Pathways and Associations between Women’s Land Ownership and Child Food and Nutrition Security in Pakistan
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.2. Literature Review
1.2.1. Land Ownership and Women’s Autonomy
1.2.2. Women’s Autonomy and Child Food and Nutritional Security
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Data and Variables
2.2. Statistical Analysis
2.2.1. Ordinary Least Squares Regression
2.2.2. Quantile Regression
2.2.3. Mediation Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Descriptive Statistics of Study Population
3.1.1. Children Characteristics
3.1.2. Mother Characteristics
3.1.3. Household Characteristics
3.2. Multivariate Analysis
3.2.1. Aggregated Analysis
3.2.2. Disaggregated Analysis
3.3. Mediation Analysis
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Agarwal, B.; Bina, A. A Field of One’s Own: Gender and Land Rights in South Asia; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1994; Volume 58. [Google Scholar]
- Doss, C. The effects of intrahousehold property ownership on expenditure patterns in Ghana. J. Afr. Econ. 2006, 15, 149–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thomas, D. Intra-household resource allocation: An inferential approach. J. Hum. Resour. 1990, 25, 635–664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Quisumbing, A.R.; Maluccio, J.A. Resources at marriage and intrahousehold allocation: Evidence from Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Indonesia, and South Africa. Oxf. Bull. Econ. Stat. 2003, 65, 283–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Crowley, E. Women’s right to land and natural resources: Some implications for a human-rights based approach. In Proceedings of the Workshop on “Rights-Based Approach to Women’s Empowerment and Advancement and Gender Equality”, Rome, Italy, 5–7 October 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Doss, C.; Kim, S.M.; Njuki, J.; Hillenbrand, E.; Miruka, M. Women’s Individual and Joint Property Ownership: Effects on Household Decisionmaking; International Food Policy Research Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2014; Volume 1347. [Google Scholar]
- Han, W.; Zhang, X.; Zhang, Z. The role of land tenure security in promoting rural women’s empowerment: Empirical evidence from rural China. Land Use Policy 2019, 86, 280–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meinzen-Dick, R.S.; Johnson, N.L.; Quisumbing, A.R.; Njuki, J.; Behrman, J.; Rubin, D.; Peterman, A.; Waithanji, E.M. Gender, Assets, and Agricultural Development Programs: A Conceptual Framework; International Food Policy Research Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Menon, N.; Van Der Meulen Rodgers, Y.; Nguyen, H. Women’s land rights and children’s human capital in Vietnam. World Dev. 2014, 54, 18–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deere, C.D.; Twyman, J. Asset ownership and egalitarian decision making in dual-headed households in Ecuador. Rev. Radic. Political Econ. 2012, 44, 313–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smith, L.C. The Importance of Women’s Status for Child Nutrition in Developing Countries; International Food Policy Research Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2003; Volume 131. [Google Scholar]
- Imai, K.S.; Annim, S.K.; Kulkarni, V.S.; Gaiha, R. Women’s Empowerment and Prevalence of Stunted and Underweight Children in Rural India. World Dev. 2014, 62, 88–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Allendorf, K. Do Women’s Land Rights Promote Empowerment and Child Health in Nepal? World Dev. 2007, 35, 1975–1988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kassens, A. Women’s asset ownership and children’s nutritional status: Evidence from Papua New Guinea. Soc. Sci. Med. (1982) 2018, 204, 100–107. [Google Scholar]
- WEF. The Global Gender Gap Report 2017; The World Economic Forum: Geneva, Switzerland, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- GOP. Labor Force Survey 2017–18 (Annual Report); Statistics Division, Pakistan Bureau of Statistics, Government of Pakistan: Islamabad, Pakistan, 2018.
- GOP. Pakistan Bureau of Statistics, Government of Pakistan (2013–14); Pakistan Bureau of Statistics, Government of Pakistan: Islamabad, Pakistan, 2014.
- FAO. The State of Food and Agriculture 2010–2011: Women in Agriculture: Closing the Gender Gap for Development. Available online: http://www. fao. org/docrep/013/i2050e/i2050e00. htm (accessed on 1 November 2011).
- Khalid, A.; Nyborg, I.; Khattak, B.N. Whose property whose authority? Gendering the legal and customary practices in ownership and access to land: A case of Swat, Pakistan. J. Rural Stud. 2015, 41, 47–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saba, K.; Nazish, B.; Wajiha, A. Women’s Land Rights: Research Findings from Pakistan; Sustainable Development Policy Institute: Islamabad, Pakistan, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Ahmad, M.; Batool, M.; Dziegielewski, S.F. State of Inheritance Rights: Women in a Rural District in Pakistan. J. Soc. Serv. Res. 2016, 42, 622–629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ali, S.M. Securing land rights for Pakistani women. The Express Tribune, 7 December 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Kishor, S.; Subaiya, L. Understanding Womens Empowerment: A Comparative Analysis Of Demographic And Health Surveys (DHS) Data; United States Agency for International Development: Washington, DC, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Basu, A.M. Culture, the Status of Women, and Demographic Behaviour: Illustrated with the Case of India; Clarendon Press: Oxford, UK, 1992. [Google Scholar]
- Adhikari, R.; Sawangdee, Y. Influence of women’s autonomy on infant mortality in Nepal. Reprod. Health 2011, 8, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Swaminathan, H.; Lahoti, R.; Suchitra, J. Women’s Property, Mobility and Decision Making’; International Food Policy Research Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Brulé, R. Changes in India’s Property Rights Regime and the Implications for Improved Gender Parity: Evidence from Regression Discontinuity Analysis of Panel Data for 17 Indian States. In Proceedings of the APSA 2010 Annual Meeting Paper, Washington, DC, USA, 2–5 September 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Mishra, K.; Sam, A.G. Does women’s land ownership promote their empowerment? Empirical evidence from Nepal. World Dev. 2016, 78, 360–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wiig, H. Joint titling in rural Peru: Impact on women’s participation in household decision-making. World Dev. 2013, 52, 104–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Doss, C.; Meinzen-Dick, R.; Bomuhangi, A. Who owns the land? Perspectives from rural Ugandans and implications for large-scale land acquisitions. Fem. Econ. 2014, 20, 76–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kumar, N.; Quisumbing, A.J.D.P.R. Inheritance practices and gender differences in poverty and well-being in rural Ethiopia. Dev. Policy Rev. 2012, 30, 573–595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shroff, M.R.; Griffiths, P.L.; Suchindran, C.; Nagalla, B.; Vazir, S.; Bentley, M.E. Does maternal autonomy influence feeding practices and infant growth in rural India? Soc. Sci. Med. 2011, 73, 447–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Arulampalam, W.; Bhaskar, A.; Srivastava, N. Does Greater Autonomy among Women Provide the Key to Better Child Nutrition; Institute for the Study of Labor: Bonn, Germany, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Kamiya, Y.; Nomura, M.; Ogino, H.; Yoshikawa, K.; Siengsounthone, L.; Xangsayarath, P. Mothers’ autonomy and childhood stunting: evidence from semi-urban communities in Lao PDR. BMC Women’s Health 2018, 18, 70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hou, X. How Does Women’s Decision-Making Power Affect Budget Share, Nutrition and Education in Pakistan? J. Fam. Econ. Issues 2015, 37, 115–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khalid, H.; Martin, E.G. Female-Headed Households Associated with Lower Childhood Stunting Across Culturally Diverse Regions of Pakistan: Results from a Cross-Sectional Household Survey. Matern. Child Health J. 2017, 21, 1967–1984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tsiboe, F.; Zereyesus, Y.A.; Popp, J.S.; Osei, E. The effect of women’s empowerment in agriculture on household nutrition and food poverty in Northern Ghana. Soc. Indic. Res. 2018, 138, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cunningham, K.; Ferguson, E.; Ruel, M.; Uauy, R.; Kadiyala, S.; Menon, P.; Ploubidis, G. Water, sanitation, and hygiene practices mediate the association between women’s empowerment and child length-for-age z-scores in Nepal. Matern. Child Nutr. 2019, 15, e12638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kandapal, E.; McNamara, P.E. Determinants of Nutritional Outcomes of Children in India. A Quantile Regression Approach. In Proceedings of the 2009 Annual Meeting, Milwaukee, WI, USA, 26–28 July 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Aturupane, H.; Deolalikar, A.B.; Gunewardena, D. Determinants of child weight and height in Sri Lanka: a quantile regression approach. In Health Inequality and Development; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2011; pp. 64–88. [Google Scholar]
- Koenker, R.; Bassett, G. Regression Quantiles. Econometrica 1978, 46, 33–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheong, J.; Mackinnon, D.P. Mediation/indirect Effects in Structural Equation Modeling. In Handbook of Structural Equation Modeling; Hoyle, R.H., Ed.; Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2012; pp. 417–435. [Google Scholar]
- Jackson, C. Gender analysis of land: beyond land rights for women? J. Agrar. Chang. 2003, 3, 453–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Razavi, S. Introduction: Agrarian change, gender and land rights. J. Agrar. Chang. 2003, 3, 2–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zuberi, S. Agriculture and Nutrition in Pakistan: Pathways and Disconnects, LANSA Research Brief 1; LANSA: Brighton, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Datta, N. Joint Titling—A Win-Win Policy? Gender and property rights in urban informal settlements in Chandigarh, India. Fem. Econ. 2006, 12, 271–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hare, D.; Yang, L.; Englander, D. Land management in rural China and its gender implications. Fem. Econ. 2007, 13, 35–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Field, E. Fertility Responses to Changes in the Gender Distribution of Household Assets from Government Land Titling; Harvard University: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Shroff, M.; Griffiths, P.; Adair, L.; Suchindran, C.; Bentley, M. Maternal autonomy is inversely related to child stunting in Andhra Pradesh, India. Matern. Child Nutr. 2009, 5, 64–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ahmad, N. Impact of Institutional Credit on Agricultural Output: A Case Study of Pakistan. Theor. Appl. Econ. 2011, 18, 99–120. [Google Scholar]
Variables | Definition |
---|---|
Child Characteristics | |
Age | Age of the child in months at the time of the survey; grouped into 0–12, 13–24, 25–36, 37–48, 49–60 |
Gender | Female = 1, Male = 0 |
Birth order | Birth order of a child in the family |
Stunting | Height-for-age z-score |
Wasting | Weight-for-age z-score |
Underweight | Weight-for-height z-score |
Mother characteristics | |
Body mass index | Body mass index score calculated by body mass divided by the square of the body height |
Education | Education grouped into, no education = 0, primary = 1, secondary = 2, higher than secondary = 3 |
Age | Age in years at the time of the survey |
Employment | Employed = 1, unemployed = 0 |
Alone land ownership | If a woman owns land alone, yes = 1; no = 0 |
Joint land ownership | If a woman owns land jointly with her husband, yes = 1; no = 0 |
Autonomy in large household purchases | If a woman participates in large household purchase (e.g., phone, television, radio, bicycle, car and other durable household belongings) decisions, yes = 1; no = 0 |
Autonomy in her own healthcare | If a woman participates in decisions about her own healthcare, yes = 1; no = 0 |
Autonomy in her mobility | If a woman can go outside to meet friends and family without asking someone’s permission. yes = 1; no = 0 |
Household Characteristics | |
Wealth | Wealth index of the household based on number and kind of consumer goods they own; poorest = 1, poorer = 2, middle = 3, richer = 4, richest = 5 |
Family size | The number of people living in the household |
Safe drinking water | If the household has access to safe drinking water, yes = 1, no = 0 |
Proper toilet facility | If the household has proper toilet facility, yes = 1, no = 0 |
Place | Living in, urban area = 1, rural = 0 |
Region/Province | Belongs to, Punjab = 1, Sindh = 2, KPK = 3, Baluchistan = 4, Gilgit = 5, Islamabad = 6 |
Mean | SD | |
---|---|---|
Child Characteristics | ||
Child age (months) | 29.653 | 17.324 |
Child age between 0–12 months | 0.215 | 0.411 |
Child age between 13–24 months | 0.167 | 0.373 |
Child age between 25–36 months | 0.209 | 0.405 |
Child age between 37–48 months | 0.201 | 0.401 |
Child age between 49–60 months | 0.211 | 0.408 |
Female (female = 1) | 0.489 | 0.499 |
Birth order (range from 1–16) | 3.473 | 2.349 |
Height-for-age z-score | −1.771 | 1.713 |
Height-for-age z-score (Male) | −1.886 | 1.699 |
Height-for-age z-score (Female) | −1.655 | 1.720 |
Mother Characteristics | ||
Body mass index (range from 13–51) | 23.412 | 5.050 |
Education (years) | 3.382 | 4.576 |
No education | 0.572 | 0.495 |
Primary | 0.170 | 0.376 |
Secondary | 0.176 | 0.381 |
Higher than secondary | 0.081 | 0.273 |
Age (years) | 29.194 | 5.936 |
Employment (employed = 1) | 0.286 | 0.451 |
Land ownership (yes = 1) | 0.018 | 0.132 |
Household Characteristics | ||
Wealth index poorest | 0.239 | 0.427 |
Wealth index poorer | 0.212 | 0.409 |
Wealth index middle | 0.196 | 0.397 |
Wealth index richer | 0.196 | 0.397 |
Wealth index richest | 0.157 | 0.364 |
Family size (no.) | 9.043 | 4.758 |
Safe drinking water (yes = 1) | 0.930 | 0.255 |
Proper toilet facility (yes = 1) | 0.656 | 0.474 |
Urban | 0.291 | 0.454 |
Rural | 0.709 | 0.454 |
Punjab | 0.573 | 0.495 |
Sindh | 0.229 | 0.420 |
KPK | 0.138 | 0.345 |
Balochistan | 0.049 | 0.216 |
Gilgit | 0.007 | 0.0849 |
Islamabad | 0.004 | 0.062 |
Stunting | Wasting | Underweight | |
---|---|---|---|
Child age | |||
Child age between 0–12 months | Ref | Ref | Ref |
Child age between 13–24 months | −0.79 *** | 0.01 | −0.19 * |
(0.13) | (0.11) | (0.10) | |
Child age between 25–36 months | −1.09 *** | 0.45 *** | −0.11 |
(0.12) | (0.09) | (0.09) | |
Child age between 37–48 months | −1.03 *** | 0.35 *** | −0.22 ** |
(0.12) | (0.10) | (0.09) | |
Child age between 49–60 months | −0.87 *** | 0.37 *** | −0.15 * |
(0.12) | (0.10) | (0.09) | |
Gender (Female = 1, Male = 0) | 0.21 *** | 0.07 | 0.13 ** |
(0.07) | (0.06) | (0.06) | |
Child birth order | −0.01 | 0.02 | 0.01 |
(0.02) | (0.02) | (0.02) | |
Woman’s ownership of land | |||
Owns land alone (yes = 1) | 0.94 *** | −0.05 | 0.51 ** |
(0.27) | (0.28) | (0.22) | |
Owns land jointly with her husband (yes = 1) | 0.15 | −0.21 | −0.05 |
(0.31) | (0.20) | (0.22) | |
Woman’s autonomy | |||
Autonomy in household purchase decision (yes = 1) | 0.17* | −0.09 | 0.04 |
(0.10) | (0.07) | (0.08) | |
Autonomy in her own healthcare (yes = 1) | −0.05 | 0.12 * | 0.06 |
(0.10) | (0.07) | (0.08) | |
Autonomy in her mobility (yes = 1) | 0.10 | −0.15 | −0.03 |
(0.14) | (0.11) | (0.10) | |
Woman’s age | 0.02 ** | −0.01 | 0.01 |
(0.01) | (0.01) | (0.01) | |
Woman’s body mass index | 0.01 | 0.03 *** | 0.03 *** |
(0.01) | (0.01) | (0.01) | |
Woman’s education | |||
No education | Ref | Ref | Ref |
Primary | 0.12 | 0.14 | 0.16 * |
(0.11) | (0.09) | (0.09) | |
Secondary | 0.47 *** | 0.13 | 0.38 *** |
(0.11) | (0.09) | (0.09) | |
Higher than secondary | 0.58 *** | 0.32 ** | 0.58 *** |
(0.15) | (0.13) | (0.12) | |
Woman’s employment (yes = 1) | 0.15 * | 0.05 | 0.11 * |
(0.09) | (0.07) | (0.07) | |
Family members in the household (no.) | −0.01 | 0.02 ** | 0.01 |
(0.01) | (0.01) | (0.01) | |
Wealth index quantiles | |||
Poorest | Ref | Ref | Ref |
Poorer | 0.23 * | 0.23 ** | 0.29 *** |
(0.13) | (0.10) | (0.10) | |
Middle | 0.49 *** | 0.20 * | 0.44 *** |
(0.14) | (0.11) | (0.11) | |
Richer | 0.58 *** | 0.15 | 0.47 *** |
(0.16) | (0.13) | (0.13) | |
Richest | 0.86 *** | 0.27 * | 0.70 *** |
(0.20) | (0.17) | (0.16) | |
Place (urban = 1, rural 0) | 0.04 | 0.26 *** | 0.21 *** |
(0.10) | (0.08) | (0.08) | |
Region/Province | |||
Punjab | Ref | Ref | Ref |
Sindh | −0.46 *** | 0.05 | −0.27 *** |
(0.10) | (0.07) | (0.07) | |
KPK | 0.06 | 0.23 ** | 0.18 ** |
(0.11) | (0.09) | (0.08) | |
Balochistan | −1.66 *** | 1.28 *** | −0.12 |
(0.17) | (0.18) | (0.12) | |
Gilgit | 0.85 *** | 1.03 *** | 1.19 *** |
(0.22) | (0.17) | (0.16) | |
Islamabad | 0.21 * | −0.18 | 0.01 |
(0.13) | (0.11) | (0.10) | |
Proper toilet facility (yes = 1) | −0.12 | 0.13 * | 0.00 |
(0.10) | (0.08) | (0.07) | |
Safe drinking water (yes = 1) | −0.09 | 0.09 | 0.07 |
(0.09) | (0.07) | (0.07) | |
Constant | −2.36 *** | −2.41 *** | −3.18 *** |
(0.37) | (0.30) | (0.29) | |
Observations | 2854 | 2854 | 2854 |
R-squared | 0.19 | 0.10 | 0.15 |
1st Quantile | 2nd Quantile | 3rd Quantile | 4th Quantile | 5th Quantile | 6th Quantile | 7th Quantile | 8th Quantile | 9th Quantile | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Child age | |||||||||
Child age between 0–12 months | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref |
Child age between 13–24 months | −0.92 *** | −0.83 *** | −0.99 *** | −0.99 *** | −1.12 *** | −1.07 *** | −1.08 *** | −1.22 *** | −1.33 *** |
(0.24) | (0.14) | (0.11) | (0.12) | (0.12) | (0.14) | (0.16) | (0.15) | (0.27) | |
Child age between 25–36 months | −1.01 *** | −1.16 *** | −1.23 *** | −1.32 *** | −1.45 *** | −1.37*** | −1.44 *** | −1.67 *** | −1.71 *** |
(0.17) | (0.15) | (0.08) | (0.10) | (0.11) | (0.13) | (0.12) | (0.16) | (0.26) | |
Child age between 37–48 months | −0.83 *** | −1.05 *** | −1.23 *** | −1.30 *** | −1.36 *** | −1.37 *** | −1.37 *** | −1.61 *** | −1.98 *** |
(0.17) | (0.11) | (0.11) | (0.14) | (0.12) | (0.10) | (0.13) | (0.15) | (0.24) | |
Child age between 49–60 months | −0.68 *** | −0.88 *** | −1.02 *** | −1.14 *** | −1.35 *** | −1.42 *** | −1.46 *** | −1.62 *** | −1.83 *** |
(0.16) | (0.16) | (0.11) | (0.13) | (0.13) | (0.16) | (0.15) | (0.18) | (0.26) | |
Gender (Female = 1, Male = 0) | 0.18 | 0.09 | 0.08 | 0.09 | 0.11 | 0.09 | 0.06 | 0.09 | 0.12 |
(0.11) | (0.07) | (0.07) | (0.06) | (0.08) | (0.07) | (0.07) | (0.09) | (0.14) | |
Child birth order | −0.04 | −0.03 | −0.04 | −0.04 | −0.04* | −0.03 | −0.03 | −0.00 | 0.00 |
(0.03) | (0.03) | (0.03) | (0.02) | (0.02) | (0.03) | (0.02) | (0.03) | (0.04) | |
Woman’s ownership of land | |||||||||
Owns land alone (yes = 1) | 0.55 ** | 0.43 | 0.46 * | 0.32 | 0.25 | 0.28 | 0.29 | 0.29 | 0.02 |
(0.27) | (0.38) | (0.28) | (0.21) | (0.32) | (0.34) | (0.40) | (0.42) | (0.63) | |
Owns land jointly with her husband (yes = 1) | 0.11 | 0.08 | 0.13 | −0.02 | 0.17 | 0.19 | 0.26 | 0.36 | 0.61 |
(0.28) | (0.19) | (0.17) | (0.22) | (0.24) | (0.22) | (0.25) | (0.33) | (0.38) | |
Woman’s autonomy | |||||||||
Autonomy in household purchase decision (yes = 1) | 0.22 | 0.29 *** | 0.24 *** | 0.27 *** | 0.18 * | 0.19 | 0.14 | 0.22 * | 0.18 |
(0.15) | (0.11) | (0.08) | (0.08) | (0.10) | (0.13) | (0.12) | (0.13) | (0.11) | |
Autonomy in her own healthcare (yes = 1) | −0.01 | −0.14 | −0.09 | −0.14 | −0.02 | −0.06 | −0.07 | −0.02 | −0.04 |
(0.13) | (0.09) | (0.10) | (0.09) | (0.09) | (0.09) | (0.10) | (0.14) | (0.14) | |
Autonomy in her mobility (yes = 1) | 0.05 | −0.11 | −0.02 | −0.14 | −0.12 | −0.23 | −0.26 | −0.09 | 0.07 |
(0.25) | (0.17) | (0.18) | (0.15) | (0.17) | (0.19) | (0.21) | (0.23) | (0.21) | |
Woman’s age | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.02 * | 0.02 ** | 0.02 ** | 0.01 | 0.02 |
(0.01) | (0.01) | (0.01) | (0.01) | (0.01) | (0.01) | (0.01) | (0.02) | (0.01) | |
Woman’s body mass index | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.02 *** | 0.02 *** | 0.02 * | 0.02 ** | 0.02 ** | 0.03 ** |
(0.01) | (0.01) | (0.01) | (0.01) | (0.00) | (0.01) | (0.01) | (0.01) | (0.01) | |
Woman’s education | |||||||||
Less than primary | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref |
Primary | 0.15 | −0.01 | −0.10 | −0.00 | −0.12 | −0.05 | 0.04 | −0.08 | 0.02 |
(0.15) | (0.13) | (0.15) | (0.12) | (0.13) | (0.13) | (0.14) | (0.14) | (0.17) | |
Secondary | 0.42 ** | 0.24 * | 0.15 | 0.18 | 0.13 | 0.20 | 0.29** | 0.17 | 0.20 |
(0.19) | (0.12) | (0.16) | (0.16) | (0.14) | (0.12) | (0.13) | (0.12) | (0.16) | |
Higher than secondary | 0.30 | 0.41 *** | 0.29 * | 0.29 * | 0.26 * | 0.32 * | 0.40 ** | 0.21 | 0.46 * |
(0.27) | (0.16) | (0.17) | (0.16) | (0.15) | (0.16) | (0.19) | (0.25) | (0.28) | |
Woman’s employment (yes = 1) | 0.27 * | 0.22 ** | 0.11 | 0.10 | 0.17 | 0.19 | 0.24 * | 0.23 ** | 0.13 |
(0.16) | (0.10) | (0.08) | (0.09) | (0.11) | (0.12) | (0.13) | (0.11) | (0.16) | |
Family members in the household (no.) | −0.01 * | −0.02 *** | −0.03 *** | −0.03 *** | −0.03 *** | −0.02 ** | −0.01 | −0.02 | −0.02 |
(0.01) | (0.01) | (0.01) | (0.01) | (0.01) | (0.01) | (0.01) | (0.01) | (0.01) | |
Wealth index quantiles | |||||||||
Poorest | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref |
Poorer | 0.05 | 0.18 | 0.11 | 0.07 | 0.24 ** | 0.19 | 0.18 | 0.37 * | 0.59 ** |
(0.23) | (0.15) | (0.13) | (0.11) | (0.12) | (0.17) | (0.17) | (0.19) | (0.29) | |
Middle | 0.21 | 0.38 *** | 0.43 *** | 0.45 *** | 0.62 *** | 0.58 *** | 0.60 *** | 0.57 *** | 0.44 * |
(0.23) | (0.13) | (0.13) | (0.11) | (0.10) | (0.13) | (0.14) | (0.17) | (0.26) | |
Richer | 0.45 | 0.72 *** | 0.70 *** | 0.70 *** | 0.81 *** | 0.72 *** | 0.65 *** | 0.69 *** | 0.68 *** |
(0.28) | (0.14) | (0.14) | (0.12) | (0.13) | (0.13) | (0.15) | (0.17) | (0.23) | |
Richest | 0.68 *** | 1.00 *** | 1.08 *** | 1.05 *** | 1.17 *** | 1.12 *** | 1.00 *** | 1.19 *** | 1.12 *** |
(0.24) | (0.20) | (0.17) | (0.15) | (0.17) | (0.17) | (0.18) | (0.23) | (0.34) | |
Place (urban = 1, rural 0) | −0.12 | −0.11 | −0.05 | 0.01 | 0.05 | 0.08 | 0.03 | 0.04 | 0.15 |
(0.13) | (0.11) | (0.09) | (0.09) | (0.11) | (0.09) | (0.11) | (0.14) | (0.16) | |
Region/Province | |||||||||
Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | |
2.region | −1.02 *** | −0.67 *** | −0.61 *** | −0.50 *** | −0.41 *** | −0.46 *** | −0.42 *** | −0.39 *** | −0.43 ** |
(0.16) | (0.13) | (0.12) | (0.09) | (0.09) | (0.09) | (0.08) | (0.11) | (0.17) | |
3.region | −0.26 | −0.10 | −0.11 | 0.01 | 0.04 | −0.02 | 0.15 | 0.21 | 0.39 * |
(0.19) | (0.09) | (0.12) | (0.08) | (0.08) | (0.08) | (0.14) | (0.18) | (0.22) | |
4.region | −1.80 *** | −1.93 *** | −1.95 *** | −1.89 *** | −1.75 *** | −1.66 *** | −1.62 *** | −1.41 *** | −0.90 *** |
(0.19) | (0.13) | (0.15) | (0.16) | (0.13) | (0.18) | (0.20) | (0.24) | (0.21) | |
5.region | −0.22 | 0.12 | 0.10 | 0.22 | 0.48 *** | 0.52 ** | 0.72 ** | 0.79 *** | 1.00 *** |
(0.25) | (0.21) | (0.18) | (0.21) | (0.18) | (0.24) | (0.31) | (0.24) | (0.30) | |
6.region | 0.39 | 0.36 *** | 0.18 | 0.16 | 0.21 | 0.09 | 0.09 | −0.04 | 0.17 |
(0.28) | (0.14) | (0.11) | (0.11) | (0.13) | (0.11) | (0.13) | (0.18) | (0.21) | |
Proper toilet facility (yes = 1) | −0.08 | −0.07 | −0.05 | 0.01 | −0.06 | −0.04 | −0.14 | −0.11 | 0.00 |
(0.16) | (0.10) | (0.11) | (0.10) | (0.12) | (0.14) | (0.11) | (0.15) | (0.23) | |
Safe drinking water (yes = 1) | 0.05 | 0.07 | −0.02 | −0.07 | −0.11 | −0.11 | −0.16 | −0.11 | −0.11 |
(0.14) | (0.08) | (0.09) | (0.08) | (0.07) | (0.10) | (0.11) | (0.14) | (0.14) | |
Constant | −3.47 *** | −2.84 *** | −2.29 *** | −2.14 *** | −1.85 *** | −1.68 *** | −1.31 *** | −0.60 | −0.48 |
(0.61) | (0.50) | (0.42) | (0.35) | (0.42) | (0.42) | (0.34) | (0.47) | (0.58) | |
Observations | 2854 | 2854 | 2854 | 2854 | 2854 | 2854 | 2854 | 2854 | 2854 |
Path Coefficients | Indirect Effects | Total Effects | ||
IV to Mediator (path a) | Mediator to DV (path b) | Point estimates (path ab) | Path (ab + c) | |
Women’s autonomy in household purchase decision | 0.449 ** (0.212) | 0.260 *** (0.081) | 0.117 * (0.066) | 1.197 *** (0.302) |
© 2019 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 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Rehman, A.; Ping, Q.; Razzaq, A. Pathways and Associations between Women’s Land Ownership and Child Food and Nutrition Security in Pakistan. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 3360. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16183360
Rehman A, Ping Q, Razzaq A. Pathways and Associations between Women’s Land Ownership and Child Food and Nutrition Security in Pakistan. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2019; 16(18):3360. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16183360
Chicago/Turabian StyleRehman, Azka, Qing Ping, and Amar Razzaq. 2019. "Pathways and Associations between Women’s Land Ownership and Child Food and Nutrition Security in Pakistan" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 16, no. 18: 3360. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16183360
APA StyleRehman, A., Ping, Q., & Razzaq, A. (2019). Pathways and Associations between Women’s Land Ownership and Child Food and Nutrition Security in Pakistan. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(18), 3360. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16183360