In the author's opinion, the pilot survey has provided an acceptable economic and social description of the fish-farmers in the Northern Province. The documentation available about the province as a whole has made it possible to compare respondents with the relevant section in the Northern Province's population in its entirety. Clear differences have been noted, but on the other hand, distinctions have not emerged amongst the three goups (practising, former and potential). The analysis has not established whether this is because the sample is too small, or whether, in fact, there are no noticeable differences.
The results achieved are satisfactory given the effort made. It is positive to note that there are only a few and minor contradictions in the information provided by respondents.
This strengthens the authors' conviction that the information is as accurate as the respondents have been able to provide, and that, in fact, they have understood the questions in the way intended. For some questions it was necessary to use a simpler language than that in the questionnaires.
The conclusions detailed in the report “Results of a Socio-Economic Pilot Survey on Fish-Farmers in Rural Communities in the Northern Province of Zambia, October 1987” give weight to the hypothesis that for the average farmer the economic considerations are more important than the social ones when considering issues such as: shall I start, continue, or stop culturing tilapia? Here, “social” is understood to refer only to the fish-culture activity itself, and not to those social consequences which might arise from the increased well-being that fish-culture may entail.
In order to complete the survey's coverage of economic aspects of the fish-farmers' behaviour it is suggested that the coverage be complemented in two areas: (i) the origin of the pond/reservoir used for culture, and (ii) the intended and actual uses of the water in that pond in addition to its function as a medium for fish-culture.
The questions (in parts 4,5,6 and 7) are based on the assumption that the initiation of culture necessarily needs to start with the construction of a pond/reservoir specifically for fish-culture. This is not the case. The construction of the pond/reservoir is the major effort associated with pond culture of tilapia. Therefore the decision to start culture is easier (in the economic sense) if the water-holding structure is already available, or available with minor additions/modifications.
Also, and this is equally important, the water in the ponds can be, and probably often is, used for purposes other than only fish-culture. This aspect is not explored in the survey as it stands. Again it is an important aspect. If the pond/reservoir to be constructed is multipurpose, it should not be deduced that the effort expended by the farmer in construction will be totally compensated by the fish which it will permit him to produce in years to come.
