Analysing poverty utilizing sustainable livelihoods approach: a study amongst Rungus ethnic in Sabah Malaysia

Poverty elimination is foundational to healthy and caring community where everyone has an opportunity to participate in community life. Sustainable livelihoods approach is a well-known method to evaluate poverty internationally and it helps to discover the cause of poverty and provide good alternatives to eradicate it. The Rungus is one of the known poor bumiputera ethnic in Sabah. This study was performed on their livelihood capitals and modifiers in order to understand better the scenario of poverty of this group. Livelihood capitals cover six capitals: human capital, natural capital, physical capital, social capital, financial capital and information capital, while modifiers include vulnerability and institutions. There are five objectives and eighth hypotheses designed for the purpose to study poverty amongst the Rungus based on sustainable livelihoods approach. The objectives are to identify the livelihood assets, vulnerability and institutions and its’ impact on poverty. The other objective is to compare various strategies adopted by the poor and non-poor Rungus. Quantitative method is chosen since it is more suitable for analysing poverty. Surveys are carried out using purposive and stratified techniques. Logit model is used to calculate the impact of livelihood assets, vulnerability and institutions in sustainable livelihoods approach. The index of livelihood capitals, modifiers for each household is design in a scale of one to ten and calculated by applying linear transformation technique. Based on the results of independent samples t-test and binary logistic regression, the poor Rungus are lack in human, natural, physical, financial, social and information capitals. Nevertheless, information capital has higher impact on Rungus livelihood and follows by natural capital. The common vulnerability faced by the poor Rungus is early marriage, refuse urban migration and not prepare in the event of failure of crops and inability to work. In term of institutions, the belief and custom have higher influence on the poor as compare to non-poor. The non-poor has higher awareness and anticipation on poverty assistance provision as compare to the poor. The poor Rungus take a longer time to exit poverty. Recommendations are proposed based on the impacts of the livelihood assets where government perhaps should give more emphasis on information capital since digital technology is the key of innovation. The poor Rungus should perhaps follows the footstep of the non-poor by practicing belief and custom in moderation and focus more on enhancing livelihood assets, overcoming their vulnerability and give full support to the poverty assistance provision provided by the both the government and non-governmental organisations. The poor Rungus should be ready for positive changes, only then the poor voices could be heard and assistance could be delivered effectively. Nevertheless, further research is required to overcome the limitation of this study and to expand the sustainable livelihoods approach on other perspectives of poverty