Managing the Miombo Woodlands of Southern Africa Policies, incentives and options
|
|  Yüklə 2.25 Mb.
|
2.2Sampling and data collectionThe central objective of the study is to understand how differences in market access due to remoteness and infrastructural differences influences the contribution of forest products to livelihoods of rural households. To enable this comparison two study sites (Mufulira and Kabompo) were chosen as they provide contrasting attributes with respect to market access (see Table 1). In each study site two villages were selected and 50 households from each village were randomly selected for the household survey (Table 2). The four villages in the two study sites have a combined population of 532 households. In each of the four selected villages, a complete household list was compiled and a random sample was taken to select the 50 households, giving a total sample of 200 households.
Survey Instruments The two main instruments for collection of data for this study were a household questionnaire and extensive community consultations. The survey was conducted as a quarterly household income survey over a 12 month period starting late November 2005. The survey instrument paid particular attention to the need to ask questions that do not require long–term, detailed memory, and therefore are answerable with a high degree of accuracy. To achieve this, highly disaggregated data was collected, and then aggregated at the data analysis stage. The focus of the survey was on tracking the quantities and values of various outputs households obtain from their various livelihoods activities, and the costs associated with these activities. As the focus of the study is on understanding the role of forest resources in local livelihoods, special attention was given to collection of forest products. Because of the seasonal fluctuations in availability of most forest products, data was collected quarterly. The short recall period also ensures a higher likelihood of accurate responses from respondents. Community consultations were also conducted throughout the survey year, initially to mobilize community members to participate in the survey, and subsequently to gain an understanding about more subtle aspects of life in the study sites. A total of 10 small group10 meetings and 2 large meetings were held in each village during the survey year. Various key informant in-depth interviews were held as follow-up to group discussions and also to investigate interesting individual or household activities. Participation in various village and household activities such as school meetings, funerals, weddings, traditional ceremonies, fishing and honey hunting revealed numerous aspects of people’s lives that could not be captured through formal data collection. Income accounting procedures Total household income is calculated as the value of products produced or collected by households from the various activities they undertake. Household labour is not accounted for in household production activities although payments for labour for activities undertaken outside the household are recorded as household income. Prices that are used for valuing products are based on the average of actual market prices reported but in cases where such prices were not available, these were derived using local household’s willingness to pay for such products. 3Structure of local livelihoods: The assets3.1Human capitalPerhaps the most important resource for rural households is the capabilities of its members in transforming other assets into livelihood benefits. Aspects such as demographic composition, health and education levels of members are often related to household’s wellbeing (Mortimore 1998). Average household size is slightly higher in Kabompo than Mufulira (Table 3) perhaps because households in Kabompo are less integrated with the wider economy due to remoteness and so there are limited opportunities for family members to leave home. Lack of easily accessible health facilities in Kabompo may also affect household ability to plan families. Most households have 2 to 3 members who are in the productive age group and are responsible for much of household activities. Household heads as young as 21 years are not uncommon due to various reasons that include HIV/AIDS and early school dropouts which where noted as major problems during community consultations. During most school days dozens of kids could be seen wondering about with no intention of going to school. An average of just over 5 years of schooling for heads of households in both sites suggests a history of little emphasis on education in these communities. The dilapidated state of most schools especially in Kabompo confirms the level of neglect in the education sector. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||