冈比亚乡村活动的筹资机制及其对蚊帐浸渍杀虫剂筹资的影响。

A Mills, J Fox-Rushby, M Aikins, U D'Alessandro, K Cham, B Greenwood
{"title":"冈比亚乡村活动的筹资机制及其对蚊帐浸渍杀虫剂筹资的影响。","authors":"A Mills,&nbsp;J Fox-Rushby,&nbsp;M Aikins,&nbsp;U D'Alessandro,&nbsp;K Cham,&nbsp;B Greenwood","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The recent enthusiasm for impregnated bednets as a malaria control measure leaves unresolved the question of how to finance them. The National Impregnated Bednet Programme in The Gambia faced the question of how to obtain funds from villages to finance the cost of insecticide, but knew very little about current village fundraising for development purposes. A survey was conducted of such fundraising, and questions also asked about willingness to pay for insecticide and preferred means of paying. All 53 villages surveyed paid taxes/rates, but 34% of villages reported no voluntary fundraising. The most common reason for collecting money was for the maintenance of wells (40% of villages). Collective farming was used as a means of raising money in 32% of villages. There was some variation in the type and extent of fundraising by region and also by the predominant ethnic groups of the village. Villages with voluntary fundraising activities seemed to have well established collective mechanisms for agreeing on sums to be collected and their use, and for collecting and recording income and expenditure. Non-payment was rare, and misuse of funds was not reported. Respondents were asked how much compounds might be willing to pay for insecticide impregnantion: the most frequently cited maximum amounts were D5 and 10, and minimum D1 and 5 (D15 = 1 pound). The paper discusses payment options for insecticide, such as whether the village should be allowed to decide itself how to raise funds, and whether the payment should be made only by households with nets or by a village-wide mechanism such as collective farming.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)</p>","PeriodicalId":76688,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of tropical medicine and hygiene","volume":"97 6","pages":"325-32"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1994-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Financing mechanisms for village activities in The Gambia and their implications for financing insecticide for bednet impregnation.\",\"authors\":\"A Mills,&nbsp;J Fox-Rushby,&nbsp;M Aikins,&nbsp;U D'Alessandro,&nbsp;K Cham,&nbsp;B Greenwood\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The recent enthusiasm for impregnated bednets as a malaria control measure leaves unresolved the question of how to finance them. The National Impregnated Bednet Programme in The Gambia faced the question of how to obtain funds from villages to finance the cost of insecticide, but knew very little about current village fundraising for development purposes. A survey was conducted of such fundraising, and questions also asked about willingness to pay for insecticide and preferred means of paying. All 53 villages surveyed paid taxes/rates, but 34% of villages reported no voluntary fundraising. The most common reason for collecting money was for the maintenance of wells (40% of villages). Collective farming was used as a means of raising money in 32% of villages. There was some variation in the type and extent of fundraising by region and also by the predominant ethnic groups of the village. Villages with voluntary fundraising activities seemed to have well established collective mechanisms for agreeing on sums to be collected and their use, and for collecting and recording income and expenditure. Non-payment was rare, and misuse of funds was not reported. Respondents were asked how much compounds might be willing to pay for insecticide impregnantion: the most frequently cited maximum amounts were D5 and 10, and minimum D1 and 5 (D15 = 1 pound). The paper discusses payment options for insecticide, such as whether the village should be allowed to decide itself how to raise funds, and whether the payment should be made only by households with nets or by a village-wide mechanism such as collective farming.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":76688,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Journal of tropical medicine and hygiene\",\"volume\":\"97 6\",\"pages\":\"325-32\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1994-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Journal of tropical medicine and hygiene\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of tropical medicine and hygiene","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

最近人们热衷于将浸渍过的蚊帐作为一种疟疾控制措施,却没有解决如何为其提供资金的问题。冈比亚的国家浸渍蚊帐项目面临着如何从村庄获得资金来支付杀虫剂费用的问题,但对目前为发展目的筹集的村庄资金知之甚少。对此类筹款活动进行了调查,问题还包括支付杀虫剂费用的意愿和偏好的支付方式。接受调查的53个村庄都缴纳了税款/税率,但34%的村庄报告没有自愿筹款。筹集资金最常见的原因是为了维护水井(40%的村庄)。32%的村庄采用集体农业作为筹资手段。在筹款的类型和程度上,不同地区和村庄的主要民族群体有所不同。有自愿筹款活动的村庄似乎已经建立了很好的集体机制,以商定要收集的款项及其用途,并收集和记录收入和支出。很少有不付款的情况,也没有滥用资金的报告。受访者被问及化合物可能愿意为杀虫剂浸渍支付多少钱:最常被引用的最高金额是D5和10,最低金额是D1和5 (D15 = 1磅)。这篇论文讨论了杀虫剂的支付方式,例如是否应该允许村庄自己决定如何筹集资金,以及是否应该只由有蚊帐的家庭支付,还是由集体农业等全村机制支付。(摘要删节250字)
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Financing mechanisms for village activities in The Gambia and their implications for financing insecticide for bednet impregnation.

The recent enthusiasm for impregnated bednets as a malaria control measure leaves unresolved the question of how to finance them. The National Impregnated Bednet Programme in The Gambia faced the question of how to obtain funds from villages to finance the cost of insecticide, but knew very little about current village fundraising for development purposes. A survey was conducted of such fundraising, and questions also asked about willingness to pay for insecticide and preferred means of paying. All 53 villages surveyed paid taxes/rates, but 34% of villages reported no voluntary fundraising. The most common reason for collecting money was for the maintenance of wells (40% of villages). Collective farming was used as a means of raising money in 32% of villages. There was some variation in the type and extent of fundraising by region and also by the predominant ethnic groups of the village. Villages with voluntary fundraising activities seemed to have well established collective mechanisms for agreeing on sums to be collected and their use, and for collecting and recording income and expenditure. Non-payment was rare, and misuse of funds was not reported. Respondents were asked how much compounds might be willing to pay for insecticide impregnantion: the most frequently cited maximum amounts were D5 and 10, and minimum D1 and 5 (D15 = 1 pound). The paper discusses payment options for insecticide, such as whether the village should be allowed to decide itself how to raise funds, and whether the payment should be made only by households with nets or by a village-wide mechanism such as collective farming.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信