All over the world – whether we live in the Netherlands, Nicaragua, the Philippines or Ghana – the changes in our lives are intimately linked with the changes in the wider structures of which we are part. Individuals are not autonomous actors in the pursuit of a livelihood.
Changes in the environment influence the “portfolios of options”1 that decision-making units have (see Dietz et al. 2001a: 5). This does not mean that people wait passively to see what comes their way. The environment provides opportunities and constraints, and people with different histories, economic backgrounds, qualities, skills, positions, assets and expectations seek to make the most of it, both materially and spiritually. The opportunities and constraints of the environment change over time and these changes have a strong impact on people’s livelihoods (De Bruin & Van Dijk 1998: 1).
A household’s vulnerability to drought, floods and non-climatic trigger events is determined by both internal/individual variables and external/collective variables (see conceptual frame- work in chapter one and De Bruijn & Van Dijk 1998: 1). Individual household characteristics generate the differences in vulnerability between households within the area. The external variables that determine collective vulnerability are characteristics of the environment, and taken together they can be labelled ‘the space of vulnerability’ (taken from Watts & Bohle 1993). In the conceptual framework, I further assume that changes in people’s livelihood strategies are fuelled by changes in their environment. These changes can be gradual and long-term or sudden and short-term. I have distinguished different types of environments: the natural, economic, socio-cultural and politico-institutional environments. It should be noted
1 Dietz et al. (2001a: 5) distinguish portfolios of theoretical, relevant and chosen or experienced options.
Theoretical options for a certain area are the sum of chosen options by all individuals or decision-making units in that area. Whether a theoretical option is or becomes a relevant option open to a particular decision- making unit depends on individual (household) characteristics.
that this is not an exclusive list, but merely a categorisation. All environmental factors can potentially influence human behaviour and trigger change. To understand people’s coping and adaptive behaviour, one first has to study their living spaces, their environments. This chapter seeks to answer the following question:
“To what extent is the research area situated in a risk-prone environment?”
In this book, emphasis lies on one environmental factor: the climate (elaborated in chapter four). But the climate acts together with other context variables to constitute the environment that shapes the conditions within which the people in my research area have to eke out a living. In this chapter, I will present some of the main characteristics of the environment in the research area with an emphasis on dynamics; I will attempt to indicate the main changes in the environment. This chapter thus serves both as an introduction to the research area, and as an attempt to fill in a part of the conceptual framework that is interchangeably labelled ‘the environment’, ‘the external variables’, ‘collective vulnerability’, ‘the context’ or ‘the space of vulnerability’.
As one can read in the methodology chapter, I have sampled the respondents to my survey along four transects of approximately 10 kilometres each that come together at one point: Nandom Town. The research area can thus be defined as the rural area within a radius of 10 kilometres from Nandom Town.2 This is not an administrative unit or an otherwise united entity. It encompasses a good part of the Nandom area3 in Lawra District and a small part of the Lambusie area in Jirapa-Lambusie District. The information presented in this chapter has been derived from secondary literature, statistical data, personal observations and interviews. The secondary ‘area’ data apply to different territorial units, like the Nandom area, Lawra District, ‘Dagarateng’4, the Upper West Region or Northern Ghana. In most cases, it is obvi- ous to which unit the information applies. Where necessary, I will indicate territorial rele- vance.
The survey findings in chapters six and seven and the ‘pathways’ or ‘livelihood histories’ in chapter eight contain additional information on the environment in the research area. In chapter eight, a more direct link between different environmental factors and people’s liveli- hoods and decision-making is established from an emic perspective. The present chapter constitutes a more systematic description of the environment and society in the research area from an etic perspective.
The categorisation of ‘the environment’ in natural, economic, sociocultural and politico- institutional environments will only partly be followed in this chapter. In the first section, I will briefly present the regional and district level data on population density. The second section describes the major characteristics of the natural environment with an emphasis on soil fertility. The third section will focus on the major changes in the economic and market environment. I will only briefly describe the sociocultural environment. Most aspects of the
2 This excludes the semi-urban centre of Nandom Town where Arjen Schijf has carried out his research. 3 Lawra District is divided in two paramountcies or ‘traditional areas’: Nandom and Lawra. In this study, I
refer to the Nandom Paramountcy as the Nandom area. The same holds for the Lambusie area in Jirapa- Lambusie District.
4 Dagarateng is the name of the area inhabited by Dagara people (see Bodomo 1998, internet sources).
sociocultural environment that have an impact on the livelihood strategies and vulnerabilities of farm households in the research area are described elsewhere in this book (especially in chapter eight). This concerns issues like social organisation at the family and village levels, identity, gender roles, inheritance, bridewealth payments, land tenure, family ties, moral codes, taboos, etc. In the present chapter, I will briefly reflect on some socio-cultural issues that have received less attention in the rest of the study. In my analysis, the politico-institu- tional environment has not received all the attention it deserves. This results from the division of labour between me and my colleague (Schijf 2004). In the historical background (chapter three), some aspects of the politico-institutional and policy environment have been discussed. Some more recent changes in the policy environment, such as increased extension services, price policy, education, healthcare and food aid will be mentioned in chapter six, seven and eight when these changes affect farmers in the research area.
It is beyond the scope of this study to analyse all the changes in the environment in detail, but in this chapter I will try to outline some broad changes in the environment through what can be called a historical-geographical analysis of the area (see Dietz et al. 2001a: 11). By doing so, I will try to embed the individual ‘livelihood histories’ (see chapter eight) in a wider context of change.