Linking ‘livelihood’ and ‘landscape’ together entails interdisciplinary modes of analyses. This section discusses some of the methodological dimensions and research steps involved in analysing livelihoods and landscapes. These cannot be separated from an account of some contentious issues from which interdisci- plinary work apparently cannot escape. The two broad categories of scientists, social scientists and natural scientists do not always share the same interpreta- tions of social and ecological change and place a different emphasis on the
social. It goes without saying that these contentious issues also play a key role in processes of rural transformation that, arguably, increasingly revolve around contestations.
Contentious issues 1: ‘Household’ – ‘homestead’; ‘community’ – ‘institutions’
A first area of difference between social and natural scientists concerns the use of the terms ‘household’ and ‘community’. Whereas a natural scientist aims to reduce social complexity by using notions like household and community, social scientists increase complexity. This book does not necessarily take the household or community as an entry point, although the notion is used in some chapters but released from its classical conceptualisation. I prefer to take social actors and what they do, their relationships with other actors and the natural environment as the entry point and unit of analysis. Similarly, I prefer institu- tions as an expression of process rather than community per se.
Household-homestead. Many commentators, including social scientists, have argued that the household is the most appropriate unit of analysis (Ellis 2000) and many authors used this (Leibrand and Sperber 1997, Van Averbeke 1998a). Many authors have also argued against it such usage. They feel that the house- hold is an elusive concept and that there is a need to more clearly problematise the use of the ‘household’ model within livelihoods analysis. They argue that the household should not be treated as a ‘black box’ for which some combined utility function is assumed (Seekings and Natrass 2005, Bagchi et al. 1998, Hart 1992, Guyer and Peters 1987, Wilk and Netting 1984, Guyer 1981). Earlier case material (Hebinck and Smith 2001) has highlighted an, at least partial, ongoing erosion of kinship relations, as have many other studies on social change in Africa. To deal with such changes I argue for a redefinition of the household and social relationships, which implies that the unit of analysis needs to be reconsidered. In the household has served as the main unit of analysis past and indeed, many surveys and analyses continue this practice. Murray (1998) com- mented that in most household surveys anonymous individual ‘household heads’ are interviewed in one place, at one time. This subverts “the realistic possibility both of return visits to the same households [or members of the ‘household’] and also of comprehending adequately the related activities of other household members” (Murray 1998: 5, 6, see also Murray 2001). Wilk and Netting (1984) in their turn argued that the analysis should shift from examining structures to paying attention to activities, and the roles that social actors play therein. One should not make the mistake of assuming that wages, rewards and transfers are pooled and decisions are harmoniously arrived at about how to spend this pool. One strategy for circumventing this difficulty is to interview those that ‘matter’ among the members of the homestead; that is those who are involved in making decisions and those involved in activities that directly and indirectly sustain the homestead. This does not only include the
men (including the so-called head of the household) and women (often referred to as housewives when married or as female heads of households often engaged independently from their absent husbands in income earning activities) and where appropriate older children. In many cases these children have children of their own. It is not uncommon in South Africa to encounter social units that are three-generational. Such broader analysis will provide a better picture of what actually happens in the homestead and how the resources at its disposal are or have been utilised. Thus it is preferable to look at the social actors and their practices. The term social actors designates both individuals as well as groups sharing certain characteristics (age, ethnicity, gender class) and institutions like the church or political parties (Long 2001). Such a focus prevents a mistaken reification of the household. The perspective that takes into account the where- abouts and activities of individuals or groups that jointly constitute the home- stead, which is the place that draws social actors together.
In my view homestead is a better term and unit than households for such analysis as it better captures social and spatial mobility. Barber (1998, cited in Ellis 2000: 20) underlines that the homestead is the broadest social grouping as a unit that includes all those individuals who belong to a particular (rural) homestead in the sense that they have the right to be based there and to partici- pate as full members of the grouping. In this sense, homestead denotes resi- dency, co-residency and locality, as well as shelter and social security, for its members. Homestead also captures that some activities that take place are spatially removed from the homestead in the physical sense. Homestead con- tains a social expression of place (and space), a sense of belonging and identity which contains elements of the past and present (Escobar 2001, Cosgrove 1998) as well as of the future (McAllister 2001). Being a member of a homestead often, but not always, implies hereditary rights to key resources, such as land and cattle, which represent the resources accumulated in the (recent) past by previous generations. A homestead is associated with family and kinship. Very often a homestead accommodates more than one generation of the same family. The composition of many homesteads varies over time as individuals move about (Seekings and Nattrass 2005). Categories such as Single Homestead Household and Multiple Homestead Household (De Wet and Holbrook 1997) express the fact that homesteads may be separated spatially but not socially. Alderson-Smith (1984) made a similar analysis in Peru by emphasising the existence of confederations of ‘households’.
Community-institutions. A similar critique should be made of uncritical accep- tance of the notion of ‘community’. Leach et al. (1997) complained that “it is striking the degree to which simplistic notions of community are being rein- vented in the context of practical efforts towards community based sustainable development”. The use of community is often misleading as it assumes homo- geneity and harmony while often the opposite is the case. Communities are not static either. They are composed of people who actively monitor, interpret and
shape the world around them and struggle for resources. This echoes the perspective that revolves around social actors, agency and action. Structure, or rules and norms are the product of people’s practices, interactions and actions. Some of these actions may be intended; others may have unintended outcomes (Long 2001, Long and Van der Ploeg 1994). The embedding in a wider eco- nomic, political and cultural institutional framework, or the structural location within society, constrains social behaviour. The decisions and actions of actors may well be affected by what happens elsewhere, but it does not follow that these decisions and actions are determined. As a result they are not simply reducible to the expression of the actor’s position within a system of social relations. The actions of people are shaped, but not necessarily structured or determined, by outside forces.
For these reasons Agrawal and Gibson (2001) stress the importance of un- packing the concept of community. Gender, age, social and economic inequali- ties, unequal access to resources, and power differences all paint a picture of communities that are social and spatially differentiated, rather then equal and consensus driven (Arce and Fisher 2003). The analysis of case material pre- sented in the various chapters in this book underlines this argument and con- trasts with the often held views of solidarity. Not that solidarity is completely absent, on the contrary, but negotiations between villagers to utilise and share key resources often fail pitifully. Another critical attribute to community is viewing it as a natural entity, based on common kinship, language, customs and authority. In contrast, this book underlines that community boundaries may be delineated and strengthened by relationships between members of different communities. Agrawal and Gibson (2001) argue for a focus on the multiple interests of actors within communities, on the basis of how these actors shape decision making processes. The recent literature shows a relative consensus that one way to escape from the simplistic notion and interpretation of community is to focus instead on institutions (Ostrom 1987, 1990, 2004, Poteete and Ostrom 2004, Leach et al. 1999), as a more fruitful approach to understanding what constitutes a community.
There is, however, disagreement in the literature on how the governance of institutions and their dynamics should be understood. The major contention is between, one the one hand, perspectives that emphasise the normative and structural aspects of organisations and their influence on social behaviour and on the relationship patterns between people and resources (Uphoff 1986, North 1990) and, on the other, those which present institutions as rules and regulations that provide individuals with room for manoeuvre (Ostrom 1990, Scott 1985, Long 2001). An institution may thus simultaneously be used to denote a proc- ess, an object and a subject. A key question is whether (and to what extent) we attribute power to those social actors that create institutions, and who formulate and maintain the rules to which others feel bound, or whether agency should also be attributed to those with less power.
The distinction between ‘formal’ and ‘informal’, which is often made in the analysis of governance and institutions, denotes differences between what exists on paper, the idealised, and what actually happens in practice, which is not always visible and thus is harder to grasp. Focusing on the practice, on what people do in their daily lives, allows one to see locally specific forms of organi- sation. Various authors referred to ‘unruly’ social practices that challenge legal rules that govern entitlement to resources. Yet, typically, informal practices and forms of organisation provide people with room for manoeuvre to pursue their individual interests. Cousins (1996, 2000) highlighted the importance of the processes of negotiation between the actors involved over common property resources. Several social scientists link informal practices with agency and power differences, pointing at the many ways in which people manage to get around the law and resist forms of oppression to defend their own interests.
The perspective outlined above does not necessarily reject the notion of community, but, as Leach et al. (1999: 230) phrased it “rather contextualise it by describing a more or less temporary unity of situation, interest or purpose.” Where relevant and applicable the choice is made in this book to use more neutral terms to denote community, like village and villagers or settlement. Similarly, the use of homestead is preferred to household to denote a family and people living under one roof and eating from the same pot. Whether they share resources and, for instance, pool income can only be understood in their parti- cular context.
Contentious issues 2: Environmental degradation and the understanding of resources
A second area of differences between social scientists and natural scientists also requires some attention before we begin our empirical investigations. This con- cerns different understandings of environmental degradation and different con- ceptualisations of resources. These issues of contention cannot be disconnected from their context and aspects of knowledge, intervention and governance; as these are, as we will see, inextricably intertwined.
Environmental degradation has for a long time been assumed to reflect a growing lack of synchrony between the ‘community’ and its natural environ- ment. The seemingly still dominant Malthusian perspective views population growth as triggering resource degradation e.g. environmental problems emerg- ing as an outcome of population increase, overgrazing and uncontrolled intensi- fication of land use (Hardin 1968) or an absence of a sound scientific back- ground to land use (Trollope 1985). Scoones (1999), Baker (2000) and Vetter (2004) have all reviewed the rangeland ecology literature, and pointed out that the scientific core of the Malthusian view of ecological change is linear and centred around equilibrium thinking, both features of the paradigms that domi- nated until the mid 1970s. Interventions to combat degradation were often based on simple population-growth models, describing the supposedly stable features of the intrinsic growth rate and carrying capacity. Population models identified
carrying capacities and maximum sustained yield levels for use in managing animal populations. These insights have formed the background for many inter- vention programmes to prevent resource degradation.
Two new aspects have now emerged to inform the analysis of resource utili- sation and environmental problems. The first is the need for proper contextuali- sation. The second is recognition of the need for a closer and more critical look at the knowledge of the ‘experts’ and of local people, including an understand- ing of how these forms of knowledge are intertwined with resource manage- ment.
Warren (2002) and Battebury and Bebbington (1999) argue that we need to contextualise resource degradation. Similarly, Leach et al. (1999) advocated an approach that moves away from framing environmental problems in terms of population pressure on a limited natural-resource base, to a disaggregated approach that considers the role of the institutions that mediate the relationship between different social actors and their environment. Kepe and Scoones (1999) have shown the usefulness of such an institutional focus by revealing how the making of particular grasslands is associated with specific institutional ar- rangements. Like Leach et al. (1999) I do not dispute the population growth narrative and framing of environmental problems but prefer to properly con- textualise environmental problems.
Variants of the Malthusian view have formed the scientific background and starting point for a range of interventions – like betterment planning in South Africa – aimed at preventing environmental degradation. The analysis of Trollope (1985), Laker et al. (1975) and the Tomlinson Commission Report (1955) resonates with these views, as do many contemporary agrarian science curricula. Yet this book shows how population dynamics (rather then population growth per se) contextualise environmental problems and how state interven- tions intended to mitigate these problems often work in unexpected and less than optimal ways. Labour migration and land tenure have pushed rural people off their land and turned them into workers and pensioners, rather than facili- tating their presence on the land. Such a presence might lead to more caring for the land and responses to degradation.
An essential element of such contextualisation involves reconsidering what constitutes a resource. In our interpretation of resource degradation it matters whether one adheres to static, linear views or whether one adopts a dynamic, non-linear view that centres on the idea that resources unfold. Natural scientists for a long time have tended to describe and value resources in terms of their intrinsic values, considering all natural resources as resources, irrespective of whether people utilise them or not. While most (but not all) natural scientists ignored social praxis, this is the point from which social scientists start. They argue that natural resources are only resources when they are accessed and utilised in one way or another and thereby appropriated and transformed. A natural scientist identifies with the potential use of such resources and hence
engages, for instance, with experimental work to show what natural and social conditions are required or need to be created to fully exploit their potential. Nowadays, they often do this in a participatory way and the experiments may identify how a natural resource should be utilised and improved. In many cases this is followed by prescriptions designed by experts on how to best use or exploit the resource.
Work by Carpenter (2005), Berkes et al. (1998) and Wu and Hobb (1998) attempted rather well to bridge natural and social sciences, both in practice and in discourse and terminology. Notwithstanding these experiences and advances, expert views on what constitutes resources or a ‘good’ or ‘sustainable’ livelihood have become extremely important as these are often used to underpin and legitimatise policies that regulate the use of resources. Manure policies in the Netherlands to reduce groundwater and air pollution because of ammonia evaporation, could not be designed without scientific analyses that defined manure and what constitutes good manure. Experts may attempt to direct and prescribe the course of events, but they certainly do not have the power to structure (or determine) the behaviour of a range of social actors. The potential for action lies in many social locations and is not simply embedded in the expert system. A range of studies have demonstrated that social actors contest and rework such intervention programmes that are mostly based on views of experts (i.e. consultants, academics, policy makers). Long (2001) explored these processes, identifying the continuous adaptation, struggle and meshing of cultural elements and social practices that occur. Technology development and transfer necessarily involves an interface between the world of designers and experts and that of the users (Hebinck 2001). A focus on how farmers and other social actors redesign external prescriptions and how adaptations take place, may enable us to explain why certain modes of utilisation proposed by experts are often contested by local people (Arce 2003, Van der Ploeg 2003, Mango and Hebinck 2004). Baker (2000) critically examined the ecological knowledge of experts and highlighted the importance of whether experts employ equilibrium or non-equilibrium thinking when designing interventions. She argued that the methods of West African farmers reflect a close adaptation to a fluctuating, non-equilibrial physical environment, while most intervention programmes have long been based on equilibrial ecology (see also Vetter 2004). Baker (2000) calls for an autecological approach that emphasises the locally specific nature of development processes. Altieri (2002a, 2002b) and Toledo (1990) in turn prefer agroecology to denote a similar perspective that links and embeds the understanding of agriculture and ecosystem dynamics in a social analysis and vice versa.
Ticktin (2004) examined the ecological implications of natural resource har- vesting by local people in Asia, and argued that researchers and forest managers need to work with resource harvesters in designing and evaluating management practices if they want to prevent or mitigate against the negative effects of harvesting. However, in such partnerships it is crucial to reflect on whose point
of view prevails. While the locally specific context plays an enormously important role, the relationships of power between experts and local people, the history of resource use, competing claims, and the locals’ perceptions of their social and natural environment all play influential roles. Joshi et al. (2004) reflect upon this by critically exploring local knowledge and asking how local knowledge can be captured and be used to complement and inspire ‘science’. Beinart (2003) has made an extremely useful and important contribution to the debate on conservation by exploring the history of thought and ideas behind conservation policies. Through a bibliographical approach, Beinart opened up the networks of individuals and groups, and how they link with the institutions of science and power. Travel abroad and inviting peers to South Africa have