Investigating and Quantifying Food Insecurity in Nigeria: A Systematic Review

Citation: Otekunrin, O.A.; Mukaila,
R.; Otekunrin, O.A. Investigating and
Quantifying Food Insecurity in
Nigeria: A Systematic Review.
Agriculture 2023, 13, 1873.
https://doi.org/10.3390/
agriculture13101873
Academic Editors: Ioan Sebastian
Brumă and Steliana Rodino
Received: 25 August 2023
Revised: 22 September 2023
Accepted: 23 September 2023
Published: 25 September 2023
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
agriculture
Review
Investigating and Quantifying Food Insecurity in Nigeria:
A Systematic Review
Olutosin Ademola Otekunrin 1,* , Ridwan Mukaila 2 and Oluwaseun Aramide Otekunrin 3
1 Department of Agricultural Economics and Farm Management, Federal University of Agriculture,
Abeokuta 110124, Nigeria
2 Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, Enugu State 410001, Nigeria;
ridwan.mukaila@unn.edu.ng
3 Department of Statistics, University of Ibadan, Ibadan 900001, Nigeria; oa.otekunrin@ui.edu.ng
* Correspondence: otekunrin.olutosina@pg.funaab.edu.ng; Tel.: +234-80-32-44-10-39
Abstract: Given the recent increase in the number of Nigerians estimated to be at risk of food insecu-
rity, it is crucial to explore the array of tools used to quantify food insecurity (FI). This exploration
will help determine the prevalence and severity of FI in Nigeria. This review explored the scope of
FI research carried out in Nigeria to examine how the design was quantified. A systematic review
was performed to compile the accessible Nigerian studies. Seventy-nine studies were reviewed.
Eighteen used the Household Food Insecurity Access Scale module (HFIAS) to investigate FI status;
thirteen used the recommended daily calorie requirement approach; twelve employed the Household
Food Security Survey Module (HFSSM); ten used the food insecurity index (through household per
capita food expenditure); seven used the Food Insecurity Experienced Scale (FIES); two used the
Food Consumption Score (FCS); and the others employed less standardized or thorough approaches.
Different prevalence levels and gravities of FI in the Nigerian populations were documented. The
prevalence of FI varied from 12% to 100%, based on the instrument and demography being studied. In
accordance with the findings of this review, the authors propose standardization of the FI instrument
and highlight the need for a measurement tool that would be appropriate for the Nigerian setting.
This will enable researchers to attain a comprehensive knowledge of the occurrence rate of FI in
Nigeria, leading to improved food- and nutrition-sensitive policy development.
Keywords: food security; hunger; measurement tools; malnutrition; farm households; SDG 2
1. Introduction
The global community is faced with one of the most challenging issues in recent
times—food insecurity. Food insecurity (FI) is experienced in almost all regions of the
world, especially in Asia and Africa, as more than 50% (425 million) of the people in the
world affected by hunger in 2021 were in Asia and more than one third (278 million) lived
in Africa [1]. About 12% of the world’s population was affected by severe FI, while more
than 2 billion people were either moderately or severely food insecure in 2021 [1].
According to the 2023 Global Report on Food Crises, more than one quarter of a
billion people are experiencing acute levels of hunger, while some are on the verge of
extreme deprivation of food [2]. Increases in conflict events, rising poverty, escalating
inequalities, widespread underdevelopment, climate crises, and the COVID-19 pandemic
have also contributed to the worsening of global food insecurity [2]. It is worth noting
that Africa (especially sub-Saharan Africa) is experiencing worsening FI, which is reflected
in the inclusion of six African countries (Sierra Leone 40.5/100, Madagascar 40.6/100,
Burundi 40.6/100, Nigeria 42/100, Sudan 42.8/100, and the Congo Dem. Rep. 43/100)
among the top 10 bottom-ranking countries with the lowest Global Food Security Index
(GFSI) score in the 2022 overall food security environment. No African countries were
Agriculture 2023, 13, 1873. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13101873 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/agriculture

Agriculture 2023, 13, 1873 2 of 38
among the top 10 high-ranking countries [3]. According to the Food and Agriculture Orga-
nization (FAO) and its partners’ projections, the impact of the Russia–Ukraine war threatens
food security globally. The ripple effect of the war will have numerous implications for
global agricultural markets, and this can potentially worsen the state of food and nutrition
security for many nations in the coming years [1].
Food insecurity and hunger are on the rise in Nigeria. In January 2023, the United
Children Fund (UNICEF) projected that 25 million Nigerians are at risk of experiencing
hunger by the third quarter of 2023. This revealed an increase of about 8 million in hunger
from the 2022 estimates [4]. Nigeria ranked 107th out of 113 countries and 25th out of
28 sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) countries with a GFSI score of 42/100 in the GFSI 2022 [3,5].
Also, in the 2022 Global Hunger index (GHI), Nigeria ranked 103rd out of 121 countries,
scoring 27.3/100. This indicates a serious level of hunger and suggests that Nigeria is not
on track to achieve the Sustainable Development Goal 2 (SDG2) target by 2030 [5,6].
X-raying the food security environment in Nigeria, as reported in the GFSI 2022 under
the four pillars for food security (Figure 1), indicated that Nigeria had the lowest score
(25/100) globally on the affordability category. In the availability category, Nigeria ranked
108th globally and 26th in the region. The report showed that the very weak performance
score (39.5) was a result of the “very weak” (0–39.9) scores obtained in certain indicators,
such as agricultural research and development (30.7/100), supply-chain infrastructure
(23.9/100), sufficiency of supply (25.5/100), political and social barriers to access (31.6/100),
and food security and access policy commitments (0/100) [3].
Agriculture 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW2 of 33
high-ranking countries [3]. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)
and its partners’ projections, the impact of the Russia–Ukraine war threatens food security
globally. The ripple effect of the war will have numerous implications for global agricultural
markets, and this can potentially worsen the state of food and nutrition security for many
nations in the coming years [1].
Food insecurity and hunger are on the rise in Nigeria. In January 2023, the United
Children Fund (UNICEF) projected that 25 million Nigerians are at risk of experiencing
hunger by the third quarter of 2023. This revealed an increase of about 8 million in hunger
from the 2022 estimates [4]. Nigeria ranked 107th out of 113 countries and 25th out of 28
sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) countries with a GFSI score of 42/100 in the GFSI 2022 [3,5]. Also,
in the 2022 Global Hunger index (GHI), Nigeria ranked 103rd out of 121 countries, scoring
27.3/100. This indicates a serious level of hunger and suggests that Nigeria is not on track
to achieve the Sustainable Development Goal 2 (SDG2) target by 2030 [5,6].
X-raying the food security environment in Nigeria, as reported in the GFSI 2022 under
the four pillars for food security (Figure 1), indicated that Nigeria had the lowest score (25/100)
globally on the affordability category. In the availability category, Nigeria ranked 108th
globally and 26th in the region. The report showed that the very weak performance score
(39.5) was a result of the “very weak” (0–39.9) scores obtained in certain indicators, such as
agricultural research and development (30.7/100), supply-chain infrastructure (23.9/100),
sufficiency of supply (25.5/100), political and social barriers to access (31.6/100), and food
security and access policy commitments (0/100) [3].
Figure 1. Authors’ graph using data from the Global Food Security Index, 2022.
Food security (according to the United Nations definition) is referred to as “People
having at all times, physical, social and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious
food which meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life”
[7]. The term “food insecurity” simply refers to the opposite of food security, where
conditions of food security are not met, and it can be broadly conceptualized along a range
from mild to severe [8]. The definition contains four widely established pillars of food
security, namely: availability, accessibility, utilization, and stability. The four pillars are
important in understanding food security at any level, such as regional, household, and
individual levels [9–15].
Generally, conditions that expose people to FI and hunger include extreme poverty,
unemployment, corruption, unstable food access, ill health, non-existent social protection
programmes, and terrorism [8,14–19]. FI is not only experienced in developing nations, as
developed nations are also affected. In Australia, for instance, over 2 million households
were affected by severe FI in 2022 [20], while in the United States of America (USA), an
estimated 14.8% of children resided in food-insecure households [8,21]. It is generally
believed that FI risk is unevenly distributed. The most vulnerable groups, such as children,
women, the elderly, and internally displaced people (IDPs), usually suffer higher levels of
Figure 1. Authors’ graph using data from the Global Food Security Index, 2022.
Food security (according to the United Nations definition) is referred to as “People
having at all times, physical, social and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious
food which meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life” [7].
The term “food insecurity” simply refers to the opposite of food security, where conditions
of food security are not met, and it can be broadly conceptualized along a range from
mild to severe [8]. The definition contains four widely established pillars of food security,
namely: availability, accessibility, utilization, and stability. The four pillars are important
in understanding food security at any level, such as regional, household, and individual
levels [9–15].
Generally, conditions that expose people to FI and hunger include extreme poverty,
unemployment, corruption, unstable food access, ill health, non-existent social protection
programmes, and terrorism [8,14–19]. FI is not only experienced in developing nations, as
developed nations are also affected. In Australia, for instance, over 2 million households
were affected by severe FI in 2022 [20], while in the United States of America (USA), an
estimated 14.8% of children resided in food-insecure households [8,21]. It is generally
believed that FI risk is unevenly distributed. The most vulnerable groups, such as children,
women, the elderly, and internally displaced people (IDPs), usually suffer higher levels of

Agriculture 2023, 13, 1873 3 of 38
FI [8,19,22–25]. FI may be momentary in nature, given the possibility of households slip-
ping into and coming out of FI in response to evolving situations, supporting the idea that
FI is best conceptualized as a dynamic phenomenon rather than a fixed construct [15,26–29].
In consideration of the weighty possible implications of FI, comprehending the methods
employed by researchers to study FI, and the results obtained, are instrumental in designing
food- and nutrition-sensitive policies and their implementation. About two and a half
decades ago, many researchers carried out FI research in Nigeria, utilizing various measur-
ing tools like their counterparts in other parts of the world. Several approaches have been
established to study FI across global, national, and household/individual domains [11].
About three decades ago, FI measurement tools were used to assess economic access to food,
using, for instance, household income or the Household Consumption and Expenditure
Survey (HCES) as proxies for food security, although the measures did not capture the expe-
riences of households accessing food or the strategies employed in coping with insufficient
food access. To overcome this limitation, the Radimer/Cornell scale (experience-based)
was created [30]. In most cases, other experience-based approaches that were developed
from [30] hinged on three central themes: “anxiety/uncertainty over running out of food,
concerns over and adjustments to the quality, and quantity of food in the diet” [8,30].
The tools used different recall periods (30-day, 12 months) where the gravity of FI is in
relation to the quantity of agreeable answers, with a higher number revealing extreme
conditions [8,30]. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Household Food
Security Survey Module (HFSSM) is another approach commonly used in US-based studies
for measuring FI, and it has been extensively adopted in many other countries. The module
contains a lineup of questions (18 items) developed from the collective insights of FI at the
household level, and it is executed through a survey-based measurement, usually within
the timeframe of the prior 12 months. The findings may be presented as an unbroken
continuum of severity, or by applying cutoff levels to assign households to four specific
categories. In the absence of children, the module utilizes 10-item questions. It is crucial
to highlight that HFFSSM adopts a flexible scoring system instead of a strict numerical
threshold for classifying households [8,15,31,32].
The Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS), created by the Food and Nu-
trition Technical Assistance Project (FANTA), is also another FI measuring tool that has
been tested and approved in various countries and widely used across the globe [33]. The
module utilizes nine-item questions, which centre on the household food access experience
within a 30-day recall. The households are categorized into four categories depending on
the severity experienced, from food secure to varying levels of FI [33]. The Food Insecurity
Experience Scale (FIES), developed by the FAO, is the most recent tool used in measuring
FI. The FIES utilizes eight-item questions, which relate to occurrences during the preceding
12 months. This approach prioritizes the subjective experiences shared by the interviewed
individuals and downplays the role of money in food access [8,34,35]. In contrast to the
HFIAS and HFSSM, the FIES measures individual FI and has been extensively utilized
in the assessment of FI [8,15,34–41]. The food insecurity index is another construct for
estimating household FI through the mean of per capita household food expenditure
(MPCHFE). In this method, the line of household food security is established at two thirds
of the MPCHFE; while households are food secure if their MPCHFE surpasses the food
security line, they are classified as food insecure if they fall below it. The approach is
commonly utilized in African studies; for instance, in Nigeria and Ethiopia [42–46]. An-
other approach to estimating household FI involves investigating the food security status
of each household by comparing their food consumption against the established food
security threshold using the recommended daily calorie requirement. The households
satisfying or surpassing the recommended daily calorie intake (1800–2710 Kcal in most
studies) are categorized as food-secure households while those households that fall below
the threshold are grouped as food insecure [47–50]. The use of the Food Consumption
Score (FCS) is another key performance measure created by the World Food Programme
(WFP) for assessing the occurrence of FI in a country or region (WFP 2007; Jones et al. 2013).

Agriculture 2023, 13, 1873 4 of 38
It is significantly guided by the knowledge of how dietary diversity and household food
access are interconnected. This approach uses 7-day recall, while the study participants
report on the consistency of the household consumption of eight food groups. The food
consumption recurrence of each food group is then multiplied by an assigned weight for
each group, while the values derived are added together to obtain the FCS. This score is
then transcribed to a discrete variable using standard cutoff values [11,51]. This approach is
not widely utilized by researchers in various countries or regions, unlike HFFIAS, HFSSM,
and FIES. Taking into account the extensive body of academic literature and research that
has explored FI over some decades, it is noteworthy that there are systematic reviews (SRs)
on food (in)security in different countries and regions, but those that focus on assessing and
quantifying FI in Nigeria are quite scarce. For instance, there exist SRs of the literature on
the understanding and measurement of FI in Australia [15], the associated factors of FI in
older adults in the USA [52], the FI studies in South Africa, which point out opportunities
for enriching policy insights [53], and the effects of agricultural interventions on food
security in northern Ghana [54]. At the regional level, [55] explored a descriptive SR on
FI and health outcomes in Southern Africa, while [56] reviewed the interconnectedness
of household FI, dietary diversity, and stunting in SSA. This study is the first SR that is
devoted to investigating food security research in Nigeria. The approaches utilized by re-
searchers are similar to those in other parts of the world, employing various methods, such
as HFIAS, HFSSM, and FIES (the most recent), to estimate FI [19,41,57]. While some studies
utilized researchers’ constructs, others modified or adapted approaches from standardized
measures, especially the HFSSM, leading to one-item and three-item questions [58–61].
However, inconsistencies in measuring FI are likely to impact the reported occurrence,
which affects food- and nutrition-sensitive policy development. The purpose of this re-
view is to systematically assess the scientific research papers that claim to examine FI in
Nigeria; explore the diversity of scholarly investigations, with their measurement tools in
Nigeria; and present a broad picture of the gravity of FI in Nigeria as highlighted in these
scholarly articles.
2. Methods
A systematic exploration was embarked upon to find all of the research works carried
out in Nigeria on food (in)security. The key search terms were “food insecurity” OR “food
security” OR “food availability” OR “food utilisation” OR “food access” AND “Nigeria.”
The searched databases included PubMed, the Lens database (https://www.lens.org/
(accessed on 25 July 2023)), and SCOPUS. In order to gain a full collection of scholarly
papers that reported on FI in Nigeria, no restrictions were placed on the date of publication.
However, only scholarly papers published in English were considered, while research
documents, such as unpublished articles, books, book chapters, conference abstracts,
encyclopedias, theses, dissertations, editorials, and reviews, were debarred. All identified
scholarly papers were downloaded into EndNote X7.
The literature search identified 1783 studies, out of which 853 were duplicates. The
titles and abstracts of the remaining 930 studies (original research papers) were read
consciously, while 708 studies were found not referring directly or indirectly to FI research
in Nigeria, resulting in 222 studies left for another stage of assessment. However, only
studies with full-text access were reviewed. Publications that failed to meet the inclusion
criteria were removed at this stage, while others that may meet the criteria for another
level of investigation were kept for further examination. The full texts of 222 studies were
obtained for another level of assessment. The authors individually read all of the articles
at this stage and determined if each publication would be retained based on the inclusion
criteria. Out of the 222 studies, 124 were removed for not meeting the inclusion criteria
upon closer assessment. Meanwhile, 19 additional articles (to give a total of 143 studies)
were removed as a result of no identifiable method of measuring FI and no record of FI
prevalence rate in the studies (for instance, [62–65]). Furthermore, the reference lists of
articles were equally checked in case there might be studies that met the inclusion criteria.

Agriculture 2023, 13, 1873 5 of 38
However, this search did not yield any additional articles. Only 79 studies have been
included in this review, as presented in Figure 2. In this stage, information drawn from
these studies includes the location of the study; the population group; the study focus; the
findings; the primary method; the measured FI; the method for assessing FI; FI prevalence;
and the number of respondents.
group; the study focus; the findings; the primary method; the measured FI; the method for
assessing FI; FI prevalence; and the number of respondents.
Figure 2. Flowchart of studies that met the search criteria, and the total number of studies included
for review.
3. Results
The brief snapshot of the key insights obtained from the 79 included studies is presented
in Table 1 below.
Figure 2. Flowchart of studies that met the search criteria, and the total number of studies included
for review.
3. Results
The brief snapshot of the key insights obtained from the 79 included studies is pre-
sented in Table 1 below.

Agriculture 2023, 13, 1873 6 of 38
Table 1. Snapshot of the key insights obtained from the 79 scholarly articles included in this review.
Reference Location
Population
Group
Study Aim Findings Primary Method
Method for
Assessing FI
FI Prevalence Respondents
[57]
Oyo and Lagos
states
School-going
children in Lagos
and Ibadan
To delineate the food
security status of
households headed by
teachers in public and
private schools
The prevalence of food
security (26%) in
teachers’ households in
Lagos and Ibadan was
low, while the food
security level of
households in Lagos
was better than those
in Ibadan
Survey
(Cross-sectional)
USDA 18 Question
Households Food
Security Module
(HFSSM)
76.3% (Ibadan);
72% (Lagos)
482 households
[62] Borno state Rural households
The study examined
and analyzed the food
security status of rural
households in
Borno state
The results indicated
that a FI line of NGN
23,700.12 or USD 176.87
per adult equivalent per
year was obtained
among households in
the state
Survey
(Cross-sectional)
Recommended
daily energy level
approach
(2250 Kcal)
58.0% 1200 households
[47] Kwara state
12 villages of rural
farm households
To investigate the
socioeconomic
attributes and
correlates of FI of
rural farming
households
About 36% of the farm
households were food
secure while 64% were
food insecure.
Thirty-eight percent of
the food-insecure
households did not
meet the recommended
calorie intake
Survey
(Cross-sectional)
Recommended
daily calorie
required approach
(2260 Kcal)
38.0%
94 rural farm
households
[66] Lagos state
Professionals,
artisans, traders,
and unemployed
To analyze the food
security situation
among urban
households in Kosofe
LGA of Lagos state
The study indicated that
FI was higher in FHHs
than in MHHs. The
study also reported that
FI reduces when the
education level goes up
Survey
(Cross-sectional)
Food security
Index: Per capita
food expenditure
(food security
line = N7, 967.19)
Professional (55%);
Artisan (19%);
traders (22%);
unemployed (4%).
165 urban
households

Agriculture 2023, 13, 1873 7 of 38
Table 1. Cont.
Reference Location
Population
Group
Method for
Assessing FI
[67] Ekiti state
16 villages
of farming
households in two
Agricultural
Development
Project zones
To investigate food
security situations
among rural farm
households in
Ekiti state
The study reported
12.2% food secure and
87.8% food insecure
farm households in the
study area. Also,
cassava, yam, and their
products were found to
contribute greatly to the
food security status of
the farming households
Survey
(Cross-sectional)
USDA
16-Question
HFSSM approach
87.8%
160 farm
households
[68] Nassarawa state
15 farming
communities in
3 LGAs
To determine food
security status and the
optimal farm plan of
farming households in
3 LGAs of
Nassarawa state
The study revealed
58.9% FI among farming
households. Also,
maize, yam, and
cassava were identified
as significant food
security crops among
farm households
Survey
(Cross-sectional)
Recommended
daily per capita
calorie intake of
2470 Kcal
58.9%
180 farm
households
[69] Abuja
Urban households
in three wards
(Quarters, Central,
and Kuttunku)
To assess the food
security status of
urban households
in FCT
The study reported that
70% of urban
secure, while 30% were
food insecure
Survey
(Cross-sectional)
Food security
scale and
frequency counts
(developed by
Freedom from
Hunger (FFH))
30.0%
120 urban
households.
[70] Osun state
Ife Central LGA
(rural and urban
settlements)
To assess the influence
of family size,
household food
security status, and
childcare practices on
the nutritional status
of under-5 children in
Ile-Ife, Nigeria
Under-5 children in
food-insecure
households were
5 times more likely to
be wasted than in
food-secure households
Survey
(Cross-sectional)
18-item HFSSM
approach
65.0%
423 (Under-five
chil-
dren/mothers)

Agriculture 2023, 13, 1873 8 of 38
Table 1. Cont.
Reference Location
Population
Group
Method for
Assessing FI
[71] Kwara state
40 villages in 8
LGAs of
Kwara state
To examine the effect
of off-farm income on
household calorie and
micronutrient supply,
dietary quality, and
child anthropometry
off-farm income had a
positive net effect on
food security
and nutrition.
Survey
(Cross-sectional)
Recommended
daily calorie
required approach
(2500 Kcal)
N/A 220 households
[72] Oyo state
One LGA
(Ogbomoso South)
of Oyo state.
Participants and
non-participants
in development
programmes
To assess rural
women’s participation
in development
programmes and their
food security status
93% of the respondents
were aware of the
development
programmes while
23.6%, 60.9%, and 15.5%
indicated high, average,
and low levels of
participation,
respectively
Survey, focus
group discussion
(FGD)
Household Food
Insecurity Access
Scale (HFIAS)
Approach
52.7% 110 respondents
[73] Delta state
8 communities in
Warri, Delta state
To investigate food
insecurity incidence in
an “oil city” of
Warri, Nigeria
The study revealed that
food insecurity
incidence decreases as
the level of income
increases. Also,
household size had a
direct relationship with
food insecurity
incidence
Survey
(Cross-sectional)
Food Insecurity
Index (per capita
food expenditure)
Approach
(food security
line = N10, 704.27)
Oil workers (42%);
traders (23%); civil
servants (23%);
unemployed (6%).
260 households
[74] Edo state Egor LGA
To assess food
insecurity situations
in Egor LGA of
Edo state
Food insecurity was
higher among
female-headed
households (FHHs) and
those with larger
household sizes
Survey
(Cross-sectional)
HFIAS approach 61.8% 416 households

Agriculture 2023, 13, 1873 9 of 38
Table 1. Cont.
Reference Location
Population
Group
Method for
Assessing FI
[75]
Ado-Ekiti,
Ekiti state
5 political wards
in 10 streets
of Ekiti
To investigate food
insecurity and coping
strategies in Ado-Ekiti,
Ekiti state, Nigeria
The overall food
insecurity status of the
households was 58.8%,
while the depth of food
insecurity (expressed as
the average percent
increase in calories
required to meet the
recommended daily
requirement) was 19.5%
Survey
(Cross-sectional)
Recommended
daily calorie
required approach
(2550 Kcal)
58.8%
80 households,
321 members
[76] Ogun state
3 senatorial
districts in
Ogun state
To assess coping
strategies for food
security among the
elderly in Ogun
state, Nigeria
88% of the participants
were food secured. The
coping strategies
reported were the use of
cooperatives, banks,
and daily
money savings
Survey
(Cross-sectional)
Assessing food
habit
12% 310 participants
[77] Lagos state
3 LGAs based on
income groups:
Ikoyi (high
income), Surulere
(middle income),
and Agege
(low income)
To assess the
prevalence of food
insecurity and the
level of household
food access in the
Lagos metropolis
households in the Lagos
metropolis had
adequate food access
with an HFIAS score of
6.45 ± 0.41 (harvest
period) and that it
worsened significantly
to mean food access of
12.44 ± 0.45 during the
hunger period
Survey
(Cross-sectional)
HFIAS approach
Low-income
group (50.8%);
Middle income
(51.7%); High
income (27.5%)
180 households

Agriculture 2023, 13, 1873 10 of 38
Table 1. Cont.
Reference Location
Population
Group
Method for
Assessing FI
[78] Oyo state
2 LGAs in Ibadan;
Ibadan North
West and Ibadan
South West
To examine gender
role attitudes as they
affect food insecurity
in the Ibadan
Metropolis
the pattern of gender
role attitude is
quasi-traditional, while
an egalitarian
disposition to gender
roles is yet to be firmly
rooted, and food
insecurity is still a
plague among women
Survey
(Cross-sectional)
The 4-item
women’s hunger
sub-scale
[79]
Ondo and
Ogun states
8 LGAs
comprising
24 communities in
the two states
To examine off-farm
activity participation,
technology adoption,
and impact on the
Nigerian farming
households
the impact of improved
technology adoption on
the food insecurity level
of adopters with
off-farm activity was
higher than their
counterparts without
participation
Survey
(Cross-sectional)
Food Insecurity
Index (per capita
food expenditure)
Approach (food
security line =
NGN 20,132.22)
50.7% (technology
adopters); and
56.3% (technology
non-adopters).
482 households
[49] Osun state
Three agricultural
zones, namely:
Osogbo, Iwo, and
Ife/Ijesha
To investigate the
households in Osun
state of Nigeria
most of the households
fell below the
recommended daily per
capita calorie intake,
with a food insecurity
gap of 0.0038
Survey
(Cross-sectional)
Recommended
daily calorie
required approach
(2710 Kcal)
54% 150 households
[80] Enugu state
3 rural
communities in
the Nsukka LGA
To investigate
household nutrition
and food security in a
rural community of
the Nsukka Local
Government Area
(LGA) of Enugu
state, Nigeria
About 43% were
subsistence farmers,
and 27% depended on
borrowing food items to
cope with nutritional
and food security
challenges
Survey
(Cross-sectional)
USDA FSSM
Approach
93.5%
263 households
with 87 under-five
children

Agriculture 2023, 13, 1873 11 of 38
Table 1. Cont.
Reference Location
Population
Group
Method for
Assessing FI
[48] Oyo state
Rural maize farm
households in Oyo
and Shaki
To examine the effects
of maize biodiversity
on the household food
maize farm
households in the
Southern Guinea
Savannah of Oyo
state, Nigeria
food security headcount
increases with maize
richness, cultivar
evenness, and
relative abundance
Survey
(Cross-sectional)
Recommended
daily calorie
required approach
(2260 Kcal)
[81] Ondo state
Maize farming
households in
44 villages
To assess ICT usage
and household food
security status of
maize crop farmers in
Ondo state, Nigeria.
cell phones, radio, and
television were the most
available ICT tools for
accessing information
on food security
dimensions
Survey
(Cross-sectional)
HFIAS Approach 52.4% 212 rural farmers
[82] Anambra state
4 rural LGAs,
namely:
Anyamelum,
Ogbaru, Anambra
West, and
Anambra East
LGAs
To examine gender
perspectives of the
implications of the
severe 2012 flood on
household food
security in rural
Anambra state
The study reported a
higher level of food
insecurity in both
male-headed and
female-headed
households after the
2012 flood incident in
the study area
Survey
(Cross-sectional);
FGD
Food Security
Index Approach
(3-item question)
Before the flood:
FHH, 11%;
male-headed
households
(MHHs), 16%.
After flood: FHH,
78%; MHH, 66%.
240 households
(120 [MHHs] and
120 [FHHs])
[83] Edo state
3 LGAs in 15 rural
communities
To examine rural
households’ food
security status and
coping strategies in
Edo state
less than half (47.3%) of
the rural households
were classified as
food secure
Survey
(Cross-sectional);
FGD
Recommended
daily calorie
required approach
(2100 Kcal)
52.7%
150 rural
households

Agriculture 2023, 13, 1873 12 of 38
Table 1. Cont.
Reference Location
Population
Group
Method for
Assessing FI
[59] Abia state
Three autonomous
communities,
namely: Akanu
Ukwu, Okamu,
and Isiama
in Ohafia
To examine gender
roles, family
relationships, food
security, and the
nutritional status of
households in Ohafia
65.5% of the households
were said to experience
little or no hunger,
whereas 33.8%
experienced moderate
hunger, and 0.7% had
severe hunger
Survey
(Cross-sectional);
FGD
Household
Hunger Scale
(HHS); dietary
diversity score
[84] Ogun state
People living with
HIV in Sagamu
To determine the
prevalence of
household food
insecurity and its
associated factors
among people living
with HIV in Sagamu,
Ogun state
food insecurity was
associated with major
predictors, such as
educational status,
occupation, type of
housing, delaying drugs
to prevent hunger, and
exchanging sex for food
Survey
(Cross-sectional)
HFIAS Approach 71.7%
244 adult
participants
[85] Nigeria
Polygynous family
structures
To explore the
relationship between
polygyny (man
marrying more than
one wife) and food
security in Nigeria
at the household level,
polygynous households
are found to have better
food security outcomes
than monogamous
households
Survey (secondary
General
Household Survey
panel data)
Food consumption
score; reduced
coping strategies
index (RCSI)
N/A 5000 households
[86] Oyo state
Households in the
Ibadan Metropolis
To determine the
correlates of food
insecurity of
households in Ibadan
Metropolis
the estimated food
insecurity line was
NGN 1948.82
Survey
(Cross-sectional)
Food Insecurity
Index (per capita
food expenditure)
Approach
(food security
line = NGN
1948.82)

Agriculture 2023, 13, 1873 13 of 38
Table 1. Cont.
Reference Location
Population
Group
Method for
Assessing FI
[87]
Oyo and Ogun
state
5 LGAs in Oyo
and 4 LGAs
in Ogun
To determine food
insecurity risk
perception and
management
strategies among
households in Ogun
and Oyo states
The findings indicated
that the majority of the
households (87.6%)
manifested various
forms of food
insecurity risks
Survey
(Cross-sectional)
Assessing food
insecurity risks
[88] Kaduna state
Urban farmers in
Kaduna North,
Kaduna South,
Jema’a, Zaria, and
Sabon Gari LGAs
To investigate food
security and
productivity among
urban farmers in
Kaduna state
The results revealed
that 54.5% of the
insecure, while the
average daily per capita
calorie intake for
food-secure households
was 5516.28 kcal
Survey
(Cross-sectional)
Recommended
daily calorie
required approach
(2250 kcal)
54.5%
213 urban
households
[89] Gombe state
Farming
households in 8
villages in
Southern Gombe
To determine food
access status among
the southern part of
Gombe state
The findings showed
that about 27 percent of
the farming households
were food secure,
35 percent were mildly
food insecure,
18.3 percent were
moderately food
insecure, and 20 percent
were severely food
insecure
Survey
(Cross-sectional)
HFIAS Approach 73.5% 120 households

Agriculture 2023, 13, 1873 14 of 38
Table 1. Cont.
Reference Location
Population
Group
Method for
Assessing FI
[90]
Four undisclosed
states
MicroVeg projects
beneficiaries
To examine factors
influencing household
food security amongst
MicroVeg project
beneficiaries
in Nigeria
The findings revealed
that household
composition (more
specifically, the ratio of
male members in the
active working age
bracket) was found to
influence food security
among households
Survey
(Cross-sectional)
[91] Lagos state
Urban households
in Shomolu LGAs
To assess the level of
food security among
urban households in
Shomolu LGA,
Lagos state
The results showed that
food insecurity was
found to be positively
associated with
indicators of poverty
among urban
households
Survey
(Cross-sectional)
[92] Kwara state
Farm households
in 20 villages.
To assess the effect of
sustainable land
management (SLM)
technologies on
farming households’
food security in
Kwara state
to reduce the effect of
food insecurity, the
effective coping
strategies adopted by
the households include
a reduction in the
quantity and quality of
food consumed,
off-farm jobs, and the
use of money proposed
for other purposes to
buy foods
Survey
(Cross-sectional)
Food Insecurity
Index (per capita
food expenditure)
Approach (food
security
line = NGN
4219.787)

Agriculture 2023, 13, 1873 15 of 38
Table 1. Cont.
Reference Location
Population
Group
Method for
Assessing FI
[93] Ogun state
Rural community
of Ode-Remo
To assess food security
and dietary diversity
among adults in a
rural community in
Remo, Ogun state
only 43.6 per cent of the
respondents were food
secure, while 43.4 per
cent were severely food
insecure, 30.3 per cent
were moderately food
insecure, and 26.3 per
cent were mildly
food insecure
Survey
(Cross-sectional)
HFIAS Approach 56.4% 134 adults
[94]
Enugu and
Imo states
Undergraduate
students of
2 universities in
Enugu and Imo
states
To assess the
prevalence of food
insecurity and
associated factors
among university
students among
students in Enugu
and Imo states
The study found that
food insecurity was
significantly associated
with monthly
allowance, daily
amount spent on food,
and source of income
Survey
(Cross-sectional)
10-item USDA
HFSSM Approach
80.7%
398 university
students
[95]
Osun and
Oyo states
Working poor
households in
6 towns in both
Ogun and Oyo
states
To examine the factors
influencing the food
insecurity status of the
working poor
households in
southwest Nigeria
The study showed that
more than half of the
respondents were
working poor
households, with more
than four fifths of them
being food insecure
Survey
(Cross-sectional)
HFIAS Approach
Working poor:
severely food
insecure (85.7%).
Working non-poor:
severely food
insecure (12.3%)
284 households
[96]
Anambra and
Imo states
Households that
have experienced
flooding in Imo
and Anambra
states
To assess the pre- and
post-flood households’
food security status in
southeastern Nigeria
flooding affects food
security negatively by
increasing the number
of food-insecure
households to 92.8%
Survey
(Cross-sectional)
USDA HFSSM
Approach
Before flood:
66.7%; After flood:
92.8%
400 households

Agriculture 2023, 13, 1873 16 of 38
Table 1. Cont.
Reference Location
Population
Group
Method for
Assessing FI
[97]
Anambra, Enugu,
and Ebonyi
Crop and livestock
farming
households
To assess the
livelihood strategies
adopted by husbands
and wives within the
same households for
coping with
climate-induced
food insecurity in
southeast Nigeria
that 90% of the wives
were more food
insecure than their
husbands (79.2%). The
respondents noted that
the observed changes in
the climate contributed
immensely to their food
insecurity situation
Survey
(Cross-sectional);
FGD; key
informant
interviews (KIIs)
USDA HFSSM
Approach
Wives: 90%;
Husbands, 79.2%
120 pairs of
spouses (husbands
and wives)
[50] Benue state
Rural farming
households in
6 LGAs of Benue
state
To assess the food
Benue state
that 49.7% of the rural
farming households
acquired 2100 Kcal and
above per capita per
day and were, therefore,
classified as food secure
Survey
(Cross-sectional)
Recommended
daily calorie
required approach
(2100 kcal)
56.9%
360 rural
households
[98] Nigeria
Male-headed and
female-headed
households
To investigate food
(in)security and
poverty dynamics
amongst male-headed
and female-headed
households in Nigeria
female-headed families
are more vulnerable to
higher incidences of
food insecurity than
male-headed
households, and with
an overall significant
urban food security
advantage compared to
rural areas
General
Household Survey
(GHS)
cross-sectional
panel data
12 months and
7 days recall of
food shortages or
inadequacy
MHHs:
2010—National
(28.2%)
2012—National
(25.0%)
FHHs:
2010—National
(34.6%)
2012—National
(43.0%)
5198 households

Agriculture 2023, 13, 1873 17 of 38
Table 1. Cont.
Reference Location
Population
Group
Method for
Assessing FI
[99]
Abuja; Abia and
Enugu; Rivers;
Ogun and Oyo
Cassava farming
households
To investigate the
effects of social capital
on the food security of
cassava farming
households
that membership
density, cash, and
labour contribution
significantly affected
food security in the
study areas
Survey
(Cross-sectional)
Food Insecurity
Index (per capita
food expenditure)
Approach
[39] Ogun state
Households in
Odeda LGA of
Abeokuta
To assess the
household food
insecurity status and
coping strategies in
Abeokuta, Ogun state
that only 15.6% of the
secure, while the
majority (84.4%) of
respondents were food
insecure
Survey
(Cross-sectional)
Food Insecurity
Experience Scale
(FIES)
[100]
Kaduna and
Kebbi; Niger and
Nassarawa;
Taraba states
Maize farmers
To analyze the effect
of adopting six
Agricultural Practices
with CSA Potentials
(AP-CSAPs) on the
maize farmers from
northern Nigeria
37.0% of the farm
insecure, while
adoption of the
AP-CSAPs was
generally low
Survey
(Cross-sectional)
USDA HFSSM
Approach
[101] Enugu state
Female-headed
farming
households
To examine the food
security situation of
female-headed
households in Enugu
state, Nigeria
This study revealed that
poverty was found to be
a major cause of food
insecurity among
female-headed
households
Survey
(Cross-sectional)
Perception of food
security situation
(using monthly
food expenditure)
in comparison to
that of last year
(2018)
Much worse,
25.7%; A little
worse now, 47.0%;
same, 14.3%;
72 FHHs
[102] Borno state
School-aged
adolescent girls
To determine the level
of food security and
hygiene among
adolescent girls in the
study area
The study revealed a
high prevalence of low
food security among
adolescent girls
Survey
(Cross-sectional)
9-question food
security
questionnaire
92.7%
562 school-aged
adolescent girls

Agriculture 2023, 13, 1873 18 of 38
Table 1. Cont.
Reference Location
Population
Group
Method for
Assessing FI
[103] Kaduna state
Smallholder
households
To examine the effect
of smallholder
socioeconomic
characteristics on
farming households’
food security in
northern Nigeria
that the majority of
households had low
incomes and low
educational attainment,
which usually affects
food security
Survey
(Cross-sectional)
Income level,
education
attainment, and
government policy
[104] Nigeria
Households in
rural and urban
Nigeria
To investigate the
effects of non-seasonal
food price volatility
on household food
security in Nigeria
that imported rice price
increases are damaging
to both dietary diversity
and the food share of
consumption
expenditure
General
Household Survey
(GHS)
cross-sectional
panel data
HDDS and share
of food in total
household
expenditure
[105] Anambra state
Households living
in Ukpo, Ichida,
and Awka
To examine food
security status,
associated factors, and
coping strategies
employed by
households in
Anambra state
that large households
and those whose
mothers had only
primary or secondary
education were more
likely to be
food insecure
Survey
(Cross-sectional)
USDA HFSSM
Approach
[106] Nigeria
Households in
rural and urban
Nigeria
To examine the food
security status of
households during the
COVID-19 pandemic
in Nigeria
that 12% of the
secure, with 88% in
varying degrees of
food insecurity
Secondary data:
COVID-19
National
Longitudinal
Phone Survey
(COVID-19 NLPS)
FAO’s FIES
Approach

Agriculture 2023, 13, 1873 19 of 38
Table 1. Cont.
Reference Location
Population
Group
Method for
Assessing FI
[107] Enugu state
Households in
Enugu
To determine the food
security status and its
predictors among
households in
Enugu state
major factors
influencing the food
security status of
households include
wealth index and
cooperative society
membership
Survey
(Cross-sectional)
Adapted freedom
from hunger or
food security scale
[108] 16 states
Smallholder maize
and rice farming
households in
192 communities
To examine the roles
of women’s
empowerment and
how land tenure
property rights
(LTPRs) influence
household food
security among
farmers in Nigeria
The findings showed
that households that
have a share of
farmland on purchase
and who also
participate in off-farm
activities are likely to be
food secure
Survey
(Cross-sectional)
USDA 18-question
HFSSM Approach
[109] 7 northern states
Farmers in
84 rice-growing
communities
To examine LTPRs
among smallholder
rice farmers in
northern Nigeria and
their influence on
household food
security.
that land titling is not
endogenous in the
estimated models, and
that household food
security is largely
enhanced with an
increase in shares of
freehold and leasehold
in the households’
farmlands
Survey
(Cross-sectional)
USDA 18-question
HFSSM Approach
73.9% 547 farmers

Agriculture 2023, 13, 1873 20 of 38
Table 1. Cont.
Reference Location
Population
Group
Method for
Assessing FI
[29] Nigeria
Rural households
in Nigeria
To assess the
dynamics of food
insecurity among
rural households in
Nigeria using
panel data
that 44% of households
that were food secure in
the first panel transited
into food insecurity in
the second panel, while
32.5% that were mildly
food insecure transited
into food security
General
Household Survey
(GHS)
cross-sectional
panel data
3022 rural
households
[110] Nigeria
Rural households
in Nigeria
To assess the
dynamics of food
insecurity among
households in rural
Nigeria
food insecurity status
increased with large
family size, dependency
ratio, being
female-headed, and
ageing household heads
General
Household Survey
(GHS)
cross-sectional
panel data
HFIAS Approach
First panel: 36.9%;
Second panel:
53.5%
3022 rural
households
[46] Ogun state Maize farmers
To assess food security
and its drivers among
maize farming
households in
Ogun state
The study showed
23.2% food insecurity,
while 5.5% and 1.8% of
households were found
to have depth and
severity of food
insecurity, respectively
Survey
(Cross-sectional)
Food Insecurity
Index (per capita
food expenditure)
Approach (food
security
line = NGN
2643.66)
[111] Oyo state
Cassava farming
households
To assess food
insecurity among
rural Oyo state
that 12.8% of the
farming households
were food secure, while
87.2% had varying
levels of food insecurity
Survey
(Cross-sectional)

Agriculture 2023, 13, 1873 21 of 38
Table 1. Cont.
Reference Location
Population
Group
Method for
Assessing FI
[112] Oyo state
Households
having under-5
children in Ibadan
To evaluate household
food security and
nutritional status of
under-5 children in
Ibadan, southwestern
Nigeria
even though
households may be
above the severe hunger
status, the quality of the
diet may be insufficient
to provide needed
nutrition for the health
security of household
members, especially
under-5 children
Survey
(Cross-sectional)
707 households
(Mothers with
under-five
children
[113] Nigeria Adult Nigerians
To identify factors
associated with
financial insecurity,
food insecurity, and
poor quality of daily
lives of adults in
Nigeria during the
first wave of the
COVID-19 pandemic
2487 (56.0%) were
financially insecure,
907 (20.4%) had
decreased food intake,
and 4029 (90.8%) had
their daily life
negatively impacted
Online survey
(Cross-sectional)
Food intake 90.8% 4439 households
[40] Nigeria
Rural and urban
Nigerian adults
To assess the impact
of the COVID-19
lockdown on
economic and
behavioural patterns
related to food access.
even though smaller
households had higher
food expenditure claims
than larger households,
the larger the
household, the more
serious the challenge of
economic access to food
Online survey
(Cross-sectional)
FIES Approach 42.3% 883 households

Agriculture 2023, 13, 1873 22 of 38
Table 1. Cont.
Reference Location
Population
Group
Method for
Assessing FI
[114] Kwara state
Farming
households
To evaluate the effect
of climate-smart
agricultural practices
(CSAP) on the food
security of farming
households in the
Kwara state
The results revealed that
crop rotation is the most
used CSAP in the study
area, and that 16.7% of
the respondents are low
users, 53.33% medium
users, and 30% high
users of CSAP
Survey
(Cross-sectional)
Food Insecurity
Index (per capita
food expenditure)
Approach
41.1%
90 farming
households
[115]
Gombe and Osun
states
6–19-year-old
school-aged
children
To assess the
associations between
household food
insecurity, dietary
diversity, and dietary
patterns with the
double burden of
malnutrition
that the median dietary
diversity score was 7.0.
Two dietary patterns
(DPs) were identified.
Traditional DP was
significantly associated
with both thinness and
overweight/obesity
Survey
(Cross-sectional)
HFIAS Approach 47.3% 1200 participants
[116] Plateau state
Households in
3 communities of
Langai district
To assess the level of
food security and its
sociodemographic
determinants among
rural households
significant predictors of
household food security
include women earning
more than the basic
monthly wage, those
without marital
partners, smaller
household sizes, and
those not receiving
financial support
Survey
(Cross-sectional)
Food
Consumption
Scores (FCS)

Agriculture 2023, 13, 1873 23 of 38
Table 1. Cont.
Reference Location
Population
Group
Method for
Assessing FI
[117] Nigeria
Nigerian
households
To examine the
interrelationship
among gender,
empowerment, and
households’ food
security status
in Nigeria
that the level of
empowerment is
generally low in Nigeria
(21.63%), but it is much
worse among the female
gender (11.78%)
Secondary data: a
cross-sectional
dataset from the
2018/2019 Living
Standard
Measurement
Survey
Dietary diversity
score
[60] Nigeria
Nigerian
households
To examine perceived
changes in food
security as well as
finances and revenue
of rural and urban
households during the
Covid-19 pandemic
in Nigeria
the COVID-19
pandemic has worsened
the food security
situation of both rural
and urban households
and that it has also
adversely affected rural
and urban household
finances
Secondary data:
Nigeria COVID-19
National
Longitudinal
Phone Survey
3-question
household food
insecurity
83.0% (urban);
78.0% (rural)
1950 households
[61] Nigeria
18 years and
above adults
To assess if there were
significant differences
in the adoption of
COVID-19
risk-preventive
behaviours and
experiences of food
insecurity of people
living with and
without HIV
in Nigeria
that, in comparison
with those living
without HIV, PLWH
had higher odds of
cutting meal sizes as a
food security measure
and lower odds of being
hungry and not eating
Online survey
(Cross-sectional)
Adapted USDA
HFSSM
(2-question)
29% 4471 participants

Agriculture 2023, 13, 1873 24 of 38
Table 1. Cont.
Reference Location
Population
Group
Method for
Assessing FI
[118]
Adamawa, Akwa
Ibom, Anambra,
Benue, Kaduna,
Lagos, Enugu,
Nasarawa, Gombe,
and Niger states
Women and girls
living with or at
high risk of
acquiring HIV
To advance
understanding of the
economic impact of
COVID-19 on
WGL&RHIV and to
identify the factors
associated with food
insecurity
that being a member of
the key and vulnerable
groups was strongly
associated with food
insecurity, financial
vulnerability, and
housing insecurity,
regardless of HIV status
Survey
(Cross-sectional)
Adapted
1-question food
security approach
76.1% 4355 respondents
[119]
Anambra, Ebonyi,
and Enugu states
Selected
households from
the 3 states
To access the
perceived effect of the
COVID-19 pandemic
on food security in
southeast Nigeria
the percentage rate of
food consumption of
the households before
the pandemic was
higher relative to the
COVID-19 event
Survey
(Cross-sectional)
Recommended
daily calorie
required approach
[120] Nigeria
Nigerian rural and
urban households
To examine the joint
influence of land
access and the gender
of the household head
on household food
insecurity
female-headed
households (FHHs) are
more food insecure than
male-headed
households
General
Household Survey
(GHS)
cross-sectional
panel data
Self-assessment
measure of
household food
consumption
Male: 23.7%;
female: 43.1%
4581 households
[121] Enugu state
Male and female
household heads
in three LGAs (Oji
River, Enugu East,
and Uzo-uwani) of
Enugu state
To assess the
household food and
nutrition security
among households in
Enugu state
the FGT model results
for the headcount ratio
showed only 22% of
secure during the
COVID-19 pandemic
Survey
(Cross-sectional)
Recommended
daily calorie
required approach
(2100 kcal)

Agriculture 2023, 13, 1873 25 of 38
Table 1. Cont.
Reference Location
Population
Group
Method for
Assessing FI
[122]
Oyo, Ekiti, and
Ogun states
Rural farming
households in the
three states
To evaluate the
determining factors of
rising food
expenditure,
implications for food
security, as well as
households’ coping
strategies during the
COVID-19 pandemic
the FGT model results
for the headcount ratio
showed only 22% of
secure during the
COVID-19 pandemic
Survey
(Cross-sectional)
Recommended
daily calorie
required approach
(2100 kcal)
[123]
Rivers and
Bayelsa states
Farming
households in the
Niger Delta region
To investigate how
vulnerability to the
“triple challenge”
affects food security
among farming
households in the
Niger Delta region
that vulnerability to the
“triple challenge”
increases the probability
of being in a severe food
insecure state,
particularly for
households with a high
dependency ratio
Survey
(Cross-sectional)
FIES Approach 72.2% 503 households
[19]
Ogun and
Oyo states
Smallholder
cassava farming
households
To investigate food
insecurity, health and
environment-related
factors, and
agricultural
commercialization
among smallholder
farm households
that less than 20%, 30%,
and 40% of households
in all four food
insecurity categories
had access to piped
water, improved toilet
facilities, and electricity,
respectively
Survey
(Cross-sectional)
[124] Oyo state
Smallholder gari
processors
To evaluate food
security status and
highlight survival
strategies used by gari
processors in
Oyo state
that none of the gari
processing households
in Oyo state were found
to be food secure
Survey
(Cross-sectional)
USDA approach:
18-question
HFSSM
100% 120 gari processors

Agriculture 2023, 13, 1873 26 of 38
Table 1. Cont.
Reference Location
Population
Group
Method for
Assessing FI
[125] Niger state Preschool children
To assess the
household food
security and feeding
patterns of
preschoolers in Niger
state, Nigeria
59.8% of the
preschoolers met their
minimum dietary
diversity, but 98.8% of
the children were from
food insecure
households
Survey
(Cross-sectional)
HFIAS Approach 98.8% 450 participants
[126] Kogi state
Cashew farming
households
To assess the
household food
insecurity status of
cashew farming
households in
Kogi state
food security status was
determined by
household size, farming
experience, education
level of households,
annual off-farm income,
output of cashews, and
output of cereals
Survey
(Cross-sectional)
Recommended
daily calorie
required approach
58.8% 228 participants
[41]
Benue, Delta,
Ebonyi, and
Kebbi states
Nutritionally
vulnerable
smallholder
households
To investigate the
effects of COVID-19
on food security and
dietary diversity of
households in Nigeria
income losses due to the
COVID-19 restrictive
measures had pushed
households into more
severe food insecurity
and less diverse
nutritional outcomes
Phone survey FIES Approach
Pre-COVID-19:
43.0%; During
COVID-19: 93.1%
1031 households
[127]
Oyo, Lagos, Abuja,
and Plateau states
Households
representing
different income
groups
To examine the impact
of the COVID-19
pandemic on food
security and
psychosocial stress
among households in
selected states
in Nigeria
variables like gender,
educational level, and
work hours per day
were associated with
food security and
hunger due
to COVID-19
Survey
(Cross-sectional)
Modified FIES
Approach

Agriculture 2023, 13, 1873 27 of 38
Table 1. Cont.
Reference Location
Population
Group
Method for
Assessing FI
[128] Nigeria
Nigerian rural and
urban households
Nigerian rural and
urban households
The study revealed a
significant increase in
the prevalence of food
insecurity in Nigeria
during the
COVID-19 crisis
COVID-19
National
Longitudinal
Phone Survey
(NLPS)
FIES Approach
Pre-pandemic
period: 36%
Period of
COVID-19: 74.0%
(2nd wave), 72.0%
(4th wave)
1674 households
[129]
Northeastern
Nigeria
Rural households
To analyze the food
households in
northeastern Nigeria
more than half of the
selected households
were food secure in both
waves, but not so in the
case of DDS
General
Household Survey
(GHS)
Mean per capita
food expenditure
(MPCE) and DDS
MHs, 41.3%; FHs,
84.6% (wave 2);
MHs, 38.3%; FHs,
61.7% (wave 3)
902 households

Agriculture 2023, 13, 1873 28 of 38
3.1. Common Features of the Reviewed Studies
The first two included scholarly papers in this study were conducted in 2006 [57,62].
Most of the studies in subsequent years (2007, 2009–2019) had research articles ranging
from 1–5. According to this review, the trend changed in 2020; this was occasioned by
the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic, which resulted in an increase in the number
of scholarly papers published in subsequent years. Many of these papers include review
articles, editorials, conference proceedings, books, and chapters in books. In 2020–2022, 11,
13, and 15 articles were included in this review, respectively. The number of respondents
ranged in size from the smallest study (with 72 respondents) [101] to the highest-population
study (using secondary data) of 5198 respondents [98].
About 17% (13) of the studies utilized secondary data sources [29,40,60,61,85,98,104,
105,110,113,117,120,128] within five years (2018, 2020–2023). The first research article that
employed a secondary data source was published in 2018 [85]. About 84% (66) of the
studies used primary data in investigating and measuring FI in Nigeria. Three notable
states in Nigeria with the highest number of FI studies (using primary data) were con-
ducted in Oyo (15), Ogun (10), and Enugu (9), respectively (see Figure 3). According to
this review, it is worth noting that no research works (employing primary data sources)
were conducted in three states in northwest Nigeria; namely, Jigawa, Katsina, and Zamfara
states. According to recent Cadre Harmonise data surveys (2018/2019 household survey),
the northwest and the northeast were the two regions having the most acute levels of
FI in Nigeria [130]. The southwest had the highest number of FI research studies (45)
conducted in the region, while the south–south had the least (9) FI research studies con-
ducted in the region, and only three were reported in Federal Capital Territory (FCT),
Abuja (see Figure 3). Furthermore, about 9% (7 articles) of studies in this review em-
ployed qualitative methodology [68,76,87,101,103,113,118], while the remaining 91% (72)
studies were quantitative in nature. Apart from the survey nature of the studies, some
(five studies) incorporated focus group discussion (FGDs) and key informant interviews
(KIIs) [59,72,82,83,97].
3.1. Common Features of the Reviewed Studies
The first two included scholarly papers in this study were conducted in 2006 [57,62].
Most of the studies in subsequent years (2007, 2009–2019) had research articles ranging
from 1–5. According to this review, the trend changed in 2020; this was occasioned by the
emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic, which resulted in an increase in the number of
scholarly papers published in subsequent years. Many of these papers include review
articles, editorials, conference proceedings, books, and chapters in books. In 2020–2022, 11, 13,
and 15 articles were included in this review, respectively. The number of respondents ranged
in size from the smallest study (with 72 respondents) [101] to the highest-population study
(using secondary data) of 5198 respondents [98].
About 17% (13) of the studies utilized secondary data sources [29,40,60,61,85,98,104,
105,110,113,117,120,128] within five years (2018, 2020–2023). The first research article that
employed a secondary data source was published in 2018 [85]. About 84% (66) of the studies
used primary data in investigating and measuring FI in Nigeria. Three notable states in
Nigeria with the highest number of FI studies (using primary data) were conducted in Oyo
(15), Ogun (10), and Enugu (9), respectively (see Figure 3).According to this review, it is worth
noting that no research works (employing primary data sources) were conducted in three
states in northwest Nigeria; namely, Jigawa, Katsina, and Zamfara states. According to
recent Cadre Harmonise data surveys (2018/2019 household survey), the northwest and
the northeast were the two regions having the most acute levels of FI in Nigeria [130]. The
southwest had the highest number of FI research studies (45) conducted in the region, while
the south–south had the least (9) FI research studies conducted in the region, and only three
were reported in Federal Capital Territory (FCT),Abuja (see Figure 3). Furthermore, about 9%
(7 articles) of studies in this review employed qualitative methodology [68,76,87,101,103,
113,118], while the remaining 91% (72) studies were quantitative in nature. Apart from the
survey nature of the studies, some (five studies) incorporated focus group discussion (FGDs)
and key informant interviews (KIIs) [59,72,82,83,97].
Figure 3. The Nigerian map showing the geographical distribution of the 66 research studies.
3.2. Quantifying Food Insecurity
Sixty-three (80%) of the studies included in this review employed the most common FI
measurement tool (Figure 4). The commonest method of measuring FI was through HFIAS,
with eighteen studies [19,72,74,77,81,84,89–91,93,95,110–112,115,121,125]. The FI prevalence
measured through the HFIAS module ranged from 36.9%, reported from a study that
Figure 3. The Nigerian map showing the geographical distribution of the 66 research studies.
3.2. Quantifying Food Insecurity
Sixty-three (80%) of the studies included in this review employed the most common
FI measurement tool (Figure 4). The commonest method of measuring FI was through
HFIAS, with eighteen studies [19,72,74,77,81,84,89–91,93,95,110–112,115,121,125]. The FI

Agriculture 2023, 13, 1873 29 of 38
prevalence measured through the HFIAS module ranged from 36.9%, reported from a
study that investigated the dynamics of FI using secondary data collected in 2010/2011
and 2015/2016 among households in rural Nigeria [110], to 98.8%, reported in research
of household FI and feeding patterns of preschool children in north–central Nigeria [125].
Apart from [125], seven other studies reported a prevalence of FI that is above 90%; for
instance, [80] (93.5%), [96] (92.8%), [102] (92.7%), [113] (90.8%), [19] (90.9%), [41] (95.8%),
and [127] (95.8%).
investigated the dynamics of FI using secondary data collected in 2010/2011 and 2015/2016
among households in rural Nigeria [110], to 98.8%, reported in research of household FI and
feeding patterns of preschool children in north–central Nigeria [125]. Apart from [125],
seven other studies reported a prevalence of FI that is above 90%; for instance, [80] (93.5%),
[96] (92.8%), [102] (92.7%), [113] (90.8%), [19] (90.9%), [41] (95.8%), and [127] (95.8%).
Figure 4. FI measurement tools employed in the studies included in this systematic review.
Furthermore, twelve studies utilized the HFSSM approach. For instance, [94] and [67]
used 10-item and 16-item forms of HFSSM, while other studies [57,70,80,96,97,100,105,107,
108,124] used the conventional full 18-item module. The use of the minimum recommended
daily calorie required per adult equivalent is another common method for measuring FI in
Nigeria in recent times. Thirteen studies utilized it, while three studies [50,83,122] utilized the
same minimum value of 2100 Kcal for their studies in the southwestern and north–central
states of Nigeria. Studies by [47] and [48] utilized 2260 Kcal from Kwara and Oyo states,
respectively. Other studies used different daily calorie requirements; for instance, both [88]
and [62] used 2250 Kcal, while [71] used 2500 Kcal; [75] used 2550 Kcal; [68] used 2470
Kcal; and [49] utilized the highest value of 2710 Kcal. Also, [126] utilized a 2145 Kcal per
capita calorie intake, while [119] used three minimum recommended calorie benchmarks
of 2100 Kcal, 1800 Kcal, and 2700 Kcal in their study, which focused on the perceived effects
of COVID-19 on food security in southeastern Nigeria. Furthermore, an approach through
the per capita food expenditure of households was used in ten studies. Apart from this
method, [129] added other methods, such as dietary diversity score (DDS) and Foster–
Greer–Thorbecke (FGT), while [104] only added DDS to their study using nationally
representative data from the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS).
Additionally, it was observed that studies that employed the “mean per capita food
expenditure” approach used varying food security lines (FSL) for which households were
categorized as either food secure (if the households met the threshold of a two third mean per
capita food expenditure) and food insecure, if otherwise. For instance, [46,66,73,79,86,92] had
food security lines of NGN 7967, NGN 1948, NGN 4219, NGN 2643, NGN 10,704, and NGN
20,132 respectively. Furthermore, [114] specified an FSL of NGN 2900 for their study that
focused on the effects of climate-smart agricultural practices on food security among farming
households in Kwara state, while [99] did not specify the FSL used in categorizing the
households into food secure/food insecure households in their study. Furthermore, seven
studies employed the FIES approach. Out of these five were COVID-19-related studies in
Nigeria [40,41,106,127,128], while two studies were not related to COVID-19 [39,123]. All
of the COVID-19-related studies reported that household food access was hampered by the
Figure 4. FI measurement tools employed in the studies included in this systematic review.
Furthermore, twelve studies utilized the HFSSM approach. For instance, refs [67,94] used
10-item and 16-item forms of HFSSM, while other studies [57,70,80,96,97,100,105,107,108,124]
used the conventional full 18-item module. The use of the minimum recommended daily
calorie required per adult equivalent is another common method for measuring FI in
Nigeria in recent times. Thirteen studies utilized it, while three studies [50,83,122] utilized
the same minimum value of 2100 Kcal for their studies in the southwestern and north–
central states of Nigeria. Studies by [47,48] utilized 2260 Kcal from Kwara and Oyo states,
respectively. Other studies used different daily calorie requirements; for instance, both [88]
and [62] used 2250 Kcal, while [71] used 2500 Kcal; ref. [75] used 2550 Kcal; ref. [68] used
2470 Kcal; and ref. [49] utilized the highest value of 2710 Kcal. Also, ref. [126] utilized a
2145 Kcal per capita calorie intake, while [119] used three minimum recommended calorie
benchmarks of 2100 Kcal, 1800 Kcal, and 2700 Kcal in their study, which focused on the
perceived effects of COVID-19 on food security in southeastern Nigeria. Furthermore, an
approach through the per capita food expenditure of households was used in ten studies.
Apart from this method, ref. [129] added other methods, such as dietary diversity score
(DDS) and Foster–Greer–Thorbecke (FGT), while [104] only added DDS to their study using
nationally representative data from the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS).
Additionally, it was observed that studies that employed the “mean per capita food
expenditure” approach used varying food security lines (FSL) for which households
were categorized as either food secure (if the households met the threshold of a two
third mean per capita food expenditure) and food insecure, if otherwise. For instance,
refs. [46,66,73,79,86,92] had food security lines of NGN 7967, NGN 1948, NGN 4219, NGN
2643, NGN 10,704, and NGN 20,132 respectively. Furthermore, ref. [114] specified an FSL of
NGN 2900 for their study that focused on the effects of climate-smart agricultural practices
on food security among farming households in Kwara state, while [99] did not specify the
FSL used in categorizing the households into food secure/food insecure households in
their study. Furthermore, seven studies employed the FIES approach. Out of these five
were COVID-19-related studies in Nigeria [40,41,106,127,128], while two studies were not

Agriculture 2023, 13, 1873 30 of 38
related to COVID-19 [39,123]. All of the COVID-19-related studies reported that household
food access was hampered by the COVID-19 lockdowns in many parts of Nigeria. The
study by Samuel et al. [40] reported that lockdown restrictions increased food expenditure
and experiences of FI among the respondents. Meanwhile, ref. [106] utilized the COVID-19
National Longitudinal Phone Survey (COVID-19 NLPS) and found that 58.5% of Nige-
rian households experienced severe FI. Using the standard eight-item FIES in their study,
ref. [41] found that only 6.9% of the Nigerian households were food secure, while empha-
sizing the inadequacies or non-existence of safety net programs, which further plunged the
households into severe food insecurity during the pandemic. The study of Bwala et al. [127],
which captured the psychosocial stress factors amid COVID-19, reported an increasing
level of aggression and irritation among all categories of households, but this was greater
among the low-income earners of the selected households in southwest and north–central
Nigeria. Out of the 1674 households used in the study by [128] using the COVID-19 NPLS,
about 4% were severely FI in the pre-pandemic, but they recorded 43% severe FI during
the COVID-19 pandemic.
The method of using the food consumption score (FCS) in measuring FI was not quite
popular among the studies included in this review. Only two studies used FCS [85,116].
The investigation by [116] using the FCS and coping strategy index (CSI) found that 21.4%
of the households were quality-food insecure, while 34.8% were economically vulnerable
to FI. The study by [85] did not report the FI prevalence rate among the polygamous family
structure in Nigeria but found polygamous households having better food security out-
comes than monogamous households using nationally representative data collected in three
waves (2011, 2013, and 2015). In Figure 3, the category “Others” referred to FI measure-
ments that were characterized by FI proxies, adapted versions of some other methods, and
less popular methods of measuring FI in the Nigerian studies included in this review. Some
studies (for instance, [61,78,98]), employed two-item, three-item, and four-item questions
to assess FI among the participants, respectively. The three-item version of the HFSSM was
adapted by [60,82]. Also, ref. [102] utilized a nine-item food security questionnaire for older
children to evaluate the effectiveness of health education intervention on food security and
other factors among adolescent girls in Maiduguri, Borno state, while [68,107] adapted the
“Freedom from Hunger scale” (FFH) in assessing households’ FI status in Enugu state [131].
The study by [59] adapted the “Household Hunger Scale” (HHS) by [132] and DDS for
assessing household food and nutrition security in Ohafia matrilineal society in Nigeria
and found a 66% FI level among the households. The Dietary Diversity Score (DDS) was
also used by [117] among households using nationally representative data; in addition,
ref. [103] employed income level, education, and government policy in investigating farm-
ing households’ food security in northern Nigeria. The study by [101] employed perception
of the food security situation in the prevailing year (2019) to assess the FHHs in Enugu
East Senatorial zone of the state, while [113] used changes in food intake as influenced by
COVID-19 in exploring FI among residents in Nigeria during the first wave of COVID-19.
The use of FI risk perception and management strategies was utilized by [87] in assessing
FI among households in Oyo and Osun states and reported 87.6% FI prevalence. The
work of [76] employed food habits and coping strategies among the elderly in Ogun state,
while [118] adopted a self-reported one-item question “Since the COVID-19 crisis began, do
you eat less or skip meals because there was no enough money or food” [133] to investigate
the effects of COVID-19 on FI and other factors among women and girls living with or at
risk of HIV in Nigeria and reported 76.1% FI prevalence. The food availability pillar of food
security measurement was the focus of the study of [120], which also adopted a one-item
self-reported question [134], “do you reduce the size of meal eaten in the household because
of insufficient food,” among female-headed households and reported 43.1% prevalence of
FI among them.

Agriculture 2023, 13, 1873 31 of 38
3.3. Exploring Food Insecurity in Different Settings
The studies reviewed were carried out in diverse populations in Nigeria. Thirteen
studies investigated FI using the Nigerian public [29,40,60,61,85,98,104,106,110,113,117,120,
128]. Among these studies, three utilized online surveys with a state-wide population.
Three studies also employed COVID-19 NLPS, while seven studies used secondary datasets
from the General Household Survey (GHS) made available through NBS. Twenty-seven
studies were carried out among farming households in different population groups in
different states. The work of [47] measured FI among farming households in Kwara state
and reported 38% FI prevalence. The study of [67] used farming households in Ekiti state
and reported about 88% FI, while [69] was carried out among urban farm households in
Abuja with 30% FI recorded. Other studies were carried out among farming households in
southwestern Nigeria; for instance, [99] (Ogun and Oyo), [46] (Ogun), [81] (Ondo), [122]
(Oyo, Ekiti and Ondo), [19] (Oyo and Ogun), [79] (Ondo and Ogun), and [124] (Oyo). Also,
some studies were carried out among farming households (crop and livestock) in northern
Nigeria. For instance, refs. [88,89,100,103,109] reported 37%, 73.9%, 54.5%, 73.5%, and 81.5%
FI. Studies involving farming households in the southeast include [96,101]. Also, ref. [123]
carried out their study among farming households in the Niger Delta region (Bayelsa and
Rivers states) employing the FIES method and reported 72% FI. Two studies reported on
people (women and adolescent girls) living with or at risk of the human immunodeficiency
virus (HIV) [84,118] and found 72% and 76% FI, respectively. Further studies reported
on primary and secondary school children [57], preschool children [125], and households
with under-five children [112] and found a higher percent of FI—76.3%, 98.8%, and 63%,
respectively. Ukegbu et al. [94] reported research on university undergraduate students,
while [103] was about school-aged adolescents, and they found 93% and 81% FI, respectively.
Bwala et al. [127] reported on households with varying income groups during COVID-19
and found about 96% FI.
4. Discussion
This review has investigated the depth of FI research publications in Nigeria over the
last seventeen years, cutting across the six regions of the country with diverse populations,
including under-five children, people living with or at risk of HIV, rural and urban farm
households, and preschool to university undergraduate studies. Nigerian researchers have
employed diverse tools to investigate the prevalence of FI. These tools included tested and
proven HFIAS, HFSSM, and FIES and unpopular and less dependable one-item and two-
item tools. It is of great concern that a sizable number of the studies employed FI proxies,
unproven measures, and studies that presented unclear FI methodologies coupled with
no information about the actual prevalence rate of FI at different population levels. With
different tools identified in the studies included in this review, some of the common FI tools
include HFIAS, HFSSM, recommended daily calorie requirement, and the food security
index. The studies that utilized the HFIAS module had an FI ranging from 45.8% [90] to
98.8% [125]; studies employing HFSSM reported a range of FI from 37% [100] to 100% [124],
and studies that measured FI through the recommended daily calorie requirement ranged
from 23.5% [48] to 78% [122].
Many studies were conducted and published in almost every region of the country,
but it was quite surprising that no food-(in)security-related research that met the inclu-
sion/exclusion criteria for this review was included (found) from three states in Nigeria:
Jigawa, Katsina, and Zamfara states (northwest region) (see Figure 3). Meanwhile, the
northwest region is one of the two regions (northwest and northeast) reported in the
2018/2019 household survey and analyzed to have the highest acute (crisis level) levels of
FI in Nigeria [130]. Many FI and hunger-related studies are solicited from two regions that
are characterized by high levels of hunger, food insecurity, poverty, armed banditry, Boko
Haram insurgency, kidnapping, and cattle rustling [14,17,133,134].
Furthermore, the South–South region, with a total of nine studies (see Figure 3),
highlights a significant research gap in understanding and measuring food insecurity

Agriculture 2023, 13, 1873 32 of 38
among the populations in this region. The region is known for incessant incidents of
crude oil spillage, with attendant deleterious impacts on the environment that exposed
the communities to the problem of household FI, especially among the vulnerable groups
(women and children). For instance, ref. [134] reported that 97% of the households in the
oil-spill-affected communities in Bayelsa were food insecure when compared to 67% in
the control communities. This emphasizes the need for more quality research on food
(in)security in the region. Studies that employed the use of a minimum recommended
daily calorie requirement per adult equivalent were not consistent with the use of a unified
recommended calorie required per adult equivalent. The minimum recommended calories
of the thirteen studies ranged from 1800 Kcal [119] to 2700 Kcal [49]. There is a need for
a single minimum recommended calorie to be used in determining FI among different
settings. Also, the Nigerian government, through its agencies and other relevant non-
government agencies, may propose a unified minimum recommended calorie to be used in
any food-security-related studies in the country.
Some studies utilized single-item to three-item tools to measure FI prevalence at
household and national levels. However, as indicated in this review, the quantification of FI
using one-item to three-item studies, with questions including “if anyone reduces the size
of meal in the household because of insufficient food” and “cut the size/skip a meal,” found
that FI ranged from 25% among people living with and without HIV in Nigeria during
COVID-19 [62] to 43.1% among FHHs in Nigeria [120]. Comparing the prevalence rate of
FI using one-item to three-item tools with other broad and extensive measures [19,80,124]
revealed that the use of one item might have underrated the prevalence of FI in Nigerian
studies included in this review. This finding was corroborated by the studies from Australia,
which opined that the use of a one-item measure underestimated the prevalence of FI
by about 5% when compared with more extensive tools [135–139]. Furthermore, some
studies in this review used small sample sizes where the results of the studies may not be
generalized; for instance, refs. [47,101,114]. It is worth noting that two studies from this
review failed to report the prevalence rate of FI after data description and analyses [71,85].
The FI prevalence rate (usually reported in percent) is an important indicator of the food
insecurity level or status in a population and, as a matter of compulsion, it should be
reported in the published studies. Among seven studies included in this review that
employed qualitative methods of analyzing FI, [76] reported the lowest FI prevalence rate
of 12%, assessing the food habits of the elderly in Ogun state. Also, through a qualitative
method, ref. [113] reported the highest level of FI (90%) among adult Nigerians during the
first wave of COVID-19. This review indicated that 71% of the studies that measured FI
through qualitative methods used FI proxies, such as income level, education attainment,
food insecurity risks, food habits, and government policy [76,87]. Meanwhile, studies that
quantified FI through quantitative methods used well-recognized and standardized FI
tools, such as HFIAS, HFSSM, and FIES [12,39,109]. Surprisingly, the work of [124] was the
only study that reported 100% FI in this review, while the study was carried out among
gari processing households in Oyo state.
4.1. Limitations of This Study
This review contained some limitations that should be mentioned. It is important to
acknowledge the effort made to ensure that this review was extensive, but it is possible that
some studies might have been omitted, especially those that might have been published
after the database search was concluded. It is worth noting that this review is the first
systematic review of FI investigation and quantification in Nigeria. With different kinds of
FI measurement tools and diverse approaches employed by different studies, it was quite
challenging juxtaposing the outcomes of various studies. This review is also limited to
studies (articles) extracted from the stated research databases, while some other studies not
indexed in these databases were not included. Nevertheless, the authors do not feel that
the lack of a meta-analysis should undermine the validity of the findings in this study.

Agriculture 2023, 13, 1873 33 of 38
4.2. Areas for Further Research
The issue of food insecurity is a global phenomenon, although the African region is
experiencing the highest burden in recent times. A systematic review of this nature may be
extended as an African study to have a comprehensive understanding of food insecurity
and quantification of food (in)security research endeavours in the region.
5. Conclusions
According to the authors’ search, this is the first systematic review that assesses the
comprehensive nature of food security studies conducted in Nigeria. This study revealed
different approaches employed by researchers in gathering important details about food
insecurity in Nigeria. These approaches included standardized FI measurement tools,
adapted measures (one-item to three-item questions), and FI proxies. The one-item to
three-item questions were found to present an underrated or underestimated prevalence of
FI among different populations in the country. With different FI tools used by researchers in
this review, it is quite difficult to comprehend the correct or accurate prevalence and gravity
of FI in Nigeria. While some studies found FI prevalence as low as 12 to 21.4% [76,115], a
study reported a 100% FI prevalence among gari processors in Oyo state [124]. As revealed
by the investigation of this review, the authors highlight the need for a measurement tool
that would be appropriate for Nigerian settings and that would enable researchers to attain
comprehensive knowledge of the FI prevalence and severity in the country, paving the way
for improved food- and nutrition-sensitive policy development.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, O.A.O. (Olutosin Ademola Otekunrin); Curation, O.A.O.
(Olutosin Ademola Otekunrin) and O.A.O. (Oluwaseun Aramide Otekunrin); Formal analysis, O.A.O.
(Olutosin Ademola Otekunrin) and O.A.O. (Oluwaseun Aramide Otekunrin); Investigation, O.A.O.
(Olutosin Ademola Otekunrin) and R.M.; Methodology, O.A.O. (Olutosin Ademola Otekunrin).;
Project administration, O.A.O. (Olutosin Ademola Otekunrin).; Supervision, O.A.O. (Oluwaseun
Aramide Otekunrin) and R.M.; Writing—original draft, O.A.O. (Olutosin Ademola Otekunrin);
Writing—review and editing, O.A.O. (Olutosin Ademola Otekunrin), R.M., and O.A.O. (Oluwaseun
Aramide Otekunrin). All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. FAO; IFAD; UNICEF; WFP; WHO. The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2022. Repurposing Food and Agricultural
Policies to Make Healthy Diets More Affordable; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2022.
2. FSIN; Global Network against Food Crises. 2023 Global Report on Food Crises: Joint Analysis for Better Decision; Global Network
against Food Crises: Rome, Italy, 2023.
3. Economist Impact. Global Food Security Index 2022. 2022. Available online: https://impact.economist.com/sustainability/
project/food-security-index/ (accessed on 14 May 2023).
4. UNICEF 2023: 25 million Nigerians at High Risk of Food Insecurity in 2023. Available online: https://www.unicef.org/press-
releases/25-million-nigerians-high-risk-food-insecurity-2023 (accessed on 21 May 2023).
5. Otekunrin, O.A.; Ayinde, I.A.; Sanusi, R.A.; Onabanjo, O.O. Dietary diversity, nutritional status, and agricultural commercializa-
tion: Evidence from rural farm households. Dialog. Health 2023, 2, 100121. [CrossRef]
6. von Grebmer, K.J.; Bernstein, D.; Resnick, M.; Wiemers, L.; Reiner, M.; Bachmeier, A.; Hanano, O.; Towey, R.; Ni Cheilleachair, C.
2022 Global Hunger Index: Food Systems 7. Transformation and Local Governance; Welthungerhilfe: Bonn, Germany; Concern
Worldwide: Dublin, Germany, 2022.
7. FAO. Rome declaration on the world food security and world food summit plan of action. In Proceedings of the World Food
Summit 1996, Rome, Italy, 13–17 November 1996.
8. Piperata, B.A.; Scaggs, S.A.; Dufour, D.L.; Adams, I.K. Measuring food insecurity: An introduction to tools for human biologists
and ecologists. Am. J. Hum. Biol. 2023, 35, e23821. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
9. Gross, R.; Schoeneberger, H.; Pfeifer, H.; Preuss, H.-J. The four dimensions of food and nutrition security: Definitions and
concepts. SCN News 2000, 20, 20–25.

Agriculture 2023, 13, 1873 34 of 38
10. De Haen, H.; Klasen, S.; Qaim, M. What do we really know? Metrics for food insecurity and under nutrition. Food Policy 2011, 36,
760–769.
11. Jones, A.D.; Ngure, F.M.; Pelto, G.; Young, S.L. What are we assessing when we measure food security? A Compendium and
review of current metrics. Adv. Nutr. 2013, 4, 481–505. [PubMed]
12. Headey, D.; Ecker, O. “Improving the Measurement of Food Security” (No. 01225). IFPRI Discussion Paper 01225. 2012. Available
online: http://ebrary.ifpri.org/cdm/ref/collection/p15738coll2/id/127261 (accessed on 10 July 2023).
13. Ike, C.U.; Jacobs, P.; Kelly, C. Towards comprehensive food security measures: Comparing key indicators. Afr. Insight 2015, 44,
91–111.
14. Ayinde, I.A.; Otekunrin, O.A.; Akinbode, S.O.; Otekunrin, O.A. Food Security in Nigeria: Impetus for Growth and Development.
J. Agric. Econ. Rural Dev. 2020, 6, 808–820.
15. McKay, F.H.; Haines, B.C.; Dunn, M. Measuring and understanding food insecurity in Australia: A Systematic Review. Int. J.
Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 476. [CrossRef]
16. Webb, P.; Coates, J.; Frongillo, E.A.; Rogers, B.L.; Swindale, A.; Bilinsky, P. Measuring household food insecurity: Why it’s so
important and yet so difficult to do. J. Nutr. 2006, 136, 1404S–1408S. [CrossRef]
17. Otekunrin, O.A.; Otekunrin, O.A.; Momoh, S.; Ayinde, I.A. How far has Africa gone in achieving the Zero Hunger Target?
Evidence from Nigeria. Glob. Food Secur. 2019, 22, 1–12. [CrossRef]
18. Otekunrin, O.A.; Otekunrin, O.A.; Sawicka, B.; Ayinde, I.A. Three decades of fighting against hunger in Africa: Progress,
challenges and opportunities. World Nutr. 2020, 11, 86–111. [CrossRef]
19. Otekunrin, O.A. Investigating food insecurity, health and environment-related factors, and agricultural commercialization in
Southwestern Nigeria: Evidence from smallholder farming households. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2020, 29, 51469–51488. [CrossRef]
20. The Global FoodBanking Network. The FoodBank Hunger Report: Driving Advocacy for Zero Hunger in Australia. 2023. Avail-
able online: https://www.foodbanking.org/blogs/the-foodbank-hunger-report-driving-advocacy-for-zero-hunger-in.australia/
#:~:text=The%20state%20of%20AustraliaT1textquoterights%20food,over%20the%20previous%20twelve%20months (accessed
on 17 June 2023).
21. Coleman-Jensen, A.; Rabbitt, M.P.; Gregory, C.A.; Singh, A. Household Food Security in the United States in 2019. Economic Research
Report No. (ERR-275); U.S. Department of Agriculture: Washington, DC, USA, 2020; Volume 47.
22. Chilton, M.; Chyatte, M.; Breaux, J. The negative effects of poverty and food insecurity on child development. Indian J. Med. Res.
2017, 126, 262–272.
23. Ivers, L.C.; Cullen, K.A. Food insecurity: Special considerations for women. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2011, 94, 1740S–1744S. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
24. Odoms-Young, A.M. Examining the impact of structural racism on food insecurity: Implications for addressing racial/ethnic
disparities. Fam. Community Health 2018, 41, S3–S6. [CrossRef]
25. Gibb, J.K.; Shokoohi, M.; Salway, T.; Ross, L.E. Sexual orientation–based disparities in food security among adults in the United
States: Results from the 2003–2016 NHANES. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2021, 114, 2006–2016. [CrossRef]
26. Daponte, B.O.; Lewis, G.H.; Sanders, S.; Taylor, L. Food pantry use among low-income households in Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania. J. Nutr. Educ. 1998, 30, 50–57. [CrossRef]
27. Jeronim, C.; Panagiotis, K.; Marco, K.; Mark, S. A Model of Vulnerability to Food Insecurity; ESA Working Paper 2010, No. 10-03.
Agricultural Development Economics Division. Available online: http://www.fao.org/docrep/012/al318e/al318e.pdf (accessed
on 20 July 2023).
28. Ramsey, R.; Giskes, K.; Turrell, G.; Gallegos, D. Food insecurity among adults residing in disadvantaged urban areas: Potential
health and dietary consequences. Public Health Nutr. 2012, 15, 227–237. [CrossRef]
29. Obayelu, O.A.; Akpan, E.I. Food insecurity transitions among rural households in Nigeria. Estud. De Econ. Apl. 2021, 39, 1–16.
30. Radimer, K.L.; Olson, C.M.; Greene, J.C.; Campbell, C.C.; Habicht, J.P. Understanding hunger and developing indicators to assess
it in women and children. J. Nutr. Edu. 1992, 24, 36S–44S. [CrossRef]
31. Hamilton, W.L.; Cook, J.T. Household Food Security in the United States in 1995: Technical Report of the Food Security Measurement
Project; United States Department of Agriculture: Washington, DC, USA, 1997.
32. Bickel, G.; Nord, M.; Price, C.; Hamilton, W.; Cook, J. Guide to Measuring Household Food Security; Department of Agriculture Food
and Nutrition Service: Alexandria, Egypt, 2000.
33. Coates, J.; Swindale, A.; Bilinsky, P. Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS) for Measurement of Household Food Access:
Indicator Guide (v. 3); FHI 360/FANTA: Washington, DC, USA, 2007.
34. FAO. Methods for Estimating Comparable Rates of Food Insecurity Experienced by Adults throughout the World; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2016.
35. Cafiero, C.; Viviani, S.; Nord, M. Food security measurement in a global context: The food insecurity experience scale. Measurement
2018, 116, 146–152. [CrossRef]
36. Smith, M.D.; Rabbitt, M.P.; Coleman-Jensen, A. Who are the world’s food insecure? New evidence from the Food and Agriculture
Organization’s food insecurity experience scale. World Dev. 2017, 93, 402–412.
37. Frongillo, E.A.; Nguyen, H.T.; Smith, M.D.; Coleman-Jensen, A. Food Insecurity Is Associated with Subjective Well-Being among
Individuals from 138 Countries in the 2014. Gallup World Poll. J. Nutr. 2017, 147, 680–687.
38. Jones, A.D. Food insecurity and mental health status: A global analysis of 149 countries. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2017, 53, 264–273.
[CrossRef]

Investigating and Quantifying Food Insecurity in Nigeria: A Systematic Review

Investigating and Quantifying Food Insecurity in Nigeria: A Systematic Review

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Investigating and Quantifying Food Insecurity in Nigeria: A Systematic Review

Similar to Investigating and Quantifying Food Insecurity in Nigeria: A Systematic Review (20)

More from Olutosin Ademola Otekunrin

More from Olutosin Ademola Otekunrin (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Investigating and Quantifying Food Insecurity in Nigeria: A Systematic Review