Chapter 6 Data Sources, Methodologies and Measurement Issues David McGranahan (US) and Ray Bolman(Canada) Joint UNECE/EURSTAT/FAO/OECD Meeting on Food and Agricultural Statistics in Europe Rome, 29 June-1 July 2005)

Data Sources Description Censuses of Population and Agriculture (linkage) Household budget surveys Living Standards Measurement Study International Household Survey Network Labor market surveys Vital statistics Administrative records (taxes, licenses, schools) Estimations Concepts Rural (localities and regions) Households

Methods Sampling Census master frame Decays over time Stratified and cluster sampling Oversampling Core and supplementary modules GIS Distances (from urban center, hospital, school) Environmental features Ecological methods (transects)

Rural measurement issues Definitions of rural Area outside of places (or contiguous density) of 2,000 or 2,500 Recommended Census definition Broader territorial units lacking either major centers or substantial urban populations (i.e., mostly rural) Required for analysis of rural livelihoods, because of commuting Geographic units Boundaries change over time with population growth Porous due to commuting Small size creates problems of unreliability, confidentiality

Rural measurement issues 2 Measurement validity in rural context Unemployment vs underemployment Multiple and seasonal job-holding, informal economy Distance to as well as presence of facilities Territorial level concepts (assets) Social capital Entrepreneurship and creative capital Physical infrastructure (roads, airport access, broadband) Governance Amenities and disamenities natural, cultural, built, agricultural

Figure 3 Forest and rural county employment indicators, 2000 Rural Indicator Percent Employment growth, Unemployment Population change, Under 10% 10% or more Forest

Figure 5 Forest and county average income and housing statistics, ,600 58,000 79,300 32, ,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 Median household income,1999 Median value own housing, 2000 Rural Indicator Dollars Under 10% 10% or more Forest

Conclusion Challenges Integrate farm, farm household with other surveys and censuses GIS Integration with ecological, environmental measures Nonmarket goods; quality of life

Quality of Life Evidence Preference for countryside residence (U.S., Netherlands) Net migration favors rural areas (U.S., ?) Almost universal preference for certain landscapes Open vistas, clumps of trees, lake or pond, mystery (mountains) Evident in landscape pictures Psychological benefits of exposure to nature

 337 children, grades 3-5, 5 rural NY counties  Nature measured as natural views from kitchen and living room (0-2), live plants in living room, grass yard.  Lewis Stressful Life Events Scale  Parental report of distress behavior (Rutter Child Behavior Questionnaire)  Control for household income Study Results Nature moderates effects of stressful life events on psychological distress LowMediumHigh Stressful life events Psychological distress Low nature High nature Life stress among rural children (Wells & Evans, 2003)

Nature: the rural asset Nature and quality of life U.S., Netherlands: preference for countryside residence Almost universal preference for certain landscapes Open vistas, clumps of trees, lake or pond, mystery (mountains) Psychological benefits of exposure to nature Can you measure nature? Largely public good (Housing an exception) Not captured by recreation Lack of measures does not make it unimportant and we can begin with universal preferences. GIS Forest example

ClearedNot reforested Slightly reforested Mostly reforested Completely reforested Preferences in an alpine setting Frequencies of pair-preferences Amount of woody patches Hunziker and Kienast, 1999

Figure 2 Forest and average rural county population change, Percent of land in forest Percent change Smoothed line R 2 =.19

Six Components: Warm, sunny Januaries (2) Temperate, low-humidity Julys (2) Varied topography Shores, lakes, ponds Very high High Below average Low Above average Figure 6 Map of Natural Amenities Scale Source: McGranahan

Figure 7 Natural amenities and average rural county population change, Natural amenities Percent change

Conclusion Rural context ≠ urban context Quality of life considerations mean that some may be willing to forgo income for rural residence Natural settings are rural assets Measures extremely important in understanding rural development not included in national survey statistics (landscape) Ecologists have made considerable progress in measuring landscape

Denmark landscape study FarmersResidentsVisitors Respondent group Beauty Agrarian Half-open swamp Source: van den Berg et al., 1998

Analgesics, 2-5 days post op WeakModerateStrong Strength No. of doses Wall Trees Hospital study results (Ulrich, 1984)