Design and implementation of fishery modules in integrated household surveys in developing countries

Fish and other aquatic animals contribute to the food security of citizens of developing countries, both as a source of income and as a component of healthy diets, yet fishing is not currently captured in most integrated household surveys. This sourcebook provides essential technical guidance on the design of statistical modules and questionnaires aimed at collecting fishery data at the household level. Background on the main policies important to the fishery sector, information on the data needed to analyze issues of policy relevance, and methodology on the construction of survey questions to collect necessary data are also provided. The document is organized to provide essential technical guidance on how to design statistical modules and questionnaires aimed at collecting fishery data at the household level. It includes an overview of the main technical and statistical challenges related to sampling fishery-dependent households. The document starts with an introductory section identifying the potential reasons why fisheries and in particular small-scale fisheries have not been adequately included in national statistical systems in a large number of countries. The report then proposes a succinct review of what is known (and what remains unknown) about small-scale fisheries and their contribution to the livelihoods of households in sub-Saharan Africa. It also provides readers with background on the main policies that are important to the fishery sector, information on the data needed to analyze issues of policy relevance, and methodology on the construction of survey questions to collect necessary data.

Special report : the wellbeing of Australians : groups with the highest and lowest wellbeing in Australia

Overview and Aim
1. This report concerns an analysis of the cumulative data from 15 surveys using the Personal Wellbeing Index to measure Subjective Wellbeing. The total number of respondents is about 30,000 but not all data were available for all analyses due to changing variables between
surveys.
2. The aim of this analysis is to determine those sub-groups with the highest and the lowest wellbeing.
Method
3. The definition of sub-groups is through the demographic variables of Income, Gender, Age, Household Composition, Relationship Status and Employment Status. Index domains are also included. While not every combination of demographic variables has been tested, the total number of combinations analysed was 3,277.
4. Extreme group mean scores are defined as lying above 79 points and below 70 points. These values are at least five standard deviations beyond the total sample mean score and are, therefore, extreme outliers. The minimum number of responses that could form such a group is
one. Data are accumulated across surveys for corresponding groups.
Results
5. The initial search for the most extreme groups identified the 20 highest and the 20 lowest groups with a minimum N=10. These are termed the ‘Exclusive’ groups since they were based only on the previously identified extreme scores. In order to determine the true mean of each of these groups, a further analysis incorporated all respondents who met the definition of group membership. For example, an Exclusive group defined as [male, 76+ years] would contain only the accumulation of scores from individual surveys that met the extreme score criterion (<70 or >79). The Inclusive group included the scores from all survey respondents who matched the group definition of male, 76+ years.
6. The results revealed a dominance by the domains of the Personal Wellbeing Index. The extreme high groups were predicted by high scores on all domains except safety and relationships. The low groups were defined by low scores on all seven domains.
7. A further search for extreme groups was undertaken that was restricted to the demographic descriptors. The 20 highest and 20 lowest groups were identified based on a minimum cell content of N=10. The corresponding Inclusive group means were then calculated as before.
8. In order to increase the reliability of the final groups, a minimum cell content of N=20 cases was imposed.
9. Six extreme high groups were identified. These are dominated by high income and the presence of a partner. Five extreme low groups were identified. These are dominated by very low income, the absence of a partner, and unemployment.
Conclusions
10. The conclusions drawn from these analyses are as follows:
10.1 The central defining characteristics of people forming the extreme high wellbeing groups is high household income and living with a partner.
10.2 The central defining risk factors for people forming the extreme low wellbeing groups are very low household income, not living with a partner, and unemployment.
10.3 None of these five demographic characteristics are sufficient to define extreme wellbeing groups on their own. They all act in combinations of at least two risk factors together.

Goals for children, exclusion and vulnerability: expanding the usefulness of household surveys

Includes bibliography

Lincoln Alcohol Safety Action Project. Household surveys 1971, 1972 and 1973.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C.

An analyses of responses to the 1971 and 1974 household surveys conducted in Pulaski County, Arkansas.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C.

Lincoln Alcohol Safety Action Project household surveys 1971-1974. Final report.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Office of Driver and Pedestrian Programs, Washington, D.C.

Wellbeing of Australians : mortgage payments and home ownership

The Australian Unity Wellbeing Index monitors the subjective wellbeing of the Australian population. Our first survey was conducted in April 2001 and this report concerns the 16th survey, undertaken in October 2006. Our previous survey had been conducted five months earlier in May 2006. This intervening period was relatively uneventful in terms of events likely to change population wellbeing. In March 2006, the new Industrial Relations legislation came into force. Each survey involves a telephone interview with a new sample of 2,000 Australians, selected to represent the national population geographic distribution. These surveys comprise the Personal Wellbeing Index, which measures people’s satisfaction with their own lives, and the National Wellbeing Index, which measures how satisfied people are with life in Australia. Other items include a standard set of demographic questions and other survey-specific questions. The specific topics for Survey 16 are home location and travel time, and expenditure on mortgage or rent.

Wellbeing of Australians : income security

The Australian Unity Wellbeing Index monitors the subjective wellbeing of the Australian population. Our first survey was conducted in April 2001 and this report concerns the 15th survey, undertaken in May 2006. Our previous survey had been conducted seven months earlier in October 2005. This intervening period contained a number of significant events. The first Australian terrorist threat was marked by the arrest of people in Sydney and Melbourne alleged to be plotting an attack. In December rioting took place in Sydney between Muslim and non-Muslim youths, but whether this was due more to religious differences or a ‘turf-war’ is unclear. Then, in May 2005, the new Industrial Relations legislation came into force. Each survey involves a telephone interview with a new sample of 2,000 Australians, selected to represent the national population geographic distribution. These surveys comprise the Personal Wellbeing Index, which measures people’s satisfaction with their own lives, and the National Wellbeing Index, which measures how satisfied people are with life in Australia. Other items include a standard set of demographic questions and other survey-specific questions. The specific topic for Survey 15 is the extent to which people feel that their source of income is secure.

Wellbeing of Australians : work, wealth and happiness : part A

The Australian Unity Wellbeing Index monitors the subjective wellbeing of the Australian population. Our first survey was conducted in April 2001 and this report concerns the 17th survey, undertaken in April 2007. Our previous survey had been conducted six months earlier in October 2006. This intervening period was relatively uneventful in terms of events likely to change population wellbeing. A new leader of the opposition Labor Party was appointed (Kevin Rudd) who seemed more likely than
his predecessors to wrest power from long-serving Prime Minister John Howard (Liberal Party) in an election to be held around the end of 2007.
Each survey involves a telephone interview with a new sample of 2,000 Australians, selected to represent the national population geographic distribution. These surveys comprise the Personal Wellbeing Index, which measures people’s satisfaction with their own lives, and the National
Wellbeing Index, which measures how satisfied people are with life in Australia. Other items include a standard set of demographic questions and other survey-specific questions. The specific topics for Survey 17 are time at work, and anticipated happiness at doubling or halving household income.

Wellbeing of Australians : carer health and wellbeing

This Report concerns the subjective wellbeing of carers in Australia. It is the product of a partnership between Carers Australia, Australian Unity, and Deakin University. All three partners were involved in all stages of the project as planning the logistics, designing the questionnaire and composing the report. Data analysis was undertaken by Deakin University while the logistics of questionnaire mailout was managed by Australian Unity and Carers Australia. The actual mailing took place from each of the state/territory Carers Associations, who used their own databases to print and affix the addresses of their members to the envelopes. Three major outcome measures have been used. The first is the Personal Wellbeing Index, which is our standard measure of wellbeing. The Index score is the average level of satisfaction across seven aspects of personal life – health, personal relationships, safety, standard of living, achieving in life, community connectedness, and future security. The other two outcome measures are sub-scales taken from the Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale (Lovibond and Lovibond, 1995). This is a very well regarded scale and the sub-scales of Depression and Stress have been used for this study. A total of 10,939 questionnaires were distributed and 4,107 were returned in time for processing. This constitutes a 37.6% response rate.