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:   jutta.lax@ti.bund.de    

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-­‐paper@ti.bund.de     www.ti.bund.de       DOI:10.3220/WP_7_2013     urn:nbn:de:gbv:253-­‐201308-­‐dn052272-­‐8