Marius claassen karen nortje
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 21

Marius Claassen & Karen Nortje PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 78 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

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 4.1. WP4 M4.1 – Still to be done.

Download Presentation

Marius Claassen & Karen Nortje

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Marius claassen karen nortje

LiveDiverse - Sustainable Livelihoods and Biodiversity in Developing CountriesWork Package 4: Public beliefs, perceptions, attitudes and preferences Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR)

Marius Claassen & Karen Nortje


Wp4 milestone 4 1

WP4: Milestone 4.1


Wp4 m4 1 still to be done

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

WP4 M4.1 – Partner roles

CSIR

  • Data analysis

  • Final report

  • Budget: 14 months

  • Actual (18month): 9 months


Wp4 m4 1 partner roles1

WP4 M4.1 – Partner roles

Linköping University

  • Engagement with Chiefs

  • Ongoing engagement

  • Budget: 6 months

  • Actual (18month): 3 months


Wp4 m4 1 partner roles2

WP4 M4.1 – Partner roles

NIAPP

  • WP4 interviews

  • Budget: 10 months

  • Actual (18month): 5 months


Wp4 m4 1 partner roles3

WP4 M4.1 – Partner roles

SOPPECOM

  • WP4 interviews completed

  • Budget: 10 months

  • Actual (18month): 6 months


Wp4 m4 1 partner roles4

WP4 M4.1 – Partner roles

FUNDAUNA

  • WP4 interviews completed

  • Budget: 10 months

  • Actual (18month): 6 months


Wp4 milestone 4 2

Wp4: Milestone 4.2


Wp4 m4 2 partner roles

WP4 M4.2 – Partner roles

CSIR

  • Data analysis (completed)

  • Final report

  • Budget: 14 months

  • Actual (18month): 9 months


Wp4 m4 2 partner roles1

WP4 M4.2 – Partner roles

Linköping University

  • Ongoing engagement

  • Budget: 6 months

  • Actual (18month): 3 months


Wp4 m4 2 partner roles2

WP4 M4.2 – Partner roles

NIAPP

  • HHS questions completed

  • Budget: 10 months

  • Actual (18month): 5 months


Wp4 m4 2 partner roles3

WP4 M4.2 – Partner roles

SOPPECOM

  • HHS questions completed

  • Budget: 10 months

  • Actual (18month): 6 months


Wp4 m4 2 partner roles4

WP4 M4.2 – Partner roles

FUNDAUNA

  • HHS questions completed

  • Budget: 10 months

  • Actual (18month): 6 months


Wp4 summary

WP4 Summary

  • M4.1

    • On track

    • Need interviews from NIAPP

  • M 4.2

    • On track

  • Budget is sufficient and will be used


Marius claassen karen nortje

Ecological vulnerability

(IN)FINITE AVAILABILITY OF RESOURCES

TRUST/BELIEF IN LOCAL (TRADITIONAL) LEADERSHIP

Sense of sustainability

Perceptions of leadership style of chief

Trust in the management of biodiversity

PERCEPTIONS OF THE BIOPHYSICAL

Access to water supply

Utilitarian view of Resource

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

Belief in nature always providing

Headman plays a major role

Reluctance to say negative things about superiors/leaders

Drought

Awareness of dependence on biodiversity

(In)finite availability of resources

Good understanding and buy-in of sustainability

Unavailability of land

TRUST IN GOVERNMENT

CONTEXT

Types of contexts inform what they believe ito nature

Socio-economic context of individuals

Race relations between white/black people

Trust in the management of biodiversity

COMMUNITY DYNAMICS

Beliefs

in relation toBiodiversity and livelihoods

Trust between community members

Sense of community

Socio-economic context of village

Cultural-spiritual context

Historical patriarchy influences the way people use natural resources

People’s willingness to help each other

Confidence in social grants

Division of labour among community members

Political context causes trust issues

Lack of trust in government

CULTURAL & SPIRITUAL MARKERS

DUALITY

Duality between bio-medicine and traditional healing

Belief in ancestors

KNOWLEDGE

Local knowledge regarding agricultural preferences

Myths and legends

Younger generations’ interest in traditions

Cultural practises influence how people use natural resources

AGENCY & SENSE OF SELF

Local knowledge regarding seasonal availability of wild foods

ability of people to formulate responses to crises

City life vs. village life

Perceptions about what people need to be happy

Sacred spaces/animals/ plants

Old vs. new related to education

Individual sense of agency

Belief in ability to improve their condition

Witchcraft

The religious duality

Perceptions about what is poor/rich

Cultural and Spiritual vulnerability

Socio-economic vulnerability


Marius claassen karen nortje

PLANNING

Sequence in which research methods were conducted

Length of interaction and its impact on the results

RESEARCHER EXPECTATIONS & PRECONCEPTIONS

RELATIONSIP BTWN RESEARCH PARTNERS

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

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

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

Clarity of information requested.

Researcher’s willingness to probe or ask sensitive questions

Building a rapport

Presence of interpreters

APPLICATION OF METHOD

METHOD ATTRIBUTES

interpreter /researcher partnership

Time of day and its impact on the results

Presence of interpreters

RESEARCHER POSITIONALITY

Positionality of the researcher becomes explicit

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

Method appropriate to context of case study area

Researcher profile, gender, race, age

Interruption of daily chores by interaction

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

Process Themes for Beliefs regarding nature wrt Biodiversity and livelihoods

Geographical setting and access to the village

Opportunity created for researcher to probe further

TRANSLATION ISSUES

RESPONDENT REACTION

Changing meaning of questions – knowledge or language domains

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

Lost in translation

Respondents feel more at ease with same gender

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

INTERPRETER POSITIONALITY

Interpreter context/ background

RESPONDENT’S PERCEPTIONS OF THE INTERVIEWER

Respondents’ perception of who we are

Respondents’ answering what they think interviewers want to hear

Male’s reluctance to engage female interviewers

Interpreters profile

Respondent fears the reaction of the interviewer


Marius claassen karen nortje

Country comparison

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

01=yes, always

02= yes, in most cases

03=sometimes, depends on the issue

04= no, except in some cases

05= no, never

The difference between Countries is statistically significant


Marius claassen karen nortje

  • 01=strongly agree

  • 02=agree

  • 03=neutral

  • 04= disagree

  • 05= strongly disagree

  • Village comparison : India

  • Only rarely does modifying nature and the world around us for human use cause serious problems

The difference between villages in India is statistically significant


Marius claassen karen nortje

  • “(In)finite availability of resources”

  • Change of resources over time

    WP4 - 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”

  • Trust

    WP 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.]


  • Login