Marius Claassen & Karen Nortje

1. 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

2. WP4: Milestone 4.1

3. 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

4. WP4 M4.1 – Partner roles CSIR • Data analysis • Final report • Budget: 14 months • Actual (18month): 9 months

5. WP4 M4.1 – Partner roles Linköping University • Engagement with Chiefs • Ongoing engagement • Budget: 6 months • Actual (18month): 3 months

6. WP4 M4.1 – Partner roles NIAPP • WP4 interviews • Budget: 10 months • Actual (18month): 5 months

7. WP4 M4.1 – Partner roles SOPPECOM • WP4 interviews completed • Budget: 10 months • Actual (18month): 6 months

8. WP4 M4.1 – Partner roles FUNDAUNA • WP4 interviews completed • Budget: 10 months • Actual (18month): 6 months

9. Wp4: Milestone 4.2

10. WP4 M4.2 – Partner roles CSIR • Data analysis (completed) • Final report • Budget: 14 months • Actual (18month): 9 months

11. WP4 M4.2 – Partner roles Linköping University • Ongoing engagement • Budget: 6 months • Actual (18month): 3 months

12. WP4 M4.2 – Partner roles NIAPP • HHS questions completed • Budget: 10 months • Actual (18month): 5 months

13. WP4 M4.2 – Partner roles SOPPECOM • HHS questions completed • Budget: 10 months • Actual (18month): 6 months

14. WP4 M4.2 – Partner roles FUNDAUNA • HHS questions completed • Budget: 10 months • Actual (18month): 6 months

15. WP4 Summary • M4.1 • On track • Need interviews from NIAPP • M 4.2 • On track • Budget is sufficient and will be used

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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

21. “(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.]