The variables derived from the operationalisation above were measured through various data sources. Primary data were collected through questionnaires and observation, and secondary data was cited from Keta district reports and KSDP documents. These are detailed in table 2, below. Table 2, Variables, indicators, units of measurements, and data sources
Variables Indicators Measurement Source of
Data Infrastructure (Independent Variable) 1. Road 2.Housing community 3. Flood control 4. Sea defence wall Description of indicators Project Documents, Observation
Rural Poverty 1. Income Income levels Questionnaire
Reduction (Dependent
2. Price Prices of goods
and services
Questionnaire, Observation
Variable) 3. Access to:
A. Health Care Health care
accessibility
Questionnaire
B. Education Education levels Questionnaire
C. Drinking water Source of drinking water Questionnaire D. Electricity Source of lighting Questionnaire
E. Shelter Type of building
Material
Questionnaire
F. Sanitation Type of toilet
facility
Questionnaire
G. Vulnerability Risk of erosion,
flooding Questionnaire H. Environment Protection of environment Reports, Observation Source: Author 3.1.3.1. Data Needs
The levels of income of households in the study and control groups were used to measure income differences between the two groups. The monthly household incomes in the study and control groups were collected via questionnaires.
Prices of goods and services were used to measure differences in the prices between the study and control groups. The prices were collected from the respondents in the study and the control groups and cross-checked to ensure the prices were accurate and uniform for each group.
46 Accessibility to health care in terms of constrains accessing health and enrolments in health insurance were used to measure differences in access to health care; these measures explained why people may have access to health care or be denied access to health care. A questionnaire was used to collect responses on accessibility to health care.
The level of education of children in the two groups was used to measure differences in access to education; the level of education of the children tells if children in a particular group have a better or limited access to education. The respondents chose from various levels of education provided in the questionnaire.
Respondents’ source of drinking water was used to test if there were differences in access to drinking water between the two groups. The questionnaire provided different sources of drinking water: indoor pipe-borne water (highest ranked) means better access to drinking water, and open water bodies (least ranked) means poor access to drinking water.
The source of lighting was used to measure differences in access to electricity in the study and the control groups. The respondents chose from various sources of lighting (ranked as electricity (1), generator (2), Kerosene Lantern or candles (3)) provided in a questionnaire.
The type of building material of respondents’ shelter was used to measure differences in access to quality shelter in the two groups. Here the size of the structure was not as important as the building materials. Building materials tell the durability of the structure to provide shelter, also it is used nationally. Among a list of materials cement was ranked as the best, and thatch/clay was ranked as the least desirable. A questionnaire was used to collect this information.
The type of toilet facility that a household uses was used to measure differences in sanitation between the study and the control groups. This measure was important because for most coastal communities in Ghana sanitation is a huge challenge as the people in the absence of adequate toilet facilities resort to the use of the sea shore as the place to ease themselves. The health risks include typhoid, cholera, etc. The information was collated with a questionnaire.
The risk of being exposed to sea erosion and flooding was used to measure differences in vulnerability between the study and the control groups. Before to the project the two groups were facing sea erosion and flooding – contributing factor to poverty in the two groups. Therefore in
47 the light of a project intervention it was important to measure people’s vulnerability to sea erosion and flooding. This was accordingly measured with a questionnaire.
The respondents’ perception of the sustainability of the environment, project documents and the researcher’s observation formed the basis for measuring the differences in environmental sustainability between the study and control groups. Prior to the project in the year 2000, communities in both the study and the control groups were experiencing rapid erosion of their coastal lines, and the sea and lagoons were flowing into each other. This has catastrophic consequences on the coastal ecology, the resultant salinity in the lagoon affected aquatic life in the lagoon leading to the destruction of fishing stock in the lagoon, and equally the salinity was destroying farm fields close by the lagoon. The communities between the sea and the lagoon were being submerged. Therefore it was important to see if the project had contributed to the protection of the environment.
3.1.3.2. Sampling and Data Gathering
The unit of analysis is the household. Non-probability sampling methods such as the Accidental and Quota were applied to data collection. Accidental sampling method is where the research selects members or cases of the target group who are willing to participate in the study. Quota sampling also refers to selecting a sample that represents the different groups within the target population. Probability sampling where all cases in the population have equal chances of been selected requires more time and resources which the thesis was constrained with. Also the affected people were very sensitive to the project as it has high political undertones, and there was a high tendency that some people may not be willing to participate and in these regards a probability sampling was not going to be effective. Therefore the non-probability sampling method which selected people who were willing to participate provided the needed data for the study. It also measured-up-to the budget of the study. The possible bias with this method could be that it was not very representative as it could have led to the selection of people who wanted to voice-out their feeling in support or against the project. A sample size of 120 households was chosen, 60units from the project group and the remaining 60units from the control group.
A questionnaire containing both closed and open ended questions was used to obtain the needed data from the respondents. Field workers (graduates from the communities with research experience) were trained by the researcher to administer the household questionnaires. The
48
questionnaire was structured and based on the data needs above.22 The questionnaire had
questions on Income and Economic Resources, Price information, Health, Education, Drinking water, Sanitation, Shelter, vulnerability, and Environmental sustainability. Local languages (Ewe and Adagbi) were used as a medium of communication where there were literacy challenges to help the respondents respond appropriately. Some observations were made; based on the question or data at hand and timely events relevant to the data were recorded.