Food Security among Rural Communities: Insights from Iran

Abstract

“Zero Hunger”, the second Sustainable Development Goal, is one of humanity’s most critical challenges and is deeply interlinked with food security. Food security encompasses multiple levels, from food availability to access to food stability. However, for most residents in rural areas of developing and underdeveloped countries, food security primarily means physical, economic, and sustained access to food. Thus, evaluations of food security in rural areas should differ from those in urban areas. This original study introduces a novel approach and an integrated index to assess and present access to food (AFI) using fuzzy and weighted mean techniques. It analyzed 300 rural households in southern Iran. The findings revealed that the AFI of the studied community was 0.551, indicating a moderate level of food security. Most households had intermediate physical, economic, and sustainable access to food, which means that they did not face any critical situations regarding food security. This study suggests that achieving food security requires a hierarchical approach. Realizing the goal of zero hunger in rural areas of less developed countries necessitates a distinct strategy compared to urban areas for policymakers to focus more on food availability and access as the initial levels of the food security pyramid.

1. Introduction

“Zero hunger” is one of the most critical Sustainable Development Goals that has encountered significant challenges [1,2] and is closely linked to food security. Based on the 2019 global hunger index, several countries have higher hunger levels than in 2010, and approximately 45 countries are set to fail to achieve low food security levels by 2030 [3]. Since most hungry people worldwide live in rural areas, the food insecurity challenge in rural areas is a major obstacle to achieving the second goal of Sustainable Development Goals [4,5]. The severity of the food security situation in Iran is alarming, with crises such as changes in agricultural land use and fragmentation [6,7,8], degradation of groundwater and soil resources [9], and severe climate change [10,11,12] exacerbating the issue. Moreover, food insecurity has several consequences, including poverty [13], adverse effects on maternal and neonatal health and well-being [14], early mortality, decreased economic productivity [15], gender inequality [16], and conflict [17,18]. These issues highlight the need for increased attention, especially in rural communities. For example, according to Ahmadi Dehrashid et al. [19], 80% of Iranian rural residents suffer from food insecurity (42% in moderate food insecurity and 13% in severe food insecurity). They indicated that economic stability and availability were the most important factors affecting components of food insecurity. Insufficient income in rural households, lack of job diversity, and lack of access to adequate food are the main reasons for food insecurity in Iran. Another case study among rural households in Nigeria showed that 23.2% of the maize farmers faced food insecurity. Scholars also emphasized that to improve food security among maize farmers, land productivity should be enhanced through improving production practices [20]. A recent cross-sectional study among households of smallholder farmers in the Kiboga district in Uganda indicated that 35% of studied households were food secure [21]. More than 36% of the households in the rural areas of the Southern and Northern provinces of Rwanda experienced moderate and severe food insecurity [22]. Although the households seem to be food secure at the national level in South Africa, rural areas face severe food insecurity [23]. Therefore, the issue of food security in rural areas needs more attention and investigation. This issue is especially important because, firstly, according to the United Nations, a large portion of the population—particularly the poor, who are more vulnerable to food insecurity—in less developed countries still live in rural areas. Now more than 80% of the world’s extreme poor live in rural areas (three times higher than urban residents). Secondly, despite the fact that a significant part of society’s food needs is met through various agricultural activities in rural areas, rural populations also experience lower levels of food security [24].

According to the Rome Declaration on World Food Security, food security exists when “all people, at all times, have physical, social, and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life” [25]. This basic definition indicates that food security is a multidimensional concept with several elements, including food availability, food access, utilization, and stability [20,26]. Although food security and food systems have several elements, including food availability, food access, food safety, and stability, for most residents of developing and underdeveloped countries, especially for people living in rural areas of these countries, the concept of food security is limited to physical, economical and sustained access to food. It means we can assume that food security elements have a hierarchical structure that requires lower levels to reach higher levels (Figure 1). In other words, when food security is achieved at the bottom of the pyramid (physical, economic, and sustained access to food), it can go to the upper levels of the pyramid. In other terms, like Maslow’s theory of basic needs [27], this study assumes that food security has several related levels and is located in a hierarchical structure. When the lower level (food availability and access to food) is met, the next higher needs emerge (food safety and stability). Accordingly, this study introduces the food security pyramid as a hierarchical model of food security, adapted from Maslow’s hierarchical needs theory, for the first time in this field (Figure 1). In fact, this perspective on food security, derived from Maslow’s basic needs pyramid theory, represents the innovation of this research, which can provide policymakers with a broader and step-by-step perspective to improve food security. A review of previous studies shows that this approach has not been explored in this way. In other words, based on the hierarchical approach, human beings initially prioritize ‘food availability and access’ (securing enough food with less concern for its quality) over food safety (ensuring various nutritional needs are met). Once this basic level is achieved, attention shifts to whether the food supply is sustainable—produced in a manner that preserves natural resources and the environment and mitigates climate change for future generations.

However, to understand the situation of a community in each element of the food security pyramid, we need to be able to measure the achievement level at each level; however, measuring food security is not simple [28]. This is because many factors, from individual to global, determine food security [29]. Recently, various indicators have been introduced to measure food security, such as the Global Food Security Index (GFSI), Household Food Insecurity and Access Scale (HFIAS), the Household Hunger Scale (HHS), Food Consumption Score (FCS), household dietary diversity scale (HDDS), the minimum dietary diversity (MDD), and self-assessed measure of food security (SAFS) [20,30]. These alternative measures vary greatly and can influence policy development to reduce food insecurity. However, many of them are impractical in assessing the food security status of a community because they are challenging to measure, not locally applicable, or insufficient for evaluating all aspects of food security at the community level. Therefore, in this study, an integrated index was developed to measure the rural households’ access to food (the first level of the food security pyramid) that indicated the status of the first level of food security at both household and community (based on three criteria of the physical, economy and sustainable access). To develop this integrated index, both the principles of calculating the multidimensional poverty index [31] (to adjust the index based on the household size) and the fuzzy logic method [32] (to combine the three main criteria and present a single index) are used.

Given the above literature and the second goal of Sustainable Development Goals (zero hunger), there is a serious need to address the issue of food security in rural areas. We also need to have a hierarchical approach to food security. Since access to food is a crucial aspect of food security, this study focused on access to food, which refers to the physical, economic, and sustained access to food to meet their dietary needs and preferences for an active and healthy life. In this regard, first, we must pay attention to physical, economic, and sustainable access to food and then to the higher elements of food security (food safety and stability). Doing this also requires paying more attention to the methods and index of measuring food safety. Therefore, this study aims to provide an integrated and improved index to measure the status of rural households’ access to food (i.e., the lowest level of the food security pyramid). This study also seeks to answer these key questions:

(a)

Is the current approach to food security and its measurement methods suitable for rural communities?

(b)

What changes in approach are needed to address food security issues better?

(c)

Based on this new approach, how can the food security situation in rural communities be measured effectively?

2. Data and Methods

Data

The data used for this study were collected through a field survey of 300 rural households in one of the rural areas of Khuzestan Province in Iran (Figure 2). In this study, Cohen’s formula was used to determine the sample size. Given that the study involved three concepts (corresponding to the three dimensions of the food security index) and nine indicators, the sample size was calculated assuming an effect size of 0.2, a desired statistical power level of 0.8, and a significance level of 0.05. This resulted in a required sample size of 296. To account for possible errors, 300 households were surveyed. The households selected for the study were chosen through a survey of villages and a random selection of homes. Efforts were made to ensure that samples were drawn from all areas of the village to better represent the entire rural household population.

Khuzestan borders Iraq to the west and the Persian Gulf to the south. It is also bordered by the Iranian provinces of Ilam, Lorestan, Isfahan, Chaharmahal, and Bakhtiari, and Kohgiluyeh and Boyer-Ahmad. From the climate view, the province experiences a hot desert climate characterized by extremely high temperatures, especially in summer. It also has significant humidity levels. Khuzestan’s strategic importance due to its natural resources, especially oil and gas, makes it a vital region for Iran’s economy. Its rich cultural heritage and historical significance also make it a fascinating area for researchers and tourists alike. Despite its wealth in natural resources, parts of Khuzestan suffer from poverty and underdevelopment. Efforts to address these disparities are ongoing but face numerous challenges, including water shortages, pollution, and dust storms. The diversion of rivers and the construction of dams have significantly impacted the local ecosystem and agriculture. The fertile plains of Khuzestan, especially around the Karun River, support significant agricultural activities. Major crops include wheat, barley, rice, and sugarcane. The province is also known for its date palms and citrus fruits. Despite these characteristics, this province faces widespread poverty, especially in rural areas. Currently, the multidimensional poverty index in the rural areas of this region is 0.392, which is higher than the national average [33]. Khuzestan Province, with its significant agricultural capacity, is a key region for food production in Iran. Khuzestan’s agricultural output is crucial for local food security, not only for the province but also for other parts of Iran. The production of staples like wheat and rice ensures a steady food supply, but this is increasingly under threat due to environmental and economic factors. However, the rural population faces ongoing challenges related to water scarcity, environmental degradation, and economic instability, which threaten food security. Addressing these challenges requires a multifaceted approach, including sustainable water management, improved agricultural practices, and economic support for rural communities to ensure long-term food security and the well-being of the rural population in Khuzestan.

The data collection instrument was a questionnaire consisting of three sections to measure the three main components of food access, including physical access (with five indicators), economic access (with five indicators), and sustainable access to food (with four indicators;

Table 1. Components of food availability, access and their indicators.

Component	Symbol	Indicator (Maximum Possible Value) *
Physical	P1	Variety of food supply sources (Supermarkets, bakeries, butchers, fruit shops, etc.) (9)
	P2	The ability of food supply centers available to the household to cover all household food items (5)
	P3	The amount of food production by the household (20)
	P4	The amount of food items prepared from outside the village ** (4)
	P5	Forced to leave the village to obtain the food items needed ** (5)
Economic	E1	Adequacy of family income to provide the basic food items (4)
	E2	Adequacy of family income to provide non-basic family food preferences (4)
	E3	The amount of borrowing to provide food items ** (4)
	E4	The effect of price fluctuations on the food supply capacity of the family ** (4)
	E5	Receipt of food support during the past year ** (4)
Sustained	S1	Continuity of food items available over the past year (4)
	S2	Continuation of the family’s economic situation to provide food items during the past year (4)
	S3	Status of food price fluctuations over the past year ** (4)
	S4	Frequency of leaving the village to provide food during the past year ** (4)

* The numbers in parentheses are the maximum possible value that can be assigned to the indicator. ** This indicator is not along with others; therefore, it has been reversed after standardization.

).

Fluctuations in food prices are the most important reason for rural households’ lack of access to food (E4 = 0.246).

3. Methods

This study used fuzzy logic and the weighted average as powerful methods used in various fields, including data analysis, decision-making, and indexing. Fuzzy logic is particularly useful in dealing with uncertainties and imprecise data. It is a form of reasoning that handles the concept of partial truth, where truth values range between completely true and completely false. Its key advantages are handling uncertainty and ambiguity, having a flexible framework compared to rigid binary logic systems, ease of implementation, improved accuracy, etc. The weighted mean is a statistical measure that gives different weights to different elements in a dataset, reflecting their relative importance. Compared to other averaging or indexing methods, the weighted average offers several benefits, including that it reflects the importance of data points, reduces bias (it can reduce the influence of outliers or less significant data), has customizability (weights can be adjusted according to the specific context or criteria), and is better for heterogeneous data. Based on these two powerful methods, an index was developed to measure food availability and access at the household and societal levels. To measure the index at the community level, we used the weighted average of the index at the household level (the weight assigned to each household was calculated based on its family size), which was previously used by [31] to calculate the multidimensional poverty index (MPI). The process of calculating this index was as follows:

(1) Standardize and align each indicator’s values: First, each indicator’s value was standardized by dividing it by the indicator’s maximum possible value (as shown in Table 1). This results in a value between zero and one, representing the range from no access to full access to food (covering physical, economic, and stability aspects). Next, to align indicators that were not consistent with the others, the value of each misaligned indicator was subtracted from one to achieve uniformity across each dimension.

(2) Calculating the household AFI (${AFI}_h$): At this stage, firstly, the values of the indicators in each dimension (physical, economic, and stability) were calculated separately using the arithmetic mean (Equation (1)).

$${AFI}_{ih}=\sum x_{ijh}/n_i$$

(1)

where ${AFI}_{ih}$ (a value between zero and one) is the value of access to food index in dimension i (P, E, and S) for household h, $x_{ijh}$ represents the value of indicator j in dimension i for household h, and $n_i$ is the number of indicators in dimension j. Finally, using the fuzzy logic method, the calculated indices for each of the dimensions of food access were combined, and the food access index for the household (AFI_h) was calculated as follows:

(2.1) Fuzzification of${AFI}_{ih}$: During this phase, we converted the crisp input value of ${AFI}_{ih}$ to a fuzzy value using the triangular membership function (MF), which is the most commonly used function because of its simplicity and intuition in the fuzzification process [32,34]. For this purpose, we hypothesized that the state of access to food in each dimension consists of three fuzzy triangular membership functions, including low access (L), intermediate access (I), and high access (H) [L, I, H] (Figure 3).

Accordingly, for example, if the amount of access to food in one dimension is equal to 0.7, it means that the membership of the household in the low access to food function is zero, in the intermediate access to food function is 0.6, and in the high access to food function is 0.4.

(2.2) Fuzzy inference: We used Mamdani fuzzy inference systems as a framework to convert each input into an output. By combining three input variables (dimensions of food access), which had two membership functions [L, I, H], 27 different combinations were obtained (

Table 2. Rules database (implication method = and; aggregation method = or).

No	Inputs Variables					Output Variable AF
	Physical		Economics		Stability
1	L	and	L	and	L	→	TL
2	L	and	L	and	I	→	VL
3	L	and	L	and	H	→	L
4	L	and	I	and	L	→	VL
5	L	and	I	and	I	→	L
6	L	and	I	and	H	→	M
7	L	and	H	and	L	→	L
8	L	and	H	and	I	→	M
9	L	and	H	and	H	→	H
10	I	and	L	and	L	→	VL
11	I	and	L	and	I	→	L
12	I	and	L	and	H	→	M
13	I	and	I	and	L	→	L
14	I	and	I	and	I	→	M
15	I	and	I	and	H	→	H
16	I	and	H	and	L	→	M
17	I	and	H	and	I	→	H
18	I	and	H	and	H	→	VH
19	H	and	L	and	L	→	L
20	H	and	L	and	I	→	M
21	H	and	L	and	H	→	H
22	H	and	I	and	L	→	M
23	H	and	I	and	I	→	H
24	H	and	I	and	H	→	VH
25	H	and	H	and	L	→	H
26	H	and	H	and	I	→	VH
27	H	and	H	and	H	→	TH

), which then turned into a fuzzy output variable (Figure 4) with seven triangular fuzzy membership functions including too low (TL), very low (VL), low (L), moderate (M), high (H), very high (VH), and too high (TH) access to food [TL, VL, L, ML, H, VH, TH]. Then, based on these combinations, the rule database (including 27 rules) and the fuzzy inference system were developed.

(2.3) Defuzzification of${AFI}_h$: Finally, fuzzy results had to be converted into crisp output. We used the centroid method, which is the most commonly used defuzzification method (Equation (2)), to transfer fuzzy inference results into a crisp output (a single number from the output of the aggregated fuzzy set) [32,34]. It returns the center of the area under the curve:

$${AFI}_h={\sum }_i\mu \left(xi\right)xi/{\sum }_i\mu \left(xi\right)$$

(2)

where μ(x_i) is the membership value for point x_i in the output membership function.

(3) Calculating the community access to food (AFI): After calculating the AFI for each household (AFI_h), we calculated this index for the community. In this regard, given that the number of household members (family size) is not the same for all the studied households, to calculate the AFI of the community based on the multidimensional poverty index calculated method [31], the AFI was calculated using Equation (3).

$$AFI={\sum }_h\left(\left({AFI}_h\times p_h\right)/P\right)$$

(3)

where p_h is the family size of the household h and $P=\sum p_h$.

4. Results and Discussion

4.1. Dimensions of Access to Food in Rural Communities

Assuming that the points 0.25 and 0.75 in Figure 3 represent the boundaries between low, intermediate, and high access to food,

Table 3. Distribution of households in terms of access to food in its three dimensions.

Access to Food	Physical		Economic		Stability
	Freq.	%	Freq.	%	Freq.	%
Low	17	5.7	35	11.7	22	7.3
Intermediate	268	89.3	200	66.7	242	80.7
High	15	5.0	65	21.7	36	12.0
Total	300	100	300	100	300	100

shows the number of households in each category according to the three main aspects of access to food. Most households fall into the intermediate category regarding physical, economic, and stable access to food. However, the economic access to food in the study area is less balanced than the other two aspects. As a result, there are more households in rural areas with either low or high economic access to food compared to the other dimensions, probably due to the greater inequality in income distribution in those areas. Income inequality significantly impacts food affordability in rural areas. Low-income households in rural regions struggle to secure adequate and affordable food, leading to food insecurity [4]. Similarly, Cafer et al. (2018) indicated that rural households have higher food expenditure-to-income ratios (19%) than urban areas (17%), with the highest ratios found in Appalachian and Delta counties in the United States, emphasizing the challenges vulnerable families face in accessing affordable food [35]. Additionally, income inequality among rural households contributes to nutrition insecurity, with high levels of malnutrition and limited dietary diversity observed in areas with significant income disparities [36]. However, promoting self-consumption through agricultural production can help increase food access and reduce poverty in rural communities [37]. Understanding these dynamics is crucial for public health professionals to develop effective strategies to improve food access in rural areas.

Table 4. Some statistics of households’ access to food dimensions scores.

	Access to Food Dimensions
	Physical	Economic	Stability
Arithmetic mean	0.563	0.550	0.525
Weighted mean *	0.562	0.571	0.539
Standard deviation	0.144	0.246	0.197

* is calculated based on the family size.

shows the households’ average and standard deviation scores in each dimension of food access. Based on the results, the most important challenge of the studied households regarding access to food has been the instability of their access to food (0.525). Since then, economic (0.550) and physical (0.563) challenges have been the most important challenges to accessing food among rural households. When each of these indicators is adjusted based on family size (weighted mean), the values of the food access index will increase slightly in economic and stability dimensions. This means households with higher populations have higher economic and stable access to food. This is because these households usually have more employed members; therefore, their family’s sources of income are more numerous than those of lower family sizes. Although many studies concluded that larger family size has a negative effect on food security [38,39,40], some others found different results [41]. This study found that larger family sizes are an effective factor in improving food access. This paradox in findings is because larger family sizes only have a crucial role in enhancing food security when the employment rate is high in the district or there is a need for labor in the family. The importance of economic and stable access to food as the most important components of food insecurity has also been emphasized by Ahmadi Dehrashid, Bijani, Valizadeh, Ahmadi Dehrashid, Nasrollahizadeh, and Mohammadi [19] among the Iranian rural communities and other developing countries such as Rwanda [22], South Africa [23], and Uganda [21].

Table 5. Households’ access to food in each sub-dimension.

Dimension	Sub-Dimension	Mean	Standard Deviation
Physical	P1	0.654	0.298
	P2	0.696	0.213
	P3	0.236	0.217
	P4	0.416	0.266
	P5	0.816	0.152
Economic	E1	0.422	0.237
	E2	0.631	0.315
	E3	0.713	0.334
	E4	0.246	0.272
	E5	0.738	0.314
Stability	S1	0.642	0.256
	S2	0.540	0.313
	S3	0.495	0.330
	S4	0.424	0.231

shows the different aspects of household food access. Physically, rural households now produce only a small part of their needed food (P3 = 0.236). However, in the recent past, they produced most of their food. The trend for households in rural areas of Iran has indeed seen some fluctuations and challenges in recent years, largely influenced by various factors such as economic conditions, climate change, water scarcity, and governmental policies [42]. This shift is mainly due to changes in consumption patterns among rural households. With the increasing variety of available foods and changing family tastes, they can no longer produce a significant portion of the foods their members want. This rapid change in consumption patterns and reducing the production of needed foods by households has also been observed in rural areas worldwide [43,44,45] and is not unique to rural communities in Iran.

Some rural households cannot obtain all the food they need from local village supply centers, so they often have to go to other villages or cities to buy food (P4 = 0.416). This suggests that rural areas’ lack of sufficient infrastructure and services (like the number and quality of food supply centers or market networks) contributes to higher food insecurity. For instance, implementing advanced storage facilities in China greatly enhances household food security and decreases the reliance on market purchases for fulfilling household food needs [46]. This issue is critical because it prevents rural households from having reliable access to food throughout the year (S4 = 0.424). Improving physical and communication infrastructure is identified as a key factor in enhancing rural food security and livelihoods [47,48]. Telecommunications networks are currently the most impactful factor for farmers in developing countries. For example, in Tamil Nadu, India, the widespread use of cell phones and increasing broadband Internet coverage drive an initiative called Village Knowledge Centers. This project aims to help farmers to have better access to food by sharing vital information [49]. LeGreco et al. (2021) also concluded that communication infrastructure aids in coordinating resources for rural food security, and physical infrastructure like transportation impacts access to food in rural areas [50].

When the standard deviation of the sub-dimensions of food access is compared, it appears that the common challenge faced by rural households is that they are “forced to leave the village to provide their food items” (P5 = 0.152). Therefore, policymakers should consider food and rural development as a key policy priority.

4.2. Access to Food Index (AFI) in Rural Communities

The status of food access for each rural household was discussed in the previous section. However, as stated in the methodology section, a weighted mean was used to calculate the AFI at the community level in this study. Based on this, the AFI of the rural community was 0.551. This means that the access to food in the studied rural community is about moderate. Suppose this value is shown as a crisp value in the output fuzzy membership functions as Figure 5. In that case, it will demonstrate that the probability of belonging to this community to the moderate access to food fuzzy function is about 70%, and to the high access to food fuzzy membership function is about 30%.

Suppose we assume the diverse location of each fuzzy output function as the boundary between the two functions. In that case, we can show the frequency of households in each of the seven groups of food access (from lack of access to full access) in Figure 6, in which 3.7%, 18.7%, 32%, 38.3%, and 7.3% of studied households have very low, low, moderate, high and very high access to food, respectively. None of the households surveyed had full access (TH) or lack of full access (TL) to food.

In this regard, our findings align with Ahmadi Dehrashid, Bijani, Valizadeh, Ahmadi Dehrashid, Nasrollahizadeh, and Mohammadi [19] in the Iranian rural community. They indicated that 42% of the Iranian rural communities are faced with moderate food insecurity, and 13% are in severe food insecurity. The food security situation in rural Iran is similar to that of some other parts of the world. For example, about 23% of the rural households in Nigeria are faced with food insecurity [20]. In Uganda, only 35% of the rural households have food security [21], and more than 36% of the farming households in the rural areas of Rwanda experienced moderate and severe food insecurity [22]. Another study in rural Ecuador highlighted that variables like the number of income earners and total family income have a significant relationship with food security, emphasizing the importance of purchasing power in ensuring access to food [51]. Furthermore, a study in rural Portugal emphasized that low physical access, purchasing capacity, and awareness of food issues can compromise local food utilization, underscoring access’s essential role in food security outcomes [52]. Therefore, ensuring access to food is paramount in addressing food security challenges in rural areas.

5. Conclusions

Achieving the zero-hunger goal, a key global objective under the Sustainable Development Goals, necessitates urgent attention to food security in rural areas. Food security is an ongoing challenge with a hierarchical structure. Its foundation is built on food availability and access, encompassing physical, economic, and sustained access. This paper adapts Maslow’s basic needs theory and emphasizes that in less developed regions, such as rural areas, ensuring physical, economic, and sustained access to food is more critical than prioritizing food safety and stability. This perspective introduces a hierarchical approach to food security, where food availability and access are prioritized over food safety and stability among rural residents. Consequently, the primary focus of this study was on access to food. To address this, the paper proposes an integrated and improved index called the access to food index (AFI) to comprehensively assess rural households’ access to food. This index considers various components of food access at both the household and community levels. According to the study, the AFI for the examined community was 0.551, indicating moderate food access. Most households in the community have intermediate levels of physical, economic, and sustained access to food. The findings suggest that to achieve the zero-hunger goal more quickly, national and international efforts should concentrate on the fundamental level of the food security pyramid, particularly in the rural areas of developing or less developed countries. These areas are home to many poor people who struggle with basic hunger, which prevents them from addressing other forms of hunger, such as nutritional deficiencies.

Therefore, this study’s main suggestions to reach the zero-hunger development goal are as follows:

(a)

The food security situation in each community should be assessed using a hierarchical and integrated index, like AFI. This provides a clear numerical value that represents the overall food security situation, reflecting the status of each dimension of food security.

(b)

Emphasizing the basic level of the food security pyramid, especially in less developed areas like rural regions, is more critical than other levels of the food security pyramid.

(c)

Access to food in rural communities is influenced by several key factors, grouped into physical access, economic access, and stability of access. Efforts should prioritize improving these aspects, particularly in rural areas.

(d)

To enhance physical access, variables such as the availability and condition of roads, transportation systems, storage facilities, distance to food markets, and the availability of food retail outlets should be prioritized. Collectively, these improve the physical accessibility of food for rural communities.

(e)

Economic access to food depends on variables such as household income, economic stability, food affordability, and price fluctuations. Policymakers should address these economic factors to increase the purchasing power of rural households.

(f)

The stability of access to food is influenced by a range of social, cultural, environmental, policy, and technological factors. For stability in food access, it is vital to consider variables such as dietary preferences and cultural norms that affect food consumption patterns.

(g)

Continuing to enhance agricultural productivity is crucial for food security, especially in rural areas. This involves considering variables such as soil fertility, water availability, climate conditions, sustainable farming practices, and environmental conservation efforts that support long-term agricultural productivity. Additionally, agricultural policies, land tenure systems, access to arable land, modern farming technology, and availability of agricultural extension services and market information should be taken into consideration.

These factors collectively determine the extent to which rural communities can access sufficient, safe, and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and preferences for an active and healthy life. Enhancing these fundamental aspects will lay a stronger foundation for overall food security and contribute to achieving the zero-hunger goal.

This study attempted to highlight the necessity of shifting the current perspective on food security by advocating for a hierarchical approach and proposing a composite index for this purpose. However, it recommends that, to broaden the application of this index, its validity should first be assessed through several future field studies. Additionally, the index presented in this study focuses solely on the level of food access. It is suggested that future research should develop a more comprehensive index that integrates all three levels of food security. Moreover, while this study was limited to rural areas, future research could also evaluate and validate the same model in non-rural regions.