Techniques for measuring indicators

Th ere are a number of techniques that can be used to investigate typical social and ecological components that are often used as indicators in the context of natural resource management associated with wetland ecosystems and indigenous communities. Th e North Rupununi Wetlands Monitoring Manual (2006) outlines many of these techniques:

1) Ecological system monitoring – this gives detailed descriptions of how to measure geomorphological, hydrological, biological and land use indicators associated with wetlands;

2) Social system monitoring – this gives detailed descriptions of how to gather social indicator information through a variety of methods including interviewing, visualisation and diagramming and ranking and scoring. Table 4.2 gives an example of how interview questions could be developed to address the various indicators listed in Table 4.1. Th e response categories are examples of how the data collected through interviews and/or focus groups could then be categorised for further interpretation and assessment if necessary (see Evaluating and re-evaluating the situation section)

In a location such as the North Rupununi and Guyana in general, where technical and human resources may be limiting, and environmental conditions can be challenging, it is important to make sure that the appropriate techniques for measuring indicators are chosen and that the sampling strategy is realistic in terms of access to sites/locations. At the same time, it is important to remember that the signifi cance of the results will depend on the sampling used in space and time. For example, if interview questions are answered through a single source, for example secondary sources, or perhaps just through interviewing one person, the results will not be as reliable as if these questions had been answered by a whole community. Th e same would apply to measuring the wetland indicators only in one or two waterbodies. Also, if questions are answered in one timeframe or wetland biophysical data at one time of the year, results may not refl ect temporal variations in the aspects of many of the indicators. It is therefore important to make it very clear from where/whom and when the data was collected.

Health categoryIndicator codeIndicator categoryMeasurable indicatorTechniqueAssumptions ExistenceA1Availability of shelterCondition of housing per householdI, ObservationsFactors such as poor ventilation, lack of protection from extreme weather conditions and disease vectors (e.g. mosquitoes), and inadequate sanitation signifi cantly aff ect the health of individuals, especially the elderly and children. A2Availability of foodFood shortage over 1 monthI, D&VInadequate levels of food consumption can result in stunted growth, muscular problems fatigue and reduced resistance to infectious diseases. A3Availability of waterAccess to clean drinking water per household e.g. well, river, rainwater

I, D&VDiff erent sources of water are associated with varying risks with regards to infectious diseases. In general, rainwater collected in a sterilised container is the safest for consumption while open water especially in stagnant conditions is the least safe. A4Health statusNumber of days sick per month per householdI, D&VPresence of infectious diseases within at least one individual within a household has the potential to threaten the health of other household members. Illness reduces capacity of household.

Table 4.1 Community health indicators developed for the North Rupununi wetlands. Health categories are described in System health properties section. Techniques are described in the Techniques for measuring indicators section and the North Rupununi Monitoring Manual (2006), where I = Interviewing, D&V = Diagramming and visualisation and R&S = Ranking and Scoring.

Ideal performanceB1Effi ciency of income generation and/or resource production/ extraction with respect to the amount of work that is carried out

Amount of free-time per week per householdI, D&VThe optimum hours worked per week should not exceed a certain threshold which would take away from other social activities such as family life and community support. B2Child labourAmount of support needed from children aged 16 and below per household to meet subsistence needs

I, D&VA healthy childhood should be comprised of learning and playing activities. Subsistence work can be considered as learning as long as other learning and playing opportunities are not impaired. B3Subjective well- beingHow happy people feelI, D&VThe happier people are feeling, the healthier the community. B4Overall community healthProportion of community members greater than 60 years old

I, D&VThe higher the life expectancy in communities, the better they are performing. B5Participation in decision-makingMode of decision-making in communityIDecision-making through participation will lead to a more eff ective community. ResistanceC1Level of community cohesion and support

Participation in community eventsI, D&VParticipation in community events strengthens level of community cohesion. C2Level of crimeOccurrence of thefts per village per yearI, D&VGreater community cohesion and support could lead to lower levels of crime. C3Level of confl ictOccurrence of violent incidents per yearIGreater community cohesion and support could lead to lower levels of violent incidents. C4Rights and access to land and resourcesLevel of legal rights and access to resourcesI, D&V, GIS analysisLand tenure reduces the infl uence and impact of external pressures. C5Availability of capital assetsQuantity of capital assets per household e.g. cattle, bicycle, boat, motorcycle, gun, chainsaw, generator ICapital assets can help to buff er households from internal and external pressures.

C6Availability of community infrastructure Quantity of community infrastructure e.g. school, church, clinic, meeting hall, sports facility, access road ICommunity assets can help to buff er communities from internal and external pressures. C7Traditional knowledge and practices

Role of traditional practices in householdIAbility to carry out traditional practices allows communities greater independence from external pressures. C8Resource governanceStrength of community implementation of resource use controls

ITraditional controls have been historically eff ective means of controlling over-exploitation of natural resources and disturbance both by community and non- community members. FlexibilityD1Diversity of traditional resources

Diversity of local natural resources used per household e.g. fi sh species, traditional crop species and varieties, traditional non-timber products etc.

I, D&VA high diversity of resources allows communities to withstand minor changes. D2Diversity of traditional livelihoods

Number of traditional livelihood activities undertaken per household e.g. traditional fi shing, hunting I, D&VA high diversity of livelihood activities allows communities to withstand minor changes. D3Level of access to facilitating technologies

Number of facilitating technologies with household access e.g. solar panels, boat engines, cassava grater, motorcycle, chainsaw, seine nets I, D&VAccess to facilitating technologies allows communities to withstand minor changes.

AdaptabilityE1Level of educationHighest level of formal education per householdIEducated individuals are able to bring a wide range of skills and knowledge to help devise new ways of adaptation to changes. E2Signifi cance of non-traditional resources

Signifi cance of non- traditional natural resources used per household i.e. a resource not used by previous generation e.g. introduced cattle, introduced crop species and varieties etc.

I, D&VA high presence of non-traditional resources allows communities to change exploitation patterns. E3Signifi cance of non-traditional livelihoods

Signifi cance of non- traditional livelihood activities undertaken per household in village i.e. a livelihood not undertaken by previous generation e.g. service sector jobs, NGO jobs, retail, commercial activities I, D&VA high presence of non-traditional livelihood activities allows communities to respond to changes in circumstances. E4Participation in activities outside community

Proportion of household adults having participated or currently participated in activities outside community e.g. working in projects, NGOs, Lethem, GT, Brazil ILiving and working outside your own community can provide experiences that could help adapt to future change. E5Level of access to informationTime spent per household accessing information e.g. radio, newsletters, internet

IThe greater the access to diff erent forms of information, the more knowledgeable people are to actual and potential changes in their surroundings, thereby giving people opportunities to change behaviours.

Table 4.2 An interview or focus group checklist to help collect indicator data

Th eme of

questioning Specifi c questions Response categories Notes Indicator code

How many household

in your household? 1 = unhappy and depressed

What is the level

What is the occurrence

Evaluation, in the context of NRAMP, occurs in two distinct assessment stages. Firstly it is used to assess and judge the value of the indicators in relation to system health properties and the management goal. Th is assessment involves the setting and re-setting of thresholds for indicators to ensure they are appropriate.

Secondly, the purpose of the evaluation is to help refl ect on what extent the management goal is being achieved and identifying required changes. Th is is achieved by evaluating the individual indicator performances in relation to the important system health properties for each management goal.

Th e following sections describe how these two diff ering evaluation stages can be achieved. Firstly, techniques for threshold setting and evaluation of community and then wetland health indicators are described.

Secondly, the technique for evaluating the progress towards a management goal is outlined.

4.3.1 Data verifi cation

It is important to develop a database to store information being collected. Th is should be designed in such a way that it is easy to analyse the data later on, and signifi cant manipulation of the raw data is avoided.

Common software packages such as Microsoft Excel can be used to create simple databases. When data is inputted into a database, mistakes can be made which could have signifi cant impacts on later analyses. It is important therefore to manually check each fi le record against fi eld notes after data has been inputted. It is important to get someone else, i.e. not the data imputer, to undertake this task as double verifi cation means that mistakes can be more easily identifi ed.

Th e data then needs to be checked for anomalies. For ecological data, the best way to do this is to graph diff erent characteristics/variables for each site. For example, by plotting water depth against month for a site it is possible to quickly identify errors in the data inputting. Once this is done, you are then left with a matrix of missing data to which imputation methods can be applied. For social data, a process of triangulation i.e.

getting at least three sources to confi rm the anomaly, can be used.

4.3.2 Missing data

It is often the case that during any monitoring programme, data is not recorded for either one or a few variables. It may be that sites were inaccessible, or that the vehicle broke down or that equipment was not working properly. Whatever the reason, the non-recording leaves a gap in the database, so that when it comes to analysing the data, there are problems. How can we deal with missing or incomplete data?

When you choose a missing data handling approach, termed imputation, keep in mind that one of the desired outcomes is maintaining (or approximating as closely as possible) the shape of the original distribution of