Characterizing households and communities for Africa RISING


Published on

Presented by Cleo Roberts, IFPRI at the Africa RISING–CSISA Joint Monitoring and Evaluation Meeting, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 11-13 November 2013

Published in: Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • * Do we need this slide?
  • The key feature of panel data is that we observe multiple units over two or more time periods
  • Multi-topic surveys: E.g. poverty rate in Brazil is 30%. Does not tell about who the poor people are
  • Quality: May seem counterintuitive to talk about sampling improving the quality of the survey when we know that it introduces sampling error, but sampling reduces non-sampling error, which is difficult to quantify.Timely : Takes less time to do a sample than to interview entire population
  • If there’s no slide about sample selection, does it really make sense to talk about sample size?Do we have time to add another slide?
  • Created/creating M&E system to assess how Africa RISING has met/is meeting goalsAinsley, Justice, Ngulu covered monitoring on Day 1Will concentrate on evaluation today
  • Focus in this presentation on the characterization survey
  • First, we should show evidence of intensificationWe do so by describing the farming systems at different points in time across many households
  • In this presentation I’m not presenting data from the recent survey in MalawiRather, I’m illustrating how we plan to present the data once it is fully cleaned.I will use 2004-2005 data for this purpose.
  • Common crop combinations can show us which crops are suitable to the local context.
  • These are 2004-2005 dataWith the data we have collected, we intend to show the stability of cultivation over timeNext, we will talk about the areas where Africa RISING was intended to make improvements: livelihoods, food security, and natural resource management
  • *
  • Both poverty and agricultural engagement are high in Malawi
  • Both male- and female-headed households obtain the vast majority of their income from agricultureTherefore, intensifying agriculture should be expected to increase households’ livelihoods
  • Fifteen sections of the household survey concern livelihoods directly or indirectly.The section on health is not obvious, but it is an important one regarding agricultural livelihoodsSick may mean unable to work and unable to be productiveExpenditures on medicine and hospitalization reduce available income for other thingsSimilarly, credit is not an obvious indicator of livelihood, but credit may be necessary to many households to purchase agricultural inputsFood and non-food expenditures are necessary to estimate monetary poverty
  • After livelihoods
  • Community landThere may be customary or legal restrictions on land use and transferDemographicsGroup learning about agriculture may affect how effectively farmers use technology to improve their livelihoodsMigration (seasonal and permanent) may affect technology’s effect on livelihoods.
  • With the data collected through the household survey we will be able to produce graphs such as the one aboveThis graph shows the average amount each crop provides to households within each expenditure quintile per year
  • All of these sections deal with whether households have access to enough food and whether they are suffering negative effects from unhealthy combinations of foods.I’d like to point out welfare and subjective food securityAnthropometry measures are not immediately intuitiveWe choose to measure women of childbearing age and children under 5 years old because they are the most vulnerable to malnutrition’s effectsPlus, the effects they suffer can last a lifetime and, in the case of women, across generations.For women, we are concerned with low weight for height.For children under 5 the three common measures of poor food security are stunting (low height for age), underweight (low weight for age), and wasting (low weight for height)
  • * Services in the community questionnaire include agricultural extension services, markets, livestock services such as slaughter slabs and veterinary clinics
  • Characterizing households and communities for Africa RISING

    1. 1. Characterizing Households and Communities for Africa RISING Cleo Roberts Africa RISING–CSISA Joint Monitoring and Evaluation Meeting, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 11-13 November 2013
    2. 2. Why Characterize Households?  Identify household dynamics affecting technology adoption  Identify types of households vulnerable to poverty  Ensure the hard-to-reach are not missed
    3. 3. Why Characterize Communities?  Ensure appropriate interventions for context  Identify challenges to adoption  Figure out how to overcome barriers
    4. 4. Sustainable Intensification Cereal Systems Crop-livestock Systems Maize-legume-livestock Systems
    5. 5. Africa RISING Goals  Sustainable agricultural intensification for:  Improved livelihoods  Better food security  Healthy environment
    6. 6. Africa RISING: M&E System  Monitoring  Information from the field  Feedback to implementers  Evaluation  Outcomes of the project  Design of future projects and M&E efforts
    7. 7. Africa RISING: Evaluation  Panel surveys  Characterization survey  Endline after project completion  Two levels  Household survey  Community questionnaire (according to megasitespecific definitions)
    8. 8. Farming Systems  “Interdependent gathering, production, and postharvest processes” to meet households’ nutritional, economic, and other needs (FAO 2001)  Can include:  Crop production  Livestock production  aquaculture Smith and Subandoro (2007)
    9. 9. Farming Systems, cont. Survey sections:  Cropping systems  Crop production  Crop inputs  Crop sales  Crop storage  Crop labor  Livestock production  Livestock ownership  Livestock feed
    10. 10. Common Crop Combinations
    11. 11. Seasonal Cultivation
    12. 12. Livelihoods  Defined as the “capabilities, assets (including both material and social resources) and activities required for a means of living.” (Chambers & Conway, 1991).
    13. 13. Livelihoods and Agriculture Poverty Headcount Agricultural Engagement 84 - 93 80 - 84 74 - 80 55 - 74
    14. 14. Livelihoods and Agriculture, cont.
    15. 15. Livelihoods at the Household Level  Labor  Land  Cropping systems  Crop production  Crop inputs  Crop sales  Crop storage  Crop labor  Health  Livestock ownership  Livestock feed  Agriculture-related challenges and coping strategies  Other income sources  Credit  Housing  Food and non-food expenses
    16. 16. Measuring Poverty  At the household level:  Expenditures are more reliable than income  Easier to recall than income  Use assets to estimate wealth  More stable over time  At the community level:  Infrastructure: Roads, clinics, and other public services
    17. 17. Livelihoods at the Community Level  Agricultural extension  Access to services/infrastructure  Community land  Community demographics  Water, shocks, foodsupply  Market prices
    18. 18. Food Security  Three pillars:  Availability: Is there enough food?  Access: Do people have the resources to obtain food?  Use: Are people eating healthy combinations of foods? WHO (2013)
    19. 19. Food Security at the Household Level  Health  Crop production  Livestock ownership  Welfare and subjective food security  Food consumed inside the household  Anthropometry  Women of childbearing age  Children under 5 years old
    20. 20. Obtaining Measures of Food Security and Nutritional Status  Collect source, quantity and monetary value of foods consumed over a particular period  Necessary to standardize units of measurement  Include foods purchased, foods from own production, and inkind payments  Record times of self-reported food scarcity  Take anthropometric measurements  Identify stunting, wasting, and underweight children Smith and Subandoro (2007)
    21. 21. Food Security at the Community Level  Access to services  Water, shocks, and food
    22. 22. Overview of Food Security: Malawi 2004-2005
    23. 23. Food Inadequacy Acute Undernutrition self-assessed food inadequacy & child wasting 6 8 % of children .6 .5 .4 Au gu st Ju ly Ju ne M ay Ap ril M ar ch Fe br ua ry 9 Ja nu ar y0 De ce m be r No ve m be r O ct ob er .3 Se pt em be r0 8 % of households 10 last month month of interview % of households % of children wasted
    24. 24. Higher education better nutrition Child undernutrition indicators 20 30 40 50 by mother education 10 Child undernutrition indicators 0 50 by father education 40 30 wasting 20 underweight higher 10 stunting secondary 0 primary % of children none none primary stunting secondary underweight higher wasting
    25. 25. Natural Resource Management at the Household Level  Crop inputs (conservation)  Crop inputs (seed)  Livestock feed  Agricultural extension services  Land use
    26. 26. Natural Resource Management at the Community Level  Agricultural extension services  Community land use  Water, shocks, and food
    27. 27. Top Input Combinations
    28. 28. Africa Research in Sustainable Intensification for the Next Generation