CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

1.1 Background to the Study

Water management is concerned with the planning, design,
implementation and maintenance of a water project or Program to ensure that
water, as a resource is efficiently and effectively used by the community. Water
management involves the participatory approach of empowering communities to
provide, protect and safeguard their own water sources (Vijita, 1996).
According to data provided by UNICEF and WHO, only 62% of the
African population has access to improved water supply, with the worst
conditions existing for rural populations who only have 47% coverage. Sanitation
coverage is also very low compared to other regions, with only 60% of the
population with improved sanitation. Again, the situation is poorer for rural
populations, with only 45% coverage. Private connections for water in urban Sub-
Saharan Africa (SSA) remain very low with only 2-7 connections per 100 people.
There is a long history of community-based forms of development.
Clearly significant were the cooperative movement and Gandhian notions of
village self-reliance and small scale development, which Gandhi saw as an
antidote to the corrosive effects of modernization and colonial rule (Gandhi,
1962). Another influential perspective was that of Paulo Freire (1970), who
argues that the ‘oppressed’ were obliged to unite to find a way to improve their
own destinies. These ideas led to the first wave of participatory development in
the 1950s, which by 1960 had spread to more than60 countries in Africa, Asia and
Latin America (White, 1999).
Until recently in Kenya, the state was the major and sole player in the
management of water resources. As a result, this centralized control has led to the
country recording a catalogue of failures, unrepaired, rundown water systems and
wasted funds. This has led to a revision of the system to a participatory approach
of empowering communities to manage their own water resources equitably and

1
 sustainably. While the state plays a critical supportive, supervisory and regulatory
role, the civil society mobilizes, sensitizes and trains the community to manage
water projects.

1.2 Statement of the Problem

In Kenya, the problem of stalled and rundown water projects is common
especially in the rural areas. This is exacerbated by the local community’s
inadequate participation in the development of water projects. The results are
inadequate performance of water projects as well as diminished usefulness to
beneficiary communities (Khan, 2005). Ali et al (1983) found that people’s
participation is the basic tool for achieving national goals of development. In
order to implement governmental policies in right perspectives, the local grass-
root communities, who are in actuality, the real clients of the governmental
operations, are to be involved at all stages of development intervention. However,
because of bureaucratic hustles and distrust by the successive governments to the
people, holistical participation in local development process remains beyond
reach of ordinary people.
Shrimpton (1989), states that community participation in all the phases of
project development greatly enhances the likelihood of project success due to
improved performance and increased sustainability. The development process
should in essence be participatory and it should make accessible to the community
an opportunity to be involved in the various stages of project development from
project conceptualization, planning and implementation to project Monitoring and
Evaluation. This study therefore seeks to establish the influence of community
participation on the performance of Lapitei Dam Water Project.
Community based system of water management evolved in the 1980's as a
response to the international crisis of water scarcity and dwindling resources
(Green, 1994). Water management that embraces a participatory approach
empowers communities to provide, protect and safeguard their own water
resources (Vijita, 1996). In this regard water management would be concerned
with the community’s involvement in the planning, design, implementation, and
2
 maintenance of a water project or program in order to ensure successful
completion of projects and that water, as a resource is efficiently and effectively
used by the community itself. Most development project donors operating in
developing countries have identified community participation as one of the
prerequisites for the improved performance of the water sector. This is because it
soon turned out that sustainable water supply and sanitation could not be achieved
without involving the community, not just in manual work, but also in the
planning of programs and the selection of technology (Therkildsen, 1989). Many
projects therefore started by involving the community members in trench digging,
system maintenance and in water committees.

The Lapitei Dam Water Project had been in existence for 26 years. The
main design components of the project include; a spillway, pump, an overhead
water tank, a water treatment plant and a site office. Planning of the Dam started
in the late 1980’s and construction started in the early 1990’s.Construction of the
Dam was then abandoned due to lack of funds and restarted again in 2009. The
project was scheduled to be completed by January 2011.

1.3 Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study is to assess the influence of community
participation on the performance of Lapitei Dam Water Project.

1.4 Research Questions

The study was guided by the following questions;
1. How did the community participate in the Identification, Planning,
implementation, Monitoring and evaluation of the Lapitei Dam Water
Project?
2. How has the participation by community members influenced the Lapitei
Dam Water Project?

3
1.5. Research Objectives
In an attempt to answer the above questions, the study will have the following
objectives:
 To investigate community participation in the Lapitei Dam Water Project
and specifically to examine community participation in the Identification,
Planning, Implementation, Monitoring and Evaluation of the project.
 To examine how community participation has influenced the project.

1.6 Significance of the Study

The study will inform policy makers and empower project managers to
improve planning and implementation towards the goal of sustaining project
benefits. Some of the benefits that may accrue to the community include;
community empowerment, health benefits, strengthened local organizations and
social-economic benefits. According to worldwide evidence from Water Supply
and Sanitation (WS&S) projects, health benefit will accrue to individuals,
especially those living in substandard environments, if their behaviors result in
increased quantities of clean water being consumed and used for hygienic
purposes and if they are protected from exposure to unsanitary wastes (Okun,
1987).
Community participation in all the various stages of project development
will ensure that the communities own the projects and that their needs are met. It
can also be used by donors to assess the sustainability of water projects before
implementation. Donors will be willing to fund a project that has involved the
target communities as this will ensure sustainability of the project even after the
funding period has expired.
This study is essential as it will provide an assessment of whether the new
participatory approach is viable for sustainable development in Kajiado County
which is a semi arid region that is often faced with severe water shortages. This

4
 area has a great potential when it comes to development but local communities
have been faced with inadequate capacity to sustain previously done water
projects brought by external agencies. Thus the issue of water security has
remained a giant that has proved difficult to eliminate thus limiting development
in a major way. The study will therefore seek to see how participatory approach
influenced the Lapitei Dam project and whether the approach is suitable for
replication in other parts of the county and country in general.

1.6.1 Theoretical significance of the Study

Participatory development is the concept under investigation in this study
given the fact that scholars such as John Dewey, David Kolb and Carl Rogers ,
2oo4, are of the opinion that experiential learning is essential in development
processes because the participants are then able to use learnt information to solve
future problems more independently. For purposes of theoretical grounding, this
study will restrict itself to the theory of experiential learning according to Carl
Rogers. Rogers in his 1983 book, Freedom to learn for the 80’s, believed that the
highest levels of significant learning included personal involvement at both the
affective and cognitive levels, were self initiated, were so pervasive that they
could change attitudes, behavior and in some cases even the personality of the
learner. As well, Rogers points out that learning ought to be evaluated by learner
so that they take meaning as part of the total experience.
As such, community participation in the Lapitei Water Dam Project stands
to either make or break the project. If the participating community is indulged in
the entire project lifecycle, Identification, Planning, Implementation, Monitoring
and Evaluation; there are higher chances that they will own the project and with
their new empowered status be able to successfully sustain it. On the flipside,
however, if there is non-involvement or selective participation, a dependency
syndrome will emerge. This indicator of poverty on many level, particularly
intellectually and affectively will come about as the community is not allowed to
relate to their problem, understand its dynamics, give it meaning and involve
5
 themselves in solving it. As a result of poor community involvement of
community projects, many projects have thus failed.
With the introduction of acceptable amounts and levels of community
involvement through experiential learning, communities will be masters of their
own destiny and in our case, Naserian community and surrounding areas will be
able to solve their water problems even in future with minimal or no help from the
government and external institutions.

1.7 Scope of the Study

The study was carried out in Naserian sub-location in Lapitei location.
This is one of the three sub-locations in Lapitei location situated in Kajiado
County. It will involve all concerned parties, the implementing organization, the
local community and any other relevant authorities partisan of the Dam project.

6
CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction
This chapter presents a brief survey of the literature on the practice of community
participation in development projects. It provides a conceptual understanding of
community participation in development projects and how this influences project
performance.

2.2 Community Participation Concepts

The two broad concepts of community participation include; participation ‘as a
means to an End’ and Participation ‘as an End’. Nelson and Wright (1995), argue that
Participation “as a means to an end” implies the use of participation to achieve some pre-
determined goals. It is a way of harnessing rural people’s physical, economic and social
resources to achieve the aims and objectives of development programs and projects more
efficiently, effectively or cheaply.
Participation as an end is viewed as an active, dynamic and genuine process
which unfolds over time and whose purpose is to develop and strengthen the capabilities
of rural people to intervene more directly in development initiatives (Cooke and Kothari,
2001).As an end, participation is seen as the empowerment of individuals and
communities in terms of acquiring skills, knowledge and experience, leading to greater
Self-reliance (Burkey, 1993; Karl, 2000). The proponents of this view often maintain that
development for the benefit of the poor cannot occur unless the poor themselves control
the process, the praxis of participation.
It is argued that by establishing a process of genuine participation, development
will occur as a direct result (Burkey, 1993; Cooke and Kothari, 2001). Table 2.1 below
provides a comparative analysis which summarizes the differences between these two
concepts.

7
Table 2.1: Comparative Analysis between Participation as a means to an End Vs.
Participation as an End

Participation as Means to an End Participation as an End

It implies use of participation to achieve Attempts to empower people to participate
some predetermined goals or objectives. more meaningfully.
It is an attempt to utilize the existing The attempt is to ensure the increased role
resources in order to achieve the objectives of people in development initiatives.
of programs/projects.
The stress is on achieving the objective and The focus is on improving the ability of
not so much on the act of participation the people to participate rather than just in
itself. achieving the predetermined objectives of
the project.
It is more common in government This view finds relatively less favor with
programs where the main concern is the government agencies. NGOs in
to mobilize the community and involve principles agree with this viewpoint.
them in improving of the delivery system.
Participation is generally short term. Viewed as a long term process.

Appears to be a passive form of Relatively more active and long term.

participation.
Source: Adapted from Kumar (2002).

However, the distinctions between these concepts are neither clear-cut nor
mutually exclusive. They represent different purposes and approaches to promoting
participatory development. While many development agencies give equal weight to both,
some emphasize on one or the other. Burkey (1993) for example, observes that until
recently the notion of ‘participation as a ‘means’ dominated development practice.
Although he concedes that some economic development was achieved as a result of this
strategy, he also argues that, only a few development projects achieved meaningful
participation and benefits by this means. In his view, this strategy has not resulted in

8
meaningful participation of the poor. Nelson and Wright (1995) believe that the extent of
empowerment and achievement of the local population is more limited in ‘participation
as a means’ than it is in ‘participation as an end’.

2.3 Project Development Cycle

A development project sets out to meet a perceived need by a sequence of
activities, which includes identification, planning, implementation and monitoring and
evaluation. The sequence has been adapted from Baum (1978). The stages and
components of the project cycle and their logical sequences can be illustrated as shown in
the figure below;

Figure 1: The project Cycle [Adapted from Baum (1978)]

2.4 Community Participation in identification of development projects

and its influence on Project Performance
Identification of project ideas is very important to overcome problems or fulfill
the development priorities in the context of local objectives. As the development projects

9
affect the life of local people; local people’s participation in this stage is necessary. It is
the local people who knows the nature of their problem and knows the way of
overcoming such problems. So project idea and possible solution must be emanated from
initiatives by local people (Baum, 1978)
World Vision (2002) argues that, one of the crucial design principles in its
programs and projects is that local communities must play a key role in the identification
of development activities. These include all efforts to involve the local population in
defining their own problems, diagnosing the situations that give rise to such problems,
setting priorities for their resolution, and identifying and formulating project
interventions that may help solve some of those problems. An important distinction here
is between cases where organizations or projects come into an area with certain
interventions in mind and involve the local population in decisions that do not change this
broad design, and those where the local people are called to participate in identification
of the problem and designing how the problem will be solved. This suggests that
participation in the problem identification stage ranges from ‘passive’ to ‘participation by
Consultation’. The table below indicates the various typologies of participation.

Table 2.2: Typologies of Participation in development projects

Typology Characteristics

1. Passive Participation People participate by being told what is going to happen or has
already happened. It is a unilateral announcement by leaders or
project management without listening to people’s responses or
even asking their opinion.

2.Participation in Giving People participate by answering questions posed by

Information extractive researchers using questionnaire surveys or similar
approaches. People do not have opportunity to influence
proceedings, as the findings of the research are neither shared
nor checked for accuracy.

3.Participation by People participate by being consulted, and external people listen

Consultation to views. These external professionals define both problems and
solutions, and may modify these in light of people’s responses.
Such a consultative process does not concede any share in
decision-making, and professionals are under no obligation to

10
 take on board people’s views.

4. Participation for People participate by providing resources, for example labor, in

Material Incentives return for food, cash or other material incentives. It is very
common to see this called participation, yet people have no
stake in prolonging activities when the incentives end.

5. Functional People participate by forming groups to meet predetermined

Participation objectives related to the project, which can involve the
development or promotion of externally initiated social
organization. Such involvement does not tend to occur at the
early stages of project cycles or planning, but rather after major
decisions have been made. These institutions tend to be
dependent on external initiators and facilitators, but may
become self-dependent.

6. Interactive People participate in joint analysis, which leads to action plans

Participation and the formation of new local institutions or the strengthening
of existing ones. It tends to involve interdisciplinary
methodologies that seek multiple perspectives and make use of
systematic and structured learning processes. These groups take
control over local decisions, and so people have a stake in
maintaining structures or practices.

7. Self-Mobilization People participate by taking initiatives independent of external

institutions to change systems. They develop contacts with
external institutions for resources and technical advice they
need, but retain control over how resources are used. Such self-
initiated mobilization and collective action may challenge
existing inequitable distributions of wealth and power.

Adapted from Pretty and Kumar, 2000.

From the foregoing discussion, it is clear that there is a myriad of aspects of

participation. This means that great care must be taken when using and interpreting the
term. It should always be qualified by reference to the type of participation. In addition,
observers seem to agree that the application of participatory approaches further calls for
an appreciation of the social dynamics and diversities such as gender, age, social status,
ethnicity, disability and power amongst others.
Projects usually cover vision development, planning process and implementation.
Public participation may occur earlier and/or later in the process. However, it is

11
recommended that participants are involved early in the process. Public Participation
needs to take place when public/stakeholders’ input can still make a difference in the
design and/or decision to implement a project. It is important to start early when options
are still available and parties are open to new suggestions because concerns can be
accommodated in the plans (Inter-American Development Bank, 2000).In addition,
controversial issues can be addressed before they become critical and eventually cause
major conflicts thus influencing the performance of development projects (Connor,
2007).

2.5 Community Participation in Planning of development projects and

its influence on Project Performance
The second phase at which local communities are supposed to take a direct and
active part is during project planning. This suggests that participation in the planning and
decision making processes could be described as ‘representational participation’ .Hickey
and Mohan (2004) argue that, much of what is considered participatory in development
projects and agencies is a process whereby large numbers of people are represented by a
relatively small group of participants.
During consultation, relevant values and viewpoints can be gathered and it holds
in particular for the values that cannot be measured in monetary terms such as restoration
of aquatic systems, as well as cultural and social considerations that science failed to
appreciate (Van Leussen 1996; Fischer, 2000). This need is reinforced by the fact that
current problems and goals are not clearly defined and often a shared perception of the
“true” nature of the problem does not exist (Pahl-Wostl, 2002).
Garin et al. (2002), while investigating public viewpoints in preparation of River
Basin Management Plans (RBMP) in the Hérault watershed, in southern France,
compared viewpoints of other stakeholders to those of the experts. They found that
certain private concerns are not identified by the experts, the public does not see some
problems cited by the experts and that experts and stakeholders’ viewpoints can be
opposed on the nature or origin of the problems and on their solutions and legitimacy.
These can lead to opposition of stakeholders to the plans and thus to difficulty in

12
implementation. Another example is in case of the Pea River watershed management in
Alabama, USA. The watershed authority focused its activities almost entirely upon the
issue of flood control, especially after the flooding of the city Elba in early 1990.
However, a series of public hearings that took place after the 1990 flood revealed that
other issues were of more concern to the citizens than flood control. Issues of greater
concern were water supply, water quality, erosion, recreation, fish and wildlife. As a
result, the authority conducted meetings during1995-6 in which public input was obtained
for use in the management plan. The resulting plan identified the same issues and
concerns in the watershed that were identified in the earlier public meetings (Mullen and
Allison, 1999).
Similarly, Beierle and Konisky’s (1999) findings reinforce the importance of
incorporating public values into the planning process. These researchers evaluated cases
of Public Participation in the Great Lakes region in North America. All their cases
involved a wide variety of stakeholders that discussed and sometimes chose alternatives
for improving environmental planning and water quality. The cases showed that
valueorienteddecisions can help define a common vision and priorities for action.
Moreover, they found that in most of the cases (76% of 25 cases with good data)
participants’ preferences drove or changed decisions. Thus, stakeholders were highly
successful in shaping the final results. Similar results are found in a study into watershed
planning initiatives in the USA. The results showed that Public Participation fostered a
consensus on goals, thus increasing the legitimacy of the plans. The researchers
concluded that integration of the various viewpoints is necessary to achieve successful
long-term plans (Duram and Brown, 1999).

During consultation local data, information, knowledge and possible solutions

from the public can be gathered. Given the levels of uncertainty that water resources
managers face, many actions are selected without full knowledge of their consequences.
A major source of uncertainty is lack of knowledge (Ostrom, 1990). Such knowledge can
be accumulated by professionals but it can also be obtained based on local observation, or
local knowledge. The latter applies to a wide range of issues, like farmers’ familiarity
with soils, or botanical knowledge of indigenous peoples. Although for some local

13
knowledge appears ‘primitive’ and ‘unscientific’, it can be a valuable source of
information and is increasingly recognized as a legitimate source of know-how and ideas
for making decisions. In many ways, the local knowledge complements experts’,
especially when concerning unique local situations. It can provide first-hand knowledge
about local circumstances and assist in finding mistakes and solutions that satisfy a wider
range of interests (Kickert et al., 1997; Pretty and Shah, 1997; Beierle and Konisky,
1999; Fischer, 2000).
In watershed management, conventional conservation programmes undertaken in
the last century have been unsuccessful. Experience showed that programs that are
designed without local people are commonly rejected by them if external pressure
(enforcement or economic incentives) is removed (Pretty and Shah, 1997). Hinchcliffe et
al. (1995) have reviewed 22 case studies of participatory watershed development projects
world-wide with regards to soil and water conservation. Local knowledge and skills were
at the core of the programs. Findings showed that despite cultural, political and other
differences, all cases had common elements. All cases emphasized the need to use local
knowledge and locally-adapted solutions. The impacts were positive including
environmental, economic and social benefits. The benefits included recharge of aquifers,
increased supply of drinking and irrigation water, reducing soil erosion, salinity and the
use of fertilizers and pesticides. The authors stress that while these cases are only few and
are still just “islands of success”, they have proven to be very successful.
It is very important for construction projects to be completed on time, as the
clients, users, stakeholders and the general public usually looks at project success from
the macro view where their first criterion for project success appeared to be the
completion time (Lim and Mohamed, 2000).Salter and Torbett (2003) and Odeh and
Battaineh (2002) mentioned that time variance is one of the techniques for assessing
project performance in construction projects. The element of time could indicate to
project managers that the project was not running as smoothly as scheduled.
Furthermore, Latham Report in 1994 suggested that ensuring timely delivery of
projects is one of the important needs of clients of the construction industry. Community
participation can significantly reduce the time spent in executing project activities. When
a project is accepted by the community, project activities run smoothly and according to

14
schedule.

2.6 Community Participation in the Implementation of development projects

and its influence on Project Performance

Implementation is perhaps the most vital stage of the project cycle involving the
procurement of equipment and resources, recruitment of personnel and allocation of tasks
and resources within the project organization. Under the project implementation plan,
resources are mobilized, activities determined and control mechanism established so that
the project inputs can produce project outputs in order to achieve the project purpose.
Hence local people’s participation at this stage is conducive to the successful operation of
projects (Baum, 1978).

Some aspects of what Pretty (1995) calls ‘functional participation’ can also be seen at this
stage especially where project implementation has involved formation of small interest
groups such as women and youth income generation groups. Active involvement may
foster raising public awareness to the problems that water managers face. It can also
enhance adaptation of management practices. The process of raising public awareness
addresses the need to increase public’s understanding of the problems and the need for
solutions. This is particularly important in cases which require behavior changes on the
part of people because decisions made by the authorities without a learning process
cannot be appreciated and followed.
Vice versa, the learning process raises awareness of contributions to the problems
and willingness to control these problems. In addition, during discussions and
deliberations participants have the opportunity to learn the value and rationale of new
measures or arrangements (World bank, 1996).
In the study conducted by Beierle and Konisky (1999) on Public Participation in
the Great Lakes region, it was found that educating people motivates them to recognize
their contribution towards water pollution and take more responsibility for problems. It
also motivates participants to become more involved in the decision making.

15
 Similar conclusions resulted from the Duram and Brown (1999) research on
watershed planning initiatives in the USA. The findings showed that the watershed
initiatives led to public awareness about the need to protect the watersheds. This
enhanced the desire toco-operate on problem solving.
Maarleveld and Dangbegnon (1999) argue that since the water system entails many
unforeseen changes, continuous adaptation of water management is needed. Thus, when
people learn how to assess the way they affect water resources, they also accept more
control and contribute to resolve the problems. This, in turn, promotes adaptation of
water management. Active involvement may result in defining shared-interests among the
different stakeholders. Various stakeholders have different and often conflicting interests
and viewpoints about problem solving. This is believed to be in the root of many
environmental policy failures. Although deliberation cannot be expected to end
controversies, it makes it possible to identify and develop shared interests and ideas for
Coordination of competing interests, hopefully leading to reaching common grounds
(Termeer and Koppenjan, 1997; Fischer, 2000). Even if parties cannot resolve an issue,
they can understand the goals and perspective of others by communication and building
relationships.
Beierle and Konisky (1999) report similar findings, based on evaluation of cases
of Public Participation in the Great Lakes region in North America. The researchers
examined how well Public participation did in resolving conflicts among stakeholders.
They found that in 58% (of the 19 cases with good data), the conflict between interests
was declined. They also found that the process of communication, consensus-building
and fairness was found more important than the content of the resolved conflicts because
it provided opportunity to raise own issues and resolve differences. In addition, the
researchers examined whether relationships or institutions were built during the process
that would help resolve conflict arising in the future.
The findings showed that in 72% of the cases the process involved relationships
among stakeholders or led to the development of procedures, or institutions for conflict
resolution. In most of the cases participants indicated that even if disagreements or
disputes persisted, the process improved relationships among stakeholders. Many
participants made efforts to bring the goodwill and cooperative relationships shaped

16
during the process, into the creation of the joint arrangements. Most of the arrangements
created continuous engagement of stakeholders, especially in the implementation phase.
During active involvement participants perceive the process as fair and democratic
because it enables them to be engaged in deliberations about decisions that need to be
taken. Thus, the legitimacy of the process increases. A stream of ideas addresses the
issues of fairness and democratic characteristics of the process.
Fairness is considered an important element in people’s satisfaction with decisions
and support for authorities (Webler and Tuler, 2001).It is argued, for example, that those
who are affected and who would benefit from water must have the opportunity to
participate in its planning and management because citizens should participate in
decisions that affect their lives (Priscoli, 2004). It also draws from the idea that the aim of
democratic societies is to enable all citizens to participate as fully as possible in social,
political and economic life (Benn, 1997). A participatory process allows participants to
attend, contribute to the discussion, challenge and defend each other’s claims, and finally
decide or influence the outcomes. All these can restore trust in the decision making
process.
There is no reason to confine concern with participation only to decision making
and then to limit it further to influencing decisions rather than making them the working
definition. Participating in implementation activities can give people bargaining power in
decision-making and more knowledge of what decisions are needed and appropriate. So it
makes sense to be concerned with participation in both decision making and
implementation. There is no need to take an either or view. Also focusing on specific
activities and outcomes to which indicators can be attached concentrates attention on who
is participating in what kinds of participation and how. Such distributive and qualitative
concerns get lost when participation is identified with the abstract concept of process
(Cohen and Uphoff, 1980).

17
2.7 Community Participation in Monitoring and Evaluation of
development projects and its influence on Project Performance

The final stage in the project cycle is monitoring and evaluation, which is
enhanced by follow-up action. Evaluation may be done by different people/stakeholders/
donors of the project to assess the performance of the project to see whether its stated
objectives are achieved or not and to what extent (Baum, 1978).
Guijt and Gaventa (1998) explain that the idea of project Monitoring and
Evaluation is to place the perspectives of local people, and particularly the poor, at the
center of Monitoring and Evaluation activities. Project Monitoring & Evaluation involves
local people, development agencies, and policy makers deciding together how progress
should be measured, and results acted upon. It can reveal valuable lessons and improve
accountability. By broadening involvement in identifying and analyzing change, a clearer
picture can be gained of what is really happening on the ground. It allows people to
celebrate successes, and learn from failures. For those involved, it can also be a very
empowering process, since it puts them in charge; helps develop skills, and shows that
their views count.
The same authors then identified four principles at the core of Project Monitoring
and Evaluation:
(i) participation to include those most directly affected
(ii) negotiation to reach agreement about what, how and when to monitor,
what the data actually means and what will be done with the findings of
the monitoring
(iii) learning for improvement and corrective action
(iv) flexibility to adjust to the various changes in the conditions under which
the Monitoring and Evaluation exercise is carried out.
Information on who is participating in selected kinds of decisions in specified
kinds of implementation activities in development projects can be included in the project
management information system set up to monitor a project’s progress. Such data can
then be assessed in mid and end of project evaluations. This is pretty straightforward. The
decisions and implementation activities that are to be monitored and evaluated should
always be project specific, preferably determined in consultation with intended

18
beneficiaries to be sure that these are meaningful decisions, activities and benefits (Cohen
and Uphoff, 1977).As much as possible, joint monitoring and evaluation activities carried
out with the involvement of both intended beneficiaries and project personnel, rather than
by either group alone are desirable.
The goal of most development projects is to change behavior on the part of
officials and local people. (Pelletier,1991) points out that in Tanzania, they have very
good examples of programs in which joint Monitoring and Evaluation with primary
responsibility resting with communities has had a very positive impact. Information gave
impetus to both popular participation and bureaucratic reorientation. Government
personnel started working more effectively once they came to know the real conditions at
the village level through a systematic Monitoring and Evaluation system. Moreover, there
was dramatic change in local people’s collective and individual behavior once they knew
with some precision and in comparative way over times and across jurisdictions how well
they were meeting basic needs. While there were material constraints and vested interests
to be overcome, these proved to be more malleable than expected once local people and
officials both had the same Monitoring and Evaluation information collected in a way
that gave everyone confidence in it and put its meaning in human terms.
For success in monitoring and evaluation programs, there should be continuity of
personnel involved in the program both from the government side and from the donor
agency (Narayan 1998).Having continuity of involvement from NGO’s and from local
communities are also important. There cannot be a very effective learning process
without institutional memory to interpret observations and reflections.

It is desirable to have strong government support at high levels initially but this is
not a prerequisite so long as there is acceptance of the idea of experimentation. For this to
work, there should be a network of supportive, committed persons in a variety of key
positions, bridging departmental and sectoral lines, who will give the program a boost
when and if the need arises (Korten, 1988).
A participatory approach should be conceived and implemented so that it is
clearly in the interests of intended beneficiaries. Otherwise, incentives and group
dynamics will defeat the effort. At the same time, participation is not simply a technical

19
activity based only on self-interest. It is important to foster some sense of community and
mutual interests in order for participation to be effective and sustained. (Hirschman,
1984).Consequently, participatory programs need to integrate normative and social
orientations into their strategies and structures (Uphoff, 1992).

2.7.1Theoretical Framework of the Study

The theoretical framework shows the theoretical affiliation of the study to be
undertaken. This study will use the Experiential Learning theory as proposed by Carl
Rogers to signify the importance of participatory development in development projects
involving the community, taking Lapitei Dam Water Project as a case study.
Development is about change. According to Hammer et al (2011), a development
project is based on a model of how agents respond to a project this includes both the
implementing organization and its front-line workers. Effective development projects are
based on a theory of change which is a complete, coherent, and correct causal chain from
inputs and activities to outcomes and impacts. The design of a development project
therefore has to be able to answer why will the front-line workers put effort into
translating inputs into activities and outputs that produce outcomes? And beneficiaries?
Why will they do what the project expects them to do? Why will they use the provided
outputs? Adopt a new technology? Or change their behavior? The better the model, the
more likely the project will work.
However, the recent emphasis on such matters to increase participation of
community in projects regarding their development has led to much confusion and
dissatisfaction on the part of implementing agencies. There has arisen a need for the
communities benefitting to be stirred in such a way that they can own and sustain, and
eventually conduct development by themselves. Involvement hitherto has been in
provision of labor and materials where possible while the identification, planning, part of
implementation, monitoring and evaluation have been carried out by organizations and
agencies external to the community in question. As a result, there is no mechanism to
institutionalize learning from development projects.
In a bid to address the situation, proponents of learning theories put out
experiential learning as a complementary approach to learn from development projects by

20
using the experience gained during project lifecycle and in the very least,
implementation. All organizations and communities of practice incorporate multiple
modes of feedback and learning from experience into practice.
In his theory, Rogers outlined attitudes which characterized the following issues:
Realness, prizing of learner and empathetic understanding of community by facilitating
organization. This was to create a non-judgmental approach that would enable the
intervening organization to accompany the community through the process of problem
solving in a manner that allows the community to understand concepts involved and
reach a place where they develop ideas and try them out in a bid to achieve development.
Knowledge arrived at in this manner tends to be innately owned by participants and
builds self-confidence and capacities to face future problems and challenges better.
According to Carl Rogers, there are three steps in experiential learning;
 Trying out strategies and procedures of an action
 Getting results and feedback
 Emergence of an Action theory.
He continues to point out that experiential learning addressed the needs and wants
of a learner. This directly implies that learning is based on the community in its unique
jurisdiction of issues and context. A community may generally lack in one area but be
endowed in another area, differently from another community. Qualities of experiential
learning according to Rogers as a result include: personal involvement, self-initiative,
evaluation by learner and pervasive effects on learner from experience. It is curious and
interesting that these are the exact missing ingredients in development projects involving
communities. This study therefore seeks out to validify or nullify the claims that
community participation through experiential learning leads to project success on both
short and long-term basis. However, this is being done under the investigation of how
community participation influences and affects a project.

2.8 CONCLUSIONS
Literature reviewed revealed that Projects that did not emphasize community
participation were not successful. Successful projects had strong co-management

21
structure, community empowerment and a decentralized decision making process.

CHAPTER THREE

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

22
3.1 Introduction
This chapter focuses on the steps that will be adopted in carrying out the research.
It outlines the research design, sampling procedure, methods of collecting and analyzing
data as well as ethical considerations prior to data collection and operationalization of the
research variables. The methodology will guide the study to achieve the research
objective as well as ensure that it answers the research questions.

3.2 Research Design

The study seeks to engage quantitative and qualitative research paradigms. To
examine the influence of community participation on the performance of Lapitei Dam
water project, descriptive survey will be employed. According to Mugenda (2003), a
descriptive research determines and reports the way things are. It also attempts to
describe such things as possible behavior, attitudes and characteristics. Descriptive
survey research design is seen to have capacity for the study to generate statistical
information on the influence of community participation on the performance of Lapitei
Dam water project.

3.3 Study Area

The study will be carried out in Naserian Sub-location which is located in Lapitei
location of Kajiado County.

3.4 Target Population

The target population for the study included all the households that will be to be
connected with water supply from the Lapitei Dam. The Dam will be proposed to supply
water to approximately 250,000 people.
The accessible population includes all the households in Naserian Sub-location.
The total number of households in Naserian Sub-location is 4,058(2009 census). It is
from this population that the sample will be drawn. The study also targets key informants

23
to the research, who may include; the local administration in Lapitei (area chief and
community leaders), NWCPC officials who will be involved in the
project and the project managers.

3.5 Sample Size

Sampling is the process through which elements are selected from a population
inclusion in the sample for research purpose. A sample of 356 respondents will be
selected from a target population of three thousand residents. Fifty respondents will be
purposively selected from each of the seven villages of Naserian sub location to
adequately capture the lines of diversity critical to this study. Participants will be a
resident of Naserian sub-location-where the dam water project was established.

3.6 Sampling Procedure

For purposes of the study, Lapitei location has been selected as the area of study
from the three locations of Kajiado County which will be to be supplied with water from
Lapitei Dam.
Purposive sampling will be employed to select the key informants whoshall
include; NWCP Officials’, Area chief and community leaders. Purposive sampling will
enable the researcher to select subjects who have information on the extent to which the
community will be involved in the development of Lapitei Dam as well as performance
of the Lapitei Dam project.
The following research methods will be used in this study;

3.6.1 In-depth Interviews

This is a qualitative method of analysis which proceeds as a confidential and
secure conversation between an interviewer and a respondent. The method of in-depth
interviews is important for this study as it will help the researcher to gain insight into
individual evaluations of participation in the Lapitei Dam water project. This method
further stands to provide exhaustive and varied knowledge about individual determined
experiences, opinions and motives which the group interviews and quantitative methods
cannot encompass.

24
3.6.2 Focused Group Discussions
A focus group discussion is a form of group interviewing in which a small group
– usually 10 to 12 people – is led by a moderator (interviewer) in a loosely structured
discussion of various topics of interest (Mugenda,2004). To guarantee the success of the
focus group discussions, the respondents will be carefully screened to insure they reflect
key objectives to be addressed about this study. This method will also help the researcher
to get detailed background information right from the start of Lapitei Dam Water project.

3.6.3 Observation
MARSHALL and ROSSMAN (1989) define observation as "the systematic
description of events, behaviors, and artifacts in the social setting chosen for study"
(p.79). Observations enable the researcher to describe existing situations using the five
senses, providing a "written photograph" of the situation under study (ERLANDSON,
HARRIS, SKIPPER, & ALLEN, 1993). Participant and non participant observation
methods will be utilized by the researcher to have more insight on the community
participation on the water project of study. Participant observation will be critical to help
the researcher see the problem of study in the light of respondents’ sight. Using both
types of observation will work to neutralize challenges of maintaining subjectivity that
further works to make the research findings more reliable.

3.7 Data Collection Instruments

These form the basic materials to be used in collecting data from the individual
residents.

3.7.1 Questionnaires

A questionnaire is a means of eliciting the feelings, beliefs, experiences, perceptions, or

attitudes of some sample of individuals. As a data collecting instrument, it could be
structured or unstructured.

The questionnaire is most frequently a very concise, preplanned set of questions designed to yield
specific information to meet a particular need for research information about a pertinent topic.
The research information is attained from respondents normally from a related interest area.
Questionnaires will be used to obtain data from the household heads in Naserian Sub-location.
The household heads will be chosen since they are the main decision makers at the household

25
level. The data obtained will contribute to examining the influence of community participation
on the performance of Lapitei Dam project.

3.7.2 Pilot Study

A pilot study was carried out to test if the questionnaires will capture required
data before actual study.

3.8 Reliability of the Research Instruments

This refers to the consistency through a series of measurements. It further refers to the
consistency of the respondents to provide the same information when asked severally.
To ensure reliability of the questionnaires, the test-retest method will be
employed. A sample of 20 questionnaires will be administered randomly to the
researcher’s colleagues to test their level of reliability to collect relevant data effectively
and with ease.

3.9 Data Collection Procedures

The study will utilize both primary and secondary sources to collect data. Focus
group discussions (FGD’s), key informant interviews, household questionnaire and desk
literature review will be used for ensure objectivity.
The researcher will engage a research assistant to assist in the administration
questionnaires to the household heads in the sample population.
Focused group discussions will then be held with the area chief and the community
leaders. The selected personnel of National Water Conservation and Pipeline Corporation
will be contacted by the researcher via telephone for them to confirm the date when the
interview would be conducted. All the data collected will be stored in both hard and soft
copies for analysis

26
3.10 Data Analysis
The data will be analyzed with a focus on the association between the
independent variable (community participation) and the dependent variable (Performance
of Lapitei Dam water project).
The data collected from household questionnaires will be coded and analyzed
using descriptive statistics.
Qualitative data obtained through in-depth interviews with the professionals,
Focus Group discussions with community leaders and the local chief will be organized
according to categories and merged together with quantitative data from the household
questionnaire to facilitate the writing and composition of the key findings. Analysis of the
data will enable the researcher to interpret the information and draw conclusions and
make recommendations of the study.

3.11 Limitations of the Study

Lapitei Dam is located in a rural setting on the slopes of Ngong Hills. One of the
limitations of the study may be in access of the sample population located in the remote
area of Naserian Sub- location. The study area is not well connected to a good road
network and accessing may be a major challenge during fieldwork.

3.12 Ethical Considerations

The respondents will informed on the purpose of the study, how they will be
expected to participate and how the study would affect them directly or indirectly. This
will enable them to decide whether or not they will be willing to volunteer information by
filling the questionnaire. The researcher will also acknowledge all sources of information
from other scholars.

Appendix 1

27
Questionnaire

Instructions
i) Do NOT write your name. All information given will be treated with utmost
confidentiality.
ii) Please fill in your answer on the provided spaces or tick (√) accordingly.
SECTION A: Demographic Information
1. Gender
Male □ Female □
2. How long have you lived in Lapitei?
0-5 years□ 5-10 Years □
10-15Years □15-20 Years □
20-25 Years □More than 25 Years □
3. What is your highest level of education?
Primary □K.C.S.E □
A-Level □Graduate □
Masters □PHD □
Less than Primary Education □
4. Do you know who initiated Lapitei Dam project? A) Yes □ B) No □
If yes indicate………………………………………………………………………………
5. Was water the first priority among other needs? A) Yes □ B) No □
b) If no, please indicate the need that should have been given the first priority.
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
SECTION B: Community Participation in the Lapitei Dam Project and its influence
on project performance
6a). At what stages or stage did you participate in the activities of Lapitei Dam Project?
Identification stage Planning stage Implementation
Monitoring Evaluation

28
6 b) Kindly rate your level of participation in the identification phase of the dam water
project
Tick appropriately according to the extent of your participation.

1= No participation 2= Low Participation 3= Actively participated

FORM OF LEVEL OF PARTICIPATION

PARTICIPATION IN
IDENTIFICATION
PHASE
Attending 1 2 3
sensitization forums

Attending 1 2 3
dissemination
workshops

Participation in 1 2 3
needs assessment
survey

c) State any other ways in which you participated during project Identification stage.
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………
7) How many months would you estimate that you participated during identification of
Lapitei Dam?
Less than one month □
2-7 Months □
8-13 Months □
14-19 Months □
More than 19 Months □
8. In your opinion, did the outcomes of community participation in the identification

29
stage influence performance of Lapitei Dam Project?
Yes □ No □
b) If yes, Please explain how the performance of Lapitei Dam was affected
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………

SECTION C: Community Participation in the Planning of Lapitei Dam water

project and its influence on project performance
9a). Did you participate during the Planning of Lapitei Dam project?
Yes □ No □
b. If yes, in what ways were you involved during the Planning stage?
 Attending land acquisition meetings □
 Participation in setting project goals and objectives. □
 Participation in scheduling of project activities and cost-benefit analysis. □
 Participation in determining means of measuring project achievements. □
 Participation in cost-benefit analysis. □
 Did not participate □
c. State any other ways in which you participated during the Planning stage.
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………
10. How many months would you estimate that you participated during planning of
Lapitei Dam?
Less than one month □
2-7 Months □
8-13 Months □
14-19 Months □
More than 19 Months □

11a. In your opinion, did the outcomes of community participation in the planning stage

30
influence performance of Lapitei Dam Project?
Yes □ No □
b. If yes, Please explain how the performance of Lapitei Dam was affected
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………

 Providing manpower □
 Did not participate□
c. State any other ways in which you participated during the Implementation stage.
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………
13a.In your opinion, did your participation in implementation activities improve your
Livelihood in any way?
Yes □ No □
b. If yes, Please explain how your livelihood was improved.
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
SECTION E: Community Participation in Monitoring and Evaluation of Lapitei
Dam water project and its influence on project performance
14a. Did you participate during the Monitoring and Evaluation of Lapitei Dam project?
Yes □ No □
b. If yes, in what ways have you been involved in Project Monitoring and Evaluation
activities?
 Attending public meetings on reporting project progress. □
 Access to information on progress reporting e.g. posters and pamphlets □
 Participating in Field Visits □
 Did not participate □

31
c. State any other ways in which you have participated during Project Monitoring and
Evaluation activities.
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
15a. In your opinion, did your participation/lack of participation in monitoring and
evaluation activities influence project performance?
Yes □ No □
b. If yes, Please explain how your participation/lack of participation influenced the
performance of Lapitei Dam project.
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
16. Please tick (√) the number that best describes your overall participation in the
Development of Lapitei Dam project.
KEY
5= Very Much 4= Much 3= Moderate 2= Little 1= Never
Identification Stage 1….. 2….. 3….. 4….. 5…..
Planning Stage 1….. 2….. 3….. 4….. 5…..
Implementation Stage 1….. 2….. 3….. 4….. 5…..
Monitoring and Evaluation 1….. 2….. 3….. 4….. 5…..

SECTION F: Challenges of Community Participation in development of water

projects and their influence on project performance
17a.In your opinion, what are the challenges that hinder the community from
participating in water projects?
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
b. How do the challenges mentioned above influence project performance?

32
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………
18. In your opinion, how can performance of water projects be enhanced to ensure
efficiency and sustainability?
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
Thank You for participating in this research!!

Appendix 2

Interview Schedule for the Project Managers

1. When did the Lapitei Dam project start officially?

……………………………………………………………………………................
....................................................................................................................................

2. What was the project lifecycle?

…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………

3. Was the local community involved in the processes identified above? If yes how?

4. To what extent did the community participate as per your opinion?

5a) .Was the Lapitei Dam project completed within schedule? A) Yes □B) No □
b) If no, what were the challenges that led to delays in project completion?
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………

33
6. Is there something you think you should have done differently concerning the
involvement of the community to affect the project positively? If yes, what are some of
the things you would have done differently? What are the things you would have
incorporated?

7. What challenges did you face when engaging the community to participate in the
various stages of project development?
...................................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................................
………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………
………………

8. How did you tackle the above mentioned challenges?

...................................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................................
……………………………………………………………………………………

9. In your opinion how can performance of water projects be improved in order to

efficiency and sustainability?
………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………

REFERENCES

1. , S. & Das, M. (1983). “Decentralization and Peoples Participation in

Bangladesh”,
National Institute of Public Administration, Dhaka.
2. Anderson, J. & Poole, M. (2001). Assignment and thesis writing, (4th
Ed.).Brisbane: John
Wiley & Sons.
3. Baum, W.C. (1978), “Projects, the Cutting Edge of Development,” World Bank
Publication on Finance and Development, Vol. 23, 1978.
4. Beierle, T. C. & Konisky, D. M. (1999). Public Participation in Environmental
Planning
In the Great Lakes Region, Discussion paper 99-50, Resources for the Future,
Washington.
5. Benn, R. (1997).participation in adult education: breaking boundaries of
deepening

34
 inequalities. Paper presented at the 27th annual SCUTREA conference,
University
Of London, 1-3 July
6. Bretty, E.A. (2003). Participation and Accountability in Development
Management. The
Journal of Development Studies, 40 (2), pp. 1-29.
7. Burkey, S. (1993). People First: A guide to Self-Reliant, Participatory Rural
Development. London: Zed Books.
8. Cohen, J.M. & Uphoff, N. (1980) "Participation's Place in Rural Development:
Seeking
Clarity through Specificity" World Development, 8, 213- 235
Connor, D. (2007). A new ladder of citizen participation. National Civic Review:
77:249–57.
9. Cooke B. & Kothari, U. (eds.) (2001). Participation: The new tyranny? London:
Zed
Books.
10. Delli, J. (2004). What is public participation in water resources management and
why is it
Important? Water International, 29 (2), 221-227. Durham and London: Duke
University Press.
11. Duram, L. A., & Brown, K.G. (1999). Assessing Public Participation in U.S.
Watershed
Planning Initiative, Society & Natural Resources, 12, 455-467.
12. Finsterbursch, K. & Warren, W. (1989). Beneficiary Participation in Development
Projects: Empirical Tests of Popular Theories. Economic Development and
Cultural Change 37 (3):537-93
13. Freire, P. (1970).Pedagogy of the oppressed. Myra Bergman Ramos. New York:
Herder and Herder.
14. Garin, P. & Ruhlmann, J. (2002). Linking expert evaluation with public
consultation to
design water policy at the watershed level, Water Science and Technology, 46 (6-

35
 7), 263-271Ghandi, M. K. (1962). Village swaraj. Ahmedabad, India: Navjiran
press.
15. Guijt, I. & Gaventa, J. 1998. Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation: Learning
From
Change. IDS Policy Briefing Issue 12, Brighton, IDS.
16. Green, C. et al (1994). Water Resources Management: A Macro Level Analysis
from a
Gender Perspective, London Pergamon Press.
17. Hickey, S. & Mohan, G. (2004) 'Towards participation as transformation: critical
themes
and challenges' in Hickey, S. & Mohan, G. (Eds) Participation: From Tyranny to
Transformation? London, Zed Books.
18. Hinchcliffe, F. Guijt, I. Pretty, J. N. & Shah, P. (1995). New Horizons: The
Economic,
Social and Environmental Impacts of Participatory Watershed Development,
IIED.
19. Hirschman, A. (1984). Getting Ahead Collectively: Grassroots Experiences in
Latin
America, New York, Pergamon Press.
20. Khan, Z. (2005). Evaluating the importance of community participation in
infrastructure
delivery in the Western Cape. CPUT Theses & Dissertations. Paper 168.
21. Korten,F & Siy,R. (1988).Transforming a bureaucracy: The experience of the
Philippine
National Irrigation Administration, West Hartford, CT Kumarian press.
22. Kumar, S. (2002).Methods for Community Participation: A complete guide for
practitioners. London: ITDG Publishing.
23. Lim, C. & Mohamed, M. (2000). An exploratory study into recurring construction
problems. International Journal of Project Management 18: 267–273.
24. Logo link, (2002). ‘The International Workshop on Participatory Planning
Approaches

36
 for Local Governance’ Bandung, Indonesia 20-27 January.
25. Mullen, M. & B. (1999). Stakeholder Involvement and Social Capital: Keys to
Watershed Management Success in Alabama. Journal of the American Water
Resources Association 35(3):655-662.
26. Morgan W.D (1990) Determining sample size for Research Activities, Journal of
Educational and Psychological measurement, Pg 607-610
27. Mugenda, O.M. &.Mugenda, A.G (1999). Research methods: Quantitative and
Qualitative Approaches. Nairobi: Acts Press.
28. Narayan, D. (1998). ‘Participatory Rural Development’, in Agriculture and the
Environment (eds.) E. Lutz. H. Binswanger, P. Hazell, and A. McCalla,
Washington DC, the World Bank.
29. Nelson, N. & Wright, S. (eds.) (1995). Power and Participatory Development:
Theory
and Practice. London: ITDG Publishing.
30. Odeh, A.M. & Battaineh, H.T. (2002). Causes of construction delay: Traditional
contracts. International Journal of Project Management 20: 67–73.
31. Okun, D.A. (1987). The value of water Supply and Sanitation in Development. An
Assessment of Health-Related Interventions. WASH Technological Report
No.43.Arlington.
32. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons: the Evolution of Institutions for
Collective
Action, Cambridge University Press, New York.
33. Pahl-Wostl, C. (2002). Towards sustainability in the water sector – The
importance of
human actors and processes of social learning, Aquatic Sciences, 64, 394-411.
34. Pretty, J. N. & Shah, P. (1997). Making soil and water conservation sustainable:
from
coercion and control to partnership and participation, Land Degradation and
Development, 8, 39-58.
35. Pretty, J.N. (1995). Participatory Learning for Sustainable Agriculture. World
Development, 23(8), pp. 1247-1263.

37
 36. Salter, A. & Torbett, R. (2003). Innovation and performance in engineering
design.
Journal of Construction Management and Economics 21: 573–580.
37. Shrimpton, R. (1989), “Community participation, growth monitoring, and
malnutrition
in the third world,” Human Ecology Forum, Vol. 17.
38. Termeer,C. & Koppenjan,J. (1997).Managing complex networks, strategies for
the
public sector, Sage: London, UK.
39. Therkildsen, O. (1988). Watering White Elephants: Lessons from Donor Funded
Planning and Implementation of Rural Water Supplies in Tanzania,
40. Scandinavian Institute of African Studies, Uppsala, Sweden.
Tuler, S & Thomas, W. (1999).”Voices from the forest: what participants expect of
a public participation process”. Society and Natural Resources 12 (5, July-
August):437-53
41. White, H. (1999). “Politicizing Development? The Role of Participation in the
Activities
of Aid Agencies,” Chapter 7 in Ken Gupta (editor) Foreign Aid: New
Perspectives, Kluwer Academic Press, Boston Pp: 109-125
42. World Bank (1989).Sub-Saharan Africa: From Crisis to Sustainable Growth: A
long-term
perspective study. Washington, DC: World Bank.
43. World Vision (2002). Transformational Development Indicators Field Guide.
Washington: World Vision Development Resources Team

38