Household food insecurity and diet diversity after the major 2010 landslide disaster in Eastern Uganda: a cross-sectional survey.

In 2010, a landslide in Bududa, Eastern Uganda, killed about 350 people and nearly 1000 affected households were resettled in Kiryandongo, Western Uganda. A cross-sectional survey assessed household food insecurity and diet diversity among 1078 affected and controls. In Bududa, the affected had a lower adjusted mean score of food insecurity than controls - 9·2 (se 0·4) v. 12·3 (se 0·4) (P<0·01)--but higher diet diversity score (DDS) - 7·1 (se 0·1) v. 5·9 (se 0·1) (P<0·01). On controlling for disaster and covariates, recipients of relief food had higher food insecurity - 12·0 (se 0·6) v. 10·4 (se 0·3) (P=0·02)--whereas farmers had higher DDS - 6·6 (se 0·2) v. 5·6 (se 0·3) (P<0·01). Household size increased the likelihood of food insecurity (OR 1·15; 95% CI 1·00, 1·32; P<0·05) but reduced DDS (OR 0·93; 95% CI 0·87, <1·00; P=0·04). Low DDS was more likely in disaster affected (OR 4·22; 95% CI 2·65, 6·72; P<0·01) and farmers (OR 2·52; 95% CI 1·37, 4·64; P<0·01). In Kiryandongo, affected households had higher food insecurity - 12·3 (se 0·8) v. 2·6 (se 0·8) (P<0·01)--but lower DDS - 5·8 (se 0·3) v. 7·0 (se 0·3) (P=0·02). The latter reduced with increased age (OR 0·99; 95% CI 0·97, 1·00; P<0·05), lowest education (OR 0·54; 95% CI 0·31, 0·93; P=0·03), farmers (OR 0·59; 95 % CI 0·35, 0·98; P=0·04) and asset ownership (OR 0·56; 95% CI 0·39, 0·81; P<0·01). Addressing social protection could mitigate food insecurity.

Food variety consumption and household food insecurity coping strategies after the 2010 landslide disaster - the case of Uganda.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the nutritional situation of the victims of the 2010 landslide disaster in Uganda, food varieties consumed and coping strategies were assessed. DESIGN: Cross-sectional. Food variety scores (FVS) were obtained as the total of food items eaten over the last week while an index was based on severity weighting of household food insecurity coping strategies. We included 545 affected and 533 control households. SETTING: Victims in the affected Bududa district in Eastern Uganda and those victims resettled in the Kiryandongo district, Western Uganda. RESULTS: Adjusted for covariates, in Bududa significantly higher mean FVS were observed among: affected than controls; farmers than others; and relief food recipients. Control households scored higher means (se) on severity of coping: 28·6 (1·3) v. 19·2 (1·2; P<0·01). In Kiryandongo, significantly higher FVS were observed among: control households; household heads educated above primary school; those with assets that complement food source; and recipients of relief food. Severity of coping was significantly higher among affected households and non-recipients of relief food. Affected households had a higher likelihood to skip a day without eating a household meal in Bududa (OR=2·31; 95 % CI 1·62, 3·29; P<0·01) and Kiryandongo (OR=1·77; 95 % CI 1·23, 2·57; P<0·01). CONCLUSIONS: Whereas FVS and severity of coping showed opposite trends in the two districts, resettlement into Kiryandongo led to severe coping experiences. Administrative measures that provide a combination of relief food, social protection and resettlement integration may offset undesirable coping strategies affecting diet.

Perceptions on the right to adequate food after a major landslide disaster: a cross-sectional survey of two districts in Uganda.

BACKGROUND: Despite the instruments on the right to adequate food adopted by the United Nations, there exists limited information on how this right is perceived. Following a major 2010 landslide disaster in the Bududa district of Eastern Uganda and the resettlement of some affected households into the Kiryandongo district in Western Uganda, we surveyed both districts to explore perceptions about the right to adequate food among households with different experiences; disaster-affected and controls. METHODS: We deployed qualitative and quantitative techniques to a cross-sectional survey. The index respondent was the head of each randomly selected household from the landslide affected communities and controls from a bordering sub-county. Data was collected by interviews and focus group discussions (FGDs). Structured entries were tested statistically to report associations using Pearson's Chi-square at the 95% CI. Information from FGDs was transcribed, coded, sequenced and patterned. Findings from both techniques were triangulated to facilitate interpretations. RESULTS: Analysis included 1,078 interview entries and 12 FGDs. Significant differences between the affected and control households (P < 0.05) were observed with: age; education level; religious affiliation; existence of assets that complement food source; and having received relief food. Analysis between groups showed differences in responses on: whether everyone has a right to adequate food; who was supposed to supply relief food; whether relief food was adequate; and preferred choice on the means to ensure the right to adequate food. FGDs emphasized that access to land was the most important means to food and income. Affected households desired remedial interventions especially alternative land for livelihood. Despite the provision of adequate relief food being a state's obligation, there was no opportunity to exercise choice and preference. Comprehension and awareness of accountability and transparency issues was also low. CONCLUSION: Though a significant proportion of participants affirmed they have a right to adequate food, relief food was largely perceived as insufficient. Given the high regard for land as a preferred remedy, a resettlement policy is of the essence to streamline post-landslide displacement and resettlement. Information materials need to be assembled and disseminated to stimulate awareness and debate on the right to adequate food.