Design and Implementation of an Adaptive, Integrated Approach to Health and Sustainability in a Smallholder-Dominated Agroecosystem - Integrated Assessment of Health and Sustainability of Agroecosystems - page 33

degree of risk or potential of the system. Indicators were selected based on the ease
of measurement and interpretation, validity, cost-effectiveness, and usefulness of the
information gathered to researchers and policymakers. Further details are provided
in Chapter 6.

2.2.5 m o n i t o r i n g , e v A l u A t i o n , A n D A s s e s s m e n t

2.2.5.1 community-based assessments

Participatory monitoring, evaluation, and assessments were carried out in ISSs only.
This was based on the assumption that self-monitoring provides communities with
information that is crucial to the successful management of the agroecosystem. It was
also assumed that self-evaluation would create a sense of ownership of the process by
the communities, and that this would enhance their participation, thereby increasing
the sustainability of the process. By understanding how communities evaluated infor-
mation gathered using indicators, it was hoped that researchers would gain insight on
how indicators can be analyzed to be of use in practical decision making.
Monitoring was taken to mean the evaluation of indicators on a daily or weekly
basis to provide information on the progress of specific community activities. Such
information would be used for short-term management and decision making. Evalua-
tion was defined as a review of goals and objectives against achievements. This would
occur after completion of specific activities or attainment of predefined milestones.
Evaluation could also be done regularly after a defined period to evaluate progress
toward overall community goals. Assessment was defined as an overall review of the
agroecosystem status in terms of health and sustainability using selected indicators.

2.2.5.2 Research-based assessments

Research-based assessments were carried out in all 12 study sites in February 1998
and again in February 1999. Empirical data on research-based indicators were gath-
ered using both conventional research methods and participatory tools. A question-
naire (Appendix 2) was developed and applied to each of the land-use units in each
of the 12 study sites. Process and methods used are discussed in Chapter 6.

2.2.6 i m p l e m e in t A t i o in of f i n t e r v e n t i of n s
The objectives were to reinforce the communities' capacity for collective remedial
action. The underlying assumption was that health and sustainability depended on
the communities' ability to design appropriate remedial actions and to implement
them successfully. Community participation was seen to be the key to the sustain-
ability of the process. Two types of interventions were therefore envisaged. The first
was to impart analytical, management, and participatory skills to the communities
to enhance their capacity for problem identification and analyses, consensus build-
ing, conflict resolution, action planning, monitoring, evaluation, and assessment.
The second type of intervention was to provide expertise and support geared toward
facilitating communities in the implementation their action plans.