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

T6.3 Quantitative Participatory Assessment (QPA)
Quantitative Participatory Assessment (QPA) is a participatory scoring system originally developed in
India to monitor the environmental benefits of watershed protection projects. It is very similar to
the methods described in Section T6.2, and could be classified as another PIA method. QPA aims to
capture people’s perceptions of changes in qualitative indicators in a quantitative form via
community or focus group based assessments. It was first developed in the context of analyzing the
environmental and other non-market benefits of watershed protection projects in India, benefits
which would be difficult or costly to value using conventional economic valuation methods (James et
al., 2002).
Description of Method and Examples
Relative scoring using the QPA
Description of Method
For developing an index of change, each qualitative indicator (e.g., water quality or community
cohesion) is given a pre-project (baseline) nominal value of 100. Then the focus groups need to be
carefully chosen, e.g., by gender, wealth grouping, age, livelihood interests, etc. Each focus then
engages in a semi-structured discussion so that they obtain a good understanding of the benefits
under consideration, and of the key issues in determining whether they have got better or worse.
The focus group is then asked whether the benefits it currently receives have risen or fallen since the
project began (or since the previous year, compared to five years ago, etc.), and then asked to add
stones or counters to a pile of 100 (representing the baseline score) or to take them away if they
think there has been a deterioration. For example, a score of 150 would indicate that the perceived
value has increased by a half, and a score of 50 that its value has halved.
This perceived value could involve a combination of qualitative and quantitative information (e.g.,
clean water could include the amount of water), or the component parts could be scored separately.
Each focus group is encouraged to reach a consensus score, and asked to explain why it chose this
score. Over the years this can become an index of change, although it would really be valid if the
focus groups were composed of the same people.
Example: Change in income from crop production
Table T15 shows the scores from focus group discussions of the change in agricultural incomes in a
project area in India after assigning 100 as the baseline score. These findings from a rapid QPA in 16
villages were later corroborated by a full-scale impact evaluation study of social equity and
household livelihoods, which found an increase of about 50% in crop incomes in the sampled villages
(James et al., 2004).
Social Impact Assessment of Land-Based Carbon Projects (1.0) – Part II | 57