19?.

v 5...?

L
a

l
i

m

 

023.3
~Dv)...£ 11...!
I.

 

 

 

UNIRVE

"‘3” 111111111111111111111111111 111111”

N 1 31293 014172

6:11

                                   

 

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

FARMERS' PARTICIPATION IN AND THEIR PERCEPTIONS
OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF A FARMER-CONTROLLED IRRIGATION
SYSTEM IN THE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC

presented by

Yonis Reyes

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph.D. degree in Agricultural and Extension
Education

%/A

Major pm;
Dr. Kirk L. Heinze

 

 

Date June 7, 1995

MS U i: an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0- 12771

 

Lannnav
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

PLACE ll RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.

1'0 AVOID FINES Mum on or baton data 60..

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FARMERS’ PARTICIPATION IN AND THEIR PERCEPTIONS OF THE
EFFECTIVENESS OF A FARMER-CONTROLLED IRRIGATION

SYSTEM IN THE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC

By

Yonis Reyes

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Agricultural and Extension Education

1995

ABSTRACT

FARMERS’ PARTICIPATION IN AND THEIR PERCEPTIONS OF THE
EFFECTIVENESS OF A FARMER-CONTROLLED IRRIGATION
SYSTEM IN THE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC
By

Yonis Reyes

This study was designed to analyze and describe the relationship between
farmers’ participation in and their perceptions of the effectiveness of the farmer-
controlled irrigation system, Canal Ulises Francisco Espaillat (CUFE), in
Santiago, Dominican Republic. Specifically, three research questions were
addressed: is there a relationship between farmers’ participation in and their
perceptions of the effectiveness of the irrigation system? Are there demographic
characteristics that are related to farmers' participation in the irrigation system?
Is there a relationship between farmers' participation in and their perceptions of
the effectiveness of the irrigation system, after statistically controlling for selected
demographic characteristics of the farmers?

Using stratified random sampling, the researcher selected 201 farmers
from a list of 2,015 farmers who were receiving assistance from the CUFE
irrigation project. These farmers were chosen from the five irrigation sectors into

which the irrigation project is divided.

Yonis Reyes

The research methodology included a combination of survey and
analytical research. A questionnaire was used for data collection. In terms of
reliability, the instrument had an alpha higher than .70. A panel of experts from
the Department of Agricultural and Extension Edumtion at Michigan State
University and the Instituto Superior de Agricultura in the Dominican Republic
reviewed the instrument to ensure its validity. Data were gathered through
personal interviews with the farmers, with help from members of the National
Institute of Hydraulic Resources and the farmer-controlled CUFE irrigation
system in Santiago, Dominican Republic. Parametric and nonparametric
statistics were used to analyze the data.

Major findings of the study are as follows: There was a strong relationship
between farmers’ participation in and their perceptions of the effectiveness of the
irrigation system. Demographic characteristics of the farmers were moderately
related to participation. Finally, the strong relationship between farmers’
participation in and their perceptions of the effectiveness of the system remained,
even after controlling for selected demographic Characteristics of the farmers.

All of these findings were Significant at the .05 level.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I owe a deep debt of gratitude to Dr. Kirk Heinze, who served as
dissertation chairperson. Special appreciation is also extended to Drs. Carroll
Wamhoff, Frank Brewer, and Scott Witter, the other members of my committee,
fortheir constructive suggestions, criticism, and advice during the preparation of
this study.

Appreciation is proffered to those in the Canal Ulises Francisco Espaillat
(CUFE) irrigation project, Santiago, Dominican Republic, who assisted with the
survey and gave many hours of assistance with the field work. Thanks are also
extended to the Graduate School, the Latin America and Caribbean Study
Center, the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, and the Dean’s Office
of the International Study Center for financial support. I also would like to thank
Dr. Domingo Carrasco, from the Instituto Superior de Agricultura, who provided
me with lodging during the data collection for this study.

I would like to express my sincere appreciation to Dr. James Jay, who
supported me through my doctoral program and the conclusion of this
dissertation with the provision of an assistantship and a scholarship.

Finally, I wish to thank my friends Luis Maldonado from Paraguay and
Peter Achuonjei from Cameroon, who offered encouragement, assistance, and

support during the course of the study.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
LIST OF TABLES ............................................ viii
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................... xi
Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY ..................... 1
Introduction ....................................... 1
Background of the On-Farm Canal Ulises Francisco
Espaillat (CUFE) Irrigation Project .................... 3
Problem Statement ................................. 6
Purpose of the Study ................................ 7
Importance of the Study ............................. 7
Research Questions ................................ 8
Hypotheses ....................................... 9
Limitations of the Study .............................. 9
Definition of Terms ................................ 10
Overview ........................................ 13
ll. REVIEW OF LITERATURE AND RELATED RESEARCH . . . 17

Introduction ...................................... 17
The Concept of Participation ......................... 18
The Importance of Farmers’ Participation in Development
Projects ....................................... 22
Constraints on Farmers’ Participation ................ 28
Farmers’ Participation in Irrigation Management Systems . . 29
Effectiveness of Irrigation Systems .................. 30
Water Allocation and Distribution .................... 32
Maintenance and Operation ........................ 35
Conflict Management ............................. 38
Planning ....................................... 39
Design ........................................ 41

IV.

Implementation .................................. 42

Irrigation Management Activities .................... 44
Issues in Irrigation Management .................... 46
Financial Aspects of Irrigation Management ........... 49
Chapter Summary ................................. 51
METHODS AND PROCEDURES ..................... 54
Introduction ...................................... 54
Design of the Study ................................ 55
Research Questions ............................... 56
Hypotheses ...................................... 56
Dependent and Independent Variables ................. 57
The Population ................................... 58
The Study Sample ................................. 59
Development of the Instrument ....................... 63
Validity ........................................ 63
Reliability ...................................... 64
Data-Collection Procedures ......................... 66
Data-Analysis Procedures ........................... 68
FINDINGS ....................................... 70
Introduction ...................................... 70
General Description of the Respondents ............... 71
Age ........................................... 71
Educational Level ................................ 72
Time Farming the Land ........................... 72
Farm Ownership ................................. 73
Farm Labor ..................................... 74
Farm Size ...................................... 74
Farm Location in Relation to the Irrigation Ditch ........ 74
Farm Production ................................. 76
Farm Sector Location ............................. 77
On-Farm Income ................................ 77
Descriptive Findings AbOut Farmers’ Participation ........ 78
Relationship Between Farmers’ Participation and
Perceived Effectiveness of the System ............... 84
Relationship of Demographic Characteristics to
Farmers’ Participation in Irrigation ................... 88

Relationship Between Farmers’ Participation and
Perceived Effectiveness of the System After
Statistically Controlling for Demographic
Characteristics .................................. 99

vi

V. DISCUSSION. CONCLUSIONS, AND

RECOMMENDATIONS ............................ 105

Summary and Discussion of the Findings .............. 106

Conclusions and Recommendations .................. 119

Recommendations for Future Research ............... 122
APPENDICES

A. FARMERS’ QUESTIONNAIRE ...................... 124

B. EXTENSION AGENTS’ AND MANAGERS'
QUESTIONNAIRE ................................ 130

C. LETTER OF APPROVAL FROM THE UNIVERSITY
COMMITTEE ON RESEARCH INVOLVING HUMAN
SUBJECTS ..................................... 132

REFERENCES ............................................. 133

vii

Table

10.
11.
12.
13.
14.

15.

LIST OF TABLES

Page
Area and Number of Users for Each Sector .................. 59
Stratified Sample of the CUFE Water Users Association,
by Sector ............................................. 60
Stratified Sample of Irrigation Units, by Sector ................ 62
Cronbach’s Alphas for the Participation and Perceived
Effectiveness Items ..................................... 66
Distribution of Respondents by Age Category ................. 70
Distribution of Respondents by Educational Level .............. 72
Distribution of Respondents by Years of Farming .............. 73
Distribution of Respondents by Farm Ownership .............. 73
Distribution of Respondents by Type of Farm Labor ............ 74
Distribution of Respondents by Farm Size .................... 75
Distribution of Farms in Relation to the Irrigation Ditch .......... 75
Distribution of Respondents by Crops They Were Cultivating ..... 76
Distribution of Respondents by Farm Sector .................. 77
Distribution of Farmers by Years On-Farm Income ............. 78
Farmers’ Participation in Discussing Construction of
New Canals ........................................... 79

viii

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

Farmers’ Participation in Water Distribution ................... 79

Farmers’ Participation in Discussing Problems With

Extension Agents ....................................... 80
Farmers’ Participation in the Coordination of Cultivation

Practices ............................................. 80
Farmers’ Participation in the Maintenance of Canals ........... 81

Farmers’ Participation in Decision Making About Courses
to Be Offered by the CUFE Irrigation Project .................. 82

Farmers’ Participation in Requesting Irrigation Equipment ....... 82

Farmers’ Participation in the Management and Operation of
the CUFE Irrigation System ............................... 83

Correlation Coefficients Between Farmers’ Participation and
Items Pertaining to Farmers’ Participation .................... 84

Correlation Coefficients Between Farmers’ Participation and
Items Pertaining to Perceived Effectiveness of the System ....... 86

Correlation Coefficients Between Perceived Effectiveness of
the System and Items Pertaining to Farmers” Participation ....... 87

Relationship Between Farmers’ Participation and Perceived
Effectiveness of the System ............................... 88

Correlation Coefficients Between Demographic Variables and
Farmers’ Participation ................................... 89

Results of the ANOVA Between Educational Level and
Participation ........................................... 91

Results of the ANOVA Between Time Farming and Participation . . 92

Results of the ANOVA Between Farm Ownership and
Participation ........................................... 92

Results of the ANOVA Between Farm Labor and Participation . . . . 93

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

Results of the Tukey Post-Hoc Test for Farm Labor and

Participation ..........................................

Results of the ANOVA Between Farm Location and Participation . .

Results of the ANOVA Between Farm Production and

Participation ..........................................

Results of the Tukey Post-Hoc Test for Farm Production and

Participation ..........................................

Results of the ANOVA Between Farm-Sector Location and

Participation ..........................................

Results of the Tukey Post-Hoc Test for Farm-Sector Location

and Participation ......................................

Results of the ANOVA Between On-Farm Income and

Participation ..........................................

Results of the Tukey Post- Hoc Test for On- Farm Income and

Participation ..........................................

Relationship Between Farmers’ Participation and Demographic

Variables ............................................

Relationship Between Farmers’ Perceptions of the Effectiveness

of the Irrigation System and Demographic Variables ...........

Relationship Between Farmers’ Participation and Perceived
Effectiveness of the System, After Controlling for the

Demographic Variables .................................

.94

94

.95

.96

.96

.97

.97

.98

102

103

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1. Four Kinds of Participation ............................... 23

xi

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY

IntLQdumiQn

The past 20 years have witnessed rapid growth in irrigated land area
throughout the world, especially in tropical developing countries (Albernethy,
1984). For instance, the Dominican Republic has made a large investment in
infrastructure to develop and use its water resources for agricultural
development. It has invested more than $3 billion US. in developing irrigation
systems. This effort has resulted in the irrigation of 76% (236,000 hectares) of
the best land in the country (Reynoso, 1992). A major goal of the Dominican
government’s irrigation program is to increase agricultural productivity in the
country. 1

Despite these efforts to develop irrigation systems, many problems related
to overall system effectiveness remain. For example, poor planning, design,
implementation, and maintenance have reduced the capacity of the irrigation
systems to reach the desired level of effectiveness. Some experts think that
many Of these problems have arisen because of a lack of farmer participation in
the overall management ofthe systems. Effectiveness of the irrigation systems

may also be adversely affected by a lack Of proper management by the

1

2
government and, to a greater extent, lack of participant involvement in the
operation and maintenance of the systems (Shivakoti, 1991 ). What can be done
to alleviate these problems is not fully understood.

To address the problems mentioned above, the Dominican government,
through the National Institute of Hydraulic Resources (INDRHI), created an On-
Farm Water Management Project (Projecto Manejo de Agua a Nivel de Fincas,
PROMAF) in 1985. A major organizational strategy of the Water Management
Project is the integration offarrners into the irrigation project through Water Users
Associations. The purpose of the Water Management Project is to help the
people who are involved in agricultural production better understand irrigation
management and resource conservation as a means of contributing to increased
agricultural production in the Dominican Republic (Reynoso, 1992).

Through PROMAF, Water Users Associations were formed in two regions
of the Dominican Republic, the YSURA Project in Azua (southern region) and the
Canal Ulises Francisco Espaillat Project (CUFE) in Santiago (northern region).
These projects fall under Public Law 5852 on Publics Dominium of Water
Terrestres (water flowing over the ground) and Distribution. This law legalized
the formation of Water Users Associations (Juntas de Regantes). Consequently,
INDRHI transferred the administration, operation, and management of the
irrigation systems to farmers. This policy represents a change in the
bureaucratic management of irrigation as it moves from a centralized to a

devolutional1 form of management. INDRHI anticipates that the participation of

3
farmers in actual operation and maintenance activities will improve the
management of the system and irrigation service to farmers and, hence, will
encourage them to pay their irrigation fees.

The theory of level and point of control in rural development programs has
been used to categorize and define irrigation systems as “delivery systems” and
"acquisition systems” (Axinn, 1987). According to this theory, the ways in which
farmers judge and perceive the outcomes of irrigation system management will
differ between systems controlled by users (acquisition systems) and nonusers
(delivery systems). To ensure genuine participation, programs should be
designed in such a way that the peOple who will use those programs have roles
in planning, design, and implementation. But the viewpoints of these
users/farmers typically have been ignored in the planning and execution of
irrigation activities. Chambers (1989) said this situation reflects the ”center-
outward, core-periphery“ perspective, which continues to dominate much
development thinking. Thus, this investigation of farmers’ participation in and
their perceptions of the effectiveness of a farmer-controlled irrigation system will
provide useful information to farmers, project planners, and the government of
the Dominican Republic.

WW 'IIIECIIEEJI' l' E . l

The CUFE Water Users Association (Junta de Regante) was formed on

October 9, 1987, and incorporated under Public Law 520 in June 1989. It is in

4

the area of influence of the Alto Yaque del Norte Irrigation District and is financed
by the US. Agency for International Development (USAID). The CUFE Water
Users Association comprises five farmer associations located in five sectors, into
which the project is divided. These sectors are Santiago, Bombeo, Villa
Gonzalez, Navarrete, and Ponton.

The CUFE Water Users Association has 2,015 farmers in an area of
6,042.6 hectares under irrigation. This farmer population comprises private and
land reform farmers. Land reform farmers are those who have received a parcel
of land from the Dominican government. There are 1,056 private farmers and
959 land reform2 farmers in the project. The private farmers in the CUFE
account for an area of 4,642.4 hectares and land reform farmers an area of
1,400.2 hectares.

The main crops cultivated in the area covered by the CU FE are plantains,
tobacco, bananas, beans, yucca, rice, pasture, and vegetables. The area
covered by the CU FE Water Users Association is located in the Cibao Valley in
the northeastern region, which has been described as the richest agricultural
region of the country.

The objectives of the CUFE Water Users Association are:

1. To administer, operate, and maintain the irrigation system and
conserve its natural resources and environment in the area covered by the

system.

5

2. To develop profit-making production systems, including sustainable
agricultural production, industrialization, and marketing of farmers’ agricultural
products, in order to increase the quality of life of the farmers in the project.

The CUFE Water Users Association is directed by a General Assembly,
which elects an irrigation board composed of a president, vice-president,
secretary, treasurer, and three local representatives. The CUFE Water Users
Association is an organization comprising two levels: a nucleus of irrigators and
an association of irrigators. The nucleus of irrigators is composed of farmers
who use a particular unit of irrigation; that is, they irrigate their land from the
same ditch. These farmers meet regularly to study and analyze the problems in
their area. In addition, they are responsible for accomplishing organizational
norms, cleaning the ditch and the principal canal, using the irrigation system
correctly, cooperating on the collection of fees, and participating in training
activities.

The association of irrigators is the second level of the organization. It
represents all Of the users in the area of the irrigation project and is composed
of representatives ofthe nucleus ofirrigators. This association handles problems
related to the management of the irrigation system and provides technical
assistance with problems brought by the nucleus of irrigators to the Water Users
Association to be analyzed.

Other activities that the CUFE is carrying out in the project are:

1. Allocating and distributing water.

2. Maintaining canals.

6

3. Meeting with extension agents.

4. Resolving conflicts.

5. Coordinating cultivation practices.

6. Making decisions on courses to offer.

7. Evaluating the management and operation of the irrigation system.
Emblemfiialemenl

Numerous researchers have found that farmers’/users’ participation in the
development and management of their irrigation systems is critical to the success
of those systems (Chambers, 1989; Coward, 1976; Food & Agricultural
Organization [FAO], 1985; Hunt, 1990; Uphoff, 1986). Most of these research
efforts were carried out in Asia, where conditions are markedly different from
those in Latin America. For instance, in the Dominican Republic, most small
farmers grow basic food crops such as beans, rice, bananas, and plantains.
They also produce vegetables and fruits for local use and export. These efforts
are hampered because farmers have little knowledge of on-farm water
management. In addition, as in most Latin American countries, the Dominican
Republic’s irrigation systems have been and still are controlled by the
government.

Todaythese conditions are changing, and governments are relinquishing
the management and control of irrigation systems to farmers. The Dominican
Republic does not have a long history of farmers’ involvement in water

management. Consequently, there is a relative lack of experience with farmer-

7
managed irrigation systems on the part of both the water users and the
institutions involved in water resource development. Thus, research on farmer-
controlled irrigation systems in the Dominican Republic is necessary to determine
the extent to which farmers’ participation influences their perceptions of the
effectiveness of irrigation systems.

The present research was undertaken to investigate the relationship
between farmers’ participation in and their perceptions of the effectiveness of a
farmer-controlled irrigation system in the Dominican Republic. The findings from

this study will fill a need for information on farmer-managed irrigation systems.

Eumcsectthesmdy

The researcher’s purpose in this study was to'describe and analyze the
relationship between farmers’ participation in and their perceptions of the
effectiveness of the farmer-controlled irrigation system, Canal Ulises Francisco
Espaillat (CUFE), in Santiago, Dominican Republic. Specifically, the research
was focused on ascertaining farmers’ participation in their irrigation system and
their perceptions of effectiveness in regard to the management and use of that

system.

lmncrtancegitbesmdx

The information generated through this study can provide guidelines for
development practitioners and advisors in the area of irrigation management in

designing, implementing, planning, and evaluating programs. In making the

8
management of irrigation systems self-sustaining, development practitioners
need to be aware of the forces that help individual development and those that
hinder it. This study can provide insight into how developers might overcome
these problems.

The findings from this study will be useful to farmers, planners, and
administrators of national government irrigation systems and international aid
agencies. Over the long term, these findings can be used to promote
decentralized, small-scale, natural resource management, influence the
allocation of development resources to the grass-roots level, and foster self-
reliance and sustainability within communities. The findings, which apply
specifically to the Dominican Republic, could also provide insight into irrigation
management in Latin American countries and other developing countries.

This study will add a new theoretical dimension regarding farmers’
participation in irrigation management programs in the Dominican Republic.
Also, the information generated through this study will be helpful in conducting

survey research in other international contexts.

Reseamhfluestigns
The following questions were posed to guide the collection of data in this
study.
1. Is there a relationship between farmers’ participation in and their

perceptions of the effectiveness of the CUF E irrigation system?

9
2. Are there demographic characteristics that are related to farmers’
participation in the CUFE irrigation system?
3. IS there a relationship between farmers’ participation in and their
perceptions of the effectiveness of the CU FE irrigation system, after statistically

controlling for selected demographic Characteristics of the farmers?

Hynotheses
The following hypotheses, stated in the null form, were formulated to test

the data collected in this study.

Nulljypmnesfil: There is no relationship between farmers’ participation
in the management of the CUFE irrigation system and their perceptions
of the effectiveness of the system.

Nulflxpgihesiiz: There is no relationship between selected demo-
graphic Characteristics of the farmers and their participation in the
management of the CUFE irrigation system.

NuILIiQOesifl: There is no relationship between farmers’ participation
in the management of the CUFE irrigation system and their perceptions

of the effectiveness of the system, after statistically controlling for selected
demographic characteristics of the farmers.

l' 'l I' [II S! I

The primary limitation of the study is that it covered the perceptions of only
the CUFEfarmer-controlled irrigation project participants in the zone of influence
of the Alto Yaque del Norte Irrigation District. Also, the study focused on only
one aspect of farmers’ participation in irrigation: irrigation management.
Irrigation management can be physical, ecological, political, economic, social,

cultural, and/or organizational. This broad range of concerns could not be

10

treated in depth in this dissertation because it was beyond the scope of the
study. The main focus of this research was the human aspect of irrigation
management. Irrigation can be considered a social activity because of the
physical and social interdependence of people who are obligated to share limited
natural resources. The success of water management projects is therefore
based on the connections made with farmers.

Another limitation of the study was the cross-sectional time frame used in
the research. Cross-sectional studies permit analysis of events at one point in
time. Thus, it would be difficult to assess the evolution of the success of farmers’
participation in and their perceptions of the effectiveness of the CUFE irrigation
system.

A questionnaire was used in interviewing the farmers. Thus, the data
collection was limited to responses to items included in the questionnaire.

Finally, the study included only a sample of farmers who belonged to the
CUFE in the zone of influence of the Alto Yaque del Norte Irrigation District and
who were receiving assistance from the irrigation project in question. It did not

include all of the farmers involved in irrigation within the project.

D ii 'I' [I
The following terms are defined in the context in which they are used in

this study.

11
W2 An irrigation system that an

agency/the government operates and maintains or has invested a large amount
of money in the construction or rehabilitation of physical structures.

WWW: Personal characteristics of the respondents,
including age, educational level, on-farm income, ownership, farm size, land
production, farm labor, farm location, farm sector location, and time spent
farming. These Characteristics were measured separately and did not form a
composite variable.

Eflefljyeness: A measure of farmers’/users’ perceptions of the efficacy
of their irrigation system. Parameters of effectiveness included timing, value and
quantity of water received for use, management of water distribution, and control
and maintenance of canals. Also, data about effectiveness of the system were
collected from records of INDRHI and the farmer association that was managing

the CUFE irrigation project.

Earmeumanagedmtem: An irrigation system operated and maintained
by community or local people as opposed to one that is managed by outsiders
who are not accountable to the community—for instance, the government.

Wm: Farmers’ participation in such activities as
planning, design, implementation, water allocation, operation, maintenance, and

funding of an irrigation system.

12

mm: A farmer- or agency-managed system consisting Of
water that is delivered to crops, structures that control water to and from fields,
and organizations that manage the structures and the water (Uphoff, 1986).

irrigationpnit: A group of 10 to 25 farmers who take water from the same
irrigation ditch.

Participation. Inclusion of the intended beneficiaries of a project in the
solving oftheir own problems (McPherson 8. MCGarry, 1987). Participation refers
to the degree to which respondents actually have taken part in the On-Farm
Water Management Project. It was measured by asking respondents how
frequently they had participated in irrigation activities developed by the Water
Users Association. Farmer-participation activities investigated in this study
included allocating and distributing water, meeting with extension agents,
coordinating cultivation practices, maintaining canals, making decisions on
courses to offer, resolving conflicts, and evaluating the management and
operation of the irrigation system in their sector.

Perception: What the individual respondents saw and believed about the
effectiveness of the CUFE irrigation project.

WM: An organization composed of several farmer
associations. This nonprofit organization is composed of farmers who are
responsible for the Operation, administration, and maintenance of the irrigation

system. The association designs and manages institutions and physical

13

structures to distribute water in an economical, efficient, and secure way—and

with the highest degree of control possible.

012mm

Chapter I contained an introduction to the study and background on the
CUFE irrigation project. This was followed by a statement of the problem under
investigation and the purpose and importance of the study. The research
questions and hypotheses were set forth. Limitations of the study and definitions
of key terms also were presented.

Chapter II is a review of literature relevant to the current study. Topics
that are discussed include participation as a broad concept, the importance of
farmers’ participation in development projects, and constraints on farmers’
participation. Literature on farmers’ participation in irrigation management
systems in general, as well as participation in various aspects of such systems,
is also reviewed.

The methods and procedures used in conducting the study are explained
in Chapter III. The design of the study is discussed, followed by the research
questions and hypotheses. The dependent and independent variables are set
forth next, followed by a discussion of the population and the sample drawn for
the study. Development of the instrument and issues of reliability and validity are
examined, and the data-collection and data-analysis methods used in the study

are explained.

14
The results of the data analyses are presented in Chapter IV. Chapter V
contains a summary and discussion of the findings, conclusions and
recommendations for the CUFE irrigation project, and recommendations for

further research.

15
ENDNOTES

1The concept of devolution suggests that authority is given to persons or
institutions at the local level (see Uphoff, 1986, p. 222).

2The relative benefits of communal and individual land tenure have been
considered in the Dominican Republic since shortly afterthe arrival of Columbus.
Before the Agrarian Reform Law of 1962, the extent of land redistribution in the
Dominican Republic consisted of the colonization projects initiated under the
Trujillo dictatorship. Not properly a land reform program, the colonies were an
attempt to settle sparsely populated areas with landless campesinos and foreign
immigrants (Meyer, 1989). The first Agrarian Reform Law was passed on
June 14, 1962. This law established the Instituto Agrario Dominicano (IAD) to
administer the reform program, giving it the responsibility to redistribute state and
privately owned lands to the rural poor.

After Trujillo’s death, the state confiscated his lands, and the State Sugar
Council (CEA) was established to manage his former estates. The colonization
projects of earlier years were transferred to the IAD, as was the power to collect
the ”cuota parlé’ lands in payment for, irrigation services. The cuota pane law
specifies that those landowners who had benefited from state irrigation projects
were to give up a certain percentage of their land (usually 25% to 30%) to the
state.

The bulk of the land for distribution initially consisted of public land
formerly owned by Trujillo and his family, as well as some donations by the more
recently formed State Sugar Corporation. Also, the IAD purchased privately
owned lands and distributed them with the approval Of the president of the
Republic. Parcels average approximately 50 tareas (15.9 {areas equal 1
hectare) and are assigned to the beneficiaries with provisional title only (Delgado,
1983, p. 12). The state retains the right to withdraw the land in the case of
inadequate performance on the part of the beneficiary, or in the case of the
beneficiary’s abandonment of his family or of the parcel of land. Parcels may not
be sold or rented without the consent of the IAD, although family members may
inherit the usufructuary rights.

Among the other activities undertaken by the IAD are the establishment
of irrigation projects, credit programs, and other services such as agricultural
extension, marketing, and cooperatives, as well as the inventorying and titling of
state lands.

Agrarian reform in the Dominican Republic has had a particular impact on
the rice sector, where agrarian reform lands produce close to half of the rice in
the country. Like many countries in Latin America, the Dominican Republic, from

16

time to time, has shifted its strategy between individual and collectively organized
reform projects. Within the rice sector, land has been expropriated to individual
beneficiaries as well as to collective units. Interestingly, many of the individual
beneficiaries have associated themselves for purposes of credit, input
purchases, rice marketing, and capital equipment. At the same time, collectives
have divided their land into individual parcels and have insisted that the
government legalize their “associative” management structure. The associatives
were, in fact, legalized in 1985, after most of the collectives had already broken
down in 1983.

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE AND RELATED RESEARCH

Introduction

Literature on various aspects of participation is explored in this chapter.
In reviewing the available literature, it was difficult to get a feeling for participation
as a dynamic or intrinsic factor in irrigation projects that are dominated by
professionals and governed by complex organizational and managerial
arrangements for water distribution, as is the case in the Dominican Republic.

The review is organized as follows. First, the discussion is centered on
participation as a broad concept. Then, writings on the importance of farmers’
participation in development projects and constraints on farmers’ participation are
reviewed. Finally, the literature is reviewed in regard to farmers’ participation in
irrigation management systems (effectiveness Of irrigation systems, water
allocation and distribution, maintenance and operation, and conflict
management). Also discussed is farmers’ participation in planning, design, and
implementation ofirrigation schemes; irrigation management activities; issues in

irrigation management, and financial aspects of irrigation management.

17

18
II C I [E I" I.

To approach the question of participation, Uphoff (1991) recommended
looking at the results of participation as coming from different approaches,
assumptions, and mechanisms. He noted that participants, themselves, may be
more crucial to project success than is any purely quantitative expression of
participation. Thus, in accord with his advice, the researcher examined various
studies to summarize notions, methodologies, and mechanisms pertaining to
participation.

Cook (1 991) discussed a common notion of participation held by planners.
She pointed out that, all too often, planners expect rural people to participate in
the costs and benefits of a project without taking part in actual decision making.
However, if participation is to mean more than cost sharing, there are several
basic issues that require social assessment. Cook asserted that it is of utmost
importance to determine who can participate, how they can do so, and how many
people can participate. These points can be addressed by using a methodology
employed in social analysis of rural road projects in Liberia and Madagascar.
This methodology entails assessing the potential for local participation by
analyzing local institutions, labor requirements, migration patterns, and cultural
constraints.

Cemea (1991) argued that the concept of participation has been more a
proposition with heated ideological exhortations than concrete procedures

applicable by project and agency staff. Many good things have been said about

19

participation, but several theoretical, empirical, and methodological questions
need to be addressed in order to incorporate participation as an important tool
for development. In this sense, Cemea asked several pragmatic questions: Are
the social sciences able to offer a methodology for organizing actual participation
in different cultural contexts? Do social scientists have sets of procedures and
methods that are transferable to planners and managers? What should be done
during project preparation to shape the project so that it elicits and depends on
participation? What should be done to organize participation during
implementation?

To approach these questions about participation, Cemea (1991) proposed
what he called "social engineering." According to him,

The social engineering action model is rooted in knowledge of the social

fabric and dynamics. It postulates the translation of social science

knowledge into new know-how and change tools, and it uses this

knowledge purposively to organize new social action and relationships.

(9- 29)

In buttressing his view, Cemea quoted Rossi and Whyte:

Social engineering consists of attempts to use the body of sociological
knowledge in the design of policies or institutions to accomplish some
purpose. Social engineering can be accomplished for a mission-oriented
agency or for some group opposed to the existing organizational
structure, or it may be undertaken separately from either. . . . When
conducted Close to the policy-making centers, it is Often termed social
policy analysis. . . . When practiced by groups in opposition to current
regimes, social engineering becomes social criticism. (p. 1)

In summary, Cernea (1991) advocated a systematization, conceptualiza-

tion, and codification of the know-how produced by the social sciences. He

20
pointed out that, without the know—how to organize it, participation will remain a
hot ideology lacking a social technology.

Kottak(1991) notedthata'people orientation” involves considerably more
than encouraging direct participation in project design and implementation. He
pointed out that many of the underlying principles of social structure, which are
explicit in sociological models, are buried in cultural practice and are not
necessarily articulated conceptually by members of a cultural group. Yet these
principles must be understood and taken into account when development
interventions are designed and implemented. Kottak concluded that there is a
general need for social engineering. The sociocultural characteristics of affected
people must be systematically taken into account when designing and
implementing sound development strategies. Sociocultural engineering for
economic development is not simply socially desirable; it is demonstrably cost
effective.

Pottier (1993) presented a different view from the social engineering
perspective proposed by Cemea and Kottak. Pottier pointed out that there is a
need to demonstrate that buzzwords of the 19805—sustainability, grass-roots
development, and participatory research—stemmed from a thorough questioning
of former paradigms. Pottier advocated looking at a broader perspective,
proposing consideration of a number of fundamental issues that were ignored in
the past, such as the human factor, socioeconomic differentiation, importance of

decision making within the household, long-term survival strategies, the cultural

21

construction ofideas and practices, gender issues, division oflabor, and patterns
of responsibility. To this long list one might add equity, efficiency, empowerment,
and accountability (Chambers, 1993; Uphoff, 1991).

Pottier (1993) advised identifying problems of practical participation: ex
anteand expostfacto appraisal. Hence, whereas Cemea and Kottak advocated
a crystallization of social science knowledge, Pottier argued that ”the social
worlds within which development efforts take shape are essentially fluid” (p. 7).

Cohen and Uphoff (1977) said that there are many kinds of participation
to be considered, but they focused on four that seem most significant to rural
development activities. These are (a) participation in decision making, (b)
participation in implementation, (c) participation in benefits, and (d) participation
in evaluation. Taken together, these four kinds of involvement appear to
encompass most of what would generally be referred to as “participation” in rural
development activities.

Chambers (1993) has been one of the most influential proponents and
investigators of new methodologies with which to study participation. He has
long been involved in testing and proposing different methodologies. Chambers
raised such fundamental questions regarding participation as: Who gains and
who loses? Knowledge for whom? Whose priorities prevail when setting the
agenda for project development? Chambers (1991) stressed two points: (a) the
sustainability of development and (b) empowerment of people. He noted,

With more attention paid to the issue of sustainability through the
participation and empowerment of rural people, especially the poor, it is

22
increasingly recognized that it matters who generates and ”owns”
knowledge, and whose capacity to learn and analyze is enhanced.
Participatory research, participation action research, participatory

agricultural research, and participatory rural appraisal are all finding their
places in the new vocabulary of development. (p. 517)

II I I [E , E l' . l'
numbnmentfimiects

Over the past few years, development specialists have expressed growing
concern about the lack of progress for the rural poor (Cohen & Uphoff, 1977).
Many authors have pointed out the importance of people’s participation in
development projects. Toward this end, new approaches have been proposed,
to secure greater participation in development efforts bythose who are supposed
to benefit from them.

Cohen and Uphoff (1977) asserted that, in assessing participation in any
situation, the participation variables to be studied and measured must be
selected with care. For example, participation in rural development activities
includes such variables as (a) people’s involvement in making decisions about
what would be done and how, (b) their involvement in implementing programs
and decisions by contributing various resources or cooperating in specific
organizations or activities, (c) their sharing in the benefits of development
programs, and/or (d) their involvement in efforts to evaluate such programs.

These kinds of participation (decision making, implementation, benefits,
and evaluation), in principle, form something of a cycle for rural development

activity. In thinking about and attempting to establish measures of

23

developmental participation, these four kinds of participation are fundamental.

Interactions among them are illustrated in Figure 1. These four variables provide

a model for specifying the causal relationships in a dynamic system that may

either create or resolve rural poverty.

Source:

 

 

(A)
Decision-
Making

 

 

 

 

 

1

Implementation

if (e)

Benefits

(0)
Evaluation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 1: Four kinds of participation.

Cohen, J. M., &Uphoff, NT. (1977, January). Bureldelelonment
l' . l' , C l I E . l I .
WWW. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University,

Center for International Studies, Rural Development Committee.

24

The International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) has found that
project beneficiaries, when given the chance, are eagerto participate in schemes
designed to benefit them (Lineberry & Jazairy, 1989). lFAD also has found that
farmers’ acceptance of and commitment to project objectives are crucial
elements for successful project implementation and sustainability. A
development process that involves people provides a basis not only for
improvement of their material well-being, but also for progress in their social and
cultural life.

According to Lynch (1985), farmer participation can be classified as direct
orindirect. Direct participation occurs when community members contribute their
labor for construction or maintenance. They participate in the decision-making
process through referenda at general meetings, and they evaluate system.
performance. In indirect participation, a community elects representatives to a
local organization that makes policy decisions about the use of irrigation water.
Indirect participation is what happens, for example, when the community hires
and delegates responsibility to ditch tenders or technicians to supervise water
delivery or to deal with equipment maintenance.

It has been well established that the organization and participation of
beneficiaries in rural development projects are essential for the success and
sustainability of such projects. This is true not only for the implementation and
monitoring of the project but for the definition and continuous redefinition of its

priorities, as well (Alamgir, 1988; Korten, 1980).

25

Cohen and Uphoff (1977) suggested that one should be prepared to

consider the following factors affecting the development and management of

irrigation systems when choosing and interpreting measures of participation:

1.

W: Things like the seasonality of

production where this occurs due to rainfall, temperature or soil
patterns, the isolation ofa project area due to terrains, or dispersed
rather than concentrated settlement of the population will affect
measures such as meeting attendance, for example.

Econommfiactorsz The availability or scarcity of land, labor and
capital within the project area, also the development of skills and
transportation and infrastructure communication will affect the
capacity of local people to participate in implementation and
possibly also in decision making.

PoliticaLEactorS: Certain kinds of participation in decision making
should not be expected and made into criteria of participation
when, for example, the prevailing national ideology is not
supportive of “democratic” procedures, but alternative, equivalent
modes of participation may exist and deserve consideration.

SociaLEactors: The disposition of local people to take leading
roles in project participation will be influenced by the existing social
stratification (how rigid or nonrigid it is), by the strength of ties to
the nuclear or extended family, the existence of clan or similar
social organizations, and the extent and depth of cumulative and
cross-cutting social cleavages such as race or religion.

CulturaLEactors: The participation of the poor in local
organizations will be affected by values discouraging conflict, by
deferential attitudes toward authority, or by beliefs opposing social
equality. The initiative that women can take in project activity will
also be conditioned by cultural norms.

HistoricaLEactors: Where, for example, there has been
unfortunate experience with "cooperatives," such as through
embezzlement or use of force to get nominal participation, one
should not expect that participation in cooperatives as such would
be tapping the potential for participation in a community. Some
sensitivity to previous experience should be manifested in
choosing measures. (pp. 18-19)

26

The importance of people’s participation in development projects has been
pointed out. For example, a study by Development Alternatives, Inc. (1975), of
36 rural development projects in 11 African and Latin American countries
indicated a clear connection between project success and small farmers’
involvement in decision making and in commitment of resources to the project.

According to Miller (1979), there are three pertinent aspects of
participation. These are (a) participation in decision making, which isthe process
of discussion to reach collective consent on a plan, program, or project; (b)
participation in the use of action based on collective decisions that have been
made, which is meant to include active involvement in terms of self-help labor,
provision of local building materials, and supervision of construction; and (C)
participation in an equitable Sharing of benefits from the action and in sharing
costs incurred in undertaking the action.

Casley and Kumar (1987) said that participants’ cooperation is a key
determinant to success in a development project. In the Philippines, a council
monitoring afive-year plan forthe development of an agricultural irrigation project
became an effective decision-making body through the skillful use of information
and the varied composition of its membership. Casley and Kumar went on to say
that projects that do not take into account users’ needs, or that merely make a
cursory assessment of such needs, tend to produce expensive systems that are

largely irrelevant to the requirements of high-priority users.

27

In their study of participation in irrigation projects in northwestern Indian
villages, Shingi and Bluhm (1987) concluded that participation was affected by
the degree of (a) dependence on the gains from the activity in which participation
was required, (b) dependence on the group effort to achieve these gains, (c)
certainty that common resources would be managed properly, (d) certainty that
the gains would be distributed equitably, (e) certainty that others had limited
opportunity to exploit the situation fortheir own self-interest, and (f) certainty that
returns would be commensurate with risk and investment.

Chambers (1983) said that common people throughout the world
recognize participation as a power. Putting these people’s own knowledge and
skills to work in development projects will strengthen their confidence in their
ability to act toward solving their problems. Through participation, farmers learn
to plan, find solutions to their own problems, gain self-confidence, and derive
satisfaction from having made significant achievements.

Despite findings concerning the benefits of farmers’ participation, the
process of involving them has not been easy. Mkandawire and Chipande (1988)
found that, in the Salina Agricultural Development Division (from the 1982/83 to
the 1985/86 growing season), farmers with less than one hectare of land had the
least contact with extension workers using various extension-farmer contact
strategies. Poor or smallholder farmers sometimes do not participate in
development programs because they lack information about the existence and

availability of such programs (Griffith, 1978).

28

Hunt (1990) suggested that farmers will participate in irrigation systems
if organizational control over water exists, whereas they will not take part if there
is no such control. Hunt also said that, unless the irrigation work demands can
be met by the pool of available labor, participation is unlikely. Also, ifthe price
structure affects participation, as it may well do, then price would be a plausible
candidate for social constraint. Lynch (1986) argued that farmers will not be
willing to participate if the proposed demands for irrigation system labor occur at
a time when those farmers do not have surplus time.

Bagadion and Korten (1985) and Uphoff (1986) argued that the attitudes
of state government bureaucrats should be taken into account when considering
farmer participation. Negative attitudes on the part of these personnel might
constitute a social constraint on farmers’ participation (Hunt, 1990).

According to Freeman, Bhandarkar, Shinn, Wilkins-Wells, and Wilkins-
Wells (1989), organizations are instruments for bringing people together to do
collectively what they cannot do as well individually. Given the tight
interdependence in irrigation systems and the fact that water control depends on
collection actions, Freeman et al. concluded that water control can be enhanced
only through disciplined organizations. They further argued that maximum local
control over water is best secured by a sociotechnical middle-level command
area, which makes staff members responsible to local authorities, recruits local

staff from command-area labor markets, provides for routine maintenance by

29

local specialized personnel, and provides a combination of share types that

maximize flexibility within physical and technical constraints.

E ’El"l"l'l'll ISI

Irrigation systems, in which effective water management depends on the
interrelated actions of a unified group of water users, are some of the most highly
developed and complex examples of common property regimes (Chambers,
1988; Leonard & Marshall, 1982). Studies conducted in other countries have
indicated that certain farmer-managed irrigation systems were functioning better
than those managed by nonusers or public agencies (Hilton, 1990; Laitos, 1986;
Ostrom, 1990; Tang, 1989). However, some nonuser-controlled irrigation
systems were maintaining systems effectively (Abel, 1975; Levine, 1981),
whereas others were not effective even though they had ample resources and
technical backing (Hilton, 1990; Ostrom, 1990).

According to Thompson (1990), centralized bureaucratic agencies, by
themselves, cannot provide sufficient management and other resources, even
in small-scale irrigation systems, to manipulate water flows below the outlet,
maintain each field channel, and resolve every conflict. In small systems, day-to-
day management decisions generally are made without any involvement of
government or other centralized authorities. Farmers are aware of the whole
system and are active in project-level decision making. They have the
knowledge and incentive to take part in planning and resource allocation.

According to Lowdermilk (1985) and McCall (1988), operational plans that are

3O

drawn up with farmers’ participation and based on their knowledge are more
likely to be accepted by the village irrigation institution, its constituency (the water

users), and the community in general.

Eflil' [I'I'Sl

Johnson (1990) said that, to increase the efficiency of irrigation systems,
it is necessary to improve the systems’ water management as well as on-farm
water management; the farmer is a prerequisite for the latter improvement.
Furthermore, Johnson considered that, to improve general operational efficiency,
it must be recognized that irrigation development is now primarily a management
responsibility, not a design and construction task. One should not, however,
underestimate the magnitude of management problems. Such problems are not
simply engineering concerns but involve many disciplines. For instance,

1 . Responsibilities are fragmented and cut across many construction,
operational, agricultural, and financial agencies, which do not coordinate to
provide services to farmers.

2. Most government irrigation agencies are not accountable to the
farmers they serve, either for funds or for employment evaluation.

3. There are usually no effective means for monitoring and evaluating
the performance and effectiveness of the system.

4. Irrigation agencies in most countries are staffed with operatives

who are poorly trained, supervised, motivated, and rewarded.

31

5. Many agencies are plagued by pervasive corruption, overstaffing,
and undisciplined employees.

6. Water users within sections of a public irrigation system usually do
not organize, cooperate, or participate in operating and maintaining the system.

Coward (1980) suggested organizing a group, such as a farmers’
association-preferably at the farmers’ initiative or, if necessary, with initial
government assistance--to help in attaining the objectives of irrigation projects.
Barker, Coward, and Levine (1984) expanded this view to incorporate local
groups in matters of system operation at the local level, as well as in decisions
regarding modifications to and elaboration of the physical structures and their
outputs.

Svendsen and Small (1990) said that efforts to improve the understanding
of farmers’ perceptions of system performance are useful because they enable
farmers to better understand and adapt their behavior to their role as managers
of the system. Thus, the role and functions that farmers perform as members of
a particular irrigation system and the benefits they receive from the system may
well reflect the individuals’ perceptions about a particular system’s effectiveness.
Bottrall (1981) pointed out two major advantages, besides improved water-
course management, that emanate from water users’ associations. First, the
associations can help provide a point of contact between small farmers and the

government for other supporting services like agricultural extension, credit, input,

32

supply, and marketing. Second, the associations provide a foundation on which

a system of representative farmer participation at the project level can be built.

III I g" l' 10' II I'

Martin and Yoder (1987) argued that irrigation water allocation and
distribution are distinctive and important functions for any irrigation system.
According to them, water association is the assignment of entitlement to water
from an irrigation system, and it has two dimensions. The first dimension
distinguishes the fields or the farmers who have access to the system’s irrigation
from those who do not. The second involves the quantitative allocation of water
in the system among the farmers or the fields. According to Freeman (1990), in
the world of large-scale gravity-flow irrigation, it is the state bureaucracy that
captures the water supply in remote watersheds and constructs, at great cost,
the impressive engineering works to store and deliver water. However, all this
investment is exploited only to the degree permitted by local organizations,
which, at some point in the delivery system, must assume responsibility for
delivering water to individual irrigators.

Local organizations must reconcile main-system water supplies with
farmers’ water demands. The organizational conditions under which that water
is, or is not, delivered have everything to do with the productivity of irrigation
water. Indeed, Patil (1987) suggested that, if the water distribution system can

be managed by project staff, there will be less need for farmers’ participation.

33

Easter (1986) said that a major constraint on the efficient and equitable
distribution of water is the lack of knowledge about irrigation technology. Thus,
effective information systems are needed, which will allow the exchange of
agronomic and water-availability information between farmers and the managers
of the system. Easter said that this information exchange Often requires an
agricultural extension service and regular training sessions for farmers and
agents about water-use technology. In addition, there must be some way of
integrating and coordinating the activities of the agricultural extension service
and those managing the irrigation system. Without coordination, it is hard to
achieve effective exchange of information.

According to Easter (1977), water management problems can be divided
into two major categories: (a) problems associated with irregularities in water
allocation and water distribution and (b) problems related to maintenance of
channels and irrigation structures. Easter pointed out that, in large-scale gravity-
flow irrigation systems, irrigation officials determine water requirements and
procedures of allocating water from the storage tank to main canals and then to
branch and distributor channels.

Water allocation has been considered a major problem in most centrally
managed irrigation systems (Easter, 1977). Irrigation agencies throughout the
world have introduced water allocation and distribution schedules based on the
defined service area, reduction of seepage losses in water delivery, and crop

water requirements. The Warabandi system in India and Pakistan and the

34

rotation system in Sri Lanka basically use such administrative methods of water
allocation. The proposed rotation schedule of water delivery in the study area
indicates preset times of water issues to distributors from the branch canal. The
irrigation officials determine the amount of water that should be released to meet
crop water requirements, and these procedures are altered from time to time.
Individual farmers receive water based on the number of acres and types of
crops they cultivate. Farmers complain that fixed turns create water shortages
when water flows in channels are highly variable. Easter said that farmers are
informed about methods of water allocation at meetings or through farmer
representatives or local irrigation officials, and no organized procedures forwater
allocation are agreed to by all parties. The irrigation officials often alter water
allocation procedures according to site-specific problems rather than farmers’
demand for water. The irrigation agency often complains about farmers’
violations of accepted rules and regulations.

Wade (1982) described a number of tactics that are used by individual
farmers and farmer groups that pressure irrigation officials to issue more water;
such actions reduce the availability of water to others. He also pointed out that
some irrigation officials create a water-stress Situation among farmers and then
use their discretionary power to reduce water stress only for those who pay
bribes. When both irrigation officials and farmers violate agency rules and
regulations and adopt illegal water management practices, water distribution

problems at the local level tend to increase.

35

Bromley, Taylor, and Parker (1980) argued that small and relatively
powerless farmers encounter the problem of unpredictable water supplies due
to lack of enforcement of water allocation rules and regulations. They also
asserted that farmers who face water management problems because they do
not have the money to bribe officials who control the water flow tend to withdraw
from collective action.

Tapay (1987) argued that it is not only technical inefficiency that is
responsible for the poor performance of irrigation systems. Rather, social
factors, specifically the need for an effective irrigation organization, influence the

efficiency of irrigation systems.

II . l I Q I'

In a case study on the Philippines, Tapay (1989) described the
organizational structure of large-scale irrigation systems and different farmer
participatory approaches that have been used in recent years. She evaluated
the effect of farmers’ participation on the performance of the irrigation systems
concerned. In starting several pilot projects on farmers’ participation, the
National Irrigation Administration made the following assumptions:

1. Because the farmers have to pay for the construction costs of the
improvements on the system, they should have a considerable say
in what is built.

2. Farmers’ involvement in the planning and construction develops

their sense of ownership of the system and, therefore, their desire
to operate and maintain it properly.

36
3. Farmers’ knowledge of local conditions can contribute to better
planning and design of the system and help acceptance of the
improvements after completion. (T apay, 1989, p. 10)

A prerequisite to choosing a strategy for involving farmers in irrigation
development is a basic, deliberate decision bythe irrigation agency regarding the
level of involvement it wants from farmer beneficiaries of the irrigation system
(Bagadion, 1985). According to Hunt (1990), if the farmers can be brought in to
participate in maintenance at the tail-end Of the canal, then the distribution of
water will be more effective, production will increase, and there will be more
efficient use of water, land, and capital. Farmers’ participation in operation and
maintenance is therefore seen as a solution to a widespread, vexing, and costly
problem. Nobody believes that the farmers should or can participate only as
individuals in this work. Rather, farmer participation would be on a group basis,
and the current consensus is that such groups should be small (roughly a score
or two of farmers). Each large canal project would then have many groups of
farmers, which would be responsible for operation and maintenance in their own
area by getting the work done and relieving the system managers of direct
responsibility. Thus, one problem involved in achieving farmer participation is
persuading all (or almost all) farmers in large bureaucratic canal irrigation
systems to join small groups that will perform the maintenance and allocate the
water (Hunt, 1990).

Routine maintenance activities at the local level can be done by irrigation

officials, farmer organizations, and/or individual farmers. According to Bottral

37
(1981), farmers usually develop ad hoc informal arrangements for maintaining
field channels, but it is not their responsibility to maintain irrigation structures and
larger irrigation canals. Bottral observed that some farmers do not contribute
their resources for maintenance work and do not adhere to accepted rules and
regulations. Also, there are differences in the number of times that field Channels
are cleaned and irrigation structures are repaired.

Hunt (1990) asserted that the conventional explanation that farmers’
attitudes are responsible for lack of maintenance is incorrect. A better
explanation, according to him, is ”organizational control over water.” Hunt
contended that farmers are unlikely to participate in maintenance activities
without some clear benefits, which he believed are partly to be found in control
over acquisition and allocation of the water. In a Mexican case study, he found
that the level of farmer participation had more to do with the nature of
organizational control over the water than with the size of the system.

According to Parlin and Lusk (1991), many economic, social, and political
factors may stimulate or discourage farmers’ participation in meetings and in
construction and maintenance activities. These factors include (a) the role of
irrigated agriculture in the household economy, (b) the timing of agricultural
activities, (C) the distribution of land and wealth in the command area, (d)
demographic phenomena and local organizational capacity, (e) agency behavior

rights in the infrastructure, (f) involvement of farmers in phases of project

38
development, (9) empowerment of local organizations, and (h) the relationship
of contributions to control.

In a survey carried out in Sri Lanka in March 1980, it was found that 36%
of farmers rated bad channel maintenance as the major cause of water problems
in the pilot area (Wijayaratna et al., 1980). With the formation of farmer
organizations, farmers properly cleaned all of the field Channels (sometimes
distributor Channels as well) before each season commenced. Farmers provided

their labor free for this purpose.

ConflictManagement

Water scarcity generates conflicts (Bottral, 1981; Coward, 1980). Hariss
(1977) believed that the potential for conflict increases when water supplies are
both uncertain and scarce. Hunt and Hunt (1976) also agreed with the
proposition that, the greater the degree of water scarcity, the more serious water
conflicts will be. Those at the tail end of the water course often are in conflict
with those who are Closer to the water source (Bolin, 1990). Although conflict is
common among irrigators within the same community, dissension tends to be
expressed more strongly between communities (Bolin, 1990; Hunt & Hunt, 1976).
Within a community, water disputes are resolved by informal mechanisms of
cooperation among farmers, such as water sharing and close water supervision,
and through water tribunals and physical rehabilitation works that increase water

supplies.

39
Wade (1976, 1988) and Uphoff, Wickramasinghe, and Wijeratna (1990)

argued that relative water scarcity affects crop losses and farmers’ economic
well-being. As the degree of water scarcity increases, the magnitude of water
management problems also increases, and farmers look for immediate solutions
to these problems. Uphoff et al. supported the proposition that farmers are more
willing to participate in collective action when water is relatively scarce because

free riding does not then become a deterrent to such participation.

Planning

In assisting small-scale "communal" irrigation systems throughout the
Philippines, the National Irrigation Administration (N IA) sought to involve farmers
from the inception ofthe project-~including planning the project’s scope, deciding
the layout of the proposed system, and carrying out the construction of the
needed dams, canals, and canal structures (Korten & Siy, 1989). Through such
activities, the agency encouraged the farmers’ irrigation association to develop
the skills in decision making, resource mobilization, and conflict resolution that
itwould need in operating and maintaining the irrigation system. Furthermore,
Korten and Siy stated that a growing body of research has shown that
conventional programs encourage dependency and that, once government
assistance is withdrawn or reduced, little lasting effect remains. In recognition
of these findings, the policies of programs in fields such as health, education,

nutrition, irrigation, forestry, pasture development, fisheries, housing, and

40
population are increasingly specifying that the beneficiaries should participate in
project planning and execution.

In assessing a pilot project in the Philippines, Korten and Siy (1989) found
that, although there had been many problems and there was still much room for
improvement, the basic processes for inducing farmers’ participation had been
developed. Some key lessons that were learned from the initial pilot projects
were as follows: Sufficient lead time should be given to community organizers
for mobilizing farmers before construction. In the smaller of the two communal
projects (planned for 600 hectares), such preconstruction activities required 10
months. Engineers and organizers needed to work Closely to integrate the
technical and organizational activities into one process. Agency policies and
procedures that Obstructed farmers’ participation .needed to be discarded or
modified. Farmers were willing to participate extensively in planning and
construction, and such participation enabled them to suggest canal locations
appropriate to their needs. Furthermore, the labor and materials that farmers
contributed to the project reduced government expenditures.

The operation of an irrigation system requires a fairly high level of
cooperation among farmers with regard to the distribution of water and
coordination of cultivation practices. However, it is often very difficult to achieve
such cooperation (Chambers, 1980). In Asia, planting schedules were drawn up
at regional headquarters and imposed on the farmers without previous

consultation. The farmers were expected to carry out the various instructions

 

 

41

blindly. Potential water users were given little information about water
requirements.

According to Bryant and White (1984), it is important for planners and
local administrators to recognize the importance of participation and to
appreciate the fact that farmers and peasants are capable of rational behavior.
Development planners need to understand the cognitive map of rural people, the
ways in which they perceive benefits, costs, and risks. The need to consider
how to involve farmers in defining, developing, administering, and evaluating

programs.

Design

According to Smout (1990), irrigation design is not a direct deductive
process that generates a unique solution. Particularly in designing the general
concept and the canal layout, the engineer attempts to satisfy various objectives
(e.g., Close fit with the farming system, low capital cost, high efficiency, and
simple operation and maintenance) and considers various possible solutions
before developing the design that seems most suitable. The chosen design is
therefore not the only one or necessarily the best one possible, and the
experienced designer is well aware that another engineer would probably
develop a different solution. Smout suggested that it is important to remember
this when designing works that serve farmers directly, such as small-scale

irrigation schemes and tertiary canal systems on large schemes, because the

 

42
engineer may not be able to take account of all of the local factors in selecting
a suitable design.

Verrnillion (1989) described the alterations that farmers made to
engineers’ designs on a project in Indonesia, including destroying works after
construction. These alterations were made because farmers had better
knowledge of the locale and because some of their criteria differed from those
of the engineers. Elsewhere, engineers observed that farmers modified
structures and canals because they misunderstood the designs or because
minorities tried to get unfair shares of water. Many of these changes (and waste
of resources) could be avoided by involving farmers at key points in the design
process, to enable the designer to take account of their objectives and to explain
important aims and constraints (e.g., water availability). Thefailure of many such '
schemes can be broadly attributed to insufficient attention to social aspects of
project design and procedures for water control, problems that could be avoided

if local people were consulted.

Implementation

According to Chambers (1980), few instances have been recorded in
which irrigation staff considered involving water users in the planning or
implementation phases of irrigation schemes. In general, many factors existed
that were counterproductive to such approaches. First, the staff were reluctant

to look for opportunities to involve farmers in managing the irrigation scheme.

43
Furthermore, they considered themselves the only people who were competent
to handle operation and management.

Singh (1986) said that no rural development project can be implemented
on a national scale without the active and widespread participation of its Clientele.
Therefore, those responsible for project implementation must discoverthefactors
that motivate the local people to participate in a project and, based on this first-
hand knowledge, formulate a specific strategy to enlist their participation.

Smout (1990) concurred that, in order to create a structure for
participation, a water users association (WUA) is usually set up on each scheme,
with all the beneficiary farmers as members. The WUA is, in principle,
independent of the agency and government and is responsible to its members.
However, it usually is set up with assiStance from the agency and is constituted
according to standard agency regulations. Smout also said it is important for the
WUA to be oriented toward involving farmers in the immediate practical tasks,
with flexibility to develop as the scheme progresses and the necessary tasks
change, until eventually it takes on its long-term operation and maintenance role.

Ansari (1989) wrote that, at the planning stage of a small-scale irrigation
scheme in Nepal, the beneficiary group was identified, which could elect a
construction committee and later become a WUA. The committee had to raise
a certain proportion of the estimated cost of the scheme and deposit the cash in

a construction committee account.

44

Johnston and William (1982) reported that, even when a development
organization does reach the poor, it too often functions as a one-way conduit of
implementation through which services, solutions, and prescriptions invented
somewhere else are imposed on the rural community. In general, development
workers see this as a two-part problem. First, it is necessary to design local
organizations that link rural poor people with one another and with the larger
social system. Second, it is necessary to design higher-order support
organizations that protect the local groups, help them perform their problem-

solving functions, and integrate their needs with those of society.

According to Uphoff (19863), one type of irrigation management activity
focuses directly on the water. Water must be acquired, allocated, distributed,
and, if there is excess, drained. A second type of management activity deals
with the physical structures for controlling the water. These structures must be
operated and maintained. Athird type ofactivity focuses on the organization that
manages the water and structures; these activities include decision making,
resource mobilization, communication, and conflict management. Uphoff (1986b)
suggested that, when this commitment to participation in irrigation schemes is put
into practice, it appears to have four main elements: (a) participation in the
procedures of water use within the system; (b) acquisition of the water, its
allocation among participants, its distribution on an agreed-upon basis, the

tackling of any drainage problems; (c) participation in the structures that develop

 

45
the scheme, including participation in the design, construction, operation, and
maintenance of the actual irrigation system; and (d) participation in the
organization of effort, which is vital for the day-to-day functioning of the scheme,
such as decision making and local resource mobilization.

According to Bottral (1981), farmers’ ability to organize for water
management is a function of eight factors, one of which is the size of the
irrigation command area. Other factors are farm size, social stratification,
farmers’ educational and irrigation experience, whether the system is channel
based or village based, and the adequacy and predictability Of water deliveries
to farms. In their research in Pakistan, Mizra, Freeman, and Echert (1975) found
that the fewer the farmers in a community, the easier it was to use them for
maintenance work. On the other hand, the number of problems related to water
management decision-making and maintenance problems increased when the
number of farmers on a water course increased.

Coward (1976, 1980) observed that small groups in a water course can
manage conflict betterthan large groups because differences among individuals
in terms of social class, conformity to norms, and disparities of landholding can
be reconciled more easily. It also is easier for the leader to communicate with
members when the group is small. The distance to travel and time lost are
important incentives for individual farmers to cooperate with local leaders. The
performance of the leader is high when he or she is able to supervise and

manage the behavior of members. Parker and Bromley (1978) also noted that,

 

46
the larger the number of irrigators along a water course, the greater the chances
of interruptions to water flows. Thus, water control is relative to the number of
farmers on the water course as well as the number of farmers located upstream.

In his study of the effects of irrigation projects in West Java,
Schwarzweller (1987) concluded that not all villages were affected in the same
way and not all families gained equally. Therefore, he suggested that variability
should be considered in the planning and implementation of irrigation projects
and programs of agricultural development elsewhere. However, not all activities
are equally important in each environment, and the irrigation management
institutions will reflect the relative importance of activities in a particular location
(Martin 8 Yoder, 1987).

A report by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (1982)
suggested that, to encourage participation, some sort of farmers’ organization is
essential. In many countries, the Water Users Association has served as a
valuable medium to encourage and achieve farmers’ participation. The
motivation for promoting farmers’ participation in decision making has increased

in recent years.

| . I . l' l 1 l

Wade and Seckler (1990) identified water users’ participation as one of
the eight most critical issues in the management of large public surface irrigation
systems. They argued that discussing these issues will enable management/

organizational specialists to identify and comprehend the irrigation-specific

47

questions so that they can bring management insights to bear on these

questions. Specifically, the eight issues the authors addressed were:

1. Defining the objectives and monitoring the results.

2. Integrating the design of physical and managerial systems.

3. Establishing rights to water: legal versus social control.

4. Establishing accountability, incentives, and service charge.

5. Defining relationships between the irrigation organization and the

other input/output services.

6. Outlining what will be the organizational linkage between canal
operations and maintenance and planning, design, and construction.

7. Involving water users in the design, operation, and management
of irrigation systems.

8. Establishing personnel policy (Wade & Seckler, 1990).

Studies of WUAS worldwide have contributed to an understanding of the
costs, benefits, and situational determinants that impede or enhance farmers’
involvement in irrigation organizations (FAO, 1985; Uphoff, 1985). Social
scientists have given considerable attention to the problem of involving farmers
and other water users in managing and developing irrigation projects (Parlin &
Lusk, 1988; Uphoff, 1985). Researchers have found that the main lesson
learned in this line of research has been that involving farmers in planning,
design, water allocation, and conflict management has positive effects on project

outcomes. Studies in the Philippines and Sri Lanka, for instance, have indicated

 

 

48
reductions in conflict and deviance, in addition to improved water application
efficiencies (Bagadion, 1985; Uphoff, 1986).

Peterson (1984) wondered why, despite all of the advances in knowledge
of irrigation technology, irrigation systems and the schemes they serve fall so
notoriously short of reasonable expectations. He said that authorities now
generally believe that the difficulty lies in the failure to operate irrigation schemes
systematically. Water deliveries to fields do not match crop needs, even though
other production requirements such as seeds, pesticides, fertilizer, labor, and
technical knowledge are available in a timely fashion. The farmers who are
responsible for managing the crops are normally not involved in planning and
managing the water and other input delivery systems (Peterson, 1984). Thus,
it is crucial that appropriate institutions be selected to manage a resource, to
present the problems that can result from a mismatch between the organization
and the type of good (Goetze, 1986). Throughout history, people’s progress, in
general, has depended on how they have organized their collective lives, and the
progress of irrigation systems now, as always, depends on the quality of their
irrigation organizations (Parlin & Lusk, 1991).

Johnson (1991) asserted that, to improve general operational efficiency,
it must be recognized that irrigation development is now primarily a management
task, not a design and construction effort. He said, however, that the magnitude
of the management problems should not be underestimated; they are not Simply

engineering problems. but cut across many disciplines.

49

In Sri Lanka, system administrators appointed an irrigation assistant for
each unit (250 farmers) to organize turnout groups in the Mahaweli irrigation
system, oversee water allocation and distribution, check canal and other
maintenance, and resolve conflicts—roles formerly assumed by the irrigation
headman (Parlin, 1985). Findings of the USAlD-sponsored midterm evaluation
of the Mahaweli scheme suggested that cultivators frequently complained that
they seldom saw the irrigation assistant and that he often preferred to give orders
rather than soliciting the ideas and suggestions of water users themselves (Not,
1985; Scudder, 1985).

According to Bottrall (1981), water users’ accomplishment of their set
tasks will not occur spontaneously; the users need to be stimulated by the
irrigation organization or a government institution. It may seem an elementary
point that the management of irrigation projects should be considered an
evolutionary process, with a progression over time from a relatively high degree
of central control toward increasing farmer participation and autonomy of

decision making.

E' 'IE lfl’l' ll 1

According to Korten and Siy (1989), indigenous organizations that collect
fees normally have one or more fee collectors whose job is to personally contact
each farmer within their area of jurisdiction. The more effective organizations
often have Clear sanctions for members who are delinquent in paying fees or

providing labor contributions. Furthermore, Korten and Siy stated that,

 

50

occasionally, farmer-managed irrigation systems have developed sophisticated
and modern financial practices. For example, in a study of the largest farmer-
managed irrigation system in the Philippines, which serves 4,600 hectares, the
following practices were revealed: The collector remitted his collections to the
association treasurer when the total reached 500 pesos. The treasurer
deposited remittances in the bank when these reached 1,000 pesos, and he
seldom kept more than 2,500 pesos in his possession. Only authorized farmers
handled bank transactions. The financial records of the association were audited
each year by designated farmers, who also prepared an annual financial report,
a copy of which was furnished to association members.

Such modern practices are rare, however. More Often, indigenous groups
acknowledge their weakness in handling money matters and avoid accumulating
funds that could become a source of temptation for members or officers.
Whenever possible, these associations demand labor rather than money from
their members. Their fees are assessed only on an ”as needed" basis, such as
when materials need to be purchased to repair a major canal (Korten & Siy,
1989)

Barker and Herdt (1985) noted that national governments are beginning
to provide more technical and financial assistance to small community systems.
Apt examples are Indonesia’s Sederhana program and the communal project
started under the Philippine National Irrigation Administration. In the Asian

context, irrigation system management is gradually evolving, with the more highly

51
developed systems in East Asia becoming farmer oriented. However, given the
rapid development and growing importance of irrigation in South and Southeast

Asia, these transformations are well behind schedule.

CW

The review of literature was intended to introduce the theoretical and
conceptual framework for understanding farmers’ participation in and their
perceptions of the effectiveness of farmer-controlled irrigation systems. The
review was focused on studies that guided the researcher in selecting the
variables to use in examining the factors that affect farmers’ participation in and
their perceptions of the effectiveness of the farmer-controlled irrigation system,
Canal Ulises Francisco Espaillat (CUFE), in Santiago, Dominican Republic.

Many insights gained from the literature review guided the study. For
instance, in their model, Cohen and Uphoff (1977) proposed the idea that
farmers’ participation in decision making, implementation, benefits, and
evaluation forms a cycle for rural development activities. This model was useful
in constructing the instrument used to gather data for this study.

Lynch (1985) classified participation as (a) direct participation, in which
community members contribute their Iaborfor construction or maintenance, and
(b) indirect participation, in which community members elect representatives
to a local organization to make decisions about the use of irrigation water.
Although this Classification was not used in the present study, it was used in

formulating relevant items for the questionnaire.

52

Johnson (1990) remarked on the importance of on-farm water
management to improve the effectiveness of irrigation systems. Both he and
Repetto (1986) noted that most government Irrigation agencies are not
accountable to the farmers they serve. As the needs of the clientele are
changing rapidly along with changes in society, the irrigation system in the
Dominican Republic is moving from a centralized (govemment-managed) to a
decentralized (farmer-managed) one, based on the irrigation system transfer that
the government is carrying out. However, as pointed out in the literature review,
this new approach in irrigation is not free from problems.

The usefulness of improving the understanding offarmers’ perceptions of
irrigation system performance was pointed out in the literature review. However,
when undertaking studies of farmers’ perceptions, researchers need to be
cautious because, as Svendsen and Small (1990) pointed out, the role and
functions that a farmer performs as a member of a particular irrigation system
and the benefits he or she gains from the system may well reflect the individual’s
perceptions about the particular system’s effectiveness.

Many problems in irrigation systems also were mentioned in the literature.
For instance, Wade (1982) described a number of tactics, such as payment of
bribes, that individual farmers and farmer groups use to pressure irrigation
Officials to issue more water. Such actions reduce the availability of water to
others. Wade pointed out that tactics such as these violate agency rules and

regulations. Bromley et al. (1980) also mentioned the problem of lack of

 

53

enforcement of water-allocation rules and regulations. Thapaye (1987) remarked
that inefficiency of irrigation results not only from technical ineptitude but also
from social factors, thus recognizing the need for an effective irrigation
organization.

In summary, many studies of irrigation management throughout the world
have contributed to an understanding of the costs, benefits, and situational
determinants that impede or enhance farmers’ involvement in irrigation
organizations. Social scientists have given considerable attention to the problem
of involving farmers and other water users in managing and developing irrigation
projects. Researchers have found that involving farmers in planning, design,
water allocation, and conflict management has positive effects on project
outcomes. This study was a first step toward gaining a better understanding of
problems faced by on-farm water management projects in the Dominican

Republic.

 

CHAPTER III

METHODS AND PROCEDURES

Introduction

The researcher’s purpose in this study was to describe and analyze the
relationship between farmers’ participation in and their perceptions of the
effectiveness of the farmer-controlled irrigation system, Canal Ulises Francisco
Espaillat (CUFE), in Santiago, Dominican Republic. Specifically, the research
was focused on ascertaining farmers’ participation in their irrigation system and
their perceptions of effectiveness in regard to the management and use of that
system.

The research design and methods used in the study are explained in this
chapter. The design of the study is discussed first, followed by the research
questions and hypotheses. The dependent and independent variables are listed
next. The population and sample are described. The development of the
instrument, including validity and reliability checks, is explained. Finally, the

data-collection and data-analysis procedures are discussed.

54

 

55
Designpflhflud!

The research methodology included a combination of survey and
analytical research. The purpose of a survey is to obtain a statistical profile of
the study population (Babbie, 1981). The study was concerned with existing
conditions or relationships, practices that prevailed, beliefs, attitudes, and points
of view held by farmers about participating in the management of the CUFE
irrigation project.

Survey research is a widely used method of data collection in the social
sciences. Surveys are well suited to many important tasks in irrigation research.
Freeman, Lowdermilk, and Early (1978) identified the following uses of survey
research methods in irrigation studies:

Describing the structure of a policy problem.

Providing data for better estimation and specification ofgaminglsimulation
models that can be manipulated for analytical purposes.

A survey can yield distributions of preferences for alternate policies and
problems.

Descriptive facts generated in survey research can be employed to
educate clients-officials and farmers.

Survey research can contribute to effective field work by identifying

deviant cases that do not exhibit behavior expected either by theory or

expefience.

In this study, nonparametric tests were used to measure the relationship
between farmers’ participation in the management Of the CUFE irrigation system

and their perceptions ofthe effectiveness of that system, based on data collected

from the survey respondents. In addition, in order to compare farmers’

 

56
perceptions with reality, it was necessary to gather information from the
administrators of the irrigation project and the INDRHI. The instrument used to
collect these data (see Appendix B) was developed similarly to the one used with

farmers, except the former instrument was not field tested.

Researchfluestions

The following questions were posed to guide the collection of data for this
study:

1. Is there a relationship between farmers’ participation in and their
perceptions of the effectiveness of the irrigation system?

2. Are there demographic characteristics that are related to farmers’
participation in the irrigation system?

3. Is there a relationship between farmers’ participation in and their
perceptions of the effectiveness of the irrigation system, after statistically

controlling for selected demographic Characteristics of the farmers?

Hypotheses

Noflttypothcsiclz There is no relationship between farmers’ participation
in the management Of the CUFE irrigation system and their perceptions
of the effectiveness of the system.

NuIlelprthesjiZ: There is no relationship between selected demo-
graphic characteristics of the farmers and their participation in the
management of the CUFE irrigation system.

Nuflhvpmnesifl: There is no relationship between farmers’ participation
in the management of the CUFE irrigation system and their perceptions
of the effectiveness of the system, after statistically controlling for selected
demographic characteristics of the farmers.

 

57
Dependenljnflndependentxariables

lnthis study, two dependent variables and ten independent variables were
used in the analyses. The dependent variables were:

1. Farmers’ participation: The degree to which respondents actually
had taken part in the On-Farm Water Management Project. This variable was
measured by using items about allocating and distributing water, meeting with
extension agents, coordinating cultivation practices, maintaining canals, making
decisions on courses to offer, resolving conflicts, and evaluating the
management and operation of the irrigation system in their sector. Each item
taken into account to determine farmers’ participation was measured using a
Likert-type scale. That is, farmers were asked to respond to statements on the
questionnaire, using a scale ranging from Never to Always. Therefore, it is
important to remark here that after combining items about farmers’ participation,
the researcher arrived at means for each question used to define participation.
Thus, the variable participation was used in the analysis as a continuous
variable.

2. Farmers’ perceptions of system effectiveness: the degree to
which respondents actually perceived the effectiveness of the irrigation system.
Parameters of effectiveness included timing, value and quantity ofwater received
for use, management of water distribution, and control and maintenance of

canals.

 

58

The independent variables in this study were the demographic character-
istics of the respondents. These included:

1. Age: Biological age of the respondent at the time of the interview.

2. Educational level: The amount of formal education the respon-
dent had received.

3. Time farming the land: The number of years the respondent had
been involved in farming.

4. Farm ownership: Whether the respondent owned the farm, rented

it, or was a sharecropper.

5. Farm labor: The type of labor on the respondent’s farm.
6. Farm size: The actual land area cultivated by the respondent.
7. Location of the farm in relation to the irrigation ditch: Whether

the farm was located at the beginning, middle, or end of the irrigation ditch.

8. Farm production: The crop(s) the farmer was producing.

9. Farm sector location: The sector in which the farm was located
(Santiago, Bombeo, Villa Gonzalez, Navarrete, or Ponton).

10. On-farm income: The gross income the farmer received from the

sale of agricultural products the preceding year.

Ihefiopulaticn
According to Rossi (1983), there are two types of populations: target
population and survey population. The target population is the collection of
elements that a researcher would like to study, whereas the survey population

is the one that is actually sampled and from whom data may be obtained.

59
Babble (1983) defined the target population as "all members of a real or
theoretical and hypothetical set of people to which we wish to generalize the
results of our research“ (p. 97).

The target population of this study comprised farmers from the CUFE
irrigation project, Alto Yaque del Norte Irrigation District. Because of the
difficulties of gaining access to the total farmer population, the researcher
surveyed only those farmers who were Clients of the CUFE irrigation project.
This irrigation project consists of five sectors: Santiago, Bombeo, Villa Gonzalez,
Navarrete, and Ponton. The area of each sector and the number of users of the
irrigation system in each sector are shown in Table 1. The survey population

consisted of the CUFE users in these sectors.

Table 1: Area and number of users for each sector.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sector Area (in Hectares) No. of Users
Santiago 917.3 283
Bombeo 1 ,385.6 502
Villa Gonzalez 1,229.7 479
Navarrete 1 , 192.8 353
Ponton 1,317.3 398

Total 6,042.7 2,015
mammals

Babbie (1983) defined sampling as the selection of a number of subjects

from a defined population. The size of the sample depends on the details of the

60
analysis. A basic principle is that a sample will represent the population from
which it is selected if all members of the population have an equal chance of
being selected for the sample.

The sample for this study was drawn from a list of farmers belonging to
the CUFE irrigation system in Santiago, Dominican Republic. The stratified
sample consisted of 201 farmers from the five sectors, Chosen from a list of
2,015 farmers who were members of the project in question, using a table of
random numbers. This table has a 95% confidence level and a 5% sampling
error. Only those farmers who were on the CUFE irrigation project’s list of
farmers were surveyed. This list did not include all farmers in the region.

The distribution of the stratified sample of users of the CUFE irrigation
project, by sectOr, is shown in Table 2. The 201 farmers thus selected served as
the respondents in this study. All of the farmers who were selected agreed to

respond to the personal interviews.

Table 2: Stratified sample of the CUFE Water Users Association, by sector.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sector No. of Users Sample Members
Santiago 283 28
Bombeo 502 50
Villa Gonzalez 479 48
Navarrete 353 35
Ponton 398 40

Total 2,01 5 201

 

 

 

 

61
In addition, a number of irrigation units from each sector were randomly

selected. For instance:

N = sample size (201 farmers)
n = n1, n2, n3

where: n1 = number of head-of-irrigation-ditch farmers per irrigation unit
by sector, n2 = number of middle-of-irrigation-ditch farmers, and
n3 = number oftail-end-of-irrigation-ditch farmers selected for the
stratified sample. n1, n2, and n3 are proportional to their share in
the stratified sample.

This type of selection was done at the suggestions of the manager of the
CUFE Water Users Association, extension agents of the CUFE, and INDRHI
personnel. This decision was made because it is useful to evaluate farmers’
participation in and their perceptions of the effectiveness of the whole system
from the beginning to the end of the canal, which are the bases Of the system
organization.

Because of the lack of computers to use in selecting a random sample of
farmers and irrigation units in the five irrigation sectors, the researcher put into
a paper bag pieces of paper with the number of units for each sector, to help in
the random selection process. The researcher randomly selected, first, the
number of units and, second, the farmers in each unit. This process was used
for each of the five sectors, in order to select the irrigation units for the study. In
selecting the farmers from each irrigation unit, the researcher, with the help of

CUFE irrigation project personnel, divided each irrigation unit geographically into

three equal zones. Thus, three farmers were randomly selected from each

62
irrigation unit: one from the beginning of the irrigation ditch, one from the middle,
and one from the tail end of the ditch.
The numbers of irrigation units that were randomly selected, by sector, are
shown in Table 3. This stratified sample had an equal proportion of head-,
middle-, and tail-end of-irrigation-ditch farmers. This allowed generalization of

the findings to the whole population of farmers in the CUFE irrigation project.

Table 3: Stratified sample of irrigation units, by sector.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sector Total Units Randomly Selected Units
Santiago 27 10
Bombeo 37 17
Villa Gonzalez 45 16
Navarrete 29 12
Ponton 58 14
Total 196 69

 

 

 

 

The descriptive characteristics of the random sample can be generalized
to the entire population. In random sampling, every unit in the population has an
equal and independent chance of being selected for the sample. Random
selection of the sample members eliminates any selection bias and allows

generalization of the findings to the population with a known margin of error.

63
Qevelopmentoflhelnsimmem

After a careful review of related literature, the researcher developed a
questionnaire to use in gathering information from thefarrners whowere included
in the sample. Questions were based on the researcher’s own insights and on
input provided by a focus group consisting of the researcher, professors at the
Instituto Superior de Agricultura in the Dominican Republic, and personnel of the
CUF E irrigation project, Santiago, Dominican Republic. Such input ensured the
validity of the instrument.

The questionnaire was divided into three parts. The first part contained
17 closed- and open-ended questions about farmers’ participation. Farmers
responded to each closed-ended participation item using a Likert-type scale
ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always). The second part contained 20 questions
about perceived effectiveness of the system. Farmers responded to each
perceived-effectiveness item using the same scale as in the first part of the
questionnaire. The third part of the instrument included 10 items concerning
demographic characteristics of the respondents. (See Appendix A for a copy of

the questionnaire.)

Malian!

Validity means the extent to which an instrument allows one to observe
or measure what he or she intends to observe or measure (Gorden, 1969). In
this study, attention was given to the validity of the questionnaire—that is, whether

it was really measuring what it was supposed to measure. To ensure the validity

64
of the questionnaire, the researcher contacted other researchers to solicit their
suggestions for improving the instrument. A panel of experts from the
Department of Agricultural and Extension Education at Michigan State University
and the Instituto Superior de Agricultura, Dominican Republic, also reviewed the

instrument to ensure its validity.

B l' I T!

In face-to-face interviewing, which was used in this study, reliability can
be determined by field testing the instrument. According to Gorden (1969),
reliability means the degree to which a given observation or measurement could
be repeated by an independent observer. Reliability depends on maintaining
generally good interpersonal relations with the respondents and includes being
aware of the potential inhibitors that might make the respondents unwilling or
unable to give valid information. In addition, maintaining reliability involves using
both verbal and nonverbal means to help the respondent become more willing
and able to give valid information, detecting symptoms of resistance in the
respondent, and refraining from pressuring the respondent for information before
he or she is willing or able to give it (Gorden, 1969). These factors are vitally
important to achieving reliability in face-to-face interviewing.

To improve the reliability of the instrument, it was pilot tested with 12
farmers who were not included in the sample. Ideally, these farmers were typical

of the respondent population. As a result of this pilot test, further refinements

65

were made in the Spanish version of the instrument before it was administered
to the actual sample.

Sheatsley (1983) recommended pretesting an instrument with 12 to 25
people and using several interviewers for the pretest if more than one will be
administering the final questionnaire. These requisites for instrument pretesting
were met. ‘

Cronbach’s alpha was used to assess the homogeneity measure of
reliability. Two variables with their items were analyzed: participation and
perceived effectiveness of the system. To determine reliability, the resulting data
were entered into the computer using the Statistical Package for the Social
Sciences (SPSS/PC+) and were analyzed using Cronbach’s reliability coefficient.
An alpha of .70 was set as an acceptable level of reliability. Cronbach’s alpha
is used when measures have multiple scored items, such as a Likert-type scale
(Ary, Jacobs, & Razavieh, 1990), which was the type of scale used in this study
to measure farmers’ participation and perceived effectiveness of the system.

Cronbach's alphas for the participation and perceived effectiveness items
are shown in Table 4. As shown in the table, both sets of items had an alpha
higher than .70. Thus, both sets of items were within the acceptable limit of
reliability.

The researcher submitted a copy of the research proposal and instrument
to the Michigan State University Committee on Research Involving Human

Subjects (UCRIHS) for review and approval. That approval was granted (see

66
Appendix C). This review is required to ensure that all human rights are
protected in the study. Because the sample of this study spoke Spanish, the
researcher translated the English version of the instrument into Spanish before

administering it to the subjects.

Table 4: Cronbach’s alphas for the participation and perceived effectiveness

 

 

 

items.
Item Alpha
Participation .80
Effectiveness .90

 

 

 

 

Data-.Qollectionfimcedmes

In developing countries, specifically the Dominican Republic, where mass
communications are not available to the entire rural and urban population, it is
difficult to use communications media such as mail or telephone to obtain
information for a survey. In such instances, interpersonal communication, such
as face-to-face interviews, is the best way to gather data. The interviewer can
use clues other than the content of responses to assess their validity (Borg &
Gall, 1983).

Interpersonal communication also has its institutionalized form in the small
group or committee. Here, too, there is face-to-face engagement with persons
who are able to respond to the entire spectrum of verbal and nonverbal signs.

Where information must be gathered from an illiterate or semi-literate population,

67

face-to-face interviewing may be the only effective instrument. This method is
useful for obtaining background information about a problem situation, collecting
information and ideas from a selected sample within a target population, and
eliciting information from experts or professionals, e.g., agency representatives
(Delp, 1977).

The advantages of the personal interview method often outweigh its
disadvantages. The flexibility of this data-collection method sometimes makes
it the only choice for projects that demand direct contact, a special location, or
special selection of respondents who qualify for the survey (Alreck & Settle,
1989). The central aim of any data-gathering methodology is to enhance both
the reliability and validity of the information obtained.

Data were gathered during October and November 1994. The principal
investigator contracted with members of the INDRHI and the CUFE irrigation
project team to administer questionnaires to all participants in the area identified
forthe study. The interviewers were trained regarding the questionnaire and the
data that were to be obtained through individual questions. Data were collected
through personal interviews with the farmers in their fields.

In this study, both quantitative and qualitative data were collected from
selected farmers in the CUFE irrigation project, Alto Yaque del Norte Irrigation
District, who had been chosen according to the stratified random sampling
procedure. The study findings are generalizable to the entire population of

farmers who belong to the CUF E irrigation project.

68
W

This study was conducted to describe a given state of affairs; therefore,
descriptive statistics (means, frequency, and percentage) were used in analyzing
farmers’ participation and their perceptions of effectiveness. Descriptive
statistics also were used to analyze and present the demographic characteristics
of the respondents and findings concerning farmers’ participation.

To answer Research Question 1 (Is there a relationship between farmers’
participation in and their perceptions of the effectiveness of the irrigation
system?) and to test the first null hypothesis (There is no relationship between
farmers’ participation in the management of the CU FE irrigation system and their
perceptions of the effectiveness of the system), the following steps were
followed: All of the participation items were combined to form a single variable
called participation. This variable was analyzed by using the Spearman
correlation coefficient with all of the items regarding effectiveness of the system.
All of the effectiveness items were combined to form a single variable called
effectiveness. This variable was analyzed using the Spearman correlation
coefficient with all of the participation items. To determine the overall relationship
between participation and effectiveness, both combined variables, participation
and effectiveness, were analyzed using the Spearman correlation coefficient.

To answer the second research question (Are there demographic
characteristics that are related to farmers’ participation in the irrigation system?)

and to test the second null hypothesis (There is no relationship between selected

69

demographic characteristics of the farmers and their participation in the
management of the CUFE irrigation system), the following procedures were
followed: First, all of the participation items were combined into a single variable
called participation. To determine whether there was an association between the
demographic variables and participation, the Spearman correlation coefficient
was used. Moreover, analysis of variance (ANOVA) and follow-up procedures
(Tukey test) were used to determine differences in means for the variable
participation with respect. to the demographic characteristics.

Finally, to answer Research Question 3 (Is there a relationship between
farmers’ participation in and their perceptions of the effectiveness of the irrigation
system, after statistically controlling for selected demographic characteristics of
the farmers?) and to test the third null hypothesis (There is no relationship
between farmers’ participation in the management of the CUFE irrigation system
and their perceptions of the effectiveness of the system, after statistically
controlling for selected demographic characteristics ofthefarmers.), the following
procedures were used: Questions measuring participation were combined to
form a single dummy dependent variable. The same procedure was used with
questions measuring effectiveness. To determine the relationship between these
two dependent variables after statistically controlling for demographic
characteristics, multiple regression was used. A stepwise method was
employed.

Results of the data analyses are presented in Chapter IV.

CHAPTER IV

FINDINGS

101mm
The study findings are presented in this chapter. Attention is given to
interpreting the data according to the research questions posed in Chapter 1.
Cases with missing values for any variable were excluded from all analyses. In
the tables containing responses of farmers, the frequency column usually does
not total 201-—that is, the total sample. This is because some farmers did not
answer specific items, or it may be due to interviewer error. The findings are

presented in the following order:

1. General description of the respondents.
2. Descriptive findings about farmers’ participation.
3. Relationship between farmers’ participation and perceived

effectiveness of the system.

4. Demographic characteristics related to farmers’ participation in
irrigation.
5. Relationship between farmers’ participation and perceived

effectiveness of the system, after statistically controlling for demographic

characteristics.

70

71
WW

Age

Age refers to the biological age of the respondent. The mean age of
respondents participating in the CUFE irrigation project was 49.26 years; they
ranged in age from 19 to 77 years. For analysis purposes, the respondents were
categorized into the following age groups: (a) youngest through 29 years, (b) 30
through 39 years, (c) 40 through 49 years, (d) 50 through 59 years, (e) 60
through 69 years, and (f) over 70 years. The distribution of respondents
according to age category is shown in Table 5. As shown in the table, the
greatest proportion of respondents (78.9%) was between 40 and 69 years old.
Only 3% of the respondents were under 30 years old. These findings indicate

that most users of the CUFE irrigation system are relatively mature.

Table 5: Distribution of respondents by age category.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Age Category Frequency Percent

, Youngest to 29 years 6 3.0
30 to 39 years 28 14.0
40 to 49 years 76 39.0
50 to 59 years 49 25.0
60 to 69 years 29 14.9
Over 70 years 8 4.1
Total 196 100.0

 

 

 

 

 

72

EducationaLLexel

Educational level refers to the amount of formal education the
respondents had received. Respondents were asked to indicate their
educational background in terms of the following levels: (a) without formal
education, (b) primary, (0) intermediate, (d) secondary, (e) postsecondary. The
educational level of the respondents is shown in Table 6. The greatest
proportion of respondents (85%) had been exposed to formal education. This

suggests that the respondents could comprehend the questionnaire items.

Table 6: Distribution of respondents by educational level.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Educational Level Frequency Percent
Nonforrnal education 30 15.0
n Primary education 118 59.0
Intermediate education 36 18.0
Secondary education 9 4.5
Postsecondary education 7 3.5
Total 200 100.0

I'E'IIII

 

Time farming the land refers to the number of years the respondents had
been farming. The distribution of respondents according to their years of farming

is shown in Table 7. The greatest proportion of respondents (65.5%) had been

73
involved in farming the land fewer than 11 years. This means that most of the

farmers had not been cultivating their land for along period of time.

Table 7: Distribution of respondents by years of farming.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Years of Farming Frequency Percent

1 to 5 years 44 22.0

6 to 10 years 87 43.5

11 to 15 years 38 19.0
16 to 20 years 19 9.5
More than 20 years 12 6.0
Total 200 100.0

EarmDmnersbip

Farm ownership indicates which of the respondents were land holders at
the time of the interviews. The distribution of farmers according to farm
ownership is shown in Table 8. Most of the farmers (76.5%) rented the land.

The remaining 23.5% of the respondents owned the land orwere sharecroppers.

Table 8: Distribution of respondents by farm ownership.

 

 

 

 

 

Farm Ownership Frequency Percent
Own the farm 31 15.5
Rent the farm 153 76.5
Sharecrop 16 8.0
Total 200 100.0

 

 

 

 

74
EaLm_Lab_Q[
Farm labor indicates the type of labor working on the farm. The types of
labor used by the farmers are reported in Table 9. The greatest proportion of
respondents (66.5%) used paid labor on their farms. Very few farmers (9.6%)

used their family members as labor.

Table 9: Distribution of respondents by type of farm labor.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Type of Labor Frequency Percent
Family labor 19 9.6
Paid labor 131 66.5
Both types of labor 47 23.9
' Total 197 100.0
EamLSize

Farm size refers to the actual land area cultivated by the respondents,
measured in hectares. The number of hectares the farmers cultivated is
indicated in Table 10. The predominant farm size in the CUFE irrigation project
was between .5 and 6 hectares; 95% of the respondents’ farms were that size.

Farm location indicates where the farm is located in relation to the
irrigation ditch--that is, at the beginning, middle, or end of the ditch. Farm-

Iocation data were gathered so that the researcher could select farmers from

75
different parts of the CUFE irrigation project for this study. The distribution of
farms in relation to the irrigation ditch is shown in Table 11. The frequencies
represent the stratified random sample of respondents from beginning-, middle-,
and end-of-ditch farms in all of the sectors into which the irrigation project is

divided.

Table 10: Distribution of respondents by farm size.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Farm Size (in Hectares) Frequency Percent
0.5 to 4.0 167 83.0
4.5 to 6.0 24 12.0
6.5 to 8.0 3 . 1.5
8.5 to 10.0 3 1.5

10.5 to 12.0 2 1.0
12.5 to 14.0 1 0.5
14.5 to 16.0 1 0.5

Total 201 100.0

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 11: Distribution of farms in relation to the irrigation ditch.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Farm Location Frequency Percent
Beginning 69 34.6
Middle 65 32.7
End 65 32.7

Total 199 100.0

EarmEroduction

Farm production indicates the crops farmers were producing. The crops
that farmers were cultivating at the time of data collection are shown in Table 12.
The major crops under the influence of the CUFE irrigation project were beans,
rioe,yucca, pasture, and tobacco. These crops represented 83.8% of the crops
cultivated under the irrigation project. Tobacco (26.7%) was the main crop

cultivated in the project. Vegetables, plantains, and bananas represented 16.2%

76

of the crops cultivated in the area of the irrigation project’s influence.

Table 12: Distribution of respondents by crops they were cultivating.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Crop Frequency Percent

‘ Tobacco 53 26.7
Beans 35 17.7

I Pasture 32 16.2
ll Yucca 24 12.1
H Rice 22 11.1
H Plantains 18 9.1'
Vegetables 10 5.1
Bananas 4 2.0
Total 198 100.0

 

 

 

 

 

77

EarmfiectoLLocatiQn

Farm sector location is important because it is possible that farmers’
participation and their perceptions of the effectiveness of the irrigation project
varied by location. The distribution of respondents by farm sector is shown in
Table 13. Respondents were randomly selected for the study from the different
sectors. Forty-eight percent of the sample were from the Bombeo and Villa
Gonzalez sectors. These two sectors had the largest number of farmers of all

of the sectors in the irrigation project.

Table 13: Distribution of respondents by farm sector.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Farm Sector Frequency Percent

Santiago 28 13.9
Bombeo 50 24.9
Villa Gonzalez 48 23.9
Navarrete 35 17.4
Ponton 40 19.9

Total 201 100.0

We

On-farm income refers to the gross income individual farmers received
from the sale of agricultural products during the preceding year, as reported by
the respondents. At the time of data collection, the exchange rate was 12.5

pesos per US. dollar. The distribution of farmers by yearly on-farm income is

78

shown in Table 14. Most of the farmers (50.5%) had an on-farm income of more
than 15,001 pesos per year. The rest of the farmers in the sample (49.5%)

earned between 1,000 and 15,000 pesos annually.

Table 14: Distribution of farmers by yearly on-farm income.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Income (in Pesos) Frequerg Percent
1,000 to 3,000 8 4.1
3,001 to 5,000 19 9.8
5,001 to 8,000 29 15.0
8,001 to 15,000 40 20.6
More than 15,001 98 50.5

Total 194 100.0

 

D 'l' E' I' 9| IE ”E l" I'

As shown in Table 15, 95.52% of the farmers never or seldom partici-
pated in discussing construction of new canals. This finding is not surprising
because in the CUF E irrigation project there was no construction of new canals
at the time of data collection. According to the manager of the CUFE irrigation
system, if new canals are to be constructed, farmers will be encouraged to
participate. I

About three-fourths (76.61%) of the farmers in the irrigation project rarely
participated in water distribution (Table 16). This is because there is plenty of

water to be distributed among farmers. Also, farmers perceived that there was

79

no need forthem to participate in water distribution because the associations had
been appointing officials who were receiving sufficient remuneration: This has

eliminated the practice of paying bribes to receive water.

Table 15: Farmers’ participation in discussing construction of new canals.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Value Label Frequency Percent

Never 187 93.03
Seldom 5 2.49
Sometimes 7 3.49
Most of the time 2 0.99
Always 0 0.00
Total 201 100.00

 

Table 16: Farmers” participation in water distribution.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Value Label Frequency Percent

Never 96 47.76
Seldom 15 7.46
Sometimes 43 21.39
Most of the time 18 8.96
Always 29 14.43
Total 201 100.00

 

 

 

 

 

There was good communication between farmers and extension agents.
Results in Table 17 show that 89.88% of the farmers in the CUFE irrigation

system sometimes or always communicated problems related to irrigation to the

80

extension agents belonging to the five sectors into which the irrigation project is

divided.

Table 17: Farmers’ participation in discussing problems with extension agents.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Value Label Frequency Percent

Never 4 2.03
Seldom 18 9.13
Sometimes 73 37.06
Most of the time 51 25.89
Always 51 25.89-
Total 197 100.00

 

 

 

 

 

As shown in Table 18, 79.50% of the farmers in the CUFE irrigation
project never participated in the coordination of cultivation practices. This is
because they have freedom to select what crops they want to grow on their land.

The CUFE irrigation system does not require farmers to cultivate specific crops.

Table 18: Farmers’ participation in the coordination of cultivation practices.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Value Label Frequency Percent

Never 159 79.50
Seldom ' 4 2.00
Sometimes 10 95.00
Most of the time 14 7.00
Always 1 3 6.50
Total 200 100.00

 

 

 

 

 

81
According to Table 19, 94.54% of the farmers in the CUFE irrigation
system sometimes or always participated in the maintenance of canals.
However, farmers do not have to participate directly in this activity. They can hire

personnel to perform this crucial activity.

Table 19: Farmers’ participation in the maintenance of canals.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Value Label Frequency Percent

Never 6 2.98
Seldom 5 2.48
Sometimes 21 10.45
Most of the time 77 38.31
Always 92 45.78
Total 201 ' 100.00

 

Most of the farmers in the project never participated in decision making
about what courses the CUFE irrigation project will offer (I' able 20). .This means
that the CU FE, in this case, is using a top-down approach. Farmers pointed out
that they would like to have courses related to their needs.

As shown in Table 21, 96.48% of the respondents participated in
requesting irrigation equipment. This participation inCludes assistance with
association meetings, contact with extension agents, or direct contact with the
manager of the CUFE. Despite the high level of farmer participation, their
requests usually are not fulfilled promptly because the CUFE project does not
provide all of the irrigation equipment. Sometimes the CUFE has to ask the

INDRHI for such equipment.

82

Table 20: Farmers’ participation in decision making about courses to be offered
by the CUFE irrigation project.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Value Label Frequency Percent

Never 159 79.50
Seldom 1 0.50
Sometimes 15 7.50
Most of the time 8 4.00
Always 17 8.50
Total 200 100.00

 

 

 

 

 

Table 21: Farmers’ participation in requesting irrigation equipment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Value Label Frequency . Percent

Never 7 3.52
Seldom 20 10.05
Sometimes , 23 1 1.55
Most of the time 63 l 31.66
Always 86 43.22
Total 199 100.00

 

Ninety-seven percent of the farmers indicated a high level of participation

in the management and operation of the CUFE irrigation system (Table 22).

83

Table 22: Farmers’ participation in the management and operation of the CUFE
irrigation system.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Value Label Frequency Percent

Never 6 3.00
Seldom 12 6.00
Sometimes 15 7.50
Most of the time 97 ‘ 48.50
Always 70 ‘ 35.00
Total 200 100.00

 

To determine the strength of the association between the items described
above and overall farmer participation, Spearman correlation coefficients were
calculated. All of the items were associated with farmers’ participation at the .05
level of significance (Table 23). The item with the strongest correlation was
farmers’ participation in discussing problems with extension agents ([ = .81, p <
.05). The item with the weakest correlation was farmers’ participation in

discussing construction of new canals ([ = .31, p < .05).

84

Table 23: Correlation coefficients between farmers’ participation and items

pertaining to farmers’ participation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Item _ Farmer Participation Item Corr.
No. Coeff.
1 Participation in discussing construction of new canals .31*
2 Participation in water distribution .64*
4 Participation in problem discussion with extension agents .81*
5 Participation in the coordination of cultivation practices .58”
7 Participation in the maintenance of canals .72*
9 Participation in decision making about the courses to be .67*
offered by the CUFE
12 Participation in decision making to request irrigation equip- .72*
ment
15 Participation in the management and operation of the .52*
Egation system

 

 

 

 

*Significant at the .05 level.

WWI? . I Elf I' [II S l
NulLHypothesisl: There is no relationship between farmers’ participation
in the management of the CUF E irrigation system and their perceptions
of the effectiveness of the system.

Identification ofthe possible relationship between farmers’ participation in

and their perceptions of the effectiveness of the CUF E irrigation system was the

central objective of the study. A Spearman correlation coefficient was used to

determine the relationship between these variables. In interpreting the

correlation coefficient, the descriptors proposed by Davis (1971) were used. This

85

is the most commonly used convention for describing measures of association.

The descriptors of correlation coefficients (whether positive or negative) are:

Coefficient Descriptor

0.70 or higher Very strong association
0.50 to 0.69 Substantial association
0.30 to 0.49 Moderate association
0.10 to 0.29 Low association

0.01 to 0.09 - Negligible association

The relationship was analyzed in three steps. In the first step, scores on
individual items concerning perceived effectiveness of the irrigation system were
correlated with the' combined farmer-participation score to identify the items that
had a relatively high association with farmer participation. In the second step,
scores on individual items concerning farmer participation were correlated with
the combined effectiveness-of-the-system score to identify the items that had a
relatively high association with perceived effectiveness of the system. Third,
scores on both of the combined variables, farmer participation and perceived
effectiveness of the system, were correlated to determine whether there was an
association between them. Results are shown in Tables 24, 25, and 26,
respectively.

Correlations between the combined farmer participation variable and
selected items concerning perceived effectiveness of the system are shown in
Table 24. For this analysis, Spearman correlation coefficients were computed.
As shown in the table, there was a low to very strong association between items

concerning the perceived effectiveness of the system and farmers’ participation.

86

The services that the farmers were receiving from the Water Users Association
extension agent (Item 28) showed the highest correlation with participation (1: =
.72, p < .05). It appears that most of the respondents regularly used agents’
services. In contrast, the overall effectiveness of the irrigation system in meeting
farmers’ needs (Item 34) had the lowest association with participation (I: = .25,

p < .06).

Table 24: Correlation coefficients between farmers’ participation and items
pertaining to perceived effectiveness of the system.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

'5‘: Effectiveness Item 85);.
16 Sufficiency of water quantity . .46*
17 Availability of water on time ’ .52*
18 Effectiveness of payment for water use .52*
19 Effectiveness of the Water User Association services .64*
20 Effectiveness of water distribution .58"
24 Effectiveness of canal maintenance .52*
28 Effectiveness of the extension agent in problem solving .72*
32 Improvement of the effectiveness of the irrigation system .53"
34 Effegtiveness of the irrigation system in meeting farmers’ .25*

nee s

 

*Significant at the .05 level.

The association between perceived effectiveness of the system and

farmers’ participation is shown in Table 25. As shown in the table, all of the

87
farmer-participation items had a low to very. strong association with perceived
effectiveness of the system. Farmers’ participation in the maintenance of canals
(Item 7) had the highest correlation with the perceived effectiveness of the
system ([ = .72, p < .05). On the other hand, farmers’ participation in discussing
the construction of new canals in the system (Item 1) had the lowest association

with the perceived effectiveness of the system (L = .15, p < .05).

Table 25: Correlation coefficients between perceived effectiveness ofthe system
and items pertaining to farmers’ participation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Item Farmer Participation Item ' Corr.
No. Coeff.
1 Participation in discussing construction of new canals .15”
2 Participation in water distribution .41*
4 Participation in problem discussion with extension agents .64*
5 Participation in the coordination of cultivation practices .42*
7 Participation in the maintenance of canals .72*
9 Participation in decision making about the courses to be .49"
offered by the CUFE
12 Participation in decision making to request irrigation equip- .47*
ment
15 Participation in the management and operation of the .43*
irrigation system

 

*Significant at the .05 level.

To determine the relationship between all ofthe items concerning farmers’

participation and perceived effectiveness of the system, a correlation coefficient

88

was computed between the combined items corresponding to farmers’
participation and perceived effectiveness of the system (see Table 26). This
correlation coefficient was .72, significant at the .05 level. This means that there
was a very strong association between farmers’ participation in the irrigation
system and their perceptions of the effectiveness of the system. Thus, the first
null hypothesisuthat there is no relationship between farmers’ participation in the
management of the CUFE irrigation system and their perceptions of the

effectiveness of the system—was rejected at the .05 level of significance.

Table 26: Relationship between farmers’ participation and perceived effective-
ness of the system.

 

Correlation Coefficient

 

Farmer participation and perceived .72*
effectiveness of the system

 

 

 

 

*Significant at the .05 level.

WW ’EI" I' 'I' I'

W: There is no relationship between selected demo-
graphic characteristics of the farmers and their participation in the
management of the CUF E irrigation system.

Spearman correlation coefficients were used to determine the relationship

between the farmer-participation variable and all of the demographic variables.

89
The Spearman correlation coefficients between the demographic characteristics

and farmers’ participation are shown in Table 27.

Table 27: Correlation coefficients between demographic variables and farmers’

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

participation.
Demographic Variable Correlation Coefficient
Age -.16*

Farm size ' ' -.11
Farm ownership .05 II
Educational level .03 ll
On-farm income .10 ll
Farm location -.1 1* il
Time farminL -.04
Farm labor .38*
Farm production -.37*
Farm-sector location .05 I“

 

*Significant at the .05 level.

There was a moderate to negligible correlation between farmers’
participation and the various demographic characteristics included in this study.
There was a moderate association between farmers’ participation and farm labor
(I = .38, p < .05) and farm production ([ = -.37, p < .05). A low association was
found between farmers’ participation and age, on-farm income, and farm

location. A negligible association was found between farmers’ participation and

90
farm size, farm ownership, educational level, time farming, and farm-sector
location.

Based on the preceding findings, the second null hypothesisuthat there
is no relationship between selected demographic characteristics of the farmers
and their participation in the management of the CUFE irrigation system-was
rejected at the .05 level of significance for age, farm location, farm labor, and
farm production. Although there was a low association between on-farm income
and participation, this correlation was not significant at the .05 level.

To analyze the data further, ANOVA was used to determine whether there
were differences in means on the combined variable participation, with respect
the following demographic characteristics: educational level, time farming, farm
ownership, farm labor, farm location, farm production, farm sector, and on-farrn
income. In those cases in which the means differed statistically, a Tukey post-
hoc test was used to determine specifically which group or groups differed
significantly from the others.

Results of the ANOVA between educational level and participation are
shown in Table 28. No significant difference (at the .05 level) in participation was
found with respect to level of education. This means that farmers with low as
well as high levels of education participated in the different activities that the

CUFE was conducting.

91

Table 28: Results of the ANOVA between educational level and participation.

 

 

 

 

 

Source :11 Squurgrgg MS E 0
Main effects 4 2.122 0.531 0.960 .43
Explained 4 2.122 0.531 0.960 .43
Residual 195 107.720 0.552

Total 1 99 1 09.842 0.552

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Results of the ANOVA between time farmers had been cultivating their
land and participation are shown in Table 29. An overall significant difference (at
the .05 level) was found among farmers with different years of land cultivation
with respect to participation in the various activities the Water Users Association
was carrying out in the project. A Tukey post-hoc test was run to specify which
group of farmers with different years of farming differed significantly from the
others in terms of participation. This test indicated that there was no significant
difference (at the .05 level) among groups of farmers with varying years of land
cultivation with regard to participation. This result seems to contradict what was
found using the ANOVA. However, the Tukey test is very precise, and this may
be the reason why the test did not detect differences among groups of farmers

with different years of farming.

92

Table 29: Results of the ANOVA between time farming and participation.

 

.7

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source 01 . SSquurgrgfs MS E p '|

Main effects 4 5.838 1.460 2.735 .03" ll
Explained 4 5.838 1 .460 2.735 .03” ll

I Residual 195 104.066 0.534 II
II Total 199 109.904 0.552 ll

 

*Significant at the .05 level.

Results of the ANOVA between farm ownership and participation are

shown in Table 30. No significant difference (at the .05 level) was found among

groups of farmers who owned, rented, or shared crops with respect to participa-

tion in the different irrigation activities that the Water Users Association was

carrying out.

Table 30: Results of the ANOVA between farm ownership and participation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source dI 82%;; MS E 9
Main effects 2 0.949 0.475 0.859 .43
Explained 2 0.949 0.475 0.859 .43
Residual 195 104.066 0.534

Total 199 109.904 0.552

 

 

 

93

Results of the ANOVA between farm labor and participation are shown in
Table 31. No significant difference (at the .05 level) was found among groups of
farmers who farmed the land with their families, those who paid nonfamily labor,

and those who used both family and nonfamily labor, with respect to participa-

tion.

Table 31: Results of the ANOVA between farm labor and participation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source 01 88:”;sz MS E p
Main-effects 2 22.172 11.086 25.148 000*
Explained 2 22.172 1 1.086 25.148 .000*
Residual 194 85.523 0.441

Total 196 107.695 0.549

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Significant at the .05 level.

A Tukey post-hoc test was run to determine which group or groups
differed significantly from the others in terms of participation. Results are shown
in Table 32. The group of farmers who used family labor differed significantly (at
the .05 level) from those who used both family and nonfamily labor. Also, the
group of farmers who used nonfamily labor was significantly different from the
group of farmers who used both family and nonfamily labor. However, no
difference was found between the group of farmers who used family labor and

those who used nonfamily labor with regard to participation in various activities

in the CUFE project.

Table 32: Results of the Tukey post-hoc test for farm labor and participation.

94

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Type of Labor Mean Family Labor Nonfamily Labor Both
Family labor 2.22 '
Nonfamily labor 2.27
Both 3.05 *

 

*Denotes pairs of farmer groups that differed significantly at the .05 level.

Results of the ANOVA between farm location with respect to the
secondary canal and participation are shown in Table 33. No significant

difference (at the .05 level) in participation was found among respondents whose

farms were located at the beginning, middle, or end of the secondary canal.

Table 33: Results of the ANOVA between farm location and participation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source 111‘. 38:3,: MS E a
Main effects 2 1.475 0.737 1.342 .26
Explained 2 1.475 0.737 1.342 .26
Residual 196 107.663 0.549

Total 198 109.138 0.551

 

Results of the ANOVA between farm production and participation are

shown in Table 34. A significant difference (at the .05 level) in participation was

found among groups of farmers who cultivated various crops.

 

 

95

Table 34: Results of the ANOVA between farm production and participation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source df SSquurgrgg MS E a
Main effects 7 28.884 4.126 9.945 .000*
Explained 7 28.884 4.126 9.945 .000*
Residual 190 78.829 0.415

Total 197 107.712 0.547

 

*Significant at the .05 level.

To determine which group or groups of farmers differed significantly from
the others, a Tukey post-hoc test was run. Results of this analysis are shown in
Table 35. The farmers who produced beans differed significantly (at the .05
level) in participation from those who produced rice, yucca, pasture, and tobacco.
Farmers who produced pasture differed significantly from those who produced
plantains and yucca. No significant differences were found between other pairs
of farmers.

ANOVA was performed to determine whether farmers’ participation
differed according to the sector location of their farm in the irrigation project.
Results of the analysis are shown in Table 36. A significant difference (at the .05

level) in farmers’ participation was found with respect to their farm-sector

location.

96

Table 35: Results of the Tukey post-hoc test for farm production and

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

participation.
Crop Mean 7 8 2 3 6 4 5 1

7. Pasture 1.90

8. Tobacco 2.29

2. Rice 2.30

3. Vegetables 2.49

6. Yucca 2.55 ‘

4. Plantains 2.56 ”

5. Bananas 2.93

1. Beans 3.13 " ” ” ”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 36: Results of the ANOVA between farm-sector location and participation.

 

 

 

 

 

Source III 38 £122; MS E 0
Main effects 4 67.789 16.947 78.868 .000"
Explained 4 67.789 16.947 78.868 .000*
Residual 196 42.116 0.215

Total 200 109.905 0.550

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To determine in which sectors farmers differed significantly from those in
other sectors in terms of participation, a Tukey post-hoc test was run. The
results of this analysis are shown in Table 37. Farmers located in the Bombeo
sector differed significantly (at the .05 level) from those in all the other sectors

with respect to participation. Participation of farmers located in the Villa

97

Gonzalez sector differed significantly (at the .05 level) from that of farmers

located in the Ponton, Navarrete, and Santiago sectors.

Table 37: Results of the Tukey post-hoc test for farm-sector location and

 

 

 

 

 

 

participation.
Farm Sector Mean 2 1 3 ll
2. Bombeo 1.89 II
5. Ponton 2.17 *
4. Navarrete 2.28 *
1. Santiago 2.41 *
3. Villa Gonzalez 3.44 * *

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Denotes pairs of groups that differed significantly at the .05 level.

Results of the ANOVA between on-farm income and participation are

shown in Table 38. A significant difference (at the .05 level) in participation was

found among farmers classified by on-farm income.

Table 38: Results of the ANOVA between on-farm income and participation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sou rce dI Ssquungrgg MS E 0
Main effects 4 6.621 1.655 3.097 .017
Explained 4 6.621 1.655 3.097 .017
Residual 189 101.008 0.534

Total 193 107.629 0.558

 

 

98
To determine which on-farm-income group or groups differed significantly
from the others, a Tukey post-hoc test was run. The results of this analysis are
shown in Table 39. A significant difference (at the .05 level) in participation was
found between farmers whose on-farm income was RD$3,001 to RD$5,000 and
those whose on-farm income was RD$8,001 to RD$15,000. No other significant

differences in participation were found, based on on-farm income.

Table 39: Results of the Tukey post-hoc test for on-farm income and

 

 

 

 

 

 

participation.
On-Farm Income Mean 2 3 5 1 4 II
Group 2 2.03
Group 3 2.36
Group 5 2.47
Group 1 2.67 ll
Group 4 2.71 * JI

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Denotes pairs of groups that differed significantly at the .05 level.

Key: Group 1 = RD$1,000 to RD$3,000
Group 2 = RD$3,001 to RD$5,000
Group 3 = RD$5,001 to RD$8,000
Group 4 = RD$8,001 to RD$15,000
Group 5 = More than RD$15,001
RD$ = Dominican Republic currency; at the time of data collection, the
exchange rate was US$1 = RD$12.5.

NulLtlxpgjhesisfi: There is no relationship between farmers’ participation
in the management of the CUFE irrigation system and their perceptions
of the effectiveness of the system, after statistically controlling for selected
demographic characteristics of the farmers.

A previous analysis revealed that farmers’ participation and perceived
effectiveness of the system had a very strong association ([ = .72, p < .05) (see
Table 26). However, that analysis did not account for possible confounding
variables. '

To determine whether a relationship existed between farmers’ participa-
tion and perceived effectiveness of the irrigation system after statistically
controlling for demographic characteristics, multiple regression was used. For
this analysis, the dummy variable participation was used as a dependent
variable. To run the analysis, three procedures were used. First, all selected

demographic variables were loaded into the equation and regressed with

participation. The model used in this analysis was:

Partic = a + Q
Where: Partic = farmer-perceived participation
a = constant
Q = selected demographic variables

Second, all selected demographic variables were loaded into the equation and
regressed with effectiveness. The model used in this analysis was:

Effect=a+Q

100

Where: Effect = farmer-perceived effectiveness of the system
a = constant
Q = selected demographic variables

Third, all of the demographic variables, simultaneously, were entered into the
equation with participation and regressed with effectiveness. To conduct this
analysis, the following model was used:
Effect=a+Partic+Q1+Q2+ ..... +Qn

where: Effect = effectiveness of the irrigation system

a = constant

Partic = farmer-perceived participation

Q1 = age, Q2 = educational level, Q3 = time farming, Q4 = farm

size, and Q5 = on-farm income

All of the continuous demographic variables (age, educational level, time

farming, farm size, and on-farm income) were included in the equation. The
other demographic variables (ownership, farm labor, farm location, farm
production, and farm sector) were not included in the equation because they
were categorical variables. This means that, in order to be included in the
equation, they would have had to be converted into dummy variables. However,
to have included so many variables in the equation would have weakened the
strength of the multiple-regression analysis. According to Norusis (1993),
including a large number of independent variables in a regression model is not
a good strategy. He also pointed out that it is often difficult to interpret a model
with many variables.

As shown in Table 40, farm size and educational level, even though they

were significant, did not influence participation (B = -0.01 and B = -0.00,

101

respectively). According to this analysis, it is safe to say that the demographic
variables used in this study were not strongly associated with participation (3

Square = 0.06).

Table 40: Relationship between farmers’ participation and demographic

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

variables.

Variable B SE B Beta I Sig. of I ll
Farm size -0.01 0.01 -0.19 -2.39 .018"
Time farming 0.08 0.05 0.12 1.62 .108 ll
Educational level -0.00 0.00 -0.18 -2.41 .017* J
Age 0.02 0.06 0.02 0.29 .770 ll
On-farm income 0.07 0.05 0.11 1.37 .173 II
Constant 2.74 0.33 8.28 ‘ .000 ll

 

 

*Significant at the .05 level.

Multiple B = 0.25 Adjusted 8 Square = 0.04
8 Square = 0.06 Standard Error = 0.74

Table41 shows that the variables farm size, time farming, and educational
level were associated with farmers’ perceptions of the effectiveness of the CU F E
irrigation system (I = -3.23, p = .001; t = 2.62, p = .009; t = -2.01, p = .046,
respectively). Age and on-farm income were not significant (1 = 0.39, p = .699;
t= -0.26, p = .797, respectively). Table 32 also shows that of the variables that
were significant, time farming was the most important relative variable (Beta =
0.19). The variables included in the model explained 11% of the variation in

farmers’ perceptions of system effectiveness (8 Square = 0.11). In summary,

102

according to this analysis, it is safe to say that the variables used in this study
were not strongly associated with farmers’ perceptions of the effectiveness of the
CUFE irrigation system (B Square = 0.11).

Table 41: Relationship between farmers’ perceptions of the effectiveness
of the irrigation system and demographic variables.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Variable B SE B Beta I $le
Farm size -0.02 0.01 -0.25 -3.23 .001*
Time farming 0.12 0.05 0.19 2.62 .009” I
Educational level -0.13 0.06 -0.15 -2.01 .046* I
Age 4.98E-04 0.00 0.03 0.39 .699
On-farrn income -0.01 0.05 -0.02 -0.26 .797
Constant 4.16 0.33 12.48 .000

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Significant at the .05 level.

Multiple B = 0.33 Adjusted 3 Square = 0.08
8 Square = 0.11 Standard Error = 0.74

A further analysis was run to determine the relationship between farmers’
participation and perceived effectiveness of the system, after statistically
controlling for age, educational level, time farming, farm size, and on-farm
income—this time entering the variables simultaneously into the multiple-
regression equation. The results of this analysis are shown in Table 42.

A significant relationship (at the .05 level) was found between farmers’
participation and perceived effectiveness of the system, after statistically

controlling for the demographic variables. The results also indicated that

103

participation was by far the most important variable in explaining the perceived
effectiveness of the system (Beta = 0.71, p < .05). Other important variables
were size of the farm (Beta = 0.16, p < .05) and on-farm income (Beta = 0.10, p
< .05). All of the other variables had negative beta values. Moreover, the results
from this analysis indicated an 8 Square = 0.59. This means that the variables
used in the analysis explained 59% of the variation in farmers’ perceptions of the
effectiveness of the system.

Table 42: Relationship between farmers’ participation and perceived effec-
tiveness of the system, after controlling for the demographic

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

variables.

Variable B SEB Beta I . Sig. ofI
Participation 0.73 0.52 0.71 14.09 .000*
Farm size . 0.00 905-04 0.16 304 i' 003*
Time farming -007 0.04 009 -1.79 .074
Educational level -0.14 0.04 -0.16 -3.22 002* -
Age -001 0.00 0.12 -2.13 035*
On-farm income -0.07 0.03 0.1 1 2.08 .039*

FConstant 2.16 0.27 7.99 .000___

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Significant at the .05 level.

Multiple B.
B Square

= 0.76
= 0.58

Adjusted B Square = 0.56
Standard Error = 0.51

These results led to the rejection of the third null hypothesis (There is no
relationship between farmers’ participation in the management of the CUFE

irrigation system and their perceptions of the effectiveness of the system, after

104

statistically controlling for selected demographic characteristics of the farmers.)
That is, farmers’ participation in the management of the farmer-controlled
irrigation project (CUF E) was related to their perceptions of the effectiveness of
the system, after statistically controlling for selected demographic characteristics
of the respondents.

The findings are discussed more fully in Chapter V. Conclusions drawn
from the study findings are explored, and recommendations are made for the

CUFE irrigation project.

CHAPTER V

DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Three research questions were posed in this study. The first research
question concerned whether there is a relationship between farmers’ participation
in and their perceptions of the effectiveness of the CUFE irrigation system. The
second research question sought to identify the demographic characteristics that
were related to farmers’ participation in the CUFE irrigation system. The last
research question concerned whetherthere was a relationship between farmers’
participation in and their perceptions of the effectiveness of the CUFE irrigation
system, after statistically controlling for selected demographic characteristics of
the respondents.

This was a descriptive and analytical study. The target population was
members of the CUFE Water Users Association in Santiago, Dominican
Republic. The 201 sample members were randomly selected from the five
sectors (Santiago, Bombeo, Villa Gonzalez, Navarrete, and Ponton) into which
the CUFE is divided.

The questionnaire developed for this study included items concerning

farmers’ participation in the irrigation system, their perceptions of the

105

106

effectiveness of the irrigation system, and demographic characteristics of the
respondents. The instrument was administered to the farmers in their homes
and fields.

Descriptive statistics such as frequency, mean, standard deviation, and
range were used in reporting the demographic characteristics ofthe respondents.
Also, Spearman correlation coefficient, one-way ANOVA, the Tukey post-hoc
test, and regression analysis were used to analyze the data and interpret the
results. The findings from the data analyses are discussed in the remainder of

this chapter.

5 ID' . [II E' I'

Seventy-seven percent of the farmers who participated in this study were
between 40 and 69 years old. The mean age of the respondents was 49.3 years.
Eighty-five percent of the sample had been exposed to formal education, and
3.5% of them had pursued postsecondary studies.

The greatest proportion of respondents (43.3%) had been involved in
farming between 6 and 10 years. Regarding farm ownership, 76.5% of the
farmers rented, 15.5% owned their farms, and 8% were sharecroppers. In
addition, 66.5% of the respondents used paid labor, and 9.6% employed their
family members as labor. Ninety-five percent of the respondents’ farms were
between .63 and 6.25 hectares; only 10 had farms larger than 6.25 hectares.

The mean farm size was 2.72 hectares. The findings also indicated that 50.5%

107

of the respondents had on-farm incomes of more than 15,001 pesos per year
(more than US$1.200).

The first research question concerned whether there was a relationship
between farmers’ participation in and their perceptions of the effectiveness ofthe
CU FE irrigation system. The relationship was determined in the following three
steps.

F Irst, scores on individual items concerning perceived effectiveness of the
system were correlated with the combined farmer-participation score to identify
the items that had a relatively high association with farmer participation. It was
found that farmers received sufficient water to cover their crop needs. This
finding supports the CUFE’s view that there is enough water to cover the crop
needs of all its farmer members. Before the CU FE Water Users Association took
control of the management of the irrigation system, few farmers were receiving
enough water because they were paying bribes to the officials in control of the
water distribution in the area. In this regard, Wade (1982) pointed out that some
irrigation officials create a water-stress situation among farmers and then use
their discretionary power to reduce water stress only for those who pay bribes.
The CUFE has been able to eliminate this corruption problem through greater
farmer participation in the system. However, the CUFE Water Users Association
does not have enough control over the amount of water farmers are using on

their farms. According to some technicians working for the INDRHI, farmers are

108
using and receiving more water than their crops require. Consequently, water
is being wasted through runoff and percolation.

A substantial correlation also was found between farmers’ participation
and availability of water on time. This finding suggests that farmers who were
participating in the CU F E Water Users Association activities perceived that they
received water on time. This fact is critical for the effectiveness of the system,
especially when many farmers are irrigating from the same canal. Farmers’
participation is important when the number of farmers is large and it is necessary
to be clear whose turn it is to water. As Parker and Bromley (1978) pointed out,
the larger the number of irrigators along a water course, the greater the chances
of interruption of water flows.

Another substantial correlation was found between farmers’ participation
and the effectiveness of the Water Users Association’s fee collection. When the
INDRHI managed this irrigation system, the fee collection reached 15%; with the
CUFE’s management of the system, fee collection was increased to 65%. This
increase in the collection of fees has allowed the CUFE to do a better job of
selecting and paying ditch riders, thereby contributing to the efficiency of the
system. This suggests that farmers are participating in paying their fees for
water use in the irrigation project. According to the CUFE, the fees that are
collected are used for operating and maintaining the system and for paying staff
salaries. This highlights the importance of farmers’ participation in paying fees

for the water they use. This finding is in accord with Korten and Siy’s (1989)

109
contention that effective organizations collect fees normally and have clear
sanctions for members who owe fees. For instance, the CU FE penalizes those
farmers who do not pay fees for water use by cutting off their water services.

A substantial association was found between farmers’ participation and
the services provided by the Water Users Association. This indicates that
farmers who were participating in the CU FE Water Users Association perceived
that the services offered by the Association were effective. This finding is in
accord with what was found by the International Fund for Agricultural
Development—that the beneficiaries, when given a chance, are eager to
participate in projects designed to benefit them (Lineberry 8 Jazairy, 1989). It
was found that farmers contributed to the success of this irrigation project by
performing the following roles in the CUFE Water Users Association:

1. Determining the most rational use of water.

2. Keeping the system functioning through their labor participation.

3. Collecting cash or materials required to keep the system going.

4. Controlling water distribution and resolving disputes that normally

occur among beneficiaries.

Farmers’ perceptions of the effectiveness of water distribution and
allocation were substantially associated with their participation in the CUFE
irrigation project. This finding implies that the effectiveness of distribution of
water can be increased through farmers’ participation. In these kinds of complex

designs, equity in water distribution can be achieved only with a high level of

110

farmer participation. With the CUFE’s management of the irrigation system, all
of the sectors into which the irrigation project is divided can have water
simultaneously. However, not all irrigation units in each sector can have water
at the same time because the irrigation system was established to operate with
rotating water turns. The CUFE has improved the determination of water-
distribution needs through extension agents. They elaborate and present an
operation plan to be discussed with the association directors and farmer
representative of each irrigation unit, by sector. They determine watering turns
and the quantity of water to be received by farmers, based on farmers’ crops, the
area under cultivation, and farm location. The extension agents keep and are
responsible for the keys to open the ditch gates in each irrigation sector.

A substantial association was found between farmers’ participation in and
their perceptions of the effectiveness of canal maintenance. This means that if
farmers are willing to participate in maintaining canals, the canals are going to
be clean and the structures repaired to allow water to flow to the farms. This
finding is in accord with Hunt’s (1990) contention that, if farmers can be
encouraged to participate in maintaining the canals, the distribution of water will
be more effective, production will rise, and there will be more efficient use of
water.

A very strong association was found between farmers’ participation and
their perceptions ofthe effectiveness of extension agents’ problem-solving ability.

This finding suggests that, when farmers perceive that the agents serving them

111
are skillful in solving problems, they are more willing to participate. Thus, if
farmers’ participation is desirable, extension agents should be trained in problem
solving.

In addition, there was a substantial association between farmers’
participation and their perceptions that the effectiveness of the irrigation system
had been improved. This finding suggests that, when farmers participate more,
they perceive that the system’s effectiveness is improving. This finding
emphasizes the importance of farmers’ participation in improving the
effectiveness of the irrigation system.

In what may, at first, appear to be an anomaly, farmers’ participation had
a low association with their perceptions of the effectiveness of the irrigation
system in meeting their needs. This finding suggests that, overall, farmers did
not perceive their participation as essential in the CUFE project’s meeting all of
their needs. However, as the preceding discussion suggests, participation is
important when focusing on specific activities. Thus, it is desirable forthe CUFE
irrigation project to increase farmers’ participation in additional specific activities,
such as marketing their products, which, according to some farmers, is a great
need in the project.

In the second step of the analysis for Research Question 1, scores on
items concerning farmer participation were correlated with the combined
effectiveness-of-the-system score to identify the items that had a relatively high

association with perceived effectiveness of the system. A low association was

 

found I
and th
assoc
parllc
proje
are 'l
parti

line

elil

an

112

found between farmers’ perceptions of the effectiveness of the irrigation system
and their participation in discussing the construction of new canals. This low
association was found because farmers have not had an opportunity to
participate in discussions of new canal construction in the CUFE irrigation
project. Until now, the project has not constructed new canals. The canals that
are in operation in the project area were constructed by the INDRHI without
participation by the beneficiaries. However, according to the CUFE’s manager,
if new canals are constructed, farmers’ participation will be taken into account.

A moderate association was found between farmers’ perceptions of the
effectiveness of the irrigation system and their participation in water distribution
and allocation. Farmers participate in water distribution and allocation through
the election of one member from their irrigation unit. The farmer thus selected
is responsible for keeping the extension agent informed when farmers in that unit
need to water their land. The extension agent is in charge of opening and
closing the ditch gate of the irrigation unit.

Also, a substantial association was found between farmers’ perceptions
of the effectiveness of the irrigation system and their participation in discussing
problems with extension agents. This substantial association is not surprising
because of the many functions extension agents have to perform in the CUFE
project. Extension agents are regularly in contact with farmers, either personally
or through the irrigation unit representative. In these contacts, the extension

agents coordinate with farmers the water distribution plan, watering turns by

 

- 113

crops, maintenance of the canals, and fee collection. Thus, farmers who were
in frequent communication with the extension agents perceived the irrigation
system as more effective than did those who had less frequent contact with the
agents.

A moderate association also was found between farmers’ perceptions of
the effectiveness of the system and their participation in the coordination of
cultivation practices. Farmers help each other with coordinating cultivation
practices. CUFE personnel are involved in coordinating the operation and
maintenance of the irrigation system, but they do not take part in other
agricultural activities, such as agricultural marketing, cultivation practices, and so
on.

A very strong association was found between farmers’ perceptions of the
effectiveness of the irrigation system and their participation in the maintenance
of canals. This strong association was found because farmers have been
participating in the various activities that the CU FE is carrying out in maintaining
the canals. Such activities include selecting farmers who are responsible for
cleaning canals and repairing and installing ditch gates. The extension agents
coordinate these activities with the association directors and the nucleus
representatives in each sector.

A moderate association was found between farmers’ perceptions of the
effectiveness of the irrigation system and their participation in decision making

concerning courses to be offered by the CU FE. When deciding what courses to

114

offer, the CUF E does not take into consideration all of the farmers’ information
needs. This is unfortunate because it was found that farmers differ in the type
of information they need, depending on the crop they are cultivating.

Another moderate association was found between farmers’ perceptions
of the effectiveness of the irrigation system and their participation in decision
making with regard to requesting irrigation equipment. Farmers request
equipment from the CUFE Irrigation project through various sources, which
include extension agents, the manager of the CUFE irrigation project, the
president of the association in their sector, and the nucleus representative. The
source most often used by farmers to request equipment to clean the canals is
the extension agent, followed by the president of the association in their
respective sector. Farmers contact extension agents because these individuals
are their most direct contact with the CUFE irrigation project. However, despite
farmers’ request for equipment, the CUFE project does not have enough
equipment to fulfill all of the farmers’ requests. Thus, the CUF E irrigation project
coordinates with the INDRHI for more equipment. The INDRHI plays a helpful
role in this irrigation system, not only in terms of equipment but also in water
distribution. One of the main activities of the INDRHI in the CUFE irrigation
project is to distribute water from a dam according to the availability of water and
the need of farmers outside the project.

A moderate association was found between farmers’ perceptions of the

effectiveness of the irrigation system and their participation in the management

115

and Operation of the irrigation project. Farmers had this perception because they
were directly or indirectly involved in the management and operation of the CU FE
irrigation system. Farmers participate directly in the management ofthe irrigation
system when they are elected to represent their nucleus in the CUFE irrigation .
project. Indirectly, farmers have a vote through the nucleus representative they
elect. These representatives represent their sectors’ associations in the CUFE
irrigation project. The farmers participate in the operation of the irrigation system
when they pay irrigation fees. They also participate in the operation of the
system when they pay for canal cleaning or clean the canals themselves.

In the third step of the analysis for Research Question 1, scores on both
of the combined variables (farmer participation and perceived effectiveness of
the system) were correlated to determine whether there was an association
between them. A very strong association was found between the two variables.
Therefore, Null Hypothesis 1—that there is no relationship between farmers’
participation in the management of the CUFE irrigation system and their
perceptions of the effectiveness of the system—was rejected at the .05 level of
significance.

The second research question concerned whether selected demographic
characteristics of the respondents were related to their participation in the
irrigation system. Two steps were followed in answering this question. First, the
Spearman correlation coefficient was used todetermine the relationship between

the farmer-participation variable and the demographic variables. A correlation

116

was found between farmers’ participation and the demographic characteristics
of age, farm location, farm labor, and farm production. However, these
correlations were not strong. This finding means that these demographic
characteristics of the respondents had a low effect on farmers’ participation in the
activities that the CUFE was carrying out in the irrigation project. Thus, Null
Hypothesis 2—that there is no relationship between selected demographic
characteristics of the farmers and their participation In the management of the
CUFE irrigation system—was rejected at the .05 level of significance for the
above-mentioned demographic characteristics.

Second, to analyze further the data for Research Question 2, ANOVA was
used to determine whether there were differences in means on the combined
variable participation, with respect to the demographic characteristics of the
respondents. In those cases in which the means differed statistically, a Tukey
post-hoc test was used to determine specifically which group or groups differed
significantly from the others.

No significant difference in farmers’ participation was found with respect
to educational level, farm ownership, or farm location. This finding suggests that
the subgroups into which respondents were divided on these demographic
characteristics did not differ significantly with regard to participation in the
activities the CUFE was carrying out in the irrigation project. On the other hand,
a significant difference in farmers’ participation was found with regard to time

farming, farm labor, farm production, farm-sector location, and on-farm income.

117

Farmers who had been cultivating their land for varying lengths of time differed
in their participation in the activities the CUF E was carrying out in the project.
However, it was not possible to determine which group of farmers differed from
the others because the Tukey post-hoc test was not able to determine mean
differences among specific groups of farmers. This may be because the level of
significance was not strong. No significant difference in participation was found
between the group of farmers who used family labor and those who paid
nonfamily labor. This means that both groups of farmers had similar participation
in the irrigation project. However, farmers who used both paid labor and family
labor differed in their participation from those who used either family or nonfamily
labon

With respect to farm production, it was found that farmers who produced
beans, plantains, and yucca differed in participation from those who produced
pasture, tobacco, rice, vegetables, and bananas. This finding suggests that the
participation of farmers in the CUFE irrigation project activities varied according
to the crops they were cultivating. Another finding is that farmers in the various
sectors—that is, farmers in Bombeo, Ponton, Navarrete, Santiago, and Villa
Gonzalez-differed in their participation in the various irrigation activities of the
CUFE irrigation project. This finding suggests that the sector where the farms
are located can influence farmers’ participation in the various activities of the
CUFE irrigation project. It might be hypothesized that these differences were

due to demographic characteristics of the respondents in those sectors. Finally,

118

it was found that farmers’ participation in the CUF E irrigation project activities
varied according to their on-farm income. Farmers who earned between
RD$1,000 and RD$3,000 differed significantly from those who earned between
RD$8,001 and RD$15,000.

The third research question concerned whether there was a relationship
between farmers’ participation in and their perceptions of the effectiveness ofthe
irrigation system, after statistically controlling for demographic characteristics.
To answer this question, multiple regression was used. First, all selected
demographic variables were loaded into the multiple regression equation and
regressed with participation. Second, all of the selected demographic variables
were loaded into the equation and regressed with effectiveness to determine the
relationship. Third, all selected demographic variables and participation,
simultaneously, were loaded into the equation and regressed with effectiveness.

In the first procedure, it was found that farmers’ participation and selected
demographic variables were not strongly associated statistically. In the second
procedu re, it was found that there was not a strong association between farmers’
perceptions of the effectiveness of the irrigation system and demographic
variables. However, it was necessary to determine how all of the demographic
variables interplayed and affected farmers’ participation and their perceptions of
the effectiveness of the irrigation system. This step was accomplished by
running a multiple regression with all of the demographic variables entered into

the equation simultaneously. The results indicated that the relationship between

119

farmers’ participation and their perceptions of the effectiveness of the irrigation
system was still significant after statistically controlling for the demographic
variables. Results of this final analysis also showed that farmer participation
was, by far, the most important relative variable in the equation. This finding
suggests that the relationship between farmers’ participation in different activities
the CUFE irrigation project was carrying out and their perceptions of the system’s
effectiveness was very strong. Moreover, the results of this analysis indicated
an E square = 0.58. This means that the variables used in the model explained
58% of the variation in farmers’ perceptions of the effectiveness of the system.
Thus, Null Hypothesis 3—that there is no relationship between farmers’
participation in the management of the CUFE irrigation system and their
perceptions of the effectiveness of the system, after statistically controlling for
selected demographic characteristics ofthe farmers—was rejected atthe .05 level
of significance.

The preceding findings suggest that farmers’ participation in irrigation
systems needs to be taken into account in activities related to the operation and
maintenance of the systems. This is because, as shown in this study, farmers’
perceptions of the effectiveness of an irrigation system are highly influenced by

their participation in the system.

C I . IE I l'
1 . Through the questionnaire responses, it was found that there were

certain problems related to water management in the CUFE irrigation project.

120

There is no control over the amount of water that farmers receive for their crops.
The amount of water farmers receive usually surpasses the agronomic
requirements of their crops. This can have a negative effect on soil conservation
because when farmers flood theirfarms for a long period of time, it could produce
salinization. This lack of water control could cause runoff and percolation,
imposing problems on the supply of water to other farmers. To solve these
problems, water management must focus on controlling water such that relatively
small volumes are placed in particular crop root zones in adequate amounts.
Water must be moved at the proper time in the required amount so that plants
can give the maximum yield. Water management requires a great deal of skilled
labor. However, extension agents and farmers in the CUFE project lack the
necessary skills to perform successfully the above-mentioned practices.
Extension agents in the CUF E do not have a degree in water management.
They need to be trained in water management in order to transfer technical
information on both agronomics and water management to the farmers.
Extension agents need to be trained in particular water management problems
identified by both farmers and extension agents. At the farm level, farmers
should be trained to adapt the disciplinary knowledge received from the
extension agents to their particular situation.

2. Farmers’ participation in the CUFE project was related to their
perceptions of the effectiveness of the irrigation system. Thus, such participation

should be promoted and encouraged so that farmers believe they have an

121
important role in the project and will benefit from it. Their enthusiastic and active
participation is the most important factor for the success of the project. To
increase farmers’ participation in the CUFE, it is recommended that farmers be
approached when they have surplus time. It is important to make clear to
farmers that the benefit they will receive from participating in the various activities
carried out by the project will exceed the cost they incur by participating.

3. It was found that the CUFE irrigation project has not been
evaluated regularly. Such evaluation is necessary, in order to determine what
additional strategies are needed to increase farmers’ participation in and the
effectiveness of the irrigation system. It is important that the Water Users
Association design a scheme of on-going evaluation, with the aim of determining
the effectiveness, impact, and sustainability of the irrigation system. Once this
evaluation scheme is in place, it could easily be conducted during farmers’
meetings. This evaluation could be very useful in rapidly assessing any problem
that needs immediate action. It is recommended that when these evaluations are
performed, farmers’ involvement be considered. This is crucial forthe knowledge
farmers have of the irrigation system.

4. Through the questionnaire responses, it was found that problems
related to the management, operation, and maintenance of the irrigation system
were organizational in naturenthat is, the differentiation and coordination of
functions and responsibilities. It is recommended that in order to improve the

existing organizational structure of the project, all participants must know the

122
rules that guide the organization. These rules must be clear and consistent, be
perceived as unbiased, be a source of reward, and be supported by norms of
farmers. If these rules are adhered to, organizational participants will support
their organization and employ itforwater allocation and distribution, maintenance
of canals, and conflict management.

5. Through the study it was found that the CUFE Water Users
Association lacks linkages with other agencies in the agricultural sector, such as
the Ministry of Agriculture. It is recommended that the CUFE irrigation project
seek to network with institutions working in the area of development, such as
nongovernmental organizations (NGO) involved in irrigation or the agricultural
sector. With this linkages, the CUFE irrigation system could obtain information
about how to improve water management and direct attention from within the

association outward to its human and institutional environment.

WW

1. It is recommended that a study be conducted to determine the real
economic impact of the CUFE irrigation project on its members. Such a study
is necessary to determine whether, in reality, the CUFE irrigation project has
increased the economic return to farmers.

2. Because this study was confined to beneficiaries of the CUFE
irrigation project in Santiago, Dominican Republic, the findings represent only
those respondents’ perceptions. However, with a few modifications to the

instrument, this study could be replicated elsewhere, in order to gather

123
information on various issues concerning different farmer-managed irrigation
projects.

3. A study could be conducted among nonparticipants in the CUFE
irrigation project to determine their perceptions of the effectiveness of the CU FE
irrigation system, in order to compare their perceptions with those of farmers who
are participating in the project.

4. A study could be conducted among CU FE members to assess their
motivations for participating in the Water Users Association’s activities.

5. A study could be conducted between CUFE land reform farmers
and private farmers, in orderto compare their participation in and perceptions of

the effectiveness of the irrigation system.

 

APPENDICES

 

APPENDIX A

FARMERS’ QUESTIONNAIRE

 

124
FARMERS’ QUESTIONNAIRE

Please take a few minutes to read/listen to and answer this questionnaire. Your
responses will be kept confidential, and no attempt will be made to identify
individual respondents. Your participation is voluntary; you may choose not to
participate, or you may refuse to participate in certain procedures or to answer
certain questions. It is not necessary for you to put your name on the
questionnaire.

Circle a response for each statement; rate each statement on a scale from 1 to 5:
1 = Never, 2 = Seldom, 3 = Sometimes, 4 = Most of the time, 5 = Always.

PART I: PARTICIPATION

1.

Other

I have been visited by the INDRHI and other
irrigation organizations to discuss the con-
struction of new canals in my irrigation sector.

I have participated in water distribution to
other farmers in my irrigation sector.

How have you participated in the distribution
of water to other farmers in your irrigation
sector?

Electing the irrigation unit representative

Opening the floodgate to other farmers’ farms
_ Other

 

I talk with the Water Users Association exten-
sion agent in my sector about irrigation problems.

I have participated in coordinating cultivation
practices in my irrigation sector.

How have you participated in the coordination
of cultivation practices?

Individually

With a group

I have participated in the maintenance of canals
in my irrigation sector.

12345

12345

12345

12345

12345

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

125

How have you participated in the maintenance
of canals in your irrigation sector?

Paying others to maintain the canal
Doing the labor by myself

Other

I have participated in decision making regarding
courses for the Water Users Association to offer.

In what courses have you participated?

12345

 

What kinds of courses would you like the Water Users Association to

offer?

 

I have participated in decision making about
requesting irrigation equipment to maintain
drainage in my sector.

How have you participated in requesting irrigation
equipment to maintain the drainage in your sector?

Through meetings

Other

Through the extension agent
Through the unit representative
Through the manager of the Water Users Association

 

How can you improve your irrigation management skills
in your irrigation sector?

Through activities related to irrigation management

12345

__ Talking with the Water Users Association extension agent
about irrigation problems in my sector

Participating in all programmed meetings in my sector

Getting good communication with the Water Users Asso-
ciation extension agent
Training in water use

Other

 

Overall, how would you evaluate the management and
operation of the irrigation in your sector?

1 Inferior
4 Good

2 Regular
5 Very good

__ 3 Neutral

126

PART II: EFFECTIVENESS

16.

17.
18.
19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

The quantity of water from the irrigation system
is sufficient to meet the needs of my particular

crop. 1 2 3 4 5
Water is available when my crops need it most. 1 2 3 4 5
lpay on time for the waterluse for my crops. 1 2 3 4 5

I am satisfied with the Water Users Association
service in my sector. 1 2 3 4 5

The distribution of water in my sector is effec-
tive. . 1 2 3 4 5

I have problems associated with water alloCation
and distribution. 1 2 3 4 5

What kinds of problems?

The head-of-canal farmer takes almost all of the water
I do not receive the shift of water on time

The canal structure is broken

Other

 

How can these problems be resolved?

__ Training the farmers in irrigation management

__ Bringing more floodgates into the affected area

_ Talking with the Water Users Association extension
agent in your sector

_ Creating the right shift of water

_ Employing people who are well trained in the area of
irrigation management

_ Other

 

The canals are clean, and irrigation structures
are quickly and adequately repaired. 1 2 3 4 5

I have problems related to maintenance of
canals and irrigation structures. 1 2 3 4 5

 

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

127

What kinds of problems?

Sometimes the canals are broken by farmers

Other

who do not belong to the Water Users Association
The canals are not well cleaned

 

How can these problems be resolved?

Other

Training the farmers in irrigation management
Informing the extension agent

 

The extension agent takes care of my
complaints.

Water scarcity creates conflicts in my
irrigation system.

What kinds of conflicts?

Conflict with other farmers because everybody

Other

wants water at the same time

 

How can these problems be resolved?

Training the farmers through meetings about

water management

Having the extension agent visit the sector more often
Creating a water shift

Modifying the irrigation structure

Other

 

I have participated in the activities that the
Water Users Association plans to improve the
effectiveness of the irrigation system.

What kinds of activities should the association
undertake to improve the overall effectiveness
of the irrigation system?

Offer courses on irrigation management
Employ more extension agents

Have the extension agent visit more frequently
Better organize the Water Users Association
Other

 

12345

12345

12345

128

34. Overall, how would you evaluate the effectiveness
of the irrigation system in meeting your needs?

1 Inferior 2 Regular 3 Neutral
4 Good 5 Very good

35. I am pleased with the transference of the

irrigation system from the INDRHI to us. 1 2 3 4 5
The following questions are designed to provide basic demographic information
for analysis of data. Please check the appropriate response for each question.

PART III: DEMOGRAPHIC AND GEOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS

36. Size of your farm

 

 

37. Ownership of your farm:

Own
Rent
Share crop

38. Your educational level:

Primary
Intermediate
Secondary
University

39. What is your annual on-farm income?

$1 .000-$3,000
$3,001-$5,000
$5,001 -$8,000
$8,001-$15,000
$15,001 or more

40. Where is your farm located on the canal?

At the beginning of the canal
In the middle of the canal
At the end of the canal

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

129

How long have you been farming this land?

1 to 5 years

6 to 10 years

11 to 15 years
16 to 20 years
21 years or more

Your age:

 

How do you farm?
With my family
Ipaythelabor
Both

What crops do you grow on your farm?

Beans Yucca
Rice Sorghum
Vegetables _ Pasture
Plantains Tobacco
Bananas

In what sector is your farm located?

Santiago
Bombeo

Villa Gonzalez
Navarrete
Ponton

 

APPENDIX B

EXTENSION AGENTS’ AND MANAGERS’ QUESTIONNAIRE

1 30
EXTENSION AGENTS’ AND MANAGERS’ QUESTIONNAIRE

This questionnaire was used in interviewing extension agents working for the
CUF E irrigation project and INDRHI, in order to better understand the on—farm
irrigation management situation in the project in question.

1. Is the association involved in the selection of farmers who are responsible
for cleaning the canals? How?

 

2. Do farmers take part in the maintenance of the canals? How? When? "'
3. What kind of help does the association give in the maintenance of the
canals?
4. Do farmers participate in making decisions to construct new canals in the
system? How?
5. In what kinds of decision making are farmers allowed to participate?
6. What mechanism does the association use in making decisions regarding

allocation and distribution of water to farmers? Why?

7. What kinds of cultivation practices does the association recommend to
farmers? Why?

8. Do farmers use the cultivation practices recommended by the association?
9. With what kinds of irrigation problems does the association assist farmers?
Why?

10. Is the quantity of water sufficient to meet the needs of farmers’ crops?
Why? or Why not?

11. Is water available when the crops need it the most?

12. Does the association have problems related to_the maintenance of canals
and irrigation structures? Why?

13. Are the canals cleaned and irrigation structures repaired?
14. What strategies is the association using to clean the canals? Why?
15. Does water scarcity generate conflicts in the irrigation system? Why?

16. Are water needs met throughout the project?

17.

18.
19.

131

Does the association address the main needs of the irrigation system?
How?

What is the main need in the irrigation system? Why?

What kinds of activities is the association undertaking to help solve this
problem? Why and How?

 

 

APPENDIX C

LETTER OF APPROVAL FROM THE UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE

ON RESEARCH INVOLVING HUMAN SUBJECTS

132

MICHIGAN STATE
u N l v E R s l T Y

September 6. 1994

To: Yonis Reyes
1615 D Spartan Village
East Lansing, MI 48 23

 

RE: IRBI: ’4-3“

TITLE: THE RELATIONSHIP DETNEEN PERCEIVED USER
PARTICIPATION IN AND EFFECTIVENESS OP A PARKER
CONTROLLED IRRIGATION SYSTEM IN THE DOHINICAN
REPUBLIC

REVISION REQUESTED: N/A

CATEGORY: 2-I

APPROVAL DATE: 09/01/94

The University Committee on Research Involving human Sub ects'(0CRIHS)
review of this project is complete. I am pleased to ad? so that the
rights and welfare of the human subjects appear to be adequately
rotected and methods to obtain informed consent are appropriate.
f2er:§org6 the UCRIHS approved this project including any revision
at a ve. '

RSNIHAL: ucnxhs approval is valid for one calendar year. beginning with
the approval date shown above. Investigators planning to
continue a project be ond one year must use the green renewal
form (enclosed with t e original a roval letter or when a
project is renewed) to seek u ate certification. There is a
maximum of four such expedite renewals ssible. Investigators
wishing to continue a roject beyond the time need to submit it
again or complete rev ew.

 

REVISIONS: UCRIHS must review any changes in procedures involving human
subjects. rior to in tiation of t e change. If this is done at
the time o renewal. please use the green renewal form. To
revise an approved protocol at an other time during the year
send your written request to the CRIHS Chair. requesting revised
approval and referencing the project‘s IRS I and title. Include
in your request a descr ption of the change and any revised
ins ruments, consent forms or advertisements that are applicable.

PROBLEMS
CIANGSS: Should either of the followin arise during the course of the

    

 

   
   
  

- work. investigators must noti y UCRIHS promptly: 11) problems
GFICEOF (unexpected side effects comp aints. e c.) involv ng uman
subjects or 12) changes in the research environment or new

RESEARCH information ndicating greater risk to the human sub ects than

AND existed when the protocol was previously reviewed an approved.
6 “‘15 If we can be of any future help. please do not hesitate to contact us

STUDIES at (517) 355-2180 or tax (517) 43 -1171.
lhhuflhtuuflhusa
Wm ely.
............. a. u) '

id S. Wright, Ph.D.
IHS Chair

48324-1046 DEN: pjm

517355-21” cc: Kirk Heinse
FAX-51774324171

nsn" l'l U

lGUsaai-Ieain

 

REFERENCES

REFERENCES

Abel, M. E. (1975). IrrigationjxstemsinlaiwanJanagemenLofa
Wfitafi paper). Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics.

Alamgir, M. (1988, December). EadieinationJEILeloomentJbelEAD
experience. Baltimore, MD. Johns Hopkins University Press.

Albemethy, C. L. (1984). Methodology for studies of irrigation water

management. In M. J. Blackie (Ed.,) WW
IJQIdELILEigaflQn Zimbabwe: University of Zimbabwe.

Alreck, P. L., & Settle, R. B. (1989). WWW.

Homewood, IL: Irwin.

Ansari, N. (1989). Bebabflflatronfimmmunahrrlgafionjcbemeflwgpal
(ODI/IIMI Irrigation Management Network Paper No. 89/1c). London:
Overseas Development Institute.

Ary, 0., Jacobs, L. C., & Razavieh, A. (1990). Win
educalism (4th ed). Philadelphia: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Axinn, G. H. (1987). The different systems of agricultural extension education
with special attention to Asia and Africa. In W. M. Riviera & G. S. Schram
(Eds..) Agdculturalgxtensionmddwide. New York: Croom Helm.

Babble, E. (1983). Wren. Belmont. CA: Wadsworth.

Bagadion, B. U. (1985). Farmers’ involvement In irrigation development’ In the
Philippines. In Eadicluatdnremeflensesjnjmgatiomtemanagemem
(Proceedings of the Expert Consultation on Irrigation Water Management,

pp. 61-76). Rome: Food and Agricultural Organization of the United
Nations.

133

 

134

Bagadion, B. U, 8 Korten, F. F. (1985). Developing irrigators’ organizations: A

Ieaming process approach. In M. M. Cemea (Ed.,) W
So010|00r03uariables10deeILel00m00i Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Barker, R. Coward, E. W. Jr., Levine, G, &Small, L. E.(1984).1ELi931100

devel00me0fl0A:ia:.Ea:t_tLend:.and_fl.rtuLe_01Lecti00: (Cornell Studies In
Irrigation No. 1). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Barker, R., &Herdt, R. w. (1985). We Washington, DC:

Resources for the Future. F

Bolin, l. (1990). Upsetting the power balance: Cooperation, competition, and

conflict along an Andean irrigation system. Humanflrganjzatign, 42(2),
140-149.

 

Borg, w. R.,&Gall, M. D. (1983). Educati006l_researcb:_A0_101LQdumi00. New I:
York: Longman.

Bottrall, A. (1981). WWW
W(Staff Working Paper No 458). Washington, DC: World
Bank.

Bromley, D. W. Taylor, D. C, & Parker, D. E. (1980). Water reform and
economic development: Institutional aspects of water management in the

developing countries E0000m10_D_eer00ment_and_C_ultuLal_Change. 28.
365- 389.

Bryant, C., &White, L (1984). ManagingmraLdeILelmmenuuitbsmalliarmer
Qafllcinatm. West Hartford CT: Kumarian Press.

cas’ey' 0' J" 8‘ Kumar, K- (1930- Wham—In
agflmltum (Published for the World Bank). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins
University Press.

Cemea, M. M. (1991). Knowledge from social science for development policies
and projects. In M. M. Cemea (Ed.,)

Eutting0900leflrsL§0cl0l0glcal
mahles.10.mral.devel00m001(2nd ed., pp. 397-424). Washington, DC:
World Bank.

Chambers, R. (1980). Basic concepts In the organization of Irrigation In E. W.

Coward (Ed. ). 1010011000000000000raLdexel00m00LinAsia (pp. 46-71).

Ithaca, NY. Cornell University Press.

135

Chambers, R. (1983). WWW. Essex.
England: Longman.

Chambers, R. (1988). WWW
Asia. Cambridge, England. Cambridge University Press.

Chambers, R. (1989). WWW

agendajounejfims. Brighton, England: University of Sussex, Institute
of Development Studies.

Cohen. J- (1977). W. New
York: Academic press.

Cohen, J. M., 8 Uphoff, N. T. (1977, January). Buraljelelmmeninamcmtim;

01‘- -I0 Il‘-. .‘ o o 0‘01 0‘ 0.1 no ‘Il‘l -0I -Io
elaluatlon. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, Center for International
Studies, Rural Development Committee.

Cook, C. (1991). Scolal analysrs In rural road projects. In M. M. Cemea (Ed)

'IMOH' 0000.- - -.0‘ ll-O“00Ill2nded
pp. 397-424). Washington, DC: World Bank.

Coward, E. W., Jr. (1976). Indigenous organization, bureaucracy and

development: The case of irrigation. JoumalgLQeMelmmenLStuflias.
13(1), 92-106.

Coward, E. w., Jr. (Ed). (1980). lrrigati00_and_agrisultuLaLdelrel00menL10_Asja:_
W Ithaca NY: Cornell University
Press.

Davis, R. E. (1971). ElementarlLsunLeLanalvsis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.

Delgado, O. (1983). Diagn051100_s0010;ec00001100_deJ0:a:001am10010:
individualesmlectims. Proyecto FAO TCP/DOM/2201.

Delp, P, Thesen, A., Moliwalla, J., &Seshadri, N. (1977). Systsmjoolsjor
QLQieiizlannlng. Columbus: The Ohio State University, National Center
for Research in Vocational Education.

Development Alternatives, Inc. (1975).

136

Easter, w. K. (1986).lr00a1100_101951m001._te0000|001.000_managem001

WW (Studies' In Water Policy and Management No.
9). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO). (1982). Earm0LQaflicinati00_and

"Mlq'l'l'c PIA-.IIUI.HII| I I¢0I 00'I

W. Rome: FAO, Land and Water

Development Division.

Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) of the United Nations. (1985).
WWW (Proceedings of

the Expert Consultation on Irrigation Water Management). Rome: Author.

Freeman, D. M. (1990). Designing local irrigation organizations for linking water
demand with supply. In R. K. Sampath 8 R. A. Young (Eds), Sada],

‘ no“ .101 ’ u- ’ ‘ '1 lo 101011-01 Il-I-O‘ll‘l (p.

111). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Freeman, D. M. Bhandarkar, V., Shinn, E., 8Wilkins-Wells, J. (1989). Local

00.....an a set. 0‘sesnl' OI‘O -_m|0¢‘OIQ-OI

Qrganizatjon. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Freeman, D. M. 8Lowdermilk, M. K. (1991). Middle level organizational

linkages In irrigation projects. In M. M. Cernea(Ed.),Eutting_nte1le_fl[31;_

$0010I00103I0Lafiablesjmraljexel00menu2rid ed., pp 113 -.140)
Washington, DC: World Bank.

Freeman, D. M, Lowdermilk, NI, 8Early, A. C. (1978). Earm_lm'gati00
0| -.I .l' q‘lll ’ ‘ OOI ‘ ' 0“. I I . ‘ I
Bakistan (Water Management Technical Report No.48 A/F). Fort Collins:
Colorado State University.

Griffith, W. S. (1978, May). Educational needs: Def nItIon assessment and
utilization. W.

Goetz, D. (1986). Identifying appropriate institutions for efficient use of common
pools. NaturaLBes0uLcesJ0IlmaI. 21(1). 187-200.

Gordon. R. L. (1969). WWW.

Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press.

 

 

 

137

Harriss, J. (1977). Problems of water management in Hambantota district. In
B. H. Farmer (Ed)

WW
WM. 364- -.376) Boulder, CO:

Westview Press.

Hilton, R. (1990). WWW
W U ington, VT:

Associates In Rural Development.

Hopkins, K. 0., Glass, G.V..8Hopkins, B. R. (1987). W
Wand ed). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. F‘

Hunt, R. C. (1989, Spring). Appropriate social organization? Water user
associations in bureaucratic canal irrigation systems. Human

Organization. 48(1), 201-208.

Hunt, R. C. (1990). Organizational control over water: The positive identification
of a social constraint on farmer participation. In R. K. Sampath 8 R. A. E“
Young (Ed.,) WWW
ittigationmanagememm. 141). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Hunt, R. C., 8 Hunt, E. (1976). Canal irrigation and local social organization.

QurLentAnthromIogx. 11. 389-410.
INDRHI (Projecto Manejo de Aguas a Nivel de Fincas Centro Norte). (1993).

[.0- ‘qu‘ IIJII .1. ‘ ._| I I. I

Santiago: Villa Gonzalez, Antiguo Campamento ICAWNTRBAS.

Johnson. 8. H. “I. (1990). Emmandpmhlemsoflrfigaflomlnxestmemjn
W (Water International No. 15). Urbana-
Champaign: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Department of

Agricultural Economics.

 

Johnson, S. H. III. (1991). Status and progress of IrrIgatIon development: Policy

and programmes. In EaLmJeveIngaflonmteLmanagemem (Report of a
Study Meeting in Lahore, Pakistan). Tokyo: Asian Productivity

Organization.

Johnston, B. F., 8C|ark, W. C. (1982). Organization programs: Institutional

structures and managerial procedures. In W
me. 155- 1.99) Baltimore, MD. Johns Hopkins

University Press.

138

Keller, J. Barker, J., Freeman, D., Uphoff, N., 8Walker, W. R. (1988). Inigaflnn

‘IIII-.I..0.‘II‘I .1 II‘ 0 I.‘ II-_I-_0.‘II‘I II‘

Emma's (Water Management Synthesis Report No. 90). Logan:
Utah State University.

Korten, D. C. (1980, September-October). Community organization and rural

development: Alearning process approach. mm
89119111. 49(5), 480- 511.

Korten, D. C., 8AIfonso, F. (Eds). (1983). BuLeaucLacxandeeoooLLCIoslng E
mung. Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press. ,.

Korten, F. F., 8Siy,R., Jr. (1989). WWW
expenermeoflbeEhflmneNanonaleganmAdmmmLanon. Hartford
CT: Kumarian Press.

 

Kottak, C. P. (1991). When people don’tcome first: Some sociological lessons ‘
from completed projects. In M. M. Cemea (Ed.,)

Sombgmalxanablesumralfievelopmemend ed pp 431-463)
Washington, DC: World Bank.

Laitos, R. (1986). BapkLapoLaisaLoLNepaLILfigaflonsxstems (Water
Management Synthesis Report No. 43). Fort Collins: Colorado State
University.

Leonard. 0.. &Marsha||. D (1982) Institutionsotmramevelopmemuhe

pooL_D_ecemLaIIzatIon_and_QLgamzanonalekages. Berkeley, CA.
Institute of International Studies.

Levine, G. (1980). The relatIonshIp of design, operation, and management. In
E. W. Coward (Ed.,)

W
W. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University
Press.

Levine, G. (1981). Observations on the reorganization of irrigation associations
in Taiwan. In N. Uphoff (Ed.), W. New Delhi:

Macmillan.

Levine, G. (1982). Workshop on investment decisions for the development and
utilization of irrigation resources in Southeast Asia: Perspectives on

integrating findings. In L. E. Small (Ed.), W (No. 26).
Bangkok: ADC.

139

Lineberry, w. P. 8Jazalry.l. (1989). Assessindoarflcipatomdexelopment.
WEI! (Published in cooperation with the International
Fund for Agncultural Development). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Lowdermilk. M. (1985). Improvedmigatiommanaoememmbvjnmmejarmersz
(ODI Irrigation Management Network Paper No. 110). London: Overseas

Development Institute.

Lusk, M. W., 8 Riley, P. J. (1986). Irrigation development and public choice
theory. W. 5(4). 280-289.

Lynch, B. (1985, March).

C I I' I II I . I' E
small-.scaleJLEIgafiQn (Water Management Synthesis II Project Report No.
34). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.

Lynch, B. (1986) MsflmhzahmmlocaIJaboLtoLsmafljcalelmgatm
developmenmuheAndes. Paper presented at the 813t Annual Meeting of
the American Sociological Association, New York, NY.

MacPherson, H. J., 8 MCGarry, M. G. (1987). User participation and
implementation strategies in water and sanitation projects. Water
Went. 3(1).‘89.

Martin, E. D., 8Yoder, R. (1987). WWII

WWW Kathmandu:
IIMI.

Martin. E., Yoder. R.. 8 Groenfeldt, D. (1986). EaLmeLmanagedJLLigatlon
W (ODI/IIMI Irrigation Management Network Paper No.

86/30). London: Overseas Development Institute.

Mathur, H. M. (1986) Administedngfieleloomemjmelbimmnd;
Whom. New Delhi Sage

McCall, M. (1988). The implications of Eastern African rural social structure for
local-level development: The case for participatory development based on

indigenous knowledge systems. William, 9(2),
41-69.

Meyer. C. A. (1989). LandretQLmeLatinAmeIicaneuominicansase. New
York: Praeger.

 

140

Miller. D. (1979)- WWW.
Paris: Development Center of the Organization for Economic Cooperation
and Development.

Mizra, A. H., Freeman, D. M., 8Echert, J. B. (1975). Viflageomanjzaflonal
.10-‘I01I0tv‘llv-I0HHIII0‘OI II0I0.I-,0 cIII‘

(Technical Report No. 35). Fort Collins: Colorado State University.

Mkandawire, R. M. (1988). SmaflholdeLsumvaLstrategIeszperceptionszand

O I
‘ COI ‘I‘ 0 A I 'I -.I° ‘0 II ._ I-

doxoloomonLdiMioion (Unpublished study prepared as part of the EEC-
Funded Midterm Evaluation of Salina ADD Phase IV).

Moore. E. A. (1992. Fall). Boooarohnroooso (Course Packet for AEE 807).

NOWSIS: M-J- (1993). W
5.0. New York: SPSS.

Nott, G. (1985). Sit—Wm (Report to the United States
Agency for International Development). Colombo, Sri Lanka: USAID.

Ostrom, E. (1988). DecentralizationjnancingandmanagemenuProject
Document). Burlington, VT: Associates in Rural Development.

Parker, D. E., 8Bromley, D. w. (1978). institutionaLasoeotsoLtarmomater
managementtntheLDQSJmoinoalfludenoeimEakistan. Paper
presented for USAID Contract AID/tc-c-1261.

Parlin, B. W. (1985). QbstaoiesJLeflestitLewateLmanagememeral
WWW. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the Rural Sociological Society,
Blacksburg, VA.

Parlin, B. W., 8 Lusk, M. (1988). International irrigation development: Factors
affecting project success. SootetundflaturaLBesonroes. 1(1). 25.

Parlin, B. W., 8Lusk, M. W. (1991). WWW
organization(Studies In Water Policy and Management No. 17). Boulder
CO: Westview Press.

Patil, R. K. (1987). WWW
London: Overseas Development Institute.

141

Peterson, D. F. (1984, June 18-22). Svstemsandteobnologfloflmormred

irn'gationnuatoLmanagarnant. Paper prepared for the Agricultural and
Irrigation Training Workshop, USAID, Washington, DC.

Pottier, J. (1993). Erastminggexelooment. London: Routledge.

Repetto, R. (1986). Skimmlngthenater._8ain;seeking_and_the_oerrorrnanoe_ot
Wfieseamh Report No.5). Washington, DC:

World Resources Institute.

Reynoso, G. (1992). Eroiectodefintrenammnmmoamanomnflaneiode
Agriotilturaflajofiiogo. Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic: Informe.

Rossi, P. H., Wright, J. D.,8Anderson, A. B. (1983). Handbookmsumey
research. New York: Academic Press.

Sampath, R. K., 8Young, R. B. (1990). Introduction: Social, economic, and
institutional aspects of irrigation management. In R. K. Sampath 8 R. A.
Young (Ed.,) WWW
WQ 479). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Schwarzweller, H. K. (1987). Impacts of the Jatiluhur irrigation project in West
Java on farm family work patterns. In H. K. Schwarzweller (Ed.), Research

mralmiologxandneleloomentlbirdmortdsomexts (Vol. 3, pp. 223-
243). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Scudder, T. (1985).
rooottlomanHReport N0. 5to USAID). SriLanka: USAID.

Sheatsley, P. B. (1983). Questionnaire construction and item writing. In P. H.

Rossi, J. D. Wright, 8 A. B. Anderson (Eds), Wren
(pp. 195-230). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Shingi, P. M., 8 Bluhm, L. H. (1987). Participation in irrigation projects:
Changing patterns in northwestern India. In H. K. Schwarzweller (Ed.),
K‘ ‘-. I 'I ._ 0 ° 00. «I! 0‘ ‘ HII‘I' I' o A on 0| ‘4 (Vol.

3, pp. 65-84). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Shivakoti, G. P. (1991). Omamzationalfiflectnrenessntuserandnouser

oontrollognrngationjxstomsnnflooal. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Michigan State University, East Lansing.

Singh, K. (1986). BMW.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

 

142

Smout, I. (1990). Earmemanioioatiomnolanmngnmolementationjndooeration
otsmaIL-soaiejrrigationoroleots (ODI/IIMI Irrigation Management Paper

90/2b). London: Overseas Development Institute.

Svendsen, M., 8Small, L. (1990). Earmamersoeotiyeonirrigatiouerrormanoe
Sri Lanka: International Irrigation Management Institute.

Tang, S. Y. (1989). Institutions and oolleotiye action in irn’gation systems
(Workshop on Political Theory and Political Analysis). Bloomington:
Indiana University.

Tapay, N. (1987). Irrigation organization in the Philippines. Structure and
effectiveness of national and communal types. In H. K. Schwarzweller
(Ed) IIOOI 0 I‘ ._ .I I0 WOIOO‘OIII‘ q-OIqu-II

workoattarnomp. 209-222). Greenwich, CT. JAI Press.

Tapay, N. (1989). Case studies of organized participation: The Philippines. In
G. Kalshoven, N. E. Tapay, 8A. Schrevel (Eds.,) Qrganizatiomano

oartmoatmnnSoutheastASIammganonsystems. Wageningen, the
Netherlands: Agricultural University.

Thompson J. (1991, February). oombmngooaUsanedgeandnxpert

-.I‘II-..-. 0.‘Ilo.-.I°.“III Ila-He‘l010l.l
Kenya. Center for International Development and Environment.

Tirmizi,J.,8ParIin, B. (Eds). (1990). SmietaLdynamiceanoimoationsystems.

Islamabad: Pakistan Council of Research in Water Resources.

Uphoff, N. (1985). Contrasflngaooroaonestewateunanagemenmeyelooment
in_3n_Lanka. New York: Third World Legal Studies, International Center
for Law and Development.

Uphoff, N. (1986a). Activating community capacity for water management:
Experience from Gal Oya, Sri Lanka. In D. Korten (Ed), Community

managemenuslanexoerienoeandpersoeotiyes West Hartford. CT:

Kumarian Press.

Uphoff, N. (1986b). ImoroylnantemationaLirrigatiommanagemeanltntarmer
oartiohatlonflingtheoroceseright (Studies In Water Policy and

Management No. 11). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Uphoff, N. (1991). Fitting pr0jects to people. In M. M. Cemea (Ed.,) Eutting

oeoolejrst:_§ooiologioai_yariables_in_mraLdeyelooment(2nd ed., pp. 467-
505). Washington, DC: World Bank.

143

Uphoff, N., WIckramasinghe, M. L., 8 WIjeratna, C. M. (1990). Optimum
participation in irrigation management: Issues and evidence from Sri

Lanka. Humanflrganlzatlon. 49(1), 26-40.

Vaidyanathan, A. (1983). WatermfiroLmsmmionsandagrioultureJ
ooooeratjyeoensoeotiyeMorking Paper No. 178). Trivandra, Kerala:

Center for Development Studies.

Vermillion, D. L. (1989). WWW

oontnoutionstojrrigationjosign (ODI/IIMI Irrigation Management Network
Paper 89/20).

Wade, R. (1976, January). Performance of IrrigatIon projects. Eoonomjeand
Eoiitioamreelsly.1_1(3) 63-66.

Wade, R. (1982). The system of administrative and political corruption: Canal

irrigation in South India. JoumaLoLDeyeIoomentfitudies. 1.8. 287-329-

Wade, R. (1988). '10.- ‘0... ' OIOII OIOOI - o ‘01 ‘ -.OIOI 'I
Soutntndia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wijayaratna. C. M.. et al. (1980). IearbooktoLSrLLankathateLmanagement
researon. Sri Lanka: Agrarian Research and Training Institute.

millilitilltillllllliili