Chikaire, J.U
Department of Agricultural Extension, Federal University of Technology, Owerri, Nigeria
Ajaero, J.O
Department of Agricultural Extension, Federal University of Technology, Owerri, Nigeria
Atoma, C.N
Department of Agricultural Extension and Management, Delta State Polytechnic, Ozoro, Nigeria
*Corresponding author: futoedu23@gmail.com
1. Introduction
Covid-19 is the world's most difficult health challenge
that is unpredictable since the end of the Second World War till now. How
extreme the consequences of this scourge will be is not known to anyone, and
predictions remain for guess work. On a daily basis, week after week, the
situation is looking more and more serious with the third wave and new variants
of the deadly virus (Woodhill, 2020). As this happens, the world's poorest
people, whether living on high, middle or low in countries will be most affected
and vulnerable to the health impacts. These individuals will be particularly at
risk due to the poverty, high population, reduced remittances and the limited
capacity to respond.
Food is people's most critical need. Keeping food safe
and flowing to both city and rural population at a very cheap rate must be key
in responding to the Covid-19 crisis. The reduction or loss of incomes and
investments will have major impact on people’s financial resources and ability
to purchase food. The livelihoods of most rural people are connected to be production,
processing and distribution of food and the food security situation (Woodhill,
2020) of the urban population depends on the work of the small-scale rural
farmers, and rural workers. Therefore, rural poverty, rural well-being, urban
and rural security and the functioning of food systems are interconnected.
Therefore, the impact of Covid-19 on rural poor's
well-being and food system needs to be understood as a crucial health,
economic, livelihoods and food security crisis with serious implications. The
various restrictions and lockdowns imposed are impacting seriously on all
aspect of people's livelihoods (Woodhill, 2020). Thus, this has caused a
massive economic slowdown as people's freedom to shop, work and travel has been
curtailed. In return, large numbers of people, especially casual and low paid
workers have lost their jobs and their income. Multinational companies and
firms have dropped income earnings and sacked many workers. These have affected
purchasing food power and supply, and the availability of credit.
This affects large numbers of the population who become
ill with the virus and over-whelmed medical facilities with death rates rapidly
increasing. As these occur, the well-being of rural population and food systems
are made to shrink.
Imo State, Nigeria which is the focus of this study has
its worrisome share of ill-being, poverty and deprivation, therefore, it is not
surprising that the issue of wellbeing, particularly, of rural households will
be affected by the Covid-19 pandemic, despite the abundant natural and human
resources the country and the region is endowed with (Amao et al., 2017;
Kanayo, 2015). This submission attests to the branding of Nigeria as
poverty-stricken country, although in the midst of abundance in human and
material resources, with high rate of poverty, hunger, unemployment, high rate
of out of school children, high rate of child and maternal death with an
alarming rate of malaria (Jacob, 2015). Similarly, other geopolitical zones in
Nigeria have high level poverty and ill-being with Northern Nigeria having
highest poor population who are largely rural dwellers (Udoh et al., 2017).
Wellbeing represents a state of fulfillment, abundance in
health and wealth which indicates a positive change in the quality of life of a
person or group of persons. It indicates an improvement in the quality and
longevity of one’s life or of a population, resulting from upward improvement
in income, access to community assets and social services which create a
material condition for good standard of living and general human development
(Popova, 2017). Wellbeing is conceived as a state in which wealth is created,
thus giving birth to the attainment of the good life, secured livelihoods as
well as socio-economic empowerment (Chambers, 1995).
Accordingly,
wellbeing is associated with a state of being happy which may either be
occasioned by ties, a social relation or economic pathways that produce the
condition of wellbeing (Seferiadis et al., 2015). In the context of this study,
wellbeing represents a socio-economic condition that guarantees an increase in
income, food security material health, savings and easy access to community
capitals which, by and large, are fundamental to human development. These important
elements of livelihood assets are considered to be effective towards improving
the standard of living and quality of life of an individual or household which
largely influences wellbeing status. Therefore how Covid-19 pandemic affects
food systems and well-being is not known and this study seeks to address it.
The specific objectives included:
a) To examine the .rural farm families’ awareness of Covid-19 pandemic
b) To identify information sources on Covid-19
pandemic’
c) To determine the perceived effects of Covid-19
pandemic on rural farm families’ food systems and well-being.
2. Materials and methods
Imo State lies within latitudes 4°45'N and 7°15'N, and
longitude 6°50'E and 7°25'E with an area of around 5,100 sq km. It is bordered
by Abia State on the East, by the River Niger and Delta State on the west, by
Anambra State to the north and Rivers State to the south (Imo State Government
(IMSG), 2010). The state is rich in natural resources including crude oil,
natural gas, lead, zinc. However, with a
high population density and over farming, the soil has been degraded and much
of the native vegetation has disappeared.
This deforestation has triggered soil erosion which is compounded by
heavy seasonal rainfall that has led to the destruction of houses and roads.
The rainy season begins in April and lasts until October with annual rainfall
varying from 1,500mm to 2,200mm (60 to 80 inches). An average annual temperature above 20 °C
(68.0 °F) creates an annual relative humidity of 75% with humidity reaching 90%
in the rainy season (IMSG, 2010). The
dry season experiences two months of Harmattan from late December to late
February. The hottest months are between January and March. Imo
has three Agricultural zones namely, Orlu, Okigwe and Owerri. A total of
452 rural farm families was randomly selected from a list of 4520 registered
farm families from the three Agricultural zones of the State. Primary data were
collected through questionnaire (survey) and interview schedule. The data were
collected from rural men and women farmers, community leaders, youth leaders.
Descriptive statistical tools such as percentages presented in frequency
distribution tables, mean and standard
deviation were used to achieve objectives 1,2 and 3. Mean was computed on a
4-point Likert type rating scale of
strongly agree, agree, disagree and strongly disagree assigned weight of
4,3,2,1 to capture perceived effects covid 19 pandemic on food systems and
well-being (objective 3). The values were added and divided by 4 to get the
discriminating mean value of 2.5. Any mean value equal to or above 2.5 was
regarded as a major effects on food system and wellbeing, while values less
than 2.5 were regarded as no effects.
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Awareness of Covid-19 pandemic by
the respondents
Table 1 shows that the respondents were fully aware of
the reality of Covid-19 pandemic as indicated by their knowledge of events
associated with the pandemic. These events include avoidance of handshake
(88.0%), no touching of nose/eyes (95.5%), vaccination (99.5%), hand washing
(91.5%), wearing of face mask (100%) and social distancing (95.3%). These
measures were seen by the respondents in the communities and markets where they
met people. The sight of the above measures reinforced the firm belief that Covid-19
exist. Other signs were knowledge of the
incubation period of 2-14 days (99.7%), transmission is human to human (89.6%),
difficulty breathing (90.2%), coughing/dry cough (93.5%), sore throat (68.5%),
common cold (83.1%), fever/tiredness (98.2%), lockdown imposition (97.3%),
barriers to domestic travels (86.1%) and public transport restrictions (90%).
The respondents were fully aware of the above due to covid-19 pandemic and they
even practiced the covid-19 protocol measures and received enlightenment
messages from the Nigeria Centre for Diseases Control (NCDC).
Table 1: Awareness of
Covid-19 pandemic signs
|
Awareness signs |
*N |
% |
|
Avoidance
of hand shake |
401 |
88.7 |
|
No
touching of nose/eyes |
432 |
95.5 |
|
Incubation
period is 2-14 days |
451 |
99.7 |
|
Transmission
is human to human |
405 |
89.6 |
|
Difficulty
breathing |
408 |
90.2 |
|
Coughing/dry
cough |
423 |
93.5 |
|
Sore
throat |
310 |
68.5 |
|
Common
cold |
376 |
83.1 |
|
Fever/Tiredness |
444 |
98.2 |
|
Face
mask usage/wearing |
452 |
100 |
|
Social
distancing |
431 |
95.3 |
|
Hand
washing with soap |
414 |
91.5 |
|
Lockdown
imposition |
440 |
97.3 |
|
Vaccination |
450 |
99.5 |
|
Barriers
to domestic travels |
389 |
86.1 |
|
Public
transport restrictions |
407 |
90.0 |
*Multiple response
Covid-19 Information Sources in the study area
Table 2 shows that the farm-families have so many sources/avenues of information on covid-19 pandemic. The sources include reading books (90.7%), journals (85.6%), magazines (72.9%), television (75.2%), radio (100%), newspapers (66.5%), churches/religious bodies (100%), town criers (99.5%), family members (70.3%), doctors (88.4%), and community leaders (100%). These agrees with Efe (2020), who posited that there are a lot of information sources on Covid-19 available as the Nigerian government was able to employ various strategies for sharing Covid-19 information to ensure the awareness penetrates every stratum of the society, the rich class, poor, educated, illiterate, kids, youth, and elderly, male and female, digital literate/ digital illiterate to mention only but a few.
Table 2: Covid-19
pandemic information sources
|
Sources of information |
*N |
% |
|
Reading books |
410 |
90.7 |
|
Journals |
387 |
85.6 |
|
Magazines |
326 |
72.1 |
|
Television |
340 |
75.2 |
|
Radio |
452 |
100 |
|
Newspapers |
301 |
66.5 |
|
Hospital/health
centre |
290 |
64.2 |
|
Churches/religious
bodies |
452 |
100 |
|
Town criers |
450 |
99.5 |
|
Family members |
318 |
70.3 |
|
Community
leaders |
452 |
100 |
|
Medical
doctors/nurses |
400 |
88.4 |
Perceived Effects on Rural Farm families’ Well-being
Table 3 shows that the effects of covid 19 on the farm families are many and varied, touching all facets of their lives. Based on a 2.50 discriminating mean index, the effects on well-being includes loss of income (M=3.41), loss of employment (M=3.68), loss of remittances (M=3.28), reduce ability to produce food (M=3.12), illness/death of household heads (M=2.90), limited/reduced access to food (M=2.85), reduce food availability (M=2.28), disruption of food supply chain (M=3.67), increased food cost (M=3.70), high level of infection (M=3.81) quick diseases spread due to neglect (M=2.68), panic situation (M=2.74), increased stress (M=2.60), financial crises among households (M=3.01), schools closure (M=3.41), reduced capacity to acquire education (M=3.01), low education investment (M=2.89), increased child labour in agriculture (M=2.79), increased households debts (M=2.91), reduced saving (M=2.58), local household food stock will lower (M=2.16) and many more.
Table 3: Perceived
Effects on Rural Farm families Well-being
|
Perceived effects |
Mean |
SD |
|
Loss of income |
3.41 |
0.74 |
|
Loss of
employment |
3.68 |
0.62 |
|
Loss of
remittances |
3.28 |
0.54 |
|
Reduced ability
to produce food |
3.12 |
0.89 |
|
Illness/death of
household heads |
2.90 |
0.71 |
|
Limited/reduced
access to food |
2.85 |
0.55 |
|
Reduce food
availability |
2.89 |
0.72 |
|
Disruption of
food supply chain |
3.67 |
0.68 |
|
Consumption of
low nutritional food |
2.74 |
0.49 |
|
Increased food
cost |
3.70 |
0.58 |
|
High level of
infection |
3.81 |
0.98 |
|
Quick spread due
to neglect of measures |
2.68 |
0.84 |
|
Panic situation
leading to violence |
2.74 |
0.74 |
|
Increase stress |
2.60 |
0.78 |
|
Financial crises
among households |
3.01 |
0.68 |
|
Schools closure |
3.41 |
0.67 |
|
Reduced capacity
to acquire education |
3.21 |
0.44 |
|
Low education
investment |
2.89 |
0.74 |
|
Increased child
labour in agriculture |
2.78 |
0.84 |
|
Increase
households debts |
2.91 |
1.01 |
|
Reduced savings
for households |
2.68 |
0.50 |
|
Local household
food stock will lower |
2.61 |
0.76 |
Accepted mean = 2.50
Perceived effects of Covid-19 on Farm families’ Food systems
Table 4 shows the effects of Covid-19 lockdown and movement restrictions on food systems of rural farm families. These arose from border closures, restricted gathering, closed schools and total no movement. With a discriminating mean index of 2.50, the following effects were identified – reduced food production (M=2.67) arising from no movement of farm laborers, reduced food distribution (M=2.75) also due to non-vehicular movement, inhibition of access to food (M=2.89) also as a result of no movement making food access difficult. Others include increase food prices/supplies (M=2.91), reduced quality/quantity of food (M=3.64), spoilage of food produce (M=3.01) mainly due to delays in sale of food produce, disruption of farm labour (M=2.89), reduced access to credit facilities (M=3.61), delayed harvesting of crops (M=2.73), disruption of food processing time (M=3.20), supply of low nutrition food items (M=2.69), processing of low quality food items (M=2.58), increased food transport cost (M=3.41), altered truck food delivery movements (M=2.97) among others.
Table 4: Covid-19
effects on farm families food systems
|
Food system effects |
Mean |
SD |
|
Reduced food
production |
2.67 |
1.05 |
|
Reduced food
distribution |
2.75 |
0.88 |
|
Inhibition of
access to food |
2.89 |
0.67 |
|
Increase food
prices & supplies |
2.91 |
0.71 |
|
Reduced
quality/quantity of food |
3.64 |
0.98 |
|
Spoilage of food
produce |
3.01 |
1.01 |
|
Disruption of
farm labor |
2.89 |
0.49 |
|
Reduced access
to credit facilities |
3.61 |
0.23 |
|
Delayed
harvesting of crops |
2.73 |
0.84 |
|
Disruption of
foods processing time |
3.20 |
0.78 |
|
Supply of low
nutrition food items |
2.69 |
0.68 |
|
Processing of
low quality food items |
2.58 |
0.99 |
|
Increase food
transport cost |
3.41 |
0.74 |
|
Truck deliveries
of foods altered |
2.97 |
0.58 |
Accepted mean = 2.50
4. Conclusion
There is
disproportionate impact of Covid-19 on poor and vulnerable groups including small-scale
farmers. There is critical need to keep food supply chains functioning.
Covid-19 pandemic is therefore real and has ravaged economies. It has led to so
many untold hardships such as loss of income, loss of employment opportunity,
loss of labour, panic/stress, reduced food production, and access to food, and
distribution.
References
Amao,
J. O., Ayantoye, K., & Fanifosi, G. E. (2017). An analysis of
multidimensional poverty and its determinants in rural Nigeria. Journal of Development and Agricultural
Economics, 9(10), 303-311.
Chambers, R. (1995). Poverty and livelihoods: whose reality counts?. Environment and Urbanization, 7(1),
173–204.
Efe, R. (2020). Covid-19 information seeking strategies of rural
dwellers in delta north, Nigeria. Library
Philosophy and Practice. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/4421
Imo State Government (2010). Examination ethics commission, ministry of
education, Owerri. Government Printers,
Owerri.
Jacob, J. (2015). Illusions to poverty reduction in Nigeria. International Journal of Innovative Research
and Development, 4(10), 343–356.
Kanayo, O. (2015). Poverty incidence and reduction strategies in Nigeria
: Challenges of Meeting 2015 MDG Targets. Journal
of Economics, 5(2), 201–217.
Popova, Y. (2017). Relations between wellbeing and transport infrastructure
of the Country. In Procedia Engineering,
178, 579-588.
Seferiadis, A. A., Cummings, S., Zweekhorst, M. B. M., & Bunders, J.
F. G. (2015). Producing social capital as a development strategy: Implications
at the micro-level. Progress in Development
Studies,15(2), 170–185.
Udoh, E. J., Akpan, S. B., & Uko, E. F. (2017). Assessment of sustainable
livelihood assets of farming households in Akwa Ibom State, Nigeria. Journal of Sustainable Development,
10(4).
|
|
©
The Author(s)
2022. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license. |
