Several sustainable development indicators have been used to monitor and measure the progress of various countries. Similarly, reports and data available about countries progress prove that development has not been equal in all regions.  On the brighter side, the data can be used to inform decision making in areas that are experiencing deficiencies. In this research, a decision support system(DSS) is built to help governments and NGOs to properly choose projects that align with the needs of the people. We approached this research by utilizing Abraham Maslow’s proven psychological framework on the hierarchy of needs as the main criteria for choosing projects for sustainable development. The system ranks development projects based on the needs priority and how much it has been fulfilled. It ranks projects that meet an urgent need that is also lacking fulfillment higher than other project alternatives. The social progress index (SPI), a comprehensive open data that measures the social progress of counties were correlated to the needs indicated by Maslow’s Hierarchy. The needs were then used as criteria in the AHP decision analysis model to build a classic DSS to aid in selecting the most appropriate development project.

Non-timber forest products (NTFPs) have been harvested in the wild for generations in Appalachia. Demand for forest farmed raw material and transparent supply chains is growing, which has increased attention on the role of NTFPs in regional livelihoods. We conducted an embedded case study to understand contemporary NTFP harvest, perceptions of community-based development of NTFP livelihood opportunities, and the extent to which forest landowners are interested forest farming. One case study focused on Grayson County, Virginia and included semi-structured interviews with 16 key stakeholders. Interviews explored motivations, species preferences, and uses of NTFPs among individuals and then perceived assets, obstacles, and desired strategies for NTFP livelihood development within the community. Through qualitative analysis we found financial benefits, engagement with nature, and personal preferences (personal fulfillment, learning and creativity, and lifestyle) were key motivators. Newcomers to Appalachia were more likely to balance monetary, environmental, and lifestyle motivations, and multigenerational residents focused more on financial motivations and to a lesser degree lifestyle. We used the community capitals framework to analyze the community focused data and found references to natural, human, and cultural capital as both an asset and an obstacle. Financial capital was a top-obstacle whereas social capital was a top asset. Strategies focused on social, human, and financial capital investments such as social networking, educational programming, tax incentive programs, and local fundraising. The regional case study surveyed via mail those who own 5 or more acres of forestland in 14 Southwest Virginia Appalachian counties to understand extent to which they are interested in forest farming or leasing land for forest farming. We had a response rate of 28.9% and found 45% of forest landowners, owning 47% of the forestland, were interested in forest farming. Those that were likely to lease their land accounted for 36% of all respondents and owned 43% of the forestland. Further, those who were interested did not differ based on demographic and land characteristics. Our study reveals the contemporary state of NTFP livelihoods combines markets sales with broader homesteading objectives and that lifestyle and environmental motivators are an increasing focus as newcomers take roots in the region. Further, communities may be able to draw upon the cultural and natural capital around NTFPs as well as the strong social capital often present in rural communities to further invest in social networking, education, financial incentives, and funding to support NTFP livelihood development. Finally, forest farming and leasing of land for this practice is of considerable and broad appeal to forestland owners in Southwest Virginia, which may indicate possibilities for a critical mass to supply a growing demand for sustainably sourced and quality NTFP raw materials. / Doctor of Philosophy / In recent decades Appalachia has experienced socioeconomic challenges with lack of employment opportunities, high poverty levels and the resulting outmigration of residents, especially youth, in search of work. At the same time newcomers are migrating into the area drawn by the culture and natural environment, which is shifting the social fabric of the region. It is in this new context that communities are asked to develop livelihood opportunities using what is available to them. Non-timber forest products (NTFPs) have been harvested in the wild for generations in Appalachia and offer one avenue of possibility, especially as the market has begun to support higher prices for raw materials that meet the increasing consumer demand for sustainability and quality. Within these new dynamics we set out to understand contemporary uses of NTFPs in Appalachia, and what motivates people to work with these species, as well as community perceptions about how to develop NTFP livelihood opportunities, and the extent to which Appalachian residents are interested in forest farming (the cultivation or stewardship of NTFPs in an existing forest). Our study reveals the contemporary state of NTFP livelihoods combines markets sales with broader homesteading objectives and that lifestyle and environmental motivators are an increasing focus as newcomers take roots in the region. Further, communities may be able to draw upon the cultural and natural capital around NTFPs as well as the strong social and human capital often present in rural communities to further invest in social networking, education, financial incentives, and funding to support NTFP livelihood development. Finally, forest farming and leasing of land for this practice is of considerable and broad appeal to forestland owners in Southwest Virginia, which may indicate possibilities for a critical mass to supply a growing demand for sustainably sourced and quality NTFP raw materials.

Yes / The failure of `blueprint¿ development interventions to deliver substantive improvements in poverty reduction has been well recognised over the last twenty years. Process approaches seek to overcome the rigidity and top-down operation of much aid-funded intervention. Sustainable livelihoods approaches (SLA) are one of the latest additions to this family of approaches. As a theoretical framework and as a set of principles for guiding intervention, sustainable livelihoods thinking has implications for development management. Drawing on research exploring the application of sustainable livelihoods principles in ten development interventions, this paper considers how these principles have evolved from continuing debates surrounding process and people-centred (bottom-up) approaches to development management. This research suggests that whilst these principles can improve the impact made by interventions, the effective application of sustainable livelihoods and other process approaches are fundamentally restricted by unbalanced power relationships between development partners.

Yes / This briefing paper reports on research exploring ten detailed case studies of livelihoods-oriented interventions operating in Tanzania, Lesotho, South Africa and Uganda. Analysing these interventions through an audit of sustainable livelihood `principles¿ (as a proxy for best practice) revealed general lessons both about the practical opportunities and challenges for employing sustainable livelihoods approaches to the design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of development interventions and also about the changing format of development interventions. / Department for International Development

Yes / This briefing paper reports on research exploring ten detailed case studies of livelihoods-oriented interventions operating in Tanzania, South Africa, Uganda and Lesotho. As a proxy for best practice, these interventions were analysed through an audit of sustainable livelihood `principles¿. This revealed general lessons about both the practical opportunities and challenges for employing sustainable livelihoods approaches to the design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of development interventions and also about the changing format of development interventions. / Department for International Development.

yes / This briefing paper reports on research exploring ten detailed case studies of livelihoods-oriented interventions operating in Tanzania, South Africa, Uganda and Lesotho. As a proxy for best practice, these interventions were analysed through an audit of sustainable livelihood `principles¿. This revealed general lessons about both the practical opportunities and challenges for employing sustainable livelihoods approaches to the design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of development interventions and also about the changing format of development interventions. / Department for International Development.

Yes / This briefing paper compares two approaches to community-based planning in Tanzania, South Africa and Uganda. Analysing these interventions through an audit of sustainable livelihood `principles¿ (as a proxy for best practice) reveals general lessons about both the practical opportunities and challenges for employing sustainable livelihoods approaches to the design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of development interventions and also about the changing format of development interventions. / Department for International Development

Yes / This paper is one in a series of working papers prepared under a research project on Goodbye to Projects? The Institutional Impacts of a Livelihood Approach on Projects and Project Cycle Management. This is a collaborative project between the Bradford Centre for International Centre for Development (BCID) with the Economic and Policy Research Centre (EPRC), Uganda; Khanya ¿ managing rural change, South Africa; and, the Institute for Development Management (IDM), Tanzania. The project is supported by the UK Department for International Development (DFID) under their Economic and Social Research Programme (ESCOR). / Department for International Development

Approaches to projects and development have undergone considerable change in the last decade with significant policy shifts on governance, gender, poverty eradication, and environmental issues. Most recently this has led to the adoption and promotion of the sustainable livelihood (SL) approach. The adoption of the SL approach presents challenges to development interventions including: the future of projects and programmes, and sector wide approaches (SWAPs) and direct budgetary support. This paper `An Appraisal of the use of livelihoods approaches in South Africa¿ is the second in the series of project working papers. This is the output of a literature review and series of interviews on sustainable livelihood approaches, projects, programmes and sector wide approaches in South Africa. / Department for International Development

The objectives of the study were to analyse rural youth poverty alleviation in the Zambezi Region, problems, and possibilities in order to determine how rural youth agricultural and non-agricultural livelihood activities have improved their livelihood and alleviated poverty. The Sustainable Livelihoods Framework has helped the researcher to understand and explain rural youth poverty alleviation, problems, and possibilities in the study area. The study employed a mixed-method approach, with more emphasis on qualitative research. The study had a total size sample of 223, respondents, including focus group discussions. The findings indicate that no livelihood analysis was carried out for rural youth in agriculture and non-agricultural activities in the Zambezi Region. For this reason, agricultural and non-agricultural programmes and projects have not addressed rural youth poverty alleviation. The findings also show that rural youth in agriculture and non-agricultural activities are exposed to numerous factors affecting their livelihood, as most of them cannot efficiently affect the vulnerability context. Furthermore, rural youth depends on their families and friends for livelihood support since they lack access to most livelihood assets. Despite livelihood improvement, rural youth faces problems that impede poverty alleviation in both agriculture and non-agricultural livelihood activities; lack of participation in policy deliberations, access to markets, Information Communication Technologies, training in both agriculture and non-agricultural activities, limited access to financial services and limited access to land. The study demonstrates that successful agricultural and non-agricultural programmes need to take rural youth sincerely to influence rural youth poverty alleviation. It is hoped that this study will contribute to the limited literature on rural youth poverty alleviation and also provide a rural youth critique in agriculture and non-agricultural activities in Namibia. / Development Studies / D. Phil. (Development Studies)