Using Informal Institutions to Address Resettlement Issues – The Case of Ghana Dams Dialogue
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study set off to address resettlement issues through the effective utilization of informal institutions, vis-à-vis the Ghana Dams Dialogue, but specifically sourced information from respondents inhabiting both Kpong and VRA resettlement townships (KAVRTs) in Ghana. Among other objectives, the study investigated the key economic and social implications of resettlement schemes on displaced individuals, in addition to the critical factors affecting informal institutions in addressing resettlement issues in Ghana. Per the study’s execution, the researcher adopted both qualitative and quantitative method of research as well as convenience sampling technique to select respondents at the institution for their views on the study. A questionnaire was adopted as the main survey instrument while 5-Point Likert scale which was later transform into the Relative Importance Index (RII) was employed to facilitate the analysis of data obtained from the field. Findings of the study indicated the 6 key economic and social implications of resettlement schemes on displaced individuals’ determinants at KAVRTs as high morbidity/mortality rates, loss of economic power, compromising and destroying of farming systems, livelihood deficits and marginalization, psychological and socio-cultural stress as well as disorganization and framework of indigenous markets dissimilar from the erstwhile format. Furthermore, with respect to the critical factors affecting informal institutions in addressing resettlement issues at KAVRTs, 6 notable constructs were also intimated by the respondents’, namely: in effective planning regimes, restrictive implications of livelihood restoration programs, procedural delays associated with compensation, lack of transparency in land allocation/farming techniques and partiality, inadequate compensation and rehabilitation assistance in addition to questionable housing policy. Having noted the critical factors informal institutions face in addressing resettlement issues at KAVRTs, the study recommended it strictly adheres to the promotion of interactions among stakeholders on compensation issues, swift maturation of GDD policy levels, GDD strengthening of its engagement with relevant agencies, effective participation, upholding of citizenship rights, identification and evaluation of asset contribution, provision of social amenities, active NGO participation, promotion of shared cultural values, vis-a-vis livelihood support programs (LSP) among others captured in the study to manage the critical issues raised.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".