Hassenforder Emeline, Ducrot Raphaëlle, Ferrand Nils, Barreteau Olivier, Anne Daniell Katherine, Pittock Jamie
French National Research Institute of Science and Technology for Environment and Agriculture (IRSTEA), Research Unit on Water Management, Actors & Uses (UMR G-eau), 361 Rue J.F. Breton, BP 5095, Cedex 5 Montpellier, France; The Australian National University (ANU), Fenner School of Environment and Society, 48 Linnaeus Way, Acton, ACT 2601, Australia; AgroParisTech, 16 rue Claude Bernard, F-75231 Paris Cedex 05, France.
French Agricultural Research Centre for International Development (CIRAD), Research Unit on Water Management, Actors & Uses (UMR G-eau), 361 Rue J.F. Breton, BP 5095, Cedex 5 Montpellier, France; IWEGA, Universidade Eduardo Mondlane, Caixa Postal n. 3647, Maputo, Mozambique.
J Environ Manage. 2016 Sep 15;180:504-16. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.05.019. Epub 2016 Jun 8.
Participatory approaches are now increasingly recognized and used as an essential element of policies and programs, especially in regards to natural resource management (NRM). Most practitioners, decision-makers and researchers having adopted participatory approaches also acknowledge the need to monitor and evaluate such approaches in order to audit their effectiveness, support decision-making or improve learning. Many manuals and frameworks exist on how to carry out monitoring and evaluation (M&E) for participatory processes. However, few provide guidelines on the selection and implementation of M&E methods, an aspect which is also often obscure in published studies, at the expense of the transparency, reliability and validity of the study. In this paper, we argue that the selection and implementation of M&E methods are particularly strategic when monitoring and evaluating a participatory process. We demonstrate that evaluators of participatory processes have to tackle a quadruple challenge when selecting and implementing methods: using mixed-methods, both qualitative and quantitative; assessing the participatory process, its outcomes, and its context; taking into account both the theory and participants' views; and being both rigorous and adaptive. The M&E of a participatory planning process in the Rwenzori Region, Uganda, is used as an example to show how these challenges unfold on the ground and how they can be tackled. Based on this example, we conclude by providing tools and strategies that can be used by evaluators to ensure that they make utile, feasible, coherent, transparent and adaptive methodological choices when monitoring and evaluating participatory processes for NRM.
参与式方法如今越来越被视为政策和项目的关键要素并加以运用，尤其是在自然资源管理（NRM）方面。大多数采用参与式方法的从业者、决策者和研究人员也承认，有必要对这些方法进行监测和评估，以审核其有效性、支持决策制定或促进学习。关于如何对参与式过程进行监测和评估（M&E），有许多手册和框架。然而，很少有文献提供关于监测和评估方法的选择与实施的指导方针，而这一方面在已发表的研究中也常常模糊不清，进而影响了研究的透明度、可靠性和有效性。在本文中，我们认为在监测和评估参与式过程时，监测和评估方法的选择与实施尤为关键。我们证明，参与式过程的评估者在选择和实施方法时必须应对四重挑战：运用定性和定量相结合的混合方法；评估参与式过程、其结果及其背景；兼顾理论和参与者的观点；做到严谨且灵活应变。以乌干达鲁文佐里地区的一个参与式规划过程的监测和评估为例，展示这些挑战在实际中是如何呈现的，以及如何应对。基于此例，我们最后提供了一些工具和策略，评估者可利用这些工具和策略，确保在监测和评估自然资源管理的参与式过程时，做出有用、可行、连贯、透明且灵活的方法选择。
