Sustainability Planning and Monitoring

More documents

Recommendations

Info

THE CHALLENGE OF SUSTAINED WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION FOR ALLImproving community-managed services requires participatory methods because such methods buildlocal capacities of both user communities and project agencies, and facilitate partnerships betweenthem for enhancing the sustainability of services.improved hygiene and sanitation behavior (WHO,1998). There is also a large family of more generalPLA (Participatory Learning and Action) tools (Prettyet al, 1995).Many of these general tools may be used in theassessment of community water supply, sanitation,and hygiene projects. The MPA builds further onthese foundations.Why participatory methods andtools are useful for working with thecommunity’s women and men●●●●●●They enable quick visual representation oflocal conditions and practices, minimizingbiases in expressed information resulting fromspoken language .Any person can participate, irrespective of theirlevels of literacy and education.Participants are free to present their ownknowledge, views and interests on each subject.Larger sections of the population are able toexpress their views. Rich, insightful informationis obtained.For the subordinated, self-expression with toolsis easier than speaking in public. 5The process is not limited or influenced byquestions from outsiders, minimizinginterviewer biases encountered in conventionalsurveys.The public process makes it hard to present●●●and retain faulty information.Systematic overviews act as eye-openers for allregarding previously unnoticed problems.Outcomes are immediately shared, open toanalysis and conclusions by all.People remain owners of the knowledge andcan immediately act upon it.Why managers of large programsare wary of using participatorymethodsDespite the above advantages of participatorymethods, managers of large scale projects oftenprefer social and technical surveys to meet theirinformation needs because:● Information collected with participatory toolsis predominantly qualitative; the type of dataproduced is not suitable for aggregation,statistical analysis and for building up aprogram database over time.● Comparability between and acrosscommunities on results and common factorsis limited as indicators and/or ways ofinvestigation often differ.● Participatory methods typically use smallsamples. Data from a small number ofcommunities does not satisfy all projectmonitoring needs.● Participatory methods have a reputation ofbeing slower and more costly than socialsurveys, 6 although this has never been5 Proper facilitation is nevertheless essential to avoid domination by the more powerful participants.The importance of the quality of the facilitation process is discussed in Chapter 4.6 There is a very wide spectrum of participatory methods ranging from a one-day community visit to ananthropologist living for years in a village - which may have given rise to such perceptions. MPA exercises formonitoring or evaluation generally take 2 – 4 days to complete in a community depending on the scope ofinvestigation (a full sustainability study may not always be required). The actual length of time needed isrelated to the principles of participatory appraisal whereby assessment sessions are only scheduled at theconvenience of community members who are usually available for only 2 – 3 hours a day, mostly in theafternoons or evenings after work.6
THE CHALLENGE OF SUSTAINED WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION FOR ALLBox 1 Cost comparisons for methodsIn Thailand, Collinson (1981) conducted a week-long exploratoryinvestigation on small scale farming, but then felt obliged to follow it upwith a formal verification survey just to produce numbers. This surveyinvariably produced the same information, but took longer, was costlier,and delayed action.A comparative study of participatory and survey methods recently conducted in a UNICEF-supportedsanitation project found that both approaches can yield comparable results but the survey costs 25percent more in terms of money and 500 percent more in terms of person-weeks to carry out.(Walujan, Hopkins and Istandar, 2002).●properly researched. There are someindications that the opposite may be true (seeBox 1).Prevailing perceptions among somemanagers that there may not be anythingworth learning from the views of poor people.1.3 There is a middle path:MPA offers the best ofboth worldsParticipatory and survey methods both haveadvantages and disadvantages from the pointsof views of managers and community members.Social scientists have for many years beensearching for ways to combine the advantagesand limit the disadvantages of the two approaches.The MPA, described in Box 2, has made someadvances in this direction and broken newground. Its main characteristic is that it quantifiesqualitative data through participatory processeswith communities and implementing agencies.The result is that managers and researchersacquire a quantitative database which they cananalyze statistically at the project/program level,while community members and agency staffremain in possession of their own data and acton the basis of their learning, at community andagency levels.7
Page 1 and 2: SustainabilityPlanning andMonitorin
Page 3: SustainabilityPlanning andMonitorin
Page 6 and 7: PrefaceThe mission of the Water and
Page 8 and 9: AcknowledgementsThe Participatory L
Page 10 and 11: viii
Page 12 and 13: 4.9 Visualization and self-scoring
Page 14 and 15: Figure 18 KDP 2 activity cycle with
Page 17 and 18: THE CHALLENGE OF SUSTAINED WATER SU
Page 21: THE CHALLENGE OF SUSTAINED WATER SU
Page 27 and 28: A NEW TOOL FOR PLANNERS AND MANAGER
Page 35 and 36: THE MPA FRAMEWORK AND PROCESSkey va
Page 37 and 38: THE MPA FRAMEWORK AND PROCESSsevera
Page 39 and 40: THE MPA FRAMEWORK AND PROCESS●●
Page 41 and 42: THE MPA FRAMEWORK AND PROCESSThe MP
Page 43 and 44: THE MPA FRAMEWORK AND PROCESSsegreg
Page 45 and 46: THE MPA IN ACTIONaction points in i
Page 47 and 48: THE MPA IN ACTION●●●●●●
Page 49 and 50: THE MPA IN ACTIONBox 15 Key element
Page 51 and 52: THE MPA IN ACTIONsuccessful or unsu
Page 53 and 54: THE MPA IN ACTIONexternal facilitat
Page 55 and 56: THE MPA IN ACTIONBox 17 Indicative
Page 57 and 58: THE MPA IN ACTIONvisits and conduct
Page 59 and 60: THE MPA IN ACTIONScoring principles
Page 61 and 62: THE MPA IN ACTION4.10 Quality contr
Page 63 and 64: THE MPA IN ACTIONExperiences with t
Page 65 and 66: THE MPA IN ACTION5Organizing and In
Page 67 and 68: Box 22 Gender and poverty analysis
Page 69 and 70: ORGANIZING AND INTERPRETING THE DAT
Page 71 and 72: ORGANIZING AND INTERPRETING THE DAT
Page 73 and 74:
ORGANIZING AND INTERPRETING THE DAT
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
PARTICIPATORY TOOLS USED IN THE MPA
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Section 2MPAApplication Case Studie
Page 111 and 112:
DO PROJECT RULES PROMOTE SUSTAINABI
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
FROM THEORY TO PRACTICEDANIDA began
Page 123 and 124:
FROM THEORY TO PRACTICE2. Key findi
Page 125 and 126:
FROM THEORY TO PRACTICEReality of e
Page 127 and 128:
FROM THEORY TO PRACTICEAdding Accou
Page 129 and 130:
ADDING ACCOUNTABILITY FOR GENDER EQ
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Table 2WSLIC 2: ADDING POVERTY ACCO
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Table 3 (continued) ADDING PERFORMA
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
LOOKING BACK TO SEE FORWARDMembers
Page 147 and 148:
LOOKING BACK TO SEE FORWARDFigure 2
Page 149 and 150:
LOOKING BACK TO SEE FORWARDFigure 2
Page 151 and 152:
LOOKING BACK TO SEE FORWARD●●
Page 153 and 154:
LOOKING BACK TO SEE FORWARDMPA core
Page 155 and 156:
EFFECT OF THE MPA ON GENDER RELATIO
Page 157 and 158:
EFFECT OF THE MPA ON GENDER RELATIO
Page 159 and 160:
ACHIEVING SUSTAINED SANITATION FOR
Page 161 and 162:
HOW WELL DID THOSE DEVELOPMENT PROJ
Page 163 and 164:
HOW WELL DID THOSE DEVELOPMENT PROJ
Page 165 and 166:
Appendix AInstitutions that current
Page 167 and 168:
Appendix BProcess designed forPLA P
Page 169 and 170:
StepNo.7.ProcessAsk “Were users e
Page 171 and 172:
ReferencesBernard, Russel H. (1995)
Page 173:
Wijk, Christine van. (1998). ‘Gen
Page 176:
Water and Sanitation ProgramWater S
show all

Sustainability Planning and Monitoring

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?