Seite - (000153) - in Evaluating Climate Change Action for Sustainable Development

8.3 StudyAreaandDataSet andStudyArea The dataset used in this study was collected by Thammasat University for the provinceofChiangMai.17Thedatawere collected for theNationalEconomicand Social Development Board (NESDB). Data for the study were collected for six rounds, onceevery2years (biennially) starting in1986and then1988,1990, 1992 and1996, for theprovinceofChiangMai.Villages included in thestudydatasetall responded that they lay within Forest Reserves at least once during this 11 year studyperiod.Allvillages in thedataset are registeredwith theVillageDirectoryof theDepartment ofLocalAdministration (DOLA).Howeverbecause forest reserve boundaries changed a lot, all villages did not liewithin Forest reserves during the studyperiod. InhabitantsofForestReservevillagesaremostlyhill tribepeoplewho are poor, and live in villages that are remote andhavepoor infrastructure. ForestReserveresidentsgrewmainlythreecropsduringthisperiod–paddyrice, upland rice andsoybeans.Thailand is among the largest growersofpaddy riceand itsbiggestexporter.But rice isalsoastaple.Mostvillages in thestudysamplegrew paddy rice.Onaverage upland rice and soybeanwere grownby25%and26%of villages respectively. Theresultingpaneldataset isunbalanced.Of the670villages thatappearat least onceinthedataset,255(38%)arepresentforallsixroundsinthepanel; incontrast, 124villages are present for onlyone round (Tables 8.2 and8.3).Attrition inpanel data iscommon:villagesmaychoose tonotparticipate incertainroundsormaynot be asked to participate in certain rounds for several reasons (e.g. lackof resources with the survey agency). It is important to understand the cause of attrition or selection.18Villages that are surveyed and respond in all six rounds are the single largest group in the dataset (38%). The second largest group is the villages that occur only once.These constitute 18.5%of thevillages. In the survey conducted by Thammasat University, village communities were asked in every round of survey (there are a total of six rounds) if they had secure property rights (‘What land title did you have?’) Using this information and the mapping above, from the type of land titles to the security of these land titles, I examine if these perceptions change over the different rounds. In Tables 8.2 and 8.3, I examine these responses foreach round in thepaneldataset.Table8.2 shows that 62%or413villages in thedataset neverbelieved theypossessed secure rights to village land. In contrast, only 36villages claim to have secure rights during the entirestudyperiod(forall sixrounds).For theremainingvillages, thestatusof their land titles ‘flips’ fromyear toyear.SoforexampleTable8.3showsthat33villages in the datasetwere surveyed for all six rounds of data collection, in five of six of those rounds believed that their land titlewas insecure. They only report a secure 17The larger dataset consists of 784villages. 18Missingobservations inapaneldatamaynotbe randomlymissingand, if so, estimatorsmaybe inconsistent. Ignoring attrition and using a balanced dataset, as is commonpractice,may lead to inconsistent estimates (SeeHeckman1976;NijmanandVerbeek1992). 8 UsingMixedMethods toAssessTrade-OffsBetweenAgriculturalDecisions. . . 137