A PPT on Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA), its comparison to Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA), its advantages and disadvantages, and a sample case study where PRA is used.

1. PARTICIPATORY
RURAL APPRAISAL
(PRA)
ROMULO A. BAGACINA JR.
Master in Development Communication
DevC217: Project Development & Management
BENGUET STATE UNIVERSITY
OPEN UNIVERSITY

2. is a participatory approach
used to gather and analyze
information about
communities and their
needs.
PARTICIPATORY RURAL
APPRAISAL (PRA)
(Chambers, 1992)

3. involving local people
in the assessment and
planning processes,
recognizing their
knowledge and
expertise.
PARTICIPATORY RURAL
APPRAISAL (PRA)
(Chambers, 1992)

4. is often used in
development projects,
especially in rural areas, to
ensure that interventions
are relevant and effective.
PARTICIPATORY RURAL
APPRAISAL (PRA)
(Chambers, 1992)

5. focuses on the stimulation of
participation, greater involvement,
and leadership role by local people
in appraising conditions and
identifying solutions.
uses similar guidelines and
tools to Rapid Rural
Appraisal (RRA)
PARTICIPATORY RURAL
APPRAISAL (PRA)
“catalytic”
(Chambers, 1992)

6. the pra process (Chambers, 1992)

7. tools used in the
participatory rural
appraisal (and in
essence rapid rural
appraisal)
(Chambers, 1992)

8. Rapid rURAL
APPRAISAL (rRA)
participatory rural
APPRAISAL (PRA)
VS

9. focused on the
needs of
development
workers and
agencies
Rapid rURAL
APPRAISAL (rRA)
participatory rural
APPRAISAL (PRA)
VS
focused on the
needs of
communities and
target groups

10. emphasis on
efficient use of time
and achievement of
objectives
Rapid rURAL
APPRAISAL (rRA)
participatory rural
APPRAISAL (PRA)
VS
emphasis on
flexibility to adapt
to time frame of
community

11. Communication and
learning tools are
used to help
OUTSIDERS analyze
the conditions and
understand local
peope
Rapid rURAL
APPRAISAL (rRA)
participatory rural
APPRAISAL (PRA)
VS
Communication and
learning tools are
used to help LOCAL
PEOPLE analyze
their own conditions
and communicate
with outsiders

12. Focus of RRA is
decided by the
outsiders
Rapid rURAL
APPRAISAL (rRA)
participatory rural
APPRAISAL (PRA)
VS
Focus of PRA is
decided by the
community

13. End product is
mainly used by
development
agencies and
outsiders.
Rapid rURAL
APPRAISAL (rRA)
participatory rural
APPRAISAL (PRA)
VS
End product is
mainly used by
community.

14. enables
development
agencies and
institutions to be
more
“participatory”
Rapid rURAL
APPRAISAL (rRA)
participatory rural
APPRAISAL (PRA)
VS
enables or
empowers
communities to
make demands on
development
agencies and
institutions

15. enables
development
agencies and
institutions to be
more participatory
Rapid rURAL
APPRAISAL (rRA)
participatory rural
APPRAISAL (PRA)
VS
enables or
empowers
communities to
make demands on
development
agencies and
institutions
So, is the RRA
not participatory
in the real sense?

16. advantages &
disadvatages
participatory rural
APPRAISAL (PRA)
(Chambers, 1992)

17. advantages
participatory rural APPRAISAL (PRA)
Identification of
genuine priorities
for target group

18. advantages
participatory rural APPRAISAL (PRA)
Devolution of
management
responsibilities [to
the local people]

19. advantages
participatory rural APPRAISAL (PRA)
Increase in the
motivation and
mobilization of local
development workers
and the community
themselves

20. advantages
participatory rural APPRAISAL (PRA)
Use and mobilization of
local resources

21. advantages
participatory rural APPRAISAL (PRA)
Better linkages between
communities and
development
institutions...more
sustainable activities

22. disadvantages
participatory rural APPRAISAL (PRA)
ON TIMELINES
PRA may derail set timelines
vis-a-vis targets and objectives
of development workers and
institutions.

23. disadvantages
participatory rural APPRAISAL (PRA)
ON BOUNDARIES
Boundaries are less clear...
therefore it is much more
difficult for development
workers and agencies to
achieve their objectives

24. disadvantages
participatory rural APPRAISAL (PRA)
ON EXPECTATIONS
It raises expectations which
may not be realized...

25. disadvantages
participatory rural APPRAISAL (PRA)
ON IDENTIFICATION &
PLANNING OF ACTIVITIES
Risks of “capture” of activities
by local interests & Failure to
take into account
stratifications in the
community

26. case study:
Participatory Rural
Appraisal in Barpak,
Nepal
participatory rural APPRAISAL (PRA)

27. case study: Participatory Rural
Appraisal in Barpak, Nepal
participatory rural APPRAISAL (PRA)
BACKGROUND
Barpak, a rural village in Nepal, was
severely affected by the 2015
earthquake, which caused widespread
damage to infrastructure and
livelihoods. In response, an international
NGO, in collaboration with local
partners, initiated a Participatory Rural
Appraisal (PRA) process to assess the
community's needs and prioritize
reconstruction efforts.

28. case study: Participatory Rural
Appraisal in Barpak, Nepal
participatory rural APPRAISAL (PRA)
OBJECTIVES
To understand the extent of earthquake
damage and its impact on the community.
1.
To involve community members, including
marginalized groups, in decision-making
processes related to reconstruction.
2.
To develop a comprehensive reconstruction
plan that addresses the community's most
pressing needs.
3.

29. case study: Participatory Rural
Appraisal in Barpak, Nepal
participatory rural APPRAISAL (PRA)
IMPLEMENTATION
Preparatory Phase: The NGO conducted
meetings with local leaders and community
members to explain the purpose and benefits
of PRA. A team of facilitators, comprising
both NGO staff and trained community
members, was formed to conduct the PRA
activities.
1.
Fieldwork Phase: The PRA activities were
conducted over a period of two weeks and
included the following:
2.

30. case study: Participatory Rural
Appraisal in Barpak, Nepal
participatory rural APPRAISAL (PRA)
IMPLEMENTATION
Fieldwork Phase: The PRA activities were conducted over a period of two
weeks and included the following:
Village Mapping: Community members created a detailed map of the
village, marking damaged houses, infrastructure, and key landmarks.
1.
Household Surveys: Facilitators conducted surveys with individual
households to assess the extent of damage and the needs of each
family.
2.
Community Meetings: Several community meetings were held to
discuss the survey findings, identify common needs, and prioritize
reconstruction efforts.
3.
Resource Mapping: Villagers mapped out natural resources,
agricultural land, and areas prone to landslides and other hazards,
providing insights into sustainable land use and disaster risk reduction.
4.
Data Analysis and Action Planning: The NGO team analyzed the data
collected and worked closely with the community to develop a
reconstruction plan. The plan prioritized the rebuilding of houses,
schools, and health facilities, as well as the implementation of livelihood
support programs.
5.

31. case study: Participatory Rural
Appraisal in Barpak, Nepal
participatory rural APPRAISAL (PRA)
OUTCOMES
Community Empowerment: The PRA process
empowered community members to actively
participate in decision-making, ensuring that their
voices were heard in the reconstruction process.
Inclusive Development: The PRA process ensured the
inclusion of marginalized groups, such as women,
youth, and the elderly, in the decision-making process,
leading to more inclusive and sustainable development
outcomes.
Effective Resource Allocation: By prioritizing needs
based on community input, the reconstruction efforts
were more targeted and effective, leading to a more
efficient use of resources.

32. case study: Participatory Rural
Appraisal in Barpak, Nepal
participatory rural APPRAISAL (PRA)
LESSONS LEARNED
Local Knowledge: The PRA process highlighted the
importance of local knowledge and expertise in
understanding community needs and developing
context-appropriate solutions.
Community Ownership: The active involvement of
community members in the decision-making process
increased their sense of ownership over the
reconstruction efforts, leading to greater sustainability.
Partnership Building: The success of the PRA process
was attributed to strong partnerships between the
NGO, local government, and community members,
emphasizing the importance of collaboration in
development initiatives.

33. case study: Participatory Rural
Appraisal in Barpak, Nepal
participatory rural APPRAISAL (PRA)
LESSONS LEARNED
The Participatory Rural Appraisal process in
Barpak, Nepal, demonstrated the importance
of community participation in post-disaster
reconstruction efforts. By involving community
members in decision-making processes, the
PRA process ensured that reconstruction
efforts were tailored to the community's
specific needs and priorities, leading to more
sustainable and inclusive development
outcomes.

34. Participatory Rural Appraisal
(PRA) is a powerful
methodology for engaging
communities in their own
development process. By placing
the community at the center of
decision-making, it ensures that
development initiatives are
locally relevant, sustainable, and
address the unique needs of the
people.
Bhuwaneshwari Thakur
November 24, 2023

35. References
Chambers, R. (1992). Rural Appraisal: rapid, relaxed
and participatory. Institute of Development Studies.
https://www.ids.ac.uk/download.php?
file=files/Dp311.pdf
Ramirez, M.(1989). Devcom and community
organizing process: a Philippine experience. The
Asian Mass Communication Research and
Information Centre.
Smith, L. (2017). "Reaching Out: Best Practices for
Conducting Outreach Programs." Journal of
Community Engagement, 10(2), 45-60.
Stockley, T. (1977). Assistance to rural broadcasting –
Afghanistan. Terminal report. Rome, Italy: Food and
Agriculture Organization

36. Thank you!
ROMULO A. BAGACINA JR.
Master in Development Communication
DevC217: Project Development & Management
BENGUET STATE UNIVERSITY
OPEN UNIVERSITY