Ghana - Ghana Agricultural Production Survey (Minor Season) 2013, Second Round
Reference ID | GHA-MoFA-SRID-GAPS-2013-V1.0 |
Year | 2013 |
Country | Ghana |
Producer(s) | Ministry Of Food and Agriculture / Statistics Research Information Directoriate - Government Of Ghana |
Sponsor(s) | International Food Policy Research Institute - IFPRI - Financial Support |
Collection(s) | |
Metadata | Documentation in PDF |
Created on
Sep 15, 2014
Last modified
Sep 15, 2014
Page views
2768365
Sampling
Sampling Procedure
The GAPS employed a three stage multi-sampling design in response to the Government of Ghana's requirement for reliable agricultural statistics at the national, regional and district levels.
· First Stage Sampling- Selection of 2 Districts from each of the 10 Regions.
A total of 20 districts, 2 from each of the 10 regions were randomly selected with probability proportional to size, using districts' population in year 2000 as a measure of size.1. Eleven Metropolitan and Municipal Assemblies (Kumasi, Sunyani, Cape Coast, New Juaben, Accra, Tema, Tamale, Bolgatanga, Wa, Ho and Shama Ahanta East) were excluded from the study, given their urban predominance.
· Second Stage Sampling - Selection of 40 Enumeration Areas (EAs) from each of the 20 Districts.
A total of 800 EAs was selected; 40 EAs were randomly selected with probability proportional to size in each district, using the list of EAs compiled by the 2010 Census as a sample frame, and projected total population as a measure of size.2 In the Kassena-Nankana East district, 53 of the 187 EAs compiled by the 2010 census were excluded from the study because of the land disputes prevalent in the area earlier in 2011.
· Third Stage Sampling - Selection of 5 holders
At the third stage, five holders were randomly chosen in each EA, using as a sample frame; the full list of all holders, compiled from the Household and Holders Listing questionnaire. This provides a total sample of 4000 holders, consisting of 200 holders per district.
Deviations from Sample Design
Not reported
Response Rate
The repond rate reported was 70%
Weighting
No weight attached to the data