Myanmar
Program for Improved Disaster Management and Resilience
Against Natural Disaster in Rakhine State, Myanmar
Oliver Lough
A STUDY ON KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES AND PRACTICES
(KAP) FOR DISASTER RISK REDUCTION IN NORTHERN
RAKHINE STATE, MYANMAR
TERMS OF REFERENCE
VERSION 1.0, 16 MARCH 2015
KAP Study on DRR Practices in Northern Rakhine – 16/03/2015
SUMMARY
This document provides an overview of the scope of work for a Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices (KAP) study
to be run by REACH Initiative as part of the “Program for Improved Disaster Management and Resilience Against
Natural Disaster in Rakhine State, Burma/Myanmar.” Implemented jointly by IOM, ACTED, the Asian Disaster
Preparedness Centre and Swanyee Development foundation, this project focuses on contributing to disaster
preparedness and risk reduction in Rakhine state through improved government planning and early warning
systems, capacity building of local authorities, better-targeted education and outreach materials, safer
construction practices, and ecosystem rehabilitation.
This study aims to contribute to the objectives of the project by providing a detailed assessment of Rakhine
communities’ current experiences and responses to natural disasters, highlighting key knowledge gaps, and
identifying potentials and capabilities for improved resilience. This will be used specifically to design better and
more targeted outreach and mass communication materials, as well as to provide a resource to better inform
policy and planning among both government stakeholders and the wider disaster risk reduction (DRR) community
in Rakhine state.
The remainder of this document is organized as follows. First, the background and rationale are presented in
more detail. Second, its stakeholders and audience are identified. Third, its research questions and its research
objectives are outlined. Fourth, its methodology is presented in detail. Fifth, its main outputs are outlined. Sixth,
its management arrangements and workplan are detailed. Seventh, key risks and mitigation measures are
discussed.
BACKGROUND & RATIONALE
Myanmar’s north-western coastal state of Rakhine is at risk from multiple natural hazards, specifically from
cyclones, tropical storms, flooding, as well as from earthquakes and their associated tsunamis. Rakhine has been
hit by seven cyclones since 1968; in the past decade alone, strong winds and storm surges from cyclones Mala
(2006) and Giri (2010) have caused major damage to infrastructure and livelihoods in coastal areas of the state,
although fortunately without the huge loss of life accompanying cyclone Nargis (2008) in the Ayeyawady delta
region. In addition, the region is vulnerable to the lower-frequency but still present threat of earthquakes and
tsunamis from the bay of Bengal, or inland from a local fault system north of Sittwe. Upland regions in the eastern
parts of the state also experience occasional exposure to forest fires and landslides, with 46 people killed in a
landslide in Maungdaw township in 2010.
1
KAP Study on DRR Practices in Northern Rakhine – 16/03/2015
Vulnerability to these hazards is exacerbated by high levels of poverty and weak infrastructure. The 2009‐ 10
UNDP Integrated Household Living Condition Survey ranks Rakhine State second worst countrywide in terms of
overall poverty (43.5% ‐ compared to the national average of 25.6%) and food poverty (10% against the national
average of 4.8%). Humanitarian agencies report that over 800,000 most vulnerable people in Rakhine State are
facing chronic humanitarian consequences, mainly due to poor access to basic services and livelihood
opportunities, lack of clarity over their legal status and restriction of movements. These issues have been further
sharpened by sectarian tensions resulting from an outbreak of violence in 2012. As of December 2014, around
146,000 people were living in displacement camps or temporary sites across the north of the state. Many of these
are built in low-lying coastal areas, with few disaster management planning or mitigation measures in place.
This study will feed directly into a project aimed at improving disaster management and resilience in northern
Rakhine. The proposed project will focus on reducing disaster risk in targeted areas through interventions across
six key priority areas: 1) improving readiness through improving local government disaster management planning
and coordination; 2) improving construction practices to increase resiliance; 3) improving the effectiveness of
hazard early warning systems; 4) increasing disaster management and preparedness skills among local DRR
actors; 5) increasing DRR awareness and education; and 6) protection of mangroves as a barrier against coastal
hazards. It will run across the following five townships: Maungdaw, Sittwe, Pauktaw, Minbya and Myebon (see
Figure 1 below).
Figure 1: Map of study areas (source: Myanmar Information Management Unit, 2011)
2
KAP Study on DRR Practices in Northern Rakhine – 16/03/2015
The project will be implemented by a consortium involving IOM, ACTED, the Asian Disaster Preparedness Centre
(ADPC), Swiss Resource Centres and Consultancies for Develompent (SKAT), and Swanyee Development
Foundation. IOM is the overall consortium lead, with ACTED as lead on priorities 5 and 6. REACH Initiative will
support the project by providing baseline data on knowledge, attitudes and practices regarding DRR and
construction practices (priorities 5 and 2); by providing ecosystem and livelihoods data, mapping and analysis in
areas experiencing mangrove degradation (priority 6); and by providing data visualisation and information
management support to local government and other key stakeholders (priority 1).
In a secondary review of available documentation, the project proposal identified an absence of data at the
community level regarding the various gaps in DRR awareness among different sections of the population. This
has resulted in a number of weaknesses in DRR planning at the state, township and community level. First,
current government disaster management plans are not based on an adequate understanding of local
vulnerabilities, capacities or existing practices. Second, space may exist within current training and mass
communication materials on DRR for a greater focus on both local contexts, and the specific circumstances of
different population groups (such as women, children, older people etc. Third, current emergency warning
communication systems show weaknesses in dissemination of the correct information through the appropriate
channels at village level.
Given this information gap, REACH/IMPACT have been contracted implement a Knowledge, Attitudes, and
Practices (KAP) study on DRR at communities across the project geographical area. The reasons for
REACH/IMPACT’s involvement in the project are as follows: experience in running large-scale, rigorous
assessments of the kind required to meet the information gaps identified; reported absence of significant
assessment capacity in situ in the project area; and its relationship with consortium member ACTED allowing for
a more efficient use of existing resources (e.g. office space and staff).
2. STAKEHOLDERS /AUDIENCE
The main direct audience for this report are ACTED, IOM, the Asian Disaster Preparedness Centre (ADPC) and
Swanyee Development Foundation, as partners in the consortium for which this study is generated.
ACTED/Swanyee will directly use the results to develop DRR Information, Education, and Communication (IEC)
materials specifically targeted to Rakhine State audiences of different ages, genders etc. In addition, it will use
them to develop DRR training curricula for government actors and other “DRR ambassadors.” Across the
remainder of the project, the research will be used by IOM to inform its work on developing improved township
disaster management plans and conducting government capacity-building activities, and by ADPC in its work
developing disaster-resilient construction practices.
3
KAP Study on DRR Practices in Northern Rakhine – 16/03/2015
Additional direct stakeholders will be government agencies involved in disaster management at state and
township levels, in particular the Rescue and Resettlement Department (RRD), General Administrative
Department (GAD), and Township Disaster Management Committees. Dissemination of the report and the
recommendations through workshops with these actors will focus on how to translate the gaps and capacities
identified in the study into improved policy and planning.
Indirect stakeholders of the research include other DRR actors, and local communities within Rakhine state itself.
It is hoped that research findings will support other DRR stakeholders (for example the Myanmar Consortium for
Community Resilience or MCCR) in identifying gaps and in planning activities, as well as provide a baseline for
new programming and/or triangulate complementary research work. Ultimately, the research seeks to contribute
to increased resilience and lower vulnerability to disasters among Rakhine state’s population as a whole.
RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
Overall objective

Education materials, communications strategies, policy, and planning on DRR in northern Rakhine State are
informed by an understanding of the knowledge, attitudes and practices regarding DRR prevalent among its
population..
Specific objectives

Understanding of communities’ current awareness of, experiences of, and responses to natural disasters is
improved.

Key gaps in communities’ capacity to understand, mitigate and respond to natural disasters, including gaps
in their linkages to external support systems are identified.

Existing potentials and capabilities within communities that can be built on and strengthened through future
DRR programming are identified.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS

How far are people able to identify the characteristics (types, frequency, intensity, and causes) of the natural
disasters they are exposed to?

How far are people able to identify vulnerability to natural disasters across different sectors (e.g. population,
productive assets, livelihoods, services)?
4
o
Are people able to identify especially vulnerable populations, livelihood strategies etc.?
o
Are people able to identify drivers of vulnerability and if they have changed over time?
KAP Study on DRR Practices in Northern Rakhine – 16/03/2015

What kind of information do people currently receive regarding natural disasters?
o
What kind of DRR-related education exists, and how is it perceived?
o
What level of information can communities access (either internally or externally) that can help them
anticipate and manage disasters when they do occur?

How do people prepare for and manage natural disasters?
o
What preparations are taking place at both the household level and the community level?
o
In the case of the latter, which actors are involved, and do they receive any external support?
o
In the event that communities have direct experience of disasters, how have plans translated to
action?

How far are people able to identify and put into practice longer-term disaster mitigation strategies?

For all of the above questions, what variations exist across ages, genders and other population categories?
METHODOLOGY
Overview
To answer the above research questions, the research will take a two step, mixed methods approach, involving a
formative round of FGDs and a subsequent KAP survey. After an initial review of available secondary data, the
research team will begin by running FGDs in one community per study township, disaggregated where possible
by age and gender. These FGDs will provide background information to inform the design of the KAP survey
questionnaire, as well as contextualise and triangulate its subsequent findings.
Following this, the team will run a KAP survey across all five study townships using a cluster sampling
methodology. The aim of this activity is to provide data that is statistically representative of the study area’s
population as a whole, with cross-comparisons possible between different genders and age groups.
The results of the FGDs and the survey will be synthesised and analysed into a final report. This will then be used
by consortium partners to inform the design of training and IEC materials, as well as disseminated to the wider
community of DRR stakeholders in Rakhine.
Population of interest
The population of interest for this study is defined as all individuals living within the boundaries of Maungdaw,
Sittwe, Pauktaw, Minbya and Myebon townships, Rakhine State, Myanmar.
Secondary Data Review
5
KAP Study on DRR Practices in Northern Rakhine – 16/03/2015
Key relevant documents under review include background documents on government DRR planning on capacity;
mapping and analysis of hazards and vulnerability to natural disasters in the state; and community-level primary
research on DRR issues in the state. There follows a brief annotated bibliography of the material available:

Background documents on government DRR planning and capacity:
o
“Natural Disaster Management Law” (Pyidaungsu Hluttaw Law No. 21/2013) outlines the
Myanmar government’s framework for dealing with natural disasters.
o
“Myanmar Action Plan on Disaster Risk Reduction 2012” (Yangon: MRRD/ADCP, 2012)
outlines the government’s national strategy on DRR.
o
“Burma Disaster Management Handbook” (Hickam, Hawaii: Center for Excellence in Disaster
Management and Humanitarian Assistance, 2014) draws together an overview of Myanmar’s
disaster management policies, structures, laws and plans.
o
“The State of Local Governance: Trends in Rakhine” (Yangon: UNDP, 2015) provides an
overview of local governance and state-citizen interaction in four townships in Rakhine (no
overlap with project areas).

Mapping and analysis of hazards and vulnerability to natural disasters in the state:
o
“Multi-Hazard Risk Assessment in the Rakhine State of Myanmar” (Yangon: UNDP, 2012)
provides a comprehensive analysis using historical meteorological, seismic etc. data on the
different hazards faced by communities in Rakhine down to village tract level. It then provides
analysis of the levels of risk posed by these hazards across livelihoods, population, production
and infrastructure sectors for each tract. The report also features extensive datasets, soft
copies of which have been sought.
o
“Climate Change Impacts and Vulnerability Assessment in Rakhine State” (Bangkok/Yangon:
ADPC/Malteser, 2014) [EMBARGOED] provides a state-level analysis of the likely effects of
climate change in Rakhine in the next 50 years, and analyses their implications for adaptation
and community-based disaster risk management.

Community-level primary research on DRR issues in the state:
o
“Climate Change Impacts and Vulnerability Assessment in Rakhine State” (Bangkok/Yangon:
ADPC/Malteser, 2014) [EMBARGOED] examines community-level perceptions of hazards and
their impacts, how these have changed over time, and how resilience to these can be built.
Study involved an unspecified number FGDs and 35 key informant interviews across one urban
and two rural communities in Sittwe township.
o
“MCCR DIPECHO IX: Baseline KAP Survey” (Yangon: MCCR, 2015) [EMBARGOED] details
the results of a baseline survey on community-based disaster risk reduction issues, conducted
in communities across the project area (Rakhine, Ayeyawady) and including 215 respondents
from Sittwe Township.
6
KAP Study on DRR Practices in Northern Rakhine – 16/03/2015
o
“Performance Baseline Data Report” (Yangon: ACTED, 2012) and “Knowledge, Attitudes and
Practices Final Survey report” (Yangon: ACTED, 2014) provide KAP data on DRR among 30
villages in ACTED’s area of intervention in Gwa township, south Rakhine. While the baseline is
mostly key-informant based, the endline features a KAP survey of 379 respondents on key
DRR issues.
These documents indicate that while extensive broader analysis exists of current and future hazards and levels of
risk in Rakhine, relatively little primary work has been done to unpick the DRR implications of these analysis at
the community level. While two DRR-specific KAP surveys have been done in the state, they remain limited to
small areas of intervention for specific projects, and have both been carried out once project activities were
already underway. Critically, they present no statistically reliable data for different population groups, and are in
neither case contextualised or triangulated by any qualitative work such as FGDs or key informant interviews.
Together, these existing documents will be used to inform and refine the development of tools for this study, as
well as to provide subsequent triangulation of its results.
Primary Data Collection
Focus Groups
A formative set of FGDs will be conducted across all five townships detailed qualitative data on the experiences
and existing practices regarding DRR among the study population. These data will then be used to inform survey
questionnaire design, as well as to triangulate and contextualise survey results.
The team for the FGD component of the study involves two facilitators—a male ACTED Project Manager and a
female ACTED Base Manager (hereafter referred to as Field Coordinator (FC)/PM and FC/BM for ease of
reference)—under the supervision of an Assessment Officer. The Assessment Officer will conduct an initial
training on running FGDs, following which the team will develop a pilot FGD guide. This will then translated into
Rakhine by the FC/PM, before being back-translated into English by FC/BM and reviewed for consistency by the
Assessment Officer. An initial pair of pilot FGDs will take place in Sittwe in late March to refine the guide.
Following this, five locations (one per township) will be selected for full roll-out in late March and early April. Site
selection for FGDs will focus on capturing as wide a range of different contexts as possible. Ideally, FGD sites
will reflecti the following contrasts: urban/rural communities, present/absent community experience of recent
natural disasters, present/absent DRR activities in the communities, Rakhine/Muslim communities. Four FGDs of
8-12 people will be conducted per location (one with older/younger men, one with older/younger women, with
gender-matched facilitators). Before each round of groups, FC/PM will be responsible for securing permission
from Township authorities and village leaders to run groups, and organising times, locations and participants for
each group. The team will record each FGD using smartphones (assuming community consent).
7
KAP Study on DRR Practices in Northern Rakhine – 16/03/2015
Subsequent to the KAP survey, a second round of FGDs may be conducted as required and according to time
constraints to provide further context to the data collected. These groups will likely focus on capturing data from
groups who, due to time, budget, logistical and political constraints, are not specifically accounted for in the
stratified sampling design of the KAP survey itself – for example on people with disabilities, children too young for
a KAP survey to be appropriate, and IDP camp communities.
KAP Survey
Formative FGDs will be followed by a KAP survey that will employ a two-stage cluster sampling approach to
collect data on the study’s research questions that are representative of the study population as a whole. A
simple random sample approach has been rejected for the following reasons: no reliable household-level sample
frame exists for the population of interest; the population of interest is widely dispersed and difficult to reach
owing to poor infrastructure; and due to the sensitivity of the political situation, it is expected that negotiating
access to communities may in some cases take time. Based on these issues, a cluster survey is therefore
preferable due to the savings it incurs in terms of time, logistics, and cost.
The first stage will involve selecting clusters from a sample frame of primary sampling units (villages, urban
wards, and IDP camp locations) covering the entire population of all study townships. Clusters will be selected
from this frame on the basis of probability proportionate to size using government-provided village and urban
ward-level population data, and OCHA-provided camp population data.1 Once clusters are selected, the second
stage will involve selecting the required sample size for each cluster using either systematic random sampling or
a transect walk, depending on the layout of the communities involved. Since the population of interest is
individuals rather than households, a random selection method (e.g. next-birthday selection) next will be used to
select eligible individuals from each household.
Given that the study aims to support the design of outreach materials for different target audiences, the survey
population will be divided into six strata according to age and gender, specifically one each for women and men
aged 15-19, 20-59, and 60+.2 Stratifying by ethnicity was rejected on the grounds of the political sensitivity
involved, while stratifying by township or other geographical basis was rejected on the basis that it would expand
the number of clusters needed beyond the time and budgetary limits of the project. However, even if such
groupings are not specifically sampled for, it may be possible to detect differences between them using statistical
testing in subsequent data analysis.
In approximately 15% of all villages, no population data exists. Since it is not feasible to collect this information directly,
each of these villages will be assumed to have the average population of the remaining 75%.
2 The boundaries for these strata reflect the disaggregation of Myanmar’s population in the most recent available data on the
country’s age structure (http://esa.un.org/wpp/), which will serve as a proxy for post-weighting results. In addition, following
initial field experience, children younger than 15 are likely to require a different set of survey questions and specialized
training for enumerators, and have therefore been excluded due to resource constraints.
1
8
KAP Study on DRR Practices in Northern Rakhine – 16/03/2015
The number of clusters to be sampled in the survey is fixed at 30. This represents both a generally accepted
standard in cluster survey designs without stratification by area type,3 and the maximum number achievable
under the project’s budget and timeline. Sample size for each stratum is calculated at 210. This takes into
account the following: a 95% confidence level, 10% confidence interval and an assumed prevalence of 50%
yielding n = 97 per cluster. This is then multiplied by an assumed design effect of 2 (again standard in cluster
survey designs)4 to yield 194, and rounded up to 210 to allow a round number of interviews to be collected in
each cluster.5 Multiplied by 6 strata this yields a total sample size of 1,260, or 42 interviews per cluster. Since the
six strata together encompass the entire population of interest, results for each will be weighted and aggregated
to yield a representative sample of the population at 95% confidence level and 5% confidence interval.
The research team for the KAP survey component will consist of a gender-balanced set of 10 enumerators,
supervised by the Field Coordinators, and under the coordination of the Assessment Officer. Based on the results
of the FGD stage, and following inputs from DRR focal points at ACTED, IOM and other DRR actors, the
Assessment Officer will develop the survey questionnaire in open data kit (ODK). This will then translated into
Rakhine by the FC/PM, before being back-translated into English by the FC/BM and reviewed for consistency by
the Assessment Officer. The tool will be piloted in a by the Field Coordinators in a sample community in Sittwe
township in late April, before a full roll-out through May. All data will be collected electronically using Samsung
Galaxy smartphones.
Given the travel distances involved, it is envisaged that two sets of enumerators may be hired and trained directly
in different townships, rather than relying on a single team based out of Sittwe. In addition, due to language and
access issues, it is expected that in camp contexts, a separate team of community mobilisers or cash-for-workers
from the camps will be used. In all cases, enumerators will receive a full day’s initial training from the Field
Coordinators, where briefing and role-playing exercises will help the team establish a common understanding of
the questions (and answers) in the tool. During field research, enumerators will likely be split into two teams of
five in order to cover more ground. Within each teams, individual enumerators will be designated to collect
information for one stratum only (e.g. male children aged 15-19) in order to avoid confusion.
Prior to starting the survey, the FC/PM will be responsible for securing permission from Township
Authorities/Camp Managers to work in selected communities, and for sensitising village leaders regarding the
aims and methodology of the survey. Once in the field, each enumerator team will be directly supervised in the
field by one Field Coordinator, who will be responsible for ensuring field-level quality control of enumerator
See for example Greg Collins, “Thematic Guidelines: Sampling” (Rome: WFP, 2004), or Donna Espeut, “Knowledge,
Practices and Coverage Survey 2000+: Field Guide August 2001” (Washington, DC: Child Technical Support Project, 2001).
4 See Collins, p. 27; Espeut, p. 147-8.
5 Formula as follows: n = (D)(Z2 x p x q) / d2 where D = design effect (2), Z = confidence level, p = prevalence (1.96), q = 1-p
and d = precision (0.10). Derived from Collins, p. 27.
3
9
KAP Study on DRR Practices in Northern Rakhine – 16/03/2015
interview methods and sampling techniques. To further ensure quality, each interview will be GPS-tagged so that
any anomalous groupings can easily be identified, and Field Coordinators will check 10% of forms collected each
day for integrity. At the end of each day, Field Coordinators will fill in a daily debriefing tool with enumerators,
detailing progress according to targets, and any issues encountered. The tool will also include for Field
Coordinators to record direct observations of field sites, as a means to further triangulate data collected and
inform subsequent analysis.
Data Entry and Analysis
For the FGD component, Field Coordinators will provide summary translations in English to the Assessment
Officer, who will then code and analyse them thematically (either by hand, or using NVivo or similar qualitative
analysis software). For the KAP survey, data entry will take place instantaneously into Excel via ODK. Before
analysis, the Assessment Officer will check the data for consistency and remove any extreme outliers or specific
variables deemed problematic (e.g. due to poorly-worded questions, etc.). Subsequent analysis will incorporate
both raw quantitative data, as well as triangulation through FGD results, field-level observations, and direct input
from Field Coordinator and enumerators themselves. Further validation of study findings will take place through
ACTED/IOM-run workshops targeted at government officials and other key DRR stakeholders.
Research Ethics
Throughout the research process, the team will rigorously uphold the principles of do no harm, informed consent
and confidentiality. Given the current tensions in Rakhine, simply identifying a given community’s needs can be
interpreted in some quarters as a political or partisan action. This means that research into an apparently
“neutral” topic such as DRR may still be politically sensitive. Great care will be taken at all stages (including when
considering subsequent dissemination strategy) to ensure that research activities do not generate risks or fallout
for either research participants or the team themselves. Field Coordinators will be briefed to flag any issues of this
nature in field reports, which will subsequently be assessed and acted upon collaboratively by the Field
Coordinators, the Assessment Officer, and if necessary involving ACTED/IOM project focal points.
One means to reduce risks associated with the research will be to have an especially clear process of seeking
informed consent. Field Coordinators and enumerators will be briefed on the importance of seeking and obtaining
informed consent during data collection—specifically in explaining what the research will do, how it will be used,
and what results participants should or should not expect to see from it. In addition, the research team will ensure
confidentiality for all participants, extending to anonymisation of FGD/interview transcripts (including the removal
of any geotagged data before public sharing), password protection of databases, and the destruction of any
potentially sensitive materials such as FGD recordings once they have been used.
10
KAP Study on DRR Practices in Northern Rakhine – 16/03/2015
PRODUCTS TYPOLOGY
The main outputs of the study will be as follows:

One full-length assessment report, produced in English and structured as follows:

Executive Summary detailing a brief overview of the study and its key findings

Introduction outlining the background, rationale and objectives for the study

Methodology outlining the choice and implementation of research methods described above,
describing any challenges encountered and outlining any limitations of the data collected.

Key Findings structured according to the research questions outlined above. This will outline a
detailed narrative of findings synthesised from the survey data, FGDs, and field data, and crossreferenced with available secondary information.

Recommendations to be developed jointly by REACH, ACTED, and IOM (as consortium partners)
with inputs from other key DRR stakeholders.


Annexes including at minimum the survey questionnaire and other relevant research tools.
One PowerPoint presentation translated into Rakhine and summarising the reports background, findings
and recommendations.
MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS AND WORK PLAN
The study will be led by an international Assessment Officer. Directly reporting to him will be one male Project
Manager and one female Base Manager, on secondment from ACTED and functioning as national Field
Coordinators for the study’s duration. Reporting to the Field Coordinators will be ten national enumerators, five
male and five female (see Figure 2 below).
11
KAP Study on DRR Practices in Northern Rakhine – 16/03/2015
Assessment
Officer
Field Coordinator
(Project Manager)
Field Coordinator
(Base Manager)
5 x Enumerators
5 x Enumerators
Figure 2: Research team Organogram
The Assessment Officer’s responsibilities are as follows:

Take overall lead in planning and organizing research, ensuring that all data and deliverables are
delivered on time and are of high quality.

Take the lead in drafting the study’s methodology and research tools, in collaboration with field
coordinators.

Provide training to Field Coordinators on data collection techniques, use of research tools, research
ethics, and best practice in the field.

Provide backstopping to Field Coordinators during field research, including direct supervision in a portion
of field visits.

Take the lead in analysing data and drafting the final report, with input from Field Coordinators,
enumerators, ACTED/IOM and external stakeholders.

Take the lead in conducting external coordination and ensuring buy-in for the study, both with other
consortium partners and with other external DRR stakeholders.
The Field Coordinators’ responsibilities are as follows:

Take the overall lead in coordinating and conducting research in the field.

Provide input to drafting all tools and questionnaires.

Translate tools and other relevant documents into Rakhine or Myanmar as appropriate.

Facilitate and translate FGDs during the study’s formative phase.

Train enumerators and directly supervise them during field data collection.

Ensure adequate quality assurance in all field data collection activities.

Provide regular and timely reporting to Assessment Officer on progress of field data collection and any
issues encountered.

12
Provide input to data analysis and validation.
KAP Study on DRR Practices in Northern Rakhine – 16/03/2015
Enumerators’ responsibilities are as follows:

Conduct survey interviews with the population of interest under the supervision of the Field Coordinators.

Participate in training exercises and daily debriefings with the Field Coordinators.

Provide input to data analysis and validation.
Additional support and technical backstopping on DRR will be provided by the ACTED DRR Coordinator and the
IOM Programme Manager, who will also manage the consortium’s relationship with key government agencies.
The former will also take the lead in running stakeholder engagement meetings, since these will link to
subsequent ACTED-run activities outlined in the project document. Additional backstopping from REACH
technical staff in Geneva/Amman may be required in the event that quantitative differences between survey strata
require statistical significance testing/power analysis.
Work plan (detailed work plan to be included as Annex)
Training of Field Coordinators and running FGDs will run late-March to early April, with translation and analysis
running parallel to subsequent activities. Development and piloting of survey questionnaires will run mid-late April
(accounting for a two week national holiday in mid-April). Training of enumerators will take place late-April, with
data collection running through May. Data analysis and report writing will run through June and early July. For a
detailed workplan, see Annex 1.
RISKS & ASSUMPTIONS
Risks & Mitigation Measures
The key risks for this study revolve around uncertainty over gaining access to study communities, with significant
issues related to administrative procedures, consent of the study population, and logistics.

In terms of administrative issues, a government permission letter to conduct fieldwork for the project as a
whole has not yet been obtained by IOM, and may not be forthcoming until the second half of April. In
addition, Travel Authorisation letters for the Assessment Officer and Field Coordinators are contingent
and must be renewed every month.

In terms of consent, local communities are reportedly sceptical of NGOs—especially in Maungdaw
township, where the political situation remains extremely tense. As a consequence, communities may
either refuse access to field teams, or decline to participate without incentives.

In terms of logistics, transport links in Rakhine state are extremely poor, with much transport by boat.
With research due to run through into the rainy season, this may result in slower-than-anticipated
progress for field data collection.
13
KAP Study on DRR Practices in Northern Rakhine – 16/03/2015
Mitigation measures for these issues focus largely on reducing sample size and coverage. If administrative/legal
procedures significantly reduce the time available for data collection, the number of clusters can be reduced from
an ideal 30 to a minimum of 20. Numbers of interviews, strata and levels of confidence may also have to be cut.
This can be partially compensated for by spending longer in fewer communities, conducting more heavily
stratified qualitative work to complement a less complex survey sample. Regarding consent, it may be necessary
to exclude Maungdaw Township from the sample if the operating environment proves too sensitive. This
possibility has already been discussed with IOM and ACTED focal points for the study. Regarding access, if
getting to remote areas proves more difficult than expected, it may also be necessary to exclude more remote
inland communities from the sample and focus research specifically on coastal hazards.
Key Assumptions

Government grants consortium permission to work in time to allow a minimally acceptable amount of data
collection to take place.

In the event that permission letter cannot be obtained in a timely fashion, external DRR stakeholders are
willing to facilitate access to communities for FGDs to take place.

Communities in the study area consent to take part in the research.

Security situation across study areas remains calm and permissive to field activity.

Adverse weather conditions do not substantially disrupt research activities during the wet season

Intended research audience—especially government actors—remain engaged during the research process.
VISIBILITY AND DISSEMINATION

Visibility arrangements: [to be discussed with IOM – should be their logo, OFDA or both?]

Dissemination Plan: [Geneva – can you provide an example for me to work with]
DOCUMENTATION PLAN

14
List of documents to be archived

ToRs

Data collection tool(s)

Raw Database (soft copy)

Clean Database (soft copy)

Data Cleaning Logbook

Presentation(s)

Report

Official endorsement/communication (e.g. key emails)
Annex 1: Project Workplan
Month
Week
Training of field coordinators
Conduct FGDs
FGD analysis
Development/piloting of survey questionnaires
Training of enumerators
KAP survey data collection
Data analysis and write-up
March
1
2
3
April
4
1
2
3
May
4
1
2
June
3
4
1
2
3
4