How to Assess Livelihoods? Critical Reflections on the Use of Common Indicators to Capture Socioeconomic Outcomes for Ecological Restoration workers in South Africa

IF 2.8 2区 社会学 Q1 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY Social Indicators Research Pub Date : 2024-09-18 DOI:10.1007/s11205-024-03433-5
M. Pasgaard, N. Fold
{"title":"How to Assess Livelihoods? Critical Reflections on the Use of Common Indicators to Capture Socioeconomic Outcomes for Ecological Restoration workers in South Africa","authors":"M. Pasgaard, N. Fold","doi":"10.1007/s11205-024-03433-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Social outcomes from conservation and development activities on a local scale are often assessed using five livelihood assets—Natural, Physical, Human, Financial and Social—and their associated indicators. These indicators, and the variables used to measure them, are typically based on ‘common practice’ with limited attention being paid to the use of alternative indicators. In this article, we present a typical survey of socioeconomic benefits for ecological restoration workers in South Africa, and ask whether the common livelihood indicators used are adequate and sufficient, or whether any relevant indicators are missing. Results from the livelihood survey show the value of income, food and education as strong indicators of financial and human assets, and the importance of open-ended questions in eliciting details of workers’ perceived changes in their livelihoods. However, by complementing the survey results with qualitative data from semi-structured interviews and stakeholder workshops, we show how unconventional livelihood indicators and aspects provide a deeper understanding of changes in livelihoods that are tied to restoration projects. We guide scholars and practitioners to advance their process of selecting livelihood indicators, in particular to include three additional types of indicators: intangible indicators to assess life quality; relative indicators reaching across spatial and temporal scales to capture community outcomes and livelihood resilience; and, political indicators to uncover causal relationships.</p>","PeriodicalId":21943,"journal":{"name":"Social Indicators Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Indicators Research","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-024-03433-5","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Social outcomes from conservation and development activities on a local scale are often assessed using five livelihood assets—Natural, Physical, Human, Financial and Social—and their associated indicators. These indicators, and the variables used to measure them, are typically based on ‘common practice’ with limited attention being paid to the use of alternative indicators. In this article, we present a typical survey of socioeconomic benefits for ecological restoration workers in South Africa, and ask whether the common livelihood indicators used are adequate and sufficient, or whether any relevant indicators are missing. Results from the livelihood survey show the value of income, food and education as strong indicators of financial and human assets, and the importance of open-ended questions in eliciting details of workers’ perceived changes in their livelihoods. However, by complementing the survey results with qualitative data from semi-structured interviews and stakeholder workshops, we show how unconventional livelihood indicators and aspects provide a deeper understanding of changes in livelihoods that are tied to restoration projects. We guide scholars and practitioners to advance their process of selecting livelihood indicators, in particular to include three additional types of indicators: intangible indicators to assess life quality; relative indicators reaching across spatial and temporal scales to capture community outcomes and livelihood resilience; and, political indicators to uncover causal relationships.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
如何评估生计?对使用通用指标捕捉南非生态恢复工作者的社会经济成果的批判性思考
通常使用五种生计资产--自然资产、物质资产、人力资产、财务资产和社会资产--及其相关指标来评估当地保护和发展活动的社会成果。这些指标以及用于衡量这些指标的变量通常基于 "常见做法",对替代指标的使用关注有限。在本文中,我们将介绍南非生态恢复工作者社会经济效益的典型调查,并询问所使用的常用生计指标是否适当和充分,或是否缺少任何相关指标。生计调查的结果显示了收入、食物和教育作为经济和人力资产的有力指标的价值,以及开放式问题在获取工人所感知的生计变化细节方面的重要性。然而,通过半结构式访谈和利益相关者研讨会的定性数据对调查结果进行补充,我们展示了非常规生计指标和方面如何更深入地了解与恢复项目相关的生计变化。我们指导学者和从业人员推进其选择生计指标的过程,特别是纳入另外三类指标:评估生活质量的无形指标;跨时空尺度的相对指标,以捕捉社区成果和生计复原力;以及揭示因果关系的政治指标。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
6.50%
发文量
174
期刊介绍: Since its foundation in 1974, Social Indicators Research has become the leading journal on problems related to the measurement of all aspects of the quality of life. The journal continues to publish results of research on all aspects of the quality of life and includes studies that reflect developments in the field. It devotes special attention to studies on such topics as sustainability of quality of life, sustainable development, and the relationship between quality of life and sustainability. The topics represented in the journal cover and involve a variety of segmentations, such as social groups, spatial and temporal coordinates, population composition, and life domains. The journal presents empirical, philosophical and methodological studies that cover the entire spectrum of society and are devoted to giving evidences through indicators. It considers indicators in their different typologies, and gives special attention to indicators that are able to meet the need of understanding social realities and phenomena that are increasingly more complex, interrelated, interacted and dynamical. In addition, it presents studies aimed at defining new approaches in constructing indicators.
期刊最新文献
How to Assess Livelihoods? Critical Reflections on the Use of Common Indicators to Capture Socioeconomic Outcomes for Ecological Restoration workers in South Africa Quantifying Turbulence: Introducing a Multi-crises Impact Index for Lebanon A Machine Learning Approach to Well-Being in Late Childhood and Early Adolescence: The Children’s Worlds Data Case Where You Sit Is Where You Stand: Perceived (In)Equality and Demand for Democracy in Africa An Evaluation of the Impact of the Pension System on Income Inequality: USA, UK, Netherlands, Italy and Türkiye
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1