Upload
gertrude-singleton
View
216
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
LiveDiverse - Sustainable Livelihoods and Biodiversity in Developing Countries
Work Package 4: Public beliefs, perceptions, attitudes and preferences
Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR)
Marius Claassen & Karen Nortje
WP4: Milestone 4.1Milestone 4.1: Development of an analytical framework for the analysis of the role of belief systems in perceptions of different forms of vulnerability
Task 4.2: Development of an analytical framework for analysis of the role of belief systems in perceptions of different forms of vulnerability
Act: 4.1: Project Plan
Act 4.2: Desk-top study – What do we mean by belief systems?
Act 4.3: Desk-top study – What do we mean by vulnerability?
Act 4.4&4.5: Workshop with experts (SA)
Act 4.6: Draft Analytical Framework
Act 4.7: Final Analytical Framework
WP4 M4.1 – Still to be done
• South Africa case study– Interviews completed, data analysis completed
• India case study– Interviews received, data analysis in process
• Costa Rica case study– Interviews received, data analysis in process
• Vietnam case study– Interviews not received
WP4 M4.1 – Partner roles
CSIR– Data analysis– Final report
– Budget: 14 months– Actual (18month): 9 months
WP4 M4.1 – Partner roles
Linköping University– Engagement with Chiefs – Ongoing engagement
– Budget: 6 months– Actual (18month): 3 months
WP4 M4.1 – Partner roles
SOPPECOM– WP4 interviews completed
– Budget: 10 months– Actual (18month): 6 months
WP4 M4.1 – Partner roles
FUNDAUNA– WP4 interviews completed
– Budget: 10 months– Actual (18month): 6 months
Wp4: Milestone 4.2Milestone 4.2: Construction of a biodiversity and livelihoods belief scale (BLS) to analytically examine public belief systems through statistical factor analysis (SPSS) and spatial mind mapping
Task 4.1: Review and categorisation of existing environmental and biodiversity belief scales and their use, especially in developing countries
Act 4.8: Desk-top Study - What would a belief scale look like according to existing literature?
Task 4.3: Construction of a biodiversity and livelihoods belief scale (BLS) that can be used to analytically examine public belief systems through statistical factor analysis (using SPSS) and spatial mind mapping
Act 4.9: Sharing of ideas with intl. partners
Act 4.10: Workshop with experts (SA)
Act 4.11: Draft of belief scale
Task 4.4: Testing and validation of the BLS that can be used to analytically examine public belief systems through statistical factor analysis (using SPSS) and spatial mind mapping
Act 4.12: Fieldwork – testing of belief scale
Act 4.13: Final Belief Scale and report
WP4 M4.2 – Partner roles
CSIR– Data analysis (completed)– Final report
– Budget: 14 months– Actual (18month): 9 months
WP4 M4.2 – Partner roles
Linköping University– Ongoing engagement
– Budget: 6 months– Actual (18month): 3 months
WP4 M4.2 – Partner roles
NIAPP– HHS questions completed
– Budget: 10 months– Actual (18month): 5 months
WP4 M4.2 – Partner roles
SOPPECOM– HHS questions completed
– Budget: 10 months– Actual (18month): 6 months
WP4 M4.2 – Partner roles
FUNDAUNA– HHS questions completed
– Budget: 10 months– Actual (18month): 6 months
WP4 Summary
• M4.1– On track– Need interviews from NIAPP
• M 4.2– On track
• Budget is sufficient and will be used
CULTURAL & SPIRITUAL MARKERS
AGENCY & SENSE OF SELF
DUALITY
PERCEPTIONS OF THE BIOPHYSICAL
KNOWLEDGE
TRUST/BELIEF IN LOCAL (TRADITIONAL) LEADERSHIP
TRUST IN GOVERNMENT
COMMUNITY DYNAMICS
CONTEXT
(IN)FINITE AVAILABILITY OF RESOURCES
Beliefsin relation to
Biodiversity and livelihoods
Cultural practises influence how people use natural resources
People’s awareness of the impact of their actions on the ‘life’ of the resource
Types of contexts inform what they believe ito nature
Utilitarian view of
Resource
Perceptions of leadership style
of chief
Individual sense of agency
(In)finite availability of
resources
Trust in the management of
biodiversity Belief in nature
always providing
Belief in ability to improve their
condition
Sense of sustainability
Headman plays a major role
Historical patriarchy influences the way people use natural
resources
Drought
Younger generations’ interest in traditions
Awareness of dependence on
biodiversity Good understanding
and buy-in of sustainability
Socio-economic context of individuals
Socio-economic context of village
The religious duality
Sense of community
People’s willingness to
help each other
Trust between community members
ability of people to formulate
responses to crises
Unavailability of land
Race relations between
white/black people
Lack of trust in government
Witchcraft
Division of labour among community
members
Local knowledge regarding agricultural
preferences
Local knowledge regarding seasonal
availability of wild foods
Duality between bio-medicine and traditional
healing
Perceptions about what is poor/rich
Confidence in social grants
Old vs. new related to education
Cultural-spiritual context
Access to water supply
Belief in ancestors
Myths and legends
Sacred spaces/animals/ plants
City life vs. village life Perceptions about what people need to be happy
Trust in the management of
biodiversity
Reluctance to say negative things about superiors/leaders
Political context causes trust issues
Ecological vulnerability
Cultural and Spiritual vulnerability Socio-economic vulnerability
METHOD ATTRIBUTES
METHOD ATTRIBUTES
APPLICATION OF METHOD
APPLICATION OF METHOD
RESPONDENT’S PERCEPTIONS OF THE INTERVIEWER
RESPONDENT’S PERCEPTIONS OF THE INTERVIEWER
TRANSLATION ISSUES
TRANSLATION ISSUES
RESEARCHER POSITIONALITY
RESEARCHER POSITIONALITY
RELATIONSIP BTWN RESEARCH PARTNERS
RELATIONSIP BTWN RESEARCH PARTNERS
INTERPRETER POSITIONALITY
INTERPRETER POSITIONALITY
RESPONDENT REACTION
RESPONDENT REACTION
RESEARCHER EXPECTATIONS & PRECONCEPTIONS
RESEARCHER EXPECTATIONS & PRECONCEPTIONS
PLANNING
PLANNING
Process Them es for Beliefs regard ing nature
w rt B iod iversity and live lihoods
Process Themes for Beliefs regarding nature
wrt Biodiversity and livelihoods
Opportunity created for researcher to
probe further
Opportunity created for researcher to
probe further
Positionality of the researcher becomes
explicit
Positionality of the researcher becomes
explicit
Respondent fears the reaction of the interviewer
Respondent fears the reaction of the interviewer
Respondents feel more at ease with same gender
Respondents feel more at ease with same gender
Cultural taboos reflected in the way respondents react to researcher’s sex
Cultural taboos reflected in the way respondents react to researcher’s sex
Sequence in which research methods were conducted
Sequence in which research methods were conducted
Researcher’s willingness to probe or ask sensitive questions
Researcher’s willingness to probe or ask sensitive questions
Researcher profile, gender, race, age
Researcher profile, gender, race, age
interpreter /researcher partnership
interpreter /researcher partnership
Preconceived notions held by researchers regarding the characteristics of the method e.g. more people arrive
Preconceived notions held by researchers regarding the characteristics of the method e.g. more people arrive
Male’s reluctance to engage female interviewers
Male’s reluctance to engage female interviewers
Respondents’ answering what they think interviewers want to hear
Respondents’ answering what they think interviewers want to hear
Didn’t get expected answer – intrusion of own perspective on research process
Didn’t get expected answer – intrusion of own perspective on research process
Changing meaning of questions – knowledge or language domains
Changing meaning of questions – knowledge or language domains
Group structure (age, gender, and hierarchy) dynamic can influence the answers
Group structure (age, gender, and hierarchy) dynamic can influence the answers
Understanding of individual in time and space (diachronic and synchronic)
Understanding of individual in time and space (diachronic and synchronic)
Time of day and its impact on the results
Time of day and its impact on the results
Length of interaction and its impact on the results
Length of interaction and its impact on the results
Geographical setting and access to the village
Geographical setting and access to the village
Where the interaction was held, ie. at their home, outside etc.
Where the interaction was held, ie. at their home, outside etc.
Interruption of daily chores by interaction
Interruption of daily chores by interaction
Interpreters profile
Interpreters profile
Interpreter context/ background
Interpreter context/ background
Respondents’ perception of who we are
Respondents’ perception of who we are
Lost in translation
Lost in translation
Respondent’s experience of the method (comfort/trust/comprehension)
Respondent’s experience of the method (comfort/trust/comprehension)
Clarity of information requested.
Clarity of information requested.Building a
rapport
Building a rapport
Presence of interpreters
Presence of interpreters
Presence of interpreters
Presence of interpreters
Method appropriate to context of case study area
Method appropriate to context of case study area
Country comparison Do you feel you have any influence on how decisions are made at the village level?
The difference between Countries is statistically significant
01=yes, always02= yes, in most cases03=sometimes, depends on the issue04= no, except in some cases05= no, never
Boxplot by Group
Variable: hhinflu
Median 25%-75% Min-Max
South Africa Costa Rica Viet Nam India
Coutry name
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
hhin
flu
Categorized HistogramVariable: hhinflu
No
of o
bs
Coutry name: South Africa
1 2 3 4 50
20406080
100120140160180200
Coutry name: Costa Rica
1 2 3 4 5
Coutry name: Viet Nam
1 2 3 4 50
20406080
100120140160180200
Coutry name: India
1 2 3 4 5
Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA by Ranks; hhinflu (HHS data analysis.sta)Independent (grouping) variable: Coutry nameKruskal-Wallis test: H ( 3, N= 1017) =56.21194 p =.0000
Depend.:hhinflu
CodeValidN
Sum ofRanks
MeanRank
South AfricaCosta RicaViet NamIndia
10111243163.5385.388410212279075.0648.1557103281132760.5472.4573104502262654.0523.2151
Village comparison : India Only rarely does modifying nature and the world around us for human use cause serious
problems
01=strongly agree02=agree03=neutral04= disagree05= strongly disagreeThe difference between villages in India is statistically significant
Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA by Ranks; Modifying nature (LD data base full - missing data blank)Independent (grouping) variable: village nameKruskal-Wallis test: H ( 8, N= 502) =49.48689 p =.0000Include condition: V2 = 'India'
Depend.:Modifying nature
CodeValidN
Sum ofRanks
MeanRank
GothaneKhundalapurSonawadeAmbaKakheMalewadiShirasiKavathesarDanoli
121192337.00123.0000122203327.50166.37501236112393.00203.16391245614547.00259.76791259323574.00253.48391265715190.50266.50001276619286.50292.219712811029776.00270.6909129205821.50291.0750
Categorized HistogramVariable: Modifying nature
Include condition: V2 = 'India'
No
of o
bs
village name: Gothane
1 2 3 4 50
1020304050607080
village name: Khundalapur
1 2 3 4 5
village name: Sonawade
1 2 3 4 5
village name: Amba
1 2 3 4 50
1020304050607080
village name: Kakhe
1 2 3 4 5
village name: Malewadi
1 2 3 4 5
village name: Shirasi
1 2 3 4 50
1020304050607080
village name: Kavathesar
1 2 3 4 5
village name: Danoli
1 2 3 4 5
Boxplot by Group
Variable: Modifying nature
Include condition: V2 = 'India'
Median 25%-75% Min-Max
GothaneKhundalapur
SonawadeAmba
KakheMalewadi
ShirasiKavathesar
Danoli
village name
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
Mod
ifyin
g na
ture
“(In)finite availability of resources”
• Change of resources over timeWP4 - Mbahela - 2Aug2010 no2 [1766-2219]It is not like all the trees are good for all uses. E.g. for spoons and handles. Therefore, there will always be trees. These trees don’t grow again (Mufhata). We don’t even think about the trees running out, because we are thinking about today only. If they run out, we will get them from another village. In the old days, we didn’t wear shoes, now we do [Explaining that things change and we adapt] – thus we will cross that bridge when we get there.WP4 - Mushithe- 1Jun2010 no2 [1051-1144]One day, the natural resources will run out, then they would not be able to make a living.
“Respondent reaction”
• TrustWP 4 fieldwork engagments 2010 Mbahela - Interview 5 [62-121] (trust, or lack thereof was a big issue in this interview)WP 4 fieldwork engagments 2010 Tshihavha - Interview 5 [4004-4070]With his chicken project, if the chief finds out, he will explode.WP4 - Tshiavha- 4Aug2010 no5 [162-358][The lady didn’t want to shake our hands. She said we will take “muti” from her. Also, it took a long time of convincing to speak with us. She said the government will never do anything for her.]