled area. Hence, in order to improve food security in new resettled villages, theeducation sector should focus on non-formal education for uneducated and unskilled household heads
to improve their ability to access information, deal with the markets, and find alternative income source.
These efforts should also target women who are unable to read and write in the Lao Language in orderto give them access to healthcare information and nutritional knowledge. Agricultural extension
officers should provide information, in particular, new techniques to increase pig and poultry
production and prevent livestock disease. Another key point is that microcredit to start livestock
farming is a vital task that should be considered in the study area.
REFERENCES
Bickel, G., Nord, M., Price, C., Hamilton, W. and Cook, J. 2000. Guide to measuring household food security.
Food Nutrition Service, United State Department of Agriculture Press, U.SA.
Douangsila, T. and Poungchompu, S. 2012. Impact of rural development on the poor farmers in upland of Laos.
Proceeding in Graduate Research Conference, Khon Kaen University, Thailand, 946-955.
Edward, M., Weber, B. and Bernell, S. 2007. Identifying factors that influence state-specific hunger rates in the
U.S., A simple analytic method for understanding a persistent problem. Social indicator research, 81, 579595.
Evrard, O. and Goudineau, Y. 2004. Planned resettlement, unexpected migrations and cultural trauma in Laos.
Development and Change, 35 (5), 937-962.
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 2012. The state of food insecurity in the world. Rome, Italy.
Government of Laos. 2010. Lao expenditure and consumption survey 2007-2008. Department of statistics,
Ministry of Planning and Investment. Vientian, Laos.
Romagny, L. and Daviau, S. 2006. Synthesis of reports on resettlement in Long District, Luang Namtha Province,
Lao PDR. Action Contre La Faim, Paris, France.
Smith, L.C., El Obeid, A.E. and Jensen, H.H. 2000. The geography and cause of food insecurity in developing
countries. Agricultural Economics, 22, 199-215.
Tarasuk, V. and Beaton, G.H. 1999. Women’s dietary intakes in the context of household food insecurity. Journalof Nutrition, 129, 672-679.
World Food Programme. 2007. Comprehensive food security and vulnerability analysis in Lao PDR. Rome, Italy.

Ⓒ ISERD

43