Outcome mapping for fostering and measuring change in risk management behaviour among urban dairy farmers in Nairobi, Kenya
- 379 Downloads
A study was undertaken to investigate and mitigate the risk from zoonotic Cryptosporidium associated with dairy farming in Dagoretti division, Nairobi, Kenya. Outcome mapping (OM), a relatively new tool for planning and evaluation, was used to foster and then monitor changes in farmer management of health risks. Elements of the OM framework, including the vision, mission and expected progress markers, were developed in participatory sessions and a set of progress markers was used for monitoring behaviour change in farmers participating in the project (the boundary partners). Behaviour change (the outcome challenge) was supported by a range of awareness and educational campaigns, working with strategic partners (extension agents and administrative leaders). The farmers the project worked with made considerable progress according to the markers; they demonstrated an understanding of cryptosporidiosis, established or maintained clean and well drained cattle sheds, and took conscious effort to reduce possible infection. Farmers who did not participate in the project (non-contact farmers) were found to be less advanced on the progress marker indicators. Non-contact farmers who carried out risk-reducing practices had done so independently of the project team. The administration leaders, as strategic partners, had a positive attitude towards the project and confidence in their ability to support project objectives. The study demonstrates the utility of OM in helping to identify and support behavioural change.
KeywordsOutcome mapping Health risks Dairy farming
The authors wish to thank the International Research Development Centre (IDRC) for funding this work under grant 103075-001. We also thank all the members of the Dagoretti agricultural and livestock extension team and all the members of the Dagoretti community who took part in this study.
- Gaventa, J., and Barret, G., 2010. So what difference does it make? Mapping the outcomes of citizen engagement. Development Research Centre. Citizenship, Participation and Accountability. A report for UK Aid and DFID.Google Scholar
- Hall, A., Sulaiman, V.R., Dhamankar, M., Bezkorowajnyj, P. and Prasad, L., 2008. Reframing technical change: livestock fodder scarcity revisited as innovation capacity scarcity. Part 3. Tools for Diagnosis and Institutional Change in Innovation Systems. UNU-MREIT Working Papers. Series, 2008–004.Google Scholar
- Jones, H., and Hearn, S., 2009. Outcome mapping: a realistic alternative for planning, monitoring and evaluation. An ODI Background Note:. http://www.odi.org.uk/resources/download/4118.pdf
- Kang’ethe E.K, Randolph, T.F, McDermott, B, Kimani, V.N, Lang’at, A.K, and Kiragu, M.N. 2008. Health risk analysis of cryptosporidiosis in urban smallholderdairy production, Dagoretti, Nairobi, Kenya. Report submitted to IRDC Grant 103075-001.Google Scholar
- Kang’ethe, E.K., Kimani, V.N., McDermott, B., Grace, D., Lang’at, A.K., Kiragu, M.W., Karanja, N., Njehu, A.N., Randolph, T., Mbugua, G., Irungu, T.W. and Ombutu, P., 2012. A trans-disciplinary study on the health risks of cryptosporidiosis from dairy systems in Dagoretti, Nairobi, Kenya: study background and farming system characteristics. Tropical Animal Health and Production. doi: 10.1007/s11250-012-0199-9.
- OMLC. 2011. The Outcome Mapping Learning Community (OMLC) members’ contributions, OMLC, http://www.outcomemapping.ca/