NGA-NBS-GHS-PANEL-2010-2011-v1.0
General Household Survey-Panel 2010-2011 (PostHarvest)
First Round (Wave one)
GHS-PANEL 2010-2011 (PH W1)
English
Name | Country code |
---|---|
Nigeria | NGA |
Living Standards Measurement Study [hh/lsms]
The GHS - Panel survey is a subsample of the annual GHS cross section survey conducted by NBS. GHS - Panel survey is the first wave of a long-term project to collect panel data on households, their characteristics, welfare and their agricultural activities. The GHS -Panel will be conducted every two years.
This first wave consists of two visits to the household: the post-planting visit (August - October 2010) occurred directly after the planting season to collect detailed information on houssehold characteristics including preparation of plots, inputs used, labour used for planting and other issues related to the planting season. The post-harvest visit (Feburary-April 2011) occurred after the harvest season and collected additional information on household characteristics along with information on crops harvested, labour used for cultivating and harvest activities, and other issues related to the harvest cycle.
The survey is the result of a partnership that NBS has established with the Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (FMA&RD), the National Food Reserve Agency (NFRA), the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) and the World Bank (WB).
Towards the goal of improving agricultural statistics, the World Bank, through funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF), is supporting seven countries in Sub-Saharan Africa in strengthening the production of household-level data on agriculture.
The GHS survey is a cross-sectional survey of 22,000 households carried out annually throughout the country. Under the work of the partnership, a full revision of the questionnaire was undertaken and, at the same time, a sub-sample of the GHS now forms a panel survey. The panel component (GHS-Panel) applies to 5,000 households of the GHS collecting additional data on multiple agricultural activities and household consumption. As the focus of this panel component is to improve data from the agriculture sector and link this to other facets of household behavior and characteristics the GHS-Panel drew heavily on the Harmonized National Living Standards Survey (HNLSS-a multi-topic household survey) and the National Agricultural Sample Survey (NASS-the key agricultural survey) to create a new survey instrument to shed light on the role of agriculture in households' economic wellbeing that can be monitored over time. The first wave of the revised GHS and GHS-Panel was carried out in two visits to the Panel households (post-planting visit in August-October 2010 and post-harvest visit in February-April 2011) and one visit to the full cross-section (in parallel with the post-harvest visit to the panel). The GHS-Panel will be carried out every two years while the GHS-Cross Section is usually carried out annually. A schematic of data collection is shown in Figure 1. Note that a separate document details the contents of the GHS (cross section). This document provides details on the GHS-Panel only.
Expected Benefits
The specific outputs and outcomes of the revised GHS with panel component project are:
Development of an innovative model for collecting agricultural data in conjunction with household data;
Development of a model of inter-institutional collaboration between NBS and the FMA&RD and NFRA, inter alia, to ensure the relevance and use of the new GHS;
Strengthening the capacity to generate a sustainable system for producing accurate and timely information on agricultural households in Nigeria.
Comprehensive analysis of poverty indictors and socio-economic characteristics
Innovations
The revised GHS with panel component contains several innovative features.
Coverage and Scope
The revised GHS with the panel component, while having an intensive focus on agriculture, is a national survey. The survey covered all the 36 states and the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja. Both urban and rural enumeration areas (EAs) were canvassed.
The survey covered a wide range of socio-economic topics which were collected via three different questionnaires administered to the household and the community. These are the Household Questionnaire, the Agricultural Questionnaire and the Community Questionnaire.
The survey consisted of three questionnaires for each of the visits; The Household Questionnaire was administered to all households in the sample. The Agriculture Questionnaire was administered to all households engaged in agriculture activities such as crop farming, livestock rearing and other agricultural and related activities. The Community Questionnaire was administered to the community to collect information on the socio-economic indicators of the enumeration areas where the sample households reside.
GHS-Panel Agriculture Questionnaire: The agriculture questionnaire solicits information on land ownership and use; farm labor; inputs use; GPS land area measurement and coordinates of household plots; agriculture capital; irrigation; crop harvest and utilization; animal holdings and costs; and household fishing activities. Some information is collected at the crop level to allow for detailed analysis for individual crops.
GHS-Panel Household Questionnaire: The household questionnaire provides information on demographics; education; health (including anthropometric measurement for children and child immunization); labor and time use; food and non-food expenditure; household nonfarm income-generating activities; food security and shocks; safety nets; housing conditions; assets; information and communication technology; and other sources of household income. Household location is geo-referenced in order to be able to later link the GHS-Panel data to other available geographic data sets.
GHS-Panel Community Questionnaire: The community questionnaire solicits information on access to infrastructure; community organizations; resource management; changes in the community; key events; community needs, actions and achievements; and local retail price information.
Sample survey data [ssd]
Household, individual, Farm, Plot and Crop
version 1.0
2011-06-28
v1.0 was original release in March 2012 (Post-Harvest)
(The first version of the post planting has been release last year June 2011, however not all the data set was released at that point.
The post planting data set version (v2.0 March 2012) is complete and revised).
The survey covered a wide range of socio-economic topics which are highlighted two different questionnaires administered to the household. These are the Household Questionnaire and the Agricultural Questionnaire and the Community Questionnaire .
The household questionnaire was to be administered to all households in the sample.
The survey covered a wide range of socio-economic topics which are highlighted. Household Questionnaire was used to collect information on
Cover page: Household identification
Section 1: Household member roster
Section 2: Education
Section 3: Labour and Time use
Section 4: Health
Section 5: Information and communication technology
Section 6: Remittance
Section 7: Household Assets sale and acquisition
Section 8: Housing
Section 9: Non-farm Enterprises and income generating activities
Section 10: Meals Away From Home
Section 11: Non-food Expenditures
Section 12: Food Security
Section 13: Other household Income
Section 14: Safety Nets
Section 15: Economic Shocks and death
Agricultural Questionnaire collected information on:
Cover page: Household identification
Section A1: Land and Dry Season Planting
Section A2: Harvest Labor
Section A3: Agricultural production Harvest of Field and Tree Crops
Section A4: Agricultural Capital
Section A5: Extension Services
Section A6: Animal Holdings
Section A7: Animal Costs
Section A8: Other Agricultural Income
Section A9: Fishing, Capital and Revenue
Section A10: Network Roster
The Post-Harvest Community
COVER PAGE: Community identification
SECTION C1: Respondent Characteristics
SECTION C2: Community Infrastructure and Transportation
SECTION C3: Community Organizations
SECTION C4: Community Resource Managements
SECTION C5: Community Changes
SECTION C6: Community Key Events
SECTION C7: Community Needs, Actions and Achievements
SECTION C8: Food Prices
Topic | Vocabulary | URI |
---|---|---|
consumption/consumer behaviour [1.1] | CESSDA | http://www.nesstar.org/rdf/common |
economic conditions and indicators [1.2] | CESSDA | http://www.nesstar.org/rdf/common |
income, property and investment/saving [1.5] | CESSDA | http://www.nesstar.org/rdf/common |
agricultural, forestry and rural industry [2.1] | CESSDA | http://www.nesstar.org/rdf/common |
employment [3.1] | CESSDA | http://www.nesstar.org/rdf/common |
unemployment [3.5] | CESSDA | http://www.nesstar.org/rdf/common |
working conditions [3.6] | CESSDA | http://www.nesstar.org/rdf/common |
compulsory and pre-school education [6.2] | CESSDA | http://www.nesstar.org/rdf/common |
vocational education [6.7] | CESSDA | http://www.nesstar.org/rdf/common |
housing [10.1] | CESSDA | http://www.nesstar.org/rdf/common |
children [12.1] | CESSDA | http://www.nesstar.org/rdf/common |
gender and gender roles [12.6] | CESSDA | http://www.nesstar.org/rdf/common |
religion and values [13.5] | CESSDA | http://www.nesstar.org/rdf/common |
health policy [8.6] | CESSDA | http://www.nesstar.org/rdf/common |
plant and animal distribution [9.4] | CESSDA | http://www.nesstar.org/rdf/common |
TRANSPORT, TRAVEL AND MOBILITY [11] | CESSDA | http://www.nesstar.org/rdf/common |
basic skills education [6.1] | CESSDA | http://www.nesstar.org/rdf/common |
post-compulsory education [6.5] | CESSDA | http://www.nesstar.org/rdf/common |
information society [7.2] | CESSDA | http://www.nesstar.org/rdf/common |
accidents and injuries [8.1] | CESSDA | http://www.nesstar.org/rdf/common |
general health [8.4] | CESSDA | http://www.nesstar.org/rdf/common |
health care and medical treatment [8.5] | CESSDA | http://www.nesstar.org/rdf/common |
nutrition [8.7] | CESSDA | http://www.nesstar.org/rdf/common |
migration [14.3] | CESSDA | http://www.nesstar.org/rdf/common |
specific social services: use and provision [15.3] | CESSDA | http://www.nesstar.org/rdf/common |
information technology [16.2] | CESSDA | http://www.nesstar.org/rdf/common |
National Zone State Local Government Sector (Urban/Rural)
Zone Sector (Urban Rural)
Household Individual Plot/Crop Household Business
Name | Affiliation |
---|---|
National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) | Federal Government of Nigeria (FGN) |
Name | Role |
---|---|
World Bank | funding and Technical advisory |
Name | Abbreviation | Role |
---|---|---|
Federal Government of Nigeria | FGN | Funding |
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation | BMGF | Funding |
World Bank | WB | Funding |
Name | Affiliation | Role |
---|---|---|
Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development | FMA&RD | Technical advisory |
Federal Ministry of Water Resources | FMWR | Technical advisory |
National Food Reserve Agency | NFRA | Technical advisory |
The sample is designed to be representative at the national level as well as at the zonal (urban and rural) levels. The sample size of the GHS-Panel (unlike the full GHS) is not adequate for state-level estimates.
The sample is a two-stage probability sample:
First Stage:
The Primary Sampling Units (PSUs) were the Enumeration Areas (EAs). These were selected based on probability proportional to size (PPS) of the total EAs in each state and FCT, Abuja and the total households listed in those EAs. A total of 500 EAs were selected using this method.
Second Stage:
The second stage was the selection of households. Households were selected randomly using the systematic selection of ten (10) households per EA. This involved obtaining the total number of households listed in a particular EA, and then calculating a Sampling Interval (S.I) by dividing the total households listed by ten (10). The next step was to generate a random start 'r' from the table of random numbers which stands as the 1st selection. Consecutive selection of households was obtained by adding the sampling interval to the random start.
Determination of the sample size at the household level was based on the experience gained from previous rounds of the GHS, in which 10 households per EA are usually selected and give robust estimates.
In all, 500 clusters/EAs were canvassed and 5,000 households were interviewed. These samples were proportionally selected in the states such that different states had different samples sizes. The distribution of the samples are shown in Table 3.1 below which shows the size of the sample in each state, by geopolitical zone and urban/rural break-out.
Households were not selected using replacement. Thus the final number of household interviewed was slightly less than the 5,000 eligible for interviewing. The final number of households interviewed was 4,986 for a non-response rate of 0.3 percent. A total of 27,533 household members were interviewed. In the second, or Post Harvest Visit, some household had moved as had individuals, thus the final number of households with data in both points of time (post planting and post harvest) is 4,851, with 27,993 household members.
No deviation from the sampling
The response rate 99.9% includeing replacements at household level.
Replacement households represent 17.9% of the sample.
Population weight was calculated for the panel household. This weight variable (WGHT) has been included in household dataset: Section A (SECTA). When applied, this weight will raised the sample households and individuals to national values.
For any analysis, the SECTA data set will need to be merged with the file that is to be used.
The questionnaire is a structured questionnaire developed as a joint effort of the National Bureau of Statistics, the World Ban, Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development. Federal Ministry of Water Resources and National Food Reserve Agency during a series of meeting and two consultative workshops.
These are the Household Questionnaire and the Agricultural Questionnaire.
The household questionnaire consist of:
SECTION 1: HOUSEHOLD MEMBER ROSTER
SECTION 2: EDUCATION
SECTION 3: LABOUR
SECTION 4: CREDIT AND SAVINGS
SECTION 5: HOUSEHOLD ASSETS
SECTION 6: NONFARM ENTERPRISES AND INCOME GENERATING ACTIVITIES
SECTION 7A: MEALS AWAY FROM HOME EXPENDITURES
SECTION 7B: FOOD EXPENDITURES
SECTION 8: NON-FOOD EXPENDITURES
SECTION 9: FOOD SECURITY
SECTION 10: OTHER INCOME
Sections 7A, 7B and 8 are not included in the present data.
These data sets will be given when the Post Hrvest data set is avaliable.
The Agricultural Questionnaire:
SECTIONS 11:
a PLOT ROSTER
b LAND INVENTORY
c INPUT COSTS
d FERTILIZER ACQUISITION
e SEED ACQUISITION
f PLANTED FIELD CROPS
g PLANTED TREE CROPS
h MARKETING OF AGRICULTURAL SURPLUS
i ANIMAL HOLDINGS
j ANIMAL COSTS
k AGRICULTURE BY-PRODUCT
l EXTENSION
SECTIONS 12: NETWORK ROSTER
The Post-harvest Community
COVER PAGE: Community identification
SECTION C1: Respondent Characteristics
SECTION C2: Community Infrastructure and Transportation
SECTION C3: Community Organizations
SECTION C4: Community Resource Managements
SECTION C5: Community Changes
SECTION C6: Community Key Events
SECTION C7: Community Needs, Actions and Achievements
SECTION C8: Food Prices
The cleaning process at the head office was impeded by the fact that the questionnaires were not immediately available for inspection when problems were identified in the data. The questionnaires were retained by the state in case there was the need for household revisits. So whenever problems were identified at the head office, the state office had to be contacted in order to determine if the suspect data were the same as the information on the questionnaire, and to ensure that changes were captured in both places. This was a very cumbersome and time consuming process since communication was difficult and in many instances the response was not timely. However, this is a necessary process to ensure that the households can be re-visited to provide the correct information to avoid having to make imputations. Also, this process allows the state officers to understand the key issues that arose during field work and will serve to enhance further rounds of data collection. It will be important, nonetheless, to find a mechanism to facilitate this process in the next round of data collection and cleaning.
A second challenge in data management and cleaning was the difficulty faced by state offices in sending the data from the state to the head office. There were difficulties in accessing internet facilities in many of the EAs and surrounding areas where the field teams were active. The consequence of this was that the data were not sent to the head office until the teams returned to state capitals where, due to the distance, it was difficult to return to the EAs for household revisits when requested by the head office. This issue will need to be addressed for future rounds of the survey.
Start | End | Cycle |
---|---|---|
2011-02-10 | 2011-04-15 | eight weeks |
September 2003 to August 2004
Start date | End date | Cycle |
---|---|---|
2010-08 | 2011-03 | 2 yrs |
Name | Affiliation | Abbreviation |
---|---|---|
National Bureau of Statistics | Federal Government of Nigeria | NBS |
The monitors made sure that proper compliance with the procedures as contained in the manual were followed, effected necessary corrections and tackled problems that arose. The monitoring exercise was arranged such that the first level took place at the commencement of the fieldwork, and the third level not later than a week before the end of the data collection exercise. In-between these two, the technical team visited all the states of the federation and FCT, Abuja. While NBS state officers monitored in their state, the zonal controllers monitored in at least two (2) states (the zonal headquarters state and one other state of the same zone). The 1st and 3rd rounds of the monitoring exercise lasted for eight (8) days while the 2nd round by the technical team lasted for seven (7) days. Monitoring instruments were developed and discussed during both training of trainers and zonal training.
Data were collected by teams consisting of a supervisor, between 2 and 4 interviewers and a data entry operator. The number of teams varied from state to state depending on the sample size or number of EAs selected. The teams moved in a roving manner and data collection lasted for between 20 - 30 days for each of the post-planting and post-harvest visits. Additional details on the structure of the visits are available in Section 6.
5.2 Fieldwork Monitoring and Evaluation
As an additional aid to ensuring the good quality data, extensive monitoring was done of the field work Monitoring and evaluation guidelines and formats for fieldwork were developed. One (1) monitor was assigned to 1 - 2 states and all the states and FCT, Abuja were covered. There were three levels of monitoring and evaluation, the first and the third levels were carried out by NBS state officers and zonal controllers while the second level was carried out by the technical team which included individuals from the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS), the Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (FMA&RD), the National Food Reserve Agency (NFRA) headquarter staff, and World Bank officials and consultants.
This survey used a concurrent data entry approach. In this method, the fieldwork and data entry were handled by each team assigned to the state. Each team consisted of a field supervisor, 2-4 interviewers and a data entry operator. Immediately after the data were collected in the field by the interviewers, the questionnaires were handed over to the supervisor to be checked and documented. At the end of each day of fieldwork, the questionnaires were then passed to the data entry operator for entry. After the questionnaires were entered, the data entry operator generated an error report which reported issues including out of range values and inconsistencies in the data. The supervisor then checked the report, determined what should be corrected, and decided if the field team needed to revisit the household to obtain additional information. The benefits of this method are that it allows one to:
¨ Capture errors that might have been overlooked by a visual inspection only,
¨ Identify errors early during the field work so that if any correction required a revisit to the household, it could be done while the team was still in the EA
The CSPro software was used to design the specialized data entry program that was used for the data entry of the questionnaires.
6.12 Data Cleaning
The data cleaning process was done in a number of stages. The first step was to ensure proper quality control during the fieldwork. This was achieved in part by using the concurrent data entry system which was, as explained above, designed to highlight many of the errors that occurred during the fieldwork. Errors that are caught at the fieldwork stage are corrected based on re-visits to the household on the instruction of the supervisor. The data that had gone through this first stage of cleaning was then sent from the state to the head office of NBS where a second stage of data cleaning was undertaken.
During the second stage the data were examined for out of range values and outliers. The data were also examined for missing information for required variables, sections, questionnaires and EAs. Any problems found were then reported back to the state where the correction was then made. This was an ongoing process until all data were delivered to the head office.
After all the data were received by the head office, there was an overall review of the data to identify outliers and other errors on the complete set of data. Where problems were identified, this was reported to the state. There the questionnaires were checked and where necessary the relevant households were revisited and a report sent back to the head office with the corrections.
The final stage of the cleaning process was to ensure that the household- and individual-level data sets were correctly merged across all sections of the household questionnaire. Special care was taken to see that the households included in the data matched with the selected sample and where there were differences these were properly assessed and documented. The agriculture data were also checked to ensure that the plots identified in the main sections merged with the plot information identified in the other sections. This was also done for crop-by-plot information as well.
VARIABLE NAMING SCHEME
Generally, the variables are named to correspond with each of the questions. For example in the case of the cover dataset (SECTA) the variables names start with ‘SA’ which means section A of the household questionnaire. This is followed by ‘Q’ and a number e.g. ‘Q1’ which indicates the question number, so the first question in Section A is captured in the variable SAQ1. Section 1 to 10, was represented using S1 to S10 with the question (Q) and number post-fixed as in the example above. The approach is similar in the case of the agriculture datasets. Here the variables are labeled ‘S11A – S11L and S12 corresponding to the section number. These variables all end with the question and number just as is done in the household datasets.
There were some few data entry problems encountered by some of the data entry operators due to the introduction of this method of concurrent data entry
? Provision of field vehicles with charging facilities for the data entry equipment was an added advantage
? Challenges on how to send data via internet to NBS headquarters
? Problems in effective managing of data problems while the teams were in the field like; printing and correct reading of error messages
? Problems of EA and HH replacement:
o Suggested a re-listing exercise
o Improve method of replacement
? Problems with geographical codes
o Using different codes in the states and headquarters for LGAs, EAs and replicate identification codes (RIC)
o Suggested harmonization of codes
Organization name | Abbreviation | Affiliation |
---|---|---|
NATIONAL BUREAU OF STATISTICS | NBS | FEDERAL GOVT. OF NIGERIA |
Name | Affiliation | URL | |
---|---|---|---|
National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) | Federal Government of Nigeria (FGN) | http://www.nigerianstat.gov.ng | feedback@nigerianstat.gov.ng |
Is signing of a confidentiality declaration required? | Confidentiality declaration text |
---|---|
yes | The confidentiality of the individual respondent is protected by law (Statistical Act 2007) This is published in the Official Gazette of the Federal republic of Nigeria No. 60 vol. 94 of 11th June 2007. See section 26 para.2. Punitive measures for breeches of confidentiality are outlined in section 28 of the same Act. |
A comprehensive data access policy is been developed by NBS, however section 27 of the Statistical Act 2007outlines the data access obligation of data producers which includes the realease of properly anonymized micro data.
National Bureau of Statistics, General Household Survey-Panel 2010-2011 (Post-Harvest) v1.0
The user of the data acknowledges that the original collector of the data, the authorized distributor of the data, and the relevant funding agency bear no responsibility for use of the data or for interpretations or inferences based upon such uses.
© NBS 2011
Name | Affiliation | URL | |
---|---|---|---|
Dr Yemi Kale | SG National Bureau of Statistics | ykale@nigerianstat.gov.ng | http://www.nigerianstat.gov.ng |
Mr E.O. Ekezie | HOD ICT | eoekezie@nigerianstat.gov.ng | http://www.nigerianstat.gov.ng |
Mr C.O. Monike | Fedral Government of Nigeria (FGN) | comonike@nigerianstat.gov.ng | http://www.nigerianstat.gov.ng |
Biyi Fafunmi | Data Access | biyifafunmi@nigerianstat.gov.ng | http://www.nigerianstat.gov.ng |
Mrs A. A. Akinsanya | Data Archivist | paakinsanya@nigerianstat.gov.ng | http://www.nigerianstat.gov.ng |
Mr R.F. Busari | ICT | rfbusari@nigerianstat.gov.ng | http://www.nigerianstat.gov.ng |
National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) | Fedral Government of Nigeria (FGN) | feedback@nigerianstat.gov.ng | http://www.nigerianstat.gov.ng |
DDI-NGA-NBS-GHS-PANEL-2010-2011-v1.0
Name | Abbreviation | Affiliation | Role |
---|---|---|---|
National Bureau of Statistics | NBS | Federal Government of Nigeria (FGN) | Metadata Producer |
1980-01-04
Version 1.0