How do indicators of household food insecurity measure up? An empirical comparison from Ethiopia

Renewed emphasis on programs and policies aimed at enhancing food security has intensified the search for accurate, rapid, and consistent indicators. Measures of food security are urgently required for purposes of early warning, assessment of current and prospective status of at-risk populations, and monitoring and evaluation of specific programs and policies. Different measures are often used interchangeably, without a good idea of which dimensions of food security are captured by which measures, resulting in potentially significant misclassification of food insecure populations. The objective of this paper is to compare how the most frequently used indicators of food security portray static and dynamic food security among the same sample of rural households in two districts of Tigray State, Northern Ethiopia. Seven food security indicators were assessed: the Coping Strategies Index (CSI); the Reduced Coping Strategies Index (rCSI); the Household Food Insecurity and Access Scale (HFIAS); the Household Hunger Scale (HHS); Food Consumption Score (FCS); the Household Dietary Diversity Scale (HDDS); and a self-assessed measure of food security (SAFS). These indicators provide very different estimates of the prevalence of food insecurity, but are moderately well correlated and depict generally similar food security trends over time. We suggest that the differences in prevalence estimates, and in some cases the weaker than expected correlation, can be explained in three ways. First, the indicators differ in the underlying aspect of food security they attempt to capture. Second, each indicator is likely only sensitive within a certain severity range of food insecurity and these ranges do not always overlap. Third, categorization of the prevalence of food insecurity is strongly dependent on the choice of cut-off points. For valid reasons, “food insecurity” has no accepted gold standard metric against which individual indicators can be gauged, though without one it is difficult to say which indicator performs “best” in correctly and reliably identifying food insecure households. The implication is that using more than one indicator is advisable, and policy makers should be aware of what elements of food insecurity each indicator portrays.