Evaluation of Development Projects: a Process-Centered Approach in the Outskirts of Lima,Peru^*

Evaluación de proyectos de desarrollo: un enfoque centrado en procesos en los suburbios de Lima, Perú

L'évaluation de projets de développement: une approche focalisée aux processus à l'extérieur de Lima, Pérou

José L. Yagüe^**
Agustín Montes^***
Francisco J. Morales^****

^*This article is based on the participatory evaluation of the Program for the Integral Production Cooperation (PCIP) in the municipality of Lurigancho-Chosica in the town of Santa María de Huachipa in the province of Lima (Peru), a project financed by the City Hall of Madrid. The evaluation finished in 2009.
^**Doctor en Planificación y Gestión de Proyectos de Desarrollo Rural Sostenible. Universidad Politécnica de Madrid. Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingenieros Agrónomos. E-mail: joseluis.yague@fgupm.es.
^***Doctor en Planificación y Gestión de Proyectos de Desarrollo Rural Sostenible. General Director of Fundación General Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (FGUPM) E-mail: agustin.montes@fgupm.es.
^****Doctor en Planificación y Gestión de Proyectos de Desarrollo Rural Sostenible. Fundación General Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (FGUPM). E-mail: javier.morales@fgupm.es.

Recibido - Submitted - Reçu: 2012-05-10 • Aceptado - Accepted - Accepté: 2012-05-11 • Evaluado - Evaluated - Évalué: 2012-07-27 • Publicado - Published - Publié:2013-03-30

Cómo citar este artículo

Yagüe, J. L., Montes, A., & Morales, F. J. (2013). Evaluation of Development Projects: a Process-Centered Approach in the Outskirts of Lima, Peru. Cuadernos de Desarrollo Rural, 10 (70), 181-200.

Abstract

Development cooperation projects work with people involved in processes of change and social transformation. While the main objective of the intervention is the development process itself, the project's quality will be determined by the way of implementing it. Its success lies in the sustainability of the generated processes and the connection with them by the involved actors. The evaluation analyses both aspects. This article examines the evaluation, under a process approach, of a project on urban agriculture in Lima (Peru). The results show that the use of this approach, which combines different evaluation tools, allows the identification and analysis of the processes with the involved members, providing a better understanding of the real sustainability of the results.

Keywords author: Evaluation, empowerment evaluation, process mapping, development projects.

Keywords plus: City planning and redevelopment, urban agriculture, development projects, urban development.

Resumen

Los proyectos de desarrollo trabajan con personas inmersas en procesos de cambio y transformación social. La vía de ejecución determina su calidad, siendo el propio proceso de desarrollo el objetivo de la intervención. Su éxito radica en la sostenibilidad de los procesos generados y la integración en los mismos de los actores implicados, lo que constituye el objeto de la evaluación. Este artículo analiza la evaluación, con un enfoque centrado en procesos, de un proyecto de agricultura urbana en Lima (Perú). Los resultados muestran que la utilización de este enfoque, que combina diferentes herramientas de evaluación, permite identificar y analizar procesos junto a los actores implicados, proporcionando una mejor comprensión de la sostenibilidad real de los resultados.

Palabras clave autor: Evaluación, proyectos de desarrollo, mapeo procesos, empowerment evaluation.

Palabras clave descriptores: Planificación urbana y desarrollo, agricultura urbana, proyectos de desarrollo, desarrollo urbano.

Résumé

Les projets de développement travaillent avec des personnes impliquées dans les processus de changement et de transformation sociale. Le chemin d'exécution détermine sa qualité, le processus de développement c'est l'objectif principal de l'intervention. Son succès réside dans la durabilité des processus et la liaison des impliqués, qui sont l'objet de l'analyse des évaluations. Cet article discute l'évaluation centrée dans les processus, d'un projet d'agriculture urbaine à Lima (Pérou). Les résultats montrent que l'utilisation de cette approche, qui combine des différents outils de l'évaluation, travaillent ensemble pour identifier et analyser les processus avec les intervenants. Ce qui génère une meilleure compréhension de la véritable durabilité des résultats.

Mots-clés de l'auteur: Evaluation, projets de développement, cartographie des processus, empowerment evaluation.

Mots-clés descripteur: Urbanisme et développement, agriculture urbaine, projets de développement, développement urbain.

Introduction

The concept of development, linked to the economic development, has experienced an important change since the 1980s. Initially, an environmental approach was incorporated (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987) which led to the introduction of the concept of sustainable development. At the same time, the approach was widened and included the basic needs (OIT, 1976; Streeten, 1986; Ul Haq, 1995), which opened the doors to civil participation, through NGOs (Hidalgo Capital, 1998). Deep-rooted in this, a focus on skills and human development arose (Sen, 1983; 2004). We can also consider the territorial approach, in the sense of a determined interest in the spatial dimension of the social and economic phenomenon (De Janvry & Sadoulet, 2004) and close the gap between the development planning process and the specific situations being faced in the different territories (Cazorla, 2004). As a result, excluding the last decade of the 20th century, with the preponderance of the Washington Consensus' of the neoliberal stances (Williamson, 2003), the concept of development has progressively become wider, in order to include aspects related to culture, the environment and the idiosyncrasy of the societies that are the focus of the international aid, by means of cooperation projects.

Development cooperation projects have factors of differentiation from others. These projects work with people and organisations, which are placed through an intense process of change, that involve as well a change in their environment. Planning in regard to development projects can be related to social orientation and social transformation processes (Cazorla & Friedmann, 1995). Therefore, there is an increased level of uncertainty with respect to the solutions in each phase, which could cause significant differences between the original project and the actual result. As a consequence, the most conventional project initiation is replaced by projects that are designed by multidisciplinary teams of professionals, in which human needs and opinions, of those affected by the project, play a crucial role in the process of decision making (Alier, Cazorla, De los Ríos & De Gracia, 1999). Furthermore, in most of the cases, they are not independent units, but parts of a programme (regional, national, or of a financial agency) within a logical process for organising actions in the public domain whose activities are linked, influencing each other, and their results affect the sustainability and development of a territory (Cazorla, De Gracia & Trueba, 1995).

At the beginning of the 21st century, the policies issued to help in the development are going through an intense period of reflection, characterised by the international concern for analysing the effectiveness of aid. The aspects related to the financing and execution of the cooperation projects have been discussed at various international forums (UNO, 2002, 2005, 2008 & 2010). What stands out amongst the topics of concern are related to transparency and the effectiveness of aid, which results in a requirement to evaluate cooperation interventions from a wider perspective, involving and offering a more important role to the affected members of the population. Although the requirements of the financial agencies continue to focus on the efficiency and effectiveness of how the projects are carried out, and in particular the results achieved, the need to measure the long term impact and sustainability, is becoming more important in order to determine the quality of a cooperation project.

In this sense, the chosen "path" for executing a development project can determine its quality, taking into account that the development process itself is the main objective of the intervention (Ferrero, 2003; Varela de Ugarte, 2007). Therefore, the ability to adapt and be flexible in order to face the changes in the environment and strengthen the processes, become important factors to determine the quality and sustainability of the projects. The success of these projects depends on the sustainability of the processes that are created, and the link and integration between them and the actors involved. This builds the core of the evaluation's analysis.

This approach requires a focus on the processes that are implemented by the project and the learnings that arise from this experience, rather than on the direct short-term results. This requires a change in the monitoring and evaluation systems and tools. The contribution of the evaluation culture has gained global recognition (Diaz-Puente, Cazorla & Dorrego, 2007), and has achieved an increased influence on the promotion of the change processes (Kirkhart, 2000) as well as on training and learning (Taut, 2007).

Evaluation is no longer a simple tool to validate aid, it has become a mechanism of learning that feeds back the information to those who make the decisions. In short, the concept of evaluation can be defined as the external activity of an intervention (as systematic and objective as possible), which regularly carries out a thorough analysis and assessment of the intervention, or the specific aspects of it, based on specific criteria and standards, and with the objective of learning and continuing improving (Díaz-Puente, 2003).

The evaluation requirements have as an objective the participatory evaluation based on the ongoing contact between the evaluators and the project team, as well as on the knowledge of the criteria and the 'knowhow' of the affected groups. This allows the creation of learning processes as a result of the evaluation itself. Evaluation should benefit all those involved and should exploit their contributions, with social participation seen as an important source of information for increasing the social capital and stimulation.

This approach on the participative evaluation has its roots on the techniques of the Rapid Rural Appraisal and its evolution as Participatory Rural Appraisal, which it was applied during the 80's (Chambers, 1983, 1994, 1995). This approach already proposed that the local population had to be involved in the research and analysis, and it also emphasized in the mutual learning. It generated different families of approaches or widely used methodologies such as the Participatory Learning and Action (Singh, K., 2001), shaping a trend focused on the empowerment, learning and the processes that activate the projects of development (Geilfus, 1997).

The theoretical framework defined by Cazorla as Working with People (Cazorla, De los Ríos & Yagüe, 2011; Cazorla & De los Ríos, 2012) provides a working approach that includes a suitable framework for managing this knowledge. Incorporating the social learning and the participation principles (Friedmann, 1993; Cazorla & Friedmann, 1995), its main assumption is that all the effective learning arises from experiences with change: the population affected by the projects actively participate in the planning, in order to validate the knowledge they experience, providing a mutual learning between the expert and the affected population (Cazorla et al., 1995). The latter suggests to put an emphasis on the participatory evaluation, starting on their intrinsic interests and perceptions. This contributes significantly to the improvement of the learning processes initiated by the project, that generate important "empowerment" dynamics, a better exploitation of the results, as well as a joint analysis process in order to identify the best practice (Díaz-Puente, Yagüe & Afonso, 2008). The distance between the "evaluator" and the person "evaluated" is reduced, when the professional encourages and facilitates the discussions that arise.

However as it was mentioned in the introduction, there are concerns on the effectiveness of the aid, especially because of the world's economic crisis in which the agencies and financial entities are dramatically reducing their resources. Therefore, new approaches are strong towards the results (Váhámáki,

Schmidt & Molander, 2011). In this sense, we have to mention an interesting proposal, which, after 2006 has been shaped by researchers of the Centre for Global Development under the title of Cash on Delivery Aid (COD) (Barder & Birdsall, 2006; Birdsall & Savedoff, 2010). This approach contemplates a pact or a contract between the donors and the beneficiaries (state agencies, aid recipient organizations), to whom the full responsibility is given over the funds, under the premise that the donor pays for the obtained results. The interest that has generated (Birdsall, Mahgoub & Savedoff, 2010) is compared to the questioning of the model (Rogerson, 2011; Váhámáki, Schmidt & Molander, 2011), but obviously the preconditions to apply this standpoint or a similar one is a good measurement of the performance and a credible way to verify it, and more if it is established as it is considered in the approach, as a possible annual framework for the measurement and payments.

We can say that the basic problem is still the same: it seems clear that the matter lies in finding new methodologies that allow the conciliation between the reports based on measurable objectives with a participative focus based on processes that help to "evaluate" the sustainability of these results in a medium term. Even more, methodologies that could be included in a temporary framework that allows a quick decision making, whether to justify the new aid programs, the continuity of a project or even, as it is proposed by the COD approach, the order of payment for the obtained results.

This article describes the experiences based on the focus on processes, within the evaluation of a project financed by the Madrid City Council (Spain) in Lurigancho-Chosica, in Lima (Peru). In the project a combination of evaluation tools has been tested (mixing methods), which is a common approach for evaluating the programmes (Green & Caracelli, 1997; Hishigsuren, 2007; Lawrenz & Huffman, 2002), based on the fact that the combination of methods widens the potential analysis, compared to a single approach (Waysman & Savaya, 1997). The methodology that is described in the following section influences the tools that allow the incorporation of the evaluation processes.

1. Methodology applied to the case study

Figure 1 shows the methodological approach with the main tools that were used. Based on the three conventional stages (structuring, observation & analysis, and results). It is structured on key questions that provide a suitable approach for the definition of the evaluation content. This is the most widespread model used for evaluation in the European Union (Commission of the EU, 1994).

The objective of the structuring phase is to organize the development intervention situation, deepening the knowledge of the different factors that influence the evaluation and the future sustainability. Therefore, during this phase the first participative tool introduced to evaluate the processes is: the Process Mapping.

The objective of the Process Mapping is to identify the processes and sub-processes (both stated or underlying) that have arisen throughout the project. The tool helps, with self-awareness, among the project team, as they can see the activities that are taking place outside of the strategy envisaged, allowing them to identify the processes that really occur as a logical result of the activities, and establish whether these align with what was planned. Although the mapping of results has previously been applied by evaluators (Patton, 2001; Earl, Carden & Smutylo, 2001), the Process Mapping involves a tool that is usually associated with industrial and corporate disciplines, and whose effectiveness for understanding the complex processes (Pojasek, 2005) and how an organisation works, really stands out (Matsumoto, Stapleton, Glass & Thorpe, 2005). It also validates and disseminates strategic changes, by a transformation way, and not only analytical (Fenton, 2007). This makes it a useful tool that can be used for evaluation and learning processes, the latter of which arises from the process of creating the map itself.

The sequence used (whose objective is to consider the activities that are being carried out and their relative priorities), follows four stages: 1) To review monitoring reports, identifying the activities recorded by the team itself and the evaluator, locating these on the map, with the objective of establishing the relationships that uncover the processes that are generated. 2) Individual interviews, carried out by the evaluator with each member of the project team in order to establish whether the activities described can then be divided or put into processes or sub-processes, to understand the relationships between them and determine whether there are any activities that have not been included in the reports. This information is used to create a complete map of processes and sub-processes. 3) The evaluation workshop. The entire project team is involved and a joint learning process is produced, which provides a global view of the activities carried out and the processes identified by the evaluator. These are compared to the original project strategy in order to determine which areas have been covered. 4) The creation of the final map, by agreeing the names of each process.

Following on from this, the key questions are defined by the project team and the evaluator, during a group session in the final process of the map evaluation workshop. This is the first learning process directed by the project managers. The evaluation questions do not correspond with the initial strategy, they are adapted to the strategy that was actually followed and the processes that were identified.

Like in any other evaluation, the information and documentation task in the observation and analysis phase always includes a revision of the documentation within the various reports, databases, publications, etc., that have been generated from the project. Other tools are also used in parallel, such as the economic analysis of cases. The evaluators should also carry out a practical observation process that allows them to experience the reality of the project, while being viewed as contributors by the other participants. This allows the evaluator to highlight the rational processes that could have remained hidden. Therefore, the participative tools are implemented to allow qualitative information to be generated. These include more conventional methods such as interviews with key people, focus groups and surveys¹.

However, the approach of the processes oriented to sustainability is supported during this phase by a new participative tool, the Empowerment Evaluation Workshops. This tool is an instrumental part of the overall evaluation model, and is supported by the empowerment theory (Zimmerman, 2000). It has been mainly developed by David Fetterman and his colleagues (Fetterman, Kaftarian & Wandersman, 1996; Fetterman, 2001; Fetterman & Wandersman, 2007). The empowerment Evaluation involves the use of concepts, techniques and evaluation results in order to encourage the improvement and self-determination, which is defined as the ability to decide our own future. It is fundamentally a democratic process: the entire community, and not just an individual, an external evaluator, or an internal manager, is responsible for the evaluation process (Fetterman & Cazorla, 2007). The main differentiator of the Empowerment Evaluation, compared to other tools, is its acknowledgement and deep respect for training people in order to create knowledge and generate solutions based on their own experiences (Fetterman, 2001), while wanting to create an organisational culture of learning and evaluation.

Therefore, the Empowerment Evaluation Workshops can only be directed to project groups that are capable of applying this learning in order to use it in the future. It is therefore the role of the evaluator to identify them within the existing groups with common objectives or interests and involve them in the identified processes.

The workshop mechanic follows three stages (Fetterman, 2001; Millers & Lennie, 2005): 1) To identify a mission and a vision. The objective is to ask the participants for phrases that capture the mission and vision of the project, and agree with the key phrases that represent the values of the different actors involved. 2) To achieve a balance. Doing a brainstorm of ideas and asking the participants to score the activities that are most important within the project, in order to determine their strengths and weaknesses, and 3) planning for the future. In this phase realistic objectives are identified for each activity, as well as activities that would help to achieve these objectives and the type of information required to measure and monitor progress.

Once all the quantitative and qualitative information has been collected, the evaluator can answer the key questions. To achieve this, a methodology based on five steps is used (Diaz-Puente, 2003): description and clarification of the purpose of the question. Definition of the evaluation criteria. Analysis of the information for the answer. Answer, conclusions & recommendations. Description of the limitations of the project on the question.

Finally, the conclusion and recommendations, which can now answer two different aspects: First, a description of the cooperation project's level of success, evaluating its achievements against the original design. Second, an analysis of the key strengths and areas of improvement for the project, based on the projects that were implemented and the participation of the beneficiaries within these, improving the understanding of the project's future sustainability. Note that the methodology does not omit the quantification of the results of the Project, but put them together in the context of the processes that have generated them, in order to make a judgment about the expected sustainability.

2. Results of applying the model to the PCIP in Lurigancho-Chosica

The aforementioned methodology was applied to the final evaluation of the Programme for Productive Integral Cooperation (PCIP) financed by the Madrid City Council between 2006-2008. The objective was to contribute in the solution of the urban poverty problems experienced by two of the districts in Lima's East Cone area (Peru): Lurigancho-Chosica and Santa María de Huachipa, a clear example of what has become known as the "urbanisation of poverty" (Wratten, 1995): in the area affected by the project, whose population is 5,713 and includes 1,245 families, the standard of living is of extreme poverty, with 98% of families lacking drinking water, 50% with no electricity and only 40% living in homes made of concrete.

The Technical University of Madrid (GESPLAN Research group) and the International Potato Center's (CIP) Urban Harvest programme (global initiative for urban and peri-urban agriculture), both participated in the PCIP². The conceptual framework of the Urban Harvest programme (Prain, 2006) is based on an integrated model for urban agricultural production, with a systematic, planning and participative approach, facilitating the social learning among different actors such as producers, local governments, research and development organisations, and grassroots groups (Salvo, Arce & De los Ríos, 2006).

The results were on five main areas: training urban farmers and municipal managers. Strengthening local institutions, such as municipalities, associations of producers, irrigation committees, associations of landowners, etc. Social development, with social activities for supplying food and environmental awareness. Rotary fund for micro investments, in order to stimulate productivity and improve commercialisation. Finally, the transfer of results and spreading practices to other municipalities.

The application of the aforementioned methodology was agreed during 1 process of mapping workshop and 4 empowerment evaluation workshops, as well as a round of interviews with key sources, three economic analysis case studies and a process of surveying beneficiaries of microfinance. The following section discusses some of the results that were achieved due to the implemented methodology, which otherwise would have being unnoticed.

2.1. Identification of an intervention strategy and implemented processes

The Process Mapping led to the creation of the map that is shown in figure 2 (the original one lists all of the individual activities and processes), which includes a total of 15 processes (shaded) with 95 activities (circles) and 12 groups of activities (Squares). This allows us to see how useful a map can be in very complex projects, as we can visualise the strategy and implemented processes. Horizontally, the processes are aligned to the four key work areas. There are also derived processes, which can usually be read vertically and show how the activities interact in an interesting, and often unexpected, manner.

These processes and their interdependencies form the actual intervention strategy, can be compared to the original strategy in the formulation document. The construction of the map involved the project team, and also an initial learning with regards to the replication of the methodologies that were developed and their appropriateness.

The scope of the social development was changed in the second year of the project because it did not include marketing actions. The beneficiaries demanded these in order to prove that their training provided results. The map clearly shows how this resulted into a large block of processes that are also linked to the training and microfinance, creating vertical secondary processes. These processes began to show how organisations were created and consolidated, starting from the training groups, the marketing activities, and the support that credit provided for their initial activities. So, it helped to evaluate the effectiveness of the rescoping and its importance with regards to the strategy.

The processes about the institutional strengthening also showed how the work that was built up during the first two years, with ongoing training and awareness activity, culminated in the third year when several of the municipalities that were aware of the methodology chose to replicate it. In figure 2 these are shown in an almost vertical process that links this area with that of training, nearly towards the end of the programme. The dynamic displayed to the project team a sense of the effective interconnections of their activity and how to position their activity in other projects.

If we examine the area of training, at the top there is a process that is hardly aligned to any others. This corresponds to training in managing livestock through conventional techniques: seminars and 1-day workshops. Underneath, we can see a series of processes that are extremely connected and correspond to the training offered through the Urban Agriculture School. Here, the mapping process facilitates the creation of evaluation questions by providing more meanings and making them more precise: Before a standard question such as 'to what extent have the results being achieved in the area of training?' we can now ask the question 'to what extent has the Urban Agriculture School been suitable for training, compared to other conventional methods?' We will use the answer to this question as a second example.

2.2. The empowerment of beneficiaries through the School of Urban Agriculture

If we examine chart 1, the data that summarize the participation in training activity could, from a results-focused point of view, suggest that the conventional livestock management training was more successful, with a higher number of different participants (162 compared to 86) and a higher retention rate (58% compared to 48%).

However, the process map allows us to identify how the training, through the Urban Agriculture Schools, has been one of the biggest successes of the project: organising and consolidating two organisations of producers who have access to new markets, with an illustrative effect with regards to organic management, and with the support and acknowledgement of the municipality.

When the empowerment evaluation workshops are applied to these two organisations (note that they are only applicable to formal groups who are able to continue their activities, and subsequently are able to incorporate what they learned, and they are compared to the results of the workshop carried out with another livestock organisation that had not been created through a project, in which the members had benefited from conventional training, the results are clear. We can compare in Figure 3 how the sense of the organisation was included in the mission of one of them, and consequently its continuity, and the fact that it connected with many of the processes that were developed (identified in the circles). In contrast, in the second organisation, its mission reflects a personal view from each individual producer, and hardly connects with any other processes in the project.

The small group of intensive participants in the Urban Agriculture Schools is faithfully reflecting the achievements of the intervention strategy that was carried out: it provides a showcase for its communities with reference to what could be achieved with some training, organisation and positioning in the market. These participants valued the fact that they were offered to receive an integrated package, with training, assistance, microfinance etc., which has allowed them to learn and, more importantly, to organize themselves to enter into the market.

The group provides a highly valued bloc that does not leave its beneficiaries with the feeling of being abandoned after each individual activity, since it works on the social and business organisation among its participants. In fact, the majority of the participants on the business management course were from these two groups. In contrast, if we examine the results of the Saracoto pig breeders group, we see how the output from the participative evaluation workshop does not correspond with an implemented strategy, rather a desired strategy, and how the processes that are involved support the foundations, but in a less effective manner.

As a consequence, an initial evaluation based on the results that could be of scarce results with respect to the number of beneficiaries that participated, becomes more positive as a result of their participation in different processes that provide them sustainability. In terms of the evaluation and learnings, it is obvious that it clarifies where to prioritise future interventions.

We can therefore see how the combination of tools allows us to obtain a deeper analysis linked to the processes and participation of actors, as well as making them participants in the learning process generated by the evaluation.

Conclusion

This case of study adopts a methodological approach, based on direct and joint participation between the actors involved in the project, whose objective is to provide a judgement from the perspective of the local learning generated through the implemented processes. This judgment is applied to the measured results, allowing a better estimation of the real impact and the sustainability of them, on the basis that they must be closely linked to processes activated by the project and that they have continuity with the stakeholders that remain in the territory. Therefore, it broadens and complements the traditional perspective of accountability.

In order to achieve this, it has been particularly useful to combine the evaluation tools and methods, and, in particular, to include the process of mapping and the empowerment evaluation in a standard methodology of evaluation questions.

The Process Mapping is particularly effective in the structuring phase. First, it helps with the self-teaching of the project team, as it helps them to visualise the activities that take place outside of the planned strategy. This allows them to identify the processes that are really taking place as a logical result of the evaluation, and whether they fit in with what was planned. Secondly, it feeds into the subsequent stages of the evaluation, as it helps to formulate better evaluation questions and focus the criteria and indicators that need to be obtained. Furthermore, it is fundamental in an evaluation based on learning, because it allows the visualisation of routes that subsequent projects can follow, fairly autonomous processes, sequences, etc.

The resulting map of process shows the adaptation of the intervention strategy created due to the changing environment that all the community development processes face. In this sense, it should be considered as an input for future learning that reflects how sustainable the results can be achieved. This map provides the foundations for creating future proposals. It serves as a comparison for other evaluation tools, and provides relevant information when it comes to reproduce processes in other projects.

The approach of empowerment evaluation complements other participative tools by describing how those processes, which were generated, are perceived by the actors who take part. However, this approach also helps to promote the sustainability of those processes by working with the organisations involved that can continue them, adapt them or replicate them. In this case, it is ensured that the evaluation process is aligned to the project in order to contribute to the general sustainability of the project, beyond the evaluation.

It is necessary to examine the application of the combined methodologies by considering new case studies, in order to validate how easy it can be adapted to other types of development projects, as well as its suitability with regard to the requirements of funders. However, what was experienced shows how a suitable combination of tools can transform the evaluation exercise into an active part of the final development project, and how it can change the weight of the results from the activity processes, and their sustainability through the actors involved.

Foot Note

¹A vast bibliography is available, but we used the UD-NORAD (1997) as a basic and traditional reference.
²The Urban Harvest is a global initiative by the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), coordinated by the International Potato Center. Its purpose is to turn the agriculture within and around the cities into a productive and essential part of the cities across Africa, Asia and Latin America.

References

Alier, J. L., Cazorla, A., De los Ríos, I., & De Gracia, J. J. (1999). Metodología para identificar proyectos en un ámbito público regional: El PRISMA de la Comunidad de Madrid. En homenaje a D. Ángel Ramos Fernández (1926-1998), Tomo II. Madrid, España: Real Academia de Ciencias Exactas, Físicas y Naturales.         [ Links ]

Barder, O., & Birdsall, N. (2006). Payments for Progress: A Hands-OffApproach to Foreign Aid (p. 24). Washington D.C, US: Center for Global Development.         [ Links ]

Birdsall, N., & Savedoff W.D. (2010). Cash on Delivery: A New Approach to Foreign Aid. (With an Application to Primary Schooling). Washington, D.C, US: Center for Global Development.         [ Links ]

Birdsall, N., Mahgoub, A., & Savedoff, W.D. (2010). Cash on Delivery: A New Approach to Foreign Aid. Retrieved from http://www.cgdev.org/files/1424603_file_CashDelivery_FINAL.pdf        [ Links ]

Cazorla, A. (2004). Trabajando con la gente. Modelos de Planificación del Desarrollo Local y Rural. Madrid, España: Universidad Politécnica de Madrid.         [ Links ]

Cazorla, A., De Gracia, J. J., & Trueba, J. I. (1995). Proyectos empresariales. Formulación, evaluación. Madrid, España: Mundi Prensa.         [ Links ]

Cazorla, A., & De los Ríos, I. (2012). Rural Development as "Working With People": a proposal for policy management in public domain. Madrid, España: Universidad Politécnica de Madrid.         [ Links ]

Cazorla, A., De los Ríos, I., & Yagüe, J. L. (2011). Trabajando con la gente en los proyectos de desarrollo rural: una conceptualización desde el Aprendizaje Social. En Modelos para el desarrollo rural con enfoque territorial en México (Parte I). Puebla, México: Colegio de Postgraduados.         [ Links ]

Cazorla, A., & Friedmann, J. (1995). Planificación e ingeniería: Nuevas tendencias. Taller e Ideas. Madrid, España: Universidad Politécnica de Madrid.         [ Links ]

Chambers, R. (1983). Rural development: Putting the last first. London, UK: Longman.         [ Links ]

Chambers, R. (1994). The origins and practice of Participatory Rural Appraisal. World Development, 22 (7), 953-969.         [ Links ]

Chambers, R. (1995). Rural appraisal: Rapid, relaxed and participatory. (p. 68) Brighton, UK: Institute of Development Studies.         [ Links ]

Commission of the EU (1994). The MEANS collection: Evaluating socio-economic programmes. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.         [ Links ]

De Janvry, A., & Sadoulet, E. (2004). Hacia un enfoque territorial del desarrollo rural. Cuarto Foro Temático Regional de América Latina y el Caribe. San José, Costa Rica: Banco Mundial.         [ Links ]

Díaz Puente, J. M., Yagüe, J. L. & Afonso, A. (2008). Building Evaluation Capacity in Spain: A Case Study of Rural Development and Empowerment in the European Union. Evaluation Review, 32 (5), 478-506.         [ Links ]

Díaz-Puente, J. M., (2003). Diseño y aplicación de un modelo para el seguimiento y evaluación del desarrollo rural en la UE. PhD diss. Madrid, España: Universidad Politécnica de Madrid.         [ Links ]

Díaz-Puente, J. M., Cazorla, A. & Dorrego, A. (2007). Crossing national, continental and linguistic boundaries: Toward a worldwide evaluation research community in journals of evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 28 (4), 299-415.         [ Links ]

Earl, S., Carden, F., & Smutylo, T. (2001). Outcome Mapping: Building Learning and Reflection into Development Programs. Ottawa, Canada: International Development Research Centre.         [ Links ]

Fenton, E. (2007). Visualizing Strategic Change: The role and impact of process maps as boundary objects in reorganization. European Management Journal, 25 (2), 104-117.         [ Links ]

Ferrero, G. (2003). De los proyectos de cooperación a los procesos de desarrollo. Hacia una gestión orientada al proceso. PhD diss. Valencia, España: Universidad Politécnica de Valencia.         [ Links ]

Fetterman, D., (2001). Foundations of Empowerment Evaluation. California, US: Sage.         [ Links ]

Fetterman, D., & Cazorla, A. (2007). Empowerment Evaluation: Metodología para el seguimiento de programas y proyectos. Madrid, España: Cazorla.         [ Links ]

Fetterman, D., & Wandersman, A. (2007). Empowerment Evaluation: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. American Journal of Evaluation 28 (2), 179-198.         [ Links ]

Fetterman, D. M., Kaftarian, S. J., & Wandersman, A. (1996). Empowerment Evaluation: Knowledge and Tools for Self-Assessment & Accountability. California, US: Sage.         [ Links ]

Friedmann, J. (1993). Toward and Non-Euclidean Mode of Planning. Journal of American Planning Association, 59 (4), 482-485.         [ Links ]

Geilfus, F. (1997). 80 Herramientas para el desarrollo participativo: diagnóstico, planificación, monitoreo, evaluación. San Salvador, República del Salvador: Instituto Interamericano de Cooperación para la Agricultura.         [ Links ]

Green, J., & Caracelli, V. (1997). Advances in mixed-method evaluation: The challenges and benefits of integrating diverse paradigms. New Directions for Evaluation, 74, 5-17.         [ Links ]

Hidalgo Capitán, A. L. (1998). El pensamiento económico sobre desarrollo: de los mercantilistas al PNUD. Huelva, España: Universidad de Huelva.         [ Links ]

Hishigsuren, G. (2007). Evaluation mission drift in microfinance: Lessons for programs with social mission. Evaluation Review, 31 (3), 203-260.         [ Links ]

Kirkhart, K. (2000). Reconceptualizing evaluation use: An integrated theory of influence, in The expanding scope of evaluation use. New Directions for Evaluation, 88, 5-24.         [ Links ]

Lawrenz, F., & Huffman, D. (2002). The archipelago approach to mixed method evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 23 (3), 331-338.         [ Links ]

Matsumoto, I.T., Stapleton, J., Glass, J., & Thorpe, T. (2005). Use of process maps to develop a management briefing sheet for a design consultancy. Engineering Construction & Architectural Management, 12 (5), 458-469.         [ Links ]

Millers, W., & Lennie, J. (2005). Empowerment evaluation. A practical method for evaluating a national school breakfast program. Evaluation Journal of Australasia, 5 (2), 18-26.         [ Links ]

OIT. (1976). Employment growth and basic needs: a one world problem. Geneva: International Labour Office.         [ Links ]

Patton, M. Q., (2001). Foreword in Earl, S., Carden, F. & Smutylo, T: Outcome Mapping. Building Learning and Reflection into Development Programs. Ottawa, Canada: International Development Research Centre.         [ Links ]

Pojasek, R. B. (2005). Understanding processes with hierarchical process mapping. Environmental Quality Management, 15 (2), 79-86.         [ Links ]

Prain, G. (2006). Urban Harvest: a CGIAR global program on urban and periurban agriculture. Food & Fertilizer Technology Center. Extension Bulletin, 575, 14-36.         [ Links ]

Rogerson, A. (2011). What if development aid really rewarded results? Revisiting the cash-on-delivery (COD) aid model (p. 6). Paris, France: OECD Development Cooperation Directorate.         [ Links ]

Salvo, M., Arce, B. & De los Ríos l. (2006). Integración de las entidades locales en la promoción del desarrollo rural local consideraciones para Latinoamérica desde la experiencia del Cono Este de Lima (Perú). In AEIPRO (Ed.), Proceedings of the X International Congress on Project Engineering. Valencia, España: AEIPRO.         [ Links ]

Sen, A. (1983). Los bienes y la gente. Comercio Exterior, 33 (12), 1115-1123.         [ Links ]

Sen, A. (2004). Elements of a Theory of Human Rights. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 32 (4), 315-356.         [ Links ]

Singh, K. (2001). Handing over the Stick: The Global Spread of Participatory Approaches to Development. In Edwards & Gaventa (Eds.) Global Citizen Action. Boulder, US: Lynne Rienner Publishers.         [ Links ]

Streeten, P. (1986). Lo primero es lo primero: satisfacer las necesidades humanas básicas de los países en desarrollo. Madrid, España: Tecnos.         [ Links ]

Taut, S. (2007). Studying self-evaluation capacity building in a large international development organization. American Journal of Evaluation, 28 (1), 45-59.         [ Links ]

UD-NORAD. (1997). Evaluación de proyectos de ayuda al desarrollo. Manual para evaluadores y gestores. Madrid, España: IUDC-CEDEAL.         [ Links ]

Ul Haq, M. (1995). Reflections on Human Development. New York, US: Oxford University Press.         [ Links ]

UNO. (2002). Monterrey Consensus of The International Conference on Financing Development. Retrieved from www.un.org/esa/ffd/monterrey/MonterreyConsensus.pdf        [ Links ]

UNO. (2005). Declaración de París sobre la Eficacia de la Ayuda al Desarrollo. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/53/56/34580968.pdf         [ Links ]

UNO. (2008). Programa de Acción de Accra. Tercer Foro de Alto Nivel sobre la Ayuda al Desarrollo. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/58/19/41202043.pdf        [ Links ]

UNO. (2010). Objetivos de Desarrollo del Milenio, Informe 2010. Nueva York, US: Departamento de Asuntos Económicos y Sociales de las Naciones Unidas.         [ Links ]

Váhámáki, J., Schmidt, M., & Molander, J. (2011). Review: Results Based Management in Development Cooperation. Accessed on 10th oct 2012 at www.rj.se/f23f-87f4cf866f-dfe04be2d7125a47        [ Links ]

Varela de Ugarte, F. (2007). La calidad de las intervenciones de desarrollo. Madrid, España: CIDEAL-EPTISA.         [ Links ]

Waysman, M., & Savaya, R. (1997). Mixed method evaluation: A case study. Evaluation practice, 18 (1), 227-237.         [ Links ]

Williamson, J. (2003). No hay consenso en el significado. Finanzas y Desarrollo, 40 (3), 10-13.         [ Links ]

World Commission on Environment and Development (Brundtland Commission). (1987): Our Common Future. London, UK: Oxford University Press.         [ Links ]

Wratten, E. (1995). Conceptualizing urban poverty. Environment and urbanization, 7 (1), 11-36.         [ Links ]

Zimmerman, M. A. (2000). Empowerment theory: Psychological, organizational and community levels of analysis. In Rappaport and Seldman (Eds.) Handbook of Community Psychology. New York, US: Plenum Publishers.         [ Links ]