Adaptation Fund in Alaotra-Mangoro, Madagascar
Principal Investigator(s): View help for Principal Investigator(s) Katherine Browne, Stockholm Environment Institute
Version: View help for Version V2
| Name | File Type | Size | Last Modified |
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet | 653.2 KB | 02/11/2022 04:24:AM |
Project Citation:
Browne, Katherine. Adaptation Fund in Alaotra-Mangoro, Madagascar. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2022-04-22. https://doi.org/10.3886/E162261V2
Project Description
Summary:
View help for Summary
This household survey captured information on the characteristics of households in four districts of the Alaotra-Mangoro region, Madagascar. The survey was administered to 200 households that participated a UN Adaptation Fund project (known as "AFRice") and 400 households that did not participate. The overall goal of the survey was to measure distributional outcomes of the project, specifically whether the project benefited climate-vulnerable households.
Survey questions captured information about household wealth (as measured by key assets and socioeconomic indicators), education level, ethnicity and immigration status, food insecurity, coping strategies, and adaptive capacity. They also measured household political connectivity as a product of household and extended family members' positions in government, institutions of customary governance, security forces, and community-level leadership, as well as household members' participation in local committees. Finally, questions addressed forms of household participation in the AFRice project.
Survey questions captured information about household wealth (as measured by key assets and socioeconomic indicators), education level, ethnicity and immigration status, food insecurity, coping strategies, and adaptive capacity. They also measured household political connectivity as a product of household and extended family members' positions in government, institutions of customary governance, security forces, and community-level leadership, as well as household members' participation in local committees. Finally, questions addressed forms of household participation in the AFRice project.
Funding Sources:
View help for Funding Sources
Fulbright Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad (DDRA) (P022A180037)
Scope of Project
Subject Terms:
View help for Subject Terms
Adaptation;
Vulnerability
Geographic Coverage:
View help for Geographic Coverage
Alaotra-Mangoro region, Madagascar. (Districts Andilamena, Amparafaravola, & Ambatondrazaka)
Time Period(s):
View help for Time Period(s)
10/2019 – 11/2019 (October-November 2019)
Collection Date(s):
View help for Collection Date(s)
10/2019 – 11/2019 (October-November 2019)
Universe:
View help for Universe
Households in communes targeted by the UN Adaptation Fund project "AFrice"
Data Type(s):
View help for Data Type(s)
survey data
Methodology
Sampling:
View help for Sampling
599 household surveys were collected from the AFRice project’s intervention sites in the
Alaotra-Mangoro region. Officially, the project targeted three communes: Manakambahiny
Andrefana, Ambohijanahary, and Bemaitso. Project documents indicate that about half of
fokontany in each commune were selected to participate, with only a select number of
households participating within each fokontany. Cluster sampling was used to identify a
representative sample of three different subject groups in these communes: beneficiary
households in beneficiary fokontany, non-beneficiary households in beneficiary fokontany, and
non-beneficiary households in non-beneficiary fokontany. Because an exhaustive sampling frame
(such as a list of households for each fokontany) did not exist, the next lowest aggregation of
households, fokontany, was used to randomly identify clusters for surveying.
In the first phase of sampling, a random number generator was used to select 12 clusters (4 of each subject group) in each commune for surveying. In the second phase, approximately 15 households were selected within each cluster. The method of selection differed for beneficiary and non-beneficiary households. Because only a small portion of the households benefited, random sampling was not possible for beneficiary households. Instead the survey team relied on chiefs fokontany (local government officials) and tangalamena (village elders) to initially identify beneficiary households, then used snowball sampling to identify additional beneficiaries. This method may have introduced some bias to the sample, as local leaders may have identified wealthier or more politically connected households for surveying. For non-beneficiary households, the survey team used the UNICEF “pencil spin” technique to randomly select households (Maxwell & Caldwell, 2008). Most fokontany had only one significant village, but in cases where there was more than one the team divided to survey households in both.
The sampling design was made more complex by the discovery, during preliminary site visits, that many of the project benefits intended for the commune of Bemaitso had been redirected to another fokontany (Ambatoharanana) in the neighboring commune of Andilamena. At that juncture, the survey team had neither the time nor resources to fully sample the entire commune (i.e., collect 12 clusters). Neglecting to include Andilamena, however, had the potential to bias the findings, particularly because local informants indicated that political connections played a role in redirecting the benefits. Therefore, three additional clusters were added to represent Andilamena: one each of beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries in Ambatoharana, and one from a randomly selected non-beneficiary fokontany.
In the first phase of sampling, a random number generator was used to select 12 clusters (4 of each subject group) in each commune for surveying. In the second phase, approximately 15 households were selected within each cluster. The method of selection differed for beneficiary and non-beneficiary households. Because only a small portion of the households benefited, random sampling was not possible for beneficiary households. Instead the survey team relied on chiefs fokontany (local government officials) and tangalamena (village elders) to initially identify beneficiary households, then used snowball sampling to identify additional beneficiaries. This method may have introduced some bias to the sample, as local leaders may have identified wealthier or more politically connected households for surveying. For non-beneficiary households, the survey team used the UNICEF “pencil spin” technique to randomly select households (Maxwell & Caldwell, 2008). Most fokontany had only one significant village, but in cases where there was more than one the team divided to survey households in both.
The sampling design was made more complex by the discovery, during preliminary site visits, that many of the project benefits intended for the commune of Bemaitso had been redirected to another fokontany (Ambatoharanana) in the neighboring commune of Andilamena. At that juncture, the survey team had neither the time nor resources to fully sample the entire commune (i.e., collect 12 clusters). Neglecting to include Andilamena, however, had the potential to bias the findings, particularly because local informants indicated that political connections played a role in redirecting the benefits. Therefore, three additional clusters were added to represent Andilamena: one each of beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries in Ambatoharana, and one from a randomly selected non-beneficiary fokontany.
Collection Mode(s):
View help for Collection Mode(s)
face-to-face interview
Scales:
View help for Scales
The food insecurity index was developed and weighted in focus groups following the Coping
Strategies Index (CSI) method (Maxwell & Caldwell, 2008). The CSI is based on the possible
answers to a single question: “What do you do when you don’t have adequate food, and don’t
have money to buy food?” It focuses on measuring the frequency and severity of household
coping behaviors in a specific local context according to four basic categories: dietary change,
short-term measures to increase household food availability, short-term measures to decrease
number of people to feed, and rationing. The higher the score, the higher the household’s
insecurity.
Unit(s) of Observation:
View help for Unit(s) of Observation
Households
Geographic Unit:
View help for Geographic Unit
Fokontany
Related Publications
Published Versions
Report a Problem
Found a serious problem with the data, such as disclosure risk or copyrighted content? Let us know.
This material is distributed exactly as it arrived from the data depositor. ICPSR has not checked or processed this material. Users should consult the investigator(s) if further information is desired.