Upload
phamliem
View
215
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Livelihood Assessment A participatory tool for natural resource dependent communities
Jutta Lax, Dr. Joachim Krug
7Thünen Working Paper
Jutta Lax und Dr. Joachim Krug
Thünen Working Paper 7
Hamburg/Germany, Juli 2013
Jutta Lax und Dr. Joachim Krug Thünen-‐Institut für Weltforstwirtschaft Leuschnerstr. 91 D-‐21031 Hamburg Phone: +49 40 73962 165 Fax: +49 40 73962 199 e-‐mail: [email protected]
Content:
Foreword ................................................................................................................................ 4
1 Introduction ......................................................................................... 5
2 Backgroundandparticipatoryapproaches ............................................ 6
3 Materialandmethods .......................................................................... 7
3.1 Whatinformationisneededandinwhatformat ..........................................................7
3.2 FiveCapitals/AssetsofLivelihood ..................................................................................8
Human Capital ........................................................................................................9
Social Capital ...........................................................................................................9
PhysicalCapital .......................................................................................................9
Natural Capital ........................................................................................................9
Financial Capital ......................................................................................................9
3.3 SystemofLivelihoodstrategies ................................................................................... 10
4 Objectiveoftheassessmenttool ........................................................ 12
4.1 Spidergram .................................................................................................................. 13
4.2 Frequencydiagram ..................................................................................................... 15
5 PitfallsandRecommendations ............................................................ 16
5.1 Recommendations ...................................................................................................... 16
Sourceoferror:Implementationoftheassessmenttool ........................................... 17
Ordinalcharacterofthevariables .............................................................................. 17
Basicguidelinesforthecreationofaquestionnaire/setofindicators ............................. 18
6 Outlook .............................................................................................. 18
7 Abbreviations ..................................................................................... 19
8 References ......................................................................................... 20
4 Foreword
Foreword
Globally, around15millionhectaresof forests–mainly tropical forests - are converted tootherusesorlostthroughnaturalcauseseachyear.Withoutforestsmankindhasnochancetosurvive.However,thepoorestofthepooraredirectlydependentonforestsasaresourceoffood,medicine,constructionmaterialandenergy.
Management, conservation, and sustainable development of forests are key issues of theinternationalenvironmentalandforestpolicysincetheUnitedNationsConferenceonEnvironmentandDevelopmentinRiodeJaneirointheyear1992tocounteractthedestructionofforests.
Inordertomaintaintropicalforestsandtoconservetheirfunctions,structureandbiodiversityasacollectivegoodofhumankind,forestsneedtobemanagedinasustainableway.Conservationeffortsarefacedwiththethreefoldtaskofincorporatingecological,economicandsocialsustainabilityaspectsequallyintodevelopmentapproaches(EvansandGuariguata2008,Bebbington1999,Angelsenetal.2011,Wollenbergetal.2005,SalafskyandWollenberg2000).Therelevanceoflivelihoodissuesto sustainabledevelopmenthas its basis in theUnitedNationsConferenceonEnvironment andDevelopment1992andisatpresentanessentialelementindevelopmentapproaches(e.g.MDG-MilleniumDevelopmentGoals)(Caplowetal.2011).InlinewithCampbelltheunderstandingofrurallivelihoodsisoneofthekeystoputtinganendtoglobalpoverty.Thoughenvironmentalresourcescanmakeupaconsiderableproportionofrurallivelihoodsitisnecessarytoevaluatethisenvironmentaldependency(Angelsenetal.2011).
Thisfieldmanual introducesaparticipatory tool for theassessmentof local livelihoodsituationsof rural forestdependentcommunities.Theassessment toolwas initially implemented inacasestudyinNorthernVietnam.Vietnam,representativeformanyothertropicalcountriesconsideredadevelopingcountry,whereover60%ofthepopulation’slivelihoodstrategyisbasedonagriculturalandforestactivities(Caplowetal.2011).
5CHAPTER1 Introduction
1. IntroductionGlobalisationhasledtoanincreaseindemandforfoodandnaturalresources.AccordingtoWorldBank (2005)natural resources stillaccount for26%of the totalwealth in low incomecountrieswhereas in developed countries only 3%of thewealth is providedbynatural resources. Thosedemandsfornaturalresources,suchaswood,cancauseenvironmentalchanges;nonsustainableland-usemanagementandexploitation induceforestdegradationand lossofbiodiversity(UniyalandSingh2011,BrownandPearce1994).Additionallytothedirectbenefits,forestsalsoprovideindirectbenefitstotheglobalenvironment.
The conservation of tropical forests cannot be reached by simply compensating local peopledepending on forest resources for their forest’s environmental services provided to the worldcommunity–orbycompensatinganutilisationrestriction.AccordingtoTacconi(2000)andCaplow(2011)toolittleattentionwaspaidtothesocialaspectwithintheimplementationofconservationpoliciesinthepast.Economicinstrumentshavethetendencytobeshort-termremediesforachievingnatural resource conservation. Financial compensation is taken as a welcoming complement tonormalincome;however,itdoesnotnecessarilychangetheutilisationpatternsofnaturalresources(Caplowetal.2011).Theaimshouldratherbethedevelopmentofsustainableforestmanagementstrategieswhichinequalmannersinvolvetheecological,economicandsocialsustainability.Inordertoconservethevalueofnaturalforestsonlybythemeansofreducingtheimpactofhouseholdsmakingtheirlivingonforestproducts,itisessentialtoanalysealternativeincomeopportunities.
Keepingthecomplexityofthedevelopmentapproachinmind,methodsandtoolsarerequiredwhichallowtheassessmentoflivelihoodstrategiesofrural,resourcedependentcommunities.Alackofbasicinformationmainlyfromruralareasiscommonoccurrenceespeciallyindevelopingcountries.Inrecentyearsparticipatorymethodshavegainedrecognitioninincorporatinglocalcommunitiesintodecisionmakingprocesses. There is a varietyofdifferent research tools/methodsavailablewhichcanbeadaptedtospecificsiteconditions(EvansandGuariguata2008).
Theintroducedassessmenttoolwasdevelopedoverathree-yearperiodwithintheresearchproject:“AssessmentofConservationandDevelopmentGoalsintheGTZ-TamDaoNationalParkandBufferZone Management Project”. The Vietnamese and German governments founded the Tam DaoNationalParkandBufferZoneManagementProject(TDMP)in2003.IncooperationwiththeThaiNguyenUniversityofEconomicsandBusinessAdministration,Vietnam(TUEBA)theobjectivewastoassesstheproject’sconservationanddevelopmentachievementswithinthenationalparkanditsbufferzone,involvingprimarystakeholdersintotheparticipatoryplanningprocedure.TheGTZinHanoisupportedtheprojectlogisticallyandprovidedavailableprojectdata.Backthenaccordingto theprojectaimthemethodwascalledCICD–Critical interlinkagebetweenConservationandDevelopmentbut it canaswell beapplied for livelihood settingsnot integrated intodevelopingprojects.TheCICDmethodwasimprovedandappliedasanassessmenttoolinmoreprojectssince.
6 CHAPTER2 Backgroundandparticipatorymethods
2. BackgroundandparticipatoryapproachesTheassessment toolwasdesigned for theevaluationof the impactofdifferentnatural resourcemanagementapproachesonaspecifictargetgroup.Thefocusliesonlocalconcernsbycommunitiesandindividualswithregardtonaturalresourcemanagement.
TheassessmenttoolemergedasadvancementorcombinationofprinciplesusedintheParticipatoryRuralAppraisal(PRA)andthebasicconceptofthesustainablelivelihoodapproach(SLA)asitwascalled by the British Department for International Development (DFID). According to Chambers(1994)thePRAasatermisbeingusedtodescribethegrowingfamilyofapproachesandmethodsthatenablelocalpeopletobringintheirknowledgeandperceptionintodecisionmakingprocesses(Chambers1994).Thebasicideaofthesustainablelivelihoodapproachisbasedonfivepillars,thefive livelihoodassets:humancapital, social capital,physical capital,natural capital, andfinancialcapital.
Chambers andConway (1991) stated that a livelihood is sustainablewhen it can copewith andrecoverfromstressesandshocks.Ifitcanmaintainorenhanceitscapabilitiesandassetsbothnowandinthefuture,whilenotunderminingthenaturalresourcebase.Inotherwords,developmenttargetsshouldbemovingawayfromalltoooftensurvivalorientatedlivelihoodstrategiestowardsasustainable,ideallyimprovedlivelihoodsituation(SalafskyandWollenberg2000,Bebbington1999).AccordingtoBebbington(1999)oneoftheprincipalreasonswhyruralpeoplehavenotbeenabletoimprovetheirlivelihoodderivesfromthefailureorinabilitytodefendtheirexistingcapitalsortoturnthemintonewlivelihoodsources,e.g.turningfinancialcapitalintonaturalresourceenhancement.
Participatorymethodsoffertoolsfortherequiredunderstandingonlocallevelandfurtherserveasamediumwithinwhichsocialvaluesandscientificstrategiescanbecombined(Evansetal.2006,Wollenbergetal.2005,SalafskyandWollenberg2000).
The concept of assessing the livelihood strategies of rural communities is of practical value inresource conservation though rural communities aremainly responsible for the degradation oftheseresources.Itisofinteresttoanalysetheconstellationsofcapitalsofthosewhomanagedtoescapepovertyand,ifso,whetherthecapitalsaretransferrabletootherlivelihoodsettings(SayerandCampbell2003).Furthermore,anevaluationofasubstitutionpotentialofasinglecapitalbyanothercapitalisofinterest,assumingforexampleacertainconstellationofsocialorhumancapitalthatmaycompensatealackoffinancialcapital(SayerandCampbell2003).
Throughout the last decade doubts concerning the sustainable livelihood approach becameapparent.Aconceptbasedonamicrolevelledfocus,concentratingonsmallcommunitiesandsinglehouseholdsprovokedcontroversialdiscussionsabouttheeffectivenessofthesustainablelivelihooddevelopment approach. However, the sustainable livelihood approach based on participatorymethods is amost useful analytical tool for an active understanding of links between differentaspectsoflivelihoodsituationsconnectedtopoverty(ChambersandConway1991,Chambers1994,EvansandGuariguata2008,ClarkandCarney2008).Bynow,participatorymethodshavedevelopedto a state-of-the-art research tool for the assessment of livelihood strategieswithin rural forest
7CHAPTER3 Materialandmethods
dependentcommunities(Evansetal.2006).Thebasicprinciplesofthismethodgoasfarbackastheearly1980’swhenRobertChambersfirstintroducedtheconservationconceptwithinwhichthelocallivelihoodisconsideredasakeyelement.InlinewithAdamandKneeshaw(2008)“Livelihoodstrategiescomprisetherangeandcombinationofactivitiesandchoicesthatpeopleundertaketoachievetheirlivelihoodgoals”.TheSustainableLivelihoodApproach(SLA)/SustainableLivelihoodFramework(SLF)assumesthatpeople’slivelihoodisasetoffivelivelihoodcapitals/orassets(SayerandCampbell2003,Kollmair2002,SalafskyandWollenberg2000).Itshouldbekeptinmind,thattheevaluationofthefivelivelihoodcapitalsisnotsuitableforajudgementofthedegreeofpovertyassuch.Theabsenceofauniformstandardbetweenthesinglecapitalsobviatesajudgement.Atbesttheevaluationofthecapitalscanprovideasconceptualtoolcollectinginformationonlivelihoodchangesoveraperiodoftime(SayerandCampbell2003,Angelsenetal.2011,AngelsenandWunder2003).InthefollowingtheconceptoftheassessmenttoolwillbeillustratedbyaidofanexamplefromNorthernVietnam.The initial project site, theTamDaoNational Park (created in1996), islocatedabout70kmnorth-westernofHanoiinNorthernVietnam.Thenationalparkrepresentedinitsoriginalstateaspecies-richclimaxforests,bothrichinplantsandanimalwildlife.LikewisemanytropicalrainforestsallovertheworldtheTamDaoNationalParkencountersseveredegradationofitsnaturalresources.ProgressivepopulationpressureplusinadequateresourcemanagementmustbeseenasthemaindrivingforcesforthecurrentthreateningconditionofVietnam’sforests(Chien2006).
3. Materialandmethods
3.1 WhatinformationisneededandinwhatformatAs mentioned earlier, the chosen participatory tool is a combination of already existent PRA(ParticipatoryRuralAppraisal)methods applied in the context of the SLA (sustainable livelihoodapproach). Thedatagathered throughparticipatorymethodsmainly consistof two componentswhichdifferusuallyintheircharacter.Measuresofproductsaregenerallyacceptedasquantitativenumbers (numeric value)whereas values as livelihoodperceptions, cultural non–use values andindividualoptionsareofqualitativecharacter(categoricalvalues,ordinalandnominal).Avalueorobservationcanbedescribedasordinalifthedatacanbeputinorder(e.g.combinedwitharankingscale).Ordinaldatacanbecountedandordereddeliberatelybutcannotbemeasuredspecifically.
Studying livelihoods starts with the identification of the relevant stakeholders. The relations,hierarchies and personal histories of the participants shape the stakeholder’s role in forestmanagement on questions such as, property rights, responsibilities and revenue. Though theinterpretationoftheanalysedindicatorscandifferdependingontheinterestofthestakeholder,itisinevitabletoidentifydifferentstakeholderorfocalgroups.Theselectionoftheparticipantswithinsuchfocalgroupsshouldberandomly.
8 CHAPTER3 Materialandmethods
3.2 FiveCapitalAssetsofLivelihoodInthefollowing,theassessmentmethodwillbedescribedbasedonthefundamentalconceptRobertChambersintroducedinthe1980’s.Thefivelivelihoodcapitals,namingHumancapital,SocialCapital,PhysicalCapital,NaturalCapitalandFinancialCapital(Figure1)formthepillarsoftheinvestigatingtoolforthesustainabledevelopmentapproach,commonlyacceptedasthelivelihoodframework.Apparentlytherearemanyslightlydifferentvariationsindefinitionforthefivelivelihoodcapitals.Inthishandbookthedefinitionofthecapitalsusedisasfollowed:
Figure1: Fivecapitalsofthesustainablelivelihoodframework (examplecapitalassetslisted).Fig1
Human Capital
Social Capital
Physical Capital
Natural Capital
Financial Capital
Human Capital -‐Knowledge -‐Skills -‐Health -‐Labour availability
Social Capital -‐Adherence to rules -‐Relationship of trust -‐Mutuality of interest -‐Leadership -‐Ethnic networks -‐Social organisations
Physical Capital -‐Household assets -‐Agricultural implements -‐Infrastructure
Natural Capital -‐Soil fertility -‐Water resources -‐Forest resources -‐Grazing resources -‐Land quality
Financial Capital -‐Credit -‐Savings -‐Remittances
5 Capitals of
Livelihood
9CHAPTER3 Materialandmethods
Human Capital
AccordingtotheSustainableLivelihoodApproach(SLA)(SayerandCampbell2003)“HumanCapitalrepresentstheskills,knowledge,abilitytolabourandgoodhealththattogetherenablepeopletopursuedifferentlivelihoodstrategiesandachievetheirlivelihoodobjectives”.HumancapitalmustbeseenasakeystonewithintheSLA,forthereasonthattheothercapitalsare,attheleast,partlybasedonthehumancapitalasabasicrequirement.Especiallyforrural,resourcedependentpeopletheassessmentofthiscapitalimplicatesdifficulties,asforexampleindigenousknowledgeisdifficulttoevaluate(Kollmair2002).
Social CapitalSocialCapitalis,asHumanCapital,difficulttograspwithdistinctiveindicators.ConformingtotheSLASocialCapitalimplicatessocialresources,“includinginformalnetworks,membershipofformalisedgroupsand relationshipsof trust that facilitateco-operation” (ClarkandCarney2008,SayerandCampbell2003).Thenatureofsocialcapitalisoftendeterminedbythesocialclassofthestakeholder,ofteninfluencedbygender,ageand/orcaste.Theinclusionofstakeholdersintoanetworkorgroupimplicatestheexclusionofotherswhichcanresultinaninterferenceofdevelopment.Thehighlocalvalueofthesocialcapitalclearlyderivesofitscapacityofcompensatingcalamitiesorshortageofother capitals.However,notonly thepotentialof communal solidarity represents thehigh localvalueofthiscapital,Bebbington(1999)clearlyindicatesastrongconnectionbetweensocialcapitaland poverty, apparently studies indicate the involvement into village organisations lead to anenhancement of income.
Physical CapitalPhysicalcapitalisameasurefortheexistenceofphysicalrequirementsneededtosupportlivelihoodinasenseofinfrastructure.Theroleofthisassetcanbeseeninthecontextofopportunitycosts,whereanexistingaccessibleinfrastructurereleaseseitherlabourorprovidestimeasaresourceforexampleeducation.
Natural CapitalNatural capital describes especially for resourcedependent communities the stock all livelihoodactivities are built on. This capital represents in particular for rural communities, with a highproportionforpoorstakeholders,anessentialvaluewhichinfactispronetocalamities.Notseldomthesecalamitiesarecausedbynaturalprocessese.g.floods,fires,seasonalstorms,earthquakes.
Financial CapitalFinancialcapitalcanbeaccumulatedfromtwodifferentsources;onesourceisrepresentedbyavailablestockintheformofcashorequivalentavailableassetsaslivestock,theothersourceischaracterisedbytheexternalinflowofmoneywhichoriginatesoflabourincome,pensions,remittancesorothertypesoffinancial liabilities.Withinthefivecapitals,thefinancialcapitalenablespeopletoadapttodifferentlivelihoodstrategies.Itsetsthepreconditionforthecreationorimprovementofothercapitalsthanfinancialcapital.
10 CHAPTER3 Materialandmethods
3.3 SystemofLivelihoodstrategiesThelivelihoodsofthestakeholdersareinfluencedbypolicydecisionsonnational,communaland/orhouseholdlevel.Stakeholdersareindividuals,groupsorinstitutionswhicharebydefinitioneitherinfluencedoraffectedbyanissueorproblem(Evansetal.2006).Hencelivelihoodsituationsarenotarigidconstructbutratheravulnerablesystemoffluentinteractionsbetweenexogenousandendogenousinfluences.Exogenousinfluencesmaybenaturalcalamitiessuchasflood,fire,droughtetc.,whereasendogenousinfluencesaremoreconcernedwithnegativeimpactswithinthefamilyorcommunitylikechangesinpolicies,accessrightsetc.Theassessmenttoolcancapturetheseconstantdynamics in formofdata,well-arrangedanddisplayed inspidergrams(Figure2here inshapeofpentagons–fiveassets).Figure2displaysanoverviewofthedynamicsbetweentheexogenousandendogenousinfluencesonthelivelihoodsituation.Forinstanceamomentouscalamityorachangeofland-usepermissionshasadirectinfluenceonthenaturalcapitalofthestakeholderwhichwillmostlikelyaffectitsfinancialcapitaletcetera.
Figure2: Spidergramcombinedwithlivelihoodframework.Thespidergramrepresents thesinglecapitalrankings.Eachrankingisaffectedbyinnerandouter influences.
11CHAPTER3 Materialandmethods
Eachcapitalcanbedescribedbyvariousprinciples,valuedbycriteriaaccompaniedwiththeassociatedindicatorsandfinallyasetofsuitableverifiers.Thesecriteriaandindicatorsneedtobeindividuallyadjustedtothelocalcommunalandenvironmentalconditionsandarefinallycharacterisedbytheresearchobjective (Figure3andTable1).According toCIFOR -Centre for International ForestryResearch(CIFOR1999)thedefinitionsareusedasfollowed:
Principles: Principles can be described as target interests. They form the framework for theassessmentandassignthefollowingorientationof thecriteria, indicatorsandverifiers.Heretheprinciplemightbe“SustainableForestManagement”and isdeterminedby the stewardshipanduseofforestsandforestlandsinaway,andatarate,thatmaintainstheirbiodiversity,productivity,regenerationcapacityandvitality.Forfulfilling,nowandinthefuture,relevantecological,economicandsocial functions,at local,national,andglobal levels,andthatdonotcausedamagetootherecosystems.”(MCPFE2011).i. Criteria:Thecriteriarepresentsecondorderprinciples.Theydefineorclassifytheprinciples
assuch.Eachcriterionisaccompaniedbyseveralindicators.AcriterionfordefiningtheabovenamedprinciplemightbeforexampleTheEcosystemConditionandProductivityismaintained.Meaninge.g.theforestecosystemshouldbeabletocopewith,andrecoverfrom,disturbanceswithoutlosingitsproductivity.
ii. Indicators:Indicatorsclearlydefinethecontentofthecriteria.Theydividethecriterionintosubsectionswithoutvaluing thepresenceorabsenceof thesesubsections/ indicators.AnindicatormightbefortheabovecriterionNaturalregenerationorMaintainingbiodiversity.
iii. Verifiers:Verifiersfinallyassessthepresenceorabsenceofindicatorsandindicatetheirchangesoveratimeperiod.Theverifiers togetherwith the indicators reflect thepresent livelihoodsituation.Theaccordingverifiersdescribethefeaturewhichassessesthepresenceorabsenceoftheindicator.Averifiermightbedataaboutaverageharvestlevelsoverthelatestthree-yearperiodtogetherwiththesourceofthedataandtheunitofmeasurement.
Fig 3 Table 1
Capital
asset Principle Criterion Indicator Verifier
Natural
Capital
Sustainable Forest
Management ...
Ecosystem condition
and Productivity
Natural
regeneration
Harvest levels over
the last three years
Principle
Criterion
Indicator
Verifier
Figure 3: Composition of principles.
Fig 3 Table 1
Capital
asset Principle Criterion Indicator Verifier
Natural
Capital
Sustainable Forest
Management ...
Ecosystem condition
and Productivity
Natural
regeneration
Harvest levels over
the last three years
Principle
Criterion
Indicator
Verifier
Figure 3: Composition of principles.
12 CHAPTER4 Objectiveoftheassessmenttool
Table1:ExampleforhierarchicalFramework.
4. ObjectiveoftheassessmenttoolThegoalisthedetailedexaminationoftheindividuallivelihoodsituationofhouseholdslivinginforestperipheries.Itisaimedtocomparetheimpactsofdifferentmanagementapproachesonthechosenlivelihoodstrategy.Indicatorsareselectedmatchingtheresearchobjective,commonpracticefortheselectionofindicatorsisthemulti-stakeholderconsultationorotherparticipatorymethodsase.g.describedbyEvans(Evansetal.2006).Theassessmenttoolisdevelopedforrepetitiveassessmentsofchanginglivelihoodcapitalsoveracertainperiodoftime.Thequestionnaireshouldbedesignedandadjustedtolocalconditions,e.g.thechosenindicatorsareadaptedtotheusageofsubsistencegoodsasfirewood,typeoflivestockthevillagersbreedetc.Thequestionnaireiscomposedoutoftwosections,thefirstfocusesontheimportance(Table2:leftcolumn,shadedblue)oftheindicator.Doestheparticularindicatorplayanimportantroleinthedailylivelihoodoftheconcernedparticipant?Thesecondsection(rightcolumn,shadedgreen)appliestotheavailability/applicabilityoftheindicator.Istheparticipantabletobenefitoftheavailabilityoftheconcernedindicator?
Table2:Examplequestionnaire–exampleCapitalIndicators.
Fig 3 Table 1
Capital
asset Principle Criterion Indicator Verifier
Natural
Capital
Sustainable Forest
Management ...
Ecosystem condition
and Productivity
Natural
regeneration
Harvest levels over
the last three years
Principle
Criterion
Indicator
Verifier
Figure 3: Composition of principles.
Table 2
Is it true, do you have... / do you benefit from......? How important is ....... in your live?
Capital Example Indicator not medium very no medium a lot 1 2 3 1 2 3
Human Capital
Deceased or ill health of household members
Social Capital
Awareness rising reduces illegal activities in the forest
Physical Capital
The village is easily accessible by roads
Natural Capital
More firewood is available for collecting
Financial Capital
Forest resources contribute to income
Fig 4
a) one-‐dimensional b) two-‐dimensional
Figure 4: Method of displaying the CICD result; a) spidergram one-‐dimensional b) spidergram two-‐dimensional. Here the ranking which can be accomplished is indicated between the numbers 0 to 3. The indicator being not → very important or the indicator is of no → high availability to the stakeholder (see Table 2).
13CHAPTER4 Objectiveoftheassessmenttool
Eachindicatorisrankedforeachquestiononanordinalscale(1,2and3).Theseparaterankingofthe questions/ indicators enables a comparison between the importance and the availability. Inmanycasesacomparisonoftheimportanceandavailabilityofacertainindicatorisofinterest.Forexample:Isfirewoodimportanttotheparticipantandifso,isitatthesametimeavailable?
Inthefollowing,themethodofchoosinganappropriaterankingscaleandahypotheticalanalysisofthedatawillbedemonstrated.
Asmentionedbefore,thefundamentaldesignofthequestionnaireisdecisivefortheanalysisofthecollecteddata,thoughthevariable’scharacterisdeterminedbythechosenscalelevel.
Withinempiricalstudiescategoricalvariables,eitherordinalornominal,arepredominantrestrictingtheparticipanttoaverbalisedchoiceofanswers(e.g.inthiscaseimportance:1=not,2=mediumand3=very).Apre-verbalisedscaleoffersadvantagestothesurvey.Theresearcherreceivesanexplicitsetofdataandadditionallythepre-definedanswers(e.g.1,2,3) facilitateforthe inexperiencedparticipanttheprocedureofquestioning.
Besidesthecharacteroftherankingscale,hereanordinalrankingscale,thewidth(choiceofpossibleanswers)ofthescaleisofinterest.AccordingtoPorst(2009)anordinalverbalisedresponsescaleshouldofferbetween4to6levelsofpossibleanswers.Limitationstowardsthewidthofthescaleareoftenreasonableduetothecomplexityofcontentsandtheintellectualabilityofabstractionoftheparticipatinggroup(Porst2009,Mayer2006).Ithasproveninthepastthatascalewidthofthreelevelsispracticalforruralcommunities(TDMPproject2007,TDMPproject2008,DinhHoaproject2009).
Theresultsofthehouseholdquestionnairesaredisplayedforeachcapitalononediagramaxis;allfiveaxisrepresentthefivecapitalsofthelivelihoodframework(Figure5).Therankingsaredisplayedeitherasmedianquantitiesorasrelativefrequencies.
Inthecharacteristicofordinalscalesthedataisrationallyassociatedtoeachother,meaningthesubject of data is ranked/ ordered in a hierarchical manner. The hierarchical order of the dataindicatestheorderofdatapriority.Theanalyticalchallengewithinordinalscalesistheimplicationof thespacebetween thesingle ranking levels. For instance,howtomeasure the implicationofspacebetweentherankingveryimportantandmediumimportantversusmediumimportantandnotimportant?Istheimplicationofbothinterspacesthesame?Thenotsizeablespacebetweentheordinalrankingprohibitsparametricstatisticallyanalysisase.g.thearithmeticmean.Thearithmeticmeanassumesametriccharacterofthedata.Fortheanalysisoftheordinaldataavarietyofnon–parametricstatisticallytestscanbeapplied.
14 CHAPTER4 Objectiveoftheassessmenttool
Spidergram
Themaingoalofthespidergramasananalysingtoolisitsvisualcharacter.Additionallyspidergramsbareadvantageswhichespeciallyapplyforunfavourableworkingconditionssuchas:• visual• very adaptable• exceptionallysimpletouse• easyformostpeopletodo• easilytranslatableintoquantitativerepresentationsthatparticipantsunderstand
Spidergrams classify an objective or aim into parts. These single parts get attached to differentdiagramaxis, followedbyameasurementorranking.Theclearstructureallowsan identificationoftherelativecapital’sweightingandalleviatestheexaminationofcause-effectslinkagesofthedisplayedcapitals.
Figure4:MethodofdisplayingtheCICDresult;a)spidergramone-dimensionalb)spidergramtwo-dimensional. Here, the ranking which can be accomplished is indicated between thenumbers0to3.Theindicatorbeingnot->veryimportantortheindicatorisofno->highavailabilitytothestakeholder(seeTable2).
Figure 4 displays the assembly of the capitals. For descriptive purposes the single rankings areconnectedwithlinescompletingthespidergram.Strictlyspeakingthisisinaccurateastheconjoininglines suggest an existing connection between the single capitals. Apparently, with regards tocontents,thereisacertaindegreeofcausalconnectionbetweenthecapitals,butnotoriginatingfromtheanalysisofthequestionnaires.Thecausalconnectionofthecapitalsoriginatesfromtheinteractionsbetweenforexamplefinancialcapitalandphysicalcapital.Ahigherfinancialstatusismost likely accompaniedwith better physical facilities ... In thismanual the spidergramswill bedisplayedwithconjoined linesbetweenthecapitals;especiallywhilecomparingtimeseriestwo-dimensionaldiagramsfacilitatetheinterpretation.
15CHAPTER4 Objectiveoftheassessmenttool
AsimpleandmoststraightforwardpresentationoftheresultsisachievedbydisplayingeachcriterionfocusseparatelyasdisplayedinFigure5.
Figure 5: The livelihood assessment displaying each focus (importance and availability)separately.Arrangingthedataseparatelyinonediagramvisualisesthediscrepancybetweenthe importance and the availability of an indicator.
Frequency diagram
The analysis of the data with respect to the frequencies of the single rankings can be used tosupportthespidergrams.Thisinparticularapplieswhenconsideringthecharacterofthemedian,separatingafinitelistofascendingnumbersintoahigherhalfandalowerhalf.Figure6displaysanexampleofa frequencydistribution.Evaluationofthefrequencydataallowsastatementontheproportionalpercentageofrankingdistribution.Thisevaluationoffrequenciescannotbedisplayedinspidergramsandthusitisnotpossibletoclearlyshowtheproportionaldifferencesinrankingofthecapitals.However,insomecases-forabetterunderstanding-itisadvisabletopresentthedatainfrequencies.
Figure6:Frequencydiagram-exampleofapossiblefrequencydistributionoftheavailabilityofacapital’srankings.
Fig 5
Figure 5: The livelihood assessment displaying each focus (importance and availability) separately. Arranging the data separately in one diagram visualises the discrepancy between the importance and the availability of an indicator. Fig 6
0
20
40
60
80
Human Capital Social Capital Physical Capital Natural Capital Financial Capital
Percentage %
Availability
not
medium
very
0
20
40
60
80
Human Capital Social Capital Physical Capital Natural Capital Financial Capital
Percen
tage %
Availability
not
medium
very
16 CHAPTER5 PitfallsandRecommendations
5. PitfallsandRecommendations:Ingeneral,oneofthemajordownsidesoftheseparticipatorymethodsingeneralisinthenatureofthemethoditself.Participatorymethodsaregenerallybasedonworkshops,smallergroupgatheringsandpublicmeetings,whichhaveallonethingincommon:“theloudestisoftenentitledtobeheard”.Especiallywomenandothersocialunprivilegedgroupsregularlystayunnoticedintheirconcerns(Evansetal.2006).Thecompositionofthestakeholdergroupsshouldthereforebesetrightfromthebeginning.Another problem lies within the socio-empirical character of the information. Empirical socialstudiesareoftentimes facedwith controversydiscussionsabout thevalidityof thequantitative/qualitativemethods.Theimplementationofmeaningfulpre-testsisononehandlimited,butatthesametimeessentialtoverifyandvalidatetheindicatorswhichwillbechosen.Theimplementationofatriangulation,differenttechniquesusedtogatherallthesameinformation,shouldbeappliedtounknownresearchfields.Withthistechniquethemostappropriateindicatorsfortheindividualscenariocanbechosen.Noteworthy is thecircumstancethat the information isgatheredthrough interventions fromtheoutsidewhicharousecertainexpectationsof the localpeople.Apparently there isa serious riskonce localpeople seize their chance; theparticipatory tools caneasilybeusedasanadvantagefornegotiationstoenhancetheirbenefits.Thismatterofself-interestvs.academicinterestappliesequally to theother side. Institutions can analogously useparticipatory tools for their interests,wherecommunity involvement ispretendedwhilepolicymakingdecisionsaremadeatdifferentplacesotherwise“...thefundamentalpointisthatparticipationwithoutredistributionofpowerisanemptyandfrustratingprocessforthepowerless”(Arnstein1969).However,participatorytoolsrelysignificantlyonthetrustandopenspeechofallinvolvedpartiesandfinallyonawin-winscenarioonbothsides.More specific, directly concerning the assessment research tool, a fewobstaclesmust be takeninto account. Theoutcomesof the spidergrammayoversimplify the present situation though itdoesnotdisplayinterlinkagesandcausaldynamicsbetweenthecapitals.Thetoolreflectssolelyasnapshotofasituationandthereforegainsrelevancebyrepetitionsoveratimeperiod.Additionallytheassessmenttoolaswellastheresearcherrunstheriskofassessingthecapitalsonthebasisof monetary criteria. For example, there are indigenous groups for whom rural residence andrelationshiptolandconstituteimportantdimensionsoftheirethnicidentity.Thisinstanceforcestowidentheviewtowardsmorefacetsthansolelylookingatmonetary/agriculturalindicators. 5.1 Recommendations
Given to their nature, a certain degree of vulnerabilities lies within empirical social studies forwhichreasonafewrecommendationswillbegivenatthispointtoavoidafurtheraccumulationofinaccuracies.Ingeneral,pre-testingofresearchmethods isrecommended.Ononehandthepre-testallowsanindividualadjustmentofindicatorssuitinglocalrequirementsontheotherhandtheworkabilityofthetoolcanbetestedbeforethegenerallytimeandcostintensiveimplementationofthemethodstarts.
17CHAPTER5 PitfallsandRecommendations
Source of error: Implementation of the assessment tool
• Ifpossibletheimplementationoftheassessmenttoolshouldbecarriedoutbytheresearcherhimselforatleastbyacontinuousgroupofresearchers.Sincethejudgementoftheindividualranking issubjectivetothe interviewer, theanswerswillbe influencedbythe interviewers’perceptions.Theordinalcharacteroftherakingscalerequiresahomogeneousinterpretationof the interspaces among the rankings, for that reason changing researchmemberswouldobligatoryinfluencetheresultconsistency.Theimplementationoftheassessmenttoolinthepasthasshownsignificantdifferenceswithintherankingresultsofthefourinterviewers(Stier2009,unpublished).Thereisabiaswithintheinterpretationoftherankingsonaccountofthepersonalattitudeoftheinterviewer,onebeingmorepositiveandthenextslightlypessimistic,whichdoesnotrepresentaproblemassuchaslonghomogeneityisguaranteed.
• Basedon theabovedescribedbias thenumberofhouseholds interviewedper interviewershouldbeeitherthesameoraproportionalweightingoftheresultsisunavoidable.Otherwisethedifferencesintheheightofrankinggainweightandmisaligntheresult.
• Theproblemofthe“subjectivity”ofthedatamultiplieswiththerepetitionofimplementingthemethodovera certainperiodoftimeasmost likely the teamof interviewer’s changesovertheyearswhichstrictlyspeakingprohibitsacomparisonoftheresults.So,inthecaseofassessmentrepetitionitshouldbeconsideredtoinvolvethesameteamintotheresearchasinthefirstplace.Whilepre-testinginthefieldithasshownbeneficialtoseparateage-groupsratherthanseparatinggenders.Youngervillagers(25–46)seemedreluctantinfreespeechin front of elderly people (Stier 2009, unpublished). The criteria for group building shouldbediscussedindividuallyforeachstudysite.Differentethniccommunitiesmayfollowothertraditionalhierarchiesandaccordinglyrequiredifferentgroupingvariables.
Ordinal character of the variables
Asalreadydiscussedinthematerialandmethodsectioninprincipletheordinalcharacterofthevariablesdoesnotrepresentahindrancefortheanalysisitonlylimitsthestatisticalanalysistowardsnon-parametricaltests.
• It ispossible to transformtheordinal characterof the ranking scale intoan interval scaledcharacterwhichwouldallowtheapplicationofparametricanalyticaltests.Astheonedescribedinthismanualtheverbalisedresponsescalewouldneedtobetransformedintoaverbalisedendpointscale(Figure7).
18
Figure7a)verbalisedendpointscaleandb)verbalisedresponsescale.
• Theimplicationofanintervalscalerankingis: ThedistancebetweenA&B,B&C,C&Disthesame,meaningB–AisthesameasD–C.
A -> B -> C -> DimplicatingthespacebetweenB - A = D - C
Theadvantageofthepossibleapplicationofparametrictestsisaffrontedwiththedisadvantageofthefreeindividualinterpretationofthelevelsbetweentheendpoints.
a) b) NotimportantNotimportantVeryimportant Mediumimportant
Veryimportant
Basic guidelines for the creation of a questionnaire/ set of indicators
ThefollowingbasicguidelinesweredevelopedduringthefieldworkinVietnamandmaybeusedforanimprovedapplicationofthemethod:
KeepthequestionassimpleaspossibleAvoidlongcomplexquestionswhichpossiblyoverstraintherespondentTrytoavoidhypotheticalquestionsNegationsareconfusingfortherespondentAvoidsuggestivequestionsThequestionsshouldrelatetoacleartimeframePossibleverbalisedresponsesshouldbedistinctincharacterAllvaguetermshouldbeexplained
6. OutlookItshouldbenotedthatforexampleashorttermenhancementofthefinancialcapitalismorefaciletogeneratethantheenhancementofe.g.socialcapital.Withinthefinancialcapitalliesaprevalentobstacleofmisinterpretingdevelopmentapproaches.Manytimeseconomicgrowthwasmistakenas an overall improvement even if the temporarily enhancement of livelihood was achieved attheexpanseofdestructiveexploitation–naturalrents.Onlyanimprovementofallcapitalsasaninteractingsystemwillleadinthelongruntoasustainableenhancementofthelivelihoodstrategyandthereforeshouldbearequirementofdevelopmentapproaches.Regardingthiscommonbalancingactbetweendevelopmentandconservationtheassessmenttoolcanfindvariousapplicationareastorevealmisguidedapproaches.Promisingapproacheswouldleadtoanoverallenhancementofall5capitals.Anotheradvantageoftheassessmenttoolisitsmultifunctionalapplication.Withinthismethodtheanalysisofthelivelihoodcapitalscanbefragmenteddowntothesingleindicatorallowingadetailedanalysisoftheimpactofdistinctkey-activities.Again,thismultifunctionalcharactermakesthetoolso suitable for interimassessments, pre-tests and in general for the implementation infields of
CHAPTER6Outlook
19CHAPTER7 Abbreviations
applicationwithalternatingrequirements.ThemethodwasappliedinVietnamwithintheTI-WFproject“EconomicSustainabilityofNaturalForestManagementintheTropics”andistobeimprovedandadjustedforlocalconditions/definedrequirementswithinabeyond thatproject. Thishandbookaims toallowawiderdistributionofthemethod and encourage a discussion for improvements. The author team is welcoming anyrecommendations.WewishtothankourcolleaguesfromTUEBAandGTZfortheirsupporti.e.infieldwork,theprojectisindebtedtoDr.DoAnhTaiandmanyunnamedindividualsandinstitutionswhohavesharedtheirknowledgeandexperience. 7. AbbreviationsNRM · NaturalResourceManagementTUEBA · ThaiNguyenUniversityforEconomicsandBusinessAdministrationGTZ · GesellschaftfürTechnischeZusammenarbeit (nowadaysGIZ,GesellschaftfürInternationaleZusammenarbeit)CICD · CriticalInterlinkagesbetweenDevelopmentandConservationTI · Thünen-InstitutTDMP · TamDaoNationalParkandBufferZoneManagementProjectSLA · SustainableLivelihoodApproachDFID · DepartmentforInternationalDevelopment
20 CHAPTER8 References
8. References
Adam,M.C.&D.Kneeshaw(2008)Local levelcriteriaand indicator frameworks:Atoolusedtoassessaboriginalforestecosystemvalues.Forest Ecology and Management,255,2024-2037.
Angelsen,A.,H.O.Larsen,J.F.Lund,C.Smith-Hall&S.Wunder.2011.Measuring livelihoods and environmental dependence: methods for research and fieldwork.Edinburgh,UK:Earthscan.
Angelsen,A.&S.Wunder.2003.Exploringtheforest--povertylink:keyconcepts,issuesandresearchimplications. In key concepts, issues and research implications, viii, 58p. Bogor, Indonesia:CIFOR.
Arnstein,S.R.(1969)ALadderofCitizenParticipation.JAIP,Vol.35,216-224.Bebbington,A.(1999)CapitalsandCapabilities:AFrameworkforAnalyzingPeasantViability,Rural
LivelihoodsandPoverty.World Development,27,2021-2044.Brown,K.&D.W.Pearce(1994)TheCausesofTropicalDeforestation.TheEconomicandStatistical
AnalysisofFactorsGivingRisetotheLossoftheTropicalForests.University College London Press.
Caplow,S.,P.Jagger,K.Lawlor&E.Sills(2011)Evaluatinglanduseandlivelihoodimpactsofearlyforestcarbonprojects:LessonsforlearningaboutREDD+.Environmental Science and Policy, 14,152-167.
Chambers,R.(1994)Participatoryruralappraisal(PRA):Challenges,potentialsandparadigm.World Development,22,1437-1454.
Chambers,R.&G.R.Conway.1991.Sustainablerural livelhoods:practicalconcepts for the21stcentury.InstituteofDevelopmentStudies.
Chien, P. D. 2006. Demography of threatened tree species in Vietnam. Utrecht, Netherlands:UniversityUtrecht.
CIFOR. 1999. The CIFOR criteria and indicators generic template.Bogor,Indonesia:CIFOR.Clark,J.&D.Carney.2008.AreviewofDFID’sexperiencewithsustainablelivelihoods,Evolutionof
livelihoodsapproacheswithinDFID.Eldis.Evans,K.,W.deJong,P.Cronkleton,D.Sheil,T.Lynam,T.Kusumanto&C.J.P.Colfer.2006.Guide to
participatory tools for forest communities.Bogor,Indonesia:CenterforInternationalForestryResearch(CIFOR).
Evans,K.&M.R.Guariguata.2008.Participatory monitoring in tropical forest management: a review of tools, concepts and lessons learned. Bogor, Indonesia: Center for International ForestryResearch(CIFOR).
Kollmair,M.,Gamper,St.2002.TheSustainableLivelihoodApproach.In Development Study Group, University of Zurich (IP6).Aeschiried,Switzerland:DevelopmentStudyGroup,UniversityofZurich(IP6).
Mayer, H. O. 2006. Interview und schriftliche Befragung: Entwicklung, Durchführung und Auswertung. Oldenbourg.
MCPFE.2011.MinisterialConferenceontheProtectionofForestsinEurope.Porst,R.2009.Fragebogen: Ein Arbeitsbuch.VSVerlagfürSozialw.
21CHAPTER8 References
Salafsky,N.&E.Wollenberg(2000)LinkingLivelihoodsandConservation:AConceptualFrameworkandScaleforAssessingtheIntegrationofHumanNeedsandBiodiversity.World Development, 28,1421-1438.
Sayer, J.&B.Campbell.2003.The Science of Sustainable Development Local Livelihoods and the Global Environment CambridgeUniversityPress
Stier,A.2009.ParticipatoryRuleApraisalmethodsinDinhHoadistrict(NorthernVietnam)tochooseCICDindicatorsforfutureassessments(unpublished).
Tacconi, L. 2000. Biodiversity and ecological economics: participation, values, and resource management.EarthscanPublications.
Uniyal,S.K.&R.D.Singh(2011)Naturalresourcesassessmentandtheirutilization-AnalysesfromaHimalayanstate.Environmental Monitoring and Assessment,1-17.
Wollenberg, E., M. Colchester, G.Mbugua & T. Griffiths. 2005. Linking social movements: howinternational networks can better support community action about forests. 12p. Bogor,Indonesia:CIFOR.
Bibliografische Information: Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikationen in der Deutschen National-‐ bibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet unter www.dnb.de abrufbar.
Bibliographic information: The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek (German National Library) lists this publication in the German National Bibliographie; detailed bibliographic data is available on the Internet at www.dnb.de
Bereits in dieser Reihe erschie-‐nene Bände finden Sie im Inter-‐ net unter www.ti.bund.de Volumes already published in this series are available on the Internet at www.ti.bund.de
Zitationsvorschlag – Suggested source citation: Lax J, Krug J (2013) Livelihood assessment: a participatory tool for natural resource dependent communities. Hamburg: Johann Heinrich von Thünen-‐Institut, 22 p, Thünen Working Paper 7
Die Verantwortung für die Inhalte liegt bei den jeweiligen Verfassern bzw. Verfasserinnen. The respective authors are responsible for the content of their publications.
Thünen Working Paper 7 Herausgeber/Redaktionsanschrift – Editor/address Johann Heinrich von Thünen-‐Institut Bundesallee 50 38116 Braunschweig Germany thuenen-‐working-‐[email protected] www.ti.bund.de DOI:10.3220/WP_7_2013 urn:nbn:de:gbv:253-‐201308-‐dn052272-‐8