A critical analysis of the socioeconomic impact assessments of the Addo Elephant National Park
- Authors: Rose, Matthew Calvin
- Date: 2011
- Subjects: Addo Elephant National Park (South Africa) South African National Parks Economic impact analysis -- South Africa -- Addo Elephant National Park Environmental impact analysis -- South Africa -- Addo Elephant National Park
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , MCom
- Identifier: vital:964 , http://hdl.handle.net/10962/d1002698
- Description: Impact assessment is a requirement for development in many countries across the globe, seeking to inform the decision-maker as to the environmental, social and economic impact of an ongoing or proposed project. Socioeconomic impact assessment (SEIA) is a means of informing decision-makers as to the socioeconomic effects a project could have, or is having, thus contributing to informing adaptive management practices. However, the tendency of socioeconomic impact assessment to highly quantitative economic methods of analysis raises the question of whether the desired results are achieved by the process. The purpose of the research was to determine whether highly quantitative forms of economic analysis are suitable for measurement of impacts in a social context where distributive as well as net impact is important; to critically analyze the method utilized in achieving highly quantitative economic impact assessment results; and lastly to draw conclusions and make recommendations regarding the efficacy of monitoring processes used to inform adaptive management practices. The research was conducted by means of a case study focusing on three SEIAs carried out on the same entity, namely the Addo Elephant National Park. Managed by South African National Parks (SANP), it began expanding its borders in the early 2000s. Funded by the World Bank, SANP was required to carry out a comprehensive Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) in 2003 to ensure the expansion did not have negative environmental, social and economic repercussions, and where such consequences were unavoidable, to ensure that mitigation and management thereof was informed by useful monitoring exercises. Given the need for resettlement and issues of economic distributive concern raised in the 2003 SEA, the three socioeconomic impact assessments conducted from 2005 – 2010 as part of the ongoing monitoring exercises formed an ideal framework for answering the primary research questions. The findings indicate that despite consistent terms of reference, different assessors interpret mandates from the commissioning body in different ways, leading to varied applications of the same theory, some methodologically better than others. Economic multiplier analysis was found to be inadequate as a measure of the distributive effects of economic impact. Moreover, a lack of consistency, accountability and transparency in the monitoring process led to three sets of results that were incomparable over time and thus inadequate as a means to inform adaptive management practices. Asymmetries of and between power and expertise in the commissioning body and the assessors led to breakdowns of the assessment process in terms of accountability and integrity and resulted in a failure to properly define the scope of the study and measure the relevant indicators. The following recommendations were made: that the economic multiplier method be complemented by additional methods of analysis when utilized in disparate social contexts where distribution of economic benefit is important; that monitoring practices be systematized at an early stage of the process to ensure comparable results useful in informing ongoing management practices; and that what an assessment measures and how it measures it be clarified with reference to an objective source. Finally, the number of factors for consideration in any impact assessment means that measurement of the full picture suffers resource constraints, emphasizing the need for impact assessment oversight to recognize the deficiencies of the process whilst still acknowledging that ‘some number is better than no number’.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2011
Contrasting livelihoods in the upper and lower Gariep River basin: a study of livelihood change and household development
- Authors: McDermott, Lindsay
- Date: 2006
- Subjects: Rural development -- Lesotho , Rural development -- South Africa -- Northern Cape , Sustainable development -- Lesotho , Sustainable development -- South Africa -- Northern Cape , Households -- Economic aspects -- Lesotho , Households -- Economic aspects -- South Africa -- Northern Cape , Rural poor -- Lesotho , Rural poor -- South Africa -- Northern Cape , Agriculture -- Lesotho , Agriculture -- South Africa -- Northern Cape
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , MA
- Identifier: vital:4758 , http://hdl.handle.net/10962/d1007147 , Rural development -- Lesotho , Rural development -- South Africa -- Northern Cape , Sustainable development -- Lesotho , Sustainable development -- South Africa -- Northern Cape , Households -- Economic aspects -- Lesotho , Households -- Economic aspects -- South Africa -- Northern Cape , Rural poor -- Lesotho , Rural poor -- South Africa -- Northern Cape , Agriculture -- Lesotho , Agriculture -- South Africa -- Northern Cape
- Description: This study investigated rural livelihoods in two contrasting environments in the upper and lower reaches of the Gariep River: Sehlabathebe in the Lesotho highlands, and the Richtersveld in the Northern Cape, and how these have changed over time. Livelihoods were examined using the Sustainable Livelihoods Framework in conjunction with the household development cycle. This study therefore adopted a multi-scale approach, where a micro-level household analysis was framed within the macro level social, political, environmental, economic and institutional context, while taking into account the role of temporal scale of livelihood change. A multi-scale approach facilitated the identification of the major drivers of change, both exogenous and endogenous. The combination of livelihood strategies pursued differed between the two sites. Households in Sehlabathebe are reliant mainly on arable and garden cultivation, livestock in some households, occasional remittances, use of wild resources, petty trading and reliance on donations. Households in the Richtersveld relied primarily on livestock, wage labour, use of wild resources and State grants or pensions. The livelihood strategies pursued in each site have not changed markedly over time, but rather the relative importance of those strategies was found to have changed. The assets available to households, the livelihood strategies adopted and the changes in these livelihood strategies are influenced by a households stage in the development cycle and differing macro-level factors. Drivers of change operate at multiple spatial and temporal scales, and are often complex and interrelated. The major drivers of livelihood change were identified as macro-economic, demographic, institutional and social and climatic. This study highlights the importance of using historical analysis in the study of livelihoods, as well as the complexity and diversity of rural livelihoods. Ecosystem goods and services were found to play a fundamental role in rural livelihoods and are influenced by institutional factors. Rural households are heavily reliant on the formal economy, and macro-economic changes have had a significant impact on livelihoods. This is highlighted by how the drastic decline in migrant labour opportunities for households in Sehlabathebe has negatively affected them. Vulnerability was shown to be a result of external shocks and trends, such as institutional transformation, a decline in employment opportunities, theft and climatic variation; and differed between the two sites. The role of institutional breakdown was shown to be a major factor influencing rural livelihoods, and this is related to broader economic and political changes. This study contributes to the growing literature on rural livelihoods by allowing for an appreciation of how differing environments and contextual factors influence livelihood strategies adopted, and which different factors are driving change.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2006