The LiveDiverse household
Dr Jetske Bouma
Institute for Environmental Studies (IVM),
VU University, The Netherlands
This research has received funding from the European Community’s
Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under grant
agreement No. 211392
Household survey: a tool to randomly collect quantitative, household
level data for descriptive and analytical purposes.
Not only tool: village meetings, focus groups, interviews, case
studies, GIS maps, secondary data etc.
Data feed into the analysis of different work packages:
WP 4: Questions about public beliefs
WP 5: GPS coordinates, and data regarding natural resource use
WP 6: Livelihood strategies, biodiversity linkages, adaptive capacity
WP 7: Question about religion, ethnicity and sacred places
WP 8: Questions about potential scenarios and interventions
WP9: Questions about trust in authorities and participation
Conceptual framework
Objective: To formulate strategies that reduce socio-economic
vulnerability and protect biodiversity at the same time
In order to address socio-economic vulnerability and biodiversity
jointly we need to understand:
How socio-economic vulnerability and biodiversity are linked?
How the conservation-development trade-offs can best be
Socio-economic vulnerability= the lack of means to protect oneself
from external risks and the lack of capacity to adapt
Focus on adaptive capacity at household and community scale.
Conceptual framework
Important determinants of people’s socio-economic vulnerability
are asset ownership (land, livestock but also education and
health), user rights, income and influence in decision making
Socio-economic vulnerability is likely to differ between villages,
households but also between people (gender, age).
Biodiversity contributes to livelihoods directly (medicine) and
indirectly through the ecosystem services it provides:
Provisioning (food, fuel, medicine, material etc)
Supporting (soil quality, water (quality), carbon sequestration)
Cultural (cultural-spiritual, recreation etc.)
Conceptual framework
Local livelihoods also influence biodiversity (reverse) through
natural resource use (use of land, water, timber, animals, etc)
Different strategies are needed to address the factors influencing
socio-economic vulnerability and biodiversity protection in
different locations at multiple scales
Potential strategies or mechanisms are, for example:
Park co-management, Eco-tourism, Eco-labeling, Payments for
ecosystem services , Incentive agreements etc.
But implementing such strategies tends to be difficult and the
feasibility of the different strategies needs to be addressed
Case study sites
The case study sites are all biodiversity hotspots with a protected
area and/or national park
Except for Vietnam, all sites are located alongside a river
Study villages have been selected according to their location in
the basin/with regard to the park.
Mix of indigeneous/non-indigenous villages, different types of
agriculture, livelihoods etc.
In each site, 4-9 villages have been selected, household survey in
a random selection of 15-20% of the households
Minimum number of surveys: 100-150
Village meetings
In each study village the idea is to first conduct 2-4 focus group
discussions, with minimally one male and one female group
Suggested questions:
Main factors producing changes affecting local livelihoods
Main mechanisms to adapt to those changes and their consequences
Livelihood-nature dependencies and importance of nature for well-being
Main environmental problems, their impacts and communities response
Formal and informal rules regarding use of natural resources
Local leaders and social networks
Household decision-making and gender roles
Definitions of poverty, and strategies to avoid becoming poor
Coping strategies and community cooperation
Household survey
Before discussing content, some practicalities:
• Survey should take max. one hour.
• After agreeing on the survey, it will need to be a) tested and b)
translated to the relevant languages.
• Teams in each country to conduct survey mid April-begin June:
teams need to be trained to conduct survey in same way
• Aine & Paulina (Costa Rica), Elisa (India), Jelena & Lisette (S Africa)
• Data should be entered in Excel sheet the same day.
• Tight planning but important to stick to it to inform fall meetings
Choice experiment
• As an important input for the scenario analysis in WP 8, we would
like to use the household survey to collect information about
household preferences for potential mechanisms to address local
livelihood-biodiversity trade-offs.
• Depending on the local drivers for such trade-offs, we are
thinking of developing 3-4 different choice experiments:
a) Arrangements for reducing poaching/over-fishing
b) Arrangements for more sustainable agricultural production
c) Arrangements for eco-tourism/eco-labelling (NTFP’s)
d) Arrangements for sustainable forestry/NRM
Choice experiment

WP3 Stakeholder Participation