Chapter 6Data Sources, Methodologies and

Measurement Issues

David McGranahan (US) and Ray Bolman(Canada)

Joint UNECE/EURSTAT/FAO/OECD Meeting on Food and Agricultural Statistics in Europe

Rome, 29 June-1 July 2005)

Data Sources

Description Censuses of Population and Agriculture (linkage) Household budget surveys Living Standards Measurement Study

International Household Survey Network Labor market surveys Vital statistics Administrative records (taxes, licenses, schools)

Estimations

Concepts Rural (localities and regions) Households

Methods

Sampling Census master frame

Decays over time Stratified and cluster sampling Oversampling

Core and supplementary modules

GIS Distances (from urban center, hospital, school) Environmental features Ecological methods (transects)

Rural measurement issues

Definitions of ruralArea outside of places (or contiguous density) of 2,000 or 2,500

Recommended Census definition

Broader territorial units lacking either major centers or substantial urban populations (i.e., mostly rural)

Required for analysis of rural livelihoods, because of commuting

Geographic unitsBoundaries change over time with population growth Porous due to commutingSmall size creates problems of unreliability, confidentiality

Rural measurement issues 2

Measurement validity in rural contextUnemployment vs underemploymentMultiple and seasonal job-holding, informal economyDistance to as well as presence of facilities

Territorial level concepts (assets)Social capitalEntrepreneurship and creative capitalPhysical infrastructure (roads, airport access, broadband)GovernanceAmenities and disamenities

natural, cultural, built, agricultural

Figure 3

Forest and rural county employment indicators, 2000

Rural Indicator

Pe

rce

nt

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

13.2

21.2

Employment growth,1990-2000

4.86.5

Unemployment2000

-2.11.8

Population change,2000-2004

Under 10%

10% or more

Forest

Figure 5

Forest and county average income and housing statistics, 2000

32,600

58,000

79,300

32,000

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

Median household income,1999

Median value own housing, 2000

Rural Indicator

Do

llar

s

Under 10%

10% or more

Forest

Conclusion

Challenges Integrate farm, farm household with other surveys and

censuses GIS Integration with ecological, environmental measuresNonmarket goods; quality of life

Quality of Life

Evidence Preference for countryside residence (U.S., Netherlands) Net migration favors rural areas (U.S., ?) Almost universal preference for certain landscapes

Open vistas, clumps of trees, lake or pond, mystery (mountains) Evident in landscape pictures

Psychological benefits of exposure to nature

337 children, grades 3-5, 5 rural NY counties

Nature measured as natural views from kitchen and living room (0-2), live plants in living room, grass yard.

Lewis Stressful Life Events Scale

Parental report of distress behavior (Rutter Child Behavior Questionnaire)

Control for household income

Study Results

Nature moderates effects of stressful life events on psychological distress

Low Medium High

Stressful life events

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Psy

cho

log

ical

dis

tre

ss

7.2

10.2

13.2Low nature

6.3

7.9

9.4

High nature

Life stress among rural children (Wells & Evans, 2003)

Nature: the rural asset

Nature and quality of life U.S., Netherlands: preference for countryside residence Almost universal preference for certain landscapes

Open vistas, clumps of trees, lake or pond, mystery (mountains) Psychological benefits of exposure to nature

Can you measure nature? Largely public good (Housing an exception) Not captured by recreation Lack of measures does not make it unimportant and we can

begin with universal preferences. GIS

Forest example

0

1

2

3

4

5

Cleared Notreforested

Slightlyreforested

Mostlyreforested

Completelyreforested

Preferences in an alpine settingF

requ

enci

es o

f pa

ir-pr

efer

ence

s

Amount of woody patches

Hunziker and Kienast, 1999

Figure 2

Forest and average rural county population change, 1990-2000

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95

Percent of land in forest

Per

cen

t ch

ang

e

Smoothed line

R2 = .19

Six Components:

Warm, sunny Januaries (2)

Temperate, low-humidity Julys (2)

Varied topography

Shores, lakes, ponds

Very high

High

Below average

Low

Above average

Figure 6

Map of Natural Amenities Scale

Source: McGranahan

Figure 7

Natural amenities and average rural county population change,1970-2003

-123 14

42

94

150

212

-3 -2 -1 1 2 3 4+

Natural amenities

Percent change

Conclusion

Rural context ≠ urban context Quality of life considerations mean that some may be

willing to forgo income for rural residence Natural settings are rural assets Measures extremely important in understanding rural

development not included in national survey statistics (landscape)

Ecologists have made considerable progress in measuring landscape

Denmark landscape study

4.7

6.56.0

Farmers Residents Visitors

Respondent group

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Bea

uty

5.8

4.7

3.8

Ag

rari

an

Hal

f-o

pe

n s

wam

p

Source: van den Berg et al., 1998

Analgesics, 2-5 days post op

Weak Moderate Strong

Strength

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

No

. of

do

ses

2.6

3.7

2.5

Wall5.4

1.7

1.0

Trees

Hospital study results (Ulrich, 1984)