Download - Methodology Baseline
-
7/30/2019 Methodology Baseline
1/43
Methodologies for Conductin
a Livelihoods Baseline Study
Experiences from the Design and
Implementation of the Livelihoods Baseline Study
Livelihoods and
Forestry Programme, Nepal
-
7/30/2019 Methodology Baseline
2/43
The Livelihoods and Forestry Programme aims to contribute towards reducing the vulnerability
of poor rural people by improving their l ivelihoods. It enhances the assets of rural communit ies
by promoting more equitable, efficient, and sustainable use of forest resources.
Although LFP uses forestry as a vehicle to improve the livelihoods of the rural poor, we also seek
ways in which to help address broader issues such as health and education. We encourage linkages
between agencies and forest user groups and facilitate user groups to mobilise their own resources
to respond to the broader livelihood concerns of their members. This broader perspective is
especially important if we are to build the capability of the rural poor and socially excluded peopleto utilise the potential benefits offered by forestry.
This ten-year DFID programme started in April 2001 and operates in the following Hill, Terai,
and Inner Terai districts: Dhankuta, Terhathum, Sankhuwasabha, and Bhojpur in the eastern Koshi
hills; Baglung, Parbat, and Myagdi in the western Dhaulagiri zone; Nawalparasi, Kapilvastu, and
Rupandehi in the Terai Lumbini zone; and Rukum, Rolpa, Salyan, Pyuthan, and Dang in the
Mid-western Rapti zone.
At the district level, LFP encourages Community Forest User Groups to move from passive to
active management of their forest resources and assists poor, marginalised, and women CFUG
members to assert their rights and improve group equity.
In the Terai, LFP facilitates the development of District Forest Plans and focuses on increasing the
forest sectors contribution to poverty reduction within the districts. LFP aims to mainstream
equity issues into all programmes through social mobilisation and part icipation. Local people are
both the beneficiaries and the main implementers of the programmes.
LFP works to develop an environment that enables effective forest management whatever the type
of forest ownership. Although community forestry has brought many benefi ts to the poor, the
enormous potential of the state-owned forests in the Terai is still not being realised under the
current management systems. LFP is examining the potential of promoting lease-hold forestry
for marginalised groups and possibly collaborative forest management. Likewise, high altitudeforests have significant potential for valuable non-timber forest products and medicinal and aromatic
plants.
LFP promotes national and district enabling environments for more effective forestry. It encourages
the government and other stakeholders to move towards a sector-wide approach in which all
significant funding would support a common government policy, methodology, and funding
procedure. This is necessary to support improvements at the national policy level.
Improving the livelihoods of poor rural people by promoti ng equi table
and sustainable use of forest resources
Livelihoods and Forestry Programme
-
7/30/2019 Methodology Baseline
3/43
Methodologies for Conducting
a Livelihoods Baseline Study
Dinesh K. Uprety
Apri l 200 4Apri l 200 4Apri l 200 4Apri l 200 4Apri l 200 4
Experiences from the Design and
Implementation of the Livelihoods Baseline Study
Livelihoods andForestry Programme, Nepal
-
7/30/2019 Methodology Baseline
4/43
i ii ii ii ii i
-
7/30/2019 Methodology Baseline
5/43
i i ii iii i ii iii i i
Acknowledgements
This report Methodologies for Conducting Livelihoods Baseline Studies is a synthesis
of experiences of the LFP staff while conducting livelihoods baseline study in seven hills
districts in 2003.
The report summarises the main steps and procedures that LFP carried out to conduct
the baseline study with its partners and stakeholders. It also summarises the key issues
and challenges encountered during its design and implementation.
We would like to thank everyone who actively took part in the baseline study and played
a role in accumulating the experiences, thus contributing to developing this document.
Special thanks to those who assisted in the formulation of this document by providing
suggestions and advise.
We hope that this document will serve as a useful resource for all those organisations that
plan to conduct livelihoods baseline studies in the future.
-
7/30/2019 Methodology Baseline
6/43
iviviviviv
-
7/30/2019 Methodology Baseline
7/43
vvvvv
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements iii
Table of Figures vii
Chapter I : Introduction to The Livelihoods Baseline Study of Lfp 1
1.1 Background of the Report 1
1.2 What is A Livelihoods Baseline? 6
1.3 Why Livelihoods Baseline for LFP? 5
Chapter II: The Initial Planning Stage of The Livelihoods Baseline 5
2.1. The Concept Development Stage 5
2.1.1 Bangladesh Visit 5
2.1.2 Baseline Planning in LFP 5
2.1.3 Review of Existing Literature on Baseline Studies Conducted
by Outside Agencies 6
2.2 The Initial Planning and Arrangement 6
2.2.1 H iring of International and National Consultancy Firms 6
2.2.2 Initial Planning to Design Sampling Framework 72.2.3 The First Qualitative Stakeholders' Training 7
Chapter III: Quantitative Study Design and Implementation 9
3.1 The Sampling Plan 9
3.1.1 The Multi-stage Probability Sampling Design 10
3.1.2 Sample Size 11
3.2 The Design of Household Survey Questionnaire 13
3.2.1 Participatory Approach 13
3.2.2 Two Regional Quantitative Workshops Oct/Nov 2002 1 4
3.2.3 Testing and Questionnaire Finalising 14
3.3 Implementation of The Household Survey 15
3.3.1 Survey Team Composition 15
3.3.2 Activity Planning for Data Collection 17
3.3.3 Experience Sharing Workshop between Eastern and Western Regions 17
3.3.4 Team Mobilisation 17
3.3.5 Supervision, Monitoring, and Quality Control 17
-
7/30/2019 Methodology Baseline
8/43
v iv iv iv iv i
3.3.6 Development of Data Mask for Entry in the Computer 1 8
3.3.7 Data Analysis 18
Chapter IV: Qualitative Study Design and Implementation 19
4.1 Background and The Need for A Qualitative Study 19
4.2 The Sampling Plan 20
4.3 The Design of Topical Outline (Checklist) 22
4.3.1 Participatory Approach 22
4.3.2 Two Regional Qualitative Training and Design Workshops
March/April 2003 23
4.3 .2 Participatory Livelihood Assessment Methods and Tools 24
4.4 Implementation and Information Analysis 24
4.4.1 Team Composition 24
4.4.2 Monitoring and Quality Control 25
4.4.3 Information Analysis 26
Chapter V: Conclusions 29
5.1 Key Issues and Lessons Learned 29
5.2 Key Learning and Future Impacts 32
References 35
-
7/30/2019 Methodology Baseline
9/43
v iiv i iv iiv i iv i i
List of Tables
Table 1: Objectives and outcomes 3
Table 2: Di fferences and similarities between conventional baseline
and livelihoods baseline 4
Table 3: Sampling Design Challenges 9
Table 4: The multi-stage sample plan 10
Table 5: Sample sizes for selected study strata 12
Table 6: Participants of the design process 14
Table 7: Pros and Cons of qualitative and quantitative studies 19
Table 8: Steps followed in Selecting Study Sites 20
Table 9: Indicators for VDC ranking 21
Table 10: Selection of VDCs 21
Table 11: Selection of communities within VDC 22
Table 12: Stakeholders who participated in the regional training
and field work. 22
Table 13: Tools used in the analysis of livelihoods profile 26
-
7/30/2019 Methodology Baseline
10/43
vii ivi i ivi i ivi i ivi i i
List of Figures
Figure 1: LFP Operational Area 9
Figure 2: Basis for LFP household survey questionnaire design 15
Figure 3: Quantitative Survey Team Structure 16
Figure 4: Basis to design topical outline - The Simplified Livelihood Framework 23
-
7/30/2019 Methodology Baseline
11/43
Introduction to the Livelihoods
Baseline Study of LFP
1
1.1 The Livelihoods and Forestry Programme
The Livelihoods and Forestry Programme (LFP) is funded by DFID-Nepal as a bilateral
aid programme between His Majestys Government of Nepals Ministry of Forest and Soil
Conservation and the UKs Department of International Development. LFP was designed
based on lessons learnt from the Nepal-UK Community Forestry Project (NUKCFP). It
operates in fifteen districts of Nepalseven hill districts of the Eastern and Western
Regions, three districts in the Terai, and five districts in the Mid-western Region.
The goal of LFP is to reduce vulnerability and improve the livelihoods of the poor by
focusing on forestry for development. The purpose is to enhance the assets of rural
communities through more efficient, equitable, and sustainable use of forest resources.
LFP also seeks to strengthen policy at the district and national levels and the operational
environment for the forestry sector.
1.2 Report Background
In 2003, the Livelihoods and Forestry Programme conducted a livelihoods baseline study
in seven hill distri cts. The study took considerable time and effort to design and
implement.
The purpose of this report is to summarise the methods and stages of design and
implementation of the baseline study and to help other programmes or projects to learn
from LFPs experiences if they wish to undertake similar studies. This report, however,
does not describe the findings of the baseline studies, which are presented in quantitative
and qualitative reports available from the Resource Centre of the LFP Programme
Coordination Office in Baluwatar, Kathmandu.
The design process followed DFIDs sustainable livelihoods approach, principles, and
framework. The team designed both a questionnaire and a qualitative checklist to obtain
the types of information needed to understand respondents livelihoods. The design process
took into account LFPs current log frame and its information needs according to the
outputs and indicators.
C H A P T E RC H A P T E RC H A P T E RC H A P T E RC H A P T E R
11111
-
7/30/2019 Methodology Baseline
12/4322222
LIVELIHOODS BASELINE STUDY:Experiences from the Design and Implem entation of the Livelihoods Baseline Study
The study used both quantitative and qualitative methods for data collection and analysis.
Although the two methods applied different sampling strategies and processes to collect
the data, this report describes their similarities and linkages. It also presents the key lessons
learnt, highlights important issues, and offers suggestions for the design of similar studies.
1.3 Why Conduct a Livelihoods Baseline Study for LFP?
The design of LFP did not follow a livelihoods approach. However, the design team
seriously considered how it could focus not only on forests but also on people, their
livelihoods, and how forestry activities could improve the livelihoods of the rural poor.
The goal and purpose of LFP were designed
fol lowing l ivelihoods approaches. LFPs
predecessor was exclusively a forestry project,however any future project should be linked
closely to the livelihoods of the target groups.
Hence, LFPs goal and purpose suggest a
broader livelihoods reasoning.
However, information on the current livelihoods status of the target groups and its
relationship with forestry was not available to substantiate the design. Therefore the team
could not design outputs in relation to elements of livelihoods that would contribute to
their goal and purpose.
Three outputs focus on CFUGs, their institutions, forest conditions, and strengtheningthe distri ct level forestry sector. (Outputs 4 and 5 focused on the national enabling
environment and on an output for the Terai component). There is little mention of
livelihoods issues, although the three outputs are very important for LFP. As a practical
solution, LFP developed sub-outputs under each output and included some livelihoods
related activities.
Once implementing the programme, LFP realised the need for a more explicit
understanding of the target groups current livelihood status, priorities, and the extent to
which they depended on forests for their livelihoods. LFP therefore conducted the baseline
study with the following objectives and expected outcomes:
GoalGoalGoalGoalGoal
PurposePurposePurposePurposePurpose
Reduced vulnerability and improved
livelihoods for poor rural people
Assets of rural communities are
enhanced by m ore equitable,
efficient, and sustainable use of
forest resources
Output1 Internal management systems and social processes of CFUGs are
strengthened and more equitable and gender sensitive
Output2 Capacity of FUG members to manage forests is improved
Output 3 improved enabling environment for district forestry sector
-
7/30/2019 Methodology Baseline
13/4333333
LIVELIHOODS BASELINE STUDY:Experiences from the Design and Imp lementation of the Livelihoods Baseline Study
TABLE 1: Objectives and OutcomesObjectives and OutcomesObjectives and OutcomesObjectives and OutcomesObjectives and Outcomes
ObjectivesObjectivesObjectivesObjectivesObjectives 11111 Develop a clearer understanding of the livelihoods context in which the programme operates.
22222 Generate information to strengthen existing planning and measure changes in livelihoods.
OutcomesOutcomesOutcomesOutcomesOutcomes 11111 Identify and develop a broader understanding of livelihoods status and its linkage with the forest
use of Forestry User Groups.
22222 Characterise the livelihoods status of the FUG members; identify the poorest.
33333 Understand current trends in assets acquisition and depletion.
44444 Character ise vulnerabi li ty.
55555 Understand ins ti tu tional issues.
1.4 What is a Livelihoods Baseline Study?
A livelihoods baseline study aims to understand the initial status and changes occurring
in the livelihoods of poor rural people. It uses part icipatory methods to collect and analyse
information about the context in which the rural poor live, the status and changes of
their common (public) and household assets, and their livelihoods strategies and priorities.
The study also examines the vulnerabilities, strengths, weaknesses, and risks of the rural
poor.
The approach of a livelihoods baseline study is more comprehensive than conventional
baselines,1 which aim to understand the poverty status of people through their income,
productivity, or their household facilities. A livelihoods baseline study builds upon several
tools and techniques used in participatory research in the past.
Projects and programmes conduct livelihoods baseline studies to enhance their
understanding of rural target groups and to develop or modify activities according to the
context in which the target groups live. Such studies can be comprehensive or general,
depending on the nature of the programme and its information requirements. They might
also link the programme approachits goal, purpose, and outputswith broader
livelihoods principles. There is no set way of conducting a livelihoods baseline study but
this report can serve as a reference for similar studies.
A livelihoods baseline study can provide insights regarding a programmes target group:
current l ivelihoods context, strategies, and priorities;
policies and institutions that affect the lives of the rural poor;
current livelihoods status of poor people, their households, and situations that make
them vulnerable;
problems, strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and risks related to their livelihoods.
1 By conventional baselin e, the author means studies conduc ted to understand the poverty issues in a broader sense, especially in Nepal. Baseline studies mig ht be conductedwith several purposes, which have their own signifi cance according to their objec tives. The authors opi nions presented here are not intended to cast doubt on such baselinestudies.
-
7/30/2019 Methodology Baseline
14/4344444
LIVELIHOODS BASELINE STUDY:Experiences from the Design and Implem entation of the Livelihoods Baseline Study
Main focusMain focusMain focusMain focusMain focus
FocusFocusFocusFocusFocus
DesignDesignDesignDesignDesign
TTTTTechniquesechniquesechniquesechniquesechniques
AssessmentAssessmentAssessmentAssessmentAssessment
TABLE 2: Differences and Similarities Between Conventional and Livelihood s BaselinesDifferences and Sim ilarities Between Conventional and Livelihood s BaselinesDifferences and Similarities Between Conventional and Livelihood s BaselinesDifferences and Sim ilarities Between Conventional and Livelihood s BaselinesDifferences and Similarities Between Conventional and Livelihood s Baselines
Livel ihoods Basel ineLivel ihoods Basel ineLivel ihoods Basel ineLivel ihoods Basel ineLivel ihoods Basel ine
People
Broader livelihoods
approaches, relationships, and
issues
Participation sought from all
concerned stakeholders
Both quantitative and qualitative
techniques in data collection
and analysis
Examines beyond the project
or programme's outputs
Conventional BaselineConventional BaselineConventional BaselineConventional BaselineConventional Baseline
Resources
Socio-economic status,
productivity, etc. Not
comprehensive enough to
understand well-being and
livelihoods issues.
Less participatory, design done
mainly by experts.
Either quantitative or qualitative
techniques, but rarely both.
Generally confined to project
interventions and outputs or
only some o f the issues.
Dif ferences/Similar i t iesDif ferences/Similar i t iesDif ferences/Similar i t iesDif ferences/Similar i t iesDif ferences/Similar i t ies
LB examines resources in a
broader way by linking them
with their use and poor
people's access to them.
Issues partially examined in
conventional baseline are
comprehensively examined in
the livelihoods baseline.
Techniques are similar.
Livelihoods baseline looks into
outputs but within broader
livelihoods framework.
For programmes, a livelihoods baseline study can provide opportunities to:
analyse key areas which projects/programmes have not been focusing on and
determine whether they should redesign their current activities;
understand projects/programmes limitations and examine whether there is a need
to join efforts with other projects/programmes to address critical issues revealed
by the study;
develop monitoring systems informed by baseline values and indicators.
Although a livelihoods baseline study examines broader issues and relationships, this
approach has certain weaknesses that this report discusses in the relevant sections.
-
7/30/2019 Methodology Baseline
15/4355555
LIVELIHOODS BASELINE STUDY:Experiences from the Design and Imp lementation of the Livelihoods Baseline Study
The Ini tial Planning Stage
of the Livelihoods Baseline Study
2
2.1 The Concept Development Stage
Government and non-government agencies in Nepal have had ample experience of
conducting socio-economic baseline studies and longitudinal surveys. However, only a
few agencies have conducted baseline studies following livelihoods principles and
approaches, most notably DFID and CARE Nepal. Since LFP did not have any experience
conducting a Livelihoods Baseline Survey, it had to rely on experiences gained elsewhere
by DFID or other agencies.
2.1.1 Bangladesh Visit 2
To understand how to design and implement a livelihoods baseline study, LFP staff visited
the Bangladesh Livelihoods Monitoring Project (LMP) of CARE Bangladesh in late 2001.
LMP was also funded by DFID and had conducted livelihoods baseline studies in two of
CAREs programme areas in 2000.
The visit helped LFP staff members to understand features of the design and
implementation of a livelihoods baseline study such as design systems, methods, tools,
team compositions, and sampling plans. Staff also became familiar with issues arising
from the baseline study. This visit helped them to develop a vision for the conceptual
design of the livelihoods baseline study for LFP.
2.1.2 Baseli ne Planning in LFP
The Bangladesh study had many features that LFP could replicate in Nepal. The livelihoods
approaches and principles were similar but LFP would have to consider the effects on thedesign and implementation of Nepals different topography and ongoing conflict.
C H A P T E RC H A P T E RC H A P T E RC H A P T E RC H A P T E R
55555
2 For details, please refer to Report on Bangladesh visit on Livelihoods Baseline Study and Impact Monitori ng System by LMP 2001 by Dinesh Uprety and Ramu Subedi(available from the LFP Resource Centre, Baluwatar, Kathmandu).
-
7/30/2019 Methodology Baseline
16/4366666
LIVELIHOODS BASELINE STUDY:Experiences from the Design and Implem entation of the Livelihoods Baseline Study
Discussions among LFP staff members, consultants, and the personnel of other relevant
projects determined several strategies appropriate to the Nepali situation:
identify highly sensitive areas and avoid sampling them;
use local organisations and facilitators to implement the study and give priority to
facilitators from the areas to be studied;
adopt a cluster approach rather than district-wide sampling, using random sampling
within each cluster to minimise time and cost, given Nepals difficult terrain;
use participatory assessment tools that do not require a gathering of people in the
village and thus do not attract the attention of outsiders;
train facilitators in appropriate fieldwork techniques and behaviour;
inform concerned authorities about the study and the people involved in it.
The LFP staff prepared a document outlining an action plan and all the relevant issues in
the design and implementation of the baseline study3 .
2.1.3 Review of Existi ng Literat ure on Baseline Studi esConducted by Outside Agencies4
Before the implementation of the baseline study, LFP conducted a review of the existing
literature on livelihoods baseline studies conducted by other government and non-
government agencies. The review provided information on designing methodologies and
sampling strategies and on the types of information available in existing sources.
The review confirmed the need to conduct a livelihoods baseline study for LFP for several
reasons. Most of the available studies were not conducted using a livelihoods approach,were not relevant to the LFP programme areas, or depended on unreliable secondary sources.
Where data was available, it was not disaggregated sufficiently to be of use.
2.2 Initial Planning and Arrangements
2.2.1 Hiring Int ernati onal and Nati onal Consult ancy Firms
LFP hired the international consultancy firm that assisted in the design of the Bangladesh
baseline study on a call-down basis, for its experience in designing livelihoods baseline
studies and monitoring systems for many projects funded by DFID and CARE. Therewas also a lack of expertise in Nepal in designing baseline studies using livelihoods principles
and approaches. A national firm, Development Vision Nepal (DVN), was hired to organise
and implement the study in the field starting in October 2002.
3 For details, please refer to Livelihoods Baseline Planning and Design-some key considerations Dinesh Uprety July 2002.4 For details, please refer to Review of Literatures Findings and Strategies for Baseline Study fo r LFP August 200 2, Ganapati Ojha at the LF.
-
7/30/2019 Methodology Baseline
17/4377777
LIVELIHOODS BASELINE STUDY:Experiences from the Design and Imp lementation of the Livelihoods Baseline Study
2.2.2 Ini ti al Planning t o Design a Sampling Framework
Sampling strategies of other organisations used geographical areas as the primary basis for
sampling, with divisions for mountains, middle hills, and low hills. The analysis of existinginformation in the CFUG database, however, showed that a more rational way to categorise
CFUGs was on the basis of their forest condition and density. LFP decided to use this as
the main basis for designing the sampling strategy (details of the sampling plan are
discussed in the following section).
2.2.3 The First Qualitat ive Stak eholders Training
A training workshop on Qualitative Livelihoods Assessment and Analysis was conducted
for all central-level stakeholders and partners from the Ministry of Forest and Soil
Conservation, Department of Forests, LFP, and DVN. The workshop provided a forum
to start designing the livelihoods baseline study and to develop all concerned stakeholders
understanding. It had the following basic objectives:
understanding the basic approach of quali tative information collection;
understanding methods of analysing qualitative data;
learning how to develop a qualitative checklist based on livelihoods approaches and
the information needs of LFP.
This workshop helped to develop a generic understanding of the livelihoods baseline and
its approaches and, in particular, the use of quali tative techniques. The workshop produced
the following outputs:
draft outline of topicsa livelihoods assessment qualitative checklist draft sampling strategies for selecting qualitative study sites
The household questionnaire, outline of topics (qualitative checklist), and the training
schedule developed for the baseline study can be found in Hills Livelihoods Baseline
Study at the website www.livelihoods.com/lessons under the LFP page. Alternatively,
this information can also be obtained from the LFP resource centre at the Programme
Coordination Office in Baluwatar, Kathmandu. One can also enquire at the email address:
-
7/30/2019 Methodology Baseline
18/43
Quantitative Study Design
and Implementation
3
3.1 The Sampling Plan55555
The quantitative study was a population-based household survey conducted in the seven
districts of LFPs working area. The seven districts fall within two development regions:
Dhankuta, Terhathum, Bhojpur, and Sankhuwasabha in the Eastern, and Parbat, Myagdi,
and Baglung in the Western. The survey was designed such that each district could stand
alone in the analysis.
C H A P T E RC H A P T E RC H A P T E RC H A P T E RC H A P T E R
99999
5 Resource Centre for LFP was designed by Tango International, USA
The design of the sample plan for LFP
hill districts posed several challenges.
Considering these challenges, a multi-
stage sampling plan was developed,
which was considered practical and
possible to implement by LFP.
TABLE 3: Sampling Design ChallengesSampling Design ChallengesSampling Design ChallengesSampling Design ChallengesSampling Design Challenges
Remote study areas posed logistical challenges
High risk study areas due to political instability
Guidance and quality control of the field data collection
difficult due to remoteness and political instability
Survey implementation in local dialects in some cases
FIGURE 1: LFP Operational Areas: LFP Operational Areas: LFP Operational Areas: LFP Operational Areas: LFP Operational Areas
-
7/30/2019 Methodology Baseline
19/431 01 01 01 01 0
LIVELIHOODS BASELINE STUDY:Experiences from the Design and Implem entation of the Livelihoods Baseline Study
1. Clustering of Village Development Committees
Clustering was done to avoid the logistical challenges of sampling across entire districts
which would bring with it high costs and reduced quality control. Each district was
divided into clusters of VDCs. High-risk areas were excluded. The total number of VDCs
per cluster was about the same within each district.
An initial discussion of sampling strategies laid the basis for the development of a multi-
stage sample plan. However, the afore-mentioned challenges prevented LFP from reaching
all the areas that would have been selected by ful l probability sampling. Probability
sampling was used, however only in defined areas within each district.
3.1.1 The Mult i- stage Probabilit y Sampling Design
The following stages were followed in the sample design.
TABLE 4: The Multi-stage Sam ple PlanThe Multi-stage Samp le PlanThe Multi-stage Sam ple PlanThe Multi-stage Samp le PlanThe Multi-stage Samp le Plan
The Multi-stage Sample PlanThe Multi-stage Sample PlanThe Multi-stage Sample PlanThe Multi-stage Sample PlanThe Multi-stage Sample Plan
Stage 1Stage 1Stage 1Stage 1Stage 1 Clustering of Village Development Committees (VDCs)
Stage 2Stage 2Stage 2Stage 2Stage 2 Strat if icat ion of fores t condi tion
Stage 3Stage 3Stage 3Stage 3Stage 3 Strat if ication of forest to household density
Stage 4Stage 4Stage 4Stage 4S tage 4 Selec ti on of hous eholds
6 LFPs CFUG database in maintains information about the CFUGs in its seven working districts.
Key features of the clustering process:
each district included three to five clusters based on the size and number of forest
user groups;
each cluster included a total of nine to 11 VDCs depending upon the total number
of VDCs in the district;
the total number of households in each cluster was calculated once clusters were identified.
2. Stratification of Forest Condition
Forest condition represents the forest quality as reported in the CFUG database.6 The
database categories are very good, good, degraded, and very degraded but for
sampling purposes these were reduced simply to good and degraded.3. Stratification of Density
Density is defined as the average number of hectares of forest resources per household
within a CFUG. There was a wide range of densities in different areas, from 0.01 ha to
over 11 ha per household. Two sub-groups were established, those with less than 0.4 ha
per household and those with more than 0.4 ha.
-
7/30/2019 Methodology Baseline
20/431 11 11 11 11 1
LIVELIHOODS BASELINE STUDY:Experiences from the Design and Imp lementation of the Livelihoods Baseline Study
The resultant strata contained the following number of units, or CFUGs:
degraded forest/small area per household = 37
degraded forest/large area per household = 40
good forest/small area per household = 40
good forest/large area per household = 38
4. Selection of Household
The final stage involved a random selection of households. There was a computer related
problem in order to acquire the household l ist for random selection, therefore the field
team first developed a list of households in the survey field and manually selected random
households.
The sampling frame included all households belonging to selected CFUGs and no
substi tution was made in case of a non-response. About 18 to 21 households were selectedper vi llage based on a sampling frame of household membership in the CFUG. The sample
size was calculated using standard methods based on variance estimates of key continuous
variables of asset and income, from previous household surveys in Nepal. Calculations
were based on indicators expressed as means.
The following formula was used for calculating the sample size:
N = D[(Za + Zb)2 * (sd12
+ sd22
) / (X2
X1)2] where,
N = required minimum sample size per strata
D = design effect for mult i-stage sampling
Za = the z-score corresponding to the selected level of confidence desired to
detect that an observed change of magnitude (X2 X1) would not have
occurred by chance (statistical significance)
Zb = the z-score corresponding to the selected level of confidence desired to
detect an observed change of magnitude (X2 X1) if it indeed exists power
sdx = estimated standard deviations for current and future survey rounds of a
key variable
X1
= the estimated level of an indicator during the baseline survey
X2
= the expected standard deviation of the same indicator during a future
survey
3.1.2 Sample Size
The resultant sample size was 358 households per strata for each of the two study areas.
Out of 1,123 CFUGs in the seven districts, 155 CFUGs were selected. Approximately
18-20 households were selected from each of these CFUGs resulting in the selection of
2,871 households.
-
7/30/2019 Methodology Baseline
21/431 21 21 21 21 2
LIVELIHOODS BASELINE STUDY:Experiences from the Design and Implem entation of the Livelihoods Baseline Study
Table 5: Sample Sizes for Selected Study Strata.Sample Sizes for Selected Study Strata.Sample Sizes for Selected Study Strata.Sample Sizes for Selected Study Strata.Sample Sizes for Selected Study Strata.
StrataStrataStrataStrataStrata NNNNN CommentCommentCommentCommentComment
Total districts 7 Myagdi, Baglung, Parbat, Terhathum, Sankhuw asabha,Bhojpur and Dhankuta
Total sam pled CFUGs 155
General survey population (HH) 2,871 All households in the study.
Western region 1,436 Districts of Myagdi, Baglung, and Parbat.
Eastern region 1,435 Distric ts of Terhathum , Sankhuw asabha, Bhojpur, and
Dhankuta
Good condition, low density 723 Greater than 0.4 ha per household
Good condition, high density 684 Less than 0.4 ha per household
Poor condition, low density 730 Greater than 0.4 ha per household
Poor condition, high density 734 Less than 0.4 ha per household
STEP ONE:STEP ONE:STEP ONE:STEP ONE:STEP ONE:
Update the Lis t of Households:Update the Lis t of Households:Update the Lis t of Households:Update the Lis t of Households:Upda te the Li st o f Hou seho lds : The survey team will meet the CFUG com mittee/members and show the HH
list given by DVN for update. The update should:
delete from the list HHs that migrated
add at the end of the page HHs not included in the list
STEP TWO:STEP TWO:STEP TWO:STEP TWO:STEP TWO:
Get the Updated List Signed by the CFUG Committee.Get the Updated List Signed by the CFUG Committee.Get the Updated List Signed by the CFUG Committee.Get the Updated List Signed by the CFUG Committee.Get the Upd ated L ist Sig ned b y the CFUG Comm ittee. Authenticate the HH list by having it signed by the
CFUG Comm ittee. (When there is no household list, the design team sho uld at least select the ward/tole in
advance for the survey and then get the HH list from the ward/tole during the survey.)
STEP THREE:STEP THREE:STEP THREE:STEP THREE:STEP THREE:
Identify the random interval number(s) by using the following form ula:
Total no. of HH in the sampled CFUG / No. of HH needed for sample(The no. of HH for sample is 18, in some cases only 20 or 21 )
For example, if the total number of HH is 42 in the CFUG, and we need 18 HH for survey, so:
42/18= 2.34 is the interval number
2.34 is a fraction and there are two interval numbers; one is 2 and the other is 3.
Find the frequency of these numbers to use as the interval .34+ .34+ .34= 1
The PThe PThe PThe PThe Pararararar ticipatorticipatorticipatorticipatorticipatory Household Ry Household Ry Household Ry Household Ry Household Random Sampling Tandom Sampling Tandom Sampling Tandom Sampling Tandom Sampling Technique Used in theechnique Used in theechnique Used in theechnique Used in theechnique Used in the LFPLFPLFPLFPLFP SurSurSurSurSurveyveyveyveyvey
-
7/30/2019 Methodology Baseline
22/431 31 31 31 31 3
LIVELIHOODS BASELINE STUDY:Experiences from the Design and Imp lementation of the Livelihoods Baseline Study
This means that interval no. 2 has to be used a number of times until the decimal totals 1.
In this case, interval no. 2 should be counted 3 times and after that count interval no. 3 only one time and
repeat the process again.If it comes to, for example, 2.11 then use the same technique:
0.11+ 0.11+ 0.11+ 0.11+ 0.11+ 0.11+ 0.11+ 0.11+ 0.11= 1 ( In this case, use interva l no. 2 n ine t imes and
after that interval number 3 one time and repeat the same process again.
STEP FOUR:STEP FOUR:STEP FOUR:STEP FOUR:STEP FOUR:
Identify the Starting Random Number to Find Out Where to Start Counting the Interval From:Identify the Starting Random Number to Find Out Where to Start Counting the Interval From:Identify the Starting Random Number to Find Out Where to Start Counting the Interval From:Identify the Starting Random Number to Find Out Where to Start Counting the Interval From:Identify the Starting Random Number to Find Out Where to Start Counting the Interval From:
You can do this by using the lottery system. Write down the numbers from one to 18 (or as the sample HH
needed for that CFUG) on p ieces of paper and select one number randomly. (But it should be betw een the
number of HH needed)
For example, if you select 7, then start co unting from 7 .
A Complete Example is Given Below:A Complete Example is Given Below:A Complete Example is Given Below:A Complete Example is Given Below:A Complete Example is Given Below:
If you select 8 as the starting number following
the lottery system, then start counting intervals
from 8 as shown below. The counting should
go down and when it comes to the end start
from the first SN again until it is nearer the
starting random num ber.
The marked SNs are the random HHs for the
survey. With villagers, this can be done by
requesting them to select the HH themselves.
Developed by: Dinesh UpretDeveloped by: Dinesh UpretDeveloped by: Dinesh UpretDeveloped by: Dinesh UpretDeveloped by: Dinesh Upretyyyyy
3.2 Household Survey Questionnair e Design
3.2.1 Partic ipat ory Approach
The design process followed a participatory approach where LFP and its main stakeholders
were involved. The stakeholders participation not only generated ideas for designing
questions but resulted in a sense of ownership. Being the ultimate users of the baseline
information, it was important that the survey be designed and implemented with the
stakeholders active participation. The table below lists the types of stakeholders whose
representatives participated in the design process.
List of Households
SN
1 (16)
2
3 (17)4
5 (15)
6
78 (Startcounting-1)
910 (2)
SN
11
12 (3)
1314
15 (4)
16
17 (5)18
19 (6)20
SN
21
22 (7)23
24 (8)
25
26 (9)
2728
29 (10)30
SN
31 (11)
3233 (12)
34
35
36 (13)
3738 (14)
3940 (15)
SN
41
42
Total HH 42/Sample HH needed 18=2.34
-
7/30/2019 Methodology Baseline
23/431 41 41 41 41 4
LIVELIHOODS BASELINE STUDY:Experiences from the Design and Implem entation of the Livelihoods Baseline Study
3.2.2 Two Regional Quanti ta ti ve Workshops, Oct /Nov 2002
Two regional workshops were conducted for the Eastern and Western districts involving
the above-mentioned participants, for designing the questionnaire. These workshops were
designed to deliver theoretical knowledge on the design of questions, livelihoods framework,interview techniques, and sampling plans to the participants and to develop livelihoods
questionnaires based on these.
The first workshop produced a draft
questionnaire, which was again reviewed in
the next workshop in the Western region.
The Western review provided important
feedback to help finalise the questionnaire and
incorporate specific questions relevant for the
Western region only.The designing of questions was not an easy
task and it was difficult to make decisions
regarding what questions to include.
LFP used the sustainable livelihoods framework as a basis to design questions and also
used LFPs existing logical framework and programme components. The following figure
shows the basis on which LFP designed the questions.
3.2.3 Testing and Finali sing Questi onnair es
The questionnaires developed through the workshop were pre-tested and simplified sothat they could to be used by local enumerators. One important lesson from the pre-test
was realising the difference between how the interviewers understood the questions and
how those who designed the questions understood them. Therefore, for orientation
workshops (for the field surveyors) and field practice, it was necessary to modify the
language of many questions. The development of an equal understanding between the
designer and the interviewer regarding the questions was very important before
implementation.
Table 6: PPPPPararararar ticipants of the Design Pticipants of the Design Pticipants of the Design Pticipants of the Design Pticipants of the Design Processrocessrocessrocessrocess
Stakeholders/PartnersStakeholders/PartnersStakeholders/PartnersStakeholders/PartnersStakeholders/Partners RemarksRemarksRemarksRemarksRemarks
District Forest Office Implementing par tner of Forestry Programme
Distric t Developm ent Com mittee District planning and co-ordination body
Development Vision Nepal Baseline implementing agency
Tango International, USA Baseline Design Agency
Livelihoods and Forestry Programme Key LFP staff
Livelihoods overview
Review of LFP log frame
Sampling strategies
Interview techniques and quality control
Design of quest ionnaire
Survey p lanning
Brief Session Plans of the Worksho psBrief Session Plans of the Works hopsBrief Session Plans of the Worksho psBrief Session Plans of the Works hopsBrief Session Plans of the Worksho ps
-
7/30/2019 Methodology Baseline
24/431 51 51 51 51 5
LIVELIHOODS BASELINE STUDY:Experiences from the Design and Imp lementation of the Livelihoods Baseline Study
FIGURE 2: Basis for L FP Household Survey Questionnaires Design: Basis fo r LFP Household Survey Questionnaires Design: Basis for L FP Household Survey Questionnaires Design: Basis fo r LFP Household Survey Questionnaires Design: Basis for L FP Household Survey Questionnaires Design
3.3 I mplementati on of the Household Survey
A national firm called Development Vision Nepal (DVN) was assigned the role to
implement the livelihoods baseline and to be fully responsible for organising, and managing
logistics and field teams. DVN was involved in the design process from the beginning
and assisted the international firm in data analysis.
3.3.1 Survey Team Compositi on
The recruitment and composition of the survey team was time consuming and conscientious
work given the huge size of the survey with samples distributed among seven hill districts,
155 CFUGs and 2,871 households in two regions. It was therefore necessary to develop
equal understanding in the survey team and to take extra care to prepare all the staff for
training and fieldwork.
SL Frame work Livelihoods questionnairesdesigned by other projects LFP Log frameindicators
Institutional relationship Household physical condition
Household asssets Agriculture Food security status Physical conditions Participation Income and expenditure Loans and sources of loans Shocks and vulnerability Coping strategies Health Women's decision making, roles Assets ownership
Awareness of forest institution Forest management
Demand, supply and copingstrategies for forest products Forest-based IGAs Forest-related gender and
participation issues Workload
Minor InfluenceMajor Information Sources
-
7/30/2019 Methodology Baseline
25/431 61 61 61 61 6
LIVELIHOODS BASELINE STUDY:Experiences from the Design and Implem entation of the Livelihoods Baseline Study
Cautions regarding identity of the survey teams, information to the authorities about the
survey, and pre-information to the communities were very important issues due to the
confl ict situation. This also entailed forming survey teams, which could work without
attracting the attention of any unintended visitors to the community. Considering these
issues, the survey team comprised of local people and outside professionals:
Regional survey co-ordinator(s) outside senior professional
For one field survey team:
Supervisor 1 (a few professional locals and outsiders)
Facil itator 2 (one man and one womanboth local, young people)
Total team members:
Regional coordinators 3
Deputy Regional coordinator 1Supervisors 17
Local facilitators 34
Total survey team 17
The full DVN organisational structure was as follows:
Team LeaderCentre
RegionRegional CoordinatorEastern Region (2)
Regional CoordinatorWestern Region (1)
Deputy RegionalCoordinator (1)
T - 6 T - 7 T - 8 T - 9
T - 3 T - 4 T - 5T - 1 T - 2
T - 3 T - 4 T - 5T - 1 T - 2
T - 6 T - 7 T - 8
Other Members of Team
- SPSS Expert- Professionals- Support Staffs
District/CFUGs:
T = TeamSource: DVN Report
FIGURE 3: Quantitative Sur: Quantitative Sur: Quantitative Sur: Quantitative Sur: Quantitative Survey Tvey Tvey Tvey Tvey Team Stream Stream Stream Stream Structureuctureuctureuctureucture
-
7/30/2019 Methodology Baseline
26/431 71 71 71 71 7
LIVELIHOODS BASELINE STUDY:Experiences from the Design and Imp lementation of the Livelihoods Baseline Study
3.3.2 Activit y Planning f or Data Collecti on
All the field survey teams prepared and planned activities for the field survey. This
included discriptions of the place of CFUGs visits, households with the completion dates,and expected dates of submission of completed questionnaires at the Regional Office. This
action plan also served as a basis for monitoring progress and follow up from the centre.
Copies of planned activities were submitted to the concerned authorities in the district
to inform them about the field teams whereabouts during their fieldwork.
3.3.3 Experi ence- sharing Work shop Between Eastern and Wester n Regions
At the end of the surveyors training, a two-day experience-sharing workshop was organised
with the participation of all field teams and representatives from LFP central and district
offices. The purpose was to bring uniformity in the approach, understanding, and survey
methodology including sampling methods in both the regions. Besides, the workshop
also helped develop an equal understanding regarding the questions among the team
members of both regions. The team visited the field to validate household data before
implementing the actual work. It was found that some sampled field areas could not be
approached due to the security situation. Alternative samples were developed during the
workshop.
3.3.4 Team Mobil isati on
All 17 quantitative survey teams consisting of 17 supervisors and 34 enumerators, as shown
in the table above, were mobilised in seven districts of the Western and Eastern regions.Regional coordinators were responsible for organising team placements, coordinating with
the district level government agencies, and working as a bridge between the field teams
and the centre for disseminating information. They were also responsible for supervising
and monitoring the teams work and quality control of the survey.
3.3.5 Supervision, Monit oring, and Qualit y Control
Quality control was considered once the survey team was recruited. It was important to
ensure the involvement of a competent supervisor with the local surveyors. Although hiring
a supervisor was costly, it guaranteed quality of work and provided an important lesson
to LFP and others that conducting interviews and filling questionnaires should not be
left to the local surveyors alone, as was the case with many surveys in the past.
DVNs and LFPs senior management team supervised the survey implementation.
Regional coordinators were responsible for day-to-day supervision. Constructive comments
and suggestions provided by the supervision and monitoring teams were given due attention
while implementing surveys. Best practices were developed to ensure the quality of the
work and:
-
7/30/2019 Methodology Baseline
27/431 81 81 81 81 8
LIVELIHOODS BASELINE STUDY:Experiences from the Design and Implem entation of the Livelihoods Baseline Study
no compromise on the quality of survey work; inaccurate and unchecked information
would be unacceptable;
supervisors and enumerators are to complete the questionnaires at the respondents
homestead;
supervisors must check each and every questionnaire fi lled by the local surveyors
and re-interview if information is incomplete or inaccurate;
regional coordinators must visit each field site for supervision and monitoring,
including random checking of completed questionnaires;
supervisors must send checked and signed copies to regional coordinators;
regional coordinators must make final checks and send questionnaires to DVN
central office for data entry;
reliable means of delivering questionnaires from the field to the central office.
3.3.6 Development of Data M ask for Entry i n t he Computer
A statistical database software called SPSS version 11 was used to enter and analyse data.
A data mask was developed in Nepali for entering the completed questionnaire after it
was finalised through the pre-test.
3.3.7 Data Analysis
Data analysis was done using the SPPS software as mentioned above. The following tools
were used for extracting information:
tables
graphs and charts
frequencies, percentages, and averages
mean, mode, and standard deviations
minimum and maximum ranges.
Information was disaggregated where possible into the following categories:
gender
ethnicity
forest condit ionsas per sampling frame
asset categoriesasset very poor, poor, intermediate and wealthy
districts and regions.
-
7/30/2019 Methodology Baseline
28/431 91 91 91 91 9
LIVELIHOODS BASELINE STUDY:Experiences from the Design and Imp lementation of the Livelihoods Baseline Study
Qualitative Study Design
and Implementation
4
4.1 Background and the Need for a Qualitat ive Study
A qualitative study is a comprehensive study of rural people using participatory assessment
tools. The questions and tools used in the study are open-ended to allow the collection
of descriptive and detail information from respondents on a part icular issue. The tools
are called participatory livelihoods assessment tools, and draw on the experiences of PRA
exercises.
However, the methods for designing the study are tailored to the sustainable livelihoods
framework, its principles, and approaches. The information collected from the study is also
tabulated according to the livelihoods framework and analysed using different analytical tools.
A qualitative study is needed for a detailed understanding of the issues and problems faced
by communities. A qualitative study is more open and uses interactive tools to collect
descriptive and detailed information from respondents or a group of respondents. In
essence, a qualitative study answers the question why, while quantitative studies mainly
answer what 7 . However, there are certain tasks that can only be done by either a
C H A P T E RC H A P T E RC H A P T E RC H A P T E RC H A P T E R
1 91 91 91 91 9
TABLE 7: Advantages and Disadvantages o f Qualitative and Quantitative StudiesAdvantages and Disadvantages of Qualitative and Quantitative StudiesAdvantages and Disadvantages o f Qualitative and Quantitative StudiesAdvantages and Disadvantages of Qualitative and Quantitative StudiesAdvantages and Disadvantages o f Qualitative and Quantitative Studies
ProsProsProsProsPros
ConsConsConsConsCons
QuantitativeQuantitativeQuantitativeQuantitativeQuantitative
Facilitates collection of household level
information
Easy to validate information statistically if a good
sampling approach is adopted
Best suited for a large sam ple size
Difficult to collect comm unity level information
Does not permit collection of information
beyond the parameters or variables defined
"Why" and "how" of the issues cannot be
collected beyond the defined parameters
QualitativeQualitativeQualitativeQualitativeQualitative
Facilitates collection of comm unity level information
Open and interactive process that allows collection of
detailed and descriptive information
Effective for a sm all sample
Reveals the "why" and "how " of the issues in question
Case studies of sp ecific households can b e collected
but it is difficult to generalise unless many case studies
are done through a systematic sampling process
Validity is always debatable and difficult to generalise
across the population under study
7 Quantitat ive studies also get some answers to why and how but within closed p arameters only.
-
7/30/2019 Methodology Baseline
29/432 02 02 02 02 0
LIVELIHOODS BASELINE STUDY:Experiences from the Design and Implem entation of the Livelihoods Baseline Study
qualitative study or a quant itative study. For example, broader communi ty level
information can be collected more easily through qualitative studies while quantitative
studies facilitate the collection of household level data.
In LFPs context, qualitative studies are conducted for an in depth understanding of
livelihoods issues through a more interactive process with the villagers. The main aim
was to supplement the quantitative study with details, which was not possible from
quantitative study findings of issues related to livelihoods and forests in a broader
community context.
4.2 The Sampling Plan
It is not a simple task to decide on a sampling strategy for qualitative study. The lack of
disaggregated information at village level makes it difficult to select sample sites based onthe indicators. At the start of a study, it may seem feasible to select many indicators or
criteria for sampling. However, when information, which conforms to the indicators, is
not available, the study team may have to reduce the number of indicators and choose
only those for which information is readily available.
A similar scenario occurred in the
case of LFP. After the
development of the initial draft of
the sampling criteria, the team
realised that it would not be
possible to collect information for
many villages according to those
criteria. In-depth discussions at many levels were then held to find practical options for
sampling. Ultimately, the following indicators and steps were agreed upon to select vi llages
within the districts and then the clusters within the VDCs for qualitative study.
ST EP I: Overview of Each DistrictSocio-economic Indicators
This process involved examining the secondary information available at the district level.
The overview helped the teams decide upon the indicators that required a more detailed
look, some of which were chosen because information for all the districts was complete.
It provided a broad picture of the district-wide trends and helped the teams raise questions
about inter-district differences. The socio-economic indicators includedpopulation, access
to roads and piped water, cultivated land area, population living below the national poverty
line, and dominant ethnic groups.
STEP II: Determination of VDC Ranking Indicators
Criteria were agreed upon and each VDC in each district was ranked in terms of socio-
economic levels (Table 3.2).
StepsStepsStepsStepsSteps ActivitiesActivitiesActivitiesActivitiesActivities
I Overview of each d ist ric tsocio-economic indicators
II VDC rankingwith agreed indicators for ranking villages
II I Select ion of representative VDCs based on their ranking
IV Selec t ion of communit ies w i th in the VDCs
TABLE 8: Steps Follow ed in Selecting Study SitesSteps Follow ed in Selecting Study SitesSteps Follow ed in Selecting Study SitesSteps Follow ed in Selecting Study SitesSteps Follow ed in Selecting Study Sites
-
7/30/2019 Methodology Baseline
30/432 12 12 12 12 1
LIVELIHOODS BASELINE STUDY:Experiences from the Design and Imp lementation of the Livelihoods Baseline Study
A low ranking score would indicate a better quality of livelihood while a high score would
represent the opposite.
The teams then ranked all the VDCs from the quantitative sample cluster and its adjoining
VDCs. Other VDCs were also ranked even if the sample did not include all possible
geographical scenarios in the district.
STEP III: Selection of Sample VDCs
Sample VDCs were selected based on the scores calculated using the ranking methodology.
Four communities were sampled in each district, which was decided based on time and
human resources available and the predicted amount of time needed per community
(approximately four days each.) Table 10 il lustrates this further.
The scoring was based on available information and the knowledge and judgement of the
part icipants. Five part icipants for each district representing local NGOs, the Distri ct
Development Committee, LFP district staff, and the District Forest Office who knew the
districts situation ranked their districts VDCs relying mainly on their own field knowledge
and judgements. This might be an unreliable scoring method, however, it was found to
be a more practical and time-saving approach given the paucity and validity of secondary
information against the ranking indicators.
Four alternative VDCs were selected within the above categories to replace a VDC in case
access was denied, due to the security situation.
TABLE 9: Indicators for VDC RankingIndicators for VDC RankingIndicators for VDC RankingIndicators for VDC RankingIndicators for VDC Ranking
Criter ia/IndicatorsCriter ia/IndicatorsCriter ia/IndicatorsCriter ia/IndicatorsCriter ia/Indicators
Poverty incidence (Food security, natural disasters, famine, etc.)
Access to infrastructure (School, drinking w ater, health,
comm unication, etc.)
Access to road/m arket
Agricultural produc tivity (Fertility level, cash c rops, fr uits, export, etc.)
TTTTTotal scoreotal scoreotal scoreotal scoreotal score
Ranking AssessmentRanking AssessmentRanking AssessmentRanking AssessmentRanking Assessment
HighHighHighHighHigh MediumMediumMediumMediumMedium Lo wLo wLo wLo wLo w
3 2 1
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
66666 88888 1010101010
TABLE 10: Selection of VDCsSelection of VDCsSelection of VDCsSelection of VDCsSelection of VDCs
Inside quantitative sample
Adjoining (outside q uantitative) sample
Low RankingLow RankingLow RankingLow RankingLow Ranking
(Better quality of livelihood)(Better quality of livelihood)(Better quality of livelihood)(Better quality of livelihood)(Better quality of livelihood)
High RankingHigh RankingHigh RankingHigh RankingHigh Ranking
( low qual i ty of l ivel ihood)( low qual i ty of l ivel ihood)( low qual i ty of l ivel ihood)( low qual i ty of l ivel ihood)( low qual i ty of l ivel ihood)
-
7/30/2019 Methodology Baseline
31/432 22 22 22 22 2
LIVELIHOODS BASELINE STUDY:Experiences from the Design and Implem entation of the Livelihoods Baseline Study
STEP IV: Selection of Communities within VDCs
Once the VDCs were selected the teams had to decide on where within that VDC to
work. The guidelines below (Table 3.4) were designed following discussions.
TABLE 11: Selection of Communities WithinSelection of Communities WithinSelection of Communities WithinSelection of Communities WithinSelection of Communities Within VDCVDCVDCVDCVDC
StepsStepsStepsStepsSteps
1
2
3
4
ActivitiesActivitiesActivitiesActivitiesActivities
Review VDC data and cast/ethnic com position to determine major ethnic groups within the VDC
population. Choice of community should reflect the major district ethnic composition.
Meet VDC chairman/key informant who has knowledge of the entire VDC ethnic data and get
advice. Choose someone who is not likely to be biased.
Choose a combination of cluster of settlements that meet the district level ethnic com position.
Number of households should be approximately 100.
Describe how your team chose the cluster of settlements and document the process in your
notes.
The main and overall guiding factor for the selection of VDCs and communities was that
they represent the characteristics of many other VDCs and clusters in the district.
4.3 The Design of Topical Outli ne (Checkli st)
4.3.1 Partic ipatory ApproachA preliminary draft of the checklist for the qualitative study was developed during the
qualitative training cum workshop organised in October 2002 with the involvement of
key LFP stakeholders. The draft topical outline was further refined, and discussed with
the district level stakeholders in a separate regional qualitative workshop. The stakeholders
listed below included the training programme participants as well as the field work team
who tested the methodology and collected information from the field.
TABLE 12: Stakeholders Who PStakeholders Who PStakeholders Who PStakeholders Who PStakeholders Who Pararararar ticipated in the Rticipated in the Rticipated in the Rticipated in the Rticipated in the Regional Tegional Tegional Tegional Tegional Training and Field Wraining and Field Wraining and Field Wraining and Field Wraining and Field Work.ork.ork.ork.ork.
StakeholdersStakeholdersStakeholdersStakeholdersStakeholders
District Development Committee
District Forest Office
Local NGOs (Anim ation Programme)
Livelihoods and Forestry Programme
Development Vision Nepal (Baseline Implementing agency)
Tango International
ParticipantsParticipantsParticipantsParticipantsParticipants
Programme Officer of Local Governance Programme.
Rangers with substantial experience of the districts.
Representatives with experience in PRA tools, surveys.
District Programme Officers.
Senior professional as a team leader of the study.
Designer and trainer of the study.
-
7/30/2019 Methodology Baseline
32/432 32 32 32 32 3
LIVELIHOODS BASELINE STUDY:Experiences from the Design and Imp lementation of the Livelihoods Baseline Study
4.3.2 Two Regional Qualita ti ve Training and Design Workshops, March/April 2003
Two regional training workshops were conducted in the Eastern and Western regions with
the involvement of the above participants. The main objective of the workshop was toprepare participants with all the necessary skills and information required to conduct
fieldwork, and analyse and prepare primary reports. The outline of topics were reviewed,
the tools and methods for collecting information and sample sites were decided, and
participants were trained to analyse data using the agreed tools.
The participants were already familiar with the
PRA tools so the workshop focused on the use
of livelihoods assessment tools according to the
checklist questions, analysis techniques, and
development of a livelihood profile.
Participants went through a more interactive
process and practical work, which enabled
them to conduct fieldwork without much
confusion after the training. The experience
gained in the first workshop was shared in the
western workshop and some tools and the site
selection process were refined.
The sustainable livelihood framework was the main basis to design the topical outline
and questions. A simplified framework was developed and followed to design the questions
under broader topics of the framework (Figure 4 below).
FIGURE 4: Basis to Design TBasis to Design TBasis to Design TBasis to Design TBasis to Design Topic al Outline-opic al Outline-opic al Outline-opic al Outline-opic al Outline-The Simp lified Livelihood FThe Simplified Livelihood FThe Simp lified Livelihood FThe Simplified Livelihood FThe Simplified Livelihood Frameworkrameworkrameworkrameworkramework
Source: Tango International, USA
CONTEXTS,CONDITIONS
AND TRENDS
LIVELIHOODRESOURCES
INSTITUTIONALPROCESSES &
ORGANISATIONALSTRUCTURES
LIVELIHOODSTRATEGIES
SUSTAINABLELIVELIHOODOUTCOMES
PolicySocial
EconomicPolitical
EnvironmentalInfrastructureDemography
Historical
Natural CapitalEconomic/Financial
CapitalPhysical CapitalHuman CapitalSocial Capital
Political Capital
Production andIncome Activities
Processing,Exchange and
Marketing ActivitiesSacrifices and
trade-offs
Nutritional SecurityFood Security
Income SecurityEducation Security
Health SecurityHabitat Security
Social Network SecurityPersonal Safety
Environmental SecurityLife Skills Capacity
State
Formal Civil Society
Informal Civil Society
Private Sector
Contextual analysis ofconditions and trends
and assessment ofpolicy setting
Analysis of livelihoodresources; trade-offs,
combinations,sequences, trends
Analysis ofinstitutional/organisational influences on accessto livelihood resources
and composition oflivelihood strategy
portfolio
Analysis of livelihoodstrategy portfolios and
pathways
Analysis of outcomes,adjustments and
trade-offs
Orientat ion on sustainable livelihood
framework
Livelihoods assessment tools and methods
Rev iew of the top ical outl ine
Reorganising topical outl ine quest ions
according to the tools
Sam p le si te selec tion
Sample data analysis and technique to
develop livelihood profiles.
Brief Session Plans of the Works hopsBrief Session Plans of the Worksh opsBrief Session Plans of the Works hopsBrief Session Plans of the Worksh opsBrief Session Plans of the Worksh ops
-
7/30/2019 Methodology Baseline
33/432 42 42 42 42 4
LIVELIHOODS BASELINE STUDY:Experiences from the Design and Implem entation of the Livelihoods Baseline Study
The details of the components are not discussed here. Please see www.livelihoods.org for
details and for relevant documents on sustainable livelihoods.
The above framework helped the participants to understand the key components oflivelihoods in a more simple way and design the topical outline. Many questions were
developed to address the information needs of the LFP programme within these key
components. For example, under institutional processes and structure, questions were
designed to explore forestry related institutions to which LFP is directly related.
Flexibility plays an important role in digging out information according to major
programmes, otherwise every project or programme that wishes to conduct livelihoods
baseline studies may end up collecting only very general livelihoods information, which
may not be totally relevant to what they are doing. Therefore, it is important that although
the framework deals with broad livelihoods issues, it adapts questions under each framework
component according to the information needs of the programme or projects.
4.3.2 Part ic ipat ory Livelihood Assessment Met hods and Tools
The survey teams used the following Rapid Rural Appraisal tools to gather qualitative
information:
social maps case studies
focus group discussions well-being ranking
seasonal calendar Venn diagram
key informant interviews time line
transect walks community group interviews.
The team also collected secondary information in the form of district level profiles and
reports from various government and non-government offices.
A one-day field practice was conducted during the training where the tools were tested
and the questions adjusted. The information collected from the field practice was used
to practice analysing information and developing sample livelihood profiles.
The questions developed in the outline of topics were arranged according to the tools
mentioned above. Each tool was accompained a set of questions to ask, which assisted
the participants to understand why they were using a certain tool and what informationthey were going to gain with it . It served as a guide to collect the right information and
avoid the collection of haphazard information, which tends to occur when using PRA
tools.
-
7/30/2019 Methodology Baseline
34/432 52 52 52 52 5
LIVELIHOODS BASELINE STUDY:Experiences from the Design and Imp lementation of the Livelihoods Baseline Study
4.4 Implementation and Information Analysis
4.4.1 Team Composit ion
Two types of personnel were selected for the qualitative survey: Firstly, team leaders and
district coordinators who were proficient in the use of Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA)
and had experience using it in the field. Secondly, people living in the districts working
for local NGOs and district level l ine agencies. These peoples participation was a
fundamental element of the process, the capacity building and the shared design phase
and created a good working environment that ensured that the collected information was
demand-led. LFP made the recrui tment of women a central concern and achieved gender
balance within the teams.
In each district level team the six members were as follows:
one district coordinator appointed by DVN;
one district level LFP staff;
one District Forest Office (DFO)representative ;
one District Development Committee (DDC)representative ;two representatives
from local NGOs.
Seven teams were employed for the seven districts for a duration of one month.
4.4.2 M onitori ng and Qualit y Control
DVN and LFP paid due consideration in the monitoring and quality control of the study
once team members were recruited. A set of criteria was developed by DVN to recruit
qualified candidates for the study. Some guidelines were developed to ensure the quality
of information during implementation:
team members will stay at the study site during data collection;
hold a discussion each evening among the team members about the data collected.
The team leader will insure that data are collected according to the guidelines and
direct team members to revisit the site if there is any missing information;
analyse collected information each evening using tools such as social and resource
maps, and Venn diagrams, so that early interpretations can be made;
the study team wil l only visit the next site once all collected information isinterpreted, preliminary analysis is made and put into the livelihood profile matrix.
This ensures that information is not lost and duplicated with another site;
present all collected information to the vil lagers at the end of the survey day. This
ensures verification of information as well as team responsibility to provide feedback
to the villagers about the findings.
-
7/30/2019 Methodology Baseline
35/432 62 62 62 62 6
LIVELIHOODS BASELINE STUDY:Experiences from the Design and Implem entation of the Livelihoods Baseline Study
Three supervisors were appointed to monitor field activities during implementation. They
met the field teams on the spot, observed their work and checked and advised on
information quality. LFP and DVN senior officials also checked the quality of information
and in the case of one site, suggested that the team repeat the fieldwork and recollect all
the information due to the poor quality of information.
4.4.3 Inf ormation Analysis
1) Livelihoods Profile Preparation
The primary analysis followed the livelihoods profiles development in the same order as
the topical out line. An example is the broader headings of the livelihoods framework
mentioned above in Figure 4. The qualitative study field teams prepared this as their
study findings report. An analysis of case studies, social and resource maps, and Venn
diagrams was made and the findings were included in the relevant sections.
Altogether 28 profiles were developed following the same pattern and translated into
English.
2) Analysis of Data Using Different Tools
In August 2003, an analysis workshop was conducted with part icipation of the qualitative
study teams and LFP staff. The purpose was to prepare a consolidated report by analysing
the information contained in the livelihoods profiles using different analytical tools and
perspectives. It helped to draw out issues, and key findings according to the tools. The
tools used are as follows:
TABLE 13: TTTTTools Used in the Analysis of Livelihoods Pools Used in the Analysis of L ivelihoods Pools Used in the Analysis of Livelihoods Pools Used in the Analysis of L ivelihoods Pools Used in the Analysis of Livelihoods Profilerofilerofilerofilerofile
TTTTTools Usedools Usedools Usedools Usedools Used
Gender analysis
Livelihoods prof ile analysis (strategies and activities)
Problem analysis
Institution analysis
Opportunity analysis
PurposePurposePurposePurposePurpose
To understand gender relations and dynam ics,
participation, use and control of resources.
To understand key livelihoods activities, coping
strategies, changes and their effects on the poor.
To understand the key problems faced by the
com munities and poor people and its cause and effects.
To understand capacities of internal and external
institutions, their strengths and weaknesses.
To understand the positive deviance carried out by
households or communities in addressing common
constraints.
-
7/30/2019 Methodology Baseline
36/432 72 72 72 72 7
LIVELIHOODS BASELINE STUDY:Experiences from the Design and Imp lementation of the Livelihoods Baseline Study
There are several other tools, which can be used to analyse livelihoods information e.g.
stakeholder, rights and responsibilities, benefit-harm analyses and so on (For details, please
refer to CARE HLS toolkit prepared by Tango International). Their use will depend on
the types and relevance of the analyses to the analyser. The analysis will help to understand
key insights, which otherwise may be unclear by just simply reading profiles.
3) Preparation of the Consolidated Report
DVN, Tango International and the LFP team worked together to develop a consolidated
report using the 28 profi les and the findings from using the above tools. Where possible,
the findings from the consolidated reports were again blended with the quantitative survey
findings.
-
7/30/2019 Methodology Baseline
37/43
Conclusions
5
5.1 Key Issues and Lessons Learnt
5.1.1 LFP accommodated the fundamental basis in the livelihoods baseline design i.e.
the livelihoods approaches and its own programme outputs and indicators. This helped
to streamline the design from overworking approaches and drew out several of LFPs related
forestry information to do with livelihoods.
There are, however, still weaknesses in mainstreaming the programme outputs with all
aspects of the livelihoods framework and designing the outline of topics and questionnaires
to reflect these. For example, it was difficult to relate data on vulnerability and livelihoods
outcomes to forestry, although the PIP did provide some relevant information and more
data on forestry related institutions.
The usefulness of the livelihoods approach was obvious while designing the livelihoods
baseline. However, there is always a danger of overworking the livelihoods approach if
the relation with the overall programme mandate is not properly established. Although
it may not be possible to relate the main programme mandate or work according to every
element of the livelihoods framework (as some of them apparently stand alone with their
own significance), it is worthwhile to look at every design aspect from the inter-linkages
of the programme mandate and the framework. However, i t does not mean that
programmes/projects should not look beyond their mandate; they should and that is
why the livelihoods approach is necessary. However it is important to maintain a balanced
approach.
5.1.2 The inter-relationship between qualitative and quantitative studies has raised queries
in past surveys, as has the livelihoods study. The strength of the relationship between
the two studies (conducted with the same purpose) depends on their designs. In thecase of LFP, this particular issue was considered from the beginning and efforts were made
to readdress any queries while preparing the main report.
Some information from the qualitative study blended with the quantitative study. However,
some design effects remained, which disallowed blending them all in the desired
appropriate manner. The reconciliation of the household survey questionnaire was carries
out using the qualitative topical outline; however, the opposite would have been more
appropriate as the blending of qualitative information with quantitative information is
useful and logical due to the statistically valid data in quantitative analysis.
C H A P T E RC H A P T E RC H A P T E RC H A P T E RC H A P T E R
2 92 92 92 92 9
-
7/30/2019 Methodology Baseline
38/433 03 03 03 03 0
LIVELIHOODS BASELINE STUDY:Experiences from the Design and Implem entation of the Livelihoods Baseline Study
It would also be better to conduct the quantitative survey first, analyse the data and then
conduct the qualitative study by establishing better links between both the studies. This
allows the identifying of gaps found in the quantitative survey, and in getting a broader
qualitative picture for the information needs found from the quantitative analysis. LFP
conducted qualitative study after the quantitative survey, however, due to security reasons
as well as the consultants limited time, it was necessary to start the qualitative study
before the analysis of the quantitative information. All these factors became determinants
in appropriately allowing the blending of information between the two studies.
5.1.3 Conducting a livelihoods baseline study is a secondary priority for monitoring
but primary one for providing broader visions for programme planning and steering.
In the baseline designing, LFP sought the information needs from the existing log frame
indicators and the SL framework, but it did not specifically identify concrete indicators
for baseline use.
Specific baseline indicators were therefore not pre-determined in LFP, as is the case with
surveys conducted with monitoring as the primary purpose. It i s presumed that the
baseline information will indeed provide many indicators for monitoring system
development. There is a debate on approaches and the logic behind the approach adopted
by LFP is not yet clear. The lessons learned by LFP in developing monitoring systems
including indicators will be documented in a separate report.
5.1.4 It is important that the programme, its partners, and stakeholders have a common
objective while conducting livelihoods baseline studies. LFP has endeavoured to ensure
this by involving partners and stakeholders in the design process as well as the field
implementation. The process started with a basic training on what a livelihood is, SL
framework etc. and slowly moved on to technicalities of baseline methods and processes.
5.1.5 The qualitative study, which uses the common PRA tools during information
collection, is a widespread participatory technique. It is more complex than quantitative
surveys when one reaches the data analysis stage and the aggregation of results and findings.
The formulation of guiding notes or checklist and the primary reporting matrices (the
livelihoods village profiles) are very important without them information cannot be
streamlined.
The use of these tools is important in identifying the key findings from the data and
aggregating them for a consolidated report. This group and participatory work will consume
a lot of a professional teams time. It becomes more complicated to consolidate information
and conclude on generic findings when the number of study sites is greater. A common
problem in all qualitative studies is that much information will be site specific and can
never be generalised for the study population. This has been the case in LFP too.
-
7/30/2019 Methodology Baseline
39/433 13 13 13 13 1
LIVELIHOODS BASELINE STUDY:Experiences from the Design and Imp lementation of the Livelihoods Baseline Study
5.1.6 Determining a budget for the baseline survey is not an easy task. It is difficult to
predict the budget if the sampling plan is not finalised because the budget will depend
on the sample size. It took longer than expected to finalise the sampling plan for LFP,
therefore it was necessary to extend the contract with DVN. When conducting a large
baseline or monitoring survey, it is best to contract local partners only after the sampling
plan has been finalised.
5.1.7 During an ongoing internal conflict, it is difficult to implement a baseline study.
It i s important to assess how to conflict may affect the sample sites. LFPs sampling
strategies included conflict elements in two stages: avoiding the inclusion of highly sensitive
conflict areas in the sampling plan and developing of alternative sites. There were also
other important considerations in the recruitment of personnel, team composition, and
communication strategies during the fieldwork. Apart from some minor difficulties, the
baseline implementation was successful.
5 .1 .8 Once the household survey questionnaire is designed, collecting information
according to the questionnaire is normally quite simple. LFPs experience has been the
opposite. The local surveyors could not understand the questions the way the designers
understood them. Some mid-level professionals of the national consulting firm pre-tested
the questions however this did not help to make the questions understandable to the local
surveyors. A rigorous five-day orientation with field practice simpli fied the structure and
phrasing of several questions, and simplified units of measurement that were employed.
Regional differences in terminology and units of measurement were also addressed in the
final survey design.
The experience of LFP, despite the rigorous orientation of local surveyors, is that the quality
of information still cannot be ensured unless local surveyors are guided continuously by a
professional team leader. The local surveyors learned a lot from this survey and realised
that past surveys were superficial in quality, and lacked seriousness in the data collection
process.
5.1.9 Field work is necessary to design both the household survey questionnaire and the
qualitative topical outline. It provides an opportunity to the field teams to learn and
gain clarity on any confusing issues. A one-day field practice for the LFP team helped to
clarify the use of the tools, their relevance to questions set out in the topical outline, andmethods of wealth ranking.
During practice in the field, many participants interpreted the tools and their objectives
differently, for example, many participants drew up Venn diagrams and mobility maps with
different perspectives and objectives in mind. When maps were then linked to the key
questions, the objective in drawing them was missing. Such lessons are very important and
can be learnt through field practice. The information collected was used to develop sample
livelihoods profiles and provided insights to analyse the data, interpret the findings, and
prepare reports.
-
7/30/2019 Methodology Baseline
40/433 23 23 23 23 2
LIVELIHOODS BASELINE STUDY:Experiences from the Design and Implem entation of the Livelihoods Baseline Study
5.2 Key Learning and Future Impac ts The livelihoods baseline design should build on both a programmes mandate and
livelihoods approach. Imbalance towards one side undermines the study, unless theobjective is the complete assessment of livelihoods issues.
Both qualitative and quantitative studies are necessary for a livelihoods study; however,
their relationship should be established in the design and processes of data analysis,
and report writing.
I t may be logical to conduct a qualitative study to understand information gaps
according to the SL framework and log frame only after the gaps in quantitative
information are determined. In the present context, security is the limiting factor.
Theoretically, qualitative and quantitative stud