TIME USE IN NIGERIA: A PILOT STUDY

INTROOUCTlON

1. Time-Budget or Time-Use Survey is new to the Federal Office of Statistics IFOS). It is a survev

designed to study how Nigerian households use their time. This is done by attempting to accc~unt for

activities carried out by individual household members during a specified period. Information collected

can be used to meet a variety of objectives, particularly those relating to social and economic

concerns: division of labour in the household, measurement of women’s unpaid work, preparation oi

household satellite accounts, changes in allocation of time to activities and child labour.

2. Because of the newness of the survey in FOS, a pilot study of limited scope. coverage and

sample size was conducted.

3. This report gives an account of the study design, data collection and data processing

experiences as well as some results arising from the study.

THE STUDY DESIGN

Objectives and Scope:

4. The main objectives of the pilot were to test-

(i) the adequacy of the questionnaire in terms of concepts and definitions

(ii 1 the administration of the questionnaire in the field,

(iii) field work arrangement

(ivl the processability of the questionnaire.

5. The questionnaire itself sought to collect information in -

Ii) socio-demographic situation of household members

(ii) activities engaged in by household members

(iii) average duration of major categories of activities

(iv) socio-economic differences in how household members use their time.

(4 geographical/cultural differences in the use of time, and

(vi) gender differences in time-use.

Coverage:

6. All the four FOS operational zones in the countn/ were covered, In each zone, one state was

selected and canvassed. (Own was covered in the south west zone, Enugu in the south east zone.

Kaduna in the north west zcme and Bauchi in the north east zone). In addition, because of its

distinctively cosmopolitan nature, Lagos state was covered as a special case.

7. The study also covered both the rural and urban areas to account for rural/urban variations in \

activities engaged in by household members and time spent on these activities.

Sample Design:

8. As indicated above, only five states were studied for the pilot. In each state, 4 EAs were

selected, 2 from the urban and 2 from the rural. These EAs were randomly selected from the most

recently canvassed EAs for the General Household Survey (GHS)‘. This allowed the use of the lisring

exercise already conducted for the GHS thus saving time and cost. In each EA. 5 households were

systematically selected from those that responded to the GHS.

9. In order to take account of day-to-day variations in activities and allocation of time to the

activities, data was collected each day of a 7-day reference week. Thus, in each state, 20 households

were covered per day for 7 days. Data resulting from these households were large enough for testing

the processability of the questionnaire.

Survey Instruments:

10. The main instrument used for data collection consisted of three parts:

01 Household Identification/Composition - used for recording information on some

demographic characteristics oi household members,

(ii) Household Diary Record - used for providing a diary of activities which household

members spend time on during the reference period, and

(iii) Use of Time SummAry Schedule - a schedule used for summarising, on daily basis. time

spent by household members age 10 years and above over various activities by Major

Activity Groupings.

11. Ii addition, an instruction manual documenting how the survey instrument should be completed

in the field was developed. The manual which served as the main training instrument was intended

to assist those responsible for getting the questionnaires completed.

12. Another important instrument reproduced as an appendix to the manual of instruction was the

United Nation (UN) document “Trial International Classification For Time-Use Activities”. This is the

documem mused in classifying and coding time-we activities. The dowmnnt was adopted to enhance

standardization and international comparability, some very important and useful attributes being

canvassed and encouraged by the UN.

Data Collection Procedure:

13. The reference period for the survey was one day i.e. 24 hours. However, information was

collected on activities carried out each day of a seven consecutive day period to account for day-to-day

variation in the type and duration of activities.

’ The GHS is the core survey module of the National Integrated Survey of Households (NISH) run by the FOS. The NISH is a multi-subject household-based wwey ~y~tern run by the office in line with the United Nations Household Survey Capability Programme WNHSCP). It employs a Z-stage replicated and rotated sample design with Enumeration Areas (EAs) as the Primary Sampling Units (PSUs) and Housing Units (HUsl as the Secondarv Sampling Units. The GHS which runs annually is capable of responding at very short notice to virfuallv all dala requests parficularly those that are household-based.

2

14. A combination of the diary and recall method was used in collecting the data. For this purpose.

a Household Diary Record Schedule2 was developed. Each eligible household member was provided

with the schedule. The primary purpose of the diary was to assist household members keep diaries

listing their daily activities and time taken to complete each of the activities.

15. Where the household was literate, members were requested to complete the diary on their own

and on daily basis. The enumerator however visited the household a day after each day’s recording

to ensure that the diary for the previous day was properly kept. Where household member was unable

or unwilling to complete the diary on his/her own, the interviewer took on the responsibility for doing

it. In this instance, the recall method described below was adopted.

16. Where the household was not literate, most especially in the rural areas, the interviewer

assisted household members in completing the diary. The recall method was adopted. In this instance

interviews were conducted during which the respondent reconstructed the sequence of activities for

the previous day before the interview and the result of the interview recorded in the diary.

17. To ensure that no activity/time was missed or overlooked, the respondent was asked to

account for how he/she spent his/her day in time sequence order i.e morning, afternoon and evening.

The 24 hours of any particular day began from mid-night of the previous day to the mid-night of the

ref

Fie

18 holds

e/L. ,--, .,,- ,,-,-..-,,. . ..-.. -.I..1” “. _ _ Jt the

diaries were properly completed and kept. Thus each enumerator was in the field for eight days. The

data collection was done simultaneously in all the EAs. A supervisor was in charge of 2 EAs. The

trainers (at the second level) spent the first 3 days of the fieldwork period with the enumerators fo

ensure the proper take-off of the pilot study.

Training:

19. Since the time-use survey was being introduced to the field staff for the first time, time was

devoted to understanding the survey questionnaire and its administration. A one-day training was

conducted at each of the two training levels, namely, at Headquarter and State levels. Trainees at the

headquarter level were responsible for the training at the state level.

20. The training centred on how to complete the survey instrument with particular attention to the

diary and time-use summary schedule. Practice sessions were also held on how to edit the diary

records and complete the summary schedule. The training period did not accommodate field practice.

’ The diary IS open ended. allowing the recording of the beginning and end times and hence the duration of each actlvlf”.

3

Data Processing:

21. The data processing was handled by the Research Branch of the office.

SOME COMMENTS ON THE STUDY DESIGN AND ITS IMPLEMENTATION

22. In the following paragraphs, we make some comments on the study design and possible

implications for such an exercise in the future.

(4 Recording Procedures:

23. Although allowance was made for self-reporting by respondents, the pilot experience indicated

that the face-to-face interview using the recall method was the procedure largely used during the

survey. Even among the literate population, diaries were left uncompleted until the interviewer came

round to monitor progress of work. The reeeon generally given was lack of time. This has implication

for the main survey especially both in terms of the method to be adopted and number o+ interviews

that can convenientiy be handled by the interviewer. For the current study, en interviewer handled 5

households and on the average 12 interviews per day. This looked a reasonable workload for en

interviewer to handle more so when the recall method is adopted. In other words, for efficiency end

collection of quality data, an interviewer should not be made to cover more then 5 households using

the recall method.

!b) Structure of Diary:

24. The form of the structure of the diary was duely considered while the questionnaire was still

in the draft stage. The initial plan was to have a fixed time diary in intervals of 30 minutes. However.

considering the fact that the population does not keep time and coupled with the use of the recall

method in coiiecting the data, i1 was agreed thar rhe open formar diary shouid ix used. This walked

to the extent that the informants were asked to account for activity in a time sequence order of

morning, afternoon and evening. There were no difficulty in recalling major activities end approximate

time taken to complete these activities However, there were instances of some unaccounted time,

usually of short duration. With further probing, the gaps were accounted for or reduced.

25. An issue that was raised while debriefing the trainers et second level was the accurecV of

duration or time taken to perform en activity. This can not be determined from the study. It will

require further research in which both the observation and recall methods are employed to account for

use of time.

26. Another problem associated with the use of the recall method was that of getting children to

account for how they used their time. Sometimes adult members of the household had to come to

their assistance in other to have a complete picture of how they used time. It would have been better

to get the children account for use of their time themselves. This situation must be addressed in the

main survey.

(cl Unit of Recall:

27. The use of a 7-day week rather than just one day was adopted in order to account for day-to-

day variations in activities es well es time taken in carrying out these activities. There were no

difficulties in implementing it except that of response burden. Some respondents discontinued the

interview after the first 2 or 3 days while some wanted to be compensated before further cooperation

could be assured.

cdl

28.

Data Collection:

Four main data collection tasks were undertaken during the fieldwork, viz.

collection of socio-demographic data

recording activities and times taken to complete/perform them,

coding activities using UN’s Trial Classification for Time-Use Activities

summarising activities et the l-digit level.

The first was more or less a routine task for the field staff and presented no difficulties.

29. Two main problems were reported while recording time-use activities. Partly because of the

use of the open format diary and partly because the recall method adopted, there were instances

where some informants did not account for all the 24 hours in a day. Further probing had to be done

to have the full account.

30. The other problem arising from the recording of activities was the lumping of activities

together. This is however viewed es en interviewer’s problem rather than informant’s. During the

training, interviewer were told to ensure that activities were not lumped together. Failure to do so

created both coding and classification problems. More attention will have to be devoted to this during

the main survey in order to forestall the Occurrence of this problem.

31. Another problematic area during data collection was that of coding of activities. There are two

dimensions to the problem. The first was that of miscoding of uniquely identified activity which led

to misclassification of the activity. These situations were manually resolved through the application

5

of the “Trial International Classification for Time-Use Activities” although at a cost (time). The second

and the more serious dimension to the problem occurred where activities were lumped together. This

presented analysis problem at the 2-digit level but not at the l-digit level. The problem created at the

2-digit level was that it became near impossible to disentangle the lumped activities both in terms of

the activities and time used.

32. Majority of the coding problems and the lumping of activities did not affect the analysis done

in this report because the lumping and misclassifications of activities were usually done within the 1.

digit level rather than between and current analysis was done at the one digit level only. The story

would have been different if analysis had been done at the 2.digit level. Nonetheless, these problems

underscore the importance of adequate training, effective supervision and other quality assurance

measures prior to, during and after fieldwork.

1.9 Training:

33. Only one day was devoted to training. With benefit of hindsight, the l-day was inadequate

to cover the training programme which included how to

complete the time-use questionnaire using the instruction manual

: use the schedule of “Trial International Classification of Time-Use Activities”

assign 2.digit level codes to time use activities

summarise time-use activities from the 2.digit level to 1 -digit level, and

edit completed questionnaires.

Although all the above tasks were covered during the training, more time would be required to do

justice to their treatment especially during practice sessions on coding, data editing and summarization.

34. It is also to be noted that there was no field practice during the training which could have

brought to the fore some of the problems later encountered during the fieldwork and data processing.

In actual fact, the complexity, newness of the survey and the large number of field staff to be used

in the main survey will necessitate that more days be earmarked for the training.

(f) Data Processing:

35. Once the question of misclassification of activities had been manually resolved, no further

problem was encountered during the data processing. The EPI-Info proved adequate for data entry and

processing.

6

(9) Data Analysis:

36. Two main sets of indicators were computed for proper understanding of the use of time:

(il specific average duration of an activity

(ii) participation rate i.e impact of specific activity on a given population.

The EPI-Info was also used in obtaining these indicators with minimal manual calculations.

While there was no difficulty in obtaining the specific average duration of an activity, the second

presented some problem. The problem arose from the fact that not all the respondents participated

in all activities and where they did, they did so with varying degree of frequency during the reference

week. In order to compute the participation rate, a person was assumed to have participated in an

activity if he/she participated at least once in the week. With this definition, a new variable was

created and values assigned according to whether the respondent participated at least once in the

week or not. The process of assigning these values was labourious and inefficient and underscore

insufficient technical expertise in dealing with this situation using the EPI-Info.

PILOT STUDY RESULTS

Sample Achieved:

37. Table 1 shows the coverage both in terms of number of households canvassed and number of

persons interviewed on the use of time. Of the 100 households selected for interview.93 responded

giving a response rate of 93%. From these households, 243 persons age 10 years or above were

interviewed on use of time. An immediate implication of the sample size is that only limited data

disaggregation can be attempted for meaningful analysis and interpretation. Further, figures in the

tables are to be treated as indicative as a much larger sample would be required to present a more

statistically stable results.

Table 1:

I

SAMPLE ACHIEVED BY STATE

NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS RESPONDENTS I/

Characteristics of Sample Households and Respondents:

38. Tables 2a and 2b present information on some background characteristics of the sample

households while Tables 3a and 3b give background information on the persons who provided the data

on the use of time. Together, the tables provide information essential for the interpretation of the pilot

results and a rough measure of the representativeness of the survey.

39. Table 2c gives comparative data from the pilot study and other surveys conducted by the office

under the NISH. In spite of the earlier note of caution in respect of the sample size, data from the pilot

study appears reasonably consistent with data from the other NISH surveys.

Analysis of Time Use in Nigeria:

40. The data presented on the use of time is based on intewiews conducted for about 243 persons

age 10 years or over in 93 households spread over 5 states of the Federation. Data was collected over

a 7-day week period to account for day-to-day variations in activities and time spent on these

activities. To obtain time spent on an activity on an average day, time spent on the activity was

averaged over the 7.day period

41. Two main indicators are calculated to assist the understanding of how people use time:

ii1 Specific average duration - this is the average duration of each activity carried out

during the day, considering only people who carried it out.

(ii) Participation rate - this indicates how many people carried out the activity out of the

population. It measures the impact of the specific activity within the population.

It should be apparent from the foregoing that the times presented in the tables are not cumulative since

they are spe?ific averages. They could only add up to 24 hours if all participation rates were 100%.

42. Although the data was collected at the 2.digit level of classification as recommended by the

UN, analysis was done only at the l-digit level:

1 - Employment for Establishments

2 Primary Production Activities (not for Establishmentsl

3 - Services for Income and other Production Goods (not for Establishments\

4 - HH Maintenance, Management and Shopping for own HH

5 Care of Children, the Sick, Elderly and Disabled for own HH

6 - Community Service and Help to other HHs

7 - Learning

8 - Social & Cultural Activities

9 - Mass Media Use

0 - Personal Care and Self-maintenance

8

Table 2a: Percent Distribution of Sample Population by Are-wow, Gend_er and bv Sector

Percent

Characteristic

Age Group

o-9

10-14

15-64

65+

30.9 40.8 35.8

8.7 10.9 9.8

56.0 43.8 50.0

4.3 4.5 4.4

Gender

Male

Female

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

Number 207 201 408

Dependency Ratio 0.78 1.28 1 .oo

49.3 51.2 50.2

50.7 48.8 49.8

Table 2b: Percent Distribution of Sample Households by Headship of HH. Household Size and bv Sector

Percent

I/ Characteristic

Hcadship of HH

Male 79.5 85.1 82.3

Female 20.5 14.9 17.7

Mean HH Size 4.3 5.0 4.6

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

Number 50 43 93

9

Table 2: Comwrison of Some Population Characteristics from Survevs conducted bv FOS

I Percent

Characteristic w MICS2 gY@ TUS4 1990 1995 ‘95/96 1999

Age Group

O-14 47.1 43.6 43.3 45.6

15-64 48.5 53.1 50.0

65+ 4.3 3.1 4.0

Dependency Ratio 1.06 0.86 1.00

Household Headship

M&2 85.7 86.8 82.3

Female 14.3 13.2 17.7

Mean HH Size 5.4 4.7 4.4 4.6

Source: 1. Nigeria Demographic and Heawl survey ,990 ,FOS~ 2. Multiple indicator Cluster survey ,995 FOS, 3. General Household Survey 1995i96 IFOS1 4. Time-Use survey (A PilOf Study, ,999 ,FOS)

10

11

12

Further, the tables are presented by grouping the m&x ,ac&vrRict: ibq ‘level of production:

(i) Production Activities (withm .SFl& ,prodanirm ti;vuntlary) Major groups 1,2 and 3

(ii) General Production Activities (wtside tine ‘SNA production boundary but using the 3rd person criterion)- Major groups 4, 5 and 6; and

(iii) Non-production Activities Major groups 7. 8, 9 and 0.

Tables Generated:

43. The following is a summary of the tables presented along with this report. The tables are

however by no means exhaustive. For example, Tables ?a, 7b and 7c present some data on child

labour within the age bracket lo-14 years.

Production Activities (within SNA production boundary)

Table 4a: Average Time (in Hrs) Per Day and Participation Rates(%) in Major Groups of Production Activities by Persons Age 10 years or over by Gender, HH Headship, State, Sector, Marital Status and Religion. (Page 15)

Table 4b: Average Time !in Hrs) Per Day and Participation Rates(%) in Major Groups of Production Activities by Persons Age 10 years or over by Education, Literacy Level, Age-group and Employment Status. (Page 161

Table 4~: Average Time (in Hrs) Per Day and Participation Rates(%) in Major Groups of Production Activities by Persons Age 10 years or over by Day of the Week and Weekdays and Weekends. (Page 171

General Production Activities (using 3rd person criterion)

Table 5a: Average Time (in Hours) Per Day and Participation Rates(%) in Major Groups of General Production Activities (using 3rd Person Criterion) by Persons Age 10 Years or Above by Gender, HH Headship, State, Sector, Marital Status and Religion. (Page 18)

Table 5b:

Table 5c:

Average Time (in Hours) Per Day and Participation Rate(%) in Major Groups of General Production Activities (using 3rd Person Criterion) by Persons Age 10 Years or Above by Education, Literacy Level, Age- group and Employment Status. (Page 19)

Average Time (in Hours1 Per Day and Participation Rates(%) in Major Groups of General Production Activities (using 3rd Person Criterion) by Persons Age 10 Years or Above by Day of Week and Weekdays & Weekends. (Page 201

13

Table 6a: Average Time (in Hours) Per Da\] and Participation Rate(%) in Major Groups of Non-Production Acw>:ies by Persons Age 10 Years or Above bv Gender. HH Headship, State, Sector, Marital Status and Religion. (Page 2 1)

Table 6b: Average Time iin Hours) Per Day and Participation Rate(%) in Major Groups of Non-Production Activities by Persons Age 10 Years or Above by Education, Literacy, Age-group and Employment Status. (Page 22)

Table 6c: Average Time (in Hours) Per Day and Participation Rates(%) in Major Groupsof Non-Production Activities by Persons Age 10 Years or Above by Day of Week, and Weekdays & Weekends. (Page 23)

Child Labour (within the Age bracket lo-14 years)

Table 7a: Percent Distribution of Children Age lo-14 years by Gender, Sector, Marital Status and Education. (Page 24)

Table 7b: Average Time (in Hrs) Per Day and Participation Rates(%) in Major Groups of Production Activities by Persons Age IO-14 years by Gender, Sector, Education, Re!igion and HH Headship. (Page 25)

Table 7~: Average Time (in Hrs) Per Day and Participation Rates(%) in Major Groups of General Production Activities (using 3rd Person criterion) by Persons Age lo-14 years by Gender, Sector, Education, Religion and Household Headship. (Page 26)

TIME USE IN NIGERIA: A PILOT STUDY

INTRODUCTION

1. Time-Budget or Time-Use Survey is new to the Federal Office of Statistics IFOSI. It is a survev

designed to study how Nigerian households use their time. This is done by attempting to account for

activities carried out by individual household members during a specified period. Information collected

can be used to meet a variety of objectives, particularly those relating to social and economic

concerns: division of labour in the household, measurement of women’s unpaid work, preparation of

household satellite accounts, changes in allocation of time to activities and child labour.

2. Because Of the newness of the survey in FOS, a pilot study of limited scope. coverage and

sample size was conducted.

3. This report gives an account of the study design, data collection and data processing

experiences as well as some results arising from the study.

THE STUDY Om

Objectives and Scope:

4. The main objectives of the pilot ware to test-

‘. 0) the adequacy of the questionnaire in terms of concepts and definitions

(ii) the administration of the questionnaire in the field,

(iii) field work arrangement

(iv) the processability of the questionnaire.

5. The questionnaire itself sought to collect information on -

(i) socio-demographic situation of household members

Iii) activities engaged in by household members

(iii) average duration of major categories of activities

(iv) socio-economic differences in how household members use their time.

Iv) geographical/cultural differences in the use of time, and

(vi) gender differences in time-use.

Coverage:

6. All the four FOS operational zones in the country were covered. In each zone, one state was

selected and canvassed. (Osun was covered in the south west zone, Enugu in the south east zone.

Kaduna in the north west zone and Bauchi in the north east zone). In addition, because of its

distinctively cosmopolitan nature, Lagos state was covered as a special case.

7. The study also covered both the rural and urban areas to account for rural/urban variations in

activities engaged in by household members and time spent on these activities.

Sample Design:

8. As indicated above, only five states were studied for the pilot. In each state,-4 EAs were

selected, 2 from the urban and 2 from the rural. These EAs were randomly selected from the most

recently canvassed EAs for the General Household Survey (GHSI’. This allowed the use of the listing

exercise already conducted for the GHS thus saving time and cost. In each EA, 5 households were

systematically selected from those that responded to the GHS.

9. In order to take account of day-to-day variations in activities and allocation of time to the

activities, data was collected each day of a 7-day reference week. Thus, in each state, 20 households

were covered per day for 7 days. Data resulting from these households were large enough for testing

the processability of the questionnaire.

Survey Instruments:

10. The main instrument used for data collection consisted of three parts:

fil Household Identification/Composition - used for recording information on some

demographic characteristics of household members,

(ii) Household Diary Record - used for providing a diary of activities which household

members spend time on during the reference period, and

(iii) Use of Time Summary Schedule _ a schedule used for summarising, on daily basis. time

spent by household members age 10 years and above over various activities bv Major

Activity Groupings.

11. Ii addition, an instruction manual documenting how the survey instrument should be completed

in the field was developed. The manual which served as the main training instrument was intended

to assist those responsible for getting the questionnaires completed.

12. Another important instrument reproduced as an appendix to the manual of instruction Was the

United Nation (UN) document “Trial International Classification For Time-Use Activities”. This is the

dac”ment used /p rl~ceitlri”” .nA co,jinn ,ilnP-,,PO ~Cfi”ifieS. . -.I --..,... J “,... J I....” -I_ The document was adopted to enhance

standardization and international comparability, some very important and useful attributes being

canvassed end encouraged by the UN.

Data Collection Procedure:

13. The reference period for the survey was one day i.e. 24 hours. However, information Was

collected on activities carried out each day of a seven consecutive day period to account for day-to-day

variation in the type and duration of activities.

’ The GHS is the core survey module of the National Integrated Survay of Households INISH) run by the FOS. The NISH is a multi-subject household-based survey system run by the office in line with the United Nations Household Swvay Capability Programme WNHSCW. It employs a Z-stage replicated and rotated sample design with Enumeration Areas (EAsl as the Primaw Sampling Units RiUs) and Housing Units IHUs) as the Secondary Sampling Units. The GHS which runs annually is capable of responding at very short notice to vinually all data requests particularly those that are household-based.

2