Search

Raziskava se ukvarja z ravnjo doživete prehranske negotovosti na priročnem vzorcu. Teoretski pregled se začne z definicijo prehranske negotovosti, ki temelji na štirih stebrih (razpoložljivost, dostop, uporaba, stabilnost). Poudari predhodno zaznane ranljive skupine (ženske, brezposelni, enostarševske družine itd.) in posledice doživljanja (zdravstvene, socialne). Nadaljuje s pomembnimi temami predhodnih težav z raziskovanjem tematike, ki so jo do sedaj po večini raziskovali iz naravoslovnih ozadij in s posrednimi meritvami, ki ne omogočajo pravilnega razumevanja problema. Posledično ne omogočajo učinkovitega naslavljanja problema. Omeni se razloge za povečanje obsega v prihodnosti zaradi sprememb v živilskih sistemih, povečanja svetovnega prebivalstva in podnebnih sprememb. Prav tako opiše morebitno vlogo socialnega dela (povezovalna in poizvedovalna) in nujnosti sprememb v kurikulumu socialno-delavske izobrazbe (poudarki na ekologiji, odnosu človeka do okolja). Metodologija temelji na izračunu prehranske negotovosti za vsakega posameznega respondenta. Sledijo izračuni povprečij za razne demografske podskupine (glede na izobrazbo, velikost gospodinjstva, status itd.), iz katerih se izlušči trende. Glavne ugotovitve raziskave so: slabša izobrazba v povprečju pomeni višje doživljanje prehranske negotovosti, prebivalci manjših naselij so v povprečju prehransko bolj gotovi, dijaki oziroma študentje, ki živijo sami, v povprečju doživljajo višjo prehransko negotovost kot tisti v večjih gospodinjstvih ter brezposelni v povprečju doživljajo do štirikrat višjo prehransko negotovost kot druge skupine. Glede na rezultate in neposplošljivost vzorca so predlogi, ki temeljijo na raziskovanju, naslednji: bolj poglobljeno raziskovanje izpostavljenih skupin (dijaki/študentje, brezposelni), propagiranje skupnostnih vrtov kot načinov ublažitve prehranske negotovosti in opolnomočenje skupnosti ter večji ekološki poudarek v socialno-delavski izobrazbi. This research identifies the level of food insecurity and particular risk groups in a sample population. The theoretical introduction defines food insecurity, which is based on four pillars (availability, access, use, stability). It also highlights previously recognized risk groups such as women, the unemployed, single parent households etc. and briefly overlooks the social and medical effects of living through food insecurity. It additionally deals with the methodological challenges of this particular subject. Most research on food insecurity is based on natural sciences using proxy measurements, which leads to inadequate understanding of the problem and consequently its possible solutions . The paper continues by addressing the reasons for an increase in food insecurity due to changing food systems, population growth and climate change. It also mentions the role social work must take in addressing food insecurity (inquiring, advocating, empowering, coordinating), which begins with a change in its own teaching curriculum (additional focus on ecology and the interaction of humans with their environment). The methodology is based on calculations of food insecurity scores for individual respondents. It continues by calculations of averages for different demographic subgroups (based on employment, education, household size, status, etc.) and comparing them one to another. From these comparisons, trends are determined. The main findings of this research are: lower education on average means a higher food insecurity score, inhabitants of small settlements are on average more food-secure than those living in big settlements, students living alone have on average a higher food insecurity score than those living in bigger households, and the unemployed have on average an up to four times higher food insecurity score than other social subgroups. Based on the findings of a small, unrepresentative sample size, I recommend the following steps: a more in-depth research of risk groups such as students and the unemployed, support of community gardens in urban environments as a way of alleviating food insecurity and empowering the community, and finally, a bigger focus on ecology in social work education.