This study used a total sample of 155 respondents, where 110 were members of CBMFOs, 16 members of intermediary MFIs, 11 government officials, and 24 members of environmental conservation groups. According to the Department of Gender, Children and Social Development under the Ministry of Labour, Social Security and Services,
Table 3.1Target Population
Target Population Specific Persons
1. CBMFOs Members Village members who are CBMFOs members within Ruiru
Division.
2. CBMFOs Officials Chairpersons, Treasurers, Secretaries.
3. County Government
Officials
County and Sub-county Officers in the departments of agriculture (1), livestock (3), water (2), environment (2), forestry (2), social services (1)
4. MFIsofficials working with
CBMFOs.
WEMA, Taifa Option microfinance, RECET, PAWDEP, Catholic Development Fund.
5. Members from
Environmental Conservation groups
National Youth Congress, Trees for Job, Green Belt Movement.
37
Ruiru Sub-county, the number of registered CBMFOs in Ruiru sub-county as of end of 2013 was 1,200. Those within the rural areas were placed at 300 organizations. Due to homogeneity of the population, the study sought a small sample size of 11 groups. Mugenda (2003) argues that a small sample size should give accurate estimates of the measures in a homogenous population. The 11 organizations were selected from the villages within Ruiru and Mugutha locations. Eight groups (women only) and 1 (women and men) were identified randomly. The 2 men groups were purposively sampled, given that most of CBMFOs had a preponderance of women members. Table 3.2 illustrates the sample sizes and sampling procedures.
The determination of sample size of 110 respondents from CBMFOs was based on the margin error of 0.9% to offer high levels of accuracy. This was done at a confidence level of 95%. Given that the current estimate levels of integration of sustainable environmental practices were unknown, the study used the proportion of 50%. Thus, the formula used to
Table 3.2 Sample Sizes and Sampling Procedures
Category Sampling Procedures Sample
Sizes
Type of Data
1 .
a) Members of Community Based Microfinance Organizations (CBMFOs)
8 groups (women only) 1 groups (mixed group)
2 groups (men only)
b) Officials from all the groups
Random and systematic Random and systematic Purposive and systematic Random Sampling 64 8 16 22 -Semi-structured questionnaires notes -Photographs -Sketches of village resource maps -Audio and Video clips recordings -Observation record sheets 2
.
MFIs (WEMA, Taifa Option microfinance RECET, PAWDEP, Catholic Development Fund)
Purposive Sampling 10 -Key Informant
notes
-Photographs 3
.
County and sub-county government Officials
Purposive Sampling 11 Key Informant
notes
4 .
National Youth Congress, Trees for Job, Green Belt Movement members
Purposive and Random Sampling 24 -Filled semi- structures questionnaires detailed notes -Photographs
38
estimate sample sizes from the CBMFOs was as used in line with the findings of Mugenda (2003) and Kothari (2004):
N= z2 p q /ME2
Where: N= desired sample size if the target population is > 10,000
z = the standard normal deviation at the required confidence level at 95% p = is the proportion in the target population estimated to have the characteristics which was 50%
q = 1-p
ME = is the margin of error at 0.9% Thus: 110 = 0.952x0.5x0.5/0.009
Most of the microfinance organizations had between 20 to 25 members. A list was drawn from each group, exempting the group officials (three officials in every group). Our sample size for each focus group discussion (FGD) was 8 members. Thus, for every three members from the list, a respondent was picked. The first respondent was picked randomly and the subsequent respondents were picked as per the number of the first respondent until the eight interviewees were drawn. Two officials from each group were picked randomly. A total of 110 respondents were sampled from each group to constitute 11 FGDs of 8 respondents each. The two officials randomly picked from each group provided key information.
Five intermediary MFIs, working with community based microfinance organizations were purposively selected from the list of 15 registered institutions. The purpose was to identify microfinance organizations specifically working with the rural microfinance organizations. From each, 2 respondents were purposively picked. The managers and the field officials were deliberately sampled due to their deeper understanding of the workings of the community organizations. In total, the sample size was 10. Purposive sampling is defined by David (2011) as the deliberate procedure of picking the respondents based on their ability to provide the needed information. The purpose is to
39
provide a conceptual understanding of the issue of study and not necessarily to represent a larger population.
Nine government officials were also purposively sampled. In accordance to the study objectives, a good government respondent was one who was knowledgeable on the dynamics of community based microfinance organizations and the related environmental issues. The officials who were able and agreed to offer the relevant information were sampled from the following sectors; Agriculture (2 officials), Livestock (2 officials), Water (2 officials), Environment (2 officials), Forestry (2 officials) and Social Service (1 official). The government sample size was 11. Three environmental conservation youth groups engaged in the rural areas of the sub-county were likewise purposively identified. These were drawn from National Youth Congress (NYC), Trees for Job, and Green Belt Movement (GBM). To constitute three FGDs, the individual respondents were randomly sampled from each group. The sample size was 24.The need to employ random technique was to eliminate any bias that may have resulted from purposive sampling. The total sample size from all the respondents was 155.