Sustainability of rural development projects in ... - sahee foundation

Sustainability of rural development projects in Swaziland
sahee
at this project site. The project used for the pilot study is part of the whole data sample. The
pilot study directly preceded the main study.
As a first step of the main survey, basic data (see questions in the appendices) on each
project have been collected at the NGOs Headquarters, using information from their
archives. Then, structured and informal interviews were conducted with staff of the relevant
NGO on each project. These interviews were followed by at least two project site visits. At
the first visit, the research team was introduced by the staff of the NGO, and a date was set
for the second visit. The second visit lasted between half a day and a full day and included
site visits, household visits, and the different sets of interviews mentioned above.
Statistical analysis has been carried out using the program Statview (SAS Institute, 1999)
and its comprehensive manual. Correlations have been tested using the Kruskal-Wallis test
and the Kendall Rank correlation. A datasheet with 63 indicators for each project is the basis
for the statistical analysis presented here. Most indicators are aggregated qualitative data of
the surveys (e.g. source of water), and only few are quantitative (e.g. number of project
members). As a reference for statistical analysis, the book “Elementary Statistics in Social
Research” (Levin and Fox, 1997),was used.
Rating system
Each project received an overall rating regarding its success. The success rating ranges
from the top rating “good” followed by “ok” followed by “struggling” down to the lowest rating
“failed”. The overall rating has been made based on all available information. The key factor
was the current functioning of the project, including the organisational structure and
efficiency of the group to pursue the aims of the project. Further factors contributing to the
overall rating included the appraisal of a project by each group of interviewees, its economic
output, its socio-economic impact, and educational and environmental benefits.
Each project also received a rating for the relevant factor(s) tested in the twelf hypothesis.
Ratings for these factors range from 4 (true) to 1 (not true) with steps of 0.5 for each
analysed project. Between five and ten question/answer pairs went into the rating of each
hypothesis. Answers came from three different groups of interviewees looking at the project
from different angles – NGO-staff, members (beneficiaries), and neighbours. The answers
given by these three groups were sometimes contradictory and “diluted” a result that seemed
clear after interviewing the first group. In the following, we discuss some of these cases in
detail.
6