Volume 13, Issue 8 (August 2026), Pages: 191-200

----------------------------------------------

 Original Research Paper

Sustainability of livelihood programs for marginalized communities: A 5Ps framework analysis

 Author(s): 

Ignie Jr. Baco, Michelle Baco *

 Affiliation(s):

Public Administration Department, Northern Iloilo State University, Iloilo, Philippines

 Full text

    Full Text - PDF

 * Corresponding Author. 

   Corresponding author's ORCID profile:  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0553-9772

 Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

 
https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2026.08.019

 Abstract

Livelihood programs are widely promoted as tools for poverty alleviation and empowerment in marginalized communities, aligning directly with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 1: No Poverty, SDG 5: Gender Equality, and SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth. This study investigates the sustainability of livelihood programs for marginalized communities by extending the traditional Sustainable Livelihoods Framework (SLF) into a comprehensive 5Ps model: People, Planet, Profit, Partnership, and Policy. Using a mixed-methods design, incorporating a survey of 200 beneficiaries and 10 in-depth qualitative interviews, the research assesses program sustainability across these five dimensions. Findings show that while many initiatives provide immediate benefits in terms of income and resource access, livelihood sustainability is weakened by limited capacity building among beneficiaries, inadequate resource mobilization, and socio-economic inequities. Environmental resilience and policy alignment also remain underemphasized, creating risks for program sustainability. Additionally, institutional sustainability is affected by fragmented partnerships and exclusionary governance, affirming that policy processes are highly contested and that marginalized communities are frequently excluded. The study concludes that short-term financial gains from livelihood programs are insufficient to ensure long-term resilience. This requires implementing holistic entrepreneurial reskilling for beneficiaries, expanding beneficiaries' networks through partnerships, and integrating climate-resilient technologies to protect the natural resource base upon which rural livelihoods depend. To address these challenges, the paper highlights that livelihood programs must fully integrate the 5Ps framework, where empirical partnerships and qualitatively derived institutional policies act as the essential scaffolding supporting the delicate equilibrium between people, planet, and profit.

 © 2026 The Authors. Published by IASE.

 This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

 Keywords

Sustainable livelihoods, Marginalized communities, Poverty alleviation, Rural entrepreneurship, 5Ps framework

 Article history

Received 5 February 2026, Received in revised form 4 August 2026, Accepted 23 August 2026

 Acknowledgment

The researchers would like to acknowledge Northern Iloilo State University for funding this research. 

 Compliance with ethical standards

 Ethical considerations

The study was conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the Declaration of Helsinki and relevant institutional guidelines. All participants provided informed consent before participation and were informed that participation was voluntary and that they could withdraw at any time without consequence. Participant confidentiality and anonymity were maintained throughout data collection, analysis, and reporting, and the data were securely stored and accessible only to the research team. 

 Citation:

Baco I Jr and Baco M (2026). Sustainability of livelihood programs for marginalized communities: A 5Ps framework analysis. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 13(8): 191-200

  Permanent Link to this page

---------------------------------------------- 

 References (28)

1. Adekugbe AP and Ibeh CV (2024). Innovating service delivery for underserved communities: Leveraging data analytics and program management in the US context. International Journal of Applied Research in Social Sciences, 6(4): 472-487. https://doi.org/10.51594/ijarss.v6i4.986   [Google Scholar]
2. Adu-Boahen B, Donkor E, Iyioku G, and Mazancová J (2025). The effect of agricultural cooperative membership on women’s empowerment: A case of rural Ashanti, Ghana. Cogent Food & Agriculture, 11(1): 2538628. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2025.2538628   [Google Scholar]
3. Almusharraf AI (2025). Automation and its influence on sustainable development: Economic, social, and environmental dimensions. Sustainability, 17(4): 1754. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17041754   [Google Scholar]
4. Amghani MS, Sabouri MS, Baghernejad J, and Norozi A (2025). Factors affecting the livelihood sustainability of smallholder farmers in Iran. Environmental and Sustainability Indicators, 26: 100601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indic.2025.100601   [Google Scholar]
5. Baffoe G and Matsuda H (2017). Why do rural communities do what they do in the context of livelihood activities? Exploring the livelihood priority and viability nexus. Community Development, 48(5): 715-734. https://doi.org/10.1080/15575330.2017.1366927   [Google Scholar]
6. Brown I (2026). A regenerative systems framework for sustainable management of natural resources: Integrating ecosystem resilience with intergenerational wellbeing. Sustainability Science, 21: 121-138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-025-01743-2   [Google Scholar]
7. Castillo JR and Mantillas C (2024). Sustainable livelihood program in selected local government units of Rizal Province, Philippines: Basis for an action plan. Journal of Interdisciplinary Perspectives, 2(11): 246–255. https://doi.org/10.69569/jip.2024.0476   [Google Scholar]
8. Dragomir CC and Foris T (2022). The collaborative approach to sustainability: A model of commissioning system intervention in supporting multi-stakeholder partnerships from national to global levels. Sustainability, 14(3): 1536. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031536   [Google Scholar]
9. Eikelenboom M and Long TB (2023). Breaking the cycle of marginalization: How to involve local communities in multi-stakeholder initiatives? Journal of Business Ethics, 186: 31-62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-022-05252-5   [Google Scholar] PMid:36187729 PMCid:PMC9510282
10. Fertő I, Baráth L, and Bojnec Š (2025). Gender-based differences in eco-efficient farming. Scientific Reports, 15: 15895. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-00584-4   [Google Scholar] PMid:40335544 PMCid:PMC12059167
11. Habib N, Ariyawardana A, and Aziz AA (2023). The influence and impact of livelihood capitals on livelihood diversification strategies in developing countries: A systematic literature review. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30: 69882-69898. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-27638-2   [Google Scholar] PMid:37195601 PMCid:PMC10239380
12. Karki S (2021). Sustainable livelihood framework: Monitoring and evaluation. International Journal of Social Sciences and Management, 8(1): 266-271. https://doi.org/10.3126/ijssm.v8i1.34399   [Google Scholar]
13. Kuipers K and de Jong EB (2023). Resilient livelihood styles: An enriched perspective on household livelihood resilience in the sensitive natural environments of Indonesia. Regional Environmental Change, 23: 164. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-023-02155-7   [Google Scholar]
14. Mazón M, Rebolledo V, Ojeda‐Luna T, and Romero O (2021). Engagement increases people willingness to sustain restored areas beyond financial incentives. Restoration Ecology, 29(4): e13352. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13352   [Google Scholar]
15. Morse S (2025). Having faith in the sustainable livelihood approach: A review. Sustainability, 17(2): 539. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17020539   [Google Scholar]
16. Natarajan N, Newsham A, Rigg J, and Suhardiman D (2022). A sustainable livelihoods framework for the 21st century. World Development, 155: 105898. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2022.105898   [Google Scholar]
17. Nef DP, Nef S, and Kruetli P (2023). Putting people back at the center of livelihood vulnerability analysis. SN Social Sciences, 3: 184. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43545-023-00775-8   [Google Scholar]
18. Odebode AA, Oladokun TT, and Ogunbayo OT (2021). Potentials of integrated rural development schemes for improving rural infrastructure. Journal of African Real Estate Research, 6(2): 1–20. https://doi.org/10.15641/jarer.v6i2.693   [Google Scholar]
19. Orieno OH, Ndubuisi NL, Eyo-Udo NL, Ilojianya VI, and Biu PW (2024). Sustainability in project management: A comprehensive review. World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 21(1): 656-677. https://doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2024.21.1.0060   [Google Scholar]
20. Parappurathu S, Menon M, Jeeva C et al. (2023). Sustainable intensification of small-scale mariculture systems: Farm-level insights from the coastal regions of India. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 7: 1078314. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2023.1078314   [Google Scholar]
21. Rashidfarokhi A and Danivska V (2023). Managing crises ‘together’: How can the built environment contribute to social resilience? Building Research & Information, 51(7): 747-763. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2023.2191922   [Google Scholar]
22. Rasowo JO, Nyonje B, Olendi R, Orina P, and Odongo S (2024). Towards environmental sustainability: Further evidences from decarbonization projects in Kenya’s Blue Economy. Frontiers in Marine Science, 11: 1239862. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2024.1239862   [Google Scholar]
23. Sidi SH, Hashim A, Abubakar BZ, Ladebo OJ, Uthman AA, and Yelwa FJ (2020). Effect of participation in community and social development project on rural livelihood enhancement in North West, Nigeria. International Journal of Environment, Agriculture and Biotechnology, 5(1): 31-41. https://doi.org/10.22161/ijeab.51.5   [Google Scholar]
24. Syakirotin M, Sulistyowati L, Noor TI, and Tridakusumah AC (2025). Sustainable livelihood strategy approach for farmer households in expansion areas: A bibliometric analysis. Discover Sustainability, 6: 983. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-025-01912-4   [Google Scholar]
25. Tabares A, Londoño-Pineda A, Cano JA, and Gómez-Montoya R (2022). Rural entrepreneurship: An analysis of current and emerging issues from the sustainable livelihood framework. Economies, 10(6): 142. https://doi.org/10.3390/economies10060142   [Google Scholar]
26. Tambe S (2022). Graduation approach for the ultra-poor. In: Tambe S (Ed.), Teaching and learning rural livelihoods: A guide for educators, students, and practitioners: 95–107. Springer, Cham, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-90491-3_8   [Google Scholar]
27. Tugyetwena M (2023). A literature review of the relationship between governance, funding strategy and sustainability of non-government organizations. International NGO Journal, 18(2): 10-19. https://doi.org/10.5897/INGOJ2023.0365   [Google Scholar]
28. Wokadala J, Ssesanga A, and Akampwera H (2020). Effectiveness of the public livelihood programmes on the demand for education, health and water services in Uganda: A case of sustainable livelihood pilot. Advances in Economics and Business, 8(4): 243-253. https://doi.org/10.13189/aeb.2020.080405   [Google Scholar]