Perspectives and preferences of both refugees and hosts on refugee local integration in Uganda

The study aims to assess the perspectives and preferences of both refugees and host communities regarding refugee integration in Uganda. Specifically, the objectives are:
1. To determine the average preference of refugees and host community members (Ugandans) for a more integrated refugee-host community.
2. To analyze the relationship between reported intergroup contact and the integration preferences of both refugees and hosts across various integration dimensions.
3. To compare the average preferences for integration scenarios between refugee and host (Ugandan) respondents.

The study will take place in Kampala and Isingiro districts (particularly around Nakivale refugee settlement). Data will be collected from both refugees and host community members (Ugandan nationals) living near the refugees, in both rural settlement areas and urban towns. Participants will be randomly selected using preexisting sampling frames from the Uganda Bureau of Statistics (UBOS), employing a two-stage cluster sampling strategy with the Probability Proportionate to Size (PPS) approach (with replacement). The final sampling stage may utilize satellite imagery or a listing exercise, depending on field and budgetary constraints. Based on power calculations, the study aims to include 700 participants, evenly split between Ugandans and refugees or asylum seekers. Data collection is planned to start in July 2024 and conclude by the end of August 2024.

The study features a fully randomized choice- and rating-based conjoint experiment embedded within a household survey. Participants will complete a survey questionnaire and be randomly exposed to a conjoint experiment involving six integration dimensions and their corresponding pairs of integration scenarios/community characteristics. The dimensions are: location freedom, political expression freedom, labor market freedom, integrated services, cultural fluidity, and citizenship. Each dimension's community characteristics will be illustrated with carefully designed pictorial representations. In five rounds, respondents will be presented with randomly compiled pairs of communities and asked to choose their preferred community based on the selected characteristics from each integration dimension. The survey will be programmed to randomize the community characteristics within each dimension and the order of the dimensions between respondents to mitigate ordering effects, while keeping the order of dimensions constant across the five choice rounds for each participant to minimize survey fatigue.

Uganda’s progressive approach to refugee management has received global acclaim, with studies indicating positive local development and generally positive host attitudes towards refugees (Kadigo and Maystadt, 2023; Betts, 2023; Zhou et al., 2023; and Betts et al., 2019). Nevertheless, these studies have not focused on local integration from the viewpoints of both refugees and hosts, making it uncertain whether these positive attitudes translate into support for local integration.

Despite global hesitance towards local integration as a durable solution for refugees (Hovil and Maple, 2022), the low rates of voluntary repatriation and limited resettlement opportunities (UNHCR, 2023) highlight the need to reconsider local integration in Uganda. Yet, the preferences of refugees and hosts regarding this integration, and their interpretations of it, remain undocumented, which this study aims to address.

Instead of examining the attitudes of hosts towards refugees and vice versa based on specific socio-economic characteristics, I will evaluate the preferences of hosts and refugees for different community integration scenarios related to refugee local integration. These scenarios will be classified into six integration dimensions: (1) location freedom, (2) political expression freedom, (3) labor market freedom, (4) integrated services, (5) cultural fluidity, and (6) citizenship. By combining these integration scenarios, I will explore how Ugandans and refugees envision the integrated society they prefer to live in. The integration dimensions and their corresponding scenarios are detailed in the outline below.

(X) Integration dimension
- Integration scenarios

(1) Location freedom
- Refugees’ and hosts’ households living in a mixed setting in the same neighborhood.
- Refugees’ households clustered together and separate from the hosts’ households in the same neighborhood.

(2) Political expression freedom
- Refugees VOTE in local and national elections.
- Refugees DO NOT VOTE in local and national elections.

(3) Labour market freedom
- Refugees work as employees and operate their own businesses.
- Refugees ONLY work as employees but DO NOT operate their own business.

(4) Integrated services
- Refugees and hosts sharing schools, hospitals and water points.
- Refugees and hosts having separate schools, hospitals and water points.

(5) Cultural fluidity
- Refugees and hosts can communicate in each other’s language.
- Refugees and hosts can ONLY communicate in the hosts’ language.

(6) Citizenship
- Refugees obtain national IDs and are no longer referred to as refugees.
- Refugees have refugee IDs and will always be refugees.


This study will also examine how intergroup contact influences the integration preferences of refugees and hosts. Previous studies, mainly in the global North, support the contact hypothesis, suggesting that increased contact reduces prejudice (Paluck, Green and Green, 2019; Pettigrew and Tropp, 2006; and Allport’s,1954). Relevant studies in the global South, specifically two studies whose focus is closest to this study, have explored how contact affects attitudes and policy preferences, using various metrics to measure interaction levels (Betts, Stierna, Omata and Sterck, 2023; and Allen, Ruiz and Vargas-Silva, 2022).

This study will thus compare the integration preferences of hosts and refugees, investigating how contact influences these preferences through a fully randomized conjoint experiment. Three hypotheses will be tested: that both groups prefer more integrated communities, that higher intergroup contact correlates with a preference for integration, and that refugees generally prefer more integration than hosts. Consequently, the study addresses three main research questions: What are the preferences of refugees and Ugandans for local integration? How does intergroup contact influence their perspectives on integration? How do these preferences compare between refugees and Ugandans?

Data collection for this study is scheduled to commence in July 2024 and conclude by the end of August 2024. Local research assistants, who share characteristics with the respondents they will be interviewing, will conduct the data collection. The team of research assistants will consist of both refugees and Ugandans. Refugee research assistants will administer surveys to refugee respondents, while Ugandan research assistants will do so among Ugandan respondents. Selection criteria for research assistants will include proficiency in the common language spoken by the specific target groups. For example, the team may include Congolese assistants to facilitate surveys among Congolese refugees. As the principal investigator (PI), I will be the sole individual with access to the raw data following the conclusion of data collection.

Utilizing an existing sampling frame provided by the Uganda Bureau of Statistics (UBOS), the sampling process will employ a two-stage cluster sampling design. In the initial stage, enumeration areas (EAs) will be randomly chosen using the Probability Proportionate to Size (PPS) method (with replacement). In case fewer refugee households are found within the selected EAs, additional adjacent EAs will be randomly selected. In the second stage, satellite imagery overlaid on maps of the chosen EAs will assist in randomly selecting host and refugee households. Due to potential difficulties in distinguishing between refugee and Ugandan households via satellite imagery, a listing exercise will be conducted. Research assistants will visit all households within selected enumeration areas and conduct brief preliminary interviews to determine the nationality/status (refugee or Ugandan) of the household head. This process will generate a household sampling frame from which a fixed number of households will be randomly selected in each EA. As per power calculations, the aim is to recruit a total of 700 participants, with approximately half being Ugandans and the other half refugees or asylum seekers.

The study participants, comprising both Ugandan nationals and refugees from Kampala district and Isingiro district (specifically around Nakivale refugee settlement), will be adults aged 18 and above. Both men and women will be interviewed, with a focus on interviewing household heads or their spouses in the absence of the household head. If both the household head and spouse(s) are unavailable, another adult household member will be considered. Individuals under 18 will not be included, as the study requires household information on living conditions and economic status, which is more accurately provided by adults, particularly household heads.

The final study sample will undergo a questionnaire survey administered through Kobo Toolbox on an Android device. Research assistants, trained to carefully conduct the conjoint experiment and other survey questions, will execute the survey. The questionnaire is programmed to automatically randomize community characteristics within each integration dimension and the order of integration dimensions across respondents to minimize ordering effects. However, the sequence of integration dimensions remains consistent across the five choice rounds for each participant to reduce survey fatigue. Research assistants will meticulously follow designated codes/tags assigned to both community characteristics and their corresponding pictorial representations to arrange the images correctly. Specific community characteristics will be described while respondents view corresponding pictures. Pictures for two community options will be presented side-by-side to facilitate respondent choice in each forced-choice round.

References:
Allen, W., Ruiz, I., & Vargas Silva, C. (2022). Policy preferences in response to large migration inflows.
Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Boston: Addison-Wesley. Allport: The nature of prejudice - Google Scholar
Betts, A., Chaara, I., Omata, N., & Sterck, O. (2019). Refugee economies in Uganda: what difference does the self-reliance model make? In Refugee Studies Centre. Refugee Studies Centre. https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:6184be40-ff63-48d9-b42e-c2a26d8d22e5
Betts, A., Stierna, M. F., Omata, N., & Sterck, O. (2023). Refugees welcome? Inter-group interaction and host community attitude formation. World Development, 161, 106088.
Hovil, L., & Maple, N. (2022). Local Integration: A Durable Solution in need of Restoration?. Refugee Survey Quarterly, 41(2), 238-266. https://doi.org/10.1093/rsq/hdac008
Kadigo, M. M., & Maystadt, J. F. (2023). How to cope with a refugee population? Evidence from Uganda. World Development, 169, 106293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2023.106293
Paluck, E. L., Green, S. A., & Green, D. P. (2019). The contact hypothesis re-evaluated. Behavioural Public Policy, 3(2), 129-158.
Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of personality and social psychology, 90(5), 751.
UNHCR (2023). Global trends; Forced displacement in 2022. Produced by UNHCR on 14 June 2023. https://www.unhcr.org/global-trends-report-2022
Zhou, Y. Y., Grossman, G., & Ge, S. (2023). Inclusive refugee-hosting can improve local development and prevent public backlash. World Development, 166, 106203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2023.106203

2024-07-10

2024-08-24

The primary measures of interest are;
1. A measure of the level of preference of both refugees and Ugandans for refugee local integration in Uganda
2. A measure of the importance of intergroup contact in shaping the preference for refugee local integration in Uganda

The level of preference for refugee local integration will be measured using a conjoint experiment. In the choice-based conjoint, participants will choose between two community options in response to the prompt: "Imagine what refugee-host communities would look like. You will see two possible communities, Community 1 and Community 2. Look at the images and listen to their descriptions carefully. Which refugee-host community would you prefer living in?" Each community option will include six integration dimensions with randomly selected sets of community characteristics, representing varying degrees of integration based on the combined characteristics. In the rating-based conjoint, participants will indicate the importance of their choice by answering, "How would you rate each of these community options on a scale from 1 to 7, where 1 means 'you absolutely dislike' and 7 means 'you absolutely like'?"

To measure intergroup contact, a constructed variable will be used to define substantial forms of interaction between groups, considering both intensive and extensive social contact. This variable will be created based on responses to four questions: (1) whether the respondent has shared a meal with an outgroup member, (2) how often the respondent has had casual conversations with an outgroup member, (3) how often the respondent has had business exchanges with an outgroup member, and (4) whether the respondent has worked with an outgroup member. Questions about interactions in the past month will capture the intensive margin of intergroup contact, while those about interactions over the past twelve months will capture the extensive margin. This constructed index will classify respondents as having either high or low intergroup contact.

The secondary outcomes are;
1. The mechanisms through which their preferences are formulated.
2. The closeness of their preferences to their reality.
3. The influence of some demographic characteristics of preferences for refugee local integration.

The mechanisms behind respondents' preferences will be assessed by having them rate the following statements for each community option on a scale from 1 (absolutely disagree) to 7 (absolutely agree): i) This community would be peaceful/safe, ii) It would be easy to work, start a business, or find a job in this community, iii) This community would have improved services, iv) Trust among members in this community would be high, and v) This community’s rules/laws would be inclusive/favorable for all.

The alignment of their preferences with their reality will be assessed by asking participants to compare the community options to their actual situation, responding to the question: "Which of these community options is closest to your current situation?"

The influence of certain demographic characteristics on preferences for refugee local integration will be examined by gathering data on the following factors: location (urban vs. rural), gender (male vs. female), employment status (employed vs. unemployed), education level (secondary vs. below secondary), humanitarian index (high vs. low), and both self-assessed individual and household economic status (non-poor vs. poor).

The study involves two types of conjoint experiments and subsequent analyses: choice-based and rating-based conjoint experiments.

In the choice-based conjoint, respondents will be presented with pairs of communities containing randomly selected sets of integration scenarios across six dimensions. Each community option represents a more or less integrated refugee-host community based on the combination of characteristics within each dimension.

Respondents will make choices for five rounds, with characteristics randomized within each dimension to minimize survey fatigue. The order of integration dimensions remains constant across rounds for each respondent, but it is randomized between respondents to avoid bias. This randomization and ordering are automated within the survey system.

In the rating-based conjoint, respondents will rate each community option on a scale of 1 to 7, indicating their preference. This rating process occurs five times, following each choice round.

Each community characteristic will be described alongside a corresponding pictorial representation. Images for two community options will be presented side by side to aid respondent choice and rating in each round.

The experiment proceeds as follows;
1. A household survey will be conducted among the final sample of respondents. The conjoint experiment is positioned as the third section within the household survey, following the administrative module (enumerator details) and the respondent's background and skills section.

2. In the conjoint experiment segment, respondents will encounter pairs of communities randomly assembled from the six integration dimensions along with their corresponding sets of integration scenarios (referred to as community characteristics). Each community option represents a varying degree of integration within the refugee-host community, determined by the combination of community characteristics. Thus, each option includes randomly selected characteristics from all six integration dimensions. Here is an example illustrating how the community choices will be displayed to the respondents.

Community1 (more integrated)
(Location freedom) Refugees’ and hosts’ households living in a mixed setting in the same neighborhood.
(Political expression freedom) Refugees VOTE in local and national elections.
(Labour market freedom) Refugees work as employees and operate their own businesses.
(Integrated services) Refugees and hosts sharing schools, hospitals and water points.
(Cultural fluidity) Refugees and hosts can communicate in each other’s language.
(Citizenship) Refugees have national IDs and are no longer referred to as refugees.

Community2 (less integrated)
(Location freedom) Refugees’ households clustered together and separate from the hosts’ households in the same neighborhood.
(Political expression freedom) Refugees DO NOT VOTE in local and national elections. (Labour market freedom) Refugees ONLY work as employees but DO NOT operate their own businesses.
(Integrated services) Refugees and hosts having separate schools, hospitals and water points.
(Cultural fluidity) Refugees and hosts can ONLY communicate in the hosts’ language.
(Citizenship) Refugees have refugee IDs and will always be refugees.

3. The enumerator will proceed to show the images corresponding to the community scenarios outlined to the respondents, following the sequence of the community characteristics. This ensures that the respondent's comprehension of each community characteristic description is reinforced by a meticulously crafted visual depiction of the scenario.

4. Each respondent will be prompted to select one of the two community options provided to them, resulting in a choice outcome. Specifically, respondents will answer the question: “Imagine how refugee-host communities would look like. Next you will see two possible communities, Community 1 and 2. Look at the images and listen to their descriptions carefully. Which refugee-host community would you prefer living in?” A dummy variable is then generated, assigned a value of 1 for the chosen integration package/community and 0 for the other.

5. Respondents will make this choice for five rounds, with the characteristics of each community randomized within each integration dimension. However, to reduce survey fatigue, the sequence of integration dimensions remains consistent across the five rounds for each respondent. Nonetheless, the presentation order of integration dimensions is randomized between respondents to counteract any potential ordering effects.

6. In the rating-based conjoint, respondents will be instructed to assign a rating to each community option using a scale ranging from 1 to 7, where 1 represents "absolutely dislike" and 7 signifies "absolutely like." The specific question presented to respondents will be: "How would you rate each of these community options on a scale from 1 to 7, where 1 means 'you absolutely dislike' and 7 means 'you absolutely like'?" Respondents will be prompted to provide these ratings following each choice round, resulting in them rating the options five times in total.

7. The respondents will also be prompted to identify potential reasons for choosing one community over the other. Specifically, they will rate statements for the chosen community on a scale from 1 (absolutely disagree) to 7 (absolutely agree): i) This community would be peaceful/safe, ii) It would be easy to work, start a business, or find a job in this community, iii) This community would have improved services, iv) Trust among members in this community would be high, and v) This community’s rules/laws would be inclusive/favorable for all. This step aims to elucidate the factors influencing respondents' choices.

8. Finally, the alignment of their preferences with their reality will be assessed by asking participants to compare the community options to their actual situation, responding to the question: "Which of these community options is closest to your current situation?"

9. Intergroup contact will be assessed in the fifth section of the survey, separate from the conjoint experiment section. This segment will focus on significant forms of interaction between different groups, considering both intensive and extensive aspects of social contact. Respondents will respond to a series of four questions: (1) Have you shared meals in your or their home with a [Ugandan/Refugee] in the past month? [Yes, No] (2) How often, if at all, did you engage in casual conversations or chats with a [Ugandan/Refugee] in the past month? [never, rarely, sometimes, often, everyday] (3) How often, if at all, did you engage in business exchanges (buying from or selling to) with a [Ugandan/Refugee] in the past month? [never, rarely, sometimes, often, everyday] (4) Have you worked with (as a colleague, employer, or employee of) a [Ugandan/Refugee] in the past month? [Yes, No]. These questions capture interactions within both the past month and the past 12 months, representing the intensive and extensive margins of intergroup interaction, respectively. The order of the questions will be randomized for each respondent. An aggregate score will be computed from the responses to categorize respondents into high-contact and low-contact groups.

Computer-based

The unit of randomization is the Individual.
I stratify by refugee status (refugee or Ugandan), and location (Kampala or Isingiro).

No

The treatment is not clustered. The planned number of respondents is 700 individuals; 350 refugees and 350 Ugandans, approximately equally distributed between Kampala and Isingiro district.

Given the structure of the conjoint, the planned number of observations is 7000 observations in the dataset from a planned total sample of 700 respondents. In a conjoint experiment, the number of observations in the dataset is equivalent to the effective sample size. Since each respondent will view two (2) community profiles each round, for five (5) rounds in total, the effective sample size is (2*5)*700=7000. From each respondent, we shall have 10 observations, one for each community profile per choice round. Note that the planned total number of observations is above the minimum as determined by the power calculations. This is to account for possible failure to reach and/or non-response given the refugee-host context in Uganda.

Conjoint experiment. No treatment arms.

The power analysis, based on Schuessler and Freitag (2020) and using their R package (Freitag & Schuessler, 2020), indicates that to detect Average Marginal Component Effects (AMCEs) of 0.05 in a conjoint experiment with two community profiles at a 5 percent significance level, an effective sample size of 3150 observations is required to achieve 80% power. This ensures that the probability of Type S errors (incorrect sign) is 0% and the exaggeration ratio (Type M error) is approximately 1.13. Note that the median of published AMCEs is reported as 0.05 by Schuessler and Freitag (2020). The effective sample size refers to the total number of observations in the dataset. To calculate the actual number of respondents, this effective sample size is divided by the number of profiles each respondent will evaluate. For a conjoint with an effective sample size of 3150, where each respondent chooses between 2 profiles across 5 rounds, the number of respondents needed is 3150 / (2*5) = 315 respondents. Therefore, with an effective sample size of 3150, I need 315 respondents, as each will view five pairs of community options. To achieve a balanced sample of refugees and host respondents, I would thus have to recruit approximately 630 participants in total. However, I aim for a total sample of 700 respondents to account for potential non-response, incomplete surveys, and attrition. Reference: Schuessler, J., & Freitag, M. (2020). Power analysis for conjoint experiments. https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/9yuhp/