This document proposes a framework for assessing the livelihood development impact and community welfare of peat-dependent communities. The framework includes four domains: environment and ecology, social and cultural, economics, and governance and policy. It identifies indicators within each domain to monitor restoration efforts. Examples include percentage of yearly/seasonal livelihoods dependent on peatlands, access to infrastructure like energy and transport, measures of economic well-being, and community representation in governance. The document also discusses alternative indexing methods inspired by other frameworks.

1. Assesing livelihood development
impact againts community welfare of
peat-dependent community
(Session #2b)
Siti Hamidah
Lambung Mangkurat University

2. Peatland
Peatland
boundaries
Human well-
being
Restoration
Monitoring /
Sustainability
of Peatlands
Policy goals
BRG (Perpres No
1 Tahun 2016)
SDGS
ETC
Socio-ecologycal
system
Governance &
Policy
The Framework (on the left side is the transdisciplinary content that it intends to
include in the assessment, on the right side is the policy goal that it is based on

3. •Societal benefits
•Demographycs
•Social well being
•Identity
•Ketahanan sosial
•Organization
•Law & Justice
•Representation & Power
•Legitimaty & Accountability
•Peatland management
•groundwater level
•Ecosystem function
•Global Environment Change
•Security
•Infrastructure
•Economic well-being
•Industry
•Dependencyy
Economics
Environment
& Ecology
Social &
Cultural
Governance
& Policy
4 ASPECTS of RESTORATION MONITORING

4. Domai
n
Indicators set
consulted
Kategoriy/ Sub-Kategory Sugested Indicators
Ekono
my
World
Development
Indicators
SDG indicators [
Ferrol-Schulte et
al.
Indicators
Guidelines
SUSTAIN indicator
set
Social Progress
Index
OECD
(Organization for
Economic Coopera-
tion &
Development)
1. SEcurity
livelihood • Percentage of yearly livelihoods
• Percentage of seasonal livelihoods
• Access to credit, savings, and insurance
• Dependency on peatlandsl services •
• Access to social security
Gender • Percentage of women employed
Employe patern • Unemployment (by gender)
• Vulnerable employment
• Seasonal employment
2. Infrastructure
Energy supply • Share of energy generated from renewable sources •
• Percentage of population with access to energy
Transport • Percentage of passenger km using something other than private car
• Percentage of goods transported through ports and by expedition
Accsess • Existence of ports, airports, and bus stations
• Existence of roads, waterways, and channels
• Existence of walking paths
Inspired by :CCS
(Circles of Coastal Sustainability_

5. Domai
n
Indicators set
consulted
Kategoriy/ Sub-Kategory Sugested Indicators
Ekono
my
World
Development
Indicators
SDG indicators [
Ferrol-Schulte et
al.
Indicators
Guidelines
SUSTAIN indicator
set
Social Progress
Index
OECD
(Organization for
Economic Coopera-
tion &
Development)
3. Economic well-being
Equality/Income/Housing • Gini index
• Household prosperity
• Availability of affordable housing
4. Industry
Renewable (non-extractive) • Number of economic activities
• Revenue per sector
Extractive • Number of economic activities
• Revenue per sector
Inspired by :CCS
(Circles of Coastal Sustainability_

6. My Idea for Economic aspects
1. Aspects of income / income
• a. How much (Rp) the community (head of household) earns per month
from the results of a wetland-based business
• b. What (%) of the income from the income per month comes from
wetland-based businesses (farming, gardening, fishing, selling,
producing everything that comes from or is done in the wetland area)
• c. etc
2. Livelihoods / work aspects
• a. What is the number of residents whose main work is from wetland-
based enterprises
• b. What (%) of the total community depend on wetland-based
businesses
• c. How many workers for each business (how many employees?)
• d. How many SMEs depend on products or materials that come from
wetlands?
• e. etc

7. 3. Product Aspects
• a. How many products are produced by the community around the peat area based on wetlands
• b. Are these products considered as main or by products / can be substituted for other products?
• c. Are these products considered to be able to support food & health needs or other purposes ???
• d. Is the technology in the manufacturing process controlled by the community? Is it easy, or is it difficult?
• e. Is the marketing aspect easy or difficult? Marketing reach? (local, national, international?
• f. What is the potential (quantity) or capacity that can be produced per month? How much is the turnover
per month ???
• g. Has the product been certified and standardized? How many have been certified? Which is standardized
???
• h. etc
4. Research & Innovation Aspects
• a. How many products are produced based on research?
• b. What is the innovation rate for the product?
• c. etc
5. Industrial Aspects
• a. How many small, medium & large industries depend on raw materials from wetlands
• b. How many small, medium & large industries produce products from wetlands
• c. How many side industries also depend on industries from wetlands
• d. Etc
•

8. Alternatif to indexing methode
: inspired by IDM (Indeks Desa Membangun)
• A scoring system on a scale
from 1 to 5
• the higher the score reflects
the level of meaning
• Each indicator score is
grouped into variables, so
that generate variable
scores.
• Total score of variable
formulated into an index:
• The index of each variable
into a Composite Index
called Building Village
Index (IDM).

9. Alternatif to indexing methode
: inspired by KATSINOVMETER
(innovation level measuring instrument
• :

10. Alternatif to indexing methode
: inspired by CCS Framework (Circles of Coastal Sustainability)
• A scoring system on a scale
from 1 to 5 was used to rate
sustainability levels for each
indicator set in each category.
Color labels fill the diagram to
signal performance relative to
others: Blue for ‘excellent’,
green for ‘good’, yellow for
‘satisfactory’, orange for
‘poor, and red for ‘bad’,
according to the rating
• The bull’s eye orientation
(proximity to the center of
the target represents
proximity to thesustainability
goal); In the proposed
framework, the further the
distance from the circle, the
higher “unsustainability”
scores are attributed