Dataset Information

The Rural Household Multiple Indicator Survey, data from 13,310 farm households in 21 countries.

ABSTRACT: The Rural Household Multiple Indicator Survey (RHoMIS) is a standardized farm household survey approach which collects information on 758 variables covering household demographics, farm area, crops grown and their production, livestock holdings and their production, agricultural product use and variables underlying standard socio-economic and food security indicators such as the Probability of Poverty Index, the Household Food Insecurity Access Scale, and household dietary diversity. These variables are used to quantify more than 40 different indicators on farm and household characteristics, welfare, productivity, and economic performance. Between 2015 and the beginning of 2018, the survey instrument was applied in 21 countries in Central America, sub-Saharan Africa and Asia. The data presented here include the raw survey response data, the indicator calculation code, and the resulting indicator values. These data can be used to quantify on- and off-farm pathways to food security, diverse diets, and changes in poverty for rural smallholder farm households.

SUBMITTER: van Wijk M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7012858 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The Rural Household Multiple Indicator Survey, data from 13,310 farm households in 21 countries.

van Wijk Mark M Hammond James J Gorman Leo L Adams Sam S Ayantunde Augustine A Baines David D Bolliger Adrian A Bosire Caroline C Carpena Pietro P Chesterman Sabrina S Chinyophiro Amon A Daudi Happy H Dontsop Paul P Douxchamps Sabine S Emera Willy Desire WD Fraval Simon S Fonte Steven S Hok Lyda L Kiara Henry H Kihoro Esther E Korir Luke L Lamanna Christine C Long Chau T M CTM Manyawu Godfrey G Mehrabi Zia Z Mengistu Dejene K DK Mercado Leida L Meza Katherin K Mora Vesalio V Mutemi Jacob J Ng'endo Mary M Njingulula Paulin P Okafor Chris C Pagella Tim T Phengsavanh Phonepaseuth P Rao James J Ritzema Randall R Rosenstock Todd S TS Skirrow Tom T Steinke Jonathan J Stirling Clare C Gabriel Suchini Jose J Teufel Nils N Thorne Peter P Vanek Steven S van Etten Jacob J Vanlauwe Bernard B Wichern Jannike J Yameogo Viviane V

Scientific data 20200211 1

The Rural Household Multiple Indicator Survey (RHoMIS) is a standardized farm household survey approach which collects information on 758 variables covering household demographics, farm area, crops grown and their production, livestock holdings and their production, agricultural product use and variables underlying standard socio-economic and food security indicators such as the Probability of Poverty Index, the Household Food Insecurity Access Scale, and household dietary diversity. These varia ...[more]

PMID: 32047158

Similar Datasets

Project description:The data was collected in the Karagwe and Kyerwa districts of the Kagera region in north-west Tanzania. It encompasses 150 smallholder farming households, which were interviewed on the composition of their household, agricultural production and use of organic farm waste. The data covers the two previous rainy seasons and the associated vegetation periods between September 2016 and August 2017. The knowledge of experts from the following institutions was included in the discussion on the selection criteria: two local non-profit organisations, i.e., WOMEDA and the MAVUNO Project; the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA); and the National Land Use Planning Commission (NLUPC). Households were selected for inclusion if all of the following applied to them: 1) less than 10 acres of land (4.7 ha) registered in the village offices, 2) no agricultural training, and 3) decline in the fertility of their land since they started farming (self-reported). We selected 150 smallholder households out of a pool of 5,000 households known to WOMEDA in six divisions of the Kyerwa and Karagwe districts. The questionnaire contained 54 questions. The original language of the survey was Kiswahili. All interviews were audio recorded. The answers were digitalised and translated into English. The data set contains the raw data with 130 quantitative and qualitative variables. For quantitative variables, the only analysis that was made was the conversion of units, e.g., land area was converted from acres to hectares, harvest from buckets to kilograms and then to tons, and heads of livestock to Tropical Livestock Units (TLU). Qualitative variables were summarised into categories. All data has been anonymised. The data set includes geographical variables, household information, agricultural information, gender-specific responsibilities, economic data, farm waste management, and water, energy and food availability (Water-Energy-Food (WEF) Nexus). Variables are written in italics. The following geographical variables are part of the data set: district, division, ward, village, hamlet, longitude, latitude, and altitude. Household information includes start of farming, household size, gender and age of household members. Agricultural information includes land size, size of homegarden, crops, livestock and livestock keeping, trees, and access to forest. Gender-specific responsibilities includes producing and exchanging seeds, weed control, terracing, distributing organic material to the fields, care of annual and perennial crops, harvesting of crops, decisions about the harvest and animal products, selling and buying products, working on their own farm and off-farm, cooking, storing food, collecting and caring for drinking water, washing, and toilet cleaning. Economic data includes distance to the market, journey time to market, transport methods, labourers employed by the household, working off-farm, and assets such as type of house. Variables relevant to the WEF Nexus are drinking water source and treatment, meals per day, months without food, cooking fuel, and type of toilet. Variables on farm waste management are the use of crop residues, food and kitchen waste, livestock manure, cooking ash, animal bones, and human urine and faeces. The data can be potentially reused and further developed for the purpose of agricultural production analysis, socio-economic analysis, comparison to other regions, conceptualisation of waste and nutrient management, establishment of land use concepts, and further analysis on food security and healthy diets.

Project description:BackgroundPopulation-based measures of intervention coverage are used in low- and middle-income countries for program planning, prioritization, and evaluation. There is increased interest in effective coverage, which integrates information about service quality or health outcomes. Approaches proposed for quality-adjusted effective coverage include linking data on need and service contact from population-based surveys with data on service quality from health facility surveys. However, there is limited evidence about the validity of different linking methods for effective coverage estimation.MethodsWe collaborated with the 2016 Côte d'Ivoire Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey (MICS) to link data from a health provider assessment to care-seeking data collected by the MICS in the Savanes region of Côte d'Ivoire. The provider assessment was conducted in a census of public and non-public health facilities and pharmacies in Savanes in May-June 2016. We also included community health workers managing sick children who served the clusters sampled for the MICS. The provider assessment collected information on structural and process quality for antenatal care, delivery and immediate newborn care, postnatal care, and sick child care. We linked the MICS and provider data using exact-match and ecological linking methods, including aggregate linking and geolinking methods. We compared the results obtained from exact-match and ecological methods.ResultsWe linked 731 of 786 care-seeking episodes (93%) from the MICS to a structural quality score for the provider named by the respondent. Effective coverage estimates computed using exact-match methods were 13%-63% lower than the care-seeking estimates from the MICS. Absolute differences between exact match and ecological linking methods were ±7 percentage points for all ecological methods. Incorporating adjustments for provider category and weighting by service-specific utilization into the ecological methods generally resulted in better agreement between ecological and exact match estimates.ConclusionsEcological linking may be a feasible and valid approach for estimating quality-adjusted effective coverage when a census of providers is used. Adjusting for provider type and caseload may improve agreement with exact match results. There remain methodological questions to be addressed to develop guidance on using linking methods for estimating quality-adjusted effective coverage, including the effect of facility sampling and time displacement.

Project description:Evaluation of agricultural intensification requires comprehensive analysis of trends in farm performance across physical and socio-economic aspects, which may diverge across farm types. Typical reporting of economic indicators at sectorial or the "average farm" level does not represent farm diversity and provides limited insight into the sustainability of specific intensification pathways. Using farm business data from a total of 7281 farm survey observations of English and Welsh dairy farms over a 14-year period we calculate a time series of 16 key performance indicators (KPIs) pertinent to farm structure, environmental and socio-economic aspects of sustainability. We then apply principle component analysis and model-based clustering analysis to identify statistically the number of distinct dairy farm typologies for each year of study, and link these clusters through time using multidimensional scaling. Between 2001 and 2014, dairy farms have largely consolidated and specialized into two distinct clusters: more extensive farms relying predominantly on grass, with lower milk yields but higher labour intensity, and more intensive farms producing more milk per cow with more concentrate and more maize, but lower labour intensity. There is some indication that these clusters are converging as the extensive cluster is intensifying slightly faster than the intensive cluster, in terms of milk yield per cow and use of concentrate feed. In 2014, annual milk yields were 6,835 and 7,500 l/cow for extensive and intensive farm types, respectively, whilst annual concentrate feed use was 1.3 and 1.5 tonnes per cow. For several KPIs such as milk yield the mean trend across all farms differed substantially from the extensive and intensive typologies mean. The indicators and analysis methodology developed allows identification of distinct farm types and industry trends using readily available survey data. The identified groups allow the accurate evaluation of the consequences of the reduction in dairy farm numbers and intensification at national and international scales.

Dataset Information

The Rural Household Multiple Indicator Survey, data from 13,310 farm households in 21 countries.

Publications

The Rural Household Multiple Indicator Survey, data from 13,310 farm households in 21 countries.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets