Asking Questions to Understand Rural Livelihoods: Comparing Disaggregated vs. Aggregated Approaches to Household Livelihood Questionnaires
Abstract
This study tests the hypothesis that both disaggregated and aggregated data collection methods produce similar estimates of the relative importance of livelihood portfolio activities and expenditures. The results show that different methods of data collection yield substantively different estimates of livelihood strategies for two indicators: income and expenditure. We also find evidence of a seasonal bias in responses to household livelihood questions asked at higher levels of aggregation. Our findings highlight the challenge of designing household surveys to elicit accurate and precise information, and demonstrate that different methods of data collection influence our understanding of rural livelihoods.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Jagger et al. (2012) demonstrate in a methods experiment in Uganda that alternative data collection methods can yield sectoral income estimates that differed up to 12 percentage points.
“Jagger et al. (2012) demonstrate in a methods experiment in Uganda how alternative data collection methods—a quarterly income survey (PEN) and a one-time household-level participatory rural appraisal—in the same study population can yield sectoral income estimates that differed up to 12 percentage points.”
From Environmental Income and Rural Livelihoods: A Global-Comparative Analysis (2014) · cites this paper as Jagger et al. (2012)
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Environmental Income and Rural Livelihoods: A Global-Comparative Analysis
Angelsen, A., Jagger, P., Babigumira, R., Belcher, B., Hogarth, N. J., Bauch, S., Börner, J., Smith-Hall, C., & Wunder, S. (2014) · World Development · doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.03.006 · Cited by 1,147 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Jagger, P., Luckert, M. K., Banana, A., & Bahati, J.
- Affiliations
- University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
- University of Alberta (CA)
- Makerere University (UG)
- Venue
- World Development
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2012-09
- Volume
- 40
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 1810-1823
- ISSN
- 0305-750X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2027066657
- Cited by
- 33
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 4 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 10.84
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- World Development (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Economic and Social Research Council (ES/E021816/1)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › General Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agricultural Innovations and Practices
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Income, Poverty, and Inequality
- Keywords
- rural livelihoods, household income, household expenditure, seasonal bias, survey design, data aggregation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review