A basic needs approach to understanding the complex and

changing link between ecosystem services and wellbeing

Tim Daw-Stockholm University Prof. Kate Brown –University of Exeter

Tomas Chaigneau – University of Exeter Bernard Owuor- Kenya Forestry Research Institute

Caroline Abunge- Wildlife Conservation Society Sarah Coulthard –Northumbria University

Sustainable Poverty Alleviation from

Coastal Ecosystem Services (SPACES) Investigating elasticities, feedbacks and tradeoffs

500 km

Sweden: Stockholm Resilience Centre UK: Exeter University, Northumbria University, University of East Anglia, World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC), Cambridge University Mozambique: Eduardo Mondlane University, Universidade Lurio, Pemba, Centre for Coastal and Marine Environment (CEPAM), Mozambique Ministry for Coordination of Environmental Affairs Kenya: Kenya Marine and Fisheries Research Institute (KMFRI), Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), Kenya, Kenya Forestry Research Institute The University of British Columbia (UBC), Stanford University

3 years, Funded by UK ESPA programme

SPACES Conceptual framework: Ecosystems-wellbeing chains…

i) Ecol. Dynamics

v) Needs

a. Ecological Stocks

f. W

ellb

ein

g C

on

trib

uti

on

b. Flows d. Value e. Share

ii) Human inputs

iii) Valuation

iv) Access

c. Goods

Building on ESPA knowledge framework, TEEB, UKNEA, Mace et al 2012

Building on Coulthard 2011, Daw et al 2011, Gough & McGregor 2007, Leach et al 1999

Study Sites

Kenya and Mozambique Urban and Rural sites Kenya –Kongowea, Tsunza, • Vanga and shimoni Mozambique- Olumbe, Pemba

Mombasa

Vanga

Olumbe

Pemba

500 km

About sites

• Coastal landscapes and sea scapes • Ecosystem services dependent communities • Fishing cultures and lifestyles • Diverse occupations • High levels of poverty • Seasonal changes • Competing interests and resource use conflicts • International and local tourism • Transboundary issues- migrant fishing, different policy

regimes

Doyal and Gough's Theory of Human Need

• Drawing upon the philosophical expertise of one author (Len Doyal) and the economic training of the other (Ian Gough), a fully-construed theory of universal human need was constructed that was designed to permit empirical testing of its constructs (Doyal and Gough, 1984, 1991).

Doyal and Gough's Theory of Human Need

• Doyal, Len, & Gough, Ian (1991). A Theory of Human Needs. New York: Guilford.

• Doyal and Gough theorized two primary basic needs (health and autonomy) which must be met to avoid serious harm and engage in social participation.

Doyal and Gough's Theory of Human Need

• Civil, political, and women’s rights are prerequisites for culturally specific ways of satisfying intermediate needs, including food, water, housing, a nonhazardous environment, health and reproductive health care, security in childhood, significant primary relationships, economic security, and basic education.

A Basic Needs Approach to Understanding Wellbeing

1. Validating the list of universal basic needs

2. Identifying context specific indicators for each basic needs criteria

3. Developing thresholds

i. Identifying when one is experiencing “harm”

Universal Needs

According to Doyle and Gough, intermediate needs are grouped in 11 categories : Health Nutritional food and clean water Protective housing

A non-hazardous work environment A non-hazardous physical environment

Safe birth control and child-bearing Appropriate health care

Autonomy A secure childhood

Significant primary relationships Physical security

Economic security Appropriate education

FIRST 6-HEALTH RELATED LAST 5- AUTONOMY RELATED Other lists exist such as OECD, WB

Validation Focus Group

Exploring indicators

Validating the list of universal basic needs

Needs Focus Group

Different indicators EDUCATION PHYSICAL SECURITY

Education up to university/college Good links with local admin

Extra tuition Security dogs*

Extra teachers employed privately Watchmen in compound

Children in academy Grill doors/grill windows*

Guaranteed employment Security light*

Children in public schools* Has weapon ( bow , arrow, panga) just in case*

Children are very bright* Ceiling *

Have at least one pair of uniform Good relationship with neighbours

Moderate fee payment Normal /ordinary fence

Persistent problems in schools fees at secondary level

No pocket money* Has no stress

Most drop out at std8* Secure because he has no valuables in the house

No sufficient stationery* No need for security because he is already outside (see me through house)

Leave protection to God

Lack of morale for school children

Cannot afford fees

Children have no time to study ( need to support parents in other duties)

Water

WATER

Treated water

Tap water

Rarely gets sick

Buys water from water sellers/vendors

Uses borehole water for washing and serving food

Collect water themselves

Sells water to others

Water not treated

Depends on free water from borehole

Dirty borehole water for drinking and washing

Linking ES to WB: A Basic Needs Approach

Advantages • Expands thinking on how ES contributes to WB (Uncovers previously “hidden” connections) • Allows us to look at trade offs that occur between different aspects of WB • It is a “pro-poor” approach • Can allow for policy screening and make them sensitive to the poor and

marginalized in society • Provides insights for greater understanding of the wider context of human

wellbeing in relation to ecosystem services and ecological factors

Basic Needs and Broader Wellbeing

Limitations • Cannot look at Basic Needs in Isolation

• Ignores Adaptation to bad conditions • Thresholds of harm would continuously move higher as more needs

are met • Basic Needs ignore Subjective Wellbeing

• Important to look at happiness and satisfaction with life • Wellbeing requires more qualitative aspects to understand the mechanisms

that are important for living well. Not all aspects can be reduce to an “indicator”

Survey Integration: Developing Questions

Water

Shimoni Vanga Kongowea Tsunza

tap water Bottled water Water tank Free water supply Water from borehole Rain water harvesting River water Water from earth dam Water from shallow wells

Treat water before use Use of clean water Pay for water Tap water Water for use by people &livestock separated Rely on fresh water Do not separate water for livestock & people

Treated water Tap water Rarely gets sick Buys water from water sellers/vendors Uses borehole water for washing and serving food Collect water themselves Sells water to others Water not treated Depends on free water from borehole Dirty borehole water for drinking and washing

Treated water Own fridge to cool the water before use Large water storage facility Piped water* Sells water* Uses borehole water Owns water source Connected to the main water pipes* Buys water Can only afford limited quantities of water Boiling water before use Transport water manually Uses dhows to get water from river Fetches water from long distance* Has no tap Uses any water available Does not treat water When water is scarce , only uses water for cooking , drinking and no bathing At times takes water on credit

Yellow: “Dirty” Water (e.g. river, shallow wells)

Pink: Borehole or “clean” water

Brown Green: Difficulty in collection

Survey Integration: Developing Questions (e.g. Water)

Linking ES to WB: A Basic Needs Approach

Advantages • Expands thinking on how ES contributes to WB (Uncovers previously “hidden” connections) • Allows us to look at trade offs that occur between different aspects of WB • It is a “pro-poor” approach • Can allow for policy screening and make them sensitive to the poor and

marginalized in society • Provides insights for greater understanding of the wider context of human

wellbeing in relation to ecosystem services and ecological factors

Basic Needs and Broader Wellbeing

Limitations • Cannot look at Basic Needs in Isolation

• Ignores Adaptation to bad conditions • Thresholds of harm would continuously move higher as more needs

are met • Basic Needs ignore Subjective Wellbeing

• Important to look at happiness and satisfaction with life • Wellbeing requires more qualitative aspects to understand the mechanisms

that are important for living well. Not all aspects can be reduce to an “indicator”

Acknowledgements

• ESPA for funding the project and for facilitating my participation in the conference

• SPACES project for giving me the chance to represent the social research team

• KEFRI for allowing me to participate

• PWANI university for allowing me to attend and take a break from my masters programme

• Local communities for their cooperation and candid discussions

THANK YOU