Frameworks

# Framework Comparison for Thesis – Changthang, Ladakh

Framework	Core Focus	Usefulness for Changthang	Key Concepts	Strengths	Limitations
Sustainable Livelihoods Framework (SLF)	Livelihood assets, strategies, outcomes	Analyzing how habitat change affects livelihood sustainability	Capitals (natural, human, social, etc.), vulnerability, policies	Grounded in development; people-centered	May oversimplify ecological or power dynamics
Socio-Ecological Systems (SES)	Interaction between people and ecosystems	Understand feedbacks between herding, pasture, climate, and policy	Subsystems, feedback loops, system boundaries	Integrates ecology + society well	Needs good data on both systems
Resilience Framework	Capacity to adapt, absorb shocks, or transform	Examine community strategies in response to pasture decline and climate shifts	Adaptive cycles, thresholds, transformation	Good for change over time	Less focused on power or equity
Political Ecology	Power, access, control over resources	Analyze state vs. community dynamics (e.g., conservation conflict)	Access, marginalization, discourse, scale	Reveals hidden drivers of change	Less structured; needs critical framing
Commons Theory (Ostrom)	Collective management of shared resources	Assess governance of pastureland, water use, herder cooperation	CPRs, design principles, rules-in-use	Strong for pastoralist systems	May overlook external pressures
Vulnerability Framework	Differential exposure and coping capacity	Map who is most at risk and why (e.g., by caste, gender, income)	Exposure, sensitivity, adaptive capacity	Good for equity analysis	Needs disaggregated data
Landscape Approach	Integrated, multi-stakeholder land use planning	Balance between conservation, pastoralism, and tourism	Trade-offs, multifunctionality, negotiation	Good for multi-scalar and spatial analysis	Requires broad stakeholder mapping

Integrated Framework Strategy for Changthang Thesis

1. SLF + Political Ecology

• Why? SLF is people-centered but often apolitical.
• Combination Power: Use SLF to map assets/livelihood strategies + Political Ecology to examine who controls access to those assets and how power affects vulnerability.
• Example: A herder may have land (natural capital), but political boundaries or conservation laws may restrict its use.

---

2. SLF + Resilience Framework

• Why? SLF captures current livelihood status; Resilience adds a time-based lens (how people cope, adapt, transform).
• Combination Power: Track how livelihood strategies evolve in response to pasture degradation or tourism influx over time.
• Example: Changes in livestock composition, out-migration, or tourism employment as adaptive responses.

---

3. SES Framework + Commons Theory

• Why? SES helps you model the system; Commons Theory lets you assess resource governance within that system.
• Combination Power: SES shows the feedbacks (e.g., overgrazing → pasture decline → reduced herd size), while Commons Theory analyzes institutional robustness (rules, conflict resolution).
• Example: How well Changthang’s traditional governance (e.g., goba system) manages rangelands under modern stressors.

---

4. Political Ecology + Vulnerability Framework

• Why? Political Ecology critiques structure; Vulnerability Framework quantifies impact on people.
• Combination Power: Reveal how structural inequalities (e.g., gender, caste, remoteness) lead to differing vulnerabilities.
• Example: Women herders may be more exposed to workload shifts post-migration, but less involved in decision-making.

---

5. Landscape Approach + SES or Resilience

• Why? Landscape Approach is spatial and stakeholder-focused; SES/Resilience help model system dynamics.
• Combination Power: Understand trade-offs across scales—between conservation, tourism, and local livelihoods—while tracking system change or thresholds.
• Example: How development in Hanle for tourism affects yak herding and migratory grazing routes.

---

6. Final Integration Strategy

Core Anchor: Start with SLF to map livelihoods.
Then Layer:

• Political Ecology → for power & access dynamics
• Resilience → for temporal change/adaptation
• SES + Commons → for ecological-social feedback & governance
• Vulnerability → for who suffers most, and why
• Landscape → for spatial and policy-level negotiation

📌 You don’t need to apply all frameworks uniformly. Assign different frameworks to different sub-questions or chapters based on relevance.

Integrated Framework Table – Changthang Thesis

Core Framework	Supplementary Framework	How They Complement Each Other	Application in Changthang
SLF	Political Ecology	SLF focuses on assets/strategies but ignores power. Political Ecology reveals how access/control is shaped by politics and institutions.	Analyze how state policies (e.g., wildlife protection) restrict traditional herding despite asset availability.
SLF	Resilience Framework	SLF is static; Resilience adds a dynamic, temporal lens—how livelihoods respond to shocks over time.	Track how pastoralist households adapt to pasture decline, climate variability, and new tourism-based opportunities.
SES	Commons Theory (Ostrom)	SES maps system feedbacks; Commons Theory provides detailed institutional rules for managing shared resources.	Assess how herders manage grazing land, water, and migratory routes under climate and policy pressures.
Political Ecology	Vulnerability Framework	Political Ecology explains causes of inequality; Vulnerability shows how these inequalities impact different groups.	Examine why certain social groups (e.g., women, small herders) are more vulnerable to habitat and economic shifts.
Landscape Approach	SES / Resilience	Landscape is spatial/multi-stakeholder; SES/Resilience add feedback, thresholds, and change mechanisms.	Explore trade-offs in land use between tourism, conservation, and traditional herding across the Changthang landscape.
Commons Theory	Resilience Framework	Commons Theory shows rules; Resilience shows how flexible and adaptive those rules are under change.	Study how traditional institutions adapt their norms (e.g., seasonal grazing restrictions) in times of crisis.