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

Scoring and ‘tally’ methods to show attribution
The main approach to attribution in PIA is to separate out the project and non-project factors as
determinants of outcomes, rather than to use the matching methods (using controls) approach. This
involves firstly developing a ‘causal diagram’ showing all the potential project and non-project
factors contributing to a given impact. These are then ranked or scored. If all the factors are scored
using proportional piling (100 counters is best for calculating percentages), the project (or nonproject)
factors can be aggregated into a statement such as:
“the project-related factors contributed X% to a project outcome/impact”
For example, Table T13 shows the scoring for six project and non-project factors contributing to a
positive change in food security status following an agricultural recovery project in a post-conflict
setting. It was concluded that the project-related factors made a 29% relative contribution to
improved food security.
Table T13: Attribution by Ranking and Scoring for a Food Security Project
Factor Project or Non-Project Factor Rank Score
Improved rainfall Non-project 1 33
Improved security Non-project 2 26
Improved seeds Project 3 19
Government extension service Non-project 4 12
Provision of fertilizers Project 5 8
Provision of tools Project 6 2
Source: Catley, A., Burns, J., Abebe, D. and Suji, O. (2008). Participatory Impact Assessment: A guide for
practitioners. Feinstein International Center, Medford.
Another approach is to ask individuals to list all the factors they think have contributed to a
particular outcome or impact. When everyone has been asked, the number of times each potential
cause was mentioned is added up. This is known as the ‘tally method’. Table T14 presents an
example of the tally method based on the responses (74) to an open-ended question: what has
contributed to improved food security following the drought in Niger? (this followed a ‘before and
after project’ scoring exercise on food sources).
Table T14: Reasons for Improved Household Food Security in Niger
Factors Project or non-project factor No. of responses (n = 74)
Cereal Banks Project 68
Better farm inputs Project 59
More income to buy food Project 50
Livestock restocking Project 46
Vegetable production Project 38
Food Aid Non-project 10
Decrease in crop pests and diseases Non-project 8
Improved rainfall Non-project 5
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
Social Impact Assessment of Land-Based Carbon Projects (1.0) – Part II | 55