1 / 20

Study Area

Perspectives on Development: Results of a Ranking Exercise in Eastern Africa John McPeak, Syracuse University PARIMA project of the GL-CRSP. Study Area. Introduction. Questions motivating the study What has been the development experience to date?

latif
Download Presentation

Study Area

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Perspectives on Development: Results of a Ranking Exercise in Eastern AfricaJohn McPeak, Syracuse UniversityPARIMA project of the GL-CRSP

  2. Study Area

  3. Introduction • Questions motivating the study • What has been the development experience to date? • What kinds of interventions are most highly desired by people living in these communities for the future? • To what extent are these desires shared by individuals within these communities?

  4. Study Area

  5. Development survey • Survey of 249 people in six communities in Kenya, 147 people in five communities in Ethiopia; 396 people. • Open ended work to develop survey form. • Run in late 2001 in Kenya, 2002 in Ethiopia. • Kenya interviewed multiple individuals per household, Ethiopia only household head. • Had been working with them since 2000. • Text to make clear motivation.

  6. Percent having personal experience with project of type:

  7. Who did the projects? Recall N’gambo, Finchawa, Sugata Marmar high market access; Kargi, North Horr, Dillo low market access.

  8. How are these past interventions ranked by most helpful to least? Significant difference between community and personal for: Livestock Health, Education (C>P); Alternative Income Generation, Food Aid (P>C); Others NS difference.

  9. Is low rank because no experience or low evaluation of experienced project? Rank by those with experience

  10. Any that caused harm? • Ethiopia • 12% noted something that harmed the community and 8% identified personal harm (fertilizer burned plants, wrong medicine in health centers, restocked animals brought diseases, a few others) • Kenya • 23% identified something that harmed the community and 8% identified personal harm (borehole water poisoned and killed animals, the spread of mesquite plants, loss of grazing land to natural resource management projects or wildlife, a few others).

  11. What about ranking future interventions - overall Education in only one with statistically significant difference, C>P

  12. There is a lot of variation: by site

  13. And within sites: North Horr respondents

  14. Overall variation As a general rule, things ranked more highly have less variance about them as measured by the CV.

  15. Summary of regression findings

  16. Conclusions: is the message getting through currently?

  17. Conclusions • World Bank ALRMP in Kenya: phase 2 • 38.9 million USD will be spent on natural resources and disaster management • 24.2 million USD will be spent on community driven development • 14.8 million USD will be spent on support to local development (working with other development agencies already active).

More Related