Group Discussion Specifics
Team Design and Function – During the course of the fieldwork
three teams typically traveled to villages to perform Group Discussion
and GPS Accuracy Check tasks while a fourth team remained at Nang Rong
headquarters to do Matching.
Group Discussion teams consisted of three
members:
- The Group Moderator was responsible for introducing the
informants to the project, describing the map sets and getting the
informants oriented and comfortable with the maps, and for leading /
facilitating the group discussion interview. The moderator also drew
plang boundaries, or aided the informants in drawing plang boundaries,
and assigned IDs to each plang. The moderator provided the data
recorder with user names, plang IDs, villages names, and map IDs.
- The List Manager was responsible for maintaining documents and
performing necessary document queries and tallies during the group
discussion. The list manager’s documents included the Household
Directory for the target village, copies of the Household List and
Dwelling Unit GPS Forms, and a Tally Sheet with the total number of
plangs reportedly used by each household in the village. The Tally
Sheet was generated from information found in the Household Survey Form
6 for that village. The list manager also provided the moderator with
ID stickers and verified the accuracy and existence of village user
names provided by the informants.
- The Data Recorder was responsible
for listening, recording, and double-checking all interview information
in the Group Discussion Land Use Form and informing the moderator and
list manager of missing information. The data recorder and the list
manager were instructed to sit next to each other so as to avoid
transcription errors between the Household Directory / Household
Listing and the Group Discussion Form.
Orientation Session
- Each
Group Discussion team, in order to familiarize themselves with a
village, reviewed the map tiles and the HH Directory and Household
Listing with the field manager prior to going to each village.
- After
introductions to the project and team members, the moderator described
the group discussion task to the headman and his informants and how
they would be able to contribute to completing the group discussion
tasks. It was also made clear that the headman was not required to be
present for group discussions.
- The moderator then read the consent
form, and the informants concurred and signed the consent forms, or the
moderator signed for the informants if they were unable to sign or if
they were wary of signing but verbally consented. The moderator also
signed the consent form as proof that the consent was read to the
informants.
- The interviewers then completed the Section 1 Cover
Sheet of the Group Discussion Land Use Form.
- The team then laid out
the nine map tiles, explained the dimensions, units, orientation,
village center, cadastral lines, etc.
- The team moderator asked the
informants to stand around the periphery of the maps, close their eyes,
and imagine they were flying in an airplane over the village. The field
manager found that this technique significantly helped the informants
visualize the landscape from above and think about things
geographically.
- The informants then opened their eyes and slowly
started identifying landmarks and other cultural features, which the
team members drew on the maps using China markers and labeled using
stickers.
- One team member completed labels as quickly as the
informants called out the names of roads, temples, ponds, etc.
- After
landmarks were drawn and identified, each informant was again asked to
imagine that they were flying in an airplane over the village, and to
fly over and identify their plang from the air. This was done to see
how comfortable they felt with the maps.
- All informants were then
asked to identify on the maps all major areas of cultivation used by
the villagers and to consider who would be a knowledgeable person(s) to
invite to discuss the boundaries and users of plangs in those areas in
subsequent group discussion sessions.
- Team members assigned
sequential numbers to the cultivation areas. Major cultivation area
boundaries were drawn on the maps, using identifiable landscape
features such as roads, rivers, and canals as reference marks. The
total number of cultivation areas represented the number of ~half-day
group discussion sessions that would be required for that village.
- Team members then recorded the numbers and the names and ban lek
ti’s of possible informants relevant to each area. Team members
inquired with the headman and assistants about the availability of
those informants for subsequent group discussion sessions. The
additional informants were contacted later that day or the next day to
schedule their participation in a group discussion session. The
intention was to have people in the discussion group more familiar with
the areas in question. These villagers would ideally be selected so
that they farmed areas that were spatially well distributed across the
cultivation area so as to get better spatial coverage of “local
user knowledge”.
Data Collection: Cadastral Mapping and Form
Completion
- Once the initial orientation session was complete, the
spatial team began collecting land use data by asking the headman and
the informants to identify on the maps the plangs that they used
themselves or that they were readily familiar with, in terms of
boundaries and users. Target plangs were identified and non-target
(0-jump and 1-jump) adjacent plangs were identified as needed. If the
informants did not know the username or village name for non-target
plangs, the interviewers indicated this with a “Don’t
know”.
Interviewers recorded the user’s full name, however, if the
informants did not know the user’s full name, then a common name
was acceptable. Getting the common name should have been rare
since the Phase II survey teams were using the household directories to
look up villagers’ names. However, if a person using a
non-target adjacent plang was from another village, the common name may
have been the only name available and was therefore recorded.
NOTE: Early on in the Spatial Phase 2 Field Work, in order to improve
the match rate between the Form 6 data and the Group Discussion data,
the interviewers began asking the informants about owner names after
inquiring about user names. User and owner names were identified on the
maps as described below in the Group Discussion Mapping Specifics
section. There were three main reasons for this modification in the
methods:
- During Phase I, there was some confusion among
the household interviewers and interviewees about how user/owner
related to the definition of “use” in Form 6. For example,
in Form 6, use included growing crops, raising farm animals, or other
farm income for the household. Some interviewers and interviewees
equated “other farm income” with renting land to others to
grow crops because they were generating household income (via rent)
from others growing crops on their land. In this case, the owner was
identified as, or identified himself/herself as the user.
- In Form 6, many of the adjacency names were owner names rather than user names.
- Many of the group discussion informants had a
difficult time separating the user from the owner (problem with
user/owner meaning) and/or recalling which name was the owner and which
name was the user.
- The Moderator’s role was to keep the group discussion moving
along, guide the informants over the maps, draw/redraw plang boundaries
where necessary, assign IDs to each plang where necessary, and inquire
about the users and owners of the plangs.
- Once the informants
identified an existing plang boundary or helped the moderator draw in a
new plang boundary and then identified the user and owner, an existing
plang ID or a preprinted sticker ID (beginning with
“88---“) was assigned to the plang.
- The List Manager
provided the Moderator with parcel ID stickers, if necessary. In
addition, the list manager noted the user name, located the user name
in the Household Directory, and provided the Recorder with the 9-digit
Household ID and the 2000 CEP number for the user.
- The List Manager
also noted the 3-digit House ID (contained in the 9-digit Household
ID). Using the tally sheet, the List Manager kept a running count of
the number of plangs identified for each target village household. Also
recorded on the tally sheet beside the appropriate House ID was the map
number and parcel ID for each plang identified.
- The Recorder
recorded an entry in Section 2 of the GDLUF for each plang/parcel. (see
Example 7, Section 2). Each entry consisted of the Parcel ID, the first
and last name of the user, common name of the user, 9-digit Household
ID, 2000 CEP number, Map ID, village name, and village ID. NOTE: The
Adjacent Parcel/Plang ID columns in Section 2 – GDLUF were not
entered during the group discussion process. Instead, the matchers
completed these entries when they started the matching process for each
village.
- Sometimes during the course of the group discussion
session, the informants were uncertain about plang boundaries and
users. When this occurred either an informant went to the fields and
made a sketch map (later transferred to the laminated maps) while the
group discussion continued or the interviewer(s) and the informant(s)
carried the laminated map(s) to the field for verification.
- Sometimes the informants were uncertain about the user or location of a
plang, AND they could not visit the fields or households to investigate
during the day. These cases were noted during the group discussion, and
the informants took this list with them at the end of the day and did
some “homework” in the evening by asking the user or
someone who knew about the user’s land. Any new information
obtained was returned to the interviewers the following day.
- In many
instances, knowledgeable informants were working in the fields
harvesting rice. The interviewers adapted to this situation by going to
the informants, either holding the group discussion sessions on the
side of the road or under the small shelters that the farmers have
constructed in the rice fields.
- New households. If new households
were identified during the discussion that were not previously
identified or surveyed during Phase I, these new households were
assigned an identification number from a sequential list called the
“Running List of New House Numbers (House #).” The new
House #s began with a "5" and included a sequential 2-digit code
starting with “01”: (“5 _ _”).
- After the
informants identified and updated on the maps all target and adjacent
plang boundaries and corresponding users that they could recall, the
moderator drew their attention to areas outside the 9 map tiles.
- To
begin, the informants were asked to recall any areas outside the 9 map
tiles where 5 or more households used land for cultivation. If any such
areas existed, they were asked to identify the household and the number
of plangs used by each household in addition to the village that these
areas were located near and the sub-district. The N-map was used as a
general reference to help the informants determine which village the
plangs were near. The relevant information was recorded in Section 3 of
the GDLUF.
- Finally, the informants were asked to recall any Other
areas (areas where 4 or fewer target village households used land,
including single plangs) outside the 9 tiles where households used
land. The relevant information was recorded in Section 3 of the GDLUF.
- This concluded the first group discussion session. Subsequent group
discussions followed the same format as steps 1-14. The headman was not
required to be present at any of the group discussion sessions. For
subsequent group discussion sessions, a new major area of cultivation
was focused upon, and the informants most familiar with that area were
called upon to assist in the group discussion.
Group Discussion and
Form 6 Comparison of Number of Plangs Used
- Following each group
discussion session, the List Manager compared the entries in the GDLUF
(completed by the Recorder) to the tally sheet to check his/her running
tally.
- After all group discussion sessions were completed and the
tally sheet was checked and finalized against the GDLUF, it indicated
that either less, the same number, or more plangs were identified per
household during the group discussion when compared to the numbers
reported in Household Questionnaire Form 6. (Recall that Form 6 number
of plangs used for individuals were transferred to the Household
Directory and totaled per household in the Tally Sheet).
- For each
House ID on the tally sheet, if more plangs were identified in the
group discussion than reported in Form 6, then that House ID was
circled. If the same number of plangs were identified in the group
discussion as reported in Form 6, the House ID was also circled.
- If
a smaller number of plangs was identified in the group discussion
compared to the number reported in Form 6, the interview team assembled
a final group discussion session to address these discrepancies. This
final group discussion session was made up of as many knowledgeable
informants as the interviewers could find. Since the team had already
written the names of the heads of households beside each House ID, they
simply stepped through the list on the tally sheet. For each
non-circled House ID, they inquired as to whether there were any
additional plangs used by the head of household or members of the
household.
NOTE: The total number of plangs reported as being used by
this household from Form 6 was not disclosed to the group discussion
assembly.
- Typically, four outcomes resulted from this closing group
discussion session:
- The informants had overlooked these plangs
during a previous group discussion, in which case the updated
boundaries were drawn, IDs were assigned, and entries were recorded in
the Land Use Form and tally sheet.
- The plangs in question were overlooked and
located outside the nine tiles, in which case the relevant information
was recorded in Section 3 of the GDLUF.
- The informants did not have any additional information regarding a household’s plangs.
- The possibility that plangs may have changed
users during the last cultivation year. For example, the group
discussion informants were reporting that one person used a plang that
another person reported that he/she used in Form 6. If so, this
information was noted on the tally sheet and GDLUF.
Group Discussion Mapping Specifics
Materials used for mapping included
china markers, rulers, paint thinner and tissue for removing
"permanent" ink, label stickers, and clear tape. All teams used the
following mapping and map annotation conventions when collecting data:
- Black/Brown Lines = Paved roads, Dirt roads, paths, and cement roads
- Blue Solid Lines = Permanent streams, canals, creeks, ponds, swamps
- Blue Dashed Lines = Intermittent streams, canals, creeks, ponds
(rainy season)
- Red Lines = Updated, current plang boundaries
- Red
Circles around mapped plang IDs = indicated plangs used by villagers
from target village
- Green Circles around mapped plang IDs =
indicated plangs used by villagers from all non-target village
- White, Rectangular Plang ID stickers = indicates the new 5-digit plang
ID assigned to an updated plang. For each target village the ID
stickers were sequential beginning with 88001. This assured unique
plang IDs for each village group discussion
- Red Hatch mark on Plang
ID stickers = indicated plang used by villagers from target village
- Green Hatch mark on Plang ID stickers = indicated plang used by
villagers from all non-target villages
- Yellow Round sticker inside
Plang = indicated that plang was matched to a plang in the Form 6 data
- Yellow Highlighter shade on Plang ID stickers = indicated that
plang was matched to a plang in the Form 6 data
- Name Written in
Red inside Plang or on the sticker = user name who lives within target
village
- Name Written in Red inside Plang or on the sticker and in
parentheses = owner name who lives within target village
- Name
Written in Green inside Plang or on the sticker = user name who lives
in non-target village
- Name Written in Green inside Plang or on the
sticker and in parentheses = owner name who lives in non-target village
- All stickers were covered with scotch tape to prevent peeling
- The original map – tile IDs on the maps consisted of the 4-digit
1994 village ID and a tile number (with the exception of the 16, year
2000 splits, which had 6-digit IDs). The 4 digit 1994 ID’s were
replaced with the 6 digit 2000 ID’s and tile number using
preprinted stickers
- All correct pre-existing cadastral lines and
updated cadastral lines were traced in red permanent ink only after the
final boundary was determined and agreed upon by all the informants
present
- Parcels that were completely contained within one map were
to be spatially complete when drawn, that is, drawn with no gaps in
their boundaries or edges. They formed closed polygons
- If a single
parcel was split by two map tiles, the parcel boundary was drawn to the
edge of the map tile and the resulting partial parcels were assigned
the same “88---“ ID, indicating that those two pieces make
up a single parcel
- Parcels located at the corners or edges of the
9-tile map area (36 square kilometers) that were not spatially complete
(i.e. the polygon boundary extended beyond the map edge) were included
in the data collection if they were target plangs or were adjacent
(0-jump and 1-jump) to a target plang
- Some small plangs were
smaller than the ID stickers themselves. In these cases, the sticker
was not placed over the small plang, rather the sticker was placed
somewhere near the plang and an arrow was drawn from the ID sticker to
the corresponding plang
- Existing parcel boundaries and parcel IDs:
For existing cadastralized areas, informants verified the accuracy of
the cadastral boundaries. This involved making no changes, or marking
out existing cadastral lines, or splitting an existing cadastral parcel
into multiple parcels, if necessary
- New parcel boudaries and IDs:
For uncadastralized areas, informants identified the parcel boundaries,
which were then drawn on the map using red markers.
The following
caveats apply to 23 and 24:
- If many individual parcels were combined into a
single larger plang, based upon a common user, the new boundary (all
boundaries) was drawn using red markers. The old parcel IDs were marked
through with a black marker and a single new ID sticker (with ID
beginning 88---) was assigned to the aggregated parcel.
- If one parcel was split into two or more parcels,
the new resulting parcels were assigned new sticker IDs beginning with
"88---".
- Immediately adjacent plangs with the same user were defined as one plang with a single ID.
- Some existing cadastral parcels were labeled with
a "0" or "-9" because the original cadastral maps obtained from
Thailand did not include IDs for these parcels. If these parcels were
included as part of the updating process, the "0" or "-9" ID was marked
out and replaced, if necessary, with a new parcel ID.
- There were cases where one large plang was split
by a road or canal. The interviewers left this plang as a single large
plang, but gathered user information and temporary boundaries for the
two pieces on either side of the road or canal. Then they checked the
information supplied in Form 6 to see if the HH interviewer had
recorded the plang as one large plang or not. If the HH interviewer
recorded two separate plangs, then the interviewers made the permanent
split on the map. Some Form 6’s did not split plangs that
straddled a road or canal and some Form 6’s recorded them as
separate plang.
- Multiple households using one parcel. Some plang
were utilized by more than one individual/household. Each user of the
parcel was recorded in a separate record (row) on the GDLUF, therefore,
the same Parcel IDs appeared in more than one record on the GDLUF, but
each record contained a different House ID.
- Parcel IDs were assigned to the public land areas
only if the informants could draw in the approximate parcel boundaries
within the public land area.
|
|