Community Participation and the Integration of Agroecosystem Health and Sustainability Concerns into Practical Decision Making - Integrated Assessment of Health and Sustainability of Agroecosystems - page 89

3.4.4 p r of b l e m A n A l y s e s A n D A C t i o n p l A n s
Many of the concerns and problems of the community were related to the poor state
of the infrastructure. Poor human health was attributed mostly to the lack of an
accessible and functional health care system, while low farm productivity was linked
to a run-down extension system. Because of this, many of the solutions proposed
were mainly development of infrastructure. Although the communities were aware
that many of their goals were to provide common goods that should be provided for
through a taxation system, there was a concern that this system was unreliable and
not sensitive to local needs.
3.4.5 m of n i t of r i n g A n D e v A l u A t i of n
Communities were able to design and conduct participatory monitoring and evalua-
tion programs for their agroecosystems. This supports the view that the combination
of approaches used in this project as well as the health language were well under-
stood by the communities. Details of the methods used in developing indicators used
in this process are described in Chapter 6. The self-organized intervillage evaluation
meetings by communities in the six ISSs are an indication of the success of the action
research process. It also indicates that communities valued the process of monitoring
and evaluation, both as a source of inspiration and motivation and as providing sup-
port for their decision-making processes. The main difficulty was the cultural inhibi-
tions in the community against public discussion of certain topics. This reduced the
usefulness of the monitoring-and-evaluation exercise. The other potential difficulty
was that community-driven indicators required a complementary assessment of the
researcher-proposed indicators to provide sufficient information on which decisions
could be based. Because communities were unable to handle the numerical methods
required, they therefore had to depend on external help. The question is how this can
be structured to sustain the process.
RefeRences
Argyris, C., and Schon, D.A. (1991). Participatory action research and action science com-
pared. In Participatory Action Research . Whyte, W.F., ed. Newbury Park, CA: Sage,
pp. 85-96.
Burkey, S. (1993). Self reliant participatory development. In People First: A Guide to Self-
Reliant Participatory Rural Development . Burkey, S., ed. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Zed
Books, pp. 40-70.
Cabanero-Verzosa, C., Johnston, C.M., and Kayode, O. (1993). Using focus groups to develop
and promote an improved weaning food product. In Rapid Appraisal Methods . Kumar,
K., ed. London: Intermediate Technology, pp. 94-111.
Carr, W., and Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming Critical: Education, Knowledge and Action
Research . Falmer Press, London, p. 249.
Catley, A. (1999). Methods on the Move: A Review of Veterinary Uses of Participatory
Approaches and Methods Focusing on Experiences in Dryland Africa. International
Institute for Environment and Development, London, p. 100.
Chambers, R. (1994). The origins and practice of participatory rural appraisal. World Devel-
opment 22: 953-969.