This research has received funding from the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/ ) under grant agreement No The LiveDiverse household survey Dr Jetske Bouma Institute for Environmental Studies (IVM), VU University, The Netherlands

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 Introduction

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 addressed? 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 Conceptual framework

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: Case study sites

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 Village meetings

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