Internship with UNESCO-IHE
Internship Report Environmental Systems Analysis Group
Author: Nikolett Czeglédi Registration number: 831110166250 Course code: ESA - 70424 Supervisors: Prof. Kenneth Irvine (Aquatic Ecosystems Group, UNESCO-IHE) Prof. Carolien Kroeze (Environmental Systems Analysis Group, WUR)
1 | P a g e
Acronyms DFID Department for International Development MA Millennium Ecosystem Assessment MDGs Millennium Development Goals SDGs Sustainable Development Goals WWF World Wildlife Fund
List of figures and tables List of figures Figure 1: The building of UNESCO-IHE in Delft ........................................................................................ 4Figure 2: Approach of the study .............................................................................................................. 8Figure 3: Conceptual Framework: Linking wetland ecosystems to rural livelihoods ............................ 11Figure 4: Logic used for selecting indicators for the questionnaire ...................................................... 14Figure 5: Distribution of respondents according to their origin ............................................................ 16Figure 6: Ranked importance of factors for measuring poverty/well-being ......................................... 16Figure 7: Rated importance of factors for measuring poverty/well-being ........................................... 17Figure 8: Rated importance of education indicators for measuring poverty/well-being ..................... 18Figure 9: Rated importance of health indicators for measuring poverty/well-being ........................... 18Figure 10: Rated importance of financial situation indicators for measuring poverty/well-being ....... 19Figure 11: Rated importance of food security indicators for measuring poverty/well-being .............. 19Figure 12: Rated importance of social relations indicators for measuring poverty/well-being ........... 20Figure 13: Comparing the importance of factors by taking the average (%) of importance categories within each indicator groups ................................................................................................................. 21Figure 14: Importance of different factors for selecting indicators for measuring wetland ecological health ..................................................................................................................................................... 22Figure 15: Ranked importance of indicators for measuring wetland ecological health in developing countries ................................................................................................................................................ 23Figure 16: Rated importance of indicators for measuring wetland ecological health in developing countries ................................................................................................................................................ 23Figure 17: Rated importance of indicators for measuring physico-chemical condition of wetlands ... 24Figure 18: Rated importance of indicators for measuring community composition in wetlands ........ 25Figure 19: Rated importance of indicators for measuring energy/material flow in wetlands .............. 25Figure 20: Rated importance of indicators for assessing hydrological condition of wetlands ............. 26Figure 21: Rated importance of indicators for assessing habitat condition of wetlands ...................... 26Figure 22: Importance of wetland services in for the rural poor (question 1) ...................................... 40Figure 23: Importance of wetland services for the rural poor (question 2) .......................................... 40 List of tables Table 1: Summary table of data sources, corresponding data processing methods and research questions ............................................................................................................................................... 10Table 2: Distribution of respondent according to organizations and chair groups ............................... 15Table 3: Studies defining ecological integrity ........................................................................................ 38
2 | P a g e
Table of Contents Acronyms ................................................................................................................................................. 1
List of figures and tables.......................................................................................................................... 1
Table of Contents .................................................................................................................................... 2
1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 4
2. Internship project ................................................................................................................................ 4
2.1. Literature review of main concepts .............................................................................................. 4
Poverty and human well-being ....................................................................................................... 4
State of poverty, poverty alleviation and sustainable development .............................................. 5
Rural poverty, and wetland services ............................................................................................... 5
Ecological integrity (health), wetland services and the poor .......................................................... 6
2.2. Problem statement ....................................................................................................................... 7
2.3. Objectives and research questions of the study ........................................................................... 7
2. Methodology ....................................................................................................................................... 8
2.1. Approach of the study ................................................................................................................... 8
2.2. Data collection methods ............................................................................................................... 9
2.3. Data processing methods ............................................................................................................ 10
3. Conceptual framework - Linking wetland ecosystems to rural livelihoods ...................................... 11
4. Indicators selected for the questionnaires ........................................................................................ 13
5. Results and discussions ..................................................................................................................... 15
5.1. Results of the questionnaire ....................................................................................................... 15
The respondents of the questionnaire .......................................................................................... 15
Perceptions on the importance of indicators for measuring poverty/ well-being ....................... 16
Perceptions on the importance of wetland services to the well-being of the rural poor............. 21
Perceptions on the importance of indicators for measuring wetland ecological health .............. 22
5.2. Results of the interviews ............................................................................................................. 27
Perceptions on the concepts and indicators of poverty and human well-being .......................... 27
Perceptions on the importance of wetland ecosystems in general and in relation to the poor .. 28
Perceptions on the concept and indicators of wetland ecological health and its linkages to the poor and poverty reduction .......................................................................................................... 29
Perceptions on how the Millennium Development Goals and Sustainable Development Goals address the link between environmental sustainability and poverty reduction .......................... 31
6. General discussion ............................................................................................................................. 32
Usefulness of the conceptual framework in the study ................................................................. 32
Strengths and weaknesses of the questionnaire .......................................................................... 32
Triangulation - combining different methods ............................................................................... 33
7. Conclusion and Recommendations ................................................................................................... 34
9. References ......................................................................................................................................... 35
Appendix I – Definitions of ecological integrity (health) ....................................................................... 38
3 | P a g e
Appendix II – Interview guide ................................................................................................................ 39
Appendix III – Importance of wetland services (questionnaire results) ............................................... 40
4 | P a g e
1. Introduction The internship took place at the Aquatic Ecosystems Chair Group of UNESCO-IHE, Institute for Water Education in Delft, the Netherlands. The internship was executed during the period of 2nd April to 2nd August 2013.
UNESCO-IHE is the largest international water education institute in the world. It educates and trains more hundred students annually, particularly professionals from developing countries and countries in transition. Besides education, UNESCO-IHE also plays an important role in finding solutions for sustainable management of water and environment through research and capacity development of institutes and organizations in the developing world.
My research project was a pilot project, which aimed to provide a better understanding on the linkages between ecological health of wetland ecosystems and poverty alleviation by integrating existing, recent knowledge obtained from literature and personal opinions of professionals on the topic. Besides learning more about my internship topic, I also had other personal objectives (e.g. getting familiar with the organization, improving communication and writing skills) that I have also paid attention during my internship, but will be elaborated in the reflection report.
2. Internship project This chapter introduces the literature review of the main concepts, problem statement and objectives and research questions of the study.
2.1. Literature review of main concepts
Poverty and human well-being Poverty is a worldwide phenomenon with more than one billion people living in extreme poverty in the developing world. Poverty can be defined in multiple ways such as in monetary and nonmonetary, absolute and relative terms. First, it was defined in relation to low income and consumption. Then the focus encompassed a broader perspective by considering lacking access to basic materials (food, shelter, health, and sanitation), social equity and equality, human rights (MA 2003), capabilities to deal with vulnerability and avoid stresses and make livelihood decisions freely (Ashley et al. 1999, Allison and Horemans 2006). Poverty became also linked to exclusion from political power, decision-making and economic opportunities (social exclusion) (Sen 2000, Jentoft et al. 2010). In the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) (2003) well-being is defined by the access to basic materials for life such as adequate livelihoods, sufficient food, access to goods, shelter (etc.) and having freedom of choices, security and good social relations. In the sustainable livelihoods framework of the Department for International Development (DFID) poverty reduction outcomes should be resilient (in the face of external shocks and stresses), economically and institutionally sustainable livelihoods that also sustainably use natural resources for long-term productivity (Ashley et al. 1999, Allison and Horemans 2006).
The approach used by UNEP/IISD (2004) links poverty and well-being by incorporating the ecosystem approach and the concepts used in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA). Therefore, poverty and well-being is defined based on the presence or absence of a range of key determinants such as
1. Adequate nourishment 2. Freedom from avoidable disease 3. An environmentally clean and safe shelter
Figure 1: The building of UNESCO-IHE in Delft
5 | P a g e
4. Adequate and clean drinking water 5. Clean air 6. Energy for cooking and warmth 7. Availability of traditional medicine 8. Continuing use of natural elements found in ecosystems for traditional cultural and spiritual
practices 9. Ability to cope with extreme events, including floods, tropical storms and landslides 10. Being able to make sustainable management decisions that respect natural resources and
enable the achievement of sustainable income stream
State of poverty, poverty alleviation and sustainable development The high level of poverty led to the creation of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), signed by the United Nations in 2000. In the MDGs poverty is recognized as a multi-dimensional phenomenon, however, the main indicator used measuring poverty is income. People are extremely poor if their daily income is less than one USD and are poor if their daily income is between one and two USD. The MDGs consists of eight international development goals to be achieved by 2015 and which explicitly recognize the interdependence between economic growth, poverty reduction and sustainable development. It addresses relevant issues such as hunger, education, gender equality, human health and environmental sustainability in order to halve extreme poverty by 2015 (Summit 2000).
Since 1990, when the World Bank started to monitor poverty, the trends showed that the proportion of people living in extreme poverty fell from over 2 billion people in 1990 to less than 1.4 billion in 2008, indicating a positive progress in achieving the MDGs. In 2010, the target of “Halving the proportion of people, whose income is less than 1 USD a day” seemed to be on track, however, estimates indicate that approximately one billion people will still suffer from extreme poverty by 2015, of which four out of every five people will live in Sub-Saharan Africa and Southern Asia (UN 2012). According to the estimates currently, the highest rates of poverty occur in rural areas in Sub-Saharan Africa and Southern Asia (UN 2012). Furthermore, the disparity between falling poverty rates and remaining high levels of undernourishment calls for improved understanding on the causes of hunger and for implementing appropriate measures and policies (UN 2012). Undernourishment was found generally higher in rural areas in all developing regions, but particularly high in the regions of Sub-Saharan Africa and Southern Asia (UN 2012).
Economic development projects by governments in developing countries often pay more attention to economic growth and short-term gains instead of considering the long-term socio-economic and environmental consequences. For instance, promoting livelihood activities of shrimp aquacultures in Vietnam (Van Hue and Scott 2008), prawn farming in India (Kumar et al. 2011) have resulted in biodiversity degradation, water pollution, deepened poverty and social conflicts due to the massive influx of neighbouring communities.
The MDGs recognizes that poverty alleviation is a more complex issue, than targeting the poor only; reducing poverty also requires simultaneously addressing environmental degradation caused by human activities and overexploitation (Summit 2000). Therefore, environmental sustainability is addressed by goals of integrating principles of sustainable development in country policies and programmes, enhancing biodiversity conservation, and reducing emissions of greenhouse gases.
Rural poverty, and wetland services Poverty is further exacerbated in rural regions by the limited access to improved sources of drinking water and lacking improved sanitation facilities (UNICEF and WHO 2012). The level of water supply, quality and sanitation have considerable impacts on human health, food production, economic development, and educational opportunities (Lewis 2005). Currently 780 million people are still without access to safe drinking water and 2.5 billion people lack improved sanitation (UNICEF and WHO 2012). In fact, around 176 million of the rural dwellers are still dependent on the direct use of
6 | P a g e
surface waters such as rivers, lakes and other types of freshwater wetlands for drinking (UNICEF and WHO 2012). Besides providing water, wetlands are considered as important ecosystems that provide a wide range of services that contribute to human well-being (MA 2005). Although different wetlands are characterized by different biophysical structure and processes, and thus they provide different services (Kotze et al. 2008, UNICEF and WHO 2012), wetlands are considered as being vital for maintaining water quality, treating wastewater, preventing floods, recharging groundwater and providing water for people (MA 2005). These services are particularly important in areas where improved drinking water source and sanitation facilities are lacking, since environmental degradation and polluted water caused by poor water quality and lacking sanitation impact poor people first as they are more dependent on natural resources (Lewis, K., 2005). Rural livelihood studies in Africa by Lawson et al., (2012) and Jogo and Hassan (2010) also found that the poorest people were the most heavily dependent on wetland resources, and better-off people were able to diversify their income generating activities.
Further case studies from Asia and Africa show that wetlands often provide life-saving food for poor rural people during the hungry months, thereby ensuring food security (Rahman and Begum 2010, Rebelo et al. 2010, Triet 2010, Kumar et al. 2011, McCartney et al. 2011, Sellamuttu et al. 2011). For instance, dambos i.e. seasonally or permanently saturated wetlands in Zambia and Malawi were traditionally used for growing crops if the upland crops failed due to the poor rainy season (Wetlands International, 2009). However, other cases show that the agricultural use of wetlands is not always undertaken by the poorest people (McCartney et al. 2011). Wetlands also provide other materials such as fuelwood, harvestable plants for handicrafts and fodder as well as building materials that are either used directly by the household or sold for income generation (Triet 2010, Sellamuttu et al. 2011). Wetlands furthermore also represent cultural identity to many communities who have been historically dependent on these ecosystems for their traditional livelihood activities such as the fishermen of the Chilika Lake in India (Kumar et al. 2011), the papyrus harvester Endoris people living by the Loboi wetland in Kenya (Terer et al. 2012), or the Lepironia sedge harvester Khmer ethnic group of the Phu My wetland in Vietnam (Triet 2010).
These ecosystems, however, are also the most threatened ones around the world (MA 2005). It is assumed that wetlands cover less than 9% of the global area, and the majority of remaining wetland area is degraded (Zedler and Kercher 2005). Wetland area and conditions are continuously exposed to changes by human drivers such as agricultural land use, invasion of alien plants or climate change (MA 2005, Zedler and Kercher 2005, Falkenmark et al. 2007, Driver et al. 2012). Poverty itself also can be a driver of wetland degradation, as the poor often do not have any other choice due to lacking capabilities and access to alternative resources than continuing the exploitation of natural resources for maintaining their livelihoods (Jentoft et al. 2010)(Wetlands International, 2009). It was found that high level of poverty and degradation of natural resources often goes hand in hand, and thus resource management and community development should be linked (Jentoft et al. 2010, McCartney et al. 2011). The Ramsar Convention on Wetlands also promotes the wise use of wetlands, i.e. the maintenance of the ecological character of the wetlands., which is crucial to ensure that the wetlands can continue fully deliver their vital role in supporting biodiversity and human well-being (Ramsar Convention, 1993).
Ecological integrity (health), wetland services and the poor Ecological integrity or health is a major paradigm for protecting and sustaining the quality of environment and human well-being. It is also seen as an important concept for developing new ways of assessing and managing natural resources (Lu and Li 2003). The first reference to ecological integrity derived from Leopold (1949) who stated, “A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise”. Since then ecological integrity has been defined in many different ways, referred to as ecological health (Karr 1993) or ecosystem health (Cairns Jr and Pratt 1995, Lu and Li 2003), biotic integrity (Karr and Dudley 1981), ecological quality (Borja et al. 2008, 2012), ecological condition (Kotze et al. 2012), or
7 | P a g e
ecological status (Hartmann et al. 2010, Birk et al. 2012) (Appendix I). In general, an ecosystem with ecological integrity is characterized by biotic, physical and chemical integrity, and is close to natural state, which has the ability to recover from both natural and anthropogenic disturbances. In wetland studies, ecological integrity is the degree of deviation from the wetland’s natural, undisturbed reference condition (Anderson 1991, Macfarlane et al. 2008).
Ecological health is closely related to the delivery of ecosystem services (Cairns Jr and Pratt 1995) and the generally accepted view is that natural or semi-natural, healthier ecosystems provide a full range of services for human well-being than degraded ones (Lu and Li 2003, MA 2003, Macfarlane et al. 2008, McCartney et al. 2011). Human activities may contribute to the degradation of ecological integrity because of the different stresses may have synergistic effects on the long term (Karr and Dudley 1981). Consequently, it may lead to changes or loss of ecosystem functions and services that effects poor people negatively. They are often more dependent on natural resources for their livelihoods and has fewer capabilities to cope with stresses (Jentoft et al. 2010, Jogo and Hassan 2010, Daw et al. 2011, Kangalawe and Noe 2012, Lawson et al. 2012).
2.2. Problem statement Poverty has the highest levels among rural communities in the developing world, where people are more dependent on natural resources for their livelihoods then in urban areas. Wetland ecosystems are recognized as important ecosystems due to their provision of services that contribute to human well-being, and which often life - saving for the poor. However, these ecosystems are continuously affected by human exploitation, which negatively influences their ecological health on the long – term and affects their ability to provide important services for people. In order to be able to reduce the level of poverty among rural communities, particularly those are dependent on wetland and ensure sustainability of wetlands; a better understanding is needed on the linkages between wetland ecological health, poverty and poverty alleviation. Since UNESCO-IHE plays a role in contributing poverty alleviation by providing new knowledge to address the global water issues related to the Millennium Development Goals and the post 2015 Sustainable Development Goals and the sustainable management of water, it would be a relevant starting point to explore the perceptions of professionals within UNESCO-IHE on the topic
2.3. Objectives and research questions of the study The objectives of the study were threefold:
1) To create a better understanding on the linkages between wetland ecological integrity (health), poverty and poverty alleviation in developing countries
2) To reflect on the perceptions of professionals (UNESCO-IHE and WWF) on the concepts of and linkages between wetland ecological health, poverty, and poverty alleviation
3) To identify knowledge gaps for UNESCO-IHE for future investigations
To achieve the objectives of this study, the following research question were formulated:
1. What are the key concepts and definitions used in literature to link wetland ecosystem to poverty alleviation in rural areas in developing countries? How are these concepts defined?
2. What indicators are used in literature to assess outcomes in terms of wetland and livelihood sustainability?
3. What are the opinions of professionals on the concepts and their linkages? 4. What are the opinions of professionals on the importance of various indicators to measure
poverty/well-being, wetland ecological health in relation to poverty alleviation in developing countries?
8 | P a g e
5. What are the opinions of professionals on the Millennium Development Goals and Sustainable Development Goals in addressing the link between wetlands and livelihood sustainability?
2. Methodology This chapter describes the approach of the study, and the used data collection and processing methods.
2.1. Approach of the study The approach of the study consisted of three assessment steps in a step-wise way (Figure 1).
Step 1 was assigned to extensive literature study to identify the main concepts and definitions associated to wetland ecological health, poverty and poverty alleviation in rural areas in developing countries. Then the concepts were integrated into a conceptual framework to provide a structure for the further research.
In Step 2, the conceptual framework served as a basis for identifying and selecting indicators from empirical studies and baseline documents (the MDGs and MA) that can help measuring outcomes of sustainable development projects. Those empirical studies were reviewed that represented good practices in integrating wetland conservation and poverty reduction and showed similarities in terms of wetland services provision.
In Step 3, in order to get insights on how professionals (students, academic staff and employees of WWF) think about the concepts and measurements of poverty/human well-being, wetland ecological health as well as about the linkages between wetland ecosystems, the rural poor and poverty alleviation, the selected indicators were used for making a questionnaire. Thus, in a pilot survey the questionnaire was distributed. Furthermore, interviews were conducted in order to obtain feedback on the questionnaire as well as on the concepts and linkages between wetland ecological health, poverty, human well-being and poverty alleviation.
Figure 2: Approach of the study
9 | P a g e
2.2. Data collection methods The data collection took place in alignment with the three steps of the study and it was based on both secondary and primary data sources. Secondary data was collected from literature study and primary data from questionnaire survey and interviews.
Literature study Literature study took place throughout the Step 1 and 2. Secondary data was obtained by means of using electronic journal databases (i.e. Web of Knowledge, Scopus and Google Scholar). First keywords were searched such as ‘poverty alleviation’, ‘poverty’, ‘wetland’, ‘ecological integrity’, ‘ecological health’ (etc.). It helped to identify the key concepts, definitions and the relationships between them in order to be able to integrate the concepts into a conceptual framework. Furthermore, the indicators was also collected and selected through literature study. Information was collected from scientific articles and books as well as from official websites (e.g. United Nations websites, Wetlands International, Ramsar Convention). A great variety of scientific journals was used such as Ecological Indicators, International Journal of Sustainable Development, Hydrological Sciences Journal, Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment, Aquatic Ecosystem Health & Management (etc.)
Questionnaire Questionnaire was used in a pilot survey to explore the perceptions of a selected focus group on the importance of indicators in relation to wetland ecological health and poverty alleviation in Step 3. The selected focus group or later referred as professionals, consisted of students (both PhD and MSc), academic staff of UNESCO-IHE and some of the employees of WWF and the survey was anonymous. Informal sampling was applied due to the explorative characteristic of the study, which means that the selection was not randomized (Poate and Daplyn 1993).
Questionnaire is the most common form of structured interviewing, which provides quantitative data (Southwold 2002). The questionnaire was developed in an online program (Google Drive), and then was sent out to the target in e-mail. The questionnaire1
The questionnaire consisted of both closed-ended and open-ended questions. Close-ended questions dominated in order to make filling out the questionnaire easier for the respondents. The closed ended questions required either ranking or rating the importance of the listed indicators.
was divided into three main parts in alignment with the main topics that they were meant to assess. The first part assessed the opinions on the importance of poverty/ well-being indicators, the second on the importance of wetland ecosystem services, and the third on the importance of wetland ecological health indicators in consideration of the rural poor communities in developing countries.
In the case of ranking, five importance categories were used ranging between ‘least important’ to ‘most important’ in the first and second parts of the questionnaire related to poverty/well-being and wetland ecosystem services. In the case of the third part of the questionnaire, the ranking question related to wetland ecological health an additional ‘I do not know’ option was given as it included some discipline specific indicators.
Rating had slightly different categories with four importance categories ranging between ‘unimportant’ and ‘very important’ with an additional option ‘I do not now’. These types of questions have the advantages that the answers were standardized and thus easier to compare the responses.
Interviews Semi-structured (approx. 30 min.) interviews were conducted with twelve members of the academic staff of UNESCO-IHE. A preliminary list of interviewees was established based on the likelihood of a person to be willing to provide insights into the topics of interest. The interviewees were contacted
1 The link to the questionnaire: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1PUcD5FYvVS2tSW20MAsPiPwyrA_mkfDLArlkuFDK8CI/viewform
10 | P a g e
via e-mail or in person to arrange the meeting. During the interviews an interview guide was used which included all the topics. The advantages of this type of interviewing are that the interviewee can express himself with in his own terms and the interview guide ensures that the same topics are covered with each interviewee (Southwold 2002). It allowed me to get more insights on the academic staffs’ opinions on the concepts used in the conceptual framework, reflect on the indicators used in the questionnaire, but also let more space them to express their opinions and ideas on the linkages between wetland ecological health, poverty, and poverty alleviation (Step 3).
2.3. Data processing methods Literature review, interview reports and Excel processing were carried out to process the different data sources and to be able to answer the research questions (Table 2).
Table 1: Summary table of data sources, corresponding data processing methods and research questions
Data source Data processing methods
Research questions
Seco
ndar
y da
ta
Literature Scientific articles and books
Official websites Literature review 1, 2
Prim
ary
data
Questionnaire survey
Academic staff (38)
WWF (3)
Excel 3, 4
Interviews Academic staff (12) Interview report 3, 4, 5
11 | P a g e
3. Conceptual framework - Linking wetland ecosystems to rural livelihoods This chapter presents the conceptual framework, which integrates the relevant concepts to support a better understanding on the linkages between rural communities’ well-being or poverty and wetland ecological health and services. The central elements of the framework are wetland ecosystems and the rural community that depends on it (Figure 3).
This conceptual framework is a result of literature review of existing frameworks on the linkages between ecosystem services and human well-being by MA (2003), ecosystem service cascade by Kandziora (2013), the linkages between wetland – livelihood by Kumar et al. (2011), sustainable rural livelihoods by Allison and Horemans (2006).
In general, wetlands are defined by the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands as “areas of marsh, fen, peatland or water, whether natural or artificial, permanent or temporary, with water that is static or flowing, fresh, brackish or salt, including areas of marine water the depth of which at low tide does not exceed six metres” (MA 2005).
Figure 3: Conceptual Framework: Linking wetland ecosystems to rural livelihoods
Adapted from (MA 2003, Allison and Horemans 2006, Kumar et al. 2011, Kandziora et al. 2013)
Biophysical structures, ecological compositions and processes of the wetland determine its functioning and its ecological integrity or health, which in turn underpin the ability of the wetland to provide ecosystem services (Cairns Jr and Pratt 1995, Kandziora et al. 2013).
Ecosystem services or wetland services are defined by MA (2005) as “benefits people obtain from (wetland) ecosystems”. These wetland services can be divided into different categories. According to the MA (2005) classification system, these services can be provisioning services (e.g. water, food, raw materials), regulating services (e.g. water purification, erosion regulation, biodiversity), supporting services (nutrient cycling, soil formation) and cultural services (e.g. aesthetic, recreation, spiritual). Supporting services underpins the delivery of other services. In another classification system by the TEEB - project (2010) supporting services are not used but instead habitat services, which provide
12 | P a g e
habitat for wild plant and animals. In this conceptual framework the main focus is on the regulating and provisioning services.
Rural communities living near wetlands are often strongly related to the wetland and its services as their livelihood systems are adapted to the ecological characteristics of the wetland (Kumar et al. 2011). A livelihood system in the sustainable livelihoods approaches based on five assets or capitals such as natural (e.g. fish stocks, land), physical (e.g. access to roads, schools), financial (e.g. credit, savings), human ( e.g. knowledge, education, health) and social (associations, memberships) (Allison and Horemans 2006). Wetland services are part of the natural capital but they can contribute to all other capitals. For instance, by harvesting natural resources to make handicrafts, roofing materials for sale or by selling fish increase the financial capital as these activities generate income to the households. Furthermore, wetlands can provide food, fodder for animals, water and medicinal plants that support human capital by nutrition and avoiding illnesses.
These capitals form the basis for livelihood strategies, but are also influenced by the capability of the community to employ those due to institutional arrangements (formal or informal) and the level of access. For instance, the community may have traditional regulations (e.g. informal arrangements) on spatial and time limits, methods used for harvesting and fishing. The access to capitals, however, may be also limited due to social inequality within the community, lacking access to market, and facilities (etc.).
Furthermore, external environments those are beyond the control of the community or household representing the vulnerability context, can also influence livelihood strategies and the access to capitals. Vulnerability context can take place at multiple spatial scales from local to global and affects the livelihoods and wetland ecosystems through direct and indirect drivers of change. Indirect drivers may include socio-political, demographic, economic drivers (etc.) and direct drivers may include technology adaptation, land use and land cover, climate change (etc.). At a household level, the vulnerability context can be related to for instance, illness or death, a natural disaster, or damaged equipments crucial to livelihood activities.
These all determine the types of livelihood strategies occurring within the community, which then lead to livelihood outcomes, or changes in the well-being status. In the conceptual framework poverty and well-being follows the approach of UNEP/IISD (2004) in which poverty and well-being is defined based on the presence or absence of a range of key determinants. Therefore, poverty and well-being are seen closely related where a strategy can lead to a change in poverty status, depending on the changes induced in the components of well-being, i.e. necessary material for good life, health, security, good social relations and freedom and choices. Communities that traditionally attached to wetlands through their livelihood activities often have a good ecological knowledge about the ecosystem and aim to sustain its productivity for long term. For instance, the Endorois people living around the Loboi papyrus swamp in Kenya have a good ecological knowledge about the swamp and the papyrus, which is harvested sustainably for multiple purposes (mats for selling, cattle fodder, roofing material and cooking fuel). The harvesting is done selectively and in rotation allowing time for papyrus plants to regenerate. The papyrus is also important material for the cleansing rituals and traditional dances, associated with respect, honour and majesty (Terer et al. 2012).
However, other types of livelihood strategies through how they affect the biophysical structure and processes of a wetland may cause negative changes in the wetland’s ecological health and the delivery of services. That change might result in deepening poverty. For instance, economic development and poverty alleviation initiatives (external factors) if not carefully formulated may induce migrations leading to significant population growth thereby affecting traditional livelihood strategies. This was the case in Tanzania and India, when Nile perch fishing in Lake Victoria (Tanzania), and prawn farming in Chilika Lake (India) have attracted people from outside areas in the hope of income generation (Jentoft et al. 2010, Kumar et al. 2011). It has led to increased pressures on the ecosystems, which in turn caused changes in the accessibility of capitals induced by social
13 | P a g e
conflicts (between the traditional fishermen and the new-comers), and decreasing ecological health and services. Consequently, it has led to deepened poverty status as the components of well-being have been affected negatively.
4. Indicators selected for the questionnaires This chapter describes the indicator selection for the questionnaire (Step 2).
The conceptual framework revealed that wetland ecological health is important to ensure the provision of ecosystem services that can contribute to livelihood outcomes. In the conceptual framework, poverty and well-being are seen closely related, where the absence or presence of a range of key determinants defines which of the two occurs. These determinants are basic materials for good life, health, security, good social relations and freedom and choices.
However, these outcomes (poverty or well-being) are also influenced by many other factors that make achieving reduced poverty and sustainable wetlands a very complex issue. Therefore, to get a better understanding on what indicators can be important to use for measuring poverty/well-being and wetland ecological health in rural areas in developing countries, indicators were searched and selected from literature. In order to be able to select relevant indicators, wetland services that were similar in each empirical study helped to link poverty/well-being and ecological health. Since mostly the provision of food, water and natural resources were mentioned related to livelihoods and biodiversity related to the ecosystem side, only provisioning and regulating services were used in the questionnaire.
Once the indicators were found, they were grouped into five – five categories for both poverty/well-being and wetland ecological health to be “tested” with professionals through gauging their opinions on the importance of these indicators (Figure 4).
14 | P a g e
Figure 4: Logic used for selecting indicators for the questionnaire
The five categories in relation to wetland ecological health were physico-chemical conditions (water quality parameters), community composition of plants and animals, energy/material flow, hydrological condition and habitat condition. Indicators related to these categories were most frequently mentioned in literature. However, one has to notice that the empirical studies mostly used biodiversity (species composition) to monitor the success of projects in terms of ecosystem sustainability; they lacked using more a complete range of indicators for measuring ecological health.
The five categories most often mentioned in the empirical studies in relation to poverty/well-being were education, financial situation, food security, human health and types of social relations within the community. Specific indicators were not mentioned, therefore indicators from the MDGs were selected.
15 | P a g e
5. Results and discussions In this chapter the results of the questionnaire and interviews on the perceptions of professionals will be presented and discussed (Step 3).
5.1. Results of the questionnaire In this chapter, the results of the questionnaire will be described in alignment with the three main parts in relation to the importance of poverty/ well-being indicators, wetland ecosystem services and wetland ecological health indicators for poor, rural communities in developing countries.
The respondents of the questionnaire In total 41 respondents filled out the questionnaire. The majority (90%) of them were from UNESCO-IHE and (7%) from World Wildlife Fund (WWF). Almost all chair groups of UNESCO-IHE participated in the survey. The most responses arrived from the chair groups of Aquatic Ecosystems and Hydrology and Water resources (Table 2).
Table 2: Distribution of respondent according to organizations and chair groups
Responses per organization Respondents % UNESCO-IHE (per chair groups) 90.2
Aquatic Ecosystems 7 17.1 Coastal Systems and Engineering and Port Development 4 9.8 Hydroinformatics 1 2.4 Hydrology and Water Resources 7 17.1 Knowledge and Capacity Building 1 2.4 Land and Water Development 1 2.4 Pollution Prevention and Resource Recovery 3 7.3 River Basin Development 0 0.0 Sanitary Engineering 5 12.2 Water Governance 0 0.0 Water Management 4 9.8 Water Supply Engineering 1 2.4 Other 3 7.3
WWF 3 7.3 Other 1 2.4
TOTAL 41 100
39% of the respondents’ status were employed, 34% and 24% were MSc and PhD students, respectively. Both genders were nearly equally represented in the survey, with 49% female and 51% male respondents. The respondents were originally from twenty-four countries, representing five continents. The majority of respondents were Europeans (42%), 29% was from Africa, 15% from countries in Central- and South-America and 7% each from Asia and North-America (Figure 5).
16 | P a g e
Figure 5: Distribution of respondents according to their origin
Perceptions on the importance of indicators for measuring poverty/ well-being In this chapter, the results of the first part of the questionnaire will be described, which aimed to assess the opinions of professionals on indicators to measure poverty/well-being status.
Importance of different factors for measuring poverty/ well-being In the question to rank the importance of factors (education, food security, health, financial situation and types of social relations within the community) relative to each other for measuring poverty/ well-being in developing countries, only eleven respondents ranked them. Thirty respondents rate them instead. It could happen because the used online program did not have the appropriate type of question for ranking. Yet, in both cases, the results indicate that health and food security are seen as the most important factors for measuring poverty/ well-being and the types of social relations are the least important.
The results of ranking show that health was perceived as the most important factor, followed by food security, and education. Financial situation and types of social relations were seen as the least import factors for measuring poverty or well-being (Figure 6).
Figure 6: Ranked importance of factors for measuring poverty/well-being
29%
7%
15%
42%
7%
Africa
Asia
Central and South-America
Europe
North-America
N=41
1
1
6
2
1
3
1
5
2
1
4
6
4
4
1
2
6
3
2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Least important
Slightly important
Important
Very important
Most important
Nr. of respondents
Importance of factors for measuring poverty/ well-being (Ranking)
Education
Food security
Health
Financial situation
Types of social relations
n=11
17 | P a g e
The results of rating show similar pattern since most of the people rated food security and health as the most important and very important factors, 93% and 77%, respectively. Interestingly, while even food security was seen as only slightly important by 3% of the respondents, no one rated the importance of health lower than ‘important’. Furthermore, it seems that the factor of types of social relations was perceived in a contradictive way among the respondents. The results of rating indicate that while more than half of the respondents saw this factor as most and very important factor, it had also the most responses that rated it only slightly important (17%).
Figure 7: Rated importance of factors for measuring poverty/well-being
For measuring poverty/well-being other factors were also suggested by 22 respondents out of the total 41 respondents. The most frequently mentioned ones were related to accessibility to and availability of natural resources, infrastructures (schools, social facilities), and “basic human rights i.e. food, shelter, clothing”. It was followed by security against natural disasters, wars, social conflicts, but also having stability and security at the household level. More respondents referred to the family in terms of structure, lifestyle, the role of the women and child care. Some respondents mentioned factors in relation to personal skills and feelings such as communication and interpersonal skills, happiness, “internal sense of being provided for, and being grateful for one's wealth of the individual”; others suggested factors more related to the environment such as the “integrity of surrounding environment” and good environment. Factors were also mention related to a broader context such as democracy, empowerment and employment opportunities.
Importance of indicators per factors for measuring poverty/well-being
1) Education indicators The results show that among the proposed education indicators, “literacy rate of 15-24 years old, women and men’ and ‘proportion of children enrolled in primary school’ were rated by more than 70% of the respondents as very important indicators for measuring poverty/well-being. The indicator of ‘number of pupils per school class’ got the most ‘unimportant’ and ‘slightly important’ votes (56%) (Figure 8).
13
43
30
27
17
40
50
47
40
37
40
3
23
30
30
7
3
3
17
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Education level
Food security
Human health
Financial situation
Type of social relations within the community
% of respondents
Importance of factors for measuring poverty/ well-being (Rating)
Most important
Very important
Important
Slightly important
Least important
n=30
18 | P a g e
Figure 8: Rated importance of education indicators for measuring poverty/well-being
2) Health indicators Health indicators generally were rated higher (very important + important) than the education indicators. The indicators of ‘Access to adequate and safe water ‘and ‘Access to improved sanitation’ were rated as very important health indicators by 93% and 80% of the respondents, respectively (Figure 9). These results were in alignment with the MDGs, which emphasizes the importance of these two indicators. Other indicators, however, such as ‘Incidence and death rates associated with avoidable diseases and ‘Accessibility of health infrastructures’ also were found very important by 71% and 61% of the respondents. ‘HIV prevalence’ was considered as the most contradictive indicator, where 34% of the people rated it as very important, but compared to the other indicators it was considered as the most ‘unimportant’ by 10% of the respondents (Figure 9).
Figure 9: Rated importance of health indicators for measuring poverty/well-being
3) Indicators of financial situation The indicator of ‘Proportion of people with income below 1 USD per day’ proposed by the MDGs was rated as ‘very important’ by the majority of the respondents (61%). The other indicators were rated
73
71
24
51
17
24
24
46
34
20
2
22
5
46
2
2
10
5
5
7
7
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Literacy rate of 15-24 years old, women and men
Proportion of children enrolled in primary school
Number of people with higher education
Proportion of pupils starting grade 1 who reach last grade of primary
Number of pupils per school class
% of respondents
Importance of EDUCATION indicators for measuring poverty/well-being (Rating)
Very important
Important
Slightly important
Unimportant
I do not know
n=41
93
34
71
80
61
2
44
22
15
32
5
5
2
10
2
5
7
5
5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Access to adequate and safe water
HIV prevalence among 15-24 years
Incidence and death rates associated with avoidable diseases
Access to improved sanitation
Accessibility of health infrastructures
% of respondents
Importance of HEALTH indicators for measuring poverty/well-being (Rating)
Very important
Important
Slightly important
Unimportant
I do not know
n=41
19 | P a g e
more as ‘important’ than very important and more respondents rated them as only ‘slightly important’ or ‘unimportant’ (Figure 10).
Figure 10: Rated importance of financial situation indicators for measuring poverty/well-being
4) Indicators of food security The most important indicators among the proposed ones were ‘Number of undernourished people’ and ‘Number of underweight children under five years of age’, which were rated as ‘very important’ indicators by 78% and 68% of the respondents, respectively. Most of the people as ‘important’ rated all the other indicators. The percentage of people, who choose the option of ‘I do not know’ was the highest in this assessment in relation to measuring poverty/well-being (Figure 11).
Figure 11: Rated importance of food security indicators for measuring poverty/well-being
5) Indicators of types of social relations within the community
The majority of people rated all the indicators of the ‘types of social relations’ ‘as important’, but only some of them rated these indicators as ‘very important’ for measuring poverty/well-being. Yet,
61
39
32
27
27
24
39
32
44
29
10
12
29
15
27
5
2
2
2
7
7
5
12
10
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Proportion of people with income below 1 USD per day
Accessibilty of market
Accessibilty of credit for loan
Number of people in wage employement
Average annual consumption expenditure (per capita) in USD
% of respondents
Importance FINANCIAL SITUATION indicators for measuring poverty/well-being (Rating)
Very important
Important
Slightly important
Unimportant
I do not know
n=41
78
68
22
17
20
12
24
41
41
41
2
2
24
24
17
2
2
5
7
2
10
17
17
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Number of undernourished people
Number of underweight children under five years of age
Average annual amount of crops or harvested products for selling
Number of different types of wetland resources used for ensuring food …
Amount of water used for irrigation during dry season
% of respondents
Importance of FOOD SECURITY indicators for measuring poverty/well-being (Rating)
Very important
Important
Slightly important
Unimportant
I do not know
n=41
20 | P a g e
the two indicators that were rated, as ‘very important’ by most of the respondents were ‘Ratios of girls to boys in primary school ’and‘ Number of women in wage employment indicating the recognition of importance of gender equality in rural communities.
One out of the forty-one respondents selected the option of ‘I do not know’ for each indicator.
Figure 12: Rated importance of social relations indicators for measuring poverty/well-being
6) Comparison of the importance of factors by taking the average (%) of importance categories
within each indicators groups If we take the average (percentage) of the importance categories per indicator groups, it shows that health indicators on average were rated higher than the other indicators within the other categories. In terms of the ‘very important’ category the education, food security and financial situation indicators follow the health indicators. Only on average 19% of the respondents rated the indicators of ‘types of social relations’ as ‘very important’, but compared to the other group of indicators most of the people rated them as ‘important’ (Figure13). However, the indicators of ‘types of social relations’ were also rated by most of the respondents as ‘slightly important’ and ‘unimportant’, indicating the same pattern that was already described in the previous chapter (3.3.2.), when the five factors were rated.
29
17
27
5
15
37
41
54
44
61
22
27
7
34
10
7
2
5
7
5
5
12
7
10
10
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Ratios of girls to boys in primary school
Number of formal or informal community institutions
Number of women in wage employment
Number of members in community organizations
Ratios of women involved in community organizations
% of respondents
Importance of SOCIAL RELATIONS indicators for measuring poverty/well-being (Rating)
Very important
Important
Slightly important
Unimportant
I do not know
n=41
21 | P a g e
Figure 13: Comparing the importance of factors by taking the average (%) of importance categories within each indicator groups
Perceptions on the importance of wetland services to the well-being of the rural poor In the second part of the questionnaire, two questions were related to gauge the opinions of professionals on the role wetland ecosystem in supporting the well-being of the rural poor through ranking the importance of different ecosystem services. Only fifteen respondents ranked these services and twenty-six rated them. (In the survey, wetland services were called wetland characteristics in order to keep it simpler for the respondents). The results of ranking of the two questions will be described together due to similarities. (The results of question 1 and question 2 are shown in Figure 22 and Figure 23 in Appendix III, respectively.)
The results of both questions have revealed that most of the respondents thought that the services of ‘water purification’ and ‘protection from natural disasters (e.g. floods, droughts)’ were the ‘most important’ wetland services for the rural people in developing countries. Probably, it was because these regulating services were recognized to be strongly linked to human health, food security and security from disasters.
Following these services ‘water provision for irrigation’ was clearly the dominating as ‘very important’ service in question 2. In question 1 the ‘provision of fertile area for crop cultivation’ and ‘provision of edible natural resources’ both were equally ranked and shared the same votes. The later (edible natural resources), however, dominated more clearly in the category of ‘important’. In question 2, the ‘provision of fodder for livestock’ was ranked by most of the people as ‘important’. Therefore, in both categories of ‘very important’ and ‘important’ provisioning services took place and particularly those that are important for ensuring food security.
In question 1, the services of ‘raw materials for selling’ and ‘habitat for diverse animal and plant species’ were selected by the majority of people (12 out of 15) in the ‘least important’ category, but they were also considered as only ‘slightly important’ services. In question 2, the services of ‘provision of medicinal plants’ and ‘prevention of soil erosion’ were ranked by the majority of people (13 out of 15) as ‘least important’ services. These services also dominated in the ‘slightly important category and were ranked by the same number of people.
47
68
37
41
19
30
23
34
32
47
15
2
19
14
20
3
2
4
2
5
5
4
7
11
9
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Education
Health
Financial situation
Food security
Types of socila relations
% of respondents
Comparison of the importance of factors by taking the average (%) of importance categories within each indicators groups
Very important
Important
Slightly important
Unimportant
I do not know
n=41
22 | P a g e
Perceptions on the importance of indicators for measuring wetland ecological health In this chapter, the results of the third part of the questionnaire will be described, which assessed the opinions of professionals on the importance of indicators in measuring wetland ecological health in consideration of the rural poor.
Importance of factors to be considered before selecting indicators for measuring wetland ecological health in developing countries In order to get some insights on what factors can influence the selection of the indicators in developing countries, the respondents were asked to rate the listed factors. According to the ratings the majority of the respondents (83%) thought that ‘human pressures on the wetland’ was a ‘very important’ prerequisite factor that should be consider before selecting indicators for measuring wetland health. The second highest rated factor was the ‘characteristics of the wetland’. The rest of the factors such as ‘economic development plan with the wetland’, ‘importance of the wetland for the poor’ and ‘climatic conditions’ generally were rated by more people as ‘important’ than ‘very important’. In general, summing up the responses the two highest importance categories, all the factors were found important to be considered by about 70% of the respondents (Figure 14).
Figure 14: Importance of different factors for selecting indicators for measuring wetland ecological health
Importance of indicators for measuring wetland ecological health in consideration of the well-being of the rural poor This question required ranking the importance of indicators for measuring wetland ecological health in consideration of the needs of rural, poor communities. In this way, the question aimed to link wetland ecological health with poverty/well-being and ecosystem services.
Similarly, to the other questions that required ranking, only sixteen respondents ranked these indicators, the majority (25people) rated them.
The results of ranking show that ‘physico-chemical condition (water quality parameters) ’of the wetland was found the ‘most important’ by most of the respondents, however, all the other indicators were also ranked in that category. ‘Physico-chemical condition’ also dominated in the ‘very important’ category together with the indicator of ‘hydrological condition’. Following this, in the ‘important’ category most of the people selected ‘habitat condition’ and ‘community composition of plants and animals’. Most of the people
56
32
83
34
39
39
37
12
39
41
5
22
5
15
7
5
5
5
5
7
7
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
characteristics of the wetland (structure, functions, processes)
climatic conditions
human pressures on the wetland
importance of the wetland for the poor
economic development plan with the wetland
% of respondents
Importance of different factors for selecting indicators for measuring wetland ecological health (Rating)
Very important
Important
Slightly important
Unimportant
I do not know
n=41
23 | P a g e
found ‘energy/material flow’ only ‘slightly’ and ‘least important’ compared to the other indicators. Furthermore, this indicator was the only indicators, which was not known by some of the respondents (Figure 15).
Figure 15: Ranked importance of indicators for measuring wetland ecological health in developing countries
The results of rating show that the indicators were generally rated highly and no one assigned the category of ‘least important’ to any of them. In terms of the category of ‘most important’, most of the respondents rated the indicators of ‘hydrological’ and ‘habitat’ conditions.
‘Physico-chemical condition’ was also rated high, in particular in the category of ‘very important 'and no one assigned an importance category to this indicator lower than ‘important’. It might be also because it was known by all respondents and thus people might felt more confident give a higher rate. 'Energy/material flow’ and ‘community composition of plants and animals’ were considered to have lower importance than the other indicators (Figure 16).
Figure 16: Rated importance of indicators for measuring wetland ecological health in developing countries
1
2
2
5
6
3
2
5
4
2
4
6
3
3
3
4
3
5
2
2
3
6
2
3
0 5 10 15
Least important
Slightly important
Important
Very important
Most important
I do not know
Nr. of respondents
Importance of indicators for measuring wetland ecological health in developing countries (Ranking)
Physico-chemical condition (water quality parameters)
Community composition of plants and animals
Energy/ material flow
Hydrological condition
Habitat condition
n=16
24
16
20
36
32
40
28
28
32
32
36
36
32
24
24
12
12
8
8
8
8
4
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Physico-chemical condition
Community composition of plants and animals
Energy/ material flow
Hydrological condition
Habitat condition
% of respondents
Importance of indicators for measuring wetland ecological health(Rating)
Most important
Very important
Important
Slightly important
Least important
I do not know
n=25
24 | P a g e
Other indicators were also suggested by ten respondents for measuring wetland ecological health. These were quite diverse, including biogeochemical processes, hydrological connectivity, carrying capacity, size and level of fragmentation, but also economic values of wetland products and agricultural practices.
Importance of indicators per components of wetland ecological health
1) Indicators of physico-chemical condition All indicators, except ‘suspended sediment’ were rated as ‘very important’ by more than 50% of the respondents. The indicators of ‘toxic substances’ and ‘nutrients ‘were rated by most of the people as ‘very important’ by 61% and 59% of the respondents, respectively. ‘Suspended sediment’ was rated lower than the other indicators and most of respondents thought it was only ‘slightly important and unimportant’.
Four (10%) out of the forty-one respondents selected the option of ‘I do not know’ for each indicator, indicating that they were probably not familiar with the topic.
Figure 17: Rated importance of indicators for measuring physico-chemical condition of wetlands
2) Indicators of community composition The indicators of ‘fish species richness’, ‘plant species richness’, and overall community composition’ had quite similar and equal rates in terms of ‘very important, and ‘important’ categories, respectively (Figure 18).
The rates of ‘rare fish species’ indicates that opinions were divided about this indicators with 32% of the respondents found it ‘very important’, 20% ‘important’, 29% ‘slightly important’, and 7% ‘unimportant’ for measuring community composition (Figure 18). Two respondents (5%) selected the option of ‘I do not know’ for each indicator.
59
61
54
27
51
32
24
29
41
34
2
7
12
5
2
10
12
10
17
10
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Nutrients
Toxic substances
Combination of temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen
Suspended sediment
Virus and bacteria (e.g. Fecal coliforms)
% of respondents
Importance of indicators for measuring the PHYSICO-CHEMICAL CONDITION(Rating)
Very important
Important
Slightly important
Unimportant
I do not know
n=41
25 | P a g e
Figure 18: Rated importance of indicators for measuring community composition in wetlands
3) Indicators of energy/material flow Indicators for energy/material flow were rated quite similarly, where ‘gross primary production’ was rated by most of the respondents as ‘very important’ indicator for measuring energy/ material flow. However, this indicator was also unknown for most of the respondents (22%), compared to the other indicators. The portion of people who selected the option ‘I do not know’ was generally high in this question and five respondents (12%) out the 41 selected this option for each indicator (Figure 19). It probably means that the respondents were less familiar with these indicators.
Figure 19: Rated importance of indicators for measuring energy/material flow in wetlands
4) Indicators of hydrological condition In the case of hydrological condition the indicators of ‘wetland water level’, ‘groundwater status’ and ‘surface water flow’ rated similarly high, with ‘wetland water level’ being rated as ‘very important’ by more people than the other two indicators. ‘Channel surface roughness’ was seen more as
46
49
24
44
32
37
37
49
37
20
10
7
12
5
29
2
7
7
7
12
15
12
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Plant species richness
Fish species richness
Plant species abundance
Overall community composition
Rare fish species
% of respondents
Importance of indicators for assessing the COMMUNITY COMPOSITION (Rating)
Very important
Important
Slightly important
Unimportant
I do not know
n=41
39
32
32
27
32
34
39
41
44
34
5
10
10
15
15
2
22
20
15
15
20
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Gross primary production
Carbon flux
Fish catch
Nitrogen retention
Harvested plant material
% of respondents
Importance of indicators for measuring ENERGY/MATERIAL FLOW(Rating)
Very important
Important
Slightly important
Unimportant
I do not know
n=41
26 | P a g e
‘important’, or slightly important indicator for measuring hydrological condition (Figure 20). Two respondents (5%) selected the option of ‘I do not know’ for each indicator.
Figure 20: Rated importance of indicators for assessing hydrological condition of wetlands
5) Indicators of habitat condition ‘Natural vegetation’ was rated as ‘very important‘ by 51% of the respondents and it was the highest rate in this importance category. All the other indicators ‘extant of grazing by livestock’ solid waste material’, ‘open water’ and ‘emergent plant cover’ were rated higher as ‘important’ indicators for assessing hydrological condition of the wetland. Three respondents (7%) selected the option of ‘I do not know’ for each indicator (Figure 21).
Figure 21: Rated importance of indicators for assessing habitat condition of wetlands
54
49
61
17
39
37
41
32
41
44
2
5
24
5
2
7
5
7
15
12
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Surface water flow
Groundwater status
Wetland water level
Channel surface roughness (e.g.plant cover, hummocks)
Hydrologic residence time
% of respondents
Importance of indicators for assessing HYDROLOGICAL CONDITION(Rating)
Very important
Important
Slightly important
Unimportant
I do not know
n=41
51
24
20
17
22
37
51
54
49
49
2
12
15
17
10
2
2
10
10
12
17
17
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Natural vegetation cover
Extant of grazing by livestock
Open water
Emergent plant cover
Solid waste material
% of respondents
Importance of indicators for assessing HABITAT CONDITION (Rating)
Very important
Important
Slightly important
Unimportant
I do not know
n=41
27 | P a g e
5.2. Results of the interviews In this chapter, the results of the interviews will be described and discussed in terms of the perceptions of professionals on the concepts, indicators of poverty, human well-being, and wetland ecological health. It will also present the perceptions on the importance of wetlands in general and to the rural poor in developing countries as well as how the role of wetland ecological health is perceived in poverty reduction. Finally, the perceptions on the role of international policies will be presented in relation to addressing both poverty reduction and environmental sustainability.
Perceptions on the concepts and indicators of poverty and human well-being All the interviewees could give some opinions on the related interview questions on poverty and well-being, independently from their main field of expertise. However, the answers are not conclusive in term of rural poverty, as many of the interviewees had experiences mainly with urban environments in developing countries. Some of them referred to that the questions should be asked from the rural poor itself living in the developing world.
Defining poverty and human well-being varied among the twelve interviewees, indicating deviations in perceptions on the concepts. All the interviewees recognized that poverty and well-being are related. Poverty in most cases was characterised as a multidimensional deprivation of the components of well-being i.e. where human health and food security are lacking, there is no access to services such as water, sanitation, education but also not to human rights, good institutions (formal, informal), information and power to make decisions. The characteristics of poverty were perceived by more interviewees that are interlinked, health and access to food in particular, but financial situation may also influence access to education, and food. Health, in general was mentioned as being one of the most important characteristic and a prerequisite of well-being.
Four interviewees, who did not fill the questionnaire out were asked to rank the factors used from the questionnaire i.e. education, financial situation, food security, health, types of social relations within the community. Comparing the results of ranking, food and health were defined as most important characteristics in two cases. However, financial situation and types of social relations were also ranked the highest, indicating the variations in opinions and the significance of influential factors. Social relations, particularly interactions between poor and better off social classes was observed by the interviewee in urban areas in developing countries that it may trigger poor individuals to choose different strategy to deal with poverty and improve their livelihoods. It may also bring good networks and opportunities for the future.
The majority of the interviewees mentioned that defining poverty; selecting and ranking indicators for measuring are greatly influenced by the location, cultural context, climatic and demographic conditions as well as scale issues. For instance, in some countries having a latrine was experienced as being important for the people living there, but in another country it was not. Other example was that in certain cultures, having a motorcycle or a TV was more important than having a better house or shelter. Thus, indicators and poverty alleviation measures was seen to be more effective if they were more about meeting demands of the location. Defining poverty at the household level was perceived to be easier than at higher levels such as the level of society, where institutions and other external factors have more influence.
Poverty indicators were mostly related to the components of well-being such as economic, nutritional, health and education indicators, but also related to a broader context such as democracy, access to information and environment was also mentioned. Five interviewees mentioned happiness and two people referred to the gross national happiness indicator, which was developed in Bhutan and includes both social and psychological indicators. In relation to wetland ecosystems, measuring the awareness of people using the wetlands on its ecosystems services was also suggested because it was experienced that it is often lacking.
The indicator of one USD a day proposed by the MDGs was generally was seen as very relative and simplified economic indicator, which does not provide a full picture about poverty. One of the critics
28 | P a g e
were mentioned by more people that its value varies depending on the country context; in some countries it might mean that the people are less poor than in another country. Only one of the interviewees said that "it was better than any other vague" indicators and another pointed out that if we used more indicators that would require a lot of exceptions because of the local differences. Yet, only one interviewee mentioned an approach that could be better in addressing the aforementioned limitations. It was suggested that instead of looking at one USD daily income to monitor the level of poverty we should look at how much rice or bread could be bought on the money they have.
The majority of the interviewed people found human well-being a much broader concept, which goes beyond poverty. Well-being was also referred to as the quality of life. Others found satisfying basic needs can lead to human well-being as there are certain needs that have to be satisfied first such as food security, health, shelter (etc). Two of the interviewees referred to poverty and well-being as being exact opposites of each other. Thus, one of the interviewees found it more appropriate to speak about livelihood indicators rather than poverty and well-being indicators. Indicators for well-being varied according to how the interviewee conceptualized it. The most often mentioned well-being indicators besides the already mentioned ones (access to services, food, sanitation etc.), were social networks, access to markets, happiness, employment, family, personal and family safety, job satisfaction, feeling at home etc. Thus, well-being indicators could be divided into physical, psychological, social and personal well-being.
Perceptions on the importance of wetland ecosystems in general and in relation to the poor Only eleven interviews answered for the related to questions, as one of the interviewees did not feel that she/he was competent in the topic. In fact, half of the interviewed people mentioned that they were not experts on wetlands, but had some knowledge that made them able to answer the questions to a certain degree.
The importance of wetlands was mentioned to be dependent on the characteristics of the wetland ecosystem and the location as well as the vicinity to human economic activities. Therefore, while some wetlands might be better in providing, for instance, water purification services, others might be better providing food.
Nine interviewees out of the eleven referred to ecosystem services when talked about the importance of wetland ecosystems both in general and to the poor. It indicates that the majority of them were aware of these terms. Ecosystem services were mentioned in all categories i.e. regulating, provisioning, habitat and cultural. The most often mentioned services in relation to the importance of wetlands in general were food provision (e.g. fish and agriculture), water supply, building materials, biodiversity, climate and water regulation, flood prevention and providing habitat and breeding ground for migratory birds. Other services were also mentioned such as carbon cycling, aesthetic, tourism and recreation and prevention from disasters. Regulating and provisioning services were mentioned in a balanced way, indicating that wetlands regulating services were equally perceived as being important. Those who did not mention ecosystem services, referred to them indirectly such as financial benefits deriving from fishing and the role of wetlands to maintain environmental quality on the long-term. Although, mainly the positive side of importance was mentioned, in four cases it was pointed out that wetlands may be also sources of malaria and other waterborne diseases.
When answering the question on the importance of wetlands to the poor, more emphasis was put on linking ecosystem services to the components of well-being, particularly to health and food security by most of the interviewees. Therefore, the services of water purification, provision of food and building materials (e.g. sand, clay), clean water were emphasized as being particularly important in contributing the livelihoods of the poor. However, some of the respondents stressed that for the poor people, in principle the same services are important as to other people, but the priorities might be different. Some needs have to be met first in order to be able to appreciate, for instance, the recreational value of the wetland.
29 | P a g e
Wetlands were mentioned to be particularly important for the poor, which is also indicated by that there is usually high poverty levels at coastal areas and around wetlands because they provide a wide range of natural resources that are more evenly and for free available. One of the examples highlighted that villages located around a wetland system in Tanzania were found entirely dependent on the wetland for the livelihoods, and the only money occurred in the area arrived to chiefs through subsidies.
Therefore, most of the respondents recognized that wetland are important for the poor, but no one agreed that wetlands solely without other measures or promoting other services such as tourism can reduce the level of poverty. Yet, one of them stressed that "the risk of underestimating their importance involves a huge risk".
Perceptions on the concept and indicators of wetland ecological health and its linkages to the poor and poverty reduction For the questions related to wetland ecological health, only ten respondents gave answers, due to the same reason explained in the previous sub-chapter.
Definitions and indicators of wetland ecological health The opinions on how to define wetland ecological health could be divided into three main types of definitions, which were nearly equally represented by the respondents. These questions were perceived as difficult questions by some of the respondents. One third of the people defined wetland ecological health as a wetland system, which has a close to a natural ecological state, characterized by natural soil and water quality, species composition and vegetation and processes (biogeochemical) that are occurring to a degree close to natural. Related to this definition a slightly different approach was to looking at the degree of deviation from the natural state. However, it was also stressed by two of the respondents that defining natural wetland state is difficult, since wetlands are usually continuously affected by human activities. Therefore, wetland ecological health is a very relative concept and should be defined based on the purpose of human use that is ideally decided upon by involving all the stakeholders in the decision-making process. Consequently, these two respondents also thought that lowering the pristine health to a lower level, for instance to 80%, there would still be a certain degree of ecological health in the system, so could be still considered as healthy. If a system is really not healthy (e.g. its ecological health is close to 0-20%), good management practices could still improve it up to around 60-70%, which could be still good. In this way, wetland ecological health was seen on a scale, which has more than one dimension.
The second third of the respondents defined wetland ecological health by referring to a system which is self-sustaining, and resilient to a certain degree of natural and human disturbances, its size, structure and dynamics strong enough, so it can recover and maintain its existence. Biodiversity and habitat services were also mentioned. As one of the criteria to maintain this self sustaining ability way mentioned that people should not take more than they need for their livelihoods.
The third group of definitions was represented by four respondents, and shared the common emphasis on biodiversity within the wetland system. Therefore, a wetland was defined to be characterised by ecological health if it had the conditions of hydrology and morphology, was free from detrimental human disturbances (e.g. toxic materials) so that it could maintain biodiversity. Biodiversity was generally defined by having a diverse range of plant and animal species at different trophic levels. However, it was stressed that defining biodiversity and thus ecological wetland health also depend on the aim why we want to define it. If the aim is to conserve natural state then looking at rare fish species is a relevant choice, but if the aim is to reduce poverty, the goal should be to maintain a basic diversity of animal and plant species and thus monitoring rare fish species might be irrelevant.
The link with ecosystem services was also recognized by some of the respondents, who stated that a healthy wetland provides functions and services.
30 | P a g e
A variety of indicators were mentioned for measuring wetland ecological health such as biodiversity (e.g. the number of species at each trophic levels), water quality in terms of the amounts of chemicals, sediments and the amounts of pollutants found in the sediments. Furthermore, water quantity, wetland size, level of fragmentation, sensitivity of wetlands to shock levels, natural treatment capacity, nutrition cycling and the looking at the food chain were mentioned. One of the respondents stressed that the range of indicators for measuring wetland ecological health is well established, but the problem that it would take too much time and cost too much money to monitor it over time.
Factors influencing wetland ecological health in developing countries Human pressures were perceived as significant pressures on wetland ecosystems, particularly in combination with dense human populations and high poverty levels around the ecosystem. If ensuring food security is a problem for the people, they are often forced to use the natural resources as the only source. Consequently, it is likely that if food security was not a problem the pressures on the wetland may be less by the local poor people. For that it would be also a required that the people only take that it is necessary. Awareness of the poor on the importance of the wetlands was mentioned to be influential; however, it was experienced by some that it was often missing. Thus, education could have a potential role to raise awareness among the poor people and having good social relations within the community could also contribute to natural resource management by means of having a chief who makes regulations on the natural resources use. Other factors that may negatively influence wetland ecological health could be using too much part of the wetland, for instance, for aquaculture and for monoculture and using high loads of fertilizers and pesticides.
Importance of wetland ecological to the poor and poverty reduction Most of the respondents mentioned that wetland ecological health is a very important factor for the poor people living around the wetland because they are disproportionately dependent on the delivery of wetland natural resources. Only one of the interviewees said that he only saw the relation between wetland ecological health and the poor in terms of water provision, i.e. if the water is polluted it negatively affects the poor. Others stressed more that if the wetland was degraded it would make it much more difficult for those people to survive because of the high level of dependence. An example from Kenya was used to underpin the high dependency on wetlands. In the study a pattern could be recognized that those people, who had income from outside, depended less on the wetland than those who did not. However, according to one of the respondents not only the people living near the wetland are dependent on the ecological health of the wetland, but also the whole catchment. Wetland ecological health either directly or indirectly was linked to supporting the delivery of ecosystem services, which otherwise could not sustain fish populations and provide other food products, clean water and protection form disasters and floods. Decreasing fish populations may also results in the more frequent occurrence of malaria due to the fish population may not be able to regulate the malaria mosquito population. Consequently, if a wetland is unhealthy the use of wetlands gets limited.
One of the respondents pointed out that discussion on ecological health of wetlands usually does not penetrate to the level of the needs and wants of the poor; it mainly focuses on the objectives and amenities that people seek. However, the majority of the society in developing countries is often very poor and the decision that is made regarding the wetland affects their livelihoods greatly. It was identified as knowledge gap.
Even though, all ten respondents of this question could make a link between the importance of wetland ecological health and the livelihoods of the poor, the majority stated that maintaining good ecological health is not enough to reduce the levels of poverty of the people who are depending on it and it also should not be a goal itself.
31 | P a g e
One of the respondents clearly stated that a healthy wetland is only enough for survival, but cannot get people out of poverty. Yet, it is important that the ecological health is maintained at a level, which supports its functioning to be able to provide the basic for the people.
Wetland ecosystem was more seen as a small part of the whole poverty reduction "picture" and thus reduction of poverty should require much more than addressing wetland ecological health. Furthermore, it was stressed that governments should be more aware of the economic value of these ecosystems and the consequences of not protecting them, which could be best achieved by formulating economically sound propositions and having good governance.
Perceptions on how the Millennium Development Goals and Sustainable Development Goals address the link between environmental sustainability and poverty reduction This question was also experienced by some of the respondents as being a difficult one, but almost everybody shared their opinions about it. However, the level of deepness was varying among the respondents. The SDGs was less known by the majority of the interviewees, so the answers were mainly focusing on the MDGs.
Four of the interviewees had the opinion that MDGs are a good move to force governments to pay attention for important issues regarding poverty and was a good start to link environmental sustainability to poverty reduction. One of the respondents pointed out that the MDGs is a good start because it follows a logic order in poverty reduction, which should start with satisfying the basic needs of the poor. Then when the stresses are lowered, the poor are more likely to be more able to take care of its environment. However, it was mentioned in about half of the cases that environment should be more integrated into these goals in the future due to its importance for the long term. Furthermore, in many developing countries economic growth has been destroying ecosystems, which on the long-term not only environmentally, but also economically not beneficial for those countries.
Two of the respondents had more critical views on the MDGs by referring to that the MDGs makes a very fragmented connection between poverty alleviation and environmental sustainability and does not include clear links between ecological health, ecosystem services and poverty reduction.
It was also mentioned that the MDGs has more focus on direct effects like access to drinking water and sanitation i.e. more on the infrastructure, which is much easier to monitor than ecological health of ecosystems. Using protected areas as indicators were found not realistic, because the number of protected areas does not say much about the status of the environment. Thus, it may raise the questions how to assess ecological health to be able to see whether it is improving, or not over time. Furthermore, it was also seen problematic that how to choose targets and indicators in order to be realistic.
Although the majority of interviewees stated that they were not familiar with content of the SDGs, it was seen a more appropriate approach. One of the strongest points of the SDGs was mentioned that during its development more emphasis was put on involving a wider range of stakeholders, not only politicians and governments but also scientists, NGOs etc in the frame of consultations and debates.
32 | P a g e
6. General discussion The robustness of this study is that it integrated multiple disciplines and approaches from natural and social sciences in order to create a better understanding on the linkages between wetland ecological health, poverty and poverty alleviation in developing countries. It also reflects on the perceptions of professionals (UNESCO-IHE and WWF) regarding these concepts and linkages.
As the previous chapters revealed it involved a great degree of complexity deriving from issues that are already complex on their own as well as divide the people’s opinions such as poverty, human-well-being, wetland services, ecological health and their linkages to poverty alleviation. In order to deal with this complexity, and address the objectives of the study, certain assumptions, simplifications were made and different methods and data sources were used. These all inevitably involved chances of uncertainties and weaknesses that need to be discussed before drawing conclusions. This chapter, thus, provides a critical review on the study.
Usefulness of the conceptual framework in the study The conceptual framework was compiled in order to provide a better understanding on the linkages between rural communities’ livelihoods - in particular related to well-being and poverty - and wetland ecological health and services. I found the conceptual framework a very useful tool that helped me structuring the concepts and relationships and simplify the complexity of interactions that often take place at multiple temporal and spatial scales. Furthermore, it also could be used as baseline knowledge for developing the questionnaire as well as during analyzing the results of both the questionnaire and the interviews.
The framework might have more focus on the livelihood approaches, than on wetland ecological health, of which some parts were less relevant for the further assessments, but in this way I was able to capture the complexity of the interactions which I found a prerequisite condition for further assessments.
Strengths and weaknesses of the questionnaire One the strengths of the questionnaire was that it was divided into three main parts in alignment with the main concepts such as poverty/ well-being indicators, wetland ecosystem services and wetland ecological health indicators in relation to poor, rural communities in developing countries. It gave a logic order for the questions. The selection of indicators was based on reviewing literature studies. For instance, empirical studies that were successful in achieving both poverty reduction and conservation goals were used to select the appropriate indicators. However, indicators were not always elaborated in these studies, thus I used indicators from widely accepted baseline documents such as the MDGs and MA. In this way I improved the content validity by including all the most relevant indicators related to three main parts. It was also a useful to tool to raise awareness on these linkages among the students, and the academic staff of UNESCO-IHE and involve some of the employees of WWF.
The design had many weaknesses. One of the main weaknesses was that the questionnaire was very ambitious it tried to address all the interest of topic in one questionnaire, which made it too long. People tend to be less patient with long questionnaires and so they might pay less attention to the questions at the end. Therefore, in the future maybe a better approach would be in the case of a complex topic to separate the topics into three different questionnaires or decrease the aims of the questionnaire. Further weakness of the questionnaire design was that the questions were found ambiguous in some cases and were not easily understandable for everyone. It was also found difficult to rank indicators when they were felt equally important for the respondent. In the case of wetland ecological health this problem was eliminated by the presence of option 'I do not know'.
Yet, the aforementioned weaknesses affect the validity of the results i.e. in some cases, the answers may not reflect on that it meant to measure, because the respondents maybe understood the questions differently. For instance, for the question "What is, in your opinion, the importance of the
33 | P a g e
following factors for measuring poverty/well-being in rural areas in developing countries? (Please rank them!)" The respondents might rank them differently if they think of poverty or well-being. However, it is also important to recognize that these concepts are defined differently by different people. Therefore, a better approach would have been to first ask people how they would define these concepts, which I eventually did during the interviews. Although, I did asked people to check my questionnaire, all these weaknesses made it clear to me that time needs to be spent on real testing of the questionnaire, which is very crucial if we want to avoid all these problems.
Another weakness was related to the program that I used for making the online questionnaire. It did not support ranking questions, thus, I used explanation under the question to deal with this problem, but the majority of the respondents did not read it carefully and rated the indicators. Fortunately, the responses were still possible to analyze separating the responses based on if they were ranked or rated. It shows, however, that it is also important to use the appropriate question types to avoid these problems.
The last consideration is the number of responses that arrived for the questionnaire. It was 41, which is quite low if we consider that it was sent to all students and academic staff of UNESCO-IHE two times. Yet, it was an internal pilot survey and included responses from almost all chair groups and WWF, which decrease the bias of the results regarding the different disciplinary backgrounds.
Triangulation - combining different methods Triangulation refers to combining different methods and data in order to increase the accuracy of the findings (Punch 2005). In this study literature study, questionnaire and interviews were combined. The literature study provided the scientific background to developing a conceptual framework to structure the relationship between rural livelihoods and wetlands and literature was also used for selecting the appropriate indicators in the questionnaire. The interviews helped to improve the quality of the findings of the questionnaire by allowing further elaboration on the topics. Furthermore, the interviews were also very useful to identify knowledge gaps, learn about new nexus through shared case studies and personal experiences of the interviewees and gain feedback on both the conceptual framework and the questionnaire.
34 | P a g e
7. Conclusion and Recommendations Reducing poverty and ensuring environmental sustainability requires a common understanding on how these goals can be successfully achieved. Wetland ecosystems are one of the best examples for the importance of addressing these goals, as wetlands are often strongly related to the livelihoods of the poor due its provision of services. This exploratory study illustrated that linking ecosystem services and human well-being are generally well recognized, as well as the role of wetland ecological health to sustain the delivery of services. A healthy wetland, however, is not likely to be able to reduce the level of poverty. Furthermore, the definitions and indicators of poverty, human well-being and wetland ecological health may vary greatly, depending on location, cultural context, and scales, but may also be defined differently within one organization, varying from person to person. Therefore, it would be recommended that in the future more attention is given to establishing a common understanding on what concepts and definitions and principles should be used in sustainability projects to reduce poverty and ensure environmental sustainability. It would be also recommended to involve people from different scientific disciplines in this process.
Since, UNESCO-IHE has an important role in poverty alleviation by providing new knowledge to address global water issues and support the post 2015 Sustainable Development Goals. It would be highly recommended to organize a workshop involving the different chair groups so that a common understanding could be created within the Institute on the main concepts and on the interaction between social and ecological systems. It could eventually be expanded by involving other partner organizations and universities.
35 | P a g e
9. References Allison, E. H. and B. Horemans. 2006. Putting the principles of the Sustainable Livelihoods Approach
into fisheries development policy and practice. Marine Policy 30:757-766. Anderson, J. E. 1991. A conceptual framework for evaluating and quantifying naturalness.
Conservation Biology 5:347-352. Andreasen, J. K., R. V. O’Neill, R. Noss, and N. C. Slosser. 2001. Considerations for the development of
a terrestrial index of ecological integrity. Ecological Indicators 1:21-35. Ashley, C., D. Carney, and G. Britain. 1999. Sustainable livelihoods: Lessons from early experience.
Department for International Development London. Birk, S., W. Bonne, A. Borja, S. Brucet, A. Courrat, S. Poikane, A. Solimini, W. van de Bund, N.
Zampoukas, and D. Hering. 2012. Three hundred ways to assess Europe's surface waters: An almost complete overview of biological methods to implement the Water Framework Directive. Ecological Indicators 18:31-41.
Borja, A., A. Basset, S. Bricker, J. Dauvin, M. Elliot, T. Harrison, J. Marques, S. Weisberg, and R. West. 2012. Classifying ecological quality and integrity of estuaries.
Borja, A., S. B. Bricker, D. M. Dauer, N. T. Demetriades, J. G. Ferreira, A. T. Forbes, P. Hutchings, X. Jia, R. Kenchington, J. C. Marques, and C. Zhu. 2008. Overview of integrative tools and methods in assessing ecological integrity in estuarine and coastal systems worldwide. Marine Pollution Bulletin 56:1519-1537.
Cairns Jr, J. and J. R. Pratt. 1995. The relationship between ecosystem health and delivery of ecosystem services. Pages 63-76 Evaluating and Monitoring the Health of Large-Scale Ecosystems. Springer.
Daw, T., K. Brown, S. Rosendo, and R. Pomeroy. 2011. Applying the ecosystem services concept to poverty alleviation: the need to disaggregate human well-being. Environmental Conservation 38:370-379.
Driver, A., K. J. Sink, J. N. Nel, S. Holness, L. Van Niekerk, F. Daniels, Z. Jonas, P. A. Majiedt, L. Harris, and K. Maze. 2012. National Biodiversity Assessment 2011: An assessment of South Africa’s biodiversity and ecosystems. Synthesis Report, South African National Biodiversity Institute and Department of Environmental Affairs, Pretoria.
Falkenmark, M., M. Finlayson, L. J. Gordon, E. Bennett, T. M. Chiuta, D. Coates, N. Ghosh, M. Gopalakrishnan, R. de Groot, and G. Jacks. 2007. Agriculture, water, and ecosystems: avoiding the costs of going too far.
Hartmann, A., O. Moog, and I. Stubauer. 2010. “HKH screening”: a field bio-assessment to evaluate the ecological status of streams in the Hindu Kush-Himalayan region. 651:25-37.
Jentoft, S., P. Onyango, and M. Mahmudul Islam. 2010. Freedom and poverty in the fishery commons. International Journal of the Commons 4:345-366.
Jogo, W. and R. Hassan. 2010. Determinant of rural household labour allocation for wetland and other livelihood activities: the case of the Limpopo wetland in southern Africa. Agrekon 49:195-216.
Kandziora, M., B. Burkhard, and F. Müller. 2013. Interactions of ecosystem properties, ecosystem integrity and ecosystem service indicators—A theoretical matrix exercise. Ecological Indicators 28:54-78.
Kangalawe, R. Y. M. and C. Noe. 2012. Biodiversity conservation and poverty alleviation in Namtumbo District, Tanzania. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 162:90-100.
Karr, J. and D. Dudley. 1981. Ecological perspective on water quality goals. 5:55-68. Karr, J. R. 1993. Defining and assessing ecological integrity: beyond water quality. Environmental
Toxicology and Chemistry 12:1521-1531. Kotze, D., W. Ellery, D. Macfarlane, and G. Jewitt. 2012. A rapid assessment method for coupling
anthropogenic stressors and wetland ecological condition. Ecological Indicators 13:284-293.
36 | P a g e
Kotze, D. C., G. Marneweck, A. L. Batchelor, D. S. Lindley, and N. B. Collins. 2008. WET-EcoServices: A technique for rapidly assessing ecosystem services supplied by wetlands. WRC Report TT 339/08, Water Research Commission, Pretoria.
Kumar, R., P. Horwitz, G. R. Milton, S. S. Sellamuttu, S. T. Buckton, N. C. Davidson, A. K. Pattnaik, M. Zavagli, and C. Baker. 2011. Assessing wetland ecosystem services and poverty interlinkages: a general framework and case study. Hydrological Sciences Journal 56:1602-1621.
Kumar, P. (2010). The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: ecological and economic foundations
Lawson, E. T., C. Gordon, and W. Schluchter. 2012. The dynamics of poverty-environment linkages in the coastal zone of Ghana. Ocean & Coastal Management 67:30-38.
, Earthscan/James & James.
Leopold, A. 1949. The Land Ethic, in a Sand County Almanac, and Sketches Here and There. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lewis, K. 2005. Health, Dignity and Development: What Will it Take? Earthscan. Lu, F. and Z. Li. 2003. A model of ecosystem health and its application. Ecological modelling 170:55-
59. MA. 2003. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: A Framework for Assessment. Island Press,
Washington, D. C. MA. 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Wetlands and Water Synthesis. World Resources
Institute, Washington, DC. Macfarlane, D., D. Kotze, W. Ellery, D. Walters, V. Koopman, P. Goodman, and C. Goge. 2008. WET-
Health: A technique for rapidly assessing wetland health. WRC Report No. TT 340/08. Water Research Commission, Pretoria.
McCartney, M., M. R. McCartney, L.-M. S. Sellamuttu, S. Sonali de Silva, L. Rebelo, S. Senaratna Sellamuttu, and S. de Silva. 2011. Wetlands, agriculture and poverty reduction. Iwmi.
Poate, C. and P. Daplyn. 1993. Data for agrarian development. Cambridge University Press. Rahman, M. M. and A. Begum. 2010. The Strategy of Empowering Poor for Wetland Resources
Conservation in Bangladesh. Journal of Human Ecology 31:87-92. Rebelo, L. M., M. P. McCartney, and C. M. Finlayson. 2010. Wetlands of Sub-Saharan Africa:
distribution and contribution of agriculture to livelihoods. 18:557-572. Sellamuttu, S. S., S. de Silva, and S. Nguyen-Khoa. 2011. Exploring relationships between conservation
and poverty reduction in wetland ecosystems: lessons from 10 integrated wetland conservation and poverty reduction initiatives. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology 18:328-340.
Sen, A. K. 2000. Social exclusion: Concept, application, and scrutiny. Office of Environment and Social Development, Asian Development Bank Manila.
Southwold, S. 2002. Methods and techniques of field research. Methods, Techniques and Data Analysis for Field Research, Wageningen: WAU:12-15.
Summit, M. 2000. United Nations Millennium Declaration. Terer, T., A. M. Muasya, F. Dahdouh-Guebas, G. G. Ndiritu, and L. Triest. 2012. Integrating local
ecological knowledge and management practices of an isolated semi-arid papyrus swamp (Loboi, Kenya) into a wider conservation framework. Journal of Environmental Management 93:71-84.
Triet, T. 2010. Combining biodiversity conservation with poverty alleviation - a case study in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam. Aquatic Ecosystem Health & Management 13:41-46.
UN. 2012. The Millennium Development Goals Report 2012. New York. UNEP/IISD. 2004. Exploring the Links: Human Well-Being, Poverty and Ecosystem Services, Nairobi,
Kenya, and Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. UNICEF and WHO. 2012. Progress on drinking Water and Sanitation 2012 Update. The UNICEF/WHO
Joint Monitoring Programme for Water Supply and Sanitation. UNICEF, WHO, New York. Van Hue, L. T. and S. Scott. 2008. Coastal livelihood transitions: Socio-economic consequences of
changing mangrove forest management and land allocation in a commune of Central Vietnam. Geographical Research 46:62-73.
37 | P a g e
Zedler, J. B. and S. Kercher. 2005. Wetland resources: status, trends, ecosystem services, and restorability. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 30:39-74.
38 | P a g e
Appendix I – Definitions of ecological integrity (health)
Table 3: Studies defining ecological integrity Authors Type of study Definitions
Leopold (1949) Land ethics, the first reference to ecological integrity
“A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise”.
Karr and Dudley (1981)
Aquatic index of biotic integrity
Ecological integrity is referred to as biological integrity and defined by “the ability of an aquatic ecosystem to support and maintain a balanced, adaptive community of organisms having a species composition, diversity, and functional organization comparable to that of natural habitats within a region” (in Andreasen et al. 2001) (p. 23). An aquatic system that is characterized by ecological integrity can withstand, and recover from, most natural perturbations as well as many major disruptions induced by man.
Karr (1993) Environmental Ecological integrity “implies an unimpaired condition or the quality or state of being complete or undivided” (p.1522). Ecological integrity or ecological health is also the sum of elements biological diversity and processes, which degradation “results in biotic impoverishment the systematic reduction in the capacity of the earth to support living systems” (p. 1521).
Andreasen et al., (2001)
Terrestrial index of ecological integrity
Ecological integrity encompasses ecosystem health, biodiversity, stability, naturalness, sustainability wilderness, and beauty in a broader sense and chemical, physical and biotic integrity in a narrower, measurable sense
Borja et al., (2008) Coastal and estuarine waters
Ecological integrity= ecological status and quality “takes into the structure, functions and processes of marine ecosystems bringing together natural physical, chemical, physiographic, geographic and climatic factors, and integrates these conditions with the anthropogenic impacts and activities in the area concerned” (p. 1520).
39 | P a g e
Appendix II – Interview guide
Interview questions - Linking human well-being and ecological health of wetlands (Approx. 30 minutes)
Interviewee: Date: Introduction Introduction myself and the internship study Aim of the interview Background information: What is you main field of expertise?
1. Asking feedback on the questionnaire, if she/ he filled it out, in terms of - Clarity of questions - Difficulty - Any suggestions for improving it (e.g. questionnaire design, content)
2. Poverty and well-being What are the main characteristics of (rural) poverty in developing countries? What indicators would you consider as the most important ones for measuring (rural) poverty? What is human well-being, in your opinion? What indicators would you use measuring human well-being? In what way, are poverty indicators and well-being indicators linked? 2. Wetland ecosystems What do you understand under a wetland? What is the importance of wetlands in general? Do you think they are important for the (rural) poor? If yes, in what way? 3. Ecological health of wetland ecosystems What does, in your opinion, ecological health of wetlands mean? What indicators would you consider to measure it? What factors can influence ecological health of wetlands in developing countries? 4. Ecological health of wetlands and the (rural) poor Do you think ecological health of wetlands is important for the livelihoods of the (rural) poor? If yes, in what way? How important do you think addressing ecological health of wetlands is to reduce the level of poverty among rural communities in developing countries? 5. International policies What is your opinion about how the international policies (e.g. the Millennium Development Goals and the upcoming Sustainable Development Goals) link poverty reduction objectives to environmental sustainability objectives?
40 | P a g e
Appendix III – Importance of wetland services (questionnaire results)
Figure 22: Importance of wetland services in for the rural poor (question 1)
Figure 23: Importance of wetland services for the rural poor (question 2)
1
2
4
2
6
2
6
4
3
7
4
2
2
5
3
1
3
3
2
4
2
4
3
0 5 10 15
Least important
Slightly important
Important
Very important
Most important
Nr. of respondents
Importance of wetland services -question 1 (Ranking)
purifies water from harmful substances
provides edible natural resources for human consumption
provides raw materials for selling
habitat for diverse animal and plant species
provids fertile area for crop cultivation
n=15
8
5
2
1
3
2
9
2
2
7
4
2
4
5
3
1
5
3
3
3
1
0 5 10 15
Least important
Slightly important
Important
Very important
Most important
Nr. of respondents
Importance of wetland services - question 2 (Ranking)
provides medicinal plants
provides protection from natural disasters
provides water for irrigation
provides fodder for livestock
prevents soil erosion
n=15
Recommended
