DEFORESTATION PERCEPTIONS
By
Lucio Muñoz
munoz@interchange.ubc.ca or http://www.truesustainability.com
Deforestation Perceptions
With the purpose of validating the
qualitative information generated based on the secondary information collected,
a questionnaire was passed to determine deforestation perceptions at the local
and regional level focused on the 11 factors that are considered to be within
the most likely causal factors. The same questionnaire was passed in each
country to government officials and to non-government officials. Moreover, the
same questionnaire was passed to non-local officials to determine their
perceptions about regional deforestation causality in
The question asked was to provide their
personal perceptions with respect to the relative importance that each of the
11 factors has as a causal factor by indicating if these factors were in their
opinion not important (NI) or important(I), or very important(VI) as causal
agents of deforestation at a specific level, country or regional.
See a sample of the
perception questionnaire passed here.
The questionnaire was send by fax to a
list of key informants working in the area of deforestation, conservation,
forestry, sustainable development and so on who were recommended to me before
hand or who I identified though the process of perception collection. Completed
questionnaires were returned by fax, mail, and a few e-mails. The goal was to
achieve as much variability as possible and to have a sample that can be
grouped and regrouped to trace perception variation. It must be expected that
deforestation perceptions may very within groups(local and non-local) and
between groups(local and non-local), which have strong implications in terms of
theory validation, theory reformulation or theory generation ;and on expected
or potential biases that can result when having local or regional conferences to
discussed options or issues..
Country perception data
The perception data collected from local
officials are organized in perception data tables per specific group of local
officials: government officials, non-government officials, and all officias, as
shown in the tables below:
See here country
perception tables, Belize
See here country
perception tables, Costa Rica
See here country
perception tables, El Salvador
See here country
perception tables, Guatemala
See here country
perception tables, Honduras
See here country
perception tables, Nicaragua
See here country
perception tables, Panama
Regional perception data
Regional deforestation perceptions where
determined directly from non-local officials and indirectly from local
officials.
*Regional perception data,
non-local officials
The perception data collected from
non-local officials is organized in perception data tables per specific group
of non-local officials, as shown in the tables below:
See here regional perception tables,
ground researchers
See here regional
perceptions, Researchers
See here regional
perceptions , Institutions
See here regional
perceptions, Researchers and Institutions
*Regional perception data, local
officials, five countries
The deforestation perceptions of all
government officials, all non-government officials, and all officials from all
five countries were combined to gain an insight on causal perception
commonalities across countries and groups. The information generated is
presented below:
See here regional
perception tables, Five Countries
Regional perception data, local
officials, seven countries
The deforestation perceptions of all
government officials, all non-government officials, and all officials from all
seven countries were combined to gain an insight on causal perception
commonalities across countries and groups and to see the impact of including
Belize and Panama on the information generated by the five countries mentioned
above.
See here regional
perception tables, Seven Countries
Ranking deforestation
perceptions
Two new qualitative ways of ranking
deforestation perceptions are the average perception rule and the simple majority
perception rule. Each of these rules can generate information either in
trichotomy or dichotomy form depending on how strict our requirements are. The
working of these rules and the information generated are provided below.
-Trichotomy average perception
ranking
The average rule procedure used to rank
local and non-local perceptions in trichotomy form has two main steps: a) the
determination of the average perception score(AV) for each row in the
perception tables; and b) the classification of the score found as being either
Not Important(NI) or Important(I) or Very Important(VI).
How the average score can be
determined?
The average score can be determine by the
following formula:
AV = N1.(1) + N2.(2) + N3.(3) / NI + N2 +
N3
Where;
AV = Average Value
N1 = Number of officials indicating that
the factor was Not Important(NI)
N2 = Number of officials indicating that
the factor was Important(I)
N3 = Number of officials indicating that
the factor was Very Important
.(1) = quantitative weight for the
characteristics NI
.(2) = quantitative weight for the
characteristic I
.(3) = quantitative weight for the
characteristic VI
Notice that N1(1) + N2(2) + N3(3) = Sum Xi
and that N1 + N2 + N3 = n and therefore, the average rule above(AV) is
consistent with the standard quantitative definition of average.
How to classify in trichotomy
form the relative importance of the average score(AV) found?
The following rules can be used to
allocate the relative importance to the average score(AV) in trichotomy form:
If AV < 1.5 = NI = Not Important
If 1.5 \< AV < 2.5 = I = Important
If AV >/ 2.5 = VI = Very Important
For example, if N1 = 0 ; N2 = 4 ; N3 = 6
we have the following:
AV = 0(1) + 4(2) + 6(3) / 0 + 4 + 6 = 0 +
8 + 18 / 10 = 26 / 10 = 2.6
Since AV = 2.6 >/ 2.5 = VI = Very
Important. Therefore, in this case, the characteristic displaying the
perception values of N1 = 0 ; N2 = 4 ; and N3 = 6 has an average score(AV) of 2.6,
which classifies as Very Imporant(VI). This means that the average trichotomy
perception for this characteristic is Very Important.
Applying this trichotomy average
perception rule or approach described above to the local and regional
perception data relevant to specific groups of individuals or countries, the
following information is generated:
*Trichotomy country perceptions per group
of local officials
See here average
trichotomy country perceptions, Belize
See here average
trichotomy country perceptions, Costa Rica
See here average
trichotomy country perceptions, El Salvador
See here average
trichotomy country perceptions, Guatemala
See here average
trichotomy country perceptions, Honduras
See here average
trichotomy country perceptions, Nicaragua
See here average
trichotomy country perceptions, Panama
*Trichotomy regional perceptions per group
of non-local officials
See here average
trichotomy regional perceptions, Researchers
See here average
trichotomy regional perceptions, Institutions
See here
average trichotomy regional perceptions, Researchers and Institutions
*Trichotomy regional perceptions per group
of local officials, five countries
See here
average trichotomy regional perceptions, Five Countries
*Trichotomy regional perceptions per group
of local officials, seven countries
See here
average trichotomy regional perceptions, Seven Countries
-Dichotomy average
perception ranking
The average rule procedure used to rank
local and non-local perceptions in dichotomy form has also two main steps: a)
the determination of the average perception score(AV) for each row in the perception
tables; and b) the classification of the score found as being either Not Very
Important(NVI) or Very Important(VI).
How the average score can be
determined?
The average score can be determine by
using the same formula as above:
AV = N1.(1) + N2.(2) + N3.(3) / NI + N2 +
N3
Where;
AV = Average Value
N1 = Number of officials indicating that
the factor was Not Important(NI)
N2 = Number of officials indicating that
the factor was Important(I)
N3 = Number of officials indicating that
the factor was Very Important
.(1) = quantitative weight for the
characteristics NI
.(2) = quantitative weight for the
characteristic I
.(3) = quantitative weight for the
characteristic VI
Notice that N1(1) + N2(2) + N3(3) = Sum Xi
and that N1 + N2 + N3 = n and therefore, the average rule above(AV) is
consistent with the standard quantitative definition of average.
How to classify in dichotomy
form the relative importance of the average score(AV) found?
The following rules can be used to
allocate the relative importance to the average score(AV) in dichotomy form:
If AV < 2.5 = NVI = Not Very Important
If AV >/ 2.5 = VI = Very Important
For example, if N1 = 0 ; N2 = 4 ; N3 = 6 ;
then AV = 2.6
Since AV = 2.6 >/ 2.5 = VI = Very
Important. Therefore, in this case, the characteristic displaying the
perception values of N1 = 0 ; N2 = 4 ; and N3 = 6 has an average score(AV) of
2.6, which classifies as Very Imporant(VI) also in dichotomy form. This means
that the average dichotomy perception for these characteristics is Very Important(VI).
Applying this dichotomy average perception
rule or approach described above to the local and regional perception data
relevant to specific groups of individuals or countries, the following
information is generated:
**Dichotomy country perceptions per group
of local officials
See here average
dichotomy country perceptions, Belize
See here average
dichotomy country perceptions, Costa Rica
See here average
dichotomy country perceptions, El Salvador
See here average dichotomy country perceptions,
Guatemala
See here average
dichotomy country perceptions, Honduras
See here average
dichotomy country perceptions, Nicaragua
See here average
dichotomy country perceptions, Panama
**Dichotomy regional perception per group
of non-local officials
See here average
dichotomy regional perceptions, Researchers
See here average
dichotomy regional perceptions, Institutions
See here
average dichotomy regional perceptions, Researchers and Institutions
**Dichotomy regional perceptions per group
of local officials, five countries
See here
average dichotomy regional perceptions, Five Countries
**Dichotomy regional perceptions per group
of local officials, seven countries
See here
average dichotomy regional perceptions, Seven Countries
-Trichotomy simple majority
ranking
The simple majority rules used to rank
local and non-local perceptions in trichotomy form are the following:
VI > I > NI or VI > NI > I
------------à VI
I > NI > VI or I > VI > NI
------------à I
NI > I > VI or NI > VI > I
-----------à NI
VI = I and NI = 0 ----------------------à VI
VI = I and NI > 0
----------------------à I
VI = NI and I = 0 -----------------------à VI
VI = NI and I > 0 ---------------------à NI
I = NI and VI = 0 ---------------------à NI
I = NI and VI > 0 ---------------------à I
VI = I = NI --------------------------à I
Where:
VI = number officials who said that a
factor was Very Important(VI)
I = number of officials who said that a
factor was Important(I)
NI = number of officials who said that a
factor was Not Important(NI)
For example, if NI = 0 ; I = 4 ; and VI =
6
Since 6 = VI > 4 = I > 0 = NI, then
this factor is classified as Very Important(VI). In this case, since there is a
clear majority, it is easy to determine the ranking of the characteristic by
looking at the attribute that has the higher value, in this case VI = 6.
Applying this simple trichotomy majority
rule presented above to the local and regional perception data relevant to
specific groups of individuals or countries, the following information is
generated:
*Trichotomy country perceptions per group
of local officials
See here simple
majority trichotomy country perceptions, Belize
See here simple majority trichotomy country
perceptions, Costa Rica
See here simple
majority trichotomy country perceptions, El Salvador
See here simple
majority trichotomy country perceptions, Guatemala
See here simple
majority trichotomy country perceptions, Honduras
See here simple
majority trichotomy country perceptions, Nicaragua
See here simple
majority trichotomy country perceptions, Panama
*Trichotomy regional perceptions per group
of non-local officials
See here simple
majority trichotomy regional perceptions, Researchers
See here simple
majority trichotomy regional perceptions, Insititutions
See here simple
majority trichotomy regional perceptions, Researchers and Institutions
*Trichotomy regional perceptions per group
of local officials, five countries
See here simple
majority trichotomy regional perceptions, Five Countries
*Trichotomy regional perceptions per group
of local officials, seven countries
See here simple
majority trichotomy regional perceptions, Seven Countries
-Dichotomy simple majority
ranking
The simple majority rules used to rank
local and non-local perceptions in dichotomy form are the following:
VI >/ I + NI --- ------------à VI
VI < I + NI ----------------à NVI
Where:
VI = number officials who said that a
factor was Very Important(VI)
NVI = number of officials who said that a
factor was Not Very Important(NVI)
For example, if NI = 0 ; I = 4 ; and VI =
6
Since VI >/ I + NI = 6 >/ 0 + 4 = 6
>/ 4 -----à VI, then this factor is classified as Very
Important(VI) in in simple majority dichotomy form. Notice that since VI = 6 is
an absolute majority, both the simple majority trichotomy and dichtomy rankings
are the same, Very Important(VI). Notice too, that because of these clear
absolute majority, the average perception ranking, both trichotomy and
dichotomy also coincide with the simple majority rule ranking. When there is
not a clear absolute majority, things are different.
Applying this simple dichotomy majority
rule described above to the local and regional perception data relevant to
specific groups of individuals or countries, the following information is
generated:
**Dichotomy country perceptions per group
of local officials
See here simple
majority dichotomy country perceptions, Belize
See here simple
majority dichotomy country perceptions, Costa Rica
See here simple
majority dichotomy country perceptions, El Salvador
See here simple majority
dichotomy country perceptions, Guatemala
See here simple
majority dichotomy country perceptions, Honduras
See here simple majority dichotomy country perceptions,
Nicaragua
See here simple
majority dichotomy country perceptions, Panama
**Dichotomy regional perception per group
of non-local officials
See here simple majority
dichotomy regional perceptions, Researchers
See here simple
majority dichotomy regional perceptions, Institutions
See here simple
majority dichotomy regional perceptions, Researchers and Institutions
**Dichotomy regional perceptions per group
of local officials, five countries
See here simple
majority dichotomy regional perceptions, Five Countries
**Dichotomy regional perceptions per group
of local officials, seven countries
See here simple
majority dichotomy regional perceptions, Seven Countries
CopyRights: You can use any material found in this page if you
find it useful for educational or practical purposes, but please make a
citation to Lucio Muñoz