Survey ID Number
NAM_2011_MCC-CSINP_v01_M
Title
Conservancy Support and Indigenous Natural Products 2011-2014
Sampling Procedure
CS/INP Survey
For the CS Activity, the baseline sample design was a two-stage sample design in which the first-stage primary sample units (PSUs) were Enumeration Areas (EAs) that overlapped with conservancies and the second-stage sample units were households. A number of variables were known (from Census and GIS sources) for each EA (or the constituency in which an EA was located) that could be used to assist sample design. To select households within each PSU, two random starting points were selected, and six households were selected for each random starting point (from each starting point, every fifth household was selected). This methodology was carried out because NORC did not have lists of households for each conservancy. NORC therefore did not have a sample of households before starting fieldwork; instead Field Interviewers (FIs) selected households based on a step-wise method using a systematic walk pattern from the random starting point. When a household was absent, interviewers went to the next available household.
The endline sample for the CS Activity consisted of a 100% panel sample with replacement. In other words, FIs re-contacted all baseline respondents. If a baseline respondent could not be interviewed (refusal or unlocatable), FIs replaced the respondent with the next available household to the right of the respondent's home.
For the INP activity, the sample design was comprised of households selected from lists of PPO producers (which includes households both inside and outside conservancies). The sample design was originally going to be a two-stage design in which the first-stage sample units were communities on the PPO list (e.g. villages) and the second-stage sample units were households within the selected communities. Unfortunately, it was not possible to obtain community locations for many of the producers in the INP sample frame, so it was not practical to implement the original concept of selecting a two-stage sample for the INP survey. In fact, few variables were available in the PPO frame that could be used to construct an analytical survey design. Apart from PPO, the only variable useful for constructing an analytical design was INP species. Therefore, it was decided to select a stratified single-stage sample from the frame, where stratification would be by INP species.
While the target sample size for the INP household survey was 500 households, the final baseline dataset only includes 296 household interviews. As a result, in addition to the 296 households from the baseline survey, the endline INP household survey also includes an additional 204 INP households in order to reach the original target of 500 households and to provide additional data points for the endline analysis. These additional households were sampled from the original baseline sample frame in order to maximize comparability. It is important to note the following points concerning this additional sample:
(1) Of the 28 PPOs represented in the baseline sampling frame, 18 PPOs are represented in the final baseline dataset. Because NORC does not have baseline information for the PPOs which were not surveyed at baseline, including them at endline would not be useful for the CS/INP evaluation given that a pre-post analysis would not be possible. Therefore, the additional 204 endline households were drawn from the 18 PPOs represented at baseline only.
(2) However, the 18 PPOs represented in the baseline dataset do not cover Commiphora. Given that Commiphora is one of the main INPs targeted by the intervention, the final endline sample also included Commiphora PPOs (in addition to the 18 PPOs included at baseline). While a pre-post analysis would not be possible for these harvesters, the data from these harvesters can be used to generate descriptive statistics about the endline period.
CS/INP Focus Group Discussions
For the CS Activity, a total of 40 FGDs were conducted with conservancies. For the midline data collection, 12 conservancies were selected to cover a wide range of conservancy characteristics such as geographic location, size, population and institutional level. For each conservancy, two focus groups were conducted: one with the members of the management staff and one with members who did not hold a management position with the conservancy, bringing the total of midline CS FGDs to 24. For the endline data collection, 8 of the original 12 conservancies were re-selected and similar to midline, FGDs were conducted with management and non-management members, bringing the total of endline CS FGDs to 16.
For the INP Activity, a total of 40 FGDs were conducted with members of PPOs. For the midline data collection, 12 PPOs were selected to cover a wide range of PPO characteristics such as geographic location, implementer, and institution type. For each PPO, two focus groups were conducted: one with the members of the management staff and one with members who did not hold a management position with the PPO, bringing the total of midline INP FGDs to 24. For the endline data collection, 8 of the original 12 PPOs were re-selected and similar to midline, FGDs were conducted with management and non-management members, bringing the total of endline INP FGDs to 16.
Recruiting Focus Group Discussion participants was mostly done with the help of the senior staff of the conservancies and the PPOs, typically either chairpersons or coordinators whose contact information was received from the relevant implementer. The teams made phone contact prior to arriving at conservancies or PPO areas and made arrangements to meet upon arrival. All recruitment criteria and procedures were discussed in these first meetings. Conservancy/PPO representatives then listed the names and locations of the appropriate respondents. Where possible, with the help of the chairpersons or coordinators, the field team made phone calls to the identified respondents to make arrangements to meet and discuss the study and invite them to participate. In other cases, where time allowed, the chairperson or coordinator organised a meeting for the team to meet with and conduct all necessary arrangements with a pool of potential respondents at a central location. From this pool, respondents were then selected as per the recruitment protocols.
CS/INP Key Informant Interviews
Sample development for the key informant interviews (KIIs) was a joint effort between the NORC, MCA-N, and Survey Warehouse teams. NORC produced a list of different types of respondents to potentially pursue, and the conservancy and INP experts on the evaluation team refined the list and suggested names of individuals in some categories. After this list was shared with MCA-N, NORC met with MCA-N staff to discuss the list, further refine it, and obtain contact details for potential respondents. The list of potential KII respondents continued to evolve throughout the recruitment process.
For the CS Activity, a total of 20 CS KIIs were conducted, 8 during the midline round and 12 during the endline round.
For the INP Activity, a total of 19 INP KIIs were conducted, 12 during the midline round and 7 during the endline round.