Construction of a Farm-Level Food Security Index: Case Study of Turkish Dairy Farms
, Uzmay, A. (2024). Construction of a Farm-Level Food Security Index: Case Study of Turkish Dairy Farms. Social Indicators Research, 175, 687–714. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-024-03406-8
Shortened Abstract
While composite food security indexes are widely used globally, farm-level studies remain critically limited. To address this gap, this study constructs a novel Farm-level Food Security Index (FFSI) for dairy farms to assess their contribution to food security and guide policymakers. Based on data from 126 farms in the Thrace Region of Türkiye, the index evaluates performance across four key dimensions: economic, quality, social, and natural resources.
The analysis reveals an average FFSI score of 56.8, indicating that these dairy farms are utilizing only about half of their potential to fully guarantee food security. Furthermore, the study identifies that socioeconomic factors significantly influence these scores, highlighting priority areas for targeted agricultural policies. The FFSI is robust to weights and sensitive to normalisation. Based on these findings, numerous agricultural policy proposals have been developed in this study by identifying the priority areas that need to be addressed to guarantee food security.
You can find the detailed breakdown of the FFSI, including its specific dimensions, variables, and weights, in Table 1 below.
Table 1: Dimensions, variables, and weights of FFSI
| Indicator | Description | Weight (in dimension) | Weight (in index) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Economy, production, and marketing | |||
| 1.1 Production value | Total sales / Total livestock unit (LSU) | 16.28 | 4.07 |
| 1.2 Self-sufficiency | Home-grown feed cost / Total feed cost | 16.87 | 4.22 |
| 1.3 Capacity usage ratio | Current livestock assets / maximum capacity of the barn | 12.07 | 3.02 |
| 1.4 Stability of yields | (0) decrease, (1) stabile, (2) increase | 15.99 | 4.00 |
| 1.5 Dependency of subsidies | Would you be able to continue production without subsidies? (0) no (1) yes | 13.11 | 3.28 |
| 1.6 Access to finance | (0) no, (1) partially, (2) yes | 10.40 | 2.60 |
| 1.7 Input use | (0) decreased, (1) not decreased | 15.28 | 3.82 |
| 2. Quality and food safety | |||
| 2.1 Milk loss | Milk loss ratio due to food safety issues (%) | 32.50 | 8.13 |
| 2.2 Quality assessment | (0) no, (1) yes | 18.53 | 4.63 |
| 2.3 Quality premium | (0) no, (1) yes | 18.27 | 4.57 |
| 2.4 Milk cooling tank | (0) no, (1) centrally/common, (2) on the farm | 19.08 | 4.77 |
| 2.5 Knowledge of food safety | (0) no, (1) yes | 11.61 | 2.90 |
| 3. Social sustainability | |||
| 3.1 Agricultural education | (0) no, (1) yes | 22.12 | 5.53 |
| 3.2 Access to extension | (0) no extension opportunities, (1) there is, but not participating, (2) partially participating, (3) full participation | 21.49 | 5.37 |
| 3.3 Continuity of farm | (0) no (will not continue), (1) 1–5 years, (2) 6–10 years, (3) 11–15 years, (4) 15 years and more | 15.23 | 3.81 |
| 3.4 Willingness to increase production | (0) no, (1) yes | 6.84 | 1.71 |
| 3.5 Residence | (0) no, (1) partially, (2) yes | 16.29 | 4.07 |
| 3.6 Adaptability | (0) no, (1) followed but not comply with/not adapt, (2) followed and comply with/adapt | 7.89 | 1.97 |
| 3.7 Membership | Participation to farmer organizations, score | 10.15 | 2.54 |
| 4. Natural resources and climate change | |||
| 4.1 Insurance | Number of insured livestock / herd size | 25.59 | 6.40 |
| 4.2 Early warning | (1) never, (2) rarely, (3) sometimes, (4) often, (5) very often | 25.00 | 6.25 |
| 4.3 Adaptation to climate change | Number of relevant on-farm adaptation measures | 16.96 | 4.24 |
| 4.4 Biodiversity | Number of different species | 32.46 | 8.11 |
Source: Koç and Uzmay (2024). Social Indicators Research.