Beneficiary questionnaire surveys have been carried out by the authors since the year 2000 in six countries in order to evaluate the effect of ODA funded water supply projects. To facilitate quantitative analysis, numeric entries by respondents or questions requiring selection of one or more answers were used. At the same time, the surveys included questions asking free opinions by beneficiaries. However, analysis of the results of the beneficiary surveys by the authors has so far been done using the numeric data entered by beneficiaries or selected items for questions requiring selection. Opinions of beneficiaries have been treated partially.
In this study, all qualitative opinions stated in the questionnaire sheets by beneficiaries in six countries surveyed were categorized and analyzed. The following useful conclusions were derived:
1) The contents of opinions of beneficiaries about the projects can be concretely understood in terms of 5W, 1H (who, what, when, where, why and how)
2) Wider opinions beyond the surveyor's hypothesis can be comprehended
3) Although individual opinions are qualitative, by combining them quantitative analysis becomes possible
4) By combining quantitative evaluation and qualitative evaluation based on stated opinions analysis, more accurate evaluation is possible
5) Knowing the qualitative information facilitates effective solution of problems

View full abstract

This study focuses on an evaluating method, particularly effect measurement using questionnaires. In case of decision-making for evaluation, it is undeniable that personal values have not a little influence on one's judgment. Therefore, in the event of analysing data for evaluation, it is necessary to respect how a person weighs up one's value to make a decision for answering a questionnaire. Prospect theory proposes that the value function is defined on deviations as gains or losses from a reference point, and regarding the implementation of a project, it is hypothesized that the reference point of a respondent to a questionnaire, who is a beneficiary of the project, in the timeframe of after the implementation can be changed from that in the timeframe of before the implementation. The purpose of this study is to clarify the effect of the change of the reference point to respondents' ratings for evaluation, then to set a simple evaluating model taking account of the above-mentioned effect, and finally to analyse the data again using the model. Reanalyzing the data of the Based Education Improvement Program (BEIP) for the new evaluation considering the change of the reference point reveals that more reasonable result can be obtained.

View full abstract

Assortment of a project is performed extensively nationwide. However, the contents of this are indefinite. This is due to the fact that there are no clear definitions except that project assortment is performed in order to classify unnecessary projects. The purpose of this paper is primarily to give project assortment a constant definition focusing on the necessity criteria which is one of the evaluation criteria of administrative evaluation, and to clarify the reason why the necessity criteria must be focused on. In this connection, the paper explores the uncertainty of assortment criteria and emphasizes assortment based on the necessity of the project. Furthermore, the paper attempts to clarify the necessity standard of the public participation and policy discussion based on policy structure, and provides some implications for further development of project assortment.

View full abstract