Andrew Dougill, Evan Fraser, Matt Chadwick and Mark Reed
Outline
Abstract
Introduction / Purpose
Context of the widespread use of household as unit of analysis in participatory development and implication that it is possible to scale-up and aggregate from this level to the community, district, nation in terms of assessments of sustainability (both economically and environmentally). This approach is now formalised in a wide range of international environmental agreements and policies e.g. LA21, UNCCD,
UNCBD & Johannesburg Declaration. There is a tacit assumption that the generalisation from a detailed household level to community, district and national scales will better inform development interventions and policy-making.
The largely qualitative, livelihoods analytical approaches (e.g. SLA, Scoones, 1998;
FAO’s Participatory Field Tools, Methods and Approaches etc.) provide an excellent structure for understanding the complex dynamics and diversity of livelihoods across a region. However, problems remain in using these approaches to quantify broad concerns such as poverty, vulnerability and household sustainability (e.g. Marsland et al ., 2001; Holland and Campbell, 2004). In addition, concerns have been raised as to whether these detailed social science approaches can adequately capture the temporal variability of socio-environmental relations (Ashley and Carney, 2000; Seeley, 2002).
This is particularly important in the context of climate change research where longterm changes in climatic patterns need to be considered and sustainbility assessments generally that demand a long-term analysis. As such it has been argued by some authors that more quantitative, research approaches based around sustainability indicators better inform policy makers and development interventions (e.g. Bell and
Morse, 1999, 2003; Rigby et al ., 2000). However, there remains no clear research framework of best practice on how to integrate these contrasting approaches, which if used together could lead to benefits at the household scale (i.e. from ‘actionorientated’ research) and to community-based and district-level institutional support and policy development.
This paper will provide an analytical review of the difficulties involved in providing a quantifiable assessment of environmental sustainability at the household scale using case study material from Southern Africa (Botswana, South Africa and Namibia) and
Asia (Nepal and Bangladesh). It aims to inform academic and practitioner debates on the viability of using participatory methods to quantify environmental sustainability as part of a sustainable livelihoods analysis and discusses the implications of uncertainties in such assessments to larger-scale, holistic sustainability assessments.
The focus on countries with highly dynamic climatic regimes, typified by extreme

events of either severe drought (in Southern African examples) or severe flooding (in
Bangladeshi case), is particularly pertinent to long-term sustainability assessments in a world where climate change is predicted to increase the frequency and intensity of extreme climatic events (IPCC, 2001; IFRC, 2001). It also ensures that sustainability assessments focus on vulnerability to climatic shocks and the factors that affect household ‘preparedness’ for such events.
We aim to highlight the difficulties in assessing either biophysical degradation processes or social vulnerability indices using solely household level studies.
Alternative frameworks that focus on environmental sustainability and social resilience are discussed and used to inform our suggestions of best practice that focus on positive views that can facilitate empowerment of households involved in the research process. Such approaches draw on improved biophysical predictions and models of environmental change, such as those highlighting the non-equilibrium functioning of dryland environments (e.g. Behnke et al ., 1993; Walker and Abel,
2002). We argue that research frameworks need to provide understanding of how extreme events affect social capital asset changes, which influence people’s long-term adaptation mechanisms (and social resilience) and short-term coping strategies (and vulnerability). This paper aims to evaluate how sustainable livelihoods analysis can be used in conjunction with recent theoretical concepts, such as the Panarchy framework proposed by Gunderson and Holling (2002), to better understand the factors which influence (and could quantify) household sustainability. This builds on papers by Fraser et al. (2003; submitted) that have outlined the data required to assess
‘environmental sensitivity’ and ‘social resilience’ by providing case study analysis based on livelihoods analytical approaches conducted before, during and after extreme climate events.
Objectives
The general aims of this paper are met by investigation of the following research objectives:

To provide ‘dynamic’ assessments of environmental sensitivity and social resilience from analysis of detailed case studies through time including, pre-, during- and post- an extreme climatic event.
 To evaluate the ability of ‘static’ sustainable livelihoods analytical approaches to quantify vulnerability to extreme climatic events, as required for a quantifiable assessment of household sustainability.

To examine whether the Panarchy framework of Gunderson and Holling
(2002) offers a methodological tool capable of improving assessments of household vulnerability to extreme climatic events.
 To propose ‘best-practice’ methodological approaches that can build on sustainable livelihoods approaches by providing more detailed assessments of the ‘vulnerability context’ in terms of assessments of social resilience to extreme climatic events.
Methods
Sustainable livelihoods analytical approaches (based on Scoones, 1998 etc.) repeated three times in each study site. By chance, this includes analysis before, during and after a significant drought event in Southern Africa and studies before, during and

after the 1998 Bangladesh flood when the equivalent of 68 % of the country was inundated by flood waters (DMB, 1999). Assessments were all conducted at the household level as most people experience and respond to extreme climatic events as members of a household first and foremost. Only by improved understanding household vulnerability to extreme events can better community, sub-national and national sustainability assessments and policy support be provided. In developing world rural situations as discussed here the key element in defining a household is the sharing of assets of which the key asset in terms of livelihood security is food, and therefore we define a household as a unit where food consumption is shared.
Details of each case study methods and reasons for adaptations in each one.
Analysis approaches –

Assessments of inter-household differences in each case and analysis of potential explanations in terms of capital assets;

Evaluation of changing livelihood interview responses through time in relation to extreme rainfall events to assess whether these methods capture simply information on household ‘coping strategies’ or more detailed information on social resilience to external shocks.

Identification of how different forms of support by key stakeholder groups
(village, Government, NGO and aid institutions) affect household decisionmaking.

Application of Panarchy framework and its components of system wealth, connectedness and diversity to rural households to examine if this can provide a more robust measure of household vulnerability to extreme rainfall events.
Case Studies

South Africa / Botswana – mixed farming systems research – Dougill et al .,
2002; Twyman et al ., 2004 and a few subsequent views on disseminating messages to policy-makers etc. Livelihoods analysis of Twyman et al . (2004) in 1998 (pre-drought), followed by environmental analysis and follow-up livelihoods interviews in 1999 (during drought) and 2000 (post drought) from
Dougill et al . (2002).

Botswana / Namibia rangelands – pastoral systems analysis – various Reed and Dougill bits with specific focus on the problems of quantification for individuals and generalising up to community and district level from this.
Initial livelihoods analysis in 2000/01 () and follow-up household interviews in 2002 () and 2003 ().

Bangladesh rural communities and adaptive strategies to the 1998 flood using livelihoods interview approaches in 1998 (pre and during-flood) and 1999
(post-drought) (based on key bits of Chadwick, 2004 PhD thesis).

Discussion