PDF 3.08 MB

2. Pilot surveys;
3. Census enumeration to obtain socio-economic characteristics of resource
community;
4. Elicitation of responses to a semi-open questionnaire;
5. Group discussion with 8-10 persons at a time using PRA techniques;
6. Re-survey to check selective responses;
7. Examination of official records (if any); and,
8. Measurement of use and non-use value (in one case) to obtain a valuation of the
resource using the Contingent Valuation Method. It was expected that this would
indicate how the perceptions and attitudes of local non-users would influence the
evolution of the CPR regime.
The survey was carried out in January - February 2000 in Belemath, March – April
2000 in Matha, September – October 2000 in Bon Hooghly, and January – February
2001 in Hazamdihi.
We faced several problems in the execution of our planned programme of work. The
first problem related to the non-availability of respondents. We had intended starting
our survey by a census enumeration to identify the socio-economic characteristics of
the villages and the dependence of the resource community on the CPR. However,
we were hampered in our attempts by the absence of some villagers due to personal
reasons, or in search of employment. This problem was specially serious in
Hazamdihi (Bankura), Bon Hooghly (Calcutta), and Chorchoria (Calcutta). At a rough
estimate, we failed to obtain responses from 60, 30 and, 90 households respectively.
One possible way to solve the problem was to obtain responses from female
members of the households. However, females were not articulate, lacked
information and were reluctant to respond, specially to male interviewers. In the
water bodies of Calcutta, on the other hand, the interviews had been arranged in the
offices of the co-operative. The other members of the households of absentee
respondents were, thus, not accessible to us. So we ignored the absentee members
of the community.
15