marius claassen & karen nortje

LiveDiverse - Sustainable Livelihoods and Biodiversity in Developing Countries

Work Package 4: Public beliefs, perceptions, attitudes and preferences

Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR)

Marius Claassen & Karen Nortje

WP4: Milestone 4.1Milestone 4.1: Development of an analytical framework for the analysis of the role of belief systems in perceptions of different forms of vulnerability

Task 4.2: Development of an analytical framework for analysis of the role of belief systems in perceptions of different forms of vulnerability

Act: 4.1: Project Plan

Act 4.2: Desk-top study – What do we mean by belief systems?

Act 4.3: Desk-top study – What do we mean by vulnerability?

Act 4.4&4.5: Workshop with experts (SA)

Act 4.6: Draft Analytical Framework

Act 4.7: Final Analytical Framework

WP4 M4.1 – Still to be done

• South Africa case study– Interviews completed, data analysis completed

• India case study– Interviews received, data analysis in process

• Costa Rica case study– Interviews received, data analysis in process

• Vietnam case study– Interviews not received

WP4 M4.1 – Partner roles

CSIR– Data analysis– Final report

– Budget: 14 months– Actual (18month): 9 months


Linköping University– Engagement with Chiefs – Ongoing engagement



NIAPP– WP4 interviews



SOPPECOM– WP4 interviews completed



FUNDAUNA– WP4 interviews completed


Wp4: Milestone 4.2Milestone 4.2: Construction of a biodiversity and livelihoods belief scale (BLS) to analytically examine public belief systems through statistical factor analysis (SPSS) and spatial mind mapping

Task 4.1: Review and categorisation of existing environmental and biodiversity belief scales and their use, especially in developing countries

Act 4.8: Desk-top Study - What would a belief scale look like according to existing literature?

Task 4.3: Construction of a biodiversity and livelihoods belief scale (BLS) that can be used to analytically examine public belief systems through statistical factor analysis (using SPSS) and spatial mind mapping

Act 4.9: Sharing of ideas with intl. partners

Act 4.10: Workshop with experts (SA)

Act 4.11: Draft of belief scale

Task 4.4: Testing and validation of the BLS that can be used to analytically examine public belief systems through statistical factor analysis (using SPSS) and spatial mind mapping

Act 4.12: Fieldwork – testing of belief scale

Act 4.13: Final Belief Scale and report


CSIR– Data analysis (completed)– Final report



Linköping University– Ongoing engagement



NIAPP– HHS questions completed



SOPPECOM– HHS questions completed



FUNDAUNA– HHS questions completed


WP4 Summary

• M4.1– On track– Need interviews from NIAPP

• M 4.2– On track

• Budget is sufficient and will be used

CULTURAL & SPIRITUAL MARKERS

AGENCY & SENSE OF SELF

DUALITY

PERCEPTIONS OF THE BIOPHYSICAL

KNOWLEDGE

TRUST/BELIEF IN LOCAL (TRADITIONAL) LEADERSHIP

TRUST IN GOVERNMENT

COMMUNITY DYNAMICS

CONTEXT

(IN)FINITE AVAILABILITY OF RESOURCES

Beliefsin relation to

Biodiversity and livelihoods

Cultural practises influence how people use natural resources

People’s awareness of the impact of their actions on the ‘life’ of the resource

Types of contexts inform what they believe ito nature

Utilitarian view of

Resource

Perceptions of leadership style

of chief

Individual sense of agency

(In)finite availability of

resources

Trust in the management of

biodiversity Belief in nature

always providing

Belief in ability to improve their

condition

Sense of sustainability

Headman plays a major role

Historical patriarchy influences the way people use natural

resources

Drought

Younger generations’ interest in traditions

Awareness of dependence on

biodiversity Good understanding

and buy-in of sustainability

Socio-economic context of individuals

Socio-economic context of village

The religious duality

Sense of community

People’s willingness to

help each other

Trust between community members

ability of people to formulate

responses to crises

Unavailability of land

Race relations between

white/black people

Lack of trust in government

Witchcraft

Division of labour among community

members

Local knowledge regarding agricultural

preferences

Local knowledge regarding seasonal

availability of wild foods

Duality between bio-medicine and traditional

healing

Perceptions about what is poor/rich

Confidence in social grants

Old vs. new related to education

Cultural-spiritual context

Access to water supply

Belief in ancestors

Myths and legends

Sacred spaces/animals/ plants

City life vs. village life Perceptions about what people need to be happy

Trust in the management of

biodiversity

Reluctance to say negative things about superiors/leaders

Political context causes trust issues

Ecological vulnerability

Cultural and Spiritual vulnerability Socio-economic vulnerability

METHOD ATTRIBUTES

APPLICATION OF METHOD

RESPONDENT’S PERCEPTIONS OF THE INTERVIEWER

TRANSLATION ISSUES

RESEARCHER POSITIONALITY

RELATIONSIP BTWN RESEARCH PARTNERS

INTERPRETER POSITIONALITY

RESPONDENT REACTION

RESEARCHER EXPECTATIONS & PRECONCEPTIONS

PLANNING

Process Themes for Beliefs regarding nature

wrt Biodiversity and livelihoods

Opportunity created for researcher to

probe further

Positionality of the researcher becomes

explicit

Respondent fears the reaction of the interviewer

Respondents feel more at ease with same gender

Cultural taboos reflected in the way respondents react to researcher’s sex

Sequence in which research methods were conducted

Researcher’s willingness to probe or ask sensitive questions

Researcher profile, gender, race, age

interpreter /researcher partnership

Preconceived notions held by researchers regarding the characteristics of the method e.g. more people arrive

Male’s reluctance to engage female interviewers

Respondents’ answering what they think interviewers want to hear

Didn’t get expected answer – intrusion of own perspective on research process

Changing meaning of questions – knowledge or language domains

Group structure (age, gender, and hierarchy) dynamic can influence the answers

Understanding of individual in time and space (diachronic and synchronic)

Time of day and its impact on the results

Length of interaction and its impact on the results

Geographical setting and access to the village

Where the interaction was held, ie. at their home, outside etc.

Interruption of daily chores by interaction

Interpreters profile

Interpreter context/ background

Respondents’ perception of who we are

Lost in translation

Respondent’s experience of the method (comfort/trust/comprehension)

Clarity of information requested.

Building a rapport

Presence of interpreters

Presence of interpreters

Method appropriate to context of case study area

Country comparison Do you feel you have any influence on how decisions are made at the village level?

The difference between Countries is statistically significant

01=yes, always02= yes, in most cases03=sometimes, depends on the issue04= no, except in some cases05= no, never

Boxplot by GroupVariable: hhinflu

Median 25%-75% Min-Max

South Africa Costa Rica Viet Nam India

Coutry name

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

hhin

flu

Categorized HistogramVariable: hhinflu

No

of o

bs

Coutry name: South Africa

1 2 3 4 50

20406080

100120140160180200

Coutry name: Costa Rica

1 2 3 4 5

Coutry name: Viet Nam

1 2 3 4 50

20406080

100120140160180200

Coutry name: India

1 2 3 4 5

Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA by Ranks; hhinflu (HHS data analysis.sta)Independent (grouping) variable: Coutry nameKruskal-Wallis test: H ( 3, N= 1017) =56.21194 p =.0000

Depend.:hhinflu

CodeValidN

Sum ofRanks

MeanRank

South AfricaCosta RicaViet NamIndia

10111243163.5385.388410212279075.0648.1557103281132760.5472.4573104502262654.0523.2151

Village comparison : India Only rarely does modifying nature and the world around us for human use cause serious

problems

01=strongly agree02=agree03=neutral04= disagree05= strongly disagreeThe difference between villages in India is statistically significant

Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA by Ranks; Modifying nature (LD data base full - missing data blank)Independent (grouping) variable: village nameKruskal-Wallis test: H ( 8, N= 502) =49.48689 p =.0000Include condition: V2 = 'India'

Depend.:Modifying nature

CodeValidN

Sum ofRanks

MeanRank

GothaneKhundalapurSonawadeAmbaKakheMalewadiShirasiKavathesarDanoli

121192337.00123.0000122203327.50166.37501236112393.00203.16391245614547.00259.76791259323574.00253.48391265715190.50266.50001276619286.50292.219712811029776.00270.6909129205821.50291.0750

Categorized HistogramVariable: Modifying nature

Include condition: V2 = 'India'

No

of o

bs

village name: Gothane

1 2 3 4 50

1020304050607080

village name: Khundalapur

1 2 3 4 5

village name: Sonawade

1 2 3 4 5

village name: Amba

1 2 3 4 50

1020304050607080

village name: Kakhe

1 2 3 4 5

village name: Malewadi

1 2 3 4 5

village name: Shirasi

1 2 3 4 50

1020304050607080

village name: Kavathesar

1 2 3 4 5

village name: Danoli

1 2 3 4 5

Boxplot by GroupVariable: Modifying nature

Include condition: V2 = 'India'

Median 25%-75% Min-Max

GothaneKhundalapur

SonawadeAmba

KakheMalewadi

ShirasiKavathesar

Danoli

village name

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

Mod

ifyin

g na

ture

“(In)finite availability of resources”

• Change of resources over timeWP4 - Mbahela - 2Aug2010 no2 [1766-2219]It is not like all the trees are good for all uses. E.g. for spoons and handles. Therefore, there will always be trees. These trees don’t grow again (Mufhata). We don’t even think about the trees running out, because we are thinking about today only. If they run out, we will get them from another village. In the old days, we didn’t wear shoes, now we do [Explaining that things change and we adapt] – thus we will cross that bridge when we get there.WP4 - Mushithe- 1Jun2010 no2 [1051-1144]One day, the natural resources will run out, then they would not be able to make a living.

“Respondent reaction”

• TrustWP 4 fieldwork engagments 2010 Mbahela - Interview 5 [62-121] (trust, or lack thereof was a big issue in this interview)WP 4 fieldwork engagments 2010 Tshihavha - Interview 5 [4004-4070]With his chicken project, if the chief finds out, he will explode.WP4 - Tshiavha- 4Aug2010 no5 [162-358][The lady didn’t want to shake our hands. She said we will take “muti” from her. Also, it took a long time of convincing to speak with us. She said the government will never do anything for her.]

marius claassen & karen nortje

Documents

monthswp4 m4

public belief systems

role of belief systems

biodiversity belief

final belief scale

receivedwp4 m4

reportwp4 m4

belief scale look