manual for social impact assessment of land-based ... - Forest Trends

Figure T16: Matrix Scoring Comparison of Drought Interventions against Indicators
Indicators
“Helps us to cope
with the effect of
drought”
“Helps fast
recovery and
rebuilding herd”
“Helps the
livestock to
survive”
“Saves human life
better”
“Benefits the poor
most”
“Socially and
culturally
accepted”
“Timely and
available”
Overall Preference
De-Stocking Veterinary
Support
9.1 (8.5,
9.7)
11.1
(10.5,11.7)
10.3 (9.5,
11.2)
9.8 (8.9,
10.6)
7.6 (6.7,
8.6)
11.5
(10.6,12.4)
8.4 (7.8,
9.0)
Mean Scores (95% CI) for Interventions
Animal
Feed
3.5 (3.2, 3.9) 5.7 (5.1,
6.2)
4.4 (3.9, 4.9) 5.7 (5.0,
6.3)
4.9 (4.4, 5.4) 8.9 (8.1,
9.7)
2.4 (1.9, 2.8) 3.7 (3.1,
4.3)
1.9 (1.6, 2.3) 3.2 (2.5,
3.8)
5.1 (4.7, 5.6) 5.8 (5.1,
6.4)
3.3 (2.9, 3.7) 4.3 (3.9,
4.6)
Food
Aid
6.9 (6.5,
7.4)
4.9 (4.4,
5.6)
2.3 (1.8,
2.8)
8.8 (8.1,
9.6)
11.0
(10.1,11.9)
3.4 (2.8,
3.9)
8.5 (7.9,
9.1)
Water
Supply
3.0 (2.4,
3.6)
1.9 (1.5,
2.4)
2.8 (2.2,
3.5)
3.6 (2.9,
4.3)
3.7 (2.8,
4.3)
2.6 (2.1,
3.2)
3.5 (2.8,
4.1)
Labor (Safety
Net)
Credit Others
Social Impact Assessment of Land-Based Carbon Projects (1.0) – Part II | 53
0.8 (0.5, 1.1) 0.5 (0.2,
0.8)
0.9 (0.5, 1.4) 0.6 (0.1,
1.1)
0.2 (0.1, 0.4) 0.3 (0.1,
0.6)
0.9 (0.5, 1.3) 0.5 (0.2,
0.9)
1.6 (0.9, 2.2) 0.7 (0.3,
1.1)
0.9 (0.5, 1.4) 0.3 (0.1,
0.5)
1.2 (0.7, 1.7) 0.5 (0.2,
0.8)
10.6 (9.9, 4.2 (3.8, 4.6) 6.2 (5.5, 4.7 (4.1, 2.6 (2.1, 1.0 (0.5, 1.5) 0.4 (0.1,
11.2)
6.9) 5.2)
3.2)
0.6)
Source: Reproduced with permission from Catley, A., Burns, J., Abebe, D. and Suji, O. (2008). Participatory
Impact Assessment: A guide for practitioners. Feinstein International Center, Medford
0.4 (0.2,
0.7)
0.4 (0.1,
0.7)
0.2 (0.0,
0.4)
0.3 (0.1,
0.5)
0.5 (0.1,
0.8)
0.3 (0.1,
0.5)
0.3 (0.1,
0.5)
0.3 (0.1,
0.6)