The Impact of Urbanization-Induced Eviction on Food Security of peri-urban households in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-5343393/v1

This study examines the effects of urbanization-induced displacement on the food security status of peri-urban farming households in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. The study employed a mixed-methods approach to examine the impact of urbanization-induced eviction on food security in peri-urban farming households of Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. We employed multiple techniques of data analysis; namely, binary logistic regression, Sustainable Livelihood Security Index (SLSI), and thematic content analysis. The logistic regression analysis identified key factors influencing food security, including eviction, education levels, social capital, agricultural land security, and composite sustainable livelihood security index. The eviction status’s odds ratio (0.066) suggests that the odds of being food secure for evicted households are 93.4% lower than for non-evicted households. In other words, evicted households have approximately 1/15th the odds of being food secure compared to non-evicted households. The analysis confirms that the null hypothesis is rejected, implying urban eviction without appropriate policy measures would lead the evicted households into food insecurity. The findings highlight the need for targeted policies to protect agricultural land, support displaced communities, and ensure long-term food security in rapidly urbanising areas.

Urbanization

eviction

food security

peri-urban agriculture

Ethiopia

Rapid urbanization in developing countries has led to the expansion of cities into peri-urban areas, often resulting in the displacement of farming communities (UN-Habitat, 2020). This process, known as urbanization-induced eviction, can have profound impacts on the livelihoods and food security of affected households. In Ethiopia, where agriculture remains a primary sector of the economy, the conversion of farmland to urban uses poses significant challenges for peri-urban communities (Tura, 2018).

Addis Ababa, the capital city of Ethiopia, has experienced rapid urban growth in recent decades, leading to the expansion of its boundaries into surrounding agricultural areas. This expansion has resulted in the displacement of farming households and the loss of productive agricultural land. While urbanization can bring economic opportunities, it also disrupts traditional livelihoods and food production systems, potentially compromising the food security of evicted communities (Adam, 2014).

The concept of food security encompasses four key dimensions: availability, access, utilization, and stability (FAO, 2006). For peri-urban farming households, the loss of agricultural land due to urbanization can impact all of these dimensions, affecting their ability to produce food, generate income, and maintain stable access to nutritious diets.

This study aims to assess the impact of urbanization-induced eviction on the food security of peri-urban farming households in Addis Ababa. Specifically, the objectives of this study are to:

Compare the food security status of evicted and non-evicted households,

Identify key sustainable livelihood security capitals influencing food security among peri-urban farming households, and

Analyze changes in food security indicators before and after eviction.

By addressing these objectives, this research contributes to the understanding of the complex relationships between urbanization, displacement, and food security in rapidly developing urban areas. The findings can inform policy decisions and interventions aimed at mitigating the negative impacts of urban expansion on peri-urban communities and ensuring sustainable food security systems in the face of ongoing urbanization.

2.1 Urbanization and Peri-Urban Agriculture

The rapid urbanization occurring in many developing countries has led to significant changes in land use patterns, particularly in peri-urban areas. These transitional zones between urban and rural landscapes often serve as important sources of food production for growing urban populations. However, as cities expand, peri-urban agricultural land is frequently converted to residential, commercial, or industrial uses, displacing farming communities and reducing local food production capacity (Tacoli, 2019).

Studies have shown that peri-urban agriculture plays a crucial role in urban food systems, providing fresh produce, employment opportunities, and ecosystem services. The loss of these agricultural lands can have far-reaching consequences for urban food security and environmental sustainability (Badami & Ramankutty, 2015).

2.2 Urbanization-Induced Eviction and Displacement

The process of urbanization-induced eviction involves the forced removal of residents, often farmers, from their land to make way for urban development projects. This displacement can occur through formal land expropriation processes or informal pressures resulting from changing land markets and urban expansion (Tura, 2018).

Research has documented the various impacts of such evictions on affected communities, including loss of livelihoods, social disruption, and increased vulnerability to poverty. In many cases, compensation and resettlement programs fail to adequately address the long-term needs of displaced households, leading to a decline in living standards and economic opportunities (Adam, 2014).

2.3 Food Security in Peri-Urban Areas

Food security, as defined by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), exists "when all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life" (FAO, 2006). In peri-urban areas, food security is closely linked to agricultural production, income generation, and access to markets.

Previous studies have highlighted the challenges faced by peri-urban communities in maintaining food security in the context of rapid urbanization. These challenges include reduced access to land for food production, increased reliance on purchased food, and vulnerability to price fluctuations in urban food markets (Crush & Frayne, 2011).

2.4 Impacts of Displacement on Food Security

The displacement of farming households due to urbanization can have significant impacts on their food security status. Loss of agricultural land reduces households' ability to produce their own food, while the transition to urban livelihoods may not provide sufficient income to ensure consistent access to adequate nutrition.

Research in various contexts has shown that displaced households often experience a decline in dietary diversity, reduced meal frequency, and increased food insecurity compared to their pre-displacement situation. However, the specific impacts can vary depending on factors such as compensation policies, alternative livelihood opportunities, and social support systems (Kebede et al., 2023).

2.5 Policy Responses and Interventions

Addressing the food security challenges faced by peri-urban communities in the context of urbanization requires comprehensive policy responses and targeted interventions. Some approaches that have been proposed or implemented in various contexts include:

Integrated urban planning that preserves agricultural land and green spaces

Support for urban and peri-urban agriculture initiatives

Improved compensation and resettlement programs for displaced households

Development of alternative livelihood opportunities for affected communities

Strengthening social protection systems to enhance food security

However, the effectiveness of these interventions can vary depending on local contexts, institutional capacities, and the specific needs of affected communities (World Bank, 2015).

3.1 The study area

The study area focuses on the Lemmi Kura sub-cities of Addis Ababa, and Kura Jidda sub city of Sheger city of Oromia, Ethiopia, with a particular emphasis on the impacts of urban expansion on local communities. Lemmi Kura, is a newly established sub city receiving Woreda 13 and Woreda 14 from Yeka Sub city and Woreda 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 from Bole Sub-city of Addis Ababa in 2019/2020. Lemmi Kura is one of the Addis Ababa city's designated expansion zones and comprises 10 Woredas, the lowest level of government structure in Addis Ababa. The study covers specific localities within Lemmi Kura (Fig. 1), including Woreda 14 (Yeka Abbado), Woreda 2 (Ayat), and Woreda 6 (Bole Arabsa), which have been significantly affected by urbanization. Similarly, For comparison purposes, the study included Kura Jidda Woreda of Sheger city in the Oromia region. This area served as a reference point, allowing for the examination of eviction and non-eviction scenarios in nearby peri-urban communities from a different administrative region.

Between 1997 and 2018, approximately 12,000 households in Lemmi Kura had their farms expropriated, primarily due to government-led condominium construction and private real estate development projects in Woredas 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 13, and 14. Companies such as Ayat, Sunshine, Gift, Haile, and Addis Mender Real Estates have been involved in these projects, highlighting the role of both public and private sectors in driving urban growth. Woreda 2, 6, and 14 of Lemmi Kura experienced the most relocation, with residents and farmers displaced to make way for new development. This history of significant displacement and urbanization informed the selection of the study area, which aims to investigate the food security impacts of these changes on local communities.

3.2 Methods

This study employed a mixed-methods approach to examine the impact of urbanization-induced eviction on food security in peri-urban farming households of Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. We analyzed data from 446 households (223 evicted and 223 non-evicted) in the Lemmi Kura and Kura Jidda sub-cities, using household surveys, key informant interviews, and focus group discussions. The research included Kura Jidda Woreda from Sheger city in the Oromia region for comparison purposes, providing a reference point for eviction and non-eviction scenarios in nearby peri-urban communities from a different administrative region. The methodology combined qualitative and quantitative techniques. Quantitative data was collected through a comprehensive household survey of 446 households, equally divided between evicted and non-evicted groups. Qualitative insights were gathered through focus group discussions and 60 key informant interviews selected from the sample Woredas. For data analysis, we employed multiple techniques:

1. Binary logistic regression to identify key factors influencing food security

2. Sustainable Livelihood Security Index (SLSI) to compare median scores between evicted and non-evicted households

3. Thematic content analysis to interpret qualitative data from focus groups and interviews

This integrated approach allowed for a robust examination of the complex relationships between urbanization, eviction, and food security in peri-urban farming households. By combining quantitative and qualitative methods, the study addresses central research concerns and provides a comprehensive understanding of the impact of urbanization-induced eviction on food security in the study area.

The study used binary logistic regression to analyse factors that influence the sustainability of livelihood security (SLS) of sample groups of households. The dependent variable, Sustainable Livelihood Security (SLS), was binary coded, with 0 representing "not secured" and 1 representing "secured". The independent variables included various indicators of sustainable livelihood security and demographic factors. The binary logistic regression model was estimated using the enter method. The researcher adopted a binary logistic regression model to analyse the sensitivity of the food security to independent livelihood capitals in the context of urbanisation-induced forced eviction of peri-urban farming households.

The logistic regression model is widely used in various fields of study. For instance, Tuyen, TQ (2013) used a logistic regression model to measure the effects of farmland loss on household livelihood. Tuyen examined how and to what extent farmland loss has impacted rural Vietnamese households' means of subsistence using a number of regression models.

Similarly, Fang et al. (2014) used logistic regression to characterise the causal link between livelihood capital (eg independent variable Ci) and livelihood strategies (e.g., dependent variable Y). Tora and Utallo (2022) also employed a binary logistic regression model presented as follows:

ln(1/1-p) = a + b₁x₁ + b₂x₂+….+b_n x_n (1)

_{logit (p)} = a + b₁x₁ + b₂x₂+….+b_n x_n (2)

In which p is the probability that a case belongs to category 1, p/1-p: odds, a is a constant, n is the number of predictors and b is the regression coefficients, x is independent variables. In the study setup, the independent variables (x) are the six livelihood assets accessed by the study households that predict the attainment instances of households' livelihood security. Consequently, the six livelihood assets (predictors) are described as x1 = natural capital, x2 = human capital, x3 = physical capital, x4 = social capital, x5 = information capital and x6 = financial capital. The values of b1 to b6 are the estimated parameters that are the individual coefficients of the explanatory variables x1 to x6. The purpose was to examine the impacts of capital assets on households' livelihood security of households in the drought-prone Gamo lowland areas.

Similarly, Coulibaly and Li (2020) used two models, multiple linear regression and logistic regression models, to analyse their data. In both cases, multicollinearity was assessed using two collinearity statistics: the variance inflation factor (VIF) and tolerance values. The multiple linear regression model Eq. (3) below was used to determine how the socio-economic variables predicted the annual income of the farmers.

Y = α + β1x1 + β2x2 +…+ β9x9 + ε (3)

Where Y indicates the respondent's income; x1, x2 and x3 represent age, the socio-professional structure, and land size; x4 means the level of education; x5 indicates family size; x6 indicates food problem; x7 is the gender; x8 denotes the family member in migration; x9 stands for land registration. Furthermore, α denotes the constant, β1, β2…, and β9 indicate the respective coefficients of the independent variables, whereas ε is the error term in the model.

This research adopted the logistic regression model to analyse the impacts of urbanization-induced displacement on the food security of peri-urban communities. The food security-driven logistics regression model is discussed below.

In the present study, the dependent variable on the food security of the peri-urban households that are secured (1) or not secured (0) is estimated using logistic regression.

Ln (PX/ (1- PX)) = β0 + β1 X1i + β2 X2i+ …+ βkXki (4)

The subscript i is the i-th observation in the sample; PX is the probability that an event occurs for an observed set of variables X1i; PX is the probability that the farmer is a victim of urban expansion. β0 is the intercept term, and β1, β2…βk are the coefficients of the explanatory variables X1, X2... Xu. Multicollinearity was assessed using the variance inflation factor (VIF) and tolerance values of the two collinearity statistics. Finally, the researcher analysed the data using SPSS version 29.

4.1 Determinants of Household Food Security

The following section discusses logistics regression analysis to assess the determinants of household food security from the perspective of a sustainable livelihood security framework and in relation to the impact of urban eviction of peri-urban farmers. This analysis aimed to identify the key factors that influence food security, represented by the dichotomous variable "Food Security Level", using variables of sustainable livelihood security indicators.

Statistical tests such as the Mann-Whitney U test used for this study show that a significant difference in food security levels between evicted and non-evicted households. Specifically, the U value of 7519.000, combined with a Wilcoxon W value of 32495.000, shows that there is a significant difference between the two groups. The Z-value of -13.703 and the p-value of .000 (which is less than the commonly used alpha level of 0.05) indicate that the observed difference in food security between evicted and non-evicted households is statistically significant. The effect size was 0.6489, which implies that the effect of eviction on household food security is very high. We have strong evidence to reject the null hypothesis, and therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected. The evicted and non-evicted households have different household food security levels.

From this perspective, the classification tests achieve an overall classification accuracy of 87.9%, with 90.8% accuracy in predicting Non-Food-Secured cases and 84.1% accuracy in predicting Food-Secured cases. This marked improvement highlights the efficacy of predictor variables in distinguishing between food-secure and food-insecure households.

Similarly, the inclusion of predictor variables significantly enhances the performance of the model, as indicated by the Omnibus Model Coefficient Tests (Chi-square = 358.100, df = 17, p < .001). The Hosmer and Lemeshow test (Chi-square = 10.724, df = 8, p = .218) also suggests that the model fits the data well, as the p value is greater than .05, indicating that there are no significant differences between the observed and predicted outcomes. The − 2 Log likelihood value decreases to 253.137, suggesting a better fit. The Cox & Snell R square (.552) and Nagelkerke R square (.740) values indicate that the model explains a substantial portion of the variance in the food security status.

The study results shown in Table 1 below summarises the key results from the logistic regression analysis on the impacts of independent variables on household food security in the perspective of sustainable livelihood security framework and urbansaztion-induced eviction of the peri-urban farmers.

Table 1

Explanatory Variables Influencing Food Security of Evicted Peri-urban Farming Households
	B	S.E.	Wald	df	Sig.	Exp(B)	95% C.I. for EXP(B)
	B	S.E.	Wald	df	Sig.	Exp(B)	Lower	Upper
Peri-urban eviction	-2.717	0.627	18.79	1	0	0.066	0.019	0.226
Gender Household Head	-0.398	0.485	0.672	1	0.412	0.672	0.259	1.74
Age Category	-0.66	0.448	2.169	1	0.141	0.517	0.215	1.244
Family size category	-0.34	0.354	0.924	1	0.336	0.712	0.356	1.423
Family member engaged	-0.026	0.396	0.004	1	0.947	0.974	0.448	2.115
Marital Status Category	0.217	0.498	0.19	1	0.663	1.242	0.468	3.295
Wife Educational Level	0.988	0.508	3.783	1	0.052	2.687	0.992	7.274
Household Head Educational Level	0.523	0.419	1.558	1	0.212	1.686	0.742	3.832
Economic Security	0.327	0.334	0.96	1	0.327	1.387	0.721	2.671
Social Security	0.928	0.372	6.236	1	0.013	2.53	1.221	5.241
Land Security	0.938	0.364	6.643	1	0.01	2.555	1.252	5.213
Physical Capital Security	-0.2	0.466	0.184	1	0.668	0.819	0.329	2.041
Human Security	0.179	0.229	0.614	1	0.433	1.197	0.764	1.875
Infrastructural Service Access Security	-0.267	0.417	0.411	1	0.522	0.765	0.338	1.733
ICT Security	-1.018	0.45	5.127	1	0.024	0.361	0.15	0.872
SLSI coded	3.281	0.499	43.19	1	0	26.606	10	70.789
Expropriated total farmland	-0.078	0.139	0.311	1	0.577	0.925	0.704	1.216
Constant	-0.697	0.744	0.876	1	0.349	0.498

Source: Own data analysis from the February survey 2024

In Table 1 above, the logistic regression analysis identifies several key predictors of food security among households. In particular, eviction status, social security, land security, ICT security, and SLSI scores emerge as significant factors. These findings underscore the multifaceted nature of food security, influenced by socioeconomic, educational, and infrastructural dimensions. The logistic regression output provides insights into the significance and impact of each predictor variable on food security as follows:

Eviction status: Households that have been evicted are significantly less likely to be food secure (B = -2.717, p < .001, Exp (B) = .066). Evicted households are significantly less likely to have food security, with an odds ratio of 0.066. This means that eviction drastically reduces the likelihood of food security, highlighting the vulnerability of evicted households and the need for targeted interventions to support those evicted households (Sharafkhani et al., 2011). Eviction is a significant negative factor that requires policies to prevent eviction and support affected households.
Wife Education Level: Marginally significant (p = .052), with higher education levels associated with increased food security (Exp (B) = 2.687). Households where the wife has a higher education level are approximately 2.687 times more likely to have food secure compared to households where the wife has a lower education level. This highlights the critical role of women's education in improving household food security, as supported by studies that emphasise the positive impact of women's education on food security (Mutisya et al., 2016; Obayelu, 2012). The role of women education is crucial for improving food security, highlighting the need for educational programmes that target women.
Social capital Security: Significant (p = .013), with higher social capital security associated with increased food security (Exp (B) = 2.530). Households with higher social capital security are about 2.53 times more likely to be food secure. This significant effect underscores the importance of social protection programmes in improving food security, corroborated by findings in the literature (Hidrobo et al., 2018; Devereux, 2016). Social security is vital to improving food security, indicating the effectiveness of social protection measures.
Land Tenure Security: Significant (p = .010), with greater land tenure security associated with increased food security (Exp (B) = 2.555). Households with better land tenure security are approximately 2.55 times more likely to achieve food security. Secure tenure and access to land resources play a pivotal role in ensuring food production and availability (Maharjan & Joshi, 2011). Land security is essential for food production and stability, supporting land tenure policies.
Human capital Security (B = 0.179, Sig. =0.433, Exp (B) = 1.197) : Households with higher human security are about 1.197 times more likely to be food secure. Human security encompasses aspects such as health, education, and employment, which are essential for maintaining stable livelihoods and food security (Manap et al., 2019). Human security is important for general well-being and food security, highlighting the need for comprehensive human development programmes.

Specifically, the logistic regression coefficient for the status of eviction (Eviction Category (1)) is -2.717 with a standard error of 0.66. The Wald chi-square test yields a value of 18.790, which is highly significant (p < .001). The odds ratio (Exp (B)) is 0.066, with a 95% confidence interval ranging from 0.019 to 0.226.

The negative coefficient (-2.717) indicates an inverse relationship between eviction status and food security. Specifically, households that have experienced eviction are significantly less likely to be food secure compared to those that have not been evicted.

The odds ratio (0.066) suggests that the odds of being food secure for evicted households are 93.4% lower than for non-evicted households. In other words, evicted households have approximately 1/15th the odds of being food secure compared to non-evicted households.

The p-value (< .001) indicates that the relationship between eviction status and food security is highly significant, meaning the likelihood of this relationship occurring due to random chance is extremely low. This strong statistical significance underscores the robustness of the status of eviction as a predictor of food security.

The 95% confidence interval for the odds ratio (0.019 to 0.226) does not include 1, further confirming the significant impact of eviction on food security. The narrow range of the confidence interval enhances the reliability of the estimated odds ratio.

These findings underscore the importance of education, social, land, and human security in determining food security. Interestingly, eviction significantly reduces the odds of securing food, highlighting the vulnerability of evicted households.

The study result in Table 1 specified that the logistic regression model identified several predictors with significant odds ratios (Exp (B)), indicating their influence on the likelihood of achieving food security. The analysis confirms that the null hypothesis, eviction has no significant negative impact on the food security of evicted households, is rejected. There is strong evidence to reject the null hypothesis.

The findings of this study highlight the significant negative impact of urbanization-induced eviction on the food security of peri-urban farming households in Addis Ababa. The stark contrast in food security levels between evicted and non-evicted households underscores the critical role that access to agricultural land plays in maintaining food security in these communities. The dramatic decline in food security indicators following eviction reflects the multidimensional nature of the challenges faced by displaced households. Not only do they lose their primary means of food production, but they also experience disruptions to their social networks, economic stability, and overall livelihood strategies. This aligns with previous research highlighting the complex impacts of displacement on food security and well-being (FAO, 2017; Maxwell & Wiebe, 1999).

The identification of key factors influencing food security, such as education levels, social capital, and land security, provides important insights for policy interventions. These findings suggest that comprehensive approaches addressing multiple dimensions of household vulnerability are necessary to improve food security outcomes for displaced communities.

4.2 Level of households’ food security before and after eviction

Food security is a critical aspect of human well-being, which includes the availability, accessibility, and use of nutritious food that supports a healthy and active lifestyle. This section examines the impact of land expropriation on household food security in the Lemmi Kura subcity, Addis Ababa. The analysis is based on data collected from 223 displaced households, assessing their food security status before and after eviction.

The research employed a survey methodology, focussing on key indicators of food security, which include adequate meal quality, healthiness and variety of food, frequency of meals, food production, and affordability. The responses of the households were classified into five levels of food security: 1) severely food insecure, 2) food insecure, 3) Fairly food secure, 4) Good food secure, and 5) Fully food secure. The data collected was then analysed to determine the change in food security levels before and after eviction.

The findings of the research shown on Table 2 clearly illustrate a dramatic decline in food security among displaced households after eviction. Before eviction, a substantial majority (80.27%) of households were food secure, with 66.37% being fully food secure. This changed drastically after eviction, with the mean level of food security falling to 8.07%.

Table 2

Level of household food security after and before eviction (n = 223).
Level of household food security
Severely food insecure	2.24	79.82
Food Insecure	2.69	7.17
Fairly food secure	14.80	4.93
Good food secure	13.90	1.79
Fully food secure	66.37	6.28
Total	100.00	100.00
Source: Own survey February 2024

Before eviction, approximately 80.27% of the respondents were at a good or fully food secured level, fulfilling all food security indicators. However, after eviction, about 79.82% of the respondents fell into the category of severely food insecure, not meeting any of the food security indicators.

The substantial decrease in food security after eviction highlights the severe consequences of land expropriation on the livelihoods of households in the Lemmi Kura sub-city. The loss of agricultural land, which was a main source of food production and income, resulted in reduced meal adequacy, reduced variety and healthiness of food, and decreased frequency of meals. These findings align with existing literature that emphasises the adverse effects of displacement on food security (FAO, 2017; Maxwell & Wiebe, 1999).

Similar research indicates that eviction not only disrupted households' ability to produce their own food but also limited their financial capacity to purchase adequate and nutritious food. This research confirms the significant change in food security levels, where nearly 87% of households became food insecure after eviction.

The study underscores the critical impact of land expropriation on household food security in the Lemmi Kura sub city. The displacement led to a drastic decline in food security levels and most households became food insecure. Policymakers must consider the severe implications of such actions on the well-being of affected communities and develop strategies to mitigate these adverse effects. Ensuring access to alternative livelihoods and food sources for displaced households is essential to improve food security and overall well-being.

4.3 Indicators of food security

Urban expansion and the resulting eviction of peri-urban households have profound implications for food security and access to nutritious diets. This section examines the dramatic changes in households' ability to produce and afford sufficient food following displacement. The section interprets the detailed data on evicted household food security in the Lemmi Kura sub-city, Addis Ababa, focusing on various indicators and comparing the “before” and “after eviction” cases. The indicators assessed include the ability to eat enough food throughout the year, the consumption of adequate variety of food, the number of meals per day, the access to healthy and nutritious food, the production of enough food, and the affordability to buy food when its own production is insufficient.

The data provided in Table 3offer a comparative analysis of food security levels before and after eviction.

Table 3

Comparative Food Security Levels Before and After Eviction
Food Security Indicator	Before Eviction (1 = 100%)	After Eviction (0 = 0%)
Household able to eat sufficient food throughout the year	0.9327	0.1256
Eat enough or adequate variety of food throughout the year.	0.8520	0.1166
Number of meals per day	1.0000	0.8789
Have access to sufficient healthy and nutritious food throughout the year.	0.8341	0.0807
Produce enough food for a family that would be enough throughout the year.	0.9013	0.1121
Afford to buy enough food if own farm produce is not enough.	0.7758	0.1076
Mean level of total food security	0.9288	0.3974
Source: Own survey February 2024

The above data, shown in Table 3, reveals a severe decline in food security indicators, including the ability to eat enough food throughout the year, access to a variety of adequate foods, and self-sufficiency in food production. Furthermore, the affordability of food when one's own production is insufficient has become a significant challenge for these households. The findings underscore the critical need for policies and interventions that address the food security crisis faced by peri-urban communities displaced by urbanization. The detail analysis for each indicator is summarised as follows:

Household ability to eat enough food throughout the year

The mean score after eviction is 0.1256, indicating a severe decrease in households' ability to eat enough food throughout the year. However, before eviction, the mean score was 0.9327, which means that almost all households were able to eat enough food throughout the year.

Eating the right types of food throughout the year

the mean score after eviction is 0.1166, reflecting a significant reduction in the variety and adequacy of the foods consumed. On the other hand, before eviction, the mean score was 0.8520, showing that households had access to a variety of adequate foods.

Number of meals per day

The mean score after eviction is 0.8789 (88% of three meals per day), indicating that while the number of meals per day remains relatively high, it has still decreased. However, the mean score before the eviction was 1.00, which indicates that the households usually had three meals per day.

Access to sufficient healthy and nutritious food throughout the year

the mean score after eviction is 0.0807, highlighting a drastic reduction in access to healthy and nutritious food. However, before eviction, the mean score was 0.8341, indicating that households had previously considerable access to nutritious foods.

Production of enough food for the family

the mean score after the eviction period is 0.1121, showing a significant drop in the ability of households to produce enough food, while the mean score before the eviction was 0.9013, reflecting that households were largely self-sufficient in food production.

Affordability to Buy Enough Food When Own Production is Insufficient

The mean score after eviction is 0.1076, indicating that households struggle to afford food when their own production is insufficient. However, the mean affordability score before eviction was 0.7758, suggesting that households had the financial means to buy food when needed.

The data clearly demonstrate a stark contrast in the levels of food security before and after eviction. The mean level of total food security dropped from 0.9288 before eviction to 0.3974 after eviction. This sharp decline underscores the adverse impact of land expropriation on the ability of households to secure adequate food.

The most affected indicators are access to enough healthy and nutritious food and the overall ability to produce enough food for the family. These findings align with existing research that points to the detrimental effects of displacement on food security and livelihoods (FAO, 2017; Maxwell & Wiebe, 1999).

The above analysis provides compelling evidence of the significant negative impact of eviction on household food security in the Lemmi Kura sub-city. The decline in all food security indicators after eviction highlights the need for urgent policy interventions to support displaced families. Strategies to improve access to food, enhance food production capacities, and provide financial support are essential to mitigate the adverse effects of land expropriation on food security.

The data in Table 3 show that the loss of agricultural land and assets significantly impacted the food security of displaced households, leading to food insecurity and dependence on market purchases for their food needs.

Historically, the farming communities in Lemmi Kura sub city of Addis Ababa had the autonomy to choose their food and drink, which also allowed them to support others within their community. This self-sufficiency led to a secure food environment. However, the current shift towards purchasing all food items has compromised this food security, putting current food security at risk (P5).

Before evictions, the farming communities of the research area were largely self-reliant, providing mutual assistance even when not all members were food insecure. Post-eviction, they have become dependent on external support, reflecting a significant change in their ability to support themselves (P8).

According to a key informant of this research, several factors contribute to food insecurity in peri-urban areas, such as lack of innovation and subsequent unemployment, loss of agricultural land, loss of assets during evictions, and displacement of livestock due to urbanisation. Reduced agricultural land directly decreases food production capacity, jeopardising food security (P1).

The ownership of agricultural land is crucial to producing a variety of crops that ensure food security. The loss of this land prevents people from guaranteeing their own food supply, thereby endangering their livelihoods (P1). The confiscation of agricultural land has led to a significant loss of livelihood and assets. Without land, individuals cannot raise livestock or grow crops, exacerbating their challenges to economic and food security (P4). Evicted households in the peri-urban areas are currently facing severe food crises. These crises manifest themselves as unstable access to adequate and healthy food, financial difficulties, and other related challenges (P3).

After being displaced from their land, villagers often face unemployment or are forced to work in informal employment. This transition results in a substantial decrease in income and an increase in malnutrition due to reduced food availability (P5). Households that have not been evicted can harvest crops from their land, thus enjoying more reliable food security. In contrast, evicted households face increased food insecurity, lacking the means to produce their own food (P2).

The qualitative insights from focus group discussions and interviews provide a deeper understanding of the lived experiences of evicted households. The loss of self-sufficiency and increased dependence on market purchases for food represent a fundamental shift in livelihood strategies that can have long-lasting impacts on household food security and resilience.

These findings have important implications for urban planning and development policies in rapidly growing cities like Addis Ababa. The current approach to urban expansion, which often prioritizes land conversion for urban uses over the preservation of peri-urban agriculture, may have unintended consequences for urban food systems and the well-being of displaced communities (Adam, 2020).

This study demonstrates the significant negative impact of urbanization-induced eviction on the food security of peri-urban farming households in Addis Ababa. The findings highlight the need for more inclusive and sustainable approaches to urban development that recognize the importance of peri-urban agriculture and the livelihoods of farming communities.

Based on these results, we propose the following recommendations:

Implement holistic urban development strategies: Design and execute comprehensive urban plans that prioritize the preservation of agricultural land and green spaces in peri-urban zones. These plans should acknowledge the critical role these areas play in maintaining food security and providing essential ecosystem services. By integrating these considerations into urban planning, cities can ensure sustainable growth while safeguarding the vital functions of peri-urban landscapes.
Implement comprehensive and equitable compensation strategies: Develop and enforce compensation mechanisms that accurately reflect the full value of expropriated land and assets, addressing the long-term food security needs of displaced peri-urban farmers. These strategies should include:

Livelihood restoration: Provide support for re-establishing agricultural activities or transitioning to alternative livelihoods.
Long-term benefit sharing: Implement generational compensation mechanisms, such as granting significant shareholding in real estate developments or allocating proportional space in commercial buildings constructed on expropriated land.
Resettlement options: Offer choices for relocation with adequate housing, infrastructure, and access to productive agricultural land.
Skills training and education: Provide programs to help farmers adapt to urban economies and diversify their income sources.
Ongoing support: Establish long-term monitoring and assistance programs to ensure sustained food security for displaced communities.

By implementing these comprehensive compensation strategies, policymakers can better safeguard the food security and economic stability of peri-urban farming communities affected by urban expansion. Future research should focus on long-term tracking of displaced households to better understand the dynamic impacts of urbanization on food security over time. Additionally, comparative studies across different urban contexts could provide valuable insights into effective strategies for mitigating the negative impacts of urban expansion on peri-urban communities.

By addressing the complex challenges faced by peri-urban farming households in the context of rapid urbanization, policymakers and urban planners can work towards more equitable and sustainable urban development that ensures food security for all residents.

Author Contribution

Kejela Gnamura designed the research, collected data, analysed data, and wrote the manuscript. Prof. MA Antwi and Prof. Belete Abenet edited the manuscript.

Data Availability

Raw data are available upon request.

Adam, A. G. (2014). Land tenure in the changing peri-urban areas of Ethiopia: The case of Bahir Dar city. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 38(6), 1970-1984.
Adam, A. G. (2019). Thinking outside the box and introducing land readjustment against the conventional urban land acquisition and delivery method in Ethiopia. Land Use Policy, 81, 624-631.
Adam, A. G. (2020). Understanding competing and conflicting interests for peri-urban land in Ethiopia's era of urbanization. Environment and Urbanization, 32(1), 55-68.
Admasu, G. T., Van Passel, S., Minale, A. S., Tsegaye, E. A., Azadi, H., & Nyssen, J. (2019). Take out the farmer: An economic assessment of land expropriation for urban expansion in Bahir Dar, Northwest Ethiopia. Land Use Policy, 87, 104050.
Alaci, D. S. A. (2010). Regulating urbanisation in sub-Saharan Africa through cluster settlements: Lessons for urban mangers in Ethiopia. Theoretical and Empirical Researches in Urban Management, 5(14), 20-34.
Badami, M. G., & Ramankutty, N. (2015). Urban agriculture and food security: A critique based on an assessment of urban land constraints. Global Food Security, 4, 8-15.
Chileshe, A. (2014). Determinants of food insecurity in the urban-rural continuum of Zambia. Journal of Agricultural Science, 6(10), 108-118.
Cityscape, 24(2), 207-228.Devereux, S. (2016). Social protection for enhanced food security in sub-Saharan Africa. Food Policy, 60, 52-62.
Coulibaly, B., & Li, S. (2020). Impact of Agricultural Land Loss on Rural Livelihoods in Peri-Urban Areas: Empirical evidence from Sebougou, Mali. Land, 9(12), 470. https://doi.org/10.3390/land9120470.
Crush, J., & Frayne, B. (2011). Supermarket expansion and the informal food economy in Southern African cities: Implications for urban food security. Journal of Southern African Studies, 37(4), 781-807.
Cutts, D. B., Bovell-Ammon, A., Ettinger de Cuba, S., Sheward, R., Shaefer, M., Huang, C., Black, M. M., Casey, P. H., Cook, J. T.,
Devereux, S. (2016). Social protection for enhanced food security in sub-Saharan Africa. Food Policy, 60, 52-62.
Ethio GIS, 2022.
Fanga, YP, Fanb. J., Shenc, M.Y., and Song, MQ (2014). Sensitivity of the livelihood strategy to the capital of livelihood in mountain areas: Empirical analysis based on different settlements in the upper reaches of the Minjiang River, China. Ecological indicators 38 (2014) 225–235.
FAO. (2006). Food security (Policy Brief No. 2). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
FAO. (2017). The state of food security and nutrition in the world 2017: Building resilience for peace and food security. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
Fitawok, M. B., Derudder, B., Minale, A. S., Van Passel, S., Adgo, E., & Nyssen, J. (2022). Impact of urban expansion on the livelihood of peri-urban agricultural communities, Ethiopia. Land Use Policy, 112, 105861.
Hidrobo, M., Hoddinott, J., Kumar, N., & Olivier, M. (2018). Social protection, food security, and asset formation. World Development, 101, 88-103.
Kebede, B., Adgo, E., Minale, A. S., Derudder, B., & Van Passel, S. (2023). Impact of land acquisition for large-scale agricultural investments on the livelihood of smallholder farmers in Ethiopia. Land Use Policy, 126, 106544.
Leifheit, K. M., Schwartz, G. L., Pollack, C. E., Black, M. M., Edin, K. J., Althoff, K. N., & Jennings, J. M. (2020). Severe housing insecurity during pregnancy: Association with adverse birth and infant outcomes. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(22), 8659.
Maharjan, K. L., & Joshi, N. P. (2011). Determinants of household food security in Nepal: A binary logistic regression analysis. Journal of Mountain Science, 8(3), 403-413.
Manap, N. A., Ismail, N. W., & Yusof, Y. (2019). The impact of human capital on food security: A panel data analysis. International Journal of Economics and Management, 13(1), 45-57.
Maxwell, D., & Wiebe, K. (1999). Land tenure and food security: Exploring dynamic linkages. Development and Change, 30(4), 825-849.
Mohammed, F., Boopen, S., & Vinesh, S. (2017). An assessment of livelihood vulnerability to climate change in coastal Tanzania. Journal of Developing Areas, 51(4), 199-228.
Mohammed, F., Boopen, S., & Vinesh, S. (2020). Assessing livelihood vulnerability to climate change in coastal Tanzania: A case study of Dar es Salaam city. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 63(12), 2174-2199.
Mutisya, M., Ngware, M. W., Kabiru, C. W., & Kandala, N. B. (2016). The effect of education on household food security in two informal urban settlements in Kenya: A longitudinal analysis. Food Security, 8(4), 743-756.
Nahalomo, A., Mwanjalolo, M. G. J., Ssemanda, R., & Nabanoga, G. (2018). Implications of land evictions on food security in peri-urban areas: A case of Wakiso District, Central Uganda. African Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and Development, 18(3), 13693-13708.
Obayelu, A. E. (2012). Households' food security status and its determinants in the North-Central Nigeria. Food Economics, 9(4), 241-256.
Sharafkhani, R., Dastgiri, S., Gharaaghaji Asl, R., & Ghavamzadeh, S. (2011). Factors influencing household food security status. Food and Nutrition Sciences, 2(1), 31-34.
Sperandei, S. (2014). Understanding logistic regression analysis. Biochemia Medica, 24(1), 12-18.
Tacoli, C. (2019). The urbanization of food insecurity and malnutrition. Environment and Urbanization, 31(2), 371-374.
Tora, T. T., Degaga, D. T., & Utallo, A. U. (2022). Impacts of livelihood assets on livelihood security in the Gamo lowlands of southwest of Ethiopia prone to drought. Geography and Sustainability, 3(1), 58-67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geosus.2022.02.002.
Tura, H. A. (2018). Land rights and land grabbing in Oromia, Ethiopia. Land Use Policy, 70, 247-255.
Tuyen, Tran Quang. (2013). Farmland Acquisition and Household Livelihoods in Hanoi's Peri-Urban Areas A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) at The University of Waikato.
UN-Habitat. (2020). World cities report 2020: The value of sustainable urbanization. United Nations Human Settlements Programme.
World Bank. (2015). Ethiopia urbanization review: Urban institutions for a middle-income Ethiopia. World Bank Group.
Zhang, X., & Lu, H. (2011). Compensation for compulsory land acquisition in China: To rebuild expropriated farmers' long-term livelihoods. Institute for Research on Labor and Employment.

No competing interests reported.

The Impact of Urbanization-Induced Eviction on Food Security of peri-urban households in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

1. Introduction

2. Literature Review