Humphries, S. J. Gonzales, J. Jimenez and F. Sierra. 2000. Searching for sustainable land use practices in honduras: lessons from a programme of participatory research with hillside farmers. AgREN Network Paper 104. ISBN 0-85003-486-8Participatory Research in Central America (Investigación Participativa en Centroamerica, IPCA) is a project established by the International Centre for Tropical Agriculture, and coordinated through the University of Guelph, Canada, to support farmers in community-based agricultural research in the region. Local agricultural research committees, known by the Spanish acronym CIALs (comités de investigación agricola local), are found in eight Latin American countries at the present time. The IPCA project has been monitoring the development of CIALs in Honduras for the past five years. This paper presents the results of the evaluation to date and considers these in light of current debates around farmer participatory research.The experience of IPCA shows that teaching formal research methods to poor hillside farmers is viable and has served to link farmers to formal-sector researchers in innovative technology development programmes that directly meet users’ needs. Farmers have not only benefited through access to new technologies, but they have also learnt new ways to manage their environments and have been empowered in the process. However, evaluation of the project has shown that unless research has relatively short-term payoffs, farmers are apt to lose interest. Thus, complex research – in particular research involving natural resource management – needs to be framed within the context of social programmes that can provide more immediate benefit to farmers. Technology-led development must be supported by other development initiatives that aim to build social capital as widely as possible across the community.

Humphries, S. J. Gonzales, J. Jimenez and F. Sierra. 2000. Searching for sustainable land use practices in honduras: lessons from a programme of participatory research with hillside farmers. AgREN Network Paper 104. ISBN 0-85003-486-8Participatory Research in Central America (Investigación Participativa en Centroamerica, IPCA) is a project established by the International Centre for Tropical Agriculture, and coordinated through the University of Guelph, Canada, to support farmers in community-based agricultural research in the region. Local agricultural research committees, known by the Spanish acronym CIALs (comités de investigación agricola local), are found in eight Latin American countries at the present time. The IPCA project has been monitoring the development of CIALs in Honduras for the past five years. This paper presents the results of the evaluation to date and considers these in light of current debates around farmer participatory research.The experience of IPCA shows that teaching formal research methods to poor hillside farmers is viable and has served to link farmers to formal-sector researchers in innovative technology development programmes that directly meet users’ needs. Farmers have not only benefited through access to new technologies, but they have also learnt new ways to manage their environments and have been empowered in the process. However, evaluation of the project has shown that unless research has relatively short-term payoffs, farmers are apt to lose interest. Thus, complex research – in particular research involving natural resource management – needs to be framed within the context of social programmes that can provide more immediate benefit to farmers. Technology-led development must be supported by other development initiatives that aim to build social capital as widely as possible across the community.

Cárdenas, J.C. 2003. Rethinking Local Commons Dilemmas: Lessons from Experimental Economics in the Field. A shorter version of this paper was published in Isham, J., T. Kelly and S. Ramaswamy (Eds). Social Capital, Economic Development and the Environment, Edward Elgar Publishing. 2002. Northampton. Related papers in English and SpanishA rather recent development in economics is the formal study of how human groups device ways of governing the coordination of actions that produce externalities without the need of a Leviathan with perfect information and costless ways of enforcing rules, or without the need to individualize the property rights over the resource to allow the invisible hand to coordinate choices and results. Social Capital is one of the terms proposed by leading authors like Putnam (1993) to explain those mechanisms (e.g. norms or rules) that groups use to govern themselves. Self-Governance Institutions has been an alternative notion proposed by others like Ostrom (1990). Or a synonymous, Community Governance (Bowles, 1999) which also conveys the same notion. In general, economic analysis is now recognizing that individuals may put in place selfgoverned material and non-material incentives, which induce changes in behavior from self-oriented actions to group-oriented ones, which may produce social outcomes that are superior than those resulting from the purely selfish and short-sighted behavior of individuals. Usually these institutional arrangements achieve the result of correcting the failures of externalities without the intervention of an external agent or the rearrangement of property rights. In particular, the academic debate over the best prediction about the behavior of people that use a Common-Pool Resource (CPR), and the recommended policy approaches to the CPR dilemma have undergone a very interesting evolution throughout the last 3 decades of the past century, since the emergence of at least two seminal contributions; Garret Hardin’s “Tragedy of the Commons” (1968) and his reflections on the lack of individual property rights over resources under joint access; and Mancur Olson’s Logic of Collective Action (1965) on the difficulties for large and homogenous groups to achieve the voluntary provision of a public good. The empirical evidence on groups using common-pool resources, dating back for centuries, and still today remaining inconclusive, supports in many cases and rejects in many others the different hypotheses available today. Why in some cases groups succeed collectively in managing a resource for which they have joint access, while in similar situations other groups drive the resource closer to exhaustion and socially undesirable results? Why some individuals do act in these situations according to the theoretical prediction of the homo-economicus while others do not? Further, why do the same individuals do confirm the self-regarding maximizing behavior in competitive market institutions while showing other-regarding preferences under situations that generate outcomes that affect negatively others? The fact that these questions remain unsolved should challenge the way the problem of commons dilemmas is taught and studied in the economics profession, and in how it transpires to policy making debates. However, much of the teaching of this particular problem is done without much of the new theoretical, empirical and experimental contributions that have emerged since Hardin’s tragedy prediction. Today the problem of the commons is still presented to students as a free-rider problem where the individual rationality of those extracting the resource and the lack of private or state ownership of the resource would drive the common-pool to yields that are socially sub-optimal, and eventually to exhaustion. At best, some authors seem to acknowledge the difference in rights and rules between open access and common property. Nevertheless, the introductory level teaching ignores in most cases the possibility of groups devising endogenously institutions for self-management and control, or the possibility of human preferences that involve the welfare or actions of others inducing people to act more cooperative. Further, much of the policy textbook recipes still remain within the two orthodox approaches of assigning individual property rights to the resource (market approach), or transferring all property and control to the government for (state approach) a socially efficient management to emerge. However, a long and rich path has been covered by many social and natural scientists that explore the factors that drive human behavior when facing a CPR dilemma. This paper wants to respond to this concern in two ways. One, by providing in sections 2 and 3 elements from recent advances in the analysis of CPRs that could be easily introduced into the teaching and policy design regarding the social dilemmas arising from the use of commons. In particular, it will highlight the lack of importance given to community governance solutions and the focusing on the state and the market solutions, at least in the teaching and policy design arenas. The second contribution to the concerns mentioned is a set of results (Section 4) from field economic experiments conducted in actual CPR settings in rural locations; the results provide empirical evidence of some of the new developments in the literature, questioning much of the conventional views about these dilemmas and human behavior. Further, the methodological approach of applying experimental economics in the field and in the classroom might bring to the economics profession some lessons and challenges about participatory research and teaching techniques where the participants (villagers or students) become active part of the analysis and not mere subjects that produce data, as usually seen in the conventional literature, teaching and research.

Pound, B., S. Snapp, C. McDougall and A. Braun (Eds). 2003. Managing Natural Resources for Sustainable Livelihoods: Uniting Science and Participation. Earthscan/IDRC.Management of local resources has a greater chance of a sustainable outcome when there is partnership between local people and external agencies, and agendas relevant to their aspirations and circumstances. Managing Natural Resources for Sustainable Livelihoods analyses and extends this premise to show unequivocally that the process of research for improving natural resource management must incorporate participatory and user-focused approaches, leading to development based on the needs and knowledge of local resource users.Drawing on extensive and highly relevant case studies, this book presents innovative approaches for establishing and sustaining participation and collective decision-making, good practice for research, and challenges for future developments. It covers a wide range of natural resources – including forests and soils, and water and management units such as watersheds and common property areas and provides practical lessons from analysis and meta-analysis of cases from Asia, Africa and Latin America. It offers insights on how to make research participatory while maintaining rigour and high-quality biological science, different forms of participation, and ways to scale up and extend participatory approaches and successful initiatives.This book will be invaluable for those professionally involved in natural resource management for sustainable development, and an essential resource for teachers and students of both the biophysical and social science aspects of natural resource management.

Douthwaite, B. J.D.H. Keatinge and J.R. Park. 2002. Learning selection: A model for planning, implementing and evaluating participatory technology development. Agricultural Systems 72 (2):109-131. Request reprintThis paper develops a model of the early adoption process that takes into account modifications made by users. The model is based on data from 13 attempts to introduce six postharvest technologies into the Philippines and Vietnam. It is built on an analogy between technology change and Darwinian evolution. At the core of the model is the interactive experiential learning process –– learning selection (LS) –– that is analogous to natural selection in the living world. In learning selection stakeholders engage with a new technology, individually playing the evolutionary roles of novelty generation and selection, and in their interactions creating recombinations of ideas and experiences and the promulgation of beneficial novelties. Peoples' motivations to engage in learning selection, and its outcomes, are influenced by the interaction between their lifeworlds and their environments. The model has implications for management of agricultural technology change. It suggests the need for a nurturing of new technology during its early adaptation and adoption, until the point where the beneficiary stakeholders (manufacturers and users) are sufficiently numerous and have adequate knowledge to play the evolutionary roles themselves. The LS model, while developed with data from agro-mechanical technologies, could provide a theoretical underpinning for participatory technology development.

Loevinsohn, M. (Ed.) 2002. Deepening the Basis of Rural Resource Management. Agricultural Systems 73(1) Special Issue.This Special Issue of Elsevier Science's Agricultural Systems includes eight of the papers presented at a workshop entitled “Deepening the Basis of Rural Resource Management,” held at ISNAR in The Hague in February 2000. The workshop brought together researchers working in diverse situations and with resources of different types -- natural, human, and economic -- who are developing innovative methods aimed at enabling farming communities to adjust their decision making in the face of rapid and significant change. The workshop sought to throw light on four main questions: 1. What are the features of methods that are effective in supporting farmers’ decision making where resource systems are undergoing such change? 2. How do the features of effective methods vary in different types of resource management situations? 3. What approaches are available to assess the impact of these methods? 4. What institutional factors have favored or hindered the development of effective decision support methods and their use over wider areas? The articles in this Special Issue include a critical review of the key issues emerging from the workshop, five diverse case studies and one of two theme presentations, on the state of the art in decision support in rural resource management. The other theme paper, on learning theory and its relevance for rural resource management, can be found in the workshop’s proceedings, as can the other nine case studies.

Douthwaite, B., N.C. de Haan, V. Manyong and D. Keatinge 2002. Blending “Hard” and “Soft” Science: the “Follow-the-Technology” Approach to Catalyzing and Evaluating Technology Change. Special Feature on Integrated Natural Resource Management (INRM). Conservation Ecology. Vol 5(2). Other articles in this special issueThe types of technology change catalyzed by research interventions in integrated natural resource management (INRM) are likely to require much more social negotiation and adaptation than are changes related to plant breeding, the dominant discipline within the system of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). Conceptual models for developing and delivering high-yielding varieties have proven inadequate for delivering natural resource management (NRM) technologies that are adopted in farmers' fields. Successful INRM requires tools and approaches that can blend the technical with the social, so that people from different disciplines and social backgrounds can effectively work and communicate with each other. This paper develops the "follow-the-technology" (FTT) approach to catalyzing, managing, and evaluating rural technology change as a framework that both "hard" and "soft" scientists can work with. To deal with complexity, INRM needs ways of working that are adaptive and flexible. The FTT approach uses technology as the entry point into a complex situation to determine what is important. In this way, it narrows the research arena to achievable boundaries. The methodology can also be used to catalyze technology change, both within and outside agriculture. The FTT approach can make it possible to channel the innovative potential of local people that is necessary in INRM to "scale up" from the pilot site to the landscape. The FTT approach is built on an analogy between technology change and Darwinian evolution, specifically between "learning selection" and natural selection. In learning selection, stakeholders experiment with a new technology and carry out the evolutionary roles of novelty generation, selection, and promulgation. The motivation to participate is a "plausible promise" made by the R&D team to solve a real farming problem. Case studies are presented from a spectrum of technologies to show that repeated learning selection cycles can result in an improvement in the performance of the plausible promise through adaptation and a sense of ownership by the stakeholders.

Douthwaite, B., N.C. de Haan, V. Manyong and D. Keatinge 2002. Blending “Hard” and “Soft” Science: the “Follow-the-Technology” Approach to Catalyzing and Evaluating Technology Change. Special Feature on Integrated Natural Resource Management (INRM). Conservation Ecology. Vol 5(2). Other articles in this special issueThe types of technology change catalyzed by research interventions in integrated natural resource management (INRM) are likely to require much more social negotiation and adaptation than are changes related to plant breeding, the dominant discipline within the system of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). Conceptual models for developing and delivering high-yielding varieties have proven inadequate for delivering natural resource management (NRM) technologies that are adopted in farmers' fields. Successful INRM requires tools and approaches that can blend the technical with the social, so that people from different disciplines and social backgrounds can effectively work and communicate with each other. This paper develops the "follow-the-technology" (FTT) approach to catalyzing, managing, and evaluating rural technology change as a framework that both "hard" and "soft" scientists can work with. To deal with complexity, INRM needs ways of working that are adaptive and flexible. The FTT approach uses technology as the entry point into a complex situation to determine what is important. In this way, it narrows the research arena to achievable boundaries. The methodology can also be used to catalyze technology change, both within and outside agriculture. The FTT approach can make it possible to channel the innovative potential of local people that is necessary in INRM to "scale up" from the pilot site to the landscape. The FTT approach is built on an analogy between technology change and Darwinian evolution, specifically between "learning selection" and natural selection. In learning selection, stakeholders experiment with a new technology and carry out the evolutionary roles of novelty generation, selection, and promulgation. The motivation to participate is a "plausible promise" made by the R&D team to solve a real farming problem. Case studies are presented from a spectrum of technologies to show that repeated learning selection cycles can result in an improvement in the performance of the plausible promise through adaptation and a sense of ownership by the stakeholders.

Searching for sustainable land use practices in honduras: lessons from a programme of participatory McAllister, K. 1999. Understanding Participation: Monitoring and evaluating process, outputs and outcomes. IDRC. 54 pp.The focus of this paper is on using monitoring and evaluation as a tool for adaptive learning and project improvement, for integrating social theory into participatory methods, and for understanding the links between participatory processes and outcomes. The importance of using participatory monitoring and evaluation methods for bringing in the perspectives of local people whose lives are being influenced by the research is also explored. The first part of the paper provides a background for understanding participatory research in community-based natural resource management projects. Participatory research and the various interpretations of “participation” in research - from consultative to collegiate - are described, and the complexities of applying and interpreting participatory research in community-based natural resource projects are explored. These complexities include the influence of social identity, divergent interests, local norms and institutions and power dynamics on the process and outcomes of the research. Sections 5 and 6 describe the rationale and present a framework for monitoring and evaluating participatory research within the context of donor institutions which have the dual objectives of supporting quality and relevant applied development research while at the same time strengthening institutional and individual research capacity. In this case, a balance must be struck between “academically ideal” research, available resources, researcher capacity and skills, and community needs. This influences evaluation criteria and expectations of participatory research projects. Section 7 describes key considerations for developing an appropriate and learning-based approach to monitoring and evaluating participatory research projects. This draws from a number of different evaluation strategies and recognises that different groups (researchers, donor agency, community members) have different monitoring and evaluation needs, as well as different perceptions of positive and negative research outcomes. Section 8 presents options for integrating monitoring and evaluation into the different stages of the project cycle (pre-project, in-project and interim or post-project). The final sections of the paper present the issues and questions to consider in monitoring and evaluating the process and outcomes of participatory research for natural resource management. This is based on characteristics which indicate validity and quality of the participatory research process and methods, as well as the potential of the methods used to contribute to reaching the general goals of community-based natural resource management (sustainability, equity, local empowerment, poverty alleviation and so on). The ideas are geared for both the programme level and the project level, to be used by researchers during the project to help inform the research project, as well as to provide guidance for interim or post project assessments. July, 1999

Hagmann, J. R., E. Chuma, K. Murwira, M. Connolly, and P. Ficarelli. 2002. Success factors in integrated natural resource management R&D: lessons from practice. Conservation Ecology 5(2): 29.This paper analyzes integrated natural resource management (INRM) lessons and success factors based on a practical case study over more than 10 years in Zimbabwe. The work was geared toward enhancing the adaptive management capacity of the stakeholders in their resource-use systems. One main result was the development and institutionalization of an approach for participatory and integrated NRM research and extension. The INRM approach described is grounded in a learning paradigm and a combination of theories: the constructivist perspective to development, systemic intervention, and learning process approaches. Participatory action research and experiential learning, in which researchers engage themselves as actors rather than neutral analysts in an R&D process to explore the livelihood system and develop appropriate solutions together with the resource users, has shown high potential. However, this should be guided by a clear strategy, impact orientation, and high-quality process facilitation at different levels. The case study revealed the importance of a “reflective practitioner” approach by all actors. More effective response to the challenges of increasing complexity in NRM requires a shift in thinking from the linearity of research–extension–farmer to alternative, multiple-actor institutional arrangements and innovation systems. To overcome the weak attribution of research outcomes to actual impact, it also suggests an alternative to conventional impact assessment in INRM R&D interventions.

Heong, K.L. and Escalada, M.M. 1999. Quantifying rice farmers' pest management decisions - Beliefs and subjective norms in stem borer control. Crop Protection, 18:315-322. Request reprintThe paper introduces the pest belief model and Fishbein and Ajzen's theory of reasoned action to analyze farmers' decisions in stem borer management. Farmers spent an average of $39/ha (median $18) on insecticides believing that if they had not controlled an average loss of 1004 kg/ha or $402 (median 592, $237) would occur. Farmers' estimates of the worst attack averaged 19 white heads/m2 (median10) with the associated average loss of 1038 kg/ha or $415 (median 592, $270), implying that farmers' decisions were guided by the worst attacks. Perceived benefits from insecticides were directly related with farmers' insecticide use and perceived severity. Perceived susceptibility was also high, with 59% of farmers believing that a loss of 450 kg/ha would be "extremely or very likely". Farmers believed insecticides could destroy natural enemies but placed only moderate importance to conserving them. Health was believed to be very important but farmers had mixed beliefs that spraying could bring about poor health. This study also provides evidence suggesting high peer pressure on farmers' spray decisions directly influencing perceived benefits from sprays, insecticide spending and spray frequency.

McCown, R.L., Z. Hochman and P. S. Carberry. 2002. Probing the enigma of the decision support system for farmers: Learning from experience and from theory. Agricultural Systems. 74:1-10.Although not conspicuous in its literature, agricultural modelling and its applications have inherited much from the field of operational (operations) research. In the late 1940s, techniques for mathematically simulating processes came into agricultural science directly from industry. The decision support system (DSS) concept followed almost 40 years later. It seems that the large differences between farm production and its management and industrial production and its management account for the failure of agricultural systems scientists to be more attentive students of the experiences in this parent field. In hindsight, the penalty of this is greatest in the matter of the problematic socio-technical relationship between scientific models built to guide practice and actual practice. As a socio-technical innovation, the agricultural DSS has much more in common with DSSs in business and industry than might be expected judging by the domain knowledge content. One implication is that the crisis in the parent field concerning the `problem of implementation' could have served as a cautionary tale for agriculture. Although this opportunity was missed, it is not too late to tap problem-structuring and problem-solving insights from operations research/management science to aid our thinking about our own `problem of implementation'. This paper attempts this in constructing a framework for thinking about subsequent papers in this Special Issue.

Vernooy, R. and C. McDougall. 2003. Principles for Good Practice in Participatory Research: Reflecting on Lessons from the Field. IN: B. Pound, S. Snapp, C. McDougall and A. Braun (Eds.O Managing natural resources for sustainable livelihoods: Uniting Science and Participation. Earthscan/IDRC.In previous chapters our colleagues have described their experiences in exploring new conceptual and methodological grounds in participatory research (PR) in natural resource management (NRM), often as a complement to existing (‘traditional’) research from both the natural and social sciences. These explorations are producing new and exciting insights into promising alternatives for the management of natural resource systems, including crops, soils, water, trees and animals. These experiences are also resulting in the innovative adaptation of participatory research approaches. Venturing into this still relatively new research terrain of working for rural transformations, however, raises difficult questions about the research process. Researchers are faced with the challenge of critically assessing the kind(s) of participation and processes appropriate to the different stages of the research cycle. This expansion of the research domain and the new knowledge generated require that researchers must be able to identify what is ‘good practice’ in PR in NRM. While this challenge is starting to be met in some individual research projects, the emergent learning has been somewhat insular. Perhaps because the experience of doing participatory research in one context is not easily compared to another, shared learning between research institutions about ‘what is good practice in PR in NRM’ has been slow. We consider that comparisons and the integration of ideas are necessary elements of identifying good practice. The PRGA (Participatory Research and Gender Analysis) Program and the Natural Resources Institute (NRI) NRM workshop in Chatham, England, created an ideal opportunity to begin such a process of shared learning. In this chapter we draw on the case studies from the Chatham workshop and other literature to generate a number of principles of good practice in PR in NRM and, potentially, beyond this field.1 The intention is that these principles may be useful in the planning and assessment of the rigour of participatory research methodologies. As such, we aim to contribute to the growing interest in the development of appropriate methodologies for monitoring and evaluating participatory research. We argue that this on-going assessment of rigour, and the subsequent refinement of methodologies are integral parts of participatory research.

Vincent, L. 2003. Participatory Research, Natural Resource Management and Rural Transformation: More Lessons from the Field. IN: B. Pound, S. Snapp, C. McDougall and A. Braun (Eds.O Managing natural resources for sustainable livelihoods: Uniting Science and Participation. Earthscan/IDRC.The word ‘lesson’ can refer to a teaching exercise that is structured to provide facts, skills and information, or to the meaning and awareness that is extracted from an experience. By reflecting on what we are doing and why, we can hope to limit our mistakes and create new ways of seeing, negotiating and resolving problems and opportunities. Lessons are important to the future of participatory research, as the recent critique of participatory development as a ‘tyranny’ shows (Cooke and Kothari, 2001). They call for a critical review of participatory development approaches and research methods – to study the controls on the processes behind ‘participation’ paradigms, and to demonstrate why it should be preserved as an approach. However, even ten years ago, Fals-Borda and Rahman (1991) were also warning of the take-up of participatory methods by agencies as a requirement and new form of control and social engineering, that would bring criticism of the role of participatory research methods. They emphasized the need for reflection to counter such outcomes, going on to stress instead how the importance of participatory research might increase in the future. This is through its demonstration of the complexities and stresses of local joint action in changing social and political conditions, at the same time as showing the changes achievable by people in such joint action – to continue to understand the commitment, understanding and support their ever-changing context might require. Although participatory research may also provide better ‘knowledge’ for more enlightened action by planners and policy-makers, or create more local civic action, the changes it achieves are part of a more profound self-awareness about the taking of action for change. This chapter aims to show that this critical review and personal reflection is taking place for participatory research, in both methodological and personal practice, to make it better placed to meet the challenges and critiques of research for transformation in natural resources management (NRM) (see also Hobart, 1994). It illustrates why and how people at the Chatham workshop have continued learning with participatory processes in research supporting development, despite the many stresses in their conduct. Chapter 6 has already reviewed certain key ‘good practices’ from the case studies, emphasizing ‘the field’ as a critical alternative to controlled, narrowly focused pilot trials and models of conventional scientific agricultural research. It showed how to build bridges between different research methodologies, both for better work with stakeholders and new learning possibilities for users of natural resources and for those researching NRM. This chapter brings together lessons from the wider range of practitioners at the Chatham workshop, and the wider field of development-related and action-oriented research they represented. These lessons reflect on why participatory research was being done, why collegiate research was important and difficult, how new frameworks help those involved to rethink the relations between action and knowledge, and what ‘ownership’ means in research terms, going well beyond a ‘restatement of methodologies’ (Biggs and Smith, 1998). It thus looks beyond the ‘learning’ discussion of Chapter 6, to look at the complex questions of action if research is to have real transforming power. Much of the recent effort and critique of participatory research has been about recognition and sharing of different knowledge to enable action to be planned, and giving local people a clearer voice However, there is a wider effort and critique within participatory research – to bring understanding and confrontation of social relations and dynamics into the design of action, beyond just those experienced in knowledge and its synthesis. This chapter tries to look at the impact of these new lessons on action, learning and knowledge as presented at the Chatham workshop.

Escalada, M.M. and K.L. Heong. Participatory Frameworks for Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research in Rice Pest Management. Synopsis of forthcoming book.

Meinzen-Dick, R., A. Knox, F. Place, and B. Swallow (Eds.) 2002. Innovation in Natural Resource Management The Role of Property Rights and Collective Action in Developing Countries. John Hopkins. University Press.International agricultural research is expanding beyond the development of annual crop technologies for individual farms to the development of longer-term natural resource management techniques for entire landscapes. But technologies or practices with a long lag time between investment and returns are unlikely to be adopted by farmers unless they have secure rights to the underlying resources (property rights). Similarly, technologies that span multiple farms are unlikely to be adopted unless neighbors and groups work together (collective action). But little is known about the way property rights and collective action in developing countries mediate the adoption of technologies by farmers and groups. To address this information gap, this volume brings together international experts in economics, sociology, and natural resource management to examine the links among property rights, collective action, and technological change for a variety of technologies across a range of community contexts in the developing world. Authors focus on the reciprocal relationships between community institutions and technologies, the role of property rights in conflicts between crop and livestock production systems, and the way that collective action differs across landscapes. A conceptual framework, methodological approaches, and "best bet" practices are presented to help guide future research.Researchers, policy analysts, and students interested in the links between environmental sustainability, economic growth, equity and poverty alleviation, and technology adoption will benefit from this volume.

Probst, K., J. Hagmann, T. Becker and M. Fernandez. 2000. Developing a framework for participatory research approaches in risk prone diverse environments. Proceedings. Deutscher Tropentag 2000. University of Hohenheim.The paper provides a typology of approaches to innovation development: Four prototypical approaches were identified and described along key characteristics (objectives, types of participation, actors involved, roles, procedures, research methods). Most participatory research activities in the CGIAR are at the level of applied and adaptive research, and participatory research is frequently seen as a better way of technology transfer. In view of the complex challenges in natural resource management (NRM), which are a function of technical skills and knowhow as well as social negotiation, organization and rules, it is recommended that the CGIAR should broaden and reconsider its NRM research strategies in risk prone and diverse environments by enhancing the use of participatory learning and action research.