Next Article in Journal
Correction: Mahmoudi et al. Effect of Surface and Subsurface Drip Irrigation with Treated Wastewater on Soil and Water Productivity of Okra (Abemoschus esculentus) Crop in Semi-Arid Region of Tunisia. Agriculture 2022, 12, 2048
Previous Article in Journal
Optimal Soil, Climate, and Management Factors for Maximizing Crop Yield and Soil Nutrients in a Rice–Oilseed Rotation System with Straw Return
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agriculture
Volume 14
Issue 3
10.3390/agriculture14030415
agriculture-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Association of Socio-Economic Factors and Indigenous Crops on the Food Security Status of Farming Households in KwaZulu-Natal Province

by
Nomfundo Shelembe
1,*,
Simphiwe Innocentia Hlatshwayo
2,
Albert Modi
1,
Tafadzwanashe Mabhaudhi
1,3 and
Mjabuliseni Simon Cloapas Ngidi
4,*
1
Centre for Transformative Agricultural and Food Systems, School of Agricultural, Earth and Environmental Sciences, College of Agriculture, Engineering and Science, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Private Bag X01, Scottsville, Pietermaritzburg 3201, South Africa
2
African Centre for Food Security, School of Agricultural, Earth and Environmental Sciences, College of Agriculture, Engineering and Science, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Private Bag X01, Scottsville, Pietermaritzburg 3201, South Africa
3
Centre on Climate Change and Planetary Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London WC1E 7HT, UK
4
Department of Agricultural Extension and Rural Resource Management, School of Agricultural, Earth and Environmental Sciences, College of Agriculture, Engineering and Science, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Private Bag X01, Scottsville, Pietermaritzburg 3201, South Africa
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agriculture 2024, 14(3), 415; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14030415
Submission received: 12 January 2024 / Revised: 22 February 2024 / Accepted: 29 February 2024 / Published: 4 March 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Agricultural Economics, Policies and Rural Management)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Indigenous crops have been proposed as part of a solution for household food security and sustainable farming systems. However, they have been overlooked and underutilised by households and farmers despite their potential contribution to household food security. The objective of this paper was to determine the association of socio-economic factors and indigenous crops with the household food security of farming households. About 260 farming households were selected using a simple random sampling procedure. The food security status was measured through the use of the Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS). The Chi-square test and extended ordered probit regression model assessed the relationship of socio-economic factors and indigenous crops with household food security status. The results from the HFIAS showed that farming households were largely in the mildly and moderately food-insecure categories, with 34.2% and 36.2% of the sampled farmers found in these categories, respectively. The Chi-square test showed a statistically significant relationship between food security status and socio-economic factors. Young men and everyone were perceived to be the ones likely to consume indigenous crops. Consumption of indigenous crops was perceived to be associated with food security. The results also showed that farming experience is likely to positively contribute to the food security status of the farming households. Selling indigenous crops in a formal market is perceived to be associated with food security compared to selling in an informal market. This study concludes that consuming indigenous crops is likely associated with improved food security. Identifying an appropriate market for sales of indigenous crops is imperative. Government, extension officers, and nutritionists must conduct training workshops to encourage households to grow, market and buy indigenous crops. Government and policymakers need to include indigenous crops in the national food and nutrition security policy and create formal markets for indigenous crops.

1. Introduction

In South Africa, the agriculture system is a crucial industry that contributes significantly to alleviating socio-economic problems by fostering development and food security [1,2,3]. It is vital in economic growth, employment creation, poverty alleviation, and food and nutrition security [4,5,6,7]. It is characterised by commercial agriculture, which utilises 87% of the agricultural land, with only 13% scattered among emerging and subsistence agriculture [8]. About 8.5 million individuals in South Africa depend on agriculture for employment and income, with the sector contributing to about 3% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and 7% of formal employment [9]. Similarly, agriculture is the main source of work and income in many parts of Southern Africa [10]. The large increase in the South African population through the years places great pressure on the country’s food production and the need to provide more nutritious food for vulnerable communities [11]. Thus, increasing agricultural productivity depends on effective measures to reduce poverty and hunger, particularly in vulnerable groups.
As rural and peri-urban area residents continue to be vulnerable, farming has been key to the survival of households. It contributes significantly to households’ caloric intake, ranging from 42% to 58% [12]. Subsistence and smallholder agriculture further contribute to improving dietary diversity and food security, reducing the need for overreliance on purchased food [13]. Poor households in South Africa generally lack the purchasing power to buy food from the markets [14]. Therefore, involvement in indigenous crop production is seen as an alternative towards making food available and accessible for these households. Indigenous crops are an alternative that is less costly for farming households to produce. Indigenous crops are a plausible pathway towards attaining the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of no poverty, zero hunger, and gender equality [15]. These crops have been proposed due to their climate-resilient nature and adaptability among several environments [16,17]. While these crops have been labelled as an integral part of household food security [18], they are considered poor man’s food among individuals [19]. Some common indigenous crops in South Africa include sorghum, amaranthus, and sweet potatoes [20]. Indigenous crops can generally help cropping systems to become more sustainable whilst aiding the rise in population to ensure long-term food supply while minimising adverse effects on land, water, and air [21,22].
Despite the advantages of these crops, there are also several challenges that farming households face when cultivating indigenous crops. These challenges include the unavailability of seed and cultivating material, lack of market infrastructure, and competition from exotic crops such as maize, spinach, and cabbage [23]. Individuals from rural and urban areas generally cultivate and purchase exotic crops rather than indigenous crops as they are perceived to be more nutritious and tastier. This preference for exotic crops decreases indigenous knowledge transfer from older to younger generations and deprives people of consuming less costly nutritious foods [24]. Other challenges include genetic erosion, vulnerability to pests and diseases, and unavailability of varieties. This shows the need for breeding programmes to introduce new genotypes for improved traits and innovative technology to improve their production and adoption [25]. The challenges also include limited agricultural production, a lack of resources, inadequate transportation infrastructure, poor yield and quality, lack of market access, and lack of agricultural credit and land [26,27].
To fully reap the benefits of indigenous crops and address the SDGs relating to food and nutrition security, it is important to include female- and youth-headed farming households. Female-headed households participating in farming are more food insecure than male-headed households. Although males and females have limited agricultural resources, female-headed households are more limited due to cultural, traditional, and socio-economic factors [28]. This creates the need for targeted programmes to empower female farmers to reduce their vulnerability to food insecurity [29]. Moreover, this underlines the continued need for extensive support in production and marketing information for female-headed households to improve household food security [30,31,32,33,34].
Additionally, several papers list these crops as having low consumption rates, being underutilised, not being fully documented, and having limited production information [35,36,37,38,39]. This limits the growth and variety of production, consumption, agro-processing, and strengthening of the market value chain for indigenous crops. Farming households in South Africa are further characterised by unstable food availability (through their production with limited resources) and access (through limited income and high rates of unemployment), thus requiring more definitive and detailed information on producing these crops at a better scale to supply household needs and incur revenue.
Thus, it is important to explore whether farming households’ perspectives on these crops’ marketing potential, access, and marketing avenues affect their overall household food security status. Several papers have investigated how the awareness and perception of indigenous crops on individuals affect household food security in South Africa [34,37,39,40]. Mabhaudhi et al. [37] pointed out that a gap exists in mainstreaming indigenous crops in South Africa because there is a lack of broad knowledge of these crops, negative perceptions from farmers, and reliance on exotic crops across the country. Similarly, Modi [39] found that subsistence farmers of KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) had limited knowledge of indigenous crops and did not attach much importance to them. However, the study by Modi [39] did not focus on the association of indigenous crops with household food security. On the other hand, Zondi et al. [34] found that socio-economic factors affected the food security status of several households producing indigenous crops. However, the focus was on the Limpopo and Mpumalanga provinces of South Africa. The studies did not focus on the KwaZulu-Natal province, which has many households involved in agriculture. There is limited information that links both the socio-economic factors and indigenous crops together with their potential to improve food security. In light of this background, this study is designed to provide insight into the link between socio-economic factors, indigenous crops, and household food security status.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Description of the Study Area

This study was conducted in the KZN province of South Africa. A subtropical coastline, grasslands in the east, and a wide mountain range in the west characterise the province. It has a varied climate and diverse topography. The province experiences dry climates during June and high rainfall in January [41]. The coast is subtropical, with inland regions becoming progressively cold. The south coast has an estimated 1009 mm annual rainfall with an annual high temperature of 24.77 °C (76.59 °F) and a low temperature of 19.7 °C (67.46 °F). This study focused on three districts within KZN: uMgungundlovu, eThekwini, and Harry Gwala (Figure 1). From these three districts, five areas were selected for the study. These areas included Mbumbulu, Swayimane, Imbali, Shayamoya, and Cabazi locations. The study areas were chosen because they are part of a larger project focusing on commercialising indigenous crops where the University of KwaZulu-Natal partnered with the Technology Innovation Agency (TIA).

2.2. Data Collection

This study utilised quantitative methods. Data collection was conducted in 2023 using structured household questionnaires. Data collected included but were not limited to demographics and socio-economic characteristics, perceptions, food consumption, use of indigenous crops, naming, and how farmers value these crops economically. Zulu-speaking enumerators administered the questionnaire to the farmers. The farmers were selected from a sampling frame using simple random proportional sampling in the District Municipalities. A sampling frame is a unit of all individuals that contains the intended audience in research; it is used when the participants intended cannot be feasibly covered due to study limitations such as time and funding. This study utilised a list frame that contained different farmers of all ages, alphabetically listed from the chosen districts. The sample size was calculated using the 95% confidence interval and 5% margin of error based on the sampling frame of 567 farming households, with each household having an equal chance of being selected. This yielded a sample of 260 farming households. The uMgungundlovu district had a sample of 120 participants, Harry Gwala had 80 participants, and the eThekwini district had 60 participants.

2.3. Data Analysis

After completion of the fieldwork, questionnaires were checked for completeness, accuracy, and reusability. The Statistical Package for Social Sciences (IBM SPSS), version 28, and STATA, version 18, were used to compute descriptive statistics and quantitative models. To measure household food status, this study utilised HFIAS (please see Supplementary Material S1). The HFIAS measure examined three aspects of food insecurity: (1) feeling anxious and uncertain about the household’s food supply, (2) changing one’s diet’s quality, and (3) consuming less food overall. Nine questions made up the tool, which inquired about dietary or food consumption modifications households made due to having few resources to buy food in the 30 days before the survey interview date. The measurement followed a continuum that started with worry over food availability, then a decline in the quality and amount of food, and finally, going to bed hungry and without food all day and night. Based on the nine items, there were four progressively more severe levels of food insecurity. They were either in a state of food security or mild, moderate, or severe food insecurity.

2.4. Extended Ordered Probit Regression to Determine the Association between Indigenous Crop Factors and Household Food Security

An extended ordered l regression was used to investigate the association between indigenous crops and the household food security of the sampled households. The extended ordered probit model is suited for modelling with an ordered categorical dependent variable and accommodates issues with selection bias. To properly assess the factors affecting household food insecurity within the sample, this study used the ordered categories of the HFIAS (Q1 = 1; food secure: 0–1), Q2 = 2 (mildly food insecure: 2–8), Q3 = 3 (moderately food insecure: 9–17), and Q4 = 4 (severely food insecure: 18–27) as the dependent variable in the ordered probit regression [43,44,45,46]. The respective category for food security is unobserved and is denoted by the latent variable Qi*. The latent equation below models how Qi* differs with characteristics.
Qi∗ = Xi
The difference in the value that individual i derives from being food secure, slightly food secure, moderately food insecure, or severely food insecure is measured by Qi*; i is equal to 1, 2, 3, … n, where n is the total number of respondents. Every individual is a member of one of the four groups, and X is an exogenous variable vector. Hence, taking the value of 4 if the household was severely food insecure and 1 if a household was food secure, the implied probabilities are as follows [46]:
Pr {Qi = 1|Xi} = Φ (−Xiβ),
Pr {Qi = 2|Xi} = Φ (µ2 − Xiβ) − Φ (µ − Xiβ),
Pr {Qi = 3|Xi} = Φ (µ3 − Xiβ) − Φ (µ2 − Xiβ),
Pr {Qi = 4|Xi} = 1 − Φ (µ3 − Xiβ).
where µi is the parameter estimated jointly with β, and where the above probabilities enter the likelihood function, the maximum likelihood is used for estimation. The β coefficients are interpreted in terms of the equation’s underlying latent variable model. Thus, the probabilities of farming households falling between 1 and 4 can be written as follows;
Pr (Qi = 1) = Φ (Xiβ1)
where Φ (·) is the cumulative distribution function of the standard normal. Table 1 below represents the dependent and independent variables used in the model. The independent variables were then hypothesized on their expected effect on the dependent variable.

2.4.1. Justification for Proposed Variables

Indigenous Crop Access

Indigenous crop access refers to how farming households access indigenous crops. It is divided into three categories whereby farming households may either cultivate these crops in their home gardens, cultivate from other cultivated lands, or possibly collect from forests or wild velds where they naturally grow. Access to indigenous crops differs across different African countries. In South Africa, access to indigenous crops is limited to cultivation and collection in the wild, but these crops are not commonly accessed through formal markets such as supermarkets [35]. Contrastingly, in countries such as Kenya, indigenous crops are readily available in supermarkets [47]. Consistent access to indigenous crops in various ways has been linked to household food security [48]. Indigenous crop access has been hypothesised to positively influence household food security.

Indigenous Crop Consumption

Indigenous crop consumption refers to whether a farming household consumes or does not consume indigenous crops. Consumption of indigenous crops has been suggested to improve access to nutritional household food baskets for poor communities and vulnerable households [49]. The number of times a household consumes indigenous crops can contribute significantly to the diet of household members and, thus, their food security status. An increase in the consumption of indigenous crops is hypothesised to positively influence household food security.

Farming Period

The farming period refers to the years a farming household has participated in agriculture. This was divided into four categories: under 4 years, 4 to 10 years, 10 to 20 years, and greater than 20 years. Increasing the number of years a farming household participates in agriculture increases exposure to information and experience. The number of years a farming household has acquired in cultivating different crops in their home gardens exposes them to different practices, diversifying their diet and improving their yield [50]. This can lead to stable food security if utilised well [51]. An increase in the number of years of farming is hypothesised to positively influence household food security.

Indigenous Crops’ Perception

In this study, indigenous crops’ perception refers to which individuals farming households perceive as those who should be consuming indigenous crops. This was divided into older women, older men, young women, young men, and everyone. In essence, all individuals should consume indigenous crops to gain their nutritional advantages. However, individuals’ negative perceptions of these crops have led to a decline in their consumption, ultimately linked to household food security [52]. According to [47], although indigenous crops are more nutritious than popular and commonly consumed exotic crops, negative attitudes constrain efforts to increase the consumption of indigenous crops [53]. This is further exacerbated by most exotic crops being easily accessible in markets whilst indigenous crops are rarely sold. Although various initiatives have changed consumers’ perceptions of indigenous crops, exotic crops are still far more popular [54]. Perceptions of indigenous crops are hypothesised to have a negative or positive influence on household food security.

Required Assistance

The required assistance variable refers to the production inputs that farming households listed as required to improve yield, income, and food purchasing power. These were divided into seeds, garden tools, fencing, shielding nets, and soil analysis services. Farming households receiving support from either government/research institutions through extension work have been linked to household food security [55,56,57]. This is hypothesised to have a positive influence on household food security.

Indigenous Crops’ Perceived Marketing Potential

This variable refers to whether farming households perceived indigenous crops as marketable. Considering that several studies have found the perception of indigenous crops to be negative [58,59,60], it is expected that farming households may find indigenous crops unmarketable. However, it is important to find out whether farmers negatively perceiving these crops will have any influence on their household food security status.

Indigenous Crops Are a Suitable Marketing Channel

This variable refers to the marketing channels farming households find suitable for indigenous crops. This was divided into four categories: local, formal, informal, or all markets. Indigenous crops are less popular in markets due to low levels of acceptability and access, limited market information, lack of processing technologies, and intrinsically weak value chains [34,35,61,62]. This limits the number of indigenous crop producers and may affect household food security in the long term. How farming households select marketing channels is hypothesised to negatively or positively influence household food security depending on the channel selected.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Socio-Economic Characteristics of the Sampled Farming Households

The survey was conducted in three districts within five different areas across the KwaZulu-Natal province in South Africa. Table 2 presents an overview of the demographic characteristics of the study participants. The descriptive results showed that more respondents were female than male, with 63.5% of farmers being female. These findings align with various studies [63,64,65] in South Africa, indicating that more women participate in household agriculture. This is unsurprising as government efforts to promote women in agriculture are being intensified [66]. The results also showed that farmers were scattered among the different age groups, with the highest number of farmers being older than 65 years (22.3%). This was followed by ages 35 to 44 (18.5%), and after that, a similar number for the ages of 25 to 34 years (16.5%) and 45 to 54 years with 16.9%. Farmers between the ages of 55 and 64 years had only 15.0%, and the ages of 18 to 24 years had only 10.8% of the sample.
More respondents were unmarried, with approximately 55.8% of the respondents found to be unmarried compared to 44.2% of the married respondents. Most household respondents (55.4%) had obtained secondary education, with very few attending post-high school education. Approximately 37.7% of the respondents were unemployed, and 32.7% reported being recipients of social grants. The unemployment levels were slightly higher than those in the rest of the country, where 28.8% of the population in South Africa is unemployed [67]. Most farming households had an income of ZAR 0–500 and ZAR 501–1000, with 18.5% of the households from each range reporting having received such an income per month.

3.2. Prevalence of Food (in)Security Amongst the Sampled Farming Households

Food (in)Security Situation amongst the Farming Households

The prevalence of food security was measured through the use of HFIAS. Table 3 shows the percentage of farming households that experienced food shortages 30 days before the survey. Most households (77.7%) indicated that they could not consume the foods they preferred because they lacked resources. This was followed by households who indicated that they had to eat some foods they did not want. In terms of frequency of occurrence, most households (31.2%) indicated that for more than 10 times in the past 30 days, prior to the survey, they could not eat the foods they preferred. These higher percentages indicate that farming households experience some levels of food insecurity.
The level of household food insecurity is shown in Figure 2 below. The analysis for food insecurity status indicates that 13.8% of the farming households were food secure, 34.2% were mildly food insecure, 36.2% were moderately food insecure, and 15.8% were severely food insecure. These results show that several farming households within the three districts experienced some difficulties in accessing a healthy and nutritious food basket. These results align with those from [68,69,70,71], who reported that households could not access and maintain a healthy food basket throughout the month due to unemployment and many household members needing food.

3.3. Factors Associated with Indigenous Crops and Their Contribution to Household Food Security

Factors affecting the food security status were analysed using the Chi-square test and the extended ordered probit model. The former analysed the effect of socio-economic parameters on household food security, while the latter model was used when analysing the effect of indigenous crops on household food security.

3.3.1. Association between Socio-Economic Parameters and Household Food *(in)Security

Table 4 presents the association between socio-economic characteristics and food security. A statistically significant relationship exists between the food security status and gender, household monthly income, and number of household members (p < 0.01). The findings in Table 4 show more female farming households, and more female-headed farming households are food insecure than male-headed households. These results are not surprising because it is reported by various studies in South Africa and Africa in general that while more women are involved in smallholder agriculture, farm finances or income and associated decisions reside with males [72,73,74].
The results also show that the number of household members is significantly associated with household food insecurity. This means that the higher the number of household members, the more the household experiences food needs. This could be because a higher number of household members requires larger food basket household costs, enough for the larger household size. Household monthly income was also significantly associated with household food (in)security. The more income the household had, the higher the chances it was food-secure. Likewise, if the household had less income, the chances of experiencing food insecurity were higher. Income enabled households to access food they could not grow and to buy the implements they needed to grow indigenous crops. The advantage of having access to purchasing power is that households can also buy quality food to improve their nutritional status.

3.3.2. Factors Associated with Indigenous Crops and Household Food Security

Extended ordered probit regression was used to assess the factors affecting food security among the farming households in study areas. The dependent variable was an ordinal scale that categorised participants through the HFIAS score to determine their household food security status. The dependent variable was coded as 0 = food-secure, 1 = mildly food-insecure, 2 = moderately food-insecure, and 3 = severely food-insecure. Table 5 represents the results. The coefficients of the extended ordered probit model do not entirely represent the magnitude of the effects of the explanatory variables; hence, marginal effects were also computed in Table 6. Multicollinearity was tested for each independent variable via the variance influence factor (VIF). The mean is presented in Table 5.
The findings in Table 5 illustrate that consuming indigenous crops will likely positively influence food security. This means that consuming indigenous crops increases the likelihood of food security among farming households. These results coincide with those of [36,37], who reported that increasing the consumption of various indigenous crops might lead to a stable food security status. The greater number of years a household has been involved in farming increases the likelihood of being food-secure. This means that farming experience is associated with a likelihood of being food-secure. This is confirmed by the marginal effect results in Table 6, which show that farmers with more years of participation in agriculture are likely to fall under food-secure and mildly food-insecure households. This could suggest that farming households with greater experience or exposure have a better understanding and knowledge of the benefits of growing and consuming indigenous crops. Additionally, farming households with years of experience are well informed regarding farmer support programmes, which they likely take advantage of to include indigenous crops in their farming activities. These results coincide with [39,75,76], who reported that farming experience gained through farmer support programs equips farmers with updated agricultural information, which results in better production, yields, and efficient cooperatives that increase the likelihood of household food security.
The findings of this study also show that young men and everyone were perceived as those who should be consuming indigenous crops. This means that young men and everyone will likely be food secure from consuming indigenous crops. While the results suggest that young men and everyone consuming indigenous crops are likely associated with being food secure, the findings of [59,77] clearly stated that the consumption of indigenous crops across age groups is still uncommon, with a limited exception for older people. The current recognition of indigenous crops as perceived in this study may be associated with the perceived medicinal benefits of these crops.
Regarding the marketability of indigenous crops, the findings of this study indicate that sales of indigenous crops are associated with food insecurity. However, the results further showed that if a household happens to sell the indigenous crop in a formal market, they are perceived as likely to be food secure compared to those who would sell in the informal market. This suggests that farming households who select informal and all markets as more suited for these crops are more likely to be food insecure. The perception is not far from South Africa’s realities, where indigenous crops are generally associated with poverty. Therefore, poor households who normally buy from informal markets do not normally consider buying these crops.
On the other hand, when these crops find themselves in formal markets like Woolworths, where Amadumbe are being sold, the cost is higher and, therefore, is likely generating more money for the farmers. These results also align with [35], where, for example, African leafy vegetables had weak value chain actors, transactions based on spot markets, lack of technical advice on production, and deficiency of contractual agreements between actors. Similarly, Ref. [78] found that limited advances in agronomic advice hinder the improvement of indigenous crops’ market value chains and provide lesser incentives for their continued production and marketing. This reiterates that if indigenous crops were sold in a more formal market, this would increase the incentive to cultivate them among farmers.
The soil analysis information and irrigation systems were associated with food insecurity. This means that assisting farming households with soil analysis and irrigation systems alone may not be enough to help them improve their yield and make a considerable living out of the indigenous crops. Moreover, farming households might not translate the information correctly or purchase the additional nutrients the soil requires. This is in line with results from [79,80], who found that emerging or smallholder farmers require additional assistance during production as they may not have adequate land or proper information to navigate through the different challenges that open-field production has. Furthermore, farmers commonly residing in rural and peri-urban areas also lack tools to sustain well-managed soils and sufficient water supply for domestic needs and irrigation. This may heavily reduce yields, although farmers may have received agricultural support through seeds, garden tools, and fencing [81,82].
Table 6 further shows the analysis of indigenous crop factors that influence household food (in)security; however, it differentiates from Table 5 by showing the odds ratio, standard error and significance values for each category of the dependent value. This allows for a more in-depth analysis of how each independent factor relates to each food (in)security category in the dependent variable. Significant results are further discussed below.
As discussed above, farming households that did not consume indigenous crops were more likely to be food insecure. Table 6 additionally supports that by showing significant values and negative coefficients in the food-secure and mildly food-insecure categories. However, a positive odds ratio value and significant results can be observed in the severely food-insecure category. This means those who do not consume these crops will likely be severely food insecure. This reiterates the importance of these crops in ensuring household food security.
Farming experience increased the likelihood of a household being food secure. This is shown through the positive odds ratio and significant results in the food-secure and mildly food-insecure categories. Mildly food-insecure households likely had slightly less farming experience than food-secure households. On the other hand, the moderately food-insecure and severely food-insecure households had negative odds ratios and significant results. This was expected as farming experience assists farmers in becoming better equipped in their practice and improving their ability to cultivate several crops. Additionally, experience in farming allows farming households to join cooperatives, allowing them to sell their produce in larger markets if combined with other farmers. These results also imply that increased farming experience may increase productivity, thereby contributing to household food security status.
Farming households who perceived older men and everyone as those who should consume indigenous crops were found to be more likely to be food secure or mildly food insecure, as observed through the significant values and positive odds ratio. This suggests that when farming households positively perceive indigenous crops, such as when everyone consumes them, it can improve household food security and possibly their livelihoods. Farming assistance in the form of soil analysis and irrigation equipment increases the likelihood of a household being food insecure. This is shown by the positive odds ratio and significant values in the moderately and severely food-insecure categories. These results also suggest that although farming households require assistance in the form of inputs to be successful in their chosen enterprises, training is also vital for improving overall yields as they may lack the information necessary to produce the required quality and yield within the resources they have or are supplied with. Regarding the marketing results, these results suggest that farmers can be more food secure when selling indigenous crops in formal markets instead of local and informal.

4. Conclusions and Recommendations

Improved production and increased variety of indigenous crops cultivated can significantly improve household food security. Greater awareness of these crops is still imperative in South Africa. Indigenous crops are vital because they can adapt to marginal conditions, can contribute to resilient agriculture and sustainable food systems, and are highly nutritious. This study aimed to determine household food security status predictors related to indigenous crop factors among farming households. Gender, household size, and monthly income had a considerable likelihood of contributing to food security. The extended ordered probit model showed that perception, consumption of indigenous crops, farming period, and marketing of indigenous crops significantly influenced household food security. The lack of formal markets for indigenous crops contributes negatively to food security. Low market availability and lack of market knowledge and skills to form, run, or become part of a formal indigenous crop food chain contribute to challenges relating to the sale and purchase of indigenous crops.
This study also concludes that consuming indigenous crops is associated with improved food security status. Farming households not consuming these crops may have severe food insecurity. Generally, male-headed households were found to be more food secure compared to female-headed households. Therefore, female-headed households were more vulnerable to food insecurity. There is a need for targeted programmes to assist and promote female participation in agriculture, particularly in cultivating indigenous crops. To attain the 2030 SDGs, particularly of zero hunger and food security, female- and youth-headed households should be included in the farming-related activities. Government, extension officers, and nutritionists must conduct training workshops to encourage households to grow, market, and buy diversified indigenous crops. Government and policymakers need to include indigenous crops in the national food and nutrition security policy and create formal markets for indigenous crops.
The study results are based on data collected in the KwaZulu-Natal province and may not be generalised as a standard view of all farming households nationally and internationally. There is a need to conduct similar studies across all nine provinces of South Africa. This study focused on food access as part of the elements of food security. Future studies need to include the nutrition element of food security.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/agriculture14030415/s1, Supplementary Material S1: Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS) questions.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, N.S., S.I.H., A.M., T.M. and M.S.C.N.; methodology, N.S., S.I.H., A.M., T.M. and M.S.C.N.; formal analysis, N.S., S.I.H., A.M., T.M. and M.S.C.N.; investigation, N.S., S.I.H., A.M., T.M. and M.S.C.N.; writing—original draft preparation, N.S., S.I.H., A.M., T.M. and M.S.C.N.; writing—review and editing, N.S., S.I.H., A.M., T.M. and M.S.C.N. All authors contributed equally. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Wellcome Trust’s Our Planet, grant number 205200/Z/16/Z and The APC was funded by Wellcome Trust’s Our Planet. The Centre for Transformative Agricultural and Food Systems of the University of KwaZulu-Natal is acknowledged for financial support.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Humanities and Social Sciences Research Ethics Committee (HSSREC). The study received an ethical clearance from the Research ethics committee (Protocol reference number: HSSREC/00005365/2023).

Data Availability Statement

The data are not publicly available due to the protection of information of the participants.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Magadze, A.A.; Obadire, O.S.; Maliwichi, L.L.; Musyoki, A.; Mbhatsani, H.V. An assessment of types of foods consumed by individuals in selected households in South Africa. Gend. Behav. 2017, 15, 10610–10626. [Google Scholar]
  2. Rudolph, M.; Muchesa, E.; Kroll, F. Use of urban agriculture in addressing health disparities and promotion of ecological health in South Africa. Curr. Health 2020, 10, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Ndhleve, S.; Dapira, C.; Kabiti, H.M.; Mpongwana, Z.; Cishe, E.N.; Nakin, M.D.V.; Shisanya, S.; Walker, K.P. Household Food Insecurity Status and Determinants: The Case of Botswana and South Africa. AGRARIS J. Agribus. Rural Dev. Res. 2021, 7, 207–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. d’Haese, M.; Vink, N.; Nkunzimana, T.; Van Damme, E.; Van Rooyen, J.; Remaut, A.M.; Staelens, L.; d’Haese, L. Improving food security in the rural areas of KwaZulu-Natal province, South Africa: Too little, too slow. Dev. S. Afr. 2013, 30, 468–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Masuku, M.; Selepe, M.; Ngcobo, N. Status of household food security in rural areas at UThingulu District, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Afr. J. Hosp. Tour. Leis. 2017, 6, 19–38. [Google Scholar]
  6. Naicker, N.; Mathee, A.; Teare, J. Food insecurity in households in informal settlements in urban South Africa. S. Afr. Med. J. 2015, 105, 268–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Meyer, D.F. An Assessment of the Importance of the Agricultural Sector on Economic Growth and Development in South Africa. In Proceedings of the International Academic Conferences 2019 October (No. 9912288), Barcelona, Spain, 23–26 September 2019; International Institute of Social and Economic Sciences: London, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  8. Greenberg, S. Agriculture and agrarian change in South Africa. In The Geography of South Africa: Contemporary Changes and New Directions; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 143–151. [Google Scholar]
  9. Oluwatayo, I.B.; Mantsho, S.M. Budgetary allocation to agriculture in South Africa: An empirical review from 1994 to 2014. Probl. Perspect. Manag. 2016, 14, 236–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Ransom, E. The Political Economy of Agriculture in Southern Africa; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  11. Mazvimavi, K. Socio-Economic Analysis of Conservation Agriculture in Southern Africa; FAO Regional Emergency Office for Southern Africa (REOSA): Johannesburg, South Africa, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  12. Raphela, T.D.; Pillay, N. Quantifying the nutritional and income loss caused by crop raiding in a rural African subsistence farming community in South Africa. Jàmbá J. Disaster Risk Stud. 2021, 13, 1040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Olayemi, B.; Nirmala, D. Creating economic viability in rural South Africa through water resource management in subsistence farming. Environ. Econ. 2016, 7, 68–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Jacobs, P.T. The status of household food security targets in South Africa. Agrekon 2009, 48, 410–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Mabhaudhi, T.; O’Reilly, P.; Walker, S.; Mwale, S. Opportunities for underutilised crops in southern Africa’s post–2015 development agenda. Sustainability 2016, 8, 302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Gruber, K. Agrobiodiversity: The living library. Nature 2017, 544, S8–S10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Chivenge, P.; Mabhaudhi, T.; Modi, A.T.; Mafongoya, P. The potential role of neglected and underutilised crop species as future crops under water scarce conditions in Sub-Saharan Africa. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2015, 12, 5685–5711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Ngcoya, M.; Kumarakulasingam, N. The lived experience of food sovereignty: Gender, indigenous crops, and small-scale farming in Mtubatuba, South Africa. J. Agrar. Chang. 2017, 17, 480–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Van der Merwe, J.D.; Cloete, P.C.; Van der Hoeven, M. Promoting food security through indigenous and traditional food crops. Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst. 2016, 40, 830–847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Sanders, H.L.; Hollington, P.A.; Pasquini, M.W.; Chiappini, C.P. How can we remove barriers to increased usage of indigenous crops? Acta Hortic. 2015, 1102, 127–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Matenge, S.T.; Van der Merwe, D.; Kruger, A.; De Beer, H. Utilisation of indigenous plant foods in the urban and rural communities. Indilinga Afr. J. Indig. Knowl. Syst. 2011, 10, 17–37. [Google Scholar]
  22. Malkanthi, S.H.; Karunaratne, A.S.; Amuwala, S.D.; Silva, P. Opportunities and challenges in cultivating underutilized field crops in Moneragala district of Sri Lanka. Asian J. Agric. Rural Dev. 2014, 4, 96–105. [Google Scholar]
  23. Coles, S. Field to Fork: Challenges in Ensuring a Sustainable Food Supply. Johns. Matthey Technol. Rev. 2018, 62, 2–3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Idowu, O.O. Contribution of neglected and underutilized crops to household food security and health among rural dwellers in Oyo State, Nigeria. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Underutilized Plants for Food Security, Nutrition, Income and Sustainable Development 806, Arusha, Tanzania, 3–7 March 2008; pp. 49–56. [Google Scholar]
  25. Backeberg, G.R.; Water, A.S. Underutilised indigenous and traditional crops: Why is research on water use important for South Africa? S. Afr. J. Plant Soil 2010, 27, 291–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Ndhleve, S.; Obi, A.; Nakin, M.D.V. Public spending on agriculture and poverty in Eastern Cape Province, South Africa. Afr. Stud. Q. 2017, 17, 23–46. [Google Scholar]
  27. Von Loeper, W.; Musango, J.; Brent, A.; Drimie, S. Analysing challenges facing smallholder farmers and conservation agriculture in South Africa: A system dynamics approach. S. Afr. J. Econ. Manag. Sci. 2016, 19, 747–773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Modirwa, S.; Oladele, O.I. Food security among male and female-headed households in Eden District Municipality of the Western Cape, South Africa. J. Hum. Ecol. 2012, 37, 29–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Tibesigwa, B.; Visser, M. Small-Scale Subsistence Farming, Food Security, Climate Change and Adaptation in South Africa: Male-Female Headed Households and Urban-Rural Nexus; Economic Research Southern Africa: Cape Town, South Africa, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  30. Hart, T.; Aliber, M. Inequalities in Agricultural Support for Women in South Africa. 2012. Available online: https://repository.hsrc.ac.za/handle/20.500.11910/3235 (accessed on 5 February 2024).
  31. Sharaunga, S.; Mudhara, M. Analysis of livelihood strategies for reducing poverty among rural women’s households: A case study of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. J. Int. Dev. 2021, 33, 127–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Mokgomo, M.N.; Chagwiza, C.; Tshilowa, P.F. The impact of government agricultural development support on agricultural income, production and food security of beneficiary small-scale farmers in South Africa. Agriculture 2022, 12, 1760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Tshikororo, M.; Baloyi, S.; Gwebu, M.P. Influence of Farming Experience and Knowledge on Selection of Climate Change Resilient Strategies among Female Agripreneurs in the Mopani of Limpopo Province South Africa. J. Agric. Ext. 2024, 28, 103–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Zondi, N.T.B.; Ngidi, M.S.C.; Ojo, T.O.; Hlatshwayo, S.I. Impact of Market Participation of Indigenous Crops on Household Food Security of Smallholder Farmers of South Africa. Sustainability 2022, 14, 15194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Senyolo, G.M.; Wale, E.; Ortmann, G.F. Analysing the value chain for African leafy vegetables in Limpopo Province, South Africa. Cogent Soc. Sci. 2018, 4, 1509417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Cloete, P.C.; Idsardi, E. Bio-Fuels and Food Security in South Africa: The Role of Indigenous and Traditional Food Crops. 2012. Available online: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/130172/ (accessed on 5 May 2023).
  37. Mabhaudhi, T.; Chibarabada, T.P.; Chimonyo, V.G.P.; Murugani, V.G.; Pereira, L.M.; Sobratee, N.; Govender, L.; Slotow, R.; Modi, A.T. Mainstreaming underutilized indigenous and traditional crops into food systems: A South African perspective. Sustainability 2018, 11, 172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Leakey, R.R.; Tientcheu Avana, M.L.; Awazi, N.P.; Assogbadjo, A.E.; Mabhaudhi, T.; Hendre, P.S.; Degrande, A.; Hlahla, S.; Manda, L. The future of food: Domestication and commercialization of indigenous food crops in Africa over the third decade (2012–2021). Sustainability 2022, 14, 2355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Modi, A.T. What do subsistence farmers know about indigenous crops and organic farming? Preliminary experience in KwaZulu-Natal. Dev. S. Afr. 2003, 20, 675–684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Zulu, S.S.; Ngidi, M.; Ojo, T.; Hlatshwayo, S.I. Determinants of consumers’ acceptance of indigenous leafy vegetables in Limpopo and Mpumalanga provinces of South Africa. J. Ethn. Foods 2022, 9, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Kwazulu-Natal Municipalities. Municipal Directories and Reports; Government of South Africa. 2023. Available online: https://www.gov.za/about-government/contact-directory (accessed on 30 November 2023).
  42. Jilajila, S.P.; Ngidi, M.S.C.; Hlatshwayo, S.I.; Ojo, T.O. An Analysis of the Prevalence and Factors Influencing Food Insecurity among University Students Participating in Alcohol Consumption in KwaZulu-Natal Province. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 5314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Wooldridge, J. Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2010; Volume 16, 1096p. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Liu, X. Ordinal regression analysis: Fitting the proportional odds model using Stata, SAS, and SPSS. Mod. Appl. Stat. Methods 2009, 8, 632–645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Gujarati, D.N.; Potter, D.C. Basic Econometrics, 5th ed.; The McGraw-Hill Companies: New York, NY, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  46. Mudzielwana, R.; Mafongoya, P.; Mudhara, M. An Analysis of the Determinants of Irrigation Farmworkers’ Food Security Status: A Case of Tshiombo Irrigation Scheme, South Africa. Agriculture 2022, 12, 999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Gido, E.O.; Ayuya, O.I.; Owuor, G.; Bokelmann, W. Consumption intensity of leafy African indigenous vegetables: Towards enhancing nutritional security in rural and urban dwellers in Kenya. Agric. Food Econ. 2017, 5, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Masuku, M.M.; Bhengu, A.S. The value of indigenous foods in improving food security in Emaphephetheni rural setting. Indilinga Afr. J. Indig. Knowl. Syst. 2021, 20, 13–23. [Google Scholar]
  49. Ekesa, B.N.; Walingo, M.K.; Onyango, M.O. Accessibility to and consumption of indigenous vegetables and fruits by rural households in Matungu division, western Kenya. Afr. J. Food Agric. Nutr. Dev. 2009, 9, 1725–1738. [Google Scholar]
  50. Sekhampu, T.J. Association of food security and household demographics in a South African township. Int. J. Soc. Sci. Humanit. Stud. 2017, 9, 157–170. [Google Scholar]
  51. Oduniyi, O.S.; Tekana, S.S. Status and socio-economic determinants of farming households’ food security in Ngaka Modiri Molema District, South Africa. Soc. Indic. Res. 2020, 149, 719–732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Dweba, T.P.; Mearns, M.A. Conserving indigenous knowledge as the key to the current and future use of traditional vegetables. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2011, 31, 564–571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Mayekiso, A.; Taruvinga, A.; Mushunje, A. Perceptions and determinants of smallholder farmers’ participation in the production of indigenous leafy vegetables: The case of Coffee Bay, Eastern Cape province of South Africa. Afr. J. Sci. Technol. Innov. Dev. 2017, 9, 281–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Van der Hoeven, M.; Osei, J.; Greeff, M.; Kruger, A.; Faber, M.; Smuts, C.M. Indigenous and traditional plants: South African parents’ knowledge, perceptions and uses and their children’s sensory acceptance. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 2013, 9, 78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Raidimi, E.N.; Kabiti, H.M. Agricultural extension, research, and development for increased food security: The need for public-private sector partnerships in South Africa. S. Afr. J. Agric. Ext. 2017, 45, 49–63. [Google Scholar]
  56. Tesfamariam, B.Y.; Owusu-Sekyere, E.; Emmanuel, D.; Elizabeth, T.B. The impact of the homestead food garden programme on food security in South Africa. Food Secur. 2018, 10, 95–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Antwi-Agyei, P.; Stringer, L.C. Improving the effectiveness of agricultural extension services in supporting farmers to adapt to climate change: Insights from northeastern Ghana. Clim. Risk Manag. 2021, 32, 100304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Akinola, R.; Pereira, L.M.; Mabhaudhi, T.; De Bruin, F.M.; Rusch, L. A review of indigenous food crops in Africa and the implications for more sustainable and healthy food systems. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Omotayo, A.O.; Aremu, A.O. Evaluation of factors influencing the inclusion of indigenous plants for food security among rural households in the North West Province of South Africa. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Ngidi, M.S.C.; Zulu, S.S.; Ojo, T.O.; Hlatshwayo, S.I. Effect of Consumers’ Acceptance of Indigenous Leafy Vegetables and Their Contribution to Household Food Security. Sustainability 2023, 15, 4755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Mabhaudhi, T.; Chimonyo, V.G.; Modi, A.T. Status of underutilised crops in South Africa: Opportunities for developing research capacity. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Marson, M.; Vaggi, G. Sustainable Value Chains in Agriculture. The African Indigenous Vegetables in Southern Nakuru County (No. 174). University of Pavia, Department of Economics and Management, 2019. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Marta-Marson/publication/336891159_Sustainable_value_chains_in_agriculture_The_African_Indigenous_Vegetables_in_Southern_Nakuru_County/links/5db94b81a6fdcc2128ebe760/Sustainable-value-chains-in-agriculture-The-African-Indigenous-Vegetables-in-Southern-Nakuru-County.pdf (accessed on 10 February 2024).
  63. Abegunde, V.O.; Sibanda, M.; Obi, A. Determinants of the adoption of climate-smart agricultural practices by small-scale farming households in King Cetshwayo District Municipality, South Africa. Sustainability 2019, 12, 195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Anderson, C.L.; Reynolds, T.W.; Biscaye, P.; Patwardhan, V.; Schmidt, C. Economic benefits of empowering women in agriculture: Assumptions and evidence. J. Dev. Stud. 2021, 57, 193–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Hlatshwayo, S.I.; Ojo, T.O.; Modi, A.T.; Mabhaudhi, T.; Slotow, R.; Ngidi, M.S.C. The determinants of market participation and its effect on food security of the rural smallholder farmers in Limpopo and Mpumalanga provinces, South Africa. Agriculture 2022, 12, 1072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Chipfupa, U.; Tagwi, A. Youth’s participation in agriculture: A fallacy or achievable possibility? Evidence from rural South Africa. S. Afr. J. Econ. Manag. Sci. 2021, 24, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Statistics South Africa. Quartely Labour Force Report. 2021. Available online: http://www.statssa.gov.za/publications/P0211/Presentation%20QLFS%20Q42021.pdf (accessed on 30 October 2023).
  68. Ryckman, T.; Beal, T.; Nordhagen, S.; Chimanya, K.; Matji, J. Affordability of nutritious foods for complementary feeding in Eastern and Southern Africa. Nutr. Rev. 2021, 79 (Suppl. S1), 35–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Statistics South Africa. 2011. Available online: https://www.statssa.gov.za/publications/P03014/P030142011.pdf (accessed on 4 August 2023).
  70. Statistics South Africa. 2016. Available online: http://cs2016.statssa.gov.za/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/KZN.pdf (accessed on 12 June 2022).
  71. Thornton, A.J. Dietary Diversity and Food Security in South Africa: An Application Using NIDS Wave 1. Master’s Thesis, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  72. Ogunlela, Y.I.; Mukhtar, A.A. Gender issues in agriculture and rural development in Nigeria: The role of women. Humanit. Soc. Sci. J. 2009, 4, 19–30. [Google Scholar]
  73. Pelekamoyo, J.; Umar, B.B. Access to and control over agricultural labor and income in smallholder farming households: A gendered look from Chipata, Eastern Zambia. J. Gend. Agric. Food Secur. Agri-Gend. 2019, 4, 42–57. [Google Scholar]
  74. Hlatshwayo, S.I.; Ngidi, M.; Ojo, T.; Modi, A.T.; Mabhaudhi, T.; Slotow, R. A typology of the level of market participation among smallholder farmers in South Africa: Limpopo and Mpumalanga Provinces. Sustainability 2021, 13, 7699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Baiphethi, M.N.; Jacobs, P.T. The contribution of subsistence farming to food security in South Africa. Agrekon 2009, 48, 459–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Mbatha, M.W.; Mnguni, H.; Mubecua, M.A. Subsistence farming as a sustainable livelihood approach for rural communities in South Africa. Afr. J. Dev. Stud. 2021, 11, 55. [Google Scholar]
  77. Chakona, G.; Shackleton, C.M. Food insecurity in South Africa: To what extent can socially grants and consumption of wild foods eradicate hunger? World Dev. Perspect. 2019, 13, 87–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Imathiu, S. Neglected and underutilized cultivated crops with respect to indigenous African leafy vegetables for food and nutrition security. J. Food Secur. 2021, 9, 115–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Ijatuyi, E.J.; Omotayo, A.O.; Nkonki-Mandleni, B. Empirical analysis of food security status of agricultural households in the platinum province of South Africa. J. Agribus. Rural. Dev. 2018, 47, 29–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Mutengwa, C.S.; Mnkeni, P.; Kondwakwenda, A. Climate-Smart Agriculture and Food Security in Southern Africa: A Review of the Vulnerability of Smallholder Agriculture and Food Security to Climate Change. Sustainability 2023, 15, 2882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Naicker, M.; Naidoo, D.; Ngidi, M. Assessing the Impact of Community Gardens in Mitigating Household Food Insecurity and Addressing Climate Change Challenges: A Case Study of Ward 18, Umdoni Municipality, South Africa. Afr. J. Inter/Multidiscip. Stud. 2023, 5, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Nata, J.T.; Mjelde, J.W.; Boadu, F.O. Household adoption of soil-improving practices and food insecurity in Ghana. Agric. Food Security 2014, 3, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Agriculture 14 00415 g001
Figure 1. A map showing the KwaZulu-Natal study area [42].
Figure 1. A map showing the KwaZulu-Natal study area [42].
Agriculture 14 00415 g001
Agriculture 14 00415 g002
Figure 2. Household food insecurity occurrence.
Figure 2. Household food insecurity occurrence.
Agriculture 14 00415 g002
Table 1. A priori expectations for the explanatory variables used in the models.
Table 1. A priori expectations for the explanatory variables used in the models.
Proposed VariableType of MeasurementDefinitionHypothesised Effect on HFIAS
Dependant Variable
Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (Extended Ordered Regression)
Independent variables
Indigenous crop accessCategorical0 = Cultivation from own garden, 1 = Cultivation from cultivated lands from other farmers/gardens, 2 = Collection from wild velds or forests−
Indigenous crop consumptionCategorical0 = Yes and 1 = No.−
Farming periodCategorical0 = Under 4 years, 1 = 4 to 10 years, 2 = 10 to 20 years, and 3 = Greater than 20 years. +/−
Indigenous crops’ perceptionCategorical0 = old women; 1 = old men; 2 = young women; 3 = young men; 4 = everyone +/−
Required farm assistanceCategorical0 = Seeds, 1 = Garden tools, 2 = Fencing, 3 = Shielding net, and 4 = Soil analysis−
Indigenous crops’ perceived marketing potentialCategorical0 = Yes and 1 = No+/−
Indigenous crops are a suitable marketing channelCategorical0 = Local market only, 1 = Informal market only, 2 = Formal market only, and 3 = All markets+/−
Source: Own analysis.
Table 2. Demographic characteristics of farming households.
Table 2. Demographic characteristics of farming households.
VariableFrequency (n)Percentage (%)VariableFrequency(n)Percentage (%)
GenderMarital Status
Male9536.5Married11544.2
Female 16563.5Unmarried14555.8
Age (Years)Employment Status
18–242810.8Unemployed9837.7
25–344316.5Full time4115.8
35–444818.5Part-time2810.8
45–544416.9Informal51.9
55–643915.0Grant/Pension recipient8532.7
65+5822.3Self-employed31.1
Total Household monthly incomeEducation Level
R0–R5004818.5None114.2
R501–R10004818.5Primary7127.3
R1001–R15004517.3Secondary14455.4
R1501–R25004015.4Tertiary3413.1
R2501–R3500259.6
R3501–R45003011.5
>R4500249.2
Table 3. Percentage response to HFIAS occurrences.
Table 3. Percentage response to HFIAS occurrences.
HFIAS Occurrence Questions
In the Past 30 Days, Did You or Any Member of the Household:		 Frequency of Occurrence (%)
YesNoRarely (1–2 Times)Sometimes (3–10 Times)Often (More Than 10 Times)
Worry about not having enough food65.834.247.937.414.6
Not able to eat the kinds of foods you preferred 77.722.328.740.131.2
Have to eat a limited variety of foods 68.131.946.924.328.8
Have to eat some foods that you really did not want to eat76.923.130.042.527.5
Have to eat smaller meals than you felt you needed 66.233.834.934.612.8
Have to eat fewer meals in a day 70.030.036.349.514.3
Ever had no food to eat of any kind in your household?
Go to sleep at night hungry		49.250.449.233.617.2
40.459.226.761.911.4
Go a whole day and night without eating anything41.958.127.561.55.5
Table 4. Household socio-economic profile of four levels of food (in)security.
Table 4. Household socio-economic profile of four levels of food (in)security.
DemographicsFood-SecureMildy Food-InsecureModerately Food-InsecureSeverely Food-InsecureX2
Gender
Male 94128160.057 *
Female27486625
Marital Status
Married193841170.904
Unmarried17515324
Number of HH members368994410.051 *
Employment Status
Unemployed153235160.608
Employed12342110
Grant recipient 9233815
HH Monthly income
R0 to R5005111150.059 *
R501 to R10003213416
R1001 to R15001120286
R1501 to R250051373
R2501 to R35005444
R3501 to R45002772
>R450051335
Educational Level
None591570.525
Primary9222010
Secondary15505722
Tertiary71386
* = significant at the 0.1 level.
Table 5. Factors associated with indigenous crops and household food security.
Table 5. Factors associated with indigenous crops and household food security.
VariablesCoefficientS. Ep > z
Indigenous crop access
Collection from own garden(Base)
Collection from cultivated lands−0.0270.2490.913
Collection from wild veld or forest−0.3880.2830.170
Indigenous crop consumption
Yes(Base)
No1.1740.4680.012 **
Farming Period
Under 4 years(Base)
4 to 10 years−1.0150.2930.001 ***
10 to 20 years−1.1170.3180.000 ***
Greater than 20 years−1.1640.3320.000 ***
Indigenous crops’ perception
Old women(Base)
Old men−0.0060.2780.983
Young men−1.3440.4540.003 ***
Everyone−1.0830.2370.000 ***
Indigenous crops’ marketing potential
Yes(Base)
No−0.4000.1830.029 **
Perceived suitable marketing channel
Local market only(Base)
Informal market0.8450.4350.052 *
Formal market−0.9560.3630.008 ***
All markets1.0410.2110.000 ***
Required Assistance
Seeds(Base)
Garden tools0.0910.3540.796
Fencing−0.2860.2540.260
Soil analysis1.0600.4040.009 ***
Irrigation1.4230.6880.038 **
HFIAS CATEGORIES
cut1−2.9880.436
cut2−1.2230.409
cut30.1990.390
Log-likelihood−192.724
Wald chi283.180
Prob > Chi20.000 ***
Akaike’s information criterion425.443
Bayesian information criterion490.598
Mean VIF 1.88
* = significant at the 0.1 level; ** = significant at the 0.05 level; *** = significant at the 0.01 level.
Table 6. Extended ordered probit analysis marginal effects of factors associated with indigenous crops and household food security.
Table 6. Extended ordered probit analysis marginal effects of factors associated with indigenous crops and household food security.
Categorical VariablesFood SecureMildly Food InsecureModerately Food InsecureSeverely Food Insecure
Odds RatioStandard Errorp > zOdds RatioStandard Errorp > zOdds RatioStandard Errorp > zOdds RationStandard Errorp > z
Indigenous Crop AccessOwn GardenBase
Cultivated Lands0.0030.0310.9130.0040.0410.913−0.0030.0270.913−0.0050.0450.914
Collection from wild velds or forests0.0570.0430.1890.0550.0380.148−0.0510.0370.171−0.0610.0440.169
Consumption of Indigenous CropsYesBase
No−0.0940.0240.000 ***−0.2170.0820.008 ***0.0470.0320.1400.2650.1250.034 **
Farming PeriodUnder 4 yearsBase
4 to 10 years0.0880.0240.000 ***0.1900.0560.001 ***−0.0530.0220.015 **−0.2250.0730.002 ***
10 to 20 years0.1030.0310.001 ***0.2040.0580.000 ***−0.0670.0280.019 **−0.2410.0750.001 ***
>20 years0.1110.0350.002 ***0.2100.0590.000 ***−0.0730.0300.014 **−0.2470.0760.001 ***
Perception of Indigenous CropsOld womenBase
Old men0.0000.0180.9830.0010.0640.9830.0000.0130.983−0.0010.0690.983
Young men0.1970.0960.041 **0.2160.0490.000 ***−0.2210.0870.011 **−0.1920.0520.000 ***
Everyone0.1390.0340.000 ***0.2010.0480.000 ***−0.1660.0390.000 ***−0.1750.0460.000 ***
Required AssistanceSeedsBase
Garden Tools−0.0120.0460.789−0.0150.0590.8040.0120.0450.7910.0150.0600.802
Fencing 0.0460.0440.2950.0370.0300.212−0.0430.0400.282−0.0400.0330.228
Soil Analysis−0.0840.0230.000 ***−0.2110.0810.009 ***0.0590.2360.012 **0.2360.1070.028 **
Irrigation−0.0930.0230.000 ***−0.2790.1190.019 **0.0320.0740.6660.3400.2000.089 *
Indigenous crops’ perceived marketing potentialYes Base
No0.0520.0230.026 **0.0670.0340.047 **−0.0500.0240.041 **−0.0690.0320.033 **
Indigenous crops’ perceived marketing channelsLocal Market OnlyBase
Informal Market Only−0.1170.0460.010 **−0.1310.0900.1460.1140.0470.015 **0.1340.086 *0.120
Formal Market Only0.2440.1000.014 **−0.0310.0470.511−0.1520.0490.002 ***−0.0610.021 **0.004 ***
All market−0.1320.0320.000 ***−0.1730.0380.000 ***0.1260.0310.000 ***0.1790.037 **0.000 ***
Note: Dy/dx (odds ratio) represents the discrete change of variable from 0 to 1 (or 2…). HFIAS (Y) is the dependent variable and is represented by four levels, starting from food secure ascending to severely food insecure. *, **, ***: significant at 10%, 5%, and 1%.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Shelembe, N.; Hlatshwayo, S.I.; Modi, A.; Mabhaudhi, T.; Ngidi, M.S.C. The Association of Socio-Economic Factors and Indigenous Crops on the Food Security Status of Farming Households in KwaZulu-Natal Province. Agriculture 2024, 14, 415. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14030415

AMA Style

Shelembe N, Hlatshwayo SI, Modi A, Mabhaudhi T, Ngidi MSC. The Association of Socio-Economic Factors and Indigenous Crops on the Food Security Status of Farming Households in KwaZulu-Natal Province. Agriculture. 2024; 14(3):415. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14030415

Chicago/Turabian Style

Shelembe, Nomfundo, Simphiwe Innocentia Hlatshwayo, Albert Modi, Tafadzwanashe Mabhaudhi, and Mjabuliseni Simon Cloapas Ngidi. 2024. "The Association of Socio-Economic Factors and Indigenous Crops on the Food Security Status of Farming Households in KwaZulu-Natal Province" Agriculture 14, no. 3: 415. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14030415

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop