16 CHAPTER 4
fadama resource users who do not benefit from Fadama II. The EIGs selected were closely related to those supported by Fadama II. However, establishing those groups was difficult, because the EIGs in non–Fadama II communities are generally not well organized.
Survey Instruments and Data Collection
A structured survey instrument was used for the household survey. The focus group discussion was semistructured; it included both structured questions and discussion guidelines. Structured questions were used to determine the extent of conflict resolution among fadama resource users and changes in rural infrastructure. Guidelines were used to direct qualitative discussions about what factors led to conflict resolution and infrastructure changes, how they have affected livelihoods in the community, and what needs to be done in the future. Each of these instruments was developed through meetings, discussions, and pretesting. In each state, the state team leader was respon- sible for the administration of each type of survey instrument. However, the interviews were carried out by trained enumerators under the supervision of group team leaders. In each state, group team leaders reported to the state team leader at the end of each survey day.
The double-difference analysis used in this study (explained further in the next section) requires baseline data of good quality. Because the baseline survey for Fadama II had some deficiencies (Faye and Sutherland 2006), we collected baseline data for Fadama II using recall information. The project was implemented in September 2005, only slightly more than a year before the survey was conducted; therefore, we expected respondents to be able to remember the baseline data required for two years before the survey—that is, for the crop years October 2004–September 2005 (2004–05) and October 2005–September 2006 (2005–06). This recall information included data on household composition and size, major productive assets, and major compo- nents of household income. Household respondents had no difficulty recall- ing changes in household composition, size, or major productive assets since October 2004, but the recall of income components posed some difficulties. However, because income was not used as an explanatory variable in the analysis (unlike prior household composition and assets) but only as a depen- dent variable, the potential for measurement error in that variable was of less concern, although it increased uncertainty and reduced the statistical power of the estimates.5
5 In econometric analysis, measurement error in a dependent variable increases the uncertainty of the estimates but causes no bias (as long as the error is not correlated with the explanatory variables), whereas measurement error in an explanatory variable does cause a bias (Greene
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