Table 1.
Summary statistics
| Factor | Item | N | Mean | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Demographic characteristics and covariates | HHH male (%) | 1010 | 83.1 | 80.6–85.3 |
| HHH age | 977 | 44.2 | 43.3–45.1 | |
| HHH completed at least primary school (%) | 968 | 83.6 | 81.1–85.9 | |
| Anyone in HH employed/self-employed (%) | 1010 | 31.5 | 28.6–34.5 | |
| Anyone in HH fishes (%) | 1010 | 19.9 | 17.5–22.5 | |
| Northern village (%) | 1010 | 63.1 | 60.0–66.1 | |
| Model HH (%) | 1010 | 10.1 | 8.5–12.3 | |
| HH size | 1010 | 6.2 | 6.0–6.4 | |
| Social cohesion–participation | Influence on village (%) | 1010 | 35.8 | 32.9–38.9 |
| TANAPA positive relationship (%) | 1010 | 40.3 | 37.3–43.4 | |
| Organization member (%) | 1010 | 16.1 | 13.9–18.6 | |
| Attended public meeting (%) | 1010 | 35.9 | 33.0–39.0 | |
| Member of BMU (%) | 1010 | 12.1 | 10.1–14.3 | |
| Social cohesion–trust | Trust people in my village (%) | 1010 | 36.2 | 33.3–39.3 |
| Trust people in other villages (%) | 1010 | 17.8 | 15.5–20.3 | |
| Trust village government (%) | 1010 | 44.2 | 41.1–47.3 | |
| Natural resource protection attitudes | Forests should be conserved (%) | 1010 | 88.1 | 86.0–90.1 |
| Wildlife should be conserved (%) | 1010 | 88.4 | 86.3–90.3 | |
| National park should be conserved (%) | 1010 | 89.3 | 87.2–91.1 | |
| Deforestation causes siltation (%) | 1010 | 68.3 | 65.3–71.2 | |
| Siltation harms fish (%) | 1010 | 35.5 | 32.6–38.6 | |
| National park benefits community (%) | 1010 | 54.2 | 51.1–57.3 | |
| Forest is sufficient for daily needs (%) | 1010 | 43.9 | 40.8–47.0 | |
| Food security and livelihoods and assets | Meet daily needs (%) | 1010 | 60.1 | 57.6–63.7 |
| Food shortages (%) | 1010 | 42.3 | 39.2–45.4 | |
| Food Consumption Score (range: 0–112) | 1008 | 51.8 | 51.1–52.6 | |
| Low dietary diversity (%) | 1008 | 39.9 | 36.8–43.0 | |
| Number of crops | 1010 | 3.6 | 3.5–3.7 | |
| Number of livestock | 1010 | 6.3 | 6.1–6.4 | |
| Size of farm/forest land (per HH member) | 809 | 1.5 | 1.4–1.6 | |
| Assets index | 1010 | 0.0 | −0.06–0.06 | |
| # income sources | 1010 | 1.7 | 1.6–1.7 | |
| Water, sanitation, and hygiene | Safe water source, dry season (%) | 1010 | 67.6 | 64.6–70.5 |
| Safe water source, wet season (%) | 1010 | 72.4 | 69.5–75.1 | |
| Improved toilet (%) | 1010 | 18.8 | 16.4–21.4 | |
| Water and soap/ash/sand (%) | 1010 | 46.4 | 43.3–49.6 | |
| Adult use of mosquito bed nets* (%) | 765 | 88.9 | 86.4–91.0 | |
| Women’s highest education level | 977 | 1.6 | 1.5–1.6 | |
| Climate change awareness | Heard of CC (%) | 1010 | 26.7 | 24.0–29.6 |
| Observed changes in weather (%) | 1010 | 55.3 | 52.2–58.4 | |
| CC will have negative effect (%) | 1010 | 33.3 | 30.4–36.3 | |
| Behavior change due to CC (%) | 642 | 12.8 | 10.3–15.6 | |
| Family planning and access to MCH care | Know about FP (%) | 1009 | 63.4 | 60.4–66.4 |
| Approve of FP (%)† | 1009 | 74.5 | 71.7–77.2 | |
| Used FP (%)‡ | 678 | 41.4 | 30.9–52.4 | |
| Better access to FP and health services (%) | 1010 | 55.9 | 52.8–59.0 | |
| Unmet family planning need (%) | 611 | 51.1 | 47.0–55.1 | |
| Visited health facility (%) | 765 | 72.2 | 68.8–75.3 | |
| Home health visit (%) | 765 | 10.2 | 8.1–12.6 | |
| # of children | 706 | 4.1 | 4.0–4.3 | |
| Birth spacing (months) | 345 | 30.3 | 29.0–31.7 | |
| Want more children (%) | 1009 | 69.5 | 66.5–72.3 | |
FP family planning, MCH maternal and child health
*Adult use of mosquito bed netting is a proxy for health behavior
†All respondents were given a definition of family planning between the familiarity and the approval questions. This explains how approval can be higher than familiarity
‡The reason family planning use is lower than approval of family planning in part is due to a high desired fertility. The average ideal number of children is high for both women and men (7.4 and 8.4, respectively), and post-survey qualitative research showed approval of family planning relates more to the health benefits for mother and child caused by better spacing, than to the possibility of having smaller families