Livelihoods, Basic Services, Social Protection and Perceptions of the State in Conflict-affected Situations Household Survey 2013 - Uganda

Abstract
---------------------------

This data is from the first round of a unique, cross-country panel survey conducted in Uganda by the Secure Livelihoods Research Consortium (SLRC). The Overseas Development Institute (ODI) is the lead organisation of SLRC. SLRC partners who participated in the survey were: the Centre for Poverty Analysis (CEPA) in Sri Lanka, Feinstein International Center (FIC, Tufts University), the Sustainable Development Policy Institute(SDPI) in Pakistan, Humanitarian Aid and Reconstruction, based at Wageningen University (WUR) in the Netherlands, the Nepal Centre for Contemporary Research (NCCR), and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).

This survey generated the first round of data on people's livelihoods, their access to and experience of basic services, and their views of governance actors. SLRC will attempt to re-interview the same respondents in 2015 to find out how the livelihoods and governance perceptions of people shift (or not) over time, and which factors may have contributed towards that change.

Geographic coverage
---------------------------

Regional

Analysis unit
---------------------------

Households

Universe
---------------------------

Randomly selected households in purposely sampled sites (sampling procedure varied slightly by country). Within a selected household, only one household members was interviewed about the household. Respondents were adults and we aimed to interview a fairly even share of men/ women. In some countries this was achieved, but in other countries the share of male respondents is substantially higher (e.g. Pakistan).

Kind of data
---------------------------

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure
---------------------------

The sampling strategy was designed to select households that are relevant to the main research questions and as well as being of national relevance, while also being able to produce statistically significant conclusions at the study and village level. To meet these objectives, purposive and random sampling were combined at different stages of the sampling strategy. The first stages of the sampling process involved purposive sampling, with random sampling only utilized in the last stage of the process. Sampling locations were selected purposely (including districts and locations within districts), and then randomly households were selected within these locations. A rigorous sample is geared towards meeting the objectives of the research. The samples are not representative for the case study countries and cannot be used to represent the case study countries as a whole, nor for the districts. The samples are representative at the village level, with the exception of Uganda.

Sampling locations (sub-regions or districts, sub-districts and villages) were purposively selected, using criteria, such as levels of service provision or levels of conflict, in order to locate the specific groups of interest and to select geographical locations that are relevant to the broader SLRC research areas and of policy relevance at the national level. For instance, locations experienced high/ low levels of conflict and locations with high/ low provision of services were selected and locations that accounted for all possible combinations of selection criteria were included. Survey locations with different characteristics were chose, so that we could explore the relevance of conflict affectedness, access to services and variations in geography and livelihoods on our outcome variables. Depending on the administrative structure of the country, this process involved selecting a succession of sampling locations (at increasingly lower administrative units).

The survey did not attempt to achieve representativeness at the country /or district level, but it aimed for representativeness at the sub-district /or village level through random sampling (Households were randomly selected within villages so that the results are representative and statistically significant at the village level and so that a varied sample was captured. Households were randomly selected using a number of different tools, depending on data availability, such as random selection from vote registers (Nepal), construction of household listings (DRC) and a quasi-random household process that involved walking in a random direction for a random number of minutes (Uganda).

The samples are statistically significant at the survey level and village level (in all countries) and at the district level in Sri Lanka and sub-region level in Uganda. The sample size was calculated with the aim to achieve statistical significance at the study and village level, and to accommodate the available budget, logistical limitations, and to account for possible attrition between 2012-2015. In a number of countries estimated population data had to be used, as recent population data were not available.

The minimum overall sample size required to achieve significance at the study level, given population and average household size across districts, was calculated using a basic sample size calculator at a 95% confidence level and confidence interval of 5. The sample size at the village level was again calculated at the using a 95% confidence level and confidence interval of 5. Finally, the sample was increased by 20% to account for possible attrition between 2012 and 2015, so that the sample size in 2015 is likely to be still statistically significant. The overall sample required to achieve the sampling objectives in selected districts in each country ranged from 1,259 to 3,175 households.

Mode of data collection
---------------------------

Face-to-face [f2f]

Cleaning operations
---------------------------

CSPro was used for data entries in most countries.

Data editing took place at a number of stages throughout the processing, including:
• Office editing and coding
• During data entry
• Structure checking and completeness
• Extensive secondary editing conducted by ODI

Response rate
---------------------------

The required sample sizes were achieved in all countries. Response rates were extremely high, ranging from 99%-100%.

Sampling error estimates
---------------------------

No further estimations of sampling error was conducted beyond the sampling design stage.

Data appraisal
---------------------------

Done on an ad hoc basis for some countries, but not consistently across all surveys and domains.

摘要
---------------------------
本数据集源自乌干达由生计安全研究联盟（Secure Livelihoods Research Consortium，SLRC）实施的独特跨国横截面调查的第一轮数据。生计安全研究联盟的牵头机构为海外发展研究所（Overseas Development Institute，ODI）。参与调查的SLRC合作伙伴包括：斯里兰卡的贫困分析中心（Centre for Poverty Analysis，CEPA）、塔夫茨大学的Feinstein国际研究中心（Feinstein International Center，FIC）、巴基斯坦的可持续发展战略研究所（Sustainable Development Policy Institute，SDPI）、荷兰瓦赫宁根大学的灾害援助与重建机构、尼泊尔的当代研究中心（Nepal Centre for Contemporary Research，NCCR）以及联合国粮食及农业组织（Food and Agriculture Organization，FAO）。

此次调查产生了关于人们生计、基本服务获取与体验以及治理行为者观点的第一轮数据。SLRC计划在2015年对同一受访者进行再次访谈，以探究人们的生计和治理观念随时间的变化（或不变），以及哪些因素可能导致了这种变化。

地理覆盖范围
---------------------------
区域

分析单元
---------------------------
家庭

总体
---------------------------
在有意抽样地点随机选取的家庭（抽样程序因国家而略有不同）。在所选家庭中，仅对一名家庭成员进行了关于家庭的访谈。受访者均为成年人，我们旨在采访到相当均匀的男性和女性比例。在一些国家，这一目标已实现，但在其他国家，男性受访者的比例显著较高（例如，巴基斯坦）。

数据类型
---------------------------
样本调查数据 [ssd]

抽样程序
---------------------------
抽样策略旨在选择与主要研究问题相关的家庭，同时确保其具有国家相关性，并能够在研究和村庄层面产生具有统计意义的结论。为了实现这些目标，抽样策略的不同阶段结合了目的抽样和随机抽样。抽样过程的早期阶段涉及目的抽样，而随机抽样仅在过程的最后阶段使用。抽样地点是有意识地选定的（包括区和区内地点），然后在这些地点内随机选择家庭。严格的样本旨在满足研究目标。样本对于案例研究国家不具有代表性，不能用来代表案例研究国家作为一个整体，也不能代表区。除了乌干达外，样本在村庄层面具有代表性。

抽样地点（次区域或区、次区和村庄）是有意识地选定的，使用标准，如服务提供水平或冲突水平，以定位感兴趣的特定群体，并选择与更广泛的SLRC研究领域和政策层面相关的地理地点。例如，选择了经历高/低冲突水平和服务提供高/低水平的地点，并包括了所有可能的组合标准。选择了具有不同特征的调查地点，以便我们探讨冲突影响、服务获取以及地理和生计的差异性对我们结果变量的相关性。根据国家的行政结构，此过程涉及在递减的行政单位中选择一系列抽样地点。

调查没有试图在国家和/或区级实现代表性，但通过随机抽样旨在次区和/或村庄层面实现代表性（家庭在村庄内随机选取，以便在村庄层面和统计上具有代表性，并捕捉到多样化的样本。家庭使用多种不同的工具随机选取，具体取决于数据可用性，例如从选民登记册中随机选取（尼泊尔）、构建家庭清单（刚果民主共和国）以及涉及在随机方向上行走随机分钟数的准随机家庭过程（乌干达）。

样本在调查层面和村庄层面（所有国家）以及斯里兰卡的区级和乌干达的次区域级具有统计意义。样本量的计算旨在在研究和村庄层面实现统计意义，并适应可用的预算、物流限制，并考虑到2012-2015年之间可能出现的流失。在许多国家必须使用估计的人口数据，因为最近的人口数据不可用。

为了在研究层面实现显著性，根据人口和跨区的平均家庭规模，使用基本样本量计算器在95%的置信水平和5%的置信区间下计算了所需的最小总体样本量。在村庄层面，再次使用95%的置信水平和5%的置信区间计算样本量。最后，样本量增加了20%，以考虑到2012年和2015年之间可能出现的流失，因此2015年的样本量可能仍然具有统计意义。在每个国家选定的区实现抽样目标的总体样本量范围从1,259户到3,175户。

数据收集方式
---------------------------
面对面 [f2f]

数据清理操作
---------------------------
大多数国家使用CSPro进行数据录入。

数据编辑在处理过程中的多个阶段进行，包括：
• 办公室编辑和编码
• 数据录入期间
• 结构检查和完整性
• ODI进行的广泛二级编辑

响应率
---------------------------
所有国家的所需样本量均已实现。响应率极高，介于99%-100%之间。

抽样误差估计
---------------------------
在抽样设计阶段之后，没有进行进一步的抽样误差估计。

数据评估
---------------------------
对一些国家进行了临时评估，但并非所有调查和领域都保持一致。