This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK 15


Table 4.1 Planned and realized household sampling Sample size


Household type FII beneficiary


Nonbeneficiary in FII LGA


Nonbeneficiary outside FII LGA Total


(number of households) Planned 1,200


1,200 1,200 3,600


Note: FII, Fadama II; LGA, local government authority.


to have more than one household member belonging to it, sampling at the household level ensured that each household in a community had an equal chance of being selected. Each sampled respondent—which was usually the household head—supplied data for the entire household. Individual-specific information in the questionnaire was asked with respect to the household head. The sampling frame of the household survey was also stratified by the gender of the household head, ensuring that a quarter of the households from each FCA were female-headed households.


Selection of nonbeneficiaries living in and outside Fadama II LGAs followed the same procedure as just described. However, the FUG listed depended on the availability of EIGs comparable to those in the Fadama II. Similarly, 25 percent of the sample consisted of female-headed households.


Focus Group Discussion


The main aim of the community-level focus group discussion was to discuss community organizations, rural infrastructure, and conflicts over resource use. The sampling procedure of communities closely followed the household-level approach. However, only two strata were used: Fadama II and non–Fadama II LGAs. It was not feasible to establish spillover effects by selecting com- munities in the neighborhood of Fadama II communities (as in the household survey sample), because some FCAs covered more than one village. Respon- dent groups among the Fadama II beneficiaries were chosen from a randomly selected group of 10–25 individuals who did not participate in the household survey. The individuals were selected from the four FCAs sampled in the household survey. The selected individuals were then separated into two focus groups for the first three LGAs and into four focus groups in the fourth LGA. This process resulted in 10 discussion groups. The same procedure was used to select groups from the non–Fadama II communities; that is, the same LGAs selected for the household survey were used to select 10 groups of


Actual 1,281


1,240 1,229 3,750


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93