Impact of Crop Diversity on Dietary Diversity Among Farmers in India During the COVID-19 Pandemic
Impact of Crop Diversity on Dietary Diversity Among Farmers in India During the COVID-19 Pandemic
复制标题
DOI：
10.3389/fsufs.2021.695347
复制
发表时间：
2021-06-18
影响因子：
4.7
通讯作者：
Roy, Aditi
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Connors, Kaela;Jaacks, Lindsay M.;Roy, Aditi
作物多样性被认为对农户的饮食多样性有微小的积极影响，特别是在市场准入受到限制的情况下。应对COVID-19疫情的政策严重限制了市场准入。迄今为止，还没有研究探讨作物和饮食多样性之间的关系。为了解决这一差距，我们使用了在2020年5月至8月的三个时间点从印度12个邦的833名农民收集的纵向数据。饮食多样性是使用粮农组织妇女最低饮食多样性评分的修订版来衡量的，该评分已用于印度男女人口的代表性样本。包括八个食物组：（1）淀粉类斯台普斯（大米，小麦和土豆），（2）豆类，（3）坚果，（4）蔬菜，（5）水果，（6）乳制品，（7）鸡蛋和（8）肉类食物（肉，家禽和鱼）。多元多项式逻辑回归被用来估计作物和膳食多样性之间的关联。模型根据教育程度、种姓、农场规模、菜园和牲畜所有权进行了调整。参与者平均年龄为42.2岁，94.2%为男性。在研究期间，饮食多样性下降，特别是在基线和随访1之间，当时锁定措施是最严格的（34.2%的参与者经历了下降，而从随访1到随访2为16.1%）。与种植1种作物的农民相比，种植2种作物或3种或3种以上作物的农民从基线到随访1的饮食多样性下降的可能性显著降低：调整的相对风险（RR）（95%置信区间[CI]）分别为0.52（0.35，0.78）和0.48（0.31，0.75）。从后续行动1到后续行动2，当分阶段重新开放开始时，作物多样性和饮食多样性变化之间没有显着关联。这些发现表明，印度作物多样性较高的农民对COVID-19大流行造成的市场中断更具弹性。因此，虽然在正常情况下，作物和饮食多样性之间的联系可能很小，但多样化生产系统可能发挥越来越重要的作用，因为流行病和气候变化等全球性事件带来了更大的不确定性。
Crop diversity is thought to have small, positive impacts on dietary diversity among farming households, particularly when market access is restricted. Policy responses to the COVID-19 pandemic severely restricted market access. To date, no study has explored the relationship between crop and dietary diversity in this context. To address this gap, we used longitudinal data collected from 833 farmers across 12 states in India at three time points between May and August 2020. Dietary diversity was measured using a modified version of the FAO Minimum Dietary Diversity score for women, which has been used in representative samples of the Indian population in both men and women. Eight food groups were included: (1) starchy staples (rice, wheat, and potatoes), (2) pulses, (3) nuts, (4) vegetables, (5) fruits, (6) dairy, (7) eggs, and (8) fleshy foods (meat, poultry, and fish). Multivariate polynomial logistic regression was used to estimate the association between crop and dietary diversity. Models were adjusted for educational attainment, caste, farm size, having a kitchen garden, and livestock ownership. Participants were, on average, 42.2 years old and 94.2% were male. Dietary diversity decreased over the study period, especially between baseline and follow-up 1, when lockdown measures were the most restrictive (34.2% of participants experienced a decline compared to 16.1% from follow-up 1 to follow-up 2). Compared to farmers who cultivated 1 crop (monocroppers), farmers who cultivated 2 crops or 3 or more crops were significantly less likely to experience a decline in dietary diversity from baseline to follow-up 1: adjusted relative risk (RR) (95% confidence interval [CI]), 0.52 (0.35, 0.78) and 0.48 (0.31, 0.75), respectively. There was no significant association between crop diversity and change in dietary diversity from follow-up 1 to follow-up 2, when phased re-opening had begun. These findings suggest that farmers with greater crop diversity in India were more resilient to market disruptions from the COVID-19 pandemic. Thus, while the links between crop and dietary diversity may be small under normal circumstances, diversifying production systems may play an increasingly important role, as there is greater uncertainty due to global events such as pandemics and climate change.